Kujit&Gorring Morris2002

Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 16, No.
4, December 2002 ( C 2002)
Foraging, Farming, and Social Complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: A Review and Synthesis
Ian Kuijt1,3 and Nigel Goring-Morris2
The transition from foraging to farming of the Neolithic periods is one of, if not, the most important cultural processes in recent human prehistory. Integrating previously published archaeological materials with archaeological research conducted since 1980, the rst half of this essay synthesizes our current understanding of archaeological data for the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period (ca. 11,700ca. 8400 B.P.) of the southern Levant, generally dened as including southern Syria and Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian Autonomous Authority, Jordan, and the Sinai peninsula of Egypt. The second half of the essay explores how these data inform archaeologists about the processes by which social differentiation emerged, the nature of regional and interregional connections, and the mechanisms and processes by which the transition from foraging to food production rst occurred in the Neolithic.
KEY WORDS: southern Levant; Neolithic; early agriculture; social organization.
INTRODUCTION The transition between foraging and food producing economies from the Levantine Late Natuan through to the Pottery Neolithic embodies profound changes in subsistence practices and economic systems and is widely recognized as representing a crucial threshold in human prehistory. In the southern Levant, a largely self-contained area including southern Syria
1 Department 2 Department
of Anthropology, The University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana. of Prehistory, Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel. 3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Anthropology, The University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556; e-mail: ian.kuijt.1@nd.edu. 361
0892-7537/02/1200-0361/0
C
2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation
362
Kuijt and Goring-Morris
and Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian Autonomous Authority, Jordan, and the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, this transition occurs during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) period (ca. 11,700ca. 8400 B.P.). Among important social, economic, and political changes during this period, usually subsumed under the poorly dened and overgeneralizing rubric of the Neolithic Revolution, are the aggregation of people into large villages occupied on a yearround basis, a dramatic increase in global population levels, and the reorganization of the processes and structures by which human social interactions occurred. Collectively, these fundamental changes eventually transformed the economic, social, and technological landscapes, including the development of the interrelated economic systems of domesticated plants and animals, which serve as the core of later food-producing economies in southwest Asia and Europe. In light of the importance of an understanding the mechanisms and processes by which the transition from foraging to food production occurred, researchers exploring the emergence of social differentiation, the links between emerging food production and population growth, and/or the nature of human responses to paleoclimatic change must be able to draw upon current understandings of the archaeological record for the Levantine Neolithic period. A number of important studies have provided important considerations of economic and subsistence changes (Bar-Yosef and Meadow, 1995), technology (Quintero and Wilke, 1995), and social organization (Byrd, 1994; Kuijt, 2000a), or in a few cases, have provided regional and inter-regional syntheses of the Near Eastern Neolithic (Aurenche and Kozlowski, 1999; Banning, 1998; Bar-Yosef, 1980, 1991; Cauvin, 1994, 2000; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998; Mellaart, 1975; Moore, 1985; Rollefson, 1998, 2001). It is important, however, to be able to place these individual contributions into a broader comparative context. The process of generating such regional syntheses is difcult for a number of reasons. First, the scale of eld research since the 1980s has drastically increased the amount of archaeological information that needs to be considered in a regional synthesis. This has created the unenviable situation where our most current regional syntheses are clearly outdated and require the integration of new data. For example, more southern Levantine Neolithic sites have been excavated over the last two decades than in the preceding 80 years of research. Thus, a number of important regional syntheses of this period (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1980; Cauvin, 1977, 2000; Mellaart, 1975; Moore, 1985) are undermined by the rapid appearance of new archaeological data sets. Finally, and clearly related to the rst issue, the expansion of archaeological research in the Levant has drastically changed our understanding of both individual phases of the Neolithic as well as the transitions between these phases. This point is most clearly made by a consideration of the ways in which recent archaeological research has
Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic
363
illustrated the differences in Neolithic adaptations from the northern and southern Levant. In contrast to most general treatments of the Neolithic in the broader Near East, a host of recent eld research has illustrated a signicant degree of regional variability in different geographical areas (e.g., the southern Levant, the northern Levant, and Anatolia) and has highlighted the need to consider these developments independently from each other. In addressing the need for such a synthetic study of the Neolithic, our goals for this study are to (a) present an updated perspective on the PrePottery Neolithic (PPN) periods of the southern Levantine Neolithic, including such topics as settlement patterns, architectural systems, mortuary practices, population aggregation, and subsistence; (b) consider how these practices change through different stages of the PPN; and (c) illustrate how, viewed in combination with each other, these practices provide insights into the nature of social, ritual, and political organization for southern Levantine Neolithic. To aid in clarity, this review is organized chronologically. At the same time, we have attempted to highlight what we see as some of the commonalities, shared practices, and connections between these different periods to convey to the reader some of the inter-weavings through time. In the second half of this review we turn to how these data help us understand social, economic, and political developments in the southern Levantine Neolithic. In this essay we explore cult and ritual systems, evidence for the emergence of social inequality and conict, population aggregation and regional growth, evidence for craft specialization, and regional and inter-regional connections, and conclude with a brief consideration of future research directions. As collaborators, we have deliberately crafted this paper in such a way as to both address areas of consensus and acknowledge and discuss areas in which we disagree. In the process of writing this paper we have struggled to nd a balance in our own different perspectives. Attempting to balance these has not always been easy, but we believe that the process of this dialog both has opened up our own views of the Neolithic and is likely to provide the reader insight into some of the active debates and discussions in Near Eastern Prehistory.
BACKGROUND CONSIDERATIONS Before moving on to a consideration of the archaeology of the southern Levantine Neolithic, we must rst provide some essential background and context. This includes outlining the main ecological zones of the southern Levant, paleoenvironmental change, and culturalhistorical framework. Although an understanding of the environmental, geomorphic, and climatic
364
backdrop is vital for comprehension of the revolutionary changes in human social, economic, and technological behavior during the PPN, this is a subject that is beyond the scope of this study. We provide a brief overview of the environmental, ecological, and climatic context of culture change, but refer readers to more detailed considerations of these topics presented elsewhere.
Main Ecological Zones of the Southern Levant The southern Levant comprises a number of distinct ecological zones. The principal features of the southern Levant are (1) the northern extension of the Syro-African Rift Valley, which divides the landscape into a series of longitudinal strips (from west to east); (2) the coastal plain, which widens to the south; (3) the central hilly zone (reaching elevations up to 1000 m) between the coastal plain and Rift Valley; (4) the Rift Valley, with many areas almost entirely below sea level; (5) the Transjordanian escarpment and mountains to the east of the Rift Valley with elevations commonly considerably higher than west of the Rift; and (6) the gently east-sloping plateau to the east, extending into Saudi Arabia and including a series of closed seasonally ooded basins (e.g., Damascus and Azraq). Other than the Jordan River, most valleys and major wadi systems ow eastwards or westwards. A general rainfall gradient exists from both North to South and West to East, modied by the orographic effects of elevation, ranging from 1000-mm to less than 50-mm annual precipitation. Dependent upon these factors, the underlying bedrock and resultant soil types, a mosaic of four major phytogeographic zones (often in close proximity) can be recognized. These zones include the Mediterranean forests and maquis, the Irano-Turanian steppes, and the dispersed and contracted desertic SaharoArabian zone, with Sudanian vegetation protruding into the lower Jordan Valley.
Early Holocene Environmental Changes Identifying correlations between climatic and culture changes is both highly complex and essential to understanding the context of Neolithic social development. In general, previous research on this topic can be divided into two camps: considerations of the theoretical links between population growth, paleoenvironmental change, and culture change in the Near Eastern Neolithic (e.g., Binford, 1968; Cohen, 1977; Flannery, 1973), and detailed consideration of archaeological data sets and how these might be linked
365
to culture change (e.g., Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998; Hershkovitz ogan, and Gopher, 1990; Ozd 1998; Simmons, 1997). Needless to say, chronological control is paramount in terms of evaluating the relationships, if any, between extraneous climatic shifts and material culture change. Beyond considering the timing and magnitude of environmental changes, it is important to document their tempo and intensity, especially in sem-iarid regions. For example, gradual changes in the environment could sometimes be accommodated whereas abrupt changes would have necessitated radical readjustments. Several recent research projects provide more detailed evidence of environmental changes during the Early Holocene than were hitherto available. These include the palynological core from the Hula Valley (Baruch and Bottema, 1991) displaying a high degree of correlation with long-term cultural developments, and in some instances, with shorter climatic uctuations. Study of the Late Quaternary Nahal Soreq Cave speleotherms has recently been completed (Bar-Matthews et al., 1997), and provides estimates of temperature and precipitation changes. High isotopic values indicate that the later part of the Natuan coincides with the relatively brief global return to cold and dry conditions of the Younger Dryas. In the southern Levant, the effects of this may have lasted into at least the beginning of the PrePottery Neolithic A (PPNA). During the rst four millennia of the Holocene, temperatures reached 14.519.0 C, and a high mean precipitation of 675 950 mm (almost twice the present) was recorded. This may indicate heavy year-round rainstorms, although, interestingly, isotopic signatures do not indicate the penetration of Indian Ocean systems. About 8700 B.P. a short arid period is observed. Other changes in landforms are relevant, especially as the coastal plain at the onset of the Holocene was still considerably larger than at present. At ca. 13,700 B.P. (the end of the Early Natuan) the sea level was about 75 m below present, and by 8700 B.P. the sea level was still some 20 m below present. Only during the Chalcolithic did levels approach those observed today. During the Holocene, widespread erosion of hillsides and alluviation occurred in the low-lying areas of the Mediterranean zone. These processes were important for the replenishing of cultivable soils during the Early Holocene as well as the burial of Neolithic settlements. Diverse human adaptations, as reected by the densities and geographical distributions of settlements, provide an excellent means for monitoring the nature, rapidity, and intensity of changes in the physical environment. Thus, following intensive exploitation during the Middle and Late Epipaleolithic of the presently hyper-arid regions of both the Jordanian plateau and Negev and Sinai, the subsequent virtual abandonment of those areas during the PPNA reects particularly unfavorable environmental conditions.
366
Calibrated/Uncalibrated CulturalHistorical Frameworks A plethora of terminologies has been used to describe and organize PPN material culture remains from different ecological regions of the southern Levant (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1981; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998; Moore, 1985). The approach we employ in this study follows the generally accepted convention of dividing the PPN (ca. 11,700ca. 8400 B.P.) into two main units, namely the PPNA and PPNB, which is further subdivided into the Early, Middle, Late, and Final PPNB, or alternatively, PPNC period. (Tables I and II). A variety of technological, typological, and stylistic criteria concerning the aked stone tool assemblages within each period (together with other types of material culture remains such as architecture, art, decorative items, bone tool assemblages, and burial practices) are used to isolate these groupings in time and space. These data, in conjunction with stratigraphic and radiometric considerations, provide researchers with the ability to link archaeological data sets to broader evolutionary trajectories of human social development. In this study, we have tried to bridge between a splitters-andlumpers approach, since an illustration of the diversity and complexity of dynamic social and economic developments requires us to alternatively reect upon similarities and differences. Moreover, the chronology followed here is based on calibrated radiocarbon dates. As prehistorians we tend to dene archaeological units as normalized and presumably stabilized units. It is difcult to isolate the beginnings of trends from background noise; therefore,
Table I. CulturalHistorical Sequence for the Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic Periods Conventional Calibrated Conventional 14C years B.P. 14C years B.P. 14C years B.P.a (this paper) (this paper) 10,50010,300 10,3009600 96009300 93008500 85008000 80007500 75007000 10,60010,200 10,2009400 95009300 93008300 83007900 79007500 75007000 12,50012,000 11,70010,500 10,50010,100 10,1009250 92508700 86008250 82507800
Time stratigraphic units Late Epipaleolithic Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Pre-Pottery Neolithic B
Entity/phase Final Natuanb PPNAc Early PPNBd Middle PPNB Late PPNB Final PPNB/PPNC Yarmukian
Pottery/Late Neolithic
a Following others (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1981; Rollefson, 1998). b Includes Harian. c One of the authors of this paper argues (Goring-Morris and d One
Belfer-Cohen, 1997) that PPNA should be subdivided into two phases (see text). of the authors of this paper has argued (Kuijt, 1997, in press) that there are insufcient data from excavated and radiocarbon-dated archaeological sites to support arguments for an EPPNB phase. From this perspective the transition from PPNA to MPPNB would have occurred at ca. 10,500 B.P. with no intervening phase.
Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic Table II. Select Pre-Pottery Neolithic Sites, by Period, in the Southern Levant
367
PPNA Abu Madi I, Ain Darat, Beit Taamir, Dhra, Ein Suhun?, Ein Suhun, El-Khiam, Gesher, Gilgal I, Hatoula, Iraq ed-Dubb, Jericho, Modiin, Mujahiya?, Nacharini, Nahal Lavan 108, Nahal Oren II, Netiv Hagdud, Neve Ilan, Poleg 18M, Ramat Beit Shemesh?, Rekhes Shalmon, Sabra I, Salibiya IX, Tell Aswad IA, Tell Batashi, Wadi Faynan 16, Zahrat edh-Dhra 2, Zur Nathan EPPNB Abu Hudhud, Abu Salem II, Ail 4, Horvat Galil?, Jilat 7 lower, Michmoret, Mujahiya?, Nahal Lavan 109, Nahal Boqer, Nahal Hemar 4?, Sefunim IV, Tell Aswad IB, Tel Ramad?? MPPNB Abu Gosh, Ain Ghazal, Beidha, Beer Menuha, Ein Qadis I, Divshon, Er-Rahib (?), Es-Siya?, Gebel Rubshah, Ghwair I?, Jericho, Jilat 7 middle, Jilat 26, Jilat 32 lower, Horvat Galil, Kfar Giladi, Kfar HaHoresh, Khirbet Rabud??, Lavan Elyon 1, Munhata 4-6, Nahal Betzet I, Nahal Hemar 4, Nahal Nizzana IX, Nahal Oren I, Nahal Qetura, Nahal Reuel, Sefunim, Tell Aswad IB-III?, Tell Fara North??, Tell Ramad ??, Wadi Shueib, Wadi Tbeik, Yiftahel LPPNB Abu Gosh?, Ain Abu Nekheileh, Ain Ghazal, Ain al-Jammam, Ain Sabha, Al-Baseet, Al-Ghirka, Azraq 31, Baja (?), Basta, Beisamoun, Burqu 35, Dhuweila 1, Ein Qadis I?, Es-Sayyeh, Esh-Shallaf, El-Hammeh, El-Khiam IB?, Es-Siya, Ghoraife II, Ghwair I?, Jilat 7 upper?, Jilat 25, Jilat 32 trench 1, Kfar HaHoresh, Khirbet Hammam, Mazad Mazal, Munhata, Mushabi VI, Nahal Aqrav IV, Nahal Efe, Nahal Hemar 3, Nahal Issaron, Ras Shamra Vc1, Tell Eli, Tell Rakan I, Tell Ramad II, Ujrat el-Mehed, Ujrat Suleiman I, Wadi Jibba I, Wadi Jibba II, Wadi Shueib Final PPNB/PPNC Ain Ghazal, Ain al-Jammam??, Atlit Yam, Azraq 31??, Basta (?), Beisamoun (?), Es-Seyyeh, Es-Siya, Hagoshrim, Jilat 13 lower, Jilat 27, Labweh, Nahal Efe??, Nahal Issaron?, Ramad II, Ras Shamra Vc2, Tell Eli (?), Wadi Jibba II?, Wadi Shueib, Yiftahel IV
we dene sociocultural units in their classical stages. We should bear in mind, however, that there are chronological phases and geographical facies, and that not all developments were synchronous across the southern Levant, let alone the Near East. We should also note that the current archaeological record is admittedly poorly understood for some periods of the Neolithic (e.g., the Early PPNB) and some geographical areas of the southern Levant. Therefore our culturalhistorical overview is subject to continued revision and may require modication as the results from additional studies become available. Numerous radiocarbon dates have been obtained for PPN sites during the past few decades, and have led to far better documentation of the chronology. Unfortunately, in many cases the original excavators did not present details of the materials being dated (seeds, wood, bone, etc.), the precise stratigraphic contexts, and a consideration of the potential for dating old wood. Needless to say, such information is vital to critically evaluate the material associations, research relevance, and chronological signicance of the
368
dates provided. The adoption of recent advances in radiocarbon calibration is both urgent and important, especially given that it changes the duration of different phases within the PPN period. Radiocarbon calibration indicates that the duration of some culturalhistorical stages are much longer, and in some cases shorter, than uncalibrated data indicate. Additionally, calibration of radiocarbon dates signicantly alters the rate at which archaeologists model the diffusion of certain innovations and changes from core to other areas (e.g., the naviform technology and projectile point types). The chronological scheme employed in this paper is based upon calibrated dates B.P. While there are subtle differences between various authors concerning the precise dating of the different phases, Table I provides one estimate, based on critical examination of the dates, including recently obtained results and syntheses (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 2000; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998; Kuijt and Bar-Yosef, 1994; Rollefson, 1998). In discussing a wide range of changes in the southern Levantine PPN, the following sections employ a standardized and explicit terminology to help the reader understand the scale and nature of changes being discussed (Table III). These working denitions represent a series of compromises and necessary generalizations, and draw upon the works of others (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 2001). Despite the complicated nature of this terminology, its development and employment is vital in comprehending Neolithic social units. For example, the scale of settlements directly relates to potential mating networks, the emergence of contagious diseases, as well as the size of elds, pastures, and hunting grounds that were required to support individual communities. Our point here is not to debate the nature and labeling of Neolithic social organization, so much as to provide readers with a detailed introduction to the archaeological data upon which future discussion might be based. We have adopted a conservative approach to the labeling of different scales of settlements, and in some cases, the architecture found within settlements. For example, we have deliberately avoided the use of
Table III. Generalized Dimensions of Different Scales of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Settlements Camps Community size Social organization Permanence Economic orientation ca. 1030 Band tribe (extended family clan) Seasonal occupation Hunting and foraging Hamlets ca. 30100 Band tribe (clan) Year round Foraging and farming Villages ca. 100750 Band tribe chiefdom? (clan/house societies) Year round Farming and/or herding Specialized sites Variable Variable
Variable Variable
369
the terms town, urbanism, and mega-site, all of which have been used to describe the emergence of large aggregate villages in the LPPNB period. Rather than employ terms such as temple, which carries considerable intellectual baggage, we have opted to treat these buildings in a descriptive manner, identifying the structures and at the same time allowing researchers to peruse individual arguments for the nature of ritual and social activities that might have occurred within them. PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC A PERIOD Until the early 1990s, relatively little was known about the PPNA in comparison to the PPNB. With the publication of several regional syntheses (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1991; Kuijt, 1994a), as well as active eldwork in Israel, Jordan, and southern Syria, research in the 1980s and 1990s has dramatically advanced our understanding of the PPNA, a period which lasted from approximately 11,700 to 10,500 B.P. Research and publication of the materials from Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Gilgal I, Salibiya IX, Gesher, Ain Darat, Hatoula, Tell Aswad, Dhra, Zahrat adh-Dhra 2, Jilat 7, Iraq ed-Dubb, Tell Aswad, Nachcharini Cave, and Wadi Faynan 16 have provided a new awareness of the nature of cultural adaptation for this period (see Bar-Yosef and Gopher, 1997; Bar-Yosef and Kislev, 1989; Bennett, 1980; de Contenson, 1989, 1995; Edwards et al., 2001; Finlayson et al., 2000; Garnkel, 1989; Garnkel and Nadel, 1989; Garrard et al., 1996; Goodale et al., 2002; Gopher, 1995, 1996a; Kuijt, 1994a,b, 1996a, 2001a; Kuijt et al., 1991; Kuijt and Finlayson, 2001; Kuijt and Mahasneh, 1995, 1998; Lechavallier and Ronen, 1985; Mithen et al., 2000; Noy, 1989; Pirie, 2001a,b; Sayej, 2001, 2002, and references therein) (Fig. 1) (Table III). Over the last 30 years, researchers have debated whether the PPNA should be divided into two different phases or treated as a single cultural historical unit. The intellectual foundations for the two subfacies of the PPNA (referred to as the Khiamian and Sultanian) were originally articulated by Echegaray (1966) and Crowfoot-Payne (1976, 1983). This cultural historical foundation remained unchallenged until the late 1980s. Subsequent publications (e.g., Garnkel, 1996; Garnkel and Nadel, 1989; Goodale et al., 2002; Nadel, 1990, 1996; Pirie, 2001a; Ronen and Lechevallier, 1999; Sayej, 2001, 2002) have debated Crowfoot-Paynes chronological division of PPNA. Some researchers now argue that this model does not account for available data on regional technological and typological patterning in the southern Levantine PPNA, specically for the large settlements in the Jordan Valley. Kuijt (1997, 1998, 2001a) argues that post-1990 archaeological research and publication of data from Netiv Hagdud, Salibiya IX, Gilgal I, and Dhra illustrate that (a) data from new and publication of previous
370
Fig. 1. Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period site distribution in the southern Levant. Note the contraction of communities into the Levantine Corridor from the preceding Natuan period.
371
excavations do not t the technological, typological, and chronological explanatory model of two subfacies; and (b) we clearly understand neither the reasons for, nor processes by which, technological and typological variability was created in PPNA lithic assemblages. We believe, albeit with different degrees of conviction, that debate continues on these topics and that no clear consensus has emerged among researchers. For these reasons, we have opted in the following discussion to treat PPNA as one cultural entity, with the hope that future eld and laboratory research will resolve this debate. Settlement Patterns Mediterranean Zone The majority of known PPNA settlements are found in the Mediterranean zone of the southern Levant, in specic settings within or adjacent to the Jordan Valley (Bar-Yosef, 1991; Kuijt, 1994a). Sites identied within the Jordan Valley include Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Gilgal I, Dhra, Wadi Faynan 16, Gesher, and Salibiya IX. Sites located in areas adjacent to the Jordan Valley include Ain Darat, Sabra I, Hatoula, Iraq ed-Dubb, Nahal Oren, and Tell Aswad. Data indicate that most PPNA sites larger than 0.5 ha (e.g., Tell Aswad, Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Gilgal I, Zahrat adh-Dhra 2, and Dhra) are generally located along fertile alluvial terraces at low elevations within the Rift Valley. Usually, smaller hamlets and seasonal camps are adjacent to the Jordan Valley (Hatoula, Tell Batashi, Nahal Oren, Iraq ed-Dubb, and Wadi Faynan 16). Indeed, there are also more ephemeral specialized sites lacking architecture (with bifacial tools and sickle blades as major components, but seemingly no projectile points) on and adjacent to the central mountain ridge. These could represent logistical localities for forest clearance, wood provision for construction and fuel, as well as the harvesting of cereals in the clearings, to supply parent communities to the east and west. The importance of the Jordan Valley as a PPNA settlement focus is expressed through the horizontal extent of settlements, the depth of cultural deposits, the presence of specialized architecture, and economic practices (BarYosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1989, 1991; Kuijt, 1994a). Although the reason(s) for this pattern remain complex, the relative orescence of human occupation along what Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen term the Levantine Corridor appears to be linked to developments in food production, such as agriculture (and the domestication of plants?), population aggregation for social and economic reasons, and perhaps illustrates the earliest development of large regional centers, such as at Jericho. The delayed reaction to the effects of the Younger Dryas at the end of the Natuan (and Harian), especially in the arid periphery, necessitating the contraction of populations back into better
372
watered localities, has also been suggested as a part of a pushpull mechanism (Goring-Morris, 1987, 1991; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998). Arid Zone In contrast to what is known about the PPNA occupation of the Mediterranean zone, very little evidence exists for any intensive occupation of surrounding desertic zones. In considering the Eastern Desert areas, Garrard et al. (1994) and Byrd (1994) outline that, with the possible exception of Wadi Jilat 7 (late in the period, as is Aswad), there does not appear to be evidence for long-term human occupation. This pattern is supported by surveys around Jebel Druze and in the Black Desert, as well as further south around Wadi Hasa and in the Hisme. West of the Rift Valley, extensive systematic surveys throughout the Negev have revealed extremely sparse PPNA remains following the Harian and prior to EPPNB (Goring-Morris, 1987). Excavations at Abu Madi I (Bar-Yosef, 1991) in the South Sinai High Mountains revealed a single semi-subterranean oval structure as a seasonal (summer) camp of a small group of hunter-gatherers. Together with other untested sites in that area (J. Phillips, 2001, personal communication), high residential mobility is indicated perhaps by residual Harian-related communities. In sum, current evidence suggests that regional PPNA settlement patterns focused on large logistically based permanent communities, supplemented by smaller hamlets, in the Mediterranean zone (and perhaps more specifically the Jordan Valley), immediately adjacent to unusually well-watered localities with alluvial lands. The PPNA was also characterized by meager use of desertic areas by highly mobile foragers. Site Structure Settlement Organization With the exception of the sites of Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Nahal Oren, and Hatoula, excavations in the southern Levant give little understanding of the spatial organization within communities. Excavations either have for the most part focused on internal areas of structures, or perhaps more commonly, have been restricted so that the areas between structures are poorly understood. In open-air sites where we have some understanding of extramural areas, PPNA settlement organization appears to be similar to that of the Late Natuan: individual oval-to-circular structures spaced apart from each other with the occasional small stone feature, silo, or re hearth between structures (see Bar-Yosef and Gopher, 1997). At Nahal Oren, the small settlement was arranged in two rows along terraces in the hillside (Stekelis
373
and Yizraeli, 1963). With the exception of the storage/residential structures abutting the PPNA tower at Jericho, site organization generally appears to be similar to that of the Natuan period. Residential Architecture Residential architecture in the PPNA, based upon the presence of grinding stones and internal storage features, consisted of oval-to-subcircular structures that were either freestanding (Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Hatoula), or, more often, semi-subterranean or built in such a way that one side of the structure is built into a terrace (Dhra, Gilgal, Nahal Oren) (Figs. 2 and 3). Where available, eldstones were employed to construct a stone foundation with mud brick added for the superstructure. In cases such as Jericho and Netiv Hagdud, the majority of residential structures were semi-subterranean with the stone wall foundations being between 20 and 60 cm in height. At Ain Darat, Zahrat edh-Dhra 2, and Dhra, structures were somewhat deeper, with walls being recovered to a height of 7080 cm (Edwards et al., 2001; Gopher, 1996b; Kuijt and Finlayson, 2001; Kuijt and Mahasneh, 1995, 1998). In contrast to later periods, residential buildings in the PPNA appear to have e minimal oor preparation, with most oors being composed of terre pise overlying stone cobbles where necessary. Entrance was either by way of a few steps (Jericho) or through a gap in the wall at one end (Netiv Hagdud, Hatoula, Nahal Oren, Gilgal I). While the overall shape of PPNA residential structures appears to be relatively consistent, their size and internal organization vary considerably. At Netiv Hagdud, Jericho, and Hatoula, residential structures vary between 5 and 8 m in length, although at Nahal Oren they were smaller. Similarly, the internal organization of residential structures varies considerably, including in some cases the construction of re hearths, inset limestone slabs as cupholes, and storage features. In rare cases, such as that of Netiv Hagdud locus 008, partitions divided the residential structure into different areas. In contrast to the preceding Natuan, a major innovation begun during the PPNA and becoming widespread during the PPNB in the Mediterranean zone was systematic house cleaning and the dumping of refuse in clearly dened adjacent refuse areas. Non-residential Architecture In the southern Levant there is only one unequivocal example of nonresidential architecture: the large PPNA stone tower and associated wall at Jericho. When originally built, this sturdy tower stood at least 8.5 m in height and 8 m in diameter (Fig. 4). One side of the tower is surrounded by smaller oval and circular structures that may have served as storage facilities, or
374
Fig. 2. Plan view of Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period residential architecture from (a) Jericho Sq M1, stage VIII, phase xxxix; (b) Iraq ed-Dubb, Structure I; and (c) Netiv Hagdud, Locus 40 (based on Bar-Yosef and Gopher 1997, Fig. 3.22).
perhaps (although less likely) as residential buildings. A narrow and steep staircase leads directly to the top of the structure. It was subsequently repaired by adding a new outer layer of stones and replastering it at some point during the PPNA. Kenyon (1957) argued that this tower, in conjunction with
375
Fig. 3. Reconstruction of Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period residential structures.
Fig. 4. Cross-section of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period tower and internal passage, and plan view of select burials found inside of the passage.
376
the adjacent wall, would have served a defensive role. More plausibly, given the total absence of fortications elsewhere in the Near East during the Neolithic, Bar-Yosef (1986) has argued that the wall system around one side of Jericho was linked to the diversion of ash oods and that the tower might have been a shrine. Exploring the possible links between burial practices at Jericho, specically differences between the individuals buried in the tower entranceway once it was closed off and the rest of the Jericho population, Bar-Yosef (1986) and Kuijt (1996b) have argued that this tower served as a ritual focal point for the community and its role varied at different points of its life history. However one chooses to view the structure, the PPNA tower reects the ability of community members to build an enormous structure: a feat that required considerable pre-planning and collective labor. Ritual and Mortuary Practices Mortuary Practices Although cemetery sites have not been documented so far, excavations at Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Hatoula, and Nahal Oren illustrate that burial systems of the PPNA period, as presently understood, were relatively standardized and differentiated between adults and children (Bar-Yosef et al., 1991; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1991; Kuijt, 1996b; Kurth and Rohrer Ertl, 1981). These illustrate a highly standardized mortuary system continuing practices initiated by at least the late Natuan, involving primary burial and secondary skull removal, as well as some differences in the treatment of adults and children. Signicantly, however, as in later and earlier phases, post-mortem skull removal even for adults was by no means ubiquitous. After death, adults and young adults were buried without grave goods in individual primary interments. Research has also indicated that at this time the location of the skull was also marked by community members. The repeated recovery of articulated adult skeletons in anatomically correct positions illustrates that many, if not most, crania were removed after decay of the soft tissues. Community members returned to the grave, excavated an area around the skull, removed it, sometimes together with the mandible, and then relled the excavated pit. While very difcult to trace archaeologically, several ethnographic accounts suggest that removed skulls were cleaned and prepared for use by the living community, after which they were subjected to reburial often in groups as part of a communal event. After completion, the skulls were reburied in extra-, intermural, or outlying areas of the settlement. It is interesting to note that at Abu Madi the single, articulated burial recovered from beneath the oor of the hut included the cranium (Hershkovitz et al., 1995). Currently, we are unable to determine the spatial relationship between the original postcranial skeletons and the reburied skulls, although
377
this determination would unquestionably provide insight into the rationale of these mortuary practices and the underlying belief structure. Similarly, excavations have yet to determine unequivocally whether adults and children were systematically interred in different kinds of locations. Existing evidence from Jericho indicates that some infant skeletons were placed in dedicatory contexts within houses, such as post foundations. In contrast, it appears that adult community members were interred in either intra- or extramural locations, but again the nature of this patterning (fortuitous or planned) is unclear. Drawing upon previous studies (Amiran, 1962; Belfer-Cohen, 1995; Bienert, 1991; Garnkel, 1994; Hershkovitz and Gopher, 1990; Kenyon, 1957; Kurth and Rohrer-Ertl, 1981), Kuijt (1996b, 2001b) argues that skull removal as a form of secondary mortuary practice reects one of several thematically interrelated aspects of a ritual belief system focused on enhancing community cohesion and reafrming household and community beliefs during the PPNA and later MPPNB (Middle PPNB). He argues that Late Natuan and PPNA mortuary practices, specically the (apparent) absence of grave goods, burial of individuals, use of simple graves, and practice of skull removal served to integrate communities and downplay socioeconomic differences between individuals and kin groups in the face of economic and social changes. Other Symbolic Realms Although quite rare, several PPNA sites have yielded small clay or stone gurines and sculptures (Figs. 5(a)(c)). Characteristic specimens from Netiv Hagdud are a clay gurine and two fragments that schematically portray a seated woman with two stubby legs (Bar-Yosef, 1991, p. 40). Excavations at Dhra in 2001 produced a similar clay gurine (Kuijt and Finlayson, 2001). Excavations at Gilgal I and Salibiya IX recovered several human and animal (mainly bird) gurines. The gurine from Salibiya IX, carved from chalk, appears to represent a kneeling woman, although, when inverted, it may represent a phallus. Here it is of interest to note that, while many discussions of symbolic imagery focus on the mother-goddess theme in relation to the origins of agriculture (e.g., Cauvin, 2000), carved stone phalli have also been recovered from other PPNA settlements continuing traditions begun already during the Natuan. Integration With Architecture While difcult to address from a material stand point, there appears to be some clear links between mortuary and architectural practices in the
378
Fig. 5. Anthropomorphic and Zoomorphic Figurines from the Natuan through Pottery Neolithic period of the southern Levant: (a) female gurine, PPNA, Dhra; (b and c) female gurine, PPNA, Netiv Hagdud; (d) female gurine, MPPNB, Ain Ghazal; (e) human gurine, Pottery Neolithic, Ramad; (f) cattle gurine, MPPNB, Jericho.
PPNA. First, the mortuary practices at the PPNA tower appear to be specic to this location (see Bar-Yosef, 1986; Kuijt, 1996b). Second, examination of the placement of infant/child burials indicates that many PPNA burials served as dedicatory caches, such as under postholes or under walls. While it is not clear if all human burials were deliberately placed under the oor or walls of structures, examination of the location of the burials vis-a-vis ` buildings indicates that the majority was deliberately interred under the internal areas of a oor, instead of postburial house construction. Economy Subsistence (Flora and Fauna) A number of recent studies have illustrated that PPNA economies were based on the consumption of cereals and legumes and the hunting of medium- and small-sized mammals, reptiles, sh, and birds. A consideration
379
of the vegetal products consumed by people in the PPNA illustrates that a wide array of seeds and fruits were utilized, several of them intentionally cultivated and domesticated (see Colledge, 1998; Hillman et al., 2001). Hillman and Davis (1990) argue that there is evidence for domesticated wheat at Tel Aswad, Jericho, Gilgal, and Netiv Hagdud. Alternatively, Kislev (1992) concludes that most of the barley recovered from these sites was harvested from wild stands, a point that Zohary (1989) agrees with, although, at the same time, Zohary argues that carbonized grains from Netiv Hagdud, Gilgal, and Jericho reect the cultivation of two-rowed barley. Although debate continues on the issue of the existence and role of domesticated vs. cultivated plant resources within PPNA communities, this discussion should not divert attention from the major implication that members of Late Natuan and PPNA communities were intentionally manipulating, managing, and cultivating plant resources in a previously unprecedented manner in the Near East and elsewhere (see Colledge, 1998; Smith, 2001). During the PPNA, people relied on a number of wild game species, including gazelle, wild ass, occasional cattle, and caprines, as well as smaller game, such as wild boar, fox, and hare (Tchernov, 1994). In contrast to the arguments for the early cultivation of plant crops in the PPNA, most researchers argue that there is no real evidence for animal husbandry (with the exception of the dog which had been domesticated during the Natuan). It is interesting to note that in many PPNA sites, especially in the Jordan Valley, there is a very high frequency of bird bones; thus birds probably served as important food resources. Excavations at Netiv Hagdud, for example, recovered large numbers of aquatic species that inhabited marshy environments. A high percentage (greater than 50% of the assemblage) of bird bone has also been noted at Dhra, Hatoula, Wadi Faynan 16, and Iraq ed-Dubb, and possibly at Jericho. The high representation of these species has implications for the environmental conditions during the PPNA, as well as for broader subsistence practices (the Rift Valley serves as one of the major migration routes between Africa and Eurasia). Moving beyond an emphasis on the hunting of gazelle, a practice clearly seen in the Natuan, subsistence in the PPNA appears to shift to the intensive collecting and cultivation of local plant resources and the intensive hunting of water fowl and gazelle inhabiting marsh or riparian environments. The hunting of foxes and birds of prey might have been for nondietary, symbolic purposes, perhaps for pelts, feathers, and claws. Lithic Technology, Groundstone, and Bone Tools In terms of aked stone technology, the PPNA lithic assemblages show a primary focus on the use of single platform blade and bladelet cores for the production of specic tools such as El-Khiam, Jordan Valley, and
380
Salibiya projectile points (see Abbes, ` 1994; Bar-Yosef and Gopher, 1997; de Contenson, 1989; Goodale et al., 2002; Kuijt, 2001a; Nadel et al., 1991; Sayej, 2001; Stordeur and Abbes, ` 2002), sickles blades, perforators, and burins. Depending on the location of communities, these implements were manufactured from a variable range of raw materials (Fig. 6). Heavy woodworking tools include bifacial axes, often with tranchet blows, chisels of int and limestone, and ground and polished basalt and greenstone adzes. Other ground-stone tools include a wide array of limestone and basalt pestles, together with shallow limestone cuphole mortars, presumably for pounding seeds. Importantly, the ground-stone tool repertoire is thus intermediate between that of the Natuan with its deep mortars for pounding and the grinding querns of the PPNB. Researchers have also noted the existence of specic tool forms that are temporally diagnostic of the PPNA. Not surprisingly, many of them are hunting and/or food-processing tools. These include Hagdud and Gilgal truncations (which were probably mounted behind projectile points on arrowshafts to cause hemorrhaging), bifacially retouched Beit Taamir and unretouched sickle blades, and possibly lunates. It should be noted that serious questions have been raised about the chronological placement of lunates in PPNA (Garnkel, 1996; Garnkel and Nadel, 1989; Goodale et al., 2002; Kuijt, 1997, 2001a; Pirie, 2001a,b). Trade and Exchange In comparison with other periods of the Neolithic, there is only limited archaeological evidence for long- or short-distance trade and exchange of goods during PPNA. Currently, our best evidence for short distance, that is to say interregional trade and exchange, is the presence of shell, greenstone, malachite, and bitumen. Marine shells from the Mediterranean and the Red Sea are found in many, if not most, PPNA settlements together with the beginnings of a shift in preference away from dentalia to bivalves and gastropods (Bar-Yosef Mayer, 1997). As in the preceding Natuan period, these appear to have been used as beads, although it is interesting to note that they are not recovered with human burials. While more difcult to trace to specic source areas, bitumen (which is found within the Dead Sea region), used as an adhesive for implements and probably also as a sealant for baskets, was also collected and traded within the southern Levant, an exchange system that expanded in the MPPNB. Greenstone and malachite, found along the heavily faulted areas of the southern Rift Valley at Faynan and Timna, are other resources that were extracted and distributed within the southern Levant. While not recovered in large quantities, greenstone beads, bidirectionally drilled using long perforators, are found. Arguably the most extensive evidence for long-distance trade and exchange is that of
381
Fig. 6. Stone tools from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period of the southern Levant: (a and b) El-Khiam projectile point; (c and d) Hagdud truncation; (e) borer/awl; (f) Beit Tam knife; (g) cuphole; (h) polished axe; (i and j) shaft streightener.
382
obsidian, greenstone, and malachite. Obsidian has been documented at some PPNA settlements in the Levantine Corridor, including Jericho, Dhra, and Netiv Hagdud. All analyzed samples trace from central Turkey. It is of some interest to note varying quantities in different sites, even when taking into account excavated areas and retrieval methods, perhaps hinting that some sites served as more central distribution nodes, a pattern that seemingly continues later. EARLY PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC B PERIOD Presently the EPPNB is one of the most poorly documented periods of the PPN; in fact, its very existence has been questioned. There is a notable paucity of well-excavated, radiocarbon-dated settlements dating between ca. 10,500 and ca. 10,100 B.P. From one perspective, it was a transitional phase between the better-dened PPNA and MPPNB, which researchers have termed EPPNB (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1981; Gopher, 1996b; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998). Others argue that there are insufcient data to support the creation of a transitional phase, and that the transformation from PPNA to MPPNB was more rapid that previously thought and with no observable intervening phase (e.g., Kuijt, 1998, in press). With the exception of Tell Aswad in the Damascus Basin, no site in the southern Levant displays substantial evidence of continuity from the PPNA to PPNB with intact architecture, cultural deposits, and representative lithic material from both periods (see Cauvin, 2000; Stordeur, 2000a,b; Stordeur and Abbes, ` 2002, for more detailed discussion of PPNA and EPPNB aked stone tool technology for other areas). While disagreement and debate continue on this subject, even between the authors of this work, it is necessary to discuss possible supportive data for an EPPNB phase as well as alternative interpretations of the transition from the the PPNA to MPPNB. For some researchers, these questions, as well as the limited number of well-dated and excavated sites dating to this period, underline the critical need for caution and the development of consensus as to the material correlates of EPPNB. Settlement Patterns Mediterranean Zone The few possible large EPPNB sites are located in more northerly parts of the region, especially east of the Rift Valley, at Aswad IB in the Damascus Basin or Mujahiya on the slopes of the Golan, or perhaps at er-Rahib in Wadi Yabis (Fig. 7). All excavations at these sites, however, were limited in extent
383
Fig. 7. Early and Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period site distribution in the southern Levant. Note clustering of MPPNB villages and hamlets around the Jordan Valley, and the appearance of small settlements and seasonal sites in marginal environmental zones.
384
and, with the exception of Tell Aswad, where continuity is certainly present, none has been radiocarbon-dated. On the basis of the brief descriptions of the small assemblages published, Mujahiya could actually be PPNA while erRahib might be primarily MPPNB, given the predominance of Jericho and Byblos points in relation to Helwan points (see Gopher, 1996b). Smaller, possibly later, sites are known in the Galilee (e.g., Horvat Galil) as well as in ephemeral and sporadic occupations in and immediately adjacent to the coastal plain (e.g., Nahal Oren, Michmoret, Sefunim, el Wad). Having noted this, one of us (Kuijt) argues that the architecture, plaster oors, burial systems, and published radiocarbon dates from Horvat Galil may represent the earliest phase of MPPNB (Kuijt, in press). Although there is presently no documented evidence for EPPNB settlements within the Rift itself (and all PPNA sites there were abandoned), the complete depopulation of this area is difcult to understand. Arid Zone In the Negev and Sinai, following a virtual hiatus for the rst half of the 10th millennium, there is some evidence for a slight increase in settlement density, which nevertheless remains quite sporadic. While there are few possible EPPNB sites in southern Sinai, evidence from the Negev is slightly greater, namely small hunter-gatherer occupations featuring beehive-type architecture in and around the Negev Highlands (Abu Salem and Nahal Boqer), as well as camp sites in the western Negev dunes (Nahal Lavan 109), although dating is based only upon typological seriation (Burian et al., 1976; Gopher and Goring-Morris, 1998). Similarly, in eastern and southern Jordan there would appear to be sparse reoccupation following an even longer hiatus, dating back to the Early Natuan. Jilat 7 displays oval architecture while Jebel Queisa is an ephemeral encampment. Site Structure Settlement Organization If representative of EPPNB, the sites of Tel Aswad, Mujahiya, er-Rahib, Horvat Galil, and Ain Abu Hudhud were all modest hamlet-sized settlements extending up to no more than 2 ha, yet the limited excavations do not permit any observations regarding internal site structure. In the Carmel (Sefunim, el Wad), the scanty data indicate sites were probably quite ephemeral, perhaps resembling those in more peripheral regions. The EPPNB occupation at Abu Salem, encompassing a mere 150 m2 , comprises a series of small interlocking oval structures 1.5 to 2.0-m in diameter, with
385
shared walls to a height of 40 cm; it is difcult to believe they could all have been used as residential dwellings (Gopher and Goring-Morris, 1998). Openair sites, which possibly may have had more imsy architecture of organic materials, include Michmoret and Nahal Lavan 109. The collections from both sites, which are undated by radiometric means, indicate they may have functioned as hunting camps. Nahal Lavan 109 is in many respects anomalous: supercially, this occupation could be viewed as a short-term hunting encampment, yet, in addition to quantities of projectile points, the representation of numerous tranchet axes and obsidian artifacts is otherwise quite unprecedented during the entire PPN in the desert areas (see Bar-Yosef, 1981). Perhaps this site served as an aggregation locality for exchange and redistribution. Residential Architecture Although no complete radiocarbon-dated structures have been excavated at any site in the Mediterranean zone, there may be indications for the incomplete beginnings of a shift from oval to small-scale sub-rectangular architecture at Aswad, Horvat Galil, Abu Hudhud, and Jilat 7. House walls are often made of eldstones, but at Aswad and Horvat Galil rectangular mud bricks were used in tandem with colored lime-plaster oors, which curved up the walls. Based upon other lines of data, these structures likely reect chronological trends within the Mediterranean zone where settlements are likely to have been permanent. Irrespective of area, the small scale of domestic structures is notable. In more desertic areas, at Abu Salem in the Negev Highlands, and at Jilat 7, structures were still oval, with low stone-built walls and probable light, organic superstructures, reecting less permanent usage. Of note is the dichotomy between house-cleaning activities in the Mediterranean zone as opposed to the accumulations of ash and other debris within temporary structures in the desert. Non-residential Architecture Currently there is no known nonresidential architecture from this period. Ritual and Mortuary Practices Mortuary Practice Human skeletal material is extremely rare, but assuming that Horvat Galil is representative of EPPNB rather than MPPNB, this suggests a
386
continuation of previous practices of burial in and around domestic dwellings (Gopher, 1989; Hershkovitz and Gopher, 1990). Economy Subsistence (Flora and Fauna) At Aswad, van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres (1985) argue that there were domesticated cereals present and that they were cultivated. At the same time, wild plants continued to play a major role. The presence at Jilat 7 of cultivars is especially intriguing given its steppe setting (Garrard et al., 1996). The small faunal assemblages from throughout the southern Levant indicate a hunting economy based on locally available game. Although both avifauna and sh do occur in some sites, there appears to be a shift away from the previous emphasis on such species. Lithic Technology It is important to note that lithic assemblages from this period, such as the collections from Nahal Lavan 109, Mujahiya, er-Rahib, and Abu Hudhud, are not dated by radiometric means. Therefore, caution must be employed when employing these collections as type objects for EPPNB. In general, lithic assemblages assumed to be from EPPNB display numerous technotypological features transitional between PPNA and MPPNB. Notable too is the common but not completely ubiquitous preference for chalcedony and other ne-grained stone, often non-local in origin, as raw material in many assemblages (e.g., Nahal Lavan 109, Abu Salem II, Jilat 7) (see also Garrard et al., 1994, p. 193). There may also be some evidence for intentional heat treatment of stone (already occurring since at least the Natuan). Although pyramidal cores are initially predominant (following from PPNA), an innovation is used with opposed-platform naviform technique to produce ne, elongated blade blanks for retouch into projectile points. It appears that this technique originated along the Middle Euphrates in the northern Levant and diffused southwards, together with the Helwan point (Gopher, 1989). Rare Hagdud truncations may initially continue to appear in some (northerly) assemblages. Burins are often dihedral types, some being fashioned on naviform blades. Heavy-duty bifacial tools in the form of axes and chisels were knapped using a totally separate reduction sequence, but they also display continuity in the common use of tranchet blows. Polished axes may also begin to appear. Perforating tools appear to be less common and less standardized than those during PPNA. Microliths have now
387
disappeared from the repertoire (but see Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998, for a discussion of the problematic aspects of microliths in Neolithic assemblages). Other Technology As with the aked stone, ground-stone tools display considerable continuity from PPNA in the number of cupholes, while indicating an increasing emphasis on quern use. Polished basalt and limestone axes rarely occur. Lime plaster, sometimes colored, is now used in some sites for architectural purposes (Aswad, Horvat Galil), continuing practices initiated during the Natuan. Trade and Exchange Obsidian, greenstones, and other minerals, as well as marine mollusks, sometimes modied, may attest to continued exchange networks. MIDDLE PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC B PERIOD Compared to the paucity of well-excavated and radiocarbon-dated settlements dating between ca. 10,500 and ca. 10,100 B.P., there is a relative wealth of information for PPN occupations between ca. 10,100 and ca. 9500 B.P. Field research at a number of sites (see Table I), including Jericho, Ain Ghazal, Yiftahel, Kfar HaHoresh, Ghwair I, Nahal Hemar, Munhata, Tell Aswad, Wadi Shueib, and Beidha provide us with our most detailed understanding of this period of time (see Bar-Yosef and Alon, 1988; Bienert, 2001; Byrd, 1994; Garnkel, 1987; Gopher et al., 1995; GoringMorris, 1991; Kenyon, 1981; Kirkbride, 1968; Rollefson, 1998; Rollefson et al., 1992; Simmons et al., 1989, and references therein; Simmons and Najjar, 1996, 1999) (Fig. 7). Characterized by elaborate mortuary practices including skull removal and plastering, well-established sedentary villages with well-made residential buildings, clear evidence for domesticated plants and animals, in many ways the Neolithic of MPPNB exemplies the entire Neolithic in the minds of general archaeologists and the public. Starting with Kenyons research at Jericho in the 1950s through the ongoing excavations of Ain Ghazal in the 1990s, numerous eld projects have documented that PPN village life was characterized by the emergence of larger communities through population aggregation, highly formalized lithic technology, and surprisingly elaborate primary and secondary mortuary practices. While this has resulted in considerable and highly positive eld research
388
on MPPNB settlements, it has also resulted in the unfortunate stereotyping of the broader PPNB on the basis of MPPNB. Sadly, this process of generalizing fails to recognize the considerable variability in many, if not most, material practices between MPPNB, LPPNB, and PPNC, and perhaps more important, the ways in which these changes in practices inform researchers as to the nature of social, economic, technological, and political change over these periods. Settlement Patterns Mediterranean Zone As with PPNA, most of the large MPPNB communities are located in the Mediterranean zone, and more specically along the Jordan Valley and neighboring areas. The larger MPPNB occupations, such as Jericho and Ain Ghazal, may have covered a horizontal area of 45 ha (Rollefson et al., 1992). The depth of cultural deposits as well as in the density of residential housing indicates that these were medium-sized agricultural communities. In the western areas of the Mediterranean zone, settlements such as Khirbet Rabud, el-Khiam, Abu Gosh, Tell Fara North, Nahal Oren 1, Yiftahel, Horvat Galil, and Nahal Betzet appear to have covered close to 1 or 1.5 ha in area at most, with many of these probably existing as small agricultural hamlets. Communities in western areas of the Mediterranean zone, including Yiftahel, appear to have been closer to 1 or 1.5 ha in area, with most of these probably existing as smaller agricultural villages. MPPNB communities in transitional environmental areas, such as Ghwair I and Beidha, also appear to have been smaller agricultural villages, often under 1 ha (Simmons, 2000). The distribution and size of settlements in the Mediterranean zone raise the possibility of the existence of regional economic, ritual, and social centers in MPPNB (Rollefson, 1987). Economic linkages between these centers remain unclear, however, as is the degree of autonomy of the smaller villages. Alternatively, such a distribution of settlements might not reect economic systems so much as the existence of large agricultural towns recognized as locations for the enactment of ritual practices. Whatever the reason, MPPNB settlement practices were clearly focused on the Mediterranean zone, and perhaps more specically on the eastern foothills and center of the Jordan Valley. Desertic Zone In comparison to the large agricultural villages located along the Levantine Corridor, the occupation of desertic areas during MPPNB is relatively
389
rare and quite small, especially compared to the number and size of occupations dating to after 9500 B.P. (Betts, 1989; Byrd, 1994; Garrard et al., 1994). A steady increase in settlements from the earlier periods is seen in the exploitation of arid zones during MPPNB, presumably reecting both natural population increase and perhaps also recolonization (Byrd, 1992; Hole, 1984). In the south, this is valid primarily for the Negev but also for Sinai, at Nahal Efe, Divshon, Ramat Matred, Nahal Nizzana IX, Nahal Lavan 109, Lavan Elyon 1, Ein Qadis I, Mushabi VI, Beer Menuha, Nahal Qetura, Nahal Reuel, Wadi Tbeik, and Gebel Rubshah. Sites rarely reach 250 m2 in extent and, where architecture is present, comprise a series of small rounded dwellings in a beehive arrangement. These are probably the small, seasonal encampments and hunting camps of bands continuing a mobile foraging existence, although some may represent logistical hunting forays of groups residentially based close to the edge of the Mediterranean zone. MPPNB settlements situated in desertic areas are characterized by a limited number of round/oval structures, often with a semisubterranean foundation, usually covering an area of less than 20 20 m2 . Along the Azraq basin, for example, settlements were usually characterized by shallow occupation deposits and a restricted number of storage or food-preparation features (Garrard et al., 1994). Unlike in the Mediterranean, the walls and oors of buildings are not plastered, and elaborately prepared oors and walls are formed with upright stones. Moreover, some MPPNB occupations consist of short-term use areas, such as hunting camps, in which the only evidence of architecture consists of re hearths with no residential structures. Collectively, the limited extent of archaeological remains and the imsy nature of MPPNB architecture in desertic areas are suggestive of short-term or seasonal use by small families or perhaps households. Site Structure Settlement Organization Although archaeologists working in the southern Levant have a relatively extensive understanding of material culture and economic practices for the MPPNB, we have only the most limited understanding of how space was organized within these communities. As with the PPNA and the EPPNB, our poor understanding of MPPNB settlement organization is linked to the limited excavation of extramural areas. In some cases, such as Jericho and Ain Ghazal, it is not feasible to open large horizontal areas because of later occupations. In cases where opening horizontal areas has been possible, almost all buildings appear to have been freestanding with variable spacing of structures (Figs. 8 and 9). For example, at Beidha and Ghwair I, structures
390
Fig. 8. Schematic representation of Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period residential architectural and mortuary practices. Illustrated ritual and mortuary practices include (1) primary adult burial, skull removed, suboor, and inside of structure; (2) primary adult burial, complete, extramural; (3) primary child burial, complete, under wall of structure; (4) secondary burial cache of three skulls.
were built next to each other with little space between them. At Ain Ghazal and Jericho, excavations reveal that structures were often placed next to each other, but that there were also cases where individual buildings were separated by 58 m. At Yiftahel and Kfar HaHoresh, we see a pattern in which buildings were separated from each other. It is also interesting to note that with expanded excavation of extramural areas, archaeologists are documenting the existence of large re hearths, plaster-manufacturing facilities, and other general domestic areas. Residential Architecture Over the last 20 years, a growing number of researchers have examined Neolithic patterns of architectural change in the southern Levant as a means of understanding past social organization, changes in the size and composition of the household, and economic practices in different regions (Akkermans et al., 1983; Aurenche, 1981; Banning and Byrd, 1987; Byrd, 1994; Banning and Byrd, 1987, 1989; Flannery, 1973; Kuijt, 2000a; Rollefson, 1998, 2000). Expanding upon this body of data, other studies have explored the possible reasons for site and regional-level patterning of residential and non-residential architecture (cf. Banning and Byrd, 1987; Byrd, 1994; Flannery, 1973; Kuijt, 2000a). In general, MPPNB period residential
391
Fig. 9. Plan view of Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period non-residential buildings at Beidha, Jordan. Note placement of upright stones, stone paving on oors, and large ground stone basin.
392
structures from the Mediterranean zone of the southern Levant were rectangular or sub-rectangular with an entrance at one end, internally partitioned, and in many cases had an open internal space opposite the entrance with a central hearth (Fig. 9). In the MPPNB occupations at Jericho, Ain Ghazal, and Yiftahel, and the ongoing excavations at Kfar HaHoresh, for example, the walls of rectangular structures were usually built upon an earlier ground surface and without a foundation trench. Depending on the available local building materials, the walls consisted of courses of eld stones often arranged in two parallel rows that were later lled with mud and irregular stones. Floors were almost always constructed of a thick plaster, painted red, pink, or white, and punctured by multiple postholes for roof supports. As seen at Jericho, Beidha, and Ain Ghazal, MPPNB structures were highly standardized in their length, width, and internal layout within individual settlements. Settlements that were close to each other tend to have similar architectural practices. For example, the internal dimensions of most MPPNB period residential structures from Ain Ghazal and Jericho, the two sites with the most complete data, are approximately 8 4.5 m2 , with rarely more than 50-cm variation in any dimension and with internal partitions. In other early MPPNB settlements in areas adjacent to the Jordan Valley, there appears to be a greater degree of variation in the size, shape, and internal organization of residential architecture. The settlements of Yiftahel, Kfar HaHoresh, and possibly Horvat Galil illustrate the existence of rectangular or sub-rectangular buildings but with greater variability in the size of structures and the use of internal partitions. Along transitional environmental zones, such as the southern desert areas, it appears that the transition from circular/oval structures to rectangular free standing structures occurred slightly later in PPNB. Excavations at the important MPPNB occupation of Ghwair I provide evidence of an inwardlooking cell plan, often built around a small central courtyard (Najjar, 1994; Simmons, 1995; Simmons and Najjar, 1999). Here, individual cells tend to be more or less square, with awkward access from the central courtyard through raised rectangular entrances/windows. Construction was usually of shaped stones and chinking. Although details are presently scanty, some may have had upper stories for residential dwellings, the small cells serving as storage and other activity facilities. Courtyards and some cells were plastered. These structures facilitated the construction of additional cells around the exterior, ultimately creating a warren of rooms and open spaces. Collectively, research at Beidha and Ghwair I illustrates that in peripheral Mediterranean areas, rectangular systems of architecture appear to be adopted several hundred years later, and when they are adopted, they do not display the degree of standardization seen in communities in the Mediterranean area. In desert areas, presumably occupied seasonally, circular structures continue to be
393
constructed for the entire PPN sequence. The specic reasons for these differences are unclear, although, given the geographical nature of this patterning, they may well be related to unrecognized differences in economic practices, differential rates of diffusion of cultural practices from communities living in Mediterranean areas to communities situated in transitional environmental zones, and/or differences in social organization.
Non-residential Architecture Recent regional synthesis and ongoing eld research at Ain Ghazal, Ghawair I, Kfar HaHoresh, and Beidha have provided enticing glimpses of how and where MPPNB communities created spaces within settlements for nonresidential or collective purposes. One aspect of this is seen in the construction of distinctive, if not unique, structures both within and outside settlement boundaries. At Beidha, excavations some 40 m away from the residential areas revealed three stone structures that were different from residential structures in construction and character. Beyond their physical placements, these structures differed from residential structures in the construction of upright stone slab walls, the presence of a huge 3.0 2.2 m2 stone-slab basin and a very large, raised stone-slab platform, and a large rectangular stone in one building (Byrd, 1994, p. 657; Kirkbride, 1968) (Fig. 9). Both the location and contents of these structures suggest that community members constructed them for ritual practices, perhaps with different households associated with different structures. In a pattern that anticipates the LPPNB construction of non-residential architecture at Ain Ghazal, there are also cases in MPPNB Beidha in which non-residential buildings were integrated with residential buildings. On the basis of the presence of very large, centrally located raised rimmed hearths, larger than those in residential structures, and the absence of in situ artifacts associated with domestic activities, Byrd (1994) argues that select buildings in the MPPNB occupation at Beidha were probably employed for communal and ritual practices. In contrast to residential structures, most of these buildings were constructed with unique architectural features. Excavations at Ghwair I also provide evidence for the construction of public areas, with major outdoor stairways, that according to preliminary reports by Simmons and Najjar (1999, p. 6) may have served as some sort of public area. The use of orthostats is also seen at Kfar HaHoresh, Ghwair I, and Jericho. At Ghwair I, excavations have revealed that community members commonly constructed small niches along wall areas, and at times cached objects in these niches. The use of niches is also seen in the buildings at Jericho. At Jericho, a large chipped stone upright was recovered on the oor of a room
394
in front of a niche, and Kenyons interpretation places this stone as originally standing in the niche. Interestingly, the small wall niches documented at most settlements appear in both residential and non-residential structures, and this architectural feature may indicate that some aspects of broader community ritual or beliefs were practiced within single households as well as communally in non-residential structures.
Ritual and Mortuary Practices Mortuary Practices Over the last 20 years, archaeological research projects at MPPNB settlements have revealed a remarkable level of continuity in broader mortuary practices in the southern Levant, and at the same time, a high degree of variation in the ways in which mortuary practices were implemented within and between individual settlements (Cornwall, 1981; Goring-Morris, 2000; Hershkovitz and Gopher, 1990; Kuijt, 2000b, 2001b; Kurth and Rohrer-Ertl, 1981; Rollefson, 1998; Rollefson et al., 1992; Verhoeven, 2002). One of the more remarkable by-products of nearly 100 years of archaeological research at PPN settlements has been the documentation of formalized mortuary practices that have intrigued, puzzled, and fascinated the general public and professional archaeologists alike. This discussion has centered on two scales of research: that of the nature of and variability within mortuary practices at individual communities, and the degree to which select mortuary practices were shared between regional communities, and between regional areas, such as the southern and northern Levant. Drawing upon well-known excavations at Jericho, Ain Ghazal and Beidha, as well as more recent eld work at the MPPNB sites of Nahal Hemar, Yiftahel, and Kfar HaHoresh, a number of shared mortuary practices can be noted (see Goring-Morris, 2000; Kuijt, 2000b, 2001a; Rollefson, 2000; Verhoeven, 2002, for more detailed considerations). In MPPNB, we see the coexistence of three interrelated mortuary systems: (1) the primary interment of adults, probably both males and females, in single graves; (2) the interment of infants in single graves; and (3) the secondary removal of some, but not all, adult skulls from primary graves for some form of unknown ritual use with eventual reburial in caches of single or multiple skulls. Infants, usually but not always buried as single individuals, were occasionally buried in areas of architecture but more often were placed in ll and courtyard areas. While crania were occasionally removed from the skeletons of infants/youths (Cornwall, 1981; Kirkbride, 1968; Rollefson et al., 1992), at Ain Ghazal infant remains were usually interred as complete and
395
articulated individuals, at times associated with adults with intact skulls. On other occasions, infants appear to have been interred in a ritual context, such as in sub-oor foundations and as dedicatory offerings with foundation or walls of buildings. The majority of infants, however, were buried in ll deposits in courtyard areas or outside buildings. At Jericho, the primary interment of adults is usually associated with architecture, although not always so, and often the crania are removed from the grave to a secondary location. As seen in the excavations of Ain Ghazal, Beidha, Yiftahel, and Kfar HaHoresh (Garnkel, 1987; Goring-Morris, 1991; Kirkbride, 1968; Rollefson et al., 1992), adults generally continue to be interred as individuals and almost always without grave goods. Community members in MPPNB appear to have expanded secondary mortuary practices with extensive caching of multiple human skulls, some of them plastered and painted. As part of this elaboration, there also appears to be a formalization in the locations in which ritual practices occurred, both in terms of the interment of skull caches, and in the location of specic ritual practices within structures. The on-going excavations at Ain Ghazal, for example, have uncovered several skull caches. Characteristic of this pattern is a cache of three skulls placed in a row facing away from the center of the room, and recovered from beneath the oor of the southeast corner of a house. In the same house but in a separate room, a single adolescent skull was placed beneath the southwest corner of the oor. The rear portion of this cranium was thinly coated with black pigment, possibly bitumen (Rollefson, 1986, p. 51). Similarly, at Nahal Hemar, a cache of six skulls, as well as miscellaneous skeletal elements, was uncovered from the PPNB levels. The six skulls, some very fragmented, were at least partially covered in asphalt organized in a geometric pattern. All of these skulls were recovered from the southwest corner of the cave, a close spatial clustering that is consistent with the simultaneous interment of skulls in some form of cache at other MPPNB sites. The plastering of human skulls represents an enhanced aspect of the MPPNB ritual complex in the southern Levant. A comparison of plastered skulls from different areas of the region illustrates a pattern of local variation in the amount and type of plaster employed, the degree to which skulls were plastered, and the artistic techniques employed (Arensburg and Hershkovitz, 1988; de Contenson, 1966, 1971; Ferembach, 1978; Grifn et al., 1998; Kenyon, 1953, 1969; Rollefson, 1986; Rollefson et al., 1992, 1999). Currently, there are fewer than 20 known plastered skulls from the southern Levant, all dated to MPPNB and LPPNB. The majority of these were recovered from group caches; plaster helped to preserve the skull and gave the appearance of still maintaining lifelike esh. Some skulls provide extensive evidence of variation in the remodeling of facial features, such as the
396
construction of a nose, eyes, and mouth. Kenyons excavations at Jericho uncovered a total of 14 plastered and/or painted skulls, 10 of which were remodeled plastically with multiple plastering events to form representations of painted faces. In some of the plastered skulls the eyes were outlined by shell insets and repainted multiple times. Of this group of 10, only 1 has a completely plastered face with the mandible present. The excavation at the MPPNB Kfar HaHoresh uncovered a single plastered and painted skull without a mandible, plastered to reconstruct a smaller scale lifelike face on the reduced surface area; thus, the bottom of the maxilla region was covered by plaster to form the lower portions of the mandible and chin. Like the skull from Ain Ghazal, the eyes were formed by enlarging areas around the eye orbit rather than using shell insets like at Jericho. The presence of secondary skull removal and reburial provides researchers with some important insights as to PPNB social organization. In contrast to primary, single-stage, mortuary practices, aspects of multi-stage secondary mortuary practices are planned in advance, often held in conjunction by multiple households as part of a community festival, and require extraordinary levels of community involvement. As a number of ethnograpic and archaeological studies illustrate, ritual practitioners and communities often organize secondary mortuary rituals as part of high-prole public ceremonies. Beyond these logistical dimensions, secondary mortuary practices, with the deliberate removal of some or all of the skeleton, are often linked to broader beliefs in ancestor worship. For these reasons, secondary mortuary rituals differ from primary burial of individuals as these ceremonies often crosscut kin and household lines, thereby emphasizing the community over the individual.
Other Symbolic Realms (Masks, Statues, Figures) In contrast to earlier periods, members of MPPNB communities employed a wide range of masks, statues, and gurines in their daily and ritual lives (Fig. 10). One of the important results from the excavations at Ain Ghazal and Jericho is the discovery of a number of large MPPNB anthropomorphic statues. These plaster gurines, often about half of life size, were of painted human gures or busts of the upper torso. The statues have clearly formed legs and arms and were often painted to draw attention to the face. They were probably constructed in multiple steps and would have required a considerable investment of time and energy over several days, if not weeks, for their manufacture. Although the limited scale of horizontal excavations at Ain Ghazal limits our understanding of whether the pits in which the statues were cached were associated with architecture, Rollefson (1986) argues that
397
Fig. 10. Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period ritual and cultic objects: (a and b) human busts, Ain Ghazal; (c) plaster human skull, Kfar HaHoresh; (d) human mask, Jericho; (e) human gurine statue cache, Ain Ghazal.
the statue caches were from extramural locations. Anthropomorphic statues have also been recovered from the MPPNB Jericho and Nahal Hemar Cave (Goren et al., 1993). Although poorly preserved, four caches of anthropomorphic statues made of plaster were also recovered in Garstangs
398
excavations at Jericho; of these caches, two contained three statues, and the remaining each contained a single statue. As at Ain Ghazal, all of the caches from Jericho appear to be from pit contexts. A second important, although very rare, material representation of the MPPNB ritual world is seen in the carving of limestone masks. Designed as life-size masks that covered the face, with carved eye and mouth holes as well as drilled holes for attachment to the face or for attaching materials/features, these masks have only been recovered from settlements anking the southern Rift Valley. The construction and use of small clay animal gurines also appears to have been important in some communities. Many researchers have commented on the association of MPPNB small clay animal gurines with residential architecture and their possible connection to household cultic practices. The clay gurines, most of which appear to be cattle (but occasionally also goats or equids), have frequently been thematically linked to the possible existence of a widespread cattle cult throughout the PPNB period (Cauvin, 1994, 2000; Kenyon, 1957; Kirkbride, 1968; Rollefson, 1986). To date, at least 56 cattle gurines have been identied from the early excavation seasons at Ain Ghazal (Rollefson et al., 1992). While some of these gurines may have served as toys or art objects, Rollefson (1986) also notes that many of these clay animal gurines appear to have been ritually killed by stabbing them with pieces of int while they were still pliable. It is interesting to note that all three types of MPPNB material objects appear to be geographically restricted to select, and perhaps overlapping, areas of the southern Levant. For example, clay animal gurines have yet to be recovered from settlements west of the Jordan Valley. Although it is possible that this distribution is related to sampling, it is surprising that excavations at least ve MPPNB and LPPNB settlements in this area have not recovered clay anthropomorphic gurines. Similarly, the rare stone masks have only been recoveredunfortunately most from secondary or unidentied contextsfrom areas around Jerusalem and the eastern side of the Jordan Valley. The large anthropomorphic statuary is even more restricted, known only at Jericho and Ain Ghazal. While recovered from slightly different geographical areas, these items appear to have been distributed mainly around the Jordan Valley.
Integration With Architecture One of the more important recent advancements in our understanding of the MPPNB is seen in the exploration of the possible interrelationships between architectural and ritual practices. A number of recent studies (Byrd, 1994; Goring-Morris, 2000; Rollefson, 1997, 2000; Verhoeven, 2002) have
399
explored the nature of social arrangements as seen in the built environment and spatial distribution of material culture within settlements. While still preliminary, these studies have noted that select areas of MPPNB settlements appear to have been employed in a non-residential and presumably communal capacity. This ranges from the construction of unique buildings away from residential areas, such as at Beidha, to the construction of unique buildings inside what are taken to be residential areas, such as at Beidha, Ain Ghazal, and Jericho, to potentially even the construction of entire settlements for funerary purposes, as at Kfar HaHoresh. With the exception of the research at Beidha, there are few detailed analyses of the intrasite distribution of cultural materials at MPPNB settlements. Instead, most archaeologists have focused on the construction of features found inside buildings, such as re hearths and orthostats, or on differences in the construction of individual buildings. While in their infancy, these studies illustrate that at many MPPNB-sites-specic buildings were constructed and used in very different ways from other buildings. Presumably, such uses would have included intraand interhouse communal events such as funerals and coming-of-age rituals.
Economy Subsistence (Flora and Fauna) When considering the nature of paleobotanical and faunal remains from MPPNB sites, one must recognize that while a wide range of domesticated plant crops were utilized, the degree to which they served as a major food source varies on a regional level. Paleobotantical remains from Ain Ghazal indicate that MPPNB villagers incorporated a wide range of plants into their diet, including wheat, barley, peas, lentils, and chickpeas, along with other resources, such as gs, almonds, and pistachios (Rollefson et al., 1992). The degree to which this is representative of plant use at other communities, especially those in different environmental locations, is subject to debate and in need of further study. This is especially clear when considering the relative absence of wheat from Yiftahel, a site in an upland location in the western Mediterranean area with an apparent high reliance on peas and lentils. Similarly, ax was found at Nahal Hemar, but it is not clear how important this resource was at other sites. Although the transition from earlier periods to MPPNB of the southern Levant is often conceived of by researchers as representing a shift from the exploitation of gazelles to caprines (sheep and goat), this generalization fails to recognize that variation exists between communities in different areas of the southern Levant (Horwitz et al., 1999). For example, analysis
400
of MPPNB Ain Ghazal fauna illustrates a clear diminution in the size of caprines, presumably linked to their domestication for meat as well as secondary products (Bar-Yosef and Meadow, 1995). In other contexts, however, such as at Kfar Hahorish and Yiftahel, there is no evidence for domesticated goat, and sheep. At the moment, therefore, while there is evidence for domesticated caprines at some MPPNB settlements, at other contemporaneous settlements signicant quantities of meat were provided by the hunting of gazelle, ibex, wild goat, and sheep. Collectively, this suggests that while the domestication of caprines was an important economic event in the MPPNB, in some areas of the southern Levant, such as the western Mediterranean region, this transition was gradual and by no means total.
Lithic Technology Over the last 30 years, considerable eld and laboratory research has explored the nature of PPNB lithic technology (Abbes, ` 1994; Bar-Yosef, 1980; Crowfoot-Payne, 1983; Gopher, 1994; Nishiaki, 2000; Quintero and Wilke, 1995). These studies have outlined that MPPNB assemblages are characterized by long, inversely retouched sickle blades, a high frequency of Jericho and Byblos points and variants, a limited number of Amuq points, and the use of oval axes (Bar-Yosef, 1980) (Figs. 11 and 12). One of the most important technological developments appearing around 10,500 B.P. in the southern Levant is that of the use of naviform blade cores. The important technological advantage of naviorm blade cores is that they allow for better control over blade morphology, thus permitting the consistent production of long, straight, parallel-sided blades. Such blades were employed to make sickle blades, arrowheads, borers, and perforators. Having observed these general patterns, we should note that a comparison of recovered lithic materials from a range of MPPNB sites indicates that there was considerable regional/local variation in the number and percentages of some tool types as well as the degree to which lithic technological systems focused on ad-hoc vs. specialized core systems, such as naviform cores. Traditionally, specialized core systems and the tools produced from them have received a disproportionate degree of attention from researchers, often overlooking the considerable importance of ad-hoc tool systems. It is also clear, moreover, that the relative importance of tool types differs considerably depending upon the geographical location of the settlement. One aspect of this is seen in the reduction of sickle blades and the increase in percentages of projectile points and burins in lithic assemblages in desertic areas (Garrard et al., 1994). While these observations have yet to be articulated in any detailed fashion, preliminary impressions suggest that unrecognized
Fig. 11. Chipped stone tools from the Early, Middle, and Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B periods of the southern Levant: (a) Jericho projectile point; (b) Byblos projectile point; (c) Amuq projectile point; (d) Jericho projectile point; (e) Helwan projectile point; (fh) burin; (i and j) sickle blades; (k and l) generalized bipolar core.
402
Fig. 12. Ground and polish stone tools from the Early, Middle, and Late PrePottery Neolithic B periods of the southern Levant: (a and b) grinding stone; (c and d) pestle; (e and f) hand stones; (g and h) ground and polished stone axes.
levels of inter- and intra-assemblage variability exists, possibly depending upon access to raw materials, the location of individual settlements, and the nature and spatial location of economic activities within communities. The MPPNB groundstone assemblages display an emphasis on grinding equipment, exemplied by various saddle and trough querns, grinding
403
slabs, bowls, and platters of limestone, chalk, sandstone, basalt, and metamorphic rocks; these items sometimes showing a clear correlation between morphology and raw material. Handstones are often oval and found on a variety of raw materials. Mortars are rare, although combination of pounding/ grinding handstones are often quite common. Polished and grooved stones are also found, as well as whetstones and palettes. Stones with multiple incised parallel or crossed lines, probably of symbolic signicance, are sometimes found. Other Technology The production of lime plaster represents a further example of technological development in MPPNB. As noted earlier, almost all forms of MPPNB architecture contain plaster oors. These oors appear to have been replastered on a regular basis, with the total thickness of plaster reaching 15 cm. Field research at Yiftahel and Kfar HaHorish has identied areas in which limestone was heated, reduced to a powered form, and then later mixed with water to be applied to oors and, potentially, to interior and exterior walls of structures. At Yiftahel, limestone production is indicated by the excavation of a large number of exterior re hearths, some of which still contained limestone cobbles. In light of the number of plaster oors, continual replastering episodes, and reections on the signicant quantities of rewood required for fabrication, lime plaster production must have involved a considerable amount of labor and resources. Rollefson and Kohler-Rollefson (1989), for example, argue that the demand for wood used in lime plaster production may have led to local deforestation around large settlements. Trade and Exchange Both long-distance trade and local production of aked stone and bone beads occurred in the MPPNB. Studies of lithic technology hint at the emergence of some form of limited craft specialization focused on naviform core reduction, although this appears to have been restricted to regional rather than interregional areas (Quintero and Wilke, 1995). Such craft specialization might have occurred as a production activity performed on a part-time basis by a few members who supplied blades for all of their immediate community. Beyond the need for specic skills in the production of blades from naviform cores, Quintero and Wilke (1995, p. 28) note the presence of excavated workshop areas and debris dumps at Ain Ghazal. One of the other important sources of information about trade and exchange comes from shell-bead production (Bar-Yosef Mayer, 1997). In areas
404
of the Sinai, shell beads may have been exchanged for cereals from agricultural communities within the Mediterranean zone. As would be expected, shell-bead production in southern areas focused on Red Sea mollusks. In contrast, communities in more northern areas of the southern Levant used Mediterranean mollusks, and the MPPNB and LPPNB communities of Ain Ghazal, Beidha, and Basta used Mediterranean as well as Red Sea species. Collectively, this distribution illustrates the long-distance movement of shell materials. As noted by Bar-Yosef Mayer (1997), one possibility is that these objects were exchanged for subsistence resources.
LATE PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC B PERIOD Up to the mid-1980s, researchers understanding of the LPPNB was based almost entirely on excavations at the settlements of Ramad, Abu Gosh, Beisamoun, and a number of other smaller settlements (see BarYosef, 1981). With the identication and excavation of other LPPNB settlements since 1983 including Ain Ghazal, El-Hemmeh, Khirbet Hammam, Wadi Shuieb, Es-Siya, Nahal Issaron, Tell Rakan, BaJa, Ain el-Jammam, and Basta (Banning, 2001; Bisheh et al., 1993; de Contenson, 1971; Gebel and Bienert, 1997; Gebel and Hermansen, 2000; Mahasneh, 1997, 2001; Mahasneh and Bienert, 2000; Nissen et al., 1988, 1992; Peterson, 2000; Rollefson, 1997, 1999; Rollefson et al., 1992; Simmons et al., 1989, 2001), researchers have developed a profoundly different perspective of the terminal PPNB (Fig. 13). Most notably, researchers have now clearly demonstrated that the transition from the MPPNB to LPPNB included dramatic shifts in economic practices, settlement systems, and village life between ca. 9250 and ca. 8700 B.P.
Settlement Patterns Mediterranean Zone Over the last 10 years, it has become clear that one of the most important changes with the initiation of the LPPNB was a shift in large agricultural villages from all areas of the Mediterranean zone, often centered on the Jordan Valley, to Mediterranean/desertic ecotone areas along the eastern side of the Jordan Valley. Only a few LPPNB settlements are known west of the Jordan Valley, such as Abu Gosh and Beisamoun, and almost all MPPNB settlements in this area are abandoned by the start of the LPPNB. In contrast, in areas east of the Jordan Valley, there are several settlements where
405
Fig. 13. Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period site distribution in the southern Levant. Note the shift of large villages to the eastern side of the Jordan Valley and expansion into eastern desert marginal zones.
406
there is occupational continuity between MPPNB and LPPNB, including the large 10 ha sites of Ain Ghazal and Wadi Shuieb. Just as importantly, in the eastern areas we see the appearance of many new LPPNB settlements, many of which are considerably larger than any previously existing. For example, large LPPNB occupations east of the Jordan Valley include Es-Siya, Ain el-Jammam, Ramad, Basta, El-Hemmeh, and Khirbet Hammam. Many of these are at least 10 ha in area (between two and three times larger than any known MPPNB settlement) and were founded in locations with no evidence for previous occupation. It is possible that the perceived absence of LPPNB settlements in western areas is a by-product of site visibility in general, and the formation of later period tells on top of LPPNB sites. If correct, this apparently illustrates an important shift in the location of major settlements in the LPPNB to the eastern areas Mediterranean zone of the southern Levant, with the continued appearance of smaller settlements in all areas.
Desertic Zone Simultaneous with the shift to eastern areas of the Mediterranean zone, we nd considerable archaeological evidence for new or expanded human occupations of desertic areas in the southern Levant. As outlined by several researchers (Byrd, 1992; Garrard et al., 1994), there is a signicant increase in the number of settlements in the areas of Azarq and further east in the LPPNB. These occupations are quite small, usually no more than 46 small oval stone structures, but occur in greater frequency than earlier periods of the PPNB. As with earlier occupations, it is not entirely clear if these LPPNB settlements are the remains of short-term seasonal occupations or of some longer period of use. While debate exists as to why such settlements were established and maintained (resource stress in the Mediterranean zone and new developments in herding being two important possibilities), it is clear that the LPPNB witnesses an expansion of adaptations into desertic areas at an unprecedented scale.
Site Structure Settlement Organization Recently, several LPPNB settlements have been excavated in relatively broad horizontal areas, and as a result archaeologists are quickly developing an understanding of the nature of settlement organization at different sites
407
in the southern Levant and in northern areas (for important works, readers ogan ogan, are directed to Akkermans and Verhoeven, 1995; Ozd and Ozd 1998; Verhoeven, 1999). At Beisamoun, Abu Gosh and Ramad, for example, buildings are freestanding with the spacing of structures creating alleyways and distinct areas between buildings. In contrast, at the LPPNB settlements east of the Jordan River, such as Basta, Ain Ghazal, Es-Siya, Ain el-Jammam, El-Hemmeh, and Khirbet Hammam, buildings are usually built next to other structures, resulting in areas with remarkably high architectural density (Kuijt, 2000a). It is not clear if this reects a greater density of human occupation or is actually a by-product of more elaborate architecture. However one views this, it is important to note the remarkably high-density building systems compared to earlier periods, and also to recognize that this is not achieved again in this region until some 3000 years later in the Early Bronze Age.
Residential Architecture As with the MPPNB, residential architecture in LPPNB settlements is usually characterized by rectangular or subrectangular buildings with plastered oors and walls (Figs. 14 and 15). In regions of the southern Levant where large stone material was not readily available, buildings were constructed of unred mud brick. At settlements where angular or at stones were available, residential structures were quite elaborate, and in several cases included the development of true second-story architecture. At Basta, BaJa, and Es-Siya, for example, excavations have uncovered evidence of two-story buildings with prepared stairways and stone platforms to support roof beams. In some cases, external walls preserved to a height of 23 m illustrate a system of stone working not unlike that seen in the American Southwest during the Pueblo periods. There are two other important aspects to LPPNB residential architecture: the existence of freestanding or abutting architecture at different sites and the appearance of room systems that probably served as dedicated storage areas. In many settlements where there was no readily available at or rectangular stone (such as Beisamoun, Abu Gosh, and Ramad), freestanding buildings were often constructed. In larger settlements, buildings were often constructed against each other, using existing walls as a form of structural support. Beyond producing the conditions for second-story residential architecture, these practices appear to have created, intentionally or not, ground-oor room blocks composed of adjoining small 1.5- to 2-m rooms. In light of their size and the perceived absence of domestic artifacts, these areas possibly functioned as dedicated storage rooms.
408
Fig. 14. Plan view of Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period residential architecture from (a) BaJa and (b) Es-Sifyia, Jordan. Note the considerable segmentation of space compared to earlier periods and many, if not most, structures are connected to other buildings.
Non-residential Architecture Broad horizontal excavations at several LPPNB settlements have provided important insights on spatial organization within these villages, and by extension, the existence of evidence for non-residential architecture. As
409
Fig. 15. Architectural reconstruction of two-story LPPNB (ca. 8900 B.P.) building at Area B, Basta, Jordan, based on excavated architectural remains. Note storage rooms surrounding rst-oor central room, and the open second-oor area that likely served as the residential area.
one example of this, research at Ain Ghazal illustrates that LPPNB communities organized their space so as to distinguish residential vs. community or communal space (Rollefson, 1998). Excavations at the North Field at Ain Ghazal uncovered two partially preserved round structures situated between rectangular buildings. The more northerly of these two structures was built with four suboor channels, each oriented in a cardinal direction. It is not clear if these channels were designed to improve air circulation or if perhaps there was some ritual signicance in their construction. While the building was void of contents, on the basis of material patterning and the unique nature of the structures, the excavators at Ain Ghazal argue that they served as cult buildings. A second oval structure, similar in construction and size, lay 4 m to the south. Excavation undertaken in the mid-1990s at the East Field of Ain Ghazal uncovered two LPPNB structures, both of which have been identied as LPPNB Temples or Special Buildings. Both buildings are characterized by replaces built with inset stones forming the rims and several upright monoliths at one end of the rooms. While it was originally believed that one of these two rooms dated to PPNC, two radiocarbon samples have dated the PPNC structure to ca. 8700 B.P., and Rollefson now considers
410
these to date to LPPNB (Rollefson, 1998, p. 51). Against the back wall of one of the rooms was a 2-m-long rectangular altar of large stones, in front of which was a large plastered oor hearth surrounded by seven limestone slabs. Centered in the north wall of the same room was a rectangular cubicle made of slabs. With this increased awareness of the non-residential use of some buildings in the LPPNB, debate has centered on the nature of social activities that might have taken place and the terminology used to describe the structures. For example, Rollefson (1998, p. 117) uses the term temple to describe a complex of rooms in the East Field across Wadi Zarqa from the main occupation area at Ain Ghazal, an area that apparently served ritual and cultic purposes. An understanding of the signicance of the buildings must be formulated with the knowledge that excavations at other LPPNB settlements have not revealed buildings similar to the special purpose and Apsidal Buildings found at Ain Ghazal. We agree with Rollefson on the probable cultic or communal function of this area. At the same time, however, we urge caution in the use of terms such as altar and temple as these are linked to levels of formalized ritual and religion that may not be applicable to PPN (see also Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998). We have only a limited understanding of the nature of architectural variability within a single LPPNB community, and it is thus very difcult to argue condently for the use of individual structures, and the links between such architectural features and domestic/residential activities or ritual practices. Ritual and Mortuary Practices Mortuary Practices While archaeologists usually perceive LPPNB mortuary practices as reecting continuity with the preceding MPPNB, eldwork at a number of large LPPNB settlements has illustrated that while there are elements of continuity, dramatic changes also occur. As with the earlier phases of the Neolithic, community members continued to bury the dead individually, placing them in a wide range of locations and positions. Burials continue to be found underneath house oors, in courtyard areas, and as dedicatory caches. Skulls continued to be removed from adult individuals but not as regularly as before ca. 9250 B.P. As seen at Ramad, skull plastering also continues to be practiced. Within the context of this continuity, however, signicant changes are seen with the increased burial of humans with animals, and, for the rst time in PPN the systematic interment of goods with the dead. At Ain Ghazal, Basta, BaJa, and Es-Siya, burials are found with pendants, shell necklaces, palettes, stone beads, and bracelets. These grave goods are never
411
found in large quantities. This pattern, at least as seen from evidence of large agricultural LPPNB villages dating between ca. 9250 and 8700 B.P., stands in clear opposition to the absence of mortuary goods in MPPNB and PPNA settlements. Of note, however, is the fact that burial practices continue to be quite variable, and not all burials are found with grave goods. Other Symbolic Realms (Masks, Statues, Figurines) There are several lines of material evidence for continuity in ritual practices from the MPPNB and LPPNB. Two of these are the continued manufacture of stone skull masks, such as seen at Basta, and the continued removal and plastering of human skulls. Excavations at Ramad, dating between ca. 9250 and ca. 8700 B.P., have produced two plastered human skulls, while excavations at Beisamoun yielded one. Another important shared cultural element is the manufacture and use of small anthropomorphic clay gurines and geometric tokens (Mahasneh and Gebel, 1999; Rollefson et al., 1992). Integration With Architecture Recent attention has focused on the possible relationships between ritual practices and the built environment in LPPNB settlements. Most of this research prioritizes architecture as a means of identifying nonresidential locations. Needless to say, such identications depend upon a clear understanding of architectural variability within a restricted period of a settlement history. In some cases, archaeologists are starting to document the nature of architectural variability within individual settlements. As described earlier, excavations in the North Field of Ain Ghazal have illustrated that the contemporaneous construction of two round structures that are completely different from the normative LPPNB architectural systems. In many cases, limited funding has restricted the excavation of broad horizontal areas. Even when archaeologists are able to document variability, it has proved to be difcult to link specic architectural practices with the occurrence of other types of material culture such as gurines or plastered skulls. Economy Subsistence (Flora and Fauna) Samples from a few LPPNB settlements indicate that a wealth of cereals and pulses continued to be used. It should be noted, however, that archaeologists have only the most limited understanding of the degree to
412
which individual plant species were relied on in different communities and that our understanding is based on only a few sites. In many ways this is a reection of the effects of limited excavation of LPPNB settlements during the 1980s, and the as yet uncompleted oral analyses for the large LPPNB settlements on the eastern slope of the Jordan Valley. One of the most important phenomena in subsistence economy is the continued transition to domesticated animal species within settlements located in the Mediterranean zone of the southern Levant (Horwitz et al., 1999). At Ain Ghazal, for example, by the end of the LPPNB domesticated species including goat, pig, cattle, and possibly sheep provided more than 80% of meat protein (Kohler-Rollefson et al., 1988). In desertic areas, domesticated animals are also well represented, although in some settlements wild species continue to be a major economic focus. As pointed out by BarYosef and Meadow (1995), several regional studies have noted evidence for the domestication of pig and cattle at some point between 9250 and 8700 B.P., although the limited published data from the southern Levant limits our understanding of the degree to which these and other domesticated species were important in sites located in different ecological areas. Lithic Technology For the most part, lithic technology of LPPNB is quite similar to that of MPPNB, with a continued emphasis on opposed-platform core systems as well as more informal blade-and-ake core systems. While not systematically studied, the importance of naviform core systems may have decreased in some cases. Byblos and Amuq projectile points dominate assemblages, characterized by an increased use of at retouch. Sickle blades continue to be an important tool at most settlements in the Mediterranean zone. Ground-stone industries also show considerable continuity, with wide use of limestone-grinding stones. Recent excavations at Basta, Ain Ghazal, Baja, and Es-Siya have highlighted the importance of sandstone and limestone bracelets. These were produced by a combination of direct percussion and grinding of sandstone, most of which appears to have been acquired in southern areas. Presumably these were worn as a form of decoration. It is not clear if these items were produced and used locally or if they were also exchanged and traded to neighboring communities. Other Technology Limestone plastering continues to be an important technology, although there is a clear reduction (compared to MPPNB) in the frequency in which
413
oors were plastered. Unlike the MPPNB, many oors were not covered in lime plaster, and when they were plastered, reooring events appear to be less frequent. Two possible reasons for this are that community needs for wood may have reduced local resources, together with regional paleoclimatic changes which resulted in the restriction of forest habitats (see Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998; Rollefson and Kohler-Rollefson, 1989).
Trade and Exchange Very little is known about the nature of economic interactions within and between settlements in LPPNB. Part of this is due to the recent nature of excavations at many LPPNB settlements, for which nal reports are still many years away. There are some indications that communities were relatively self-sufcient and did not engage in many forms of long-distance trade and exchange. Shells still appear to have been produced and exchanged from the Red Sea and Mediterranean to inland settlements. In contrast, obsidian does not appear as frequently as in PPNA and MPPNB. This may be related to changes in interregional exchange systems, or perhaps increased economic, ritual, and political independence within communities.
PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC C/FINAL PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC B PERIOD Until 25 years ago, researchers thought there was a gap of almost a millennium between the end of PPNB and the appearance of the subsequent Pottery Neolithic of the southern Levant (Kenyon, 1957; Moore, 1985; Perrot, 1968). Recent research at numerous projects such as Ain Ghazal and the processing of many new radiocarbon dates, however, have shown that there is no occupational gap between the two periods. Recognizing important elements of cultural continuity between the Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic and important differences in mortuary practices, lithic technology, and architecture, Rollefson has identied this transitional PPN phase as the PPNC. While recognizing that there are important differences between the LPPNB and this period, other researchers have suggested that the elements of cultural continuity are more important, and that this transitional period should be referred to as the Final Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. Debate continues as to the relative merits of these approaches, the extent to which this period/phase is manifested in all areas of the southern Levant, and which archaeological sites exemplify the material remains of this phase.
414
Settlement Patterns Mediterranean Zone While there certainly appear to be signs of overall population contraction following the LPPNB, there is also evidence for direct occupational continuity from the LPPNB at Ain Ghazal and Wadi Shueib, and perhaps also at Basta, Es-Siya, Yiftahel, Tell Eli, Ramad, and Beisamoun. There are also apparently newly founded sites such as Hagoshrim in the Huleh Valley. Perhaps most striking, however, are village settlements which were founded along the littoral at Atlit Yam in the Carmel area and Ashkelon much farther to the south. It is also possible that earlier PPN settlements are submerged, especially given that rising PPNC sea levels were still initially 1820 m lower than present.
Desertic Zone There is also some evidence for continued occupation in adjacent desert regions. In eastern Jordan, a series of small settlements is documented on the western side of the Azraq Basin at Jilat as well as in the Black Desert at Burqu 35 (Garrard et al., 1994) that may be contemporary with PPNC occupations in the Mediterranean zone. These are particularly important regarding the possible introduction of domesticated animals and the origins of pastoralism at the desert fringe. Additional evidence from sites in the Negev and Sinai (such as Nahal Issaron and perhaps part of Wadi Jibba II) illustrates continued occupation. As with the Mediterranean zone, however, there appears to be a decrease in overall population density. Here it seems that foraging continued to form the basis of the economy.
Site Structure Settlement Organization Because of the limited horizontal area excavated at any site with a PPNC occupation, it is almost impossible to say anything substantial about site structure for this period. It is argued that Ain Ghazal reaches its maximum size (10 ha) during the PPNC, but little is known of internal spatial organization, or if structures were occupied contemporaneously. If there was an increasing reliance on domestic herd animals from the MPPNB through the PPNC, then the space requirements for residential units would have likely
415
increased, and would be evidenced by the addition of courtyards, animal pens, and corrals, thus providing a misleading indication of total community size. Certainly the continued use of some of these sites for a millennium was beginning to take its toll, and the overall impression (at Ain Ghazal at least) is one of decline. In spite of this decline, which is most visible in the reduction of energy invested in the construction, maintenance and use of domestic architecture, there are also signs of more massive construction efforts of large walls.
Residential Architecture The majority of our understanding of PPNC residential architecture is based on Ain Ghazal. In several cases, there appears to be evidence for the modication and reuse of LPPNB structures at Ain Ghazal, especially in the South Field. Rollefson describes two types of house plans in PPNC Ain Ghazal: one with small rectangular structures 3 4 m2 for farming families, the other as storage bunkers. It should be noted, however, that the sample is very small and this organization might not necessarily be seen at other contemporaneous sites. Semi-subterranean pier (House C2) and cell (House C1) houses in the South Field probably served as combination of basement workshop/storage-rooms (Rollefson, 1998). Rollefson claims there is no evidence for upper stories despite the conguration and the presence of buttresses. Use of plaster for ooring decreases markedly in both quantity and quality, and, when present, these oors were manufactured primarily from crushed marl, as opposed to lime plaster. There is a 14-m-long, low, massive wall in the Central Field at Ain Ghazal, probably representing the separation of different courtyard areas (Rollefson et al., 1992, p. 450). Parallel but some 22-m north of the massive wall is a walled street, 2.5-m wide and uncovered over a distance of 9 m, into which are set two entrances on the north side, presumably leading courtyard areas. Long massive walls are also present at Atlit Yam. The original excavations at Ashkelon indicated that domestic architecture was based on semi-subterranean pit dwellings. Recent excavations, however, indicate that the pits were refuse dumps and other installations. Also being located on a sandy ridge, surface architecture may have been constructed of locally available kurkar and mud brick, resulting in subsequent weathering and extremely poor preservation on the surface (Garnkel, personal communication, 2001). Although located adjacent to the sea, the site of Atlit Yam was also located close to the Carmel, hence easy access to limestone for building foundations.
416
Non-residential Architecture The identication of non-residential architecture in this phase is very difcult and complicated. A complex of rooms in the East Field across Wadi Zarqa from the main occupation area at Ain Ghazal that apparently served ritual and cultic purposes, originally considered to be PPNC, is now thought to be LPPNB (Rollefson, 1998, p. 117). Of considerable interest is the construction of several wells at Atlit Yam, one of which is 7-m deep, indicating a complex understanding of hydrological principles and sophistication in construction methods. This is shown through the use of sandstone blocks and wood as well as complex quarrying techniques in the construction of this feature (Galili et al., 1993).
Ritual and Mortuary Practices Mortuary Practices Although the designation of PPNC was originally based at least partially on changes in mortuary practices, the growing awareness of the overall variability in PPNB burial systems, as well as limited documentation of burial systems in PPNC, confuses our understanding of mortuary practices for this period. Although there are relatively few obvious burials reported from PPNC Ain Ghazal, isolated human bones are actually quite commonplace. This may reect PPNC secondary burials, a general departure from earlier LPPNB mortuary practices at the site, as Rollefson (1998, p. 117) recently pointed out, or perhaps disturbed earlier L/MPPNB burials. Thus, South Field corridor building complexes appear to contain concentrations of human bone, often lacking smaller hand and foot bones, and with little meaningful contexts. Within primary burials, multiple interments of 23 individuals in the same pit are found, in addition to single burial contexts. At Ain Ghazal, primary burials often included infants placed in courtyard or open areas. Skull removal is still practiced but occurs less frequently. When burials are found inside structures, they are all secondary to varying degreesin House C2 a skull and mandible were found on the oor; two of the secondary burials were associated with pig bones or tusk. At Atlit Yam, numerous primary burials have been documented, but this may reect unique aspects of underwater taphonomy. As Rollefson (1998) notes, burial systems appear to have changed at the end of the PPNB. A lingering question centers on how these changes should be viewedas a matter of degree or of considerable magnitude.
417
Other Symbolic Realms (Masks, Statues, Figurines) There are few human or animal gurines (usually of clay, if any) in PPNC. There are a few examples of anthropomorphic gurines, including an elegant red-painted stylized limestone gurine of a pregnant woman from Ain Ghazal. It is also possible that stone bracelets, mother of pearl pendants, and the use of Dabba marble continue into PPNC.
Economy Subsistence (Flora and Fauna) As with other aspects of culture conventions for this period, subsistence practices appear to have changed signicantly with the onset of the PPNC. There is, for example, a clear decrease in the range of hunted species at Ain Ghazal and an increased reliance on a limited number of domesticated plants and animals. Domesticated caprines at PPNC Ain Ghazal compose about 70% of the recovered faunal assemblage, as compared to 50% in the MPPNB. Moreover, sheep (85%) far outnumber goat (15%) (Wasse, 1997). Bar-Yosef and Meadow (1995) also argue that by the PPNC there is evidence for the domestication of the pig, forming nearly 11% of the assemblage at Ain Ghazal. There are also large quantities of cattle recovered from Atlit Yam, although these remains have not yet been shown to be domesticates. In addition, all of these species, but especially pig and cattle, were used in both subsistence and ritual contexts. Many of the hunted animals at Ain Ghazal reect a steppic orientation (gazelle), including an increased reliance on onager, rather than purely Mediterranean forest and marquis.
Lithic Technology Rollefson (1993; Rollefson and Kohler-Rollefson, 1993) has suggested that changes in lithic technology and aked stone tool typologies are particularly useful in dening the PPNC. There are also apparent differences in the use of specic raw materials at Ain Ghazal, with a signicant reduction in the use of pink int. There is also a reduced emphasis upon the naviform core technology, perhaps resulting from the use of proportionately far fewer sickle blades in the PPNC than in the M/LPPNB. Earlier MPPNB patterns in Mediterranean zone indicate that naviform blades were primarily used as blanks for sickles and later recycled into projectile points and dihedral
418
burins. Rollefson suggests that this decreased emphasis might be linked to the harvesting of reeds rather than cereals. No archaeological evidence exists for discrete work areas during the PPNC, although this may reect the limited excavation areas at most PPN settlements. Smaller, lighter projectile points are recovered from PPNC and, interestingly, in similar proportions to those recovered in M/LPPNB.
PPN OF THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS As with any synthesis of prehistoric research, this overview of the southern Levantine PPN periods has two critical goals: understanding how social and behavioral practices changed through time and placing these in a comparative context in which the cultural interconnections and developments in a single period can be understood. Elements of cultural continuity are critical to understanding the subtle connections between periods. While recognizing such continuity, however, it is also important to reect upon some of the critical social changes of the PPN from an evolutionary perspective. In the remaining section, we want to address some of these broader themes and to attempt to place the PPN within broader archaeological and anthropological debates, including the emergence of social inequality, changes in population levels, possible developments in craft specialization, and the nature of regional and interregional connections in the Near East.
Pre-Pottery Neolithic Cult and Ritual Systems While considerable research has explored Neolithic cult and ritual practices, the majority of these studies have focused on either descriptions of possible material evidence for rituals or reections on the ways in which cultic and ritual practices may reect beliefs in the afterlife, ancestry worship, and/or alternative worlds. These studies, as well as several others that explore the possible relations among ideology, ritual practices, and architectural systems, illustrate that there is considerable regional continuity in cultural practices (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1989; Cauvin, 2000; Kuijt, 2000c). While recognizing that select practices crosscut different cultural historical phasesfor example, skull removalresearchers should note that many cultic and ritual practices are apparently more pronounced in MPPNB than in other periods. This orescence is illustrated through a consideration of the spatial and temporal correlates of select ritual and cultic practices. As
419
noted earlier, skull removal is seen as early as the Early Natuan and widely practiced throughout the PPNA. With the onset of the MPPNB, however, we see an expansion of these practices with skull plastering, painting, and modication in a wide range of communities. There is also evidence for several different forms of cranial deformation. Beyond these highly visual forms of ritual, there is clear evidence from Ain Ghazal and Jericho for the development and use of large statues and busts for community rituals. The largest of these statues had relatively detailed painted faces, with little artistic concern paid to other areas of the body, and would have been displayed by placement in upright positions in public locations. The importance of ritual and cultic practices in MPPNB is also seen in the widespread appearance of special purpose/communal architecture. Although there are examples dating as early as the PPNA, the frequency of special purpose buildings increases starting in the MPPNB and continuing into the LPPNB. These structures often appear to have been situated in highly visible locations. For example, the MPPNB cultic buildings at Beidha were placed in a distinct location that was physically separated from residential areas. While in need of further research, this period also gives evidence for sites that probably functioned as places in which cultic practices were focused (such at Nehal Hemar). The diversity of post mortem treatment afforded individuals, ranging from simple interment with skull removal, daubing of the skull with pigment, application of caps and plaster modeling, to intentional secondary burials, clearly indicates some sort of differential status within communities. Internal homogeneity (vis-a-vis ` plastered skulls) within sites certainly appears to indicate local community-level traditions. As argued elsewhere (Goring-Morris, 2000; Kuijt, 1996b, 2000b, 2001b), the lack of obvious material differentiation among individual burials in MPPNB may be linked to the intentional homogenization of community members at times of death, and, by extension, the existence of social and ritual mechanisms designed to minimize real and perceived differences within and between households and communities.
Various Repetitive Ideological, Cosmological, and Iconographic Themes As a result of a newfound interest in ritual and cultic practices in the PPN periods, over the last 10 years researchers have moved beyond site-level patterning and begun an attempt to understand aspects of shared cultural practices and beliefs through a consideration of the repetitive nature of ideological, cosmological, and iconographic themes. Among these shared practices, especially in MPPNB, is the use of plaster statues, busts, and stone masks. In combination with the widespread, but by no means ubiquitous,
420
practice of skull removal is the use of plaster in ritual and architectural practices. Many skull caches, including those with votive offerings, are in sets of twos and threes. This is often seen in the number of skulls cached and/or in the number of objects placed with the skulls. There is archaeological evidence to suggest that these beliefs were also expressed in architectural systems. In several cases, such as Beidha, Ain Ghazal, and Kfar HaHoresh, the presence of monoliths, orthostats, and stelae of various sizes (25100 cm in height) is observed in groups of three. As noted earlier, the antecedents of these practices are often found in the beginnings of PPNA and, indeed, perhaps in the beginnings of sedentism during the Late Epipalaeolithic and Early Natuan (Belfer-Cohen, 1995; Byrd and Monahan, 1995). Some cultic and ritual practices, such as skull removal, were expanded in PPNA and especially in MPPNB. While difcult to quantify, these practices appear to be more frequent, or at least more visible in the MPPNB, with some practices continuing to appear into the early seventh millennium. This longevity of 20003000 years is surely indicative of the intensity and stability of the belief system(s) in operation.
Social Inequality, Conict, and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic The Neolithic of the Near East is best known as the rst period in which domesticated plants and animals emerged, and, as a result, considerable research has explored the possible links between the development of food production and the emergence of social inequality (Hayden, 1995, 2001; Price and Feinman, 1995, and references therein). There are many possible ways to conceptualize how power and authority might have been controlled and/or shared in Neolithic communities. While often unrecognized, many discussions of Neolithic social systems are also situated within the much broader discussion of whether, or how, social relations in agricultural communities are organized along hierarchical and heterarchical lines. In the case of the Neolithic, debates center on whether the pathways of power existed as either a single hierarchical system, or one in which there were numerous coexisting hierarchical power structures. While there is no consensus on the matter, we suspect that most Near Eastern Neolithic archaeologists would agree that there is no convincing evidence for organized central social hierarchy characterized by the existence of hereditary elites, and ethnographically exemplied by chiefdom-level organizations. Many researchers (e.g., Byrd, 1994; Kuijt, 2001b; Rollefson, 2000) note, however, that there is evidence of some limited forms of social differentiation among individuals, households, or communities, especially in the later periods of PPN. While almost no archaeological research has directly addressed the topic, it is likely that
421
social differentiation in the Neolithic was derived from the authority of ritual practitioners, civic leaders, or perhaps community or household elders. Many cross-cultural models for the development of social inequality do not accurately represent archaeological data of the southern Levantine Neolithic, thereby overlooking critical contradictory data (see also Smith [2001] for broader discussion of what he identies as fact free models for the origins of agriculture). For example, Hayden (1995, 2001) argues that food production created an economic context for the usurping and consolidating of authority and power by select individuals. It is important to note, however, that the archaeological record of PPN does not support many of the expectations of this argument. Specically, our current understanding of the southern Levant indicates that (1) there is no clear material evidence for extensive food storage until ca. 9500 B.P. (Kuijt, 2000b); (2) there is no convincing material evidence for profound social differentiation, as would be expressed by widespread differentiation of individuals at death, or shown in life by differential access to residential housing, until 9500 B.P. (GoringMorris, 2000; Kuijt, 1996b, 2001b); (3) with one possible exception, there is no evidence for extensive interpersonal conict in the PPN periods; and (4) consideration of the standardized nature of cultic and ritual practices within and among communities illustrates that social cohesion and collective identity were important aspects of PPN lifeways. Collectively, these patterns stand in direct contradiction to social competition models for the origins of agriculture. As illustrated in the earlier discussions of mortuary and architectural practices for different periods of the PPN, mortuary practices from these periods provide only limited evidence for individuals being abstracted from the community at times of death. Almost without exception, deceased individuals in the early PPN were buried without any form of grave goods or ornamentation. Only in the LPPNB and PPNC are ornamentation or grave goods found with individuals, and then only occasionally. There is some evidence, most noticeably with MPPNB of Kfar HaHoresh, of votive offerings or the burial of humans and animals occurring before and into LPPNB. It is only in the later phases of PPN, however, that there is systematic evidence for the recognition of individuals through the material culture at the time of death or in life. The near-total absence of evidence for interpersonal or intercommunity aggression or violence in PPN both is surprising and appears to contradict models prioritizing human conict as a means of developing social inequality, especially in light of the dramatic regional increase in size and density of communities. We are aware of only a few burials (out of some ca. 300 described) from the entire southern Levantine Neolithic that may reect physical evidence for interpersonal conict. As noted by Kafa and
422
Rollefson (1995), a single individual from the LPPNB levels of Ain Ghazal was found with a int blade embedded in the cranium, although it is not entirely clear if this was intentional or rather the result of post-depositional processes. Similarly, Kenyons early interpretations of the tower of Jericho (Kenyon, 1958) as a defensive structure have been rebuffed by Bar-Yosef (1986). There is, in sum, no convincing architectural or skeletal evidence for extensive interpersonal or intercommunity conict in the south Levantine PPN. Perhaps more important, our existing evidence provides no evidence for the extensive control of one group of Neolithic communities over others through the use of force. Undoubtedly, conict did occur in these communities, but current evidence indicates that it was limited in scale, and does not support arguments for extensive interpersonal conict for control over others. As an alternative to discussions focusing on the emergence social differentiation in PPN, we suggest that researchers would benet more in envisioning social relations and their material manifestations as amalgamations of social practices that serve to highlight elements of coexisting social differentiation and collective identity in communities. Ethnographic and anthropological research illustrates three aspects of social relations in present and past middle-range communities such as those of the Neolithic: (1) social inequality is ubiquitous and found in all societies; (2) egalitarian social systems require highly complex codes of social behavior, codes that are as complex as those seen within systems of hereditary power exist; and (3) hierarchy and egalitarianism are fundamentally interrelated and coexist in many, if not most, social systems. A number of recent ethnographic and archaeological studies have clearly demonstrated that most forms of governance in small-scale agricultural or horticultural communities combine hierarchical and egalitarian dimensions. Recognizing the coexistence of egalitarian and hierarchical relations diverts researchers from placing cultural labels on societies and simultaneously facilitates the development of realistic and comprehensive models of cultural dynamics, including the possible pathways to power and authority in Neolithic communities. It is also important to recognize that Neolithic social relations may have focused on an organized series of interrelated, coexisting hierarchical units, rather than a hierarchically organized system of individual leadership. From some perspectives, archaeological evidence from the Near Eastern Neolithic reects several forms of hierarchical ritual and civic administration. For example, some dimensions of ritual practice found expression on the community level and would have undoubtedly involved ritual practitioners who controlled the timing, nature, and context of some, but not necessarily all, community rituals (Cauvin, 2000; Goring-Morris, 2000; Kuijt, 1996b; Mellaart, 1975; Rollefson, 1986; Verhoeven, 2002; Voigt, 1983). Researchers
423
have also reected on the importance of civic leadership for other tasks, such as the construction and maintenance of community buildings (Byrd, 1994; ogan ogan, Kafa and Rollefson, 1995; Ozd and Ozd 1989; Schmidt, 1995). In light of the number of people living in some of these Neolithic communities, some form of civic, community-oriented leadership might have been necessary for organizing the planting and harvesting of crops. On the basis of spatial patterning of lithic debitage from Ain Ghazal, Quintero and Wilke (1995) note that there is evidence for stone tool workshops in MPPN, and that a high degree of standardization may well reect some from of craft specialization. Given the absence of differentiation in residential architecture and mortuary practices, we believe that envisioning Neolithic communities as social realms in which there was a balance of economic centralization and autonomy with coexisting dimensions of egalitarianism and hierarchy is helpful in reconstructing past social relations. Moreover, in understanding the shifting nature of these relationships through time, we can conceive of Neolithic community relations as focused on a series of interrelated coexisting social units which might have included, but were not limited to, kin groups, the household, ritual sodalities, and the community. Population Aggregation and Regional Growth The PPN of the southern Levant is characterized by remarkable increases in the size of communities as well as changes in their economic and subsistence orientations. Consideration of the overall trajectory of the PPNA through FPPNB outlines two interrelated processes: regional population growth and the dynamic aggregation and dispersal of communities at different periods of the Neolithic. Field research is only now providing a general understanding of site-level demographic change within specic geographical areas and periods of time (see Hershkovitz and Gopher, 1990; Kuijt, 2000b; Smith et al., 1984, for general considerations of Neolithic demography). The development of accurate estimates of Neolithic population growth is highly complex and complicated by issues of changing archaeological visibility of settlements through different periods (such as PPNA with mud architecture and PPNB with stone architecture and painted plaster oors), as well as variations in the location, architectural remains, and size of settlements within individual culturalhistorical periods in different environmental regions (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1991; Kuijt, 2000a). In recent considerations of the change of settlement size and demography for the Levantine PPN, several researchers (Bar-Yosef and Meadow, 1995; Hershkovitz and Gopher, 1990; Kuijt, 2000a) explore changes in the largest identied settlements through the PPN periods. They outline a
424
pattern of considerable expansion in communities from the period of ca. 11,700 to ca. 8700 B.P. For example, while the ve largest known Late Natuan settlements are each approximately 2000 m2 , this gure increased dramatically in the PPNA with some settlements over 10,000 m2 . The largest known MPPNB settlements range in area from 45,000 to 50,000 m2 , and, after 9500 B.P., LPPNB settlements such as Basta and Ain Ghazal, cover nearly 140,000 m2 . The distribution of PPN sites by size illustrates a trajectory of a steady increase in the size of largest settlements through time. It is interesting to note, however, that at the end of the PPN, settlements are abandoned either entirely with new, smaller, hamlets established, or in cases such as with Ain Ghazal, communities became smaller. While the overall size of PPN settlements seemingly increased through time (and by extension the number of people who lived there), it is unclear if this reects regional population growth or a high degree of population aggregation. Probably this represents a conation of two interrelated processes: (1) gradual and steady regional population growth through the Neolithic, and (2) population aggregation in large and important settlements, like Basta and Ain Ghazal, for ritual, political, and economic reasons (Rollefson, 1987). On the basis of gures for the total settlement area from ca. 12,500 to ca. 8700 B.P., one could argue that population levels increased gradually, up to and including PPNA. While difcult to demonstrate, it appears that in the LPPNB, and perhaps more specically from ca. 9500 to ca. 8700 B.P., the population of human communities increased at a much greater rate during and immediately after the widespread introduction of domesticated plants and animals in the southern Levant. An interesting speculation is that regional population growth and settlement-level aggregation might have been centered on specic geographical areas of the southern Levant. For example, in contrast to the end of the Natuan, there is clear evidence for the centralization of PPNA communities within or around the Jordan Valley (Fig. 1). Ranging up to 1.5 ha, these relatively large, early villages were situated on alluvial fans. Although smaller (and in some cases, seasonal) PPNA settlements occurred in areas adjacent to the Jordan Valley, the largest communities were founded in the Rift Valley refugium. The MPPNB is characterized by the appearance of numerous new settlements centered on the Jordan Valley and adjacent hill areas, with the largest settlements reaching approximately 35 ha. This period is also characterized by the development of small seasonal camps in ecologically marginal areas. Starting about ca. 9500 B.P. in the LPPNB, there is evidence for dramatic demographic change characterized by the founding of new large aggregate villages, most of which were situated along the highlands of the Jordan Valley. These communities, 1014 ha in area, are characterized by extensive architectural ruins and evidence for two-story buildings.
425
Interestingly, there is also clear evidence for the LPPNB expansion of human groups into desertic areas (Betts, 1988; Byrd, 1994; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998) (Fig. 13). At the moment, evidence for PPNC/FPPNB does not permit a clear understanding of regional demographic changes (or, for that matter, the size of sites) for this period, but in general there is some evidence for both an occupational continuity from LPPNB and the founding of new sites along the littoral areas. As such, it is important to note that the PPN reects the regional founding and abandonment of communities in specic regions (see Banning et al., 1994; Gopher and Gophna, 1993, and references therein). Craft Specialization: Evidence, Materials, and Evaluation A number of researchers have directed increased attention to how material culture may or may not reect some form of specialization of labor or craft specialization. Becuase of a limited understanding of the spatial distribution of material culture within individual settlements, let alone between settlements, most arguments for craft or labor specialization have centered on the perceived complexity of lithic technology. While this is an important rst step in understanding how labor was organized, studies have only recently started to explore the central questions: (1) to what degree were labor and production activities specialized in different communities through time; (2) how might these activities be expressed in the archaeological record; and (3) is there evidence for differential control of, or access to, specic resources at different periods of the Neolithic? Disappointingly, archaeologists have yet to develop data sets of sufcient resolution to directly address these critical questions. A contributing factor to this is the paucity of published intra-site data, making it almost impossible to understand whether or how activities such as int knapping, skull plastering, and bead production occurred on or off individual sites. In one of the few explicit attempts to look at issues of labor and specialization in the Levantine Neolithic, Quintero and Wilke (1995) have argued that the spatial distribution of production materials and the technique of naviform core-production at MPPNB Ain Ghazal reect some form of craft specialization. Through debitage analysis and a consideration of the spatial distribution of these materials, they argue that at Ain Ghazal naviform core production occurred in discrete areas and is the result of some form of lithic specialization. Focusing on the LPPNB, research at BaJa and Basta provides two other interesting examples of possible lithic specialization. In both of these communities, there is good evidence for the manufacture of stone bracelets between ca. 9500 and ca. 8700 B.P. (Gebel and Bienert, 1997; Nissen et al., 1988). Excavation indicates that stone bracelets were manufactured
426
from local sandstone and limestone materials. At BaJa, stone bracelets were recovered in various stages of production, clearly reecting on site manufacture (Gebel and Hermansen, 2000, p. 21). It is still unclear, however, if these objects were distributed to neighboring communities, if manufacture was focused on the needs of individual communities, and the extent to which these represent labor specialization. Another possible locus for some form of LPPNB labor specialization is that of control of ritual practices and the materials employed therein. Again, while archaeological research has yet to address this question in a detailed manner, we must consider the degree to which ritual practices might have been controlled by individuals or groups of ritual practitioners. For example, skull plastering possibly was a ritual activity practiced by only certain individuals who fullled dened roles within the community. The extent to which artisans might have fullled other specic roles (shamans?) within the community is, of course, unresolved. Other possible community activities that could be described as being some form of craft specialization might include lime-plaster production, weaving, construction of residential and community buildings, and shell- and stone-bead production. While recognizing this possibility, there is no obvious, unequivocal evidence at present to indicate that such individuals or groups depended primarily upon these skills for their livelihoods. Regional and Inter-regional Connections Debate exists as to the extent to which lithic technology, architectural systems, and ritual activities were shared by PPN communities in different regions of the Near East. Arguments for shared practices are based on observations of specic material manifestations of behavior (e.g., the appearance of specic projectile point types), and the assumption that these manifestations present a greater utility in understanding shared practices than do others (e.g., the appearance of a specic projectile point over other projectile points). Interpretation is complicated by the fact that the distribution of select important economic objects appears to be restricted in their distribution across the Near East, in many cases without overlap. Thus the archaeological interpretation of how different Neolithic communities were economically and socially linked is related to which types and material categories of objects are believed to be more or less important. Southern Levant The distribution and similarities in stone tool technology, residential architecture, and shell- and stone-bead production provide important
427
preliminary insight into connections between communities. As outlined by several researchers (Byrd, 1994; Rollefson, 2000; Rollefson et al., 1992), architecture provides some indication that regional architectural practices changed through time, and can, therefore, be used to understand in a general way the period(s) of occupation for individual settlements. It is important to recognize, however, that only limited consideration has been given to architectural variation for individual periods of time (e.g., MPPNB), as well as to how this variation may or may not reect shared cultural practices across the southern Levant. The MPPNB and LPPNB provide one of the few examples in which archaeologists are starting to understand the nature of regional variation in architectural and mortuary practices. Recent archaeological data for the MPPNB demonstrate that residential architecture at select settlements, such as Ain Ghazal and Jericho, was very similar. At the same time excavations of other MPPNB settlements, such as Yiftahel and Kfar HaHoresh, have revealed architecture distinct from both Ain Ghazal and Jericho. One possible interpretation of the similarities between larger MPPNB settlements centered on the Jordan Valley, and the variations in comparison to neighboring communities, is that the former existed as an economic and social core area. Stone tool technology provides a second important means of reconstructing interconnections between southern Levantine Neolithic communities in the form of shared material practices. In the context of PPNB, for example, projectile point styles illustrate that at least two major stylistic provinces can be recognized. First, the northern areas are characterized by relatively large and heavy classic naviform blanks. Second, southern areas appear to be characterized by lighter, slender blanks from shorter opposedplatform cores. In a similar way, the production of bifacial tools (at least for PPNB) may reect distinct regional stone tool practices. The distribution of malachite, Dabba marble, marine mollusks, and obsidian provides some indication of inter-regional contacts, and, in many cases, the sources of specic materials are relatively well known. At the same time, researchers have yet to directly address how trade materials were distributed across the southern Levant, as well as the degree to which such distribution mechanisms reect shared cultural practices rather than economic connections limited to the trade and exchange of nished products.
Within the Near East Although widely recognized as an important issue by prehistorians, the nature of contact between contemporary Neolithic communities in different areas of the Near East remains an important topic (Bar-Yosef and
428
Belfer-Cohen, 1989; Cauvin, 1994, 2000). While this topic is beyond the scope of this paper, it is necessary to discuss at least briey some of the interregional connections between the southern Levant and neighboring regions. There is no question that prehistorians know more about the links between this area and the northern Levant and Anatolia than any other neighboring area in the southern Levant (see, for example, Aurenche and Kozlowski, 1999; Cauvin, 2000; Kozlowski, 1999). There are obvious and marked connections in both directions between the southern and northern Levant and parts of east-central Anatolia during PPN, with shared material culture traits as well as direct exchange in various commodities. Contacts with the northern Levant (and by extension with east-central Anatolia) probably occurred by way of three main routes: along the narrow coastal plain, up the Rift Valley, and along the edge of the ante-Lebanon mountains. Certain innovations, for example, naviform blade production and typological differences in projectile point morphology seem to have diffused from the north (Gopher, 1989, 1994). While there are differences in architecture, iconographic themes, and mortuary practices, there are nevertheless many areas of similarity in these practices between groups in the southern Levant and those in Turkey and northern Syria. Intraregional considerations of ar ogan chitectural practices (see Akkermans and Verhoeven, 1995; Ozd and ogan, Ozd 1998; Verhoeven, 1999, 2002) and mortuary practices illustrate aspects of continuity, such as the regional transition from circular to rectangular houses, the development and maintenance of skull removal, and the use of similar zoomorphic gurines. While there is clear variation in their application, the shared nature of these practices is suggestive of important social, economic, and political links between these different areas. All the above renders the apparent absence of evidence for contact between the southern Levant and the Nile Valley during PPN all the more surprising, especially considering that the distances involved could have been easily traversed in a matter of days, and that conditions in the Negev and Sinai were relatively favorable for much of the period. Despite considerable research in areas of the Nile Valley and intervening areas of the Negev and Sinai, there is almost no evidence for extensive and regular social or economic connections between the southern Levant and the Nile Valley during PPN. It is probably only during the early Pottery Neolithic, ca. 8400 B.P. or somewhat later, that contacts with the Nile Valley were initiated, probably involving the diffusion of a package of domesticated plants and animals. These cultural connections are minor when compared with the extensive evidence for shared ideological developments, lithic technology, and subsistence systems between the southern and northern Levant in PPN. A number of recent eld projects in Cyprus have shed new light on the broader dispersal of Neolithic communities across the Mediterranean,
429
and revealed signicant evidence for substantial and sustained links between communities living on the mainland and those in Cyprus (Peltenburg et al., 2001; Swiny, 2001). Previous studies have generally viewed the cultural connections between Neolithic Cypriot and Levantine populations as being rather limited and occurring only in the LPPNB (Cauvin, 1989). Since the 1990s, at least six Neolithic sites have been recognized as being contemporaneous with and perhaps earlier than MPPNB sites in the southern Levant. While still preliminary, arguments have been made that the connections between these two areas were much earlier than previously thought, so much so that Peltenburg et al. (2001) argue that the Cypro-PPNB should be viewed as a facies of the better understood mainland PPNB. Drawing upon architectural, mortuary, and lithic evidence, they argue that the sudden appearance of these cultural practices and strong material similarities between the two areas indicate that migration played a signicant role in the earliest spread of farming across the Near East. This growing awareness of cultural similarities between the two areas raises a number of important questions about the nature of PPN social and economic connections between areas of the southern Levant and communities along the East and West side of the Red Sea, as well as with groups living along the Persian Gulf. An assessment of the links between these PPN communities is currently impossible, however, because of the limited nature of research that has occurred in these areas.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Over the last 30 years, archaeological research has transported us beyond the general statement that the development of food production was a critical evolutionary event to producing numerous case studies of the nature of social and economic change during the southern Levantine PPN. Researchers are now developing a sophisticated understanding of (1) the material culture of past communities through different periods; (2) the nature of regional and interregional trade and exchange patterns; and (3) the links between food production and social organization at the household, community, and regional scale. Recent studies have been instrumental in expanding our understanding of the Neolithic in the Near East, while at the same time reafrming both our exploration of a number of new topics, and our reexploration of old topics from the standpoint of new data and methodological developments. In concluding this overview, it is important to highlight several avenues of future research (see also Baird, 1997). Study of the nature of leadership and governance at varying scales, such as the individual, household, community, and regional levels, is one such avenue of future research. Although a
430
number of works have illustrated how many, if not most, Neolithic communities shared material practices at the regional level (Bar-Yosef and BelferCohen, 1989; Bar-Yosef and Meadows, 1995; Cauvin, 1994, 2000), in many ways our understanding of governance remains highly theoretical, abstract, and largely removed from the specics of archaeological data sets from individual sites (Hayden, 1995, 2001), and rarely moves beyond consideration of community ideology. There is growing consensus among researchers that social practices existed at certain points in the past to differentiate among individuals within the overall Neolithic community. On a material level, many discussions of Neolithic social organization focus on the issues of how (or whether) select Neolithic material culture reects the interests, behavior, and social role(s) of individuals vs. a collective group of individuals. A second avenue of future research centers of ritual and civic leadership. Detailed consideration of Neolithic architecture, mortuary practices, and ritual actions collectively brings researchers to the point where we can start to reect upon how ritual and civic leadership might have been organized in different Neolithic communities. While there are exceptions, most research has either focused on the classication of nuclear or extended family households, or has explored governance at the scale of the community; in either case, this research rarely addresses the existence of the household or House as a social and economic unit. While often based on eld work conducted many years ago, recent reections (e.g., Akkermans and Verhoeven, ogan 1995; Banning and Byrd, 1987; Byrd, 1994; Byrd and Banning, 1988; Ozd ogan, and Ozd 1989, 1998; Rollefson, 1997; Rollefson et al., 1992; Schmidt, 1995; Verhoeven, 1999, 2002) on observed patterning of residential and nonresidential architecture have greatly enhanced our understanding of social life. We believe that future research will benet from renewed attention to the focus of Neolithic social practices on either individual households or the broader House as a social and economic unit. A critical examination of this issue in the future, as well as expanded discussion of issues related to the nature of Neolithic governance and leadership, will be central to expanding our understanding of Neolithic social complexity and the origins of agriculture. A third important avenue for future research is that of the potential links between economic and social changes at different points in the Neolithic. In the broadest of scales, we can note that the initial development and later entrenchment of different kinds of food production must have radically altered the nature of ownership, land tenure, labor, and civic organization. Who, for example, organized people to undertake farming, planting, herding, and harvesting? There is no question that these issues are central to our understanding of economic developments (such as the appearance of domesticated plants and animals) as well as the ways in which control of
431
these resources would have been linked to social changes. Future scholars will need to address the degree of social and economic independence of Neolithic communities from select periods, and economic linkages between communities through marriage, trade, and ritual beliefs. A better understanding of the ways in which leaders- or households-controlled trade will also be important to future research on Neolithic social and economic practices. A nal important area of future research is the renement of cultural historical sequences and their relation to changing paleoenvironmental conditions. On a relative basis, the culturehistory of the prehistoric periods of the southern Levant is well understood. Considerable debate among archaeologists continues, however, on the organization of these culturalhistorical schemes, as well as on the length and period of time for individual phases. Exploration of these subjects will produce a new awareness of the social, economic, and political developments in the Near Eastern Neolithic in specic, and in the foragerfarmer transition in general.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper draws upon conversations with many researchers over the years and has been supported directly and indirectly by numerous sources of funding. We have also beneted enormously from dialogue with numerous friends and colleagues over the years. They include A. Garrard, B. Byrd, O. Bar-Yosef, M. Chesson, A. Belfer-Cohen, J. Cauvin, M.-C. Cauvin, Y. Garnkel, B. Finlayson, F. Hole, R. Meadow, Y. Goren, A. Simmon, D. Binder, H. Mahasneh, P. Edwards, H. G. Gebel, S. Colledge, E. Banning, ogan, P. Akkermans, M. Verhoeven, Z. Kaffa, M. Ozd I. Gilead, D. Baird, A. Gopher, I. Hershkowitz, M. Cochrane, M. Najjar, G. Rollefson, and the late T. Noy. Ian Kuijt acknowledges the support of the Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts at the University of Notre Dame and the Notre Dame Department of Anthropology. The authors thank M. Cochrane, who spent the better part of a week in May 2002 copy editing and working on the gures for submission. We also thank A. E. Close for her remarkable patience and guidance in this project, as well as the Herdmaster and two anonymous reviewers for their detailed and constructive comments. Finally, we specically acknowledge the critical role of Ofer Bar-Yosef in the development of this paper and his assistance over the years. As a friend, colleague, and mentor, Ofer has profoundly inuenced both of our academic careers in ways too numerious to mention. While not agreeing with some of the concepts and interpretations presented in this paper, Ofer and the people listed above have been instrumental in the development of the arguments
432
put forward in this essay. The constructive, and at times lively, discussion and debate with these individuals has immeasurably improved the clarity and organization of this paper. REFERENCES
Abbes, ` F. (1994). Techniques de debitage et gestion de silex sur le Moyen-Euphrate (Syrie) au PPNA nal et au PPNB ancien. In Gebel, H. G., and Kozlowski, S. K. (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, Proceedings of the First Workshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 299312. Akkermans, P. A., Boerma, J. A. K., Clason, A., Hill, S. G., Lohof, E., Meiklejohn, C., Miere, ` M. L., Molgat, G. M. F., Roodenberg, J. J., Waterbolk-van Rooyen, W., and van Zeist, W. (1983). Bouqras revisited: Preliminary report on a project in eastern Syria. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49: 335372. Akkermans, P. M. M. G., and Verhoeven, M. (1995). An image of complexityThe burnt village at Late Neolithic Sabi Abyad, Syria. American Journal of Archaeology 99(1): 532. Amiran, R. (1962). Myths of the creation of man and the Jericho statues. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 167: 2325. Arensburg, B., and Hershkovitz, I. (1988). Neolithic remains. In Bar-Yosef, O., and Alon, D. (eds.), Nahal Hemar Cave, Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums, Jerusalem, pp. 5058. Aurenche, O. (1981). La Maison Oriental. Larchitecture du Proche-Orient Ancien, des origines me Mille naire, Geuthner, Paris. au milieu du Quatrie olithique au Proche Orient ou La Aurenche, O., and Kozlowski, S. (1999). La Naissance du Ne Paradis Perdu, Editions Errance, Paris. Baird, D. (1997). Goals in Jordanian Neolithic research. In Gebel, H. G. K., Kafa, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan II. Perspectives From 1997, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 4, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 371 381. Banning, E. B. (1998). The Neolithic period: Triumphs of architecture, agriculture, and art. Near Eastern Archaeology 61(4): 188237. Banning, E. B. (2001). Settlement and economy in Wadi Ziqlab during the Late Neolithic. In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VII, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Amman, pp. 149155. Banning, E. B., and Byrd, B. F. (1987). Houses and changing residential unit: Domestic architecture at PPNB Ain Ghazal. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53: 309325. Banning, E. B., and Byrd, B. F. (1989). Renovations and the changing residential unit at Ain Ghazal, Jordan. In MacEachern, S., Archer, D., and Garvin, R. D. (eds.), Households and Communities, Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Conference, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada, pp. 525533. Banning, E. B., Rahimi, D., and Siggers, J. (1994). The Late Neolithic of the southern Levant: orient 20(2): Hiatus, settlement shift, observer bias? The perspective from Wadi Ziqlab. Pale 151164. Bar-Matthews, M., Ayalon, A., and Kaufman, A. (1997). Late Quaternary paleoclimate in the Eastern Mediterranean region from stable isotope analysis of speleotherms at Soreq Cave, Israel. Quaternary Research 47: 155168. Baruch, U., and Bottema, S. (1991). Palynological evidence for climate change in the Levant ca. 17,0009,000 B.P. In Bar-Yosef, O., and Valla, F. R. (eds.), The Natuan Culture in the Levant, International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 1121. Bar-Yosef, O. (1980). Prehistory of the Levant. Annual Review of Anthropology 9: 101133. Bar-Yosef, O. (1981). The Pre-Pottery Neolithic period in the Southern Levant. In Cauvin, histoire du Levant, CNRS, Paris, pp. 551570. J., and Sanlaville, P. (eds.), Pre
433
Bar-Yosef, O. (1986). The walls of Jericho: An alternative interpretation. Current Anthropology 27: 157162. Bar-Yosef, O. (1991). The Early Neolithic of the Levant: Recent advances. The Review of Archaeology 12(2): 118. Bar-Yosef, O. (2000). The impact of radiocarbon dating on Old World Archaeology: Past achievements and future expectations. Radiocarbon 42(1): 117. Bar-Yosef, O. (2001). From sedentary foragers to village hierarchies: The emergence of social institutions. In Runciman, G. (ed.), The Origin of Human Social Institutions, Proceedings of the British Academy, Vol. 110, Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp. 138. Bar-Yosef, O., and Alon, D. (1988). Excavations in the Nahal Hemar Cave. Atiqot 18. Bar-Yosef, O., and Belfer-Cohen, A. (1989). The Levantine PPNB interaction sphere. In Hershkovitz, I. (ed.), People and Culture in Change, Proceedings of the Second Symposium of Upper Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic Populations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, British Archaeology Reports, International Series 508, Oxford, pp. 5972. Bar-Yosef, O., and Belfer-Cohen, A. (1991). From sedentary hunter-gatherers to territorial farmers in the Levant. In Gregg, S. A. (ed.), Between Bands and States, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale, IL, pp. 181202. Bar-Yosef, O., and Gopher, A. (eds.) (1997). An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part I: The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud, American School of Prehistoric Research, Peabody Museum, Cambridge. Bar-Yosef, O., Gopher, A., Tchernov, E., and Kislev, M. E. (1991). Nativ HagdudAn Early Neolithic village site in the Jordan valley. Journal of Field Archaeology 18(4): 405 424. Bar-Yosef, O., and Kislev, M. (1989). Early farming communities in the Jordan valley. In Harris, D. R., and Hillman, G. C. (eds.), Foraging and Farming: The Evolution of Plant Exploitation, Hyman and Unwin, London, pp. 632640. Bar-Yosef, O., and Meadow, R. H. (1995). The origins of agriculture in the Near East. In Price, T. D., and Gebauer, A. B. (eds.), Last HuntersFirst Farmers: New Perspectives on the Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 3994. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. (1997). Neolithic shell bead production in Sinai. Journal of Archaeological Science 24: 97111. Belfer-Cohen, A. (1995). Rethinking social stratication in the Natuan culture: The evidence from burials. In Campbell, S., and Green, A. (eds.),The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, Oxbow Monographs, Edinburgh, pp. 916. Bennett, C. M. (1980). Soundings at Dhra, Jordan. Levant 12: 3039. orient 15(1): 147 Betts, A. (1989). The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period in Eastern Jordan. Pale 153. Bienert, H. D. (1991). Skull cult in the prehistoric Near East. Journal of Prehistoric Religion 5: 923. Bienert, H. D. (2001). The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) of Jordan: A rst step towards proto-urbanism? In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VII, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Amman, pp. 107119. Binford, L. R. (1968). Post-Pleistocene adaptations. In Binford, S., and Binford, L. R. (eds.), New Perspectives in Archaeology, Aldine, Chicago, pp. 313341. Bisheh, G., Farajat, S., Palumbo, G., and Waheeb, M. (1993). The cultural resources management project in Jordan archaeological rescue survey of the Ras An-Naqab-Aqaba highway alignment, 1992. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 37: 119131. Burian, F., Friedman, E., and Mintz, E. (1976). An Early PPNB site in the Nehal Levan region site no. 109. Mitakufat Haeven 14: 5460. Byrd, B. F. (1992). The dispersal of food production across the Levant. In Gebauer, A. B., and Price, T. D. (eds.), Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI, pp. 4961. Byrd, B. F. (1994). Public and private, domestic and corporate: The emergence of the southwest Asian village. American Antiquity 59(4): 639666.
434
Byrd, B. F., and Banning, E. B. (1988). Southern Levantine pier houses: Intersite architectural orient 14: 6572. patterning during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. Pale Byrd, B. F., and Monahan, C. M. (1995). Death, mortuary ritual, and Natuan social structure. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14: 251287. Cauvin, J. (1977). Les Fouilles de Mureybet (19711974) et Leur Signication pour les Origines de la Sedentarisation au Proche-Orient. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 44: 1948. Cauvin, J. (1989). La Neolithisation au Levant et sa Premiere ` diffusion. In Aurenche, O., and olithisation, British Archaeology Reports, International Series 516, Cauvin, J. (eds.), Ne Oxford, pp. 336. s, Naissance de lagriculture, CNRS, Paris. Cauvin, J. (1994). Naissance des divinite Cauvin, J. (2000). The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Cohen, M. N. (1977). Population pressure and the origins of agriculture: An archaeological example from the coast of Peru. In Reed, C. A. (ed.), Origins of Agriculture, Mouton, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 135178. Colledge, S. (1998). Identifying pre-domestication cultivation using multivariate analysis. In Damania, A. B., Valkoun, J., Willcox, G., and Qualset, C. O. (eds.), The Origins of Agriculture and Crop Domestication, ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria, pp. 121131. Cornwall, I. W. (1981). Appendix A. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic burials. In Holland, T. A. (ed.), Excavations at Jericho: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel, pp. 395406. Crowfoot-Payne, J. (1976). The Terminology of the Aceramic Neolithic Period in the Levant. In Terminology of Prehistory of the Near East, Pre-print IX UISPP Congress, Nice, France. Crowfoot-Payne, J. (1983). The int industries of Jericho. In Kenyon, K. M., and Holland, T. A. (eds.), Excavations at Jericho, The British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London, pp. 622759. de Contenson, H. (1966). Les Trois Premieres ` Campagnes de Fouilles a ` Tell Ramad (Syrie). C. mie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres pp. 531536. R. Acade de Contenson, H. (1971). Tell Ramad, a village of Syria of the 7th and 6th millennia B.C. Archaeology 24: 278283. orient 15: de Contenson, H. (1989). LAswadien: un nouveau facies de Neolithique Syrien. Pale 259262. , site Ne olithiques en Damasc` de Contenson, H. (1995). Aswad et Ghoraife ene (Syrie) au IX naires avant le ` re chretienne, Bibliotheque VIII mille ` Archaelogique et Historique, 137, Beyrouth. Echegaray, G. J. (1966). Excavation en la Terraza de El-Khaim (Jordania), Part II, Casa Espanola de Santiago en Jerusalem, Madrid. Edwards, P. C., Falconer, S. E., Fall, P. L., Berelov, I., Davis, C., Meadows, J., Meegan, C., Metzger, M. C., and Sayej, G. (2001). Archaeology and environment of the Dead Sea plain: Preliminary results of the rst season of investigations by the Joint La Trobe University/Arizona State University project. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 45: 135157. Ferembach, D. (1978). Etude Anthropologique. Les Cranes Surmodeles. In Lechevallier, M. (ed.), Abou Gosh et Beisamoun, Association Paleorient, Paris. Finlayson, B., Mithen, S., Carruthers, D., Kennedy, A., Pirie, A., and Tipping, R. (2000). The DanaFaynanGhuwayr early prehistory project. Levant 32: 126. Flannery, K. V. (1973). The origins of agriculture. Annual Review of Anthropology 2: 271310. Galili, E., Weinstein-Evron, M., Hershkovitz, I., Gopher, A., Kislev, M., Lernau, O., KolskaHorwitz, L., and Lernau, L. (1993). Atlit-Yam: A prehistoric site on the sea oor off the Israeli coast. Journal of Field Archaeology 20: 133157. Garnkel, Y. (1987). Yiftahel: A Neolithic village from the Seventh millennium B.C. in Lower Galilee, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 14: 199212. Garnkel, Y. (1989). The Pre-Pottery Neolithic a site of Gesher. Mitequfat Haeven 22: 145. Garnkel, Y. (1994). Ritual burial of cultic objects: The earliest evidence. Cambridge Archaeology Journal 4(2): 159188.
435
Garnkel, Y. (1996). Critical observations on the so-called Khiamian int industry. In Kozlowski, S. K., and Gebel, H. G. K. (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 1521. Garnkel, Y., and Nadel, D. (1989). The sultanian int assemblage from Gesher and its impli orient 15(2): 139152. cations for recognizing Early Neolithic entities in the Levant. Pale Garrard, A., Baird, D., and Byrd, B. (1994). The chronological basis and signicance of the Late Paleolithic and Neolithic sequence in the Azraq Basin, Jordan. In Bar-Yosef, O., and Kra, R. (eds.), Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean, Radiocarbon, Tucson, AZ, pp. 177199. Garrard, A., Colledge, S., and Martin, L. (1996). The emergence of crop cultivation and caprine herding in the Marginal Zone of the southern Levant. In Harris, D. (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, University College London Press, London, pp. 204226. Gebel, H. G. K., and Bienert, H. D. (1997). Baja hidden in the Petra mountains. Preliminary Report on the 1997 Excavation. In Gebel, H. G. K., Kafa, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (eds.),The Prehistory of Jordan II, Perspectives From 1997, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 4, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 221262. Gebel, H. G. K., and Hermansen, B. D. (2000). The 2000 season at Late PPNB BaJa. Neo-Lithics 2(3): 2022. Goodale, N. B., Kuijt, I., and Finlayson, B. (2002). The chipped stone assemblage of Dhra, Jordan: Preliminary results on technology, typology, and intra-assemblage variability. orient 28(1): 125140. Pale Gopher, A. (1989). Neolithic arrowheads in the Levant: Results and implications of a seriation orient 15(1): 5764. analysis. Pale Gopher, A. (1994). Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant, American Schools of Oriental Research, Dissertation Series, Volume 10, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana. Gopher, A. (1995). Ain Darat: A PPNA site in the Judean desert. Neo-Lithics 1: 78. Gopher, A. (1996a). A preliminary report on the ints from Ain Darat: A PPNA site in the Judean desert. In Kozlowski, S. K., and Gebel, H. G. K. (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Region, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 3, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 443452. Gopher, A. (1996b). What happened to the Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B? In Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, and their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 3, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 443452. Gopher, A., and Gophna, R. (1993). Cultures of the eighth and seventh millennia B.P. in the southern Levant: A Review for the 1990s. Journal of World Prehistory 7(3): 297353. Gopher, A., and Goring-Morris, A. N. (1998). Abu Salem: A Pre-Pottery Neolithic B camp in the Central Negev Highlands, Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 312: 120. Gopher, A., Goring-Morris, A. N., and Rosen, S. A. (1995). A Pre-Pottery Neolithic B occupation near Ein Qadis at the edge of the Central Negev Highlands. Atiqot 27: 1533. Goren, Y., Segal, I., and Bar-Yosef, O. (1993). Plaster artifacts and the interpretation of the Nahal Hemar Cave. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 25: 12011231. Goring-Morris, A. N. (1987). At the Edge: Terminal Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev and Sinai, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 361, Oxford. Goring-Morris, A. N. (1991). A PPNB settlement at Kfar Hahoresh in lower Galilee: A preliminary report of the 1991 season. Mitekufat Haeven 24: 77101. Goring-Morris, A. N. (2000). The quick and the dead: The social context of aceramic Neolithic mortuary practices as seen from Kfar HaHoresh. In Kuijt, I. (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp. 103136. Goring-Morris, A. N., and Belfer-Cohen, A. (1998). The articulation of cultural processes and orient 23(2): 7193. Late Quaternary environmental changes in Cisjordan. Pale
436
Grifn, P. S., Grissom, C. A., and Rollefson, G. O. (1998). Three late eight millennium plastered oreint 24(1): 5970. faces from Ain Ghazal. Pale Hayden, B. (1995). Pathways to power: Principles for creating socioeconomic inequalities. In Price, T. D., and Feinman, G. M. (eds.), Foundations of Social Inequality, Plenum, New York, pp. 1588. Hayden, B. (2001). Richman, poorman, beggarman, chief: The dynamics of social inequality. In Feinman, G. M., and Price, T. D. (eds.), Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp. 231272. Hershkovitz, I., and Gopher, A. (1990).Paleodemography, burial customs, and food-producing economy at the beginning of the Holocene: A perspective from the southern Levant. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 23: 948. Hershkovitz, I., Zohar, M., Speirs, M. S., Segal, I., Meirav, O., Sherter, U., Feldman, H., and Goring-Morris, A. N. (1995). Remedy for an 8,500-year-old plastered human skull from Kfar HaHoresh, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 779788. Hillman, G. C., and Davis, M. S. (1990). Measured domestication rates in wild wheat and barley under primitive cultivation, and their archaeological implications. Journal of World Prehistory 4(2): 157222. Hillman, G. C., Hedges, R., Moore, A., Colledge, S., and Pettitt, P. (2001). New evidence for Late Glacial cereal cultivation at Abu Hureyra on the Euphrates. Holocene 11(4): 383 393. orient 10: 4960. Hole, F. (1984). A reassessment of the Neolithic revolution. Pale Horwitz, L. K., Tchernov, E., Ducos, P., Becker, C., von den Driesch, A., Martin, L., and Garrard, orient 25(2): 6380. A. (1999). Animal domestication in the southern Levant. Pale Kafa, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (1995). The 1994 excavations at Ayn Ghazal: Preliminary report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 39: 1329. Kenyon, K. M. (1953). Excavations at Jericho, 1953. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 85: 8195. Kenyon, K. M. (1957). Digging Up Jericho, Benn, London. Kenyon, K. M. (1969). The origins of the Neolithic. The Advancement of Science 6: 117. Kenyon, K. M. (1981). Excavations at Jericho, Vol. III: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London. Kirkbride, D. (1968). Beidha 1967: An interim report. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 100: 9096. Kislev, M. E. (1992). Agriculture in the Near East in the 7th Millennium B.C. In Anderson, P. histoire delAgriculture, CNRS, Paris, pp. 8793. (ed.), Pre Kohler-Rollefson, I., Gillespie, W., and Metzger, M. (1988). The fauna from Neolithic Ain Ghazal. In Garrard, A. N., and Gebel, H. G. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan, British Archaeology Reports, International Series 396, No. 1, Oxford, 423430. Kozlowski, S. (1999). The eastern wing of the fertile crescent: Late prehistory of greater Mesopotamian lithic industries, British Archaeology Reports International Series 760, Archaeopress, Oxford. Kuijt, I. (1994a). Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period settlement systems of the southern Levant: New data, archaeological visibility, and regional site hierarchies. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 7(2): 165192. Kuijt, I. (1994b). A brief note on the chipped stone assemblage from Iraq ed-Dubb, Jordan. Neo-Lithics, A Newsletter of Southwest Asian Lithic Research 2: 23. Kuijt, I. (1996a). Where are the microlithics?: Lithic technology and Neolithic chronology as seen from the PPNA occupation at Dhra, Jordan. Neo-Lithics, A Newsletter of Southwest Asian Lithic Research 2: 78. Kuijt, I. (1996b). Negotiating equality through ritual: A consideration of Late Natuan and PrePottery Neolithic a period mortuary practices. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15(4): 313336. Kuijt, I. (1997). Interpretation, data, and the khiamian of the south-central Levant. Neo-Lithics, A Newsletter of Southwest Asian Lithic Research 3: 36. Kuijt, I. (1998). Trying to t round houses into square holes: Re-examining the timing of the south-central Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and Pre-Pottery Neolithic B cultural transition. In Gebel, H. G., Kafa, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan
437
II, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 193202. Kuijt, I. (2000a). People and space in early agricultural villages: Exploring daily lives, community size and architecture in the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19: 75102. Kuijt, I. (2000b). Keeping the peace: Ritual, skull caching and community integration in the Levantine Neolithic. In Kuijt, I. (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp. 137 163. Kuijt, I. (2000c). Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, Plenum, New York. Kuijt, I. (2001a). Lithic inter-assemblage variability and culturalhistorical sequences: A con orient sideration of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period occupation of Dhra, Jordan. Pale 27(1): 107126. Kuijt, I. (2001b). Meaningful masks: Place, death, and the transmission of social memory in early agricultural communities of the Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic. In Chesson, M. S. (ed.), Social Memory, Identity, and Death: Intradisciplinary Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals, Vol. 10. American Anthropological Association, Archaeology Division, Washington, DC, pp. 8099. Kuijt, I. (in press). Between foraging and farming: Critically evaluating the archaeological evidence for the southern Levantine Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period. Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Archaeology. Kuijt, I., and Bar-Yosef, O. (1994). Radiocarbon chronology for the Levantine Neolithic: Observations and data. In Bar-Yosef, O., and Kra, R. (eds.), Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleoenvironments of the Eastern Mediterranean, Radiocarbon, Tucson, AZ, pp. 227 245. Kuijt, I., and Finlayson, B. (2001). The 2001 excavation season at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period settlement of Dhra, Jordan: Preliminary results. Neo-Lithics: Southwest Asian Lithic Research 2(1): 1215. Kuijt, I., Mabry, J., and Palumbo, G. (1991). Early Neolithic use of upland areas of Wadi El orient Yabis: Preliminary evidence from the excavations of Iraq ed-Dubb, Jordan.Pale 17(1): 99108. Kuijt, I., and Mahasneh, H. (1995). Preliminary excavation results from Dhra and Ain Waida. American Journal of Archaeology 99: 508511. Kuijt, I., and Mahasneh, H. (1998). Dhra: An Early Neolithic site in the Jordan valley. Journal of Field Archaeology 25: 153161. Kurth, G., and Rohrer-Ertl, G. (1981). On the anthropology of Mesolithic to Chalcolithic human remains from the Tell es-Sultan to Jericho, Jordan. In Kenyon, K. M. (ed.), Excavation at Jericho, British School of Archaeology, Jerusalem. Lechavallier, M., and Ronen, A. (1985). La site Natouen-Khiamien de Hatoula, Les Cachiers de Centre de Recherche Franc ais de Jerusalem, No. 1. Mahasneh, H. M. (1997). The 1995 season at the Neolithic site of Es-Siya, Wadi Mujib, Jordan. In Gebel, H. G. K., Kafa, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan II. Perspectives From 1997, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 4, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 203213. Mahasneh, H. M. (2001). The Neolithic burial practices in Wadi al-Mujib during the seventh millennium B.C. In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VII, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Amman, pp. 121141. Mahasneh, H., and Bienert, H. D. (2000). Unfolding the earliest pages of sedentism: The PrePottery Neolithic settlement of Es-Siya in southern Jordan. In Bienert, H. D., and Muller Neuhof, B. (eds.), At the Crossroads: Essays on the Archaeology, History and Current Affairs of the Middle East, German Protestant Institute of Archaeology in Amman, Amman, Jordan, pp. 114. Mahasneh, H. M., and Gebel, H. G. K. (1999). Geometric objects from LPPNB Es-Siya, Wadi orient 24(2): 105110. Mujib, Jordan. Pale Mellaart, J. (1975). The Neolithic of the Near East, Thames and Hudson, London.
438
Mithen, S., Finlayson, B., Pirie, A., Carruthers, D., and Kennedy, A. (2000). New evidence for economic and technological diversity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A: Wadi Faynan 16. Current Anthropology 41(4): 655663. Moore, A. (1985). The development in Neolithic societies in the Near East. In Close, A. E., and Wendorf, F. (eds.), Advances in World Archaeology, Vol. 4, Academic Press, New York, pp. 170. Nadel, D. (1990). The Khiamian as a case of sultanian intersite variability. Mitekufat Haeven 23: 8699. Nadel, D. (1996). The chipped stone industry of Netiv Hagdud. In Bar-Yosef, O., and Gopher, A. (eds.), An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part I: The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud, American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 43, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, pp. 71150. Nadel, D., Bar-Yosef, O., and Gopher, A. (1991). Early Neolithic arrowhead types in the south orient 17(1): 109119. ern Levant: A typological suggestion. Pale Najjar, M. (1994). Ghwair I, a Neolithic site in Wadi Feinan. In Kerner, S. (ed.), The Near East in Antiquity, Al Kutba, Amman, Jordan, pp. 7585. Nishiaki, Y. (2000). Lithic Technology of Neolithic Syira, Bar International Series 840, Oxford. Nissen, H. J., Muheisen, M., and Gebel, H. G. (1988). Report on the rst two seasons of excavation at Basta. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 31: 79119. Nissen, H. J., Muheisen, M., Gebel, H. G., Becker, C., Hermansen, B. D., Kharasneh, W., Qadi, N., Schultz, M., and Scherer, N. (1992). Report on the excavations at Basta (1988). Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 36: 1340. orient Noy, T. (1989). Gilgal I, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site, Israel. The 19851987 seasons. Pale 15(1): 1118. ogan, Ozd M. (1998). Anatolia from the last glacial maximum to the Holocene climatic optimum: orient 23(2): 2538. Cultural formations and the impact of the environmental setting. Pale ogan, ogan, orient 15: 6574. Ozd M., and Ozd A. (1989). C ayon u. Pale ogan, ogan, Ozd M., and Ozd A. (1998). Buildings of cult and cult of buildings. In Arsebuk, G., Mellink, M., and Schirmer, W. (eds.), Light on Top of the Black Hill: Studies Presented to Halet Cambel, Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul, pp. 581601. Peltenburg, E., Colledge, S., Croft, P., Jackson, A., McCartney, C., and Murray, M. A. (2001). Neolithic dispersals from the Levantine corridor: A mediterranean perspective. Levant 33: 3564. Peterson, J. (2000). Test excavations at PPNB/PPNC Khirbet Hammam, Wadi el-Hasa, Jordan. Neo-Lithics 1: 46. Pirie, A. (2001a). Wadi Faynan 16 chipped stone: PPNA variability at one site. Neo-Lithics: Southwest Asian Lithic Research 2(1): 58. Pirie, A. (2001b). A brief note on the chipped stone assemblage from PPNA Nachcharini Cave, Levanon. Neo-Lithics: Southwest Asian Lithic Research 2(1): 1012. Price, T. D., and Feinman, G. M. (1995). Foundations of Social Inequality, Plenum, New York. Quintero, L. A., and Wilke, P. J. (1995). Evolution and economic signicance of naviform core orient 21(1): 1733. and-blade technology in the southern Levant. Pale Rollefson, G. O. (1986). Neolithic Ain Ghazal (Jordan): Ritual and ceremony II. Paleorient 12: 4552. Rollefson, G. O. (1987). Local and regional relations in the Levantine PPN period: Ain Ghazal as a regional center. In Hadidi, A. (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Amman, pp. 232. orient Rollefson, G. O. (1989). The Late Aceramic Neolithic of the Levant: A synthesis. Pale 15(1): 168173. Rollefson, G. O. (1993). Neolithic chipped stone technology at Ain Ghazal, Jordan: The status orient 16(1): 119124. of the PPNC. Pale Rollefson, G. O. (1997). Changes in architecture and social organization at Ain Ghazal. In Gebel, H. G. K., Ka, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan II, Perspectives from 1997, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 4, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 287307.
439
Rollefson, G. O. (1998). The Aceramic Neolithic. In Henry, D. O. (ed.), The Prehistoric Archaeology of Jordan, Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 102126. Rollefson, G. O. (1999). El-Hemmeh: A Late PPNB-PPNC village in the Wadi el-Hasa, southern Jordan. Neo-Lithics 2: 68. Rollefson, G. O. (2000). Ritual and social structure at Neolithic Ain Ghazal. In Kuijt, I. (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp. 165190. Rollefson, G. O. (2001). The Neolithic period. In MacDonal, B., Adams, R., and Bienkowski, P. (eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan, Shefeld Academic Press, Shefeld, UK, pp. 67 105. Rollefson, G. O., and Kohler-Rollefson, I. (1989). The collapse of the Early Neolithic settlements in the southern Levant. In Hershkovitz, I. (ed.), People and Culture in Change, British Archaeology Reports, International Series, 508, Oxford, pp. 7389. Rollefson, G. O., and Kohler-Rollefson, I. (1993). PPNC adaptations in the rst half of the 6th orient 19(1): 3342. millennium B.C. Pale Rollefson, G. O., Schmandt-Besserat, D., and Rose, J. C. (1999). A decorated skull from MPPNB orient 24(2): 99104. Ain Ghazal. Pale Rollefson, G. O., Simmons, A. H., and Kafa, Z. (1992). Neolithic cultures at Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Journal of Field Archaeology 19: 443470. Ronen, A., and Lechevallier, M. (1999). Save the Khiamian! Neo-Lithics 1(99): 67. Sayej, G. (2001). A new Pre-Pottery NeolithicA culture region in Jordan: The Dead Sea basin. In Walmsley, A. (ed.), Australians Uncovering Ancient Jordan: Fifty Years of Middle Eastern Archaeology, University of Sydney, Sydney, pp. 225232. Sayej, G. (2002). Lithic inter and intra-assemblage variability: A case study from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic site of Zahrat edh-Dhra 2, Jordan. Paper presented at The 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Oriental Research, Toronto, Canada. Schmidt, K. (1995). Investigations in the Upper Mesopotamian Early Neolithic: Gobekli Tepe and Gurc utepe. Neo-Lithics 2(95): 910. Simmons, A. (1995). Town planning in the NeolithicIs Ain Ghazal Normal? In Amr, K., Zayadine, F., and Zaghloul, M. (eds.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, V: Art and Technology Throughout the Ages, Jordan Press Foundation, Amman, pp. 119 122. Simmons, A. (1997). Ecological changes during the Late Neolithic in Jordan: A Case study. In Gebel, H. G. K., Kafa, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan II, Perspectives From 1997, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 4, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 309318. Simmons, A. (2000). Villages on the edge: Regional settlement change and the end of the Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic. In Kuijt, I. (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp. 211230. Simmons, A., Rollefson, G. O., Kafa, Z., Mandel, R. D., al-Nahar, M., Cooper, J., Kohler Rollefson, I., and Durand, K. D. (2001). Wadi Shueib, a large Neolithic community in Central Jordan: Final report of test investigations. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, pp 139. Simmons, A., Rollefson, G. O., Kafa, Z., and Moyer, K. (1989). Test excavations at Wadi Shueib, a major Neolithic settlement in Central Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 33: 2742. Simmons, A., and Najjar, M. (1996). Current investigations at Ghwair I, a Neolithic settlement in southern Jordan. Neolithics 2: 67. Simmons, A., and Najjar, M. (1999). Preliminary eld report of the 19981999 excavations at Ghwair I, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic B community in the Wadi Feinan regions of southern Jordan. Neolithics 2: 46. Smith, B. (2001). The transition to food production. In Feinman, G. M., and Price, T. D. (eds.), Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp. 199229.
440
Smith, P., Bar-Yosef, O., and Sillen, A. (1984). Archaeological and skeletal evidence for dietary change during the late Pleistocene. In Cohen, M., and Armelagos, G. (eds.), At the Origins of Agriculture, Academic Press, New York, pp. 101136. Stekelis, M., and Yizraeli, T. (1963). Excavations at Nahal Oren. Israel Exploration Journal 13: 112. Stordeur, D. (2000a). New discoveries in architecture and symbolism at Jerf el Ahmar (Syria), 19971999. Neo-Lithics 1: 14. Stordeur, D. (2000b). Jerf el Ahmar: et lemergence du Neolithique au Proche Orient. In J. Guilaine (ed.), Premiers paysans du monde: Naissances des agricultures, Collection de Hesperides, Editions Errance, Paris, pp. 3160. Stordeur, D., and Abbes, ` F. (2002). Du PPNA au PPNB: Mise en lumiere dune phase de te Prehistorique Francaise 99(03): transtion at Jerf el Ahmar (Syrie). Bulletin de la Socie 563595. Swiny, S. (2001). The Earliest Prehistory of Cyprus, American Schools of Oriental Research, Boston. Tchernov, E. (1994). An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley, II: The Fauna of Netiv Hagdud, American Schools of Research Bulletin 44, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Wasse, A. (1997). Preliminary Results of an Analysis of the Sheep and Goat Bones from Ain Ghazal, Jordan. In Gebel, H. G. K., Ka, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan II, Perspectives from 1997. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 4. Ex oriente, Berlin, pp. 287307. van Zeist, W., and Bakker-Heeres, J. B. (1985). Archaeobotanical studies in the Levant: Neolithic sites in the Damascus Basin, Aswad, Ghoraife, Ramad. Prehistoria (1982) 24: 165256. Verhoeven, M. (1999). An Archaeolical Ethnography of a Neolithic Community: Space, Place, and Social Relations in the Burnt Village of Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria, Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut, Istanbul. Verhoeven, M. (2002). Ritual and ideology in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Levant and southeast Anatolia. Cambridge Archaeology Journal 12(2): 233258. Voigt, M. M. (1983). Hajji Firuz Tepe, Iran: The Neolithic Settlement, The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Zohary, D. (1989). Domestication of the southwest Asian crop assemblage of cereals, pulses and ax: The evidence from the living plants. In Harris, D. R., and Hillman, G. (eds.), Foraging and Farming: The Evolution of Plant Exploitation, Unwin & Hyman, London, pp. 359373.

Kujit&Gorring Morris2002

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Kujit&Gorring Morris2002

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 16, No.

4, December 2002 ( C 2002)

2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Time stratigraphic units Late Epipaleolithic Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Pre-Pottery Neolithic B

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Fig. 3. Reconstruction of Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period residential structures.

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Kuijt and Goring-Morris