Foraging, Farming and Socil Complexity in the Pre-pottery Neolithic and Southern Levant- A Review and Synthesis

P1: GCR

Journal of World Prehistory [jowo] pp804-jowo-462621 March 17, 2003 16:12 Style file version June 30th, 2002

Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 16, No. 4, December 2002 ( C© 2002)

Foraging, Farming, and Social Complexityin the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the SouthernLevant: 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. In-tegrating previously published archaeological materials with archaeologicalresearch conducted since 1980, the first half of this essay synthesizes our cur-rent understanding of archaeological data for the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period(ca. 11,700–ca. 8400 B.P.) of the southern Levant, generally defined as includingsouthern Syria and Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian Autonomous Authority,Jordan, and the Sinai peninsula of Egypt. The second half of the essay exploreshow these data inform archaeologists about the processes by which social dif-ferentiation emerged, the nature of regional and interregional connections,and the mechanisms and processes by which the transition from foraging tofood production first occurred in the Neolithic.

KEY WORDS: southern Levant; Neolithic; early agriculture; social organization.

INTRODUCTION

The transition between foraging and food producing economies fromthe Levantine Late Natufian through to the Pottery Neolithic embodiesprofound changes in subsistence practices and economic systems and iswidely recognized as representing a crucial threshold in human prehistory. Inthe southern Levant, a largely self-contained area including southern Syria

1Department of Anthropology, The University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana.2Department of Prehistory, Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel.3To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Anthropology, The Univer-sity of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556; e-mail: [email protected].

361

0892-7537/02/1200-0361/0 C© 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation

P1: GCR


362 Kuijt and Goring-Morris

and Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian Autonomous Authority, Jordan, andthe Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, this transition occurs during the Pre-PotteryNeolithic B (PPNB) period (ca. 11,700–ca. 8400 B.P.). Among important so-cial, economic, and political changes during this period, usually subsumedunder the poorly defined and overgeneralizing rubric of the Neolithic Revo-lution, are the aggregation of people into large villages occupied on a year-round basis, a dramatic increase in global population levels, and the reorga-nization of the processes and structures by which human social interactionsoccurred. Collectively, these fundamental changes eventually transformedthe economic, social, and technological landscapes, including the develop-ment of the interrelated economic systems of domesticated plants and ani-mals, which serve as the core of later food-producing economies in southwestAsia and Europe.

In light of the importance of an understanding the mechanisms and pro-cesses by which the transition from foraging to food production occurred,researchers exploring the emergence of social differentiation, the links be-tween emerging food production and population growth, and/or the natureof human responses to paleoclimatic change must be able to draw upon cur-rent understandings of the archaeological record for the Levantine Neolithicperiod. A number of important studies have provided important considera-tions 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-regionalsyntheses of the Near Eastern Neolithic (Aurenche and Kozlowski, 1999;Banning, 1998; Bar-Yosef, 1980, 1991; Cauvin, 1994, 2000; Goring-Morrisand Belfer-Cohen, 1998; Mellaart, 1975; Moore, 1985; Rollefson, 1998, 2001).It is important, however, to be able to place these individual contributionsinto a broader comparative context. The process of generating such regionalsyntheses is difficult for a number of reasons. First, the scale of field researchsince the 1980s has drastically increased the amount of archaeological in-formation that needs to be considered in a regional synthesis. This has cre-ated the unenviable situation where our most current regional syntheses areclearly outdated and require the integration of new data. For example, moresouthern Levantine Neolithic sites have been excavated over the last twodecades than in the preceding 80 years of research. Thus, a number of im-portant regional syntheses of this period (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1980; Cauvin, 1977,2000; Mellaart, 1975; Moore, 1985) are undermined by the rapid appearanceof new archaeological data sets. Finally, and clearly related to the first is-sue, the expansion of archaeological research in the Levant has drasticallychanged our understanding of both individual phases of the Neolithic aswell as the transitions between these phases. This point is most clearly madeby a consideration of the ways in which recent archaeological research has

P1: GCR


Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic 363

illustrated the differences in Neolithic adaptations from the northern andsouthern Levant. In contrast to most general treatments of the Neolithic inthe broader Near East, a host of recent field research has illustrated a signi-ficant degree of regional variability in different geographical areas (e.g.,the southern Levant, the northern Levant, and Anatolia) and has high-lighted the need to consider these developments independently fromeach other.

In addressing the need for such a synthetic study of the Neolithic, ourgoals for this study are to (a) present an updated perspective on the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) periods of the southern Levantine Neolithic, in-cluding such topics as settlement patterns, architectural systems, mortuarypractices, population aggregation, and subsistence; (b) consider how thesepractices change through different stages of the PPN; and (c) illustrate how,viewed in combination with each other, these practices provide insights intothe nature of social, ritual, and political organization for southern LevantineNeolithic. To aid in clarity, this review is organized chronologically. At thesame time, we have attempted to highlight what we see as some of the com-monalities, shared practices, and connections between these different peri-ods to convey to the reader some of the inter-weavings through time. In thesecond 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 ofsocial inequality and conflict, population aggregation and regional growth,evidence for craft specialization, and regional and inter-regional connec-tions, and conclude with a brief consideration of future research directions.As collaborators, we have deliberately crafted this paper in such a way as toboth address areas of consensus and acknowledge and discuss areas in whichwe disagree. In the process of writing this paper we have struggled to finda balance in our own different perspectives. Attempting to balance thesehas not always been easy, but we believe that the process of this dialog bothhas opened up our own views of the Neolithic and is likely to provide thereader insight into some of the active debates and discussions in Near EasternPrehistory.

BACKGROUND CONSIDERATIONS

Before moving on to a consideration of the archaeology of the southernLevantine Neolithic, we must first provide some essential background andcontext. This includes outlining the main ecological zones of the southernLevant, paleoenvironmental change, and cultural–historical framework. Al-though an understanding of the environmental, geomorphic, and climatic

P1: GCR



backdrop is vital for comprehension of the revolutionary changes in humansocial, economic, and technological behavior during the PPN, this is a sub-ject that is beyond the scope of this study. We provide a brief overviewof the environmental, ecological, and climatic context of culture change,but refer readers to more detailed considerations of these topics presentedelsewhere.

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 exten-sion of the Syro-African Rift Valley, which divides the landscape into aseries of longitudinal strips (from west to east); (2) the coastal plain, whichwidens to the south; (3) the central hilly zone (reaching elevations up to1000 m) between the coastal plain and Rift Valley; (4) the Rift Valley, withmany areas almost entirely below sea level; (5) the Transjordanian escarp-ment and mountains to the east of the Rift Valley with elevations commonlyconsiderably higher than west of the Rift; and (6) the gently east-slopingplateau to the east, extending into Saudi Arabia and including a series ofclosed seasonally flooded basins (e.g., Damascus and Azraq). Other thanthe Jordan River, most valleys and major wadi systems flow eastwards orwestwards. A general rainfall gradient exists from both North to Southand West to East, modified by the orographic effects of elevation, rangingfrom 1000-mm to less than 50-mm annual precipitation. Dependent uponthese factors, the underlying bedrock and resultant soil types, a mosaic offour major phytogeographic zones (often in close proximity) can be rec-ognized. These zones include the Mediterranean forests and maquis, theIrano-Turanian steppes, and the dispersed and contracted desertic Saharo-Arabian zone, with Sudanian vegetation protruding into the lower JordanValley.

Early Holocene Environmental Changes

Identifying correlations between climatic and culture changes is bothhighly complex and essential to understanding the context of Neolithic so-cial development. In general, previous research on this topic can be dividedinto two camps: considerations of the theoretical links between populationgrowth, paleoenvironmental change, and culture change in the Near EasternNeolithic (e.g., Binford, 1968; Cohen, 1977; Flannery, 1973), and detailedconsideration of archaeological data sets and how these might be linked

P1: GCR



to culture change (e.g., Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998; Hershkovitzand Gopher, 1990; Ozdogan, 1998; Simmons, 1997). Needless to say, chrono-logical control is paramount in terms of evaluating the relationships, if any,between extraneous climatic shifts and material culture change. Beyondconsidering the timing and magnitude of environmental changes, it is im-portant to document their tempo and intensity, especially in sem-iarid re-gions. For example, gradual changes in the environment could sometimesbe accommodated whereas abrupt changes would have necessitated radicalreadjustments.

Several recent research projects provide more detailed evidence of en-vironmental changes during the Early Holocene than were hitherto avail-able. These include the palynological core from the Hula Valley (Baruchand Bottema, 1991) displaying a high degree of correlation with long-termcultural developments, and in some instances, with shorter climatic fluctu-ations. Study of the Late Quaternary Nahal Soreq Cave speleotherms hasrecently been completed (Bar-Matthews et al., 1997), and provides estimatesof temperature and precipitation changes. High isotopic values indicate thatthe later part of the Natufian coincides with the relatively brief global returnto 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 Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA). During the first four millennia of the Holocene,temperatures reached 14.5–19.0◦C, and a high mean precipitation of 675–950 mm (almost twice the present) was recorded. This may indicate heavyyear-round rainstorms, although, interestingly, isotopic signatures do not in-dicate the penetration of Indian Ocean systems. About 8700 B.P. a short aridperiod is observed. Other changes in landforms are relevant, especially asthe coastal plain at the onset of the Holocene was still considerably largerthan at present. At ca. 13,700 B.P. (the end of the Early Natufian) the sea levelwas about 75 m below present, and by 8700 B.P. the sea level was still some20 m below present. Only during the Chalcolithic did levels approach thoseobserved today.

During the Holocene, widespread erosion of hillsides and alluviationoccurred in the low-lying areas of the Mediterranean zone. These processeswere important for the replenishing of cultivable soils during the EarlyHolocene as well as the burial of Neolithic settlements. Diverse humanadaptations, as reflected by the densities and geographical distributions ofsettlements, provide an excellent means for monitoring the nature, rapidity,and intensity of changes in the physical environment. Thus, following inten-sive exploitation during the Middle and Late Epipaleolithic of the presentlyhyper-arid regions of both the Jordanian plateau and Negev and Sinai, thesubsequent virtual abandonment of those areas during the PPNA reflectsparticularly unfavorable environmental conditions.

P1: GCR



Calibrated/Uncalibrated Cultural–Historical Frameworks

A plethora of terminologies has been used to describe and organize PPNmaterial culture remains from different ecological regions of thesouthern Levant (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1981; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen,1998; Moore, 1985). The approach we employ in this study follows the gen-erally accepted convention of dividing the PPN (ca. 11,700–ca. 8400 B.P.) intotwo main units, namely the PPNA and PPNB, which is further subdividedinto the Early, Middle, Late, and Final PPNB, or alternatively, PPNC pe-riod. (Tables I and II). A variety of technological, typological, and stylisticcriteria concerning the flaked stone tool assemblages within each period (to-gether with other types of material culture remains such as architecture, art,decorative items, bone tool assemblages, and burial practices) are used toisolate these groupings in time and space. These data, in conjunction withstratigraphic and radiometric considerations, provide researchers with theability to link archaeological data sets to broader evolutionary trajectoriesof human social development.

In this study, we have tried to bridge between a “splitters”-and-“lumpers” approach, since an illustration of the diversity and complexityof dynamic social and economic developments requires us to alternativelyreflect upon similarities and differences. Moreover, the chronology followedhere is based on calibrated radiocarbon dates. As prehistorians we tend to de-fine archaeological units as normalized and presumably stabilized units. It isdifficult to isolate the beginnings of trends from background noise; therefore,

Table I. Cultural–Historical Sequence for the Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery NeolithicPeriods

Conventional CalibratedConventional 14C years B.P. 14C years B.P.

Time stratigraphic units Entity/phase 14C years B.P.a (this paper) (this paper)

Late Epipaleolithic Final Natufianb 10,500–10,300 10,600–10,200 12,500–12,000Pre-Pottery Neolithic A PPNAc 10,300–9600 10,200–9400 11,700–10,500Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Early PPNBd 9600–9300 9500–9300 10,500–10,100

Middle PPNB 9300–8500 9300–8300 10,100–9250Late PPNB 8500–8000 8300–7900 9250–8700Final PPNB/PPNC 8000–7500 7900–7500 8600–8250

Pottery/Late Neolithic Yarmukian 7500–7000 7500–7000 8250–7800aFollowing others (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1981; Rollefson, 1998).bIncludes Harifian.cOne of the authors of this paper argues (Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1997) that PPNAshould be subdivided into two phases (see text).

dOne of the authors of this paper has argued (Kuijt, 1997, in press) that there are insufficientdata from excavated and radiocarbon-dated archaeological sites to support arguments foran EPPNB phase. From this perspective the transition from PPNA to MPPNB would haveoccurred at ca. 10,500 B.P. with no intervening phase.

P1: GCR



Table II. Select Pre-Pottery Neolithic Sites, by Period, in the Southern Levant

PPNAAbu Madi I, Ain Darat, Beit Ta’amir, Dhra‘, Ein Suhun?, Ein Suhun, El-Khiam, Gesher,

Gilgal I, Hatoula, ‘Iraq ed-Dubb, Jericho, Modi’in, Mujahiya?, Nacharini, Nahal Lavan108, Nahal Oren II, Netiv Hagdud, Neve Ilan, Poleg 18M, Ramat Beit Shemesh?, RekhesShalmon, Sabra I, Salibiya IX, Tell Aswad IA, Tell Batashi, Wadi Faynan 16, Zahratedh-Dhra‘ 2, Zur Nathan

EPPNBAbu 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, TelRamad??

MPPNBAbu Gosh, Ain Ghazal, Beidha, Beer Menuha, Ein Qadis I, Divshon, Er-Rahib (?),

Es-Sifiya?, Gebel Rubshah, Ghwair I?, Jericho, Jilat 7 middle, Jilat 26, Jilat 32 lower,Horvat Galil, Kfar Giladi, Kfar HaHoresh, Khirbet Rabud??, Lavan Elyon 1, Munhata4-6, Nahal Betzet I, Nahal Hemar 4, Nahal Nizzana IX, Nahal Oren I, Nahal Qetura,Nahal Re’uel, Sefunim, Tell Aswad IB-III?, Tell Fara North??, Tell Ramad ??, WadiShu’eib, Wadi Tbeik, Yiftahel

LPPNBAbu 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-Sifiya, Ghoraife II, Ghwair I?,Jilat 7 upper?, Jilat 25, Jilat 32 trench 1, Kfar HaHoresh, Khirbet Hammam, MazadMazal, Munhata, Mushabi VI, Nahal Aqrav IV, Nahal Efe, Nahal Hemar 3, NahalIssaron, Ras Shamra Vc1, Tell Eli, Tell Rakan I, Tell Ramad II, Ujrat el-Mehed, UjratSuleiman I, Wadi Jibba I, Wadi Jibba II, Wadi Shu’eib

Final PPNB/PPNCAin Ghazal, Ain al-Jammam??, Atlit Yam, Azraq 31??, Basta (?), Beisamoun (?),

Es-Seyyeh, Es-Sifiya, Hagoshrim, Jilat 13 lower, Jilat 27, Labweh, Nahal Efe??, NahalIssaron?, Ramad II, Ras Shamra Vc2, Tell Eli (?), Wadi Jibba II?, Wadi Shu’eib,Yiftahel IV

we define sociocultural units in their “classical” stages. We should bear inmind, 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 archaeologicalrecord 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 cultural–historical overview is subject to continued revisionand may require modification as the results from additional studies becomeavailable.

Numerous radiocarbon dates have been obtained for PPN sites dur-ing the past few decades, and have led to far better documentation of thechronology. Unfortunately, in many cases the original excavators did notpresent details of the materials being dated (seeds, wood, bone, etc.), the pre-cise stratigraphic contexts, and a consideration of the potential for dating oldwood. Needless to say, such information is vital to critically evaluate the ma-terial associations, research relevance, and chronological significance of the

P1: GCR



dates provided. The adoption of recent advances in radiocarbon calibrationis both urgent and important, especially given that it changes the duration ofdifferent phases within the PPN period. Radiocarbon calibration indicatesthat the duration of some cultural–historical stages are much longer, and insome cases shorter, than uncalibrated data indicate. Additionally, calibra-tion of radiocarbon dates significantly alters the rate at which archaeologistsmodel the diffusion of certain innovations and changes from core to otherareas (e.g., the naviform technology and projectile point types).

The chronological scheme employed in this paper is based upon cal-ibrated dates B.P. While there are subtle differences between various au-thors concerning the precise dating of the different phases, Table I providesone estimate, based on critical examination of the dates, including recentlyobtained results and syntheses (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 2000; Goring-Morris andBelfer-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 tohelp the reader understand the scale and nature of changes being discussed(Table III). These working definitions represent a series of compromisesand necessary generalizations, and draw upon the works of others (e.g.,Bar-Yosef, 2001). Despite the complicated nature of this terminology, itsdevelopment and employment is vital in comprehending Neolithic socialunits. For example, the scale of settlements directly relates to potential mat-ing networks, the emergence of contagious diseases, as well as the size offields, pastures, and hunting grounds that were required to support individ-ual communities. Our point here is not to debate the nature and labelingof Neolithic social organization, so much as to provide readers with a de-tailed introduction to the archaeological data upon which future discussionmight be based. We have adopted a conservative approach to the labelingof different scales of settlements, and in some cases, the architecture foundwithin settlements. For example, we have deliberately avoided the use of

Table III. Generalized Dimensions of Different Scales of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Settlements

Camps Hamlets Villages Specialized sites

Community size ca. 10–30 ca. 30–100 ca. 100–750 VariableSocialorganization

Band tribe(extended

family clan)

Band tribe(clan)

Band tribechiefdom?

(clan/housesocieties)

Variable

Permanence Seasonaloccupation

Year round Year round Variable

Economicorientation

Hunting andforaging

Foraging andfarming

Farmingand/orherding

Variable

P1: GCR



the terms “town,” “urbanism,” and “mega-site,” all of which have been usedto describe the emergence of large aggregate villages in the LPPNB period.Rather than employ terms such as “temple,” which carries considerable in-tellectual baggage, we have opted to treat these buildings in a descriptivemanner, identifying the structures and at the same time allowing researchersto peruse individual arguments for the nature of ritual and social activitiesthat might have occurred within them.

PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC A PERIOD

Until the early 1990s, relatively little was known about the PPNA in com-parison to the PPNB. With the publication of several regional syntheses (e.g.,Bar-Yosef, 1991; Kuijt, 1994a), as well as active fieldwork in Israel, Jordan,and southern Syria, research in the 1980s and 1990s has dramatically ad-vanced our understanding of the PPNA, a period which lasted from approx-imately 11,700 to 10,500 B.P. Research and publication of the materials fromJericho, 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 ofthe 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; Garfinkel, 1989; Garfinkel andNadel, 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; Kuijtand 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 PPNAshould be divided into two different phases or treated as a single cultural–historical unit. The intellectual foundations for the two subfacies of thePPNA (referred to as the Khiamian and Sultanian) were originally articu-lated by Echegaray (1966) and Crowfoot-Payne (1976, 1983). This cultural–historical foundation remained unchallenged until the late 1980s. Subse-quent publications (e.g., Garfinkel, 1996; Garfinkel and Nadel, 1989; Goodaleet al., 2002; Nadel, 1990, 1996; Pirie, 2001a; Ronen and Lechevallier, 1999;Sayej, 2001, 2002) have debated Crowfoot-Payne’s chronological division ofPPNA. Some researchers now argue that this model does not account foravailable data on regional technological and typological patterning in thesouthern Levantine PPNA, specifically for the large settlements in the Jor-dan Valley. Kuijt (1997, 1998, 2001a) argues that post-1990 archaeologicalresearch and publication of data from Netiv Hagdud, Salibiya IX, Gilgal I,and Dhra‘ illustrate that (a) data from new and publication of previous

P1: GCR



Fig. 1. Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period site distribution in the southern Levant. Note thecontraction of communities into the Levantine Corridor from the preceding Natufianperiod.

P1: GCR



excavations do not fit the technological, typological, and chronological ex-planatory model of two subfacies; and (b) we clearly understand neither thereasons for, nor processes by which, technological and typological variabil-ity was created in PPNA lithic assemblages. We believe, albeit with differentdegrees of conviction, that debate continues on these topics and that noclear consensus has emerged among researchers. For these reasons, we haveopted in the following discussion to treat PPNA as one cultural entity, withthe hope that future field and laboratory research will resolve this debate.

Settlement Patterns

Mediterranean Zone

The majority of known PPNA settlements are found in the Mediter-ranean zone of the southern Levant, in specific settings within or adjacent tothe Jordan Valley (Bar-Yosef, 1991; Kuijt, 1994a). Sites identified within theJordan Valley include Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Gilgal I, Dhra‘, Wadi Faynan16, Gesher, and Salibiya IX. Sites located in areas adjacent to the JordanValley 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 withinthe Rift Valley. Usually, smaller hamlets and seasonal camps are adjacent tothe Jordan Valley (Hatoula, Tell Batashi, Nahal Oren, ‘Iraq ed-Dubb, andWadi Faynan 16). Indeed, there are also more ephemeral specialized siteslacking architecture (with bifacial tools and sickle blades as major compo-nents, but seemingly no projectile points) on and adjacent to the centralmountain ridge. These could represent logistical localities for forest clear-ance, wood provision for construction and fuel, as well as the harvesting ofcereals in the clearings, to supply parent communities to the east and west.

The importance of the Jordan Valley as a PPNA settlement focus is ex-pressed through the horizontal extent of settlements, the depth of cultural de-posits, the presence of specialized architecture, and economic practices (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1989, 1991; Kuijt, 1994a). Although the reason(s)for this pattern remain complex, the relative florescence of human occupa-tion 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 andeconomic reasons, and perhaps illustrates the earliest development of largeregional centers, such as at Jericho. The delayed reaction to the effects of theYounger Dryas at the end of the Natufian (and Harifian), especially in thearid periphery, necessitating the contraction of populations back into better

P1: GCR



watered localities, has also been suggested as a part of a push–pull mecha-nism (Goring-Morris, 1987, 1991; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998).

Arid Zone

In contrast to what is known about the PPNA occupation of the Mediter-ranean zone, very little evidence exists for any intensive occupation of sur-rounding desertic zones. In considering the Eastern Desert areas, Garrardet al. (1994) and Byrd (1994) outline that, with the possible exception ofWadi Jilat 7 (late in the period, as is Aswad), there does not appear to be ev-idence for long-term human occupation. This pattern is supported by surveysaround Jebel Druze and in the Black Desert, as well as further south aroundWadi Hasa and in the Hisme. West of the Rift Valley, extensive systematic sur-veys throughout the Negev have revealed extremely sparse PPNA remainsfollowing the Harifian and prior to EPPNB (Goring-Morris, 1987). Excava-tions at Abu Madi I (Bar-Yosef, 1991) in the South Sinai High Mountainsrevealed a single semi-subterranean oval structure as a seasonal (summer)camp of a small group of hunter-gatherers. Together with other untestedsites in that area (J. Phillips, 2001, personal communication), high residen-tial mobility is indicated perhaps by residual Harifian-related communities.In sum, current evidence suggests that regional PPNA settlement patternsfocused on large logistically based permanent communities, supplementedby smaller hamlets, in the Mediterranean zone (and perhaps more specif-ically the Jordan Valley), immediately adjacent to unusually well-wateredlocalities with alluvial lands. The PPNA was also characterized by meageruse 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 ofthe spatial organization within communities. Excavations either have for themost part focused on internal areas of structures, or perhaps more commonly,have been restricted so that the areas between structures are poorly under-stood. In open-air sites where we have some understanding of extramuralareas, PPNA settlement organization appears to be similar to that of theLate Natufian: individual oval-to-circular structures spaced apart from eachother with the occasional small stone feature, silo, or fire hearth betweenstructures (see Bar-Yosef and Gopher, 1997). At Nahal Oren, the small set-tlement was arranged in two rows along terraces in the hillside (Stekelis

P1: GCR



and Yizraeli, 1963). With the exception of the storage/residential structuresabutting the PPNA tower at Jericho, site organization generally appears tobe similar to that of the Natufian period.

Residential Architecture

Residential architecture in the PPNA, based upon the presence of grind-ing stones and internal storage features, consisted of oval-to-subcircularstructures that were either freestanding (Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Hatoula),or, more often, semi-subterranean or built in such a way that one side of thestructure is built into a terrace (Dhra‘, Gilgal, Nahal Oren) (Figs. 2 and 3).Where available, fieldstones were employed to construct a stone foundationwith mud brick added for the superstructure. In cases such as Jericho andNetiv Hagdud, the majority of residential structures were semi-subterraneanwith the stone wall foundations being between 20 and 60 cm in height. At ‘AinDarat, Zahrat edh-Dhra‘ 2, and Dhra‘, structures were somewhat deeper,with walls being recovered to a height of 70–80 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 haveminimal floor preparation, with most floors being composed of terre piseeoverlying stone cobbles where necessary. Entrance was either by way of afew 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 residentialstructures appears to be relatively consistent, their size and internal organi-zation vary considerably. At Netiv Hagdud, Jericho, and Hatoula, residentialstructures vary between 5 and 8 m in length, although at Nahal Oren theywere smaller. Similarly, the internal organization of residential structuresvaries considerably, including in some cases the construction of fire hearths,inset limestone slabs as cupholes, and storage features. In rare cases, such asthat of Netiv Hagdud locus 008, partitions divided the residential structureinto different areas. In contrast to the preceding Natufian, a major innova-tion begun during the PPNA and becoming widespread during the PPNB inthe Mediterranean zone was systematic house cleaning and the dumping ofrefuse in clearly defined adjacent refuse areas.

Non-residential Architecture

In the southern Levant there is only one unequivocal example of non-residential architecture: the large PPNA stone tower and associated wall atJericho. When originally built, this sturdy tower stood at least 8.5 m in heightand 8 m in diameter (Fig. 4). One side of the tower is surrounded by smalleroval and circular structures that may have served as storage facilities, or

P1: GCR



Fig. 2. Plan view of Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period residential architecture from (a) JerichoSq M1, stage VIII, phase xxxix; (b) ‘Iraq ed-Dubb, Structure I; and (c) Netiv Hagdud, Locus40 (based on Bar-Yosef and Gopher 1997, Fig. 3.22).

perhaps (although less likely) as residential buildings. A narrow and steepstaircase leads directly to the top of the structure. It was subsequently re-paired by adding a new outer layer of stones and replastering it at some pointduring the PPNA. Kenyon (1957) argued that this tower, in conjunction with

P1: GCR



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, andplan view of select burials found inside of the passage.

P1: GCR



the adjacent wall, would have served a defensive role. More plausibly, giventhe total absence of fortifications elsewhere in the Near East during the Ne-olithic, Bar-Yosef (1986) has argued that the wall system around one side ofJericho was linked to the diversion of flash floods and that the tower mighthave been a shrine. Exploring the possible links between burial practices atJericho, specifically differences between the individuals buried in the towerentranceway 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 aritual focal point for the community and its role varied at different points ofits life history. However one chooses to view the structure, the PPNA towerreflects 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, excavationsat Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Hatoula, and Nahal Oren illustrate that burialsystems of the PPNA period, as presently understood, were relatively stan-dardized 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 continu-ing practices initiated by at least the late Natufian, involving primary burialand secondary skull removal, as well as some differences in the treatmentof adults and children. Significantly, 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 in-dividual primary interments. Research has also indicated that at this time thelocation of the skull was also marked by community members. The repeatedrecovery of articulated adult skeletons in anatomically correct positions il-lustrates that many, if not most, crania were removed after decay of thesoft tissues. Community members returned to the grave, excavated an areaaround the skull, removed it, sometimes together with the mandible, andthen refilled the excavated pit. While very difficult to trace archaeologically,several ethnographic accounts suggest that removed skulls were cleaned andprepared for use by the living community, after which they were subjected toreburial often in groups as part of a communal event. After completion, theskulls were reburied in extra-, intermural, or outlying areas of the settlement.It is interesting to note that at Abu Madi the single, articulated burial recov-ered from beneath the floor of the hut included the cranium (Hershkovitzet al., 1995). Currently, we are unable to determine the spatial relationshipbetween the original postcranial skeletons and the reburied skulls, although

P1: GCR



this determination would unquestionably provide insight into the rationaleof these mortuary practices and the underlying belief structure. Similarly,excavations have yet to determine unequivocally whether adults and chil-dren were systematically interred in different kinds of locations. Existingevidence from Jericho indicates that some infant skeletons were placed indedicatory contexts within houses, such as post foundations. In contrast, itappears that adult community members were interred in either intra- orextramural locations, but again the nature of this patterning (fortuitous orplanned) is unclear.

Drawing upon previous studies (Amiran, 1962; Belfer-Cohen, 1995;Bienert, 1991; Garfinkel, 1994; Hershkovitz and Gopher, 1990; Kenyon,1957; Kurth and Rohrer-Ertl, 1981), Kuijt (1996b, 2001b) argues that skullremoval as a form of secondary mortuary practice reflects one of severalthematically interrelated aspects of a ritual belief system focused on enhanc-ing community cohesion and reaffirming household and community beliefsduring the PPNA and later MPPNB (Middle PPNB). He argues that LateNatufian and PPNA mortuary practices, specifically the (apparent) absenceof grave goods, burial of individuals, use of simple graves, and practice ofskull removal served to integrate communities and downplay socioeconomicdifferences between individuals and kin groups in the face of economic andsocial changes.

Other Symbolic Realms

Although quite rare, several PPNA sites have yielded small clay or stonefigurines and sculptures (Figs. 5(a)–(c)). Characteristic specimens from NetivHagdud are a clay figurine and two fragments that schematically portray aseated woman with two stubby legs (Bar-Yosef, 1991, p. 40). Excavations atDhra‘ in 2001 produced a similar clay figurine (Kuijt and Finlayson, 2001).Excavations at Gilgal I and Salibiya IX recovered several human and animal(mainly bird) figurines. The figurine from Salibiya IX, carved from chalk,appears to represent a kneeling woman, although, when inverted, it mayrepresent a phallus. Here it is of interest to note that, while many discussionsof symbolic imagery focus on the mother-goddess theme in relation to theorigins of agriculture (e.g., Cauvin, 2000), carved stone phalli have also beenrecovered from other PPNA settlements continuing traditions begun alreadyduring the Natufian.

Integration With Architecture

While difficult to address from a material stand point, there appearsto be some clear links between mortuary and architectural practices in the

P1: GCR



Fig. 5. Anthropomorphic and Zoomorphic Figurines from the Natufian through Pottery Ne-olithic period of the southern Levant: (a) female figurine, PPNA, Dhra‘; (b and c) femalefigurine, PPNA, Netiv Hagdud; (d) female figurine, MPPNB, ‘Ain Ghazal; (e) human figurine,Pottery Neolithic, Ramad; (f) cattle figurine, MPPNB, Jericho.

PPNA. First, the mortuary practices at the PPNA tower appear to be specificto this location (see Bar-Yosef, 1986; Kuijt, 1996b). Second, examinationof the placement of infant/child burials indicates that many PPNA burialsserved as dedicatory caches, such as under postholes or under walls. Whileit is not clear if all human burials were deliberately placed under the flooror walls of structures, examination of the location of the burials vis-a-visbuildings indicates that the majority was deliberately interred under theinternal areas of a floor, instead of postburial house construction.

Economy

Subsistence (Flora and Fauna)

A number of recent studies have illustrated that PPNA economieswere based on the consumption of cereals and legumes and the hunting ofmedium- and small-sized mammals, reptiles, fish, and birds. A consideration

P1: GCR



of the vegetal products consumed by people in the PPNA illustrates that awide array of seeds and fruits were utilized, several of them intentionally cul-tivated and domesticated (see Colledge, 1998; Hillman et al., 2001). Hillmanand Davis (1990) argue that there is evidence for domesticated wheat at TelAswad, Jericho, Gilgal, and Netiv Hagdud. Alternatively, Kislev (1992) con-cludes that most of the barley recovered from these sites was harvested fromwild stands, a point that Zohary (1989) agrees with, although, at the sametime, Zohary argues that carbonized grains from Netiv Hagdud, Gilgal, andJericho reflect the cultivation of two-rowed barley. Although debate con-tinues on the issue of the existence and role of domesticated vs. cultivatedplant resources within PPNA communities, this discussion should not divertattention from the major implication that members of Late Natufian andPPNA communities were intentionally manipulating, managing, and culti-vating plant resources in a previously unprecedented manner in the NearEast 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 smallergame, such as wild boar, fox, and hare (Tchernov, 1994). In contrast to thearguments for the early cultivation of plant crops in the PPNA, most re-searchers argue that there is no real evidence for animal husbandry (with theexception of the dog which had been domesticated during the Natufian). It isinteresting 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 asimportant food resources. Excavations at Netiv Hagdud, for example, recov-ered large numbers of aquatic species that inhabited marshy environments. Ahigh percentage (greater than 50% of the assemblage) of bird bone has alsobeen noted at Dhra‘, Hatoula, Wadi Faynan 16, and ‘Iraq ed-Dubb, and pos-sibly at Jericho. The high representation of these species has implications forthe environmental conditions during the PPNA, as well as for broader sub-sistence practices (the Rift Valley serves as one of the major migration routesbetween Africa and Eurasia). Moving beyond an emphasis on the huntingof gazelle, a practice clearly seen in the Natufian, subsistence in the PPNAappears to shift to the intensive collecting and cultivation of local plant re-sources and the intensive hunting of water fowl and gazelle inhabiting marshor riparian environments. The hunting of foxes and birds of prey might havebeen for nondietary, symbolic purposes, perhaps for pelts, feathers, and claws.

Lithic Technology, Groundstone, and Bone Tools

In terms of flaked stone technology, the PPNA lithic assemblages showa primary focus on the use of single platform blade and bladelet coresfor the production of specific tools such as El-Khiam, Jordan Valley, and

P1: GCR



Salibiya projectile points (see Abbes, 1994; Bar-Yosef and Gopher, 1997; deContenson, 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 man-ufactured from a variable range of raw materials (Fig. 6). Heavy wood-working tools include bifacial axes, often with tranchet blows, chisels of flintand limestone, and ground and polished basalt and greenstone adzes. Otherground-stone tools include a wide array of limestone and basalt pestles, to-gether with shallow limestone cuphole mortars, presumably for poundingseeds. Importantly, the ground-stone tool repertoire is thus intermediatebetween that of the Natufian with its deep mortars for pounding and thegrinding querns of the PPNB. Researchers have also noted the existence ofspecific tool forms that are temporally diagnostic of the PPNA. Not surpris-ingly, many of them are hunting and/or food-processing tools. These includeHagdud and Gilgal truncations (which were probably mounted behind pro-jectile points on arrowshafts to cause hemorrhaging), bifacially retouchedBeit Ta’amir and unretouched sickle blades, and possibly lunates. It shouldbe noted that serious questions have been raised about the chronologicalplacement of lunates in PPNA (Garfinkel, 1996; Garfinkel 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 limitedarchaeological evidence for long- or short-distance trade and exchange ofgoods during PPNA. Currently, our best evidence for short distance, thatis to say interregional trade and exchange, is the presence of shell, green-stone, malachite, and bitumen. Marine shells from the Mediterranean andthe Red Sea are found in many, if not most, PPNA settlements together withthe beginnings of a shift in preference away from dentalia to bivalves andgastropods (Bar-Yosef Mayer, 1997). As in the preceding Natufian period,these appear to have been used as beads, although it is interesting to notethat they are not recovered with human burials. While more difficult to traceto specific source areas, bitumen (which is found within the Dead Sea re-gion), used as an adhesive for implements and probably also as a sealantfor baskets, was also collected and traded within the southern Levant, anexchange system that expanded in the MPPNB. Greenstone and malachite,found along the heavily faulted areas of the southern Rift Valley at Faynanand Timna, are other resources that were extracted and distributed withinthe southern Levant. While not recovered in large quantities, greenstonebeads, bidirectionally drilled using long perforators, are found. Arguablythe most extensive evidence for long-distance trade and exchange is that of

P1: GCR



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.

P1: GCR



obsidian, greenstone, and malachite. Obsidian has been documented at somePPNA settlements in the Levantine Corridor, including Jericho, Dhra‘, andNetiv Hagdud. All analyzed samples trace from central Turkey. It is of someinterest to note varying quantities in different sites, even when taking intoaccount excavated areas and retrieval methods, perhaps hinting that somesites served as more central distribution nodes, a pattern that seeminglycontinues later.

EARLY PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC B PERIOD

Presently the EPPNB is one of the most poorly documented periods ofthe PPN; in fact, its very existence has been questioned. There is a notablepaucity of well-excavated, radiocarbon-dated settlements dating betweenca. 10,500 and ca. 10,100 B.P. From one perspective, it was a transitionalphase between the better-defined PPNA and MPPNB, which researchershave termed EPPNB (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1981; Gopher, 1996b; Goring-Morrisand Belfer-Cohen, 1998). Others argue that there are insufficient data tosupport the creation of a transitional phase, and that the transformationfrom PPNA to MPPNB was more rapid that previously thought and with noobservable intervening phase (e.g., Kuijt, 1998, in press). With the exceptionof Tell Aswad in the Damascus Basin, no site in the southern Levant dis-plays substantial evidence of continuity from the PPNA to PPNB with intactarchitecture, cultural deposits, and representative lithic material from bothperiods (see Cauvin, 2000; Stordeur, 2000a,b; Stordeur and Abbes, 2002, formore detailed discussion of PPNA and EPPNB flaked stone tool technologyfor other areas). While disagreement and debate continue on this subject,even between the authors of this work, it is necessary to discuss possible sup-portive data for an EPPNB phase as well as alternative interpretations of thetransition from the the PPNA to MPPNB. For some researchers, these ques-tions, as well as the limited number of well-dated and excavated sites datingto this period, underline the critical need for caution and the developmentof consensus as to the material correlates of EPPNB.

Settlement Patterns

Mediterranean Zone

The few possible large EPPNB sites are located in more northerly partsof the region, especially east of the Rift Valley, at Aswad IB in the DamascusBasin or Mujahiya on the slopes of the Golan, or perhaps at er-Rahib in WadiYabis (Fig. 7). All excavations at these sites, however, were limited in extent

P1: GCR



Fig. 7. Early and Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period site distribution in the southernLevant. Note clustering of MPPNB villages and hamlets around the Jordan Valley,and the appearance of small settlements and seasonal sites in marginal environmentalzones.

P1: GCR



and, with the exception of Tell Aswad, where continuity is certainly present,none has been radiocarbon-dated. On the basis of the brief descriptions ofthe small assemblages published, Mujahiya could actually be PPNA while er-Rahib might be primarily MPPNB, given the predominance of Jericho andByblos points in relation to Helwan points (see Gopher, 1996b). Smaller,possibly later, sites are known in the Galilee (e.g., Horvat Galil) as wellas in ephemeral and sporadic occupations in and immediately adjacent tothe coastal plain (e.g., Nahal Oren, Michmoret, Sefunim, el Wad). Havingnoted this, one of us (Kuijt) argues that the architecture, plaster floors, burialsystems, and published radiocarbon dates from Horvat Galil may representthe earliest phase of MPPNB (Kuijt, in press). Although there is presentlyno documented evidence for EPPNB settlements within the Rift itself (andall PPNA sites there were abandoned), the complete depopulation of thisarea is difficult to understand.

Arid Zone

In the Negev and Sinai, following a virtual hiatus for the first half of the10th millennium, there is some evidence for a slight increase in settlementdensity, which nevertheless remains quite sporadic. While there are few pos-sible EPPNB sites in southern Sinai, evidence from the Negev is slightlygreater, namely small hunter-gatherer occupations featuring beehive-typearchitecture in and around the Negev Highlands (Abu Salem and NahalBoqer), 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 Jordanthere would appear to be sparse reoccupation following an even longer hia-tus, dating back to the Early Natufian. Jilat 7 displays oval architecture whileJebel Queisa is an ephemeral encampment.

Site Structure


If representative of EPPNB, the sites of Tel Aswad, Mujahiya, er-Rahib,Horvat Galil, and ‘Ain Abu Hudhud were all modest hamlet-sized set-tlements extending up to no more than 2 ha, yet the limited excavationsdo not permit any observations regarding internal site structure. In theCarmel (Sefunim, el Wad), the scanty data indicate sites were probablyquite ephemeral, perhaps resembling those in more peripheral regions. TheEPPNB occupation at Abu Salem, encompassing a mere 150 m2, comprisesa series of small interlocking oval structures 1.5 to 2.0-m in diameter, with

P1: GCR



shared walls to a height of 40 cm; it is difficult to believe they could all havebeen used as residential dwellings (Gopher and Goring-Morris, 1998). Open-air sites, which possibly may have had more flimsy architecture of organicmaterials, include Michmoret and Nahal Lavan 109. The collections fromboth sites, which are undated by radiometric means, indicate they may havefunctioned as hunting camps. Nahal Lavan 109 is in many respects anoma-lous: superficially, this occupation could be viewed as a short-term huntingencampment, yet, in addition to quantities of projectile points, the represen-tation of numerous tranchet axes and obsidian artifacts is otherwise quiteunprecedented during the entire PPN in the desert areas (see Bar-Yosef,1981). Perhaps this site served as an aggregation locality for exchange andredistribution.


Although no complete radiocarbon-dated structures have been exca-vated at any site in the Mediterranean zone, there may be indications for theincomplete beginnings of a shift from oval to small-scale sub-rectangular ar-chitecture at Aswad, Horvat Galil, Abu Hudhud, and Jilat 7. House walls areoften made of fieldstones, but at Aswad and Horvat Galil rectangular mudbricks were used in tandem with colored lime-plaster floors, which curvedup the walls. Based upon other lines of data, these structures likely reflectchronological trends within the Mediterranean zone where settlements arelikely to have been permanent. Irrespective of area, the small scale of domes-tic structures is notable. In more desertic areas, at Abu Salem in the NegevHighlands, and at Jilat 7, structures were still oval, with low stone-built wallsand probable light, organic superstructures, reflecting less permanent usage.Of note is the dichotomy between house-cleaning activities in the Mediter-ranean zone as opposed to the accumulations of ash and other debris withintemporary structures in the desert.


Currently there is no known nonresidential architecture from thisperiod.


Mortuary Practice

Human skeletal material is extremely rare, but assuming that HorvatGalil is representative of EPPNB rather than MPPNB, this suggests a

P1: GCR



continuation of previous practices of burial in and around domestic dwellings(Gopher, 1989; Hershkovitz and Gopher, 1990).

Economy


At Aswad, van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres (1985) argue that there weredomesticated cereals present and that they were cultivated. At the sametime, wild plants continued to play a major role. The presence at Jilat 7 ofcultivars is especially intriguing given its steppe setting (Garrard et al., 1996).The small faunal assemblages from throughout the southern Levant indicatea hunting economy based on locally available game. Although both avifaunaand fish do occur in some sites, there appears to be a shift away from theprevious emphasis on such species.

Lithic Technology

It is important to note that lithic assemblages from this period, suchas the collections from Nahal Lavan 109, Mujahiya, er-Rahib, and AbuHudhud, are not dated by radiometric means. Therefore, caution must beemployed when employing these collections as type objects for EPPNB.In general, lithic assemblages assumed to be from EPPNB display numer-ous technotypological features transitional between PPNA and MPPNB.Notable too is the common but not completely ubiquitous preference forchalcedony and other fine-grained stone, often non-local in origin, as rawmaterial 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 forintentional heat treatment of stone (already occurring since at least the Natu-fian). Although pyramidal cores are initially predominant (following fromPPNA), an innovation is used with opposed-platform naviform techniqueto produce fine, elongated blade blanks for retouch into projectile points.It appears that this technique originated along the Middle Euphrates in thenorthern Levant and diffused southwards, together with the Helwan point(Gopher, 1989). Rare Hagdud truncations may initially continue to appearin some (northerly) assemblages. Burins are often dihedral types, some beingfashioned on naviform blades. Heavy-duty bifacial tools in the form of axesand chisels were knapped using a totally separate reduction sequence, butthey also display continuity in the common use of tranchet blows. Polishedaxes may also begin to appear. Perforating tools appear to be less com-mon and less standardized than those during PPNA. Microliths have now

P1: GCR



disappeared from the repertoire (but see Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen,1998, for a discussion of the problematic aspects of microliths in Neolithicassemblages).

Other Technology

As with the flaked stone, ground-stone tools display considerable conti-nuity from PPNA in the number of cupholes, while indicating an increasingemphasis on quern use. Polished basalt and limestone axes rarely occur.Lime plaster, sometimes colored, is now used in some sites for architecturalpurposes (Aswad, Horvat Galil), continuing practices initiated during theNatufian.

Trade and Exchange

Obsidian, greenstones, and other minerals, as well as marine mollusks,sometimes modified, may attest to continued exchange networks.

MIDDLE PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC B PERIOD

Compared to the paucity of well-excavated and radiocarbon-dated set-tlements dating between ca. 10,500 and ca. 10,100 B.P., there is a relativewealth of information for PPN occupations between ca. 10,100 andca. 9500 B.P. Field research at a number of sites (see Table I), includingJericho, ‘Ain Ghazal, Yiftahel, Kfar HaHoresh, Ghwair I, Nahal Hemar,Munhata, Tell Aswad, Wadi Shu’eib, and Beidha provide us with our mostdetailed understanding of this period of time (see Bar-Yosef and Alon, 1988;Bienert, 2001; Byrd, 1994; Garfinkel, 1987; Gopher et al., 1995; Goring-Morris, 1991; Kenyon, 1981; Kirkbride, 1968; Rollefson, 1998; Rollefsonet al., 1992; Simmons et al., 1989, and references therein; Simmons andNajjar, 1996, 1999) (Fig. 7). Characterized by elaborate mortuary practicesincluding skull removal and plastering, well-established sedentary villageswith well-made residential buildings, clear evidence for domesticated plantsand animals, in many ways the Neolithic of MPPNB exemplifies the entireNeolithic in the minds of general archaeologists and the public. Startingwith Kenyon’s research at Jericho in the 1950s through the ongoing excava-tions of ‘Ain Ghazal in the 1990s, numerous field projects have documentedthat PPN village life was characterized by the emergence of larger com-munities through population aggregation, highly formalized lithic technol-ogy, and surprisingly elaborate primary and secondary mortuary practices.While this has resulted in considerable and highly positive field research

P1: GCR



on MPPNB settlements, it has also resulted in the unfortunate stereotypingof the broader PPNB on the basis of MPPNB. Sadly, this process of gener-alizing fails to recognize the considerable variability in many, if not most,material practices between MPPNB, LPPNB, and PPNC, and perhaps moreimportant, the ways in which these changes in practices inform researchersas to the nature of social, economic, technological, and political change overthese periods.

Settlement Patterns

Mediterranean Zone

As with PPNA, most of the large MPPNB communities are locatedin the Mediterranean zone, and more specifically along the Jordan Valleyand neighboring areas. The larger MPPNB occupations, such as Jericho and‘Ain Ghazal, may have covered a horizontal area of 4–5 ha (Rollefson et al.,1992). The depth of cultural deposits as well as in the density of residen-tial housing indicates that these were medium-sized agricultural commu-nities. In the western areas of the Mediterranean zone, settlements suchas Khirbet Rabud, el-Khiam, Abu Gosh, Tell Fara North, Nahal Oren 1,Yiftahel, Horvat Galil, and Nahal Betzet appear to have covered close to1 or 1.5 ha in area at most, with many of these probably existing as smallagricultural hamlets. Communities in western areas of the Mediterraneanzone, 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. MPPNBcommunities in transitional environmental areas, such as Ghwair I andBeidha, also appear to have been smaller agricultural villages, often under1 ha (Simmons, 2000).

The distribution and size of settlements in the Mediterranean zone raisethe possibility of the existence of regional economic, ritual, and social centersin MPPNB (Rollefson, 1987). Economic linkages between these centers re-main unclear, however, as is the degree of autonomy of the smaller villages.Alternatively, such a distribution of settlements might not reflect economicsystems so much as the existence of large agricultural towns recognized aslocations for the enactment of ritual practices. Whatever the reason, MPPNBsettlement practices were clearly focused on the Mediterranean zone, andperhaps more specifically on the eastern foothills and center of the JordanValley.

Desertic Zone

In comparison to the large agricultural villages located along the Levan-tine Corridor, the occupation of desertic areas during MPPNB is relatively

P1: GCR



rare and quite small, especially compared to the number and size of oc-cupations 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 inthe exploitation of arid zones during MPPNB, presumably reflecting bothnatural population increase and perhaps also recolonization (Byrd, 1992;Hole, 1984). In the south, this is valid primarily for the Negev but also forSinai, at Nahal Efe, Divshon, Ramat Matred, Nahal Nizzana IX, Nahal Lavan109, Lavan Elyon 1, Ein Qadis I, Mushabi VI, Beer Menuha, Nahal Qetura,Nahal Re’uel, Wadi Tbeik, and Gebel Rubshah. Sites rarely reach 250 m2 inextent and, where architecture is present, comprise a series of small roundeddwellings in a beehive arrangement. These are probably the small, seasonalencampments and hunting camps of bands continuing a mobile foragingexistence, although some may represent logistical hunting forays of groupsresidentially based close to the edge of the Mediterranean zone. MPPNBsettlements situated in desertic areas are characterized by a limited numberof round/oval structures, often with a semisubterranean foundation, usuallycovering an area of less than 20 × 20 m2. Along the Azraq basin, for exam-ple, settlements were usually characterized by shallow occupation depositsand a restricted number of storage or food-preparation features (Garrardet al., 1994). Unlike in the Mediterranean, the walls and floors of buildingsare not plastered, and elaborately prepared floors and walls are formed withupright stones. Moreover, some MPPNB occupations consist of short-termuse areas, such as hunting camps, in which the only evidence of architec-ture consists of fire hearths with no residential structures. Collectively, thelimited extent of archaeological remains and the flimsy nature of MPPNBarchitecture in desertic areas are suggestive of short-term or seasonal use bysmall families or perhaps households.

Site Structure


Although archaeologists working in the southern Levant have a rela-tively extensive understanding of material culture and economic practicesfor the MPPNB, we have only the most limited understanding of how spacewas organized within these communities. As with the PPNA and the EPPNB,our poor understanding of MPPNB settlement organization is linked to thelimited excavation of extramural areas. In some cases, such as Jericho and‘Ain Ghazal, it is not feasible to open large horizontal areas because of lateroccupations. In cases where opening horizontal areas has been possible, al-most all buildings appear to have been freestanding with variable spacing ofstructures (Figs. 8 and 9). For example, at Beidha and Ghwair I, structures

P1: GCR



Fig. 8. Schematic representation of Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period residential architec-tural and mortuary practices. Illustrated ritual and mortuary practices include (1) primary adultburial, skull removed, subfloor, and inside of structure; (2) primary adult burial, complete, ex-tramural; (3) primary child burial, complete, under wall of structure; (4) secondary burial cacheof three skulls.

were built next to each other with little space between them. At ‘Ain Ghazaland Jericho, excavations reveal that structures were often placed next toeach other, but that there were also cases where individual buildings wereseparated by 5–8 m. At Yiftahel and Kfar HaHoresh, we see a pattern inwhich buildings were separated from each other. It is also interesting to notethat with expanded excavation of extramural areas, archaeologists are doc-umenting the existence of large fire hearths, plaster-manufacturing facilities,and other general domestic areas.


Over the last 20 years, a growing number of researchers have exam-ined Neolithic patterns of architectural change in the southern Levant asa means of understanding past social organization, changes in the size andcomposition 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 exploredthe possible reasons for site and regional-level patterning of residentialand non-residential architecture (cf. Banning and Byrd, 1987; Byrd, 1994;Flannery, 1973; Kuijt, 2000a). In general, MPPNB period residential

P1: GCR



Fig. 9. Plan view of Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period non-residential buildingsat Beidha, Jordan. Note placement of upright stones, stone paving on floors, and largeground stone basin.

P1: GCR



structures from the Mediterranean zone of the southern Levant were rectan-gular or sub-rectangular with an entrance at one end, internally partitioned,and in many cases had an open internal space opposite the entrance with acentral 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 groundsurface and without a foundation trench. Depending on the available lo-cal building materials, the walls consisted of courses of field stones oftenarranged in two parallel rows that were later filled with mud and irregularstones. Floors were almost always constructed of a thick plaster, painted red,pink, or white, and punctured by multiple postholes for roof supports. Asseen at Jericho, Beidha, and ‘Ain Ghazal, MPPNB structures were highlystandardized in their length, width, and internal layout within individualsettlements. Settlements that were close to each other tend to have sim-ilar architectural practices. For example, the internal dimensions of mostMPPNB period residential structures from ‘Ain Ghazal and Jericho, the twosites with the most complete data, are approximately 8 × 4.5 m2, with rarelymore than 50-cm variation in any dimension and with internal partitions. Inother early MPPNB settlements in areas adjacent to the Jordan Valley, thereappears to be a greater degree of variation in the size, shape, and internalorganization of residential architecture. The settlements of Yiftahel, KfarHaHoresh, and possibly Horvat Galil illustrate the existence of rectangu-lar or sub-rectangular buildings but with greater variability in the size ofstructures and the use of internal partitions.

Along transitional environmental zones, such as the southern desert ar-eas, it appears that the transition from circular/oval structures to rectangularfree standing structures occurred slightly later in PPNB. Excavations at theimportant MPPNB occupation of Ghwair I provide evidence of an inward-looking cell plan, often built around a small central courtyard (Najjar, 1994;Simmons, 1995; Simmons and Najjar, 1999). Here, individual cells tend to bemore or less square, with awkward access from the central courtyard throughraised rectangular entrances/windows. Construction was usually of shapedstones and chinking. Although details are presently scanty, some may havehad upper stories for residential dwellings, the small cells serving as storageand other activity facilities. Courtyards and some cells were plastered. Thesestructures facilitated the construction of additional cells around the exterior,ultimately creating a warren of rooms and open spaces. Collectively, researchat Beidha and Ghwair I illustrates that in peripheral Mediterranean areas,rectangular systems of architecture appear to be adopted several hundredyears later, and when they are adopted, they do not display the degree ofstandardization seen in communities in the Mediterranean area. In desertareas, presumably occupied seasonally, circular structures continue to be

P1: GCR



constructed for the entire PPN sequence. The specific reasons for these dif-ferences are unclear, although, given the geographical nature of this pat-terning, they may well be related to unrecognized differences in economicpractices, differential rates of diffusion of cultural practices from commu-nities living in Mediterranean areas to communities situated in transitionalenvironmental zones, and/or differences in social organization.


Recent regional synthesis and ongoing field research at ‘Ain Ghazal,Ghawair I, Kfar HaHoresh, and Beidha have provided enticing glimpsesof how and where MPPNB communities created spaces within settlementsfor nonresidential or collective purposes. One aspect of this is seen in theconstruction of distinctive, if not unique, structures both within and outsidesettlement boundaries. At Beidha, excavations some 40 m away from theresidential areas revealed three stone structures that were different fromresidential structures in construction and character. Beyond their physicalplacements, these structures differed from residential structures in the con-struction 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 rect-angular stone in one building (Byrd, 1994, p. 657; Kirkbride, 1968) (Fig. 9).Both the location and contents of these structures suggest that communitymembers constructed them for ritual practices, perhaps with different house-holds associated with different structures.

In a pattern that anticipates the LPPNB construction of non-residentialarchitecture at ‘Ain Ghazal, there are also cases in MPPNB Beidha in whichnon-residential buildings were integrated with residential buildings. On thebasis of the presence of very large, centrally located raised rimmed hearths,larger than those in residential structures, and the absence of in situ artifactsassociated with domestic activities, Byrd (1994) argues that select buildingsin the MPPNB occupation at Beidha were probably employed for commu-nal and ritual practices. In contrast to residential structures, most of thesebuildings were constructed with unique architectural features. Excavationsat Ghwair I also provide evidence for the construction of public areas, withmajor outdoor stairways, that according to preliminary reports by Simmonsand Najjar (1999, p. 6) may have served as some sort of public area. Theuse of orthostats is also seen at Kfar HaHoresh, Ghwair I, and Jericho. AtGhwair I, excavations have revealed that community members commonlyconstructed small niches along wall areas, and at times cached objects inthese niches. The use of niches is also seen in the buildings at Jericho. AtJericho, a large chipped stone upright was recovered on the floor of a room

P1: GCR



in front of a niche, and Kenyon’s interpretation places this stone as origi-nally standing in the niche. Interestingly, the small wall niches documented atmost settlements appear in both residential and non-residential structures,and this architectural feature may indicate that some aspects of broadercommunity ritual or beliefs were practiced within single households as wellas communally in non-residential structures.


Mortuary Practices

Over the last 20 years, archaeological research projects at MPPNB set-tlements have revealed a remarkable level of continuity in broader mortuarypractices in the southern Levant, and at the same time, a high degree of vari-ation in the ways in which mortuary practices were implemented withinand 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 themore remarkable by-products of nearly 100 years of archaeological researchat PPN settlements has been the documentation of formalized mortuarypractices that have intrigued, puzzled, and fascinated the general public andprofessional archaeologists alike. This discussion has centered on two scalesof research: that of the nature of and variability within mortuary practices atindividual communities, and the degree to which select mortuary practiceswere shared between regional communities, and between regional areas,such as the southern and northern Levant. Drawing upon well-known exca-vations at Jericho, ‘Ain Ghazal and Beidha, as well as more recent field workat the MPPNB sites of Nahal Hemar, Yiftahel, and Kfar HaHoresh, a num-ber of shared mortuary practices can be noted (see Goring-Morris, 2000;Kuijt, 2000b, 2001a; Rollefson, 2000; Verhoeven, 2002, for more detailedconsiderations).

In MPPNB, we see the coexistence of three interrelated mortuary sys-tems: (1) the primary interment of adults, probably both males and females,in single graves; (2) the interment of infants in single graves; and (3) thesecondary removal of some, but not all, adult skulls from primary graves forsome form of unknown ritual use with eventual reburial in caches of singleor multiple skulls. Infants, usually but not always buried as single individuals,were occasionally buried in areas of architecture but more often were placedin fill and courtyard areas. While crania were occasionally removed from theskeletons of infants/youths (Cornwall, 1981; Kirkbride, 1968; Rollefson et al.,1992), at ‘Ain Ghazal infant remains were usually interred as complete and

P1: GCR



articulated individuals, at times associated with adults with intact skulls. Onother occasions, infants appear to have been interred in a ritual context,such as in sub-floor foundations and as dedicatory offerings with foundationor walls of buildings. The majority of infants, however, were buried in filldeposits in courtyard areas or outside buildings. At Jericho, the primary in-terment of adults is usually associated with architecture, although not alwaysso, and often the crania are removed from the grave to a secondary loca-tion. As seen in the excavations of ‘Ain Ghazal, Beidha, Yiftahel, and KfarHaHoresh (Garfinkel, 1987; Goring-Morris, 1991; Kirkbride, 1968; Rollefsonet al., 1992), adults generally continue to be interred as individuals and almostalways without grave goods.

Community members in MPPNB appear to have expanded secondarymortuary practices with extensive caching of multiple human skulls, some ofthem plastered and painted. As part of this elaboration, there also appearsto be a formalization in the locations in which ritual practices occurred, bothin terms of the interment of skull caches, and in the location of specific ritualpractices within structures. The on-going excavations at ‘Ain Ghazal, forexample, have uncovered several skull caches. Characteristic of this patternis a cache of three skulls placed in a row facing away from the center of theroom, and recovered from beneath the floor of the southeast corner of ahouse. In the same house but in a separate room, a single adolescent skullwas placed beneath the southwest corner of the floor. The rear portion of thiscranium was thinly coated with black pigment, possibly bitumen (Rollefson,1986, p. 51). Similarly, at Nahal Hemar, a cache of six skulls, as well asmiscellaneous skeletal elements, was uncovered from the PPNB levels. Thesix skulls, some very fragmented, were at least partially covered in asphaltorganized in a geometric pattern. All of these skulls were recovered fromthe southwest corner of the cave, a close spatial clustering that is consistentwith the simultaneous interment of skulls in some form of cache at otherMPPNB sites.

The plastering of human skulls represents an enhanced aspect of theMPPNB ritual complex in the southern Levant. A comparison of plasteredskulls from different areas of the region illustrates a pattern of local vari-ation in the amount and type of plaster employed, the degree to whichskulls were plastered, and the artistic techniques employed (Arensburg andHershkovitz, 1988; de Contenson, 1966, 1971; Ferembach, 1978; Griffin et al.,1998; Kenyon, 1953, 1969; Rollefson, 1986; Rollefson et al., 1992, 1999). Cur-rently, there are fewer than 20 known plastered skulls from the southernLevant, all dated to MPPNB and LPPNB. The majority of these were re-covered from group caches; plaster helped to preserve the skull and gavethe appearance of still maintaining lifelike flesh. Some skulls provide exten-sive evidence of variation in the remodeling of facial features, such as the

P1: GCR



construction of a nose, eyes, and mouth. Kenyon’s excavations at Jerichouncovered a total of 14 plastered and/or painted skulls, 10 of which were re-modeled plastically with multiple plastering events to form representationsof painted faces. In some of the plastered skulls the eyes were outlined byshell insets and repainted multiple times. Of this group of 10, only 1 hasa completely plastered face with the mandible present. The excavation atthe MPPNB Kfar HaHoresh uncovered a single plastered and painted skullwithout a mandible, plastered to reconstruct a smaller scale lifelike face onthe reduced surface area; thus, the bottom of the maxilla region was coveredby plaster to form the lower portions of the mandible and chin. Like theskull from ‘Ain Ghazal, the eyes were formed by enlarging areas around theeye orbit rather than using shell insets like at Jericho.

The presence of secondary skull removal and reburial provides re-searchers with some important insights as to PPNB social organization. Incontrast to primary, single-stage, mortuary practices, aspects of multi-stagesecondary mortuary practices are planned in advance, often held in conjunc-tion by multiple households as part of a community festival, and require ex-traordinary levels of community involvement. As a number of ethnograpicand archaeological studies illustrate, ritual practitioners and communitiesoften organize secondary mortuary rituals as part of high-profile public cer-emonies. Beyond these logistical dimensions, secondary mortuary practices,with the deliberate removal of some or all of the skeleton, are often linked tobroader beliefs in ancestor worship. For these reasons, secondary mortuaryrituals differ from primary burial of individuals as these ceremonies oftencrosscut kin and household lines, thereby emphasizing the community overthe individual.

Other Symbolic Realms (Masks, Statues, Figures)

In contrast to earlier periods, members of MPPNB communities em-ployed a wide range of masks, statues, and figurines in their daily and rituallives (Fig. 10). One of the important results from the excavations at ‘AinGhazal and Jericho is the discovery of a number of large MPPNB anthropo-morphic statues. These plaster figurines, often about half of life size, were ofpainted human figures or busts of the upper torso. The statues have clearlyformed legs and arms and were often painted to draw attention to the face.They were probably constructed in multiple steps and would have requireda 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 statueswere cached were associated with architecture, Rollefson (1986) argues that

P1: GCR



Fig. 10. Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period ritual and cultic objects: (a and b) humanbusts, ‘Ain Ghazal; (c) plaster human skull, Kfar HaHoresh; (d) human mask, Jericho; (e)human figurine statue cache, ‘Ain Ghazal.

the statue caches were from extramural locations. Anthropomorphic stat-ues have also been recovered from the MPPNB Jericho and Nahal HemarCave (Goren et al., 1993). Although poorly preserved, four caches of an-thropomorphic statues made of plaster were also recovered in Garstang’s

P1: GCR



excavations at Jericho; of these caches, two contained three statues, and theremaining each contained a single statue. As at ‘Ain Ghazal, all of the cachesfrom Jericho appear to be from pit contexts.

A second important, although very rare, material representation of theMPPNB ritual world is seen in the carving of limestone masks. Designed aslife-size masks that covered the face, with carved eye and mouth holes as wellas drilled holes for attachment to the face or for attaching materials/features,these masks have only been recovered from settlements flanking the south-ern Rift Valley. The construction and use of small clay animal figurines alsoappears to have been important in some communities. Many researchershave commented on the association of MPPNB small clay animal figurineswith residential architecture and their possible connection to household cul-tic practices. The clay figurines, most of which appear to be cattle (but occa-sionally also goats or equids), have frequently been thematically linked tothe possible existence of a widespread cattle cult throughout the PPNB pe-riod (Cauvin, 1994, 2000; Kenyon, 1957; Kirkbride, 1968; Rollefson, 1986).To date, at least 56 cattle figurines have been identified from the early exca-vation seasons at ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson et al., 1992). While some of thesefigurines may have served as toys or art objects, Rollefson (1986) also notesthat many of these clay animal figurines appear to have been ritually killedby stabbing them with pieces of flint while they were still pliable.

It is interesting to note that all three types of MPPNB material objectsappear to be geographically restricted to select, and perhaps overlapping,areas of the southern Levant. For example, clay animal figurines have yetto be recovered from settlements west of the Jordan Valley. Although it ispossible that this distribution is related to sampling, it is surprising that ex-cavations at least five MPPNB and LPPNB settlements in this area have notrecovered clay anthropomorphic figurines. Similarly, the rare stone maskshave only been recovered—unfortunately most from secondary or uniden-tified contexts—from areas around Jerusalem and the eastern side of theJordan Valley. The large anthropomorphic statuary is even more restricted,known only at Jericho and ‘Ain Ghazal. While recovered from slightly differ-ent geographical areas, these items appear to have been distributed mainlyaround the Jordan Valley.


One of the more important recent advancements in our understandingof the MPPNB is seen in the exploration of the possible interrelationships be-tween architectural and ritual practices. A number of recent studies (Byrd,1994; Goring-Morris, 2000; Rollefson, 1997, 2000; Verhoeven, 2002) have

P1: GCR



explored the nature of social arrangements as seen in the built environmentand spatial distribution of material culture within settlements. While stillpreliminary, these studies have noted that select areas of MPPNB settle-ments appear to have been employed in a non-residential and presumablycommunal capacity. This ranges from the construction of unique buildingsaway from residential areas, such as at Beidha, to the construction of uniquebuildings inside what are taken to be residential areas, such as at Beidha,‘Ain Ghazal, and Jericho, to potentially even the construction of entire set-tlements for funerary purposes, as at Kfar HaHoresh. With the exception ofthe research at Beidha, there are few detailed analyses of the intrasite dis-tribution of cultural materials at MPPNB settlements. Instead, most archae-ologists have focused on the construction of features found inside buildings,such as fire hearths and orthostats, or on differences in the construction of in-dividual buildings. While in their infancy, these studies illustrate that at manyMPPNB-sites-specific buildings were constructed and used in very differentways from other buildings. Presumably, such uses would have included intra-and interhouse communal events such as funerals and coming-of-age rituals.

Economy


When considering the nature of paleobotanical and faunal remains fromMPPNB sites, one must recognize that while a wide range of domesticatedplant crops were utilized, the degree to which they served as a major foodsource varies on a regional level. Paleobotantical remains from ‘Ain Ghazalindicate that MPPNB villagers incorporated a wide range of plants into theirdiet, including wheat, barley, peas, lentils, and chickpeas, along with otherresources, such as figs, almonds, and pistachios (Rollefson et al., 1992). Thedegree to which this is representative of plant use at other communities,especially those in different environmental locations, is subject to debateand in need of further study. This is especially clear when considering therelative absence of wheat from Yiftahel, a site in an upland location in thewestern Mediterranean area with an apparent high reliance on peas andlentils. Similarly, flax was found at Nahal Hemar, but it is not clear howimportant this resource was at other sites.

Although the transition from earlier periods to MPPNB of the south-ern Levant is often conceived of by researchers as representing a shift fromthe exploitation of gazelles to caprines (sheep and goat), this generaliza-tion fails to recognize that variation exists between communities in differentareas of the southern Levant (Horwitz et al., 1999). For example, analysis

P1: GCR



of MPPNB ‘Ain Ghazal fauna illustrates a clear diminution in the size ofcaprines, presumably linked to their domestication for meat as well as sec-ondary products (Bar-Yosef and Meadow, 1995). In other contexts, however,such as at Kfar Hahorish and Yiftahel, there is no evidence for domesticatedgoat, and sheep. At the moment, therefore, while there is evidence for do-mesticated caprines at some MPPNB settlements, at other contemporaneoussettlements significant quantities of meat were provided by the hunting ofgazelle, ibex, wild goat, and sheep. Collectively, this suggests that while thedomestication of caprines was an important economic event in the MPPNB,in some areas of the southern Levant, such as the western Mediterraneanregion, this transition was gradual and by no means total.

Lithic Technology

Over the last 30 years, considerable field and laboratory research hasexplored the nature of PPNB lithic technology (Abbes, 1994; Bar-Yosef,1980; Crowfoot-Payne, 1983; Gopher, 1994; Nishiaki, 2000; Quintero andWilke, 1995). These studies have outlined that MPPNB assemblages arecharacterized by long, inversely retouched sickle blades, a high frequency ofJericho 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 mostimportant technological developments appearing around 10,500 B.P. in thesouthern Levant is that of the use of naviform blade cores. The importanttechnological advantage of naviorm blade cores is that they allow for bettercontrol over blade morphology, thus permitting the consistent productionof long, straight, parallel-sided blades. Such blades were employed to makesickle blades, arrowheads, borers, and perforators.

Having observed these general patterns, we should note that a compari-son of recovered lithic materials from a range of MPPNB sites indicates thatthere was considerable regional/local variation in the number and percent-ages of some tool types as well as the degree to which lithic technologicalsystems focused on ad-hoc vs. specialized core systems, such as naviformcores. Traditionally, specialized core systems and the tools produced fromthem have received a disproportionate degree of attention from researchers,often overlooking the considerable importance of ad-hoc tool systems. It isalso clear, moreover, that the relative importance of tool types differs con-siderably depending upon the geographical location of the settlement. Oneaspect of this is seen in the reduction of sickle blades and the increase in per-centages of projectile points and burins in lithic assemblages in desertic areas(Garrard et al., 1994). While these observations have yet to be articulatedin any detailed fashion, preliminary impressions suggest that unrecognized

P1: GCR


Fig. 11. Chipped stone tools from the Early, Middle, and Late Pre-PotteryNeolithic B periods of the southern Levant: (a) Jericho projectile point; (b)Byblos projectile point; (c) Amuq projectile point; (d) Jericho projectilepoint; (e) Helwan projectile point; (f–h) burin; (i and j) sickle blades; (kand l) generalized bipolar core.

401

P1: GCR



Fig. 12. Ground and polish stone tools from the Early, Middle, and Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B periods of the southern Levant: (a and b) grinding stone; (cand d) pestle; (e and f) hand stones; (g and h) ground and polished stone axes.

levels of inter- and intra-assemblage variability exists, possibly dependingupon access to raw materials, the location of individual settlements, and thenature and spatial location of economic activities within communities.

The MPPNB groundstone assemblages display an emphasis on grind-ing equipment, exemplified by various saddle and trough querns, grinding

P1: GCR



slabs, bowls, and platters of limestone, chalk, sandstone, basalt, and meta-morphic rocks; these items sometimes showing a clear correlation betweenmorphology and raw material. Handstones are often oval and found on a va-riety of raw materials. Mortars are rare, although combination of pounding/grinding handstones are often quite common. Polished and grooved stonesare also found, as well as whetstones and palettes. Stones with multiple in-cised parallel or crossed lines, probably of symbolic significance, are some-times found.

Other Technology

The production of lime plaster represents a further example of tech-nological development in MPPNB. As noted earlier, almost all forms ofMPPNB architecture contain plaster floors. These floors appear to havebeen replastered on a regular basis, with the total thickness of plaster reach-ing 15 cm. Field research at Yiftahel and Kfar HaHorish has identified areasin which limestone was heated, reduced to a powered form, and then latermixed with water to be applied to floors and, potentially, to interior and exte-rior walls of structures. At Yiftahel, limestone production is indicated by theexcavation of a large number of exterior fire hearths, some of which still con-tained limestone cobbles. In light of the number of plaster floors, continualreplastering episodes, and reflections on the significant quantities of firewoodrequired for fabrication, lime plaster production must have involved a con-siderable amount of labor and resources. Rollefson and Kohler-Rollefson(1989), for example, argue that the demand for wood used in lime plasterproduction may have led to local deforestation around large settlements.

Trade and Exchange

Both long-distance trade and local production of flaked stone and bonebeads occurred in the MPPNB. Studies of lithic technology hint at the emer-gence of some form of limited craft specialization focused on naviform corereduction, although this appears to have been restricted to regional ratherthan interregional areas (Quintero and Wilke, 1995). Such craft specializa-tion might have occurred as a production activity performed on a part-timebasis by a few members who supplied blades for all of their immediate com-munity. Beyond the need for specific skills in the production of blades fromnaviform cores, Quintero and Wilke (1995, p. 28) note the presence of exca-vated workshop areas and debris dumps at ‘Ain Ghazal.

One of the other important sources of information about trade and ex-change comes from shell-bead production (Bar-Yosef Mayer, 1997). In areas

P1: GCR



of the Sinai, shell beads may have been exchanged for cereals from agricul-tural communities within the Mediterranean zone. As would be expected,shell-bead production in southern areas focused on Red Sea mollusks. Incontrast, communities in more northern areas of the southern Levant usedMediterranean mollusks, and the MPPNB and LPPNB communities of ‘AinGhazal, Beidha, and Basta used Mediterranean as well as Red Sea species.Collectively, this distribution illustrates the long-distance movement of shellmaterials. As noted by Bar-Yosef Mayer (1997), one possibility is that theseobjects were exchanged for subsistence resources.

LATE PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC B PERIOD

Up to the mid-1980s, researchers’ understanding of the LPPNB wasbased almost entirely on excavations at the settlements of Ramad, AbuGosh, Beisamoun, and a number of other smaller settlements (see Bar-Yosef, 1981). With the identification and excavation of other LPPNB set-tlements since 1983 including ‘Ain Ghazal, El-Hemmeh, Khirbet Hammam,Wadi Shu’ieb, Es-Sifiya, Nahal Issaron, Tell Rakan, Ba’Ja, ‘Ain el-Jammam,and Basta (Banning, 2001; Bisheh et al., 1993; de Contenson, 1971; Gebel andBienert, 1997; Gebel and Hermansen, 2000; Mahasneh, 1997, 2001; Mahasnehand Bienert, 2000; Nissen et al., 1988, 1992; Peterson, 2000; Rollefson, 1997,1999; Rollefson et al., 1992; Simmons et al., 1989, 2001), researchers have de-veloped a profoundly different perspective of the terminal PPNB (Fig. 13).Most notably, researchers have now clearly demonstrated that the tran-sition from the MPPNB to LPPNB included dramatic shifts in economicpractices, settlement systems, and village life between ca. 9250 andca. 8700 B.P.

Settlement Patterns

Mediterranean Zone

Over the last 10 years, it has become clear that one of the most impor-tant changes with the initiation of the LPPNB was a shift in large agriculturalvillages from all areas of the Mediterranean zone, often centered on the Jor-dan Valley, to Mediterranean/desertic ecotone areas along the eastern sideof the Jordan Valley. Only a few LPPNB settlements are known west of theJordan Valley, such as Abu Gosh and Beisamoun, and almost all MPPNBsettlements in this area are abandoned by the start of the LPPNB. In con-trast, in areas east of the Jordan Valley, there are several settlements where

P1: GCR



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 expansioninto eastern desert marginal zones.

P1: GCR



there is occupational continuity between MPPNB and LPPNB, including thelarge 10 ha sites of ‘Ain Ghazal and Wadi Shu’ieb. Just as importantly, in theeastern areas we see the appearance of many new LPPNB settlements, manyof which are considerably larger than any previously existing. For example,large LPPNB occupations east of the Jordan Valley include Es-Sifiya, ‘Ainel-Jammam, Ramad, Basta, El-Hemmeh, and Khirbet Hammam. Many ofthese are at least 10 ha in area (between two and three times larger thanany known MPPNB settlement) and were founded in locations with no ev-idence for previous occupation. It is possible that the perceived absenceof LPPNB settlements in western areas is a by-product of site visibility ingeneral, and the formation of later period tells on top of LPPNB sites. Ifcorrect, this apparently illustrates an important shift in the location of majorsettlements in the LPPNB to the eastern areas Mediterranean zone of thesouthern Levant, with the continued appearance of smaller settlements inall areas.

Desertic Zone

Simultaneous with the shift to eastern areas of the Mediterranean zone,we find considerable archaeological evidence for new or expanded humanoccupations of desertic areas in the southern Levant. As outlined by severalresearchers (Byrd, 1992; Garrard et al., 1994), there is a significant increasein the number of settlements in the areas of Azarq and further east in theLPPNB. These occupations are quite small, usually no more than 4–6 smalloval stone structures, but occur in greater frequency than earlier periods ofthe PPNB. As with earlier occupations, it is not entirely clear if these LPPNBsettlements are the remains of short-term seasonal occupations or of somelonger period of use. While debate exists as to why such settlements wereestablished and maintained (resource stress in the Mediterranean zone andnew developments in herding being two important possibilities), it is clearthat the LPPNB witnesses an expansion of adaptations into desertic areasat an unprecedented scale.

Site Structure


Recently, several LPPNB settlements have been excavated in relativelybroad horizontal areas, and as a result archaeologists are quickly developingan understanding of the nature of settlement organization at different sites

P1: GCR



in the southern Levant and in northern areas (for important works, readersare directed to Akkermans and Verhoeven, 1995; Ozdogan and Ozdogan,1998; Verhoeven, 1999). At Beisamoun, Abu Gosh and Ramad, for exam-ple, buildings are freestanding with the spacing of structures creating al-leyways and distinct areas between buildings. In contrast, at the LPPNBsettlements east of the Jordan River, such as Basta, ‘Ain Ghazal, Es-Sifiya,‘Ain el-Jammam, El-Hemmeh, and Khirbet Hammam, buildings are usu-ally built next to other structures, resulting in areas with remarkably higharchitectural density (Kuijt, 2000a). It is not clear if this reflects a greaterdensity of human occupation or is actually a by-product of more elaboratearchitecture. However one views this, it is important to note the remarkablyhigh-density building systems compared to earlier periods, and also to rec-ognize that this is not achieved again in this region until some 3000 yearslater in the Early Bronze Age.


As with the MPPNB, residential architecture in LPPNB settlements isusually characterized by rectangular or subrectangular buildings with plas-tered floors and walls (Figs. 14 and 15). In regions of the southern Levantwhere large stone material was not readily available, buildings were con-structed of unfired mud brick. At settlements where angular or flat stoneswere available, residential structures were quite elaborate, and in severalcases included the development of true second-story architecture. At Basta,Ba’Ja, and Es-Sifiya, for example, excavations have uncovered evidence oftwo-story buildings with prepared stairways and stone platforms to supportroof beams. In some cases, external walls preserved to a height of 2–3 millustrate a system of stone working not unlike that seen in the AmericanSouthwest during the Pueblo periods.

There are two other important aspects to LPPNB residential architec-ture: the existence of freestanding or abutting architecture at different sitesand the appearance of room systems that probably served as dedicated stor-age areas. In many settlements where there was no readily available flat orrectangular stone (such as Beisamoun, Abu Gosh, and Ramad), freestand-ing buildings were often constructed. In larger settlements, buildings wereoften constructed against each other, using existing walls as a form of struc-tural support. Beyond producing the conditions for second-story residentialarchitecture, these practices appear to have created, intentionally or not,ground-floor room blocks composed of adjoining small 1.5- to 2-m rooms.In light of their size and the perceived absence of domestic artifacts, theseareas possibly functioned as dedicated storage rooms.

P1: GCR



Fig. 14. Plan view of Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period residential architecture from (a) Ba’Jaand (b) Es-Sifyia, Jordan. Note the considerable segmentation of space compared to earlierperiods and many, if not most, structures are connected to other buildings.


Broad horizontal excavations at several LPPNB settlements have pro-vided important insights on spatial organization within these villages, andby extension, the existence of evidence for non-residential architecture. As

P1: GCR



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 surroundingfirst-floor central room, and the open second-floor area that likely served as the residentialarea.

one example of this, research at ‘Ain Ghazal illustrates that LPPNB commu-nities organized their space so as to distinguish residential vs. community orcommunal space (Rollefson, 1998). Excavations at the North Field at ‘AinGhazal uncovered two partially preserved round structures situated betweenrectangular buildings. The more northerly of these two structures was builtwith four subfloor channels, each oriented in a cardinal direction. It is notclear if these channels were designed to improve air circulation or if perhapsthere was some ritual significance in their construction. While the buildingwas void of contents, on the basis of material patterning and the unique na-ture of the structures, the excavators at ‘Ain Ghazal argue that they servedas “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 EastField of ‘Ain Ghazal uncovered two LPPNB structures, both of which havebeen identified as LPPNB “Temples” or “Special Buildings.” Both buildingsare characterized by fireplaces built with inset stones forming the rims andseveral upright monoliths at one end of the rooms. While it was originally be-lieved that one of these two rooms dated to PPNC, two radiocarbon sampleshave dated the PPNC structure to ca. 8700 B.P., and Rollefson now considers

P1: GCR



these to date to LPPNB (Rollefson, 1998, p. 51). Against the back wall ofone of the rooms was a 2-m-long rectangular “altar” of large stones, in frontof which was a large plastered floor hearth surrounded by seven limestoneslabs. Centered in the north wall of the same room was a rectangular cubiclemade of slabs.

With this increased awareness of the non-residential use of some build-ings in the LPPNB, debate has centered on the nature of social activities thatmight have taken place and the terminology used to describe the structures.For example, Rollefson (1998, p. 117) uses the term “temple” to describea complex of rooms in the East Field across Wadi Zarqa from the mainoccupation area at ‘Ain Ghazal, an area that apparently served ritual andcultic purposes. An understanding of the significance of the buildings mustbe formulated with the knowledge that excavations at other LPPNB settle-ments have not revealed buildings similar to the special purpose and ApsidalBuildings found at ‘Ain Ghazal. We agree with Rollefson on the probablecultic or communal function of this area. At the same time, however, weurge caution in the use of terms such as “altar” and “temple” as these arelinked to levels of formalized ritual and religion that may not be applica-ble to PPN (see also Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998). We have onlya limited understanding of the nature of architectural variability within asingle LPPNB community, and it is thus very difficult to argue confidentlyfor the use of individual structures, and the links between such architecturalfeatures and domestic/residential activities or ritual practices.


Mortuary Practices

While archaeologists usually perceive LPPNB mortuary practices asreflecting continuity with the preceding MPPNB, fieldwork at a numberof large LPPNB settlements has illustrated that while there are elementsof continuity, dramatic changes also occur. As with the earlier phases ofthe Neolithic, community members continued to bury the dead individually,placing them in a wide range of locations and positions. Burials continue to befound underneath house floors, in courtyard areas, and as dedicatory caches.Skulls continued to be removed from adult individuals but not as regularlyas before ca. 9250 B.P. As seen at Ramad, skull plastering also continuesto be practiced. Within the context of this continuity, however, significantchanges are seen with the increased burial of humans with animals, and, forthe first time in PPN the systematic interment of goods with the dead. At ‘AinGhazal, Basta, Ba’Ja, and Es-Sifiya, burials are found with pendants, shellnecklaces, palettes, stone beads, and bracelets. These grave goods are never

P1: GCR



found in large quantities. This pattern, at least as seen from evidence of largeagricultural LPPNB villages dating between ca. 9250 and 8700 B.P., stands inclear opposition to the absence of mortuary goods in MPPNB and PPNAsettlements. Of note, however, is the fact that burial practices continue to bequite 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 prac-tices from the MPPNB and LPPNB. Two of these are the continued man-ufacture of stone skull masks, such as seen at Basta, and the continued re-moval and plastering of human skulls. Excavations at Ramad, dating betweenca. 9250 and ca. 8700 B.P., have produced two plastered human skulls, whileexcavations at Beisamoun yielded one. Another important shared culturalelement is the manufacture and use of small anthropomorphic clay figurinesand geometric tokens (Mahasneh and Gebel, 1999; Rollefson et al., 1992).


Recent attention has focused on the possible relationships between rit-ual practices and the built environment in LPPNB settlements. Most of thisresearch prioritizes architecture as a means of identifying nonresidentiallocations. Needless to say, such identifications depend upon a clear under-standing of architectural variability within a restricted period of a settle-ment history. In some cases, archaeologists are starting to document the na-ture of architectural variability within individual settlements. As describedearlier, excavations in the North Field of ‘Ain Ghazal have illustrated thatthe contemporaneous construction of two round structures that are com-pletely different from the normative LPPNB architectural systems. In manycases, limited funding has restricted the excavation of broad horizontalareas. Even when archaeologists are able to document variability, it hasproved to be difficult to link specific architectural practices with the oc-currence of other types of material culture such as figurines or plasteredskulls.

Economy


Samples from a few LPPNB settlements indicate that a wealth of ce-reals and pulses continued to be used. It should be noted, however, thatarchaeologists have only the most limited understanding of the degree to

P1: GCR



which individual plant species were relied on in different communities andthat our understanding is based on only a few sites. In many ways this is areflection of the effects of limited excavation of LPPNB settlements duringthe 1980s, and the as yet uncompleted floral analyses for the large LPPNBsettlements on the eastern slope of the Jordan Valley.

One of the most important phenomena in subsistence economy is thecontinued transition to domesticated animal species within settlements lo-cated in the Mediterranean zone of the southern Levant (Horwitz et al.,1999). At ‘Ain Ghazal, for example, by the end of the LPPNB domesticatedspecies including goat, pig, cattle, and possibly sheep provided more than80% of meat protein (Kohler-Rollefson et al., 1988). In desertic areas, do-mesticated animals are also well represented, although in some settlementswild species continue to be a major economic focus. As pointed out by Bar-Yosef and Meadow (1995), several regional studies have noted evidence forthe domestication of pig and cattle at some point between 9250 and 8700 B.P.,although the limited published data from the southern Levant limits ourunderstanding of the degree to which these and other domesticated specieswere important in sites located in different ecological areas.

Lithic Technology

For the most part, lithic technology of LPPNB is quite similar to thatof MPPNB, with a continued emphasis on opposed-platform core systemsas well as more informal blade-and-flake core systems. While not systemati-cally studied, the importance of naviform core systems may have decreasedin some cases. Byblos and Amuq projectile points dominate assemblages,characterized by an increased use of flat retouch. Sickle blades continueto be an important tool at most settlements in the Mediterranean zone.Ground-stone industries also show considerable continuity, with wide use oflimestone-grinding stones.

Recent excavations at Basta, ‘Ain Ghazal, Ba’ja, and Es-Sifiya havehighlighted the importance of sandstone and limestone bracelets. These wereproduced by a combination of direct percussion and grinding of sandstone,most of which appears to have been acquired in southern areas. Presumablythese were worn as a form of decoration. It is not clear if these items wereproduced and used locally or if they were also exchanged and traded toneighboring communities.

Other Technology

Limestone plastering continues to be an important technology, althoughthere is a clear reduction (compared to MPPNB) in the frequency in which

P1: GCR



floors were plastered. Unlike the MPPNB, many floors were not coveredin lime plaster, and when they were plastered, reflooring events appear tobe less frequent. Two possible reasons for this are that community needsfor wood may have reduced local resources, together with regional pale-oclimatic changes which resulted in the restriction of forest habitats (seeGoring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998; Rollefson and Kohler-Rollefson,1989).

Trade and Exchange

Very little is known about the nature of economic interactions withinand between settlements in LPPNB. Part of this is due to the recent natureof excavations at many LPPNB settlements, for which final reports are stillmany years away. There are some indications that communities were rela-tively self-sufficient and did not engage in many forms of long-distance tradeand exchange. Shells still appear to have been produced and exchanged fromthe Red Sea and Mediterranean to inland settlements. In contrast, obsidiandoes not appear as frequently as in PPNA and MPPNB. This may be re-lated to changes in interregional exchange systems, or perhaps increasedeconomic, ritual, and political independence within communities.

PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC C/FINAL PRE-POTTERYNEOLITHIC B PERIOD

Until 25 years ago, researchers thought there was a gap of almost amillennium between the end of PPNB and the appearance of the subse-quent Pottery Neolithic of the southern Levant (Kenyon, 1957; Moore, 1985;Perrot, 1968). Recent research at numerous projects such as ‘Ain Ghazal andthe processing of many new radiocarbon dates, however, have shown thatthere is no occupational gap between the two periods. Recognizing impor-tant elements of cultural continuity between the Pre-Pottery and PotteryNeolithic and important differences in mortuary practices, lithic technology,and architecture, Rollefson has identified this transitional PPN phase as thePPNC. While recognizing that there are important differences between theLPPNB and this period, other researchers have suggested that the elementsof cultural continuity are more important, and that this transitional periodshould be referred to as the Final Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. Debate contin-ues as to the relative merits of these approaches, the extent to which thisperiod/phase is manifested in all areas of the southern Levant, and whicharchaeological sites exemplify the material remains of this phase.

P1: GCR



Settlement Patterns

Mediterranean Zone

While there certainly appear to be signs of overall population contrac-tion following the LPPNB, there is also evidence for direct occupationalcontinuity from the LPPNB at ‘Ain Ghazal and Wadi Shu’eib, and perhapsalso at Basta, Es-Sifiya, Yiftahel, Tell Eli, Ramad, and Beisamoun. Thereare also apparently newly founded sites such as Hagoshrim in the HulehValley. Perhaps most striking, however, are village settlements which werefounded along the littoral at Atlit Yam in the Carmel area and Ashkelonmuch farther to the south. It is also possible that earlier PPN settlements aresubmerged, especially given that rising PPNC sea levels were still initially18–20 m lower than present.

Desertic Zone

There is also some evidence for continued occupation in adjacent desertregions. In eastern Jordan, a series of small settlements is documented onthe western side of the Azraq Basin at Jilat as well as in the Black Desertat Burqu 35 (Garrard et al., 1994) that may be contemporary with PPNCoccupations in the Mediterranean zone. These are particularly importantregarding the possible introduction of domesticated animals and the originsof pastoralism at the desert fringe. Additional evidence from sites in theNegev 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 seemsthat foraging continued to form the basis of the economy.

Site Structure


Because of the limited horizontal area excavated at any site with a PPNCoccupation, it is almost impossible to say anything substantial about sitestructure for this period. It is argued that ‘Ain Ghazal reaches its maximumsize (10 ha) during the PPNC, but little is known of internal spatial organi-zation, or if structures were occupied contemporaneously. If there was anincreasing reliance on domestic herd animals from the MPPNB through thePPNC, then the space requirements for residential units would have likely

P1: GCR



increased, and would be evidenced by the addition of courtyards, animalpens, and corrals, thus providing a misleading indication of total communitysize. Certainly the continued use of some of these sites for a millennium wasbeginning 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 reductionof energy invested in the construction, maintenance and use of domestic ar-chitecture, there are also signs of more massive construction efforts of largewalls.


The majority of our understanding of PPNC residential architecture isbased on ‘Ain Ghazal. In several cases, there appears to be evidence forthe modification and reuse of LPPNB structures at ‘Ain Ghazal, especiallyin the South Field. Rollefson describes two types of house plans in PPNC‘Ain Ghazal: one with small rectangular structures 3 × 4 m2 for farmingfamilies, the other as storage “bunkers.” It should be noted, however, thatthe sample is very small and this organization might not necessarily be seenat other contemporaneous sites. Semi-subterranean pier (House C2) andcell (House C1) houses in the South Field probably served as combinationof basement workshop/storage-rooms (Rollefson, 1998). Rollefson claimsthere is no evidence for upper stories despite the configuration and thepresence of buttresses.

Use of plaster for flooring decreases markedly in both quantity andquality, and, when present, these floors were manufactured primarily fromcrushed marl, as opposed to lime plaster. There is a 14-m-long, low, massivewall in the Central Field at Ain Ghazal, probably representing the separationof different courtyard areas (Rollefson et al., 1992, p. 450). Parallel but some22-m north of the massive wall is a walled street, 2.5-m wide and uncoveredover 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 atAtlit Yam.

The original excavations at Ashkelon indicated that domestic archi-tecture 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 con-structed of locally available kurkar and mud brick, resulting in subsequentweathering and extremely poor preservation on the surface (Garfinkel, per-sonal communication, 2001). Although located adjacent to the sea, the siteof Atlit Yam was also located close to the Carmel, hence easy access tolimestone for building foundations.

P1: GCR




The identification of non-residential architecture in this phase is verydifficult and complicated. A complex of rooms in the East Field across WadiZarqa from the main occupation area at Ain Ghazal that apparently servedritual and cultic purposes, originally considered to be PPNC, is now thoughtto be LPPNB (Rollefson, 1998, p. 117). Of considerable interest is the con-struction of several wells at Atlit Yam, one of which is 7-m deep, indicating acomplex understanding of hydrological principles and sophistication in con-struction methods. This is shown through the use of sandstone blocks andwood as well as complex quarrying techniques in the construction of thisfeature (Galili et al., 1993).


Mortuary Practices

Although the designation of PPNC was originally based at least par-tially on changes in mortuary practices, the growing awareness of the over-all variability in PPNB burial systems, as well as limited documentation ofburial systems in PPNC, confuses our understanding of mortuary practicesfor this period. Although there are relatively few obvious burials reportedfrom PPNC ‘Ain Ghazal, isolated human bones are actually quite common-place. This may reflect PPNC secondary burials, a general departure fromearlier 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 concentrationsof human bone, often lacking smaller hand and foot bones, and with littlemeaningful contexts. Within primary burials, multiple interments of 2–3 in-dividuals in the same pit are found, in addition to single burial contexts.At ‘Ain Ghazal, primary burials often included infants placed in courtyardor open areas. Skull removal is still practiced but occurs less frequently.When burials are found inside structures, they are all secondary to varyingdegrees—in House C2 a skull and mandible were found on the floor; twoof the secondary burials were associated with pig bones or tusk. At AtlitYam, numerous primary burials have been documented, but this may reflectunique aspects of underwater taphonomy. As Rollefson (1998) notes, burialsystems appear to have changed at the end of the PPNB. A lingering ques-tion centers on how these changes should be viewed—as a matter of degreeor of considerable magnitude.

P1: GCR



Other Symbolic Realms (Masks, Statues, Figurines)

There are few human or animal figurines (usually of clay, if any) inPPNC. There are a few examples of anthropomorphic figurines, includingan elegant red-painted stylized limestone figurine 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


As with other aspects of culture conventions for this period, subsistencepractices appear to have changed significantly 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 domesticatedplants and animals. Domesticated caprines at PPNC ‘Ain Ghazal composeabout 70% of the recovered faunal assemblage, as compared to 50% in theMPPNB. Moreover, sheep (85%) far outnumber goat (15%) (Wasse, 1997).Bar-Yosef and Meadow (1995) also argue that by the PPNC there is evidencefor the domestication of the pig, forming nearly 11% of the assemblage at‘Ain Ghazal. There are also large quantities of cattle recovered from AtlitYam, although these remains have not yet been shown to be domesticates. Inaddition, all of these species, but especially pig and cattle, were used in bothsubsistence and ritual contexts. Many of the hunted animals at ‘Ain Ghazalreflect a steppic orientation (gazelle), including an increased reliance ononager, rather than purely Mediterranean forest and marquis.

Lithic Technology

Rollefson (1993; Rollefson and Kohler-Rollefson, 1993) has suggestedthat changes in lithic technology and flaked stone tool typologies are partic-ularly useful in defining the PPNC. There are also apparent differences inthe use of specific raw materials at ‘Ain Ghazal, with a significant reductionin the use of pink flint. There is also a reduced emphasis upon the naviformcore technology, perhaps resulting from the use of proportionately far fewersickle blades in the PPNC than in the M/LPPNB. Earlier MPPNB patternsin Mediterranean zone indicate that naviform blades were primarily usedas blanks for sickles and later recycled into projectile points and dihedral

P1: GCR



burins. Rollefson suggests that this decreased emphasis might be linked tothe harvesting of reeds rather than cereals. No archaeological evidence ex-ists for discrete work areas during the PPNC, although this may reflect thelimited excavation areas at most PPN settlements. Smaller, lighter projectilepoints are recovered from PPNC and, interestingly, in similar proportionsto those recovered in M/LPPNB.

PPN OF THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, ANDPOLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS

As with any synthesis of prehistoric research, this overview of the south-ern Levantine PPN periods has two critical goals: understanding how socialand behavioral practices changed through time and placing these in a com-parative context in which the cultural interconnections and developmentsin a single period can be understood. Elements of cultural continuity arecritical to understanding the subtle connections between periods. While rec-ognizing such continuity, however, it is also important to reflect upon someof the critical social changes of the PPN from an evolutionary perspective.In the remaining section, we want to address some of these broader themesand to attempt to place the PPN within broader archaeological and anthro-pological debates, including the emergence of social inequality, changes inpopulation levels, possible developments in craft specialization, and the na-ture 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 prac-tices, the majority of these studies have focused on either descriptions ofpossible material evidence for rituals or reflections on the ways in whichcultic and ritual practices may reflect beliefs in the afterlife, ancestry wor-ship, and/or alternative worlds. These studies, as well as several others thatexplore the possible relations among ideology, ritual practices, and archi-tectural systems, illustrate that there is considerable regional continuity incultural practices (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1989; Cauvin, 2000; Kuijt,2000c).

While recognizing that select practices crosscut different cultural–historical phases—for example, skull removal—researchers should note thatmany cultic and ritual practices are apparently more pronounced in MPPNBthan in other periods. This ‘florescence’ is illustrated through a considerationof the spatial and temporal correlates of select ritual and cultic practices. As

P1: GCR



noted earlier, skull removal is seen as early as the Early Natufian and widelypracticed throughout the PPNA. With the onset of the MPPNB, however, wesee an expansion of these practices with skull plastering, painting, and mod-ification in a wide range of communities. There is also evidence for severaldifferent forms of cranial deformation. Beyond these highly visual forms ofritual, there is clear evidence from ‘Ain Ghazal and Jericho for the develop-ment and use of large statues and busts for community rituals. The largest ofthese statues had relatively detailed painted faces, with little artistic concernpaid to other areas of the body, and would have been displayed by place-ment in upright positions in public locations. The importance of ritual andcultic practices in MPPNB is also seen in the widespread appearance of spe-cial purpose/communal architecture. Although there are examples datingas early as the PPNA, the frequency of special purpose buildings increasesstarting in the MPPNB and continuing into the LPPNB. These structuresoften appear to have been situated in highly visible locations. For example,the MPPNB cultic buildings at Beidha were placed in a distinct location thatwas physically separated from residential areas. While in need of furtherresearch, this period also gives evidence for sites that probably functionedas places in which cultic practices were focused (such at Nehal Hemar).

The diversity of post mortem treatment afforded individuals, rangingfrom simple interment with skull removal, daubing of the skull with pig-ment, application of caps and plaster modeling, to intentional secondaryburials, clearly indicates some sort of differential status within communi-ties. Internal homogeneity (vis-a-vis plastered skulls) within sites certainlyappears to indicate local community-level traditions. As argued elsewhere(Goring-Morris, 2000; Kuijt, 1996b, 2000b, 2001b), the lack of obvious ma-terial differentiation among individual burials in MPPNB may be linked tothe intentional homogenization of community members at times of death,and, by extension, the existence of social and ritual mechanisms designedto minimize real and perceived differences within and between householdsand communities.

Various Repetitive Ideological, Cosmological, and Iconographic Themes

As a result of a newfound interest in ritual and cultic practices in thePPN periods, over the last 10 years researchers have moved beyond site-levelpatterning and begun an attempt to understand aspects of shared culturalpractices and beliefs through a consideration of the repetitive nature ofideological, cosmological, and iconographic themes. Among these sharedpractices, especially in MPPNB, is the use of plaster statues, busts, and stonemasks. In combination with the widespread, but by no means ubiquitous,

P1: GCR



practice of skull removal is the use of plaster in ritual and architecturalpractices. Many skull caches, including those with votive offerings, are insets of twos and threes. This is often seen in the number of skulls cachedand/or in the number of objects placed with the skulls. There is archaeologicalevidence to suggest that these beliefs were also expressed in architecturalsystems. In several cases, such as Beidha, ‘Ain Ghazal, and Kfar HaHoresh,the presence of monoliths, orthostats, and stelae of various sizes (25–100 cmin height) is observed in groups of three.

As noted earlier, the antecedents of these practices are often found inthe beginnings of PPNA and, indeed, perhaps in the beginnings of sedentismduring the Late Epipalaeolithic and Early Natufian (Belfer-Cohen, 1995;Byrd and Monahan, 1995). Some cultic and ritual practices, such as skullremoval, were expanded in PPNA and especially in MPPNB. While difficultto quantify, these practices appear to be more frequent, or at least morevisible in the MPPNB, with some practices continuing to appear into the earlyseventh millennium. This longevity of 2000–3000 years is surely indicativeof the intensity and stability of the belief system(s) in operation.

Social Inequality, Conflict, and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic

The Neolithic of the Near East is best known as the first period in whichdomesticated plants and animals emerged, and, as a result, considerable re-search has explored the possible links between the development of foodproduction and the emergence of social inequality (Hayden, 1995, 2001;Price and Feinman, 1995, and references therein). There are many possibleways to conceptualize how power and authority might have been controlledand/or shared in Neolithic communities. While often unrecognized, manydiscussions of Neolithic social systems are also situated within the muchbroader discussion of whether, or how, social relations in agricultural com-munities are organized along hierarchical and heterarchical lines. In the caseof the Neolithic, debates center on whether the pathways of power existedas either a single hierarchical system, or one in which there were numerouscoexisting hierarchical power structures. While there is no consensus on thematter, we suspect that most Near Eastern Neolithic archaeologists wouldagree that there is no convincing evidence for organized central social hierar-chy characterized by the existence of hereditary elites, and ethnographicallyexemplified by chiefdom-level organizations. Many researchers (e.g., Byrd,1994; Kuijt, 2001b; Rollefson, 2000) note, however, that there is evidenceof some limited forms of social differentiation among individuals, house-holds, or communities, especially in the later periods of PPN. While almostno archaeological research has directly addressed the topic, it is likely that

P1: GCR



social differentiation in the Neolithic was derived from the authority of ritualpractitioners, civic leaders, or perhaps community or household elders.

Many cross-cultural models for the development of social inequalitydo not accurately represent archaeological data of the southern LevantineNeolithic, thereby overlooking critical contradictory data (see also Smith[2001] for broader discussion of what he identifies as “fact free” modelsfor the origins of agriculture). For example, Hayden (1995, 2001) arguesthat food production created an economic context for the usurping andconsolidating of authority and power by select individuals. It is important tonote, however, that the archaeological record of PPN does not support manyof the expectations of this argument. Specifically, our current understandingof the southern Levant indicates that (1) there is no clear material evidencefor extensive food storage until ca. 9500 B.P. (Kuijt, 2000b); (2) there is noconvincing material evidence for profound social differentiation, as wouldbe expressed by widespread differentiation of individuals at death, or shownin life by differential access to residential housing, until 9500 B.P. (Goring-Morris, 2000; Kuijt, 1996b, 2001b); (3) with one possible exception, thereis no evidence for extensive interpersonal conflict in the PPN periods; and(4) consideration of the standardized nature of cultic and ritual practiceswithin and among communities illustrates that social cohesion and collectiveidentity were important aspects of PPN lifeways. Collectively, these patternsstand in direct contradiction to social competition models for the origins ofagriculture.

As illustrated in the earlier discussions of mortuary and architecturalpractices for different periods of the PPN, mortuary practices from theseperiods provide only limited evidence for individuals being abstracted fromthe community at times of death. Almost without exception, deceased in-dividuals in the early PPN were buried without any form of grave goods orornamentation. Only in the LPPNB and PPNC are ornamentation or gravegoods found with individuals, and then only occasionally. There is some evi-dence, most noticeably with MPPNB of Kfar HaHoresh, of votive offeringsor the burial of humans and animals occurring before and into LPPNB. It isonly in the later phases of PPN, however, that there is systematic evidencefor the recognition of individuals through the material culture at the time ofdeath or in life.

The near-total absence of evidence for interpersonal or intercommu-nity aggression or violence in PPN both is surprising and appears to con-tradict models prioritizing human conflict as a means of developing socialinequality, especially in light of the dramatic regional increase in size anddensity of communities. We are aware of only a few burials (out of someca. 300 described) from the entire southern Levantine Neolithic that mayreflect physical evidence for interpersonal conflict. As noted by Kafafi and

P1: GCR



Rollefson (1995), a single individual from the LPPNB levels of ‘Ain Ghazalwas found with a flint blade embedded in the cranium, although it is notentirely clear if this was intentional or rather the result of post-depositionalprocesses. Similarly, Kenyon’s 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 forextensive interpersonal or intercommunity conflict in the south LevantinePPN. Perhaps more important, our existing evidence provides no evidencefor the extensive control of one group of Neolithic communities over othersthrough the use of force. Undoubtedly, conflict did occur in these commu-nities, but current evidence indicates that it was limited in scale, and doesnot support arguments for extensive interpersonal conflict for control overothers.

As an alternative to discussions focusing on the emergence social dif-ferentiation in PPN, we suggest that researchers would benefit more in envi-sioning social relations and their material manifestations as amalgamationsof social practices that serve to highlight elements of coexisting social dif-ferentiation and collective identity in communities. Ethnographic and an-thropological research illustrates three aspects of social relations in presentand past middle-range communities such as those of the Neolithic: (1) socialinequality is ubiquitous and found in all societies; (2) “egalitarian” socialsystems require highly complex codes of social behavior, codes that are ascomplex as those seen within systems of hereditary power exist; and (3) hier-archy and egalitarianism are fundamentally interrelated and coexist in many,if not most, social systems. A number of recent ethnographic and archae-ological studies have clearly demonstrated that most forms of governancein small-scale agricultural or horticultural communities combine hierarchi-cal and egalitarian dimensions. Recognizing the coexistence of egalitarianand hierarchical relations diverts researchers from placing cultural labelson societies and simultaneously facilitates the development of realistic andcomprehensive models of cultural dynamics, including the possible pathwaysto power and authority in Neolithic communities.

It is also important to recognize that Neolithic social relations mayhave focused on an organized series of interrelated, coexisting hierarchicalunits, rather than a hierarchically organized system of individual leadership.From some perspectives, archaeological evidence from the Near Eastern Ne-olithic reflects several forms of hierarchical ritual and civic administration.For example, some dimensions of ritual practice found expression on thecommunity level and would have undoubtedly involved ritual practitionerswho controlled the timing, nature, and context of some, but not necessar-ily all, community rituals (Cauvin, 2000; Goring-Morris, 2000; Kuijt, 1996b;Mellaart, 1975; Rollefson, 1986; Verhoeven, 2002; Voigt, 1983). Researchers

P1: GCR



have also reflected on the importance of civic leadership for other tasks, suchas the construction and maintenance of community buildings (Byrd, 1994;Kafafi and Rollefson, 1995; Ozdogan and Ozdogan, 1989; Schmidt, 1995). Inlight of the number of people living in some of these Neolithic communities,some form of civic, community-oriented leadership might have been nec-essary for organizing the planting and harvesting of crops. On the basis ofspatial patterning of lithic debitage from ‘Ain Ghazal, Quintero and Wilke(1995) note that there is evidence for stone tool workshops in MPPN, andthat a high degree of standardization may well reflect some from of craft spe-cialization. Given the absence of differentiation in residential architectureand mortuary practices, we believe that envisioning Neolithic communitiesas social realms in which there was a balance of economic centralizationand autonomy with coexisting dimensions of egalitarianism and hierarchy ishelpful in reconstructing past social relations. Moreover, in understandingthe shifting nature of these relationships through time, we can conceive ofNeolithic community relations as focused on a series of interrelated coex-isting social units which might have included, but were not limited to, kingroups, the household, ritual sodalities, and the community.

Population Aggregation and Regional Growth

The PPN of the southern Levant is characterized by remarkable in-creases in the size of communities as well as changes in their economicand subsistence orientations. Consideration of the overall trajectory of thePPNA through FPPNB outlines two interrelated processes: regional popu-lation growth and the dynamic aggregation and dispersal of communitiesat different periods of the Neolithic. Field research is only now provid-ing a general understanding of site-level demographic change within spe-cific geographical areas and periods of time (see Hershkovitz and Gopher,1990; Kuijt, 2000b; Smith et al., 1984, for general considerations of Neolithicdemography). The development of accurate estimates of Neolithic pop-ulation growth is highly complex and complicated by issues of changingarchaeological visibility of settlements through different periods (such asPPNA with mud architecture and PPNB with stone architecture and paintedplaster floors), as well as variations in the location, architectural remains,and size of settlements within individual cultural–historical periods in dif-ferent environmental regions (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1991; Kuijt,2000a).

In recent considerations of the change of settlement size and demog-raphy for the Levantine PPN, several researchers (Bar-Yosef and Meadow,1995; Hershkovitz and Gopher, 1990; Kuijt, 2000a) explore changes in thelargest identified settlements through the PPN periods. They outline a

P1: GCR



pattern of considerable expansion in communities from the period ofca. 11,700 to ca. 8700 B.P. For example, while the five largest known LateNatufian settlements are each approximately 2000 m2, this figure increaseddramatically in the PPNA with some settlements over 10,000 m2. The largestknown MPPNB settlements range in area from 45,000 to 50,000 m2, and, af-ter 9500 B.P., LPPNB settlements such as Basta and ‘Ain Ghazal, cover nearly140,000 m2. The distribution of PPN sites by size illustrates a trajectory of asteady increase in the size of largest settlements through time. It is interest-ing to note, however, that at the end of the PPN, settlements are abandonedeither entirely with new, smaller, hamlets established, or in cases such aswith ‘Ain Ghazal, communities became smaller.

While the overall size of PPN settlements seemingly increased throughtime (and by extension the number of people who lived there), it is unclear ifthis reflects regional population growth or a high degree of population aggre-gation. Probably this represents a conflation 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). Onthe basis of figures 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 includ-ing PPNA. While difficult to demonstrate, it appears that in the LPPNB, andperhaps more specifically from ca. 9500 to ca. 8700 B.P., the population of hu-man communities increased at a much greater rate during and immediatelyafter the widespread introduction of domesticated plants and animals in thesouthern Levant.

An interesting speculation is that regional population growth andsettlement-level aggregation might have been centered on specific geograph-ical areas of the southern Levant. For example, in contrast to the end of theNatufian, there is clear evidence for the centralization of PPNA commu-nities within or around the Jordan Valley (Fig. 1). Ranging up to 1.5 ha,these relatively large, early villages were situated on alluvial fans. Althoughsmaller (and in some cases, seasonal) PPNA settlements occurred in areasadjacent to the Jordan Valley, the largest communities were founded in theRift Valley refugium. The MPPNB is characterized by the appearance ofnumerous new settlements centered on the Jordan Valley and adjacent hillareas, with the largest settlements reaching approximately 3–5 ha. This pe-riod is also characterized by the development of small seasonal camps inecologically marginal areas. Starting about ca. 9500 B.P. in the LPPNB, thereis evidence for dramatic demographic change characterized by the foundingof new large aggregate villages, most of which were situated along the high-lands of the Jordan Valley. These communities, 10–14 ha in area, are charac-terized by extensive architectural ruins and evidence for two-story buildings.

P1: GCR



Interestingly, there is also clear evidence for the LPPNB expansion of hu-man groups into desertic areas (Betts, 1988; Byrd, 1994; Goring-Morris andBelfer-Cohen, 1998) (Fig. 13). At the moment, evidence for PPNC/FPPNBdoes 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 someevidence for both an occupational continuity from LPPNB and the found-ing of new sites along the littoral areas. As such, it is important to note thatthe PPN reflects the regional founding and abandonment of communitiesin specific regions (see Banning et al., 1994; Gopher and Gophna, 1993, andreferences therein).

Craft Specialization: Evidence, Materials, and Evaluation

A number of researchers have directed increased attention to how ma-terial culture may or may not reflect some form of specialization of labor orcraft specialization. Becuase of a limited understanding of the spatial distri-bution of material culture within individual settlements, let alone betweensettlements, most arguments for craft or labor specialization have centeredon the perceived complexity of lithic technology. While this is an importantfirst step in understanding how labor was organized, studies have only re-cently started to explore the central questions: (1) to what degree were laborand 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, specificresources at different periods of the Neolithic? Disappointingly, archaeolo-gists have yet to develop data sets of sufficient resolution to directly addressthese critical questions. A contributing factor to this is the paucity of pub-lished intra-site data, making it almost impossible to understand whether orhow activities such as flint knapping, skull plastering, and bead productionoccurred on or off individual sites.

In one of the few explicit attempts to look at issues of labor and special-ization in the Levantine Neolithic, Quintero and Wilke (1995) have arguedthat the spatial distribution of production materials and the technique ofnaviform core-production at MPPNB ‘Ain Ghazal reflect some form of craftspecialization. Through debitage analysis and a consideration of the spatialdistribution of these materials, they argue that at ‘Ain Ghazal naviform coreproduction occurred in discrete areas and is the result of some form of lithicspecialization. Focusing on the LPPNB, research at Ba’Ja and Basta providestwo other interesting examples of possible lithic specialization. In both ofthese communities, there is good evidence for the manufacture of stonebracelets between ca. 9500 and ca. 8700 B.P. (Gebel and Bienert, 1997; Nissenet al., 1988). Excavation indicates that stone bracelets were manufactured

P1: GCR



from local sandstone and limestone materials. At Ba’Ja, stone bracelets wererecovered in various stages of production, clearly reflecting on site manu-facture (Gebel and Hermansen, 2000, p. 21). It is still unclear, however, ifthese objects were distributed to neighboring communities, if manufacturewas focused on the needs of individual communities, and the extent to whichthese represent labor specialization.

Another possible locus for some form of LPPNB labor specialization isthat of control of ritual practices and the materials employed therein. Again,while archaeological research has yet to address this question in a detailedmanner, we must consider the degree to which ritual practices might havebeen controlled by individuals or groups of ritual practitioners. For example,skull plastering possibly was a ritual activity practiced by only certain indi-viduals who fulfilled defined roles within the community. The extent to whichartisans might have fulfilled other specific roles (shamans?) within the com-munity is, of course, unresolved. Other possible community activities thatcould be described as being some form of craft specialization might includelime-plaster production, weaving, construction of residential and commu-nity buildings, and shell- and stone-bead production. While recognizing thispossibility, there is no obvious, unequivocal evidence at present to indicatethat such individuals or groups depended primarily upon these skills for theirlivelihoods.

Regional and Inter-regional Connections

Debate exists as to the extent to which lithic technology, architecturalsystems, and ritual activities were shared by PPN communities in differ-ent regions of the Near East. Arguments for shared practices are based onobservations of specific material manifestations of behavior (e.g., the ap-pearance of specific projectile point types), and the assumption that thesemanifestations present a greater utility in understanding shared practicesthan do others (e.g., the appearance of a specific projectile point over otherprojectile points). Interpretation is complicated by the fact that the distri-bution of select important economic objects appears to be restricted in theirdistribution across the Near East, in many cases without overlap. Thus thearchaeological interpretation of how different Neolithic communities wereeconomically and socially linked is related to which types and material cat-egories of objects are believed to be more or less important.

Southern Levant

The distribution and similarities in stone tool technology, residentialarchitecture, and shell- and stone-bead production provide important

P1: GCR



preliminary insight into connections between communities. As outlined byseveral researchers (Byrd, 1994; Rollefson, 2000; Rollefson et al., 1992),architecture provides some indication that regional architectural practiceschanged through time, and can, therefore, be used to understand in a generalway the period(s) of occupation for individual settlements. It is importantto recognize, however, that only limited consideration has been given to ar-chitectural variation for individual periods of time (e.g., MPPNB), as wellas to how this variation may or may not reflect shared cultural practicesacross the southern Levant. The MPPNB and LPPNB provide one of thefew examples in which archaeologists are starting to understand the nature ofregional variation in architectural and mortuary practices. Recent archae-ological data for the MPPNB demonstrate that residential architecture atselect settlements, such as ‘Ain Ghazal and Jericho, was very similar. At thesame time excavations of other MPPNB settlements, such as Yiftahel andKfar HaHoresh, have revealed architecture distinct from both ‘Ain Ghazaland Jericho. One possible interpretation of the similarities between largerMPPNB settlements centered on the Jordan Valley, and the variations incomparison to neighboring communities, is that the former existed as aneconomic and social core area.

Stone tool technology provides a second important means of recon-structing interconnections between southern Levantine Neolithic commu-nities in the form of shared material practices. In the context of PPNB, forexample, projectile point styles illustrate that at least two major stylisticprovinces can be recognized. First, the northern areas are characterized byrelatively large and heavy ’classic’ naviform blanks. Second, southern areasappear to be characterized by lighter, slender blanks from shorter opposed-platform cores. In a similar way, the production of bifacial tools (at least forPPNB) may reflect distinct regional stone tool practices.

The distribution of malachite, Dabba marble, marine mollusks, and ob-sidian provides some indication of inter-regional contacts, and, in many cases,the sources of specific materials are relatively well known. At the same time,researchers have yet to directly address how trade materials were distributedacross the southern Levant, as well as the degree to which such distributionmechanisms reflect shared cultural practices rather than economic connec-tions limited to the trade and exchange of finished products.

Within the Near East

Although widely recognized as an important issue by prehistorians,the nature of contact between contemporary Neolithic communities in dif-ferent areas of the Near East remains an important topic (Bar-Yosef and

P1: GCR



Belfer-Cohen, 1989; Cauvin, 1994, 2000). While this topic is beyond thescope of this paper, it is necessary to discuss at least briefly some of the inter-regional connections between the southern Levant and neighboring regions.

There is no question that prehistorians know more about the linksbetween this area and the northern Levant and Anatolia than any otherneighboring area in the southern Levant (see, for example, Aurenche andKozlowski, 1999; Cauvin, 2000; Kozlowski, 1999). There are obvious andmarked connections in both directions between the southern and northernLevant and parts of east-central Anatolia during PPN, with shared materialculture traits as well as direct exchange in various commodities. Contactswith the northern Levant (and by extension with east-central Anatolia)probably occurred by way of three main routes: along the narrow coastalplain, up the Rift Valley, and along the edge of the ante-Lebanon mountains.Certain innovations, for example, naviform blade production and typolog-ical differences in projectile point morphology seem to have diffused fromthe north (Gopher, 1989, 1994). While there are differences in architecture,iconographic themes, and mortuary practices, there are nevertheless manyareas of similarity in these practices between groups in the southern Levantand those in Turkey and northern Syria. Intraregional considerations of ar-chitectural practices (see Akkermans and Verhoeven, 1995; Ozdogan andOzdogan, 1998; Verhoeven, 1999, 2002) and mortuary practices illustrateaspects of continuity, such as the regional transition from circular to rectan-gular houses, the development and maintenance of skull removal, and theuse of similar zoomorphic figurines. While there is clear variation in theirapplication, the shared nature of these practices is suggestive of importantsocial, economic, and political links between these different areas.

All the above renders the apparent absence of evidence for contactbetween the southern Levant and the Nile Valley during PPN all the moresurprising, especially considering that the distances involved could have beeneasily traversed in a matter of days, and that conditions in the Negev andSinai were relatively favorable for much of the period. Despite considerableresearch in areas of the Nile Valley and intervening areas of the Negev andSinai, there is almost no evidence for extensive and regular social or eco-nomic connections between the southern Levant and the Nile Valley duringPPN. It is probably only during the early Pottery Neolithic, ca. 8400 B.P. orsomewhat later, that contacts with the Nile Valley were initiated, probablyinvolving the diffusion of a package of domesticated plants and animals.These cultural connections are minor when compared with the extensiveevidence for shared ideological developments, lithic technology, and subsis-tence systems between the southern and northern Levant in PPN.

A number of recent field projects in Cyprus have shed new light onthe broader dispersal of Neolithic communities across the Mediterranean,

P1: GCR



and revealed significant evidence for substantial and sustained links be-tween communities living on the mainland and those in Cyprus (Peltenburget al., 2001; Swiny, 2001). Previous studies have generally viewed the culturalconnections between Neolithic Cypriot and Levantine populations as beingrather limited and occurring only in the LPPNB (Cauvin, 1989). Since the1990s, at least six Neolithic sites have been recognized as being contempo-raneous with and perhaps earlier than MPPNB sites in the southern Levant.While still preliminary, arguments have been made that the connections be-tween these two areas were much earlier than previously thought, so muchso that Peltenburg et al. (2001) argue that the Cypro-PPNB should be viewedas a facies of the better understood mainland PPNB. Drawing upon architec-tural, mortuary, and lithic evidence, they argue that the sudden appearanceof these cultural practices and strong material similarities between the twoareas indicate that migration played a significant role in the earliest spreadof farming across the Near East. This growing awareness of cultural similar-ities between the two areas raises a number of important questions aboutthe nature of PPN social and economic connections between areas of thesouthern Levant and communities along the East and West side of the RedSea, as well as with groups living along the Persian Gulf. An assessment ofthe 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 be-yond the general statement that the development of food production wasa critical evolutionary event to producing numerous case studies of the na-ture of social and economic change during the southern Levantine PPN.Researchers are now developing a sophisticated understanding of (1) thematerial culture of past communities through different periods; (2) the na-ture of regional and interregional trade and exchange patterns; and (3) thelinks between food production and social organization at the household,community, and regional scale. Recent studies have been instrumental inexpanding our understanding of the Neolithic in the Near East, while atthe same time reaffirming both our exploration of a number of new topics,and our reexploration of old topics from the standpoint of new data andmethodological developments.

In concluding this overview, it is important to highlight several avenuesof future research (see also Baird, 1997). Study of the nature of leadershipand governance at varying scales, such as the individual, household, commu-nity, and regional levels, is one such avenue of future research. Although a

P1: GCR



number of works have illustrated how many, if not most, Neolithic commu-nities shared material practices at the regional level (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1989; Bar-Yosef and Meadows, 1995; Cauvin, 1994, 2000), in manyways our understanding of governance remains highly theoretical, abstract,and largely removed from the specifics of archaeological data sets from in-dividual sites (Hayden, 1995, 2001), and rarely moves beyond considerationof community ideology. There is growing consensus among researchers thatsocial practices existed at certain points in the past to differentiate among in-dividuals within the overall Neolithic community. On a material level, manydiscussions of Neolithic social organization focus on the issues of how (orwhether) select Neolithic material culture reflects 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 leader-ship. Detailed consideration of Neolithic architecture, mortuary practices,and ritual actions collectively brings researchers to the point where we canstart to reflect upon how ritual and civic leadership might have been orga-nized in different Neolithic communities. While there are exceptions, mostresearch has either focused on the classification of nuclear or extended fam-ily households, or has explored governance at the scale of the community; ineither case, this research rarely addresses the existence of the household or“House” as a social and economic unit. While often based on field work con-ducted many years ago, recent reflections (e.g., Akkermans and Verhoeven,1995; Banning and Byrd, 1987; Byrd, 1994; Byrd and Banning, 1988; Ozdoganand Ozdogan, 1989, 1998; Rollefson, 1997; Rollefson et al., 1992; Schmidt,1995; Verhoeven, 1999, 2002) on observed patterning of residential and non-residential architecture have greatly enhanced our understanding of sociallife. We believe that future research will benefit from renewed attention tothe focus of Neolithic social practices on either individual households orthe broader “House” as a social and economic unit. A critical examinationof this issue in the future, as well as expanded discussion of issues relatedto the nature of Neolithic governance and leadership, will be central to ex-panding our understanding of Neolithic social complexity and the origins ofagriculture.

A third important avenue for future research is that of the potential linksbetween economic and social changes at different points in the Neolithic.In the broadest of scales, we can note that the initial development and laterentrenchment of different kinds of food production must have radically al-tered the nature of ownership, land tenure, labor, and civic organization.Who, for example, organized people to undertake farming, planting, herd-ing, and harvesting? There is no question that these issues are central toour understanding of economic developments (such as the appearance ofdomesticated plants and animals) as well as the ways in which control of

P1: GCR



these resources would have been linked to social changes. Future scholarswill need to address the degree of social and economic independence ofNeolithic communities from select periods, and economic linkages betweencommunities through marriage, trade, and ritual beliefs. A better under-standing of the ways in which leaders- or households-controlled trade willalso be important to future research on Neolithic social and economic prac-tices.

A final important area of future research is the refinement of cultural–historical sequences and their relation to changing paleoenvironmental con-ditions. On a relative basis, the culture–history of the prehistoric periods ofthe southern Levant is well understood. Considerable debate among archae-ologists continues, however, on the organization of these cultural–historicalschemes, 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, eco-nomic, and political developments in the Near Eastern Neolithic in specific,and in the forager–farmer transition in general.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper draws upon conversations with many researchers over theyears and has been supported directly and indirectly by numerous sources offunding. We have also benefited enormously from dialogue with numerousfriends 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.Garfinkel, B. Finlayson, F. Hole, R. Meadow, Y. Goren, A. Simmon, D.Binder, H. Mahasneh, P. Edwards, H. G. Gebel, S. Colledge, E. Banning,P. Akkermans, M. Verhoeven, Z. Kaffafi, M. Ozdogan, I. Gilead, D. Baird,A. Gopher, I. Hershkowitz, M. Cochrane, M. Najjar, G. Rollefson, and thelate T. Noy. Ian Kuijt acknowledges the support of the Institute for Schol-arship in the Liberal Arts at the University of Notre Dame and the NotreDame Department of Anthropology. The authors thank M. Cochrane, whospent the better part of a week in May 2002 copy editing and working onthe figures for submission. We also thank A. E. Close for her remarkablepatience and guidance in this project, as well as the “Herdmaster” and twoanonymous reviewers for their detailed and constructive comments. Finally,we specifically acknowledge the critical role of Ofer Bar-Yosef in the devel-opment of this paper and his assistance over the years. As a friend, colleague,and mentor, Ofer has profoundly influenced both of our academic careersin ways too numerious to mention. While not agreeing with some of theconcepts and interpretations presented in this paper, Ofer and the peoplelisted above have been instrumental in the development of the arguments

P1: GCR



put forward in this essay. The constructive, and at times lively, discussionand debate with these individuals has immeasurably improved the clarityand organization of this paper.

REFERENCES

Abbes, F. (1994). Techniques de debitage et gestion de silex sur le Moyen-Euphrate (Syrie)au PPNA final et au PPNB ancien. In Gebel, H. G., and Kozlowski, S. K. (eds.), NeolithicChipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, Proceedings of the First Workshop on PPNChipped Lithic Industries, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 299–312.

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 ofthe Prehistoric Society 49: 335–372.

Akkermans, P. M. M. G., and Verhoeven, M. (1995). An image of complexity—The burnt villageat Late Neolithic Sabi Abyad, Syria. American Journal of Archaeology 99(1): 5–32.

Amiran, R. (1962). Myths of the creation of man and the Jericho statues. Bulletin of the AmericanSchools of Oriental Research 167: 23–25.

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. 50–58.

Aurenche, O. (1981). La Maison Oriental. L’architecture du Proche-Orient Ancien, des originesau milieu du Quatrieme Millenaire, Geuthner, Paris.

Aurenche, O., and Kozlowski, S. (1999). La Naissance du Neolithique au Proche Orient ou LaParadis Perdu, Editions Errance, Paris.

Baird, D. (1997). Goals in Jordanian Neolithic research. In Gebel, H. G. K., Kafafi, Z., andRollefson, G. O. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan II. Perspectives From 1997, Studies in EarlyNear 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. NearEastern Archaeology 61(4): 188–237.

Banning, E. B. (2001). Settlement and economy in Wadi Ziqlab during the Late Neolithic. InStudies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VII, Department of Antiquities of Jordan,Amman, pp. 149–155.

Banning, E. B., and Byrd, B. F. (1987). Houses and changing residential unit: Domestic archi-tecture at PPNB ’Ain Ghazal. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53: 309–325.

Banning, E. B., and Byrd, B. F. (1989). Renovations and the changing residential unit at ’AinGhazal, Jordan. In MacEachern, S., Archer, D., and Garvin, R. D. (eds.), Households andCommunities, Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Conference, University of Calgary,Calgary, Canada, pp. 525–533.

Banning, E. B., Rahimi, D., and Siggers, J. (1994). The Late Neolithic of the southern Levant:Hiatus, settlement shift, observer bias? The perspective from Wadi Ziqlab. Paleorient 20(2):151–164.

Bar-Matthews, M., Ayalon, A., and Kaufman, A. (1997). Late Quaternary paleoclimate in theEastern Mediterranean region from stable isotope analysis of speleotherms at Soreq Cave,Israel. Quaternary Research 47: 155–168.

Baruch, U., and Bottema, S. (1991). Palynological evidence for climate change in the Levantca. 17,000–9,000 B.P. In Bar-Yosef, O., and Valla, F. R. (eds.), The Natufian Culture in theLevant, International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 11–21.

Bar-Yosef, O. (1980). Prehistory of the Levant. Annual Review of Anthropology 9: 101–133.Bar-Yosef, O. (1981). The “Pre-Pottery Neolithic” period in the Southern Levant. In Cauvin,

J., and Sanlaville, P. (eds.), Prehistoire du Levant, CNRS, Paris, pp. 551–570.

P1: GCR



Bar-Yosef, O. (1986). The walls of Jericho: An alternative interpretation. Current Anthropology27: 157–162.

Bar-Yosef, O. (1991). The Early Neolithic of the Levant: Recent advances. The Review ofArchaeology 12(2): 1–18.

Bar-Yosef, O. (2000). The impact of radiocarbon dating on Old World Archaeology: Pastachievements and future expectations. Radiocarbon 42(1): 1–17.

Bar-Yosef, O. (2001). From sedentary foragers to village hierarchies: The emergence of socialinstitutions. In Runciman, G. (ed.), The Origin of Human Social Institutions, Proceedingsof the British Academy, Vol. 110, Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp. 1–38.

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 Symposiumof Upper Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic Populations of Europe and the Mediter-ranean Basin, British Archaeology Reports, International Series 508, Oxford, pp. 59–72.

Bar-Yosef, O., and Belfer-Cohen, A. (1991). From sedentary hunter-gatherers to territorialfarmers in the Levant. In Gregg, S. A. (ed.), Between Bands and States, Center for Archae-ological Investigations, Carbondale, IL, pp. 181–202.

Bar-Yosef, O., and Gopher, A. (eds.) (1997). An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. PartI: The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud, American School of Prehistoric Research, PeabodyMuseum, Cambridge.

Bar-Yosef, O., Gopher, A., Tchernov, E., and Kislev, M. E. (1991). Nativ Hagdud—An EarlyNeolithic 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. 632–640.

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 Hunters—First Farmers: New Perspectives on thePrehistoric Transition to Agriculture, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM,pp. 39–94.

Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. (1997). Neolithic shell bead production in Sinai. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 24: 97–111.

Belfer-Cohen, A. (1995). Rethinking social stratification in the Natufian culture: The evidencefrom burials. In Campbell, S., and Green, A. (eds.),The Archaeology of Death in the AncientNear East, Oxbow Monographs, Edinburgh, pp. 9–16.

Bennett, C. M. (1980). Soundings at Dhra‘, Jordan. Levant 12: 30–39.Betts, A. (1989). The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period in Eastern Jordan. Paleorient 15(1): 147–

153.Bienert, H. D. (1991). Skull cult in the prehistoric Near East. Journal of Prehistoric Religion 5:

9–23.Bienert, H. D. (2001). The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) of Jordan: A first step towards

proto-urbanism? In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VII, Department ofAntiquities of Jordan, Amman, pp. 107–119.

Binford, L. R. (1968). Post-Pleistocene adaptations. In Binford, S., and Binford, L. R. (eds.),New Perspectives in Archaeology, Aldine, Chicago, pp. 313–341.

Bisheh, G., Farajat, S., Palumbo, G., and Waheeb, M. (1993). The cultural resources manage-ment project in Jordan archaeological rescue survey of the Ras An-Naqab-Aqaba highwayalignment, 1992. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 37: 119–131.

Burian, F., Friedman, E., and Mintz, E. (1976). An Early PPNB site in the Nehal Levan region—site no. 109. Mitakufat Haeven 14: 54–60.

Byrd, B. F. (1992). The dispersal of food production across the Levant. In Gebauer, A. B., andPrice, T. D. (eds.), Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI,pp. 49–61.

Byrd, B. F. (1994). Public and private, domestic and corporate: The emergence of the southwestAsian village. American Antiquity 59(4): 639–666.

P1: GCR



Byrd, B. F., and Banning, E. B. (1988). Southern Levantine pier houses: Intersite architecturalpatterning during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. Paleorient 14: 65–72.

Byrd, B. F., and Monahan, C. M. (1995). Death, mortuary ritual, and Natufian social structure.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14: 251–287.

Cauvin, J. (1977). Les Fouilles de Mureybet (1971–1974) et Leur Signification pour les Orig-ines de la Sedentarisation au Proche-Orient. Bulletin of the American Schools of OrientalResearch 44: 19–48.

Cauvin, J. (1989). La Neolithisation au Levant et sa Premiere diffusion. In Aurenche, O., andCauvin, J. (eds.), Neolithisation, British Archaeology Reports, International Series 516,Oxford, pp. 3–36.

Cauvin, J. (1994). Naissance des divinites, Naissance de l’agriculture, CNRS, Paris.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, TheHague, The Netherlands, pp. 135–178.

Colledge, S. (1998). Identifying pre-domestication cultivation using multivariate analysis. InDamania, A. B., Valkoun, J., Willcox, G., and Qualset, C. O. (eds.), The Origins of Agricul-ture and Crop Domestication, ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria, pp. 121–131.

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 ofArchaeology in Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel, pp. 395–406.

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 flint industries of Jericho. In Kenyon, K. M., and Holland, T. A.(eds.), Excavations at Jericho, The British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London,pp. 622–759.

de Contenson, H. (1966). Les Trois Premieres Campagnes de Fouilles a Tell Ramad (Syrie). C.R. Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres pp. 531–536.

de Contenson, H. (1971). Tell Ramad, a village of Syria of the 7th and 6th millennia B.C.

Archaeology 24: 278–283.de Contenson, H. (1989). L’Aswadien: un nouveau facies de Neolithique Syrien. Paleorient 15:

259–262.de Contenson, H. (1995). Aswad et Ghoraife, site Neolithiques en Damascene (Syrie) au IX-

VIII millenaires avant l’ere chretienne, Bibliotheque Archaelogique et Historique, 137,Beyrouth.

Echegaray, G. J. (1966). Excavation en la Terraza de El-Khaim (Jordania), Part II, Casa Espanolade 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: Prelim-inary results of the first season of investigations by the Joint La Trobe University/ArizonaState University project. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 45: 135–157.

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). TheDana–Faynan–Ghuwayr early prehistory project. Levant 32: 1–26.

Flannery, K. V. (1973). The origins of agriculture. Annual Review of Anthropology 2: 271–310.Galili, E., Weinstein-Evron, M., Hershkovitz, I., Gopher, A., Kislev, M., Lernau, O., Kolska-

Horwitz, L., and Lernau, L. (1993). Atlit-Yam: A prehistoric site on the sea floor off theIsraeli coast. Journal of Field Archaeology 20: 133–157.

Garfinkel, Y. (1987). Yiftahel: A Neolithic village from the Seventh millennium B.C. in LowerGalilee, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 14: 199–212.

Garfinkel, Y. (1989). The Pre-Pottery Neolithic a site of Gesher. Mitequfat Ha’even 22: 145.Garfinkel, Y. (1994). Ritual burial of cultic objects: The earliest evidence. Cambridge Archae-

ology Journal 4(2): 159–188.

P1: GCR



Garfinkel, Y. (1996). Critical observations on the so-called Khiamian flint industry. InKozlowski, S. K., and Gebel, H. G. K. (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the FertileCrescent, and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 15–21.

Garfinkel, Y., and Nadel, D. (1989). The sultanian flint assemblage from Gesher and its impli-cations for recognizing Early Neolithic entities in the Levant. Paleorient 15(2): 139–152.

Garrard, A., Baird, D., and Byrd, B. (1994). The chronological basis and significance of the LatePaleolithic 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. 177–199.

Garrard, A., Colledge, S., and Martin, L. (1996). The emergence of crop cultivation and caprineherding in the “Marginal Zone” of the southern Levant. In Harris, D. (ed.), The Originsand Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, University College London Press,London, pp. 204–226.

Gebel, H. G. K., and Bienert, H. D. (1997). Ba’ja hidden in the Petra mountains. Preliminary Re-port on the 1997 Excavation. In Gebel, H. G. K., Kafafi, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (eds.),ThePrehistory of Jordan II, Perspectives From 1997, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production,Subsistence, and Environment 4, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 221–262.

Gebel, H. G. K., and Hermansen, B. D. (2000). The 2000 season at Late PPNB Ba’Ja. Neo-Lithics2(3): 20–22.

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.Paleorient 28(1): 125–140.

Gopher, A. (1989). Neolithic arrowheads in the Levant: Results and implications of a seriationanalysis. Paleorient 15(1): 57–64.

Gopher, A. (1994). Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant, American Schools of Oriental Re-search, Dissertation Series, Volume 10, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana.

Gopher, A. (1995). Ain Darat: A PPNA site in the Judean desert. Neo-Lithics 1: 7–8.Gopher, A. (1996a). A preliminary report on the flints from ‘Ain Darat: A PPNA site in the

Judean desert. In Kozlowski, S. K., and Gebel, H. G. K. (eds.), Neolithic Chipped StoneIndustries of the Fertile Crescent, and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Region, Studiesin Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 3, Ex Oriente, Berlin,pp. 443–452.

Gopher, A. (1996b). What happened to the Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B? In Neolithic ChippedStone 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. 443–452.

Gopher, A., and Gophna, R. (1993). Cultures of the eighth and seventh millennia B.P. in thesouthern Levant: A Review for the 1990’s. Journal of World Prehistory 7(3): 297–353.

Gopher, A., and Goring-Morris, A. N. (1998). Abu Salem: A Pre-Pottery Neolithic B camp inthe Central Negev Highlands, Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research312: 1–20.

Gopher, A., Goring-Morris, A. N., and Rosen, S. A. (1995). A Pre-Pottery Neolithic B occupa-tion near Ein Qadis at the edge of the Central Negev Highlands. Atiqot 27: 15–33.

Goren, Y., Segal, I., and Bar-Yosef, O. (1993). Plaster artifacts and the interpretation of theNahal Hemar Cave. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 25: 1201–1231.

Goring-Morris, A. N. (1987). At the Edge: Terminal Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers in the Negevand Sinai, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 361, Oxford.

Goring-Morris, A. N. (1991). A PPNB settlement at Kfar Hahoresh in lower Galilee: A pre-liminary report of the 1991 season. Mitekufat Haeven 24: 77–101.

Goring-Morris, A. N. (2000). The quick and the dead: The social context of aceramicNeolithic mortuary practices as seen from Kfar HaHoresh. In Kuijt, I. (ed.), Life inNeolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, KluwerAcademic/Plenum, New York, pp. 103–136.

Goring-Morris, A. N., and Belfer-Cohen, A. (1998). The articulation of cultural processes andLate Quaternary environmental changes in Cisjordan. Paleorient 23(2): 71–93.

P1: GCR



Griffin, P. S., Grissom, C. A., and Rollefson, G. O. (1998). Three late eight millennium plasteredfaces from ‘Ain Ghazal. Paleoreint 24(1): 59–70.

Hayden, B. (1995). Pathways to power: Principles for creating socioeconomic inequalities. InPrice, T. D., and Feinman, G. M. (eds.), Foundations of Social Inequality, Plenum, NewYork, pp. 15–88.

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. 231–272.

Hershkovitz, I., and Gopher, A. (1990).Paleodemography, burial customs, and food-producingeconomy at the beginning of the Holocene: A perspective from the southern Levant.Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 23: 9–48.

Hershkovitz, I., Zohar, M., Speirs, M. S., Segal, I., Meirav, O., Sherter, U., Feldman, H., andGoring-Morris, A. N. (1995). Remedy for an 8,500-year-old plastered human skull fromKfar HaHoresh, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 779–788.

Hillman, G. C., and Davis, M. S. (1990). Measured domestication rates in wild wheat andbarley under primitive cultivation, and their archaeological implications. Journal of WorldPrehistory 4(2): 157–222.

Hillman, G. C., Hedges, R., Moore, A., Colledge, S., and Pettitt, P. (2001). New evidence forLate Glacial cereal cultivation at Abu Hureyra on the Euphrates. Holocene 11(4): 383–393.

Hole, F. (1984). A reassessment of the Neolithic revolution. Paleorient 10: 49–60.Horwitz, L. K., Tchernov, E., Ducos, P., Becker, C., von den Driesch, A., Martin, L., and Garrard,

A. (1999). Animal domestication in the southern Levant. Paleorient 25(2): 63–80.Kafafi, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (1995). The 1994 excavations at ‘Ayn Ghazal: Preliminary report.

Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 39: 13–29.Kenyon, K. M. (1953). Excavations at Jericho, 1953. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 85: 81–95.Kenyon, K. M. (1957). Digging Up Jericho, Benn, London.Kenyon, K. M. (1969). The origins of the Neolithic. The Advancement of Science 6: 1–17.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:

90–96.Kislev, M. E. (1992). Agriculture in the Near East in the 7th Millennium B.C. In Anderson, P.

(ed.), Prehistoire del’Agriculture, CNRS, Paris, pp. 87–93.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, BritishArchaeology Reports, International Series 396, No. 1, Oxford, 423–430.

Kozlowski, S. (1999). The eastern wing of the fertile crescent: Late prehistory of greaterMesopotamian 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 MediterraneanArchaeology 7(2): 165–192.

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: 2–3.

Kuijt, I. (1996a). Where are the microlithics?: Lithic technology and Neolithic chronology asseen from the PPNA occupation at Dhra‘, Jordan. Neo-Lithics, A Newsletter of SouthwestAsian Lithic Research 2: 7–8.

Kuijt, I. (1996b). Negotiating equality through ritual: A consideration of Late Natufian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic a period mortuary practices. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology15(4): 313–336.

Kuijt, I. (1997). Interpretation, data, and the khiamian of the south-central Levant. Neo-Lithics,A Newsletter of Southwest Asian Lithic Research 3: 3–6.

Kuijt, I. (1998). Trying to fit round houses into square holes: Re-examining the timing of thesouth-central Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and Pre-Pottery Neolithic B cultural tran-sition. In Gebel, H. G., Kafafi, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan

P1: GCR



II, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment, Ex Oriente,Berlin, pp. 193–202.

Kuijt, I. (2000a). People and space in early agricultural villages: Exploring daily lives, commu-nity size and architecture in the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 19: 75–102.

Kuijt, I. (2000b). Keeping the peace: Ritual, skull caching and community integration in theLevantine Neolithic. In Kuijt, I. (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Or-ganization, Identity, and Differentiation, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp. 137–163.

Kuijt, I. (2000c). Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, andDifferentiation, Plenum, New York.

Kuijt, I. (2001a). Lithic inter-assemblage variability and cultural–historical sequences: A con-sideration of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period occupation of Dhra‘, Jordan. Paleorient27(1): 107–126.

Kuijt, I. (2001b). Meaningful masks: Place, death, and the transmission of social memory in earlyagricultural 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. 80–99.

Kuijt, I. (in press). Between foraging and farming: Critically evaluating the archaeological evi-dence for the southern Levantine Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period. Turkish Academyof Sciences Journal of Archaeology.

Kuijt, I., and Bar-Yosef, O. (1994). Radiocarbon chronology for the Levantine Neolithic: Ob-servations and data. In Bar-Yosef, O., and Kra, R. (eds.), Late Quaternary Chronologyand 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 NeolithicA period settlement of Dhra’, Jordan: Preliminary results. Neo-Lithics: Southwest AsianLithic Research 2(1): 12–15.

Kuijt, I., Mabry, J., and Palumbo, G. (1991). Early Neolithic use of upland areas of Wadi El-Yabis: Preliminary evidence from the excavations of ‘Iraq ed-Dubb, Jordan.Paleorient17(1): 99–108.

Kuijt, I., and Mahasneh, H. (1995). Preliminary excavation results from Dhra‘ and ‘Ain Waida.American Journal of Archaeology 99: 508–511.

Kuijt, I., and Mahasneh, H. (1998). Dhra‘: An Early Neolithic site in the Jordan valley. Journalof Field Archaeology 25: 153–161.

Kurth, G., and Rohrer-Ertl, G. (1981). On the anthropology of Mesolithic to Chalcolithic humanremains from the Tell es-Sultan to Jericho, Jordan. In Kenyon, K. M. (ed.), Excavation atJericho, British School of Archaeology, Jerusalem.

Lechavallier, M., and Ronen, A. (1985). La site Natoufien-Khiamien de Hatoula, Les Cachiersde Centre de Recherche Francais de Jerusalem, No. 1.

Mahasneh, H. M. (1997). The 1995 season at the Neolithic site of Es-Sifiya, Wadi Mujib, Jordan.In Gebel, H. G. K., Kafafi, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (eds.), The Prehistory of JordanII. Perspectives From 1997, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, andEnvironment 4, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 203–213.

Mahasneh, H. M. (2001). The Neolithic burial practices in Wadi al-Mujib during the seventhmillennium B.C. In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VII, Department ofAntiquities of Jordan, Amman, pp. 121–141.

Mahasneh, H., and Bienert, H. D. (2000). Unfolding the earliest pages of sedentism: The Pre-Pottery Neolithic settlement of Es-Sifiya in southern Jordan. In Bienert, H. D., and Muller-Neuhof, B. (eds.), At the Crossroads: Essays on the Archaeology, History and CurrentAffairs of the Middle East, German Protestant Institute of Archaeology in Amman,Amman, Jordan, pp. 1–14.

Mahasneh, H. M., and Gebel, H. G. K. (1999). Geometric objects from LPPNB Es-Sifiya, WadiMujib, Jordan. Paleorient 24(2): 105–110.

Mellaart, J. (1975). The Neolithic of the Near East, Thames and Hudson, London.

P1: GCR



Mithen, S., Finlayson, B., Pirie, A., Carruthers, D., and Kennedy, A. (2000). New evidence foreconomic and technological diversity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A: Wadi Faynan 16.Current Anthropology 41(4): 655–663.

Moore, A. (1985). The development in Neolithic societies in the Near East. In Close, A. E., andWendorf, F. (eds.), Advances in World Archaeology, Vol. 4, Academic Press, New York,pp. 1–70.

Nadel, D. (1990). The Khiamian as a case of sultanian intersite variability. Mitekufat Hae’ven23: 86–99.

Nadel, D. (1996). The chipped stone industry of Netiv Hagdud. In Bar-Yosef, O., and Go-pher, A. (eds.), An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part I: The Archaeology ofNetiv Hagdud, American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 43, Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, pp. 71–150.

Nadel, D., Bar-Yosef, O., and Gopher, A. (1991). Early Neolithic arrowhead types in the south-ern Levant: A typological suggestion. Paleorient 17(1): 109–119.

Najjar, M. (1994). Ghwair I, a Neolithic site in Wadi Feinan. In Kerner, S. (ed.), The Near Eastin Antiquity, Al Kutba, Amman, Jordan, pp. 75–85.

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 first two seasons of exca-

vation at Basta. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 31: 79–119.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). Annualof the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 36: 13–40.

Noy, T. (1989). Gilgal I, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site, Israel. The 1985–1987 seasons. Paleorient15(1): 11–18.

Ozdogan, M. (1998). Anatolia from the last glacial maximum to the Holocene climatic optimum:Cultural formations and the impact of the environmental setting. Paleorient 23(2): 25–38.

Ozdogan, M., and Ozdogan, A. (1989). Cayonu. Paleorient 15: 65–74.Ozdogan, M., and Ozdogan, 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 toHalet Cambel, Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul, pp. 581–601.

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 33:35–64.

Peterson, J. (2000). Test excavations at PPNB/PPNC Khirbet Hammam, Wadi el-Hasa, Jordan.Neo-Lithics 1: 4–6.

Pirie, A. (2001a). Wadi Faynan 16 chipped stone: PPNA variability at one site. Neo-Lithics:Southwest Asian Lithic Research 2(1): 5–8.

Pirie, A. (2001b). A brief note on the chipped stone assemblage from PPNA Nachcharini Cave,Levanon. Neo-Lithics: Southwest Asian Lithic Research 2(1): 10–12.

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 significance of naviform core-

and-blade technology in the southern Levant. Paleorient 21(1): 17–33.Rollefson, G. O. (1986). Neolithic ’Ain Ghazal (Jordan): Ritual and ceremony II. Paleorient 12:

45–52.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. 2–32.

Rollefson, G. O. (1989). The Late Aceramic Neolithic of the Levant: A synthesis. Paleorient15(1): 168–173.

Rollefson, G. O. (1993). Neolithic chipped stone technology at ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan: The statusof the PPNC. Paleorient 16(1): 119–124.

Rollefson, G. O. (1997). Changes in architecture and social organization at ‘Ain Ghazal. InGebel, H. G. K., Kafifi, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan II, Perspec-tives from 1997, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 4,Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 287–307.

P1: GCR



Rollefson, G. O. (1998). The Aceramic Neolithic. In Henry, D. O. (ed.), The Prehistoric Archae-ology of Jordan, Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 102–126.

Rollefson, G. O. (1999). El-Hemmeh: A Late PPNB-PPNC village in the Wadi el-Hasa, southernJordan. Neo-Lithics 2: 6–8.

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. 165–190.

Rollefson, G. O. (2001). The Neolithic period. In MacDonal, B., Adams, R., and Bienkowski,P. (eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, UK, pp. 67–105.

Rollefson, G. O., and Kohler-Rollefson, I. (1989). The collapse of the Early Neolithic settlementsin the southern Levant. In Hershkovitz, I. (ed.), People and Culture in Change, BritishArchaeology Reports, International Series, 508, Oxford, pp. 73–89.

Rollefson, G. O., and Kohler-Rollefson, I. (1993). PPNC adaptations in the first half of the 6thmillennium B.C. Paleorient 19(1): 33–42.

Rollefson, G. O., Schmandt-Besserat, D., and Rose, J. C. (1999). A decorated skull from MPPNB‘Ain Ghazal. Paleorient 24(2): 99–104.

Rollefson, G. O., Simmons, A. H., and Kafafi, Z. (1992). Neolithic cultures at ’Ain Ghazal,Jordan. Journal of Field Archaeology 19: 443–470.

Ronen, A., and Lechevallier, M. (1999). Save the Khiamian! Neo-Lithics 1(99): 6–7.Sayej, G. (2001). A new Pre-Pottery Neolithic—A culture region in Jordan: The Dead Sea

basin. In Walmsley, A. (ed.), Australians Uncovering Ancient Jordan: Fifty Years of MiddleEastern Archaeology, University of Sydney, Sydney, pp. 225–232.

Sayej, G. (2002). Lithic inter and intra-assemblage variability: A case study from the Pre-PotteryNeolithic site of Zahrat edh-Dhra‘ 2, Jordan. Paper presented at The 2002 Annual Meetingof the American Society of Oriental Research, Toronto, Canada.

Schmidt, K. (1995). Investigations in the Upper Mesopotamian Early Neolithic: Gobekli Tepeand Gurcutepe. Neo-Lithics 2(95): 9–10.

Simmons, A. (1995). Town planning in the Neolithic—Is ‘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. InGebel, H. G. K., Kafafi, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan II, Perspec-tives From 1997, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment4, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 309–318.

Simmons, A. (2000). Villages on the edge: Regional settlement change and the end of theLevantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic. In Kuijt, I. (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities:Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York,pp. 211–230.

Simmons, A., Rollefson, G. O., Kafafi, Z., Mandel, R. D., al-Nahar, M., Cooper, J., Kohler-Rollefson, I., and Durand, K. D. (2001). Wadi Shu’eib, a large Neolithic community inCentral Jordan: Final report of test investigations. Bulletin of the American Schools ofOriental Research, pp 1–39.

Simmons, A., Rollefson, G. O., Kafafi, Z., and Moyer, K. (1989). Test excavations at WadiShu’eib, a major Neolithic settlement in Central Jordan. Annual of the Department ofAntiquities of Jordan 33: 27–42.

Simmons, A., and Najjar, M. (1996). Current investigations at Ghwair I, a Neolithic settlementin southern Jordan. Neolithics 2: 6–7.

Simmons, A., and Najjar, M. (1999). Preliminary field report of the 1998–1999 excavations atGhwair I, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic B community in the Wadi Feinan regions of southernJordan. Neolithics 2: 4–6.

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. 199–229.

P1: GCR



Smith, P., Bar-Yosef, O., and Sillen, A. (1984). Archaeological and skeletal evidence for dietarychange during the late Pleistocene. In Cohen, M., and Armelagos, G. (eds.), At the Originsof Agriculture, Academic Press, New York, pp. 101–136.

Stekelis, M., and Yizraeli, T. (1963). Excavations at Nahal Oren. Israel Exploration Journal 13:1–12.

Stordeur, D. (2000a). New discoveries in architecture and symbolism at Jerf el Ahmar (Syria),1997–1999. Neo-Lithics 1: 1–4.

Stordeur, D. (2000b). Jerf el Ahmar: et l’emergence du Neolithique au Proche Orient. In J.Guilaine (ed.), Premiers paysans du monde: Naissances des agricultures, Collection deHesperides, Editions Errance, Paris, pp. 31–60.

Stordeur, D., and Abbes, F. (2002). Du PPNA au PPNB: Mise en lumiere d’une phase detranstion at Jerf el Ahmar (Syrie). Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 99(03):563–595.

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 NetivHagdud, American Schools of Research Bulletin 44, Peabody Museum of Archaeologyand Ethnography, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Wasse, A. (1997). Preliminary Results of an Analysis of the Sheep and Goat Bones from ‘AinGhazal, Jordan. In Gebel, H. G. K., Kafifi, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (eds.), The Prehistory ofJordan II, Perspectives from 1997. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistenceand Environment 4. Ex oriente, Berlin, pp. 287–307.

van Zeist, W., and Bakker-Heeres, J. B. (1985). Archaeobotanical studies in the Levant: Neolithicsites in the Damascus Basin, Aswad, Ghoraife, Ramad. Prehistoria (1982) 24: 165–256.

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 Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, Istanbul.

Verhoeven, M. (2002). Ritual and ideology in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Levant andsoutheast Anatolia. Cambridge Archaeology Journal 12(2): 233–258.

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 andflax: The evidence from the living plants. In Harris, D. R., and Hillman, G. (eds.), Foragingand Farming: The Evolution of Plant Exploitation, Unwin & Hyman, London, pp. 359–373.

Documents

Foraging, Farming and Socil Complexity in the Pre-pottery Neolithic and Southern Levant- A Review and Synthesis