THE
NEOLITHIC
OF
THE
LEVANT
A.M.T.
Moore
University
College
Volume
2
Thesis
submitted
for the
Degree
of
Doctor
of
Philosophy,
Oxford
University
1978
Chapter
5
NEOLITHIC
3
About
6000
B.C.
there
is
evidence
in
the
archaeological
record
of
marked
changes
in
material
remains,
economy,
settlement
patterns
and
social
organi-
zation
signifying
the
emergence
of
a
new
stage
in
the
Neolithic
of the
Levant
which
I
shall
call
Neolithic
3.
The
Neolithic
2
tradition
of
building
recti-
linear
single
or
multiple-roomed
mud-brick
houses
was
continued
on
some
Neolithic
3
sites
but
on
others
the
inhabitants
lived
in
sub-circular
pit
dwellings.
Other
large
pits
which
may have
served
as
working
or
cooking
hollows
are
another
conspicuous
feature
of
many
Neolithic
3
settlements.
The
characteristic
flint
industry
of
Neolithic
2
was
modified
in
Neo-
lithic
3
though
many
of
its
general
features
were
preserved.
The
emphasis
of
Neolithic
3
flint
production
remained
the
manufacture
of
blade
tools
but
they
were usually
smaller
than
in
Neolithic
2.
Pyramidal
cores
were
now
preferred
which
yielded
shorter
blades
than
the
double-ended
cores
of
Neolithic
3.
Arrowheads
were
usually
smaller
though
in
Syria
and
Lebanon
several
types
of
very
large
arrowhead
continued
to
be
made
throughout Neolithic
3.
Short,
regular,
segmented
sickle
blades
hafted
in
composite
sickles
were
now
used
rather
than
the
large
blades
of
Neolithic
2.
These
segmented
sickle
blades
had
a
serrated
or
denticulated
cutting
edge
and
cut
most
effectively
when
the
sickle
was
used with
a
sawing
motion.
A
new
feature
of
the
flint
industry
on
some
Neolithic
3
sites
was
the
manufacture
of
large
axes,
adzes,
picks
and
other
heavy
flaked
tools.
These
tools
were
apparently
developed
to
cut
timber
and
prepare
land
in
areas
which
had
not
previously
been
favoured
for
permanent
settlement.
The
principal
cultural
innovation
in
Neolithic
3
was the
making
of
pottery,
Pottery
was
first
used
on sites
in
Syria
and
Lebanon
about
6000
B.C.
At
the
beginning
it
was made
in
small
quantities
but
the
craft
flourished
so
that
soon
after
its
introduction pottery
became
an
item
of
every
day
use
throughout
-
295
-
the
central
and
northern
Levant
although
pottery
was not
used
in
the
southern
Levant
until
several
centuries
later.
From
the
outset there
was
much
variety
in
fabric
and
decoration.
Pottery
is
such
a
conspicuous
item
in
the
archaeo-
logical
record
that
its
introduction
is
the
principal indicator
of
innovations
in
material
culture.
Other
important
changes
were
taking
place
in
economy
and
the
pattern
of
settlement
at
the
time
that
pottery
was introduced. These
changes
in
artifacts
and
way
of
life
are
the
main
evidence
that
a
new
stage
of
the
Neolithic
was
developing.
Pottery
is
the
most
easily
recognisable
new
artifact
and
for
this
reason
the
moment
when
its
manufacture
began
is
the
most
convenient
point
at
which
to
date
the
beginning
of
Neolithic
3.
Although
the
introduction
of
pottery
was
such
a
striking
innovation
the
changes
in
the
buildings
and
flint
industry
were
simply
a
modification
of
the
Neolithic
2
tradition.
In
general
there
was
cultural
continuity
from
Neolithic
2
to
Neolithic
3
in
the
Levant,
evidence
for
which
has
been
found
at
Abu
Hureyra,
Buqras,
Ras
Shamra,
Tell
Ramad
and
Tell
Labweh.
In
Palestine
the
Neolithic
2
pattern
of
existence
was
disrupted
and
the
Neolithic
3
way
of life
there,
when
finally
established,
was
somewhat
different
from
further
north.
The
Neolithic
3
economy
differed
in
several
ways
from
that
of
Neolithic
2
though
it
developed
from
it.
There
was
a
stronger
emphasis
on
agriculture
in
the
villages
of
Neolithic
3
than
in
Neolithic
2.
Herding
grew
markedly
in
importance
on
some
sites
while
hunting
and
the
gathering
of
wild
plants
contributed
less
to
the
diet
of
the
settled population
than
before.
The
settlement
pattern
underwent
considerable
modification
in
Neolithic
3
(Fig.
35)-
The
expansion
of
settlement
into
the
semi-arid
areas of
central
Syria,
TransJordan
and
in
the
extreme
south-east
of
the
Levant
which
had
taken
place
in
Neolithic
2
was
reversed.
No
permanent
Neolithic
3
settlements
have
been
found
in
these
areas
and
they
seem
to
have
been
occupied
no more than
intermittently
by
mobile
groups.
On the
other
hand
a
considerable
expansion
of
settlement
took
place
in
western
Syria
and
Lebanon
in
areas
that
were
quite
thinly
populated
in
Neolithic
2.
New
sites
were
founded
and
old
sites
Fig.35
Extent
of
Neolithic
3
settlement
A
sites
abandoned
early
in
Neolithic
3
scale
1
=
4,000,000
FIGURE
35
Extent
of
Neolithic
3
settlement
1
Tell
Chagar
Bazar
2
Tell
Halaf
3
Tell
Aswad
(Balikh)
4
Tell
Abu
Hureyra
5
El
Kum
6
Buqras
7
Judaidah
Jabbul
8
Tell
Judaidah
9
Tell
esh-Sheikh
10
Ras
Shamra
11
Tell Sukas
12
Hama
13
Tabbat
el
Hanunam
14
Kubbah
I
15
Byblos
16
Tell
Labweh
17
Tell
Neba'a
Faour
I
18
Kaukaba
19
Tell
Ramad
20
Kfar
Giladi
21
Hagosherim
22
Beisamun
23
Kabri
24
Shaar
Hagolan
25
Munhatta
26
Beth-Shan
27
Megiddo
28
Vadi
Rabah
29
Lydda
30
Jericho
31
Abu
Gosh
32
Teluliot
Batashi
33
Givat
Haparsa
34
Nizzanim
35
Tell
ed-Duweir
-
296
-
enlarged
along
the
Syrian
and
Lebanese
coasts
and
in
the
Beka'a
and
Orontes
valleys.
There
was
also
settlement
expansion
in
the
Amuq
basin
and
north-
west
Syria
to
the
west
of the Euphrates.
In
Palestine
the
old
settlement
pattern
was
considerably
disturbed.
Most
Neolithic
2
sites
were
abandoned
then
new
sites
were
founded
later
in
slightly
different positions.
The
population
of
the
Negev
and Sinai was
much
reduced
although
there
are
indications
that
these
areas
continued
to
be
inhabited.
Having
briefly
mentioned
the
most
important
developments
that
took
place
in
Neolithic
3 I
shall
now
consider
the
archaeological
evidence
in
detail
taking
each
region
in
turn.
Middle
Euphrates
The
principal Neolithic
2
settlement
sites
along the
Middle
Euphrates
were
abandoned
in
Neolithic
3.
Permanent
occupation
at
Mureybat
ceased
at
the
end
of
phase
IV
sometime
in
Neolithic
2
and
although
there
are
indications
that
the
site
was
used
in
later
periods,
even
possibly
in
Neolithic
it
was
never
subsequently inhabited
as
a
permanent
settlement.
Abu
Hureyra
continued
to
be
occupied
until
early
in
Neolithic
3
so
that
here
one
can
trace
the
development
of
some
of
the
features
of
the
new
stage.
In
the
ceramic
Neolithic
phase
of
occupation
there
were
some
changes
in
the
structures
used
at
the
site
as
we
have
seen.
Shallow
pits
were
dug
between
the
buildings
which
continued
to
be
built
of
mud-brick
on
a
rectilinear
plan.
The
settlement
itself
shrank until
it
covered
only
half
the
area
of
the
aceramic
site.
There
were
slight
changes
in
the
flint
industry,
the
most
noticeable
being
an
increase
in
the
amount
of
retouch
by
squamous
pressure-
flaking
on
arrowheads
and
a
few
other
tools. The
other
artifacts
were
as
varied
as
they
had
been
in
the
later
ceramic
phase,
the
one
innovation
being
the
introduction
of
pottery.
This
and
the
other
new
features
found
in
the
excavation
were
sufficient
to
mark
a
new
phase
of
occupation,
the
ceramic
Neolithic,
even
if
it
was
obviously
a
continuation
of
the
later
aceramic
-
297
-
Neolithic
settlement.
The
appearance
of
pottery,
albeit
in
modest
amounts,
the
changes
in
the
flint
industry
and
the
digging
of
large
pits
around
the
mud-brick
"buildings
are
all
hallmarks
of
Neolithic
3
so
that
the
ceramic
Neolithic
phase
of
occupation
at
Abu
Hureyra
can
be
ascribed
to
this
stage.
The
remains
of
the
Neolithic
3
settlement
at
Abu
Hureyra
had
suffered
considerably
from
weathering
and
much
of
the
deposit
had
simply
been
eroded
away.
For
this
reason
it
is
difficult
to
know
exactly
when
the
settlement
was
abandoned
but
from
the
typology
of
the
artifacts
it
would
appear
that
occupation
ceased
about
the
same
time
as
at
Buqras,
that
is
early
in
the 6th
millennium.
Tell
Kreyn
near
Abu
Hureyra
was
certainly
occupied
in
Neolithic
2
and
again
in
the
Halaf.
The
foci
of these two
settlements
were
several
tens
of
metres
apart
and there
were
no
surface
indications
of
material
that
would
fill
the gap
between
the
two
phases
of
occupation,
a
gap that
corresponds
to
Neolithic
3.
The
inference
to
be
drawn
from
this,
admittedly
inconclusive,
evidence
is
that
the
site
was
abandoned
during
the 6th
millennium.
The
level
III
occupation
at
Buqras
also
falls
in
Neolithic
3
on
the
evidence
of
the
few
potsherds
that
were
found
in
the
deposit.
The
other
artifacts
were
similar
in
type
to
those
of
levels
II
and
I.
The
structures
in
level
III
consisted
of
mud-brick
walls
as
in
the
earlier
levels.
The
sequence
at
Buqras was
continuous
and
occupation
at
the
site
came
to
an
end
about
5900
B.C.,
as
we
have already
noted.
Abu
Hureyra,
Kreyn
and
Buqras
all
seem
to have
been
abandoned
in
the
first
half
of
the
6th
millennium
and
Mureybat
perhaps
a
little
earlier.
In
itself
such
a
break
in
the
occupation
of
sites
along
the
Euphrates
need
not
have
been
significant
since
few
excavated
Neolithic
sites
have
proved
to
be
continuously
occupied
for
more
than
several
centuries
at
a
time.
Each
may
have
been
abandoned
because
of
local
circumstances, perhaps
a
change
in
the
structure
of
the
settlement
or
the
local environment.
The
important
fact
to
note
is
that
once
these
sites
were
abandoned
no
others
were founded
along
the
-
298
-
Middle
Euphrates
until
much
later.
This
observation
is
based
upon
inadequate
information
since
the
course
of
the
Middle
Euphrates
has
not
yet
been
fully
surveyed
but
in
the
areas
which
have
been
examined Neolithic
2
and
Halaf
settlements
have
been
found
but
none
that
could
be
attributed
to
Neolithic
3.
This
is
most
obvious
in
the
area
above
the
new
Euphrates
dam
at
Tabqa
where
80
km
of
the
river
valley
have
been
carefully
surveyed.
There
are
three
Halaf
sites
known
in
this
area,
Shams
ed-Din
which
has
recently
been
excavated,
the
gas
station
site
at
Mureybat
(van
Loon,
1967
5
12)
and
Kreyn.
No
Neolithic
3
sites
have
been located
in
this
area
except
for
the
ceramic
Neolithic
phase
at
Abu
Hureyra.
The
same
observation
holds
true
for the
Jebel
Abdul
Aziz.
We
have
seen
that
the
Japanese
survey
team
found
Neolithic
2
sites
in
this
area
but
nothing
that
could
be
attributed
to
Neolithic
3.
Similar
results
were
obtained
by
the
same
team
when
they
surveyed
the
area
around
Palmyra.
All
the
Neolithic
sites
they
found
could
be
attributed
to
Neolithic
2
and
none to
Neolithic
3.
One
site
in
this
region,
El
Kum,
was
occupied
in
Neolithic
3.
The
remains
of
the
ceramic
Neolithic
settlement
were
substantial
consisting
of
at
least
two
superimposed
layers of
buildings.
The artifacts,
too,
were
abundant but,
except
for the
pottery,
little
different
from
those
of
the
aceramic Neolithic
phase
of
occupation.
For
this
reason
I
believe
El
Kum
may
not
have
been
occupied
for
more
than
the
earlier
centuries
of
the
6th
millennium
but
until
further
excavations
are
carried
out
in
the
untested
deposits
at
the
site
we
shall
not
know
for
certain.
A
great
deal of
pottery
was
found
in
the
brief
excavations
at
El
Kum.
The
soft,
straw-tempered
fabric
of most of
the
sherds
and
the
few
with
grit
filler
can
be
matched
on
most
Neolithic
3
sites
in
Syria
and
Lebanon.
The
red
painted
and
burnished
sherds
are
more
unusual
since
these
are
uncommon
on
sites
further
west
at
this
early
date.
Some
of
the
sherds
from
Buqras,
however,
have
a
similar
finish,
an
interesting
parallel
which
is
supported
by
the
similarities
in
the
flint
industries
and
other
remains
at
these
two
sites.
-
299
-
Having
considered
the
slight traces
of
Neolithic
3
settlement
in
the
Euphrates
region
I
will
now
turn
to
north-western
Syria where
many
Neolithic
3
sites
are
known
(Fig.
36)
and
describe
their
remains
in
turn.
North
Syria
Ras
Shamra
Ras
Shamra
was
occupied throughout Neolithic
3
and
its
deposits
provide
the
key
sequence
for
this
stage
in
north
Syria.
Remains
of
the
Neolithic
3
settlement have
been
found
in
the soundings
on
the
temple
acropolis
and
also
in
the
Palace
garden
(Schaeffer,
1962,
163)
so
it
appears to
have
"been
quite
as
extensive
as
the
Neolithic
2
site.
The
deposit
varied
from
2.6
to
3.3
m
in
depth
and
has
been
divided
into
two
phases,
V
B or
Middle
Neolithic
(N<§olithique
Moyen)
and
V
A
or Late
Neolithic
(Neolithique
Recent).
The
houses
in
Phase
V
B
were
separated
from
each
other
and
had
a
single
rectangular
room
with
stone
walls
and
a
mud-brick
superstructure
(Kuschke,
1962,
260;
de
Contenson,
1963,
36).
Plaster
floors
were
associated
with
these
buildings
in
some
layers
(de
Contenson,
1962,
507)
and
other
trodden
earth
floors
were
quite
common.
A
clay-lined
pit
full
of
burned
earth,
charcoal
and
stones
was
also
excavated
in
these
layers
(de
Contenson,
1962,
509).
Much the
same
kind
of
rectilinear
structures
built
of
walls
with
stone
footings
were
found
in
Phase
V
A
(Kuschke,
1962,
259).
The
remains of
the
superstructure
of
one
of
these
buildings
was
found
in
one
area;
it
consisted
of
large
timbers
which
had
been
covered
with
vegetable
matter
and
clay
(de
Contenson,
1962,
505).
Many
floor surfaces
and
some
hearths
were
also
found
around
the
buildings
of
this
Phase.
These
features
were similar
to
the
domestic
structures
of
Phase
V
C
at
Ras
Shamra
so
there
was
no
change
in
the
building
tradition
here
between
Neolithic
2
and
3.
The
flint
tools
were
also
in
the
same
tradition
as
before
which,
it
should
be
remembered,
was
a
little
different
from
other
sites
in
Syria.
The
main
tool
types
were
pressure-flaked tanged
arrowheads
and
sickle
blades
with
finely-
Fig.
36
Neolithic
3
North
Syrian
sites
FIGURE
36
Neolithic
3
North
Syrian
sites
1
Tell
Chagar
Bazar
2
Tell
Halaf
3
Tell
Hannnam
4
Tell
Aswad
(Balikh)
5
Tell
Khirbet
el
Bassal
6
Judaidah
Jabbul
7
Tell
Judaidah
8 Tell
Dhahab
9
¥adi
Hammam
10 Tell
Mahmutliye
11 Tell
Turundah
12
Tell
Faruq
13
Burj
Abdal
14
Gtfltepe
15
Tell
Davutpasa
16
Karaca
Khirbat
Ali
17
Tell
Qinanah
18
JJatal
Httylttk
19 Al
Kanisah
20
Myttktepe
21
Tell
Kurdu
22
Tell
Hasanusagi
23
Hasanusagi
al
Daiah
24
Qaddahiyyat
Ali
Bey
25
Tell
Karatas
26
Tell
esh-Sheikh
27
Janudiyeh
28
Ras
Shamra
29
Qal'at
er-Rus
30
Tell
Sukas
31
Qal'at
el
Mudiq
32
Kama
33
Horns
AH
Tell
Abu
Hureyra
B
Buqras
EK
El
Kum
M
Mersin
S
Sakcagflzu
1
T
Tarsus
TT
Tell
Turlu
-
300
-
denticulated
cutting
edges;
some
of
these
were
backed. Borers
and
scrapers,
including
at
least
one
fan
scraper
(de
Contenson,
1962,
505)
5
were
also
made.
Associated
with
these
tools
were
spherical
stone
hammers
which
may
have
been
used
in
flint
working
or
in
other
tasks.
A
little
obsidian
was
used
in
these
phases
but
from
which
sources
is
not
known.
The
flint
industry
gradually
"degenerated"
through
time,
to
use
de
Contenson's
phrase
(1962,
510)
which
means
that
fewer
of the
carefully-retouched
arrowheads
and
other
pressure-
flaked
tools
were
made.
This
is
an
indication
of
changing
needs
that
can
probably
be
linked
to
the
developments
which
were
taking
place
in
the
economy
of
the
site.
White plaster
ware
continued
to
be
made
in
the
lower
layers
of
Phase
V
B
(de
Contenson,
1962,
507)
"but
by
Phase
V
A
its
manufacture
had
been
discon-
tinued.
The
shapes
were
typical
of
those
found
on
Neolithic
2
sites
,
the
most
common
being
large
bowls
with
thick
walls
and
flat
or
hollow
bases.
The
surface
of
these
vessels
was
burnished
and
a
few
had
been
decorated
with
red
paint.
The
most
important cultural change
in
these
phases was
the
introduction
of
pottery.
This
new
artifact
is
the
main
distinguishing
feature
between
Phases
V
B
and
V
A
and
Phase
V
C.
The
earliest
pottery found
on
the
site
was
a
lightly
fired
crumbly
ware.
Sherds
of
this
pottery
were
found
in
some
quantity
at
the
bottom
of
the
V
B
layers
in
the
Palace garden
sounding
(Kuschke,
1962, 261)
but
only
a
handful
were
found
in
the
sounding
west
of
the
Temple
of
Baal
(de
Contenson,
1962,
50?).
The
most
common
class
of
pottery
was
a
series
of
thick-walled
vessels
made of
a
dark
fabric
with
grit
and
vegetable
filler
which
had
been
fired
quite
hard.
There
were
hemispherical
bowls,
globular
hole-mouth
jars,
jars
with
a
collar
neck
and
other
simple
shapes
(de
Contenson,
1962,
503,
507)
They
had
rounded
or
ring
bases
and
a
few
were
fitted
with
handles
or lugs
for
carrying.
One
or
two
fenestrated
bases
were
found
but
as
the
pieces
were
incomplete
we
do
not
know
how
they were
used.
The
surfaces
of
all
these
-
301
-
vessels
had
been
partly
or
completely
"burnished
and
a
few
were
decorated
with
incisions
or
even
red
paint.
One
unusual
group
of
vessels
made of
the
same
ware
was
a
series
of
"husking
trays"
found
in
Phase
V
A
(de
Contenson,
1962,
fig.
25)
which
resembled
those
found
in
Levels
II
to
VI
at
Tell
Hassuna
(Lloyd,
Safar,
19^5,
277ff).
Ras
Shamra
is
the only
site
in
the
Levant
at
which
these
unusual
vessels
have
been
discovered
so
it is
difficult
to
assess
their
significance
but
they
are
so
similar
to
the
Hassuna
examples
that
they
must indicate
a
cultural
connection
between
the two
regions.
Phase
V
A
immediately
precedes
Phase
IV
C,
the
phase
in
which Halaf
material
occurs,
so
the
"husking
trays"
may
be
the
first
indications
of
that
north
Mesopotamian
influence
which
became
so
marked
later
on.
The
third
class
of
vessels
was
a
group
of
thin-walled
globular
or
carinated
bowls
and
jars
with
short necks
made
from
a
dark
fabric
which
again
had
been
quite
hard
fired.
The
vessels of
this
fine
ware were
coloured
black,
brown
or
red
and
had
been
highly
burnished.
Some
of
them
were incised
with
a
dot
pattern
after
firing.
Another
characteristic
form
of
decoration
found
in
Phase
V
A
was
"pattern
burnishing"
in
which
a
series
of
lines
had
been
drawn
on
the
surface
of the
vessels
with
the
burnishing
tool
to
create
herring-
bone
and
diamond
patterns
(de
Contenson,
1962, figs. 26,
27).
The
name
"dark-faced
burnished
ware"
was
given
by
the
Braidwoods
(Braidwood,
Braidwood,
1960,
U9ff)
to
a
broad
category
of
black
and
brown
burnished
vessels
at
Tells
Judaidah
and
Dhahab.
This
term
has
since
been
used by
archaeologists
to
describe
almost
all
types
of
simple
burnished
pottery
found
on
Neolithic
3
sites
in
the
Levant
and
in
the
process
has
lost
much
of
its
descriptive
value.
For
this
reason
I
propose
to
avoid
using
the
phrase
except
when
discussing
material
from
the
Amuq.
sites
for
which
it
was
invented.
Another
term
is
still
needed
to
describe
that
class
of
highly-burnished
black
and
brown
fine
ware
found
at
Ras
Shamra
in
Phases
V
B
and
V
A, in
Amuq
B
and
on
other
sites
in
Syria.
I
propose
to call
this
distinctive
pottery
"dark
polished
ware".
One
other
group
of
sherds
was
found
in
Ras
Shamra
V
B.
These
had
a
white
-
302
-
plaster
coating
(de
Contenson,
1962,
507),
perhaps
to
make then
more
water-
tight.
Similar
sherds
were
found
at
Byblos
in
Neolithic
3
"but
neither
there
nor
at
Ras
Shamra
did
this
class
of
pottery
continue
in
use
very
long.
There
were
several other
classes
of
artifacts
in
these
levels
at
Ras
Shamra.
Fragments
of
stone
bowls
and
dishes
were
quite
common
(de
Contenson,
1962,
505);
these
were usually
made
of
limestone
"but
there
were
basalt
ones
too.
A
number
of small
polished
stone
axes
were
found
and
also
stone
grinding
tools
such
as
rubbers
and saddle
querns.
The
bone
industry
included
borers
and
hafts
for
other
tools.
Baked
clay
was
used
for
objects
other
than pottery,
one
of
which
was
a
spoon
and
another
a
stamp
seal
with
a
simple
linear
design
(de
Contenson,
1962,
5.05
9
fig-
32).
The
stamp
seal
seems
definitely
to
have
been
used
to
print
a
design
on
other
objects.
Personal
ornaments
made of
polished
stone
or
shell
were
another
abundant
group
of
artifacts
at
Ras
Shamra.
One
ll
*C
determination
has
been
obtained
for
each
of
these
two phases
at
Ras
Shamra,
5736
±
112
B.C.
P-U58
for V
B
and
523U
±
Qk
B.C.
P-U57
for
V
A
(de
Contenson,
196U,
U7).
Since
the
transition
from
Phase
V
C
to V
B
took
place
at
or
a
little
after
6000
B.C.
Phases
V
B
and
V
A
lasted
for
most
of
the
6th
millennium
on
the
evidence
of
these
dates.
These
are
the phases
that
fall
in
Neolithic
3
for
with
the
advent of
Phase
IV
C
the
occupation
at
Ras
Shamra
takes
a
different
course
from
that
on
other
sites
further
south
in
the
Levant.
Tell
Sukas
Tell
Sukas
lies
on
the
coast
of
Syria
6
km
south
of
Jeble.
It
is
situated
on a
promontory
between
two
small
bays
which
served
as
harbours
in
ancient
times;
two
streams
flow
into
these
bays
on
either
side of
the
site
(Riis,
Thrane,
197**>
8).
The
earliest
settlement
was
a
Neolithic
village
founded
on
a
low
natural
rise
about
U.5
m
above
sea
level.
This
was
covered
by
debris
from later
periods
of
occupation.
The
remains
of
the
Neolithic
settlement
were
found
at
the
bottom
of
a
sounding
made
beneath
the
later
city.
The deposit
was
3
m
deep.
The
earliest
occupation
(period
N11)
consisted
of
traces
of
plaster
floors
and
a
pit
60
cm
-
303
-
in
diameter
dug
into
the
natural
subsoil
(Riis,
Thrane,
197*+,
10ff).
Above
this
were
several
layers
in
which
remains
of
"buildings
were
found
(periods
N10-N6).
These
structures
were
rectilinear
with
at
least
two
rooms
in
some
instances
and
were
orientated
north-south.
The
walls
had
stone
footings
with
clay
or
mud-brick
walls.
Associated
with
these
buildings
were
plastered
and
trodden
floors,
pits,
hearths
and
much
occupation
debris.
The
upper
levels
(periods N5-N1)
consisted
of
more
plaster
floors
and
other
surfaces
with
pits
and
hearths
but
the
only
structure
was
a
stone
wall
found
in
layer
63
(Riis,
Thrane,
197**,
70).
The
remains
found
in
these
levels
indicate
that
the
area
excavated
was
then
an
open
space
between
buildings.
An
area
of
dark
loam
was
found
over
part
of
N1
which
was
thought
to
have
been
formed
after
the
Neolithic
settlement
was
abandoned
(Riis,
Thrane,
197*+,
80).
The
layer
above
this
has
been
dated
by
a
lk
C
determination
of
3960
±
100
B.C.
K-936
(Radiocarbon
15,
1973,
108)
so
occupation
of
the
Neolithic
settlement
must
have
ceased
well
before
to
allow
the
soil
to develop.
Relatively
few
flint
tools
were
found
at
Tell
Sukas,
doubtless
because
the
sounding
was
so
small.
Among
them
were
a
number
of
Amuq
1
and
2
arrow-
heads,
leaf-shaped
and
tanged
arrowheads,
a
few
sickle
blades,
a
burin
and
some
flake
scrapers
as
well
as
retouched
blades
(Riis,
Thrane,
197*+,
*+0,
18,
16).
Obsidian
was
used
throughout
the
life of
the
Neolithic
settlement.
Other
stone artifacts
were
also rare
but
they
included
polished
axes
and
adzes,
basalt
querns
and
rubbers,
and
bowls
(Riis,
Thrane,
197*+,
16,
55,
36,
80,
63).
Potsherds
were
abundant
in
nearly
all
the
layers.
Many
of
the
vessels
were
simple
in
shape,
consisting
for
the
most
part
of
hemispherical
bowls
and
collared
jars
with
ledge
handles
for
lifting
(Riis,
Thrane,
197*+,
23).
These
vessels
were
usually
black,
grey
or
brown
in
colour
with
a
burnished
surface
although
unburnished
pots
were
also
made.
Some
vessels
had
incised,
impressed
or
combed
decoration,
particularly
in
the
later
phases,
and
a
few
were
painted
(Riis,
Thrane,
197*+,
63,
68,
19).
Others
had
a
plaster
coating
and
one
was
pattern
burnished
(Riis,
Thrane,
197*+,
52,
18).
White ware
was
also
present
-
SOU
-
throughout
and
again
the
vessels
were
simple
in
shape.
The
two
principal
types
were
open
bowls
with
splayed
sides
and
hemispherical
bowls
some
of
which
had
ring
bases
(Riis,
Thrane,
197U,
26,
77);
a
few
of
these
vessels
were
painted.
The
buildings
and
artifacts
from
Tell
Sukas
have
much
in
common
with
Ras
Shamra,
particularly
in
Phase
V
B.
The
site thus
appears
to
have
been
first
occupied
early
in
the
6th
millennium
and
then
continuously
inhabited
until
quite late
in
Neolithic
3.
Tell
Sukas
may
be
ascribed
to
the
North
Syrian
group
although
it
has
certain
traits
such
as
impressed
and
combed
decoration
on
pottery
in
common
with
Tabbat
el
Ham-mam
and
other
sites
further
s
outh.
Qal'at
er-Rus
6
km
north
of
Jeble
may
also
have
first
been
occupied
in
Neolithic
3
since
plain
burnished
and
pattern
burnished
vessels
were
found
in the
lower
levels
(Ehrich,
1939,
10,
18).
Kama
The
River
Orontes
is
deeply
incised
into
the
Syrian
plateau
at
Hama.
The
ancient
mound
lies
on
a
terrace
in
the
valley beside
the
river
in
the
heart
of
the
modern
town.
The
site
was
excavated
from
1932
to
1938
but
only
the
upper
levels
were
cleared
to any extent.
A
Roman cistern
was
cleaned
out
and
below
this
a
sounding
was
dug
to
the
sterile
subsoil
(Fugmann,
1958,
12).
The
sounding
took
the
form
of
a
circular
shaft
1.5
m
in
diameter
which
enabled
the
excavators
to
ascertain
the
stratigraphic
sequence
but
was
too
narrow
for
much
to
be
learned
about
the
nature
of
the
earlier
settlements
(Fugmann,
1958,
pi.
IX).
This
deep
sounding,
G
11
X,
was sunk
in
the
northern
sector
of the
mound
near
the
river
(Fugmann,
1958,
fig.
9).
It
was
found
that
the
earliest
settlement
of
Period
M
was
established
on
the
natural
subsoil
and
that
the
deposit
was
6
m
deep.
Such
a
considerable
accumulation
of
debris
suggests
that
the
settlement
was
substantial
but
we
do
not
know,
of
course,
how
extensive
it
was.
Some
of
the
layers
were
ashy
and
others
pebbly.
These
-
305
-
were presumably
the
remains
of
occupation
debris
and
floors.
There
was
also
a
little
painted
plaster
from
buildings,
the
only
indication
of
substantial
structures.
The
finds
were
meagre
simply
because
the
sounding
was
so
small.
Pottery
of
two
sorts
was
found
throughout
Period
M.
One was
a
thick
coarse
ware
and
the
other
a
finer
ware
which
had
been
coloured
red
or
black
and
burnished
(ingholt,
19^-0,
11);
some
of
these
sherds
were
also
incised.
The
only
other
finds
reported
were
flint
and
obsidian
blades.
The
layers
of
Period
M
were
stratified
beneath
those
of
Period
L
which
contained
Halaf
pottery.
Its
position
in
the
stratigraphic
sequence
and
the
nature
of
the
pottery
indicate
that
the
settlement
of
Period
M
was
occupied
in
Neolithic
3
and
can
be equated
with
Ras
Shamra
V
B
and
V
A.
Horns
A
series
of
flints
was
collected
from
the
surface
of
a
prehistoric
site
near
Horns
and
is
now
in
a
private collection
(de
Contenson,
1969c,
63).
They
formed
a
homogeneous
group
and
can
be
quite
closely
dated
on
their
typology.
They
consisted
of
eight arrowheads and
eight
blank
blades.
The
arrowheads
were
all
Amuq
points,
that
is
long
pointed
blades
of
triangular
cross-section
with
a
stem
retouched
by
pressure-flaking
to
form
a
blunt
point.
Cauvin
has
defined
two
types
of
Amuq
point,
type
1
shaped
like
a
willow
leaf
with
retouch
over
much
of
the
ventral
and
sometimes
also
the
dorsal
surfaces
and
type
2
made
on
a
broader
blade
with
one
end
narrowed
by
retouch
to
form
a
tang
(Cauvin,
1968,
U9,
53).
Both
types
were
present
in
the
Horns
collection
(Fig.
37).
Amuq
points
have
been
found
in
late
Neolithic
2
contexts
such
as
the
later
aceramic
Neolithic
levels
at
Abu
Hureyra
and
in
Ras
Shamra
V
C
(de
Contenson,
1969c,
65).
They
are
more common
in
Neolithic
3
recurring
in
both
Ras
Shamra
V
B
and
Ne"olithique
Ancien
and
Moyen
at
Byblos
as
well
as
in
Amuq
A
and
B
(Braidwood,
Braidwood,
1960, figs.
30,
60,
37^;
pi.
65).
Thus
the
Horns
site
may
have
been
occupied
in
Neolithic
2
but
it
is
more
likely
it
was
Fig.
37
Horns
-
Amuq
points
(after
de
Contenson)
a
-
Amuq
1
b
-
Amuq
2
-
306
-
inhabited
in
Neolithic
3
sometime
during
the
6th
millennium
B.C.
Qal'at
el
Mudiq
Qal'at
el
Mudiq
lies
north-west
of
Kama
overlooking
the
valley
of
the
Orontes
from
the
east.
Numerous
flint
tools
and
scraps of
obsidian
have
been
found
on
the
lower
slopes
of
the
castle
mound
which
probably
came
from
the
earliest
levels
of
occupation
at
the
site.
The
few
diagnostic
tools
were
an
Amuq
arrowhead
and
several
segmented
sickle
blades
(Dewez,
1970,
pis.
11:5,
111:1-10.
Most
of
the
flakes
and
blades
found
had been
struck
off
prismatic
cores.
This
scanty
information
would
suggest
that
Qal'at
el
Mudiq
was
occupied
during
the
Neolithic,
probably
in
stage
3.
Janudiyeh
The
site
of
Janudiyeh
is
situated
on
the
heights
above
the
west
bank
of
the
Orontes
north
of
Jisr
esh-Shaghur.
Both
flint
tools
and
potsherds
have
been
collected
from
the
surface and
it
is
possible
to
ascertain
from
these when
the
site
was
occupied.
Many
of
the
flints
were
Amuq
arrowheads
of
both
types
1
and
2
while
there
were
also
retouched blades,
a
sickle
blade
and
flake
scrapers,
among
them
several
discoids
(de
Contenson,
1969c,
68ff).
The sherds
all
belonged
to
vessels
of simple
shapes
such
as
hemispherical
bowls
and
jars
with
hole-mouths
or
collared
necks
(de
Contenson,
1969c,
TO).
Almost
all
were
dark
in
colour
with
a
burnished
surface
while
a
few
had
incised
decoration.
The
flints
and
the
pottery
are
similar
to
the
material
found
at
Ras
Shamra
in
Phase
V
B
so
the
site
was
occupied
quite
early
in
Neolithic
3.
The
site
itself
is
unusual
as
it
is
at
an
elevation
of
about
500
m
in
what
was
then
forested,
hilly
country.
There
is
cultivable
land
nearby
so
Janudiyeh
could
have
been
either
an
agricultural
or
a
pastoral
settlement.
The
extreme
north-west
corner
of
the
Levant
is
today
the
Turkish province
of
the
Hatay.
The
Amanus
Mountains
on
the
west
separate
most
of
the
region
-
307
-
from
the
Mediterranean.
Behind
them
to
the
east
lies
the
Amuq
plain
and
here
the
Orontes
after flowing
north
through
Syria
turns
south-west
to
meet
the
sea.
Several
roads
pass
from
the
plain
through
low
hills to
the east
up
to the
Syrian
plateau
so
that
geographically
the
region
is
more
an
extension
of
Syria
than
a
part
of
Turkey
although
there
is
also
an
easy
route
to
the
north
up the
valley
of
the
Karasu.
The
fertile
plain
is
dotted
with
ancient
settlements
and
several
of
these
have
"been
shown
in
excavations
to
have
been
occupied
as
early
as
Neolithic
3.
The
remains
of
the
Neolithic
settlements
are
always
found
to
be
well
below
the
present
level of
the
plain
because
an
enormous
amount
of
alluvium
has
accumulated
since
the
lower
course
of
the
Orontes
was
blocked
in
the
earthquakes
that
destroyed
ancient
Antioch.
It
is
known
that
the
region
has
been
inhabited
since
the
lower
Palaeolithic
from
discoveries
made
in
the
hills
around
the
Amuq
plain
(Hours
et
al., 19T3
9
2U2)
but
sites
dating from
Neolithic
1
and
2
have
not
yet
been
found
there.
Any
settlement
sites
of
this date
founded
on
the
plain
itself
would
have
subse-
quently
been
buried.
Much
of
our
information
about
the
sequence
of
Neolithic
occupation
on
the
Amuq
plain
comes
from
the
excavations
of
the
Oriental
Institute
of
CTiicago
University
at
Tell
Judaidah
and
Tell
Dhahab
both
of
which
lie
in
the
south-
eastern
corner
of
the the
Amuq
plain
near
Rehanli.
The
Neolithic
deposits
at
Tell
Judaidah,
designated
level
XIV,
were
divided
on
the
typology
of the
pottery
into
two
phases,
A
and
B,
both
of
which
fall
in
Neolithic
3.
The
only
Neolithic
occupation
at
Tell
Dhahab
was
a
short-lived
settlement
of
phase
A
(Braidwood,
Braidwood,
1960,
U6).
Tell
Judaidah
The
lowest
layers
reached
at
Judaideh
were
below
the
water
table
which
seriously
impeded
the
excavation and
limited
the
information
that
could
be
recovered
from
the
deep
sounding
made
there.
No
buildings were
found
in
phase
A
though
they
may
have
existed
(Braidwood,
Braidwood,
1960,
-
308
-
Remains
of
rectilinear
buildings
with
stone
foundations
and
perhaps
mud-brick
or
mud
walls
were
found
in
the
phase
B
layers
above
(Braidwood,
Braidwood,
1960,
68).
23
The
chipped
stone
industry
was
of
the
same
character
throughout
phases
A
and
B.
Most
of the
tools
kept
for
study
were
made
on
blades
struck
from
single-ended
pyramidal
or
conical
cores,
the
by-products
of
which
included
crested
blades
and
core
tablets.
The
most
abundant
tools
seem
to
have
been
arrowheads
and
sickle
blades
(Payne,
1960,
525,
526).
Many
of the
arrowheads
were
of
the
types
called
Amuq
1
and
2
by
Cauvin.
These
were
mostly
quite
long,
long
enough
to be called
javelin
heads
in
the
published
account,
although
on
ethnographic
analogy
all
could
have
been
used
to
arm
arrows
.
They
were
extensively
pressure-flaked
on
the
upper
surface
and
had
some
retouch
on
the
back
at
the
tip
and
tang.
Most of the
type
2
arrowheads
had
swollen
tangs.
Some
of
the
arrowheads
though
still
tanged
were
much
shorter
than
these
and
a
few
were
finished
with
abrupt
retouch.
All
the
sickle
blades
were
segmented
and
usually
about
3.5
cm
in
length.
Most
of these
blade
sections
had
been
snapped
off
at
the
required
length
although
a
few
were
made
by
the
notch
technique.
The
cutting
edge
of
many
of
the sickle
blades
had
been
slightly
retouched
but
they
were
not
backed.
Many
still
retained
traces
of
the
mastic
which
secured
them
in
the
sickle.
Among
the
other
tools
were
borers
on
blade
segments
and
single-blow,
angle
and
dihedral
burins. There
were
also
end-scrapers
on
blades
and
flake
scrapers
some
of
which
were
discoid
(Payne,
1960,
52?)
Obsidian
was
quite
plentiful
as
a
raw
material
and
was
worked
on
the
spot,
the
evidence
for
this
being
pyramidal
cores,
crested blades
and
core
tablets
(Payne,
1960,
528,
529).
Not
only
were
there obsidian
blades and
flakes
but
also
small
borers
and
arrowhead
tangs.
One
piece
has
been
analysed
from
Judaidah
which
was
found
to
have
come
from
the
Ciftlik
source
(Renfrew
et
al.,
1966,
65).
The
chipped
stone
industry
is
in
general
quite
similar
to
what
we
know
of
the
material from
Ras
Shamra
V
B
and
V
A
although
there
are
differences
in
the
-
309
-
types
of
sickle
blades
preferred
at
each site
and
the
quantities
of
obsidian present,
a
function
of
ease
of
communication
with
and
distance
from
the
sources.
The
other
stone tools
at
Judaidah were
both
abundant
and
varied.
Trapezoidal
stone
axes
and
adzes
were
particularly
common
(Braidwood,
Braidwood,
1960,
58,
87).
These
were
quite
thin
and
had
straight
sides
with
a
bevelled
cutting
edge.
All
were
ground
and
partly
polished.
They
were
made
in
both
large
and
small
sizes
so
would
have
been
suitable
both
for
preparing
rough
timber
and
shaping
wooden
artifacts.
Disc rubbers
were
abundant
while
hammers
and
slingstones
were
also
present
(Braidwood,
Braidwood,
1960,
55,
61, 86,
90).
One
macehead
was
found
in
the
phase
B
levels,
a
grooved
stone
in
phase
A
and
several
stamp
seals
in
both
phases
(Braidwood,
Braidwood,
1960,
61,
63,
90,
9^).
The
stamp
seals
were
incised
with
geometric
patterns
which
in
most
cases
consisted
of
criss-cross
lines.
Spindle
whorls
were
made from
both
stone
and
baked
clay
while
circular
stone
dishes
were
also
used.
These
were
usually ground
and
polished
and
at
least
one
had
a
spout
for
pouring
(Braidwood,
Braidwood,
1960,
fig. 32,
8).
Decorative
stone
objects
were
also
made,
among
them
two
studs,
pendants
and beads.
The
latter
included
several
butterfly
beads
of
the
kind
found
in
such
abundance
at
Abu
Hureyra
in
both
Neolithic
3
and
Neolithic
2
contexts (Braidwood,
Braidwood,
1960,
figs.
36:
5~7,
67:7).
The
usual
bone
awls,
needles
and
spatulae
were
also
used
at
the
site
(Braidwood,
Braidwood,
1960,
65-67,
97~99).
Three
principal
types of
pottery
have
been
distinguished
from
Judaidah
although
there
were
small
quantities
of
several
others
in
phase
B.
The
shapes
of the
vessels
were
quite
simple,
consisting
for the
most
part of
globular
hole-mouth
jars,
some
collared
jars
and
bowls
with
flat
bases.
The
most common
type
was
dark-faced
burnished
ware,
a
group
of
thick-walled
medium-fired
vessels
made
of clay
tempered
with
grit,
sand
and
some
organic
matter
(Braidwood,
Braidwood,
1960,
^9ff).
When
fired
the
core
was
usually
dark
grey
or
black.
The
surface
colour
of
these
pots
varied
from
buff
to
-
310
-
black
but
most
of
them
were
in
shades
of
brown.
All
had
been
roughly
bur-
nished.
Surface
decoration
was
limited
to
jabs
and
incised
shell
or
finger-
nail
impressions
on
a
few
pots.
Some
jars
had
ledge
handles
for
lifting.
In
phase
B
certain
vessels
were
made
with
thinner
walls
and
given
more
even surface
treatment
(Fig.
38).
Some
of
these
pots
were
decorated
with
pattern
burnish
(Braidwood,
Braidwood,
1960,
77).
Carinated
bowls
were
made
for the
first
time
in
phase
B
which,
together
with
a
few
other
pots,
could
be
classed
as
dark
polished
ware.
The
second
type of
pottery
was coarse
simple
ware,
a
group
of
thick-walled
vessels
of
a
softer
fabric
with
much
straw
filler
(Braidwood,
Braidwood,
1960,
U7ff)
The
surface colour
of
the
pots
ranged
from
light
buff
to
orange
and
brown.
The
third
type
was
washed
impressed
ware,
a
series
of
vessels
with
the
varied
surface
colours
of
the
other
varieties
but
which
had
been
partly
covered
in
thin
red
paint
(Braidwood,
Braidwood,
1960,
52ff).
The
rims
were
painted
red
and
often
burnished
with
a
band
of
impressed
decoration
below
usually
done
with
the
edge
of
a
shell.
The
pottery
was
a
little
more
elaborate
in
phase
B
with
more
varied
surface
treatment
(Braidwood,
Braidwood,
1960,
69).
A
number
of
vessels
were
coated
with
red
slip
and
burnished,
a
type
of
finish
quite
rare
in
phase
A.
A
brittle
painted
ware
could
be
distinguished,
the
vessels
of
which
were
painted
with
lines
of
reddish
paint
on
a
burnished
surface
(Braidwood,
Braidwood,
1960,
80ff).
Other
pots
were
decorated
more
extensively
with
incised
lines
and
shell-impressed
patterns.
Amuq
A
and
B
pottery
was
found
in
great
quantity
at
Judaidah
which
enables
us
to
see
just
how
varied
in
fabric
and
decoration
the
finished
product
was.
The
pots
were
probably
made
by
many
individuals
using
methods
that
would
have
been
irregular
and
subject
to
uncertainty.
The
vessels
were
probably
fired
in
bonfires
which
would
account
for
the
uneven
colours
and
textures
of
the
fabrics.
Because
the
pottery
was
made
in
this
way
the
result
was
bound
to
vary
considerably
from
site
to
site.
One cannot
use
pottery
at
\
J
SC.
1=3
SC.
1:3
Fig.
38
Pattern-burnished
vessels
a-Tell
Judaidah
(after
Braidwood
and
Braidwood)
b
-
Byblos
(after
Dunand)
-
311
-
this
early
stage,
therefore,
for
a
precise
chronological
or
cultural
comparison
between
sites
in
the
way
one
can
with
Halaf
and
later
stages.
That
being
said,
it
is
still
possible
to
make
certain
general
comparisons
between
the
pottery
of
different
sites
in
Neolithic
3.
The
Amuq
A
and
B
dark-faced
burnished
ware
bears
a
general
resemblance
to
the
burnished
wares
of
Ras
Shamra
V
B
and
V
A.
Dark
polished
red and
black
ware,
so
abundant
at
Ras
Shamra,
is,
however,
quite
rare
at
Judaidah.
The
pattern
burnished
vessels
are
generally
similar
at
both
sites.
The
Amuq
coarse
simple
ware
has
some
features
in
common
with
the
unburnished
grosser
vessels
at
Ras
Shamra
but
the
washed
impressed
ware
is
virtually
absent
so
far
as
we
know.
Painted
pottery
seems
to
have
been
more common
in
the
Amuq
than
at
Ras
Shamra.
Judaidah
and
Ras
Shamra
are
separated
from
each
other
by
the
Jebel
Akra
(Mount
Cassius)
massif.
This
geographical
separation
is
reflected
in
the
cultural
differences
in
the
chipped
stone
industry
and
pottery
that we have
noted between
the
sites.
One
would
also
point
out
that
the
stamp
seals,
butterfly
beads
and other
carefully-worked
stone
objects
found
at
Judaidah
are
virtually
absent
at
Ras
Shamra
and
that
polished
stone
axes
are
much
less
common
at
the
latter
site.
Nonetheless
the
chipped
stone
industries
at
both
sites
are
fundamentally
of the
same
tradition
both
in
core
technique and
tool
types.
A
good
deal
of
the
Judaidah
pottery
and
some
of
the
other
objects
can
also
be
paralleled
at
Ras
Shamra.
One
may,
therefore, place
both
sites
in
the
same
cultural
group
while
taking
note of
the
differences that
are
apparent
in
the
two
assemblages.
If
we knew
more
about
the
deposits of
these
two
sites
and
others
in
their
vicinities
we
might
be
able
to
draw
finer
cul-
tural
distinctions
but
that cannot
be
done
at
present.
The deposits
of
Amuq
phases
A
and
B
were stratified
beneath
the
First
Mixed
Range
and
phase
C
in
which
the
earliest
Halaf material
was
found
(Braidwood,
Braidwood,
1960,
11U,
138).
Their
stratigraphical
position
and
the
typological
parallels
with
Ras
Shamra V
B
and
V
A
place
Amuq A
and
B
-
312
-
firmly
in
Neolithic
3.
No
14 C
determinations
have
ever
been
made
on
samples
from
Judaidah
so
the
duration
of phases
A
and
B
cannot
be
determined
with
certainty. The
substantial
nature
of the
deposits
suggests
that
the
site
was
occupied
for
much
of
Neolithic
3,
that
is
for
most
of
the
6th
millennium
B.C.
The
Oriental
Institute
team
surveyed
all the
other
mounds
in
the
Amuq
plain.
From
the
sherd
collections
they
made
they
estimated
that
several
other
sites
had
been
occupied
in
the
Amuq
A
and
B
phases,
Six
mounds,
GUltepe,
Tell
Kurdu,
Tell
Hasanusagi,
Qaddahiyyat
Ali
Bey,
Tell
Davutpasa
and
Karaca
Khirbat
Ali
were
believed
to
contain
Neolithic
3
deposits
(Braidwood,
1937,
25, 29,
30,
32,
36,
37)
and
ten
others,
Al
Kanisah,
BUyuktepe,
Tell
Turundah,
Tell
Mahmutliye,
Burj
Abdal,
Tell
Faruq,
Hasanusagi
al
Daiah,
Tell Karatas,
Catal
Huyttk
and
Tell
Qinanah
were
thought
possibly
to
have
been
occupied
then
(Braidwood,
1937,
22,
2U, 26,
27,
29,
31,
37)
on
the
evidence
of
the
surface
material.
The
edge of
the
Amuq
plain
near
Tell
Judaidah
is
marked
by
limestone
hills
cut
by
several
wadis.
A
deep
shelter
in
the
Wadi
Hammam
was
excavated
by
O'Brien
at
the
same
time
that
the
Oriental
Institute
was
investigating
the
tells
on the
plain.
The
shelter
and
a
little
of
the
terrace
were
shown
to
have
been
occupied
in
the
Neolithic,
the
deposits
extending
over
an
area
of
about
120
sq
m
(O'Brien,
1933,
17^).
They
consisted
of
layers
of
dark
soil
and
ashes;
one
hearth
was
found
but
no
other
structures
were
noted.
Several
of
the
occupation
layers
were
separated
by
debris
which
had
fallen
from
the
roof
indicating
that
the
cave
could
not
have
been
inhabited
continuously.
Nevertheless
the
Neolithic
material
remains
were homogeneous
and
belonged
to
a
single
cultural
phase.
The
Wadi
Hammam
shelter
produced
a
varied
collection
of
finds
though
no
great
quantity
of
any
particular
type
apparently.
Among
the
flints
were
an
Amuq
2
arrowhead,
points and
retouched
blades
or
knives.
There
was
also
a
disc
core
or
scraper
and
a
flint
hammer
as
well
as
several
obsidian
blades
(O'Brien,
1933,
pi. 0).
A
number
of
small
greenstone
axes
and
chisels
were
-
313
-
found
in
the
Neolithic
deposits
and
also
a
stone
pestle.
Slender
points
were
the
only
"bone
tools
reported.
At
least
four
carefully
fashioned
stone
beads
or
pendants
were
found,
one
of
which
was
a
"butterfly
bead
(O'Brien,
1933,
pi.
0,
fig. 2,
h)
similar
to
examples
from
Abu
Hureyra
and
also
probably
made
of
serpentine.
Two
of
the
pendants
with
incised
designs
(O'Brien,
1933,
pi.
0,
fig.
k
9
3,
10)
may
have
been
used
as
stamp
seals.
A
few
human
bones
of
both
babies
and
adults
were
found
in
the
shelter
(O'Brien,
1933,
177).
These
may
have
been
all
that
was
left
of
intentional
burials
which
had
subsequently
decayed
in
the
soil
or
been
disturbed.
Pottery
was
quite
abundant
in
the
shelter
and
at
least
two
wares
were
represented.
One was
a
coarse
buff
ware
with
straw
temper.
Parts
of
at
least
two
vessels
were
found
in
this
ware,
one
a
hole-mouth
bowl
with
incised rim
decoration
and
the
other
a
collared
jar
with
a
strainer
incorporated
in
the
neck
(O'Brien,
1933, figs.
5:12;
6).
The
second
ware
was
coloured
red,
brown
or
black
on
the
surface
and
highly
burnished.
Hole-mouth
pots,
carinated
bowls
and
collared
jars
were
all
made
in this
ware
(O'Brien,
1933,
176,
177)-
Several were
decorated
with
incised
zig-zags
or
patterns
of
short
incisions
usually
just
below
the
rim.
The
flint tools
,
other
stone
artifacts
and
the
pottery
can all
be
parallel-
ed
closely
in
the
Amuq
A
and
B
deposits
at
Tells
Judaidah
and
Dhahab
nearby.
The
Wadi
Hammam
shelter
was
thus
occupied
during
Neolithic
3,
perhaps
at
the
same
time
as
the tells.
It
would
seem,
therefore,
that
there
was
intense
occupation
of
this
corner
of
the
Amuq
plain,
indeed
of
the
whole
lower
Afrin
drainage,
during
the 6th
millennium
B.C.
The
size
of
the
Wadi
Ha.Tmna.Tn
shelter
and
the
nature
of
the
occupation
deposits
within
it
suggest
that
it
was
inhabited
by
a
few
families
from
time
to
time
over
several
centuries.
The
variety
of
artifacts
found
indicates
that
it
was
a
settlement
site
rather
than
a
temporary
camp.
Tell
Dhahab
nearby
was
probably
a
small
village
while
Tell
Judaidah
was
a
much
larger
settlement.
Thus
groups
of
different
sizes
were
occupying
sites
close
together
in
Neolithic
3.
-
31U
-
Tell
esh-Sheikh
One
other
Neolithic
site,
Tell
esh-Sheikh,
has
been
excavated
in
the
Amuq
plain.
It
lies
a
little
south of
Jisr
el
Hadid
and
west
of
the
present
course of the
Orontes.
When Woolley
excavated
Tell
Atchana
he
found
that
the
city
was
first
settled
in
the
Early
Bronze
Age.
Seeking
to
obtain
a
record
of
earlier
periods
of
occupation
than
this
in
the
Amuq
plain
he
excavated
Tell
esh-Sheikh
because
the
surface
material indicated
that
the
site
was
older
than
Atchana
(Woolley,
1953,
22).
The
site
was
probably
a
large
mound
original-
ly
but
most
of
it
has
been
buried
under
the
alluvium
of
the
plain.
12
levels
of
occupation
could
be
distinguished,
11
of
which
had
affinities
with
Halaf
and
northern
Ubaid
(Woolley,
1950,
6U).
The
settlement
of
Level
XII
had
been
founded
on
the
natural
subsoil
and
was
the
earliest
occupation
on
the
site.
It
consisted
of
rectilinear
mud-brick
buildings
with
associated
floor
levels.
The
excavation
has
never
been
fully
published
so
that
we
do
not
know
how
varied
the
artifacts
were.
From
the
little
material
I
have
seen
in
Ankara
and
Antakya
it
would
seem
that the
chipped
stone
industry
of
Level
XII
consisted
of
Amuq
2
type arrowheads,
abruptly-retouched
tanged
arrowheads,
segmented
backed
sickle
blades,
single-blow
burins, end-scrapers
on
blades, discoid
and
side-scrapers.
These
artifacts
are
broadly
comparable
with
those
found
in
Amuq A
and
B
although
the
sickle
blades
are
a
slightly
later
type
which
may
have
come
from
the
upper
levels
at
Tell
esh-Sheikh.
The
pottery
was
a
fairly
uniform
hard-fired
ware
with
a
dark
fabric
incorporating
a
little sandy
filler.
The
vessels
were
mostly
simple,
rather
heavy
bowls
with
thickened
plain
rims.
Their
surfaces
had
been
coloured
black
or
red
and
some
pots
had
been
burnished.
This
pottery
is
related
to
Amuq
A
and
B
dark-faced
burnished
ware
although
the
fabric
is
a
little
different
from
most
of
the vessels
at
Tell
Judaidah.
The
settlement
at
Tell
esh-Sheikh
XII
is
stratified
beneath
the
earliest
Halaf
deposit
of
Level
XI.
Since
the
affinities
of
the
material
remains
are
with
Amuq
A
and
B
this
settlement
was
occupied
in
Neolithic
3.
The
pottery
and
flints
are
more
closely
related
to
Amuq
B
at
Tell
Judaidah
which
suggests
-
315
-
that Tell
esh-Sheikh
was
not
occupied
until fairly
late
in
Neolithic
3.
The
Amanus
Mountains
mark
the
western
limit
of
the
North
Syrian
group
of
Neolithic
3
sites.
Beyond
the
mountains
lies
the
Cilician
plain,
a
region
which,
like
the
Amuq,
is
clearly
defined
geographically
and
rich
in
visible
remains
of
ancient
sites.
Neolithic
settlements
have
been
revealed
in
excavations
at
the
base
of
two
of
these,
Mersin
and
Tarsus.
It
used
to
be
thought
that
these
sites
were
closely
related
to
contemporary
settlements
in
the
Amuq
and
at
Ras
Shamra.
Archaeologists
joined
them
together
with
the
North
Syrian
sites
I
have
discussed
in
a
"Syro-Cilician" group
(Braidwood,
1955»
7*0.
The
excavations
which
have
taken
place
on
the
Konya
plain
since
1961
have
set
the
Cilician
sites
in a
new
perspective.
It
can
now
be
seen
that
while
culturally
they
share
certain
features
with
the
North
Syrian
settlements
they have
much
in
common
with
the
Anatolian
sites
of
Catal
HUyUk
East
and
West
and Can
Hasan
situated
on
the
northern
side
of
the Taurus,
a
link
which
Mellaart
has
recently
emphasised
(1975
5
125).
Mersin
Mersin
was
never
excavated
to
the
natural
subsoil
since
the
earliest
deposit
lay
below
the
present
water
table. The
lowest levels
reached,
XXXIII
to
XXVII,
were
designated Lower Neolithic
by
Garstang
(1953,
13).
A
date
of
6000
±
250
B.C.
W-617
"was
obtained
from
a
charcoal
sample
taken
from
one
of
these
levels
in
1955
(Radiocarbon
2,
1960,
183).
This
date
should
be of
the
right
order
of
magnitude
for
such
a
deposit even
though the
determination
was
made
so
long
ago.
Above
these
levels
were
the
Upper
Neolithic
levels
XXVI
and
XXV
(Garstang,
1953,
27).
The
settlements
of
these
levels
were
occupied
during
approximately
the
same
period
as
the
Neolithic
3
North
Syrian
sites.
It
is
possible
that
the
Proto-Chalcolithic
level
XXIV
and
the
Early
Chalco-
lithic
levels
XXIII
to
XX
were
also
contemporaneous
with
the
latter
part of
Neolithic
3.
-
316
-
Remains
of
straight
vails
"built
of
stones
from
the
river
which
flows
beside
the
site
were
found
in
the
Lower
Neolithic
levels
but
no
complete
structures could
be
made
out
(Garstang,
1953,
1*0.
Two
rectilinear
buildings
with
stone
walls
and
cell-like
rooms
were
excavated
in
Level
XXVI
(Garstang,
1953,
fig.
12)
but
their
function
was
uncertain.
The
chipped
stone
industry
at
Mersin
was
quite
homogeneous
throughout
the
earlier
levels.
Most
of the
tools
were
made
of
obsidian
and
only
a
few
from
flint.
The
use
of large
quantities
of
obsidian
is
one
important
differ-
ence
between
Mersin
and
the
North
Syrian
sites.
Mersin
is
quite close
to
the
obsidian
sources
around
Aksaray
so
the
inhabitants
could
easily
obtain
it.
The
considerable
quantity
of
obsidian
found
at
Mersin
indicates
that
the
inhabitants
were
in
frequent
contact
with
the
plateau
by
way
of
the
Cilician
Gates.
2U
Most
of
the
tools
were
made
on
blades struck
from
pyramidal
cores.
The
arrowheads
which
were particularly
numerous
were
usually long
and exten-
sively
retouched
by
pressure-flaking
(Garstang,
1953,
15).
These arrowheads
often
had
tangs
with
slight
shoulders
but
on a
few
the
tang
was
not
separated
from
the
blade,
a
type
similar
to
Amuq
1
points.
Some
arrowheads
were
leaf-
shaped
and
much
shorter.
The
other common
obsidian
tools
were
borers
on
blades,
backed
blades
and
flake
scrapers.
Sickle
blades
were
made
on
flint
obtained
locally.
One
or
both
edges
of
these
were
lightly
retouched
but
usually
they
were
not
backed.
The
chipped
stone
industry
of
levels
XXIV
to XX
was
of
the
same
character
though
the
proportions
of
arrowheads,
awls
and
scrapers
diminished
markedly
(Garstang,
1953,
50).
The
assemblage
from
these
levels
was
composed
princi-
pally of
plain
and
retouched
blades.
Flint sickle
blades
were
also
used
in
greater
numbers.
The
chipped
stone
industry
of
the
lower
levels
at
Mersin
bears
a
general
resemblance
to
the
Neolithic
3
industry
from
Tell
Judaidah.
The
core
technique
and
use of
pressure-flaking
are
similar
while
Amuq
1
arrowheads
are
common
to
-
317
-
both
assemblages.
In
other
aspects
there
are
important differences
in
detail
between
the
two.
The
usual
form
of
Mersin
tanged
arrowhead
is
rarely
found
at
Tell
Judaidah.
The
Mersin
sickle
blades
are
normally
complete
blades
while
those
at
Judaidah
are
segmented.
Burins
are
found
in
some
numbers
at
the
latter
but
are
virtually
absent
at
Mersin.
Most
of
the
important
features
of the
Mersin
industry
can
be
seen
in
the
assemblage
from
Catal
Huytik
East
although
here
again
there
are
certain
tools
common
at
the
latter
which
are
not
present
at
Mersin.
Both
industries
are
based
on
the
production
of
blades
from pyramidal
obsidian
cores.
All
the
Mersin
types
of
arrowhead,awls
and
scrapers
are
found
in
abundance
at
Catal
HUyUk
(Bialor,
1962,
69ff)
though
not
the
sickle
blades.
Very
few
sickle
blades
could
be
distinguished
at
Catal
HUytlk,
perhaps
because
they were
made
of
obsidian. The
Mersin
flint
sickle
blades
appear
to
be
a
specific Cilician
type
in
this
period.
If we
consider
the
pottery
from
Mersin
we find
that,
like
the
flints,
there
are
certain general similarities
between
it
and
the
Amuq.
material
but
that
the closest
parallel
is
the
pottery from
the
plateau
sites.
There
were
two
classes
of
pottery
in
the lowest
levels
at
Mersin,
a
fine
burnished
ware
and
a
coarse
ware
(Garstang,
1953,
18,
19).
The
fine
ware
was
quite
hard
fired
and
usually
had
a
brown
or
black
surface
although
some
vessels
were
buff
or
red.
The
coarse
ware
was more
plentiful;
this
had
a
softer
buff
or
brown
fabric
with
straw
and
grit
filler.
Its
surface
was
usually
brown
or
grey
in
colour
and
smoothed
not
burnished.
Hole-mouth
pots,
bowls
and
dishes
were
made
in
both
wares
and
a
few
carinated
vessels
in
the
fine
burnished
ware.
The
vessels
had
both
flat
and
rounded
bases.
Some
pots
were decorated
with
incised
patterns.
In
levels
XXVI
and
XXV
larger
globular
jars
with
collared
rims
were
made
(Garstang,
1953,
35ff)
Some
vessels
were
burnished
to
a
high
gloss
and
a
few
pots
were
painted
for
the
first
time.
Their
surfaces
were
covered
with
designs
in
red
paint
which
was
sometimes
applied
over
a
slip.
In
levels
-
318
-
XXIV
to
XX
the
burnished
and
coarse
wares
continued
to
"be
made
but
the red
painted
vessels
were
decorated with
more
elaborate
designs (Garstang,
1953,
58ff,
78ff).
The
burnished
ware
at
Mersin
is
quite
like
the
dark-faced
burnished
ware
at
Tell
Judaidah
and
the
highly
burnished
vessels
also
resemble
the
North
Syrian
dark
polished
wares.
Pattern
burnish,
that
distinctive
decoration
on
some
North
Syrian
pottery,
is
not
found
at
Mersin, however.
The
coarse
ware
at
Mersin
again
is
somewhat
like
the
Judaidah
coarse
simple
ware
though
not so
heavy but
the
Judaidah
washed
impressed
ware
is
not
found
at
Mersin.
Another
important difference
between
the
pottery
from
the
two
sites
is
that
nothing
like
the
Mersin
painted
ware
of
level
XXV and
later
is
found
at
Judaidah. The
patterns
of
the
Mersin
ware
are
much
bolder
than
the
Judaidah
painted
pottery
while
the use
of
a
cream
slip
as
background
is
unknown
in
the
Amuq.
Plain
burnished
pottery
and
some
lighter
buff
wares
very
similar
in
shape
and finish to
those
found
at
Mersin were made
at
Catal
HuyUk
East, Catal
Huytlk
West
and
Can
Hasan
(Mellaart,
1965,
136;
1967,
216,
217;
French,
1966,
118,
120);
the
only
difference was
that
incised
decoration
was
hardly
ever
used
on
the
plateau
sites.
The
Mersin
coarse
ware
is
not
found
on
the
plateau
and
since
it
is
a
little
different
to
the
Tell
Judaidah
coarse
simple
ware
it
seems
that
this
pottery
is
specifically
Cilician.
The
Mersin
painted
pottery
of
level
XXV
and
later
can
be
closely
paralleled
across
the
Taurus
since
vessels
of
similar
shape
and
decoration
were
made
at
Catal
HUyUk
West,
parti-
cularly
the
"Catal
Huytlk
West
ware",
and
Can
Hasan
in
levels
3
and
2B
(Mellaart,
1965,
135ff;
French,
1966,
118,
120).
The
pottery
at
both
sites
was
painted
red
both
on
a
plain
background
and
a
cream
or
white
slip
as
at
Mersin.
The
main
difference
in
the
painted
pottery
of
the
two
areas
is
that
the
designs
on
the
Catal
HUyUk
West
and
Can
Hasan
pots.were
often
more
elaborate
than
at
Mersin,
particularly
in
the
later
levels
at
both
sites.
-
319
-
Insufficient
is
known
about
the
buildings
and
other artifacts from
Mersin
for
these
to
be
usefully
compared vith
sites
in
neighbouring
regions
but
the
flint
tools
and
pottery
are
varied
enough
for
us
to
deduce
their
cultural relationships.
While
some
of this
material
is
quite
like
flints
and
pots
made
in
the
Amuq
and
on
other
sites
in
the
North
Syrian
group
it
resembles
much
more
closely
the
artifacts
used
on
contemporary
sites
on
the
southern
Anatolian
plateau.
Certain
artifacts
which
do
not
match
either
plateau
or
Amuq
material
are
of
local Cilician
inspiration.
When
thought
of
in
human
terms
these cultural
comparisons
suggest that
the
inhabitants
of
Mersin
had
a
local
tradition
of
making
objects
of
everyday
use.
They
also
maintained
close
contact
with
the
inhabitants
of
the
southern
Anatolian
plateau
from
where
they
obtained
their
obsidian.
Some
more general
relationship
existed
between them
and
their
contemporaries
to
the
east
of
the
Amanus.
The
same
observations
may
be
made
about
the
site
of
Tarsus
situated
about
26
km
north-east
of
Mersin.
The
Neolithic
and
Chalcolithic
levels
here
were
sounded
in
a
small
trench
from
which
relatively
little
material
was
recovered;
the
bottom
of
the
site
was
not
reached
because,
as
at
Mersin,
it
lay
beneath
25
the
present
water
table
(Goldman,
1956,
3).
The
pottery
from
Tarsus
matched
that
from Mersin
very closely
throughout
the
lower
levels,
as
might
be
expected
since
the
sites
are
so
close
together.
The
dark
burnished
wares
at
Tarsus
were
rather
finer
than
in
the
Amuq,
a
trait
which
the
Mersin
pottery
shares.
At
least
one
pattern
burnished
sherd
was
found
here,
now
in
the
Peabody
Museum.
Tarsus
and Mersin
are
the
only
two
Neolithic
sites
excavated
on
the
Cilician
plain.
Their
material
remains
suggest
that
both enjoyed
a
flourishing
local
culture
that
also
closely
reflected
the
Anatolian
sequence.
The
Cilician
sites
in
Neolithic
3,
though
sharing
certain
features
with
the
North Syrian
settlements,
formed
a
distinct
group
on
their
own.
Material
comparable
to
that
from
Ras
Shamra
and
Tell
Judaidah
in
Neolithic
3
has
been
found
at
several
sites
north
and
east
of
the
Amuq.
-
320
-
I
will
now review
the
evidence from
these
sites
to see
whether
or
not
they
belong
within
the
North
Syrian
group
in
Neolithic
3.
SakcaggzU
The
Rift
valley
extends northward
from
the
Amuq
plain
as
far
as
Maras
where
it
ends.
Some
90
km
up
the
valley
from
the
Amuq
there
is
a
marshy
area
which
forms
the
watershed
between
the
Karasu
and
Aksu
rivers.
The
mounds
at
Sakcagb'zti
are
to
be
found
a
little
to
the
east
of
this
section
of
the
Rift
valley.
The
principal
excavations
conducted
at
the
site
were
carried
out
by
Garstang
in
1908
and
1911.
He
dug
two
soundings,
A
and
Z,
in
the
north-east
slope
of
the
mound
of
Jobba
Huytlk
and
discovered
at
the
bottom
traces
of
a
prehistoric
settlement
(Garstang
et
al.,
1937,
121ff).
This
was
founded
on
the
natural
subsoil
and
its
remains
comprised
the
three
lowest
strata
11
to
13,
designated
Period
I
(Garstang
et
al.
,
1937,
128).
Period
I
was
stratified
beneath
the
remains
of
Period
II
in
which
Halaf
material
was
found.
Further
excavations
were
carried
out
at
the
site
in
19^9
in
which
Period
I
levels
were
reached
in
the
south-east
sector
of
the
mound
(du
Plat
Taylor
et
al.
,
1950,
55)
The
structures
of
Period
I
consisted
of
hearths,
small
sub-circular
chambers
built
partly
of
stone
and
traces
of
a
lime
plaster
floor
(Garstang
et
al.,
1937,
121,
127).
The
published
section
and
plan
also
show
rectilinear
structures
at
the
bottom
of
sounding
Z
which
belonged
to
Period
I
(Garstang
et
al.,
1937,
pl«
XXII).
Several
pits
and
ditches
but
no
buildings
were
found
at
the
bottom
of
the
trench
in
the
south-east
sector
(du
Plat
Taylor
et
al.,
1950,
7*0-
We
do
not
know
enough
about
these
pits
and
structures
to
deduce
their
function
but
the
buildings
are
not
inconsistent
in
shape
with
those
on
contemporary
sites
further
south.
Both
obsidian
and
flint
artifacts
were
found
but
in
small
quantities
only
(Garstang
et
al.,
1937,
133).
The
flints
were
mostly
flakes
from which
it
is
not
possible
to
make
comparisons
with
material
from
other
sites
but
a
great
deal
of
pottery
was
recovered
in
Period
I
which
does
permit
one
to
draw
-
321
-
conclusions
about
its
affinities.
Of
the
three
wares
which
could
be
distinguished
the
most
abundant
was
a
well-fired
grey
gritty
ware with
a
grey
or
black
burnished
surface
(Garstang
et
al.,
1937
5
132ff).
Some of
this
pottery
carried
incised
patterns
of chevrons,
cross-hatching
or
dashes
usually
near
the
rim.
The
incised
patterns
on
certain
vessels
had
been
filled
with
white
clay.
Other
vessels
had
been
pattern
burnished
in
zig-zag
or
lattice
patterns.
The
second
ware
which
was
much
less
common
had
a
buff
or
brown
fabric
and was
decorated
with
lines
of
red
or
black
paint.
The
third
was
a
plain
coarse
ware
of variable
colour. The
vessels
in
this
group
were
usually
made
in
the
simplest
shapes
with
thick
walls.
The
shapes of
the
other
vessels
were
a
little
more
varied.
There
were globular
jars
with
hole-
mouth
or
everted
rims
and
also
collared
jars.
Many of
the
dark
burnished
and
incised
vessels
were
dishes
or
bowls
with
flat
bases,
splayed
straight
sides
and
a
plain
rim.
The
painted
and
plain
wares
at
SakcagGzll
are
somewhat
similar
to
the
washed
impressed ware
and
coarse
simple
ware
at
Tell
Judaidah
for
example
or
the
painted
and
coarse
wares
at
Ras
Shamra.
The
grey
or
black
burnished
ware,
while
sharing
certain general
traits of
colour
and
finish,
is
different
from
that
found
on
more
southerly
sites.
The
flat-bottomed
dishes
with
splayed
sides
typical
of
SakcogOztl
occur rarely
if
at
all
further
south
while
the
distinctive
carinated
bowls
found
at
Ras
Shamra,
in
the
Amuq
and,
as
we shall
see,
Tell
Ramad,
are not
known
on
the
northern
site.
Some
of
the
incised
patterns
with
their
white
filling
are
characteristic
of
SakcagOztl,
the
bands
of
decoration
forming
a
cross
on
the
bottom
of
some dishes
for
example
(Garstang
et
al.,
1937»
pi-
XXIV,
9),
but
are
not
found
on
the
southern
sites.
Period
I
at
SakcogOztl
has
for
long
been
linked with
Tell
Judaidah,
Ras
Shamra
and
other
sites
over
a
wide
area
stretching
from
Cilicia
through
north
Syria
into
Mesopotamia
because
it
was
thought
that
all
shared
a
common
pottery
tradition
typified by
dark
burnished
wares
and
other
general
cultural
charac-
teristics
(Seton
Williams,
19^8,
35ff;
Braidwood,
Braidwood,
1960,
502,
506;
Mellaart,
1975,
225,
231).
I
do
not
think
that
this
view
can
be
maintained
-
322
-
any
longer.
Enough
sites
have
been excavated
now
for
us
to
determine
regional
cultural
variations
and
so
subdivide
the
older
broader
groupings.
Period
I
at
SakcagOzU
is
characterised
by
dark
burnished
pottery
vessels
of
simple
shapes
and
the
deposits
are
stratified
beneath
Halaf
levels.
This
is
sufficient
to
indicate
its
contemporaneity
with
Neolithic
3
in
the
Levant.
On
the
evidence
of
the
pattern
burnished
pots
one
could
even
equate
it
with
Amuq
B
and
Ras
Shamra
V
A,
that
is
quite
late
in
Neolithic
3.
Yet,
as
we
have
seen,
while
SakcagQztl
has
certain
general
cultural traits
and
a
few
detailed
ones
in
common
with
those
sites
the
differences
are
still quite
marked.
For
that
reason
I
do
not
think
Sakcagb'zll
can
properly
be
included
within
the
North
Syrian
group
of
Neolithic
3
sites
even
though
it
has
much
in
common
with
them.
It
is
best
thought
of
as
a
site
at
the
border
of
the
North
Syrian
group
which
has
certain
features
more
typical
of
the
region
beyond.
Tell
Turlu
Tell
Turlu
lies
about
k5
km
east
of
Gaziantep
on
the
road
to
Nizip
(Watson,
1965s
TO).
It
is
a
substantial
mound
with
a
long
sequence
of
late
prehistoric
occupation
as
well
as
other
material.
Perrot
sounded
the
site
in
1962
and
established
that
the
earliest
settlement
of levels
1
and
2
had
been
founded
on
the
natural
subsoil
(Mellink,
196U,
156).
These
levels
were
stratified
beneath
levels
3
and
h
from
which Halaf
pottery
was
recovered.
The
houses
in
levels
1
and
2
and
also
levels
3
to
6
above
were
circular
and
built
of
stone
with
silos
nearby.
The
excavation
has
not
been published
so
that
we
do
not
know
the
full
range
of
what was
found
there.
I
have
seen
a
little
of
the
material
in
the
Gaziantep
Museum
and
so
can
describe
some
of
the
pottery
and
flints.
The
main
class
of
pottery
in
levels
1
and
2
was
a
buff
or
brown
coarse
ware
with
straw
filler,
some
vessels
of
which were
lightly
burnished.
A
few
vessels
of
this
buff
ware
had
been
painted
with
red
and
black
lines.
There
was
also
a
quite
hard
fired
dark
ware coloured
grey,
black
or
occasionally
red and
then
-
323
-
well
burnished
(Perrot,
1968,
col.
UOT).
Hole-mouth
jars
or
jars
with
everted
rims
and
collared
jars
were
made
in
"both
wares;
some
of
these
vessels
had
flat
bases.
The
stone
artifacts
included
a
number
of
polished
greenstone
axes
as
well
as
many
flint
and
obsidian
tools.
Most
of the
flint
tools
were
made
on
broad
blades
and
large
flakes.
Flake
side-scrapers
and
end-scrapers
on
blades
were
quite
common
as
were
borers
on
blades. Some of
the
sickle
blades
had
nibbled
edges
with
no
other
retouch
but
most
were
segmented
and
backed
with
abrupt
retouch.
The
assemblage
included
a
few
pressure-flaked
tanged
arrowheads.
The
dark
burnished
pottery
at
Tell
Turlu
may
be
compared
with
that
in
Amuq
A
and
B
but we
must
remember
that
this
kind
of
pottery
was
in
use on
sites
over
a
wide
area
for
a
long
period.
The
coarse
buff
ware
also
may
be
compared
with
Amuq
types
though
it
is
more
like
the
plain
ware
at
SakcagOztl.
The
flints,
with
the
exception
of the
arrowheads,
differ
from
Amuq A
and
B
in
the
use
of
large
flakes
and
broad
blades
as
well
as
segmented
sickle
blades,
a
trait
that
is
found
in
the
Amuq
in
later
phases.
The
Tell
Turlu
flints do
resemble
quite
closely
the
little
material
we
know
of
from
SakcagOzti.
The
settlement
of Tell
Turlu
levels
1
and
2
was
on
stratigraphic
evidence
occupied
before
Halaf.
The
pottery
and
flints
may
be
compared
with
Neolithic
3
material
in
the
Amuq
and
at
SakcagQzll
but
on
the
evidence
of
the
flint
industry
it
would
appear
that
the
site
was
occupied
late
in
this
stage.
The
material
is
more like
that
from
SakcagOztl
than
the
Amuq
which
suggests
that
Tell
Turlu
also
lies
on
the
fringe
of
the
North
Syrian
group
of
Neolithic
3
sites.
A
survey of
ancient
sites
was
carried
out
in
the
spring
of
1939
on
the
plain
between
Aleppo
and
Meskene
and
north-east
as
far
as
Membij
(Maxwell
Hyslop
et
al.,
19^2,
18).
The
area
is
studded
with
tells
most
of
which
were
found
to
have
been
occupied
in
late
prehistoric
and
historic
times.
Two
sites,
Judaidah
Jabbul
and
Sheikh
Ahmed,
were
thought
to
have
been
occupied
-
32k
-
earlier
than
any
of
the
others
(Maxwell
Hyslop
et
al.
,
19^2, 2k).
It
is
possible
that
some
of
the
larger
tells
may
also
conceal
early
settlements
within
their
bulk
but
artifacts
typical
of
these
deposits
were
not
exposed
on
their
surfaces.
The
earliest
pottery
noted
at
Judaidah
Jabbul
and
Sheikh
Ahmed
was
Ubaid
and
Halaf
with,
in
addition,
a
red
or
black
painted
buff
ware
(Maxwell
Hyslop
et
al.,
19^2, figs.
15,
16,
17).
It
is
not
known
for
certain
if
there
are
Neolithic
deposits
at
Sheikh
Ahmed
but,
having
visited
Judaidah
Jabbul
myself,
I
am
certain
that
this
site
was
occupied
in
pre-Halaf
times.
Judaidah
Jabbul
The
mound
of
Judaidah
Jabbul
is
situated
east
of
Aleppo
and
a
little
south
of
the
present
road
to
Meskene
and
the
Euphrates
valley.
It
lies
on
the
left
bank
of
the
Wadi
ed-Dahab
where
it
joins
the
old
north
shore
of
the
Jabbul
salt
lake.
The site
is
a
long
mound
about
12
m
high
with gentle
contours
except
on the
west
side
where
the
wadi
has
washed
away
some of
the
deposit.
The
site
extends
south
under
the
present
village
of
Judaidah
and
rises
again
beyond
to
form
a
subsidiary
mound.
The
two
mounds
were
distinguish-
ed
as
separate
sites
in
the
original
survey
(Maxwell
Hyslop
et
al.
,
19^-2,
3^-).
Much
of
the
painted
pottery
to
be
seen
on
the
surface
today
is
of
Halaf
or
Ubaid
type
as
was
noted
by
Maxwell
Hyslop
and
her
collaborators.
There
are
also
sherds
of
grey,
black
and red
burnished
wares,
much
coarse
buff
straw-
tempered
ware
and
buff
pottery
painted
simply
with
red
lines.
None
of
these
sherds
is
sufficiently
diagnostic
to
indicate
that
the
site
was
occupied
in
the
Neolithic
for
all
these
wares
continued
to
be
used
into
Halaf
times.
The
flint
artifacts
decide
the
matter
since
there
are
many
blade
tools,
among
them
sickle
blades
with
little
or
no
backing
and
tanged
arrowheads
finished by both
abrupt
retouch
and
pressure-flaking.
These
tools
are
similar
to
those
in
the
ceramic
Neolithic
levels
at
Abu
Hureyra
as
is
some
of
the
pottery.
The
pottery
and
flints
are
also
similar
to
material
found
in
Amuq
A
and
B
so
we
may
con-
clude
from
these
surface
indications
that
Judaidah
Jabbul
was
occupied
at
least
-
325
-
as
early
as
Neolithic
3
and
that
it
belongs
within
the
North
Syrian
group
of
sites.
Archaeologists
have
thought
that
several
sites
situated
on
the
Euphrates
or
beyond
in
the
northern
Jezireh
were
occupied
in
Neolithic
3.
The
question
is
important
since
these
sites
would
lie
on
the
northern
and
eastern
limits
of
the
North
Syrian
group.
Unfortunately
there
is
insufficient
evidence
from
several
of
the
sites
concerned
for
us
to
be
certain
they
were
occupied
in
Neolithic
3.
I
will now
attempt
to
reconstruct
the
pattern
of
settlement
in
this
area by
briefly
reviewing
the
information
we
have
about
these
sites.
The
westernmost
site
is
Carchemish
situated
on
the
right
bank
of
the
Euphrates
at
the
point
where
it
flows
across
the
Syro-Turkish
frontier.
A
deep
cut
was
excavated
on
the east
side
of
the
citadel
mound
facing
the
river
(Woolley,
193^,
158ff)«
Some
dark
burnished
and
incised
sherds
were
found
here
at
the
bottom
of
the
cut
but
always
in
association
with
painted
pottery
of
Halaf
type.
The
earliest
deposits
for
which
we have
evidence
in
the
Carchemish
citadel
are
Halaf,
therefore,
although
it
remains
possible
that
a
Neolithic
3
settlement
may
lie
within
the
heart
of
the
mound.
Much
brown,
grey,
black
and
red
burnished
pottery,
some
of
it
with incised
decorations,
was
also
found
in
the
Yunus
Kilns
just
outside
the
walls
of
Carchemish
but
it
had
been
made
at
the
same
time
as
painted
Halaf
pottery
and
was
associated
with
Halaf
flint
tools
(Woolley,
193^,
1^9,
15^).
There
is
no
reason
to
suppose
that
the
kilns
were
used
in
Neolithic
3
despite
the
resemblance
of
the
burnished
pottery
to
Neolithic
3
wares.
One
site
in
the
Balikh
valley,
Tell
Aswad
(Balikh)
was
certainly
occupied
in
Neolithic
3.
There
were
three
kinds
of
pottery
at
the
site,
a
brown
or
red
burnished
ware,
a
coarse
buff
ware
with much
straw
temper
and
a
little
red
painted
ware.
These
can
be
paralleled
in
the
ceramic
Neolithic
levels
at
Abu
Hureyra
and
Buqras
III
as
we have
noted
in
the
preceding
chapter.
They
also
bear
a
general
resemblance
to
much
of
the
pottery
found
in
Ras
Shamra
V
B
and
V
A.
-
326
-
It
is
possible
that
the
site
of
Tell
Khirbet
el
Bassal
discovered
by
Cauvin
was
also
occupied
in
Neolithic
3.
We
have
seen
that
it
was
probably
occupied
in
Neolithic
2
as
well
as
the
Halaf
but
the
presence
of
brown
burnished
sherds
(Cauvin,
1970,
287)
suggests
that
the
site
may
also
have
been
inhabited
during
the
intervening
stage
of
Neolithic
3.
One
other
site
on
the
Balikh,
Tell
Hammam,
may
have
been
inhabited
during
Neolithic
3.
This
mound
is
situated
3-5
km
south
of
Tell
Abyad
(Mallowan,
19^-6,
136);
the
upper
levels
date
from
the
Bronze
Age
and
Classical
times
but
the
heart
of
the
tell
is
much
older.
A
few
sherds
described
as
pre-
Ubaid
were
found
here
and
also
a
collection
of
flint
tools
with
an
obsidian
blade
(Mallowan,
19^6,
fig.
13:1-8).
Two
of
these
artifacts
were
tanged
arrowheads
and
at
least
one
other
was
an
end-scraper
on
a
flake.
The
arrow-
heads
are
the
most
diagnostic
of
the
tools:
the
tang of
one
was
retouched
abruptly
and
the
other
with
pressure
flaking.
Neither
arrowhead
was
retouched
very
extensively.
These
two
arrowheads
are
typical
of
the
later
aceramic
and
ceramic
Neolithic
levels
at
Abu
Hureyra
and
so
probably
belong
in a
late
Neolithic
2
or early
Neolithic
3
context.
In
view
of
the
presence
of
early
pottery
at
Tell
Hammam
the
likelihood
is
that
the
flints
were
of
the
same
age
or
not
much
earlier
than
the
sherds
so
that
the
site
may
have
been
inhabited
in
Neolithic
3.
We
know
that
Tell
Aswad
(Balikh)
was
occupied
in
Neolithic
3
even
if
we
cannot be
certain
that
the other
sites
I
have
mentioned were
inhabited
contemporaneously.
The
material
from
Tell
Aswad
(Balikh)
places
it
firmly
within
the
North
Syrian
group
so
that
we
know
the
Balikh
valley
should
be
included
in
this
zone
of
sites
with
similar
remains.
Tell
Halaf
which
lies
on
a
tributary
of the
upper
Khabur
3
km
south-west
of
Ras
el
Ain
was
also
probably
occupied
in
Neolithic
3.
Von
Oppenheim
dug
several
deep
trenches
on
the
northern
side
of
the
mound
which
revealed
something
of
the
prehistoric
remains
at
the
heart
of
the
site.
Beneath
levels
containing
Halaf
material
he
found
deposits
characterised
by
plain
or
burnished
dark
brown,
grey
and
-
327
-
black
pottery
(Schmidt,
19^3,
25ff).
Many
of
the
vessels
were
globular
or
flat-based
hole-mouth
jars
with
ledge
handles
or lugs
for
lifting.
There
were
also
splayed
bowls
with
ring
bases.
This
pottery
was
accompanied
by
a
range
of
flint
and
obsidian
tools
which
included
tanged
arrowheads,
end-scrapers
on
blades
and
borers.
These artifacts
and
their
stratigraphic
position
would
suggest that Tell
Halaf
was
occupied
in
Neolithic
3
though
we
cannot
be sure
of
the
cultural
relationships of
these
early
levels
without
further
exploration.
Braidwood
collected
a
sample
from
the
lowest
Halaf
deposit
at
Tell Halaf,
immediately
above
the
Neolithic
3
levels,
which
gave
a
date
of
5620
±
35
B.C.
GrN-2660
(Radiocarbon
6,
196U,
355).
If
correct
this
would
indicate that
the
Neolithic
3
settlement
was
occupied
in
the
first
half
of
the
6th
millennium.
We
do
not
know
how
much further
east
and
north
the
North
Syrian
group
of
sites
extended because
few
of
the
earliest
settlements
on
the
Khabur
and
Jaghjagha
rivers
have
been
investigated.
Tell
Chagar
Bazar
h3
km
north-north-
east
of
Hassake
on
the
road
to
Amuda
may
have
been
first
settled
in
Neolithic
3
but
the
evidence
is
inconclusive.
Mallowan
sounded
the
earliest
deposits
in
a
deep
trench
at
the
north-west
end of the
site
(Mallowan,
1936,
7)«
He
found
that
the
lowest
level,
level
15
s
rested
on
the
virgin
soil
(1936,
11).
No
buildings
could
be
discerned
in
this
level
but
two
pits,
presumably
dug
down
from
a
higher
level,
contained
Samarra pottery
(1936,
17).
Within
level
15
there
were
sherds of
both
painted
Halaf
and
grey
or
black
burnished
ware.
The
burnished
sherds
were
found
together
in
a
"cache"
(1936,
11)
which
suggests
that
they
had
been
deposited
separately from
the
Halaf
pottery
and
so
may have
come
from
an
earlier
settlement,
perhaps
Neolithic
3
in
date.
More
substantial
remains
of
such
a
settlement
may
lie
beneath
the centre
of
the
site
which
was
not
tested
in a
deep
sounding.
Some
of
the
burnished
pottery from
level
15
had
been
decorated
with
incised
designs (Mallowan,
1936,
12)
in
a
similar
manner
to
vessels
from
Ras
Shamra V
B
and
V
A
although
one
sherd
(Mallowan,
1936,
pi.
Ill,
10)
had
rows
of
incised
cross-hatched
triangles
reminiscent
of
vessels
from
SakcagQzU.
-
328
-
Another
sherd
had
been
pattern
"burnished
(Mallowan,
1936,
12).
The
affinities
of
this
material
are
mostly
with
sites
in
the
North
Syrian
group
"but
the
sherds
would
not
be
out
of
place
in
a
Halaf
context
so
we
cannot
be
sure
that
there was
a
Neolithic
3
settlement
at
Chagar
Bazar.
Davidson
carried
out
a
survey
of
early
sites
in
the
northern Jezireh
in
197^
(Davidson,
McKerrell,
19?6,
^5ff)
"but
the
earliest
sites he
discovered
were
all
of
Halaf
type.
He
has
told
me
that
he
found
no
certain
traces
of
Neolithic
3
settlement
in
the
area.
This
does
not
necessarily
mean
that
the
region
was
uninhabited
then,
an
unlikely
hypothesis
I
would
think
since
so
much
of
north
Syria
further
west
but
in
the
same
latitude
was
settled
in
Neolithic
3.
There
is
a
great
density
of
tells
in
this
area
indicating
its
suitability
for
settlement
in
ancient
times
and
remains
of
Neolithic
3
sites
may
be
concealed
within
these
mounds.
There
appears
to
have
been
some soil
movement
which
has
raised
the
level
of
parts
of
the
north
Jezireh
plain
since
the
lower
deposits
on
several
sites
are
below
the
present
ground
surface.
This
process
may
have
buried
other
Neolithic
3
settlements.
Only
when
definite
indications
of
Neolithic
3
occupation
have
been
found
in
excavation
on
the
Khabur
and
Jaghjagha
headwaters
will
we
know
if
the
area
was
occupied
by
people
using
similar
equipment
to
those
on
North
Syrian
sites
further
west
and
along
the Euphrates.
I
have
now
discussed
all the
known
Neolithic
3
sites
that
belong
within
the
North
Syrian
group.
There
is
another
series
of
Neolithic
3
sites
in
southern
Syria
and
Lebanon
which
I
shall
call
the
South
Syrian
group
(Fig.
39)
The
material
remains
on
these
sites
are
more
varied
than
in
the
North
Syrian
group
so
that
one
may
distinguish
sub-groups
on
the
Lebanese
coast,
in
the
Beka'a
and
the
Damascus
basin.
The
type-site
for the
whole
area
is
Byblos
which
I
shall
describe
first.
DAMASCUS
BASIN
Fig.
39
Neolithic
3
South
Syrian sites
FIGURE
39
Neolithic
3
South
Syrian
sites
1
Tabbat
el
Hammam
2
Tell
Kirri
3
Kubbah
I
4
Byblos
5
Hermel
IV
6
Ras
Baalbek
7
Tell
Labweh
North
8
Tell
Labweh
9
Tell
Hashbai
10
Tell Bab
ez-Zeitun
11
Tell
Neba'a
Faour
I
12
Tell
Shamsine
13
Kaukaba
14
Tell
ez-Zeitun
15
Tell
Ramad
16
Tannur
17
Ain
Hashomer
18
Kfar
Giladi
19
Qat
20
Zug
Fuqani
21
Hagosherim
22
Tell
Turmus
23
Beisamun
24
Kabri
-
329
-
South
Syria
Lebanese
coast
Byblos
Byblos,
now
the little
town
of
Jubail,
lies
about
30
km
north-east
of
Beirut
on
the
Lebanese
coast.
To
the
east
of
the
site
there
is
a
narrow
though
fertile
coastal
plain
and
then
the
Mountains
of
Lebanon
which
rise
steeply
behind.
The
ancient settlement
is
situated
on
a
promontory
just
to
the
south
of
a
tiny
inlet.
This
inlet
is
the
old
port
of
Byblos
which
is
still
used
as
a
fishing
harbour.
On
the
south
side
of
the
promontory
there
is
another
cove
at
the
mouth
of
a
little
valley
which
ran
across
the
site
before
it
became
filled
with
occupation
debris. This cove
was
probably
a
subsidiary
landing
place
in
ancient
times
(Dunand,
1973,
5);
it
may
have
been
used
more
by
the
Neolithic
inhabitants
than
the
inlet
to
the
north
which
lay
further
away
down
a
steep
slope.
Beyond
this cove
is
an
open
sandy
beach
which
would
have
been
a
good
landing
place
in
fine
weather.
It
is
important
to
remember
that
the
sea
probably
only
reached
its
present
height
during
the
6th
millennium
as
we
saw
in
Chapter
1
so
that
it
was not
until
Neolithic
3
that
Byblos
could
have
served
as
a
port.
By
the
same
reasoning
it
would
only have
been
during
this
period
that
the
bay
of
Minet
el
Beidha
to
the
west
of
Ras
Shamra
would
have
assumed
its
present
configuration
and
provided
a
convenient
harbour
for the
large
settlement
a
little
way
inland.
We
know
that
fish
were
eaten
in
considerable
quantities
at
Byblos
during
this
period
since
their
remains
comprised
1%
of the
bones
identified
from
the
site
(Dunand,
1973,
36)
and
they
were
still
probably
consumed
at
Ras
Shamra
as
fish
vertebrae
had
been
recovered
in
the
Neolithic
2
levels.
It
is
likely
that
by
now
some
of
these
fish
were
caught
from
boats
at
sea
which
could
have
conveniently
been
launched
from
the
new
harbours.
We have
no
evidence
that
maritime
trade
had
commenced
along
the Levant
coast
in
Neolithic
3
though
since
we
know
that
small
quantities
of
many
materials
were
being
exchanged between
sites
it
would
not
be
surprising
if
a
little of
-
330
-
this
traffic
was
conducted
by
sea.
In
the
absence
of
positive
evidence,
however,
we
must conclude
that
the
potential
of
the
harbours
at
Byblos and
Ras
Shamra
was
not
realised
until
much
later.
The
ancient
site
of Byblos
has
been
excavated
almost
continuously
by
Dunand
for
over
ho
years,
At
least
1.5
ha
has
now
been
cleared
to
bedrock
so that
a
greater
area
of
the
prehistoric
settlement
at
the
base
has
been
exposed
than
on
any
other
site
in
the
Levant.
A
considerable
amount
of
information
has
thus
been
recovered
about
the
structures
of
the
successive
Neolithic
settlements
and
the
artifacts
used
by
their
inhabitants.
The
original
topography
of
the
site
has
also
been
determined
fairly
precisely.
The
promontory
at
Byblos
once
consisted
of
two
hills,
one
higher
than
the
other,
separated
by
a
little
valley
in
which
lay
a
spring
of
good
water
(Dunand,
1973,
1,
^,
pi.
C).
The
higher
of
the
two
hills
was
on
the
west
side
of
the
valley.
The first
substantial
settlement
at
Byblos was
established
on
the
seaward
slope
of
this
hill
and
later
spread
south
into
the
valley
(Dunand,
1973,
10,
33).
This
phase of
settlement
has
been
designated
"Ne"olithique
And
en"
by
Dunand.
The
principal
attractions of
the
site
have
always
been
the
spring,
the
protected
landings
for
boats
and
the
fertility
of
the
immediate
hinterland;
presumably
these
factors
also
induced
the inhabitants
of
the
Ne"olithique
Ancien
site
to
settle
here.
We
may
note
in
passing
that
the
site
was
occupied briefly
at
an
earlier
period.
A
small
deposit
was
found
which
contained
no
pottery
but
which
yielded
a
tanged
and
notched
arrowhead
as
well
as
several
microliths,
one
of
them
backed
with
Helwan
retouch
(Dunand,
1973,
k2.
,
n. 5;
Cauvin,
1968,
92).
This
suggests
that
a
group
may
have
lived
here
for
a
while
in
one
of
the two
earlier
Neolithic
stages
or
Mesolithic
2.
The
debris
of
the
N olithique Ancien
settlement
was
spread
over
about
1.2
ha,
an
area
that
would
have
been
more
extensive
originally
since
part
of
the
site
has
washed
away
on
the
seaward
side
(Dunand,
1973,
pi.
G).
Much of
the
deposit
was
composed
of
occupation
soil,
building
remains
being
concentrated
on
an
area
of
only
5000
sq.
m.
Dunand estimated
that
about
20
houses
were
-
331
-
occupied
at
one
time
and
that
the
settlement
was
no
more
than
a
small
village
(1973,
90).
These houses
had
been
robbed
for
building
materials
so
that
in
some
instances
little
of the
original
dwelling
remained.
It
seems
probable
to me
that
there
were
more
houses
in
the
village
than
Dunand
suggests
and
that
some
of
these
were
completely
destroyed
by
robbing
and
disturbance after
they were
abandoned.
Thus
the
likely
area
of
intensive
occupation
would
have
been
greater
than
the
5000
sq
m
proposed
by
Dunand.
The
houses
were
rectangular
with
a
single
room to
which
other
more
lightly
built
structures
were
sometimes
added
(Dunand,
1973
S
10,
17)-
These
houses
varied
in
size
(Fig.
ho)
but
several
were
about
5
m
long
and
k
m
wide.
Their
walls
were
built
of
stone
but
none
was
found
standing
more than
1
m
high.
The
entrance
was
in
the
long
side
of
a
room.
The
floors
were
usually
made
of
hard
white
lime
plaster laid
on
a
bed
of
pebbles
which
sometimes
curved
a
little
way
up
the
walls
(Dunand,
1973,
12).
The
surface
of
the
plaster
was
then
polished.
Dunand
did
not
think
that
the
stone
walls
of
many
of
the
houses
ever
stood
much
higher
than
1
m.
This
led
him
to
suggest
that
the
houses
were
framed
and
roofed
with
poles
covered
by
mats
or skins
(Dunand,
1973,
1^).
He
believed
that the
wall
posts
must
have
been
set
up
outside
the
low
stone
walls
as
no
trace
of
roof
supports
was
found
within
the
buildings
(Dunand,
1973,
fig.
3)
;
we
may
note
in
passing
that
he
does
not
report that
post-holes
were
found
along
the
outsides
of
the
walls
either.
The
stone
walls
and
plaster
floors
of
the
Ne"olithique
Ancien
houses
were
stoutly
and
carefulJybuilt
so
it
is
probable
that
their
superstructures
were
completed
in
a
similar
fashion.
We
have
already
seen
that
the
walls
of
these
buildings
were
damaged
by
robbing,
an
observation
supported
by
the
absence of
collapsed
walling
within
them
(Dunand,
1973,
1U).
The
walls
may
have
been
built
high
enough
to
support
the
roof
but
subsequently
were
reduced
by
robbing
to no
more than
stubs.
If the
walls
had
originally
carried
the
roofs
that
would
explain
why
no
trace
of
wall
or
roof
supports was
found
inside,
or
outside
the
houses.
\
v-
V
V
\
V
\
\
\
\
\\
•''
\
\
:
:'^'
3
SC.
1
=100
Fig.
40
Byblos-
Neolithique
Ancien
houses
(after
Dunand)
-
332
-
Several
of
these
houses
had
a
little
platform
built
inside
against
one
of
the
short
walls
(Dunand,
1973,
12).
These
may
have
been
hearths
but
Dunand
preferred
to
think
of
them
as
associated
with
a
domestic
cult.
In
one
house
a
mortar
had
been
set
in
the
floor
(Dunand,
1973,
13)
while
in
others
a
depression
was
found
on
the
floor
where
mortars
or
querns
had
probably
stood
(Dunand,
1973,
20).
Scattered
on
the
floors
were
grinding
tools
and
other
domestic
artifacts.
Outside
the
houses
stubs
of
walls
and
other
stones
were
used
as
benches
(Dunand,
1973,
17,
18).
The
houses
were
aligned
either
north-south
or
east-west.
This
happened
to
be
the
most
convenient
way
to
build
them
because
of
the
slope
of
the
ground
but
it
also
meant
that
the
doorways of
many
of
the
houses
faced
the
sun.
The
houses
were
rebuilt
on
the
same
spot
on
about
the
same
alignment
usually
three
times
but
in
one
area
as
much
as
six
or
seven
(Dunand,
1973,
15).
Each
house
stood
alone and was
separated
from
its
neighbours
by
large
open
spaces
(Dunand,
1973,
pi.
Ha).
A
little
paving
was
found
in
these
open
spaces
and
also
heavy
stone
grinding
tools left
in
place,
bedrock
mortars
and
hearths
(Dunand,
1973,
29).
The
dead
were
buried
in
the
settlement
between
the
buildings.
The
corpses
were
laid
in
a
crouched
position
on
their
left
sides
in
shallow
graves
(Dunand,
1973,
30);
the
bodies
of
infants
were
buried
in
jars
(Dunand,
1973,
32).
Two
groups
of
adult
burials
were
noted,
one
in
which
the
bodies
were
placed
in
simple
graves
with
a
few
artifacts
and
a
second
in
which
the
corpses
were laid
on
a
bed
of
stones
with
more
grave
goods;
the
former
was
more
common.
The
accompanying
artifacts
consisted
of
flint
tools,
polished
stone
axes,
pottery
and
occasional
ornaments.
33
burials
were
found
alto-
gether,
not
many
when
one
considers
the
size
of
the
settlement
and
the
length
of
time
it
was
occupied.
Dunand
noted
that some
graves
may
have
been
destroyed
by
building
activity
in
this
and
later
phases
and
also
remarked
that
not
all
the
dead
may
have
been
buried
within
the
village
anyway
(1973,
32).
The
inhabitants
of
the
Neolithic
settlements
at
Byblos
obtained
their
-
333
-
flint
from nodules
on
the
floors
of
neighbouring
wadis.
In
the
Wadi
Deir
el
Banat
which
reaches
the
sea
just
south
of
Byblos beds
of
excellent
flint
exposed
in
either
bank
were
apparently
quarried
for
raw
material
(Cauvin,
1968,
i|0).
Not
many
cores
were
found
on
the
site
(Cauvin,
1968,
92)
which
implies that
blades
were
usually
prepared
where
the
flint
was quarried.
Such
cores
as
were recovered
were
pyramidal
or
double-ended
in
type
(Cauvin,
1968,
fig.
33).
18
pieces of
obsidian were
found
in
the
Ne"olithique
Ancien
settle-
ment
three
of
which
have
been
analysed
spectrographically.
Two
came
from
the
1
e-f
source,
probably
Acigo"!
near
Kayseri,
and
one
from
Ciftlik
(Renfrew
et
al.
,
1966, 63,
65).
Most
of
the flint
tools
found
at
Byblos
were
of
four
classes:
sickle
blades,
arrowheads,
burins
and
axes
with
chisels.
The
sickle
blades
were
all
made
on
segmented
blades
and
hafted
together
to
form
composite
sickles
(Cauvin,
1968,
TO).
They
were retouched
straight
or
obliquely
at
one
or
both
ends
and
some
were
abruptly
retouched
along
the
back
(Fig.
Ma).
The
cutting
edge
was
denticulated
but
sometimes
both
long
sides
were
retouched
in
this way.
A
great
many
truncated
blades
were
found
in
one
spot
in
the
Ne"olithique
Ancien
settlement
(Cauvin,
1968,
73)
which
were
in
the
process
of
being
made
into
segmented
sickle
blades.
The
place
where
they were
found
was
thus
a
working
floor
for
the
manufacture
of
these
tools.
The
sickles
of
which
these
segmented
denticulated
blades
make
up
the
cutting
edge
are
poor
tools
with
which
to
cut
cereals
although
they
could
have
been
used
to scrape
ears
of
wheat
off
the
stalks
into
baskets.
It
has
also
been suggested
that
they
may
have
been
used
to
cut
down
plants
with
tough
siliceous
stems
such
as
reeds.
The
problem
is
difficult
to
resolve
since
there
is
evidence
for
both
cereal
agriculture
and
the
use of
reeds
at
Byblos
and
at
other
sites
on
which
these
tools
have
been
found.
As
I
have
explained
elsewhere
(Moore,
1973,
U3)»
we
do
not
know
if
these
sickles
were
used
for
harvesting
cereals
or some
other
plant and
so
cannot
definitely
associate
them
with
agricultural
activities
as
Cauvin
has
done
(1968,
SC.
2
=
3
A
^
Fig.
41
Byblos
Neolithique
Ancien
a
-
sickle
blades
b-
Byblos
points
(after
Cauvin)
-
33^
-
Most
of
the
arrowheads
were
of
three
types
,
all
of
which
were
tanged.
Two
were
the
Amuq
points
1
and
2
and
the
third
was
what
Cauvin
has
called
the
"Byblos
point"
(1968,
55).
Byblos
points
had
a
tang
defined
by
pronounced
shoulders
or
occasionally
a
pair
of
notches
(Fig.
^1b).
They
were
retouched
by
pressure-flaking
around
the
tang,
tip
and
part
or
all
of
the
shaft.
A
few
were
from
10
to
17.8
cm
in
length
but
most
were
between
5
and
10
cm
long.
Several
leaf-shaped
arrowheads
retouched
by
pressure-flaking
were
also
found.
Some
very
large
oval
retouched
blades
retouched
in
a
similar
manner
were
classed
as
daggers
by
Cauvin
(1968,
66).
The
three
principal
types
of
burins
found
at
Byblos
were
burins
on
lateral
preparation,
burins
on
truncation
and
dihedral
burins
(Cauvin,
1968,
89).
Some
single
or
multiple
blow
burins
on
a
break
or
natural
surface
were