THE

NEOLITHIC

OF

THE

LEVANT

A.M.T.

Moore

University

College

Volume

1

Thesis

submitted

for the

Degree

of

Doctor

of

Philosophy,

Oxford

University

1978

-

1

-

CONTENTS

Volume

1

page

CONTENTS

FIGURES

AND

TABLES

ABSTRACT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

INTRODUCTION

Chapter

1

THE

ENVIRONMENT

OF

THE

LEVANT

IN

THE

LATE

PLEISTOCENE

AND

EARLY

HOLOCENE

Late

Pleistocene

Summary

Early

Holocene

Summary

Chapter

2

THE

MESOLITHIC

OF

THE

LEVANT

Mesolithic

1

Settlement

patterns

Economy

and

society

Mesolithic

2

Settlement

patterns

Economy

and

society

Chapter

3

NEOLITHIC

1

Distribution

of

sites

Economy

Discussion

Chapter

k

NEOLITHIC

2

Middle

Euphrates

West

Syria

Palestine

Relationships

between

Palestinian,

West

Syrian

and

Middle

Euphrates

sites

in

Neolithic

2

Mt.

Carmel

Jordan

valley

Judean

hills

Negev

and

Sinai

TransJordan

plateau

IV

vii

viii

1

11

21

25

31

37

hh

^

61

63

Qk

133

136

1U9

160

161

190

211

226

230

231

237

-

11

-

Contents

(continued)

Chapter

k

(continued)

page

Principal

cultural

characteristics

of

Neolithic

2

settlements

Distribution of

sites

Economy

Middle

Euphrates

sites

West

Syrian

sites

Palestinian

sites

Discussion

256

260

265

272

273

286

Volume

2

Chapter

5

NEOLITHIC

3

Middle

Euphrates

North Syria

South

Syria

Lebanese

coast

Beka'a

Damascus

basin

Palestine

South

Palestine

North

Palestine

Principal

cultural

characteristics

of

Neolithic

3

settlements

Timespan

of

Neolithic

3

Distribution

of

sites

Economy

Discussion

Chapter

6

NEOLITHIC

South

Syria

Lebanese

coast

Beka'a

Damascus

basin

Palestine

South

Palestine

North

Palestine

West

Palestine

Distribution

of

sites

296

299

329

3^2

355

358

359

367

379

382

38U

387

397

>*08

UU8

U65

-

Ill

-

Contents

(continued)

page

Chapter

6

(continued)

Economy

Community

organization

and

trade

^-75

Chapter

7

CONCLUSION

^79

APPENDIX

Carbon

1U

dating

^96

NOTES

500

BIBLIOGRAPHY

502

-

iv

-

FIGURES

AND

TABLES

All

artifacts

drawn

full size

unless

otherwise

indicated

page

Volume

1

Fig.

1

The

Levant

1

Fig.

2

A

reconstruction

of

vegetation

zones

c.

9000

B.C.

23

Fig.

3

A

reconstruction

of

vegetation

zones

c.

6000

B.C.

31

Fig.

k

A

reconstruction

of

vegetation

zones

c.

UOOO

B.C.

32

Fig.

5

Distribution

of

Mesolithic

1

sites

^2

Fig.

6

Distribution

of

Mesolithic

2

sites

61

Fig.

7

Jericho

Proto-Neolithic

-

flint

borers and burins

93

Fig.

8

Jericho

Proto-Neolithic

-

flint

scrapers

9^-

Fig.

9

Jericho

Proto-Neolithic

-

flint

sickle

blades

and

adze

95

Fig.

10

Jericho

PPNA

-

flint

scrapers,

borers

and

burins

96

Fig.

11

Jericho

PPNA

-

flint

adze

and

sickle

blades

96

Fig.

12

Neolithic

1

village

at

Nahal

Oren

(after

Stekelis

and

Yizraely)

100

Fig.

13

Nahal

Oren

Neolithic

1

flint

tools

102

Fig.

1U

Nahal

Oren

Neolithic

1

flint

tools

103

Fig.

15

a

-

El

Khiam

points (after

Perrot)

107

b

-

Harif

points

(after

Marks)

Fig.

16

Mureybat

IB-Ill

-

flint

arrovheads

and

adze

(after

Cauvin)

121

Fig.

17

Distribution

of

Neolithic

1

sites

133

Fig.

18

Extent

of

Neolithic

2

settlement

160

Fig.

19

Neolithic

2

Middle

Euphrates

sites

161

Fig.

20

Environs

of

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

163

Fig.

21

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

-

contour

plan

16U

Fig.

22

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

-

butterfly

beads

166

Fig.

23 Tell

Abu

Hureyra

-

double-ended

flint

cores

167

Fig.

2U

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

-

flint

arrowheads

168

-

v

-

Figures

and

Tables

(continued)

page

Fig.

25

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

-

Amuq

arrowheads

168

Fig.

26

Tell

Abu Hureyra

-

flint

scrapers

168

Fig.

27

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

-

flint

burins

169

Fig.

28

Tell

Abu Hureyra

-

flint

borers

169

Fig.

29

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

-

flint

sickle

blades

169

Fig.

30

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

-

bone

tools

171

Fig.

31

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

-

polished

stone

axes

and

chisel

172

Fig.

32

Neolithic

2

West

Syrian

sites

190

Fig.

33

Neolithic

2

Palestinian

sites

211

Fig.

3^

Beidha

-

Level

II

buildings

(after

Kirkbride

and

Perrot)

2h6

Volume

2

Fig.

35

Extent

of

Neolithic

3

settlement

295

Fig.

36

Neolithic

3

North

Syrian

sites

299

Fig.

37

Horns

-

Amuq

points

(after

de

Contenson)

305

Fig. 38

Pattern-burnished

vessels

310

a

-

Tell

Judaidah

(after

Braidwood

and

Braidwood)

b

-

Byblos

(after

Dunand)

Fig.

39

Neolithic

3

South

Syrian

sites

328

Fig.

hO

Byblos

-

Ne"olithique

Ancien

houses

(after

Dunand)

331

Fig.

hi

Byblos

Neolithique

Ancien

333

a

-

sickle

blades

(after

Cauvin)

b

-

Byblos points

Fig.

h2

Byblos

-

Neolithique

Ancien

jars

(after

Dunand)

335

Fig.

h3

Byblos

-

Ne"olithique

Ancien

bowls

(after

Dunand)

336

Fig.

hh

Neolithic

3

Palestinian

sites

359

Fig.

lj-5

Distribution

of

Neolithic

h

sites

U12

Fig.

h6

Byblos

-

N£olithique

Moyen

flint

tools

(after

Cauvin)

Ul6

Fig.

hj

Byblos

-

Ne"olithique

Recent

flint tools

(after

Cauvin)

U17

Fig.

U8

Byblos

-

Ngolithique

Moyen

jars

(after

Dunand)

-

vi

-

Figures

and

Tables

(continued)

page

Fig.

h9

Byblos

-

Ngolithique

Re*cent

bowls

and

jars

(after

Dunand)

Fig.

50

Neolithic

h

South

Syrian

sites

Fig.

51

Neolithic

U

Palestinian

sites

Fig.

52

Jericho

-

Pottery

Neolithic

B

vessels

Fig.

53

Palestine

-

supplementary Neolithic

3

and

k

sites

Fig.

5U

Estimated

14

C

calibration

curve

to

10,000

B.C.

Table

1

Percentages

of

obsidian

in

each

cultural phase

at

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

171

Table

2

1*98

-

vii

-

ABSTRACT

THE

NEOLITHIC

OF

THE

LEVANT

A.M.T.

Moore

University

College

Doctor

of

Philosophy

Hilary

Term

1978

The

archaeological

evidence

for

the

Neolithic

of the

Levant,

considered

to

have

lasted

from

c.

8500

to

3750

B.C.,

is

presented

and

an

attempt made

to

explain

its

origins

and

development.

The

discussion

is

concerned

with

four

principal

themes:

(1)

the

transition

from

a

hunter-gatherer

to

a

farming

economy,

(2)

the

social

evolution

that

accompanied

this

economic

development,

(3)

population

growth

immediately

"before

and during the

Neolithic

and

(U)

the

modifications

in

settlement

patterns

which followed

these other

changes.

The

environmental

changes

which

occurred

at

the

end

of

the

Pleistocene

and

early

in

the

Holocene

are

believed

to

"be

of

fundamental

importance.

The

degree

of

their

influence

on

the

four

main

themes

is

examined.

The

effects

of

man's

own

changing

activities

upon

his

environment

are

also

considered.

The

Neolithic

of

the

Levant

is

divided

into

four

stages,

designated

Neolithic

1

to

U,

on

the

evidence

of changes

in

economy,

population,

settlement

patterns

and

cultural

remains.

Regional

groups

of

sites,

defined

"by

their

cultural

material,

may

"be

discerned

and

their

evolution

followed

from

one

stage

to

the

next.

The

detailed archaeological

evidence

is

examined

principally

for

the

light

it

throws

upon

the

development

of

the

four

main

themes

of

the

thesis and

the

contemporary

changes

in

environment.

It

is

argued

that

the

amelioration

of

the

environment

in

the

late

Pleistocene

created

a

greater supply of

wild

foods

for

man

which

stimulated

population

growth.

This

was

accompanied

by

increased

sedentism

and

the

development

of

agricultural

techniques.

In

Neolithic

2

agriculture

was

intensified

and

the

population

grew

further.

After

6000

B.C.

the

population

of

the

Levant

lived

in

permanent

settlements

supported

"by

agriculture

"but

these

were

concentrated

only

in

the

more

fertile

and

well-watered

areas of

the

Levant.

This

new

way

of

life

permitted

another

increase

in

population

in

Neolithic

^

despite

a

deterioration

in

the

environment.

-

viii

-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This

thesis

was

written between

1975

and

1977

but

much of

the

information

I

have

used

was

obtained

in

studies

carried

out

as

far

back

as

1969

when

I

first

went

to

the

Near

East to

begin

research.

Throughout

I

have

benefited

from

the

encouragement and

advice

of

my

supervisor,

Dame

Kathleen

Kenyon.

She

introduced

me

to

Near

Eastern

Archaeology

by

inviting

me

to

participate

in

her

excavations

in

Jerusalem

in

1966.

She has

allowed

me to

study

all the

available

Neolithic

material

from

her

excavations

at

Jericho

and

to

use

whatever

information

I

needed

from

the

records

of

the

excavation.

Her

firm

criticism

has

clarified

my

thinking

and

writing

while

her

generous

praise

has

given

welcome

support.

I

owe

her

much.

I

studied under

Professor

J.D.

Evans

at

the

Institute

of

Archaeology

of

London

University

from

1967 to

1969.

It

was he

who

stimulated

my

interest

in

prehistory

and

the

problems

of

the

Neolithic.

His

humane

approach to

the

study

of

prehistory

has

influenced

my

own

work

and

I

am

grateful

to

him

for his

continued

interest

in

the

progress

of

my

research.

The

Queen's

College,

Oxford

awarded

me

a

Randall

Maclver

Studentship

from

1969

to

1971

and

the

British

School

of

Archaeology

in

Jerusalem

made

me

their

Annual

Scholar

from

1969

to

1970.

These

two

studentships

enabled

me

to

spend

a

year

and

a

half

travelling

through

much

of

the

Near

East,

visiting

ancient

sites

and

studying

museum

collections.

During

this

period

I

formed

a

working

knowledge

of

the

available

archaeological material

which

I

have

used

in

preparing

this

thesis.

In

1973

I

was

awarded

a

Gerald

Averay

Wainwright

Research

Fellowship

in

Near

Eastern

Archaeology

at

Oxford.

This

Fellowship

has

supported

me

while

I

prepared

the

text

of

the

thesis;

it

has also

allowed

me

to

continue

work

on

my

other research

projects,

in

particular

my

excavation

of

Tell

Abu

Hureyra.

I

wish

to

thank

the

Curators

and

staff

of the

Pitt

Rivers

Museum

and

Dr.

D.A.

Roe

of

the

Donald

Baden-Powell Quaternary

Research

Centre

for

-

ix

-

affording

me

facilities

and

practical

help

during

the

preparation

of

this

thesis.

In

all

my

sojourns

in

the

Levant

the

Directors

and

staff

of

the

Depart-

ments

of

Antiquities

in

each

country

have

readily

granted

me

permission

to

carry

out

my

research.

The

Curators

of

all

the

major

museums have

also

allowed

me full

access

to the

collections

of

material

in

their

charge.

It

will

be

evident

that

I

could have

accomplished

little

without

this

help.

These

authorities

have

also

frequently

given

me

much

other

practical

assistance

and

generous

hospitality

for

which

I

offer

my

grateful

thanks.

Very

many

other

people

from

high

officials

to

simple

peasants

and

nomads

have

helped

me

in

my

travels

so

putting

me

in

their

de~bt

in

ways

that

cannot

be

repaid.

It

is

a

pleasure

to

recall

and

acknowledge

these

innumerable

kindnesses

here

which

have

been

given

so

freely

in

the

true

tradition

of

Levantine

hospitality.

Many

archaeologists

and

other

scholars

in

several

countries

have

allowed

me

to

study

material

from

their

excavations

or

from

collections

in

their

care.

Much

of

this

information

has

been

incorporated

in

the

thesis.

Others

have

helped

me

by

analysing

samples

submitted

to

them.

All

have

willingly

answered

my

questions

and

discussed

matters

of

common

interest.

I

wish

to

thank

them

all

and

in

particular

the

following:

Prof.

E.

Anati

for

showing

me

his

material

from

Tell

Abu

Zureiq;

Prof,

and

Mrs.

Braidwood

for

showing

me

their

material

from

the

Amuq

tells,

Tell

Fakhariyah,

Tabbat

el

Hammam

and

other

sites

as

well

as

much

helpful

discussion;

M.

and

Mme

J.

Cauvin

for

showing

me

their

excavations

at

Mureybat

and

material

from

the

site,

and

for

several

useful

discussions;

M. H.

de

Contenson

for first

introducing

me

to

the

archaeology

of

Syria,

for

allowing

me

to

participate

in

his

excavations

at

Tell

Aswad

in

1971

9

for

access

to material

he

has

excavated

from

other

sites

and

for

many

other

kindnesses;

Mrs.

L.

Copeland

for

numerous

discussions

on

the

prehistory

of

the

Levant

and

much valuable

help

and

advice given

over

many

years;

Dr.

R.

Dornemann

for

allowing

me

to

study

his

material

from

El Kum;

M. M.

Dunand

for

permitting

me to

study

material from

Byblos

,

showing

me

his

excavations

-

x

-

and

much

kind

hospitality;

Prof.

R.

Dyson

for

allowing

me

to

see

material

in

the

University

Museum

of

the

University

of

Pennsylvania;

Pe"re

H.

Fleisch

S.J.

for

giving

me

free

access

to

the

collections

in

the

Universite*

Saint-

Joseph,

Beirut and

for

much

valuable

information;

Dr.

D.H.

French

for access

to

the

collections

of

the

British

Institute

of

Archaeology

in

Ankara;

Dr.

J.B.

Hennessy

for

showing

me

his

material from

Teleilat

Ghassul

and

for

much

other

help

in

Jerusalem;

G.

Hillman

for

analysing

the

plant

remains

from

my

excava-

tion

at

Tell

Abu

Hureyra;

P£re

F.

Hours

S.J.

for

information

about

his

excavations

at

Jiita,

help

in

the

Universite"

Saint-Joseph, Beirut

and

many

valuable

discussions;

J.

Kaplan

for

allowing

me

to

study

material from

several

of

his

excavations;

L.H.

Keeley

for

examining

several

tools

from

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

for

traces

of

microwear;

Prof.

C.C.

Lamberg-Karlovsky

for

access

to

the

collections

of

the

Peabody

Museum,

Harvard

University;

A.J.

Legge

for

information

about

his

work

at

Nahal

Oren

and

for

examining

the

faunal

remains

from

Tell

Abu

Hureyra;

Prof.

A.E.

Marks

for

allowing

me to

study

material

from

his

excavations

at

Southern

Methodist

University,

Dallas;

Prof.

M.J.

Mellink

for

access

to

the

material

from

Tarsus

kept

at

Bryn

Mawr

College;

Mrs.

J.

Crowfoot

Payne

for

showing

me

the

chipped

stone tools

from

Jericho

and

for

many

helpful

discussions;

M.

J.

Perrot

and

his

assistants

for

showing

me

material

from

his

excavations;

Dr.

B.

Rothenberg

for

allowing

me

to

see

material

from

sites

he

has

discovered

in

Sinai;

Dr.

B.

Schroeder

for

showing

me

material

from

his

excavations

at

Nacharini

and

for

information

about

his

research;

G.

de

G.

Sieveking

and

C.

Bonsall

for

access

to

material

from

Nahal

Oren

and

other

sites

in

the

British

Museum;

the

late

Father

J.

Sira

9

S.J.

for

showing

me

material from

the

first

excavations

at

Teleilat

Ghassul

and

surface collections

from

other

sites

kept

in

the

Pontifical

Biblical

Institute,

Jerusalem;

the

late

Pere

R.

de

Vaux

O.P.

for

allowing

me

to

study

material

from

his

excavations

at

Tell

el

Far'ah

at

the

Ecole

Bibliqjue

Saint-

Etienne,

Jerusalem

and

for

valuable

discussions;

S.E.

Warren

of

Bradford

University

for

all

his

help

in

our

joint

project

of obsidian

analyses,

and

Professor

T.

Cuyler

Young

and

his

assistants

for

showing

me

material

in

the

Royal

Untarid

.Museum,

Toronto.

INTRODUCTION

Man

has

been

a

mobile

hunter-gatherer

for

most

of

his

existence.

This

pattern

was

first

modified

during

the

Neolithic

when

sedentary

societies

were

formed

whose

members

lived

in

permanent

villages

and

depended

upon

agriculture

for

their

livelihood.

These

momentous developments

were

the

most

significant

changes

in

man's

way

of

life

since

his

evolution

as

a

species.

They

were

also

an

essential

first

step

in

the

subsequent

evolution

of

civilization.

The

origins

and

development

of

this

new

social

and

economic

system

in

the

Levant

will be

the

subject

of

my

thesis.

The

Levant

was

one

of

the

regions

in

the

Near

East

where

these

changes

in

society

and

economy

began.

This

happened

well before

the

adoption

of

the

new

way

of

life

by

mobile

societies

in

Europe

and

Africa.

Thus

we

should

study

the

Neolithic

in

this

region

if

we

are

to

understand

how

the

new

pattern

of

existence

came

about

and

what

its

immediate

consequences

were.

The

Levant

is

a

distinct

geographical

region

defined

by

natural

frontiers

(Fig.

1).

To

the

north

the

Taurus

Mountains

lie

between

it

and

the

Anatolian

plateau

while

to

the

east

and

south-east

the

Syrian

desert

separates

it

from

Mesopotamia

and

Arabia.

Sinai

and

the Gulf

of Suez

form

the

boundary

between

the

Levant

and

Egypt.

These

geographical

limits

also

served

as

cultural

boundaries throughout

the

period

that

I

shall

consider.

They

reinforced

the

regional

nature

of

Levantine

culture

and

its

development.

Thus

the

Levant

formed

both

a

geographical

and

cultural

unit

throughout

the

Neolithic

and,

indeed,

for

some

time

before

which

makes

it

a

particularly

convenient

region

in

which

to

study the

emergence

of

the

new

way

of

life.

It

is

also

the

region

in

the

Near

East

which

has

been

most

intensively

explored

by

archaeologists

interested

in

Mesolithic

and

Neolithic

communities

so

that

we

may

consider

the

origins

and

development

of

the

first

agricultural

societies

in

greater

detail

here

than

anywhere

else.

'.ffr;\.o>;p-«;•!.••.

<;^*

>£?•

<^

„>£.£;.

,'5-»

--.*•.;*-••*

'

.

J

*

**.

y»

O*

.*

-.*

.

:-t«^

r

:---:

:

^^.vl-.'^^;^n--

•«••.•.•:>:..•.-.»*.•

>

.

.-

•>

...

-..x...

c^s

r

'.•••

r.y.

•

Fig.

1

The

Levant

scale

1

=

4,000,000

-

2

-

Agriculture

formed

the

"basis

of

the

new

way

of

life

so

the

evolution

of

this

economy

will

be

the

first

main

theme

of

my

thesis.

Agriculture

involves

the

controlled

exploitation

of

plants

and

animals,

the

planting

and

harvesting

of

crops

and

the

reproduction

and

regular

culling

of flocks

and

herds.

I

shall

consider

what

species

of plants

and

animals

were

selected

for

agriculture

by

man

in

the

Levant.

I

shall

also

attempt

to

describe

the

systems

of

farming

employed

and

how

these

species

were

exploited

within

them.

The

change

from

a

hunter-gatherer

to

a

farming

economy

brought

about

considerable

alterations

in

the

way

human

groups

were

organized.

At

the

beginning

they

were

widely

dispersed

across

the

landscape

rarely

remaining

in

one

place

for

more

than

a

few

weeks

at

a

time.

Towards

the end of

the

Neolithic

by

contrast

most people

were

concentrated

in

villages

where

they

spent

all

their

lives.

In

the

course

of this

fundamental

change

in

social

organization

relations

between

members

of

each

group

were

also

greatly

modified.

These

changes

in

social

structure

are

to

us

perhaps

the

most

important

of

all

the

consequences

of

the

Neolithic

since

they

concern

the

way

in

which

members

of our own

species

behave

towards

each

other.

Thus

the

changes

that

took place

in

social

structure

will

be

the

second

principal

theme

of

my

thesis.

We

believe

that

the

population

grew

during

and

after

the

period

of

transition

from

a

hunter-gatherer

to

an

agricultural

way

of

life

in

the

Levant.

This

increase

would

have

been

intimately

connected

with

the

change

in

economy

and

would

have

had

an

important influence

on

the

modifications

of

the social

structure.

A

consideration

of

the

question

of

population

growth

will

be

third

theme

of

my

thesis.

Such

fundamental

changes

in

economy,

social

structure

and

human

numbers

would

be

reflected

in

the

pattern

of

settlement.

The

distribution

of

sites

across

the

landscape

and

their

nature

would

depend upon

all

these

factors.

The

internal

arrangements

of

each

site

might

also

be

expected

to

reflect

the

social

organization

of

its

inhabitants

and

the

size of the

group

which

-

3

-

lived

on

it.

Changes

in

settlement

patterns

will

be

one

of

the

most

important

items

of

archaeological

evidence

that

I

shall

consider

and

in

themselves

will

form

the

fourth

major

theme of my

thesis.

The

transition

from

mobile

hunting

and

gathering

which

had

characterised

man's

existence

throughout

the

Palaeolithic

to

a

Neolithic

agricultural

society

living

in

permanent

villages

took

place

about

the

time

of the

change

from

Pleistocene

to

Holocene.

During

this

period

the

temperature

began

to

rise

world-wide,

the

glaciers

retreated

and

the

sea

level

rose.

This

coin-

cidence

is

important

for

it

may

indicate

that

the

two

phenomena

were

related,

that

the

environmental

changes

created

conditions

which

were

favourable

for

the

development

of

the

Neolithic

way

of

life.

It

will

therefore

be

necessary

to

examine

in

detail the

climate

and

environment

of

the

Levant

in

the

late

Pleistocene

and

to

see

how

these

were

modified

during

the

early

Holocene.

This

will

be

the

subject

of

Chapter

1.

In

subsequent

chapters

I

will

examine the

effects

of

the

environmental

changes

on

the

factors

which

form

the

main

themes

of the thesis.

Man

himself

was not

simply

affected

by

alterations

in

his

environment

but

contributed

to

these

changes

by

exerting

his

own

influence

on

his

surroundings.

During

the

Neolithic,

perhaps

for

the

first

time,

he

came

to

play

a

significant

role

in

determining

the

nature

of

his

environment.

I

shall

discuss

the

evidence

we

have

for

the

effects

of

man

on

his

surroundings

in

appropriate

sections

of

the

thesis.

The

origins

of

the

Neolithic

way

of

life

can

only

be

understood

if

we

know

how

the

people

of

the

Levant

lived

in

earlier

periods.

To

this

end

I

shall

consider

the

Mesolithic

of

the

Levant,

the

stage

preceding

the

Neolithic,

in

Chapter

2

of

the

thesis.

I

shall

examine

in

outline

the

settlement

pattern,

economy,

population

and

social

structure

of

Mesolithic

communities

in

the

Levant

since

these

concern

the

major

themes

of

the

thesis.

The

changes

in

economy,

social structure,

population

and

settlement

that

occurred

during

the

Neolithic

can

only

be

determined

by

a

thorough

enquiry

into

all

the

archaeological

evidence.

It

will

be

necessary

to

consider

most

of

the

known

sites

themselves

and

their

distribution

as

well

as

the

remains

that

have

"been

found

on

them

in

excavation,

survey

or

by

chance.

The

organic

remains

found

on

some

sites are

the

most

important

source

of

evidence

for

the

economy

"but

I

shall

also

consider other

material

that

has

a

bearing

upon

this

main

theme.

The

relative

dates

when

each change

occurred

provide

the

framework

within which

all the

other kinds

of

evidence

must be

ordered.

These

dates

depend

upon

the

chronology

of

the

evolution

of

the

Neolithic

derived

from

absolute

dating and

the

comparative

stratigraphy

of

sites

and

typology

of

artifacts.

I

shall

consider

these

topics

in

detail

at

appropriate

places

in

each

chapter.

The

enquiry

into

the

archaeological

evidence

will

form

the

bulk

of

the

thesis

from

Chapters

3

to

6.

It

will

be seen that

I

conclude

from

this

that

the

evolution

of

the

Neolithic

of the

Levant

falls

into

four

stages.

In

each

chapter

I

shall

first

present

the

archaeological

evidence

for

the

successive

stages.

I

shall

then

consider

changes

in

settlement

patterns,

economy,

social

structure

and

population

in

relation

to

this

evidence.

My

conclusions

on

how

the

Neolithic

began

and

subsequently

developed

will

be

presented

in

Chapter

7.

Much

of

the thesis

will

be

necessarily

devoted

to

establishing

through

a

detailed

description

of

the

archaeological

material

what

happened

in

the

Neolithic.

I

wish

to

take

the

enquiry

further

than

this

by

attempting

to

explain

why

the

changes

that

I

shall

present,

particularly

in

economy,

social

structure and

population,

took

place.

The

scope

of

the

discussion

will

be

broad

since

it

concerns

one

of

the

most

important

changes

that

has

taken

place

in

man's

way

of

life

as

it

occurred

in a

large

region

and

over

a

considerable

span

of time.

It

will

afford

an

opportunity

to

consider

one

of

the

problems

of

modern

archaeological

theory:

is

there

one

all-embracing

model

or

explanation

by

which

the

changes

I

shall

describe

may

be

understood?

Is

there

any

single

event

or

cause

to

which

all

that

followed

may be

attributed?

Were

there

several

factors

which

determined

the

course

of

events?

-

5

-

On

the

other

hand,

did the

Neolithic

of

the

Levant

come

a"bout

as

the

result

of some

haphazard

conjunction

of

circumstances?

Or

are

there

other

explana-

tions

for

this

fundamental

change

which

lie

between

the

two

extremes

of

these

theoretical

approaches?

-

6

-

Chapter

1

THE

ENVIRONMENT

OF

THE

LEVANT

IN

THE

LATE

PLEISTOCENE

AND

EARLY

HOLOCENE

The

environment

of

the

Levant

at

the

close

of

the

Pleistocene

and

early

in

the

Holocene

was

until

recently

poorly

understood.

It

had

long

"been

thought

that

changes

in

the

environment

at

the

end

of

the

Pleistocene

contributed

to

the

evolution

of

the

Neolithic

way

of life

but

the

influence

of

these

changes

could

not

be

properly

assessed.

Recent

studies

in

geo-

morphology, palynology

and

palaeozoology

have

produced new

evidence

on

which

to

base

an

outline

reconstruction

of

the

environment

in

the

late

Quaternary.

I

will

begin

this

chapter

by

discussing

certain

general

factors

which

affected

the

environment

of

the

whole

Levant.

I

will

then

consider

the

evidence

for

the

climate,

landscape

and

vegetation

of

each

region

of

the

Levant

and

how

they

were

modified,

first

in

the

late

Pleistocene

and

after

in

the

early

Holocene.

In

northern

latitudes

the

late

Pleistocene

is

marked

by

the

Wtlrm/

Wisconsin

glaciation.

The

Near

East

was

not

directly

affected

by

the

advance

of

the

European

ice

sheets

but

its

climate

was

significantly

altered

none-

theless.

An

indication

of

these

climatic

changes

has

been

obtained from

studies

of

the

fauna

and

sediments

in

several

deep-sea

cores.

Analyses

of

cores

drilled

in

the

Red

Sea

have

determined

that

the

climate

was

cooler

and

more

humid

there

during

the

period

of

the

last

glaciation

(Herman,

1968,

3^5)

.

Two

other

deep-sea

cores

have

been

drilled

in

late

Quaternary

deposits

in

the

eastern

Mediterranean,

one

between

Cyprus

and

Crete

(no.

189)

and

the

other

west

of

Crete

(V

10.67).

Oxygen

isotope

analysis

of

these

cores

has

shown

that

the

temperature

of

the

Mediterranean

fell

considerably

during

the

period

of the

last

glaciation

(Emiliani,

1955

9

90;

Vergnaud-Grazzini,

Herman-Rosenberg,

1969,

288}

and

studies

of

the

fauna

of

core

V

10.67

have

confirmed

this

conclusion

(Vergnaud-Grazzini,

Herman-Rosenberg,

1969,

2b3).

There

is

some

doubt

about

how

much

the

temperature

actually

decreased

at

this

-

7

-

time

but recent

work

suggests

that

the

estimate

of

Vergnaud-Grazzini

and

Herman-Rosehberg

of

a

fall

of

between

5°

and

10 C

is

the

more

reasonable

(Farrand,

1971, 53*0.

This drop

in

temperature

caused

increased

glacial

activity

in

the

mountainous

regions

of

the

Eastern

Mediterranean.

The

present

relict

glaciers

in

the

Taurus

expanded

considerably

and

it

is

estimated

that

the

snowline

lay

about 1000m

lower

than

today

(Messerli,

1967,

139),

that

is

at

about

2650m.

It

is

also

believed

that

there

were

glaciers

in

the

Mountains

of

Lebanon

and

on

Mount

Hermon

(Kaiser,

1961,

131ff;

Klaer,

1962,

97;

Messerli,

1966,

U6ff)

but

there

is

a

divergence

of

opinion

over

how

much

the

snowline

was

depressed

in

the

Levant.

Klaer

claims

that

the

permanent

snowline

today

would

lie

between

3200

and

3^00m

(1962,

97)

but

Messerli

estimates that

it

would

be

as

high

as

3700m

(1966,

61),

that

is

above

the

summits

of

the

highest

mountains

in

the

Lebanon.

Both

derive

their

different

estimates

from

studies

of

present

snowfall.

Klaer

and

Messerli

have

also

examined

the

evidence

for

glaciation

in

the

mountains

and almost

agree

on

the level

of

the

permanent

snowline

during

the

Wurm.

Klaer

thinks

that

it

lay

between

2750

and

2850m

and

so

fell

about

500m

(1962,

117);

Messerli

believes

that

the

snowline

was

at

about

2700m

(1966, 61),

a

much

greater

fall

of

about

1000m.

Messerli's estimate

of

a

depression

of

about

1000m

would

agree

better

with

the

evidence

from

the Taurus and

so

may

be

the

more

likely.

If

a

fall

in

the air

temperature

was

the

sole

cause

of

this

lowering

of

the

snowline

then

it

would

need

to

have

dropped

about

6

or

7 C

(Messerli,

1967

9

207;

Farrand,

1971,

550),

an

estimate

which

agrees

broadly

with

the

evidence

of

the

deep-sea

cores.

Studies of

the

sediments

of

some

cave

sites

in

the

Levant

have

shown

that

these

were

deposited

under

the

prevailing

cooler climate

of

the

last

glaciation.

This

is

most

apparent

at

the

inland

sites

of

Jerf

'Ajla

and

Yabrud

which

were

affected

by

continental

conditions.

Frost

weathering

could

be

detected

throughout

the

Mousterian

and

Upper

Palaeolithic

sequence

-

8

-

at

Jerf

'Ajla

(Goldberg,

1969,

750)

although there

were

some

fluctuations

reflecting

warmer

climatic

phases.

It

is

also

believed

that

the

top

five

metres

of

deposit

at

Yabrud

I,

which

includes

the

Mousterian

layers,

was

laid

down

under

cooler

conditions

(Farrand.,

1965^,

^1ff).

Although

winters

can

be

cold

in

these

areas

today

they

are

rarely

cool

and

moist

enough

to

cause

significant

frost

weathering.

Farrand

has

detected cryoturbation

in

the

Levallois-Mousterian

and

Upper

Palaeolithic

layers

at

Jebel Qafzeh

(1971,

553;

1972,

233)

near

Nazareth.

This

site

lies on

the edge

of

the

Galilee

hills

at

an

elevation

of

220m

(Bouchud,

197^,

87),

sufficiently

high

apparently

to

have

experienced

frost

weathering.

The

climate

at

coastal

sites

such

as

Tabun

was

also

some-

what

cooler

during

the

last

glaciation

(Jelinek

et_al.,

1973,

177)

"but

not

cold

enough,

apparently,

to

cause

significant

frost

weathering

(Farrand,

1971» 553).

The

evidence

from

the

caves

thus

supports that

from

other

sources,

indicating

that

during

the last

glaciation

the

temperature

in

the

Levant

fell

by

several

degrees.

The

advance

of

the

ice

sheets

absorbed

water

from

the

oceans

and

markedly

lowered

sea-levels.

During

the

later

Wurm

sea-levels

throughout

the

world

fell

by

perhaps

100

or

150m

(Fairbridge,

1961,

152;

Milliman,

Emery,

1968,

1123;

Butzer,

1972,

217)

which

considerably

altered

the

configuration

of

the

coastline

of

the

Levant.

Taking

the

more

modest

estimate

of

a

fall

of

100m,

the

shoreline

in

Palestine

would

have lain

15

km

further west

across

a

gradually

sloping

coastal

plain.

In

Lebanon

and

southern

Syria

the

coastal

plain

would

have

been

about

5

km

wider

than

now,

sloping

down to

the

sea

and

dissected

by

wadis.

North

of

Lattakia

it

would

have

been

only

2

km

wider

with

a

steep

slope.

The

displacement

of

the

coastline

has

important

implications

for

the

pattern

of

later

prehistoric

settlement

as

we

see

it

today.

All

Terminal

Palaeolithic

and

Mesolithic

sites

and

some

early

Neolithic

ones

now

situated

near

the

sea

would

have

lain

well

inland

at

the

time

they

were

inhabited.

-

9

-

This

includes

the

sites

in

the

coastal

dunes

and

around

Mount

Carmel

in

Palestine

as

veil

as

many

of

the

shelter

sites

in

Lebanon.

An

open

coastal

plain

would

have

lain

to

the

west

of

these

sites

so

their

environments

would

have

appeared

much

more

favourable

for

settlement

then than

they

do

now.

Almost

certainly

many

more

prehistoric

sites

were

situated

on

the

coastal

plain

which

are

now

drowned.

These

would

have

included

almost

all the

sites

whose

inhabitants

might

be expected

to

have

supported

themselves

partly

by

fishing.

Our

present

views about

the

economy

and

settlement

pattern

of

sites

on

the

seaward

side

of

the

coastal

hills

and

mountains

of

the

Levant

will

thus

be

distorted

if

we

fail

to

allow

for this

evidence

which

we have

lost.

Palaeotemperature

studies

of

deep-sea

cores

from

the

Atlantic, Caribbean

and

Pacific

indicate

that

the

temperature

gradually

began

to

rise

worldwide

between

20,000 and

15,000

B.P.

(Emiliani,

Shackleton,

197^,

figs.

3,

U).

After

15

9

000

B.P.

it

rose

sharply until

it

reached

a

maximum

about

5000

B.P.

The

palaeotemperature

curves

derived

from deep-sea

cores

mask

almost

all

the

minor

fluctuations

in

temperature

that

occurred

during

this

period

but

one

temporary

fall

in

temperature

about

10,000

B.P.

lasted

long

enough

to

be

detected

in

the

Caribbean

cores

(Emiliani,

1972,

fig.

3).

This

has

been

equated

with

the

Post-Allero'd

or

Younger

Dry

as

phase

of

cooler climate

in

northern

Europe

(Lamb,

Woodroffe,

1970,

Uo).

As

the

temperature

increased

so

the

glaciers

melted

and

the

level

of

the

oceans

around

the

world

began

to

rise;

this

process

had

certainly

begun

by

12,000

B.C.

(Milliman,

Emery,

1968,

1123)

and

perhaps earlier

before

1U,000

B.C.

(Farrand,

1965a,

396;

Shackleton,

Opdyke,

1973,

U6).

There-

after,

although

interrupted

by

several

short

stages

of

retreat

(Curray,

1961,

1?07ff;

Fairbridge,

1961,

15^ff)

the

level

of

the

oceans

rose

rapidly

until

about

5000 B.C.

and

then

more

slowly

until

it

reached

its

present

level

about

UOOO

(Fairbridge,

1961,

fig.

1U;

Shackleton,

Opdyke,

1973,

U6)

or

3000

B.C.

(Butzer,

1972, 530).

There

is

no

general

agreement

on

the

actual

levels

of

the

sea

worldwide

at

particular

times

during

this

period

although

-

10

-

one can

gain

some

idea

of

the

rapidity

of

the

transgression

by

comparing

estimates

based

on

evidence

from

the

continental

shelves.

Thus

by

10,000

B.C.

Fairbridge

estimates

that

the

sea

had

risen to

about

Uo

or

50m

below

its

present

level

(1961,

fig.

1U)

although

Milliman

and

Emery

believe

it

still

to

have been

much

lower

(1968,

figs.

1,2):

at

TOGO

B.C.

perhaps

15

(Fairbridge,

1961,

fig.

15)

or

as

much

as

50m

lower

(Milliman,

Emery,

1968,

figs.

1,2):

at

5000

B.C.

10

to

30m

below

present

levels.

The

most

recent

curve

of

glacio-eustatic

sea-level

fluctuations

during

the

Quaternary

is

that

published

by

Shackleton

and

Opdyke

(1973,

fig.

7).

This

was

derived from

oxygen

isotope

analysis

of

foraminifera

in

a

core,

Vema

28-238,

drilled

in

the

sea

bed

of

the

Pacific.

This

new

evidence

also

indicates

that

the

level

of

the

sea

rose

rapidly

once

the

ice

began

to

melt.

The

curve agrees

better

with

that

of

Fairbridge

than

of

Milliman

and

Emery;

Shackleton and

Opdyke

estimate that

at

10,000

B.C.

the

sea

would

have

been

about

30

to

UOm

below

the

present

level.

These estimates

may

not

correspond

exactly

with

the

Mediterranean

rise

in

sea-level

but

as

a

recent

study

has

shown

that

there was

little

tectonic

movement

along

the

Levant

coastline

during

this

period

(Sanlaville,

quoted

in

Copeland,

1975

9

318)

they

probably

give

a

rough

indication

of

the

rate

of

change.

They

suggest

that

the

coastal

plain

was

sufficiently

open

to

facilitate

communications

along

the

Levant

coast

until

about

7000

or

even

as

late

as

5000

B.C.,

that

is

during

the

later

Neolithic.

Thereafter,

although

the

level

of

the

sea

rose

further

and there

were

additional

minor

fluctuations

(Sanlaville,

1969,

290),

this

had

no

significant

effect

on

the

pattern

of

settlement.

Movement

along the

coast

became

more

difficult,

particularly

at

the

foot

of

the

Mountains

of

Lebanon

between

Beirut and

Tripoli.

Studies

of

shorelines,

sediments

and

pollen

samples

have

shown

that

there

were

several

marked

oscillations

in

climate

during

the

period

of

the

last

glaciation

and

after.

Unfortunately

these

oscillations

are

not

well

dated

and

it

is

difficult

anyway

to

correlate

the

evidence

from

these

different

-

11

-

sources.

Thus

there

is

no

general

agreement

on

the

pattern

of

climatic

change

in

the

Levant during

the

late

Pleistocene

and Holocene.

Some

authorities

believe

they

can

detect

a

detailed

sequence

of

climatic

fluctua-

tions

which

matches

the

well-documented

record

of

northern

Europe

(Horowitz,

1971,

27Uff)

while

others

think

that

the

evidence

is

insufficiently

detailed

for

such

a

precise evaluation

(Farrand,

1971,

559;

Butzer,

1975,

389,

kok).

Nevertheless,

there

is

now

enough

evidence

from

a

variety

of

sources

to

attempt

a

reconstruction

of

the

environment

at

the

close

of

the

Pleistocene

and

in

the

early

Holocene,

even if

the

absolute

chronology

is

still

uncertain,

Late

Pleistocene

During

much

of

the

period

of

the

last

glaciation

the

inland

"basins

of

Palestine

and

TransJordan

were

filled

with

"pluvial"

lakes.

The

largest

of

these

was

the

Lisan

lake

which

flooded

much

of

the

Rift

valley

at

present

occupied

by

the

Sea

of

Galilee,

the

River

Jordan

and

the

Dead

Sea.

This

lake

came

into

existence

after

about

70,000

B.P.

and

was

maintained

at

its

highest

level

from

about

50,000

to

20,000

B.P.

during

the

"Lisan"

Stage

(Neev,

Emery,

1967,

26,

fig.

16).

It

was

then

about

220

km

long

although

no

more

than

17

km

wide

and

its

surface

was

at

about

180m

below

mean

sea

level,

some

200m

above

the

present

surface

of

the

Dead

Sea

(Neev,

Emery,

1967,

25).

It

is

believed

that

the

Lisan

lake

was

created

during

a

period

of

increased

precipitation,

or

at

least

at

a

time

when

there

was

more

run-off

of

surface

water

and

less

evaporation

in the

Rift

valley

(Neev,

Emery,

1967,

26).

The

ecological

equilibrium

in

this

region

is

easily

disturbed

so

even

small

changes

in

climate

can

have

a

great

effect

on

the

environment.

It

has

been

calculated

that

a

rainfall

increase

of

as

little

as

200m

in

the

Rift

valley

catchment

would

be

sufficient

to

create

the

Lisan

lake

(Ben-

Arieh,

196U,

k6}

without

any

change

in

other

variables.

We

know

from

other

evidence

that

the

temperature

fell

by

at

least

5°C

during

the

last

glaciation

-

12

-

which,

as

Butzer

has

pointed

out

(1975,

393)

would

have

increased

effective

precipitation

by

reducing

evaporation.

It

may

be

that

there

was

little

more actual

rainfall

but

combined

with

the

drop

in

temperature

this

was

enough

to

fill

the

Lisan

basin.

Although

the

lake

was

so

large

it

was

always

too

salty

for

fish

and

molluscs

to

live

in

it

(Neev,

Emery,

196?

9

8"0

and

thus

useless

to

man

as

a

source

of

food.

Because

of

its

length

it

would

also

have

hindered

rapid

communication

between

the

Judean

uplands

and

TransJordan.

During

the

last

glaciation

another

very

large

lake

existed

in

the

Jafr

basin

to

the

east

of

Maan

(Huckriede,

Wiesemann,

1968,

79)

and

smaller

ones

in

the

Azrak

depression

and

perhaps

elsewhere

in

TransJordan.

The

Jafr

lake

was

between

1000

and

1800

sq

km

in

area

(Huckriede,

Wiesemann,

1968,

78).

It

was

a

freshwater

lake

and

its

sediments

were

rich

in

molluscs. An

upper

layer

of

the

lake deposits

has

been

dated

to

27,700

±

870

B.P.

Hv-1719

(Huckriede,

Wiesemann,

1968,

81).

Further

north

the

Damascus

basin

was

also

flooded

during

the

Wtirm

and

there

was

a

small

lake

in

the

Barada

gorge

(Kaiser

et

al.,

1973,

279,

299).

Large

bodies

of

freshwater

such

as

the

Jafr

and

Damascus

basin

lakes

would

have

created

highly

favourable environments

for man.

They

contained

an

abundance

of

fish

and

molluscs

while their marshy

shores

would

have

attracted

wildfowl

and

game.

Their

surface area was

sufficiently

great

for

evaporation

to

create

greater

humidity

in

the region

than

now.

This

would

have

made

more

moisture

available

for

plants

through

both

increased

precipitation

and

dew.

About

18,000

B.C.

the

Lisan

lake

shrank

until

its

surface

lay

at

about

37m

below

mean

sea level

(Neev,

Emery,

1967,

26);

this

happened

very

quickly,

perhaps

within

a

millennium.

The

water

level

of

the

lake

dropped

so

much

during

this

"Dead

Sea"

Stage

that

the

Lisan

split

into

four

relict

lakes:

the

Sea

of

Galilee,

a

lake

at

Beth-Shan

and

two

lakes

in

the

Dead

Sea

basin.

It

is

believed

that this

rapid

transformation

was

partly

caused

by

tectonic

-

13

-

subsidence

but

either

a

decrease

in

precipitation

or

increase

in

evaporation

or

a

combination

of

the

two

must

also

have

taken

place.

The

water

level

remained

low

for

several

millennia

but

then

rose

again,

apparently

because

of

an

increase

in

available

moisture.

This

phase

of

higher

water

level

is

dated

by

a

single

14

C

date

of

7900

+

150

B.C.

(Neev,

Emery,

1967,

28).

The

Jafr

lake

gradually

dried

up

sometime

after

26,000

B.C.

(Huckriede,

Wiesemann,

1968,

80,

82),

a

process

that

is

probably

associated

with

the

demise

of

the

Lisan

lake.

There

followed

a

very

arid

stage

of

uncertain

length.

This

was

succeeded

by

a

phase

of

more

effective

precipitation

during

which

mudflats

were

formed

in

the

Jafr

basin

(Huckriede,

Wiesemann,

1968,

82ff).

The

sequence

in

the

Jafr

basin

matches

that

in

the

Rift

valley

so,

although

the

mudflat

phase

is

not

accurately

dated,

it

can

probably

be

correlated

with

the

phase

of

Dead

Sea

higher

water

level

about

8000

B.C.

More

arid

conditions

during

the

late

glacial

also

caused

the

Damascus

basin

lake

to

diminish

in

area.

This

happened

some

time

after

20,000

B.C.

and

the

end

of

the

regression

phase

itself

has

a

single

llf

C

determination

of

17,OUO

±

520

B.C.

Hv-Wfl

(Kaiser

et

al.

,

1973,279ff,

3^8ff).

There

was

considerable

aeolian

erosion

during

this

phase,

as

in

the

Jafr

basin.

Recent

work

in

Nubia

indicates

that

the

climatic

pattern

in

Egypt

was

closely

conditions

in

the

southern

Levant

during

the

Wurm.

The

climate

there

was

semi-arid

but

cooler

for

much

of

this

period

with

more

available

moisture

than

today

(Butzer,

1975,

397,

^-OU).

The

principal

phase

of

increased

moisture

took

place

during

the

earlier

Wtirm

between

50,000

and

25,000

B.P.

when

substantial

beds

of

gravels

and

silts

were

laid

down

by

the

increased

discharge of

the

Nile

and

its

tributaries

(Butzer,

1975,

395ff)«

This

phase

was

contemporary

with

the

Lisan

Stage

in

the

Jordan

basin.

Thereafter

an

arid

phase

ensued,

as

in

the

southern

Levant,

which

lasted

until

about

15,000

B.C.

This

was

followed

by

two

moister

phases

extending

well

into

the

Holocene.

The

first

continued

until

about

10,000

B.C.

and

is

associated

with

the

deposition

of

the

Darau

member

of

the

Jebel

Silsila

Formation

(Butzer,

1975,

396).

The

second

lasted from

about

9200

until

6000

B.C.

during

which period

the

Arminna

member

was

formed.

These

phases

coincided

with

the

high

level

of

the

Dead

Sea

that

occurred

in

the

Levant

at

the

time

of

the

transition

from

Pleistocene

to

Holocene.

The

coincidence

is

not

exact

as

on

present

evidence

the two

Egyptian

phases

spanned

a

longer

period

than

the

Levantine

phase.

After

6000

B.C.

the

Egyptian

climate

became

arid

and,

apart

from

another

moist interval

in

the

Uth

millennium,

it

has

remained

so

until

today.

The

principal

source

of

information

about

the

vegetation

during

this

period

comes

from

palynological

studies

of

cores

drilled

in

lacustrine

and

riverine

sediments.

These

studies

are

also

an

important

additional

source

of

information

about

climatic

conditions,

even if

the

data

are

open

to

conflicting interpretations.

A

deep

core,

K-Jam,

has

been

drilled

in

the

bed

of

Lake

Huleh

into

sediments

which

are

believed

to

date

from

the

present

back

to

the

Riss-Wurm

interglacial

(Horowitz,

1971»

266).

A

pollen

sequence

has

been

prepared

from

this

core

which

shows

fluctuations

in

vegetation

that

reflect

the

same

climatic

changes

as

the

"pluvial" lake

sediments.

Samples

taken

from

a

depth

of

between

50

and

35m

had

relatively

high

values

of

arboreal

pollen

(Horowitz,

1971»

267),

principally

tabor

oak

(Quercus

ithaburensis)

,

indicating

that

the

Galilee hills to the

west

were

clothed

with

deciduous

oak

forest.

Gramineae

and

Cyperaceae

were

poorly

represented

because

Lake

Huleh

was

more

extensive

then

but

there

was

abundant

open

field

vegetation around

the

lake.

This

phase

apparently

can

be

equated

with

the

Lisan

Stage

when

there was

more available

moisture

than

today.

The

vegetation

changed

during

the

from

35

to

25m

in

the

core.

The

total

percentage

of

arboreal

pollen

decreased,

reflecting

principally

a

sharp

decrease

in

oak,

but

the

values

of

olive

(Plea

europaea),

pistachio

(Pistacia

sp.),

Aleppo

pine

(Pinus

halepensis)

and

cypress

(Cupressus

sp.)

pollen

slightly

increased

(Horowitz,

1971»

267).

As

these

are

all

-

15

-

Mediterranean

species

it

appears that

the

former

oak

forest

in

the

hills

was

replaced

by

open

maquis

vegetation.

Both

Gramineae

and

Artemisia

pollen

increased;

these

and

other

vegetational

changes

suggest

that

Lake

Huleh

diminished

in

size.

Horowitz

attributes

these

developments

to

the

onset

of

a

-warmer,

humid

climate

(19T1»

267),

a

conclusion

which

his

evidence

appears

to

contradict.

The

replacement

of

oak

forest

by

maquis

and

the

shrinking

of Lake

Huleh

suggest,

rather,

that

there

-was

less

available

moisture

then.

A

sample

from

the

30m level

has

been

dated

by

11

*C

to

16,850

+

195

B.C.

Hv-1725

(Horowitz,

1971

9

26U) so

this

phase

appears

to

be

contemporary

with the

contraction

of

the

"pluvial"

lakes.

We

know

from

the

evidence

of

the

deep-sea

cores

that

the

temperature

was

near

its

glacial

minimum

at

this

date,

another

fact

which

conflicts

with

Horowitz's

inter-

pretation.

The

phase

above,

from

25

to

18m

in

the

core,

was

marked

by

a

rise

in

arboreal

pollen,

mostly

from

oak:

the

percentage

of

Mediterranean

tree

pollen

diminished

(Horowitz,

1971,

diagram

p.

260).

Pollen

of

open

field

species

increased

with

the

oak

but

pollen

of

marsh

plants

declined

as

the

lake

expanded.

Horowitz

believes

that these

changes

were

caused

by

cooler,

moister

conditions

(1971»

267)

but

this

is

partly

contradicted

by

other

evidence

which

suggests

that

the

postglacial

rise

in

temperature

had

already

begun.

This

phase

in

the

pollen

core

corresponds

to

the

rise

in

level

of

the

Dead

Sea

in

the

lower

Jordan

valley.

The

pollen

evidence

suggests

that

northern

Sinai

carried

a

denser

vegetation

during

the

Wurm

than

today

(Horowitz,

1975,

221)

with

scrub

cover

at

least

and

even some

trees

in

the

Negev

highlands.

There

were

some

varia-

tions

in

the

pollen

record,

reflecting

fluctuations

in

the

climate

during

the

¥urm.

One

phase

of

somewhat

richer

vegetation

in

the

Negev

during

the

Natufian

can

be

detected

from

pollen

analysis

of

samples

from

the

site

of

Rosh

Zin

(Henry,

1973a,

U7).

Much of

the

pollen

was

from

Chenopodiaceae

but

there

was

a

little

arboreal

pollen

from

evergreen

oak

(Quercus

calliprinos)

-

16

-

and

olive,

species

that

could

not

survive

in

the

area

today.

Pollen

analysis

of

samples

from

stations

on

the

seaward

side

of

the

Mountains

of

Lebanon

has

also

shown

that

the

vegetation

there

varied

during

the

Wurm

under

the

influence

of

a

changing

climate

(Leroi-Gourhan,

1973,

kh).

The

Nahr

Ibrahim

samples

indicate

that

at

one

stage

during

the

earlier

Wurm

the

slopes

of

the

mountains

were

covered

with

forest

almost

down

to

present

sea-level.

The

forest

was

composed

partly

of

deciduous

species

such

as

lime

and

hazel

with

cedar,

pine

and

ivy

also

present.

Conditions

needed

to

be

both

cooler

and

moister

then

than

now

for

these

deciduous

species

to

flourish

and,

as

we

have

seen,

there

is

supporting

evidence

for

such

a

climatic

change from

other

sources.

Very

few

late

Wurm

pollen

samples

have

been

analysed

from

Lebanon

but

there

are

some

indications

that

the

vegetation

thinned

out

in

response

to

a

decrease

in

available

moisture

(Leroi-Gourhan,

1973,

^6).

Then

almost

at

the

end

of

the

Wurm,

perhaps

about

12,000

or

11,000

B.C.,

tree

pollen

increased

during

a

moister

interlude.

This

phase

may

be

correlated

with

a

similar

fluctuation

in

Palestine

about

this

time.

Pollen

analysis

of

a

core

from

Sahl

Aadra

north-east

of

Damascus

gives

further

support

to

this

pattern

of

vegetation

change

in

Palestine

and

Lebanon.

The

core

was

drilled

through

sediments

at

the

edge

of

the

Damascus

basin

"pluvial"

lake

and

it

spans

the

later

Wurm

after

perhaps

22,000

B.C.

Zones

1

and

2

at

the

bottom

of

the

core,

dated

by

two

determinations

of

21,555

±

p?£o

B.C.

Hv-M*68

and

20,060

±

350

B.C.

Hv-UU69,

had

high

herbaceous

and

Gramineae

pollen

values

with

some

Chenopodiaceae

and

a

maximum

of

1U$

arboreal

pollen

(Kaiser

et

al.,

1973,

fig.

5).

The

latter

was

principally

composed

of

cedar

and

pine

with

a

little

oak,

walnut

and

some

olive.

There

were

traces

of

silver

lime

(Tilia

tomentosa),

hornbeam

(Carpinus

orientalis/

Ostrya)

and

wing

nut

(Pterocarya)

which

are

not

found

so

far

south

today

(Kaiser

et

al.,

1973,

305ff)

because

they

cannot

tolerate

such

a

warm,

dry

climate.

The

arboreal

species

would

have

occupied

the

hills

around

the

-

17

-

Damascus

basin

and

the

Anti-Lebanon

Mountains

to

the

west.

The

profile

suggests

that

the

climate

during

this

phase

was cooler

than

today

with

more

available

moisture.

After

a

high

water

phase

in

zone

3

the

lake

retreated

in

zone

h

as

the

climate grew more

arid;

arboreal

pollen

fell to

less

than

8%

and

herbaceous

species

9

Gramineae

and

Chenopodiaceae

dominated

the

profile

(Kaiser

et

al.,

1973,

306).

Cedar

and

pine

pollen

decreased

sharply

although

oak

and

walnut

were

still

present

in

small

numbers.

Another

significant

change

in

the

vegetation pattern

took

place

in

zone

5

(Kaiser

et

al.

,

1973,

307ff,

fig.

5).

Gramineae

dominated

the

profile

at

first

but

silver

lime was

present

once

more.

Then

the

arboreal

pollen,

consisting

mostly

of

cedar,

increased

to

over

35%.

Marsh

plants

were

once

more very

abundant

which

suggests

that

the

Damascus

basin

lake

expanded

during

this

phase.

Conditions

were now

moister

than

before.

The

full

development

of

this

stage

took

place

sometime

after

17,000

B.C.

Central

and

northern

Syria

appear

to

have

experienced

a

climate and

vegetation

different

from

the

rest

of

the

Levant

during

the

Wurm.

There

is

no

clear

evidence

that

substantial

bodies

of

water

like

the

Lisan

and

Jafr

lakes

formed

in

the

inland

drainage

basins

north

of

Damascus

(van

Liere,

1960-61,

10)

which

at

once

suggests

that

there

was

little

more

available

moisture

in

the

region

than

now,

despite

the

lower temperature.

This

view

is

supported

by

the

pollen

evidence

from

a

core

drilled

in

the

Ghab

section

of

the

Orontes

valley

15

km

south

of

Jisr

esh-Shaghur.

The

core

spans

much

of

the

period

of

the

last

glaciation

and

the

earlier

Holocene.

Throughout

this

time

the

Ghab

contained

a

lake

surrounded

by

marshes

which

survived

well

into

the

Holocene

(Niklewski,

van

Zeist,

1970,

751).

This lake

was

created

by

tectonic movement

in

the

Orontes

valley

and

its

continuance

was

determined

more

by

the

local

geology

than

by

climatic

conditions.

The

pollen

which

collected

in

the

lake

records

the

past

vegetation

of

Jebel

Alawiye

(Ansariye)

to

the

west

and

Jebel

Zawiye

to

the

east

as

well

as

the

-

18

-

The

samples

from

the

earliest

section

of

the

core,

zones

S,

T

and

U,

indicate

a

spread

of

forest

cover

on

"both

Je"bel

Alawiye

and

Jebel

Zawiye

which

reached

a

peak

in

sub-zone

T1

(Niklewski,

van

Zeist,

1970,

7^7).

The

climate

would

have

been

cooler

than

at

present

throughout

this

period

and

with

much

the

same

amount

of

available

moisture

as

today

in

zones

T

and

U,

although

drier

in

zone

S.

The

core

is

dated

by

three

lif

C

deter

minations

only;

extrapolation

from

these

indicates

that

this

earliest

section

may

date

from

before

U5,000

B.P.

(Niklewski,

van

Zeist,

1970,

751ff,

table

2).

Thereafter

towards

the

end

of

the

glaciation

from

zone

V

through

to

Y

the

forest

decreased,

giving

way

to

steppe.

The

loss

of

tree

cover

was

most

extreme

in

sub-zone

Y5

when

the

only

forest

left

was

on

the

seaward

side

of

Jebel

Alawiye;

Jebel

Zawiye

was

steppic

as

it

had been

continuously

since

zone

V

(Niklewski,

van

Zeist,

1970,

750,

fig.

k)

.

There

were

varia

tions

in

vegetation

during

this

long

period

as

the

climate

fluctuated

but

for

most

of

the

time

it

was

drier

and

often

cooler

than

now.

Only

towards

the

end

of

this

long

dry

period

does

there

seem

to

be

a

close

correlation

with

the

southern

Levant

where,

in

response

to

drier

conditions

after

perhaps

18,000

B.C.,

the

Lisan

and

Jafr

lakes

shrank,

The

vegetation

in

the

Ghab

region

changed

markedly

in

zone

Z

(Niklewski,

van

Zeist,

1970,

750ff).

In

response

to

an

increase

in

both

temperature

and

available

moisture

the

forest

expanded

over

the

whole

of

Jebel

Alawiye

and

clothed

Jebel

Zawiye

with

light

tree

cover.

It

is

suggested

that

the

moisture

increased

briefly

beyond

present

day

levels

allowing

the

vegetation

to

reach

a

slightly

richer

climax

than

today

in

sub-zone

Z2.

The

vegetation

changes

recorded

in

zone

Z

can

probably

be

changes

in

vegetation

and

lake

levels

that

took

place

in

Lebanon

and

Palestine

at

the

end

of

the

¥urm.

It

is

not

possible

to

date

zone

Z

exactly

but

Niklewski

and

van

Zeist

suggest

on

the

evidence

of

the

latest

of

the

Ghab

llf

C

dates

that

it

may

have

begun

about

9^-00

B.C.

although

they

admit

a

possible

margin

of

error

of

-

19

-

several

thousand

years

(1970,

752);

on

their

evidence

it

is

more likely

that

zone

Z

began

earlier

rather

than

later.

This

would

permit

a

closer

correlation

with

changes

elsewhere

in

the

Levant,

even

though

these

are

admittedly

almost

equally

uncertainly

dated.

Seeds

preserved

in

the

Mesolithic

deposits

at

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

throw

light

on

the

environment

further

east

at

this

time

(Hillman,

1975,

TOff).

The

vegetation

was

steppic

"but

quite

rich

in

species

compared

with

the

present.

It

is

possible

that

some

trees

such

as

hackberry

and

turpentine

were

also

growing

in

the

area;

if

so

the

rainfall

must

have

been

slightly

higher

then.

Such

an

environment

would

be

quite

similar

to

that

of

today

if

man

had

not

disturbed

the

vegetation.

An

intermediate

zone

of

open

forest

would

have

lain

between

the

forested

coastal

mountains

and

the

park-like

steppe

around

Abu

Hureyra.

The

pollen

record

of

the

Ghab core

is

almost the

only

detailed

evidence

we have

for

vegetation

and

climatic

change

in

northern

Syria

during the

later

WUrm

but

the

pattern

it

reveals

is

supported

by

other

pollen

cores

from

Greece

and

the

Iranian

Zagros.

Wijmstra

has

made

a

detailed

study

of

the

upper

section

of

a

deep

core

drilled

at

Tenaghi

Philippon

in

Macedonia.

Zones

V,

P

and X of

this

core

were

characterised

by

high

counts

of

Artemisia

and Chenopodiaceae and

low

values

for

arboreal

pollen

(Wijmstra,

19&9,

525)

These

zones

cover

much

of

the

period

of

the

last

glaciation

from

about

50,000

B.P.

to

1U,600

B.P.

(Wijmstra,

1969,

523,

527,

fig.

2).

Wijmstra

suggests

that

the

climate

was

both

cooler and drier

then

than

now

(1969,

526)

which

accords

with

the

evidence

of

the

Ghab

core

from

Syria.

The

proportion

of

arboreal

pollen

increased

through

zone

Y

reaching

modern

levels

about

8000

B.C.

The

Tenaghi

Philippon

data

are

supported

by

another

pollen

core

from

loannina

in

Epirus.

Although

this

was

drilled

at a

higher

elevation

than

the

Tenaghi

Philippon

core

it

nevertheless

shows

the

same

vegetational

and

climatic

trends. Zones

IIC

and

III

were

characterised

by

high

values

-

20 -

of

herbaceous

pollen

and

low

arboreal

pollen caused

by

cool,

dry

conditions

(Bottema,

196?

9

28).

These

zones

cover

the

period

from

approximately

UO,000

to

before

10,000

B.P.

At the

beginning

of

zone

IV

Artemisia

pollen

decreased

and oak

pollen

increased

as

the

forest

expanded

into

a

previously

steppic

area,

a

phase

which

corresponds

to

zone

Y

at

Tenaghi

Philippon.

Several

cores

have

been

drilled

in

late

Quaternary

deposits

in

the

floors

of

valleys

in

the

Zagros

Mountains.

From

pollen

analysis of

these

cores

it

is

possible

to

reconstruct

the

pattern

of

vegetation

in

the

region

from

the

late

Pleistocene

into

the

Holocene.

In zone

A1

of

the

63-J

core

from

Lake

Zeribar

there

were

very

high

proportions

of

Chenopodiaceae

and

Artemisia

but

almost

no

arboreal

pollen

(van

Zeist,

196T

9

fig.

3).

This

zone

is

dated

to

between

20,000

and

12,000

B.C.

and

it

is

suggested

that

the

climate

then

was

cooler

and drier

than

today.

Analysis

of

two

other

cores

from

Lalabad

springs

and

Lake

Nilofar

in

the

Kermanshah

valley

shows

that

similar

conditions

prevailed

further

to the

south-east

(van

Zeist,

196T

9

309).

Chenopodiaceae

and

Artemisia

values

remained high

in

zones

A2

and

B

of

the

Zeribar

core

but

plantain

(Plantago)

pollen

now

formed

10$

of

the

diagram

and

arboreal

pollen,

mostly

oak,

became

significant

for

the

first

time.

Van

Zeist

suggests

that

this

indicates

the

spread

of

savanna

vegetation,

caused

by

an

increase

in

both temperature

and

precipitation

(1967

9

310).

A

gradual

expansion

of

trees

continued

until

about

UOOO

B.C.;

the

percentage

of

arboreal pollen then

rose

rapidly

as

an

oak

forest

developed

in

response

to

an

increase

in

available

moisture.

This

pattern

of

vegetation

change

is

supported

by

the

results

from

another

core

drilled

at

a

lower

elevation

at

Lake

Mirabad

in

the

Saidmarreh

valley.

The

change

from

a

late

Pleistocene

vegetation

formed

under

arid

conditions

to

a

savanna

and

then

later

an

oak

forest

as

temperature

and

available

moisture

increased

matches

both

the

Ghab

core

and

those

from

northern

Greece.

-

21

-

Summary

It

will

"be

helpful

now

to

summarise

the

evidence

discussed

above

in

order

to

present

an

outline

of

the

environment

of the

Levant

in

the

late

Pleistocene.

We

have

established

that

during

the

last

glaciation

the

level

of

the

sea

on

the

Levant

coast

dropped

considerably.

The

temperature

fell

between

5

and

10 C

9

the

most

likely

estimate

being

about

6

or

7

C.

This

led to

a

lowering

of

the

snowline

and

below

that

the

treeline

and

altitudinal

vegetation

belts.

The

fall

in

temperature

increased

the

effectiveness

of

precipitation

which

in

its

turn

led

to

marked

alterations

in

vegetation

and

lake

levels;

it

does

not

appear,

however,

that

there was

much

if

any

absolute

increase

in

rainfall

at

this time.

This,

together

with

the

unequivocal

evidence

for

an

arid

phase

in

the

Levant

towards

the

end

of

the

Wtirm

glacia-

tion,

contradicts

the

view

expressed

by

some

authorities

(Horowitz,

1975>207;

Begin

et

al.,

197^-

9

28)

that

there

was

a

distinct

"pluvial"

phase

in

the

Near

East

corresponding

to the

WUrm/Wisconsin

glaciation

in

northern

latitudes.

For

much

of

the

last

glaciation

there

were

large

lakes

in

the

inland

basins

in

the

central

and

southern

Levant

because

there

was

more

available

moisture

in

these

regions

than

today.

Moister

conditions

also

prevailed

in

Egypt during

this

period.

Apart

from

a

lake

in

the

Ghab

section

of

the

Rift

valley

there

do

not

seem

to

have

been

any

large

open

bodies

of

water

in

Syria

so

there

was

not

as

much

available

moisture

there

as

in

the

rest

of

the

Levant.

Early

in

the

Wtirm

glaciation

the

vegetation

was

denser than

it

would

be

today

without

human

interference.

Tree

cover

extended

throughout

the

upland

zone

behind

the

Levant

coast.

The

slopes

of

the

Lebanon

Mountains

and

the

lower

Anti-Lebanon

were

clothed

with

mixed

deciduous

and

coniferous

forest.

There

was

oak forest

in

Galilee

and

probably

Judea

while

trees

were

found

as

far

south

as

Sinai.

Even

the

Jebels

Alawiye

and

Zawiye

carried more

forest

than

would

be

possible

today.

In

northern

Syria

the

forest

thinned

out

in

response

to

increased

aridity

and was

largely replaced

by

steppe

well

before

the

middle

of

the

-

22

-

Wurm;

open

forest

and

steppe

were

also

characteristic

of

Macedonia

for

much

of

the

last

glaciation.

The

tree

cover

remained

fairly

dense

in

Lebanon

and

Palestine,

however,

until

much

later.

A

marked

change

in

the

climate

and

environment

of

the

Levant

took

place

quite late

in

the

WUrm.

The Lisan,

Jafr

and

Damascus

basin

lakes

all

shrank.

The

inception

of

this

phase

is

approximately

dated

by

14

C

determinations

of

lake sediments.

These

dates

would

suggest that

the

regression

phase

of

these

lakes

began

at

approximately

the

same

time

about

20,000

to

18,000

B.C.

The

vegetation

also

changed

about

this

time.

The

trees

thinned

out

in

the

uplands

and

mountains

and

the

steppe

greatly

expanded.

In

Galilee

the

oak

forest

was

replaced

by

maquis.

Although

the

Lebanon

Mountains

continued

to

be

forested

the

tree

cover

was

much

reduced;

in

the

Anti-Lebanon

and

around

Damascus

very

few

trees

were

to

be

found

at all.

The

replacement

of

forest

1y

steppe

which

had

begun

some

time

before

in

northern

Syria

went

still

further

until

only part

of

the

Jebel Alawiye

carried

any

tree

cover.

The

whole

Syrian

plateau

would

have

been

intensely

steppic

and

this zone

would

have

extended

as

far

south

as

TransJordan.

Similar

steppic

conditions

characterised

the

Zagros

at

this time

while

steppe

and

open

forest

still

constituted

the

vegetation

in

northern

Greece.

Although

there

is

disagreement among

palynologists

about

the

causes of

these

vegetation

changes,

there

seems

little

doubt

that

a

reduction

in

the

available

moisture

was

responsible

for

the

drop

in

lake

level,

the

expansion

of steppe

and

the

reduction

in

tree

cover.

This

stage

coincided

with

the

second

severe

cold

phase

of

the

Wurm

in

northern

Europe

(Butzer,

1972,

27^-)

and

the

temperature

in

the

Levant

would

have

been

at

its

lowest

during

this

period.

The

climate

was,

therefore,

arid

and

relatively

cool.

Towards

the

end

of

the

last

glaciation

there

was

another

change

in

environmental

conditions

throughout

the

Levant.

The

inland

basin

lakes

expanded

again

though

they

did

not

reach

their earlier

Wurm

high

levels.

The

steppe

retreated

and

there

was

an

expansion

of

forest

cover.

Oak

forest

-

23

-

partly

replaced

maquis

in

northern

Palestine

while

scattered

evergreen

oak

and

olives

grew

in

the Negev.

The

forests

became

much

denser

in

the

Lebanon

Mountains

and

woodland

with both

cedar

and

deciduous species

spread

quite

widely

in

the

Anti-Lebanon.

In

northern

Syria

the

forest

expanded

greatly

over

both

the

coastal

mountains

and

the

Jebel

Zawiye.

It

was

a

mixed

forest

of

oak,

pistachio,

olive

and

hornbeam

with

some

cedar

(Niklewski,

van

Zeist,

1970,

7U6).

During

this

period

the

vegetation

of

the

Levant

reached

a

particularly

rich

climax

(Fig.

2).

As

today

there

were

three

vegetation

zones

from

the

well-watered

coast

to

the

arid

interior.

In

the

coastal

mountains and

on

the

edge

of

the

plateau

to

the

east

was

a

Mediterranean

forest

zone.

Today

species

such

as

pine

(Pinus

brutia

and

Pinus

halepensis)

9

pistachio

(Pistacia

lentiscus),

both

deciduous

and

evergreen

oak,

oriental

plane

(Platanus

orientalis)

and

juniper

are

characteristic

of this

zone

(Zohary,

1962,

UU)

but

then

it

included

several

species

typical

of

cooler

conditions.

This

zone

extended

much

further

east

and

south

than

now.

Beyond

the

Mediterranean

foresl

lay

the

steppe

zone

(irano-Turanian)

with

a

rainfall

of

between

300

and

150mm

(Zohary,

1970).

Today

this

zone

is

composed

principally

of

herbs

and

dwarf

shrubs

such

as

Ephedra,

Noea,

Haloxylon

and

Artemisia

herba-alba

but

also

pistachio

(Pistacia

atlantica)

and

jujube

(Zohary,

1962,

U7);

the

plant

remains

from

the

Mesolithic

settlement

at

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

suggest

that

this

zone

was

richer

in

species

then.

An

intermediate

belt

of

open

woodland

would

have

.lain

between

the

Mediterranean

and steppe

zones

like

today

(Zohary,

1970;

Pabot,

1957,

68)

but

this

belt

may

have

been

broader

then.

The

third

zone

was

the

true

desert

(Saharo-Sindian

or

Saharo-Arabian),

receiving

less

than

150mm

rainfall

a

year

and

characterised

by

a

very

poor

vegetation

(Zohary,

1970).

This

zone

was

much

less

extensive

than

today,

probably

occupying

part

of

the

Arabian

interior

and

so

only

impinging

on

the

south-eastern

corner

of

the

Levant.

Once

again

a

change

in

the

amount

of

moisture

available

seems

to

have

Mediterranean

forest

—

Intermediate

open

forest

Fig.

2

A

reconstruction

of

vegetation

zones

c.

9,000

B.C.

scale

1:5.000.000

-

2U

-

"been

the

principal

cause

of

"both

the rise

in

lake

levels

and the

spread

of

forest.

This

was

entirely

due

to

an

increase

in

precipitation

because

we

know

from

the

deep-sea

cores

that the

temperature

worldwide

had

already

begun

to

rise.

This

temperature

rise,

or

at

least

the

effects

of

it,

seems

to

have

taken

place

a

little

later

in

the

Eastern

Mediterranean

and

Red

Sea

as

the

cores

from

there

do

not

indicate

any

significant

warming

much

before

12,000

or

13,000

B.P.

(Vergnaud-Grazzini,

Herman-Rosenberg,

19&9,

fig.

2;

Herman,

1968,

326).

The

presence

of

species

such

as

silver

lime

in

the

hills

around

Damascus

indicates

that

it

was

still

relatively

cool

during

this

phase.

The

date

for the

beginning

of this

moister

phase

is

uncertain

because

the

relevant

14

C

dates

from

pollen

spectra

and

sediments

in

the

Levant

occur

either

well

before

or

sometime after

its

inception.

A

good

estimate

can,

however, be

made

from

data

in

neighbouring

regions.

The

transition

from

zone

X

to

zone

Y

in

the

pollen

spectrum

from

Tenaghi

Philippon

is

dated

at

12,650

±

200

B.C.

GrN-Ul83

(Wijmstra,

1969,

523),

a

date

that

fits

well

with

14C

determinations

from

several

cores

drilled

in

the

area.

A

similar transi-

tion

at

Lake

Zeribar

is

dated

about

12,000

B.C.

In

the

Levant

itself

we

know

that

the

change

took

place

after

a

date

of

16,850

±

195

B.C.

Hv-1725

for

the

regression

phase

in

the

Huleh

basin

and

a

date

of

17,0^0

±

520

B.C.

for

the

same

regression

in

the

Damascus basin.

The

phase

also

began

sometime

before

9^00

B.C.

in

the

Ghab,

a

date

estimated

from

a

14

C

determination

of

8,130

±

55

B.C.

GrN-5810

for

the

transition

from

sub-zone

Z1

to

Z2

in

the

pollen

spectrum

(Niklewski,

van

Zeist,

1970,

7^3,

751ff).

The

rise

in

level

of

the

Dead

Sea

is

dated

7900

±

150

B.C.

and

must

have

begun

sometime

before

that.

A

fair

estimate

for the

beginning

of

this

phase

in

the

Levant

might

be

about

12,000

B.C.

bearing

in

mind

the

dates

from

Tenaghi

Philippon

and

Lake

Zeribar

but

this

may

be

in

error

by

as

much

as

two

millennia.

Although

the

date

for

the

beginning

of

this

phase

is

so

uncertain

the

phase itself

is

clearly

contemporary

with

the

Late

Glacial

in

northern

Europe

(Butzer,

1972,

27^).

This

was

a

complex

period

of

alternate

milder

and

-

25 -

colder

phases.

It

is

not

surprising, therefore,

if

it

is

difficult

to

inter-

pret

the

geomorphological

and

pollen

data

for

this

phase

in

the

Levant.

The

actual

changes

which

these

data

record

need

not

have

happened

at

exactly

the

same

time

so

one

should

not

necessarily

expect

to

be

able to

give

a

single

date

for the

inception

of

this

phase.

Early

Holocene

The

date

for the

end

of

the

Pleistocene

and

beginning

of

the

Holocene

in

northern

Europe

has

been

determined

as

about 8000

B.C.,

one

recent

estimate

being

8300

B.C.

(Butzer,

1972,

530).

This date

is

believed

to

mark

a

sub-

stantial

reduction

of the

glaciers

and

the

draining

of

the

Baltic

Lake.

These

criteria

have

little

relevance

for the

Levant

yet

this date

does

appear

to

coincide

with

certain

environmental

changes

there

that

characterise

the

true

Holocene.

8000

B.C.

may,

therefore,

also

be taken

as

a

convenient

point

at

which

to

divide

the

Pleistocene

and

Holocene

in

the

Levant.

After

a

marked

fall

in

the

9th

millennium

B.C.

the

temperature

rose

again

at

the

beginning

of

the

Holocene

and

continued

to

increase

until

perhaps

as

late

as

3000

B.C.,

certainly

throughout

the

Neolithic.

This

rise

seems

to

have

been

less

irregular

in

the

earlier

Holocene

than

during

the

Late Glacial

but

there

may

still

have

been

minor

fluctuations

that

affected

the

environ-

ment

of

the

Levant.

The

Dead

Sea

remained

at

a

higher

level than

before

for

several

millennia

during

the

early

Holocene.

The

ratio

of

run-off

to

evaporation

was

high

during

this

period

and

an

extensive

bed

of

clay

was

laid

down

in

the

Dead

Sea

basin

(Neev,

Emery,

1967,

28).

During

a

subsequent

drier

phase

a

layer

of

rock

salt

was

superimposed

on

this clay bed.

The

deposition

of

this

rock

salt

is

estimated

to

have

taken

place

between

U500

and

3500

B.C.

Another

phase

of

increased

available

moisture followed

when

a

further

bed

of

clay

was

laid

down;

this

bed

is

dated

by

a

single

llt

C

determination

of 2H60

±

320

B.C.

(Neev,

Emery,

1967

9

28),

The

Beth-Shan

lake

existed

throughout

this

period

-

26

-

but

was

finally

drained

sometime after

3000

B.C.

No

significant

alterations

in

lake

level

during

the

Holocene

have

"been

detected

in

the

Jafr

depression

(Huckriede,

Wiesemann,

1968,

85)

but

changes

were

taking

place

in

the

Damascus

basin.

Here

alternating

drier

and

moister

phases

are

believed

to

have

influenced

the

environment

during

the

Holocene

(Kaiser

et

al.,

1973,

351ff)

although

these

phases

are

not

well

dated.

During

the

middle

Holocene

a

deep

layer

of

calcareous sediments was

deposited

by

heavy

winter

rains

at

Tekieh

in

the

Barada

gorge and

run-off

was

sufficiently

great

to wash

more

sediment

into

the

Damascus

basin

(van

Liere,

1960-61,

5^-K

Nevertheless,

despite

this

evidence

of

erosive

activity,

the

late

Wurm

lake

in

the

Damascus

basin

gradually

shrank

and

divided

into

two to

form

the

present

Hijjane

and

Ataibe

lakes.

This

was

caused

by

an

increase

in

evapora-

tion

following

the

Holocene

rise

in

temperature

and

an

eventual

decrease

in

effective

run-off.

The

rise

in

sea-level

towards

the

end of

the

Pleistocene

sharply

reduced

the

gradient

of

the

rivers

on

the

seaward

side

of the

Jebel

Alawiye.

The

valleys

of

the

Nahr

el

Kebir

and

the

other

smaller

rivers

began

to fill

with

debris

(van

Liere,

1960-61,

2U).

The

erosive

power

of

the

run-off

in

this

region

has

not

been

very

strong

during

the

Holocene

so

this

deposit

has

continued

to

accumulate

and

little

sediment

reaches

the

sea.

The

evidence

for

changes

in

vegetation

in

the

Levant during

the

Holocene

is

less

satisfactory

than

for

the

Pleistocene.

Very

few

pollen

cores

have

been

drilled

and

studied

while

those

which

are

available

are

difficult

to

interpret.

This

is

true even

in

the

northern

Jordan valley

where

no

less

than

five

cores

have

been

bored

in

Holocene

sediments,

three

in

the

Huleh

basin

(K-Jam,

U.P.6,

U.P.15)

and

two

in

the

bed

of

the Sea

of

Galilee

(D-1016/2,

D-1021/1).

Unfortunately

the

cores

were

sampled

at

rather

wide

intervals

and

relatively

few

pollen

grains

were recovered

(Horowitz,

1971

9

259).

1If

C

determinations have

been

made

on

samples

from

only

three

of

the

five

cores,

K-Jam,

U.P.15

and

D-1016/2.

The

K-Jam

date

(Hv-1725) falls

in

-

27

-

the

Pleistocene

but

the

other

dates

cluster

in

the

second

half

of

the

Holocene.

Because

of

this

uneven

distribution

one

must

treat

with

caution

Horowitz's

calculations

of

average

sedimentation

rates

in

the

cores,

particularly

when

he

applies the

supposed

rate

in

the

dated

core

U.P.15

to

U.P.6

although

the

lithology

in

the

two

is

completely

different

(Horowitz,

19T1»

269).

One's

misgivings

are

reinforced

on

observing

that

some

of

the

dates

applied

to

different

stages

in

the

cores

have

been

incorrectly

calculated

from

the

supposed

sedimentation

rates

(Horowitz,

1971»

268).

Even

when

one

allows

for

these

discrepancies

one finds

that,

on

Horowitz

f

s

own

division

of

the

stages,

the

results

from

the

cores

are

in

part

contradictory.

In

spite of

these

difficulties

it is

necessary

to

attempt

to

analyse

the

data

presented

in

this

study

because

it

provides

almost

the

only indepen-

dent

evidence

about

the

Holocene

vegetation

in

this

region;

the

other

source

of

data,

evidence

from

archaeological

sites,

may

be

expected

to

be

influenced

by

man's

activities.

K-Jam

is

a

much

deeper

core

than

the

others

and

it

is

only

the

section

from

18

to

9m

which

is

believed

to

record

the

vegetation

in

the

first

half

of

the

Holocene

(Horowitz,

1971,

267).

At

18m

the

percentage

of

arboreal

pollen,

principally

oak,

is

relatively

high

but

then

this

gradually

declines.

At the

same

time pollen of

marsh

plants

and

grasses

increases,

reflecting

a

gradual

contraction

of

Lake

Huleh.

A

more

detailed

picture

of

Holocene vegetation

changes

may

be

obtained

from

core

D-1016/2.

This

core

is

thought

to

have

been

drilled

entirely

in

Holocene

sediments

(Horowitz,

1971»

270ff)

and

samples

for

pollen

analysis

have

been

taken

at

shorter

intervals

of time

than

in

the

K-Jam

core.

A

sample

at

the

bottom

of

the

core

from

a

depth

of

30m

below

the

surface

of

the

lake,

which

is

believed

to

date

from

the

beginning

of

the

Holocene,

has

a

low

value

of

10%

for

arboreal

pollen

composed

mostly

of

oak

with

a

little

Aleppo

pine.

Open

field

species

are

much more

common,

accounting

for

over

55%

of the

pollen

(Horowitz,

1971»

diagram

p.

266).

Horowitz

believes

that

these

figures

are

supported

by

the

pollen

spectra

of

the

other,

undated

core

from

the

Sea

of

-

28

-

Galilee,

D-1021/1

(1971,

table

16).

These

results

directly

contradict

the

evidence

from

the

K-Jam

cores

which

suggested

that

Galilee

was

well-forested

at

the

"beginning

of

the

Holocene.

Subsequently

the

values

for

arboreal

pollen

increase

in core

D-1016/2,

reaching

a

peak

between

27

and

23m,

a

little

before

the

middle

of the Holocene.

The

proportions

of

oak

pollen

in the

spectra

have actually

declined

but

walnut

and

jujube

make

up

the

difference.

Open

field

pollen

still

forms an

important

percentage

of

the total.

Again

it

would

appear difficult

to

reconcile

this

curve

for

arboreal

pollen

with

that

from

the

K-Jam

core.

The

two

other

cores

from

the

Huleh

basin, U.P.6

and

U.P.15,

are

believed

to

extend

back

only

as

far

as

the

earlier

Holocene

(Horowitz,

1971,

268ff).

The

percentages

of

arboreal

pollen

are

quite

high

at

the

bottom

of

these

cores,

possibly

correlating

with

the

relatively

high

values

we

have

noted

for

the

earlier

Holocene

in

core

D-1016/2.

The

pollen

is

mostly

from

oak

trees

with

a

little

pistachio

and

olive

but

no

jujube;

the

high

values

for

the

latter

species

in

the

D-1016/2

core

may

be

anomalous.

Can

the

often

apparently

conflicting

evidence

from

these

cores

be

brought

together

to

present

a

coherent

picture

of

vegetation

change?

Part

of

the

difficulty may

be

that

the

record

from

the

K-Jam

core

is

a

long

one

and

insensitive

to

short-term

variations.

The

evidence

from

this

core

suggests

a

steady

decline

in

forest

vegetation

as

the

Holocene

progresses,

a

general

trend

apparent from

the

arboreal

pollen

curves

in

the

two

other

Huleh

cores,

though

not

fully

supported

by

the

evidence

from

the

cores

from

the

Sea

of

Galilee.

The

low

arboreal

pollen

values

for the

beginning

of

the

Holocene

in

core

D-1016/2

may

refer

to

a

short-term

fluctuation

in

that

area

which

has

not

been

noticed

in

the

more

generalised

studies

of

the

K-Jam

core.

One

may

now

present

with

due

caution

a

synthesis

of

the

vegetation

record

from

these

cores.

At

the

close

of

the

Pleistocene

when

the

Huleh

lake

was

quite

extensive

the

hills

of

Galilee

and

the

Golan

were

clothed

with

forest

composed principally

of

oak.

At

the

beginning

of the

Holocene

there

may

have

-

29

-

been

a

brief

decline

in

forest

cover,

at

least

in

the

environs of the

Sea

of

Galilee,

but

thereafter

the hills

were

forested

until

the

mid-Holocene.

This

long

period

of

fairly

extensive

tree

cover

in

northern

Palestine

coin-

cides

with

the

phase

of

greater

run-off

that

maintained

the

Dead

Sea

at

a

high

level.

Later

in

the

Holocene

most of the

cores

show

a

decline

in

tree

pollen

and,

in

the

Huleh

basin,

an

extension

of

marsh

vegetation

which

Horowitz

believes

can

be

attributed

to

generally

drier

conditions

(1971,

268).

It

would

seem

more likely

by

this

time

that

man

was

partly

responsible

for

these

vegetation

changes

through

forest

clearance.

If

this

interpretation

is

correct

for

Galilee

and

the

Golan

then

one

may

tentatively

infer

from

it

something

of

the

pattern

of

vegetation

further

south.

It

is

likely

that

the

Judean

hills

and

the

mountains

of

TransJordan

were forested

at

least

as

far

south

as

the latitude

of

the

Dead

Sea

and

probably

further.

Timber

from

a

number

of

species

from

the

forested

zone

such

as

ash,

plane,

almond,

pear,

olive,

fig,

Christ's

Thorn

and

carob

was

used by

the

Neolithic

inhabitants

of

Jericho

(Western,

1971

9

fig.

1).

This

suggests

that

the

Mediterranean

forest

lay

nearer

the

site

than

it

does

today

(Western,

1971,

Uo).

Northern

Sinai

would

have

been

affected

by

the

moister

conditions

that

existed

in'Egypt

and

so

probably

had

a

richer

vegetation

in

the

earlier

Holocene

than

now.

This

was

almost

certainly

the

same

vegetation

of steppe

and

scat-

tered

trees

that

existed

in

the

area

at

the end

of

the

Pleistocene.

Only

when

more arid

conditions

returned

after

6000

B.C.

would

the

vegetation

have

deteriorated,

a

gradual

process

that

has

continued

until

the

present

day.

Even

now

a

few

relict

specimens of

trees

are

to be

found

in

favoured

habitats

in

both

Sinai

and

TransJordan

(Zohary,

1962,

5*0

though

the

vegetation

zones

of

which

they

were

characteristic

have

retreated.

There

is

very

little

evidence

from

which

to

determine

the

vegetation

in

Lebanon

and

southern

Syria

during

the

Holocene.

Presumably

the

Mountains

of

Lebanon

remained

heavily

forested

for

several

thousand

years.

A

single

pollen

-

30

-

spectrum

from Tekieh

suggests

that

the

Anti-Lebanon

still

carried

some trees

and

herbaceous

ground

cover

as

late

as

the

mid-Holocene

(Kaiser

et

al.,

1973,

fig.

6).

Further

east

steppe

vegetation

characterised

by

Chenopodiaceae

and

Compositae

began

to encroach

upon

the

Damascus

basin

and

the

Golan

(Leroi-

Gourhan,

1973,

U6)

quite

early

in

the

Holocene

but

it

is

likely

that

man's

activities

hastened

this

transformation.

The

principal

source

of

information

for

the

vegetation

of

northern Syria

during

the

earlier

Holocene

is

the

Ghab

pollen

core.

Sub-zone

Z3 in

the

pollen

diagram

is

ascribed

to

this

period

(Niklewski,

van

Zeist,

1970,

750).

Jebels

Alawiye

and Zawiye

remained

clothed

with

light

mixed

forest

throughout

this

period.

The

forest

was

principally

composed

of

evergreen

oak,

olive,

pine

(Pinus

brutia),

pistachio

and

hornbeam

with

some

cedar

of

Lebanon.

There

was

less

oak

pollen

in

this

sub-zone

than

in

Z2

and

a

higher

percentage

of

herba-

ceous

pollen.

This

may

indicate

that

the

tree

cover

was

less

dense

than

in

Z2

and

that

rainfall

decreased

slightly

(Niklewski,

van

Zeist,

1970,

750)

in

the

early Holocene.

Almost

the

same

type

of

light

forest

would

be

the

natural

vegetation

cover

in

this

area

today

were

it

not

for

man's

interference.

Later

in

the

Holocene

species

such

as

pistachio,

olive,

juniper

and

hornbeam

de-

creased

while

cedar

disappeared

completely

because

of

man's

activities

(Wiklewski,

van

Zeist,

1970,

751).

The

vegetation

around

Abu

Hureyra

during

the

earlier

Holocene

was

steppic

but

still

richer

in

species

than

today

(Hillman,

1975,

70).

This

would

indicate

that

the

total rainfall

was

probably

about

the

same

as

now

although

it

may

have

been

more

regular.

The

drastic

degradation

of

the

steppe

that

occurred

during

the

Holocene

around

Abu

Hureyra

and

throughout

northern

and

central

Syria

was

brought

about more

by

man's

activities

than

by

climatic

change.

It

will

be

useful

now

to

compare

the

data

we

have

already

considered

with

recent

proposed

reconstructions

of

postglacial

atmospheric circulation

in the

northern

hemisphere.

During

the

9th

millennium

atmospheric

circulation

is

believed

to

have

been

relatively

weak

over

Europe

and

it

is

thought

that

the

-

31

-

belt

of

-westerly

winds

lay

further

south than

today

(Lamb,

1971

9

Rain-bearing

winds

from

the

Atlantic

and

Mediterranean

would

have

reached

the

Levant

more

frequently

(Lamb,

Woodroffe,

1970

9

figs.

10b,

10c)

and

so

winter

rainfall

would

have

been

greater

than

today;

it

is

also

possible

that

the

rainy season

lasted

longer

than

now.

By

about

6500

B.C.

the

European

ice

sheet

had

almost

disappeared

but

the

North

American

one

still

existed.

This

stimulated

a

more vigorous

wind

system

and

also

caused

the

westerlies

over

the

Atlantic

to

follow

a

more

north-easterly

course.

A

strong

anticyclone

lay

in

the

eastern

Atlantic

and

over

western

Europe

(Lamb,

1971,

160,

figs.

8,

9),

preventing

some

of

the

moist

air

from

the

Atlantic

reaching

the

Levant.

In

consequence

rainfall

became

more

seasonal

and

possibly

decreased

in

amount;

the

continued

post-

glacial

rise

in

temperature

would

have

also

tended

to

lower

precipitation.

About

UOOO

B.C.

the

North American

ice

sheet

had

melted

so

the

wind

system

resumed

a

more

zonal

configuration

but

now

the

track

of

the

westerlies

f

lay

further north

(Lamb,

1971,

160,

fig.

10;

Lamb

et

al.,

1966,

fig.

11g).

The

Levantine

summer

became

longer

and

drier

while

fewer

rain-bearing

depressions

penetrated

from

the

west

in

winter.

Consequently

this

was

a

relatively

arid

period.

Subsequently

the

atmospheric

circulation

fluctuated

again

(Lamb,

1971»

l60ff)

and

this

led

to

an

amelioration

of

climatic

conditions

in

the

Levant

during

the

following

millennia.

Summary

We

can

now

summarise

the

evidence

for

climatic

change

in

the

Levant

during

the

earlier

Holocene

and

see

what

effect

it

had

on

the environment.

After

a

brief

cooler phase

at

the

close

of

the

Pleistocene

the

temperature

resumed

its

rise.

The

rainy season was

both

more

regular

and

lasted

longer

than

today.

Total

rainfall

remained

relatively

high

although

there

is

some

evidence

from

the

pollen

cores

that

it

decreased

slightly

in

northern

Syria

and

possibly

further

south.

These

relatively

cool,

moist climatic

conditions

kept

the

Dead

Sea

at

a

high

level

and

led

to

significant erosion

in

the

Mediterranean

forest

Intermediate

open

forest

Desert

—

Fig.

3

A

reconstruction

of

vegetation

zones

c.

6,000

B.C.

scale

1

=

5,000,000

- 32 -

Damascus

basin.

In

Egypt

conditions

were

also

moister

than

today,

causing

the

Arminna

member

to

be

formed

in

Nubia.

Because

the

climate

was

cooler

and

moister

the

Mediterranean

forest

zone

covered

a

larger

area

than

it

would

now

without

human

interference.

Palestine

and

Trans

Jordan

were

clothed

in a

mixed

forest

which extended further

south

than

today.

This

changed

to

open

forest

in

northern

Sinai

while

much

of

the

rest

of

the

peninsula

had

steppe

vegetation

with

scattered

trees.

Further

north

the

Mountains

of

Lebanon were

heavily

forested while

the

Anti-Lebanon

carried

light

woodland.

The

mixed

forest

extended

throughout

the

Jebels

Alawiye

and

Zawiye,

curving

eastward

about

the

latitude

of

Aleppo.

Beyond

the

Mediterranean

forest

zone

lay the

intermediate

open

forest

belt

which

stretched

from

as

far

south

as

the

Dead

Sea

along

the

plateau

of

Trans-

jordan into

northern

Syria.

To

the

east this

belt

merged

with

the steppe

zone

which occupied

much

of the

interior

and

part

of

Sinai.

The

desert

zone

still

covered

a

very

small

part

of

the

Levant,

in

contrast

with

today

(Zohary,

During

the

7th

millennium

the

climate

changed;

rainfall

became

more

seasonal

and

probably

diminished.

This

caused

a

gradual

contraction

of

the

Mediterranean

mixed

forest

and

intermediate

open

forest

zones

(Fig.

3).

The

steppe

expanded

into

areas

that

previously

carried

open

forest

while

the

desert,

too,

reached

further north

and

west.

The

Ghab

and

other

pollen

cores

indicate

that

these

changes

were

accelerated

by

man's activities.

Another

change

in

climate

took

place

during

the

5th

millennium

when

rainfall

in

the

Levant

decreased

further;

it

had

already

fallen

to

almost

nothing

in

Egypt.

By

now

the

temperature

had

risen

to

near

its

postglacial

maximum.

This

deterioration

in

climate

seems

to

have

been

quite

marked

for

it

caused

the

level

of

the

Dead

Sea

to

drop sharply.

The

effect

on

the

vegetation

would

have

been

to

cause

a

further

contraction

of

the

forest

zones

(Fig.

U).

The

desert

albeit

with

some

relict

trees,

would

have

now

extended

throughout

Sinai,

eastern

Trans

Jordan

and

southern

and

eastern

Syria.

It

is

Mediterranean

forest

Intermediate

open

forest

Fig.

4

A

reconstruction

of

vegetation

zones

c.

4,000

B.C.

scale

1:5,000,000

-

33 -

difficult

to

determine

precisely

the

boundaries

of

the

natural vegetation

zones

because

man's

activities

had

already

distorted

the

picture.

The

climate

improved

somewhat

late

in

the

Uth

millennium

but

by

now

the

damage

done

to

the

vegetation

by

man

and

increased

aridity,

particularly

in

the

zones

of

open

forest

and

park

steppe,

was

irreversible.

While

the

climatic

changes

that

took

place

in

the

Levant

in

the

early

Holocene

were

not

as

great

as

during

the

Wtirm

they

were

sufficient

to alter

both

landforms

and the

extent

of

the

major

vegetation

zones.

At

the

moment

it is

possible

only to

describe

these

environmental

changes

in

outline

but

the

evidence

of the

pollen

cores

and

the

sediments

of

the

Damascus

basin

suggest

that events

were

more

complex

than

the

scheme

presented

here.

The

actual

fluctuations

in

rainfall

and

temperature

may

have

been

relatively

small

compared

with

the

postglacial

in

northern

Europe

but

they

had

a

marked

effect

on

the

environment

because

so

much

of

the

southern

Levant

and

the

inland

plateau

is

a

semi-arid

zone

sensitive

to

slight

climatic

changes.

The

evidence

of the

Zagros

pollen

cores

emphasises

that

the

present

climate

and

natural

vegetation

zones

in

the

Near

East

were

not

established

until

the

Holocene

was

well

advanced.

The

changes

in

natural

environment

that

took

place

during

the

earlier

Holocene

would

have

significantly influenced

human

settlement

and

economy.

For the

first

time

man's

own

activities

had

a

marked

effect

on

the

landscape,

particularly

its

vegetation

and

soil

cover.

The

environmental

changes

that

took

place,

therefore,

were caused

by

a

complex

interaction

of

climatic

change

and

human

behaviour.

Chapter

2

THE

MESOLITHIC

OF

THE

LEVANT

The

Mesolithic

of

the

Levant

was

a

distinct

cultural

stage

which

came

betweeb

the

Aurignacian

and the

Neolithic.

Its

most

diagnostic

archaeological

feature was

a

chipped

stone

industry

characterised

"by

microlithic

tools.

This

microlithic

component

has

been

found

on

Mesolithic

stations

all

over

the

Levant

but

on

no

Aurignacian

or

Neolithic

site.

It

is

thus

the

most

distinctive

trait

by

which

to

define

the

Mesolithic

stage.

Mesolithic

sites

were

first

discovered

in

Palestine

and

the

cultural

sequence

has

since

been

established

more securely

there

than anywhere

else.

The

earliest

group

of

these

sites

determined

on

the

evidence

of

stratigraphy

and

comparative

typology

was

called

Kebaran

after

the site

where

this

phase

was

first

defined

in

excavation

by

Turville-Petre

(1932,

271).

The

second

phase

was

called

Natufian

since

its

type-site,

Shukbah,

was

situated

in

the

Wadi

en-Natuf

on

the

western

edge

of

the

Judean

hills

(Garrod,

19^2,

1).

The

information

obtained

from

these

excavations

was

considerably

augmented

in

later

years

in

further

work

by

Garrod

herself

at

the

Mugharet

el

Wad

(Garrod,

Bate,

1937,

9ff),

by

Neuville

at

several

sites

in

the

Judean

desert

(1951,

86ff),

Stekelis

and

his

collaborators

at

En

Gev

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a,

106)

and

Perrot

at

Ain Mallaha

(Eynan)

(1968,

col.

367).

Much

other

information

about

Mesolithic

sites

in

Palestine

has also

been

found

in

recent

surveys

and

excavations.

I

must

now

explain

why

I

have

called

this

stage

"Mesolithic"

since

this

term

is

not

widely

used

at

present

in

Near

Eastern

archaeology.

The

Kebaran

and

Natufian

were

described

as

Mesolithic

from

their

discovery

until

sometime

after

the

Second

World

War

(Turville-Petre,

1932,

276;

Garrod,

1957a,

211).

Objections

to

this

term

have

recently

been

raised by

a

number

of

archaeologists

Braidwood,

for

example,

has

said

that

there

was no

Mesolithic

in

western

Asia

in

the

sense

that

the

term

is

used

in

northern

Europe

(Braidwood, Howe,

1960,

-

35

-

U,

81).

Perrot

(I966a,

U83)

and

Bar-Yosef

(1970a,

1)

have

also

rejected

the

term;

they

prefer

to

call

this

stage

"Epipalaeolithic"

to

emphasise

that

the

microlithic

industries

developed from

the

Aurignacian.

At

a

conference

in

London

in

1969

a

number

of

archaeologists

accepted

this

reasoning

and

agreed

to

use

this

name

in

future.

I

believe

that

the

exclusive

use

of

"Epipalaeolithic"

has

a

number

of

disadvantages.

While

I

-would

agree

that

there

was

continuity

from

the

Aurignacian

to

the

Kebaran,

this

term

implies

that

there was

an

absolute

break

between

the

Natufian

representing

the

end

of

the

Palaeolithic

and

the

Neolithic.

It

is

clear

now,

however,

that

human

occupation

of

the

Levant

continued

straight

through

from

the

Natufian

to

the

earlier

Neolithic.

"Epipalaeolithic"

also

implies

that

the

Kebaran

and

Natufian

had

more

in

common

in

their

artifacts

and

way

of

life

with

the

immediately

preceding

Aurignacian

than

with

the

Neolithic.

It

will

be

seen

from what

follows

that

I

would

strongly

challenge

this

assumption.

This

was

an

important

inter-

mediate

stage

in

the

human

settlement

of

the

Levant

distinct

from

both

the

Palaeolithic

before

and

the

Neolithic

after.

Further,

it

coincided

with

the

final

cold

phase

of

the

Pleistocene

and

its

immediate

aftermath

so

that

the

environmental

setting

was

different

from

the

preceding

and

succeeding

stages,

the

contrast

between

the

Kebaran

and

Aurignacian

landscapes

being

particularly

marked.

This

stage

needs

to

be

described

by

a

term

that

suitably

expresses

its

distinctive

qualities.

I

prefer

to

return

to

earlier

usage and

to

use

"Mesolithic"

to

describe

these

phases,

the

Kebaran

and

Natufian

in

Palestine

and

contemporary

sites

elsewhere

in

the

Levant.

The

Mesolithic

has

been

more

thoroughly

investigated

in

Palestine

than

in

any

other

region

of

the

Levant.

A

few

Mesolithic

sites

had

long

been

known

in

Lebanon

and

Syria

but

their

number

has

grown

markedly

in

recent

years.

Several

of

these

sites

have

now

been excavated

so

that

the

sequence

in

these

regions

has

also

been

determined,

at

least

in

outline.

For

many

years

the

Nebekian

and

Falitian

levels

excavated

by

Rust

at

Yabrud

III

were

-

36

-

thought

to

be

the

most

northerly Kebaran-like

occurrence

but

has

now

been

found

at

Douara

Cave

near

Palmyra

(Akazawa,

197^-,

^)

and

possibly

at

Nahr

el

Homr

east

of

Aleppo

beside

the

Euphrates

(Roodenberg,

forthcoming).

The

evolution

of

this

phase

in

Lebanon

has

become

much

clearer

following

the

recent

wort

at

Ksar

Akil

(Tixier,

197^,

1W

and

Jiita

II

(Hours,

1973,

199).

Sites

with

material related

to

the

Natufian

have

also

been

known

over

a

wide

area

for

some

time.

Helwan

near

Cairo

(Massoulard,

19^9»

29)

and

Yabrud

III

(Rust,

1950,

119)

were

investigated

long

ago

but

recently

several

more

sites

have

been

discovered

and

excavated

in

Lebanon

and

Syria.

No

less

than

four,

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

(Moore,

1975,

56),

Mureybat

(Cauvin,

1972,

107),

Dibsi

Faraj

East

(Wilkinson,

Moore,

forthcoming)

and

Nahr

el

Homr

(Roodenberg,

forthcoming)

have

now

been

examined

in

the

Euphrates

valley

in

the

programme

of

archaeological

exploration

which

has

taken

place during

the

construction

of

the

new

Euphrates

dam.

Work by

Hours

and

his

collaborators

at

Jiita

II

(Chavaillon, Hours,

1970,

215ff)

and

by

Schroeder

at

Saaideh

(1970,

200)

and

Nacharini

has

begun

to

clarify

the

development

of

this

stage

in

Lebanon.

Now

that

sites

with

material

resembling

at

least

in

part

the

assemblages

of

artifacts

from

Kebaran

and

Natufian

sites

in

Palestine

have

been

found

over

such

a

wide

area

of the

Levant

and

even

further

afield

the

traditional

terms

used

to

describe

them

are

no

longer

adequate.

The

descriptions

"Kebaran"

and

"Natufian"

have

been

used

to

describe

every

site

far

beyond

the

confines

of

Palestine with

material

which

bears

only

the

most

general

resemblance

to

that

on

the

type-sites.

They

have

by

such usage

become

so

strained

that

they

have

lost

some

of

their

original

meaning

and

precision.

I

propose

in

this

thesis

to

use

the terms "Kebaran" and "Natufian" only

for

sites

in

Palestine

which

may

be

properly

described

under these

headings.

Sites

found

elsewhere

in

the

Levant

which

have

similarities

with

these

I

shall

classify

as

Mesolithic

1

if

they may be

compared

with

the

Kebaran

and

Mesolithic

2

if

they

have

some

of

the

characteristic

traits

of

the

Natufian.

Both

Mesolithic

1

and

Meso-

lithic

2

will

also

subsume

the

Kebaran

and

Natufian

in

Palestine

itself.

-

37

-

Mesolithic

1

Mesolithic

1

throughout

the

Levant

followed

the

Aurignacian

or

Levantine

Upper

Palaeolithic.

The

Aurignacian

was

divided

into

three phases

"by

Neuville

(1951,

260,

table

1)

called

Upper

Palaeolithic

III,

IV and

V,

the

last

being

transitional

between

the

Aurignacian

and

the

Mesolithic.

Garrod

believed

that

the

Aurignacian

of

the

Levant

did not

sufficiently

resemble

the

Aurignacian

of

Europe

to

justify

using

the

name

so

she

introduced

the

terms

Lower

and

Upper

Antelian

(Garrod,

1957b,

UUo)

to

describe

stages

III

and

IV

of

Neuville.

She

also

invented

another

term,

Athlitian,

to describe

the

material

from

Mugharet

el

Wad

which

roughly

corresponded

with

Neuville

f

s

transitional

phase

V

(Garrod,

Bate,

1937,

M).

Copeland

has

recently

introduced new

terms

to

describe

the

material

from

Lebanon

and

Syria

using

Ksar

Akil

as

the

type-site

(1975,

3^2).

She

uses

Levantine

Aurignacian

phase

C

for

Ksar

Akil

Levels

8

to

6

which

corresponds

very

approximately

to

Neuville's

stage

V.

This

phase

is

marked

by

very

varied

assemblages

at

most

sites

on

which

is

occurs,

empha-

sising

its

transitional

nature.

It

seems

fairly

certain

that

Mesolithic

1

developed

directly from

the

Aurignacian.

There

are

indications

that

a

gradual

change

took

place

in

the

stone industries.

Microliths and

retouched

bladelets

are

found

for

the

first

time

in

the

Aurignacian

deposits

of

El

Khiam

E

(Perrot,

1951, 1^1),

Kebara

D

(Garrod,

195

1

*,

177)

and

Ksar

Akil

(Copeland,

1975,

3^3).

Two

sites

at

least,

Ksar

Akil

and

Yabrud

III,

seem

to

have

fairly

complete

sequences

that

span

the

transition

from

Aurignacian

to

Mesolithic

1.

Perrot

has

also

claimed

a

degree

of

continuity from

level

E

to

D

at

El

Khiam

(1951,

1^9)

while

at

Kebara

itself

no

break

was

detected

in

the

stratigraphy

between

D

and

C

(Garrod,

195U,

186)

although

the

Athlitian

was

missing

here.

On

the

other

hand

there

was

a

break

in

the

sequence

between

the

Aurignacian

and

the

Kebaran

at

Nahal

Oren

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a,

37ff)

while

at

Mugharet

el

Wad

there

was

no

Kebaran

occupation

at

all

after

the

Aurignacian

of

layer

C.

Such

breaks

may

partly

-

38

-

be

a

reflection

of

the

way

of

life

of

the

inhabitants

of

these

sites.

It

is

probable

that

such

groups

used

sites

intermittently

over

several

years

and

then left

them

unoccupied

for

long

periods.

The stone

industries

from

Athlitian

sites

are

so

diverse

typologically

that

Bar-Yosef

has

questioned

even

the

existence

of

this

phase

(1970a,

26).

Others

believe

that

a

number

of

sites

can

be

included

in

this

stage

despite

the

differences

between

them

(Hours

et

al.

a

1973,

273).

Such

sites

would

be

Mugharet

el

Wad

C,

El

Khiam

E,

the

Nahal

Oren

terrace

and

Ksar

Akil

6.

Changes

of

some

kind

were

taking

place

at

this

time

which

manifested

themselves

in

the

stone

industries

first

of

Athlitian

sites

and

then

of

Mesolithic

1.

The

latter

with

its

large

proportion

of

microliths

is

very

different

from

the

Aurignacian.

Several

factors

brought

about

these

changes.

One

of

the

most

crucial

was the

abrupt

deterioration

in

climate

and

environment

that

set

in

about

20,000

or

18,000

B.C.

when

the

last

cold

phase

of

the

Pleistocene

began.

We

have

seen

that

the

Levant

became

relatively

arid and

the

forest

vegetation

retreated

to

be

replaced

by

steppe.

The

inception

of

this

cool,

dry

phase

just

preceded

the

beginning

of

Mesolithic

1

on

present

evidence.

The

hunter-

gatherers

of

the

Aurignacian

would

have

had

to

modify substantially

their

way

of

life,

particularly

their

settlement

pattern,

to

take

account

of

changing

conditions.

This

shift

to

a

new

adaptation may

be

responsible

for

the

confused

nature

of

Athlitian

deposits.

The

crystallization

of

this

new

pattern resulted

in

Mesolithic

1;

not

only

was

the

settlement

pattern

modi-

fied

but

a

new

stone

industry

of

distinctive

character

was

developed.

The

inhabitants

of

the

small

Mesolithic

1

sites

found

in

the

Levant

left

behind

little

more

than

their

chipped

stone

tools.

Any

definition

of

the

Kebaran

thus

rests

upon

a

description

of the

characteristic

features

of

this

chipped

stone

industry

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a,

l68ff;

Hours

et

al.,

1973,

^52).

The

industry

was

essentially

one

of small

tools

made

on

bladelets

struck

off

single-platform

cores.

Much

of

the

waste

also

consisted

of

bladelets.

-

39

-

There

were

rarely

more

than

a

few

"blades

on

any site,

in

contrast

with

the

Aurignacian.

The

most

numerous

and

typical

tools

were non-geometric

microliths

particularly

microgravettes

9

"backed

bladelets

and

"backed

truncated

"bladelets.

The

only

other

tools

found

with

any

frequency

were

end-scrapers

and

"burins.

A

few

bone

tools

and

some

of

ground

stone

have

been

found

on

Mesolithic

1

sites

but

little

else.

Before

considering

the

distribution

and

nature

of

Mesolithic

1

sites

I

will

present

the

little

information

we

have

about

the

chronology

of

this

stage.

Mesolithic

sites

are

far less

numerous than

those

of

the

Neolithic

and only

a

few

have

been

dug

recently.

Of

these

not

all

have

yielded

material

suitable

for

carbon

1U

dating

so

that

there

is

a

dearth

of

chronological

data.

Those

dates

which

are

available

suffice

only

to

fix

Mesolithic

1

approximately

in

time

and

to

establish

its

duration.

Following standard

practice

all

14

C

dates

I

shall

quote

in

this

thesis

will

be

calculated

on

the

Libby

half-life.

In

sometimes

differ

by

as

much

as

several

centuries

from

the

absolute

age

of

the

samples

which

they

date.

At

present

it

is

not

possible

to

estimate

except

in

the most

general

way

the

absolute

age

of

dated

samples

since

the

whole

Mesolithic

and

much

of

the

Neolithic

lie

beyond

the

range

of

the

calibration

curves

published

so

far.

I

discuss

this

question

more

fully

in

the

Appendix

but

it

should

be

pointed

out

here

that

uncorrected

dates

still

provide

a

sound

sequence

of

relative

chronology.

Carbon

1^

is

the

only

method

of

near

absolute

dating

that

has

been

used

for

archaeological

sites

and

contemporary

environmental

phenomena

during

the

Mesolithic and

Neolithic

in

the

Levant

so

that

chronological

data

from

these

two

sources

may

be

directly

compared

to

build

up

as

complete

a

picture

as

possible

of the

evolution

of

human

society

in

the

Levant

during

these

stages.

In

order

to

determine

when

Mesolithic

1

began

it

is

necessary

to

consider

dates

from

sites

occupied

late

in

the

Aurignacian

and

also

the

few

Kebaran

sites

in

Palestine

from

which

14C

determinations

are

available.

presenting

the

determinations

in

this

form

I

recognise

that

they

will

-

ho

-

There

is

one

date

of

26,890

±

380

B.C.

GrN-2195

(Radiocarbon

5,

1963,

173)

from

level

8

at

Ksar

Akil.

This

is

supported

by

new,

as

yet

unpublished,

dates

for

slightly

later

material

from

the

site

(Tixier,

quoted

in

Copeland,

1975,

3^3)

but

these

dates

are

believed

to

be

rather

early

for

such

a

late

stage

in

the

Aurignacian.

The

other

dates

are

all

from

Ein

Aqev,

an

Aurig-

nacian

site

in

the

Negev.

The

samples

for

these

determinations

were

collected

in

stratigraphies!

order.

From

bottom

to

top

they

are:

18,080

±

1200

B.C.

SMU-5,

15,^0

±

560

B.C.

SMU-8,

15,9^0

±

600

B.C.

SMU-6

(Radiocarbon

16,

197^,

378,

379),

15,560

±

290

B.C.

1-5^95

and

1^,950

±

250

B.C.

1-5^9^

(Radiocarbon

15,

1973,

295).

Again

these

determinations

are

almost

consistent

internally.

The

Ein

Aqev

dates

pose

a

problem

because

most

of

them

overlap

vith

the

earliest

dates

now

available

from Kebaran

sites.

At

En

Avdat

only

3.5

km

from

Ein

Aqev

there

is

a

site

(D5)

classed

as

Geometric

Kebaran

A

which

has

given

the

following

dates:

16,890

±

680

B.C.

SMU-7

(Radiocarbon

16,

197^,

379),

13,870

±

1730

B.C.

Tx-1121

(Radiocarbon

1U

9

1972,

hQh)

and

11,220

±

230

B.C.

1-5^97

(Radiocarbon

15,

1973,

296).

This

is

not

a

very

satisfactory

series:

SMU-7

is

considered

suspect

by

the

excavator

of

the

site

because

it

seems

so

much

earlier

than

the

other

dates

and

Tx-1121

has

such

a

large

standard

error

that

it

could

really

be

much

earlier

or

later.

It

remains

possible,

however,

that

En

Avdat

does

have

some

occupation

deposits

dating

from

early

in

Mesolithic

1.

Two

sites

in

northern

Palestine,

Nahal

Oren

and

Rakafet,

have

Kebaran

levels

that

are

dated

very

early.

From

Rakafet

there

is

a

single

determination

of

16,960

±

330

B.C.

1-6865

(Noy

et

al.,

1973,

96).

This

is

supported

by

one

date

from

Nahal

Oren

of

16,300

±

320

B.C.

UCLA-1776C

from

layer

IX

(Noy

et

al.,

1973,

77)

near

the

beginning

of

the

Kebaran

sequence

on

the

site.

There

are

also

later

dates

in

the

sequence

of

1U,930

±

3^0

B.C.

UCLA-1776B

and

13,850

±

300

B.C.

UCLA-1776A

(Noy

et

al.,

1973,

77).

This

series

of

dates

is

consistent

and

the

standard

errors

are

small.

The

layers

dated

by

1-6865

and

UCLA-1776C

are

not,

however,

thought

to

be

at

the

very

beginning

of

the

-

in

-

Kebaran

sequence

in

this

region

(Noy

et

al.,

1973,

96).

The

Nahal

Oren

dates

in

particular

suggest

that

Mesolithic

1

began

"before

17,000

B.C.

and

possibly

as

early

as

18,000

B.C.

in

Palestine

and

perhaps

Lebanon.

The

Ksar

Akil

dates

would

not

preclude

the

possibility

that

it

began

earlier

still.

This

estimate

would

include

the

En

Avdat

dates

but

does

not

resolve

the

problem

of

those

from

Ein

Aqev.

It

is

possible,

of

course,

that

Mesolithic

1

began

somewhat

later

in

the

Negev.

It

should

be

borne

in

mind,

however,

that

the

flint

industries

of

the

Aurignacian

and

Mesolithic

1

in

the

Negev

do

not

resemble

very

closely

those

from

further

north

in

the

Levant.

When

the

assemblages

from

En

Avdat

(Marks

et

al.,

1971,

20)

and

Ein

Aqev

(Marks,

1973,

U)

are

compared

they

do

not appear

to

be

very

different.

It

may

be

that

both

represent

a

range

of

activities

carried

on

by

similar

groups

over

a

long

period

of

time.

The

change

from

Mesolithic

1

to

Mesolithic

2

can

be

dated

more

closely,

though

still

not

very

exactly.

This

is

because

the

dates

available

from

Mesolithic

1

sites

are

mostly

derived

from

early

phases

in

the

sequence

so

one

has

to

rely

on

dates

from

early

Mesolithic

2

sites

to

arrive

at

an

estimation.

The

latest

date

for

a

Mesolithic

1

site

anywhere

in

the

Levant

is

12,150

±

500

B.C.

MC-U11

(Radiocarbon

15,

1973,

337)

from

Ksar

Akil.

The

earliest

date

from

a

Mesolithic

2

site

is

11,1^0

±

200

B.C.

1-5^96

(Radiocarbon

15,

1973,

295)

from

Rosh

Horesha

in

the

Negev.

This

determina

tion

may

be

inaccurate

as

it

does

not

agree

with

two

others

taken

from

similarly

stratified

samples

at

the

same

site;

those

determinations

are

8,930

±

280

B.C.

SMU-10

and

8,5^0

±

^30

B.C.

SMU-9

(Radiocarbon

16,

197^,

379).

There

are

several

determinations

from

three

other

sites

that

fall

in

the

10th

millennium.

These

are

9,200

±

^00

B.C.

for

Kebara

B,

two

dates

from

Mugharet

el

Wad

B2

of

9,970

±

660

B.C.

and

9,525

±

650

B.C.

(Henry,

1973a,

291)

and

a

date

from

Jericho

of

9,216

±

107

B.C.

P-376

(Radiocarbon

5,

1963,

8U),

although

two

other

samples

from

the

Natufian

deposits

here

have

given

later

dates

of

7,850

±

2UO

B.C.

F-72

and

7,900

±

2^0

B.C.

F-69

(Kenyon,

-

U2

-

1959

j

8).

None of

these

dates

is

entirely

satisfactory:

the

Kebara

and

Mugharet

el

Wad

determinations

were

all

made

recently

on

bones

from

skeletons

excavated

many

years

ago

(Henry,

1973a,

99)

and

the

Jericho

samples

were

processed

when

carbon

1U

dating

was

still

quite

new.

Nevertheless,

this

series

of

dates

forms

a

consistent

pattern

which

suggests that

the

transition

from

Mesolithic

1

to

Mesolithic

2,

in

Palestine

at

least,

took

place

about

10,000

B.C. or

possibly

a

little

before.

This

estimate

can

only

be

approximate

for

the

moment

since

the

evidence

is

so

uncertain;

it

ignores

the

possibility

that

a

version

of

the

Kebaran

continued

on

beside

the

earliest

Natufian

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a,

173).

Settlement

patterns

Mesolithic

1

sites

have

been

found

over much

of

the

Levant

but

their

greatest

density

is

in

Palestine

and

Lebanon

(Fig.

5).

Their

known

distribu-

tion

is

the

result

of

survey

and

excavation,

much

of

it

quite

recent,

which

may

not

necessarily

accurately

reflect

the

original

pattern

of

occupation.

This

has

been

demonstrated

in

Syria

where

no

Mesolithic

1

sites

were

known

north

of

Yabrud

until

a

few

years

ago

when

more

were

found

following

intensive

survey

of

the

Palmyra

region

and

the

Euphrates

valley.

Sites

have

now been located

in

the

Jebel

Meghara

in

northern

Sinai

(Moshabi

XIV)

as

well

as

in

the

Har

Harif

and

in

Nahal

Lavan

(Nahal

Lavan

II,

VI,

105)

in

the

Negev.

Others

have

been

found

along

the

present

coast

of

Palestine

(Kiryath

Aryeh,

Kefar

Darom),

in

the

Judean

hills

(El

Khiam)

,

on

Mb.

Carmel

(Kebara,

Nahal

Oren)

and

in

Galilee

(Hayonim,

En

Gev).

At

least

three

sites

have

been

discovered

in

what

is

now

the

steppe

zone

of

TransJordan

east

of

the

Rift

valley

(Wadi

Dhobai

K,

Wadi

Madamagh,

Wadi

Rum).

In

Lebanon

almost

all

the

known

sites

are on

the

western

slopes

of

the

Lebanon

Mountains

(Abri

Bergy,

Jiita

II,

Ksar

Akil).

Douara

Cave

near

Palmyra

and

Nahr

el

Homr

on the

Euphrates

are

proof

that

Mesolithic

1

communities

inhabited

central

and

northern

Syria

where

there

must

be many

other

contemporary

sites

awaiting

discovery.

Fig.

5

Distribution

of

Mesolithic

1

sites

scale

1:4,000,000

FIGURE

5

Distribution

of

Mesolithic

1

sites

1

Nahr

el

Homr

(Roodenberg,

forthcoming)

2

Douara

cave (Akazawa, 1974)

3

Yabrud

III

(Rust,

1950,

107)

4

Ash

(Copeland,

¥escombe,

1966,

24)

5

Jiita

II

(Hours,

1973)

6

Dhour

Choueir

(Hours

et

al,

1973,

454)

7

Ksar

Akil

(Tixier,

1974)

8

Abri

Bergy

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

62)

9

Ain

Hazir

(Hours

et

al,

1973,

454)

10

Mugharet

el

Abed

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

47)

11

Hayonim

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a,

42)

12

En

Gev

I

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a, 106ff)

13

En

Gev

II

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a,

106ff)

14

En

Gev

III

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a,

106ff)

15

Haifa

1

(Olami,

1973,

8)

16

Iraq

el

Barud

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a,

32)

17

Nahal

Oren

(Noy

et

al,

1973)

18

Kebara

(Turville-Petre,

1932)

19

Rakafet

(Noy

et

al,

1973,

96)

20

Hofith-68

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a,

63)

21

Kefar

Vitkin

III

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a,

60)

22

Umm

Khalid

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a,

66)

23

Poleg

18MII

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a,

69)

24

Kiryath

Aryeh

II

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a,

76)

25

Kiryath

Aryeh

I

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a,

77)

26

Soreq

33MI

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a,

84)

27

Soreq

33M

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a,

85)

28

Soreq

33G

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a,

85)

29

Soreq

33

M

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a,

86)

30

Soreq

33

M

2

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a,

88)

31

Giveath

Haesev

(Bar-Yosef,

1970a,

89)

32

Kefar

Darom

26

(Bar-Yosef,

1970b,

61)

33

Kefar

Darom

27

(Bar-Yosef,

1970b,

61)

34

Kefar

Darom

28

(Bar-Yosef,

1970b,

61)

35

Kefar

Darom

3

(Bar-Yosef,

1970b,

61)

36

Kefar

Darom

8

(Bar-Yosef,

1970b,

61)

37

Kefar

Darom

13

(Bar-Yosef,

1970b,

61)

38

¥adi

el

Malih

(Bar-Yosef

et_al,

1974,

423)

39

¥adi

Far'ah

(Bar-Yosef

et

al,

1974,

423)

40

¥adi

Fazael

III

(Bar-Yosef

et

al,

1974,

42l)

41

Wadi

Fazael

VII

(Bar-Yosef

et

al,

1974,

420)

42

Wadi

Fazael

VIII

(Bar-Yosef

et

al,

1974,

421)

43

El

Khiam

(Perrot,

1951,

154)

44

¥adi

Dhobai

K

(¥aechter,

Seton

Williams,

1938,

174)

45

¥adi

Madamagh

(Kirkbride,

1958a)

46

¥adi

Rum

(Copeland, Hours,

1971)

47

Point

104

(Perrot,

1968,

col.

365)

48

NaJial

Lavan

II

(Phillips,

Bar-Yosef,

1974&,

477)

49

Nahal Lavan

VI

(Phillips,

Bar-Yosef,

1974a,

477)

50

Nahal

Lavan

105

(Phillips,

Bar-Yosef,

1974a,

478)

51

En

Avdat

D5

(larks

et

al,

1971,

20)

52

Har

Harif

Gl

(Marks

et

al,

1972,

78)

53

Ear

Harif

G3

(Marks

et

al,

1972,

78)

54

Har

Harif

G9

(Marks

et

al,

1972,

78)

55

Har

Harif

G10

(Marks

et

al,

1972,

78)

56

Har

Harif

K4

(Marks

et

al,

1972,

78)

57

Har

Harif

K5

(Marks

et

al,

1972,

78)

58

Har

Harif

K6 (Marks

et

al,

1972,

78)

59

Har

Harif

K7

(Marks

et

al,

1972,

78)

60

Har

Harif

K8

(Marks

et

al,

1972,

78)

61

Har

Harif

K9

(Marks

et

al,

1972,

78)

62

Lagama

I

(Phillips

et

al,

n.d.,

7)

63

Moshabi

XIV

(Phillips,

Bar-Yosef,

1974b,

483)

64

Moshabi

XVII

(Phillips,

Bar-Yosef,

1974b,

483)

65

Moshabi

unnumbered

(Phillips,

Bar-Yosef,

1974b,

483)

66

Moshabi

unnumbered

(Phillips,

Bar-Yosef,

1974b,

483)

67

Moshabi

XIX

(Phillips,

Bar-Yosef,

1974b,

483)

68

Neba'a

el

Mghara

(Copeland,

¥escombe,

1965,

113)

-

U3

-

Relatively

few

Mesolithic

1

sites

have

been

found

in

the

Judean

hills

or

in

the

Mountains

of

Lebanon

even

though

these

areas

have

been

carefully

surveyed.

This

suggests that

the

people

of

Mesolithic

1

avoided

the

wooded

highlands.

The

Kebaran

occupation

at

El

Khiam

and

the

Falitian

at

Yabrud

III

show

that

they

did

penetrate

the

upland

rain-shadow

zone

which

carried thin

woodland

at

most

during

this

period.

TransJordan

and

possibly

Sinai

and

the

Negev

were

all

steppic

yet

Mesolithic

1

sites

have been

found

in

these

regions

so the

steppe

itself

must

have

afforded

resources

which

these

people

could

exploit.

They

do

not,

however,

appear

to

have

deeply

penetrated

the

steppic

zone

to

the

east.

It

may

be

that

the

very

dry,

cool

conditions

of the

interior

inhibited

further

expansion

in

this

direction.

All

known Mesolithic

1

sites

were

probably

north

and

west

of

the

contemporary

200mm

isohyet

which

may

have

been

the

effective

boundary

of

occupation.

It

will

be

interesting

to

see

if

this

observation

still

holds

true

once

the

interior

of

the

Syrian

desert

has

been

more

thoroughly

surveyed.

The

people

of

Mesolithic

1

used

both

rock

shelters

and

open

stations

as

habitation

sites.

The

shelter

sites,

among

them

Ksar

Akil,

Jiita

II,

Hayonim,

Kebara

and

Wadi

Madamagh,

were

frequently

situated

in

wadis

on

the

fringes

of the

hill

country.

Not all the

available

rock

shelters

were

occupied:

Mugharet

el

Wad,

Shukbah

and

Erq

el

Ahmar

for

instance

remained

empty

through-

out

Mesolithic

1.

This

may

indicate

that

shelters

were

now

less

attractive

as

habitation

sites

than

they

had

been

during

the

Aurignacian.

Most

Mesolithic

1

sites

were

open

stations.

Again,

some

like

the

Nahal

Oren terrace

and the

Wadi

el

Malih

and Wadi Fazael

sites

were

situated

in

wadis

while

En

Gev and

others

were

found

near

springs.

There

were

many

more

open

stations

along

the

present

coast

and

in

the

Negev

around

the

Ear

Harif

and

Jebel

Meghara.

Until

recently

the

relative

abundance

of

open

sites

in

Mesolithic

1

compared

with

the

Aurignacian

lent

weight

to

the

suggestion

that

these

were

more

preferred

than

in

the

past.

This

may

still

be

true

of

the

upland

zones

where

shelters

and

caves

were

to

be

found.

This

observation

- hh -

does

not

apply

to

northern

Sinai

and

the

Negev

where

the

recent

survey

work

of

Marks,

Phillips

and

their

collaborators

has

shown

that

these

areas

were

inhabited

in

both

the

Aurignacian

and

Mesolithic

1.

All

the

sites

of

both

stages

found

here

have

been

open

stations

principally,

no

doubt,

because

shelters

were

a

rare

feature

of the

landscape

in

these

regions.

Economy

and

society

The

great

environmental

diversity

of

the

Levant

meant

that

a

wide

range

of

fauna,

flora

and raw

materials

could be

exploited

by

man but

these

resources

would

have

varied

considerably

from

zone

to

zone.

This

diversity

of

resources

is

reflected

in

the

different artifact

inventories

from

supposedly

approximately

contemporary

deposits

on

Mesolithic

1

sites.

The

artifacts

reflect

above

all

the

activities

practised

by

the

inhabitants

and

it

is

reasonable

to

expect

that

these

activities

would

have

varied

according

to

the

resources

available

although

other

factors such

as

human

preference

would

also

have

played

a

part.

The

animal

bones

form

the

largest

and

most

important

categories

of

indirect

evidence,

on

the

other

hand,

are

common

to

most

of

these

sites.

Sickle

blades and

grinding

tools

have

been

found

on

most

Natufian

sites

in

Palestine

and

on

many

Mesolithic

2

sites

in

Lebanon

and

Syria.

These

artifacts

are

frequently

thought

to

have

been

used

for

harvesting

and

preparing

plant

foods

(Henry,

19T3a,

190).

While

this

may

have

been

the

case,

it

has not

yet

been

conclusively

demonstrated.

As

I

have

already

explained

both

classes

of

tools

could have

been

used

for

purposes

other

than food

processing.

Almost

all the

grinding

tools

found

at

Abu

Hureyra

were

stained

with

red

ochre

as

if

they

had

been

used

for

grinding

the

pigment.

Many

of

the

grinding

tools

from

Mugharet

el

Wad

(Garrod,

Bate,

1937,

Ul),

Ain

Mallaha

(Lechevallier,

Valla,

197^,

193)

and

other

Mesolithic

2

sites

were

also

stained

with

ochre

so

these

tools

are

not

unequivocal

evidence

for the

use

of

plant

foods

in

Mesolithic

2.

It

should

be noted,

however,

that

many

more

of

these

tools

have

been

found

on

Mesolithic

2

than

on

Mesolithic

1

sites.

Whatever

tasks

they

were used

for

were

performed

more

frequently

than before.

h

The

idea

has

been

put

forward

that

the

people

of

Mesolithic

2

used

acorns

for

food.

Acorns

are

quite

nutritious

(Renfrew,

1973,

19^-)

and may

be

harvested

in

considerable

quantities

in

the

autumn.

They

have

to

be

processed

before

they

can

be

eaten since

they

contain

bitter

tannin.

Once

these

have

been

removed

the

acorns

may

be

baked

as

cakes

or

bread

or

used

in

other

ways.

There

is

evidence

that

acorns

were

used

by

various

peoples

in

the

past

since

their

remains

have

been

found

on

many archaeological

sites

(Renfrew,

1973,

15^-).

They

were

also

eaten

in

considerable

quantities

by

Californian

Indians

until quite

recently

(Gifford,

1936,

87ff).

A

peasant

-

71

-

from

a

village

in

the

Jebel

Barisha

in

north-west

Syria told

me

in

1977

that

acorns

were

still

eaten

by

the

poor

there

in

years

when

the

harvest

failed.

He

himself

was fully

conversant

with

methods

of

preparing

acorns

for

food.

Remains of

acorns

have

not

been

found

on

Mesolithic

2

sites

but

there

is

some

other

evidence

supporting

the

idea

that

they

may

have

been

eaten.

Oak

trees

were

an

important

constituent

of

the

Mediterranean

forest

which

was

more

extensive during

Mesolithic

2

than

in

any

later

period.

Most

of

the

larger

Mesolithic

2

sites

and

many

of

the others

were situated

in

this

zone.

Cereal

grasses

would

not

have

grown

so

prolifically

in

the

Mediterranean

forest

as

in

the

more open

country

of

the

intermediate

forest

and

steppe

so

this

source

of

food

would

not

have

been

particularly

abundant.

Acorns,

on

the

other

hand,

would

have

been

available

in

great

quantities

and

could

have

been

a

useful

supplement

or

even

a

staple

of

the

diet.

One

method

of

pre-

paring

acorns

for

food

involves

crushing

the

kernels

to

a

paste

in

a

mortar.

It

may

be

more

than

a

coincidence,

therefore,

that

large

mortars

and

pestles,

often

showing

considerable

signs

of

wear,

which

could

have

been

used

for

crushing

acorns

have

been

found

on

many

of

the

large

sites

in

or

on

the

fringe

of

the

Mediterranean

forest

zone

such

as

Mugharet

el

Wad,

Nahal

Oren,

Jericho,

Ain Mallaha

and

Jebel

Saaideh.

They

have

not

been

found

at

Abu

Hureyra,

Mureybat

nor

on

sites

in

other

steppic

areas

where

oaks

could

not

have

grown

during Mesolithic

2.

If

acorns

were

eaten

in

some

quantity

in

Mesolithic

2

then

it

is

probable

that

they

continued

to

be

consumed

during

the

Mesolithic.

One

other

modest

piece

of

evidence

suggesting

the use

of

plants

was

found

at

Ain

Mallaha.

A

number

of

plaster-lined

pits

were

excavated

there

and

these

were

interpreted

as

storage

containers

for

vegetable

foods

(Perrot,

1966a,

460).

The

pits

may

well

have

been

used

for

this

purpose

although

there

are

other

possible

interpretations.

Storage

facilities

would

be

needed

by

communities

using

large

quantities

of

plant

foods

and

inhabiting

-

72

-

extensive

settlements

like

Ain

Mallaha

for

more

than

one

season

of the

year.

This

is

the

earliest

record

from

a

Levantine

site of

features

possibly used

for

storage.

Large

pits

have

been

found

at

Nahal

Oren

(Stekelis,

Yizraely,

1963,

11)

but

at

no

other

Mesolithic

2

site;

The

only

other

contemporary

settlement

with

large

pits

was

Abu

Hureyra

but

here they

almost

certainly

served

a

different

purpose.

If

the

pits

at

Ain

Mallaha

and

Nahal

Oren

were

for

storing

food

they

were

uncommon

elsewhere.

Skeletons

from

Ain

Mallaha

and

Mugharet

el

¥ad

have

furnished

rather

better

evidence

for

the

use

of

plant

foods

in

Mesolithic

2..

A

recent

study

of the

teeth

of

these

skeletons

has

shown

that they

were

very

worn,

like

thos

of

burials

from

later

Neolithic

sites

(P.

Smith,

1972,

237).

This

was almost

certainly

caused

by

eating

coarsely-ground

cereals.

Interestingly

enough,

Smith

found

that

the

teeth

of

Natufian

skeletons

from

Kebara

were

much

less

worn

as

though

the

inhabitants

had

eaten

only

relatively

soft

foods

such

as

meat

and

unground

plants.

If

we

examine

the siting

of

Mesolithic

2

settlements

this

gives

us

some

information

about

the

potential

suitability

of

the

environment

of

these

sites

for

hunting,

gathering

or

simple

farming.

A

large

number

of

Mesolithic

2

shelter

sites

were situated

in

wadis

on

the

fringes

of

or

actually

in

the

upland

zone

of

the

Anti-Lebanon,

on

the

western

side

of

the

Mountains

of

Lebanon,

Galilee,

Carmel

and

Judea,

in

the

Judean

desert,

the

Negev

and

in

TransJordan.

They

were

surrounded

by

woodland

with

abundant

vegetable

resources

and

a

good

water

supply

near

more

open

country,

often

with

good

hunting

potential.

As

Henry

has

noted

(1973a,

188)

they

were

also

in

the

presumed

habitat

of

wild

cereals.

All

these

sites

were

well

placed

for

intensive

hunting

and

gathering

but

their

catchments

included

very

little

potential

arable

land

(Vita-Finzi, Higgs,

1970,

16)

so

it

is

unlikely

that

their

inhabitants

practised

any

form

of

agriculture.

Other

Mesolithic

2

sites

were situated

in

more

open

country.

The

catchments

of

a

number

of

these,

Saaideh,

Ain

Mallaha,

Rakafet

(Vita-Finzi,

-

73

-

Higgs,

1970,

21

)

and

Qornet

Rharra

included

much

potential

arable

land

so

that

it

would

have

been possible

for

the

inhabitants

to

have

planted

crops

nearby.

This

also

applies

to

the

four

Euphrates

sites,

all

of

which

had

abundant

potential

arable

land

in

their

catchments,

much

of

it

with

light

soil

particularly

suitable

for

simple

agricultural

techniques.

In

contrast,

very

few

Mesolithic

1

sites

had

a

catchment

area

with

significant

quantities

of

potential

arable

land.

It

is

also

significant

that

Mesolithic

2

occupation

has

now

been

found

at

the

bottom

of

four

tell

sites

with

later

substantial

Neolithic

settlements

which

depended

on

agriculture,

Jericho,

Beidha,

Abu

Hureyra

and

Mureybat,

yet

no Mesolithic

1

occupation

has

been

found

at

the

foot

of

any

agricultural

tell

settlement.

Because

the

Levant

is

a

region

of

great

geographical

variation

a

number

of

Mesolithic

2

sites

only

a

few

kilometres

apart

from

each

other

were

situated

in

contrasting

environmental

zones.

Thus

their

catchments

offered

complementary

resources

with

marked

seasonal

differences.

One

such

area

with

several

Natufian

sites

close

together

was

Mt.

Carmel.

Vita-Finzi

and

Higgs

have

suggested

(1970,

22ff)

that

the

inhabitants

of

sites

such

as

Nahal

Oren,

Mugharet

el

Wad

and

Kebara

at

the

foot

of

the

Carmel

range

may

have

moved

into

the

uplands

behind

at

certain

seasons

in

order

to

exploit

the

resources

of

the

area

more

fully.

Such

a

pattern

of

transhumance

might

have

led

these

groups to

spend

the

early

summer

in

the

hills

harvesting

cereals

and

hunting

or

herding

animals

on

the

upland

pastures.

In

the

dry

late

summer

they

and

the

animals

would

have

descended

to

the

coastal

plain

to

live

near

permanent

sources

of

water

available

near

the

sea and

stayed

on

through

the

winter

while

the

animals

grazed

on

the

lush

lowland

pastures.

Excavation

has

since

confirmed

(Noy,

Higgs,

1971,

225)

that

the

upland

site

of

Rakafet

had

a

long

sequence

of

Mesolithic

occupation

and

so it

could

have

been

a

comple-

mentary

site

to

Nahal

Oren

for

transhumance

in

Mesolithic

2

as

well

as

in

Mesolithic

1

(Noy

et

al.,

1973,

95ff).

The

principal

advantage

of

transhumance

was

that

it

permitted

more

people

to

live

off

the

resources

of the

region

than

would

otherwise

have

"been

possible.

Lowland

and

upland

sites

would

have

offered

an

abundance

of

plant

and

animal

foods

at

different

seasons.

Human

groups

could

move

between

them

at

the

most

favourable

time,

probably

in

early

summer

and

autumn.

Thus

the

group

could be

larger

than

would

be

possible

if

it

remained

in

the

vicinity

of

a

single

lowland

or

upland

site.

This

pattern

of

vertical

movement

was

also

advantageous

when

the

presence

of

other

groups

in

neigh-

bouring

territories

made

it

impossible

for the

inhabitants

of

a

site to

split

up

and

spread

out

across

the

landscape

in

the

lean

season.

Transhumance

may

well

have

been

practised

by

Mesolithic

2

groups

else-

where

in

the

Levant

where

different

environments

were

to

be

found

only

a

few

kilometres

apart.

One

such

area

might

have

been

the

Judean

hills

with

the

lowland

zones

of

the

coastal

plain

and

the

Jordan

valley

on

either

side.

Another

might

have

been

the

hills

of

Galilee

with

the

Plain

of

Esdraelon

below

while

a

third

might

have

been

the

seaward

slope

of

the

Lebanon

Mountains

where

there

was

a

great

environmental

contrast

between

the

coastal

plain

and

the

upland

pastures

in

the

mountains

behind.

Transhumance

is

less

likely

to

have

been

practised

east

of

the

Rift

valley

and

in

the

semi-arid

zone

because

here

there

was

insufficient

contrast

for

neighbouring

zones

to

have

offered

complementary

resources.

To

summarise,

the

people

of

Mesolithic

2

practised

selective

hunting

of

specific

species,

at

some

sites

killing

a

high

proportion

of

immature

animals.

At

each site

this

hunting

pattern

was

strongly

influenced

by

the

local

environment.

They

also

took

a

great

variety

of other species

for

food.

This

pattern

had

much

in

common

with

the

Mesolithic

1

economy

but

was

clearly

a

more

intensive

and

refined

version

of

it.

Plant

foods

were

very

important

in

the

diet;

the

fruits,

seeds

and

other

parts

of

many

different

plants

were

eaten

but,

on

the

Euphrates

sites

at

least,

cereals

seem

to have

been

the

main

source

of

food.

This

may

have

been

so

in

earlier

times

but

it

is

only

now

that

we

find

clear

evidence

of

-

75

-

the

importance

of

cereals

in

the

diet.

There

seems

little

doubt

that

on

most

sites

these

plants

-were

gathered

from

the

wild

as

in

the

past.

A

few

sites

were

situated

in

areas

with

land

suitable

for

cultivation

nearby

and

it

is

possible

that

on

these

sites

cereals

and vetches

were

being

cultivated

for

the

first

time.

Mesolithic

2

sites

may

be

divided

into

three

groups

according

to

size.

The

smallest

sites

were

all

under

100

sq

m

in

area.

This

group

included

several

shelter

sites

of

which

Yabrud

III

with

a

probable

maximum

area

of

50

sq.

m

was

typical

(Rust,

1950,

100,

pi.

96)

and

a

number

of

open

stations.

There

were

some of

these

on

the

coastal

plain

of

Palestine

such

as

Kfar

Vitkin

III,

Caesarea

sands

and

Kefar

Darom

28

on

which

a

few

Mesolithic

2

flints

have

been

found

(Stekelis,

1968,

333;

Bar-Yosef,

19TOa,

59, 9*0

together

with

earlier

material.

Others

like

Nahal

Lavan

IV

(20

sq

m)

were

in

the

Negev

(Phillips,

Bar-Yosef,

197^a,

^78).

The next group

of

sites

was

those

of

medium

size

between

100

and

500

sq

m.

Erq

el

Ahmar

(165

sq

mj

,

Kebara

(300

sq

m),

Jiita

II

(about

350

sq

m

in

Mesolithic

2

)

and

Mugharet

el

Wad

(^75

sq

m

taking

terrace

and

cave

occupation

together,

Garrod,

Bate,

1937

9

pi.

Ill)

were

all

in

this

group.

Moshabi

IV

(200

sq

m)

in

Sinai

was also

of

medium

size

(Phillips,

Bar-Yosef,

197^a,

U78).

It

is

probable

that

Abu

Hureyra

and Dibsi

Faraj

East

(Wilkinson,

Moore,

forthcoming)

were

about

this

size.

These

sites

were

of

the

same

area

or

a

little

larger

than

Mesolithic

1

composite

band

sites.

The

large

sites

which

could

be

from

000

up

to

2000

sq

m

in

area

formed

the

third

group.

Shukbah

(800

sq

m)

and

Rosh

Zin

(900

sq

m)

(Garrod,

19^2,

3;

Henry,

1973b,

129),

were

two

of

the

smaller

sites

in

this

group;

Hayonim

where

the area of the

terrace

and

shelter

was

somewhat

more

than

1000

sq

m

(Bar-Yosef,

Goren,

1973,

^9)

came

in

the

middle.

Wadi

Fazael

IV

(1000-1500

sq

m,

Bar-Yosef

et

al.

,

197^-

9

423J

was

about

the

same

size

as

Hayonim.

Ain

Mallaha

was

at

least

2000

sq

m

in

area

IPerrot,

1966a,

U37)

and

so

one

of

the

largest

known

Mesolithic

2

sites.

There

is

one

other

site,

Rosh Horesha,

-

76

-

which

was

much

larger

even

than

this.

The

site

is

now

about

7000

sq

m;

the

original area

of

occupation

was

somewhat

smaller

(Henry,

1973&,

129)

but

it

was

still

far

bigger

than

any

other

known

Mesolithic

2

site.

Rosh

Horesha

was

discovered

quite

recently

and

it

is

not

yet

clear

if

in

fact

it

was

a

single

phase

site

or if

several

phases

of

occupation

were

represented

there. The

terrace

at

El

Khiam

was

about

7500

sq

m

in

area

(Perrot,

1951,

fig.

59)

and

it

is

possible

that

the

Mesolithic

2

site

covered

much

of

it.

If

so,

it

would

have

been

another exceptionally

large

site

but

this

cannot

now

be

determined

with

certainty.

Most

Mesolithic

2

sites

fall

into

the

small and

medium

groups

and

were

thus

similar

in

size

to

Mesolithic

1

and

Aurignacian

sites.

Only

a

few

activities

were

carried

out

on

the

small

sites

and

their

occupation

was

short-lived.

This

is

reflected

in

the

small

number

of

artifact

types

found

on

these

transitory

stations:

flints

and

a

few

bone

tools

at

Abu

Usba

(Stekelis,

Haas,

1952,

21)

and

Yabrud

III

(Rust,

1950,

119),

flints

only

at

Tulmeh

and

Poleg

18M

(Bar-Yosef,

I970a,

72ff,

1U5)

and

very

few

flints

even

at

Ala

Safat

(Waechter,

19^-8,

101ff).

These

sites

were

hunting

stations

that

were used

intermittently

by

families

or

other

small

groups.

Greater

artifact

variability

on

the

medium-sized

sites

indicates

that

a

wider

range

of

activities

was

practised

on

them.

Erq

el

Ahmar,

Kebara

and

Mugharet

el

Wad

all

had

numerous

flint,

bone

and

ground

stone

artifacts

and

decorative

objects.

These

sites

were

probably

used

by

communities

of

composite

band

size

principally

engaged

in

hunting

and

gathering,

as

their

ancestors

had

been

in

Mesolithic

1

and

the

Aurignacian.

Tne

big

Mesolithic

2

sites

found

in

the

southern

Levant

were

a

significant

new

group.

They

appear

to

have been

inhabited

by

larger

communities

of

people than

before.

Furthermore,

the

occupation

of

these

sites

was

more

intensive

and longer-term:

the

numerous

species

of

mollusca

and

human

commensals

found

in

the

Natufian

layers

at

Hayonim

are

evidence

for

this

(Bar-Yosef,

Tchernov,

1966,

135,

138).

The

archaeological

deposits

-

77

-

themselves

were

usually

thicker

than

in

Mesolithic

1

,

a

maximum

of

3m

at

Mugharet

el

Wad,

3.5

m

at

Shukbah

(Garrod,

Bate,

1937,

9;

Garrod,

1942,

2)

and

3

m

at

Ain

Mallaha

(Perrot,

1966a,

U39),

composed

mostly

of

occupation

debris

with

relatively

little

erosional

deposit.

Many

pestles,

rubbers,

mortars

and

other

ground

stone

tools

have

been

found

on

large

as

-well

as

medium

Mesolithic

2

sites, far

more than

in

Mesolithic

1.

These

implements

took

a

long

time

to

make and

vere

too

heavy

to

carry

far

so

they

are

another

indicator

of

long-term

occupation.

A

recent study

of

the

numerous

human

remains

from

Hayonim

has

shown

that

they

probably

all

belonged

to

the

same

family

(Smith,

1973,

70).

These

individuals

were

buried

at

intervals

throughout

the

period

in

which

the

Natufian

deposit

accumulated,

indicating

long-term

use

of

the

site

by

at

least

one

family.

These

large

settlements

were

unknown

before Mesolithic

2.

Some change

had

taken

place,

therefore,

creating

conditions

which

favoured

the

establishment

of

these

new

sites.

Occupation

on

most

of

the

small

and

medium

sites

was

still

transient

or

seasonal

but

on

some

of

the

medium

sites

it

was

now

repeated

quite

often

and

so

was

more

intensive

than

before.

Occupation

on

the

new

large

sites

was

both

long-term

and

intensive.

This

could

mean

either

that

these

sites

were

visited

regularly

and

repeatedly

or

that

they

were

occupied

all the

year

round

for

a

period

of years. As

the

groups

that

inhabited

these

sites

were

more numerous than

any

known

before,

they

needed

a

larger

guaranteed

regular

food

supply. This

and

more

regular

occupation

of

the

sites

of

medium

size

explains

why

the

pattern

of

hunting

was

more

intensive. There

would

have

been

more

pressure

on

plant

resources

too,

reflected

in

more

intensive

collecting.

The

need

for

a

larger

guaranteed

supply

of

plant

as

well

as

animal foods

would

have

provided

the

incentive

to

begin

cultivation,

once

the

demand

exceeded

the

supply

available

from

the

wild.

Although

much

of

the

demand

could

still

be satisfied

from

wild

resources

I

think

it

is

likely

now

that

some

form

of

cultivation

was

undertaken

for

the

first

time

on

those

sites

situated

in

the most

favourable

areas.

As

occupation

of

many

sites

-

78

-

was

now

more

long-term,

storage

facilities

would

have

"been

needed

to

keep

food

harvested

in

one

season

until

it

was

consumed

later

on,

whether

it

was

gathered

from

the

wild

or

from

cultivated

plots;

there

is

some

archaeological

evidence

of

possible

storage

facilities

at

two

sites,

as

we have

already

noted,

and

perishable

containers

of

wood

or

basketry

may

have

been used

on

others.

One

advantage

of

cereals

over

other

plant

foods

is

that

they

can

quite

easily

be stored

for

many

months

without

decaying.

We

must

now

ask

what

brought

about

these

changes

in

settlement

and

economy

that

we

have

noted

in

the

archaeological

record?

One

possible

explana-

tion

is

that

there

was

an

expansion

of

population

at

the

end of

Mesolithic

1.

The

idea

that

population

growth might

be

a

cause

of

economic

and social

change

in

primitive

societies

has

been

much

discussed

by

anthropologists

and

others

in

recent

years.

An

important

theoretical

contribution

was

made

by

an

economist,

Boserup,

in

1965.

She

wished

to

explain

agricultural

change

in

the

recent

past

and

concluded

that

growth

or

decline

in

population

was

an

independent

variable

that

determined

pressure

on

the

food

supply.

Under

conditions

of

sustained

population

growth

this

pressure

would

lead

to

pro-

gressively

more intensive

methods

of

food

production

(19^5,

15ff).

She

also

believed

that

population

pressure

had

caused

the

earliest

experiments

in

agriculture

(1965»

53).

Her

views

are

helpful,

therefore,

when

trying

to

understand

the

beginnings

of

agriculture

in

the

Levant.

A

few

years

later

Binford

came

to

the

same

conclusion

independently

(1968,

332ff),

when

he

examined

world-wide

changes

in

subsistence

patterns

at

the

end

of

the

Pleistocene.

He

argued

that

man

came

to

depend

on

seasonal

food

resources,

particularly

aquatic

foods,

at

the

beginning

of

the

Holocene

and

that

this

was

accompanied

by

increased

sedentism.

As

communities

became

more

sedentary

so

the

population

grew,

pressing

upon

the

available

food

supply;

agriculture

was then

developed

as

a

response

to

this

pressure.

Several

of

Binford

1

s

premises

seem

improbable

when

applied

to the

Levant;

man

was

partly

dependent

upon

seasonal

food

resources,

for

example,

as

far

-

79

-

back

as

the

Aurignacian.

He

also

ate

fish

and

aquatic

molluscs

during

the

Pleistocene,

not

just

at

its

close.

On

the

other

hand,

as

we

have

already

seen,

the

people of

Mesolithic

2

did

not

depend

on

these

resources

as

Binford

supposed

(1968,

33^-ff)

Nevertheless,

Binford

may

have

been

correct

when

he

surmised

that

the

population

was

larger

and

more

sedentary

in

Mesolithic

2

than

before.

Boserup's

thesis

formed

the

theme

of

a

conference

held

in

1970

which

explored

its

application

to

archaeology and

anthropology.

In

a

paper

on

Greater

Mesopotamia

Smith

and

Young

agreed

that

population

increase

at

the

end

of

the

Pleistocene

led

to

the

development

of

agriculture

in

that

region

(1972,

32ff).

For

the

transition

from

Mesolithic

to

Neolithic their

conclu-

sion

was

based

largely

on

theoretical

considerations

because

not

enough was

known

about

the

Zarzian

to

determine

if

there was

an

actual

increase

in

population

then

or

not.

They

were

on

surer

ground

when

discussing

the

period

from

Hassuna

to

Uruk

(Smith,

Young,

1972,

Ulff)

for

which

there

was

ample

evidence

from

surveys

and

excavations

of

population

growth

in

several

regions

of

Mesopotamia.

We

are in

a

stronger

position

if

we

attempt

to

apply

this

reasoning

to

Mesolithic

2

because

we have much

more

archaeological

evidence

for

this

phase

than

for

contemporary

societies

elsewhere

in

the

Near

East.

About

70

Meso-

lithic

2

sites

have

been

found

to

date

throughout

the

Levant

(Fig.

6).

This

is

about

the

same

number

as

the

total

of

Mesolithic

1

sites

discovered

(Fig.

5).

Yet

all the

known

Mesolithic

2

sites,

large,

medium

and

small,

were

occupied

in

a

much

shorter

period

of

time,

about

1500

years,

whereas Meso-

lithic

1

lasted

perhaps

as

long

as

8000

years.

If,

as

seems

likely,

the

ratio

of

sites

discovered

to

those

which

once

existed

is

the

same

for

Mesolithic

2

as

for

Mesolithic

1

then

there

was

a

great

increase

in

the

density

of

settlement

in

Mesolithic

2.

A

greater

density

of

settlement

suggests

that the

population

grew

quite

markedly

at

the

end of

Mesolithic

1

and

during

Mesolithic

2.

This

population

-

80 -

pressure

-would

also

account

for

the

growth

of

the

group

of

larger

sites

in

Mesolithic

2

and

the

tendency

for

these

to

be

occupied

for

longer

periods

of

time.

In

turn

it

would

also

explain

the

changes

in

the

economy

that

we

have

noted.

The

evidence

for

an

increase

in

population

in

Mesolothic

2

is

strongest

in

Palestine

since

far

more

sites

have

been

discovered

there

than

in

other

regions.

Too

few

sites

have

been

found

so

far

in

the

rest

of

the

Levant

for

us

to

be

certain

that

the

same

was

happening

elsewhere.

There

are

hints

of

a

possible

similar

increase

of

population

in

Lebanon.

Mesolithic

1

stations

there

fell

within

the

size

range

of

sites

in

Palestine

but

one or

two

of

the

Mesolithic

2

sites

were

significantly

bigger.

Mesolithic

2

occupation

at

Jiita

II

covered

a

significantly larger

area

then

the

Mesolithic

1

levels

at

the

same site

and

Saaideh

also

appears

to

have

been

an

extensive

site.

Too little

is

known

about

the

later

prehistory

of

Syria

for

one

to

apply

these

arguments

there.

All

that

can

be

said

is

that

a

cluster

of

Mesolithic

2

sites,

two

at

least

of

medium

size,

have

been

found

in

the

Euphrates

valley but

only

one

Mesolithic

1

site

in

the

same

area.

Having

examined

the

economy,

settlement

pattern

and

the

changes

brought

about

by

population

expansion

we

must

now

consider

how

Mesolithic

2

society

was

organized.

We

have

already

noted

that

the

medium-sized

Mesolithic

2

sites

were

probably

occupied

by

composite

bands,

that

is

by

groups of

about

25

people.

Some

medium

Mesolithic

2

sites

were

bigger

than

Mesolithic

1

and

Aurignacian

camps

so

the

bands

which

inhabited

them

may

have

been

larger.

This

postulated

slight

increase

in

band

size

may itself

be

a

reflection

of

increased

population.

The groups

which

inhabited

the

larger

Mesolithic

2

sites

were

several

times

bigger

than

these

composite

bands.

Extrapolating

from

the

overall

area

of

the

larger

sites

one

might

suggest

on

a

conservative

estimate

that

they

had

from

50

to

150

inhabitants

and

in

some

cases more.

A

few

of

these

groups

may

have

been

large

composite bands

but

most

were

too

big

for

this

-

81

-

kind

of

social

arrangement.

The

most

likely

explanation

for

the

formation

of

these

larger

population

groups

is

that

they

came

about

through

the

coalescing

of

several

composite

bands.

In

circumstances

of

population

expansion

these

larger

groups

-would

have

"been

better

able to

exploit

their

environment

in

the

manner

suggested

by

the

evidence

for

the

Mesolothic

2

economy.

Intensive, selective

hunting

of

herds

of

ruminants

would

have

been

more

effective

when

practised

by

a

large

group

of

hunters.

This

required

more

people

than

a

single

band

could

supply.

The

need

for

extra

hands

would

have

been

even

greater

when

cereals

became

an

important

constituent

of

the

diet.

These

plants,

whether

wild

or

cultivated,

were

ripe

for

a

short

period

only

and

had

to

be

harvested

rapidly.

Since

the

available

technology

was

simple

many

people

were

needed

to

gather

the

cereals

if

a

surplus

was

to

be

stored.

This

need

for

a

large

concentration

of

people

would

only

have

arisen

for

a

few

weeks

of

the

year

at

harvest

time although

a

large

population

might

then

have

been

maintained

on a

site

for

some

time

until

the

surplus

had

been

eaten.

It

is

possible,

therefore,

that

at

other

seasons

the

inhabitants

of

the

larger

sites

might

have

broken

up

into

bands

or

even

family

groups

and

moved

away

to

forage

on

their

own,

perhaps

leaving

a

few

people

behind

at

the

main

settlement.

This

pattern,

which

may

have

taken

the

form

of

trans-

humance

in

some

areas,

would

have

been

particularly

advantageous

in

the dry

summer

season

when

plant

foods

would

have

been

scarce.

The

bands

or

families,

individual

hunting

parties

and

other

transient

groups

would

then

have

inhabited

the

small

Mesolithic

2

stations

which

were

quite

numerous

in

Palestine

and

elsewhere.

As

the

population increased

so

contacts

between

groups

would

have

been

more

frequent,

particularly

in

Palestine

where

some

sites

were

no

more than

a

few

kilometres

apart.

It

follows

that the

territories

over

which

bands

had

roamed

before

would

have

diminished

in area.

These

pressures

were

bound

to

influence

the

changes

in

social

organization

that

were taking

place.

Something

more

complex

than

a

simple

band

society

was

emerging

in

response

- 82 -

to

these

economic

and

social

forces

although

the

new

order

retained

some

features

of

hunter-gatherer

organization

and

economy.

This

new

pattern

may be

thought

of

as

a

tribal

society,

a

model

familiar

in

Social

Anthropology.

Tribes

are

composed

of

the

inhabitants

of

a

group

of

villages

in

a

defined

geographical

region

who

are

united

by

kinship

ties

(Sahlins,

1968,

15).

They

are

frequently

organized

in

descent

groups

that

take

the

form of

clans

or

lineages

(Sahlins,

1968,

U9ff).

Tribes

are

a

loose

social

system

without

any

formal

political

organization.

They

rely

on

kinship

ties

and

individual

initiative

to

solve

disputes

and

regulate

relations

with

their

neighbours.

Tribes,

like

bands,

are

egalitarian

(Service,

1962,

11^;

1971,

157)

even if

relationships

between

individuals

within

the

tribe

are

more

elaborate

than

in a

band

society.

Members

of

a

tribe

will

usually

share

the

same

customs,

technical

traditions

and

material

culture

(Sahlins,

1968,

15).

This

model

accords

well

with

the

archaeological

evidence

for

Mesolithic

2.

Some

settlements

now

resembled

villages

and

these

were

near

enough

to

each

other

for

their

inhabitants

to

have

been

in

close

contact.

Artifact

types

and

burial

customs

on

sites

within

the

Natufian

heartland

had

strikingly

similar

characteristics,

as

though

this

area

was

inhabited

by

a

single

tribe.

Dwellings

within

each

Natufian

settlement

and

on

contemporary

sites

elsewhere

in

the

Levant

were

of

uniform

size,

indicating

that

there

was

no

great

difference

in

status

between

the

inhabitants.

Now

that

people

were

more

sedentary

and

united

by

more

complex

social

relationships

than

before

their

material

culture

became

more

elaborate,

at

least

on

the

medium

and

larger

sites.

This

was

true

both

in

Palestine

and

in

Lebanon

and

Syria

where

there

were

marked

differences

between

the still

very

simple

Mesolithic

1

artifact

assemblages

and

those

of

Mesolithic

2

sites.

Mesolithic

2

burial

practices

were

both

elaborate

and

diverse,

much

more

so

than

anything

known

before;

this,

too,

was

a

reflection

of

more

varied

tribal

organization

and

greater

sedentism.

One

suspects

that

the

manufacture

of

a

variety

of

stone,

bone

-

83

-

and

shell

beads,

necklaces,

head-dresses

and

other

ornaments

was

also

associated

with

these

developments

in

society.

The

changes

in

population,

settlement

patterns

and

economy

that

were

taking

place

gave

rise

to

new

needs

and

pressure

on

resources.

The

people

of

Mesolithic

2

responded

to

this

"by

modifying

their

technology

and

developing

new

artifacts,

using

many

more

ground

stone and

"bone

tools

for

example and

introducing

microlithic

lunates.

Evidence

for

social

change

is

derived

from

the

large

Mesolithic

2

settlements

and

some

medium

sites.

This

indicates

that

already

a

more

sedentary

society

living

in

nucleated

settlements

was

crystallizing

whose

livelihood

depended

upon

the

control and

conscious

reproduction

of

a

few

plant

and

animal

species.

Even

so

some

groups,

while

perhaps

beginning

to

be

incorporated

in

a

tribe,

remained

essentially

at

the

band

level

and

their

economy

was

not

greatly

modified.

The

new

mode

of

life

was

developed

quickly

at

the

end

of

Mesolithic

1.

This

contrasts

strongly

with Aurignacian

and

Mesolithic

1

society

where

most

of

the

fundamental

aspects

of life

remained

the

same

for

many

millennia

and

the

rate of

cultural

change

was

slow.

After

a

period

of

rapid

develop-

ment

the

new

Mesolithic

2

adaptation

gives

the

impression

of

having

reached

an

equilibrium

which

perhaps

lasted

a

millennium

or

more.

This

apparent

stability may

be

an

illusion

resulting

from

our

inability

to

date

individual

sites

precisely

within

a

very

general

chronology.

It

is

possible

that

under

pressure

of

population

change

there

was

a

continuous

adjustment

in

society

and

economy

against

the

background

of

a

modified

environment.

Chapter

3

NEOLITHIC

1

There

was

a

further

transformation

in

the

way

of life of

the

population

of

the

Levant

after

the

Mesolithic.

This

is

marked

in

the

archaeological

record

by

alterations

in

the

cultural

remains

and

evidence

for

changes

in

economy.

A

new

stage

in

the

development

of

society

and

economy

crystallized

which

since

the

beginning

of

modern

archaeology

has

been

called

the

Neolithic.

Many

objections

have

been

raised

to the

continued

use

of

this

term

but

it

has

remained

in

circulation

nonetheless.

One

still

needs

a

name

for

this

new

stage

of

development

in

order

to

conceptualize

and

refer

to

it.

I

believe

the

term

"Neolithic"

serves

this

purpose

as

well

as

any

other

so

long

as

one

is

careful

to

define

one's

use

of

the

word.

In

order

to

understand

what

I

mean

by

"Neolithic"

I

wish

to

anticipate

some

of

my

later

conclusions

by

outlining the

attributes

of

the

full

Neolithic

way

of life

in

the

Levant.

Well

before

the

end

of

the

Neolithic

most

of

the

population lived

all

the

year

round

in

villages and

supported

themselves

by

arable

farming

and

stock-keeping.

One

might

suppose

from

ethnographic

analogy

that each

village

was

composed

of

groups

of

families

united

by

kinship

ties

and

that

these

links

extended

to

other villages

in

the

same

region.

Society

was

probably

egalitarian

with

no

marked

differences

in

status

between

the

members

of

different

families. The

chipped

stone

industry

of

these

people

was

based

upon

the

production

of

blade

tools.

They

practised

a

number

of

household

crafts,

among

them

weaving,

woodworking

and

stoneworking,

which

were

themselves

attributes of

a

sedentary

way

of

life.

They

also

made

pottery,

another

craft

which

is

usually

associated

with

sedentism.

The

full

Neolithic

way

of

life

thus

had

a

characteristic

economy,

settlement

pattern,

social

organization

and

range

of

artifacts.

These

traits

were

typical

only

of

the

developed

Neolithic:

they

were

not

evolved

immediately

after

the

Mesolithic.

Even

when

these

characteristic

features

-

85

-

were

created

they

did

not

remain

static

for

each

underwent

constant

change,

though

at

varying

rates.

It

is

necessary,

therefore,

to

visualize

the

Neolithic

of

the

Levant

as

a

way

of

life

with

certain

attributes

which

were

themselves

continually

evolving

-

a

system

in

continuous

motion.

There

was

a

point

at

the

"beginning

when

it

began

to

crystallize

but

when

it

still

lacked

most of

the

attributes

outlined

above

and

a

point

at

the

end

when

these

attributes

had

been

sufficiently

modified

for

the

term

"Neolithic"

no

longer

to

apply.

The

Neolithic,

then,

had

a

beginning

and

an

ending,

a

chronology

which

it

is

necessary

to

state

in

order

to

complete

the

definition.

The

choosing

of

such

dates

cannot

be

entirely

objective;

as

will

be

seen

I

prefer

to

propose

a

long

Neolithic

chronology

in

order

to

avoid

having

lengthy

transition

phases

between

one

defined

stage

and

the

next,

particularly

as

these

stages

are

themselves

such

fluid

concepts.

Mesolithic

2

seems

to

have

come

to

an

end

about

8500

B.C.

throughout

the

Levant

and

I

shall

take

this

date

as

the

beginning

of

the

Neolithic.

The

Neolithic

did not

finally

run

its

course

in

the

southern

and

central

Levant

until

the

Uth

millennium,

about

3750 or

3500

B.C.

when

the

Chalcolithic

began.

The

Neolithic

of

the

Levant,

therefore,

lasted

about

5000

years.

The

evolution

of

the

Neolithic

of

the

Levant

may

be

conveniently

divided

into

several

stages.

The

earliest

stage,

which

I

shall

call

Neolithic

1,

will

be

the

subject

of

this

chapter.

I

will

briefly

describe

some

of the

characteristics

of

this

stage

and

then

examine

the

detailed

archaeological

evidence

for

them

in

the

remainder

of

the

chapter.

The

people

of

the

Levant

became

more

sedentary

in

Neolithic

1,

a

development

which

was

associated

with

the

first

certain evidence

of

cereal

agriculture.

They

established

some

new

relatively

large

settlements,

one

of

which,

Jericho,

was

enormous

when

compared

with

all

earlier

sites.

These larger

settlements

were

probably

occupied

for

longer

too,

that

is

for

much

or

all

of

the

year.

Other Neolithic

1

sites

were

no

bigger

than many

in

Mesolithic

2

and

were

probably

inhabited

on

a

seasonal

basis.

-

86

-

The

economy

of

Neolithic

1

consisted

of

several methods

of

obtaining

food.

Some

cereals

were

definitely

cultivated

while

others

were

gathered

from

the

wild.

Many

other

fruits,

nuts

and plants

were

also

collected

in

season.

A

few

species

of

animals

were

either

killed

"by

intensive,

controlled

hunting

or

herded

while

many

others

were

hunted

on

a

less

regular

"basis.

The

normal

form

of

dwelling

was

a

circular

hut

made

of

whatever

materials

were

readily

available,

usually

mud-brick

and

stone.

These

varied

greatly

in size

according

to

the

number

of

people

who

lived

in

them.

The

smallest

circular

structures

on

some

sites

were probably used

for

other

purposes

such

as

stores.

These

circular

buildings

were

simply

a

modification

of

the

typical

huts of

Mesolithic

2.

The

people

of

Neolithic

1

buried

their

dead

within

the

confines

of

their

settlements.

The

bodies

were

often

laid

under

the

floors

of

the

houses

or

sometimes

in

an

open

space

between

the

buildings.

This

made

of

burial

was

in

essence

a

continuation

of

the

Mesolithic

custom.

The

chipped

stone

industry

of

Neolithic

1

was

also

derived

from

that

of

Mesolithic

2.

The

tools

were

still

small

but microliths

were

phased

out

early

in

this

stage.

The

most

common

tool

types

were

burins

and

scrapers

while

nibbled

blades

were

also numerous

on

most

sites.

A

new

tool

was

the

Khiamian

point,

probably

an

arrowhead,

which may

have

superseded

one

of

the

functions

of lunates.

The

Khiamian

point

is

the

only

chipped

stone

tool

unique

to

Neolithic

1.

Among

the

other

stone

tools

were

rubbers

and

querns

while

stone

bowls

and

other

vessels

were

quite

frequently

made.

Ground

stone

axes

were

also

manufactured

for

the

first

time

though

these

do

not

seem

to

have

been

used

on

many

sites.

Bone

tools

were

a

regular

component

of

the

artifact assemblages

from

Neolithic

1

sites

though

with

the

exception

of

the

tools

from

Mureybat they

were

less

elaborate

than

those

from

some

Mesolithic

2

sites.

Other

kinds

of

artifacts

were

scarce

on

Neolithic

1

sites

although

a

few

items

of

jewelry

were

sometimes

made.

One

important

innovation

was

tools

made

of

obsidian.

This

raw

material

began

to

be

exchanged

during

this

-

87

-

stage

and

in

consequence

the

first

regular

contacts

were

established

with

regions

distant

from

settlements

in

the

Levant.

The

change

in

culture

at

the

end

of

Mesolithic

2

was

first

established

stratigraphically

at

Jericho

where

the

Natufian

site

was

abandoned

and

then

succeeded

by

other settlements

with

somewhat

different

cultural

remains

to

which

the

names

"Proto-Neolithic"

and

"Pre-Pottery

Neolithic

A"

(PPNA)

were

given

(Kenyon,

1969,

150).

A

similar

sequence

has

also

been

found

at

Nahal

Oren

where

immediately

above

Natufian

layers

there

was

another

cultural

level

with

material

described

as

"Pre

Pottery

Neolithic

A

and

B"

(Noy

et

al.,

1973,

75ff),

though here

the

deposits

were

much

less

substantial.

One

site

in

northern

Syria,

Mureybat,

had

a

phase

with

somewhat

different

cultural

remains,

phase

IB,

which

has

been

equated

with

PPNA,

immediately

succeeding

a

Mesolithic

2

level,

phase

IA

(Cauvin,

1972,

107).

It

would

thus

appear

that

this

change

in

culture

was

taking

place

on

sites

throughout

the

Levant

and

that

the

new

cultural

configuration

had

sufficient

similarities

for

archaeologists

to

name

it

by

the

same

term.

In

order

to

examine

the

validity

of

these

propositions

it

will

be

necessary

to

describe

and

compare

the

sequences

from

these

and

other

sites on

which

such

remains

have

been

discovered.

Jericho

The

Natufian

settlement

at

Jericho

was

found

at

the

bottom

of

Trench

E

alone

of

the

five

trenches

(I,

II,

III,

M,

E)

that

were

excavated

to

bedrock.

This

settlement

was,

therefore,

confined

to

the

north-east

corner

of

the

mound.

Thin

deposits

of

the

Proto-Neolithic,

were

found

in

Trench

I

(DI,

DII,

F)

and

Trench

II

on

the

bedrock

and

in

E

(I,

II,

V)

over

lying

the

Natufian.

A

much

greater

accumulation

of

Proto-Neolithic

debris

some

Urn

deep

was

found

above

the

bedrock

in

Square

MI

(Kenyon,

1960,

99).

It

appears

that

the

focus

of

the

settlement

at

Jericho

had

moved

away

from

the

north-east

corner of

the

tell.

The

maximum

extent

of

the

Proto-Neolithic

settlement

was

quite

considerable,

covering

perhaps

one

third

of

the

area of

the

mound,

"but

only part

of

the

site

in

the

vicinity

of

MI

was

occupied

for

any

length

of

time.

Thus

for

much of

the

period

of

occupation

the

Proto-

Neolithic

settlement

was

perhaps

about

the

same

size

as

the

Natufian

site.

The deposit

in

MI

was made

up

of

very

many

floor surfaces

on

which

had

been

constructed

shelters

or

huts.

These

huts

had

walls

made

of

clay

lumps,

probably

supported by

a

timber

frame.

The

rest

of

the

deposit

seems

to

have

consisted

of

occupational

debris

so

its

considerable

depth

here

implies

that

the

settlement

was

inhabited

for

a

long

period.

The

Proto-Neolithic

occupa-

tion

sequence

in MI

was uninterrupted,

suggesting

continuous,

or

at

least

repeated,

occupation

of

the

site.

Likewise

there

was

no

marked

stratigraphic

break

between

the

Proto-Neolithic

and

PPNA

deposits.

Although

the

centre

of

the

settlement

shifted

between

the

Natufian

and

Proto-Neolithic

phases

there

seems

to

have

been

no

great

interval

of

time

between

them.

This

strati-

graphic evidence

is

corroborated

by

the

appearance

of

the

flint

industries

in

these

levels,

as

we

shall

see.

A

very

rapid

growth

of

the

site

seems

to

have

taken

place

after

the

Proto-Neolithic

for

the

PPNA

settlement

was

from

its

inception

much

larger

than

its

predecessors.

Very

early

PPNA

deposits

have

been

found

above

the

Proto-Neolithic

in

Trench

I

(DI,

DII,

F)

and

at

the

northern

end

of

the

mound

in

Trench

II.

They

have

also

been

found

on

the

bedrock

in

Trench

III

at

the

southern

extremity

of

the

site (Kenyon,

1960,

98).

Elsewhere

there

were

PPNA

levels

above

the

Proto-Neolithic

in

every

trench

that

was

excavated

to

a

sufficient

depth,

in

E

(I,

II,

V),

M

and

0.

It

is

estimated

that

the

settlement

was

about

U

ha

(10

acres)

in

area.

The

early

PPNA

settlement

was open

but

soon

after

the

initial

expansion

a

wall

was

built

around

it.

The

settlement

continued

to

be

occupied

for

a

long

period

but

the

considerable

depth

of

debris

that

accumulated

was

contained

within

the

confines

of

this

wall,

at

least

on

the

evidence

from

Trenches

I,

-

89 -

II,

and

III.

We

do

not

know

exactly

how

far

the

settlement

extended

to

the

east

nor

if

it

subsequently

expanded

on

that

side.

The

typical buildings

of

this

phase

were

subcircular

structures

constructed

of

plano-convex

("hog-backed")

mud

bricks.

They

seem

to

have

been

free-standing

but

were

set

close

together.

When

replaced

they

were

not

always

rebuilt

on

the

same

alignment

(Kenyon,

1957a,

102).

Most of

these

structures,

which

have

been

interpreted

as

houses,

seem

to

have

had

a

single

room,

although

one

example

had

at

least

three

(Kenyon,

1957&,

106);

none

was

excavated

in

its

entirety

so

one

cannot

be

certain of

the

exact

number.

The

rooms

were from

U

to

6m

in

diameter

and

their

floors

were

sunk

below

the

level

of

the

surrounding

ground,

as

much

as

0.8m

in one

instance.

The

houses

were

entered

through

a

timber-framed projecting

doorway

or

porch

and

down

a

flight

of

several

steps

with

stone

or

wooden

treads

(Kenyon,

1957a,

102).

Inside

they

were

simply

finished

with

mud

floors

and

plain

walls

although

in

one

instance

the

latter

were

lined

with

reeds

or

bamboo

covered

with

mud

(Kenyon,

1956,

72).

The

walls

were strengthened

with

timber

or

wattle

and

enough

debris

was

found

in

some

of

these

houses

to

suggest

that

they

stood

quite

high

originally

(Kenyon,

1959,

6).

They

also

sloped

inward

which

shortened

the

roof

span.

The

roofs

themselves

may

have

been

conical

or

domed

and

were

probably

made

of

timber,

branches,

reeds

and

mud.

A

depression

was

found

in

the

floor

of

one

hut

in

Trench

M

indicating

that

its

roof

had

been

supported

on

a

central

post.

The

houses

seem

to

have

contained

few

domestic structures

although

in

a

yard

adjoining

one

building

a

grinding

stone

and

possible

oven

were

found

(Kenyon,

1957&,

106).

These

were

surrounded

by

an

expanse

of

charcoal

indicating

that

fires

had

been

lit

in

the

area,

possibly

for

preparing

food-

stuffs

.

The stone

walls

surrounding

the

PPNA

settlement

were

best

preserved

in

Trench

I.

The

sequence

of

construction

here

was

complex,

indicating

that

the

walls

had

been

modified

several

times

during

the

life

of

the

settlement.

- 90

-

The

first

perimeter

wall,

designated

TW

I,

was

built

on

sterile

soil;

it

was

freestanding

and

aligned

approximately

north-south.

The

wall

was

1.5m

wide

(Kenyon,

1957a,

102)

and

still

stood

3.9m

high

when excavated

(Kenyon,

1960,

93).

Behind

this

wall

to the

east

and

above

an

earlier

PPNA

structure

a

solid

stone

tower

was

"built;

this

tower

was

semicircular

at

the

"bottom

where

it

was

joined

to

the

wall

and

circular

at

the

top.

The

tower

survived

to

a

height

of

a

little

over

8m

"but

may

have

been

slightly taller

originally.

Its

shape

suggests

that

it

was

built

higher

than

the

perimeter

wall

in

front.

To

reach

the

top

one

entered

a

passage

at

the

foot

of

the

tower

and

climbed

a

staircase

up

through

the

centre.

From

the

top

one

would

have

commanded

a

view

over

the

roofs

of

the

houses

within

the settlement

and

the

Jordan

valley

beyond.

The

function

of

these

structures

is

not

entirely

clear.

The

wall

which

apparently

surrounded

the

whole

settlement

seems

to

have

been

too

tall

for

a

simple

enclosure

wall

to

protect

stock and

humans

at

night

from

predatory

animals

and

so

may

have

been

intended

as

a

defensive curtain

wall

against

other

human

groups.

As

the

tower

and

the

wall

were

built

together

they

probably

had

a

combined

function. The

tower

is

altogether

too

massive

to

have

served

simply

as

a

buttress

although

it

would

have

afforded

a

good

lookout.

Even

this

seems

inadequate

as

a

functional

explanation,

for

a

structure

as

large

as

this

which

took

much

time

and

labour

to

build

would

presumably

have

been

constructed

in

response

to some

compelling

need.

Yet

it

is

hard

to see

what

essential

purpose

it

might

have

served

in a

defensive

system,

beyond

functioning

as

some sort

of

observation

post

and

fighting

tower.

The

area

around

the

foot

of the

tower

seems

to

have

been

open

at

first

but

later

it

was

completely

built

over.

A

series of

curved

stone

walls

thickly

coated

with

mud

plaster

was

constructed

around

the

foot of

the

tower

forming

at

least

five

enclosures

(Kenyon,

1957a,

103ff;

1960,

93ff).

These

walls

originally

stood

at

least

3.12m

high

without

any

connecting

doors

-

91

-

between

the

enclosures

,

only

a

small

window

or

porthole high

up

in

one

wall.

It

is

possible

that

these structures

were

covered

over

and

approached

through

an

opening

in

the

roof.

The

entrance

at

the

foot

of

the

tower

was

now

almost

closed

in

and

could

only

have

been

reached

across

the

roofs

of

the

surrounding

rooms.

Two

suggestions

have

been

put

forward

to

explain

the

purpose

of

the

enclosures,

one

that

they

were

water

storage

tanks

(Kenyon,

1960,

95)

and

the

other

that

at

least

some

were

for

storing

grain

(Kenyon,

1969,

153).

Large quantities

of

water

would

soon

have

washed

away

the

mud

plaster

of

these structures

so

the

latter

explanation

seems

more

probable,

especially

as

possible

burned

vegetable

deposits

were

found

within

one

of

the

enclosures.

If

these

enclosures

were

used

as

granaries they

would

have

held

enough

grain

to

feed

many

households.

Such

indications

of

communal

storage

combined

with

the

evidence

for

large-scale

structures

such

as

the

tower

and

wall

would

suggest

that

PPNA

Jericho

had

a

system

of

com-

munity

organization.

Eventually

these enclosures

ceased

to

be

used

and

the

area

around

the

tower

was

remodelled.

First

the

walls

of

the

enclosures

began

to

collapse

and

their

interiors

were

filled

with

coarse

rubble

(Kenyon,

1957a,

10U).

Then

a

new

stone

face

was

built

around

the outer surface

of

the

tower.

Part

of

the

new

face

of

the

tower

and

the

open

area

around

its

foot

were

plastered

over,

completely

burying

the old

entrance

to

the

stairway

which

now

passed

out

of

use.

The

old

town

wall

was

replaced

by

a

new

one,

TW

II,

on

a

slightly

different

alignment.

This

wall

ran

3.75m

to

the

west

of

wall

T¥

I

and

was

joined

to

the

new

outer

face

of

the tower.

At

about

this

time

a

ditch

8.5m

wide

and

2.10m

deep

was

cut

in

the

bedrock

to

the

west

of

the

new

wall

(Kenyon,

1960

9

97)

and

the

chippings

from

the

ditch

were

used

to

fill

the

gap

between

the

old

and

the

new

town

walls.

The

area

around

the

tower

remained

open

for

a

while

and

some

layers

of

washed-out

debris

accumulated

on

the

plastered

surface.

Then

a

new

series

of

enclosures

was

built

behind

the

town

wall

around

the

tower

(Kenyon,

-

92

-

1957a,

10U).

These

structures,

which

were

made

of

stone,

mud-brick

and

plaster,

were

"built

in

at

least

three

stages.

There

was

a

doorway

between

two

of the

enclosures

with

a

sill

raised

0.35m

high

above

the

floor.

This

doorway

did

not

survive

intact

but

it

is

similar

in

size

and

type

to

the

complete doorway

found

at

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

in

a

later

context

(Moore,

1975»

60).

The

raised

sill

would

have

helped

to

keep

the floors

free

of

rubbish

from

outside.

Like

the

earlier

enclosures

this

series

may

have

been

used

for

storage.

In

the

wall

and

tower

were

modified

further.

Another

stone

face

was

added

to

the

west

side

of

the

tower

(Kenyon,

1956,

71)

which

now

stood

only

a

few

metres

above

the

surrounding

structures.

The

stone

wall

of

the

settlement

was

considerably

heightened

though

the

new

face

was

set

back

slightly

from

the

old

one

below.

This

wall

was

joined

to

the

new

face

of

the

tower

which

probably

served

as

an

additional

support.

The

wall

itself

was

set

on

a

slight

batter

and

presented

a

formidable

exterior

rising

above

the

ditch

which

continued

in

use.

It

would

appear

to

have

still

been

a

defensive structure

but

the

tower

probably

played

little part

in

such

a

scheme

now.

As

the

interior

of

the settlement

built

up,

this

perimeter

wall

also

served

as

a

terrace

wall

supporting

the

considerable

depth

of

deposit

within.

The

second

series

of

enclosures

behind

the

wall

was

partly

filled

in

and

then

rebuilt

on

much

the

same

alignment

(Kenyon,

1957a,

10U).

These

were

then

in

their

turn

filled

with

debris

and

no

more

buildings

of

this

type

were

built

here.

The

character

of

the

area

now

changed.

The

wall

and

ditch

were no longer

maintained,

the

top

of

the

wall

began

to

collapse

and

the ditch

gradually

filled

with

silt

and

debris.

The

area

over

the

tower

reverted

to

domestic

use

and

several

phases of

typical

PPNA

houses

were

built

on

top

(Kenyon,

1957a,

105).

These

houses

were built

out

over

the

wall

and

down

the

slope

of the

mound.

This

enlarged

settlement

now

covered

the top

and

part of

the

slope

of

a

steep-sided

mound.

Then

the

-

93

-

site

was

abandoned

and

the

surface

of

the

tell

was

considerably

eroded

(Kenyon,

1956,

73).

The dead

of

the

PPNA

settlement

were

buried

in

a

contracted

position

in

graves

about

1m

deep

beneath

the

floors

of

the

houses

(Kenyon,

1957a,

106),

The

inhabitants

were

thus

continuing

a

burial

tradition

that

typified

Mesolithic

2

and

which

had

been

practised

at

least

as

early

as

Mesolithic

1.

One

interesting

modification

of

the

burial

rite

was the

custom

of

treating

skulls

separately from

the

rest

of

the

skeleton.

This rite

began

quite

late

in

the

PPNA

sequence

when

two

elaborate

instances

of

it

were

found:

in

one

seven

skulls

had

been

set

upright

around

an

eighth

and

in

another

several

groups

of

three

skulls

each

were

buried

close

together

(Kenyon,

1956,

75).

A

third

group

consisted

of

several

infants'

skulls

and

a

complete

infant

skeleton.

This

preoccupation

with

skulls

had

a

long history

in

subsequent

cultural

stages

throughout

the

Levant

and

further

afield.

Flint

and

bone

tools

were

the

most

common artifacts

in

the

PPNA

settle-

ment

but

a

range

of

other

tools

and

ornamental

objects

was

also made.

A

number

of

hollow

querns

and

many

rubbing

stones

were

found

as

well

as

grooved

stones

and

rough

stone

bowls.

The inhabitants

also

manufactured

stone

axes

with

ground

and

polished

cutting

edges.

The

ornamental

artifacts

consisted

of

a

variety

of beads.

The

bone

tools

were

numerous

and

included

several different

types

(Kenyon,

1956,

72).

These

consisted

principally

of

points,

none

on

which

was

very

large,

and

spatulae.

Some

of

the

latter

are

better

described

as

scoops

and

these

seem

to

have

been

characteristic

of

the

assemblage.

There

were

some

pins

and

scrapers

made

of

rib

bones

as

well

as

a

few

tiny

toothed

combs,

too

small

for

an

adult's

personal

use.

Both

Proto-Neolithic

and

PPNA

flint

tools

were

made

from

the

same

kind

of

very

varied

raw

material.

Most

of

this

came

from

small

pebbles

presumably

collected

from

the

beds

of

wadis

running

down

from

the

Judean

hills

to the

west

of

the

site.

Almost

all

of

the

material

was

carefully

selected,

fine-

i

Fig.

7

Jericho

Proto-

Neolithic

-

flint

borers

and

burins

grained

flint

although

some

coarse

flint

was

used.

The

flint

was

of

many

different

colours

and

shades,

both

opaque and

translucent,

including

grey,

brown,

veined

purple and

pink;

the

latter two

in

particular

are

usually

thought

of

as

being

distinctive

of

the

"Pre-Pottery

Neolithic

B"

(PPNB)

in

Palestine

but

they

were used

throughout

the

Jericho Natufian

and

Neolithic

sequence.

A

few

fragments of

obsidian,

usually

from

small

blades,

were

found

in

the

Proto-Neolithic

and

PPNA

layers.

This

was the

first

time

that

this

material

had

been

used

in

Palestine. Six pieces

from

the

PPNA

layers

were

analysed

by

Renfrew

and

his

collaborators

in

the

first

major

programme

of

analyses

of

Near

Eastern

obsidian

ever

undertaken.

All

of

them proved

to

have

come

from

giftlik

(source

2b)

in

Anatolia

(Renfrew

et

al.,

1966,

table

l)

I

am

conducting

another programme

of

obsidian

analyses

in

association

with

Bradford

University

in

which

we

have

analysed

three

more

pieces

from

Neolithic

1

levels

at

Jericho,

one

from

the

Proto-Neolithic and

two

from

the

PPNA.

These three

pieces

likewise

came

from

Qiftlik.

Obsidian

from

the

Qiftlik

source

reached

the

Levant

more

regularly

than

that

from

any

other

locality

throughout

the

Neolithic

on

present

evidence.

Tools

in

the

Proto-Neolithic

were

fashioned

on

flakes

and blades struck

from

small

prismatic

or

pyramidal

cores.

Crested

blades

were

a

regular

by-

product.

Flakes

and

blades

usually

had

tiny

prepared

platforms

and

probably

were

struck off

with

a

punch.

Blades

were

short

and

irregular,

most

being

between

3

and 5cm

long

though

a

few

were

as

much

as

6

to

7.5cm

long.

All

the

flake

and

blade

tools

were

small

like

the

waste

material.

The

most numerous

retouched

tools

were

burins

and

scrapers

while

nibbled

blades

were

also

common.

Retouched

blades

and

flakes of

no

specific

type

occurred

quite

frequently.

Although

burins

were

abundant

there

were

very

few

types

(Fig.

7)

for,

apart

from

some

single

and

multiple

blow

burins,

most

were

angle

burins

on

preparation

or

truncation.

The

scrapers

were

a

little

more

varied

(Fig.

8)

consisting

of

flake,

side

and

steep-scrapers

and

end

and

nosed

scrapers

on

blades.

There

were

some

borers

on

flakes

and

Fig.

8

Jericho

Proto

-

Neolithic

-

flint

scrapers

-

95

-

and

blades

with

a

short

point

defined

by

a

little

retouch

(Fig.

7).

Sickle

blades,

that

is

blades

with

silica

sheen,

were

also

found

(Fig.

9)

though

these

do

not

appear

to

have

been

very

common.

They

were

made

on

irregular

flakes

and

blades

and

usually

had

some

retouch,

particularly

on

the

back.

All

were

quite

small

so

several

must

have

been hafted

together

to

make

a

composite

cutting

tool.

These

tools

were

all

finished

with

abrupt

retouch

or

nibbling.

One

new

tool

was the

axe

or

adze

(Fig.

9).

These

had

a

straight

or

convex flaked

cutting

edge

with

a

rounded

or

pointed

butt.

They

were

oval

or

circular

in

cross-section

and

were

flaked

all

over.

These

tools

were

almost

certainly

hafted

and

were

probably

used

for

woodworking.

Most

were

too small to

have

been

used

to

cut

large

pieces

of

timber

so

it

is

likely

that

trees

were

felled

and

split

by

other

means.

This

industry

was

based

more

on

retouched

flakes

than

on

blades

and

so

cannot

be

described

as

a

blade

industry.

The

typological

range

was

restricted

which

suggests

a

fairly

limited

range

of

tool

uses.

Microliths

and

micro-

burins

were

not

found

but

this

may

be

because

the

deposits

were

not

sieved.

Composite

tools

as

such

were

certainly

made

and

as

the

tools

were

so

small

many

of

them

would

have

been

hafted

for

use.

The

raw

material

used

in

the

PPNA

industry

was the

same

as

in

the

Proto-

Neolithic.

The

core

technique

was

also

similar

in

that

most

flakes

and

blades

were

struck

from

prismatic

and

pyramidal

cores,

although

discoid

cores

were

now used

as

well.

Blades

were

still

irregular

although

some

were

longer

than

in

the

Proto-Neolithic

and

had

parallel

sides.

These

larger

blades

were used

for

sickle

blades

and

knives. Some

of

them

were

struck

from

double-ended

cores,

a

few

of

which

were

found

for the

first

time.

A

further refinement

in

the

choice

of

raw

material

was

discernible:

the

larger

blades

were

usually

fashioned

from

fine-grained

purple

and

honey-coloured

flint

while

the

smaller

ones

were

made

on

coarser

raw

material.

Burins,

scrapers

and

nibbled

blades

were

still

the

most

common

tools.

Fig.9

Jericho

Proto-Neolithic

-

flint

sickle

blades

and

adze

-

96

-

The

same

range of

burin

types

(Fig.

10)

was

used

as

in

the

Proto-Neolithic

with

the

addition

of

a

number

of

dihedral burins

but

the scrapers

(Fig.

10)

now

included

a

few

discoids.

Scrapers

in

general

were

perhaps

less

frequent

than before.

Borers

(Fig.

10)

appear

to

have

been

more

common

and

now

included

drills

and

long

awls.

Sickle

blades

were

also

more

common

and

somewhat different

(Fig.

11);

most

were

made

on

long

blades

with

little

retouch.

Their

form

suggests

that

they

were

still

probably

hafted

to

make

composite

tools.

Axes

and

adzes

(Fig.

11)

were

similar

to

those

found

in

the

Proto-Neolithic.

A

few

had

such

narrow

ends

that

they

are

better

described

as

picks.

As

before

the

tools

were

formed

by

flaking.

Axe/adze rejuvenation

flakes

were

common

in

the

PPNA

indicating

that

the

cutting

edges

frequently

broke

and

needed

renewing.

This

was

done

by

a

blow

from

the

side,

followed

by

further

flaking.

The true

tranchet

edge

occurred

rarely.

A

few

new

tools

were

found

in

the

PPNA

levels,

the

most

important

of

which

were

Khiamian

points.

These

were

the first

recognisable

projectile

points

in

the

Levant

although

as

many

microliths

and

other

retouched

tools

or even

flint

waste

can

be

used

to

arm

an

arrow

or

lance

(Allchin,

1966,

203)

there

is

no

reason

to

suppose

that

the

use of

the

bow

did

not

begin

much

earlier.

Another

new

type

was

a

tanged

knife

retouched

by

squamous

pressure-

flaking.

A

lunate

was

also

found

in

the

PPNA

levels

but

it

is

not

known

if

it

belonged

to

this

industry

or

was

derived

from

the

Natufian

by

subsequent

disturbance.

A

few

of the

obsidian

blade

segments

were

now

retouched

at

both

ends

to

form

rectangles.

Most

tools

were

still

finished

by

nibbling

or

abrupt

retouch

as

in

the

Proto-Neolithic.

The

use

of

squamous

pressure-

flaking

was

new

but

it

was

not

yet

used

on

many

tools.

The

flint

industry

of

the

PPNA

was

similar

to

that

of

the

Proto-Neolithic.

The

same

raw

material

and

techniques

of

preparation

were used

and

the

same

tool

types.

Techniques

were

a

little

more

varied

in

the

PPNA,

some

new

tools

were

introduced

and

the

relative

proportions

of

the

main

tool

types

were

somewhat

different

but

these

changes

were

such

as

one

would

expect

in

a

\

It

Fig.

10

Jericho

PPNA-flint

scrapers,

borers

and

burins

Fig.

11

Jericho

PPNA-flint

adze

and

sickle

blades

-

97

-

long-lived

industry.

Gradual

changes

would

take

place

with

the

passage

of

time and

new

tool

types

would

"be

developed

in

response

to

new

needs.

As the

excavated

material

represented

only

some

of

the

activities

that

were

practised

on

the

site

differences

were

"bound

to

occur

from

level

to

level

which

would

affect

the

total

sample we

have

of

the

industry.

This

Neolithic

flint

industry

had

many

similarities

with

the

Natufian

industry

at

Jericho. The

same

varieties

of

raw

material

and

the

same

techniques

of

production

of

small

"blades

and

flakes

from

prismatic

cores

were used

in

the

Natufian.

The

waste

blades

and

flakes

were

similar

and

"both

this

component

and

the

tools

were

all

small;

neither

could

be

described

as

a

blade

industry, not

before

the

evolved

PPNA

anyway. Some

of

the

tool

types

such

as

the

scrapers, sickle

blades

and

borers

were

common

to

both

industries.

There

were

differences

of

course:

microliths

and

the

microburin

technique

appear

to

have

been

absent

in

the

Neolithic

industry

for

example

but

never-

theless,

the

similarities

are

striking.

Since

they

embrace

raw

material,

techniques

of

production

and

tool

types

it

would

appear

that

the

Neolithic

industry

developed

directly

from

the

Natufian.

One

can

go

further

and

suggest

that

for

such

an

industry

to

be

continued

in

this

way

the

population

must

have remained

the

same.

Although

other

cultural

and

economic

changes

were

taking

place

the

earlier

Neolithic

population

of

Jericho

was

descended

from

the

Natufian

inhabitants

of

the

area.

It

is

very difficult

to

determine

when

the

Proto-Neolithic/PPNA

at

Jericho

began

and

how

long

it

lasted

because

although no

less

than

eleven

llf

C

determinations

have

been

made

on

samples

from

PPNA

levels the

dates

do

not

form

a

consistent

series.

Two

determinations

made

when

14

C

dating

was

a

new

technique,

6850

±

160

B.C.

F-39

(Kenyon,

1959,

7)

and

6775

±

210

E.G.

F-kO

(Henry,

Servello,

197^,

37)

9

should

probably

be

ignored

from

the

outset

as

they

give

no

more

than

a

general

indication

of

the

age

of

the

deposits.

The

remaining

determinations

were

all

carried

out

by

the

British

Museum

and

Philadelphia

laboratories,

often

on

samples

from

the

same

phases.

-

98

-

Unfortunately

these

two

series

of

dates

differ

by

as

much

as

500

or

600

years,

the

British

Museum

dates

"being

the

older.

The

earliest

dated

phase

is

one

immediately

after

the

construction

of

the

PPNA

wall

and

tower.

The

two

British

Museum

dates

for

this

are

8350

±

500

B.C.

BM-250

(Radiocarbon

11,

1969,

290)

and

8300

±

200

B.C.

BM-105 (Radiocarbon

5,

1963,

10?)

but

the

Philadelphia

date

is

7825

±

110

B.C.

P-378

(Radiocarbon

5,

1963,

8U).

There

is

another

series

of dates

for

phases

late

in

the

PPNA:

8350

±

200

B.C.

BM-106

for

a

phase

succeeding

stage

VI

of

the

defences

and

8230

±

200

B.C.

BM-110

(Radiocarbon

5,

1963,

107)

for

the

final

destruction

of

the

wall,

both

of

which

may

be

compared

with

7705

±

8U

B.C.

P-379

(Radiocarbon

5,

1963,

8U),

also

for

a

stage

succeeding

stage

VI.

The

problem

is

made

even

more

difficult

by

other

dates

obtained

more

recently,

fkhO

±

150

B.C.

BM-251

for

stage

VI

and

7370

±

150

B.C.

BM-252

(Radiocarbon

11,

1969,

290)

for

a

phase

succeeding

stage

VII,

both

much

later

than

the

series

above

and

which

may

be

aberrant.

One

other

date

should

be

mentioned

here

to give

a

complete

picture,

7632

± 89

B.C.

P-377;

this

is

for the

earliest

PPNA

occupation

in

Trench

E

(I,

II,

V)

and

so

unlike

all

the

other

determinations

mentioned

which

were

obtained

from

material

in

Trench

I.

One

of

the

difficulties

with

these

determinations

is

that

the

charcoal

from

which

they

were

obtained

was

excavated

many

years

ago

and

most of

the

dating

was

done

soon

after

the

excavations

were

finished.

This

means

that

the

dates

are

probably

not

very

exact,

although

it

does

not

explain

the

discrepancies

between

dates

from

the

two

laboratories.

This

has

to

be

a

accounted

for

by

different

sample

preparation

and

counting

procedures.

If

one

considers

the

British

Museum

dates

alone

then

it,would

appear

that

the

PPNA

at

Jericho

began

about

8500

B.C.

although from

the

Philadelphia

dates

8000

B.C.

would

be

more

correct.

In

either

case

the

Proto-Neolithic

settle-

ment

must

have

been

founded

some

time

before.

The

end

of

the

PPNA

came

about

8000

B.C.

on

the

British

Museum

dates

or

7500

B.C. on

those

from

Philadelphia.

From

these

determinations

it

is

possible

to

argue

for

either

-

99

-

a

long

duration

of

the

PPNA

from

8500

to

7500

B.C.

or

for

a

much

shorter

sequence

of

two

or

three

hundred

years. For

the

moment

it

is

"best

to

"be

cautious

and

to

take

an

average

of

the

dates

recognising

that

this

can

only

be

an

estimate.

On

this

"basis

PPNA

may

have

"begun

about

8200

or

8300

B.C.

and

ended

about

7700

or

7800

B.C.

The

Proto-Neolithic

may

thus

be

dated

to

about

8500

B.C.,

an

estimate

that

accords

reasonably

veil

with

the

date

suggested

earlier

for the

end

of

Mesolithic

2

in

the

Levant.

Nahal

Oren

The

site

of

Nahal

Oren

is

situated

on

the

north

side

of

the

Wadi

Fellah

and

consists

of

a

small

cave

with

a

terrace

in

front

which

slopes

steeply

down to

the

wadi

floor.

It

has

been

extensively excavated

by

three

teams

in

separate

campaigns.

The

first

excavation

was

in

the

cave

and

on

the

terrace

in

front (Stekelis,

19^-2,

U).

It

was

believed

that

the

site

had

been

occupied

in

the

Aurignacian

and

Mesolithic

2.

The

second

series

of

excavations

exposed

a

large

part

of

the

terrace

and

showed

that

it

had

been

occupied

in

Mesolithic

1

and

2

and

the

Pre-Pottery

Neolithic

(Stekelis

9

Yizraely,

1963,

Iff).

The

third

excavation

took

place

on

the

terrace

a

little

to

the

west

of

the

area

already

dug.

It

was

intended

that

the

soundings

here

should

confirm

the

stratigraphic

sequence

of

the

site

and

provide

samples

of

organic

remains

from

which

the

economies

of

the

different

phases

of

occupation

could

be

determined

(Noy

et

al.,

1973,

75ff).

The

occupation

sequence

at

Nahal

Oren

covers

a

long

period

of

time

yet

the

remains

of

the

superimposed

phases

of

the

settlement

are

less

than

Urn

deep

(Noy

et

al.,

1973,

fig.

2b).

Much

of

the

deposit

consists

of

stones

and

other

debris

washed

down

from

the

steep

slopes

above.

Although

the

archaeological

cultural

sequence

is

complete

from

Mesolithic

1

to

the

Pre-

Pottery

Neolithic

B

there

is

too little

occupation

deposit

on

the

site

for

it

to

have

been

continuously

occupied

by

man.

It

is

more

likely

that

occupa-

tion

was

discontinuous

but

that

people

returned

to the

site

in

each

cultural

phase.

-

100

-

The

Neolithic

occupation

deposits

were

found

to

be

stratified

directly

above

Natufian

layers

in

the

excavations

of

"both

Stekelis

and

Yizraely

(Noy)

and

Noy,

Legge

and

Higgs.

In

the

most

recent excavations

these

deposits

have

been

divided

into

a

lower

series,

layers

II

and

III,

which

has

been

equated

with

the

PPNA

at

Jericho

and

layer

I

above

ascribed

to the

PPNB

(Noy

et'al.

a

1973,

86).

Two

stone-walled

structures

with

associated

floors

and

hearths,

considered

to

be

houses,

were

found

in

the

lower,

PPNA

layers

(Noy

et

al.,

1973,

78ff).

These

layers

cannot

be

linked

directly

with

stratum

II.

described

as

PPNA

in

the

earlier

excavations

(Stekelis,

Yizraely,

19639

10)

but

it

would

appear

that

the

much

more

extensive

structural

remains

excavated

then

belonged

to

the

same

cultural

phase.

The

stratigraphical

position

of

both

was the

same

in

their

respective

sequences,

sandwiched

between

Mesolithic

2

and

PPNB

layers

(Stekelis,

Yizraely,

1963,

2;

Noy

et

al.,

1973,

fig.

2b).

Stratum

II

consisted

of

a

village

of

at

least

13

subcircular

structures

(Fig.

12),

most

of

which

were

probably

houses

(Stekelis,

Yizraely,

1963,

hff,

fig.

3).

The

buildings

were

from

2

to

tan

in

diameter,

the

smaller

ones

perhaps

serving

as

stores

or

workshops.

They

were

built

on

a

descending

series

of

four

terraces

cut

back

into

the

natural

slope

and

set

so

close

together

that

the

walls

of

some

interlocked.

These

walls

made

of

rough

stones

were

up

to

0.8m

wide

and

stood

about

1m

high.

Originally

they

must

have

carried

roofs

of

timber

with

perhaps

reeds

and

mud.

The

buildings

had

earth

or

pebble

floors,

which

had

been

renewed

in

some

instances,

and

stone-

lined

hearths

sunk

in

their

floors.

Cup-marked

stones

were

often

found

associated

with

these

hearths;

as

the

cup

marks

were

quite

small

they

may

have been used

in

some

craft

activity

rather

than

as

roof

supports

as

Stekelis

and

Noy

suggested.

The

doors

of

these

dwellings

opened

down

the

slope

towards

the

bottom

of

the

wadi.

Allowing

for

the

differences

in

situation

and

building

material,

these

structures

were

quite

similar

to

the

houses

of

PPNA

Jericho.

Both

types

were

round

or

subcircular

with

a

single

A

0

8

m

Fig.

12

Neolithic

1

village

at

Nahal

Oren

(after

Stekelis

and

Yizraely)

-

101

-

entrance

and

a

number

of

the

Nahal

Oren

buildings

-were

dug

at

least

partly

into

the

hillside,

so

resembling

the

semi-subterranean

houses

at

Jericho.

The

walls

of

the

Nahal

Oren

buildings

were

lov

as at

Jericho,

though

broad

enough

to

support

a

superstructure.

It

is

likely

that

both

types

had

a

conical,

tent-like

roof

which

sloped

down to

the

tops

of

the

walls

and

was

supported

by

one

or

more

posts

within

the

building.

Only

one

burial

has

been

reported

for

these

levels

at

Nahal

Oren

(Noy

et

al.,

1973,

79).

This

was

a

semi-flexed

skeleton

laid

on its

right

side

in a

shallow

pit

without

accompanying

grave

goods.

The

skull was

missing

although

the

mandible

was

in

position.

This

would

appear

to

have

been

another

early

example

of

the

practice

of

removing

skulls

from

corpses

which

was

so

common

later

in

the

Neolithic.

As

this

burial

was the

only

one

reported

from

inside

the

settlement

at

this

period

it

is

likely

that

most

of

the

inhabitants

were

buried

elsewhere,

in

contrast

with

the

practice

in

Mesolithic

2

and

later

in

the

Neolithic.

The finds

from

these

levels

of

the

Neolithic

settlement

were

restricted

in

type,

lacking

the

elaboration

of

material

culture

found

on

some

Mesolithic

2

sites

and

later

in

the

Neolithic.

Cylindrical

pestles

and

plano-convex

rubbing

stones

of

limestone

or

basalt were

quite

common

(Stekelis,

Yizraely,

1963,

8ff),

the

latter

material

being

imported

probably from

Galilee.

Only

one

hollow

quern,

on the

other

hand,

was

found

in

stratum

II

and

none

was

reported

for

Nahal

Oren

IV

-

II.

A

number

of

other

limestone

bowls,

dishes

and

platters

were

found

in

stratum

II,

several

of

them

ground

thin.

One

pebble

incised

as

a

female

figurine

was

also

discovered

in

house

16.

Bone

tools

were

the

second

principal

category of artifacts

but

these

were

quite

restricted

in

range.

Most

were

simple

borers

of

varying

sizes.

A

number

of

small,

cylindrical

bone,

stone

and

shell

beads

was

found

in

the

most

recent

excavations.

One

was

a

malachite

spacer

bead

(BM

no.

1973

7-11886),

the

material

for

which

must

have

been

imported

from

some

distance

away,

perhaps

as

far

south

as

the

Wadi

Arabah

or Sinai.

-

102

-

A

very

brief

account

of

the

flint

industry from

stratum

II

was

published

in

the

preliminary

report

on

the

second

series of

excavations

(Stekelis

9

Yizraely,

1963,

6ff)

but

a

full

study

has

not

been

carried

out.

A

more

detailed

account

has

appeared

of

the

Kebaran

and

Natufian

flint

industries

from

the

most

recent

excavations

but

very little

information

was

given

about

the

Neolithic

assemblages

(Noy

et

al.,

1973,

86ff).

Most

of

the

flints

from

rectangle

500

in this

excavation,

however,

have

been deposited

in

the

British

Museum

where

I

have

been

able

to

study

them.

The

full

occupation sequence

on

the

site

was

present

in

this

area.

It

is

clear

that

the

flint

industry

of

stratum

II

in

the

earlier

excavations

was

essentially

the

same

as

that

of

layers

IV,

III,

and

II

in

rectangle

500,

thus

confirming

the

atratigraphic

equation

of

the

remains

from both

deposits.

The

uppermost

level

with

a

Natufian

industry

was

layer

V.

Stratified

above

that

was

layer

IV

which

was

described

as

"a

small

layer

between

the

Natufian

and

'pre-Pottery

Neolithic

A

1

levels

(Noy

et

al.,

1973,

86).

The

industry

of

this

layer

was

quite

characteristic

and somewhat

different

from

the

Natufian.

The

raw

material

consisted

of

pebbles

and

other small pieces

of

various

shades

of

grey,

brown

and

buff

flint.

A

little

of

it

was quite

fine

but

most was

medium

or

coarse-grained.

It

was

probably

collected

from

wadi

beds

and

terraces

in

the

neighbourhood.

Flakes

and

rather

irregular

blades

with

prepared

platforms

were

struck

from prismatic

or,

more

rarely,

pyramidal

cores.

The

waste

material

con-

sisted

of

crested

blades

and

small rough

flakes

and

blades

and

most

of

the

tools

were

also

small.

Little

parallel-sided

nibbled

blades

were

common,

as

were

single-blow

and

angle

burins.

The

other

major

group

of

tools

was

the

scrapers

which

were

more

varied

in

type.

They included

both

disc

scrapers

and

end-scrapers

on

blades

(Fig.

13a),

both

absent

in

the

Natufian

at

Nahal

Oren.

Small

sickle

blades

while

not

numerous

were

typical

of

the

industry.

Another

innovation

of

which

several

examples

were

found

was

a

hollow-based

arrowhead with

side

notches

(Fig.

13a),

quite

like

a

Khiamian

a

Fig. 13

Nahal

Oren

Neolithic

1

flint

tools

a-

layer

12

borer,

arrowhead,

scrapers

b

-

layer

in

burins,

sickle

blades

-

103

-

point.

Several

edge

renewal

flakes

were

found

of

flaked

axe/adzes

indicating

that

these

tools

were

also

made

by

the

inhabitants

of

the

site;

they

too

were

unknown

in

the

Natufian.

The

excavated

material

at

Nahal

Oren

was

passed

through

sieves

and

a

flotation

machine.

In

consequence

many

microliths

were

found

in

the

Kebaran,

Natufian

and

all

later

layers.

Layer

IV

yielded

lunates,

microburins

and

microborers

as

well

as

typical

Kebaran

backed

and

truncated

bladelets.

It

is

difficult

to

be

sure

how

much

of

this

material

really

belonged

in

this

layer.

Much

of

it

was

probably

derived from

earlier

deposits

through

disturbance

during

the

layer

IV

occupation.

This

would

certainly

be true

of

most, if

not

all,

the

tiny

lunates

found

which

were

typical

of

the

Natufian

layers

on

the

site.

One

lunate

though

was

3.3cm

long,

much

bigger

than

anything found

earlier

and

so

it

was

probably

in

context.

This

was

also

true

of

the

micro-

borers

which

were

not

found

in

earlier

deposits

on

the

site. It

would

thus

appear

that

there

was

still

a

microlithic

element

in

the

layer

IV

industry.

Stratified

above

layer IV

were

layers

III

and

II.

These

two

layers

had

the same flint

industry.

The raw

material

was

similar

to

that

of

layer

IV

although

some

larger

flint

was

used.

The

core

technique

was

also

quite like

layer

IV

in

that

most

flakes

and

blades

were

struck off

prismatic

or

pyramidal

cores.

There

was

a

little

more

diversity,

however,

as

some

discoid

cores

were now

found

and

at

least

one

double-ended blade

core.

The

waste

still

consisted

largely

of

small,

irregular

flakes

and

blades

with

some

crested

blades.

A

few

pieces

of

obsidian

were

imported

in

these

levels.

The

same

principal

classes

of

tools

dominated

the

industry

as

in

layer

IV

but

there

was

a

greater variety

of

types.

Scrapers

were

particularly

numerous

(Fig.

1*0

with

end-scrapers

on

blades

and

disc,

steep

and

side-scrapers

on

flakes or

nodules

of

flint,

some

of

which

were

larger

than

anything

found

earlier

at

Nahal

Oren.

Burins

were

also

quite

common,

though

still

restricted

to

angle

and

single

or

multiple-blow

types

(Fig.

13b).

Nibbled

blades

remained

an

especially

large

class

of

the

retouched

tools.

Less

common

were

sickle

a

Fig.

14

Nahal

Oren

Neolithic

1

flint

tools

a

borers

c

scrapers

b

point

d

adze

blades:

some of

these

were

now

quite

large

with

backing

(Fig.

13b).

There

were

a

few

borers

(Fig.

1U)

and

arrowheads

were

still

scarce.

A

point

with

retouched

butt

which

was

found

in

layer

III

(Fig.

1^)

may

have served

to

arm

an

arrow

and

hollow-based

arrowheads

with

side

notches

of

Khiamian

type

were

found

in

stratum

II

of

the

earlier

excavations

(Stekelis,

Yizraely,

1963,

8)

A

few

notched

arrowheads

with

tangs

were

reported

from

the

unpublished

material

in

these

layers

(Noy,

Cohen,

197U,

79)

which,

if

in

context,

would

be

the

earliest

occurrence

of

this

type.

Notched

blades

and

flakes

on

the

other

hand

were

quite

common

and

seem

to

have

been

typical

of

the

industry

of

these

layers.

Flaked

axe/adzes

were

found

throughout

the

deposit

(Fig.

together

with

cutting-edge

rejuvenation

flakes.

The

edges

of

a

few

of

these

axe/adzes

had

been

prepared

with

a

true

tranchet

blow.

The

material from

layers

III

and

II

like that of

layer IV

included

many

microliths,

almost

all

of

which

were

probably

derived from

earlier

deposits.

Nevertheless

there

were

a

few

of

the

large lunates

(Fig.

1U)

not

found

in

the

Natufian

which

probably were

part

of

the

industry.

The

first

point

to

be

made

about

the

flint

industries

of

layers

IV,

III

and

II

is

that

their

underlying

features

were

the

same.

The

raw

material,

core

technique,

and

the

principal

types

of

tools,

burins,

scrapers,

nibbled

blades

and

the

others

were

all

similar.

There

were

differences

within

the

layers

such

as

the

trend

towards

larger

tools,

greater

typological

variation

and

the

development

of

true

blade

tools

in

layers

III

and

II

but

one

would

expect

these

in

a

long

occupation

sequence.

Far

more

flint

was

found

in

layers

III

and

II

than

in

layer

IV

but

this

is

because

the

excavated

volume

of

these

layers

was

much

greater

(Noy

et

al., 1973

9

fig.

2b).

Layer

IV

had

essentially

the

same

flint

industry

so

should

be

thought

of

as

a

similar

cultural

deposit

to

layers

III

and

II

rather

than

a

phase

intermediate

between

the

Natufian

and

the

two

overlying

layers.

The

second

point

is

that

the

chipped

stone

industry

of

layers

IV,

III

and

II

at

Nahal

Oren

was

similar

to

the

Proto-Neolithic/PPNA

industry

at

-

105

-

Jericho.

The

similarities

extended

through

the

techniques

of

tool

prepara-

tion,

the

overall

size

of

the

tools

and

the

principal

tool

types;

they

even

included

such

distinctive

innovations

as

the

flaked

axe/adzes

and

Khiamian

points.

There

were

some

differences

"between

these

two

industries,

the

most

obvious

one

being

raw

material.

The

inhabitants

of

both

sites

used

local

sources

of

flint,

deliberately

selecting

small

chunks

and

wadi pebbles,

yet

the

different

colours,

textures

and

striking

properties

of the

material from

Nahal

Oren

and

Jericho

are

noticeable

and

give

a

slightly

different

look

to

each

collection. The

second

difference

was

in

the

proportions

of

the

main

types

of

tool

at

each

site.

Burins

and

borers,

for

instance,

appear

to

have

been

less

common

at

Nahal

Oren

than

at

Jericho.

Such

differences

may

well

be

accounted

for

by

the different

situations

of

the

two

sites

and

the

different

activities

practised

on

them.

Variations

in

proportions

of

tools

did not

extend

throughout

the

industries,

however:

scrapers

and the

ubiquitous

nibbled

blades

seem

to

have

been

equally

common

and

sickle

blades

equally

rare

at

both

sites.

It

is

also

doubtful

if

many

microliths

were used

at

either

Nahal

Oren

or

Jericho.

The

third

point

is

that

the

industry

of

layers

IV,

III,

and

II

at

Nahal

Oren

appears

to

have

been

a

direct

development

of

the

Natufian

industry

on

the

same

site

in

the

same

way

as

the

Proto-Neolithic/PPNA

industry

at

Jericho

was

derived

from

the

Natufian

there.

The

raw

material

used

in

the

Natufian

was the

same

local

flint

of

small

chunks

and

pebbles.

This

was

prepared

in

the

same

basic

way

as

in

layers

IV,

III

and

II

with

small

blades

and

flakes

being

struck

off

prismatic and

pyramidal

cores.

The

range

of

tools was

small,

consisting

mainly

of

angle

and

multiple-blow

burins

and scrapers

(Noy

et

al.,

1973,

fig.

6).

The

scrapers

were

usually

made

on

flakes,

steep

scrapers

being

quite

common;

end-scrapers

on

blades

were

present

but

only

in

small

quantities.

Backed

and

other

irregularly

retouched

blades

were

used

as

sickle

blades

although

these

were

not

very

numerous.

Microliths

of

which

lunates

were

the

most

common

type

formed

a

major

component

of

the

industry.

-

106

-

Although

the

making

of

microliths

seems

to

have

diminished

rapidly

after

the

Natufian,

large lunates

were

still

being

made

in

layers

IV,

III

and

II.

Both

the

techniques

of

manufacture

and

the

range

of

tools

were

common

to

this

Natufian

industry

and

that

of

the

overlying

layers.

This

strongly

suggests

that

the

later

industry

developed

from

the

Natufian

at

Nahal

Oren

and

that

therefore,

as

at

Jericho,

there

was

no

major

replacement

of

popula-

tion

between

the

Natufian

and the

earliest

Neolithic

occupation.

The

early

Neolithic

at

Nahal

Oren

cannot

be

independently

dated

as

there

are

no

l

^C

dates

for

this

phase.

The

close

typological

similarity

between

the

artifacts

from

Nahal

Oren

and

Jericho

in

this

phase

suggests

that

they

were

contemporary

and

that

Nahal

Oren

was

therefore

inhabited

during

the

Proto-Neolithic/PPNA

phase

at

Jericho.

Mugharet

el

Wad

There

were

indications

of

transient

occupation

contemporary

with

Nahal

Oren

IV

to

II

nearby

at

Mugharet

el

Wad.

A

few

arrowheads

were

found

here

in

layer

B1

(Garrod,

Bate,

1937

9

30),

described

as

Upper

Natufian.

There

is

no

doubt

that

the

bulk

of

the

material

in

this

layer

was

derived

from

a

Natufian

settlement

but

in

the

presence

of

the

arrowheads

hints

at

a

slightly

later

phase

of

occupation

as

well.

Although

two

of

the

arrowheads

were

later

Neolithic

types

at

least

one

was

a

Khiamian

point

(Garrod,

Bate,

1937»

pi.

VIII,

31)

which

at Jericho

and

Nahal

Oren

was

associated

with

the

earliest

post-Natufian

industry.

The

picks

and

axe

or

adze

butt

(Garrod,

Bate,

1937,

32)

were

almost

certainly

post-Natufian

also.

Many

of

the

other

tools

in

layer

B1

would

not

be

out

of

place

in

such

a

context

so

it

would

appear

probable

that

there

was

some

transient

use

of

Mugharet

el

Wad

by

human

groups

using

the

same

tools

as

Nahal

Oren

IV

to

II

and

Jericho

Proto-Neolithic/PPNA.

Evidence

was

found

in

layer

A

of

such

temporary

use

of

the

site

in

succeeding

stages

of

the

Neolithic

and

later

periods

also

(Garrod,

Bate,

1937,

29).

-

107

-

Rakafet

This

site

in

the

hills

east

of Mugharet

el

Wad

had

been

occupied

in

Mesolithic

2

and

there

is

evidence

now

that

it

was

also

inhabited

in

Neo-

lithic

1.

Some

Khiamian

points

have

been

found

here

in

layers

overlying

the

Mesolithic

2

deposits

(Noy,

n.d.).

El

Khiam

Material

comparable

to the

chipped

stone

industry

at

Jericho

in

the

Proto-Neolithic/PPNA

has

been

found

at

a

fifth

site

in

Palestine,

El

Khiam.

This site

lay

on

the west

side

of

the

Wadi

Khareitun

in

the

Judean

Desert.

In

a

limestone

cliff

above

the

wadi

there

was

a

series of

shelters,

now

empty

(Perrot,

1951,

13*0

but

which

may

have

been

occupied

in

prehistory.

In

front

of

these

a

wide

terrace

sloped steeply

down

to

the

wadi

floor.

This

terrace

appears

to

have

been

a

large

open

air

site

that

was

occupied

in

each

cultural

stage

from

the

Aurignacian

to

the

Neolithic.

The

site

has

been

excavated

twice,

by

Neuville

in

1933

and

Echegaray

in

19&2.

Neuville

dug

two trenches,

trench

I

in

the centre

of

the

terrace

and

trench

II

20m

further

south.

Echegaray

placed

his

trench further

up

the

slope

behind

Neuville's

trench

I

(Echegaray,

196U,

19).

Because

the

site

inclined

so

steeply

all the

archaeological

layers

had

suffered from

heavy

erosion

and

mixing

so

that

little

of

the

material

excavated

was

recovered

from

its

original

position.

Thus,

although

the

occupation

sequence

at

the

site

is

fairly

clear,

the

composition

of

the

industries

associated

with

each

phase

cannot

be

pre-

cisely

determined.

Level

B

in

the

upper

part

of

Neuville's

sequence

was

divided

into

two

subphases,

B2

which

was

ascribed

to

the

Natufian

(Perrot,

1951,

155ff)

and

B1

called

Upper

Natufian

by

Perrot.

It

was

in

this

layer,

B1,

that El

Khiam

points

were

found

for

the

first

time

(Fig.

15a),

the

type-fossil

of

the

Proto-Neolithic/PPNA

at

Jericho

and

layers

IV to

II

at

Nahal

Oren.

The

presence

of

this

type

and

certain

other

differences

distinguished

level

B1

Fig.

15

a

-

El

Khiam

points

(after

Perrot)

b-

Harif

points

(after

Marks)

-

108

-

from

the

Natufian

B2

and

also

from

levels

A3

and

A2

above.

The

industry

in

the

latter

layers

had

much

in

common

with

PPNB

levels

at

Jericho

and

levels

6

to

3

at

Munhatta.

If

one

compares

the

stratigraphy

and

typology

of

the

assemblages

in

these

levels

with

Echegaray

!

s

more

detailed

sequence

then

Neuville's

B2

is

the

same

as

levels

7

(Kebaran

II)

and

6

(Kebaran

III).

Levels

8

(Kebaran

I)

and

5

(Khiamian

I)

also

had

a

number

of lunates and

other

microliths

which

suggest

that

they

were principally

composed

of

Natufian

remains.

True El

Khiam

points

did not

occur

until

level

U

(Khiamian

II)

in

Echegaray's

sequence

(1966,

^9ff)

although

certain

heavy

tools

such

as

stone

axes

which

might more

properly

belong

with

this

industry

were

found

in

level

5

(Echegaray,

1966,

^7)

;

each

level

contained

material

derived from

other

phases

as is

only

to

be

expected

in

a

site

where

much

soil

movement

had

taken

place.

Levels

h

and

3

(Prototahunian)

appear

to

correspond

to

Neuville's

B1

and

levels

2

(Prototahunian)

and

1

(Tahunian)

to

Neuville's

A,

1

to

3.

The

assemblage

in

levels

h-

and

3

included

a

number

of

burins

and

scrapers

as

well

as

many

retouched

blades,

rather

more

than

Neuville

found

apparently

(Perrot,

1951>

165).

These

discrepancies

can

partly

be

explained

by

the

idiosyncratic

typing

practised

by

Echegaray.

There

were

also

lunates,

backed

and

truncated

bladelets,

microburins

and

in

level

3

a

few

tanged

arrowheads

with

squamous

retouch

and

some

large

blades,

most

of

which

were

probably

intrusive

from

other

layers;

Neuville's

B1

contained

the

same

admixture.

This

makes

it

particularly

difficult

to

determine

the

principal

characteristics

of

the

industry

in

these

levels

so

that

one can

do

no

more than

point

to

a

general

similarity

with

the

industries

in

Proto-Neolithic/PPNA

Jericho

and

Nahal

Oren IV

to

II.

This

similarity

extended

to

the

use of

pestles,

other

grinders,

mortars,

stone

bowls,

all of

which

occurred

in

level

h

(Echegaray,

1966,

60)

and

which

were

abundant

in

Neuville's

trenches

(Perrot,

1951,

136);

there

was also

a

clay

anthropo-

morphic

figurine

from

this

level.

Bone

tools

do

not

appear

to

have

been

recovered

in

either

excavation.

-

109

-

Gilgal

Another

Neolithic

1

site

in

the

Jordan

valley

has

recently

"been

discovered

and

partly

excavated.

This

is

Gilgal

situated

20km

north

of

Jericho.

A

dozen

elliptical

huts

were

identified

here,

one

of

which

has

been

dug

(Noy,

19T6a)

,

U8).

The

flints

in

and

around

the

excavated

hut

included

burins,

borers

and

scrapers

as

well

as

Khiamian

points and

notched

arrowheads. Some

bone

tools

were

also

found.

Among

the

coarser

artifacts

were

basalt

tools

and

some

polished

limestone

axes

like those

from

Jericho.

Poleg

18M

Another

site

which

may

have

been

occupied

at

this

time

is

Poleg

18M.

The

surface

material

from

this

site

had

Mesolithic

2

affinities

but

there

were

at

least

two

points

with

side

notches

and

basal

retouch

(Burian,

Friedmann,

1963-6U,

11)

which

on

stratified

sites

have

been

found

in

early

post-Mesolithic

2

contexts.

Some of

the

other

tools

such

as

the

burins,

scrapers

and sickle

blades

could

equally

well

have

occurred

on

an

early

Neolithic

site. It

is

possible,

therefore,

that

this site

was

occupied

briefly

in

Neolithic

1.

All

these

sites

in

Palestine

had

occupation

deposits

with

a

similar

flint

industry

and

other

artifacts.

Where

buildings

were

preserved

these,

too,

were

found

to

be

of

a

similar

type.

On

the

stratified

sites,

Jericho,

Nahal

Oren

and

El

Khiam,

these

were

also

the

earliest

post-Mesolithic

2

remains.

It

is

for

these

reasons

that

I

believe

all

these

sites

belong

within

the

first

stage

of

the

Neolithic

in

the

Levant,

Neolithic

1.

Beidha

The

discovery

at

Beidha

of

Neolithic

occupation

layers

stratified

between

Mesolithic

2

remains

and

the

7th

millennium

B.C.

village

of

stone-

built

houses

raises

the

possibility

that

the

.site

was

occupied

contemporaneous

ly

with

PPNA

Jericho

and

Nahal

Oren

layers

IV

- II

by

people

with

similar

material

culture.

The

earliest

occuDation

at

TteirHna.

rh'Rr>nwr^ri

an

-

110

-

consisted

of

a

settlement

with

an

associated

Mesolithic

2

flint

industry

designated

as

layer

X

(Mortensen,

1970a,

h).

Soundings

made

in

the

first

two

seasons

on

the

eroded

steep

western

slope

of

the

site

revealed

0.5

to

0.75m

depth

of sandy

deposit

with

a

hearth,

stone

slabs,

a

stone-lined

pit

and

many

animal

bones

(Kirkbride,

1960b,

1^1).

In

later

work

more

Mesolithic

2

occupation

was

found

in

squares

lA

and MU

on

the

southern

side of

the

site

under

House

XVIII

of

layer

VI;

this

consisted

of

part

of

a

structure

of

mud-bricks

and

plaster

(Kirkbride,

1967,

10).

Towards

the centre

of

the

site

in

a

sounding

beside

House

XXXVII

there

was

more

Mesolithic

2

occupation

with

a

wall

1m

high

built

of

the

same

sandy

irregular

mud-bricks

on a

curved

stone

foundation.

These

and

other soundings

established

that

the

Mesolithic

2

occupation

was

up

to

2.5m

deep

and

extended

under

the

southern

half

of

the

Neolithic

village

(Kirkbride,

1967,

12).

This

Mesolithic

2

settlement

was

overlain

by

between

2

and

3m

of

virtually

sterile

windblown

sand

(Kirkbride,

1960b,

1^1;

1966,

hj),

except

in

squares

Lh

and

MU

where

House

XVIII

was

built

directly

on

top

of

the

Mesolithic

2

layers.

The

sand

was

not

sterile

everywhere:

in

another

sounding

in

the

centre

of

the site

a

stone

was

found

which

had

been

deliberately

set

upright

with

clay

and

pebbles

(Kirkbride,

1968,

92).

Apart

from

this

slight

trace

of

human

activity

the

site

appears

to

have

been

deserted

while

the

sand

accumulated

(Kirkbride,

1967,

12).

Above

this

thick

layer

of

sand

lay

several

levels of

occupation,

Levels

IX

-

VII

(Mortensen,

1970a,

U),

with

no

trace

of

substantial

structures.

These

levels

consisted

of

a

sandy

deposit

with

layers

of

human occupation

within

it

and

some

associated

features.

A

deposit

of this

nature

was

found

in

squares

HU

and

H5

near

the

middle

of

the

site

(Kirkbride,

1967,

5ff)

;

this

was

Level

VIII.

There

was

a

similar

deposit

with

a

small

hearth

in

squares

EU,

E5

and

E6

beneath

the

houses

of

the

later

village.

In

the

same

squares

two large

floors

were

found

side

by

side on

top

of

the

sandy

occupa-

tion

layers.

These

floors,

described

as

level

VII,

were

made

of

a

mixture

-

111

-

of

sand

and calcareous

clay

resembling

plaster;

one

of

them had

three post-

holes

in

it.

Many

more

of

these

firm

floors

were

found

during

the

last

season's

digging

in

squares

Gk

,

Eh

and

Jh

in

the

middle

of

the

site

(Kirkbride,

1968,

92)

stratified

beneath

Level

VI

and

so

presumably ascribed

to levels

IX,

VIII

and

VII.

Post-holes,

some

with

stone

packing,

were

associated

with

some of

these

floors.

There

were

also

many

hearths

hollowed

out

in

the

floors,

one

of

which

was

surrounded

by

clay

lumps.

Traces

of

two

squared

timber

beams

were

noted

in

one

layer

and

the

outline

of

a

large

wooden

platter

or

basket

in

another.

Apart

from

these

finds

the

floors

were

fairly

clean

so

that

few

artifacts

or

animal

bones

were

recovered.

These

floors

were

stratified

directly

beneath

a

series of

courtyards

belonging

to

the

later

village

which

were

also

quite

clean.

As

no

break

in

the

occupation sequence

is

suspected

and

as

there

was

some

continuity

of

internal settlement

arrangements

at

Beidha

it

may

be

that

these

floors

were

also open

yards

and

that

houses

built

of

wood

and

clay,

if

not

stone,

lay

beyond

them

in

the

unexcavated

areas.

These

surfaces

seem

to have

represented

living

floors

in

which

some

domestic

activities

were

carried

out

and

where

several

slight

wooden

structures

were

built.

Because

they were

regularly

replaced

the site

must

have

been

repeated-

ly

occupied,

either

continuously

or

on

a

seasonal

basis.

None

of

the

artifacts

from

these

levels

at

Beidha

has

been

published

so

that

it

is

not

possible

yet

to

say

whether

the

flint

industry

was

like that

of

Neolithic

1

sites

in

Palestine

or

not.

All we

do

know

is

that

there

were

very

few

artifacts

in

Levels

IX

-

VII,

that

the

flint

industry

was

Neolithic

in

aspect

(Kirkbride,

1967,

6)

and

that

there

was

no

break

in

the

tradition

of

flint

working

between

Levels

IX

-

VII

and

the

later

levels (Mortensen,

19TOa,

13).

The

flint

industry

from

Levels

VI

-

I

at

Beidha

has

been

described

as

resembling

the

PPNB

industry

at

Jericho

and

elsewhere

(Mortensen,

1970a,

51),

although there

were

in

fact some

significant

differences

between

them.

Two

of

the

arrowhead

types,

A1

and

A2,

found

in

these

layers

had

a

distinctly

archaic

look.

They

both

had

a

pair

of

side

notches

and

a

straight

snapped

-

112

-

or

rounded

retouched

base

(Mortensen,

1970a,

22).

Type

A1

was

almost

a

Khiamian

point (especially

Mortensen,

19TOa,

fig.

12,

c)

which

could

be

paralleled

at

Jericho

in

the

PPNA

and

in

the

contemporary

levels

at

El

Khiam

while

type

A2

was

found

in

"both

the

Proto-Neolithic

and

PPNA

at

Jericho

(Kirkbride,

1960a,

pi.

XIII

A:

0,P,R,S).

As

these types

are

characteristic

of

an

earlier

phase

when

they

are

found

stratified

on

other

sites

their

presence,

even

in

small

quantities,

in

Levels

VI

to

I

at

Beidha

merits

comment.

Either

they were

definitely

contemporary

with

the

rest

of

the

material

in

the

layers

in

which

they

were

found

and

so

late

examples

of

a

type

which

had

ceased

to

be

made

elsewhere

or

they

were

secondary.

Mortensen

has

pointed

out

(19TOa,

h6)

that

the

lower

levels

of

the site

were

disturbed

by

later

building

and that

material

from

these

levels

was

consequently

found

higher

up.

It

is

possible,

therefore,

that

these

arrowheads

and

no

doubt

some

of

the

other

material

in

levels

VI

-

I

such

as

the

burins and

scrapers

were

derived from

an

earlier

assemblage

in

levels

IX

-

VII

that

had

some of

the

characteristics,

at

least,

of

the

PPNA

at

Jericho.

No

ll

*C

determinations

have

been

made

on

material from

levels

IX

-

VTI

but

there

are

no

less

than

seven

dates

now

for

level

VT.

These

have

a

wide

range

from

6990

±

160

B.C.

K-1086

to

6596

±

100

B.C.

P-1379

(Mortensen,

19TOa,

13),

making

it

difficult

to

estimate

when

the

first

occupation

in

this

layer

took

place;

all the

determinations

for

the

later

layers

except

one

fall

within

the

same

time

range

and

the

exception,

P-1380

from

level

IV,

is

in

fact

earlier.

From

these

determinations

one

might

suggest

with

due

caution

that level

VI

began

about

7000

B.C.

which

would

mean

that

the

occupation

represented

by

layers IX

-

VII

took

place

in

the

later

8th

millennium

B.C.

This

would

make

these

levels

contemporary

with

the

PPNA

at

Jericho. Thus

from

levels

IX

to VII

we

have

evidence

of

an

8th

millennium

settlement

occupied

regularly

over

many

years;

it

also

seems

likely

that

the

associated

material

culture

had

some

elements

in

common

with

Neolithic

1

at

Jericho

and

Nahal

Oren.

Apart

from

the

indications

of

floors,

hearths

and

some

wooden

-

113

-

structures

the true

nature

and

extent

of

this

settlement

have

not

yet

been

established

"because

of

the

limited

area

of the

soundings

from

which

the

evidence

was

derived.

Harifian

sites

All

the

sites

discussed

so

far

with

the

exception

of

Beidha

were

situated

in

central

Palestine,

"but

another

group

of

sites

with

a

post-

Mesolithic

2

industry

has

recently

"been

found

in

the

Negev

and

northern

Sinai.

The

type-site

is

Abu

Salem

(G12)

on

the

Har

Harif

plateau

and

there

are

two

other

sites,

G8

and

K3,

with

similar

remains

less

than

2

km

away

(Marks

et

al.

,

1972,

8lff).

The

Har Harif

plateau

is

the

highest

area

in

the

Negev

and

these

sites

are

all

at

an

elevation

of

nearly

1000

m.

G8,

which

was

about

3000

sq_

m

in

area

had

been

almost

entirely

deflated.

K3

had

a

thin scatter

of

artifacts

extending

over

8000

sq

m

but

it

is

believed

that

this

was

the

result

of

considerable

surface

movement

of

material

since

the

site

was

abandoned

and

that

originally

the

occupied

area

would

have

been

much

smaller.

This

site

had

a

number

of

bedrock

mortars.

Artifacts

at

Abu

Salem

were

spread

over

2500

sq

m

but

it

is

believed

that this

was again

partly

due

to

natural

slope

wash

and

that

occupation

was

confined

to

1600

sq

m

of

the

present

site.

Abu

Salem

had

some

occupation

deposit

in

situ,

23^

sq

m

of

which

has

been

excavated

(Marks,

Scott,

1976,

^7)

The

site

consisted

of

a

series

of

circular

and

oval

stone-walled

struc-

tures,

the

larger

ones

being

from

3

to

h

m

and

the

smaller

from

1

to

2

m

in

diameter. The

larger

structures

were

presumably

dwellings

but

the

smaller

ones

probably

served

another

purpose.

Stone

grinders

were

found

in

the

excavation

as

well

as

slabs

with

cup-marks

in

them,

several of

which

were

stained

with

ochre.

There

were

also

nine

bone

points,

dentalium

and

a

variety

of

other

marine

shells

from

the

Mediterranean

and

Red

Sea.

In

contrast

with

this

sparse

inventory

of artifacts the

chipped

stone

industry

was

exception-

ally

abundant

(Marks,

Scott,

1976,

50).

The raw

material

was

principally

a

very

fine-grained,

translucent

flint

much

used

on

Mesolithic

2

sites

in

the

area,

although

some

of

the

larger

tools

were

made

on

medium

and

coarse-grained

opaque

flint.

The

industry

was

microlithic

with

tools

being

made

on

small

flakes

and

blades

struck

from

prismatic

and

pyramidal

cores.

Microliths

comprised

hO%

of

the

flint

artifacts.

Many

of

these

were

lunates

with

abrupt

backing,

the

remainder

being

triangles

and

trapezes.

The

type-fossil

of

the

industry

was

the

Harif

point

which

comprised 8.^$

of

the

tools.

Harif

points

(Marks,

1973,

97ff)

are

diamond-shaped

obliquely

truncated

blades

with

a

stemmed

base

(Fig.

15b).

The

base

is

often

prepared

by

the

microburin

technique

and

microburins

are

a

common

by-product

of

the

Abu

Salem

industry.

Harif

points

are

very

varied

in

shape

and

finish

but

all

are

quite

small,

usually

between

1.75

cm

and

3

cm

in

length,

and

so

may

be

counted

as

micro-

liths.

The

function

of

Harif points

is

uncertain

but

it

may

be

that

they

were

used

to

arm

arrows

as

Khiamian

points

are

presumed

to

have

been.

The

other

main

classes

of

tools

at

Abu

Salem

were

scrapers

(10.7%),

usually

end-scrapers

on

flakes,

notched

(12.2$)

and

truncated

(Q.k%}

pieces,

a

wide

variety

of

small

backed

blades

(20.8$),

notched

pieces

(12.2$)

and

a

few

nibbled

pieces.

Burins

(0.7$)

and

sickle

blades

(0.2$)

were

very

rare.

Three

samples

from

Abu

Salem

have

now

been

dated,

all

from

rubbish

pits

excavated

in

the

settlement.

One

from

a

depth

of

15

to

20

cm

has

given

a

date

of

8020

±

150

B.C.

1-5^98

and

another

from

25

to

30

cm

8280

±

150

B.C.

1-5^99:

a

third

sample

from

50

to

55

cm

in

depth

has

the

same

laboratory

number

and

has been

given

the

same

date

(Marks,

Scott,

1976,

U7).

These

determinations

are

mutually

consistent

and

indicate

that

the

site

was

occupied

towards

the

end

of

the

9th

millennium,

perhaps

between

8300

and

8000

B.C.

Several

more

Harifian

sites

have

been

found

in

recent

surveys

north

of

the

Har

Harif

and

in

Sinai.

One

site

is

HL

110

near

Nahal

Lavan

(Bar-Yosef

et

al.,

197^,

10ff)

in

the

southern

part

of

the

Halutza

sand

dunes.

Harif

points

made

up

5^$

of

the

total

number

of

tools

at

this

site

and

microburins

were

quite

common.

Some

have

been

found

at

another

site

in

Nahal

Lavan,

Nahal

Lavan

108,

north-west

of

NL

110.

These

were

triangles

•with

straieht

Or

concave

retouched

bases

and

sidp

nnt.ph^s

(i\Trw

n

A

-^i

c^

-

115

-

They

would

appear

to

be

variants

of

Khiamian

points

so

the site

may

have

been

contemporary

with

Harifian

sites

in

the

same

area.

Several

more

Harifian

sites

have

been

found

in

recent

surveys

north

of

the

Har

Harif

and

in

Sinai.

One

site

is

NL

110

near

Nahal Lavan

(Bar-Yosef

et

al.,

197^,

10ff)

in the

southern

part of

the

Halutza

sand

dunes.

Harif

points

made

up

^\%

of

the

total

number

of

tools

at

this

site

and

microburins

were

quite

common.

Some

have

been

found

at

another

site

in

Nahal

Lavan, Hahal

Lavan

108,

north-west

of

NL

110.

These

are

triangles

with

straight

or

concave

retouched

bases

and

side

notches

(Noy,

n.d.,

pi.

S).

They

would

appear

to

be

variants

of

Khiamian

points

so

the

site

may

have

been

contemporary

with

Harifian

sites

in

the

same

area.

A

few

Harif

points

have

been

found

on

three

other

sites

in

the

Halutza

dunes

(Bar-Yosef

et

al.,

197^,

78).

One of

these,

site

87,

which

is

at

the

northern

end

of

the

dunes

near

Nahal

Besor

(Burian,

Friedmann,

1973,

figs.

1,

2)

also

had

material

from

a

later

phase

of

the

Neolithic.

A

fourth

site

with

Harif

points

in

this

district

has

recently

been

reported,

Halutza

dunes

h

(Noy,

n.d.).

Two more

Harifian

sites

have

been discovered

in

the

Jebel

Meghara

in

northern

Sinai

(Phillips

et

al.,

n.d.,

9)

9

one,

site

LIV,

in

the

Wadi

el

Masagid

and

another,

M

III,

in

the Wadi

el

Moshabi.

The

material

from

L

IV

and

M

III

was

collected

carefully

so

that

it

would

be

a

representative

sample

of

the

assemblages

at

these

sites;

it

can

therefore

be

compared directly

with

the

material

from

Abu

Salem.

The

assemblages

from

L

IV

and

M

III

included

a

number of

Harif

points

and

plentiful

evidence of

the use

of

the

microburin

technique;

truncated

pieces

were

also

very

common

although

burins

were

rare.

These

features

are

characteristic

of the flint

industry

at

Abu

Salem

but

the

collections

from

L

IV

and

M

III

differed

from

Abu

Salem

in

other

respects.

Lunates

and

other

geometries,

backed

pieces and

end-scrapers

were

all

rare

at

L

IV

and

M

III

in

contrast

with

Abu

Salem.

It

would

thus

appear

that there

is

considerable

variability

in

the

flint

assemblages

from

one

Harifian

site

to

another.

- 116 -

The

structures

and

chipped

stone

industry

at

Abu

Salem

and

other

Harifian

sites

had

much

in

common

with

Mesolithic

2

in

the

Negev

at

sites

such

as

Rosh

Zin and

Rosh

Horesha.

The

sub-circular

structures

at

Abu

Salem

and

the

bedrock

mortars

at

site

K3

were

very

like

those

at

Rosh

Zin

(Henry,

1973a,

206).

The

Harifian

and

Negev

Mesolithic

2

flint

industries

were

based

on the

production

of

small

tools

from

prismatic

and

pyramidal

cores. In

both

microliths,

particularly

lunates,

usually

predominated

and

microburins

were

a

common

by-product.

Of

the

other

tool

types

end-scrapers

on

flakes

and

notched

pieces

were

often

numerous

in

both

industries.

These

similarities

are

sufficiently

comprehensive

to

suggest

that

the

Harifian

was

derived

from

Mesolithic

2

in

the

Negev

although

there

are

quite

significant

differences

between

the

artifacts

of

these

two

complexes.

Burins,

for

instance,

were

rare

at

Abu

Salem,

L

IV

and

M

III,

though

common

at

Rosh

Zin and

Rosh

Horesha,

and

the

Harif

point

was

of course

an

innovation

found

in

quantity

only

on

Harifian

sites.

One

Harif

point

was

found

at

Rosh

Horesha

which,

taken

together

with

other

traits

in

the

industry

and the

llt

C

dates

from

there,

suggests

that

this

site

may

have

been

occupied

towards

the

end

of

Mesolithic

2

in

the Negev.

The

Harifian

complex

also

has some

features

in

common

with

Neolithic

1

at

Jericho

and

Nahal

Oren.

The

structures

at

Abu

Salem

for

instance

resembled

those

at

Nahal

Oren.

The

flint

industries

shared

the

same

core

technique

and

small

size

of

tools

while

scrapers

and

retouched

blades

were

major

tool

types

common

to both.

Sickle

blades

were

rare

in

both

industries.

The

Harif

point

may

be

taken

to

be

the

Harifian

equivalent

of the

Khiamian

point

although

it

was

much

more numerous

on

Harifian

sites

than

Khiamian

points

seem

to

have

been

further

north.

Harif

points

are

known

to

occur

in

quantity

only

on

sites

in

the

Negev

and

Sinai

but

they have

been

found

in

small

numbers

elsewhere.

They

occurred

at

El

Khiam

(Perrot,

1952;

fig.

2,

21),

in

a

variant

form

and

in a

later

context

at

Beidha

as

arrowhead

type

A8

(Mortensen

1970a,

23),

and

even

at

Mureybat

in

phase

IB

(Cauvin,

197Ub,

n.

23).

The

-

117

-

type

is

so

variable

in

morphology

that

it

can

resemble

artifacts

classed

as

tanged

points

elsewhere

so

these

occurrences

need

not

be

very significant.

They

do

lend

a

little

weight,

however,

to

the

argument

outlined

above

for

equivalence

between

the

Harifian

and

Neolithic

1

industries

in

Palestine.

Although

the

resemblances

between

the

Harifian

and

the

Proto-Neolithic/

PPNA

include

structures,

flint

tool

production

and even

certain

tool type

proportions,

there

are

still

differences

between

the

flint

industries.

The

Harifian

had

far

more

microliths,

particularly

lunates

and

microburins,

than

the

northern

sites

while

borers

and

flaked

axes

appear

to

be

absent;

one

also

notes

that

obsidian

is

not

found

on

Harifian

sites,

although

this

may

be

simply

due to

the

greater

distance

of

the

sites

from

the

Anatolian

sources

and

the

fact

that

obsidian

exchange

was

only

just

beginning.

The

Harifian

and

Neolithic

1

in

Palestine

appear

to

have

been

contempora-

neous

and

the

distribution

of

sites

of each

group

is

mutually

exclusive.

They

both

developed

from

Mesolithic

2

in

their

respective

areas

and

had

many

cultural

features

in

common.

This

suggests

that they

are

both

variations

of

the

same

cultural

complex,

that

is

the

first

post-Mesolithic

2

culture

in

the

southern

Levant.

The

similarities

in

the

material

remains

of

the

two

groups

would

also

indicate

that

their

inhabitants

were

living

in

much

the

same

way.

We

may

thus

include

Harifian

sites

within

Neolithic

1

of

the

Levant.

Nacharini

Few

sites

with

occupation

immediately

post-dating

the

Mesolithic

have

yet

been

found

in

the

Levant

north

of

Palestine.

Only

one

is

known

in

Lebanon,

Nacharini,

a

cave

site

in

the

Anti-Lebanon

Mountains

north-east

of

Baalbek.

This

site

lies

high

on

the

side

of

a

small

valley

at

an

elevation

of

about

2000m.

Its

position

today

is

remote

from

any

settlement

but

it

lies

near

one

of

the

tracks

across

the

mountains

from

Baalbek

to

Yabrud.

The

area

around

the

site

is

snow-covered

during

the

winter

rendering

the

site

uninhabitable

at

this

season.

-

118

-

Nacharini

is

being

excavated

by

H.B.

Schroeder

who

has

dug

one

sounding

to

bedrock

through

the

deposit

in

the

cave.

The

sequence of

occupation

extended

from

the

Palaeolithic

to

the

aceramic

Neolithic

and

it

appears that

the

site

was

used

intermittently

throughout

this

long

period.

There

was

one

Mesolithic

2

level

which

had

a

rich

chipped

stone

assemblage

indicating

quite

intensive

occupation.

The

assemblage

included many

microliths

of

which

lunates

were

the

dominant

type.

There

was one

other

tool

type

which

was

quite

dis-

tinctive

although

of

unknown

function,

a

short

blade

segment

retouched

at

both

ends

frequently

with

a

concave

truncation.

This

type

was

very

numerous

at

Nacharini

but

was

unknown

at

other

contemporary

sites.

Immediately

above

this

layer

was

another

with

an

industry

of

small

tools

of

somewhat

similar

characteristics.

There

were

fewer

microliths

now

but

still

many

of the

distinctive

truncated

bladelets.

An

innovation

was

a

point

on

a

thin

blade;

this

had

a

pair

of

side

notches and

a

straight

or

concave

truncated

base.

These

notched

points

were

like

Khiamian

points,

the

only

difference

being

that

the

Nacharini

examples

were

usually

longer

and

narrower

than

the

Palestinian

type.

This

assemblage

at

Nacharini

cannot

be

matched

exactly

anywhere

else

and

one

suspects

that

its

unique,

specialised

nature

has

much

to

do

with

the

unusual

position

of

the

site.

Nevertheless

there

are

several

observations

that

can

be

made

about

the

material

which

allow

us

to

place

it

in

the

Levantine

sequence.

In

the

first

place,

it

succeeded

a

Mesolithic

2

industry

which

in

all

probability

was

itself

broadly

contemporary

with

the

Natufian

in

Palestine

and

Mesolithic

2

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

Mureybat

in

northern

Syria.

Secondly,

this

assemblage

was

clearly

derived

from

and

owed

much

to

its

Mesolithic

2

predecessor

so

there

is

a

strong

indication

here

of

cultural

continuity.

This

assemblage

would

thus

appear

to

be

the

first

post-Mesolithic

2

complex

in

Lebanon

and

although

it

has

certain

unique

features

there

are

parallels

for

it

in

Palestine.

We

have

noted

there

the

continued

use

of

microliths,

principally

lunates,

in

diminished

numbers

in

the

post-Mesolithic

2

industries

-

119

-

as

at

Nacharini while

the

correspondence

"between

the

Nacharini

notched

point

and

Khiamian

points

is

so

close

that

it

is

reasonable

to

suppose

that

the

Nacharini

type was

the

equivalent

of

the

latter

at

least

in

the

Anti-Lebanon.

It

is

very

probable,

therefore

that

the

Nacharini

assemblage

was

contemporary

with

Neolithic

1

in

Palestine

even

if

for

the

moment

we

have

no

14

C

deter-

minations

from

the

site to

support

this

conclusion.

Mureybat

is

the

only

site

known

in

Syria

where occupation

continued

without

interruption

after

the

Mesolithic.

The

site

is

situated

on

the

left

bank

of

the

Euphrates

near

a

present-day

ford

and

ferry

crossing.

It

lies

on

a

consolidated

gravel terrace

which

is

itself

superimposed

on an

outcrop

of

soft

limestone.

The

site

faces

west

across

the

Euphrates

flood-plain

which

is

about

2.5

km

wide

at

this

point.

The

river

flows

at

its

foot

while

behind

to

the

east

the

land

gradually

rises

to

the

Jezireh

plateau.

The

site

today

forms

an

elongated

oval

platform

along

the

bank

of

the

river

and

rises

about

U

m

above

the

level

of

the

fields

behind.

The

core

of

the

site

is

a

small

circular

mound

6

m

high

which

lies

on

top

of

this

platform.

The

total

area

of

the

site

is

a

little over

3

ha

but

this

was

never

fully

occupied

in

any

phase

of

the

settlement's

existence. The

earlier

phases

of

settlement

were

concentrated

in

the

area

of

the

central

mound which

extends

over

^300

sq

m.

Mureybat

was

first

excavated

by

M.

van

Loon

who

in

196H

and

1965

dug

trenches

in

the

western

slope

of

the

central

mound

and

also

made

several

soundings elsewhere

on

the

platform. The

work

was

continued

by

J.

Cauvin

from

1971

to

197^4.

He

excavated

several

more trenches

a

little

to

the

south

of

van

Loon's

area

and

one

other

sounding

on

the

east

slope

of

the

central

mound.

These

excavations

have

shown

that

the

focus

of

occupation

altered

during

the

life

of the

settlement but

as

most

of

van

Loon's

and

Cauvin's

trenches

were

placed

quite

close

together

we

do

not

have

a

clear

idea

of

the

extent

of

each

phase

of

occupation.

The

full

sequence

of

occupation

on

the

-

120

-

site

has,

however,

now

"been

determined.

The

earliest

phase

of

settlement

was

found

"by

Cauvin and

designated

phase

I

(Cauvin,

1972,

107).

This

has

since

"been

subdivided

into

a

primary

phase

of

Mesolithic

occupation,

phase

IA,

and

a

post-Mesolithic

deposit,

phase

IB.

Phase

IA

appears

to have

been

confined

to

a

small

part

of

the

western

slope

of

the

central

mound,

covering

no

more than

100

or

200

sq

m,

and the

settlement

was

apparently

not

much larger

in

phase

IB.

The

phase

II

settlement

was

more

extensive,

covering

much

if

not

all

of

the

central mound;

this

phase

is

equivalent

to

strata

I

to IX

in

van

Loon's

excavation

(van

Loon,

1968,

267ff).

Phase

III,

van Loon's

strata

X

to

XVTI,

likewise

extended

over

much

of

the

central

mound.

The

deposits

of

phases

IB

to

III

are

the

remains

of

the

early

post-Mesolithic

settlement

with

which

the

excavations

at

Mureybat

have

"been

principally

concerned.

The

site

continued

to

"be

occupied

throughout

the

earlier

Neolithic,

apparently,

and

material

like

the

aceramic

Neolithic

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

Buqras levels

I

and

II

was

found

in

"both

campaigns

of

excavations;

the

llt

C

dates

for

these

levels

at

Buqras

indicate

that

this

phase,

designated

phase

IV

"by

Cauvin,

dates

from

the

7th

millennium

B.C.

The

earliest

buildings

at

Mureybat

were

found

in

phase

IB.

These

were

circular

structures

with

walls

made of

vertical

wooden

posts

set

close

together

(Cauvin,

1972,

107ff).

The

lower

50cm

of

the

walls

were

made

weatherproof

on

the inside

with

a

clay

facing

10cm

thick

which

were

the

only

parts

of

the

structures

that

survived.

Several

floor

surfaces

were

also

found

and

hearths

with

horseshoe-shaped

clay

surrounds.

Fire-pits

or

roasting

pits

filled

with

burned

pebbles

,

ash

and

charcoal

were associated

with

the

floors

and

were

a

feature

of

each

phase

of

occupation

at

Mureybat

from

phase

IA

to

phase

III.

The

chipped

stone

assemblage

from

this

phase

had

much

in

common

with

phase

IA.

Now

and

throughout

the

sequence

most

tools

were

made

on

small

blades and

flakes

struck from

prismatic

cores.

Microliths

comprised

7

to

20%

of

the

retouched

tools

in

these

levels.

Many

of

these

were

lunates

with

-

121

-

a

few

triangles

and

trapezes.

Microborers

were

also

very

common

while

a

few

backed

bladelets

made

up the

rest

of

the

microlithic

component.

Among

the

larger

tools

were

borers and

drills

with

a

few

end-scrapers,

burins,

denticu-

lates

and

occasional

sickle-blades.

There

were

two

new

tool

types

in

the

assemblage,

a

concave-based

arrowhead

with

side

notches

resembling

a

Khiamian

point

and

a

heavy

flaked

adze

(Fig.

16).

The

latter

was

probably

used

for

shaping

timber and

is

a

characteristic

tool

at

Mureybat

in

subsequent

phases.

The

remaining

artifacts

consisted

of

quite

abundant

bone

points

and

a

few

cylindrical

bone

beads.

In

phase

II

circular

structures

continued

to

be

built

but

these

were

somewhat

different

from

those

in

phase

IA.

These

were

now

usually

made

of

mud

and

stone

and

much

less

timber

was

used

in

their

construction. Most of

the

structures

were

about

k

m

in

diameter

but

some

were

as

small

as

2.7

m

across.

Their

floors

were

usually

made of

slabs

of

limestone

set

in

mud

and

sometimes

levelled

with

gravel

(van

Loon,

1968,

267).

The

walls

similarly

were

composed

of stones

set

in

mud

although

a

few

were

made

of

mud

alone

(Cauvin,

1972,

108)

,

presumably

with

some

support of

reeds

or

wood.

Querns

and

grinding

stones

were

frequently

incorporated

in

the floors

and

walls.

Although

little

more

than

the

floors

of

these

structures

survived,

their

size

and

frequency

suggest

that they

were

dwelling

huts.

Outside

these

buildings

were circular

fire-pits

about

80

cm

in

diameter

lined

with

clay.

They

were

full

of

ash,

charcoal

and

burned

pebbles.

These

may have

been

roasting

pits

for

meat

or

parching

seeds.

After

they

went

out

of

use

they were

frequently

filled

up

with

domestic

debris.

The

chipped

stone

industry

of

this

phase

was

significantly

different

from

phase

I

but

the

tools

were

still

small.

Microliths

were

still

very

common

but

these

consisted

almost

entirely

of

microborers

as

lunates

and

other

geometric

microliths

were

no

longer

used.

Of

the

larger

tools

drills

were

also

numerous

but

end-scrapers,

burins

and

sickle

blades

were

still

un-

common.

Arrowheads

were

now

much more

abundant.

Many

of

these

were

like

Fig.

16

Mureybat

IB-JH

-

flint

arrowheads

and

adze

(after

Cauvin)

-

122

-

Khiamian

points

(van

Loon,

1968,

pi.

IX,

g-k)

but

there was

much

variety

in

the

arrangement

of

the

notches.

A

few

now

had

a

stem.

Obsidian

was

found

in

small quantities

for

the

first

time

in

this

phase.

The

inventory

of

other

finds

was

a

little

more

abundant

and

varied

in

this

phase

than

earlier.

Bone

tools

such

as

borers

and

needles

were

particu-

larly

numerous

and

a

group

of

these

was

found

on

the

floor

of

Structure

1

(van

Loon,

1968,

268,

pi.

XIVB).

Cauvin

has

also

found

elaborate

combs

and

spatulae

with

serrated

ends

(1972,

figs.

3,

5).

Heavy

stone

tools

were

another

innovation

in

these

layers

though

querns,

grinders,

pestles

and mortars

are

known

from

the

Mesolithic

levels

at

Abu

Hureyra.

The

querns

were

oval

or

rectangular

in

shape

and

hollowed

out

in

the

centre

(van

Loon,

1968,

pi.

XIA).

Spherical

stones

appear

to

have

been

used

as

grinders

with

the

querns.

Pestles

and

mortars

were

also

quite

common.

One

or

two

anthropomorphic

stone

figurines

were

also

found

in

these

levels.

The

plans

of

the

buildings

changed

markedly

in

phase

III.

Some

were

still

circular

but

others

were

now

rectilinear

and

composed

of

several

rooms.

The

circular

structures

were

larger

than

before,

10

m

in

diameter

in

one

instance

(J.

Cauvin,

197^-a,

^6)

and

one

at

least

had

several

compartments

within

it.

The

walls

of

these

buildings,

like

the

rectilinear

ones,

were

now built with

rows

of

dressed

stones

held

together

with

mud.

Posts

and

split

logs

(van

Loon,

1968,

273)

were

used

to

strengthen

the

walls.

One

wall

was

decorated

with

several

rows

of

painted

black

chevrons

on a

white

back-

ground

(Cauvin,

1972,

110).

The

floors

were

frequently

paved

with

stones

as

in

phase

II.

The

structures

were

filled

with

much

burned

clay

which

retained

impressions

of

the

timber

and

straw

used

in

the

upper

part of

the

walls

and

roofs.

These

circular

buildings

were

found

in

Cauvin's

excavations

while

van

Loon

found

only

rectilinear

ones

(1968,

269ff). His

structures

were

built

in

the

same

way

as

the

circular

ones.

The

chambers

in

each

building

were

frequently

no

more

than

1.5

m

in

width.

None

of these chambers

had

a

doorway

at

floor level

so

they

must

have

been

entered

from

porthole

doors

higher

-

123

-

in

the

walls

or

from

at>ove.

Within

these

chambers

were

traces

of

separate

compartments,

possibly

storage

bins,

and

hearths.

These

buildings

are

complex

in

arrangement

and

consequently

difficult

to

interpret,

a

difficulty

compounded

by

their

poor

preservation.

The

circular

structures

are

commodious

enough

to

have

served

as

houses and

their

internal

compartments

may

have

fulfilled

a

domestic

function.

Most

of

the

rectilinear

buildings

as

they

survive

now

seem

far

too

cramped

inside

for

anything

more

than

storage.

It

is

possible,

of

course,

that

the

small

chambers

in

these

buildings

were

in fact

basement

storage

rooms

in

two-storeyed

structures

and

that

domestic

activities

were carried

out

on

the

first

floor.

There

is

a

paral-

lel for

this

arrangement

at

Ganj

Dareh

in

Iran.

Here

rectilinear

two-storeyed

buildings

built

in

this

same

way

with

walls

as

thin

as

those

at

Mureybat

have

survived

remarkably

intact

(P.E.L.

Smith,

1972,

166)

and

Smith

has

told

me

that

he

now

believes

the

basement

rooms

may

have

served

as

storage

chambers

for the

houses

above.

There

is

a

marked

resemblance

between

the

two

groups of

buildings

but

it

will

not

be

possible

to

state

with

certainty

what

the

function

of

the

Mureybat

buildings

was

until

we

know

more

about

their

precise

contents

.

The

earliest

occurrence

of

human

burials

within

the

settlement

at

Mureybat

was

in

phase

III.

The

inhabitants

of

the

settlement

in

earlier

phases

may

have

buried

their

dead

within

the

settlement but

outside

the

area

of

excavation.

Nevertheless

the

absence

of

burials

in

the

Mesolithic

deposit

at

Abu

Hureyra

strengthens

the

impression

one

has

that

in

northern

Syria

bodies

were

disposed

of

away

from

the

settlement

in

earlier

periods

in

contrast

with

the

Natufian

in

Palestine.

When

burial

within

the

settlement

was

introduced

in

phase

III

at

Mureybat

it

had

many

similarities

with

the

custom

at

Jericho

in

the

PPNA.

Skulls

were

detached

and

buried

in

groups

separated

from

the

corpses

to

which

they

belonged

(van

Loon,

1968,

275).

In

another instance

a

skull

and

several

long

bones

were

buried

together

without

the

rest

of

the

skeleton

(Cauvin,

1972,

110);

this

was

a

form

of

secondary

burial

that

was

a

regular

practice

in

a

later

context

in

the

aceramic

Neolithic

at

Abu

Hureyra.

The

flint

industry

was

modified

still

further

in

phase

III

though

it

was

still

in

the

same

tradition

as

that of

phases

I

and

II.

Apart

from

a

few

microborers

microliths

had

almost

disappeared.

In

their

place

the

larger

tools,

end-scrapers,

side-scrapers

and

burins

increased substantially

in

number

and

even

sickle

blades

were

more

abundant.

Arrowheads

were

also

much more

common

and

larger

too

(M.-C.

Cauvin,

197Ub,

n. 12).

Many

of

these

now

had

a

true

tang

for

hafting

as

well

as

side

notches

although

there

was

still

much

variety

of

shape;

Khiamian

points,

however,

had

all

but

disappeared

(M.-C.

Cauvin,

197^b,

31U).

A

few

of

these

arrowheads

were

retouched with

squamous

flaking

for

the

first

time

but

spare

abrupt

retouch

remained

the

usual

technique,

Obsidian

was

now

arriving

on

the

site

in

increasing

quantity.

Bone

tools

were

still

fairly

abundant;

the

most

common

ones

were

borers

as

before,

the

remainder

being

flat

spatulae

and beads.

None

of

the

elaborate

combs

has

been

found

in

these

levels but

even

in

phase

II

they

were

a

rare

find

and

so

perhaps

not

typical.

Among

other

finds

were

finely

made

stone

dishes

and bowls,

one

of

which

had

a

wavy

band

carved

in

relief

on

the

rim

(van

Loon,

1968,

273).

Querns,

grinders

and

other

heavy

stone

tools

were

very

common.

Then

there

were

a

few

other

pieces of

elaborately

carved

stone,

one

of

which

was

complete;

this

has

been

interpreted

as

an

anthropomorphic

figure

(Cauvin,

1972,

fig.

6)

but

it

would

appear

to

be more

like

an

owl

or

other

bird

of

prey.

Baked

clay

was

used

in

a

variety

of ways

for

the

first

time

in

this

phase.

Many

of

the

pieces

were

shapes

of

uncertain

design

but

a

few

were

quite

care-

fully

modelled

standing

female

figures

(J.

Cauvin,

197^a,

h6

,

50)

with

large

buttocks

and

hands

supporting

the

breasts.

Among

the

more

remarkable

objects

found

were

five

small

baked

clay

vessels

(j.

Cauvin,

197^b,

200).

These

were

little

cups,

bowls

and

dishes

from

k

to

7cm

in

diameter.

Such

finds

indicate

that

the

inhabitants

were

now

accustomed

to

making

a

variety

of

objects

in

baked

clay

but

that

the

substance

was

not yet

employed

for

utilitarian

objects

in

everyday

use.

-

125

-

More

lif

C

determinations

have

been

obtained

from

Mureybat

than

any

other

Neolithic

1

site

in

the

Levant

but

since

the

most

recent

dates

conflict

with

those

obtained

some

years

ago

the

precise

chronology

of

each

phase

is

by

no

means

certain.

I

discussed

some

of

these

determinations

in

Chapter

2

and

suggested

that

the

transition

from

phase

IA

to

IB

may

have

taken

place

about

8500

B.C.

The

duration

of

phase

IB

can

only

be

guessed

at

for

the

moment

since

the

single

determination

from

this

phase,

Lv-607,

cannot

be

reconciled

with

dates

obtained

for

phase

IA.

My

estimate

would

be

that

it

lasted

perhaps

200

years

and

that

phase

II

thus

began

about

8300

B.C.

Phase

II

is

no

better

dated

than

phase

I

since

two

of

the

Louvain

determinations

for

this

phase,

86^0

±

170

B.C.

Lv-605

and

8510

±

200

B.C.

Lv-606,

are

several

centuries

earlier

than

the

three

obtained

by

the

Philadelphia

laboratory,

8265

±

117

B.C.

P-1217,

81^2

±

118

B.C.

P-1216

and

8056

±

96

B.C.

P-1215.

One

other

Louvain

determina

tion

for

this

phase

should

be

mentioned,

7780

±

1^0

B.C.

Lv-6oU,

the

sample

for

which

came

from

near

the

surface

and

is

believed

to

have

been

contaminated

by

more

recent

humic

matter

(Gilot,

Cauvin,

1973,

38).

The

Philadelphia

dates

agree

better

with

the

more

recent

series

of

Monaco

determinations

for

phases

I

and

III

and

so

may

give

a

more

reliable

indication

of

the

duration

of

phase

II.

From

them

I

would

estimate

that

phase

II

was

concluded about

8000

B.C.

or

possibly

a

little

before.

Phase

III

is

dated

by

three

Philadelphia

determinations

from

the

first

series

of

excavations

and

eight

from

the

Monaco

laboratory

which

have

not

yet

been

fully

published.

These

two

series

are

reasonably

consistent

so

that

the

chronology

of

this

phase

appears

for

the

moment

to

be

better

established

than

that

of

phases

I

and

II.

The

Philadelphia

determinations

are:

8018

±

115

B.C.

P-1220

(levels

X-Xl),

75^2

±

122

B.C.

P-122U

(level

XVI)

and

795^

±

11U

B.C.

P-1222

(levels

XVI-XVII)

(Radiocarbon

11,

1969,

152).

The

earliest

of

the

Monaco

dates

is

8000

±

150

B.C.

Mc-73^

and

the

latest

7570

±

150

B.C.

Mc-612

(J.

Cauvin,

197^b,

200)

while

the others

fall

in

between.

Phase

III

thus

appears

to

have

lasted

from

about

8000

to

7500

B.C.

-

126

-

Circular

mud

"buildings

were

constructed

in

phase

IB

for

the

first

time

so

commencing

a

tradition

that

lasted

a

thousand

years

at

Mureybat.

The

earliest

modifications

to

the

Mesolithic

tool

kit also

occurred

in

phase

IB

with

the

introduction of

notched

points

and

flaked

adzes.

This

major

building

innovation

and

slight

but

significant

development

in

the

flint

industry

were

the

first

stage

of

a

gradual

but ultimately

thorough

cultural

change.

As

this

change

began

in

IB

it

seems

reasonable

to

take

this

phase

as

the

transition

between

Mesolithic

and

Neolithic.

The choice

is

somewhat

arbitrary,

however,

not

least

because

in

the

flint

industry

lunates

still

predominated

and

micro-

liths

as

a

group did

not

disappear until

phase

III.

The

development

of

the

flint

industry

illustrates

well

how

slow

but

far-

reaching

this

cultural

change

was.

First

there

was

the

change

in

the

micro-

lithic

component

dominated

by

lunates

at

the

beginning

and

then

by

microborers.

This

would

seem

to

indicate

that some

major

change

in

activities

within

the

settlement

was

taking

place

although

the

flint

technology

had

not

altered

much

at

this

stage.

Then

the

microliths

were

phased

out

and

the

tools

became

much

larger.

At

the

same

time there

was

a

change

in

the

core

technique

as

double-

ended

cores

were

now used

to

produce

blades.

Some

were

even

the

keeled

("naviforme")

cores

more

usually

associated

with

7th

millennium

and

later

industries

but

a

few

of

these

may

in

fact

have

belonged

with

the

phase

III

assemblage

rather

than

have been

intrusive

from

phase

IV.

Changes

in

the

typology

of

the

flint

tools

accompanied

these

technological

developments.

The

arrowheads

are the

best

example

of

this:

they

were

introduced

in

small

quantities

in

phase

IB

but

eventually

formed

as

much

as

25%

of

the

retouched

tools

in

certain

levels

in

phase

III (Cauvin,

1972,

110).

Their typology

also

changed

markedly

throughout

this

long

period

(M.-C.

Cauvin,

I97^b,

31*0.

These

changes

in

the

Mureybat

flint

industry

were

the

result

of

a

local

gradual

development

and

throughout

there

was

an

uninterrupted

continuity

of

culture.

Mureybat

is

the

only

site

known

in

the

Levant

at

present

where

a

microlithic

flint

industry

was

slowly

modified

until

it

became

a

blade-based

industry

typical

of

the

developed

Neolithic

and

where

no

-

127

-

"break

in

the

complete

sequence

is

suspected.

Such

a

gradual

development

of

the

flint

industry

indicates

that

the

population

remained

the

same,

that

the

Neolithic

inhabitants

were

the

descendants

of

their

Mesolithic

predecessors.

The

increasing

richness

and

variety

of

the

remainder

of

the

artifact

inventory

through

the

phases

also

suggests

that

the

inhabitants

were

"becoming

more

sedentary.

Tell

Aswad

One

other

site

with

deposits

dating

from

the

8th

millennium

B.C.

has

recently

"been

excavated

in

Syria.

This

is

Tell

Aswad

which

lies

in

the

Damascus

basin

about

25

km

south-east

of

the

city

and

about

half

way

between

the

present

Hijjane

and

Ataibe

lakes. In

this

region the

floor

of

the

basin

is

almost

flat

with

the

exception

of some

low

hills

a

few

metres

high.

Tell

Aswad

is

situated

on

one

of

these

which

originally

stood

about

2

m

above

the

level

of

the

plain.

Until

quite

recently

Tell

Aswad

lay

in

a

marshy

area

only

a

few

kilometres

from

the

edge

of the

lakes.

The

marshes and

lakes

would

have

been

even

more

exten-

sive

in

the

Neolithic

then

they

were

earlier

this

century.

The

site

is

almost

circular

and

very

extensive,

covering

about

5.^-1

ha,

although

the

occupation

deposits

are

only

from

2

to

3m

deep.

The

site

was

sounded

by

H.

de

Contenson

in

1971

and

1972.

He

excavated

two

trenches,

Aswad

East

and

Aswad

West,

each

k

m

square

and

spaced

wide

apart

in

the

southern

sector

of

the

site.

The

deposits

consisted

of

dark,

ashy

layers

with

traces

of

burned

vegetable

matter

and

charcoal

into

which

had

been

dug

many

pits

(de

Contenson,

1972,

76).

These

were

of

various

sizes

up

to

2

m

in

diameter.

Some

were

pit

hearths

full

of

burned

material,

others

were

rubbish

pits

but

none

was

large

enough

for

a

dwelling.

A

few

of

these

had

a

rim

of

plano-convex

mud-bricks

some

of

which

were

baked.

A

platform

of

bricks

was

found

in

the

East

trench

but

apart

from

this

there

were

no other

built

structures

in

the

trenches.

The

only

trace

of

building

activities

was

impressions

of

reeds

in

a

few

lumps

of

clay,

the

remains

perhaps

of

shelters

or

huts

built

by

the

inhabitants

out

of

materials

readily

available

in

the

locality.

The

surface

-

128

-

of

the

rest

of

the

mound

consisted

of

the

same

ashy

deposit

that

was

found

in

the

trenches

so

that

it

does

not

seem

that

there

were

structures

built

of

other

materials

such

as

mud-brick

elsewhere

on

the

site.

Several

burials

were

found

at

the

bottom

of

the

West

trench

(de

Contenson,

1972,

79).

Most

had

been

placed

at

intervals

in

a

single

pit dug

in

the

natural

subsoil.

There

was

one

complete

skeleton

in a

contracted

position,

another

that

was

incomplete

and

several

skulls

of

adults

and

children.

One

other

skull

was

found

set

on

the

natural

surface

in

the

same

trench.

The

flint

industry

at

Tell

Aswad

was

based

on

the

production

of

blades.

The

cores

were

prismatic

or

pyramidal

although

25%

of

them

were

bipolar,

a

few

being

of

the

keeled

type.

The

most

numerous

tools

were

sickle

blades and

tanged

arrowheads

(de

Contenson,

1972,

77)

while

the

remainder

consisted

of

notched

pieces,

burins,

borers

and

end-scrapers.

This

industry

was

more

developed

than

those

I

have

discussed

so

far

and

much

of

it

had

parallels

with

a

later

cultural

stage.

This

was

true also of

some

of

the

other

artifacts

found

at

Tell

Aswad

such

as

the

polished

axes

and

abundant

human

and animal

figurines.

Yet

at

least

some

of the

flint

tools,

the

notched

arrowheads

in

particular,

were

more

archaic.

This

impression

derived

from

typology

was

reinforced

by

the

ten

1If

C

determinations

made

on

samples

from

both

trenches

(de

Contenson,

1973a,

253ff).

All

of

these

from

the

West

trench

fell

within

the

7th

millennium

but

four

out

of

the

five

from

the

East

trench

were

from

the

8th

millennium.

De

Contenson

has

divided

the

sequence

at

Tell

Aswad

into

two

phases

based

upon

stratigraphy,

the

evolution

of

the

typology

of

the

flint

tools,

the

other

associated

artifacts

and

the

llf

C

dates.

The

site

is

now

believed

to

have

been

occupied

first

in

phase

I

and

the debris of

this

phase makes up

most of

the

deposit

of

Aswad

East.

The

earliest

date

here

is

7790

±

120

B.C.

GIF-2633

for

a

deposit

near

the

natural

surface

while

above

that

there

are

three

others

of

7690

±

120

B.C.

GIF-2372,

7390

±

120

B.C.

GIF-2370 and

7320

±

120

B.C.

GIF-2371.

.These

make

a

coherent

series

of

determinations

from

which

one

might

-

129 -

estimate

that

the

phase

began

a

little

before

7800 B.C. De

Contenson believes

that the

settlement

then

expanded

towards

the

west

for

some

material

of

late

phase

I

character

was

found

at

the

bottom

of

Aswad

West.

There

are

two

dates

for

this

of

6925

±

55

B.C.

GrN-6678

and

6915

±

60

B.C.

GrN-6679-

The

remainder

of the

deposit

in

Aswad

West

constitutes

phase

II.

A

little

material

of

this

phase,

dated

by

one

further

ll

*C

determination,

was

found

at

the

top

of

Aswad

East

suggesting

that

the

settlement

expanded

to

the

east

again

before

it

was

finally

abandoned.

Although

the

whole

of

the

site

may

have

been

occupied

at

least

briefly

in

phase

II

this

does

not

appear

to

have

been

so in

phase

I.

Then perhaps

no more than

half

or

even

less

was

occupied

at

any

one

time.

Even

this

would

have

been

a

considerable area

so

it

appears

that

Tell

Aswad

was

always

an

extensive

site

in

contrast

with

the

core

mound

at

Mureybat,

for

example,

which

was

much

smaller.

This

considerable

spread

of

settlement

may

be accounted

for

by

the

absence

of

permanent

structures

rather

than

simply

a

large

concentration

of

people.

The

inhabitants

may

have

preferred

to

spread

outwards

over

the

natural

hill

on

which

the

site

stood

rather

than

to

live

tightly

huddled

together

as

was

usually

the

case

on

sites

with

mud-brick

buildings

where

family

or

customary

tenure

of

a

particular

building

plot

may

have

encouraged

more

concentrated

settlement.

This

complicated

development

of

the

settlement

at

Tell

Aswad

has

since

been

confirmed

by

further

studies

of

the

evolution

of

the artifacts

(de

Contenson,

1976,

82).

The

typology

of

the

arrowheads

in

phase

I

has

now

been

worked

out

in

detail

(M.-C.

Cauvin,

197^-b,

31^-ff)

and

this

permits

more

precise

comparisons

to be made

with

other

sites.

Many

of

the

arrowheads

had

short

tangs

and

pairs

of

notches.

They

were

frequently

retouched

with

a

little

pressure-flaking.

Such arrowheads

have

been

found

in

phase

III at

Mureybat

although

there

they often

had

fewer notches

and

pressure-flaking

was

less

usual.

Nevertheless

the two

assemblages

had

much

in

common,

including

a

similar

core

technique

and

range of

retouched

tools.

Such

typological similarity

would

have

suggested

that

phase

I

at

Tell

Aswad

overlapped

with

phase

III

at

Mureybat

-

130

-

and

this

is

confirmed

by

the

14

C

dates.

Saidnaya

There

is

one

other

site

near

Damascus

at

which

traces

of

Neolithic

1

occupation

have

"been

found.

This

is

Saidnaya which

lies

23

km

north

of

the

city

in

a

valley

on

the

eastern

side of

the

Anti-Letanon.

The

occupation

deposit

here

lay

near

the

surface

and

was

quite

thin.

Most

of

the

material

belonged

to

a

Mesolithic

2

flint

industry

but

mixed

with

this

were

pieces

which

were

typologically

a

little

later.

There

were

in

particular

three

notched

arrowheads;

one

had

a

straight

retouched

base

and

the

other

two

were

tanged

(van

Liere,

de

Contenson,

1963,

fig.

6,

1-3).

These

arrowheads

can

be

paral-

leled

at

both

Tell

Aswad

I

and

Mureybat

III,

indicating

that

Saidnaya

was

occupied

briefly

at

this

time.

Saidnaya

is

thus

the

second

site

known

in

the

Anti-Lebanon with

Neolithic

1

occupation.

The

slow

but

fundamental

change

from

a

microlithic

to

a

full

blade

flint

industry

tool

place

at

about

the

same

time

in

Syria,

Palestine and

elsewhere

in

the

Levant.

Microliths

were

gradually

phased

out,

rather

more

quickly

at

Jericho

and

Nahal

Oren

than

at

Mureybat,

Nacharini

and

the

Harifian

sites.

The

first

recognisable

arrowheads

were

made

and

also

certain

relatively

heavy

flaked

tools

such

as

adzes

and

picks

were

introduced

though,

on

the

new

evidence

from

Hayonim

(Bar-Yosef,

Goren,

1973,

60)

these tools

may

already

have

been

used

in

the

Mesolithic

at

some

sites;

it is

important

to

remember

also that

heavy

flaked hammerstones

and

large

flake

scrapers

were

common

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

in

certain

other

Mesolithic

assemblages.

Almost

all

the

other

tools

in

the

earliest

post-Mesolithic

assemblages

were

small,

much

smaller

than

those

of

the

blade-based

developed

Neolithic

industry

of

the

7th

millennium

and

after.

The

same

core

technology

was

used

on

all

Levantine

sites

but

later

double-ended

blade

cores

were introduced

at

Mureybat,

Jericho

and

Nahal

Oren

and

the

first

true

blade

tools

were

made

in

some

quantity.

Similarly,

towards

the

end

of

this

stage

squamous

retouch

was

introduced,

at

least

at

Jericho

and

-

131

-

Mureybat,

the

two

sites

with

the

most

complete

sequences,

and

Tell

Aswad.

There

were

few

other

classes

of

artifacts

at

these

sites

"but

even

these

showed

some

similarities.

Bone

tools

were

quite

abundant

at

Mureybat,

Nahal

Oren

and

Jericho

and

for

the

most part

consisted

of

quite

fine

points

,

pins

and

needles.

Hollow

querns

were

also

common

to these

three

sites.

Simple

dishes

and

bowls

made

of

stone

were

another

regular

if

less

common

find

on

both

sites;

some

of

these

were

quite

finely

made

with

a

high

polish.

Hollow

querns

were

also

common

to

these

three

sites.

Yet

for

all

these

general

similarities

between

broadly

contemporary

assemblages

from

different

sites

in

the Levant

there

were

marked

local

differences. Tool

types

were

found

in

different

proportions

from

site to

site

while

some

tools

such

as

the

Harif

point

and

the

distinctive

Nacharini

truncated

blades were

found

on

certain

sites

and

not

on

others.

Arrowheads

were much

more

numerous

and

varied

in

shape

at

Mureybat

than

at

Jericho

or

any

other

site.

The

other

principal

feature

that

these

sites

had

in

common

was

their

buildings.

Circular

structures

were

common

to

all

the

open

sites

from

Abu

Salem

in

the

Negev

to

Mureybat

on

the Euphrates.

They

were

built

of

whatever

materials

were

easily

available,

stone

and

timber

at

Abu

Salem

and

Nahal

Oren,

mud

and

timber

at

Jericho

and

Mureybat.

This

tradition

of

erecting

circular

buildings

was

inherited from

Mesolithic

2

and

had

its

origins

in

the

Meso-

lithic

1

circular

huts

at

En

Gev

or

perhaps

even

earlier.

These

structures

were

of

much

the

same

diameter,

whatever

they

were

built

of,

at

most

of

the

sites

discussed:

Abu

Salem,

Nahal

Oren

and

Mureybat;

only

their

internal

arrangements

differed

somewhat.

The

houses

at

Jericho

were slightly

larger

and

in

phase

III

at

Mureybat

much

bigger

circular

structures

with

several

compartments

within

were

built

alongside

the

first

rectilinear

buildings.

Until

then

the

building

tradition

seems

to

have

been

remarkably

uniform

throughout

the

Levant.

The

latter

part

of

phase

III

at

Mureybat

came

quite

late

in

Neolithic

1

when

a

further

change

in

building

type

was

taking

place.

-

132

-

There

is

very

little

evidence

for

"burial

practices

from

these

sites

but

what

there

is

does

suggest

a

certain

similarity

in

customs

throughout

the

Levant.

Burials

within

the settlement

have

"been

found

at

several

sites,

a

tradition

which

in

Palestine

was

derived

from

the

Natufian

"but

which

in

north

Syria

would

appear

to

have

"been

an

innovation.

The

most

distinctive

feature

was the

separate

interment

of skulls

after death

for

which

there

is

evidence

from

Jericho,

Nahal

Oren,

Mureybat

and

Tell

Aswad

I.

The

inhabitants

of

these

sites,

at

least,

had

certain

ideas

in

common

concerning

the

treatment

of

the

head

after

death

which

led

them

to

bury

skulls

apart

from

the

corpses

to

which

they

belonged.

Other

aspects

of

the

disposal

of

the

dead

differ

from

site

to

site;

at

Jericho

bodies

were

buried

intact

in

graves

while

at

Mureybat

and

Tell

Aswad

I

there

is

evidence

for

secondary

burial

in

which

the

skeleton

was

probably

dismembered.

One

other

activity

in

which

the inhabitants

of

many

of

the

sites

were

involved

was the

exchange

of

obsidian.

This

began

immediately

after

the

Mesolithic

and

is

one

of

the

features

marking

the

start

of

this

new

stage.

All

the

obsidian

found

on

Levantine

sites

at

this

early

date

which

has

been

analysed

came

from

Anatolia

and

the

amount

that

reached

the

Levant

was

extremely

small,

a

handful

of

pieces

at

a

few sites

only.

Yet

even

this

early

it

was

being

retouched

into

tools

at

Jericho

and

elsewhere

so

it

was

appreciated

for

its

practical

qualities

from

the

beginning.

This

is

the

earliest

instance

of

regular

long

distance

trade

known

in

the

Levant,

the

only

precursor

being

the

traffic

in

marine

shells

from

the

Mediterranean

and

the

Red

Sea

found

on

inland

sites

in

earlier

periods.

It

indicates

that

the

Levant

and

Anatolia

were

in

some

sort

of

contact

even

if

as

yet

we

are

unable

to

say

anything

about

the

cultural

context

in

which

the

obsidian

was

being

collected

or

quarried

in

Anatolia.

The

Levant

in

this

stage

formed

one

cultural

province

with

most

contem-

porary

sites

having

many

cultural

traits

in

common.

For

this

reason

Mureybat

IB

-

III

and

Tell

Aswad

I

may

be

included

in

Neolithic

1.

Yet

even

though

-

133

-

there

are

relatively

few

sites

known

of

this

period

it

is

clear

that there

were

local

cultural

differences

that

served

to

separate

one

group

of

sites

from

another.

Thus

one

can

distinguish

between

the

Harifian

sites

of

the

Negev

and

the

Palestinian

group

of

Jericho,

El

Khiam

and

Nahal

Oren

because

of

differences

in

their

flint

industries.

Nacharini

in

the

Anti-Lebanon

for

the

moment

stands

alone,

having

only certain

aspects

of

its

flint

industry

in

common

with

other

sites.

Mureybat

on

the

Euphrates

while

sharing

many

traits

with

sites

further

south

has

enough

distinctive

features

to

distinguish

it

from

the

others;

when

other

sites

of this

period

are

found

in

this

region

they

may

be

seen to

form another cultural

sub-group.

Tell

Aswad

I

is

late

in

the

Neolithic

1

sequence

and

the

best

parallel

for

its

flint

industry

is

Mureybat

III;

for

the

moment

there

is

little

with

which

to compare

it

with

further

south.

Distribution

of

sites

There

are

Neolithic

1

sites

throughout

the

Levant

in

most

geographic

zones

from

Sinai

to

north

Syria

(Fig.

17).

They

occur

in

the

south

on

the

coastal

plain

of

Palestine

(Poleg

18M,

Halutza

dunes)

which

was

still

wider

than

it

is

today.

Some

are

now

known

not

far

inland

in

the

Jebel

Meghara

in

Sinai

and

in

the

high

Negev

(Abu

Salem

and

others).

There

is

one

(El

Khiam)

in

the hills of

the

Judean

Desert and two

(Nahal

Oren,

Mugharet

el

Wad)

on

the

fringes

of

Mt.

Carmel.

Jericho

is

the

main

settlement

in

the

Jordan

valley

while

there

is

one

possible

Neolithic

1

site,

Beidha,

in

the

Mountains

of

Edom.

Further north

there

are

two

in

the

Anti-Lebanon

(Nacharini,

Saidnaya)

and

one

in

the

Damascus

basin

(Tell

Aswad).

Neolithic

1

in

north

Syria

is

represented

at

Mureybat

in

the

Euphrates

valley.

This

distribution

is

quite

similar

to

that

of

Mesolithic

2

sites.

As

before

it

seems

that

the

high

mountains

were

in

general

avoided

but

otherwise

sites

were

to

be

found

over

a

wide

area.

Not

every

region

was

occupied

in

both

stages.

There

are

no

Neolithic

1

sites

to

the

east

of

the

Jordan,

on

Fig.

17

Distribution

of

Neolithic

1

sites

scale

1=4,000.000

FIGURE

17

Distribution

of

Neolithic

1

sites

1

Mureybat

2

Nacharini

3

Saidnaya

4

Tell

Aswad

5

Nahal

Oren

6

Mugharet

el

Wad

7

Rakafet

8

Poleg

18M

9

Gilgal

10

Jericho

11

El

Khiam

12

Halutza

unnumbered

13

Halutza

unnumbered

14

Halutza

-

Site

87

15

Halutza

Dunes

4

16

Nahal

Lavan

108

17

Nahal

Lavan

110

18

Abu Salem

-

G12

19

Har

Harif

G8

20

Har

Harif

K3

21

Beidha

22

Lagama

IV

23

Moshabi

III

-

131*

-

the

slopes

of

the Mountains

of Lebanon

or

in

the

Beka'a.

There

are

also

fewer

Neolithic

1

sites

in

the

hill

country

"behind

the

coastal

plain

of

the

southern

Levant

than

in

Mesolithic

2.

Part

of the

explanation

for

this

change

in

the

distribution

pattern

may

simply

be

that

Neolithic

1

sites

have

not

been

noticed

in

these

areas

although

they

may

exist.

On

the

other

hand

several

of

these

areas

have

now been

carefully

surveyed

and

it

is

likely

that

a

few

sites

would

have

been

discovered

if

they

were

there.

People

may

have

avoided

these

areas

in

Neolithic

1

because

they

were

less

suitable

for

environmental

or

economic

reasons than

they

had

been

in

Mesolithic

2.

Settlement

was

quite

widespread

in

the

Negev

and

north

Sinai

as

it

had

been

in

Mesolithic

2.

The

vegetation

in

the

high

Negev

and

Jebel

Meghara

was

thinner

than

in

the

hills

further

north

making

the

uplands

more

attractive

for

settlement.

The

site

of Tell

Aswad

shows

that

the

floor

of

the

Damascus

basin

could

now

be

occupied

following

the

retreat

of

the

Pleistocene

lake.

Mesolithic

sites

have

not

been

found

on

the

old

lake

floor,

presumably

because

it

was

still

flooded

then,

although

it

is

possible

that

traces

of

occupation

might

have

been

covered

by

later

alluvium.

I

have

mentioned

22

sites

in

the

Levant

that

were

occupied

in

Neolithic

1;

if

one

includes

Beidha

the

total

is

23.

Of

these

18

were

open

sites,

three,

Mugharet

el

Wad,

Nahal

Oren

and

El

Khiam,

were

terrace

sites

and

two,

Nacharini

and

Rakafet,

shelters.

This

is

a

higher

proportion

of

open

to

shelter

sites

than

in

Mesolithic

2

when

many

caves,

particularly

in

Palestine,

were

still

occupied.

Neolithic

1

began

about

8500

B.C.

and

continued

until

about

7000

B.C.,

thus

lasting

approximately

1500

years.

This

is

about

the

same

length

of

time

as

the

duration

of

Mesolithic

2

which began

about

10,000 B.C.

and

ended

with

the

beginning

of

Neolithic

1.

Yet

while

a

maximum

of

23

Neolithic

1

sites

are

known

at

present

over

60

Mesolithic

2

sites

have

been

found.

It

may be

that

relatively

few

Neolithic

1

sites

have

been

recognised

in

surveys

carried

out

so

far.

There

are,

after

all,

few

type-fossils

in

the

artifact

assemblages

-

135

-

with

which

to

distinguish

Neolithic

1

from

Mesolithic

2

sites. The

chrono-

logy

proposed

here

may

be

in

error

by

several

hundred

years

so

that

Mesolithic

2

was

longer

and

Neolithic

1

shorter

than

I

have

suggested.

Other

factors

might further

reduce

the

gap

between

the

total

number

of

sites

for each

phase.

Nevertheless

on

present

evidence

nearly

three

times

the

number

of

sites

were

occupied

during

Mesolithic

2

than

in

Neolithic

1

even

though

both

stages

lasted

about

the

same

length

of

time.

Most

Neolithic

1

settlements

with

the exception

of

Mureybat

and

Jericho

have

thin

occupation

deposits

and

were

probably

occupied

briefly

or

inter-

mittently

as

were

most

Mesolithic

2

sites.

Mureybat

was

occupied

continuously

throughout

the

stage

although

still

without

a

massive

deposit

being

accumulated.

Jericho

was

an

extraordinarily

large

settlement

at

which,

although

it

was

not

occupied

for

the

whole

of

Neolithic

1,

a

great

mound

of

debris

was

built

up.

Although

far

fewer

Neolithic

1

than

Mesolithic

2

settlements

are

known

we have

a

much

better

idea

of

the

internal

chronology

and

cultural

development

of

this

stage.

The

long

stratified

sequences

at

Jericho

and

Mureybat,

the

quantity

of

llf

C

determinations

and

the

changes

in

typology

of

the

artifact

assemblages

all

can

be

combined

so

that

one

may

place

individual

sites

within

the

sequence.

Thus

the

Harifian

sites

would

all

appear

to

fall

early

in

Neolithic

1,

there

being

no

late

Neolithic

1

sites

known

as

yet

in

the

Negev

and

Sinai.

The

occupation

at

Tell

Aswad

I,

on

the

other

hand,

took

place

near

the

end

of

this

stage.

Neolithic

1

sites

vary

considerably

in

size

from

sites

of

less

than

100

sq

m

at

one

extreme

to

h

ha

at

the

other.

They

may

be

arranged

in

three

groups

according

to the

area they

cover.

The

first,

group

A,

includes

sites

of less

than

1000

sq

m.

Within

this

group there

is

a

clear

distinction

between

Nahal

Oren

which

covers

approximately

650

sq

m

(Stekelis,

Yizraely,

1963,

fig.

3;

Noy

et

al.,

1973,

fig.

1)

and

several

smaller

sites.

I

include

Mugharet

el

Wad,

Poleg

18M

and

Saidnaya

in

this

sub-group

as

they

are

all

probably

of

200

sq

m

or less

in

this

stage.

One

of

the

smallest

sites

is

Nacharini where

-

136 -

the

area

of

the

talus

and

cave

together

is

90

sq

m.

Group

B

consists

of

sites

from

1000

to

8000

sq

m.

Among

these

are

the

Harifian

sites,

Abu

Salem

(1600

sq

m)

(Marks,

Scott,

1976,

hk)

,

G8

(3000

sq

m)

and

K3

(8000

sq

m)

(Marks

et

al.

,

1972,

81,

82),

and

Mureybat

(a

maximum

of

U300

sq

m).

El

Khiam

should

be

included

in

Group

B

since

the

terrace

is

about

7500

sq

m

although

the

Neolithic

1

site

was

probably

smaller

than

this.

The

two

largest

sites,

Tell

Aswad

(a

maximum

of

2.7

ha)

and

Jericho

(a

maximum

of

h

ha)

comprise

Group

C.

These

are

several

times

bigger

than

any

of

the

other

sites.

If

we

compare

the

areas of

Neolithic

1

settlements

with

those

of

Meso-

lithic

2

sites

we

see

that most

Neolithic

1

sites

are

larger

although

there

are

fewer

of

them.

The

small

sites

of

the

sub-group

within

group

A

are

similar

in

size

to sites

within

the

categories

of

small and

medium

Mesolithic

2

sites

but

the

sites

in

group

B

are

larger

than

almost

all

in

the

Those

in

group

C

are

at

least

four

times

bigger

than

the

largest

known

Mesolithic

2

site.

Only

the

sites

of

group

A

were

inhabited

by

communities

with

about

the

same

number

of

people

as

Mesolithic

2

families

or

composite

bands.

The

communities

living

in

group

B

sites

would

have

been

slightly

bigger

than those

on

most

Mesolithic

2

large

sites

while

the

inhabitants

of

group

C

sites

were

clearly

far

more numerous than

any

Mesolithic

2

community.

Economy

Some

evidence

for

economy

has

been

recovered

from

recent

excavations

of

Neolithic

1

sites

although

the

record

is

still

very

uneven.

Far

more

animal

bones

than

plant

remains

have

been

found

mainly

because

until

recently

there

were

no

special methods

available

by

which

seeds

could

be

separated from

the

soil.

There

is

some

indirect

evidence

from

artifacts

which

contributes

a

little more

information

on

the

economy.

The

economy

of

Jericho

is

of

special

interest

because

the

settlement

is

so

much

bigger

than

other

Neolithic

1

sites.

The

earliest

plant remains

found

at

the

site

were

recovered

from

PPNA

levels.

These

were

two

grains

of

-

137

-

emmer

(Triticum

dicoccum),

six

of

two-row

hulled

barley

(Hordeum

distichon),

h6

fig

pips

(Ficus)

and

three

fragments

of

a

legume

(Hopf,

19^9,

357).

Wild

apple

or

pear

(Pyrus),

pomegranate

(Punica),

fig

and

olive

(Olea)

charcoals

have

also

been

identified

from

these

levels

(Western,

1971,

36).

It

is

thought

that

the

pomegranate

charcoal

may

have

been

intrusive

as

it

is

not

certain

that

the

species

was

present

in

the region

at

this

early

date.

The

two

species

of

cereals

are

both

cultivated

types

so

cereal

agriculture

was

being

practised

at

Jericho.

The

barley

grains

were

smaller

than

those

found

in

later

phases

of

the

Neolithic

and

had

a

fragile

rachis

which

may

indicate

that

the

species

was

in

the

process

of

being

domesticated,

although

other explanations

are

possible

(Hopf,

1969,

358).

Several

questions

may be

asked

about

the cultivation

of

these

cereals.

Were

the emmer and

barley

domesticated

locally?

How

were

they

grown

and

what

contribution

did

they

make

to the

food

supply?

Cultivated

emmer

is

believed

to

have

been

developed

from

wild

emmer

(Triticum

dicoccoides);

the

two

types

are

closely

interfertile

but

wild

emmer

has

a

brittle

rachis

(Zohary,

1969,

^9)»

Triticum

dicoccoides

is

itself

thought

to

be

a

hybrid

of

wild

einkorn

(Triticum

boeoticum)

and

a

variety

of

goat-face

grass (Aegilops

speltoides)

(Renfrew,

1973,

kk).

Wild

emmer

may

have

originated

in

central

southern

Turkey

where

both

wild

einkorn

and

goat-face

grass

grow

together

in

the

wild

today.

Wild

emmer

itself

grows

in

only

a

few

places

in

the

Near

East

now.

One

area

is

in

the

Levant

and

comprises

southern

Lebanon,

the

Hauran,

Palestine

and

Transjordan;

another

is

southern

Turkey

and

northern

Iraq

(Zohary,

1969»

^9,

n.

17).

It

is

assumed

that

cultivated

emmer

originated

in

these

areas

(Harlan,

Zohary,

1966,

1079)

which

would

imply

that

the

cultivated

emmer grown

at

Jericho

had

been

domesticated

in

the

neighbourhood.

This

is

the

standard

explanation

for

the

origin

of

cultivated

emmer

which

is

accepted

by

most

archaeobotanists

today.

It

assumes,

however,

that

the

distribution

of

wild

emmer

is

almost

the

same

now

as

when

it

was

first

domes-

-K

i

<•>«.+•.

e*fl

"hpna.nRP

~l~i~htlf=>

r>1

-

138

-

then

(Zohary,

1969,

59).

As

we

have

seen

the

most

recent

evidence

indicates

that

the

climate

and

vegetation

of

the

Levant

in

the 9th

millennium

B.C.

were

significantly

different

from

now.

Wild

emmer

today

grows

on

limestone

and

basaltic

soils

and

is

found

from

100

m

"below

to

1600

m

above

sea

level

in

northern

Palestine

(Zohary,

1969,

52).

It

thus

tolerates

both

warm

and

cool

winters.

The

species

is

typical

of

the

Mediterranean

forest

and

intermediate

open

forest

of

the

areas

in

which

it

occurs today.

These

zones

were

much

more

extensive

in

the

9th

millennium

B.C.

than they

are

now,

stretching

in

a

wide

belt from

Sinai

north

and then

east

into

Mesopotamia.

The

principal

soils

of

this

enormous

area

are

derived

from

limestones

and

basalts

so

if

its

preferred

habitat

was

the

same

then

as

now,

another

questionable

assumption,

it

would

have

flourished

throughout

these

forest

zones.

Domestication

of

wild

emmer

could

thus

have

taken place

anywhere

in

the

broad

forested

zone

west

and

north

of

the

steppe

of

the

Syrian

interior.

It

has

frequently

been remarked

that

wild

cereals

when

found

today

often

grow

in

dense

stands

from

which

a

rich

harvest

may

be

gathered

(Harlan,

Zohary,

1966, 1078;

Harlan,

196?,

198).

These

cereals

are

abundant

now

because

they

grow

in

areas

that

formerly

were forested

but

from

which

much

of

the

tree

cover

has

been

removed.

Even

though

the

upper

Jordan

valley,

one

of

the

areas

cited,

has

been

preserved

from

grazing

for

a

generation

the

trees

have

not

yet

re-established

themselves

and

consequently

the

climax

vegetation

typical

of

the

region

in

earlier

periods

does

not

exist.

At

the

time

when

cereals

were

domesticated

the

tree cover

was

extensive

and

so

dense

stands

of

wild

wheat

would

have

been

found

only

rarely.

Once

wild

wheats

became

a

major

source

of

food

man

would

have

had

an

incentive

to

clear

more

open

ground

for

them,

itself

an

agricultural

technique,

and

also

to

transfer

them

to

open

country

where

they

could

grow

freely.

Herein

lies

an

important

reason

why

man

may

have

first

manipulated

and

then

domesticated

these

wheats.

This

discussion

has

been

based

on

the

assumption

that

Triticum

dicoccum

was

derived

from Triticum

dicoccoides

but

this

has

now

been

questioned by

- 139 -

Dennell.

He

has

argued

(1973,

329ff)

that

since

Triticum

dicoccum

has

so

far

been

found

on

several

archaeological

sites

at

an

earlier

date

than

Triticum

dicoccoides

the

latter

may

be

in fact

a

feral

offshoot

rather

than

the

progenitor

of

cultivated

emmer.

Triticum

dicoccum

may

have

originated

well

before

the

8th

millennium

and

he

cites

the

grains

of

this

type

found

in

Kebaran

levels

at

Nahal

Oren

as

possible

support

for

this.

These differences

of

opinion concerning

the

origin

of

cultivated

emmer

do

not

greatly

affect

its

archaeological

implications;

however

it

was

derived

it

seems

that

the

Levant

was

one

of

the

areas

in

which

it

originated.

It

is

thought

that

all

cultivated

barleys

are

derived

from

a

single

wild

type,

Hordeum

spontaneum

(Renfrew,

1973,

69).

This

species

also

grows

in

the

Mediterranean

and

open

forest

zones

today

(Zohary,

1969,

53).

It

prefers

some-

what

drier

conditions and

is

less

tolerant

of

cold than

the

wild

wheats

so

can

be

found

encroaching

on

the

steppe.

It

is

found

now

in

a

great

arc

from

the

Wadi

Arabah

north through

the

Levant

to

the

foothills

of

the

Taurus,

then

east

and

south-east

along

the

mountain

fringe almost to

the

Persian

Gulf.

This

zone

would

have

been

much

broader

in

the 9th

millennium

B.C.

and

wild

barley

would

consequently

have

been

more

widespread.

It

was

probably

domesti-

cated

at

many

places

in

this

area

including

the

vicinity

of

Jericho

at

about

the

same

time.

The

population

of

Jericho

multiplied

rapidly

in

the

Proto-Neolithic

and

PPNA.

Kenyon

has

suggested

that

between

2000

and

3000

people

may

have

lived

there

during

the

PPNA

(1969,

155),

an

estimate

that

is

probably

of

the

right

order

of

magnitude.

The

population

was

at

least

semi-sedentary

and

so

a

con-

siderable

bulk

of

food

would

have

been

required

to

feed

it.

Pack

animals

had

not

yet

been

domesticated

so

no

means

of

transport

existed

to

carry

heavy

loads

to

the

site

from

elsewhere.

The

inhabitants

must

therefore

have

obtained

their

food

from

the

vicinity

of the

site.

Chisholm

has

found

that

the

inhabitants

of

agricultural

settlements obtain

the

highest

returns

within

a

radius

of

1

km

from

the

site

(1968,

66)

but

that

at

a

distance

of

3

or

h

km

the

time

taken

to

travel

to

the

fields

seriously

hinders

production.

Higgs

and

Vita-

Finzi

have

suggested

that

the

inhabitants

of

most

sedentary

settlements

will

subsist

on

the

produce

of

a

territory

within

a

radius

of

5

km

of

their

hones

(19T2

9

31).

We

know

that

the

inhabitants

of

Jericho

were

planting

crops

from

which

they

derived

at

least

part

of

their

subsistence

and

it

follows

that

these

crops

must

have

"been

planted

near

the

site.

The

area

around

Jericho

today

is

too

warm

and

dry

for

cereals

to

grow

there

although

even

now

wild

"barley

grows

in

the

hills

immediately

to

the

west

of

the

site

(Western,

1971,

37).

This

area

was

both

cooler

and

moister

about

8000

B.C.

and

so

the

climate

would

have

been

more

favourable

for

early

agri-

culture.

The

soil

in

the

immediate

vicinity

of

Jericho

has

been

washed

down

by

the

Wadi

Makkuk

from

the

hills

behind

(Western,

1971,

35);

it

overlies

the

salty

marls

characteristic

of

the

floor

of

the

Jordan

valley

and

is

particularly

fertile.

Jericho

would

thus

have

enjoyed

quite

favourable

natural

conditions

for

early

agriculture.

Even

so

it

is

unlikely

that

the

rainfall

was quite

high

enough

for

cereal

crops

to

grow

regularly.

At

this

time

the

Dead

Sea

was

at

a

higher

level

than

now

and

its

shore

lay

not

far

south of

Jericho.

The

proximity

of

this

large

body

of

water

would

have

kept

the

water

table

in

the

lower

Jordan

valley

high

during

this

period.

The

Wadi

Makkuk

certainly

would

have flowed

for

longer

each

year

than

it

does

today

and the

great

spring

of

Ain

es-Sultan

would

also

have

had

a

greater

discharge.

There

would

thus

have

been

much

more

surface

and

sub-surface

water

around

the

site

than

now.

Kenyon

has

suggested

that

the

PPNA

inhabitants

irrigated

their

crops

(1970,

^5)

but

this

may

not

have

been

necessary

at

this

stage.

Emmer

and

barley

may

have

been

cultivated

on

the

relatively

moist

land

around

the

site

at

first

without

irrigation.

Although

a

change

in

climate

took

place

during

the

7th

millennium

B.C.

this

need

not

have

affected

cultivation

at

Jericho

during

the

life of

the

PPNA

settlement.

It

is

not

possible

to

describe

in

detail

how

plants

were

used

as

food

at

Jericho

as

few

remains

were

recovered.

The legume

fragments

may

have

been

gathered

in

the

wild

although, given the

size

of the

settlement,

it

is

more

likely

that

they

were

cultivated.

The

fig

pips

and

charcoal

indicate

that

fruits

were gathered

from

the

wild

in

the

hills

to

the

west

of

the

site.

No

doubt

many

other

species

were

gathered

from

the

wild

as

in

Mesolithic

2

and

a

few

others

cultivated

(Hopf,

1969,

357)

"but

their

remains

have

not

"been

found.

The

hollow

querns

from

the

PPNA

levels

would

have

"been

suitable

for

grinding

grains

and

also

acorns

which

may

still

have

contributed

to

the

diet.

Although

wild

foods

.may

have

been

an

important

supplement,

particularly

in

what

was

still

a

rich

environment,

the

inhabitants

must

have

depended

upon

agriculture

for

food

(Kenyon,

1969,

155).

Such

a

large

concentration

of

people could

not

have

subsisted

alone

on

the

wild

resources

known

to

have

been

available

to

them.

The

cereals,

legumes

and

fruits

would

have

provided

a

balanced

diet

but

the abundant

animal

bones found

on

the

site

indicate

that

the

meat

was

an

important

protein

supplement.

The

most

numerous

ruminant

bones

in

the

Proto-

Neolithic

and

PPNA

levels

were

of

gazelle,

probably

Gazella

dorcas.

This

species

accounted

for

36.91%

of

the

total

meat

available

from

the

animal

remains

in

the

PPNA

and

was

the

principal

source

of

meat

in

this

period

(Glutton-Brock,

1971

9

U8).

Both

males

and

females

were

represented

but

far

more

males

were

killed

than

females.

Some goat

bones

were

found

in

PPNA

levels

but

not

in

the

Proto-Neolithic.

Many

of

the

horn

cores

were

large

and

so

may

have

belonged

to

Capra

aegagrus

;

a

few

were

large

enough

to have

been

Capra

ibex

nubiana

(Glutton-Brock,

1971,

50ff).

Some

of

the

horn

cores

were

much

smaller

and

these

were

ascribed

to

young

or female

goats.

Sheep

were

also

present

in

the

PPNA

but

in

very

small

quantities

(Glutton-Brock,

Uerpmann,

197^-

9

273).

Large

pig

bones

of

the

wild

Sus

scrofa

were

quite

common

in

these

levels

(Glutton-Brock,

1971,

^3).

This

species

would

have

abounded

in

the

marshy

thickets

along

the

banks

of

the

Jordan.

Some

cattle

bones

were

also

found,

all

of

Bos

primigenius

(Glutton-Brock,

1971,

^5).

A

few

onager

(Equus

hemionus),

deer

and

antelope

bones

were

recovered

in

the

excavation

and

some

of

these

may

have

belonged

to

the

Proto-Neolithic

and

PPNA

levels.

Carnivore

bones

were

abundant

in

these

Neolithic

1

levels,

foxes

(Vulpes

vulpes)

being

the

most

common

of

all

the

mammals

found

(Glutton-Brock,

1969,

3^1).

This

species

flourished

in

Palestine

during

the

Mesolithic

(Kurte*n,

1965,

6k)

and

may

have

been

a

common

constituent

of

the

fauna

in

the

Jordan

valley.

Fox

bones

were

found

all

over the

site

and

so

they

were

regularly

caught

Glutton-Brock

believes

that

they

were

hunted

for

their

skins

and

for

food

which

may

well

have

been

the

case.

Their

presence

at

Jericho

in

such

large

numbers

is

striking

as

they

are

not

very

common

on

other

contemporary

sites.

It

may

be

that

the

inhabitants

of

Jericho specialised

in

the

preparation

of

fox

pelts

which

were

then

exchanged

with

other

communities.

The

remaining

carnivore bones

consisted

of

Canis

sp.

which

may

have

been

either

dogs or

wolves,

almost

certainly

wild,

and

several

Felidae

(Glutton-

Brock,

1969,

339

9

3^-3).

The

latter included

marten

(Martes

martes),

lynx

and

the

small

Libyan

cat (Felis

lybica).

There

is

nothing

in

the

morphology

of

the

bones

to indicate that

any

of

these

animals

was

domesticated

but

there

are

indications

that

they

were

at

least

hunted

selectively.

Gazelles

were

killed

much

more

frequently

than

other

ruminants

and

male

gazelles

more often

than

females.

Foxes,

too,

were

trapped

in

great

numbers

compared with

other

species. The

large

population

of

Jericho

would

soon

have

killed

off

or

frightened

away

most

of

the

gazelles

and

perhaps

even

the

foxes

had

they

hunted

these

species

indiscriminately.

Yet

there

always

seem

to

have

been

enough

for

them

to

take

throughout

the

Proto-Neolithic

and

PPNA.

It

would

seem

probable

that some

sort

of

game

conservation

was

practised

now

which

may

have

taken

the

form

of

the

protection

or

control

of

gazelle

herds

envisaged

by

Legge

(1972,

123).

The

inhabitants of

Jericho

in

Neolithic

1

would

thus

have

been

manipulating

the

gazelle more

thoroughly

than

anyone

sems

to

have

done

in

the

Mesolithic.

Like

their

Mesolithic

predecessors

the

people

of

Jericho

hunted

the

other

animals

in

the

vicinity from

time

to

time.

These

were

taken often

-

1U3

-

enough

to

"be

an

important

constituent

of

the

diet;

one

Bos

primigenius

after

all

would

have

fed

many

families

for

several

days.

The

economy

of

Jericho

in

the

Proto-Neolithic

and

PPNA

thus

depended

upon

the

cultivation

of

cereals

and

perhaps

other

crops.

The

vegetable

diet

was

supplemented

by collecting from

the

wild.

Meat

was

obtained

principally

by

the

selective

hunting

or

culling

of

gazelle

herds

but other

species

were

still

killed

quite

often

for

variety.

The

agricultural

aspect

of

the

economy

ensured

that

the

population

was

at

least

semi-sedentary

but

parties

would

still

have

spent

time

away

from

the

settlement

on

hunting

and

collecting

expeditions.

These

may

have

been

family

groups

which

would

have

been

able

to leave the

settlement

for

a

time

in

the

winter

after sowing the

cereals

and

also

in

the

late

summer

after

the

harvest.

Nevertheless

enough

people

probably

remained

at

the

site

throughout

the

year

for

Jericho

to be

described

as

a

sedentary

settlement

in

Neolithic

1.

Jericho

stands

out

from

contemporary

sites

because

of

its

great

size

and

the

tower

and walls

which

surrounded

it,

yet

the

houses

and

artifacts

are

like

those

found

elsewhere.

The

principal

difference

is

one

of

scale.

This

may

be

accounted

for

by

the

situation

of

the

site

which

at

this

period

was

unusually

favourable.

The

population

could

have

supported

themselves

per-

fectly

well

on

the

products

of

the

economy

suggested

by

the

evidence;

this

economy

was,

after

all,

not

very

different

from

the

Mesolithic

2

one

which

preceded

it.

There

is

no

need,

therefore,

to

invent

a

unique

economy

for

the

site

as

Anati

has

done

which

ignores

the

possibility

that

the

environment

may

have

been

more

favourable

at

the

time

the

site

was

first

occupied

than

it

is

now.

He

believes

that

the economy

was

based

on

the

collection

and

export

of

salt,

bitumen

and

sulphur

(1962,

31).

Salt

and

bitumen

are

widespread

in

the

Levant

and

were

locally

exchanged

but

sulphur

does

not

seem to

have

been

used

elsewhere.

Jericho

was not the

major

distribution

centre

of

these

commodities

which

could

not

have

been

exported

in

bulk

anyway

without

pack

animals.

Even

fewer plant

remains

were

found

in

the

Neolithic

1

levels

at

Nahal

Oren

than

at

Jericho

so

although

one

presumes

that

plants

were

important

in

the

diet

one

cannot

ascertain

much

about

how

they were

exploited.

Emmer

was

present

(Noy et

al.

,

1973,

table

6)

as

at

Jericho

so

the

inhabitants

may

well

have

been

growing

cereals.

Vetch

seeds

were

also

found

which

is

an

indication

that

the

plant

diet

was

well-balanced.

The

animal

bones

give

a

fairly

clear

picture

of

which

species

were

exploited

for

food.

Gazelle

was

the single

species

preferred

above

all

others,

accounting

for

87.65$ of

the

fauna

(Noy

et

al.,

1973,

table

3).

This

was

a

slightly

higher

percentage

than

in

the

Natufian

layers

but

the

relative

weight

of

meat

was

even

greater

because

very

few

cattle

and

other

large ruminants

were

killed

now.

A

very

high

proportion

of

gazelle

bones

was

also

found

in

the

first

series

of

excavations

(Ducos,

1968,

76)

so

the

pattern

was

true

for

the

whole

site.

The

only other

species

of

any

importance

were

goat

(Capra

aegagrus

k.95%

(Legge,

1972,

121))

and

pig

(3.W.

Fallow

deer

which

had

been

so

important

in

earlier

times

now

only

accounted

for

1.75$

of

the

animal

bones.

This

pattern

of

animal

exploitation

resembles

that

at

Jericho.

Most

of

the

meat

came

from

gazelle

at

both

sites

and

pig and

goat

were

important

supplements.

Gazelle

exploitation

reached

its

peak

in

this

phase

at

Nahal

Oren.

As

in

the

Natufian

a

high

percentage

(51-9$)

of the

gazelle

killed

were

young

animals

(Noy

et al.,

1973,

table

5)

so

the

herds

were

being

culled

very

selectively

indeed.

Apparently

the animal

was

abundant

in

the

neighbour-

hood

and

this

provided

the

basis

for

a

successful

killing

pattern.

By

now

their

dependence

on

gazelle

was

so

great

that

it

is

reasonable

to

presume

that

the

inhabitants

at

Nahal

Oren

were

controlling

the

herds

in

the

same

way

that

their

contemporaries

at

Jericho

appear

to

have

done.

This

hypothesis

is

reinforced

by

the

size

and

appearance

of

the

settlement.

The

huts

at

the

site

were

built

to be

occupied

for

several

months of

the

year

at

least.

The

population

could

not

have

.lived

there

regularly

for

as

long

as

this

without

a

dependable

food

supply.

While

it

appears

that they

now

grew

some

crops

the

catchment

was not

particularly

suitable

for

arable

farming

so

they

may

have

gathered

more

wild

plants

and

eaten

more

meat

than

the

inhabitants

of

Jericho.

It

is

possible

that

the

population

was

still

practising

transhumance

as

has

been

suggested

for the

earlier

phases

(Noy

et

al.,

1973,

96)

in

which

case

occupation

would

have

been semi-sedentary

rather

than

sedentary.

Very

little

more

direct

evidence

for

economy

has

been

found

on

Neolithic

1

sites

in

the

southern

Levant.

At

El

Khiam

a

few

caprine

and fox

bones

have

been

identified

(Ducos,

1968,

79)

which

accords

with

what

we

know

of

the

environment

of

the

site.

Not

very

much

is

known

either

about

the

fauna

on

Harifian

sites.

Apparently

a

wide

range

of

species

was

killed

at

Abu

Salem;

gazelle

and

wild

goat

were

particularly

abundant

and

onager

was

also

taken.

No

deer

bones

were

found

but

bird

bones

were

quite

common

(Marks,

1975a,

358).

Both

terrestrial

and

marine

molluscs

were

present,

some

of

which

may have

been

eaten.

There

are

some

similarities here

with

the

pattern

of

animal

exploitation

at

Jericho

and

Nahal

Oren.

Plant

foods

were

presumably

important

on

Harifian

sites

as

elsewhere

but

no

remains

have

been

recovered.

Abu

Salem,

G8

and

K3 are

all

on

top

of

the

Ear

Harif

plateau,

an

area

that

was

covered

with

Mediterranean

forest

at

the

time

they

were

occupied.

The

Harifian

sites

in

the

Halutza

dunes

are

on

the

much

lower

ground

of

the

coastal

plain

in

more

open

forest.

The

catchments

of

these two

groups

of

sites

offered

complementary

seasonal

resources

which

could

be

most

satisfac-

torily exploited by

transhumant

groups.

They

may

have

spent

the

winter

on

the

coastal

plain

which

would

have

been

much

warmer

than

the

Har

Harif.

The

pasture

on

the

lowlands

would

have

supported

large herds

of

gazelle

which

may

have

been

controlled

as

seems

to

have been

the

case

further

north.

Annual

food

plants,

either

cultivated

or

wild,

would

also

have

been

available

until

the

end

of

spring.

Then

these

groups

may

have

moved

up

to

the

plateau

where

there

would

be

some

pasture

through

the

summer

for

gazelle

and

goats.

The

topo-

graphy

of

this

area

provided

a

congenial

habitat

for

goats

and

we have

already

seen that

their

remains

are

quite

numerous

at

Abu

Salem.

Transhumance

seems

also

to

have

"been

the

pattern

in

the

Anti-Lebanon

for

Nacharini

can

only

have

been

occupied

in

the

summer

months.

Some

of

the

animal

bones

from

the

Neolithic

1

occupation

at

this

site

have

been

identified.

They

include

gazelle,

fallow

deer

(Dama

mesopotamica),

equid,

cattle

and

sheep/goat.

These

species

-would

have

fed

on

the

high

pastures

in

the

mountains

and

some

of the

herds

may

have

been

controlled.

In

winter

the small

group

which

inhabited

the

site

and

probably

many

of

the

wild

ruminants

would

have

moved

down

to

the

floor

of

the

Beka'a.

Samples

of

plant

remains

and

animal

bones

were collected

at

Mureybat

by

both

van

Loon

and

Cauvin.

In

van

Loon's

excavation

flotation

was

used

to

extract

seeds

from

two

baskets

full

of

earth

from

every

stratum

(van

Loon,

1968,

280).

Most

of the

samples

came

from

strata

of the

Neolithic

1

occupation.

A

very

mixed

collection

of

seeds

was

found

in

each

sample,

reflecting

the

different ways

in

which

they were

processed

and

used

on

the

site.

Two-seeded

wild-type

einkorn

(Triticum

boeoticum

var.

thaoudar)

was

particularly

common

and

may

have

been

an

important food

plant

(van

Zeist,

Casparie,

1968,

hQ).

Wild-type

barley

(Hordeum

spontaneum)

did

occur

but

in

much

smaller

quantities

(van

Zeist,

1970,

17*0

so

it

is

less

likely

that

it

was

a

major

constituent

of

the

diet.

Of

the

legumes,

small

wild

lentils

(Lens

nigricans) and

bitter

vetch

(Vicia

ervilia)

were

collected

for

food

(van

Zeist,

1970,

175) as

they

had

been

at

Abu

Hureyra

in

the

Mesolithic.

There

were

also

a

few

fragments

of

pistachio

nuts

(Pistacia).

Some

Astragalus

seeds

were

found

but

these

may

have

been brought

to

the

site

with

their

parent

plants

for

fodder.

Among

the

other

plant

remains

were

Polygonum

which

may

have

been

eaten,

grasses

and

Chenopodiacae

seeds.

Charcoal

from

the

site

has

also

been

identified. Most

of

it

was

poplar but

there

was

some

tamarisk

and

ash,

all

species

which

would

have

grown

on

the

flood-plain

of

the

river.

All

these

species except

the

wild-type

einkorn

would

have

certainly

grown

in

the

vicinity

of

Mureybat.

Van

Zeist

has

pointed

out

that

wild-type

einkorn

is

not

found

on

the

north

Syrian

plain today

although

it

is

found

in

southern

Turkey.

He

thought

it

could

have

grown

around

Mureybat

at

the

time

the

site

was

occupied

only

if

it

was

cooler and

moister

then

(1968,

52).

He

did not

"believe

that

the

climatic

evidence

indicated

this

so

he

concluded

that

the

wild-type

einkorn

must

have

been

harvested

in

the

hill

country

about

150

km

to

the

north.

We

have

already

seen

that

on

the latest

evidence

the

temperature

was

lower

then,

the

rainfall

was

more regular

and

may

even

have

been

a

little

greater.

This

means

that

the

conditions

in

this

region

were

more

suitable

then

for

wild-type

einkorn

which

anyway

grows

in

a

wide

climatic

range

today

(Zohary,

1969,

U8).

As

the

transport

of

large

quantities

of

grain

to

the

site

from

so

far

away

would

have

been

almost

impossibly

difficult

one

may

reasonably

presume

that

wild-type

einkorn

grew

around Mureybat

and

that

all

the

food

plants

the

inhabitants

used were

available

locally.

We

do

not

know

for

certain

if any of

these

plants

was

being

cultivated

but the

evidence

from

the

Mesolithic

levels

at

Abu

Hureyra

indicates

that

wild-type

einkorn

and

wild-type

barley had

already

been

used

for

a

long

period

of time

and

that

the

wild-type

einkorn

was

probably

already

being

cultivated

there.

Cultivated

einkorn

and

barley

are

found

in

the

aceramic

Neolithic

levels

at

Abu

Hureyra

no

more than

a

millennium

later

than

the

Neolithic

1

levels

at

Mureybat.

It

seems

likely,

therefore,

that

these

cereals

were

being

cultivated

by

the

inhabitants

of

Mureybat

even if

there

is

no

evidence

that

they

changed

their

morphology.

This

would

only

occur

when

certain

harvesting

techniques

such

as

reaping

with

sickles

were

introduced

but

cereals

could

have

been

harvested

from

planted

fields

for

a

long

period

before

that

without

any

morphological

change

taking

place

(Hillman,

1975

9

72).

None

of

the

animal bones

recovered

at

Mureybat

can

be

ascribed

to

mor-

phologically

domestic

types.

The

most

numerous

species

found

in

both

series

of

excavations

were

gazelle (Gazella

sp.),

aurochs

(Bos

Primigenius)

and

wild

ass

(Equus

Asinus

palestinae)

(Ducos,

1975a,

193;

1972,

300;

1970,

287)

It

proved

impossible

to

determine

the

type

of

gazelle.

The

equid bones

were

at

first

thought

to

be

from

an

onager

(van

Loon,

1968,

279)

but

Ducos

now

believes

they

belong

to

an

ass,

a

species

that

was

very

common

in

north

Syria

(I975b,

71).

Whichever

name

the

species

is

given

it

is

likely

to be

the

same

animal

as

the

onager

or

ass

which

has

been

found

in

some

quantity

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

a

number

of

other

sites

in

the

Levant.

These

three

species

appear

to

have

been

of

approximately

equal

importance

in

the

diet

in

the

early

phases

of

occupation

at

Mureybat,

Then

in

phase

III

most of

the

meat

was

obtained

from

cattle

and

ass

and

far

fewer

gazelle

were

taken.

It

would

seem

that

these

three

species

were

prolific

in

the

open

park-like

environs

of

Mureybat.

Animals

of

different

ages

were

killed

at

random,

there

being

no

strong

bias

towards juveniles

(Ducos,

1970,

273) so

it

appears

that

they were

hunted

in

the

wild

rather

than

herded.

The

fall

in

the

number

of

gazelle

taken

in

phase

III

may

have

been because

they

had

been over-exploited without

steps

being

taken

to

conserve

numbers

as

was

happening

further

south.

Another

factor

may

have

been

that

cattle

and

ass

were

then

considered

to

be

more

generally

useful

providing

not

only more

meat,

especially

Bos

primigenius,

but

also

hides

and

other

products.

Throughout

Neolithic

1

at

Mureybat

a

number

of

other

animals

were

hunted,

among

them

fallow

deer

(Dama

mesopotamica)

in

some

quantity,

a

very

few

red

deer

(Cervus

elaphus)

which

were

apparently

still

in

the

area,

a

few

sheep

(Ovis

orientalis),

pigs

(Sus

scrofa

cf.

libycus)

and

rabbits

(Lepus

sp.)

(Ducos,

1975a,

193ff;

van

Loon,

1968,

279).

Birds,

especially

pelicans,

fish

and

shellfish

(Melanopsis)

were

taken

from

the

Euphrates

and

marshes

of

the

valley

floor.

It

now

appears

that

fewer

fish

and

shellfish were

eaten

in

phase

III

than

before but

numerous birds

were

still

being

killed.

This

pattern

of

exploitation

is

a

little

different

from

sites

in

Palestine.

In

part

it

reflects

the

different

plants

and

animals

that

were

available

in

the

vicinity

of

Mureybat

and

also

the

more open

vegetation. There

is

a

presumption

that

cereals

were

now being

deliberately

planted

even

if

they

had

not

yet

changed

morphologically.

All

the

animals

eaten

on

the

other

hand

were

hunted

or

trapped.

The

rich

grassland

around

the

site

may

have

maintained

-

1U9

-

large

herds

which

the

relatively

small

population

at

Mureybat

did

not

seriously

diminish,

except

possibly

those

of gazelle.

They

may

not

have

needed

to

herd

these

animals

in

the

manner

of

their

contemporaries

in

Palestine.

Wildfowling

and

fishing

were

important

supplements

until

quite

late

in

the

occupation

of

the

site.

The

one

other

Neolithic

1

site

for

which

there

is

any

evidence

for

economy

is

Tell

Aswad.

This

site

is

in

an

unusual

situation near

lakes

and

marshes.

No

information

is

available yet

on

what

plants

were

eaten

but

the

area

would

have

been

quite

rich

in

edible

species

which

could

have

been

col-

lected.

Some

could

also

have

been

cultivated

on

the

moist

land

around

the

site

where

the

water

table

was

high.

Several

species

of

animals

were

killed

for

food,

among

them

sheep/goat,

cattle,

deer

and

an

equid

(de

Contenson,

1972,

79).

We

do

not

know

if

any

of

the

animals

were

herded

but

most

were

probably

hunted.

The

bird

bones

and

fish

vertebrae

found

on

this site

indicate

that

the

inhabitants

also

went

wildfowling

in

the marshes

and

caught

fish

in

the

lakes.

The

population

of

Tell

Aswad

lived

somewhat

differently

from

their

contemporaries

elsewhere.

Their

environment

was

rich

in

vegetation

and

there

were

abundant

herds

of ruminants

on

the

floor

of

the

Damascus

basin.

In

addition

migratory

and

other birds

were

attracted

to

the

lakes

which

teemed

with

fish.

The

area

probably

carried

a

higher

biomass

than

most

other

regions

of

the

Levant

which

would

have

provided

ample

food

for the

large

population

of

Tell

Aswad.

They

need

not

have

resorted

to

herding

or

deliberate

cultivation

to

support

themselves

as

the

inhabitants

of some

Neolithic

1

sites

were

doing.

Discussion

Having

considered

the

archaeological

evidence

for

Neolithic

1

I

now

wish

to

examine

further

the

way

of

life

of

the

people

who

lived

in

the

Levant

at

that

time.

In

particular

I

would

like

to

look

at

the

changes

which

were

taking

place

in

economy

and

society

and

attempt

to

explain

them.

We

have

seen

that

the

culture

of

Neolithic

1

throughout

the

Levant

was

derived

directly

-

150

-

from

the

Mesolithic.

Neolithic

1

sites

were

also

situated

in

the

same

general

regions

as

Mesolithic

sites.

If

we

disregard

chronological

sub-

divisions

and

regional

differences

between

sites

in

Neolithic

1

but look

at

them

together

we

see

that

the

pattern

of

settlement

had

nevertheless

been

modified.

Assuming

as

we

did

when

comparing

Mesolithic

1

with

Mesolithic

2

that

the

ratio

of

sites

found

to

those

destroyed

was the

same

in

Neolithic

1

as

in

Mesolithic

2,

an

assumption

that

seems

reasonable

given

the

similarities

in

cultural

remains,

we

see

that

there

were

fewer

Neolithic

1

sites

than

in

the

preceding

stage

but

that

most

of

them

were

larger.

The

number

of

Neo-

lithic

1

settlements

found

so

far

is

about

one

third

that

of

known

Mesolithic

2

sites.

It

would

seem

that

many

fewer

sites

were

inhabited

now

but

that

the

population

of

each

site

was

much

greater

than

before.

We

must remember,

too,

that

the

more

mobile

groups

of

Mesolithic

2

may

have

visited

two

or

more

sites

in

the

course

of

a

year

while

the

more

sedentary

Neolithic

1

population

may

have

remained

at

their

settlements

for

much

or

all

of

the

time.

This

in

itself

would

account

for

part

of the

reduction

in

the

number

of

sites

which

were

used.

Although

considerable

changes

were

taking

place

in

the

pattern

of

settlement

there

is

no

reason

to

suppose

that

the

population

in

Neolithic

1

either

increased

or

decreased

markedly.

If

we look

at

the

distribution

of

sites

in

more

detail

we

see

that

certain

zones

were

no

longer

inhabited.

The

slopes

of

the

Judean

hills,

the

TransJordan

uplands

and

the

mountains

of

Lebanon

were

all

avoided

in

Neolithic

1

although

they

had

been

occupied

in

the

Mesolithic.

Most

Neolithic

1

sites

were

on

lower

ground

in

more

open

country. This

noticeable

modification

of

the

Mesolithic

settlement

pattern

can

be linked

to

the

changes

in

economy

which

were

taking

place.

The

Neolithic

1

population

relied

more

on

cereals,

either

wild

or

cultivated,

and

in

some

cases

the

control

of

herds

of

gazelle

and

other

herbivores.

As

a

truly

agricultural

economy

developed

there

was

a

need

for

more

open

land

suitable

for

pasture

and the

growing

of

cereals.

The

Mediterranean

vegetation

zone

was

still

wooded

so

this

would

have

required

-

151

-

the

clearance

of

trees

even

on

lower

ground;

there

are

indications

of

such

disturbance

of

vegetation

"before

this

in

the

Mesolithic

layers

at

Abu

Hureyra

(Hillman,

1975,

73).

Neolithic

1

sites

are

situated

in

the

Mediterranean

and

intermediate

forest

zones

and

also

on

the

edge

of

the

open

steppe beyond.

These

environ-

ments

offered

a

wide

range

of

food resources and

this

variety

is

reflected

in

the

diversified

economy

of

Neolithic

1

sites.

The

economy

was

"based

on

two

or

more

of

the

following:

agriculture,

herding,

collecting

and

hunting.

As

in

the

Mesolithic

many

plants

and

animals

within

the

catchment

of each

settlement

were

exploited

but

the

main

difference

now

was

that

agriculture

made

an

important

contribution

to

the

food supply

at

some

sites.

As

a

result

Jericho

seems

to

have

been

inhabited

permanently.

That

is

to

say,

a

pro-

portion

of the

population

lived

there

all

the

year

round

although

some

parties

engaged

in

herding,

hunting

and

gathering

may

have

spent

time away

from

the

site

at

certain

seasons.

At

least

two

other

sites,

Mureybat

and

Tell

Aswad,

may

also

have

been occupied

permanently

but

the

economy

of

Mureybat

was

based

upon

wild

resources

to

a

greater

extent

than

at

Jericho.

Deliberate

planting

of

wild-type

cereals

probably

took

place

at

Mureybat but

animals

were

hunted

there

not

herded.

We

do

not

know

what

farming

techniques

if

any

were

used

at

Tell

Aswad

but

the

environment

there

was

rich

enough

to

support

substantial

occupation

for

a

long

period

of

time.

The

catchments

of

all

three of these

sites

included

much

potential

arable

and

grazing

land.

This

was

also

the

case

at

Saidnaya,

Poleg

18M

and

the

sites

in

the

Halutza

dunes

so

it

is

possible,

at

least,

that

a

little

agriculture

was

practised

at

these

sites. In

view

of

the

scanty

remains

found

on

them

it

is

more

probable

that

they were attractive

because

the

woodland

was

thinner

in

their

vicinity

so

that

these

areas

would

have offered

better

grazing

for

herbivores

and

a

more suitable

habitat

for

wild

cereals.

The

catchments

of

other

Neolithic

1

sites

were

much

less

suitable

for

agriculture.

Occupation

on

all

of

these,

the

Harifian

sites

in

the

Har

Harif

-

152

-

and

Jebel

Meghara, El

Khiam,

Nahal

Oren,

Mugharet

el

Wad

and

Nacharini

vas

semi-sedentary

as

if

many

or

all

of

their

inhabitants

were

practising

trans-

humance.

The

settlement

pattern

suggests that

transhumance

was

a

more

regular

way

of

life than

it

had

been

in

the

Mesolithic.

Although

there

is

evidence

for

agriculture

and

the

herding

of

goats

at

Nahal

Oren

the

inhabitants

of

these

sites

seem

to

have

relied

on

wild

resources

for

much

of

their

food,

even if

these

were

exploited

intensively.

These

differences

in

the

way

of

life

are

reflected

in

the

size

and

aspect

of

Neolithic

1

settlements.

At

one

extreme

is

Nacharini,

a

very

small

seasonal

hunting

or

herdsmen's

camp,

and

at

the

other

Jericho,

a

great

agglomeration

of

tightly

packed

dwellings

inhabited

by

a

population

of

farmers.

The

range

of settlement

types

was

much greater

in

Neolithic

1

than

in

the

Mesolithic.

In

attempting

to

explain

these

developments

in

economy

and

type

of

settlement

it

will

be

useful

to

consider

the

question

of

population

growth.

We have

already

seen

that

there

appeared

to

have

been

a

considerable

increase

in

population

during

Mesolithic

2.

The

adoption

of

a

more

sedentary

way

of

life

would

have

increased

the

birthrate

because women

no

longer

had

to

carry

their

infants

long

distances

when

gathering

food

or

moving

camp.

This

eased

the

pressure

on

them

to

restrict

the

number

of

children

born

and

shortened

the

interval

between

births

(Lee,

1972,

338ff).

The

environment

was

also

much

richer

in

plant

and

animal

foods

than

it

had

been

during

Mesolithic

1

and

this

increased

food

supply

would

have

encouraged

sedentism

and

a

higher

population.

The

increase

in

population

and

the

formation

of

large

concentra-

tions

of

people

in

bigger

settlements

would

in

time

have

led

to

pressure

on

the

food

supply.

This

is

reflected

in

the

more

intensive

food

procuring

activities

of

the

people

of

Mesolithic

2

compared

with

their

predecessors.

A

point

would

have

been

reached

when

even

these

activities

would

have

been

insufficient

to feed

the

population.

It

would

then

have

been

necessary

to

develop

new

ways

of

increasing

the

food

supply

which

we

see

in

the

changes

of

economy

in

Neolithic

1.

What

happened

was

not

really

new

but

a

further

-

153

-

intensification

of

Mesolithic

2

practices.

The

agriculture

of

Jericho

and

Nahal

Oren

was

simply

a

development

of

the

manipulation

of

cereals

that

had

begun

earlier.

Herding

of

gazelle

at

some

sites

is

"but

a

more

regular

control

of

a

species

that

had

been

the

subject

of

intensive,

selective

hunting

for

many

centuries.

The

first

serious

killing

of goats

at

Jericho

and

Nahal

Oren

also

took

place

in

Neolithic

1

which

may

have

been

an

attempt

to

enlarge

the

basis

of

the

food

supply.

Transhumance

is

another

way

of

increasing

the

available

food

by

exploiting

the

resources

of

two

environmental

zones

instead

of

one.

The

evidence

for

more

widespread

transhumance

in

Neolithic

1

may

also

be

a

reflection

of

increased

demand

for

the

available

resources.

The

change

to

a

more

formal

agricultural

economy

at

some sites

was

reflected

in

the

artifacts.

The

hollow

querns

made

now

on

several

sites

would

have

been

used

for

grinding

cereals

rather

than

pigments

for

which

they

were

much

less

s.uitable.

It

should

be

noted

too

that

mortars

have

hardly

been

found

at

all

on

Neolithic

1

sites.

This

may

be

because

acorns

were

no longer

eaten

as

a

staple

food,

having

been

replaced

by

cereals.

Acorns

may

anyway

have

been

scarcer

around

the

larger

settlements

because

of

land

clearance.

The

development

of

agriculture

was

associated

with

a

greater

degree

of

sedentism

than

had

been

customary

before.

Most

of

the

population

of

a

site

would

have

been

involved

in

the

labour

intensive activities

of

land

preparation

for

sowing

and

the

harvest.

The

yield

of

crops

could

have

fed

the

inhabitants

for

the

rest

of the

year

making

it

possible

for

them

to

continue

living

there.

Once

a

large

group

had

been

brought

together

in

this

way

it

could

only

be

supported

by

the

products

of

agriculture.

Any

further

increase

in

the

popula-

tion

would

have

to

be

sustained

by

more

intensive

farming.

We

have

seen

that

the

Neolithic

1

population

does

not

seem

to

have

increased

overall,

itself

a

sign

that

once

the

new

economic

arrangements

were

established

they

were

sufficient

to

maintain

the

population

at

a

new

higher

level.

The

population

at

Jericho

did

increase,

however,

during

Neolithic

1

from

the

relatively

modest

Proto-Neolithic

site

to

the

extensive

settlement

of

the

mid-PPNA.

The

economy

of

the

settlement

must

have

been

further

modified

during

this

stage

in

order

to

feed

the

growing

population

"but

the

evidence

is

too

meagre

for

us

to

document

it.

The

artifacts

give

a

slight

indication

of

what

was

happening.

Sickle

blades

became

more

numerous

later

in

the

PPNA;

by now

these

were

probably

being

used

for

reaping

and

this

increase

may

have

been

associated

with

a

change

in

reaping

techniques.

Interestingly

enough

a

similar

increase

in

sickle

blades occurred

in

phase

III

at

Mureybat

as

though

the

same

change was

taking

place

there.

The

beginning

of

Neolithic

1

approximately

coincided

with

the

onset

of

the

Holocene

so

we

should

consider

what

part

climatic

and

environmental

changes

played

in

the

developments

in

economy,

settlement

and

artifacts.

Climatic

change

cannot

be

invoked

as

a

primary

cause

if

only

because

this

happened

about

8000

B.C.

or

a

little after

whereas

Neolithic

1

seems

to

have

begun

about

8500

B.C.

It

may

have

had

some

effect,

however,

on

the

development

of

Neolithic

1.

After

8000

B.C.

the

temperature increased

and

there

was

a

slight

drop

in

rainfall.

These

two

factors

could

have

brought

about

a

slight

con-

traction

of

the

Mediterranean

forest

zone.

This

trend

would

have

aided

the

Neolithic

1

population

whose

economy

now

depended

more

on

cereals

and

herds

of

animals,

both

of

which

needed

open

country

to

flourish.

Land

cleared

for

crops or

grazing

would

not

have

been

recolonized

by

shrubs

and

trees

quite

so

quickly

now.

Although

the

changes

in

population,

economy

and

settlement

which

were

taking

place

were

very

important

we

should

remember

that

almost

all

Neolithic

1

sites

were

in

the

Mediterranean

and

open

forest

zones

and

that

none

was

situated

far

out

in

the

steppe

or

desert

regions.

Approximately

the

same

areas

were

occupied

as

in

Mesolithic

2

so

that

the

increase

in

population

which

had

taken

place

then

could

be

accommodated

by

exploiting

the

resources

of the

region more

intensively

or

in

a

different

way.

It

was not

necessary

for

any

group

to

expand

into

the

marginal

zones

in

order

to

survive.

These

alterations

in

population,

settlement

and

economy

also

affected

-

155 -

the social

system. If one

examines

the

area

of

Neolithic

1

sites

then

the

smaller

ones,

group

A,

can

have

"been

occupied

by

very

fev

people.

Nacharini

may

have

"been

inhabited

by

one

family

and

other

group

A

sites

by

composite

bands.

Thus

composite bands

still

existed

as

a

form

of

social

organization

even

in

their

economy

was

in

certain

instances

somewhat

different

from what

it

had

been

during

the

Mesolithic.

Group

B

sites

tended

to

be

larger

than even

the

biggest

Mesolithic

2

sites

so

that

their

inhabitants

were

correspondingly

more numerous.

The

grouping

of

bands

which

I

suggested

was

a

feature

of

the

larger

Mesolithic

2

settlements

was

taken

further

here.

Most

of

these

larger

communities

still

seem

to

have

been

semi-sedentary

so

they

may

have

split

into

their

component

bands

and

left

the

settlement

at

certain

seasons.

One

might

what

were

the

social

arrangements

within

Group

B

and

C

settlements?

In

a

recent

article

Flannery

has

pointed

out

that

most

of

the

huts

in

these

sites

were

so

small

that

they

can

only

have

been

occupied

by

one

or

two

people

(1972,

30ff)

.

Any

large

buildings

may have

been

communal

meeting

or

guest

houses

while

the

smallest

structures

were

probably

used

for

storage

and

other

activities,

not

as

dwellings.

The

population

of such

settle-

ments

might

have

been

smaller

than

one

would

suppose

and

certainly

much

less

than

if

one

assumed

that

every

hut

was

occupied

by

a

nuclear

family.

On

ethno-

graphic

analogy

polygyny

may

have

been

practised,

husband

and wives

living

in

separate

huts.

The

men

at

least

would

have

been

related.

Life

in

the

settlement

would

have

been

organized

on

a

communal

basis,

stored

food

supplies

being

shared.

Most

tasks

would

have

been performed

by

groups

of

males

or

females

rather

than

families.

The

communal

nature

of

the

settlement,

close

kinship

ties

and

the

sexual

division

of

labour

are

basic

patterns

carried

over

from

composite

bands

which

may

be

assumed

to

have

characterised

most

Neolithic

1

sites.

Polygyny

cannot

be

demonstrated

as

we

do

not

yet

know

if

the

contents

of

huts

in

Neolithic

1

sites

were

functionally

distinct

(Flannery,

1972,

33).

The

problem

of

how

-

156

-

many

people

occupied

each

hut

and

thus

how

families

were

organized

is

more

complex

than

Flannery

suggests.

He

relies

heavily

on

the

work

of

Naroll

who

after

comparing

settlements

of

18

modern

primitive

societies

calculated

that

each

person

needed

about

10

sq

m

of

floor

space

in

a

dwelling

(1962,

588).

This

figure

may

be

a

convenient

one

to

use

but

Naroll

!

s

own

data

show that

in

certain

societies the

norm

may

be

several

square metres

more

or less

than

this.

When

Naroll's

mean

was

applied

to

a

study

of

a

modern

Fulani

village

inhabited

by

a

group

organized

in

precisely

the

way

Flannery

envisaged

it

was

found

to

underestimate

quite

considerably

the

area

required

by

each

individual

(David,

1971

,

119).

In

a

study

of

Californian

Indians

it

was

shown

that

each

individual

may

require

as

little

as

20

sq

ft

of

floor

space

(Cook,

Heizer,

1968,

11^)

so

the

parameters

here

are

uncomfortably

wide.

The

important

point

to

establish

is

whether

it

is

reasonable

to

suppose

each

hut

was

occupied

by

one

or

two people

at

most

or

a

family

of

parents

and

children.

The

structures

of

the

Neolithic

1

sites

we

are

considering

were

clustered

together

to

form

a

nucleated

settlement.

They

differed

in

this

respect

from

the

extensive

spread

of

structures

in

a

Fulani

compound

or

in a

Tiv

village,

one

of the

examples

quoted

by

Flannery

(1972,

30).

The

huts

were

more

sub-

stantial,

took

more

time

to

build

and

would

have

lasted

longer

than

these

African

ones.

Their

inhabitants

may

have

been

content

with

less

covered

space

than

Flannery

proposed.

Bearing

this

in

mind

let

us

look

again

at

Neolithic

1

huts.

Those

2

m

in

diameter

or

less

could

only

have

housed

a

single

person

or

served

as

stores.

Huts

from

2

to

k

m

in

diameter

(3

-

12.5

sq

m

floor

area)

could

have

been

inhabited

by

one

or

two

people.

The

larger

ones

from

h

to

6

m

in

diameter

(12.5

-

28

sq

m)

are

more

problematical.

These

might

still

have

been

occupied

by

one

or

two people

if

they

wanted

the

space

"but

there

was

enough

floor area

for

several people

to

sleep

in

these.

The

large

huts

certainly

could

have

housed

a

nuclear

family

but

were

not

big

enough

for

an

extended

family,

a

form

of

social

grouping

which

does

not

seem

to

have

been

characteristic

of

Neolithic

1

settlements.

-

157

-

Turning

now

to

the

settlements

themselves

the

pattern

is

more

varied

than

Flannery

allows.

At

Nahal

Oren

the

core

of

the

site

was

a

group

of

small

huts

2

to

3

m

in

diameter

(Fig.

12).

These

were

surrounded

"by

several

larger

huts

k

to

5

m

in

diameter;

one

excavated

"by

the

Cambridge

team

was

also

about

this size

(Noy

et

al.

a

1973,

fig.

2b).

This

settlement

could

be

interpreted

in

the

way

Flannery

suggests

but

I

think

it

likelier

that

the

larger

huts

in

the

outer

ring

were

inhabited

by

more

than

two people,

perhaps

a

married

couple

and

their

children.

This

would

mean

that

the

nuclear

family

was

already

crystallizing

as

the

fundamental

social

grouping.

Looked

at

in

this

way

the

population

of

Nahal

Oren

would

still

have

been

quite

small,

no

more

than that

of

a

composite

band.

The

structures

at

Abu

Salem

were

also

of

two

sizes,

small

ones

like

those

at

Nahal

Oren

and

larger

ones

3

or

h

m

in

diameter.

As

these

were

smaller

than

the

large

ones

at

Nahal

Oren

they

are

less

likely

to

have

been

occupied

by

families.

The

buildings

at

Mureybat

fall

into

the

same

groups,

the

larger

ones

being

about

k

m

in

diameter.

There

was

an

interesting

development

here

in

phase

III

when

much

larger

circular

structures

10

m

in

diameter

(78.5

sq

m)

were

built

for

the

first

time;

these

almost

certainly

housed

complete

nuclear

families

and

provided

enough

space

indoors

for

domestic

and

even

some

craft

activities.

The

size range

of

the

houses

at

Jericho

was

slightly

different.

Most

of

these

are

from

h

to

6

m

in

diameter,

some

even

more.

At

least

one

of

the

excavated

houses

had

more

than

one

room.

Few if

any

smaller

structures

were

found.

These

houses,

slightly

larger

than

was

usual

elsewhere,

probably

housed

nuclear

families.

This

would

be

appropriate

for

the

larger

tightly-

knit

community

which

the

archaeological

evidence

suggests

inhabited

Jericho.

Nucleated

villages

were

the

characteristic

settlement

type

of

Neolithic

1.

The

earliest

examples

such

as

Rosh

Zin,

Ain

Mallaha,

Abu

Hureyra

and

Mureybat

were

formed

during

Mesolithic

2.

This

kind

of

settlement

has

remained

the

dominant

type

in

the

Levant

ever

since.

Nucleated

villages

have

certain

characteristics

in

common,

the

most

important

being

a

degree

of

communal

-

158

-

economic

and

social

organization

with

regular

social

intercourse

between

the inhabitants.

Historically

the

land

around

nucleated

villages

was

fre-

quently

divided

up

by

the

community

so

that

each

family

had

an

approximately

equal

share. This

often

included

plots

of

both

relatively

good

and

relatively

poor land

scattered

around

the

environs

of

the

village.

In

such

nucleated

villages

some

land

was

sometimes

farmed

communally.

The

inhabitants

of the

nucleated

agricultural

villages

of

Neolithic

1

may

have

apportioned

land

among

themselves

and

worked

it

in

a

similar

way.

The

concept

of

territoriality

has

always

been

stronger

in

village

communities

than

among

more

mobile

groups

so

that

one

would

expect

it

to

have

been

more

developed

among

the

inhabitants

of

Neolithic

1

villages

than

among

the

hunter-gatherer

bands

of

the

Mesolithic.

This

concept

found

expression

in

the

burial

of the

dead

within

the

settlement

as

far

back

as

Mesolithic

1

but

was

given

greater

emphasis

in

the

special

treatment

of skulls

which

began

in

Neolithic

1

(Flannery,

1972,

29).

All

these

features

are

found

at

Jericho

to

a

greater

degree

than

anywhere

else.

The

PPNA

settlement

was

densely

settled

and

had

a

form

of

community

organization

which

arranged

the

building

of

the

circuit

wall

and

tower

and

probably

also

the

distribution

of

land.

The

rooms

around

the

tower

may

have

been

communal

stores.

The

other

buildings

excavated were

all

of

much

the

same

size

and type

but

one

would

expect

that

there

would

have

been

public

buildings

such

as

a

large

communal

meeting

house

in

the

unexcavated

part

of

the

site.

The

settlement

had

an

unusually

high

population

and

its

situation

was

a

particularly

favourable

one:

the

combination

of

rich

alluvial

soil,

abundant

water

and

a

high

water

table

was

not

repeated

elsewhere

in

the

Jordan

valley

between

Jericho

and

the

Beth-Shan

lake.

These

unique

circumstances

gave

the

site

a

special position

and

may have

created

a

need

for

defence.

Although

other

suggestions

have

been

made

to

explain the

purpose

of

the

circuit

wall

(Tringham,

1972,

h69)

the

most

probable

is

still

that

it

was

intended

to

defend

the

settlement

even

if

it

also

served

to

delimit

the

site.

It

should

be

remembered

that

for

much

of

its

later

existence

Jericho

was

a

walled

-

159

-

settlement and

that

its

inhabitants

would

always

have

wished

to

control

access

to

the

spring.

Most

if not

all

Neolithic

1

communities

may

by

now

have

been

linked

by

tribal

affiliations.

This

system

of

social

organization

which,

as

we have

seen,

probably

began

in

Mesolithic

2.

may

have

included

even

the

composite

bands

who

inhabited

the

group

A

sites.

The

ties

of

kinship

and

lineage

which united

the

members

of

a

tribe

would

have

been

reinforced

by

the

prevalence

of

nucleated

settlements.

It

is

now

possible

to

see

certain

tribal territories

in

the

Neolithic

1

pattern

of

settlement.

Tribes

by

definition

share

certain cultural

attributes

and

occupy

a

particular

region

(Sahlins,

1968,

22).

One

such

tribe might

have

been

composed

of

the

inhabitants

of

the

Harifian

sites

in

the

Negev

and

northern

Sinai.

Another

tribe

might

have

existed

in

Palestine,

inhabiting

Jericho,

El

Khiam

and

Nahal

Oren.

The

problem

here

about

this

postulated

tribe

is

the

diversity

of

terrain

and

environment

within

its

territory

although

there

were

close

cultural

links

between

these

sites.

A

third

tribe

might

have

lived

in

the

Damascus

basin.

Tell

Aswad

being

the

key

site

here,

and

a

fourth

in

the

Euphrates

valley,

Mureybat

being

the

representative

settlement.

One

further

observation

can

be

made

about

the

social

system

of

Neolithic

1

communities.

When

attempting

to

reconstruct

prehistoric

social

organization

it

is

usually

assumed

that

flint-knapping

is

a

male

activity

(Phillips,

1971

»

3U1)

and

this

may

be

used

as

a

means

of

defining

descent

rules

in

a

given

society.

If

the

flint

industry of

a

site

occupied

for

a

long

time

shows

much

homogeneity

in

technology

and

the

making

of

each

tool

type

then

it

may

be

assumed

that

this

tradition

was

handed

down

from

father

to son

within

the

settlement.

Strong

homogeneity

of

flint

working

can

be

seen

in

the

Neolithic

1

occupation

at

both

Nahal

Oren

and

Jericho.

The

same

is

true

at

Mureybat

where

the

basic

tradition

was

continued

from

phase

to

phase

and

where

the

distinctive

notched

arrowheads

were

also

made

in

the

same

way

over

a

long

period

of

time.

From

this

one

may

argue

that on

these

sites

residence

and

descent

were

organized

-i'i

nr-n.l

basis

and

the

same

mav

have

been

true of

other

Neolithic

1

-

160

-

Chapter

k

NEOLITHIC

2

A

rapid

transformation

in

culture

took

place

in

the

Levant

at

the

end

of

Neolithic

1.

From

this

emerged

a

new

configuration,

Neolithic

2,

with

a

distinctive

pattern

of

settlement,

"buildings

and

range

of

artifacts.

During

Neolithic

2

an

economy

based

on

farming

spread

throughout

the

Levant.

The

inhabitants

of

many

Neolithic

2

settlements

now

derived their

subsistence

from

crops

and

herded

animals

but

also

still

depended

partly

upon

foods

obtained

from

the

wild.

These

economic

developments

were

accompanied

by

a

great

increase

in

the

number

of

settlements

which

were

inhabited.

This

and

other

evidence

suggests

that

the

population

grew

substantially

during

this

stage,

as

we

shall

see.

Not

only

were

there

more settlements

but

they

were

also

bigger

than

before.

They

included

some

of

the

largest

settlements

ever

established

during

the

whole

Neolithic

of

the

Levant.

There

were

changes

in

the

distribution

of

sites

within

the

zones

which

had

been

inhabited

in

Neolithic

1

and

an

expansion

of

settlement

into

the

steppe

to

the

south

and

east

(Fig.

18).

Neolithic

2

settlements

consisted

of

a

cluster

of

buildings

set

close

together

thus

continuing

the

Neolithic

1

and

Mesolithic

tradition

but

the

shape

of

these

structures

was

different.

Most

were

now

rectilinear

and

often

had

several

rooms.

Major

changes

also took

place

in

the

kinds

of

artifacts

which

were

used

by

the

Neolithic

2

population

and

the

way

they

were

made.

The

chipped

stone

industry

was

based

upon

the

production

of

blades

which

were retouched

into

blade

tools.

Among

other

changes

in

the

kinds

of

chipped

stone tools

was

a

great

increase

in

the

number

and

variety

of

arrowheads

and

sickle

blades

on

many

sites.

Neolithic

2

also

saw

a

growth of

crafts

and

greater

elaboration

of

artifacts.

The

most

common

examples of

this

were

stone

bowls

often

of

some

beauty

and

objects

of

adornment

such

as

stone

beads

and

pendants.

The

first

section

of

Chapter

h

will

consist

of

a

detailed

examination

MIDDLE

EUPHRATES

Fig.

18

Extent

of

Neolithic

2

settlement

scale

1=5,000,000

FIGURE

18

Extent

of

Neolithic

2

settlement

1

Tell

Fakhariyah

2

Sheikh Abdul

Aziz

-

Site

26,

Khazne

Cave

I

-

Site

28

3

Tell

Aswad

(Balikh)

4

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

5

Buqras

6

El

Kum

7

Palmyra

sites

8

Ras

Shamra

9

Tell

Labweh

10

Tell

aux

Scies

11

Tell

Ramad

12

Ghoraife

13

Tell

Aswad

14

Beisamun

15

Munhatta

16

Nahal

Oren

17

Jaffa

18

Jericho

19

Abu

Gosh

20

Tahuneh

21

Abu

Suwan

22

Qasr

el

Hallabat

23

Azrak

24

Wadi

Dhobai

B

25

Halutza

26

Nahal

Divshon

27

Beidha

28

Ain

Abu

Nakheileh

29

Kilwa

-

Site

19

30

Jebel

Meghara

31

Suez

Canal

32

¥adi

Sa'al

-

161

-

of

sites

inhabited

during

Neolithic

2

and

their

material

remains

in

order

to

present

the

evidence

for the

changes

in

the

way

of

life

of

the

people

of

the

Levant

outlined

above.

In

the

second

section

I

shall

review

the

main

cultural

characteristics

of

Neolithic

2

to

assess

their

implications

and

to

see

how

they

differed

from

Neolithic

1.

I

shall

then

discuss

the

distribution

of

Neolithic

2

sites

to see

how

the

settlement

pattern

was

modified.

The

fourth

section

will

be

devoted

to

a

consideration

of

the evidence

for the

economy

of

Neolithic

2

to

find

out

in

detail

how

it

changed

during

this

stage.

In

the

last

section

I

will

bring

some

of

these

conclusions

together

to

see

how

they

affected

each

other.

I

shall

then consider

the

evidence

for

changes

in

social

organization

and

for

contact

between

the

people

of

the

Levant

and

neighbouring

regions

through

a

growth

in

exchange

of

exotic raw

materials.

Several

Neolithic

1

settlements

in

the

Levant

continued

to

be

occupied

well

into

the

and

an

analysis

of

their

occupation

sequences

shows

that

Neolithic

2

developed

directly

from

Neolithic

1

.

The two

sites

in

Syria

with

a

continuous

sequence

are

Mureybat

and

Tell

Aswad.

There

are

two

more

in

Palestine,

Nahal

Oren

and

El

Khiam.

Jericho

was

abandoned

during

this

crucial

period

and

not

reoccupied

until

Neolithic

2

was

already

established

elsewhere

in

the

region.

The

transition

to

Neolithic

2

can

also

be

seen

at

Beidha

to

the

east

of

the

Rift

valley

towards

the

southern

limit

of

settlement

in

this

stage.

The

regional

variations

in

culture

which

can

be

discerned

in

Mesolithic

2

and

Neolithic

1

become

much more

marked

in

this

stage

(Fig.

18).

For

this

reason

I

shall

take

each

of

these

regions

in

turn,

examining

the

key

sites first

and

then

all

the others

for

which

we have

some

information.

The

development

of

Neolithic

2

can

be

seen

most

clearly

in

the

northern

Levant

so

I

shall

begin

there.

Middle Euphrates

(Fig.

19)

Mureybat

Occupation

continued

into

the

without interruption

at

one

Fig.

19

Neolithic

2

Middle

Euphrates

sites

FIGURE

19

Neolithic

2

Middle Euphrates

sites

1

Tell

Fakhariyah

2

Sheikh

Abdul

Aziz

-

Site

26

3

Khazne

Cave

I

-

Site

28

4

Tell

Aswad

(Balikh)

5

Tell

Khirbet

el

Bassal

6

Mureybat

7

Site

III

8

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

9

Site

I

10

Site

II

11

Tell

Kreyn

12

10km

south

of

Risafe

13 El

Kum

14

Buqras

15

Palmyra

-

Site

51

16

Palmyra

-

Site

52

17

Palmyra

-

Site

41

18

Palmyra

-

Site

42

19

Palmyra

-

Site

43

20

Palmyra

-

Site

48

21

Palmyra

-

Site

33

22

Palmyra

-

Site

34

23

Palmyra

-

Site

35

24

Palmyra

-

Site

36

25

Palmyra

-

Site

38

26

Palmyra

-

Duara

factory

site

27

Palmyra

-

Site

54

28

Palmyra

-

Site

53

29

Palmyra

-

Site

56

30

Palmyra

-

Site

60

31

Palmyra

-

Site

63

32

Palmyra

-

Site

64

33

Palmyra

-

Site

65

34

Palmyra

-

Site

66

35

Palmyra

-

Site

69

36

Palmyra

-

Site 71

37

Palmyra

-

Site 74

38

Palmyra

-

Site

77

-

162

-

site

in

the

Euphrates

valley, Mureybat.

The latest

Neolithic

1

occupation

was

Cauvin's

phase

III;

this

was

succeeded

by

phase

IV.

A

deposit

with

material

typologically

intermediate

"between

phases

III

and

IV

was

found

towards

the

end

of the

excavation

(M.-C.

Cauvin,

197^b,

n.

31)

and

this

has

provision-

ally

been

named

phase

IVA.

Cauvin

found

deposits

of

phase

IV

in

a

sounding

on

the

eastern

slope

of

the

central

mound

and

has

also

recognized

material

of

this

phase

in

a

collection from

van

Loon's

sounding

W15

(Cauvin,

1972,

110)

made

to

the

north

of the central

mound.

I

have

seen

similar

artifacts

mixed

with

material

from

the

earlier

levels

in

the

collection

from

van

Loon's

excava-

tion

in

the

Aleppo

Museum.

On

visits to

the

site

I

have

also

found

much

material

of

this

phase

on

the

north

and

north-west

of

the

large

oval

platform

around

the

central

mound.

It

appears,

therefore,

that

the

phase

IV

settlement

covered

much

of

the

area

of

the

site

but

its

remains

have

not

been

properly

tested

in

the

recent

excavations.

There

are

scatters

of

flints

of this

phase

along

the

river

bank

between

the

ferry

and the

mound

and

also

on

the

track

up-river

to

the

north

away

from

the

modern

village.

This

suggests

that

during

phase

IV

there

was

transient

occupation

over

a

much

wider

area

than

the

central

mound

at

Mureybat.

Some

of

this

abundant

material

from

the

excavations

and

the

surface

is

typologically

quite

late,

including

pressure-flaked

tanged

arrowheads

for

example

that

elsewhere

are

often

associated

with

finds

of

early

Neolithic

pottery

and

which

may

therefore

be

6th

millennium

in

date.

There

are

also

indications

from

strata

XVIII

and

XIX

of

van

Loon's

excavations

(van

Loon,

1968,

2j6ff)

and my

own

observations

of

the

surface

of

the

site

that the

mound

was

occupied

intermittently

much later

from

the

Bronze

Age

to

the

Islamic

period.

The

structures

in

Cauvin's

sounding

on

the

eastern

slope

of

the

central

mound

were

all

rectilinear

and

made

of

mud-brick.

No

complete

buildings

were

exposed.

The

flint

industry

consisted mostly

of

tools

made

on

long

blades

struck

from

double-ended

or

keeled

cores.

The

most

abundant

types

were

burins,

end-scrapers

and

tanged

arrowheads.

The

latter

were

usually

finished

-

163

-

with

abrupt

retouch

"but

some

had

squamous

flaking;

notched

arrowheads

were

virtually

absent

(M.-C.

Cauvin,

197^,

n.

7).

There

are

no

llt

C

dates

for

this

phase

so

its

chronology

has

to

"be

deter-

mined

by

comparing

the

remains

with

other

sites.

The

nearest

dated

site

in

the

Euphrates

valley

with

comparable

remains

is

Buqras

where

the

aceramic

levels,

I

and

II,

have

similar

material.

The

dates

for

all

the levels

at

Buqras

cluster

around

6000

B.C.

(Radiocarbon

9,

19&7,

128).

Similar

material

from

Tell

Aswad

near

the

source

of

the

Balikh

is

dated

to

the

mid

7th

millennium

(J.

Cauvin,

197^b,

203).

It

appears

that

the

new

cultural

configuration

in

the

Euphrates valley

lasted

for

much

of

the

7th

millennium. Until

the

chrono-

logy

of

the

lengthy

sequence

at

Abu

Hureyra

has

been

determined

it

will

not

be

possible

to

date

precisely

the gradual

typological

evolution

of

the

flint

industry

and

other

artifacts

of

this

period.

Phase

IV

at

Mureybat

should

fall

somewhere

within

the

7th

millennium

but

for

the

moment we

do

not

know

exactly

when

it

began

and

ended.

Phase IVa

must

have

begun

about

or

soon

after

7500

B.C.

when

phase

III

came

to

an

end

and

probably

continued

until

about

7000

B.C.

The

importance

of

the

Mureybat

sequence

is

that

in

phases

III

and

IV

one

can see

the

emergence

of

the

new

cultural

configuration

from

Neolithic

1.

The

full

development

of the new

phase

has

been

most

clearly

revealed

at

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

further

down

the

Euphrates

valley.

7

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

is

situated

on

the

right

bank

of

the

Euphrates

about

36

km

downstream

from

Mureybat.

The

river

has

cut

deeply

into

the

Syrian

plateau

so

that the

sides

of

the

valley

are

formed

by

cliffs

or

hills.

The

floor

of

the

valley

at

Abu

Hureyra

is

about

6

km

wide

and

a

river

terrace

juts

out

into the

flood-plain

here.

The

site

is

situated

on

this

projection

and has

a

good

view

up and

down

the

valley

(Fig.

20).

The

steppe

of

the

Syrian

plateau

meets

the

moist

alluvium

of

the

flood-plain

at

the edge of

the

valley

floor

and

the

prehistoric

mound

lies

on

the

dividing

line

between

these

two

environmental

zones.

The

Euphrates

is

now

about

1

km

to

the

north

but

it

Fig.

20

Environs

of

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

probably

floved

much

nearer

the

site

when

it

was

inhabited

than

now

and

would

have

been

the

main

source

of

water

for the

inhabitants.

An

important

feature

of

the

local

topography

is

the

Wadi

Hibna which

is

incised

into

the

plateau

and

joins

the

Euphrates

valley

2

km

west

of

the

site.

This

area

receives

an

average

of

200

m

rainfall

a

year

although

there

are

considerable

fluctuations

in

the

actual

amount

of

rain that

falls.

Dry

farming

is

possible

on

the

steppe

in

years

when

the

rains

reach

at

least

this

average

figure.

The

water

table

of

the

flood-plain

remains

high

for

much

of

the

year

which

makes

it

possible

regularly

to

obtain

high

crop

yields

today

even

when

the

rains

fail.

The

floor

of

the

Wadi

Hibna

also

has

a

high

water

table

and

is

very

fertile.

Although

the Wadi

is

dry

for

much

of

the

year

now

it

probably

carried

a

perennial

stream

in

the

early

Holocene.

It

was

potential-

ly

important

to

inhabitants

of

the

prehistoric

settlement,

therefore,

because

it

offered

additional

moist

alluvial

land

irrigated

by

running

water.

The

site

which

is

approximately

trapezoidal

in

plan

covers

11.5

ha

(28.5

acres)

and

is

the

largest

known

Neolithic

settlement

in

Syria

(Fig.

21).

A

ridge

runs

from

north

to

south

along the west

side

of

the

site

which

slopes

down

steeply

to

the

flood-plain.

The

north

side

slopes

more

gradually

down

to

the

flood-plain

while

to

the

east

and

south

the

mound

falls

gently

away

to

merge

with

the

terrace.

Almost

all the

debris

of

which

the

mound

is

composed

is

derived

from

the

Neolithic

settlement.

Once

the

Neolithic

settlement

was

founded

it

was

occupied continuously

until

it

was

finally

abandoned.

This

long

occupation

sequence

can

be

con-

veniently

divided

into

three phases,

early

aceramic,

later

aceramic

and

ceramic

Neolithic.

The

first

early

aceramic

deposits

were

found

at

the

bottom

of

trenches

B

and

C

in

the

centre

of

the

north-south

ridge.

This

area

remained

the

focus

of

the

settlement

throughout

its

life

and the

greatest

depth

of

deposit,

8

m,

was

found

here.

The

early

aceramic

village

was

quite

small

but

it

rapidly

expanded

north

and

south

for

remains

of

a

late

stage

of

the

phase

were

found

in

trench

A

and

in

trench

E

where

it

overlay

the

Mesolithic

Fig.

21

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

-

contour

plan

A-G

excavated

trenches

-

165

-

settlement.

In

the

later

aceramic phase

the settlement

grew

still

more

until

it

covered

the

whole

area

of

the mound.

Remains

of this

stage

make

up

almost

all

the

5

m

of

deposit

in

trenches

F

and

G,

both

of

which

were

dug

to

test

the

sequence

of

occupation

of

the

rest

of

the

mound.

The

settlement

later

con-

tracted

in

size

so

that

in

the

ceramic

Neolithic

phase

it

covered

about

half

the

area

of

the

mound.

Occupation

was

confined

to

the

north-south

ridge

where

the

remains

of

this

phase

make

up the

top

metre

of

deposit

in

trenches

A,

B,

C,

and

E.

Originally

this

deposit

would

have been

considerably

deeper

but

much

has

disappeared

through

erosion.

The

buildings were

of

much

the

same

type

throughout

the

aceramic

Neolithic

occupation.

They

were rectilinear

with

several

rooms

and

built

of

mud-brick.

The

rooms

themselves

were

from

3

to

k

m

long

and

from

1.1*

to

2

m

wide.

One

complete

building

excavated

had

five

rooms

and

its

exterior

dimensions

were

10.T

m

by

H.5

m.

The

walls

were

usually

quite

thin

so

these

buildings

were

probably

one

storey

high.

In

one

building

the walls

had

survived

intact

to

their

original

height

of

1.7

m.

There

were

several

vertical

post-holes

set

in

the

tops of

the

walls

to

carry

either

a

loft

or

subsidiary

supports

for the

roof.

In

the

same

building

was

a

rectangular

porthole

doorway

between

two

of

the

rooms

with

a

high

sill

and

mud-brick

lintel.

This

type

of

doorway

seems

to

have

been

the

common

form

of

entry

to

the

rooms

of

these

buildings

although

a

few

had

doors

at

floor

level.

The

rooms

of

these

buildings usually

had

plastered

floors

which

were

coloured

black

and

then

burnished.

A

few

had

designs

painted

on

them

in

red,

one

of

which

was

recognizable

as

a

sunburst,

a

blob

with

lines

radiating

from

it.

Some

had

simple

trodden

earth

floors.

The

walls

were

covered

with

mud

plaster

which

in

some

buildings

had

been

whitewashed.

A

few

buildings

had

internal

features

made

of

mud-brick

and

plaster.

There

were

low

platforms

in

the

corners

of

some

rooms

which

may

have

been

for

sitting

or

sleeping

on.

Storage

bins

were

found

in

a

room

of

at

least

one

building;

these

were

made

of

mud-brick

and

lined

with

plaster.

Niches

were

frequently

built

into

walls

and

probably

served

as

receptacles

for

household

-

166

-

equipment.

A

number

of

buildings

had

a

hearth

in

the centre of

a

room.

This

was

filled

with

ashes

but

the

rest

of

the

room

was

often

quite

clean

so

I

am

inclined

to

think

the

hearths

were

used

for

warmth

and

light

rather

than

for

cooking.

A

room

of

one

building

had

a

clay oven

in

one

corner

which

was

almost

certainly

used

for

preparing

food.

Most

of

these

buildings

had

much

the

same

characteristics

and

were probably

houses.

One

structure

in

trench

G

had

a

different

plan.

It

consisted

of

two

rooms

of

the

usual shape

but

adjoining

these

was

a

pair

of

narrow

chambers,

0.5

and

1

m

wide

and

at

least

h

m

long.

This

building

may

have

been

used

for

some

other

purpose.

Although

each

house

was

separated

from

its

neighbours

all

were

built

close

together

with

only

narrow

lanes

and

courts

between

them.

This

density

was

so

marked

that we

found

remains

of

one

and

even

two

or

three

series

of

buildings

in

every

trench we

excavated.

The

buildings

themselves

were

quite

often

clean

inside

with

just

a

scatter

of

flint

tools

or

other

artifacts

on

the

floors.

The

passageways

outside

were

choked

with

organic

refuse,

animal

bones,

ashes

and the

remains

of

fires.

It

would

appear

that

meat

in

particular

was

prepared

outside

and

that

domestic

rubbish

was

allowed

to

accumulate

between

the

buildings.

All

these

buildings

faced

south

or

south-west

to

catch

the

winter

sun.

They

were

rebuilt time

after

time

on

the

same

alignment

in

the

same

place.

In

trench

B

this

happened

seven

and

in

trench

C

no

less

than

eleven

times.

Two

possible

explanations

may

be

offered

for this

practice.

One

is

that

the

restrictions

on

space

within

the

settlement

were

so

great

that

a

new

building

had

to

be

constructed

on

the

same

plot

as

its

predecessor.

The

other

might

be

that

families

had

customary

rights

to

certain

plots

and

chose

to

rebuild

their

dwellings

on

the

same spot

over

many

generations.

In

practice

these two

influences

probably operated

together,

the

result

being

that

the

same

arrange-

ment

of

houses

was

perpetuated

over

a

long

period,

itself

an

indication

of

the

stability

of

the

settlement.

The

ceramic

Neolithic

layers

had weathered

badly

so

that

it

was not

Fig.

22

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

-

butterfly

beads

-

167

-

possible

to

determine

the

plans

of

any

"buildings.

Traces

of

rectilinear

mud-brick

structures

were

found,

enough

to

indicate

that

the

same

building

tradition

continued.

A

new

feature

characteristic

of

these

layers

was

a

series

of

shallow

pits

up

to

2

m

in

diameter

and

1

m

deep.

Some

had

been

dug

out

and reused

many

times.

Each

was

filled

with

burned

debris,

bones and

often

stones

as

well.

They

may

have

been

roasting

pits or

fire

hollows

but

their

exact

purpose

is

uncertain

for

the

moment.

Throughout

the

life of

the

Neolithic

settlement

the

inhabitants

buried

their

dead

in

shallow

pits

beneath

the

floors

of

their

houses

or

in

the yards

outside.

Some

bodies

were

buried

singly

in a

crouched

position though

the

skull

was

sometimes

removed.

A

few of

these

had

been

wrapped

in

matting.

One

had

a

flint

arrowhead

lodged

in

the

chest

cavity,

evidence

that this

individual

had

suffered

a

violent

death.

Other

corpses

were

buried

in

groups

either

with

or

without

their

skulls.

The

skulls

were

deposited

singly

or

in

groups,

sometimes

mixed

with

a

few

other

human

bones. The

single

inhumations

were

best

preserved

because

they

had

not

been

subsequently

disturbed.

The

multiple

burials

were

often

disordered;

skeletons

were

frequently

buried

incomplete

and

the

bones

were

in

poor

condition.

This

was

because

secondary

burial

had

taken

place.

The

bodies

seem

to

have

been

buried

until

the

flesh

had

decayed

and

later

exhumed.

The

skulls

were

often

then detached

and

buried

separately while

the

remaining

bones

were

carelessly

gathered

up

and

reburied

in

multiple

graves.

Red

ochre

was

scattered

over

some of

the

bodies

and

painted

on

several

of

the

skulls.

A

few

of the

burials

were

accompanied

with

grave

goods,

one

or

two

river

pebbles,

a

flint

tool

or

some

beads.

In

one

case

a

complete

necklace

of

coloured

stone

cylindrical

beads

was

found.

One

unusual

type

of

funerary

artifact

was

the

butterfly

bead

(Fig.

22),

almost

all

of

which

were

found

in

graves.

These

were

oval,

triangular

or

trapezoidal

and

ground

very

thin.

Each

was

bored

through

the

middle

for

suspension.

Most

were

made

of

serpentine

although

a

few

were

cut

from

agate,

both

of

which

were probably

obtained

from

the

Taurus

Mountains.

Fig.

23

Tell

Abu

Hureyra-

double-ended

flint

cores

-

168

-

The

skeletons

are

now

"being

examined

in

the

laboratory

and

this

study

promises

to

tell

us

much

about

the

physical

condition

of

the

inhabitants.

It

may

also

be

possible

to

deduce

more precise

information

about

the

compo-

sition

of

families

and

their

social

arrangements.

One

problem

in

particular

on

which

the

anthropological

study

may

throw

some

light

is

the

question

of

family

ownership

of

houses and

their

rebuilding

over

several

generations.

If

burials

of

the

descendants

of

a

single

family

are

found

beneath

successive

houses

that

could

be

an

indication

that

ownership

of

dwellings

and

the

plot

on

which

they

stood

was

maintained

within

the

same

family

from

one

generation

to

the

next.

The

flint

industry

was

based

upon the

production

of

large

blades

from

conical and

double-ended

cores.

All

the

flint

was

obtained

in

the

vicinity

from

wadi

gravels,

the

valley

slopes

and

outcrops

in

the

limestone.

There

were

some

gradual

alterations

in

the

techniques

of

production

and

in

the

types

of

tools

found

during

the

life of

the

settlement

which

help

to

differentiate

the

phases.

In the

early

aceramic

the

blades

were

long,

irregular

and

pointed.

During

the next

two

phases

most

blades

were

struck

from

double-ended

cores

(Fig. 23)

and

as

a

result

were

parallel-sided

and

more

regular.

Relatively

few

types

of

tools

were

made

in

the

early

aceramic;

tanged

arrowheads,

end-scrapers

and borers

on

blades,

single-blow

and

angle

burins

together

with

a

few

flake

scrapers.

Massive

flint

tools

were

not

found

at

Abu

Hureyra

nor

are

they

known

from

any

other

site

in

the

Levant

occupied

at

this

time.

These

tools

were

shaped with

a

little

abrupt

retouch,

the

arrowheads

sometimes

being

retouched

under

the

tip

as

well

as

around

the

tang.

Arrowheads

were

by

far

the

most

common

tool

throughout

the

Abu

Hureyra

sequence

(Figs.

2k

9

25).

Tools

were

retouched

a

little more

in

the

later

aceramic

phase

and

squamous

pressure-flaking

was

introduced.

A

greater

variety

of

scrapers

was

made

(Fig.

26),

among

them

side-scrapers

on

flakes

and

blades

and

disc

scrapers

The

smaller

discoids

or

thumbnail

scrapers

are

quite

characteristic

of

the

Fig.

24

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

-

flint

arrowheads

AMUQ

2

\

AMUQ

1

Fig.

25

TeJI

Abu

Hureyra-Amuq

arrowheads

Fig.

26

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

-

flint

scrapers

-

169

-

assemblage.

The

arrowheads

usually

had

stubby

straight-ended

tangs.

Burins

were

common

and

more

varied

in

type

(Fig.

27).

A

variety

of

awls

was

made

on

both

flakes

and

"blades.

Several

tools

of this

phase

have

been

examined

by

L.

Keeley

for

traces

of

microwear

and

this

study

has

shown

that

a

specific

type

of

long

borer

on

a

blade

(Fig.

28)

was

used

as

a

drill

or

reamer

to

bore

holes

in

wood.

A

distinctive

sheen

had

formed

on

the

retouch

scars

caused

by

the

high

speed

of

rotation

of

the

tool,

suggesting

that

it

had

been

turned

by

a

bow

drill. The

end-scrapers

were

shown

to

have

been used

to

scrape

hides.

A

few

retouched

blades

with

sickle

gloss

were

found

in

the

later

aceramic

phase;

most

of

these

were

backed

and

had

irregular

edge

retouch

(Fig.

29).

Microwear

examination

has

confirmed

that

they

were used

to

reap

plants

but

we

do

not

know

if

these

were

cereals

or

reeds.

There

is

good

evidence

that

the

inhabitants

grew

cereals

in

this

phase but

as

the few

sickle

blades

we

found

would

have

been

insufficient

to

harvest

them they

must

have

been

collected

in

some

other

way.

There

were

further

minor

changes

in

the

flint

industry

in

the

ceramic

Neolithic

phase.

Squamous

pressure-flaking

was

used

more

frequently

particular-

ly to

retouch

arrowheads.

Amuq

arrowheads

(Cauvin,

1968,

U9)

retouched

in

this

way were

made

for

the

first

time

(Fig.

25).

A

small

quantity

of

obsidian

was

used

at

Abu

Hureyra

in

every

Neolithic

occupation

phase.

Most

of

the

pieces

were

small,

unretouched,

parallel-sided

blades

struck

from

conical

or

cylindrical

cores.

A

few

retouched

obsidian

tools

were

found

in

the

late

aceramic

and

ceramic

Neolithic

phases,

among

them

tanged

arrowheads

with

squamous

retouch

and

flake scrapers.

Some

waste

obsidian

flakes

and

exhausted

cores

were

recovered

so

it

would

appear

that

the

blades

and

retouched

tools

were

made

on

the

site.

The

cores

themselves

were

not

roughed

out

from

raw

blocks

of

obsidian

at

Abu

Hureyra

as

there

was

insufficient waste

of

this

kind

on

the

site.

The

obsidian

probably

arrived

in

the

form

of

partly

prepared

cores.

Obsidian

comprised

U.35%

of

the

total

chipped

stone

recovered

from

the

complete

Neolithic

occupation

sequence

in

\

Fig.

27

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

-

flint

burins

Fig.

28

Tell

Abu

Hureyra-

flint

borers

V

Fig.

29

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

-

flint

sickle

blades

-

170

-

trench

B.

Only

2.05%

was

used

in

the

early

aceramic phase

in

this

trench

"but

this

increased

to 5.k2%

in

the

later

aceramic;

in

the

ceramic

Neolithic

it

fell

to U.19%. The

figure

for

the

early aceramic

may

not

"be

quite

repre-

sentative

as

relatively

little

was

excavated

of the

remains

of this

phase

in

trench

B.

Even

so

it

tends

to

confirm

a

view

I

formed

when

the

excavations

were

in

progress

that

more

obsidian

was

used

as

the

settlement

grew.

Pieces

of

obsidian

from many

sites

throughout

south-west

Asia

have

"been

analysed

in

the

past

to

determine their

origins.

An

outline

of

the

obsidian

trade

has

been

obtained

from

this

work

(Renfrew

et

al.,

1968,

326ff)

but

many

problems

still

remain

to

be

resolved.

The

method

of

analysis

most commonly

used

has

been

optical

spectrography.

In

this

technique

much

time

is

needed

for

each

analysis

so

in

order

to

build

up

a

general picture

of

obsidian

distribution

a

few pieces

only

have

been

examined

from

each

site.

This

has

created

a

sampling

problem

for

we

do

not

know

if

the

few

pieces

analysed

are

representa-

tive

of

the

actual

obsidian

distribution.

One

further

difficulty

with

optical

spectrography

is

that

it is

not

quite

sensitive

enough

to be

able

to

distinguish

between

all

the

different

sources

of

obsidian

(Renfrew

et

al.

,

1968,

320).

These

problems

can

be

overcome

if

neutron

activation

analysis

is

used

because

samples

may

be

analysed

more

rapidly

and

in

greater

detail

with

this

technique than

is

possible

with

spectrography.

In

the

new programme

of

obsidian

analyses

I

am

carrying

out

in

collaboration

with

Bradford University

we

are

using

the

neutron

activation

method.

Large

samples

of

obsidian

from

selected

Neolithic

sites

throughout

the

Near

East

are

being

studied

to deter-

mine

the

sources

from

which

it

originated.

In

this

way

we shall

obtain

a

more

precise picture

of the

distribution

of

obsidian

during

the

Neolithic

and

we

hope

also

a

clearer idea

of

how

the

obsidian

reached

the

sites

on

which

it

is

found.

100

pieces

of

obsidian

from

trench

B

at

Abu

Hureyra

have

now

been

analysed

as

part

of

the

this

programme

(McDaniels,

1976,

32).

The

results

show

that

obsidian

was

obtained

from

at

least

six

sources

and that

most

of

it

-

171

-

came

from

four of

these

(Table

1).

Obsidian from

Nemrut

Dag

was

favoured

in

the early

aceramic

but

the

proportion

of

obsidian

from

this

source

declined

sharply

later

on.

Relatively

little

obsidian

was

obtained

at

first

from

the

Ig

source

which

is

also

believed

to

be

near

Lake

Van

but

much more

was

used

in

the

later

aceramic

and

ceramic

Neolithic

phases.

It

would

thus

appear

that

the proportions

of

obsidian

from

these

two

possibly

neighbouring

sources

varied

inversely.

Some

obsidian from

the

Ciftlik

source was

used

in

the

early

aceramic

but the

proportion

declined

in

the

later

aceramic;

it

increased

markedly

in

the

ceramic

Neolithic

when

it

was the

most

favoured

of

all

the

sources.

Abu

Hureyra

is

equidistant

from

the

£iftlik

and

Vannic

sources

both

about

hQO

km

away.

We

do

not

yet

know

if

these

results

are

truly

representative

of

the use

of

obsidian

at

Abu

Hureyra

as

the

sample

studied

is

still

a

small

one

and

came

from

a

single

trench.

We

propose

to carry

out

a

similar

series

of

analyses

of

obsidian from

trench

C,

another

trench

with

the

full

Neolithic

occupation

sequence,

to see

if

it

supports

the

results

obtained

from

trench

B.

We

can

be

certain,

however,

that

obsidian

from

at

least

six

sources

was

reaching

Abu

Hureyra

and

that

different

amounts

of

obsidian

from

these

sources

were

used

in

each

phase

of

occupation.

Bone

tools

were

the

second

most

common

find

at

Abu

Hureyra

(Fig.

30).

Those

from

the

early

aceramic

were

limited

in

type,

consisting

almost

entirely

of

a

range

of

borers.

The same

borers

were

found

in

the

later

phases

but

there

was

greater

variety:

some

had

fine,

thin

shafts,

others

more

robust

stubby

points.

Spatulae

were

also

quite

common

while

among

the

rarer

items

were

several

bone

needles,

bone

tubes

which

were

sectioned

to

make

beads,

a

fish-hook

and

a

hook

and

eye,

perhaps

used

to secure

clothing.

The

range

is

sufficiently

wide

to

indicate

that

bone

tools

were

used

for

many

crafts

and

domestic

tasks

as

well

as

for

adornment,

at

least

in

the

later

phases

of

occupation.

Several

other

classes

of

artifacts

such

as

pecked

and

polished

greenstone

TABLE

1

PHASES

early

aceramic

later

aceramic

ceramic

SOURCES

2b

20

2.8

45

19

4

40

32.5

G1

72

48.7

5

G2

4

5.7

12.5

G3

0

5

unknown

0

2.8

0

total

analysed

25

35

40

TABLE

1

Percentages

of

obsidian

in

each

cultural

phase

at

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

Sources:

2b

=

giftlik

(Renfrew

et

al,

1966,

33)

Ig

=

presumed

to

be

near

Lake

Van

(Renfrew

et

al,

1966,

40)

Gl

=

Nemrut

Dag,

source

4c

(Renfrew

et

al,

1966,

34)

G2

=

Bingo'1,

source

4c

(Renfrew

et

al,

1968,

320)

G3 =

believed

to

be

in

eastern

Anatolia

(McDaniels,

1976,

67)

•n

(5*

CD

cr

c

-1

CD

•<

^

0)

I

cr

o

3

CD

O

C

-

172

-

axes

and

chisels

were

found

throughout

the

occupation

sequence

(Fig.

31)

Most

of

these

were

made

from

pebbles

obtained from

the

river

gravels

but

a

few

were

fashioned

in

jadeite,

almost

certainly

obtained

from

Anatolia.

They

were

probably

used

as

carpentry

tools.

Pecked

stone

balls,

hog-backed

rubbers

and

saddle

querns

were

also

quite

common.

The

rubbers

and

querns

were

made

of

basalt

or

limestone.

A

much

greater

variety

of

artifacts

was

used

in

the

later

aceramic

and

ceramic

Neolithic

phases,

one

of

the

distinguishing

features

of

these

stages

of

settlement.

Some of

the

more

attractive

artifacts

were

a

series of

polished

stone

bowls

and

dishes

(Moore,

1975,

fig.

8).

Most

were

carved

from

coloured

limestones

or

alabaster,

a

few

from

gypsum

and

one

or

two

from

granite

and

steatite. The

bowls

were

usually

hemispherical

and

quite

small

although

a

few

had

flat

bottoms

with

flared

sides.

The

dishes

were

both

round

and

oval.

These

vessels

were

delicately

finished

but

a

series

of

large,

rough stone

bowls

was also

found

which

could

have

been

either

containers

or

mortars.

A

number

of

much

larger

containers

were

made

of

a

distinctive

white

plaster; these

were

similar

to

the

white

ware

(vaisselle

blanche)

found

on

other

contemporary

sites

in

Syria

and

Lebanon.

Several

were

large

rectangular

tubs

with

a

hole-mouth

at

the

top

while

others

were

circular

jars.

Some

had

been

made

in

the rooms

in

which

they

were

found

and

all

were

thick-walled and

very

heavy.

Most

of

the

white

plaster

vessels

were

found

in

the

later

aceramic

Neolithic

layers.

Decorative

items

such

as

beads

and

pendants

were

also

much more

common

in

these

two

phases.

The

variety

of

shapes

was

considerable,

including

cylindrical,

annular,

discoid

and

pear-drop

beads

made

of

greenstones,

shell,

bone,

baked

clay

and

other

materials.

Several

other

objects

found

in

the

later

aceramic

phase

were

made

of

baked

clay

such

as

decorated

"stamp

seals"

and

spindle

whorls.

A

few

unbaked

clay

anthropomorphic

and

animal

figurines

were

also

found.

Clay

was

used

for

a

number

of

artifacts and

other

structural

purposes

such

as

pit

linings

in

the

later

aceramic

Neolithic

settlement

and

Fig.

31

Tell

Abu

Hureyra-polished

stone

axes

and

chisel

-

173

-

the

inhabitants

knew

how

to

fire

it

well

before

pottery

was

made

at

the

site.

Pottery

itself

was

found

in

the

ceramic

Neolithic

phase

and

then

only

in

small

quantities.

Most

of

it

was

from

simple

baggy

vessels

with

plain

or

collared

rims.

The fabric was coarse

and

crumbly

with

straw

temper

and

the

surface

of

the

vessels

was

burnished.

This

pottery

was

exceedingly

rough

though

it

did

resemble

that

very

broad

class

of dark

burnished

wares

found

on

other

Syrian

Neolithic

sites.

One

or

two

highly

burnished

black

or

brown

sherds

of

a

ware

found

at

Ras

Shamra

in

Phases

VB

and

VA

and

Tell

Rarnad

III

did

occur

at

Abu

Hureyra

as

well

as

others

decorated

with

red

paint.

A

few

strands

of

thread

found

in

a

clay

bead

indicate that

spinning

was

practised

at

the

site.

The

one

other

craft

for

which

we

have

good

evidence

is

basketry.

A

number

of impressions of

baskets

were

found

in

bitumen

which

had

been

used

as

a

lining.

There

were

also

traces

of

matting

in

the

soil

while

seeds

of

rushes

and

reeds

that

could

have

been

used

to

make

baskets

and

mats

were

recovered

in

flotation.

We

have already

noted

that

several

raw

materials

used

at

Abu

Hureyra

had

been

imported

from

a

considerable

distance.

Most

of

these

are

believed

to

have

come

from

the

Taurus

Mountains

and

Anatolia

300

km

to the

north.

The list

can

be

extended

to

include

a

pyritic

micaceous

stone

and

malachite

powder

which

was

apparently

used

as

a

cosmetic.

Several

objects

made of

this

particular

stone

were

found,

each

with

a

polished

U

groove

on

one

side

and

a

criss-cross

pattern

of

scratch

marks

on

the

back.

They

resemble

certain artifacts

found

at

Zawi

Chemi

Shanidar

in

a

slightly

earlier

context

interpreted

as

arrow

shaft

straighteners

(Solecki,

Solecki,

1970,

832,

839)

and

Mrs.

Helbaek

informs

me

that

a

few

similar

to

those

at

Abu

Hureyra

have

been

found

at

Beidha.

Several

other

raw materials

were

obtained

from

different

regions.

The

steatite

probably

came

from

the

Zagros

Mountains

while

a

bead

and

other

tiny

pieces

of

turquoise

may

have

originated

in

Sinai.

Cowrie

shells

were

found

in

every

phase

of the

Neolithic

settlement:

these

may

have

come

from

the

Mediterranean

or

the

warmer

waters

of the

Persian

Gulf

or

Red

Sea.

Although

these

links

suggest

contact

with

much of

the

Near

East

it

appears

that

more

of the

exotic

materials

were

imported

from

Anatolia

than

elsewhere.

This

may

simply

"be

"because

this

was

the

region

where

such

desirable

materials

were to

be

found

or

because

there

were

stronger

social

and

cultural

ties

between

the

inhabitants

of

Abu

Hureyra

and

the

peoples

to

the

north

than

their

contemporaries

elsewhere

and

that

these

links

were

strengthened

by

the

exchange

of such

materials.

These

raw

materials,

though

distinctive,

were

imported

in

small

quantities.

Other

more

common

materials,

basalt

and

certain

limestones

for

rubbers

and

stone

vessels,

gypsum

for

bowls

and

perhaps

bitumen

were

obtained

within

a

radius

of

60

km.

The

most

common

of

all

the

raw

materials

such

as

flint

were

to

be

found

in

the

vicinity

of

the

settlement

while

pebbles

of

greenstone,

granite

and

other

attractive

stones

could be

found

in

the

river

gravels.

No

lif

C

determinations

have

been

made

yet

on

the

charcoal

samples

from

Abu

Hureyra

and

until

these

are

available

one

can

discuss

the

chronology

of

the

site

only

in

very

general

terms.

Comparisons

with

Tell

Aswad

(Balikh)

and

Buqras

would

suggest

that

the

aceramic

phases

should

fall

within

the

7th

millennium

while

the

ceramic

Neolithic

levels

would

be

dated

about

6000

B.C.

or

a

century

or

two

later.

The

duration of

the

settlement

can

only

be

guessed

at

for

the

moment:

the

considerable

occupation

sequence

and

the

evidence

for

gradual

change

in

the

typology

of

the

flint

industry

and

other

artifacts

suggest

to

me

that

the

settlement

was

occupied

for

much

longer

than

Buqras,

for

example,

perhaps

from

the

beginning

of

the

7th

until

well

into

the

6th

millennium.

Certain

classes

of

remains

are

characteristic

of

the

aceramic

Neolithic

at

Abu

Hureyra.

Rectilinear mud-brick

buildings

composed

of

several

rooms

with

plaster

floors

are

one

example

and

the

burial

customs,

including

collective

secondary

burial associated

with

removal

of

skulls,

are

another.

A

third

is

the

flint

industry

which

used

large

blades struck

from

double-ended

and

keeled

cores.

These

were

retouched

to make

arrowheads,

end-scrapers,

burins

and

-

175

-

sickle

blades.

Such

remains

have

also

been

found

on

many

other

contemporary

settlements

in

the

Levant;

they

are

distinctive enough

to

"be

taken

as

charac-

teristic

features

of

this

new

stage

following

Neolithic

1

which

I

am

calling

Neolithic

2.

Some

other

artifacts

found

in

the

more

developed,

later

aceramic

phase

at

Abu

Hureyra

are

also

associated

with

Neolithic

2

remains

on

many

other

sites.

The

fine

stone

dishes

and bowls,

plaster

vessels

and

the

abundant

variety

of

bone

tools

may

be

included

here.

These

artifacts

were

almost

as

widespread

and

characteristic

of

Neolithic

2

as

the

three

major

classes

of

artifacts

I

mentioned

first.

Sites

in

the

neighbourhood

of

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

Three

small

Neolithic

surface

sites

have

been discovered

near

Tell

Abu

Hureyra.

One

is

on

the

right

bank

of

the

Wadi

Hibna

(site

III)

just

before

it

opens

out

into

the

Euphrates

flood-plain.

The

other

two

sites

(sites

I

and

II)

are

a

little

to the

east of

Abu

Hureyra

on

the

edge

of

the

same

terrace

above

the

flood-plain.

Flints

collected

from these

three

sites

can

be

paralleled

at

Abu

Hureyra

so it

looks

as

though

they

were

all

contemporary.

These

surface

sites

may

have

been

small

settlements

some

way

to

the

larger

centre.

One

other

prehistoric

tell

was

found

by

van

Loon

(^9^>7,

11)

3

km

to

the

east

of

Abu

Hureyra.

This

was

Tell

Kreyn

which,

like

Abu

Hureyra,

lay

on a

projection

of

the

first

terrace

into

the

flood-plain.

At

the

northern

end

there

was

a

small

mound

while

to

the

south

the

site

spread

out

over

the

surface

of

the

terrace.

The

mound

itself

yielded

a

surface

collection

of

Halaf

sherds

but

on

the

terrace

behind

there

were

abundant

flints

which

could

be

paralleled

at

Abu

Hureyra.

Tell

Kreyn,

while

still quite

small,

seems

to

have

been

a

more

substantial

settlement

than

sites

I,

II,

and

III.

It

was

certainly

occupied

at

the

same

time

as

Abu

Hureyra

then

perhaps

abandoned

and

resettled

in

Halaf

times.

-

176

-

Buqras

lies

on

the

right

side

of

the

Euphrates

valley

10

km

below

the

confluence

with

the

Khabur.

It

is

situated

well

back

from

the

present

course

of

the

river

on

a

slight rise

above

the

flood-plain.

A

line

of

low

hills

lies

to

the

west

behind

the

site

and

beyond

them

the

Syrian

plateau.

These

hills

are

cut

by

several

dry

wadis

which

pass

near

the

site

on

their

way

to

join

the

Euphrates;

water

flows

in

them

today

only

after

severe

rain

storms.

The

area

is

semi-arid

now,

receiving

an

average

of

about

150

mm

of

rain

a

year.

The

site

is

a

little

over

3

ha

in

area

and

the

deposits

in

the

centre

of

the

mound

are

5

m

deep.

These

were

tested

in

1965

by

two

adjacent

k

m

square

soundings

excavated

to

the

natural

subsoil

(van

Liere,

de

Contenson,

1966,

181).

The

sequence

was

divided

into

three

phases

on

the

evidence

of

the

structures

and

artifacts

found.

Several

of

the

excavated

buildings

had

been

burned

or

otherwise

destroyed

but

there

was

nothing

to

suggest

that

these

were

more

than

localised

events.

The

settlement

appears

to

have

been

occupied

continuously

until

its

final

abandonment.

The

buildings

at

Buqras

were

rectilinear

in

plan

throughout

the

sequence

but

the

soundings

were

too

small

for

any

complete

plans

to

be

recovered.

All

the

buildings

were

oriented

north-west

south-east

as

at

Abu

Hureyra.

The

area

exposed

of

level

I

at

the

bottom

of

the

trenches

was

particularly

re

stricted

so

the

nature

of

the

structures

found

within

it

is

uncertain.

Parts

of

two

buildings

were

found

superimposed

in

this

level

(van

Liere,

de

Contenson,

1966,

182);

several

walls

of

each

were

exposed

which

were

believed

to

have

been

constructed

of

pise.

These

walls

were

quite

straight

and

the

photographs

suggest

that

they

were

well-made

(van

Liere,

de

Contenson,

1966,

fig.

10a)

;

it

may

be

that

they

were

in

fact

built

of

mud-bricks

,

as

were

the

later

struc

tures

at

Buqras

and

all

the

buildings

at

Abu

Hureyra

but

that

this

was

not

noticed

when

the

site

was

excavated.

The

lower

structure

had

a

hearth

in the

corner

of

a

room

and

areas

of

plaster

floors.

The

upper

one

consisted

of

at

least

one

room

entered

by

a

door

with

a

raised

sill;

traces

of

a

woven

mat

were

found

on

the

floor.

-

177

-

Level

II

consisted

of

a

complex

of

structures

which

was

remodelled

four

times

(van

Liere,

de

Contenson,

1966,

I83ff).

Each

was

composed

of

several

walls

and

"blocks

or

pillars

of

mud-brick

associated with

"bins

and

hearths.

The

"blocks

were

usually

attached

to

other

walls

and

so

may

have

strengthened

the

buildings

of

which

they

were

part.

A

number

of

floors

were

found

in

this

level, two of

them

plastered.

In

level

III

several more

mud-

brick

walls

were

found

and

a

hearth.

There

was

a

bin

in

the

angle

of

two

of

the

walls.

Although

very little

of

the

site

was

exposed

in

the

excavations

we

know

that

the

settlement

at

least

in

its

later

stages

was

closely

built

up

with mud-brick

buildings.

The

tops

of

the

walls

of

these

buildings

could

be

seen

all

over

the

surface

of

the

site

after

rain.

Most

of

the

chipped

stone

tools

were

made

of

a

fine-grained

dark

grey

or

brown

flint

found

in

the

wadi

gravels

or

on

the

surface

in

the

vicinity

o

of

the

site.

The

industry

was

based

upon

the

production

of

long

parallel-

sided

blades

struck

from

double-ended

and

keeled

or

occasionally

pyramidal

cores.

The

most

numerous

tool

types

were

burins

and

end-scrapers

on

blades.

Arrowheads,

though

quite

common,

were

much

less

abundant than

at

Abu

Hureyra.

There

were

sickle

blades

in

the

assemblage

but

they

were

rare

as

at

Abu

Hureyra.

The

other

flint

tool

types

were

flake

scrapers,

often

discoid,

and

borers.

Heavy

flake

tools

were

absent.

The

arrowheads

were

tanged

with

a

little

retouch under

the

tip

and

along

part

of

the

edge

(van

Liere,

de

Contenson,

1963,

fig.

XIII,

8-17)-

Most

tools

were

retouched

abruptly

but

pressure-flaking

was

used

on

some

of

the

arrowheads

throughout

the

sequence,

an

example

being

an

Amuq

point

from

layer

7-

The

same

tools

were

represented

throughout

the

sequence

although

the

proportions

varied

from

layer

to

layer.

The

industry

closely

resembles

that of

the

later

aceramic

and

ceramic

Neo-

lithic

at

Abu

Hureyra

both

in

technique

and

in

the

types

of

tool

which

were

made.

The

main

difference

is

in

the

proportions

of

the

tool

types,

burins

and end-scrapers

being

much

more

common

at

Buqras.

One

remarkable

feature

of

Buqras

was the

high

proportion

of

obsidian

in

-

170

-

the

chipped

stone

industry.

It

formed

32.3$

in

level

I,

25.7$

in

level

II

and

27.9$

in

level

III,

an

average of

about

29$

(Renfrew

et

al.,

1966,

59).

Six

pieces

from

level

I

have

been analysed

and

all

came

from eastern

Anatolia,

two from

the

he

source

which

could

be

either

Bingo'1

or

Nemrut

Dag,

and

four

from

1g

(Renfrew

et

al.,

1968, 325).

It

is

not

known

what

proportion

of

the

obsidian

if

any

came

from

central

Anatolia.

The

eastern

Anatolian

obsidian

sources

lie

about

k^O

km

north

of

Buqras.

The

route

is

direct

up

the

Khabur

across the

heights

behind

Mardin

and

on

to

the

upper

Tigris

basin.

Perhaps

this

ease

of communication

was

one

of

the

reasons

why

Buqras

received

so

much

obsidian.

Abu

Hureyra

is

only

UO

km

further

away

from

these

sources

as

the

crow

flies

but

received

much

less

obsidian,

partly

perhaps

because

the

easiest

route

to

the

sources

up

the

Euphrates

was

much

longer.

Much

of

the

obsidian

used

at

Buqras

consisted

of

small

retouched

blades

struck

from

conical

cores.

Cores

were

found

in

the

excavation

suggesting

that

the

material

was

being

worked

on the

site.

Several obsidian

tools

were

also

recovered,

among

them

burins,

borers,

disc

scrapers

and

even

one

microlithic

lunate

(van

Liere,

de

Contenson,

1966,

186).

The

remainder

of

the

artifact

industry

was

quite

rich,

particularly

in

bone

tools.

These

were

numerous

and

consisted

of

borers

of different

sizes,

hafts

for

other

tools,

needles

and

spatulae,

some

with

a

high

polish.

Saddle

querns

and

rubbers

of

basalt

and

limestone

were

quite

common;

there

were

also

a

few

basalt

pestles

and

a

mortar.

The

materials

for

these tools

could

have

been

obtained

in

the

locality.

A

distinctive

group

of

common

finds

were

the

fragments

of

polished

lime-

stone,

alabaster

and

gypsum

stone

bowls

and

dishes.

Some

were

hemispherical

in

shape, others

were

wide,

flat-bottomed

vessels;

one

even

had

a

carinated

profile

(van

Liere,

de

Contenson,

1963,

fig.

XEII,

2).

All

the

materials

for

these

would

have

been

available

in

the

neighbourhood.

Cylindrical

or

discoid

beads

and

other

objects

of

adornment

were another

- 179

-

numerous

class

of

finds.

The

"beads

were

made

of

"bone,

shell,

greenstones

from

the

Euphrates

gravels,

carnelian

imported

perhaps

from

some

distance

away

and

dentalium

from

the

Mediterranean.

An

alabaster

"bracelet

fragment

and

pendant

were

also

found

on

the

surface

(van

Liere,

de

Contenson,

1966,

186).

Much

less

common

but

quite

distinctive

were

several

stone

stamp

seals

with

incised

chevron

and

rectangular

patterns

(van

Liere,

de

Contenson,

1963,

fig.

XIII,

6;

1966,

fig.

8

9

19,

28).

One

was

made of

alabaster

and

another

of

jadeite

from

Anatolia.

Two

axes,

one

polished

all

over

and

the

other,

of

greenstone,

pecked

and

polished, were

found

but

they

were

apparently

rare

tools

at

Buqras,

at

least

in

the

area

excavated.

Baked

clay

figurines

were

also

uncommon,

as

at

Abu

Hureyra, only

a

few

anthropomorphic

and

animal

examples

being

found.

One

piece

of

a

white plaster

vessel

was

picked

up

from

the

surface of

the

site

and

another

was

found

in

the

excavation

(van

Liere,

de

Contenson,

1966,

185).

The

fragment

from

the

surface

came

from

a

vessel

which

had

been

made

on

a

mat

for

it

retained

the

pattern

of

the

criss-cross

weave

on

its

base.

Pottery

was

used

for the

first

time

at

Buqras

in

level

III.

This

seems

to

have

been

quite

rare

at

the

site

as

only

1U

sherds

were

found.

The

sherds

belonged

to

a

small

upright

bowl,

cylindrical

vessels

with

flat

bases

and

other

rounded

bowls.

The

fabrics

were

varied,

several

thin

sherds

being

tempered

with

straw

and

others

with

quartz

sand

filler;

there

were

also

coarse

straw-tempered

sherds.

Several

sherds

had

a

bright red

painted

surface

and

were

highly

burnished

while

a

number

of

the

plain

sherds

were

also

burnished,

though

not

so

thoroughly.

One

sherd

had

a

triangle

painted

on

it.

The

same

great

variety

of

artifacts

was

found

both

at

Buqras

and

in

the

aceramic

and

ceramic

Neolithic

levels

at

Abu

Hureyra.

Occupation

at

both

sites

concluded

with

a

short

phase during

which

pottery

came

into

use.

The

pottery

was

quite

varied

in

form

and

decoration

at

both

sites.

The

vessels

seem

to

-

180

-

have

been

made

in

much

the

same

way:

they

had

a

soft

fabric

tempered

with

straw

which

was

burnished

or

in a

few

instances

painted.

Buqras

enjoyed

even

closer

contacts

with

Anatolia

than

did

Abu

Hureyra

on

the

evidence

of

the

obsidian

and

other

raw

materials

were

also

received

from

that

direction.

The

artifacts

at

Buqras

were

all

quite

similar

throughout

the

sequence

which

would

indicate

that

the

site

was

not

inhabited

for

long.

The

14

C

determinations

bear

this

out

as

they

are

clustered

together.

One

from

the

bottom

of

level

I

is

6190

±

60

B.C.

GrN-l*8l8

and

another

from

the

top

of

the

level

is

6290

±

100

B.C.

GrN-^52.

The

date

for

level

II

is

6010

±

55

B.C.

GrN-^819

and

for

level

III

5990

±

60 B.C.

GrN-^820

(Radiocarbon

9,

1967,

128).

While

not

quite

all

in

order,

they

form

a

tight

acceptable

series

from

which

one

might estimate

that

the

site

was

founded

about

6300 B.C.

and

abandoned

about

5900

B.C.

or

a

little

after.

Tell

Aswad

(Ealikh)

Tell

Aswad

lies

on

a

tributary

of

the

Balikh

about

22

km

south

of

Tell

Abyad

in

the

Syrian

Jezireh.

The site

is

roughly

oval

in

shape

with

two

high

points

at

either

end.

It

was

discovered

by

Mallowan

who

excavated

on

the

higher

summit

in

1938.

He

found

traces

of

Halaf

occupation

but

surmised

that

much

of

the

mound

consisted

of

Neolithic

remains

(Mallowan,

19^-6,

126).

The

site

was

reinvestigated

by

Cauvin

in

1970

who

excavated

a

step

trench

from

top

to

bottom

of

the

higher

summit

on

its

northern

side.

The

lower

summit

has

never

been

examined

and

its

relationship

to

the

rest

of

the

site

is

unknown.

Cauvin

divided

his

sequence

into

eight

levels

numbered

from

top

to

bottom.

Levels

I

to

VI

contained

remains

of

mud-brick

buildings,

a

lime

plaster

floor,

flints

and

other

artifacts

but

were

devoid

of

pottery

(Cauvin,

Cauvin,

1972,

88).

Levels

VII

and

VIII

at

the

bottom

yielded

only

a

few

bricks

and

fragments

of

plaster

but

abundant

artifacts

including

many

sherds

of

pottery.

About

half

the

sherds

had

a

red

or

brown

surface

and

were

burnished;

these

had

either

grit

or

straw

filler

(Cauvin,

Cauvin,

1972,

86ff).

The

remaining

sherds

were

from

much

coarser

straw-tempered

vessels

with

little

surface

treatment.

A

-

181

-

few

sherds

only

had

red

painted

decoration.

Most of the

pots

were

hole-mouth

vessels

and

several

had

strap

handles,

knots

or

lugs

for

carrying.

The

chipped

stone

industry

was

of

much

the

same

character

throughout

the

sequence.

The

tools

were

made

on

blades

and

flakes

struck

from

pe"b"ble

cores.

The

principal

types

were

tanged

arrowheads

with

a

little

abrupt

retouch,

burins,

end-scrapers

on

blades,

disc

scrapers

and sickle

blades

with

some

borers.

The

sickle

blades

were

short

truncated

blades

for

the

most

part

which

are

believed

to

have

been hafted

so

that

they

formed

a

jagged

cutting

edge

(Cauvin,

1973,

fig.

3).

They

were

quite

numerous

in

every

level.

Obsidian

was

present

throughout.

Among

the

other

artifacts

were

numerous

fragments

of

small

polished

limestone

and

alabaster

bowls.

The

remaining

finds

included

a

few

baked

clay

anthropomorphic

and

animal

figurines,

some

bone

points,

basalt

grinders,

three

butterfly

beads

and

several

other

items

of

adornment.

Three

carbon

1U

determinations

have

been

made

on

samples

obtained

in

the

recent

excavations. They

are:

for

level

VIII

6500

±

120

B.C.

Mc-86U,

level

VI

10,550

±

160

B.C.

Mc-607 and

level

III

6700

±

120

B.C.

Mc-865

(J.

Cauvin,

197^b,

203).

Cauvin

has

concluded

on

the

evidence

presented

above

that

Tell

Aswad

was

first

occupied

in

the

middle

of

the 7th

millennium

by

a

group

making

pottery.

They

were

the

first

people

in

Syria

to

use

pottery

regularly

as

all

other

finds

of

early

pottery

are

dated

several

centuries

later.

Although

people

with

the

same

material

culture

continued

to

occupy

the

site

for

a

considerable

time

pottery

was

not

used

in

the

later

stages of

the

settlement

(J.

Cauvin,

197^-b,

203).

This

explanation,

if

correct,

would

fit

the

observed

facts

but

it

seems

so

improbable

that

another hypothesis

may

be

preferred.

Let

us

first

consider

the

cultural

parallels

for

the

Tell

Aswad

material.

The

flint industry,

stone

bowls

and

other distinctive

artifacts

such

as

the

butter-

fly

beads

closely

resemble

those

from

the

later

aceramic and

ceramic

Neolithic

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

Buqras.

The

only

significant

difference

is

that

the

sickle

-

182

-

blades

at

Tell

Aswad

are

of

a

different

type

and

more

common

than

at

the

two

other

sites.

Even

the

Tell

Aswad

pottery,

though

much

more abundant

than

that

from

the top

levels

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

Buqras,

encompasses

the

same

range

of

wares

and

decoration.

One

may

conclude

that

the

Tell

Aswad

material

is

sufficiently

like that

on

the

Euphrates

sites

to be

included

in

Neolithic

2

of

the

Levant.

It

is

thus

all

the

more

strange

that

a

sequence

repeated

at

Abu

Hureyra

and Buqras

of

an

aceramic and

then

ceramic

Neolithic

with

otherwise

much

the

same

material

inventory

should

be

reversed

at

Tell

Aswad.

The

stratigraphy

at

Tell

Aswad

was

determined

from

a

step

trench

rather

than

a

deep

sounding

carried

to

bedrock

at

the

centre

of

the

site.

It

is

perfectly

possible

that

when

the

settlement

was

founded

pottery

was

not

made

but sub-

sequently

the

focus

of

the

settlement

shifted

north

at

about

the

time

pottery

began

to

be

used.

The

true

stratigraphic relationship

between

an

earlier

settlement

with

a

considerable

depth

of

deposit

and

a

later

extension

at

a

lower

elevation

might

be

missed

in

a

step

trench

excavated

across

such

occupation

deposits.

The

Halaf

remains

on

top

of

the

old

heart

of

the

site

could

be

unrelated

to

the

earlier

occupation.

At

this

point

we

may

look

once

more

at

the

^C

dates.

On Cauvin's

reading

of

the

stratigraphy

the

dates

for

level

VIII

and

level

III

are

inverted,

the

earlier

level

being

dated

later.

If

on

the

other

hand

my

suggestion

were

correct

the

dates

would

be

in

the

right

order,

so

lending

weight

to

the

argument.

The

problem

cannot

be

resolved

satisfactorily

without

further

excavations

but

it

would

seem

more

likely

that

Tell

Aswad

was

first

occupied

by

a

group

which

did not

use

pottery

and

that

they

adopted

the

craft

later

rather

than

the

reverse

explanation

put

forward

by

Cauvin.

One

difficulty

remains

with

the

Tell

Aswad

sequence

and

that

concerns

the

14

C

determinations.

Two

of

the

dates

fall

within

the

first

half

of

the

7th

millennium

so one

might

assume

that

the

site

was

occupied

then.

The

typology

of

the

artifacts

links

the

site

closely

with

Buqras

which

is

itself

dated

about

6000

B.C.

It

is

difficult

to

believe

that

Tell

Aswad

was

really

occupied

-

183

-

that

early

as

it

would

be

typologically

more

advanced

"by

several

centuries

than

not

only

Buqras

"but

also

a

number

of

other

dated

sites

in

the

Levant.

As

one

of

the

determinations

is

altogether

much

too

early

(Mc-607)

it

may

"be

that

the

other

dates

are

also

incorrect.

Cauvin

found

one

other

site

in

the

Balikh

valley

with

remains

similar

to

those

from

Tell

Aswad.

The site

is

Tell

Khirbet

el

Bassal

which

lies

on

the

Karamuk,

a

tributary which

flows

parallel

with

the

Balikh

on

the

west.

It

has

not

"been

excavated

"but

Halaf

sherds

were

found

near

the

summit

and

flint

and

obsidian

artifacts

lower

down

together

with

fragments

of

stone

bowls

comparable

with

those

at

Buqras

(Cauvin,

1970,

287).

Tell

Fakhariyah

Neolithic

artifacts

were

found

in

unusual

circumstances

at

Tell

Fakhariyah,

a

large

Iron

Age

and

Classical

site

which

lies

just

to

the

south

of

Ras

el

Ain

beside

one

of

the

sources

of

the

Khabur.

The

artifacts

were

all

flint

and

obsidian

tools

though

there

is

a

possibility

that

some

ground

and

polished

stone

axes

might

also

be of

the

same

age

(Braidwood,

1958,

55).

About

1,000

flint

and

200

obsidian

pieces

were

saved

from

soundings

IV,

VI

and

IX.

They

seem

to

have

been

embodied

in

the

mud-bricks

of

the

buildings

on

the

site.

It

is

thought

that

the

mud

for

the

bricks

must

have

been

obtained

from

a

prehistoric

deposit

either

on

the

tell

itself

or

in

the

vicinity.

The

flint

and

obsidian

tools

belonged

to

a

single

industry

with

a

variety

of

tool

types

(Braidwood,

1958,

53ff).

The

flint

tools

were

mostly

made

on

long

regular

blades,

some

parallel sided

and

some

pointed.

No

cores

were

saved but

the

scars

on

the

tools

indicate

that

the

blades

were

struck

from

double-ended

cores.

The

arrowheads

were

as

much

as

8

or

9

cm

long.

They

were

tanged

with

some

abrupt

retouch

around

the

tang

and

under

the

tip.

Some

sickle

blades

had

a

little

irregular

retouch along

the

cutting

edge

but

others

had

none

at

all

nor

were they

retouched

along

the

back

or

at

the

ends.

End-scrapers

on

blades

were

numerous

and

burins

were

also

quite

common.

The

latter

consisted

-

18U

-

of

single-blow

and

angle

burins

for

the

most

part

and

quite

a

number

were

made

on

broken

tanged

arrowheads.

Borers

were

also

made

on

blades,

the

long

points

being

shaped

with

abrupt

retouch.

The

only

flake

tools

were

a

few

disc

scrapers made

on

quite

thick

flakes.

Almost

all

of these tools

were

retouched

abruptly,

pressure-flaking

being

very

rare.

The

obsidian

tools

were mostly

blades

and

blade

segments

,

a

number

of

which

were

retouched

along

one

edge.

Some

blades

were

thicker with

abrupt

retouch

on

both

sides

to

make

borers

or

reamers.

This

assemblage

is

similar

to

the

flint

industry

in

the

aceramic

Neolithic

levels

at

Abu

Hureyra.

The

range

of

tool

types,

the

way

they

are

made

and

even

certain

details

such

as

the

reuse

of

broken

arrowheads

as

burins

are

all

the

same.

The

principal

difference

would

appear

to

be

that

obsidian

was

used

more

commonly

in

the

Tell

Fakhariyah

assemblage,

doubtless

because

the

site

was

nearer

the

Vannic

obsidian

sources.

The

parallels

with

the

Abu

Hureyra

flint

industry

are

so

close

that

one

may

reasonably

conclude

that

the

site

from

which

the

Tell

Fakhariyah

material

came

was

inhabited

about

the

same

time,

that

is

in

Neolithic

2

during

the

7th

millennium.

The

rarity

of

pressure-flaking

in

the

retouch

reinforces

the

suggestion

that

the

assemblage

is

earlier

than

the

ceramic

Neolithic

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

Buqras

III.

Tell

Fakhariyah

is

the

furthest

to

the

north-east

of

all

the

known

sites

with

a

Neolithic

2

assemblage:

indeed

it

lies

well

beyond

the

Levant

proper.

The

significance

of

Tell

Fakhariyah

and

Tell

Aswad

is

that

they show

that

there

were

sites

on

both

the

Balikh

and

Khabur

inhabited

during

the

7th

millennium

by

groups

whose

cultural

equipment

was

the

same

as

other

Neolithic

2

communities

living

along

the

Euphrates.

Jebel

Abdul

Aziz

Eight

prehistoric

sites

were

discovered

along

the

north

scarp

of

the

Jebel

Abdul

Aziz

by

a

Japanese

team

in

1967.

All

were

described

as

"Post-

Palaeolithic"

(Suzuki,

Kobori,

1970,

3^ff)

but

only

two

are

definitely

Neolithic.

These

are

an

open

site

Sheikh

Abdul

Aziz

(site

26)

and

a

shelter

-

185

-

Khazne

Cave

I

(site

28).

The

flint

tools

collected

from

site

26

and

the

terrace

in

front

of

site

28

included

end-scrapers,

flake

scrapers

and retouched

blades

(Suzuki,

Kobori,

1970,

fig. UT)

.

None

of

the

tools

is

sufficiently

diagnostic

for

one

to

be

certain

in

which

stage

of

the

Neolithic

the

sites

were

occupied

but

from

the

appearance

of

the

blades

which

broadly

resemble

material

from

Abu

Hureyra

it

is

more

likely

to

have

been

during

Neolithic

2

than

later.

Both

sites are

small

and

their

nature

is

uncertain.

El

Kum

The

site

of

El

Kum

is

near

a

well

and

modern

village

of

the

same

name

which

lie

on

the

track

from

Sukhne

to

Risafe

in

the

pass

between

the

Jebels

Abu

Rujmein

and

Bishri.

It

was

first

visited

by

Laurisson

Ward

in

1938

who

made

a

collection

of

flints

and

plaster

vessel

fragments

which

is

now

in

the

Peabody

Museum

at

Harvard.

He

also

discovered

another

surface

Neolithic

site,

almost

certainly

occupied

in

Neolithic

2,

10

km

south

of

Risafe.

El

Kum

was

rediscovered

by

Dr.

and

Mrs.

Buccellati

who

surveyed

the

area

in

1966

(1967»

305)

and

found

many

other

prehistoric

sites

in

the

pass.

The

site

is

a

large

mound

about

25

m

high.

A

brief

excavation

was

carried

out

there

in

1967

in

which

it

was

discovered

that

the

bottom

10.35

m

of

deposdt

consisted

of

aceramic

Neolithic

with

a

further

^.85

m

of

ceramic

Neolithic

above

(Dornemann,

1969

5

68);

remains

of

a

later

period

of

occupation

were

found

in

the

top

layers

of

the

mound.

The

structures

in

the

aceramic

levels

consisted

of

clay

walls

and

mud

plaster

floors

with

fragments

of

red

burnished

plaster

that

could

have

been

either

from

floors

or

walls.

Two

superimposed

rectilinear

clay-walled

buildings

were

found

in

the

ceramic

levels;

each

had

several

rooms

with

white

plastered

floors

and

walls.

An

unusual

feature

of

the

upper

building

was

that

it

contained

a

staircase

connecting

rooms

on

different

levels.

n

The

flint

industry

was

composed

of

blade

and

flake

tools.

The

blades

were

large,

parallel-sided

ones

struck

off

double-ended

hog-backed

and

keeled

cores.

There

were

some

tanged

arrowheads

with

a

little,

abrupt

retouch

or

-

186

-

pressure-flaking

on

a

few

pieces.

Burins

on

blades

were much

more

common,

consisting

for

the

most

part of

angle

burins.

Backed

blades

with

abrupt

retouch

were

also

quite

numerous.

Sickle

blades

and

end-scrapers

on

blades

were

present

in

small

quantities.

There

were

also

many

flake

scrapers

made

on

quite

thin

flakes

which

were

then

retouched

around

the

edge.

The

industry

seems

to have

changed

very

little

throughout

the

long

period

in

which

the

site

appears

to

have

been

occupied.

Polished

fragments

of

limestone

and

alabaster

bowls

were

quite

abundant

in

the

Neolithic

levels.

The

vessels

were

hemispherical

in

shape,

ranging

in

size

from

small

cups to

larger

dessert

bowls.

Bone

points

and

spatulae

were

also

found

throughout. Then there

were

a

variety

of

other artifacts

such

as

a

polished

stone chisel,

a

stone

weight

and

other

holed

stones,

a

baked

clay

stamp

seal

and

beads.

The

two

other

major

classes

of

finds

were

fragments

of

plaster

vessels

and

potsherds.

Both appear

only

to

have

been

found

in

the

ceramic

Neolithic

levels

although

it

is

possible

that

plaster

vessels

were

used

earlier

and

not

recovered

in

the

small area

excavated.

Many

pieces of

plaster

vessels

were

collected,

more

than

at

any

other

excavated

Levantine

site.

Most

of

these

vessels

were

large,

open,

quite

deep

circular

jars

with

flat

bases.

A

few

were

more

squat

and

hemispherical,

one

or

two

were

rectangular

and

there

was

a

large

flat

platter.

The

walls

were

usually

thick

and

made

of

several

layers

of

plaster.

Often

a

thin

layer

of

plaster

had

been

carefully

applied

to

the

surface

perhaps

to

make

the

vessels

impervious

to

moisture.

Many

of

the

vessels

retained

impressions

of

matting

on

their

bases

and

coiled

baskets

on

their

sides.

From

this

one

can see

that

these

vessels

were

often

made

inside

a

large

basket

of

coiled

straw

or

rushes

which

gave

support

until

the

plaster

had

set.

This

is

also

excellent

evidence

for

use

of

basketry

and

matting

at

the

site.

Pottery

was

abundant

in

the

ceramic

Neolithic

layers.

The

ware

had

a

buff

finish

with

much

straw

temper

although

a

few

vessels

had

a

flint

chip

and

grit

filler.

Many

of

the

sherds

were

undecorated

but

some

had

been

painted

-

187

-

red

all

over.

A

proportion

of

both

the

plain

and

red

painted

vessels

had

then

"been

burnished.

El

Kum

is

a

large

site

with

a

very

substantial

depth

of

deposit

built

up

from

the

collapse

of

the

buildings

of

what

appears

to

have

been

a

concen-

trated

settlement.

Not

enough

is

known

about

the

site

to

say

much

about

how

its

inhabitants

lived

but

it

is

clear

that

their

buildings

and artifacts

were

broadly

similar

to

those

on

the

sites

we have

already

discussed.

The

closest

parellels

for

the

flint

industry

are

to

be

found

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

Buqras

although

the

proportion

of

tools

found

differed

from

both

these

sites

and

flake

tools

seem

to

have

been

more

common

at

El

Kum

than

elsewhere.

The

use of

stone

bowls

and

white

plaster

vessels also

links

El

Kum

with

the

Euphrates

sites.

Aceramic

El

Kum

should

thus

be

contemporary

with

the

later

aceramic

Neolithic

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

Buqras

I

and

II.

The

ceramic

Neolithic

layers

are

probably

of

the same

date

as

Buqras

III

and

the

ceramic

Neolithic

at

Abu

Hureyra

but

occupation

at

El

Kum

seems

to

have

continued

later

than

at

the

other

two

sites.

The

aceramic

Neolithic

at

El

Kum

falls

within

Neolithic

2

in

the

Levant

but

with

the

introduction

of

pottery occupation

at

the

site

entered

a

new

phase.

Palmyra

region

Many

prehistoric

sites

have

been discovered

in

recent

years

around

Palmyra

by

the

Japanese

survey

team.

k6

of

these

were

found

in

1967

and

all

were

ascribed

to

the

"Post-Palaeolithic"

although

it

was

recognised

that

some

also

had

earlier

remains

(Suzuki,

Kobori,

1970,

36).

The

published

material

from

23

of

these

sites

includes

flints

which

are

certainly

Neolithic

and

it

may be

that

some

of

the

other

sites

also

have

indications

of

Neolithic

occupation.

21

of

the

sites

were

rock

shelters

with

a

terrace

in

front

and two

were

open

stations.

Some

were

found

on

the

southern

slopes

of

Jebel

ed-Duara

and

along

the

Wadi

el

Ahmar

(sites

33,

3^.,

J35,

36, 38,

k±

9

U2,

^3,

U8,

5J_,

52)

to

the

norths-east

of

Palmyra.

Four were

discovered

immediately

to

the

north

and

-

188

-

north-west

of the

oasis

(sites

53, 5^,

56,

60)

and

the

remainder

on

the

slopes

of

the

Jebel

el

Abyad

further

to

the

north-west

(sites

63, 6k,

65.,

66,

69,

71

,

lit,

II).

The

chipped

stone

assemblages

from

all

these

sites

belong

to

the

same

industry.

There

were

double-ended

and

keeled

cores

(Suzuki,

Kobori,

fig.

52,

^;

Suzuki,

Akazawa,

1971,

figs.

2,

3)

with

characteristic

crested

blades

and

flakes (Suzuki,

Kobori,

1970,

fig.

h9

,

12,

1*0

;

Suzuki,

Akazawa,

1971,

fig.

11),

The

ventral

surfaces

of

the

blades and

blade

tools

had

scars

from

other

blades struck

off

both

ends

of

the

parent

cores,

another

typical

feature.

Among

the

tools

there

were

tanged

arrowheads,

burins

on

blades

and

scrapers

on

flakes

and

blades

(Suzuki,

Kobori,

1970,

figs.

hQ,

6-9;

1*9,

1-11;

50,

1-12)

but

of

these only

the

arrowheads

and

the

blades

on

which

some

of

the

tools

were

made

are

really

diagnostic.

These

artifacts

are

all

characteristic

of

Neolithic

2

assemblages

else-

where

in

Syria.

The

shape

of

the

arrowheads

and

the

squared-off

tangs

of

some

of

them

in

particular

are

paralleled

closely

in

the

aceramic

levels

at

Abu

Hureyra

which

indicates

that

this

groups

of

sites,

like

El

Kum,

may

be

grouped

with

those

on

the

Euphrates

on

typology

and technology.

Since these

sites

were

discovered

a

large

manufacturing

station

has

been

found

by

the

Japanese

on

the

salt

flats

in

front

of

Duara

cave

which

they

are

excavating.

Strewn

on

the

surface

were

large

quantities

of

double-ended

cores,

waste

and

blades

of

a

Neolithic

2

industry.

I

have

found

other

flints

of

the

same

industry

in

the

classical

ruins

at

Palmyra,

particularly

on

the

northern

side

beyond

the

city

wall

of

Justinian,

enough to

indicate

that

there

were

other

Neolithic

2

stations

in

this

area.

The

evidence

which

has

been

accumulated

is

sufficient

to

show

that

the

Palmyra

area

was

occupied

by

a

number

of groups

during

Neolithic

2.

The sites

are

not

very

large

so

none of the

groups

can

have

been

anything

like

as

numerous

as

the

community

which

inhabited

El

Kum.

-

189

-

The

38

sites

discussed

so

far

range

from

small

surface

stations

to

large

tells.

They

are

all

situated

well

inland

on

the

plateau

of

central

and

northern

Syria.

Within

this

region

they

occupy

diverse

zones:

the

Palmyra

hills,

the

Euphrates

valley,

the

Balikh

and

headwaters

of

the

Kha"bur,

yet

their

material

remains

are

sufficiently

similar

for

one

to

conclude

that

they

were

occupied

in

Neolithic

2

by

people

who

shared

a

common

culture.

If

one

compares

the

remains

from

these

sites

with

contemporary

settlements

else-

where

in the

Levant

one

finds,

however,

that

they

have

some

distinctive

features

which

mark

them

out

as

a

regional group

of

sites

within

Neolithic

2.

It

is

"best

to

identify

these

features

on

excavated

settlements

with

the

longest

well-stratified

sequence

of

occupation,

Abu

Hureyra

and

Buqras,

and

then

look

for

them

on

the

other

sites.

This

regional

variation

can

be

seen

most

clearly

in

the

flint

industry

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

Buqras.

The

techniques

of

blade

production

here

were

exactly

the

same

at

other contemporary

sites

throughout

the

Levant but

the

tools

made

from

these

blades were

distinctive.

The

principal

types

were

arrowheads,

burins and

end-scrapers;

sickle

blades,

though

more

numerous

at

Buqras

than

Abu

Hureyra,

were

still

relatively

rare

compared

with

other

Levantine

Neolithic

2

sites.

These

tools

were

usually

shaped

with

a

minimum

of

abrupt

retouch.

Squamous

pressure-flaking

was

never

a

common

technique

in

the

Neolithic

2

levels

at

either

site.

On

sites

in

the

southern

Levant

and

in

the

Damascus

basin

it

was

used

much

more

frequently

than

on

the

Euphrates

sites.

The

arrowheads

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

Buqras

were

all

tanged

as

they

were

often

elsewhere

but

certain

types

were

typical

of

the

Euphrates

sites.

Most

of

the

arrowheads

had

a

tang

which

was

clearly

separated

from

the

rest of

the

blade

by

a

pair

of

shoulders;

the

tangs

were

also

often stubby

and

squared

off,

another

characteristic trait

rarely

found

elsewhere.

None

of

the

arrow-

heads

on

these

sites

had

notches. Some

flake

scrapers

were

found

but

other-

wise

almost no

other

flake

tools

nor

core

tools

either

although

these

were

found

in

some

numbers

on

Levantine

sites

nearer

the

coast.

-

190

-

When

the

stratified

assemblages

from

Abu

Hureyra

and

Buqras

are

compared

with

material

from

the

other

36

sites

it

can

"be

seen

that

all

share

these

specific

characteristics

of

their

flint

industries.

This

is

as

true

of

the

surface

material

from

the

sites

around

Palmyra

and

Tell

Fakhariyah

as

of

the

other

excavated

sites,

Tell

Aswad

(Balikh)

and

El

Kum.

These

sites

thus

form

a

regional

cultural

group

within

Neolithic

2

in

the

Levant.

All

the

sites

except

those

around

Palmyra

and

El

Kum

are

vithin

the

Middle

Euphrates

drainage

system

which

gives

them

a

certain

geographical

unity;

they

may

thus

all

be

called

the

Middle

Euphrates

group

of

sites

to

distinguish

them

from

the

other

regional

groupings to

which

I

shall

now

turn.

West

Syria

A

second

regional

group

of

sites

is

to

be found

in

West

Syria

(Fig.

32).

This

comprises

sites

in

the

Damascus

basin,

Lebanon

and

on

the

coast

of

Syria.

There

are

three

in

the Damascus

basin.

One

of

these,

Tell

Aswad,

was

occupied

continuously

from

the

latter

part

of

Neolithic

1

until

well

into

Neolithic

2,

as

we have

seen.

This

is

the

only

site

discovered

in

the

region

so

far

that

has

a

continuous

sequence

from

one

stage

to the

since

it

provides

this

link,

I

shall

consider

it

first.

Tell

Aswad

The

transition

from

phase

I

to

phase

II

at

Tell

Aswad

took

place

about

6900

B.C.

or a

little

later.

Aswad

II

is

dated

by

several

determinations,

three

of

them

from

a

series

in

the

west

trench:

6770

±

75

B.C.

GrN-6677,

6700

±

55

B.C.

GrN-6676,

6610

±

110

B.C.

GIF-2373,

and

one

from

just

below

the

surface

of

the

east

trench,

6590

±

110

B.C.

GIF-2369

(de

Contenson,

I973a,

25U).

This

is

a

consistent

series

of

dates

which

places

the

second

phase

of

occupation

at

Tell

Aswad

firmly

in

the

first

half

of

the

7th

millennium

B.C.

The

site

appears

to

have

been

deserted

about

6500

B.C.

The

flint

industry of

Aswad

II

was

based

on

the

production

of

blades

as

in

Aswad

I.

Most

of

these

were

struck

off

prismatic

and

pyramidal

cores

so

Fig.

32

Neolithic

2

West

Syrian

sites

FIGURE

32

Neolithic

2

¥est

Syrian

sites

1

Ras

Shamra

2

Slenfe

3

Tell

Labweh

4

Saaideh

5

Nacharini

6

Mugharet

el

Abde

7

Tell

aux

Scies

8

Dik

el

Mehdi

II

9

Tell

Ramad

10

Ghoraife

11

Tell

Aswad

-

191

-

they

tended

to

have

converging

sides;

relatively

few

came

from

bipolar

cores

in

contrast

with

the

Euphrates

sites.

The

latter

are,

of

course,

for

the

most

part

later

in

date.

A

wide

range

of

tools

was

made

on

these

blades,

retouched

blades

or

knives

being

particularly

common.

Sickle

blades

were

also

numerous

(de

Contenson,

1972,

77);

these

had

finely

serrated

or

nibbled

cutting

edges

though

some

were

denticulated.

A

few

had

retouch

along

the

back

and

there

were

also

some

segmented

sickle

blades.

The

third

most

common

class

of

tools

in

Aswad

II

was the

arrowheads.

Most

of

them

were

tanged

in

this

phase,

the

tang

being

defined

by

a

curved

narrowing

of

the

blade

rather

than

a

sharp

shoulder.

Some

of these

were

retouched

abruptly

but

most

had

pressure-flaked

tangs,

in

contrast

with

the

Euphrates

sites

where

most

tangs

were

abruptly

retouched.

Retouch

was

confined

to

the

tang

and

tip

on

most

of

the

Aswad

II

arrowheads.

Notched

arrowheads

with

a

short

tang which

had

been

so

common

in

Aswad

I

were

still

present

but

in

much

diminished

quantity.

The

remaining

tools

consisted

of

notched

and

denticulated

blades

and

flakes,

burins

on

blades, borers

of

various

sizes

and

end-scrapers

on

blades.

Flake

tools

were

relatively

scarce

but

among these

a

series

of

quite

thick

disc

scrapers

seem

to

have

been

characteristic.

Some

chisels

were

flaked

in

flint

and

a

few

had

polished

edges.

A

number

of

flaked

and

polished

axes

were

also

made

from

a

variety

of

stones.

About

1%

of

the

chipped

stone

artifacts

at

Tell

Aswad

were

of

obsidian.

5U

pieces

of

obsidian,

20%

of the

total,

have

been

analysed

from

phases

I

and

II

in

the

west trench

as

part of

the

Bradford

programme.

The

analyses

suggest

that

the

proportions

of

obsidian from

different

sources

were

about

the

same

in

both

phases.

Three

sources

were

being

exploited,

(Jiftlik

(U6.3%),

1g

(11

and

Nemrut

Dag

(k2..6%).

From

this

one

may conclude

that

central

and

eastern

Anatolian

obsidian

was

being

used

in

about equal amounts

even

though

the

Vannic

sources

are

about

200

km

further

away

by land

than

Q^iftlik.

One cannot

be

sure

that the

obsidian

analyses

from

the

west trench

are

representative

of

the

whole

-

192

-

site

so

it

vill

be

necessary

to

analyse

obsidian

from

the

east

trench

to

see

if

these

results

are

corroborated.

The

other

artifacts

from

Aswad

II

were

varied

but

not

very

numerous.

The

bone

tools

consisted

of

borers,

needles, spatulae

and

a

few

hafts.

There

were

also

some

fragments

of

polished

stone

bowls.

Articles

of

adornment

were,

however,

quite

common.

They

consisted

of

beads

and

pendants

made

in a

wide

range

of

materials:

limestone,

carnelian, steatite,

shell,

bone,

turquoise

and

even

obsidian.

The

exotic

stones

in

this

list,

like

those

at

Abu

Hureyra,

would

have

been

imported

from

Anatolia,

the

Zagros

and

Sinai.

Baked

clay

objects

were

very

common

throughout

the

sequence.

A

number

of

these

were

simply

lumps

or

balls

of

clay

and

others

were

shaped

like

pawns.

Many

animal

figurines

were

made,

often

with

a

marked

dorsal

ridge

and all

were

modelled

with

assurance.

Some

were

recognisable

as

cattle,

pigs

and

small

horned

ruminants

(de

Contenson,

1972,

78).

The

remainder

were

anthropomorphic

figurines,

mostly

of

seated

women. The

figurines

were

made

to

appear

plump

but

there

was

much

variation

in

shape.

Some

were

quite

schematic

with

stmup

bodies

and

rod

heads

and

hardly

any

delineation

of

the

limbs.

Tell

Ramad

Tell

Ramad

was

discovered

by two

French

customs

officials

before

the

Second

World

War.

One

of

them,

M.

Compant,

and

an

army

officer,

Lieutenant

Potut,

collected

material

from

the

site on

several

occasions

(Potut,

1937»

130).

The

site

was

visited

in

1939

by

Laurisson

Ward

who

collected

more

material from

the

surface

which

is

now

in

the

Peabody

Museum.

Tell

Ramad

remained

known

to

at

least

one

scholar

(Nasrallah,

1965,

51)

"but

had

otherwise

been

generally

forgotten

until

rediscovered by

van

Liere

and

de

Contenson

(1963,

179).

The

site

is

situated

20

km

south-west

of

Damascus

at

the

foot

of

Mt.

Hermon.

It

lies on

a

high

undulating

plateau

at

an

elevation

of

830

m

at

the

edge of

the

Wadi

Sherkass

which

flows

into

the Damascus

basin.

The

mound

is

approximately

rectangular

in

shape

and

about

2

ha

in

area

(de

Contenson,

-

193

-

van

Liere,

196U,

pi.

X).

There

are

two

high

points

on

the

western

side

with

a

wide

almost

level

"bench

to

the

east.

The

northern

side

slopes

steeply

down

into

the

wadi.

Eight

seasons

of

excavation

have

taken

place

at

Tell

Ramad

since

1963.

The

full

sequence

of

occupation

was

determined

from

three

trenches

excavated

in the

first

season;

since

then

these

trenches have

been

extended

to

obtain

as

broad

an

exposure

as

possible

of

the

layout

of

the

settlement.

The

occupa-

tion

layers

which

are

about

5

m

thick

have

been

divided

into

three phases;

Levels

I

and

II

making

up

the

bulk

of

the

site

are

aceramic

Neolithic

(de

Contenson,

1971,

279ff)

and

Level

III

is

ceramic

Neolithic.

Another

later

phase

of

occupation

has

been

postulated

on

the

evidence

of

sherds

found

on

the

surface

but

any

occupation

layers

of

this

phase

have

eroded

away.

Level

I

was

about

2

m

thick

on

the

east

side

but

only

0.7

m

deep

on

the

west of

the

site

(de

Contenson,

van

Liere,

1966,

171)«

It

would

appear

from

this

that

when

the

site

was

first

settled

the

eastern

sector

was

occupied

more

intensively

but

that

almost

the

whole

area

of

the site

was

inhabited.

The

most

conspicuous

features

of

this

phase

were

a

number

of

oval

pits

from

3

to

U

m

in

diameter

lined

with

clay

(de

Contenson,

1967,

19).

These

pits

contained

hearths

ovens

and

other

depressions

which

suggest

that

they

may

have

served

as

working

hollows

or

even

dwellings.

In

the

same

deposit there

were

also

rectangular

bins

made

of

clay

which

may

have

been

for

storage

(de

Contenson,

1969a,

17),

a

number

of

lime

plastered

surfaces

and

other

floors.

The

deposits

and

structures

of

Level

II

were

quite

different

from

those

in

Level

I

yet

there

is

nothing

to

suggest

that

there

was

a

break

in

occupation

between

the

two

phases.

Level

II

was

from

2.35

to

h.3

m

thick

(de

Contenson,

van

Liere,

1966,

169)

and

extended

over

the

whole

site.

This

deposit

which

is

exposed

over much

of

the

surface

of the

mound,

was

very

ashy,

a

feature

from

which

its

Arabic

name was

derived.

The

structures

in

this

level

had

a

single

rectangular

room

built

of

mud-bricks

on

a

stone

foundation

(de

Contenson,

1969a,

28).

The

corners

were

rounded

which

avoided

the

structural

problem

of

joining

two

brick

walls

at

a

right

angle.

The

"buildings

varied

in

size,

one

being

T

by

5.5

m

and

another

9

by

k.5

m,

but

most

had

plaster

floors.

These

structures

which

are

quite

uniform,

have

been

found

across

the

site

and

it

is

probable

that

they

were

dwellings.

Outside

these

buildings

were

several

pits

which

contained

carbonised

seeds

(de

Contenson,

1967

S

19)

indica-

ting

that

food

was

probably

stored

in

them.

Hearths,

ovens

and

prepared

working

surfaces

could

all

be

traced

outside

the

buildings

(de

Contenson,

1970,

77)

which

were

separated by narrow

lanes

and

courts.

Burial

customs

were

the

same

in

Levels

I

and

II.

Human

remains

were

buried

in

shallow

graves

inside

buildings

sometimes

beneath

the

floors

and

also

outside.

A

few

crouched

burials

were

found

intact

(de

Contenson, van

Liere,

1966,

170;

de

Contenson,

1967,

20)

but

most

corpses

appear

to

have

been

deposited

incomplete

in

communal

graves.

The

latter

frequently

lacked

skulls

and

other

parts

of

the

skeleton

indicating

that

secondary

burial

had

taken

place.

Very

few

grave goods

were

deposited

with

these

skeletons.

Several

groups

of

skulls

were

found

which

had

been

buried

separately from

the

corpses

to

which

they

belonged

(de

Contenson,

van

Liere,

196U,

111;

de

Contenson,

1967»

20;

1969a.

27).

Single

skulls

and

other

human

remains

occurred

throughout

the

deposits.

The

lower

part of

the

face

and

chin

of

some

of

these

skulls

had

been

covered

with plaster

which

had

the

effect of

partly

restoring

the

appearance

of

the

face.

The

plaster

and

the

remainder

of

the

skull

was

frequently

decorated

with

red

ochre.

Both male and

female

skulls

were

treated

in

this

way

(Ferembach,

1969,

67ff)

Associated

with

one

of

these

groups

of

skulls

were

the

remains

of

two

clay

figures.

Both were

seated

and

the

better

preserved

one

which

was

about

25

cm

high

had

at

least

one

arm

akimbo

(de

Contenson,

1967

5

21).

It

is

thought

that

these

figures,

the

more

complete

of

which

was

headless,

may

have

served

as

stands

on

which

the

plastered

skulls

were

mounted.

The

flint

industry

of

Levels

I

and

II

at

Tell

Ramad

was

composed

principally

of

blade

tools.

The

blades

were

struck

from pyramidal

and

- 195 -

double-ended

cores

y

a

few

of

which

were

keeled.

Some

of the

tools

in

"both

phases

were

made

on

bladelets

(de

Contenson,

van

Liere,

1966,

170;

de

Contenson,

1970,

33), a

feature

quite

absent

on

the

Euphrates

sites.

The

principal

classes

of tools

were

sickle

"blades

and

arrowheads.

The

sickle

blades

were

of

two

types,

blades

with

sickle

gloss

but

little

or

no

retouch

and segmented

blades

(de

Contenson,

van Liere,

196U,

11U).

The

segmented

sickle

blades

had

finely

denticulated

edges

and

were

frequently

retouched

around

the sides

to

reduce

their

thickness.

In

Level

II

some of

these

had

coarse

denticulation.

There

were

also

two

groups

of arrowheads,

one

notched

and

one

with

long

tangs.

The

notched

arrowheads

had

pairs

of

notches

along

the

blade

and

a

pair

at

the

base

to

define

a

short

tang.

This

type

though

found

in

both

levels was

not

so

common

in

Level

II

(de

Contenson,

1971

5

283).

The

other

arrowheads

had

a

long

tang

sometimes

defined

by

shoulders.

Many

of

these

arrowheads

and

some

of

the

sickle

blades

were

retouched

with

squamous

pressure-

flaking

.

The

other

blade

tools

consisted

of

types

found

on

many

other

Neolithic

2

sites,

retouched

blades,

borers and

burins.

End-scrapers

on

blades

were

uncommon

but

flake

scrapers,

principally

discoids

and

end-scrapers,

were

numerous.

Another

important

and

characteristic

group

of

tools

was

the flaked

axes.

Most

were

small

and

quite

thin

with

a

polished

cutting

edge

but

a

few

had

a

tranchet

edge.

Their

shapes

were very

varied;

some

were

ovoid,

others

trapezoidal

or

semicircular with

a

straight

edge.

A

few

axes

and

adzes

were

much

larger

than

these

small

woodworking

tools.

All

such

axes

both

large

and

small

were

almost

entirely

absent

on

the

Euphrates.

Obsidian

formed

approximately

\%

of

the

chipped

stone

industry

at

Tell

Ramad.

Most

of

it

was

in

the

form

of

small

blade

segments

although

a

few

retouched

tools

and

worked-out

cores

were

found,

sufficient

to

indicate

that

some

of

it

was

finished

on

the

site.

Five

pieces

have

been

analysed

by

-

196

-

optical

spectrography

three

of

which

came

from

Ciftlik

and

two

from

group

^c

in

eastern

Anatolia

(Renfrew

et

al.,

1966,

h6).

A

sixth

piece

analysed

"by

neutron

activation

also

came

from

group

he

(Wright,

Gordus,

1969

9

83)

Renfrew

look

at

kO

pieces

visually

and

concluded from

this

that

only

10%

of

the

obsidian

in

fact

came

from

the

Lake

Van

area,

presumably

because

this

propor-

tion

was

green

in

colour.

Recent

work

has

thrown

doubt

upon

this

observation

because

some

grey

obsidian

has

now

been

shown

to

come

from

the

Van

region

as

well.

At

Tell

Aswad

and

Ghoraife,

another

site

in

the

Damascus

basin,

where

larger

samples

have

been

analysed

a

much

higher

proportion

of

the

obsidian

came

from

Lake

Van

and

it

would

be

surprising

if

the

pattern

at

Ramad

was

very

different

because

the

sites

are

so

close

together,

their

sequences

over-

lap

and

their

material

culture

has

much

in

common.

The

remaining

artifacts

from

Levels

I

and

II

were

varied

in

type

as

we

have

noted

on

other

Neolithic

2

sites.

White

ware

was

a

characteristic

feature

of

Level

II

but

was

not

found

in

Level

I.

The

forms

were

either

cylindrical

vessels

with

a

flat

bottom

or bowls

with

a

ring

base

(de

Contenson,

van

Liere,

1966,

169).

Some

of

the

vessels

were

burnished

and

painted

with

a

red

line

around

the

rim

and

body.

Pieces of

white

ware

and

the

plaster

floors

have

been analysed

to

deter-

mine

their

composition

and how

they were

made.

The

analyses

have

shown

con-

clusively

that

both

materials

were

calcium

carbonate

(Balfet

et

al.,

1969

9

191;

Gourdin,

Kingery,

19T5»

1^-7)

"but

there

is

some

doubt

about

how

they

were

manufactured.

Balfet

and

her

collaborators

think

that

limestone

was

baked

on

the

site

in

pits

to

obtain

the

lime.

They

have

analysed

the

soil

of

Ramad

II

and

found

it

to

be

full

of

ashes,

crushed

limestone

and

traces

of

grass.

They

believe

the grass

played

a

part

in

the

actual

fashioning

of

the

lime

plaster.

One

huge

pit was

found

on

the

site

which

could

well

have

been

used

for

this

purpose

(de

Contenson,

1969b,

32).

Gourdin

and

Kingery

point

out,

however,

that

limestone

has

to

be

baked

at

a

very

high

temperature

to

obtain

lime

(1975s

1^9).

As

very

large

quantities

of

lime

were

used

for

floors

on

-

197

-

these

Neolithic

sites

they

believe

that

this

could

only have

"been

regularly

made

in

kilns.

No

kilns

have

been

found

on

these

sites

"but

as

Gourdin

and

Kingery

remind

us

limeburning

is

an

unpleasant

business

and

such

kilns

might

well

have

been

sited

beyond

the

confines

of

the

settlement.

The

question

is

unresolved

but

it does

seem

that

some

lime

could

be

obtained

from

pit

fires

and

it

also

seems

probable

that

the

ashy

soil

at

Ramad

is

partly

the

result

of

this.

Kilns

may

have

been

used

at

other

sites

at

this

time

although

there

is

no

good

evidence

for

them

until

much

later.

However

the

lime

was

obtained,

it

was

then

used

as

a

plaster

to

build

up the

white

ware

vessels.

Balfet

believes

that

a

pozzolanic

reaction took

place

in

which

the

plaster

set

like

cement.

Gourdin

and

Kingery

cast

some

doubt

on

this

but

do

not

offer

a

clear

explanation

of

how

they

think

the

vessels

were

made.

The

heavy

stone

tools

were

of

the same

type

in

both

levels

(de

Contenson,

van

Liere,

196U,

11U,

11?)-

Most

of

them

were

made

of

basalt which

was

easily

obtainable

on

the

Golan plateau.

They

included

pestles

and

stone

balls

together

with

open

ended

stepped

querns

and

rubbers.

Small

polished

bowls

in

alabaster

and

limestone

were

also

made

but

only

in

Level

I

apparently

(de

Contenson,

van

Liere,

196^,

115).

Bone

tools

were

common

finds

in

both

levels and

particularly

abundant

in

Level

II.

The

usual

types

in

Level

I

were

borers and spatulae

while

in

Level

II

there

were

also

needles,

beads

and

hafts

(de

Contenson,

van

Liere,

196*1,

11U,

117).

Clay

figurines

were

another

very

common

find

particularly

in

Level

II.

Most

were

sun

dried

but

a

few

appear

to

have

been

baked.

They

usually

portrayed

animals

and humans

although

there

were plenty

of

pawn-like

figurines

and

other

abstract

shapes.

Cattle,

caprines,

equids

and

pigs

could

be

recognised

among

the

many

animal

figurines

(de

Contenson,

1971,

281).

The

other

artifacts

were

also

quite

varied.

Among

them

were

stone

spindle

whorls

which

supplement

our

knowledge

of

the

range

of

crafts

practised

by

the

inhabitants.

The

objects

of

adornment

included

cylindrical beads

of

-

198

-

bone

and

different

stones

and

other

beads

made

of

shell,

obsidian,

carnelian

and

steatite

(de

Contenson,

1970,

33);

the

three

latter

materials

were

probably

imported

from

Anatolia

or

the

Zagros.

There

was

also

at

least

one

butterfly

bead

of

the same

shape

as

those

at

Abu

Hureyra

(de

Contenson,

van

Liere,

1966,

fig.

2a,

U).

Pendants

were

less

common

but

they

included

examples

in

shell

and

also one

carved

on

bone

which

was

an

accomplished rendering

of

the

head

of

a

ruminant

(de

Contenson,

1970,

pi.

16).

An

unusual

find

from

Level

I

was

a

copper

pendant.

The

pendant

had

been

bored

through

so

that

it

could

be

threaded

on

a

string.

Traces

of the

vege-

table

fibre

yarn

by

which

it

had

been suspended

could

be

seen

in

the

hole

(France-Lanord,

de

Contenson,

1973,

111).

The

pendant

was

made of

native

copper

which

it

is

believed

may

have

come

from

southern

Turkey.

It

might

equally

have

been

derived

from

Edom

or

Sinai

where

there

were

also

copper

deposits.

The

chronology

of

the

sequence

at

Tell

Ramad

has

been

quite

well

estab-

lished

by

a

series

of six

^C

determinations.

The

dates

for

Level

I

are

6250

± 80

B.C.

GrN-1^28

and

6lUO

±

50

B.C.

GrN-U821

(Radiocarbon

9,

1967,

129),

which

suggest

that

the

site

may

have

been

first

occupied

in

the

second

half

of

the

7th

millennium,

perhaps

about

6300

B.C.

There

are

three

determinations

for

Level

II:

5970

±

50

B.C.

GrN-^U27,

5950

±

50

B.C.

GrN-U822

and

6260

±

50

B.C.

GrN-iiU26.

The

first

two

fit

the

sequence

very

well

but

the

last

one

which

was

obtained

from

a

sample

taken

near

the

surface

appears

to

be

aberrant

or

may

have

been

determined

on

old

wood

charcoal. If one

considers

only

the

first

two determinations

it

would

appear

that

Level

II

began

about

6000

B.C.

but

we

do

not

know

for

certain

when

the

change

from

Level

II

to

Level

III

took

place.

Ghoraife

Ghoraife, like

Tell

Aswad,

is

situated

on

the

floor

of

the

Damascus

basin

about

22

km

due

east of

Damascus.

It

is

now

8

km

west

of

the

present

Ataibe

-

199

-

lake

but

would

have

been much

nearer

the

shore

at

the

time

it

was

occupied.

A

small

sounding

2

m

square

excavated

here

in

197^-

showed

that

there

was

7.5

m

of

deposit

on

the

site.

There

was

no

indication

within

the

sounding

of

mud-brick

or

stone

buildings

but

there

were

pieces

of

clay

incorporating

impressions

of

reeds

(de

Contenson,

1976,

80)

which

were

presumably

the remains

of

mud

and

reed

huts

of

the

kind

thought

to

have

been

used

at

Tell

Aswad. The

deposit

in

the

sounding

consisted

of

layers

of

mud, ashes

and

burned

earth.

These

layers

may

have

been

the

washed

out

remains

of

such

structures

and

the

occupation

floors

associated

with

them.

There

were

also

a

number

of

large

pits

in

the

lower

layers.

The

deposit

has

been

divided

into

two

phases

based

more

upon alterations

in

the

typology

of

the

artifacts

than

any

marked

change

in

the

stratigraphy

for the

deposits

seem

to

have

been

of

much

the

same

kind

from

bottom

to

top

and

there

was

no

discernible

break

in

the

occupation

sequence.

Phase

I

at

the

bottom

was

characterised

by

a

chipped

stone

industry

which

used

large

blades

struck

from

double-ended

cores

some of

which

were

keeled.

h1%

of

the

retouched

tools

were

finely-denticulated

sickle

blades,

25%

of

other

retouched

blades

and

only

\\.^%

arrowheads.

These

had

a

long

tang

and

were

retouched

abruptly.

The

other

tools

included

a

few

burins

and

disc

scrapers

on

flakes.

A

little

obsidian

was

also

used

but

otherwise

there

were

few

ground

stone

tools

or

bone

artifacts.

The

rest

of

the

deposit

has

been

designated

Phase

II

(de

Contenson,

1976,

81).

The

flint

industry

was

much

less

abundant

and

appears

to

have

changed

quite

markedly,

although

this

may

partly

be

the

result of

condensing

complex

data

for

a

preliminary

note.

Most

of

the

tools

were

still

made

on

blades

but

these

were

struck

from

prismatic

and

pyramidal

cores

derived

from

tabular

flint.

Arrowheads now formed

31.8%

of

the

retouched

tools,

retouched

blades

30%

as

before

but

sickle

blades

only

15%.

Burins

and

discoids

were

still

used

in

small

quantities.

Some

of

the

tools

were

now retouched

by

squamous

pressure-flaking.

A

few

flaked

axes

with

polished

edges

were

made

for

the

-

200

-

first

time

and

there

were

more

"basalt

and

limestone

tools.

Bone

tools of

several

types

were

numerous

now.

About

2%

of

the

total

chipped

stone

at

Ghoraife

was

of

obsidian

and

2h

pieces

of

this,

20%

of

the

total,

have

been

analysed

in

the

Bradford

programme.

Obsidian

was

being

used

from

the

same

three

sources

as

at

Tell

Aswad,

that

is

Ciftlik,

1g

and

Nemrut

Dag,

though

1g

obsidian

was

found

only

in

Phase

II;

as

the

quantities

analysed

were

quite

small

this

may

not

be

significant.

Taking

Phases

I

and

II

together

obsidian

from

these three

sources

was

present

in

roughly

equal

amounts,

Ciftlik

33%,

1g

29%

and

Nemrut

Dag

3Q%

which

on

present

evidence

would

indicate

a

strong

preference

for

obsidian from

eastern

Anatolia.

The

sample

analysed

from

Ghoraife

is

still

too

small

for

one

to

be

sure

if

the

proportions

of

obsidian

from

the

different

sources

have

been

correctly

determined.

Even

so

the

results

from

Ghoraife

and

Tell

Aswad

together

indicate

that

Vannic

obsidian

was

used

at

least

as

much

'as

obsidian

from

Ciftlik,

a

conclusion

that

greatly weakens

the

earlier

hypothesis

that

most

obsidian

used

in

the

Levant

at

this

period

was

obtained

from

the

Aksaray

region

(Renfrew

et

al.,

1968,

326).

Five

llf

C

determinations

have

been

obtained

for

these

levels

and,

like

those

for

Tell

Aswad

and

Tell

Ramad,

they

form

a

consistent

series.

Those

for

Phase

I

are

6760

±

190

B.C.

GIF-3376,

6530

±

190

B.C.

GIF-3375

and

6^50

± 190

B.C.

GIF-337^,

all

in

stratigraphic

order.

The

two

dates

from

Phase

II

are

6200

±

190

B.C.

GIF-3372

and

^990

±

190

B.C.

GIF-3371,

the

second

of

which

appears

to

be

too

late

for

its

archaeological

context.

There

was

much

surface

disturbance

at

the

site

and

it

is

believed

that

this

may

have

contaminated

the

sample.

From

these

dates

one

would

estimate

that

Ghoraife

was

settled

about

6800

or 6900

B.C.

and

that

the

transition

from

Phase

I

to

Phase

II

took

place

about

6300

B.C.

The

site

was

deserted

perhaps

about

6000

B.C.

although

this

figure

is

uncertain.

From

the

chronology

above

it

is

clear

that

Phase

I

at

Ghoraife

was

contemporary

with

Tell

Aswad

II

and

Phase

II

with

Tell

Ramad

I.

The

site thus

overlapped

chronologically

the

other

two

-

201

-

Damascus

basin

sites

but,

surprisingly

for

a

site

so

close

to

the

others,

there

appear

to have

been

marked

differences

between

the

flint

assemblages

of

Ghoraife

and

the

other

sites,

at

least

on

the

information

available

so

far.

The

Ghoraife industry

throughout

was

based

on

blade

production

as

at

the

other

sites

but

in

Phase

I

the

cores

were

double-ended

whereas

in

Aswad

II

they were

usually

prismatic

or

pyramidal.

The

main tool

types

were

used

in

similar

proportions,

sickle

blades

being

much

more

common

than

arrowheads

for

example,

which

implies

that

much

the

same

activities

were

being

practised

at

these

two

sites

which

occupied

the

same

environment.

Even

so

there

were

considerable

differences

between

the

arrowheads

because

squamous

pressure-

flaking

was

used

commonly

at

Tell

Aswad

but

not

at

Ghoraife.

Such

differences

in

technique

between

two

neighbouring

contemporary

sites

are

unusual

since

elsewhere

in

the

Levant

at

this

time

basic

techniques

of

flint

production were

the

same

on sites

over

a

wide

area

as

we have

seen

in

the

Euphrates

region.

Ghoraife

II

and

Ramad

I

had

more

in

common

in

their

flint

industries

although

these

two

sites

were

in

different

environments,

one

on

a

high

plateau

and

the

other

in a

lake

basin.

The

core

techniques

were

quite

similar

although

double-ended

cores

were

more

common

at

Ramad.

Pressure-flaking

seems

to

have

been

used

to

about

the

same

extent

at

both

sites.

Arrowheads

were

more

frequent

at

Ghoraife

than

at

Ramad

but

as

the

setting

of

the

two

sites

was

different

this

probably

reflects

differences

in

subsistence.

Ramad

had

some

segmented

sickle

blades

by

this

time,

a

type

apparently

absent

at

Ghoraife.

Flaked

and

polished

axes

were used

at

both

sites.

Interestingly

enough,

the

bone

industry

was

also

quite

rich

at

both

of

these

sites

although

far

fewer

bone

tools

were

found

in

Ghoraife

I.

What

this

all

suggests

is

that

although

there

are

general

resemblances

between

the

artifacts

from

these three

sites

there

are

quite

specific

differ-

ences

in the

details

of

their

material

remains.

These

must

partly

reflect

differences

in

subsistence

activities

but

the

variation

in

basic

techniques

of

flint

production may

'have

more

to

do

with

the

relations

between

the

inhabitants

of

these

sites

in

the

phases

when

they

were

occupied

at

the

-

202

-

same

time.

These three

sites

share

certain

general

characteristics

with

the

Euphrates

valley

sites.

The

buildings

at

Ramad

are

rectilinear

even if

"built

differently.

White

ware

is

found

on

sites

in

both

regions

towards

the

end

of

this

stage.

The

burial

rites

are

generally

quite

similar

although

at

Ramad

the

plastered

skulls

were

treated

differently

from

the

usual

practice

on

the

Euphrates

sites.

Much

the

same

range

of

exotic

materials

was

being

received

at

all

these

sites

and

in

the

three

sites

where

large

samples

of

obsidian

have

been

analysed

obsidian

was

being

obtained

from

the

same

sources,

from

Lake

Van

as

much

as

or

more than

Ciftlik.

The

general

features

of

the

flint

industries,

the use

of

large

blades

and

the

widespread

introduction

of

double-ended

cores,

are

also

common

to

both

areas.

This

list

of

common

features

together

with

the

chronological

evidence

is

enough

to

establish

that

the

sites

in

the

Damascus

basin,

Aswad

II,

Tell

Ramad

I

and

II

and

Ghoraife,

not

only

belong

to

Neolithic

2

of

the

Levant

but

share

many

fundamental

aspects

of

their

culture

with

the

Euphrates

sites.

That

having

been

established,

it

is

also

apparent

that

the

Damascus

basin

sites

form

a

distinct

group

and,

whatever

the

differences

between

them,

have

certain

things

in

common

which

distinguish

them

from

the

Euphrates

sites.

As

is

usually

the

case

this

can

best be

seen

in

the

flint

assemblages.

To

begin

with

there

is

greater

variation

in core

technique

in

the

Damascus

basin

towards

the

end

of

Neolithic

2,

that

is

at

Ghoraife

II

and

Ramad

I.

Pressure-flaking

is

also

used

much

more commonly

there

than

on

the

Euphrates,

particularly

for

retouching

arrowheads.

Sickle

blades

are

more

abundant

on

all

the

Damascus

basin

sites

and

the

segmented

sickle

blades

at

Tell

Ramad

are

quite

different

from

the few

sickle

blades

known

in

the

Euphrates

area.

Flaked

and

polished

axes

are

a

type

absent

on

the

Euphrates

but

abundant

in

the

Damascus

basin

in

late

Neolithic

2,

an

important

indicator

of

a

variation

in

response

to

a

different

environment.

The

buildings

of

Ramad

II,

despite

their

use

of

mud-

brick

and

plaster

floors,

are

of

a

different

plan

from

those

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

elsewhere

on

the

Euphrates.

Then

again

one

might

note

the

very

large

-

203

-

number

of

human,

animal

and

abstract

clay

figurines

found

at

both

Tell

Aswad

and

Tell

Ramad

which

are

a

very

rare

find

on

the

Euphrates

sites.

I

will

now

consider

the

other

Neolithic

2

sites

in

Syria and

Lebanon

to

see

if

they

belong

within

the

West

Syrian

group.

Tell

Labweh

The

modern

village

of

Labweh

is

in

the

Beka'a

26

km

north-east

of

Baalbek.

There

are

two

Neolithic

sites

here,

one

just

to

the

north

of

the

village

which

has

not

been

excavated

and

another

to

the

south

which

is

the

site

with

which

we

are

concerned.

Tell

Labweh

stands

on

a

low

hill

at

the

side

of

the

valley

where

the

land

rises

up

towards

the

Anti-Lebanon

Mountains.

It

overlooks

springs

which

are

one

of

the

sources

of

the

Orontes.

The

site

is

spread

over

a

wide

area but

the

deposits

are

only

about

h

m

deep.

The

surface

has

been

much

disturbed

by

agricultural

terraces

and

a

new

road

has

been

dug

through

the

mound

cutting

it

in

two.

Kirkbride

has

made

two

soundings

in

the

site

to

obtain

the

sequence

of

occupation.

Trench

A

was

not excavated

to

bedrock

but

the

lowest

levels

reached

were

devoid

of

structures.

Above

them

were

two

superimposed

rectangular

buildings

with

several

rooms

(Kirkbride,

1969»

^6).

The

lower

courses

of

the

walls

were

built

of

stone

but

it

is

thought

that

the

upper

parts

would

have

been

made

of

mud-brick.

The

floors

of

these

buildings

were

surfaced

with

white

burnished

plaster

and

red

burnished

plaster

floors

could

be

seen

in

the

section

beside

the

new

road.

Several

secondary

burials

were

found

in

these

structures.

The

first

metre

of

deposit

above

the

subsoil

in

Trench

B

contained

no

structures

(Kirkbride,

1969,

^8).

Higher

up

there

were

traces

of

floors

which

may

have

belonged

to

buildings

but

the

rest

of

the

deposit

was

cut

by

a

series

of

large

pits

which

were

filled

with

stones

and

fine

black

soil.

The

flint

industry

at

Labweh

was

fairly

homogeneous

but

there

were

indications

that

some

of

the

tool

forms

changed

during

the

life

of

the

site.

-

20^

-

Flint

blades

were

struck

off

double-ended

and

pyramidal

cores

with

crested

blades

as

a

by-product.

The

sickle

blades

in

the

lower

levels

had

finely

denticulated

edge

retouch

with

backing

and

were

often

retouched

transversely

at

the

ends.

In

the

upper

levels

most

of

the

sickle

blades

were

segmented

with

coarse

denticulation

(Kirkbride,

1969

9

50).

Many

of

the

arrowheads

had

pressure-flaked

tangs

which

were

formed

by

a

slight

narrowing

of

the

blade

but

a

fragment

of

at

least

one

notched

arrowhead

was

found

on

the

site.

These

were

the

main

diagnostic

tools

but

many

other

types

were

found

such

as

angle

and

dihedral

burins,

stubby

awls

and

a

variety

of

flake

scrapers.

Obsidian

was

used

throughout

the

sequence.

Flaked

and

polished

stone

axes

were

numerous

and

there

were

two

small

ones

made

from

imported

stones

which

had

been

polished

all

over.

Bone

tools

were

quite

abundant

and

included

borers,

pins

and

spatulae.

All

levels

except

those

at

the

bottom

of

Trench

B

contained much

white

plaster

ware.

The

most

common

shape

of

vessel

was

a

flared

bowl

with

a

high

flared

ring

base.

Two

types

of

heavier

vessel

were

also

found,

both

of

them

deep

cylindrical

jars

with

flat

bases

quite

like

those

from

Tell

Ramad.

One

had

a

plain

rim

and

the

other

one

an

everted

lip

which

included

a

ledge

inside

for

a

lid.

A

little

pottery

was

found

in

the

upper

building

in

Trench

A

and

in

the

pits

near

the

surface

in

Trench

B.

Pottery

was

absent

in

the

lower

levels

at

the

site

although

in

view

of

the

small

area

dug

Kirkbride

does

not

rule

out

the

possibility

that

these

apparently

aceramic

levels

might

yield

pottery

in

more

extensive

excavations

(1969>

^8).

Three

charcoal

samples

from

the

bottom

of

Trench

B

have

been

14

C

dated,

the

average

of

the

result

being

a

figure

of

5950

B.C.

K-1^28,

1^29,

1^30

(Kirkbride,

1969,

50).

The

buildings

at

Labweh,

many

of

the

artifacts

and

the

form

of

the

burials

bear

a

general

resemblance

to

remains

on

some of

the

Neolithic

2

sites

I

have

considered

so

far.

The

parallels

with

Level

II

at

Tell

Ramad

are

particularly

close

as

Kirkbride

has

pointed

out

(1969,

51).

The

buildings were

constructed

-

205

-

in

the

same

way

with

stone

footings

and

plaster

floors

although

those

at

Ramad

had

only

one

room

and

at

Labweh

several.

The

flint

industry

is

similar

in

both

core

technique

and

the

range

of

tools

made.

There

is

a

particularly

close

resemblance

between

the

sickle

blades and

arrowheads

at

Labweh

and

those

at

Ramad

II.

An

abundance

of

white

plaster

vessels

is

another

trait

common

to

both.

Furthermore,

the

dates

are

in

close

agreement.

These

parallels

are

sufficiently

close

to

indicate

that

the

lower

levels

at

Labweh

were

occupied

in

Neolithic

2,

albeit

at

the

very

end

of

this

stage.

The

cores,

after

all,

already

show

that

shift

away

from

the

double-ended

type

which

is

a

characteristic

of

the

of

the

Levantine Neolithic and

there

still

remains

the

possi-

bility,

although

I

think

it

unlikely,

that

pottery

might

be

found

in

the

lowest

levels.

Labweh,

then,

was

first

occupied

at

the

very

end

of

Neolithic

2

by

people

whose

material

culture

was

akin

to

that

of

Tell

Ramad

on

the

other

side

of

the

Anti-Lebanon

range.

The

parallels

are

so

close

that

Labweh

may

reason-

ably

be

included

in

the

same

regional

group

as

the

sites

in

the

Damascus

basin.

Tell

aux Scies,

Dik

el

Mehdi

II,

Saaideh

Several

surface

sites

in

Lebanon

should

now

be

considered. Two

of

them,

Tell

aux

Scies

and

Dik

el

Mehdi

II

are

near

the

coast.

Tell aux

Scies

is

in

the

dunes

just

south

of

Beirut

and

the

main

collections

from

it

were

made

by

Bergy

in

19.32.

The

site

is

now

buried

beneath

rubbish

dumps

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

131).

Bergy

also

collected

material

from

Dik

el

Mehdi

II,

a

site

in

the hills

immediately

behind

Antelias

a

little

north

of

Beirut

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965»

83).

These

finds

were

deposited

in

the

University

Saint-Joseph

and

have

since

been

discussed

by

Cauvin

(1968,

220ff).

The

material

which

I

have

studied

from both

sites

was

quite

homogeneous

although

there

were

intrusive

elements.

Tell

aux

Scies

had

some

pyramidal

cores

and

a

number

of

double-ended

ones,

mostly

of

the

keeled

variety.

Associa-

ted

with

these

were

many

crested

blades.

Many

of

the

tools

were

made

on

blades

from

these

double-ended

cores.

Among

them

was

a

group

of sickle

blades

from

which

the

site

took

its

name.

These

had

nibbled

or

finely-denticulated

cutting

-

206

-

edges

but

very

fev

were

"backed

or

truncated.

The

arrowheads

fell

into two

groups.

One

consisted

of

arrowheads

with

a

short

straight

or

hollow-based

tang.

The

tang

was

defined

by

a

pair

of

notches

and

there

were

pairs

of

notches

along

the

blade.

These

arrowheads

may

also

have

had

a

little

light

edge

retouch.

The

others

had

long

tangs

without

shoulders

and

were

retouched

with

squamous

pressure-flaking.

The

remaining

blade

tools

from

Tell

aux

Scies

consisted

of

angle

and

dihedral

burins,

some

borers, end-scrapers

and

retouched

blades.

There

were

a

number

of

flake

scrapers

which

should

probably

be

grouped

with

the

blade

tools

and

also

several

axes

and

adzes

or

chisels.

The

axes

were

flaked

with

a

polished

cutting

edge

and

were

oval

or

trapezoidal

in

shape;

one

was

polished

all

over

and

had

straight

sides.

The

adzes

or

chisels

were

smaller

and

were

flaked

but not

polished.

There

were

also

a

few

small

flaked

picks.

The

collection

from

Dik

el

Mehdi

II

was

smaller

but

many

of

the

same

artifacts

were

represented.

The

cores

and

associated

waste

products

were

similar

as

were

the

burins,

borers

and

scrapers.

There

were

also

a

side-

notched

arrowhead,

one

or

two

trapezoidal

axes

or

adzes

and

several

core

choppers.

Cauvin

has

pointed

out

that

there

are

many

similarities

between

these

two

assemblages

and

the

material

found

at

Tell

Ramad

in

Level

I

(1968,

227).

They

have

the

same

techniques of

blade

production

and

many

of

the

same

dis-

tinctive

tool

types

such

as

notched

arrowheads,

long

sickle

blades

and flaked

and

polished

axes.

It

would

seem,

therefore,

that

Tell

aux

Scies

and Dik

el

Mehdi

belong

within

the

same

regional

cultural

grouping

as

Tell

Ramad

I

and

that

these

sites

were

occupied

at

about

the

same

time.

One

other

site

must

be

mentioned

here

and

that

is

Saaideh

in

the

Beka'a.

Several

years

ago

a

Neolithic

flint

assemblage

was

found

3.2

m

below

the

present

ground

surface

in

an

irrigation

sump

a

little

to

the

west

of the

village

at

Saaideh

(Hours,

1969,

32).

The

flints

all

belonged

to

the

same

industry

and

-

207

~

among

them

were

four

double-ended

keeled

cores

with

the

appropriate

"blades.

A

number

of

these

had

"been

retouched

with

a

finely

denticulated

edge

and

used

as

sickle

"blades.

The

rest

of

the

tools

consisted

of

end-scrapers

on

blades,

burins

and

a

large

"borer;

there

was

also

a

fragment

of

obsidian.

This

assemblage,

though

much

sparser

than

that

from Tell

aux

Scies

and

Dik

el

Mehdi

II,

has the

same

characteristics

as

Hours

has

observed

(1969,

36).

It

is

thus

another

Neolithic

2

site

and

was

probably

occupied

in

the

second

half

of

the

7th

millennium.

The

site

was

located

quite

by

chance

because

it

was

so

deeply

buried.

No

other

Neolithic

2

sites

have

been

discovered

in

the

Beka'a

but

this

is

probably because

they

too

are

covered

by

soil

which

has

washed

off

the

surrounding

mountains

onto

the

valley

floor.

The

closest cultural

parallels

for

Labweh

and

the

three

unexcavated

sites

are

with

Tell

Ramad

in

Levels

I

and

II

and

the

other

Damascus

basin

sites.

All

four

belong

within

the

West

Syrian

group.

Several

other

Neolithic

2

sites

in

Lebanon

and

Syria

should

now

be

mentioned.

Nacharini

There

was

some

Neolithic

2

material

in

the

top

layer

at

Nacharini.

This

consisted

of

pressure-flaked

tanged

arrowheads

associated

with

retouched

blades

and

other

tools,

enough

to

indicate

that

the

site

was

occupied

intermittently

in

Neolithic

2

and

possibly

a

little

later.

The

finds

are

sufficiently

like

those

at

Tell

Ramad

II

for

the

site

to be

included

in

the

West

Syrian

Group.

Mugharet

el

Abde

A

mixed

assemblage of

material

was

collected

from

the

surface

of

this

site

which

is

near

Yabrud.

Among

the

tools

were

some

segmented

blades

and

a

notched

arrowhead

which

can

be

paralleled

at

Tell

Ramad

in

levels

I

and

II

(Nasrallah,

1951,

9^ff)

so

this

site

may also have

been occupied

in

Neolithic

2.

-

208

-

The

Hauran

One

surface station

in

the

Hauran

has

yielded

a

collection

of

13

"blades

(de

Contenson,

1969c,

6k).

They

were

all

large

and

unretouched

with

narrow-

rounded

"buTbar

ends

characteristic

of

platform

preparation

on

double-ended

cores.

They

may

tentatively

be

attributed

to

a

Neolithic

2

site

although

the

exact

location

of

their

findspot

is

not

known.

There

is

insufficient

evidence

to

assign

the

site

to

any

regional

group.

Ras

Shamra

The

great

mound

of

Ras

Shamra

was

first

occupied

in

the

Neolithic

and

remains

of

this

earliest

settlement

have

been

found

on

the

natural

subsoil

at

the

bottom

of

several soundings

made

beneath

the

temple

acropolis

at

the

north-east

corner

of

the

site

and

under

the

Palace

garden

in

the

north-west

sector

(Schaeffer,

1962,

151).

The

full

extent

of

the

settlement

is

not

known

as

no

deep

soundings

have

been

made

in

the

southern

half

of

the

mound

but

on

the

evidence

of

the

trenches

excavated

so

far

it

may

have

been

about

8

ha

in

area.

It

was

thus

one

of

the

largest

Neolithic

sites

in

Syria

although

we

do

not

know

if this

whole

area

was

occupied

at

the same time

in

the

early

phases.

The

Neolithic

settlement

stretched

along

the

southern

bank

of

the

Nahr

el

Fidd

which

reaches

the

sea

1

km

west of

the site

at

Minet

el

Beidha.

This

first

settlement belongs

to

Phase

VC

or

the

Early

Neolithic

(Ne"olithique

Ancien)

in

the

Ras

Shamra

sequence

and

is

distinguished

from

all

later

phases

by

an

absence

of

pottery

(Schaeffer,

1962,

153).

Stone

structures

were

found

in

one

of

the

soundings

(Kuschke,

1962,

261)

and

traces of

surfaces

with

refuse

of

human

occupation

in

the

others

(de

Contenson,

1962,

509)

but

the

trenches

were

too

restricted

in

area

to

give

us

an

idea

of

the

layout

of

the

settlement.

An

enigmatic

stone

structure

was

found

in

1933

at

the

bottom

of

the

first

soundings

to

be

excavated.

It

consisted

of

a

sloping

ramp

of

stones

apparently

forming

a

glacis

(Schaeffer,

1962,

157).

The

same

structure

was

found

a

little

further

to

the

east

and

Schaeffer

was

inclined

to

believe

it

was

a

defensive

perimeter

wall.

The

shape

of

the

ramp

makes

this

unlikely

-

209

-

but

the

true

nature

of

the

feature

is

unclear

for

many

of the

stones

may

simply

have

fallen

down

the

slope.

A

more

probable

explanation

is

that

the

structure

was

a

terrace

wall

for

it

faces

the

river

and

would

have

supported

the layers behind.

This

suggestion

was

advanced

by

Schaeffer

himself

at

first

and

then

rejected

in

favour

of

the

idea

of

a

defensive

glacis

on

analogy

with

the

PPNA

perimeter wall

at

Jericho

(Schaeffer,

1962,

158).

Enough

is

known

about

the

artifacts

of

this

phase

to

determine

the

cultural

affinities

of

the

settlement

but

not

to

give

us

a

detailed

picture

12

of

how

the

inhabitants

lived.

The

flint

industry

was

based

upon

blade

production

although

flake

tools

made

up

a

significant

proportion

of

the

assemblage.

The

blades

were

struck

off

conical

cores for

the

most

part

while

some

of

the

flakes

came

from

discoid

cores.

Many

of the

sickle

blades

were

segmented

(de

Contenson,

1962,

509)

and

almost

all

had

a

finely

denticulated

cutting

edge.

At

least

one

notched

arrowhead

was

found

in

the

sounding

west

of

the

Temple

of

Baal

but

most of

them

were

tanged.

The

tang

was

defined

by

a

narrowing

of

the

blade

rather

than

with

true shoulders

and

the

tools

were

retouched with

pressure-flaking.

The

other

blade

tools

consisted

of

burins,

borers

and

end-scrapers.

Most

of

the

flake

tools

were

scrapers

and

some

of

these

were

quite

large.

A

little

obsidian

was

used

in

this

phase

although

in

what

amounts

is

not

known.

Two

of

the

pieces

analysed

came

from

Ciftlik

and

one

from

the

unidentified

3d

source

which

may

be

in

eastern

Anatolia

(Renfrew

et

al.,

1966,

65,

33).

Several

other

classes

of

artifacts

were

found

but

none

in

any

great

quantity.

There

were

a

few

small

polished

axes

(Schaeffer,

1962,

fig.

3)

and

fragments

of

basalt

and

limestone

bowls,

some

of

which

were

polished.

Several

querns

were

found

and

some

smaller

objects

carved

in

limestone

(de

Contenson,

1962,

509).

At

least

one

piece

of

white

ware

was

recovered

from

this

phase

in

the

sounding

west

of

the

Temple

of

Baal

and

also

a

carnelian

bead.

Bone

tools

seem

to

have

been

scarce

but

among

them

were

borers

and

handles

for

other

tools.

Two

anthropomorphic

figurines

were

also

found, one

of

baked

clay

and

one

of

limestone

(Schaeffer,

1962,

fig.

1A).

-

210

-

Three

charcoal

samples

have

"been

analysed

for

14

C

giving

dates

of

6U16

±

101

B.C.

P-U60,

6192

± 100

B.C.

P-k59 (Radiocarbon

5,

1963,

83)

and

7080

±

1*00

B.C.

Gsy-102

(Radiocarbon

8,

1966,

138).

The

Philadelphia

dates

accord

well

with

material

of

similar

character

that

has

"been

dated

elsewhere

but

the

Gif-sur-Yvette

determination

would

seem

to

be

too

early.

The

finds

from

Ras

Shamra,

though

scanty,

all

belong

in a

Neolithic

2

context.

This

conclusion

based

on

an

examination

of

the

artifacts

is

reinforced

by

the

stratigraphic

and

chronological

evidence.

The

sequence

at

Ras

Shamra

was

continuous

throughout

Phase

V

and

the

VC

levels

were

stratified

directly

below

those

containing

material

of

the

stage.

The

llf

C

deter-

minations

place

the

occupation

in

the

second

half

of

the

7th

millennium.

Although

the

flint industry,

white

ware

and

other

artifacts

are

all

characteristic

of late

Neolithic

2

in

the

Levant,

the

regional cultural

affinities

of

the

settlement

at

Ras

Shamra

are

less

clear.

The

core

technique

and

typology

of

the

sickle

blades

and arrowheads

are

different

from

the

usual

forms

found

on

Euphrates

sites

ruling

out

any close

connection

there.

A

much

better

comparison

can

be made

with

the

finds

from

Tell

Ramad

I

and

II,

parti-

cularly

between

the

flint

assemblages,

so

that

Ras

Shamra

may

reasonably

be

included

in

the

West

Syrian

group

of

sites.

Yet

even

so

certain

differences

remain.

These

are

partly

the

result

of

the

use

of

different

local

raw

materials

for

the

flint

artifacts

and

other

tools

and

also

because

Ras

Shamra

is

separated

from

the

Damascus

basin

and

Lebanese

sites

by

a

considerable

distance.

One

suspects

that

as

in

later

phases

its

closest

cultural affinities

would

be with

sites

in

the

Amuq.

basin

if

any

of

this

stage

had

been

found

there.

Slenfe

Several

keeled

cores

were

found

on

a

surface

station

at

Slenfe

in

the

Jebel

Alawiye

(Cauvin,

1968,

227).

This

would

suggest

that

the

site

was

occupied

in

Neolithic

2

but

nothing

else

is

known

about

it.

The

site

is

high

up

in

the

mountains

and

so

was

probably

used

for

one

or

two

particular

activities

such

as

hunting

or

flint

tool

preparation.

-

211

-

Palestine

The

densest

concentration

of

Neolithic

2

sites

known

in

the

Levant

is

in

Palestine

and

the

adjacent

regions

of

TransJordan,

the

Negev

and

northern

Sinai

(Fig.

33).

This

is

because

since

the

First

World

War

more

excavations

and

surveys

of

prehistoric

sites

have

"been

carried

out

in

this

region

than

anywhere

else

in

the

Near

East.

These

endeavours

have

yielded

a

rich

harvest

of

archaeological

information

particularly

about

Neolithic

2

sites

but

the

very

abundance

of

the

remains

has

raised

problems

of

interpretation

because

until

recently

it

has

not

been

possible

to

relate

cultural

and

economic

developments

in

this

region

to

the

Levant

as

a

whole.

The

main

example

of this

has

been

the

various

explanations

that

have

been

put

forward

to

explain

the

origins

of

Neolithic

2

in

Palestine.

Before

considering

general

questions

of

this

kind

I

will

review

the

discoveries

made

at

the

principal

excavated

sites.

It

will

be

best

to

consider

Jericho

first

because

this

site

has

yielded

the

amplest

well

stratified

remains

for

Neolithic

2

as

it

did

for

Neolithic

1.

Jericho

The

PPNA

settlement

at

Jericho

was

abandoned

about

7700

B.C.

as

we

have

already

seen.

The

site

remained

unoccupied

for

several

centuries

and

then

a

new

settlement,

designated Pre-Pottery

Neolithic

B

(PPNB)

(Kenyon,

1960,

91),

was

founded

on

top of

the

weathered

surface

of

the

mound.

The

reasons

why

the

site

was

deserted

for

so

long

are

not

known

but

probably

depend

on

local

factors

which

affected Jericho

alone.

There

are

no

indications

of

such

a

break

in

occupation

at

this

time

at

sites

further

north

such

as

Tell

Aswad

and

Mureybat

nor

at

the two

sites

in

Palestine

with

stratified

Neolithic

1

and

2

deposits,

Nahal

Oren

and

El

Khiam.

The

new

settlement

was

at

least

as

large

as

the

PPNA

one

for

remains

of

it

were

found

in

Trenches

I

(D,

F),

II

and

III

(Kenyon,

1960,

91)

and

sites

E

and

M

(Kenyon,

1955?

109).

The

settlement

may

have

been

even

larger

for

in

Trenches

II

and

III

it

extended

beyond

the

limits

of

the

Middle

Bronze

Age

Fig.

33

Neolithic

2

Palestinian

sites

FIGURE

33

Neolithic

2

Palestinian

sites

1

Kfar

Giladi

Quarry

2

Beisamun

3

Iraq

el

Barud

4

Nahal

Oren

5

Megiddo

6

Sheikh

Ali

7

Munhatta

8

26

9

26A

10

Jaffa

11 70

12

71

13 64

14

64A

15

62/0

16

62/1

17

Tell

el

Far'ah

18

Rafidiyeh

19

Jericho

20

Teleilat

Ghassul

21

Tell

en-Nasbeh

22

Tell

el

Ful

23

Abu

Gosh

24

Mar

Elias

25

Tantur

26

Belt

Tamir

27

Etam

28

Tahuneh

29

El

Khiam

30

¥adi

Khareitun

31

Abu

Suwan

32

Middle Field

33

Jisr

Shueib

34

Qasr

el

Hallabat

35

Azraq

36

Site

212

37

Site

213

38

Qasr

el

Uweinid

39

Site

243

40 Site

220

41

Kharaneh

IV

42

Kharaneh

-

Site

1

43

Kharaneh

-

Site

2

44

Kharaneh

-

Site

3

45

¥adi

Dhobai

A

46

¥adi

Dhobai

B

47

¥adi

Dhobai

C

48

¥adi

Dhobai

D

49

¥adi

Dhobai

El

50

Beidha

51

Shaqaret

M'siad

52

Bir

et-Taiyiba

53

Adh

Dhaman

54

Ain Abu

Nakheileh

55

Kilwa

-

Site

19

56

¥adi

Ghazzeh

-

Site D2

57

Halutza

Dunes

58

Halutza

-

Site

83

59

Halutza

-

Site

86

60

Halutza

-

Site

87

61

Halutza

-

Site

89

62

Nizzana

unnumbered

63

Nizzana

unnumbered

64

Nizzana

unnumbered

65

Nahal

Boqer

66

Nahal Divshon

67

Har

Harif

G2

68

¥adi

Sa'al

69

Jebel

Meghara

70

Suez

Canal

71

Jebel

el

Egma

-

212

-

town

wall

which

had

cut

into

PPNB

levels

(Kenyon,

1960,

91).

The

buildings

of

the

PPNB

settlement

were

rectilinear

and

built

of

mud-

bricks

sometimes

on

stone

foundations.

The

bricks

were

parallel-sided

with

rounded

ends

and

had

deep

thumb

prints

in

them

to

act

as

keys

for

mud

mortar.

No

buildings

were

fully

exposed

so

it

is

not

known

what

their

complete

plan

was

but

a

good

idea

of

the

arrangement

of

some

of

them

was

obtained.

They

consisted

of

a

number

of

rooms

arranged

around

a

courtyard.

The

main

rooms

were

very

large,

two

examples

being

6.5

by

h

m

and

7

by

3

m

each

(Kenyon,

1957b,

53),

and

were

subdivided

by

partition

walls

with

two

or

three

openings

in

each

framed

with

wooden

posts.

These

spacious

rooms

were

accompanied by

much

smaller

chambers

and

storage

bins.

The

floors

of

the

rooms

were

covered

with

plaster

painted

red

or

cream

and

then

burnished.

Recent

analyses

have

confirmed

that

the

plaster

was

made

of

lime

(Frierman,

1971,

215;

Gourdin,

Kingery,

1975,

1^-7).

Some

floors

were

covered

with

reeds or

circular

rush

mats (Kenyon,

1957b,

56).

The

courtyards

had

clay

floors

which

were covered

with

ashes

from

numerous

fires

(Kenyon,

1957b,

5*0.

They

formed

the

core

of

each

building

complex

but

it

is

not

certain

if

the

rooms

around them

belonged

to

one

or

more

buildings.

These

complexes

were

frequently

rebuilt

on

a

slightly

different

alignment,

one

of

them

in

site

E

no

less

than

1^

times.

They

apparently

had

a

single

storey and

the same

type

was

found

all

over

the mound.

It

is

probable

that

they

were

family

houses.

One

building

similar

in

other

respects

to

these

houses

had

an

unusual

feature.

A

rectangular

room

had

been

separated

off

and

a

niche

cut

in an

end

wall.

Nearby

a

chipped-out

pillar

of

volcanic

stone

was

found

which

fitted

into

the

niche

(Kenyon,

I957b,

58ff).

Kenyon

has

suggested

that

the

room

was

a

shrine

but

there

is

no

clear

indication

of

what

purpose

it

served.

The

overall

plan

of

another

building

was

different

from

the

usual

houses

even

if

details

of

its

construction

were

the

same

as

in

the

other

buildings.

It

consisted

of

a

series

of

rooms

with

curvilinear

walls

which

surrounded

a

-

213

-

rectangular plastered

space

6

m

long

and

at

least

U

m

wide

(Kenyon,

195^,

51).

This

area

was

believed

to

be

a

central

room.

In

the

centre

of the

floor

of

this

room

lay

a

sunken

basin

plastered

like

the floor

which

had

apparently

been

used

as

a

hearth.

This

building

was

different

from

the

houses;

Kenyon

thought

it

may

have

been

a

temple but

it

could equally

well

have

served

as

a

communal building.

The

houses

of

the

early

PPWB

settlement

were

built

down

the

side

of

the

mound

on

the

evidence

from Trench

I

(Kenyon,

1970,

5U).

Some

were

rebuilt

ten

times

before

there

was

any

change.

Then

a

wall

was

built

near

the

top

of

the

slope.

The

ground

in

front

was

levelled

off

and

the

debris

piled

up

behind

the

wall

so

that

it

formed

a

terrace.

Houses

were then

built

on

top

of

the

terrace

behind

the

wall.

The

line of this

wall

was

irregular

and

since

it

has

only

been

found

in

Trench

I

and

Site

M

it

is

not

known

if

it

encircled

the

site.

The

ground

in

front

of

it

sloped

very

gently

so

it

may

have

been

simply

a

terrace

wall

rather than

a

defensive

work

as

Kenyon

has

suggested.

It

may

be

that

the

settlement

contracted

on

this side

and

that

the

wall

was

built

to

strengthen

the

upper

part of

the

settlement

as

more

debris

accumulated.

Eventually

this

terrace

wall

partly

collapsed

and

a

replacement

was

built

further

to

the

west

(Kenyon,

1970,

55).

It

is

thought

that yet

another

wall

may

ultimately

have

been

built

even

further

out

as

the

settlement

expanded

still

more.

The

dead

of

the

PPNB

settlement

were

buried

beneath

the

floors

of

the

houses

or

in

the

fill

of

abandoned

buildings.

The

graves

frequently

contained

collective

burials

in

which

many

of

the

skeletons

were

disordered

(Kenyon,

195l|.,

U8).

Some

bones

were

articulated

but

others

were

not

and

many

of the

corpses

lacked

skulls.

A

cache

of

seven

skulls was

found

beneath

the

floor

of

a

room

and

two more

under

another

floor

in

the

same

house

(Kenyon,

195?b,

62ff).

The

jaws

had

been

removed

from

all

but

one

of

them

and

the

face

and

base

of

the

skull

covered with

plaster.

One

had

bands

of

paint

on

the

top

of

the

skull.

The

features

were

modelled

naturalistically

with

shells

for

-

211*

-

eyes

to

give

the

skulls

the

appearance of

live

human

beings.

One

other

plastered

skull

was

found

at

the

north

end of

the

mound

(Kenyon,

1970,

53)

making

a

total

of

ten

altogether.

Five

of

these

skulls

have

recently

been

examined

and

were

shown

to

be

adult males

(Strouhal,

1973,

,

.

The

practice

of

separating

skulls

from

corpses

and

reburying

the

disor-

dered

skeletal

remains

in

collective

graves

was

widespread

in

the

Levant

in

Neolithic

2.

Restoring

the

faces

of

these

skulls

with

plaster

was

a

more

localised

custom

found

only

at

Jericho,

Tell

Ramad

and,

as

we shall

see,

Beisamun.

One

other

aspect

of

the

treatment

of

detached

skulls

at

Jericho

differed

from

the

practice

on

West

Syrian

and

Euphrates

sites

such

as

Tell

Ramad

and

Abu

Hureyra.

Apart

from

the

ten

plastered

examples

hardly

any

detached

skulls

were

found

buried

in

the

excavated

parts

of

the

settlement

which

suggests

that

they

had

been

gathered

together

and

deposited

in

one or

two

special

.locations.

The

flint

raw

material

for

the

PPNB

chipped

stone

industry

was

quite

as

varied

as

in

the

Proto-Neolithic/PPNA.

Some of

it

was

buff,

brown

or

grey

and

of

obvious

local

derivation.

A

proportion,

however,

was

fine-grained,

often

veined

and

more

lightly

coloured

in

pink,

even

purple

or

a

honey

brown.

We

have

already

noted

that

this

colourful

flint

was

used

at

Jericho

and

at

Nahal

Oren

in

Neolithic

1

but

in

Neolithic

2

large

blade

tools,

particularly

arrowheads,

were

made

of

this

material

at

these

and

a

number

of

other

sites

in

Palestine

and

southern

Syria

such

as

Munhatta

and

Tell

Ramad.

The

sources

of

the

brightly

coloured

flint

have

not

been

determined

but

it

has

tentatively

been

suggested

that

one

may

lie

in

the

hills

that

form

the

south-east

extension

of

Mt.

Carmel

between

the

coastal

plain

and

the

Plain

of

Esdraelon

(Noy

et

al.

,

1973,

86).

Although

the

sources

of

this

flint

have

not

been

located

with

certainty

the

idea

has

been

put

forward

that

this

raw

material

formed

an

object

of

trade

or

exchange

(Mellaart,

1975,

65),

an

hypothesis

which might

be

questioned

if

only

because

the

material

is

heavy

and

since

so

much

has

been

found

on

archaeo-

logical

sites

it

is

difficult

to

see

how

it

might

have

been

transported

before

-

215

-

"beasts

of

"burden

were

domesticated.

It

is

noticeable

that

this

special

flint

was

preferred

for

the

larger

blade

tools,

many

of

which

were

retouched

with

pressure-flaking,

and

this

functional

distinction

in

the use of

raw

material

may

point

to

another

explanation.

Bordes and

Crabtree

have

found

that

long

blades

may

be

pressure-flaked

more

readily

when

the

flint

has

been

heated

(Crabtree,

Butler,

196U,

1;

Bordes,

1969,

197).

This

process

can

alter

the

appearance

of

the

flint

by turning

it

pink

or

other

colours

and

may

also

make

the

surface of

struck

pieces

shiny

and

smooth,

all

of

which

can

be

seen

on

the

distinctive

Neolithic

2

flint.

This

suggests

that

the

material

is

medium-grained

flint

of

the

usual

kind

found

in

beds

in

the

lime-

stone

of

Palestine

and

southern

Syria

or

as

nodules

in

wadis

which

has

been

collected

and

then

heated

to

make

it

easier

to

work.

This

would

also

explain

why

no

sources

of

this

material

have

been

identified

with

certainty.

Most of

the

flint tools

in

the

PPNB

at

Jericho

were

made

on

blades

struck

off

double-ended

cores

of

which

some

were

keeled.

The

basic

core

technique

was

thus

exactly

the

same

as

on

most

Neolithic

2

sites

in

the

West

Syrian

and

Middle

Euphrates

groups.

Some

of

the

most

common

tool

types

were

the

arrowheads.

Almost

all

were

tanged

but

some

had

pairs

of

side

notches

as

well,

quite

like

examples

on

West

Syrian

sites.

Another

group

had

long

tangs

with

pronounced

wings

or

barbs

formed

by

deep

notches

on

either

side

of

the

tang.

These

appear

to

have

been

a

specifically

Palestinian

type.

A

third

group

had

tangs

defined

by

shoulders

or

a

simple

narrowing

of

the

blade

at

the

tang

end.

These

types

were

common

on

West

Syrian

sites

and

were

found

on

other

sites

throughout

the

Levant.

The

tangs

of

most

of

the

arrowheads

were

heavily

retouched

with

pressure-flaking

but

although

some

also

had

pressure-flaking

on

the

rest

of

the

blade

most

were

only

lightly

retouched

at

the

tip.

The

other

main

class

of tool

was

the

sickle

blades.

These

had

nibbled

or

finely-denticulated

cutting

edges

but

were

usually

not

otherwise

retouched.

Dihedral

and

angle

burins

on

blades were

fairly

common.

Borers

on

blades

were

-

216

-

also made

but

these

were

quite

rare.

Scrapers

of

all

types

were

uncommon especially

when

compared

with

sites

further

north.

Some

discoids

were

made

on

core

tablets

but

there

were

few

other

flake

scrapers

or

end-scrapers

on

blades.

Core

tools

were

also

exceed-

ingly

scarce.

There

were

no large

core

tools

at

all

and only

one

or

two

small

flaked

axes

with

a

tranchet

cutting

edge.

Small

greenstone

axes

were

found

which,

like

these

flaked

flint

ones,

may

have

been

used

for

woodworking.

About

]%

of

the

chipped

stone

industry

at

Jericho

was

of

obsidian

(Renfrew

et_al.

,

1966,

61).

Two

pieces

analysed

by

Renfrew

and

his

colleagues

were

found

to

be

from

the

Ciftlik

source

(Renfrew

et

al.,

1966,

table

1)

as

was

a

third

piece

recently

analysed

in

the

Bradford

programme.

One

other

piece

analysed

at

Bradford

was of

green

obsidian

but

it

could

not

be

ascribed

to

any

known

source.

It

did

not,

however,

come

from

Ciftlik

so

we

now

know

that

obsidian

from

at

least

two

sources

was

reaching

PPNB

Jericho.

The

ground

stone

tools

at

Jericho

were

numerous and

varied.

The

most

characteristic

objects

were

the

open-mouthed

querns

(Kenyon,

1957b,

57)

»

some

of

which

were

stepped,

a

type

which

has

since

been

found

at

Munhatta

and

Tell

Ramad.

Plano-convex

rubbers

were

used

with

these

querns

to

grind

grain.

Hammerstones,

stone

balls

and

stone

polishers

were

all

made

and

also

pestles

which

are

rare

on

other

Neolithic

2

sites.

Dishes

and

bowls

were

carved

from

a

local

soft

limestone

and

some

were then

given

a

fine polish.

Among

the

other

stone

tools

were

spindle whorls

and

weights

which

may

have

been

used

in

simple

looms.

Bone

tools

such

as

borers

and

spatulae

were

made

but

these

were

less

abundant

than

in

the

PPNA

at

Jericho

and

also

less

common

than

on

most

West

Syrian

and

Middle

Euphrates

Neolithic

2

sites.

One

of

the

more

unusual

groups

of

finds

from

PPNB

Jericho

was

a

series

of

stylised

anthropomorphic

plaster

figures.

Fragments

of

several

of

these

were

found

in

Square

DII

(Kenyon,

1960,

92).

One

which

could

be

reconstructed

from

the

waist

up

was

almost

life-sized

and

had

a

rectangular

head

but

no

indication

of

facial

features.

It

was

decorated

with

red,

brown

and

cream

-

217

-

paint.

Two

groups

of three

plaster

figures

were

found

by

Garstang

(1935,

166)

in

Neolithic

levels

at

the

northern

end

of

the

site

but

their

precise

stratigraphic

position

was

uncertain.

It

now

seems

likely

that

they

can

be

associated with

the

figures

found

in

Kenyon's

excavations and

so

dated

to

the

PPNB

phase

of

occupation.

The groups

each

consisted

of

a

life-sized

man

and

a

smaller

woman

and

child.

Garstang

was

able

to

recover

only

one

head

of

these

figures

which

was

thin

and

spade-shaped

like those

found

by

Kenyon but

its

face

was

naturistically

modelled

as

were

the

other

plaster

fragments

which

could be

identified,

with

eyes

made of

shells.

The

face

was

made

more

life-

like

still

with

painted

lines

to

represent

hair

on

the

forehead

and

a

beard.

The

modelling

of

these

figures

with

plaster,

shells

and

paint

reminds

one

of

the

way

the

plastered

skulls

were

made

but

there

is

no

indication

that

the

two

were

used

together

like

the

plaster

figures

and

plastered

skulls

at

Tell

Ramad.

For

the

moment

the

function of

the

Jericho

plaster

figures

remains

obscure.

Clay

was

used

to

make

human

and

animal

figurines

(Kenyon,

1957b,

59ff),

finds

which

are.common

to

most

excavated

Neolithic

2

sites.

There

were

also

objects of

adornment

such

as

shell

and

malachite

beads;

the

raw

material

for

the

latter

was

probably

brought

up

from

the

Wadi

Arabah.

Turquoise

was

imported

from

Sinai and

cowrie

shells

from

the

Mediterranean

or

Red

Sea.

A

little

oval

piece of

bone

carved to

resemble

a

human

face

with

two

holes

for

eyes

may

have

been

a

bead

or

button.

The

1/4

C

determinations

for

PPNB

Jericho

are

even

more

difficult

to

inter-

pret

than

those

for

the

preceding

phases.

Six

have

been

made

altogether

and

of

these

two

from

the

British

Museum

and three

from

the

Philadelphia

laboratories

probably

give

results

approaching

the

true

age

of

the

samples.

Unfortunately

when

considered together

they

are

contradictory.

The

British

Museum

determina-

tions

of

7220

±

200

B.C.

BM-115

(Radiocarbon

5,

1963,

107)

and

6760

±

150

B.C.

BM-253

(Radiocarbon

11,

1969, 291)

are

thought

to

date

the

middle

of

the

PPNB

phase.

Yet

two

of the

Philadelphia

dates

which

should

date

early

PPNB

levels

-

218

-

are

6660

±

75

B.C.

P-380

and

6708

±

101

B.C.

P-381

(Radiocarbon

5,

1963,

It

seems

that

once

again

the

Philadelphia

determinations

are

several

centuries

later

than

those

from

the

British

Museum.

One

other

sample

stratified

above

P-380

in

Site

E

gave

a

date

of

7006

±

103

B.C.

P-382

(Radiocarbon

5,

1963,

Qk}

which

only

adds

to

the

confusion.

It

is

not

possible

from

these

dates

to

make

an

accurate estimate

of

when PPNB

Jericho

was

resettled

or

when

it

was

abandoned

although

given

the

clustering

of

the

determinations

it

is

probable

that

the

total

duration

of

the

phase

may

have

been

nearer

a

half

than

a

whole

millennium.

One

might

guess

that

the

PPNB

settlement

began

about

7000

B.C.

and

lasted

until

6500

B.C.

or

a

little

after

but

this

estimate

could

be

in

error

by

several

centuries.

One

inference

from

this

would

be

that

Jericho

was

deserted

for

about

half

a

millennium

between

PPNA

and

PPNB.

PPNB

Jericho

was

apparently

abandoned

well

before

the end

of

the

7th

millennium

and

was

not

resettled

until

much

later.

Jericho

was

occupied

during

Neolithic

2

and

the

general

character

of

the

remains

on

the

site

link

it

culturally

with

Neolithic

2

sites

in

the

West

Syrian

and

Middle

Euphrates

groups.

There

are

the

rectilinear

mud-brick

build-

ings

and

plaster

floors,

a

basically

similar

flint

industry

though

with

some

typological

differences and

the

Neolithic

2

burial

customs

though

again

with

certain

local

special

features.

These

broad

similarities

place

PPNB

Jericho

firmly

within

Neolithic

2

of

the

Levant but

the

particular

local differences

we

have

noted

mean

that

Jericho

must

be

regarded

as

a

site

within

a

third

regional

cultural

grouping.

This

third

regional

group

consists

of

sites

in

Palestine.

Nahal

Oren

The

upper

layer

at

Nahal

Oren,

layer

I,

was

also

occupied

in

Neolithic

2.

This

layer

covered

only

the

centre

and

upper

parts

of

the

site

(Stekelis,

Yizraely,

1963,

2;

Noy

et

al.,

1973,

78)

and was

much

disturbed.

Nothing

was

found

to

indicate

that

the

site

had

been

abandoned

between

layers

II

and

I

so

it

is

thought

that

the

site

continued

to

be

occupied without

a

break.

-

219

-

Layer

I

varied

from

0.5

to

1.5

m

in

depth

which

may

indicate

that

the

site

was

occupied

for

a

short

period

or

that

occupation

was

intermittent

as

I

have

suggested

for

the

earlier

layers.

Two

stone-walled

structures

were

excavated

on

the

site

but

it

is

likely

that

others

existed which

have

since

been

destroyed.

One

was

a

large

building

paved

with

flat

stones

(Stekelis,

Yizraely,

1963,

2).

This

contained

a

small

inner

chamber

defined

by

another

stone

wall.

The

structure

found

in

the

recent

excavations

had

been built

at

the

top

of

the

site

on

a

specially

levelled

surface.

This

building

which

is

thought

to

have

been

a

house

was

approximately

rectangular

in

shape

and

had

a

clay

floor.

At

a

later

stage

this

building

was

reused

as

a

burial

place.

A

rough

curved

stone

wall

was

erected

inside

which

marked

off

part

of

the

room.

Within

the

chamber

formed

by

the

wall

four

bodies, three

adults

and

a child,

were

buried

in a

crouched

position

and

covered

with

stones

(Noy

et

al.,

1973,

T9ff).

The

skulls

of

the

child

and

one

of

the

adults

were

missing

although

the

mandibles

had

been

left

in

place.

The

skeletons

were

preserved

almost

intact

so

they

could

not

have

been

much

disturbed

when

the

skulls

were

removed. The

two

which

retained

their

skulls

were

each

buried

with

a

shell

bead

and

polished

pebble.

In

addition

one

had

a

bifacially

retouched

flint

knife

in a

bone handle

and

the

other

a

bone

spatula.

Fragments

of

a

fifth

burial

were

found

in

the

same

building

on

the

other

side

of

the

curved

wall

but

this

had

been badly

damaged

by

subsequent

disturbance.

It

had

a

dentalium

bracelet

around

one

wrist.

The

flint

tools

were

made

of

the

same

varied

raw

material

obtained

in

the

vicinity

as

in

the

earlier

layers.

A

very

little

obsidian

was

used

as

in

layers

III

and

II

but

the

sources

from

which

it

was

obtained

are

not

known.

Many of

the

larger

tools

at

Nahal

Oren were

made

on

blades

struck

from

double-

ended

cores

but

there

was

a

significant

proportion

of

small

artifacts

made

on

little

blades

and

flakes

derived

from

prismatic

cores.

This

is

partly

because

much

of

the

available'flint

was

in

the

form

of

small

nodules

but

it

probably

also

represents

some

continuity

in

tradition

from

layer

II.

-

220

-

The two

main

classes

of

flint

artifacts

vere

tanged

arrowheads

and

sickle blades.

Some

of

the

arrowheads

had

pairs

of

notches

along

the

"blade

while

others

were

winged

or

had

clearly

defined

shoulders.

The

notched

arrow-

heads

had

relatively

little

retouch

"but

some

of

the

others

were extensively

retouched

with

pressure-flaking.

This

range

of

types

closely

resembles

the

arrowheads

from

PPNB

Jericho.

The sickle

blades

were

usually

quite

long

with

a

little

nibbled

or

finely

denticulated

retouch.

These

are

similar

to

the

Neolithic

2

sickle

blades

at

Jericho

and

on

West

Syrian

sites.

There

were

a

few

angle

and

dihedral

burins,

abruptly

retouched

borers

on

blades

and

scrapers

on

blades

and

flakes

but

all

these

types

were

relatively

scarce.

As

.in

the

levels

below

there

was

much

admixture

of

artifacts

from

earlier

phases.

Flint,

basalt

and

limestone

axes

and

adzes

were

quite

common

at

Nahal

Oren.

The

flint

axes

were

of

two

types,

small

ones

flaked

all

over

with

a

tranchet

edge

and

larger

flaked

axes

with

a

rounded

polished

cutting

edge.

The

other

stone

axes

were

finished by

flaking,

pecking

and

polishing.

Some

nephrite

objects

were

found

in

the

earlier

excavations

(Stekelis,

Yizraely,

1963,

2)

which

may

have

been

axes.

The

querns

in

layer

I

at

Nahal

Oren

were

different

from

the

hollow

querns

of

layers

IV

to

II

as

they were

stepped

with

an

open

end

(Stekelis,

Yizraely,

1963,

k).

They

were

thus

like

the

querns

at

PPNB

Jericho

and

Tell

Ramad.

These

were

accompanied

by

limestone

and

basalt plano-convex

rubbers.

Lime-

stone

bowls

and

dishes

were

very

common

at

Nahal

Oren.

The

usual

range

of

bone

points

and

spatulae

was

used

at

Nahal

Oren

I

and

these

tools

were

a

little

larger

and

more

robust

than

those

from

earlier

layers

One

unusual

find

was

an

equid phalange

with

a

vertical

hole

drilled

in

the

top

and

pairs

of

holes

on

either

side

of

the

articulation;

it

has

been

suggested

that this

may

have

been

the

body

of

a doll.

Many tiny

beads

were

found

in

the

flotation

residue

of

the

recent

excavation.

Some

were

little

shell

discs

and

others

sections

of

dentalium

(Noy

et

al.,

1973,

88).

Cylindrical

bone

and

-

221

-

stone

beads

were

also

made.

No

1If

C

determinations

have

"been

obtained

for

Nahal

Oren

I

so

the

date

of the

occupation

can

only be

established

by

typological

comparisons

with

other

sites. The

general

character

of

the

remains

places

Nahal

Oren

I

firmly

within

Neolithic

2

in

the

Levant and

therefore

within

the

7th

millennium.

The

characteristics

of

the

flint

industry

and

the

typology

of

the

arrowheads

in

particular

are

so

like

PPNB

Jericho

that

it

is

reasonable

to

suppose

that

both

sites

were

occupied

about

the

same

time.

This

would

mean

that

Nahal

Oren

I

was

probably

inhabited

in

the

early

or

middle

7th

millennium

B.C.

El

Khiam

El

Khiam

is

the

third

site

in

Palestine

at

which

Neolithic

2

remains

have

been

found

stratified

over

Neolithic

1

occupation.

This

material

was

recovered

from

the

topmost

level,

level

A, in

Neuville's

excavations.

This

level was

subdivided

into

three,

A1

which

was

a

surface

deposit

containing

mixed

Neolithic

2,

Chalcolithic,

Byzantine

and

Islamic

artifacts,

and

A2

and

A3

which

were

Neolithic

2

deposits

although

they

also

contained

some

material

from

earlier

levels

(Perrot,

1951,

166,

17^-K

These

levels

corresponded

to

Echegeray's

levels

2

(Prototahunian)

and

1

(Tahunian)

which

was

subdivided

into

1a

and

1b

(Echegeray,

1966,

71,

83).

The

only

structures

in

these

deposits

were

a

straight

stone

wall

and

some

hearths

found

by

Echegeray

in

level

1b

(Echegeray,

1966,

pis.

II,

III).

The

raw

material

for

the

flint

tools

was

obtained

locally

as

in

earlier

levels.

A

very

little

obsidian

was

imported

in

the

form

of

blades.

One

piece

from

level

6

analysed

by

neutron

activation

proved

to

be from

a

source

in

the

Acigo"!

region

(Wright,

Gordus,

1969,

81).

Most

of the tools

were

made

on

blades

but

these

were

struck

off

pyramidal

cores

and

so

were relatively

small.

Arrowheads

were

one

of

the

most

numerous

classes

of

tools

and

there

were

several

types

of

these

(Perrot,

1951, figs.

71,

10-2*1;

72).

Most

were

tanged

although

there

were

a

few

pressure-flaked

leaf-shaped

points.

Some

of

the

tanged

arrowheads

had

pairs

of

notches

along

the

blade

while

most of

the others

-

222

-

had

wings

or

sharply-defined

shoulders.

These

types

of

arrowheads

were

found

both

at

Nahal

Oren

I

and

PPNB

Jericho

but

the

El

Khiam

examples

were

frequently

extensively

retouched

with

pressure-flaking.

Burins

were

very

common

in

these

levels

at

El

Khiam,

the

principal

types

being

angle

and

dihedral

burins.

End-scrapers

on

blades

were

also

numerous

but

outnumbered

by

small

flake

disc

scrapers

(Perrot,

1951,

171).

Other

types

such

as

sickle

blades

were

less

frequent.

These

were

backed

irregular

blades

of

which

only

a

few

had

any

edge

retouch.

This

type

is

different

from

those

found

on

other

Palestinian

and

West

Syrian

sites

partly

because

a

different

core

technique

was

used.

The

scarcity

of

sickle

blades

may

reflect

the

unsuitability

of

the

environment

for

agriculture.

Some

larger

flint

tools

were

found,

among

them

flaked

tranchet

axes,

chisels

and

picks.

There

were

also

a

very

few

flaked

and

polished

axes.

Ground

stone

tools

were

abundant.

Most

of

these

were

made

of

local

lime

stone

but

a

few

were

of

basalt

probably

obtained

from

northern

Palestine

or

Transjordan.

These

included

pestles

and

mortars

as

well

as

rubbers

and

querns.

There

were

one

or

two

decorated

stone

objects

and

also

fragments

of

a

few

limestone

bowls.

No

mention

was

made

of

other

finds

in

the

reports

so

it

does

not

seem

likely

that

many

bone

tools

or

decorative

items

were

found.

This

whole

deposit

at

El

Khiam

was

no

more

than

1.5m

deep

although

one

should

remember

that

some

of

the

original

material

would

have

washed

down

the

slope

of

the

terrace.

The

site

was

probably

occupied

intermittently

in

Neolithic

2

like

Nahal

Oren

though

there

are

indications

that

El

Khiam

con

tinued

to

be

used

for

a

longer

period.

If

one

considers

the

typology

of

the

arrowheads

in

level

A

then

it

is

clear

that

they

include

both

notched

arrow

heads

recalling

those

of

Neolithic

1

and

heavily

pressure-flaked

examples

which

in Syria

where

the

deposits

are

well-dated

would

be

late

7th

or

even

6th

millennium

in

date.

Throughout

the

Levant

there

was

a

tendency

for

pressure-flaking

to

be

used

more

extensively

towards

the

end

of

Neolithic

2

and

into

the

6th

millennium.

While

this

cannot

be

taken

as

a

precise

-

223

-

chronological

indicator

the

presence

of

many

heavily

pressure-flaked

arrow

heads

at

El

Khiam

does

suggest

that

the

site

continued

to

"be

visited

after

occupation

at

Nahal

Oren

I

and

PPNB

Jericho

had

ceased.

Wadi

Khareitun

Neuville

excavated

another

site

on

the

slope

directly

across

the

Wadi

Khareitun

from

El

Khiam.

The

sequence

here

was

the

same

as

at

El

Khiam

and

included

some

Neolithic

2

occupation

(Perrot,

1951,

17*0-

Munhatta

lies

on

the

west

side

of

the

Jordan

valley

about

11

km

south

of

the

Sea

of

Galilee.

It

is

situated

on

a

high

terrace

at

the

point

where

the

Wadi

Bireh

opens

out

into

the

Jordan

valley.

The

depth

of

deposit

on

the

site

amounts

to

some

3

m

(Perrot,

196*1,

325)

which

has

"been

divided

into

six

archaeological

layers,

levels

6

to

3

which

are

Neolithic

2

in

character

and

levels

2

and

1

which

"belong

to

the

Late

Neolithic

(Moore,

1973,

36)

and

Chalcolithic

respectively.

Erosion

of

the

site

has always

"been

severe

and

in

consequence

none

of

the

"buildings

is

preserved

very

high.

Level

6

consisted

of

the

remains

of

the

earliest

settlement

founded

on

the

natural

subsoil.

There

were

earth

floors

laid

on

beds

of

stones,

probably

the

floors

of

dwellings

(Perrot,

1966c,

271),

hearths

and

much

occupation

debris.

The

first

structure

found

in

level

5

"was

a

long

wall

which

ran

across

the

site

from

east

to

west

(Perrot,

196U,

325).

The

foundations

were

built

of

large

stones and

the

superstructure of

mud-bricks.

To

the

south

of

this

wall

there

was

a

paved

area

and

also

a

floor

with

a

number

of

hearths

(Perrot,

1967,

267).

A

large

platform

was

also

found

made

of

five

large

basalt

slabs

with

channels

cut

in

them.

Associated

with

this

structure

was

a

large

trough

with

a

pebble

floor.

The

purpose

of

these

structures

is

unknown

but

one

would

suppose

that

they

were

used

for

some

craft

process.

The

buildings

in

level

h

had

a

single

rectangular

room

with

a

plaster

-

22U

-

floor

which

in some

instances

was polished.

These

rooms

had

walls

at

least

^

m

long

made of

mud-brick reinforced

with

stone

footings

along

the

outer

edge

(Perrot,

1966b,

52).

The

north

wall

of

each

room

had

a

plastered

niche

(Perrot,

1965,

2k9)

like

that

found

in

one

of

the

buildings

at

Jericho but

without

the

upright

stone.

These

buildings

were

separated by

narrow

passages

and

courts

in

which

were

found

hearths

and

the

vestiges

of

stone

structures

which

may

have

had

a

domestic

function.

A

number

of

plaster

floors

were

also found

in

level

3,

presumably

the

remains

of

single-roomed

structures

similar

to

those

in

level

k.

These

were

accompanied by

buildings

of

a

different

kind

and

of

uncertain

purpose.

One

of

these

buildings

had

a

large

circular

court

paved

with

stones

which

may

have

been

partially

roofed

(Perrot,

196^,

327).

It

was

surrounded

by

a

ring

of

chambers

each

about

3

by

5

or

6

m

in

size.

Traces

of

another apparently

similar

structure

were

found

a

little

to

the

west

(Perrot,

1965,

2^9)

and

a

third

in

the

northern

part

of the

site (Perrot,

1966c,

269).

The

plaster

floor

buildings

of

level

h

contained

hearths

and

benches

which

gave

them

the

appearance

of

dwellings,

an

interpretation

strengthened

by

the

fact that

they

were

the

only

numerous and

substantial

structures

found

in

this

level.

Their

presumed

successors

in

level

3,

the

plaster

floors,

were

also

quite

common. This

makes

it

likely

that

the

large,

unusual

circular

buildings

had

another,

perhaps

communal

function.

The

inhabitants

of

Munhatta

3

abandoned

the

site

and

in

the

subsequent

weathering

its

remains

were

gradually

hidden

beneath

a

layer

of

sandy

soil

(Perrot,

1966c,

269).

The

site

had

all

but

disappeared

when

it

was

resettled

much

later

on

(Perrot,

1966b, ^9),

an

indication

of

the

long

period which elapsed

between

Munhatta

3

and

2.

Most

of

the

flint

tools

at

Munhatta

were

made

on

blades

struck

from

keeled

and

other

double-ended

cores

(Perrot,

1966b,

53, fig.

3,

10).

The

most

numerous

group

was

the

arrowheads

all

of

which

had

pronounced

tangs. The

principal

types

had

wings

or

sharp

shoulders

and

some

even

had

pairs

of

barbs

on

the

tang

-

225

-

itself

(Perrot,

1966b,

fig.

k,

9»

10).

Some

arrowheads

were leaf

or

diamond-

shaped

without

shoulders

"but

relatively

few

were

notched.

These

tools

were

usually

retouched

by

pressure-flaking which

was

often

quite

extensive.

Sickle blades

were

also

very

common and

these

had

finely-denticulated

cutting

edges

with

little

other

retouch.

The

remaining

tools

were much

less

abundant

but

they

included

the

same

types

found

on

other

Palestinian

Neolithic

2

sites:

end-scrapers

on

blades

and

flakes,

dihedral

and

angle

burins

and

borers.

Large

flaked

tools

were

not

apparently

found

in

any

numbers

at

Munhatta

as

they were

at

Jericho.

Very

little

obsidian

was

found

at

Munhatta.

A

piece found

in

level

6

came

from

source

1e-f

near

AcigQl

(Wright,

Gordus,

1969,

81),

the

same

area

as

the

piece

analysed

from

El Khiam.

Obsidian

from

this area

is

very

rare

on

Neolithic

2

sites

in

the

Levant

as

much

of

the

Cappadocian

obsidian

which

was

used

came

from

Ciftlik.

Ground

stone

tools

were

particularly

abundant

at

Munhatta.

There

were

the

same

stepped

and

open-ended

querns

as

at

Jericho

and

elsewhere

together

with

rubbers,

grooved

stones,

polishers,

pestles

and

mortars

made

of

basalt

or

limestone

(Perrot,

1966b,

58).

Fragments

of

stone

dishes

and

bowls

were

also

found

but the

only

objects

of

adornment

were

a

few

discoid

and

cylindrical

greenstone

beads.

Bone

tools

were

recovered

at

Munhatta

but

these

have

not

been

discussed

in

any

of

the

reports

which

have

appeared

so

far

and

I

have

not

examined

them.

Clay

figurines

of

humans and

animals

were

another

very

common

find

at

Munhatta.

Many

of

the

anthropomorphic

figurines

were

of

similar

shape

and

somewhat different

from

those

found

on

other

sites.

Each

was

made

of

a

clay

sausage

flattened

at

one

end

to

make

a

base.

The

other

end

was

pinched

flat

and

little

pieces

of

clay

were

applied

to

form

the

eyes

and

nose.

Both

males

and

females

were

represented.

The

animals

were

usually

horned

quadrupeds,

some

of

which

had

a

marked

dorsal

ridge.

Some

were

obviously

cattle

and

others

may

have

been

pigs

or

sheep

and

goats.

Pawns

and

other

abstract

shapes

were

quite

common

as

at

Ramad.

-

226

-

Two

llf

C

determinations

vere

obtained

from

soil

samples

in an

attempt

to

date

the

Neolithic

2

occupation.

These

gave

results

of

5^20

±

hOO

B.C.

M-1792 and

7210

±

500

B.C.

M-1793

(Radiocarbon

12,

1970,

178,

179).

These

dates

have

large

stated

errors

because

of

the

unsatisfactory

nature

of

the

material

dated

and

do

not

agree

with

each

other.

They

give

us

no

more than

a

very

general

idea

of

the

age

of the

deposits.

One

can

obtain

a

more

precise

idea

of

the

time

when

the

site

was

occupied

from

typological

comparisons

of

the

artifacts

found

there.

The

material

is

all

Neolithic

2

in

character

which

may

be

equated

in

general

terms

with

PPNB

Jericho

yet

there

are

certain

aspects

of

the

Munhatta

flint

industry

which

are

distinctive.

The

arrowhead

types

are

quite

elaborate

compared

with

those

at

Jericho

and

Beidha

VI

to

I

and

have

much

more

pressure-flaking

than

on

these

two

dated

sites.

Thus

although

the

occupation

at

Munhatta

may

have

overlapped

with

the

sequences

at

Jericho

and

Beidha

it

probably

continued

into

late

Neolithic

2.

This

would

mean

that

the

site

was

occupied

in

the

middle

or

late

7th

millennium

B.C.

Relationships

between

Palestinian,

West

Syrian

and

Middle

Euphrates

sites

in

Neolithic

2

The

Neolithic

2

sites

in

Palestine

which

I

have

discussed

are

closely

to

Jericho

and

may

be

dated

by

the

PPNB

Jericho

Carbon

1U

determinations.

Thus

all

of

them

appear

to

have

been

occupied

during

the

7th

millennium

which

makes

them

broadly

contemporary

with

the

Neolithic

2

West

Syrian

and

Middle Euphrates

sites.

The

Palestinian Neolithic

2

sites

and

those

further

north

share

certain general

cultural

traits

like

the

rectilinear

buildings

with

plaster

floors

and

burial

customs

which

embrace

single

inhuma-

tions

,

secondary

collective

burial

and

special

treatment

of

skulls.

Their

flint

industries

are

based

on

the

same core

techniques

and the

same

range

of

tool

types

is

found

on

most

Neolithic

2

sites,

tanged

arrowheads

everywhere,

sickle

blades

in

abundance

on

Palestinian

and

West

Syrian

sites,

end-scrapers,

angle

and

dihedral

burins,

borers,

and

flaked

and

polished

axes

and

adzes

on

-

227

-

some

sites.

Ground

stone

rubbers

and

querns

are

ubiquitous

as

are fine

stone

bowls

and

dishes.

The

Palestinian

sites

thus

form

part

of

a

single

Levantine

cultural

entity

in

Neolithic

2

yet

in

their

material

remains

they

show

considerable

individuality.

The

plans

of

the

buildings

at

Jericho,

Nahal

Oren

and

Munhatta

are

different

from

those

at

Tell

Ramad

and

Abu

Hureyra

for

example.

There

are

certain

variations

in

burial

rites

on

the

Palestinian

sites,

not

least

the

practice

of

modelling

faces

on

skulls

of

the

deceased

which

seems

to

have

been

confined

to

sites

in

Palestine

and

Tell

Ramad

only

a

little

to

the

north-

east.

The

flint

industries

of the

Palestinian

sites

have

their

own

idiosyn-

cracies,

one

of

which

is

the

making

of

tanged and

winged

arrowheads,

a

type

rare

anywhere

else.

Tranchet

axes

are

another

Palestinian

type

rarely

found

on

sites

further

north.

The

stepped,

open-ended

querns

are

found

on

most

Palestinian

sites

but

only

at

Tell

Ramad

to

the

north.

On

the

other

hand

the

white

plaster

ware

which

is

so

common

on

later

Neolithic

2

West

Syrian

and

Middle

Euphrates

sites

is

not

found

in

Palestine,

unless

a

report

of

a

few

fragments

being

found

at

Munhatta

is

corroborated.

These

cultural

differences

are

sufficiently

marked

for

us

to

place

the

Palestinian

sites

in

a

third

regional group

within

Neolithic

2

of

the

Levant.

Although

the

Palestinian

sites

form

a

distinct

regional

group

some of

their characteristic

cultural

traits

are

found

at

Tell

Ramad

and

other

sites

in

the

West

Syrian

group.

These

two

regional

groups

have

particularly

close

cultural

links

and

form

almost

a

cultural

continuum

along

the

coast

and

immediate

hinterland

of

the

Levant.

When

Kenyon

excavated

Jericho

it

became

apparent

that

there

was

a

long

gap

in

occupation

between

the

PPNA

and

PPNB

settlements.

The

material

remains

of

the

PPWB

settlement

also

appeared

to

be

quite

different

from

those

of

the

PPNA.

Jericho

was the

only

site

in

Palestine

which

provided

a

long

and

well-

defined

Neolithic

sequence.

All

the

other

sites

were

either

settlements

occupied

for

much

shorter

lengths of time

or

surface stations

and

none

of

-

228

-

them had

as

full

an

artifact

inventory

as

Jericho.

Their cultural

and

chronological position

could

only be

fixed

by

the

Jericho

sequence.

None

of

them

appeared

to

provide

a

link

between

the

PPNA

and

PPNB

at

Jericho

so

it

was

thought

that

the

PPNB

was

a

culture

that

had

originated

elsewhere

and

been

introduced

into

Palestine

by

immigrant

groups.

When

excavations

began

at

Hacilar

and

Catal

HUyUk

in

Anatolia

archaeologists

noted

that

PPNB

Jericho

had

certain general

traits

in

common

with

these

sites.

It

was

then

suggested

that

some

unknown

culture

in

Syria

provided

a

link

between

the

Anatolian

and

Palestinian

sites

and

that

the

PPNB

in

Palestine

was

introduced

from

there

.(de

Vaux,

1966,

13;

Kenyon,

1969,

159).

Since

then

many

Neolithic

sites

have

been

found

in

Syria

and

some of

them

have

been

excavated.

The

Neolithic

sequence

is

fairly

clear

now,

at

least

in

the

Damascus

basin

and

along

the

Euphrates.

These

two

regions

enjoyed

an

unbroken

local

development

of

culture

within

the

wider

Levantine

province

throughout

Neolithic

1

and

2.

It

can

now

be

seen

that

the

PPNB

at

Jericho

was

distinct

from

Neolithic

2

further

north

and

could

not

have

developed

from

it

for

both

crystallized

about

the

same

time.

Jericho

is

still

the

type-site

for

the

Neolithic

in

Palestine

but more

is

now known

about

other

sites

in

the

region.

Although

there

was

a

long

gap

in

occupation

at

Jericho

between

PPNA

and

PPNB

there

was

no

such

sharp

break

in

the

sequences

at

Nahal

Oren

and

El Khiam.

When

the

material from

these

two

sites

is

considered

and

also

that

from

Jericho

now

that

the

study of

it

is

far

advanced

we

can

see

that

there

was

considerable continuity

of

culture

from

Neolithic

1

to

2

within

Palestine.

Some

characteristics

of

the

Neolithic

2

chipped

stone

industry

in

Palestine

had

already

been

developed

at

these

sites

in

Neolithic

1.

Double-ended

cores

were

used

at

both Nahal

Oren

and

Jericho

in

Neolithic

1

and

a

number

of

true

blade

tools

had

been

made

on

the

products

of

these

cores.

Squamous

pressure-flaking

was

also

used

at

these

two

sites.

Flaked

tranchet

axes

were

first

made

in

Neolithic

1

although

they

are

usually

thought

of

as

typical

of

Neolithic

2

in

Palestine.

Many

of

the

-

229

-

ground

stone

tools

and

stone

vessels

were

similar

in

Neolithic

1

and

2

as

were

the

bone

tools.

The

typical

"burial

customs

of

Neolithic

2

were

also

developed

earlier

for

at

both

Jericho

and

Nahal

Oren

skulls

were

removed

from

skeletons

in

Neolithic

1.

The

most

striking

difference

between

PPNA

and

PPNB

at

Jericho

was

the

plan

of

the

buildings.

This

is

still

true

but

there

is

no

longer

any

need

to

look

further

than

the

southern

Levant

for

the

origins

of

the

new

rectilinear

style

of

construction.

At

both

Nahal

Oren

and

Beidha

there

was

a

swift change

from

circular

to

rectangular

structures

and

the

change

was

equally

rapid

at

Mureybat

in

the

north

even

if

at

each

site

the

change

happened

at

a

different

time.

It

seems

that

the

alteration

in

building

plan

took

place

on

Palestinian

sites

during

the

centuries

when

Jericho

was

unoccupied

and

that

when

the

site

was

resettled

about

7000

B.C.

the

inhabitants

built

their

houses

in

the

then

current

rectilinear

style.

The

gap

in

the

sequence

at

Jericho

is

still

marked

but

there

is

no

reason

to

suppose

that

all

cultural

development

ceased

in

Palestine

during

this period.

Quite

the

reverse

seems

to

have

occurred:

the

culture

of

Neolithic

1

in

Palestine

was

transformed

into

that

of

Neolithic

2

within

the

region

as

was

happening

further

north.

Palestine

continued

to

be

occupied

during

the

transition

even if

most

of

the

known

sites

were

inhabited

for

such short periods

that

long

cultural

sequences

are

rarely

found.

I

will

now-briefly

review

the

evidence

for

Neolithic

2

occupation

at

other

sites

in

Palestine.

The

sites

are

many

but

most

of

them

are

only

known

from

surface

survey.

Intense

exploration

of

this

region

is

continuing and

new

sites

are

being

discovered

every

year

but

information

about

these

dis-

coveries

is

disseminated

slowly.

Other

sites

were

discovered

long

ago

and

remain

unpublished,

their

surface

collections

dispersed.

Some

of

these

have

doubtless

been

forgotten.

Since

our

information

about

these

sites

is

so

uneven

I

shall

not

attempt

to

mention

every

one

discovered

but

simply

those

in

each area

for

which

information

is

readily

available

in

the

published

-

230

-

sources

and

in

unpublished

museum

collections

which

I

have

examined.

Mt.

Carmel

Iraq

el

Barud

(Sefunim)

Iraq,

el

Barud

is

a

cave

which

lies

above

the

Wadi

Sefunim

on

the

west

side

of

Mt.

Carmel

about

10

km

south

of

Haifa.

The

site

has

yielded

an

incom

plete

sequence

of

remains

from

the

Palaeolithic

to

the

Neolithic

with

some

more

recent

debris

on

top.

Layers

III

and

IV

contained

an

aceramic

Neolithic

flint

industry

(Ronen,

1973,

60)

which

included

blades

struck

off

double-ended

cores,

sickle

blades

and

tanged

arrowheads,

all

typically

Neolithic

2

in

character

which

should

be

7th

millennium

in

date.

A

hearth

was

found

in

the

level

beneath,

Layer

V,

from

which

samples

of

ash

were

taken

for

14

C

dating.

The

determinations

were

5780

±

115

B.C.

Hv-2597

and

7^5

±

130

B.C.

Hv-3368

(Ronen,

1973,

62).

These

determinations

are

so

at

variance

with

each

other

that

neither

can

be

accepted

as

truly

dating

the

layer

in

which

they

were

found

so

it

seems

wisest

to

adhere

to

a

7th

millennium

date

for

Layers

IV

and

III

based

on

typological

comparisons.

Megiddo

When

Area

BB

on

the

north-east

side

of

the

mound

at

Megiddo

was

excavated

to

bedrock

a

cave

was

found

which

was

filled

with

occupation

debris.

The

floor

of

this

cave,

designated

feature

Uo67,

was

3m

by 5m

in

size

and

the levels

within

it

were

called

Stratum

-XX

(Loud,

19^8,

59).

A

number

of

flint

artifacts,

13

a

few

limestone

objects

and

some

bone

tools

were

found

in

Stratum

-XX.

The

flint

tools

looked

at in

retrospect

seem

to

be

typologically

mixed

as

is

so

much

of the

material

in

the

lower

strata

at

Megiddo.

There

were

several

tanged

arrowheads

retouched

by

pressure-flaking

in

this

stratum

and

others

which

were

leaf

and

diamond

shaped

(Crowfoot,

19^8a,

lln).

All

closely

resemble

examples

from

Munhatta.

13

sickle

blades

were

found

in

the cave

which

were

segmented

and

deeply

denticulated.

This

type

is

characteristic

of

the

of

the

Neolithic

rather

than

Neolithic

2.

There

were

several

-

231

-

finely-denticulated

blades of

Neolithic

2

type

which

may

have

been

used

as

sickle

blades

in

the

unpublished

material

in

the

Oriental

Institute,

Chicago;

these

should be

typologically

contemporary

with

the

arrowheads.

The

remaining

tools

consisted

of

an

end-scraper,

burin,

denticulates

and

a

small

flaked

tranchet

axe

(Crowfoot,

I9^8a,

1U2).

A

few

pieces

of obsidian were

also

found

in

this

stratum.

Some

unusual

bone

tools

were recovered

from

Stratum

-XX.

These

were

long

spatulae

made

from

rib

bones

and

they

were

interpreted

as

needle

shuttles

used

in

weaving

(Bate,

Crowfoot,

19^8,

1^0).

The

typology

of

the arrowheads

and

the

absence

of

pottery

both

suggest

that

Cave

^067

was

occupied

late

in

Neolithic

2.

The

segmented,

denticulated

sickle

blades

would

indicate

a

more

recent

date

but

these

may

have

been

made

after

the

arrowheads.

I

believe

that

this cave

was

inhabited

towards

the

end

of

Neolithic

2

and

was

contemporary

with

Munhatta

and

Beisamun.

We

do

not

know

how

extensive

this site

was

since

only

a

relatively

small

area

of

bedrock

has

been

exposed

at

Megiddo

but

it

is

possible

that

a

larger

area

than

this

single

cave

was

occupied

in

Neolithic

2.

Jordan

valley

Beisamun

This

site

lies

on

the

west

side

of

the

upper

Jordan

valley

on

the

shores

of

Lake

Huleh.

It

covers

an

enormous

area of

about

12

ha

but

the

archaeological

deposit

is

only

0.8

m

thick

(Ferembach,

Lechevallier,

1973,

223).

Part

of

the

site

consisted

of

rectangular stone-walled

buildings

with plaster

floors

which

were

widely

spaced

along

the

lakeside.

One of

these

had

two

rooms

with

a

hearth and

the

remains

of

two

plastered

skulls

and

several

secondary

burials

were

found

beneath

the

floor.

One

of

the

plastered

skulls

could

be

identified

as

an

adult female

(Ferembach,

Lechevallier,

1973,

225).

The

associated

flint

industry

included

tanged,

notched

and

pressure-flaked

arrowheads,

sickle

blades

and

flaked

and

polished

axes

that

can

be

paralleled

on

other

Neolithic

2

-

232

-

sites

in

Palestine

and

at

Tell

Ramad.

It

would

appear

that

the

site

was

first

occupied

in

the

late

7th

millennium.

Four

pieces

of

obsidian from

this

deposit

have

been

analysed;

three

of

them

came

from

Ciftlik

(2b)

and

one

from

Nemrut

Dag

(he)

(Wright,

Gordus,

1969,

81).

Material

has

also

been

collected

from

the

surface

over

many

years

and

much

of

this

is

slightly

later

in

date

so

it

seems

that

the

site

continued

to

be

occupied

until

early

in

the

6th

millennium.

Although

the area of

the

site

is

very

great

by

no

means

all

of

it

was

occupied

at

the

same

time.

Kfar

Giladi

Quarry

The

Kfar

Giladi

quarry

site

is

a

surface

station

in

the

extreme

north-

west

corner of

the

upper

Jordan

valley

(Lechevallier,

Dollfuss,

1973,

9*).

No

structures

have

been

found

here

but

a

basalt

bowl,

basalt

grinding

tools

and

a

diagnostic

assemblage

of

flint

tools

have

been

collected

from

the

surface.

Most

of

the

flint

tools

were

made

on

blades struck

off

double-ended,

pyramidal

or

prismatic

cores

(Lechevallier,

Doll

f

us,

1973,

19*).

^-0

arrow-

heads

of

several

types

were

picked

up.

11

were

tanged

and

one

of

these

was

winged.

Some

were

pressure-flaked

but

most

were

finished

by

abrupt

retouch.

The

remaining

29

arrowheads

were

leaf-shaped

and

partly

pressure-flaked.

These

arrowheads

are

similar

to

those

found

at

Munhatta.

Most

of

the

sickle

blades

had

finally-denticulated

or

nibbled

cutting

edges.

A

few

were

segmented

and

four

of

these

were

made

on

broad

blades

as

much

as

2.5

cm

wide

(Lechevallier,

Doll

f

us,

1973,

fig.

2,

20*);

segmented

sickle

blades

similar

to

these were found

at

Tell

Ramad

in

Level

I

(de

Contenson,

1971,

280).

Among

the

other

flint

tools

were

eight

burins

and

seven

flaked

axes

(Lechevallier,

Dollfus,

1973,

20*).

The

latter

were

almond-shaped,

triangular

or

rectangular

in

outline.

There

was

also

a

chisel

and

a

pick.

These

heavy

tools

are

like

some

from

Beisamun.

These

tools

are

sufficiently

similar

to

those

from

Munhatta

to

indicate

that the

site

was

occupied

quite

late

in

Neolithic

2.

The

almond-shaped

and

-

233

-

rectangular

axes

are

types

that

began

to

"be

used

late

in

Neolithic

2

but

were

more

common

in

this

area

during

the

Sheikh

Ali

Sheikh

Ali

is

a

low

mound which

lies

a

little

to

the

south

of

the

Sea

of

Galilee

near

the

right

bank

of

the

Jordan

at

the

point

where

Wadi

Yavneel

joins

the

river.

Evidence of

Neolithic

occupation

was

found

scattered

over

a

wide

area

of

terrace

on

which

the

site

stands.

The

site

itself

had

between

2

and

3

m

of

occupation

deposit

which

was

divided

into

four

levels,

strata

I

and

II

with

Late

Neolithic

remains

and

III

and

IV

from

the

aceramic

Neolithic

(Prausnitz,

19TOa,

96).

The

building

remains

in

strata

III

and

IV

consisted

of

fragments

of

stone

walls

and pebble

paving

with

traces

of

plaster

floors.

A

headless

burial

was

also

found.

The

flint

tools

were

made

on

blades

struck

off

pyramidal and

double-ended

cores.

They

included

long

finely-denticulated

sickle-blades

and

tanged

arrowheads

of

both

notched

and

winged

varieties

(Prausnitz,

19TOa,

105

s

a,

fig.

^5).

Some

of

the

arrowheads

were

retouched

by

pressure-flaking.

Although

the

remains

from

these

levels

were

so

scanty there

seems

little

doubt

on the

evidence

of

the

flints

that

the

site

was

inhabited

in

Neolithic

2.

Teleilat

Ghassul

The

mound

of

Ghassul

lies

in

the

Jordan

valley

about

5

km

east

of

the

river

and

k

km

north

of

the

Dead

Sea.

A

number

of

flint

arrowheads

were

found

in

the

first

excavations

at

the

site

which

did

not

belong

to

the

normal

assemblage

of

the

Chalcolithic

settlement

(Mallon

et

al.»

193^,

62).

These

included

tanged

arrowheads

with

notches

or

wings

which

are

typical

of

Neolithic

2.

Since

then

other

Neolithic

2

flints

have

been

collected

at

the

site

(Stockton,

1971,

80).

Hennessy

has

been

able

to

show

in

his

recent

excavations

that

there

were

earlier

levels

of

occupation

at

the

site

(1969,

2U)

so

it

would

appear

that

these

Neolithic

2

flints

were derived

from

these

earlier

deposits

which

must

underlie

the

Chalcolithic

settlement.

-

23k

-

Judean

hills

Tell

el

Far'ah

Traces

of

Neolithic

occupation

were

found

on

the

"bedrock

beneath

the

Bronze

Age

mound

of

Tell

el

Far'ah

at

the

head

of

the

Wadi

Farah

in

northern

Judea.

There

were

hearths,

part

of

a

plaster

floor

and

a

pit

(de

Vaux,

1961,

559ff).

Associated

with

these

were

flint tools

such

as

finely-denticulated

sickle

blades,

both

notched

and

tanged

and

winged

arrowheads

and

flaked

picks

and

axes

with

a

tranchet

edge

as

well

as

ground

stone

tools

and

other

artifacts

These

remains

all

indicate

that

the

site

was

first

occupied

in

Neolithic

2.

Abu

Gosh

The

Neolithic

site

of

Abu

Gosh

lies

in

the

Judean

hills

13

km

west

of

Jerusalem

beside

the

road

to

Tel

Aviv.

It

was

first

sounded

in

1928

and

again

in

1950.

A

fresh

campaign

of

excavations

was

undertaken

in

196?

which

lasted

until

1971-

The

surface

layer

yielded

Late

Neolithic

material

as

well

as

other

finds

(Dollfus,

Lechevallier,

1969,

279;

Moore,

1973,

39).

Below

that

were

two

levels

of

a

Neolithic

2

settlement,

the

whole

deposit

being

from

1

to

1.7

m

deep.

The

settlement

was

composed

of

several

houses

which

had

a

single

room,

sometimes

with

other

additional

features.

The

walls

were

built

of

stone

and

some

of

the

floors

were

plastered.

Beneath

the

floors

of these

houses

and

in

spaces

between them

were

found

the

remains

of

collective

burials

from

which

the

skulls

had

been

removed

and

also

skulls

buried

on

their

own

(Dollfus,

Lechevallier,

1969,

281

;

Lechevallier,

1970,

222).

The

most abundant

chipped

stone tools

were

sickle

blades

with

nibbled

retouch

(Dollfus,

Lechevallier,

1969,

282).

Arrowheads

were

the

second

most

common

class;

these

were

usually

tanged

and

winged

although

a

number

of

tanged

and

notched

examples

were

also

found.

Several

flaked and

polished

axes

were

recovered

in

the

recent

excavations

as

well

as

small

picks,

chisels

and

a

tranchet

axe.

One

of

the

most

remarkable

finds

of

the

earlier

explora-

tions

of

the

site

were numerous

large

flaked and

polished

trapezoidal,

oval

and

almond-shaped

axes

(Perrot,

I952b,

12^ff)

which

have not

been

found

in a

-

235

~

definite

Neolithic

2

context

on

any

Palestinian

site

excavated

since

although

trapezoidal

flaked and

polished

axes

have

now

"been

discovered

at

Beidha.

The

recent excavations

have

demonstrated

that

these

came

from

the

surface

level

at

the

site

(Lechevallier,

1971,

227)

and

so

belong

to

the

last

phase of

the

Neolithic

2

occupation

or

postdate

it.

There

are

good

parallels

for

them,

the

oval

and

almond-shaped

ones

in

particular,

in

the

upper

levels

at

Beisamun

and

on

other

later

sites

in

the

upper

Jordan

valley

such

as

Tannur,

Qat

and

Hagosherim.

The

other

finds

at

Abu

Gosh

are

typical

of

Neolithic

2

sites

elsewhere

and

consist

of

polished

stone

"bowls,

ground

stone

tools,

"bone

borers,

needles

and

spatulae

and

a

number

of

clay

animal

figurines.

A

number

of

Neolithic

surface

stations

were

found

long

ago

in

the

environs

of

Jerusalem

and

Bethlehem

by

priests

who

engaged

in

prehistoric

exploration.

The

best

known

site

is

Tahuneh

which

was

found

by

Buzy.

It

lies

on

level

ground

beside

the

Wadi

Tahuneh

below

Artas

about

3

km

south

of

Bethlehem

(Buzy,

1928,

562).

This

is

much

the

largest

of

several

surface

stations

which

were

found along

the

wadi.

Very

many

flint

tools

were collected

at

Tahuneh

and

these

were

thought

to

be

so

typical

of

the

earlier

Neolithic

in

Palestine

that

the

name

"Tahunian" was

given

to

the

industry.

Unfortunately

the

site

had

been

used

over

a

long

period

for

the

flints

included

Mesolithic

2

lunates

and

Late

Neolithic

denticulated,

segmented

sickle

blades

(Buzy,

1928,

pi.

XXX)

and

this

has

caused

great

terminological

confusion

ever

since.

Most

of

the

diagnostic

artifacts

found

at

Tahuneh were

Neolithic

2

types

and

as

these

were

so

numerous

the

site

was

probably

a

substantial

settlement

although

no

structures

are

known

to

exist

there.

The

Neolithic

2

flint tools

included

tranchet

axes,

sickle

blades,

notched

and

winged

tanged

arrowheads

and

many

ground

stone

pestles

,

mortars,

rubbers

and

querns.

A

number

of

other

Neolithic

2

surface

sites

have

been

found

in

the

same

area

1

^

among

them

Tantur

and

Beit

Tamir

near

Bethlehem,

Mar

Elias

on

the

road

from

Jerusalem

to

Bethlehem,

Tell

el

Ful

5

km

north

of

Jerusalem

on

the

road

to

Ramalla,

Tell

en-Nasbeh

a

little

beyond

Tell

el

Ful

and

a

station

on

the

-

236

-

road

from

Nablus

to

Rafidiyeh

(Mallon,

1925,

190,

192ff).

The

most

common

finds

on

these

sites

were flaked

tranchet

axes

while

picks

and sickle

"blades,

scrapers

and

borers

were

also

found

but

little

else

which

was

diagnostic.

A

much richer

site

was

Etam

which

is

situated

west

of

Artas

(Mallon,

1925,

196ff).

Abundant

flints

of

several

periods

were

found

here

scattered

over

a

wide

area

on

what

was

apparently

a

factory

site.

The

finds

included

flaked

tranchet

and

flaked

and

polished

trapezoidal

axes

of

Neolitic

2

type.

Neolithic

2

surface

stations

have

also

been

found

in

the

dunes

along

the

1

ft

present

Palestinian

coast.

Several

were

discovered

long

ago

by

Neuville

south

of

Jaffa

(1929,

116)

but

these

are

now

either

lost

or

have

disappeared

beneath new

buildings.

Others

have

since

been discovered by Burian

and

Friedmann

(1963-6U,

III)

who

have

surveyed

much

of

the

coast

between

Hadera

and

Ashdod.

Two

of

their

sites,

26

and

2_6A,

are

just

north

of

Nahal

Alexander

and

six

others,

62/0,

62/1,

6^,

6^A,

TO

and

71

are

to

be

found

between

the

mouths of

the

Nahal

Sorek

and

Nahal

Lachish.

These

two

groups of sites are

clustered together

quite

markedly which

indicates

that

the

areas

in

which

they

are

found

were

chosen

repeatedly

for

occupation.

The

surface

collections

from

these

sites

consisted

of

modest

quantities

of

flint

tools

for

the

most

part

among

which

were

tanged

arrowheads,

sickle

blades,

flaked

axes

and

other common

Neolithic

2

types.

Site

26

had

a

richer

collection

than

the

others

which

included

265

tanged

arrowheads,

some

of

which

were

also

notched.

There

are

close

parallels

for

the

tools

in

these

assem-

blages

on

other

Palestinian

sites

so

all

may

be

included

in

the

same

regional

group.

It

has

been

known

for

many

years

that

Neolithic

2

sites

were

to

be

found

in

the

extreme

south

of

Palestine

for

Petrie

and

his

collaborators

had

found

Neolithic

2

flints

on

some

of

the sites

they

excavated

around

Tell

el

Fara

(south)

on

the

Wadi

Ghazzeh,

now

Nahal

Besor.

The most

diagnostic

pieces

were

several

tanged

and

notched

or

winged

arrowheads

from

Site

D2

(Macdonald

et

al.,

1932,

pi.

XXVII,

82).

Several

tanged

and

winged

arrowheads

retouched

with

squamous

pressure-flaking

of

Neolithic

2

type

(Macdonald

et

al.,

1932,

-

237

-

pi.

XVII,

59,

XX,

13)

and

other

flints

that

could

"be

associated

with

these

diagnostic

pieces

were

also

found

there.

These

flints,

while

suggestive,

indicate

only

that

Neolithic

2

groups

had

passed

this

way

and

possibly

camped

along

the

wadi.

Negev

and

Sinai

A

decade

ago

hardly

any

Neolithic

sites

had

been

discovered further

south

in

the

Negev

or

Sinai.

Several

surveys

of

prehistoric

sites

have

since

been

carried

out

in

the

Negev

which

have

brought

to

light

a

number

of

Neolithic

sites

and

a

survey

in

northern

Sinai

has

located

several more

there.

Rothenberg

has

carried

out

extensive

surveys

of

later

sites

throughout

the

Sinai

Peninsula

in

the

course

of

which

other

Neolithic

sites

have

been

discovered.

The

Halutza

dunes

are

situated

to the

south

of

the

Nahal

Besor

in

the

northern

Negev.

Traces

of

Neolithic

2

occupation

were

found

here

by

Noy

in

1966

who

picked

up

characteristic

tanged

and

winged

arrowheads

on

the

surface

of

the

subsoil

between

the

sand

dunes

(Noy, 1970,

fig.

3,

3-5)

Burian and

Friedmann

surveyed

the

same

area

of

the

northern

Halutza

dunes

in

the

following

years

and

found

at

least

four

more

Neolithic

2

sites,

numbers

83,

8jS,

87

and

89

(Burian,

Friedmann,

1973

9

28ff).

The

assemblages

from

these

sites

consisted

principally of

tanged

arrowheads,

some

of

which

were

notched

and

winged,

and

blades

and

borers.

There

were

very

few

flake tools

and

no

sickle

blades

or

axes.

Two

more

Neolithic

sites

have

been

found

by

the same

workers

around

Nizzana

on

the

south

side

of

the

Halutza

dunes.

The

one

found

by

Noy

had

tanged

and

winged

arrowheads

and burins

on

blades struck

from

double-ended

cores

(Noy,

1960,

39,

Ul).

A

third

new

site

recently

discovered

by

Burian

and

Friedmann

has

"over

800

arrowheads

and

a

considerable

amount

of

other

material"

(letter,

5th

July,

1976).

More

sites

have

been

discovered

around

Nahal

Boqer

and

Nahal

Zin

due

south

of

Beersheba

in

the

northern

Negev.

The

Nahal

Boqer

site lies

on

a

hill

above

the

wadi

on

the

south

side.

The

chipped

stone

industry

from

this

-

238

-

site

was

quite

comprehensive

with

numerous

tanged

and

notched

arrowheads,

a

few

sickle

blades,

borers

and

end-scrapers

on

blades

as

well

as

burins,

flake

scrapers

and

flaked

tranchet

axes

(Noy,

Cohen,

19?U, l6ff).

Another

site,

Nahal

Divshon,

lies

on

the

floor

of

the

Nahal

Zin

below

Sede

Boqer.

This site

has

been

known

for

several

years

and

a

collection

of

tanged

arrowheads

with

wings

or

notches and

tranchet

axes

from

the

site

was

published

by

Cohen

and

Noy

in

1968

(Cohen,

Noy,

1968,

Ik).

Nahal Divshon

was

excavated

by

a

team

from

Southern

Methodist

University

in

1969

and

1970.

They

found

a

dense

concentration

of

artifacts

in an

area

of

90

sq

m

but

calculated

that

the

site

extended

over

2500

sq

m

altogether

(Servello,

1976,

3^9

)

The

occupation

deposit

was

extremely

thin

but

a

firepit

and

several

hearths

were

found.

Almost

all the

artifacts

were

chipped

stone

tools,

two

grooved

stones

being

the

only

other

finds.

The

flint

assemblage

had

a

very

high proportion

of

cores

and

waste

which

indicates

that

the

cores

themselves

were

prepared

on

the

site

as

well

as

the

artifacts.

This

is

a

feature

of

a

number

of

Negev

sites

but

not

of

the

Neolithic

2

settlements

further

north

in

Palestine

and

Syria.

Most

of

the

cores

were

prismatic

and

pyramidal and

only

a

few

discoid

or double-ended.

Blades

and

retouched

blades

were

not

particularly

common

but

there were

some

pressure-flaked tanged

and

winged

arrowheads

(Servello,

1976,

fig.

12-7).

The

most

numerous

tools

were

the

burins; many

were

dihedral

burins

but

there

was

much

variation

in

the

types.

End-scrapers

on

blades

and

flake

scrapers

were

another

major

group

of

tools

and

there

were

many

flake

tools

such

as

notched

pieces

and

denticulates.

A

few

flaked

axes

were

found

but

no

sickle

blades

were

recovered

at

all.

Servello

thought

that

the

specialised

nature

of

the

artifact

assemblage

and

the

absence

of

dwelling

structures

indicated

that

the

site

was

a

seasonal

hunter's

camp

(1976,

369).

Carbon

1^

determinations

were

obtained

from

three

charcoal

samples

which

gave

dates

of

6220

±

120

B.C.

Tx-1125,

6670

±

1UO

B.C.

1-5501

and

6950

±

180

B.C.

SMU-3.

All

the

samples

were

obtained

from

near

the

present

ground

surfaces

which

probably

accounts

for the

uncomfortably

-

239

-

large

span

of time

between

the

dates.

They

do

all

fall

within

the

7th

millennium

and

so

place

the

occupation

on

the

same

horizon

as

dated

Neolithic

2

sites

in

Palestine

and

further

north.

One

possible

Neolithic

2

site

was

found

"by

the

Southern

Methodist

team

on

the

heights

of the

Har

Harif

(Marks

et

al.,

1972,

83).

The

site,

G2,

consisted

of

a

thin

scatter

of

artifacts

on

a

steep

slope

of

Har

Romam.

The

main

tool

types

were

end-scrapers

on

flakes,

denticulates

and

notched

flakes

"but

there

were

a

few

blade

tools

including

backed

sickle

blades

and

fragments

of

bifacially

retouched

arrowheads.

This

assemblage

is

Neolithic

and

has

some

characteristics

in

common

with

Nahal

Divshon

so

the

site

may

also

have

been occupied

by

a

Neolithic

2

group.

A

number

of

Neolithic

sites

have

also

been

found

in

the

recent

survey

of

Jebel

Meghara

in

northern

Sinai

(Phillips

et

al.

,

n.d.

,

10).

It

is

known

that

their

assemblages

included

burins,

end-scrapers

and

arrowheads

with

some

grinding

stones

and

on

this

evidence

they

have

been assigned

to

the

Neolithic.

As

other

Neolithic

2

sites

are

now

known

in

Sinai

it

is

likely

that

some

of

these

in

the

Jebel

Meghara

are

also

Neolithic

2

but

we

cannot

be

sure

until

we

know

more

about

them.

Rothenberg

has

now

discovered

Neolithic

sites

as

far

west

as

the

Suez

Canal, on

the

south

edge

of

the

Jebel

el

Egma

and

in

southern

Sinai

(Rothenberg,

1972,

32,

35).

Several

of

these

sites

consisted

of

stone

structures

with

remain

of

burials

as

well

as

scatters

of

flint

implements

and

one

in

the

Wadi

Sa'al

lay

malachite

deposits

which

may have

been

exploited

by

the

inhabitants

of

the

settlement.

There

were

indications

at

some

stations

that

turquoise

was

also

extracted.

The

dating

of

these

sites rests

entirely

upon

the

typology

of

the

artifacts

for

no

organic

material

is

available

for

llf

C

determinations.

I

have

seen

the

flints

from

a

few

of

these

sites

and have

ascertained

that

they

consisted

of numerous

blades,

some

of

which

were

struck

off

double-ended

cores,

pressure-flaked

tanged

arrowheads

and

other

types.

These

pieces

definitely

appear

to

be

Neolithic

2

types

but

there

is

other

material

in

the

-

21*0

-

collections

vhich

may

be

later

in

date.

It

is

not

possible

to

say

yet

-whether

all

the

sites

described

as

"Neolithic"

or

"PPNB"

are

in

fact

that

early.

Nevertheless,

these

recent

discoveries

do

extend

the

known

distri-

bution

of

Levantine

Neolithic

2

sites

over

a

much

vider

area

than

hitherto,

possibly

as

far

as

Suez.

I

have

associated

all

these

sites

in

the

Negev

and

Sinai

with

the

Palestinian

group

but

it

is

apparent

that their

material

remains

are

somewhat

different.

In

the

first

place

they

have

fairly

small

artifact

inventories

consisting

for

the

most

part of

flint

tools.

Although

some

of

the

arrowhead

types

and

axes

are

the

same

as

on

Palestinian

sites

others

are

not.

Pyramidal

and

prismatic

cores

were

used

much

more

frequently

on

these

sites

than

further

north

and

flake tools

were

more

common.

The

sites

themselves

were

usually

surface

scatters of

flint

with

little

or

no

occupation

deposit

and

so

different

from

the

substantial

settlements

and

tell

sites

found

in

Palestine.

Our

knowledge

of

all

Neolithic

2

sites

in

the

Negev

and

Sinai

is

too

scanty

as

yet

for

us

to

declare

that

they

fall

into

another

regional

group

of

their

own

but

they

are

sufficiently

different

to

be

classed

as

a

sub-group

associated

with

the

Palestinian

sites.

Transjordan

plateau

Several

Neolithic

2

sites

have

been

discovered

east

of the

Rift

valley

in

the

mountains

and

on

the

plateau

of

Transjordan.

One

of

these

is

Abu

Suwan

at

Jerash

which

covers

a

large

area

of

hillside

to the

east

of

Hadrian's

Arch

20

(Kirkbride,

1958b,

9).

Flint

implements

of

several periods

were

found

here

but

the

most

abundant

were

Neolithic

2

types.

These

were

scattered

all

over

the

surface

and

included

pressure-flaked

tanged

arrowheads

and

leaf-shaped

points,

burins,

end-scrapers

on

blades

and

flake

scrapers,

sickle

blades

with

finely-denticulated

edges,

flaked

tranchet

and

other

axes

and

a

piece

of

obsidian.

The

cores

were

both

discoid

and

double-ended,

the

latter

accompanied

"by

typical

core-tablets

and

crested

blades.

Kirkbride

excavated

a

small

trench

at

the

site

(I958b,

Ik)

in

which

material

from

the

same

industry

was

found

stratified

with

"bone

pins,

animal

"bones

and

hearths.

The

variety

of

the

flint artifacts

and

the

other

material

indicate

that

Abu

Suwan

was

a

settlement

which

was

occupied

for

a

significant

length of

time.

The flint

artifacts

from

Abu

Suwan match

those

from PPNB

Jericho

and

other

Palestinian

Neolithic

sites

quite

closely

although

one

notes

the

absence

of

winged

and

notched

tanged

arrowheads.

Kirkbride

found

several

other

Neolithic

2

surface

sites

with

similar

artifacts

around

Jerash,

some

of

which

yielded

collections

of

material

quite

as

varied

as

that from

Abu

Suwan.

Both

double-ended

and

keeled

cores

were

found

at

the

Middle

Field

station,

the

only

occurrence

of

the

latter

type

of

core

known

to

me

in

TransJordan.

Several

of

these

sites

were probably

also

true

settlements

but

the

smaller

ones

may have

been

factory

sites or

temporary

camps.

Another

Neolithic

2

settlement

is

known

as

Jisr

Shueib

on

the

road

from

Salt

to

Jericho

(Zeuner,

1957

5

23).

The

site

is

a

large

settlement

mound

in

which

a

section

was

exposed

during

roadworks.

Several

red-painted

plaster

floors

could

be

seen

in

the

section

and

associated

with

them

were

flint tools

of

Neolithic

2

type.

Wadi

Dhobai

B

The

Wadi

Dhobai

is

in

TransJordan

south-east

of

Amman

beside

the

road

from

Qasr

el

Mushatta

to

Qasr

et-Tuba.

Site

B

is

situated

at

the

junction

of

a

tributary

wadi

with

the

main

valley

floor.

Remains

of

several

circular

huts

were

found

at

the

site

(Waechter,

Seton-Williams,

1938,

175,

pi.

XXVI)

con

structed

of

stones

set

upright

in

the

ground.

These

presumably

served

as

foundations

for

a

light

superstructure

of

poles,

brush

and

skins.

There

were

two

hearths in

an

occupation

layer

associated

with

these

huts.

A

few

beads

were

found

in

the

excavations

but

most

of

the

artifacts

were

flint

tools.

Many

of

these

were

made

on

blades

struck

from

double-ended

cores

with

crested

blades

as

characteristic

by-products.

The

most

numerous

tools

-

2^2

-

were

angle

and

dihedral

"burins

(Waechter,

Seton-Williams,

1938,

176ff).

End

and

side-scrapers

on

flakes

were

also

quite

common.

Tanged

arrowheads

were

the

third

major

class

of

tools,

the

tang

being

defined

with

a

notch

or

pronounced

narrowing

of

the

blade

in

most

instances.

A

few

foliate

examples

were

thinned

a

little

at

the

tang

end.

Most

of

the

arrowheads

had

a

little

abrupt or

squamous

retouch

around

the

tang

and

under

the

tip.

There

were

very

few

other

tool

types

and

no

sickle

blades.

This

industry

is

in

the

Neolithic

2

tradition

but

when

the

site

was

excavated

it

was

thought

that

it

did

not

exactly

resemble

the

known

contemporary

material

found

on

sites

in

Palestine

(Waechter,

Seton-Williams,

1938,

297)

and

for

this

reason

it

was

given

its

own

name,

the

Dhobaian

industry.

The

artifact

types

can

now

be

closely

paralleled

at

Beidha.

The

core

technique

is

the

same

at

both

sites

and

the

Dhobai

arrowheads

are

similar

in

shape

to

those

at

Beidha.

They

have

the

same

pronounced

shoulders

and

retouch.

No

winged

arrowheads

of

the

Palestinian

kind

were

found

at

either

site

and

no

notched

arrowheads

at

Dhobai

although

these

are

known

from

Beidha.

Several

similar

stations,

sites

A,

_C,

D_

and

E1

were

found

along

the

Wadi

Dhobai

(Waechter,

Seton-Williams,

1938,

17*0

but

not

excavated;

all

had

the

same

structures

visible

on

the

surface

and

surface

finds

like

those

from

Dhobai

B.

Several

surface

stations

with

Neolithic

material

have

been

found

by

Earding,

Parks

and

others

around

Qasr

Kharaneh

in

the

desert

south-east

of

Amman.

21

Sites

1,

2_

and

_3

(Zeuner,

1957,

5*0

yielded

Neolithic

2

artifacts

similar

to

those

at

Abu

Suwan.

Other

stations

found

by

Parks

had

Neolithic

2

artifacts

with

an

abundance

of

burins

like

the

assemblage

from

Wadi

Dhobai

B.

A

great

deal

of

unusual

material

was

found

by

Harding

at

one

other

site

in

this

group,

Kharaneh

IV

(Zeuner,

1957,

^2).

This

site

is

a

very

large

mound

composed

of

stone

rubble.

The

material

included

a

number

of

thin

bifacial

ovates,

end-scrapers

on

blades,

discoid

and

other

flake

scrapers,

burins

and

blades.

The

affinities

of

this

material

were

uncertain

when

published

although

Harding

believed

the

site

to

have

been

occupied

in

Neolithic

2.

This

attribution

has

since

been

confirmed

by

Garrard

and

Stanley

Price

who

made

further

collections

at

the

site

in

1975-

Four

more

Neolithic

stations

were

found

by

Field

in

his

early

explorations

of

north

and

north-eastern

TransJordan.

The

sites

were Qasr

el

Hallabat

east

of

Zerka,

Site

220

near

Landing

Ground

H,

Sites

212

and 213

near

Qasr

el

Uweinid

just

south

of

Azraq

and

Site

2k

3

near

Landing

Ground

K

(see

loose-leaf

map

in

Field,

1960).

These

were

described

as

"arrowhead

sites"

by

Garrod

in

her

report

on

the

finds

(i960,

122ff)

because

each

of

them

contained

tanged

arrowheads

retouched

with

pressure-flaking.

The

exact

affinities of

such

small surface

collections

are

unclear

but

it

is

probable

that

some

of

the

material

can

be

assigned

to

Neolithic

2.

Much more

material

has

been

found

by

others

on

what

may

be

another

site

. .

22

near Qasr

el

Uweinid.

Among

the

implements

were

tanged

arrowheads,

some

of

which

had

squamous

retouch,

end-scrapers,

borers

on

blades,

burins

and

flake

scrapers.

There

were

also

a

large

number

of

blades

and

some

crested

blades.

This

seems

to

have

been

another

Neolithic

2

site

which

was

used

as

a

camp

or

settlement

for

a

time.

Following

surveys made

by

Kirkbride,

Parks

and

others

it

has

been

known

for

many

years

that

there

were

Neolithic

2

stations

in

the

Azraq.

basin

and

more

were

found

in

1975

by

Garrard

and

Stanley

Price.

The sites

with

varied

artifact

inventories

would

have

been

camps

or

settlements

which

were

occupied

for

weeks

or

months

at a

time

while

those

with

very

few

tools

are

likely

to

have

been

hunting

stations.

Enough

sites

are

now

known

in

northern

TransJordan

to

indicate

that

the

area

was

occupied

by

semi-sedentary

and

sedentary

groups

in

Neolithic

2

at

least

as

far

east

as

Azraq

and

possibly

beyond.

Beidha

enjoyed

its

most

flourishing

period

as

a

settlement

during

the

occupation of

levels

VI

to

I.

The

buildings

of

the

settlement

were

made of

stone

because

this

was

the

material

most readily

available

in

the

neighbourhood

but

superstructures

and

roofs

were

made of

timber,

clay,

brushwood

and

reeds.

These

materials

were

all

used

in

the

structures

of

Level

VI.

A

ring

of

posts

about

k

m

in

diameter

was

first

erected

then

a

stone

wall

built

around

to

form

an

irregular

circle

(Kirkbride,

1967,

6).

The

interior

face

of

the

walls

and

the

posts

were

plastered

over

to

give

a

smooth

surface.

The

floors

of

these

rooms

were

below

ground

level

and

there

was

a

post

in

the

middle

which

supported

the

roof.

These

circular

rooms

were

built

so

close

together

that

they

formed

a

cluster

with

interlocking

walls.

Four

such

clusters

have

been

found

separated

by

open

spaces

with

plastered

surfaces.

There

were

other

less

substantial

structures

in

these

open

courts.

A

wall

at

least

1

m

high

ran

along

the

south-east

side

of

the

village

(Kirkbride,

1968,

92).

It

acted

as

a

terrace

wall

to

support

the

buildings

of

the

village

which

stood

on

the

sandy

deposits

of

the

earlier

levels.

A

stairway

in

the

wall

gave

easy

access

from

the

outside

up

into

the

village.

At

the

extreme eastern

end

of

this

wall

beyond

the

limits

of

the

village

there

was

a

group

of three

single-chambered

structures

unlike

the

buildings

within

the

settlement

(Kirkbride,

1968,

93ff)

One

was

sub-circular

and

the

others

sub-rectangular

in

shape.

The

walls

were

built

of

stone

and

the

floors

were

paved

with

stones

or

gravel.

In

and

around

these

structures

were

several

large

flat

slabs

of

sandstone

and

a

shallow

basin.

There

were

indications

that

these

buildings

had

been modified

over

a

period

of

time but we

do

not

yet

know

during

which

levels

of

occupation

in

the settlement

they were

used.

This

group

of

structures

with

its

associated

slabs

and

basin

is

different

from

the

dwellings

within

the

settlement

and

so

presumably

served

another

purpose.

Kirkbride

has

suggested

that

the

structures

may

have

been

shrines

in

which

ritual activities

were

performed

(1968,

96).

There

seems

no

particular

reason

why

this

should

have

been

the

case

but

it

is

quite

likely

that

the

remains

may

have

been

connected with

some

industrial

or

craft

activity

such

as

tanning

or

dyeing

cloth

which

the

inhabitants

preferred

to

carry

out

beyond

the

limits

of

the

settlement. These

processes

can

be

unpleasant and

so

are

best

conducted

at

some

distance

from

any

houses.

The

slabs

could

have

"been

used

as

surfaces

on

which

to

dress

hides

or

stretch

and

dry

cloth

and

the

basin

for

tanning

or

dyeing.

One

complete

building

has

been

excavated

in

Level

V

that

incorporated

some

of

the

construction

techniques

of

the

Level

VI

structures.

This

had

a

single

room

6.5

m

in

diameter with

a

paved

floor

sunk

below

ground

level

like

all

the

structures

at

Beidha

(Kirkbride,

1967,

8).

The

room

was

con-

structed

of

posts

set

in a

stone

wall

but

the

structure

as

a

whole

was

free-

standing.

The

roof

was

made of

wooden

poles,

brushwood

and

clay

supported

by

a

vertical

post

in

the

floor

and

the

entrance

was

down

a

flight of

steps.

Other buildings

constructed

in

a

similar

way

were

found

in

Level

V

but

there

were

also

approximately

rectangular

structures

whose

walls

were

built

of

stone

without

the

ring of

posts.

There

were

three types

of

building

in

Level

IV,

all

with

a

single

room

but

different

in

size

and

shape.

The

first

group

was

situated

on

the

eastern

side

of

the

settlement. These

were

rectilinear

structures,

some

of

which

had

slightly curved

walls

and

rounded

corners

(Kirkbride,

1966,

18).

The

buildings

were

entered

down

a

flight of

three

stone

steps.

The

floors

and

walls

were

plastered

over

and

there

were

plastered

hearths

on

the

floors.

Some

of

these

structures

were

separated

from

each

other

by

open

yards.

A

much

larger

rectangular

building

was

found

towards

the

centre

of

the

mound.

This

was

5

m

wide

and

6

m

long

with

a

plastered

floor,

hearth and

walls

(Kirkbride,

1967

,

8).

Two

stone

bowls

were

set

in

the

floor

on

either

side

of

the

hearth

(Kirkbride,

1966,

17).

One

large

circular

building,

House

XXXI,

was

found

in

this

level

(Kirkbride,

1967

9

9),

the

only

one

resembling

the

plan

of

the

structures

in

earlier

levels.

Although

most

of

the

buildings

in

Level

IV

were

thus

rectangular

rather

than

circular

several

of

them

still

had

rounded

corners.

Much

less

timber

was

used

in

their

construction

than

before

and

hearths

were

set

inside

the

buildings

for

the

first

time.

There

was

another

change

in

architecture

in

Level

III.

Two

of

the

three

-

2U6

-

types of

building

in

Level

IV were completely

superseded

although

the third,

the

large

rectangular

structure,

may

have

been

rebuilt

(Kirkbride,

1966,

18).

All

the

other

buildings

were

a

new

type,

rectangular

in

overall

shape

but

with

unusual interior

arrangements.

These

new

buildings,

though

characteristic

of

Level

III,

were

not

well

preserved

because

only

a

few

courses

survived

beneath

the

Level

II

structures.

Exactly

the

same

buildings,

many

of

them

orientated

north-south,

were

found

over

much of

the

site

in

Level

II

(Fig.

3*0.

They

were

about

6

m

long

by

5

m

wide

and

entered

down

a

flight

of

three

steps.

The

interior

had

a

central

passage

about

1

m

wide

from

which usually

three

pairs

of

chambers

opened

off,

each

about

1.5

m

by

1

m

in

size

(Kirkbride,

1966,

1^).

These

chambers

were

separated

from

each

other

by

massive

stone

buttresses

which

took

up

a

good

deal

of

the

floor

space

within

the

buildings.

The

buttresses

stood

about

1.5m

high

and

their

tops

were

capped

with

plaster

(Kirkbride,

1960b,

138).

Plaster

fragments

and

artifacts

which

had

fallen

fron

an

upper

storey

were

found

in

the

fill of

these

chambers

(Kirkbride,

1966,

15)

These

buildings were

really

the

ground

floors

of

two-storeyed

structures,

the

upper

floors

of

which

were

supported

by

the

buttresses.

The

upper

storey

was

probably

where

the inhabitants

lived

while

the

ground

floors

had

another

function.

Kirkbride

has

suggested

that

because

the

basements

contained

many

artifacts

they were

really

workshops.

Certainly

interesting

collections

of

animal

bones,

rubbers

and

other

artifacts

(Kirkbride,

1960b,

139)

were

found

in

several

of

them

but

as

most

of

these objects

seem

to have

fallen

in

from

above

it

is

more

likely

that

the

cramped

basements

were

used

simply

for

storage

and

that

the

crafts

and

domestic

activities

for

which

the

artifacts

provide

evidence

were carried

out

on

the

floors

of

the

dwellings

above.

These

houses

were

grouped

around

a

large

rectangular

building which

was

9

m

long

and

7

m

wide

(Kirkbride,

1966,

11).

The

building

had

a

single

room

with

a

plaster

floor

entered

down

a

flight

of

steps.

To

the

left of

the

doorway

was

a

hearth

with

a

stone

seat

or

table

beside

it.

This

building

was

surrounded

on

two

sides

by

an

L-shaped

yard

or

room.

The

nature

of

this

10

m

Fig.

34

Be

idha-Level

n

buildings

(after

Kirkbride

and

Perrot)

complex

is

not

clear

"but

as

only

one

example

was

found

in

Level

II it

may

have been

a

communal

building.

Level

I

has

been

disturbed

by

later

human

activity

and

erosion

so

that

not

much

could

be

learned

about

its

layout.

One

building,

h

by

3

m

in

size,

had

a

single

room

with

a

plaster

floor.

This

may

have

been

a

house,

in

which

case

another

major

change

in

architecture

had

taken

place,

or

some

other

kind

of

building.

The

dead

at

Beidha

were

buried

beneath

the

floors

of

the

houses

,

in

abandoned

buildings

and

in

the

open

spaces

between

(Kirkbride,

1966,

23).

Most of

the

children

were

buried

complete but

the

skulls

of

several

of

the

adults

were

detached

and

buried

separately.

Some of

the

skeletons

were

also

in

disorder

following secondary

burial

but

most

were

intact.

The

teeth

of

the

adults

were

heavily worn

(Kirkbride,

1966,

16).

The

flint

tools

were

made

from

nodules

obtained

from

the

nearby

wadi

and

tabular

flint

from

Jebel

Shara

to

the

east

(Mortensen,

19TOa,

1^).

The

industry

was

predominantly

one

of

blade

tools

and

the

blades

were

struck

off

double-ended

cores.

Some of

the

flakes

came

from

discoid

cores

but prismatic

flake

cores

were

much

more numerous

and

many

of

these

had

been re-used

for

chopping.

Arrowheads

were

the

largest

single

class

of

tool,

forming

20

to

29$

of

the

retouched

artifacts

(Mortensen,

1970a,

^5).

Most

of

these

had

pointed

tangs

which

were

formed either

by

a

simple

narrowing

of

the

blade

or

with

a

notch

at

either

side

to

make

a

shoulder.

A

few

of

the

arrowheads

had

short

tangs

and

pairs

of

notches

like

those

from

Tell

Aswad

and

Tell

Ramad.

Most

of

the

tanged

arrowheads

were

retouched

around

the

tang,

under

the

tip

and

occasionally

along

part

of

the

blade.

Pressure-flaking

was

used

on

some

of

the

tangs

and

a

few

arrowheads

had

quite

extensive

squamous

retouch;

this

technique became

more

common

at

Beidha

later

in

the

occupation

sequence

(Mortensen,

1970a,

26)

as

on

the

Damascus

basin

sites.

Borers

were

another

particularly

common

tool

at

Beidha,

forming

a

higher

-

2U8

-

percentage

of

the

retouched

tools

here

(15-25$)

than

on

most

other

contemporary

excavated

sites.

They

were

made

on

"both

blades

and

flakes

and

could

be

divided

into

three

functional

categories.

The

first

was

short

points

on

flakes

and

blades

(Mortensen,

1970a,

fig.

20)

which

could

be

used

for

making

wide

holes

in

thin

materials.

The

second

was

very

thin

long

points,

a

numerous

class

particularly

suitable

for

drilling

holes

in

beads

(Mortensen,

1970a,

fig.

22

type

B7).

The

third

group

also

had

a

long

point

but

it

was

more

robust

and

frequently

blunt

(Mortensen,

1970a,

fig.

22

type

B9,

fig.

23

type

B10);

these

borers

were

probably

drills

or

reamers.

The

third

major

class

of

tools

(13-20$)

was

retouched

blades

and

flakes

described

as

knives

(Mortensen,

1970a,

32).

This

was

not

a

homogeneous

group

and

it

is

doubtful

if

all

these

tools

were

used

in

the

same

way.

Most of

them

had

only

a

little

edge

retouch.

Sickle

blades

and

flakes

were

not

very

numerous

but

present

in

much

the

same

proportions

(8-12$)

throughout

the

sequence.

There

were

a

few

sickle

flakes

in

Levels

VI

and V

(Mortensen,

1970a,

fig.

38)

but

blades

were

usually

preferred.

The

blades

had

nibbled

or

finely

denticulated

retouch

along

the

cutting

edge.

Burins

were

quite

rare

tools

at

Beidha.

They

were

all

dihedral

and

angle

types

(Mortensen,

1970a,

29),

the

usual varieties found

on

other

contemporary

sites.

Scrapers

were

also

quite

uncommon

(7~11.)«

Most

of

these

were

end-

scrapers

on

blades

and

flakes.

There

was

also

a

group

of

notched

flakes

and

blades

(Mortensen,

1970a,

36ff).

Two

interesting

groups

of

tools

were

identified

at

Beidha

which

have

so

far

been

recognised

at

very

few

other

sites.

One was

interpreted

as

firestones

or

strike-a-lights

(Mortensen,

1970a,

38ff).

These

were

thick

blades

and

flakes

with

signs

of

heavy

battering

at

one

end

or

along

part

of

the

side

of

the

piece.

Mortensen

has

identified

similar

tools

at

Labweh.

The

other

group

was

retouchers

thought

to

have

been used

in

pressure-flaking

(Mortensen,

1970a,

These

were

blades

and

crested

"blades

with

signs

of

heavy

wear

at

the

proximal

end.

Large

core

tools

were

rare

at

Beidha

as

on

the

Euphrates

sites

"but

in

contrast

with

those

in

the

West

Syrian

Group.

The

axes

and

adzes

were

usually

trapezoidal

or

oval

in

shape

with

a

flaked

or

polished

cutting

edge

(Mortensen,

1970a,

k2).

A

few

had

been sharpened

with

a

tranchet

blow.

Some

core

tools

which

had

a

narrow

cutting

edge

have

been

interpreted

as

chisels

(Mortensen,

1970a,

Ul).

The

other

types

of

core

tools

were

picks

and

spherical

hammer-

stones

(Mortensen,

1970a,

k3)

•

The

hammerstones were

flint

spheroids

covered

with heavy

battering

marks.

These

may

indeed

have

been

used

as

hammers

but

could

also

have

been

used

as

weights,

perhaps

for

bolas.

This

class

of

artifacts

was

abundant

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

examples

have

been

found

on

other

Neolithic

2

sites

although

they

were

not

common

everywhere.

Only

three

pieces

of

obsidian

were

found

at

Beidha.

When

analysed

the

two

pieces

in

Levels

IV

and

V

were

found

to

be from

Ciftlik

and

the

one

in

Level

II

to

be

from

one

of

the

he

sources

in

eastern

Anatolia

(Renfrew

et

al.

,

1968, 325).

The

inventory

of

other

artifacts

from

Beidha

was

rich,

the

greatest

variety

of

types

coming

from

the

upper

levels.

Stone

grinding

tools

were

uniquitous

and

rubbers

and

querns

especially

numerous

(Kirkbride,

1966,

32ff).

Some

of

the

querns

were

open-ended

and

the

remainder

had

a

depression

worn

in

the

centre.

Most

of

the

rubbers

were

oval

with

a

plano-convex

section

and

some

had

been used

for

grinding

ochre.

A

few

pestles

and

mortars

were

found

but

stone

bowls

were

quite

rare

at

Beidha.

These

heavy

stone

tools

were

made

of

limestone,

basalt

and

granite

all

of

which

were

available

in

the

vicinity

of

the

site.

One

or

two

small

polished

axes

were

found

(Kirkbride,

1966,

35)

but

almost

all the

other

axes

and

adzes

were larger

tools

about

10

cm

long

made

of

basalt.

These

were

pecked

out

and

the

cutting

edges

ground

down

to

produce

a

straight

or

rounded

edge.

-

250

-

Among

the

other

stone tools

were

a

number

of

weights

which

had

a

large

hole

"bored

at

one

end.

An

identical

example

was

discovered

at

Tell

Ramad

(de

Contenson,

1969b,

33).

Their

function

is

uncertain

although

their

size

tells

us

something

about

their

likely

use.

They

were

too small to

have

been

used

as

roof

weights,

for

example,

but

about the

right

size

for

loom

weights

in

an

upright

loom

which

is

one

possible

explanation

of

their

purpose.

The

remaining

stone tools

included

several

types

hardly

known

elsewhere.

There

were

a

number

of

thin

rectangular

pieces

of

sandstone

with

a

hole

for

suspension

bored

at

one

end.

These

were

polished

on

both

sides

and

one

had

been

scored

repeatedly

with

a

flint

tool

as

it it

has

been

used

as

a

cutting

surface.

Another

unusual

artifact

found

in

small

numbers

was

a

stone

slab

with

two

rows

of

small

holes

in

the

surface

and

other

markings

which

may

have

been used

as a

gaming

board

or

simply

as

a

base

for

a

bow

drill.

Bone

tools

were

numerous

throughout

the

Beidha

sequence

from

Level

VT

up.

The

usual

kinds

were

borers

of

varying

sizes

(Kirkbride,

1966,

30)

but

spatulae

were

als.o

quite

common.

A

few

of

the

latter were

quite

delicate

as

were

several other

small

bone

pins

and

spoons.

Beads

and

other

decorative

objects

were

also

common

at

Beidha.

Shell

was

a

particularly

favoured

raw

material

(Kirkbride,

1966,

28)

and

was

imported

from

both

the

Mediterranean

and

Red

Sea.

Cowrie,

mother-of-pearl,

dentalium,

cockle

and

other

species

were

all

used

for this

purpose.

The

bone

and

stone

beads

were

usually

cylindrical

in

shape

but

some

flat

amulets

were

also

made.

Clay

figurines

were

not

very

common

at

the

site

but

both

humans

and

animals

were

modelled.

Several

fragments

of

ibex

were

particularly

naturalis-

tic (Kirkbride,

1966,

26).

One

or

two

small

clay

vessels

were

also

found.

Some

of

these

objects

were

baked

but

whether

intentionally

or

not

was unclear.

Good

evidence

was

found

for

the use of

wooden

containers

and

baskets

at

Beidha

(Kirkbride,

1967,

10).

Traces

of

several

wooden

boxes

were

noticed

in

the

sandy

occupation

levels,

one

of

which

had

contained

11^

flint

arrow-

heads

and

points.

Some

of

the

baskets

had

been

lined

with plaster

or

bitumen

-

251

-

either

to

make

them

watertight

or

more resistant

to

penetration

by

rodents.

The

raw

materials

used

at

Beidha

were

quite

as

varied

as

on

contemporary

sites

elsewhere.

Pumice

from

the

Mediterranean

was

used

as

an

abrasive

(Kirkbride,

1966,

51),

haematite

for

polishing,

ochres

and

malachite

as

colouring

matter.

Few

of

these

materials, however,

were

imported

from

far

away

because

they

could

be

obtained

from

the

vicinity

of

the

site.

The

exceptions

were

the

marine

products,

obsidian,

and

a

little

steatite.

Beidha,

therefore,

enjoyed

less

extensive

regular

contacts

through exchange

than

other

sites

further

north.

The

length

of

time

that

Levels

VI

and

I

were

occupied

has

been

determined

fairly

satisfactorily

from

a

series

of

lk

carbon

1^

dates.

The

dates

are

as

follows:

Level

VI

Level

V

Level

IV

Level

II

6990

±

160

B.C.

K-1086

6900

±

150

B.C.

K-iino

6820

±

150

B.C.

K-llni

6770

±

150

B.C.

K-1^12

6765

±

100

B.C.

P-1378

6760

±

130

B.C.

K-1082

6596

±

100

B.C.

P-1379

6690

±

160

B.C.

K-1083

7178

±

103

B.C.

P-1380

68^0

±

200

B.C.

BM-111

6815

±

102

B.C.

P-1381

6780

±

160

B.C.

K-1081+

69^2

±

115

B.C.

P-1382

6600

±

160

B.C.

K-1085

(Radiocarbon

10,

1968,

323)

(Mortensen,

1970a,

13)

(Mortensen,

1970a,

13)

(Mortensen,

1970a,

13)

(Radiocarbon

11,

1969,

152)

(Radiocarbon

10,

1968,

32*0

(Radiocarbon

11,

1969,

152)

(Radiocarbon

10,

1968,

32U)

(Radiocarbon

11,

1969,

152)

(Radiocarbon

10,

1968,

k)

(Radiocarbon

11,

1969,

152)

(Radiocarbon

10,

1968,

32U)

(Radiocarbon

11,

1969,

152)

(Radiocarbon

10,

1968,

These

dates

cluster

close

together

over

four

centuries

between

6600

B.C.

and

7000

B.C.

The

earliest

date,

P-1380

from

Level

IV,

takes

the

sequence

a

little

further

back

but

one

might

still

estimate

that

Level

VI

was

first

occupied

about

7100

or

7000

B.C.

and

the

site

finally

abandoned

about

6500

B.C.

If

one

attempts

to

date

each

level

in

the

archaeological

sequence

from

these

determinations

considerable

difficulties

arise.

This

is

because

the

dates

-

252

-

from

individual

levels,

particularly

VI

and

IV,

are

spread

over

several

centuries.

The

reason

for

this

is

in

part

the

nature

of

the

material

analysed

which

ranged

from

carbonized pistachio

nuts

to

oak

and

juniper

charcoal

(Radiocarbon

10,

1968,

323ff).

The

nuts

might

be

expected

to

have

been

buried

about

the

year

they

were

harvested

but

the

timber

could

have

already

been

old

when

it

was

burned.

This

makes

it

impossible

to

date

the

occupation

sequence

in

more

detail

even

though

so

many

determinations

have

been

made

unless

much

more

information

about

the

nature

of

the

carbon samples

and

their

stratigraphic

location

becomes

available.

One

more

point

should

be

remembered

and

that

is

that

the

Neolithic

occupation

at

Beidha

probably

began

well

back

in

Neolithic

1

so

that

the

settlement

may

already

have

been

several

centuries

old

when

the

first

Level

VI

buildings

were

constructed.

We must

now

consider

the

relationship

between

the

occupation

at

Beidha

in

Levels

VI

to

I

and

other

sites

in

the

Levant.

From

Level

V

on

the

inhabi-

tants

began

to

construct

rectilinear

buildings

with

plaster

floors

and

this

development

links

Beidha

with Neolithic

2

sites

further

north

such

as

Jericho,

Tell

Ramad

and

Abu

Hureyra.

Burial

customs

at

Beidha

also

have

much

in

common

with

these other

sites. The

flint

industry,

based

as

it

is

on

large

blades

usually

struck

from

double-ended

cores,

is

in

the

Levantine

Neolithic

2

tradition.

The

range

of

tools

and

the

arrowheads

in

particular

can

all

be

matched

on

Neolithic

2

sites

further

north.

Most

tools

had

very

little

retouch,

a

link

between

Beidha

and

sites

like

Aswad

II

which

like

Beidha

is

dated

early

in

the

7th

millennium.

The

richness

of

the

remainder

of

the artifacts

is

another

hallmark

of

Neolithic

2

sites

when

compared

with

those

of

Neolithic

1.

As

elsewhere

the

bone

tools

are

particularly

abundant.

The

typology

of

the

flints,

the

evolution

of

the

architecture

and

the

14

C

dates

all

indicate

that

Beidha

VI

to

I

was

inhabited

in

the

first

half

of

the

7th

millennium

early

in

Neolithic

2

The

general

relationship

between

Beidha

and

other

Neolithic

2

sites

in

the

Damascus

basin

and

the

Euphrates

region

is

clear

but

there

are

certain

-

253

-

aspects

of

the

remains

at

Beidha which

are

unique

to

the

site.

The

most

obvious

example

of

this

is

the

development

of

the

architecture. The

circular

houses

of

Level

VI,

while

"bearing

a

general

resemblance

to

the

circular

stone

huts

of

Neolithic

1

Nahal

Oren

and the

mud-brick

houses

of

PPNA

Jericho,

are

built

differently

with

a

ring

of

posts

set

in

the

walls.

Some

of

the

simple

rectilinear

buildings

are

like

those

at

Tell

Ramad,

Labweh

and

elsewhere

but

the

two-storeyed

houses

with

chambered basements

are

unique

to

Beidha.

The

changes

in

building

types

took

place

rapidly

yet

there

is

no

suggestion

that

the

sequence

of

occupation

at

the

site

was

interrupted.

On

the

contrary

the

preliminary

study

of

the

flint

industry

shows

only

gradual

changes

through

time

as

though

the

same

group

of

people

continued

to

inhabit

the

site

throughout

the

occupation

sequence

(Mortensen,

1970a,

hj).

The

architectural sequence

at

Beidha

thus

appears

to

have

been

a

local

phenomenon

even

though

in

the

most

general

sense

it

mirrors

a

trend

apparent

throughout

the

Levant

in

the

8th

and

7th

millennia.

Kirkbride

carried

out

a

surface

survey

around

Beidha

and

found

three

more

Neolithic

2

sites

in

the

area.

Two,

Shaqar

et

M'siad

and

Adh

Dhaman,

were

in

the

hills

near

Beidha.

Shaqaret

M'siad

lay

in

a

valley

a

little

to

the

north

(Kirkbride,

1966,

5^)-

The

site

was

about

1.8

ha

in

area

and

consisted

of

the

remains

of

rectilinear

stone

buildings

some

of

which

had

plaster

floors.

The

finds

included

querns

and

stone

grinders

as

well

as

an

abundant

flint

industry

with

tanged

and

notched

arrowheads.

Adh

Dhaman

lay

south

of

Beidha

near

a

spring

(Kirkbride,

1966,

55ff)

The

site

was

perhaps

1

ha

in

area

with

the

remains

of

rectilinear

stone-walled

structures

on

the

surface,

some

of

which

had

plaster

floors.

Among

the

finds

were

rubbers,

querns

and

tanged

and

leaf-shaped

arrowheads.

The

third

site,

Bir

et-Taiyiba,

lay

almost

due

west

of

Beidha

near

a

spring

on

the

floor of

the

Wadi

Arabah.

There

were

traces

of

occupation

deposit

here

but

no

structures

and among

the

finds

were

tanged

arrowheads.

These

three

sites

appear

to

belong

to

Neolithic

2

and

should be

7th

millennium

in

date.

Their

precise

cultural

affinities

are

unknown

"but

Shaqaret

M'siad

and

Adh

Dhaman

seem

to

have

much

in

common

with

Beidha

and

Bir

et-Taiyiba

was

probably

also

occupied

in

the

7th

millennium.

Another

Neolithic

2

site

in

this

region

is

Ain

Abu

Nakheileh

which

lies

in

the

Wadi

Rum

at

the

foot

of

Jebel

Rum

near

the

spring

which

gives

the

site

its

name

(Kirkbride,

1960c,

231).

Much

of

the

plan

of

the

site

could

be

discerned

from

the

surface.

It

was

composed

of

stone-walled

multi-roomed

buildings

of

both

circular

and

rectilinear

plan;

the

floors

of

the

circular

ones

at

least

lay

below

ground

level.

The

chipped

stone

industry

was

composed

of

blade

tools

of

which

pressure-flaked

leaf-shaped

arrowheads

were

the

dominant

type.

Hollow

querns,

grinders,

pestles

and

other

ground

stone

tools

were

also

found.

The

typology

of

the

arrowheads

would

suggest

that

the

site

was

occupied

late

in

Neolithic

2

while

the

plans

of

the

buildings

can

be

paralleled

at

Beidha

and

Wadi

Dhobai

B.

The

German

expedition

to

Kilwa

in

the

Jebel

Tubaiq

discovered

at

least

one

surface

Neolithic

station,

site

19«

The

inventory

consisted

of

numerous

flake

tools

as

well

as

blades

and

blade

tools.

The

blades

had

been

struck

off

double-ended

and

prismatic

cores

(Rhotert,

1938,

91,

92)

with

crested

blades

as

a

by-product

(Rhotert,

1938,

98,

99).

These

can

be

exactly

paralleled

at

Beidha

as

well

as

on

sites

further

north.

Among

the

blade

tools

were

angle

and

dihedral

burins

(Rhotert,

1938,

96,

97),

abruptly

retouched

reamers

(Rhotert,

1938,

10U:1)

and

tanged

arrowheads

(Rhotert,

1938,

11U).

The

arrow

heads

had

well-defined

shoulders

and

one

or

two

were

winged

but

none

was

notched.

Several

had

extensive

squamous

retouch.

There were

also

a

number

of

small

oval

points

that

may

have

been

arrowheads.

The

flake

tools

included

a

number

of

scrapers

(Rhotert,

1938,

91,

105,

118,

119),

some

of

which

were

on

tabular

flint.

There

was

also

a

series

of

bifacial

ovates

and

other

flake

tools

which

may

have

been

scrapers

(Rhotert,

1938,

106)

together

with

triangular,

trapezoidal

and

oval

axes

and

picks

(Rhotert,

1938,

110,

112).

A

number

of

other

flake

tools

were

found

which

had

been

extensively

retouched

with

pressure-flaking

(Rhotert,

1938,

117).

-

255

-

This

assemblage

appears

to

"be

homogeneous

and

good

parallels

for

the

"blade

tools

and

some

of

the

flake

tools

can

be

found

at

Beidha

and

other

excavated

Neolithic

2

sites.

The

general

shape

of

the

Kilwa

arrowheads

conforms

very

well

to

those

at

Beidha

but

they

are

more

extensively

retouched

than

most

Beidha

examples.

The

numerous

bifacial

tools,

also

extensively

retouched,

are

not

so

readily

matched

at

Beidha

or

any

other

excavated

site

although

they

are

similar

to

surface

finds

from

Kharaneh

IV.

The

use

of

so

much

pressure-flaking

suggests

that

site

19

may

postdate

Beidha

and

so

have

been

occupied

relatively

late

in

the

7th

millennium

but

many

tools

in

the

assemblage

are

clearly

in

the

same

tradition

as

those

at

Beidha

and

Wadi

Dhobai

B.

Fewer

Neolithic

2

sites

have

been

found

in

southern than

in

northern

TransJordan

because

the

area

is

relatively

remote and

much of

it

difficult

of

access

but

since

sites

with

quite

rich

remains

have

been

found

as

far

to

the

south-east

as

Kilwa

it

is

probable

that

the

whole

area

was

occupied.

It

is

also

likely

that

occupation

extended

into

northern

Arabia

in

regions

not

yet

examined

for

Neolithic

remains.

Although

so

many

sites

are

known

in

TransJordan

only

Beidha

has

a

long

sequence

of

occupation,

well-preserved

buildings

and

a

comprehensive

artifact

inventory.

All

the

others

lack

the

full

cultural

assemblage

and

without

this

one

cannot

assign

them

with

certainty

to

Neolithic

2

regional

groups.

It

is

fairly

clear

that

the

flint

industries

from

most

of

the

stations

have much

in

common

with

Palestinian

Neolithic

2

sites

even

if

in

certain

details

such

as

the

rarity

of

winged

or

notched

tanged

arrowheads

there

are

differences.

Much of

the

material

at

Beidha

can

also

be

paralleled

on

Palestinian

sites

yet,

as

we have

seen,

there

is

much

individuality

in

the

buildings and

certain

of

the

artifacts

from

the

settlement.

If

we

knew

more

about

the

remains

from

Neolithic

2

sites

other

than

Beidha

in

TransJordan

we

might

be

able

to

define

another

regional

group

but

as

we

lack

such

detailed

information

it

is

best

for the

moment

to

note

such

differences

as

there

are

between

the

sites

in

-

256

-

Transjordan

and

Palestine and

to

place

all

the

TransJordanian

sites

in

a

sub-group

closely

linked

with Neolithic

2

sites

in

Palestine.

Principal

cultural

characteristics

of

Neolithic

2

settlements

I

have

now reviewed

most

of

the

known

Neolithic

2

sites

in

the

Levant

and

described

their

material

remains.

Before

going

on

to

discuss

the

economy

and

society

of

their

inhabitants

it

will

be

useful

to

consider

some

of

their

general cultural

characteristics

in

order

to

understand

more

clearly

the

differences

between

Neolithic

2

and

the

preceding

stages.

One of

the

principal

features

which

distinguished

Neolithic

2

settlements

from

those

of

Neolithic

1

was the

shape

and

construction

of

the

dwellings.

Almost

everywhere

these

were

rectilinear

in

shape

and

built

of

stone

or

mud-

brick

or

the

two combined.

Mud-brick

was

now

used

commonly

as

a

building

material

on

sites

in

Syria

and

quite

often

elsewhere.

The

plans

of

these

buildings

varied

from

place

to

place

but

the

new

style

was

adopted

throughout

the

Levant

early

in

Neolithic

2.

It

has

remained

the

usual

mode

of

domestic

building

in

the

villages

of

the

Levant

down

to

the

present

day.

The

rooms

of

these

buildings

often

had

floors

made

of

lime

plaster

coloured

with

red

ochre

or

a

black

pigment.

Occasionally

designs

were

painted

on

the

floors

and

the

plaster

or

whitewash

of

the

walls.

This

is

the

earliest

evidence

we

have

for

the

decoration

of

the

interiors

of

buildings

in

the

Levant,

itself

part

of

the

elaboration

of

culture

that

took

place

as

a

sedentary

way

of

life

became

established.

A

second

important

constituent of

Neolithic

2

material

remains

was the

chipped

stone

industry.

Most

of

the

tools

were

now

made

on

large

blades

and

the

tool

types

themselves

were

clearly

separated

from

each

other

in

form

and

probably

function

as

well.

Flake

scrapers

and

a

few

other

distinct

types

of

flake

tools

were

quite

common

on

many

sites

but rarely

a

major

component

of

the

industry.

This

stone

industry

differed

markedly

from

that

of

the

Mesolithic

and

Neolithic

1

S

having

more

in

common

with

the

Levantine

Aurignacian,

-

257

-

a

coincidence

at

present

difficult

to

understand

"because

we

know

so

little

about

the

uses

to

which

Aurignacian

flint tools

were

put.

Neolithic

2

"blade

tools

were

heavier

and

more

robust

that

in

Neolithic

1

and

some

of

the

tool

types

were

quite

different,

technological

changes that

should

reflect

modified

activities

and

new

needs.

These tools

would

have

been

more

suitable

for

repeated

use

in

specific

tasks

than

the

much

slighter

equipment

of

Neolithic

1.

Lighter

tools

composed

of

microliths

were

not

now

made

at

all.

Most

Neolithic

2

sickle

blades

were

made

on

complete

blades

rather

than

segments.

It

is

possible

to

determine

how

they were

hafted

from

the

lustre

found

on

the

cutting

edge.

Many

still

seem

to

have

been

hafted

with

other

sickle

blades

to

make composite

sickles

with

a

straight

cutting

edge

but

some

were

apparently

hafted

at

the

butt

end

only

and

used

as

knives.

Segmented

sickle

blades were

made

on

a

few

sites

and

hafted

to

form

composite

tools

with

a

curved

or

even

jagged

edge

as

at

Tell

Aswad

(Balikh)

(Cauvin,

1973,

fig.

3).

Sickles

armed

in

this

way

had

a

much

tougher

cutting

edge

than

anything

made

in

Neolithic

1.

I

think

it

is

probable

that

these

tools

were

used

for

harvesting

cultivated

cereals

on

sites

where

they

have

been

found

in

large

numbers.

Cereals,

as

we

shall

see,

were

a

major

constituent

of the

diet

on

many

sites

in

Neolithic

2

and

so

new

types

of

sickle

were

developed

to

cut

the

larger

quantities

that

now

had

to

be

harvested

every

year.

At

sites

like

Abu

Hureyra

where

there

is

no

clear

association

of the

few

robust

sickle

blades

that

were

found

with

the

ample

evidence

of

cereal

agriculture

it

is

more

probable

that

the

sickle

blades

were

used

for

other

regular

tasks

such

as

gathering

reeds

for

roofing

or to

make

baskets.

The

different

types

of

Neolithic

2

arrowheads

were

almost

all

variations

of

tanged

blades.

They

were

relatively heavy

and

strong

with

considerable

penetrating

power.

These

arrowheads

were

probably

adopted

in

preference

to

Khiamian

points

or

composite

arrowheads

because

changes

were

taking

place

in

hunting

practices.

The

lighter

arrowheads

of

Neolithic

1

would

have

been

more

suitable

for

killing

small

game

and

birds.

It

may

be

that

heavier

arrowheads

were

now

required

because

less

small

game

was

being

hunted

and

more

larger

-

258

-

ruminants.

The

effectiveness

of

small

arrowheads

would

have

"been

much

increased

with

the

use

of

poisons;

it

may

be

that

poisons

were

not

now

used

and

that

heavier

arrowheads

which

would

have

wounded

animals

more

effectively

were

substituted

instead.

The

large

tanged

arrowhead

found

imbedded

in

the

chest

of

a

human skeleton

at

Abu

Hureyra

provides

vivid

evidence of

violence

in

Neolithic

2

society.

It

may

be

that

heavier

arms

were

now

preferred

as

more

effective

weapons

in

fighting

between

Neolithic

2

communities.

The

other

common

Neolithic

2

tool

types such

as

end-scrapers and

burins

were

also

larger

and

more

robust.

This

may

be

an

indication

that

they

were

now

used

for

particular

crafts

which

were

practised

more

regularly.

Flaked

axes

and

adzes

were

made much more

frequently

in

Neolithic

2

than

before.

There

were

many

varieties

of

these,

some

made

of

flint

and

others

of

tougher

exotic

stones.

Many

were

simply flaked

but

others

had

polished

edges

to

increase

their

cutting

effectiveness.

These

tools

were

probably

used

to

trim

timber

and

fashion

it

into

shapes

suitable

for

building

or

for

boxes,

platters

and

tools.

This

evidence

for

an

increase

in

woodworking

is

another

indication

of

the

flowering

of

crafts

in

Neolithic

2.

Flaked

and

polished

axes

of

all

kinds

were

rare

on

the

Middle

Euphrates

sites

but

common

at

Tell

Ramad,

Tall

Labweh

and

other

sites

in

the

West

Syrian

group.

They

were

also

numerous

at

Beisamun,

Munhatta,

Abu

Gosh,

on

surface

sites

in

Judea

and

other

sites

in

the

Palestinian

group

as

well

as

at

Beidha.

In

the

7th

millennium

all

these

sites

lay

within

the

Mediterranean

forest

zone

whereas

the

Euphrates

sites

did not

so

there

is

a

definite

correlation

here

between

a

specific

type

of

tool and

an

environmental

area.

Timber

would

have

been

more

readily

available

for

human

use

in

the

Mediterranean

forest

zone

than

elsewhere

but

the

presence

of

so

many

axes

on

these

sites

in

Neolithic

2

may

be

an

indication

that

more

forest

clearance

was

taking

place

than

before.

Rubbers,

querns

and

other

ground

stone

tools

were

more

abundant

on

Neolithic

2

settlement

sites

than

in

Neolithic

1.

This

increase

in

the

amount

-

259

-

of

heavy

equipment

used

is

another

concomitant

of

a

more

sedentary

way

of

life.

The

great

increase

in

the

use

of

querns

and

rubbers

also

correlates

with

the

widespread

adoption

of

cereal

agriculture

in

Neolithic

2

so

it

is

probable

that

most of

these tools

were

used

for

grinding

cereals

for

food.

Neolithic

2

burial

practices

were

quite

similar

throughout

the

Levant.

Most

skeletons

were

buried

in

a

crouched

position

with

few,

if

any,

grave

goods.

Skeletons

were

frequently deposited

incomplete

in

collective

graves

after

the

flesh

had

decayed

in

a

primary

burial

or

through

exposure.

Skulls

were

often

detached

from

the

bodies

to

which

they

belonged

and

buried

apart

sometimes

after

receiving

special

treatment.

These

customs

began

in

Neolithic

1

and

were adopted

by

the

inhabitants

of

almost

all

settlements

in

Neolithic

2

although

there

were

some

variations

in

the

exact

form

of

burial

from

site

to

site.

In

Neolithic

2

the

same

general

cultural

characteristics,

that

is

burial

practices,

style

of

dwellings

and

classes

of

artifacts

were

to

be

found

on

sites

throughout

the

Levant.

This

broad

cultural

uniformity

is

an

important

feature

of

Neolithic

2

as

it

implies

that

the

communities

which

shared

these

traits

were

in

close contact

with

each

other.

From

the

large

quantity of

artifacts

and

other

material

collected

and

excavated

from

Neolithic

2

sites

we

can

discern three

regional

groupings

of

sites,

one

of

which

had

two

sub-

groups,

defined

by

local

variations

in

artifacts

and

other

remains.

These

Neolithic

2

regional

groups,

Middle

Euphrates,

West

Syrian

and

Palestinian

correspond

to

those

established

for

Neolithic

1:

Middle

Euphrates,

Damascus

basin

and

Palestine,

while

one

of

the

Neolithic

2

sub-groups,

the

Negev

and

Sinai,

is

in

the

same

area

as

the

Harifian

group

of

Neolithic

1.

We

have

already

seen

that

Neolithic

2

evolved from

Neolithic

1

in

the

three

main

regions

so the

same

regional

pattern

is

a

feature

of

both

Neolithic

1

and

Neolithic

2.

The

duration

of

Neolithic

2

has

been

established

fairly

certainly

by

the

llf

C

determinations

made

in

recent

years.

In

the

south

Level

VI

at

Beidha

-

260

-

"began

about

7100

or

7000 B.C.

Jericho

was

resettled

about

7000

B.C.

or

a

little

before

at

the

beginning

of

the

PPNB

which should

be

early

in

Neo-

lithic

2.

In

the

Damascus

basin

the

transition

from

phase

I

to

phase

II

at

Tell

Aswad

took

place

about

6900

B.C.

or

a

little

later.

From

these

dates

we

can

see

that

Neolithic

2

began

throughout

the

Levant

within

only

a

century

or

two

of

7000 B.C.

The

new

cultural

configuration

thus

crystallized

very

rapidly

all

over

the

region.

The

end

of

Neolithic

2

is

signified

by

the

beginning

of

potting

on

sites

in

Syria

and

Lebanon

and

certain

other

cultural

changes. This

happened

at

Buqras

in

level

III

which

began

about

6000

B.C.

or

a

little

after.

The

same

change

at

Tell

Ramad

also

took

place

in

the

transition

from

Level

II

to III

at

the

same

time

as

at

Buqras.

The

two

best

dated

sites

in

Palestine

and

TransJordan,

Jericho

and

Beidha,

were

both

abandoned

in

the

mid

6th

millennium

well

before

the

end

of

Neolithic

2.

On

consideration

of

typological

comparisons

it

seems

that

other

Neolithic

.2

settlements

like

Munhatta

continued

to

be

occupied

as

late

as

those

further

north

and

that

the

period

ended

about

6000

B.C.

in

Palestine

as

it

did

elsewhere.

In

the

central

and

northern

Levant

Neolithic

2

ended

as

swiftly

as

it

had

begun

and

was

rapidly

followed

by

a

new

cultural

configuration

which, however,

was

derived

from

Neolithic

2

and

with

which

its

material

remains

had

much

in

common.

Distribution

of

sites

Neolithic

2

sites

have

been

found

in

almost

all

geographic

zones

throughout

the

Levant.

There

are

sites

in

the

Sinai

valleys,

Jebel

Meghara

in

northern

Sinai, the

High

Negev

(Har

Harif

G2),

the

Negev

valleys

(Nahal

Divshon)

and

the

lowlands of

the

northern

Negev

(Halutza

dunes,

Nizzana).

Others

have

been

found

in

the

dunes

along

the

present

coast

of

Palestine

and

Lebanon

(Jaffa,

Ashdod,

Tell

aux

Scies);

these

sites

were

still

some

distance

inland

from

the

sea

in

Neolithic

2.

The

uplands of

Mt.

Carmel

(Nahal

Oren,

Iraq

el

Barud)

and

the

Judean

hills

(Abu

Gosh,

Tahuneh)

were

densely

occupied

and

at

least

one

site

is

known

on

the

lower

slopes

of

the

Lebanon

mountains

(Dik

el

Mehdi

II).

-

261

-

There

are

several

sites

along

the

whole

length

of

the

Jordan

valley

(Jericho,

Munhatta,

Besiamun)

and

also

one

in

the

Beka'a

(Saaideh).

Many

have

now

"been

found

on the

TransJordan

plateau,

in

the

extreme

south-east

at

Kilwa,

in

southern Transjordan

(Beidha,

Ain

Abu

Nakheileh),

in

Gilead

(Jerash)

and

far

out

on

the

eastern

desert

(Wadi

Dhobai,

Azraq.).

The

Hauran and

the

Damascus

"basin

(Tell

Ramad,

Tell

Aswad)

were occupied

as

well

as

the

Anti-Lebanon

(Nacharini,

Mugharet

el

Abde).

In

the

north

there

is

a

site

at

Ras

Shaxnra

on

the

Syrian

coast,

further

inland

from

the

sea

than

it

is

now,

and

in

the

Jebel

Alawiye

(Slenfe).

Many

sites

have

been

discovered

on

the

Syrian

plateau

around

Palmyra

and

in

the

passes

leading

to

the

middle

Euphrates

(El

Kum).

Several

more

are

now

known

in

the

Euphrates

valley

(Abu

Hureyra,

Buqras)

and

others

in

the

Jezireh

on

the

Balikh

(Tell

Aswad)

and

as

far

to

the

north-east

as

the

Jebel

Abdul Aziz

and

the

Khabur

(Tell

Fakhariyah).

All

regions

were

now

occupied

except

the

highest

mountains

of

Lebanon,

an

area

which

was

avoided

now

as

it

had

been

in

the

Mesolithic

and

Neolithic

1.

There

were

also

still

relatively

few

sites

at

lower

altitudes

in

the

Lebanon,

possibly

because

the

country

was

rugged

and

still

densely

forested

so

unat-

tractive

for

settlement.

The

Judean

hills

were

much more

intensively

occupied

than

they

had

been

in

Neolithic

1.

This

was

an

area

of

Mediterranean

forest

which

had

already

begun

to

thin

out

because

of

climatic

changes.

Sites

in

this

area

have

yielded

many

stone

axes,

an

indication

that

man

was

accelerating

the

natural

decline

of

woodland

through

forest

clearance,

so

helping

to make

the

area

more

attractive

for

settlement.

Settlements

in

Neolithic

2

were

much

more

widespread

than

in

Neolithic

1.

They

extended

beyond

the

open

forest

zone

into

the

steppe

on

the

Syrian

plateau,

in

Transjordan

and

Sinai

and

in

the

extreme

south-east

of

the

Levant

into

the

desert.

These

areas

had

not

attracted

settlement

in

Neolithic

1

and

only

rarely

in

the

Mesolithic.

The

environmental

changes

of

the

7th

millennium

brought

about

an

expansion

of

the

steppe

at

the

expense of

the

forest

zones.

It

might

be

thought

that

this

trend

would

inhibit

settlement

in

these semi-

-

262

-

arid

regions

yet

the

reverse

happened. The

explanation

for

this

paradox

will

become

clear

when

we

consider

the

changes

that

were

taking

place

in

the

population

of

the

Levant

and

its

economy.

Sites

in

Neolithic

2

were

more

varied

in

type

than

in

Neolithic

1.

Some

were

simply

stations

occupied

"briefly

by

small

groups

engaged

perhaps

in

hunting

or

foraging.

The

second

type

of

site

was

a

camp

with

remains

of

huts

and

a

fuller

artifact

inventory

testifying

to

longer

occupation.

Sites

such

as

these

were

the

Wadi

Dhobai

camps,

Ain

Abu

Nakheileh,

Nahal

Divshon,

Tell

el

Far'ah

and

Sheikh

All.

They

were

occupied

by

larger

groups

which

were

perhaps

semi-sedentary

or

sedentary.

A

third

type

of

site can

be

identified

which

had

a

more

specialised

function.

These

were

factory

sites

for the

preparation

of

flint artifacts.

Duara,

Abu

Suwan

and

Etam

are

sites

of

this

kind;

they

are

all

large

for

the

Neolithic

2

knappers

exploited

the

raw

material

over

a

wide

area

and

returned

to

these

sites

time

and

again.

The

fourth

type

of

site

was

a

settlement

composed of

a

nunber

of

dwellings

which

was

probably occupied

all

the

year

round.

Beidha,

Abu

Gosh,

Munhatta,

Tell

Ramad

and

Buqras

were

all

sites

of

this

kind.

These

were

the

typical

villages

of

Neolithic

2

situated

in

the

Mediterranean

forest

and

open

forest

zones

for the

most

part.

The

exceptions

such

as

Buqras

which

was

in

the

steppe

zone

were

in

particularly

favourable

local

environments

like

the

Euphrates

valley.

One

more

type

of

site

may

be

defined

which

is

much

larger

than

the

typical

village.

I

would

include

here

sites

such

as

Abu

Hureyra,

Jericho

and

possibly

Ras

Shamra.

The

remains

found

on

these

sites

do

not

differ very

much

from

those

in

the

villages

but

their

inhabitants

would

have

had

to

accept

a

much

greater

degree

of

community

organization

in

order

to

live

together

in

such

crowded

conditions.

It

is

the

different

level

of

community

organization

of

these

settlements,a

function

of

their

size,

which

distinguishes

them

from

the

villages

Size

alone,

however,

is

not

enough

for

a

site to

be

included

in

this

group.

Beisamun,

for example,

covers

about

12

ha

but

the

buildings

are

dispersed

in

-

263

-

such

a

manner

that

they

could

not

have

formed,

a

tightly-knit

settlement

nor

does

it

appear

that

the

whole

area

was

occupied

at

one

time.

The

variations

in

size

of

Neolithic

2

sites

were

even

greater

than

in

Neolithic

1.

A

few

like

Nacharini

which

covered

90

sq

m

were

very

small

"but

most of

the

surface stations

and

camps

were

a

little

"bigger.

Wadi Dhobai

B

was

about

250

sq

m

(Waechter,

Seton-Williams,

1938,

pi.

XXVl)

while

the

largest

of

the

surface

sites

near

Abu

Hureyra,

site

III,

was

of much

the

same

size.

Nahal Divshon

which

extended

over

2500

sq

m

was

several

times

"bigger

than

these

but

still

smaller

than

many

of

the

villages.

It

seems

that

most of

the

surface

stations

and

camps

ranged

from

about

100

sq

m

up

to

2000

or

3000

sq

m.

The

smaller

villages

were

about

the

same size

as

some

of

the

camps.

Munhatta

was

somewhat

more

than

2000

sq

m

(Perrot,

1966c,

271)

while

the

core

of

the

village

at

Beidha

was

about

2500

sq

m

although

the

total

area

occupied

here

was

probably

5000

sq

m.

El

Khiam

may

have

been

about

the

same

size

but

Adh

Dhaman

(1

ha)

and

Shaqaret

M'siad

(1.8

ha)

were

bigger.

The

largest

villages

like

Tell

Ramad

and

Buqras

were

2

or

3

ha

in

size.

The

very

large

settlements

also

varied

greatly

in

size

from

the

h

ha

of

PPNB

Jericho

to

the

11.5

ha

of

aceramic

Abu

Hureyra.

The

larger

sites

in

this

group

were much

bigger

than

any

Neolithic

1

settlement.

Neolithic

2

sites

thus

ranged

in

size

from

a

few

tens

of

square

metres

up

to

10

ha

or

more.

It

is

possible

to define

settlement

types

within

this

enormous

size

range

but

each

type

grades

into

the

there

are

no

distinct

groups

defined

on

size

alone.

The

pattern

is

thus

more

complex

than

in

Neolithic

1

or

Mesolithic

2

where

groups

of

small,

medium

and large

sites

could

be

distinguished.

There

was

also

a

general increase

in

the

size

of

settlements

in

Neolithic

2,

the

villages,

for

example,

being

larger

than

all

but

the

biggest

Neolithic

1

sites.

Neolithic

2

villages

were

occupied

for

much

longer

than

most

Neolithic

1

sites.

This

is

clear

from

the

substantial

depths of

deposit

on

these

sites

formed

by

the

ruins

of

successive

multi-roomed

mud-brick

and

stone

houses.

-

26U

-

We

can

see

from

the

evidence

of the

14

C

determinations

that

these

sites

were

often

continuously

occupied

for

several

hundred

years:

Buqras

for

^00

years;

Tell

Ramad,

Jericho

and

Beidha

all

for

500

years

and

Ras

Shamra

for

about

the

same

length

of

time;

Ghoraife

for

800

years

and

Tell

Aswad

perhaps

1300

years

altogether

from

7800

B.C.

in

Neolithic

1

down

to

about

6500

B.C.

in

Neolithic

2.

Neolithic

2

settlements

were

not

only

"bigger

and

occupied

for

longer

than

Neolithic

1

sites

but

they were

also

much

more

numerous.

I

have

listed

123

sites

and

alluded

to

several

others.

More

have

been

found

in

surveys

that

are

still

taking

place

which

have

not

yet

been reported

while

the

where-

abouts

of

others

found

long

ago

is

no

longer

known.

These

sites

would

con-

siderably

augment

the

list

I

have

given

so

I

would

estimate

that the

true

total

of

Neolithic

2

sites

discovered

exceeds

150

and

probably

approaches

200.

These

sites

were

all

occupied

in

the

millennium

from

7000

to

6000

B.C.

whereas

the

23

Neolithic

1

sites

known

are

all

we have

to

fill

the

1500

years

of

Neolithic

1

from

8500

to

7000

B.C.

The flint

artifacts

on

Neolithic

2

sites

are

easier

to

identify

in

surface

surveys

than those of

Neolithic

1

and

the

Neolithic

2

village

sites

are

more conspicuous

than

Neolithic

1

surface

stations.

Neolithic

2

sites

tend

to

be

larger

and

so

easier

to

recognize

than

Neolithic

1

stations.

For

these

reasons

a

greater

proportion

of

Neolithic

2

than

Neolithic

1

sites

has

been

found

of

the

total

that once

existed

so

one

should

not

compare

the

sample

we

have

of

Neolithic

2

sites

directly

with

those

of

Neolithic

1.

Nevertheless when

all

allowances

are

made

it

is

obvious

that

the

landscape

of

the

Levant

in

Neolithic

2

was

much

more

thickly

populated

than

in

Neolithic

1.

We

have

seen

that

Neolithic

2

developed

from

Neolithic

1

in

each

region

of

the

Levant

so

there

can

be

no

doubt

that

this

increase

in

the

number

and

size

of

sites

was

caused

by

a

great

expansion

of

population.

This

growth

of

population

was more

rapid

and more

substantial

than

any

which

had

occurred

before.

It

came

about

partly

as

a

result

of

changes

that

had

taken

place

earlier

in

Neolithic

1.

As

the

population

grew

in

Neolithic

2

-

265

-

this

process

would

have

created

new

pressures

on

the

economy

and

pattern

of

settlement.

We

might expect

that

the

human

response

to

these

pressures

would

have

included

experiments

in

new

ways of

extracting

sustenance

from

the

environment.

The

increase

in

numbers

might

also

have

"been

partly

accommodated

"by

an

expansion

of

settlement

into

land

hitherto

unoccupied.

Almost

certainly

we

have

here

an

explanation

for

the

spread

of

sites

into

the

steppe

of

the

Syrian and

TransJordan

plateaux

and

into

Sinai.

Economy

Middle

Euphrates

sites

More

evidence

about

the

economy

has

"been

recovered

from

Neolithic

2

than

from Neolithic

1

sites

and

in

consequence

we

have

a

clearer

idea

of

how

people

lived

then.

One

of

the best

documented

sites

now

is

Tell

A"bu

Hureyra

so

it

will

"be

convenient

to

consider

the

economy

of

this

settlement

first.

Flotation

was

used

to

recover

plant

remains

at

Abu

Hureyra

(Moore,

1975»

55).

A

sample

of

soil

from

every

level

dug

in

the

main

trenches

was

washed

in

a

flotation

machine.

In

this

way

plant

remains

were

obtained

from

many

different

contexts

which,

when

fully

analysed,

will

give

a

detailed

picture

of what

plants

were

exploited

by

the

inhabitants

and

how

they

were

processed

and

used.

Several

cereals

were

cultivated

at

Abu

Hureyra

(Hillman,

1975»

73).

Seeds

of

domestic

emmer

were

quite

common

in

the

flotation

samples

and

wild

emmer

was

also present.

Domestic

and

wild

two-grained

einkorn

were

also

found.

Domestic

barley

was

another

common

crop

plant,

occurring

in

both

naked

and

hulled

six-rowed

forms.

Rye

(Secale

cereale)

was also

present

but

Hillman

tells

me

that

this

was

probably

a

weed

in

the cereal

crops

and not

cultivated

separately.

Both

emmer

and

barley

could

have been

domesticated

not

far

from

Abu

Hureyra.

Wild-type

einkorn

was

found

in

Mesolithic

levels

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

in

the

Neolithic

1

settlement

at

Mureybat

so

it

was

used

for

a

long

time

before

the

cultivated

varieties

were

developed.

This

makes

it

likely

that

einkorn

too

was

domesticated

locally

although

the

process

probably took

place

over

quite

a

wide

area

of

the

Eastern

Mediterranean

and

Near

East

(Renfrew,

1973,

MO-

-

266

-

Lentils

were

the

most

common

legume

grown.

Both

domestic

and

wild-type

seeds

of

this

species

were

found

which

Hillman

suggests

may

have

been

deliberately

cultivated

together.

Among

other

species

were

chick-peas

(Cicer

arietinum),

horse

bean

(Vicia

cf.

faba)

and

common

vetch

(Vicia

cf.

sativa).

Several

other

plants

such

as

capers

and

prosopis

were

collected

for

food.

Grapes

were

also

gathered

on

the

Euphrates

flood-plain

and

may

have

been

cultivated.

The

barley

and

legumes

were

probably

grown

on

the

moist

alluvium

of

the

flood-plain.

Some

of

the

weed

seeds

indicate

that

the

steppe

was

also

culti

vated,

as

it

is

today,

and

it

is

likely

that

wheat

was

grown

there.

The

two

principal

environmental

zones

in

the

vicinity

of

the

site

were

thus

exploited

for

agriculture.

The

climate

was

slightly

more

favourable

for

agriculture at

Abu

Hureyra

during

the

7th

millennium

than

it

is

now.

Rainfall

seems

to

have

been

more

regular

and

the

temperature

was

still

several

degrees

cooler

so

the

rainfall

was

more

effective,

even

if

little

more

fell

than

today.

Crops

grown

on

the

steppe

would

have

flourished

in

most

years

whereas

now

they

quite

often

fail.

The

crops

grown

on

the

flood-plain

would

have

benefited

from

the

moister

conditions

there

and

given

quite

high

yields.

Hillman

tells

me

that,

even

so,

some

of

the

lentils

and

other

seeds

are

so

large

that

they

resemble

seeds

of

plants

grown

today

with

the

aid

of

irrigation.

After

the

spring

floods

the

water

table

of

the

flood-plain

remains

high

until

mid-summer

although

the

level

of

the

river

drops

sharply.

The

regime

of

the

river

and

the

seasonal

rise

and

fall

of

the

water

table

were

probably

much

the

same

in

the

7th

millennium

so

that

cereals

grown

on

the

flood-plain

may

have

grown

well

without

irrigation

in

most

years.

Irrigation,

however

simple,

would

have

been

useful

for

the

cereals

in

dry

years

and would

have

considerably

increased

the

yields

of

the

legumes.

Irrigation

along

the

Euphrates

today

depends

on

motor

pumps

which

lift

the

water

from

the

river

as

much

as

6

or

7

m

up

to

the

level

of

the

flood-plain,

-

267

-

The

gradient

of

the

river

is

so

gentle that

a

gravity

system

of

irrigation

would

require

large

canals

many

kilometres

long.

Such

engineering

works

were

not

constructed

in

the

Neolithic.

The

unique

topography

of

Abu

Hureyra

made

possible

irrigation

"by

another

method

which

would

have

been

well

within

the

capabilities

of

the

Neolithic

inhabitants.

I

have

already

remarked

that

the

site

lay

near

the

mouth

of

the

Wadi

Hibna,

a

stream

which

flows

seasonally

now

but

which

was

probably

perennial

in

the

7th

millennium.

It

would

have

been

quite

simple

to

dam

this

stream

higher

up

and

to

tap

this

supply

with

a

small

channel

which

could

have

been led

along

the

side

of

the

wadi

to

irrigate

land

near

the

site.

In

this

way

crop

yields could

have

been

substantially

increased,

as

it

appears

happened

to

the

legumes,

and

so

a

much

greater

plant

food

supply

be

obtained

than

would

otherwise

have

been

possible.

The

Euphrates

valley

near

Abu

Hureyra

was

quite

a

favourable region

for

early

farming

but

not

naturally

sufficiently

well-watered

to

support

settlements

of

unusual

size.

The

tapping

of

the

Wadi

Hibna

for

irrigation

would

have

transformed

the

agri-

culture of

the

site

so

that

enough

food

could

have

been

grown

to

feed

its

large

population.

The

agricultural

economy

of

Abu

Hureyra

was

modified

somewhat

during the

life

of

the

settlement.

Cereal agriculture

became

more

important

and

more

legumes

were

cultivated.

There

are

also

indications

that

the

developed

strains

of

cultivated

cereals

were

more

common

in

the

later

levels

of

the

site.

As

time

passed

fewer edible

plants

were

collected

from

the

wild

to

supplement

the

plant

diet.

A

number

of

steppic

plants

were

found

in

the

Mesolithic

and

Neolithic

deposits

which

had

been

brought

into

the

site

for

fodder

and

fuel.

There

were

differences

in

the

species

present

in

each

phase

and

from

these

Hillman

has

deduced

that some

disturbance

of

the

natural

vegetation

of the

steppe

took

place

between

the

Mesolithic

and

Neolithic

(1975,

70).

This

was

caused

by

over-grazing,

tillage

and

clearance

of

the

trees

which

had

grown

on

the

plateau.

The

inference

that

some

of

the

damage

to

the

vegetation

was

caused

-

268

-

by

over-grazing

is

important

as it

implies

that

animals

were

"being

herded

on

the

steppe

at

the

beginning

of

Neolithic

2

on

the

Euphrates.

So

far

relatively

few

animal

bones

have

been

examined

of

the

great

number

that

were

excavated

but

already

these have

given

us

some

idea of

what

species

were

exploited

by

the

inhabitants

of

the

Neolithic

settlement.

Trench

D

was

excavated

in

deposits

that

belong

to

an

early

stage

of

the

aceramic

Neolithic

settlement and

the

faunal

assemblage

from

here

has

distinctive

characteristics

(Legge,

1975,

7*0.

Over

Q0%

of

the bones

are

from

Gazelle

(Gazella

subguturossa)

and

the

remainder

from

an

equid,

sheep,

goat

and

cattle

as

well

as

small quan-

tities

of

other

species.

The few

samples

which

have

been examined from

the

Mesolithic

settlement

also

have

a

great

preponderance

of

gazelle

so

this

may

be

a

continuation

into

Neolithic

2

of

a

long-lived

pattern

of

exploitation.

It

seems

likely

that

these

gazelle

were

being

controlled

by

man

and

that

they

were

responsible

for

the

over-grazing

of

the

steppe

detected

in

the

plant

remains

that

took

place

between

the

occupation

of

the

Mesolithic

and

Neolithic

settlements.

The

proportions

of

the

fauna

in

the

aceramic

Neolithic

levels

in

trench

E

were

quite

different.

Sheep

and

goat

accounted

for

over

10%

of

the

total,

sheep

being

about

three

times

as

common

as

goat

(Legge,

1975,

75).

Most

of

the

goats

were

Capra

aegragus

but

a

few

were

Capra

ibex.

Only

about

18%

of

the

total

were

gazelle

and

1%

cattle

while

equid,

pig

and

other

species

-^re

present

in

small

numbers,

A

sample

of bones

has

also

been

examined

from

the

ceramic

Neolithic

deposit, the

last

phase

of

occupation,

in

trench

B.

The

proportions

of

the

species

in

this

sample

were

almost

the

same

as

in

the

aceramic

Neolithic

of

trench

E.

Nearly

69%

were

sheep

and

goat

and

21%

gazelle.

Cattle

were'

about

6%

and

other

species

represented

by

a

few

bones

only.

Two

kinds

of

faunal

assemblage

are

represented

in

these

three

Neolithic

samples,

one

in

which

gazelle

predominates

with

the

balance

composed

of

sheep,

goat

and equid

and

a

second

dominated

by

sheep

and

goat

with

gazelle

and

cattle

accounting

for

much

of

the

remainder.

The

sample

from

trench

D

with

a

high

-

269

-

proportion

of

gazelle

is

certainly

early

in

the

Neolithic

sequence

while

that

from trench

B

composed

principally

of

sheep

and

goat

is

late.

The

trench

E

sample

which

also

has

a

high

proportion

of

sheep and

goat

is

probably

also

relatively

late

in

the

sequence.

What

this

suggests

is

that

when

the

Neolithic

settlement

was

founded

the

animal

exploitation

depended

principally

upon

gazelle

and

then

later

there

was

an

abrupt

change

to

sheep

with

goat

also

playing

a

significant

part.

Legge

believes

that such

a

rapid

change

implies

that

the

sheep

and

goat

were

domesticated

in

the

later

stages

of

the

settlement

(1975,

76).

These

species

had

been

present

in

the

area

at

least

since

the

Mesolithic

and

so

could

have

been

domesticated

locally.

Cattle

were

eaten

in

significant

numbers

throughout

the

duration

of

the

Neolithic

settlement. Some of

these

were

the

large

Bos

primigenius.

They

would

have

been

more

important

in

the diet

than

the

percentages

of

their

bones

suggest

because

of

their

size.

Several

other

species

were

present

in

the

faunal

samples

and may

have

been

eaten,

among

them

roe

and fallow

deer,

hare,

fox

and

cat.

The

inhabitants

of

Neolithic

Abu

Hureyra

also

caught

birds

and

fish

and

collected

shellfish

from

the

river.

Most of

their

meat

was

obtained from

animals

that

were

probably

herded

but

they

also

ate a

significant

amount

of

several

wild

species.

It

is

interesting

that

the

diet

was

supplemented

in

this

way

by

such

a

variety

of

animals

for the same

seems

also

to

have

been

true

of the

plants.

Neolithic

Abu

Hureyra

depended

upon

agriculture

and

the

close

control

of

certain

animals

for

its

food

supply.

One

can

see

that

this

basic

pattern

was

modified

with

the

passing

of

time

as

the

inhabitants

concentrated

on

more

productive

crops

and

at a

certain

moment

took

up sheep

and

goat

herding.

The

two

latter

species

would

have

provided

milk

and hide

products

as

well

as

meat

and

so

have

been

more

use

to

man

than

gazelle.

Sheep

and

goats

could

have

been herded

on

the

steppe during

the

winter

and

spring,

perhaps

some

distance

away

from

the

settlement.

When

the

level

of

the

river

fell

in

the

summer

a

large

area of

the

banks

were

exposed

which provided

good

pasture

near

ample

-

270

-

water

at

a

time

when

pasture

on

the

steppe

dried

up.

The

arable

fields

were

another

source of

pasture

after

the

harvest.

The

Neolithic

herdsman

could

have

brought

their

animals

down

to

the

river

during

the

summer

and

autumn

to

tale

advantage

of these conditions

so

maintaining

larger

flocks

than

would

otherwise

have

been

possible.

Most

of

the

Neolithic

inhabitants

probably

lived

at

Abu

Hureyra

all

the

year

round

on

the

evidence

of

the

plant

remains.

They

were

there

in

the

late

summer

and

autumn to

prepare

the

ground

and

sow

the

cereals

and

legumes.

These

plants

were

harvested

in

May

and

June.

Some

of

the

weeds

and

wild

fruits

like

capers

ripened

in

the

late

summer

when

they were

collected

and

brought

to

the

site.

Winter

occupation

is

not

definitely

attested

yet

but

some

of the

inhabitants

had

to

tend

the

crops

and

it

is

likely

that

most

of

the others

remained

there.

Having

considered

the

economy

of

Abu

Hureyra

in

some

detail

it

will

be

useful

now

to

examine

the

economic

evidence

from

the

contemporary

site

of

Buqras.

This

settlement

was

in

the

steppic

zone in

an

area

that

was

probably

too

arid

for

successful

dry

farming

during

the

Neolithic.

No

plant

remains

were

recovered

in

the

excavation

(de

Contenson,

1966b,

152)

but

a

report

has

been

published

on

the

animal

bones

which

were

found.

The

most

abundant

remains

were

of

sheep

(Ovis

orientalis)

and

goat

(Capra

aegagrus)

and

of

these

sheep

were

more

numerous

than

goat

(Hooijer,

1966,

19*0.

There

were

no

morphological

indications

of

domestication

in

the

bones

of

the

sheep

but

some

of

the

goats

were

thought

to

have

been

domesticated.

Cattle

were

importance

after

the

ovicaprines;

most

of

these

were

the

large

Bos

primigenius

but

smaller,

possibly

domesticated

cattle

were

present

in

level

I

(Hooijer,

1966,

193).

Only

one

equid

tooth

was

found

and

no

gazelle

bones

at all.

The

few

other

bones

were

from

a

jackal

or

fox

and

a

vulture.

This

assemblage

resembles

that

from

the

later

aceramic

and

ceramic

Neolithic

levels

at

Abu

Hureyra.

The

inhabitants

of

both

sites

depended

principally

upo.n

sheep

and

goat

for

their

meat

with

cattle

as

a

major

-

271

-

supplement.

It

is

probable

that

the

ovicaprines

at

Buqras

were

herded

as

they

appear

to

have

been

at

Abu

Hureyra.

The

absence

of

gazelle

and

the

other

supplementary

species

at

Buqras

is

surprising

but

the

faunal sample

appears

to

have

been

small

and

has,

in

any

case,

not

yet

been

fully

published.

The

absence

of

cereals

but

presence of

sickle

blades

and

grinding

tools

led

de

Contenson

to

the

conclusion

that

the

inhabitants

ate

some

vegetable

foods

but

did

not engage

in

agriculture

(I966b,

152).

On

the

evidence

of

the

animal

bones

he

decided

that

they

were

pastoralists.

Since

the

pattern

of

animal

exploitation

at

Buqras

is

similar

to

that

at

Abu

Hureyra

one

might

well

ask

if

in

fact

the

plant

economy

may

not

also

have

had

some

features

in

common.

The

absence of

plant

remains

in

the

excavation

need

not

be

significant

for

soil

conditions

may

not

have

permitted

the

preservation

of

such

material

even

if

it

once

existed

at

the

site.

Buqras

was

excavated

before

flotation was

widely

practised

so

that

the

likelihood

that

plant

remains

would

have

been

recovered,

even if

they were

there,

was

less

than

it

would

be

now.

Buqras

is

a

substantial

site

which

was

occupied

for

several

centuries

so

its

inhabit-

ants

must

have

had

a

dependable

food

supply.

Since

the

region

was

so

arid

they

could

not

have

subsisted

on

wild

plants

alone

but

must

have

engaged

in

regular

agriculture,

probably

with

cereals

as

the staple

crops.

These

would

have

been

grown

on

the

Euphrates

flood-plain

for

the

steppe

was

too

arid

for

anything

but the

occasional

planting.

Higher

yields

may

have

been

obtained

using

a

simple

irrigation

system.

The

economy

of

Buqras

would

thus

have

resembled

Abu

Hureyra

in

most respects

except

for

certain

modifications

occasioned

by

its

more

arid

environment.

A

Dutch

team

is

now

carrying

out

new

excavations

at

the

site,

partly

to

learn

more

about

its

economy

so

we

should

know

shortly

if

this

suggested

reconstruction

is

correct

or

not.

Some

plant

and

animal

remains

were

identified

during

the

brief

excavations

at

El

Kum

and

these

give

us

an

idea

of

the

economy

of the

site.

Both

wheat

and

barley

seeds

were

found

and

also

bones

of

gazelle,

an

equid,

large

cattle

which

may

have

been

Bos

primigenius,

sheep

and

goat

(Dornemann,

1969,

TO).

It

is

-

272

-

said

that

the

animals

were

probably

wild

but

the

status

of

the

plants

is

not

known.

These

species

of

plants and

animals

were

all

important

in

the

economy

of

Abu

Hureyra

and

may

have

been

exploited

in

similar

ways

at

El

Kum

despite

the

different

location

of

the

two

sites.

El

Kum

was

a

large,

long-lived

settlement

whose

inhabitants

needed

a

regular,

substantial

food

supply.

They

could

only

have

obtained

this

from

herded

animals,

perhaps

supplemented

by

hunting,

and

from

agricultural

produce.

It

seems

probable,

therefore,

that

some of the animals

at

El

Kum

were

controlled

and

that

the

wheat

and

barley

were

cultivated.

El

Kum

is

quite

high

up

and

the

hills

nearby

receive

more

rainfall today

than

the

surrounding

plateau.

The

site

would

have

been

situated

in a

relatively

well-watered

area

in

the 7th

millennium

so

that

agriculture

certainly

could

have

been

practised

in

the

vicinity.

West

Syrian

sites

The

economy

of

settlements

in

the

West

Syrian group was

a

little

different.

These

sites

were

in

the

Mediterranean

or

open

forest

zones

and

enjoyed

a

higher

rainfall

than

the

Euphrates

settlements.

One

such

site

was

Tell

Ramad

in an

area

of

open

forest

vegetation.

The

inhabitants

cultivated

several

kinds

of

wheat,

principally

emmer

but

also

einkorn and

the

relatively

complex

club

wheat

(Triticum

compactum)

(van

Zeist,

Bottema,

1966,

179ff).

Two-row

hulled

barley

and

lentils

were

also

grown.

Many

of

the

Neolithic

skeletons

had

worn

teeth

because

the

inhabitants

were

eating

so

many

cereals

ground

on

stone

querns

(Ferembach,

1969»

70).

Several

other

legumes

and

grasses,

hawthorn

fruits

(Crataegus azarolus),

almond

and

pistachio

nuts

were

collected. This

combination

of

cultivated

cereals

and

legumes

with

the

addition

of

wild

supple-

ments

is

quite

similar

to the

plant

economy

of

Abu

Hureyra

although

several

of

the

species

are

different.

The

cereals

were

grown

without

irrigation

because

of

the

higher

rainfall.

The

wild

nuts

and

fruits

collected

at

Ramad

were

not

present

in

the

Neolithic

levels

at

Abu

Hureyra

because

they

were

not

growing

near

the

site

then.

-

273

-

The

main

food

animals

of

Ramad

I

and

II

were

gazelle

and

deer,

particularly

red

deer,

although

pigs,

an

equid

and

caprines

were

also

present

(de

Contensen,

1971,

279;

Hooijer,

1966,

195).

De

Contenson

thought

that

the

gazelle

and

deer

-were

hunted

but

the

gazelle

may

have

been

subject

to

a

form

of

human

control

as

on

other

sites.

The

pigs

certainly

seem

to

have

been

herded

since

most of

them

were

killed

young.

Red

deer

disappeared

from

this

region

at

the

end

of

Neolithic

2

and

none

of

their

bones

was

found

in

the

settlement

of

Ramad

III.

This

decline

is

linked

with

the

continued

rise

in

temperature

and

thinning

out

of

the

forests

in

this

stage

and

later.

From

the

evidence

available

so

far

it

would

appear

that

the

inhabitants

of

Neolithic

2

Ramad

depended

for

food

upon

cereal

and

legume

agriculture

and

the

hunting

or

herding

of

gazelle, deer

and

pigs.

This

pattern

of

exploitation

would

have

provided

a

fairly

secure

food

supply

during

the

centuries

when

the

Neolithic

2

site

was

inhabited.

The

information

available

for the

economy

of

Neolithic

2

Ras

Shamra

is

scanty

at

present.

All

we

know

is

that

bones

of

domesticated

cattle, goat,

pig and

wild

boar

(de

Contenson,

1963,

35)

and

also

a

large

fish

vertebra

(de

Contenson,

1962,

509)

were

found.

This

list

of

the

major

species

suggests

that

the

pattern

of

animal

exploitation

was

somewhat

different from

any

of

the

Euphrates

sites.

Palestinian

sites

The

basic

economy

of

the

principal

settlements

in

the

Palestinian

group

was quite

similar

to

that

of

West

Syrian

and

Middle

Euphrates

sites

although

there

were

differences

in

detail.

The

economy

of

PPNB

Jericho

depended

upon

agriculture

and

many

of the

same

species

were

grown

as

on

sites

further

north.

Two-row

hulled

barley

and

emmer

were both

cultivated

as

they

had

been

in

the

PPNA

but

two-grained

einkorn

was

also

planted

now

(Hopf,

1969,

356).

Hopf

thought that

the

domesticated

einkorn

was

introduced

from

further

north

because

it

was

believed

then

to

have

been

domesticated

in

southern

Turkey

(Harlan,

Zohary,

1966,

1079),

an

area

where

the

wild

form

grows

prolifically

today.

Wild

einkorn

probably

grew

in

the

Levant

in

the

7th

millennium

as

well

as

in

Anatolia, northern

Mesopotamia

and

the

Zagros,

the

regions

where

it

is

found

today,

because

the

cooler

and

moister

climate

would

have

suited

it.

We

have already

noted

that

einkorn

was

probably

domesticated

over

a

wider

area

which

included

northern

Syria

than

was

thought

likely

a

decade

ago. It

is

possible that

the

area

of

domestication

even

extended

into

Palestine,

in

which

case

the

Jericho

cultivated

einkorn could

have

been

developed

near

the

site.

Peas,

chick-peas,

lentils

and

horse

beans

were

all

grown

at

Jericho

in

this

phase.

No

legumes

were

found

in

PPNA

levels

so

they

may

not

have

been

cultivated

that

early.

Almonds,

figs,

capers

and

Salvadora

charcoals

were

found

(Western,

1971,

36)

so

the

edible

nuts

and

fruits

of

these

species

were

probably

collected

for

food.

Ash,

plane

and

tamarisk

charcoals

were

also

identified

which

help

us

to

reconstruct

the

environment

of

the

site.

Ash,

plane,

almond

and

fig

would

all

have grown

in

the

wooded

Judean

hills

a

little

to the

west

of

the

site.

The

ash,

plane and

fig

probably

grew

in

the

well-

watered

wadi

bottoms

and

so

may

not

be truly

typical

of

the

vegetation

of

the

surrounding

hills

which

probably

now

carried

a

thin

tree

cover

of

the

open

forest

type.

The

tamarisk,

capers

and

Salvadora

would

have

come

from

the

semi-arid

steppe

of

the

Jordan valley

bottom.

The

plant economy

of

PPNB

Jericho

was

based

upon

the

growing

of

at

least

three

cereals

and

several

legumes,

all

of

which

were

cultivated

further

north.

A

number

of

wild

nuts

and

fruits

were

also

collected

in

season

to

supplement

the

diet.

We

may

deduce

from

these

plant remains,

as

we did

at

Abu

Hureyra,

that

Jericho

was

inhabited

all the

year

round.

Far

fewer

gazelle

were

eaten

in

the

PPNB than

in

the

PPNA

for

they

con-

stituted

only

17.86%

of

the

total

meat

available

(Glutton-Brock,

1971,

U6).

More

goats

were

killed,

and

this

species

came

to replace

the

gazelle

as

the

major

food

animal (Glutton-Brock,

1971,

53).

Most

of

the

goats

were

thought

to

have

been

the

wild

Capra

aegagrus but two

with

twisted

horn

cores

were

-

275

-

believed

to

have

"been

domesticated.

Several

sheep

"bones

were

also

found

in

the

PPNB

levels

(Glutton-Brock,

Uerpmann,

197^,

261),

more

than

in

the

PPNA

but

sheep

were

still

far

less

common

than

goat.

Pigs

of

a

type

thought

to

be the

wild

Sus

scrofa

were

another

important

source

of

food.

These

animals

would

have

been

common

in

the

thickets

along

the

Jordan

and

its

tributary

wadis.

Some

bones

of

the

large

Bos

primigenius

were

also

found

(Glutton-Brock,

1971,

U6),

enough

to

suggest

that this

species

also

made

a

significant

contribution

to

the

meat

diet.

Considerable

quantities

of

fox

and

other

carnivore bones

were

found

in

the

PPNB

at

Jericho

(Glutton-Brock,

1969,

fig.

1)

although

they

were

less

numerous

than

in

the

PPNA.

If the

hypothesis

that

they

were

caught for

their

pelts

is

correct

then

this

activity

was

still

important.

Leopards

were

also

killed,

perhaps

for

their

skins

or

because

they were

dangerous

predators.

The

replacement

of

gazelle

by

goat

with

sheep

as

the most

important

meat

source

of

PPNB

Jericho

closely

parallels

the

change

from

a

gazelle

to

a

sheep-dominated

economy

at

Abu

Hureyra.

The

goats

at

Jericho

were

probably

herded

for

otherwise

they

could

not

have

provided

the

regular

supply

of

food

that

the

inhabitants

required.

Cattle

and

pigs

were

an

important

additional

source

of

meat

at

Jericho

as

the

latter

had

been

at

Tell

Ramad.

Jericho

combines

aspects

of

the

animal

exploitation

on

both

Middle

Euphrates

and

West

Syrian

sites.

A

report

has

recently

been

published

on

the

animal

bones

found

at

Sheikh

Ali

which

makes

it

clear that

the

inhabitants

were

living

in

much

the

same

way

as

people

on

other

settlements

in

Palestine.

Ovicaprines

were

the most

numerous

animals

killed

(Jarman,

197^,

fig-

1)

with

cattle

second

in

importance.

Meat

was

also

obtained

from

pigs

and

gazelle

but

there

were

relatively

few

of

these.

The

cattle

varied

in

size,

a

few

being

so

large

that

they

may

have

been

Bos

primigenius

while

others

were

much

smaller.

Jarman

believes

that

the

ages

at

which

the

sheep,

goats,

cattle,

pigs

and

gazelle

were

slaughtered

indicates

that

all

were

controlled

by

man

(197^,

55).

He

suggests

that

the

ovicaprines

-

276

-

were

exploited

for

their

milk

and

wool

products

"because

most

were

killed

in

their third

year.

The

cattle

were

also

slaughtered

at

about

the

same

age

because

it

took

them

that

long

to

reach

their

full

weight.

In

contrast

most

of

the

pigs

were

killed

in

their

first

or

second

year.

Pigs

"breed

rapidly

and

so

most

could

"be

killed

young

for

their

meat

without

reducing

the

reproductive

capacity

of

the

herd

(Jarman,

197^,

57).

Such

close

control

of

several

herds

of

animals

has not

yet

"been

noticed

on

other

sites

but

that

may simply

be

because

the

animal

bones

have

not

been

examined

in

sufficient

detail.

The

general

pattern

of

large

numbers

of

ovi-

caprines

being

killed

is

the

same

as

at

Jericho,

Munhatta

and

on

sites

in

the

Euphrates

valley

while

the

still

important

if

secondary

place

held

by

cattle,

pigs

and

gazelle

accords

with

the

evidence

from

Ramad

and

other

Palestinian

and

West Syrian

sites.

No

plant

remains

were

recovered

at

Munhatta

but

a

sample

of

animal

bones

from

the

site

has

been

studied.

Ovicaprines

accounted

for

33%

of

the

bones

and

of

these sheep

were

about

twice

as

numerous

as

goats

(Ducos,

1968,

85).

Gazelle

(21.3%}

were

the

second

and

wild

boar

(22.6%}

the

third

major

source

of

food.

Cattle

(12.7%)

also

contributed

much

meat

to the

food

supply.

These

were

very

mixed

in

size, some

being

as

large

as

Bos

primigenius and

others

somewhat

smaller.

The

only

other

food

animals

were

a

few

roe

deer,

the

remaining

bones

all

being

attributed

to

carnivores.

Ducos

thought

that on

morphological

grounds

all

these

animals

were

wild

and

therefore

hunted

yet

the

pattern

of

exploitation

has

much

in

common

with

that

of

Jericho,

Sheikh Ali

and

Tell

Ramad.

Most of

the

ovicaprines

were

killed

between

one

and

three years

of

age

(Ducos,

1969,

fig.

k}

with

the

peak

falling

in

the

third

year.

This

is

the

same

distribution

as

at

Sheikh

Ali

where

it

has

been

suggested

that

the ovicaprines

were

herded.

It

is

likely

that the

gazelles

were

also

controlled

in

©ome

way

at

Munhatta

as

they

seem

to

have

been

at

Jericho

and

elsewhere.

Some

information

has

been

published

about

a

collection

of

animal

bones

-

277

-

from

Beisamun.

The

precise

phase

of

occupation

from

which

the

sample

was

obtained

has not

been

made

clear

but

it

is

likely

that

the

material

came

from

deposits

that

were laid

down

either

late

in

Neolithic

2

or

early

in

the

Cattle bones

were

the

most

numerous

(35-9%)

and

ovicaprines

(29'k%)

second

in

importance;

these

have

been

identified

as

Capra

hircus

aegagrus

and

Qvis

orientalis

(Ducos,

1969,

table

1).

Pigs

(2k.k%)

were

also

important

in

the

diet

but

gazelle

(7

'.2%)

and

deer

(1.7/0

were

killed

in

very

small numbers.

Ducos

f

s

studies

make

it

clear

than

many

of

the

cattle

were

killed

at

maturity

between

four

and

6.5

years

(1969,

fig.

3).

This

pattern,

which

to

some

extent

resembles

that

at

Sheikh

Ali,

suggests

that

the

herds

were

controlled

by

man.

Most of

the

ovicaprines

on

the

other

hand

were

killed

when they

were

quite

young

which

probably

also

indicates

control

by

man

as

we

have

seen

on

other

sites

although

Ducos

believes

on

the

same

evidence

that

they

were

hunted

in

the

wild

(1969,

271).

The

ages

at

death

of

the

pigs

do

not

indicate

that

they

were

domesticated

or

controlled

even

though

so

many

were

killed

(Ducos,

1969,

270).

Animal

exploitation

in

the

Neolithic

2

levels

at

El

Khiam

depended

almost

entirely

upon

caprines

(Ducos,

1968,

79).

Gazelle,

cattle,

an

equid

and

wild

pigs

were

also

killed

but only

in

very

small

numbers.

The

dependence

upon

caprines

here

was

more

marked

than

at

other

Palestinian

sites.

This

was

partly

because

the

caprines

were

better

adapted

to

the

broken

country

around El

Khiam

than

other

species.

The

inhabitants

of

El

Khiam

would

not

have

been

cultivators

as

there

was

no

agricultural

land

in

the

neighbourhood

yet

the

site

was

quite

extensive

and

the

artifacts

were

typical

of

a

well-established

settlement.

The

wild

plant

foods

in

the

area

would

not

have

been

sufficient

to

have

supported

the

inhabit-

ants all

the

year

round.

They

were probably

a

semi-sedentary

group

who

engaged

in

herding

and

practised

transhumance

like

their

predecessors.

The

plant

remains

and

animal

bones

provide

fairly clear

evidence

that

the

economy

of the

settlement

sites

in

Palestine

depended

upon

cereal

agriculture

-

278

-

and

herding.

This

helps

us

to

interpret

the

way

of

life

of

the

inhabitants

of

other

sites

from

which

no

organic

material

has

been

recovered.

A

number

of

the

surface

sites

in

Palestine

have

yielded

a

fairly

broad

range

of

stone

tools

indicating

that

the

people

who

lived

on

them

carried

out

many

different

activities.

The

inhabitants

of

several

of

these

camps

and

settlements

such

as

Tahuneh,

Tantur,

Tell

el

Ful

and

Tell

en-Nasbeh certainly

lived

principally

by

some

combination

of

cereal

agriculture

and

herding.

The

same

was

probably

true

of

the

excavated

settlements

at

Abu

Gosh

and

Tell

el

Far'ah.

The

economy

of

Nahal

Oren

in

Neolithic

2

was

an

interesting

variation

of

the

pattern

on

other

sites

in

Palestine.

Emmer

and

barley

were

both

eaten

and

the

emmer,

at

least, was

cultivated

(Noy

et

al.,

1973,

table

6).

Lentils

and

vetch

were probably

also

grown.

The

fruits

of

the

olive, carob

and

pomegranate

were

eaten;

the

last

is

particularly

interesting

as it

supports

the

identification

of

pomegranate

charcoal

in

PPNA

levels

at

Jericho

and

proves

that

the

tree

grew

in

Palestine

much

earlier

than

has

been

thought

hitherto. These

trees

and

the

holm

oak

which

is

also

attested

are all

Medi-

terranean

species

confirming

that

the

site

was

surrounded

by Mediterranean

forest.

The

cultivated

cereals

and

legumes suggest

that

the

inhabitants

of

the

small

Neolithic

2

settlement

grew

several

crops

which

probably

provided

a

good

deal of

their

food.

They

still

killed

considerable

quantities

of

gazelle,

76.7%

°f

the

^ones

in

this

phase

(Noy

et

al.,

1973,

table

3),

but

fewer

than

in

Neolithic

1.

A

smaller

proportion

of

the

gazelle

were

young

animals

indicating

that

gazelle

herding

was

being

given

up.

13.9$

of

"the

bones

were from

goats,

an

increase

which

suggests

that

this

species

was

slowly

being

substituted

for

gazelle

in

the

diet.

Even

so,

the

percentage

of caprines

at

Nahal

Oren

was

much

lower

than

at

settlement

sites

elsewhere

in

the

Levant,

another

indication

perhaps

that

Nahal

Oren

was

occupied

early

in

Neolithic

2

before

goat

and

sheep

herding

was

adopted

elsewhere

or

simply

that

the

change

took

place

much more

gradually

here.

The

only

other

animals eaten

in

any

numbers

were

pig

(k.h%)

and

cattle

-

279

-

(2.U/0

vhile

a

few

fallow

and

roe

deer

were

still

hunted.

The

proportions

of

swine

and

cattle

killed

increased

slightly

in

Neolithic

2,

a

trend

which

was

much

more

marked

at

Jericho.

It

is

possible

that

the

inhabitants

of

Nahal

Oren

still

practised

trans-

humance

but

the

evidence

suggests

that,

if

it

took

place

at

all,

it

was

much

less

important

than

in

earlier

phases.

The

settlement

was

smaller

than

in

Neolithic

1

and

its

inhabitants

could

have

obtained

much

of

the

food

they

needed

in

the

vicinity

of

the

site.

Now

that

they were

growing

several

crops

they

would

have

had

to

spend

much of

the

year

on

the

site.

Some

herdsman

might

still

have

left

the

settlement

to

watch

the

gazelle

but

if

the

goats

were

herded,

as

seems

probable,

they

could

have

been

pastured

quite

adequately

all

the

year

round

in

the

neighbourhood.

The

nearby

site

of

Iraq,

el

Barud

has

produced

a

fairly

limited

range

of

material indicating

that very

few

activities

were

carried

out

there.

Such

a

site

may

have

been

simply

a

herdsman's

camp

used

by

a

small

group

whose

homes

were

at

another

larger

settlement.

Rakafet,

which

has

produced

exiguous

Neolithic

2

remains

(Noy,

Higgs,

1971

»

225),

may

have

been

a

similar

herds-

man

's

camp.

I

now

wish

to

consider

the

economies

of

two

settlements,

Beidha

and

Nahal

Divshon,

belonging

to

sub-groups

of

the

Palestinian

cluster

of

sites

but

which

lie

well

to

the

south-east

and

south

of

Palestine.

The

inhabitants

of

the

Neolithic

2

settlement

at

Beidha

depended

upon

farming

for

their

existence.

Information

about the

plants

they

used

was

obtained

from

imprints

of

vegetable

matter

left

in

the

clay

of

the

walls

and

roof of

one

building

(Helbaek,

1966,

61)

which

may

not

give

a

truly

representa-

tive

picture

of the

plant

economy

of

the

whole

settlement.

The

most

common

imprints

were

of

two-row

hulled

barley.

This

was the

wild

form

(Hordeurn

spontaneum) but

the

grains

were

larger

than

those

of

the

truly

wild

plant,

a

morphological

change

which

led

Helbaek

to

suggest

that

the

plant

was

being

cultivated

(1966,

62).

Emmer

was

the

other

cereal

grown.

Considerable

-

280

-

quantities

of

wild

pistachio

nuts,

acorns

and

several

legumes,

among

them

vetch

(Vicia

narbonense), medic

(Medicago

sp.)

and

cock's

comb

(Onobrychis

crista-galli)

were

collected.

The

bulb

of

the

bulbous

barley

(Hordeum

bulbosum)

was

eaten,

a

plant

which

was

also

collected

at

Abu

Hureyra.

Helbaek

has

pointed

out

that

for

barley

and

emmer

to

have

been

cultivated

the

rainfall

around

Beidha

must

have

been

higher

than

it is

today

(1966,

66).

This

problem

has

been

studied

by

Raikes

who,

while

conceding

that

the

rainfall

may

have

been

a

little

higher,

believes

that

because

the

run-off

from

the

surrounding

hills

was

concentrated

in

the

valley

in

which

the

site

was

situated

the

soil

would

have

been

moist

enough

for

farming

even

if

the

mean

rainfall

was

quite

low

(1966,

68ff).

In fact

as

we

have

seen

from

other

evidence

the

effective

rainfall

in

this

region

would

have

been

significantly

higher

in

the

early

7th

millennium

than

it

is

now

so

that

the

environs of

the

site

would

have

been

quite

favourable

for

early

agriculture.

Caprine

bones

at

Beidha

comprised

86.5%

of

the

total

collected

(Perkins,

1966,

67)

so

there

is

no

doubt

that

these

were

the

main

source

of

meat.

Both

bezoar

and

beden

were

present

and

a

high

proportion

of the

remains

were

of

young

animals

from

which

Perkins

has

deduced

that

they

were

domesticated.

Both

had

been

common

in

the

area

since

the

Pleistocene

because

they

were

well-

adapted

to

the

rugged

terrain.

The

other

possible

food

species

killed

were

Bos

primigenius,

gazelle,

wild

boar,

an

equid,

hyrax,

hare

and

also

some

birds.

These

studies

have

established

that

the

inhabitants

of

Beidha

were

growing

barley

and

emmer

and

probably

herding

goats.

They

still

collected

many

other

food

plants

and

hunted

other

animals

in

the

vicinity

of

the

site

so

that

agriculture

was

not

perhaps

so

broadly

based

as

on some

of

the

settle-

ment

sites

further

north.

Nevertheless

it

is

interesting

that

cultivated

emmer

and

barley

and

flocks

of

goats

formed

the

basis

of

the

economy

at

Beidha

for

the

same

combination

has

been

found

on

other

settlement

sites

in

the

Levant.

-

281

-

Nahal

Divshon

had

much

less

substantial

remains

than

Beidha

and

relatively

little

organic

material

was

found

there.

Nevertheless

the

pollen

and faunal

samples

that

were collected

are

of

much

interest.

A

little

of the

pollen

proved

to

"be

from

olive,

almond,

Aleppo

pine

and

pistachio

trees

(Horowitz,

1976,

66),

all

Mediterranean

species

that

were

growing

in

the

area

during

the

7th

millennium.

Most

of

the

pollen

was

from

grasses,

Chenopodiaceae

and

Compositae.

Some

of

the grains

of

grass

pollen

were

very

large

and

are

thought

to

have

come

from

domesticated

cereals

that

might

have

"been

cultivated

around

Nahal

Divshon.

The

site lies

at

the

bottom

of

the

Nahal

Zin

where

run-off

from

the

surrounding

hills

was concentrated.

This

would

have

"been

one

of

the

most

favourable

spots

in

the

area

for

simple

farming.

A

few

faunal

remains

of

four

ruminants

have

"been

identified

from

Nahal

Divshon.

One

was

a

Bos

primigenius

tooth,

four

were

horn

core

fragments

of

fallow

deer

and

the

others

bones

of

ibex

and

gazelle

(Tchernov,

1966,

69).

Fallow

deer

prefer

a

wooded

environment

and

their

presence

in

the

Nahal Divshon

area

thus

accords

well

with

the

arboreal

pollen

evidence.

It

is

not

known

if

any

of

these

animals

were

herded

although

on

analogy

with

sites

elsewhere

it

is

possible

that

the

ibex

and

gazelle

were.

The

economy

of

Nahal

Divshon

cannot

be

described

with

certainty

because

of

the

paucity

of

evidence.

The

site

was

inhabited

by

a

small group

who

may

have

been

cultivating

cereals

and

who

doubtless

collected

other

edible

plants.

It

remains

possible

that

they

herded

ibex

or

gazelle

but

the

other

animals

were

probably

hunted.

The

pattern

of

life

may

not

have

differed

much from

that

on

other

small

settlement

sites

further

north

like

Nahal

Oren.

I

have

discussed

settlements

throughout

the

Levant

for

which

there

is

some

economic

evidence from

organic

remains.

There

is

still

a

large group

of

sites

to

be

considered

which

in

the

7th

millennium

were

situated

in

the

open

forest

and

steppe

bordering

the

heavily

wooded

areas

of

the

Levant.

These

are

the

surface

sites

in

Sinai

and

the

Negev,

on

the

TransJordan

plateau,

around

Palmyra

and

in

the

Jebel

Abdul

Aziz.

All

were

occupied

during

the

-

282

-

expansion

of

settlement

that

took

place

in

Neolithic

2.

Few

of these

sites

have

"been

excavated

and

there

is

very

little

direct

evidence

for

their

economies.

In

consequence

it

is

necessary

to

consider

other

sources

of

information

in

order

to

determine

how

their

inhabitants

lived.

Some

of

the

sites

were

small,

that

is

less

than

500

sq.

m

in

area,

with

few

types

of

chipped

stone

tools

and

hardly

any

other

artifacts.

I

think

it

probable

that

these

were

stations

occupied

briefly

by

small

groups

of

hunters

or

foragers.

Examples

of such

sites

are

Sheikh

Abdul

Aziz

and

Khazne

Cave

I

in

the

Jebel

Abdul

Aziz

and

some

of

the

small

stations

near

Palmyra,

in

the

Azraq

basin

and

in

the

Jebel

Meghara

in

Sinai.

Nacharini,

several

of

the

small

stations

found

by

Neuville

near

Jaffa

and

sites

62/0,

6hA and

TO

near

Ashdod

are

similar

kinds

of site

in

the

Mediterranean

zone.

These

stations

were

used

by

people

who

probably

belonged

to

larger

groups

inhabiting

camps

or

settlements

either

in

the

surrounding

region

or

further

away.

Hunting

and

collecting

still

played

a

part

in

the

Neolithic

2

economy

providing

a

useful

supplement

to

the

diet

even

on

large

settlement

sites.

Most

of

the

other

surface

sites

had

another

function.

A

few

like

those

in

the

Wadi

Dhobai

were

as

small

as

the

hunting

stations

but

others

were

much

larger.

All

had

a

fairly

wide

range

of

chipped

stone tools

and

on

some

there

were

remains of

structures.

A

few

bones

of

fox,

badger

(Meles

sp.),

gazelle

and

rock

partridge

(Alectoris

cf.

graeca)

were

found

at

Wadi

Dhobai

B

(Bate,

1938,

29U)

but

these

do

not

throw

much

light

on

the

economy

of

the

site

although

the

badger

bones

are

useful

supplementary

evidence

that

its

environment

was

more

wooded

than

it

is

now.

These

camps

and

settlements

were

occupied

for

longer

than

the

hunting

stations

by

groups

that

were

sometimes

about

the

size

of

the

bands

of

earlier

stages

but

which

were

often

much

larger.

These

larger

groups

could

not

have

stayed

together

very

long

in

the

steppe

if

they

were

existing

solely

by

hunting

and

gathering.

It

follows

that

they must have

lived

in

some

other

way

that

enabled

them

to

exploit

the

resources

of

the

steppe for

perhaps several

months

-

283

-

of

the

year

at

a

time.

In

Neolithic

1

quite large

semi-sedentary

groups

seem

to

have

lived

off

herds

of

animals

which

they

controlled.

Such

transhumant

groups

may now

have

extended

their

range

into

the

steppe

as

the

agricultural

population

of

the

Mediterranean

and

open

forest

zones

grew.

One

major

economic

development

which

seems

well-attested

on

Neolithic

2

settlements

would

have

"been

important

here

and

this

is

the

domestication

of

the

goat

and

possibly

the

sheep

in

the

Euphrates

region.

The

goat

and

sheep

would

have

"been

able

to

graze

satisfactorily

on

the

steppe

and

by

providing

milk

as

well

as

meat

were

more

useful

as

a

regular

source

of food

than

herded

gazelle

would

have

been.

These

groups

would

have

depended

upon

their

herds

for

much

of

their

food

but

would

also

have

hunted

wild

animals

and

collected

edible

plants

in

season.

They

may

even

have

grown

a

few

crops

in

more

favoured

areas.

Such

pastoral

groups

may

have

been

able

to live

at

their

camps

and

settlements

for

quite

extended

periods

as

even

the

steppe

was

a

richer

source

of

grazing

and

edible

plants

in

the

7th

millennium

than

it

is

now.

This

might

have

been

the

way

of

life

of

the

people

who

lived

on

the

sites

near

Palmyra.

The

hills

of

Jebel

el

Abyad

and Jebel

Abu

Rujmein

would

have

carried

open

forest

and

even

some

of

the

valleys

would

have

been

lightly

wooded

while

the

broader

valleys

and

open

plains

were

covered

with

park-like

steppe.

Such

an

environ-

ment

would

have

been

particularly

suitable

for

pastoral

groups.

Others

may

have

been

transhumant

following

a

seasonal

progression

from

camps

in

one

region

to

camps

in

another

with

complementary

resources.

This

may have

been

the

way

of

life of the

inhabitants

of

the

sites

around

Nizzana

and

the

Halutza

dunes

who

wintered

in

the

lowlands

then

moved

into

the

Negev

highlands

to

sites

like

Nahal

Boqer

and

G2

in

the

Har

Harif

during

the

summer,

a

continuation

of

a

way

of

life

practised

in

the

same

region

in

Neolithic

1.

The

same

may

also

have

been

true

of

the

inhabitants

of

the

larger

sites

on

the

coast

of

Palestine.

There

are

several

clusters

of these

as

though

particular

areas

were

visited

repeatedly

by

transhumant

groups.

Pastoralism

is

still

the

way

of

life of

the

Beduin

in

the

Levant

today,

a

testimony

to

its

efficiency

in

exploiting

the

resources

of

the

steppe

over

many

millennia.

Some

Beduin

move

frequently

from

place

to

place

while

others

are

almost sedentary.

Most

engage

in

hunting

and

collecting

in

due

season

and

some

may

plant

crops

so

in

these

respects

their

way

of life

has

a

certain

amount

in

common

with

the

model

I

have

suggested

for the

economy

of

the

Neolithic

2

surface

camps

and

settlements

in

the

open

forest

and

steppe

zones.

It

would

be wrong, however,

to

press

the

analogy

very

far

because

the

Beduin

of

the

Levant today

and

for

at

least

the

last two

millennia

have

been

true

nomads.

Nomads

in

this

sense

exist

in

symbiosis

with

settled

farmers,

exchanging

the

products

of

their

flocks

for

the

fruits

of cultivation.

They

will

spend

part

of

the

year

on

agricultural

land

grazing

their

flocks

on

stubble

after

the

harvest.

They

depend

upon

the

towns

and

cities

for

manu-

factured

goods

which

are

essential

to

their

way

of

life.

Some

elements

of

the

symbiosis

between

pasturalists

and

farmers

may

have

originated

in

Neolithic

2

but

nomadism

in

the

strict

sense

did

not

develop

in

the

Levant

until

much

later.

The

most

important economic

development

in

Neolithic

2

was

the

adoption

of

agriculture

throughout

the

Levant.

At

the

same

time

a

series

of

villages

were

established

which

were occupied

all

the

year

round.

These

villages

were

in

general

larger

than

settlements

in

Neolithic

1

and

their

inhabitants

more

numerous.

Agriculture

in

most of these

villages

was

broadly

based

since

several

cereals

and

legumes

were

grown.

Varieties

of

emmer,

barley

and

einkorn

were

the

principal

cereals

and

lentils

and

vetch

the

most

common

legumes

although

peas,

chick-peas

and

horse

bean

were

also

cultivated.

On

most Neolithic

2

sites

far

more

ovicaprines

were

killed

than

in

Neolithic

1

and

the

proportion

of

gazelle

meat

in

the

diet

was

much

reduced.

This

change

in

preference

seems

to

have

taken

place

during

the

aceramic

Neolithic

phase

at

Abu

Hureyra

but

at

most sites

the

new

pattern

coincided

with

-

285

-

the

beginning

of

Neolithic

2

occupation.

Along

the

Euphrates

sheep

were

preferred

to

goat

"but

in

Palestine

at

Jericho

and

Sheikh

Ali and

to the east

of the

Rift

valley

at

Beidha

goats

were

the

main

animal

eaten.

An

exception

was

Munhatta

where

sheep

outnumbered

goats.

On

some

sites

in

the

Jordan

valley

there

are

indications

that

other

species

were

as

important

in

the

diet

as

the

ovicaprines.

Cattle

bones

were

abundant

at

Sheikh

Ali

while

quite

common

at

Munhatta;

at

Beisamun

they

were

the

most

numerous

animal.

Pigs

were

also

eaten

in

considerable

quantities

at

these

sites

and

at

Jericho.

On all

sites

a

number

of

other

species

were

eaten

as

well

and

their

meat

contributed

signi-

ficantly

to

the

diet.

There

are

differing

views

about

the

manner

in

which

these

animals

were

exploited.

Very

few

bones

have

been

found

which

show

the

morphological

changes

traditionally

associated

with

domestication.

The

ages

at

which

animals

are

killed

is

now

thought

to

be

a

more

reliable

indication

of

man's

control

of

herds

of

animals.

There

is

abundant

evidence

from

Neolithic

2

sites

at

which

this

has

been

studied

that

goats,

gazelle,

cattle

and

pigs

were

being

killed

in

a

regular

manner.

The

abrupt change

to

goat

and

sheep-dominated

economies

early

in

Neolithic

2

and

the

ages

at

which

the

goats

were

killed

suggest

that man

was

controlling

these

animals

particularly

closely.

Almost

certainly

they

were

being

herded

as

if

they

were

domesticated.

The

other

principal

food

animals

were

probably

also

being herded

at

some

sites.

At

other

sites

the

exploitation

of

these

animals

varied

from

some

form

of loose

herding

to

selective

hunting.

The

other

animals eaten

in

smaller

quantities

were

probably

hunted.

Since

a

number

of

Neolithic

2

settlements

are

known

to

have

been

occupied

continuously

for

several

centuries

their

economy

must

have

been

stable.

Cereals quickly

exhaust

the

soil

of

essential

nutrients

but

this

problem

was

overcome

without

recourse

to

shifting

cultivation.

The

likely

system

of

cultivation

in

this

case

was

short

fallow

in

which

part

of

the

land

around

the

-

286

-

village

was left

fallow

for

a

few

years

"between

crops.

The

alternation

of

cereals

with

legumes

would

have

helped

maintain

fertility

for

the

legumes

are

important

fixers of

nitrogen

in

the

soil.

The

herds

of

animals

belonging

to

the

settlements

would

have

been

grazed

on

the

fallow

and

the

cultivated

fields

after

the

harvest.

In

this

way

the

land

would

also

have

been

manured.

The

transhumant

and

pastoral

groups

would

have

depended

more

upon

their

herds.

The

transhumant

groups

were

semi-sedentary,

following

a

seasonal

pattern

of

movement

in

search

of

grazing

and

wild

foods.

Not

all

the

pastoral

groups

seem

to

have

moved

so

frequently

but

they

too

were

essentially

semi-

sedentary.

Pastoralism

as

a

way

of

life

seems

to have

been

established

for

the

first

time

in

the

Levant

in

Neolithic

2.

Discussion

Farming

as a

way

of life

began

in

Neolithic

1

but did

not

become

the

main-

stay

of

the

economy

until

Neolithic

2

when

it

spread

throughout

the

Levant.

This

process

was

accompanied

by

a

considerable

growth

of

population

and

increase

in

the

density

of

settlement.

The

first

agricultural

settlements

were

founded

early

in

Neolithic

1

and

so

preceded

the

growth

in

population

by

several

centuries.

Agriculture

made

possible

the

great

expansion

of

population

in

Neolithic

2

but

this

did

not

happen

immediately

after

the

first

farming

settlements

were

established.

The

spread

of

sedentary

settlements

with

a

farming

economy

and

the

growth

of

population

in

Neolithic

2

took

place

together.

The

widespread

adoption

of agriculture,

growth

in

population

and

new

cultural

configuration

in

Neolithic

2

were

accompanied

by

changes

in

climate

and

vegetation.

These

environmental

changes

were

not

themselves

the

cause

of

the

great alterations

of

man's

way

of

life

in

Neolithic

2

for

they

only

took

effect

during

the

7th

millennium

and

not

at

the

beginning.

The

gradual

opening

up

of

the

Mediterranean

forest

would

have

facilitated

the

spread

of

agriculture

and

herding

in

this

region

but

the

evidence

indicates

that

this

process

was

considerably

hastened

by

man's

own

efforts.

The

environmental

changes

began

-

287

-

to

have

a

major

effect

only

towards

the

end

of

Neolithic

2

and

were

partly

responsible

for

the

alterations

in

the

settlement

pattern

which

took

place

in

the 6th

millennium.

There

was

a

greater

range

of

settlement

types

in

Neolithic

2

than

in

Neolithic

1.

Almost

all

were

nucleated

and

since

they

tended

to

"be

larger

the

social

relations

of

their

inhabitants

would

have

"been

more

complex

than

"before.

It

is

likely

that

the

peoples of

the

Levant

were

by

now

all

members

of

tribes.

They

also

shared many

cultural

traits

which

implies

that there

was

much

intercourse

between

them.

The

boundaries

between

the

tribes

are

difficult

to

define

partly

because

of

these

cultural

similarities.

The

three

cultural

groups

which

I

have

distinguished,

Middle

Euphrates,

West

Syrian

and

Palestinian,

include several

environmental

zones

and

are

too

extensive

to be

equated with

single

tribes.

Each

probably

represents

several

tribes

united

by

a

common

culture.

Since

many Neolithic

2

settlements

were

larger than

those

of

Neolithic

1

and

occupied

all

the

year

round

their

inhabitants

would

have

had

a

greater

degree

of social

intercourse

and

communal organization.

This

would

have

been

most

marked

in

the

very

large

settlements of

Abu

Hureyra

and

Jericho

although

at

Jericho

the

pattern

may

not

have

differed

very

much from

that

which

had

already

developed

in

Neolithic

1

as

the

settlement was

quite

similar

in

type.

The

social

organization

of

Neolithic

2

settlements

probably

created

the

need

for

public

buildings

for

meetings and

to

house

guests

which

would

have

been

centres

of

village

affairs.

Buildings found

at

three

excavated

Neolithic

2

sites

could

be

interpreted

in

this

way:

the

unusual

rectilinear

building

in

PPNB

levels

at

Jericho,

the

large

circular

structure

in

level

3

at

Munhatta

and

the

large

rectangular

building

in

Level

II

and

possibly

also

in

Levels

III

and

IV

at

Beidha.

Very

few

Neolithic

2

settlements have

been

excavated

extensively

so

it

remains

to be seen

if

such

buildings

were

a

regular

feature

of

other

villages.

The

strong

senses

of

territorially

and of

belonging

to

a

particular

community engendered

among

the

inhabitants

of

such

settled

villages

-

288

-

vere reflected

in

the

"burial

rites

in

which

many

of

the

dead

were

buried

within

the

settlement,

often

under

the

floors

of

the

houses

which

they

had

perhaps

occupied.

The

same

feelings

found

expression

in

the

special

ways

skulls

were

treated.

The

normal

"buildings

found

on

most

Neolithic

2

settlements

had

certain

general

characteristics

in

common.

They

were

usually

rectangular

in

plan,

sometimes

with

a

large

single

chamber

but

more

often

with

several

small

rooms.

On

Levantine

sites

these

buildings

were

always

separate

from

each

other

and

were

apparently

the

houses

in

which

most

people

lived.

In

the

ethnographic

record

such

buildings

are

usually

inhabited

by

nuclear

families

living

in

settled

farming

villages

and

this

has

probably

also

true

of

Neolithic

2

settlements

(Flannery,

1972,

29,

39).

We

have

seen

that

the

nuclear

family

was

probably

the

basic

form

of

social

organization

at

PPNA

Jericho

but

not

on

all

Neolithic

1

sites.

In

Neolithic

2

it

is

likely

that

the

inhabitants

of

all

settlements and

probably

also

camps

at

which

dwellings

have

been

found

belonged

to

nuclear

families.

We

can

infer

something

of

the

patterns

of

residence

and

descent

among

the

inhabitants

of

Neolithic

2

settlements

from

their chipped

stone

industries.

The

technology

and

typology

of

the

flint

industry

at

Abu

Hureyra

changed

very

gradually

throughout

the

occupation

sequence.

Most

of

the

tool

types

found

in

the

earliest

aceramic

Neolithic

levels

were

present

throughout

the

sequence.

Mortensen

noted

the

same

continuity

at

Beidha

and

it

seems

to

be

a

character-

istic

feature of

all

other

Neolithic

2

sites

with

lengthy

sequences

of

occupa-

tion.

If we

assume

as

we

did

for

Neolithic

1

that

the

flint

knapping

traditions

were

handed

down

from

father

to

son

then

we

may

deduce

that

residence

and

descent

were

patrilocal

on

Neolithic

2

sites.

The

same rules

thus

applied

to

Levantine

society

in

both

Neolithic

1

and

2.

The

houses

within

each

Neolithic

2

settlement

were

of

a

similar

kind

and

size-

no

single

household

inhabited

a

much

larger

dwelling

than

the

others.

Few

grave

goods

were

deposited

in

Neolithic

2

burials

and

there

was

little

-

289

-

to

differentiate

between

one

grave

and

the

next.

There

is

thus

no

evidence

that

certain

individuals

or

families

had

a

higher

social

position

or

possessed

greater

wealth

than

the

others

from

which

we

may

conclude

that

society

was

still egalitarian.

Chiefdoms,

the

most

developed

form

of

tribal

organization,

had

not

yet

come

into

existence.

Society

in

a

chiefdom

is

arranged

hierarchic-

ally

and

the

chief

himself

will

accumulate

surplus

goods

produced

by

the

community

(Sahlins,

1968,

2k,

91).

Nothing

like

this

seems to

have

developed

in

Neolithic

2

although

there

are

very

great

differences

in

the

scale

of

the

settlements.

The

largest

ones

like

Abu

Hureyra

and

Jericho

must

have

been

regional

centres,

the

foci

economically and

socially

of

the

surrounding

area.

Yet

it is

only

their

size

and

the

degree

of

communal

organization

which

may

be

inferred

from

this

which

distinguished

them

from

other

Neolithic

2

settle-

ments

for

their

dwellings

and

burial

customs

were

the same

as

on

other

smaller

sites.

Where

today

tribal

societies

are

based

on

nuclear

families

in

separate

households

these

form

the

fundamental

economic

unit.

Each

household

produces

sufficient

for

its

needs

in

what

Sahlins

has

called

the

"domestic

mode

of

production"

(19T^

S

83).

Since

this

form

of

social

organization

was

charac-

teristic

of

Neolithic

2

settlements

it

is

likely

that

the

economy

was

organized

in

the

same

way.

Neolithic

2

households

were

clustered

together

in

nucleated

villages.

We

saw

in

the

last

chapter

that

the

land

around

such

villages

or

at

least

the

right

to

work

it

is

usually apportioned

equally

among

the

households

and

it

seems

likely

that

this

pattern

of

land

distribution

continued

in

Neolithic

2.

Before

taking

the

enquiry

further

it

will

be

helpful

to

restate

succinct-

ly

how

I

believe

Neolithic

2

society

was

organized.

Each

settlement

was

composed

of

nuclear

families

which

formed

the

basic

economic

unit.

The

families

enjoyed

equal

status

and

no

individual

was

endowed with

political

authority

which

gave

him

preferential

access

to

the

settlement's

resources.

For

the

first

time

the

landscape

of

the

Levant

was

peopled

with

communities

-

290

-

of

settled

peasant

farmers.

The

settlements

and

their

inhabitants

were

grouped

in

tribes

which

appear

to

have

"been

in

close

contact

with

each

other

since

they

shared

so

much

of

their

material

culture. This

reconstruction

is

based

partly

upon

ethnographic

analogy

but

is

supported

by

the

archaeological

evidence

we have

at

the

moment.

An

important

feature

of

these

Neolithic

2

farming

settlements

and

one

of

great

significance

for

the

future

was

that

their

inhabitants

were

sedentary.

They

were

tied

to

their

homes

by

the

regular

cycle

of

the

agricultural

year

in

preparing

the

land,

sowing

the

seed,

perhaps

weeding

and then

harvesting.

Under

a

simple

fallow

system

this

would

not

have

been

very

time-consuming.

The

number

of

hours

a

Neolithic

2

farmer

spent

in

agricultural

activities

may

have

been

about

the

same

as

a

hunter-gatherer needed

to

collect enough

food

to

eat.

The

difference

was

that

the

farmer's

year

was

divided

into

periods

of

intense

work

and

others

of

extended

leisure

whereas

the

hunter-gatherer

had

to

go

in

search

of

food

every

day

or

two.

Since

the

farmer

lived

in

one

place

and

had

months

at

a

time

with

little

to

do

he

was

able to

develop more

complex

social activities and

crafts

than

the

hunter-gatherer.

The

material

remains

from

Neolithic

2

settlements

were

richer

than

in

Neolithic

1

because

a

greater

range

of

crafts

was

being

practised.

The

interiors

of

buildings

were

decorated

and

furnished

to

an

extent

not

seen

in

the

Levant

before.

Workers

in

stone

produced

fine

bowls

in

coloured

stone

of

greater

quality

and

variety

than

in

Neolithic

1.

A

number

of

other

decorated

stone

objects

were

made

such

as

gaming

boards and

"stamp

seals"

which

were

new.

The

decorative

beads

and

amulets

were

much

more

elaborate

than

in

earlier

times.

The

butterfly

beads

from

Abu

Hureyra

and

elsewhere

are

good

examples

of

these

but

many

other

types

were

made,

often

from

exotic materials.

Dried

and

baked

clay

were

frequently

used

for

figurines

and

other

objects

while

the

first

large

non-perishable

containers

were

made

in

white

plaster.

Lime

plaster

was

produced

in

great

quantities

for

house

floors

and

other

uses.

Basketry

was

probably

a

very

old

craft

but

there

is

more

evidence

for

it

in

Neolithic

2

than

in

earlier

-

291

-

periods.

Semi-sedentary

and

mobile

groups

would

have

travelled

as

light

as

possible with

few

containers

but

sedentary

farmers

wanted

baskets

in

which

to

store and

carry

produce.

Wooden

containers

and

tools

were

almost

certainly

made

in

earlier

times

but

again

it

is

only

in

Neolithic

2

that

there

is

evidence

of

wooden

boxes

being

made

in

some

numbers

and

of

specialised

ground

stone

tools

being

devised

to

shape

them.

All

these

artifacts

took much

time to

produce

and

so

could

only

have

been

made

when

the

population

had

extended

leisure

time.

On some sites

places

have

been

found

where

the

artifacts

were

fashioned.

These

working

floors

were

in

and

around

the

houses

but

such

objects

were

not

made

in

every

house.

Some

households

were

specialising

in

the

manufacture

of

these

artifacts

in

their

leisure

time.

The

same

was

probably

true

of

the

lime

burning

and

perhaps

even

the

making

of

mud-bricks,

processes

that

may

have

been

organized

as

modest

industries

in

order

to

produce

the

quantities

needed.

More

of

these

crafts

were carried

on

at

the

bigger

settlements

than

on

other

sites,

an

indication

of

the

greater

cultural diversity

that

could

be

achieved

in

larger

communities.

The

growth of

crafts

in

Neolithic

2

was

accompanied

by

an

increased

demand

for

exotic

materials.

Certain

objects

such

as

marine

shells

had

been

valued

as

far

back

as

the

Aurignacian

but

it

was

only

in

Neolithic

2

that

a

wide

range of

exotic

materials

was

found

on

sites

far

removed

from

their

sources.

The

traffic

in

Anatolian

obsidian

is

well-known

but

jadeite,

serpentine, agate

and

native

copper

were

all

obtained

from

the same

region,

steatite

perhaps

from

the Zagros

and

turquoise

and

malachite

from

Sinai

and

the

Wadi

Arabah.

No

great

weight

of

these materials

was

imported

because

they

originated

so

far

aw

from

where

they

were used

but

other

materials

such

as

bitumen,

basalt

and

coloured

limestone

which

occur

in

many

areas

of

the

Levant

were

used

in

considerable

quantities.

The

exchange

of

these

materials

which

reached

a

climax

in

Neolithic

2

was

facilitated

by

the

frequent

contacts

which

took

place

between

settlements

in

the

Levant

during

this

stage.

These

contacts

obviously

extended

to

Anatolia

from

whence

so

many

materials

originated.

-

292

-

The

raw materials

from

distant

sources

found

on

sites

in

the

Levant

were

not

obtained

"by

trade

of

the

kind

ve

knov

in

historic

times.

The

quantity

of

materials

was

too

small

for

this

sort

of

transaction

and

there

is

no

evi-

dence

that

merchants

or

markets

existed

let

alone

transport

other

than

on

a

man's

back.

In

tribal

societies

today

it

has

been

found

that

desirable

objects

are

exchanged

between

individuals

to

strengthen

social

relationships

(Sahlins,

1968j

81)

and

it

is

likely

that

exotic

materials

passed

from

hand

to

hand

for

the

same

reason

in

Neolithic

2.

Although

materials

from

distant sources

were

obtained

in

such

small

quantities

they

were

found

on

many

sites

not

only

in

Neolithic

2

but

later

as

well.

The

traffic

in

obsidian

was the

most

regular

and

long-lasting

of

all

since

it

began

in

Neolithic

1

and

continued

into

the

Bronze

Age.

Such

persistent

if

small-scale

exchange

indicates that

the items

traded

continued

to

be

much

prized

over

a

long

period.

We

do

not

know

how

the

exchange

of

obsidian

and

other

materials took

place

even

if we

can

suggest

what

the

context

is

likely

to

have

been.

Renfrew

and

his

colleagues

thought

that

there

was

an

exponential

fall-off

in

the

quantities

of

obsidian reaching

Neolithic

sites

the

further

away

one

travelled

from

the

sources

(Renfrew

et

al.

,

1968, 327).

They

suggested

a

model

of

"down-the-line"

exchange

to

explain

this

in

which

each

community

would

pass

on

some

of

the

obsidian

it

received

to

a

neighbouring

settlement

more

distant

from

the

sources

(Renfrew

et

al.,

1968,

329).

This

hypothesis

fitted

the

facts

as

they

were

known

then

but

no

longer

accounts

satisfactorily

for

the

latest

evidence

of

the

distribution

of

obsidian

in

the

Levant.

When

Buqras

was

excavated

about

29%

of

the

chipped

stone

industry

was

found

to be

of

obsidian

which

fitted

the

Renfrew

model

well.

Abu

Hureyra

is

approximately

the

same

distance

from

the

Anatolian

obsidian

sources

yet

only k.35%

of

the

chipped

stone

from trench

B

was

obsidian,

very

much

less

than

the

Renfrew

model

would

have

predicted.

It

is

still

true

to

say

that

in

general

the

further

away

a

site

was

from

the

obsidian

sources

the

less

obsidian

it

received

but

the

picture

is

now

more

complex

than

was

thought

at

first.

-

293

-

The

distribution

of

obsidian

from

each source

has

also

been

proved

to

be

more

complicated

than

expected.

The

results

of

the

earlier

work

suggested

that

most

of the

obsidian

found

on

Levantine

sites

west

of

the

Euphrates

came

from

Ciftlik

(Renfrew

et

al.,

1968,

326).

The

Bradford

analyses

have

now

thrown

doubt

upon

this

conclusion

for

about

half

the

obsidian

at

Tell

Aswad

and

two thirds

at

Ghoraife

came

from

eastern

Anatolia.

It

has

been

shown

that

grey

obsidian

hitherto

thought

to

be

characteristic

of

the

Cappadocian

sources

could

have

also

originated

in

eastern

Anatolia

so

that

the

source

of

some

of

the

obsidian

classified

visually

as

having

come

from

yiftlik

may

have

been

in

the

east.

Now

we

know

that

obsidian

from

at

least

six

sources

was

reaching

Abu

Hureyra

the

distribution

is

even

more

complex.

The

way

in

which

obsidian

was

exchanged

is

less

clear

now

that

was

thought

when

the

first

analyses

were

made

but

it

is

hoped

that

new

patterns

will

emerge

from

the

new analytical

work

in

progress.