THE

NEOLITHIC

OF

THE

LEVANT

A.M.T.

Moore

University

College

Volume

2

Thesis

submitted

for the

Degree

of

Doctor

of

Philosophy,

Oxford

University

1978

Chapter

5

NEOLITHIC

3

About

6000

B.C.

there

is

evidence

in

the

archaeological

record

of

marked

changes

in

material

remains,

economy,

settlement

patterns

and

social

organi-

zation

signifying

the

emergence

of

a

new

stage

in

the

Neolithic

of the

Levant

which

I

shall

call

Neolithic

3.

The

Neolithic

2

tradition

of

building

recti-

linear

single

or

multiple-roomed

mud-brick

houses

was

continued

on

some

Neolithic

3

sites

but

on

others

the

inhabitants

lived

in

sub-circular

pit

dwellings.

Other

large

pits

which

may have

served

as

working

or

cooking

hollows

are

another

conspicuous

feature

of

many

Neolithic

3

settlements.

The

characteristic

flint

industry

of

Neolithic

2

was

modified

in

Neo-

lithic

3

though

many

of

its

general

features

were

preserved.

The

emphasis

of

Neolithic

3

flint

production

remained

the

manufacture

of

blade

tools

but

they

were usually

smaller

than

in

Neolithic

2.

Pyramidal

cores

were

now

preferred

which

yielded

shorter

blades

than

the

double-ended

cores

of

Neolithic

3.

Arrowheads

were

usually

smaller

though

in

Syria

and

Lebanon

several

types

of

very

large

arrowhead

continued

to

be

made

throughout Neolithic

3.

Short,

regular,

segmented

sickle

blades

hafted

in

composite

sickles

were

now

used

rather

than

the

large

blades

of

Neolithic

2.

These

segmented

sickle

blades

had

a

serrated

or

denticulated

cutting

edge

and

cut

most

effectively

when

the

sickle

was

used with

a

sawing

motion.

A

new

feature

of

the

flint

industry

on

some

Neolithic

3

sites

was

the

manufacture

of

large

axes,

adzes,

picks

and

other

heavy

flaked

tools.

These

tools

were

apparently

developed

to

cut

timber

and

prepare

land

in

areas

which

had

not

previously

been

favoured

for

permanent

settlement.

The

principal

cultural

innovation

in

Neolithic

3

was the

making

of

pottery,

Pottery

was

first

used

on sites

in

Syria

and

Lebanon

about

6000

B.C.

At

the

beginning

it

was made

in

small

quantities

but

the

craft

flourished

so

that

soon

after

its

introduction pottery

became

an

item

of

every

day

use

throughout

-

295

-

the

central

and

northern

Levant

although

pottery

was not

used

in

the

southern

Levant

until

several

centuries

later.

From

the

outset there

was

much

variety

in

fabric

and

decoration.

Pottery

is

such

a

conspicuous

item

in

the

archaeo-

logical

record

that

its

introduction

is

the

principal indicator

of

innovations

in

material

culture.

Other

important

changes

were

taking

place

in

economy

and

the

pattern

of

settlement

at

the

time

that

pottery

was introduced. These

changes

in

artifacts

and

way

of

life

are

the

main

evidence

that

a

new

stage

of

the

Neolithic

was

developing.

Pottery

is

the

most

easily

recognisable

new

artifact

and

for

this

reason

the

moment

when

its

manufacture

began

is

the

most

convenient

point

at

which

to

date

the

beginning

of

Neolithic

3.

Although

the

introduction

of

pottery

was

such

a

striking

innovation

the

changes

in

the

buildings

and

flint

industry

were

simply

a

modification

of

the

Neolithic

2

tradition.

In

general

there

was

cultural

continuity

from

Neolithic

2

to

Neolithic

3

in

the

Levant,

evidence

for

which

has

been

found

at

Abu

Hureyra,

Buqras,

Ras

Shamra,

Tell

Ramad

and

Tell

Labweh.

In

Palestine

the

Neolithic

2

pattern

of

existence

was

disrupted

and

the

Neolithic

3

way

of life

there,

when

finally

established,

was

somewhat

different

from

further

north.

The

Neolithic

3

economy

differed

in

several

ways

from

that

of

Neolithic

2

though

it

developed

from

it.

There

was

a

stronger

emphasis

on

agriculture

in

the

villages

of

Neolithic

3

than

in

Neolithic

2.

Herding

grew

markedly

in

importance

on

some

sites

while

hunting

and

the

gathering

of

wild

plants

contributed

less

to

the

diet

of

the

settled population

than

before.

The

settlement

pattern

underwent

considerable

modification

in

Neolithic

3

(Fig.

35)-

The

expansion

of

settlement

into

the

semi-arid

areas of

central

Syria,

TransJordan

and

in

the

extreme

south-east

of

the

Levant

which

had

taken

place

in

Neolithic

2

was

reversed.

No

permanent

Neolithic

3

settlements

have

been

found

in

these

areas

and

they

seem

to

have

been

occupied

no more than

intermittently

by

mobile

groups.

On the

other

hand

a

considerable

expansion

of

settlement

took

place

in

western

Syria

and

Lebanon

in

areas

that

were

quite

thinly

populated

in

Neolithic

2.

New

sites

were

founded

and

old

sites

Fig.35

Extent

of

Neolithic

3

settlement

A

sites

abandoned

early

in

Neolithic

3

scale

1

=

4,000,000

FIGURE

35

Extent

of

Neolithic

3

settlement

1

Tell

Chagar

Bazar

2

Tell

Halaf

3

Tell

Aswad

(Balikh)

4

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

5

El

Kum

6

Buqras

7

Judaidah

Jabbul

8

Tell

Judaidah

9

Tell

esh-Sheikh

10

Ras

Shamra

11

Tell Sukas

12

Hama

13

Tabbat

el

Hanunam

14

Kubbah

I

15

Byblos

16

Tell

Labweh

17

Tell

Neba'a

Faour

I

18

Kaukaba

19

Tell

Ramad

20

Kfar

Giladi

21

Hagosherim

22

Beisamun

23

Kabri

24

Shaar

Hagolan

25

Munhatta

26

Beth-Shan

27

Megiddo

28

Vadi

Rabah

29

Lydda

30

Jericho

31

Abu

Gosh

32

Teluliot

Batashi

33

Givat

Haparsa

34

Nizzanim

35

Tell

ed-Duweir

-

296

-

enlarged

along

the

Syrian

and

Lebanese

coasts

and

in

the

Beka'a

and

Orontes

valleys.

There

was

also

settlement

expansion

in

the

Amuq

basin

and

north-

west

Syria

to

the

west

of the Euphrates.

In

Palestine

the

old

settlement

pattern

was

considerably

disturbed.

Most

Neolithic

2

sites

were

abandoned

then

new

sites

were

founded

later

in

slightly

different positions.

The

population

of

the

Negev

and Sinai was

much

reduced

although

there

are

indications

that

these

areas

continued

to

be

inhabited.

Having

briefly

mentioned

the

most

important

developments

that

took

place

in

Neolithic

3 I

shall

now

consider

the

archaeological

evidence

in

detail

taking

each

region

in

turn.

Middle

Euphrates

The

principal Neolithic

2

settlement

sites

along the

Middle

Euphrates

were

abandoned

in

Neolithic

3.

Permanent

occupation

at

Mureybat

ceased

at

the

end

of

phase

IV

sometime

in

Neolithic

2

and

although

there

are

indications

that

the

site

was

used

in

later

periods,

even

possibly

in

Neolithic

3»

it

was

never

subsequently inhabited

as

a

permanent

settlement.

Abu

Hureyra

continued

to

be

occupied

until

early

in

Neolithic

3

so

that

here

one

can

trace

the

development

of

some

of

the

features

of

the

new

stage.

In

the

ceramic

Neolithic

phase

of

occupation

there

were

some

changes

in

the

structures

used

at

the

site

as

we

have

seen.

Shallow

pits

were

dug

between

the

buildings

which

continued

to

be

built

of

mud-brick

on

a

rectilinear

plan.

The

settlement

itself

shrank until

it

covered

only

half

the

area

of

the

aceramic

site.

There

were

slight

changes

in

the

flint

industry,

the

most

noticeable

being

an

increase

in

the

amount

of

retouch

by

squamous

pressure-

flaking

on

arrowheads

and

a

few

other

tools. The

other

artifacts

were

as

varied

as

they

had

been

in

the

later

ceramic

phase,

the

one

innovation

being

the

introduction

of

pottery.

This

and

the

other

new

features

found

in

the

excavation

were

sufficient

to

mark

a

new

phase

of

occupation,

the

ceramic

Neolithic,

even

if

it

was

obviously

a

continuation

of

the

later

aceramic

-

297

-

Neolithic

settlement.

The

appearance

of

pottery,

albeit

in

modest

amounts,

the

changes

in

the

flint

industry

and

the

digging

of

large

pits

around

the

mud-brick

"buildings

are

all

hallmarks

of

Neolithic

3

so

that

the

ceramic

Neolithic

phase

of

occupation

at

Abu

Hureyra

can

be

ascribed

to

this

stage.

The

remains

of

the

Neolithic

3

settlement

at

Abu

Hureyra

had

suffered

considerably

from

weathering

and

much

of

the

deposit

had

simply

been

eroded

away.

For

this

reason

it

is

difficult

to

know

exactly

when

the

settlement

was

abandoned

but

from

the

typology

of

the

artifacts

it

would

appear

that

occupation

ceased

about

the

same

time

as

at

Buqras,

that

is

early

in

the 6th

millennium.

Tell

Kreyn

near

Abu

Hureyra

was

certainly

occupied

in

Neolithic

2

and

again

in

the

Halaf.

The

foci

of these two

settlements

were

several

tens

of

metres

apart

and there

were

no

surface

indications

of

material

that

would

fill

the gap

between

the

two

phases

of

occupation,

a

gap that

corresponds

to

Neolithic

3.

The

inference

to

be

drawn

from

this,

admittedly

inconclusive,

evidence

is

that

the

site

was

abandoned

during

the 6th

millennium.

The

level

III

occupation

at

Buqras

also

falls

in

Neolithic

3

on

the

evidence

of

the

few

potsherds

that

were

found

in

the

deposit.

The

other

artifacts

were

similar

in

type

to

those

of

levels

II

and

I.

The

structures

in

level

III

consisted

of

mud-brick

walls

as

in

the

earlier

levels.

The

sequence

at

Buqras was

continuous

and

occupation

at

the

site

came

to

an

end

about

5900

B.C.,

as

we

have already

noted.

Abu

Hureyra,

Kreyn

and

Buqras

all

seem

to have

been

abandoned

in

the

first

half

of

the

6th

millennium

and

Mureybat

perhaps

a

little

earlier.

In

itself

such

a

break

in

the

occupation

of

sites

along

the

Euphrates

need

not

have

been

significant

since

few

excavated

Neolithic

sites

have

proved

to

be

continuously

occupied

for

more

than

several

centuries

at

a

time.

Each

may

have

been

abandoned

because

of

local

circumstances, perhaps

a

change

in

the

structure

of

the

settlement

or

the

local environment.

The

important

fact

to

note

is

that

once

these

sites

were

abandoned

no

others

were founded

along

the

-

298

-

Middle

Euphrates

until

much

later.

This

observation

is

based

upon

inadequate

information

since

the

course

of

the

Middle

Euphrates

has

not

yet

been

fully

surveyed

but

in

the

areas

which

have

been

examined Neolithic

2

and

Halaf

settlements

have

been

found

but

none

that

could

be

attributed

to

Neolithic

3.

This

is

most

obvious

in

the

area

above

the

new

Euphrates

dam

at

Tabqa

where

80

km

of

the

river

valley

have

been

carefully

surveyed.

There

are

three

Halaf

sites

known

in

this

area,

Shams

ed-Din

which

has

recently

been

excavated,

the

gas

station

site

at

Mureybat

(van

Loon,

1967

5

12)

and

Kreyn.

No

Neolithic

3

sites

have

been located

in

this

area

except

for

the

ceramic

Neolithic

phase

at

Abu

Hureyra.

The

same

observation

holds

true

for the

Jebel

Abdul

Aziz.

We

have

seen

that

the

Japanese

survey

team

found

Neolithic

2

sites

in

this

area

but

nothing

that

could

be

attributed

to

Neolithic

3.

Similar

results

were

obtained

by

the

same

team

when

they

surveyed

the

area

around

Palmyra.

All

the

Neolithic

sites

they

found

could

be

attributed

to

Neolithic

2

and

none to

Neolithic

3.

One

site

in

this

region,

El

Kum,

was

occupied

in

Neolithic

3.

The

remains

of

the

ceramic

Neolithic

settlement

were

substantial

consisting

of

at

least

two

superimposed

layers of

buildings.

The artifacts,

too,

were

abundant but,

except

for the

pottery,

little

different

from

those

of

the

aceramic Neolithic

phase

of

occupation.

For

this

reason

I

believe

El

Kum

may

not

have

been

occupied

for

more

than

the

earlier

centuries

of

the

6th

millennium

but

until

further

excavations

are

carried

out

in

the

untested

deposits

at

the

site

we

shall

not

know

for

certain.

A

great

deal of

pottery

was

found

in

the

brief

excavations

at

El

Kum.

The

soft,

straw-tempered

fabric

of most of

the

sherds

and

the

few

with

grit

filler

can

be

matched

on

most

Neolithic

3

sites

in

Syria

and

Lebanon.

The

red

painted

and

burnished

sherds

are

more

unusual

since

these

are

uncommon

on

sites

further

west

at

this

early

date.

Some

of

the

sherds

from

Buqras,

however,

have

a

similar

finish,

an

interesting

parallel

which

is

supported

by

the

similarities

in

the

flint

industries

and

other

remains

at

these

two

sites.

-

299

-

Having

considered

the

slight traces

of

Neolithic

3

settlement

in

the

Euphrates

region

I

will

now

turn

to

north-western

Syria where

many

Neolithic

3

sites

are

known

(Fig.

36)

and

describe

their

remains

in

turn.

North

Syria

Ras

Shamra

Ras

Shamra

was

occupied throughout Neolithic

3

and

its

deposits

provide

the

key

sequence

for

this

stage

in

north

Syria.

Remains

of

the

Neolithic

3

settlement have

been

found

in

the soundings

on

the

temple

acropolis

and

also

in

the

Palace

garden

(Schaeffer,

1962,

163)

so

it

appears to

have

"been

quite

as

extensive

as

the

Neolithic

2

site.

The

deposit

varied

from

2.6

to

3.3

m

in

depth

and

has

been

divided

into

two

phases,

V

B or

Middle

Neolithic

(N<§olithique

Moyen)

and

V

A

or Late

Neolithic

(Neolithique

Recent).

The

houses

in

Phase

V

B

were

separated

from

each

other

and

had

a

single

rectangular

room

with

stone

walls

and

a

mud-brick

superstructure

(Kuschke,

1962,

260;

de

Contenson,

1963,

36).

Plaster

floors

were

associated

with

these

buildings

in

some

layers

(de

Contenson,

1962,

507)

and

other

trodden

earth

floors

were

quite

common.

A

clay-lined

pit

full

of

burned

earth,

charcoal

and

stones

was

also

excavated

in

these

layers

(de

Contenson,

1962,

509).

Much the

same

kind

of

rectilinear

structures

built

of

walls

with

stone

footings

were

found

in

Phase

V

A

(Kuschke,

1962,

259).

The

remains of

the

superstructure

of

one

of

these

buildings

was

found

in

one

area;

it

consisted

of

large

timbers

which

had

been

covered

with

vegetable

matter

and

clay

(de

Contenson,

1962,

505).

Many

floor surfaces

and

some

hearths

were

also

found

around

the

buildings

of

this

Phase.

These

features

were similar

to

the

domestic

structures

of

Phase

V

C

at

Ras

Shamra

so

there

was

no

change

in

the

building

tradition

here

between

Neolithic

2

and

3.

The

flint

tools

were

also

in

the

same

tradition

as

before

which,

it

should

be

remembered,

was

a

little

different

from

other

sites

in

Syria.

The

main

tool

types

were

pressure-flaked tanged

arrowheads

and

sickle

blades

with

finely-

Fig.

36

Neolithic

3

North

Syrian

sites

FIGURE

36

Neolithic

3

North

Syrian

sites

1

Tell

Chagar

Bazar

2

Tell

Halaf

3

Tell

Hannnam

4

Tell

Aswad

(Balikh)

5

Tell

Khirbet

el

Bassal

6

Judaidah

Jabbul

7

Tell

Judaidah

8 Tell

Dhahab

9

¥adi

Hammam

10 Tell

Mahmutliye

11 Tell

Turundah

12

Tell

Faruq

13

Burj

Abdal

14

Gtfltepe

15

Tell

Davutpasa

16

Karaca

Khirbat

Ali

17

Tell

Qinanah

18

JJatal

Httylttk

19 Al

Kanisah

20

Myttktepe

21

Tell

Kurdu

22

Tell

Hasanusagi

23

Hasanusagi

al

Daiah

24

Qaddahiyyat

Ali

Bey

25

Tell

Karatas

26

Tell

esh-Sheikh

27

Janudiyeh

28

Ras

Shamra

29

Qal'at

er-Rus

30

Tell

Sukas

31

Qal'at

el

Mudiq

32

Kama

33

Horns

AH

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

B

Buqras

EK

El

Kum

M

Mersin

S

Sakcagflzu

1

T

Tarsus

TT

Tell

Turlu

-

300

-

denticulated

cutting

edges;

some

of

these

were

backed. Borers

and

scrapers,

including

at

least

one

fan

scraper

(de

Contenson,

1962,

505)

5

were

also

made.

Associated

with

these

tools

were

spherical

stone

hammers

which

may

have

been

used

in

flint

working

or

in

other

tasks.

A

little

obsidian

was

used

in

these

phases

but

from

which

sources

is

not

known.

The

flint

industry

gradually

"degenerated"

through

time,

to

use

de

Contenson's

phrase

(1962,

510)

which

means

that

fewer

of the

carefully-retouched

arrowheads

and

other

pressure-

flaked

tools

were

made.

This

is

an

indication

of

changing

needs

that

can

probably

be

linked

to

the

developments

which

were

taking

place

in

the

economy

of

the

site.

White plaster

ware

continued

to

be

made

in

the

lower

layers

of

Phase

V

B

(de

Contenson,

1962,

507)

"but

by

Phase

V

A

its

manufacture

had

been

discon-

tinued.

The

shapes

were

typical

of

those

found

on

Neolithic

2

sites

,

the

most

common

being

large

bowls

with

thick

walls

and

flat

or

hollow

bases.

The

surface

of

these

vessels

was

burnished

and

a

few

had

been

decorated

with

red

paint.

The

most

important cultural change

in

these

phases was

the

introduction

of

pottery.

This

new

artifact

is

the

main

distinguishing

feature

between

Phases

V

B

and

V

A

and

Phase

V

C.

The

earliest

pottery found

on

the

site

was

a

lightly

fired

crumbly

ware.

Sherds

of

this

pottery

were

found

in

some

quantity

at

the

bottom

of

the

V

B

layers

in

the

Palace garden

sounding

(Kuschke,

1962, 261)

but

only

a

handful

were

found

in

the

sounding

west

of

the

Temple

of

Baal

(de

Contenson,

1962,

50?).

The

most

common

class

of

pottery

was

a

series

of

thick-walled

vessels

made of

a

dark

fabric

with

grit

and

vegetable

filler

which

had

been

fired

quite

hard.

There

were

hemispherical

bowls,

globular

hole-mouth

jars,

jars

with

a

collar

neck

and

other

simple

shapes

(de

Contenson,

1962,

503,

507)

They

had

rounded

or

ring

bases

and

a

few

were

fitted

with

handles

or lugs

for

carrying.

One

or

two

fenestrated

bases

were

found

but

as

the

pieces

were

incomplete

we

do

not

know

how

they were

used.

The

surfaces

of

all

these

-

301

-

vessels

had

been

partly

or

completely

"burnished

and

a

few

were

decorated

with

incisions

or

even

red

paint.

One

unusual

group

of

vessels

made of

the

same

ware

was

a

series

of

"husking

trays"

found

in

Phase

V

A

(de

Contenson,

1962,

fig.

25)

which

resembled

those

found

in

Levels

II

to

VI

at

Tell

Hassuna

(Lloyd,

Safar,

19^5,

277ff).

Ras

Shamra

is

the only

site

in

the

Levant

at

which

these

unusual

vessels

have

been

discovered

so

it is

difficult

to

assess

their

significance

but

they

are

so

similar

to

the

Hassuna

examples

that

they

must indicate

a

cultural

connection

between

the two

regions.

Phase

V

A

immediately

precedes

Phase

IV

C,

the

phase

in

which Halaf

material

occurs,

so

the

"husking

trays"

may

be

the

first

indications

of

that

north

Mesopotamian

influence

which

became

so

marked

later

on.

The

third

class

of

vessels

was

a

group

of

thin-walled

globular

or

carinated

bowls

and

jars

with

short necks

made

from

a

dark

fabric

which

again

had

been

quite

hard

fired.

The

vessels of

this

fine

ware were

coloured

black,

brown

or

red

and

had

been

highly

burnished.

Some

of

them

were incised

with

a

dot

pattern

after

firing.

Another

characteristic

form

of

decoration

found

in

Phase

V

A

was

"pattern

burnishing"

in

which

a

series

of

lines

had

been

drawn

on

the

surface

of the

vessels

with

the

burnishing

tool

to

create

herring-

bone

and

diamond

patterns

(de

Contenson,

1962, figs. 26,

27).

The

name

"dark-faced

burnished

ware"

was

given

by

the

Braidwoods

(Braidwood,

Braidwood,

1960,

U9ff)

to

a

broad

category

of

black

and

brown

burnished

vessels

at

Tells

Judaidah

and

Dhahab.

This

term

has

since

been

used by

archaeologists

to

describe

almost

all

types

of

simple

burnished

pottery

found

on

Neolithic

3

sites

in

the

Levant

and

in

the

process

has

lost

much

of

its

descriptive

value.

For

this

reason

I

propose

to

avoid

using

the

phrase

except

when

discussing

material

from

the

Amuq.

sites

for

which

it

was

invented.

Another

term

is

still

needed

to

describe

that

class

of

highly-burnished

black

and

brown

fine

ware

found

at

Ras

Shamra

in

Phases

V

B

and

V

A, in

Amuq

B

and

on

other

sites

in

Syria.

I

propose

to call

this

distinctive

pottery

"dark

polished

ware".

One

other

group

of

sherds

was

found

in

Ras

Shamra

V

B.

These

had

a

white

-

302

-

plaster

coating

(de

Contenson,

1962,

507),

perhaps

to

make then

more

water-

tight.

Similar

sherds

were

found

at

Byblos

in

Neolithic

3

"but

neither

there

nor

at

Ras

Shamra

did

this

class

of

pottery

continue

in

use

very

long.

There

were

several other

classes

of

artifacts

in

these

levels

at

Ras

Shamra.

Fragments

of

stone

bowls

and

dishes

were

quite

common

(de

Contenson,

1962,

505);

these

were usually

made

of

limestone

"but

there

were

basalt

ones

too.

A

number

of small

polished

stone

axes

were

found

and

also

stone

grinding

tools

such

as

rubbers

and saddle

querns.

The

bone

industry

included

borers

and

hafts

for

other

tools.

Baked

clay

was

used

for

objects

other

than pottery,

one

of

which

was

a

spoon

and

another

a

stamp

seal

with

a

simple

linear

design

(de

Contenson,

1962,

5.05

9

fig-

32).

The

stamp

seal

seems

definitely

to

have

been

used

to

print

a

design

on

other

objects.

Personal

ornaments

made of

polished

stone

or

shell

were

another

abundant

group

of

artifacts

at

Ras

Shamra.

One

ll

*C

determination

has

been

obtained

for

each

of

these

two phases

at

Ras

Shamra,

5736

±

112

B.C.

P-U58

for V

B

and

523U

±

Qk

B.C.

P-U57

for

V

A

(de

Contenson,

196U,

U7).

Since

the

transition

from

Phase

V

C

to V

B

took

place

at

or

a

little

after

6000

B.C.

Phases

V

B

and

V

A

lasted

for

most

of

the

6th

millennium

on

the

evidence

of

these

dates.

These

are

the phases

that

fall

in

Neolithic

3

for

with

the

advent of

Phase

IV

C

the

occupation

at

Ras

Shamra

takes

a

different

course

from

that

on

other

sites

further

south

in

the

Levant.

Tell

Sukas

Tell

Sukas

lies

on

the

coast

of

Syria

6

km

south

of

Jeble.

It

is

situated

on a

promontory

between

two

small

bays

which

served

as

harbours

in

ancient

times;

two

streams

flow

into

these

bays

on

either

side of

the

site

(Riis,

Thrane,

197**>

8).

The

earliest

settlement

was

a

Neolithic

village

founded

on

a

low

natural

rise

about

U.5

m

above

sea

level.

This

was

covered

by

debris

from later

periods

of

occupation.

The

remains

of

the

Neolithic

settlement

were

found

at

the

bottom

of

a

sounding

made

beneath

the

later

city.

The deposit

was

3

m

deep.

The

earliest

occupation

(period

N11)

consisted

of

traces

of

plaster

floors

and

a

pit

60

cm

-

303

-

in

diameter

dug

into

the

natural

subsoil

(Riis,

Thrane,

197*+,

10ff).

Above

this

were

several

layers

in

which

remains

of

"buildings

were

found

(periods

N10-N6).

These

structures

were

rectilinear

with

at

least

two

rooms

in

some

instances

and

were

orientated

north-south.

The

walls

had

stone

footings

with

clay

or

mud-brick

walls.

Associated

with

these

buildings

were

plastered

and

trodden

floors,

pits,

hearths

and

much

occupation

debris.

The

upper

levels

(periods N5-N1)

consisted

of

more

plaster

floors

and

other

surfaces

with

pits

and

hearths

but

the

only

structure

was

a

stone

wall

found

in

layer

63

(Riis,

Thrane,

197**,

70).

The

remains

found

in

these

levels

indicate

that

the

area

excavated

was

then

an

open

space

between

buildings.

An

area

of

dark

loam

was

found

over

part

of

N1

which

was

thought

to

have

been

formed

after

the

Neolithic

settlement

was

abandoned

(Riis,

Thrane,

197*+,

80).

The

layer

above

this

has

been

dated

by

a

lk

C

determination

of

3960

±

100

B.C.

K-936

(Radiocarbon

15,

1973,

108)

so

occupation

of

the

Neolithic

settlement

must

have

ceased

well

before

to

allow

the

soil

to develop.

Relatively

few

flint

tools

were

found

at

Tell

Sukas,

doubtless

because

the

sounding

was

so

small.

Among

them

were

a

number

of

Amuq

1

and

2

arrow-

heads,

leaf-shaped

and

tanged

arrowheads,

a

few

sickle

blades,

a

burin

and

some

flake

scrapers

as

well

as

retouched

blades

(Riis,

Thrane,

197*+,

*+0,

18,

16).

Obsidian

was

used

throughout

the

life of

the

Neolithic

settlement.

Other

stone artifacts

were

also rare

but

they

included

polished

axes

and

adzes,

basalt

querns

and

rubbers,

and

bowls

(Riis,

Thrane,

197*+,

16,

55,

36,

80,

63).

Potsherds

were

abundant

in

nearly

all

the

layers.

Many

of

the

vessels

were

simple

in

shape,

consisting

for

the

most

part

of

hemispherical

bowls

and

collared

jars

with

ledge

handles

for

lifting

(Riis,

Thrane,

197*+,

23).

These

vessels

were

usually

black,

grey

or

brown

in

colour

with

a

burnished

surface

although

unburnished

pots

were

also

made.

Some

vessels

had

incised,

impressed

or

combed

decoration,

particularly

in

the

later

phases,

and

a

few

were

painted

(Riis,

Thrane,

197*+,

63,

68,

19).

Others

had

a

plaster

coating

and

one

was

pattern

burnished

(Riis,

Thrane,

197*+,

52,

18).

White ware

was

also

present

-

SOU

-

throughout

and

again

the

vessels

were

simple

in

shape.

The

two

principal

types

were

open

bowls

with

splayed

sides

and

hemispherical

bowls

some

of

which

had

ring

bases

(Riis,

Thrane,

197U,

26,

77);

a

few

of

these

vessels

were

painted.

The

buildings

and

artifacts

from

Tell

Sukas

have

much

in

common

with

Ras

Shamra,

particularly

in

Phase

V

B.

The

site thus

appears

to

have

been

first

occupied

early

in

the

6th

millennium

and

then

continuously

inhabited

until

quite late

in

Neolithic

3.

Tell

Sukas

may

be

ascribed

to

the

North

Syrian

group

although

it

has

certain

traits

such

as

impressed

and

combed

decoration

on

pottery

in

common

with

Tabbat

el

Ham-mam

and

other

sites

further

s

outh.

Qal'at

er-Rus

6

km

north

of

Jeble

may

also

have

first

been

occupied

in

Neolithic

3

since

plain

burnished

and

pattern

burnished

vessels

were

found

in the

lower

levels

(Ehrich,

1939,

10,

18).

Kama

The

River

Orontes

is

deeply

incised

into

the

Syrian

plateau

at

Hama.

The

ancient

mound

lies

on

a

terrace

in

the

valley beside

the

river

in

the

heart

of

the

modern

town.

The

site

was

excavated

from

1932

to

1938

but

only

the

upper

levels

were

cleared

to any extent.

A

Roman cistern

was

cleaned

out

and

below

this

a

sounding

was

dug

to

the

sterile

subsoil

(Fugmann,

1958,

12).

The

sounding

took

the

form

of

a

circular

shaft

1.5

m

in

diameter

which

enabled

the

excavators

to

ascertain

the

stratigraphic

sequence

but

was

too

narrow

for

much

to

be

learned

about

the

nature

of

the

earlier

settlements

(Fugmann,

1958,

pi.

IX).

This

deep

sounding,

G

11

X,

was sunk

in

the

northern

sector

of the

mound

near

the

river

(Fugmann,

1958,

fig.

9).

It

was

found

that

the

earliest

settlement

of

Period

M

was

established

on

the

natural

subsoil

and

that

the

deposit

was

6

m

deep.

Such

a

considerable

accumulation

of

debris

suggests

that

the

settlement

was

substantial

but

we

do

not

know,

of

course,

how

extensive

it

was.

Some

of

the

layers

were

ashy

and

others

pebbly.

These

-

305

-

were presumably

the

remains

of

occupation

debris

and

floors.

There

was

also

a

little

painted

plaster

from

buildings,

the

only

indication

of

substantial

structures.

The

finds

were

meagre

simply

because

the

sounding

was

so

small.

Pottery

of

two

sorts

was

found

throughout

Period

M.

One was

a

thick

coarse

ware

and

the

other

a

finer

ware

which

had

been

coloured

red

or

black

and

burnished

(ingholt,

19^-0,

11);

some

of

these

sherds

were

also

incised.

The

only

other

finds

reported

were

flint

and

obsidian

blades.

The

layers

of

Period

M

were

stratified

beneath

those

of

Period

L

which

contained

Halaf

pottery.

Its

position

in

the

stratigraphic

sequence

and

the

nature

of

the

pottery

indicate

that

the

settlement

of

Period

M

was

occupied

in

Neolithic

3

and

can

be equated

with

Ras

Shamra

V

B

and

V

A.

Horns

A

series

of

flints

was

collected

from

the

surface

of

a

prehistoric

site

near

Horns

and

is

now

in

a

private collection

(de

Contenson,

1969c,

63).

They

formed

a

homogeneous

group

and

can

be

quite

closely

dated

on

their

typology.

They

consisted

of

eight arrowheads and

eight

blank

blades.

The

arrowheads

were

all

Amuq

points,

that

is

long

pointed

blades

of

triangular

cross-section

with

a

stem

retouched

by

pressure-flaking

to

form

a

blunt

point.

Cauvin

has

defined

two

types

of

Amuq

point,

type

1

shaped

like

a

willow

leaf

with

retouch

over

much

of

the

ventral

and

sometimes

also

the

dorsal

surfaces

and

type

2

made

on

a

broader

blade

with

one

end

narrowed

by

retouch

to

form

a

tang

(Cauvin,

1968,

U9,

53).

Both

types

were

present

in

the

Horns

collection

(Fig.

37).

Amuq

points

have

been

found

in

late

Neolithic

2

contexts

such

as

the

later

aceramic

Neolithic

levels

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

in

Ras

Shamra

V

C

(de

Contenson,

1969c,

65).

They

are

more common

in

Neolithic

3

recurring

in

both

Ras

Shamra

V

B

and

Ne"olithique

Ancien

and

Moyen

at

Byblos

as

well

as

in

Amuq

A

and

B

(Braidwood,

Braidwood,

1960, figs.

30,

60,

37^;

pi.

65).

Thus

the

Horns

site

may

have

been

occupied

in

Neolithic

2

but

it

is

more

likely

it

was

Fig.

37

Horns

-

Amuq

points

(after

de

Contenson)

a

-

Amuq

1

b

-

Amuq

2

-

306

-

inhabited

in

Neolithic

3

sometime

during

the

6th

millennium

B.C.

Qal'at

el

Mudiq

Qal'at

el

Mudiq

lies

north-west

of

Kama

overlooking

the

valley

of

the

Orontes

from

the

east.

Numerous

flint

tools

and

scraps of

obsidian

have

been

found

on

the

lower

slopes

of

the

castle

mound

which

probably

came

from

the

earliest

levels

of

occupation

at

the

site.

The

few

diagnostic

tools

were

an

Amuq

arrowhead

and

several

segmented

sickle

blades

(Dewez,

1970,

pis.

11:5,

111:1-10.

Most

of

the

flakes

and

blades

found

had been

struck

off

prismatic

cores.

This

scanty

information

would

suggest

that

Qal'at

el

Mudiq

was

occupied

during

the

Neolithic,

probably

in

stage

3.

Janudiyeh

The

site

of

Janudiyeh

is

situated

on

the

heights

above

the

west

bank

of

the

Orontes

north

of

Jisr

esh-Shaghur.

Both

flint

tools

and

potsherds

have

been

collected

from

the

surface and

it

is

possible

to

ascertain

from

these when

the

site

was

occupied.

Many

of

the

flints

were

Amuq

arrowheads

of

both

types

1

and

2

while

there

were

also

retouched blades,

a

sickle

blade

and

flake

scrapers,

among

them

several

discoids

(de

Contenson,

1969c,

68ff).

The sherds

all

belonged

to

vessels

of simple

shapes

such

as

hemispherical

bowls

and

jars

with

hole-mouths

or

collared

necks

(de

Contenson,

1969c,

TO).

Almost

all

were

dark

in

colour

with

a

burnished

surface

while

a

few

had

incised

decoration.

The

flints

and

the

pottery

are

similar

to

the

material

found

at

Ras

Shamra

in

Phase

V

B

so

the

site

was

occupied

quite

early

in

Neolithic

3.

The

site

itself

is

unusual

as

it

is

at

an

elevation

of

about

500

m

in

what

was

then

forested,

hilly

country.

There

is

cultivable

land

nearby

so

Janudiyeh

could

have

been

either

an

agricultural

or

a

pastoral

settlement.

The

extreme

north-west

corner

of

the

Levant

is

today

the

Turkish province

of

the

Hatay.

The

Amanus

Mountains

on

the

west

separate

most

of

the

region

-

307

-

from

the

Mediterranean.

Behind

them

to

the

east

lies

the

Amuq

plain

and

here

the

Orontes

after flowing

north

through

Syria

turns

south-west

to

meet

the

sea.

Several

roads

pass

from

the

plain

through

low

hills to

the east

up

to the

Syrian

plateau

so

that

geographically

the

region

is

more

an

extension

of

Syria

than

a

part

of

Turkey

although

there

is

also

an

easy

route

to

the

north

up the

valley

of

the

Karasu.

The

fertile

plain

is

dotted

with

ancient

settlements

and

several

of

these

have

"been

shown

in

excavations

to

have

been

occupied

as

early

as

Neolithic

3.

The

remains

of

the

Neolithic

settlements

are

always

found

to

be

well

below

the

present

level of

the

plain

because

an

enormous

amount

of

alluvium

has

accumulated

since

the

lower

course

of

the

Orontes

was

blocked

in

the

earthquakes

that

destroyed

ancient

Antioch.

It

is

known

that

the

region

has

been

inhabited

since

the

lower

Palaeolithic

from

discoveries

made

in

the

hills

around

the

Amuq

plain

(Hours

et

al., 19T3

9

2U2)

but

sites

dating from

Neolithic

1

and

2

have

not

yet

been

found

there.

Any

settlement

sites

of

this date

founded

on

the

plain

itself

would

have

subse-

quently

been

buried.

Much

of

our

information

about

the

sequence

of

Neolithic

occupation

on

the

Amuq

plain

comes

from

the

excavations

of

the

Oriental

Institute

of

CTiicago

University

at

Tell

Judaidah

and

Tell

Dhahab

both

of

which

lie

in

the

south-

eastern

corner

of

the the

Amuq

plain

near

Rehanli.

The

Neolithic

deposits

at

Tell

Judaidah,

designated

level

XIV,

were

divided

on

the

typology

of the

pottery

into

two

phases,

A

and

B,

both

of

which

fall

in

Neolithic

3.

The

only

Neolithic

occupation

at

Tell

Dhahab

was

a

short-lived

settlement

of

phase

A

(Braidwood,

Braidwood,

1960,

U6).

Tell

Judaidah

The

lowest

layers

reached

at

Judaideh

were

below

the

water

table

which

seriously

impeded

the

excavation and

limited

the

information

that

could

be

recovered

from

the

deep

sounding

made

there.

No

buildings were

found

in

phase

A

though

they

may

have

existed

(Braidwood,

Braidwood,

1960,

-

308

-

Remains

of

rectilinear

buildings

with

stone

foundations

and

perhaps

mud-brick

or

mud

walls

were

found

in

the

phase

B

layers

above

(Braidwood,

Braidwood,

1960,

68).

23

The

chipped

stone

industry

was

of

the

same

character

throughout

phases

A

and

B.

Most

of the

tools

kept

for

study

were

made

on

blades

struck

from

single-ended

pyramidal

or

conical

cores,

the

by-products

of

which

included

crested

blades

and

core

tablets.

The

most

abundant

tools

seem

to

have

been

arrowheads

and

sickle

blades

(Payne,

1960,

525,

526).

Many

of the

arrowheads

were

of

the

types

called

Amuq

1

and

2

by

Cauvin.

These

were

mostly

quite

long,

long

enough

to be called

javelin

heads

in

the

published

account,

although

on

ethnographic

analogy

all

could

have

been

used

to

arm

arrows

.

They

were

extensively

pressure-flaked

on

the

upper

surface

and

had

some

retouch

on

the

back

at

the

tip

and

tang.

Most of the

type

2

arrowheads

had

swollen

tangs.

Some

of

the

arrowheads

though

still

tanged

were

much

shorter

than

these

and

a

few

were

finished

with

abrupt

retouch.

All

the

sickle

blades

were

segmented

and

usually

about

3.5

cm

in

length.

Most

of these

blade

sections

had

been

snapped

off

at

the

required

length

although

a

few

were

made

by

the

notch

technique.

The

cutting

edge

of

many

of

the sickle

blades

had

been

slightly

retouched

but

they

were

not

backed.

Many

still

retained

traces

of

the

mastic

which

secured

them

in

the

sickle.

Among

the

other

tools

were

borers

on

blade

segments

and

single-blow,

angle

and

dihedral

burins. There

were

also

end-scrapers

on

blades

and

flake

scrapers

some

of

which

were

discoid

(Payne,

1960,

52?)

Obsidian

was

quite

plentiful

as

a

raw

material

and

was

worked

on

the

spot,

the

evidence

for

this

being

pyramidal

cores,

crested blades

and

core

tablets

(Payne,

1960,

528,

529).

Not

only

were

there obsidian

blades and

flakes

but

also

small

borers

and

arrowhead

tangs.

One

piece

has

been

analysed

from

Judaidah

which

was

found

to

have

come

from

the

Ciftlik

source

(Renfrew

et

al.,

1966,

65).

The

chipped

stone

industry

is

in

general

quite

similar

to

what

we

know

of

the

material from

Ras

Shamra

V

B

and

V

A

although

there

are

differences

in

the

-

309

-

types

of

sickle

blades

preferred

at

each site

and

the

quantities

of

obsidian present,

a

function

of

ease

of

communication

with

and

distance

from

the

sources.

The

other

stone tools

at

Judaidah were

both

abundant

and

varied.

Trapezoidal

stone

axes

and

adzes

were

particularly

common

(Braidwood,

Braidwood,

1960,

58,

87).

These

were

quite

thin

and

had

straight

sides

with

a

bevelled

cutting

edge.

All

were

ground

and

partly

polished.

They

were

made

in

both

large

and

small

sizes

so

would

have

been

suitable

both

for

preparing

rough

timber

and

shaping

wooden

artifacts.

Disc rubbers

were

abundant

while

hammers

and

slingstones

were

also

present

(Braidwood,

Braidwood,

1960,

55,

61, 86,

90).

One

macehead

was

found

in

the

phase

B

levels,

a

grooved

stone

in

phase

A

and

several

stamp

seals

in

both

phases

(Braidwood,

Braidwood,

1960,

61,

63,

90,

9^).

The

stamp

seals

were

incised

with

geometric

patterns

which

in

most

cases

consisted

of

criss-cross

lines.

Spindle

whorls

were

made from

both

stone

and

baked

clay

while

circular

stone

dishes

were

also

used.

These

were

usually ground

and

polished

and

at

least

one

had

a

spout

for

pouring

(Braidwood,

Braidwood,

1960,

fig. 32,

8).

Decorative

stone

objects

were

also

made,

among

them

two

studs,

pendants

and beads.

The

latter

included

several

butterfly

beads

of

the

kind

found

in

such

abundance

at

Abu

Hureyra

in

both

Neolithic

3

and

Neolithic

2

contexts (Braidwood,

Braidwood,

1960,

figs.

36:

5~7,

67:7).

The

usual

bone

awls,

needles

and

spatulae

were

also

used

at

the

site

(Braidwood,

Braidwood,

1960,

65-67,

97~99).

Three

principal

types of

pottery

have

been

distinguished

from

Judaidah

although

there

were

small

quantities

of

several

others

in

phase

B.

The

shapes

of the

vessels

were

quite

simple,

consisting

for the

most

part of

globular

hole-mouth

jars,

some

collared

jars

and

bowls

with

flat

bases.

The

most common

type

was

dark-faced

burnished

ware,

a

group

of

thick-walled

medium-fired

vessels

made

of clay

tempered

with

grit,

sand

and

some

organic

matter

(Braidwood,

Braidwood,

1960,

^9ff).

When

fired

the

core

was

usually

dark

grey

or

black.

The

surface

colour

of

these

pots

varied

from

buff

to

-

310

-

black

but

most

of

them

were

in

shades

of

brown.

All

had

been

roughly

bur-

nished.

Surface

decoration

was

limited

to

jabs

and

incised

shell

or

finger-

nail

impressions

on

a

few

pots.

Some

jars

had

ledge

handles

for

lifting.

In

phase

B

certain

vessels

were

made

with

thinner

walls

and

given

more

even surface

treatment

(Fig.

38).

Some

of

these

pots

were

decorated

with

pattern

burnish

(Braidwood,

Braidwood,

1960,

77).

Carinated

bowls

were

made

for the

first

time

in

phase

B

which,

together

with

a

few

other

pots,

could

be

classed

as

dark

polished

ware.

The

second

type of

pottery

was coarse

simple

ware,

a

group

of

thick-walled

vessels

of

a

softer

fabric

with

much

straw

filler

(Braidwood,

Braidwood,

1960,

U7ff)

The

surface colour

of

the

pots

ranged

from

light

buff

to

orange

and

brown.

The

third

type

was

washed

impressed

ware,

a

series

of

vessels

with

the

varied

surface

colours

of

the

other

varieties

but

which

had

been

partly

covered

in

thin

red

paint

(Braidwood,

Braidwood,

1960,

52ff).

The

rims

were

painted

red

and

often

burnished

with

a

band

of

impressed

decoration

below

usually

done

with

the

edge

of

a

shell.

The

pottery

was

a

little

more

elaborate

in

phase

B

with

more

varied

surface

treatment

(Braidwood,

Braidwood,

1960,

69).

A

number

of

vessels

were

coated

with

red

slip

and

burnished,

a

type

of

finish

quite

rare

in

phase

A.

A

brittle

painted

ware

could

be

distinguished,

the

vessels

of

which

were

painted

with

lines

of

reddish

paint

on

a

burnished

surface

(Braidwood,

Braidwood,

1960,

80ff).

Other

pots

were

decorated

more

extensively

with

incised

lines

and

shell-impressed

patterns.

Amuq

A

and

B

pottery

was

found

in

great

quantity

at

Judaidah

which

enables

us

to

see

just

how

varied

in

fabric

and

decoration

the

finished

product

was.

The

pots

were

probably

made

by

many

individuals

using

methods

that

would

have

been

irregular

and

subject

to

uncertainty.

The

vessels

were

probably

fired

in

bonfires

which

would

account

for

the

uneven

colours

and

textures

of

the

fabrics.

Because

the

pottery

was

made

in

this

way

the

result

was

bound

to

vary

considerably

from

site

to

site.

One cannot

use

pottery

at

\

J

SC.

1=3

SC.

1:3

Fig.

38

Pattern-burnished

vessels

a-Tell

Judaidah

(after

Braidwood

and

Braidwood)

b

-

Byblos

(after

Dunand)

-

311

-

this

early

stage,

therefore,

for

a

precise

chronological

or

cultural

comparison

between

sites

in

the

way

one

can

with

Halaf

and

later

stages.

That

being

said,

it

is

still

possible

to

make

certain

general

comparisons

between

the

pottery

of

different

sites

in

Neolithic

3.

The

Amuq

A

and

B

dark-faced

burnished

ware

bears

a

general

resemblance

to

the

burnished

wares

of

Ras

Shamra

V

B

and

V

A.

Dark

polished

red and

black

ware,

so

abundant

at

Ras

Shamra,

is,

however,

quite

rare

at

Judaidah.

The

pattern

burnished

vessels

are

generally

similar

at

both

sites.

The

Amuq

coarse

simple

ware

has

some

features

in

common

with

the

unburnished

grosser

vessels

at

Ras

Shamra

but

the

washed

impressed

ware

is

virtually

absent

so

far

as

we

know.

Painted

pottery

seems

to

have

been

more common

in

the

Amuq

than

at

Ras

Shamra.

Judaidah

and

Ras

Shamra

are

separated

from

each

other

by

the

Jebel

Akra

(Mount

Cassius)

massif.

This

geographical

separation

is

reflected

in

the

cultural

differences

in

the

chipped

stone

industry

and

pottery

that we have

noted between

the

sites.

One

would

also

point

out

that

the

stamp

seals,

butterfly

beads

and other

carefully-worked

stone

objects

found

at

Judaidah

are

virtually

absent

at

Ras

Shamra

and

that

polished

stone

axes

are

much

less

common

at

the

latter

site.

Nonetheless

the

chipped

stone

industries

at

both

sites

are

fundamentally

of the

same

tradition

both

in

core

technique and

tool

types.

A

good

deal

of

the

Judaidah

pottery

and

some

of

the

other

objects

can

also

be

paralleled

at

Ras

Shamra.

One

may,

therefore, place

both

sites

in

the

same

cultural

group

while

taking

note of

the

differences that

are

apparent

in

the

two

assemblages.

If

we knew

more

about

the

deposits of

these

two

sites

and

others

in

their

vicinities

we

might

be

able

to

draw

finer

cul-

tural

distinctions

but

that cannot

be

done

at

present.

The deposits

of

Amuq

phases

A

and

B

were stratified

beneath

the

First

Mixed

Range

and

phase

C

in

which

the

earliest

Halaf material

was

found

(Braidwood,

Braidwood,

1960,

11U,

138).

Their

stratigraphical

position

and

the

typological

parallels

with

Ras

Shamra V

B

and

V

A

place

Amuq A

and

B

-

312

-

firmly

in

Neolithic

3.

No

14 C

determinations

have

ever

been

made

on

samples

from

Judaidah

so

the

duration

of phases

A

and

B

cannot

be

determined

with

certainty. The

substantial

nature

of the

deposits

suggests

that

the

site

was

occupied

for

much

of

Neolithic

3,

that

is

for

most

of

the

6th

millennium

B.C.

The

Oriental

Institute

team

surveyed

all the

other

mounds

in

the

Amuq

plain.

From

the

sherd

collections

they

made

they

estimated

that

several

other

sites

had

been

occupied

in

the

Amuq

A

and

B

phases,

Six

mounds,

GUltepe,

Tell

Kurdu,

Tell

Hasanusagi,

Qaddahiyyat

Ali

Bey,

Tell

Davutpasa

and

Karaca

Khirbat

Ali

were

believed

to

contain

Neolithic

3

deposits

(Braidwood,

1937,

25, 29,

30,

32,

36,

37)

and

ten

others,

Al

Kanisah,

BUyuktepe,

Tell

Turundah,

Tell

Mahmutliye,

Burj

Abdal,

Tell

Faruq,

Hasanusagi

al

Daiah,

Tell Karatas,

Catal

Huyttk

and

Tell

Qinanah

were

thought

possibly

to

have

been

occupied

then

(Braidwood,

1937,

22,

2U, 26,

27,

29,

31,

37)

on

the

evidence

of

the

surface

material.

The

edge of

the

Amuq

plain

near

Tell

Judaidah

is

marked

by

limestone

hills

cut

by

several

wadis.

A

deep

shelter

in

the

Wadi

Hammam

was

excavated

by

O'Brien

at

the

same

time

that

the

Oriental

Institute

was

investigating

the

tells

on the

plain.

The

shelter

and

a

little

of

the

terrace

were

shown

to

have

been

occupied

in

the

Neolithic,

the

deposits

extending

over

an

area

of

about

120

sq

m

(O'Brien,

1933,

17^).

They

consisted

of

layers

of

dark

soil

and

ashes;

one

hearth

was

found

but

no

other

structures

were

noted.

Several

of

the

occupation

layers

were

separated

by

debris

which

had

fallen

from

the

roof

indicating

that

the

cave

could

not

have

been

inhabited

continuously.

Nevertheless

the

Neolithic

material

remains

were homogeneous

and

belonged

to

a

single

cultural

phase.

The

Wadi

Hammam

shelter

produced

a

varied

collection

of

finds

though

no

great

quantity

of

any

particular

type

apparently.

Among

the

flints

were

an

Amuq

2

arrowhead,

points and

retouched

blades

or

knives.

There

was

also

a

disc

core

or

scraper

and

a

flint

hammer

as

well

as

several

obsidian

blades

(O'Brien,

1933,

pi. 0).

A

number

of

small

greenstone

axes

and

chisels

were

-

313

-

found

in

the

Neolithic

deposits

and

also

a

stone

pestle.

Slender

points

were

the

only

"bone

tools

reported.

At

least

four

carefully

fashioned

stone

beads

or

pendants

were

found,

one

of

which

was

a

"butterfly

bead

(O'Brien,

1933,

pi.

0,

fig. 2,

h)

similar

to

examples

from

Abu

Hureyra

and

also

probably

made

of

serpentine.

Two

of

the

pendants

with

incised

designs

(O'Brien,

1933,

pi.

0,

fig.

k

9

3,

10)

may

have

been

used

as

stamp

seals.

A

few

human

bones

of

both

babies

and

adults

were

found

in

the

shelter

(O'Brien,

1933,

177).

These

may

have

been

all

that

was

left

of

intentional

burials

which

had

subsequently

decayed

in

the

soil

or

been

disturbed.

Pottery

was

quite

abundant

in

the

shelter

and

at

least

two

wares

were

represented.

One was

a

coarse

buff

ware

with

straw

temper.

Parts

of

at

least

two

vessels

were

found

in

this

ware,

one

a

hole-mouth

bowl

with

incised rim

decoration

and

the

other

a

collared

jar

with

a

strainer

incorporated

in

the

neck

(O'Brien,

1933, figs.

5:12;

6).

The

second

ware

was

coloured

red,

brown

or

black

on

the

surface

and

highly

burnished.

Hole-mouth

pots,

carinated

bowls

and

collared

jars

were

all

made

in this

ware

(O'Brien,

1933,

176,

177)-

Several were

decorated

with

incised

zig-zags

or

patterns

of

short

incisions

usually

just

below

the

rim.

The

flint tools

,

other

stone

artifacts

and

the

pottery

can all

be

parallel-

ed

closely

in

the

Amuq

A

and

B

deposits

at

Tells

Judaidah

and

Dhahab

nearby.

The

Wadi

Hammam

shelter

was

thus

occupied

during

Neolithic

3,

perhaps

at

the

same

time

as

the tells.

It

would

seem,

therefore,

that

there

was

intense

occupation

of

this

corner

of

the

Amuq

plain,

indeed

of

the

whole

lower

Afrin

drainage,

during

the 6th

millennium

B.C.

The

size

of

the

Wadi

Ha.Tmna.Tn

shelter

and

the

nature

of

the

occupation

deposits

within

it

suggest

that

it

was

inhabited

by

a

few

families

from

time

to

time

over

several

centuries.

The

variety

of

artifacts

found

indicates

that

it

was

a

settlement

site

rather

than

a

temporary

camp.

Tell

Dhahab

nearby

was

probably

a

small

village

while

Tell

Judaidah

was

a

much

larger

settlement.

Thus

groups

of

different

sizes

were

occupying

sites

close

together

in

Neolithic

3.

-

31U

-

Tell

esh-Sheikh

One

other

Neolithic

site,

Tell

esh-Sheikh,

has

been

excavated

in

the

Amuq

plain.

It

lies

a

little

south of

Jisr

el

Hadid

and

west

of

the

present

course of the

Orontes.

When Woolley

excavated

Tell

Atchana

he

found

that

the

city

was

first

settled

in

the

Early

Bronze

Age.

Seeking

to

obtain

a

record

of

earlier

periods

of

occupation

than

this

in

the

Amuq

plain

he

excavated

Tell

esh-Sheikh

because

the

surface

material indicated

that

the

site

was

older

than

Atchana

(Woolley,

1953,

22).

The

site

was

probably

a

large

mound

original-

ly

but

most

of

it

has

been

buried

under

the

alluvium

of

the

plain.

12

levels

of

occupation

could

be

distinguished,

11

of

which

had

affinities

with

Halaf

and

northern

Ubaid

(Woolley,

1950,

6U).

The

settlement

of

Level

XII

had

been

founded

on

the

natural

subsoil

and

was

the

earliest

occupation

on

the

site.

It

consisted

of

rectilinear

mud-brick

buildings

with

associated

floor

levels.

The

excavation

has

never

been

fully

published

so

that

we

do

not

know

how

varied

the

artifacts

were.

From

the

little

material

I

have

seen

in

Ankara

and

Antakya

it

would

seem

that the

chipped

stone

industry

of

Level

XII

consisted

of

Amuq

2

type arrowheads,

abruptly-retouched

tanged

arrowheads,

segmented

backed

sickle

blades,

single-blow

burins, end-scrapers

on

blades, discoid

and

side-scrapers.

These

artifacts

are

broadly

comparable

with

those

found

in

Amuq A

and

B

although

the

sickle

blades

are

a

slightly

later

type

which

may

have

come

from

the

upper

levels

at

Tell

esh-Sheikh.

The

pottery

was

a

fairly

uniform

hard-fired

ware

with

a

dark

fabric

incorporating

a

little sandy

filler.

The

vessels

were

mostly

simple,

rather

heavy

bowls

with

thickened

plain

rims.

Their

surfaces

had

been

coloured

black

or

red

and

some

pots

had

been

burnished.

This

pottery

is

Amuq

A

and

B

dark-faced

burnished

ware

although

the

fabric

is

a

little

different

from

most

of

the vessels

at

Tell

Judaidah.

The

settlement

at

Tell

esh-Sheikh

XII

is

stratified

beneath

the

earliest

Halaf

deposit

of

Level

XI.

Since

the

affinities

of

the

material

remains

are

with

Amuq

A

and

B

this

settlement

was

occupied

in

Neolithic

3.

The

pottery

and

flints

are

more

closely

Amuq

B

at

Tell

Judaidah

which

suggests

-

315

-

that Tell

esh-Sheikh

was

not

occupied

until fairly

late

in

Neolithic

3.

The

Amanus

Mountains

mark

the

western

limit

of

the

North

Syrian

group

of

Neolithic

3

sites.

Beyond

the

mountains

lies

the

Cilician

plain,

a

region

which,

like

the

Amuq,

is

clearly

defined

geographically

and

rich

in

visible

remains

of

ancient

sites.

Neolithic

settlements

have

been

revealed

in

excavations

at

the

base

of

two

of

these,

Mersin

and

Tarsus.

It

used

to

be

thought

that

these

sites

were

closely

contemporary

settlements

in

the

Amuq

and

at

Ras

Shamra.

Archaeologists

joined

them

together

with

the

North

Syrian

sites

I

have

discussed

in

a

"Syro-Cilician" group

(Braidwood,

1955»

7*0.

The

excavations

which

have

taken

place

on

the

Konya

plain

since

1961

have

set

the

Cilician

sites

in a

new

perspective.

It

can

now

be

seen

that

while

culturally

they

share

certain

features

with

the

North

Syrian

settlements

they have

much

in

common

with

the

Anatolian

sites

of

Catal

HUyUk

East

and

West

and Can

Hasan

situated

on

the

northern

side

of

the Taurus,

a

link

which

Mellaart

has

recently

emphasised

(1975

5

125).

Mersin

was

never

excavated

to

the

natural

subsoil

since

the

earliest

deposit

lay

below

the

present

water

table. The

lowest levels

reached,

XXXIII

to

XXVII,

were

designated Lower Neolithic

by

Garstang

(1953,

13).

A

date

of

6000

±

250

B.C.

W-617

"was

obtained

from

a

charcoal

sample

taken

from

one

of

these

levels

in

1955

(Radiocarbon

2,

1960,

183).

This

date

should

be of

the

right

order

of

magnitude

for

such

a

deposit even

though the

determination

was

made

so

long

ago.

Above

these

levels

were

the

Upper

Neolithic

levels

XXVI

and

XXV

(Garstang,

1953,

27).

The

settlements

of

these

levels

were

occupied

during

approximately

the

same

period

as

the

Neolithic

3

North

Syrian

sites.

It

is

possible

that

the

Proto-Chalcolithic

level

XXIV

and

the

Early

Chalco-

lithic

levels

XXIII

to

XX

were

also

contemporaneous

with

the

latter

part of

Neolithic

3.

-

316

-

Remains

of

straight

vails

"built

of

stones

from

the

river

which

flows

beside

the

site

were

found

in

the

Lower

Neolithic

levels

but

no

complete

structures could

be

made

out

(Garstang,

1953,

1*0.

Two

rectilinear

buildings

with

stone

walls

and

cell-like

rooms

were

excavated

in

Level

XXVI

(Garstang,

1953,

fig.

12)

but

their

function

was

uncertain.

The

chipped

stone

industry

at

Mersin

was

quite

homogeneous

throughout

the

earlier

levels.

Most

of the

tools

were

made

of

obsidian

and

only

a

few

from

flint.

The

use

of large

quantities

of

obsidian

is

one

important

differ-

ence

between

Mersin

and

the

North

Syrian

sites.

Mersin

is

quite close

to

the

obsidian

sources

around

Aksaray

so

the

inhabitants

could

easily

obtain

it.

The

considerable

quantity

of

obsidian

found

at

Mersin

indicates

that

the

inhabitants

were

in

frequent

contact

with

the

plateau

by

way

of

the

Cilician

Gates.

2U

Most

of

the

tools

were

made

on

blades struck

from

pyramidal

cores.

The

arrowheads

which

were particularly

numerous

were

usually long

and exten-

sively

retouched

by

pressure-flaking

(Garstang,

1953,

15).

These arrowheads

often

had

tangs

with

slight

shoulders

but

on a

few

the

tang

was

not

separated

from

the

blade,

a

type

similar

to

Amuq

1

points.

Some

arrowheads

were

leaf-

shaped

and

much

shorter.

The

other common

obsidian

tools

were

borers

on

blades,

backed

blades

and

flake

scrapers.

Sickle

blades

were

made

on

flint

obtained

locally.

One

or

both

edges

of

these

were

lightly

retouched

but

usually

they

were

not

backed.

The

chipped

stone

industry

of

levels

XXIV

to XX

was

of

the

same

character

though

the

proportions

of

arrowheads,

awls

and

scrapers

diminished

markedly

(Garstang,

1953,

50).

The

assemblage

from

these

levels

was

composed

princi-

pally of

plain

and

retouched

blades.

Flint sickle

blades

were

also

used

in

greater

numbers.

The

chipped

stone

industry

of

the

lower

levels

at

Mersin

bears

a

general

resemblance

to

the

Neolithic

3

industry

from

Tell

Judaidah.

The

core

technique

and

use of

pressure-flaking

are

similar

while

Amuq

1

arrowheads

are

common

to

-

317

-

both

assemblages.

In

other

aspects

there

are

important differences

in

detail

between

the

two.

The

usual

form

of

Mersin

tanged

arrowhead

is

rarely

found

at

Tell

Judaidah.

The

Mersin

sickle

blades

are

normally

complete

blades

while

those

at

Judaidah

are

segmented.

Burins

are

found

in

some

numbers

at

the

latter

but

are

virtually

absent

at

Mersin.

Most

of

the

important

features

of the

Mersin

industry

can

be

seen

in

the

assemblage

from

Catal

Huytik

East

although

here

again

there

are

certain

tools

common

at

the

latter

which

are

not

present

at

Mersin.

Both

industries

are

based

on

the

production

of

blades

from pyramidal

obsidian

cores.

All

the

Mersin

types

of

arrowhead,awls

and

scrapers

are

found

in

abundance

at

Catal

HUyUk

(Bialor,

1962,

69ff)

though

not

the

sickle

blades.

Very

few

sickle

blades

could

be

distinguished

at

Catal

HUytlk,

perhaps

because

they were

made

of

obsidian. The

Mersin

flint

sickle

blades

appear

to

be

a

specific Cilician

type

in

this

period.

If we

consider

the

pottery

from

Mersin

we find

that,

like

the

flints,

there

are

certain general similarities

between

it

and

the

Amuq.

material

but

that

the closest

parallel

is

the

pottery from

the

plateau

sites.

There

were

two

classes

of

pottery

in

the lowest

levels

at

Mersin,

a

fine

burnished

ware

and

a

coarse

ware

(Garstang,

1953,

18,

19).

The

fine

ware

was

quite

hard

fired

and

usually

had

a

brown

or

black

surface

although

some

vessels

were

buff

or

red.

The

coarse

ware

was more

plentiful;

this

had

a

softer

buff

or

brown

fabric

with

straw

and

grit

filler.

Its

surface

was

usually

brown

or

grey

in

colour

and

smoothed

not

burnished.

Hole-mouth

pots,

bowls

and

dishes

were

made

in

both

wares

and

a

few

carinated

vessels

in

the

fine

burnished

ware.

The

vessels

had

both

flat

and

rounded

bases.

Some

pots

were decorated

with

incised

patterns.

In

levels

XXVI

and

XXV

larger

globular

jars

with

collared

rims

were

made

(Garstang,

1953,

35ff)

Some

vessels

were

burnished

to

a

high

gloss

and

a

few

pots

were

painted

for

the

first

time.

Their

surfaces

were

covered

with

designs

in

red

paint

which

was

sometimes

applied

over

a

slip.

In

levels

-

318

-

XXIV

to

XX

the

burnished

and

coarse

wares

continued

to

"be

made

but

the red

painted

vessels

were

decorated with

more

elaborate

designs (Garstang,

1953,

58ff,

78ff).

The

burnished

ware

at

Mersin

is

quite

like

the

dark-faced

burnished

ware

at

Tell

Judaidah

and

the

highly

burnished

vessels

also

resemble

the

North

Syrian

dark

polished

wares.

Pattern

burnish,

that

distinctive

decoration

on

some

North

Syrian

pottery,

is

not

found

at

Mersin, however.

The

coarse

ware

at

Mersin

again

is

somewhat

like

the

Judaidah

coarse

simple

ware

though

not so

heavy but

the

Judaidah

washed

impressed

ware

is

not

found

at

Mersin.

Another

important difference

between

the

pottery

from

the

two

sites

is

that

nothing

like

the

Mersin

painted

ware

of

level

XXV and

later

is

found

at

Judaidah. The

patterns

of

the

Mersin

ware

are

much

bolder

than

the

Judaidah

painted

pottery

while

the use

of

a

cream

slip

as

background

is

unknown

in

the

Amuq.

Plain

burnished

pottery

and

some

lighter

buff

wares

very

similar

in

shape

and finish to

those

found

at

Mersin were made

at

Catal

HuyUk

East, Catal

Huytlk

West

and

Can

Hasan

(Mellaart,

1965,

136;

1967,

216,

217;

French,

1966,

118,

120);

the

only

difference was

that

incised

decoration

was

hardly

ever

used

on

the

plateau

sites.

The

Mersin

coarse

ware

is

not

found

on

the

plateau

and

since

it

is

a

little

different

to

the

Tell

Judaidah

coarse

simple

ware

it

seems

that

this

pottery

is

specifically

Cilician.

The

Mersin

painted

pottery

of

level

XXV

and

later

can

be

closely

paralleled

across

the

Taurus

since

vessels

of

similar

shape

and

decoration

were

made

at

Catal

HUyUk

West,

parti-

cularly

the

"Catal

Huytlk

West

ware",

and

Can

Hasan

in

levels

3

and

2B

(Mellaart,

1965,

135ff;

French,

1966,

118,

120).

The

pottery

at

both

sites

was

painted

red

both

on

a

plain

background

and

a

cream

or

white

slip

as

at

Mersin.

The

main

difference

in

the

painted

pottery

of

the

two

areas

is

that

the

designs

on

the

Catal

HUyUk

West

and

Can

Hasan

pots.were

often

more

elaborate

than

at

Mersin,

particularly

in

the

later

levels

at

both

sites.

-

319

-

Insufficient

is

known

about

the

buildings

and

other artifacts from

Mersin

for

these

to

be

usefully

compared vith

sites

in

neighbouring

regions

but

the

flint

tools

and

pottery

are

varied

enough

for

us

to

deduce

their

cultural relationships.

While

some

of this

material

is

quite

like

flints

and

pots

made

in

the

Amuq

and

on

other

sites

in

the

North

Syrian

group

it

resembles

much

more

closely

the

artifacts

used

on

contemporary

sites

on

the

southern

Anatolian

plateau.

Certain

artifacts

which

do

not

match

either

plateau

or

Amuq

material

are

of

local Cilician

inspiration.

When

thought

of

in

human

terms

these cultural

comparisons

suggest that

the

inhabitants

of

Mersin

had

a

local

tradition

of

making

objects

of

everyday

use.

They

also

maintained

close

contact

with

the

inhabitants

of

the

southern

Anatolian

plateau

from

where

they

obtained

their

obsidian.

Some

more general

relationship

existed

between them

and

their

contemporaries

to

the

east

of

the

Amanus.

The

same

observations

may

be

made

about

the

site

of

Tarsus

situated

about

26

km

north-east

of

Mersin.

The

Neolithic

and

Chalcolithic

levels

here

were

sounded

in

a

small

trench

from

which

relatively

little

material

was

recovered;

the

bottom

of

the

site

was

not

reached

because,

as

at

Mersin,

it

lay

beneath

25

the

present

water

table

(Goldman,

1956,

3).

The

pottery

from

Tarsus

matched

that

from Mersin

very closely

throughout

the

lower

levels,

as

might

be

expected

since

the

sites

are

so

close

together.

The

dark

burnished

wares

at

Tarsus

were

rather

finer

than

in

the

Amuq,

a

trait

which

the

Mersin

pottery

shares.

At

least

one

pattern

burnished

sherd

was

found

here,

now

in

the

Peabody

Museum.

Tarsus

and Mersin

are

the

only

two

Neolithic

sites

excavated

on

the

Cilician

plain.

Their

material

remains

suggest

that

both enjoyed

a

flourishing

local

culture

that

also

closely

reflected

the

Anatolian

sequence.

The

Cilician

sites

in

Neolithic

3,

though

sharing

certain

features

with

the

North Syrian

settlements,

formed

a

distinct

group

on

their

own.

Material

comparable

to

that

from

Ras

Shamra

and

Tell

Judaidah

in

Neolithic

3

has

been

found

at

several

sites

north

and

east

of

the

Amuq.

-

320

-

I

will

now review

the

evidence from

these

sites

to see

whether

or

not

they

belong

within

the

North

Syrian

group

in

Neolithic

3.

SakcaggzU

The

Rift

valley

extends northward

from

the

Amuq

plain

as

far

as

Maras

where

it

ends.

Some

90

km

up

the

valley

from

the

Amuq

there

is

a

marshy

area

which

forms

the

watershed

between

the

Karasu

and

Aksu

rivers.

The

mounds

at

Sakcagb'zti

are

to

be

found

a

little

to

the

east

of

this

section

of

the

Rift

valley.

The

principal

excavations

conducted

at

the

site

were

carried

out

by

Garstang

in

1908

and

1911.

He

dug

two

soundings,

A

and

Z,

in

the

north-east

slope

of

the

mound

of

Jobba

Huytlk

and

discovered

at

the

bottom

traces

of

a

prehistoric

settlement

(Garstang

et

al.,

1937,

121ff).

This

was

founded

on

the

natural

subsoil

and

its

remains

comprised

the

three

lowest

strata

11

to

13,

designated

Period

I

(Garstang

et

al.

,

1937,

128).

Period

I

was

stratified

beneath

the

remains

of

Period

II

in

which

Halaf

material

was

found.

Further

excavations

were

carried

out

at

the

site

in

19^9

in

which

Period

I

levels

were

reached

in

the

south-east

sector

of

the

mound

(du

Plat

Taylor

et

al.

,

1950,

55)

The

structures

of

Period

I

consisted

of

hearths,

small

sub-circular

chambers

built

partly

of

stone

and

traces

of

a

lime

plaster

floor

(Garstang

et

al.,

1937,

121,

127).

The

published

section

and

plan

also

show

rectilinear

structures

at

the

bottom

of

sounding

Z

which

belonged

to

Period

I

(Garstang

et

al.,

1937,

pl«

XXII).

Several

pits

and

ditches

but

no

buildings

were

found

at

the

bottom

of

the

trench

in

the

south-east

sector

(du

Plat

Taylor

et

al.,

1950,

7*0-

We

do

not

know

enough

about

these

pits

and

structures

to

deduce

their

function

but

the

buildings

are

not

inconsistent

in

shape

with

those

on

contemporary

sites

further

south.

Both

obsidian

and

flint

artifacts

were

found

but

in

small

quantities

only

(Garstang

et

al.,

1937,

133).

The

flints

were

mostly

flakes

from which

it

is

not

possible

to

make

comparisons

with

material

from

other

sites

but

a

great

deal

of

pottery

was

recovered

in

Period

I

which

does

permit

one

to

draw

-

321

-

conclusions

about

its

affinities.

Of

the

three

wares

which

could

be

distinguished

the

most

abundant

was

a

well-fired

grey

gritty

ware with

a

grey

or

black

burnished

surface

(Garstang

et

al.,

1937

5

132ff).

Some of

this

pottery

carried

incised

patterns

of chevrons,

cross-hatching

or

dashes

usually

near

the

rim.

The

incised

patterns

on

certain

vessels

had

been

filled

with

white

clay.

Other

vessels

had

been

pattern

burnished

in

zig-zag

or

lattice

patterns.

The

second

ware

which

was

much

less

common

had

a

buff

or

brown

fabric

and was

decorated

with

lines

of

red

or

black

paint.

The

third

was

a

plain

coarse

ware

of variable

colour. The

vessels

in

this

group

were

usually

made

in

the

simplest

shapes

with

thick

walls.

The

shapes of

the

other

vessels

were

a

little

more

varied.

There

were globular

jars

with

hole-

mouth

or

everted

rims

and

also

collared

jars.

Many of

the

dark

burnished

and

incised

vessels

were

dishes

or

bowls

with

flat

bases,

splayed

straight

sides

and

a

plain

rim.

The

painted

and

plain

wares

at

SakcagGzll

are

somewhat

similar

to

the

washed

impressed ware

and

coarse

simple

ware

at

Tell

Judaidah

for

example

or

the

painted

and

coarse

wares

at

Ras

Shamra.

The

grey

or

black

burnished

ware,

while

sharing

certain general

traits of

colour

and

finish,

is

different

from

that

found

on

more

southerly

sites.

The

flat-bottomed

dishes

with

splayed

sides

typical

of

SakcogOztl

occur rarely

if

at

all

further

south

while

the

distinctive

carinated

bowls

found

at

Ras

Shamra,

in

the

Amuq

and,

as

we shall

see,

Tell

Ramad,

are not

known

on

the

northern

site.

Some

of

the

incised

patterns

with

their

white

filling

are

characteristic

of

SakcagOztl,

the

bands

of

decoration

forming

a

cross

on

the

bottom

of

some dishes

for

example

(Garstang

et

al.,

1937»

pi-

XXIV,

9),

but

are

not

found

on

the

southern

sites.

Period

I

at

SakcogOztl

has

for

long

been

linked with

Tell

Judaidah,

Ras

Shamra

and

other

sites

over

a

wide

area

stretching

from

Cilicia

through

north

Syria

into

Mesopotamia

because

it

was

thought

that

all

shared

a

common

pottery

tradition

typified by

dark

burnished

wares

and

other

general

cultural

charac-

teristics

(Seton

Williams,

19^8,

35ff;

Braidwood,

1960,

502,

506;

Mellaart,

1975,

225,

231).

I

do

not

think

that

this

view

can

be

maintained

-

322

-

any

longer.

Enough

sites

have

been excavated

now

for

us

to

determine

regional

cultural

variations

and

so

subdivide

the

older

broader

groupings.

Period

I

at

SakcagOzU

is

characterised

by

dark

burnished

pottery

vessels

of

simple

shapes

and

the

deposits

are

stratified

beneath

Halaf

levels.

This

is

sufficient

to

indicate

its

contemporaneity

with

Neolithic

3

in

the

Levant.

On

the

evidence

of

the

pattern

burnished

pots

one

could

even

equate

it

with

Amuq

B

and

Ras

Shamra

V

A,

that

is

quite

late

in

Neolithic

3.

Yet,

as

we

have

seen,

while

SakcagQztl

has

certain

general

cultural traits

and

a

few

detailed

ones

in

common

with

those

sites

the

differences

are

still quite

marked.

For

that

reason

I

do

not

think

Sakcagb'zll

can

properly

be

included

within

the

North

Syrian

group

of

Neolithic

3

sites

even

though

it

has

much

in

common

with

them.

It

is

best

thought

of

as

a

site

at

the

border

of

the

North

Syrian

group

which

has

certain

features

more

typical

of

the

region

beyond.

Tell

Turlu

Tell

Turlu

lies

about

k5

km

east

of

Gaziantep

on

the

road

to

Nizip

(Watson,

1965s

TO).

It

is

a

substantial

mound

with

a

long

sequence

of

late

prehistoric

occupation

as

well

as

other

material.

Perrot

sounded

the

site

in

1962

and

established

that

the

earliest

settlement

of levels

1

and

2

had

been

founded

on

the

natural

subsoil

(Mellink,

196U,

156).

These

levels

were

stratified

beneath

levels

3

and

h

from

which Halaf

pottery

was

recovered.

The

houses

in

levels

1

and

2

and

also

levels

3

to

6

above

were

circular

and

built

of

stone

with

silos

nearby.

The

excavation

has

not

been published

so

that

we

do

not

know

the

full

range

of

what was

found

there.

I

have

seen

a

little

of

the

material

in

the

Gaziantep

Museum

and

so

can

describe

some

of

the

pottery

and

flints.

The

main

class

of

pottery

in

levels

1

and

2

was

a

buff

or

brown

coarse

ware

with

straw

filler,

some

vessels

of

which were

lightly

burnished.

A

few

vessels

of

this

buff

ware

had

been

painted

with

red

and

black

lines.

There

was

also

a

quite

hard

fired

dark

ware coloured

grey,

black

or

occasionally

red and

then

-

323

-

well

burnished

(Perrot,

1968,

col.

UOT).

Hole-mouth

jars

or

jars

with

everted

rims

and

collared

jars

were

made

in

"both

wares;

some

of

these

vessels

had

flat

bases.

The

stone

artifacts

included

a

number

of

polished

greenstone

axes

as

well

as

many

flint

and

obsidian

tools.

Most

of the

flint

tools

were

made

on

broad

blades

and

large

flakes.

Flake

side-scrapers

and

end-scrapers

on

blades

were

quite

common

as

were

borers

on

blades. Some of

the

sickle

blades

had

nibbled

edges

with

no

other

retouch

but

most

were

segmented

and

backed

with

abrupt

retouch.

The

assemblage

included

a

few

pressure-flaked

tanged

arrowheads.

The

dark

burnished

pottery

at

Tell

Turlu

may

be

compared

with

that

in

Amuq

A

and

B

but we

must

remember

that

this

kind

of

pottery

was

in

use on

sites

over

a

wide

area

for

a

long

period.

The

coarse

buff

ware

also

may

be

compared

with

Amuq

types

though

it

is

more

like

the

plain

ware

at

SakcagOztl.

The

flints,

with

the

exception

of the

arrowheads,

differ

from

Amuq A

and

B

in

the

use

of

large

flakes

and

broad

blades

as

well

as

segmented

sickle

blades,

a

trait

that

is

found

in

the

Amuq

in

later

phases.

The

Tell

Turlu

flints do

resemble

quite

closely

the

little

material

we

know

of

from

SakcagOzti.

The

settlement

of Tell

Turlu

levels

1

and

2

was

on

stratigraphic

evidence

occupied

before

Halaf.

The

pottery

and

flints

may

be

compared

with

Neolithic

3

material

in

the

Amuq

and

at

SakcagQzll

but

on

the

evidence

of

the

flint

industry

it

would

appear

that

the

site

was

occupied

late

in

this

stage.

The

material

is

more like

that

from

SakcagOztl

than

the

Amuq

which

suggests

that

Tell

Turlu

also

lies

on

the

fringe

of

the

North

Syrian

group

of

Neolithic

3

sites.

A

survey of

ancient

sites

was

carried

out

in

the

spring

of

1939

on

the

plain

between

Aleppo

and

Meskene

and

north-east

as

far

as

Membij

(Maxwell

Hyslop

et

al.,

19^2,

18).

The

area

is

studded

with

tells

most

of

which

were

found

to

have

been

occupied

in

late

prehistoric

and

historic

times.

Two

sites,

Judaidah

Jabbul

and

Sheikh

Ahmed,

were

thought

to

have

been

occupied

-

32k

-

earlier

than

any

of

the

others

(Maxwell

Hyslop

et

al.

,

19^2, 2k).

It

is

possible

that

some

of

the

larger

tells

may

also

conceal

early

settlements

within

their

bulk

but

artifacts

typical

of

these

deposits

were

not

exposed

on

their

surfaces.

The

earliest

pottery

noted

at

Judaidah

Jabbul

and

Sheikh

Ahmed

was

Ubaid

and

Halaf

with,

in

addition,

a

red

or

black

painted

buff

ware

(Maxwell

Hyslop

et

al.,

19^2, figs.

15,

16,

17).

It

is

not

known

for

certain

if

there

are

Neolithic

deposits

at

Sheikh

Ahmed

but,

having

visited

Judaidah

Jabbul

myself,

I

am

certain

that

this

site

was

occupied

in

pre-Halaf

times.

Judaidah

Jabbul

The

mound

of

Judaidah

Jabbul

is

situated

east

of

Aleppo

and

a

little

south

of

the

present

road

to

Meskene

and

the

Euphrates

valley.

It

lies

on

the

left

bank

of

the

Wadi

ed-Dahab

where

it

joins

the

old

north

shore

of

the

Jabbul

salt

lake.

The site

is

a

long

mound

about

12

m

high

with gentle

contours

except

on the

west

side

where

the

wadi

has

washed

away

some of

the

deposit.

The

site

extends

south

under

the

present

village

of

Judaidah

and

rises

again

beyond

to

form

a

subsidiary

mound.

The

two

mounds

were

distinguish-

ed

as

separate

sites

in

the

original

survey

(Maxwell

Hyslop

et

al.

,

19^-2,

3^-).

Much

of

the

painted

pottery

to

be

seen

on

the

surface

today

is

of

Halaf

or

Ubaid

type

as

was

noted

by

Maxwell

Hyslop

and

her

collaborators.

There

are

also

sherds

of

grey,

black

and red

burnished

wares,

much

coarse

buff

straw-

tempered

ware

and

buff

pottery

painted

simply

with

red

lines.

None

of

these

sherds

is

sufficiently

diagnostic

to

indicate

that

the

site

was

occupied

in

the

Neolithic

for

all

these

wares

continued

to

be

used

into

Halaf

times.

The

flint

artifacts

decide

the

matter

since

there

are

many

blade

tools,

among

them

sickle

blades

with

little

or

no

backing

and

tanged

arrowheads

finished by both

abrupt

retouch

and

pressure-flaking.

These

tools

are

similar

to

those

in

the

ceramic

Neolithic

levels

at

Abu

Hureyra

as

is

some

of

the

pottery.

The

pottery

and

flints

are

also

similar

to

material

found

in

Amuq

A

and

B

so

we

may

con-

clude

from

these

surface

indications

that

Judaidah

Jabbul

was

occupied

at

least

-

325

-

as

early

as

Neolithic

3

and

that

it

belongs

within

the

North

Syrian

group

of

sites.

Archaeologists

have

thought

that

several

sites

situated

on

the

Euphrates

or

beyond

in

the

northern

Jezireh

were

occupied

in

Neolithic

3.

The

question

is

important

since

these

sites

would

lie

on

the

northern

and

eastern

limits

of

the

North

Syrian

group.

Unfortunately

there

is

insufficient

evidence

from

several

of

the

sites

concerned

for

us

to

be

certain

they

were

occupied

in

Neolithic

3.

I

will now

attempt

to

reconstruct

the

pattern

of

settlement

in

this

area by

briefly

reviewing

the

information

we

have

about

these

sites.

The

westernmost

site

is

Carchemish

situated

on

the

right

bank

of

the

Euphrates

at

the

point

where

it

flows

across

the

Syro-Turkish

frontier.

A

deep

cut

was

excavated

on

the east

side

of

the

citadel

mound

facing

the

river

(Woolley,

193^,

158ff)«

Some

dark

burnished

and

incised

sherds

were

found

here

at

the

bottom

of

the

cut

but

always

in

association

with

painted

pottery

of

Halaf

type.

The

earliest

deposits

for

which

we have

evidence

in

the

Carchemish

citadel

are

Halaf,

therefore,

although

it

remains

possible

that

a

Neolithic

3

settlement

may

lie

within

the

heart

of

the

mound.

Much

brown,

grey,

black

and

red

burnished

pottery,

some

of

it

with incised

decorations,

was

also

found

in

the

Yunus

Kilns

just

outside

the

walls

of

Carchemish

but

it

had

been

made

at

the

same

time

as

painted

Halaf

pottery

and

was

associated

with

Halaf

flint

tools

(Woolley,

193^,

1^9,

15^).

There

is

no

reason

to

suppose

that

the

kilns

were

used

in

Neolithic

3

despite

the

resemblance

of

the

burnished

pottery

to

Neolithic

3

wares.

One

site

in

the

Balikh

valley,

Tell

Aswad

(Balikh)

was

certainly

occupied

in

Neolithic

3.

There

were

three

kinds

of

pottery

at

the

site,

a

brown

or

red

burnished

ware,

a

coarse

buff

ware

with much

straw

temper

and

a

little

red

painted

ware.

These

can

be

paralleled

in

the

ceramic

Neolithic

levels

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

Buqras

III

as

we have

noted

in

the

preceding

chapter.

They

also

bear

a

general

resemblance

to

much

of

the

pottery

found

in

Ras

Shamra

V

B

and

V

A.

-

326

-

It

is

possible

that

the

site

of

Tell

Khirbet

el

Bassal

discovered

by

Cauvin

was

also

occupied

in

Neolithic

3.

We

have

seen

that

it

was

probably

occupied

in

Neolithic

2

as

well

as

the

Halaf

but

the

presence

of

brown

burnished

sherds

(Cauvin,

1970,

287)

suggests

that

the

site

may

also

have

been

inhabited

during

the

intervening

stage

of

Neolithic

3.

One

other

site

on

the

Balikh,

Tell

Hammam,

may

have

been

inhabited

during

Neolithic

3.

This

mound

is

situated

3-5

km

south

of

Tell

Abyad

(Mallowan,

19^-6,

136);

the

upper

levels

date

from

the

Bronze

Age

and

Classical

times

but

the

heart

of

the

tell

is

much

older.

A

few

sherds

described

as

pre-

Ubaid

were

found

here

and

also

a

collection

of

flint

tools

with

an

obsidian

blade

(Mallowan,

19^6,

fig.

13:1-8).

Two

of

these

artifacts

were

tanged

arrowheads

and

at

least

one

other

was

an

end-scraper

on

a

flake.

The

arrow-

heads

are

the

most

diagnostic

of

the

tools:

the

tang of

one

was

retouched

abruptly

and

the

other

with

pressure

flaking.

Neither

arrowhead

was

retouched

very

extensively.

These

two

arrowheads

are

typical

of

the

later

aceramic

and

ceramic

Neolithic

levels

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

so

probably

belong

in a

late

Neolithic

2

or early

Neolithic

3

context.

In

view

of

the

presence

of

early

pottery

at

Tell

Hammam

the

likelihood

is

that

the

flints

were

of

the

same

age

or

not

much

earlier

than

the

sherds

so

that

the

site

may

have

been

inhabited

in

Neolithic

3.

We

know

that

Tell

Aswad

(Balikh)

was

occupied

in

Neolithic

3

even

if

we

cannot be

certain

that

the other

sites

I

have

mentioned were

inhabited

contemporaneously.

The

material

from

Tell

Aswad

(Balikh)

places

it

firmly

within

the

North

Syrian

group

so

that

we

know

the

Balikh

valley

should

be

included

in

this

zone

of

sites

with

similar

remains.

Tell

Halaf

which

lies

on

a

tributary

of the

upper

Khabur

3

km

south-west

of

Ras

el

Ain

was

also

probably

occupied

in

Neolithic

3.

Von

Oppenheim

dug

several

deep

trenches

on

the

northern

side

of

the

mound

which

revealed

something

of

the

prehistoric

remains

at

the

heart

of

the

site.

Beneath

levels

containing

Halaf

material

he

found

deposits

characterised

by

plain

or

burnished

dark

brown,

grey

and

-

327

-

black

pottery

(Schmidt,

19^3,

25ff).

Many

of

the

vessels

were

globular

or

flat-based

hole-mouth

jars

with

ledge

handles

or lugs

for

lifting.

There

were

also

splayed

bowls

with

ring

bases.

This

pottery

was

accompanied

by

a

range

of

flint

and

obsidian

tools

which

included

tanged

arrowheads,

end-scrapers

on

blades

and

borers.

These artifacts

and

their

stratigraphic

position

would

suggest that Tell

Halaf

was

occupied

in

Neolithic

3

though

we

cannot

be sure

of

the

cultural

relationships of

these

early

levels

without

further

exploration.

Braidwood

collected

a

sample

from

the

lowest

Halaf

deposit

at

Tell Halaf,

immediately

above

the

Neolithic

3

levels,

which

gave

a

date

of

5620

±

35

B.C.

GrN-2660

(Radiocarbon

6,

196U,

355).

If

correct

this

would

indicate that

the

Neolithic

3

settlement

was

occupied

in

the

first

half

of

the

6th

millennium.

We

do

not

know

how

much further

east

and

north

the

North

Syrian

group

of

sites

extended because

few

of

the

earliest

settlements

on

the

Khabur

and

Jaghjagha

rivers

have

been

investigated.

Tell

Chagar

Bazar

h3

km

north-north-

east

of

Hassake

on

the

road

to

Amuda

may

have

been

first

settled

in

Neolithic

3

but

the

evidence

is

inconclusive.

Mallowan

sounded

the

earliest

deposits

in

a

deep

trench

at

the

north-west

end of the

site

(Mallowan,

1936,

7)«

He

found

that

the

lowest

level,

level

15

s

rested

on

the

virgin

soil

(1936,

11).

No

buildings

could

be

discerned

in

this

level

but

two

pits,

presumably

dug

down

from

a

higher

level,

contained

Samarra pottery

(1936,

17).

Within

level

15

there

were

sherds of

both

painted

Halaf

and

grey

or

black

burnished

ware.

The

burnished

sherds

were

found

together

in

a

"cache"

(1936,

11)

which

suggests

that

they

had

been

deposited

separately from

the

Halaf

pottery

and

so

may have

come

from

an

earlier

settlement,

perhaps

Neolithic

3

in

date.

More

substantial

remains

of

such

a

settlement

may

lie

beneath

the centre

of

the

site

which

was

not

tested

in a

deep

sounding.

Some

of

the

burnished

pottery from

level

15

had

been

decorated

with

incised

designs (Mallowan,

1936,

12)

in

a

similar

manner

to

vessels

from

Ras

Shamra V

B

and

V

A

although

one

sherd

(Mallowan,

1936,

pi.

Ill,

10)

had

rows

of

incised

cross-hatched

triangles

reminiscent

of

vessels

from

SakcagQzU.

-

328

-

Another

sherd

had

been

pattern

"burnished

(Mallowan,

1936,

12).

The

affinities

of

this

material

are

mostly

with

sites

in

the

North

Syrian

group

"but

the

sherds

would

not

be

out

of

place

in

a

Halaf

context

so

we

cannot

be

sure

that

there was

a

Neolithic

3

settlement

at

Chagar

Bazar.

Davidson

carried

out

a

survey

of

early

sites

in

the

northern Jezireh

in

197^

(Davidson,

McKerrell,

19?6,

^5ff)

"but

the

earliest

sites he

discovered

were

all

of

Halaf

type.

He

has

told

me

that

he

found

no

certain

traces

of

Neolithic

3

settlement

in

the

area.

This

does

not

necessarily

mean

that

the

region

was

uninhabited

then,

an

unlikely

hypothesis

I

would

think

since

so

much

of

north

Syria

further

west

but

in

the

same

latitude

was

settled

in

Neolithic

3.

There

is

a

great

density

of

tells

in

this

area

indicating

its

suitability

for

settlement

in

ancient

times

and

remains

of

Neolithic

3

sites

may

be

concealed

within

these

mounds.

There

appears

to

have

been

some soil

movement

which

has

raised

the

level

of

parts

of

the

north

Jezireh

plain

since

the

lower

deposits

on

several

sites

are

below

the

present

ground

surface.

This

process

may

have

buried

other

Neolithic

3

settlements.

Only

when

definite

indications

of

Neolithic

3

occupation

have

been

found

in

excavation

on

the

Khabur

and

Jaghjagha

headwaters

will

we

know

if

the

area

was

occupied

by

people

using

similar

equipment

to

those

on

North

Syrian

sites

further

west

and

along

the Euphrates.

I

have

now

discussed

all the

known

Neolithic

3

sites

that

belong

within

the

North

Syrian

group.

There

is

another

series

of

Neolithic

3

sites

in

southern

Syria

and

Lebanon

which

I

shall

call

the

South

Syrian

group

(Fig.

39)

The

material

remains

on

these

sites

are

more

varied

than

in

the

North

Syrian

group

so

that

one

may

distinguish

sub-groups

on

the

Lebanese

coast,

in

the

Beka'a

and

the

Damascus

basin.

The

type-site

for the

whole

area

is

Byblos

which

I

shall

describe

first.

DAMASCUS

BASIN

Fig.

39

Neolithic

3

South

Syrian sites

FIGURE

39

Neolithic

3

South

Syrian

sites

1

Tabbat

el

Hammam

2

Tell

Kirri

3

Kubbah

I

4

Byblos

5

Hermel

IV

6

Ras

Baalbek

7

Tell

Labweh

North

8

Tell

Labweh

9

Tell

Hashbai

10

Tell Bab

ez-Zeitun

11

Tell

Neba'a

Faour

I

12

Tell

Shamsine

13

Kaukaba

14

Tell

ez-Zeitun

15

Tell

Ramad

16

Tannur

17

Ain

Hashomer

18

Kfar

Giladi

19

Qat

20

Zug

Fuqani

21

Hagosherim

22

Tell

Turmus

23

Beisamun

24

Kabri

-

329

-

South

Syria

Lebanese

coast

Byblos

Byblos,

now

the little

town

of

Jubail,

lies

about

30

km

north-east

of

Beirut

on

the

Lebanese

coast.

To

the

east

of

the

site

there

is

a

narrow

though

fertile

coastal

plain

and

then

the

Mountains

of

Lebanon

which

rise

steeply

behind.

The

ancient settlement

is

situated

on

a

promontory

just

to

the

south

of

a

tiny

inlet.

This

inlet

is

the

old

port

of

Byblos

which

is

still

used

as

a

fishing

harbour.

On

the

south

side

of

the

promontory

there

is

another

cove

at

the

mouth

of

a

little

valley

which

ran

across

the

site

before

it

became

filled

with

occupation

debris. This cove

was

probably

a

subsidiary

landing

place

in

ancient

times

(Dunand,

1973,

5);

it

may

have

been

used

more

by

the

Neolithic

inhabitants

than

the

inlet

to

the

north

which

lay

further

away

down

a

steep

slope.

Beyond

this cove

is

an

open

sandy

beach

which

would

have

been

a

good

landing

place

in

fine

weather.

It

is

important

to

remember

that

the

sea

probably

only

reached

its

present

height

during

the

6th

millennium

as

we

saw

in

Chapter

1

so

that

it

was not

until

Neolithic

3

that

Byblos

could

have

served

as

a

port.

By

the

same

reasoning

it

would

only have

been

during

this

period

that

the

bay

of

Minet

el

Beidha

to

the

west

of

Ras

Shamra

would

have

assumed

its

present

configuration

and

provided

a

convenient

harbour

for the

large

settlement

a

little

way

inland.

We

know

that

fish

were

eaten

in

considerable

quantities

at

Byblos

during

this

period

since

their

remains

comprised

1%

of the

bones

identified

from

the

site

(Dunand,

1973,

36)

and

they

were

still

probably

consumed

at

Ras

Shamra

as

fish

vertebrae

had

been

recovered

in

the

Neolithic

2

levels.

It

is

likely

that

by

now

some

of

these

fish

were

caught

from

boats

at

sea

which

could

have

conveniently

been

launched

from

the

new

harbours.

We have

no

evidence

that

maritime

trade

had

commenced

along

the Levant

coast

in

Neolithic

3

though

since

we

know

that

small

quantities

of

many

materials

were

being

exchanged between

sites

it

would

not

be

surprising

if

a

little of

-

330

-

this

traffic

was

conducted

by

sea.

In

the

absence

of

positive

evidence,

however,

we

must conclude

that

the

potential

of

the

harbours

at

Byblos and

Ras

Shamra

was

not

realised

until

much

later.

The

ancient

site

of Byblos

has

been

excavated

almost

continuously

by

Dunand

for

over

ho

years,

At

least

1.5

ha

has

now

been

cleared

to

bedrock

so that

a

greater

area

of

the

prehistoric

settlement

at

the

base

has

been

exposed

than

on

any

other

site

in

the

Levant.

A

considerable

amount

of

information

has

thus

been

recovered

about

the

structures

of

the

successive

Neolithic

settlements

and

the

artifacts

used

by

their

inhabitants.

The

original

topography

of

the

site

has

also

been

determined

fairly

precisely.

The

promontory

at

Byblos

once

consisted

of

two

hills,

one

higher

than

the

other,

separated

by

a

little

valley

in

which

lay

a

spring

of

good

water

(Dunand,

1973,

1,

^,

pi.

C).

The

higher

of

the

two

hills

was

on

the

west

side

of

the

valley.

The first

substantial

settlement

at

Byblos was

established

on

the

seaward

slope

of

this

hill

and

later

spread

south

into

the

valley

(Dunand,

1973,

10,

33).

This

phase of

settlement

has

been

designated

"Ne"olithique

And

en"

by

Dunand.

The

principal

attractions of

the

site

have

always

been

the

spring,

the

protected

landings

for

boats

and

the

fertility

of

the

immediate

hinterland;

presumably

these

factors

also

induced

the inhabitants

of

the

Ne"olithique

Ancien

site

to

settle

here.

We

may

note

in

passing

that

the

site

was

occupied briefly

at

an

earlier

period.

A

small

deposit

was

found

which

contained

no

pottery

but

which

yielded

a

tanged

and

notched

arrowhead

as

well

as

several

microliths,

one

of

them

backed

with

Helwan

retouch

(Dunand,

1973,

k2.

,

n. 5;

Cauvin,

1968,

92).

This

suggests

that

a

group

may

have

lived

here

for

a

while

in

one

of

the two

earlier

Neolithic

stages

or

Mesolithic

2.

The

debris

of

the

N olithique Ancien

settlement

was

spread

over

about

1.2

ha,

an

area

that

would

have

been

more

extensive

originally

since

part

of

the

site

has

washed

away

on

the

seaward

side

(Dunand,

1973,

pi.

G).

Much of

the

deposit

was

composed

of

occupation

soil,

building

remains

being

concentrated

on

an

area

of

only

5000

sq.

m.

Dunand estimated

that

about

20

houses

were

-

331

-

occupied

at

one

time

and

that

the

settlement

was

no

more

than

a

small

village

(1973,

90).

These houses

had

been

robbed

for

building

materials

so

that

in

some

instances

little

of the

original

dwelling

remained.

It

seems

probable

to me

that

there

were

more

houses

in

the

village

than

Dunand

suggests

and

that

some

of

these

were

completely

destroyed

by

robbing

and

disturbance after

they were

abandoned.

Thus

the

likely

area

of

intensive

occupation

would

have

been

greater

than

the

5000

sq

m

proposed

by

Dunand.

The

houses

were

rectangular

with

a

single

room to

which

other

more

lightly

built

structures

were

sometimes

added

(Dunand,

1973

S

10,

17)-

These

houses

varied

in

size

(Fig.

ho)

but

several

were

about

5

m

long

and

k

m

wide.

Their

walls

were

built

of

stone

but

none

was

found

standing

more than

1

m

high.

The

entrance

was

in

the

long

side

of

a

room.

The

floors

were

usually

made

of

hard

white

lime

plaster laid

on

a

bed

of

pebbles

which

sometimes

curved

a

little

way

up

the

walls

(Dunand,

1973,

12).

The

surface

of

the

plaster

was

then

polished.

Dunand

did

not

think

that

the

stone

walls

of

many

of

the

houses

ever

stood

much

higher

than

1

m.

This

led

him

to

suggest

that

the

houses

were

framed

and

roofed

with

poles

covered

by

mats

or skins

(Dunand,

1973,

1^).

He

believed

that the

wall

posts

must

have

been

set

up

outside

the

low

stone

walls

as

no

trace

of

roof

supports

was

found

within

the

buildings

(Dunand,

1973,

fig.

3)

;

we

may

note

in

passing

that

he

does

not

report that

post-holes

were

found

along

the

outsides

of

the

walls

either.

The

stone

walls

and

plaster

floors

of

the

Ne"olithique

Ancien

houses

were

stoutly

and

carefulJybuilt

so

it

is

probable

that

their

superstructures

were

completed

in

a

similar

fashion.

We

have

already

seen

that

the

walls

of

these

buildings

were

damaged

by

robbing,

an

observation

supported

by

the

absence of

collapsed

walling

within

them

(Dunand,

1973,

1U).

The

walls

may

have

been

built

high

enough

to

support

the

roof

but

subsequently

were

reduced

by

robbing

to no

more than

stubs.

If the

walls

had

originally

carried

the

roofs

that

would

explain

why

no

trace

of

wall

or

roof

supports was

found

inside,

or

outside

the

houses.

\

v-

V

\

V

\

\\

•''

\

:

:'^'

3

SC.

1

=100

Fig.

40

Byblos-

Neolithique

Ancien

houses

(after

Dunand)

-

332

-

Several

of

these

houses

had

a

little

platform

built

inside

against

one

of

the

short

walls

(Dunand,

1973,

12).

These

may

have

been

hearths

but

Dunand

preferred

to

think

of

them

as

associated

with

a

domestic

cult.

In

one

house

a

mortar

had

been

set

in

the

floor

(Dunand,

1973,

13)

while

in

others

a

depression

was

found

on

the

floor

where

mortars

or

querns

had

probably

stood

(Dunand,

1973,

20).

Scattered

on

the

floors

were

grinding

tools

and

other

domestic

artifacts.

Outside

the

houses

stubs

of

walls

and

other

stones

were

used

as

benches

(Dunand,

1973,

17,

18).

The

houses

were

aligned

either

north-south

or

east-west.

This

happened

to

be

the

most

convenient

way

to

build

them

because

of

the

slope

of

the

ground

but

it

also

meant

that

the

doorways of

many

of

the

houses

faced

the

sun.

The

houses

were

rebuilt

on

the

same

spot

on

about

the

same

alignment

usually

three

times

but

in

one

area

as

much

as

six

or

seven

(Dunand,

1973,

15).

Each

house

stood

alone and was

separated

from

its

neighbours

by

large

open

spaces

(Dunand,

1973,

pi.

Ha).

A

little

paving

was

found

in

these

open

spaces

and

also

heavy

stone

grinding

tools left

in

place,

bedrock

mortars

and

hearths

(Dunand,

1973,

29).

The

dead

were

buried

in

the

settlement

between

the

buildings.

The

corpses

were

laid

in

a

crouched

position

on

their

left

sides

in

shallow

graves

(Dunand,

1973,

30);

the

bodies

of

infants

were

buried

in

jars

(Dunand,

1973,

32).

Two

groups

of

adult

burials

were

noted,

one

in

which

the

bodies

were

placed

in

simple

graves

with

a

few

artifacts

and

a

second

in

which

the

corpses

were laid

on

a

bed

of

stones

with

more

grave

goods;

the

former

was

more

common.

The

accompanying

artifacts

consisted

of

flint

tools,

polished

stone

axes,

pottery

and

occasional

ornaments.

33

burials

were

found

alto-

gether,

not

many

when

one

considers

the

size

of

the

settlement

and

the

length

of

time

it

was

occupied.

Dunand

noted

that some

graves

may

have

been

destroyed

by

building

activity

in

this

and

later

phases

and

also

remarked

that

not

all

the

dead

may

have

been

buried

within

the

village

anyway

(1973,

32).

The

inhabitants

of

the

Neolithic

settlements

at

Byblos

obtained

their

-

333

-

flint

from nodules

on

the

floors

of

neighbouring

wadis.

In

the

Wadi

Deir

el

Banat

which

reaches

the

sea

just

south

of

Byblos beds

of

excellent

flint

exposed

in

either

bank

were

apparently

quarried

for

raw

material

(Cauvin,

1968,

i|0).

Not

many

cores

were

found

on

the

site

(Cauvin,

1968,

92)

which

implies that

blades

were

usually

prepared

where

the

flint

was quarried.

Such

cores

as

were recovered

were

pyramidal

or

double-ended

in

type

(Cauvin,

1968,

fig.

33).

18

pieces of

obsidian were

found

in

the

Ne"olithique

Ancien

settle-

ment

three

of

which

have

been

analysed

spectrographically.

Two

came

from

the

1

e-f

source,

probably

Acigo"!

near

Kayseri,

and

one

from

Ciftlik

(Renfrew

et

al.

,

1966, 63,

65).

Most

of

the flint

tools

found

at

Byblos

were

of

four

classes:

sickle

blades,

arrowheads,

burins

and

axes

with

chisels.

The

sickle

blades

were

all

made

on

segmented

blades

and

hafted

together

to

form

composite

sickles

(Cauvin,

1968,

TO).

They

were retouched

straight

or

obliquely

at

one

or

both

ends

and

some

were

abruptly

retouched

along

the

back

(Fig.

Ma).

The

cutting

edge

was

denticulated

but

sometimes

both

long

sides

were

retouched

in

this way.

A

great

many

truncated

blades

were

found

in

one

spot

in

the

Ne"olithique

Ancien

settlement

(Cauvin,

1968,

73)

which

were

in

the

process

of

being

made

into

segmented

sickle

blades.

The

place

where

they were

found

was

thus

a

working

floor

for

the

manufacture

of

these

tools.

The

sickles

of

which

these

segmented

denticulated

blades

make

up

the

cutting

edge

are

poor

tools

with

which

to

cut

cereals

although

they

could

have

been

used

to scrape

ears

of

wheat

off

the

stalks

into

baskets.

It

has

also

been suggested

that

they

may

have

been

used

to

cut

down

plants

with

tough

siliceous

stems

such

as

reeds.

The

problem

is

difficult

to

resolve

since

there

is

evidence

for

both

cereal

agriculture

and

the

use of

reeds

at

Byblos

and

at

other

sites

on

which

these

tools

have

been

found.

As

I

have

explained

elsewhere

(Moore,

1973,

U3)»

we

do

not

know

if

these

sickles

were

used

for

harvesting

cereals

or some

other

plant and

so

cannot

definitely

associate

them

with

agricultural

activities

as

Cauvin

has

done

(1968,

SC.

2

=

3

A

^

Fig.

41

Byblos

Neolithique

Ancien

a

-

sickle

blades

b-

Byblos

points

(after

Cauvin)

-

33^

-

Most

of

the

arrowheads

were

of

three

types

,

all

of

which

were

tanged.

Two

were

the

Amuq

points

1

and

2

and

the

third

was

what

Cauvin

has

called

the

"Byblos

point"

(1968,

55).

Byblos

points

had

a

tang

defined

by

pronounced

shoulders

or

occasionally

a

pair

of

notches

(Fig.

^1b).

They

were

retouched

by

pressure-flaking

around

the

tang,

tip

and

part

or

all

of

the

shaft.

A

few

were

from

10

to

17.8

cm

in

length

but

most

were

between

5

and

10

cm

long.

Several

leaf-shaped

arrowheads

retouched

by

pressure-flaking

were

also

found.

Some

very

large

oval

retouched

blades

retouched

in

a

similar

manner

were

classed

as

daggers

by

Cauvin

(1968,

66).

The

three

principal

types

of

burins

found

at

Byblos

were

burins

on

lateral

preparation,

burins

on

truncation

and

dihedral

burins

(Cauvin,

1968,

89).

Some

single

or

multiple

blow

burins

on

a

break

or

natural

surface

were

also

recovered

as

well

as

a

few

of

other

types.

The

Byblos

axes

were

usually

made

of

flint

but

there

were

some

examples

in

limestone,

granite

and

basalt

(Cauvin,

1968,

7^).

The

commonest

type

was

trapezoidal

or

rectangular

in

shape,

flaked

all

over

and

with

abruptly

re

touched

sides

(Cauvin,

1968,

figs.

2k

9

25).

The

cutting

edge

of

most

of

these

had

been

flaked

almost

straight

and

then

polished.

A

group

was

of

much

the

same

shape

but

with

vertically

flaked

sides

(Cauvin,

1968,

80)

;

these

were

also

thicker

in

cross-section

and

heavier.

The

third

group

was

composed

of

almond-shaped

axes,

again

usually

with

a

polished

cutting

edge

(Cauvin,

1968,

76).

Almost

all

of

these

tools

were

probably

used

as

axes

but

a

few

with

asymmetric

cross-sections

may

have been

used

as

adzes.

Among

the

other

heavy

flint

tools

were

a

number

of

chisels

made

in

a

similar

fashion

to

the

axes.

They

were

quite

narrow

and

plano-convex

or

biconvex

in

lengthwise

cross-section

(Cauvin,

1968,

Qk).

They

were

flaked

all

over

and

had

a

narrow

cutting

edge

which

was

usually

polished.

Both

these

and

the

axes

were

probably

used

to

cut

and

shape

timber.

The

coastal

plain

and

the

mountains

behind

the

site

had

a

dense

cover

of

forest

at

the

time

the

Neolithic

settlement

was

occupied

and

these

tools

indicate

that

much

use

was

-

335

-

made of

this

raw material.

Several

small

greenstone

axes

and

chisels

were

also

found

in

the

Ne"olithique

Ancien

settlement

(Dunand,

1973,

80ff).

These

were

made

of

steatite

and

two kinds

of

hard

stone,

amphibolite

and

gabbro.

The

steatite

axes

could

hardly

have

"been

used

as

tools

but

the

others

when

hafted

would

have

been

most

serviceable

artifacts

for

finishing

wooden

objects

which

had

already

been

partly

shaped

by

the

axes

and

chisels.

%

The

remainder

of the

Ne"olithique

Ancien

assemblages

at

Byblos

consisted

of

a

few

borers

and

scrapers

with

a

number

of

notched

and

denticulated

pieces

(Cauvin,

1968,

87ff).

Most

of

the

borers

had

broad

points

which

were

more

suitable

for

piercing

materials

such

as

leather

rather

than

making

deep

holes.

The

scrapers

included

both

end-scrapers

on

blades

and

side-scrapers

on

flakes.

Other

kinds of

stone

tools

were

very

common

at

Byblos.

The

querns

were

s.addle-shaped

and

made

of

limestone

or

more

rarely

of

sandstone

or

basalt

(Dunand,

1973,

36ff).

The

rubbers

with

which

the

grain

was

ground were

of

the

appropriate

plano-convex

type.

Mortars and

pestles

were

made

of

the

same

rocks

as

the

querns

and

rubbers.

Stone

dishes

were used

in

the

Ne*olithique

Ancien

settlement

but

not

in

great

numbers

(Dunand,

1973,

39).

They

were

circular

or

elliptical

in

shape

with

a

shallow depression

in

the

centre.

The

bases

were

rounded

in

the

simplest

ones,

flat

or

hollow

in

the

others.

One

retained

traces

of

pigment

in

the

bowl

(Dunand,

1973,

ko).

Several

coarse porous

stone

vessels

had

been

coated

with

lime

plaster

to

make

them

watertight.

The

Ne*olithique

Ancien

pottery

was

simple

in

technique

and

shape.

Thick

sherds

of

a

buff

coarse

ware

were

found

but

no

vessels

of

this

fabric

could

be

reconstructed

(Dunand,

1973,

^-3).

The

more

common

ware

had

an

even

fabric

with

a

little

straw,

limestone

and

quartz

filler.

Vessels

made

of this

fabric

were

carefully

smoothed

on

the

outside

and

fired

until

the

surface

was

buff

in

colour

and

the

core

buff

or

pink.

The

surface

of

the

vessels

was

then

lightly

burnished

or

in

a

few

cases

highly

burnished

to

an

even

shiny

finish.

SC.

1:3

SC.

1.4

Fig.

42

Byblos

-

Neolithique

Ancien

jars

(after

Dunand)

-

336

-

None

of these

vessels,

however,

resembled

the dark

grey

burnished

or

dark

polished

ware

of

sites

in

the

North

Syrian

group

although

the

technique

of

manufacture

was

much

the

same

at

Byblos

as

further

north.

The

shapes

of

these

Byblos

vessels

were

of

the

simplest.

The

two

principal

classes

of

vessels

were

globular

jars

(Fig.

U2)

and

hemispherical

bowls

(Fig.

^3).

Some

of

the

jars

were hole-mouths

while

others

had

everted

rims

(Dunand,

1973,

pis.

LX-LXIl);

a

few

had

collared

necks

(Dunand,

1973,

figs.

18,

25).

These

jars

were

mostly

quite

large

vessels

but

some

with

the

same

shapes

were

no

more

than

13

or

15

cm

high.

Several

of

the

larger

vessels

had

ledge handles

or

sets

of

two

or four

pierced

lugs

for suspension.

The

bowls

also

varied

markedly

in

size.

Some

with

handles

are

best

described

as

cups

while

others

were

quite

deep

(Dunand,

1973,

fig.

16,

pl.LVIl).

A

few

of

these

bowls

were

carinated.

The

fabric

of these vessels

seems

to

have

been

quite

porous

for

a number

of

the

bowls

were

lined with

white

plaster

which

was

then

polished,

presumably

to give

them

a

waterproof

lining

(Dunand,

1973,

kh).

In

addition

to

the

bowls

there

were

a

few

open

dishes

with

ring

bases

and

also

two

rough

spoons

(Dunand,

1973,

53,

pi.

LVl).

Almost

all

the

jars

and

bowls

had

rounded

bases

but

a

few

had

flat

bottoms

or

even

ring

bases

like

the

dishes.

Many of

these

vessels

were

decorated

with

impressed

or

incised

designs.

The

most

characteristic

patterns

were

made

with

the

back

of

a

cardium

shell

"^ich

was

pressed

into

the

clay

all

over

the

surface

of

many

of

the

globular

jars

(Dunand,

1973,

kh).

Other

patterns

were

made

by

scraping

with

the

edge

of

the

shell

over

the

surface

of

the

pots.

A

few

sherds

of

cord-impressed

ware

were

found

but

this

type

of

decoration

was

not

much

favoured.

Many

of

the

bowls

and

a

few

of

the

jars

were

decorated

with

rows

of

horizontal

lines

often

just

below

the

rim

(Dunand,

1973,

U5).

Sometimes

the

surface

was

divided

by

groups

of

vertical

lines

and

the

spaces

between

filled

with

stab

marks.

Another

common design was

rows

of

pendant

triangles

or

loops

incised

below

the

rim

lines

and

then

filled

with

stabs.

Rows

of

oblique

lines or

herringbone

patterns

were

also

incised

around

the

pots.

These

incised

SC.

1-3

Fig.

43

Byblos

-

Neolithique

Ancien bowls

(after

Dunand)

-

33T

-

patterns

were

sometimes

filled

with

a

white

paste.

A

few

sherds

were

found

which

had

been

decorated

in

relief

with applied

clay

pieces

but

this

technique

was

rare

at

Byblos.

The

inhabitants

of

the

Ne*olithique

Ancien

settlement

also

made

a

few

white

plaster

vessels.

These

were

all

open

bowls

on

ring

bases

(Dunand,

1973,

U1).

The

very

large

plaster

jars

found

on

some

Neolithic

2

sites

were

not

made

at

Byblos

in

Neolithic

3.

A

large

number

of

bone

tools

was

preserved

at

Byblos.

51

borers made from

sheep

or

goat

metapodials

were

found

(Dunand,

1973,

72).

Almost

all

were

the

same

type

with

a

stout

handle

and

fine

point.

There

were

18

spatulae

mostly

made

of sheep

or

goat

bones.

Among

the

more unusual

tools

were

six

fishhooks

and

a

needle.

There

were

also

eight

bone

hafts

and

objects

of

adornment

such

as

beads

and

amulets

(Dunand,

1973,

7*0

A

curious

object

was

a

sheep

spatula

with

a

row

of

incisions

along

one

edge

(Dunand,

1973,

pi.

XCIX)

which Dunand

interpreted

as

a

musical

instrument.

It

could,

perhaps,

have

been

used

in

this

way

but

more

probably

served

as

a

counting

or

recording

device.

Among

the

other

tools

was

a

series

of

baked

clay

spindle

whorls

with

a

biconical

cross-section

(Dunand,

1973,

75).

Several

stone

discs

pierced

through

the

centre

may

have

served

the

same

purpose.

Another

curious

group

of

objects

consisted

of

several

discs

and

rectangles

made

of

sherds

which

had

a

groove

cut

around

the

edge (Dunand,

1973,

77).

Dunand

thought

a

cord

might

have

been

wrapped

around

the

edge

and

pressed

into

the

surface

of

new

pots

to

produce

cord-impressed

patterns;

however

they

were

used,

they

and

the

cord-impressed

ware

were

only

found

in

the

Ne"olithique

Ancien

settlement.

A

distinctive

class

of artifacts

at

Byblos

was

the

stamp

seals

made

for

the

most

part

in

baked

clay

although

a

few

were

cut

from

stone.

Dunand

divided

these

into

two

grpups,

a

series

of

baked

clay

"pintaderas" and

an

assortment

of

other

seals

(1973,

8U).

The

pintaderas

were

oval

in

shape

with

a

curved sealing

surface

and

a

knob

on

the

back

to

be

gripped

by

a

thumb

and

forefinger.

Simple

patterns

of

chevrons,

concentric

ovals

and

straight

or

-

338

-

oblique

lines

were

incised

all

over

the

sealing

surface.

The

other

seals

made

of

baked

clay

and

stone

had

a

flat

surface

with

a

similar

range

of

simple

incised

patterns

(Dunand,

1973,

87).

The two

other

main

classes

of

artifacts

were

objects

of

adornment

and

figurines.

The

beads

were

discoid

or

cylindrical

and

made

of

greenstone,

steatite

and

carnelian

as

well

as

dentalium

shells

(Dunand,

1973,

82).

Rectangular

shell

pendants

were

also

found

and

a

number

of

carved bone

amulets.

More

unusual were

two tiny

squatting

human

figures

carved

in a

crystalline

greenstone

and

pierced

for

suspension

(Dunand,

1973,

8U).

Several

small

grooved

stone

and

baked

clay

objects

were

also

recovered which

may

have

been

nose

ornaments,

labrets

or

buttons

(Dunand,

1973,

82).

One group of

figurines

consisted

of

long

pebbles

with

a

few

lines

incised

at

one

end

to

indicate

human

features

(Dunand,

1973,

77).

There

were

fifteen

of

these

of

which

five

were

found

in

one

area

and

six

in

another

(Dunand,

1973,

79)

so

most

of

them

were

made

or

used

in

two

restricted

locations.

The

other

figurines

were

made of

baked

clay

but

there

were

very

few

of

these

(Dunand,

1973,

79).

Several

were

recognisably

human

and

some

others

were

four-legged

animals

but

of

what

species

could

not

be

determined.

One

of

the

human

figurines

was

a

stylized

type

found

on

other

sites.

It

was

a

female

with

arms

placed

against

the

front

of

the torso;

the

head

was

pointed

and the

eyes

were

marked

with

incised

blobs

of

clay

shaped

like

coffee

beans

(Dunand,

1973,

pi.

CXIII).

It

is

possible

to

estimate

the

duration

of

the

Neolithique

Ancien

phase

at

Byblos

from

two

ll|

C

determinations made

on

charcoal

samples

from

different

layers.

The

first

sample

which

came

from

a

level

in

the

middle

of

the

Neolithique

Ancien

sequence

was

collected

and

processed

in

1957.

The

Groningen

laboratory

at

first

obtained

a

date

of

7000

±

80

B.P.

or 5050

±

80

B.C.

for

this sample.

They

sent

the

result to

Dunand

who

published

it as

50^3

±

80

B.C.

(1973,

3*0.

For

many

years

it

was

thought

that

this

was

the

true

figure

from

which

it

was

estimated

that

Neolithique

Ancien

Byblos

was

first

occupied

in

-

339

-

the

second

half

of

the 6th

millennium.

This

determination

has

since

been

corrected

by

the

laboratory which

has

now

published

it

as

5^10

±

70

B.C.

GrN-15^1*

(Radiocarbon

1U,

1972,

50).

This

figure

is

nearly

four

centuries

earlier

thus

considerably

lengthening

the

Ne"olithique

Ancien

phase

of

occupa-

tion.

It

now

appears

that

Ne"olithique

Ancien

Byblos

must

have

been

occupied

in

the

first

half

of

the

6th

millennium,

perhaps

about

5600

or

5700

B.C.

The

second

sample

was

collected

in 1955

from

a

level

late

in

the

Ne*olithique

Ancien

sequence.

When

processed

in

1957

this

gave

a

date

of

k60Q

±

200

B.C.

W-627

(Radiocarbon

2,

1960,

183)

which

was

published

by

Dunand

as

U593

±

200

B.C.

(1973,

3*0.

The

first

point

to

note

about

this

determination

is

that

the

standard

error

is

quite

high.

Secondly,

the

determination

was

made

long

ago

and has

not

since

been

corrected.

Samples

processed

more

recently from

Neolithic

sites

in

the

Levant have

tended

to

give

earlier

dates

than

those

obtained when

the

technique

was

being

developed.

I

think,

there-

fore,

that

the

Ne"olithique

Ancien

phase

at

Byblos

ended

about

kQOO

or

even

5000

B.C.

rather

than

k^OO

B.C.

as

this

determination

would

suggest.

The

chipped

stone

industry

of

Ne"olithique

Ancien

Byblos

is

noticeably

more

developed

than

that of the

Neolithic

2

sites

of

Tell

aux

Scies

,

Saaideh

and

even

Tell

Labweh

in

Lebanon

and

other

Neolithic

2

sites

in

the

West

Syrian

group.

It

would

appear

that

several

centuries

elapsed

between

the

end

of

Neolithic

2

about

6000

B.C.

and

the

foundation

of

Ne"olithique

Ancien

Byblos.

This

lends

weight

to

the

suggestion

based

on

the

evidence

of

the

llf

C

deter-

mination

GrN-15^

that

the

settlement

of

Ne*olithique

Ancien

Byblos

was

founded

about

5600

or

5700

B.C.

rather

than

at

the

beginning

of

Neolithic

3.

It

then

appears

to have

been

occupied

throughout

Neolithic

3

until

the end of

the

6th

or

early

in

the

5th

millennium

B.C.

Kubbah

I

Kubbah

I

is

a

low

mound

which

lies

near

the

mouth

of

the

Nahr

el

Joz

2

km

north-north-east

of

Batrun

on

the

Lebanese

coast

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

-

3^0

-

1965,

101).

The

mound

is

on

the

north

side

of

the

river

and

has

been

cut

through

by

the

railway

which

runs

from

Tripoli

to

Beirut.

The

site

has

never

been

excavated

but

material

has

been

collected

from

the

surface

by

a

number

of

archaeologists

and

much

of

it

deposited

in

the

University

Saint-Joseph

in

Beirut

where

I

have

seen

it.

From

the

surface

finds

we

know

that

the

site

was

occupied

as

late

as

the

early

Bronze

Age.

The

material

from

the

site

which

is

typologically

earliest

consisted

of

flint

tools

and

a

potsherd.

The

arrowheads

were

all

tanged

and

of

both

Amuq.

and

Byblos

type.

All

the

sickle

blades

were

segmented

with

fine

or

coarse

denticulation along

the

cutting

edge.

The

third

group

of

diagnostic

tools

was

the

flaked

flint

axes.

There

were

both

trapezoidal

and

almond-shaped

examples

of

these

with

flaked

or

polished

cutting

edges.

The

potsherds

came

from

the

rim

of

a

hand-made

hole-mouth

jar.

The

fabric

was

brown

in

colour

with

a

little

mineral

and

straw

filler

and

the

sherd

had

been

medium

fired.

There was

a

ledge

handle

attached

to

it

and

the

outside

surface

of

the

whole

piece

had

been

burnished.

The

affinities

of

these

flints

and

the

sherd

are

all

with

the

Ne'olithique

Ancien

of Byblos

,

as

Cauvin

has

noted

(1968,

219,

n.

1).

This

means

that

there

was

a

settlement

as

Kubbah

I

in

Neolithic

3.

There

is

one

other

site

in

north

Lebanon,

Tell Kirri,

3

km

south

of

the

border

with

Syria

on

the

Akkar

plain

which

was

also

occupied

in

Neolithic

3

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

70).

Some

black

and

buff

burnished

sherds

decorated

with

shell

combing

and

incisions

which

resembled

Ne*olithique

Ancien

pottery

from

Byblos

were

found

in

a

cut

made

in

the

side

of

the

tell.

A

few

flint

tools

were

also

collected but

little

else

of

this

phase

that

was

diagnostic.

The

site

continued

to

be

occupied

in

the

Bronze Age

and

later.

Two

other

stations

in

and

near

Beirut,

Beirut

VI

and

Dikwene

II,

may

have

been

occupied

in

Neolithic

3

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

7^,

W

but

insufficient

is

known

about

either

for

us

to

be

certain

of

this.

Tabbat

el

Hammam

Tabbat

el

Hammam

is

a

mound

situated

beside

the

sea

17

km

south

of

Tartous.

It

was

occupied

in

various

periods

from

the

Neolithic

to

the

Hellenistic and

at

times

a

much

wider

area

than

the

tell

itself

was

inhabited

(Braidwood,

19^0,

iSjff).

Braidwood

excavated

a

series

of

trenches

on

the

site

and

in

the

vicinity

in

1938.

One

of these

TT-I,

was

a

step

trench

dug

on

the

seaward

slope

of

the

mound.

The

lowest

level

on

bedrock,

designated

section

I

floor

1,

was

about

50

cm

deep

and

contained

Neolithic

material

(Braidwood,

19^0,

197).

Several

floor surfaces

and

hearths

could

be

discerned

in

this

level

but

no

structures.

A

small

collection of

flint

and

obsidian

tools

and

pottery

was

recovered

from

TT-I,

I,

land

is

now

in

the

Oriental

Institute,

Chicago

where

I

have

seen

it.

At

least

four

pieces

of

the

obsidian

have

been

analysed

and

all came

from

Ciftlik

(Renfrew

et

al.,

1966,

60;

1968,

81

;

Wright,

1969,

26).

53

of

the

322

flints

recovered

were

sickle

blades

(Hole,

1959,

160).

These

were

made

on

seg-

mented

blades

which

had

been

snapped

and

occasionally

retouched

at

the

ends.

Most

had

nibbled

or

slightly

retouched

cutting

edges

but

a

few

were

denticulated.

Some

had

retouch

along

both

edges

but

none

had

steep

backing.

The

16

burins

were

of

several

types:

single

blow,

dihedral,

burins

on

preparation

and

multi-

ple

burins

(Hole,

1959»

162).

Notched

and

denticulated

blades

and

flakes

were

all

quite

common.

Only

12

arrowheads

were

found,

most

of

them

broken.

All

were

tanged

(Hole,

1959,

fig.

5)

and

partially

pressure-flaked.

Both

Amuq

2

and

Byblos

arrowheads

were

present

but

the

tang

of

one

other

arrowhead

and

parts

of

others

were

retouched

abruptly

(Hole,

1959»

fig.

5:1).

The

other

chipped

stone

tools

consisted

of

flake

scrapers,

borers

on

blades,

a

tabular

flint

knife, two

picks,

an

adze

and

two

chisels.

The

adze

and

chisels

were

flaked

all

over

and

had

polished

cutting

edges

(Hole,

1959,

16U)

;

the

adze

was

oval

and

the

chisels

trapezoidal

in

cross-section.

Two

double-ended

cores

were

found

(Hole,

1959,

17*0

together

with

a

core

tablet

and

crested

blades

There

was

also

a

fragment

of

a

spherical

macehead.

The

closest

parallels

for

these

tools

are

to

be

found

at

Byblos

where

the

chipped

stone

core

technique,

the

arrowheads

and

heavier

flaked

tools

were

all

similar.

The

use

of

abrupt

retouch

on some

arrowheads

is

a

slightly

older

technique

still

used

in

northern Syria

early

in

Neolithic

3

at

sites

such

as

Abu

Hureyra

and

Tell

Judaidah.

The

macehead

is

like

several

found

at

Byblos.

The

only

similarity

between

the

Tabbat

el

Hammam

and

Byblos sickle

blades,

on

the

other

hand,

is

that

they

were

segmented.

They

are

much

more

like

those

of

Tell

Judaidah

which

were

also

segmented

but

lightly retouched

along

the

cutting

edge

and

unbacked.

The

pottery

was

buff,

brown

or

grey-black

in

colour,

most

of

the

sherds

being

various

shades

of

brown.

The

fabric

had

sand

and

grit

filler

with

a

little

straw.

The

ware

was

usually

medium

fired

but

the

variation

in

colour

on

the

surface

of

some

pots

indicates

that

the

firing

was not

well-regulated.

The

vessels

consisted

of

globular

hole-mouth

jars

and

bowls,

some of

which

were

carinated

(Hole,

1959,

15^-ff).

A

few

of

the

jars

had

collar

necks

or

everted

rims.

Some

of the

larger

vessels

also

had

ledge

handles,

knobs or

even

strap

handles

for

carrying.

Most

of

the

pots

were

burnished

and

some

had

incised

or

impressed

decoration.

These

included

horizontal

lines

and

herringbone

patterns.

Many

of the

sherds

had

been

decorated

with

cord

impressions.

A

few

sherds

had

been

coloured

with

red

wash

as

on

sites

further

north

and

two

had

been

painted.

The

latter

are

more

like

Halaf

pottery

than

anything

found

in

Neolithic

3

and

may

be

intrusive

since

there

was

much

disturbance

of

the

early

levels.

One

piece

of

a

white

plaster

bowl

was also

recovered.

The

pottery

was

quite

varied

in

finish

as

is

most

of

the

hand-made

pottery

from Neolithic

3

sites.

The

shapes

of

the

vessels

and

their

decora-

tion,

especially

the

cord

impressed

vessels,

are

very

like

the

Byblos

material

The

similarity

of much

of

the

pottery

and

flints

to

the

artifacts

of

Ne"olithique

Ancien

Byblos

places

Tabbat

el

Hammam within

the

South

Syrian

group

even

if

there

are

a

few

traits

better paralleled

further

north;

Tabbat

el

Hammam

is,

after

all,

not

very

far

south

of

Ras

Shamra

and

Tell

Sukas.

The use

of

abrupt

retouch

on

some

of

the

arrowheads

hints

as

a

relatively

early

date

within

Neolithic

3

so

it

may

be

that

Tabbat

el

Hammam

was

first

occupied

at

the

beginning

of

this

stage.

The

sites

in

the

South

Syrian

group

which

we have

considered

so

far

are

all

on

the

coast.

A

number

of

other

sites

in

the

Beka'a

are

known

to

have

been

occupied

in

Neolithic

3

and

I

shall

consider

them

next.

Their

remains,

though

generally

quite

similar

to

the

material

found

at

Byblos

and

Tabbat

el

Hammam,

differ

in

certain

details.

These

differences

can

largely

be

explained

by

the

separation

of

these

sites

from

those

on

the

coast

by

the

Mountains

of

Lebanon.

Beka'a

Tell

Labveh

Tell

Labweh

was

first

occupied

at

the

end

of

Neolithic

2

as

we

have

seen

but

continued

to

be

inhabited

well

into

Neolithic

3.

The

rectangular

building

just

below

the

surface

in

Trench

A

and

the

upper

Neolithic

pits

in

Trench

B

belonged

to

this

stage (Kirkbride,

1969,

^6ff).

The

layers

associated

with

these

structures

contained

flints,

pottery

and

white

plaster

vessels

which

may

be

compared

with

material

from

Byblos.

Among

the

arrowheads

were

Byblos

points

found

in

this

region

late

in

Neolithic

2

but

also

characteristic

of

Neolithic

3.

The

sickle

blades

from

the

upper

levels

at

Labweh

differed

from

those

in

the

basal

deposits

in

that

they

were

segmented

and

backed

with

denticulated

cutting

edges

like

some of

those

from

Ne"olithique

Ancien

Byblos

(Kirkbride,

1969,

50).

Not

much

pottery

was

found

at

Labweh

(Kirkbride,

19^9,

^8)

but

the

sherds

that

were

recovered

were

all

of

a

well-fired

ware

with

a

little

grit

and

straw

filler.

Most

of

the

vessels

were

brown

or

black

in

colour

although

some

had

a

red

surface.

Their

forms

were

either

hole-mouth

jars

or

bowls

and

most

had

been

burnished.

One

sherd

came

from

a

vessel

that

had

been

wiped

over

with

a

handful

of

straw,

a

kind

of

finish

rare

in

Syria

and

Lebanon

but

found

on

several

Palestinian

sites

in

this

and

the

Some

of

the

vessels

had

been

decorated with

chevrons

and

other

combed

and

incised

patterns

as

well

as

cord

impressions.

Burnished

vessels

of

this

type

are

characteristic

of

the

Ne*olithique

Ancien

of

Byblos

though

combed

decoration

is

not

found

there;

this

seems

to

have

been

more common

on

inland

sites.

Labweh

is

one

of

the few

excavated

sites

occupied

in

both

Neolithic

2

and

Neolithic

3

and

the

flints

and

other material

from

the

site

reveal

some

aspects

of

this

transition.

The

remaining

sites

which

I

shall

describe

have

been

found

in

surface

surveys; none

of

them

has

been

excavated.

Tell

Labweh North

Tell

Labweh

North

is

a

substantial

site

which

occupies

a

low

spur

a

few

hundred

metres

north

of

Tell

Labweh

on

the

other

side

of

the

Orontes

springs

?6

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

7U).

Flints,

pottery

and

a

fragment

of

obsidian

were

collected

from

the

surface

of

the

site.

The

most

diagnostic

flint

tools

were

tanged,

pressure-flaked

arrowheads,

a

series of

backed,

segmented

sickle

blades

with

fine

denticulation

and

flaked

trapezoidal

axes

with

polished

cutting

edges.

Some

of

the

sherds

came

from

brown

or

black

burnished

vessels

which

had

been

decorated

with

cord

impressions.

There

were

also

a

few

pattern

burnished

sherds,

a

rare

occurrence

on sites this far

south,

as

well

as

sherds

with

a

red

slip

which

had

been

burnished

in

some

instances.

A

few

pieces

of

white

plaster

ware were

also

recovered

from

the

site.

Most

of

the

flints

and

pottery

together

with

the

white

plaster ware

resemble

material

found

at

Tell

Labweh

and

Ne*olithique

Ancien

Byblos.

This

would

indicate

that

the

site

was

occupied

in

Neolithic

3.

The

sickle

blades

are

of

a

type

found

at

Tabbat

el

Hammam

and

on

other

sites

in

this

region

in

the

The

red

slipped

and

burnished

pottery

is

a

slightly

later

type

so

the

site

may

have

continued

to

have

been

inhabited

into

the

Tell

Neba'a

Faour

I

Tell

Neba'a

Faour

I

lies

on

the

east

side

of

the

Beka'a

at

the

foot

of

an

outlier

of the

Anti-Lebanon

not

far

from

the

present

road from

Beirut

to

Damascus

(Copeland,

1969,

87).

A

stream

now

flows

at

its

foot

but

we

do

not

know

if

it

was

there

in

the

Neolithic.

The

site

is

a

large

low

mound

which

has

been heavily

eroded

since

its

abandonment

and

has

recently been

damaged

by

road

and

house

building.

Plaster

floors

laid

on

beds

of

stones

could

be

seen

in

exposed

sections

(Copeland,

1969,

88).

A

considerable

amount

of

chipped

stone,

pottery

and

some

other

material

was

collected from

the

Neolithic

layers

in

sections

opened

up

by

recent

dis-

turbance.

Flint

blades

were

struck

off

pyramidal

and

double-ended

cores.

All

the

arrowheads

were

tanged

and

pressure-flaked;

some of

them were

Byblos

points

and

Amuq

points

of

types

1

and

2

(Copeland,

1969,

fig.

2A).

The

sickle

blades were

segmented

and

some

were

backed;

they

had

either

fine

or

coarse

denticulation

along

their

cutting

edges.

Two

flaked

axe-like

tools

with

polished

edges

were

found

but

these

had

been

reused

as

other

tools

and

were

not

really

diagnostic.

The

remaining

tools

consisted

of

a

variety

of

scrapers,

burins

and

retouched

blades.

A

little

obsidian

was

found

at

the

site.

Fragments

of querns

and

basalt

rubbers

were collected

as

well

as

stone

vessels.

One

of

the

latter

came

from

a

fine

hemispherical

bowl

with

a

bead

rim.

A

number

of

white

plaster

vessel

fragments

of

large

dishes

and

bowls

with

ring

bases

were

also

picked

up

from

the

site

(Copeland,

1969,

fig.

2B).

The sherds

were

buff,

brown,

grey

and

black

in

colour

with

a

little

grit

and

straw

filler.

Despite

this

variety

in

colour

the

range

of

shapes

and

decoration

was

limited.

The

vessels

were

either

hole-mouth

jars or

hemispheri-

cal

bowls

some

of

which

had

the

unusual

feature

of

ring

bases.

They

were

supported

by

ledge

handles

and

pierced

lugs.

Most

of

the

pots

were

burnished

and

a

few

were

decorated

with

incised

or

combed

patterns;

one

was

scraped

with

a

cardiurn

shell

like

so

much

of

the

pottery from

Byblos

(Copeland,

1969,

89).

A

few

vessels

were

painted

in

red but

it

is

not clear

if

these

belonged

to

this

or

a

later

phase

of

occupation.

The

diagnostic

flints,

white

plaster

ware

and

the

simple

burnished

pottery

all

resemble

the

material

from

Ne*olithique

Ancien

Byblos

despite

a

few

local

idiosyncracies.

Tell

Neba'a

Faour

I

like

the

Labweh

sites

was

occupied

in

Neolithic

3.

-

3U6

-

Tell

Shamsine

Tell

Shamsine

is

situated

a

little

south

of Tell

Neba'a

Faour

I

on

the

spring

line

at

the

foot

of

the

Anti-Lebanon

like

the

other

Beka'a

sites

I

have

discussed.

It

is

near

the

Anjar

springs

and

a

stream

from

the

mountains

flows

beside

the

site

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

8U).

The

tell

was

occupied

in

the

Neolithic,

during

the

Bronze

Age

and

in

later

periods

also.

The

Neolithic

material

collected

on

the

site

was

sparse

but

characteristic,

It

included

tanged,

pressure-flaked

arrowheads

of

Byblos

type,

coarsely

denti-

culated

sickle

blades

and

a

few

larger

limestone

tools.

A

few

pieces

of

obsidian

were

also

found

there.

The sherds

were brown

or

grey

in

colour and

burnished.

Fragments

of

quite

large vessels

made

of

a

coarse

ware were

also

collected. The

affinities

of

the

diagnostic

flint

tools

and

sherds

are

with

the

Beka'a

sites

I

have

discussed

and

Ne"olithique

Ancien

Byblos

indicating

that

the

site

was

occupied

in

Neolithic

3.

Tell

Hashbai

Tell

Hashbai

lies

on

the

west

side

of

the

Beka'a

at

the

foot

of

the

Mountains

of

Lebanon

opposite

the sites

I

have

considered

so

far

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

6^-,

65).

It

too

is

near

abundant

running

water

since

it

is

situated

beside

the

Wadi

Hashbai

not

far

from

its

source

at

Ain

Hashbai.

The

site

is

large

and

was

occupied

as

late

as

the

Bronze

Age.

Among

the

Neolithic

finds

were

tanged,

pressure-flaked

arrowheads and

coarsely denticu-

i

lated

sickle

blades.

A

limestone

pestle

and basalt

rubber

were

found

and

obsidian

was

present.

The

pottery

included

a

variety

of

burnished

sherds

and

some

which

had

been

covered

in a

red

slip.

The

material

from

this

site

may

once

again

be

likened

to that

from

Ne*olithique

Ancien

Byblos

(Copeland,

1969,

87)

indicating

that this site also

was

occupied

in

Neolithic

3.

All

the

sites

I

have

discussed

so

far

are

situated

at

the

sides

of

the

Beka'a

near

abundant

water

supplies.

Copeland

has

linked

this

distribution

of

sites

to

a

phase

of

dry

climate

during

the 6th

millennium

(1969,

91).

We

know

that alterations

in

the

pattern

of

settlement

did

occur

in

the

6th

millennium

partly

because

of

environmental

changes

but

it

is

not

necessary

to

invoke

such

large-scale

causes

in

this

instance.

These

sites

all

lie

in

the

central

section

of

the

Beka'a

where

deposition

of soil

on

the

valley

floor

has

buried

the

early

sites.

The

only

ones

that

remain

on

the

surface

to

be

found

are

at

the

sides

of

the

valley.

Other Neolithic

3

sites

have

been

found

further

north

and

south

which

are

situated

away

from

the

feet

of

the

mountains

on

either

side.

One

would

expect

that

Neolithic

settlement

sites

would

be

located

near

a

good

water

supply,

as

they

were

here, but

the

local

geomorphology

best

explains

the

distribution

of

Neolithic

sites

found

in

surface

survey

in

the

Beka'a.

Although

the

bulk

of

the

material

from

the

sites

I

have

mentioned

resembles

quite

closely

the

finds

from

Byblos

there

are

some

differences

in

both

flints

and

the

pottery.

Many

of

the

sickle

blades

were

segmented,

coarsely

denticulated

and

sometimes

backed

like

those

at

Byblos,

others

not.

There

were

fewer

heavy

flaked

tools

on

these

sites

than

at

Byblos

and

those

that

were

found

were

often

slightly

different

in

shape.

Although

the

shapes

of the

pots

were

the

same

simple

ones

found

at

Byblos

the

finish

was

often

much more

varied.

A

greater

range

of

fabric

colours

was

found

on

the

Beka'a

sites

because

different

clays

were

used

and

the

vessels

were

fired

unevenly.

There

were

also

differences

in

the

patterns

of

incised

and

impressed

decoration,

much

less

use

of

the

cardium

shell

for

example;

this

type

of

decoration

was

partly

replaced

by

combing,

a

technique

not

used

at

Byblos.

This

first

Neolithic pottery

differs

quite

markedly

from

site

to

site even

in

the

same

area

simply

because

it

was

all

hand-made

locally

and

baked

in

bonfires

or

pits.

Nevertheless

there

are

elements

in

the

colour

and

decoration

of

these

vessels

which

link

the

sites

on

which

they

were

made

so

that

we

may

speak

of

a

Beka'a

group

of

sites.

It

should

also

be

noted

that

more

white

plaster

ware

seems

to

have

been

made

on

the

Beka'a

sites,

Tell

Labweh

and

Tell

Neba'a

Faour

I

in

particular,

than

at

Byblos.

This

may

be

partly

a

matter

of

local

custom

but

also

a

factor

of

chronology.

Tell

Labweh was

certainly

occupied

early

in

Neolithic

3

before

the

Ne*olithique

Ancien

settlement

at

Byblos

was

founded

and

this

may

also

have

been

true

of

Tell

Neba'a

Faour

I.

White

plaster

ware

was

used

at

the

beginning

of

Neolithic

3

then

gradually

ceased

to

be

made.

The

Beka'a

Neolithic

3

sites

all

belong

with

Byblos

and

Tabbat

el

Hammam

in

a

South

Syrian

group

but

the

minor

differences

in

material

equipment

between

them

and

the

coastal

sites

are

sufficient

for

us

to

distinguish

a

Beka'a

sub

group

of

settlements

within

the

larger

area.

Several

more

Neolithic

3

sites

have

been

found

in

the

Beka'a

but

since

the

material

recovered

from

them

is

scanty

I

will

describe

their

locations

briefly.

Hermel

IV

is

in

the

northern

Beka'a

a

little

to

the

south-east

of

Hermel

near

the

Orontes.

The

site

has

yielded

some

Neolithic

3

material

as

well

as

finds

of

later

periods

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

32,

33).

There

is

a

rock

shelter

500

m

east

of

Ras

Baalbek

in

the

northern

Beka'a

in

which

Neolithic

3

flints

have

been

collected,

including

a

tanged,

pressure-flaked

arrowhead,

a

burin

and

retouched

blades

(Besancon,

Hours,

1968,

80,

81).

Tell

Bab

ez-Zeitun

overlooks

the

Wadi

Yahfoufa

to

the

east

of

Rayak

in

the

central

Beka'a

(Copeland,

1969,

87,

92);

this

site

is

not

far

from

Tell

Neba'a

Faour

I

and

is

in

a

similar

location.

The

remaining

sites

are

in

the

southern

Beka'a.

The

Kaukaba

station

is

in

a

low

pass

on

the

road

from

the

Karaoun

dam

to

Rachaya

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

39).

The

plentiful

surface

material

from

this

site

included

obsidian,

basalt

vessels,

flint

adzes,

axes,

sickle

blades

and

arrowheads,

all

of

Neolithic

3

type.

Tell

ez-Zeitun,

the

furthest

south

of

these

sites,

is

situated

in

the

upper

Hasbani

valley

north-east

of

the

village

of

Dnaybe

(Besancon,

Hours,

1968,

81).

The

site

has been

visited

by

several

workers

who

have

collected

fragments

of

tanged

arrowheads,

segmented

sickle

blades

and

heavy

flaked

tools

from

the

surface

as

well

as

material

of

later

periods.

The

Beka'a

is

part

of

the

Rift

valley

which

may

be

traced

from

Maras

in

-

3^9

-

southern

Turkey

down

through

the

Levant

to

the

Gulf

of

Aqaba

and

Red

Sea

then

on

into East

Africa.

The

section

of

the

Rift

valley

immediately

south

of

the

Beka'a

is

the

upper

Jordan

valley.

The

two sections

are

separated

by

broken

hill

country

which

may

be

traversed

by

way

of the

Hasbani

valley.

The

southern

Beka'a

and

upper

Jordan

valley

have

a

similar

environment

being

both

hemmed

in

by

mountains

or

high

hills

on

the

east

and

west.

Several

Neolithic

3

sites

have

been

found

in

the

upper

Jordan

valley,

the

material

from

which

resembles

that

collected

from

the

Beka'a

sites

I

have

just

discussed.

Such

a

correspondence

stems

principally

from

the

geographical

similarity

of

the

two

areas.

Beisamun

The

extensive

site

of

Beisamun

was

occupied

until

some

time

in

Neolithic

3.

As

no

pottery

was

found

there

the

site

was

probably

abandoned

quite

early

in

the 6th

millennium.

A

few

of

the

flints

were

of

types

found

on

Neolithic

3

sites

in

the

Beka'a

and

at

Ngolithique

Ancien

Byblos.

Most

of

the

arrowheads

were

tanged

and

retouched by

pressure-flaking

and

some

of

these

were

Amuq

1

and

2

types.

The

Amuq

1

type

was

already

being

made

in

Palestine

late

in

Neolithic

2

as

Perrot

has

pointed

out

(1969,

1^2)

but

the

presence of

both

these

types

and

other

flints

characteristic

of

Neolithic

3

must

indicate

that

the

site

was

occupied

in

the

early

centuries

of

the

6th

millennium.

Arrowheads

were

sparsely

represented

in

the

collections

from

the

site

and

sickle

blades,

although

more

numerous,

still

formed

only

1%

of

the

tools

which

were

found

(Le

Brun,

1969,

116).

Almost

all

these

were

segmented

and

retouched

across

the

ends

but

a

few

were

backed.

The

most

numerous

tools

were

the

axes,

picks

and

chisels

which

together

comprised

over

51%

of

the

total.

The

axes

were

the

most

numerous

and

varied

of

the

heavy

flaked

tools.

Those

with

straight

cutting

edges

were

rectangular

or

trapezoidal

in

outline

while

the

curved

edge

ones

were

oval or

almond-shaped;

a

few

had

polished

edges.

10$

of

these

axes

had

split

in

use

on the

site

where their

remains

were

found

(Le

Brun,

1970,

93).

Presumably

they

had

been used

to

shape

timber

for

the

-

350

-

large

houses

at

Beisamun

among

other

tasks.

All

these

flint

artifacts

compare

closely

with

those

from

the

Beka'a

sites

I

have

already

discussed

and

Neolithique

Ancien

Byblos

confirming

that

Beisamun

was

occupied

in

Neolithic

3.

Several

surface

sites

are

known

in

the

extreme

north-west

corner

of

the

upper

Jordan

valley

but

no

structures

have

been

found

on

them.

Tannur

Tannur which

lies

on

the

east

bank

of

the

Wadi

Ayun

is

the

furthest

north

of

these

sites.

A

few

rough

potsherds

were

found

there

which

may

be

Neolithic

(Lechevallier,

Dollfus,

1973,

12*).

Among

the

flint

tools

were

a

number

of

tanged,

pressure-flaked

arrowheads. Some

of

these

were

Amuq

types

1

and

2;

the

tang

of

one

of

the

latter

was

swollen

at

the

base

(Lechevallier, Dollfus,

1973,

figj

2:1),

a

trait

found

rarely

on

arrowheads

in

Lebanon

but

common

enough

further

north.

There

was

also

a

tanged

and

notched

arrowhead

(Lechevallier,

Dollfus,

1973,

fig.

2:8)

of

a

type

found

at

Munhatta

and

Tell

Ramad

in

Neolithic

2.

Most

of

the

sickle

blades

were segmented

and

backed;

these

were

usually

coarsely

denticulated

but

some

were

nibbled

(Lechevallier,

Dollfus,

1973,

10*).

The

blades

for

these

and

other

tools

were

almost

all

struck

off

pyramidal

cores

although

one

double-ended

core

was

collected

from

the

site.

Flaked

axes

were

the

most numerous

tools

found

at

Tannur.

Oval

and

almond-shaped

ones

were

more

common

than

those

with

straight

cutting

edges

(Lechevallier,

Dollfus,

1973, 12*);

the

latter

were

triangular,

trapezoidal

or

rectangular

in

shape.

Some

of

these

tools

had

polished

cutting

edges.

An

adze

and

a

few

picks

were

collected

at

the site

but

it

seems

that

other

heavy

flaked

tools

were

rare.

Two

large

stepped,

open-ended

basalt

querns and

fragments of

several

more

were

found

at

Tannur

(Lechevallier, Dollfus,

1973,

12*).

These

were

like

querns

found

at

Jericho,

Munhatta

and

Tell

Ramad

in

Neolithic

2.

There

were

also

a

number

of

basalt

rubbers and

a

fragment

of

a

basalt

bowl.

-

351

-

Some

of

the

finds

from

Tannur

are

types

found

on

excavated

sites

in

Neolithic

2

contexts

so

presumably

the

site

was

first

occupied

then.

The

rest

of

the

material,

particularly

the

arrowheads and sickle

blades,

is

more

typical

of

Neolithic

3

so

it

seems

that

the

site

continued

to

be

occupied

until

sometime

in

the

6th

millennium.

Sat

Qat

is

situated

on

the

right

bank

of

the

Wadi

Ayun.

No

pottery

was

found

here

but

flint

tools

were

plentiful.

Two

double-ended

cores

were

collected

but

the

others

were

prismatic

or

pyramidal

(Lechevallier,

Dollfus,

1973,

12*).

Most

of

the

arrowheads

were

tanged

and

pressure-flaked

and

a

few of

these

were

like

Amuq^

points.

The

sickle

blades

were usually

segmented

and denti-

culated

as

at

Tannur.

129

axes

were

found

at

Qat

which

constituted

about

half

the

retouched

tools

found

at

the

site;

they

formed

the

same

proportion

of

the

assemblage

here

as

at

Tannur.

Almond-shaped

and

oval

axes

were

the

most

common

types

at

Qat

as

at

Tannur

(Lechevallier,

Dollfus,

1973,

1U*).

The

others

were

rectangular,

trapezoidal

and

triangular

in

shape.

Some

of

the

axes

had

polished

cutting

edges.

Among

the

other

heavy

flaked

tools

were

picks

and

chisel-like

tools.

One

scrap

of

obsidian

was

collected

here

and

also

several

basalt

grinding

tools (Lechevallier, Dollfus,

1973,

17*).

The

assemblage

from

Qat

is

so

similar

to

most

of

the

material from

Tannur

that

the

sites

were

probably

occupied

at

the

same time

by

groups

engaged

in

similar

activities.

There

are

fewer

definite

Neolithic

2

artifacts

at

Qat

so

the

site

may

first

have

been

occupied

a

little

later

than

Tannur

and

then

continued

to

be

inhabited

in

the

earlier

part

of

Neolithic

3.

Ain

Hashomer

Fewer

artifacts

have

been collected from

Ain

Hashomer

than

from

Tannur

and

Qat

but

more

classes

of

material

are

represented

in

the

finds

from

the

site.

Some

potsherds

were

picked

up

there,

among

them

several

sherds

of

a

-

352

-

coarse

ware

and

also

a

fragment

of

a

carinated

"bowl

(Lechevallier,

Dollfus,

1973,

19*).

One

of

the

more

interesting

finds

was

a

piece of

a

white

plaster

bowl;

Ain

Hashomer

is

one

of

the

most

southerly

sites

on

which

this

ware

is

known

to

have

occurred.

The

arrowheads

were

mostly

fragmentary

"but

they

were usually

retouched

by

pressure-flaking

and

two

were

tanged;

one

was

leaf-shaped

(Lechevallier,

Dollfus,

1973,

17*).

The

commonest type of sickle

blade

was

a

denticulated

segment.

Axes

were

no more

numerous

than

arrowheads and

sickle

blades

at

Ain

Hashomer.

There

were

trapezoidal

and

triangular

axes

as

well

as

almond-shaped

and

oval

ones

in

the

assemblage;

a

few

were

partly

polished.

An

obsidian

blade

and

a

fragment of

a

limestone

bowl

was

found

on

the

site.

Bone

borers

were

also

collected

from

the

surface.

This

material,

though

sparse,

quite

closely

resembles

that

from

Beisamun,

Tannur

and

Qat

as

well

as

the

Beka'a

sites.

Like

them

Ain

Hashomer

was

occupied

early

in

Neolithic

3.

A

number

of

flint

tools

and

a

fragment

of

a

basalt

object

were

found

on

the

surface

of

another

site

in

this

group,

Zug

Fuqani

(Lechevallier,

Dollfus,

1973,

20*)

.

The

most

diagnostic

flints

were

several

finely-denticulated

sickle

blades,

a

pressure-flaked

arrowhead

and

19

flaked

axes,

most

of

which

were

almond-shaped.

The

quantity

of

axes

found

here

and

the

typology

of

the

tools links

Zug

Fuqani

with

Beisamun,

Tannur

and

the

other

sites

in

this

area

which

I

have

considered

so

it,

too,

was

probably occupied

in

Neolithic

3.

Kfar

Giladi

The

prehistoric

site

of

Kfar

Giladi

is

situated

on

a

hill

to

the

north

of

the

village

of

the

same

name.

During

excavations

in 1958

and

1962

a

Neolithic

settlement was

found

on

the

natural

subsoil

with

Chalcolithic

and

Early

Bronze

Age

remains

on

top

of

it

(Kaplan,

1958a,

27^;

1966,

273).

Two

levels

were

distinguished

in

the

Neolithic

deposits,

an

occupation

layer

of

earth

and

ashes

below

and

a

stone

wall

1.2

m

thick

with

associated

debris

above.

The

artifacts

were

of

the

same

character

in

both

levels.

-

353

-

The

pottery

which

I

have

examined

was

a

medium-fired

ware

with

grit

filler.

The

fabric

was

often

pink

in

colour

but

the

surface

of most

sherds

was

a

fairly

uniform

grey.

A

few

were

brown

or

black

in

colour.

The

surface

of

the

vessels

was

either

scraped

smooth

or

burnished.

The

pots

were

simple

in

shape,

ranging

from

hole-mouth

jars

to

hemispherical

bowls

and

cups.

A

few

were

decorated

with

incisions

or

cord

impressions.

The

flints

included

tanged,

pressure-flaked

arrowheads,

segmented

sickle

blades

and

partly

polished

adzes

and

chisels.

Some

bone

tools

were

found

in

the

excavations

and

also

part of

a

baked

clay

female

figurine.

A

charcoal sample

from

the

lowest

Neolithic

level

has

given

a

14 C

date

of

6955

±

320

B.C.

MATJ-1

(Kaplan,

1966,

273).

This

would

appear

to

be too

early

a

date

for the site

since

it

is

inconsistent

with

the

typology

of the

artifacts

found

there.

The

sample

was

taken

from

the

lowest

level

so

it

is

possible

that

there

was

an

earlier

deposit

at

the

bottom

which

was

not

recognised

in

the

excavation

for

which

this

lif

C

date

is

the

only

evidence.

The

typology

of

the

flints

would

suggest

that

Kfar

Giladi

was

occupied

in

Neolithic

3

or the

but

we

do

not

know

enough

about

them

to

decide

which

it

was.

The

pottery

is

more

helpful

since

the

shape,

finish and

decoration

of

the

vessels

resembles

that

found

at

Tell

Neba'a

Faour

I

and

some

of

the

pots

from

Tell

Labweh.

The

grey

colour

of

much

of

the

Kfar

Giladi

pottery

is

a

more

southern

characteristic

found

on

several

sites

in

northern

Palestine.

When

writing

about

Kfar

Giladi

several

years

ago

I

said

that

the

pottery

and

some

of the

flints

were

like

those

of

sites

in

Palestine

which,

on

other

evidence,

appeared

to

have

been occupied

in

the

5th

millennium

(Moore,

1973,

5*0.

I

was

not

then

inclined

to

accept

the

suggestion

made

by

Copeland

(1969,

87)

that

Kfar

Giladi

was

occupied

in

the

6th

millennium.

I

now

believe

that

the

Palestinian

sites

should

be

dated

earlier

as

I

shall

explain

later

in

this

chapter

and

this

new

dating

would

also

place

the

occupation

at

Kfar

Giladi

further

back

in

time.

The

comparison

that

Copeland

made

between

Kfar

Giladi

and

the

Beka'a

sites

and

that

I

made

between

it

and

the

sites

in

Palestine

are

thus

both

valid.

Kfar

Giladi

does

indeed

seem

to

have

been

occupied

sometime

in

Neolithic

3

though

perhaps

a

little

later

than

the

other

sites

from

the

same

area

that

I

have

discussed.

Hagosherim

lies

between

two

streams

at

the

northern

end

of

the

upper

Jordan

valley.

Like

Beisamun

the

site

was

discovered

when

fishponds

were

being

made.

Most

of

the

material

was

collected

from

the

fishponds

and

the

surface

of

the

site

but

some

was

found

in an

excavation

which

is

as

yet

unpublished.

The

site

covered

several

hectares

but

no

substantial

structures

were

found

on

it

(Perrot,

1968,

col.

U11).

All

the

arrowheads

from

Hagosherim

were

tanged

and

some

were

pressure-

flaked.

One

had

a

stubby

tang

defined

by

a

pair of

notches

and

another

pair

of

notches

on

the

shaft.

Another

was

an

Amuq

2

arrowhead

with

a

swollen

tang.

Most

of

the

sickle

blades

were

segmented

and

some

were

backed;

some

had

nibbled

or

finely-denticulated

cutting

edges, others

coarse

denticulation.

The most

distinctive

artifacts

were

the

numerous

flaked

axes

and

chisels,

some

of

which

were

partly

polished

(Perrot,

1968,

fig.

8^U).

Some

were

oval

or

almond-shaped,

others

D-shaped,

sub-rectangular

or

trapezoidal.

Most

of

the

pottery

from

the

site

was

a

medium

or

soft-fired

ware

with

a

reddish

or

brown

surface.

The

fabric

was

tempered

with many

grits

and

much

chopped

straw.

Some

of the vessels

were

jars

with

lug

or

strap

handles.

There

were

also

flat-bottomed

dishes and

bowls

with

splayed

sides.

A

few

of

the

vessels

were

decorated

with red

paint

or

burnished.

One

of the

thinner

bowl

sherds

had

been

coloured

black

and

burnished.

Several

of

the

querns

from

Hagosherim

were

the

open-ended

stepped

type

and

others

were

simple

saddle

querns.

Many

rubbers

were

found there

and

also

grooved

pebbles

and

stone

ornaments. Some

bone borers were

also

recovered

from

the

site.

The

stepped

querns,

notched

arrowhead

and

some

of

the

tanged

arrowheads

all

belong

in

a

Neolithic

2

context

so

Hagosherim

must

first

have

been

-

355

-

occupied

then.

The

other

flint

tools

compare

closely

with

Ne"olithique

Ancien

Byblos

and

the

Beka'a

sites

as

well

as

Beisamun

and

the

neighbouring

surface

stations

in

the

upper

Jordan

valley.

Some

of

the

axes,

particularly

the

D-shaped

ones,

and

sickle

blades

are

very

like

examples

from

Tell

Ramad

Levels

II

and

III

and

the

dark

burnished

sherds also

match

sherds

from

Tell

Ramad

III

(Moore,

1973,

^O).

These

comparisons

suggest

that

Hagosherim

was

occupied

for

much

of

Neolithic

3.

It

should

be

noted

that

most

of

the

pottery

is

unlike

that

found

on

the

Beka'a

sites

or

at

Kfar

Giladi.

It

is

unburnished

and

quite

coarse,

traits

it

shares

with

the

earliest

Neolithic

pottery

from

Jericho

which

I

shall

discuss

later.

Before

leaving

Hagosherim

we

should

note

that

some

of

the flints

seem

later

in

type than those

found

on

stratified

Neolithic

3

sites

(Moore,

1973,

hi}.

It

may

be

that

Hagosherim

was

occupied

in

a

later

stage

of

the

Neolithic

or even

the

Chalcolithic.

Tell Turmus

Tell

Turmus

is

a

small

mound

perhaps

about

300

sq.

m

in

area

on

one

of

the

tributaries

of

the

Jordan

a

little

to

the

east

of

Hagosherim

(Dayan,

1969,

65).

The

site

was

occupied

in

two periods,

during

the

Neolithic

(strata

3

to

6)

and

again

in

the

Chalcolithic

(strata

1

and

2).

Several

stone

walls

paved

areas

and

floors

were

found

in

the

Neolithic

levels

together with many

potsherds

and

flint

implements.

Both

thick,

coarse

wares

and

thinner-walled

finer

vessels

were

used

in

the

Neolithic

levels

(Dayan,

1969»

70).

The fabric

of

these

pots

was

tempered

with

grits

and

some

straw

which

was

then

fired

to

produce

a

range

of

surface

colour

from

pink to

brown

or

even

black.

The

vessels

were

all

of

simple

shapes

such

as

hole-mouth

jars

or

collared

jars,

some

of

which

had

handles.

A

few

were

decorated

with

incised

lines

in

herringbone

patterns

or

loops

filled

with

stab

marks and

some

vessels

were

burnished.

This

pottery

is

somewhat

like

pottery

from

Kfar

Giladi

and

Hagosherim

while

the

incised

patterns

are

like

designs

used

at

Byblos

in

Ne"olithique

Ancien.

Tell

Turmus

would

thus

-

356

-

appear

to

be

another

site

at

the

headwaters of

the

Jordan

occupied

in

Neolithic

3.

Kabri

is

on

the

western

edge

of

the

Galilee

hills

near

the

coast.

Following

the

discovery

of

fine

obsidian

and

stone

objects

on

the

site

an

excavation

was

undertaken

here

in

1958

(Prausnitz,

1969,

137).

These

objects

came

from

a

Chalcolithic

settlement

near

the

surface

but

below

that

there

were

Neolithic

deposits.

The

earliest

settlement

of

layer

III

had

circular

paved

areas

ringed

with

upright

stones,

perhaps

the

remains

of

huts.

Some

contracted

burials

were

found

under

these

paved

areas

accompanied

by

a

pot

and

flint

axes,

arrowheads

and

knives.

We

know

very

little

about

the

pottery from

the

site

but

some

information

about

the

flints

has

been

published.

There

were

leaf-shaped

and

also

tanged

and

pressure-flaked

arrowheads

in

the

deposit

together

with

segmented,

coarsely

denticulated

sickle

blades.

Both

trapezoidal

and

rectangular

axes

were

found,

some

of

which

were

partly

polished.

One

of

the

rectangular

axes

had

split

in

use.

Some

small

greenstone

axes

were

also

found

in

this

deposit

(Prausnitz,

1959, 268)

but

little

else.

The

affinities

of

this

material

are

with

Ne"olithique

Ancien

Byblos

further

up

the

coast

and the

Neolithic

3

sites

in

the

upper

Jordan

valley

and

the

Beka'a.

Kabri

was

thus first

occupied

in

Neolithic

3

although

the

site

was

also

used

in

later

stages.

Damascus

basin

One

site

in

the

Damascus

basin,

Tell

Ramad,

is

known

to

have

been

occupied

in

Neolithic

3.

The

remains

from

here

are a

little

different

from

those

on

other

sites

in

the

South

Syrian

group

as

one

might

expect

on

a

settlement

separated

from

others

to

the

west

by

the

Anti-Lebanon

mountains.

-

357

-

Tell

Ramad

Deposits

of

the

third

phase

of

occupation

at

Tell

Ramad,

Level

III,

have been

found

near

the

summit

on

the

west

side

and

on

the

shelf

in

the

south-east

corner

of

the

mound

(de

Contenson,

van

Liere,

196^,

118;

de

Contenson,

197^-j

18).

Much

of

Level

III

had

eroded

away

so

that

these

deposits

were

no

more

than

1

m

deep

when

found.

It

would

appear

that

the

Level

III

settlement

once

covered

at

least

half

the

mound,

an

area

of

about

1

ha,

but

may

have

been

more

extensive.

There

is

no

evidence

of

a

break

in

occupation

between

Levels

II

and

III

but

the

nature

of

the

structures

altered

markedly

in

Level

III.

No

buildings

could definitely

be

attributed

to

this

Level

although

a

number

of

floor

surfaces

and

hearths

were

recognised

in

it.

The

principal

remains

were

several

large

pits

which

were

as

much

as

2.5

m

deep

and

filled

with

ashes

and

other

burned

material

(de

Contenson,

van

Liere,

1966,

168).

The

flint

industry

of

Level

III

did

not

differ

greatly

from

that

in

Level

II.

The

sickle

blades

were

usually

segmented

with

coarsely

denticula-

ted

cutting

edges

and

were

sometimes

backed.

The

arrowheads

were

tanged

and

pressure-flaked

like

Byblos

points.

Another

common

tool

was

a

large

flake

knife

with

a

serrated

edge.

There

were

also

a

few

flaked

and

partly

polished

flint

axes

and

a

number

of

small

polished

greenstone

axes.

Obsidian

continued

to

be

imported

in

Level

III.

A

few

stone

bowl

fragments

and

basalt

grinding

tools

belonged

in

this

level.

Most

of

the

pottery

in

Level

III

was

a

medium

or

hard-fired

ware

with

some

grit

temper.

The

pots

were

usually

brown

or

grey

in

colour

although

some

were

fired

buff

or

red.

The two

main

vessel

shapes

were

a

hemispherical

bowl

or

cup

sometimes

with

a

ring base

and

a

jar

with

a

collar

neck

or

everted

rim

(de

Contenson,

van

Liere,

196^,

118).

Some

of

the

jars

had

lugs

or

handles.

These

pots

were

either

burnished

all

over

or

around

the

rim.

Some

had

incised

or

combed

decoration

and

a

few

were

even

scraped

with

a

shell

in a

manner

reminiscent

of

vessels

from

Ne"olithique

Ancien

Byblos.

A

few

vessels

were

-

358

-

coated

with

white

plaster

(de

Contenson,

1969a,

26).

A

number

of

the

bowls

had

been

burnished

very

thoroughly

so

that

they

resembled

the

dark

polished

ware

found

on

some

North

Syrian

sites.

A

large

number

of

fragments

of

white

plaster

ware

was

found

in

Level

III

(de

Contenson,

197^

5

18).

Vessels

of

this

substance

thus

continued

to

be

made

at

Tell

Ramad

after

the

introduction

of

pottery

as

was

also

the

case

on

a

number

of

other

Neolithic

3

sites.

The

other

artifacts

in

Level

III

consisted

of

bone

borers

and

spatulae

together

with

a

limestone

stamp

seal

(de

Contenson,

1969a,

26).

A

few

fragments

of

baked

clay

animal

figurines

were

found

and

several

baked

clay

stylised

human

figurines

have

also

been

attributed

to

this

level

(de

Contenson,

1971

5

285);

they

had

rod

heads

with

little

pieces

of

clay

applied

to

represent

the

eyes,

nose

and

ears.

The

surface

of

these

figurines

was

burnished.

The

cultural

affinities

of

Tell

Ramad

III are

more

with

the

South

Syrian

group

of

sites

than

those

further

north.

Tell

Ramad

has the

same

segmented

sickle

blades

and

arrowheads

as

Byblos

and

several

of

the

Beka'a

sites.

The

shapes

and

decoration

of

much

of

the

pottery

are

also

quite

similar

though

here

we

should

note

that

some

of

the

burnished

Ramad

bowls,

particularly

the

dark

polished

ones,

are

more

like

pottery

from

Ras

Shamra

or Tell

Judaidah.

The

Ramad

pits

have

much

in

common

with

those

in

the

ceramic

Neolithic

level

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

also,

as

we

shall

see,

on

several

Palestinian

sites;

these

pits

are

not

a

normal

feature

of

other

South

Syrian

sites.

Tell

Ramad

III

thus

has

certain distinctive

traits

in

common

with

sites

to

the

north

and

south

even

if

culturally

it

belongs

to

the

South

Syrian

group.

It

is

best

thought

of

as

a

settlement

which belongs

to

a

third

sub-group

within

the

South

Syrian

complex

even

if for

the

time

being

no

other

contemporary

sites

are

known

in

the

Damascus

basin.

We

do

not

know

exactly

when

or for

how

long

Tell

Ramad

III

was

occupied.

The

one

carbon

1^

determination

for

this

Level

is

5930

±

55

B.C.

GrN-U823

(Radiocarbon

9»

1967

5

129)

which

is

virtually

the

same

as

the

date

at

which

-

359

-

Tell

Ramad

II

was

first occupied.

The

Tell

Ramad

II

settlement

probably

lasted

for

several

centuries

so

Tell

Ramad

III

cannot

have

been

inhabited

before

5800

or

5700

B.C.

if

even

then.

The

affinities

of

the

material

from

Tell

Ramad

III

are

mostly

with

sites

occupied

in

the

early

or

mid

6th

millennii

B.C.

The

inhabitants

may

finally have

left

the

site

about

5500

B.C.

or

a

century

or

two

later

but

this

is

no

more than

an

estimate.

Lum

I

now wish

to

consider

the

Palestinian

sites

which

were occupied

in

Neolithic

3.

The

material

found

on

these

sites

differs

sufficiently from

that

on

settlements further north

for

them

to

be

regarded

as

a

third

regional

group.

Palestine

There

are

a

number

of

sites

in

Palestine

with

characteristic

structures,

flint

assemblages

and

pottery

which

were

occupied

later

than

Neolithic

2

and

before

the

Palestinian

Chalcolithic,

that

is

the

culture

typical

of

Ghassul

and

I

described

the

material

remains

and

economy

of

these

sites,

their

sequence

of

development

and

place

within

the

Neolithic

of the

Levant

in

an

article

published

in

1973.

I

placed

all

these

sites

in a

single

period

which

I

called

the

"Late

Neolithic"

of

Palestine.

This

period

was

divided

into

early

and late

stages

called

phases

1

and

2.

I

distinguished

two

local

geographical

groups

in

phase

1

and

three

in

phase

2. I

had

to

determine

the

Late

Neolithic

sequence

of

development

and

the

geographical

divisions

on

comparative

stratigraphy

and

artifact

typology

since

there

were

no

carbon

1U

determinations

available

from

any

site

occupied

in

that

period.

We

can

be

fairly

sure

that

the

transition

from

the Late

Neolithic

to

the

Chalcolithic

in

Palestine

took

place

about

3750 or

3500

B.C.

(Moore,

1973,

6U)

but

we

do

not

know

for

certain

when

it

began.

Much

depends

on

quite

general

typological

comparisons

between

the

Late

Neolithic

sites

in

Palestine

and

contemporary

sites

to

the

north

such

as

Byblos

which

are

themselves

not

very

precisely

dated.

All

too few

carbon

1U

determinations have

been

made

Fig.

44

Neolithic

3

Palestinian

sites

FIGURE

44

Neolithic

3

Palestinian

sites

1

Sepphoris

2

Megiddo

3

Shaar

Hagolan

4

Munhatta

5

Hamadiya

6

Beth-Shan

7

¥adi

el

Yabis

8

Herzliya

9

¥adi

Rabah

10

Lydda

11

G-ivat

Haparsa

12

Rizzanim

13

Ashkelon

14

Teluliot

Batashi

15

Tell

ed-Buweir

16

Abu

Gosh

17

et-Tauamin

18

Tell

Ras

el

Ain

19

Jericho

20

El

KM

am

-

360

-

on

material

from

sites

in

the

Levant

occupied

in

the

6th,

5th

and

hth

millennia,

partly

because

so

many of

them

were

excavated

many

years

ago.

Recently

excavated

sites

which

were

occupied

in

Neolithic

1

and

2

can

be

much

more

precisely

dated

simply

because

several

of

them

have

a

series

of

carbon

'\k

dates.

The

late

Neolithic

sequence

I

was

able

to

establish

for

Palestine

still

seems

valid

for

that

region although

the

term

"Late

Neolithic" itself

does

not

accord

very

well with

the general

terminology

I

am

using

in

this

thesis

for

the

Neolithic

of

the

Levant.

I

will

not,

therefore,

use

"Late

Neolithic"

here

but

will

treat

the

sites

concerned

as

they

occur

in

each

stage

of

the

Neolithic

of

the

Levant.

I

hope

to

be

able

to

show

that

the

sites

I

previously

described

as

Late

Neolithic

phase

1

fall

within

Neolithic

3

of

the

Levant

and

those

of

Late

Neolithic

phase

2

within

the

last

stage,

Neolithic

h.

I

will

now

briefly

describe

the

principal

phase

1

sites

in

each

geo-

graphical

group.

I

shall

also

mention

the

other

known

phase

1

sites

which

I

did

not

discuss

in

my

earlier paper

in

order

to

determine

as

fully

as

possible their

distribution

(Fig.

kh).

South

Palestine

The

site

with

the

most

ample

record

of

phase

1

occupation

is

Jericho.

After

a

long

period

between

Neolithic

2

and

Neolithic

3

when

the

mound

was

inhabited,

the

site

was

occupied

once

more

in

what

Kenyon

has

termed

the

Pottery

Neolithic

A

phase

(Kenyon,

1970,

62).

The

earliest

deposits

of

this

phase

consisted

of

trodden

floor

surfaces

with

hearths.

Then

the

inhabitants

dug out

numerous

pits

which

apparently

served

as

dwellings

and

working

hollows.

Some

of

the

early

pits

were

as

much

as

5

m

deep

but

others

were

much

shallower

though

still

several

metres

wide.

Their

sides

were

recut

periodically and

lined

with

stone

and

clay

walls

for

support.

The

interiors

had

successive

trodden

earth

floors

testifying

to

their

use

over

a

long

period.

An

oven

and

numerous

hearths

were

found

on

the

floors

in

these

pits.

There

were

low

stone

walls

around

the

rims

of

some

pits

which

supported

a

roof,

traces

of

which

-

361

-

were

found

within

the

pits

themselves.

These

pits

were

found

in

Trenches

15

II

and

III

and

in

areas

M

and

E,

that

is

all

over

the

mound

so the

Pottery

Neolithic

settlement

was

probably

as

large

as

those

of

the

preceding

Neolithic

stages.

The

Pottery

Neolithic

flint

industry

was

different

in

a

number

of

aspects

from

that

of

Neolithic

2

at

Jericho.

The

raw

material

was

usually

buff,

brown

or

grey

flint,

very

few

tools

being

made

on

the

pink,

purple

or

honey

coloured

flint

of

earlier

stages.

A

very

little

obsidian

was

also

used

in

this

phase.

Most

of

the

tools

were

made

on

blades struck

off

pyramidal

cores.

These

tools

were

quite

small,

the

arrowheads

for

example

being

usually

about

3

or

U

cm

long.

These

were

tanged

and

often

had

marked

shoulders

or

wings

(Moore,

1973,

fig.

^).

The

tips

of

some

of

them

were

thinned

to

a

sharp

point.

All

these

arrowheads

were

extensively

retouched

by

pressure-flaking.

The

sickle

blades

were

always

segmented

and

often

had

flat

retouch

along

the

back.

They

were

usually

about

3

to

k

cm

long

and

1

to

2

cm

wide.

This

type

has

a

coarsely

denticulated

cutting

edge

(Moore,

1973,

fig.

2).

Another

which

was

more than

2

cm

wide

had

flat

retouch

over

part

or

all

of both

surfaces.

The

cutting

edges

were

finely

or

coarsely

denticulated

and

a

few

were

backed

(Moore,

1973,

fig.

3).

A

third

characteristic

tool

was

a

knife

made

on

thin

tabular

flint.

This

had

a

cutting

edge

retouched

by

squamous

pressure-flaking

which

was

usually

bifacial.

There

were

some

flake

side-scrapers

and

also

a

characteristic

flake

scraper with

a

retouched

side

and

end

meeting

to

form

a

right

angled

corner.

Among

the

other

tools

were end-scrapers

on

blades,

small

borers

and

several

types

of

burin.

The

heavy

tools

at

Jericho

were

also

quite

small

like

the

arrowheads

and

sickle

blades.

These

consisted

of

axes,

adzes

and

chisels

which

had

been

flaked

all

over.

They

were

elliptical

in

cross-section

or

more

rarely

oval

and

had

rounded,

flaked

cutting

edges

which

were

sometimes polished.

The

assemblage

also

included

a

few

small

picks.

-

362

-

The

pottery

of

this

phase

at

Jericho

was

all

made

of

clay

tempered

with

much

straw

and

some

grit.

There

was

a

coarse

plain

ware,

some

sherds

of

which

were

very

thick

and

crumbly,

and

also

a

painted

fine

ware.

The

most

common

shapes

were

baggy

jars

with

flat

bases,

globular

hole-mouth

pots

and

other

jars

with

a

collar

neck

(Moore,

1973,

figs.

6,

7).

There

were

also

simple

bowls

and

cups

with

flat

bases

and

splayed

sides.

The

larger

vessels

had

knobs,

ledge

or

strap

handles

for

lifting.

These

pots

were

built

up

in

strips

or

coiled

and

then

scraped

or

wiped

on

the

surface,

a

technique

that

left

a

character

istic

rough,

striated

surface.

The

decorated

vessels

were

coloured

with

cream

and

red

slips

to

produce

reserved

chevron

and

triangle

patterns

which

were

sometimes

burnished.

A

very

few

vessels

had

a

little

incised

decoration.

The

rest

of

the

artifact

inventory

was

quite

simple.

There

were

some

borers

and

other

bone

tools

but

most

of

the

remaining

artifacts

were

made

of

stone.

These

consisted

of

simple

bowls,

querns

and

rubbers

as

well

as

some

pestles

and

mortars.

Tell

Ras

el

Ain

is

north-west

of

Jericho

and

a

little

to

the

west

of

the

springs

of

Ain

Duq

and

Ain

Nu'eima

on

the

edge

of

the

Jordan

valley.

The

tell

was

occupied

in

the

Bronze

Age

but

there

are

indications

from

surface

collections

that

the

site

was

also

inhabited

in

the

Neolithic.

Several

arrow

heads

were

found

here,

one

of

which

was

tanged

and

pressure-flaked,

and

also

denticulated,

segmented

sickle

blades

(Mallon,

1931,

162)

as

well

as

other

flint

tools.

Among

the

sickle

blades

were

examples

of

the

broad,

flat,

exten

sively

pressure-flaked

type

found

at

Jericho

in

Pottery

Neolithic

A.

Tell

Ras

el

Ain

was

thus

definitely

occupied

in

the

later

Neolithic,

probably

in

phase

1.

Abu

Gosh

on

the

Mediterranean

side

of

the

Judean

hills

was

also

occupied

in

this

phase.

The

surface

level

at

the

site

contained

a

mixture

of

material

from

several

periods

(Dollfus,

Lechevallier,

1969,

279)

which

included

some

flints

and

sherds

resembling

Pottery

Neolithic

A

artifacts

from

Jericho.

No

structures

were

found

in

this

level

although

there

were

a

few

shallow

pits

-

363

-

dug

into

earlier

levels.

The

site

can

have

covered

no

more

than

1000

sq

m

in

this

phase

and

so

was

quite

small.

Perrot

found

a

few

Neolithic

sherds

in

this

level

during

his

excavations

at

the

site

(I952b,

1^0).

They

were

coarse

fragments

with

much

straw

filler

and

one

of

them

has

been

roughly

wiped

on

the

surface.

Among

the

other

finds

from

this

level

were

narrow,

segmented,

coarsely

denticulated

sickle

"blades

and

burins.

Perrot

also

found

many

flaked

and

polished

trapezoidal,

oval

and

almond-shaped

axes

and other

heavy

tools

which

we

now

know

mostly

came

from

this

level

although

a

few

have

been

found

in

level

1,

the

level

beneath

the

surface

layer

containing

remains

of

a

Neolithic

2

settlement.

The

pottery

and

sickle

blades

indicate

that

Abu

Gosh

was

inhabited

briefly

at

a

time

approximately

contemporary

with

Jericho

in

Pottery

Neolithic

A

though

we

do

not

know

if

this

phase

of

occupation

immediately

succeeded

the

Neolithic

2

settlement.

The

axes

and

other

flaked

tools

have

been

found

on

very

few

other

Palestinian

settlements

but

they closely

resemble

those

found

at

Beisamun,

Tannur and

other

Neolithic

3

sites

at

the

headwaters

of

the

Jordan.

Another

site

which

was

probably

occupied

in

phase

1

is

the

cave

of

et-Tauamin

in

the

Wadi

Said

west

of

Bethlehem.

Neuville

excavated

a

thin

deposit

here

which

contained

a

mixture

of

Bronze

Age,

Roman

and

Byzantine

artifacts

and

also

a

hollow

with

Neolithic

material

(1930,

65).

The

hollow

was

about

2

m

across

and

within

it

was

a

homogeneous

collection

of

flints

and

pottery.

Among

the

flints

were

two

small

tanged

arrowheads,

one

of

which

was

winged,

an

oval

flaked

axe

with tranchet

edge

and

some

segmented,

denti-

culated

sickle

blades

(Neuville,

1930,

pi.

I:

2-U,

9).

Several

of

the

latter

were

wide

and

flat

with thinning

retouch

of

the

type

found

at

Jericho

in

phase

1

(Neuville,

1930,

fig.

3:

A).

The

pottery

was

coarse

with

grit

filler.

One

of

the

vessels

was

a

small

necked

globular

jar

with

a

handle

at

the

junction

of

the

neck

and

body

(Neuville,

1930,

72).

There

were

also

fragments

of

several

bowls

and

cups

in

the

hollow

and

some

of

these

sherds

had

been painted

in

red

with

lines

and

chevrons.

The

other

finds

consisted

of

bone

borers,

spatulae

and

a

needle,

spindle

whorls

made

from potsherds

and

a

small

basalt

ring.

Some

of

these artifacts

are

characteristic

of

phases

1

and

2

in

Palestine

but

the

evidence

of

the

sickle

blades

and

the

fabric

and

decoration

of

the

pottery

would

suggest

that

the

site

was

in

fact

occupied

in

phase

1.

A

little

material

of

this

stage

was

found

in

the

upper

levels

of

El

Khiam.

This

consisted

of

several

denticulated

sickle

blades,

a

few

of

which

were

of

the

flat,

pressure-flaked

type

found

in

Pottery

Neolithic

A

Jericho

(Neuville,

193^,

pi.

XX:

3;

Perrot,

1951,

171).

Some

sherds of

coarse,

straw-tempered

pottery

were

also

recovered

(Perrot,

1951

5

17*0

which

may

be

of

phase

1

type.

This

evidence

suggests

that

El

Khiam

was

used

occasionally

in

phase

1

as

it

continued

to

be

in

later

periods.

More

phase

1

material

was

found

by

Kaplan

at

Lydda

on

the

coastal

plain

(Kaplan,

1959a,

18).

The

pottery

and

flints

were

mixed

with

Chalcolithic

artifacts

but

could

clearly

be

distinguished

from

them.

We

do

not

know

if

there

were

any

structures

on

the

site

but

it

seems

to

have

been

another

small

settlement

which

was

not

inhabited

for

long.

Several

diagnostic

types

of

flint

tools

were

found,

among

them

two

small

tanged

arrowheads,

one

of

which

was

also

winged

and

notched.

There

were

also

segmented,

coarsely

denticulated

sickle

blades

and

a

few

of

the

wider,

flat

retouched,

denticulated

sickle

blades

found

at

Jericho.

The

other

recognisably

Neolithic

tools

consisted

of

flake

scrapers

and

knives.

Some

of

the

pottery

fabrics

were

like

Pottery

Neolithic

A

vessels

from

Jericho

being

buff

or

brown

in

colour

with

much

straw

filler.

Other

vessels

were

made

of

a

grey

ware

which

contained

a

little

straw

and

grit.

The

shapes

of

the

vessels

resembled

the

Jericho

pots

and

they

had

the

same

handles.

Some

of

these

vessels

were decorated with

triangles

or

chevrons

painted

in

red.

occasionally

on

a

cream

slip

as

at

Jericho.

The

surface

of

these

vessels

was

then

usually

burnished.

-

365

-

Kaplan

found

a

little

more

phase

1

material

in

his

excavations

at

the

site

of

Wadi

Rabah

situated

a

few

kilometres

north

of

Lydda

and

to the east

of

Tel

Aviv.

The

diagnostic

pottery

consisted

of

some

painted

sherds

and

a

knob

handle

resembling

the

material

found

at

Jericho

(Kaplan,

1958b,

fig.

^:

1,

2,

7).

Among

the

flints

were

several

of

the

broad,

segmented

sickle

blades

also

typical

of

phase

1

at

Jericho.

The

principal

phases of

occupation

at

Wadi

Rabah

were

in

Late

Neolithic

phase

2

and

the

Chalcolithic

but

this

evidence

indicates

that

the

site

was

inhabited

briefly

in

the

preceding

stage

also.

More

phase

1

material

was

found

at

Teluliot

Batashi,

another

site

exca-

vated

by

Kaplan.

This

site

is

to

the

south

of

Lydda

and

is

situated

on

a

terrace

in

the

Wadi

Sorek.

It

consists

of

several

small mounds and

was

first

occupied

in

the

Neolithic

then

in

several

subsequent

periods.

Two

"shelter-

pits"

were

found

in

level

IV

at

the

bottom

together

with

much

pottery

and

some

flints

of

phase

1

type

(Kaplan,

I958c,

83*).

The

pottery

consisted

of

plain

and

painted

jars

and

bowls,

some

of

which

had

ledge

handles

or

pierced

lugs

for

support.

The

painted

designs

consisted

of

broad

bands,

chevrons

and

triangles

in

red

or

brown

paint.

Some

of

both

the

painted

and

plain

wares

were

burnished.

Among

the

flints

were

several

tiny

arrowheads,

segmented

denticulated

sickle

blades

and

an

oval

flaked

axe

with

a

round

polished

cutting

edge.

Further

south

but

also

at

the

junction

of

the

central

plain

and

the

hills

of

Judea

lies

the

site

of

Tell

ed-Duweir.

A

painted

sherd

of

phase

1

type

was

found

here

in

Cave

6019

(Tufnell,

1957,

300,

fig.

1).

The

sherd

has

since

been

lost

(Moore,

1973,

n.

93)

so

that

it

is

not

now

possible

to

check

this

attribution.

It

is

possible, however,

that

the

site

was

occupied

in

Neolithic

3.

Givat

Haparsa

is

situated

in

the

dunes

on

the

coast

a

little

north

of

Ashdod.

Some

shallow

dwelling

pits

or

working

hollows

were

excavated

here

and

hearths

were

also

found

(Burian,

Friedmann,

1960,

U3ff).

The

excavation

yielded

a

few

rough

potsherds

as

well

as

a

rich

assemblage

of

flint tools

and

some

carved

stone

objects.

-

366

-

The

diagnostic

flint

tools

were

"both

tanged

and

tanged

and

winged

arrowheads,

most

of

which

were

small,

denticulated

segmented

sickle

blades

and

bifacially

retouched tabular

flint

knives.

All

match

the

Jericho Pottery

Neolithic

A

material

very

closely.

The

arrowheads

were

particularly

numerous,

680

being

found

(Burian,

Friedmann,

1963-6^,

IV).

Among

the

other

flint

tools

were

many

small

borers,

another

typical

tool

of

phase

1

and

2

assemblages,

and

burins.

There

were

also

a

few

flaked

oval

axes

and

some

trapezoidal

flaked

and

polished

axes.

The

structures

and

flints

at

Givat

Haparsa

are

all

characteristic

of

phases

1

and

2

in

Palestine.

The

pottery

gives

the

best

indication

of

when

the

site

was

actually

occupied

since

it

resembles

the

coarser

Pottery

Neolithic

A

wares

at

Jericho.

This

suggests

that

the

site

was

inhabited

in

phase

1

although

since

the

arrowheads

are

mostly

developed

types

it

may

not

have

been

used

until

quite

late

in

that

phase.

Nizzanim

is

in

the

dunes

a

little further

south

down

the

coast.

Several

pits

about

2

m

in

diameter

and

from

30

to

TO

cm

deep

have

been

excavated

27

here

which

may

have

been

dwellings

or

working

hollows.

Associated

with

the

pits

were

floors

of

crushed

sandstone

and

hearths

on

beds

of

pebbles.

Among

the

flints

were both

tanged

and

tanged

and

winged

arrowheads

as

well

as

rod

points,

all

of

which

were

pressure-flaked.

The

sickle

blades

were

denticulated

and

usually

segmented.

The

other

diagnostic

tools

were

tabular

flint

knives

with pressure-flaked

edges

while

the

remaining

flint

tools

consisted

of

burins

and

scrapers.

There

were

also

stone

grinding

tools

and

some

ornamental

objects,

including turquoise

beads. The

pottery

was

distinctive and

homogeneous.

There

were

hole-mouth

jars

with

flat

or

ring

bases

which

had

lug,

knob or strap

handles

for

lifting. Some of

these

jars

had

collar

necks.

The

other

vessels

were

simple

bowls

and

cups.

A

number

of

vessels

were

painted

with

red

designs

of

parallel

lines

or

chevrons.

The

surface

was

then

highly

burnished.

Most of

the

flint

tools

are

quite

typical

of

phase

1

and

2

sites.

The

-

36?

-

pottery

is

all

of

one

kind,

that

of

Pottery

Neolithic A

at

Jericho,

which

indicates

that

Nizzanim

was

occupied

in

phase

1

only.

Ashkelon

is

another

site

in

the

dunes

which

was

discovered

when

the

new

port

was

built.

Perrot

excavated

it

and

found

a

number

of

pit

dwellings

from

2

to

5

m

in

diameter

and

as

much

as

1

m

deep

(1968,

col.

Uo8).

There

were

also

smaller

hollows

interpreted

as

storage

pits

and

hearths.

The

arrowheads

were

either tanged

or

leaf-shaped,

often

with

very thin

points.

The

sickle

"blades

were

segmented

and

denticulated.

There

were

several

flaked

and

polished

trapezoidal and

oval

axes

as

well

as

"bifacially

retouched

tabular

flint

knives.

The

remainder

of

the

chipped

stone

assemblage

consisted

of

burins,

borers and

scrapers

and

also

a

scrap

of

obsidian.

No

pottery

was

found

at

Ashkelon

but

there

were

a

number

of

other

finds,

among

them

grinding

tools,

stone

bowls

and

bone

points.

There

were

several

orna-

mental

objects such

as

stone

bracelets

and

shell

beads

together

with

some

spindle

whorls.

The

affinities

of

the

flint

tools

are

with

other phase

1

sites

but

the

absence

of

tanged

and

winged

arrowheads

and

also

pottery

suggests

that

the

site

may

have

been

occupied

quite

early

in

this

phase.

A

small

site

was

discovered

several

years

ago

near

Herzliya

north

of

Tel-Aviv

and

has

since

been

excavated

(Prausnitz

et

al.,

1970,

16).

This

site,

too,

is

in

the

dunes

near

the

coast.

Several

small

pits

which

were

too

small

for

dwellings,

a

number

of

trodden

floors

and

some

hearths

were

found

here.

The

chipped

stone

assemblage

included

several

standard

phase

1

and

2

types

such

as

tabular

flint

pressure-flaked

knives,

segmented,

denticulated

sickle

blades

and

both

tanged

and

tanged

and

winged

arrowheads.

There

were

also

some

tranchet

arrowheads

which

have

been

found

on

several

other coastal

sites,

some

oval

flaked

axes

and picks,

scrapers,

burins

and

blade

knives.

Among

the

sickle

blades were

several

of

the

broad,

flat,

segmented

type

found

only

in

the

Pottery

Neolithic

A

levels

at

Jericho

(Prausnitz

et

al.,

1970,

fig.

10.

-

368

-

A

number

of

coarse

gritty

potsherds

were

found

in

the

excavation,

some

of

which

had

been

painted

with

a

red

wash.

The

most

remarkable

find

was

a

complete

jar

which

had

a

small

flat

base,

splayed

sides

broken

with

a

carination

and

a

flat

rim

(Prausnitz,

1970b,

9).

The

upper

part of

the

body

had

a

series

of

knobs

and

strap

handles

for

lifting.

The

fabric

was

also

a

coarse,

gritty

ware

and

the

surface

was

covered with

a

red

wash.

This

vessel

was

found

sitting

upright

in

a

pit,

the

position

in

which

it

had

been

made

to

stand.

The sickle

blades

are

characteristic

of

phase

1

rather

than

phase

2.

The

pottery

is

of less

diagnostic

value

since

the

complete

jar

is

a

unique

object.

The

fabric

of

the

pottery

from

Herzliya

is

coarse

enough

for

phase

1

but

the

red

wash

finish

is

a

typical

phase

2

feature.

I

believe

the

site

was

probably

occupied

in

phase

1

on

the

evidence

of

the

flints

though

perhaps

late

in

the

phase

but

we

cannot

be

sure

on

the

evidence

available.

Many

surface

stations

with

chipped

stone

assemblages

characteristic

of

phases

1

and

2

have

been

found

in

the

coastal

dunes.

No

pottery

has

been

found

on

these

sites

and

it

is

not

possible

to

decide

from

the

flints

alone

in

which

phase

they

were

inhabited.

I

will

describe

all

of

them

in

the

in

which

I

shall

consider

the

last

stage

of

the

Neolithic

but

we

should

remember

that some

of

these

sites

may

have

been

occupied

in

this

phase.

North

Palestine

Megiddo

was

first

inhabited

towards

the

end

of

Neolithic

2

but was also

occupied

in

the

A

layer

of

debris,

designated

Stratum

XX,

which

contained

a

mixture

of

Neolithic

and

Chalcolithic

material

was

found

on

the

rock

in

Area

BB

on

the

north-east

side

of

the

mound.

A

number

of

post-holes

and

small

pits,

mostly

about

1

m

in

diameter

had

been

cut

in

the

rock

here.

Built

on

the rock

were

the

footings

of

a

curved

stone

wall

and

also

a

mud-brick

wall

(Loud,

19^8,

60)

which

may

have

been

parts

of

dwellings

originally.

There

were

no

arrowheads

among

the

flints

from

Stratum

XX

but

there

were

oQ

a

number

of

segmented

sickle

blades

with

fine

or

coarse

denticulation

-

369

-

(Crowfoot,

19^8a,

1^3).

These

are

similar

in

type

to the

group

of sickle

blades

found

in

Stratum

-XX.

There

were

also

two

denticulated

"blades

,

an

end-scraper

on

a

blade,

a

piece

of

delicately

retouched

tabular

flint

and

a

fragment of

obsidian.

The

sickle

blades

are

the

most

diagnostic

type

and

these

resemble

examples

from

phases

1

and

2

at

Jericho.

One

of

the

broad,

segmented

sickle

blades

with

extensive

retouch

characteristic

of

phase

1

at

Jericho

was

found

on

the

surface

at

Megiddo

in

1925

and

is

now

in

the

Oriental

Institute,

Chicago.

It

probably

originated

in

Stratum

XX.

Both

coarse

and

finer

Neolithic pottery

was

found

in

Stratum

XX

at

Megiddo.

The

most

common

vessel

shapes

were

hole-mouth

pots

with

knobs

or

lugs

and

collared

jars

with

strap

handles

(Loud,

19^8,

pi.

1:

1U-22,

2^).

Some

of

these

pots

had

rounded

bases. The

fabric was

tempered with

white

grit

and

straw.

Some

vessels

were

wiped

over

and

their

surfaces

left

rough

but

others

were

burnished.

The

pots

were usually

grey

in

colour

on

the

surface.

The

finer

vessels

had

thinner

walls

and

were

decorated

with

horizontal

bands

or

rows

of

zigzag lines

painted

in

red

(Loud,

19^-8,

pi.

2:

30-3U).

The

shapes of these

vessels

and the

decoration

of the finer

ware

resemble

the

pottery

of

Pottery

Neolithic

A

at

Jericho

but

the

burnished

grey finish

of

many

of

them

is

a

northern

feature

found

also

at

Kfar

Giladi.

The

similarities

between

the flints

and

pottery

from

Megiddo

and material

from

Pottery

Neolithic

A

Jericho

and

Kfar

Giladi

indicate

that

the

site

was

occupied

in

phase

1.

It

is

also

fairly

clear,

despite

the

mixture

of

material

in

each

stratum,

that

the

phase

1

settlement

of

Stratum

XX

was

inhabited

not

long

after

the

Neolithic

2

occupation

of

Stratum

-XX.

It

is

thus

possible,

though

incapable

of

proof

given

the

evidence

we

have,

that

Megiddo

was

continuously

occupied

from

the

end

of

Neolithic

2

into

Neolithic

3.

Mallon

found

a

Neolithic

surface

station

at

Sepphoris

a

little

way

north

of

Nazareth

(1925,

190,

191).

He

collected

a

number

of

flat

flaked

trapezoidal

flint

axes

there

on

what

seems

to

have

been

a

workshop

site

used

also

in

other

periods.

These

axes

are

similar

to

some

found

at

Abu

Gosh,

Tannur

and

-

370

-

Qat

in

Neolithic

3

so

the

flint

at

Sepphoris

was

probably

worked

then

as

well

as

at

other

times.

The

great

mound

of

Beth-Shan

was

first

occupied

in

this

stage.

The

earliest

habitations

were

large

pits

dug

into

the

subsoil

at

the

bottom

of

the

site

(Fitzgerald,

193^,

12*iff).

Some

simple

pottery

was

found

in

these

pits

though

very

little

was

kept

for

later

study.

The

sherds

still

in

museum

29

collections

consist

for

the

most

part

of

a

series

of

strap

and

other

loop

handles.

One

of

these

and

several

other

sherds

were

painted

with

thin

lines

in

chevron

or

criss-cross

patterns

(Fitzgerald,

1935»

7;

pis.

2:

25;

3:

18).

This

pottery

is

quite

like

the

phase

1

material

from

both

Megiddo

and

Jericho

in

shape

and

decoration

while

the

dwelling

pits

found

at

the

site

are

another

indication

of

Neolithic

3

occupation.

The

site

of

Wadi

el

Yabis

is

beside

a

spring

on

the

west

side

of

the

road

from

Deir

Alia

to

Khirbet

esh-Shuneh

in

the

Jordan

valley.

It

was

dis

covered

when

a

cistern

was

made

and

all

the

material

recovered

came

from

this

pit.

No

pottery

was

noticed

but

a

number

of

flint

and

ground

stone

artifacts

were

recovered.

The

most

diagnostic

flints

were

denticulated,

segmented

sickle

blades

and

a

pressure-flaked

tanged

arrowhead

though

long

nibbled

blades,

a

burin

on

a

blade

and

several

flake

scrapers

were

also

found

(Kirkbride,

1956,

57

5

58).

Most

of

the

ground

stone

tools

were

made

of

basalt

and

the

remainder

of

limestone.

Among

these

were

several

hammers

and

pestles,

a

ring

which

may

have

been

a

weight

and

an

axe

with

a

straight

edge

and

rounded

butt

(Kirkbride,

1956,

56,

57).

The

sickle

blades

indicate

that

the

site

was

occupied

in

phase

1

but

the

arrowhead

and

nibbled

blades

taken

together

with

the

absence

of

pottery

suggest

that

the

site

was

occupied

at

the

beginning

of

this

phase,

that

is

early

in

Neolithic

3.

The

ground

stone

tools

would

also

fit

such

a

context.

Munhatta

was

inhabited

again

in

both

Neolithic

3

and

Neolithic

h.

The

deposits

of

these

stages

have

been

called

phase 2.

Phase

2

at

Munhatta

has

been

divided

into

a

later

sub-phase,

2A

or

the

Wadi

Rabah

phase,

and

two

-

371

-

1

2

earlier

sub-phases,

2B

or

the

Munhatta

phase

and

2B

or

the

Shaar

Hagolan

phase

(Perrot,

1968,

col.

U15).

The

levels

of

2A

are

later

than

the

stage

which

we

are

considering

in

this

chapter

so

it

is

only

phase

2B

which

concerns

us

here.

2

In

2B

the

inhabitants

seem

to

have

lived

in

large

pits

3

to

k

m

in

diameter

which

contained

paved

areas,

benches

and

hearths.

There

were

also

some

bell-shaped

pits

about

1

m

deep

which

may

have

been used

for

storage.

In 2B

the

large

pits

were

replaced

by

shallow

hollows

which

were

as

much

as

10

or

12

m

in

diameter.

The

floors

of

these

hollows

were

pock-marked

with

smaller

pits

and

depressions.

One

had

a

circular

structure

in

the

middle

with

walls

of

bun

bricks

on

stone foundations.

The

two

principal

flint

tool

types

were

segmented,

denticulated

sickle

blades

and

tanged

arrowheads,

The

sickle

blades

were

quite

abundant

and

included

some

relatively

wide

and

flat ones

like

those found

at

Jericho.

The

tanged

arrowheads

were retouched

by

pressure

flaking

and

were

mostly

quite

small,

2

A

few

large

flaked

axes

with rounded

polished

cutting

edges

were

found

in

2B

but

none

in

2B

;

they

resemble

examples

from

Abu

Gosh

and

the

sites

in

the

upper

Jordan

valley.

The

only

other

stone

tools

were

small

flat

basalt

querns.

Some

obsidian found

in

the

phase

2

levels

at

Munhatta

has

been

analysed.

It

may

have

come

from

the

2B

settlement.

Two

pieces

were from

Ciftlik,

one

from

Nemrut

Dag and

a

fourth

from near

Lake

Van

(Wright,

Gordus,

1969,

86).

The

pottery

of

phase

2B

was

tempered

with

grit

but

relatively

little

straw

compared

with

sites

in

the

southern

group.

The

shapes

included collared

jars

with

loop

handles

at

the

base

of

the

neck,

hole-mouth

jars

also

with

loop

handles

or

lugs

and

handled

cups.

The

pots

were

grey

or

buff

in

colour

and

their

surfaces

were scraped

or

wiped

before

firing.

Some

of the

vessels

were

burnished.

The

fabric and

surface

finish of the

vessels

resemble

the grey

wares

of

Megiddo

and

Kfar

Giladi.

This

pottery

was

decorated

with

incised

designs

or

paint.

The

incised

designs

usually

took

the

form

of

lines

of

-

372

-

herringbone

incisions

which

ran

around

the

vessel

near

the

rim

and

in

zigzag

bands

around

the

body

(Perrot,

1968,

fig.

8^5).

These

designs

were

sometimes

combined

with

areas

of red

wash.

There

were

also

many

vessels

painted

with

groups of lines

in

chevron patterns

or

bands

of

paint

which

formed

simple

patterns

on

the

body.

This

painted

decoration

resembles

that

found

at

Jericho,

Megiddo

and

Beth-Shan

in

phase

1.

The

incised

herringbone

patterns

are

characteristic

of

phase

2

at

Jericho

and

elsewhere but

seem

to have

been

used

earlier

on

this

northern

group

of

sites.

Several

other

kinds

of

object

were

o

made

of

baked

clay

in

Munhatta

2.B

,

among

them

rods

with

a

conical

end,

animal

and

human

figurines

(Perrot,

1968,

pi.

IV:

1-U,

6).

The

human

figurines

were

females

with pointed

heads and

eyes

and

ears

made

of

applied

pieces

of

clay,

the

eyes

being

shaped

like

coffee beans.

These

stylised

figurines

were

made

in

the

same

way

as

those

from

Tell

Ramad

III

and

they

are

quite

like the

one

from

Kfar

Giladi.

It

is

also

of

interest

that

a

number

of

pebbles

were

found

in

this

level

which

had

been

marked

with

a

few

lines

to

represent

human

beings

(Perrot,

1968,

pi. IV:

7)

just

like

ones

from

Ne"olithique

Ancien

Byblos.

The

large

pit

dwellings,

the

typology

of

the

flint

tools

and

pottery

together

with

unusual

objects

found

on

other

sites

such

as

the

human

figurines

in

baked

clay and

on

pebbles

all

indicate

that

Munhatta

2B

was

occupied

in

phase

1.

There

are

changes

in

both

the

flint

industry

and

the

pottery

as

the

settlement

developed

which

imply

that

the

site

was

occupied

for

longer

than

would

seem

to

be

the

case on

most

of

the

sites

I

have

discussed

so

far.

The

site

of

Shaar

Hagolan

is

situated

about

3

km

south

of

the

Sea

of

Galilee

on

the

present

course

of

the

Yarkon

river

a

little

way

upstream

from

its

junction

with

the

Jordan.

It

thus

lies

only

6

km

north

of

and

across the

valley

from

Munhatta.

The

site

was

found

about

30

years

ago

when

an

anti-tank

ditch

was

dug.

Additional

material

was

collected

in

later

years

as

more

of

the

site

was

exposed

when

fishponds

were

made

there.

A

little

of

the

site

has

been

tested

in

archaeological

excavation

but

most

of the

considerable

amount

of

material collected

has

been

picked

up

from

these

other

disturbances.

-

373

-

The

principal

phase

of

occupation

was

in

the

Neolithic

from

which

stage

most

of

the

artifacts

date

but

the

site

was

also

inhabited

in

periods

as

late

as

the

Bronze

Age.

A

wide

variety

of

flint

tools

has

been

found

on

the

site.

The

arrow

heads

were

usually

tanged

or

leaf-shaped

and

retouched

by

pressure-flaking.

At

least

two

Amuq

points

were

collected

and

one

arrowhead

with

a

swollen

tang

(Stekelis,

1966,

fig.

25:

3,

k,

9)»

types

familiar

in

Neolithic

3

contexts

further

north,

particularly

on

sites

in

the

North

Syrian

group.

The

numerous

sickle

blades

were

segmented

and

most

were

narrow

with coarse

denticulation

(Stekelis,

1966,

fig.

23).

The

other

tools

included

some

burins,

flake

scrapers

and

very

many

small

flake

borers

(Stekelis,

1966,

figs.

20,

2k,

27-32).

These

tools

were

made

on

flakes

and

blades

struck

off

prismatic,

pyramidal

and

also

double-ended,

hump-backed

cores

(Stekelis,

1966,

figs.

21,

35,

37).

A

considerable

number

of

core

tools

have

also

been

found

at

Shaar

Hagolan.

Most

of

these

were

relatively

small,

often

between

5

and

7

cm

in

length,

and

flaked

all

over

although

a

few

had

polished

cutting

edges.

The

principal

types

were

axes,

chisels

and

picks

(Stekelis,

1966,

figs.

13-19).

These

core

tools

are

usually

found

on

phase

1

and

2

sites

though

rarely

in

such

quantities

as

at

Shaar

Hagolan.

The

pottery

at

Shaar

Hagolan

consisted

of

collared

jars

with

loop

handles

at

the

base

of

the

neck

and

deep

hole-mouth

jars

with

lugs

or

loop

handles

at

the

rim;

all

had

flat

bases

(Stekelis,

1966,

fig.

U3).

The

fabric

of

these

vessels

was

relatively

well

levigated

with

grit

and

straw

filler.

Their

surfaces

were

grey

or

brown

in

colour,

hand-smoothed

or

scraped

and

then

bur

nished

in

some

instances.

Many

of

the

collared

jars

and

a

few

of

the

other

vessels

were

decorated

with

incised

or

incised

and

painted

decoration.

The

incised

patterns

were

usually

bands

of

oblique

dashes

or herringbones

between

parallel

lines

running

horizontally

or

in

zigzag

fashion

around

the

pots.

These

bands

were

sometimes

outlined

with

red

paint.

A

very

few

pieces

were

decorated

with

lines

of

red

paint

alone,

occasionally

on

a

cream

slip.

-

37^

-

The

remaining

artifacts

from

Shaar

Hagolan

included

a

range

of

bone

borers

and

hafts,

hollow

querns

and

many

small

stone

cups

and

dishes

(Stekelis,

1966,

figs.

39-^1,

73).

There

were

also

numerous

incised

pebbles,

spindle

whorls

and

a

conical-ended

rod

like

those

from

Munhatta

(Stekelis,

1966,

figs.

57-61).

Many

of

these

incised

pebbles

were

stylised

human

beings

similar

to

those

from

Munhatta

and Byblos

(Stekelis,

1966,

figs.

6U,

65).

Another

link

with

Munhatta,

Tell

Ramad

III

and

other

sites

was

a

group

of

clay

figurines

with

pointed

heads,

coffee

bean

eyes

and

applied

ears

(Stekelis,

1966,

frontispiece).

When

discussing

Shaar

Hagolan

in

my

earlier

article

I

placed

it

in

phase

2

because

I

thought

the

pottery

with

its

characteristic

herringbone

patterns

was

contemporary

with

similar

pottery

found

at

Jericho

in

the

phase

2

stage

there,

Pottery

Neolithic

B

(1973,

60).

I

thought

that

certain

typologically

earlier

elements

in

the

flints,

notably

the

Amuq

and

other

tanged

arrowheads

and

the

double-ended

cores,

were

evidence

of

an

earlier

Neolithic

2

occupation

not

recognised when

the

site

was

found

(1973

5

^9).

In

reviewing

the

evidence

I

believe

this

interpretation should

be

modified.

Firstly,

most

of

the

flints

and

pottery

seem

to

form

a

homogeneous

group

with

the

exception

of

certain

obvious

Chalcolithic,

Bronze

Age

and

other

elements

not

discussed

here.

Secondly,

this

material

is

matched

closely

in

the

stratified

deposits

of

Munhatta

2B

and there

are

general

parallels

also

for

much

of

it

in

Byblos

Ne"olithique

Ancien,

Tell

Ramad

III,

and

at

the

Neolithic

3

sites

at

the

head

of

the

Jordan

valley

and

in

the

Beka'a.

Thirdly,

there

is

none of

the

fine

red

wash

and

red

burnished

ware

at

Shaar

Hagolan typical

of

Pottery

Neolithic

B

Jericho,

Munhatta

2A

and

other

phase

2

sites

all

over

Palestine.

The

presence

of

relatively

early

elements

among

the

flint

tools

such

as

Amuq

arrowheads

and

double-ended

cores

would

indicate

that

the

site

was

first

settled

early

in

Neolithic

3

at

a

time

when

Beisamun,

Tannur,

Qat

and

Abu

Gosh

were

probably

inhabited.

The

pottery

resembles

that

from

Munhatta

2B,

Megiddo

and

Kfar

Giladi

though there

is

very

little

of

the

painted

pottery

-

375

-

found

at

Munhatta

and

Jericho

in

Pottery

Neolithic

A.

It

now

appears

to

me

that

the

grey

incised

pottery

typical

of

Shaar

Hagolan,

Munhatta

and

other

sites

in

the

Northern

Palestine

group

came

into

use

earlier

there

than

at

Jericho

though

it

continued

to

be

made

well

into

phase

2

as

the

evidence

of

Pottery

Neolithic

B

Jericho

makes

clear.

Shaar

Hagolan,

then,

was

probably

occupied

quite

early

in

phase

1

on

the

evidence

of

the

flints

and

may

have

been

inhabited

as

late

as

phase

2

since

its

characteristic

pottery

was

made

in

both

phases.

One

other

phase

1

site

has

been

excavated

at

Hamadiya

east

of

Beth-Shan

on

the

edge

of

the

Jordan

valley.

Some

pits,

floors

and hearths

were

found

here

and

also

a

chipping

floor

on

which

sickle

blades

were

made

(Kaplan,

1965,

^kk).

These

sickle

blades were

segmented

and

coarsely

denticulated.

The

pottery

was

in

general like

that

from

Shaar Hagolan

although

there

were

some

painted

and

coarse

sherds

more

like

those from

Pottery

Neolithic

A

Jericho.

Among

the

other

finds

were

baked

clay

spindle

whorls

and

female

figurines.

It

will

be

clear

from

the

descriptions

I

have

given

of

phase

1

sites

in

Palestine

that

they form

a

distinct

group somewhat different

from

Neolithic

3

sites

further

north.

The

only

habitations

found

on

most

of

them

are

pit

dwellings

and

buildings

of

any

sort

are

rare

whereas further

north

the

normal

type

of

house

is

a

rectilinear

structure

with

several

rooms.

The

phase

1

flint

industry

has

much

in

common

with

sites

further

north

since

its

core

technique

and

several

types

of

tools

such

as

the

tanged

arrowheads

and

segmented

denti-

culated

sickle

blades

are

similar

to

those

of

Ne"olithique

Ancien

Byblos

,

Tell

Ramad

III

and

other

sites

in

the

South

Syrian

group.

Nonetheless

the

phase

1

industry

differs

in

certain

details

from

that

of

these

sites:

for

example

the

arrowheads

are

mostly

quite

small,

the

large arrowheads

of

the

Byblos

and

Amuq

types

being

absent

on

most

sites.

On

the

other

hand

the

small

winged

Palestinian

arrowheads

are

rarely

found

further

north.

The

differences

between

the

pottery

of

the

Palestinian

sites

and

those

-

376

-

further

north

are

more

striking.

There

is

a

link

between

the

grey,

incised

burnished

pottery

of

the

North

Palestine

group of

sites

and

that

of

Kfar

Giladi,

then

at

a

greater

distance

Tell

Ramad

III,

Labweh

and

Ne"olithique

Ancien

Byblos.

The

painted

pottery,

particularly

of

the

South

Palestine

group,

is

a

local

development

not

seen

elsewhere

in

the

Levant.

Certain

unusual

objects

provide

a

cultural

link

with

sites

in

the

South

Syrian

group.

These

are

the

human

pebble

figurines

of

Shaar

Hagolan

and

Munhatta which

are

found

at

Byblos

and

also

the

distinctive

baked

clay

figurines

which

are

matched

at

Tell

Ramad

III

and

Kfar

Giladi.

The

sites

in

the

upper

Jordan

valley,

Kfar

Giladi,

Hagosherim,

Tannur

and

the

others,

provide

a

cultural

link

between

the

sites

in

Palestine proper

and

those

further north

in

the

Beka'a,

on

the

Lebanese

coast

and

east

of

the

Anti-Lebanon.

Phase

1

in

Palestine

thus

appears

to be

a

distinctive

local variant of

Neolithic

3

in

the

rest

of

the

Levant

and

is

probably

broadly

contemporary

with

it.

The

question

of

chronology

is

of

importance

for

another

problem

connected

with

the

beginning

of

Neolithic

3

in

Palestine.

It

will

be

apparent

from

my

description

of

Palestine

phase

1

or

Neolithic

3

sites

that

the

remains

on

most

of

them,

their

structures,

flint

industry

and

other

finds,

are

different

from

those

on

Neolithic

2

sites

in

the

region.

The

same

is

true

of

the

settlement

pattern

since

although

a

few

Neolithic

2

sites

were

also

occupied

in

Neo-

lithic

3

most

were

not

and

the

majority

of

Neolithic

3

sites

are

in

different

locations.

There

is

thus

apparently

a

cultural

break

and

an

abrupt change

in

settlement

pattern

between

Neolithic

2

and

Neolithic

3

in

Palestine

more

complete

than

anything

that

took

place

in

Syria.

We

may now

ask

how

long

did

this

cultural

break

last

and

was

Palestine

partly

or

completely

abandoned

during

that

period?

I

will

discuss

these

questions

now

and

consider

the

reasons

for

this

cultural

break

and

its

implications

for the

economy

and

society

of

the

inhabitants

of

the

region

later

in

the

chapter.

The

fact that

there

was

a

cultural

break, hiatus

or

gap

in

the

Palestinian

sequence

between

Neolithic

2

and

Neolithic

3

has

been

accepted

by

most

-

377

-

archaeologists

for

some

time

although

views

have

differed

on

the

degree of

depopulation

that this

implied

(Perrot,

1968,

cols.

U08-U12;

Mellaart,

1975,

238).

When

discussing

the

problem

in

my

earlier

article

I

could

see

no

evidence

of

settlements

in

Palestine

which

followed

on

directly

from

those

of

Neolithic

2

and

so

reluctantly

accepted

that

Palestine

was

completely

abandoned

(1973,

38).

I

argued

then

that

this

gap

in

occupation

must

have

lasted

at

least

1000

and

perhaps

as

much

as

1500

years,

that

is

from

about

6000

B.C.

to

5000

or

1*500

B.C.

(1973,

6k).

I

arrived

at

these

dates

by

comparing

the

Palestinian

sequence

of

phases

1

and

2

with

sites

in

Lebanon

which

were

dated

by

14

C

determinations.

The

most

important

of

these

was Byblos

with

two

deter-

minations

for

the

Ne'olithique

Ancien

phase.

There

is

now

new

evidence

to

take

into

account

in

discussing

the

question

of

chronology

and

we

also

know

more

about

the

cultural

changes

that

took

place

at

the

end

of

the

7th

and

during

the

6th

millennia

B.C.

Firstly

as

I

mentioned

earlier

in

the

chapter following

the

definitive

publication

of

the

Byblos

dates

by

the

Groningen

laboratory

it

now

appears

that

Ne'olithique

Ancien

Byblos

was

settled

about

5600

or

5700

B.C.,

perhaps

four centuries

earlier

than

we

had

thought.

I

also

think

that

the

transition

from

Ne'olithique

Ancien

to

Moyen

at

Byblos

took

place

about

5000

or kQOQ

B.C.

rather

than

1*500

B.C.

as

was

once

supposed.

The

two

original

llf

C

determinations

from

which

I

have

derived

these

dates

were

made long

ago

and

so

could

be

greatly

in

error.

In

any

case

it

is

unsatisfactory

to

have

to

rely

on

only

two

1!

*C

determinations

for

the

chronology

of

Neolithic

3

not

only

in

Lebanon

but also

in

Palestine.

Although

this

remains

a

serious

difficulty

fortunately

we

do

not

have

to

depend

upon

these

dates

alone.

There

is

now

a

great

deal

of

evidence

from

the

material

remains

of

the

South

Syrian

group

of

sites

to

indicate

that

they were

occupied

approximately

contemporaneously

with

those

in

the

North

Syrian

group,

that

is

during

the

6th

millennium,

and

with

this

my

proposed

dating

for

Byblos accords

very

well.

Within

the

South

Syrian

group

itself

there

is

supporting

evidence

for

this

dating.

Tell

Ramad

III

was

probably occupied

soon after

Ramad

II

or

-

378

-

even

as

a

continuation

of

it.

The

site

was

then

inhabited

until

perhaps

5500

B.C.

The

material

from

Ramad

III

has

always

seemed

to

be

like

that

of

Ne"olithique

Ancien

Byblos

yet Byblos

was

believed

to

be

so

much

later

in

date

and

so

out

of

step

in

its

cultural

development.

On the

new

dating

which

I

am

proposing

the

Neolithic

3

occupation

at

the

two

sites

would

be

almost

contem-

porary which

fits

the

cultural sequence much

better.

We

have

seen that

there

are

resemblances

between

the

material

remains

on

Neolithic

3

sites

in

Palestine,

particularly

those

in

the

Northern

group,

and those

in

the

South

Syrian

group,

especially

Byblos.

Neolithic

3

in

Palestine

probably

began

a

little

after

the

earliest

developments

in

southern

Syria

and

certainly

well

after

the

abandonment

of late

Neolithic

2

sites

such

as

Munhatta

in

Palestine.

Bearing

in

mind

the

new

dates

for Byblos

I

would

now

suggest

with

due

caution

that

this

might

have

happened

about

5500

B.C.

The

second

factor

which

needs

to

be

considered

when

discussing

the

length

of

the gap

in

occupation

between

Neolithic

2

and

Neolithic

3

in

Palestine

is

the

effect of

calibration

on

the few

llf

C

determinations

we

have.

I

have

not

calibrated

the

llf

C

determinations

discussed

in

this

thesis

since

I

do

not

believe

that

it

is

possible

yet

to

do

so,

as

I

explain

in

the Appendix.

Calibration

would,

however,

alter

the

apparent

length

of

the gap

between

Neolithic

2

and

Neolithic

3

in

Palestine

so

in

this

instance

its

effects

should

be

considered.

The

published

calibration

curves,

for

example

those

of

Switsur

(1973,

137),

Ralph

et

al.

(1973,

16)

and Clark

(1975,

25*0, all

extend

back

in

time

no

further

than

the

mid

5th

millennium

B.C.

at

which

time

the

difference

between

the

1£t

C

determinations

and

the

corrected

dates

obtained

from

them

is

between

700

and

850

years.

Although

the

graphs

published

so far

extend

no

further

back

in

time

they

do

indicate

that

the

difference

between

the

ll

*C

determinations

and

the

corrected

dates

is

slightly

reduced

in

the

earlier

5th

millennium.

It

is

thought

that

this

trend

continues

during

the

6th

and

7th

millennia

until

a

point

is

reached

at

which

ltf

C

determinations

are

believed

to give

the

approximately

correct

absolute

dates.

Thus

there

would

still

be

a

difference

of

several

hundred

years

between

a

mid

6th

millennium

14

C

-

379

-

determination

and

the

calibrated

date

but

this

difference

would

be

a

few

centuries

less

in

the

7th

millennium.

This

means

that

the

apparent

difference

between

the

Byblos

date

of

5^10

±

70

B.C.

GrN-15UU

and

the

dates

for

middle

and

late

Neolithic

2

sites

in

the

7th

millennium

would

be

greater

before

than

after

calibration

perhaps

by

as

much

as

two

or

three

centuries.

Thus

an

apparent

gap

of

500

years

between

the

end

of

Neolithic

2

and

the

beginning

of

Neolithic

3

in

Palestine

would

be

significantly

reduced

if

these

figures

were

converted

to

absolute

dates.

Given

the

uncertainties

surrounding

the

dates

themselves

it

would

not be

helpful

to

attempt

to

give

precise

figures

in

absolute

years

for

this

gap

except

to

say

that

it

may

have

lasted

no

more

than

a

few

centuries.

Was

Palestine

completely

abandoned

during

that

time?

Now

that

we

know

more

about

Neolithic

2

and

Neolithic

3

it

seems

that

there

was

some

continuity

of

occupation

though

on a

much

reduced

scale,

a

possibility

that

Perrot

indicated

some

years

ago

using

other

evidence

(1968,

col.

Uo8).

It

is

clear

that

occupa-

tion

continued

on

sites

in

the

upper

Jordan valley from

late

in

Neolithic

2

well

into

Neolithic

3

though these

sites

belong

within

the Syrian

zone

both

culturally

and

geographically

(Moore,

1973,

39).

The

chipped

stone

assemblage

in

the

surface

layer

at

Abu

Gosh

resembles that of the

sites

in

the

upper

Jordan

valley

quite

closely

so

it

would

seem

that

it

was

occupied

very early

in

Neolithic

3

as

they

were

even

if

we

do

not

know

for

certain

that

Abu

Gosh

was

inhabited

continuously

from

late

Neolithic

2.

The

presence

of

Amuq

arrow-

heads,

double-ended

cores

and

even

tranchet

axes

at

Shaar

Hagolan

indicates

that

this

site,

too,

was

inhabited

at

the

end

of

Neolithic

2

or

the

beginning

of

Neolithic

3.

There

was

certainly

a

long

gap

in

occupation

between

the

Neolithic

2

and

Neolithic

3

settlements

at

Munhatta

but

since

the

large

flaked

2

and

polished

axes

found

in

Munhatta

2B

,

though

not

in

later

phases,

are

similar

to

those

at

Abu

Gosh

and

the

upper

Jordan

valley

sites

it

may

be

that

this

site,

too,

was

occupied

very

early

in

Neolithic

3.

The

evidence

from

these three

sites,

Abu

Gosh,

Shaar

Hagolan

and

Munhatta,

suggests

that

Palestine

was

not

completely

abandoned

between

Neolithic

2

and

-

380

-

Neolithic

3

but

that

the

area

continued

to

be

inhabited

albeit

by

much

smaller

groups.

We

can

also

see

an

element

of

typological continuity

between

the

flint

industries

of

Neolithic

2

and

Neolithic

3

in

Palestine

at

these

sites

which

means

that

the

culture

of

Neolithic

3

could

have

developed

locally,

at

least

in

part,

and

need

not

have

been

brought

in

completely from

further

north

by

new

colonists.

This

helps

to

explain

the

strictly

local

style

of

painted

pottery

made

on

sites

in

the

South

Palestine

group

and also

some

of

the

Palestinian

idiosyncracies

in

the

Neolithic

3

chipped

stone

industry.

I

do

not

think

there

was

a

complete

gap

in

occupation

between

Neolithic

2

and

Neolithic

3

in

Palestine

but

it

remains

true

that

there

is

very

little

archaeological

evidence

of

any

settlement

in

Palestine

between

about

6000

and

perhaps

5500

B.C.

on

the

carbon

1U

chronology.

Most

sites

were

deserted

during

this

period

so

that

one

must

suppose

there

was

a

serious

disruption

in

the

way

of

life

practised

in

Neolithic

2.

It

should

also

be

noted

that

relatively

few

sites

were

inhabited

in

Neolithic

3

and

some

of

them

only

quite

late

in

the

period

so

that

Palestine

was

not

occupied

so

intensively

as

before.

Principal

cultural

characteristics

of

Neolithic

3

settlements

The

structures

of

Neolithic

3

sites

in

the

North

and South

Syrian

groups

were

built

in

the

Neolithic

2

tradition.

They were

rectilinear,

usually

multi-

roomed

and constructed

of mud-brick,

stone

and

timber

if

these

were

available

in

the

locality.

Their

interiors

lacked

the

decoration

found

in

many

Neolithic

2

houses,

since, if

they

had

plaster

floors,

these

were

not

coloured

and

there

was

no

painted

plaster

on

the walls.

There

was

a

change

in

both

the type

of

settlement

and

the

style

of

building

in

Palestine.

The

inhabitants

of

Neolithic

3

sites

in

this

region

lived

in

pit

dwellings

and

constructed

few

substantial

buildings.

The

pit

dwellings

were

made

of

timber,

branches

and

reeds

with

very

little

mud-brick

or

stone.

They

would

only

have

been

habitable

for

a

few

years

at a

time

in

contrast

with

the

houses

on

sites

further north

which

would

have

stood

for

a

-

381

-

generation

or more.

The pit

dwellings

on

the

Palestinian

sites

were

thus

occupied

for

much

shorter

lengths

of

time

than

the

houses

on

other

Neolithic

3

sites

which

may

imply

that

the

sites

were

inhabited

for

shorter

periods

also.

There

is

much

evidence

of

continuity

of

tradition

in

the

chipped

stone

industry

although

there

were

certain

significant

changes.

The

two

main

types

of

flint

tool

on

most

sites

were

arrowheads

and

sickle

"blades.

Arrowheads

were

less

numerous

on

most

Neolithic

3

sites

than

they

had

been

in

Neolithic

2,

a

trend

which

is

probably

linked

with

a

decline

in

hunting.

The

proportion

of

sickle

blades

appears to

have

risen

slightly

on

most

sites

though

these

were

made

differently

from

the

usual

Neolithic

2

varieties.

The

finely-

denticulated

ones

were

almost

certainly

principally

used

to

harvest

cereals

but

we

do

not

know

if

the

coarsely-denticulated

ones

were

used

for

this

purpose

or

for

cutting

tough-stemmed

plants

such

as

reeds.

The

increase

in

the

manu-

facture of sickle

blades

is

associated

with

more

intensive agriculture

in

Neolithic

3

but

probably

also

reflects

a

more

methodical

and efficient

exploita-

tion

of

plants

other

than

cereals.

Large

flint

flaked

axes, adzes

and

chisels

were

conspicuous

tools

on

some

Neolithic

3

sites.

They

often

had

polished

edges for

more

efficient

cutting.

They

have

been

found

in

the

Amuq.

at

Tell

Judaidah,

at

sites

along

the

coast

such

as

Tell

Sukas,

Kubbah

I

and

Byblos,

in

the

Beka'a

at

Tell

Labweh

North,

in

the

upper

Jordan

valley

at

Beisamun,

Tannur,

Hagosherim

and

else-

where,

at

Tell

Ramad

III

and

in

Palestine

at

Abu

Gosh

and

Munhatta.

All

these

sites

were

in

the

Mediterranean

forest

zone

where

these

tools

were

used

to

cut

and

work

timber.

They

have

not

been

found

at

sites

in

the

intermediate

open

forest

zone

and

the

steppe

where

trees

were

much

more

scattered.

Small

polished

axes

and

chisels

usually

made

from

imported

hard

greens-tones

were

more

common

in

Neolithic

3

than

Neolithic

2

and

were

also

associated

with

an

increase

in

woodworking.

We saw

in

Chapter

1

that

the

pollen

cores

show

that

man

was

now

exploiting

the

timber

in

the

Mediterranean

forest

zone

in

sufficient

quantity

to

alter

the

vegetation.

-

382

-

Blade

and

flake

scrapers

were

noticeably

less

common

on

most

Neolithic

3

sites

than

before.

These

tools

were

used

particularly

to

clean animal

skins

so

the

decline

in

their

use

was

probably

another

reflection

of

a

reduction

in

hunting.

The

manufacture

and

use

of

pottery

began

about

6000

B.C.

on

sites

in

the

North

and

South

Syrian

groups.

The

idea

of

making

pottery spread

rapidly

throughout

this

region.

Only

in

Palestine

was there

any

delay

since

it

was

not used

much

there

until

new

Neolithic

3

sites

were

founded

following

the

almost

complete collapse

of

the

Neolithic

2

way

of

life.

The

making

of

pottery

began

several

centuries

earlier

in

Anatolia

if

the

carbon

1U

dates

from

Catal

HUyUk

are

correct

since

it

was

used

there

at

least

as

early

as

6300

B.C.

(Mellaart,

1975,

98,

10U).

It

is

possible,

therefore,

that

the

idea

of

potting

spread

south

from

Anatolia

into

the

Levant

rather

than

arising

locally. Most

Neolithic

3

pottery

was

simple

in

shape,

finish

and

manufacture

as

one

would

expect

with

such

a

new

product

but

almost

at

once

regional

styles

of

decoration

and

even

painting

grew

up.

The

pots

were

made

locally,

probably

at

each

settlement

site.

The

wares

were

too

poor

to

withstand

much

rough

treatment

or

to

be

carried

very

far

so

the

product

was

not

traded

in

Neolithic

3.

The

new

type

of

container

must

have

answered

a

universal

need

since

its

widespread

adoption

was

so

rapid.

Pottery

also

came

to

supersede

other

kinds

of

vessels.

Fewer

stone

dishes

and

bowls

were

made

in

Neolithic

3

than

in

Neolithic

2

and

of

those

that

were used

only

a

small

proportion

were

of

the

highly-polished

variety

made

of

attractive

stones

which

were

quite common

in

Neolithic

2.

Most

white

plaster

vessels

were

relatively

large

and

may

have

served

as

storage

vessels.

These

continued

to be

used

well

into

Neolithic

3

and

only

then

were

superseded.

It

probably

took

some

time

to

develop

large

pots

of

fine

enough

quality

to

be

used

instead

of the

plaster

vessels

so

it

was not

until

this

happened

that

they

went

out

of

use.

Querns,

rubbers

and

other

grinding

tools

were more

common

on

many

Neolithic

3

sites

than they

had

been

earlier.

Almost

certainly

this

increase

reflects

a

greater

intensity

of

agricultural

activity.

-

383

-

The

use

of

bone

for

tools

seems

not

to

have

altered

significantly

in

Neolithic

3.

The

same

types

of

borers, spatulae, hafts

and

needles

were

made

as

in

Neolithic

2

and,

so

far

as

we

know,

in

about

the

same

quantity.

These

everyday

tools

seem

to

have

been

used

in

the

same

way

as

before.

Other

arti-

facts

were

made

in

greater

variety

than

in

Stone

maceheads

have

been

found

on

a

number

of

Neolithic

3

sites

which

could

have

been

used

as

weapons

or

weights.

Spindle

whorls

were

certainly

more

common

so

presumably

more

yarn

was

being

spun.

Ornamental

artifacts

were

also

made

in

greater quantity

and

variety.

Colourful

stone

beads

and

amulets

often

made

of

exotic stones

have

been

found

on

most

Neolithic

3

sites

in

the

North

and South

Syrian

groups

though

they

were

less

common

in

Palestine.

Seals,

while

still

rare,

were

certainly

used

more

than

in

Neolithic

2.

A

number

of

examples

have

been

found

on

the

large

settlement

sites

such

as

Tell

Judaidah

and

Byblos.

The

designs

on

them

usually

consisted

of

simple

linear

patterns

but

each

was

different

from

the

others.

I

think

it

reasonable

to

assume

they

were

actually

used

as

seals

or

stamps.

Fewer

human and

animal

figurines

were

made

in

Neolithic

3

than

in

Neolithic

2.

The

human

figurines

that

have

been

found

like

those

at

Munhatta,

Shaar

Hagolan

and

other

southern

sites

were

more

stylised

and

elaborately

fashioned

than

before.

Other

forms

of

human

representation

such

as

the

pebble

figurines

from

Byblos

were

also more

stylised.

The

richer

artifact

inventory

found

on

the

larger

settlement

sites

is

a

sign

of

increased

wealth

among these

communities.

It

is

also

an

indication

that

crafts

were

flourishing

in

response

to

a

greater

demand.

Timespan

of

Neolithic

3

We

know

that

the change

from Neolithic

2

to

Neolithic

3

happened

about

6000

B.C. on

sites

in

the

North

and South

Syrian

groups.

The

chief

indicator

of

this

change

was

the

spread

of

pottery

which

took

place

so

rapidly.

Although

I

believe

we

can

now

distinguish

some

continuity

of

settlement

in

Palestine

from

Neolithic

2

most

Neolithic

3

settlements

there

were

not

founded

until

much

later,

perhaps

after

5500

B.C.

on

the

carbon

1U

chronology.

The

end

of

Neolithic

3

in

north

Syria

was

marked

"by

imports

of

Halaf

pottery

from

sites

east

of

the

Euphrates,

pottery

made

locally

in

the

Halaf

style

and

certain

other

changes

in

material

culture.

The

date

of

this

change

is

difficult

to

determine

precisely

since

there

are

few

carbon

1^

dates

from

sites

occupied

in

the

late

6th

and

early

5th

millennia.

The

date

of

5620

±

35

B.C.

GrN-2660

from

an

early

Halaf

level

at

Tell

Halaf

itself

would,

if

correct,

indicate

that

the

Halaf

culture

crystallized

very

early

in

its

heartland.

There

are

dates

from

Arpachiyah

of

5077

±

83

B.C.

P-58U

for

level

TT8

and

611U

±

78 B.C.

P-585

for

the

more recent level

TT6

(Radiocarbon

7,

1965,

188).

The

chronology

indicated

by

these determinations

is

the

reverse

of

their

stratigraphic

position

and

both

are

widely

separated

in

time

so

they

can

only

give

a

very

general

indication

of

the

period

when

the

site

was

occupied.

Nevertheless

they

are

in

the

same time

range

as

the

determination

from

Tell

Halaf.

These

three determinations

suggest

that

the

change

from

Neolithic

3

to

Halaf

on

sites

east

of

the

Euphrates

and

in

Assyria

where

Halaf

developed

took

place

well

before

5000

B.C.,

perhaps

about

5500

B.C.

Neolithic

3

continued

longer

in

north-west

Syria

since

the

influence

of

Halaf

was

not

felt

in

this

region until

several centuries

after

it

began

further

east.

The

14C

date

of

523

1

*

±

8U

B.C.

P-^57

for

Ras

Shamra V

A

indi-

cates

that

this

could

not

have

taken

place

until

near

the

end

of

the

6th

millennium.

It

seems

probable

that

Neolithic

3

was

subsumed

within

Halaf

in

north

Syria

about

5000

B.C.

or

a

century

or

so

earlier.

The

change

from

Neolithic

3

to

Neolithic

h

in

south

Syria took

place

perhaps

a

little

later.

I

have

already

indicated

that

I

believe

this

could

have

happened

about

5000 or

U800

B.C.

at

Byblos.

There

are

three

dates

ranging

from

^920

±

130

B.C.

K-1U32

to U8UO

±

130

B.C.

K-1U3^

from

a

phase

of

occupation

early

in

Neolithic

k

at

the

site

of

Ard

Tlaili

in

the

Beka'a

(Kirkbride,

1969,

55;

Mellaart,

1975,

287)

so

the

transition

must

have

already

-

385

-

occurred

by

this

time

there.

There

can

hardly

have

been

much

difference

between

the

timing

of

this

change

at

Byblos

and

on

sites

in

the

Beka'a

so

I

would

suggest that

it

took

place

about

5000

B.C.

or

perhaps

a

century

later

on

sites

in

the

South

Syrian

group.

The

transition

from

Neolithic

3

to

Neolithic

h

in

Palestine

probably

occurred

slightly

later

still given the

tendency

for

cultural

changes

in

the

6th

and

5th

millennia

to

occur

here

a

little

after their

development

further

north.

hQOO

B.C.

might

be

a

reasonable

estimate

for

the

date

of

this

transition

in

Palestine.

Distribution

of

sites

The

north

Syrian

plain

is

a

huge

area of

fertile

land stretching

away

south

from

the

hill

country

between

the

Amanus

and

the

upper

Tigris.

The

northern

strip

of this

plain

was

relatively

well-watered

in

Neolithic

3

making

it

attractive

for

settlement.

Neolithic

3

sites

(Fig.

35)

have

been

found

from

as

far east

as

the

headwaters

of

the

Khabur

westward

to

Aleppo

(Tell

Halaf, Tell

Aswad

(Balikh),

Judaidah

Jabbul).

Further

west

beyond

the

plateau

lies

the

Amuq.

plain

which

was

densely

settled

in

Neolithic

3

(Tell

Judaidah,

Tell

Dhahab, Wadi

Hammam).

The

fertile

plain

of

western

Syria

also

received

adequate rainfall

and

this

area,

too,

was

settled

in

Neolithic

3

(Hama,

Horns).

Just

to

the

west

lay

the

Ghab

section

of

the

Rift

valley

and

at

least

one

site

is

known

to

have

been

occupied

here

(Qal'at

el

Mudiq.).

Sites

have

been

found

high

in

the

Jebel

Alawiye

between

the

Orontes

and

the

coast

(Janudiyeh)

and

then

in

the

series

of

small plains

between

the

mountains

and

the

sea

(Ras

Shamra,

Tell

Sukas,

Tabbat

el

Hammam).

This

pattern

of

coastal

settlement

extended

further

south

into

Lebanon

(Byblos,

Kubbah

I)

and

Palestine

with

sites

near

the sea

(Givat

Haparsa,

Nizzanim,

Ashkelon)

and

also

further

inland

on

the

coastal

plain

(Lydda,

Wadi

Rabah).

The

whole

of

the

Beka'a

was

settled

(Tell

Labweh,

Tell

Neba'a

Faour

I,

Kaukaba)

and

also

its

southern

extension,

the

upper

Jordan

valley

(Beisamun,

Tannur,

Hagosherim)

The

Damascus

basin

east

of

the

Anti-Lebanon

was

also

occupied

(Tell

Ramad).

In

Palestine

as

well

as

the

sites

on

the

coastal

plain

there

were settlements

-

386

-

in

the

foothills

(Teluliot Batashi)

and

in

the

Judean

mountains

themselves

(Abu

Gosh).

Further north

the

Plain

of

Esdraelon

was

inhabited

(Megiddo)

and

the valleys

running

eastward

to

the

Jordan

(Beth-Shan).

Several

more

settle-

ments

were

situated

in

the

Jordan

valley

itself

(Jericho,

Wadi

el

Yabis,

Munhatta,

Shaar

Hagolan).

Nearly

all

these

sites

were

situated

in

areas

of fertile

land with

sufficient

rainfall

for

agriculture.

They

were

also

usually

on

terraces

in

river

valleys,

on

the

edge

of

inland

plains

or

on

the

plains

along the

coast

and

near

running

water

or

springs.

Their

catchments

thus

included

a

high

proportion

of

arable

land.

The

pattern

of

Neolithic

3

settlement

was quite

dense

in

the

most

favoured

areas

such

as

the

Amuq

plain,

the

Beka'a

and

the

Jordan

valley.

In

contrast

very

few

sites

were

to

be

found

in

the

hill

country

and

mountains

of

the

Levant,

certainly

far

fewer

than

in

Neolithic

2.

The

few

sites

known

in

these

upland

regions,

Janudiyeh,

Tannur,

Qat

and

Abu

Gosh

for

example,

were

different

types

of site

from

those

in

the

lowlands

with

little

arable

land

nearby.

Except

for

these

upland

sites

most

Neolithic

3

settlements

throughout

the

Levant were

similarly

located

in

positions

that

offered

good

arable

land,

reliable

rainfall

and

a

permanent

water

supply.

This

settlement

pattern

existed

in

Neolithic

2

but

only

as

part of

a

much more

generalised

distribution

of

sites

in

every

environmental

zone.

There

was

a

great

displacement

of

settlement

in

the

Levant

and

in

the

north-east

of

Syria

during

Neolithic

3.

We

have

seen

that

at

the

outset

there

were

settlements

along

the

Euphrates

from

Abu

Hureyra

as

far

downstream

as

Buqras

at

the

confluence

with

the

Khabur.

This

area

ceased

to

be

inhabited

early

in

Neolithic

3.

The

steppe

zone

east

and

west

of

the

Euphrates

was

also

abandoned.

This

included

the

area

around

Palmyra

in

which

many

stations

had

been

inhabited

in

Neolithic

2;

only

El

Kum

which

was

located

in

a

unique

position

near

a

permanent

source of

water

on

the

route

through

the

hills

from

Palmyra

to

Risafe

and

Raqqa

continued

to

be

occupied

into

Neolithic

3

but

even

this

site

seems

to

have

been

abandoned

during

the

6th

millennium.

Only

one

site,

Tell

Ramad,

is

known

to

have

been

occupied

in

the

Damascus

basin

-

38?

-

in

Neolithic

3.

Further

south

the

TransJordan

plateau

was

abandoned

completely

so

far

as

we

know

from

present

evidence.

There

were

no

sites

to

the

east

of

the

Wadi

Arabah

in

the

Jafr

basin

or

further

to

the

south-east

as

there

had

been

in

Neolithic

2.

One

or

two

surface

stations

in

the

Negev

and

Sinai

may

have

been

occupied

during

Neolithic

3

but

otherwise

this

vast

area,

known

to

have

been

inhabited

in

Neolithic

2,

was

also

abandoned.

In

Palestine

itself

occupation

ceased

almost

completely

for

several

centuries

and

settlements

were

only

gradually

founded

later

in

Neolithic

3.

Such

a

major

alteration

in

the

settlement

pattern took

place

in

response

to

important

changes

in

the

climate,

vegetation

and

economy

as

I

shall

explain

later

in

the

chapter.

Almost

all

Neolithic

3

sites

were

in

the

open,

the

only

exceptions

known

to

me

being

et-Tauamin

and

Wadi

Hammam,

the

second

of

which

was

low-lying

with

good

access

to

well-watered

agricultural

land

like

most of

the

other

settle-

ments.

The

types

of

sites

were

somewhat

different

from

those

of

Neolithic

2.

There

were

very

few,

if

any,

hunting

stations,

the

only

possible

ones

being

several

surface

sites

in

Palestine

which

may

have

been

occupied

in

Neolithic

3.

Other

specialised

stations

such

as

factory

sites

were

also

rare,

Sepphoris

being

the

only

sure

example.

Every

other

Neolithic

3

site that

I

have

described

was

a

settlement

with

a

wide

range

of

material

equipment

and,

on

the

excavated

sites,

remains

of

houses

and

other

kinds

of

habitation.

A

full

artifact

inventory

and

traces

of

dwellings

in

several

instances

have

even

been

found

on

the

upland

sites.

The

settlements

varied

greatly

in

area.

Hamadiya

was

100

sq

m

(Kaplan,

1965,

5kk)

,

Tell

Turmus

apparently

about

300

sq.

m

and

Abu

Gosh

perhaps

1000

sq

m

but

these

were

unusually

small.

Most

were

larger

although

since

so

many

lie

beneath

great tells

or

are

known

only

from

surface

surveys

we

cannot

be

sure

how

extensive

they

really

were.

Tell

Ramad

was

at

least

1

ha

and

Byblos

1.2

ha

as

no

doubt

were

many

other

Neolithic

3

sites.

Several

settlements

were

comparable

in

type

to

the

very

large

ones

of

Neolithic

2.

Jericho covered

h

ha

-

388

-

and

Abu

Hureyra

between

5

and

6

ha

before

it

was

abandoned.

Tell

Judaidah

may

have

been

of

the

same

order

of magnitude.

Hagosherim

also

extended

over

several

hectares

but

does

not

seem

to

have

been

so

densely

populated

as

the

other

very

large

sites.

The

Neolithic

3

settlement

at

Ras

Shamr.a

covered

at

least

8

ha

as

had

its

Neolithic

2

predecessor

making

it

the

largest

known

site

of

this

stage

in

the

Levant.

Neolithic

3

lasted

about

the

same

length

of

time

as

Neolithic

2

and

approximately

the

same

proportion

of

sites

that

once

existed

in

both

periods

have

probably been

found.

One

may

thus

deduce

what

change

in

population,

if

any,

took

place

between

Neolithic

2

and

Neolithic

3.

I

have

mentioned

80

sites

which

I

believe

were

occupied

in

Neolithic

3.

This

is

fewer

than

the

123

Neolithic

2

sites

I

listed

in

the

Accurate

information

about

the

sizes

of

Neolithic

3

sites

is

scarce

but

I

believe

that

many

of

the

settlement

sites

were

somewhat

larger

than

those

of

Neolithic

2.

Some

were

occupied

only

briefly

but

many

such

as

Tell

Judaidah,

Ras

Shamra, Byblos

and

Jericho

were

inhabited

for

at

least

half

and

in

certain

instances

all

of

Neolithic

3.

There

thus

seems

to

be

no

evidence

of

any

marked

increase

or

decrease

of

population

in

the

Levant

as

a

whole

even

though

the

Neolithic

3

settlement

pattern

was

so

different

from

that of

Neolithic

2.

This

conclusion

while

valid

for the

Levant

in

general

does

not

hold

true

in

Palestine.

I

have

listed

20

Palestinian

sites

known

to

have

been

occupied

in

Neolithic

3

whereas

the

total

for

Neolithic

2

was

about

double

this

number.

Moreover

many

of

the

Neolithic

3

sites

were

occupied

relatively

briefly

as

we have

seen.

The

population

here

did

apparently

decrease

in

Neolithic

3.

Economy

Many

Neolithic

3

sites

were

excavated long

ago

and

little evidence

for

their

economies

was

recorded

while

few

animal

bones

and

plant

remains

have

been

found

on

others

dug

more

recently.

For

these

reasons

we have

much

less

information

about

the

economies

of

Neolithic

3

than

of

Neolithic

2

sites.

I

will

briefly

review

such

evidence

as

there

is

region

by

region

in

order

-

389

-

to

present

an

outline

of

how

the

inhabitants

of

Neolithic

3

settlements

supported

themselves

and

in

what

ways

the

economies

of

these

sites

had

changed

since

Neolithic

2.

The

inhabitants

of

the

Neolithic

3

settlement

at

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

grew

three

principal

kinds

of

domestic

cereals,

emmer,

both

one

and

two-grained

einkorn,

and

both

naked

and

hulled

six-rowed

barley.

Some

oats

were

also

grown.

Lentils,

chick-peas

and

common

vetch

were

cultivated

while

capers

and

prosopis were

collected

in

the

neighbourhood.

Study

of

the

flotation

samples

from

Abu

Hureyra

has

shown

that

the

inhabitants

depended

upon

culti-

vated

cereals

for

food to

a

greater

extent

in

this

phase

than

earlier

and

that

they

grew

more

of

the

relatively

developed

strains.

More

legumes

were

also

grown

in

this

phase and

fewer plants

collected

from

the

wild.

Agriculture

now

provided

nearly

all

the

plant

foods

that

were

eaten

and

wild

plants

were

no longer

important

in

the

diet.

A

faunal

sample

from

the

Neolithic

3

levels

which

has

been

analysed

proved

to

contain

several

species

in

much

the

same

proportions

as

the

sample

from

the

late

Neolithic

2

levels

(Legge,

1975,

7*0.

By

far

the

largest

number

of

bones

was

from

sheep

with

some

goat

also

present

(69%

together).

Gazelle

were

the

second

most

numerous

species

(22%)

but

cattle and

pig

were

much

less

common.

A

few

fallow and

roe

deer

together

with

equid

and

hare

were

also

killed.

In

addition

to

these

ruminants

the

inhabitants

continued

to

eat

significant

amounts

of

freshwater

mussels

and

fish

which

they took

from

the

Euphrates.

We

believe

that

the

sheep

and

goat

were

herded

while

the

gazelle

may

also have

been

subject

to

some

kind

of

control.

The status

of

the

cattle

is

difficult

to

determine

but

we

know

that

both

Bos

primigenius

and

a

smaller

kind

were

being

killed.

The

other

animals

eaten

were

probably

all

wild.

It

appears

that

this

pattern

of

animal

exploitation

had

stabilised

several

centuries

earlier

and

then

did

not

alter

significantly

before

the

settlement

was

abandoned.

-

390

-

Some

information

is

available

about

the

fauna

of

the

Neolithic

3

settle-

ment

at

Buqras

though

not

enough

for

us

to

determine

with

certainty

the

pattern

of animal

exploitation

there.

Cattle

bones

both

of

a

large

animal

thought

to

be

Bos

primigenius

and

a

smaller

one

were

found

and since

many

of

the

bones

of

the

smaller

species

came

from

juveniles

this

beast

was

probably

domesticated

(Hooijer,

1966,

193).

Sheep

and

goat

bones

were

very

common,

sheep

being

three

times

more

abundant

than

goat

(Hooijer,

1966,

19*0-

It

is

not

known

if

the

sheep

were

domesticated

but

Hooijer believes

that

the

goats

were

on

the

evidence

of

the

horn

cores

found

in

these

levels.

Such

morpholo-

gical

criteria

are

not

always

thought

to

be

the

best

indications

of

domesti-

cation

on

early

sites

now

and

it

is

therefore

of

some

interest

that

the

outline

pattern

of

animal

exploitation

at

Buqras

has

much

in

common

with

that

at

Abu

Hureyra.

Sheep

and

to

a

much

lesser

extent

goats

seem

to

have

been

the

important

food

animals

at

both

sites

with

some

cattle

also

being

eaten.

I

have

already

suggested

that

ovicaprines

were

herded

at

Buqras

in

Neolithic

2

as

we

believe them

to

have

been

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

it

seems

this

strategy

was

maintained

until

the

settlement

was

abandoned.

Some animal

bones

were

found

at

Tell

Sukas,

sufficient

to

enable

us

to

deduce

something

of

the

economy

of the

Neolithic

3

site.

Pig

bones

were

particularly

common

while

sheep, goat,

gazelle

and

cattle

seem

to

have

been

the

other

mainstays

of the

diet

(Riis,

Thrane,

197^-j

16,

31,

59»

73).

Remains

of

dog

and

equid

were

also

found

together

with

red and fallow

deer.

This

indicates

that

red

deer

had

not

quite

disappeared from

the

Levant

although

their

numbers

are

thought

to

have

sharply

diminished

by

this

time.

The

principal

food

animals

are

those

of

other

Neolithic

3

sites

in

the

Levant

though

pigs

seem

to have

been

eaten

here

in

greater

quantity

than

was

usual

elsewhere.

Presumably

the

sheep

and

goat

were

domesticated

while

the

pig,

gazelle

and

cattle

may

also

have

been

controlled.

Tell

Sukas

is

beside

the

sea

with

good

natural

harbours

which

were

already

in

existence

in

the 6th

millennium

so

the

inhabitants

probably

caught

and

ate

fish

even

if

fish

remains

were

not

found

in

the

excavation.

-

391

-

Even

less

is

known

about

the

economy

of

Ras

Shamra

during

Neolithic

3.

The

principal

food

animals

were

pig,

cattle

and

sheep

which

are

thought

to

have

been

domesticated

(de

Contenson,

1963,

36).

Presumably

sea

fish

were

also

eaten.

The

inhabitants

ate

a

greater

proportion

of

meat

from

their

herds

later

in

Neolithic

3

than

they

had

earlier.

This

pattern

of

exploitation

resembles

that

from

Tell

Sukas

more

than

Abu

Hureyra

further

east.

Both

Tell

Sukas

and

Ras

Shamra

are

situated

in

areas

of good

arable

land

but

flocks

and

herds

could

have

been pastured

on

fallow

land

at

a

little

distance from

the

main

settlements.

Much

the

same

pattern

of

animal

expolitation

seems

to

have

been

practised

further

north

at

Tell

Judaidah.

Here

again

the

main food

animals

were

pigs,

sheep

or

goats

and

cattle

(Braidwood,

Braidwood,

1960,

67,

99).

Some

of

the

cattle

may

have

been

Bos

primigenius

since

the

horn

cores

found

were

particu-

larly

large.

It

is

believed

that

these

species

were

domesticated.

Red

and

fallow

deer

were

also

killed

as

at

Tell

Sukas

and

there

is

indirect

evidence

that

an

equid

was

exploited

(Helbaek,

1960,

5^3).

We

know

that

gazelle

were

eaten

at

the

Wadi

Hammam

(O'Brien,

1933,

177)

so

they

were probably

also

killed

by

the

inhabitants

of

Tell

Judaidah.

About

one

third

of

the

surrounding

catch-

ment

at

Tell

Judaidah

consisted

of

limestone

slopes

which

would

have

provided

good

grazing

for

sheep

and

goats

and

some

pasture

for cattle.

The

pigs

could

have

foraged

very

well

among the

thickets

bordering

the

streams of

the

Amuq.

plain.

The

catchment

of

the

Wadi

Hammam

cave

included

a

much

higher

proportion

of

the

limestone

slopes

so

presumably

herding

and

perhaps

hunting

were

more

important

to

the

inhabitants.

Helbaek

found

the

impressions

of

grains

of

several

cereals

in

the

tempering

of

sherds

of

coarse

simple

ware

from

Tell

Judaidah.

Two

kinds,

emmer

and

hulled

barley,

would

have

been

the

important

food

crops

while

two

others,

oats

and

rye

grass

(Lolium

cf.

Gaudini),

were

present

as

weeds

in

the

fields

of

cereals

(Helbaek,

1960,

5^0,

5^2,

5^3).

It

would

seem

from

this

scanty

data

that

the

main

cereals

cultivated

at

Tell

Judaidah

-

392

-

were

similar

to

those

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

other

Neolithic

3

sites.

We

know

more

about

the

economy

of

Byblos than of

the

other

sites

near

the

Levant

coast

since

a

wider

range

of

plant

and

animal remains

has

been

recovered

from

the excavations.

The

inhabitants

cultivated

wheat

and

barley

and,

it

is

thought,

vetch,

lentils

and

beans

(Dunand,

1973,

35).

They

also

used

the

fruits

of

the

olive

and

the

vine.

Dunand

has

suggested

that

they

cultivated

almonds

and

pomegranates,

figs

and

carob.

If

this

were

true

then

the

agriculture

of

Neolithic

3

Byblos

would

already

have

been

broadly-based.

About

60%

of

the

animal

bones

studied

were

from

domesticated

species.

The

food

animals

were

cattle,

sheep,

goat

and pig

while domesticated

dogs

were

also

kept.

A

wide

range

of

wild

animals

was still

hunted,

deer

in

particular

since

red,

fallow and

roe

deer bones

were

also

found.

Gazelle

and

wild

boar

were

eaten

and

a

few

bear,

hippopotamus

and

crocodile

were

also

killed.

No

less

than

7%

of

the

identified

bones

came

from

fish.

Fish

bones

decay

before

those

of

ruminants

and

so are

always

under-represented

in

faunal

collections.

Where

such

a

large

proportion

of

fish

bones

has

been

found

one

may

presume

that

their

numbers

originally

were

much

greater.

The

economy

of

the

Neolithic

3

Byblites

was

based

upon

cereal

and legume

agriculture, herding,

fishing

and

hunting.

The

same

species

of

plants and

animals

were

domesticated

as

on

other

sites

on or

near

the

sea

but

at

Byblos

there

are

indications

that

a

wide

range

of fruits

and

nuts

was

also

being

cultivated.

Fishing

was

an

important

supplement

and

hunting

still

seems

to

have

provided

much

of

the

meat

that

was

eaten,

more

than

at

Abu

Hureyra

for

example.

The

hinterland

of Byblos

beyond

the

arable of

the

narrow

coastal

plain

was

hilly

with

forest

and

abundant

surface

water.

Wild

ruminants

would

have

found

ample

sustenance

and

good

cover

in

such

country

which

partly

explains

why

they

could

still

provide

substantial

quantities

of

meat.

The

Neolithic

3

settlement

at

Byblos

was

not

very

large

so

these

species

were

not

over'exploited

as

may

have

happened

in

the

area

around

Abu

Hureyra.

-

393

-

During

the

investigation

of

Hagosherim

in

the

upper

Jordan valley

a

small

sample

of

animal

"bones

was

collected

of

which

197

were

subsequently

identified,

63.5%

of

these

were

from

cattle

mostly

of

moderate

size

and

the

rest

from

gazelle,

sheep,

goat,

an

equid

and

fallow

and

roe

deer

(Ducos,

1968,

88;

1969,

table

1;

Perrot,

1968,

col.

1*11).

Ducos

was

able

to

determine

the

age

at

death

of

the

cattle

and

from

this

deduced

that

they

had

been

culled

from

domesticated

herds.

Perrot

preferred

to

interpret

the

age

pattern

as

evidence

of

selective

hunting

of

herds

roaming

freely

in

the

enclosed

basin

of

the

upper

Jordan

valley.

We

have

seen

that

there

is

good

reason

to

suppose

that

a

similar

species

of

cattle

was

domesticated

at

Sheikh

Ali and

Ras

Shamra

in

Neolithic

2

so,

allowing

for the

difficulty

of

interpreting

such

a

small

sample,

I

believe

that

Ducos

is

probably

correct

in

his

interpretation.

The

gazelle,

sheep

and

goat

eaten

at

Hagosherim

may

also

have

come

from

herds

controlled

by

man.

At

Tell

Ramad

the

same

species

of

cereals

and

legumes

were

cultivated

in

Neolithic

3

as

in

Neolithic

2.

These

were

hulled

two-row

barley,

emmer,

einkorn,

club

wheat

and

lentils, emmer

being

more

common

than

the

other

cereals

(van

Zeist,

Bottema,

1966,

179

5

180).

The

principal

food

animals

were

sheep, goats,

pigs,

cattle

and gazelle

(Hooijer,

1966,

195).

It

is

thought

that

the

first

four

together with

the

dog

were

domesticated

(de

Contenson,

19715

285).

The

inhabitants

of

Neolithic

3

Ramad

thus

depended

upon

their

crops

and

herds

for

food

supplemented

a

little

by

wild

plants

and

game.

This

is

a

different

system

from

that

practised

by

the

inhabitants

in

Neolithic

2

since

although

they

were

growing

the

same

plants

they

now obtained

most

of

their

meat

from

three

new

domesticates,

sheep, goats

and

cattle.

There

is

even

less

evidence

for

the

economies

of

the

Palestinian

sites

than

for

those

further

north;

the

fauna!

samples

are

modest

at

best

and

plant

remains

have

been recovered

only

from

Pottery

Neolithic

levels

at

Jericho.

The

seeds

here

included

hulled

two-rowed

barley,

einkorn

and

emmer

(Hopf,

1969,

356)

all of

which

had

been

cultivated

at

the

site

in

Neolithic

2.

Few

other

plant

remains

were recovered

from

these

levels.

The

position

of

most

other

sites

suggests

that

their inhabitants

needed

well-watered

fertile

arable

land

for

agriculture.

Many

grinding

tools

have

been

found

at

these

sites

which

may

have

been

used

to

process

the

crops.

These

are

the

only

other

indications

we

have

of

what

the

plant

economy

might

have

been.

The

main food

animals

at

Jericho

were

sheep

and

goats

although

some

gazelle

and

cattle

were

also

killed

(Glutton-Brock,

1971,

^6,

5*0.

The

cattle

bones

were

of

a

large

animal

which

was

probably

Bos

primigenius.

The

sheep

and

goats

were

almost

certainly

domesticated

and

the

gazelle

may

still

have

been

controlled.

In

addition

to

these

animals

bones

of

foxes

and

a

canid

were

found

as

in

the

earlier

settlements

(Glutton-Brock,

1969,

fig.

1).

The

inhabitants

of

Ashkelon

ate

both

fish

and

shellfish

as

one

would

expect

on

a

site

so

near

the

sea.

They

also

killed

cattle

(Bos

taurus),

gazelle

and

goats

(Perrot,

1968,

col.

1*08).

These

three

animals

were

probably

herded

or

controlled.

The

same

may

be said of

the

caprinae,

cattle

and

gazelle

which

were

eaten

at

Nizzanim.

The

evidence

from

sites

in

northern

Palestine

suggests

that

their

economies

depended

on

the

same species.

Cattle

bones

from

medium-sized

beasts

have

been

identified

from

Megiddo

(Bate,

19^-8,

139).

An

examination

of

the

catchment of

the

site

permits

us

to

enlarge

on

this

meagre

evidence.

Although

there

is

much

good

arable

land

north-east

of

the

site

on

the

Plain

of Esdraelon

almost

half

the

catchment

consists

of

limestone

slopes

on

the

south-west

side

best

suited

to

pasture

(Vita-Finzi,

Higgs,

1970,

table

k).

The

inhabitants

must

always

have

relied

heavily

upon

their

flocks

and

herds

for

food,

cattle

certainly

but

probably

also

sheep

and

goat.

The

sample

of animal bones

which

could

be

identified

from

Neolithic

3

Munhatta

comprised

only

121

bones

but

these

came

from

six

species.

Cattle,

pig,

gazelle

and

sheep

were

present

in

approximately

equal

proportions

but

there

were

also

a

few

goat

and

roe

deer

bones

in

the

sample

(Ducos,

1968,

91;

table

1).

Ducos

believed

that

since

many

of the

pigs

were

killed

young

they

-

395

-

were domesticated

(1969,

273).

Perrot,

however,

thought

that

all

these

animals

were

subject

to

little

or

no

human

control

(1968,

col.

U15).

The

evidence

from

other

Neolithic

3

sites

and

nearby

Sheikh

Ali

in

Neolithic

2

would

suggest

the

contrary, that

the

cattle,

pigs,

gazelle,

sheep

and

goat

were

all

herded.

Almost

the

same

list

of

species

has

been

identified

from

Shaar

Hagolan

as

from

Munhatta.

The

bones of

cattle,

pigs,

sheep, goats,

gazelle

and

an

equid

as

well

as

camels,

dogs

and

birds

were

found

here

(Stekelis,

1950-51,

^» 16).

Presumably

the

pattern

of

exploitation

was

similar

at

both

sites.

Several

general

points

may

be

made

about

the

economies of

Neolithic

3

sites.

Agriculture

and

herding

accounted

for

a

greater

proportion

of

the

food supply

than

in

Neolithic

2.

The

corollary

of

this

is

of

course

that

hunting

and

the

collecting

of

wild

plants

were

less

significant

than before.

The

three

main

cereal

crops

grown

were

emmer,

einkorn

and

barley

while

the

most

usual

legumes

were

lentils

and

vetch.

There

is

a

difference

between

the

animal

husbandry

of the

two

Euphrates

sites,

Abu

Hureyra

and

Buqras,

still

occupied

early

in

Neolithic

3

and

the

other

sites

further

west

in

Syria

and

Palestine.

Sheep

were

the

most

numerous

species

on

the

Euphrates

sites

while

goats,

cattle

and

at

Abu

Hureyra

gazelle,

provided

almost

all

the

other

meat.

Elsewhere

sheep, goats,

cattle

and

pigs

were

all

important

sources

of meat

while

gazelle still

accounted

for

a

sig-

nificant

proportion

of

the

meat

supply

on

several

sites.

At

a

few

settlements

much of

the

meat

came

from

one

species,

cattle

at

Hagosherim

and

probably

pigs

at

Tell

Sukas

but

this

pattern

was

unusual.

Normally

the inhabitants

of

the

western

sites

satisfied

their

need

for

meat

more

evenly

from

their

flocks

and

herds of the four

main

domesticated

species.

Hunting

and

on

coastal

sites,

fishing,

still

provided

some

of

the

meat

that

was

eaten

although

given

the

evidence

we

have

it

is

difficult

to

assess

its

precise

importance.

Deer

bones,

particularly

of

fallow

and

roe

deer,

have

been identified

at

half

the

sites

from

which

fauna!

samples

have

been

recovered.

Their

presence

is

-

396

-

more

marked

than

in

Neolithic

2

so

it

seems

these

species

were

hunted

more

than

they

had

been

before.

This

is

in

spite

of

the

fact

that

red

deer

are

thought

to

have

been

in

full

retreat

as

the

temperature

rose

and

the

forests

diminished

and

that

the

other

cervids

are

also

believed

to

have

declined

in

numbers

(Ducos,

1969,

268).

The

evidence

of

site

distribution,

plant

and

animal

remains

and artifacts

indicates

that

settlement

types

and

their economies

were

less

diverse

than

in

Neolithic

2.

The

inhabitants

of almost

all

the

sites

in

the

North

and

South

Syrian

groups

depended

upon

agriculture

and

herding

for

their

livelihood.

The

pattern

of

settlement

once

established

was stable

and

the

sites

were

usually occupied

for

relatively

long

periods.

The

economies

of these

settle-

ments

must

therefore

have

provided

an

adequate

food

supply

during

their

life-

time.

The

likely

agricultural

system

was

one

of

short

fallow

as

I

have

postulated

for

Neolithic

2

settlements

but

since

crops

now

provided

more

of

the

food

it

was

probably

more

intensive.

This

could

have

been

achieved

by

shortening

the

fallow

period,

manuring

the

fields

more

and

rotating

the

crops

more

frequently.

The

second

of

these

would

have

been

partly

achieved

by

pasturing

the

increased

flocks

and

herds

on

the

fields.

The

regular presence

of

vetches

in

the

few

samples

of

seed

remains

from

Neolithic

3

sites

is

an

indication

that

crop

rotation

continued

to

be

practised.

The

inhabitants

of

Neolithic

3

sites

exploited

fewer

species

of

plants

and

animals

largely

because

they

hunted

less

game

and

collected

fewer

wild

plants.

On

the

other

hand

they

grew

a

wide

range

of plants

and

herded

a

particularly

varied

selection

of

animals.

Herding

appears

to

have

greatly

increased

in

importance

but

was

nearly

always

carried

on

by

the

inhabitants

of

settlement

sites

in

conjunction

with

agriculture.

The

settlements

of

the

steppes

which

were

so

numerous

in

Neolithic

2

had

disappeared

and

with

them

the

pastoral

economy

by

which

I

believe

they

were

sustained.

Pastoralism

in

Neolithic

3

was

largely

restricted

to

the

vicinity

of each

settlement.

Only

the few

sites

found

in

the

hills

like

Janudiyeh,

Tannur

and

Qat

may

-

397

-

have depended

upon

pastoralism

for

which

their

catchments

would

have

been

well-suited.

These

may,

indeed,

have

been

transhumance

settlements

to

which

groups

from

sites

in

the

lowlands

took

their

flocks

and

herds

in

the

summer.

There

were very

few

of

these

sites

from

which

one

concludes

that

transhumance

was

not

an

important

feature

of

the

Neolithic

3

economy.

The

absence

of

hunting

stations

at

least

in

the

area

of

the

North

and South

Syrian

sites,

reinforces

the

fauna!

evidence

from

the

settlements

suggesting

that

hunting

diminished

further

in

Neolithic

3.

The

pattern

of

existence

in

Palestine

was

different

from

that

further

north.

A

few

sites

were

occupied

for

quite

as

long

as

those

in

Syria

but

most were

not.

The

population

also appears

to have fallen

markedly

in

Neolithic

3.

The

inhabitants

of

settlements

in

Palestine

could

thus

provide

all

the

food

they

needed

with

a

less

intensive

system

than

that

practised

further

north,

indeed

with

a

simpler

system

than

that

of

Neolithic

2

settle-

ment

sites

in

the

same

area.

The

economy

of

the

Palestinian

settlements

depended

upon

crop

agriculture

and

the

herding

of

a

wide

range

of

beasts

as

it

did

in

Syria

but

I

do

not

think

the

same

short

fallow

system

was

used.

It

will

be

useful

here

to

remember

that

Boserup

suggested

that

when

the

population

of

a

region

fell

then

in

time

the

inhabitants

would

revert

to

a

less

intensive

subsistence

system

(1965»

62).

They

probably

practised

what

Boserup

called

bush

fallow

cultivation

in

which

the

land

was

left

fallow

for

longer

than

in

the

short

fallow

system,

perhaps

for

as

many

as

eight

years

(I965j

2Uff).

The

land

would

then

be

cleared

of

the

vegetation

which

had

grown

up

and

crops

planted.

Under

this

system

the

settlement

would

be

moved

after

a

number

of

years

since

the

land

would

gradually

become

exhausted.

This

seems

to

have

happened

to

most

of

the

Neolithic

3

sites

in

Palestine

since

few

of

them

were

long-lived.

Transhumance

may

have

played

a

minor

part

in

the

Neolithic

3

economy

of

Palestine

as

it

did

in

Syria.

Abu

Gosh

could

have

served

as

a

summer trans-

humance

camp.

Hunting

still

had

its

place

here,

too.

Small

game

and

birds

-

398

-

would

have

congregated

around

the

meres

and

marshes

of

the

coast,

particularly

in

the

migration

seasons.

Large

numbers

of

small

arrowheads

which

would

have

"been

appropriate

for

killing

these

species

have

been

found

on

several

of

the

coastal

sites

such

as

Givat

Haparsa

(Burian,

Friedmann,

1963~6^,

IV).

Hunting

thus

appears

to

have

provided

a

good

deal

of

the

meat

that

was

eaten

at

some

of

these

sites.

The

continuation

of

the

hunting tradition

is

also

linked with

the

reversion

to

a

less

intensive

farming

system

on

the

fully

agricultural

sites.

Discussion

Now

that

I

have

reviewed

all the

archaeological

and

other

evidence

and

attempted

to

establish

how

man

lived

in

Neolithic

3

one

problem

remains to

be

considered.

We

have

seen

that

there

was

a

great

alteration

of

the

settlement

pattern

at

the outset of

Neolithic

3

and

it

is

now

necessary

to

establish

why

this

happened.

I

believe

that

there

are

three

reasons

for

it.

The

first

is

the

environmental

deterioration

which began

in

the

7th

millennium

and

continued

with but minor

respites

until

the

^th

millennium.

The

second

is

the

changes

that

took

place

in

Neolithic

2

society

and

its

economy

which

accounted

for

some

of

the

differences

between

man's

way

of

life

in

Neolithic

2

and

Neolithic

3.

The

third

is

the

interaction

between

the

alterations

in

the environment

and

the

changes

in

the

Neolithic

2

way

of

life.

I

explained

in

the

first

chapter

that

the

temperature

continued

to rise

throughout

the

period

we

are

considering.

During

the

7th

millennium

the

rain-

fall

became

more

seasonal

and decreased,

a

trend

that

continued

for

two

millen-

nia.

As

a

result

the

Mediterranean

and

intermediate

open

forest

zones

con-

tracted

while

the

steppe

and

the

modest

area

of

desert

in

the

extreme

south-

east

of

the

Levant

expanded.

These

changes

in

the

vegetation

were

accelerated

by

man's

own

activities.

Such

a

deterioration

in

the

climate

and

vegetation

was

bound

to

affect

human

settlement.

If

the

economies

of the

agricultural

sites

in

the

intermediate

forest

zone

and

the

settlements

on

the

steppe

were

not

profoundly

modified

these

sites

would

have

had

to

have

been

abandoned.

-

399

-

We have

seen that

there

was

a

great

increase

in

population

in

Neolithic

2.

The

economy

that

sustained

the

expanded

population

rested

upon

a

delicate

balance

of

agriculture,

herding

and

exploitation

of

wild

resources.

Some

of

the

biggest

sites

were

in

the

intermediate

forest

zone

and

so

were

particularly

vulnerable

to

any

worsening

of

the

environment

while

there

were many flourishing

settlements

in

the

steppe

whose

continued

existence

was

even

more precarious.

Agriculture

gradually

became

more intensive

during

Neolithic

2

while

marked

changes

took

place

in

animal

husdandry

mainly

in

response

to the

growth

of

population

but also

I

suspect

partly

because

of

environmental

deterioration.

Eventually

a

point

was

reached

when

the

efforts

to

adjust

the

economy

were

probably

no

longer

sufficient.

It

may

have

proved

impossible

to

maintain

let

alone

increase

the

yields

of

crops

in

the

intermediate

open

forest and

steppe

zones

as

the

rainfall

diminished.

The

inhabitants

of

sites

in

these

marginal

areas

could

have

attempted

to

overcome

the

rainfall

deficiency

by

using

irrigation

but

in

the

Neolithic

this

called

for

special

geographical

circum-

stances.

Only

where

permanent

streams

flowed

near

arable

land

could

irriga-

tion

be

carried

out

and

such

places

have

always

been

rare

on

the

plateau

to

the

east

of

the

Rift

valley.

Abu

Hureyra

is

one

of

the

sites

that

was most

vulnerable.

We

have

seen

that

some

of

the

crops

grown there

were

irrigated,

not

from

the

Euphrates

because

that

was

too difficult

but probably

from

a

stream

in

the

Wadi

Hibna.

This

stream

would

have

shrunk and

may

have

dried

up

because

of

climatic

changes

in

the

7th

and

6th

millennia.

This

would

have

undermined

the

economy

of

the

site

and

was

probably

one

of

the

reasons

why

it

was

eventually

abandoned.

The

same

would

have

occurred

elsewhere

along

the

Euphrates

and

was,

I

suggest,

a

major

cause

of

the

desertion

of

the

area.

The

decrease

in

rainfall

and

continued

deterioration

of the

vegetation

in

the

intermediate

open

forest

and

on

the

steppe

would

have

had

other

dis-

ruptive

consequences.

It

would

have

reduced

the

available

surface

water

and

further

damaged

the

grazing

at

a

time

when

it

was

already

being

degraded

by

herded

animals.

This

would

have

threatened

the

maintenance

of

the

flocks

-

hoo

-

and

herds of

dwellers

not

only

in

the

agricultural

settlements

"but

also

in

the

pastoral

sites

of

the

steppe. The

herds of

game,

already

perhaps

hard-

pressed

by

man

at

least

in

the

vicinity

of

the

larger

sites,

may

have

diminished

thus

reducing

one

of

the

important

sources

of

food

of

the

inhabitants

of

many

Neolithic

2

settlements.

Some

of

the

wild

vegetable

foods

which

were

still

important

in

the

diet

would

also

have

become

scarce

under

these

conditions.

The

inhabitants

of

sites

in

the

intermediate

open

forest

and

on

the

steppe

would

have

found

that

their

food

supplies

from

their

crops,

their

flocks

and

herds,

from

game

and

wild

plants

could

no

longer

be

maintained

in

such

circum-

stances.

The

population

in

these

areas

had

to

decline

to

a

number

which

could

be

fed

by

the

reduced

supplies

of

food.

In

fact

it

seems

that

the

steppe

was

completely

abandoned

and

the

population

of

the

open

forest

greatly

reduced.

The

displaced

people

moved

westward

and

northward

into

the

Mediterranean

forest

zone

augmenting

the

existing

population

there

and

founding

new

settle-

ments. The

Syrian

steppe,

the

Transjordan

plateau

and

Sinai

were

all

deserted.

The

population

of

Palestine

was also

greatly

reduced

as

most

of

the inhabitants

left.

At

first sight

this

eeems

to

have

been

too

drastic

a

response

to

the

deterioration

in

the

environment.

Why

was

the

desertion

of

the

marginal

areas

so

complete?

Firstly

we should

remember

that

small

groups

of

whose

sites

we

have

no

record may

have

continued

to

live

in

the

steppe

so

the

area

may

not

have

been

totally

abandoned

as

the

archaeological

record

suggests.

Secondly,

the

environmental

change

happened

just

at

the

time

when

man

had

come

to

depend

upon

agriculture

and

herded

animals

to

maintain

a

greatly

enlarged

population.

Such

an

economy

was

more

productive

if

carried

on

in

the

better-watered

Mediterranean

open

forest

zone.

In

this

area were

found

rich

terra

rossa

soils

formed

on

limestone

which

was

the

bedrock

of

so

much

of

the

coastal

region,

the

mountains

and

their

immediate

hinterland.

The

soils

of

some

of

the

little

plains

and

along

the

rivers

were

composed

of

alluvium

which

was

quite

as

rich

as

the

terra

rossa.

Both

types

were

extremely

fertile

and

gave

high

crop

yields,

as

they

have

continued

to

do

down

to the

present

day.

The

pasture

for

flocks

and

herds

would

have

been

excellent

in

this

region

and

the

rainfall

would

have

been

sufficient

to

maintain

a

good

cover

of

grass

in

the

winter

months

even

if the

total

precipitation

had

declined

somewhat.

It

would

have

been

necessary

to

clear

more

of

the

tree

cover

to

create

new

pasture

and

some

of

the

stone

axes

found

on

sites

in

the

Mediterranean

forest

zone

were

probably

used

for

this

purpose.

Thus

when

the

development

of

the

Neolithic

2

economy

reached

a

certain

point

there

were

compelling

reasons

for

the

population

to

move

wholesale

into

the

Mediterranean

forest

zone.

This

adjustment

would

have

been

so

advantageous

that

it

might

have

come

about

eventually

even

if

the

environment

had

not

deteriorated.

Man

himself

had

already

reduced

the

vegetation

cover

of

the

steppe

and

intermediate

forest

sufficiently

to

undermine

the

Neolithic

2

economy

in

these

areas.

This

strained

the

system

further increasing

the

pressure

to

modify

the

economy

and

settlement

pattern.

The

soils

in

the

Mediterranean

forest

were

not

only

very

fertile

but

also

heavy,

certainly

heavier

than

those

of

the

open

forest

and

the

steppe.

Neolithic

3

farmers

would

have

found

them

more difficult

to

work

than

the

soils

of

the

marginal

zones

and

so

may

have

devised

some

new

means

of

tillage

that

would

make

it

easier

to

cultivate

them.

No

definite

digging

tools

have

been

found

on any

settlement

of

Neolithic

1,

2,

or

3

in

the

Levant

unless

flint

picks

were

used

for

this.

One

can

do

no

more

than

suggest

what

tools

might

have

been

used

bearing

in

mind

how

peasants

in

simple

farming

societies

till

the

soil

today.

People

who

practise long

fallow

or

bush

fallow

agriculture

usually

need

no

more than

digging

sticks to

sow

seed

after

they have cleared

the

vegetation.

In

short

fallow

farming

the

grass

sod

may

have

to be

broken

with

hoes

or

spades.

If

such

tools

were

used

in

Neolithic

2

or

3

they must

have been

made

of

wood

since

stone

hoes

were

not

known.

The

lighter

soils

of

the

open

forest

and

the

steppe

could

have

been

tilled

with

these

tools alone

but

Neolithic

3

farmers

may

have

needed

a

simple ard

or

plough

to

break

the

heavier

soils

of

the

Mediterranean

forest.

Cattle

had

already

been

herded

on

some

sites

in

Neolithic

2

"but

this

practice

was

widespread

in

Neolithic

3-

For the

first

time

man

had

a

draught animal

which

could

be

used

to

pull

an

ard

if

required.

We

do

not

know

if

such

tools

were

used

this

early

but

the

need

was

there

and

for the

first

time

the

means

were

available.

Once

the

Neolithic

3

pattern

of

settlement

had

developed

it

proved

to

be

long-lasting.

Many

of

the

new

settlements

were

the

first

of

a

long

series

on

the

same

sites. The

earliest villages

at

the

bottom

of

great

tells

such

as

Tell Halaf,

Kama,

Byblos, Megiddo,

Beth-Shan

and

Tell

ed-Duweir were founded

during

this

stage

while

many

smaller

tells

with

a

long

sequence

of

later

occupation

were

also

established

then.

The

economy,

too,

proved

to be

extra-

ordinarily

long-lived

since

although

minor

modifications

occurred

later

the

pattern

of

wheat

and

barley

cultivation

combined

with

herding

of

sheep, goats

and

cattle

adopted

by

most

Neolithic

communities

has

remained

the

basis

of

peasant

life

in

the

Levant

until

the

present

day.

Once the

new

adaptation

had

been

worked

out

some

people

returned

to

Palestine.

This

took

place

at a

time

when

the

environment

was

still

deteriora-

ting.

It

may

have

stabilised

later

but the

climate

then

was

warmer

and

drier

than

it

had

been

early

in

the

7th

millennium.

The

human

response

to

the

changes

in

climate

and vegetation

thus

allowed

the

new

inhabitants

of

Palestine

to

partially

overcome

these

difficulties.

They

practised

a

modified

form

of

the

Syrian

agricultural

and

herding

economy

which

included

a

strong

element

of

hunting

on

some

sites.

The

Neolithic

3

population

of

Palestine

was

nonetheless

smaller

than

it

had

been

in

Neolithic

2

and

it

was not

yet

possible

for

settlement

to

be

resumed

in

TransJordan

or

Sinai.

Neolithic

3

settlements

were well

spaced

out

across

the

landscape

but

each

was

probably

within

easy reach of

its

neighbour.

Most

were

a

little

larger

than

Neolithic

2

settlements

but

their

social

organization

was

similar

so

far

as

I

can

interpret

it.

The

fundamental

social

unit

probably

continued

to

be

the

nuclear

family.

These

families

usually

lived

in

separate

rectangular

houses

built

on

broadly

similar

plans

to

those

of

Neolithic

2.

They

would

-

1+03

-

have

been linked

"by

complex

social

relationships,

particularly

in

the

larger

settlements.

The

nuclear

family

was

still

the

"basic

economic

unit

as

I

have

suggested

for

Neolithic

2.

Since

the

social

organization

of

Neolithic

2

and

Neolithic

3

settlements

appears

to

have

been

so

similar

one

would

expect

that

there

would

have

been

the

same

need

for

communal

buildings

in

both

stages.

In

fact

none

has

been

found

on

any

site

excavated

so far,

even

at

Byblos

where

so

much

of

the

Neolithic

3

settlement

has

been

exposed.

It

is

possible

that

one

or

two

of

the

larger

houses

at

sites

such

as

Byblos

served

a

communal

function.

If

not

and

if

no

communal

buildings

were

found

on

sites

excavated

in

the

future

we

would

have

to

presume

that

some

change

had

taken

place

in

society

which

obviated

the

need

for

these

structures.

There

were

probably

close

family

and

community

ties

between

settlements

in

the

same

geographical

area.

The

inhabitants

of

such

settlements

may

have

been

linked

together

in

a

tribe

as

I

postulated

for

Neolithic

2.

Groups

of

communities forming

these

tribes

may

have

been

found

in

such

regions

as

the

Lebanese

coast,

the

Beka'a,

the

Amuq

plain

and

other

well-defined

areas.

The

economy

and

distribution

of

Neolithic

3

settlements

in

Palestine

differed

in

certain

ways

from

the

pattern

in

Syria

so

one

would

expect

that

the

social

organization

would

also

have

varied

somewhat.

It

is

likely

that

nuclear

families

formed

the

basic

social and

economic

unit

as

on

sites

in

Syria

but

they

seem

to

have

lived

in

one

or

more

pit

dwellings

or

huts

rather

than

true

houses.

Relations

between

families

in

the

same

settlement

would

have

been

less

complex

because

the

sites

were

smaller.

These

communities

probably

belonged

to

several

tribes

but

the

social

links

that

held

each

tribe

together

would

have

been

much

weaker

than

further

north.

Communities

of

bush

fallow

farmers

tend

to

be

more

spread

out

than

those

of

short

fallow

cultiva-

tors

and

their

system

of

agriculture

keeps

them

apart

so

inhibiting

strong

pan-tribal

ties

(Sahlins,

1968,

32).

We

know

much

less

about

burial

practices

in

Neolithic

3

than

in

Neolithic

2

because

very

few

graves

have

been found

in

settlements

of

this

stage.

Some

graves

were

found

within

the

settlement

at

Byblos

but

these

were

between

the

houses

and

not

under

their

floors.

Hardly

any

burials

have

been

found

at

other

sites

although

one

must

always

remember

that

only

very

small

areas

have

been

dug

on

most

of

them.

Even

so

the

difference

between

the

abundant

graves

on

Neolithic

2

sites

and

their scarcity

on

Neolithic

3

settlements

points

to

a

change

in

the

mode

of

burial.

The

Byblos

evidence

shows

that

some of

the

dead

were

still

buried

within

the

settlement

though

there

was

no

longer

a

strong

feeling

that

they

should

be

buried

beneath

the

floors.

The

remainder

at

Byblos

and

probably

on

most

other

sites

must

have

been

buried

outside

the

settlement

or

disposed

of

in

other

ways.

Any

graves

were

probably

grouped

together

in

cemeteries,

the

first

time

this

kind

of

burial

may

have

been practised

in

the

Neolithic

of the

Levant.

This

would

still imply

a

strong

community

sense

but

may

indicate

a

less

compelling

desire

to stress

the

continuity

between

the

dead

and living

family.

The

same

feelings

probably

lay

behind

the

differ-

ences

in

burial

rite

in

the

two

periods.

Neolithic

3

burials

were

simple

inhumations

in

shallow

graves;

there

were

no

more

secondary

burials

and

no

separate

treatment

of

skulls.

Neolithic

3

society

still

appears

to

have

been

egalitarian

since most

communities

consisted

of

subsistence

farmers

who

had

little

surplus

produce

with

which

to

obtain

higher

status

or

material

wealth.

Nevertheless

there

is

some

evidence

that

slight

differences

in

status

were

slowly

developing.

Two

types of

burial

were

noticed

at

Byblos,

simple

inhumations

with

few

grave

goods

and

richer

burials

in

which

the

skeltons

lay

on

beds of

stones

accompanied

by

more

artifacts. The

simpler

graves

which were

more common

were presumably

those

of people

of

lower

status

while

the

richer

burials

were

a

new

group

with

higher

status.

The

ornaments

in

the

Byblos

graves

and

the

beads,

"stamp

seals"

and

other

decorative

objects

found

on

other

sites

reflect

a

continued

demand

in

Neo-

lithic

3

society

for

more

varied

artifacts,

particularly

for

adornment.

The

agricultural

and

herding

economy

of most

Neolithic

3

sites

was

probably

a

little

more

labour

intensive

than the

farming

economy

of

Neolithic

2

settle-

ments

yet

the

inhabitants

of

these

sites

still

had

extended

periods

of

leisure.

The

combination

of

ample

spare

time

and

a

demand

for

goods

led

to

a

further

growth

of

crafts.

The

new

craft

of

potting

is

the

most obvious

example.

Most

of

the

vessels made

in

this

stage

were

utilitarian

but

from

the

beginning

they

were

often

decorated

with

incised,

impressed

or

painted

designs

so

that

they

were

ornamental

as

well

as

practical.

More

wool

than

before

could

have

been

obtained

from

the

enlarged

flocks

of

sheep and

goats

kept

by

Neolithic

3

settlements.

It

is

not

surprising,

therefore,

that

spindle

whorls

should

be

a

common

artifact

on

most

Neolithic

3

sites

whereas

they

were

relatively

rare

in

Neolithic

2.

A

few

possible

loom

weights

have

also

been

found

on

Neolithic

3

sites

which

may

indicate that

substantial

looms

were

now

being

used.

The

increased

supply

of

wool

and

ample

evidence

of

spinning

suggest

that

textiles

were

now

made

in

some

quantity.

Most

were

probably

still

woven

on

very simple

looms

which

have

left

no

trace

in

the

archaeological

record.

The

products

may

have

included

cloth

and

mats.

Large

flaked and

polished

axes

and

adzes

and

small

greenstone

axes

and

chisels

were

much

more

numerous

on

Neolithic

3

than

on

Neolithic

2

sites.

A

good

deal of forest

was

being

cleared

now

which partly

explains

the

abundance

of

large

axes

and

adzes

but

more

timber

was

probably

being trimmed

and

worked

to

make

wooden

objects

ranging

from

large

shelters

and

pens down

to

small

household

utensils.

Stone

bowls

and

dishes

were

still

used

on

Neolithic

3

sites

and

some

of

them

like

the

examples

from

Tell

Judaidah

were

elaborately

and

carefully

worked.

Elsewhere

although found

quite

frequently they

were

not

so

finely

made

as

in

Neolithic

2.

Stone

ornaments

seem

to have

been

made

in

greater

quantity

in

Neolithic

3

since

beads

and

amulets

in

various

shapes

were

common

finds.

Many

were

made

from

exotic

stones such

as

serpentine,

steatite

or

carnelian.

This

is

a

continuation

and

development

of

a

strong

Neolithic

2

craft.

New

kinds

of

stone

ornaments

'have

been

found

on

Neolithic

3

sites

such

as

nose

plugs

and

labrets,

all

testifying

to

the

increasing elaboration

of

personal

adornment

in

this

stage.

"Stamp

seals"

are

another

class of

object

which

are

part of

the

increasing

variety

of

material

culture.

A

fev

of

these

were

found

on

Neolithic

2

sites

but

many

more

in

Neolithic

3,

particularly

at

Byblos

and

Tell

Judaidah

where

several

types

could

be

distinguished.

The

function of

these objects remains

difficult

to

determine but

I

do

not

think

that

they

were

used

to

mark

personal

property

at

this

stage

since

no

imprints

have

been

found

on

pottery

for

example.

It

seems

to

me

more

likely

that

they

were

used

for

making

patterns

on

cloth,

a

particularly

appropriate

use

in

this

stage,

or

other materials.

These

remarks

concerning

the

growth

of

crafts

in

Neolithic

3

apply only

to

the

North

and South

Syrian

sites

since

the

material

culture

of

the

Palestin-

ian

sites

was

much

less

elaborate.

The

inhabitants

of

these

sites

had

flocks

of

sheep

and

goats

which

would

have

produced wool

and

enough

spindle

whorls

have

been

found

on

Palestinian

sites

to

indicate

that

much yarn

was

spun.

Pottery

was also made

in

modest

amounts

but

none

of

the

other

crafts

I

have

discussed

was

practised

much

in

Palestine. There was

less

woodworking

while

ornamental

objects

such

as

beads,

amulets

and

"stamp

seals"

were

rare

or

absent.

The

economy

and

social

organization

of

Neolithic

3

sites

in

Palestine

inhibited

such

developments.

The

social

system

was

less

complex

and

the

sites

were

more

transient

so

weakening

the

desire of

their

inhabitants

to

acquire

higher

status

and

material

possessions.

Thus

there

was

not

much

demand

for

more

elaborate

objects.

Raw

materials

were

traded

or

exchanged

in

moderate

quantities

throughout

Neolithic

3

as

they

had

been

in

Neolithic

2.

Materials

which

could

be

found

relatively

near

each

site such

as

limestone,

basalt

and

bitumen

were

acquired

in

some

quantity

so

this

trade

flourished

more

than

ever.

The

pattern

of

long-

distance exchange

was

more

varied.

Obsidian

is

the

best

documented

example

of this

since

UO

pieces

have

been

analysed

from

the

ceramic

Neolithic

levels

at

Abu

Hureyra

and

12

pieces

from

four

other

sites,

Tell Judaidah,

Tabbat

el

Hammam,

Byblos

and

Munhatta. At

Abu

Hureyra

there

was

a

definite

increase

in

the

proportion

of

obsidian

which

came

from

Ciftlik

and

corresponding

decrease

in

obsidian from

Bingo'1

and

the

sources

near

Lake

Van.

Almost

all

of

the

pieces

analysed from

other

sites

came

from

Ciftlik

and

at

Byblos

also

from

the

nearby

AcigOl

source.

Munhatta

is

the

only site

other

than

Abu

Hureyra

at

which

Vannic

obsidian

has

been

recognised.

These

results

suggest

that most

obsidian

used

in

the

Levant

in

Neolithic

3

was

obtained

from

the

Cappadocian

sources

and

a

smaller

proportion

from

Lake

Van.

This

may,

indeed,

have

been

the

case

but

we

must

remember

that

although

a

moderate

sample

has

been

analysed from

Abu

Hureyra

very

little

indeed

has

been

analysed

from

the

other

sites.

So

far

the

results

indicate

the

same

trend

but

this

might change

if

an

adequate

sample

was

tested.

One

has

the

impression

that

obsidian

was

reaching

the

Levant

in

about

the

same

quantity

as

in

Neolithic

2

but

this

was

not

the

case

with

all

the

other

exotic

materials

which

had

been

exchanged

earlier.

Objects

of

steatite,

serpentine,

various

greenstones

and

carnelian

which originated

in

the

Zagros

and

Taurus

were

still made

in

Neolithic

3

but

turquoise

was

almost

never

used.

This

was

probably because

Sinai was no

longer

inhabited.

Cowries

were

no

longer

exchanged

while

other

marine

shells

were

not

traded

inland.

Either

these

shells

were

not

sought

after

now

or

they

were

no

longer

obtainable.

Their

absence

and

that

of

other

materials

such

as

malachite

indicates

a

discernible

decline

in

long-distance

contacts

in

Neolithic

3.

-

U08

-

Chapter

6

NEOLITHIC

U

The

end

of

Neolithic

3

in

central

and

northern

Syria

is

marked

"by

the

appearance

of

Halaf

cultural traits,

principally

new

styles

of

pottery

but

also

modifications

to the

chipped

stone

industry

and

the

construction

of

tholoi

on

some

sites.

The

change

in

culture

may

be

seen

on

sites

north

of

a

line

from

the

coast

through

Horns

and

along

the

Jebel

Sha'ar,

Jebel

Abu

Rujmein

and

Jebel

el

Bishri

to the

Euphrates.

As

we

saw

in

Chapter

5

the

development

of

Halaf

began

several centuries

before

5000 B.C.

east

of

the

Euphrates

while

Halaf

elements

were

adopted

on

sites

further

west

about

5000

B.C.

or

a

little

before.

The

transition

from

Neolithic

3

to Halaf

in

the

Jezireh

happened

at

Tell

Halaf

itself,

Tell

Aswad

(Balikh)

and

perhaps

Chagar

Bazar

while

many

other

settlements

in

this

region

such

as

Tell

Agab

were

probably

first

occupied

in

the

Halaf.

Tell

Brak

is

another

of

these

though

it

is

possible

it

was

first

settled

in

an

earlier

period

(Mallowan,

19^7

5

2^5).

T^

6

northern

Jezireh

was

a

centre

of

Halaf

development

and

the

pattern

of

Halaf

settlement

was

dense.

Each

site

made

some

of

its

own

pottery

but

imported

the

rest

from

nearby

centres

and

even

from

sites

further

afield

(Davidson,

McKerrell,

1976,

52,

53).

Some

of

the

pottery

had

a

monochrome

finish

in

black,

brown

or

red

which

was

burnished.

Other

vessels

were

coarser

and

undecorated

with

hand-smoothed

surfaces.

These

classes

of

pottery

were

typical

of

Neolithic

3

but continued

to

be

made

in

the

Halaf.

Such

Halaf

sherds

are

indistinguish-

able

from

Neolithic

examples.

The

same

transition

from

Neolithic

3

to

Halaf

took

place

on

sites

west

of

the

Euphrates,

at

Carchemish

perhaps,

Tell

Turlu,

Judaidah

Jabbul,

in

the

Amuq

from

phase

B

through

the

First

Mixed

Range

to

phase

C,

at

Ras

Shamra

from

Phase

V

A

to

Phase

IV

and

at

Kama

from

M

to

L.

Pottery

in

the

Halaf

style

was

also

found

at

Mersin

and

Tarsus

on

the

Cilician

plain.

The

Halaf

-

1+09

-

pottery

on

all

these

sites

and

at

settlements

like

Tell

Shirbia

on

the

Jabbul

plain

which

was

apparently

first

settled

in

the

Halaf

(Maxwell

Hyslop

et

al.,

19^2,

38)

was

a

little

different from

sites

east

of

the

Euphrates

nearer

the

Halaf

heartland.

This

was

partly because

much

of

it

was

locally

made.

Most

of

the

Halaf

pottery

at

Carchemish

for

example

was

probably

made

in

the

Yunus

kilns.

Some

Halaf

pottery

was

also

imported

from

further

east.

On

sites

west of

the

Euphrates

as

further

east

there

was

a

great

deal

of coarse

ware

and

monochrome

burnished

pottery

similar

to

Neolithic

3

wares

which

continued

to

be

made

throughout

the

Halaf

stage.

The

buildings

found

on sites

west

of

the

Euphrates

were

usually

recti-

linear

as

at

Ras

Shamra

(de

Contenson,

19T3b,

16).

The

details

of

their

plans

may

have

differed

somewhat

from

Neolithic

3

structures

at

these

sites

but

they were

built

in

the

same

way.

Tholoi

were

characteristic

of

sites

like

Arpachiyah

where

Halaf

developed

and

a

few

have

been

found

further

west.

Davidson

tells

me that

there

is

probably

a

tholos

at

Tell

Agab,

a

site

he

is

excavating

near

Amuda

in

the

northern

Jezireh

and

they have

certainly

been

found

at

Yunus

and

Tell

Turlu.

Small

circular

buildings

were

also

discovered

at

Shams

ed-Din

on

the

Euphrates.

Further

west

all

the

Halaf

buildings

known

continued

to be

constructed

in

the

Neolithic

tradition.

The

chipped

stone

industry

on

many

western

Halaf

sites

also

developed

without

a

break

from

Neolithic

3.

Blades

were

still

struck

from

pyramidal

cores

and

tanged

arrowheads

retouched

by pressure-flaking

continued

to

be

used.

Fewer

types

of

tool

were

made

in

the

Halaf

on

all

sites;

in

particular

the

variety

of

scrapers

was

much

reduced.

Segmented

sickle

blades

continued

to

be

made

as

at

Ras

Shamra

(de

Contenson,

1973b,

27)

and

in

the

Amuq

(Braidwood,

Braidwood,

1960,

120,

150)

although

their

detailed typology

was

a

little

different.

The

percentage

of sickle

blades

at

most

sites

was

also

higher

than

in

Neolithic

3.

Obsidian

continued

to

be

used

in

modest

quantities

on

sites

west

of

the

Euphrates

though

at

Tell

Agab

and

other

sites

in

the

Halaf

heartland

over

half

the

tools

were

made

of

it.

-

1+10

-

Most

Halaf

sites

in

north

Syria

were

situated

in

similar

positions

to

Neolithic

3

settlements,

that

is

they were

relatively

low-lying

in

areas

with

good

arable

land

and

usually

near perennial

streams

or

springs.

The

only

significant

difference

in

the

settlement

pattern

was

that

some

Halaf

settle-

ments

were

founded

along

the

middle

Euphrates

and

in

the

Jezireh

as

far

south

as

the

confluence

of

the

Khabur

and

the

Jaghjagha,

both

regions

which

were

unoccupied

in

Neolithic

3.

Thus

the

occupied

area

expanded

to

include

marginal

areas

abandoned

in

Neolithic

3.

The

Halaf

settlement

pattern,

the

houses

and

many

of

the

artifacts

on

Halaf

sites

in

north

Syria

were

a

continuation

of

the

Neolithic

3

tradition.

This

suggests

that

the

population

of

north

Syria

remained

basically

the

same

although

there

may

have

been

a

few

immigrants

from

the

east

who

facilitated

the

spread

of

Halaf

cultural

elements.

The

economic basis of

Halaf

society

was,

so

far

as

we

can

judge

on

the

scanty

evidence

available,

also

the

same

as

in

Neolithic

3.

The

inhabitants

of

Halaf

settlements

depended

upon

cereal

agriculture

and

the

herding

of

sheep,

goats,

cattle

and

pigs

for

food

as

their

Neolithic

3

ancestors

had

done

(Schaeffer,

1962,

178; de

Contenson,

1963,

36,

38;

Mallowan,

Rose,

1935,

1^,

15,

80;

Braidwood,

1960,

156).

It

is

important

to

note

this

underlying

continuity

of

settlement

pattern,

economy

and

certain

material

remains

but

the

spread

of

Halaf

pottery

and

other

associated

elements

was

still

a

major

cultural

change.

There

also

seem

to

have

been

alterations

in

size

of

population

and

social

organization

while

new

patterns of

trade

developed.

Henceforth

the

way

of

life of

the

inhabitants

of

north

Syria

took

a

different

course

from

that

of

the

people

living

in

the

central

and

southern

Levant.

North Syria

now

came

within

a

cultural

zone

that

stretched eastward from

the

Mediterranean

to

the

foothills of

the

Zagros,

southward from

the

Anti-Taurus

and

the

mountains

of

eastern

Turkey

to

the

plains

of

Syria

and

northern

Mesopotamia.

Thus

the

pattern

of

uniform

cultural

development

in

the

Levant

which

had

persisted

at

least

since

Mesolithic

2

was interrupted.

Although

there

was still

a

strong

element

of

continuity

in

the

way

of

life

as

well

as

in

material

remains

north

Syria

now

belonged

-

1*11

-

within

a

different cultural

sphere

so

I

will

follow

developments there

no

further.

About

5000

B.C. or

a

century

or

two

later

certain

changes

occurred

on

sites

in

south

Syria

and

Lebanon.

Other

modifications

to

the

way

of

life

took

place

on

sites

in

Palestine

perhaps

about

kQOO

B.C.

The

settlement

pattern

remained

fundamentally

the

same

as

in

Neolithic

3

but

new

sites

were

occupied

in

the

wooded

uplands

and

mountains.

Buildings

on

sites

in

the

central

Levant

were

not

much

changed

but

in

Palestine

the

pits

of

Neolithic

3

were

replaced

by

curvilinear

and

rectilinear

structures

built

on

the

surface.

Pottery

everywhere

was

better

made

while

new

shapes

and

types

of

decoration

were

used.

Some

pots

were

still

decorated

with

incised

designs

but

many

of

the

finer

vessels

were

now

covered

with

a

red

wash

or

slip

which

was

often

burnished.

The

flint

industries,

too,

were

modified.

The

proportions

of

arrowheads

and

scrapers

in

each

assemblage

from

settlement

sites

diminished

and

there

was

less

variety

both

of

these

and

other

classes

of

tools.

Sickle

blades

increased

in

proportion

though

not

in

variety

while

heavy

cutting

tools

were

especially

numerous

on

some

sites,

particularly

in

the

uplands.

All

these

changes

are

sufficient

to indicate

the

emergence

of

a

new

stage

of

the

Neolithic,

Neolithic

h.

This

stage

lasted

until

3750

or

3500

B.C.

in

Palestine

and

probably

for

about

the

same

length

of

time

in

Lebanon

(Perrot,

1968,

col.

U39;

Moore,

1973,

63).

Neolithic

k

is

the

last

stage

in

the

Levantine

sequence

which may

reason-

ably

be

called

Neolithic.

The

inhabitants

of

the

central

and

southern

Levant

continued

to

live

in

villages

and

small

towns

supported

by

subsistence

agri-

culture. This

way

of

life

had

developed

over

a

long

period

during

and

after

the

Mesolithic.

The

economy

and even

the

social

system

remained

the

same

in

most

villages

in

the

Levant

until

much

later

but

the

stage

following

Neolithic

h

was

no

longer

truly

Neolithic.

The

material

culture

altered

considerably

and

metal-working

was

introduced.

New

contacts

with

regions

beyond

the

Levant

were

established.

This

cultural

and

economic

stage,

the

"Chalcolithic"

of

the

Levant

as

it

is

commonly

known,

was

thus

something

new

even

if

the

-

in

2

-

population

of

the

region

remained

almost

the

same

and

the

economic

basis

was

little

different

from

Neolithic

U.

The

"Chalcolithic"

of

the

central

Levant,

no

longer

Neolithic

in the

way

I

defined

it

in

Chapter

3,

was

a

prelude

to

the

Bronze

Age,

a

stage

between

it

and

the

Neolithic

proper.

Neolithic

^

sites

have

been

discovered

in

Lebanon,

both

on

the

coast

and

in

the

Beka'a,

in

the

Damascus

basin

and

in

Palestine

(Fig.

^5).

As

in

earlier

stages

these

sites

fall

into

regional

groups,

a

South

Syrian

group

comprising

sites

in

Lebanon

and

the

Damascus

basin

and

a

Palestinian

group.

The

South

Syrian

group

may

be

further

sub-divided

since

there

are

certain

local

differences

between

the

sites

on

the

coast

of

Lebanon,

in

the

Beka'a

and

near

Damascus.

In

my

earlier

study

I

found

that

the

Palestinian

sites

could

also

be

divided

into

three

local

sub-groups

in

southern,

northern

and

western

Palestine.

South

Syria

It

will

be

convenient

to

begin by

describing

sites

in

the South

Syrian

group.

I

will

consider

the sites

in

the

Lebanese

coastal

sub-group

first

since

it

includes

Byblos, the

type-site

for

the

whole

South

Syrian

group.

Lebanese

coast

Byblos

continued

to

be

inhabited

throughout

the

final

stage

of

the

Neolithic

and

on

into

the

Chalcolithic.

The

occupation

which

falls

within

Neolithic

U

has

been

divided

into

two

phases,

Ne"olithique

Moyen

and

Ne*olithique

Re*cent.

The

Ne*ollthique

Moyen

settlement

stood

on

a

ridge

to

the

north-west

of

the

little

valley

crossing

the

site.

There

were

also

traces of

occupation

near

the

spring.

The

settlement

thus

lay

to

the

south-

west

of

the

area

occupied

during

Ne"olithique

Ancien

and

was

almost

completely

separate

from

it.

Dunand

found

that

the

Ne"olithique

Moyen

settlement

extended

4

over

no

more

than

1500

sq.

m

(19T3

9

95)

»

thus

it

was

considerably

smaller

than

Fig.

45

Distribution

of

Neolithic

4

sites

scale

1=2,500,000

FIGURE

45

Distribution

of

Neolithic

4

sites

1

Neba'a

Jalluk

2

Kubbah

I

3

Byblos

4

Tell

Ard

Tlaili

5

Tell

Neba'a

Litani

6

Tell

Ain

Nfaikh

7

Kleat

8

Jiita

I

9

Naccache

10

Mukalles/Hsaima

11

Asfurieh

II

12

Ouza'i

13

Tell

Arslan

14

Khalde

I

15

Habarjer

III

16

Tell

Shamsine

17

Amiq

I

18 Tell

ed-Deir

19

Tell

ed-Jisr

20

Kefraya

21

Muktara

22

Karaoun

II

23

Kaukaba

24

Tell

Ramad

25

Tell

al

Khazzami

26

Jbs'a

27

Adlun

II

28

Kfar

Giladi

29

Shemouniyeh

30

Chalaboun

31

Birket

Ram'a

32

Ain

Hannine

33

Kabri

34

Munhatta

35

Megiddo

36

Tell

el

Far'ah

37

Tell

es-Saidiyeh

el

Gharbi

38

Salihi

39

Wadi

Rabah

40

Jericho

41

Murabba'at

42

Teluliot

Batashi

43

Ziqim

44

Wadi

Ghazzeh

-

Site

D

-

U13

-

even

the

modest

village

of

Ne*olithique

Ancien.

The

remains

of

the

Ne"o-

lithique

Moyen

settlement

today

end

abruptly

at

the

edge

of

the

cliff

on

the

seaward

side

so

the

site

would

have

"been

somewhat

larger

originally.

In

Ne"olithique

Re*cent

the

focus

of

the

settlement

lay

further north

along

the

ridge

nearer

the

spring

(Dunand,

1973,

127).

Here

houses

were

built

on

the

side

of

the

ridge

sloping

down

to

the

spring

and

on

the

flat

floor

of

the

little

valley

itself.

It

seems

that

the

part

of

the

settlement

covered

by

the

houses

was

not

very

extensive

but

the

total

area

occupied

in

Ne"olithique

Re"cent

was

1.5

ha

(Dunand,

1973,

pi.

G)

so

the

settlement

was

much larger

than

that

of

Ne"olithique

Moyen

and

bigger

even

than

in

Ne*olithique

Ancien.

The

houses

at

the

core

of

the

village

were

surrounded by

working

areas

and

"silos"

(Dunand,

1973,

168)

representing

a

division

of

activities

within

the

confines

of

the

settlement. The

traces

of

these

features

probably

account

for

much

of

the

extent of

the

village.

The

houses

of

the

Neolithique

Moyen settlement

were

similar

in

shape

to

those

of

Neolithique

Ancien,

differing

only

in

certain

details.

The

core

of

each

house

was

a

single

rectangular

room

with

stone

walls

(Dunand,

1973,

95ff)«

Usually

these

houses

had

another

room

at

one

end

separated by

an

internal

partition

wall

from

the

main

room.

Sometimes

this

second

room

might

be

built

on

to

the

exterior

of

the

house.

These houses

were

a

little

bigger

than

those

of

Neolithique

Ancien,

one

for

instance

being

7«10

m

long

and

U.35

m

wide

(Dunand,

1973,

97).

Their

floors

consisted

either

of

trampled

earth

or

chalk

spread

over

a

bed

of

stones. The

fine

plastered

floors

of

Neolithique

Ancien

ceased

to

be made

during

this

phase.

In

N^olithique

Recent the

houses

were

built

in

much

the

same

way

as

before

but

their

plans

were

usually

different.

A

few

were

single-roomed

dwellings

of

similar

dimensions

to

those

in

earlier

phases

(Dunand,

1973,

130)

but

most

while

still

rectangular were

much

longer,

at

least

12

m

in

one

instance

and

17.8

m

in

another

(Dunand,

1973,

128,

132).

These

large

buildings

had

two

or

three

rooms.

The floors

of

two

structures

were

made

of

a

layer

of

clay

-

kih

-

(Dunand,

1973,

127)

but

all

the

others

were

of

trodden

earth.

Several

houses

had

a

low

bench

made of

stones

along

the

outside

of

one

of

the

walls

(Dunand,

1973,

130,

133),

another

indication

of

the

increasing

elaboration

of

these

structures.

That

these

buildings,

both

the

smaller

single-roomed

ones

and

the

long

multi-roomed

structures,

were

houses

still

seems

to

me

to be

their

most

probable

function

although there

is

an

obvious

difference

in

the

size

of

the

families

which

could

have

occupied

these

two

types

of

dwelling.

Several

other

buildings

constructed

in

a

similar

manner

to

the

houses

have

been

identified

by

Dunand

as

religious

structures

(1973,

13^ff).

These

were

on

the

side

of

the

little

hill

near

the

spring.

The

only

difference

between

them

and

the

other

buildings

was

that

they

each

had

a

low

plinth

set

on

the

floor

of

the

principal

room.

They

were

also

the

first

structures

to

be

built

in

places

where

a

series

of temples

was

constructed

in

the

Chalcolithic and

during

the

Bronze

Age.

One

cannot

be certain

that

these

buildings

had

a

religious

function

as

their

shape

and contents

differed

so

little

from

the

houses.

The

argument

concerning

their

position

under

a

series of

later

temples

carries

some

weight

so

it

remains

possible

that

they

were

simple

chapels

as

Dunand

has

suggested.

Two

other

kinds

of

structure

were

common

in

the

Ne"olithicjue

Recent

settlement.

These

were

areas

of

stone

paving

and

"silos".

The

paved

areas

were

often

circular

and

grinding

stones

were

found

in

association

with

several

of

them

(Dunand,

1973,

137,

138).

This

evidence

suggests

that

some

of

them

were

used

for

preparing

cereals

while

others

may

have

been

working

surfaces

for

other

activities.

The

"silos"

were

either

shallow

basins

lined

with

stone

slabs

or

hollows

dug

out

of

the

subsoil

and

lined

with

clay.

Both

could have

been used

for

storing

food.

Ne"olithique

Moyen

burial

practices

had

much

in

common

with

those

of

Ne*olithique

Ancien.

Most

corpses

continued

to

be laid

in a

crouched

position

in

simple

earth

graves

(Dunand,

1973,

99).

Dead

children

were usually

buried

in

jars,

a

mode

of

burial reserved

exclusively

for

them

(Dunand,

1973,

100),

although

a

few

were

also

buried

in

earth

graves.

Three

graves

only

were

found

in

which

skeletal

remains lay

on

beds

of stones

and

all

were

atypical.

They

were

not graves

of

people

of

demonstrably

high

social

status

in

the

community.

Grave

goods

were

placed

in

some

of

the

earth

graves

but

not,

apparently,

in

all.

It

may

be

that

those

of

higher

social

status

were

buried

in

the

same

kind

of grave

as

other

inhabitants

of

the

village

but

that

more

objects

were

deposited

with

them.

There

was

a

revival

of

the

custom

of

secondary

burial

in

Neolithique

Moyen

Byblos.

A

number of

burials

were

found

in

which

the

skeletons

were

incomplete

(Dunand,

1973,

99).

Care

had

been

taken

to

conserve

the

skull

in

several

instances,

an

echo

of

the

widespread

practices

of

Neolithic

2.

One

house

in

particular

was

used

for

secondary

burials

(Dunand,

1973,

97)

though

the

building

itself

need

not

have

had

a

religious

function

as

Dunand

was

inclined

to

believe.

Burial

practices

in

Ne"olithique

Re*cent

followed

those

of

the

earlier

phases

quite

closely

although

there

were

no

more

secondary

burials.

Earth

graves

were

the

usual

mode of

burial while

the

remains

of

children

continued

to

be

placed

in

jars (Dunand,

1973,

136).

Several

graves

were

found

in

which

the

body

had

been

placed

on

a

bed

of

stones

or

was

surrounded

by

stones

recall-

ing

the

mode

of

burial used

for

persons

of

higher

status

in

Ne"olithique

Ancien.

The

chipped

stone

assemblage

of

Ne*olithique

Moyen

comprised

h9^

pieces

only

(Cauvin,

1968,

97)

so

the relative

proportions

of

different

types of

tools

are

of

less

diagnostic

value

than

in

the

other

phases.

Sickle

blades

were

the

most

abundant

type

(Cauvin,

1968, 100ff).

Most

of

these

were

seg-

mented

but

their

retouch

varied

considerably.

Some

has

coarse,

others

fine

denticulation

along

the

cutting

edge;

some

were

backed,

others

not.

Several

sickle

blades

were

retouched

by

pressure

flaking

in

this

phase.

Axes

and

chisels

formed

18%

of the

assemblage

in

Neolithique

Moyen

(Cauvin,

1968,

105,

113),

a

far

greater

proportion

than

in

Neolithique

Ancien.

They

were

made of

flint,

limestone

or

sandstone

and

tended

to

be

thicker

and

-

U16

-

longer

than

in

the

preceding

phase.

Those

with

straight

cutting

edges

pre-

dominated.

These

were

of two

principal

shapes, short

and

trapezoidal

or

long

and

rectangular

(fig.

h6)

.

The

others

had

a

curved

cutting

edge

and

almost

all

of

them

were

relatively

long

with

parallel

sides.

The

almond-

shaped

ones

of

Ne*olithique

Ancien

were

no

longer

made.

A

few

of

these

tools

were

asymmetrical

and

so

were

probably

used

as

adzes.

All

were

flaked

first

and

some

were

partially

polished.

The

chisels

were made

in

the

same

way

and,

like

the

axes,

had

straight

or

curved

cutting

edges.

The

latter

are

charac-

teristic

of

this

phase only

at

Byblos

(Cauvin,

1968,

113).

Three small

axes

made

of

greenstone,

a

black

rock

and

amphibolite

were

also

found

in

the

Ne"olithique

Moyen

settlement

(Cauvin,

1968,

113;

Dunand,

1973,

12U).

Flint

borers were

much more

common

than

in Ne*olithique

Ancien

(Cauvin,

1968,

115).

Some

were

quite

delicate

but

others,

though

small,

were

robust

and

could

have

been

used

for

drilling

wood.

The

presence

of these

and

numerous

axes

and

chisels

suggest

that

the

cutting

and

working

of

timber

grew

in

importance

in

this

phase.

Burins

were

present

in

about

the

same

proportions

as

before

and

the

types

were

similar

(Cauvin,

1968,

119).

End-scrapers

on

blades

and

flakes

were

more

common

(Cauvin,

1968,

121)

as

were

side-scrapers

though there

were

relatively

few

of

the

latter.

The

remaining

flint

tools

consisted

of arrowheads

and

denticulated

blades

and

flakes.

Arrowheads

were

less

common

than

in

Ne"olithique

Ancien,

forming

only

6%

of

the

total

assemblage.

Three

types

of

arrowhead

were

found,

Byblos

points,

Amuq

1

points

and

oval

arrowheads

(Cauvin,

1968,

97,

98).

The

marked

reduction

in

the

proportion

of

arrowheads

is

probably

an

indicator

of

a

decline

in

hunting

which

may

also

be

seen

at

other

sites

in

Neolithic

h.

The

Ne*olithique

Recent assemblage

was

more abundant

than

that

of

Ne"olithique

Moyen.

Sickle blades

while

still

quite

numerous made

up

a

smaller

proportion,

13%,

of

the

total

assemblage

than

before

(Cauvin,

1968,

128).

Most

were

segmented

with

finely-denticulated

cutting

edges;

coarse

Fig.

46

SC.

23

a

Byblos

-

Neolithique

Moyen

flint

tools

(after

Cauvin)

a-axes

b

-

adze

c-chisel

-

1*17

-

denticulation

was

not

used

in

this

phase.

Some

of the

sickle

"blades

had

little

or

no

edge

retouch.

The use

of

pressure-flaking

for

edge

and

back

retouch

fell

out of

use

in

Ne"olithique

Re"cent,

most

"backed

sickle

"blades

being

retouched

abruptly.

The

proportion

of

axes

and

chisels

in

the

assemblage

remained

about

the

same

in

Ne*olithique

Recent

as

in

Ne*olithique

Moyen

at

^9%

(Cauvin,

1968,

135

5

150).

Most

were

made

of

flint

but

a

few

were

struck

from

limestone and

two

from

basalt

(Cauvin,

1968,

1^5).

All

the

axes

and

chisels

had

straight

cutting

edges

(Fig.

^7).

The

axes

were

relatively

longer

and

narrower

than

those

of

the

preceding

phase

although

their

shapes

were

similar.

Some

had

sliced

sides.

From

the

asymmetrical

profiles

of

many

of

these

tools

it

would

seem

that

they were used

as

adzes

rather

than

axes.

Most

of

these tools

were

flaked

but

a

few

were

shaped

by

hammering;

their

cutting

edges

were then

usually

polished

(Cauvin,

1968,

lUo).

A

number

of

small,

polished

greenstone

axes

and

chisels

were

also

found

in

Ne"olithique

Recent

levels

(Dunand,

1973,

165)

which

were

probably

functionally

associated

with

the

heavier

cutting

tools.

The

proportion

of borers

made

in

this

phase,

17%

9

"was

greater

even

than

in

Ne*olithique

Moyen

(Cauvin,

1968,

153).

Most

were

small

drills

while

the

remainder

consisted

of

borers

on

flakes

and

blades

with

fine

or

coarse points.

The

drills

were

probably

used

for

drilling

wood

and

bone

(Cauvin,

1968,

l6lff)

while

the

other

borers

could

have

had

a

variety

of

uses.

End-scrapers

on

flakes

and

blades were

used

more

in

this

phase

than

before

(Cauvin,

1968,

163).

Sidescrapers

continued

to

be

used

in

modest

quantities

and

some

of

these tools

were

made

on

tabular

flint

(Cauvin,

1968,

167).

Burins,

on

the

other

hand,

were

less

common

than

in

the

preceding

phases.

The

remaining

tools

consisted

of

notched

and

denticulated

pieces

and

arrowheads.

Tanged

arrowheads

and

Amuq

points

were

no

longer

made

in

this

stage

(Cauvin,

1968,

127).

The

only

arrowheads

were

tranchets and

these

were

SC.

2

=

3

~l

\

IQ

f

Rg.

47

Byblos

-

Neolithique

Recent

flint

tools

(after

Cauvin)

a

-

axes

b

-

adzes

c

-

chisel

\

- in 8 -

probably

used

for

hunting

in

a

different

manner

than

the

arrowheads

of

earlier

phases.

Similar

tranchet

arrowheads have

been

found

on

coastal

sites

in

Palestine

in

both

Neolithic

3

and

Neolithic

k.

A

few

pieces

of

obsidian

were

found

in

Neolithique

Moyen

levels

and

hk

more

in

the

Ne"olithique

Recent

settlement

(Cauvin,

1968,

172).

Both

of

the

Neolithique

Moyen

pieces

which

have

been

analysed

came

from

the

Van

region,

one

from

the

1g

source

and

the

other

from

3a

(Renfrew

et al.,

1966,

63,

66).

Each

of

the three

Neolithique

Recent

pieces

analysed

came

from

a

different

region,

one

from

1g

near

Lake

Van,

another

from

Nemrut

Dag

(he)

and

the

third

from

Ciftlik

(Renfrew

et

al.,

1966,

63, 65,

68).

Querns,

rubbers,

mortars

and

pestles

were

of

the

same

types

in

Ne"olithique

Moyen

and

Re"cent

as

in

Ne*olithique

Ancien

and

equally

abundant

(Dunand,

1973,

101,

137).

Stone

vessels

continued

to

be made

in

small

quantities

during

N olithique

Moyen.

The

principal

forms

were

cups,

bowls

and

dishes

made of

limestones

and

basalt

(Dunand,

1973,

102,

103).

Two

of

the

basalt

dishes

were

each

supported

on a stem.

Stone

dishes

were

no

longer

made

in

Ne"olithique

Recent

but

stone

cups

and

bowls

were

relatively

abundant

(Dunand,

1973,

139).

The

shapes

of the

vessels

were

quite

similar

but

more

seem

to

have

been

decora-

ted

with

lines

incised

around

the

rim.

In

addition

to

the

range

of

limestone

and

basalt

vessels

there

were

two

small

steatite

pots.

Other

stone

tools

found

in

both

phases

were

maceheads,

weights

and

polishing

stones

(Dunand,

1973,

119ff,

158ff).

The

pottery

of

Neolithique

Moyen

was

a

little

more

developed

than

that

of

N^olithique

Ancien.

The

fabrics

of

the

vessels

were similar

but

now

were

almost

always

fired

buff

or

brown,

occasionally

dark

brown.

The

vessels

were

hand-made

but

sometimes

finished

on

a

turntable.

Their

surfaces

were smoothed

by

hand

and

then

burnished

as

before.

Small

hemispherical

bowls

and

cups

continued

to

be

made

in

this

phase

(Dunand,

1973,

fig.

58)

and

many

of

these

were

decorated

with

deeply

incised

or

excised

designs.

Flat-based

dishes

or

plates

were

made

for

the

first

time

(Dunand,

1973,

10U)

as

were

bowls

with

straight

flared

sides

and

flat

"bases.

Globular

hole-mouth

pots

and

jars

were

still

used

but

most

of

the

larger

vessels

now

had

collar

necks

(Fig.

hQ)

with

either

round

or

flat

bases

(Dunand,

1973,

figs.

62-65).

They

often

had

loop

handles

at

the

junction

of

collar

and

body

or

pierced

lugs

at

the

widest

point of

the

body.

Another

new

shape

was

a

tall

jar

with

a

narrow,

flat

base

and

relatively

small

mouth

(Dunand,

1973,

108).

It

had

loop

handles

on

the

upper

part

of

the

body

or

long

vertical

lugs

pierced

horizontally.

Many

of

these

vessels

were

decorated

with

incised

patterns,

coloured

slip

or

paint

or

burnish.

The

incised patterns

included

those

common

in

Ne"olithique

Ancien

but

there

was

a

greater

variety

of

stabbed

patterns

and

zig-zag

lines

(Dunand,

1973,

pis.

LXVTI-LXIX).

Red

or

brown

paint

or

slip

was

used

to

colour

half

or

all

of

the

surface

of

certain

vessels

and

was

then

usually

burnished.

Sometimes

this

kind

of

decoration

was

combined

with

areas

of

stab

marks.

Paint

was

also

applied

in

bands

or

in

criss-cross

lines

(Dunand,

1973,

10^).

Some

vessels

were

decorated

with

pattern

burnish

(Dunand,

1973,

103).

One

small

bowl

with

a

flat

base

made

of

white

plaster

ware

was

found

in

a

Neolithique

Moyen

level

(Dunand,

1973,

103).

No

other

white

plaster

vessels

were

found

in

this

or

subsequent

phases.

The

pottery

of

Ne*olithique Recent

was

simply

a

development

of

that

of

Neolithique

Moyen.

Fabrics

were

similar

though

many

of

the

vessels

were

harder

fired.

The

rims

of

more

bowls

and

other

vessels

were

finished

on

a

turntable.

A

few

vessels

were

decorated

with

incised

lines

(Dunand,

1973,

1^2)

but

this

was

rare.

Most

were

covered

with

red

paint

or

slip

and

bur

nished.

A

few

were

painted

in

fine

criss-cross

or

parallel

lines

(Dunand,

1973,

pi.

LXXXI).

Some

other

vessels

were

decorated

with

pattern

burnish

(Dunand,

1973,

1^1).

Hemispherical

and

flat-bottomed

cups

and

bowls

were

still

common

but

bowls

with

straight

splayed

sides

and

a

flat

base

were

used

more

than

before

sc.

1

.•

3

Fig.

48

Byblos-

Neolithique

Moyen

jars

(after

Dunand)

-

1*20

-

(Fig.

1*9).

Hole-mouth

pots

and

jars

usually

with

a

flat

base

but

sometimes

curved

were

another

common

type.

Globular

jars

were

rarely

made

in

this

phase

and

the

collared

jars

of

Ne"olithique

Moyen

were

also

unusual.

The

most

common

large

containers

were tall

jars

with

narrow

flat

bases

(Dunand,

1973,

1U8).

Their

necks

were

collared

or

flared

and

they

often

had

handles

on

the

sides

(Fig.

U9).

This

type

was

first

made

in

the

preceding

phase

but

became

the

standard

large

vessel

in

Ne*olithique

Recent.

The

bone

tools

of

Ne"olithique

Moyen

were

similar

to

those

of

Ne"olithique

Ancien

(Dunand,

1973, 121).

There

were

borers

in

several

different

sizes,

some

with

quite

delicate

points

and

others that

were

more

robust.

Spatulae

were

another

common

type

while

among

the

more

unusual

tools

were

fish-hooks

and

hafts.

Bone borers

were

particularly

abundant

in

Ne"olithique

Re*cent

(Dunand,

1973, 161).

A

number

were

found

in

close

proximity

as

if

they

had

been used

together

in

some

craft

activity.

The

other

bone

tools

included

spatulae,

a

fish-hook

and

a

needle.

There

were

also

a

number

of

hafts

and

two

fragments

of

animal

scapulae

with

rows

of

notches

similar

to

the

one

found

in

Ne"olithique

Ancien.

A

few

spindle

whorls

were

found

in

Ne"olithique

Moyen

and

many

more

in

Ne*olithique

Recent

(Dunand,

1973,

123,

163).

Most

were

made

of

baked

clay

but

a

few

were of

stone.

Pottery

and

stone

discs

which

may

have

had

a

were

also

found.

Stamp

seals

were

quite

rare

in

Ne*olithique

Moyen.

The

"pintaderas"

were

no

longer

made

but

there

were

several

seals

of

baked

clay

which

were

incised

with

the

same

simple

geometric

patterns

(Dunand,

1973,

125).

There

was also

at

least

one

stone

stamp

seal

which

was

similar

in

type.

Most

of

the

stamp

seals

in

Ne"olithique

Recent

showed

marked

evolution

from

those

of

the

preceding

phases

(Dunand,

1973,

l66ff).

There

were

still

a

few

baked

clay

ones

with

simple line

patterns

but

more

were

made

of

stone.

They

often

had

steep

ridged

backs

and

were

pierced

for

suspension.

Some

had

sc.

1

=

3

sc.

1-5

Fig.

49

Byblos-Neolithique

Recent

bowls

and

jars

(after

Dunand)

-

1*21

-

patterns

of

incised

lines

as

before

but

others

had

new

motifs

formed by

a

series

of

drilled

holes.

Jewellery

and

other

objects

of

adornment

were

quite

rare

in

Ne"olithique

Moyen

but

there

were

a

few

stone,

bone

and

shell

beads.

There

were

also

several

stone

and

baked

clay

objects

similar

to

those

found

in

Ne"olithique

Ancien

which

I

have

suggested

may

have

been

nose

adornments

or

labrets.

These

objects

were

rare

in

the

Ne"olithique

Recent settlement

while

beads

and

pendants

were

also

scarce

(Dunand,

1973,

165,

166).

The

only

figurines

found

in

the

Ne"olithique

Moyen

settlement

were

two

pebbles

with

a

few

lines

scratched

on

them

to

indicate

human

beings

(Dunand,

1973,

123).

These

were

of

the

same

type

as

those

found

in

Ne"olithique

Ancien.

These

pebble

figurines

were

absent

in

Ne"olithique

Recent,

the

only

figurine

found

on

those

levels

being

a

baked

clay

quadruped

(Dunand,

1973,

165).

No carbon

1U

determinations have

been

made

on

samples

from

the

Ne*olithique

Moyen

and

Recent

settlements

at

Byblos

so in

order

to

estimate

their

duration

one

has to

rely

on

typological

parallels

with

other

dated

sites.

Unfortunately

very

few

samples

from

contemporary

sites

have

been

dated

so

far

so

that

any

estimate

must

be

imprecise.

I

have already

suggested

that

Ne"olithique

Ancien

Byblos

continued

to

be

inhabited

until

about

5000

or

U800

B.C.

when

the

transi-

tion

to

Ne"olithique

Moyen

took

place,

The

material

remains

of

the

Ne"olithique

Moyen

settlement

were

relatively

slight

suggesting

that

the

phase did

not

last

long.

This

is

borne

out

by

the

dating

evidence

obtained

by

Kirkbride

at

the

site

of

Ard

Tlaili

in

the

Beka'a.

The site

is

a

small

tell

which

has

yielded

some

Halaf

pottery

and

remains

of

a

rectangular

building

(Kirkbride,

1969,

53ff).

Accompanying

the

Halaf

painted

wares

were

many

plain

burnished

and

pattern

burnished

sherds

as

well

as

deeply-incised

fragments

which

closely

resembled

Ne*olithique

Moyen pottery

at

Byblos.

In

the

upper

levels

of

the

site

were

sherds of

red

washed

vessels

more

akin

to

the

pottery

of

Ne*olithique

Recent

at

Byblos.

Three

carbon

lk

determinations

were

obtained

from

samples

taken

from

the

lower

levels

giving

dates

of ^920

±

130

B.C.

K-1^32,

U900

±

130

-

1+22

-

B.C.

K-1l*33

and

kQhO

±

130

B.C.

K-1U3

1

!

(Kirkbride,

1969,

55;

Mellaart,

1975,

287).

The

date

from

one

sample

from

the

upper

level

at

Ard

Tlaili

was

UT10

±

130

B.C.

K-1U31.

Following

these

dates

I

would

suggest

that

Ne"olithique

Moyen

at

Byblos

lasted

until about

1*700

B.C.

or

a

little

before.

Thus

the

maximum

duration

of

the

phase

would

be

300

years

and

the

minimum

about

one

century.

There

was

no

apparent

break

in

the

sequence

of

occupation

at

Byblos

between

Ne"olithique

Moyen

and

Ne"olithique

Re*cent

even

though

the

settlement

altered

so

markedly.

It

follows,

therefore,

that

Ne"olithique

Recent

may

have

begun

about

U700

B.C.

The

abundant

remains

of

this

settlement

indicate

that

the

phase

lasted

a

long

time

but

its

terminal

date

can

be

little

more

than

a

guess.

Ne"olithique

Recent

at

Byblos

has

many

similar

cultural

remains

to

level

IIIC

at

Ras

Shamra

which

is

dated

by

a

lk

C

determination

of U18U

±

173

B.C.

P-389

(de

Contenson,

196U,

^7;

Radiocarbon

5

1963,

83).

From

this

it

would

appear

that

Ne"olithique

Recent

lasted

at

least

until

the

end

of

the

5th

millennium.

The

succeeding

phases

at

Byblos,

Ene*olithique

Ancien

and

Ene"olithique

Recent

followed

Ne"olithique

Recent

directly.

The

material

remains

of

these

phases

shared

many

traits

with

the

Ghassulian

in

Palestine

with

which

they

were

probably

approximately

contemporary.

The

transition

to

the

latter

began

about

3750

B.C.

and

was

complete

by

3500

B.C.

(Moore,

1973,

63).

Thus

N^olithique

Recent

at

Byblos

may

have

lasted

until

the

earlier

centuries

of

the

Uth

millennium,

perhaps

3900

or

3800 B.C.

A

number

of

other

Neolithic

k

sites

have

been

found

on

the

seaward

side

of

the

Mountains

of

Lebanon.

Almost

all are

known

only

from

surface

finds

but

these

can

be

dated

by

typological

comparisons

with

Byblos

Ne"olithique

Moyen

and

Re*cent.

Many

other

probable

Neolithic

sites

have

been

identified

in

this

region

and

elsewhere

in

Lebanon

(see

especially

Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965;

1966)

but

insufficient

material

has

been

found

on

them

for

us

to

know

during

which

phases

of

the

Neolithic

they were

occupied.

It

is

likely

that

most

of

these

other

sites

were

inhabited

during

Neolithic

3

or

k

and

therefore

that

the

number

of

sites

discovered which

were

inhabited

in

these

phases

is

significantly

greater

than

those

I

am

describing.

Several

sites

contemporary

with

Byblos

Ne"olithique

Moyen

have

been

found

on

the

hill

slopes

near

the

sea

south of

the

Nahr

el

Kelb

(Fig. 50).

The

most

northerly

of

these

is

Dbaye

I

on

top

of

the

promontory

at

the

mouth

of

the

Nahr

el

Kelb

itself

and

about

1

km

north

of

the

village

of

Dbaye (Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

81).

Dbaye

I

The

site

was

discovered

long

ago

by

Zumoffen

and

others

have

picked

up

material

there

since.

Much of

this

has

been

deposited

in

the

University

Saint-

Joseph

and

at

the

Museum

of

the

American

University

in

Beirut

where

I

have

ex-

amined

it.

The

finds

from

the

site

consisted

entirely

of

flint

artifacts and of

these

the

heavy

tools,

axes,

chisels

and

picks

were

the

most

prominent.

The

axes

were of

a

variety

of

shapes

and

some

were

unusually

large.

Those

with

rounded

cutting

edges

were either

oval

or

almond-shaped

while

the

straight-

edged

axes

were

triangular

or

trapezoidal.

The

chisels

were

usually

quite

small

and

narrow

with rounded

or

straight

cutting

edges.

Most

of

the

picks

were

small

with rounded

butts;

these

tools

were

probably

for

woodworking

like

the

axes

and

chisels.

In

addition

there

were

a

number

of

heavy

spherical

flint

hammers

which

may

have

been

used

to

make the

other

large

tools.

The

assemblages

from

Dbaye

I

included

a

number

of

tanged

arrowheads

and

a

variety

of

segmented

sickle

blades,

mostly

with

fine

edge

retouch

but

a

few

with

coarse

denticulation.

There

were

also

a

range

of

borers,

some

knives,

burins

and end and

side-scrapers.

Cauvin

has

published

much

of

the

available

material

and

has

concluded

that the

site

was

inhabited

at

the

same

time

as

the

Ne"olithique

Moyen

settle-

ment

at

Byblos

(1968,

2^0ff)

principally

because

the

typology

of

the

axes,

chisels,

sickle

blades and

arrowheads was

the

same

at

both

sites.

The

site

was

visited

in

other

periods, however,

on

the

evidence

of

a

few

other

finds

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

162).

DAMASCUS

BASIN

f

COAST

I

o

I

Fig.

50

Neolithic

4

South

Syrian

sites

FIGURE

50

Neolithic

4

South

Syrian

sites

1

Neba'a

Jalluk

2

Kubbah

I

3

Batroun

III

4

Fadaous

South

5

Wadi

Helwe

6

Byblos

7

Maameltein

II

8

Kleat

9

Dbaye

I

10

Dbaye

III

11

Jiita

I

12

Naccache

13

Mtaileb

I

14

Jedeideh

III

15

Beit

Meri

II

16

Mukalles/Hsaima

17

Asfurieh

II

18

Hadeth

South

19

Ourrouar

II

20

Ouza'i

21

Sands

Site

10

22

Sands

Site

6

23

Tell

Arslan

24

Khalde

I

25

Khalde

IV

26

Harbarjer

III

27

Muktara

28

Yerate

29

Jebel

Aabeby

30

Jba'a

31

Sarafand

32

Adlun

II

33

et-Taireh

II

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

Chalaboun

Khallet

el

Michte

I

Khallet

el

Michte

II

Khallet

el

Hamra

Wadi

Yaroun

Douwara

Ain

Hannine

Birket Ram

'a

Tell

Ard

Tlaili

Tell

Neba'a

Litani

Tell

Ain

Saouda

Tell

Ain

Ghessali

Tell

Ain

Nfaikh

Tell

Hashbai

Tell

Hoch

Rafqa

Tell

Nahariyah

Tell

Saoudhi

Tell

Shamsine

Nebi

Zair

Mejdel

Anjar

II

Mejdel

Anjar

I

Dakoue

Tell

Khardane

Tell

ed-Deir

Kefraya

Bab

es-Sghrir

Bustan

el

Birke

Tell

Zenoub

Kamed

el

Loz

I

Tell

ed-Jisr

Ju.b

Jannine

III

Tahun

ben

Aissa

67

Amlaq

el

Qatih

68

Ain

Jaouze

69

Karaoun

II

70

Beidar

Chamout

71

Karaoun

I

72

Dahr

el

Ahmar

73

Kaukaba

74

Ard

Saouda

75

Khallet

el

Khazen

III

76

Khallet

el

Khazen

IV

77

Kafr

Tibnit

78

et-Tayibe

79

Kfar

Giladi

80

Shemouniyeh

81

Wadi

Salhah

82

Wadi

Farah

83

Tell

Ramad

84

Tell

al

Khazzami

There

is

another

site

in

the

vicinity

of

Dbaye

which

has

yielded

a

little

more

material

of

the same

kind

which

Copeland

and

Wescombe

called

Dbaye

III

(1965,

82)

and

Cauvin,

apparently

in

error,

Dbaye

II

(1968,

2^0).

Here again

there

were

a

number

of

axes

and

other

heavy

tools

but

relatively

few

sickle

blades,

arrowheads and

scrapers.

The

assemblages

from

these

two

sites

may

resemble

that

from

Byblos

typologically

but

it

is

clear

that

the

way

of

life

of

the

inhabitants

of

Dbaye

I

and

Dbaye

III

was

different.

The

presence

of

a

number

of arrowheads

suggests

that

hunting

contributed

significantly

to

the

diet,

supplementing

the

fruits

of

agriculture

presumably,

but

the

heavy

tools

indicate

that

the

inhabitants

spent

much

time

in

clearing

the

surrounding

woodland

and

shaping

timber.

Naccache

The

village

of

Naccache

lies

between

Dbaye

and

Antelias,

just

south

of

the

monastery

of

Mar

Jorgis.

The

surface

station,

or

rather

stations since

it

seems

that

there

were

several,

of

Naccache

or

Mar

Jorgis

lie

principally

to

the

north

and

east

of

the

village

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

110;

Cauvin,

1968,

232).

They

were

first

visited by

Bergy

in 1933

and

subsequently

by

several

other

workers

who

collected

much

material,

some

of

which

is

in

the

University

Saint-Joseph

in

Beirut.

The site

or

sites

consisted

of

several

concentrations

of

flint

tools

and

waste

over

a

wide

area.

Cauvin

collected

much

material

from

one

concentration

which

he

believed

had

been

missed by

earlier

workers.

The

most

numerous

tools

from

Cauvin

1

s

station

were

arrow-

heads,

sickle

blades,

borers,

burins and

notched

pieces.

The

arrowheads

were

tanged

and

pressure-flaked

Byblos

points.

The

sickle

blades

were

segmented

and

retouched

in

a

variety

of

ways

with

fine

or

coarse

denticulation, sometimes

by

pressure-flaking

and

either

with

or

without

backing

(Cauvin,

1968,

233).

The

borers

included both

small points

on

flakes

or

blades and

also

heavier

flaked

tools

which

one

might

classify

as

"picks".

The

latter

bore

clear

traces

of

wear

on

the

intersections

of

the

flake

scars

which showed

that

they

-

1*25

-

had

been

used

as

borers

or

reamers

(Cauvin,

1968,

237)-

In

addition

to

these

tools

there

were

a

number

of

axes

with

either

round

or

straight

cutting

edges

and

also

some

chisels.

The

other

artifacts

were

end-scrapers,

side-

scrapers

and

denticulated

blades

and

flakes.

Cauvin

believed

that

his

station

at

Naccache

was

occupied

during

Byblos

Ne*olithique

Moyen

on

the

basis

of

the

typology

of

the

arrowheads,

sickle

blades,

axes

and

chisels

and

also

because

end-scrapers

were

present.

These

observations

seem

valid

for

his

station

and

also

apply

to

the

material

which

I

have

seen

from

the

other

stations

in

the vicinity.

These

sites

appear

to

represent

the

settlements

of

one

or

more

groups

who lived

here

during

part

of

Neolithic

h.

The

settlements may

in

fact

have

been

more

long-lived

than

that

since

some

of

the

tools

could

equally

well

have

been

used

later

in

Neolithic

h

or even

in

Neolithic

3.

Such

stations

in

areas

where

flint

was

abundant

were

used

by

other

groups

in

other

phases

and

the

surface

collections

usually

include

at

least

a

few

tools

made

by

such

visitors.

Tell

Arslan

Tell

Arslan

lay

in

the

dunes or

Sands

8.5

km

south

of

Beirut

and

about

800

m

east

of

the

present shoreline

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

131;

Cauvin,

1968,

fig.

121).

The

site

was

a

mound

covering

about

1

ha

and

was

situated

on

a

low

rise

just

north

of

the

Nahr

el

Ghedir.

Bergy

found

the

site

in

1930

and collected

much material

from

it.

Fleisch

gathered

a

great

deal

more

in

19^8

when

the

site

was

levelled

during

the

construction

cf

Beirut

Airport.

All

this

material

is

now

in

the

University

Saint-Joseph.

The

site

seems

to

have

been

a

Neolithic

village

which

was

also

occupied

in

Roman

times.

The

extant

Neolithic material

from

the

site

consists

of

flints

and

pottery.

About

25%

of

the

flint

tools

were

axes

and

chisels

(Cauvin,

1968,

260,

269).

The

axes

were

particularly

varied,

a

majority

having

straight

and

the

remainder

round

cutting

edges.

Those

with

straight

edges

were

usually

trapezoidal

although

a

few

were

rectangular. Most

were

relatively

small

but

there

were

a

few

large

ones.

The

axes

with

rounded

edges

were

-

U26

-

either

oval

or

almond-shaped.

A

number

of the

trapezoidal

and

rectangular

ones

were

asymmetrical

in

cross-section

and

thus

adzes

rather

than

axes.

A

series

of

other

asymmetrical

ones,

both

trapezoidal

and

oval

in

outline,

had

heavily worn

cutting

edges.

Cauvin

has

concluded

that

these

tools

were used

as

hoes

(1968,

268),

an

interpretation with

which

I

agree.

Similarly

shaped

tools

have

been

found

on

the

other

Neolithic

U

sites

I

have

described

but

none

have

such

clear

traces

of

heavy

wear;

in

fact

few

of these

heavy

tools

show

any

signs

of

wear

at

all

to

the

naked

eye. It

would

seem

probable

that

some

of

these

asymmetrical

axes

were

used

as

hoes

on

the

other

sites

but not

long

enough

for

the

traces

of

wear

to

be

so

readily

visible.

The

chisels

from

Tell

Arslan

were

narrow

and

usually

oval

in

cross-section.

They

had

round

or

straight

cutting

edges.

These

tools

were

probably

for

wood-

working

as

were many

of

the

axes

and

adzes.

Borers

and

picks

which

might

also

have

been

used

in

carpentry

were

less

abundant

in

the

collections

from

Tell

Arslan

than

on

some

other

contemporary

sites

(Cauvin,

1968,

270).

The

two

other

main

classes

of

tools

were

arrowheads

and

sickle

blades.

The

arrowheads,

like

the

axes,

were

particularly

varied

since

they

included

both

kinds

of

Amuq.

point,

tanged

arrowheads of

the

Byblos

type

and

even

a

few

notched

examples.

Most,

though not

all,

the

sickle

blades

were

segmented

and

many

were

backed. They

had

either

finely-serrated

or

coarsely-denticulated

cutting

edges.

The

other

tools

consisted

of

a

few

burins,

end and

side-scrapers,

knives

and

notched

and

denticulated

pieces.

The

few

probable

Neolithic

sherds

from

Tell

Arslan

had

a

quite

hard,

evenly

fired

fabric

with

some

grit

and

straw

filler.

There

were

fragments

of

flat

bases

and

a

strap

handle

as

well

as

a

few

sherds

with

incised

decoration

consisting

of

parallel

lines

and

stab

marks.

In

his

study

of

the

Tell

Arslan

material

Cauvin

concluded

that

the

flints

and

sherds

were

all

sufficiently

similar

to

Ne*olithique

Moyen

artifacts

at

Byblos

for the

two

sites

to

have

been inhabited

contemporaneously

(1968,

27^,

275).

I

would

accept

that

for

many

of

the

flint

tools

and

perhaps

the

sherds

-

1*27

-

this

may

be

so

but

both

the

heavy

tools

and

the

arrowheads include

several

types

that

were

more

common

in

the

Neolithique Ancien

phase

at

Byblos. This

is

especially

so

of

the

short

trapezoidal

axes

and

Amuq

arrowheads.

The

few

notched

arrowheads

would

appear

to

come

from

a

Neolithic

2

context

contemporary

with

Tell aux

Scies

which

was also

in

the

Sands.

There

are

other

flint

tools

in

the

collections

from

Tell

Arslan

which

are

more

archaic

still,

perhaps

even

Upper

Palaeolithic

in

date,

which

suggest

that

groups

visited

the

site

in

much

earlier

times.

The

history

of

the

site

probably began with

such

temporary

camps

and

then

a

small

settlement

may

have

been established

here

in

Neolithic

3.

This

grew

and

became

much

more

extensive

in

the

earlier

centuries

of

Neolithic

U

at

a

time

contemporary

with

Neolithique

Moyen

at

Byblos,

after

which

the

site

was

probably

abandoned.

Muktara

The

village

of

Muktara

is

about

5

km

south-east

of

Beit

ed-Din

and

overlooks

the

valley

of

the

Nahr

el

Baruk

high

in

the

Mountains

of

Lebanon

below

Jebel

Baruk.

The

site

lies

on

a

series

of

terraces

below

the

village

at

an

elevation

of

about

900

m.

Cauvin

excavated

it

in

1961

and

has

presented

the

results

in

two

publications

(1963,

^89ff;

1968,

277ff)

The

site

had

been

cultivated

for

a

long

time

and

consequently

nothing

remained

undisturbed.

The

excavations

yielded

a

collection

of

flint

tools,

waste,

some

bone

tools,

a

few

badly-weathered

potsherds,

one

of

which

was

incised,

and

a

basalt

hoe

as

well

as

a

few

other

stone

tools.

"\k.Q%

of

the

ho6

retouched

tools

were

arrowheads.

Most

of

these

were

tanged

Byblos points

but

there

were

also

Amuq

points

and

a

notched

arrowhead

with

pressure-flaked

retouch.

Cauvin

included

two large

bifacially

retouched

oval

points

in

this

categories

comprising

6%

of

the

retouched

pieces

(Cauvin,

1968,

282,

286).

The

axes

were

quite

varied

nonetheless

since

the

assemblage

included

almond-shaped,

oval,

round

and

trapezoidal

ones.

In

addition

to

these

tools

there

were

a

few

"borers,

end

and

side-scrapers

and

knives.

The

typology

of

the

main

classes

of

flint

tools

at

Muktara

resembles

that

of

the

Byblos

Ne'olithique

Moyen assemblage

quite

closely

so

the

two

sites

were

occupied

contemporaneously

(Cauvin,

1968,

277).

The

proportions

of

the

tools

in

the

Muktara

assemblage

differ

quite

markedly from

those

of

Byblos and

other

Ne'olithique

Moyen

sites

discussed

so

far.

Perhaps

the most

surprising

aspect

is

the

low

percentage

of

woodworking

tools

at

Muktata

since

the

neighbourhood

of

this site

would

have

been

quite

as

heavily

forested

as

that

of

the

sites

at

lower

elevations

near

the

coast.

The

high

percentage

of

arrowheads found

in

the

excavations

may

indicate

that

hunting

contributed

more

to

the

food

supply

than

on

other

sites.

The

presence

of

a

hoe,

a

stone

spindle

whorl

(Cauvin,

1963,

fig.

9)

and perhaps the

sickle

blades

suggest

that

the

economy

of

the

site

was

based

upon

agriculture

and

herding,

both

of

which

could

have

been

practised

in

the

environs

of

the

site

despite

its

elevation.

The

valley

slopes

in

this

region

are

quite

steep

so

that

herding

may

have

played

a

larger

part

in

the

economy

than

on

the

coastal

sites.

Indeed

it

is

likely

that

Muktara

was

a

seasonal

settlement

occupied

only

during

the

summer

when

flocks

and

herds

were

pastured

here

and

a

few

crops

grown

in

the

vicinity.

Much

less

is

known

about

Hie

other

surface

stations

kiown

to

have

been

occupied

contemporaneously

with

Ne'olithique

Moyen

Byblos

so

that

I

shall

discuss

these

only

briefly.

Neba'a

Jalluk

is

situated

in

the

hills

at

the

extreme

northern

end

of

the

Mountains

of

Lebanon

about

8

km

south

of

Tell

Kalakh

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

kQ).

The

site

was

occupied

in

the

Neolithic

as

well

as

in

later

periods.

The

Neolithic

material consisted

of

flint

tools,

obsidian

blades

and

a

few

sherds,

one

of

which

had

an

applied,

decorated

band

and

was

burnished.

Among

the flints

were

tanged

arrowheads, finely

and

coarsely-

denticulated

segmented

sickle

blades,

axes

and

adzes.

This

material

is

thought

principally

to

resemble

finds

from

Byblos

Ne*olithique

Moyen

although

the site

may

have

been

inhabited

both

in

Neolithic

3

and

later

in

Neolithic

h.

Kubbah

I

north

of

Batrun

was

occupied

in

Neolithic

3

as

we

have

seen

but

continued

to

be

inhabited

in

Neolithic

k

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

19&5»

101).

The

collections

from

the

site

in

the

University Saint-Joseph

include

segmented

sickle

blades

with

both

fine

and

coarse

denticulation

as

well

as

long,

narrow

trapezoidal

axes

and

adzes

which

are

more

typical

of

Ne"olithique

Moyen

than

Ne"olithique

Ancien

at

Byblos.

A

basalt

hoe

was

also

found

here

like

the one

from

Muktara

though

we

do

not

know

it

if

came

from

the

Neolithic

3

or

Neo-

lithic

h

levels

at

the

site.

An

assemblage

similar

to

the

Neolithic

k

material

from

Kubbah

I

has

been

found

on

the

beach

south

of

Batrun

and

this

station

has

been

designated

Batrun

III

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

72).

Another

site

lying

beside

the

sea

has

been

found

on

the south

side

of

the

mouth

of

the

Wadi

Helwe

6.5

km

north

of

Byblos

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

139).

The

site

is

said

to

have

yielded

tanged

arrowheads,

sickle

blades,

axes,

scrapers,

borers

and

fragments

of

stone

bowls

resembling

Ne"olithique

Moyen

material

from

Byblos.

Further

south

Maameltein

II

overlooks

the

bay

of

Jounieh

at

an

elevation

of

between

15

and

20

m.

Some

material

was

collected

here

by

Bergy which

resembles

N^olithique

Moyen

finds

from

Byblos

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

103).

The

site of

Kleat

is

about

8

km

east-south-east

of

Jounieh

at

an

elevation

of

1000

m

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965

9

100).

Material

said

to

be

comparable

to

Byblos

Ne"olithique

Moyen

was

found

here

by

Nasrallah.

Jiita

I

is

also

a

little

distance

inland

in

the

Nahr

el

Kelb

but

at

a

lower

elevation

of

TO

m

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

90).

The

site

is

a

deep

cave

which

was

partly

excavated

by

Zumoffen

and

in

which

other

workers

have

also

found

flints

and

pottery.

Some

of

the

flints

and

pottery

are

believed

to resemble

Ne"olithique

Moyen

material

-

430

-

at

Byblos

so

the

site

was

probably

occupied

then

as

well

as

in

other

periods.

Mukalles/Hsaima

is

on

the

valley

floor of

the

Nahr

Beirut

6.5

km

south-east

of

the

city

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

109).

The

Neolithic

material

found

on

this

site

consisted

of

flint

axes

and

adzes,

denticulated

segmented

sickle

blades,

arrowheads

and

end-scrapers,

all

of

which

are

thought

to

belong

to

a

Ne"olithique

Moyen

assemblage.

The

other

sites

are

near

the

coast

south of

Beirut.

One,

Site

6, is

in

the

Sands

area

8

km

south

of

Beirut

near

the

Airport

Terminal

building

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

132).

Some

flints

of

Byblos

Ne*olithique

Moyen

type

have

been

found

here

as

well

as

Palaeolithic

material.

Another

site,

Habarjer

III,

is

3

km

east-south-east

of

Khalde

among

open

hills

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

88).

The

Neolithic

flints

collected

here

consisted

of

small

and

medium-sized

trapezoidal

axes

and

adzes,

oval

axes,

some

longer

adzes,

picks

and

choppers,

tanged

Byblos

points,

both

finely and

coarsely-denticulated

segmented

sickle

blades,

end and

side-scrapers

on

flakes,

burins,

borers

and

knives.

The

arrowheads,

sickle

blades

and

some

of

the

axes

and

other

tools

would

fit

both

a

Byblos

Ne"olithique

Ancien

and

Moyen

context. The

likelihood

is

that

the

site

was

first

used

in

Neolithic

3

and

then

continued

to

be

inhabited

well

into

Neolithic

k.

The

to

the

south

is

Yerate

on

the

left

bank

of

the

mouth

of

the

Nahr

Damur

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

1^0).

An

arrowhead,

axe,

adze,

several

segmented

sickle

blades

and

scrapers

were

found

here

with

much

waste

flint.

The

site

is

certainly

Neolithic

and

may

have

been occupied

in

this

phase.

The

next most

southerly

site

of

this

group

is

Chalaboun

which

lies

among

the

hills

which

are

part

of

the

Galilee

uplands near

the

present

frontier

with

Israel.

The

site

is

2

km

north-east

of

Ain

Ebel

beside

the

road

to

Bint

Jbail

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

28).

The

material

from

here

consisted

of

several

types

of

axes,

chisels,

borers,

burins

and

segmented

sickle

blades

(Qauvin,

Cauvin,

1968,

113).

The

Cauvins

have

attributed

this

site

to

the

early

part

of

Neolithic

H

contemporary

with

Ne'olithique

Moyen

Byblos.

-

U31

-

Neolithique

Moyen

at

Byblos was

a

short-lived

phase,

especially

when

compared

with

Ne"olithique

Re"cent.

One

might

be

surprised,

therefore,

that

at

least

17

other

sites

have

"been

found

on

the

western

side

of

the

Mountains

of

Lebanon

which

can

be

attributed

to

the

same

phase.

It

should

be

remembered,

however,

that

all

have

to

be

dated

on

typological

grounds

and

that

many

of

the

flint

types

used

were

current

in

at

least

one

other phase

of

the

Byblos

sequence.

These

sites

were

not

necessarily

occupied

or

visited

only

during

the

centuries

the

Ne"olithique

Moyen

settlement

at

Byblos

was

inhabited

but

later

in

Neolithic

k

also

and

perhaps

in

Neolithic

3.

In

contrast

with

the

relative

abundance

of

Ne"olithique

Moyen

sites

few

stations

with

material

similar

to

that of

Ne"olithique

Recent

have

been

dis-

covered.

Nearly

all

those

that

are

known

are

in

the

vicinity

of

Beirut

which

suggests

at

once

that

this

is

more

the

result

of

the

concentration

of

archaeo-

logical

activity

in

this

area

than

any

certain

reduction

in

the

number

of

sites

occupied

in

the

rest

of

western

Lebanon.

More

is

known

about

Asfurieh

II

than

other

sites

since

Cauvin

has

published

the

collection

Bergy

made

here

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

69;

Cauvin,

1968,

297).

This

station

lies

about

8

km

south-east

of

Beirut

beside

the

road to

Damascus

at

an

altitude

of

about

280

m;

it is

probably

now

buried

by

the

village

of

Fayadiyeh.

The flints

from

this site

consisted

of

a

series

of

trapezoidal

axes

and

adzes

with

straight

cutting

edges,

a

few

chisels,

borers, burins,

end-scrapers,

side-scrapers and

a

fan-scraper

on

tabular

flint.

Cauvin points

out

that

the

typology

of

these

tools

closely matches

that of

the

Byblos

Ne"olithique

Recent

assemblage

(

1968,

298).

From

the

types

represented

it

would

seem

that

the

inhabitants

of

the

site

engaged

in

much

woodworking.

Two

sites

thought

to

be of

this

phase

have

been

found

in

the

Sands.

One,

Ouza'i,

is

5

km

south

of

Beirut

to

the

east

of

the

Sidon

road

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965

5

130).

Flints

were collected

over

a

wide

area

by

several

workers.

They

included

long,

narrow

adzes,

finely-denticulated

segmented

sickle

blades

and

borers

which

Cauvin

believed

matched

the

Neolithique

Recent

-

1*32

-

assemblage

from

Byblos.

The

other,

Sands

site

10,

is

about

7

km

south

of

Beirut

also

just

to

the

east

of

the

Sidon

road

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

133).

Flints

of

several periods

were

found

over

a

wide

area

here.

Some

of

them,

including

a

number

of

axes,

were said

to

be like

Neolithique

Recent

material

from

Byblos.

Two

more

sites

are

situated

near

the

Sidon

road

further

south.

The

first,

Khalde

I,

is

12

km

south

of

Beirut

on

a

hill

above

the

road

to

the

east

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

98).

Once

again

the

flints

were

spread

over

a

wide

area

but

they

formed

a

homogeneous

assemblage.

The

tools

consisted

of

finely-denticulated

segmented

sickle

blades,

end-scrapers,

steep

scrapers,

several

adzes,

borers

and

a

tanged

arrowhead.

From

the

typology

of

these

pieces

it

appeared

that

the

site

was

contemporary

with

Neolithique

Recent

at

Byblos

although

it

may

have

been

used

in

the

preceding

phase

also.

Khalde

IV

is 17

km

south

of Beirut

and

11

m

above

sea

level

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965

5

99).

The

flints

found

here

were

finely-denticulated

sickle

blades

and

various

scrapers

which

are

thought

to

be

similar

to

Khalde

I

and

thus

contemporary

with

Byblos

Ne"olithique

Recent.

Two

more

sites

of

this

phase

were

found

long

ago

by

Bovier-Lapierre

in

southern

Lebanon.

One,

Ain

Hannine

is

2

km

west

of

Ain

Ebel

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

19).

A

great

many

flint

tools

and

waste

were

found

near

the

spring

which

are

now

in

the

Universite

Saint-Joseph. The

most

abundant

tools

were

a

series

of

axes,

adzes

and

chisels,

not

all

of

which

were

finished.

There

were

also

some

end

and

side-scrapers

as

well

as

a

few

awls,

knives and

a

tanged

arrowhead.

The few

sickle

blades

were

segmented

and

backed

with

nibbled

edge

retouch

or

plain

cutting

edges.

The

material

also

included

cores

and

hammers.

The

abundance

of

the

axes

and

the

unfinished

condition

of

some

of

them

have

led

to

suggestions

that

this

was

a

factory

site.

This

is

probably

correct

but

the

wide

range

of the

other

tools

that

I

have

seen

indicate

that

this was

also

a

settlement.

The

typology

of

the

axes

and

sickle

blades

is

similar

to

that

of

Byblos

Neolithique

Recent

placing

it

in

Neolithic

U

but

Palestinian

parallels

for

this

material

would

indicate

that

the

site

was

-

U33

-

occupied

late

in

this phase.

Birket

Ram'a

is

19

km

clue

east

of

Nakura

on

the

coast

and

west of

Ain

Hannine

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

27).

This

site

is

also

near

a

spring.

The flints

which included

many

axes

as

well

as

long

chisels

and

picks

are

also

said

to

resemble

Ne"olithique

Recent

material

from

Byblos.

One

other

site

in

this

group,

the

last,

is

the

most

southerly

of

all.

This

station,

Wadi

Yaroun,

lies

2

km

south

of

Ain

Ebel

near

the

frontier

between

Lebanon

and

Israel

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

89).

The

site

consisted

of

a

dense

scatter

of

flint

flakes

among

which

were

axes,

scrapers

and

other

tools.

Some

were

sufficiently

diagnostic

for

the

site

to

be

assigned

to

a

late

stage

of

Neolithic

U.

This

station

may

have

been

a

factory

site

although

the

finished

state of

some

of

the

artifacts

indicates

it

was

also

inhabited

as

a

settlement.

I

will

now

discuss

the

Neolithic

h

sites

which

have

been

discovered

in

the

Beka'a.

These

differ

sufficiently

from

the

sites

on

the

coast

to

be

classed

as

a

second

sub-group

within

the

South

Syrian group

of

Neolithic

k

sites.

Beka'a

I

will

describe

first

those

sites

that

were inhabited

early

in

Neolithic

h

and

which

were

contemporary

with

Ne*olithique

Moyen

Byblos.

More

is

known

about

Tell

Ard

Tlaili

than

other

sites

since

this

is

the only

Neolithic

U

settlement

in

the

Beka'a

to

have

been

excavated.

Tell

Ard

Tlaili

Tell

Ard

Tlaili

lies

11

km

north-west

of

Baalbek

on

the

other

side

of

the

Beka'a

near

the

foot

of

the

Mountains

of

Lebanon

(Kirkbride,

1969

9

53).

The

site

is

a

low

mound

on

the

plain

in

an

area

which

at

present

has

a

high

water

table.

The

mound

was

slightly

larger

originally

since

its

perimeter

is

now

buried

beneath

1

m

of

soil.

The

occupation

sequence

was

divided

into

a

lower

and

upper

phase.

The

buildings

in

both

phases

were

rectilinear;

their

walls

were

of

pise"

with,

in

the

lower

phase

pebble

footings

and

in

the

upper

foundations

of

large

stones.

The

floors of

these

buildings

were

made of

trodden

clay

of

white plaster

while

the

walls

of

some

structures

were

plastered

also

and

even

burnished

(Kirkbride,

no

date).

In

the

yards

between

these

structures

were hearths

and

areas

made

of

plaster

or

clay.

31

The

finds

consisted

for

the

most part

of

chipped

stone

tools

and

pottery

though

there

were

also

basalt

bowls,

hammers

and

many

baked

clay

sling

bullets.

Among

the

flints

were

segmented,

finely-denticulated

blades,

some

axes

and

borers.

There

was

a

variety

of

scrapers,

including

end and

side-scrapers

on

flakes,

steep

scrapers

and

fan

scrapers.

Several

obsidian

blades

were

also

found.

The

pottery

comprised

four

principal

groups.

Painted

sherds

of

Halaf

type

made

up the first group

(Kirkbride,

1969,

pi.

III).

The

patterns

included

rows

of

horizontal

or

vertical

lines,

sometimes

with

dots

between,

zig-zag

and

wavy

lines

and

delicate

mesh

designs.

In

the

upper

phase

jars

with

bow

rims

and

vessels

coloured

with

a

red

wash were used

with

the

painted

Halaf

wares.

The

second

pottery

group

consisted

of

burnished

vessels

with

surface

colours

ranging

from

red

and orange

to

brown

and

black.

Some

of

these

vessels

were

pattern

burnished.

The

third

group was somewhat

coarser

and

decorated with

varied

incised

patterns

which

included

parallel

lines,

zig-zags,

filled

triangles and

stab

marks (Kirkbride,

19&9,

pl»

IV).

The

fourth

kind

of

pottery-

was

a

coarse

ware with

much

straw

and

some

grit

badly

fired

at

a

relatively

low

temperature.

The

surface

of

the

pots

was

usually

buff

or

brown

and

smoothed

by

hand

or

wiped

with

straw.

The

affinities

of

the

painted

pottery

are

clearly

with

Halaf

sites

to

the

north.

Indeed

this

is

the

most

southerly

site

at

which

pottery

painted

in

the

Halaf

style

has

been

found.

The

burnished

wares,

while

also

common

enough

on

Halaf

sites,

resemble

pottery

from

Byblos

Ne*olithique

Moyen

as

does

the

incised

group

of

sherds.

The

flints,

too,

show

affinities

with

Byblos. This

little

farming

village

shares

the

material

culture

of

the

early

Neolithic

U

South

Syrian

sites

and

their

Halaf

counterparts

to

the

north.

The

carbon

1^i

determinations

from

Ard

Tlail

which

I

have

already

discussed

when

considering

Byblos,

are

important

since

they

are the

only

ones

that

we

have

for

any

Neolithic

k

site

in

the

South

Syrian

group

(Kirkbride,

1969,

55;

Mellaart,

1975,

287).

They

suggest

that

the

site

was

inhabited

from

about

5000

B.C.

until

U700

or

U600

B.C.

Tell

Ain

Nfaikh

Tell

Ain

Nfaikh

is

on

the

west

side

of

the

Beka'a midway

between

Rayak

and

Baalbek and

300

m

east

of

the

Litani

river

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

56).

The

site

is

now

ploughed

flat

and the

remains

of

the

prehistoric

occupation

are

concentrated

in

an

area

of no

more than

100

sq

m.

The

site

was

also

used

in

Bronze

Age

and

Classical

times

and

material

from

these phases

has

been

found

over

a

wide

area.

The

chipped

stone

tools

collected

from

the

surface

and

now

in

the

University

Saint-Joseph

included

many

segmented

sickle blades.

These

were

usually

short

but

relatively

wide

with

nibbled

or

finely-denticulated

cutting

edges

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

fig.

XXXVIII:

1-7).

Few

other

flint

tools

were

found

but

among

them

were

tanged

arrowheads,

axes

and

chisels,

borers,

end-scrapers

and side-scrapers,

some

of

which

were

on

tabular

flint,

and

burins

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

57;

Copeland,

1969,

95).

Obsidian

was

used

at

the

site

and

there

was

one

small

axe

made

of

imported

greenstone.

Pottery

was

quite

abundant

and

included

some fine

wares

as

well

as

many

coarse

sherds.

The

fabrics

were

buff,

grey

or

black

tempered

with

straw

and

some

grit.

The

vessels

were

quite

hard-fired

though

unevenly

finished

by

smoothing

with

a

hand

or

wiped

with

straw.

The

jars

had

flat

bases

with

collared

necks,

some

of

which

were

flared

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

figs.

XXXIX,

XL);

there

were

also

jars

with

bow

rims.

Some

of

the

coarse

ware

jars

were

globular

with

hole-mouth

rims.

Bowls

were

hemispherical

or

flat-based

with

flared

sides.

The

fine

wares

were

frequently

decorated

with

red

or

-

U36

-

sometimes

"black

wash

or

slip

which

was

often

burnished.

Other

vessels

were

not

coloured

but

burnished

all

the

same.

There

was

at

least

one

sherd with

a

painted

lattice

pattern

which

had

also

been

burnished.

Some

vessels,

both

coloured

and

plain,

were

decorated

with

incised

designs

of

lines

and

stab

marks

and

finger

impressions

in

the

rims.

The

affinities

of

the

flints

are

with

Byblos

Ne"olithique

Moyen

and Recent

although

the

precise

shape

of

the

sickle

blades

is

different.

The

shapes

of

the

pots

and

their

decoration

resemble

Byblos

Ne"olithique

Moyen

more

than

Recent

though

again

such

frequent

use

of

surface

colour

is

more

typical

of

Ain

Nfaikh,

Ard

Tlaili

and

other

Beka'a

sites.

Thus

Tell

Ain

Nkaikh

seems

to

have

been occupied

first

when

Ne"olithique

Moyen

Byblos and

Tell

Ard

Tlaili

were flourishing

settlements

but

probably

continued

to

be

inhabited

until

later

in

Neolithic

h.

The

remaining

Beka'a

sites

thought

to

be

contemporary

with

Neolithique

Moyen

Byblos

and

Tell

Ard

Tlaili

merit

only

a

brief

description.

Tell

Neba'a

Litani

is

about

9

km

west

of

Baalbek

at

the

source

of

the

Litani

river

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

80).

The

only

flint

tools

found

here

were

some

steep

scrapers

and

a

segmented

sickle

blade.

The

pottery

was

quite

varied

since

it

included

burnished

and

incised

sherds

as

well

as

others

with

red

slip.

There

were

also

a

few

painted

sherds

with

a

lattice

pattern

(Copeland,

1969,

fig*

7:^)

All

this

material

is

believed

to

resemble

Neolithique

Moyen

Byblos

and

Tell

Ard

Tlaili

so

dating

the

site

to

Neolithic

h

though

it

was

also

occupied

in

the

Bronze

Age.

Tell

Ain

Saouda

lies

2

km

south

of

Tell

Neba'a

Litani

beside

two

springs

and

near

the

Litani

river

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

58).

The

flints

from

this

site

consisted

of

a

number

of

nibbled

or

finely-denticulated

segmented

sickle

blades,

flake

scrapers,

tanged

arrowheads

and

an

axe

with

sliced

sides

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

fig.

XLIV).

Fragments

of

obsidian

were

also

found

here.

The

sherds

came

from

flat-bottomed

jars

with

collared

necks

or

flared

rims,

globular

hole-mouth

jars

and

bowls

either

with

flared

sides

or

hemi-

spherical

in

shape.

Many

of

these

vessels

were

burnished

and

some

had

incised

-

U3T

-

decoration. Others

had

a

red

slip

or

were

painted.

This

material

resembles

that

from

Tell

Ain

Nfaikh and

other

neighbouring

Beka'a

sites

which

I

have

mentioned

indicating

that

the

site

was

occupied

during

Neolithic

h.

It

was

also

inhabited

during

the

Bronze

Age

and

as

late

as

Classical

times.

Tell

Ain

Ghessali

is

just

to

the

east

of

Tell

Ain

Nfaikh

halfway

between

Rayak

and Baalbek

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

55).

A

surface

collection

from

here

included

several

flint

scrapers,

an

axe

and

a

segmented

sickle

blade

as

well

as

sherds

of

burnished

pottery.

This

material

was

thought

to

possibly

indicate

Neolithic

h

occupation

and

Copeland

has

since

linked

the

site

with

neighbouring

tells

which

were contemporary

with

Ne"olithique

Moyen

Byblos

(1969

5

9*0«

The

tell

was

also

occupied

during

the

Bronze

Age.

The

earliest

Neolithic

occupation

at

Tell

Hashbai

not

far

from

Tell

Ain

Nfaikh

was

during

Neolithic

3

as

we

saw

in

the

last

chapter.

Some

of

the

flint

tools

and

pottery,

particularly

some

of

the

incised,

red-slipped

and

burnished

pottery,

resembled

that

of Byblos

Ne"olithique

Moyen

and

neighbouring

contemporary

sites

in

the

Beka'a

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

65)

so

the

settlement

continued

to

be

occupied

well

into

Neolithic

k.

A

little

south

of

Tell

Hashbai

and

9

km

north-north-east

of

Rayak

lies

Tell

Hoch

Rafga

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

67)

This

site

is

also

near

the

Litani

river

and

belongs

to

this

large group

of

sites

in

the

central

Beka'a.

The

flints

collected

from

the

surface of

the

site

consisted

of

scrapers

and

segmented

sickle

blades

while

some

scrapers

of obsidian

were

also

found.

The

potsherds

included

several

rims

which

had

been

coloured

black

or

red

and

burnished.

These

finds

match

those

from

the

nearby

sites

I

have

already

mentioned

so

it

is

thought

that Tell

Hoch

Rafqa

was

also

inhabited

for

much

of Neolithic

h

as

well

as

in

later

periods.

Tell

Nahariyah

is

2.7

km

north-north-east

of

Rayak

on

the

left

bank

of

the

Litani

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

77)-

The

bulk

of

the

tell consists

of

the

remains

of

the

Neolithic

settlement although

the

site

was

probably

also

occupied

in

the

Bronze

Age.

A

surface

collection

from

the

site

consisted

-

U38

-

of

flint tools,

obsidian

fragments,

basalt

tools

and

pottery.

Among

the

flints

were

finely-denticulated segmented

sickle

blades

and

many

steep

scrapers.

At

least

two

wares

were

represented

among

the

Neolithic

potsherds.

One was

a

plain

coarse

ware

and

the

surface

of these

sherds

had

been

wiped

with

grass

or

cloth.

The

other consisted

for the

most part of

thinner

walled

vessels

with

a

burnished

surface;

some

of

these

were

coloured

with

a

red

slip.

The

affinities

of

these

flints

and

sherds

are

once

again

with

Ard

Tlaili and

the

other

Beka'a

sites

I

have mentioned,

indicating

that

the

site

was

occupied

for

much of

Neolithic

U.

Tell

Sha.msine

on

the

other

side

of

the

Beka'a

near

An

jar was

probably

first

settled

in

Neolithic

3

as

we

have

already

seen.

Some

of

the

burnished

pottery

and

flints

from

here

were

more akin to

those

of

neighbouring

Neolithic

h

sites

so

it

would

appear

that

the

site

continued

to

be

inhabited

well

into

the

(Copeland,

1969>

fig.

3).

Another

site

in

this

group

of

settlements

in

Mejdel

Anjar

II.

The

site

is

2

km

north

of

the

village

of

Mejdel

Anjar

near

the

road from

Beirut

to

Damascus

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

hh)

.

There

is

a

considerable

accumulation

of

deposit

here,

most of

which

appears

to

be

Neolithic

since

only

the

uppermost

levels

seem

to

date

from

later

periods.

The

Neolithic

surface

finds

from

this

site

consisted

of

flints,

potsherds

and

part

of

a

hemispherical

stone

bowl.

The

flints

were

more

numerous

and

varied

than

on

other

sites

,

partly

because

the

tell

was disturbed.

Among

the

tools

were

nibbled

and

finely-denticulated

segmented

sickle

blades,

end-scrapers,

burins,

borers,

picks

and

trapezoidal

axes.

Both

fine

and

coarse

pottery

was

found

and

the

fine

ware

included

sherds

with red

slip

and

burnish

as

well

as

an

incised

sherd.

The

flints

and

pottery

resemble

both

the

material

from

Ard

Tlaili

and

Byblos

Ne"olithique

Moyen

and

Re"cent

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

1*5)

so

Mejdel

Anjar

II

was

occupied

for

much

of Neolithic

U.

The

last

tell of

this

group

in

the

central

Beka'a

is

Tell

ed-Deir

about

halfway

between

Chtaura

and

Jub

Jannine

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

62).

Many

-

^39

-

Neolithic

flint

tools

were

found

here,

the

most

numerous

of

which

were

large

scrapers,

knives,

picks,

axes

and

adzes.

There

were

also

some

denticulated

segmented

sickle

blades

and

burins.

The

only

diagnostic

Neolithic

potsherds

were

finished

with

red

slip

and

burnish.

Both

the

flint

tools

and

these

potsherds

resemble

Neolithic

k

material

from

the

tells

in

the

same

area

so

the

site

was

certainly

occupied

in

this

phase

as

well

as

later

in

the

Bronze

Age.

Sites

of

this

phase

in

the

south

Beka'a

were

smaller

with

little

depth

of

deposit,

probably

because

the

broken

country

in

this

region

was

less

suitable

for

long-lived

villages

deriving

their

subsistence

from

agriculture.

Bab

es-Sghrir

3

km

south-east

of

Kefraya

near

the

road

to

Jub

Jannine

is

one

such

small

surface

station

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

25).

Only

flints

were

found

on

the

surface

here.

These

consisted

of

several

oval,

cordiform

and

other

axes,

chisels,

scrapers

and

borers

which

are

believed

to

be

similar

typologically

to

material

from

Ne"olithique

Moyen

Byblos.

It

would

thus

appear

that

the

site

was

used

early

in

Neolithic

U.

Tahun

ben

Aissa

is

3.5

km

west-south-west

of

Jub

Jannine

on

the

left

bank

of

the

Litani

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

53).

Some

flints

were

found

here

which

consisted

for

the

most

part

of

large

cutting

tools

such

as

rectangular,

trapezoidal

and

oval

axes

(Cauvin,

Cauvin,

1968,

112,

fig.

6).

A

few

scrapers,

finely-denticulated

segmented

sickle

blades

and

a

pressure-flaked

oval

arrow

head

were

also

found

here.

The

Cauvins

believe

that

the

site

was

contemporary

with

Ne'olithique

Moyen

Byblos.

Similar

flints

have

been

found

at

Dahr

el

Ahmar

500

m

north

of

the

village

of

the

same

name

and

3

km

north

of

Rakaya

among

hills

on

the

east

side

of

the

Beka'a

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

28).

West

of

Rakaya

Kaukaba

too

has

yielded

enough

material

of

this

phase

to

show

that

it

was

inhabited

for

at

least

part

of

Neolithic

h

as

well

as

in

Neolithic

3

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

39).

Among

the

more

interesting

finds

from

this

site

attributed

to

Neolithic

U

was

a

series

of

flint

picks.

The

points

of

these

were

very

heavily

worn

as

if

used

for

particularly

heavy

work.

Two

fragments

of

basalt

hoes

were

also

-

440

-

found

at

Kaukaba

and Cauvin

thinks

that

the

picks

were

used

to

drill

a

hole

through

each hoe

for

a

handle

(1969,

125ff).

Khallet

el

Khazen

III

is

13

km

south

of

Jezzine

on

a

ridge

west

of

the

hamlet

of

Khallet

el

Khazen

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

41).

This

locality

is

in

hilly

country

west

of

the

Litani

before

it

makes

its

turn

west

to

the

Mediterranean.

A

number

of

flints

have

been

found

on this

station,

among

them

segmented

sickle

blades,

an axe,

chisels

and

scrapers.

These

have

been

likened

to

Ne'olithique

Moyen

material

from

Byblos

with

which

it

seems

the

site was

contemporary.

Khallet

el

Khazen

IV

is

several

hundred

metres

west

of

site

III

at

a

higher

elevation

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

41).

A

greater

variety

of

tools

has

been

found

here

which

include

a

tanged

arrowhead,

almond-

shaped

and

other

axes,

an

adze,

choppers

and

burins.

Several

of

these

tools

are

similar

to

those

from

Muktara

indicating

that

this

station

also

was

used

early

in

Neolithic

4.

All

the

Beka'a

sites

I

have

discussed

so

far,

both

the

tell

settlements

and

small

open

stations,

were

probably

occupied

early

in

Neolithic

4

while

some of

them

continued

to

be

occupied

into

the

later

centuries of

this

phase.

There

are

some

other

Beka'a

sites

whose

material

remains

may

best

be

compared

with

Byblos

Ne'olithique

Recent

which seem

to

have

been

occupied

only late

in

Neolithic

4,

One

site,

Tell

ed-Jisr,

is

better

known

than

the

others

so

I

shall

describe

it

first.

The

mound

lies

1.5

km

north-west

of

Jub

Jannine

on

the

right

bank

of

the

Litani

at

a

probable

ancient

river

crossing

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

68).

Much

pottery

and

flint,

now

in

the

University Saint-

Joseph,

was

collected

from

a

section

cut

by

the

road

which

passes

the

mound.

Many of

the

flint

tools

were

large,

particularly

several

choppers,

long

trapezoidal

axes

and

adzes

and

some

end

and

side-scrapers.

The

other

scrapers

were

quite

small

while

the

segmented

sickle

blades

had

nibbled

or

finely-

denticulated

cutting

edges.

Some

pieces

of

obsidian

were

found

in

the

section

and

also

fragments

of

a

basalt

bowl

and

other

stone

vessels.

The

pottery

consisted

of

fine

and

coarse

wares. The

fabrics

were

tempered

with

straw

and

grit

which

was

often

white

and

quite

coarse.

All

were

finished

by

hand

while

the

surface

of

some

coarse sherds

was

wiped

with

straw.

Some

coarse

vessels

were

burnished,

others

not.

Hole-mouth

jars,

globular

ones

with

upright

rims,

collared

jars

and

others

with

bow

rims

were

all

made

while

some

of

the

finer

sherds

came

from

bowls

with

incised

designs,

red

wash

or

slip

and

a

few

even

with

cream

slip.

This

material

has

much

in

common

with

Ne"olithique

Recent

at

Byblos and

even,

as

we shall

see,

with

later

Neolithic

1*

in

Palestine.

The

settlement

certainly

flourished

in

this

phase and

was

also

occupied

during

the

Bronze

Age.

The

most

northerly

Beka'a

site

which

was

probably

first

occupied

in

this

later

stage

of

Neolithic

U

is

Tell

Saoudhi.

This

small

tell

lies

about

2

km

south-west

of

Rayak

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

83).

A

little

burnished

pottery

and

some

flints

were

found

here

which

have

been

compared

with

Neolithique

Re'cent

Byblos.

Amiq

I

lies

"\k

km

south-west

of

Chtaura

on

rocky

slopes

at

the

west

side

of

the

Beka'a

below

Jebel

Baruk

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

21).

Flint

tools,

basalt

querns

and

other

fragments

were

found

here

but

no

pottery.

The

flints

consisted

of

segmented

sickle

blades,

an

arrowhead

and

numerous

axes,

adzes

and

chisels

as

well

as

blunted

picks

(Cauvin,

1969,

121).

Two of

the

basalt

fragments

had

been

bored

through

and

the

picks

are

thought

to

have

been

used

to

drill

holes

in

these

and

other

basalt

artifacts.

All

this

material

is

thought

on

typological

grounds

to

date

from

late

in

Neolithic

1*.

Further

south-west

along

the

foot

of

Jebel

Baruk

is

Ain

Jaouze.

The

site

is

on

the

west

side

of

the

road from

Chtaura

to

Machgara

and

Jezzine

overlooking

the

new

Karaoun

lake

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

20).

Bergy

collected

flints

from

the

surface

of

this

station

which

are

said to

be

similar

to

those

of

Byblos

Neolithique

Re'cent.

Ard

Saouda

is

among

the

hills

on

the

east

side

of

the

Beka'a

6

km

west

of

Rakaya

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966, 23).

The

site

is

situated

on

a

basalt

flow

and

near

a

flint

source

which

has

been used

since

the

Lower

Palaeolithic.

The

Neolithic

material from

this

site

consisted

entirely

of

flints.

Tools

were

quite

numerous

while

cores

and

waste

were

relatively

scarce

suggesting

that

the

site

was

a

settlement

rather

than

purely

a

factory

site.

Axes

and

adzes

were plentiful

and

chisels

were

also

present.

Heavily-worn

picks

were

particularly

numerous

(Cauvin,

19^9,

119)

while

scrapers,

burins,

borers

and

segmented

sickle

blades

were

relatively

rare.

Cauvin

believes

that

the

picks

found

at

Ard

Saouda

were

used

to

drill

holes

in

basalt

artifacts

although

no

worked

basalt

pieces of

this

kind

have

been

found

on

the

site

(1969,

125).

On

the

evidence

of

the

typology

of

the

flints

the

site

is

thought

to

have

been

occupied

late

in

Neolithic

h.

Beidar

Chamout

is

just

below

the

Karaoun

dam

on

the

right

bank of

the

Litani

river

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

26).

Flints

of

several

periods

have

been

found

here

some

of

which

were

Neolithic.

These

tools

were

predominantly

adzes

although

there

were

also

chisels,

scrapers

and

other

artifacts;

some

were

particularly

robust

pieces.

The

Neolithic

flints

are

believed

to

date

from

the

latter

part

of

Neolithic

k.

Kfar

Giladi

at

the

head

of

the

upper

Jordan

valley

was

probably

also

occupied

in

Neolithic

h.

Stratified

above

the

two

"Neolithic"

layers

which

I

have

ascribed

to

Neolithic

3

"was

another

deposit

which

Kaplan

designated

"Chalcolithic"

(1966,

273).

This

mixed

deposit

contained

some

pottery

akin

to

that

which

he

found

at

Wadi

Rabah

as

well

as

other

sherds

of

Ghassulian

type.

Much

of

Kaplan

f

s

Wadi

Rabah

pottery

was

covered

with

red

wash

or slip

and

then

burnished

so

was

therefore

quite

similar

to

that

found

on

some

Beka'a

sites

late

in

Neolithic

U.

Thus

it

seems

that

Kfar

Giladi

was

also

occupied

briefly

in

this

phase.

The

distribution

of

settlements

in

the

Beka'a

during

the

last

centuries

of

Neolithic

k

was

similar

to

that of

the

earlier

part

of

this phase.

The

two

tells,

Tell

ed-Jisr

and

Tell

Saoudhi,

were both

in

the

central

Beka'a

while

all

sites

further

south

were

surface

stations

inhabited

by

quite

small

groups.

I

have

now

described

all the

Neolithic

k

settlements

known

to

have

been

inhabited

in

Lebanon.

There

is

one

other

kind

of

site to be

considered

which

occurs

in

this

region.

These

are

surface

stations

situated

for

the

most

part

in

southern

Lebanon

both

on

the

seaward

side

of

the

mountains

and

in

the

Beka'a.

They

are

always

near

sources

of

flint

and

the

material found

on

them

consists

almost

entirely

of

flint

tools

and

waste. The

waste

flint

is

usually

abundant

and

comprises

flakes,

thick

blades,

crested

blades

and

"orange

slices"

The

cores

may

be

pyramidal,

discoid

or

cylindrical

while

prepared

cores

of

Levallois

type

are

also

found.

Some

of

the

tools

on

these

sites

are

fully

finished, others only

roughed

out.

Particularly

common

are

axes,

adzes,

chisels

and

picks

while

flake

scrapers

are

also

found.

Arrowheads

and

sickle

blades

are

rare

or

absent.

Both

the

tools

and

waste

are

relatively

large

and

coarse

which

is

why

the

sites

have

been

described

as

"Heavy

Neolithic"

or

"Campignian"

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

^3;

Cauvin, Cauvin,

1968,

103).

These

stations

were

factory

sites

on

which

flint

tools,

principally

axes

and

others

used

in

cutting

and

working

timber,

were

roughed

out

(Cauvin,

Cauvin,

1968,

113).

The

type-site

for

the

Heavy

Neolithic

is

Karaoun

II

in

the

southern

Beka'a.

I

shall

describe

this

site

first

and

then

the

others

which

have

been

found

elsewhere

in

the

Beka'a,

on

the

western

slopes

of

the

mountains

and

in

Galilee.

Karaoun

II

Karaoun

II

is

immediately

south

of

the

Karaoun

dam

across

the

Litani

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

38).

It

is

on

the

lip

of

the

gorge

on

the

right

side

of

the

river.

This

site

is

now

largely

obliterated

but

several

workers

32

have

collected

much

material

from

it

in the

past.

Roughed-out

rectangular,

oval

and

almond-shaped

axes

and

rectangular

and

trapezoidal

chisels

were

abundant.

Scrapers

were

also

quite

numerous

consisting

of

thick

discoids,

side-scrapers

on

flakes

and

end-scrapers

on

flakes

or

massive

blades.

There

were

also

some

picks

and

a

few

burins

as

well

as

numerous

retouched

flakes

and

blades.

Waste

material

was

abundant

at

Karaoun

II

and

included

the

full

-

1*1*1*

-

range

of

cores

and

other

pieces

found

on

Heavy

Neolithic

sites.

The

Cauvins

believe

that

the

typology

of

the

axes

and

other

tools

found

at

Karaoun

II

and

elsewhere

is

similar

to that of

the

assemblage

from

Ne*olithique

Moyen

Byblos

(Cauvin,

Cauvin,

1968,

108).

They

have

accordingly

dated

all

the

Heavy Neolithic

sites

to

the

earlier

part of

Neolithic

U.

The

types

of

axes,

adzes,

chisels,

picks,

scrapers

and

other

tools

encountered

on

Heavy

Neolithic

sites

may

have

been

found

at

Ne"olithique

Moyen

Byblos,

Muktara

and

other

contemporary

sites

but

they also

occur

on

later

Neolithic

h

sites

and

even

on

some

in

Neolithic

3.

It

may

be

true

that

many

Heavy

Neolithic

stations

were

used

early

in

Neolithic

h

but

I

believe they

were

also

visited

later

in

this

stage

and

possibly

earlier

as

well.

There

is

one

other

Heavy

Neolithic

site

in

the

immediate

vicinity

of

Karaoun

II

and

that

is

Karaoun

I.

It

is

on

the

left

bank

of

the

Litani

a

little

further

downstream

from

the

dam

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

37)-

Like

Karaoun

II

it

is

on

open

ground

at

the

top of the

cliffs

above

the

river.

The

flints

found

here

resembled

those

from

Karaoun

I

and

included

roughed-out

axes,

picks

and

scrapers

as

well

as

many

waste

flakes,

blades

and

cores,

some

of

them

of

Levallois

type.

I

will

now

describe

the

other

Heavy

Neolithic

sites

in

the

Beka'a

pro-

ceeding

from north

to

south.

There

are

several

uncertain

occurrences

in

the

northern

and

central

Beka'a

but

the

first

certain

one

is

Nebi

Zair.

This

is

on

the

left

side

of

the

road

from

Beirut

to

Damascus

1.5

km

north-west

of

Anjar

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

U9).

Bergy

found

a

great

many

Heavy

Neolithic

flints

distributed

over

a

wide

area.

On

the

other

side

of

the

Beka'a

a

little

north-north-east

of

Amiq

beside

the

road

to

Chtaura

lies

Tell

Khardane

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

70).

Some

Heavy

Neolithic

flints

were

found

here

in

fields

beside

the

tell

which

included

picks

and

scrapers

as

well

as

blades

and

flakes.

Several

artifacts

had

been

made

by

the

Levallois

technique.

There

is

another

extensive

site on

the

eastern

side

of

the

Beka'a,

Me.idel

Anjar

I,

1.5

km

north-west

of

the

village

of

Me

j

del

Anjar

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

1*1*).

Bergy

found

very

many

flints

here

of

several

periods.

The

Heavy

Neolithic

assemblage

consisted

of

axes

and

chisels

with

cores

and

other

waste.

3

km

south-west

of

Mejdel

Anjar

is

the

site

of

Dakoue,

TOO

m

north-west

of

the

village

of

the

same

name

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

28).

Some

Heavy

Neolithic

axes,

adzes

and

much

waste

were

found

here

as

well

as

a

great

deal

of

Palaeolithic

material.

18

km

south-west

of

Chtaura

at

the

foot

of

the

Jebel

Baruk

is

the

site

of

Kefraya

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

39).

The

site

is

very

large,

extending

for

about

1

km

along

both

sides

of

the

road

to

Machgara.

The

flint

tools

collected

here

by

several

workers

consisted

of

adzes,

axes,

side-scrapers

and

end-scrapers

on

flakes,

knives

and

a

segmented

sickle

blade.

The

most

remark

able

feature

of

the

site,

however,

was

the

great

abundance

of

Levallois

cores

and

waste

flakes

all

over

the

surface.

Tell

Zenoub

is

h

km

north

of

Jub

Jannine

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

86).

The

tell

itself

was

occupied

in

later

periods

but

Heavy

Neolithic

flints

have

been

found

in

fields

to

the

south,

k.5

km

north-north-east

of

Jub

Jannine

and

2

km

north-east

of

the

village

of

Kamed

el

Loz

is

the

site

of

Kamed

el

Loz

I

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

36).

The

Heavy

Neolithic

flints

collected

here

consisted

of

axes,

picks,

scrapers

and

much

waste

mixed

with

Palaeolithic

material.

Bustan

el

Birke

is

in

the

same

part

of

the

Beka'a

2.5

km

south-east

of

Kefraya

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

27).

This

site

is

also

quite

extensive

and

has

yielded

disc

choppers,

picks

and

scrapers

as

well

as

cores,

flakes

and

other

waste.

Jub

Jannine

III

is

another

Heavy

Neolithic

site

in

this

area

1.5

km

south

of

the

village

of

Jub

Jannine

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

35).

Many

flake

scrapers

were

found

here

and

also

numerous

flakes,

blades

and

other

waste.

Amlaq

el

Qatih

is

2.5

km

north-west

of

Baaloul

near

the

east

bank

of

the

Litani

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

22).

Some

Heavy

Neolithic

flints

were

found

here

as

well

as

Palaeolithic

material.

Kafr

Tibnit

is

much

further

south

in the

Litani

bend

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

35).

Some

Heavy

Neolithic

flints

were

found

here

as

well

as

other

-

1*1*6

-

material.

Et-Tayibe

is

2

km

south

of

the

Litani

bend

and

this

site

also

has

yielded

Heavy

Neolithic material

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

53).

Et-Taireh

II

is

2

km

north-east

of

the

village

of

the

same

name

a

little

to

the

south-west

of Bint

Jbail

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

53).

Flints

of

Heavy

Neolithic

type

were

found

on

the

site.

Khallet

el

Michte

I

and

II

are

1.5

and

1.2

km

north-east

of

Ain

Ebel

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

1*3).

Fleisch

found

Heavy

Neolithic

flints

at

both

sites

as

-well

as

Acheulian

material.

1.25

km

south

of

Ain

Ebel

is

Khallet

el

Hamra

found

by

Bovier

Lapierre

during

his

explorations

in

the

area

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

Uo).

A

considerable

number

of

Heavy

Neolithic

flints

was

collected

here

with

some

Acheulian

arti-

facts.

The

last

site

in

this

group

is

Douwara

2

km

south-west

of

Ain

Ebel

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

30).

Fleisch

found

the

site

which

was

covered

with

much

Heavy

Neolithic

waste

and large

tools

such

as

axes,

adzes

and

picks

together

with

some

Chalcolithic

material.

Before

considering

the

other

Lebanese

Heavy

Neolithic

sites

on

the

west

side

of

the

mountains

I

wish

to

discuss

several

sites

of

this

kind

found

long

ago

in

northern

Palestine.

They

lie

in

or

near

the

Wadi

Farah

in

Galilee.

This

wadi

cuts

eastward through rugged

country

to

meet

the

upper

Jordan valley

near

Lake

Huleh.

Turville-Petre

explored

the

wadi

in

1925

and

1926

finding

three

Heavy

Neolithic

sites.

The

first

was

Shemouniyeh

on

a

plateau

above

the

north

side

of

the

Wadi

Farah

a

little

north-west

of

Deishun

(Turville-

Petre,

1927»

110).

The

second

was

the

Wadi

Farah

site

itself

which

was

on a

high

terrace

at

the

point

where

the

Wadi

Salhah

joined

the

main wadi

(Turville-

Petre,

1927,

109).

A

large

number of

big

flint

tools

and

much

waste

were

33

found

on

both

these

sites. The

tools

included

adzes,

picks, flake

scrapers

and

borers.

The

third

site

was

a

small

cave

in

the

Wadi

Salhah

itself

(Turville-Petre,

1927,

11

Iff).

Turville-Petre

excavated

most

of

it

and

found

that

his

levels

II

and

III

consisted

of

occupation

deposits

with

flints

and

potsherds.

Some

of

the

pottery

was

later

in

date

but

the

flints

included

many

of

the

large

flake

scrapers,

thick

blades

and

denticulated

pieces

found

on

the

other

two

sites.

There

were

also

several

pressure-flaked

leaf-shaped

and

tanged

arrow

heads,

one

of

Amuq.

2

type.

These

flints

are

like

those

found

on

Heavy

Neolithic

sites

in

Lebanon

so

that

the

three

Wadi

Farah

sites

may

be

ascribed to

the

same

group.

Wadi

Salhah

was

an

occupation

site

rather

than

a

factory

station.

The

typology

of

the

flints

indicates

that

all

three

sites

were

occupied

in

Neolithic

h.

Wadi

Salhah

was

probably

occupied

quite

early

in

the

phase

on

the

evidence

of

the

arrowheads,

Turning

now

to

sites

on

the

coast

of

Lebanon,

the

most

northerly

of

these

is

Fadaous

South.

This

site

is

12

km

north

of

Byblos

beside

the

sea

just

south

of

Fadaous

village

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

158).

Many

large

side-scrapers

and

end-scrapers,

cores

and

other

waste

were

found

here

indicating

that

this

was

a

Heavy

Neolithic

factory

site.

The

Mtaileb

I

or

Rabiya,

is

much

further

south,

1.5

km

east-

north-east

of

Antelias in

broken

country

about

300

m

above

sea

level

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

109).

The

site

itself

was

covered

with

cores

and

waste

pieces

though

only

a

few

tools

were

found

among

them.

These were

roughed

out

axes,

chisels,

picks

and

scrapers

(Cauvin,

1968,

2^7)«

Jedeideh

III

is

not

far

from

Mtaileb

I

since

it

is

about

7 km

almost

due

east

of

Beirut

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965s

95).

The

surface

collection

from

here

consisted

of

large

flake

scrapers,

choppers

and

picks.

Beit

Meri

II

is

a

little

to

the

south-east

overlooking

the

Nahr

Jamani

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965»

75)

and

Heavy

Neolithic

flints

were

also

found

here.

Hadeth

South

is

7

km

south-south-east

of

Beirut

in the

low

hills

over

looking

the

Sands

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965

s

88).

This

site

yielded

coarse

picks

and

choppers

as

well

as

cores

and

large

flakes.

Ourrouar

II

is

just

beyond

Hadeth

South

on

the north

side

of

the

Nahr

Ghedir

8.5

km

south-south

east

of

Beirut

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965»

11*0.

Some

coarse

picks,

a

chopping

tool,

axe,

burins,

and

scrapers

were

found

here

as

well

as

a

few

segmented

sickle

blades

and

some

waste.

The

station

appears

to

have

been

another

Heavy

Neolithic

factory

site.

-

UU8

-

Jebel

Aabeby

is

in

southern

Lebanon

1

km

east-south-east

of

Sidon

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

93).

A

variety

of

flake

scrapers

as

well

as

/

large

cores

and

other

waste

were

collected

on

this

site.

Jba'a

is

well

inland

about

8

km

south-west

of

Jezzine

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965»

93).

A

number

of

big

flake

scrapers

as

well

as

many

cores

and

much

waste

were

found

here

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1966,

163).

A

few

finished

tools

were

also

picked

up,

among

them

polished

axes,

adzes,

a

chisel

and

a

pick.

These

other

tools

may

indicate

that

the

station

served

as

a

habitation

site

as

well

as

a

factory,

Sarafand

on

the

coast

is

1U

km

south-west

of

Sidon.

Some

Heavy

Neolithic

material

was

collected

from

a

site

here

which

comprised

an

adze,

chisel,

some

bifaces,

flakes

and

blades

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965,

135).

Adlun

II

or

Bezez cave

is

19

km

south-west

of

Sidon

beside

the

coast

road.

Zumoffen

sounded

the

site

in

1898

then

the

excavations

were

re-opened

in

1963

by

the

Department

of

Antiquities

of

Lebanon,

Garrod

and

Kirkbride

(Copeland,

Wescombe,

1965

S

6U).

A

level

above

Upper

Palaeolithic

and

earlier

deposits

and

below

more

recent

habitation

debris

contained

an

assemblage

of

Heavy

Neolithic

flints.

A

collection

made

at

the

site

by

Copeland

in

1966

consisted

of

large,

long

trapezoidal

axes

and

chisels,

a

chopper,

a

pick,

points

and

a

number

of

coarse

flake

scrapers.

There

were

also

flakes,

blades,

some

cores

and

hammerstones.

Most

of

this

material

is

similar

to

Heavy

Neo

lithic

assemblages

elsewhere

thus

Bezez

cave

was

used

as

a

factory

site

but

was

also

inhabited

for

part

of

Neolithic

k.

I

have

now

reviewed

all

the

known

sites

that

can

reasonably

be

ascribed

to

the

Lebanese

coast

and

Beka'a

sub-groups

of

the

South

Syrian

group

of

Neolithic

h

sites.

The

third

sub-group

comprises

sites

in

the

Damascus

basin.

Damascus

basin

There

are

two

Neolithic

k

sites

near

Damascus,

Tell

al

Khazzami

and

Tell

Ramad.

Tell

al

Khazzami

Tell

al

Khazzami

is

25

km

south-east

of

Damascus

where

the

new

Inter-

national

Airport

now

stands

(de

Contenson,

1968,

55).

This

tell

was

in

the

semi-arid

region

at

the

edge

of

the

Ghuta

near

the

Hijjane

lake

and

Tell

Aswad.

When discovered

it

was

150

m

in

diameter

and

2

m

high.

De

Contenson

excavated

the

tell

in 1967

before

it

was

levelled

to

make

way

for the

new

airport.

Four

soundings

were

made

in

the

site

which

had

a

single

phase

of

buildings

(de

Contenson,

1968,

58).

These

consisted

of

rectilinear

structures

with

doorways

made

of

baked

bricks

which

were

all

35

by

25

by

10

cm

in

size.

These

structures

had

small

cell-like

chambers

as

well

as

larger

rectangular

rooms

so

were

not

like

the

houses found

on

other

sites.

Some

white

lime

floors

were

found

in

the

lower

levels.

The

sounding

in

the

middle

of

the

site

was

excavated

through

a

series of

shallow

hearths

full

of

ashes

in

what

was

probably

a

courtyard

area

(de

Contenson,

1968,

58).

Few

flints

were

found

in

the

soundings

themselves

but

these

were

augmented

by

a

surface

collection.

The

proportion

of

tools

to

waste

was

low

(de

Contenson,

1968,

58).

The

most

numerous

type

was

a

segmented

sickle

blade

on

a

thick

blade

with

a

nibbled

or

finely-denticulated

cutting

edge.

Backed

blades

which

may

have

been

knives

or

unfinished

sickle

blades

were

also

relatively

common.

The

other

types

consisted

of

borers

and scrapers,

some

of

which

were

made

from

tabular

flint.

Tanged

arrowheads

and

axes

were both

rare.

The

paucity

of

axes

reflects

the

absence

of

woodland

in

the

environs

of

the

site.

Two

obsidian bladelets were

found

on

the

surface

but

none

in

the

soundings.

De

Contenson

points

out

that

the

numerous

sickle

blades may

indicate

that

agri-

culture

was

important

at

the

site

while

the

borers

and

scrapers might

have

been used

for

leather

working

(1968,

60).

The

few

arrowheads

found suggest

that

hunting

did

not

contribute

much

to

the

food

supply,

in

contrast

with

earlier

sites

in

the

same

area.

Some

basalt

mortars

and

a

palette

were found

on

the

site

(de

Contenson,

-

1*50

-

1968,

60).

There

was

also

a

fenestrated basalt

stand

or

base

like

some

found

on

Chalcolithic

sites

in

Palestine.

Stone

sling

bullets

and

beads

were

present

but

the

only

bone

tools

found

were

two

bone

spatulae.

In

contrast

with

the

other

finds

pottery

was

plentiful

(de

Contenson,

1968,

61).

The

wares

were

quite

standardised

though

still

hand

finished.

The

principal

shapes

of

vessels

were

deep

bowls,

dishes

with

flat

bases

and

jars. The

latter

included

simple

hole-mouths

and

also

vessels

with

collared

necks or

splayed

rims.

Some

of

these

pots

had

knobs

or strap

handles

with

splayed

attachments

for

lifting.

There

were

also

some

fragments

of

strainers.

These

vessels

were

coated

with

a

thin

red

wash

or

slip.

Some

had

relief

decoration

of

a

cordon

with

indentations.

The

closest

parallels

for

the

flint

tools

and

pottery

are

with

Byblos

Ne*olithique

Recent and

Tell

ed-Jisr.

The

uniformity

of

the

pottery,

the

extensive

use

of

red

wash

and

the

specific

type of

strap

handles

are

Damascene

features.

The

proportions

of

the flint

tools

in

the

assemblage

are

also

somewhat

different

from

those

on

Lebanese

sites.

Arrowheads

were

scarce

as

on

sites

further

west

but

so

were

axes,

pick

drills

and other

woodworking

tools

while

sickle

blades

were

more

common.

These differences

suggest

that

woodworking

was not

much

practised,

no

doubt

because

there

were

few

trees

in

the

vicinity,

but

that

reaping,

probably

of

cereals,

was

important.

Comparable

cultural

material

though

with

interesting

local variations

has

been

found

at

Tell

Ramad.

Some

artifacts

were collected

from

the

surface

of

the

western

part

of

the

site

which

differed

from

those

found

in

the

excavations

(de

Contenson,

van

Liere,

196U,

119).

The

potsherds

had

a

light

coloured

fabric

with

coarse

grits

and

their

surface

had

been

polished

with

a

red

wash

or

slip.

The

vessels

were

bowls

with

lugs,

some

of

which were

pierced,

A

few

had

some

incised

decoration

also.

The

accompanying

flint

tools

included

numerous

axes,

many

of

which

were made

of

hard

stone

other

than

flint

and

completely

polished

(de

Contenson,

1971»

285).

At

first

this

occurrence

was

thought

to

be

a

development

of

Level

III

and

so

was

designated

IIIC.

Then

it

was

recognised

as

a

later

deposit

which

had

been

entirely

eroded

away

leaving

only

some

flints

and

potsherds

on

the

surface

of

the

mound

(de

Contenson,

1969a,

26).

The

affinities

of

the

flints

and

pottery

are

with

Tell

al

Khazzami

and,

more

distantly

Byblos

Ne"olithique

Recent.

The

abundance

of

the

axes

suggests

that

woodworking

was

important

here

as

on

so

many

sites

in

the

Beka'a

and

on

the

Lebanese

coast.

The

axes

themselves,

however,

were

somewhat

different

both

in

raw

material

and

the extent

to

which

some

of

them

had

been

polished.

This

surface

occupation

like

that

of

Tell

al

Khazzami

probably

dates

from

late

in

Neolithic

k.

There

was

thus

a

substantial

gap

in

time

between

it

and

Level

III

at

Tell

Ramad.

I

have

now

concluded

my

description

of

the

South

Syrian

group

of

Neolithic

k

sites

and

will

turn

to

Palestine

(Fig.

51).

Palestine

The

Neolithic

h

sites

in

Palestine

are

those

which

I

classified

as

Late

Neolithic

phase

2

in

my

1973

article.

The

three

classes

of

material

remains

from

these

sites

are

their

structures,

flints

and

pottery.

The

flint

industry

of

Palestinian

sites

in

Neolithic

k

is

broadly

similar

to

that

in

Neolithic

3

as

far

as

we

know

from

the

little

information

available

so

I

shall

not

describe

it

here.

The

pottery

is

also

sufficiently

similar

on

all

Palestinian

sites

in

this

stage

to

show

that

they

fall

within

the

same

cultural

group

though

there

are

certain

local differences

in

style

that

enable

us

to

distinguish

three

regional

groups

in

southern,

northern and

western

Palestine.

South

Palestine

The

type-site

for

the

Palestine

group

as

a

whole

in

Neolithic

U

is

Jericho.

It

is

also

the

most

important

of

the

sites

in

southern

Palestine.

Jericho

Kenyon

has

called

the

Neolithic

k

or

Late

Neolithic

phase

2

settlement

Fig.

51

Neolithic

4

Palestinian

sites

FIGURE

51

Neolithic

4

Palestinian

sites

1

Kabri

2

Hazorea

I

3

Hazorea

IIA

-

Tell

Kiri

4

Hazorea

IIB

-

Hazorea

5

Hazorea

IIIA

-

Bin

el

Jarba

6

Kazorea

IIIB

-

Tell

Abu Zureiq

7

Affula

8

Megiddo

9

Site

8/17

10

¥adi

Rabah

11

Bashan

Street,

Tel-Aviv

12

Teluliot

Batashi

13

Sheikh

Ali

14

Munhatta

15

Beth-Shan

16

Tell

el

Far'ah

17

Shechem

18

Tell

es-Saidiyeh

el

Gharbi

19

Salihi

20

Jericho

21

Ghassul

22

Murabba'at

23

Ziqim

24

Wadi

Ghazzeh

-

Site D

25

Wadi

Ghazzeh

-

Site

M

26

Wadi

Ghazzeh

-

Site

0

at

Jericho Pottery Neolithic

B

(1970,

63).

This

settlement

covered

the

whole

mound

and

so

was

as

extensive

as

that

of

Pottery

Neolithic

A.

The

first

structures

built

in

this

stage

were

circular

semi-subterranean

huts

set

in

pits like those

used

in

Pottery

Neolithic

A.

Their

walls

were made

of

plano-

convex

or

bun-shaped

bricks.

Later,

curved

walls

of

bun

bricks

with

stone

foundations

were

built

on

the

surface.

These

structures

may

have

been

circular

huts.

Other

rectilinear

buildings

with

the

same

walling

were

con-

structed

which

may

also

have

been

houses.

In

one

building

phase

there was

a

substantial

enclosure

wall.

Towards

the

end

of

Pottery

Neolithic

B

more

solid

rectilinear

structures

were

built

(Kenyon,

1970,

65).

The

coarse

pottery

of

this

stage

was

quite

similar

in

shape

to

that

of

Pottery

Neolithic

A

though

not

quite

so

crude.

The

fine

ware

was

much

better

made

since

the

clay

was

tempered

with sand

and

grit

but

less

straw

and

the

vessels

were

thinner

walled.

These

pots

were

hand-made but

many were

finished

by

turning

on

a mat.

The

common

shapes

were

hole-mouth

jars,

jars

wi.th

everted

rims

or

splayed

necks

and

bow

rim

jars

(Fig. 52).

Some

had

knob or

ledge

handles,

others

strap

handles

with

splayed

attachments.

There

were

some

simple

globular

bowls,

others

with

splayed

sides

and

some

carinated

ones.

Small

cups

were

also

made.

These

vessels

were

frequently

decorated

with

a

red

wash

or

slip

which

was

sometimes

carried

over

the

rim;

other

vessels

were

just

painted

at

the

rim.

Some

vessels

also

had

a

little

incised

decoration,

the

most

common

design

being

a

band

of

herringbones

just

below

the

rim.

Many

Pottery

Neo-

lithic

B

vessels

were

burnished

all

over

and

a

few

were

pattern burnished.

This

pottery developed

gradually

from

that

used

in

Pottery

Neolithic

A

while

the

dwellings

constructed

in

Pottery Neolithic

B

were

also

a

straightforward

development

of

those

made

in

the

Pottery

Neolithic

B

thus

evolved

from

Pottery

Neolithic

A

without

a

break

(Moore,

1973,

57).

The

dwellings

used

at

Jericho

during

Pottery

Neolithic

B

were

Palestinian

in

type

without

parallels

on

South

Syrian

sites.

Only

when

rectilinear

houses

began

to

be

built

later

in

this

stage

did

the

appearance of

the

settlement

at

I

Fig.

52

Jericho-Pottery

Neolithic

B

vessels

scale

1:4

-

1*53

-

Jericho

resemble

that

of

sites

like

Byblos

or

Tell

Ard

Tlaili.

The

pottery,

however,

shared

certain

general

characteristics

with

sites

further north

throughout

this

stage.

There

were

the

same

vessel

shapes

as

at

Byblos

in

Ne*olithique

Moyen

and

Re*cent,

Tells

Ard

Tlaili,

Ain

Nfaikh and

Tell

ed-Jisr

while

the

use

of

red

colouring,

often

highly

burnished,

pattern

burnish

and

some

incised

decoration

is

also

typical

of

these

sites.

The

closest

parallels

are

with

the

Beka'a

and

Damascus

basin

sites

since

the

shapes of

Pottery

Neolithic

B

vessels

and

the

way

they

were

decorated

are

most

closely

matched

at

these

settlements. These

comparisons

confirm

that

Pottery

Neolithic

B

Jericho

was

occupied

in

Neolithic

h.

We

know

much

less

about

the

other

sites

in

this

South

Palestine

group

so

I

will

describe

them

briefly.

Some

Neolithic

h

pottery

and

flints

were

found

35

in

the

Murabba'at

cave in

a

wadi

between

Bethlehem

and

the

Dead

Sea.

This

cave

was

inhabited

in

both

Neolithic

h

and

the

Chalcolithic.

Among

the

Neo-

lithic

h

pots

were

several

globular

jars

with

hole-mouth

rims,

collared

or

splayed

necks

and

bow

rims

(Benoit

et

al.,

1961,

fig.

2:1,

3,

2U,

27,

31).

There

were

also

flat-based

bowls

with

flared

sides

and

a

carinated

bowl.

A

number

of

these

vessels

had

been

decorated

with

red

wash

or

slip

and incised

herringbone

designs.

Some

of

the

pots

were

burnished.

These

vessels

resemble

those found

at

Jericho

in

Pottery

Neolithic

B.

Similar

material

is

known

from

several

sites

in

the

southern

Jordan

valley.

A

little

pottery

like

that

from

Pottery Neolithic

B

Jericho

was

excavated

by

Hennessy

from

basal

layers

at

Ghassul

itself

(Moore,

1973,

67).

More was

found

at

Tell

es-Saidiyeh.

This

site

lies

2.5

km

west

of

Kureiyima

in

the

central

section

of

the

valley.

Neolithic

sherds

were

collected

in

the

vicinity

of

the

western

part

of

the

site,

Tell

es-Saidiyeh

el

Gharbi

(Glueck,

19^5~^9

9

293).

They were incised

with

herringbone

patterns

in

reserved

bands,

the

rest

of

the

sherds

being

painted

red

(Glueck,

19^5-^9,

59

1

*,

pi.

78:8,9).

These

sherds

are

also

similar

to

Pottery Neolithic

B

pots

from

Jericho indicating

that

the

site

was

occupied

during

Neolithic

k.

-

1*51*

-

Another

site

was

discovered

east

of

the

Jordan

valley

beside

the

old

road

from

Amman

to

Jerash

near

Salihi

(Kirkbride,

1959,

53).

Traces

of

an

occupation

layer

and

remains

of

house

walls

could

be

seen

in a

section

of

the

site

exposed

at

the

side

of

the

road.

Both

hand-made

sherds

and

flints

were

collected. Two

red

burnished

sherds

were

incised with reserved

chevrons

which

suggests that

the

site

may

have

been

inhabited

in

Neolithic

k.

Two

sites

north

of

Jericho

in

the

Judean

hills

have

yielded

material

similar

to

Pottery

Neolithic

B

Jericho.

One

is

Shechem

near

Nablus

where

there

was

a

Neolithic

deposit

at

the

bottom

of

the

site.

A

clay

lined

pit

ho

cm

deep

and

some

trodden

surfaces

were

excavated

here

(Toombs,

Wright,

1961,

36,

37).

Associated

with

these

features

were

much

charcoal,

animal

bones,

flints

and

pottery.

Many

of

the

pottery

jars

had bow

rims,

one

of

the

diag-

nostic

features

of

pots

of

this

phase.

The

other

site

is

Tell

el

Far'ah

a

little

further

north

which

was

first

occupied

in

Neolithic

2.

Neolithic

h

flints

and

pottery

were

found

here

with

pit

dwellings,

trodden

surfaces

and

hearths

(de

Vaux,

Ste"ve,

19^7»

397).

"3f^

Among

the

pots

were

a

number

of

hole-mouth

and

other

jars

some

of

which

had

bow

rims.

Several

of

these

vessels

bore

lugs

or

strap

handles

with

splayed

attachments.

There

were

also

many

hemispherical

cups

and

bowls

and others

with

splayed

sides.

Most

of

the

vessels

were

relatively

well

fired

with

fabrics

tempered

with

grit

but

little

straw.

Many

had

been

painted

red

or

coated

in

red

slip

and

burnished.

The

other

sites

in

the

South

Palestine

group

are

further

south.

One,

Ziciim,

is

8.5

km

south-west

of

Ashkelon

on

the

coast.

It

was

excavated

in

197^

when

remains

of

huts

and

pits

with

several

hearths

were

found

(Noy,

1976b,

1*9).

The

flints

associated

with

these

features

belonged

to

a

Late

Neolithic

assemblage.

The

potsherds

came

from globular

vessels

with

flat

bases

which

were

probably

jars

and

bowls.

These

had

knob

and

strap

handles.

The

vessels

were

decorated

with

red

wash

or

slip

and

burnished

which

suggests

that

the

site

was

occupied

in

Neolithic

U

rather

than

Neolithic

3.

Several

of

the

Wadi

Ghazzeh

sites

were

occupied

briefly

in

this

phase.

A

number

of

pits

-were

excavated

in

the

lower

levels of

sites

D,

M

and

0_

and

associated

with

these

were

Late

Neolithic

flints

and

pottery

(Macdonald

et

al.,

1932,

pis.

XVIII,

XX,

XXX).

There

was

some

coarse

pottery typical

of

this

phase

and

also

some

finer

vessels

painted

with

red

wash

and

burnished.

Among

these

vessels

were

globular

hole-mouth

jars

and

others

with

collar

necks.

These

had

knobs

or

strap

handles.

Bowls

with splayed

sides

and

other

more

rounded

ones

were

also

quite

common.

This

material

is

sufficiently

like that

from

Pottery

Neolithic

B

Jericho

to

indicate

that

these

sites

were

inhabited

in

Neolithic

h.

Their

main

phase of

occupation

was

in

the

Chalcolithic

from

which

most

of

the

other

material

found

on

them

was

derived.

North

Palestine

The

sites

in

the

North

Palestine

sub-group

are

situated

in

the

northern

Jordan

valley

and

valleys

to

the

west.

The

site

with

the

most

complete

record

is

Munhatta.

Munhatta

Level

2A

or

the

Wadi

Rabah phase

falls

within

Neolithic

h

(Perrot,

1968,

col.

U16).

In

this

level

rectangular

houses

with

two

or

three

small

rooms

were

built

for

the

first

time.

The

walls

were

set

on

stone

foundations and

the floors

were

of

trodden

earth

laid

on

beds

of

stones.

The

pottery

of

this

phase was

also

different

from

that

of

level

2B.

The

pots

were

made

from

a

clay

tempered

with

grits

and

almost

no

straw,

much

less

than

on the

southern

sites,

and

were

quite

hard

fired

to

a

buff

or

grey

colour.

The

vessels

had

thin

walls

with

the

exception

of

some

of

the

coarse

ware.

The

principal

kinds

of

pots

were

jars,

bowls

and

cups

(Perrot,

1968,

fig.

8U6).

Some

of

the

jars

were

globular,

others

quite

deep

with

curved

sides.

These

jars

had

simple

hole

mouths,

collared

necks,

or

flared

or

bow

rims.

Some

of

the

bowls

were

quite

deep

with

hole

mouths

while

others

were

carinated.

A

few

stood

on

pedestal

bases,

a

feature

found

on

some

other

Neolithic

h

sites,

-

1*56

-

but

most

had

flat

bases.

The

cups

were

deep

with

straight

sides.

Some

of

the

jars

had

lugs,

ledge

or

strap

handles.

Many of

these

vessels

were

coloured

red,

orange,

brown

or

black

and then

burnished,

often

to

a

high

polish.

The

darker

highly

polished

vessels

were

more

common

here

than

on

sites

further

south.

A

few

pots

were

painted

with

linear

designs.

Others

were

decorated

with

incised

patterns

of

criss-cross

lines,

chevrons

and

groups

of

stab

marks.

This

type

of

decoration

was

also

more

common

here

than

on

sites

in

southern

Palestine.

Some

pots

even

had

applied

designs

of

coiled

snakes

or

human

figures,

a

feature

found

on

pottery

of

several

sites

in

western

Palestine

but

not

in

the

south.

Sheikh

All

The two

upper

levels

at

Sheikh

Ali

were

called

strata

I

and

II,

stratum

I

being

subdivided

into

three

phases,

a,

b

and

c

(Prausnitz,

19TOa, 98).

Strata

Ib,

Ic

and

II

were

inhabited

in

this

stage.

The

buildings

in

these

strata

were

rectilinear

with

several

rooms

and

their walls

had

stone

founda-

tions

(Prausnitz,

19TOa,

100).

The

floors

of

the

rooms

were

made

of

crushed

chalk

while

the

yards

outside

were

roughly

paved.

In

these

open

spaces

between

the

buildings

were

small

pits,

some

of

which

were

lined

with

stones

like

those

in

the

Ne*olithique

Re"cent

settlement

at

Byblos.

Associated

with

these

buildings

were

a

flint

assemblage

and

potsherds

characteristic of

other

Neolithic

h

Palestinian

sites.

The

pots

consisted

of

globular

jars,

small

bowls

and

cups

(Prausnitz,

1957»

252).

These

were

coloured

red,

brown

or

black

and

often

burnished,

sometimes

to

a

lustrous

finish.

Some

vessels

were

decorated

with

incised

designs

usually

combined

with

painted

and

burnished

bands

(Prausnitz,

1960,

120).

These

incised

patterns

consisted

of

both

stab

marks

and

combing.

The

pottery

was

similar

in

shape

and

finish

to

that

from

Munhatta

2A.

The

la

phase

of

occupation

at

Sheikh

Ali

falls

within

the

Chalcolithic

since

both

the

pottery

and

flints

are

more

like

those

of

Ghassul

than

Neolithic

h

sites.

Some

evidence

of

Neolithic

k

occupation

was

found

at

Beth-Shan.

Bun

brick

structures

were

excavated

in

level

XVIII

above

the

basal layer

with

pits.

Red

painted

pottery

and

strap

handles

with

splayed

attachments

were

found

in

both

levels

and

some

ledge

handles

with

finger

impressed

edges

known

also

from

Munhatta

2A

and

Pottery

Neolithic

B

Jericho

(Fitzgerald,

1935,

7,

8,

pi.

II:

5,

8,

16,

21, 23,

2*0.

The

other

material

from

level

XVIII

was

Chalcolithic

(Moore,

1973,

66).

West

Palestine

The

Neolithic

k

sites

in

western

Palestine

are

situated

in

the

central

coastal

plain, Mount Carmel,

the

Plain

of

Esdraelon

and

the

Galilee

hills.

Wadi

Rabah

The

latest

structure

here,

building

A,

was

Chalcolithic

but

below

that

were

two

more

structures,

B

and

C,

occupied

in

Neolithic

h

(Kaplan,

1958b,

153).

Both

were rectilinear with

stone

foundations

and

B

was

probably

a

room

of

a

house.

Flints,

pottery

and

a

few

other

artifacts.were

found

in

and

around

these

buildings.

The

flints

were

similar

to

those

from

Jericho

and

other

sites.

The

pottery

consisted

of

jars,

bowls

and

cups

made

of

clay

tempered

with

sand,

grit

and

occasionally

straw.

These

were

fired

to

a

brown

or

buff

colour

while

a

few

were

pink.

Some

of

the

jars

were

globular

and

had

hole

mouths or

thickened

rims

while

many

others

had

bow

rims

(Kaplan,

1958b,

15*0

>

They

were

usually

made

with

strap handles

with

splayed

attachments,

knobs,

lugs

or ledge

handles.

Many of

the

bowls

were

carinated

or

had

splayed

sides

and

a

few

had

pedestal

bases.

These

vessels

were

often

painted

red around

the

rim

or

all

over.

Some

vessels

were

coloured

brown

or

black.

Many

were

burnished,

often

to

a

high

gloss.

This

kind

of

decoration

was

more

common

at

Wadi

Rabah

and

on

other

West

Palestine

sites

than

elsewhere.

Some

other

pots

at

Wadi

Rabah

were

incised

with

stab

marks,

criss-cross

lines,

herringbones

and

wavy

lines.

-

1*58

-

Teluliot

Batashi

like

Wadi

Rabah

was

first

settled

in

Neolithic

3

"but

was

also

inhabited

in

Neolithic

h

and

during

the

Chalcolithic.

Level

III

was

stratified

under

the

Chalcolithic

settlement

and

above

level

IV

which

had

been

inhabited

during

Neolithic

3.

The

material from

this

level

was

typical

of

Neolithic

k

(Kaplan,

1958c,

83*).

The

pottery

from

level

III

closely

resembled

that

from

Wadi

Rabah.

There

were

the

same

hole-mouth

and

bow

rim

jars,

bowls

with

flared

sides

and

carinated

bowls.

Many were

coloured

red,

brown

or

black

and

burnished,

some

to

a

high

lustre.

There

was

a

similar

range

of

incised decoration

comprising

wavy

lines,

combing,

stab

marks,

herringbones

and

zig-zags.

This

combination

of

traits,

so

similar

to

Wadi

Rabah,

links

Batashi

with

other

sites

in

western

Palestine.

Bashan

Street,

Tel-Aviv

When

the

Bashan

Street

site

was

excavated

several

pits

were

discovered

(Kaplan,

1959a,

n.

5)

in

one

of

which

was

a

burial.

A

clay

figurine was

found

in

the

excavations

(Kaplan,

1959b,

pi.

I)

which

bore

some

resemblance

to

others

found

in

Tell

Ramad

III,

Munhatta

2B,

Shaar

Hagolan

and

Kfar

Giladi

in

Neo-

lithic

3.

The

pottery

from

the

site

on

display

in

the

Jaffa

Museum

includes

sherds

which were

painted

red and

burnished

as

well

as

other

incised

sherds.

The

pottery

is

like

much

of

that

from Wadi

Rabah

so

it

is

probable

that

the

site

was

occupied

in

Neolithic

h.

Site

8/17

Flints

and

pottery similar

to

material

from

other

western

Palestine

sites

have

been

found

at

site

8/17

near

Gal-Ed

in

the hills

west

of

Megiddo

(Meyer,

1970,

21).

The

pottery consisted

of

hole-mouth

jars

and others

with

splayed

sides

and

thickened

rims

(Meyer,

1970,

fig.

7).

There

were

also

jars

with

splayed

necks

or

bow

rims.

The

other

vessels

were carinated

bowls

and

bowls

with

gently

curved

sides.

Some

of

the

vessels

were

coloured

red

or

black

and

burnished.

Incised

decoration

was

also

common

and

consisted

of

stab

marks,

wavy

lines,

herringbones

and

rocker

patterns.

Hazorea

Five

Neolithic

h

sites

have

been

found

spaced

at

intervals

along

a

terrace

below

Mount

Carmel

near

Hazorea.

They

are

Site

I,

HA

or

Tell

Kiri,

HE

or

Hazorea,

IIIA

or

Ein

el

Jarba

and

HIE

or

Tell

Abu

Zureiq

(Kaplan,

1969,

fig.

1)

The

terrace

overlooks

the

Plain

of

Esdraelon

and

is

cut

by

several

streams.

There

is

also

a

line

of

springs

at

its

foot

so

since

the

soil

is

fertile

the

place

was

most

favourable

for

farming

settlements.

These

sites

were

occupied

in

Neolithic

k

but

probably

not

at

exactly

the

same

time

since

they

are

so

close

together

(Moore,

1973,

61).

Several

were

also

inhabited

in

later

periods.

Their

material

remains,

known

through

surface

collection

and excavation,

are

similar

to

those

from

other

sites

in

western

Palestine

with

the

exception

of

certain

local

idiosyncracies

in

the

pottery.

These

probably

reflect

the

geographical

separation

of

these

sites

from

those

on

the

coastal

plain

(Moore,

1973»

62).

Tell

Kiri

was

sounded

by

Perrot

while

he

and

Anati

have

excavated

Tell

Abu

Zureiq,

(Perrot,

1963,

559;

Anati,

1972,

1^9).

Both

found

a

range

of

painted,

burnished

and

incised

pottery

quite

similar

to

that

from

Wadi

Rabah

and

Batashi

as

well

as

typical

Neolithic

k

assemblages

of

flint

tools.

Anati

!

s

collection

of

pottery

was

unusually

varied

in

decoration although

the

shapes

of

the

vessels

were

similar

to

those

found

on

other

sites.

This

was

partly

because

he

found

much

more

material

than

excavators

of other

sites

in

western

Palestine.

Three

pieces of

obsidian

have

been

analysed

from

one

of

the

Hazorea

sites.

One

piece

came

from

Ciftlik

(2b)

and

the

other

two

from Nemrut

Dag

(Uc)

and

source

1g

in

eastern

Turkey

(Wright,

Gordus,

1969,

81).

The

material

from

the

earliest

phase

of

Ein

el

Jarba,

phase

IV,

resembled

that

of

the

other

Neolithic

k

sites

at

Hazorea

and

elsewhere

in

western

Palestine.

The

later

phases

of

occupation

fell

within

the Chalcolithic.

The

only

building

remains

found

in

phase

IV

were

several

straight

stone

walls

-

U60

-

(Kaplan,

1969,

5).

These

had

probably

belonged

to

rectangular

houses

of

the

type

found

in

phases

II

and

III

which

had

been

destroyed

when

these

later

structures

were

built.

There

were

also

traces

of

a

plaster

floor,

a

hearth

and

seven small

pits

dug

into

the

subsoil.

Most

of

the

finds

from

Ein

el

Jarba

were

more

typical

of

the

Chalcolithic

in

Palestine

than

Neolithic

h

although

the

flints

also

resembled

those

of

Ne"olithique

Recent

Byblos

and

some

of

the

pottery

was

characteristic of

a

late

stage of

Neolithic

k.

Several

of

the

jars

had

bow

rims

or

flared

necks

while

a

number

of the

bowls

were

carinated;

there

were

also

several

dishes

with

flared

sides (Kaplan,

1969,

figs.

U:

1-U,

10, 11,

13,

1

*;

5:5,

6:7).

These

vessels

were

decorated

with

red

paint

or

wash

which

was

often

burnished.

Some

of

the

small

bowls

and

other

vessels

were

coloured

black

or

brown

and

burnished

to a

high

polish.

Incised

decoration

was

also

common.

The

motifs

included

combing,

wavy

lines,

herringbones,

nail

impressions

and

stab

marks

(Kaplan,

1969,

fig.

8).

All

these

features

were

characteristic

of

pottery

from

other

Neolithic

U

sites

in

western

Palestine.

Several

pots

had

applied

designs

while

one

in

particular

was

decorated

with

two

anthropomorphic

figures

(Kaplan,

1969,

fig.

7:1).

Two

samples,

one

of

charcoal

and

the

other

of

bone,

have

been

dated

by

carbon

1U.

The

result

of

the

charcoal

determination

was

37^-0

±

11*0

B.C.

and

the

bone

one

2970

±

2^0

B.C.

(Kaplan,

1969,

27).

The

bone

determination

was

obtained

from

a

very

small amount

of

collagen

which

may

account

for

the

date

being

so

recent.

The

charcoal

date

would

fit

the

context

very

well,

reinforcing

the

evidence

from

the

material

remains

that

the

site

was

occupied

late

in

Neolithic

U.

Some

Neolithic

k

pottery

was

found

in

Stratum

XX

at

Megiddo

mixed

with

Neolithic

3

and

Chalcolithic

material.

The

succeeding

phase

Stratum

XIX

contained

much

Chalcolithic

pottery

and

flints.

Among

the

Neolithic

U

pots

were

bowls

with

splayed

sides,

hemispherical

bowls

and

others

with

a

carination

as

well

as

some

dishes.

These

had

been

painted

red and

some

also

carried

-

1*61

-

incised

decoration.

Several

had

been

burnished

to

a

high

lustre

like

the

pottery

from

Wadi

Rabah

and

other

western

sites

(Moore,

1973,

62).

One

other

site

in

the

Plain

of

Esdraelon,

Affula,

was

probably

first

settled

towards

the

end

of

Neolithic

k

since

denticulated

segmented

sickle

blades

were

found

in

the

deposits

(Payne,

19^8b,

72).

There

was

also

a

tanged

and

winged

arrowhead

(Payne,

19^8b,

73)

but

this

may

be

a

stray

find

dating

from

an

earlier

period

since

it

has

relatively

little

retouch

and

resembles

Neolithic

2

types.

These

flints

were

found

in

levels

that

other-

wise

contained

Chalcolithic

and

Bronze

Age

pottery

(Sukenik,

19^8,

16,

17)

though

it

is

possible

that

some

of

the

pottery

thought

to

have

been

Chalco-

lithic

was

in

fact

Neolithic

k

in

type.

However

that

may

be, the

site

would

appear

to

have

been

first

occupied

at

the

end

of

Neolithic

h

and

then

in

the

Chalcolithic.

The

settlement

of

layer

II

at

Kabri

in

western

Galilee

was

also

occupied

in

Neolithic

k.

This

layer

was

stratified

above

layer

III

inhabited

in

Neolithic

3

and

below

the

Chalcolithic

layer

I

(Prausnitz,

1:969,

137)-

Remains

of

rectilinear

walls

and

floors

of

buildings

were

found

in

layer

II.

Several

burials were

associated

with

the

buildings.

The

flints

included

denticulated,

segmented

sickle

blades

and

trapezoidal

axes

and

adzes,

types

found

in

Neolithic

k

sites

in

Palestine

and

in

the

South Syrian

group.

There

was

also

a

little

pottery

in

layer

III.

One

other

find

of

interested

should

be mentioned,

a

unique

stone

jar

with

a

bow

rim.

This

was

among

the

group

of

fine

obsidian

and

stone

objects

found

during

agricultural

work

which

led

to

the

discovery

of

the

site. It

was

thought

to

have

come

from

the

surface

Chalcolithic

layer

but

its

shape

is

most

like

many pottery

jars

found

on

Neolithic

h

sites

in

Palestine.

Kabri

is

one

of

the most

northerly

of

Palestinian

Neolithic

h

sites.

The

material from

it

while

resembling

that

of

other

Palestinian

sites

may

also

be

compared

to

that

of

Neolithic

k

sites

in

southern

Lebanon

which

I

have

placed

in

the

South

Syrian

group.

The

country

to

the

south

of

the

site

opens

-

U62

-

out

towards

the

Acre

plain

and

the

Plain

of

Esdraelon

while

to

the

north

and

east

are

broken

hills.

Geographically

Kabri

has

better

communications

with

sites

further

south and

south-east

which

is

why

I

prefer

to

place

it

within

the

West Palestine

group

of

sites.

I

have

now

concluded

my

description

of

Neolithic

h

sites

in

Palestine.

As

I

mentioned

in

the

last

chapter

there

is

a

series

of

other

sites

in

Palestine

that

we

know

were

occupied

during

the

Late

Neolithic

but

which

cannot

with

certainty

be

ascribed

to

either

Neolithic

3

or

U

(Fig.

53).

I

wish

now

to

briefly

describe

the

location

of these

sites

and

their

material

remains

since

they

augment

our

knowledge

of

the distribution

of

each

type

of

site

in

the

6th

and

5th

millennia.

Abu

Usba

is

a

cave

high

up

in

the

south

side

of

the

Wadi

Fallah

not

far

from

the

site

of

Nahal

Oren.

Two

of

the

upper

layers

here,

B1

and

B2,

con-

tained

material

from

several

periods.

Lunates

with

Helwan

retouch,

segmented

denticulated

arrowheads,

tanged

arrowheads

and

Neolithic

pottery

were

all

mixed

together.

Stekelis

who

excavated

the

site

thought

that

the

material

was

associated

and

called

this

heterogeneous

culture

"Usbian"

(Stekelis,

Haas,

1952,

18).

Albright

who

added

his

comments

to

the

original

report

pointed

out

that

the layers

must

have

been

mixed

and

that

the

cave

had

been

occupied

in

several

periods.

Some

of

the

sickle

blades

and

pottery,

particularly

some

of

the sherds

with

red

wash

and

incised

decoration,

are

Late

Neolithic

but

we

do

not

know

in

which

stage

the site

was

inhabited.

Rakafet

cave

on

the

other

side

of

Mount

Carmel

from

Abu

Usba

was

also

occupied

during

the

late

Neolithic

(Noy,

Higgs,

1971,

226)

though

we

do

not

yet

know

when.

Sahl

el

Khoussin

is

west

of

the

road

to

Jenin

opposite

Samaria

(Neuville,

1929,

120).

A

collection

of

flints

was

made

from

this

site

which

included

axes

and

adzes,

some

of

them

with

polished

edges,

picks,

flake

scrapers,

borers

and

segmented

sickle blades.

From

the

sickle

blades

and

adzes

I

have seen

in

the

Hebrew

University

in

Jerusalem

where

part

of the

?20

.

Fig.

53

Palestine

-

supplementary

Neolithic

3

and

4

sites

FIGURE

53

1

Abu

Usba

2

Rakafet

3

26A

4

18 CH

5

1ST

6

18N

7

Sahl

el

Khoussin

8

Wadi

Nimrin

9

Jaffa

10 33/0

11

33/N

12

33CH

13

Ramla

14

64

15

64B

16

62/0

17

62/1

18

Tell

Hesy

19

El

Farasheh

20

El

Harbish

21

Halutza

-

Site

82

-

U63

-

collection

is

deposited

it

is

clear

that

the

site was

occupied

in

the

Late

Neolithic

but

in

the

absence of

pottery

one

cannot

say

during

which

stage.

Neuville

likened

some

of

the

material

to

the

Campignian

which

suggests

that

the

site

was

similar

to

many

of

the

surface

stations

in

southern

Lebanon.

The

wide

range

of

tools

found

suggest

that

this

was

a

settlement

like

Tahun

ben

Aissa

and

Amiq.

I

rather

than

simply

a

factory

site.

Neuville

noted

another

site

in

the

Wadi

Nimrin

in

the

hills

east

of

the

Jordan

valley

on

the

road

to

Amman

(1929,

119).

A

collection

of flints

from

here

included

small

tanged

arrowheads

like

those

from

et-Tauamin,

a

site

which

I

have

ascribed

to

Neolithic

3.

Wadi

Nimrin

may

have

been occupied

in

Neo-

lithic

3

also

or

possibly

in

Neolithic

h.

Many

Late

Neolithic

surface

sites

have

been

discovered

on

or

near

the

coast

of Palestine.

Mallon

reported

that

he

found

many

flints

over

a

consider-

able

area

extending

12

km

north

along

the coast

from

Jaffa

(1925,

201).

His

collection

included

flint tools

made

in

several

periods

which

must

have

come

from

a

number

of

stations

given

the

extent

of

the

survey.

He

found

some

denticulated,

segmented

sickle

blades

as

well

as

tanged

arrowheads

and

axes

and

adzes

with

polished

cutting

edges,

some

of

which

were

probably

Late

Neolithic

also.

Neuville

surveyed

north

of

Jaffa

and

as

far

as

10

km

south

of

the

town

(1929»

116).

He

found

more

flint

artifacts

of

several

periods

some

of

which

were

Late

Neolithic.

The

most

diagnostic

tools

were

denticulated,

segmented

sickle

blades

but

he,

like

Mallon,

also

collected

axes

and

chisels,

some

with

polished

cutting

edges,

picks

and

small

tanged

arrowheads

many

of

which

were

probably

made

in

the

Late

Neolithic.

Mallon

collected

more

flints

from

another

large

surface

scatter

h

km

south of

Kamia

(1925,

200).

Once

again

he

found

flints

of

different

periods

which

probably

came

from

several

locations.

Among

them

were

segmented,

denticulated

sickle

blades

of

Late

Neolithic

type.

Burian

and

Friedmann

have

found numerous

Late

Neolithic

surface

stations

in

the

coastal

dunes

between

Hadera

and Ashdod.

They

collected

small

pressure-

flaked

tanged

and

winged

arrowheads

of

Late

Neolithic

type

from

site

26A

just

north

of

the

Nahal

Alexander

(1963-6U,

6),

a

station

which

had

been used

in

Neolithic

2.

Site

18CH

just

north

of

the

Nahal

Poleg

near

its

mouth

yielded

denticulated,

segmented

sickle

blades

as

did

1ST

immediately

to

the

south-west

beside

the

river

(1963-6U,

13,

15).

More

denticulated,

segmented

sickle

blades

and

small

tanged

and

winged

arrowheads

were

collected

at

18N

on

the

south

bank

of

the

river

at

its

mouth

(1963-6*+,

1U).

Burian

and

Friedmann

located

three more

Late

Neolithic

stations

between

Rishon

le

Zion

and

the

sea

in

an

area

which

may

overlap

with

Neuville's

Jaffa

explorations.

Denticulated,

segmented

sickle

blades

and

small

tanged

and

winged

arrowheads

were

collected

from

33/0

near

the

sea

and

similar

tools

from

33/N

further

east

(1963-6U,

17, 18).

More

tools

of

the

same

kind

were

found

at

33CH

immediately

south-west

of

33/0

(1963-6**,

19).

Fout

more

stations

were

discovered

between

the

Nahal

Sorek

and

Nahal

Lachish.

They

were

from

north

to

south

6*1,

6*+B,

62/0

and

62/1

(Burian,

Friedmann,

1963-6*1,

27,

29,

30,

31).

Denticulated,

segmented

sickle

blades

were

found

on

all

of

them

and

sherds

of

coarse

pottery

at

6U

and

6*+B.

Several

trapezoidal

flint

axes

were

picked

up

at

62/0.

This

site,

62/1

and

6U

had

previously

been

inhabited

in

Neolithic

2.

Four

other

sites

in

southern

Palestine

were

probably occupied

during

the

Late

Neolithic.

Tell

Hesy

is

one,

the

evidence

for

which

being

some

segmented,

37

coarsely

denticulated

sickle

blades

which

Bliss

found

when

he

excavated

at

the

site

(189*+,

12*+).

Another

is

El

Farasheh

on

the

south

bank

of the

Wadi

Ghazzeh,

the

exact

location

of

which

is

no

longer

known.

Stekelis

found

some

denticulated,

segmented

sickle

blades

and

small

flake

awls

here

in

19*+3

which

were

deposited

in

the

Palestine

Archaeological

Museum.

The

same

museum

holds

a

collection

of

flints

from

El

Harbish

which

was

probably

situated

near

Khan

Yunis. This

site

may

have

been

discovered

by

Harding

who

explored

the

region

before

and

during

the

Second

World

War.

Among

the flints

were denticulated,

segmented

sickle

blades,

tanged

arrowheads,

a

pick

and

some

flake

scrapers

-

1*65

-

that

were probably

made

in

the

Late

Neolithic.

Tanged

and

winged

arrowheads

of

Late

Neolithic

type

as

well

as

flints

of

other

periods

were

found

at

site

82

in

the

Halutza

dunes

(Burian,

Friedmann,

19T3j

28).

The

only

evidence

of

Late

Neolithic

activity

further

south

known

to

me

is

the

find

by

Rothenberg

of

a

single

characteristic

tanged

arrowhead

at

site

k6l

in

Sinai

(Moore,

1973,

Distribution

of

sites

Neolithic

k

sites

were

located

in

every

geographical

zone

except

the

high

mountains

from

the

Levant

coast

as

far

east

as

the edge

of

the

steppe

plateau,

that

is

up

to

1

10

km

inland. Thus

there

were

sites

all

along

the

coast

of

Lebanon

(Kubbah

I,

Byblos

,

Adlun

II)

and more

have

been

found

on

the

seaward

slopes

of

the

mountains

up

to

an

altitude

of

1000

m

(Kleat,

Mtaileb

I,

Muktara)

.

Almost

the

whole

length

of

the

Beka'a

was

occupied

from

Baalbek

to

the

headwaters

of

the

Jordan

(Tell

Ard

Tlaili

,

Tell

ed-Jisr,

Ard

Saouda,

Kfar

Giladi).

No

Neolithic

k

sites

are

known

in

the

Anti-Lebanon

but

two

in

the

Damascus

basin

were

inhabited

(Tell

al

Khazzami,

Tell

Ramad)

.

The

pattern

was

similar

in

Palestine

where

sites

have

been

discovered

all

along

the

coast

and

on

the

coastal

plain

(Kabri,

Wadi

Rabah,

Ziqim)

.

The

Plain

of

Esdraelon

was

settled

(Hazorea)

and

the

way

east

to

the

Jordan

valley

(Beth-Shan)

.

Several

Neolithic

k

sites

have

been

excavated

in

the

Judean

hills

(Tell

el

Far

'ah,

Shechem,

Murabba'at)

while

others

are

known along

the

Jordan valley

(

Sheikh

Ali,

Munhatta,

Tell

es-Saidiyeh

el

Gharbi

,

Jericho).

Only

one

site,

Salihi,

has

been

discovered

in

the

hills

east

of the

Jordan

valley

and

none

on

the

Trans

Jordan

plateau.

The

southern

limit

of

known

Neolithic

h

settlement

was

the

Wadi

Ghazzeh

(sites

D,

M,

0)

.

No

trace

of

settlement

or

camp

sites

has

been

found

in

Sinai

in

any

of

the

recent

surveys

which

have

been

carried

out

so

the

area

was

apparently

unoccupied

though

perhaps

occasionally

visited

in

Neolithic

U.

This

is

despite

the

fact

that

there

is

evidence

of

contact

between

Palestine

and

Egypt

in

this

stage

(Moore,

-

k66

-

1973,

57);

presumably

travellers

followed

the

coast

leaving

no

trace

of

their

journeys.

This

distribution

of

settlements

was

generally

similar

to

that

of

Neolithic

3.

The

only

difference

was the

greater

number

of

sites

situated

on

the

slopes

of

the

Mountains

of

Lebanon,

in

the

Galilee hills

and

the

Judean

uplands. Sites

in

the

Mountains

of

Lebanon

were

also

to

be

found

at a

higher

elevation

than

in

earlier

Neolithic

stages.

Other

sites

were

in

areas

of

fertile

land,

that

is

on

valley

terraces

or

plains,

and

usually

near

a

permanent

source

of

water

such

as

springs,

streams

or

rivers. The

catchments

of

these

sites

consisted

for

the

most

part

of

arable

land with

some

grazing

implying

that

agriculture

was

the

economic

basis

of

these

settlements.

They

needed

not

only

a

permanent

source

of

water

for

drinking

and

watering

flocks

but

also

adequate

rainfall

for

their

crops.

This

is

the

reason

for

the

confined

distribution

of

sites

in

this

period

and

the

abrupt

limit

of

settle-

ment

to

the

south

towards

Sinai

and

to

the

east

at

the

edge

of

the

Syrian

and

Transjordan

plateaux.

During

this

period

the

rainfall

decreased.

The

temperature

approached

its

postglacial

maximum

during

the 5th

and

kth

millennia

and may

have

been higher

than

it

is

today

toward

the

end

of

Neolithic

h.

Thus

the

amount

of

effective

moisture

available

was

also

reduced.

The

effect

of

these

two

factors,

the

drop

in

rainfall

and

rise

in

temperature

with

its

consequences,

was

that

Sinai

and

the

plateaux

to

the

east

were

even

drier

than

they

had

been

in

Neolithic

3.

The

forest

zones

shrank

still

more

because

of

the

reduction

in

rainfall

and

man's

activities

so

that

Sinai

and

the

inland

plateaux

were

now

open

steppe.

Rainfall

was

still

sufficient

to

support

agricultural

settlements

in

and

near

the

coastal

hills

and

mountains

but

not

beyond.

Settlement

types

were

almost

the

same

in

Neolithic

U

as

in

Neolithic

3.

Most

sites

were

hamlets

or

villages

with

houses,

other

structures

and

a

full

artifact

inventory. The

Palestinian

villages

came

to

resemble

their

counter-

parts

further

north

during

Neolithic

h

since

rectangular

houses were

adopted

-

1*67

-

as

the

usual

form

of

dwelling.

Traces

of dwellings

have been

found

at

Shechem

and

Tell

el

Far'ah

but

the

sites

in

the

hills

and

on

the

slopes

of

the

mountains

seem

to

have

been

less

substantial

than

those

on

the plains

and

in

the

valleys.

Nevertheless,

the

range

of

material

found

at

Muktara,

Kfar

Giladi

and

Khaliet

el

Khazen

III

and

IV

was

sufficiently

varied

to

suggest

that

these

sites

had

been

inhabited

as

settlements

even

if for

relatively

short

periods.

These

small

upland

settlements

and

some

on

lower ground

were

near

Heavy

Neolithic

stations such

as

Karaoun

II,

Douwara

and

Wadi

Farah.

The

Heavy

Neolithic

sites

were

factory

stations

at

which

flint

artifacts,

particularly

axes,

adzes,

picks

and

other

bulky

tools,

were

roughed

out.

They

were

probably

complementary

sites

to

the

settlements

in

the

hills

while

their

products

occasionally

found

their

way

to

other

settlements

on

the

plains

(Cauvin,

Cauvin,

1968,

110).

These

Heavy

Neolithic

factory

stations

were

a

Neolithic

k

pheno-

menon

since

factory

sites

of

any

kind

in

the

hill

country

were

rare

in

earlier

stages.

Nearly

all

Neolithic

U

settlements

were

open

sites.

The

few

inhabited

caves

such

as

Adlun

II,

Jiita

I

and

Murabba'at

were

as

exceptional

as

those

occupied

in

Neolithic

3.

Hunting

stations

were

equally

rare;

the

only

group

of

these

were

those

surface

sites

along

the

coast

of

Palestine

which

may

have

been inhabited

in

this

stage.

There

is

very

little

accurate

information

about

the

size

of

Neolithic

k

sites.

Some

of

the

smaller

settlements

and

many

of

the

surface stations

probably

ranged

from

several

hundred

to

several

thousand

square metres

in

area.

Tell

Arslan

was

about

1

ha

while

Byblos

covered

1.5

ha

for

much

of

Neolithic

U.

Tell

al

Khazzami

was

of

similar

size

extending

over

1.76

ha.

Wadi

Rabah

was

larger

than

these

sites

since

it

covered

about

2.^3

ha

(Kaplan,

1958b,

151)

but

we

do

not

know

if

the

whole area

was

occupied

in

Neolithic

h.

Jericho

was

much

bigger

again

since

it

spread

over

k

ha;

it

is

the

only

known

Neo-

lithic

U

site

that

was

large

enough

to

be

called

a

town.

No

other

very

large

-

1*68

-

sites

have been

discovered though

there

may

be

a

few

hidden

at

the

heart

of

some

of

the

great

tells.

It

would

seem

that

there

was

a

little

less

variation

in

the

size

of

Neolithic

k

settlements

than

in

Neolithic

3

and

much

less

than

in

Neolithic

2

though

this

can

only

be

a

provisional conclusion

until

we

have

further

evidence.

Was

the

population of

the

central

and

southern

Levant

the

same

in

Neolithic

U

as

in

Neolithic

3?

Neolithic

h

lasted

for

approximately

the

same

length

of

time

as

Neolithic

3.

The

settlements

were

quite

similar

in

size

so

far

as

we

know.

Some

Neolithic

k

sites

were

occupied

only

briefly

but

others

like

Byblosj

Jericho

and

Munhatta

were

inhabited

for

much

or

all

of

this

stage.

Thus

the

sites

of

each

stage

are

broadly

comparable

and

it

is

likely

that

an

approximately

equal

proportion

of

those

that

once

existed

has

been

discovered.

I

have

listed

110

Neolithic

k

sites

but

32

of

these

were

Heavy

Neolithic

factory

sites

which

must be

discounted

in

any

comparison

of

density

of

settlements.

That

leaves

78

sites

which

were

occupied

for

part

or

all

of

Neolithic

U.

The

total

for

Neolithic

3

was

81

but

38

of

these

were

north

of

the

latitude

of

Horns

and

so

should

be

excluded.

Only

h3

Neolithic

sites

are

known

from

Lebanon,

the

Damascus

basin

and Palestine

compared

with

the

78

settlements

I

have

listed

for

Neolithic

k.

Even

when

full

allowance

is

made

for all

the

errors that

can

arise

when

sites

are

compared

in

this

way

the

difference

is

striking.

It

appears that

there

was

another

marked

increase

in

population

in

Neolithic

U.

This

increase

in

population

is

probably

the

reason

for the

only

signifi-

cant

difference

in

settlement

distribution

between

Neolithic

3

and

h

9

the

considerable

increase

in

the

number

of

sites

to

be

found

in

the

hills

and

on

the

mountain

slopes.

As

the

population

increased

it

was

unable

to

expand

south

and

east

since

the

environment

of

these

regions was

unsuitable

for

settlements

based

on

simple

agriculture.

A

greater

population

had

to

be

supported

on

the

available

land

on the

plains

and

in

the

valleys

while other

settlements

could

only be

established

at

higher

altitudes

in

the

Mediterranean

forests.

Thus

we

find

new

settlements

in

the

Mountains

of

Lebanon,

the

broken

hill

country

of

the

southern

Beka'a

and

Galilee uplands

as

well

as

in

the

Judean

hills.

Accompanying

these

new

settlements

were

the

Heavy

Neolithic factory

sites

where

the

large

cutting

tools

needed

to

clear

the

forests

were

roughed

out.

Economy

There

is

even less

evidence

for

the

economy

of

Neolithic

h

sites

than

there was

for

Neolithic

3.

Few

sites

have

been

excavated

and

several

of

these

were

dug

long

ago

when

economic evidence

was

considered

of

little

importance.

In

some

excavated

more

recently

such

as

Jericho

little

organic

material

was

found

to

have

survived

in

the

Neolithic

h

levels.

For

these

reasons

it

is

possible

to

reconstruct

the

economy

of

Neolithic

k

sites

in

outline

only.

I

have

already

mentioned

that

the

catchments

of

most

lowland

sites

consisted

of

land

suitable

for

arable

and

grazing.

This

implies

that

the

economy

of

these

sites

was

based

upon

mixed

farming

as

in

Neolithic

3.

Some

of

the

Beka'a

tells

such

as

Tell

Ard

Tlaili, Tell

Ain

Nfaikh

and

Tell

ed-Jisr

were

surrounded

entirely

by

potential

arable

land.

The

catchments

of

most

other

Neolithic

U

sites

such

as

Beth-Shan,

Munhatta

in

the

Jordan

valley

and

Wadi

Rabah

on

the

coastal

plain

of

Palestine

included

some

land

of

more

varied

quality

which

was

probably

better

suited

for

grazing.

Other

sites

like

Kubbah

I

on

the

Lebanese

coast,

Tell

Hashbai

and

Kaukaba

in

the

Beka'a,

Megiddo

and

the

Hazorea

sites

in

the

Plain

of

Esdraelon

had

almost

as

much

grazing

as

arable

land

in

their

catchments.

We

should

remember,

however,

that

the

often

bare

limestone

slopes

to

be

found

near

these

sites

now

which

we

class

as

grazing

land

probably carried

a

thin

soil

cover

then

that

the

inhabitants

of

these

settlements

may

have

found

quite

easy

to

cultivate.

Jericho

is

the

only

Neolithic

h

site

from

which

plant

remains

have

been

recovered.

Grains

of

hulled

two-rowed

barley,

emmer

and

einkorn

were

found

as

well

as

several

field

weed

see.ds

(Hopf,

1969,

356).

We

know

that

these

cereals

had

become

the

staples

of

most

agricultural

settlements

through-

out

the

Levant

by

the

end

of

Neolithic

3.

The

Jericho

evidence

reinforces

the

probability

that this

pattern

was

maintained

during

Neolithic

k.

We

do

not

know

for

certain what

legumes

were

grown during

Neolithic

h

but

it is

likely

that

lentils

and

vetch

were

planted

most

frequently

although

others

would

also

have

been

regularly

grown.

The

animal

bones

from

several Neolithic

k

sites

have

been

studied

so

we

have

a

general

idea

of

the

prevailing

patterns

of

animal

husbandry.

The

fullest

account

is

the

report

by

Jarman

on

the

animal

bones

from

Sheikh

Ali.

He

found

that

the

main food

animals

were

sheep,

goat,

pigs,

cattle

and

gazelle

(197^»

50).

A

few

deer,

onager,

fish

and

a

canid

were

also

present

in

the

sample.

The

number

of cattle

and

gazelle

killed

at

Sheikh

Ali

remained

relatively

stable

throughout

Neolithic

k.

Cattle

made

up

about

20%

of

the bones

and

gazelle

about

12%

although

these

declined

towards

5%

at

the

end

of

the

stage

(Jarman,

197^

5

fig.

1).

The

pigs

increased from

about

32%

to

k$%

while

the

ovicaprines

fell

from

about

35%

to

under

30%,

a

continuation

of

a

trend

that

was

more

marked

during

the

Neolithic

2

occupation

of

the

site.

The

increase

in

the

proportion

of

pigs

balanced

that

of

the

decline

in

the

numbers

of

both

ovicaprines

and

gazelle

killed.

The

age

at

which

each

species

of

animal

was

slaughtered

remained

fairly

constant

throughout

the

occupation

sequence

at

Sheikh

Ali.

Jarman believes

that

the

ovicaprines,

pigs

and

cattle

were

all

subject

to

control

by

man

(197^5

57)

and

it

is

probable

that

the

gazelle

were

also.

He

suggests

that

as

in

Neolithic

2

the

ovicaprines

here

were

exploited

for

wool

and

dairy

products

as

well

as

meat

since

most

were

not

killed

off

until

they

were

at

least

two

years

old

(197^-j

56).

Milk

may

also have

been

an

important

by-

product

of

the

cattle.

Nearly

all

the

pigs

were

killed

young

for

their

meat.

Jarman

has

offered

an

interesting

explanation

for the

increase

in

importance

of

pigs

and

the

relative

decline

of

the ovicaprines

and

gazelle.

He

has

pointed

out

that

there

is

good reason

to

suppose

that

the

population

of

the

region

in

which

Sheikh

Ali

is

situated

would

have

risen

during

the

period

when

the site

was

occupied

(197^,

58).

We

have

seen

that

there

is

evidence

for

this

in

both

Neolithic

2

and

Neolithic

k

though

in

Neolithic

3

-

1*71

-

Sheikh

All

was

deserted

and

the

population

of

the

region

vas

temporarily

reduced.

The

growing

population

of

Neolithic

2

and

k

could

have

been

fed

by

increasing

the

quantity

of

cereals

that

was produced.

This

might

have

reduced

the

amount

of

land

available

on

which

the

ovicaprines

and

gazelle

would

have

grazed

so

threatening

the

meat

supply.

Any

forced

reduction

in

the

numbers

of

sheep,

goat

and

gazelle

that

were

kept

could

have

been

compensated

for

by

increasing

the

herd

of

pigs.

These

animals

do

not

need

to

graze

on

potential

arable

land

and

can

feed

off

foods

not

consumed

by

the

ruminants.

The

fauna

of

Munhatta

2A

has not

been

published

separately

from

that

of

2B

so

we

do

not

know

if

there

was

any

difference

in

the

exploitation

of

animals

between

Neolithic

3

and

Neolithic

k.

The

main

food

animals

killed

in

phase

2

were

gazelle,

cattle,

ovicaprines

and

pigs

as

we

saw

in

the

last

chapter

(Ducos,

1969,

267).

Ducos

believes

that

both

the

pigs

and

ovicaprines

were

domesticated

(1969,

273).

Cattle

were

killed

in

about

equal

proportions

at

Munhatta

and

Sheikh

Ali.

Pigs

were

less

numerous

at

Munhatta

while

ovi-

caprines

and

gazelle

were

more

abundant

than

at

Sheikh

Ali

but

there

were

no

striking

differences

between

the

proportions

of

the

animals

killed

at

each

site.

Thus

animals

were

probably

exploited

in a

similar

manner

at

both

these

sites.

Very

few

bones

were

found

in

the

Pottery

Neolithic

at

Jericho

and

no

separation

was

made

between

those

from

phases

A

and

B,

that

is

Neolithic

3

and

Neolithic

U.

The

most

numerous

species

in

Neolithic

k

as

in

Neolithic

3

were

probably

sheep

and

goat

while

gazelle

and

cattle

were

also

present

(Glutton-

Brock,

1971,

^6,

5U).

No

pigs

were

found

(Glutton-Brock,

1971,

^1).

The

pattern

of

exploitation

at

Jericho

would

thus

appear

to

differ

in

certain

details

from

that

at

Sheikh

Ali

and

Munhatta

further

north

in

the

Jordan

valley

but

we

cannot

be

sure

since

the faunal sample

was

so

small.

Animal

exploitation

at

the

Neolithic

h

sites

for

which

we

have

evidence

was

principally

based

on

herds

of

domesticated

animals.

The

most

important

species

were

usually

sheep

and

goats.

Cattle

also

provided

a

significant

amount

of

meat

while

pigs

were

particularly

important

at

some

sites.

There

is

little

other

evidence

for the

economies

of

the

remaining

lowland

Neolithic

h

sites

though

they were

probably organized

along

the

same

general

lines

I

have already

indicated.

Bones

of

gazelle

were

found

at

Ziqim

(Noy,

I9?6b,

U9)

adding

to

the

evidence

that

this

animal

was

still

commonly

exploited

in

Neolithic

h.

Fishing

contributed

some

food

to the

diet

of

the

inhabitants

of

this

and

other

coastal

sites

such

as

Byblos

(Dunand,

1973,

161).

Such

supplements

were

probably

still of

some

importance

in the

economy

of

many

Neolithic

h

sites.

Hunting

in

general, though,

seems

to

have

declined

even

further

than

in

Neolithic

3.

Arrowheads

comprised

a

smaller

percentage

of

the

chipped

stone

assemblage

on

Neolithic

h

sites

than

in

preceding

phases.

The

few

arrowheads

found

at

Byblos

were

of

the

tranchet

type

found

also

on

some

coastal

Palestinian

sites.

These

were

probably

used

to

shoot

birds

and

small

game

rather

than

the

larger

ruminants.

It

is

interesting

in

this

connection

to

note

that

bird

bones

were

also

found

at

Ziqim

(Noy,

19?6b,

^9).

The

economies

of

the

sites

in

the

uplands

could

not

have

been

based

upon

mixed

agriculture and

herding

like

the

sites

in

the

lowlands.

The catchments

of

sites

such

as

Kleat,

Asfurieh

II,

Muktara,

Ain

Hannine

and

Wadi

Salhah

con-

sisted

for

the

most

part

of

steep

hill

slopes

with

relatively

thin

soil

covered

by

Mediterranean

forest.

The

only

land

which

could have

been

cultivated

without

extensive

terracing

was

the

flat

hilltops,

gentler

slopes

and

narrow

valley

bottoms

of

adjacent

wadis.

All

except

the

steepest

hillsides

could,

once

cleared,

have made

excellent

pasture

for

sheep

and

goats.

Niches

would

always

have

been

available

for

pasturing

a

few

cattle.

Thus

the

economies

of

these

sites

would

from

their

very

positions

have

been

better

suited

to

pastoralism

than

to

agriculture.

The

material

remains

from

these

sites

are

always

scanty

since

no

structures

and

few

organic

remains

have

been

found

on them.

In

itself

the

absence

of

buildings

suggests

that

these

sites

were

occupied

relatively

briefly.

The

flint

assemblages

from

most

of

these

sites

included

numerous

axes,

adzes,

-

1*73

-

chisels

and

large

flake

scrapers.

Most

of these

cutting

tools

were

probably

used

to

open

up

the

forest

for

grazing

and

to

work

the

timber

that

was

cut

down.

Many

arrowheads

were

found

at

Muktara

which may

indicate

that

hunting

was

a

significant

aspect

of

the

economy

but

this

is

the

only

one

of

the

upland

sites

for

which

we have

such

evidence.

What

these

sites

appear

to

represent

is

a

major

penetration

of

the

upland

zone

often

to

a

high

elevation

and

in

areas

not

settled

earlier

in

the

Neo-

lithic.

The

evidence

suggests

that

their

economies

depended

upon pastoralism.

This

expansion

is

almost

certainly

connected

as

we

have

seen

with

the

rise

in

population

that

took

place

in

Neolithic

U.

Would

such

sites

have

been

per-

manently

viable

on

a

mainly

pastoral

basis?

I

think

that

this

would

have

been

unlikely.

Some

of

them

are

situated

in

areas

that

would

have

been

inhospitable

during

the

winter

months.

I

suggest

that

many

of

these

sites

were

settlements

inhabited

during

the

late

spring

and

summer

by

groups

which

brought

flocks

and

herds

up

from

the

lowland

sites. In

this

way

larger

flocks

and

herds

could

have

been

maintained

than

would

have

been

possible

on

the

lowlands

alone,

especially

as

some

of

the

grazing

land

near

many

settlements

may

have

been

taken

into

cultivation. We

have

seen

that

transhumance

was

probably

a

feature

of

earlier

stages

of

the

Neolithic

and

that

it

may

have

been practised

on

a

modest

scale

in

Neolithic

3.

Its

great

expansion

in

this

phase

was

a

corollary

of

the

growth

of population

that

took

place.

Some

of

these

upland

sites

may

have

been

inhabited

on a

semi-permanent

basis

and

their

inhabitants

may

have

practised

some

agriculture

as

seems

to

have

been

the

case

at

Muktara.

There

were

other settlements

in

the

foothills

and

in

the

broken

country

of

the

southern

Beka'a

such

as

Naccache,

Amiq.

I,

Tahun

ben

Aissa

and

Beidar

Chamout

which

may

have depended

upon

their

flocks

and

herds

to

a

greater

extent

than

the

lowland

settlements

but whose

inhabitants

did not

practise,

long-distance

transhumance.

These

settlements,

probably

including

Sahl

el

Khoussin

in

Samaria,

may

have

been

established

by

breakaway

groups

from

sites

in

the

lowlands

who

sought

new

land

in

areas

that

were

previously

thinly

populated

if

at

all.

These

groups

were

relatively

small

judging

by

the

size

of

the sites

and

they

did

not

remain

long

enough

to

leave

much

material.

The

evidence

suggests

that some

groups

penetrated

the

hilly,

forested

regions

and

settled

in

small

villages

while

others,

probably

based

at

lowland

sites

such

as

Byblos,

Tell

Arslan

and

Munhatta

exploited

the

uplands

at

higher

elevations

by

taking

their

flocks

and

herds

up

to

temporary

camps

each

year.

The

Heavy

Neolithic

stations

were

yet

another

type

of

site

connected with

this

expansion.

I

suggest

that

the

inhabitants

of

the

upland

settlements

and

seasonal

camps

themselves

roughed

out

the

tools

they

needed

to

clear

the

forest

on

the

Heavy

Neolithic

factory

sites.

Thus

all

these

sites

were

part

of

a

pattern

of

intensive

exploitation

of

the

upland

zone

which

took

place

in

Neolithic

U.

The

agriculture

of

Neolithic

h

settlements

in

the

lowlands

was

probably

based

on

a

short

fallow

system

as

I

have

suggested

for

Neolithic

3.

This

would

have

been

further

intensified

so

that

sufficient

food

was

produced

to

feed

the

growing

population.

The

same

system

was

probably adopted

in

Palestine

as

a

result

of

population

growth

in

preference

to

the

less

intensive

bush

fallow

system

practised

there

in

Neolithic

3.

The

system

was

obviously

a

stable

one

since

many

sites

in

Lebanon

and

Palestine

were

occupied

for

much

or

all

of

Neolithic

h

and

on

into

the

Chalcolithic.

This

was

so

at

Byblos

and

several

of

the

Beka'a

tells

such

as

Tell

Ain

Saouda,

Mejdel

Anjar

II

and

Tell

ed-Jisr.

The

Neolithic

h

settlements

in

the

Jordan valley

such

as

Jericho

and

Sheikh All

were

equally

long-lived

as

were

Wadi

Rabah,

Beth-Shan,

Megiddo

and

several

of

the

Hazorea

sites

on

the

Plain

of

Esdraelon.

We

know

little

more

about

how

the

Neolithic

U

farmers

worked

their

fields

than

we

did

for

Neolithic

3.

The

discovery

of basalt

hoes

at

Kubbah

I,

Muktara

and

Kaukaba

and

flint

ones

at

Tell

Arslan

is

particularly

interesting

since

they

are

the

earliest

good

evidence we

have

that

heavy

digging

tools

were

being

made

to

till

the

soil.

These

were

needed

to

increase

the

productivity

of

the

soil

to

feed

the

growing Neolithic

U

population.

We

can

only

presume

-

1+75

-

otherwise

that

these

farmers

used

wooden

spades

and

perhaps

ards

as

I

postulated

for

Neolithic

3.

Community

organization

and

trade

The

inhabitants

of

most

excavated

Neolithic

h

settlements

lived

in

separate

rectangular

houses

sometimes

with

one

but

usually

with

two

or

more

rooms.

This

arrangement

was

broadly

similar

to

that

of

Neolithic

3

even

if

at

certain

settlements

such

as

Byblos

the

size

of

the

houses

was

different

in

succeeding

phases.

These

houses

were

probably

still

inhabited

by

nuclear

families

which

continued

to

form

the

basic

units

of

village

society.

The

large

houses

of

Neolithique

Recent Byblos

could

have

housed

quite

extended

families

including

perhaps

members

from

several

generations.

These

families

would

have

been

linked

to

the

other

households

in

the

village

by

complex

social

relationships.

They

were

probably

still

the

fundamental

economic

unit

as

in

preceding

stages.

This

pattern

was

characteristic

not

only of

settlements

in

the

South

Syrian

group

but

also

in

Palestine,

at

least

in

the

latter

part

of

Neolithic

k.

There

is

good

evidence

from

Jericho,

Munhatta

and

other

sites

that

recti-

linear

houses

were

adopted

once

more

by

the

inhabitants

of

settlements

in

Palestine

superseding

the

pit

dwellings

of

Neolithic

3.

Thus

the

social

organization

of

Neolithic

h

villages

was

similar

to

that

of

settlements

in

the

central

and

northern

Levant

in

Neolithic

3.

On

the

few

settlements

in

which

several

buildings

have

been

excavated

none

differed

markedly

from

the

others

in

its

basic

plan.

Thus

none

stands

out

as

having

possibly

served

a

communal

function

with

the

exception,

perhaps,

of

those

buildings

in

Ne*olithique

Re*cent

Byblos

which

Dunand

suggested

may

have

been

chapels.

Even

these

looked

no

different

from

the

others

which

I

have

interpreted

as

houses.

It

is

possible

that

communal

buildings

with

a

different

plan

may

yet be

found

on

other

sites

if

they

are

more

extensively

excavated

but

for

the

moment

we

have

no

certain

evidence

that

they

were

built.

The

inhabitants

of

Byblos

and

other

relatively

large

Neolithic

h

villages

may

simply

have

used

a

structure

built

like

one

of

their

houses

for

communal

purposes

should

they have

felt

the

need.

This

is

the

custom

in

modern

peasant

villages

throughout

the

Levant

in

which

a

house built

like

the

others

may

be

reserved

as

a

meeting

place

and

for the

use

of

guests.

There

would

have

been

the

same

strong

social

ties

between

the

inhabitants

of

Neolithic

h

villages

in

each

region

as

I

have

suggested

for

Neolithic

3.

These

communities

were probably grouped

in

tribes.

The

cultural

groups

and

sub-groups

that

I

have

identified

corresponded

quite

closely

with

the

different

regions

of

the

central

and

southern

Levant.

It

is

likely

that

the

sites

of

each

cultural

sub-group

were

inhabited

by

members

of

each

tribe.

Thus

one

tribe

may

have

occupied

the

central

and

northern

coastal

strip

of

Palestine,

another

the

Beka'a,

a

third

the

Damascus

basin,

a

fourth

the

southern

Jordan

valley and

hills

to

the

west

and

a

fifth

the

northern

Jordan

valley.

Byblos

is

the

only

site

at

which

more

than

a

few

human

burials

were

found.

Even

here

there

is

reason

to

suspect

that

the

dead

were

usually

buried

beyond

the

limits

of

the

settlement.

This

may

also

have

been

so

at

other

sites

in

which

few

or no

burials

were

found,

unless the

dead

were disposed

of

by

other

means,

as

I

have

postulated

for

Neolithic

3.

Some

of

the

burials

at

Byblos

were

in

simple

earth

graves

but

there

were

other

collective,

secondary

burials.

This

revival

of

a

custom

common

in

Neolithic

2

was

also

followed

at

Ein

el

Jarba

where

a

secondary

burial

was

found

(Kaplan,

1969,

5).

Prominent

in

this

interment was

a

group

of

skulls

and

skulls

were

given

special

attention

in

some

burials

at

Byblos.

Burials

were

found

in

and

under

buildings

at

Kabri

but

elsewhere

the

custom

of

burying

the

dead

within

the

settlement

seems

to

have

been

rarely

practised.

There was

little

evidence

of

any

differences

in

social

status

among

the

burials

at

Byblos.

The

information

from

other

sites

is

too

meagre

for

any

conclusions

to be

drawn.

Most

of

the

buildings

at

Byblos

were

of

a

similar

type

and

no

house

stands

out

as

having

been

larger

or more

elaborately

finished

than

the

others.

Objects

of

adornment

and artifacts

made

of

rare

materials

from

exotic

sources

are

no

more

numerous

here

or

on

other

sites

than

in

the

Thus

there

seem

to

have

been

no

marked

differences

in

wealth

or

status

between

families

either

at

Byblos

or

on

other

sites

in

Neolithic

k.

Society

was

still

broadly

egalitarian.

There

is

evidence

that

the

same crafts

were

practised

as

in

Neolithic

3.

The

pottery

was

better

made

everywhere

and

more

durable.

Probably

as

a

result

of

this

stone

bowls

were

made

less

frequently

on

most

sites;

at

Byblos

they

ceased

to

be

used

during

Neolithic

k.

Other

crafts and

daily

activities

seem

to have

continued

with

little

change

from

the

preceding

stage.

It

is

as

if

a

plateau

had

been

reached

in

the

development

of

material

culture.

Not

until

the

Chalcolithic,

was

there

any

further

elaboration

when,

with

the

coming

of

the use

of

metal,

new

crafts

developed

and

new

kinds

of

arti-

facts

became

available.

The

villages

of

Neolithic

k

continued

to

obtain

raw

materials

from

sources

a

short distance

away.

Limestones

and

basalt

were

frequently

used

for

stone

tools.

Flint

was

also

exchanged

in

small

quantities.

These

were

materials which

were

freely

available

and

in

everyday

use.

A

little

obsidian

continued

to

reach

sites

in

the

central

and

southern

Levant.

Of

the

five

pieces

analysed

from

Byblos

four

came

from

Van and

only

one

from

Ciftlik.

Two

of

the

three

pieces

analysed

from

Hazorea

also

came

from

Van

and

the

other

from

Ciftlik.

Renfrew

has

visually

examined

several

pieces

found

on

the

surface

of

the

Beka'a

tells

and

has

concluded

that

they

came

from

sources

in

the Van

region

and

Cappadocia

(Copeland,

1969,

103).

If

these

results

accurately

reflected

the

pattern

of

exchange

then

more

obsidian

was

apparently

being

obtained

from

Van

than

from

Cappadocia,

a

reversal

of

the

trend

in

Neolithic

3.

The

number

of

samples

analysed

is

too

few

to

be

certain;

we

can

only be

sure

that

obsidian

from

both

Cappadocia

and

eastern

Turkey

was

being

obtained.

The

exchange

of

other

materials

from

distant

sources

diminished

further

in

both

quantity

and

variety

during

Neolithic

k.

Greenstones

continued

to

-

U78

-

be

used

for

small

axes

and

chisels.

These

have

been

found

at

Byblos

and

other

sites

in

the

South

Syrian

group,

then

as

far

south

as

Ein

el

Jarba

if

the

axes

from

there

really

came

from

the

basal

layer

(Kaplan,

1969,

20).

The

raw

material

for

these

objects

originated

either

in

north-west

Syria

or

the

Taurus.

A

few

steatite

objects

were

found

at

Byblos

but

no

other

artifacts

made

of

exotic

materials

nor

minerals

have

been

reported

from

any

Neolithic

k

site.

Nothing

seems

to

have

been

obtained

from

Sinai,

probably

because

it

was

still

uninhabited,

and

regular

exchange

with

regions

far

to

the

north-wsst

ceased.

We

see

here

one

result

of

the

coming

of

Halaf.

For

the

time

being

contacts

between

the

Levant

and

other

regions

sensibly

diminished.

Chapter

7

CONCLUSION

The

Neolithic

of

the

Levant

"began

about

8500

B.C.,

I

have

equated

this

stage

with

the

development

of

a

sedentary

agricultural society

but

it

will

be

evident

now

that

it

came

about

because

of

earlier

changes

that

had

taken

place

in

Mesolithic

2.

The

most

important

stimulus

was

the

growth

in

population

that

happened

early

in

Mesolithic

2

at

or

soon

after

10,000

B.C..

This

expansion

of

the

population

occurred

at

a

time of

environmental

affluence.

Mesolithic

1

had

coincided

with

a

long

phase

of cold,

dry

climate

during

which

the

steppe

had

expanded

at

the

expense

of the

Mediterranean

forest.

Then

towards

the

end

of

Mesolithic

1

about

12,000

B.C.

a

major

change

took

place.

The

climate

became

warmer

and

moister

which

brought

about

a

considerable

expansion

of

the

Mediterranean

and

intermediate

forest

zones.

This

amelioration

of

the

climate

and

consequent

change

in

the

vegetation

preceded

the

Mesolithic

2

growth

in

population

on

the

chronology

I

have

proposed.

It

appears

to

have

created

the

favourable

circumstances

in

which

the

first

expansion

of

population

took

place.

Why

should

the

population

have

expanded

then?

Part

of

the

answer

must

be

that

a

much

larger

population

could

be

supported

on

the

increased

resources

that

became

available

in

the

greatly

extended

forest

zones.

The

edible

wild

food

plants

would

have

been much

more

abundant

while

the

game

population

would

have

grown

since

the

new environment could

support

a

much

higher

biomass.

Human

populations

tend

to

expand

when

the

supply

of

food

increases

as

appears

to

have

happened

in this

instance.

The

growth

of

population

in

Neolithic

2

led

to

the

formation

of

human

groups

larger

than

the

composite

bands

of

Mesolithic

1

and

before. These

groups

inhabited relatively

large

settlements

on

a

semi-permanent

basis.

They

were

thus

more

sedentary

than

their

ancestors

had

been.

The

simple

hunter-

-

1*80

-

gatherer

economy

of

earlier

stages

while

still

adequate

for

many

smaller

Neolithic

2

groups

had

to

be

modified

in

order

to

sustain

the

inhabitants

of

the

larger

semi-sedentary

settlements.

It

was

in

these

circumstances

that

the

exploitation

of

plants

and

animals

became

more

systematic.

The

larger

human

groups

probably

wished

to

maintain

their

size for

as

long

as

possible

because

this

permitted

them

richer

and

more

frequent

social

contacts

than

had

been

possible

hitherto;

certainly

once

these

larger

groups

began

to

be

formed

in

Mesolithic

2

the

tendency

was for

the size

of

groups

to

increase

throughout

the

Neolithic.

The

formation

of

such

large

groups

under

exceptionally

favourable

environmental

conditions

thus

created

a

need

for

novel

adaptations

of

traditional

economic

activities

and

the

development

of

new

ones.

I

have

been

able

to

document

the

growth

of

population

and group

size

which

occurred

in

Mesolithic

2

from

the

archaeological

evidence

available.

I

have

also

been

able

to

indicate

how

some

traditional

hunter-gatherer

economic

practices

were

refined

and

have

pointed

to

evidence

indicating

that

man

may

already

have

begun

to

control

the

reproduction

of

the

plants

upon

which

he

depended

for

food.

All

this

appears

to

be

so

novel

partly

because

of

the

scarcity

of

economic

evidence

for

Mesolithic

1

and

the

Aurignacian.

Such

evidence

as

has

become

available

recently

for

the

economy

of

human

groups

in

these

earlier

stages

indicates

that

these

novel

practices

were

but

the

culmination

of

broad-based

patterns

of

exploitation

that

were

current

far

back

in

the

Palaeolithic.

I

have

isolated

two

factors

which

I

believe

to

have

been

of

crucial

importance

in

forming

the

conditions

in

which

the

development

of

the

Neolithic

took

place:

the

improvement

in

the

environment,

particularly

climate

and

vegetation,

and

increase

in

population.

Other

factors,

for

instance

changes

in

economy

and

social

organization,

were

also

critical.

For

the

moment

given

the

evidence

we

have

it is

only

possible

to

single

out

the

major

factors

and

to

see

which,

if

any,

had

a

preponderant

influence.

We

must

always

remember

-

1*81

-

that

changes

in

each

factor

influenced

the

others

continually

so

that

the

crystallizing

of

the

Neolithic

was

a

most

complex

process.

I

have

divided

the

Neolithic

of

the

Levant

into

four

stages.

If

one

takes

a

"broad

view

of

the

developments

in

economy,

population

levels

and

social

organization

it

can

be

seen

that

these

fall

into

two

major

phases.

The

first

or

archaic

phase

comprised

Neolithic

1

and

2

and

the

second

or

developed

phase

Neolithic

3

and

4.

In

the

first

phase

the

embryo simple

agricultural

economy

combined

with

hunting

and

gathering

was

developed

as

far

as

was

possible

under

the

environmental

conditions

of the

Levant;

this

permitted

a

substantial growth

in

population.

In

the

second

phase

this

pattern

was

substantially

modified;

a

more

developed

form

of

agriculture

was

adopted

by

the

inhabitants

of

most

settlements

which

has

continued

to

be

the

basis

of

existence

in

the

Levant

down

to

modern

times.

Considerable

adjustments

in

the

settlement

pattern

accompanied

this

development

while

the

population

subsequently

grew

still

more.

Seen

in this

way

the

change

from

Mesolithic

2

to

Neolithic

1

was

less

abrupt

than

that

from

Neolithic

2

to

Neolithic

3.

The

developments

in

social

organization,

settlement

patterns

and

economy

which

had

been

initiated

in

Mesolithic

2

were

simply

taken

further

in

Neolithic

1.

Sites

grew

larger

and

the

groups

inhabiting

them

more

numerous.

A

few

sites,

notably

Jericho

but

also Tell

Aswad,

were

very

large

indeed.

These

larger

sites

were

also

inhabited

for

longer.

The

types

and

sizes

of

sites

were

more

varied

than

in

Mesolithic

2.

The

inhabitants

of

the

larger

sites

now

depended

for

food

upon

the

deliberate

planting

and

harvesting

of

cereals

as

well

as

the

collection

of

numerous

species

of

wild

plants.

Herds

of

certain animals

were

selectively

exploited

but

much

other

game

was

still

hunted.

The

economy

of

the

larger

sites

was

thus

based

upon

simple

agriculture

and

the

continued

exploitation

of

wild

resources.

The

economy

of

the

smaller

sites

was

still

probably

little

different

from

the

broadly-based

hunting

and

gathering

of

many

Mesolithic

sites

-

1+82

-

In

favourable

circumstances

the

developed

agricultural/hurting

and

gathering

economy

permitted

the

formation

of

unprecedently

large

settlements

but

we

should

remember

that

there

is no

evidence

that

the

population

increased

further.

Neolithic

1

on

the

sites

of

medium

size

was

little

more

than

a

consolidation

of the

pattern

of

existence

that

began

in

the

The

modifications

to

the

settlement

pattern

and

economy

in

Neolithic

1

took

place

against

a

relatively

stable

environmental

background.

Conditions

were

still

particularly

favourable

for

a

way

of

life

partly

dependent

upon

wild

food

resources.

About

8000

B.C.,

that

is

during

Neolithic

1,

the

temperature

rose

a

little

and

rainfall noticeably

decreased

but

this

did

not

have

a

marked

effect

on

the

new

pattern

of

life.

The

new

agricultural

techniques

were

not

widely

adopted until

Neolithic

2.

During

this

stage

a

range

of

cereals

and

legumes

came

to

be

regularly

planted,

and

harvested

on

most

settlements.

Animals

were

also

exploited

more

systematically

ths.n

in

Neolithic

1.

The

inhabitants

of

these

settlements

still

relied

on

wild

plants

and

animals

for

part

of

their

subsistence

but

to a

lesser

extent

than

before.

Thus

the

economy

of

most

settlements

was

still

a

mixed

one,

combining

a

range

of

agricultural

practices

and

also

continued

hunting

and.

gathering.

It

was not

until

this

stage

that

the

full

potential

of

this

simple

agricultural

system

was

realised.

Only

now

did the

population greatly

increase

as

a

result

of

the

larger

amounts

of

food

that

could

be

produced.

It

is

probable

that

fully

sedentary

settlements

were

first

established

in this

phase

as

a

corollary

of

these

developments

in

economy

arid

population.

The

greater

degree

of

control

now

exercised

over

herds

of

animals

also

permitted

the

population

to

expand

much

further

into

the

steppe

by

following

a

pastoral

way

of

life.

This

was

the

only

stage

during

the

Neolithic

in

which

the

steppic

interior

of

the

Levant

was

systematically

exploited.

The

greatly

expanded

Neolithic

2

population

lived

in

settlements

which

were

-

U83

-

more

varied

in

size

than

ever

before.

A

few

like

Abu

Hureyra

and

Jericho

were

amongst

the

largest

of

all

Levantine

Neolithic

settlements.

At

the

other

extreme

were

some

which

were

still

only

small

hunting

stations.

The

great

growth

in

population

and

diversity

of

settlement

types

were

accompanied

by

considerable

technological

changes

in

and

elaboration

of

material

culture.

The

developments

in

chipped

stone

industries

and

other

stone

tools

were

closely

linked

with

changes

in

exploitation

practices.

The

growth

of

crafts

and

the

greater

richness

of

objects

of

adornment,

stone

bowls and

other

personal

possessions

were

the

result

of

the

concentration

of

relatively

large

numbers

of

people

in

permanent

settlements.

The

economy

of

these

settle-

ments

now

allowed

many

inhabitants

extended

periods

of

leisure

in

which

to

pursue

these

crafts;

greater

sedentism

made

it

possible

for

them

to

accumulate

personal

possessions.

Neolithic

2

coincided

approximately

with

another

period

of

environmental

change.

The

temperature

continued

to

rise,

rainfall

became

more

seasonal

and

probably

slightly

diminished.

Thus

the

Mediterranean

and

intermediate

forest

zones

retreated

while

the

steppe

expanded.

This

apparent

worsening

of

conditions

probably

did not

adversely

affect

the

Neolithic

2

pattern

of

existence

until

quite

late

in

the

stage.

The

opening

up

of

the

forest

zones

was

a

process

that

man

himself

was

hastening

through

clearance.

His

farming methods

were

better

suited

to

the

lighter

soils

and

more

open

conditions

of

the

intermediate

forest

which

was

not

densely

populated

at

this

stage.

The

second

or

developed

phase

of

the

Neolithic

comprising

Neolithic

*5

and

4

saw

the

rapid

emergence

of

a

way

of

life

that was

recognisably

modern.

This

only

happened

after

an

agricultural

economy

had

already

been

practised

for

two

and

a

half

millennia

in

the

archaic

Neolithic

and

probably

in

a

very

simple

form

for

at

least

another

millennium

and

a

half

before

that,

as

far

back

as

10,000

B.C..

The

people

of

the

Levant

came

to

depend

on

a

fully

agricultural

economy

in

Neolithic

3.

This

was

based

upon

the

cultivation

of

wheat,

barley,

lentils

and

vetch

although

some

other

cereals

and

legumes

were also grown.

The

principal

domesticated

animals

were

sheep,

goat,

cattle

and

pigs.

Ga:;elle,

hares,

birds

and

other

game

continued

to

be

eaten

in

small

quantities

as

they

have

been down

to

the

present

but

they were

no

more

than

a

modest

supplement

on

the

settlement

sites.

I

explained

in

Chapter

5

that

I

believe

this

pattern

might

have

come

about

in

time

simply

because

of

man's

pressure

on

the

land and

the

interaction

between

economy

and

population

growth

in

Neolithic

2.

In

fact

the

change was

precipitated

by

the

deterioration

in

the

environment

that

took

place

during

the

7th

millennium.

The

settlements

in

the

steppe

zone

could

not

continue

on

the

basis

of

the

Neolithic

2

economy

once

the

rainfall

diminished

since

this

undermined

both

simple

farming

and

grazing

land

for

herded

animals.

Man

had contributed

to

this

by

clearing

the

vegetation

around

his

settlements

and

damaging

the

soil

cover.

The

Neolithic

3

settlement

pattern

differed

markedly

from

that

of

the

preceding

stages.

Sites

were

confined

to

the

forest

zones

and

were

situated

mostly

near cultivated

land.

They

were

in

general

larger

than

many

Neolithic

2

settlements

but

also

more

uniform

in

both

size

and

type.

These

major

adjustments

in

the

way

of

life

of

the

people

of the

Levant

did

not

lead

immediately

to

any

major

change

in

population

levels.

The

of

population

growth

came

in

Neolithic

4 as

a

result

of

the

new

adaptation

worked

out

in

Neolithic

3.

A fully

agricultural

economy

based

almost

exclusively

on

sedentary

settlements

situated

in

areas

with

the

most

fertile

land

could

support

a

greater

population

than

even

that

of

Neolithic

2

and

3.

This

could

only

happen,

of

course,

if

the

agricultural

system

was

more

intensive

than

anything practised

earlier.

The

increase

in

population

during

Neolithic

4

took

place

at

a

time

when

the

forest

zones

were

contracting

as

the

environment

deteriorated

still

further.

The

new

economic

system

allowed

communities

in

each

region

of

the

Levant

to

increase

and

prosper

in

spite

of

adverse

environmental

circumstances

although

they

lacked

the

means

to

adapt their

system

so

that they

could

once

more

inhabit

the

steppe.

This

review

of the

main

variables

which

contributed

to

the

formation

and

development

of

the

Neolithic

of

the

Levant

will

have

emphasised

that

the

stages

of

economic

and

cultural

change

that

I

have

defined

coincided

approximately

with

periods

of

environmental

change.

Mesolithic

1

was

coeval

with

the

last

severe

cold

phase

of

the

Pleistocene

while

Mesolithic

2

coincided

with

a

period

of

greatly

improved

environment.

A

slight

deterioration

in

conditions

occurred

during

Neolithic

1

which

grew more

marked

in

Neolithic

2.

Both

Neolithic

3

and

Neolithic

4

corresponded

with

phases

of

accentuated

environmental

pressure.

The

coincidence

was

never

exact,

the

improvement

of

conditions

in

Mesolithic

2

for

example

began

late

in

Mesolithic

1

while

the

deterioration

in

climate

in

Neolithic

2

began

well

after

that

phase

was

underway.

The

correspondence

is

important

nevertheless

since

it

suggests

at

once

that

changes

in

environment

were

intimately

connected

with

the

succession

of

cultural

and

economic

stages.

I

have

explored

this

relationship

in

detail

in

the

thesis

but

the

important

general

point

to

note

here

is

that

there

was

no

general

cause-and-effect

relationship

between

the

two.

I

have

suggested

that

the

environmental

improvement

which

began

late

in

Mesolithic

1

was

the

principal

cause

of

the

rise

in

population

in

Mesolithic

2

and

subsequent

developments

in economy.

The

environmental

deterioration

which

began

in

Neolithic

2

was

also

partly

responsible

for

the

changes

in

settlement

pattern

and

economic

strategy

in

Neolithic

3

though

even

here several

other

factors

played

an

important

part.

The

human

response

to

the

great

growth

in

population

that

took

place

in

Neolithic

2

and man's own

impact

of

the

environment

were

both

of

crucial

significance.

The

worsening

of

conditions

during

Neolithic

4

had

no

further

-

1^86

-

deleterious

effect

on

man's

way

of

life

since

the

evolved Neolithic

economy

was

able

to

support

the

greatly

enlarged population

even

under

circumstances

of

environmental

stress.

The

changes

in

environment

during

the

8th

and

7th

millennia

brought

about

by more

seasonal

rainfall

and

a

reduction

in the

total

amount

which

fell

had

no

immediate

damaging

effect

on the

pattern

of

settlement

or

economy,

perhaps

the

reverse

since

at

first

it

opened

up

the

vegetation

as

man

himself

was

trying

to do.

Similarly

the

changes

in

environment

were

not

always

responsible

for

the

growth

in

population.

I

have

explained

that

I

believe

the

improvement

in

conditions

at

the

end

of

the

Pleistocene

was

principally

responsible

for

the

rise in

population

during

Mesolithic

2.

Quite

different

factors

were

responsible

for

the

growth

of

population

in

Neolithic

2

and

Neolithic

4

since

both

coincided

with

phases

of

environmental

deterioration.

Here

population

growth

was

a

consequence

of

the

economic

changes

which

took

place

in

preceding

stages.

Alterations

in

environment

however

caused

were

one

of

the

most

important

variables

involved

in

the

origins

and

development

of

the

Neolithic

but

their effect

depended

upon

the

interaction

of

the

other

three

principal

variables

I

have

considered,

economy,

social

organization

and

population

growth.

The

transition

from

one

Neolithic

cultural

and

economic

stage

to

the

rapidly.

Each

of

the

four

stages

I

have

identified

began

almost

simultaneously

throughout

the

Levant

with

the

exception

only

of

Neolithic

3

and

4

in

Palestine.

The

main

cultural

changes

also

took

place

very

rapidly.

To

take

two

of

the

most

striking

examples:

the

change

from

the

Neolithic

1-to

Neolithic

2

chipped

stone

industry

took

place

over

a

few

centuries

at

most

while

the

making

of

pottery

spread

quite

as

swiftly

through-

out

the

central

and

northern

Levant

at

the

beginning

of

Neolithic

3.

The

rapidity

of

the

change

from

one

stage

to

the

Levant

-

1*87

-

emphasises

the

cultural

and

geographical unity

of this

region

during

the

Neolithic.

Each

swift

progression

from

one

stage

to

the

next was

followed

by

many

centuries

of

adjustment

and

consolidation,

at

least

so

far

as

the

development

of

cultural

material

was

concerned.

The

principal

changes

in

the

shape

of

houses,

chipped

stone

industries,

craft

products

and

other

artifacts

occurred

in

the

transition

from

one

stage

to

another.

Thus

the

development

of

the

Neolithic

appears

to

have

taken

place

in

a

series

of

sharp

advances

followed

by long

pauses.

There

is

evidence

that

the

changes

in

economy followed

the

same

pattern.

The

general

adoption

of

simple

agriculture

and

herding

in

Neolithic

2

and

the

coming

of

developed

agriculture

in

Neolithic

3

both

occurred

in

this way.

Yet

the

reality

was

probably

much

more

complex

than

this

as

I

have

suggested

at

several

points

in

the

thesis.

Each

period

of

apparent

adjustment

to

the

principal

economic

changes

would

have

been

a

time

of

continued

interaction

between

all

the

factors

influencing

the

development

of the

Neolithic.

The

marked

increases

in

population

in

Neolithic

2

and

Neolithic

4

for

example

would

each have

taken place

over

several

centuries.

They

would

have

caused

major

changes

in

settlement

patterns

as

they

took

place.

Part

of

the

difficulty

in

understanding

what

was

happening

at

particular

moments

lies

in

our

insubstantial

chronological

framework.

For

the

moment

we

have

barely

enough chronological

information

from

carbon

14

determinations,

stratigraphical

sequences

and

comparative

typology

to

date the

main

stages

of

the

Neolithic.

There

is

all

too

little

dating

evidence

to

pinpoint

other

changes

within

each

stage.

Even

when

more

information

becomes

available

I

believe

the

principal

economic

and

cultural

innovations

will

be

seen

to

have

been

adopted

almost

simultaneously

throughout

the

Levant

but

many

other

important

changes

might

appear

to

have

come

about

at

various

times

within

each

of

the

four

main

stages.

-

1+88

-

One

further

point

should

be

made

about

the

pace

of

development

of

the

Neolithic

in

the

Levant

and

that

is

that

it

took

place

over

a

long

period

of

time.

The

developed

agricultural

economy

based

on

the

growing

of

cereals

and

legumes

and

herding

of

sheep,

goat

and

cattle

was

only

generally

adopted

after

6000

B.C..

It

was

evolved

after

a

long

period

of

development

from

Mesolithic

2

to

Neolithic

2.

Even

then

many

of

the

important

constituents

of

the

new

way

of

life

had

their

origin

in

practices

current

in

Mesolithic

1.

It

is

particularly

important

to

remember

the

length

of

time

it

took

for

the

developed

Neolithic way

of

life

to

evolve

in

the

Levant

when

the

speed

of

its

spread

into

Europe

and

Egypt

is

considered,

a

process

which

was

of

course

quite

different

from

the

indigenous

evolution

we

have

been

considering.

The

long

period

of

development

of the

Neolithic

in

the

Levant

does

not

detract

from

the

revolutionary

nature

of

the

change;

nor

does

the

very long

period

in

which

some

of

the

essential preconditions

of

population

growth

and

economic

adaptation

took

place,

stretching

far

back

through

the

Upper

Palaeolithic

and

beyond

as

we

can

now

begin

to

discern.

The

new

way

of

life

permitted

far

higher

levels

of

population

than

ever before

and

consequently

much

more

complex

patterns

of

social

organization.

It

was

the

essential

precondition

of

the

development

of

civilization.

These

changes

were

so

far-

reaching

in

their

implications

that

they

still

constituted

a

revolution

as

Childe

vividly

described

them

(1941,

66).

Now

that

I

have

considered

the

origins

and

development

of

the

Neolithic

in

the

Levant

in

detail and

isolated

several

variables

which

seem

to

me

to

have

played

a

preponderant

part

in

what

took place

I

will

return

to

the

questions

of

theory

that

I

proposed

in

the

Introduction.

Firstly,

is

there

any single

model

which

may

be

applied

to

explain

what

happened

and

which

could

be

used

to

predict

the

outcome?

I

think

there

is

not.

We

have

seen

that

the

processes

at

work

were

complex

and

that

much

depended

upon

the

interaction

of

each

-

U89

-

variable,

none

of

which

exerted

the

same

influence

throughout.

Changes

in

one

stage

made

possible

developments

in

the

even

if

one

considers

the

principle variables

alone

it

would

not

be

possible

to

predict

developments

in

succeeding

stages.

If

we cannot

establish

that

the

development

of

the

Neolithic

followed

a

general

model

or

Grand

Design

can

we

discern

any

regularities

in

the

principal

variables

and

especially

in

the

human

response

to

changing

circumstances?

Here

I

think

we can

isolate

certain

general

influences

which

partly

determined

what

happened.

The

Neolithic

of

the

Levant

took

shape

as

the

world

emerged

from

the

last

glacial

epoch.

This

was

only

the

most

recent

of

many

(Shackleton,

Opdyke,

1973,

fig.

9)

and

the

same

general

factors were

at

work

then

as

in

earlier

times.

The

principal

one

of

these

was

the

rise

in

temperature

while

consequent

upon

this

was

the

return

of

water

to

the

oceans.

The

rise

in

temperature

caused

the

environmental

change

which

precipitated

the

development

of

the

Neolithic.

It

continued

to

exert

an

important influence

on

man's

activities

thereafter.

The

particular

circumstances

of

the

environment

may

have

differed

somewhat

from

those

of

earlier

cycles

and

the

fluctuations

in

temperature

that

occurred

were

also

unique

but

the

general

effects

must

have

been

the

same.

Man

himself

had

confronted

the

end

of

a

glaciation

several

times

in

the

past

but

that

had

happened

in

different

circumstances

well

before

the

evolution

of

Homo

sapiens.

The

human

response

to

the

postglacial

rise in

temperature

and

its

environmental

effects

was

conditioned

by

one

principal

regularity.

That

was

the

tendency

of

human

populations

to

increase

towards

the

maximum

which

could

be

supported

by

the

available

food

supply.

The

amount

of

food

which

could

be

obtained

from

the

environment

depended upon

the

techniques

used.

Man's

technological

capacity

was

thus

a

powerful

constraint

upon

the

level

to

which

the

population

could

rise.

-

1*90

-

We

have

seen

that

population

growth

was

the

principal

human

cause

of

the

development

of

the

Neolithic

so

this

regularity

was

of

great

importance.

When

the

population

rose

during

Mesolithic

2

and

Neolithic

2

man

intensified

his

means

of

obtaining

food

so

that

the

population

could

be

maintained

at the

new higher

level.

This

in

turn

led

to

further

population

growth.

These

two

regularities,

the

one

environmental

and

the

other

human,

had

together

a

determining

influence

on

the

origins

and

development

of

the

Neolithic.

They

were

the

principal

factors

responsible

for

what

took

place

but

the

development

of

the

Neolithic

did not

depend

upon

them

alone.

The

other

main

variables

I

have

discussed,

particularly

economy

and social

structure,

also

played

an

important

part.

The

human

response

to

environmental

change

was

complex

so

that

I

do

not

think

that

the

Neolithic

was

necessarily

an

inevitable

outcome

of

the

influence

of

the

two

regularities

I

have

described.

This

far-reaching

change

in man's

way

of

life

arose

from

the

interaction

of

all

the

variables

I

have

mentioned.

The

pattern

of

human

settlement

and

social

organization altered

quite

as

markedly

as

the

economy

during

the

Neolithic.

I

have

considered

the

great

growth

of

population

in

detail

but

wish

to

emphasise

here

how

the

distribution

of

human

groups across

the

landscape

was

modified.

During

Mesolithic

2

and

Neolithic

1

the

population

was

spaced

out

through

the

Mediterranean

and

intermediate

forest

zones

as

far

as

the

edge

of

the

steppe.

The

Neolithic

2

economy

permitted

a

considerable

expansion

of

settlement

outward

so

that

the

steppe

was

occupied

as

well

as

the

forest

zones. This

was

reversed

in

Neolithic

3

and

4

when

the

area

of

settlement

became

restricted

to

the

forest

zones

once

more

although

it

did

extend

up

the

mountains

to

higher

elevations

than

before.

By

Neolithic

4

when

the

population

was

greatest

the

people

of

the

Levant

were

concentrated

in

a

smaller

area

of

the

region than

in

any

This

greatly

increased

social

intercourse

between

communities

-

U91

-

and

was

one

of

the

reasons

why

there

were

such

fundamental

changes

in

social

organization.

Another

feature

of

the

changes

in

social

organization

was

the

complete

alteration

in

settlement

pattern

during

and

after

Mesolithic

2.

The

population

began

to

be

concentrated

in

relatively

large

settlements

which

provided

a

semi-permanent

home.

Then

in

time

the

size

of

the

villages

increased

and

hence

the

number

of

inhabitants.

By

Neolithic

2

many

of

these

villages

were

permanently

occupied

and

this

became

the

general

rule

in

Neolithic

3

and

4.

The

change

in

settlement pattern

was

one

result

of

the

transition

from

a

band

to

tribal

system

of

social

organization.

I

have

pointed

out

that

I

believe

the

inhabitants

of

the

Levant

in

Mesolithic

1

and

at

least

as

far

back

as

the

Aurignacian

had

lived

together

in

composite

bands.

During

Mesolithic

2

this

pattern

began

to

change

as

some of

the

composite

bands

coalesced

to

form

larger

groups

based

on

semi-permanent

settlements.

The

evidence suggests

to

me

that

these

larger

groups

rapidly began

to

be

linked together

in

tribes.

This

new

tribal

system,

once

formed,

remained

the

characteristic

pattern

of

social

organization

throughout

the

Neolithic.

It

did

not,

however,

replace

the

composite

band

system

completely

for

several

millennia

since these

continued

to

exist

throughout

Neolithic

1.

The

most

common

type

of

building

on

village

sites

from

Mesolithic

2

on

was

a

small,

discrete

dwelling,

at

first

circular

and

later

rectangular.

I

believe

that

these

were

inhabited

by

individual

families,

quite

small

nuclear

families

at

first

but

probably

extended

families

later.

If

one

accepts

this

correspondence

then

it

will

be

clear

that

from

the

beginning

of

the

transforma-

tion

of

the

social

system,

that

is

in

Mesolithic

2,

the

nuclear

family

became

the

basic

social

unit.

I

have

also

suggested

that

such

households

were

the

basic

economic

unit,

at

least

in

the

later

stages

of

the

Neolithic.

It

also

follows

that

the

transition

from

a

composite

band

to

tribal

system

-

1+92

-

was

a

direct

one;

society

was not

organized

in

some

other

way

during

a

lengthy

transition

period.

The

evidence

we

have

from

"burials

and

other

sources

indicates

that

society

was

egalitarian

throughout

the

Neolithic.

At

first

there was

little enough

in

the

way

of

desirable

material

possessions

or

economic

surpluses

to

be

differentially

acquired

by

individuals.

Later during

the

developed Neolithic

when

the

decorative

products

of

several

crafts

were

available

on

most

sites

there

is

still

little

indication

that

a

few

individuals

were

acquiring

these

objects

in

preference

to

other

inhabitants

of

the

community.

The

slight

differences

in

burial

customs

that

I

have

noted

are

hardly

sufficient

to

suggest

that

a

group

of

higher

status

was

a

regular

component

of

every

community.

In

the

developed Neolithic

most

villages

seem

to

have

been

inhabited

by

peasant

farmers

of

approximately

equal

status.

The

growth

in

population,

its

concentration

in

a

relatively

small

area

of

the

Levant

and

the

grouping

of

families

in

permanent

villages,

themselves

linked

together

in

a

tribal

system

represent

a

complete

transformation

of

society

as it

existed

at

the

beginning

of

Mesolithic

2.

Yet

the

new

social

system

which

was

established

in

Neolithic

2

remained

apparently

stable

even

under

the

impact

of

further

population

growth

in

Neolithic

4.

The

potential

for

further

development

in

the

direction

of

civilization

was

there

but

that

had

to

await

a

still

greater

population,

its

concentration

in

even

larger

settlements

and

the

emergence

of

groups

of

higher

status

with

preferential

access

to

the

resources

of the

community.

One

of

the

consequences

of

the

concentration

of

large

groups

in

sedentary

settlements

was

the

possibilities

this

afforded

for

the

development

of

crafts.

We

have seen

that

this

process

began

as

early

as

Mesolithic

2.

By

Neolithic

2

stone

vessels,

stone

and

bone

jewellery,

baskets,

mats,

textiles

and

even clay

objects were

all

being

made

in

quantity.

The

preparation

of

lime

plaster

and

perhaps

mud-brick

making

were

organized

on

quite

a

large

scale.

These

crafts

were

developed

further

in

subsequent

stages,

the

principal

addition

being

the

making

of

pottery

in

Neolithic

3.

I

have

indicated

that

the

practice

of

these

crafts

was

accompanied

by

a

degree

of

specialisation.

Certain

individuals

were

probably

making

some

of

these

objects

for

the

rest

of

the

community.

In

most

instances,

however,

these

crafts

probably

remained

part-time

activities

practised

by

individual

households.

The

emergence

of

the

full-time craftsman

practising

his craft

in

a

workshop

with

the

help

of

assistants

came

later,

probably

during

the

Chalcolithic.

The

Neolithic

communities

of

the

Levant

formed

an

open

society

which

was

ready

to

adopt

new

techniques

at

once

should

they

appear

advantageous.

The

most

striking

example

of

this

is

the

speed

with

which

the

cultural

innovations

of

succeeding

stages

spread

almost

simultaneously

throughout

the

Levant.

Innovations

in

economic practices

were

generally

adopted

more

slowly

but

the

spread

of

sheep

and

goat

herding

in

Neolithic

2

seems

to

have

been

quite

rapid

as

was

the

adoption

of

a

fully

agricultural

economy

on

settlements

throughout

the

Levant

at

the

beginning

of

Neolithic

3.

These

communities were

also in

contact

with

neighbouring

regions

through

the

medium

of

exchange.

The

Neolithic

was

the

first stage

in

the

Levant

in

which

exotic raw

materials

were

regularly

exchanged

over

great

distances.

The

traffic

in

obsidian

is

the

best

illustration

of

this;

the

exchange

of

this

material

began

in

Neolithic

1.

Obsidian

was

also

the

only

material

which

continued

to

be

exchanged

throughout

the

Neolithic. Other

raw

materials

were

obtained

from distant

regions

during

the

archaic

Neolithic

but

there

was

a

noticeable

diminution

in

these

long-distance

exchanges

in

the

developed

Neolithic.

By

then

full

agriculture

formed

the

basis

of

the

economy

and

most

of

the

population

was

firmly

settled

in

villages.

A

consequence

of

this

was

that

cultural

differences

from

one

part

of

the

Levant

to

another

became

more

marked.

These

trends

may

have

caused

a

lessening

in

long-distance

movements

of

individuals

and

thus of

the

exchange

of

exotic

raw

materials

from distant

sources.

The

cultural

changes

of

Neolithic

4

when

north

Syria

moved

into

the

Halaf

sphere

also

contributed

to

this

since

from

that time

on

contact

with

regions

to

the

north-east

of

the

Levant

almost

ceased.

The

evidence

suggests

to

me

that

the

development

of

the

Neolithic

of

the

Levant

was

almost

entirely

a

regional

process.

The

growth

in

population,

the

development

of

the

new

economy

and

the

associated

change

from

a

band

to

a

tribal

society

based

on

permanent

villages

all

took

place

in

the

Levant

and

were

little

affected

by

influences

from

other

regions.

The

bringing

into

cultivation

of

the

principal

cereal

crops

and

the

increasing

control

over

gazelle,

sheep,

goat

and

cattle

also

seem

to

have

taken

place

in

the

Levant and

not

to

have

been

introduced

from

other

regions.

The

same

was

true

of

almost

all

the

cultural

innovations;

the

modifications

of

the

chipped

stone

industry

in

successive

stages and

the

introduction

of

new

kinds

of

houses

for

example,

were

of

local

inspiration.

The

only

apparent

exception

to

this

rule

is

the

introduction

of

pottery possibly

from

Anatolia

but

even

this

is

far

from

certain

on

present

evidence.

An

essential

part

of

the

local

development

of

the

new

economy

and

culture

was

the

absence

of

large-scale

immigration

from other

regions.

At

no

stage

was

the

long process

of

local

cultural

and

economic

development

interrupted

by

elements

introduced

abruptly

from

elsewhere.

At

times

there

were

considerable

movements

of

population

within

the

region,

notably

early

in

Neolithic

3,

but

these

phenomena

occurred

within

the

region

as

a

result

of

changes

that

took

place

there.

The

Levant,

then,

was

one

of

the

centres

in

which

the

Neolithic

way

of

life

was

formed.

The

same

regularities

that

played

such

a

large

part

in

its

development

there,

postglacial

environmental

change

and

population

growth,

affected

other

regions

of

the

Near

East

also

but

in

different

ways.

Anatolia

and

eastern

Mesopotamia

rising

into

the

Zagros

were

two

other

centres

in

which

a

Neolithic

way

of

life

developed

apparently

independently

but

it

seems

to

me

that

innovations

in

these

regions

had

little

impact

upon

the

evolution

of

the

Neolithic

of

the

Levant

in

spite

of

the

evidence

of

contacts

between

them.

APPENDIX

Carbon

1*4-

dating

Radiocarbon

dating

is

the

only

scientific technique

which

has

been

applied

to

obtain

estimates

of

the

approximate

absolute

age

of

material

from

Mesolithic

and

Neolithic

sites

in

the

Levant.

All

the

problems

associated

with

this

technique

thus

have

a

direct

bearing

upon

the

chronology

of

these

periods.

Two

difficulties

in

particular

affect

the

dating

of

the

phenomena

I

discuss

in

this thesis.

The

first

is

that

many

of

the

ll

*C

determinations

made

when

the

method

was

being

developed

have

since

proved

to

be

inaccurate.

Jericho

was

one

of

the

first

sites

in

the

Near

East

from

which

ll

*C

dates

were

obtained

but

determinations

were

also made

not

long

after

on

material

from

Byblos

,

Ras

Shamra

and

other

sites.

At

the

time

these

dates,

particularly

those

from Jericho,

seemed

to

be

remarkably

early

which

led

to

a

revision

of

our

thinking

on

the

dating

of

the

origins

of

the Neolithic.

These

dates

are

now

seen

to

have

been

too

recent.

This

underestimation

of

the

true

lif

C

age

of

samples

tested

many

years

ago has

to

be

borne

in

mind

when

the

chronology

of the

sites

concerned

is

considered.

The

second

difficulty

is

more

serious since

it

affects

all

the

14

C

deter-

minations

that

have

been obtained

from

Levantine

sites.

This

is

the

question

of

calibration.

The

amount

of

lif

C

in

the

atmosphere,

once

thought

to

be

constant,

is

now

known

to

have

fluctuated

in

the

past.

One

result

of

this

is

that

carbon

1*1

determinations

may

differ

quite

markedly

from

the

absolute

age

of

the

sample

being

dated.

Samples

of

bristlecone

pine

of

known

age

have

been

dated

by

1!

*C

in

order

to

find

out

by

how

much

a

14

C

determination

may

differ

from

the

true

age

of

a

sample.

The

difference

between

the

14

C

and

the

dendrcchronological

dates

gives

a

correction factor

which

may

be

applied

to

other

samples

dated

by

the

carbon

1U

method.

Several

calibration

curves

have

been

published

based

on

these

studies

of

the

bristlecone

pine,

for

example

those

of

Suess

(1970,

pi.

I),

Ralph

et

al.

(1973,

figs.

1-6)

and

Clark

(1975,

fig.

1).

These

calibration

curves

illustrate

just

how

great

the

difference

between

a

ll+

C

date

and

the

true

age

of

a

sample

can

be.

This

figure

may

be

TOO

years

or

more

for

samples

whose

true

age

would

be

^500

B.C.

when

the

variation

was

most

extreme.

The

calibration

curves

give

a

general

idea

of

the

variation

between

true

ages

and

carbon

1^

determinations.

None

has

been

accepted

unreservedly

for

correcting

14C

dates

since

each

is

based

on

differing

assumptions about

the

variation

in

14

C

in

the

atmosphere

in

the

past

and

the

statistical

procedures

to be

applied

to

the

bristlecone

pine

dates.

A

more

serious

drawback

which

concerns

my

thesis

is

that

none of

the

correction

curves

extends

further

back

in

time

than

5^00

B.C.

Thus

using

these

curves

it

would

be possible

to

calibrate

only

about

1UOO

years

of

the

six

millennia which

I

consider

in

the

thesis,

that

is

the

second

half

of

Neolithic

3

and

Neolithic

h.

In

these

circumstances

I

have

decided

not

to

apply

calibration

to

the

lit

C

determinations

from

which

I

have

derived

the

chronology

of

the

stages

I

discuss.

All

the

dates

are

quoted

applying

the

Libby

half-life

since

this

is

still

the

recognised

standard

for

the

publication

of

all

carbon

1^

determinations.

I

recognise

that

by

using

uncorrected

14

C

determinations

the

chronology

I

propose

will

at

times

differ

substantially

from

the

true

dates

of

the

events

discussed.

The

uncorrected

ltf

C

determinations

are

consistent,

however,

when

compared

with

each

other

and

provide

a

sound

relative

sequence.

The

outline

relative

chronology

of

the

events

and

processes

I

describe

emerges

clearly enough

from

the

uncorrected

dates

even

if

one

wishes

always

that

more

determinations

were

available.

Detailed

chronological

problems

arise

but

rarely

in

the

thesis;

these

can

nearly

always

be

resolved

by

using

uncorrected

dates.

These

seem

to

me

to

be

sufficient

reasons

for

continuing

to

use

uncorrected

dates

in

this

case.

Once

correction

curves

are

available

for

the

earlier

millennia

with

which

I

am

concerned

it

will be

possible

to

work

with

corrected

dates.

Although

the

calibration

curves

themselves

do

not

extend

far

enough

back

in

time

to

be

applied

very

usefully

to

my

subject

it

is

interesting

to

consider

what

the

general

effects

would

be

if

the

chronology

I

propose

were

corrected.

-

U98

-

If

the

new

half

life

of

5720

±

30

years

were

applied

to

the

dates

I

use

they

would

all

be

a

little

older.

The

difference

would

be

180

years

at

^000

B.C.

increasing

to

360

years

at

10,000

B.C.

The

effects

of

calibration

are

more

complicated.

Several

of

the

published

calibration

curves

suggest

that

at

about

600

B.C.

the

14

C

date

and

absolute

date

are

the

same.

Thereafter

as

one

moves

back

in

time

the

true

age

of

a

sample

is

increasingly

older

than

the

ltf

C

determination.

This

trend

reaches

a

peak

at

about

1+500

B.C.

The

published

curves

do

continue

a

little

further

back

in

time

than

this

and

several

of

them

suggest

that

the

difference

between

the

absolute

dates

and

lt+

C

determinations

diminishes

once

the

peak

of

the

curve

is

passed

(Suess,

1973,

fig.

2;

Ralph

et

al.,

1973,

fig.

6).

The

behaviour

of

the

calibration

curve

before

5^00

B.C.

will

not

be

certainly

known

until

further

corrections

based

on

the

dendrochronological

dates

are

published.

The

shape

of

the

curve

would

depend

upon

what

caused

these

long-term

variations

in

14

C

in

the

atmosphere.

It

has

been

noted

that

the

calibration

curve

corresponds

to

the

sine

curve

of

variations

in

the

Earth's

magnetic

field

(Suess,

1973,

37;

Fleming,

1976,

70).

It

is

thought

that

there

is

a

direct

correlation

between

the

two

and

that

the

14

C

calibration

curve

follows

that

of

the

Earth's

geomagnetic

moment

after

a

lag

of

several

hundred

years.

It

is

thus

possible

to

estimate

the

behaviour

of

the

calibra

tion

curve

during

the

millennia

preceding

the

published

corrections

based

on

dendrochronological

dates

(Fig.

5^).

From

about

5000

B.C.

the

difference

between

the

calibration

curve

and

the

absolute

age

would

diminish

until

about

9000

B.C.

when

they

would

correspond

once

more.

I

have

applied

this

extended

calibration

curve

to

the

outline

chronology

1

propose

for

Mesolithic

2

and

the

Neolithic,

that

is

from

about

10,000

B.C.

to

UOOO

or

3750

B.C.,

in

Table

2.

These

figures

are

approximate

but

they

indicate

that

each

stage

lasted

for

a

shorter

period

than

the

uncorrected

ll

*C

dates

would

suggest

except

for

Neolithic

h

which

was

longer.

Mesolithic

2

was

perhaps

about

80

years

less,

Neolithic

1

280

years,

Neolithic

2

170

years

14

C

DEVIATION

jl

t'

m

</>

.—»•

a

8.

o

o'

g

CD

O

o

03

;o

o

CO

o

CD

o

ro

o

CD

O

>

O

o

ro

•&>

o>

oo

8

0

Q

o

Q_

^D

\

I~T

T

I

II

c

\

I

I I I I I

1 1

TABLE

2

STAGES

Mesolithic

2

Neolithic

1

Neolithic

2

Neolithic

3

Neolithic

4

DATES

5568

1

life

10,000

8500

7000

6000

5000

3750

DURATION

1500

1000

1250

DATES

5730

I

life

10,360

8810

7270

6240

5210

3920

CALIBRATED

DATES

FROM

FIG.

54

10,270

8850

7630

6800

5890

4560

DURATION

AFTER

CALIBRATION

1420

1220

830

910

1330

and

Neolithic

3

90

years

shorter

while

Neolithic

h

was

80

years

longer.

The

overall

effect

of

calibrating

these

dates

is

that

the

Neolithic

is

seen

to

have

begun

and

ended

earlier

than

the

uncorrected

14

C

dates

would

indicate.

The

earlier

stages

during

which

the

Neolithic

way

of life

was

formed,

that

is

Mesolithic

2,

Neolithic

1

and

Neolithic

2,

happened

more

quickly

while

Neolithic

3

and

Neolithic

h

together

lasted

about

the

same

length

of

time

as

the

uncorrected

dates

had

indicated.

-

500

-

NOTES

1 I

owe

this

information

to

P^re

F.

Hours

S.J.

2

I

am

indebted

to

Mrs.

L.

Copeland

for

this

data.

3

M.

J.

Cauvin

has

kindly

given

me

much

information

about

his

excavations

at

Mureybat.

4

This

was

suggested

to

me

in

1976

independently

by

Professors

F.

Hole,

A.E.

Marks

and

P.E.L.

Smith.

5

Description

based

on

an

examination

of

the

unpublished

flints

and

report

of

D.V.W.

Kirkbride

(l960a,

114ff).

6

I

owe

this

observation

to

A.J.

Legge.

7

See

also

Moore,

1975.

8

Description

of

material

derived

from

the

published

accounts

and

a

study

of

the

finds

in

the

Damascus

Museum.

9

Material

studied

at

the

Palmyra

Museum

and

Oriental

Institute,

University

of

Chicago.

10

Description

based

on

a

study

of

a

selection

of the

material

in

Damascus.

11

I

have

included

here

information

obtained

from

a

study

of

a

comprehensive

surface

collection

made

by

Gopeland

and

Wescombe

now

in

the

Universitl

Saint-Joseph,

Beirut.

12

I

have

studied

some of

this

material

in

the

Damascus

Museum

but

most

of

the

finds

from

the

soundings

have

been

lost.

13

Material

studied

at

the

Oriental

Institute,

University

of

Chicago.

14

Material

studied

at

the

French Archaeological

Mission,

Jerusalem

and

at

the

kibbutz

of

Mayan

Baruk.

15

Material

examined

at

the

French

Archaeological

Mission,

Jerusalem

and

the

Franciscan

Monastery

at

Abu

Gosh.

16

Many

of

which

are

now

in

the

Pontifical

Biblical

Institute,

Jerusalem

where

I

have

studied

them.

17

Material

from

several

of

these

studied

in

the

Pontifical

Biblical

Institute

and

Hebrew

University,

Jerusalem,

the

British

Museum

and

Royal

Ontario

Museum,

Toronto.

18

Material

studied

at

the

French

Archaeological

Mission,

Jerusalem.

19

Now

in the

collections

of

the

Institute

of

Archaeology,

University

of

London

where

I

have

examined

them.

20

Material

from

this

and

other

sites

discovered

by

Kirkbride

studied

in

the

Amman

Museum.

-

501

-

21

Collections deposited

in

the

Amman

Museum

where

I

have

studied

them.

22

Collections

in

the

Amman

Museum

labelled

"Jebel

Uweinid".

23

My

comments

are

based

on

my

study

of

the

finds

in the

collections

of

the

Oriental

Institute,

University

of

Chicago

as

well

as

the

published

accounts.

24

Material

studied

at

the

British

Institute

of

Archaeology

in

Ankara

and

the

Adana

Museum.

25

Material

studied

in

the

Adana

Museum,

at

Bryn

Mawr

College

and

the

Peabody

Museum,

Harvard

University.

26

Finds

collected

by

Copeland

and

Wescombe;

these

and

other

material

collected

in

the

Beka'a

by

Besancon,

Hours

and

Fleisch

have been

deposited

in

the

Universitl

Saint-Joseph,

Beirut

where

I

have

studied

them.

27

Information

from

the

excavator,

the

late

Miss

E.

Yeivin.

28

Material

examined

in

the

Palestine

Archaeological

Museum,

Jerusalem

and

the

Oriental

Institute,

University

of

Chicago.

29

Material

studied

at

the

Palestine

Archaeological

Museum,

Jerusalem

and

the

University

Museum,

University

of

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,

30

Material

examined

at

the

Hebrew

University,

Jerusalem

and

the

Shaar

Hagolan

Museum.

31

The

excavated

material

was

deposited

in

the

National

Museum,

Beirut.

Some

surface

finds

are in

the

Universite*

Saint-Joseph.

32

Most

of

this

material

is

in

the

Universite

Saint-Joseph,

Beirut where

I

have

studied

it.

33

Some

of

this

material

was

deposited

in

the

British

Museum

where

I

have seen

it.

34

Material

deposited

in

the

Universitl

Saint-Joseph,

Beirut

where

I

have

studie

it.

35

The

pottery

is

in

the

Palestine

Archaeological

Museum,

Jerusalem

where

I

have

examined

it.

36

Material

in

the

Palestine Archaeological

Museum

and

the

Ecole

Biblique

Saint-

Etienne,

Jerusalem

where

I

have

studied

it.

37

I

wish

to

thank

the

Rev.

J.

Mathers

for

drawing

my

attention

to

these

flints

now

in

the

collections

of

the

Palestine

Exploration

Fund,

London.

-

502

-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akazawa,

T.,

1974.

Palaeolithic

assemblages

from

the

Douara

Cave

site.

Bull.

Tokyo Univ.

Mus.,

6,

1-167.

Allchin,

B.,

1966.

The

Stone-tipped

Arrow.

London,

Phoenix

House.

Alon,

D.,

Noy,

T.,

1974.

Beer

Faher,

a

Natufian

site.

Mitequfat

Haeven,

12,

7-9.

Anati,

E.,

1962.

Prehistoric

trade

and

the

puzzle

of

Jericho.

Bull.

Am.

Sen,

orient.

Res.,

167,

25-31.

Anati,

E.,

1972.

Stone

Age

site

excavated

in

Israel.

Archaeology,

25,

149-150.

Balfet,

H.,

Lafuma,

H.,

Longuet,

P.,

Terrier,

P.,

1969.

Une

invention

nlolithique

sans

lendemain.

Bull.

Soc.

prlhist.

fr«,

66,

188-192.

Balikci,

A.,

1968.

The

Netsilik

Eskimos:

adaptive

processes.

In

Man

the

Hunter,

R.B.

Lee,

I.

DeVore

(eds),

78-82.

Chicago,

Aldine.

Bar-Yosef,

0.,

1970a.

The

Epi-palaeolithic

Cultures

of

Palestine.

Doctoral

thesis,

Hebrew

University,

Jerusalem.

Bar-Yosef,

0.,

1970b.

Prehistoric

sites

near

Ashdod,

Israel.

Palest.

Ezp.

Q.,

52-64.

Bar-Yosef,

0.,

1975.

The

Epipalaeolithic

in

Palestine

and

Sinai.

In

Problems

in

Prehistory:

North

Africa

and

the

Levant,

F.

Wendorf,

A.E.

Marks

(eds),

363-378.

Southern

Methodist

University

Contributions

in

Anthropology,

13.

Bar-Yosef,

0.,

Burian,

F.,

Friedmann,

E.,

1974-

A

Harifian

site

in the

western

Negev.

Mitequfat

Haeven,

12,

10-14,

78.

Bar-Yosef,

0.,

Goldberg,

P.,

Leveson,

T.,

1974.

Late

Quaternary

stratigraphy

and

prehistory

in

Wadi

Fazael,

Jordan

valley.

Pallorient.

2,

415-428.

Bar-Yosef,

0.,

Goren,

N.,

1973.

Natufian

remains

in

Hayonim

cave.

Pale'orient,

1,

49-68.

Bar-Yosef,

0.,

Tchernov,

E.,

1966.

Archaeological

finds

and

the

fossil

faunas

of

the

Natufian

and

microlithic

industries

at

Hayonim

cave

(western

Galilee,

Israel).

Israel

J.

Zool.,

15,

104-140.

Bate,

D.M.A.,

1932.

A

note

on

the

fauna

of

the

Athlit

caves.

Jl

R.

anthrop.

Inst.,

62,

277-279.

Bate,

D.M.A.,

1938.

Vertebrate

remains

from Wadi

Dhobai,

1938.

J.

Palest.

orient.

Soc.,

18,

292-296.

Bate,

D.M.A.,

1942.

The

fossil

mammals

of

Shukbah.

Proc.

prehist.

Soc..

8,

15-20.

-

503

-

Bate,

D.M.A.,

1948.

Animal

remains from

strata

-XX

and

XX.

In

Megiddo

II,

seasons

of

1935-39,

by

G.

Loud,

139.

University

of

Chicago

Oriental

Institute

Publications,

62.

Bate,

D.M.A.,

Crowfoot,

G.M.,

1948.

Bone

tools

from

Cave

4067.

In

Megiddo

II,

seasons

of

1935-39,

by

G.

Loud,

140.

University

of

Chicago

Oriental

Institute

Publications,

62.

Begin,

Z.B.,

Ehrlich,

A.,

Nathan,

Y.,

1974.

Lake

Lisan

the

Pleistocene

precursor

of

the

Dead

Sea.

Bull, geol.

Surv.

Israel,

63,

1-30.

Ben-Arieh,

Y.,

1964.

A

tentative

water

balance

estimate

of

the

Lisan

Lake.

Israel

J.

Earth-Sc..

13,

42-47.

Benoit,

P.,

O.P.,

Milik,

J.T.,

de

Vaux,

R.,

O.P.,

1961.

Discoveries

in

the

Judaean

Desert

II.

Oxford,

Oxford

University

Press.

Besancon,

J.,

Hours,

F.,

S.J.,

1968.

Quelques

sites

prlhistoriques

nouveaux

dans

la

Blqaa.

Mllang.

Univ.

St-Joseph,

44,

75-84.

Bialor,

P.A.,

1962.

The

chipped

stone

industry

of

fatal

Htfyflk.

Anatolian

stud.,

12,

67-110.

Binford,

L.R.,

1968.

Post-Pleistocene

adaptations.

In

New

Perspectives

in

Archaeology,

S.R.

Binford,

L.R.

Binford

(eds),

313-341.

Chicago,

Aldine.

Birdsell,

J.B.,

1968.

Some

predictions

for

the

Pleistocene

based

on

equilibrium

systems

among

recent

hunter-gatherers.

In

Man

the

Hunter,

R.B.

Lee,

I.

DeVore

(eds),

229-240.

Chicago,

Aldine.

Bliss,

F.J.,

1894.

A

Mound

of

Many

Cities.

London,

A.P.

Watt

and

Son.

Bflkflnyi,

S.,

1969.

Archaeological

problems

and

methods

of

recognizing

animal

domestication.

In

The

Domestication

and

Exploitation

of

Plants

and

Animals,

P.J.

Ucko,

G.W.

Dimbleby

(eds),

219-229.

London,

Duckworth.

Bordes,

F.,

1969.

Traitement

thermique

du

silex

au

Solutrlen.

Bull.

Soc.

prlhist.

fr.,

66,

197.

Boserup,

E.,

1965.

The

Conditions

of

Agricultural

Growth.

London,

G.

Alien

and

Unwin.

Bostanci,

E.Y.,

1959.

Researches

on

the

Mediterranean

coast

of

Anatolia,

a

new

Palaeolithic

site

at

Beldibi

near

Antalya.

Preliminary

report.

Anatolia,

4,

129-178.

Bostanci,

E.Y.,

1962.

A

new

Upper

Palaeolithic

and

Mesolithic

facies

at

Belbaji

rock

shelter

on

the

Mediterranean

coast

of

Anatolia.

Belletin,

26,

252-292.

Bottema,

S.,

1967.

A

late

Quaternary

pollen

diagram

from

loannina,

north-

western

Greece.

In

The

climate,

environment

and

industries

of

Stone

Age

Greece:

part

III by

E.S.

Higgs,

C.

Vita-Finzi,

D.R.

Harris,

A.E.

Fagg,

26-29.

Proc.

prehist.

Soc.,

33,

1-29.

Bouchud,

J.,

1974.

Etude

prlliminaire

de

la

faune

provenant

de

la

grotte

du

Djebel

Qafzeh

pr^s

de

Nazareth

(Israel).

Pale'orient,

2,

87-102.

Braidwood,

L.S., 1958.

Stone

implements.

In

Soundings

at

Tell

Fakhariyah

by

C.W.

McEwan,

L.S.

Braidwood,

H.

Frankfort,

H.G.

Gflterbock,

R.C.

Haines,

H.J.

Kantor,

C.H.

Kraeling,

53-55.

University

of

Chicago

Oriental

Institute

Publications,

79.

Braidwood,

R.J.,

1937.

Mounds

in

the

Plain

of

Antioch.

University

of

Chicago

Oriental

Institute

Publications,

48.

Braidwood,

R.J.,

1940.

Report

of

two

sondages

on

the

coast

of

Syria,

south

of

Tartous.

Syria,

21,

183-226.

Braidwood,

R.J.,

1955-

The

earliest

village

materials

of

Syro-Cilicia.

Proc.

prehist.

Soc.,

21,

72-76.

Braidwood,

R.J.,

Braidwood,

L.S.,

I960.

Excavations

in

the

Plain

of

Antioch

I.

University

of

Chicago

Oriental

Institute

Publications,

61.

Braidwood,

R.J.,

Howe,

B.,

I960.

Prehistoric investigations

in

Iraqi

Kurdistan.

Studies

in

Ancient

Oriental

Civilization,

31.

Buccellati,

G.,

Buccellati,

M.K.,

1967.

Archaeological

survey

of

the

Palmyrene

and

the

Jebel

Bishri.

Archaeology,

20,

305-306.

Burian,

P.,

Friedmann,

E.,

I960.

Givat

Haparsa.

Mitequfat

Haeven,

2,

43-53.

Burian,

F.,

Friedmann,

E.,

1963-'64»

Prehistoric

survey

of

the

dunes

of

the

Mediterranean

coastline

of

Israel.

Mitequfat

Haeven,

6-7,

1-39.

Burian,

F.,

Friedmann,

E.,

1973.

Prehistoric

hunters

in

the

dunes

of

Halutza.

Mitequfat

Haeven.

11,

27-34.

Butzer,

K.W.,

1972.

Environment

and

Archaeology.

London,

Methuen.

Butzer,

K.W.,

1975.

Patterns

of

environmental

change

in

the

Near

East

during

late

Pleistocene

and

early

Holocene

times.

In

Problems

in

Prehistory:

North

Africa

and

the

Levant,

F.

Wendorf,

A.E.

Marks

(eds),

389-410.

Southern

Methodist

University

Contributions

in

Anthropology,

13.

Buzy,

D.,

1928,

Une

Industrie

me'solithique

en

Palestine.

Revue

Bibl.,

37,

558-578.

Cauvin,

J.,

1963.

Le

Nlolithique

de

Moukhtara

(Liban

Sud).

Anthropologie.

Paris,

67,

489-512.

Cauvin,

J.,

1968.

Fouilles

de

Byblos

IV.

Les

Outillages

Ne*olithiques

de

Byblos

et

du

Littoral

Libanais.

Paris,

Adrien

Maisonneuve.

Cauvin,

J.,

1969.

Meches

en

silex

et

travail

du

basalte

au IVe

mille'naire

en

Blka

(Liban).

Me^lang.

Univ.

St-Joseph,

45,

115-131.

-

505

-

Cauvin,

J.,

1970.

Mission

1969

en

Djezireh

(Syrie).

Bull.

Soc.

prlhist.

fr.,

67,

286-287.

Cauvin,

J.,

1972.

Nouvelles

fouilles

\

Tell

Mureybet

(Syrie)

1971-1972,

rapport prlliminaire.

Ann,

arch.

Ar.

Syr.,

22,

105-115.

Cauvin,

J.,

1974a.

Tell

Moureibet.

In

Antiquitls

de

1'Euphrate,

45-50.

Direction

Glnlrale

des

Antiquitls

et

des

Musles

de

la

Rlpublique

Arabe

Syrienne.

Cauvin,

J.,

1974b.

Les

debuts

de

la

clramique

sur

le

moyen-Euphrate:

nouveaux

documents.

Pallorient,

2,

199-205.

Cauvin,

J.,

Cauvin,

M.-C.,

1968.

Des

ateliers

"Campigniens"

au

Liban.

In

La

Prlhistoire,

Problemes

et

Tendances,

103-116.

Editions

du

Centre

National

de

la

Recherche

Scientifique.

Cauvin,

J,,

Cauvin,

M.-C.,

1972.

Sondage

\

Tell

Assouad

(Djezireh,

Syrie).

Ann,

arch.

Ar.

Syr.,

22,

85-103.

Cauvin,

M.-C.,

1973.

Problemes

d

f

emmanchement

des

faucilles

du

Proche-

Orient:

les

documents

de

Tell

Assouad

(Djezireh,

Syrie).

Pallorient,

1,

101-106.

Cauvin,

M.-C.,

1974a.

L'industrie natoufienne

de

Taibl

dans

le

Hauran

(Syrie).

Bull.

Soc.prehist.fr.,

71,

469-478.

Cauvin,

M.-C.,

1974b.

Fleches

&

encoches

de

Syrie:

essai

de

classification

et

d

1

interpretation

culturelle.

Pallorient,

2,

311-322.

Chavaillon,

J.,

Hours,

F.,

S.J.,

1970.

Jiita

II

(Dahr

el

Mghara)

campagne

1971,

rapport

prlliminaire.

Bull.

Mus.

Beyrouth,

23,

215-231.

Childe,

V.G.,

1941.

Man

Makes

Himself.

London,

Watts

and

Company.

Chisholm,

M.,

1968.

Rural

Settlement

and

Land

Use.

London,

Hutchinson.

Clark,

R.M.,

1975.

A

calibration

curve

for

radiocarbon

dates.

Antiquity,

49,

251-266.

Glutton-Brock,

J.,

1969.

Carnivore remains

from

the

excavations

of

the

Jericho

Tell.

In

The

Domestication

and

Exploitation

of

Plants

and

Animals,

P.J.

Ucko,

G.W.

Dimbleby

(eds),

337-345.London,

Duckworth.

Glutton-Brock,

J.,

1971.

The

primary

food

animals

of

the

Jericho

Tell

from

the

Proto-Neolithic

to

the

Byzantine

period. Levant,

3,

41-55.

Glutton-Brook,

J.,

Uerpmann,

H.-P.,

1974.

The

sheep

of

early

Jericho.

J.

arch,

sc.,

1,

261-274.

Cohen,

R.,

Noy,

T.,

1968.

A

Neolithic

site

near

Bin

Mor.

Mitequfat

Haeven.

9,

14.

de

Contenson,

H.,

1962.

Poursuite

des

recherches

dans

le

sondage

\

1'ouest

du

temple

de

Baal

(1955-1960)

(rapport

prlliminaire).

In

Ugaritica

IV,

by

C.F.A.

Schaeffer,

477-519.

Mission

de

Ras

Shamra,

15.

-

506

-

de

Contenson,

H.,

1963.

New

correlations

between

Ras

Shamra

and

Al-'Amuq.

Bull.

Am.

Sen,

orient.

Res.,

172,

35-40.

de

Contenson,

H.,

1964.

A

further

note

on

the

chronology

of

basal

Ras

Shamra.

Bull.

Am.

Sen,

orient.

Res.,

175,

47-48.

de

Contenson,

H.,

1966a.

La

station

prlhistorique

de

Qornet

Rharra,

pres

de

Seidnaya.

Ann,

arch.

Ar.

Syr.,

16,

197-200.

de

Contenson,

H.,

1966b.

Dlcouvertes

rlcentes

dans

le

domaine

du

Nlolithique

en

Syrie.

Syria,

43,

152-154.

de

Contenson,

H.,

1967.

Troisieme

campagne

\

Tell

Ramad,

1966,

rapport

prlliminaire.

Ann,

arch.

Ar.

Syr.,

17,

17-24.

de

Contenson,

H.,

1968.

Rapport

prlliminaire

sur

les

fouilles

&

Tell

al

Khazzami

en

1967.

Ann,

arch.

Ar.

Syr.,

18,

55-62.

de

Contenson,

H.,

1969a.

Quatrieme

et

cinquieme

campagnes

It

Tell

Ramad,

1967-1968,

rapport

prlliminaire.

Ann,

arch.

Ar.

Syr.,

19,

25-30.

de

Contenson,

H.,

1969b.

Sixieme

campagne

de

fouilles

&

Tell

Ramad

en

1969.

Rapport

prlliminaire.

Ann,

arch.

Ar.

Syr.,

19,

31-35.

de

Contenson,

H.,

1969c.

Contribution

£

1'ltude

du

Nlolithique

en

Syrie.

Mllang.

Univ.

St-Joseph,

45,

61-81.

de

Contenson,

H.,

1970.

Septieme campagne

de

fouilles

"a

Tell

Ramad

en

1970.

rapport prlliminaire.

Ann,

arch.

Ar.

Syr.,

20,

77-80.

de

Contenson,

H.,

1971.

Tell

Ramad,

a

village

of

Syria

of

the

7th and

6th

millennia

B.C.

Archaeology,

24,

278-285.

de

Contenson,

H.,

1972.

Tell

Aswad.

Fouilles

de

1971.

Ann,

arch.

Ar.

Syr.,

22,

75-84.

de

Contenson,

H.,

1973a.

Chronologie absolue

de

Tell

Aswad

(Damascene,

Syrie).

Bull.

Soc.

prlhist.

fr.,

70,

253-255.

de

Contenson,

H.,

1973b.

Le

niveau

Halafien

de

Ras

Shamra,

rapport

prlliminaire

sur

les

campagnes

1968-1972

dans

le

sondage

prlhistorique.

Syria,

50,

13-33.

de

Contenson,

H.,

1974.

Huitieme

campagne

de

fouilles

£

Tell

Ramad

en

1973,

rapport

prlliminaire.

Ann,

arch.

Ar.

Syr.,

24,

17-24.

de

Contenson,

H.,

1976.

Nouvelles

donnles

sur

le

Nlolithique

prlclramique

dans

la

region

de

Damas

(Syrie)

d'apres

les

fouilles

£

Ghoraifl

en

1974.

Bull.

Soc.

prlhist.

fr.,

73,

80-82.

de

Contenson,

H.,

van

Liere,

W.

J.,

1964.

Sondages

&

Tell

Ramad

en

1963,

rapport

prlliminaire.

Ann,

arch.

Syr.,

14,

109-124.

de

Contenson,

H.,

van

Liere,

W.J.,

1966.

Seconde

campagne

\

Tell

Ramad,

1965,

rapport

prlliminaire.

Ann,

arch.

Ar.

Syr.,

16,

167-174.

-

507

-

Cook,

S.F.,

Heizer,

R.F.,

1968.

Relationships among

houses,

settlement

areas,

and

population

in

aboriginal

California.

In

Settlement

Archaeology,

K.C.

Chang

(ed),

79-116.

Palo

Alto,

National

Press

Books.

Copeland,

L.,

1969.

Neolithic

village

sites

in the

South

Beqaa,

Lebanon.

Mllang.

Univ.

St-Joseph,

45,

83-114.

Copeland,

L.,

1975.

The

Middle

and

Upper

Palaeolithic

in

the

light

of

recent

research.

In

Problems

in

Prehistory:

North Africa

and

the

Levant,

F.

Wendorf,

A.E.

Marks

(eds),

317-350.

Southern

Methodist

University

Contributions

in

Anthropology,

13.

Copeland,

L.,

Hours,

F.,

S.J.,

1971.

A

microlithic

flint

site

in

the

Wadi

Rum,

Jordan,

and

a

review

of the

Epi-Palaeolithic

in

northern

Arabia.

Proc.

seminar

Arab, stud.,

7-21.

Copeland,

L.,

Wescombe,

P.J.,

1965.

Inventory

of

Stone-Age

sites

in

Lebanon,

part

1;

west

central

Lebanon.

Mllang.

Univ.

St-Joseph,

41,

29-175.

Copeland,

L.

Wescombe,

P.J.,

1966.

Inventory

of

Stone-Age

sites

in

Lebanon

part

2,

north,

south

and

east-central

Lebanon.

Mllang.

Univ.

St-Joseph,

42,

1-174.

Crabtree,

D.E.,

Butler,

B.R., 1964.

Notes

on

experiment

in

flint

knapping:

1.

Heat

treatment

of

silica

materials.

Tebiwa,

7,

1-6.

Crowfoot,

J.

See

Payne,

J.

Crowfoot.

Curray,

J.R.,

1961.

Late

Quaternary

sea level:

a

discussion.

Bull,

geol.

Soc.

Am.,

72,

1707-1712.

David,

N.,

1971.

The

Fulani

compound

and

the

archaeologist.

World

arch.»

3,

111-131.

Davidson,

T.E.,

McKerrell,

H.,

1976.

Pottery

analysis

and

Halaf

period

trade in

the

Khabur

headwaters

region.

Iraq,

38,

45-56.

Dayan,

Y.,

1969-

Tell

Turmus

in

the

Huleh

valley.

Israel

Explor.

J.,

19,

65-78.

Dennell,

R.W.,

1973.

The

phylogenesis

of

Triticum

dicoccum,

a

reconsideration.

Boon.

Bot.

t

27,

329-331.

Dewez,

M.C.,

1970.

Premieres

observations

sur

les

industries

lithiques

de

Qalaat-el-Moudiq.

Ann,

arch.

Ar.

Syr.,

20,

127-131.

Dollfus,

G.,

Lechevallier,

M.,

1969.

Les

deux

premieres

campagnes

de

fouilles

\

Abou

Gosh

(1967-1968).

Syria,

46,

277-292.

Dornemann,

R.H.,

1969.

An

early

village.

Archaeology,

22,

68-70.

Ducos,

P.,

1968.

L'origine

des

animaux

domestiques

en

Palestine.

Publications

de

1'Institut

de

Prehistoire

de

I'Universitl

de

Bordeaux.

Mlmoire

6.

-

508

-

Ducos,

P.,

1969.

Methodology

and

results

of

the

study

of

the

earliest

domesticated

animals

in

the

Near

East

(Palestine).

In

The

Domestication

and

Exploitation

of

Plants

and

Animals,

P.J.

Ucko,

G.W.

Dimbleby

(eds),

265-275.London,

Duckworth.

Ducos,

P.,

1970.

The

Oriental

Institute

excavations

at

Mureybit,

Syria:

preliminary

report

on

the

1965

campaign.

Part

IV:

les

restes

d'equides.

J.

Nr.

East.

St.,

29,

275-289.

Ducos,

P.,

1972.

The

Oriental

Institute excavations

at

Mureybit,

Syria:

preliminary

report

on

the

1965

campaign.

Part

V:

les

restes

de

bovidls.

J.

Nr.

East.

St.,

31,

295-301.

Ducos,

P.,

1975a.

The

Oriental

Institute

excavations

at

Mureybat,

Syria:

preliminary

report

on

the

1965

campaign.

Part

VI:

les

restes

de

petits ruminants

et

de

suide*s.

J.

Nr.

East.

St.,

34,

191-199.

Ducos,

P.,

1975b.

A new

find

of an

equid

metatarsal

bone

from

Tell

Mureibet

in

Syria

and

its

relevance

to

the

identification

of

equids

from

the

early

Holocene

of

the

Levant.

J.

arch,

sc.,

2,

71-73-

Dunand,

M.,

1973.

Fouilles

de

Byblos

V.

Paris,

Adrien

Maisonneuve.

Echegaray,

J.G.,

1964.

Excavaciones

en

la

terraza

de

"El

Khiam"

(Jordania).

I.

Bibliotheca

Praehistorica

Hispana

V.

Madrid.

Echegaray,

J.G.,

1966.

Excavaziones

en la

terraza

de

"El

Khiam"

(Jordania).

II.

Bibliotheca

Praehistorica

Hispana

V.

Madrid.

Ehrich,

A.M.H.,

1939.

Early

pottery

of

the

Jebeleh

region.

Mem.

Am.

phil.

Soc.,

13,

1-129.

Emiliani,

C.,

1955.

Pleistocene

temperature

variations

in

the

Mediterranean.

Quaternaria,

2,

87-98.

Emiliani,

C.,

1972.

Quaternary

paleotemperatures

and

the

duration

of

the

high-temperature

intervals.

Science,

N.Y.,

178,

398-401.

Emiliani,

C.,

Shackleton,

N.J.,

1974.

The

Brunhes

epoch:

isotopic

palaeotemperatures

and

geochronology.

Science,

N.Y.,

183,

511-514.

Fairbridge,

R.W.,

1961.

Eustatic

changes

in

sea

level.

Physics

Chem.

Earth,

4,

99-185.

Farrand,

W.R.,

1965a.

The

deglacial

hemicycle.

Geol.

Rdsch.,

54,

385-398.

Farrand,

W.R.,

1965b.

Geology,

climate

and

chronology

of

Yabrud

rockshelter

I.

Ann,

arch.

Syr.,

15,

35-50.

Farrand,

W.R.,

1971.

Late

Quaternary

paleoclimates

of the

eastern

Mediterranean

area. In

The

Late

Cenozoic

Glacial

Ages,

K.T.

Turekian

(ed),

529-564.

New

Haven,

Yale

University

Press.

-

509

-

Farrand,

W.R.,

1972.

Geological correlation

of

prehistoric

sites

in

the

Levant.

In The

origin

of

Homo

sapiens,

F.

Bordes

(ed),

227-235.

Ecology

and

Conservation,

3-

Ferembach,

D.,

1969.

Etude

anthropologique

des

ossements

humains

Nlolithiques

de

Tell

Ramad

(Syrie).

Ann,

arch.

Ar.

Syr.,

19,

49-70.

Ferembach,

D.,

Lechevallier,

M.,

1973.

Dlcouverte

de

deux

cranes

surmodells

dans

une

habitation

du

VH^eme

mille*naire

a

Beisamoun,

Israel.

Palgorient.

1,

223-230.

Field,

H.,

I960.

North

Arabian

desert

archaeological

survey,

1925-"50.

Papers

of

the

Peabody

Museum

of

Archaeology

and

Ethnology,

Harvard

University.

45,

1-224.

Fitzgerald,

G.M.,

1934.

Excavations

at

Beth

Shan

in

1933.

Palest.

Exp.

Fund

Q.

Statem.. 123-134.

Fitzgerald,

G.M.,

1935.

The

earliest

pottery

of

Beth-Shan.

Mus.

J.

Univ.

Perm.,

24,

5-32.

Flannery,

K.V.,

1972.

The

origins

of

the

village

as

a

settlement

type

in

Mesoamerica

and

the

Near

East:

a

comparative

study.

In

Man,

Settlement

and

Urbanism,

P.J.

Ucko,

R.

Tringham,

G.W.

Dimbleby

(eds),

23-53.London,

Duckworth.

Fleming,

S.,

1976.

Dating

in

Archaeology.

London,

J.M.

Dent

and

Sons.

France-Lanord,

A.,

de

Contenson,

H.,

1973.

Une

pendeloque

en

cuivre

natif

de

Ramad.

Pallorient,

1,

107-115.

French,

D.H.,

1966.

Excavations

at

Can

Hasan,

1965.

Fifth

preliminary

report.

Anatolian

stud.,

16,

113-123.

Frierman,

J.D.,

1971.

Lime

burning

as

the

precursor

of

fired

ceramics.

Israel

Explor.

J.,

21,

212-216.

Fugmann,

E.,

1958.

L

1

architecture

des

plriodes

pre-helllnistiques.

Hama

fouilles

et

recherches

1931-1938

II

part

1.

Nationalmuseets

Skrifter, St^rre

Beretninger,

IV.

Copenhagen,

Nationalmuseet.

Garrod,

D.A.E.,

1932.

A

new

Mesolithic

industry:

the

Natufian

of

Palestine.

Jl

R.

anthrop.

Inst.,

62,

257-269.

Garrod,

D.A.E.,

1942.

Excavations

at

the

cave of

Shukbah,

Palestine,

1928.

Proc.

prehist.

Soc.,

8,

1-20.

Garrod,

D.A.E.,

1954.

Excavations

at

the

Mugharet

Kebara,

Mount

Carmel,

1931:

the

Aurignacian

industries.

Proc.

prehist.

Soc.,

20,

155-192.

Garrod,

D.A.E.,

1957a.

The

Natufian

culture:

the

life

and

economy

of

a

Mesolithic

people

in

the

Near

East.

Proc.

Br.

Acad.,

43,

211-227.

Garrod,

D.A.E.,

1957b.

Notes

sur

le

Pallolithique

Suplrieur

du

Moyen

Orient.

Bull.

Soc.pre'hist.

fr..

54,

439-446.

-

510

-

Garrod,

D.A.E.,

I960.

The

flint

implements.

In

North

Arabian

desert

archaeological

survey,

1925-'50,

by

H.

Field.

Papers

of

the

Peabody

Museum

of

Archaeology

and

Ethnology,

Harvard

University,

45.

Garrod,

D.A.E.,

Bate,

D.M.A.,

1937. The

Stone

Age

of

Mt.

Carmel

I.

Oxford,

Clarendon

Press.

Garstang,

J.,

1935.

Jericho: city

and

necropolis

(fifth

report).

Lpool

ann.

arch,

anthrop.,

22,

143-184.

Garstang,

J.,

1953-

Prehistoric

Mersin.

Oxford,

Oxford

University

Press.

Garstang,

J.,

Phythian-Adams,

W.J.,

Seton

Williams,

V.,

1937.

Third

report

on

the

excavations

at

Sakje-Geuzi,

1908-1911.

Lpool

ann.

arch,

anthrop.,

24,

119-140.

Gifford,

E.W.,

1936.

Californian

balanophagy.

In

Essays

in

Anthropology

Presented

to

A.L.

Kroeber,

R.H.

Lowie

(ed),

87-98.

Berkeley,

University

of

California

Press.

Gilot,

E.,

Cauvin,

J.,

1973.

Datation

par

le

carbone

14

du

village

natoufien

et

pre'ce'ramique

de

Mureybet,

sur

1'Euphrate

(Syrie).

Bull.

Soc.

prlhist.

fr.,

70,

37-38.

Glueck,

N.,

1945-'49.

Explorations

in

eastern

Palestine,

IV.

A.

Am.

Sch.

orient.

Res.,

25-28, 1-424,

425-711.

Goldberg,

P.,

1969.

Analyses

of

sediments

of

Jerf

'Ajla

and

Yabrud

rockshelter.

Syria.

Etudes

sur

le

Quaternaire

dans

le

Monde,

2,

747-754.

Goldman,

H.,

1956.

Excavations

at

Gflzlfl

Kule,

Tarsus

II.

Princeton,

Princeton

University

Press.

Gould,

R.A.,

1969.

Subsistence

behaviour

among

the

Western

Desert

aborigines

of

Australia.

Oceania,

39,

253-274.

Gourdin, W.H.,

Kingery,

W.D.,

1975.

The

beginnings

of

pyrotechnology:

Neolithic

and

Egyptian

lime

plaster.

J.

field

arch.,

2,

133-150.

Harlan,

J.R.,

1967.

A

wild

wheat

harvest

in

Turkey.

Archaeology,

20,

197-201.

Harlan,

J.R.,

Zohary,

D.,

1966.

Distribution

of

wild

wheats

and

barley.

Science,

N.Y.,

153,

1074-1080.

Helbaek,

H.,

I960.

Cereals

and

weed

grasses

in

Phase

A.

In

Excavations

in

the

Plain

of

Antioch

I,

by

R.J.

Braidwood

and

L.S.

Braidwood,

540-543.

University

of

Chicago

Oriental

Institute

Publications,

61.

Helbaek,

H.,

1966.

Pre-Pottery

Neolithic

farming

at

Beidha,

a

preliminary

report.

In

Five

seasons

at

the

Pre-Pottery

Neolithic

village

of

Beidha

in

Jordan,

a

summary

by

D.V.W.

Kirkbride,

61-66.

Palest.

Bxp.

Q..

8-72.

Hennessy,

J.B.,

1969.

Preliminary

report

on

a

first

season

of

excavations

at

Teleilat

Ghassul.

Levant,

1,

1-24.

-

511

-

Henry,

D.O.,

1973a.

The

Natufian

of

Palestine;

its

Material

Culture

and

Ecology.

Doctoral

dissertation,

Southern

Methodist

University,

Dallas.

Henry,

D.O.,

1973b.

The

Natufian

site

of

Rosh

Zin:

a

preliminary

report.

Palest.

Exp.

Q.,

129-140.

Henry,

D.O.,

Servello,

A.F.,

1974.

Compendium

of

carbon-14

determinations

derived

from Near

Eastern

prehistoric

deposits.

Pale'orient,

2,

19-44.

Herman,

Y.,

1965.

Evidence

of

climatic

changes

in

Red

Sea

cores.

In

Means

of

Correlation

of

Quaternary

Successions,

R.B.

Morrison,

H.E.

Wright

(eds),

325-348.Salt

Lake

City,

University

of

Utah

Press.

Higgs,

E.S.,

Vita-Finzi,

C.,

Harris,

D.R.,

Fagg,

A.E.,

1967.

The

climate,

environment

and

industries

of

Stone

Age

Greece:

part

III.

Proc.

prehist.

Soc.,

33,

1-29.

Higgs,

E.S.,

Vita-Finzi,

C.,

1972.

Prehistoric

economies:

a

territorial

approach.

In

Papers

in

Economic Prehistory,

E.S.

Higgs

(ed),

27-36.

Cambridge,

Cambridge

University

Press.

Hillman,

G.C.,

1975.

The

plant

remains

from

Tell

Abu

Hureyra:

a

preliminary

report.

In

The

excavation

of

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

in

Syria:

a

preliminary

report

by

A.M.T. Moore,

70-73.

Proc.

prehist.

Soc.,

41,

50-77.

Hole,

F.,

1959.

A

reanalysis

of

basal

Tabbat

al-Hammam,

Syria.

Syria,

36,

149-183.

Hooijer,

D.A.

,

1961.

The

fossil

vertebrates

of

Ksa*r

'Akil,

a

Palaeolithic

rock

shelter

in

the

Lebanon.

Zool.

Verh.

Leiden,

49,

1-67.

Hooijer,

D.A.,

1966.

Preliminary

notes

on

the

animal remains

found

at

Bouqras

and

Ramad

in

1965.

Ann,

arch.

Ar.

Syr.,

16,

193-196.

Hopf,

Mo,

1969.

Plant

remains

and

early

farming

in

Jericho.

In

The

Domestication

and

Exploitation

of

Plants

and

Animals,

P.J.

Ucko,

G.¥.

Dimbleby

(eds),

355-359.London,

Duckworth.

Horowitz,

A.,

1971.

Climatic

and

vegetational

developments

in

northeastern

Israel

during

Upper

Pleistocene-Holocene

times.

Pollen

Spores,

13,

255-278.

Horowitz,

A.,

1975.

The

Pleistocene palaeoenvironments

in

Israel.

In

Problems

in

Prehistory:

North

Africa

and

the

Levant,

F.

Wendorf,

A.E.

Marks

(eds),

207-227.

Southern

Methodist

University

Contributions

in

Anthropology,

13.

Horowitz,

A.,

1976.

Late

Quaternary

paleoenvironments

of

prehistoric

settlements

in

the

Avdat/Aqev

area.

In

Prehistory

and

paleoenvironments

in

the

central

Negev,

Israel,

A.E.

Marks

(ed),

57-68.

Institute

for

the

Study

of

Earth

and

Man,

Reports

of

Investigations:

2.

Hours,

F.,

S.J.,

1969.

Saayideh

et

le

N^olithique

pre*-poterie

au

Liban.

MSlang.

Univ.

St-Joseph.

45,

29-41.

-

512

-

Hours,

F.,

S.J., 1973.

Le

Klbarien

au Liban.

Reflexions

a

partir

des

fouilles

de

Jiita

en

1972.

Pallorient,

1,

185-200.

Hours,

F.,

S.J.,

Copeland,

L.,

Aurenche,

0.,

1973.

Les

industries

pale*olithiques

du

proche-orient,

essai

de

correlation.

Anthropologie,

Paris,

77,

229-280,

437-496.

Huckriede,

R.,

Wiesemann,

G.,

1968.

Der

jungpleistozflne

Pluvial-See

von

El

Jafr

and

weitere

Daten

zum

Quarter

Jordaniens.

Geologica

et

Palaeontologica,

2,

73-95.

Ingholt,

Ho,

1940.

Rapport

prlliminaire

sur

sept

campagnes

de

fouilles

a

Kama

en Syrie

(1932-1938).

Pet Kgl.

Danske

Videnskabernes

Selskab.

Archaeologisk-kunsthistoriske

Meddelseer,

III.

Isaac,

G.L.,

1968.

Traces

of

Pleistocene

hunters:

an

East

African

example.

In

Man

the

Hunter,

R.B. Lee,

I.

DeVore

(eds),

253-261.

Chicago,

Aldine.

Jarman,

M,R.,

1974.

The

fauna

and

economy

of

Tel

'Eli.

Mitequfat

Haeven,

12,

50-72.

Jelinek,

A.J.,

Farrand,

W.R.,

Haas,

G.,

Horowitz,

A.,

Goldberg,

P.,

1973.

New

excavations

at

the

Tabun

Cave,

Mount

Carmel,

Israel,

1967-1972:

a

preliminary

report.

Pallorient,

1,

151-183.

Kaiser,

K.,

1961.

Die

Ausdehnung

der

Vergletscherungen

und

"periglazialen"

Erscheinungen

wflhrend

der

Kaltzeiten

des

quSrtSren

Eiszeitalters

innerhalb

der

Syrisch-Libanesischen

Gebirge

und

die

Lage

der

klimatischen

Schneegrenze

zur

Wftrmeiszeit

im

flstlichen

Mittelmeergebeit

International

Association

for

Quaternary

Research;

Report

of

the

Vlth

International

Congress

on

the

Quaternary

(Geomorphological

Section),

3>

127-148.

Warsaw.

Kaiser,

K.,

Kempf,

E.K.,

Leroi-Gourhan,

A.,

Schtltt,

H.,

1973.

Quartarstratigraphische

Untersuchungen

aus

dem

Damaskus-Becken

und

seiner

Umgebung.

Z.

Geomorph.,

17,

263-353.

Kaplan,

J.,

1958a.

Kfar

Gil'adi.

Israel

Explor.

J.,

8,

274-

Kaplan,

J.,

1958b.

Excavations

at

Wadi

Rabah.

Israel

Explor.

J.,

8,

149-160.

Kaplan,

J.,

1958c.

Excavations

at

Teluliot

Batashi

in

the

Vale

of

Sorek.

Eretz-Israel,

5,

9-24,

83*-84*.

Kaplan,

J.,

1959a.

The

Neolithic pottery

of

Palestine.

Bull.

Am.

Sch.

orient.

Res.,

156,

15-22.

Kaplan,

J.,

1959b.

The

Archaeology

and

History

of

Tel-Aviv-Jaffa.

Kaplan,

J.,

1965.

Hamadiyah.

Revue

Bibl.,

72,

543-544.

Kaplan,

J.,

1966.

Kefar

Gil'adi.

Israel

Explor.

J., 16,

272-273.

Kaplan,

J.,

1969.

'Ein

el

Jarba. Bull.

Am.

Sch.

orient.

Res.,

194,

2-39.

Kenyon,

K.M.,

1954.

Excavations

at

Jericho,

1954.

Palest.

Exp.

Q.,

45-63.

-

513

-

Kenyon,

K.M.,

1955.

Excavations

at

Jericho,

1955.

Palest.

Exp.

Q.,

108-117.

Kenyon,

K.M.,

1956.

Excavations

at

Jericho

1956.

Palest.

Exp.

Q«,

67-82.

Kenyon,

K.M.,

1957a.

Excavations

at

Jericho

1957.

Palest.

Exp.

Q.,

101-107.

Kenyon,

K.M.,

1957"b.

Digging

up

Jericho.

London,

Ernest

Benn.

Kenyon,

K.M.,

1959*

Earliest

Jericho.

Antiquity,

33,

5-9.

Kenyon,

K.M.,

I960.

Excavations

at

Jericho,

1957-

f

58.

Palest.

Exp.

Q.,

88-113.

Kenyon,

K.M.,

1969.

The

origins

of

the

Neolithic.

Advmt

Sci.,

Lond.,

128,

144-160.

Kenyon,

K.M.,

1970.

Archaeology

in the

Holy

Land.

London,

Ernest

Benn.

Kirkbride,

D.V.W.,

1956.

A

Neolithic

site

at

Wadi

el

Yabis.

A.

Pep.

Antiq.

Jordan,

3,

56-60.

Kirkbride,

D.V.W.,

1958a.

A

Kebaran

rock shelter

in

Wadi

Madamagh,

near

Petra,

Jordan.

Man,

58,

55-58.

Kirkbride,

D.V.W.,

1958b.

Notes

on

a

survey

of

pre-Roman

archaeological

sites

near

Jerash.

Bull. Inst.

Arch.,

1,

9-20.

Kirkbride,

D.V.W.,

1959.

Short

notes

on

some

hitherto

unrecorded

prehistoric

sites

in

TransJordan.

Palest.

Exp.

Q.,

52-54.

Kirkbride,

D.V.W.,

1960a.

A

brief

report

on

the

Pre-Pottery

flint

cultures

of

Jericho.

Palest.

Exp.

Q.,

114-119.

Kirkbride,

D.V.W.,

1960b.

The

excavation

of

a

Neolithic

village

at

Seyl

Aq.lat,

Beidha,

near

Petra.

Palest.

Exp.

Q.,

136-145.

Kirkbride,

D.V.W.,

1960c.

Ain Abu

Nakheileh.

Revue

Bibl.,

67,

231-232.

Kirkbride,

D.V.W.,

1966.

Five

seasons

at

the

Pre-Pottery

Neolithic

village

of

Beidha

in

Jordan,

a

summary.

Palest.

Exp.

Q.

,

8-72.

Kirkbride,

D.V.W.,

1967.

Beidha

1965:

an

interim

report.

Palest.

Exp.

Q.,

5-13.

Kirkbride,

D.V.W.,

1968.

Beidha

1967:

an

interim

report.

Palest.

Exp.

Q.,

90-96.

Kirkbride,

D.V.W.,

1969.

Early

Byblos

and

the

Beqa'a.

Me*lang.

Univ.

St-Joseph,

45,

43-60.

Kirkbride,

D.V.W.,

n.d.

Preliminary

report:

archaeological

soundings

at

two

early

sites

in

the

Beqa'a,

Lebanon.

'Ard

Tlaili

and

Labweh.

Report

submitted

to

Department

of

Antiquities,

National

Museum,

Beirut.

Klaer,

W.,

1962.

Untersuchungen

zur

klimagenetischen

Geomorphologie

in

den

Hochgebirgen

Vorderasiens.

Heidelb.

geogr.

Arb.,

11,

1-135-

Kurtln,

B.,

1965.

The

carnivora

of

the

Palestine

caves.

Acta

zool.

fenn.,

107,

1-74.

Kuschke,

A.,

1962.

Berieht

fiber

eine

Sondage

im

Palastgarten

von

Ugarit-Ras

Shamra.

In

Ugaritica

IV,

by

C.F.A.

Schaeffer,

251-299-

Mission

de

Ras

Shamra,

15.

Lamb,

H.H.,

1971.

Climates

and

circulation

regimes

developed

over

the

northern

hemisphere

during

and

since

the

last

Ice

Age.

Palaegeogr.

Palaeoclimatol.

Palaeoecol.,

10,

125-162.

Lamb, H.H., Lewis,

R.P.W.,

Woodroffe,

A.,

1966.

Atmospheric

circulation

and

the

main

climatic

variables

between

8000 and

0

B.C.:

meteorological

studies.

In

World

Climate

from 8000

to

0

B.C.,

J.S.

Sawyer

(ed),

174-217.

London,

Royal

Meteorological

Society.

Lamb, H.H.,

Woodroffe,

A.,

1970.

Atmospheric circulation

during

the

last

Ice

Age.

Quaternary

Res.,

1,

29-58.

Le

Brun,

A.,

1969.

Beisamoun. Israel

Explor.

J.,

19,

116.

Le

Brun,

A.,

1970.

Haches

cassles

et

pseudo-nucleus

levallois

du

Ne*olithique

de

Palestine.

Bull.

Soc.

prlhist.

fr.

,

67,

93-96.

Lechevallier,

M.,

1970.

Abu

Gosh.

Israel

Explor.

J.,

20,

222-223.

Lechevallier,

M.,

1971.

Abu

Gosh.

Israel

Explor.

J.,

21,

226-227.

Lechevallier,

M.

,

Dollfus,

G.,

1973.

Wouveaux

sites

du

Vie

millionaire

en

Haute-Galille.

Eretz-Israel,

11,

9*-21*.

Lechevallier,

M.,

Valla,

F.R.,

1974.

Mallaha

(Eynan) 1974.

Pal^orient,

2,

193.

Lee,

R.B.,

1968.

What

hunters

do

for

a

living,

or,

how

to

make

out

on

scarce

resources.

In

Man

the

Hunter,

R.B.

Lee,

I.

DeVore

(eds),

30-48.

Chicago,

Aldine.

Lee,

R.B.,

1972.

Population

growth

and

the

beginnings

of

sedentary

life

among

the

.'Kung

Bushmen.

In

Population

Growth:

Anthropological

Implications,

B.

Spooner

(ed),

329-342.

Cambridge,

Massachusetts

Institute

of

Technology

Press.

Lee,

R.B.,

DeVore,

I.,

1968.

Problems

in

the

study

of

hunters

and

gatherers.

In

Man

the

Hunter,

R.B.

Lee,

I.

DeVore

(eds),

3-12.

Chicago,

Aldine.

Legge,

A.J.,

1972.

Prehistoric exploitation

of

the

gazelle

in

Palestine.

In

Papers

in

Economic

Prehistory,

E.S.

Higgs

(ed)

119-124.

Cambridge,

Cambridge

University

Press.

Legge,

A.J.,

1975.

The

fauna

of

Tell

Abu

Hureyra:

preliminary

analysis.

In

The

excavation

of

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

in

Syria:

a

preliminary

report

A.M.T.

Moore,

74-76. Proc.

prehist.

3oc..

41,

50-77.

-

515

-

Leroi-Gourhan,

A.,

1973. Les

possibilite's

de

I

1

analyse

pollinique

en

Syrie

et

au

Liban.

Pallorient,

1,

39-47.

Leroi-Gourhan,

A.,

1974.

Etudes

palynologiques

des

derniers

11,000

ans

en

Syrie

semi-dlslrtique.

Pallorient,

2,

443-^51-

van

Liere, W.J.,

1960-'61.

Observations

on

the

Quaternary

of

Syria.

Ber.

Rijksdienst

oudheidk.

Bodemonderz.,

10-11,

7-69-

van

Liere,

W.J.,

de

Contenson,

H.,

1963.

A

note

on

five

early

Neolithic

sites

in

inland

Syria.

Ann,

arch. Syr.,

13,

173-209.

van

Liere, ¥.J.,

de

Contenson,

H.,

1966.

Premier sondage

\

Bouqras

en

1965,

rapport

pre'liminaire. Ann,

arch.

Ar.

Syr.,

16,

181-192.

Lloyd,

S.,

Safar,

F.,

1945.

Tell

Hassuna.

J.

Nr.

East.

St.,

4,

255-289.

van

Loon,

M.N.,

1967.

The

Tabqa

reservoir

survey

1964.

Ann,

arch.

Ar.

Syr.

,

17,

1-27.

van

Loon,

M.N.,

1968.

The

Oriental Institute

excavations

at

Mureybit,

Syria:

preliminary

report

on

the

1965

campaign.

J.

Nr.

East.

St.,

27,

265-290.

Loud,

G.,

1948.

Megiddo

II,

seasons

of

1935-39.

University

of

Chicago

Oriental

Institute

Publications,

62.

Macdonald,

E.,

Starkey,

J.L.,

Harding,

L.,

1932.

Beth-Pelet

II.

London,

British

School

of

Archaeology

in

Egypt.

Mallon,

A.,

S.J.,

1925.

Quelques

stations

pr&historiques

de

Palestine.

Mllang.

Univ.

St-Joseph,

10,

181-214.

Mallon,

A.,

S.J.,

1931.

Notes

sur

le

Ghor

II.

J.

Palest,

orient.

Soc.,

11,

159-163.

Mallon,

A.,

S.J.,

Koeppel,

R.,

S.J.,

Neuville,

R.,

1934.

Teleilat

Ghassul

I.

Rome»

Mallowan,

M.E.L.,

1936.

The

excavations

at

Tall

Chagar

Bazar

and

an

archaeological

survey

of

the

Habur

region

1934-5.

Iraq,

3»

1-59.

Mallowan,

M.E.L.,

1946.

Excavations

in

the

Balih

valley,

1938.

Iraq,

8,

111-159.

Mallowan,

M.E.L.,

1947o

Excavations

at

Brak

and

Chagar

Bazar.

Iraq,

9,

1-266.

Mallowan,

M.E.L.,

Rose,

J.C.,

1935.

Excavations

at

Tall

Arpachiyah

1933-

Iraq,

2,

1-178.

Marks,

A.E.,

1973.

The

Harif

point:

a

new

tool

type

from

the

terminal

Epipaleolithic

of

the

central

Negev,

Israel.

Pallorient,

1,

97-99.

Marks,

A.E.,

1975&.

An

outline

of

prehistoric

occurrences

and

chronology

in

the

central

Negev,

Israel.

In

Problems

in

Prehistory:

North

Africa

and

the

Levant,

F.

Wendorf,

A.E.

Marks

(eds),

351-362.

Southern

Methodist

University

Contributions

in

Anthropology,

13.

-

516

-

Marks,

A.E.,

1975b.

The

current

status

of

Upper

Palaeolithic

studies:

from

the

Maghreb

to

the

northern

Levant.

In

Problems

in

Prehistory:

North

Africa

and

the

Levant,

F.

Wendorf,

A.E.

Marks

(eds),

439-457.

Southern

Methodist

University

Contributions

in

Anthropology,

13.

Marks,

A.E.,

Crew,

H.,

Ferring,

R.,

Phillips,

J.,

1972.

Prehistoric

sites

near

Har

Harif.

Israel

Explor.

J.,

22,

73-85.

Marks,

A.E.,

Phillips,

J.,

Crew,

H.,

Ferring,

R.,

1971.

Prehistoric

sites

near

'En-'Avdat

in

the

Negev.

Israel

Explor.

J.,

21,

13-24.

Marks,

A.E.,

Scott,

T.R., 1976.

Abu

Salem:

type

site

of

the

Harifian

industry

of

the

southern

Levant.

J.

field

arch.,

3,

43-60.

Massoulard,

E.,

1949.

Prlhistoire

et

protohistoire

d'Egypte.

Travaux

et

Mlmoires

de

1'Institut

d'Ethnologie,

53.

Maxwell

Hyslop,

R.,

Taylor,

J.

du

Plat,

Seton

Williams,

M.V.

,

Waechter,

J.

d'A.

,

1942.

An

archaeological

survey

of the

Plain

of

Jabbul.

Palest.

Exp.

Q.,

8-40.

McDaniels,

J.B.,

1976.

An

Analytical

Study

of

Obsidian

from

Tell

Abu

Hureyra,

Syria.

M.A.

Thesis,

University

of

Bradford.

Mellaart,

J.,

1965.

Catal

Hflyflk

West.

Anatolian

stud.,

15,

135-156.

Mellaart,

J.

,

1967.

Catal

Hflyflk.

London, Thames

and

Hudson.

Mellaart,

J.,

1975.

The

Neolithic

of the

Near

Bast.

London,

Thames

and

Hudson.

Mellink,

M.J.,

1964.

Archaeology

in

Asia

Minor.

Am.

J.

arch.,

68,

149-166.

Messerli,

B.,

1966.

Las

problem

der

eiszeitlichen

Vergletscherung

am

Libanon

und

Hermon.

Z.

Geomorph.,

10,

37-68.

Messerli,

B.,

1967.

Die

eiszeitliche

und

die

gegenwSrtige

Vergletscherung

in

Mittelmeerraum.

Geographica

helv.,

22,

105-228.

Meyer,

M.,

1970.

Neolithic

site

8/17 near

Gal-Ed.

Mitequfat

Haeven,

10,

17-21.

Milliman,

J.D.,

Emery,

K.O.,

1968.

Sea

levels

during

the

past

35,000

years.

Science,

N.Y.,

162,

1121-1123.

l^oore,

A.M.T.,

1973.

The

Late

Neolithic

in

Palestine.

Levant,

5,

36-68.

Moore,

A.M.T.,

1975.

The

excavation

of

Tell

Abu

Hureyra

in

Syria:

a

preliminary

report.

Proc.

prehist.

Soc.,

41,

50-77.

Mortensen,

P.,

1970a.

A

preliminary

study

of

the

chipped

stone

industry

from

Beidha.

Acta

arch.,

41,

1-54.

Mortensen,

P.,

1970b.

Chipped

stone

industry.

In

Excavations

at

Hacilar

1,

by

J.

Mellaart,

153-157.

Edinburgh,

Edinburgh

University

Press.

Naroll,

R.,

1962.

Floor

area

and

settlement

population.

Am.

Antiq.,

27,

587-589.

-

517

-

Nasrallah,

J.,

1951.

Recherches

pr£historiques

dans

le

Qalamun

(Syrie

centrale).

Ann,

arch.

Syr.,

1,

80-106.

Nasrallah,

J.,

1965.

Notes

de

pre'histoire

Syrienne.

Ann,

arch.

Syr.

,

15,

51-64.

Neev,

D.,

Emery, K.O.,

1967.

The

Dead

Sea.

Bull,

geol.

Surv.

Israel,

41,

1-147.

Neuville,

R.

,

1929.

Additions

\

la

liste

des

stations

prlhistoriques

de

Palestine

et

Transjordanie.

J.

Palest,

orient.

Soc.,

9,

114-121.

Neuville,

R.,

1930.

Notes

de

pre'histoire

palestinienne.

J.

Palest,

orient.

Soc.,

10,

64-75.

Neuville,

R.

,

1934.

Le

prlhistorique

de

Palestine.

Revue

Bibl.,

43,

237-259.

Neuville,

R.,

1951.

Le

Paleolithique

et

le

Me"solithique

du

desert

de

Judle.