Large Sites, Large Settlements? Regional mega-centres in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B.

Regional Mega-Centres | M.J.C. van Nieuwkoop

Page | 2

TITLE: LARGE SITES, LARGE SETTLEMENTS?

SUBTITLE: REGIONAL MEGA-CENTRES IN THE PRE-POTTERY

NEOLITHIC B

COURSE: NEOLITHISATION IN THE NEAR EAST

COURSE CODE: 1044N03Y

AUTHOR: M.J.C. VAN NIEUWKOOP

STUDENT NUMBER: 1012762

SUPERVISORS: PROF. DR P.M.M.G. AKKERMANS & DR. O.P. NIEUWENHUIJSE

LEIDEN UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF ARCHAEOLOGY

LEIDEN, OCTOBER 2013

VERSION 1.0


Page | 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4

1.1 Aim of Research ............................................................................................... 5

2. Current Issues in the Study of the PPNB ........................................................... 6

3. Regional Mega-Centres in a Theoretical Framework ....................................... 8

4. Case-Studies from the PPNB .............................................................................. 13

4.1 ‘Ain Ghazal ..................................................................................................... 13

4.1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 13

4.1.2 Population Growth and its Effects ...................................................... 14

4.1.3 Social Hierarchy? ................................................................................... 14

4.2 Tell Sabi Abyad .............................................................................................. 16

4.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 16

4.2.2 A Shifting Settlement ............................................................................. 16

4.3 Tell el-Kerkh ................................................................................................... 17

4.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 17

4.3.2 Controversy ............................................................................................ 18

5. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 19

Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 20

List of Figures ................................................................................................................ 22


Page | 4

1. INTRODUCTION

The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (from now on PPNB) is a time period spanning

circa 1800 years, from 8700 cal. BCE until 6900 cal. BCE. Not only this period, but

the whole Neolithic era (ca. 9600-5300 cal. BCE) shows a number of profound

transformations throughout our history. It was an era of domestication and

cultivation (Hole 2000, 191), of the transformation to permanent settlement in

solid houses (Hole 2000, 191), of growing populations around fixed locations

(Hole 2000, 191), of economic growth (Akkermans 2012, 63; Hole 2000, 191), of

the production of pottery (Hole 2000, 191) and thus of increasing community

complexity (Akkermans 2012, 63). These transformations are seen as an

expression of a fundamental development of society by most scholars; ‘the rise of

civilisation’.

In the past, the majority of scholars usually looked for stereotyped causes and

developments to explain this transformation, which were mostly based on the

fact that numerous large archaeological sites were encountered over a large area,

forming clusters in both Northern and the Southern Levant (fig. 1). These

scholars often assumed that large archaeological sites are one-to-one reflections

of large ancient settlements. However, nowadays it is clear that this assumption

might not be that accurate as previously thought, since change can be very

selective and punctuated in space and time. This thought has led to a significant

change in the archaeological investigation of the Neolithic in the Near East,

which has entailed a lot of new issues, of which some are important to keep in

mind.


Page | 5

Figure 1: Map of the Near East showing important archaeological sites (+) and archaeological

sites which are larger than seven hectares () (after Banning 2011, 620).

1.1 AIM OF RESEARCH

The ultimate aim of this essay is to challenge the aforementioned assumption

by investigating to what extent we confuse site size with settlement size. This is a

relevant issue, because we often ascribe regional importance to large sites,

resulting in an association with hierarchy (Akkermans 2012, 71). To come to a

conclusion we will first have to focus on some important current issues in the

neolithisation of the Near East. When this has been achieved the focus will shift

to regional mega-centres and associated theories. A number of case-studies will

be treated to provide evidence to accept or reject the aforementioned statement.


Page | 6

2. CURRENT ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF THE PPNB

There are a number of relevant issues in the study of the PPNB. Some concern

the whole neolithisation of the Near East, while others are only related to the

PPNB. If we want to obtain clear answers to our research questions, we have to

keep these issues in mind. It is however impossible to provide the reader with all

issues (more than enough material for a thesis), so only the most important are

given in this essay.

The first important issue that is relevant to the whole neolithisation of the

Near East is the problem of dating sites or other relevant finds. In the past

archaeological sites were dated using wrong dating methods. Before the 1940s

radiocarbon dating was not invented yet. As a result we should be careful with

dates from before that period, also because most scholars did not mention which

method they used. The radiocarbon dating itself also brought a problem:

calibration. Uncalibrated radiocarbon dates are not the same as calendar dates,

and these dates should therefore be clearly noted as ‘uncalibrated’. Until recently

this has not always be the norm for scholars. Luckily, nowadays most scholars

are aware of this problem and note the dating method they use. However, by no

means everyone is using calibrated dates. The dates given by these scholars are

thus not a good reflection of the archaeological evidence. This essay has choices

to convert all dates to calibrated dates. To achieve this it is necessary to add

roughly 800 years to the uncalibrated dates (e.g. 7000 BC becomes 7800 cal. BC)

(Akkermans & Nieuwenhuijse, personal contact).

The Second important issue is relevant to all time periods in the Neolithic of

the Near East, including the PPNB. The PPNB period was originally subdivided

into the Early, Middle and Late PPNB. However, with more and more

archaeological evidence emerging, this subdivision is less and less accurate.

Some scholars have suggested new periodisations, but this only makes it vaguer,


Page | 7

with terms as Early-Proto-Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. For this reasons most scholars

continue to prefer the original subdivision (Kuijt 2000, 79). To maintain

standardisation with previous literature, this essay will also make use of the

original subdivision (fig. 2).

Figure 2: Neolithic chronology with calibrated dates (Akkermans & Nieuwenhuijse, personal

contact).

The third important issue is relevant to both the whole Neolithic Near East as

the PPNB. Smaller seasonal settlements are more likely to have been demolished

(e.g. post-depositional processes) than large settlements and thus are less likely to

be recorded in field surveys. The archaeological record is therefore by far a

correct representation of the actual past. It is unlikely that archaeologist will be

able to confidently reconstruct the nature of settlement variability for a single

period. They can only obtain a better understanding of the overall change in the

size of the largest settlements through time (Kuijt 2000, 80).


Page | 8

3. REGIONAL MEGA-CENTRES IN A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

There is a growing number of large archaeological sites in the PPNB1. These

large sites (sometimes 7 to 16 hectares in size) are found alongside much smaller

sites. There are however very few sites of intermediate size, making the largest

sites up to ten times larger than the size of a typical small site.

James Wood (1998, 101) provide us with three problematic concepts

regarding the study of population dynamics and social and economic relations,

which are often presented as synonymous while they are not:

First of all is the concept of population growth. According to Kuijt (2000, 77)

this population growth can be defined as “the change in population size through

the birth and death of individuals within a community and migration of people

between communities”. The rate of this growth is linked to locally and regionally

available food resources. The available resources in combination with the

procurement of these resources can be used to measure the carrying capacity of

the region.

Second of all is the concept of population density. This concept refers to the

relationship between a unit of space (e.g. a valley or residential community) and

overall population level (Kuijt 2000, 77)

Third of all is the concept of population pressure on resources. Population

pressure occurs when the overall population levels have outstripped the ability

of humans to obtain enough food for their needs. When this is the case the

carrying capacity of a region is overexploited (Kuijt 2000, 77-78).

Wood (1998, 101) clearly points out that, while in some situations there may

be a relationship between these three concepts, this relation if often questionable.

An increase in population size does not necessarily imply that resources have

been depleted.

1 We have to see ‘large’ in the context of what came before and what came after.


Page | 9

Kuijt (2000, 78) provides us with an alternative way to research demographic

pressure. He argues that scholars should approach population growth as a social,

concern, rather than subsistence one. They have to explore how people actually

tried to deal with changing social and environmental conditions, e.g. by looking

at the influence of social crowding2 on household and community relationships.

To support his statement, Kuijt (2000, 79-87) treats the PPN demographic

change by comparing the change in site size through time of the five largess

settlements.

Around ca. 7300-6800 cal. BC there is an expansion of existing Middle PPNB

settlements and a founding of large Late PPNB settlements in the southern

Levant (fig. 3). This expansion is a result of two interrelated processes: (a) a

gradual regional population growth throughout the Neolithic period; and (b)

population aggregation in large settlements (e.g. ‘Ain Ghazal; discussed later on)

for economic, political and ritual reasons.

To examine the social impact of this expansion, Kuijt (2000, 87-94) focuses on

social crowding and its effect on the household. He hypothesises that the Late

PPNB households became subdivided in compartments as a result of increased

stress and a desire to define private space. This, in turn, led to the development

of two-story buildings, which would have functioned as physical barriers

between public and private space. Kuijt (2000, 89) also postulates that this

development was partly based on a growing emphasis on personal goods and

ownership.

2 According to Cohen (1985, 106) social crowding refers to tensions that occur when people remain

in large aggregates for a long time.


Page | 10

Figure 3: The expansion of existing Middle PPNB settlements and a founding of large Late PPNB

settlements in the southern Levant (ca. 7300-6800 cal. BC) (Kuijt 2000, 82).


Page | 11

As rapidly as the large settlements had expanded, they were abandoned,

somewhere between 6800-6000 cal. BC (Kuijt 2000, 94). Some scholars believe that

environmental change and ecological degradation was the main cause of this

abandonment (e.g. Zielhofer et al. 2012). Kuijt (2000, 94) emphasises however that

we should also look at related social conditions. He is in particular referring to

social crowding, and argues that there were too much tensions in the large

communities. This led to a diminishing in the ability to effectively manage and

organize the community and a greater need for hierarchical structures.

Frank Hole (2000, 194) does not agree with Kuijt, emphasising that we

confuse site size with settlement size. He argues that there are a number of

reasons why a site could be large:

1. The site may have been a political, economic, or religious centre

2. The site could have been located in a locally rich environment.

However, he adds more reasons why an archaeological site could ‘appear’ to be

large, while the original settlement was not (Hole 2000, 194):

1. The site may have been sequentially used, resulting in a horizontal

accumulation of the settlement. In this case all structures appear to

have the same ‘archaeological’ age.

2. Dwellings may be widely spaced, but because artefacts cover the

entire area, they give a false impression of size.

3. Non-domestic structures may take on a large amount of space.

4. A large site could simply represent a seasonal agglomeration of many

smaller units.

Hole also argues that the concept of site hierarchy may not be applicable to

the Neolithic. In Neolithic communities leadership was probably temporary,

depending on the situation. He bases this statement on the fact that there is no

convincing evidence that any site served as a regional mega-centre. The large


Page | 12

sites look almost the same as the smaller site (e.g. aspects of architecture or

material culture), and at this time there is little reason to think that large sites

were organised differently from smaller sites.

One of the scholars that embrace the conclusion of Hole is Peter Akkermans.

He emphasises that most PPNB occupations consisted of groups of settlements,

sometimes comprising up to seven or eight mounds (Tell Sabi Abyad; discussed

later on). In turn, these settlements often comprised only a small part of the

mound, leaving large areas open and unused (Akkermans 2012, 65-66). These

frequently moving occupations between and within the mounds are called

‘shifting settlements’, and they clarify that settlements did not always include the

archaeological site in its entirety3. Akkermans (2012, 71) further adds that the

making of large sites required long periods of time. This implies an endless

process of construction, use, maintenance, replacement and relocation, rather

than a single, stable occupation. A small settlement with a small population

could for example create a site as large as 10 hectare in size. This clarifies that site

size is determined by many factors, including population and time.

3 Campbell and Fletcher (2012, 41) further add that groups also formed new settlements in gaps

between and adjacent to former settlements.


Page | 13

4. CASE-STUDIES FROM THE PPNB

4.1 ‘AIN GHAZAL

4.1.1 INTRODUCTION

The site of ‘Ain Ghazal is located just north of Amman in Jordan. It was

excavated between 1982 and 1994 by Gary Rollefson, after the site was damaged

by construction, agriculture, housing developments and a sewage treatment

plant (Hole 2000, 202). Radiocarbon dating dated the site to the late eight and

seventh millennia cal. BC (Rollefson 1987, 29).

‘Ain Ghazal started as typical village of modest size in the PPNB, somewhere

around 8000 cal. BC (Rollefson 1987, 29; Hole 2000, 203). Due to the fact that it

was located on a valley-side the village site required terraces (fig. 4). The houses

were built in a rectangular shape, each with an almost square main room and a

smaller anteroom. The walls were plastered with mud on the outside and with

white lime plaster on the inside (Scarre 2009, 226).

The people of ‘Ain Ghazal farmed the common range of legumes and cereals

in fields above the settlement. They also hunted wild animals and herded

domesticated goat (Scarre 2009, 226).

Figure 4: 3D view of the geomorphology of ‘Ain Ghazal. Archaeological trenches are marked by

white boxes (Zielhofer et al., 2012, 429).


Page | 14

4.1.2 POPULATION GROWTH AND ITS EFFECTS

Until the mid-seventh millennium ‘Ain Ghazal did not surpass four or five

hectares. But at circa 7300 cal. BC, the settlement expanded dramatically to more

than nine hectares in size in a relatively short time period. By the end of the

seventh millennium the village had grown to over twelve hectares, and around

7000 cal. BC the site reached its maximum size of circa fourteen hectares

(Rollefson 1987, 30). This expansion is considered to be too rapid to have been the

result of population growth within the community (Scarre 2009, 227). Rollefson

argues that refugee groups moved to join surviving settlements. This is based on

the fact that other settlements were collapsing at this time (Scarre 2009, 227).

This additional population put further pressure on an already close to

ecological disaster economy. Erosion increased by the ploughing of fields and the

clearing of trees4. The herding of goats only exacerbated the problem by

preventing regeneration of the vegetation, which was necessary to help stabilize

the soil (Scarre 2009, 227). When such a large population was no longer able to

sustain itself, people left ‘Ain Ghazal to find new ways of life. This life was

probably one of semi-nomadic herding with a small amount of agriculture in

semi-arid lands (Scarre 2009, 227). Just a small group of people survived at ‘Ain

Ghazal itself, who built a small settlement close to a spring were they could grow

some crops in the valley (Scarre 2009, 227).

4.1.3 SOCIAL HIERARCHY?

The people of ‘Ain Ghazal buried their dead beneath the floor of their

houses. They also re-opened graves in order to detach and retrieve the heads of

the dead (fig. 5). Some human bodies were however tossed unceremoniously into

large disposal pits (Scarre 2009, 226). This shows that only a small selection of the

4 Wood was used to create fires which were used for the preparation of the plaster used for the

houses ((Scarre 2009, 227).


Page | 15

Figure 5: Secondary burials from ‘Ain Ghazal

(Rollefson & Simmons 1985, 47)

Figure 6: Plastered human figures from ‘Ain

Ghazal (gwebarchaeology.tumblr.com).

population of the settlement received a ‘proper’ burial, which could be evidence

that there was some sort of social

hierarchy. Is it however impossible to

learn why some bodies were selected

for ceremonial burial, while others

were just thrown away. If ‘Ain

Ghazal really was a large site, then

there should be more evidence for

differentiated wealth distribution or

other forms of ranking.

Rollefson found several buildings which differ from domestic architecture.

With different plans and special internal fittings Rollefson suggests that these

were shrines within which rituals were performed (Scarre 2009, 227). This theory

is supported by the discovery of two half-size human figures, modelled in plaster

(fig. 6). These were buried in pits,

apparently having functioned as ritual

objects. These buildings are however

the only structures that clearly differ

from the other (domestic) structures

on the site (Hole 2000, 203). There is

no evidence for any elite residences,

which is strange for a potential large

settlement.


Page | 16

Figure 7: The four mounds of Tell Sabi

Abyad (Akkermans 2012, 66).

4.2 TELL SABI ABYAD

4.2.1 INTRODUCTION

The site of Tell Sabi Abyad is located in the upper Balikh Valley of northern

Syria, circa five kilometres east of the Balikh River. Excavation of the site started

in 1986 under a team led by Peter Akkermans. The site was primarily occupied in

the sixth millennium cal. BC (Akkermans 2012, 66).

4.2.2 A SHIFTING SETTLEMENT

Tell Sabi Abyad was not a single

settlement, but consisted of four discreet

settlements on mounds close together (Tell

Sabi Abyad I, II, III and IV) (fig. 7). Despite

their closeness, however, they had boun-

daries of their own (Akkermans 2012, 66).

At least within Tell Sabi Abyad I, the

settlement also consisted of a number of

distinct little mounds, which seem to have

merged over time (fig. 8) (Akkermans 2012,

66). This has led Akkermans to believe that

only a small portion of the mound was

used, while a lot of space remained

unused. He bases this statement on the fact that there existed open yards

between clusters of houses, which were probably used for disposal and for the

construction of fireplaces and pits (Akkermans 2012, 66-67). There were also

abandoned dwellings between the settlements in use, which may have held

social significance. They could have been actively remembered as some sort of

ancestral architecture; a reason for people to stay close to it (Akkermans 2012, 70-

71).


Page | 17

Figure 8: The distinct mounds forming Tell

Sabi Abyad I (Akkermans 2012, 66).

Akkermans concludes that Tell

Sabi Abyad was a shifting settlement.

Buildings and households hardly

stayed in the same place for more

than a generation, assuming that

houses ‘died’ with their inhabitants

(Akkermans 2012, 70). Through time

the occupation at Tell Sabi Abyad

generally shifted back and forth

between and within mounds, indi-

cating a high level of residential mobility (Akkermans 2012, 69). He also

emphasises that any estimates of population size should not be based on number

and size of individual buildings (Akkermans 2012, 68).

4.3 TELL EL-KERKH

4.3.1 INTRODUCTION

Tell el-Kerkh is a site in the Rouj Basin of the northern Levant. It is being

excavated since 1997 by a Syro-Japanese team. 14C dating suggests that the site

was occupied between 8700 and 5800 cal. BC (Tsuneki 2012, 35).

The archaeological site consists of three mounds. According to Tsuneki

(2012, 54-61) all mounds were occupied during some of the Neolithic’s periods.

Between 8700 and 8300 cal. BC the area was quite limited, not exceeding 1

hectare. The settlement expanded drastically between 7700 and 7000 cal. BC,

reaching its maximum size of more than 16 hectares, covering two of the three

mounds (fig. 9). There is little known about the next periods, as Tsuneki’s team

did not excavate the whole site. Nevertheless he argues that, between 7000 and

5800 cal. BC, the settlement reduced dramatically in size to less than 1 hectare.


Page | 18

Figure 9: Habitation area of Tell el-Kerkh between 7700 and 7000 cal. BC,

when it reached its maximum size of more than 16 hectares (Tsuneki 2012, 57).

4.3.2 CONTROVERSY

According to Tsuneki Tell el-Kerkh could have been a regional mega centre.

He argues that it is unlikely that the site was a shifting settlement like Tell Sabi

Abyad. The occupation layers are simply too thick to be so (Tsuneki 2012, 62-63).

However, the majority of the site is not yet excavated. The available evidence is

therefore too poor to conclude that is was a regional mega centre. It is even too

poor to provide us with any firm information about the character of the site.


Page | 19

5. CONCLUSION

The ultimate aim of this essay was to challenge the assumption that large

archaeological sites reflect large ancient settlements. This has been carried out by

investigating to what extent we confuse site size with settlement size. It has

become clear that we indeed do confuse site size with settlement size.

There is so far no evidence for the emergence of some form of centralized

leadership. At ‘Ain Ghazal we find little evidence for elite residences,

differentiated wealth distribution, or other forms of ranking used to recognize

social differentiation. This should be present if large PPNB settlements emerged

through population aggregation as a result of the need for increased

centralization of labor and the development of regional economic and ritual

centers.

It is more likely that large archaeological sites are the result of shifting

settlements, like Tell Sabi Abyad. Tell Sabi Abyad is a clear example of a site that

looks bigger than it is. There is a lot of shifting in occupation or clustering of

settlement as a result of residential mobility. This concept of shifting settlements,

however, it not always taken into consideration when researching large sites (e.g.

‘Ain Ghazal). It is therefore not possible to discard the fact that these sites could

have been shifting settlements.

Therefore better research is needed to accept or reject the possibility of the

existence of regional mega-centres. Perhaps the site Tell el-Kerkh could provide

the answer when it is fully excavated.


Page | 20

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akkermans, P.M.M.G., 2012. Living space, temporality and community

segmentation: interpreting Late Neolithic settlement in Northern Syria, in

O.P. Nieuwenhuyse, R. Bernbeck, P.M.M.G. Akkermans, & J. Rogasch (eds),

Interpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia, Turnhout: Brepols,

(PALMA Series 9), 63-75.

Banning, E.B., 2011. So Fair a House: Göbekli Tepe and the Identification of

Temples in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Near East. Current Anthropology

52(5), 619-660.

Campbell, S. & A. Fletcher, 2012. Scale and integration in northern

Mesopotamia in the early 6th millennium cal. BCE, in O.P. Nieuwenhuyse, R.

Bernbeck, P.M.M.G. Akkermans, & J. Rogasch (eds), Interpreting the Late

Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia, Turnhout: Brepols, (PALMA Series 9), 39-50.

Cohen, M.N., 1985. Prehistoric hunter-gatherers: The meaning of social

complexity, in: T.D. Price & J.A. Brown (eds), Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers:

Emergence of Cultural Complexity, New York: Academic Press, 99-119.

Hole, F., 2000. Is Size Important? Function and Hierarchy in Neolithic

Settlements, in: I. Kuijt (ed), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social

Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, New York: Kluwer/Plenum Press,

191-209.

Rollefson, G.O., 1987. Local and Regional Relations in the Levantine PPN

Period: Ain Ghazal as a Regional Center, in: A. Hadidi (ed), Studies in the

History and Archaeology of Jordan III, Amman: Department of Antiquities of

Jordan, 29-32.

Rollefson, G.O. & A.H. Simmons, 1985. The Early Neolithic Village of ‘Ain

Ghazal, Jordan: Preliminary Report on the 1983 Season. Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies 23, Preliminary

Reports of ASOR-Sponsored Excavations 1981-1983, 35-52.


Page | 21

Scarre, C., 2009. The Human Past: World Prehistory & the Development of Human

Societies. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd.

Tsuneki, A., 2012. Tell el-Kerkh as a Neolithic Mega Site. Orient 47, 29-65.

Wood, J.W., 1998. A Theory of Preindustrial Population Dynamics:

Demography, Economy, and Well-Being in Malthusian Systems. Current

Anthropology 39(1), 99-135.

Zielhofer, C., L. Clare, G.O. Rollefson, S. Wächter, D. Hoffmeister, G. Bareth,

C. Roettig, H. Bullmann, B. Schneider, H. Berke & B. Weninger, 2012. The

decline of the early Neolithic population center of 'Ain Ghazal and

corresponding earth-surface processes, Jordan Rift Valley. Quaternary

Research 78, 427-441.


Page | 22

LIST OF FIGURES

FRONT PAGE: Artist’s Impression of ‘Ain Ghazal (after

classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/1670/flashcards/859326

/jpg/ain-ghazal.jpg).

FIGURE 1, PAGE 5: Map of the Near East showing important archaeological

sites (+) and archaeological sites which are larger than

seven hectares () (after Banning 2011, 620).

FIGURE 2, PAGE 7: Neolithic chronology with calibrated dates (Akkermans &

Nieuwenhuijse, personal contact).

FIGURE 3, PAGE 10: The expansion of existing Middle PPNB settlements and a

founding of large Late PPNB settlements in the southern

Levant (ca. 7300-6800 cal. BC) (Kuijt 2000, 82).

FIGURE 4, PAGE 13: 3D view of the geomorphology of ‘Ain Ghazal.

Archaeological trenches are marked by white boxes

(Zielhofer et al., 2012, 429).

FIGURE 5, PAGE 15: Secondary burials from ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson & Simmons

1985, 47)

FIGURE 6, PAGE 15: Plastered human figures from ‘Ain Ghazal

(gwebarchaeology.tumblr.com/ image/44065176019).


Page | 23

FIGURE 7, PAGE 16: The four mounds of Tell Sabi Abyad, which is regarded as

a shifting settlement (Akkermans 2012, 66).

FIGURE 8, PAGE 17: The distinct mounds forming Tell Sabi Abyad I

(Akkermans 2012, 66).

FIGURE 9, PAGE 18: Habitation area of Tell el-Kerkh between 7700 and 7000 cal.

BC, when it reached its maximum size of more than 16

hectares (Tsuneki 2012, 57).

Large Sites, Large Settlements? Regional mega-centres in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B.

Documents

Transcript of Large Sites, Large Settlements? Regional mega-centres in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B.