LATE NEOLITHIC SOCIETY AND VILLAGE LIFE: 32 THE VIEW

FROM THE SOUTHERN LEVANT Kevin Gibbs (University of Aberdeen, Department of Archaeology)

and Edward B. Banning (University of Toronto, Department of Anthropology)

Figure 32.1. Map of the southern Levant showing the location of sites mentioned in Chapter 32.

0

Southern Levant

En Jarba,

Hazorea,

Abu Zureiq

50km

Jabal Tharwa,

Wisad ---+

LATE NEOLITHIC SOCIETY AND VILLAGE LIFE: THE VIEW

FROM THE SOUTHERN LEVANT Kevin Gibbs (University of Aberdeen, Department of Archaeology)

and Edward B. Banning (University of Toronto, Department of Anthropology)

ABSTRACT

As in more northerly parts of the Fertile Crescent, archaeol­ogists have largely neglected the Late Neolithic of the south­ern Levant relative to the preceding Pre-Pottery Neolithic and succeeding Chalcolithic periods. Even its basic chro­nology and cultural typology remain contested. Our under­standing of social, economic, and symbolic dimensions of the Late Neolithic is even poorer. However, there have been some recent strides toward gleaning a preliminary under­standing of social organization, settlement pattern, economy and even ritual and symbolism, albeit with heavy depend­ence upon a rather small database. There are hints at impor­tant changes in economic and social strategies, including a shift to increasingly trexible social relationships, which pos­sibly correspond to the entrenchment of full dependence on mixed farming.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the Late Neolithic of the southern Levant has received even less attention than the corresponding period in more northerly areas. A number of factors have contrib­uted to the neglect of the southern Levantine Late Neolithic (Figure 32.1). The answers to popular questions regarding the emergence of agriculture or the development of class differ­entiation and urbanization are thought to lie in either the earlier Pre-Pottery Neolithic or the subsequent Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age periods. Furthermore, archaeological surveys are often ill-equipped to identify Late Neolithic sites that can be small, with few diagnostic artifacts preserved on the ground surface, or buried under later colluvium (Banning et al. 1994; Banning 1996). For the Lat~ Neolithic sites that have been excavated, the rate of publication has tended to be less than optimal, the radiocarbon record has significant gaps, and there is disagreement about chronology and the definition of 'cultures' (Gopher and Gophna 1993; Garfinkel 1999b; Banning 2007). Consequently, any interpretation of Late Neolithic material relies on a rather small and shifting database.

Nevertheless, there have been some recent strides toward a better understanding of the period. Importantly, the percep­tion of the southern Levantine Late Neolithic as a time of cul­tural devolution or collapse can no longer be supported. This view emerged, in part, because the Late Neolithic seems to be characterized by a higher degree of regionalization when compared to the preceding PPNB. But rather than viewing the Late Neolithic as the splintering or fragmentation of a more developed early Neolithic cultural tradition, we suggest that the multiplicity of material and social forms that developed from increasing regionalization promoted flexible relation­ships that facilitated the negotiation of new and complex net­works of interaction, both within the southern Levant and, to some extent, between the southern Levant and areas to the north. Our paper examines some of these new forms, fo­cusing on the Late Neolithic in its own right rather than as a 'third space' (cf. Varberg 2007) between the PPN and the later Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age periods. When possible, we try to comment on connections to the northern Levant and Upper Mesopotamia, but the general absence of data from the central Levant and southern Syria often makes it difficult to interpret the significance of these links. Our view from the south is necessarily a view across a largely unknown expanse. Fortunately, recent work in western Syria has begun to bridge the gap by demonstrating the central Levant's con­nections, at least in its ceramic traditions, both to the north and south (e.g. Campbell and Phillips 2003; Ha1dar-Boustani et al. 2oo6).

Although much recent discussion of the southern Levan­tine Late Neolithic and the transition to the Chalcolithic has focused on issues of chronology and the ordering of cultural groups (e.g. Banning 2007; Lovell and Rowan 2010), here we focus primarily on other issues, including the diversity and variability of material culture, and potential evidence for symbolic or ritual behavior. However, we will begin with a few background comments about the 'cultures' that have fig­ured most prominently in discussions of the Late Neolithic. It should be noted that in providing these comments our goal is

32

! i c 1-0 II. 0 Ul Ill i a: Ill II. II. ~

II. 0 0 :1: 1-::i 0 Ill z Ill 1-c .I

Ill :1: 1-., z j: Ill a: II. a: Ill 1-z

MODELLED CLAY BALLS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHANGES IN THE LATE NEOLITHIC A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF MODELLED CLAY BALLS IN HALAF COMMUNITIES 355

356 L A TE NEOLITHIC SOCIETY A ND V IL LAG E LIF E THE VI EW FROM THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

!! I c .. 0 II. 0 Ill Ill ll! K Ill II. II. :I u. 0 u % .. ::i 0 Ill z Ill .. c ~

Ill % .. " z i= Ill K II. K Ill .. z

to provide a framework for understanding how the southern Levantine Late Neolithic has typically been approached, rath­er than to espouse the validity or reality of discrete cultural groups. As Campbell (1999, 2007) has noted for more north­erly areas, the identification of cultures and the perceived im­portance of particular type-sites are the result of the history of excavation in the 2oth century and do not necessarily re­flect real boundaries or significant cultural differences. This is also the case in the southern Levant.

Archaeologists interested in the Late Neolithic of the southern Levant have attempted to define a range of cul­tural groups or entities (Garfinkel 1999b:Tab. 1). We focus on sites attributed to the Yarmoukian culture, the some­what related Jericho IX, and the later Wadi Rabah. Each of these 'cultures' had been defined in its present form by the 1950s more or less, based largely on differences in pottery, and they continue to figure prominently in discussions of the period. Other proposed cultural entities (e.g. Qatifian, Ghrubba) have not been examined or promoted to the same extent (but see Mellaart 1956; Gilead 1990, 2007; Kafafi 1998). Currently there is little consensus on the chronology of the Late Neolithic or the transition to the Chalcolithic. However, a Bayesian analysis of available radiocarbon dates that one of us conducted (Banning 2007), since updated with further analysis, suggests that the Yarmoukian began ca. 6500-6400 cal. BCE and the Wadi Rabah ended ca. 5300-5100 cal. BCE.

This is the period that we refer to as Late Neolithic, although others (e.g. Garfinkel 1999b) attribute Wadi Rabah sites to an Early Chalcolithic period, while a few (e.g. Bourke 2007) see the Late Neolithic as continuing well into the sth millen­nium cal. BCE. The relationship between Yarmoukian sites and Jericho IX (sometimes referred to as Pottery Neolithic A or Lodian) sites is not straightforward, particularly as the latter almost entirely lack radiocarbon dates, and scholars disagree over the significance of differences in their pot­tery and lithic repertoires. It has been suggested that the Yarmoukian and Jericho IX are largely contemporaneous, with Yarmoukian sites having a more northerly distribution and Jericho IX sites occurring primarily to the south (e.g. Garfinkel1999b). Alternatively, Jericho IX may be a slight­ly later phenomenon (e.g. Gopher and Gophna 1993), thus bridging a gap between the earlier Yarmoukian and the later Wadi Rabah.

There is also disagreement over which sites should be at­tributed to the Wadi Rabah 'culture.' Gopher and Gophna (1993) divide Wadi Rabah sites into normative and variant groups. Normative Wadi Rabah sites, as initially described by Kaplan (1958, 1969), occur in the Jezreel Valley, with some others in the Soreq Valley, the Upper Galilee, and the Huleh Valley. Variant sites exhibit a number of differences from nor­mative sites, especially in their pottery assemblages. These differences may be the result of regional variation (Gopher and Gophna 1993; Sadeh 1994). Garfinkel (1999b), however, suggests that some of them are later in time and attributes them to a Middle Chalcolithic period that precedes the bet­ter understood Late (Ghassulian) Chalcolithic. Clearly more

work is needed to resolve these issues, including further ex­cavation, publication of pottery and lithic assemblages, and radiocarbon dates. However, the continued difficulties with delimiting culture boundaries, especially those of the 6th millennium cal. BCE, may indicate that discrete, bounded cul­tures were not a reality during the Late Neolithic, and that, in addition to updating our datasets, we need to revise our theoretical frameworks. Instead of viewing cultural bounda­ries as rigid and impermeable, we should consider how Late Neolithic relationships and social boundaries were actively negotiated and contested. This would suggest a cultural flex­ibility that :may more realistically account for the data.

LATE NEOLITHIC DIVERS/TV: FRAGMENTATION

OR FLORESCENCE?

The variability that we suggest characterizes the southern Levantine Late Neolithic can be observed across a range of features and artifact types, as well as in the realms of econ­omy, social organization and symbolism. This suggests that the perceived regionalization is not simply a result of an ar­chaeological over-emphasis on minor differences in pottery traditions. More work is needed to better understand the pro­cesses that led to increased regionalization in the southern Levant and how this pattern is different from that in other parts of the Near East. Part of the ans~er may lie in the sub­stantial diversity of topographic and physiographic features that characterize the southern Levant, including many nar­row wadis, especially when compared to the broader allu­vial plains and river valleys of Upper Mesopotamia and the northern Levant. As southern Levantine populations moved into smaller and narrower valleys, their interaction networks would have shifted to a more linear or dendritic pattern that is inherently less centralized.

The limited exposure of structures at most Yarmoukian sites restricts the amount we can say about architecture or in­trasite social organization during the earlier part of the Late Neolithic, leaving Ain Ghazal and Sha'ar Hagolan as two of our best sources of evidence (Rollefson 1997; Garfinkel and Ben-Shlomo 2002, 2010; Kafafi 2006). Yarmoukian build­ings seem to be more variable than those of the preceding PPN, including both simple pit-houses and more substantial structures (Banning 2003, 2010). Buildings can have one, two, or three rooms, and both rectilinear and curvilinear struc­tures occur (Figure 32.2). Some of the simpler structures at Ain Ghazal, like those at Ash-Shalaf and Byblos a bit farther north, may have been covered by tents or some other tem­porary roofing material (Dunand 1973; Rollefson 1997:301; Bienert and Vieweger 1999). In contrast, the renewed excava­tions at Sha'ar Hagolan produced substantial architecture, in­cluding building complexes comprised of multiple rooms ar­ranged around courtyards (Garfinkel and Ben-Shlomo 2002; Ben-Shlomo and Garfinkel2009). These compounds, ranging from 225 to 700 m' in area, were separated by streets or alleys. Based on this evidence Garfinkel (2002a, 2006) argues for a tripartite division of spatial and social organization at the site. In his model, each nuclear family occupied a single dwelling

A

0 5m

D

F

room with accompanying storage room. Several such units were organized around a shared courtyard space, where var­ious domestic activities were carried out, and Garfinkel in­terprets this as evidence for extended-family compounds. The general layout of the site, including the orientation of the streets and the excavation of a well, was organized at the level of the entire community. From these Garfinkel infers a three­level social hierarchy, with decision-making at the level of nu­clear family, extended family, and community. It is possible, however, that buildings and streets developed as a gradual in­filling of space instead of top-down decision making at the level of the community or extended family (Banning 2010:59).

More work is needed to determine whether the architectural pattern observed at Sha'ar Hagolan was employed elsewhere. Streets and courtyards may also be found at Ain Ghazal (Simmons 2007:211), although at that site structures seem to be less densely packed.

0 5m

Figure 32.2. Neolithic architecture of the southern Levant. a: Yarmoukian residential structure from 'Ain Ghazal; b: Yarmoukian courtyard structure from Sha'ar Hagolan; c: curvilinear Yarmoukian structures from ash­Shallaf; d: Jericho IX (PNA) architecture from Jericho Stage XXIX; e: rectilinear structures from Tabaqat ai-BOma Late Neolithic Level 3 (Wadi Rabah-related); f: Wadi Rabah broad-room structure from Wadi Rabah (after Banning 2010: Figs. 2, 5a, 7-9, 12).

Few Jericho IX sites have been extensively excavated. Excavations at Lod produced evidence for round, semi-sub­terranean structures (Gopher and Blackman 2004). Similar structures may occur in the Jericho IX layers at Jericho itself. However, Jericho's Trench I, Stage xxrx, in addition to many pits, exhibits a complex that appears to have several rooms and a courtyard with both straight and curvilinear walls built of stones and bun-shaped mud bricks (Kenyon 1981:94).

Evidence for architecture and intrasite social organiza­tion is also limited at Wadi Rabah sites. Rectilinear build­il}gs seem to be the norm, and there is some indication that these were usually unicellular 'broad-room' houses (Banning 2003, 2010). Some architectural variation does exist, however. Excavations at al-Basatin in Wadi Ziqlab have identified two small, rounded structures and a series of cobbled floors, which could have been covered with tents or some other perisha­ble material (Kadowaki et al. 2008; Gibbs et al. 2009). There

~ I c .. 0 a. 0 Ill Ill I a: Ill a. a. :a II. 0 u :z: .. ::; 0 Ill z Ill .. c ... Ill :z: .. Q z .. Ill a: a. a: Ill .. z

LATE NEO L ITHIC SOCIETY AND VILLAGE LIFE THE VIEW FROM THE SOUTHERN LEVANT 357

358 L ATE NEOLITHIC SOCIETY AND VILLAGE LIFE THE VI EW FROM THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

~ lE c '" 0 II. 0 Ill Ill lE a: Ill II. II. :I II. 0 ()

:z:

'" :; 0 Ill z Ill

'" c ... Ill :z:

'" ., z ;: Ill a: II. a: Ill

'" z

have been few investigations of intrasite social organization at Wadi Rabah sites. Banning (2003) suggests that the small grouping of rectangular structures at Tabaqat al-Buma in Wadi Ziqlab may represent an extended family homestead or a nuclear family farm with some non-residential structures. Kadowaki's (2007) analysis of the site suggests that at any given time over three successive phases of 6th-millennium cal. BCE occupation, only two or three structures were in use. Over time, domestic activities associated with these struc­tures became more segregated, with a decreased use of com­mon spaces. Increased segregation over time may also have occurred at Nahal Zehora II, which has both Yarmoukian and Wadi Rabah phases. An analysis of groundstone tools suggests that grain-processing activities occurred in commu­nal spaces during the Yarmoukian phase, but that during the Wadi Rabah phase these activities became associated with in­dividual households (Naveh 1998; Orrelle and Gopher 2ooo).

Little is known abbut the architecture of the aceramic Late Neolithic populations of the eastern desert. Indeed, our gen­eral understanding of this region during the Late Ne~lithic is poor. The sites of Jabal Tharwa 2 and Wisad include fair­ly substantial round structures, approximately 7 m in diam­eter. These may have been occupied by multifamily groups (Rollefson 2oo8b).

At present, little can be said about status differences within sites, including gender or class differences. Garfinkel (2oo2a:26o) suggests that the enclosedness of Yarmoukian courtyard structures at Sha'ar Hagolan may have served to seg­regate or protect women. Orrelle and Gopher (2ooo), mean­while, speculate that shifts in pottery decoration from the Yarmoukian to Wadi Rabah phase may reflect changing atti­tudes towards women in society. Possible prestige items, such as decorated pottery (Hayden 1995), stone bowls (Rosenberg et al. 2010), and maceheads (Rosenberg 2010), could be inter­preted as pointing to the emergence of'aggrandizers' (Hayden 1995). Mithen (2010) suggests that the well at Sha'ar Hagolan was another kind of status symbol.

The lack of surveys focused on the discovery of Late Neolithic sites limits our information on regional settlement patterns. Ben-Shlomo and Garfinkel (2009:198) suggest that Sha'ar Hagolan was a 'regional center,' implying that smaller Yarmoukian sites, such as ash-Shalaf and Jebel Abu Thawwab (Bienert and Vieweger 1999, 2ooo; Kafafi 2001), were in a pe­ripheral position. Yannai (2oo6:279-28o) argues that 'cen­tral settlements' also existed during the later part of the Late Neolithic, such as at En Esur and possibly in the Jezreel Valley in the vicinity of Hazorea, En Jarba, and Tell Abu Zureiq (Kaplan 1969; Anati et al. 1973; Garfinkel and Matskevich 2002), as well as at Horbat Uza (Getzov et al. 2009) and Tel Dan (Gopher and Greenberg 1996). Unlike the picture paint­ed by Ben-Shlomo and Garfinkel for Sha'ar Hagolan, how­ever, Yannai sees these as 'conglomerate sites' comprised of small, densely packed settlements that were not necessarily occupied simultaneously. The population of these spatially shifting sites at any given time may have been quite small. Bernbeck (this volume) and Akkermans et al. (2006:151; see

also Akkermans, this volume) have discussed the dynamic and shifting nature of sites in Upper Mesopotamia.

Research in Wadi Ziqlab has discovered several small 6th­millennium cal. BCE sites at various points along the wadi. Banning (2001) suggests that these comprised a dispersed or multi-sited community (compare Bernbeck 2008), which may have had a number of economic advantages over the large sin­gle-site communities that characterized the PPNB. Fir~t, the spacing of settlements would decrease competition for land and the average distance to agricultural fields. Second, com­petition between agricultural and pastoral land use could be more easily resolved through spacing and scheduling. Third, a dispersed settlement pattern would situate individual sites throughout the range of micro-environments that the wadi intersects, from the cooler, wetter highlands in the east to the hotter, drier Jordan Valley in the west. Fourth, as crops at different elevations would mature at different times of the year, labor-sharing could be employed with people moving between the highlands and lowlands as needed. Fifth, relying on a range of crops and other resources in different parts of the wadi basin would decrease agricultural risk. In addition to these economic advantages, there may have been social ad­vantages to this pattern of site organization (Gibbs 2oo8b). People would have had greater freedom to emphasize or de­emphasize social relationships, since they were not living in close spatial proximity. This stands in contrast to the crowd­ing that likely characterized habitation at Late PPNB 'mega­sites' (Kuijt 2000) and perhaps, to a lesser extent, at large Yarmoukian sites such as Sha'ar Hagolan.

With the available evidence, it is difficult to assess wheth­er the dispersed-community model could apply to other ar­eas of the southern Levant during the Late Neolithic. Perhaps some of Yannai's conglomerate sites could be interpreted in this way. Survey around the site of Jebel Abu Thawwab dis­covered numerous small Yarmoukian sites (Kafafi 2001), indi­cating that Banning's (2001) model may be applicable earlier in the Late Neolithic as well, unless, instead, the small sites in this region represent satellites or logistic camps (sensu Binford 1982) of the larger settlements.

It appears that a number of different settlement types and strategies existed within the Late Neolithic of the south­ern Levant. It is likely that the occupants of different types of sites interacted in a range of ways. At present, there is lit­tle evidence that these interactions were aggressive or vio­lent. Rosenberg (2009) suggests that high numbers of sling­stones found at the Wadi Rabah sites of Kabri and Hazorea may be the result of fighting or combat, although he offers alternative explanations for these tools as well, including the protection or control of herds, and ritualistic or competitive clashes between communities. Rosenberg also implies that the narrow shaft-holes in objects recently identified as Late Neolithic maceheads would have made them inefficient weap­ons (2010:214). Th~ scarcity of human burials from the Late Neolithic means that we can say little about skeletal evidence for combat or violence. However, we should also be mindful that this near lack of evidence does not constitute a demon-

stration that warfare was unknown, and could even be due, in part, to the way we typically interpret evidence we do find (e.g. projectiles for hunting, rather than for warfare; Bar­Yosef 2010; LeBlanc 2010; Guilaine 2010; Roksandic 2010). It is even conceivable that some of the reorganizations in settle­ment pattern, including both agglomeration into walled com­pounds and dispersion into narrow valleys, could have been defensive measures.

Limited evidence for longer-distance interaction suggests that the southern Levant had ties with other regions, includ­ing, areas to the north. Similarities between Wadi Rabah pot­tery and Halafian pottery, at least in vessel shape, have fre­quently been noted (Kaplan 1960; Garfinkel1999b). The Wadi Rabah site of Hagoshrim produced a group of chlorite bowls that were likely imported from northern Syria, Anatolia or perhaps Cyprus (Rosenberg et al. 2010). Obsidian and stamp seals from the site suggest that it may have been an important node in a long-distance interaction network.

In addition to changes in social organization and settle­ment patterns, the southern Levantine Late Neolithic also witnessed economic developments. For all the attention that archaeologists have paid to the emergence of food produc­tion during the PPN, one tends to forget that in the southern Levant it was during the Late Neolithic that an agricultur­al economy finally became firmly entrenched, at least in the Mediterranean woodland areas. New evidence has begun to point to agricultural transformations of landscapes, includ­ing the construction of check-dams and field terraces (Kuijt et al. 2007). Changes in the kinds and frequencies of projectile points, faunal remains, and other traces of hunting increas­ingly show that most wild resources were becoming unim­portant to subsistence, although hunting of some kind may still have had some social importance. Even fishing at coastal sites appears to have become less important than in earlier periods, although poor preservation may often be causing us to underestimate the role of marine resources.

One of the important developments of the Late Neolithic seems to be the emergence of pastoral nomadism as a signifi­cant economic strategy. Although domesticated goats can be found at Late PPNB sites (Kohler-Rollefson et al. 1988; Horowitz et al. 1999), their relative importance increased during the Late Neolithic. On the basis of evidence from Ain Ghazal, Kohler­Rollefson (1992) suggests that during the PPNC the deleterious effects of goats near the site divided the population into two groups: pastoralists who spent much of their time away from the site and farmers who were permanent residents. By the Yarmoukian period, this division was entrenched.

There is limited evidence for the exploitation of second­ary products from goats and perhaps other animals by Late Neolithic people. A 'proto-churn' from the Wadi Rabah lay­ers at Nahal Zehora I suggests dairy production (Orrelle and Gopher 2000:297). The common occurrence of 'spindle whorls' on Late Neolithic sites may indicate the use of goat or sheep hair in textile production (Gibbs 2oo8a), although flax was als.o likely used to produce textiles. Although the appear­ance of pottery in the southern Levant coincides somewhat

with the emergence of pastoral nomadism, there is no clear indication at present that pottery was adopted specifically to contain milk products (Gregg et al. 2009).

The use of olives is another Late Neolithic development that had enduring influence. The best evidence for olive use comes from submerged sites off the Carmel coast, where thousands of crushed olive pits have been recovered (Galili et al. 1997). It is difficult to determine whether these olives were from domesticated or wild trees - paleo-DNA analyses may soon determine this (Elbaum et al. 2006) - but their impor­tance in the local economy is clear.

· These same submerged sites offer evidence for regional variations in Late Neolithic subsistence strategies. Galili et al. (2004) suggest that during the PPNC, coastal areas first gave rise to 'Mediterranean fishing villages,' which combined agro­pastoralism and wide-scale exploitation of marine and coast­al resources. This strategy could have continued into the Late Neolithic in some areas, although there is little direct evidence for fishing in the Yarmoukian or Wadi Rabah.

We do not have space here to provide a thorough discus­sion of Late Neolithic material culture. Summaries can be found elsewhere (e.g. Gopher and Gophna 1993; Garfinkel 1999b). However, it is worth mentioning that pottery and lith­ics, like architecture, can be quite variable even across rather short distances. The sites of al-Basatin and Tabaqat al-Buma in Wadi Ziqlab are only about 6 km apart. While both have clear connections with sites attributed to the Wadi Rabah culture, detailed technological analyses of sickle elements and pottery have revealed a number of differences from each other and to Wadi Rabah sites (Kadowaki 2005; Banning 2007:82-85; Gibbs 2oo8b; Kadowaki et al. 2008). There are al­so differences in architecture and the exploitation of animals (Kadowaki et al. 2008).

RITUAL AND SYMBOLISM

During the Late Neolithic, social identities and boundaries would have been influenced by the regional variation and flexible relationships that seem to have characterized the pe­riod. The construction and maintenance of these identities and boundaries likely involved the use of material symbols (Cohen 1985). As with all symbols, the specific meanings at­tributed to these objects would have been polyvalent or mul­ti-referential as a result of the variability of backgrounds and experiences lived by different Late Neolithic individuals and groups. Different people, both within and between com­munities, would have interpreted these symbols in different ways. Although, as noted by Cohen (1985:19), 'everything ... may be grist to the mill of symbolism', certain kinds of non­utilitarian objects may have held specific roles in rituals, both at the level of the community and the household. Verhoeven (2002) suggests that figurines and decorated pottery would have been the primary types of ritual symbols in the Near Eastern Late Neolithic, and both are represented in the south-. ern Levant. Evidence for ritual and symbolism may also be sought in special activities, such as the burial of the dead, and in special or non-residential places, such as caves.

:! ::5 Ill ... 0 II. 0 Ill Ul ::5 a: Ul II. II. :I II. 0

u :z: ... ::; 0 Ul z Ul ... Ill .J

Ul :z: ... Cl z j: Ul a: II. a: Ul ... z

LATE NEOLITHIC SOCIETY AND VILLAGE LIFE THE VIEW FROM TH E SOUTHERN LEVANT 359

360 L ATE NEOLITHIC SOCIETY ANO VILLAGE LIFE THE VIEW FROM THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

~ ::E c .. 0 D. 0 Ill Ill ::E

a: Ill D. D. ;)

II. 0 Cl

:z: .. ::i 0 Ill z Ill .. c ... Ill :z: .. " z j: Ill a: D. a: Ill .. z

Figurines are fairly common at some Yarmoukian sites, most notably Sha'ar Hagolan and Munhata (Garfinkel 1995; Garfinkel and Miller 2002), but they are much rarer at Jericho IX and Wadi Rabah sites. Several varieties of Yarmoukian figurines have been discovered, but the seated cowrie-eyed clay figurines and incised pebble figurines have received the most attention (Figure 32.3; Stekelis 1973; Gopher and Orrelle 1996; Garfinkel et al. 2010). Many of the seated cowrie-eyed figurines have obvious female characteristics, leading some to suggest they played a role in fertility magic or were rep­resentations of a female deity (Stekelis 1973; Garfinkel 2004). Emphasizing their shared features, Miller (2002:232) suggests that the seated figurines represent a specific deified ancestor or 'Matron of the Yarmukian people', rather than a far-reach­ing Mother Goddess. Garfinkel et al. (2010) interpret this standardization as a mechanism for creating Yarmoukian identity and solidarity. However, as Peterson (2010) notes, the standardization of cowrie-eyed figurines may not be as clear cut as some studies have implied. Some figurines have obvi­ous male characteristics (e.g. Garfinkel 2004:188), and one ex­ample from Byblos seems to combine both male and female attributes (Peterson 201o:Fig. 6). Gopher and Orrelle (1996) argue that, in fact, each cowrie-eyed figurine contains a mix­ture of female and male characteristics and should, therefore, be interpreted in the context of the relationship between the sexes and the mutability of gender (but see Garfinkel1999a). As suggested for more northerly areas (e.g. Croucher 2008), figurines may indicate that gender roles in the Neolithic may have been rather fluid and multi-faceted.

Incised pebbles have also been interpreted in different ways. Some of these have pairs of linear incisions that likely represent eyes, and, in some cases, they have other details that suggest that they represent the human form. They are often in­terpreted as females, but obvious female features are typically not depicted, and they could just as easily represent males,

or un-gendered or intentionally gender-ambiguous figures. Garfinkel (2004) suggests that the pebbles with incised eyes may represent the same 'goddess' figure as the seated cow­rie-eyed figurines. Other incised pebbles have more abstract designs. Gopher and Orrelle (1996) argue that the abstract designs on some incised pebbles are meant to depict differ­ent stages of female physical development. However, others do not see them as representations of the human form at all. Eirikh-Rose (2004) sees a similarity between some incised pebbles and the patterns on stamp seals, and she suggests that they played similar roles as representations or symbols of individual or family identities. Garfinkel (2002b:184-185) describes some of them as sharpening stones. Zoomorphic Yarmoukian figurines have not been discussed to the same extent as seated cowrie-eyed figurines or pebble 'figurines.' Friekman and Garfinkel (2009) suggest that they may have played a role in practices of hunting magic.

Figurines are much less common at Jericho IX and Wadi Rabah sites. An incised pebble figurine was found in a reportedly Jericho IX context at Tel Te'o (Eisenberg et al. 2001:Fig. 9.6, 7), and one was recovered at the Wadi Rabah site of Abu Zureiq (Garfinkel and Matskevich 2002:Figs. 18.1, 21). Interestingly, both of these may show representations of female genitalia as well as stylized human facial features (Garfinkel and Matskevich 2002:162). Zoomorphic figurines have been recovered from Wadi Rabah strata at Munhata (Garfinkel1995), but it is conceivable that these are residu­als from earlier levels. There have been few attempts to ad­dress the decline in figurines in the later stages of the Late Neolithic. Rollefson (2oo8a) sees this decline as part of a long­er-term trend that began after the MPPNB. He suggests that the apparent abundance of Yarmoukian figurines compared to earlier periods may simply reflect the extensive excavations that have occurred at Yarmoukian sites. Nevertheless, further work is needed to understand why this trend occurred and

0 Scm

Figura 32.3. Yarmoukian figurines and incised pebbles from Sha'ar Hagolan. a: clay seated cowrie­eyed figurine (after Garfinkel et at. 2002:Fig. 13.11); b-d: anthropomorphic incised pebbles (after Stekelis 1972:PI. 46.1, 4, Pl. 52.1 ); e-t: incised pebbles (after Stekelis 1972:PI. 56.4, Pl. 57.11).

why it extended into the 6th millennium cal. BCE, especially when we consider that figurin~s re-emerge during the Late Chalcolithic. It is possible that the virtual absence of figurines from Wadi Rabah sites may relate to a more general shift to more ambiguous symbolism that may also be observed in pottery decoration (see below). It is also possible that it re­flects changing attitudes towards the body or shifts in gender roles. Until more evidence appears, perhaps it is best to con­clude simply that the 6th millennium cal. BCE witnessed a de­cline or change in domestic ritual or magic practices. Future investigations of southern Levantine figurines may benefit from cross-cultural comparisons that include examples from Upper Mesopotamia. These may, for example, explore simi­larities between the body positions of the seated cowrie-eyed figurines and female figurines from Halafian sites, or between the facial features of the Late Neolithic figurines and those from Ubaid sites.

The other dominant kind of potentially symbolical ar­tifact found on Late Neolithic sites is decorated pottery. In both Upper Mesopotamia and the southern Levant, decorated pottery can be found in early pottery contexts (Gopher and Goren 1995; Nieuwenhuyse, Akkermans and Van der Plicht 2010), although the development of pottery technology seems to follow different trajectories in each region. Unlike figu­rines, decorated pottery continued to be produced by Wadi Rabah people, although at Munhata it was more abundant in the Yarmoukian layers (Garfinkel1992). Perhaps this indicates that decorated pottery and figurines had roles in different symbolic spheres. Verhoeven (2002) suggests that decorated pottery was used in rituals at the community level. It is possi­ble that these rituals involved feasts (Hayden 1995). Figurines, on the other hand, may have been used primarily in domestic rituals (Verhoeven 2002). There have been few attempts to in­terpret the meanings of specific decorative motifs or elements on southern Levantine pottery. Orrelle and Gopher (2ooo) suggest that the repeated triangular motifs in the painted and incised decoration on Yarmoukian pots symbolize female sol­idarity. They suggest that changes in pottery decoration from the Yarmoukian to the Wadi Rabah periods reflect an increase in female isolation in social and economic contexts, indicating a change in the roles and freedoms of women in Late Neolithic society. Although their attempt to engage with the symbolic dimensions of pottery is laudable, the specific meanings at­tributed to particular decorative motifs (e.g. V shape = vulva) are debatable and the system of communication suggested by their analysis is perhaps overly rigid.

In fact, the symbolic meanings of pottery decoration were likely rather ambiguous, and there is some evidence to suggest that they became more ambiguous over time. Yarmoukian and Jericho IX pottery decoration includes easily recogniz­able and somewhat rigid motifs. This includes the character­istic incised herringbone pattern on Yarmoukian vessels and the painted and burnished triangles and zigzags on Jericho IX pots. Although difficult to quantify, it seems that Wadi Rabah pottery decoration was more variable, consisting of a range of incisions, impressions, slip and burnish, and, to a

lesser extent, paint and applique. This may suggest that the meanings of Wadi Rabah decorated pottery were more var­ied, flexible or ambiguous than the comparatively rigid mo­tifs ofYarmoukian and Jericho IX pottery. In addition, Wadi Rabah decoration can be described as simpler, in that it would have typically required fewer production steps to execute (cf.

Kerner 2001). As noted by Danesi (2009), simpler symbols tend to have a greater potential range of meanings than more complex ones, suggesting that Wadi Rabah pottery symbol­ism was more open to interpretation by Late Neolithic people. It should be noted that some of the changes observed between Yarmoukian and Wadi Rabah pottery may represent techno­logical developments rather than symbolic ones (e.g. Goren 1992; Kerner 2001). Future work should aim to understand the relationships between these developments.

A unique vessel with applied decoration on both sides from the site of En Jarba is worth mentioning, as it represents the best evidence for a possible depiction of the human form from a Wadi Rabah context (Kaplan 1969:16-18). Garfinkel (2003) in­terprets these figures as male, because each has an appendage between its legs; he suggests that they may be dancers wearing animal masks. However, the appendages could represent short tails suggesting the images portray animals or, perhaps, ani­mal skins (Bar-Yosef 1992:39). An intriguing alternative is that they represent animal-human hybrids, which would suggest that the boundaries between the animal and human realms could be blurred or ambiguous, at least in some contexts.

Some insights into Late Neolithic symbolism and ritual can also be gained through examination of burials and 'spe­cial' sites, although evidence is rather limited. Perhaps the most striking aspect of Late Neolithic mortuary practices is how they differed from those of the PPN. In particular, the practice of skull removal was largely abandoned by the Late Neolithic, although adult burials without skulls have been discovered from Late Neolithic contexts at Wadi Shu'eib, Munhata, Nahal Betzet, and Tel Te'o (Gopher and Orrelle 1995; Eisenberg et al. 2001; Simmons et al. 2001). Because the skulls were not found in separate, intentional burials, it is not certain that they were removed intentionally or whether some taphonomic process is responsible.

There is evidence for variation in burial practices with:­in the Late Neolithic, despite the limited number of burials that have been discovered. Late Neolithic burials can be ei­ther flexed or extended, and single, primary interments are the norm. Grave goods are rare, but a well-made cist grave at Tabaqat al-Buma in levels pre-dating the Wadi Rabah-era oc­cupation contained the remains of two adults along with sev­eral ceramic vessels (Banning et al. 1989). Another large cist grave in the same level contained the remains of a youth and an infant who wore a dentalium-shell necklace (Banning et al. 1996; Shafiq 1996). An adult burial at the site ofLod contained a possible bone tool (Gopher and Orrelle 1995). The unique jar decorated with a pair of human-like figures in applied deco­ration from the Wadi Rabah site of En Jarba (see above) was found in association with human bone and may have been deposited in a grave (Kaplan 1969).

~ :E c .. 0 II. 0 Ill Ill :E a: Ill II. II. :I II. 0

0 :1: .. ::i 0 Ill z Ill .. c ... Ill :1: .. Cl z ;:: Ill a: II. a: Ill .. z

LATE NEOLITHIC SOCIETY AND VILLAGE LIFE THE VIEW FROM THE SOUTHERN LEVANT 361

362 LATE NEOLITHIC SOCIETY ANO VILLAGE LIFE THE V I EW FROM THE SOU HERN LEVANT

~ :E c "' 0 II. 0 Ul Ill :E a: Ill II. II. :I II. 0 u :z:

"' :i 0 Ill z Ill

"' c ... Ill :z:

"' 0 z i= Ill a: II. a: Ill

"' z

Several child and infant burials have been recovered from Wadi Rabah sites and from the Jericho IX strata at Tel Te'o. Many of these were burials within jars, but they also occur in simple pits or cists. At Tabaqat al-Bftma in Wadi Ziqlab, buri­als of children and youths were found in shallow pits, within small stone cists, and in a clay-lined bin or silo under a layer of stones (Banning et al. 1992, 1994, 1996; Shafiq 1996). Orrelle and Gopher (2000:305) speculate that the frequency of child burials during the Late Neolithic may point to some level of inherited status.

Gopher and Orrelle (1995) argue that most Late Neolithic burials were located onsite, between or within houses or oth­er features. However, the infrequency of Late Neolithic buri­als, especially from Yarmoukian sites, strongly suggests that most of the population may have been buried offsite or that there were other means for the disposal of corpses. That most known Late Neolithic burials are associated with residential areas is probably due to the fact that archaeologists have rarely looked for them elsewhere, while the cemeteries, if they exist, may not be too obvious or easy to date, especially if the graves rarely contained grave goods. The cist graves at Tabaqat al­Bftma pre-date the occupation of the site and may be part of a Yarmoukian offsite cemetery. At the Wadi Rabah site ofNeve Yam, excavators discovered ten graves including stone-built and pit graves that contained the remains of 15 individuals (Galili et al. 2009). These were located in a well-defined burial area at some distance south of the dwelling area of the site.

Most Late Neolithic sites, and structures within those sites, seem to be domestic in nature with evidence for a range of activities, including food processing, cooking, flint-knap­ping, pottery production, and textile production. However, a small number of sites have been found in locations that may not be consistent with a domestic or utilitarian explanation. Notably, Yarmoukian pottery was found deep within the Nahal Qanah Cave (Gopher and Tsuk 1996). Apar~ from its location, there is nothing about this assemblage that is ob­viously ritual in nature. Even figurines that are common on some Yarmoukian sites are lacking from Nahal Qanah Cave. Wadi Rabah artifacts have also been found in or near caves at Hayonim (Khalaily et al. 1993) and al-Fureidis (Yannai 2007).

A unique Yarmoukian structure from Ain Ghazal has been described as having a public or ritual function (Rollefson 2000). Unlike the standard rectangular, mud­floored Late Neolithic buildings at the site, one end of the building was built with a shallow apse that incorporated an 'orthostat' in the center of the arc. The structure incorporated an earlier PPNB lime-plaster floor. Only decorated 'fine ware' pottery was found inside the structure's two rooms and im­mediately outside the building (Rollefson 2000). Although this building is unique in the Yarmoukian, we would cau­tion against a straightforward division between domestic and ritual structures during the Late Neolithic. As the excava­tions at <;atalhoyiik have demonstrated, residential buildings can be symbolically significant (Banning 2003:19; Hodder 2006). At Sha'ar Hagolan, for example, most figurines were recovered from 'domestic' contexts at the site (Miller 2002).

Furthermore, even if the 'orthostat' was a symbolically­charged stone, it could have occurred in a domestic context. At Tabaqat al-Bftma, a similarly large stone was centered in the southwest wall of a 'house' in Area G34, and vertical slabs consistently found next to house entrances at Shaqarat Mazyad in the MPPNB may have had ritual or symbolic sig­nificance (Hermansen and Jensen 2002).

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

In the southern Levant the predominant, if implicit belief that the Late Neolithic was a relatively uninteresting inter­mission between the more exciting developments of the PPN

and Late Chalcolithic periods is gradually giving way to the realization that it was more important, complex and varia­ble than previously assumed. It was during this period that the southern Levant's settled population became fully agri­cultural, no longer relying very much on hunted resources, and this population instituted new land-use regimes, includ­ing the development of field terracing (Kuijt et al. 2007). At this time too, specialized mobile pastoral groups probably be­gan the lifeway that would later become such a vital aspect of Middle Eastern society. While the abandonment of certain aspects of PPN technology may seem regrettable to some mod­ern lithic analysts, the fact is that the Late Neolithic also saw many technological developments, intluding the rapid adop­tion and adaption of pottery, the digging of wells (Garfinkel et al. 2006), possibly changes in textile production, probably the domestication of olive, likely the adoption or development of secondary products, especially dairying, and even refine­ment of certain classes of stone tools that were important in the new economy, such as sickle elements. Important social and ideological changes during the Late Neolithic, including changes in mortuary practices and settlement organization, are probably just small hints of changes in society that were quite radical departures from the PPN. They created the con­ditions for further social change in the Chalcolithic. Rather than dismissing the regionalization and variability that char­acterized the Late Neolithic as the result of social or cultural collapse, these should be explored in the context of complex and flexible social relationships that surely continued into lat­er periods.

In addition, and despite the impression that Late Neolithic 'cultures' were more localized than their extensive PPN coun­terparts, we still see much evidence for ties between the south­ern Levant and the north. This evidence includes pottery it­self, and especially the traditions of burnished and painted pottery. Kaplan (1960) long ago noted the similarity, in some respects, between Wadi Rabah forms and Halaf ones, and, particularly in light of Campbell's (2007) argument for the ar­tificiality of such categories, we can perhaps see the combi­nations of similarities and differences among various south­ern and northern sites as evidence for extensive networks of social and economic interactions. The occasional discovery of obsidian and other 'exotic' materials (e.g. chlorite) on Late Neolithic sites in the southern Levant shows that these inter­actions sometimes occurred over long distances, at least indi-

rectly, while some traditions, such as the production of incised pebbles, were shared with Cyprus and show that they extend­ed across the sea as well (Stewart and Rupp 2004). Future re­search may well lead to the recognition of the Late Neolithic as a pivotal episode in the development of the southern Levant's social, economic, and symbolic fabric.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank the organizers of the conference and the editors of the resulting volume for inviting us to contrib­ute this paper. We also thank three af.lonymous reviewers for useful and insightful comments.

REFERENCES

Akkermans, Peter M.M.G., Rene Cappers, Chiara Cavallo, Olivier Nieuwenhuyse, Bonnie Nilhamn and Iris Otte. 2006. Investigating the Early Pottery Neolithic of Northern Syria: New Evidence from Tell Sabi Abyad. American Journal of Archaeology 110 (1):123-156.

Anati, Emmanuel, Moshe Avnimelech, Nicu Haas, and Ezra Meyerhof. 1973. Hazorea I. Brescia: Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici.

Banning, Edward B. 1996. Highlands and Lowlands: Problems and Survey Frameworks for Rural Archaeology in the Near East. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 301:25-45.

Banning, Edward B. 2001. Settlement and Economy in Wadi Ziqlab during the Late Neolithic. In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VII: Jordan by the Millennia, edited by the Department of Antiquities ofJordan, pp. 149-156. Amman: Department of Antiquities.

Banning, Edward B. 2003. Housing Neolithic Farmers. Near Eastern Archaeology 66:4-21.

Banning, Edward B. 2oo?. Wadi Rabah and Related Assemblages in the Southern Levant: Interpreting the Radiocarbon Evidence. Paleorient 33 (1):77-102.

Banning, Edward B. 2010. Houses, Households, and Changing Society in the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant. Paleorient 36 (1):45-83.

Banning, Edward B., R. Robin Dads, John J. Field, Ian Kuijt, J. Mccorriston, Julian Siggers, H. Ta'ani and J. Triggs. 1989. Wadi Ziqlab Project 1987: A Preliminary Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 33:43-58.

Banning, Edward B., R. Robin Dads, John J. Field, S. L. Maltby, J. Mccorriston, Steve Monckton, R. Rubenstein and P. Sheppard. 1992. Tabaqat al-Buma: 1990 Excavations at a Kebaran and Late Neolithic Site in Wadi Ziqlab. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 36:43-69.

Banning, Edward B., Dan Rahimi and Julian Siggers. 1994. The Late Neolithic of the Southern Levant: Hiatus, Settlement Shift or Observer Bias? The Perspective from Wadi Ziqlab. Paleorient 20 (2):151-164.

Banning, Edward B., Dan Rahimi, Julian Siggers and Hikmat Ta'ani. 1996. The 1992 Season of Excavations in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 40:29-49·

Bar-Yosef, Ofer. 1992. The Neolithic Period. In The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, edited by Amnon Ben-Tor, pp. 10-39. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Bar-Yosef, Ofer. 2010. Warfare in the Early Neolithic. A Hypothesis to be Considered. Neo-Lithics 1/10:6-10.

Ben-Shlomo, David, and YosefGarfinkel. 2009. Sha'ar Hagolan and New Insights on Near Eastern Proto-Historic Urban Concepts. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28 (2):189-209.

Bernbeck, Reinhard. 2008. An Archaeology of Multi-Sited Communities. In The Archaeology of Mobility: Old World and New World Nomadism, edited by Hans Barnard and Willeke Wendrich, pp. 43-77. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles.

Bienert, Hans-Dieter, and Dieter Vieweger. 1999. Archaeological Excavations at the Late Neolithic Site of Ash-Shalaf: A Preliminary Report on the 1998 Season. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 43:49-67.

Bienert, Hans-Dieter, and Dieter Vieweger. 2000. Archaeological Excavations at the Late Neolithic Site of Ash-Shalaf in Northern Jordan: A Preliminary Report on the 1999 Season. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 44:109-118.

Binford, Lewis R. 1982. The Archaeology of Place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1 (1):5-31.

Bourke, Stephen J. 2007. The Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic Transition at Teleilat Ghassul: Context, Chronology and Culture. Paleorient 33 (1):15-32.

Campbell, Stuart. 1999. Archaeological Constructs and Past Reality on the Upper Euphrates. In Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates: The Tishrin Dam Area. Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Barcelona, January 28th-3oth 1998, edited by Gregorio Del Olmo Lete and Juan-Luis Montero Fenoll6s, pp. 573-583. Sabadell: AUSA.

Campbell, Stuart. 2007. Rethinking Halaf Chronologies. Paleorient 33 (1):103-136.

Campbell, Stuart, and Carter S. Phillips. 2003. Prehistoric Pottery from Trenches V, VI and VII, Part 1: A Commentary on the Earlier Prehistoric Pottery (Trenches V and VII). In Excavations at Arjoune, Syria, edited by Peter J. Parr, pp. 31-70. BAR International Series 1134. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Cohen, Anthony P. 1985. The Symbolic Construction of Community. London: Tavistock.

Croucher, Karina. 2008. Ambiguous Genders? Alternative Interpretations: A Discussion of Case Studies from the Pre­Pottery Neolithic and Halaf Periods. In Gender through Time in the Ancient Near East, edited by Diane Bolger, pp. 21-51. New York: AltaMira Press.

Danesi, Marcel. 2009. X-Rated: The Power of Mythic Symbolism in Popular Culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dunand, Maurice. 1973. Fouilles de Byblos V: l'architecture, les tombes, le materiel domestique, des origines neolithiques a l'avenement urbain. Paris: Geuthner.

. Eirikh-Rose, Anna. 2004. Geometric Patterns on Pebbles: Early Identity Symbols? In Neolithic Revolution: New Perspectives on Southwest Asia in Light of Recent Discoveries on Cyprus, edited by Edgar Peltenburg and Alexander Wasse, pp. 145-162. Oxford: Oxbow.

Eisenberg, Emanuel, Avi Gopher and Raphael Greenberg. 2001. Tel Te'o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

~ :E c ... 0 a. 0 Ill Ill :E a: Ill a. a. :I II. 0 ()

:z: ... ::; 0 Ill z Ill ... c ... Ill :z: ...

" z ;: Ill a: a. a: Ill ... z

LATE NEOLITHIC SOCIETY AND VILLAGE LIFE THE VIEW FROM THE SOUTHERN LEVANT 363

364 L ATE NEOLITH IC SOCIET Y AND VILLAGE LIFE THE V I EW FROM THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

~ I c .. 0 II. 0 rt Ill I a: Ill II. II. !:1 II. 0 u % .. :i 0 Ill z Ill .. c .I

Ill % .. Cl z j: Ill a: II. a: Ill .. !

Elbaum, Rivka, Cathy Melamed-Bessudo, Elisabetta Boaretto, Ehud Galili, Simcha Lev-Yadun, Avraham A. Levy and Steve Weiner. 2006. Ancient Olive DNA in Pits: Preservation, Amplification and Sequence Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 33:77-88.

Freikman, Michael, and Yosef Garfinkel. 2009. The Zoomorphic Figurines from Sha'ar Hagolan: Hunting Magic Practices in the Neolithic Near East. Levant 41 (1):5-17.

Galili, Ehud, Daniel J. Stanley, Jacob Sharvit and Mina Weinstein-Evron. 1997. Evidence for Earliest Olive-Oil Production in Submerged Settlements off the Carmel Coast, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:1141-1150.

Galili, Ehud, Avi Gopher, Baruch Rosen and Liora K. Horwitz. 2004. The Emergence of the Mediterranean Fishing Village in the Levant and the Anomaly of Neolithic Cyprus. In Neolithic Revolution: New Perspectives on Southwest Asia in Light of Recent Discoveries on Cyprus, edited by Edgar Peltenburg and Alexander Wasse, pp. 91-101. Oxford: Oxbow.

Galili, Ehud, Vered Eshed, Baruch Rosen, Mordechai E. Kislev, Orit Simchoni, Israel Hershkovitz and Avi Gopher. 2009. Evidence for a Separate Burial Ground at the Submerged Pottery Neolithic Site of Neve-Yam, Israel. Paleorient 35 (1):31-46.

Garfinkel, Yosef (ed). 1992. The Pottery Assemblages of the Sha'ar Hagolan and Rabah Stages of Munhata (Israel). Paris: Association Paleorient.

Garfinkel, Yosef. 1995. Human and Animal Figurines of Munhata (Israel). Paris: Association Paleorient.

Garfinkel, Yosef. 1999a. Facts, Fiction, and Yarmukian Figurines. Cambridge Archaeological Journal9:130-132.

Garfinkel, Yosef. 1999b. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University ofJerusalem.

Garfinkel, Yosef. 2002a. Conclusions: The Effect of Population Size on the Human Organization at Sha'ar Hagolan. In Sha'ar Hagolan I: Neolithic Art in Context, edited by Yosef Garfinkel and Michele A. Miller, pp. 257-262. Oxford: Oxbow.

Garfinkel, Yosef. 2002b. The Stone Tools. In Sha'ar Hagolan I: Neolithic Art in Context, edited by Yosef Garfinkel and Michele A. Miller, pp. 182-186. Oxford: Oxbow.

Garfinkel, Yosef. 2003. Dancing at the Dawn of Agriculture. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Garfinkel, Yosef. 2004. The Goddess ofSha'ar Hagolan: Excavations at a Neolithic Site in Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. ...

Garfinkel, Yosef. 2006. The Social Organization at Neolithic Sha'ar Hagolan: The Nuclear Family, the Extended Family and the Community. In Domesticating Space: Construction, Community, and Cosmology in the Late Prehistoric Near East, edited by Edward B. Banriing and Michael Chazan, pp. 103-111. Berlin: ex oriente.

Garfinkel, Yosef, and David Ben-Shlomo. 2002. Architecture and Village Planning in Area E. In Sha'ar Hagolan I: Neolithic Art in Context, edited by Yosef Garfinkel and Michele A. Miller, pp. 55-70. Oxford: Oxbow.

Garfinkel, Yosef. and David Ben-Shlomo (eds). 2010. Sha'ar Hagolan II: The Rise of Urban Concepts in the Ancient Near East. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University ofJerusalem, Institute of Archaeology.

Garfinkel, Yosef, David Ben-Shlomo, and Naomi Korn (eds). 2010. Sha'ar Hagolan III: Symbolic Dimensions of the Yarmukian Culture: Canonization in Neolithic Art. Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University.

Garfinkel, Yosef, and Zinovi Matskevich. 2002. Abu Zureiq, a Wadi Rabah Site in the Jezreel Valley: Final Report of the 1962 Excavations. Israel Exploration Journal 52:129-166.

Garfinkel, Yosef, and Michele A. Miller (eds). 2002. Sha'ar Hagolan I: Neolithic Art in Context. Oxford: Oxbow.

Garfinkel, Yosef, Ariel Vered and Ofer Bar-Yosef. 2006. The Domestication of Water: The Neolithic Well at Sha'ar Hagolan, Jordan Valley, Israel. Antiquity 80:686-696.

Getzov, Nimrod, Ronny Lieberman-Wander, Howard Smithline and Danny Syon. 2009. Horbat 'Uza: The 1991 Excavations. Volume I: The Early Periods. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Gibbs, Kevin. 2oo8a. Pierced Clay Disks and Late Neolithic Textile Production. In Proceedings of the sth International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Universidad Aut6noma de Madrid, April3-8 2006, edited by Joaquin Cordoba, Miquel Molist, M. Carmen Perez, Isabel Rubio and Sergio Martinez, pp. 89-96. Madrid: Ediciones Universidad Autonoma de Madrid .

Gibbs, Kevin. 2oo8b. Understanding Community: A Comparison of Three Late Neolithic Pottery Assemblages from Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan. PhD Thesis, University of Toronto.

Gibbs, Kevin, Seiji Kadowaki and Edward B. Banning. 2009. Mid­Holocene Occupations at al-Basatin in Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan. Antiquity 83. http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/ projgall/ ban-ning322/. Last accessed 5.2.2011. '

Gilead, Isaac. 1990. The Neolithic-Chalcolithic Transition and the Qatifian of the Northern Negev and Sinai. Levant 22:47-63.

Gilead, Isaac. 2007. The Besorian: A Pre-Ghassulian Cultural Entity. Paleorient 33(1):33-50.

Gopher, Avi, and Noga Blackman. 2004. Excavations at Lad (Neve Yaraq) and the Lodian Culture of the Pottery Neolithic Period. Atiqot 47:1-50.

Gopher, A vi, and Ram Gophna. 1993. Cultures of the Eighth and Seventh Millennia BP in the Southern Levant: A Review for the 1990s. Journal of World Prehistory 7:297-353.

Gopher, A vi, and Yuval Goren. 1995. The Beginning of Pottery. In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, edited by Thomas E. Levy, pp. 224-225. London: Leicester University Press.

Gopher, A vi, and Raphael Greenberg. 1996. The Pottery Neolithic Levels. In Dan I: A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs, edited by Avraham Biran, David Ilan, and Raphael Greenberg, pp. 67-81. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology.

Gopher, A vi, and Estelle Orrelle. 1995. New Data on Burials from the Pottery Neolithic Period (Sixth-Fifth Millennium BC) in Israel. In The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, ed­ited by Stuart Campbell and Anthony Green, pp. 24-28. Oxford: Oxbow.

Gopher, Avi, and Estelle Orrelle. 1996. An Alternative Interpretation for the Material Imagery of the Yarmukian, a Neolithic Culture of the Sixth Millennium BC in the Southern Levant. Cambridge Archaeological Journal6:255-279.

Gopher, Avi, and Tsvika Tsuk. 1996. The Nahal Qanah Cave: Earliest Gold in the Southern Levant. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology.

Goren, Yuval. 1992. Petrographic Study of the Pottery Assemblage from Munhata. In The Pottery Assemblages of the Sha'ar Hagolan and Rabah Stages of Munhata, edited by Yosef Garfinkel, pp. 329-342. Paris: Association Paleorient.

Gregg, Michael, Edward B. Banning, Kevin Gibbs and Greg F. Slater. 2009. Subsistence Practices and Pottery Use in Neolithic Jordan: Molecular and Isotopic Evidence. journal of Archaeological Science 36:937-946.

Guilaine, Jean. 2010. Neolithic Warfare: Comments. Neo-Lithics 1/10:38-39.

Hai'dar-Boustani, Maya, Juan Jose Ibanez, Michel Al-Maqdissi, Angel Armendariz, Jesus Gonzalez Urquijo, and Luis Teira. 2007. New Data on the Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic of the Horns Gap: Three Campaigns of Archaeological Survey (2004-2006). Neo­Lithics 1/07:3-9·

Hayden, Brian. 1995. The Emergence of Prestige Technologies and Pottery. In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes, pp. 257-265. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Hermansen, Bo Dahl, and Charlott Hoffmann Jensen. 2002. Notes on Some Features of Possible Ritual Significance at MPPNB

Shaqarat Mazyad, Southern Jordan. In Magic Practices and Ritual in the Near Eastern Neolithic, edited by Hans G. Gebel, BoD. Hermansen, and Charlott Hoffmann Jensen, pp. 91-101. Berlin: ex oriente.

Hodder, Ian. 2006. (:atalhoyuk, The Leopard's Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Turkey's Ancient 'Town'. London: Thames and Hudson.

Horowitz, Liora K., Eitan Tchernov, Pierre Ducos, Cornelia Becker, Angela von den Driesch, Louise Martin and Andrew Garrard. 1999. Animal Domestication in the Southern Levant. Paleorient 25 (2):63-80.

Kadowaki, Seiji. 2005. Designs and Production Technology of Sickle Elements in Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan. Paleorient 31 (2):69-85.

Kadowaki, Seiji. 2007. Changing Community Life at a Late Neolithic Farmstead: Built Environments and the Use of Space at Tabaqat al-Buma in Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan. PhD disserta­tion, Department of Anthropology. University of Toronto.

Kadowaki, Seiji, Kevin Gibbs, Adam Allentuck and Edward B. Banning. 2008. Late Neolithic Settlement in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan: al-Basatin. Paleorient 34 (1):105-129.

Kafafi, Zeidan A. 1998. The Late Neolithic in Jordan. In The Prehistoric Archaeology of jordan, edited by Donald 0. Henry, pp. 127-138. BAR International Series 705. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Kafafi, Zeidan A. 2001. jebel Abu Thawwab (Er-Rumman), Central jordan: The Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age I Occupations. Berlin: ex oriente.

Kafafi, Zeidan A. 2006. Domestic Activities at the Neolithic Site, 'A in Ghazal. In Domesticating Space: Construction, Community, and Cosmology in the Late Prehistoric Near East, edited by Edward B. Banning and Michael Chazan, pp. 81-89. Berlin: ex oriente.

Kaplan, J. 1958. Excavations at Wadi Rabah. Israel Exploration ]ournal8:149-16o.

Kaplan, J. 1960. The Relation of the Chalcolithic Pottery of Palestine to Halafian Ware. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 159:32-36.

Kaplan, J. 1969. 'Ein el Jarba: Chalcolithic Remains in the Plain of Esdraelon. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 194:2-39·

Kenyon, Kathleen M. 1981. Excavations at jericho III: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

Kerner, Susanne. 2001. Pottery Decoration as a Medium to Examine Specialised Production in the Sixth to Fourth Millennia BC. In Studies in the History and Archaeology of jordan VII: jordan by the Millennia, edited by the Department of Antiquities ofJordan, pp. 157-162. Amman: Department of Antiquities.

Khalaily, Hamoudi, Yuval Goren and Fran<;:ois R. Valla. 1993. A Late Pottery Neolithic Assemblage from Hayonim Terrace, Western Galilee. journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 25:132-144·

Kohler-Rollefson, Ilse. 1992. A Model for the Development of Nomadic Pastoralism on the Transjordanian Plateau. In Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives, edited by Ofer Bar-Yosef and Anatoly Khazanov, pp. 11-18. Madison: Prehistory Press.

Kohler-Rollefson, Ilse, William Gillespie and Mary Metzger. 1988. The Fauna from Neolithic 'Ain Ghazal. In The Prehistory of jordan: the State of Research in 1986, edited by Andrew Garrard and Hans G. Gebel, pp. 101-134. BAR International Series 396. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Kuijt, Ian. 2000. People and Space in Early Agricultural Villages: Exploring Daily Lives, Community Size, and Architecture in the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic. journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19:75-102.

Kuijt, Ian, Bill Finlayson and Jade Mackay. 2007. Pottery Neolithic Landscape Modification at Dhra'. Antiquity 81:106-118.

LeBlanc, Steven A. 2010. Early Neolithic Warfare in the Near East and its Broader Implications. Neo-Lithics 1/10:40-49.

Lovell, Jaimie, and Yorke Rowan (eds). 2010. Culture, Chronology, and the Chalcolithic. Oxford: Oxbow.

Mellaart, James. 1956. The Neolithic Site of Ghrubba. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of jordan 3:24-40.

Miller, Michele A. 2002. The Function of the Anthropomorphic Figurines: A Preliminary Analysis. In Sha'ar Hagolan I: Neolithic Art in Context, edited by Yosef Garfinkel and Michele A. Miller, pp. 221-233. Oxford: Oxbow.

Mithen, Steven. 2010. The Domestication of Water: Water Management in the Ancient World and its Prehistoric Origins in the Jordan Valley. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 368:5249-5274.

Naveh, Dan. 1998. Patterns of Activity in the Pottery Neolithic Site of Nahal Zehora II Based on Groundstone Tools and Grain Distribution. In Proceedings of the XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, pp. 469-473. Forli: A.B.A.C.O.

Nieuwenhuyse, Olivier, Peter M.M.G. Akkermans and Johannes Van der Plicht. 2010. Not so Coarse, nor Always Plain: The Earliest Pottery of Syria. Antiquity 8471-85.

Orrelle, Estelle, and A vi Gopher. 2000. The Pottery Neolithic Period: Questions about Pottery Decoration, Symbolism, and Meaning. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, edited by Ian Kuijt, pp. 295-308. New York: Kluwer Academic.

~ ~ Cl ... 0 II. 0 rn Ill ~

a: Ill II. II. :I II. 0 C)

:z: ... ::i 0 Ill z Ill ... Cl .I

Ill :z: ... Cl z j: Ill a: II. a: Ill ... z

LATE NEOLITHIC SOCIETY AND VILLAGE LIFE THE VIEW FROM THE SOUTHERN LEVANT 365

366 LATE NEOLITHIC SOCIETY AND VILLAGE LIFE THE V I EW FROM THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

~ :E c .. 0 II. 0 Ill Ul :E IE ll II. II. :)

... 0 1.1

i .. ::i 0 Ul z Ill .. c ..1

Ul :z: .. G z ;:: Ill IE II. IE Ill .. z

Peterson, Jane. 2010. Domesticating Gender: Neolithic Patterns from the Southern Levant. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29:249-264.

Roksandic, Mirjana. 2010. Commentary on 'Warfare in Levantine Early Neolithic: A Hypothesis to be Considered'. Neo­Lithics I/Io:s9-61.

Rollefson, Gary 0. 1997. Changes in Architecture and Social Organization at 'A in Ghazal. In The Prehistory of Jordan II: Perspectives from 1997. edited by Hans G. Gebel, Zeidan A. Kafafi and Gary 0. Rollefson, pp. 287-308. Berlin: ex oriente.

Rollefson, Gary 0. 2000. Ritual and Social Structure at Neolithic 'Ain Ghazal. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, edited by Ian Kuijt, pp. 165-190. New York: Kluwer Academic.

Rollefson, Gary 0. 2008a. Charming Lives: Human and Animal Figurines in the Late Epipaleolithic and Early Neolithic Periods in the Greater Levant and Eastern Anatolia. In The Neolithic Deomographic Transition and its Consequences, edited by Jean­Pierre Bocquet and Ofer Bar-Yosef, pp. 387-416. Dordrecht: Springer.

Rollefson, Gary 0. 2oo8b. The Neolithic Period. In Jordan: An Archaeological Reader, edited by Russell B. Adams, pp. 71-108. London: Equinox.

Rosenberg, Danny. 2009. Flying Stones: The Slingstones of the Wadi Rabah Culture of the Southern Levant. Paleorient 35 (2):99-112.

Rosenberg, Danny. 2010. Early Maceheads in the Southern Levant: A 'Chalcolithic' Hallmark in Neolithic Context. Journal of Field Archaeology 35 (2):204-216.

Rosenberg, Danny, Nimrod Getzov, and Ammnon Assaf. 2010. New Light on Long-Distance Ties in the Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic Near East. Current Anthropology 51 (2):281-293.

Sadeh, Shelley. 1994. Pottery of the Fifth Millennium BC in Israel and Neighbouring Regions. PhD Dissertation, Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, Tel Aviv University.

Shafiq, Rula N. 1996. Histological Investigation of Late Neolithic Agriculturist Settlement in Northern Jordan. MSc Thesis, Department of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford.

Simmons, Alan H., Gary 0. Rollefson, Zeidan A. Kafafi, Rolfe D. Mandel, Maysoon Al-Nahar, Jason Cooper, lise Kohler-Rollefson and Kathy Roler Durand. 2001. Wadi Shu'eib, a Large Neolithic Community in Central Jordan: Final Report of Test Excavations . Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 321:1-39.

Simmons, Alan H. 2007. The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East: Transforming the Human Landscape. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Stekelis, Moshe. 1972. The Yarmoukian Culture of the Neolithic Period. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Stewart, Sarah Tyrell, and David W. Rupp. 2004. Tools and Toys or Traces of Trade: The Problem of the Enigmatic Incised Objects from Cyprus and the Levant. In Neolithic Revolution: New Perspectives on Southwest Asia in Light of Recent Discoveries on Cyprus, edited by Edgar Peltenburg and 1\lexander Wasse, pp . 163-173. Oxford: Oxbow.

Varberg, Jeanette. 2007. Dawn of a New Age: The Late Neolithic as Third Space. In Encounters, Materialities, Confrontations: Archaeologies of Social Space and Interaction, edited by Per Cornell and Fredrik Fahlander, pp. 58-82. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.

Verhoeven, Marc. 2002. Transformation; of Society: The Changing Role of Ritual and Symbolism in the PPNB and the PN in the Levant, Syria and South-East Anatolia. Paleorient 28 (1):5-13.

Yannai, Eli. 2006. 'En Esur ('Bin Asawir) I: Excavations at a Protohistoric Site in the Coastal Plain of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Yannai, Eli. 2007. El-Fureidis: Final Report. Hadashot Arkheologiyot- Excavations and Surveys in Israel119. http://www. hadashotesi.org.il!report_detail_eng.asp?id=51I&mag_id=II2. Last accessed 5.2.2011.