The Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods in the Southern Levant: New data from the site of Teleilat Ghassul Jordan 9781841712635, 9781407353258

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of figures
List of plates
List of endplates
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
Introduction
Chapter 1: Background to the Research
Chapter 2: Reconstructing the environmental context
Chapter 3: The Stratigraphy of Area A at Teleilat Ghassul
Chapter 4: The Ceramic Type Series
Chapter 5: The sequence at Teleilat Ghassul in context
Chapter 6: Conclusions
Appendices
Figures
Plates
Bibliography
Endplates

Citation preview

BAR S974 2001 LOVELL THE LATE NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC PERIODS IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

B A R

Monographs of the Sydney University Teleilat Ghassul Project 1

The Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods in the Southern Levant New data from the site of Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan

Jaimie L. Lovell

BAR International Series 974 2001

Monographs of the Sydney University Teleilat Ghassul Project 1

The Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods in the Southern Levant New data from the site of Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan

Jaimie L. Lovell

BAR International Series 97 4 2001

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 974 Monographs of the Sydney University Teleilat Ghassul Project 1 The Late Neolithic and Cha/eolithic Periods in the Southern Levant

© JL Lovell and the Publisher 2001 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841712635 paperback ISBN 9781407353258 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841712635 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd/ Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2001. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

EMAIL

PHONE FAX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS Contents List of figures List of plates List of endplates Acknowledgements Abbreviations Introduction Chapter 1:The history ofresearch Teleilat Ghassul and the Chalcolithic Period Post-war period Recent research and regional assemblages The re-excavation ofTeleilat Ghassul The last twenty years Late Neolithic ceramic assemblages: Yarmoukian Jericho PNA/Jericho IX and the Lodian The Wadi Rabah Horizon Wadi Rabah Variants The Qatifian and Besorian Chalcolithic ceramic asemblages: The Tsafian Cream Ware The Ghassul/Beersheva horizon Socio-economic development

iv V V

vi vii viii

1 1

2 3 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8

Chapter 2: Reconstructing the environmental context Geographical setting Present day topography and rainfall The general picture for the Holocene in the Near East Specific data relating to the Dead Sea Geological processes since the Chalcolithic General background subsistence in the Chalcolithic Lithics Ceramics Architecture Changes in environmental expoitation Animals for transport and traction Specific data on subsistence Archaeozoological data Archaebotanical data Resources available to communities in the Dead Sea Copper Salt Bitumen Conclusions

11

Chapter 3: The Stratigraphy of Area A at Teleilat Ghassul Introduction Stratigraphy AX and AXI, Methodology under Bourke Method Finds Area A, Sondage XI Phase J Phase I PhaseH Phase G Phase F PhaseE PhaseD Area A, Sondage X Phase J Phase I

19 19 19

11

12 12 13

14 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 18

20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22

22 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 26

Phase H Phase GH Phase G Phase F Phase E Phase D Phase C Hennessy's sequence Method Finds Area A, Square II Phase I/H Phase G Phase F Phase E Phase D Phase C Phase B Phase A Phase A+ Area A, Square III Phase I/H Phase G Phase F Phase E Phase D Phase C Phase B Phase A Phase A+ Summary of the architectural sequence Conclusion

27 27 27 27

Chapter 4: The ceramic sequence The development of typologies in the Near East The Teleilat Ghassul Sequence Excavation Post-excavation Presentation of the data Fabric distinctions The catalogue The Late Neolithic phases (J, I and H) The Early Chalcolithic phase (G and GH) The Middle Chalcolithic phases (F, D and E) The Late Chalcolithic phase (C, B, A and A+) Fabric/form correlations General trends Discussion Estimated vessel equivalents Specific chemical studies PIXE/PIGME results Ceramics and socio-economic theory Ethnographic context for potting in prehistory Standardisation and specialisation at Teleilat Ghassul Variabilty Final Remarks

29

29 30 30 30

31 31 32 33

33 34 34 35 35 36 36 36 37 37 38 39 39

40

Chapter 5: The sequence in context Periodisation and "ceramic cultures" Jericho VIII and IX The stratigraphic evidence Ceramic parallels Remarks

41 41

42 42 43

44

ii

Radiometric dates for the Late Neolithic-Late Chalcolithic Typological correlations Summary of the implications for Late Neolithic-Chalcolithic settlement

44 46

Chapter 6: Conclusions The Late Neolithic to Late Chalcolithic development The Late Chalcolithic Teleilat Ghassul in a Regional Context

49 49 49

Appendices Appendix A: Locus Level lists Appendix B: PIXE/PIGME sample list Appendix C: Radiocarbon dates for the southern Levant Map3Key

52

47

51 52 68 69 75

Figures Plates

83 224

Bibliography

244

Endplates Map 1 Map2 Map3

257 258 259

111

List of figures 1.1 1.2

Plan of PBI work at Teleilat Ghassul Plan of PBI excavated houses at Teleilat Ghassul

83 84

2.1 2.2

Major geographical units oflsrael and Palestine (after Horowitz 1979) The extent of the postulated high stand of the Dead Sea

85 85

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18

Plan ofBSAJ/USyd excavated areas at Teleilat Ghassul Teleilat Ghassul 1994-7, section AXI AXI Harris matrix Composite plan of Area A, phases H and I Composite plan of Area A, phase G Composite plan of Area A, phase F Composite plan of Area A, phase E Composite plan of Area A, phase D Composite plan of Area A, phase C Composite plan of Area A, phase B Composite plan of Area A, phase A Teleilat Ghassul 1994-7, section AX AX Harris matrix Teleilat Ghassul 1967-77, section All All Harris matrix Teleilat Ghassul 1967-77, section AIII AIII Harris matrix Additional sections (AIII, phase E)

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103

4.lff 4.1-10 4.11-18 4.19-30 4.31-47 4.48 4.49 4.50 4.51 4.52 4.53 4.54 4.55 4.56 4.57 4.58 4.59 4.60

105 106 126 142 166 200 201 201 202 202 203 203 204 204 205 205 206

4.61 4.62 4.63 4.64 4.65 4.66

Ceramic catalogue Late Neolithic corpus Early Chalcolithic corpus Middle Chalcolithic corpus Late Chalcolithic corpus The relative frequencies of vessel types calculated via diagnostics only The correlation of fabrics to vessel types for Phases J-I Percentage of lOdM and lOeM to G 10 sherds in the early phases Correlation of fabrics to vessel types in phase G Correlation of fabric to vessel types in Phase F Correlation of fabric and vessel type for Phase E Correlation of fabric to vessel type for Phase D Correlation of fabric to vessel types for phase C Correlation of fabrics to vessel types for phase B Correlation of fabric to vessel type for phase A Correlation of fabric to vessel type for phase A+ Multiple pie charts showing fabric groups by phase Multiple pies showing relative frequency of fabrics calculated from diagnostic pieces only Decoration type variation expressed as a percentage Table showing appearance of major Chalcolithic types at Teleilat Ghassul Cluster dendrogram of the group average method Principal components plot of PCs 1 and 2 Principal components plot of PCs 2 and 3 Principal components plot of PCs 1 and 4

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8

Jericho Trench II, Site O Section Jericho Trench II, Site O Section Jericho Trench III, Site N Section Ceramics from Jericho Trench II, Stage XII, xliv Ceramics from Jericho Trench II, Stage XII, xliv and xiv Ceramics from Jericho Trench II, Stage XII, xiv Ceramics from Jericho Trench III, Stage X, xxviii New Teleilat Ghassul dates ( cal. BC) plotted to 2 sigma range

212 212 213 215 215 217 217 218

iv

207 208 208 209 210 210 211

5.10 5 .11 5.12 5.13 5 .14 5.15

Wadi Ziqlab dates (cal. BC) 219 The relationship between Chalcolithic sequences on the basis ofradiometric dates 219 New dates from Teleilat Ghassul and Abu Hamid plotted together 220 Burnished and Red slipped pieces from Teleilat Ghassul 221 Linear painted pieces from Teleilat Ghassul 222 Possible imported pieces from Teleilat Ghassul 223

List of Plates

I.I I.2 I.3

View of Tells 1 and 2 before excavation by the PBI View of Sondage in D 1 of Tell 1 Maison 2, Tell 1

224 224 225

III.1 III.2 III.4 III.5 III.6 III.7 III.8 III.9 III.IO III.11 III.12 III.13 III.14 III.15 III.16 III.17 III.18 III.19 III.20 III.21 III.22 III.23 III.24 III.25 III.26 III.27 III.28 III.29 III.30 III.31 III.32 III.33 III.34

Teleilat Ghassul -aerial view taken in 1967 Placement of AX and AXI sondages AXI sondage in relation to square Alll AXI, phase J, feature 39 AXI at full extent, phase H, cut for feature 37 AXI, phase F, walls 4' and 5 AX, sterile deposits AX, phase F, wall 2 All, phase H/1, postholes and fill All, phase H/1, north section with detail of posthole All, phase F, walls H', I' and J' All in the background, phase E All, phase E, pit H All, phase D, walls A', B', C' and G' All, phaseD All, phase C, walls J and K All, phase C, walls J, K, L and M at the end of 1967 season All, phase A, wall 1 and feature 8 All, phase A, walls F, G and H All, phase A, burial 4 AIII, phase H/1, Neolithic dwelling pits AIII, phase H, pit cuts AIII, phase H/1, line of cobbled pavement AIII, phase G, wall E (pedestalled) and floor 270.2 AIII, phase F, wall E and associated postholes AIII, phase E, wall C and steps AIII, phase E, steps (detail) AIII, phase E, flint floor (detail) AIII, phase E, flint floor (detail) AIII, phase E comets and chisels AIII, phase D, wall B (east), wall painting and wall A AIII, phase D, step-down entrance AIII, phase A, walls 1 and 2 AIII, phase A, after removal walls 1 and 2

226 226 227 227 228 228 229 229 230 230 231 231 232 232 233 233 234 234 235 235 236 236 237 237 238 238 239 239 240 240 241 241 242 242

IV.I

Magnified photographs of selected fabrics

243

lll.3

List of endplates Map 1 Map2 Map3

Late Neolithic Sites Early and Middle Chalcolithic Sites Late Chalcolithic Sites (see Appendix D for key)

V

Acknowledgments This book is based upon my PhD Thesis, which was completed jointly at the University of Sydney and at Wolfson College, Oxford. The Australian Research Council (ARC) funded the Australian Postgraduate Award (AP A) and I am especially indebted to Wolfson College, University of Oxford, and particularly the Senior Tutor, Dr R. Hall, who provided me with an Associate Studentship. I am indebted to the wonderful Dr P.R.S. Moorey, (University of Oxford), whose continued advice and good-humoured help are more than appreciated. I have been equally blessed in my Sydney supervisor, Prof. D.T. Potts, his continued support and advice has been extremely important to me. I received two grants of money from the Near Eastern Archaeology Foundation (NEAF), the Olga Tuffnell Scholarship from the Palestine Exploration Fund to study material held by the British School of Archaeology, Jerusalem and a Senior Tutor's Grant from Wolfton College, Oxford which allowed travel to conferences and museums. The Centre for British Research in the Levant was particularly helpful in providing accommodation during my overseas research. Ms A. McQuitty, Dr P. Watson/Mr G. Findlater and Mr David Thomas of the British Institute in Amman for Archaeology and History and Dr R. Harper, Mr J. Woodhead and Ms Jo Clarke of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem are particularly thanked. The library at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford was a wonderful place to research in, and I thank Dr J. Taylor and Ms J. Morgan for their kind assistance. I benefited from discussions with may scholars around the world and I acknowledge particular help and encouragement from the following: Dr P. Bienkowski (Liverpool Museum), Dr C. Commenge (CNRS), Dr M.-A. Courty (CNRS), Dr J-P. Dessel (Bryn Mawr), Dr G. Dollfus (CNRS), Dr Y. Garfmkel (Hebrew Univ.), Dr H. Genz (Tiibingen), Ms C. Gibson (Univ. of Reading), Prof. B. Gomez (Indiana State Univ.), Dr R. Gophna (Tel Aviv Univ.), Dr Y. Goren (Tel Aviv Univ.), Ms C. Hoppe (Univ. of Sheffield), Mr F. Hourani (IFAPO), Prof. Z. Kafafi (Yarmouk Univ.), Mr E. Kansa (Harvard), Ms S. Kerner (Free Univ. of Berlin), Prof. A. Leonard Jr. (Arizona Univ.), Prof. T. E. Levy (University of California, San Diego), Dr M. Najjar (Dept. of Antiquities, Jordan), Dr R. Neef (DAI, Berlin), Dr E. Oren (Ben Gurion Univ.), Dr G. Philip (Univ. of Durham), Dr K. Prag (Manchester Univ.), Dr D. Rahimi (Royal Ontario Museum), Dr V. Roux (CNRS), Ms D. Rowan (Univ. of Durham), Dr R. Seagnit (Deakin Univ.), Ms M. de Schauensee (University Museum, Pennsylvania), Prof. L. Stager (Harvard) and Dr K. Wright (Institute of Archaeology, London). When working on an old project where records are scarce and incomplete, the memories of those who were on-the-spot are invaluable. In this respect I have to thank Dr I. Edwards (Deakin Univ.), Dr S. Helms (Sydney), Ms I. Kehrberg (BIAAH/IFAPO, Jordan), Mrs. P. Smith (Univ. of Sydney), Dr A.G. Walmsley (Univ. of Sydney) for their memories, anecdotes and, in some cases, photographs of the 1967-77 years. Of course, none of the thesis would be possible without the work of many archaeologists (too numerous to mention) who worked at Teleilat Ghassul over a period of 30 years. Their hard work is appreciated. I also thank fellow members of the current Teleilat Ghassul project for their help and support. The main encouragement for this thesis came from Dr S.J. Bourke (ARC Fellow, Univ. of Sydney) when he began re-excavating Teleilat Ghassul in 1994. His generous help and logistical support, and that of Em. Prof. J.B. Hennessy (Univ. of Sydney), were absolutely vital to the success of the thesis. Many drawings and photographs are the property of the Teleilat Ghassul Project, and are reproduced here by kind permission of the directors (I thank Cameron Petrie, Franz Reidel, Ian Edwards, Peta Seaton and Rachel Jackson for their excellent drafting). Rachel Jackson drew the plans and sections in record time as only a friend can do. All drawings were scanned with the help of the Faculty of Arts IT Unit (Univ. of Sydney) and I wish to particularly thank John Couani, John O'Rourke, John Huff and Justine Larbalestier for logistical support and constant good humour. Andrew Wilson and Ian Johnson's help with mapping was invaluable. The Australian Nuclear Science and Techology Organisation's radiocarbon dates make a particular contribution to the thesis, and their help is acknowledged with thanks. Discussions with Mike Barbetti of the NWG Macintosh Centre for Quaternary Dating at the University of Sydney were also extremely important. PIXE/PIGME analysis carried out by Peter Graves and others at ANSTO are used here with gratitude. Ms Kate da Costa (Univ. of Sydney) for her kind help with interpreting the results of the Principal Components Analysis. The figures reproduced here were originally created by her. I would also like to thank the staff at Archaeopress, in particular David Davison, for their kind help. Eleanor Robson, Jan Morgan, Martin Elliffe, Jen Hicks and many others were wonderful friends and flat-mates in Oxford and my colleagues at the University of Sydney have made the Department of Archaeology a stimulating place to work. I especially wish to thank my family for their love and support and especially Tim Adams and Gillian Lovell for careful proof reading. Jaimie Lovell Archaeology, Al4 University of Sydney NSW 2006 Australia

vi

Abbreviations

LAAA

Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology

AAAS

Annales Archeologiques Arabes Syriennes

AASOR

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research

ADAJ

Annual of the Department of Antiquities, Jordan

AJA

American Journal of Archaeology

ASOR

American Schools of Oriental Research

BA

Biblical Archaeologist

BAR

British Archaeological Reports

BASOR

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

CA

Current Anthropology

EI

Bretz Israel

ESI

Excavations and Surveys in Israel

IEJ

Israel Exploration Journal

JAS

Journal of Archaeological Science

JFA

Journal of Field Archaeology

JMA

Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology

JNES

Journal of Near Eastern Studies

JPOS

Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society

JWP

Journal of World Prehistory

MH

Mitekufat Haeven

MUSJ

Bulletin of the Musee de l'Universite de Saint Joseph

PEQ

Palestine Exploration Quarterly

RB

Revue Biblique

SHAJ

Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan

WA

World Archaeology

ZDPV

Zeitschrift des Deustchen Palastina-Vereins

vii

Introduction Teleilat Ghassul, the focus of this book, is important in the archaeology of the southern Levant since it offers the possibility of drawing together into a meaningful sequence the data from a number of short-lived sites that currently provide the primary evidence for the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods there. At present, even after more than half a century's research, the archaeology of this period remains one of the least coherent in the region, though this is widely acknowledged to be a time of significant cultural development. This results from a combination of often small scale excavations, at times undertaken more by chance than by systematic investigation, with poor or absent publication. As recent and continuing research elucidates the previous pre-pottery and earlier pottery Neolithic and the following Early Bronze Age, in the southern Levant and elsewhere in the Near East and Egypt, the need for a thorough re-appraisal of the excavations at Teleilat Ghassul in their local and wider contexts becomes ever more necessary. The Australian excavations at Teleilat Ghassul, a site long known to archaeologists, in 1967-77 and 1994-97, provide an opportunity not only for a thorough reappraisal of the data, but also its interpretation in the light of present knowledge of the period elsewhere and up-to-date research strategies. In this thesis the results of two phases of investigation are brought together. In reading chapters 3 and 4 particularly, it is important for the reader to know that the writer was directly involved in the recent work, but not in the earlier seasons. The major part of the book is devoted to Teleilat Ghassul, which is initially set in the context of research there since the first excavations began in 1928, and in its original environment in so far as that is currently understood. The stratigraphic and ceramic sequences are then structured and assessed before the site is set in its contemporary cultural and social context. The thesis closes with an assessment over all of the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods in the southern Levant.

viii

sounding can be found in the final excavation report (reproduced here as plate I.2), as well as a photograph of another sounding in Tell 3, in which only level II was reached (Mallon et al. 1934:pl. 13). At that time the excavators still maintained that the upper 2-3 levels belonged to the EBA, while the earliest level was considered pre-EB (Mallon 1931:260-1). Thus, as we now know the upper levels of the site to be Chalcolithic in date, it is clear that the possibility of a preChalcolithic phase may also be entertained with respect to the earliest excavations.

Chapter 1: Background to the Research Teleilat Ghassul and the Cha/eolithic Period The site of Teleilat Ghassul, which lies a few kilometres north east of the Dead Sea, and about 290m below sea level, has always been considered a primary site for the Chalcolithic period of the Southern Levant. The Chalcolithic period (chalco meaning copper, and lithic meaning stone) is accepted as the first period of major copper production, although it is still characterised by a strong lithic tradition. Until recently absolute chronological points were few but it is generally supposed to span the period between c. 5000 BC to c. 3500 BC.

Despite the presentation of plans of large exposures (figure 1.2) and an impressive series of photographs (see example reproduced here as plate I.3), the reports do not give extensive stratigraphic information. In fact, only the upper phase (level IV) was presented in any detail. For the most part finds are not given provenances. Sections through excavated areas are given, but at very small scale. Thus, although a general picture of the site was established, the lack of contextual data regarding the objects themselves certainly limited the results. Despite this, scholars felt that there was enough information available from Teleilat Ghassul to begin to characterise the period it covered, and they began to refer to the Chalcolithic period as the "Ghassulian". This continues even today. It is important to note that this use of terminology should only refer to Teleilat Ghassul level IV.

When excavations at Teleilat Ghassul commenced in 1928, directed archaeological excavations had only just begun in the southern Levant. The discovery of magnificent wall paintings (see Cameron 1981), large rectangular houses and elaborate painted pottery by the Pontifical Biblical Institute (PBI) excavators fired the imaginations of scholars around the world. It was during this period that Rene Neuville coined the terms "Ghassulian" (after the assemblage at Teleilat Ghassul) and "Tahunian" (after a collection of surface finds 1). A lively debate concerning the relative placement of these assemblages in relation to the Early Bronze Age ensued (Albright 1931, 1932, 1935; cf Mallon 1931; Koeppel 1932) which was eventually settled when Albright (1931:14-15) gave the name "Chalcolithic" to the material culture then typified (although little understood) by the site of Teleilat Ghassul. He placed the Chalcolithic between the "Tahunian" culture and the Early Bronze Age (henceforth EBA). Albright's view prevailed and as more Chalcolithic sites were discovered the academic community was left to ponder the nature and basis of what was obviously a highly developed prehistoric site.

It did not take long before more prehistoric material was

excavated in the southern Levant. In the 1930s the University of Liverpool under John Garstang excavated at Tell es-Sultan (within modem Jericho). The site did not reveal a "Ghassulian" phase, although pre-Ghassulian material was excavated in strata IX and VIII. Immediately overlying this material was an Early Bronze Age (EBA) level, although some "Ghassulian" forms can be noted amongst the Chalcolithic pottery (see especially Garstang et al. 1935:pl. XLIII; Garfmkel 1999a). Stratum IX and stratum VIII, apparently ceramic Neolithic levels, have become ve1y important in the current debate over the ongms and development of Chalcolithic culture. Unfortunately, the stratigraphic control was not tight at this site either, and although the original records do allow some re-interpretation, the retained sample is not large2 .

Excavations at the site were extensive, and typical of excavations of that era. Large areas were stripped back and enormous amounts of soil removed. This allowed broad exposures to be planned, although stratigraphic control was certainly not tight. It was noted that the site was vast and consisted of various small tells (teleilat) which were numbered, generally in order of size (figure 1.1, plate I.I). Soundings dug through Dl in Tell 1, which was free of ancient structures at the time, apparently revealed an earlier phase of the site. The sondage is described only as "un large tranchee qui est descendue jusqu'au sable diluvial" (Mallon 1931:259). A table is provided showing the various levels encountered and the depth of deposit. This is the only trench in which sterile levels were reached. A photograph of this

Wright (1937), working as Albright's research assistant, was the first person to deal with the Chalcolithic in a systematic way. He followed Albright's chronological divisions arguing that the stratified flint assemblages excavated at Jericho made the chronology clearer (see table 1). However, the relative chronological placement of each site was acknowledged to be problematic (Wright 1937:16). Wright found it impossible to countenance a

1 Collected at Wadi Tahuneh by Pere Buzy, this assemblage included tranchet axes, chisels, picks, arrowheads and fine blades. Neuville identified similar material at el-Khiam in 1933, as did Garstang at Jericho at about the same time.

2 I thank Dr. P. Bienkowski of the National Galleries and Museums on Merseyside for allowing me to view the Jericho material and Dr. S.J. Bourke for allowing me to see the field notes he had photocopied at the P EF.

1

chronology which incorporated contemporary material cultures that bore no similarities to each other:

indicating that they were what Wright would later term "Upper Chalcolithic" (his 1958 EBI). Shipton (1939) later expanded the 1934 study to include the basal tell material. The earliest stratum, XX, was termed Neolithic and Chalcolithic since it contained "Yarmoukian" pottery and comets (Shipton 1939:pls. 18-20). Comets are coneshaped vessels that are a Chalcolithic type fossil which appeared again in Megiddo stratum XIX with some sherds with definite EB bowl types (Shipton 1939:pls. 16.1-8, 11). At the time it seemed that Megiddo had a continuous sequence, although it later became apparent that the full Chalcolithic repertoire was by no means present. It is possible that Megiddo contains a similar gap in occupation to that which occurred at Jericho, even if not at exactly the same time.

.. .in a country as small as Palestine it would seem unsafe to speak too dogmatically as yet about purely local cultures (Wright 1937: 15). As sensible as this comment may have seemed at the time, Wright's enduring authority long restricted necessary challenges to it. In line with all commentary at the time, and a few today (Perrot 1984), Wright believed that the bearers of this distinctive Chalcolithic material culture had initially arrived in Palestine from the outside. He dealt with the ceramic developments by establishing ten types from the Ghassulian repertoire and documenting their occurrence at other sites. This forced him to work backwards and forwards from Ghassul. Thus, in terms of ceramic repertoire, Ghassul became the type site for the Chalcolithic culture in Palestine, even though at that time it was viewed (and still is today by some) as an intrusive element. Unlike Albright (1935:203-4), Wright saw little reason to compare the "Ghassulian" with contemporary Egyptian cultures. Rather he argued that the closest connections were to be found to the north and noted the similarity of Ghassulian painted pottery motifs to Halafian painted wares. Earlier Frankfort (1924:108) had connected the "cream ware" at Gezer with North SyroMesopotamian pottery and Wright (1937:30) considered that some of his thesis was "worth considering", although he admitted that "the connection need not be, and undoubtedly is not direct" (his emphasis).

The post-war period Moshe Stekelis' work on the Yarmoukian/Sha'ar Hagolani Pottery Neolithic (henceforth PN) assemblages emerged in the post war periods. His work on the sites in the Yarmouk valley established a material culture which appeared at that time to be confined to a small area in the north. The classic figurines with coffee bean eyes and red burnished pottery with herringbone incision appeared to be different from other Neolithic assemblages identified at the time. While there were links made between Gartsang's material from stratum IX Jericho, these links did not appear to be as strong. It was not until the discovery of Ain Ghazal in the 1980s that this assemblage was understood as a more widespread phenomenon. Work at Tell el-Far'ah (North) by the Ecole Biblique under Pere R. de Vaux (1951, 1952, 1955, 1957, 1961; de Vaux and Steve 1947, 1948, 1949) was characteristic of the French approach. At this site the terms "Chalcolithique inferieur", "Chalcolithique moyen", and "Chalcolithique superieur" were eventually used for the Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic, Chalcolithic and EBI respectively (de Vaux 1961). Stratified late Neolithic and Chalcolithic material was unearthed there under the name ofEneolithique (until 1955, when the more generally used term "Chalcolithique" was employed). Discoveries here closely mirror Garstang's work at Jericho. Unfortunately the work was only ever published in preliminary form.

Wright's Chalcolithic typology was not heavily reliant upon the then recently excavated evidence from Megiddo. Engberg and Shipton had published a chart of pottery from the East slope at Megiddo which appeared to indicate very little change in the early sequence there (1934:back chart). However, they felt that they could isolate a change in stratum IV based on the appearance of a number of new features, one of which was copper-work. Grey Burnished Ware (GBW) 3 , which is said to be diagnostic of the Early Bronze I (EBI), carried right through to the bottom of the Chalcolithic deposits,

Period

Associated Strata

Later Terms

Upper Chalcolithic

Esdraelon Culture

Early Bronze I

Middle Chalcolithic

Jericho VI 11and Beth Shan XVI 11and

Lower Chalcolithic

Ghassul I-IV

Transitional

'Chalcolithic-sub' sites

Early Bronze Age

Pits

Table 1: Wright's view In the 1930s (after Wright 1937:107)

3 This is also termed "Esdraelon ware" (Stager 1992) because it was originally found in the Esdraelon Valley.

2

Neolithic

Period Chalcolithic

Terminology

Sites Teleilat Ghassul Meser (Dothan 1957, 1959a) Late 'B' Phase Megiddo XX (Engberg and Shipton 1934:pl. 18.5-11, 20.1-6); Beth Neolithic Shan XVIII and Pits (Fitzgerald 1935:pls. 2.20-27, 3.17-19); Shechem pits (Tombs & Wright 1961:36-7); Tell el-Farah (Nth) Middle Chalcolithic pits (see de Vaux 1966:19, footnote 10); Kh. Sheikh Ali Str. II, mixed (Prausnitz 1960); Tell esh-Shuna (Nth) with pit (de Contenson 1960a,b:12); Tell Abu Habil Level I (pits) (de Contenson 1960b:31ff); ..Murrabba'at ..(Benoit.et a/...1961.:.1.4) ............................................................................................ .............................. ............... ........................................ 'A' Phase Teluliot Batashi with pit dwelling (Kaplan 1958b); Wadi Rabah, three sherds unstrat. (Kaplan 1958a:159); Lydda, mixed collection (Kaplan 1959:18); Abu Gosh, handful of sherds (Perrot 1952a:140); Megiddo XX badly stratified (Engberg and Shipton 1934:pls. 18.14,12,13 20.7-10); Tell ed-Duweir one sherd, Cave 6019 (Tufnell 1958:300 fiq. 1) Table 1.2 de Vaux's view of chronological development (1966:19). ,.

In the 1950s it might have been expected that the newly

explanation of the relative chronologies involved the assumption that Jericho VIII had been abandoned while Ghassul was still occupied. At sites like Megiddo, Affuleh and Tell el Farah (Nth), occupation was apparently unbroken and the material culture combined elements of Jericho level VIII and Ghassul/Beersheva culture. The proto-urban/EBI culture is said to have arrived in the north and bonowed certain elements from the co-existing Ghassulian culture. This apparently explained the Chalcolithic elements found in some ProtoUrban sites, for example Meser (Dothan 1957, 1959a), and vice versa at Oat Govrin (1966:41). De Vaux (1966:42) therefore argued for a geographical influence over and above a chronological development and was also the first to acknowledge a non-sedentary population in the landscape, evidenced by dolmens (1966:43; see later Penot 1984). De Vaux does refer to Kenyon's work, although this material had not yet reached final publication stages. It is in de Vaux's work that we can detect the origins of the separation of Jericho and the Wadi Rabah sites into regional etlmic groupings (1966:21-23). He argues that the groups are to some extent contemporary, but that they anived (via various routes) from the North:

excavated sites in the Beersheva area (Penot 1955a; 1957, 1984) and the re-excavation of Jericho (1952-8) would provide further clarification of the place of the Chalcolithic in the southern Levant. However, both raised new issues. The magnificent finds in the Beersheva region, which contributed valuable new material to the Chalcolithic database, introduced a new but Ghassul-like culture, whose chronological relationship with Teleilat Ghassul was unclear. The term "Ghassul-Beersheva" is often employed to emphasise this. The Beersheva group has since been placed within the "Chalcolithique moyen" but probably extends slightly later than Ghassul IV. The internal stratigraphy of the Beersheva sites has been questioned. The subtenanean dwellings which Penot had thought to be the first occupation have been claimed as later storage facilities, contemporary with the structures above them (Gilead 1987). Kenyon's work at Tell es-Sultan did not uncover large amounts of classic Chalcolithic ( as it was understood then). The stratigraphy shows Pottery Neolithic A and B material (comparable to Jericho IX and VIII respectively) followed by a break and then the "Proto-Urban" (what most scholars now call the EBI) phase 4 . Thus the classic "Ghassulian" Chalcolithic was still left floating and anomalous. The material culture of Teleilat Ghassul remained an unexplained element, as did the Beersheva culture, and yet these continued to be used as the basic reference points for the period.

The group from the coast came down by way of the coastal plain and thrust spearheads into the interior (Wadi Rabah, plain ofEsdraelon); certain elements may perhaps have made their way throughout southern Syria to Kfar Giladi and to Tel Turmus. The Yaimoukian group, if its Lebanese connexions [sic] can be confirmed, may have taken the road leading from Sidon to the Jordan Valley through the pass of Merj Ayun. The Jericho group, whose links with the far north are the most clearly defined, could have anived by way of the Orontes Valley and the Syrian Biqa'; from the Jordan Valley they must have swarmed to the west through the Beth Shan pass in the plain of Esdraelon as far as Megiddo, by Wadi Farah as far as Tell el-Farah. In several regions the streams met and intermingled (de Vaux 1966:23).

1966 de Vaux's synthesis of the Chalcolithique inferieur, moyen and superieur periods for the Cambridge Ancient History largely involved divisions made on the basis of the presence or absence of copper-work. His In

4 Kenyon's "Proto-Urban" groups were intended to explain various tomb groups which exhibited different ceramic assemblages and perhaps slightly different groupings of assemblages. These were thought to represent different and distinct groups of "migrant tribesmen" (Kenyon 1979:66) and it was asserted that they lived "side by side" with the Ghassulians (Kenyon 1979:67).

3

Recent research and regional assemblages

site. The site's dimensions have been published as "at least 30 to 40 ha" (Hennessy 1977:5) and "about 20ha" (Hennessy 1982:55). It is difficult to give accurate figures due to the existence of a minefield (built during the Six Day War) which affects the area to the southwest of the site. It is fair to say that the site nucleus is c. 20ha, and that it sprawls for some distance beyond this. Any outlying structures found in a recent survey of the area (Scham 1997) are probably part of the site itself. The wall paintings (Mallon 1934; Unger 1932; Cameron 1981) remain unmatched 5 and the finds are as impressive as any other settlement site.

In the 1950s Joseph Kaplan excavated a number of sites

in northern Israel whose material culture began to be called "Wadi Rabah", after the area in which it was first found. This assemblage included red slipped pottery with surface manipulation. The characteristic shapes were carinated bowls and bow rimmed jars. At first these sites appeared to cluster in the north east of Israel, but it is now known that this type of distinctive burnished ceramic material appears in a wider area, reaching as far south as Teluliot Batashi, and perhaps as far as the Nahal Besor (Levy and Golden 1996). It has also been suggested that this material can be found even as far east as Wadi Ziqlab 200 (Banning et al. 1996; cf Garlinkel 1999b). The excavation of Munhata (Minha Horvat) by Jean Perrot provided additional material for this assemblage, as well as placing it in relation to the Yarmoukian sequence it follows. This site is perhaps the most instructive because of its near complete publication (Garfinkel 1992b).

The British School of Archaeology/University of Sydney (henceforth BSAJ/USyd) project began in 1967 and the work which resulted was to challenge the established ideas completely. BSAJ/USyd excavations revealed a long sequence including exposure of the earliest levels at the site (perhaps the PBI's level I) which were termed Late Neolithic, clearly demonstrating an internal cultural development for the site (Hennessy 1969). Although the lowest absolute levels reached by Hennessy resembled those achieved by North (at least in Area B, see North 1961:9, fig. 5), it appeared that North either had not exposed material similar to Hennessy's Late Neolithic, or that he had not recognised it. Probably the material was not present in that area, but a degree of contamination might also be expected to have confused the sequence (see Blackham 1999) making changes in the corpus over time more difficult to detect. Hennessy's primary statement on his first season's work was not widely accepted. The publication of major French syntheses (de Vaux 1966; Perrot 1968) which pushed for external influences coincided with the appearance of Hennessy's preliminary report (Hennessy 1969) which was, after all, based only upon a lxlm sounding.

Sites on the Israeli coast provided new data for burial customs, with the ossuary caves of Azor receiving much attention. To an extent the remains found there differed from the Ghassul-Beersheva cultures known from the south; however associated settlement sites were difficult to pin down. The growing number of regional assemblages were beginning to complicate the overall picture and cement a view that the "Ghassulian" culture was not indigenous, but a result of migration from elsewhere. No Ghassulian site with clear early antecedents had been found, and the rest of the archaeological landscape was beginning to resemble a patchwork of insular assemblages whose chronological relationships were also unsure. The Re-excavation of Teleilat Ghassul

Other French work on valley sites was beginning to focus on new Chalcolithic assemblages (de Contenson 1960a, 1960b, 1961) and their relative position was being debated. This made expanded exploration at Teleilat Ghassul all the more necessary. Hennessy therefore returned to the site in 1975 with a view to establishing the continuous sequence beyond doubt. In addition to expanding the Late Neolithic exposure, further areas were investigated including area E where the "sanctuary complex" was discovered (Seaton in press). Only preliminary publication has resulted. The two questions which must now be addressed are, how does this early material relate to other assemblages in the region and, how can it help to establish a general regional sequence for the Late Neolithic-Chalcolithic periods? In 1994 the University of Sydney (USyd) returned to the site to sound the Hennessy sections for archaeobotanical material and to further explore the Area E complex (Bourke et al. 1995, in press). This material will allow a fuller publication of the Teleilat Ghassul sequence.

In 1960 Robert North returned to Teleilat Ghassul, on behalf of the PBI, in order to clarify certain points left unclear by the original excavators (North 1961). His aims were to confirm the number of occupation layers, to establish the stratigraphic relationship between the three main tells and to try to apply the sequence to other known sites in the region (North 1961:3). Unfortunately this work did not provide significant results. He concluded that there were four main strata (each c. lm deep) of uninterrupted occupation, findings which did not differ with earlier PBI work. He also claimed that he could trace no sequence within the pottery repertoire, and that there were no further clues to Teleilat Ghassul's relationship with the then recently discovered sites (North 1961:27). Unfortunately, although sections and plans are better presented in this PBI report, only a few cursory sherds are illustrated with their context details, it is therefore impossible to confirm this view. Recent attempts have been made to reconstruct these excavations (Blackham 1999). Nonetheless at the time it was obvious that further scientific excavation was desperately required.

5 One fragment of a wall painting has been discovered at Abu Hamid recently (see Dollfus and Kafafi et al. 1993:253, fig. 5).

Despite the increased excavation within the southern Levant, Teleilat Ghassul remains the largest Chalcolithic 4

The last twenty years

Late Neolithic ceramic assemblages

The 1980s was a period defined by multi-disciplinary approaches to archaeology in general, and this affected field work and research in Western Asia also. Thomas Levy (Levy 1981; Levy and Alon 1983) made significant headway in the study of the Chalcolithic by applying anthropological models to the archaeological record. This lifted the discussion to an entirely new and more productive level. Despite some pitfalls, Levy's work remains a significant contribution because of its integration of environmental and settlement data. The excavation of Shiqmim typifies the present preoccupation with environmental archaeology and cross-disciplinary research. The more recent excavations at Teleilat Ghassul also follow this pattern as do those at Wadi Ziqlab (Banning et al. 1994, 1996) and Abu Hamid (Dollfus and Kafafi 1986, 1988; Dollfus et al. 1986, 1988, 1993).

The Yarmoukian The name Yarmoukian is used because the assemblage was first excavated by the Y armouk river. The site was Sha'ar Hagolan, near Kibbutz Sha'ar Hagolan, excavated by Moshe Stekelis on behalf of the Hebrew University Jerusalem between 1949-52 (Stekelis 1950-1). Thus the term Sha'ar Hagolani is often used interchangeably with "Yarmoukian" (Garfmkel 1992b). Stekelis' definition of the period was largely based upon the flint industry, although he did include ceramics in his study (Stekelis 1972:25). Gopher's Munhata assemblage is a clearer presentation of a Yarmoukian flint assemblage (Gopher 1989). The ceramics are distinguished by their herringbone incision, but painted and slipped pottery is also typical (Garfinkel 1999b:16, fig. 11). Figurines with "coffee bean" eyes are common and apparently diagnostic features (Stekelis 1972:pls 49,65), as are incised pebbles of various types (Stekelis 1972:pls 58, 56).

Together with these projects, survey work across the region was revealing disparate assemblage groups. Epstein's work in the Golan stands out as a distinct assemblage that does appear only in a restricted area (Epstein 1998). The linear painted ceramic material from Tel Tsaf and Kataret es-Samra in the valley present another category of material which may be regional. This is one problem that continues to hamper efforts to establish a general typological sequence for the region and may explain why the "Ghassulian" appears so anomalous. In part this view is explicable. As HanburyTenison has noted, the Early Chalcolithic remains illdefined and is presumed to indicate the "pre-Comet" levels at Ghassul, Tel Tsaf (Gophna and Sadeh 1988/89) and Kataret es Samra (Leonard 1983). How the material at these sites differs from the Wadi Rabah culture has remained a mystery (Hanbury-Tenison 1986:106). Nevertheless the possibility of a defmable middle phase of Chalcolithic certainly exists (see Sadeh and Gophna 1991) and it appears that the Wadi Rabah material holds the key (Levy and Golden 1996:153).

Since Stekelis' work various other assemblages have been recognised as Yarmoukian. The most famous examples are the sites of Munhata (Gopher 1989; Garfmkel 1992b) and Ain Ghazal in Jordan (Rollefson 1993). The data gathered from these excavations has provided important hooks upon which to hang a regional sequence. It has even given valuable clues to the general sequence. Level 2b at Munhata (the Sha'ar Hagolani stage) is followed by the Wadi Rabah phase, although there is some debate as to whether there is a middle Munhata phase, which was postulated by the original excavator (Perrot 1968:415; see also Gopher 1989:78). The impressive sequence from Ain Ghazal, discovered in the 1980s, considerably widened the lmown find areas for Yarmoukian material. Ain Ghazal lies on the Wadi Zerqa and is principally famous for its almost life size plaster statues of the Pre Pottery Neolithic B (Grossim 2000). The Yarmoukian phase at Ain Ghazal is preceded by the PPNC phase (also pottery bearing), and a clear continuous sequence from the PPNB to the Yarmoukian is demonstrable (Rollefson 1993:96). Additional sites have now been published from Jordan which have been attributed to the Y armoukian (Kafafi 1993,1997 for a summary), these are 'Ain Rahub (Muheisen et al. 1988), Jebel Abu Thawab (Kafafi 1988; Obeidat 1996) and Wadi Shueib (Simmons et al. 1989). A further site, Tell Wadi Feinan (Najjar et al. 1990) is being debated (Kafafi 1993:106; cfGarfmkel 1993b:116).

Andrew Moore (1973, 1982) made some attempt to build a coherent picture from these various short-lived sequences. He notes local differences in material culture (1982:1) and was the first to extensively use radiocarbon dates. Increased publication of small sites has complicated his original picture of a north/south division within Late Neolithic settlement (Moore 1982:25). For instance the appearance of southern sites like Ain Ghazal which parallel his northern Sha'ar Hagolani sites requires further explanation.

Other relevant sites in Israel are Hamadiya (Tsori 1958) 10km south ofMunhata, Tel Qishon (Amon and Amiran 1981), Hazorea (Anati et al. 1973; Ben-Tor 1975, 1976) and Megiddo (Shipton 1939:44-46). Also Tel el-Farah (Nth) has been mentioned (de Vaux and Steve 1947). Tel Ali promises to be an important site, but as yet has only a PPNC phase, as it seems that it lacks Y armoukian material (Garfinkel 1993a:54).

The syntheses of Gopher and Gophna (1993) and Gopher (1995) represent the most recent contributions towards an Israeli consensus. This consensus is built on a complicated pattern of short-lived sites which provide a plethora of regional variants for the region as a whole. A number of variants have become important, albeit floating, chronological markers and these will be reviewed here before moving on.

Jericho PNA/Jericho IX and the Lodian Moving on from the Yarmoukian the chronostratigraphical picture of the southern Levant 5

becomes more difficult and therefore requires more indepth explanation. The issues which surround this complex debate will be explored more fully in the case of WadiRabah.

dwellings just as at Munhata 2b. The Munhata phase (or 2b 1) includes rounded structures made of undressed stones. Both appear to have a mixed farming economy. Other variant sites are small and therefore give little information on these points.

It has been argued that some of the sites that have some

typological elements of the Yarmoukian, but lack others are "variants" of this sequence (Gopher 1995; Gmfmkel 1999b). This is the case for Jericho IX, excavated by Garstang, and the same is argued for the contemporary material excavated by Kenyon (termed PNA). The Jericho IX assemblage was excavated by Garstang in the thirties (Garstang et al. 1935, 1936) and although important has not been satisfactorily published. This assemblage is small, but may have been well dug. The original dig records indicate some rooms of material which, from the small amount of existing pottery (now stored in the Liverpool Museum), appear not to have been contaminated by other material.

The crucial point is that the only type-sites that have been published have been published in an unrepresentative way and without reliable radiocarbon dates. Thus we are presented with a concentrated but floating typology, rather than a representative assemblage. All other small assemblages will no doubt appear to contain only a few elements of these. Creating cultural assemblages from evidence such as this is a distortion of that evidence. Until we have quantitative information on these sites it will be difficult to assess the validity of this division. The Wadi Rabah Horizon In the 1950s Kaplan believed he had discovered a distinct cultural assemblage at several sites in northern Israel, specifically at Wadi Rabah, Tel Aviv, 'Ain el-Jarba, Teluliot Batashi (Kaplan 1958a; 1958b; 1959; 1969a; 1972). Since this time similar material has been identified at other sites, and further afield, for example at Lod (Kaplan 1977), Newe Yam (Prausnitz 1966) and Munhata (Garfinkel 1992b). This material culture became known as the Wadi Rabah culture and has been gradually established as succeeding the Yarmoukian/Sha'ar Hagolan phase originally defined by Stekelis (1950-1, 1972). This was confirmed by work at Munhata by Jean Perrot between 1962-1968 (Perrot 1968, 1993a; Gmfmkel 1992b) although the existence of a gap between these two phases cannot be discounted.

The Jericho IX material appears to have had some Yarmoukian elements, but also included other features. For this reason scholars have termed it a variant of the Sha'ar Hagolan/Yarmoukian assemblage. This has occurred almost entirely on the basis of decoration on ceramics: The most characteristic feature of Jericho IX Ware is its decoration, which includes painted and burnished narrow or wide red painted lines on top of a creamy/whitish slip ... painted decoration apears as well in Yarmukian pottery, but the painted areas are not burnished (Gmfmkel 1999b:68). A number of smaller sites are included in the Jericho IX group including Teleilat Batashi, Lod, Dhra', Khirbet edDharih and Ghrubba, despite the fact that there assemblages are very small. Marrying these small assembages to the Jericho assemblage has resulted in conflating these assemblages into "cultural traditions" (Garfmkel 1999b:68).

Stager (1992:256) suggests that there is an early phase to the Wadi Rabah material which is not often referred to in the literature. He calls this the Dark Faced Burnished Ware (DFBW) tradition and attributes Kfar Giladi (Kaplan 1966), Abu Zureiq (Anati et al. 1973) and Teleilat Batashi IVb to this complex. It appears that this early phase represents for him the earliest introduction of this type of treatment from the north (see Kirkbride 1969). The primary distribution of Wadi Rabah sites appears to be in northern Israel (around the original find spots), but also extends as far south as Teleilat Batashi on the Nahal Soreq, and as far east as Wadi Ziqlab 200 (Banning et al. 1996). Very few multi period sites exhibit material culture from this regional horizon. The few that do are Munhata (Gopher 1989; Garfmkel 1992b) and Abu Hamid (Dollfus et al. 1993; Lovell et al. 1997:369) in the Jordan Valley.

In addition, not all scholars group these small assemblages in the same way. We therefore have a plethora of unwarranted and ever increasing terms. The Lodian is just such a term (Gopher 1995). This is effectively the Jericho IX culture by another name. The most important other difference between the Lodian and the Yarmukian is the presence of the figurines, which are apparently not found in the Jericho IX/Lodian assemblages. As far as the pottery is concerned, Gopher states: "The Lodian includes mostly small scale sites or mere find spots" and "decorated pottery forms only a small portion of the assemblage" (Gopher 1995:211). For instance, Khirbet ed-Dharih in the Wadi el-Hasa (Bossut et al. 1988) appears to be grouped under this umbrella because it contains a few of the types required.

While Munhata layer 2a (Garfinkel 1992b) is the most extensively published and largest assemblage of Wadi Rabah vessel types, there are other large sites which exhibit these features, for example, Kabris (Kempinski and Neimeier 1994), Abu Hamid (Dollfus et al. 1993:248; Lovell et al. 1997:369) and Hazorea (Anati et al. 1973). It is possible to see the Wadi Rabah phase as an Early Chalcolithic phenomenon (Kaplan 1958a; 1958b; cf Mazar 1990, 58, note 23; Gmfmkel 1999b:104).

According to the larger sites where this type of material has been discovered, there is ve1y little difference between Yarmoukian sites and the variant sites in terms of their architecture and economy. PNA Jericho is made up of pit 6

Wadi Rab ah Variants Wadi Rabah material is distinctive and easy to recognise. Characteristic features are fine carinated bowls, bow-rim jars and smface manipulations ie. red/black burnish and incision (Gopher 1995:213, figure 3; Perrot 1968:416; Goren in Garfinkel 1992b:339). Consequently, when Wadi Rabah material exists at a site, it is reasonably easy to identify. It has been proposed by a number of scholars that material like this exists at Jericho (Gophna and Sadeh 1988/89:20; Gopher and Gophna 1993) in the Jericho VIII level, but this again is seen as a regional variant of the true Wadi Rabah culture. For the same reasons as those cited above for the Jericho IX culture this is an unnecessary qualification and for this phase there are even less differences in material culture to support it.

past. The example of Fidan 4 underscores the difficulty of making associations on the basis of technology and problematic typological links. The site, also in the Feinan area, was thought to be Chalcolithic (Adams and Genz 1995) and later relegated to the EBA on the basis of radiocarbon dates (Genz 1997).

Cha/eolithic ceramic assemblages The Tsafian Another decorative tradition occurs at Teleilat Ghassul which runs from the middle levels and into the later phases. This material is very close to linear painted ceramics from Tel Tsaf (Gophna and Sadeh 1988/9) and is therefore termed Tsaf-like material. This is really a "ware group", rather than an assemblage. It is based around the presence of finely painted geometric decoration (Gophna 1979 for photographs, Gophna and Sadeh 1988/9) on particularly fme ceramics which was documented at Kataret es-Samra (Leonard 1983) and Abu Rabil (de Contenson 1960b:figs. 23.2, 24.5; Leonard 1992:pl. 22.2, 3, 5). The decoration is usually rendered in red or brown, and has often been likened to Halafian wares. Although Gophna and Sadeh (1988/9:28-9) suggest that the Ghassulian examples are of a different kind, they are actually very similar (see figures 4.20 and 5.14). There are also examples from the PBI excavations although they are not well illustrated (Mallon et al. 1934:pls. 65, 154.1, 2, 5, 9-11, 13-16). The real objects in the PBI, Jerusalem are impressive, but particularly interesting are two pieces that show a fine, burnished surface with a fine painted decoration over the top 6. This may demonstrate the contemporaneity of the burnished and painted traditions. In support of this, painted decoration is found at Munhata 2a (the Wadi Rabah phase) and is also shown as appearing in layer 2b (Perrot 1968:416, pl. 845).

As stated above, examination of Pottery Neolithic material from Jericho has already induced parallels with the Wadi Rabah. The Wadi Rabah assemblage was not well understood, or consistently dealt with at the time that Kenyon was digging. Garfinkel has claimed that the entire typological and stratigraphic concept at Jericho was incorrect (Garfmkel 1999b:69ff) and that the pottery assemblage should be revised. This will be dealt with in more detail below. As more and more material bearing the typical Wadi Rabah features and surface treatments appear in Jordan and Israel, it is becoming clear that this was a technique that became common for a certain period within the Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic horizon. Whilst some have tried to claim that the Wadi Rabah ceramics are made in a particular fabric, it has been demonstrated that even where Wadi Rabah sherds are well documented, they have a number of provenances (Goren in Garfmkel 1992b:340). The technology involved in the production of such vessels is highly skilled and it is possible that they were made in a specialised workshop (Goren in Kempinski and Neimeier 1992:14*-15*; Goren in Garfmkel 1992b:339-340). Despite this, a small number of sherds have turned up far from the centre of distribution at Gilat (Levy and Golden 1996:153) and Teleilat Ghassul (see Chapter 4) which may indicate local attempts at production of these vessels.

In conclusion this treatment, which is largely confined to the central valley, has a long history and began in the Neolithic and gradually developed and lasted into the Late Chalcolithic. The earlier linear painted technique is found on rougher ceramics and is executed with less care. It is known from the Abu Hamid basal layers (Dollfus et al. 1993:246; Lovell et al. 1997), Beth Shan XVIII and pits (Fitzgerald 1935) and Ghrubba (Mellaart 1956). This is essentially similar to material found within Jericho PNA layers (Kenyon and Holland 1982). There are also some examples from Megiddo level XIX (Shipton 1939:pl. 18.1-4), which unfortunately appear in a very mixed assemblage. The other more carefully executed decoration on a fmer fabric is found at Tel Tsaf in conjunction with Wadi Rabah sherds, at Teleilat Ghassul (see Chapter 4) and at Kataret es-Samra (Leonard 1983). This fmer group post-dates the Ghrubba/Beth Shan material. This tradition is quite long lived at Teleilat Ghassul, although it forms a relatively small percent of the assemblage. How this painted material relates to "cream ware" has never been made explicit.

The Qatifian and Besorian The Qatifian "cultural entity" (Goren 1990: 101*) was first defined by Gilead and Alon (1988) on the basis of a number of short-lived sites in the Nahal Besor. The second phase of this entity, the "Besorian" (Gilead 1990), is essentially based on the perceived chronostratigraphic relationship between the Wadi Gazzeh sites dug by Ean Macdonald earlier this century (see also Roshwalb 1981). This is an old argument. In the absence of better stratified sites, this material will continue to be discussed by scholars as the precursor to the Beershevan material culture. In 1990 Yuval Goren made the suggestion that the pre-Chalcolithic levels at Ghassul may relate to this culture (1990:108*). A number of other sites from the Feinan area have been suggested as belonging to this phase on the basis of technological parallels in pottery production. However, tying these marginal areas into more general chronologies has proved difficult in the

6 I thank Ms Sandra Scham, currently working on this material, for allowing me to view the finds.

7

It is also clear that there are significant differences

Cream Ware Wright notes that it was Albright who first recognised a "Ghassulian ware" at Gezer (Wright 1937:21). But it was Macalister who described and named it: "the clay is fine and well cleaned, rather fat in texture, and is always covered in a rich cream-like slip. On this account I give the ware the name 'cream ware"' (Macalister 1912:137). It seems that this made up only a portion of the material found "on the rock" at Gezer. At this point it appears that Albright, Wright and Macalister are referring to an assemblage with a particular technique of production. The published examples, however, appear to have quite different decorative techniques with shapes that include 'V' shaped bowls with bands of red paint, spouted vessels with no decoration and other vessel types with fine geometric painted decoration (Macalister 1912:pl. CXLI). Comets are also included within this group.

between the Ghassulian and the Beershevan material culture. This is largely evidenced in differing proportions of type fossils; more chums in the Beersheva repertoire, and significantly more comets in the Ghassulian. Increased excavations in the Negev and surrounding regions have prompted further extensions of these suggested culture provinces or identities (Gilead 1995:473). In order to draw together the large numbers of small excavations discussed here, the preceding divisions must be understood. Recent studies (Gopher and Gophna 1993; Gopher 1995) have argued for regional variants of type cultures, unfortunately the type cultures are often the least published, and most enigmatic. In addition, it will be noted that the above divisions are described largely in terms of ceramics. This is not just because of the focus of this work, but also because the fme chronological distinctions asserted in this period appear to be largely defined in terms of ceramic repertoire ( eg. Garfmkel 1999b). In a few cases architectural form is also of relevance. This will be further elaborated upon in Chapter 5. However, the introduction of larger scale radiocarbon sampling of longer lived sequences will eventually make these kinds of discussions obsolete. It is the aim of this book to carry forward this process by carefully articulating the long Teleilat Ghassul sequence complete with radiocarbon dates.

Other occurrences of this "ware" were not reported until Amiran recognised its occurrence at Abu Matar and related wares there (Amiran 1955). Her reading has been confirmed by the recent Gezer excavations (Dever 1974:12 n.4). Dever defines the fabric as: ... clays of this ware are light buff-to-cream, fmely levigated, with virtually no inclusions; the wares are feather-light, egg shell thin, very well fired and sometimes metallic (Dever 1974:13). This seems to accord with the finer painted material known from Teleilat Ghassul, some of which can appear metallic or finely burnished.

Socio-economic development

This problem of regional variation complicates the establishment of an overarching sequence and therefore does little to inform the evolving discussion on socioeconomic development in this period. Discussions of socio-economics are therefore largely confmed to the Ghassul/Beersheva horizon, where more reliable chronological parity is assumed to exist. While research has continued in other areas (eg. Kerner 1997a, 1997b), the Negev, which appears to have been a major centre of activity in the Chalcolithic, is the focus of field work for the two most recent protagonists, Issac Gilead and Thomas Levy.

The more complete publication of the ceramics from Beersheva (Commenge-Pellerin 1987, 1990) now allows a closer study of this cream ware which appears only in conjunction with certain forms. This is CommengePellerin's paste V, which she divides into three sub-types according to temper and levigation (1987:29)7. There are clearly coarser versions of the same fabric, which are unsurprisingly used exclusively for larger vessels (chums). At Abu Matar this fabric appears only as comets, small painted holemouths, characteristic squat jars with everted rims and chums (Commenge-Pellerin 1987:figs. 22.4, 26.9, 26.11, 34.1-6, 37.3-5). The other Beersheva sites present the same pattern (see, for instance, Commenge-Pellerin 1987:105, fig. 42).

Gilead views the socio-economic situation which developed in the Chalcolithic as a response to pristine states that had developed in the river valleys (Egypt and Mesopotamia) and seeks, in Chalcolithic culture, the origins of what became later, a "secondary state" or states (1988:398). He argues that the move from foraging to agriculture in the Late Neolithic clearly prefigured the later but much more intense exploitation that must have occurred in the Chalcolithic. He notes that the lack of stratigraphic continuity from the Neolithic to the Chalcolithic in the south does not, necessarily, imply that the Ghassulian was an intrusive culture province (1988:409).

The Ghassul/Beersheva horizon Even today scholars use the term Ghassulian to denote a late classic phase of the Chalcolithic. It is often used in conjunction with the Negev Chalcolithic (Ghassul/Beersheva culture). This is largely because when the southern Levantine typology was being set up (Wright 1937) and developed (Amiran 1969) these were the largest sites known. It is now known that Teleilat Ghassul has a longer history than was imagined at that time.

One of Gilead's major criticisms of past work is that the development of pastoral models in the Chalcolithic is based upon:

7 I thank Catherine Commenge for kindly showing me a selection of material from the Beersheva sites when I visited Jerusalem in 1995.

8

.. .intuition rather than detailed analyses of the contents of sites. An essential problem is the refusal to accept a different past climate as a factor in reconstructing past economy ... In addition, most of the studies prior to the 1980s also suffer from the vague use of terms such as pastoralism and nomadism. They are not anchored in any anthropological terminology and models are loosely defined, and rigour in attempts to defme archaeologically phenomena such as pastoralism ... and sedentism .. .is ahnost non-existent (1988:418-9).

phase of generally favourable environmental conditions. These conditions were bound to change ... (Joffe 1993:36, my emphasis). The most recent synthesis of Chalcolithic work is Levy's (1995)8 which echoes these sentiments, but moves from an environmentally driven theory to a focus on cult and metallurgy as evidence of ranked society. Here he qualifies his use of the term "chiefdom" and argues for its use as a "framework for cross-cultural comparison and a means of identifying new social organisations in the archaeological record" (1995:226). Levy argues that the "mechanism of social evolution in the area can be seen as both 'gradualist' and 'punctualist"' (1995:228) and states:

Gilead's survey of the evidence for subsistence available in 1988 concluded that the Chalcolithic population was largely sedentary and based on mixed farming (1988:429431 ). Certainly there has been continuous growth in environmental and anthropological concerns amongst archaeologists. However, it is only recently that past climate has been able to be studied in any consistent manner, although much of the evidence is conflicting (see Chapter 2).

To understand the shift from Late Neolithic small scale societies to the more complex social organisations observed in the Chalcolithic period, there are three interrelated variables which worked together to promote change and insure stability. These include risk management, resource competition and gift-giving (1995:238).

As far as nomadic groups are concerned, there is growing evidence of their existence. Betts has established a sequence of lithic artefacts from the Black Desert in Jordan (Betts 1992,1993,1997), which reveals a largely nomadic population contemporary with the Ceramic Neolithic/Chalcolithic period in the settled regions. It is argued that the site of Har Harif in the central Negev highlands is representative of the same phenomenon (Forenbaher 1997). Although these groups are difficult to locate in the archaeological record, there is little doubt that they existed. Their role, and their level of interaction with settled groups is debated, but in a constantly changing socio-cultural landscape it is difficult to envisage a complete lack of contact between different groups.

The concept of risk management relates to Levy's work on specialised pastoralism. Levy's work and major thesis (1981) stem from fieldwork carried out in the Nahal Besor catchment area. In a survey covering 380 km 2 of the Nahal Beersheva area, eleven Late Neolithic sites, seventy-five Chalcolithic sites and eight Early Bronze I sites were identified. Population figures were calculated on the basis of site size. For the Chalcolithic period, it was argued that judging by the present environment, there were not enough environmental resources to support them all. This led Levy to his specialised transhumance argument, which postulated that due to land stress a need to coordinate pastoral activities would have led to specialised pastoralism and the development of social stratification (Levy and Alon 1983). He also postulated that environmental shifts were responsible for an increase in intensified agriculture.

Other broader syntheses have recently appeared in general works on the southern Levant (eg. Dollfus 1985; Ben Tor 1992; Mazar 1990). Joffe's (1993) book on social complexity in the EBA also contains an introductory chapter which outlines developments in the preceding Chalcolithic as he sees them:

The settlement data obtained from the study area is compared with settlement data from the nearby Wadi Gazzeh sites which appeared to be seasonal settlements or camp sites because they appeared to have had no permanent structures. These theories have been presented in their most elaborate form in Shiqmim I (Levy 1987) where they are elaborated with all the data from his fieldwork in the region.

However one characterises the Developed Chalcolithic it represents a clear contrast with the diffused small scale of society in the Late Neolithic ... The [Developed] Chalcolithic was highly developed in terms of material culture and ideology, and these were linked in the politicoreligious 'superstructure' of society, dependent on continued material flows for symbolic expression and perpetuation of the organisation of craft specialisation and religion. By the early fourth millennium BC a high level of balance was reached, with forms of expression reaching their height in the Beersheva/Ghassul complex, standing precariously on the shifting border between the Mediterranean and arid zones. The Chalcolithic developed in relative isolation from other western Asian or African cultures, in a

Hanbury-Tenison's (1986:53-55) criticism still remains cogent, ie. it is not certain that all Levy's Chalcolithic sites were occupied at the same time. More important is Esse's objection to the calculation of population figures in the first place (Esse 1988:141*, and see appendix). It may be that population pressure was significantly less important than he imagines, and this has implications for his thesis of "specialised pastoralism" and "critical resource management" (Levy 1987:184).

8 Although Levy has been producing statements on the Chalcolithic for over 15 years. 9

Levy presented material from the fmal levels (BPI and II) only. Further, his ceramic analysis suffered from the lack of adequate typologies at that time 9. This limited typological treatment seriously restricts his conclusions. Notably sites were reported from the Chalcolithic, which appears to mean "Late Chalcolithic", and the Late Neolithic, but little is mentioned about the lapse of time which may or may not have separated them. The important issue of regionality and contemporanity is thus not addressed. Resource competition is by no means established. So long as there is so little understanding of typologies and relative chronologies in this region there is very little evidence with which to establish the contemporanity of all the Chalcolithic settlements to which Levy refers. Even if we could calculate population accurately, this deficiency means that it is not at all clear that it would be large enough to place pressure on resources. Save Issac Gilead's early attempts (1988), no-one has managed to directly engage with Levy's proposals. Although current research statements indicate an implicit acceptance of Levy's views (Bourke 1997a, 1997b), his thesis both deserves and requires further and careful consideration. Levy's major contribution to prehistory in the southern Levant is the integration of environmental data with archaeology. This trend, which began in the late 1970s, was the Middle Eastern expression of the New Archaeology being espoused by archaeologists across the globe. It is now inconceivable to excavate a site without reference to its environmental context. The USyd return to Teleilat Ghassul in 1994 occurred largely in response to these new requirements. In this respect it will be important to establish what can be said of Teleilat Ghassul's environmental context.

9 Typological classifications of Late Neolithic material are based upon Ben Dor in Garstang et al. (1936) and Macdonald (1932), while the Chalcolithic material is based upon de Contenson (1956).

Chapter 2: Reconstructing environmental context

therefore, is rainfall dependent, whereas the lower regions can rely upon run-off.

the

Present day topography and rainfall The development of a settlement cannot be properly understood without reference to its geographical position and the character of the immediate environment at the time. This chapter will deal with this issue in two parts; the climatic data available, and the data available for subsistence patterns in the Neolithic/Chalcolithic.

Geography and topography determine the rainfall patterns and vegetation of a region. Jordan's position slightly inland from the Mediterranean, and on the edge of a large desert belt, is the basis of its climate (LaBianca and Lacelle 1986:11). As Jordan lies between 33°N and 29°N latitude, it has only two main climatic seasons. November to March is slightly rainy (the most rain falling in January) and the rest of the year is very warm and dry. Rainfall graphs for each region are provided by Danin (1995:27, fig. 1).

Teleilat Ghassul is situated in the south Jordan Valley c. 2km northeast of the Dead Sea. The area is termed the "Ghor er Rama" and is the territory of the modem Adwan and the Ajarma (Prag 1991:59) tribes. It lies outside the 250mm isohyet, which forms the boundary between the farming and pastoral zones. As such it has probably always depended upon ground water for farming, a practice which was true of most early farming sites (see Sherratt 1980). The tell site itself lies on a flat plain, and appears to have been dissected in antiquity by wash gullies creating the modem effect of small divided tells (teleilat). This wash gully effect is documented in the sections of the trenches dug as Area F by Hennessy in 1977. On a clear day the modem city of Jericho is visible, as is Tell es-Sultan.

Water is a highly valuable resource in the southern Levant and there are few perennial rivers. The Jordan, the Yarmouk and the Zerqa rivers are the main perennials, but many of the lateral wadis also provide small amounts of water all year round. The constant water source supplied by the Wadi Jinn has often been cited as a major reason for the longevity of habitation at Pella (Tabaqat Fahl) for instance. This wadi still flows all year round, although today its water has been captured for use in urban areas. Zohary (1962) produced a work on the plants of Israel, Jordan and Palestine which is still referred to today. Teleilat Ghassul falls within the Saharo/Sindian plant geographical territory (Zohary 1962:52, map 4; al-Eisawi 1985). This is a large region that covers the Atlantic coast of north Africa, the Sahara, the Sinai peninsular, extratropical Arabia, southern Iraq, Iran etc. (Zohary 1962:41). The area to the north east of the Dead Sea specifically falls within the Saharan Mediterranean bioclimate, with a mean minimum temperature of 3°-7° C and a maximum of 35°-40° C. Mean annual rainfall is usually less than 50 mm and the soil is mostly "sandy or sandy hammada, some granite fragments and saline soils" (al-Eisawi 1985:51). Most of the plants are small shrubs that are highly salt tolerant (Zohary 1962:172-3). The leading species are: Arthrocnemum spp., Suaeda spp., Juncus littoralis, Limonium meyeri, Tamarix spp., Lycium spp., Nitraria retusa, Sondius maritimus, Frankenia pulverulenta, Aeluropus littoralis, Desmostacliya bibinnata, Prosopis farcta, Alhagi mirorum, Beta vulgaris, lnula crithmoides and Rhus tripartia (al-Eisawi 1985:55).

Geographical Setting The area of modem Israel/Jordan/Palestine is wedged between the two continents of Africa and Asia, and, in antiquity, between the two large political units of Egypt and Mesopotamia. Throughout antiquity the Levantine coastal plain, which meets Egypt in Sinai, formed its own particular geographical and cultural unit (Finkelstein 1995:1-3). Immediately to the east of this plain are the western highlands (ie. upper and lower Galilee, Samarian Hills and the Hill country around Jerusalem and Hebron). This mountainous region is cut across by the Esdraelon Valley, and other less significant valleys. The Hills of Hebron descend to the Negev (see figure 2.1). The Jordan Valley itself is part of the central rift valley which cuts north/south from Syria through Lake Huleh to the Red Sea. The river itself is bounded by the Sea of Galilee, to the north, and the Dead Sea to the south (Horowitz 1979:fig. 2.1). The portion south of the Dead Sea becomes the Wadi Arabah, and is waterless.

Today a large amount of the area around Teleilat Ghassul is under irrigated cultivation. In fact, the farm directly east of the site (which has steadily encroached upon it) has been an orchard for over twenty years. Bedouin camps are also common at the site in winter. Cattle are not common in the immediate region today. Present-day bedouin prefer to base their subsustence upon sheep and goats.

On the Jordanian side of the valley the steep edge of the plateau forms a more formidable wall than that of the highlands to the west. Four major river valleys cut through this plateau; the Yarmouk, the Zerqa leading to Amman, the Mojib and the Hasa. Settlement is made possible in this lower region due to the Mediterranean storms which travel along the edge of the Sahara, and across the lower lying Negev until caught by the mountains of Edom which rise to 1500m asl in places (Baly 1957:9). This supplies aquifers and creates run-off water for the lower regions. Settlement in the hills,

There is a lack of information regarding the paleoclimates of regions within Jordan (LaBianca and Lacelle 1986:9). In addition, what information there is can seem 11

contradictory to the archaeologist. However, the nature of the ancient environment is so important to this inquiry that some preliminary attempt must be made here to indicate the extent of c1ment knowledge.

There are at least three "climatic crises" during the Holocene when the climate deteriorated abruptly, only to return to previous levels within a few centuries. This is documented in the levels of east African lakes, dated to 12000, 8200 and 5200 (Street-Perrot and Roberts 1983). These were probably ve1y rapid volcanic or other disasters and their impact cannot be accurately plotted with radiocarbon dates.

The General Picture for the Holocene in the Near East It is common for palaeoenvironmentalists and others working in very early periods to use uncalibrated BP dates. This is because it has only been recently (mid1990s) that an extended tree-ring calibration for the Holocene, AMS dated laminated lake sediments, U-Th calibrations based on coral and other data sets have become available. This has allowed significant cross matches which make a calibrated time scale for the Holocene possible (Roberts 1998:ix-x). The dates given here are therefore calibrated BP dates except when they are in quotations when I give the calibrated dates in brackets afterwards. If the raw date has not been given then the dates were roughly calibrated according to the table given by Roberts which he bases upon OxCal. (1998:appendix).

Reinterpretation of Horowitz's palynological data from the Huleh basin (Tsukada unpub. cited in van Zeist and Bottema 1982:283) shows an increase in precipitation c. 8220, which is inferred from an increase in forest (cf elMoslimany 1994). In northwest Syria palynological data from the Ghab valley indicates that forests reached their highest levels (and therefore the area its highest humidity) between c. 11500 - 8784, after which it decreased steadily (Bottema and van Zeist 1981). At Lake Zeribar, in western Iran, on the basis of data from c. 12000-6821 an oak-pistachio steppe forest is postulated. This does not indicate further humidity, but rather a climate that would have been warmer and drier. A slow expansion of trees before c. 7000-6200 shows that humidity began reaching modem levels during this time (Bottema and van Zeist 1981). The Lake Jubba data from Arabia indicates a humid period c. 9979-4436 with a decrease after that (Garrard and Harvey 1981:141).

A useful summary of the techniques available for reconstructing palaeoenvironments is provided by Roberts (1998). The most difficult task for the archaeologist is to synthesise the differing types of climatic data and build a picture for their specific region. In the case of Teleilat Ghassul, this is made more difficult because its larger region, western Asia, straddles an important climatic hinge line during the Early Holocene. Although some variations were noted, it was formerly assumed that from at least 7000 BP the worldwide climate was essentially comparable to today (Roberts 1998: 117). However, it is now recognised that world climate stability did not exist during the Holocene in the tropics and sub-tropics, and in particular, the period from c. 9000-6000 BP when the climate was substantially different (Roberts 1998: 119). In recent times there has been rapid expansion in climatic research in western Asia which allows some degree of reconstruction.

Clearly the data do not present a uniform picture. Indeed maps produced by CHOMAP (1988:fig. 4) seem to indicate very little change for this region. Courty's 1994 study of the Upper Khabur region is different again. In her Phase I (before c. 8784) she notes a regional phenomenon which would have considerably modified the environment physically: Les populations du debut du Neolithique disposaient alors sur de vastes etendues d'excellentes terres agricoles caracterisees par des reserves en eau notablement plus elevees et une meilleure stabilite struturale que sous les conditions actuelles. (Courty 1994:43).

Palynological evidence is not extensive for this area because the sediments that are suitable for pollen analysis are not common. The limited amount of evidence we have is summarised by Bottema and van Zeist (1981; see also Baruch 1994), most inf01mation coming from the Huleh Basin in Israel (studied by Tsukada although not published) and Lake Zeribar in Iran (Bottema and van Zeist 1981:118-21). When used together pollen and lake levels appear to indicate that from c. 10000-6820 in Arabia a wetter climate existed, whilst in Turkey a drier climate is in evidence.

Phase 2 is a phase of aridification, "qui pourrait etre la manifestation locale du changement climatique abrupt identifie entre 7800 et 7200 [8500-7900] BP dans les regions intertropicales" (Courty 1994:44). However, she does deviate from the opinion above, citing a period of amelioration between 7000-5000 [7787-5731] BP, which could be correlated with the second optimum (Courty 1994:46). From before c. 10000-5500 evidence derived from cores taken from east African lakes demonstrates that there was "a truly massive extension in the zone of high level lakes and water surplus .. .into Sahara itself." The bones of large aquatic fauna are evidenced in the Sahara at this time (Roberts 1998:114-6). Oyo, in the hyperarid Sahara desert, (Richie and Haynes 1987) yields impressive pollen remains. These show that during this period the site (which was then a deep stratified lake) was surrounded by vegetation more common now 500km to the south. Thus the Sahara desert "effectively did not

Sea/lake level fluctuations are also important, especially the evidence from east Africa, where a number of major fluctuations are evident (Street-Perrott and Roberts 1983). The Dead Sea itself also provides some information (Neev and Emery 1967; modified later as Neev and Hall 1977). Sanlaville has produced a climate curve in order to synthesise the available data for western Asia (Sanlaville 1997:fig. 4). 12

exist during the early Holocene" (Roberts 1998: 116). Kurtzbach et al. have also demonstrated via climatic modelling of soil changes, that the Sahara would have had a possible 28% increase in precipitation (1996). Eventually, between 7000 and 5700 the lake became shallower and the sub-humid Savanna was replaced by arcacia thorn and then scrub grass land, and at c. 5100 the lake dried out (Roberts 1998: 115-6).

Between 13000 and 11000 [15437-12917] BP and at ca. 10000 [11 500] BP, Lake Lisan rapidly and completely dried up. The lake subsequently refilled and remained so until ca. 7000 [7787] BP, which seems to reflect a 'pluvial' period (Baruch 1994:90). There is some disagreement with Neev and Hall's 1977 analysis (see Begin, Erlich and Nathan 1974, 1980). Following Neev and Hall's work Goodfriend et al. proposed a high stand for the Dead Sea on the basis of shell evidence found many metres above (c. -280m asl) the current sea level of -395m asl (1986). They suggest that the flooding of the Arabah and South Jordan Valleys caused by this high stand (see figure 2.2) would have changed the basin morphology and as a result, evaporation would have increased. Teleilat Ghassul, apparently, would have been covered by the high stand (see figure 2.2), and the earliest radiocarbon dates for the site provide a "terminus post quern" for the end of this flooding. Of course, the dates they use are Hennessy's and these have been superseded by the new dates provided by ANSTO this year (see Chapter 5). Nonetheless they argue that the pollen evidence provided by Hennessy (1969) fits well with a sea level which was much closer to the site at the time of its first habitation (Goodfriend et al. 1986:353). We now know that this would have been between 6821 and 6294.

The record indicates that the zone of tropical convectional rains moved northwards and broadened during the early Holocene. A northerly shift in the ITCZ (Inter Tropical Convergence Zone) and its associated rains is indicated by a poleward shift in the SudanianSahelian vegetation belts, and by Holocene lakes that were larger, deeper and more permanent towards the southern side of the Sahara (Roberts 1998:119). Most importantly, if the ITCZ did move north over Africa, it is reasonable to assume that it also moved over the Indian Ocean sector, which now forms part of the modem monsoonal system. Evidence for this is present in this region in the Arabian and Rajasthan deserts in the form of fossil lake beds (McClure 1976,1988), palaeosols and pollen indicative of savanna vegetation (Singh et al. 1974). In addition ocean sediment cores taken from the Indian ocean record upwelling of the coast and tropical pollen (van Campo et al. 1982; Sirocko et al. 1991). In Roberts' view this suite of data indicates a strengthened monsoonal system in the Early Holocene (1998:119):

After putting together a synthetic climatic curve Sanlaville (1996:11, figure 4) argues that from Greece to the Levant the Mediterranean experienced synchronous environmental development. His reading of the data indicates that the Dead Sea had reached its current level at c. 6821. The climate as a whole appears to have reached a situation similar to today at c. 5731.

Increased summer rainfall may have been responsible for the dominance of sub-humid forest over most of the Mediterranean basin during the first half of the Holocene. The elimination of a clear dry season would have disadvantaged drought adapted forms such as the olive, and would also have greatly reduced the risk of fire, which has otherwise been an important agent in the maintenance of dry sclerophyll scrub and woodland (Roberts 1998: 119-20).

Geyh notes that a rise in temperature and a rise in carbon levels coincides with an increase in precipitation in the eastern Mediterranean and northern Africa. He argues that the Neolithic revolution may well be the human response to climate change (Geyh 1994:134). Studies of ground water confirm this view. Samples collected from wells across western Asia indicate that ground water was recharged during the Neolithic pluvial between 105007385, but that the period between 7385-4435 was drier, and lowest levels were reached after 4435 (Geyh 1994: 136). In essence, he sees the Chalcolithic as developing in this period of gradual desiccation, although he notes contradictory evidence provided by Goodfriend (Geyh 1994:134).

Specific data relating to the Dead Sea Region Climate studies in the Dead Sea region are largely based on studies of cores of Lake Lisan-Dead Sea sediments. Lake Lisan was a late Pleistocene salt lake which extended from the Sea of Galilee in the north to the south of the modem Dead Sea.

Roberts and Wright (1993:215-7) have suggested that changes in the monsoonal patterns may account for a slightly wetter climate in Arabia, but how much this might affect Jordan is currently being debated. The studies by Goodfriend referred to above have been repeated (Goodfriend 1990, 1991). His studies supply quite specific information on the movement of isohyets in the Negev region. During the period 7384-3187 the C4 plant boundary (indicating higher rainfall) was some 20km further south than at present (Goodfriend 1991:423, see also Alon and Levy 1996:88*). However,

Work done specifically on the Lake Lisan-Dead Sea region reveals some conflicting information, which is well summarised by Baruch (1994). Neev and Hall (1977) revised the original interpretation of Neev and Emery (1967) on the basis of new uranium/thorium and radiocarbon dates and concluded that the Lisan pluvial period seems to have ended c. 15437 to 12917 and an interpluvial (interglacial) stage occurred at c. 2010517916. 13

General background Cha/eolithic

according to Goodfriend (1991:422) this increased rainfall was not due to the monsoonal shift believed to have affected north Africa (see above). He believes it unlikely that the monsoon had moved as far north, and cites a rain pattern from eastern Europe as a preferable model. In contrast Frumkin et al. (1991:199) have asserted that:

to

the

Subsistence

of

the

The periods under discussion here, the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods, saw a great many changes to the subsistence patterns of the southern Levantine populations. Domestication of plants and animals had already begun in the PPN, and the gradual development towards fully sedentary societies is one of the major developments which underpins much of the social and political changes postulated for this period.

The gradual desiccation of the Dead Sea climate during the mid-late Holocene correlates well with the lakes of Arabia and northeast Sahara. Moreover, the first four Dead Sea stages seem to correlate well with major events recorded in African lakes which have a good stratigraphic resolution and dating control (Street-Perrot and Harrison, 1984). Nicholson and Flohn (1980) divided the early-mid Holocene to [sic] a moist lacustrine period c. 10000-8000 [11500-8784] BP, an arid episode around 7000 [7787] BP, and a second moist period c.6500-4500 [7384-5122] BP. Wetter than present conditions prevailed in the Sahara until c. 4000 [4436] BP, followed by the dry late Holocene. The good correlation between these sequences and the Dead Sea palaeoclimate presented here suggests that the Dead Sea area received summer monsoons as did northeast Sahara and Arabia. This undoubtedly influenced patterns of human occupation and early development of agriculture in the Levant (my emphasis).

As stated above, the economy in the PPN included the exploitation of a variety of wild and domestic resources. For instance, at Ain Ghazal, where we have probably the largest data source for this period, hunting was still important and the goat seems to dominate the faunal record: ... there is evidence that although goats had not experienced many changes in regards to horncore morphology, they were under considerable degree of cultural control. This is indicated by a high frequency of pathological changes on the toe bones, a kill-off pattern where less than 50% reached adulthood, and an apparent predominance of females among the adult population (KohlerRollefson 1992:13). Towards the end of the PPNB many settlements were abandoned, although Ain Ghazal was not. In fact, it continued to grow. This demonstrates that despite general climatic trends of desiccation, some settlements found themselves in slightly different circumstances allowing for differential development. In the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic it is generally accepted that a mixed economy was pursued at most sites, although the relative importance of various sections is disputed (Gilead 1992:30).

Hourani and Courty (1997) have provided the most specific evidence for the Jordan valley. This evidence is based upon geomorphological samples taken from 5th and 4th millennium BC sites in the valley, including Teleilat Ghassul and Abu Hamid. Their data confirm a last Holocene climatic optimum at c. 8784-7384 (1997:102) although they postulate a brief period of erosion and instability at the commencement of this period (1997: 100-102).

Geological Processes since the Cha/eolithic

Generally the assemblage of artefacts found on Chalcolithic sites indicates a growing sedentism. The development of larger and larger numbers of relatively immobile objects and the increasingly solid and elaborate architecture were a clear indication to archaeologists of reduced mobility before studies of archaeobotany and archaeozoology revolutionised research. In particular the number oflarge groundstone objects that begin to appear on Late Neolithic to Chalcolithic sites have been interpreted as various parts of an agricultural industry, for example hoes and grinding stones (Gopher and Orrelle 1995:67ff; cf Wright 1993:104-5 on the transition from aceramic to ceramic Neolithic).

Various archaeologists have noted that during any given period only a small sample of the inhabited sites are available for study. This is either because of incomplete excavation or insufficient exploration in certain regions. In the case of this early period, this problem appears to be particularly important. Banning has noted that in the general survey conducted up and down the Wadi Ziqlab in northern Jordan, only a fraction of the sites are on the surface (Banning et al. 1996:47; Banning 1997). Discoveries all over the region have revealed that Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites have been subject to aggradation and degradation (see Levy 1981) rendering them invisible to survey or excavation projects in the vicinity (Bar-Yosef and Goren 1980:14). A number of sites in southern Jordan have reported faulting from earthquake or subsidence.

Lithics Differences in typological proportions within the flint assemblages of sites have also been interpreted as a sign of growing sedentism. The ratio of arrowheads to sickle blades, and the general decline in arrowheads, from the Pottery Neolithic through the Chalcolithic (Rosen 1987:301) has led many to suggest a decline in the importance in hunting (Gopher 1995:211; Gopher and Orrelle 1995:85). There are of course a number of other 14

factors involved. Arrowheads could have been made of a perishable material, or may be more likely to turn up outside settlements, rather than inside them. The activity itself may not be co-ordinated from the settlement, but rather from camps elsewhere. Further, arrowheads may be used for defensive purposes in addition to hunting for animals. The growth in the number of sickle blades is also important and is often used to argue for the sedentism of the ancient inhabitants (Gilead 1992:31). However, using this as an indicator for the entire population is probably unwarranted (Kohler-Rollefson 1992:14-15).

deforestation caused by fuel requirements for plastering may have been disastrous. Substantial agricultural productivity losses are proposed (Rollefson 1996:223). It is unclear to what extent this pattern will be repeated in the data from other sites of the period. At this stage, Ain Ghazal is the only site for which detailed information is available. Ain Ghazal also shows the beginnings of pottery production in the PPNC period, before the Y armoukian phase which is well known from that site (Kafafi 1993). The agricultural development from this stage to the Later Chalcolithic is a difficult one to follow due to the lack of a clear sequence. Y armoukian sites still show a dominance of ovicaprines, while agriculture concentrated on cereals, various legumes, and flax (Muheisen et al. 1988). Olives were known, but these may not have been domesticated. This picture, which changes slightly for the Wadi Rabah phase, shows an absence of arrow heads. This may reflect negligible hunting. Cattle and pigs are present, although ovicaprines are certainly still dominant (Gopher 1995:211).

Ceramics The development of a ceramic industry apparently went hand-in-hand with increased sedentism. Ceramics actually first appeared in the PPNC (eg. Ain Ghazal), and much has been written on the beginnings of pottery development (Moore 1995). It has been further argued that as societies become increasingly ranked, ceramic forms become much further diversified as new types of vessels are required (Chapman 1988). The technologies of the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic populations were constantly evolving and changing to meet new requirements. The gradual expansion of ceramic repertoires argues for increasingly specific usage of ceramic containers, an expansion in the types of materials stored, and perhaps therefore, increased societal complexity.

In the Late Chalcolithic, on the basis of phytolith studies it has been suggested that the inhabitants of Shiqmim used floodwater farming (A. Rosen 1987) coupled with specialised herding practices (Levy 1981). Draught cattle and the use of the plough are also proposed (Levy et al. 1991:407). The Chalcolithic certainly is a period where extraordinary socio-economic changes took place in at least some of the documented areas.

Architecture Kohler- Rollefson notes that it is difficult, on the basis of architectural parallels, to assume the subsistence basis of a settlement. Specialised semi-nomadic pastoralists can use the same types of structures as settled agriculturalists, although for different purposes. While this may not apply in all cases, it is a possibility that cannot be discounted. In this case the presence of pigs, pottery or other artefacts generally associated with a fully sedentary population would not preclude other subsistence activities especially as we know that specialised pastoralists depend upon agriculturalists to supplement their diet:

Comments on specialised pastoralism have been made by Levy in reference to other data (Levy 1980, 1981, 1983), but these have been made exclusively for the Negev region. Grigson finds no data to support seasonal movement from Grar (Grigson 1995b:411), although her sample is quite small. This site, in the northern Negev, has revealed an interesting set of faunal data. Grigson reports the presence of horse bones from the site (1995b:403-6). While the sample is very small, it certainly casts new light on the possibilities of travel over longer distances.

Contrary to the prevailing view among archaeologists, cultural anthropologists unanimously emphasise that the relationship between nomads and settlers is in many respects symbiotic, since nomadic pastoralists cannot exist in isolation and are dependent on an exchange with agricultural producers for nonpastoral products such as grain (Kohler-Rollefson 1992:11).

Animals for transport and traction The secondary products revolution (Sherratt 1981, 1985) probably began earlier than the Chalcolithic (Hesse 1996:142), although it is more developed in this period. The innovation of using animals for wool/hide and milk as well as meat was not the only part of this change. The brief appearance of vessels interpreted as "chums" in this period has been associated with this revolution (Sherratt 1981:280-2). Animals were also harnessed for traction and transport (Sherratt 1985:95). Grigson argues that the use of the plough is not definite (Grigson 1995a:258) although it has been proposed by other scholars (A. Rosen 1987).

Changes in environmental exploitation Gradually the PPN period saw the development of domesticated animals (in particular goats) at the expense of wild taxa and the development of farming which continued into later periods. It has been suggested that the over-reliance on goats was detrimental to PPN society. Although the range of exploitation was broad, there appears to have been a specific emphasis on goats (Kohler-Rollefson 1989). The effect of large numbers of goats on the landscape coupled with the intensive

There are examples of figurines of load bearing animals from the Chalcolithic and the EBI but it is argued that there is a difference between the two periods (Ovadia 1992). While the domestic donkey certainly appears to have been used for transport by the EBA, evidenced by 15

several figurines from Giv'atayim, Azor and Bat Yam the laden animal figurines of the Chalcolithic appear to be bulls, rams or goats (Ovadia 1992:22-5). If the dating of these sites is correct, it may indicate that the donkey does not appear to have been in widespread use until the EBA (Ovadia 1992:26-7), which would attach certain limitations to trade and transport in the Chalcolithic.

There appears to be fewer old and very young animals in the Middle to Late Chalcolithic assemblage, which may suggest a gradual change towards managed herds. Pig and cattle numbers were still high in the Late Chalcolithic levels indicating an environment which was still wet enough for their production. There is therefore little evidence for a major climatic shift at the end of the Chalcolithic from this data set (Mairs nd:5).

Specific data on Subsistence Older pigs predominate in the Late Neolithic phases, while immature animals are more common in the Early Chalcolithic and remain that way throughout the Chalcolithic. This appears to indicate that only animals with a secondary product were kept into older age brackets. From the Neolithic to the Early Chalcolithic, the shift in the age-at-death patterns for pigs are broadly the reverse of those for cattle and ovicaprines and it appears that breeding programs for pigs during the Chalcolithic were considered only in the light of maximising meat production. This can only serve to highlight the variation in kill patterns for the other species which do have secondary product potential (Mairs nd:13).

Archaeobotanical and faunal information is not widely available for the Chalcolithic period. Shiqmim has produced archaeobotanical and faunal (Levy 1987; Levy et al. 1991; Grigson 1995a) data, as have a number of other sites in the Negev, although some present more upto-date data than others. Archaeozoological data The Beersheva sites have produced faunal information for Safadi (Josien 1955, Ducos 1968, Grigson 1987), Horvat Beter (Angres 1959), Bir Abu Matar (Josien 1955), as have sites further north, for example Tel Tsaf (Hellwing 1988/89) and Pella (Mairs in Bourke et al. 1994, 1998). Overall most of the evidence suggests a mixed farming/pastoral economy based on a predominance of sheep/goats and some cattle and pigs. Occasionally wild animals are noted, eg. gazelle. Hunting appears to be incidental to the economy. There is certainly evidence of herd management, although it is stronger at some sites than at others.

There also appears to be a suggestion of the return of gazelle in the fmal phases, while during the main history of occupation at the site the inhabitants relied almost solely on domesticated animals (Mairs nd:14). Generally, considering all the data, the later phases at the site are clearly indicating a broadening of resource bases increasing complexity of herd management.

Archaeozoological data is now available for Teleilat Ghassul (Mairs in Bourke et al. 1995:58-60; Mairs nd) 10. The most significant fmding in terms of this book is the fact that there is a marked change between the Late Neolithic and the Early Chalcolithic in terms of the faunal remains. On the basis of meat-equivalent ratios based upon the minimum number of individuals (MNl) measure, cattle predominate from the Late Neolithic phases 11. Sheep and goats are secondary and never rise above 40% of consumed meat. The presence of pigs argues for sedentism over nomadism (Mairs nd:5). The record shows a dramatic increase in aged cattle from the Early Chalcolithic period, which may argue for the preservation of older animals for reasons of protein efficiency. Mairs states that "protein and energy conversion efficiencies of milk production far outweigh those of beef production" (Mairs nd: 10). There is also a sharp decline in sheep and goats from the Late Neolithic (c. 40%) to the Early Chalcolithic (less than 20% ).

Archaeobotanical data The Shiqmim project has provided a fairly large sample for the Late Chalcolithic (Kislev 1987). This material shows the following results: 1) two rowed hulled barley (Hordeum distichon) 83% 2) emmer (Triticum dicoccon) 11% 3) wheat (T parvicoccum) 2.3% 4) lentil (Lens culinaris) 2.2% 5) other 1.2% Kislev notes that six rowed barley is almost completely absent (1987:253), and that wild taxa are a very small part of the sample. For the most part it includes plants common to the Negev today. Abu Hamid has also produced preliminary archaeobotanical data which reveal a suite of wheat, six row barley and plants which support dry climates (Neef 1988:18-19). Abu Hamid also presents evidence of olive cultivation (Neef 1988:19). Fruit trees are well known from Chalcolithic sites (Zohary and Spiegel-Roy 1975) but whether they were cultivated or wild is still being debated. It has been recently suggested that the settlement patterns of Chalcolithic settlements might be related to the suitability of their soil for olive growing (Banning et al. 1998:154).

lO Dr Lachlan Mairs (University of Sydney) has processed and analysed the faunal remains from Teleilat Ghassul. I thank him for kindly providing a copy of his report, and for valuable comments on the text. Any errors are entirely my own. 11 Mairs explains that on the basis of meat yields cattle are more important to the diet of some Chalcolithic communities eg. at Pella. The differential bone preservation of sheep/goat versus cattle leads to a bias in favour of sheep/goat which may mask the larger contribution of cattle (see Mairs in Bourke et al. 1994:122-3).

Information for Teleilat Ghassul comes from two unpublished reports by the project archaeobotanists 12. 12 For the earliest seasons Chantelle Hoppe (Sheffield University, UK) was the archaeobotanist; John Meadows (La

16

Copper

The general character of the samples revealed a similar picture to other sites of the period. 75% of the samples were characterised by a dominance of hulled barley grain (Hordeum sativum; there was a mixture of 2 and 6 row chaff), emmer wheat chaff (Triticum dicoccum glume bases) and weed seeds. There were smaller amounts of pulses, fruits and nuts (see below). 25% were dominated by crop products such as cereal grain, pulses (mainly lentils -Lens culinaris, peas - Pisum sp., grass peas Lathyrus sp., vetch - Vicia ervilia and V sativa, beans V f aba and chickpeas - Cicer sp. ), fruits (largely olive, Olea sp., but some fig , Ficus sp.) and nuts ( almond Prunus amygdalus, pistachio - Pistacia sp. ). Of the total 20% had large amounts (10-40% of sample content) of olive remains. Some flax (Linum sp.) was also found in one area, Area G. Some wild taxa were also recovered in the samples (Hoppe nd).

It is now accepted that southern Jordan produced much of

the copper discovered in Chalcolithic excavations. The area of the Wadi F einan has been a major zone of research recently. The lack of Chalcolithic settlement sites in the region has been commented on by many scholars. Most of the sites picked up in recent surveys tend to be small sherd scatters, often associated with burials or cemetery structures (Macdonald 1992), although there are a few corrals and other structures which indicate Chalcolithic inhabitants. The site of Fidan 4, thought to be Chalcolithic, has turned out to be an EBA site (Adams 1997; Genz 1997), and this type of material is now paralleled by Wadi Feinan 100 (Wright et al. 1998). Except for the Late Neolithic site of Tell Wadi Fidan (Najjar et al. 1990), no large prehistoric settlements have been found, but it seems that it is only a matter of time before Chalcolithic settlement is found in this region.

In the basal levels crop products dominated, the levels above were largely dominated by hulled barley, wheat chaff and weed seeds. Olive appeared as a large percentage of samples throughout.

Salt The Dead Sea region is known to have been extensively used as a salt resource in the Roman period and beyond (Amar 1998:3). According to an Islamic source, various types of salt were mined from the Dead Sea region during this period, and salt was both exported and used locally. There is special reference to salt mined from the area of Soddom which was called Andarani salt (known as tabarazad in Iraq). Amar proposes that the site of production may be identified as Zara or Daraah (generally identified as Callirhoe) which provided therapeutic cures in the Roman period and served as the port of Machaerus (Amar 1998:4-5). Interestingly, Chalcolithic remains are now known from Zara 25 ('Amr et al. 1997).

The olive remains were consistently fragmented. This may suggest that we are mainly seeing the discard of debris from olive oil extraction in those samples containing large quantities of olive pits (Hoppe nd). More detailed study conducted recently suggests there is a distinction between the Early to Middle Chalcolithic within the archaeobotanical data. This is marked by an increase in production levels (a move from 2 to 6 row barley) and the introduction of small seeded legumes (Bourke et al. in press). There is also some evidence that olives are beginning to be cultivated, inferred from measurements of the pips (Meadows nd; legumes (Bourke et al. in press; cf. Neef 1990:300). There are larger amounts of fig in the later phases, as well as one example of a date. Flax seeds occur in only a small number of samples making temporal patterning impossible at this stage (Bourke et al. in press).

Moslem literature also states that salt moved from this area in small boats to Jericho and to the rest of the Jordan valley. Bloch (1962) contends that the boat cargoes on the Dead sea depicted on the Madaba map indicated salt trade. He bases this on the different hues on the piles on each boat (Amar 1998:5). In addition, a white sulphur known as byd was apparently mined from the "the shore of the Dead Sea near Ghur Jericho and near the site where the Jordan River flows to it" (At-Tamimi quoted in Amar 1998:6). This sulphur is probably calcium sulphate, also known as anhydrite (Amar 1998:5).

Resources available to communities in the Dead Sea Region The region around the Dead Sea has never been densely inhabited. It lies in a marginal area and has been the territory of various nomadic groups for hundreds of years (Prag 1991). Rainfall is low and much of the area to the north of Teleilat Ghassul up to the Wadi Zarqa is under irrigation today. The specific area around Teleilat Ghassul bears little evidence of occupation after the Chalcolithic. Just a few sherds of Roman/Byzantine date were recovered from the site itself. The area south of the Wadi Zarqa is much more arid than the valley area to the north at least, in the present day.

Every residue contains salt in some form. It would be difficult to test for salt within ceramic vessels or other containers. Potts observes that there is an association between Neolithic communities and salt gathering because animal diet provides salt, but a vegetable diet does not. Settled societies can therefore require salt more than hunter/gatherers (Potts 1984:227). Salt also had a wide variety of possible uses (Potts 1984:264).

Bitumen We know that bitumen is also available from the Dead Sea region in later periods (Moorey 1994:333). This substance was used widely in building and construction in Mesopotamia, but might also be used more generally as an adhesive or sealant or even medicinally (Moorey 1994:332). Black mastic, probably bitumen, is found on glossed Canaanean blades from EBI and EBIV levels at

Trobe University, Melbourne) has been the project's archaebotanist for the more recent seasons. I thank them both for their generous help. Any errors are entirely my own.

17

Iktanu (McCartney 1996:145-6). No black mastic 1s sofar known from Teleilat Ghassul however.

Conclusion All of this, at times conflicting, evidence is interpreted in differing ways by different archaeologists, often in response to their own requirements. Barker et al. (1998) in their survey of the Wadi Feinan found a complex of circular catchments, cairns and terrace walls which have been dated to the Chalcolithic period. They hypothesise that: ... the social transformations of the Chalcolithic period were associated not only with the systematic exploitation of copper ores but also with new systems of land use characterised by the deliberate management and storage of surface floodwaters. Although the regional climatic evidence for this period is partial... the consensus is that significant aridity was developing by 5000-3500 B.C.; Chalcolithic floodwater farming was presumably developed in response to this, though in the context of the new social system (Barker et al. 1998:24). In fact, the climatic evidence, although conflicting, appears to support a climatic optimum at the period of time covered by the Neolithic. This is being increasingly accepted as the consensus (Sanlaville 1997:253). Nonetheless the level of contradiction between various sources of information and methods of inquiiy cannot be downplayed (Finkelstein 1995:35). A gradual change towards the climate of today might have developed by the end of the Chalcolithic period, and this may have had an effect on the socio-economics of the region but there is a difficulty with using environmental evidence as a "deus ex-machina" when the picture is unclear. Archaeology can contribute. The faunal and botanical evidence suggests that there are a great many changes occurring, and that these probably reflect the inhabitants' growing sedentism and increased knowledge about the environment and the resources available to them. It is difficult to envisage the increase in settlement and resource exploitation which we know occurred in the Late Chalcolithic in tandem with a steady decrease in environmental conditions. On the other hand it is clear that sometimes quite brief fluctuations in rainfall can have a devastating effect. Carole Palmer observes that during the severe winter of 1991-2, Jordan received its highest rainfall for forty years. The Dead Sea rose 0.5m. Extreme fluctuations like this can result in very low yields (Palmer 1995:132-4, fig. 4).

team excavated Late Neolithic material over c. 46m 2 . Bourke's excavations have increased the coverage to c. 5 lm 2 in total. This book publishes the critical Area A ceramic sequence from both Hennessy and Bourke's excavations.

Chapter 3: The Stratigraphy of Area A at Teleilat Ghassul Introduction The site of Teleilat Ghassul was the first major Chalcolithic site extensively excavated and is unique in the history of Chalcolithic scholarship. It is still widely held to be a key site for the Chalcolithic (Gonen 1992:41; Stager 1992:27). Despite this, publication has been inadequate. Magnificent wall paintings have been found there (Koeppel 1940:pls. 5-8) which have found their way into major museum exhibits. Very little is known of their contexts, or the specifics of other associated material.

Material excavated over a 30 year period is included in this study. It begins with material excavated by E. Prof. J.B. Hennessy's project (1967-77) and is supplemented by material excavated by Dr S. J. Bourke's team (19947). The following chapter presents the stratigraphic context of the ceramics considered in this book, which concentrates primarily upon the material from Area A (the deep cut). This is because it is the only area where a complete sequence is present. No other area on the site has produced Late Neolithic material. This area is arguably the most intensively explored area on the site, although the area where the "sanctuary complex" was found (Area E) has also been well sounded.

The PBI excavators had an eye for certain aspects of detail, for example bricks were described at some length (Mallon et al. 1934:34-5) and their ground plans (an example is reproduced here as figure 1.2) suggested a degree of town planning. Impressive features were documented including streets (Koeppel 1940:pl. 18.2) and covered drains (Koeppel 1940:pl. 32.2). The two volumes present quite good photographs and plans that give detailed notes on installations of various kinds. They also go to some effort to explain the geographical setting of the site (Mallon et al. 1934:5-26). Nonetheless, they did not present complete catalogues of material 13, nor were they able to document in publication the four-five stages they claimed to have excavated at the site. Koeppel made an attempt to divide level IV, the upper level, into two phases, IVA and IVB on stratigraphic grounds, but this is not successful:

Stratigraphy The deep cut was laid out as Area A, which is located on the summit of the main mound (plate III.1 ), partly excavated by the PBI as Trench I-II (see figure 3.la). Twelve squares have been excavated within it in total, and four of these reached sterile soil. These are Hennessy's All and AIII and Bourke's sondages, AX and AXI ( see figure 3 .1a and b ). It is the ceramics from these four squares that form the backbone of this work. AX1 was dug through Hennessy's original square AI and AX was excavated directly to its north (see plate III.2). On the basis of his excavations Hennessy stated that he had isolated ten phases of occupation, A+ to I (Hennessy 1969). These effectively break down into four main phases of occupation, which I have termed Late Neolithic, Early Chalcolithic, Middle Chalcolithic and Late Chalcolithic (table 3 .1 ). It must be stressed that it is not clear how these might relate to the original PBI determination of I-IV, which was based on crudely excavated information. It is shown in table 3.1 that Bourke's sondages include an extra phase (phase J) which predates the BSAJ/USyd's earliest phase (I). The BSAJ/USyd "pit-dwellings" were dug into sterile soil whereas Bourke's were dug into occupation levels that were largely without features (phase J). It is difficult to be definitive about the reason for this given the small exposures thus far revealed by the USyd team. Sterile was reached in the AX and AXI sondages at a lower absolute level than that ofHennessy's. It may be assumed that Bourke's sondages are, in fact, on the western-most edge of the Late Neolithic tell, and perhaps a little downslope from Hennessy's. In this case, phase J may not be significantly different from Hennessy's phases H and I, and for the purposes of this research, they are treated together.

We have come to the conclusion that all the walls and hearths can be divided into two classes that belong to levels IVA and B respectively, although we must admit that they really form one whole (Koeppel 1940:53). The joint British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem and University of Sydney (BSAJ/USyd) work was more careful in its stratigraphic investigation and provided new insights. Hennessy's first season distinguished ten building phases and broad exposures revealed carefully excavated floor deposits which tell us much more about the daily activities of the site's inhabitants. It was noted that earthquake faulting had disrupted stratigraphy so that some areas were not able to be effectively investigated. There is still significant academic interest in the sequence at Teleilat Ghassul, especially in the "pre-Ghassulian" levels. Despite a number of preliminary reports (Hennessy 1969, 1982, 1989), Hennessy's work was not completely accepted at the time. His Late Neolithic material remains largely unpublished and there is still significant interest in the sequence. The BSAJ/USyd

Table 3.1 gives the stratigraphic phases as isolated in Hennessy's and Bourke's excavations. It should be noted that phases A+ to I, as they are interpreted here, may not correspond exactly to Hennessy's original divisions.

13 A catalogue of the ceramics and other finds was later attempted by Lee (1973) although this has remained unsatisfactory due to the lack of firm stratigraphy.

19

Hennessy Area A Sondage AX SondageAXI Periodisation A+ A Late B Chalcolithic i C D ii i Middle E iii ii Chalcolithic F iv iii v and vi (GH) iv Early Chalcolithic G H vii V Late I viii vi Neolithic ................................................................................. ........................................................... ...................................................... ix vii J Sterile Sterile Sterile Table 3.1: Correlation between BSAJ/USyd and USyd work.

Hennessy's first stratigraphic analysis was based solely upon the 1967 All sondage (Hennessy 1969). Detailed description of his stratigraphic divisions of deposits excavated after 1967 has never appeared in print. The stratigraphic analysis which appears here is my own interpretation of the two squares as a whole, and as they compare to Bourke's sondages. Correspondence between the two excavations was made largely on the basis of the sections and plans, taking into account similar features and absolute levels. The close proximity of Bourke's sondages to Hennessy's material made this relatively easy. The periodisation here is based upon major phase groupings. These rely upon the major changes in building phases (see below).

Walls are given wall numbers (1, 2, 3 etc.). Photographs and scale plans were made and are reproduced here and referred to by their plate numbers/figure numbers. Finds All deposits were sieved, and in Area A, all were sampled archaeobotanically. In fact, in the AX and AXI sondages every deposit (except for mud brick) was taken in its entirety for archaeobotanical wet sieving. Finds were recorded simply by locus level, but were in some cases triangulated and recorded according to their exact findspot if they were considered of special significance. Plotted objects were often later given registration numbers by the small fmds registrar. Preliminary processing occurred in the field and afterwards at the University ofSydney 14.

AX and AXI Methodology under Bourke The USyd return to Teleilat Ghassul in 1994 under Stephen Bourke was primarily designed to retrieve archaeobotanical and archaeozoological material to supplement the architectural and cultural sequence that Hennessy's BSAJ/USyd team had recovered. In addition to the environmental data, a significant sample of ceramic and other material was recovered, making it possible to enlarge upon Hennessy's sample.

Area A, Square XI Sondage AXI is the clearest and largest sondage and will therefore be discussed first. This sondage or square was dug through the original area of AI. It was planned to further excavate this area in 1975. Unfortunately, in the intervening off-season a large wash gully was created which effectively destroyed the deposits directly below the area excavated in 1967, and it was decided to concentrate on All and AIII. In 1994 the Sydney team cleared the original AI square back to "clean" levels (plate III.2) and placed a sondage on its eastern extent, effectively against the western AIII baulk line (plate III.34 ). All deposits were therefore related to the AIII sections 15. It was estimated at the time that the sondage would effectively sound phase D and below, and this proved to be the case.

Method Most sondages dug across the site were 1 x 2m (see Bourke et al. 1995, in press) although AXI was expanded to 2 x 2m in 1995. Each of the sondages had one trained archaeologist (site supervisor) who excavated and removed the deposits and 4-5 local workmen who took the soil to the sieve, and then to the spoil heap. The excavation method was based on the "locus level" system, loci being horizontal distinctions and levels being vertical distinctions. Each sondage was, when necessary, divided into separate loci on the basis of walls or other features. At the appearance of a new building phase or wall the supervisor changes the locus designation, thus when the surface soil of a trench is removed as, for example, "locus 1, level 1" (expressed as locus level 1. 1) and a wall appears, the material on one side of the wall would then be dug as locus level 2.1, and on the other side locus level 3 .1, and below that 3 .2 etc. A complete list of locus levels can be found in Appendix A. Pits and other features are given feature numbers in addition to their locus levels.

14 Almost all of the non-registered finds from the 1994-7 excavations are held in store at the University of Sydney, N.S.W. Australia. Material from the Hennessy excavations is split between Sydney (which has the large bulk of material), the British School of Archaeology at Jerusalem (BSAJ), the British Museum (BM), the Nicholson Museum, Sydney, the Amman Citadel Museum and the Salt Museum, Jordan. Registered small finds from the 1994-1997 seasons were divided 70:30 to Jordan. 15 It is planned to present the AI top phase with the top phases of AN-VIII also excavated by Hennessy in a further volume.

20

The sondage was originally a 1 x 2m area, but on reaching sterile, it was expanded east to be a 2 x 2m area. Loci 11 and 12 represent a second sequence paralleling loci 1 - 10. The section is presented here as figure 3.2. Discussion will proceed from the earliest phase to the latest, and should be read in conjunction with the Harris matrix (figure 3.3) and the locus level list (Appendix A).

Feature 13/37 was the latest of the "dwelling pits" and was cut from 12.20 on a different alignment to the previous pit 11/12/14. It was excavated first as 9.32-34 and 36-40 and then in the extension as 12.19 and 12.2125 (figure 3.2, plate III.6). This pit bottomed out on to the thin black organic floor level of pit feature 12/14 noted earlier (10.6/12.24). Its upper section had a grey clay facing (12.25) and a bench-like installation (excavated as 10.2 and 12.23) which was covered with a thin black organic deposit (12.22). Lying on this thin black deposit was plot object 7, a flat stone, and plot object 8, a recut base. To the south of this bench was a group of stones which overlay hard bricky material.

Phase J (vii) The grey-green clay levels that lie above the sterile yellow sand (locus levels 10.21-23) at the bottom of the tell form this phase. These levels cannot be classified as occupation surfaces although they certainly contain pottery and other finds which indicate human occupation. Locus levels 10.18-20 also belong to this phase.

Pit feature 38 is a small pit which appears to cut through the original 37 cut. Its fill was excavated as 12.32-33. It is possible that this was part of the original pit. It would line up well with the installation/bench built against the edge of feature 37 excavated as 12.23 and was probably contemporary with locus level 12.22.

In 1995 the levels at the base of the sondage were excavated as locus levels 12.35-40, a series of grey to white clay layers including ash and in some cases, small stones. In 1997 these same levels were excavated as levels 13.1-8, a series of greenish grey clay lenses. A stone disc (plot object 9) was retrieved from locus level 12.36. Pit feature 40 (12.38) is a shallow pit, cut from 12.37/10.14 and into 12.39/10.15 (feature 39) which is a mottled clay surface which looks honeycomb-like (plate III.4). 12.26-34 are a series of orange/brown fill layers ( cut by feature 37 from a later phase) which include a few green-grey lenses (eg. 12.28).

Phase G (iv) This phase is devoid of architecture, and is made up largely of fill and pit levels. A cut (feature 36) in the fill layers from 12.15 was detected, although it may relate to the final phase of the pit dwelling (feature 37) belonging to phase H (figure 3.4).

The pits and fills that make up this phase are features 6 (9.3), 7 (9.4,5 and 6), 28 (12.1 and 2) 31 (12.5), 32 (12.6), 33 (12.7) and 34 (12.9) which are cut into interleaving wash layers and fill levels 9. 7-28, 12.4, 8, 17, 18 and 20. These levels are made all the more difficult to interpret by subsidence splits that have displaced stratigraphy. Several of these levels had to be dug in small sections in order to avoid contamination from more recent deposits which had slipped down the splits. Locus levels 9.20 and 28 may possibly belong to the preceding phase. They are grouped here as they may be the result of infilling and erosion after that phase. This also applies to fill layer 12.16 (fill of feature 36) in the extension. This level was probably deposited to level the surface for the following more substantial architectural phase.

Phase I (vi) A series of pit-dwellings formed this phase in Hennessy's squares, and the same type of intercutting pit levels were discovered here. Pit feature 12/14 (figure 3.4) is the first. It was revealed in the southern half of the original sondage.

The edge of this cut firmed into a mudbrick/pise edge or wall lower down, termed Wall 6/feature 12 (figure 3.2) and excavated as 10.1 and 10.12-17 (phase J). Its fill was excavated as 10.9-11. At the top, the pit is about Im wide, and is ovoid. Its length is impossible to measure as it disappears into the west baulk. Feature 12/14 had a second phase of occupation, its final floor was excavated as locus levels 10.6 and 12.24 (figure 3.2). This floor had a stone packing (feature 15) and was also the first floor of the second phase of the pit, feature 11 (figure 3 .1). Pit feature 11 was recut from locus level 9.30 (a sandy orange deposit). The upper fill layers of this pit (9.29 and 9.31) resembled mud brick debris and slurry. However 10.2, 3, 4 and 5 appear to be more solid deposits. Underneath the organic floor level (10.6) was brown sandy packing with some large and medium sized stones (10.7 and 8).

The transition between phase F and G is marked by a thin grey floor, 9.3 which is equivalent to 12.1 in the extension. Phase F (iii) This phase includes walls 4' (an earlier phase of wall 4) and 5 (figure 3.6). Walls 4' and 5 were not bonded with each other at construction (see figure 3.2). Later they were consolidated with the addition of several odd bricks and rocks at the comers. White mud bricks appear at the base of these walls. Locus 7 includes occupation layers (7.1-8) associated with wall 5 on the western side.

PhaseH (v) The stratigraphy of this phase is extremely complicated as it consists of intercutting pits. These were probably dwellings, open on at least one side and lay on slightly different alignments. They appear to have been cut into the natural shelving of the tell's original surface to form types of shelters.

Between wall 5 and 4' on the eastern side, occupation layers were excavated as locus 8. In the extension these were excavated as 11.30-42. These were fill levels, small pits and postholes (features 23-27 and 29). The 21

occupation level on the western side of wall 4' is 8.9. A thin grey floor (9.1 and 2) lies under wall 4', but this appears to be contemporary with wall 5, suggesting that wall 4' is a slightly later construction. 8.4-6, 8.8 and 11.29 are the levels given to the excavation of wall 5. 8. 5 includes the removal of several more stake holes which pierce the wall and are counted as part of feature 4 (see below). These were too small to contain any finds, but it is possible that, although in line, they might have been caused by a snake or other animal. 8.7 includes the removal of wall 4'.

2.5 and 2.11-13 form the structure of wall 2. Wall 1 was excavated as locus 1.1-5. In the extension of the sondage this phase includes a number of fill and pit levels. 11.1-4 are levels across the whole of the extension and below them pit features 16 and 17 were revealed. Feature 16 was dug as 11.5. Feature 17 was much larger and was cut into a flecked floor (11. 7). Its fill was excavated as 11.6. Removal of 11.7 revealed a plaster lined pit (feature 18) which appeared also in the east section (ie. the west AIII section) and was cut from an orange deposit with ash flecks. The fill of feature 18 was excavated as 11.8-10 and 12. Along with occupation levels cut by it (11.1314), this pit and the levels above it were associated with the structure excavated as walls 1 and 2.

Underneath walls 3 and 4 (phase E), what appeared to be a paved mud brick surface (6.1 and 8.1) was revealed. This later turned out to be collapse from wall 5. In the extension this collapse can also be seen, and was excavated as wall 8 ( 11.28). 11.22 is a thin grey lens that forms the boundary between phases E and F in the extension. Below it lies feature 22 ( 11.24) and various fill deposits ( 11.25-27) which form levels of collapse.

Area A, Square X The AX sondage was placed almost directly northwest of AXI. This was a 2 x Im. slot (figure 3.1, plate III.2). The aim was to sample undisturbed deposits unconnected with Hennessy's original sections and thereby sample the upper levels. However, the first metre or so of this sondage proved to be spoil heap, and it was not until lower down the sequence that good deposits were reached. The section is presented here as figure 3 .1.

Phase E (ii) A later structure along the same alignment as walls 4' and 5 is found in phase E formed by walls 3 and 4 (figure 3. 7, plate III. 7). Levels outside the structure are excavated as 3 .1 and 3 .4 (originally feature 3), while levels inside are excavated as 4.2,3,5 and 6 (originally feature 2). Locus level 11.21 in the extension represents the fill levels associated with walls 4 and 7. Wall 3 is excavated as 3.3, 11.20 and 11.23, wall 4 as 3.5. The collapse or slurry from wall 3 is excavated as 3.2, 11.18 and 5.1-2 and from wall 4 as 4.1 and 4.

PhaseJ (ix) Sterile is represented by 2.131 and 133 excavated in the southern half of the sondage (plate III.7). Level 2.132 was a green gritty wall built against the only Late Neolithic pit cut in this sondage. The structure of the pit itself is similar to the AXI example (feature 11/12/14) where the cut shelves down (figure 3.12). In the north of the sondage a circular line of the pit is visible, formed by "a large patch of a greenish buff and brick material... which is scratchy but quite solid", a "softish" surface was found to lap up to the cut of this pit 17.

In the extension locus levels 11.17 and 19 represent the removal of a collapsed mud brick structure (wall, or bench labelled wall 7) which appeared in the north section (figure 3.2). This structure was of orange mud brick and had some fragments of lime plaster mixed with it. The bricks are disarticulated, but a small depression or pit-like feature (feature 21) in the upper part may qualify it as some type of installation.

Phase I (viii) The fill of this pit (no feature no. given) was excavated as 2.127-28 (figure 3.4). These fill layers are described by the excavator as grey-green and have a fair amount of clay content. The cut for the pit was not clear and is therefore represented on the section as a dotted line (see figure 3.12). Finds included a stone disk (plot object 11).

Wall 3 runs directly underneath wall 1, and wall 4 runs underneath wall 2. Removal of 11.14 revealed two further shallow pits (features 19 and 20): locus 11.15 and 16 respectively. These will be included in this phase. Phase D (i) This phase is associated with walls 1 and 2 (figure 3.8). The collapse and debris of this phase is also included and this is represented in levels 2.1, 2 and 4. Locus level 2.3 begins the first good occupation level associated with walls 1 and 2. It was originally thought that these ashy occupation levels (2.3-4 and 2.6-10) were a taboun, and as such it was originally termed feature 116. Locus levels

Phase H (vii) This phase is marked by a pale grey organic floor (2.124) which overlays a fill layer (2.125) in which was found a pierced stone disk and a pit/animal hole (2.126). The levels above this are largely fill layers (2.111-123).

2.112 includes much disarticulated tumbled mudbrick lying on deposits 2.113 and 114 which also contained mudbrick. These levels appeared to slope up to a hardened deposit in the north of the sondage. However, after careful cleaning of the sections, no features were identified down to 2.122. Instead there were several layers of interleaving fill deposits containing debris from

l6 This is another example of the confusion over "ashlayers" at Teleilat Ghassul. The occupational surfaces, which in section are clearly associated with articulated brick walls, are often mistaken for ash pits. This is because the deposits at Ghassul are quite organic in nature. I believe most of the "ash" deposits referred to by the PBI (Koeppel 1940:23-6) are just such layers.

17 Excavator's notebook.

22

Hennessy's Sequence

other areas and traces of original floor levels. One possible wall was found in the south west comer (2.120). A shallow pit/depression (figure 3.3) was found at the bottom of these deposits (2.123).

In January of 1967 Hennessy opened seven 7 x 5m squares, and an eighth larger square in Area A. This area effectively became the "deep cut" when in 1975-77 excavations were concentrated on squares II and III -which were taken down to sterile levels (see figures 3.14 and 16, plate III.9) some six metres below.

Phase GH (vi) Levels 2.100-110 are fill levels into which installation feature 9 (figure 3.5) is cut. The excavation of fill levels 2.94 and 5 revealed a long depression (drain or channel, feature 10) which led to feature 9, excavated as 2.99. The cut for pit feature 9 (2.88, 88b and c) has associated with it locus levels 2.87, 2.89-90, 92-3, 96-8a and 100.

Method Each of the squares had at least one trained archaeologist (site supervisor) and 4-5 local workmen. The excavation method was based on the same locus level system explained earlier, and again a complete list of locus levels can be found in Appendix A. Pits and other features are given feature numbers along with their locus levels, as are walls. It should be noted that wall numbers and feature numbers are different. In fact, walls usually (but not always) received a letter, rather than a number. Thus feature 4 ( a pit) may have been dug into a floor associated with wall G. Floors were usually not allocated a feature number (although this is the case occasionally). For the purposes of easy reference it has been necessary to allocate feature numbers in retrospect to features that appear on the sections or plans and were not given a number during excavation for whatever reason. Deposits were generally not sieved. Photographs and scale plans were made and are reproduced here and referred to by their figure/plate numbers.

Phase G (v) A substantial wall (wall 5 -2.86) and associated deposit 2.84 are part of this next phase (figure 3.5). The removal of2.79 revealed wall 4 (2.81), a mud brick wall running roughly northwest to southeast, and its associated collapse deposits. These are 2.80 (which contained a possible violin figurine), 2. 82 and 83. Phase F (iv) The first phase of wall 2 (figure 3.6, plate III.8), excavated as 2. 78, and its associated occupation levels (2.67- 70) form the basis of this phase. There was some evidence of burning on the floor deposits associated (2. 73-5) and a concentration of objects was found lying nearby on floor 2.73 at the south end of the sondage. These included a worked bone point (plot object 10) and some possible pigment. A hearth (feature 7 -2.71) was also associated with these floor deposits. This is visible in the west section, and obviously had some kind of structure associated with it, represented by a posthole (2.72). Locus levels 2.76, 77 and 79 also belong to this phase.

Finds Finds were generally recorded simply by locus level, but were occasionally "plot objected" if they were considered of special significance. Plot objects were often later given registration numbers by the small fmds registrar. In some years (1975-77) finds were given bag numbers. Preliminary processing occurred in the field and afterwards at the BSAJ 18. After 1967, material was stored at the BIAAH19_

Phase E (iii) Wall 2 (2.56, 2.64 and 2.50-2) has a later phase where it is associated with wall 3 (2.65). The levels that are associated with this are 2.60-3 and 2.66. This phase also consists of the material associated with wall 1 (2.49) and wall 2. An associated feature (feature 6) runs at a 90° angle from wall 2 (figure 3.7). This is a thin mudbrick structure excavated as 2.53.

Records Excavations in the 1960s and 70s were not conducted with the same attention to the minutiae of stratigraphic detail that is common today. Despite this it is clear that the excavation was careful and relatively precise. Field notes were kept by each supervisor which described each deposit 20. In many cases there is a significant lack of sketch plans, although all major features and walls were drawn to scale by the architect with absolute levels attached.

Phase D (ii) Phase D includes locus levels 2.40 and 2.44-5. This phase is devoid of architecture, but feature 4, a small pit/hearth (2.41-43), and the surfaces it cut (2.46 and 47) are within this phase (figure 3.8). The levels 2.33-39 and 2.45 and 47 are also allocated to this phase. Phase C (i) This phase consists of the clean levels above the building phase formed by walls 1 and 2. These levels are probably floor levels. Their associated walls appear to have been eroded off the tell although 2.20-22 may be the remains of them (figure 3.9). These clean levels are covered by the spoil heap excavated as 2.1-18 and 30-32. The clean floor levels (2.19, 2.23-29) are described as yellowish, and sometimes contain remnants of plaster, ash and other fibrous material.

18 Some of the 1967 material is still stored there. I was fortunate to be able to study this material in April 1998 when I visited the school as the Palestine Exploration Fund's Tufnell Scholar for 1998. I thank the PEF for their support. 19Material originally stored at BIAAH has now been moved to Sydney. 20 Deposits are often only described by a colour and in this way a large amount of detail about the levels themselves is lacking. 23

this phase 24. The full square was excavated in 1977 down to sterile over an area of 3.5 x Sm. The levels resting directly upon sterile did not include any large dwelling pits in this square, but consisted, instead of laminated surfaces excavated as 117.4-Sa (see figure 3 .4, and top right plate III.9 and plate III.IO).

In many ways this work may be seen as a reconstruction of Hennessy's excavations at Teleilat Ghassul. This is because, although field notes were kept by each supervisor these were no longer all available for study 21. It was often necessary to compile stratigraphic detail from sections. Photographs and slides were also helpful in confirming reconstruction. These were never used as primary evidence. The Harris Matrices presented here are based largely upon sections, although field notes were used when relevant 22. They are presented at the back of the book for easy reference and should be consulted along with the locus lists (Appendix A).

Phase G In the 1967 sondage this phase is represented by the fill level 107.42, corresponding with levels above wall K' in the extended square ie. 116. 7, 117.3 and 116.8 which are contemporary with wall K'. These features are visible in the section although un-numbered. Wall K' was not planned and therefore does not appear on figure 3.5.

Hennessy's main sequence was determined from Area All, in which he had placed a small probe in the first season. However the largest exposure of the basal levels, and therefore all phases, was achieved later in AIII.

PhaseF The fill levels 107.35-41 of the 1967 sondage correspond to this phase. The architecture within the larger excavated area forms a new alignment, with walls H', I' and J' (figure 3.6, plate III.11). The levels associated with these are 116.2, 4-6 and 117.1-2. Wall J' appears to have remained in use in the following phase.

Area A, Square II This square was the first to be excavated and provided the essential phases upon which Hennessy built his sequence. In 1967, from phase D down only part of the square was excavated as a small sondage. When it reached natural soil it covered only c. 1 x lm. The rest of the All square was not excavated in 197 5. Excavation recommenced in 1977 when the square was reduced by lm 50 in order to make the north section safe. The aim was to further explore the lower levels, and the square was taken down to sterile levels over a c. 2 lm 2 area. Unfortunately some of this information is lost because the 1977 excavators inadvertently reused locus level numbers which had already been allocated in the 1967 season. Whilst separate bag numbers were used in the 1977 seasons to distinguish those finds from the 1967 material, some mixing of material occurred before the error was detected 23 . For purposes of clarity, 1977 locus numbers have been retrospectively changed on the section and within the text, a 1 has replaced the second digit. Wall lettering was also reused but in this case, it is possible to deduce from the plans to which phase a wall belongs. A ' is used throughout to distinguish 1967 and 1970s walls (eg. 1977 wall J is referred to as wall J'). The section is presented here as figure 3 .14, the harris matrix is figure 3.15.

PhaseE Wall O and its associated deposits (107.34 and 34b) are themselves associated with walls E' and F', which are again on a different alignment (figure 3.7, see background of plate III.12). There is a burial along the side of wall F'. The levels excavated in the original sondage were outside the structure that was formed by these walls. PhaseD Phase D includes the final phase of Wall E' and F'. A hearth (or two) is attached to wall E' ( 111. 7). The occupation level within this structure is 111.8a. 111.8 lies just outside. Pit H was located in the open space outside the structure (plate III.13). Wall C' and G' may well have been in use in this phase also. Wall G' and Wall C' are two thin walls connected with a larger structure to the south formed by new Walls A' and B'. This is on a slightly different alignment to the previous phase (figure 3.8, plate III.14). There are a number of floors, one of which has subsided where it lies over pit H, from the previous phase. Wall A' has a mud brick bench associated with it, visible in the section (see also plate III.15). There are two large plastered pits (pits D and E) dug through these deposits. These were cut from the phase above and excavated in 197 5. Locus levels associated with this phase are 113.1-5.

PhaseH/1 The levels resting upon sterile soil, from which pottery has been able to be studied, are few. Sterile soil was excavated as 107.44-47 in the 1967 sondage. Locus level 107.43 is the only level within the sondage that relates to

The area outside this structure and bounded by wall G', is cut by two pits from phase C, pit A and pit C. Pit G belongs to this phase. This area is locus 111 but only 111.3, 4, 7 and 7a are associated with this phase. Plates III.14 and 15 make it clear that walls E' and F' survived into phase D, but whether they remained in use is unclear.

21 Some sections, plans and field notebooks have been lost. 22 Not surprisingly there was occasional conflict between these two sources of information. When this occurred other evidence was used to validate the reconstruction. 23 This means that when the present author began work, a large amount of pottery had to set aside because it was not clear to which phase it belonged. This problem has only affected the ceramics from AIL

24 In the original preliminary publication of this section (Hennessy 1969) 107.43 is said to be sterile. In fact ceramics were found in the store labelled as 107.43.

24

Phase C Whilst wall J may be built slightly later than wall K (see figures 3.14-15), they appear to be bonded together forming the comer of a structure (see plates III.16-7). Although an important piece of the section is missing (figure 3.14), it seems likely that they were partly contemporary, although wall J survived into phase B. The removal of 106.12 revealed wall J, while 106.13 revealed wall K. A door socket for wall K was removed in the excavation of 106.12 (a plaster floor). There are a number of earthquake splits which affect the area around what was probably the entrance to this structure. 106.14, 15 and 16 were dug in this area while 106.14a,b and 16a were excavated within the room itself.

associated flints. These were excavated together as 106.3a (see plate III.19 for their location). Locus 103 also belongs to this phase. In addition, the removal of the floor 107.3 revealed another floor level (107.4) which ran up to a new wall (wall 1)25. Levels under this included 107.5-7. The area under walls G and F (phase A) is earthquake disturbed. This was excavated as 106.8-12. Locus 108 belongs to this phase also.

Phase A+ This upper phase was heavily cut about by modem burials (burials 1, 2 and 3). Walls A, B and D belong to this phase. Wall C is almost certainly part of Burial 1. The decayed mud brick of wall A (excavated as 101.1) may have been a second phase of wall F. The levels within locus 102 may well be clean, although they are very close to the surface. These are associated with wall B and cut by burial 1.

A floor covering the entire room was excavated as 106.17 and runs up to wall J. Two door sockets were found in debris in a level above which may indicate that in this earlier phase the door was in another position. The removal of 107.11 and lla-c revealed the existence of a new structure formed by walls L and M. The area between these two walls was not excavated in 1967. The area outside the structure was excavated in a sounding beside the north section (107.12-16). A sub-phase is present in the form of wall N and its associated deposit (107.17). From the photograph (plate III.17) walls Mand K appear to be bonded together. A third wall appears in 1975 plans. This is not numbered, but significantly changes the nature of the structure (see figure 3.9).

Area A, Square III This square began, like most others in area A as a 7 x 5m exposure. In later seasons it expanded and contracted for various reasons (baulk safety, time and in one case to safe guard a wall painting which could not be removed at the time). At the bottom of the sequence it measured c. 7 x 3.4m. The depth of deposit was just over 6m. Sterile was reached, as in All, at c. 297.00m below sea level, over a c. 24m 2 area. Figure 3.13 gives the section, while figure 3.14 provides the Harris matrix for this square.

PhaseB This phase includes the later occupation levels associated with wall J, 106.5-13. Plans were not available for these deposits (figure 3.10). There is a thin occupation phase documented which was excavated as 106.5. This lay upon a white plaster floor (106.6 and 6a) which was found to lie under walls F and G. These levels could be included within this phase or phase A.

Phase HI/ Locus level 270.5 lies on sterile sand and consists of a grey-green silt level and overlying that, a layer of grey ash and cobbles. A series of pits (Hennessy's "pitdwellings") were cut from these levels (plates III.21-3). It appears that pits R and N were cut into this group of levels and that pit L then cut R, making it the latest "pit dwelling" (plate III.21). At first glance Pit L appears to be associated with walls F, G and H (see figure 3.4, no photograph available) and to cut through the levels associated with those walls (270.3-4). In fact colour photographs of the section make it clear that Pit L had an earlier phase and was then re-cut (a dashed line has been added to the section on this basis). The level 270.3/4 could indicate grey/green build up on the south side of pit L (see plate III.21), or deposits that the pit was cut through. It is also possible that pit L was not detected until lower down, and potentially the upper 270 levels may be contaminated. Alternatively, levels at upper 270.5L may be wash from this wall phase, and not associated with the pit contents. This latter explanation seems the most likely and I have included the pit in the lower phases because its contents appear, in the most part, to relate well to the phase H and I material in the sondages.

Phase A Wall F and wall G (also called wall E) are the basis of phase A (figure 3.11). The mudbrick superstructure of both was excavated as 106.4. East of this structure is a circular stone installation, feature 8 (figure 3.11, plate III.18). Two probes, excavated as loci 104 and 105 were excavated to try to confirm the relationship between feature 8 and walls E and F (plate III.19). It appears that the stone circle belongs to this phase, along with wall H which runs between wall G and feature 8. The area outside this structure (interpreted here as a courtyard) was removed as 107.1, la-d and 2. The removal of ld revealed a defmite floor level (107.3) which is probably equivalent to 106.6 and 6a. A section through feature 8 was excavated as 107.le. Feature 8 is described by the excavator as "a circle of stones, usually a double line set in, and filled in, with characteristic red clay". Locus 106 is the levels within walls E and F. These levels are 106.1 and la (mud brick debris), 106.2 (silty ash) and 106.3 (wash with mud brick debris). In the comer of this structure were burials 4 (plate III.20) and 5, two infant burials with a broken pot covering each and

25 A radiocarbon date was calculated from a sample (SUA 736) taken from a posthole with the context number All 107.3/4 (Weinstein 1984:334) . This posthole is visible in the section. See chapter 5 for further details.

25

The deposits which appear in the section are levels dug in the first 1977 season (ie. in the northern portion of the trench). Locus level 221.16 runs under wall F, and is associated with 221.16A (a cobbled surface, or group of small stones) and the packing underneath it (plate III.23, figure 3.16). Level 270.4 is continuous with these. Pits M, N and P are to be associated with this phase also.

B in this phase, it is therefore possible that the wall may have been painted in this phase also.

PhaseD The structure in this phase is essentially built on top of the previous building (plate III.31 ). In this phase wall B (east) has an added buttress to support it from falling. Wall B (east) abuts wall A and wall B (south) -on the same alignment as wall C from the previous phase (see figures 3.8 and 18). It is at this point that the "procession" wall painting was found (Cameron 1981). The painting was on the inner face of wall B (east). It appears to have fallen back on itself, and was covered with collapsed ash, plaster and fallen mud brick debris (see additional section). It was carefully excavated in pieces and re-assembled in the BIAAH, and is now on display in the Amman Citadel Museum after conservation by UNESCO.

Wall F is also associated with levels 221.14-15. Level 221.12 is contemporary with 221.14, although they are separated in the section by a small posthole (221.12A), from which a radiocarbon sample was taken 26. 270.3 is also associated with these levels as is the composite level 270.3/4 level on the southern side of pit L.

Phase G Phase G consists of material directly below wall E, and above wall F. This includes locus 270.2, a surface into which a number of pits and postholes were cut, including a large number of very small "stake-holes" (plate III.24, figure 3.5). Pits A-K and probably pit P were cut from this level. Pit A was a stone-lined posthole (visible in plate III.24). Locus level 221.13 from which a radiocarbon sample was taken, also belongs to this phase, which corresponds to AXI phase iv.

The main floor surface in phase D appears to be 205.5, which was covered with mudbrick debris (205.3-4). There was another step-down entrance into this building from the southern side, as in the previous phase, on a slightly different alignment (plate III.32). At this point there was a mud brick feature labelled wall D on the additional section. Wall D does not appear on any plan, but it does appear on the additional section. It clearly lay on the old alignment of wall E (phase F). South of this feature the floor surface 205.5 appears not to have existed, and it is therefore likely that this was a separate room. The under floor surface was excavated as 205.6 right across the structure. A pit (pit A) excavated as 205.5A is shown directly under the plastered floor in the section. Unnamed levels are associated with this structure on the northern side.

PhaseF The rough alignment which was formed by walls F, G and Hin the Neolithic pit phase is repeated by wall E in phase F. Wall E runs diagonally north/south across the trench (plate III.24, figure 3.6). The floor surfaces dug as 221. 8 - 221.11 (and 208.4 ?) are associated with wall E, and a lower phase of wall C (unnamed). A number of postholes and pits were cut from the surfaces north of wall E (plate III.25). A radiocarbon sample was taken from a posthole cut from 221.8 (excavated as 221.9A) 27 . This is visible in the section (figure 3.16), and in the bottom right of plate III.25.

Phase C A lower phase of an unnamed wall lies slightly to the north underneath wall 4b (figure 3.9). 205.1 and 2 are its associated deposits. Underneath the access steps which ran down the western section another wall appears, which is essentially a later phase of wall B (south). These would have been the last deposits dug in the 1967 season before the wall painting was revealed early in the 1975 season.

Phase E There is a small change in the alignment of the architectural elements at this point (see figure 3.7). Wall C, and a lower phase of wall A form a structure with an early phase of wall B (east) visible on figure 3.7. The structure has step-down entrance (visible in the section and on the photographs (plate III.26- 7) The occupation surfaces (dug as 221.4-6) are associated with a number of installations and finds (plate III.26). 221.4 is a floor surface covered with pot sherds (plate III.28-9), pits, scatters of flint and bone and a pile of comets and chisels mixed with mud brick debris (plate III.30). 205.7 is equivalent to 221.4. Locus level 221.6 runs under the lower wall A, but is still associated with wall C. Wall B (east) survives into the next phase as a plastered wall with wall paintings. There was a mudbrick lining to wall

PhaseB Wall 4b and an unnamed wall in the east section form the structure of this phase (figure 3.10). This building appears to have been built on the same alignment as that of the following phase. An unnamed wall in the north comer forms a "passage" which is excavated as 200.9-12. An earthquake/subsidence split is noted running down the inside of Wall 4b. Wall 4b appears to have a return (Wall 4a) which runs into the south section and abutting wall J of AIL The lower levels of locus 204 relate to the occupation surfaces, pits and installations. A small jar was found on one of the floors and a plaster-lined basin was uncovered in the south of the square. A loom weight, an animal figurine, bone and flint were found in the fill of this basin. Another installation dug into the side of Wall 4b contained the broken pieces of a mortar (not planned).

26 The sample (SUA 732) has been published as coming from 201.12A (Weinstein 1984:333), its context has been renumbered 221.12A here to avoid confusion with 1967 locus 201, see chapter 5 for further details. 27 This is sample SUA 732, originally published as 201.9A (Weinstein 1984:333), see Chapter 5 for further details.

26

Phase A This phase includes all material associated with Wall 1 and its return Wall 2, which runs into the south section (plate lll.33-4, figure 3.11). An earlier subphase, built over to become a bench, was excavated as 204.4b and has been included in this phase. The levels of locus 204 and some of the 200s form the bulk of fill/floor layers associated with these structures. There are pits which have been dug into the floor (200.4) associated with the bench, and four flints were noted on the floor (plot objects 11-14). In addition, lower floors in locus 204 display a range of installations including ash patches, hearths and a small pit filled with rocks and a ceramic jar (plot object 24) within 204.3. This is the first substantial architectural phase and yielded many flint finds as well as an alabaster bead (plot object 41 ), a pendant fragment (plot object 26) and a spindle whorl (plot object 27). A posthole dug from the level below 200.6 was found outside in the passage formed by walls 2 and 3 and against wall 2 apparently postdating the wall because it appeared to cut through it. Also within 200.6 were a chisel and another broken blade.

Phase E. A change in wall alignment within AIII creates a new structure. This is entered via a series of steps leading down from the western side (from wall C). The interior of the building includes the "flint knapping floor" with its associated installations. A shift to the southwest for structures in All can also be seen. A baby burial is associated with Wall F'. Phase D. This phase includes a change in wall alignment, this time for All while the large structure in AIII retained its previous alignment. This broadroom structure (c. 6.5 x 3.4m) survives into this phase and is associated with a collapsed wall painting. There are a few small walls which may have been attached to the south western side of the building. These were planned, but not excavated, and are more likely to have belonged to the phase below. This building probably had a step-down entrance in the western side similar to that seen in the following phase, although this may have been further to the southwest. The new All structure is associated with a number of installations and pits. A hearth and a pavement were associated with wall E'. Walls 1 and 2 of AXI are associated with this structure, wall 2 perhaps forms part of the return for wall B (south), and Wall 1 appears to run parallel to it.

This group includes wall 3 (excavated as 203.4d) and those levels associated with it, 200.5a, b, and c. This wall may have been originally associated with wall 1 (see phase B) although the material shown in the section belongs to a later phase. In addition this wall runs closely parallel to wall 1. They probably belong to different structures. The space between them was excavated as 200.5a, b and c may well have been a passageway.

Phase C. The large AIII structure has a further phase represented by wall 4, and the walls in All retained the same alignment as the previous phase. However, it is this phase that marks the major change to the later phases. Much of the material from phase C is transitional between the Middle or Late Chalcolithic phases.

Phase A+ This phase revealed traces of architecture and archaeological material. However these were extremely cut about by recent military activity and modem burials. Erosion since the Chalcolithic has also caused significant deflation. Those good levels which were present included fill levels, largely mud brick debris, and pit feature 1, which is visible in the section. Refer to the locus lists for a complete list of all those locus levels which are included in this phase.

Phase B. Walls 4A and AB form a new structure within AIII, which is essentially on the same alignment, but shifted to the west. In All the structure is not significantly changed. Phase A. Walls 1 and 2 in AIII continue the phase B alignment almost exactly, as do walls E and Fin AIL Phase A+. This phase is represented in All by a heavily eroded structure whose alignment is not clear. This phase is also much cut about by recent burials. In AIII it is a similar story, the walls were no more than lines of eroded debris.

Summary of the architectural sequence Phases H, I and J. The Late Neolithic phase is characterised in all areas by large pits cut into sterile or near-sterile grey green greasy clay lenses. In some cases there are traces of rectilinear architecture, although no clear structures were discovered.

Conclusions It is difficult to isolate the most significant changes in alignment, especially within the earlier half of the sequence, but these seem to be at phase C and between phases G and H. However, all phases do exhibit significant continuity. The ceramic material coming from these various phases is presented in the following chapter. The ceramics are phased according to groups of these phases:

Phase G. This phase (called here the Early Chalcolithic period) is comprised of fill and wash levels, although there is some architecture, ie. wall K in All and walls 4 and 5 in AX. In AIII postholes were excavated which indicate the presence of structures in this square. Phase F. This is a more substantial architectural phase, with clear structures, which probably indicate a more intensive occupation of the site. From this point on there are a series of architectural developments within the middle phases (Middle Chalcolithic ).

The Late Neolithic: phases J, I and H The Early Chalcolithic: phase G, GH (AX) The Middle Chalcolithic: phases F-D The Late Chalcolithic: phases C-A+

27

Possibly the most significant new information given here for the earliest phases is the existence of rectilinear architecture in phase I of A III. Hennessy does not refer to these walls in his overviews of the stratigraphic development (Hennessy 1982:56), referring only to the circular pit structures (Hennessy 1989:232). However, careful study of the sections afforded no other option but to associate this architecture with the circular pits. Hennessy's own notes on the sections confirm that he was fully aware of the possibility 28. The earliest phases are to be placed at the beginning of the PNB period at Jericho (see Chapters 4 and 5), and it is probable that Ghassul provides the transition between the PNA and PNB periods with this early phase material. PNA architecture, in those sites where it has been well documented, appears to often consist of pit dwellings (Gopher 1995:210). The appearance of pit dwellings with rectilinear architecture at Teleilat Ghassul is therefore significant, and it should be noted that there is now evidence of rectlinear architecture at the Y armoukian site of Sha'ar Hagolan (Garfinkel 1999c: 18-21). Overall this stratigraphic study has revealed a constantly evolving village plan showing a development from simple structures to more complex architecture. In the middle phases the elaborate installations and house contents known from the PBI excavations are present, see especially phase D and E in AIII. The practice of placing neonate burials beneath walls and floors appears to begin in phase E in Area A (see All). Further installation types ( eg. feature 8, in All) develop in the later phases and we will see in the following chapter that it is not until the very final phases that the architectural plans and ceramic assemblage resemble the classic Ghassulian material as published by the PBI.

28 Drawings and annotations held at the University of Sydney.

28

from the settlement shifts which were a feature of the period. This is precisely why those sites with long sequences have been so eagerly awaited by others in the field.

Chapter 4: The Ceramic Type Series The development of typologies in the Near East

Even when such sequences exist in the southern Levant, debate continues on terminology and approach. The most traditional methods have failed to establish a consensus amongst scholars. To this end a number of workshops on ceramics and ceramic processing and material culture assemblages in general have been taking place. The first was held at the University of Durham (July 1995) which focused specifically on the ceramics of the ChalcolithicEarly Bronze Ages and the second was held at Yarmouk University (March 1996) on the early ceramics of Jordan. These meetings have been aimed at establishing: 1) consensus in terminology and chronology, 2) better methods for processing ceramics, and 3) emphasis on production technology.

Interest in more holistic approaches to site investigation in the Near East and the global decline in funding for the humanities have perforce concentrated interest in small scale projects employing rigorous sampling procedures and field methods designed to address specific questions. Smaller scale projects allow for more rapid integration with data from continuing large scale excavations. An enormous amount of survey data was generated by foreign projects in Jordan after the Six Day War, when return to full-scale excavation projects was difficult to manage and this data needs to be integrated with excavated assemblages. The Teleilat Ghassul project is one of these small-scale projects producing small, finely excavated assemblages in order to build comparative data.

Inevitably discussions such as these between ceramicists working on different material from different contexts, working within different schools of thought, does not always produce accord, but it is generally instructive about the kinds of difficulties scholars face. The way in which a type series/catalogue is constructed will have a direct effect upon its final appearance and the way in which it might be used by others. The comparison of various published assemblages from the southern Levant is hampered by things as basic as the language of approach.

Shifts in the approach to data retrieval have also affected the study of ceramics and the development of typologies. A focus on the specific depositional context of the assemblage itself has become integral to the study of pottery and other artefacts. In addition, continuous work on the method and theory of ceramic production from the perspective of ethnography has forced a gradual swing to a technology-based study of ceramics. This type of investigation in the Near East was pioneered by Shepard (1963), Franken (1974), Van Der Leeuw (1984) and others. A number of text books for ceramic processing have emerged in the light of this movement (Rice 1987; Orton et al. 1993). Ethnographic studies are now informing archaeological approaches as a matter of course (see for example Arnold 1985; Costin 1991).

Certainly differences in field methodology and intensity of excavation have an effect on typology, and many of the sites which will be used for comparison here are small, and/or published only in preliminary form. For example Ghrubba (Mellaart 1956), Tel Tsaf (Gophna and Sadeh 1988/9) and Munhata (Garfinkel 1992b) are all type sites, but each is published to differing levels and degrees. In addition to fieldwork, approaches in the laboratory are critical. Establishing clear stratigraphic phases upon which to base artefact divisions must be seen as the first step in any sequential stratigraphic analysis. Unfortunately this is not always the case, and often the typology is actually divorced from stratigraphy:

Typologies are moving beyond mere descriptions of shape, an objective which has long dominated studies in the Near East. Ethnographic data is becoming a powerful tool for archaeologists working with pre- and protohistoric assemblages, although in practice there is often conflict between traditional and modem approaches. The debate over the post-mortem processing of Kenyon's Jerusalem material (see Franken and Steiner 1990; Bourke 1992; Franken 1995) is a good example.

In many cases it was impossible to determine by the field observations, which pits belonged to which layer. Dating the pits and relating them to the corresponding layers was based on a typological analysis. In other words, according to the pottery found in it, the pit was referred to one layer or the other. When a pit yielded a mixed pottery assemblage, or contained no indicative pottery at all, it was not included in the study ... Most of the pottery assemblage of layer 2a [the Wadi Rabah phase] was not found in structures or pits, but in the open spaces between and around these structures. These open areas were usually excavated as large units, 5m x 5m in dimensions, and according to the grid. The collections from these squares usually

The legacy of G. E. Wright (1937, 1958) and Amiran (1969) remains, and in many periods the general type fossils they established are still accepted. The general southern Levantine sequence was seen to be articulated by a series of so-called "diagnostic" shapes/surface treatments. This perspective has its advantages, and it remains popular (eg. Garfmkel 1999b). One can still find references to such archetypal procedures in current literature, with type-fossils providing "spot-dates" for particular assemblages. The Late-Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods provide special problems however. The developing view of the pre-Chalcolithic as a series of contemporary but differing ceramic cultures results in a lack of an overarching sequence. The few tell sites have provided small "snap shots" although they also suffer

29

included some intrusive elements dating from layer 2b (Sha'ar Hagolan stage) or layer 1 (EBI period). We separated them from the layer 2a material on the basis of typological analysis (Garfinkel 1992b:19-24).

most familiar with Kathleen Kenyon's work at Jericho. He therefore chose to employ the "Jericho System". Hence, when the site was re-excavated in 1994-7 a field system was used which would easily integrate this previous data. In the years 1967-77 some preliminary cataloguing was completed in the field, although this was not extensive. This largely consisted of grouping material into architectural phases and forming opinions on general typological trends. These preliminary ideas were published by Hennessy in 1969, and expanded upon in 1982.

In cases such as this the emphasis on rim profiles and shape definitions is ahnost meaningless when the ceramic developments are not accessible. This astratigraphic approach to typology is the current preoccupation in ceramic studies in the southern Levant (CommengePellerin 1987,1990), such that discussion of methodology is limited and the production of term-based typologies have become well established (Gilead 1995:140-1). Type sherds are commonly listed with contexts, but without any reference to where other examples might also occur within the sequence.

In 1994 the author began her own catalogue of the material. As suggested above, the methods employed were largely dictated by the need to integrate the work of both project Directors (Em. Prof. J.B. Hennessy and Dr. S.J. Bourke) but this did not restrict the effectiveness of the catalogue. Post-excavation analysis proceeded as follows:

The growth of fabric-based studies in southern Levantine assemblages is to be applauded (see Commenge-Pellerin 1990:4-7) and impressive micro-analyses have made significant headway (Goren in Garfinkel 1992b). More recently the archaeological community is recognising the wider uses of ceramic studies and attempting to employ different techniques in tandem with more traditional studies. With this in mind, the Teleilat Ghassul ceramic catalogue is constructed to be used in several different ways: 1) as a traditional type series of forms, 2) as a study of fabric development and 3) as the basis for further specialised chemical and/or petrographic studies. Most importantly, it is designed to reflect the typological development at the site by recording all of the occurrences of a type according to context.

Excavation Ceramic finds were bagged separately in the field. In the 1967-77 years, bag/basket numbers were often allocated. This meant that although ceramics were not catalogued in the field they could be drawn by the draftsperson according to a bag number allocated to the locus level from which they came. Post-Excavation 1) After the ceramics were bagged, they were washed with tepid water and left to dry. They were then sorted by the site supervisors into diagnostics (rims, bases, handles, decorated pieces etc.) and non-diagnostics (body sherds). In 1967-1977 most non diagnostics were discarded without extensive examination, and went largely unrecorded. In 1994-7 non-diagnostics were sorted into general fabric groups and counted (rather than weighed). They were then discarded, although a few examples of

The Teleilat Ghassul sequence

When Hennessy began work at Teleilat Ghassul he was Open

Form Bowls

Basins

I Definition

I General forms

< c. 30cm d.

> c. 30cm d.

i Cornets Closed

Hole mouths

! Jars

No neck

Necked

Shallow Round sided 'V' shape Deep Bevelled Round sided 'V' shape Deep Bevelled Round base Stump base Pointed base Spouted Simple -Rounded -Pinched -Upturned -Bevelled Tall neck Short neck Bow rim

I Storage iars > c.20 cm d. Table 4.1: General form d1st1nct1onscommonly used In this analysis.

30

I Examples figure figure figure figure figure figure figure figure figure figure figure figure figure

4. 1.1 4.11.3 4.1. 7 4.2.2 4.33.4 4.3.7 4.3.1 4.3.6 4.34.1 4.42.3 4.27.6 4.42.2 4.38.7

figure figure figure fiqure figure figure fiqure fiqure

4.4.1 4.4.4 4.5.3 4.5.6 4.40.4 4.16.3 4.16.6 4.39.3

5) If a piece was found of the same shape, it became a "cf' to the original CN. For instance, if a bowl rim was found which was similar in shape and orientation to CN30, it was labelled as cf30, and its fabric, decoration and diameter etc. were recorded on the CN30 record. Cfs are not necessarily the same fabric or decoration as the CN to which they were compared. 6) At the end of each level, an A4 sheet was written up recording everything from that level, and including the discarded body sherds. New or odd fabrics were noted and reserved for petrography or PIXE/PIGME analysis.

each fabric from each locus level (context) were kept for later cross-checking. These remaining sherds and the diagnostics were then double-bagged and re-labelled and sent to the cataloguer. 2) Cataloguing was, as far as possible, begun from the earliest levels first. In the field the supervisors were consulted as to which levels they considered to be particularly important, ie. floors and surfaces, and were therefore likely to give a preliminary indication of the date range of the deposits reached at that time. The other levels were catalogued at the University of Sydney when more time was available. 3) The registrar opened a chosen bag and divided the diagnostics into general form types (bowls, jars, bases etc.), and then consulted the existing type series for matching forms. If none were found then the piece became a "type", that is a particular shape or form with no other representative. It received a catalogue number (CN) and a detailed description. 4) A catalogue sheet was then written up for each piece that was given a CN from that locus level and this was entered into a database at a later date. The recommendations of the Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group (henceforth PCRG 1992) and Orton et al. (1993:67-86) were closely followed. The written fabric description included: sorting of inclusions (levigation) inclusion density (number of grits) type of inclusions including roundness (grits) firing colour and conditions slip and/or decoration rim or base diameter (and % diameter following Orton et al. 1993:171).

Presentation of the data What follows is a sketch of the development of the Ghassul sequence from Area A. The material represented in the tables and charts is derived entirely from Area A unless otherwise stated. However the typology of shapes, although primarily drawn from Area A, includes material derived from other areas on the site as well. This is because if the first occurrence of a type came from another area, this became the drawn sherd. The process of analysis meant that all vessel types were analysed and then put into type families (according to form), and their occurrence phase by phase was studied. The correlation (if any) between fabric and form was also considered. It was decided that it was better to rely on established terminology for form types than to create new ones. Quite specific shape/form terminologies were trialed during the analysis, but these were abandoned as their utility became suspect over the course of the analysis. Diagnostic sherds were first defined as closed or open vessel forms, or bases and handles (which might appear on both types). They were then divided in the following manner:

As far as is possible PCRG 1992 terminology has been employed, although there are inevitably some differences. At Teleilat Ghassul the sorting of inclusions is specified in more detail, from very fmely levigated, fmely levigated, quite finely (PCRG's very well sorted), fairly finely (PCRG's well sorted), moderately (PCRG's moderately sorted) to coarsely levigated (PCRG's poorly sorted). That is further degrees of levigation are recognised. "Occasional", "a few", "some", "many" and "very many" are also used to indicate inclusion density, "occasional" would correspond to PCRG's 1-2% (sparse), few would correspond to PCRG's 1-5% (rare-sparse), some to 7-15% (sparse-moderate), many to 20-30% (common-very common) etc. Roundness classes correspond exactly, as does firing. Methods of manufacture are recorded where possible.

Fabric Distinctions Fabric is the term used here to refer to a clay and temper mixture. It refers to both the original clay and the "nonplastic inclusions" which are either added deliberately or are naturally included in the clay body. This means that when the potter dug the clay from a source it already included certain non-plastic inclusions. It is often difficult to tell whether a temper has been deliberately added unless it is crystalline and has been crushed so that its planes are clearly visible. It should be noted that these are not "petrographically" defmed groups. Rather they were defmed after exhaustive analysis of the fabric corpus. A fabric is recorded as an amalgam of abbreviations. The first number refers to the fabric family or group, the letter to the colour of firing, the second letter refers to coarse, medium or fine. These fabric distinctions (table 4.2) were made during the preliminary "macro-analysis".

A typical verbal description of a fabric follows: Fairly fmely levigated clay with many small, and a few medium and large sub-angular white lime and some small and a few medium sub-angular orange grog grits; fired grey at core and orange/red at surfaces, over which cream/white slip ext. and rim int. Full written descriptions can not be published for each sherd. These written records are used to help the registrar to sort the fabrics into groups and general levels of coarse, medium and fine versions of those groups.

The original ten fabric groups can be reduced into four or five classes.Class I includes groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 colloquially called the "buff groups". These are generally tempered with chert and white lime in varying

31

Fab.No. 1

Col. a b

Lev. General Name Munsell C/M/F Buff 5 YR 6/6 - 7.5 YR 7/6 C/M/F Oranqe buff 5 YR 7/4 C C/M/F Grev buff 10 YR 5/1 C/M/F Brown Buff 7.5 YR 5/4 d C/M/F Pale Buff 10 YR 8/3 e 2 a C/M/F Dense buff 7.5 YR 5/3 C/M/F Dense orange buff 2.5 YR 7/6 b C/M/F Dense grey buff 7.5 YR 6/1 C d C/M/F Dense brown buff 7.5 YR 5/4 C/M/F Dense pale buff 7.5 YR 8/1 e C/M/F Silty buff 10 YR 7/3 3 a b C/M/F Chaff Tempered 5 YR 7/4 C/M/F Green/Grev buff 2G7/10BG C C/M/F Oranqe silty buff 5 YR 7/6 d Brown silty buff e C/M/F 5 YR 6/6 4 C/M/F Greenish buff 5 YR 5/4 a C/M/F Sandy buff 7.5 YR 7/3 5 a Sandy brown b C/M/F 5 YR 5/4 - 7.5 YR 6/6 C/M/F Sandy Orange 10 R 6/8 C Sandy hard red d C/M/F 10 R 5/8 Sandy hard brown e C/M/F 10 R 4/4 C/M/F Dense brown 5 YR 5/2 6 a b C/M/F Stone brown 5 YR 5/4 7 a C/M/F Dark Brown(+ Shell) 5 YR 4/1 - 10 R 4/1 C/M/F Dark brown/qrev 10 YR 6/1 b Dark brown/oranqe C C/M/F 2.5 YR 7/8 8 a C/M/F Brown Calcite included 2.5 YR 7/8 C/M/F Grev Calcite included 5 YR 6/6 b Dense Grey 9 a C/M/F 2.5 YR 5/1 Dense hard grey b C/M/F 2 4/5B 10 C/M/F Hard Red 5 YR 5/6 - 7/6 - 10 R 5/6 -5/8 a a (i) C/M/F Hard red w. lots of lime 5 YR 5/6 - 7/6 - 10 R 5/6 -5/8 b C/M/F Hard Brown 7.5 YR 4/3 C/M/F Hard Grey 2.5 YR 5/6, 5 YR 4/1, 10 R 3/1 C d C/M/F Proto-Hard Red 2.5 Y N4/, 5 YR 5/1-6/6, 10 R 5/4 e C/M/F Proto-Hard Grev 2.5 Y N4/, 5 YR 5/1-6/6, 10 R 5/4 .. Table 4.2 The fabric groups d1st1ngu1shedat Tele1lat Ghassul (SO = Semi Ox1d1sed,OF = Overtired, Var. = Variant, Vit. = Vitrified, SV = Semi-Vitrified).

proportions. Group 4 refers quite specifically to the earliest group on the site, although it still definitely falls within the buff class. Class II includes the ferruginous, hard fired clays, groups 5, 9 and 10. This class is tempered with white lime and grey grits (chert ?) also, but is often tempered with quartz, and sometimes possibly limestone. Class III is the shell tempered group 7 only, and class IV is the crushed calcite tempered group 8 only. Both class III and IV probably relate to cooking pots. Class V includes group 6, which is a very finely levigated fabric which may be related to the buff fabrics. In fact, we shall see below that this group probably belongs within class I also.

according to the four major phases: Late Neolithic, Early, Middle and Late Chalcolithic, as they were defined in the previous chapter (table 3 .1). Each of these sections is again divided according to the major form divisions noted above. The catalogue (figures 4.1-47) gives the information on the type sherd and its associated cfs. The reader will note that occasionally type sherds included in one major phase will have associated cfs which may come from a later one, and less commonly even an earlier one. For instance see, figure 4.1.1, a bowl type which occurs most often in the earliest phases, but has examples which appear as late as phase D. Generally a type is recorded in the period corresponding with its earliest appearance, although there are exceptions. Occasionally the type has been included in the phase from which the highest frequencies occur ( eg. figure 4.14. 7), and very occasionally if there are only two occurrences, in the period which appears to suit best. The reader should closely consult the "cf' s presented when using the catalogue for comparison with other sites. Some types do range across the major phases, and in some

The variability within the assemblage has partly contributed to the large number of fabric classifications. Generally they are still seen as valid, although probably not significant in statistical or chronocultural terms.

The Catalogue The following

comments are divided into sections

32

stage). 4% of the assemblage is decorated. The most popular method is slipping, sometimes in creamy white and sometimes in red (see table 4.4).

cases, occur as throw-ups 29 in later phases, and the catalogue is designed to show this, in order to avoid presenting an artificially homogenised typology. It is also designed to show the correlation of type to fabric as much as possible. Presenting the cfs with their fabrics against the type sherd should allow the reader to judge (to an extent) the level of form/fabric correlation in a given group. The following commentary should be studied alongside the catalogue (figures 4.1-4 7). Table 4.3 provides percentages of fabrics per phase.

The major difference between this phase and the following phases is the occurrence of fabric 4 (figure 4.59). This falls within the buff family, but is quite distinctive. It is often greenish grey in colour at the surface, and is only minimally tempered 30 . The predominance of this fabric (plate IV. IA) is clearest in phases J and I, while the latest Neolithic phase (H) conforms more with the following phase distributions (figure 4.59). Many of the deep straight-sided bowls of this phase (figure 4.1) are made in fabric 4.

The Late Neolithic assemblage, phases J, Hand I In the open vessels, straight to slightly curved sided bowls are the common form. These come in a variety of fabrics ranging from the chaff tempered buff to the shell and sand tempered variety in fabric Class I, and also occur in fabric Class II in an early version of the hard fired red/grey fabrics (figure 4.1.3-8). These are occasionally slipped and very occasionally painted.

The buff and hard fired families are the most common. Fabric 4 sherds make up only about 17% of the buff family (class I), and seem to be largely used for bowls (see figure 4.49). The high degree of shell tempering is also a feature of this phase 31 . Notably class II is still under development, the hard fired fabrics of this group become predominant much later, but in this phase there appears to be a degree of experimentation in this fabric family. A fabric which is termed colloquially "proto-hard red/grey" makes up a great deal of the early assemblage (figure 4.50).

Some small bowls occur (figure 4.2.5-6) rarely, and are probably representative of the beginning of the phase contemporary with Wadi Rabah sites. Basins do occur, and these show similar typological features to the bowls. Figures 4.3.4 and 5 show rare impressed decoration on the rim, which appears to be confmed to this phase.

The Early Cha/eolithic phase (G and GH)

Closed vessels are represented by both holemouths and necked jars. Holemouths in this phase have simple rounded rims, or slightly pinched rims. Again the exception is a rim with impressed incised decoration (figure 4.5.8), a feature which becomes more common in the upper phases. Occasionally handles are applied to the outside ofholemouths (figures 4.4.3 and 4.5.5-6). Jars are plain, with narrow necks in the main (figure 4.6.1), but short necked jars also occur (figure 4.6.4-5). Open vessels are slightly more common than closed vessels in this phase (figure 4.48).

The Early Chalcolithic phase continues the tradition of the previous phase 32 . Comets and fenestrated stands, hallmarks of the Chalcolithic, begin in this phase ( see figure 4.17.5), and it is for this reason that I have given it the name "Early Chalcolithic" (figure 4.62). This period also sees applied impressed decoration becoming common (figure 4.12.6. 4.13.2). The deep straight sided bowls of the previous phases continue, but there is further development of the round-sided bowl and more extensive use of slipped decoration, especially red slip (4.12.5). Painted decoration is rare but it does exist.

Handles are predominantly lug handles, although the loop handle does occur. The double lug (figure 4.7.5) and the applied and impressed decoration on figure 4.7.9 are the most individual examples. The latter has its best parallels with Wadi Gazzeh material (see catalogue). A variety of base types are attested in this period, although roughly flat bases, and disc bases are the most common ( see figure s 4.9. 7-8, 4.10.2).

Holemouths show very little change barring decorative features which closely mirror developments within the bowl repertoire. Jars show little change, although storage jars appear for the first time (figure 4.16.5). Handles are commonly red slipped, and, more often than not, lugs. The base repertoire still features the disc base and mat impressions seen in the previous phases. The introduction of a ring base (figure 4.18.10), and a gross version of the button base (figure 4.18.3) are notable in this phase.

The fabric trends show approximately one third buff family to one third hard fired fabrics, with quartz and shell tempered fabrics making up the remainder (see figures 4.59, 63). Variant fabrics are rare at just over 1%, coarse fabrics make up 8%, fme less than 1%. It should be noted that overfired fabrics account for about 3% of the sherds while 2% are vitrified (ie. fired to a glassy blue

30

The naturally occurring wadi clays are also greenish in colour, and it is probable that the earliest inhabitants of Teleilat Ghassul employed them extensively. 31 Crushed shell would have been readily obtainable from the wadi. Extensive deposits of compacted shells are visible in the wadi today. 32 Please note that phases G and GH are combined to create the figures for G given in the graphs (fig. 4.51. 5960).

29

Throw-ups are defmed here as artefacts deriving from a previous phase, but included in later phases due to site formation processes, eg. builing work which uses deposits which include material from a previous phase etc. 33

Fabric Phase J Phase I Phase H Phase G Phase F Phase E Group G1 24.93 35.19 26.2 23.9 28.08 43.17 G2 14.05 1.11 1.15 1.3 0.88 0.82 0.79 1.11 0.19 0.9 0.15 0.27 G3 G4 18.3 8.37 0.19 0.3 0 0.27 G5 2.38 7.26 1.73 1 0.88 0.27 3.71 6.14 5.58 8.9 5.29 4.64 G6 G7 10.61 2.23 16.95 13.5 14.26 8.74 1.59 1.67 1.34 1.3 1.91 1.64 G8 5.04 2.23 1.54 0.6 2.21 1.37 G9 G10 15.65 34.07 44.89 47.6 45.88 38.52 Variant 2.92 0.56 0.19 0.8 0.44 0.27 Total 377 179 519 1001 680 366 Table 4.3 Fabric groups as percentages of total of sherd count for each phase

The Early Chalcolithic shows some interesting fabric developments. Notably there is a slightly higher percentage of fabric 10 and a slightly lower percentage of fabric 1 (figure 4.59). In this sense, the balance shifts slightly to mirror further developments in the Middle Chalcolithic phases. The most remarkable feature, however, is the incidence of red slipped decoration, which rises to a figure of7.4%, unmatched in later phases (see table 4.4, figure 4.61). It is in this phase that bow-rim jar necks appear. In addition there are rare incidences of slightly burnished fabrics and attempts at surface manipulation (figure 5.14). While Wadi Rabah features are not present, these few examples may indicate that this phase at Teleilat Ghassul is partly contemporary with the Wadi Rabah assemblages more common in the region to the northwest ofTeleilat Ghassul.

Phase D

Phase C 42.91 36.27 1.75 0 0 0 0 0 0.39 0 5.83 0 16.7 0 0.97 0 1.55 0 28.93 62.75 0.97 0.98 29 53 for Area A sondages.

Fabric 6 (figure 4.59). It is in phases E and D that we see the growth in fabric group 1 (plate IV.Id) which is largely at the expense of group 10 (figure 4.59). In phase D there is an increased percentage of fabric 7 sherds which also help to displace group 10. Group 10 does not return to its dominant levels until the Late Chalcolithic period.

The Late Chalcolithic phases (C, B, A and A+) The high level of decoration continues in the Late phases, despite the initial drop in phase C. This can be ascertained from material excavated from Hennessy's squares. There are new types of decoration which appear. Painted squiggly lines (figure 4.42.1) and red painted decoration on white slip (figure 4.38.6) was popular. Streaky wash decoration is a characteristic of the later phases at Teleilat Ghassul (figure 4.34.2). This decoration appears only at a few sites in the southern Levant, eg. Beersheva and HalifTerrace.

Middle Cha/eolithic phase (F, D and E) It is in this period that we see a major increase in

decoration and the appearance of linear painted decoration in particular. Red slipped decoration continues in this phase, but painted and incised decoration appear to peak at this point (see table 4.4 and figures 4.61).

It will be noted that the 1994-7 sondages did not sample phases B-A+, and as we know that Hennessy did not retain all sherds, there are no calculations available for Area A upper phases at this time. Therefore the fabric breakdown for these levels is lacking. However, it is possible to supplement the data presented in figure 4.59 with figures calculated from the other areas on the site where recent excavations have explored broad exposures of the later phases. Also, because all of Hennessy's diagnostic sherds were kept, it is possible to present figures based on these, to compare with those from the recent sondages (see figure 4.60). These provide another check on potential breaks between phases.

The relative frequencies of vessel types are presented in figures 4.48. Overall open vessels dominate in the middle phases, where this was not the case in phase G (figure 4.51). Comets are also more common which is largely due to the presence of building structures in phases D and E of AIII. The churn makes its first appearance (figure 4.23). With regard to form development, we see more elaborate rims at this point. The upturned rim holemouth common in the Early Chalcolithic is still in use in this phase. This is a feature that mirrors developments at Abu Hamid at the same time 33 . Necked jars have a wider variety of shapes. Concave bases make their first appearance and handles are almost always lugs.

The upper phase ceramics are characterised by the introduction of new forms. Whilst the 'V' shaped bowls are not quite the same style as the Safadi assemblage, some parallels can be found there. Small cups (figure 4.32.4) and spouted holemouths (figure 4.38.7) are two examples. The necked jars (see figures 4.40) and storage jars (figure 4.39) reveal forms that are classic "Ghassulian" types. The high proportion of necked jars in the final phase (figure 4.58) is probably a little exaggerated due to the small sample size (see figure 4.48 for comparisons between phases). Handles show

Concerning the development of fabric, phase F is largely a continuation of phase G, with an increase in the proportion of fabrics 1 and 7, and a slight decrease in 33

I thank the directors of the Abu Hamid Project for allowing me to discuss aspects of the Abu Hamid typology here. 34

Fabric Decorated Red Slip Burnish Painted TsafGroup sherds like Phase J 2.65 1.33 0.27 0 0 Phase I 1.67 0.56 1.11 0 0 Phase H 6.16 2.31 0 1.73 0 Phase G 10 7.4 0.2 2.2 0 Phase F 10.58 2.79 5.58 0.15 0 Phase E 12.02 1.91 0.14 9.02 0 Phase D 5.24 1.17 0 3.3 0 Phase C 1.96 1.96 0 0 0 Table 4.4 Decorative techniques expressed as percentages per phase. Phase Coarse Phase J 12.46 Phase I 16.2 Phase H 2.69 Phase G 16.1 Phase F 27.2 Phase E 18.31 Phase D 28.16 Phase C 28.43 Table 4.5 Other features expressed as

Fine Vitrified 1.86 2.39 1.11 2.23 0.38 1.15 3.9 6.7 4.26 1.03 7.1 1.64 6.21 0 48.04 0 percentages per phase.

interesting developments, with a dominance of "pushedup" lugs (figure 4.43.4). The reappearance of ledge handles (figure 4.43.1, 4.43. 7) can be dated to this phase.

Incised 0 0 0 0.4 0.58 1.09 0.58 0

Applied/ imp'd 0.53 0 0.38 0.5 0 0.27 0 0

Overtired 4.51 8.93 0.38 2 0 0.82 0.39 0

replacement for group 7 in holemouths. The calcite tempered group 8 is clearly the preferred fabric for holemouths in the later phases, as it produces much fmer walled vessels. Bowls and comets are now much more commonly made in group 10 fabrics, and the occasional variant fabric begins to appear. This trend is continued in phase A (figure 4.57) and A+ (figure 4.58) where sand tempering reappears after its initial prominence in the Late Neolithic (plate IV.lb).

Some of the new vessel types tend to show a slightly different manufacture; for example smoother walls with more balanced shapes (eg. figures 4.40.3-4). In some examples there is some evidence of a tool being used to smooth the walls towards the base (figures 4.47.3). Wheel-turned vessels are very rare and these surface finds are effectively unprovenanced. However, string-cut bases do occur in small numbers (figure 4.47.1).

Basins throughout the sequence appear to mirror the bowl repertoire closely in fabric proportions. There is a shift from phase B onwards in the necked jar repertoire. Until this point, jars largely reflected the fabric breakdown of the rest of the asemblage as a whole, whereas group 10 becomes a far more popular fabric choice for large jars in the later phases. In addition large jars (and store jars in particular) are actually larger (figure 4.39) in the fmal phases. There is very little strict fabric/form correlation beyond this however, until the later phases when the new production technique becomes known.

Fabric/form correlations

There are very few correlations between fabric and form in the earliest phases (figure 4.49). It appears that potters employed a variety of fabrics for every vessel class; even the use of temper showed little patterning. The exception appears to be fabric 4, which is used almost exclusively for bowls. In phase G (figure 4.51) the graph shows much the same picture, although the jars and basins may be slightly more differentiated, it is difficult to be sure in a sample of this size. Comets appear to be largely made of buff fabrics.

General trends It is clear that there are major fabric changes from the

basal levels to the upper levels. The most marked change is the overall increase in the proportion of the hard red (group 10) fabrics to the buff fabrics (group 1) in the fmal phases (figure 4.60). There are more subtle changes, with some evidence for the gradual selection of particular temper for certain vessels as is the case with groups 7 and 8. Earlier phases show larger proportions of chafftempered fabrics, and a particular fabric that contains very few inclusions (4aM). Decorative features are also very good indicators of the different periods at Teleilat Ghassul, although they do have a tendancy to overlap phases.

The middle phases (F-D) show a gradual selection of fabrics for holemouths (see figures 4.52, 53 and 54). The shell tempered fabric (7) becomes a more and more popular fabric for this class. This may be because of it's resistance to thermal shock, which makes it ideal as a temper for cooking vessels. Comets are still predominantly made in fabric 1, while bowls continue to reflect the general range of fabrics for that phase. Phase C (figure 4.55) is not noticeably different, although this calculation is based on a vety small sample. Phase B (figure 4.56) sees the introduction of fabric group 8 as a

35

Discussion

brokenness can be measured via this method which can allow us to build a picture of post-depositional history (Orton and Tyers 1990:86). Other measures have been proposed more recently (Byrd and Owens 1997), but these are cumbersome for multi-period tell sites.

The increased proportion of the hard fired fabrics in the fmal phases (see figure 4.60) is likely to be due a performance-related factor. Notably there is a number of vitrified sherds (sherds which have been fired to a hard glassy point), beginning in the early phases (see table 4.5). Despite this there is a lack of warped sherds found at the site (Hennessy 1982:57), which are to be expected when firing at such apparently high temperatures. However, as we have found no evidence for kilns at Teleilat Ghassul, it is likely that wasters are to be found in, as yet, unexplored areas. Hennessy suggests that these might be found in the foothills of the eastern range (Hennessy 1982:57). The other alternative is that the potters understood very well the limitations of the clay they were using, and were adept at ceasing firing just before warping occurred. Vitrification would normally indicate a very high temperature. However Edwards and Segnit (1982) that the high lime content in the Ghassulian increased fluxing, and allowed vitrification at temperatures:

Calculations are based on rim diameters from AX, AXl and AIII, from which all diagnostics were available. It is clear from table 4.6 that there is no real increase in the mean percentage recovery of pottery from the earliest phases. The largest mean occurs in phase E. This is not surprising given the presence of a number of complete vessels from the AIII structure of this phase. Note that the standard deviation is much greater in this phase, indicating that the high percentage diameters are not universal for this phase. If we were to remove the material from the AIII building from the data for this phase, the mean for the sondages alone would be c. 7%, which would still be a significant increase on previous phases, matched only by phase I. This shows that even small sondages which do not provide large samples can still provide reliable data on sound architectural phases. Generally the phases that provide the largest means also have larger standard deviations (the exceptions are Phase J and D). By contrast, Phase F and phase C, two phases which might be considered "transitional", have low standard deviations (under 3), indicating that the set of percentage measures show less variation. Phase G has a comparatively moderate mean and a moderate standard deviation

firing found fabric lower

Rye (1967:121-31) found that the addition of salt water to calcite-tempered paste generally has the effect of mitigating the decomposition of calcite during firing by raising the firing temperature at which calcite decomposes (Figures 2.2a-c). Rye (1976:131) speculates that the cause of this phenomenon is that the presence of sodium from the salt water lowers the vitrification temperature of the clay to well within the range of traditional firing methods (Arnold 1985:26).

This study provides the reader an idea of the depositional condition of the assemblage. It also shows that information from small sondages reflects depositional history accurately. While the sample size for the sondages does not allow calculations according to fabric, this would be worthwhile for the entire site corpus as an alternative to sherd counts.

Increased vitrification at ordinary firing temperatures has two effects according to Arnold. It produces a stronger fabric and it seals some of the pores restricting access of water to calcium oxide. Potters could use salt in this way by adding sea water to the clay or by using clay which contains salt. Pakistani potters actually grind salt into their clay body (Arnold 1985:26-8).

Phase

n

Phase J 22 Phase I 45 Phase H 25 Phase GH 21 Phase G 36 Phase F 36 Phase E 40 Phase D 29 Phase C 3 Phase B 22 Phase A 50 Table 4.7 Eves by phase for

Vitrified fabrics are found in the highest numbers in phase G, which also contains a number of variant fabrics. It is possible that this early rise in vitrified fabrics is not due to extremely high firing temperatures, but to the actual properties of the clay itself. Given this, it is likely that data presented in figure 4.60 indicate a gradual selection of higher performance clays over time. In addition the gradual decrease in the numbers of vitrified sherds suggests an increased ability to fire evenly. It is notable that it is the thinner walled vessels in the later phases that appear to be vitrified more often.

Mean

n-1 6.82 3.16 7.1 4.56 5.84 3.75 6.5 6.77 6.01 3.40 6.19 2.91 14.16 24.16 6.93 3.53 5.33 2.52 10.95 7.85 7.94 4.18 the Area A sequence. X

Specific chemical studies In addition to this fabric study, more specific studies based on chemical analyses have been undertaken. Various techniques can be used to analyse ceramic materials chemically (sometimes called "finger printing"). These techniques constantly evolve. Neutron Activation Analysis (henceforth NAA) has been used extensively for

Estimated Vessel Equivalents It has been stated above that percentage rim diameters

were recorded for each diagnostic sherd (ie. each rim or base). This allows an eve (estimated vessel equivalent) calculation (Orton 1975). It has been found that

36

archaeological assemblages, eg. Artzy's study of Cypriot imported ceramics (Artzy et al. 1978), and see also Berman (1989). In Jordan similar research has been carried out on Late Bronze Age and Iron Age pottery (McGovern 1986). Since then there has been further development of similar techniques such as inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) (eg. Mallory-Greenough and Greenough 1998).

Principal components object and variable plots 35 show some differentiation which appears to reflect the fabric classes as defined above. The first four principle components account for 70.57% of the total variance present. However, a close look at the principal components plots reveals some important patterns (figure 4.75-7). Classes I and II appear to overlap significantly. On closer inspection, however, class I appears to have a less restricted range than II. Class II is largely confined to the middle lower half of the principal component plot (figure 4.75), while class I ranges more broadly across the area. The two exceptions to this are sample numbers 96.1-2 which are the very earliest versions of class II, which I have termed "Proto Hard Red". Samples 96.33 and 96.36 do group on the right-hand side of the same plot, and these are the painted sherds, made in a more refmed version of the lOaM fabric. Notably class V (fabric group 6), samples 96.22, 24, and 26, had been considered as possibly separate part of family I, but they do not group together on the plot. Class IV stands out with its three samples (96.07, 96.14 and 96.15) clearly clustering together on two out of three plots. The two samples from class III also cluster together (96.09 and 96.10) on the same two plots (see figure 4.75-7).

The method used by the USyd project is proton-induced x-ray and gamma-ray emission (henceforth PIXE/PIGME) and x-ray fluorescence (henceforth XRF). In PIXE, a particle accelerator produces a small beam of energetic protons (hydrogen nuclei) which is trained on the sample. The protons excite the outer electrons in the atoms of the sample, knocking some of them out of their normal orbits. As the excited electrons lose their excess energy the frequency and intensity of the X-rays are measured revealing the chemical composition of the sample. In PIGME a beam of protons excites the nucleus of the atom, and again the frequencies and intensity of the gamma rays are measured to reveal the chemical make-up of the sample. This technique enables very precise measurements of lighter elements (http://ww.v.ansto.gov.au/info/press/pl099.html).

A dendrogram of the cluster analysis (figure 4. 74) based on the group average method shows three basic groupings with one outlier, sample 96.24 (sample 96.01 may also be considered an outlier). These three basic groupings do not relate strongly to the fabric classes as they are defmed above, although the closest matches are almost always between samples of the same fabric group, eg. 96.33 and 36, 96. 7 and 14, 96.11 and 12. Generally there are different fabric classes included in each of the three PIXEPIGME groups.

The chemical composition is then put through a principal components analysis which clusters the samples according to their composition (see for example Grave et al. 1996:179-180). PIXEIPIGME Results As part of a wider study of proto-historic ceramics of the Jordan Valley, a limited number of samples from Teleilat Ghassul were tested. The 36 samples 34 were chosen in order to examine differences between fabrics, and therefore they range across the periods considered and include a few examples of each fabric group (see Appendix B for a list). The results indicate that the samples chosen are more similar than different, ie. they are relatively homogenous and it is highly likely that they were locally made.

The samples are taken from a range of phases and, at the same time, appear to be relatively homogenous. This may indicate that, over time, there were relatively few changes in clay preparation. Had the potters changed the way they tempered or manipulated the clays significantly, it is likely that this would be reflected in the chemical composition of the samples. Ceramics and socio-economic theory

As stated above the ten fabric groups defined in the study can be condensed into four or five fabric classes. Class V might be subsumed into class I, but it was examined separately in the first instance. I =groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 (the buff families) II =groups 5, 9 and 10 (the hard fired families) III =group 7 (the shell tempered family) IV =group 8 and 11 (the crushed calcite tempered group) V =group 6 (Fine dense brown buffs).

Studies on late prehistoric societies in western Asia are preoccupied by specialisation, ranking and changes in the socio-economic structure of societies (for example for Susa see Berman 1987). Studies of high-volume finds from late prehistoric contexts have great potential to elucidate the material correlates of changes in production. Various typologies of specialisation have been suggested (eg. Costin 1991). Looking at specialisation and regionalism allows us to view this production in terms of the social and the geographical.

34 Samples were prepared and tested by Z. Yu and M. Barbetti at the NWG Macintosh Centre for Quaternary Dating and analysed by G. Bailey and P. Graves at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) facility at Lucas Heights, Menai, Sydney.

Produced by Bourke and da Costa (nd), in which analysis was carried out with MV Arch, designed by Richard Wright, Wright 1996, "Doing Multivariate Archaeology". 35

37

Annalysts working with prehistoric ceramics tend to have concerns particular to that era: 1) the development of technology 2) the organisation of production and distribution and 3) levels oflocal and regional interaction. These variables are used to deduce the level of social organisation or stratification. They involve the study of resource procurement, fabrication techniques, artefact patterns and functions. These in tum have their own intricacies and are not static. They can be affected by individual choice and environmental circumstance. It is also important to realise that different levels of technical expertise can exist side by side, and exchange and production patterns may be affected by this.

diameters of 'V' shaped bowls for Chalcolithic sites in Israel (1994). However, studies of this kind need to be carefully directed to produce results that are meaningful. The variation of rims within handmade assemblages is enormous, and without large sections of the vessel in question it is possible to gain an erroneous measure of variability. The drawings of 'V' shaped bowls from the site of Shiqmim illustrate the irregularity present as a matter of course (Levy 1987:fig. 12.2). Firing temperature and other technological alterations might be studied by looking at percentages of vitrified ceramics and semi-oxidised fabrics in the record. Pollock et al. have tried to chart the scatters of pottery wasters at Abu Salabikh (1996:693) in the hope of establishing the location of production areas. Decorative techniques can be observed diachronically and measured in te1ms of counts of classifications.

However, some cautions have to be noted. Analysis of social stratification and specialisation is an anthropologically driven pursuit. It relies upon information from contemporary societies where finer grained data can be uncovered. The difference between attached and unattached specialists ( or part-time and fulltime specialists) may be impossible to establish from prehistoric data sets alone. However detecting specialised production in itself may well be possible.

Ethnographic context for potting in prehistory Arnold (1985:205-224) has used ethnographic data to demonstrate that one potter may choose to produce things in a traditional way while other potters may attempt to specialise in a completely alien technique. It has been asserted that because potting is likely to have been traditionally a woman's activity and supplementary to the main subsistence strategy of the "household", the subsistence base of the family must change to allow new, more time-consuming, methods of production to appear ie. the activity takes a larger roll in the subsistence pattern. It has been further asserted that there are considerable barriers to this change (Arnold 1985:205ft). The choice of a new technique may signal a new subsistence base, but it does not have to indicate that the entire settlement has achieved this level.

Rice draws distinctions between non-ranked/egalitarian, ranked and stratified societies when approaching this issue with ceramics. She suggests measuring variability, or its converse, standardisation in order to approach this issue (Rice 1981:220-1). She presents some expected observations for the three categories of societies identified. For incipient specialisation she predicts: 1) increasing standardisation of paste (fabric) in some categories, perhaps indicating greater exploitation of certain resources, 2) greater skill in technology ought to be evident and/or greater consistency in manufacture and firing, 3) decorative techniques ought to become less variable, with the development of accepted conventions, 4) spatial distribution of increasingly standardised products (Rice 1981:223).

... when subsistence returns are threatened, the strongly conservative values in a society that resist change are challenged and changed (Arnold 1985:204). This was noted to in Mali. Two cultures, the Peul and the Somono, live side by side. However the Somono did not adopt the Peul ceramic traditions (de Cellnick 1993:411). It was only when environmental conditions forced fish to become a secondary subsistence strategy for the Somono that this situation changed. The environmental shift had consequences for the ceramic producers and they began making pottery in the other forms, but only for certain vessel types. In this way fabrication techniques seemed to be strongly linked to cultural requirements of vessel function (de Cellnick 1993:414). It was discovered that the technical requirements of the vessel determined its size. Water storage was the main difference between the two groups, one group requiring smaller vessels for transport (de Cellnick 1993:416).

It is necessary to fmd a suitable way to assess intensifying

standardisation. For the Teleilat Ghassul sample we are dealing with pot sherds as the unit of study. Gradual fabric selection can be measured via percentages of fabric groups across phases. Standardisation of the fabrics themselves and increased skill in technology might also be examined by looking at thin sections of the same fabric groups across phases. This can be problematic because this is usually based on a limited number of selected samples from a much larger group due to cost concerns. Small sample sets cannot be considered representative, when they are based upon only a small part of a few vessels that, in themselves, vary considerably. This problem was noted by Judith Berman in her study of Susiana ceramics (1987:52-3).

Traditional manufacturing techniques may therefore be expected to be highly resistant to change, even when significant contact can be documented. The adoption of new techniques therefore can be highly significant.

If mass production is suggested, measures of the vessels themselves may be relevant, for example, volume measures (Jones 1996). Steven Kangas has studied rim

38

that can be associated with wheel-fashioning certainty (Roux pers. comm.)

Standardisation and Specialisation at Teleilat Ghassul There are two major indications of changes in production technique at Teleilat Ghassul in the latest phases. The first is associated with the "streaky wash" decorated vessels, although not with all of them. It has been observed that a number of the vessels decorated with this technique show evidence of more balanced shapes, and the possible use of a tool to smooth the walls of the vessels.

with

The development and spread of wheel-turned pottery is only just being consistently studied in this region (Roux and Courty 1997). We understand very little about how it came about. It appears, however, that the earliest wheelmade bowls from Beersheva and Abu Hamid did not have string-cut bases. Study of the variable techniques across the southern Levant obviously requires a great deal more work, but we can suggest that at least two distinct techniques of manufacture are in use at T eleilat Ghassul in the later phases.

It is impossible to give accurate figures for this on the basis of the excavations in Area A. Hennessy's material cannot be considered a complete sample due to undocumented discards. However, on the basis of the diagnostic sherds from AIII, where a larger sample is available, it is possible to say that about 43% of vessels produced in fabric 10 were decorated in streaky wash, and that of these about one third ( 13% ) are decorated and produced with significantly more care.

However, it is not necessary to propose full-time specialisation. Roux and Courty illustrate the fact that quite large numbers of vessels may be produced by potters in a single season (1997:41), and the numbers presented here do not preclude part-time production. It is the change in technique which is the most important aspect of this new infonnation.

Streaky wash decoration is common in the final phases, and on the basis of the AIII data change can be observed from phases C and B from a higher proportion of painted group 10 (c. 1/3) to a much higher proportion of streaky wash. From these shapes, and the parallels given, it is clear that these forms associate strongly with certain rim types, bevelled and rolled rims in particular, and show distinctive "hard" profiles. Their shapes are balanced and is possible that they may have been finished on the wheel 36 . Indeed, the vessels of this group are predominantly basins and necked jars. In any case, the data appears to indicate that this small group became a significant proportion of the assemblage in the later phases at the site.

There are very few examples of streaky wash among the material from Area E. If this area of the site is of cultic significance, it therefore appears that this small assemblage of finely made vessels are not associated with cult goods, but rather, are made as functional items by a potter, or group of potters, with a particular skill. This study indicates great potential for a more complete study of the manufacturing techniques across the entire site. Variability It has been suggested that as societies become more

complex and specialised, variability in decoration decreases (Rice 1981). This does not appear to be true for Teleilat Ghassul. Instead, the rate of decoration actually increases. A number of new types of vessels occur, including small cups, fenestrated stands and spouted holemouths.

The second major change in production associated with the later phases is the technique of string-cut bases. The examples recovered from the site so far do not appear to have been associated with streaky wash decoration, although they are associated with fabric group 10. This technique has been found at other sites in Jordan, specifically at Pella Area XIV (Lovell 2000). The Pella examples occur in association with small wheel-turned bowls (Lovell 2000), however, the technique of stringcutting does not automatically indicate wheel throwing or turning. Very few sherds have been found from Ghassul

Chapman has suggested that variation in vessel type may indicate increased social interaction, and the growth of new institutions and rites to reinforce societal allegiances (1988). Chapman argues that: While not denying the potential of ceramics for information display, it seems likely that the potential of clay vessels for a wide variety of household functions was at least as important in their widespread adoption as a symbolic role ... A dialectical relationship can be perceived between the evolution of pottery and the social contexts in which pottery is utilized; differentiation of social behaviour can stimulate the production of new classes or pottery, as much as the introduction of new forms can be utilized in the creation or maintenance of social networks (1988: 15-6).

36

In their discussion of the IVA and B material from Tell 3, Koeppel observes that: "It is worthy of note that the traces of wheel turning are found most frequently on the sherds with slips. However, it is possible that the potters technique in applying the slip bands was so perfect that in doing so he traced perfectly parallel horizontal striations on the surface of the soft clay" (1940:74). I thank Dr. Valentine Roux (CNRS) for many valuable insights into wheel-fashioned pottery in this period. She has looked at the PBI material with respect to this question and reports that she sees no evidence of wheel turning with regard to material decorated in streaky wash.

A number of the new vessel types mentioned above may be related to new techniques of food production. For instance, spouted holemouths are probably related to 39

olive oil production. The introduction of the comet may also have a functional explanation. However, the fenestrated stands, basins decorated with animal figurines (figure 4.35.3) and the zoomorphic vessel from Area E (Hennessy in Pritchard 1987:27, figure 8.H) might well be explained in terms of new household items reflecting new social rites. A number of scholars are beginning to examine the development of complex society from the standpoint of basic household interaction (Joffe 1998). Final Remarks

The sequence presented in this chapter was anchored to stratigraphic divisions. The terminology follows Hennessy, although the terms Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic may not be used in the same sense by the rest of the archaeological community. It is unclear how the four major stages outlined here relate to the original PBI divisions, but it is clear that significant developments occur. The earlier phases show a minimal number of form types which appear to relate in some senses to the Jericho PNAB material, although not strikingly. The material which derives from phase G and GH introduces some new features which signal the beginning of the Chalcolithic, but also contains a high degree of slipped decoration which may indicate a correlation with "Wadi Rabah" sites in Israel and Jordan, called Late Neolithic by some scholars (eg. Gopher 1995). The most significant shift in terms of architecture occurs between phase G and phase F, the transition to the middle phase. With regard to the ceramic sequence, this is marked by the introduction of painted ceramics, especially the Tsaf-like linear painted pieces (plate IV.le), the chum and the more common appearance of the comet. The latest phases (C-A+) are marked by an increase in painted decoration (the Tsaf-like material continues), the occurrence of streaky wash and new vessel types. The development of fabric types does show the gradual selection of different fabrics, and the slow correlation of certain vessel types to certain fabrics. The end of the sequence is marked by the development of some very limited evidence of developing specialisation. The implication of the associated change in technology fits well with other sites of the same date, which also experience the introduction of new technologies at this time (Commenge-Pellerin 1987; Roux and Courty 1997).

40

Chapter 5: The sequence Teleilat Ghassul in context

cross-connected and mutually reinforcing system of information variety, uniting and stabilizing every channel of human interconnection and behaviour (Clarke 1978:299).

at

In 1982 Hennessy stated that the earliest material from In this sense, Gopher's use of the term culture is helpful,

Teleilat Ghassul did not compare well with material from Kenyon's PNA Jericho (1982:58). This seemed surprising due to the short distance separating them. However the parallels noted in the catalogue presented here reinforce this view. Although there are a number of shape parallels noted for both PNA and PNB Jericho, the similarities are not striking. The major difference lies in the lack of decorated material at Teleilat Ghassul and minor stylistic differences.

in order to differentiate various archaeological assemblage groups from within the culture system of the Pottery Neolithic. Several assemblage groups are emerging, the Abu Hamid linear group, the Yarmoukian, Jericho PNA/Lodian, Wadi Rabah and the Qatifian. The Lodian is defined on the basis of its ceramics and its flint typology (Gopher 1995:210-11), but it is based upon an extremely small sample. Differences between Lodian and Yarmoukian ceramics are not immediately striking (Gopher and Gophna 1993:324), and the flint typology is acknowledged to be a possible artefact of geography (Gopher and Gophna 1993:326). Essentially, Lodian sites are discussed as variant cultures because they apparently do not exhibit all the features of the so-called classic assemblages, and sometimes have additional features. The application of this rule in the case of large samples would not cause so much concern. However, in many cases the samples are small or otherwise flawed. This goes to the heart of the fundamental problem facing archaeologists dealing with this period because it affects every other cultural grouping, eg. the Wadi Rabah sites. The only corpus available for the Wadi Rabah culture is Munhata (Garfmkel 1992b), and there are definite difficulties associated with this sequence.

The nearby site of Ghrubba does not appear to relate closely to Teleilat Ghassul's earlier levels either, although it does have parallels elsewhere (eg. the basal levels at Abu Hamid). We are therefore faced with a problem of regional or chronological differences. Goren's suggestion that the lower levels of Ghassul may relate to the Qatifian (Goren 1990) also appears unconvincing. In fact the lowest levels may have more in common with the "Besorian". Although the isolation of a possible Wadi Rabah horizon at Teleilat Ghassul indicates that different and contemporary ceramic assemblages are highly likely, not all of the differences between assemblages should be explained this way.

Periodisation and "ceramic cultures" An outline of the various regional groupings which appear in the literature currently was given in Chapter 1. Some of these "cultures", as they are called (Gopher 1995:208), are defined on the basis of their whole material culture. Others rely heavily upon single indicators. Gopher appears to favour a chronological explanation for the perceived differences between assemblages although a lack of radiocarbon dates make definitive statements difficult (Gopher and Gophna 1993:317-26; Gopher 1995:210-11).

In his introductory comments Munhata, Garfinkel states:

on

stratigraphy

at

In many cases it was impossible to determine by

the field observations, which pits belonged to which layer. Dating the pits and relating them to the corresponding layers was based on a typological analysis. In other words, according to the pottery found in it, the pit was referred to one layer or the other. When a pit yielded a mixed pottery assemblage, or contained no indicative pottery at all, it was not included in the study ... Most of the pottery assemblage of layer 2a [the Wadi Rabah phase] was not found in structures or pits, but in the open spaces between and around these structures. These open areas were usually excavated as large units, 5m x 5m in dimensions, and according to the grid. The collections from these squares usually included some intrusive elements dating from layer 2b (Sha'ar Hagolan stage) or layer 1 (EBI period). We separated them from the layer 2a material on the basis of typological analysis (Garfmkel 1992a:19-24).

It should be noted that the essential features of Lodian

ceramics, as expressed by Gopher and Gophna (1993) are taken from the small samples provided by Garstang's excavations at Jericho in the 1930s. These excavations experienced definite stratigraphic problems, and have since been superseded by larger samples revealed by Kenyon's excavations. The flint typology, by contrast, is based upon the smaller samples of more recently excavated material. Despite this the Lodian is seen as representing an entity on the scale of a culture. Gopher defines his cultures on the basis of Clarke (1978:299-302) and Renfrew's (1972:19) work (Gopher 1995:208). Clarke notes that:

It is clear then that the stratigraphic control at Munhata is not what we might have hoped for, and it is also clear that the typology has been created, to a large extent, independently of the stratigraphy. One can sympathise with Garfmkel's predicament, but wonders if it would

The archaeological culture when properly defined represents the material culture subsystem of a specific sociocultural system. The culture system and the communities which generate it embody the largest unit with internally the most richly

41

not have been better to present all contexts, regardless of how mixed they might have appeared. Mixed deposits may include material derived from previous phases, for instance, material dug up during the construction of a wall and then included in the packing of a floor or other fill material. This does not imply that the context is contaminated, ie. badly excavated, or affected by other taphonomic processes. Rather it suggests that it includes a significant percentage of material that was in use in a previous phase, ie. residual material. This phenomenon is precisely the reason that archaeologists date their levels via the latest material found therein.

1982:63; Kaplan 1972). The stratum VIII corpus shown in the fifth and sixth reports, whatever the terminology, shows a mixture of Pottery Neolithic, Wadi Rabah and even occasional Late Chalcolithic/Ghassulian pieces (Garstang et al. 1935:pl. XLIII.1-5,8,19; Garstang et al. 1936:pl. XXXIII.1-4,17). It would be impossible to separate these various elements stratigraphically given the nature of the publication. However, the field note books held in the PEF, London provide more specific and useful information. It is clear from study of the notes and sketch plans in tandem with material held in the Liverpool Museum 37 that there are specific rooms which contained more or less uncontaminated material. Room number 260 is a good example. The material recovered from this room (Garstang et al. 1936) appears to be uncontaminated, although the retained sample 1s extremely small.

A typological development is impossible to trace without the intermediate deposits that would have contained transitional, but uncontaminated, material. Whether it was possible to include these elements is not clear. However, the result is a didactic and schematic typology which risks including only those sherds which fitted a preconceived typological ideal. This is a serious drawback of the work. At this point, it is worth noting that the original excavator of Munhata, Jean Perrot, believed there was an intermediate phase between 2b and 2a (1968:415; see also Gopher 1989:78). This, according to Garfmkel (1992b:19) could not be confirmed by the ceramics. However, on the evidence presented thus far, Perrot's original thesis cannot be discounted.

Kenyon began to re-excavate Jericho in 1952; publication was not complete until 1983. An impressive amount of Neolithic ceramics were uncovered, although no classic Chalcolithic sherds were found 38. Kenyon's typology of the Neolithic material was built on her knowledge at the time of excavation. No Wadi Rabah material had been published. However the Kenyon excavations do provide a detailed stratigraphic sequence which was well excavated and, for the most part, well documented. Kenyon divided her Pottery Neolithic material into A and B (henceforth PNA and PNB).

If this is the benchmark for a Wadi Rabah assemblage it is not surprising that few assemblages can be associated with it. It is to be expected that assemblages from different sites will show variations but it can also be shown that the variant sites display significant similarities. This can be demonstrated by a closer examination of the Jericho assemblage.

Garfinkel (1999b:69fi) has pointed out that there are some descrepancies between what Kenyon says and what is presented in the report (Garfinkel 1999b:69). However, because of the level of detail provided in the excavation reports, it is possible to re-examine the evidence.

Jericho VIII and IX

The Stratigraphic Evidence Stratigraphic analysis will be confmed to those trenches which provide the clearest evidence of PNB habitation (see table 5.1 for phases relevant here).

It is generally accepted that there is no classic Chalcolithic material from Kenyon's excavations at Jericho (Tell es-Sultan) (North 1982) although there are some "Ghassulian" features from Garstang's earlier excavations in the 1930s. In addition, Wadi Rabah-like ceramics from both Garstang and Kenyon's excavations are attested. Early excavations in the northeast comer of the site revealed Chalcolithic pottery and the excavator claimed a discrete Chalcolithic (alternately called Chalcolithic and Late Neolithic) phase (Garstang et al. 1935, 1936). The two strata which are important here are stratum IX (generally said to be Yarmoukian or Lodian) and Stratum VIII, above it, which contained material similar to the Wadi Rabah phase and some Ghassulian elements. Immediately following this occupation was an Early Bronze Age level, some of which rested directly upon Chalcolithic features (Garstang et al. 1935:150).

Trench II, Site O has produced PNB occupation in stage XII which basically consists of a number of pits, (the stratigraphy of the pits is outlined in Kenyon 1981: 139145). These follow earlier PNA pits (Stages X and XI). The phases that concern us are xliv and xiv containing pits which are described as "presumably ... houses with sunk floors". The contexts which are important here are pits Wl, W2, CG and the surfaces which overlie these. See also BO, BDl, and the levels above these, associated 37 See footnote 2.

38Area E III-IV was sited immediately to the East of Garstang's original sounding into the Neolithic. His excavations produced some "Ghassulian" pieces. At one stage there was barely a meter separating his trenches from the Area E boundary (Kenyon 1981, 267). A careful study of topography and plans is required but a preliminary analysis would suggest that the most likely place for stratified Late Chalcolithic discoveries is here. Although the PU/EBA material seems to be largely retaining walls, rather than occupation, expansion may expose PU/EBA domestic occupation in direct stratigraphic relationship with Chalcolithic material.

Notably, at the time Garstang published his Sixth Report there was still some confusion over the terminology used by Ben Dor, and the Wadi Rabah material had not yet come to light (see Kaplan 1958a, 1958b, 1959, 1972). Ben Dor had always wished that the material that he discussed in 1936 be referred to as Chalcolithic, but it was changed to Late Neolithic by Garstang (see North

42

Archaeological Period Pottery Neolithic A

Trench II Trench Ill Stage X phase xxxix-xlii Stage XI phase xliii Stage X phases xxviiia-xxxv Pottery Neolithic B Staqe XII phase xliv-xlv Chalcolithic Absent Absent Proto Urban / Early Bronze Age Stage XIII phase xlvi + Stage XI phases xxxvi + (PU/EBA) Table 5.1 Comparative Stratigraphy (after Kenyon and Holland 1983 Charts Ill and X)

with walls OBH (circular), OBJ and OBK (straight). These are CNl, Rl and R2. The very last phase (xiv) includes the levels which cover these levels, see especially AZ, AE, BF and BQ (Kenyon 1981:pl. 259, 260a, presented here as figure 5.5-6). Those that are discussed below are fill and floor levels.

Trench III pit A is also important. There are a series of pits which come from the later phases as explained above, but their stratigraphic relationship with each other is not clear. Of all of them, pit A is the only one which contained large amounts of convincing material. This pit can be seen in the west section (reproduced here as figure 5. 7). A selection of its contents are presented in figure 5.11.

Trench III, Site N has revealed only a few deposits that can be attributed to the PNB: stage X, phases xxviiia-xxxv (Kenyon 1981:191-192, pl. 273-4). Only one fragment of mudbrick architecture was found in phase xxxiv, but this is not illustrated (Kenyon 1981:192). The contents of pit A are important for this discussion (Kenyon 1981:pl.273, presented here as figure 5.7).

Almost all of the Jericho material noted above corresponds to examples of the fabric 1 at Munhata (Goren in Garfmkel 1992b:334-335) and specifically to those pieces which are made of fabrics lb and ld. Fabric 1b is one of the most common at Munhata, 1d is a secondary group and may have been imported to the site (Goren in Garfmkel 1992b:335). The Jericho material used here is of various fabrics, although fabric 1 dominates (for full fabric descriptions see Kenyon and Holland 1982:9-10).

Very little pottery is noted for the fmal PNB phases in Trench I, and none of these phases feature in the PNB type series published in Kenyon and Holland (1982). Whilst the occasional Wadi Rabah-like sherd occurs early, these do not occur in significant numbers. We will therefore concentrate on trenches II and III.

Garfinkel claims that Trench II stage XII and Trench III stage X are mixed PNA and PNB (Garfinkel 1999b:70, table 7). Kenyon clearly dates the material to the PNB, but because the deposits contain material which pre-date this phase Garfinkel would like to assert that they are "mixed". Tell sites often contain deposits that include derived material from the phases below them. This is not neccessarily due to contamination or mixing, but is part of the natural site formation processes. Instead we should date the deposit via the latest material found therein, thus this deposit has to be termed PNB. Archaeology would be much more difficult if we had to discount all deposits that are subject to this phenomenon.

Ceramic Parallels The following section uses the fabric descriptions/abbreviations in the relevant publication to facilitate comparisons. The fabric code, if available, is given in brackets after the figure reference. Trench II, stage XII, phase xliv, presented as figures 5.8 and 5.9. These examples come from deposits R2 and CNI, which produced some almost exact parallels with Munhata 2a material (as shown in Garfinlrnl 1992b), as well as some more general comparisons. The material illustrated is therefore selective, but this does not detract from the argument.

The Jericho PNB certainly compares favourably with aspects of the Munhata 2a material. The fact that it also includes earlier Neolithic material does not necessarily imply that the two were not contemporary nor does it necessarily imply that the Jericho PNB is a variant of the Wadi Rabah phase. There are other alternative interpretations. It may indicate that the Jericho material has more in common with the unpublished "mixed" material from Munhata, or even the transitional Munhata phase which Perrot claimed existed. In defence of this argument it is worth noting that Kenyon and Holland clearly state that the distinctive PNB forms did not appear in large numbers until the latest phase of stage XII (xiv), and although they feel their divisions are justified by the evidence, they admit a subjective element. More importantly they note the presence of derived material (Kenyon 1981, 116-117 and see pl. 257). The other related possibility depends upon this factor. The Jericho

The parallels are predominantly based upon similarities in form although it is obvious that many have similar decoration, although the areas of slip and/or burnish may not always be exactly the same. The examples show good parallels between shape, technique and surface treatment. Fabrics are bound to differ between different regions and establishing significant correlations would require further detailed study. Thus it can be seen that in Trench II there are clear parallels from phase xliv and xiv and that therefore these must be in some way contemporary with the Wadi Rabah phase at Munhata (ie. Munhata 2a). It seems that the earliest convincing material comes from R2 (phase xliv ), and that this continues into phase xiv and pit W2 ( see the East Section, reproduced here as figure 5.5).

43

PNB contexts contain more material derived from earlier phases of the site, specifically the Lodian PNA phase, than the Wadi Rabah corpus as presented by Garfinkel (1992b). This highlights the fact that the two assemblages cannot be compared at face value.

rectilinear architecture (see above). Gopher has stated that the subsistence strategy of the Wadi Rabah sites differs from earlier Late Neolithic settlements. It is argued that there is less evidence for hunting, and a reliance on domesticates, ie. sheep, goats and cattle (Gopher 1995:211). Garfinkel (1992a:386-387) has argued that there are a number of developments which argue for a "new beginning" in the Wadi Rabah stage. These include the flints, the disappearance of the art objects, and denser, smaller settlement areas at Jericho and Munhata. Perrot notes a complete change in the material culture (Perrot 1968:416).

The parallels presented here are largely based on shape. However one other difference between the assemblages ought to be commented on. There appears to be more burnished examples within the Munhata corpus. At Munhata c. 85% of the sherds illustrated are decorated (Garfinkel 1992b:fig.s 86-141) despite the fact that according to the tables (see especially Garfinkel 1992b:324, Table 17) only 6.2% of the entire corpus is decorated, 82.5% of which is red or black slipped, ie. 5.1%. There is no break down of burnished/slipped sherds. A very basic count of the contexts discussed here produces figures ranging from 15-30% for Jericho PNB, however there were undoubtedly discarded sherds that cannot be included in the count. As we do not have reliable quantitative data for the Jericho sequence, we have to assume, at this stage, that the assemblages do not differ in any imp011antway.

Gopher has conducted, as far as it was possible, an analysis of the differences between 2a and 2b flints at Munhata. His analysis reveals there are a few new types, a large heavy borer and a small increase in the percentage of sickle blades, although it is difficult to say very much about this (see Gopher 1989:100, table 27). He assumes a lower rate of technological change for flint as opposed to ceramics (Gopher 1989:143). The flaked stone from Jericho was studied by Joan Crowfoot-Payne in both instances. She observes that there are parallels between PNA material and the Munhata 2b phase. She equates the PNA with Garstang's level IX, and calls it "Yarmoukian".

Remarks

What is clear from this exploration is the correlation between the Wadi Rabah elements and the late PNB deposits at Jericho, specifically in Trench II and III. There is, of course, some earlier material in these deposits which must still be dated according to the latest sherds. They need not be considered contaminated. It appears that at Munhata the transition to the Wadi Rabah phase includes the transition to rectilinear architecture (Garfmkel 1992b:fig. 8). For the Jericho PNB, the material comes from pits, or pit dwellings, more similar to those in the previous phase at Munhata (Garfinkel 1992b:fig.s 3-7), although Garstang's earlier material appears to have come from rectilinear architecture.

In their synthesis article published in 1993, Gopher and Gophna state that if Jericho IX relates to Munhata, then it must relate to Perrot's "Munhata Phase" (Perrot 1968:415), although Gopher (1989) and Garfmkel (1992b) found this phase difficult to identify (Gopher and Gophna 1993:318). By this they mean that Jericho IX must relate to a transitional phase because it does not appear to be either classic "Wadi Rabah" or "Sha'ar Hagolan". According to Gopher and Gophna, Jericho VIII is a Wadi Rabah variant (Gopher and Gophna 1993:336), as are a number of other sites including Kataret es-Samra, Tel Tsaf and Beth Shan (Gopher and Gophna 1993:336-7). These arguments essentially follow on from de Contenson's earlier work (de Contenson 1960a,1960b) which was based on incomplete knowledge of Kenyon's excavations.

This is a far more important issue and suggests differences between the inhabitants' way of life, rather than their choice of stylistic motifs. At Abu Hamid pit dwellings are also known from the basal levels (Lovell et al. 1997) and rectilinear architecture appears for the first time in the following phase. It is this middle phase which is associated with the Wadi Rabah-like burnished ceramics (Dollfus et al. 1993). The change from pit dwellings to rectilinear architecture has been commented on before (Moore 1973:41-3). It is notable that the proposed Wadi Rabah horizon at Teleilat Ghassul (phase G) appears right at the change from pit-dwellings to Lab. no.

Prov.

Phase

SUA 732 Alli 221.9A F SUA 734 Alll 221.12A G SUA 736 All107.3 & 4 B SUA 738/1 EX2.3a ? SUA 739 EX 3.3b/3c ? Table 5.2 Previous radiocarbon dates 1993).

Thus, although we can establish a rough chronology for the Yarmoukian, and Wadi Rabah assemblages, there are still a number of floating variants which are yet to be anchored to a secure sequence. None of the key sequences have good radiocarbon dates and few have large samples. This is where long-lived sequences like Teleilat Ghassul can contribute.

Uncal. BP

Cal. BC (2 sigma range) 6550±160 5475-5322 6370±105 5491-5061 5667-4955 6430±180 5478-4989 6300±110 6070±130 5303-4709 from Tele1lat Ghassul recalibrated with CALIB

44

Contribution to probability .98 .99 1 1 1 4.3 (Stu1ver and Reimer

Lab. no. OZD 024 OZD 025 OZD 026 OZD 027 OZD 028 OZD 029 OZD 030 OZD 031 OZD 032 OZD 033 OZD 034 Table 5.3 1993).

Prov.

Phase

Uncal. BP

Cal BC Contribution to (2 sigma range) probability AXI 13.7 5768 + 86 4808-4450 .99 J AXI 10.15/16 5864 + 71 4854-4544 .97 J 4957-4447 AXI 11.37 F 5830 ± 117 .99 2458-2023 AXI 12.12/16 G 3777 + 75 .99 AXI 11.14 E 5571 + 67 4543-4325 .97 4499-4218 NI 11.7 E? 5493 ± 88 .88 AJA+ QI 13.1 5536 + 163 4715-4037 .98 Gii 66.55 G-F? 5603 + 80 4617-4325 .97 4542-4318 GIi 64.4 E-D? 5558 ± 71 .93 Gii 55.11 A+ 5452 + 58 4372-4220 .83 Giil 10.10 A/A+ 5332 + 71 4262-4036 .81 New ANSTO dates from Tele1lat Ghassul recalibrated with CALIB 4.3 (Stu1ver and Reimer

Radiometric dates for the Late Neolithic - Late Chalcolithic The initial radiocarbon dates published by Hennessy left little doubt that the earliest material from Teleilat Ghassul was to be considered Late Neolithic (table 5.2). The academic community were unsure how to correlate these with other sites due to a lack of detail regarding their contexts (Joffe and Dessel 1995:511).

in Jordan. Essentially, it is the dates from Abu Hamid 39 which provide the most useful comparisons with the Teleilat Ghassul dates (figures 5.2-3) 40 . These clearly show that the basal levels at Abu Hamid are earlier than the basal levels of Teleilat Ghassul, which slightly precede Abu Hamid's middle levels. The chronological relationships between the various major sites are illustrated in figure 5.12.

A new set of radiocarbon dates is now available. These dates have occasioned significant revision of the sequence in the light of other sites in the region.

The chronological relationships expressed in figure 5.12 are based upon the radiocarbon dates. A few sites which have radiocarbon dates have been excluded from this diagram (eg. Tel Tsaf) because their dates appear to be impossible. On the basis of typological traits it is inconceivable that Tel Tsaf does not correlate somewhere between the Wadi Rabah stage and upper phase Teleilat Ghassul (see below). The Tel Tsaf dates are taken from wood samples, and therefore are not as reliable as dates from short-lived samples. It is notable that the 'Ain el Jarba date (Gx 787) correlates very well with the Wadi Rabah stage at Abu Hamid and the same time period at Teleilat Ghassul.

It will be quickly recognised that the new dates (table 5.3)

are nearly eight to nine hundred years later (younger) than the SUA dates, and fit well with the earliest levels from Shiqmim (OxA 2523 and RT 649B) but are later than the Qatif Y-3 date (Pta 2968). The new dates are also internally consistent, except for one (OZD 027) which is clearly anomalous. The reliable dates from the early levels (OZD 024-26) are very close and are closely followed by the slightly later phase date of (OZD 028). The SUA dates were measured in 1977, several years before a systematic error was discovered by the laboratory (Temple and Barbetti 1981). The error was probably due to non-uniformities in the shape of the handmade glass vials used for measurements in one of the liquid scintillation counters, and revisions of up to a few hundred years were necessary for samples measured between December 1978 and November 1980. For the Teleilat Ghassul samples, it has not been possible to calculate appropriate corrections, due to vial changes made between 1977 and 1979; however the error from this source is not likely to exceed four hundred years (Barbetti pers. comm.). Part of the discrepancy between the SUA and the OZD dates may therefore be due to other causes, and it is worth noting that the former were all on small fragments of wood (which may have grown decades or even centuries before being cut), and that they were pretreated only in acid ( and not in alkali, which would have removed possible humic acid contamination). Appendix C gives a list of the known radiocarbon dates for the southern Levantine Chalcolithic. It is deliberately presented in the same format as that from Joffe and Dessel (1995:Table 1) and includes the new dates from Teleilat Ghassul and dates now available from other sites

Recently a number of new dates hve become available for the Yarmoukian phase at Sha'ar Hagolan (Garfinkel 1999d:10). These give quite a large date range of c. 6500 and 5700 BC (see Appendix C) for the period. And this fits very well with the information in figure 5.12. The latest phase excavated by the USyd team at Teleilat Ghassul (A+) appears to broadly correlate with 44004000 (to 2 sigma standard deviation) BC, and therefore does not run as late as the "Terminal Chalcolithic" dates proposed by Joffe and Dessel (1995:513, fig. 2). This confirms the initial assessment that settlement in the Negev endured longer than at Teleilat Ghassul and suggests that the "Terminal Chalcolithic" is not present at Teleilat Ghassul. In fact no other site in Jordan, or elsewhere, appears to run as late as the Negev sites. 39 Although several of these have been already published (Lovell et al. 1997:361). I thank the directors of the Abu Hamid project for kindly allowing me to present the full sequence of dates here. 40 It is interesting that the dates from Wadi Ziqlab, also plotted here, are significantly earlier (older). It is possible that this is a sampling issue.

45

Typological correlations

adopted. Certainly the Wadi Rabah tradition includes more than just burnished bowls and bow rim jars. It contains a wide variety of shapes, especially carinated bowls and includes other types of surface manipulation (eg. combed incision). Thus the early to middle phases relate to the Wadi Rabah horizon, but the full repertoire of shapes and techniques are by no means present.

The boundaries established by the radiocarbon dates above allow us to be quite defmite about typological correlations which had already been noted. It was clear for instance, that parallels with Jericho material were surprisingly few given the earlier dates (Hennessy 1989:240). Although Moore felt that the material from Ghrubba had closer affmities with the Ghassulian than with other Late Neolithic (1973:60) sites, this cannot be supported.

Although the Wadi Rabah repertoire appears to have been concentrated in north-central Israel, fmd spots are increasing by the year. It appears that a local production is also claimed in the Negev (Levy and Golden 1996: 153) and now there are examples at Teleilat Ghassul. The Ghrubba assemblage also includes some examples (Mellaart 1956:fig. 4.16, 18, 41). At Abu Hamid there are two traditions of burnishing in evidence in the middle phases. One is a local tradition on round sided bowls and other vessels (Lovell et al. 1997:369, fig. 5) and the second is a on a fmer carinated bowl. The sherds of this second tradition are often only c. 3mm in thickness, with an extremely fine burnish 42 . This suggests that although the technique may have been introduced to the area by extremely skilled potters, perhaps from north-central Israel, the technique of burnishing spread a considerable distance.

However, the basal levels at Abu Hamid contain pottery with painted decoration which is clearly contemporary with PNA Jericho and Ghrubba (Lovell et al. 1997). These levels precede the earliest levels at Teleilat Ghassul. The Beth Shan 41 assemblage (Fitzgerald 1935) contains many more similarities with the basal levels of Abu Hamid (Lovell et al. 1997), than it does to Tel Tsaf or Kataret es-Samra. Some of the distinguishing elements are flat loop handles, rough painted linear decoration with dots or spots and round sided bowls, sometimes with handles. Some of these elements are present in the PNA assemblage at Jericho which also contains Yarmoukian elements, and this may mean that these two decorative traditions are at least partly contemporary. Both the Abu Hamid and Beth Shan assemblages come from what might be "pit dwellings" lending further support to the notion that these are a Late Neolithic architectural feature.

In the Middle phases at Teleilat Ghassul (F-D) red slipped material continues, but new painted traditions are introduced. This includes the Tsaf-like ceramics with linear decoration on a white slip. The fact that at Tsaf these types occur in tandem with Wadi Rabah-like shapes and decorative techniques, confirms the suggestion that these two traditions are partly contemporary. At Teleilat Ghassul the Tsaf-like material survives into the later levels and appears in the greatest numbers in area H. This ceramic group can be found at Abu Rabil and at Kataret es-Samra; both are likely to be Late Chalcolithic sites.

The earliest material at Teleilat Ghassul appears to have very little in common with material from Qatif according to the radiocarbon dates (see figure 5.12) despite Goren's suggestion (1990). However, if the "settlement stratigraphy" proposed by Gilead (1990) for the Wadi Gazzeh sites is reliable, the Late Neolithic material from Teleilat Ghassul may relate to the "Besorian". One handle from the earliest phases stood out (figure 4.7.9). The only parallels found for this handle so far are from Macdonald's Wadi Gazzeh sites M, B, A and H. Sites A, B and M are attributed to the "Besorian" phase by Gilead (1990:62, Table 1). The linear painted tradition of Abu Hamid is not present, although some of the shapes are paralleled ( see catalogue, figure 4. lff). The Late Neolithic phase at Teleilat Ghassul contains pit dwellings and, it appears, the very beginning of rectilinear architecture.

The latest phases at Teleilat Ghassul (C-A+) are marked by a number of new shapes and decoration. The most common is the reserved slip that Hennessy termed "streaky wash". This is common at Teleilat Ghassul, but also appears in the Negev. It is known in small numbers from the Beersheva sites, where it is termed "engobe reserve" (de Contenson 1956:177, see figs. 5.10, 6.1,16). It is also known from the Halif terrace (E. Kansa pers. comm.) where it is found largely on jar fragments 43 . In Jordan it is also present at Sahab (Ibrahim 1975:pl. XXXIII.l). As stated above, the Tsaf-like material continues to be present in this phase (figure 5.16), and is

The material from phase G and the following Middle Chalcolithic phases, which are associated with defmite rectilinear architecture, appear to relate to the Wadi Rabah horizon elsewhere. This is inferred from high levels of red slip in these phases. Using rates of slip as a method for linking sites together has been done before (Gophna and Sadeh 1988/89:24), but it is clearly not defmitive. At Teleilat Ghassul examples of attempts at burnished ceramics have been found in other areas at the site and are associated with this phase (see figure 5.15). These examples confirm that the inhabitants of Teleilat Ghassul were aware of a burnished tradition, even if it was not

42 I thank the directors of the Abu Hamid project for

allowing me to discuss this material here. 43 While "Ghassul/Beersheva" ceramics have been found in

Egypt including "streaky wash", specifically at Buto (Faltings 1998), there is no strong evidence that Egyptian wares are present in the Ghassulian sequence. The appearance of Ghassulian ceramics in Egyptian sites clearly points to connections between Egypt and the region of Teleilat Ghassul. However, it is difficult to see how this might have occurred directly. In addition, the presence of "streaky wash" at Tel Halif terrace may indicate that this contact was not direct. I thank Dina Faltings for showing me the Buto material.

41 I thank Maude de Schauensee of the University Museum, Philadelphia for allowing me to view the pottery and records from Beth Shan.

46

joined by other painted decoration, squiggly lines, red painted bands and triangular motifs. It is striking that the forms begin to resemble Beersheva ceramics in this phase. There are even a few possible imported vessels from the Negev region (figure 5.17). The specialised streaky wash material can be paralleled in the Beersheva typology as expressed by de Contenson (1956). However, there are still significant differences between the two assemblages. Although it seems that settlement in the Negev region survived longer than at Teleilat Ghassul, it appears that differences between the Teleilat Ghassul material and the Beersheva assemblages must be attributed to regional differences. There are also some Negev vessel types which do not appear at Teleilat Ghassul. The so-called "spinning bowls" which are found at some Negev sites and at Abu Hamid in the valley and have been associated with Egyptian examples (see Dothan 1963).

However, it is clear that tighter chronology which is emerging for the Late Chalcolithic will necessitate collective re-examination. It is apparent that not all Late Chalcolithic sites were occupied for the same duration, and that the Negev may have supported Chalcolithic inhabitants for about five hundred years longer than sites to the north.

Summary of the implications for Late NeolithicChalcolithic settlement Despite the fact that Teleilat Ghassul's relatively short sequence diminishes its relevance to some sites, the radiocarbon dates, when coupled with those from Abu Hamid, contribute to a stronger general sequence for the southern Levant. This builds a strong argument for the use of radiocarbon dates, without which the following discussion would be subjective.

While Sahab (Ibrahim 1972, 1974, 1975) and Abu Snesleh (Lamprichs 1998; Lehmann et al. 1991) show affinities with Teleilat Ghassul 44, its contacts with these sites are yet to be established with certainty. Interestingly the central Jordan assemblages of Abu Hamid and Pella, which are contemporary with the later phases of Teleilat Ghassul, have ceramic assemblages with far more similarities to Negev assemblages. In fact, in the case of Abu Hamid, fine wheel shaped vessels have even been linked to the Negev petrographically (Roux and Courty 1997). This would suggest that trade between the Jordanian side of the Jordan valley and the Negev, at whatever level, was much more intense than with areas to the south. Notably these wheel-turned bowls are also reported from Tell Fendi (Blackham et al. 1998: 170). These valley sites still retain their own unique features. Both Abu Hamid 45 and Pella Area XIV (Lovell 2000) have elements which strongly parallel the Neve Ur assemblage (Perrot et al. 1967). This distribution of material, which is characterised by paint and incision, especially on squat short necked jars or holemouths, is therefore expanding across the north-central valley.

According to the radiocarbon dates, the earliest material from Teleilat Ghassul dates to the ve1y last phase of the Late Neolithic, post-dating the earliest linear painted material which occurs at Abu Hamid and is paralleled at Beth Shan (pits) and by some of the material at Ghrubba (Mellaart 1956). Notably one of Perrot's early publications on Munhata shows the linear painted style of Abu Hamid together with Yarmoukian types (Perrot 1964:pl. XLI.12-3) and this may argue for some degree of contemporaneity. Without good radiometric dates for the Yarmoukian phase it is difficult to be defmite about Teleilat Ghassul's relationship with it, or the Lodian (Jericho PNA). The relationship between the Lodian and the Yarmoukian remains unclear, but I would venture to suggest that they are probably largely contemporary46. The ceramics from the earliest levels at Teleilat Ghassul show parallels with both PNA and PNB Jericho, and it seems likely that phases J-H are contemporary with the transition from PNA to PNB, while phase G onwards relates to the Wadi Rabah horizon (see figure 5.13). The arrangement of the various assemblages in this way (figure 5.13), suggests stronger regional differentiation during the earlier Neolithic phases. The early assemblages of Qatif, basal Abu Hamid and PNA Jericho appear to be contemporary, yet regionally differentiated. In the following phases there are more links between assemblages, although a degree of regionalism remains. There are also more contemporary sites to compare. Overall similarity of Chalcolithic assemblages is strongest in the Late Chalcolithic phase despite the continued existence of regional assemblages (eg. the Golan). Regional differentiation appears to be strongest in highland areas (the Golan, the hill country and possibly the Jordanian plateau region). The increased numbers of Late Chalcolithic sites also argues for significant population increase.

Whether the various local differences in ceramics relate to what Levy describes as culture provinces is not clear: The result of population increase at the end of the fifth millennium in Palestine was the growth of a wide range of Chalcolithic archaeological entities or 'cultures' which developed across the country, occupying a wide range of environmental zones ... most of the southern Chalcolithic 'provinces' are no greater than ca. 40 kilometers in length and represent separate societies (Levy 1995:229).

The "Terminal Chalcolithic" is only documented at Negev sites, ie. Shiqmim and Beersheva. Recent excavations at Tell esh-Shuna (Nth) (Baird and Philip et

44 I thank N abil Qadi and Zeidan Kafafi for showing me surface collections of material from Sahab held at the Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Yarmouk University. I thank Susanne Kerner for showing me a selection of material from Snesleh. 45 See note 42.

46 It is notable that Perrot (1993:21) relates Jericho IX, Ghrubba, Abu Hamid, Feinan, Qatif etc. to the Yannoukian.

47

al. 1992, 1994; Philip and Baird 1993) have produced new dates for the EBIA phase there (Baird nd) and given these, it is entirely possible that the terminal Chalcolithic phase occurred concurrently with the earliest EBA further to the north.

the higher proportion ofholemouths; 33% to Grar's 15%. The proportion of comets at Teleilat Ghassul (7%) is half of that at Grar (over 15%). Almost all settlement sites in the Negev appear to show similar proportions (see Gilead 1995:204, fig. 4.28) to Grar overall, with proportionally more bowls than comets and low percentages of holemouths; only Qatif has a figure of 20%. Teleilat Ghassul also has very few chums and stands in the fmal phases of Area A47. How these figures might relate to subsistence strategies is unclear without a clue to the functional use of comets, but the higher percentages of holemouths may indicate different household practices at Teleilat Ghassul.

A series of maps can now be produced for all the sites known to be contemporary with Teleilat Ghassul (maps 1-3). The first gives only the sites from which enough published material exists to be sure of contemporary habitation. This is map 1, which shows those areas inhabited concunently with phases H-J at Teleilat Ghassul. This map includes Abu Hamid which may have been occupied at this time, although the radiocarbon evidence suggests a break. Map 2 includes sites contemporary with phases G through D, including both Wadi Rabah sites (Early through Middle Chalcolithic) and other contemporary sites on the same map. Wadi Rabah "proper" precedes Tel Tsaf, although the latter contains some Wadi Rabah features thus Tel Tsaf is included in the Late Chalcolithic map. The slightly earlier Wadi Rabah horizon is present over a much larger area, including frequent find spots in the northwest, and in the foothills of central Israel. There are plenty of find spots in the valley also however, including Abu Hamid. The inclusion of Tell esh-Shuna (Nth) is tentative and is in reference to de Contenson's survey ( 1960b). It is possible that other Late Neolithic assemblages are contemporary, but without detailed publication one cannot be sure. The Late Chalcolithic map (map 3) is much fuller, including the Golan sites and plateau sites where radiocarbon dates provide good linkages. There are a number of new valley sites including the reoccupation of some old ones (eg. Beth Shan). The Tel Tsaf sites are the ones which provide direct comparisons with Teleilat Ghassul in terms of recognisable type fossils, and these are confmed to the valley. Other valley sites have more in common with the Negev however, eg. Abu Hamid and Pella Area XIV. This link between the central Jordan Valley and the Negev deserves to be more fully explored, but the key may lie with Tell el-Farah (North) which remains unpublished in any detail. It is not until the very fmal phases of occupation at

Teleilat Ghassul that the ceramic corpus shows real parallels with Negev material. This was noted by Hennessy in his preliminary statements on the sequence (1982:58, 1989:240). The fact that Teleilat Ghassul was not occupied during the "Terminal" Chalcolithic partly explains why the two areas have never seemed entirely alike. In 1995 Gilead suggested that culture provinces or identities (1995:473) could be located in the archaeological record on the basis of the presence and absence of certain type features, eg. comets versus chums. The general type distribution at Teleilat Ghassul would appear to indicate a similar spread to that at Grar (see figure 5.14). The major difference between the Teleilat Ghassul assemblage and the Grar assemblage however, is

47 Preliminary indications with regard to fenestrated stands (called burners by Gilead) suggest that this is not the case for other areas on the site. Area E contains a much higher percentage of fenestrated stands and comets than other areas of the site. The figures presented for Azor (Gilead 1995:205, fig. 4.29) confirm that specialised areas might well be expected to produce higher percentages of comets and stands.

48

hallmarks (ie. rectangular architecture, the appearance of comets and fenestrated stands). It is notable that this break can also be isolated within the zoological record (see above, Chapter 2).

Chapter 6: Conclusions The new data presented here has established evidence of a more solid regional sequence for the southern Levant. It clearly deomonstrates the utility of reliable sequences of radiometric dates. The site itself, which has long been considered a major settlement, has been securely anchored within the context of Late Neolithic to Chalcolithic settlement in the southern Levant. Even the relatively well known "Ghassulian" or Late Chalcolithic phase, as it has been termed here, has been further explored in this analysis.

The most significant shift in terms of architecture occurs between phase G and phase F, the transition to the Middle Chalcolithic. The terms Early and Middle Chalcolithic refer essentially to the clear phase division between G and F which is definite in the stratigraphy. With regard to the c~ramic sequence, this is marked by the introduction of painted ceramics, the chum and the more common appearance of the comet. The holemouths with upturned rims are also an important new type. It will be noted that in table 7.1 phases G-D are grouped together as the Early and Middle Chalcolithic as it may be that other sites do not witness a stratigraphic break at this point.

The Late Neolithic - Late Chalcolithic development at Teleilat Ghassul The lowest phases of Teleilat Ghassul represent a late Neolithic phase which might be associated, in part, with the "Besorian". How much this is a genuine cultural entity, rather than similarities between assemblages that both contain simple forms with similar functional requirements is unclear. The Jericho PNA assembla~e, b?' contrast, does not provide extensive parallels, makmg 1t likely that the lowest phases of Teleilat Ghassul fall somewhere in the transition between PNA and PNB Jericho.

The Late Chalcolithic In terms of ceramic typology, the development to the Late Chalcolithic is gradual, as are all of the major developments within the sequence. Along with the appearance of new types, there is a continuity of basic forms and techniques of manufacture indigenous to the site. The changes which can be documented appear to occur at Teleilat Ghassul organically. This fact can only be demonstrated because the typology, as it is illustrated here, has been created according to the stratigraphic divisions. Significant change can only be isolated when stratigraphy informs typology.s

The typological features of the Late Neolithic phase at Teleilat Ghassul include straight to slightly curved bowls, small rounded bowls, simple holemouths, basins and jar forms. Disc bases and loop, as opposed to strap, handles are also common. The most frequent type fossil is the deep, slightly curved to straight sided bowl, often in a buff fabric with greenish tinges. The presence of rectilinear architecture may mirror developments elsewhere.

The levels of the site discussed here as Late Chalcolithic (phases C-A+) are those that relate to Ghassul IV as it was defined by Mallon and his co-workers (Mallon et al. 1934; Koeppel 1940). These levels contain ceramics with new forms and decoration. Painted decoration becomes much more common, as does the "streaky wash" decoration which is only known from a few sites other than Teleilat Ghassul.

The material which derives from phase G introduces some new features which signal the beginning of the Chalcolithic, but also contains a high degree of slipped decoration which may be attributable to the influence of the "Wadi Rabah" sites in north central Israel and the Jordan Valley. Bow rims are also present in this phase. Phase G is termed "Early Chalcolithic" at Teleilat Ghassul because of the appearance of a number of fossil indicators which are generally taken to be Chalcolithic Calibrated C14 dates 3500 BC

Teleilat Ghassul

Jericho

The proportion of fabrics changes in this phase, and this is likely to be partly due to the advent of specialised pottery production at the site. The ferruginous (iron rich) hard fired red fabric becomes very common. The presence of Tel Tsaf-like decoration, which is also found at the near-by site of Kataret es-Samra, is a feature in this

Munhata

Abu Hamid

Period

ft

3800 BC 4000 BC C-A+ 4300 BC D-F 4600 BC G PNB Level2a 4800 BC H-J ft 5200 BC PNA ft 5500 BC(?) Level2b Table 6.1 A Proposed Relative and Absolute Chronology

49

ft Upper

ft Middle ft(?) Basal

Term. Chalcolithic Late Chalcolithic Middle Chalcolithic Early Chalcolithic Late Neolithic

Yarmoukian for the Tele1lat Ghassul Sequence.

phase, although it first appears in the preceding phase. It is also in these later phases that a few defmite imports from the west occur.

mirror these subtle shifts and it is clear that significant developments are occurring at the end of the site's history.

These imports demonstrate that limited contact existed between the Negev sites and Teleilat Ghassul. Despite the fact that these sites were inhabited constantly throughout Teleilat Ghassul's Late Chalcolithic phase, there are relatively few typological links between them. While Teleilat Ghassul has been used as a type site for the Chalcolithic, its typological characteristics are actually quite individual. This serves to issue a caution to those who use the term "Ghassulian" to denote classic Chalcolithic features, when Teleilat Ghassul actually has quite a specific assemblage. In addition the relative paucity of copper artefacts found at the site stands in stark contrast to the Negev sites.

Ceramics themselves are not the best indicator of socioeconomic change. The archaeobotanical and zoological data will no doubt be able to contribute more to our understanding of subsistence and resource exploitation at the site. It is probable that the large amount of flat land around Teleilat Ghassul allowed for a higher population than at some other sites, and this probably accounts for its large size. It is possible that the site also made use of other resources, such as salt, that were available to it. The site contains architecture, ceramics and other finds which form part of the region's Chalcolithic repertoire and even a complex of a similar type to the "sanctuary" at En Gedi. A number of the parallels between Teleilat Ghassul and other ceramic sequences attest limited contact between it and other sites. Despite this Teleilat Ghassul has few documented imports and probably had quite an insular existence. New research in the areas to the east of the site may be able to confirm stronger contacts with the Jordanian plateau, and this is an area which deserves further exploration.

While general similarities exist between Ghassul and the Beersheba valley sites, the relationship between these cultures is more complex than previously thought. This is due to the lack of radiocarbon dates from the upper levels at Ghassul, the virtual absence of a metal industry at the site, and the need for more provenance studies to trace interregional relations during this period (Levy 1993:511).

The differences between the Beersheva and Teleilat Ghassul sequences have been long recognised. Perrot has explained these in terms of different cultural groups:

That is not to say that Ghassul does not possess other characteristics that can link it with sites in the Jordan Valley. The fabrication of some of the buff fabrics mirrors developments at other sites like Tell Abu Hamid where we see similar changes in the use of temper throughout the middle levels. A few of the smaller sites on the plateau, eg. Abu Snesleh, also display similar features, but these assemblages are small. The major contribution of the Ghassulian sequence lies in the documentation of the development towards the Late Chalcolithic. The radiocarbon dates associated give supporting evidence to typological links with other Early Chalcolithic sequences and build a stronger regional overview. The corpus of dates available from other southern Levantine sites confirm that northern Late Chalcolithic sequences, Pella, Abu Hamid and the Golan for instance, are contemporary with Teleilat Ghassul.

Ces facies ne correspondent pas seulement a des differenciations secondaires, locales, fonction de l'ecologie. Ainsi, la difference des moyens d'expression artistique entre les groupes de Ghassoul et de Beersheva, ou bien encore l'usage des ossuaires dans les tombes de la region de Tel-Aviv constituent des traits culturels probablement importes et qui soulignent la complexite deja grande du monde dont ces groupes sont issus (Perrot 1968:438). The concept that disparate groups had entered the region bringing different styles was a popular theme in the 1960s (de Vaux 1966:23). Since then a number of long sequences have been excavated in the southern Levant, eg. Teleilat Ghassul, Shiqmim and Abu Hamid, demonstrating an indigenous development for the Chalcolithic. Thus, infiltration of the area by disparate cultures is no longer a tenable position. Despite this, the legacy of viewing different ceramic styles as representative of archaeological "cultures" (Gopher and Gophna 1993; Gopher 1995; Garfinkel 1999b) continues. Maceachern is right when he observes that although archaeologists know that type fossils are not necessarily indicative of a particular "culture", they continue to infer it:

In short, Teleilat Ghassul in the Late Chalcolithic appears to have quite an insular existence when compared with sites like Abu Hamid in the valley which accept many more influences from the sites around them. The ceramics from Abu Hamid fit much more easily into a regional sequence, and show better links with Negev assemblages (Vaillant in press). Changes do occur in the latest phases, and these include the appearance of vessels decorated in the "streaky wash" decoration. These are associated with a more refmed version of the hard red fabric, and might be classified a specialised production. The gradual selection of higher performance clays and the development of new technologies indicates a change in the organisation of production, even if this is only at the household level. Other changes in the botanical and zoological record

We name "archaeological cultures", "traditions" and "industries" with the professed intention of denoting only artifact distributions and associations, but our consciousness and these terminologies are continuously invaded by the

50

presence of the humans who produced, used and discarded those artifacts (Maceachern 1998:108).

been argued that the routes for these objects passed through the wadi Arabah from F einan, and then south of the Dead Sea into the Negev (Philip and Rehren 1996). These routes are unlikely to have passed to the north of the Dead Sea, and this may explain why there are very few copper fmds reported from Teleilat Ghassul. Notably Abu Hamid also lacks significant copper finds, but joins Teleilat Ghassul in having haematite maceheads (probably obtained via the Negev).

It has been noted that in some cases touted variant cultures have turned out to be the result of chronological factors. This is probably the case with the Lodian, and is certainly true as regards the Wadi Rabah and Tsaf-like assemblages. It is possible that within the Yarmoukian phase there are some regional differences, but the clearest examples of contemporary regional assemblages are seen in the Late Chalcolithic where they have been established with a sequence of radiocarbon dates and typological features.

Evidence from Teleilat Ghassul suggests that whilst the Chalcolithic period saw rich and varied cultures across the landscape, unsurprisingly, the level of development and contact between villages was inconsistent at best. The development of this patchwork of villages in the Late Chalcolithic is only beginning to be understood, but while some external influences continue to be spoken of, it is clear that the main developments are indigenous and organic.

As it is no longer necessary to explain different decorative or typological styles via external influences, it becomes unnecessary to describe such differences as the result of separate archaeological "cultures", when in fact there remains a great deal of similarity between assemblages in terms of architecture and subsistence strategies. Rather we can envisage these differences as being local and a function of ecology in a landscape of relatively contained groups of villages. It might be better to express the differences between these as "traditions".

Teleilat Ghassul possesses aspects of Late Chalcolithic culture which indicate general shared traditions with the Negev, and even a shared system of beliefs. Nevertheless a concomitant level of social structure and political organisation is not required for this, even if it could be argued for other regions. While the internal development of other regions, ie. the Negev, is uncertain it is difficult to be clear about correlations. The contribution of this work is the articulation of sequences from the Late Neolithic up which has allowed other short lived settlements to be anchored to a general regional sequence and this will allow scholars to better understand zones of local interaction in tandem with extra-regional contacts.

At this point there are several distinct traditions known, of which the main four are: 1) Beersheva (Negev) 2) Neve Ur (North Jordan Valley) 3) Ghassulian (South Jordan Valley) and 4) Golani (north Israel/Lebanon and perhaps northern Jordan). It is clear that the Negev formed a focus of Chalcolithic settlement in the region, and may have been further advanced in terms of socio-economic organisation. The extension of the Beershevan tradition into the coastal plain has been commented on before. The further extension into the central Jordan valley is a feature that deserves thorough investigation. It is highly likely that the lateral wadis of the Jordan valley formed the main conduits for these contacts, and more intensive exploration of the Wadi el-Farah, and others, would no doubt highlight Chalcolithic stations there.

Teleilat Ghassul in a regional context Teleilat Ghassul seems to have been relatively isolated despite its position in the valley. Its ceramic sequence has more in common with certain sites on the plateau like Sahab and Abu Snesleh than with valley sites such as Abu Hamid, or even sites in the Negev highlighting that the lateral wadis may well have been more important than the Jordan valley itself in some cases. That is not to say that the influences of the Negev are not felt at Teleilat Ghassul, simply that they are not as strong as one might assume from the proximity of the sites. Teleilat Ghassul appears to lack significant copper fmds and is also low on other imports. Despite its apparent proximity to Feinan, Teleilat Ghassul clearly did not exist to facilitate the copper trade. This suggests that trade routes did not pass in this direction. Rather it has

51

Appendix A: Locus Level lists: AXI, AX, AIII & All Please note that two types of phasing annotation are used for the 1994-7 work, the original phasing used during excavation, and the correlation with Hennessy's material (infra 20). Page numbers given within the Ref. column refer to this work. Area A, Sandage XI 1994-7 Loe. Lev. Cont. w. Phase

Ref.

Description

1 1 1 1 2 2 2

1 2 3 4 1 2 3

i/D i/D i/D i/D i/D i/D i/D

22 22 22 22 22 22 22

2 2 2 2 1

4 5 6 7 8

i/D i/D i/D i/D i/D

22 22 22 22 22

2 2

9 10

i/D i/D

22 22

2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4

11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3

i/D i/D i/D ii/E ii/E ii/E ii/E ii/E ii/E ii/E ii/E

22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

Grev-brown silty topsoil Tan brown w. white flks & mb Brown clay w. white flks & mb Brownv black w. white flks Grey ash w. multi col. lenses Oranqey mb debris/slurry Grey ash/silty w. multi col. lenses Brown-oranqe clav Orange mb Black-brown ashy lenses White ashy soft Ash lenses w. multi col. lenses Orange-White silty plaster Deep brown silty w. orange bits Small - Med. stones Oranqe mb & brown mortar Orange mb. & stones Brown-oranqe clay Mb debris Oranqe mb w. qrev mortar Grey-brown clay w. white flks Oranqe mb/loamv deposit Brown clay w. flks Brown-orange clay Grey-black ash

4 4 4 5

4 5 6 1

ii/E ii/E ii/E ii/E

22 22 22 22

5 6

2 1

ii/E ii/E

22 22

7

1

iii/F

21

7

2

iii/F

21

7 7 7

3 4 5

iii/F iii/F iii/F

21 21 21

7 7 7

6 7 8

iii/F iii/F iii/F

21 21 21

8 8 8

1 2 3

iii/F iii/F iii/F

22 22 22

8

4

iii/F

22

1.1; 2.4 1.2 2.9? 2.3 2.1

2.3

1.5?

4.2 4.1

8.1

6.1

Feat. Nos

Pl yellow-or. clay w. white incl. Grev-brown clay w. var. incl.s Grey clay w. some white incl.s Orange-brown mb w. white/brown mortar Red-brown clay w. plaster incl. Orange-brown mb debris w. lge multi col. mb incl. Orange mb w. brown loam & ash flks Brown-black w. ash & lime incl.s Chocol. brown loam packing Black ash incl. Grey-black lenses sand/ash/loam Tan-grey w. ash & lime Grey clay/ash w. mb debris Orange mb debris w. ash & multi col. clay incl. Multi col. mb debris ? Grey ash w. plaster & ash flks Orange-brown silt w. multi col. clay & ash incl.s Orange mbs w. grey-brown mortar

52

Assoc. Walls

Other comments Wall 1/2 collapse Wall 1/2 Collapse Wall 1/2 Collapse Contaminated

F. 1 F. 1 F. 1

Wall2 Walls 1/2 Walls 1/2 Walls 1/2

Contaminated Fill of Feature 1 Fill of Feature 1 Fill of Feature 1

F. 1 F. 1

Walls 1/2 Walls 1/2

Fill of Feature 1 Fill of Feature 1

F. 3

Wall3

F. 3

Wall3

F. 2 F. 2

Walls 3/4 Walls 3/4

F. 2 F. 2

Walls 3/4 Walls 3/4

F. 3

Cleaning, Fill of Feature 3 Wall 5/9 Wall 5/9 Wall 5/9 Wall 5/9 Wall 5/9 Wall 5/9 Wall 5/9 Wall 5/9

F. 4

F. 4

Excavation of Wall 2 Excavation of Wall 2 Excavation of Wall 2 Fill of Feature 3 Collapse wall 3 Wall3 Fill of Feature 3 Wall4 Collapse Wall 4 Fill of Feature 2, P.O. 2 Fill of Feature 2 [surface] Collapse Wall 4 Fill of Feature 2 Fill of Feature 2

8

5

8.4; 6

21

Orange mbs w. grey-brown mortar Orange mbs w. grey-brown mortar Orange mbs w. grey-brown mortar Orange-brown mbs & sml-med stones Orange-brown & white mbs & brown mortar Grey ashy loam lenses w. orange clay & black ash Black ash Grey loam w. multi col. incl.s & patches of sand Orange-brown loam w. multi col. mbs & ashy lenses, med. stones Brown silt w. mb incl.s

8

6

8.4-5

iii/F

22

8

7

8.4-6?

iii/F

22

8

8

8.4-6

iii/F

22

8

9

8.7

iii/F

22

9

1

12.4

iii/F

22

9 9

2 3

iii/F iv.2/G

22 21

9

4

9.56;12.7

iv.3/G

21

9

5

iv.3/G

9

6

9.4;612. 7 9.45;12.7

iv.3/G

21

Brown silt w. mb incl.s

9

7

iv.4/G

21

9 9 9 9

8 9 10 11

iv.4/G iv.4/G iv.4/G iv.4/G

21 21 21 21

9 9 9 9 9 9 9

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

iv.4/G iv.4/G iv.4/G iv.4/G iv.4/G iv.4/G iv.4/G

21 21 21 21 21 21 21

9 9

19 20

iv.4/G iv.4/G

21 21

9 9 9 9 9

21 22 23 24 25

iv.5/G iv.5/G iv.5/G iv.5/G iv.6/G

21 21 21 21 21

9 9 9 9 9

26 27 28 29 30

iv.5/G iv.5/G iv.5/G vi/I vii/J

21 21 21 21 21

Orange-brown clay/loam w. black flks & multi col. clay incl.s As above Grey ashy w. orange pack. Grev ash w. hard clay pack. Tan brown w. multi col. clay incl.s As above Grey-white & orange pack. OranQe clay/loam w. ash flks Orange-brown clay/loam Orange-Grey clay/loam Grev-brown loam w. ash incl.s Grey-orange loam, sand lenses Grey-orange loam Grey clay w. lime-crm mb incl.s Grey clay/loam OranQe-Qrev clay Paler grey clay/loam Ashy Brown mb debris w. multi col. incl.s Brown-oranQe mb debris/slurry Orange-brown clay/loam As above OranQe-brown mb Orange sandy

9 9 9 9

31 32 33 34

vi/I v/H v/H vi/I

21 21 21 21

9 9 9

35 36 37

9.37 9.36

vi/I v/H v/H

21 21 21

9 9 9

38 39 40

9.39-40 9.38;40 9.38-39

v/H v/H v/H

21 21 21

9.15?

9.28 9.27 10.1;12. 31

22

Dense mb & sandy layers Black ashy/ sandy surface Ash black sandy Lrg stones & orange-brown loam Brown mud and sandy lenses Green ashy clay surface Grey ashy w. green/grey-buff mb incl.s Grev silty loam Grey silty loam Grev loamy

53

F. 4

F. 4 F. 5

Wall5 Wall5 F. 6

Fill of Feature 6

F. 7

Fill of Feature 7

F. 7

Fill of Feature 7

F. 7

Fill of Feature 7

Floor Floor

Floor

F. 9 F. 10 F. 11

Fill of Feature 9 Fill of Feature 10 Fill of Feature 11

F. 9

Fill of Feature 9

F. 11 F. 12

Fill of Feature 11 "Wall 6"/ Feature 12

F. 11 F. 11 F. 11 F. 11

Fill of Fill of Fill of Fill of

F. 11

F. 11

Fill of Feature 11 Fill of Feature 11

F. 13 F. 13 F. 13

Fill of Feature 13 Fill of Feature 13 Fill of Feature 13

Feature Feature Feature Feature

11 11 11 11 ?

10

1

10

9.30;12. 31

vii/J

21

Orange sandy clay w. mbs

2

vi/I

21

10 10

3 4

vi/I vi/I

21 21

10 10 10 10 10 10

5 6 7 8 9 10

vi/I vi/I vi/I vi/I vi/I vi/I

21 21 21 21 21 21

10

11

vi/I

21

10

12

12.35

vii/J

21

10

13

12.37

vii/J

21

10 10

14 15

12.39 12.39

vii/J vii/J

21 21

10

16

12.40

vii/J

21

10

17

vii/J

21

10

18

vii/J

21

10

19

vii/J

21

Brown loam w. sand & clay lenses Silty brown loam Hard brown clay w. multi col. incl.s Grev-brown hard compact mud Black ashy Large & med. stones Brown silty w. fibrous material Sandy "sterile" & mud lenses Brown clay w. grey & blk incl.s Orange hard compact loam/clay White mbs w. grey ash underneath White mbs w. grey ash underneath Black ash Black ash w. lime green-white mb debris Black/grey ash w. sml mb incl.s Grey green mbs w. med. stones & red/orange lenses Grey-green clay w. ash flks & lenses Grey green clay

10 10 10 11 11

20 21 22 1 2

11.2 11.1

vii/J sterile sterile i/D i/D

21 46 46 22 22

11 11

3 4

11.4 11.3

i/D i/D

22 22

11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

i/D i/D i/D i/D i/D i/D i/D i/D i/D ii/E ii/E ii/E ii/E ii/E ii/E ii/E ii/E

22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

11 11 11 11

22 23 24 25

iii/F iii/F iii/F iii/F

22 22 22 22

11 11

26 27

iii/F iii/F

22 22

10.8 10.7

10.1920 10.18;2 0

11.9-10 11.8,10 11.8-9 11.8-10

11.19 11.18 Wall3

Wall3

4.5-6?

Yellow I greeny grey Yellow qrev sandy Yellow grey sandy Grey loam Red-brown clay w. multi col. incl.s Grev silt lenses Grey silt w. orange-yell. lenses Grev-brown ashy silt Orangey-brown clay Flked floor w. ash Ash Grev ashy Grey-brown ashy Reddish-brown loam White plaster Grey yellow surface Grev ashy Brown-black silt Grey ash lenses Brown-qrev silty fill Brown-orange loam Ork brown tabun-like debris Orange loam w. med. stones Orange clay/loam w. plaster flks Grey ashy Orange mb debris Grey brown ashy silt Orange clay w. white plaster flks Oranqe-brown w. qrey lenses Oranqe clay w. white flks

54

F. 12

"Wall 6"/ Feature 12 Contaminated

F. 14 F. 15 F. 14 F. 14

Fill of Feature Fill of Feature P.O. 2 Fill of Feature Fill of Feature

14 15

F. 14

Fill of Feature 14

14 14

C14 OZD 025

Cleaninq

F. 16

F. 17 F. 17 F. 18 F. 18 F. 18 F. 18

F. 19 F. 20 F. 21

F. 22

Fill of Fill of Fill of Fill of Fill of Fill of

Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature

16 17 17 18 18 18

Fill of Feature Floor? C14 OZD 028 Fill of Feature Fill of Feature Fill of Feature P.O. 6

18

19 20 21

Wall9 Fill of Feature 22

11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

iii/F iii/F iii/F iii/F iii/F iii/F iii/F iii/F iii/F iii/F

22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

Oranqe mbs -larqe Orange mb debris Grey ashy lens/floor Oranqe siltv and qrev lenses Dark brown-red silt Grey-brown silt Grey-brown silt Oranqe-brown loam Grey brown silt White lime plaster

11 11 11 11 11

38 39 40 41 42

iii/F iii/F iii/F iii/F iii/F

22 22 22 22 22

iv.1/G iv.1/G iv.1/G iv.1/G iv.2/G iv.2/G iv.3/G iv.4/G

22 21 21 21 21 21 21 21

iv.4/G

21

10 11 12 13 14 15

iv.4/G iv.4/G iv.4/G iv.4/G iv.4/G iv.4/G

21 21 21 21 21 21

12

16

iv.3/G

21

12

17

iv.4/G

21

12

18

iv.4/G

21

12

19

vi/I

21

12 12 12

20 21 22

iv.4/G v.1/H v.2/H

21 21

12 12

23 24

v.2/H vi / I

21 21

12 12 12 12 12 12

25 26 27 28 29 30

v.2/H vii/J vii/J vii/J vii/J vii/J

21 21 21 21 21 21

12

31

21

Grey silty loam w. white flks Oranqe brown flkv Brown-grey silt Brown loam -flked Orange mbs & some brown mbs Grev-brown silt White plaster Grev silt Brown-grey flky Grey-brown ash w. sml stones Grev ashv Brown silty w. mbs & stones Multi col. clay w. sandy lenses Multi col. sandy loam w. mb incl.s Grey silt Brown flked clay Black ash/silt Orange soft loam Brown loam and multi col. clav Orange brown sandy w. grey lens Orange brown silt w. lenses qrev col. Grey compact surface + packing Grey compact surface w. orange sand packing Orange sandy loam w. grey lenses Orange sandy Brown ash flked clay Black ash & sandy clay packing Grev qreasv clav w. incl.s Grey fir & brown sandy packinq Grey clay w. black flks Brown clay Oranqe-Brown sandy Grey-qreen w. multi col. incl.s Ashv level Brown grey fine, compact loam Orange brown mb

12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

12

9

12 12 12 12 12 12

12 12 12 12 12

32 33 34 35 36

21 21 21 21 21

Brown qrev silt Black ashy White mb debris Grey ashy silt Grev silty

11.37 11.36

12.2 12.1 9.1

9.4-6

9.7?

9.38?

9.30; 10. vii/J 1 vii/J v/H vii/J 10.12 vii/J 10.12 vii/J

55

Wall8 Wall9 Wall 5/9 F. 23 F. 24 F. 25 F. 26

Fill of Fill of Fill of Fill of

Feature Feature Feature Feature

23 24 25 26

F. 27 F. 27

Fill of Feature 27 Fill of Feature 27, C14 OZD 026

F. 29

Fill of Feature 29

F. 28 F. 28 F. 30

Fill of Feature 28 Fill of Feature 28 Fill of Feature 30

F. 31 F. 32 F. 33

Fill of Feature 31 Fill of Feature 32 Fill of Feature 33

F. 34

Fill of Feature 34

F. 35

Fill of Feature 35 C14 0ZD 027

F. 36

Fill of Feature 36

F. 37

Fill of Feature 37, P.O. 7-8

F. 37

Fill of Feature 37 Floor in Fill of Feature 37

F. 37 F. 37

Fill of Feature 37 Fill of Feature 37

F. 37

Lining of Feature 37

F. 38

Fill of Feature 38

P.O. 9

12 12 12

37 38 39

12 13 13

40 1 2

13 13 13 13 13 13

3 4 5 6 7 8

10.13 10.1415 10.16

vii/J vii/J vii/J

21 21 21

White mb Ashy White & grey mb

vii/J vii/J vii/J

21 21 21

vii/J vii/J vii/J vii/J vii/J vii/J

21 21 21 21 21 21

Ashy w. sml-med. stones Grev mb with ash flecks Dark greyish green with ash flecks Grev/black lens Greeny grey clay Thin qrev floor/surface Greenish brown sandy clay Greenish sandy clay Yellow sandy deposit (sterile?)

56

F. 40

Fill of Feature 40

F. 39

Fill of Feature 39

C14 OZD 024

Area A, Sondaqe X i 1994-5' Loe.

Lev.

Contw.

Phase

Ref.

Description

Feat. Nos

1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

2 2 2 2 2 2

16 17 18 19 20 21

2

22

2 2 2 2 2 2 2

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

2 2 2 2 2 2

30 31 32 33 34 35

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 21 21 22 22 22 23 23 54 24

2.9 2.7

2.1718,31

2.24 2.23

2.21

2.78

Assoc. Walls

Other comments

mod. mod. mod. mod. mod. mod. mod. mod. mod. mod. mod. mod. mod. mod. mod. mod.

22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

mod. mod. mod. mod. mod. mod.

22 22 22 22 22 22

Fine qrev-brown topsoil Fine grey-brown w. plaster flks Fine qrev wash Yellow & grey lenses Yellow & qrey lenses Grev, soft Yellow mb debris, hard Grev/vellow soft, fine wash Yellow hard bricky wash Grev & yellow powdery wash Grey lens White surface Rich dark qrev, soft, fine Variagated rubble/mb chunks Yellow/white pure sand as above but greyer, less pure Rich grey Grey, hard sandy Mb & hard sandy qrev Grey ashy floor Sand w. mb incl.s & debris Yellow-grey collapse

mod.

22

Mb chunks & fill

F.1

Eroded walls? (Removal of Feature 1)

IC IC IC IC IC IC IC

23 23 23 23 23 23 23

Green-qrev waxv Green-grey waxy Grey ashy occupation Grev-brown fine loam Grey hard waxy floor Yellow floor White plaster

F. 2

Feature 2 cut from this floor

mod. mod. mod. ii/D ii/D ii/D

22 22 22 23 23 23

Mb wall Mb collapse Sand and gritty wash Glass! Grey buff w. plaster flks Grev waxy/fine Yellow w. mb chunks

F. 3

Removal of Feature 3 (possible wall)

ii/D ii/D ii/D ii/D mod. ii/D ii/D ii/D ii/D ii/D ii/D ii/D iii/E iii/E iii/E iii/E iii/E iii/E iii/E iii/E

23 23 23 23 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23

White powdery orqanic Grey floor -hard Grev patchy plasterv Yellow Yellow Grev soft ashv w. stones Grey hard packed greasy Grev soft fibrous Green mb collapse/pise Yellow w. compacted plaster Grey debris Grey crumbly pise Yellow mb/pise collapse Mb wall stub Mb debris Mb debris Mb debris & silty fill Yellowmb Grey soft Mb

F. 4 F. 4 F. 4

Fill of Feature 4 Fill of Feature 4 Fill of Feature 4

57

Eroded walls ? Eroded walls ?

CLEANING

Wall2 Wall2 Wall2

Wall2

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

25 25 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

2.54 2.60 2.59

2.70

2.82 2.81

2.93

2.88a,b,

iii/E iii/E iii/E iii/E iii/E iii/E iii/E iii/E iii/E iii/E

23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23

Floor debris Yellow pise Grey pale pise Grev pale pise White flked floor Grey occupation w. white flks white flked fibrous floor Mb Yellowmb Mb

iv/F iv/F iv/F iv/F iv/F iv/F iv/F iv/F iv/F iv/F iv/F iv/F iv/F

23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23

v /G v/G v/G v/G v/G vi/GH v/G vi/GH vi/GH

23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23

Cleaning White flked compacted floors White fibrous floor White flked occupation lenses Ash Post hole White flked floors Fibrous floor deposits Grev buff hard surfaces Grey soft waxy Yellowish soft lenses Mb & field stones Yellow mb debris & charcoal flks Yellowmb Mb debris w. multi col. incl.s Mb debris Mb debris Mb debris Grey floor Mb wall None Yellow mb chunks

vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH

23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23

vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH vi/GH vii/H vii/H

23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 22 22

Wall3 Wall3 Wall3 Wall3 Wall2 F. 6 Wall2 Wall2 Wall2 Wall2 F. 7

F. 8

Wall3 Removal of Feature 6, mudbrick tumble Contaminated Contaminated

Removal of Feature 7 Posthole Wall2 Wall2 Wall2

Fill of Feature 8, floor

Wall2

Wall4 Wall4 Wall4 Wall4 Wall5 Wall5 F. 9 Fill of Feature 9

C

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

88a 88b 88c 89 90 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 98a 99 100 101 102

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112

2.88,b,c 2.88,a,c 2.88,a,b

2.99

2.95

Mb chunks None given None given Yellow-Grey lenses Yellow thin hard mb patch Grey None Grey surface Mb debris Yellow hard silt Yellow silt Soft fill Ashy Mb fill Grey yellow crumbly Grey silty Grey silty surface w. white flks Yellow silty Grey hard plastery Chunky multi col. clay Grev soft mb debris Softer grey mb debris Grey lens Grey & yellow Yellow sandy silty surface Pale mb platform Ashy & debris

58

F. 9 F. 9 F. 9 F. 9 F. 9 F. 9 F. 9

Fill of Feature 9 Fill of Feature 9 Lining of Feature 9 Fill of Feature 9 Fill of Feature 9 Fill of Feature 9, floor ? Fill of Feature 9

F. 9/10

Fill of Feature 9/10

F. 9/10 F. 9/10

Contaminated Fill of Feature 9/10

F. 9/10

Fill of Feature 9/10

2 2 2 2 2 2

113 114 115 116 117 118

vii/H vii/H vii/H vii/H vii/H vii/H

22 22 22 22 22 22

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127

vii/H vii/H vii/H vii/H vii/H vii/H vii/H vii/H viii/I

22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

Grey/yellow silty foor Mb crumbly Yellow silty Grev smeared floor Mb hard clumpy Surface w. lime & charcoal flks Pale fill Yellow Black floor None qiven Red-brown fine fill Pale qrev orqanic floor Pale grey gritty Debris -Animal hole Yellowmb

2

128

22

Green mb chunks

2

129

22

Grey greasy mb

2 2 2 2 22 22 22

130 131 132 133 1 2 3

22 22 22 22

None Green gritty buff Green gritty buff Sand/Sterile Sand Yellow mb debris Grev Ashy

2.128, 2.129 2.127,2. viii/I 129 2.127, ix/J 2.128

ix/J sterile ix/J sterile i i i

-

-

59

Contaminated

Area A, Square II ( 1967-77) Loe.

Lev.

Cont. w. Phase

Ref.

Description

100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1 1a 2 2a 2b 2c 3

101.11

A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ mod?

25 25 25 25 25 25

Dark brown surface soil Surface soil Mb debris and soil None given Pebbles Ash & Soil Yellow mb & thin ash layer

100

4

A+

25

Deep brown & occ. lumps ash

100

5

A+

25

Clay level

100

6

A+

25

Thin ash level

100

7

A+

25

Yellow clay

100

8

A+

25

Ash with straw

101

1

A+

25

Surface soil

102 102 102 102 102 103 103

1 2 3 4 5 1 1a

A A A A A A A

25 25 25 25 25 25 25

Brown soil Ashy level Thin strip of clay Ash strip & clay packing Deep ash Mb debris Plaster Floor

103 103 103

1b 2 2a

A A A

25 25 25

None given Deep brown soil & coarse ash Brown soil & ash

103 103 103 103 104 104 105 105 106 106 106 106 106

2b 2c 3 3a 1 2 1 2 1 1a 1b 2 3

A A A A A A A A A A A A A

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

White and black ash patch Reddish clay Deep qrey soil None given Hard yellow clay & ash Deep greyish mb Ashy silt Mb debris Mb debris None given None given Ash & Silt Mbs & wash

106

3a

A

25

Soil above yellow clay

106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106

4 5 6 6a 7 8 8a 9 9a 9b 10 10a 11

A A/B A/B A/B B B B B B B B B B

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

Hard mb "Occupation" White plaster White plaster Deep grey Yellowish m'brick debris & ash Stones & m'brick Yellowish clay Ash, wash & tumble Ash & clay sealed by clay Mb Mb debris White plaster

100.1

106.3a, 4 106.3 106.3 106.6a 106.6

Assoc. Feat.s

60

Assoc. Walls

Other comments

WallD

Contaminated with Burial No.1 Contaminated by 'earthquake' split Contaminated by 'earthquake' split Contaminated by 'earthquake' split Contaminated by 'earthquake' split Contaminated by 'earthquake' split Contaminated by 'earthquake' split

Walls Walls Walls Walls

E&F E &F E&F E &F Contaminated Contaminated by 'earthquake' split

Walls E & F Walls E & F Contaminated by 'earthquake' split Walls E & F Walls E & F Walls E & F Walls E & F Exploration probe, floor Exploration probe Exploration probe Exploration probe Walls E & F Walls E & F Walls E & F Contaminated Walls E & F Walls E & F Walls E & F Fill of Feature 11 (Burials 4 & 5) Wall F (earlier phase) floor floor Wall I Walll Wall I Walll Wall I Wall I Wall I Wall I

WallH

floor 5

106 106 106

12 13 14

B B C

25 25 25

White plaster Mb debris Dark grey & stones

106 106

14b 15

C C

25 25

Light grey, traces of plaster Thin brown strip

106

16

C

25

Grey level

106 106 107

16a 17 1

C C A

25 25 25

Thin brown strip & deep grey Brown strip Clay

107

1a

A

25

Hard clay

107

1b

A

25

Hard clay with some mb

107

1c

A

25

Clay

Walls F & G

107

1d

104.1 ;1 05;107. 1 104.1 ;1 05.1;10 7.1 107.2

A

25

"Occupation"

107

1e

103.2c

A

25

Reddish hard clay and stones

107

2

104.1 ;1 05.1

A

25

Ashy soil

107 107 107 107 107

3 3/4 4 5 6

B B B B B

25 25 25 25 25

Grev hard clay None given Yellowish hard clay Deep grey with mb debris Deep grey soil

Walls F & G Walls F & G Walls F & G Walll

107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107

6a 6b 7 8 9 10 10a 11a

B B B B B B B C

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

Mb debris soft Hard mb Hard mb Grev soil Orangey occupation Mb debris Mb debris & ash Mb debris

107

11b

C

25

Hard mb

107

11bb

C

25

Mb debris with mbs

107

11c

C

25

White clay underlying ash

107

12

C

25

"occupation"

107

13

C

25

None given

107

14

C

25

Grey occupation

107

15

C

25

Grey, hard surface

107

16

C

25

Brown

107 107 107 107 107 107

17 18 19 20 21 21a

C C C C C C

25 25 25 25 25 25

Strips of ash & clay Clay w. thin laver of ash below Grey, hard, w. ash & clay Deep qrev hard "Occupation" None qiven

104.1 ;1 05.1;10 7.1a,b,c 107.1

107.6a, b 107.6 107.6

61

Wall J? WallK? Walls J & K Contaminated by earthquake split Walls J & K Walls J & K Contaminated by earthquake split Walls J & K Contaminated by earthquake split Walls J & K Walls J & K Floor 7 Walls F & G Walls F & G Walls F & G

p/h

Fill of Feature 8

C14 SUA 736 Wall I Walll Wall I Wall I Walll Walll Walls J & K Walls J & K Walls J & K Walls J & K Walls L & M Walls L & M Walls K& M Walls L & M Walls K & M Walls L & floor 9 M Walls L & M Wall L (& J?) Wall L (& J?) WallN

F. A?

Fill of F. A?

107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 108 108 108 108 108 108

21b 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 33a 34 34b 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 21 1 2 3 4 5 6

111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 112

1 2 3 4 4a 5 6 7 7a 8 8a 9 10 1

112

C C D D D D D D D D D D D D E E F F F F F F F G

1/H sterile sterile sterile sterile C C C C C D

25 25 24-25 24-25 24-25 24-25 24-25 24-25 24-25 24-25 24-25 24-25 24-25 24-25 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 24-25

None qiven Clay w. some ash Grey & brown clay Grev Brown None given None given None qiven None given None given None qiven None given None qiven "in floor"? Mb None qiven Grey layer None given None given None qiven None given None given None qiven None given None qiven Yellow sandy Yellow sandy Yellow sandy Yellow sandy Ashy Clay 'Occupation level' 'Second occupation level' 'Creamy yellowish-grey clay Deep qrev with mb debris

D C

24-25 25

D D D C D D D E

24-25 24-25 24-25 25 24-25 24-25 24-25 24

None qiven None given None qiven None qiven None given None qiven None given Bricks/Stones? None given None qiven None qiven None given None qiven None given

2

E

24

None given

112

3

E

24

None given

112

4

E

24

None given

112

5

E

24

None given

113

1

113

2

24-25

Fill of F. B?

F. A'?

Fill of F. A'? WallO Wallo WallK WallK WallK WallK WallK WallK WallK

Wall I Wall I Walll Wall I Walll

Location unknown Location unknown Pit? Pit C Location unknown Occupation Fireplace Large Pit Occupation Occupation Occupation Walls C' Walls C' Walls C' Walls C' Walls C' Walls B' Walls B'

None given D

F. B?

None given

62

B' & B' & B' & B' & B' & A' & A' &

113

3

D

24-25

None given

113

4

D

24-25

None given

113

5

D

24-25

None given

114 116

1 1

E

24

None given Mb tumble

116

2

F

24

Yellow sandy floor

116 116 116

3 3a 4

E F F

24 24 24

None given None given Mb debris

116 116

4a 5

F F

24 24

None qiven None given

116 116 116 117

6 7

F

Ashy occupation layer None given None qiven None given

8

G G

1

F

24 24 24 24

117

2

F

24

None given

117

3

G

24

None given

117 117 117 117

4 4a 5 5a

I/H I/H I/H I/H

24 24 24 24

None None None None

Walls A'& B' Walls A' & B' Walls A' & B'

qiven given given qiven

63

WallsH' and J' Walls H' & I' WallF' Walls J' & I' WallF' Walls H' & J' WallH'? WallK' Walls H' & I' Walls H' & I' Walls H' & I'

Area A, Square Ill (1967-77) Loe.

Lev.

Cont. w.

200 200 200

1 2 3

200

Ref.

Description

Assoc. Feat.s

A+ 201.1(?) A+ A+

27 27 27

Pit F.1

P.O. 1

F. 2-3

4

A+

27

200

4a

A+

27

Liqht brown topsoil Mb debris and white ash Harder -but mixed ash and bricky with rocks (F. 2) Floor with grey and white flks and bits of charcoal None given

Fill of F. 2 and 3 (Grave No. 1), P.O. 2-10 Fill of Feature 8, P.O.1114 Fill of Features 4-6

200

4b

A+

27

White floor

F. 7

200 200 200 200 200

5 5a 5b 5c 6

A A A A A

27 27 27 27 27

Packed liqht brown floor Mb debris Grey-black ash Mb debris and thin grey ash Mb debris and some white ash

F. 9-10

200 200 200

7 8 9

A A B

27 27 26-27

Dark grey Brown Grey and dark ash

F. 12

Fill of Feature 12, P.O. 18

200 200

10 11

B B

26-27 26-27

200 200 200 201

12 12a 13 1

B mod. B A+

26-27

Brown Light and dark brown, and dark qrev Light brown with white flecks Earthquake split Harder brown Mb floor

F. 13

Fill of Feature 13 Contaminated

201 202 203 203

2 1 1 2

203 203 203 203 203 203 204 204

3 4 4a 4b 4c 4d 1 1a

204 204

2 3

204

4

204 204 204 204 204

4a 4b 5 6 7

204 204

204.1

200.2 (?)

Phase

26-27 27

Grey ashy CANCELLED Hard mb debris Grey ash

A+ A+ mod

27

mod. mod. mod.? A A A A+ A+

27 27 27 27 27 27

204.3,4 204.2,3

A A

27 27

Occupation level Occupation level

204.2,3

A

27

A A A A A

27 27 27 27 27

8 9

A A

27 27

Mb debris w. fire spots and pits but no clear floor The large posthole (??) Tumble off Wall B None qiven Mb debris Dark grey, brown & white flecks and Mb debris and Pit Mb debris and dark grey

204

10

A

27

Mb debris and grey ash

204

11

A

27

Dark ash and mb debris

204

12

A

27

Mb debris & occupation

200.3

200.5

204.5

27 27

Assoc. Walls

F. 8 F. 4-6

Walls 1 & 2+ Walls 1 & 2+ Walls 1 & 3 Walls 1 & 3 Walls 1 & 3 Walls 1 & 3 Wall2 (exterior) Wall3 Walls 1 & 3

64

Wall3 Walls 1 & 2 F. 1617 F. 1822 F. 2325

Fill of Features 9-10, P.O. 15-16 P.O. 17 Human burial

Removal of mbs Removal of mbs Fill of Feature 16-7, P.O. 23

Walls 1 & 2 Walls 1 & 2 Walls Walls Walls

F. 26

F. 2730 F. 31 F. 3235 F. 3638 F. 3942 F. 4344

Fill of Feature 7

P.O. 19 P.O. 20 Fill of Feature 14 Fill of Feature 15, P.O. 21-22

F. 14 F. 15

Darker earth Mb debris & wash Black ash and grey silt Mb -Walls 1 & 2 Mb -Walls 1 & 2 Mb-Wall 3 Occupation Level Pits

Other comments

Walls Walls

Fill of Feature 18-22, P.O. 24 1 & 2 Fill of Feature 23-5, P.O. 25-26 1 &2 1 &2 P.O. 27 1 &2 1 &2

Walls 1 & 2 Walls 1 & 2

P.O. 28 Fill of Feature 32-5, P.O. 29-35 Walls 1 & 2 Fill of Feature 36-8, P.O. 36-39 Walls 1 & 2 Fill of Feature 39-42P.O. 40-42 Walls 1 & 2 Fill of Feature 43-4

204 204

12d 13

A? A?

27 27

B

26-27

None qiven Dark grey/brown floor white pits and postholes None Given Thick ash and plaster lined basin Mb debris and various pits

15

B

26-27

Dark brown

204

15a

B

26-27

Mb debris

204

16

B

26-27

Light brown floor

204

16a

B

26-27

Light brown pit fill

F. 25

204

16b

B

26-27

Dark ash pit fill

F. 59

204

16c

B

26-27

Light brown pit fill & plaster

F. 60

204

16d

B

26-27

Light brown pit fill

F. 61

204

16e

B

26-27

Light brown/grey pit fill

F. 62

204

16f

B

26-27

Light brown fill of pit

F. 63

204

16g

B

26-27

Light brown fill of Pit

F. 64

204

17

B

26-27

Brown debris

204

17a

B

26-27

Debris and fill of basin

F.65

204

17b

B

26-27

Plaster and fill

F.65

204

18

B

26-27

Brown mb debris

204

18a

B

26-27

Fill of plaster lined basin

204

18b

B

26-27

Ash

204

18c

B

26-27

Brown ashy

F. 68

204

18d

204.17b

B

26-27

None given -fill

F.65

204

18e

B

26-27

Fill of plaster lined pit

F.65

204

18f

204.17b , 18d? 204.18e

B

26-27

Plaster of pit dug as 204.18e

204

19

B

26-27

Floors

204

19a

B

26-27

"Quite soft"

204

19b

B

26-27

Rocks and fallen mbs

204

19c

204.19a

B

26-27

None given -Pit fill

F. 69

204

19d

B

26-27

None given -Oven/fire

F. 70

204

19e

B

26-27

204

20

B

26-27

Brown soil w. some ash with pit and fire patch Occupation and fire patch

F. 7172 F. 73

204

20a

204.19b ? 204.19b , 19c 204.19b ,20a 204.20

B

26-27

Brown w. very little ash

204 204

13a 13b

204

14

204

A A

200.9

204.19c

27 27

F. 45-

52 F.s 53

Walls 1 & 2 Walls 1 & 2

F.s 5425

Walls 4a & 4b

Pit F.s 66-68

F. 69

65

Walls 1 & 2 Walls 1 & 2

Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b Walls 4a 4b

Fill of Feature 45-52 P.O. 43-45 Fill of Feature 53, P.O. 46 Fill of Feature 54-55, Possibly contaminated P.O. 21

& & & &

Fill of Feature 55

&

Fill of Feature 59

&

Fill of Feature 60

&

Fill of Feature 61

&

Fill of Feature 62

&

Fill of Feature 63

&

Fill of Feature 64

& &

Fill of Feature 65

&

Fill of Feature 65

&

P.O. 21

&

Fill of Feature 68, P.O. 22-22

& &

Fill of Feature 68

&

Fill of Feature 65, P.O. 23-23 Fill of Feature 65

& & & &

Fill of Feature 69

& &

Fill of Feature 69

&

Fill of Feature 70

&

Fill of Feature 71

&

Fill of Feature 73

&

204

21

B

26-27

Occupation level

204

21a

B

26-27

Light brown

204

22a

B

26-27

Mb debris

204

22b

B

26-27

Occupation level

204

22c

B

26-27

Light brown

204 204 204

B/C B/C

26 26

Heavy layer of ash Brown with some ash Dark ash, reeds and wood

F. 74

Fill of Feature 74

Plaster lined pit

F. 65(?)

Fill of Feature 65 ?

204 204 204 205 205 205

23a 23b 23b (i) 23b (ii) 23c 23d 23e 1 2 3

205

3a

205

4

D

26

Thick mb

205

5

D

26

floor

205 205 209 221 221 221 221

6 7 19b 1 2 3 4

D E

26 26

221

204

204.19b , 19d

205.1,2

C C D

26 26 26

Heavy ash Hard mb floor and ash Hard mb floor and ash Thick mb tumble Floor and mb packinq Floor and mb packing None given

? ? ? E

26

Mb tumble "on top of floor" None given None qiven None given Not given Plaster floor

4c

E?

26

None given

221

4f

E?

26

None given

221

5

E

26

Occupation and ash

221 221

6 7

E F

26 26

221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221

8 9 9a 10 11 12 12a 13 14

221.7

F F

26 26

221.11 221.10 221.14

221.12

F F H H G H

26 26 26 26 26 25-26

Mb debris and occupation Grey occupation (silt) and mb lens Grey occupation lenses None qiven Small posthole Mb and occupation Mb and occupation None given posthole None given None given

221

15

221.16

H?

25-26

None given

221

16

221.15

H

25-26

None given

221 221 228 270 270

16a 17 4 1 1A

270.5 270.5

H

25-26

F G G

26 26 26

None None None None None

221.4

221.8

given given qiven given given

Walls 4b Walls 4b Walls 4b Walls 4b Walls 4b

Wall paintinq Wall painting Wall painting Wall oaintinq

4a & 4a & 4a & 4a & 4a &

Wall A" Wall A" Walls A B (E/S) Walls A B (E/S) Walls A B (E/S) Walls A B (E/S)

& &

Bag 127

&

Bag 219

&

Bag 220 Bag 194 Baq 221 Flint knappinq

Flint

Walls A & C Walls A & C Walls A& C Walls A& C Wall E WallE WallE Wall E WallE

Walls F,G &H Walls F,G &H Walls F,G &H

2.201.1 (Baqs 14 & 16) 2.201.2 (Bags 23 & 54) 2.201.3 2.201.4 (Bag 205) 2.201 .4c (Bag 206) 2.201.4f (Bag 208) 2.201.5 (Bags 195 & 196) 2.201.6 (Bag 209) 2.201.7 2.201.8 2.201.9 (Baq 210) 2.201.9a, C14 SUA 732 2.201.10 2.201.11 (Baq 211) 2.201.12 (Bag 212) 2.201.12a, C14 SUA 734 2.201.13 2.201.14 2.201.15 (Bag 214) 2.201.16 2.201.16a 2.201.17

Wall E F. A

66

Fill of Feature A

270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270

2 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F 2G 2H 2J 2K 3

G G G G G G G G G G H

26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 25-26

"Occupation" None given None given None qiven None given None given None given None qiven None given None given Silt and wash levels

270

4

I

25-26

Brick debris

270 270 270 270 270

5 5L 5N 5P 5R

I I I I I

25-26 25-26 25-26 25-26 25-26

Grev qreen silt, qrev ash None qiven None given None qiven None given

F. B F. C F. D F. E F. F F. G F. H F. J F. K

Fill of Fill of Fill of Fill of Fill of Fill of Fill of Fill of Fill of

Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature Feature

B C D E F G H J K

Fill Fill Fill Fill

Feature Feature Feature Feature

L N P R

Walls F, G &H Walls F, G &H F. F. F. F.

L N p R

of of of of

Abbreviations used here: Col. = Coloured. Flk = flecks, Mb =Mudbrick, Fir = Floor and incl. = inclusion, P.O. = Plot object and p/h = posthole.

67

Appendix B: PIXE/PIGME Samples Sample 96.01 96.02 96.03 96.04 96.05 96.06 96.07 96.08 96.09 96.10 96.11 96.12 96.13 96.14 96.15 96.16 96.17 96.18 96.19 96.20 96.21 96.22 96.23 96.24 96.25 96.26 96.27 96.28 96.29 96.30 96.31 96.32 96.33 96.34 96.35 96.36

Area AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI AXI GIi GIi GIi GIi NI NI NI NI NI NI NI

Square 10.7 10.7 10.5 10.2 12.25 12.24 12.24 12.24 12.36 12.39 12.37 12.39 12.36 12.20 12.14 12.14 9.27 9.3 9.3 11.38 11.40 11.29 11.26 11.26 12.23 62.16 62.16 62.16 58.2 5.26 5.21 5.17 5.12 5.13 5.13 5.11

Fabric 10eM 10dM 2bM 1eM (Var.) 1bM (S.O.) 1aM (O.F.) 8aM Coarse silty sandy buff? 7aC Dense qrey/dark brown 1eM 1aM 10dM 8bM 8cM 9bM 3bM 2aM 1aF 10cc 1aM (P) 6aM 1aM (Tsaf-like) 6aC (Inc) 5dM 6aC 1cC 1aF (OF) 3bC 1aM (Tsaf-like) 1aM (Slip?) 1aC 10aM (Painted) 1bM 1aM 10aM (Painted)

68

Comment Phase v-vii " " " " " ' " " " " " " Phase iv " " " " " Phase iii " " " " Base fraq.

Appendix C: Radiocarbon dates for the southern Levant Recalibrated with Calib 4.3 (Stuiver and Reimer 1993; Stuiver et al. 1998) to a 2 sigma range. Lab Sampl Site 14C upper lower prob. Material Reference ± BC e cal. RT 860B Gilat 4800 135 3550 3943 3330 0.976 Charcoal Carmi & Segal 1992:125 RT 640A Uvda 4800 70 3550 3706 3497 0.831 Charcoal Carmi 1987:103

L.92/B.595, (Stratum II) Loe. 916

KN

3865

Wadi Digla

4800 140

3550

3944

3327

I

285

Nahal Mishmar

4780 100

3560

3769

3356

0.966 Human bone 1 Reed mat

I

353

4760 120

3580

3796

3311

0.952 Wood

KN

3745

4830

90

3640

3972

3491

KN

3910

Nahal Mishmar Nahal Mishmar Maadi

4830 130

3640

3942

3354

KN

3866

Wadi Digla

4830 120

3640

3817

3358

R

1425

Maadi

4860

70

3650

3794

3508

0.854 Hippo. bone 1 Hippo. bone 0.948 Hippo. bone 0.974 Charcoal

w

1341

Nahal Mishmar

4880 250

3650

4175

3018

0.981 Reed mat

R

1428

Maadi

4890

70

3660

3804

3519

0.971 Charcoal

R

1427

Maadi

4900

70

3660

3932

3871

0.05 Charcoal

KN

3574

Maadi

4940

60

3710

3936

3863

0.098 Grain

RT

1339

Shiqmim

4940

70

3710

3940

3846

0.154 Charcoal

RT

1407

4990

70

3770

3944

3655

1 Mat

Beta

2805

Nahal Mishmar Maadi

5010

50

3790

3948

3697

1 Grain

RT

859C

Shiqmim

5080 180

3850

4259

3521

0.983 Charcoal

KN

3573

Maadi

5050

55

3880

3960

3752

0.934 Charcoal

OxA

2520

Shiqmim

5060 140

3910

4170

3630

0.962 ?

Pta

4312

Maadi

5100 130

3940

4166

3648

0.964 Charcoal

GrN

15199

5115

25

3957

3876

3804

0.556 ?

M

864C

Shuna (Nth) Safadi

5120 350

3960

4685

3089

0.998 Wood

RT

861A

5150 190

3960

4355

3629

0.985 Charcoal

GrN

15200

5125

25

3960

3978

3929

0.567 ?

GrN

15196

5110

90

3960

4051

3697

0.964 Dung

Neef 1990

Ly

3904

Nahal Qanah Shuna (Nth) Teleilat Ghassul Safadi

5170 110

3970

4233

3753

0.971 ?

Gilead 1988:401

Loe. 721

Pta

4212a

Horvat Beter

5180

3980

4115

3893

0.676 Charcoal

Rosen & Eldar 1993:24 Gilead

Loe. 30, in fill near floor

70

69

Rizkana & Seeher 1990:82 Bar-Adon 1980:199,216 Weinstein 1984:335 Bar-Adon 1980:86-7 Weinstein 1984:335 Rizkana & Seeher 1990:82 Rizkana & Seeher 1990:82 Rizkana & Seeher 1990:82 Caneva, Frangipane & Palmieri 1989:289 Bar-Adon 1980:199,216 Weinstein 1984:335 Caneva, Frangipane & Palmieri 1989:289 Caneva, Frangipane & Palmieri 1989:289 Rizkana & Seeher 1990:82 Levy 1992b:352

Context

Carmi & Segal 1992:131 Rizkana & Seeher 1990:82 Levy 1992b:353 Rizkana & Seeher 1990:82 Levy 1992b:352 Rosen & Eldar 1992:24

cemetery, WD 168 Treasure mat

sq. VIIX, 140 cm depth sq. C, 60 cm depth Cemetery, WD 120 Italian excavations Treasure Mat

Italian excavations Italian excavations sq. CXCVII A in a jar Main village, building phase I, burial Cave 1, alcove A B11/2 sq. CXXX.A, 60 cm Building phase II, L.210-B0317, sq.K/11 sq. CXVII A, 40 cm Subter. room 3, hearth L320-B728 L.37, in fill near floor El 12/3

Perrot 1984:80, n.27 Weinstein 1984:334 Carmi & Segal 1992:125

Niveaux superieurs lac. 325, silo L. 104-B.1172 B. assoc. with qold. Ell 43

1988:401 Ly

3905

Safadi

5190 100

3980

4248

3768

RT

1322

Shiqmim

5190

75

3980

4167

3893

Ly

6258

5205

95

3980

4247

RT

862C

5220 105 4020

RT

554A

Abu Hamid Safadi/ BeerZ Shiqmim

RT

861C

RT

Gilead 1988:401

Loe. 528

0.77 Charcoal

Levy 1992b:352

3791

0.994 Charcoal

4255

3790

0.969 Charcoal

5250 140 4020

4349

3765

1 Charcoal

Lovell et al. 1997:361 Carmi & Segal 1992:125 Levy 1992b:352

Nahal Qanah

5240 180 4020

4366

3664

0.992 Charcoal

Carmi & Segal 1992:125

1318

Shiqmim

5240

65

4020

4244

3946

1 Charcoal

Ly

6256

5230

55

4020

4196

3956

0.865 Charcoal

GrN

15195

5270 100 4040

4334

3937

0.974 Wood

Neef 1990

OxA

3435

Abu Hamid Teleilat Ghassul Sataf

Carmi & Segal 1992:124 Unpub. date

Subterr. room 8, L.3304/839 Basal Levels Cat. No. 5574-5617 L.160, in system L.144, subterr. room, phase 3 Main village, building phase I, room 1, floor 1 L.143, L.130.8.1534, B.1555, assoc. with PN art. L.3262/Z617, tunnel fill

5270

4040

4255

3957

0.968 Olive pit

Hedges et al. 1992:352

Area A, Loe. 26/8.891, lower 60cm -cave entrance

RT

525

5270 140 4043

4359

3774

1 Wood

8648

5270 300

4043

4719

3501

0.985 Wood

Ly

6257

5325 140 4110

4402

3916

0.943 Charcoal

RT

1317

Abu Hamid Shiqmim

Weinstein 1984:335 Gilead 1988:401 Perrot 1984:80, n.27, Weinstein 1984:334 Unpublished date

-

M

Rasm Harbush Safadi

5330

50

4120

4254

4040

0.906 Charcoal

Carmi & Segal 1992:124

GrN

15194

5330

50

4120

4254

4040

0.906 Wood

Neef 1990

w

245

5280 150 4140

4369

3763

0.988 Charcoal

RT

1330

Teleilat Ghassul Horvat Beter Shiqmim

5300

60

4150

4250

3981

0.971 Charcoal

Dothan 1959:42, Weinstein 1984:334 Carmi & Segal 1992:124

OZD

34

5332

71

4170

4262

4035

0.813 Grain

New ANSTO date

RT

1409

5355

55

4180

4261

4044

0.827 Wood

RT

1341

Teleilat Ghassul Nahal Mishmar Shiqmim

5370

40

4229

4329

4265

0.239 Charcoal

RT

859D

Shiqmim

5370 180 4230

4551

3779

1 Charcoal

Carmi & Segal 1992:121 Carmi & Segal 1992:125 Levy 1992b:353

RT

1335

Shiqmim

5370

4230

4336

4044

1 Charcoal

OxA

2525

Shiqmim

5385 130 4250

4461

3957

1 ?

BM

140

Nahal Mishmar

5390 150 4250

4532

3939

RT

859E

Shiqmim

5390 180 4250

4586

3795

Hy

20791

Abu Snesleh

5445 195 4270

4696

3928

75

65

70

0.995 ?

0.99 Reed mat

1 Charcoal

0.969 ?

Carmi & Segal 1992:124 Levy 1992b:352 Bar-Adon 1980:199,216 Weinstein 1984:335 Levy 1992b:353

Middle levels Cat. No. 5118

Niveaux moyens loc. 318, fireplace Middle levels Cat. No. 5458 L.3264/Z750, underground subroom 1

Stratum Ill, silo 50 L.393/Z744, from pit in SR 6/7, sub-phase c, dll 1997 season Giil 10.10 From loom? L.325/Z569, from phase 1(2)court Main village, building phase II, 1.216, B.0323, sq.4/11 E.434-8.7308, from bw walls of possible altar 2 Phase Ill altar, L.3053B.173 Treasure mat (inner)

Main village, bldg phase II, L.211-8.0328, SQ. K/11 Chalc.

RT

860A

Gilat

5440 180 4270

4685

3939

0.987 Charcoal

Carmi & Segal 1992:125

RT

861E

Nahal Qanah

5440 100 4270

4456

4041

1 Charcoal

Carmi & Segal 1992:125

RT

648E

5440

80

4270

4400

4214

0.68 Charcoal

RT

1319

Wadi Zalaka Shiqmim

5450

60

4270

4376

4219

0.81 Charcoal

OZD

33

5452

58

4270

4399

4219

0.854 Grain

New ANSTO date

SUA

239/1

Teleilat Ghassul Pella

L.3513/Z874, cultural fill in underground room SR 9, subphase bll 1995 season Gii 55.11

5430

60

4280

4362

4215

0.758 Wood?

McNichol et al.

Area XIV

M

864A

Safadi

5420 350

4290

5055

3515

0.996 Wood

RT

1326

Shiqmim

5420

4290

4351

4218

0.802 Charcoal

Perrot 1984:80 n.27 Weinstein 1984:334 Carmi & Segal 1992:124

RT

926B

Eilat IV

5400 100 4300

4376

4029

0.924 Charcoal

Fin de la premiere periode loc.309, floor L.3312/Z833, from floor u'ground room SR? phase II Hearth next to tomb

RT

724D

Uvda4

5400 110 4300

4400

4028

0.922 Charcoal

I

616

5460 125 4330

4534

4031

RT

859B

Nahal Hever Shiqmim

5460 140 4330

4555

3973

0.978 Charred mat 0.996 Charcoal

RT

1213

Eilat IV

5490

60

4340

4457

4226

0.989 Charcoal

KN

3899

Maadi

5490

65

4340

4462

4222

RT

863B

5490 140 4340

4608

3987

OZD

29

5493

Ly

6252

RT

1328

Tell Shoqet Teleilat Ghassul Abu Hamid Shiqmim

Carmi & Segal 1992:128 Rizkana & Seeher 1990:82 Carmi & Segal 1992:126 New ANSTO date

OxA

2521

RT

390A

RT

718

GrN

16192

OxA

2526

Ly

6251

RT

1334

OZD

30

RT

1321

50

Carmi 1987:104, Gilead 1988:402 Carmi & Segal 1992:124

Carmi & Segal 1992:128 Carmi & Segal 1992:120 Weinstein 1984:335 Gilead 1988:401 Levy 1992b:353

88

4340

4498

4217

0.966 Aspatharia shells 1 organic matter 0.876 Grain

5500 200

4340

4783

3941

0.995 Charcoal

Unpub. date

5520

4350

4463

4245

0.989 Charcoal

Shiqmim

5530 130 4350

4619

4211

0.832 ?

Carmi & Segal 1992:124 Levy 1992b:352

Teleilat Ghassul Weinstein Golan Silo site Abu Thawab Shiqmim

5550 110 4360

4618

4219

0.926 Wood

Weinstein 1984:335 Gilead 1988:401

5540 110 4360

4661

4660

0.004 Triticum

Carmi 1987:105; Gilead 1988:402

5540 110 4360

4614

4217

0.913 ?

5540 150 4360

4701

4041

1 ?

Abu Hamid Shiqmim

5580

95

4400

4620

4238

0.977 Charcoal

5590

60

4419

4541

4335

1 Charcoal

Teleilat Ghassul Shiqmim

5563 163 4420

4725

4040

0.986 Grain

5570

4540

4326

0.975 Charcoal

60

65

4420

71

L.128-B.5180, from base of stone lined silo, str. Ill L.125-B.1245, Chalc. assoc. with gold artifacts Tumuli

Site 4 L.29. 0.5m below surface Grave Eastern trench, hearth 14 Hearth 19, 20cm below surface sq. CXVIII, 100 cm depth on virQin soil L.17 B.86, bell shaped hole under floor 1997 Nl11.7 Upper levels Cat. No. 5298 L.328/Z695, u'ground room SR II, phase llb Phase 1111 altar, L.3053B.49 Level Ill

post-Neo. Levy 1992b:352 unpub. date Carmi & Segal 1992:124 New ANSTO date Carmi & Segal 1992:124

Phase IV pit L.3075B.Z251 Middle levels, Cat. no. 5083 L.3335/Z913, u'ground room subphase cl 11 1997 QI 13.1 L.3327/Z902, from floor of u'ground room phase bll

OxA

2522

Shiqmim

5600 102

4420

4688

4247

1 ?

OZD

28

5571

67

4420

4543

4324

0.974 Grain

New ANSTO date

OZD

31

5558

71

4425

4537

4319

0.926 Grain

New ANSTO date

1995 GIi 64.4

RT

1211

Teleilat Ghassul Teleilat Ghassul EilatV

Phase Ill wall/gravels L.017 1995 AXI 11 . 14

5640

60

4460

4606

4346

1 Charcoal

RT

648A

Uvda

5670

90

4470

4705

4347

1 Charcoal

Carmi & Segal 1992:128 Carmi 1987:103

Hearth 16, 20cm below surface Massevot shrine

Ly

6248

5650

75

4480

4622

4345

0.937 Charcoal

unpub. date

OxA

2524

Abu Hamid Shiqmim

5650 140

4480

4802

4227

0.993 ?

Levy 1992b:352

Ly

6249

5655 210

4480

4957

4036

0.992 Charcoal

unpub. date

Gx

787

5690 140

4510

4814

4313

0.961 Charcoal

Weinstein 1984:333

-

RT

1210

Abu Hamid Ein el Jarba Eilat IV

Middle levels Cat. No. 4302 Subterr. room 7, floor L.3312-B.833 Middle levels, Cat. no. 4483

5710

75

4540

4715

4440

0.912 Wood

OxA

2523

Shiqmim

5710 140

4540

4851

4323

Carmi & Segal 1992:128 Levy 1992b:352

SMU

804

5720 149

4550

4860

4318

0.966 Charcoal

TO

1086

5740 110

4550

4802

4355

1 Bone

OZD

21

Jebel Queisa Ziqlab 200 Pella

20cm below surface next to tomb Phase IV, pit L.3075B.Z251 Layer B, hearth

5757

88

4560

4799

4445

0.977 Grain

RT

649B

Shiqmim

5750 180

4570

5048

4229

1 Charcoal

Ly

6253

5810

70

4690

4805

4496

1 Charcoal

0.98 ?

Levy 1992b:352

Weinstein 1984:335 Gilead 1988:402 Banning et al. 1996:35 New ANSTO date Levy 1992b:352; Carmi 1987:104 unpub. date

Area A, loc. 005 XXVIIIA 44.7 Upper village L.415

OZD

18

Abu Hamid Pella

5835

83

4700

4852

4493

0.985 Grain

New ANSTO date

Upper levels Cat. No.5311-5187 XXXIID 80.3

OZD

22

Pella

5839

86

4710

4853

4495

0.975 Grain

New ANSTO date

XXXIIF 17.18

OZD

20

Pella

5877

65

4750

4853

4581

0.941 Grain

New ANSTO date

XXXIID 42.37

RT

1212

EilatV

5930

80

4800

5001

4595

1 Charcoal

OZD

16

Pella

5968 163

4820

5280

4495

1 Grain

Carmi & Segal 1992:128 New ANSTO date

Hearth 18, 20 cm below surface XXXIIF 20.45

RT

1214

EilatV

5980 130

4850

5216

4549

1 Charcoal

Hearth 22, 20 cm below surface

Pta

2968

Qatif Y-3

6040

80

4870

5210

5168

-

OZD

19

Pella

6053

93

4870

5156

4769

0.051 Burned bones 0.889 Grain

Carmi & Segal 1992:128 Gilead 1988:401 New ANSTO date

Chalc.

RT

861B

Nahal Qanah

6010 150

4880

5266

4581

0.979 Charcoal

Carmi & Segal 1992:125

SUA

739

6070 130

4950

5303

4709

0.996 Wood

Weinstein 1984:334

RT

1216

Teleilat Ghassul EilatV

L.142-B.1549 Chalc. assoc. with gold artifacts 1975/77 EX 3.3B/3C

6090

65

4970

5216

5160

0.095 Charcoal

KN

3537

Givat Harpasa

6100 120

5000

5302

4774

0.987 Ashes

HD

12388

Tell Wadi Fidan

6110

75

5010

5258

5238

0.02 Charcoal

Pta

3486

Nahal lssaron

6130

70

5050

5264

4902

0.947 Charcoal

Ly

6259

Abu

6135

80

5050

5288

4901

0.938 Charcoal

Carmi & Segal 1992:128 Burian & Freidman 1989 Gopher & Gophna 1993:306 Najjar et al. 1990 Gopher & Gophna 1993:306 Goring-Morris & Gopher 1983 Weinstein 1984:332 Lovell et al.

72

Hearth 28, 15 cm below surface

-

Later C

Basal Levels Cat. No.

Hamid Ly

6174

Ly

6255

Ly

6254

Ly

6247

To

1997:361

5623

Lovell et al. 1997:361 Lovell et al. 1997:361 Lovell et al. 1997:361 unpub. date

Basal Levels Cat. No. 5625 Basal Levels Cat. No. 5348 Basal Levels Cat. No. 5327 Middle level Cat. No. 4301-4393 E33, loc. 009

6200

80

5110

5319

4939

0.994 Charcoal

6160

70

5140

5293

4932

0.98 Charcoal

6190

55

5140

5299

4991

1 Charcoal

6190

80

5140

5317

4928

0.992 Charcoal

3409

Abu Hamid Abu Hamid Abu Hamid Abu Hamid Ziqlab 200

6190

70

5140

5302

4950

1 Charcoal

RT

649B

Shiqmim

6150 180

5180

5475

4689

1 Charcoal

RT

508A

Tel Tsaf

6270 460

5270

6022

4228

SUA

738/1

6300 110

5300

5478

4989

RT

926A

Teleilat Ghassul Eilat IV

1 Burnt Euphrates poplar 0.995 Wood

6340

60

5320

5470

5209

0.97 Charcoal

TO

3410

Ziqlab 200

6350

70

5320

5475

5207

0.956 Charcoal

HD

12335

Tell Wadi Feinan

6360

45

5320

5425

5260

0.87 Charcoal

SUA

734

6370 105

5330

5491

5061

0.987 Wood

TO

3412

Teleilat Ghassul Ziqlab 200

6380

70

5340

5480

5229

RT

1215

EilatV

6400 210

5370

5711

4903

0.989 Ash, charcoal 0.987 Charcoal

RT

628B

Uvda

6400 200

5370

5668

4905

0.985 Charcoal

SI

3310B

6415 110

5420

5561

5204

0.926 Wood

SUA

736

Bab edhDhra TGold

6430 180

5420

5667

4955

0.996 Wood

RT

989

Eilat IV

6470

60

5430

5525

5315

RT

682A

Kfar Samir

6470 130

5430

5641

5207

0.964 Wood

HD

10567

Tell Wadi Fidan

6410 118

5450

5563

5201

0.894 Charcoal

RT

724B

Uvda 7

6410 120

5450

5562

5202

0.885 Charcoal

SUA

732

6550 160

5480

5745

5206

0.983 Wood

RT

628A

Teleilat Ghassul Uvda

Carmi & Segal 1992:128 Carmi 1987:100; Gilead 1988:400 Najjar et al. 1990 Gopher & Gophna 1993:306 Carmi & Segal 1992:120 Weinstein 1984:333

6560

90

5500

5639

5357

0.982 Charcoal

Carmi 1987:102-3

TO

2114

Ziqlab 200

70

5520

5639

5466

0.935 Charcoal

SI

2502

6615 145

5560

5783

5303

1 Charcoal

TO

3411

Bab edhDhra Ziqlab 200

Banning et al. 1996:35 Weinstein 1984:341

6670

60

5580

5667

5483

0.982 Charcoal

TO

2115

Ziqlab 200

6630

80

5590

5673

5470

0.952 Charcoal

6590

73

1 Charcoal

Banning et al. 1996:35 Levy 1992b:352; Carmi 1987:104 Weinstein 1984:334 Gophna & Sadeh 1988/9 Weinstein 1984:334 Carmi & Segal 1992:128 Banning et al. 1996:35 Najjar et al. 1990 Gopher & Gophna 1993:306 Weinstein 1984:333 Banning et al. 1996:35 Carmi & Segal 1992:128 Carmi 1987:103

Weinstein 1984:337 Gilead 1988:402 Weinstein 1984:334

Banning et al. 1996:35 Banning et al. 1996:35

Upper village probe Lower of two preGhassulian levels 1975/77 EX 2.3a Hearth 4, next to tomb 20 cm below surface E33, loc. 014

1977 posthole Alli 221.12A G34, loc. 018 Hearth 27, 15cm below surface Open sanctuary, loc.906 from stone bowl Tomb A100 1967 posthole All 107.3 & 4 From base of tomb, 80cm depth, B16 From construction 5

Site 7, L.69 hearth 0.2m below surface 1977 posthole Alli 221.9A Open sanctuary loc.906 from stone bowl. D35 Field F3, loc.13, occupation debris F34, loc. 017 E34

TO

3409

Ziqlab 200

6900

70

5740

5905

5658

0.976 Charcoal

Banning et al. 1996:35 Garfinkel 1999d: 10

Ox.A

7884

6980 100

5820

6019

5704

0.983 Charcoal

RT

8610

6980 190

5820

6221

5554

0.996 Charcoal

OZD

015

Sha'ar Haqolan Nahal Qanah Pella

7146

70

6010

6110

5868

OxA

7885

7270

80

6140

6260

5958

Ox.A

7920

7245

50

6150

6213

Ly

4927

7330

70

6170

OZD

017

Sha'ar Hagolan Sha'ar Haqolan Sha'ar Haqolan Pella

7317

83

Ox.A

7917

7410

C

919

Sha'ar Hagolan Horvat Beter

GrN

14539

Ox.A

7918

Ox.A

7919

Yarmoukian

0.904 Grain

Carmi & Segal 1992:125 New ANSTO date

L409 Chalc. assoc. with qold artifacts Pottery Neolithic

0.968 Charcoal

Garfinkel 1999d: 10

Yarmoukian

6016

1.000 Charcoal

Garfinkel 1999d: 10

Yarmoukian

6269

6051

.850 Charcoal

Garfinkel 1999d: 10

Yarmoukian

6170

6270

6016

0.874 Grain

New ANSTO date

Pottery Neolithic

50

6240

6398

6204

0.907 Charcoal

Garfinkel 1999d: 10

Yarmoukian

7420 520

6240

7537

5363

1 Charcoal

Stratum Ill, solid carbon

Ain Rahub

7480

90

6280

6465

6203

0.936 Charcoal

Dothan 1959b:42 n.11 Weinstein 1984:334 Garfinkel 1999d: 10

Yarmoukian

Sha'ar Haqolan Sha'ar Haaolan

7465

50

6300

6419

6229

1 Charcoal

Garfinkel 1999d: 10

Yarmoukian

7495

50

6390

6431

6241

1 Charcoal

Garfinkel 1999d: 10

Yarmoukian

74

E33, loc. 009

Appendix D: Map 3 Key The following list provides a key to the sites on Map 3 (endplate) but also provides co-ordinates for sites in the two other maps. In most cases the grid references published by the excavators were used, but in some cases approximations from other maps were used to plot sites where references were not available. All three maps were generated with Maplnfo 5.01 and are projected in degrees latitude and longitude. Grid references for this region come in a variety of formulae -Universal Transverse Medicator Grid (UTMG), Palestine Grid (PG) etc. All PG references were translated into UTMG co-ordinates before plotting. No

Site Name

Easting

Northing

1

Abila

769000

3619800

2 3

Abu Habil Abu Hamid

204500 34.53

197200 32.23

178381

3586531

4

Abu Matar

128600

71600

102481

3460931

5 6 7

Abu Sinan Abu Snesleh Adeimeh

166400 247900

263100 149500

140281 221781

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Affulah Ain al Alayiq

177400 169800 223450 225800 162100 167600 161000 161000

223700 233900 256490 257680 226800 236500 227600 227400

108600

19 20 21

Ashkelon 2 Ashkelon 3 Ashkelon area

22

Azor

23 24 25 26 27 28

Bab edh-Dhra Beer Horesh Beer Ze'elim Ben Shemen Beni Beraq Bet Har Emeq

29 30 31 32

Ain el Faris Ain el Hariri Ain el Hofera Ain Hevraya Ain Lebaneh Ain Mitshura Aphek-antipatris Arad Ashkelon 1

Easting UTMZ37

Northing UTMZ37

Grid type

Reference

UTMG

Homes-Fredericq and Hennessy 1989

PG Long/ Lat PG

Mellaart 1962:137 Homes-Fredericq and Hennessy 1989:102 Perrot 1955a: 17

3652431 3538831

PG PG Approx

Gal 1993:453 Lehmann et al. 1991

151281 143681 197331 199681 135981 141481 134881 134881

3613031 3623231 3645821 3647011 3616131 3625831 3616931 3616731

Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Meyehof 1982:25 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Kochavi and Beck 1986

121100

82481

3510431

PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG Approx Aoorox PG

108400 108250 104940

120600 121250 115850

82281 82131 78821

3509931 3510581 3505181

PG PG PG

131650

159400

105531

3548731

PG

Braun and Gophna 1996:97 Baumgartel 1996:100 Perrot and Gopher 1996 Noy and Berman 1974:132 Golani and van den Brink 1996:65

Approx 175400

234400

149281

3623731

143000

151000

116881

3540331

165700

263900

139581

3653231

PG Approx PG Approx PG

Beth Netova Valley

173500

253300

147381

3642631

PG

Bethlehem cave Biq'at 'Uvda Bir es-Safadi

107200 146600

123400 9287

81081 120481

3512731 3398618

PG PG Approx

75

Raban 1994:20 Perrot 1963:560 Frankel and Kempinski 1973:242 Gilead 1989 Dinur 1987: 16 Avner 1983 ESI Perrot 1984; Eldar and Baumqartel 1985

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

Buqurah Dab'es Catchment Dalton Plateau Dharat ed-Dar ed Dahaq ed Debab Eilat el Arba'in el Khashash el Khawarii Elro'i En Gedi Er-Rahib Esse Site 110 Esse Site 119 Esse Site 127 Esse Site 130 Esse Site 174 Esse Site 392 Fazael Feifa (Cemetery) Feifa (West) Fidan/Khirbet Fidan/Qalat Fidan Gamla Gesher Gesher Qarantina Gezer Ghabahet Tahta Ghannam Gilat Giv'at Ha Mosad Giv'atayim Grar H. 'Akin H. Badriah H. Bidra H. Bitar H. Haddud H. Ma'on H. Malta H. Mazarim H. Raqiq H. Seifan

205800 222600

227800 258200

179681 196481

3617131 3647531

PG PG

Esse 1991 Esse 1991

193000 167400 204000 205000 143500 224400 213100 213900 160200 186900 218100 160500 168400 166800 169600 210800 222800 191150 348000

269000 220600 222200 218000 8854 267400 248100 199800 234800 97400 200200 237200 239500 231100 234100 234300 256400 161850 288000

166881 141281 177881 178881 117381 198281 186981 187781 134081 160781 191981 134381 142281 140681 143481 184681 196681 165031

3658331 3609931 3611531 3607331 3398185 3656731 3637431 3589131 3624131 3486731 3589531 3626531 3628831 3620431 3623431 3623631 3645731 3551181

PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG UTMG

Gal 1993 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Avner 1989:76 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Palumbo et al. 1990 Esse 1991 Ussishkin 1980:4 Wadi Yabis survey Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Porrath 1985:1 Macdonald 1992

345000 187800

258000 8200

161681

3397531

UTMG PG

Macdonald 1992 King et al. 1989

219500 201900 203200

256500 225300 225400

193381 175781 177081

3645831 3614631 3614731

PG PG PG

Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Covello-Paran 1997:55

163800

223700

137681

3613031

Dever 1974 Esse 1991

114000

80000

87881

3469331

Approx PG Approx PG

163600

224300

137481

3613631

PG

199100 220300 200100

225700 223200 223100

172981 194181 173981

3615031 3612531 3612431

202700 193200 170400 184100 122480 168800

224300 229100 234700 214700 78750 231100

176581 167081 144281 157981 96361 142681

3613631 3618431 3624031 3604031 3468081 3620431

76

Approx Approx PG PG PG Approx PG PG PG PG PG PG

Alon and Levy 198889:63 Esse 1991

Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Raban 1994:20 Esse 1991 Approx Esse 1991

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

H. Sorek (Uooer) H. Uza H. Zeror HalifTerrace Har Suriaz (Tumuli) Hesban Site 122 Hesban Site 128 Hesban Site 129 Hesban Site 74 Hesban Site 82 Hisah Hunzir lktanu (Hesban Site 97) lrbid Ja'adan Stream Jalul Jawa Jebel Queisa Jemet esh Sharijeh Jiftlik Jisr el Majami K60 Kabris (et-Tell) Kataret esSamra Ketef Yeriho (Cave of the Sandie) Kfar Giladi Kh. 'Araq erRashdan Kh. Dalhamiva Kh. el Musherifa Kh. el Qarn Kh. el-Mazar Kh. el-Ureima (Tel Kinrot) Kh. el. Maaa'ah Kh. es Sufuh Kh. esh Sheikh Mohammad

160820

129780

134701

3519111

PG

164300 163800

257600 232500

138181 137681

3646931 3621831

PG PG

138300

9711

112181

3399042

PG

Excavation and Surveys in Israel 14:104 Getzov 1995:19 Esse 1991 Seqer 1991:67-8 Avni 1989:78

223700

137200

197581

3526531

PG

Ibach 1987:27

229900

140800

203781

3530131

PG

Ibach 1987:27-8

230400

140900

204281

3530231

PG

Ibach 1987:28

225100 225800 202500 199900 213700

136200 136500 207000 214300 136400

198981 199681 176381 173781 187581

3525531 3525831 3596331 3603631 3525731

PG PG PG PG PG

Ibach 1987 Ibach 1987 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Ibach 1987

221500 231200

265200 125400

195381 205081

3654531 3514731

213600

201600

187481

3590931

Approx PG PG Approx Not mapped PG

196800 203200 142500

172400 225500 222850

170681 177081 116381

3561731 3614831 3612181

PG PG PG

163300

268000

137181

3657331

PG Approx

Esse 1991 Ibach 1987:13-14 Betts 1991 Henry, no ref. given Palumbo et al. 1990 Mellaart 1962:133 Esse 1991 Guz-Silberstein and Raveh 1990:50 Esse 1991:179

Approx

Eshel and Zissin 1995:295-8 Kaplan 1959 Esse 1991

207400

213700

181281

3603031

Approx PG

203700 169700 204400 201100 200000

228900 239000 195400 224300 252000

177581 143581 178281 174981 173881

3618231 3628331 3584731 3613631 3641331

PG PG PG PG PG

Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Yakar 1982

207300 201600 204700

212500 201300 211800

181181 175481 178581

3601831 3590631 3601131

PG PG PG

Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Esse 1991

77

111

Kh. lskander

223300

107200

112

Khirbet el Hassiya

313000

410000

UTMG

Homes-Fredericq and Hennessy 1989 Macdonald 1992:59

113

Kh. el-Musahlat (KPS 101) Mharraqat (KPS 114) KPS 204

660000

646000

UTMG

Miller 1991 :63

620000

609000

UTMG

Miller 1991:67-8

UTMG

Miller 1991 :90

Kh. el-Neqqaz (KPS 207) Kh. el-Qaryatein (KPS 210)

578000

500000

UTMG

Miller 1991 :90-1

584000

518000

UTMG

Miller 1991 :91

KPS 227 KPS 231 Kh. el Hawiyyah (KPS 270) KPS 315 KPS 337 KPS 347 Kh. Um 'Alanda (KPS 349)

631000

557000

695000 580000

535000 486000

UTMG UTMG UTMG

Miller 1991 :93 Miller 1991 :99 Miller 1991:111

658000 616000 606000 610000

482000 445000 429000 426000

UTMG UTMG UTMG UTMG

Miller Miller Miller Miller

125 126 127

KPS 362 KPS 59 Batir (KPS 66)

695000 571000 575000

430000 666000 623000

UTMG UTMG UTMG

Miller 1991:134-6 Miller 1991 :52 Miller 1991 :54

128

553000

606000

UTMG

Miller 1991 :55

577000

612000

UTMG

Miller 1991:55-7

130

ed Deir (KPS 71) Rujm Birjis (KPS 73) Lehun

35.883

31.89

Homes-Fredericq and Hennessy 1989

131

Lod/Newe Yaraq

140820

151805

114701

3541136

Long/ Lat PG

132 133

Maiami Makkuk Cave (Judean Desert)

214700

264800

188581

3654131

134 135 136

Marqass Me'oz Hayyim

35 201600

30 211100

175481

3600431

137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147

Meser Miar Mupaz Murrabba'at Nagila Nah'ali'at Nahal Eblayim Nahal Kissufim Nahal Lahat Nahal Mishmar Nahal Qanah

155000 173500 201400 185400 127000 173000 174700

204000 253300 224900 110700 101000 241000 248800

128881 147381 175281 159281 100881 146881 148581

170000 181400

68000 88200

143881 155281

114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124

129

197181

3496531

1991:123 1991:129 1991:130 1991:130

PG Approx

Gopher and Rosenburger 1994:85-86 Esse 1991 Eshel 1990: 117

Approx PG Approx

Khalil 1987 Esse 1991 Shipton

3593331 3642631 3614231 3500031 3490331 3630331 3638131

PG PG PG PG PG PG PG Approx

Dothan 1957,1959a Gal 1993 Esse 1991 Benoit et al. 1961 :9 Approx

3457331 3477531

PG PG Approx

Alon and Gilead 1986 Approx

Megiddo

78

PG

Esse 1991 Gal 1993

Gopher 1996

148

169

Naur (Hesban Site 92) Naur (Hesban Site 93) Neo/Chalc. sanctuaries Neve Ur Oranim Palmahim Pella Peqi'in Cave Pithat Ha Yarmouk Qa'abiya Qalaq Qiryat Ata Qumran cave B Rasm el Kabash Rasm Harbush Resevoir Site Rogem Hiri Rosh Pinna sites Ruim Fidan Rujm Khuneizir (SGNAS 108) Sabra

170

Sahab

171

Sal

172

Sataf

162100

130800

135981

3520131

PG

173 174

Sdeh 'Eliahu SGNAS10 (Raikes Site E) SGNAS 117 SGNAS 129 SGNAS 133 SGNAS 134 SGNAS 137 SGNAS 138 SGNAS14 (Raikes Site D) SGNAS15 (Raikes Site C) SGNAS 157 SGNAS 169 SGNAS 171 SGNAS 172

197400 283000

205600 958000

171281

3594931

PG UTMG

276000 376000 364000 364000 370000 369000 278000

968000 254000 222000 221000 217000 219000 960000

UTMG UTMG UTMG UTMG UTMG UTMG UTMG

Macdonald 1992:59 Macdonald 1992:56 Macdonald 1992:56

271000

957000

UTMG

Macdonald 1992:59

343000

258000 100000 980000 179000

UTMG UTMG UTMG UTMG

Macdonald Macdonald Macdonald Macdonald

149 150 151 152 153 154 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168

175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186

228400

143400

202281

3532731

PG

Ibach 1987:22

228200

143400

202081

3532731

PG

Ibach 1987:22

139300

9711

113181

3399042

PG

Avner 1997:132

202000 160400 102200

223000 235300 144550

175881 134281 76081

3612331 3624631 3533881

Garfinkel 1988/9:62 Esse 1991 Gopher et al. 1989:144

181350 210600

264400 232400

155231 184481

3653731 3621731

PG PG PG Approx PG PG

167100 221500

239700 258900

140981 195381

3629031 3648231

PG PG

Esse 1991 Esse 1991

160000 193500 225450 221600 227000 225400

240500 129700 253400 259400 254500 257300

133881 167381 199331 195481 200881 199281

3629831 3519031 3642731 3648731 3643831 3646631

PG PG PG PG PG PG Approx

Approx Baillet et al. 1962:fiq.1 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Zohar1989 Stepansky 1994: 13

186200 326000

8900 209000

160081

3398231

PG UTMG

Kinq et al. 1989 Macdonald 1992:56

Approx

Homes-Fredericq and Hennessy 1989:500 Homes-Fredericq and Hennessy 1989:516

Approx

Gal et al. 1997:22 Esse 1991

Approx

339000 341000 321000

79

Gibson and Kiener 198889:161 Esse 1991 Macdonald 1992:56

Macdonald 1992:56 Macdonald 1992:59 Macdonald 1992:59

1992:59 1992:59 1992:59 1992:59

187 188

SGNAS 181 SGNAS 182

189 190 191

201 202 203

SGNAS 187 SGNAS 189 SGNAS 20 (Raikes Site E) SGNAS 208 SGNAS 217 SGNAS 222 SGNAS 227 SGNAS 30 SGNAS 80 SGNAS 84 SGNAS 86 Al Munbatera (Raikes Site F) SGNAS 92 SGNAS 95 Shabbe

261000 282000

UTMG UTMG

Macdonald 1992:59 Macdonald 1992:59

114000 104000 955000

UTMG UTMG UTMG

Macdonald 1992:59 Macdonald 1992:59 Macdonald 1992:56

366000 299000 293000

118000 140000 116000 250000 960000 361000 251000 997000 948000

UTMG UTMG UTMG UTMG UTMG UTMG UTMG UTMG UTMG

Macdonald Macdonald Macdonald Macdonald Macdonald Macdonald Macdonald Macdonald Macdonald

353000 220100

248000 264800

193981

3654131

Macdonald 1992:59 Macdonald 1992:59 Esse 1991

Shelomi Shiqmim

UTMG UTMG PG Approx

204 205

114700

67530

88581

3456861

PG

206

Shoham

144400

157500

118281

3546831

PG

207

Shoham (Nth)

144400

157100

118281

3546431

PG

208 209 210

Siyar el Kherfan

211100 140500 225500

264200 79300 256000

184981 114381 199381

3653531 3468631 3645331

PG PG PG

207700

196400

181581

3585731

PG

218200

284800

192081

3674131

PG

Homes-Fredericq and Hennessy 1989 Esse 1991

7371000

3421000

Approx UTMG

Waheeb 1993

742500

341730

UTMG

Waheeb 1993

129000

113000

102881

3502331

PG

152000

209000

125881

3598331

Approx PG Approx

Kempinski and Gilead 1986 Leonard 1992:9-23 Approx

217800 138000

267600 87800

191681 111881

3656931 3477131

PG PG

Esse 1991 Levy and Alon 1997:126

204100 196600

221800 201100

177981 170481

3611131 3590431

PG PG Approx Approx

Esse 1991 Esse 1991

192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200

211

Somet Shoqet South Daliyyot Waterfall Subeirra

212

Summaqa

213 214

Suwavma Tafeileh-Ghor Site 10 Tafeileh-Ghor Site 28 Tel 'Erani

215 216 217 218 219

342000 338000 309000 333000 282000 274000 317000 308000 293000 293000 382000

Tel el Mafjar

220 221

Tel el-Asawir Tel el-Farah (Nth) Tel Fanus Tel Halif

222 223 224

Tel Kitan Tel Malqoah Tel Mases

225

Tel Miqne-Ekron

80

1992:59 1992:59 1992:56 1992:59 1992:56 1992:56 1992:56 1992:59 1992:59

Dauphin 1978 Excavations and Surveys in Israel 2 van den Brink and Gophna 1997:84 van den Brink and Goohna 1997:84-5 Esse 1991 Govrin 1988-89:173 Esse 1991

Dothan and Gitin 1986

226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233

Tel Oasis Tel Shadud Tel Shamat Tel Shem Tel Shoqeq Tel Teo Tel Tiv'on Tel Tsaf

160500 172300 203200 164900 193600 203500 163700 202500

232200 229600 224400 230600 211400 281500 235400 201500

134381 146181 177081 138781 167481 177381 137581 176381

3621531 3618931 3613731 3619931 3600731 3670831 3624731 3590831

PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG

234 235 236 237 238 239

Tel Yaqush Tel Yehud Tel Yoqne'am Teleilat Ghassul Tell Abu Nijras Tell Abu Shusheh Tell el 'Arabin Tell el Handaquq Tell el Jamma'in Tell el Khudeira Tell el Ma'aiaieh Tell el Meqbereh

202500 139700 160500 207100 202900 163400

224400 159800 230000 134600 200000 224600

176381 113581 134381 180981 176781 137281

3613731 3549131 3619331 3523931 3589331 3613931

PG PG PG PG PG PG

Esse 1991:182 Esse 1991:182 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Gophna and Sadeh 1988/9:3 Esse 1991 ESI 15:64 Esse 1991 From K737 map series Esse 1991 Esse 1991

205700 206500

214000 189800

179581 180381

3603331 3579131

PG PG

Esse 1991 Mabry 1989

202500 168600 203300 205800

201700 236500 201000 222760

176381 142481 177181 179681

3591031 3625831 3590331 3612091

PG PG PG PG

Esse 1991 Esse 1991:182 Esse 1991 Homes-Fredericq and Hennessy 1989

234200 200800

142000 2193

208081 174681

3531331 3391524

Approx PG PG

Ibach 1987:187-91 Esse 1991

207000

224000

180881

3613331

PG

Mellaart 1962

204900 203200 166600 219000

212700 217500 232100 265300

178781 177081 140481 192881

3602031 3606831 3621431 3654631

PG PG PG PG Approx

193400 196800 379000 173000 172000 185000

228300 219100 337000 119000 118000 366000

167281 170681

3617631 3608431

146881 145881

3508331 3507331

PG PG UTMG Aoorox PG UTMG Approx Approx

Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Esse 1991:182 Esse 1991:179 Homes-Fredericq and Hennessy 1989:581 Esse 1991 Esse 1991 Macdonald 1992:59 Perrot 1992:100* Perrot 1992:100* 'Amr et al. 1993 Wright et al. 1998

Approx PG PG PG PG

Waheeb 1997 Macdonald 1988 Macdonald 1988 Macdonald 1988 Macdonald 1988

240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267

Tell el Mefaliq Tell el-Umeiri Tell esh Sheikh Salih Tell esh-Shuna (Nth) Tell Fendi Tell lshma'el Tell Re'ala Tell Saluqiah Tellum Hammad Tirat Gazit Turbivah Ummal Tawabin Umm Qala'a Umm Qatafa Wadi al-Qattar Wadi Ghazzeh Wadi Shueib Site 21 Wadi um Hadder WHS308 WHS414 WHS422 WHS462

220700 223100 223500 224200

38100 40600 39500 34500

194581 196981 197381 198081

81

3427431 3429931 3428831 3423831

268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 288 289 280

WHS616 WHS630 WHS644 WHS647 WHS655 WHS 810 WHS 856 WHS 858 WHS 866 WHS 883 WHS 915 Yiftahel Yotava

227600 227850 226900 227000 227450 232600 228030 228150 230150 232450 230150 171000 155500

36500 33900 35500 36500 34600 31550 34250 33980 33750 32550 33750 240000 92240

281

Zara Site 5

36

32

201481 201731 200781 200881 201331 206481 201911 202031 204031 206331 204031 144881 129381

3425831 3423231 3424831 3425831 3423931 3420881 3423581 3423311 3423081 3421881 3423081 3629331 3481571

PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG Approx

82

Macdonald 1988 Macdonald 1988 Macdonald 1988 Macdonald 1988 Macdonald 1988 Macdonald 1988 Macdonald 1988 Macdonald 1988 Macdonald 1988 Macdonald 1988 Macdonald 1988 Esse 1991 Meshel and Sass 1974:273 'Amr et al. 1997

-Z-· "Tl

ro'§ :T CD

CD _.

-i:... ::::, -0 C

3

g_

cil -::--1 Ill

--c

. ......_ •

....

""',

"-

...

•,

·,.

• ... •,.

" Om

'"

'

.·s.

-

Ill O"::::, CD

r.xtrx--. •.>{,:,1..

1

I \ l1 f'.?->·. ..m,:~·: · IV D . ~-,.':_'>···.·.:-,-, ·:-:·: ...~,-.... :, ....... ... •. .. ' ..

,.-.-·.·-·JE

[.

.·..-··

~

cil !!!. -iii""..+

1ii'G) CD (f)

en

O" CD CD O"

~

a-

0

X

-, -, CD CD en CD CC')

::::, Ill

a.< -· Ill

00

w

~ e.

en g 3 O" Ill'< a. -0

·-.-~

.. .· E

~-__.· .. •··; .· :•.--:.:.1~-----,' ·. - ·.:,-·.··