The Lithic Industries of Zahrat Adh-Dhra' 2 and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period of the Southern Levant 9781841716749, 9781407327563

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
CONTENTS
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of abbreviations
Acknowledgments
Dedication
PREFACE
Abstract
1. INTRODUCTION
2. THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
3. A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PPNA SITES
4. A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF EARLY PPNB SITES
5. THE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 2 (ZAD 2)
6. TECHNOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF LITHIC DEBRIS AND DEBITAGE, ZAD 2
7. TECHNOLOGICAL AND TYPOLOGICAL ANALYSES OF RETOUCHED TOOLS, ZAD 2
8. THE HAGDUD TRUNCATION: MICROWEAR ANALYSIS AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES
9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
References

Citation preview

BAR  S1329  2004   SAYEJ   THE LITHIC INDUSTRIES OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 2

The Lithic Industries of Zahrat Adh-Dhra‘ 2 and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period of the Southern Levant Ghattas Jeries Sayej

BAR International Series 1329 9 781841 716749

B A R

2004

The Lithic Industries of Zahrat Adh-Dhra‘ 2 and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period of the Southern Levant Ghattas Jeries Sayej

BAR International Series 1329 2004

ISBN 9781841716749 paperback ISBN 9781407327563 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841716749 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

CONTENTS I

II. III. IV. V.

ILLUSTRATIONS……………….………………………………………………………..... V I.i List of tables…………………………………………………………...……….… V I.ii List of figures………………………………………………………...…………... VII I.iii List of abbreviations…………………………………………………………..….. XI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………………………….. XII DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………………. XV PREFACE……………………………………………………………………..……….…… XVII ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………..………………….. XVIII

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………... 1 Overview and research problem……………………………………………………………… 1 Research aims……………………………………………………………………………….... 2 The significance of this research…………………………………………………….……….. 3 Illustrations…………………………………………………………………………………… 3 Thesis organisation………………………………………………………………………….... 3

2.0

THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW………………………………………………………………………………… 4 The Neolithic period in the Southern Levant……………………………………………….... 4 2.1.1 The Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA)……………………………………………. 4 2.1.2 The Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (EPPNB)…………………………………….. 5 Concluding remarks………………………………………………………………………….. 6

2.1 2.2 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3

3.4

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSES OF PPNA SITES…………………………………….... 7 Chronology………………………………………………………………………………..…. 7 Khiamian/Sultanian or PPNA?……………………………………………………….………. 7 The PPNA sites in the Southern Levant (introduction, lithic technology, lithic typology, radiocarbon dating and discussion)…………………………………………………….……. 8 3.3.1 Dhra‘…………………………………………………………………………….... 8 3.3.2 Wadi Faynan 16 (WF 16)…...........................................................................…… 9 3.3.3 Gesher………………...........................................................................………….. 10 3.3.4 Gilgal I……………...........................................................................……………. 10 3.3.5 Jericho…………………………………………………………………………….. 10 3.3.6 Netiv Hagdud…………………………………………………………………….. 11 3.3.7 Salibiya IX……………………………………………………………………...… 12 3.3.8 Ein Suhum (or Suhun)……………………………………………………………. 13 3.3.9 Ain Darat…………………..................................................................................... 13 3.3.10 Hatoula…………………….................................................................................... 13 3.3.11 Iraq ed-Dubb………............................................................................……………14 3.3.12 Nahal Oren (II)……………………………………………………………..……. 15 3.3.13 Sabra I…………………………………………………………………………….. 16 3.3.14 Jebel Queisa (J24)................................................................................................... 16 3.3.15 Jilat 7…………………………………………………………...………………… 16 3.3.16 El Khiam...……………………………………………………………………….. 17 3.3.17 Abu Madi I……………………………………………………………………..… 17 3.3.18 Nahal Lavan 108…………………………………………………………………. 18 3.3.19 Nachcharini cave……………………………………………………………….… 18 3.3.20 Tell Aswad……………………………………………………………………..... 19 3.3.21 ZAD 2…………………………………………………………………………..… 19 Discussion and concluding remarks………………………………………………………….. 19 3.4.1 Lithic technology……………………………………………………………….… 20 3.4.2 Lithic typology……………………………………………………………..….… 20 3.4.3 Interpretations…………………………………………………………………….. 21

I

4.0 4.1 4.2

4.3 5.0 5.1 5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5 5.6 6.0 6.1 6.2

6.3

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: EPPNB SITES…………..……………………………… 36 The EPPNB period in the South-central Levant……………………………………………… 36 4.1.1 Chronology……………………………………………………………………….. 36 4.1.2 Diffusion or local innovation?……………………………………………………. 37 The Putative EPPNB assemblages in the South-Central Levant (introduction, lithic technology, lithic typology, radiocarbon dating and discussion)………………………………………… 37 4.2.1 Tell Aswad……………………………………………………………………..… 37 4.2.2 Mureybet……………………………………………………………………….…. 38 4.2.3 Dja’de el Mughara………………………………………………………..……… 39 4.2.4 Jerf el Ahmar…..................................................................................................… 39 4.2.5 Mujahiya…........................……………………………………………………..... 40 4.2.6 Jilat 7..................................……………………………………………………..... 40 4.2.7 Abu Hudhud.....................……………………………………………………....... 41 4.2.8 Horvat Galil..……………………………………………………………..……… 41 4.2.9 Jebel Quiesa 24...……………………………………………………………….… 42 4.2.10 Abu Salem……………………………………………………………...………… 42 4.2.11 Sefunim…………………………………………………………………………… 43 4.2.12 Nahal Lavan 109………………………………………………………………..… 44 4.2.13 Nahal Oren I………………………………………………………………..….… 44 4.2.14 Michmoret 26, 26a………………………………………………………………... 44 Discussion and concluding remarks………………………………………………………….. 44 THE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 2 (ZAD 2)…………………...………………..… 55 The site of ZAD 2…………………………………………………………………………….. 55 Regional context………………………………………………………………………..……. 55 5.2.1a Geomorphology……………………………………………………………...…… 56 5.2.1b Raw stone materials………………………………………………………..……. 56 5.2.2a Current environment.………………………………………………………..…... 57 5.2.2b Plant food resources…………………………………………………………..…. 57 5.2.2b.1 Palynological evidence………………………………………………………. 57 5.2.2b.2 Evidence from Dead Sea cores and geomorphology………………………... 58 5.2.2b.3 Effect of early Holocene climate on food plant resources……………...…… 58 5.2.2b.4 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………… 58 The subsistence economy of ZAD 2…………………………………………………………. 59 5.3.1 Cultivation or domestication?……………………………………………………..59 5.3.2 Hunting…………………………………………………………………………… 59 5.3.3 Exotic materials (trade or exchange) ………………………….………………… 59 The excavation procedures of ZAD 2……………………………………………………...… 60 5.4.1 Stratigraphy and architecture…………………………………………………….. 60 5.4.1.1 Structure 1 (Phases 1-3 and discussion)……………………………….…...... 60 5.4.1.2 Structure 2 (Phases 1-5, the exterior and discussion)……………...………… 61 5.4.1.3 Structure 3 (Phases 1-4, Dana, exterior and discussion)…………..………… 62 5.4.1.4 Structure 4 (Phase 1 and discussion)………………………………………… 62 Chronology…………………………………………………………………………..………. 63 Concluding remarks……………………………….………………………………..……...… 63 TECHNOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF LITHIC DEBRIS AND DEBITAGE, ZAD 2…... 78 The flaked stone assemblage of ZAD 2…………………………………………………...…. 78 Raw Materials………………………………………………………………………………… 78 6.2.1 Basalt…………...………………………………………………………...….….... 78 6.2.2 Flint………………………………….…………………………………..…….…. 78 6.2.3 Limestone………………………………………………………………….……... 79 6.2.4 Obsidian…….…………………………………………………………………….. 79 6.2.5 Quartz……….…………….……………………………………………..….……. 79 6.2.6 Quartzite………………………………………………………………….………. 79 6.2.7 Sandstone………………………………………………………………….……… 79 Technology……………………………………………………………………...…….……… 79 6.3.1 Debris………………………………………………………………………..…… 79

II

6.4 7.0 7.1 7.2

7.3 8.0 8.1

8.2

8.3

6.3.1.1 Debris distribution within structures………………………………..……….. 79 6.3.1.2 Debris distributions by phase………………………………………….……. 80 6.3.1.3 Summary…………………………………………………………...……….. 81 6.3.2 Debitage…………………………………………………………………………... 81 6.3.2.1 Cores………………………………………………………………….…….... 81 6.3.2.2 Analysis for cores collected from adh-Dhra‘ quarries (Spots 5 and 6).…….. 83 6.3.2.3 Flakes………………………………………………………………...……… 84 6.3.2.4 Blades……………………………………………………………..………… 86 6.3.2.5 Bladelets…………………………………………………………...………… 88 6.3.2.6 Core Trimming Elements……………………………………………….…… 89 Summary and concluding remarks……………………………………………...……….…… 91 TECHNOLOGICAL AND TYPOLOGICAL ANALYSES OF RETOUCHED TOOLS, ZAD 2…………………………………………………………………………………..……. 113 Definition of retouch…………………………………………………………………….…… 113 Tool type of ZAD 2…………………………………………………………………...……… 113 7.2.l Scrapers…………………………………………………………………...……… 113 7.2.2 Burins…………………………………………………………………………….. 115 7.2.3 Retouched flakes…………………………………………………………...…….. 115 7.2.4 Backed tools…………………………………………………………………..….. 116 7.2.5 Truncated tools……………………………………………………………..……. 117 7.2.6 Retouched blades…………………………………………………………………. 118 7.2.7 Sickle blades (Beit Ta’amir)................................................................................... 119 7.2.8 Retouched bladelets…………………………………………………………..….. 120 7.2.9 Projectile points……………………………………………………………...….... 121 7.2.10 The Hagdud truncations……………………………………………………...…... 122 7.2.11 Notches…………………………………………………………………...…….… 123 7.2.12 Borers……………………………………………………………………..……... 124 7.2.13 Multiple tools…………………………………………………………………….. 126 7.2.14 Bifacial tools……………………………………………………………………… 127 7.2.15 Varia………………………………………………………………………..…….. 128 Summary and concluding remarks……………………………………………………..……. 129 THE HAGDUD TRUNCATION: MICROWEAR ANALYSIS AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES…………………………………………………….…………………………….... 163 Literature review……………………………………………………………………………... 163 8.1.1 Microscopy……………………………………………………………………..… 163 8.1.2 Cleaning………………………………………………………………………...… 164 8.1.3 Photography……………………………………………………………………..... 164 8.1.4 Observations……………………………………………………………..…….… 164 8.1.4.1 Edge fracturing……………………………………………………………… 164 8.1.4.2 Edge rounding…………………………………………………………......… 165 8.1.4.3 Striae…………………………………………………………………………. 165 8.1.4.4 Polish (also called sheen or gloss)……………………………..……………. 165 Usewear analysis of the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations……………………..………………….. 165 8.2.1 Methodology……………………………………………………………………… 165 8.2.1.1 Microscopy……………………………………………………………..…… 165 8.2.1.2 Cleaning………………………………………………………………..…… 165 8.2.1.3 Photography…………………………………………………………...…….. 165 8.2.1.4 Specimens……………………………………………………………………. 165 8.2.2 Optical microscopy results for the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations…………………. 166 8.2.3 SEM microscopy results for the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations……………………. 167 8.2.4 A brief note on the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations………………………….………. 167 The experimental tools……………………………………………………………………….. 167 8.3.1 Flint knapping…………………………………………………………………….. 167 8.3.2 Retouch process…………………………………………………………………... 167 8.3.3 Macroscopic analyses…………………………………………………………….. 167 8.3.4 Hafting procedure…………………………………………………………..……. 168 8.3.5 The angles……………………………………………………………………….... 168 8.3.6 The resin………………………………………………………………………….. 168 8.3.7 Experimental procedure………………………………………………………….. 168 III

8.4 8.5

8.6 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4

8.3.7.1 Experiment No. 1………………………………………………………..….. 168 8.3.7.2 Experiment No. 2……………………………………………………...…….. 169 8.3.7.3 Experiment No. 3……………………………………………………..…….. 169 8.3.7.4 Experiment No. 4……………………………………………………………. 169 8.3.7.5 Experiment No. 5……………………………………………………..…….. 169 8.3.7.6 Experiment No. 6………………………………………………………..….. 169 8.3.7.7 Experiment No. 7………………………………………………………..….. 169 8.3.7.8 Experiment No. 8………………………………………………………..….. 169 8.3.7.9 Experiment No. 9………………………………………………………..….. 169 8.3.7.10 Experiment No. 10………………………………………………………...… 169 8.3.7.11 Experiment No. 11……………………………………………………..…… 170 8.3.8 Optical microscopy results for the experimental tools……………………...…..... 170 8.3.9 SEM microscopy results for the experimental tools……………………………… 170 8.3.10 Interpretations of usewear traces on experimental tools…………….……..…..... 171 Comparison between the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations and the experimental tool………….... 171 Comparative evaluation with other studies…………………………...……………………… 172 8.5.1 The Levantine experimental studies……………………………..…………….…. 172 8.5.1.1 Netiv Hagdud………………………………………………………………... 172 8.5.1.2 Jericho……………………………………………………………...………... 172 8.5.1.3 Hayonim Terrace, Abu Hureyra and Mureybet……………………………... 172 8.5.2 The Australian Tula flakes……………………………………………………….. 172 Discussion and concluding remarks………………………………………………………..… 173 SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS……………………..………………...… 215 The PPNA assemblages in the Dead Sea Basin and other ecological zones…………….…... 215 Summary of the research……………………………………………………………………... 216 The outcome of the research…………………………………………………………………. 216 Future research……………………………………………………………………………….. 217 9.4.1 The EPPNB phase and the site of Abu Hudhud…………………………...……... 217 9.4.2 Reinvestigating Jericho………………………………………………………....... 217

10.0 REFERENCES………………………………………………………………...………..…... 218

IV

List of Tables Table 3.1: Table 3.2: Table 3.3: Table 3.4: Table 4.1: Table 4.2: Table 4.3: Table 4.4:

List of the known PPNA sites in the Southern Levant as well as two sites from the Central Levant………………………………………………………………….…….. Lithic technology: the PPNA sites in the Southern Levant………..……………….…. Lithic typology: the PPNA sites in the Southern Levant…………………………..…. Uncalibrated and calibrated C14 dates: the PPNA sites in the Southern Levant……...

22 23 24 27

List of the claimed EPPNB sites in the Southern Levant as well as four sites from the Central and Northern Levant……………..……………………………………...…… 46 Lithic technology: for putative EPPNB Southern Levantine sites plus some Syrian PPNB sites…………………………………………………………………….………. 47 Lithic typology: for putative EPPNB Southern Levantine sites plus some Syrian PPNB sites…………………………………………………………………………….. 48 C14 dates: for putative EPPNB Southern Levantine sites plus some Syrian PPNB sites…………………………………………………………………………..……….. 49

Table 5.1: Table 5.2:

Lithic artefacts recovered per loci per structure, ZAD 2…………..…………….…… 64 The chronology of ZAD 2……………………………………………………..……... 65

Table 6.1: Table 6.2: Table 6.3: Table 6.4: Table 6.5a:

Abridged list of lithic artefacts in Structures 1-4, ZAD 2…………………………..… 93 The numbers and percentages of lithic artefacts in Structures 1-4, ZAD 2……...…… 93 Raw materials used for lithic artefacts, ZAD 2……………………………….………. 93 Colour analyses of retouched tools and unbroken debitage, ZAD 2………………..… 93 Munsell colour analyses of cores and unbroken debitage, ZAD 2 and adh-Dhra‘ quarries………………………………………………..………..……………………...94 Munsell colour analyses, ZAD 2………………………………………………….….. 95 Abridged list of numbers, weights and percentages of lithic artefacts in Structures 14, ZAD 2………………………………………………………………………..…….. 96 List of numbers, weights and percentages of lithic artefacts in Structures 1-4, ZAD 2……………………..……………………………………………………….…..……. 97 The distribution of lithic artefacts in Structures and phases, ZAD 2………….……… 98 The density of lithic artefacts in Structures and Phases, ZAD 2……………………... 99 The density of lithics per structure, ZAD 2…………………..…………………….... 100 Descriptive statistics for size and weight of cores and unbroken debitage, ZAD 2....... 100 The number and percentage of burnt artefacts, ZAD 2………………………..……… 100 The percentage of cortex among the debitage category, ZAD 2…………………..…. 100 Number of platforms for cores, ZAD 2……………………………………………….. 101 Platform types for cores, ZAD 2…………………………………………..………….. 101 Platform angle for cores and unbroken debitage, ZAD 2…..………………..……….. 101 Descriptive Statistics for platform angles of cores and unbroken debitage, ZAD 2.….102 Scar orientation for cores and unbroken debitage, ZAD 2…………………………….102 Scar orientation for cores and unbroken debitage, ZAD 2…………………………….103 Core size, scar types and the average number of scars below the platforms, ZAD 2………………………….……………………………………………………………. 104 Core tool types, ZAD 2………………………………………………………….……. 104 Descriptive Statistics for size and weight of core collected from adh-Dhra‘ quarries (Spots 5 and 6) during the 1993/1994 survey season (see Edwards et al. 1998)……………………………………………………………………..………….... 104 Colour analysis for cores collected from adh-Dhra‘ quarries (Spots 5 and 6) during the 1993/1994 survey season (see Edwards et al. 1998).……………..…….…...….… 104 Colour analysis for cores collected from adh-Dhra‘ quarries (Spots 5 and 6) during the 1993/1994 survey season (see Edwards et al. 1998).….…………………….…..... 105 The breakage rates among debitage category, ZAD 2…………………………...……. 105 Platform types for unbroken debitage, ZAD 2…………………………………...…… 106 Bulb types for unbroken debitage, ZAD 2…………………………………..………... 106 Shape categories for unbroken debitage, ZAD 2……………………..………………. 106 Profile types of unbroken debitage, ZAD 2……………………..……………………. 106 Cross section types for unbroken debitage, ZAD 2………………...…………………. 107 Termination types for unbroken debitage, ZAD 2……………………………………. 107

Table 6.5b: Table 6.6: Table 6.7: Table 6.8a: Table 6.8b: Table 6.8c: Table 6.9: Table 6.10: Table 6.11: Table 6.12: Table 6.13: Table 6.14: Table 6.15: Table 6.16: Table 6.17: Table 6.18: Table 6.19: Table 6.20: Table 6.21: Table 6.22: Table 6.23: Table 6.24: Table 6.25: Table 6.26: Table 6.27: Table 6.28: Table 6.29:

V

Table 6.30: Breakage types among debitage category, ZAD 2……………………………………. 107 Table 6.31: Core Trimming Element types, ZAD 2……………………………………………….. 107 Table 7.1: Table 7.2: Table 7.3: Table 7.4: Table 7.5: Table 7.6: Table 7.7: Table 7.8: Table 7.9: Table 7.10: Table 7.11: Table 7.12: Table 7.13: Table 7.14: Table 7.15: Table 7.16: Table 7.17:

Abridged retouched tool list in Structures 1-4, ZAD 2……………………………...... 130 A comprehensive retouched tool list, ZAD 2…………………………………………. 130 Descriptive statistics for the complete retouched tools, ZAD 2…………………..….. 132 The weights of retouched tools in Structures 1-4, ZAD 2………………….………… 133 Blank types of retouched tools, ZAD 2……………………………………………….. 134 Retouch modes for tools, ZAD 2…………………………………………………..…. 136 Position and location of retouch on tools, ZAD 2…………………………..…...….... 138 Colour analysis of retouched tools, ZAD 2…………………………………………… 140 Raw materials used for retouched tools, ZAD 2……………………………….…...… 141 Other raw materials used for retouched tools, ZAD 2………………………..………. 142 The numbers and percentage of burnt retouched tools, ZAD 2……………………..... 142 Breakage types for retouched tools, ZAD 2…………………………………...…….... 143 Cortex frequencies on retouched tools, ZAD 2………………………….……..…….. 145 The distribution of retouched tools in structures and squares, ZAD 2………………...147 The distribution of retouched tools by phase, ZAD 2……………………………….... 148 Munsell colour analyses of retouched tools, ZAD 2………………………………….. 149 Munsell colour analyses for retouched tools, ZAD 2…………………………...……..149

Table 8.1: Table 8.2: Table 8.3:

The results of usewear analysis: Hagdud truncations, ZAD 2………………………... 175 The results of usewear analysis: Experimental tools before use…………………….... 177 The results of usewear analysis: Experimental tools after use……………………...… 179

VI

List of Figures FIG. 3.1: FIG. 3.2: FIG. 3.3:

PPNA sites mentioned in the text…………………………………………………….. 30 C14 dates analyzed by using Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000)…………………………………………………………………. 31 The typical diagnostic PPNA tool types from excavated sites in the Southern Levant. 35

FIG. 4.1: FIG. 4.2:

Putative EPPNB sites mentioned in the text………………………………………….. 51 C14 dates analyzed by using Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000)………………………………………………………………… 52

FIG. 5.1: FIG. 5.2: FIG. 5.3a: FIG. 5.3b: FIG. 5.4: FIG. 5.5: FIG. 5.6: FIG. 5.7: FIG. 5.8: FIG. 5.9: FIG. 5.10: FIG. 5.11: FIG. 5.12: FIG. 5.13: FIG. 5.14: FIG. 5.15: FIG. 5.16: FIG. 5.17:

The Dead Sea Plain in Jordan showing the location of ZAD 2………….…………… 66 The current landscape of the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ region……………………..………… 67 ZAD 2 after the second season of excavation………………………………………... 68 View of ZAD 2 after the second season of excavation……………………..………... 69 Structure 1 looking northeast, ZAD 2……………………………………………….... 69 The stratigraphy of Structure 1, ZAD 2………………………………………………. 70 Harris Matrix, Structure 1, ZAD 2…………………………………………………..… 70 The infant skull (E28: 25), Structure 1, ZAD 2…….……………………………….… 71 Structure 2 after two seasons of excavation, ZAD 2…………….………………….… 72 Structure 2 looking west, ZAD 2……………………………………………………... 72 The stratigraphy of Structure 2, ZAD 2………..…………………………………….. 73 Harris Matrix, Structure 2, ZAD 2……………………………………………………. 73 The secondary burial (F 5), Structure 2, ZAD 2………………………………………. 74 Structure 3 looking north, ZAD 2…………………………………………………..… 75 The stratigraphy of Structure 3, ZAD 2……………………………………………….. 76 Harris Matrix, Structure 3, ZAD 2……………………………………………………. 76 Structure 4 looking south, ZAD 2…………………………………………………….. 77 Harris Matrix, Structure 4, ZAD 2………………………………………………….... 77

FIG. 6.1: FIG. 6.2: FIG. 6.3:

Lithics in Structures 1-4…………………………………………………………….…. 108 Retouched tools in Structures 1-4…………………………………………………….. 108 Core samples: (a) single platform, (b) two platforms, (c) multiple platforms, and (d) missing platforms………………………………………………………………..……. 109 Munsell colour analysis for ZAD 2 lithics and adh-Dhra‘ quarries samples (Spot 5 and 6)………………………………………………………………………………...... 109 Flakes: (a) primary flake dorsal, (b) secondary flake dorsal, and (c) secondary flake ventral…………………………………………………………………………….….... 110 Blades: (a) broken blade and (b) complete blade……………………………...……… 110 Bladelets: (a) broken bladelet, (b) complete bladelet, dorsal, and (c) complete bladelet, ventral (d) complete rectangular bladelet………………………………….... 111 Core trimming elements: (a) crested blade, (b) crested blade, and (c) core tablet…..... 112

FIG. 6.4: FIG. 6.5: FIG. 6.6: FIG. 6.7: FIG. 6.8: FIG. 7.1: FIG. 7.2: FIG. 7.3: FIG. 7.4: FIG. 7.5: FIG. 7.6: FIG. 7.7: FIG. 7.8: FIG. 7.9: FIG. 7.10: FIG. 7.11:

Scrapers: (a) convex, (b) side, (c) end, and (d) concave, ZAD 2…………………..…. 151 Burins: (a) single (b) dihedral on truncated tool, ZAD 2………………………..….... 152 Broken retouched flake, ZAD 2…………………………………………………..….. 152 Backed tools: (a) on flake, (b) on bladelet, ZAD 2………………………..…………. 153 Truncated flake, ZAD 2……………………………………………………………….. 153 Retouched blade, ZAD 2………………………………………………………….….. 154 Beit Ta’amir sickle, ZAD 2..............………………………………………………..... 154 Retouched bladelet, ZAD 2.............………………………………………………...... 155 Projectile points: (a) Jordan Valley 2, (b) Jordan Valley 5, (c) Jordan Valley 6, (d) El Khiam, and (e) Type 3, ZAD 2...……………………………………………………... 156 Hagdud truncation: (a) Type A, (b) Type B, (c) Type C, (d) Type D, (e) Type E, and (f) Type F, ZAD 2…………………………………………………………………..…. 157 Notches: (a) single, (b) on end, ZAD 2……………………………………………….. 158

VII

FIG. 7.12:

FIG. 7.13: FIG. 7.14: FIG. 7.15: FIG 7.16: FIG. 8.1: FIG. 8.2: FIG. 8.3: FIG. 8.4: FIG. 8.5: FIG. 8.6: FIG. 8.7: FIG. 8.8:

FIG. 8.9: FIG. 8.10: FIG. 8.11: FIG. 8.12: FIG. 8.13: FIG. 8.14: FIG. 8.15: FIG. 8.16: FIG. 8.17: FIG. 8.18: FIG. 8.19: FIG. 8.20: FIG. 8.21: FIG. 8.22: FIG. 8.23: FIG. 8.24:

Borer: (a) bilateral obverse on one lateral and inverse on the other, (b) bilateral invasive on each lateral, (c) bilateral obverse on both laterals, (d) unilateral invasive, (e) unilateral inverse, (f) unilateral obverse, (g) single pointed borer unilateral obverse, (h) single pointed borer bilateral invasive, (i) single pointed point bilateral inverse, (j) single pointed point bilateral obverse, (k) pointed end with notches, (l) double pointed ends on bladelet, and (m) double pointed end on flake, ZAD 2….….. 159 Multiple tools: a) concave + side scraper + notch), b) side scraper + notch, ZAD 2… 160 Bifacial tools: (a) Tranchet axe, (b) bifacial flaked axe and (c) Picks, ZAD 2…….… 161 Varia: (a) Truncated tool and (b) Retouch on broken blade (intermediate), ZAD 2….. 162 Munsell colour analysis for retouch tools, ZAD 2……………….……………….….. 162 The various types of Hagdud truncations, ZAD 2: a) double straight, b) straightconcave, c) double concave, d) single concave, e) single straight, f) concave-convex.. 180 Optical images for various Hagdud truncations, ZAD 2 (ventral side, x10)…………. 181 Couze retouch: Hagdud truncations No. 23, ZAD 2………………..………………… 183 Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 02 (SEM x50) edge rounding along the working distal edge taken at ca. 70° angle…………………………………………….……….. 183 Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 04 (SEM x50) a) a cross section of the distal working edge taken at ca. 85° angle, b) the working edge in relation to the ventral surface taken at ca. 75° angle………………………………………………………… 183 Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 05 (SEM x50) a) edge rounding along the right side of the working edge taken at ca. 80° angle, b) edge rounding along the left side of the working edge taken at ca. 80°……………………………………………………….... 184 Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 06 (SEM x50, x25) the same edge rounding at different magnifications and angles, a) at ca. 75° and b) at ca. 70°……………..……. 184 Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 08 (SEM x50, x1000) the same working edge at various angles taken at x50 magnification (the surface in the lower part of the photos is the ventral surface). No. a) at 90°, No. b) at 85°, No. c) at 80°, No. d) at 75° and No. e) at 70°. The last three images were taken at x1000 in different angles: No. f) at 90°, No. g) at 80° and No. h) at 70°……………………………………………….….. 185 Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 09 (SEM x50) a) edge rounding at ca. 90° angle and b) at 70°……………………………………………………………………………..… 186 Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 12 (SEM x50) edge rounding at 70° angle……….... 186 Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 16 (SEM x50) a) edge rounding at 80° angle, b) edge rounding at 70° and c) edge fractures along one of the laterals at 70…………... 187 Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 17 (SEM x50) a) edge rounding along the working end at 80° angle and b) usewear remains along one of the laterals at 70°.………….... 187 Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 20 (SEM x50, taken at 90° angle) a) the right side of the working edge, and b) the left side of the working edge……………...……….... 188 Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 23 (SEM x50) the same position of the working edge at three different angles: a) at 90°, b) at 85° and c) and 70°…………………..… 188 Usewear remains along the laterals of the Hagdud truncations, ZAD 2: a) tool No. 1 shows edge rounding at 70°, b) tool No. 16 shows edge fracturing at 75°, and finally c) tool No. 17 shows edge fracturing at 75°…………………………………..…….... 189 Cobble collected from quarries in the vicinity of ZAD 2 and supplied the raw stone material for the experimental study……………………………………………….…... 190 Antler used to form retouch on experimental tools………………………………..….. 190 Usewear along lateral margins, experimental tool No. 11……………………..…….... 190 Experimental study: No. 14 (the upper one) was attached to the haft with resin, No. 12 (the lower one) was attached to the haft without resin…………………………..… 191 Experimental study: sharp flake used as chisel for cutting the wooden branches for hafting…………………………………………………………………..…………….. 191 Experimental study: prepared cobblestone used as hammer for preparing the wooden branches for hafting……………………………………………….…….………..…... 192 Experimental study: a sharp flake used to prepare the ends of the wooden branches for inserting the Hagdud truncations…………………………………...……..………. 192 Experimental study: the Xanthorrhea resin…………………………………..…….... 193 Experimental study: the ingredients of the resin before mixing, the upper left is burnt mollusc powder, the upper right is charcoal powder and the lower one is resin powder………………………………………………………………………………… 193

VIII

FIG. 8.25: FIG. 8.26: FIG. 8.27:

FIG. 8.28: FIG. 8.29:

FIG. 8.30:

FIG. 8.31:

FIG. 8.32:

FIG. 8.33: FIG. 8.34:

FIG. 8.35:

FIG. 8.36: FIG. 8.37: FIG. 8.38:

FIG. 8.39: FIG. 8.40: FIG. 8.41: FIG. 8.42: FIG. 8.43: FIG. 8.44: FIG. 8.45:

Experiment No. 1 was conducted on a dry sheep leg for a period of 120 minutes (7,200 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (sharp point)….. 194 Experiment No. 2 was conducted on a fresh sheep leg for a period of 120 minutes (7,200 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (sharp point)…... 195 Experiment No. 3 was conducted on a fresh branch of olive wood for a period of 30 minutes (1,800 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (pointed ends)…………………………………………………………………………………… 196 Experiment No. 4 was conducted on a fresh pig leg for a period of 70 minutes (4,200 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (pointed end)..………. 197 Experiment No. 5 was conducted on a fresh branch of pinewood for a period of 90 minutes (5,400 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (pointed ends)…………………………………………………………………………………… 198 Experiment No. 6 was conducted on a fresh branch of cypress wood for a period of 50 minutes (3,000 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (pointed ends)…………………………………………………………..…………….. 199 Experiment No. 7 was conducted on a dry branch of olive wood for a period of 135 minutes (8,100 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (incomplete wooden pick)…………………………………………….……………..... 200 Experiment No. 8 was conducted on a branch of fresh oak wood for a period of 45 minutes (2,700 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (pointed ends)………………………………………………………………………..…………. 201 Experiment No. 9 was conducted on a fresh sheep leg for a period of 60 minutes (3,600 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (pointed end).…. 202 Experiment No. 10 was conducted on a fresh sheep rib for a period of 210 minutes (12,600 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (pointed ends)…………………………………………………………………………………… 203 Experiment No. 11 was conducted on a fresh branch of olive wood for a period of 60 minutes (3,600 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (pointed end)…………………………………………………………………………...……….. 204 Experimental tools, taken from the ventral side at 45° angle (optical images, x10)….. 205 Experimental tool (No. 4), usewear remains on laterals (optical images, x10)……….. 206 Experiment No. 1: a) edge rounding along the working edge, 90° (SEM x35), b) edge rounding along the working edge, 85° (SEM x37), c) edge rounding along the working edge, 80° (SEM x40), d) edge damage along one of the laterals, 70° (SEM x30), and e) edge damage along the other lateral, 70° (SEM x50)………………….… 207 Experiment No. 3 (SEM x50) the same edge rounding at different angles: a) at 85° and b) at 75°………………………………………………………………………….... 208 Experiment No. 5: the same edge rounding along the working end at different angles and magnifications: a) at 85° (SEM x50), b) at 70° (SEM x25)..…………………….. 208 Experiment No. 6: the same working edge at different angles: a) at 85° (SEM x30) and b) at 75° (SEM x50). The micro-fractures along the working edge were formed by use………………………………………………………………………………..... 209 Experiment No. 8: the same working edge at different angles: a) at 85° (SEM x50), and b) at 70° (SEM x25). The micro-fractures along the working edge were formed by use………………………………………………………………………..………... 209 Experiment No. 9 (SEM x50): the same working edge at different angles: a) at 90°, b) at 80°, and c) at 70°. The micro-fractures along the working edge were formed by use………………………………………………………………………………...…... 210 Edge rounding from various sites, a) Netiv Hagdud (after Yerkes et al. 2003: fig. 16), b) Middle Woodland site, USA (after Yerkes et al. 2003: fig. 6)……………..…. 211 Some edge rounding and edge polish on an unidentified tool from Hayonim (x100) after Anderson 1991; fig. 7……………………………………………………………. 211 IX

FIG. 8.46: FIG. 8.47:

FIG. 8.48: FIG. 8.49:

The Tula flake/adze. a) the actual size before use, b) the remaining slug after use (after Holdaway and Stern 2003 with permission)…………………………………..... 212 Australian examples after Kamminga 1982: a) edge rounding and use-polish on a chert flake, x256 (plate 133), b) edge rounding on use-polished flake of quartzite, x16 (plate 131), c) edge rounding and use-polish on a quartzite backed flake, x30 (plate 132), d) shallow step fractures on the underside of a hafted scraper, x14 (plate 113), e) edge rounding, abrasion and intersecting on the underside of an obsidian flake, x27 (plate 72), f) the same tool of “No. e” photographed by using the SEM, x40…………………………………………………………………………………….. 213 An experimental example from van Gijn (1989: fig. 25: a), edge rounding from working putrefied flax, x200……………………………………………………..…… 214 A complete bone needle, ZAD 2.………………………………………………..…… 214

X

List of abbreviations ZAD 2 = Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 2 PPNA=Pre-Pottery Neolithic A PPNB= Pre-Pottery Neolithic B EPPNB= Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B MPPNB= Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B LPPNB= Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B PPNC= Pre-Pottery Neolithic C PN = Pottery Neolithic PNA = Pottery Neolithic A PNB = Pottery Neolithic B m.a.s.l = Metre above sea level m.b.s.l. = Metre below sea level

XI

Acknowledgments I wish to extend my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Phillip Edwards, for being an inspiration to me throughout the past three years and especially for his enthusiastic interest in my topic and his continuous support. Without Phillip’s encouragement, this book would have been impossible. My deepest appreciation is extended to the directors of the Lower Jordan Valley Project for their financial support. The latter is a Palestinian-Norwegian project directed by Prof. Kamal Abdulfatah (BirZeit University, Palestine), Prof. Leif Manger, Prof. Randi Haaland and Mr. Ove Stocknes (University of Bergen, Norway). The above-mentioned individuals are the reason that this research was undertaken and without their financial support and personal involvement, this thesis would have never been accomplished. I am indebted to La Trobe University for the financial support (LTUPSR). Without this support, my life would not have been pleasant. The lithic artefacts of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 2, which form the basis of this dissertation, were obtained from excavations carried out as part of the Archaeology and Environment of the Dead Sea Plain Project. The latter is a joint project directed by Dr. Phillip Edwards (La Trobe University, Australia), Dr. Steven Falconer and Dr. Patricia Fall (Arizona State University, USA). Thanks for giving me the data. Within the last three years, I established excellent friendships with many individuals to whom I am in debt for keeping me within the system and making my life easy. These individuals are: John Meadows, Ilya Berelov, Shaun Canning, Alasdair Brooks, Tom Rymer, Geoff Hewitt, David Wines, Alex Ariotti, Josara de Longe, Jennifer Porter, Allison Simons, Zvonka Stanin, Greg Defteros, Claudia Zipfel, Chris Williamson, Åsa and Brad Ferrier. With these individuals I had a great time discussing intellectual issues, as well as having a good time in the Eagle Bar and around the BBQ. A special thanks goes to the staff of the Archaeology Program at La Trobe University for their direct and indirect support, particularly Prof. Tim Murray, Prof. Peter Mathews, Dr. David Frankel, Dr. Richard Cosgrove, Dr. Nikki Stern, Dr. Susan Lawrence, Dr. Li Liu and Dr. Peter Davies. I am also thankful to Ms Ros Allen, Ms Stella Bromilow, Mr Rudy Frank and Mr Ming Wei for their endless technical support. Simon Greenwood, thank you for your time and help in flint knapping the experimental bladelets. Although we only known each other for a short time, I had the chance to meet a special person who will remain in my mind for years to come. While collecting data for my comparative analysis, I visited many institutions around the world and met various colleagues and friends to whom I owe my appreciation and gratitude. Dr. Ian Kuijt and Dr. Meredith Chesson (Notre Dame University, USA) opened their home and hosted me for three weeks and allowed me to investigate the lithics of Iraq ed-Dubb. Thank you for having me and for letting me to know you not only as archaeologists, but also as friends. Nathan Goodale spent long hours with me in the laboratories of Notre Dame University investigating the lithics of Iraq ed-Dubb. Prof. Øystein LaBianca (Andrew University, USA), has supported me in my career since 1997. Thanks for having me and allowing me to get to know you more. Bob and Nancy Coburn opened their home and provided excellent hospitality. Prof. Edward Banning and Dr. Bruce Schroeder (Toronto University, Canada) opened their collections and allowed me to investigate the lithics of Nachcharini cave. Prof. Steven Mithen, Dr. Anne Pirie and Mr. Sam Smith (Reading University, UK) allowed me to inspect the Wadi Faynan 16 lithic artefacts and gave me warm hospitality. Dr. Douglas Baird (Liverpool University, UK) allowed me to see some of the lithics of Jilat 7 and hosted me while visiting Liverpool. Dr. Andrew Garrard, Dr. Susan College and Dr. Anne Rosen (University College London, UK) spared part of their time and discussed various topics with me. Dr. Bill Finlayson (Council for British Research in the Levant, Jordan) opened the door to his institute and allowed me to use the facilities and to shelter while in Jordan. A special thanks goes to Prof. Anne Belfer-Cohen and Prof. Nigel Goring-Morris (The Hebrew University, Israel) for trying to help me gain permission from the Israeli Authorities to enter Jerusalem. Although the permission was never granted, I hope that in the future I will be able to make it and visit you. A special thanks also go out to Prof. Steven Rosen (Ben-Gurion University, Israel) for his direct and indirect support since I met him during one of my peace activities in Beth-Jala (Palestine). You are a special person and I hope that one day you will be able to come and visit me in my own free independent country.

XII

A particularly special debt of gratitude is owed to my parents Jeries and Sua’d for their unconditional love and support throughout the past three and a half decades. They raised me to love the written word and they gave me all that they could provide, even when they could not afford it. I will never forget your support and you will always be the candle of my future. My parents-in-law, Dagmar and John, have been the solid base that I relied on while in Norway. They opened their arms to me since day one and never treated me like as a stranger. In the seven years that I have known you, I have had the chance to get to know you more and I can proudly say that I have a home in Bergen. I could not wish for more and I do not think anyone else has better parents-in-law than I do. Last but not least, my greatest debt of gratitude is to my wife Lin for her endless support and love. I am also thankful for our son Emil who made our life livable in Melbourne and who injected us with continuous energy and excitement.

XIII

DEDICATED TO THE BEST PEOPLE IN MY LIFE TO LIN AND EMIL

PREFACE

For a native person who was born and grew up in an Israeli-Palestinian politicised environment, the best alternative was to go as far back into the past as possible, to an era where ethnicity and religion could not be identified and where there are no biblical texts that a person ‘should’ follow. Furthermore, due to the lack of Palestinian archaeologists who specialise in the Neolithic period of the Southern Levant (Jordan, Palestine, Israel and Sinai Peninsula), I saw myself fitting into the study of this period, where an important human revolution took place in the form of the adoption of an agrarian system of living. Archaeology has often been employed as a political weapon. Many Israeli archaeologists including prehistorians have worked in the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights and Sinai since 1967. Although Sinai went back to Egyptian sovereignty in 1982, the other territories are still under the de facto control of Israel. Many archaeological sites including famous early Neolithic ones such as Netiv Hagdud (e.g. BarYosef and Gopher 1997a, 1997b), Salibiya IX (e.g. Enoch-Shiloh and Bar-Yosef 1997), and Gilgal (e.g. Noy 1989), have been excavated by Israeli Archaeologists in violation of the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Hague Convention of 1954. As a Palestinian archaeologist, the chance of exploring the cultural history of his homeland is very limited under the current political situation; another alternative is to work in Jordan instead. The latter shares the long cultural history with Palestine and understanding the early Neolithic period from the eastern side of the river, will reflect on the western side as well. Unlike the present, Neolithic inhabitants of the Southern Levant may have been more flexible and did not draw a geopolitical line between the western and the eastern side of the river. Trying to understand the nature of the early Neolithic communities is also achievable from the eastern side of the Jordan River. Thus, in 1999, I had the chance to introduce myself to Dr. Phillip Edwards (La Trobe University) who was planning to undertake his first field season at the newly discovered site of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 2 (ZAD 2). He invited me to join the excavation and I accepted his offer. While working in the middle of the arid eastern side of the Dead Sea, Phillip and I had the chance to get to know each other both as archaeologists and as people. I was interested in pursuing my PhD, and he was interested in finding someone to work on the recovered lithics from ZAD 2, and in helping one of the locals to achieve their higher degree. In July 2000, I made my first trip to Australia and started on my postgraduate studies at La Trobe University under the supervision of Dr. Phillip Edwards. While conducting my research, I had access to a unique site (ZAD 2) which features typical Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) material culture and a tight range of radiocarbon dates; exceed the traditionally accepted range for the PPNA period. The ZAD 2 dates are overlap those of the ill-defined successor Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (EPPNB) period. At this stage, I became keen to understand the early Neolithic period from the point of view of a person who wants to recognize and clarify an important phase of his cultural history and the history of humanity. Consequently, I have eschewed a heavily theoretical approach because both processual (cf. Gibbon 1989), and post-processual archaeology (cf. Coudart 1998, 1999) are under heavy criticism (cf. Clark 1991) and presenting this debatable issue is beyond the scope of this research. This book includes a comprehensive comparative analysis of all known PPNA and EPPNB sites in the Southern Levant; unfortunately, very few of these sites have been published in their final format (e.g. BarYosef 1981a) and many of them do not have proper chronological support. Most of the published preliminary reports do not cover the basic archaeological requirements in regard to stratigraphy, chronology, site and material culture description. The preliminary nature of much of the data, led me to work as precisely as possible in describing not only the lithics of ZAD 2 - which constitute the core of this research - but also in presenting other important aspects such as stratigraphy, chronology and subsistence economy. These aspects are basic requirements for evaluating the site as a single assemblage. Furthermore, presenting the geomorphology, palaeoclimate and current environment of the surrounding region of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 2 was also important in evaluating the ZAD 2 site in relation to other contemporaneous assemblages and deciding whether the arid region of the Dead Sea Basin contributed to the transition from hunting gathering to agriculture.

XVII

Abstract The aim of this book is to clarify the nature of the early Neolithic period in the Southern Levant as a key period for the beginning of agrarian societies. This goal is achieved through the analysis of lithics recovered from Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 2 (ZAD 2). The importance of ZAD 2 is its short period of occupation, which helps in clarifying the tool typology and technology of the PPNA period without the problem of admixtures from other periods. According to my analysis, there are no major differences between the Khiamian and the Sultanian phases and thus I argue that there is no need to divide the PPNA into two phases. It is better to divide it according to inter- and intra-assemblage variability. By combining the analyses of architecture, groundstone, lithics and radiocarbon dates, one can infer that ZAD 2 provides decisive evidence for an extension of the PPNA in the Southern-Central Levant from ca. 9,600 BP to ca. 9,300 BP, and thus a later beginning for the PPNB (about 9,200 BP). In arguing this, sites from the Southern Levant are compared to their counterparts in the Central and Northern Levant and the role of diffusion or local innovation is presented. ZAD 2 is located in an arid environment though the region in antiquity probably featured a more hospitable landscape. None of the plant remains uncovered at ZAD 2 could grow in the vicinity naturally so predomestication cultivation probably happened on site. The lack of projectile points and the existence of sickle blades and groundstone at ZAD 2 indicate extensive food processing activities. A usewear analysis was conducted on the Hagdud truncation type which is dominant at ZAD 2. The results indicate that this diminutive tool type could have been used as a micro-scraper.

XVIII

1.

INTRODUCTION diagnostic tool types from this phase to what is known from the South - where neither chronology nor more than El Khiam, Salibiya, and some Jordan and Jericho types are available - one may say that these hypothetical Northern and Southern Khiamian phases do not match. This is just one of many examples which demonstrates that the material culture of the early Neolithic communities in the North is quite different from that of the South.

1.1 Overview and research problem One of the key components in understanding the early Neolithic period of the Southern Levant is lithic artefacts. The accumulation of knowledge among early Neolithic communities and the requirements of agrarian societies were reflected by the manufacturing of particular tool types such as projectile points, Beit Ta’amir sickles and bifacial tools as well as many groundstone objects such as mortars, querns and cupholes. Relying on various types of material culture, particularly lithics, some archaeologists divide the early Neolithic period into many phases and sub-phases (see Chapters 2-4). These divisions were introduced to archaeological research as a result of the available data at that time. However, these divisions are not an unchangeable law, as was suggested by Kuijt (1997b: 194): “Cultural-historical sequences are based on data available at any specific time and are, therefore, tentative and subject to revision and modification over time”.

The second phase of the PPNA period is traditionally accepted as the Sultanian phase in the South (e.g. Crowfoot-Payne 1983) and the Mureybetian in the North (e.g. J. Cauvin 2002). The chronology of the Mureybetian phase stretches from 10,000 to 9,600 uncalibrated years BP (J. Cauvin 1979: 48), whereas the Sultanian layer of Jericho is dated to ca. 10,250-9,250 BP (Burleigh 1981, 1983). Assemblages in the North include Mureybetian and the Aswadian IA point types whereas the El Khiam point type became scarce. In contrast, Southern assemblages are dominated by the El Khiam, Salibiya, and Jordan Valley types, and neither the Mureybetian nor the Aswadian types have been identified in the South (see Chapter 3). Furthermore, Hagdud truncations have been found in almost all PPNA sites in the South, but these are unknown in the North. Even the architecture of these two regions is not the same. Northern Levantine sites, such as Mureybet (J. Cauvin 2002), Jerf el-Ahmar (Stordeur 2000) and Sheikh Hassan (J. Cauvin 1980) have rectilinear architecture, whereas the South retained curvilinear architecture (e.g. Cauvin 2002).

In this dissertation, I will demonstrate that the chronology and lithic techno/typology of early Neolithic assemblages do not support the idea of dividing the early Neolithic period in the Southern Levant into two Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) phases and an Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (EPPNB) phase. Some archaeologists working in the South have been interested in introducing Central-Northern Levantine terminology to the South and vice versa. However, the early Neolithic communities of the Southern Levant are quite different from their counterparts in the Central and Northern Levant (Lebanon, Syria and the Middle Euphrates Basin). After closely examining these various issues, it became apparent that there were many fundamental flaws in our understanding of the early Neolithic communities and this confusion is what the current research seeks to resolve.

The third of the early phases of the Neolithic period examined in this dissertation is the so-called ‘Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period’ (EPPNB). Layer IVA at Mureybet is dated to 9,600-9,300 uncalibrated years BP (J. Cauvin 1979: 48) and was classified as an EPPNB phase (as is Dja’ade al-Mughara, see Coqueugniot 1994, 1998). In the South, there is no clear chronological evidence from any of the excavated sites, but the general understanding of this period is that it started at ca. 9,600 and ended around 9,200 uncalibrated years BP (e.g. Gopher 1996b: 152, Rollefson 2001c: 67). The lithic typology indicates that Helwan points were no longer produced in the North by the end of the PPNA and other types such as Byblos and Jericho points became prevalent (see J. Cauvin 1979: fig.19, Coqueugniot 1994, 1998). The South, according to Gopher (1989c), became dominated by the Helwan type - though other types such as Jericho points were also present. As will be discussed in Chapter 4, the entire postulated Southern Levantine EPPNB phase is open to doubt. The concept of a South Levantine EPPNB is

For instance, scholars such as J. Cauvin (1979) adopted the Southern Levantine ‘Khiamian’ terminology and introduced it to the Northern Levantine literature as an indicator of the early phase of the PPNA. However, neither the dates nor the typology of what is known as the Khiamian phase in the South match what has been considered the Khiamian phase in the North. For example, the stratigraphy of Tell Mureybet in the North (see Chapter 4) indicates that layer II dates to 10,20010,000 BP; this is classified as PPNA Khiamian or Proto Neolithic by J. Cauvin (1979: 48). Nevertheless this layer clearly includes not only El Khiam but also Helwan and Aswad I A point types (see J. Cauvin 1979: fig.7: nos. 13-14) and the ‘herminette’ adze type (see J. Cauvin 1979: fig. 3: no.11). If we compare the chronology and some 1

Chapter 1

Introduction sites due to the incomplete post-excavation publications of their excavators. Many of the Levantine assemblages were also excavated several decades ago, and their materials have been stored unexamined and unpublished on the shelves of various institutions around the world. These materials should be published as soon as possible so other scholars can have access to them.

fundamentally flawed due to the fact that some archaeologists have imported Northern Levantine chronology and techno/typology to the South, even though the excavated ‘EPPNB’ sites do not support this usage. This brief introduction has shown that the early Neolithic assemblages in the Southern Levant are quite different from their counterparts in the Central and Northern Levant, not only in lithic techno/typology but also in their respective chronologies.

This dissertation also hopes to inspire other researchers who have not yet finished the analysis of their data, by demonstrating that an intensive lithic analysis is achievable and can be done within a reasonable period of time.

Trying to understand the Southern Levant from a Northern Levantine point of view is at best misleading, and it is suggested here that the focus should instead be on the evidence provided by the Southern Levantine sites themselves. Only after clarifying the general picture of the early Neolithic assemblages in the South, one may then go on to compare these results to the ones from the North.

Surprisingly, there are numerous studies describing the microwear analysis (including experimental work) of various PPNA diagnostic tool types such as projectile points (e.g. Goodale and Smith 2001), sickle blades (e.g. Anderson 1994) and bifacial tools (e.g. Yerkes et al. 2003), but none of these deal with the Hagdud truncation type. Given the importance of Hagdud truncations at ZAD 2 where they form the highest proportion of any assemblage recovered from the Southern Levant (see Chapter 8), it is necessary to fill this gap.

One of the major problems in Levantine archaeology is the huge communication gap between the Southern Levantine literature, dominated by English, and the Central-Northern Levant, dominated by French. Archaeologists who work in the South do not entirely relate their work to the counterpart literature from the North and vice versa. The lack of either communication or understanding between these two archaeological communities makes it very hard to complete the picture of Neolithic cultures in the Levant. This issue is crucial, particularly when many archaeologists refer to the North as the home of Neolithic innovation (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1981a; J. Cauvin 1987a, 1987b; Gopher 1989c, 1994b; Rollefson 1998). In this dissertation, the comparison of Southern Levantine sites with their Northern counterparts was considered to be a key element in understanding the development of early Neolithic communities. The transition to agrarian societies did not happen at a single site, but rather occurred in various places in the Fertile Crescent (from the Jordan Valley in the west to Mesopotamia in the east), with differences occurring according to variability within the local geographical and ecological zones.

Although this research focuses on Levantine materials, the methodology applied in this dissertation has been widely applied in other parts of the world. Many archaeologists from various countries and different schools of thought are working in the Levant (e.g. Clark 1991) and share their knowledge in various ways, such as through publications and in conferences. Such an international environment is highly suited for exchanging ideas and discussing the various methods employed in archaeology. This research should therefore be regarded as facilitating the development of new approaches for the analysis of flaked stone assemblages and the interpretation of the behavioural patterns of the producers of these assemblages. 1.2 Research aims The major aim of this dissertation is to clarify the nature of the PPNA in the Southern Levant as a key period in the beginning of agrarian societies. This goal will be achieved through the analysis of material culture recovered from ZAD 2. The focus of this investigation is on lithic artefacts and radiocarbon dates. Relying on lithic artefacts, the economy of the PPNA assemblages is examined and this research indicates that the presence/absence of certain tool type may relate to functionality rather than to chronological differences. Some sites, such as Dhra‘ (e.g. Goodale et al. 2002) have large amounts of projectile points, and some sites, such as ZAD 2 (e.g. Sayej 2001a), have very few projectile points. Thus this dissertation supports the idea that the PPNA should be dealt with as one period with inter- and intra-assemblage variability, and that the

Consequently, the main focus of this research is to help implement a clear methodology for identifying, describing and interpreting the lithics of early Neolithic Southern Levantine assemblages. This will be done using the materials of the newly discovered site of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 2 (ZAD 2), and by introducing all known PPNA and EPPNB sites in the South. However, this dissertation does not intend to discredit the work of previous researchers, but rather simply offers an example of a full and comprehensive analysis of an assemblage according to the latest research. Such an approach is lacking for many early Neolithic 2

Chapter 1

Introduction

terms Khiamian/Sultanian should be abolished. Furthermore, the ill-defined EPPNB phase is not clearly understood due to the lack of sufficient material culture and chronology, particularly as the radiocarbon dates of ZAD 2 challenge the time range of this phase. It is best to avoid identifying sites according to poor or misleading data on material culture and chronology. Otherwise, the interpretations of those archaeologists who support the existence of this phase will be misjudged.

1.4 Illustrations Photographs of the stone artefacts were used instead of line-drawings in this dissertation. All images were either scanned from slides or downloaded directly from a digital camera, and then edited by using Adobe Photoshop (6.0). Scholars such as Holdaway and Stern (2003) have used a similar approach, which has various advantages. Photographic images are easy to produce, less expensive and can be manipulated easily, whereas line drawings are both expensive and time-consuming to produce. Furthermore, line-drawings are also somewhat subjective, particularly when there are many variations in the styles that are used (Holdaway and Stern 2003: xviii-xix).

1.3 The significance of this research The importance and distinctiveness of ZAD 2 is related to its single short period of occupation, an unusual occurrence among PPNA sites. This characteristic gives the present author a rare research opportunity since it lessens the possibility of admixtures of artifacts from either earlier or later periods of occupation. Although the focus of this research is on lithic artefacts and chronology, by combining the analysis of architecture, groundstone, lithics and radiocarbon dates it is apparent that ZAD 2 provides decisive evidence for an extension of the PPNA in the Southern-Central Levant to at least ca. 9,300 uncalibrated years BP. This chronological evidence is vital for clarifying the debate as to when the PPNA period ended and the EPPNB started, and thus provides significant data for one of the most important phases of the Levantine culture.

1.5 Book organization This book is organized into nine chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the reader to the topic of this research. Chapter 2 presents an historical overview for the Neolithic period in the Southern Levant and highlights the causes of chronological divisions within the Neolithic period. Chapter 3 discusses all identified PPNA sites in the Southern Levant as well as comparative assemblages from the Central Levant, in regard to stratigraphy, lithics and chronology. All sites which have been identified as typical Khiamian/ Sultanian are presented thoroughly in order to show that the traditional classification into Khiamian and Sultanian is problematic. Chapter 4 presents all identified EPPNB sites in the Southern Levant as well as comparative sites from the Central Levant and the Middle Euphrates Basin. This chapter analyses the assemblages according to stratigraphy, lithics and chronology. ZAD 2 is presented in Chapter 5, and its lithic technology is presented in Chapter 6, followed by a description of the lithic typology in Chapter 7. Chapter 8 presents the microwear analysis of the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations as well as an experimental replicative study. Finally, Chapter 9 presents summary, concluding remarks and proposed future research.

The site of ZAD 2 is located in the marginal area of the Dead Sea Basin (Sayej 2001a) and understanding the circumstances for its establishment is crucial, particularly when it is contemporaneous with the transition to agriculture. Extensive research on the current environment, palaeoclimate and geomorphology of the ZAD 2 region was therefore conducted and compared to archaeobotanical and faunal remains (see Chapter 5, sections 5.2 and 5.3). The analysis of lithic artefacts and the preliminary analysis of the groundstone indicate that the ZAD 2 inhabitants contributed to agriculture by introducing species such as barley, lentils, figs and pistachio nuts (see Meadows in Edwards et al. 2001b: 144-147) from their natural habitats in the Mediterranean zone and attempting to cultivate them in the arid Sudanian region of ZAD 2. The large amount of recovered groundstone objects such as pestles, cup-holes, querns, stone bowls, as well as many picks, axes and sickles, strongly supports the idea that intensive processing of plant foods occurred at the site. Although the natural loss of faunal remains throughout the millennia limits the existence of faunal samples, as many as 34 identifiable samples of goats or gazelle, badger and freshwater crabs were recovered in the first season of excavation (Metzger in Edwards et al. 2001b: 147). Tool types such as projectile points, scrapers and borers might also shed light on the economy of the inhabitants of ZAD 2.

As this book will make clear, the PPNA period in the Southern Levant should be classified as a single period with inter- and intra-assemblage variability. The successor period (i.e. EPPNB) is an ill-defined entity with no clear lithic or chronological evidence to support its existence in the Southern Levant. Future research should deal with the latter period and further investigation is needed before introducing a new phase into the archaeological literature.

3

2.

THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW analysing the various Neolithic layers of Jericho (Area M, Levels DI, DII, EI, II, V, Area F and Trench II) located above the Natufian layers (Levels EI, II and V), Crowfoot-Payne (1976, 1983) noticed a similar pattern to that recovered at El Khiam and stated: “the industry of Aceramic A at Jericho should be considered as a stage of Khiamian and should ultimately prove to fit in with the layers of the type site of el Khiam” (Crowfoot-Payne 1976: 134).

The Neolithic period in the Southern Levant is dated over four millennia between 10,000 and 6,000 BP and is divided into many sub-periods and phases. The main purpose of this chapter is to present how these divisions were introduced to the archaeological record from the 1950s to the present time. ZAD 2 belongs to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and has a cluster of radiocarbon dates, which overlap the range of the proposed Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. Thus the main concern of this chapter is to clarify how these divisions were introduced to the literature and whether the attributes of the divisions are reliable. Two topics are covered in the course of this chapter. Section 2.1 introduces an historical overview of the Neolithic period and is divided into two subsections. The first discusses the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and the second presents the Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (EPPNB). Section 2.2 presents the concluding remarks, which emphasizes the inadequate nature of the subdivisions within the PPNA period as well as the lack of data and a clear chronology which might support the existence of an EPPNB period.

Consequently, she adopted Echegaray’s classification and divided the Southern Levantine PPNA period into two phases called the Khiamian (referring to El Khiam) and the Sultanian (referring to Tell es-Sultan or ancient Jericho). Since then the PPNA period in the Southern Levant has been divided into these two phases (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1981a). Neither Echegaray nor Crowfoot-Payne considered that the site of El Khiam is situated on a steep slope and may have undergone stratigraphic mixing through erosion. The coarse digging methodology of Echegaray - done far too fast and without sieving - lead to unreliable results (see also Bar-Yosef 1981a: 556-557). It is also worth mentioning that many of the walls and the fireplace that were uncovered by Echegaray indicate considerable leveling activities and accordingly a mixture of material culture. Thus interpretation of the contents of Layer 4, particularly the lunates, is open to doubt (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1981a: 557; Garfinkel 1996: 15-16). As I stated before, neither Echegaray nor Kenyon (who excavated Jericho) sieved the recovered material of their sites, which meant that much material culture was lost, particularly the diminutive tools.

2.1

The Neolithic period in the Southern Levant On the basis of the stratigraphy at Jericho, where variation in lithics, architecture, burials and other material culture were noticed, Kenyon (1957, 1960, 1970) divided the Neolithic of the Southern Levant into two major periods called the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) and the Pottery Neolithic (PN). Due to the observation of further variability within these two major phases, Kenyon subdivided them further into the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA), Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB), Pottery Neolithic A (PNA) and the Pottery Neolithic B (PNB). Kenyon’s terminology has been adopted by most archaeologists working in the Levant ever since, with the exception of the Lyon group (see BarYosef 1995: 190) and Moore (Moore 1982a, 1982b, 1985: 14). The Lyon group divides the Neolithic period into 1, 2 and 3, whereas Moore divides it into the Archaic Neolithic 1 & 2, and Developed Neolithic 3 & 4.

The Khiamian/Sultanian division of the PPNA is a cause of great debate among scholars who have not yet reached a general agreement concerning the nature of these phases. While some argue that there are two different phases within the PPNA (e.g. Ronen and Lechevallier 1999), others prefer to consider all of it as a single culture with interand intra-assemblage variability (e.g. Kuijt 2001a: 120-123). In order to clarify the nature of these two possible phases, each of them will be now discussed separately.

2.1.1 The PPNA: an historical overview Following his excavations at the site of El Khiam, Echegaray (1964, 1966), classified Layer 5 as Natufian and Layer 4 as Khiamian. He referred to the latter as a lithic assemblage containing a high percentage of microliths including lunates (Natufian tradition) and a few El Khiam points (from where the name was introduced to the literature). No radiocarbon dates were obtained from any of these layers, and thus their chronology remains unidentified. While

Those scholars who subdivide the PPNA consider the Khiamian phase to be a short transitional chapter between the late Natufian period and the establishment of the Sultanian phase (e.g. Bar4

Chapter 2

The Neolithic period cue from the North? (see Chapter 4). Further research is needed in order to provide additional reliable data. ZAD 2 with its single, late PPNA period of occupation, clarifies the PPNA/PPNB transition.

Yosef 1995: 194, Gopher 1999: 118-120). The lithic industry of this phase, which is strongly related to the ‘Late or Final’ Natufian industry, is said to be characterized by three major categories: a) an abundance of bladelets, El Khiam points, sickle blades, reaping knives, microliths and borers, b) few scrapers and burins, and c) a lack of Hagdud truncations, Beit Ta’amir sickles and bifacial tools (Crowfoot-Payne 1976; 1983; see also Bar-Yosef, 1981a, Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989, BarYosef and Kislev 1989; Gopher 1999).

2.1.2 The EPPNB: an historical overview The Southern-Central Levant has witnessed extensive excavations during recent decades which have brought to light abundant amounts of material culture and permitted researchers to identify additional variability within the PPNB period. Based on the stratigraphy at Mureybet, Tell Ramad and Beidha (Level VI), Mellaart (1975: 55) suggested that many PPNA sites continued to exist within the transition to the PPNB. He further subdivided the PPNB period into two phases: Early and Late. Through his extensive research at Mureybet, J. Cauvin (1979, 1987b) was also among the first researchers to notice variability within the PPNB. In the early 1980s Bar-Yosef (1981a: 564565) advanced the ideas of the previous researchers, and subdivided the PPNB period into three phases: Early, Middle and Late. He also suggested that the use of bipolar (naviform) cores (which produce long blades), heat treatment, and high frequencies of projectile points (Helwan, Jericho, Byblos and Amuq), are some of the major elements defining the transition from the PPNA to the PPNB culture (Bar-Yosef 1981a: 562-564, see also J. Cauvin 1987b: 397, de Contenson 1989, Rollefson 1998: 103-104, 2001c: 70). Further evidence from various Northern Levantine sites encouraged J. Cauvin (1987b) to suggest a fourth phase: the Final PPNB. Following the accumulation of these suggestions, Gopher (e.g. 1989c, 1994a, 1994b, 1999) and Rollefson (e.g. 1998: 102-104) were among the first researchers to introduce the EPPNB concept to the Southern Levant.

The Sultanian lithic industry, on the other hand, is said to be characterized by: a) an abundance of El Khiam points, Hagdud truncations, borers, various types of sickle blades (including Beit Ta’amir), axes (Tahunian), burins, retouched blades and retouched flakes, b) few scrapers and c) a lack of microliths (Crowfoot-Payne 1976; 1983; see also Bar-Yosef, 1981a, Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989, Bar-Yosef and Kislev 1989; Gopher 1999). The division between Khiamian and Sultanian is somewhat problematic and many archaeologists have already addressed this matter. Nadel (1990), for instance, suggests that the Khiamian phase is probably a part of the Sultanian culture but lacking in Hagdud truncations and bifacial tools. Thus he argues that the Sultanian culture is a direct descendant of the Natufian. Garfinkel (1996), on the other hand, suggests that the Khiamian should be considered a mixture of Sultanian elements with underlying Natufian features. Others, such as BarYosef (1995, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c), still suggest that both phases are parts of the PPNA culture but that the Khiamian phase did not last for more than a few hundred years between 10,500 and 10,300/100BP. However, there is a major lack of sites dating from the Khiamian period, and thus such a division is not supported by any chronological evidence (see Chapter 3 for a comprehensive discussion).

These ideas have been developed throughout the last decades by various researchers, and shed new light on variability within the PPNB period in the South. Various chronological evidence and material culture such as lithics, groundstone, architecture, burials, animal bones and plant remains support the division of the PPNB into MPPNB, LPPNB and even PPNC phases, but do not indicate clear differences between the Early and the Middle PPNB, which is the major concern of this research (see also Kuijt 2003). Despite the lack of a clear chronological sequence for Southern Levantine EPPNB assemblages (for a detailed description see Chapter 4), some researchers (e.g. Baird 1997, Garrard et al. 1994a, 1994b, Gopher 1996, 1999, Rollefson 1998) have succeeded in using this phase in their research by relying on the chronology of Northern Levantine EPPNB assemblages

This brief discussion highlights the uncertainty surrounding these two phases - and indeed whether they even exist. Scholars such as Nadel (1998: 9) and Kuijt (2001a: 123) argue that lithic interassemblage variability in PPNA sites is so high as to make it misleading to link the presence and/or absence of a few tool types with cultural historical models. Therefore archaeologists should reconsider the sub-division, especially when the differences between El Khiam and Jericho may be due to sampling and inter-site distinctions rather than to change over time (Kuijt 2001a: 123). Furthermore, the division of Khiamian and Sultanian or Mureybetian seems to be supported stratigraphically at Mureybet on the middle Euphrates (e.g. J. Cauvin 1979), but not at any of the Southern Levantine sites. Thus one might wonder whether the South does ultimately take its

5

Chapter 2

The Neolithic period

2.2 Concluding remarks As was discussed earlier in this chapter, the Neolithic period of the Southern Levant is divided into various phases and divisions. The PPNA is a problematic period due to the nature of the subdivision into Khiamian and Sultanian. The EPPNB is also a problematic concept due to the lack of dated sites and clearly defined material culture. However, before presenting the specifics of ZAD 2, comprehensive descriptions of all identified PPNA and EPPNB sites in the Southern Levant are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 respectively and will provide a more complete historical overview of this research.

6

3.

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PPNA SITES sites that are considered as typical Khiamian/Sultanian and argue why this traditional classification is flawed. Finally, section 3.4 presents the concluding remarks.

Although the PPNA period of the Southern Levant is considered to be an important phase of human history, it remains ambiguous and poorly defined (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989a). Very few sites of this period have been identified (only 18 sites in the Southern Levant) and some of these are either poorly preserved or mixed with other periods of occupations (e.g. Kuijt 1994b). I believe that the present division of the PPNA period into Khiamian and Sultanian phases may be of lesser relevance than previously believed because there is a lack of clear typological or chronologically attested features upon which such a division can be based. Sites which are identified as Khiamian have some Sultanian tool types and vice versa. To further complicate the issue, there are many Sultanian sites supported by radiocarbon dates, but there are no Khiamian assemblages which have reliable dates. The present divisions may therefore cause more confusion than clarification. I therefore, suggest that it would be more plausible to treat the PPNA period as one phase with interand intra-assemblage variability, rather than to focus on defining subdivisions and endless terminological debate.

3.1 Chronology Archaeologists are divided as to when the PPNA period started and ended. Some scholars such as Banning suggest that the PPNA started around 10,000BP (Banning 1998a: 188). Other scholars such as Bar-Yosef (1981a: 556, 1992: 13), and Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen (1989a: 477) suggest that the PPNA period started around 10,500BP and ended around 9,300BP; they also suggest that the first couple of hundred of years form the Khiamian occupation, whereas the Sultanian phase accounts for the rest of the period. Others, such as Rollefson (1992: 123) suggest that the PPNA period started at 10,500BP and ended around 9,600BP. In other publications, Rollefson refers to the beginning of the PPNA as 10,300BP (Rollefson 1998: 102, 2001c: 67). J. Cauvin (2002: xvii) suggests that the beginning of the PPNA in the Jordan Valley took place around 10,300BP and ended around 9,300BP. Gopher (1996b: 152) suggests that the PPNA started around 10,100/10,000BP and ended around 9,600/9,500BP. Although I have mentioned just few references as to when the PPNA started and ended, it appears clearly that neither the beginning nor the end of this period are firmly dated.

The goal of this chapter is two-fold: firstly to set out the problematic aspects of the PPNA period and the irrelevancy of its division into Khiamian and Sultanian phases, and secondly, to discuss why and how sites in the Southern Levant fit within the PPNA. To date, ZAD 2 appears to be the youngest and the best-dated assemblage of all of the identified PPNA sites in the Southern Levant. The significance of ZAD 2 is heightened by its apparently short period of occupation, which will help in clarifying the tool typology and technology of the PPNA without any possibility of being mixed with either previous or later periods of occupation. ZAD 2 is also very close to the transitional phase of the PPNB period, although it lacks any of the typological and technological features of that period, such as naviform cores and Helwan points. A detailed description of the EPPNB period is presented in Chapter 4 where the origin of this period is discussed and where the time range is challenged by the ZAD 2 dates.

Some sites such as El Khiam (Echegaray 1964, 1966) and Salibyia IX (Enoch-Shiloh and BarYosef 1997) have been placed at the very beginning of the PPNA (Khiamian), though there are no radiocarbon dates to confirm this. Other sites such as Jilat 7 (Garrard et al. 1994a, 1994b) and Abu Hudhud (Rollefson 1996) have been dated to the EPPNB; again there are no radiocarbon dates to tie these sites into the proposed time frame. ZAD 2, which has a tight range of radiocarbon dates, is therefore, quite vital in clarifying the uncertainty of the chronology of the PPNA. ZAD 2 dates strongly suggest that the PPNA period ended around 9,300BP. 3.2 Khiamian/Sultanian or PPNA? As was discussed in Chapter 2, the major divisions between the Khiamian and Sultanian phases are based on the supposed chronological placement of various typological features:
Khiamian: an abundance of bladelets, El Khiam points, sickle blades, reaping knives, microliths, borers, and a lack of Hagdud truncations, Beit Ta’amir sickles and bifacial tools (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1980, 1981a; 1989; 1995, Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989a, 1989b, 1994, Crowfoot-Payne 1976; 1983; Gopher 1999).

The present chapter is divided into four sections. Section 3.1 discusses the chronology of the PPNA, followed by section 3.2, which highlights the Khiamian and Sultanian divisions. Section 3.3 presents all the identified PPNA sites in the Southern Levant, as well as two sites from the Central Levant i.e. Nachcharini and Tell Aswad (Table 3.1), by focusing on the most vital aspects for the elucidation of this problematic period, i.e. lithics and radiocarbon dating, in relation to stratigraphy. This section will also highlight the 7

Chapter 3


A comparative analysis of PPNA sites continuity of the Natufian tradition (Goodale et al. 2002: 118-121).

Sultanian: an abundance of El Khiam points, Hagdud truncations, borers, sickle blades (including Beit Ta’amir), bifacial tools, burins, retouched blades, retouched flakes and a lack of microliths (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1980, 1981a; 1989; 1995, Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989a, 1989b, 1994, Crowfoot-Payne 1976; 1983; Gopher 1999).

3.3.1.3 Lithic typology The most common tool types at Dhra‘ are retouched blades followed by borers, projectile points and retouched flakes (Table 3.3). Other tool types such as retouched bladelets, notches, sickle blades and scrapers are also available but in smaller percentages. Types that form less than one percent each are also present and include: truncations, microliths, double tools, bifacial tools and Beit Ta’amir sickles. The most common type of projectile point is El Khiam followed by a small number of Salibiya points, and no Jordan Valley points were recovered (Goodale et al. 2002: 121127, see also Kuijt and Mahasneh 1998: 157). Lunates and Hagdud truncations, which are typical PPNA tool types, were not recovered in the 1994 excavations (Kuijt and Mahasneh 1998: 154-57). In the 2001 and 2002 seasons however, a handful of Hagdud / Gilgal truncations were recovered but could not be compared to other types such as projectile points due to their limited number (Goodale 2002: personal communications).

It seems apparent that many archaeologists identify the PPNA phases according to the presence/absence of certain tool types such as Hagdud truncations, Beit Ta’amir sickles, bifacial tools and microliths. Although other tool types will be dealt with while presenting my data, I will focus on the presence/absence of these tool types which are the key factors for the division of the PPNA period. 3.3

The PPNA sites in the Southern Levant 3.3.1 Dhra‘ 3.3.1.1 Introduction The site of Dhra‘ (Table 3.1, FIG. 3.1) was first excavated in 1979 by Bennett (1980) and subsequently in 1994 by Kuijt and Mahasneh (1998). Excavations have also taken place in 2001 and 2002, and will continue until 2004 (Kuijt 2002: personal communication). This site is located approximately two kilometres east of the modern village of Dhra‘ and situated around 5 metres below sea level (m.b.s.l). It has a permanent water spring called ‘Ain Waida that made life possible in this arid region. The estimated area of the site is 4,500 m2 with extensive evidence for circular stone and mud structures (see Bennett 1980: 30; Goodale et al. 2002: 116, Kuijt 1994b: 174-175; Kuijt and Finlayson 2001: 12-15, 2002: 17-21, Kuijt and Mahasneh 1998: 153, Kuijt 2001a: 109, Raikes 1980: 56). The forthcoming lithic analysis is based on part of the 2001 season only.

3.3.1.4 Radiocarbon dating Nine C14 samples were obtained from Dhra‘, and all of them fit within the general PPNA timespan (Table 3.4, FIG. 3.2). Three of these un-calibrated dates are around 10,000 years BP, five date to 9,900-9,800 and only one date indicates occupation of Dhra‘ as late as 9,600BP. 3.3.1.5 Discussion According to the above radiocarbon dates, which extend for almost 400 years, the site of Dhra‘ belongs to the proposed Sultanian phase. The general characteristic features of the lithics support the radiocarbon dates and indicate that Dhra‘ belongs to the Sultanian tradition. No lunates were recovered though a few microliths were identified. Three Beit Ta‘amir sickles, accompanied by many borers and large amount of El Khiam and Salibiya points, were identified from the various layers of occupation. Hagdud

3.3.1.2 Lithic technology According to the available information on lithic technology, flint is obtainable in the vicinity of the site and the most common colour is brown, though other colours such as grey and purple were also available. Only one piece of obsidian was recovered from the site (Goodale 2002: personal communication). Burnt lithics were identified, but it is not quite clear whether the burning was intentional or not. Single platform blade/lets cores were the most common types and their sizes were relatively large, which reflects the availability of raw material in the Dhra‘ region and the lack of necessity to exhaust the cores. Only 2.2% of the analysed samples were identified as retouched tools whereas debris comprises almost half of the samples and debitage makes up the rest. The ratios of debris, debitage, cores to retouched tools are 23.1: 1, 21.4: 1 and 0.3: 1 respectively (Table 3.2). Finally, the lithic technology of Dhra‘ represents a

truncations, which are counted as one of the typical diagnostic tool type of the Sultanian phase, are almost absent (only four of them were recovered in the three seasons of excavation). This site can be reckoned as one of the most extensive excavated PPNA sites in the Southern Levant. Within the formal tools category, it is dominated by borers (17.1%) and projectile points (14.4%), whereas the total percentage of Ta’amir sickles, Hagdud truncations and bifacial tools is less than 1%. As will be discussed through the analysis of the other PPNA sites, the formal tool categories vary from one site to another even within those classified as typical Sultanian.

8

Chapter 3

A comparative analysis of PPNA sites 3.2). The ratios of debris, debitage, cores: retouched tools in Trench I are 9.6: 1, 18.3: 1 and 0.2: 1 respectively, in Trench II are 13: 1, 17.4: 1 and 0.1: 1 and in Trench III are 8.9: 1, 18.1: 1 and 0.4: 1 (Table 3.2).

3.3.2 Wadi Faynan 16 (WF 16) 3.3.2.1 Introduction Wadi Faynan 16 (WF 16) was discovered and excavated in 1997-1999 by S. Mithen and B. Finlayson (Table 3.1, FIG. 3.1). It is located at the juncture between Wadi Faynan and Wadi Ghuwayr, approximately 60 km to the Southeast of the Dead Sea, and has an altitude of 300-350 metres above sea level (m.a.s.l., Finlayson et al. 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000: 2-3, 12-13; Finlayson and Mithen 2001: 17, Mithen and Finlayson 2000: 12; Mithen et al. 2000: 656-658, Pirie 2001a: 5-8). The annual rainfall of the region ranges between 50-150 mm (El-Eisawi 1985: 47, 51, Raikes 1980: 40-44), and the lack of rain was compensated for by a series of steep Wadis that run next to the site (Finlayson et al. 2000: 3). The available published reports do not include any information about the estimated area of WF 16. Although Khiamian and Sultanian dates were obtained from the three excavated trenches, the authors dealt with the site as a single period of occupation (Mithen and Finlayson 2000: 12), which might indicate that they did not support such a division (Pirie 2003: personal communication). Due to the fact that it has similar arid climate to ZAD 2, and is located within the vicinity of the Dead Sea, it has been included among the Dead Sea basin sites (Sayej 2001a). The forthcoming lithic analysis is based on the 1998 season only.

3.3.2.3 Lithic typology The 1998 season of excavation recovered many typical PPNA tool types such as El Khiam, Salibiya and Jordan Valley points, borers, microliths/lunates, sickle blades, notches, scrapers, bifacial tools and two Hagdud truncations/bitruncated bladelets (Table 3.3). Surprisingly, the percentage of microliths in comparison to the rest of the retouched tools was very high. They form 22.8% in Trench I, 29% in Trench II and 15.5% in Trench III (Mithen et al. 2000: 658-659, Finlayson et al. 2000: 16, 21-23). However, of these microliths only four geometric pieces were identified (one in Trench I and three in Trench II), whereas the rest are either retouched bladelets, backed bladelets or fragments (Pirie in Finlayson et al. 1998, personal observation). 3.3.2.4 Radiocarbon dating Seven C14 samples were derived from the site (Table 3.4, FIG.3.2), all of them yielding typical PPNA dates (three more shell samples were analysed - Beta 120204, Beta 120208 and Beta 120209 - but the results were rejected by the excavators: see Mithen et al. 2000: 657). Three dates were acquired from Trench I and show Sultanian dates (Beta-120205: 9,690±50, Beta120206: 9,420±50 and Beta-120207: 9,400±60). Two dates were collected from Trench II, of which one date might reflect Khiamian occupation (Beta1202010: 10,220±60 whereas the second date Beta1202011: 9,890±50 indicates Sultanian occupation). Two other dates were collected from Trench III, one of which supports a Khiamian occupation (Beta-135111: 10,220±60), whereas the second supports PPNB occupation (Beta-135110: 9,180±60).

3.3.2.2 Lithic technology Raw materials are available in the vicinity of WF 16 as wadi pebbles (Raikes 1980: 44-45) and most likely were used as the main source for flint knapping. Only one piece of obsidian was recovered during the excavation (Smith 2003: personal communication). Two main trenches were excavated during the 1997 and 1998 seasons. Trench I was located at the Southern end of the site and had dimensions of 8 x 5 m, Trench II was situated at the Northern end of the site and its dimensions is not recorded. A third trench was originally excavated as WF 328 but the excavators decided to change the survey number and count it as Trench III due to the short distance between this trench and the other two trenches (around 20 metres, Mithen and Pirie 2003: personal communication). The vast majority of cores recovered from Trench I have single pyramidal platforms with evidence of bladelet removal. The blade/let: flake ratio shows that the lithic industry was in favour of creating blade/lets. As opposed to Trench I, Trench II shows domination by flakes (almost 2/3 of the analysed samples), and cores have amorphous shapes with flake removals. The most common cores recovered from Trench III have single pyramidal platforms with evidence of blade/let removal, though the ratio of flakes to blade/lets among the debitage category is 2.9: 1 (Finlayson et al. 2000: 16, 21-22, Mithen el al. 2000: 656, Pirie in Finlayson et al. 1998, Table

3.3.2.5 Discussion According to these dates, WF 16 seems likely to have featured both phases of occupation, though leaning toward the Sultanian more than the Khiamian. As opposed to this suggestion, the lithics, which include many microliths (Trench I: 22.8%, Trench II: 29% and Trench III: 15.5% and of these only 1.05% are geometric, one piece in Trench I and three pieces in Trench II), many projectile points (Trench I: 28.9%, Trench II: 16.8% and Trench III: 0.9%), very few bifacial tools (Trench I: 0%, Trench II: 1.9% and Trench III: 7.3%), very few Hagdud truncations (Trench I: 05, Trench II: 1.9% and Trench III: 3.6%) and no Beit Ta’amir sickles, strongly indicate Khiamian occupation (see Tables 3.3, 3.4). Again radiocarbon dating does not match the classical

9

Chapter 3

A comparative analysis of PPNA sites

division of the lithic artefacts; on the contrary, it confirms its irrelevancy.

3.3.4.2 Lithic technology Flint is available in the vicinity of Gilgal I and was used as the main raw material for flint knapping (Noy et al. 1980: 66, Table 3.2). The available published reports do not mention anything about lithic technology and thus this research concentrates on typology instead.

3.3.3 Gesher 3.3.3.1 Introduction Gesher was discovered by Reich during road construction and was excavated in 1986 and in 1987 by Garfinkel and Nadel. It is situated in BeitShan Valley, about twelve km South of Lake Tiberias, just one km to the west of the Jordan River (Table 3.1, FIG. 3.1). It has an elevation of 242-247 m.b.s.l. and was excavated in two areas named A and B (Garfinkel 1989: 145, Garfinkel and Nadel 1989: 141-142).

3.3.4.3 Lithic typology According to the available publications (Noy 1989, Noy et al. 1980), Gilgal I features various tool types such as: retouched blades, retouched bladelets, retouched flakes, borers, notches, El Khiam points, burins, sickle blades and bifacial tools (Table 3.3). A new truncated tool type was recovered and has been introduced to the archaeological record as the ‘Gilgal truncation’ (Noy et al. 1980, Table 3.3).

3.3.3.2 Lithic technology Small river pebbles form the main source of raw material, though they have to be brought to the site from some distance. The largest group of cores display either one platform or two opposed platforms and the vast majority of them have flake scars, though 2/3 of the retouched tools are made on blade/lets (Garfinkel and Nadel 1989: 147, Table 3.2). The ratios of debris, debitage and cores to retouched tools are 13.7: 1, 15.8: 1 and 0.3: 1 respectively.

3.3.4.4 Radiocarbon dating Four C14 dates were obtained from Gilgal I and all of them fit within the Sultanian phase (Table 3.4, FIG.3.2). According to the authors, the dates for Gilgal are about 100 years earlier than that of Netiv Hagdud’s lower layers (Noy 1989: 17). 3.3.4.5 Discussion Although the authors mentioned the presence of sickle blades, bifacial tools and Gilgal truncations, the actual amounts are not recorded and the only quantitatively analysed formal types are the projectile points (6.9%). Beit Ta’amir sickles, Hagdud truncations and microliths are also absent from the tool types of Gilgal I. As it appears here, this site fits within the time range of the Sultanian phase.

3.3.3.3 Lithic typology Many tool types were recovered at Gesher, such as El Khiam points, sickle blades, bifacial tools, scrapers, burins, lunates, notches, Hagdud truncations, truncations, hammer stones, as well as many retouched blade/lets and flakes (Garfinkel and Nadel 1989: 143-147, Table 3.3). 3.3.3.4 Radiocarbon dating Four C14 dates were taken from the site and according to the authors, the average dates of these yield a date of 9,880±140BP (Garfinkel and Nadel 1989: 140-141, Table 3.4, FIG.3.2).

3.3.5 Jericho 3.3.5.1 Introduction The site of Tell es-Sultan, or ancient Jericho, has a long history of archaeological excavations. The first series of excavations were conducted in the 1930s (see Crowfoot 1935, 1937, Garstang 1935, Garstang and Garstang 1948), and the second wave of excavations was conducted in the 1950s (e.g. Kenyon 1957, 1960, 1970). It is located about 250 m.b.s.l. and covers nearly 25,000 m2. It has unique architecture and to date is counted as the largest PPNA agricultural community in the Near East (e.g. Kenyon and Holland 1981, 1983, Gopher 1994a, 9, Kuijt 1994b: 182-183, Table 3.1 and FIG. 3.1).

3.3.3.5 Discussion According to the above dates, Gesher should belong to the Sultanian phase. The lithics of the site were typical Sultanian, such as bifacial tools (5.5%), projectile points (7.9%), Hagdud truncations (3.1%), though some microliths/lunates (0.8%) were also recovered and no Beit Ta’amir sickles were found. Thus, Gesher is among the few sites with tool types and dates that fit within the definition of the Sultanian. 3.3.4 Gilgal I 3.3.4.1 Introduction This site was first discovered by Noy in 1973. It is located in the lower Jordan Valley, approximately 17 km North of Jericho at an altitude of 225 m.b.s.l. with an annual rainfall of about 150-200 mm. The site covers an area of approximately 3,000 m2 (Noy 1979, 1989: 11-12, 1994, Noy and Koslowski 1996, Noy et al. 1980: 63, Table 3.1 and FIG. 3.1).

3.3.5.2 Lithic technology Although Jericho has yielded an enormous amount of lithics recovered throughout decades of excavations, the final reports hardly discuss lithic technology and do not mention anything about debris remains. The reports do mention, however, that the vast majority of lithics were made from flint, and obsidian was recovered in large quantities: 539 pieces (Crowfoot-Payne 1983,

10

Chapter 3

A comparative analysis of PPNA sites appear to be credible. Bifacial tools are fairly represented (3.6%). If indeed projectile points were used for hunting (for other views seem Goodale and Smith 2001), the few recovered projectile points and the abundant bifacial tools might reflect a farming-based economy rather than a hunting-based economy. To conclude, the tool typology of Jericho seems to be incomplete due to

Table 3.2). The ratios of debitage and cores to retouched tools are 2.4: 1 and 0.02: 1 respectively. 3.3.5.3 Lithic typology The PPNA levels of Jericho have many tool types such as borers, projectile points, bifacial tools, sickle blades, retouched bladelets, retouched flakes, scrapers, backed tools, notches and many other tool types (Crowfoot-Payne 1983: 729-735, Table 3.3).

the lack of sieving, and thus does not represent the entire diagnostic features of the PPNA period.

3.3.5.4 Radiocarbon dating Twenty C14 dates have been generated from the PPNA levels of Jericho and these are presented in Table 3.4 (Burleigh 1981, 1983). According to these dates, three are around 10,000BP, two around 9,600BP, two around 9,500BP, nine around 9,3009,200BP and three are around 8,700BP (FIG.3.2, Table 3.4). If we exclude the last three dates which seem to be Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (MPPNB), then the other 16 dates fit neatly within the PPNA period; nine of them give very similar results to dates collected from ZAD 2 and support the idea for an extension of the PPNA to ca. 9,300BP (see section 3.3.21 below as well as Chapter 5).

3.3.6 Netiv Hagdud 3.3.6.1 Introduction Netiv Hagdud is located in the Jordan Valley, 15 km to the North of Jericho (Table 3.1, FIG. 3.1). The estimated size of the site is 15,000 m2 and its elevation is around 190-200 m.b.s.l. (Bar-Yosef 1991: 5). It was excavated by O. Bar-Yosef and A. Gopher in the 1980s (e.g. Bar-Yosef et al. 1980, 1991). Final reports have been published (BarYosef and Gopher 1997a, 1997b), and thus Netiv Hagdud is considered as one of the most reliable PPNA assemblages in the Southern Levant. 3.3.6.2 Lithic technology More than five types of flints were employed at Netiv Hagdud. Some of these types are local while others are from unknown sources. Judging by the large quantities of chips, Nadel (1997) suggests that flint knapping occurred at the site. The cores display no standard shape or size and many of them are exhausted, which probably reflects the shortage of good quality flint close to the site. The largest group of cores have single platforms and the ratio of flake cores to blade/lets cores is 3.1: 1. The ratio of flakes to blade/lets in the debitage category is 1.5: 1 and the ratios of debris, debitage and cores to retouched tools are 23.2: 1, 10.8: 1 and 0.1: 1 respectively (Table 3.2). Nadel supports the idea that the lithic technology of Netiv Hagdud is very similar to the Natufian tradition (Nadel 1997: 7181).

3.3.5.5 Discussion The above extensive samples of radiocarbon dates from Jericho provide the basis for defining ‘the Sultanian phase’ of the PPNA. This terminology was introduced by Crowfoot-Payne for the PPNA levels of Jericho (Crowfoot-Payne 1983, see also Chapter 2); though previously she had stated that an early PPNA phase at Jericho should be named ‘Khiamian’ (Crowfoot-Payne 1976: 134). In her later comprehensive description of the lithic industry of Jericho, Crowfoot-Payne (1983) did not mention anything about these potential Khiamian layers and classified all the PPNA layers as Sultanian. Thus comparing Khiamian layers to Sultanian layers at Jericho is virtually impossible. The above-mentioned lithic typologies are the general diagnostic features of the Sultanian phase. However, one should bear in mind that sieving methods were not adopted by the excavators of Jericho and many small tool types such as lunates and Hagdud truncations were lost forever. Indeed, few pieces of the latter type are available and Crowfoot-Payne classified them as blades with crushed edges (see Crowfoot-Payne 1983: 638, fig 262: 3). Beit Ta’amir sickles are also widely represented in Crowfoot-Payne’s illustrations (see Crowfoot-Payne 1983: fig 275), where she classified them as sickle blades. The total percentage of sickle blades is 2.5% but obviously not all sickles are of the Beit Ta’amir type. As for projectile points, only nine pieces (0.2%) were recovered and this amount is too little in comparison to other sites such as Dhra‘, WF 16 and the nearby site of Netiv Hagdud (see below) to

3.3.6.3 Lithic typology This site includes various types of projectile points, Hagdud truncations; sickle blades (including Beit Ta’amir), bifacial tools, notches and denticulates (Table 3.3). The microliths component varies from 5% to 15% between the different areas of excavation and consists of various geometrics including lunates and even trapeze-rectangles (e.g. Bar-Yosef et al. 1980, 1987, 1991, Bar-Yosef 1991, Nadel 1997). 3.3.6.4 Radiocarbon dating Twelve C14 dates were obtained for the site and all of them correlate well with the PPNA period. Two of them date to around 10,000BP whereas the rest range between 9,400 and 9,800BP (Table 3.4, FIG.3.2).

11

Chapter 3

A comparative analysis of PPNA sites belongs to the early phase of the PPNA period, i.e. the Khiamian (see Enoch-Shiloh and Bar-Yosef 1997). Accordingly, it seems that this site provides one of the few lithic assemblages through which the so-called Khiamian industry can be defined (see Belfer-Cohen 1994: 95). In the following discussion, I will examine this industry.

3.3.6.5 Discussion All these dates fit perfectly with the traditional range of the Sultanian phase. The lithics on the other hand, featured 253 geometric microliths (6.2% of the total amount of lithics) including 159 trapeze-rectangles, two triangles and 90 lunates. This is not typical of a Sultanian industry. If lunates and triangles are counted as part of the Khiamian industry, then what about the trapezerectangles, which according to Bar-Yosef (1970, 1981a) are typical Geometric Kebaran? A total amount of 159 trapezes-rectangles or 4% of the retouched tools were recovered and a quarter of them were found in deep layers. Both Bar-Yosef and Nadel assumed that trapeze-rectangles were not produced by the Neolithic inhabitants of Netiv Hagdud (see Bar-Yosef 1991: 5-6, Nadel 1997: 118). They suggest that this tool type was brought to the site among clay material that was used to make mud-bricks. They also suggest that raw material was probably collected from the nearby Salibiya basin, which is rich in Geometric Kebaran and Natufian sites. Here one might ask why the inhabitants of Netiv Hagdud walked for several hundreds of metres to bring clay for making mudbricks when they could use similar sediments in the vicinity of the site? If this is indeed a fill deposit, why does it include 4% of the retouched tools, and why was a quarter of it only recovered from lower layers? It seems likely that either these tool types were indeed part of the Sultanian phase, though their origin is as early as the Geometric Kebaran, or the above questions will remain unanswered until further clarification is obtained (e.g differences in surface patina, edge damage, etc.).

3.3.7.3 Lithic typology The dominant tool types of this site are retouched flakes, borers, El Khiam points, microliths (including lunates and trapezes), and retouched blades (Table 3.3). Neither bifacial tools nor Hagdud truncations were recovered (Bar-Yosef 1981a, Enoch-Shiloh and Bar-Yosef 1997). 3.3.7.4 Radiocarbon dating Two C14 dates were retrieved from the site. The uncalibrated date of the first is 18,500±100BP and the second is 12,300±470BP (Table 3.4, FIG.3.2). 3.3.7.5 Discussion Both dates seem to be much earlier than the PPNA period. The excavators have justified this discrepancy by saying that the inhabitants of Salibiya IX probably used old wood or Lisan marls for building materials (Enoch-Shiloh and BarYosef 1997: 13). This is one of the few Khiamian assemblages, but C14 dates do not support it. There is thus no chronological evidence for the Khiamian phase. The tool types of Salibiya IX are typical of both the Natufian and the PPNA period. Lunates and trapezes, as well as various types of microliths, are typical Natufian - even Geometric Kebaran in the case of trapezes - whereas projectile points (Salibiya and El Khiam) occur in the diagnostic types of the PPNA. This site, according to the report author, includes neither Hagdud truncations, nor bifacial tools and Ta’amir sickles, which are typical Sultanian. The site thus might be Khiamian. If we accept the fact that lunates are part of the PPNA industry, what about the trapezes? Are these lunates and trapezes distinguishable from the Natufian lunates and the Kebaran trapezes or not? The availability of trapezes (0.4%) in what is considered to be a characteristic Khiamian context highlights the fact that either this tool type was a part of the PPNA industry, or it was also introduced to the site from somewhere else (as was postulated in the case of Netiv Hagdud). Garfinkel (1996) advances a quite interesting argument for the existence of these tool types at Salibyia IX. He states that Salibyia IX is the same site as Noy’s Gilgal IV (1987: 159), and Salibyia IX lies close to the PPNA site of Gilgal I and the Natufian site of Gilgal II. He suggests that these should be considered as a single settlement (Garfinkel 1996: 16). Hence, as Salibiya IX was found in a close proximity to both Natufian and PPNA assemblages and there are no accurate dates

Despite the debatable issue of the geometric microliths, other diagnostic PPNA tool types such as Beit Ta’amir sickles (0.3%), Hagdud truncations (1.5%) bifacial tools (3.7%) and projectile points (3%) are well represented at Netiv Hagdud. 3.3.7 Salibiya IX 3.3.7.1 Introduction This site was discovered in early 1980s by BarYosef. It is located in the Jordan Valley about 17 km North of Jericho (Table 3.1, FIG. 3.1). The estimated size of the site is around 1,000 m2 and it is situated at 220 m.b.s.l. In the nine square metres which were excavated, the archaeological layers of Salibiya IX were about 1.25 m thick (Enoch-Shiloh and Bar-Yosef 1997: 13). 3.3.7.2 Lithic technology Most of the recovered cores, which were collected from local sources, are small and exhausted. Twoplatform cores are the most common type. The ratios of debris, debitage and cores to retouched tools are: 63.8: 1, 2.9: 1 and 0.1: 1 respectively (Table 3.2). The flint industry of Salibyia IX contains Neolithic features accompanied by many lunates, and thus the authors assumed that this site

12

Chapter 3

A comparative analysis of PPNA sites

to support the Khiamian phase, the context of this site seems to be unclear.

3.3.9.2 Lithic technology The only available information about lithic technology is that debitage is heavily dominated by flakes, and the ratio of flakes to blade/lets is 6: 1 (Gopher 1995: 7, 1996a: 443-445, Table 3.2). The ratios of debris, debitage and cores to retouched tools are: 9.7: 1, 5.5: 1 and 0.1: 1 respectively (Table 3.2).

3.3.8 Ein Suhum (or Suhun) 3.3.8.1 Introduction Ein Suhum was discovered by Zertal in 1996 during an archaeological survey. It is situated 24 km to the North of Jericho in the Wadi el-Suhun region (Table 3.1, FIG. 3.1). The estimated size of the site is around 3,000 m2, it has an altitude of 020 m.a.s.l. and receives 300-350 mm of annual rainfall (Nadel et al. 2000: 73-76).

3.3.9.3 Lithic typology The analysis of retouched tools reveals a broad and relatively unspecialised tool inventory. The tool types were dominated by retouched blades, retouched flakes, notches/denticulates, as well as some ‘varia’ types. The formal tools include arrowheads (El Khiam, Salibiya), sickle blades (including one Ta’amir sickle), Hagdud truncations, microliths (including one lunate), few backed items, borers, end scrapers and truncated tools (Gopher 1995: 7, 1996a: 445-447, Table 3.3).

3.3.8.2 Lithic technology A small sample of surface finds was collected and analysed. These include 30 retouched tools, two cores (a simple blade core and a naviform core), one ridge blade and three blade/lets (Nadel et al. 2000: 79, Table 3.2). 3.3.8.3 Lithic typology The 30 retouched tools which were analysed include four bifacial tools, two El Khiam points, one possible Helwan point, one double-notch and a truncated piece which could be a variant of the Gilgal truncation. There are also three small borers, one small lunate, retouched bladelets; two sickle blades, burins, retouched blades and retouched flakes (Nadel et al. 2000: 79-82, Table 3.3). Although this surface sample is small, the presence of bifacial tools, sickle blades, projectile points and a lunate seems to indicate an early Neolithic industry. According to the available data, Nadel and colleagues (2000) suggest that elements of both PPNA and PPNB industries are present, or that the sample represents a transitional phase between the two.

3.3.9.4 Radiocarbon dating No C14 dates are available from the three seasons of excavations at Ain Darat. 3.3.9.5 Discussion The excavator dated the site to the PPNA period but without favouring a specific phase. Gopher indicates that the presence of El Khiam points, microliths (including lunates) and the absence of bifacial tools favour a Khiamian assemblage. However, the presence of Hagdud truncations and Beit Ta’amir sickles tend towards a Sultanian assemblage (Gopher 1996a: 451). According to the available data, it seems very likely that Ain Darat can be placed within the PPNA period generally, but that there is no need to create extra subdivisions and terminologies for it.

3.3.8.4 Radiocarbon dating This site was not excavated and all the above results are based on the surface collection, and thus no radiocarbon dates are available.

3.3.10 Hatoula 3.3.10.1 Introduction The site of Hatoula is an open-air site, located near the Latroun Convent, in the western foothills of Jerusalem and has an altitude of 200 m.a.s.l. (Lechevallier and Ronen 1985: 5, 1989: 309-321, 1994a, 1994b: 395, Table 3.1 and FIG. 3.1). It features two levels of occupation, Natufian and PPNA (Khiamian and Sultanian). The site covers an area of 2,000 m2. The Khiamian layer is between 50-80 cm thick. The Sultanian occupation has been recognised only in a large oval structure, partially dug into the Khiamian layer and partially into the Natufian layer in the western part of the site (Trench F, see Lechevallier and Ronen 1994b: 395).

3.3.8.5 Discussion It is quite dangerous to identify a PPNA site from surface collections alone. In many cases, the surface collection does not reflect the actual occupation of the site and the surface components might include other periods of occupation such as Natufian and PPNB. Thus relying on surface collections should be approached with prudence and Ein Suhum provides no conclusive evidence to clarify the Khiamian/Sultanian debate. 3.3.9 Ain Darat 3.3.9.1 Introduction This site was discovered in 1982 and excavated in 1994 and 1996 by Gopher. It is situated around 16 km west of the Dead Sea and about 12 km east of Hebron (Table 3.1, FIG. 3.1). It has an elevation of 510 m.a.s.l and the estimated size of the site is 700900 m2 (Gopher 1995: 7, 1996a: 443).

3.3.10.2 Lithic technology Flint comes from three different sources in the vicinity of Hatoula and provided the raw material for the lithic industries. Cores are dominated by single pyramidal platforms. According to the authors, the technology of both the Khiamian and

13

Chapter 3

A comparative analysis of PPNA sites earlier Natufian sediment into the PPNA structure causing a mixture of earlier and later artefacts. Besides, there seem to be no significant differences between the Khiamian or the Sultanian material remains and the small quantities of bifacial tools may represent different activity areas, as they seem to be recovered from Trench F (Garfinkel 1996: 16-18). Trench F has an oval structure, which, according to Lechevallier and Ronen (1994b: 395), was partially dug into the Khiamian layer and partially into the Natufian layer. It seems, therefore, that some of the Natufian material cultures were brought to the PPNA layers due to the disturbance of both the burial and structure. If so consequently, all

Sultanian phases was inherited from the Natufian tradition (Lechevallier and Ronen 1994b: 395-397, Lechevallier et al. 1994, Table 3.2), and thus there are no major apparent differences between the two. The ratios of debitage and cores to retouched tools are: 10.9: 1 and 0.1: 1 in the Khiamian phase and 16.1: 1 and 0.1: 1 in the Sultanian phase (Table 3.2). 3.3.10.3 Lithic typology Retouched tools are mostly made on blade/lets (Khiamian 65%, Sultanian 72%). Within the Khiamian phase, microliths constitute about 32.8% of the tool category (610 pieces geometric and 290 non-geometric) followed by 15.5% borers. Projectile points did not exceed 2.3% of the materials (Table 3.3). Within the Sultanian phase, however, borers form 29.6%, followed by 24.3% retouched blades and 2.5% projectile points. Few Hagdud truncations (0.9%) or bifacial tools (0.6%), appeared in the Sultanian phase. Nonetheless one piece of each type was recovered in the Khiamian phase. Although microliths decreased in comparison to the previous phase, they form 10.4% (174 pieces geometric and 148 non-geometric) of the total amount of the retouched tools recovered from the Sultanian phase. Although the authors consider this amount of microliths as large for a Sultanian industry (Lechevallier and Ronen 1994b: 397-405; Lechevallier et al. 1994), they did not evaluate the possibility of having mixed layers.

layers which are counted as Khiamian/Sultanian phases contain Natufian remains and this explains the similarities between these phases as well as the large number of microliths. According to the original definition of the Khiamian and Sultanian phases (see section 3.2 above), there is no clear difference between the ‘Khiamian phase’ and the ‘Sultanian phase’ at Hatoula and the possibility of cultural mixing is evident. 3.3.11 Iraq ed-Dubb 3.3.11.1 Introduction The site of Iraq ed-Dubb was discovered and excavated in 1989 and further excavations were undertaken in 1990 and 1991. It is situated at 550 m.a.s.l and located around seven km Northwest of Ajlun, Jordan (Table 3.1, FIG. 3.1). The excavated squares were divided into one by one metre squares and all sediments were dry-sieved through twomillimetre mesh. In addition to lithics, multiple pit features, fire hearths, sub-floor burials and three oval/circular stone structures were recovered within less than one and one-half metres in depth (Kuijt et al. 1991, Kuijt 1994a: 2-3, Kuijt 1994b: 172, Kuijt n.d.). These stone structures were approximately four by five metres in diameters and had mud floors. Seven squares were excavated in Structure I and included 54 loci (26 PPNA, eleven Late Natufian, ten Late Natufian/PPNA, six mixture and one unknown). Sixteen squares were excavated in Structure II and included 57 loci (35 PPNA, 14 Iron Age-Recent, five Late Natufian/PPNA and three unknown). Only two squares were excavated within the interior of Structure III and included twelve loci (eight Late Natufian, two Late Natufian/PPNA, and two unknown). The exterior of Structure III was also investigated; here eight squares were excavated, featuring as many as 34 loci (20 Late Natufian, eight Late Natufian/PPNA and six unknown). The undisturbed PPNA deposits were recovered above the mud floor of Structure I, at an average depth of 285-350 cm, as well as in Structure II, at an average depth of 205-240 cm from the datum. The mud floor levels were classified as a Late Natufian/PPNA mixture, and all levels below the mud floor were classified as Late Natufian.

3.3.10.4 Radiocarbon dating Four C14 dates were obtained from the site (Table 3.4, FIG.3.2). The first was regarded as Natufian (not included in my investigation), the second was considered Khiamian (GiF A-91139: 10,170±120) and the last two were counted Sultanian (GiF A91360: 10,030±140 and GiF A-91138: 8,890±120, Valladas and Arnold 1994: 35). The first of these dates that was considered Sultanian fits perfectly with the Khiamian phase, whereas the second one seems to be MPPNB. According to these dates, Hatoula should be placed as Khiamian in its early phases and as MPPNB in its later phases. 3.3.10.5 Discussion In their early publications, Ronen and Lechevallier (1985) suggested that Hatoula may be defined as a late Natufian site with El-Khiam points and needleborers. Further excavations exposed more PPNA remains that were identified as Sultanian (Lechevallier et al. 1989), which led them to change their interpretations. In their final report, Lechevallier and Ronen (1994a, 1994b) divided the PPNA layers into Khiamian and Sultanian. Garfinkel (1996: 16-18) had questioned the above division by stressing that the shallow layer of Area A, which is classified as Khiamian, has some Natufian remains as well as a burial (Homo I) above it. Accordingly, Garfinkel suggests that it is possible that the Homo I grave was dug from the PPNA layers and therefore must have brought 14

Chapter 3

A comparative analysis of PPNA sites 3.3.11.5 Discussion According to the stratigraphy of Iraq ed-Dubb, all layers above the mud floor were considered undisturbed PPNA layers (Kuijt n.d.). These layers include lunates, large numbers of Hagdud truncations and El Khiam/Salibiya points. If we rely on lithic typology, this site should be classified as Khiamian and Sultanian. However, it is vital to wait the forthcoming publications (Kuijt n.d.) which might relate material culture to the various layers of occupation in order to see to which extent a Khiamian/Sultanian scenario can be recognized.

Structure III did not include any undisturbed PPNA loci (Kuijt n.d., Kuijt’s notes). The following analysis is only related to the undisturbed PPNA layers. 3.3.11.2 Lithic technology The lithic assemblages from the site include many debitage items (the total amount is not available) as well as 1,102 retouched tools (Table 3.2). Of these tools only 192 or 17.4% were recovered from the undisturbed PPNA layers (Kuijt’s notes). The rest of the retouched tools (not covered in this analysis) were dated to either the late Natufian period (beneath the packed mud floors of Structure I and II), or to the mixed layers of both the Late Natufian and the PPNA (within the contents of the floors). Fourteen cores were analysed while viewing the material and half of them are single platform types. Although I was not able to analyse all the lithics due to time limitations, it seems apparent that the technology of Iraq ed-Dubb is very similar to the Natufian tradition.

3.3.12 Nahal Oren (II) 3.3.12.1 Introduction Nahal Oren is located on the western cliff of Mount Carmel, just about 10 km South of Haifa and has an altitude of 45-55 m.a.s.l. (Table 3.1, FIG. 3.1). A series of excavations took place in 1941, as well as between 1951-1960, directed by M. Stekelis (e.g. Noy et al. 1973, Stekelis and Yizraeli 1963). There are three springs at a distance of about 500 metres from the site, which provided a water supply for the inhabitants (see also Nahal Oren I in Chapter 4, section 4.2.12).

3.3.11.3 Lithic typology The available published reports indicate that retouched pieces recovered from floor locus 007 in Structure I and II (undisturbed PPNA) include small lunates, Hagdud truncations, Khiam points, Salibiya points, sickle blades, borers and some bifacial tools (Kuijt 1994a: 2-3, Kuijt 1994b: 1724). While viewing the material of Iraq ed-Dubb and according to Kuijt’s note, I separated all the undisturbed PPNA bags from the others and conducted a comprehensive analysis. A total of 192 retouched tools were identified. The dominant types of these layers are Hagdud truncations (24.1%), followed by retouched blades (10.4%), retouched bladelets (13.5%), lunates (14.1%), projectile points (12%), borers (7.3%) as well as bifacial tools (1.6%).

3.3.12.2 Lithic technology Apart from the flint that comprises the major part of the raw material, limestone, basalt, obsidian and nephrite were also employed. The two latter raw materials are not local to the region (Stekelis and Yizraeli 1963: 2-3, Table 3.2). 3.3.12.3 Lithic typology Although the quantity of the lithics, including retouched tools, was not published, the authors mentioned the existence of sickle blades, burins, scrapers, projectile points (El Khiam?) and bifacial tools, which are made from basalt, flint and limestone (Stekelis and Yizraeli 1963: 2-4, Table 3.3).

As shown above, the tool typology of the PPNA levels of Iraq ed-Dubb (above the floors) seems to include lunates. However, if we have to rely on particular tool types such as lunates, Hagdud truncations and El Khiam points to separate these two periods, the result will be inaccurate.

3.3.12.4 Radiocarbon dating There are no radiocarbon dates generated from the Neolithic Layers of Nahal Oren. According to the lithic industry, which features El Khiam points and many bifacial tools, the site should be classified as Sultanian.

3.3.11.4 Radiocarbon dating Eight C14 dates were obtained from the site (Structure I: six dates and Structure II: two dates) and clearly indicate that Natufian and PPNA remains are present (Table 3.4 and FIG.3.2). Four of these dates were obtained from Late Natufian remains (AA-38279: 10,723±68, GX-17399: 10,785±285, GX-17077: 11,145±120 and GX17498: 11,175±400), one from a mixed layer of both Late Natufian and PPNA (AA-38278: 10,657±82), and the last three dates were acquired from PPNA contexts (AA-38140: 9,592±64, OxA2567: 9,959±100 and AA-38145: 9,941±72).

3.3.12.5 Discussion Although Stratum I was counted by the excavators as a PPNA layer (Stekelis and Yizraeli 1963: 1-2, Noy et al. 1973), the stratigraphy of Nahal Oren is problematic. Firstly, the site lies on a slope causing a mixture of artefacts from different period through erosion. Secondly, there are no radiocarbon dates to date the Neolithic occupation. Thus, conclusions based on materials recovered from this site should be regarded with particular concern.

15

Chapter 3

A comparative analysis of PPNA sites 3.3.14.3 Lithic typology Although the retouched tools are few, three Helwan points were recovered as well as one Hagdud truncation (Henry 1995: 41, 348, Table 3.3).

3.3.13 Sabra 1 3.3.13.1 Introduction The site of Sabra I is located around eight km South of Petra, Jordan (Gebel 1988: 73, Table 3.1 and FIG. 3.1). Based on surface collection and limited test excavations, Gebel suggests that the site has cultural layers of up to four-metre thickness and covers an area of about 115 m2. Systematic surface collection as well as test excavations of 5.5m3 excavated in a step-trench, indicate that the site was occupied in the Natufian, PPNA (Khiamian) and possibly PPNB periods. Gebel also argues that the absence of permanent architecture and groundstone at the site, as well as the 20 minutes walking distance between Sabra I and the closest water source, indicates that it was a seasonal camp (Gebel 1988: 73, 78).

3.3.14.4 Radiocarbon dating No C14 dates were obtained from this site. 3.3.14.5 Discussion Although no radiocarbon dates were acquired, the availability of Helwan points and Hagdud truncations might indicate an early Neolithic occupation from this site (Henry 1995: 350). While re-examining J24 in 1993, Kuijt and Chesson suggest that the preliminary identification of the PPNA occupation at this site (Layer C) is faulty (Kuijt 1994b: 169-171). Helwan points are classified as part of the so-called EPPNB and MPPNB phases, and not as a part of the PPNA lithic industry (though they existed in the Northern PPNA assemblages). Accordingly, J24 should not be counted among the PPNA sites (see also Chapter 4, section 4.2.9).

3.3.13.2-3 Lithic technology and typology Unfortunately, the available published report does not include a detailed study of the lithics. However, the preliminary report mentions that the PPNA layer had a high number of unretouched blade/lets, some El Khiam points, a few sickle blades, retouched blades, lunates, micro-burins and triangles; and thus, Gebel allocated it to the Khiamian phase (Gebel 1988: 78-80, see also Kuijt 1994b: 169, Tables 3.2, 3.3).

3.3.15 Jilat 7 3.3.15.1 Introduction Jilat 7 is situated on a terrace adjacent to the present gorge of Wadi Dhobai in the Southwest of the Azraq Basin in North-Central Jordan (Table 3.1, FIG. 3.1). The estimated area of the site is 2,250 m2. The site was excavated in 1984, 1987 and 1988 and revealed evidence for possible PPNA, MPPNB and possibly LPPNB occupation (Garrard 1998, Garrard et al. 1975-7, 1987, 1988a, 1988b, 1994a, 1994b).

3.3.13.4 Radiocarbon dating There are no C14 dates available from the site. 3.3.13.5 Discussion As with Ain Suhum, it would be a mistake to draw too many conclusions from the limited data at this site. However, the availability of triangles in this site as was the case at Iraq ed-Dubb and Nachcharini (see below), raises the question as to whether this tool type is part of the PPNA tradition, or whether it was inherited from previous periods?

3.3.15.2 Lithic technology Single platform and change of orientation blade/lets cores, opposed platform blade/let cores including some naviform types are in present the ‘early phase’ (Baird 1994: 525-541, Baird in Garrard et al. 1994a: 85). Some obsidian was also recovered, though the quantity is not described (Garrard et al. 1994b: 193, Table 3.2).

3.3.14 Jebel Quiesa (J24) 3.3.14.1 Introduction In 1997, Jebel Quiesa (J24) was discovered and excavated during a survey of the Judayid basin in South Jordan. A test pit of 3m2 was excavated and forms the basis of our knowledge about the site’s occupation (Table 3.1 and FIG. 3.1). The site is situated at 1,200 m.a.s.l. and lacks any nearby permanent water source, which led Henry to suggest that the site served as a short-term hunting camp (Henry 1995: 345-351).

3.3.15.3 Lithic typology The early phase of Jilat 7 A and C produced some diagnostic projectile types dominated by Helwan points and accompanied by a few El Khiam points and a single Byblos point, as well as some Hagdud truncations (Baird in Garrard et al. 1994a: 85, Garrard et al. 1994b: 193, Table 3.3).

3.3.14.2 Lithic technology Raw material is abundant within the vicinity of the site mainly in the form of cobbles. The assemblage displays long thin blade/lets that were struck from naviform-like cores (Henry 1995: 345-348, Table 3.2).

3.3.15.4 Radiocarbon dating Four dates were taken from Jilat 7, two from Area B (OxA-526: 8,810±110 and OxA-527: 8,520±110), and two from Areas A and C (OxA2413: 8,390±80 and OxA-1799: 5,840±100), but none of them indicate a PPNA to EPPNB time range (Table 3.4 and FIG.3.3).

16

Chapter 3

A comparative analysis of PPNA sites 3.3.16.5 Discussion While dealing with this site, one has to bear in mind that there are many unresolved problems. Firstly, the location of the site on a slope where a natural process of erosion took place might have created a mixture of artefacts. Secondly, sieving was not practiced in any of the excavation seasons. Thirdly, no radiocarbon dates are available. Fourthly the stratigraphical division is a problematic issue. For instance, Layer 4, which is post-Natufian, was classified as Epi Natufian by Neuville/Perrot but as Khiamian II by Echegarary. This layer includes microliths, lunates, El Khiam points and truncations. The Tahunian layer, which is the latest phase of occupation, also includes the same tool types. It seems likely that Layer 4 is not an undisturbed context and thus this site remains problematic (see also Chapter 2 and for further discussion see Bar-Yosef 1981a, 1996, Garfinkel 1996, Gopher 1994b). If the main site upon which the Khiamian phase is based has all these problems, how can it be reliably used as the typesite for the Khiamian phase of the PPNA?

3.3.15.5 Discussion Relying on the typical diagnostic tool types, Baird suggests that the early Neolithic occupation of Jilat 7 occurred around the second half of the 10th millennium BP (Baird in Garrard et al. 1994a: 8586). Kuijt on the other hand, argues that the recovery of El-Khiam points and Hagdud truncations indicates an occupation in the first half of the 10th millennium BP (Kuijt 1994b: 170-173). The two C14 dates obtained from Areas A and C do not support the excavators’ suggestion that these areas belong to the EPPNB phases, and were thus rejected by the excavators as they do not correlate with the recovered lithic industry (Garrard et al. 1994a: 75, Garrard et al. 1994b: 193). The lack of clear radiocarbon dating from these early phases of occupation at Jilat 7, and the lack of other clear EPPNB sites in the Southern Levant, supports Kuijt’s suggestion. However, while viewing the material of Jilat 7, which is stored at Liverpool University, some naviform cores were recognised as well as many Helwan points recovered from Areas A and C. The existence of both naviform cores and Helwan points does not support a PPNA occupation. Thus, it is better not to count this site as PPNA, but rather as a PPNB assemblage ‘probably with some mixed PPNA material’ (see Chapter 4, section 4.2.8).

3.3.17 Abu Madi I 3.3.17.1 Introduction The site of Abu Madi is located in Southern Sinai, about six km north of Gebel Katherina (Table 3.1 and FIG. 3.1). It is surrounded by an open valley and has an altitude of 1,600 m.a.s.l. (Bar-Yosef 1976: 154, 1981a, 1981b, 1982: 12, 1984b: 155).

3.3.16 El Khiam 3.3.16.1 Introduction The terraces of El Khiam were excavated by Neuville in the 1930s (Neuville 1934, Perrot 1951) and by Echegaray in the 1960s (Echegaray 1964, 1966). The site is located twelve km Southeast of Bethlehem, at the junction of Wadi el Khiam and Wadi Khareitoun at an altitude of 435 m.a.s.l. (Crowfoot-Payne 1976: 131, Perrot 1951: 134-135, Table 3.1 and FIG. 3.1). No information regarding the size of the site could be obtained. The importance of El Khiam emerged when Echegarary had noticed an identical layer that is post Natufian. He therein introduced the Khiamian taxon to the archaeological literature (see Echegarary 1964, 1966).

3.3.17.2-3 Lithic technology and typology The very limited information about the lithic industry at this site indicates that most of the artefacts were made on bladelets and are dominated by El Khiam points, Abu Madi points, borers, microliths, notches and retouched blades (BarYosef 1976: 154, 1981a: 561, Tables 3.2, 3.3). 3.3.17.4 Radiocarbon dating Four C14 dates were obtained from Abu Madi I (see Bar-Yosef 1981a: 561, 1991: 9). One of these dates could be late Khiamian (Pta-2699: 10,160±100), whereas the other three are typical Sultanian (Table 3.4 and FIG.3.2).

3.3.16.2 Lithic technology There is no available information about the technology of Layer 4, which is considered to be the PPNA layer (Table 3.2).

3.3.17.5 Discussion The tool typology of this site supports an earlier phase of occupation rather than a latter one, particularly when microliths form about a quarter of the retouched tools. Accordingly, Abu Madi I should be classified as Khiamian, not Sultanian. As was the case with many of the above-described sites, the lithic typology does not match the radiocarbon chronology which indicates it to be a Sultanian site. This creates more problems in our understanding of the divisions of the PPNA and further descriptions for the entire layers are needed in order to know the trends through time.

3.3.16.3 Lithic typology All the available information indicates the existence of El Khiam points accompanied by many microliths. No further information is available (Table 3.3). 3.3.16.4 Radiocarbon dating No C14 dates were obtained from the site and its chronology is entirely based on lithic typology.

17

Chapter 3

A comparative analysis of PPNA sites While in Toronto where some of the lithics are stored, I had the chance to view some of the materials. Of the samples that I analysed, most of the lithics were collected from a fill pit without any stratigraphical information. Other samples were recorded from stratified layers, but as was mentioned earlier, there are no reports to describe the symbols which identify the lithics. Regardless of the stratigraphical order, and according to the typological analysis of the retouched tools, there are remains of Natufian, PPNA, PPNB and Pottery Neolithic occupations at Nachcharini (the above identifications were made jointly by the following archaeologists: A. Belfer-Cohen, M. Chazan, Y. Garfinkel, A. N. Goring-Morris, L. Grosman, H. Khalaily, S. Kozlowski, D. Nadel, and G. Sayej).

3.3.18 Nahal Lavan 108 3.3.18.1 Introduction This site was discovered and surveyed in 1970 by F. Burian and E. Friedman. It is situated in the Negev Desert at around 250 m.a.s.l. and receives roughly 100 mm of annual rainfall (Table 3.1 and FIG. 3.1). This assemblage is very small (collected from an area of seven m2) and has no visible architectural features (Noy et al. 1981: 81-82, 87). Unfortunately, Nahal Lavan 108 was not excavated and the following description is based on surface collections. 3.3.18.2 Lithic technology Brown flint provided the main raw material for tool manufacture. Cores are mainly opposed platforms (Noy et al. 1981: 82, Table 3.2). The ratios of debitage and cores to retouched tools are: 1.2: 1 and 0.3: 1 respectively.

In 2001, the Council for British Research in the Levant under the direction of Alex Wasse surveyed the site and collected the scattered lithics that were uncovered by clandestine excavation (Pirie 2001b: 10-12). The analyses of these un-stratified lithics were carried out by A. Pirie (2001b) and the results are presented below.

3.3.18.3 Lithic typology Retouched tools constitute more than 45% of the recovered artefacts and include El Khiam points, retouched blade/lets, scrapers, notches and bifacial tools, but no Hagdud truncations. Microliths and micro-burins were recovered but in limited numbers. The existence of projectile points (14.5%), scrapers (13.1%), retouched blades (22.4%) and the lack of sickle blades and grinding tools led Noy and colleagues to assume that the site was a hunting camp (Noy et al. 1981: 82-87, Table 3.3).

3.3.19.2 Lithic technology A total of 1,197 artefacts were recovered. The analyses of these samples indicate that raw material was mainly the local grey-brown flint and one piece of obsidian was also recovered. Generally, the assemblage is blade/let oriented. Few cores were recovered and they include single pyramidal platform cores and some opposed platforms as well as two bipolar cores (Pirie 2001b: 11, Table 3.2). The ratios of debris, debitage and cores to retouched tools are: 1.6: 1, 3.2: 1 and 0.1: 1 respectively.

3.3.18.4 Radiocarbon dating Although C14 dates were not available, the authors suggested that Nahal Lavan 108 belongs to the PPNA period (Noy et al. 1981: 88).

3.3.19.3 Lithic typology The majority of tools are bladelets (76%) and according to Pirie (2001b) the assemblage is classical PPNA. Bitruncated tools/Hagdud truncations are the largest tool class. Projectile points make up the second large part of the assemblage and include El Khiam and Salibiya points. Microliths include mainly marginally retouched bladelets as well as one Helwan lunate. Borers are made on blade/lets. The retouched blades are small and marginally retouched with no sign of gloss. Nachcharini has the highest percentage of both Hagdud truncations and projectile points in comparison to other PPNA sites in the Southern Levant (Table 3.3). Thus Pirie (2001b: 11) suggests that this site featured more specialized activities than those carried out at many other PPNA sites. These may relate to hunting and the production of hunting technology. Unfortunately, the site has been almost completely destroyed by recent clandestine excavation (Garrard 2003: personal communication) and these limited data are all that is left from the site.

3.3.18.5 Discussion The existence of El Khiam points and bifacial tools support the assumption of the excavators that this site is PPNA (Khiamian/Sultanian). However, as mentioned earlier, one should be careful while dealing with the unexcavated sites because the surface collections might give misleading results. The lack of stratigraphy and chronology do not clarify whether this assemblage has one or two phases of occupation. 3.3.19 Nachcharini cave 3.3.19.1 Introduction The Lebanese cave of Nachcharini is situated at an elevation of 2,100 m.a.s.l. making it the highest PPNA occupation identified to date (Pirie 2001b: 10, Table 3.1 and FIG. 3.1). The site was excavated by B. Schroeder in the early 1970s. Since then, a brief report has been published about the site (Copeland 1991) as well as three unpublished reports (Schroeder 1976, 1977, 1991) and a Masters thesis (Hutchings 1990). None of the above references provide any stratigraphical descriptions of the site.

18

Chapter 3

A comparative analysis of PPNA sites

The results of my personal inspection indicate that the tool typology of Nachcharini contains a mixture of periods. Despite the major problems regarding the stratigraphy, it is vital to understand the nature of this site. So far, Nachcharini has the highest altitude of any of the identified PPNA sites in the Southern-Central Levant and therefore comparing it to the other sites will at least help to clarify the economic aspects of the PPNA periods. Projectile points form the vast majority of the examined retouched tools, followed by the Hagdud truncations. It seems highly likely that Nachcharini cave was used as a hunting base without any farming activities. The latter suggestion is supported by the lack of both sickles and bifacial tools. As was noted above, this site demonstrates clearly that PPNA communities exploited different ecological zones, from the high mountains of Lebanon to the arid region of the Dead Sea Basin.

tools. The small pyramidal cores with single platforms are favoured over the other types of cores (Table 3.2, see also Chapter 6). The ratios of debris, debitage and cores to retouched tools are: 82.2: 1, 6.1: 1 and 0.3: 1 respectively.

3.3.19.4 Radiocarbon dating Three dates were taken from Nachcharini cave and none of them fit within the PPNA range. One of the dates has the range of the LPPNB (I9768: 8,980±275) and the other two dates have the range of PPNC (Table 3.4 and FIG.3.2).

3.3.21.4 Radiocarbon dating Nine C14 dates were obtained from ZAD 2 (Table 3.4 and FIG.3.2). All of them fit neatly within the range of the late PPNA (9,600-9,300 BP) and support an extension of this period to ca. 9,300BP (see Chapter 5, section 5.5).

3.3.19.5 Discussion The lithic artefacts analysed by Pirie indicate a typical PPNA industry, without emphasizing which specific phase of the PPNA they were associated with. My analysis, on the other hand, indicates that this site has various periods of occupation ranging from the Natufian to the PPN and PN periods.

3.3.21.5 Discussion Projectile points are very rare at the site (0.7%) and those recovered are atypical types. The lack of microliths (including lunates) does not support a Khiamian occupation while the abundance of bifacial tools, Hagdud truncations and Beit Ta'amir support a Sultanian phase. Both radiocarbon dates as well as lithic artefacts support the suggestion that ZAD 2 belongs to the later phase of the PPNA period. However, by comparing the lithics of this assemblage to the other PPNA sites, a clear picture will be achieved as to how these sites vary (see below).

3.3.21.3 Lithic typology A total of 1,635 retouched tools were classified at ZAD 2. As shown in Table 3.3, the retouched tools from ZAD 2 are divided into 15 different types. Of these almost 70% are non-formal tools. Among the formal tools, scrapers form the largest tool type (6.7%), followed by notches/denticulates (6.4%), borers (5.6%), bifacial tools (4%), Hagdud truncations (3.7%), and backed tools (1.5%). Types that form less than one percent each are also present and include projectile points (Jordan Valley, El Khiam and ‘Type 3’), burins, truncated tools, Beit Ta’amir sickles, multiple tools and varia (Table 3.3).

3.3.20 Tell Aswad This site is discussed in Chapter 4, section 4.2.1 and could be summarized as follows: Phase IA was classified as a PPNA layer and 85% of the recovered lithics were made on blades obtained from naviform cores (though the latter never appeared in the Southern Levant before the PPNB period). The Aswadian points characterized the projectile point types. However, Stordeur and colleagues (2002) reinvestigated the site recently and revised the original classification of the PPNA layer. These scholars have reassigned the latter PPNA layer instead to the MPPNB.

3.4 Discussion and concluding remarks Most of the PPNA site reports do not offer comprehensive and detailed techno/typological analyses, but I have tried to do so relying on the available data from these sites. As was shown in this chapter, many of the identified PPNA sites are not excavated and instead identified from surface collections. This includes Ein Suhum, Sabra I and Nahal Lavan 103. Other sites have contexts mixed with earlier layers and thus were mistakenly classified as Khiamian as was the case at El Khiam, Nahal Oren, and Hatoula. Other sites include some characteristic features from the later periods, i.e. PPNB such as Jilat 7 and J24 which were misplaced among the PPNA sites as a result. The data from the rest of the identified eleven sites are useful and could be used to reconstruct typical diagnostic features of the PPNA, regardless of its supposed Khiamian and Sultanian phases.

3.3.21 ZAD 2 3.3.21.1 Introduction A brief summary about the techno/typology of ZAD 2 as well as the radiocarbon dating is presented here for comparative purposes. For detailed site analysis, see Chapters 5-7. 3.3.21.2 Lithic technology Raw material is available in the vicinity of ZAD 2 and lithics are divided as follows: 91.7% debris, 0.3% cores, 6.9% debitage and 1.1% retouched

19

Chapter 3

A comparative analysis of PPNA sites

3.4.1 Lithic technology It seems that the above PPNA assemblages have much in common with the Natufian sites, and Redman (1978: 77) called the entire PPNA period “Natufian derived”. Core types and shapes as well as the ratio of flakes to bladelets are derived from the Natufian tradition (see also Bar-Yosef 1987, Belfer-Cohen 1994, Enoch-Shiloh and Bar-Yosef 1997, Nadel et al. 1991). One may therefore assume that the flint knapping technology of the Natufians continued throughout the PPNA period and disappeared by the beginning of the PPNB, where naviform core technology and the elongated blade production became dominant (see Rollefson 2001c). The technology of ZAD 2 supports this argument and although it is dated to the very end of the PPNA period, it lacks naviform cores and long blades.

3.4.2.2 Hagdud truncations Hagdud truncations were recovered from nine of the identified PPNA and they are: Iraq ed-Dubb PPNA layers (N =4 6 or 24.1%), ZAD 2 (N = 61 or 3.7%), Trench III of WF 16 (N = 4 or 3.6%), Gesher (N = 4 or 3.1%), Ain Darat (N = 14 or 2.5%), Netiv Hagdud (N = 63 or 1.5%), Trench II of WF 16 (N = 2 or 1.9%), Hatoula Sultanian (N = 27 or 0.9%), Hatoula Khiamian (N = 1 or 0.03%), Dhra‘ (N = 4 pieces), and Jericho (unknown). Of these assemblages, Trench II and III of WF 16 and Hatoula Khiamian should not include this typical Sultanian type, because they supposedly belong to the Khiamian phase. 3.4.2.3 Beit Ta’amir sickles Beit Ta’amir sickles were recovered in only five of the identified PPNA sites and they are: Netiv Hagdud (N = 14 or 0.3%), ZAD 2 (N = 4 or 0.2%), Dhra‘ (N = 3 or 0.2%), Ain Darat (N = 1 or 0.2%) and Jericho (unknown). As this type is counted as one of the diagnostic features of the Sultanian phase, why do so few Sultanian sites have it? It seems likely that the presence/absence of certain tool types reflects the probable economy of that site.

3.4.2 Lithic typology According to the above analyses, the diagnostic features of PPNA tool types are divided into nonformal and formal tools. The vast majority of tools are classified as non-formal (i.e. retouched flakes, retouched blade/lets and varia types). For example they form 69.3% at ZAD 2, 65% at Jericho, 61,8% at Dhra‘, 66.1% at Gesher, 60.5% at Gilgal I, 52.2% at Ain Darat, 33% at Netiv Hagdud and 26.3% at WF 16 (Table 3.3). The formal tools are characterised by scrapers, burins, a few backed tools, a few truncated tools, a few Beit Ta’amir sickle, projectile points (El Khiam, Salibiya, Jordan Valley), Hagdud truncations, notches/denticulate, borers, bifacial tools, sickle blades but feature very few microliths (especially lunates, Table 3.3). It seems apparent that many archaeologists identify the two PPNA phases according to the presence/absence of certain formal tool types such as Hagdud truncations, Beit Ta’amir sickles, bifacial tools and microliths. Let me summarize the results of my analysis and see whether this categorisation is relevant or not (see FIG. 3.3).

3.4.2.4 Bifacial tools Bifacial tools were recovered from ten of the identified PPNA sites and they are: Ein Suhum (survey only N = 4 or 13.3%), Trench III of WF 16 (N = 8 or 7.3%), Gesher (N = 7 or 5.5%), Nahal Lavan 108 (survey only N = 4 or 5.3%), ZAD 2 (N = 65 or 4%), Netiv Hagdud (N = 151 or 3.7%), Jericho (N = 194 or 3.6%), Trench II of WF 16 (N = 2 or 1.9%), Iraq ed-Dubb (N = 3 or 1.6% in the PPNA layers), Hatoula Sultanian (N = 17 or 0.6%), Dhra‘ (N = 1 or 0.1%), Hatoula Khiamian (N = 1 or less than 0.03%). Once more, these ‘classical’ Sultanian types are recovered from Khiamian sites such as Hatoula (Khiamian) and Trench II and III of WF 16.

3.4.2.1 Microliths Microliths were recovered from ten of the identified PPNA sites and they are: Hatoula Khiamian (N = 900 or 32.8%), Trench II (Khiamian/Sultanian) of WF 16 (N = 31 or 29%), Abu Madi I (N = 229 or 24.5%), Trench I (Sultanian) of WF 16 (37 or 22.8%), Trench III (Khiamian/Sultanian) of WF 16 (N = 17 or 15.5%), Hatoula Sultanian (N = 322 or 10.4%), Ein Suhum (survey only, N = 1 or 3.3%), Gesher (N = 1 or 0.8%), Netiv Hagdud (including trapezes N = 524 or 12.9%), Salibiya IX (N = 94 or 9.2%), Iraq edDubb (PPNA level N = 27 or 14.1%), Ain Darat (N = 10 or 1.8%), and Dhra‘ (N = 1 or 0.1%). This typical diagnostic tool type should be the key identified of the Khiamian phase, though it is found in almost half of what are classed as Sultanian sites.

3.4.2.5 Projectile points Projectile points are well represented in nearly all of the excavated PPNA sites. However, the percentage of this tool type varies markedly from one assemblage to another, a point that undermines a simple Khiamian/Sultanian dichotomy. They comprise 47 pieces (23.9%) at Trench I of WF 16, 163 (17.4%) at Abu Madi I, 18 (16.8%) at Trench II of WF 16, 203 (14.4%) at Dhra‘ (in another publication the projectile points of Dhra‘ are 309, see Goodale and Smith 2001), 181 (17.6%) at Salibiya IX, 23 (12%) at Iraq ed-Dubb PPNA layers, 10 (7.9%) at Gesher, 41 (7.5%) at Ain Darat, 80 (7.3%) 120 (3%) at Netiv Hagdud, 76 (2.5%) at Hatoula Sultanian, 64 (2.3%) at Hatoula Khiamian, 11 pieces (0.7%) at ZAD 2 and 9 (0.2%) at Jericho and 1 (0.9%) at Trench III of WF 16. If we compare between sites which have similar

20

Chapter 3

A comparative analysis of PPNA sites which lacks any coherent pattern of re-occurring tool types from any reliable sites?

environmental aspects such as the Dead Sea Basin (i.e. ZAD 2, Dhra‘ and WF 16; see Sayej 2001a), the percentage of projectile points vary from 23.9% in the case of WF 16 to 0.7% in the case of ZAD 2. It seems most likely that the inhabitant of WF 16 were interested in different economic pursuits than those of ZAD 2 and this is why the amount of projectile points varied.

As I have mentioned earlier, some sites which are traditionally classified as typical Khiamian have bifacial tools and Hagdud truncations. This includes Hatoula (Khiamian), Trenches II and III of WF. Many other sites which are classified as Sultanian have microliths/lunates such as Trench I of WF 16, Netiv Hagdud, Iraq ed-Dubb, Ain Darat, and Hatoula (Sultanian, Table 3.3). What might be relevant for one site does not necessarily carry over to the others, and there is no coherent pattern between sites, nor any clear connection to the definition of the Khiamian as proposed by Echegaray (1964, 1966), Crowfoot-Payne (1976, 1983) and Bar-Yosef (1981b).

3.4.3 Interpretations Some sites which have clear PPNA contents, such as ZAD 2, do not contain any microliths (ZAD 2 has some typological features which might be classified under this category, but none of them are geometric microliths), and include all the diagnostic Sultanian tool types. One might ask, why not designate ZAD 2 as part of the Sultanian instead of creating all this confusion about the two phases? If we compare ZAD 2 to other sites that might be considered Sultanian, such as Dhra‘, WF 16, Netiv Hagdud, Gesher, just to mention a few, we will find huge differences in the presence and absence of the formal tools (see Table 3.3 and FIG. 3.3). Indeed, this is the case for all the other sites. If this is the case with the so-called Sultanian sites, what about the situation among the Khiamian

In sum, since the division between the two phases of the PPNA period is based on unreliable data, the current analysis strongly supports the idea that the PPNA period should be dealt with as one period with inter- and intra-assemblage variability, rather than a period with two sequential phases.

21

Chapter 3 Table 3.1:

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Comparative analysis, tables List of the known PPNA sites in the Southern Levant as well as two sites from the Central Levant.

Site ZAD 2 Dhra‘ WF 16 Ein Suhum Gesher Gilgal I Jericho Netiv Hagdud Salibiya IX Iraq ed-Dubb Sabra I Ain Darat Hatoula El Khiam Nahal Oren Jilat 7 Jebel Queisa (J24) Nahal Lavan 108 Abu Madi I Nachcharini cave Tell Aswad

Location Dead Sea Basin Dead Sea Basin Dead Sea Basin Jordan Valley Jordan Valley Jordan Valley Jordan Valley Jordan Valley Jordan Valley Eastern highlands Eastern highlands Western highlands Western highlands Western highlands Mediterranean coast Eastern desert Southern desert, Jordan Southern desert, Negev Southern desert, Sinai Lebanese highlands Damascus basin

22

Reference e.g. Edwards et al. 2001b, Sayej 2001a e.g. Kuijt & Mahasneh 1998, Goodale et al. 2002 e.g. Mithen et al. 2000, Finlayson et al. 2000 Nadel et al. 2000 e.g. Garfinkel and Nadel 1989 Noy 1989 Crowfoot-Payne 1983, Kenyon and Holland 1983 Bar-Yosef and Gopher 1997a, 1997b, Nadel 1997 Enoch-Shiloh and Bar-Yosef 1997 e.g. Kuijt et al. 1991, Kuijt 1994a Gebel 1988 Gopher 1995b, 1996a e.g. Ronen et al. 1994a, 1994b Echegaray 1964, 1966 e.g. Noy et al. 1973 e.g. Garrard et al. 1994a, 1994b Henry 1995 Noy et al. 1981 Bar-Yosef 1981a, 1981b Schroeder 1976, 1977, 1991 J. Cauvin 1995, de Contenson 1995, Stordeur et al. 2002

23

Cores Retouched tools TOTAL

Debris Debitage Cores Retouched tools TOTAL Debris: debitage Debris: cores Debris: retouched tools Debitage: cores Debitage: retouched tools Core: retouched tools TYPES

-

-

-

95 -

ZAD 2 Dhra‘ Salibiya IX Ein Suhum N % N % N % N % 134,472 91.7 32,611 50.6 65,496 94.1 10,054 6.9 30,235 46.9 2,990 4.3 465 0.3 191 0.3 70 0.1 1,635 1.1 1,411 2.2 1,027 1.5 30 146,626 100 64,448 100 69,583 100 13.4 1.1 21.9 289.2 170.1 935.7 82.2 23.1 63.8 21.6 158.3 42.7 6.1 21.4 2.9 0.3 0.3 0.1 Nachcharini Hatoula Pers. Obv. Pirie Obv. Khiamian Sultanian N % N % N % N % 180 15.0 897 75.0 29,938 91.2 49,703 93.5 10 10 0.8 173 0.5 363 0.7 157 110 9.2 2,740 8.3 3,094 5.8 167 1,197 100 32,851 100 53,160 100 0.2 18.0 1.6 89.7 173.1 136.9 8.2 10.9 16.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Sabra I El Khiam Nahal Oren II Jilat 7 936 -

See Chapter 4 -

Gilgal I % 304 -

Jericho Netiv Hagdud Ain Darat Iraq ed-Dubb N % N % N % N % 114,436 70.4 5,303 59.6 12,971 70.5 43,800 26.9 2,999 33.6 152 0.1 362 0.2 53 0.6 14 5,390 29.4 4,058 2.5 550 6.2 192 18,513 100 162,656 100 8,905 100 206 2.6 1.8 316.1 100.1 28.2 9.7 85.30 121.0 56.6 2.40 10.8 5.5 0.02 0.1 0.1 WF 16 Jebel Queisa 24 Nahal Lavan 108 Tr. 1 Tr. 2 Tr.3 (328) TOTAL N % N % N % N % N % N % 1,563 32.9 1,387 41.2 982 31.4 3,932 35.0 1,200 35.5 2,986 62.9 1,862 55.2 1,990 63.7 6,838 60.8 2,140 63.3 92 53.8 37 0.8 14 0.4 44 1.4 95 0.8 19 0.6 3 1.8 163 3.4 107 3.2 110 3.5 380 3.4 20 0.6 76 44.4 4,749 100 3,370 100 3,126 100 11,245 100 3,379 100 171 100 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 42.2 99.1 22.3 41.4 63.2 9.6 13.0 8.9 10.3 60.0 80.7 133.0 45.2 759.7 112.6 30.7 18.3 17.4 18.1 18.0 107.0 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 1.0 0.0 Abu Madi I Tell Aswad

Gesher N 1,736 44.4 2,011 51.5 33 0.8 127 3.3 3,907 100 0.9 52.6 13.7 60.9 15.8 0.3

Lithic technology: The PPNA sites in the Southern Levant: ZAD 2 (after Sayej 2003), Dhra‘ (figures are based on limited samples only, after Goodale et al. 2002), Salibiya IX (after Enoch-Shiloh and Bar-Yosef 1997), Ein Suhum (after Nadel et al. 2000), Gesher (after Garfinkel and Nadel 1989), Gilgal I (after Noy et al. 1980), Jericho (after Crowfoot-Payne 1983), Netiv Hagdud (after Nadel 1997), Ain Darat (after Gopher 1996a), Iraq ed-Dubb (PPNA layers are above the floor of Structure I and II. My personal inspection was conducted according to Kuijt’s notes), Nachcharini cave (Pirie 2001, personal observation 2002). Hatoula (after Lechevallier et al. 1994, Lechevallier and Ronen 1985, 1994a, 1994b), WF 16 (the 1998 season only, after Mithen et al. 2000, Pirie in Finlayson et al. 1998), Jebel Queisa 24 (after Henry 1995), Nahal Lavan 108 (after Noy et al. 1981), Sabra I (after Gebel 1988), El Khiam (after Echegaray 1964, 1966), Nahal Oren II (after Noy 1973, Stekelis and Yizraely 1963), Jilat 7 (after Garrard et al. 1994a, 1994b), Abu Madi (after Bar-Yosef 1981a, 1991) and Tell Aswad (see Chapter 4).

Debris Debitage Cores Retouched tools TOTAL Debris: debitage Debris: cores Debris: retouched tools Debitage: cores Debitage: retouched tools Core: retouched tools TYPES

TYPES

Table 3.2:

Chapter 3 Comparative analysis, tables

ZAD 2 N % 110 6.7 13 0.8 523 32.0 25 1.5 5 0.3 56 3.4 4 0.2 544 33.3 11 0.7 61 3.7 103 6.4 92 5.6 13 0.8 65 4.0 0.6 1,635 100

Dhra‘ N % 18 1.3 1 0.1 215 15.2 11 0.8 597 42.2 3 0.2 61 4.3 203 14.4 yes ? 36 2.6 242 17.1 3 0.2 1 0.1 1 0.1 19 1.3 1 0.1 1,411 100

Salibiya IX N % 18 1.8 34 3.3 231 22.4 25 2.4 23 2.2 91 8.9 15 1.5 181 17.6 28 2.7 207 20.2 30 2.9 46 4.5 94 9.2 4 0.4 1,027 100

Ein Suhum N % 3 10.0 4 13.3 3 10.0 1 3.3 5 16.8 3 10.0 1 3.3 4 13.3 3 10.0 2 6.7 1 3.3 30 100

Gesher N % 5 3.9 9 7.1 9 7.1 4 3.1 23 18.1 5 3.9 10 7.9 4 3.1 11 8.7 19 15.0 7 5.5 10 7.9 10 7.9 1 0.8 127 100

Gilgal I N % 8 2.6 23 7.6 45 14.8 69 22.7 63 20.7 21 6.9 24 7.9 44 14.5 7 2.3 304 100

Jericho N % 232 4.3 278 5.2 18 0.3 yes ? 539 10.0 9 0.2 yes ? 34 0.6 1,157 21.5 194 3.6 2,689 49.8 240 4.5 5,390 100

Netiv Hagdud N % 53 1.3 335 8.2 454 11.2 430 10.6 14 0.3 120 3.0 63 1.5 539 13.3 742 18.3 29 0.7 151 3.7 456 11.2 148 3.6 383 9.3 159 3.8 4,058 100

Lithic typology: The PPNA sites in the Southern Levant: ZAD 2 (after Sayej 2003), Dhra‘ (figures are based on limited samples only, after Goodale et al. 2002), Salibiya IX (after Enoch-Shiloh and Bar-Yosef 1997), Ein Suhum (after Nadel et al. 2000), Gesher (after Garfinkel and Nadel 1989), Gilgal I (after Noy et al. 1980), Jericho (after Crowfoot-Payne 1983), Netiv Hagdud (after Nadel 1997), Ain Darat (after Gopher 1996a), Iraq ed-Dubb (PPNA layers are above the floor of Structure I and II. My personal inspection was conducted according to Kuijt’s notes), Nachcharini cave (Pirie 2001, personal observation 2002). Hatoula (after Lechevallier et al. 1994, Lechevallier and Ronen 1985, 1994a, 1994b), WF 16 (the 1998 season only, after Mithen et al. 2000, Pirie in Finlayson et al. 1998), Jebel Queisa 24 (after Henry 1995), Nahal Lavan 108 (after Noy et al. 1981), Sabra I (after Gebel 1988), El Khiam (after Echegaray 1964, 1966), Nahal Oren II (after Noy 1973, Stekelis and Yizraely 1963), Jilat 7 (after Garrard et al. 1994a, 1994b), Abu Madi (after Bar-Yosef 1981a, 1991) and Tell Aswad (see Chapter 4).

Scrapers Burins Retouched flakes Backed tools Truncated tools Retouched blades Beit Ta’amir sickles Retouched bladelets Projectile points Hagdud truncations Gilgal truncation Notches, denticulation Borers Multiple tools Bifacial tools Varia Sickle blades Microliths Trapezes Total

Types

Table 3.3:

Chapter 3 Comparative analysis, tables

24

Sabra I Khiamian N % -

Continued.

Scrapers Burins Retouched flakes Backed tools Truncated tools Retouched blades Beit Ta’amir sickles Retouched bladelets Projectile points Hagdud truncations Gilgal truncation Notches, denticulation Borers Multiple tools Bifacial tools Varia Sickle blades Microliths Total

Types

Table 3.3:

N 18 8 55 10 148 1 41 14 100 36 84 25 10 550

% 3.3 1.5 10.0 1.8 26.9 0.2 7.5 2.5 18.2 6.5 15.3 4.5 1.8 100

Ain Darat

Hatoula Khiamian Sultanian N % N % 83 3.0 38 1.2 122 4.5 55 1.8 299 10.9 405 13.1 94 3.4 51 1.7 117 4.3 109 3.5 393 14.4 751 24.3 64 2.3 76 2.5 1 0.0 27 0.9 187 6.9 323 10.4 424 15.5 919 29.6 8 0.3 1 0.0 1 0.0 17 0.6 47 1.7 900 32.8 322 10.4 2740 100 3055 100 N -

% -

N -

% -

El Khiam Nahal Oren II N -

Jilat 7 % -

N 1 1 10 1 3 2 2 20

% 5.0 5.0 50.0 5.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 100

Jebel Queisa 24 N 10 1 5 17 11 11 10 6 4 1 76

% 13.1 1.3 6.6 22.4 14.5 14.5 13.1 7.9 5.3 1.3 100

Nahal Lavan 108

Abu Madi I Khiamian N % 107 11.4 163 17.4 154 16.5 56 6.0 227 24.3 229 24.5 936 100

Chapter 3 Comparative analysis, tables

25

Nachcharini Pers. Obv. Pirie Obv. N % N % 1 0.6 2 1.3 2 1.8 9 8.2 1 0.6 9 5.7 3 2.0 12 10.9 4 2.5 89 56.7 20 18.2 31 19.8 41 37.2 2 1.8 10 6.4 6 5.5 6 3.8 12 10.9 1 0.6 6 5.5 157 100 110 100

Continued.

Scrapers Burins Retouched flakes Backed tools Truncated tools Retouched blades Beit Ta’amir sickles Retouched bladelets Projectile points Hagdud truncations Gilgal truncations Notches, denticulation Borers Multiple tools Bifacial tools Sickle blades Microliths/lunates triangle trapezes Varia Total

Types

Table 3.3: Tr I N 10 19 1 18 47 3 25 3 37 163

% % 6.1 11.7 0.6 11.0 28.9 1.8 15.3 1.8 22.8 100

Tr 2 N 6 8 12 18 2 6 21 1 2 31 107

WF 16 % Tr 3 % N 5.6 4 7.5 20 1 4 11.2 23 16.8 1 1.9 4 5.6 2 19.6 19 0.9 7 1.9 8 29.0 17 100 110 % % 3.6 18.2 0.9 3.6 20.9 0.9 3.6 1.8 17.3 6.4 7.3 15.5 100 20 47 2 4 53 66 6 11 65 11 10 85 380

TOTAL 5.3 12.4 0.5 1.1 13.9 17.3 1.6 2.9 17.1 2.9 2.6 22.4 100

%

Iraq ed-Dubb Tell Aswad PPNA layers N % N % 6 3.0 See Chapter 4 2 1.0 9 4.7 8 4.2 3 1.6 20 10.4 26 13.5 23 12.0 46 24.1 14 7.3 4 2.0 3 1.6 1 0.5 27 14.1 192 100

Chapter 3 Comparative analysis, tables

26

27

BM-1326

BM-1327

(PPNA) F I VIII A. xvib

(PPNA) FI IV A. iiib

GL-43

P-377

P-378

P-379

BM-1787

BM-1789

(PPNA) E I, II, V IV.viii

(PPNA) FI IV A. iiib

(PPNA) DI VIA. x-xi

(PPNA) F VIIIA.xv

(PPNA) F IX..xx-xxia

GL-40

(PPNA) F I VIII B. xviia

(PPNA) F I VIII B. xviia

GL-39

BM-1324

(PPNA) F I VIII B. xviia

BM-1323

(PPNA) E I II, V, VI.xxvii

BM-252

(PPNA) D I VIII A. xvia

(PPNA) D I VI A. x-xi

BM-251

(PPNA) D II VI. via

BM-1321

BM-250

(PPNA) D I VI A. iva

BM-1322

BM-110

(PPNA) D II IX. xxii-xxiii

(PPNA) FI IV A. iiib

BM-105

(PPNA) FI IV. iiib

(PPNA) FI VIII A. xvib

Lab code

BM-106

(Proto-N.) D I VI A. x-xi

Jericho

Uncal. BP Cal. BC

9,200±70 8,610-8,270

9,280±100 8,800-8,250

9,655±84 9,250-8,790

9,775±110 9,650-8,750

9,582±89 9,250-8,650

8,895±150 8,450-7,550

8,690±150 8,250-7,450

8,770±150 8,300-7,550

9,560±65 9,250-8,650

9,230±220 9,300-7,800

9,430±85 9,150-8,450

9,380±85 9,150-8,300

9,380±85 9,150-8,300

9,230±80 8,630-8,270

9,320±150 9,150-8,250

9,390±150 9,200-8,250

10,300±500 11,300-8,500

10,180±200 10,900-9,200

10,250±200 10,900-9,300

10,300±200 10,900-9,300

Context

Lab code

RT-502C

Pta-4556

RT-762F

OxA-744

RT-762C

Pta-4555

Pta-4557

RT-762D

RT-762B

RT-762A

Pta-4590

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Bulldozer sec RT-502A

Pipe line tr.

Loc. 1006

Loc. 1006

Loc. 1004

Loc. 1004

Loc. 1012

Loc. 1001

Loc. 1001

Loc. 1002

Loc. 1000

Loc. 1007

9,280-8,800

9,400-8,800

9,600-8,800

9,250-8,800

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9,790±380 10,700-8,200

10,180±300 11,000-9,100

9,660±70

9,780±150 9,800-8,600

9,700±150 9,650-8,600

9,970±150 10,400-9,100

9,750±90

9,780±90

9,400±180 9,250-8,250

9,600±170 9,400-8,300

9,680±140 9,450-8,600

9,700±80

Uncal. BP Cal. BC

Netiv Hagdud Context

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Str. 3: V22, 3.1

Str. 3: V22, 7.2

Str. 3: V22, 7.2

Str. 3: U22, 5.4

Str. 2: K22, 3.3

Str. 2: K22, 6.1

Str. 2: L23, 3.2

Str. 1: E28, 20.1

Str. 1: E28, 22.3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

OZE 605

OZE 607

OZE 606

WK 9570

WK 9568

WK 9447

WK 9444

WK 9633

WK 9445

Lab code

ZAD 2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9,490±50

9,470±50

9,440±50

9,528±61

9,623±91

9,603±59

9,323±59

9,635±59

Context

Lab code

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9,150-8,600 F1, Str. 4, 0.40m ISGS-A0248 AMS 9,835±59 -

9,400-8,300 10,000-9,250

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9,600-9,200

9,600-9,170

10,000±68 10,000-9,250

9,984±67

9,610±170

10,059±73 10,150-9,250

10,031±69 10,050-9,250

9,940±180 10,400-8,800

9,960±110 10,050-9,200

Uncal. BP Cal. BC

9,150-8,550 F1, Str. 4, 1,01m ISGS-A0246 AMS 9,835±65

9,150-8,550 F6, Str. 1, 1.01m AA-38144 AMS

9,200-8,600 F6, Str. 1, 1.31m AA-38143 AMS

9,240-8,740 F6, Str. 1, 1.25m ISGS-3277

9,220-8,790 Tank trench, 1.8m AA-38142 AMS

8,750-8,330 Tank trench, 2.3m AA-38141 AMS

9,230-8,790 Tank trench, 2.6m ISGS-3278

9,250-8,650 Tank trench, 1.2m ISGS-2898

Uncal. BP Cal. BC 9,552±59

Dhra‘

Un-calibrated and calibrated 14C dates (the calibrated dates analyzed by using Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r: 4 sd: 12 prob usp [chron]). Jericho (after Burleigh 1981, 1983), Netiv Hagdud (after Bar-Yosef et al. 1980, Bar-Yosef et al. 1991, Bar-Yosef and Gopher 1997a), ZAD 2 (after Edwards et al. 2001b, Edwards et al. 2002a, 2002b, 2002c, Edwards and Higham 2001, Sayej 2001b), Dhra‘ (after Kuijt 2001a, Kuijt and Finlayson 2001, Kuijt and Mahasneh 1998), WF 16 (after Finlayson et al. 2000, Mithen et al. 2000, Pirie 2001. The last three were rejected by the excavators), Hatoula (after Valladas and Arnold 1994), Gilgal I (after Noy 1989), Abu Madi I (after Bar-Yosef 1981a, 1991, Goring-Morris 1991), Jebel Queisa 24 (after Henry 1995), Iraq ed-Dubb (after Kuijt 1991 et al. 1991, Kuijt 1994a, n.d.), Salibiya IX (after Enoch-Shiloh and Bar-Yosef 1997), Jilat 7 (after Garrard in Garrard et al. 1994a), Gesher (after Garfinkel and Nadel 1989), Ein Suhum (after Nadel et al. 2000), Sabra I (after Gebel 1988), Ain Darat (after Gopher 1996a), El Khiam (after Echegaray 1966), Nahal Oren (after Noy 1973, Stekelis and Yizraely 1963), Nahal Lavan 108 (after Noy et al. 1981), Abu Salem (after Bar-Yosef 1981a), Nachcharini cave (after Schroeder 1977 unpublished paper) and Tell Aswad (see Chapter 4).

Context

Table 3.4:

Chapter 3 Comparative analysis, tables

Pta-4572-

Pta-4568

Pta-4551

Pta-4552-

Pta-4580-

Layer 10

Layer 10

Layer 11

Layer 11

Layer 12

28

-

-

-

-

-

Sector A

Context

12,300±470

Pta-3008

Uncal. BP

-

-

-

-

-

10,170±120

-

Gif A 91139

Lab code

Khiamian

18,500±100

Pta-3385

1 m depth

Uncal. BP

Salibiya IX

-

-

1 m depth

-

-

Lab code

-

-

-

9,870±100

9,800±80

9,920±80

9,790±100

9,970±120

9,790±100

10,160±100

Uncal. BP

Abu Madi I

-

Context

-

-

Pta-4577

Pta-2699

Layer 8

Layer 12

Lab code

-

Cal. BC

-

Cal. BC

Cal. BC

-

-

-

-

-

-

Sector F Gif A 91360

Sector F Gif A 91138

9,400±60

9,420±50

9,690±50

Cal. BC 8,300-7,600

-

-

-

-

10,030±140 10,400-9,200

8,890±120

Uncal. BP

5,840±100

8,390±80

8,520±110

8,810±110

Uncal. BP

Jilat 7

11,830+50

12,830+50

13,010+50

9,180±60

10,220±60

9,890±50

-

Cal. BC

Context

?

?

?

?

Context

4,940-4,450

7,590-7,180

7,950-7,300

8,250-7,600

Cal. BC

13,300-11500

13,900-12,400

14,200-12,600

8,550-8,260

10,400-9,600

9,610-9,230

10,400-9,600

9,100-8,450

9,150-8,450

9,260-8,810

Cal. BC

Uncal. BP

WF 16

-

10,220±60

Sultanian

OxA-1799

OxA-2413

Context Lab code

Area A & C

OxA-527

OxA-526

Lab code

Beta-120209

Beta-120208

Beta-120204

Beta-135110

Beta-135111

Beta-1202011

Beta-1202010

Beta-120207

Beta-120206

Beta-120205

-

Un-cal. BP

Ein Suhum Lab code

Lab code

Area A & C

Area B

Area B

Context

T 1-114

T 1-112

T 1-110

T3

T3

T 2-211

T 2-210

T 1-112

T 1-111

T 1-111

Context

Context

Hatoula

10,700-9,300

-

-

14,000-11,300

20,800-19,300

Cal. BC

-

-

-

10,000-8,900

9,650-8,800

9,950-9,200

9,650-8,800

10,200-9,200

9,650-8,800

10,400-9,300

Lab code Un-cal. BP

Jebel Queisa 24

Continued.

Context

-

Context

Table 3.4:

Str. I, D10/12a

Dr. Vogel

Dr. Vogel

Dr. Camri

Dr. Camri

-

-

-

Cal. BC

9,830±80

9,740±100

9,000±220

Iraq ed-Dubb

OxA-2567

-

-

9,650-8,900

?

?

?

?

Context

-

I 9768 (Na 3)

I 9567 (Na 2)

I 9766 (Na 1)

Lab code

9,400-8,750

9,959±100

Lab code

Pta. 4553

Pta. 4595

RT 868a

RT 868b

Cal. BC

Chapter 4

9,700-9,150 10,020±100 10,150-9,250

9,870±80

9,820±140 10,000-8,700

9,790±140 9,800-8,700

Cal. BC

-

9,200-7,400

6,650-6,000

6,500-5,800

Cal. BC

-

-

12,200- 9,800

10,000- 9,200

11,800-10,900

11,500- 9,700

11,050-10,400

11,050-10,350

10,000- 9,200

9,220- 8,740

Uncal. BP

Gesher

-

8,980±275

7,505±140

7,340±165

Uncal. BP

-

-

11,175±400

9,941±72

11,145±120

10,785±285

10,723±68

10,657±82

-

Uncal. BP

Tell Aswad Lab code

Uncal. BP 9,592±64

Nachcharini cave

GX-17398

AA-38145

GX-17077

GX-17399

AA38279

AA-38278

8,800-7,500

-

Context

Lab code AA-38140

-

Cal. BC

9,950±150 10,400-9,100

Uncal. BP

Gilgal I

Layer 4d1

Layer 4c

Layer 4a

Context

Str. II, D12/2d

Str. II, D12/2a

Str. I, D10/8a

Str. I, D10/11a

Str.I, extramural, D10/14a

Str. I, E10/9a

-

Uncal. BP

Context Str. 1, D10/8a

-

Lab code

Lab code

-

Nahal Lavan 108

-

Cal. BC

Chapter 3 Comparative analysis, tables

Lab code

-

-

-

Uncal. BP

Sabra I

Continued.

Context

Table 3.4:

-

Cal. BC -

-

Context Lab code -

Uncal. BP

Ain Darat

-

Cal. BC -

Context -

Lab code -

Uncal. BP

El Khiam

-

Cal. BC -

Context -

Lab code -

Uncal. BP

Nahal Oren

-

Cal. BC

Chapter 3 Comparative analysis, tables

29

Chapter three

FIG. 3.1:

Figures

PPNA sites mentioned in the text

30

31

16000CalBC

14000CalBC

BM-1789 9200±70BP

BM-1787 9280±100BP

P-379 9655±84BP

12000CalBC

10000CalBC

8000CalBC

6000CalBC

Calibrated date

Jericho

14000CalBC

12000CalBC

NH (RT-502A) 9790±380BP

NH (RT-502C) 10180±300BP

NH (Pta-4556) 9660±70BP

NH (RT-762F) 9780±150BP

P-377 9582±89BP

P-378 9775±110BP

NH (OxA-744) 9700±150BP

NH (RT-762C) 9970±150BP

NH (Pta-4555) 9750±90BP

NH (Pta-4557) 9780±90BP

GL-43 8895±150BP

GL-40 8690±150BP

GL-39 8770±150BP

BM-1327 9560±65BP

BM-1326 9230±220BP

NH (RT-762D) 9400±180BP

NH (RT-762B) 9600±170BP

BM-1323 9380±85BP

BM-1324 9430±85BP

NH (RT-762A) 9680±140BP

NH (Pta-4590) 9700±80BP

BM-1322 9380±85BP

BM-1321 9230±80BP

BM-252 9320±150BP

BM-251 9390±150BP

BM-250 10300±500BP

BM-110 10180±200BP

BM-105 10250±200BP

BM-106 10300±200BP

Calibrated date

10000CalBC

8000CalBC

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

C14 dates analyzed by using Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000).

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

FIG. 3.2:

6000CalBC

Netiv Hagdud

Chapter three Figures

32

Dhra' (ISGS-A0246 AMS) 9835±59BP Dhra' (ISGS-A0248 AMS) 9835±65BP

ZAD 2 (WK 9568) 9623±91BP

ZAD 2 (WK 9633) 9635±59BP

9000CalBC

Calibrated date

8000CalBC

Calibrated date

12000CalBC11000CalBC 10000CalBC 9000CalBC 8000CalBC 7000CalBC

Gif A 91360 10030±140BP

WF 16 (Beta-135110) 9180±60BP

10000CalBC

Gif A 91138 8890±120BP

WF 16 (Beta-135111) 10220±60BP

11000CalBC

Gif A 91139 10170±120BP

12000CalBC

Calibrated date

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

WF 16 (Beta-120211) 9890±50BP

WF 16 (Beta-120210) 10220±60BP

WF 16 (Beta-120207) 9400±60BP

WF (16 Beta-120206) 9420±50BP

WF 16 (Beta-12205) 9690±50BP

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

Calibrated date

WF 16

Dhra' (AA-38144 AMS) 10000±68BP

ZAD 2 (WK 9570) 9528±61BP

8000CalBC

Dhra' (AA-38143 AMS) 9984±67BP

ZAD 2 (WK 9444) 9323±59BP

ZAD 2

Dhra' (ISGS-3277) 9610±170BP

ZAD 2 (WK 9447) 9603±59BP

12000CalBC 11000CalBC 10000CalBC 9000CalBC

Dhra' (AA-38142 AMS) 10059±73BP

ZAD 2 (WK 9445) 9552±59BP

8000CalBC

Dhra' (AA-38141 AMS) 10031±69BP

ZAD 2 (OZE 605) 9490±50BP

9000CalBC

Dhra' (ISGS-3278) 9940±180BP

ZAD 2 (OZE 607) 9470±50BP

10000CalBC

Dhra' (ISGS-2898) 9960±110BP

11000CalBC

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

ZAD 2 (OZE 606) 9440±50BP

Continued.

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

FIG. 3.2:

Hatoula

Dhra‘

Chapter three Figures

Continued.

Calibrated date

10000CalBC

33

16000CalBC

14000CalBC

AA38279 10723±68BP

GX-17398 11175±400BP

AA-38145 9941±72BP

GX-17077 11145±120BP

GX-17399 10785±285BP

AA-38278 10657±82BP

OxA-2567 9959±100BP

AA-38140 9592±64BP

Calibrated date

12000CalBC

8000CalBC

10000CalBC

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

12000CalBC

Dr. Vogel 9830±80BP

Dr. Vogel 9740±100BP

Dr. Camri 9000±220BP

Dr. Camri 9950±150BP

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

FIG. 3.2:

8000CalBC

11000CalBC

10000CalBC Calibrated date

9000CalBC

25000CalBC

15000CalBC Calibrated date

20000CalBC

Pta-3008 12300±470BP

Pta-3385 18500±100BP

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

12000CalBC

Iraq ed-Dubb

Gilgal I

6000CalBC

Pta-4577 9870±100BP

Pta-4580 9800±80BP

Pta-4552 9920±80BP

Pta-4551 9790±100BP

Pta-4568 9970±120BP

Pta-4572 9790±100BP

Pta-2699 10160±100BP

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

10000CalBC

8000CalBC

Salibyia IX

Abu Madi I

Chapter three Figures

Jilat 7

Pta. 4553 10020±100BP

OxA-1799 5840±100BP

34

12000CalBC

8000CalBC

Calibrated date

10000CalBC

I 9768(Na 3) 8980±275BP

I 9766 (Na 1) 7340±165BP

I 9567 (Na 2) 7505±140BP

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

Calibrated date

6000CalBC

Nachcharini

Calibrated date

10000CalBC

Pta. 4595 9870±80BP

OxA-2413 8390±80BP

11000CalBC

RT 868a 9820±140BP

OxA-527 8520±110BP

12000CalBC

RT 868b 9790±140BP

10000CalBC9000CalBC8000CalBC7000CalBC6000CalBC5000CalBC4000CalBC

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

OxA-526 8810±110BP

Continued.

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

FIG. 3.2:

9000CalBC

8000CalBC

Gesher

Chapter three Figures

35

Dh

S

ra'

iya alib

IX

r o lI dud ich she Gilga Jer v Hag Ge i t Ne

Projectile points

Ta'amir sickles

Bifacial tools

Hagdud truncation

Microliths

Ain

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

25,0%

30,0%

35,0%

J2

adi u M b A

4

Projectile points

Ta'amir sickles

Bifacial tools

Hagdud truncation

Microliths

l h rat la S la K Da tou tou a a H H

The typical diagnostic PPNA tool types from excavated sites in the Southern Levant.

D2 ZA

0,0%

2,0%

4,0%

6,0%

8,0%

10,0%

12,0%

14,0%

16,0%

18,0%

20,0%

FIG 3.3:

I

ar 16 cle WF bb u D edIraq

Chapter three Figures

4.

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF EARLY PPNB SITES 1995), Rollefson (1989: 169, 1998: 102, 2001b: 95, 2001c: 67) suggests that the EPPNB in the Southern Levant started around 9,600 and ended around 9,200 BP. In other publications he refers to the end of the EPPNB as 8,500 BP (Rollefson 1992: 123). Other scholars such as Bar-Yosef (1981b: 564) and Gopher (1996b: 152) suggest that, except for Jericho, Southern Levantine sites dating from 9,500 to 9,100 BP are uncommon. Consequently, they suggest that two of Jericho’s PPNA dates (P-377) 9,623±89 and (BM-252) 9,370±150 BP should be considered as EPPNB, and thus assume a range of 9,500-9,100 BP. However, Kuijt (1997b: 196) opposes the above suggestion and argues that both stratigraphy and architecture indicate that the PPNA practices at Jericho continued at least until 9,300 BP.

The transitional phase between the PPNA and the PPNB (i.e. EPPNB) is ambiguous and evidence of sites dating from this phase in the Southern Levant is very limited (Table 4.1, FIG. 4.1). Nine sites have been identified as EPPNB assemblages, but only five of these have been excavated. None of the excavated sites provide a clear chronology or consistent material culture to support an EPPNB phase, and all of our knowledge about this phase was introduced to the Southern Levantine literature through the excavations of Tell Aswad (de Contenson et al. 1979) and Mureybet (J. Cauvin 1979) in Syria. According to the traditional understanding of chronology, ZAD 2’s dates fit within the range of the EPPNB period. However, ZAD 2 lacks any of the diagnostic typological and technological features of the EPPNB phase such as naviform cores and Helwan points. In contrast, ZAD 2 has typical diagnostic features of the PPNA period, such as Hagdud truncations, Beit Ta’amir sickles, bifacial tools and a small number of projectile points (El Khiam and Jordan Valley, see Chapter 7), supplemented by a tight range of radiocarbon dates (see Chapter 5, section 5.5 and Chapters 6-7), and well preserved architecture (see Chapter 5 section 5.4). Thus, the chronology of the EPPNB phase is open to criticism and doubt, particularly when it is challenged by the tight range of radiocarbon dates from ZAD 2, which proves that the PPNA period in the Southern Levant existed at least until 9,300 BP. Consequently, by using the available data, I will argue that this phase is indistinct and the necessary evidence to support the existence of an EPPNB occupation in the Southern Levant is lacking.

Horwitz and colleagues (1999: 63) once suggest that the EPPNB started around 9,400 BP, yet on the very next page they propose a date of 9,500 BP instead. Relying on the fact that agricultural resources were supplemented exclusively by the hunting of wild animals in the Northern Levant and in the Taurus area, they also suggest that the subsistence economy of the EPPNB was very similar to those of the PPNA (Horwitz et al. 1999: 65-66). Researchers such as Gebel (1987: 344) argue that the lack of radiocarbon dates for this phase makes it difficult to judge whether it existed at all. Further, Kuijt (1997b, 2003) downplays the entire EPPNB phase by suggesting a strong continuity between the late PPNA and the MPPNB. Kuijt further suggests extending the PPNA to ca. 9,300 BP, therefore overlapping what is usually considered to be the EPPNB (Kuijt 1997b: 193, 196, 2003). Stordeur and colleagues have recently re-investigated Tell Aswad and suggest that what was known as the PPNA occupation belongs instead to the MPPNB (see Stordeur et al.: 2002). This revolutionary result is crucial for the chronology of this period, primarily when most of the Southern Levantine archaeologists rely on Tell Aswad for their identification and classification for the EPPNB period.

The goal of this chapter is to, therefore, present and discuss the problematic features of the EPPNB phase and the ambiguity of its material culture and chronology. I have divided this chapter into three sections. Section 4.1 presents the EPPNB in the South-Central Levant (including the Middle Euphrates Basin) and discusses the nature of its chronology and innovations. Section 4.2 presents the EPPNB assemblages by focusing on vital aspects for the illumination of this problematic phase such as lithics and radiocarbon dating in relation to stratigraphy. Finally, section 4.3 contains some concluding remarks.

Some scholars, such as Gopher (1996b: 152), Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen (1998: 86), support the existence of an EPPNB phase by relying on what is called ‘the chronological gap’ between the late PPNA and early MPPNB. These scholars suggest that there is a gap of ca. 200-400 years between the latest PPNA dates and the earliest MPPNB dates, and that this should be filled by the EPPNB phase. The tight range of radiocarbon dates obtained from ZAD 2 fills this ‘gap’ and provides further evidence for the existence of the PPNA at least until 9,300 BP.

4.1

The EPPNB period in the SouthCentral Levant 4.1.1 Chronology As noted above, the nature of the EPPNB period is ambiguous due to a lack of excavated sites and radiocarbon dates. Relying on radiocarbon dates obtained from the Syrian sites of Mureybet (Cauvin 1979, 1989) and Tell Aswad (de Contenson 1989,

36

Chapter 4

A comparative analysis of EPPNB sites assemblages in the Southern Levant, as well as key Central and Northern Levantine sites, will be discussed below. A broader discussion including all the EPPNB sites in the Central and Northern Levant (including Anatolia) is beyond the scope of this dissertation.

By now it should be clear that this period is an illdefined entity and that there is no basis for this chronological division. Sites which are classified as EPPNB are either not excavated, such as Abu Hudhud, or do not provide radiocarbon dates, such as Jilat 7, Mujahiya and Abu Salem (see section 4.2 below). ZAD 2, which has a tight range of radiocarbon dates, covers the above-debated or suggested range and ends around 9,300 BP. Consequently, the chronology of ZAD 2 strongly supports Kuijt’s suggestion for an extension of the PPNA to overlap this period (see also Edwards et al. 2002b), and scholars should therefore reevaluate the chronological identification of this phase (see Table 4.4 for detailed description of uncalibrated and calibrated dates).

4.2.1 Tell Aswad 4.2.1.1 Introduction Tell Aswad is located about 30 km Southeast of Damascus (Table 4.1, FIG. 4.1). The site was discovered by de Contenson in 1967 and was excavated in 1971 and 1972. Relying on a limited excavation (4 x 4 m2), the excavators divided the various layers of Tell Aswad into three major phases: Phase IA= PPNA/Aswadian, Phase IB= EPPNB and Phase II= MPPNB (de Contenson 1989, 1995, de Contenson et al.: 1979, see also M.C. Cauvin 1995: 83). All of our knowledge of this site was based upon the above divisions until recent investigations by Stordeur and colleagues (2002, see section 4.2.1.4 below).

4.1.2 Diffusion or local innovation? Some researchers such as Gopher (1989c, 1989d, 1990, 1994a, 1996b) and Rollefson (1992, 1996, 1998, 2001b, 2001c) try to base the existence of an EPPNB phase in the Southern Levant on very limited data, particularly the existence of Helwan points and naviform cores. It is therefore, worth presenting the history of these types.

4.2.1.2 Lithic technology According to M.-C. Cauvin (1995), the lithic technology of the PPNA layer (Phase IA) indicates that 85% of the tools were manufactured on blades that were obtained from bipolar cores (Table 4.2). In contrast, the major technological distinction of the EPPNB layer (Phase IB) is the introduction of naviform cores and the relatively intense use of large size blades (M.-C. Cauvin 1995: 86, 91). However, no further information is available regarding the naviform cores and the debitage, which are crucial elements in understanding the technology of the EPPNB.

According to Gopher’s seriation analysis, the ‘Helwan type’ is the earliest PPNB projectile point and originated in the Middle Euphrates area from where it spread to the Southern Levant (Gopher 1990: 140-141, 1994b: 389). He supports the idea that techno/typological innovations occurred in the North and spread by diffusion toward the South. He relies on the evidence that naviform cores appeared in Tell Aswad and Mureybet as early as 10,000 BP, whereas they do not appear in the South before 9,500 BP. It seems apparent that the PPNB lithic industry appeared in and spread from the North many centuries before reaching the Southern Levant (see differences in radiocarbon dates between the Syrian sites and the Southern Levantine sites in Table 4.4). However, the issue of whether the transition from the PPNA to the PPNB lithic industry in the Southern Levant was caused by either diffusion from the North or by local innovation, is still a matter of speculation. This matter needs more research and evidence before these suggestions can be supported or rejected. In the following, I will present the identified EPPNB sites according to stratigraphy, lithics and chronology.

4.2.1.3 Lithic typology One of the main characteristic features of Phase IA is the “notched points or the Aswadian points” (M.C. Cauvin 1995: 84). These points are significantly different from El Khiam and slightly different from the Helwan type. They have more than one pair of notches, their bases are truncated and some of them have short or long tangs. They are also much longer than those known in the South as the Helwan type, probably because they were manufactured on long blades produced from naviform cores. Projectile points very similar to the Aswadian IA type appeared in Mureybet III and their diffusion led M.-C. Cauvin (1995: 84) to suggest that they might be related to cultural and geographical distinctions, but this situation remains unclear. Only nine Aswadian points were recovered from Aswad IA; whereas, as many as 17 Byblos and Jericho points were recovered in Phase IB and none of the Aswadian type (M.-C. Cauvin 1995: 86, 89, table 1 page 99, Table 4.3). To further confuse the issue of the stratigraphy of Tell Aswad, Gopher (1989c: 94, fig. 1 nos. 14-16) refers to the Aswadian points of Phase IA as “Helwan” - which

4.2

The putative EPPNB assemblages in the South-Central Levant According to O. Bar-Yosef (1981a: 562-564), J. Cauvin (1987b: 397) and G. Rollefson (1998: 103104, 2001c: 70), the basic lithic divisions between the PPNA and the PPNB in the Southern Levant are the shifts from pyramidal/conical platforms to naviform blade production and the presence of long blades as well as the introduction of Helwan points (see also Gopher 1989c). In order to examine the nature of this phase, all the identified EPPNB 37

Chapter 4

A comparative analysis of EPPNB sites present the site of Mureybet in a similar fashion in order to further explore the nature of the ill-defined EPPNB period.

supposedly is a typical EPPNB type - whereas de Contenson’s dates for Aswad IA are typical PPNA (i.e. 9,730±120 BP (GIF-2633) and 9,640±120 BP (GIF-2372, see also Table 4.4).

4.2.2 Mureybet 4.2.2.1 Introduction Tell Mureybet is located on one of the low terraces of the Euphrates River, about 86 km east of Aleppo, Syria (Table 4.1, FIG. 4.1). It was discovered in 1964 by van Loon and Pomeroy, and was excavated in 1965 (van Loon 1968: 265). The major excavations of the site were undertaken between 1971 and 1974 by J. Cauvin. Tell Mureybet is divided into four major phases of occupation: Phase Ia (Natufian), Ib (originally designated as Epi-Natufian and later on has been redefined as Khiamian), Phase II (PPNA Khiamian / Proto Neolithic), Phase IIIa, IIIb (PPNA/Mureybetian), Phase IVa (EPPNB) and IVb (MPPNB, J. Cauvin 1979: 48, 1987a: 326). In the following, I will discuss only Phase II, Phase III and Phase IVa.

4.2.1.4 Radiocarbon dating and stratigraphy Relying on two radiocarbon dates recovered from phase IB, 9,340±120 BP (GiF-2370) and 9,270±120 BP (GiF-2371), recovered from 4 x 4 m2, the EPPNB at Tell Aswad was said to have started around 9,600 BP and end around 9,300 BP (J. Cauvin 1979, 1989, de Contenson 1989, 1995). However, there was no architecture to support this. Kuijt (1997b, 2003) had previously argued that the above-mentioned suggestion is problematic due to the small size of the excavated area, the shallow nature of the deposits, the lack of structures and the possible mixture of material culture near the surface. Stordeur and colleagues (2002) have reinvestigated the site recently and provided further radiocarbon dates - 8,602±51 (LY-11386), 9,219±68 (LY11384), 9,285±51 (LY-11383) and 9,805±115 (LY-11385) – and accordingly, they have argued that the previously labelled PPNA phases at Aswad are in fact MPPNB (Stordeur et al. 2002). The last date, however - 9,805±115 (LY-11385) - is indeed PPNA but the other two dates are not. These recent discoveries contradict Gopher’s (1996b) identification of the EPPNB from Tell Aswad at 9,600 BP. Thus the stratigraphic layers that were outlined by de Contenson are open to doubt (see Table 4.4). This revolutionary result is very crucial for the chronology of the PPN period, particularly when many of the Southern Levantine archaeologists rely on Tell Aswad in their identification of what is considered EPPNB.

4.2.2.2 Lithic technology In the 1965 excavations, the vast majority of the recovered lithics were manufactured on flint and only five pieces of obsidian were found (Skinner 1968: 283, see also M.-C. Cauvin 1978: 3-81). In the 1971-1974 excavations, obsidian was also recovered but the exact amount is not available (J. Cauvin 1979: 26, 2002: 93-94, M.-C. Cauvin 1998, M.-C. Cauvin and Chataigner, 1998, M.-C. Cauvin et al. 1998). The lithic industry of Mureybet indicates that bipolar cores were used throughout Phase Ib and Phase II and that microliths, particularly geometric, were abundant (see Abbès 1994, see also Table 4.2). The technology of Phase III was completely different; long blades became dominant with the introduction of naviform cores and the disappearance of microliths. Within Phase VI A, naviform cores became the dominant core type and the production of long blades increased (J. Cauvin 1979: 23-38).

4.2.1.5 Discussion The intermediate layer (Phase IB) between the Aswadian occupation (Phase IA) and the MPPNB remains (Phase II), features typical diagnostic PPNB tool types such as Helwan and Jericho points as well as naviform cores, though the total quantities are not identified. Following the C14 dates, M.-C. Cauvin (1995: 90) suggested that this layer belongs to the EPPNB. In their recent investigations, Stordeur and colleagues have noticed that the typical Aswadian projectile points did not come from the first phase of occupation. These points were associated with many other tool types which are typical PPNB, such as Byblos, Jericho and Amuq points (Stordeur et al. 2002). Furthermore, large amounts of obsidian artefacts were also recovered from the first phase, and these also are technologically distinct from the PPNA obsidian industry.

4.2.2.3 Lithic typology The 1965 excavations recovered many tool types, such as adzes, picks, end scrapers, backed blades, burins, side scrapers and small fine projectile points (Skinner 1965: 283-284), but did not provide clear evidence regarding the various phases of occupation. The 1971-1974 excavations were much more detailed than 1965 (see Table 4.3), though the total amounts of lithics are not available. An un-quantified summary of lithic types follows: Phase Ib includes various retouched tools such as microliths (lunates, micro-burins, triangles, trapezoids), projectile points (El Khiam, Aswadian, Harifian), scrapers and sickle blades (J. Cauvin 1979: 23-26).

Consequently, the pre-Stordeur et al. 2002 conclusions about the best-known EPPNB site in the Levant appear to be wrong, and they need to be re-evaluated. In the following section, I will 38

Chapter 4

A comparative analysis of EPPNB sites construction of the Tichrine Dam salvage excavations were conducted in 1991-1992. According to the excavators, this site has many small rectilinear structures which correspond to Mureybet IV A and belong to the EPPNB period (Coqueugniot 1994: 313, 1998: 109).

Phase II includes microliths (but in lesser amounts than Phase Ib), projectile points (El Khiam, Aswadian, Helwan, Mureybetian), backed blades, borers, scrapers and sickle blades (J. Cauvin 1979: 26-28, M-C. Cauvin 1974c: 311-322). Many projectile points were recovered from Phase III, and these increased in both size and number (Helwan type). Sickle blades were very few in number, but display intensive retouch along both laterals. Borers and scrapers were also recovered and feature an improvement in number and quality from earlier periods (J. Cauvin 1979: 28-37, M.-C. Cauvin 1974c: 317).

4.2.3.2 Lithic technology Large numbers of local flint and Anatolian obsidian are present on site. The closest flint source to the site is located dozens of kilometres from the assemblage, which is the main cause for core exhaustion. Naviform cores are the most dominant type and long blade production is favoured over the short ones (Coqueugniot 1994:314-321, see also Table 4.2).

Phase VI A was characterised by an abundance of Byblos points, denticulated sickles and the presence of polished stone axes (J. Cauvin 1979: 36-38, 1987a: 328-329, M.-C. Cauvin 1974d: 5963).

4.2.3.3 Lithic typology The tool categories of Dja’de el Mughara are very similar to Mureybet IV A and include various types such as, projectile points (Byblos and Mureybetian) 4.5%, retouched blades 17.8%, burins 3.4%, scrapers 13.2%, borers 9%, notches/denticulates 5%, and others 47.1% (Coqueugniot 1994, see also Table 4.3).

4.2.2.4 Radiocarbon dating and stratigraphy As mentioned above, Tell Mureybet is divided into four major phases of occupation, which were identified according to 28 C14 dates (J. Cauvin 1979: 48). These phases are classified as (see Table 4.4): Phase I: Ia (Natufian) = 10,500-10,300 BP Ib (Epi-Natufian/ PPNA Khiamian) = 10,30010,200 BP Phase II: (PPNA Khiamian) = 10,200-10,000 BP Phase III (PPNA Mureybetian) = 10,000-9,600 BP Phase IV IVa (EPPNB) = 9,600-9,300 BP IVb (MPPNB) = 9,300-8,900 BP

4.2.3.4 Radiocarbon dating Eight C14 dates were obtained from the site and six of these indicate an EPPNB time range between ca. 9,600-9,200 BP (see Table 4.4), whereas the rest seem to be later (see Coqueugniot 1998: 114). 4.2.3.5 Discussion The main diagnostic tool type features at Dja’de el Mughara are the domination of invasive retouched tanged points such as the Byblos type, and the lack of the Helwan type. This evidence supports the results from Mureybet that the Helwan points disappeared by the EPPNB period in the North.

4.2.2.5 Discussion The importance of Mureybet lies in its uncommon continued occupation for almost two millennia (Calley 1986: 12, 91, J. Cauvin 1979: 19, 43). This site is equal in importance to Jericho due to the fact that it has various clear phases of occupation supported by techno-typological distinctions as well as an extensive list of radiocarbon dates (see Crowfoot-Payne 1976: 136). Phase IV A (i.e. EPPNB) is dated to 9,600-9,300 BP and includes naviform cores as well as long blade production. Although the Helwan points dominate Phase III (PPNA), by phase IV A, Byblos points become dominant and Helwan type and indeed the El Khiam type disappear. The dates of the EPPNB layers of Mureybet (IV A) are contemporaneous with the late PPNA in the Southern Levant. This comparison indicates that the innovation of the PPNB industries appeared in the Northern Levant centuries before they spread to the South (ca. 9,200 BP).

4.2.4 Jerf el Ahmar 4.2.4.1 Introduction This site was discovered by McClellan and Mottram in 1989. It is situated 2 km north of the Tichrine Dam on the Middle Euphrates, Syria (Table 4.1, FIG. 4.1), and since August 1999 has been flooded by water. Five major seasons of excavations were undertaken between 1995 and 1999. In these major seasons, more than 1,500 m2 were uncovered and 60 architectural units were recorded (Stordeur 2000: 1-4, Stordeur and Abbès 2002: 563-565, 567-577, Stordeur et al. 1996: 1-2). 4.2.4.2 Lithic technology Both flint and obsidian form the raw materials of the lithic industry at Jerf el Ahmar. The lithic technology is very similar to Tell Mureybet (phase III or the Mureybetian phase), and both unipolar and bipolar cores (including naviform) were found (see Table 4.2). The production of large blades was also common (Stordeur and Abbès 2002: 577580), particularly in the PPNA levels.

4.2.3 Dja’de el Mughara 4.2.3.1 Introduction This site is situated in the Middle Euphrates Basin, Syria (Table 4.1, FIG. 4.1) and due to the 39

Chapter 4

A comparative analysis of EPPNB sites extra eleven projectile points were identified. These include six unclassifiable fragments, three Helwan, one Jericho, and one El Khiam. Other tool types, such as sickle blades, burins, borers, scrapers, truncated tools, bifacial tools, notches/denticulates, were also recovered (Gopher 1990: 123-132, 1996b: 154-155, Table 4.3).

4.2.4.3 Lithic typology The typology of Jerf el Ahmar also belongs in the Mureybetian tradition, where adzes, scrapers, borers, glossed blades and various amounts of projectile points (El Khiam, Helwan, Mureybet) were recovered (Stordeur et al. 1996: 1). A new type of long blade used as knives was introduced during the PPNA occupation (Stordeur et al. 1996: 1, Stordeur and Abbès 2002: 591-592, see Table 4.3).

4.2.5.4 Radiocarbon dating No C14 dates were obtained from the site of Mujahiya due to a lack of any organic material (see Gopher 1990: 138).

4.2.4.4 Radiocarbon dating Six C14 dates were taken from the site (Table 4.4) and indicate that the PPNA levels have a range of 10,000-9,450 BP and the PPNA-EPPNB transitional levels begin around 9,350 BP (see Stordeur et al. 1996: 1, Stordeur 2000: 1, Stordeur and Abbès 2002: 570).

4.2.5.5 Discussion Although Gopher admits that Mujahiya belongs to at least two different PPN periods, and that there is no absolute chronology to date these layers, he classifies the site as EPPNB (Gopher 1990: 138141, 1996b: 154-155). His suggestion was based on a few Helwan points (five of twelve specimens), as well as on a single naviform core among the 146 identified cores, and on some groundstone artefacts. He also argues that bipolar cores were found, though he does not mention anything about this type in the discussion of cores. Compared to most PPNB sites, Mujahiya has low numbers of arrowheads, sickles and bifacial tools. Gopher justifies this discrepancy by relying on the fact that Mujahiya has a large quantity of small tool fragments among the varia group, which could be remains of typical EPPNB tools such as projectile points (see Gopher 1990: 139). Furthermore, the architecture of Mujahiya indicates that Loci 1-3 display only circular structures and no constructed floors or rectilinear structures were found (Gopher 1990: 119-120). Furthermore, some tool types such as the Hagdud truncations and El Khiam points are typical PPNA, whereas Jericho points and Byblos points are typical MPPNB. It seems to me that neglecting the vast majority of the site’s material culture, such as lithics and architecture, and relying on a limited portion of the recovered materials to justify the excavator’s interpretation is a major problem with the interpretation of Mujahiya. Without further published data supported by stratigraphy and radiocarbon dates (if the site will be re-excavated), this site’s chronology is unclear and does not support an EPPNB occupation. Furthermore, Gopher identifies two PPN layers (B & C), but he does not divide the finds according to stratigraphy which makes it more difficult to understand the nature of this site.

4.2.4.5 Discussion Stordeur and Abbès (2002: 580-582) suggest that the transition from the PPNA to the EPPNB occurred around 9,350 BP and was introduced to the Central Levant from the North (i.e. Southeastern Anatolia). The location of Jerf elAhmar on the route between the Northern and the Central Levant gives the site a major role in defining this transition. However, if the transition to the EPPNB began around 9,350 BP in the North, it seems less likely that it started around 9,600 BP in the South as was suggested by Gopher (1996b). 4.2.5 Mujahiya 4.2.5.1 Introduction This site is located on a flat plateau in the Southern Golan Heights, south of Wadi Sumak, about 5 km east of Lake Tiberias (Table 4.1, FIG. 4.1). It is situated at about 80 m.a.s.l. and receives an average of 500 mm of annual rainfall. The site was discovered by Ben-Ami in the early 1970s and was excavated by Gopher in 1985. A total of 60 m2 were uncovered and all sediments were sieved through a 2-3 mm mesh (Gopher 1990: 115, 1996b: 154). 4.2.5.2 Lithic technology Local flint formed the main source of raw material. Seventeen pieces of obsidian were also discovered (broken bladelets or chips). From the 146 recovered cores (Table 4.2), 23% have single platforms with either pyramidal or irregular shapes, 17% have two platforms with amorphous shapes, and only two cores have opposed platforms, of which one was typical naviform (Gopher 1990: 120-122, 132, see also 1996b: 154-155).

4.2.6 Jilat 7 This site has been discussed in Chapter 3, section 3.2.15. However, the relevant interpretations will be summarised again here. Although the lower levels of Areas A and C of Jilat 7 are classified as EPPNB, there are no radiocarbon dates to support this designation, and these levels include many diagnostic PPNA tool types such as Hagdud truncations and El Khiam points. However, it is also quite difficult to consider these levels as

4.2.5.3 Lithic typology Among the classified retouched tools, twelve were projectile points. These points include five Helwan, one Jericho, one Byblos, one El Khiam and four unidentified fragments. A single Hagdud truncation was also recovered. Among the surface collection which was described by Gopher, an 40

Chapter 4

A comparative analysis of EPPNB sites

PPNA due to the fact that many naviform cores and Helwan points were also recovered in the same levels. Thus without having any comprehensive stratigraphic descriptions or dates relating the recovered material culture to the various identified occupational levels and phases, it is better not to consider this site as PPNA, but rather as a PPN assemblage ‘probably with some mixed PPNA material’.

4.2.8 Horvat Galil 4.2.8.1 Introduction This site is located in Upper Galilee, about 15 km from the Mediterranean coast, at an altitude of 430 m.a.s.l (Table 4.1, FIG. 4.1). It was excavated by Gopher in the 1980s and was estimated to cover an area of 10,000 m2 within 0.5 to 2 m thick, though only 70 m2 were actually exposed. The excavations exposed a rectangular structure with rounded corners and a plaster floor (Gopher 1989d: 82-83, 1996b: 154, 1997a: 183-193). Although Gopher relies on both excavated materials and surface collections in his analysis, I have chosen not to do so, and have excluded surface collections from the following discussion (note also differences in Gophers 1997a calculation of Tables 2, 3).

4.2.7 Abu Hudhud 4.2.7.1 Introduction Abu Hudhud is located in the Wadi el-Hasa region in Southern Jordan (Table 4.1, FIG. 4.1). This site has never been excavated, and all our knowledge is based on surface collections. The estimated size of the site is 0.5 hectares (see Rollefson 1996: 159160, 1998:103).

4.2.8.2 Lithic technology Although a preference for performing retouched tools on blades was evident, flakes dominated the debitage category. Among the 56 recovered cores from Area A, 28 are unidentified, thirteen have single platforms, nine have two platforms (including three bipolar naviform cores), and six have more than two platforms. Ten cores were also collected from Areas B and C, and all of them feature single platforms (Gopher 1989d: 84-85, 1996b: 154, 1997a: 195, see Table 4.2).

4.2.7.2 Lithic technology During the survey of 1982, only 56 pieces of lithics were collected and, according to Rollefson, all appear to be PPN (Rollefson 1998: 159, Table 4.2). 4.2.7.3 Lithic typology The available results from the surface collections at Abu Hudhud indicate that all eight projectile points collected were of the Helwan type. Further tools such as picks, scrapers, lustered elements, transverse burins, borers and a Helwan bladelet were recovered (Rollefson 1996: 159, 1998: 103104, see Table 4.3).

4.2.8.3 Lithic typology Various tool types were recovered from this site (in situ only), and these include both PPNA and PPNB diagnostic types. Among the projectile points, for instance, many typical types were identified such as Helwan (N = 29), Jericho (N = 8), Byblos (N = 8), El Khiam (N = 2), Amuq (N = 1) and unidentified pieces (N = 52). Tool types such as long sickle blades, notches, denticulates, retouched flakes, retouched blades, burins, borers, truncated tools, scrapers, bifacial tools and many other varia tools were also recovered (Gopher 1989d: 84-84, 1996b: 154, 1997a: 199-207, Table 4.3).

4.2.7.4 Radiocarbon dating No radiocarbon dates are available from this site (Table 4.4). 4.2.7.4 Discussion The lithic typology of Abu Hudhud fits within the general framework of the entire PPN period, and the available surface architecture remains include several curvilinear and rectilinear structures. These types of architecture might be part of a PPNA or PPNB settlement, or even part of a modern Bedouin camp. The latter suggestion is supported by the presence of many unidentified potentially Bedouin pottery sherds scattered on the surface of the site. However, the existence of Helwan points on the surface lead Rollefson to suggest that Abu Hudhud might be an EPPNB site (Rollefson 1996: 159-160), though Helwan points might extend into the MPPNB period as was the case at Abu Gosh and Beidha (see Gopher 1994a). If this site is indeed an EPPNB assemblage, then an urgent excavation is needed. Sites dated to this period are very rare in the Southern Levant and those identified to this period do not supply enough material culture evidence. Excavating Abu Hudhud as a potential EPPNB assemblage might fill this gap in our knowledge.

4.2.8.4 Radiocarbon dating Two C14 dates were obtained from the site (Carmi and Segal 1992: 131). The first is 9,340±70 (described in Gopher’s articles 1996: 154 and 1997: 218, as 9,390±70) and the second is 8,950±100 (described in Gopher’s articles 1996: 154 and 1997: 218, as 9,000±100 BP (Gopher 1996b: 154, Table 4.4). Despite the contradiction between the original source of dates and Gopher’s suggestion, the first date (9,340±70) could be PPNA, whereas the second one (8,950±100) would fit as typical MPPNB. 4.2.8.5 Discussion Based on the presence of Helwan points, Gopher suggests that this site should be considered an EPPNB assemblage (Gopher 1989d: 90, 1996b: 154, 1997a: 217-220). He did not mention anything about other tool types from periods earlier 41

Chapter 4

A comparative analysis of EPPNB sites Neolithic phases. The new excavation uncovered 44.5 m2, and revealed a series of rounded structures above the Harifian layers.

than the EPPNB, such as El Khiam and the tranchet axes, or from later periods, such as Jericho and Byblos. In some places he refers to the surface collection; otherwise, he neglects it. For instance, in his surface collection there are 118 Byblos, 89 Helwan, 44 Amuq, 21 Jericho, three Haparsa and one transversal points (Gopher 1997a: 204) and he does not include any of these types in his discussion except the Helwan points. He also does not talk about the various layers which might include earlier periods as well as later ones. He states that: “The finds from Horvat Galil represent another rare Southern Levant EPPNB site. It is generally securely dated and adds much data on aspects other than lithics, enlarging the scope of our knowledge of this period” (Gopher 1997a: 218).

According to the excavators, Abu Salem has two periods of occupations. The first is Harifian with an estimated size of 600-900 m2 and the second is EPPNB with an estimated size of 100-150 m2 (Gopher 1996b: 155, Gopher and Goring-Morris 1998: 4). 4.2.10.2 Lithic technology While classifying the lithics of Abu Salem, Gopher and Goring-Morris (1998) noticed that some Harifian materials were mixed with the PPNB artefacts. Separating the lithics of these two periods was not done according to stratigraphy as one might expect, but rather according to differences in raw material and techno/typology. The excavators suggested that the Harifian assemblage is characterized by a clear preference for translucent chalcedony for the production of all tool categories, as well as a high proportion of microliths. In contrast, the PPNB industry is characterized by the usage of brown to light grey and beige flint instead of translucent chalcedony (Gopher and Goring-Morris 1998: 8). Many opposed platform cores, some tending towards naviform types, occur within the PPNB industry, as well as almost an equal amount of flakes and blades in the debitage category (Gopher 1996b: 155, Gopher and Goring-Morris 1998: 8).

The radiocarbon dates that Gopher relies on are 9,340±70, which could fit within the PPNA dates (as was the case at ZAD 2), and 8,950±100, which seems to be typical MPPNB (see Bar-Yosef 1984a: 262; Baird 1995: 506; Kuijt 1997b: 195; Rollefson 1998: 102, 2001c: 67). The last date is supported by other material culture such as architecture, where both plaster floors and sub-floor burials were uncovered, as well a large amount of Jericho and Byblos points. According to Kuijt (2003), these features are characteristic of typical MPPNB settlements in the Southern Levant such as Jericho and Ain Ghazal, and thus Kuijt argues that Horvat Galil should be classified as an early phase of the MPPNB period. Given the lack of evidence supporting an EPPNB occupation at Horvat Galil, particularly when none of the dates fit the range of this ill-defined period, I support Kuijt’s suggestion that it will be more plausible to place Horvat Galil among the MPPNB sites.

A total of 32,156 lithics were uncovered in the 1981-1982 excavation from Levels 1-3 (excluding the surface collection). Of these, only 44 cores were identified, as well as 5,043 items of debitage and 346 retouched tools. The rest of the uncovered lithics (N = 26,723) were classified as debris (see Table 4.2).

4.2.9 Jebel Quiesa 24 This site has been previously discussed in Chapter 3, section 3.2.14 and is only briefly summarized in this section. Henry (1995: 350) suggests that although no radiocarbon dates were acquired from Jebel Quiesa 24, the presence of Helwan points and Hagdud truncations might indicate an early Neolithic occupation, particularly PPNA. Kuijt and Chesson re-examined the site in the early 1990s and suggested that the site should not be classified as PPNA but was instead MPPNB (Kuijt 1994b: 169-171).

4.2.10.3 Lithic typology A total of 346 items of retouched tools were recovered from the Neolithic layers of Abu Salem and formed 1.1% of the total amount of lithics. Of these, 20.2% were classified as projectile points (El Khiam, Helwan, Jericho, Byblos and Amuq). Other tool types such as notches/denticulates, scrapers, retouched blades, retouched flakes, borers, scrapers, etc., were also recovered (Gopher 1996b: 155, Gopher and Goring-Morris 1998: 816; in the latter reference note the difference between table 1 and 3, see also Table 4.4).

4.2.10 Abu Salem 4.2.10.1 Introduction This site is located on the Har Harif plateau in the Negev at an altitude of 960 m.a.s.l. (Table 4.1, FIG. 4.1). Marks and Scott (1976; see also Scott 1977) uncovered the late Epi-Palaeolithic Harifian assemblage in the mid 1970s and noticed the existence of a few typical PPNB projectile points. In 1981-1982 Gopher and Goring-Morris reexamined the site with particular attention to the

4.2.10.4 Radiocarbon dating The site lacks any organic remains and thus no C14 dates are available from the Neolithic occupations, though there are as many as nine dates from the Harifian phases (see Table 4.4). 4.2.10.5 Discussion While comparing the amounts and percentages of tools described in Gopher (1996b: 155) with data 42

Chapter 4

A comparative analysis of EPPNB sites

from Gopher and Goring-Morris (1998: 8-16), frequent differences become apparent. Even within the same article, Gopher and Goring-Morris mentioned in Table 3 (page 12) that the projectile points consist of 70 pieces recovered from Levels 1-3, where Level 1 is above the walls, and Levels 2-3 are below the walls. They also mentioned a total of eight projectile points collected from the surface. The total number of projectile points is thus 78 pieces. In Table 4 (page 13), however, they counted Level 1 as a surface collection and they gave a new total of 104 projectile points. They also included three pieces as in-preparation tools and 30 as fragments. Thus, there are many discrepancies.

4.2.11.2 Lithic technology According to Ronen (1984: 133), Layer 7 contains 4,000 flakes (68%), 1,239 cores (21.1%) and 641 retouched tools (10.9%, Table 4.2, see also Ronen 1984: 133). This site has a high number of cores in comparison to the retouched tools, and these are divided into seven types: Single platforms (50%), Opposed platforms (22.2%), Un-patterned (15%), Multiple platforms, (5.5%), Globular 2.8%, Discoidal (2.2%), and Pyramidal (1.4%, Ronen 1984: 188). The nature of Layer 7 is not clear due to the fact that Ronen divides that lithics of this layer into a typical ‘Neolithic component’ and a non-Neolithic component where many other tool types were recovered, including Mousterian pieces.

Based on the 21.2% of Helwan points in the assemblage, the site of Abu Salem was identified by Gopher and Goring-Morris as an EPPNB assemblage. Further types, such as Jericho points, which form 45.2% of the projectile points, and Byblos points, which form 29.7%, were not considered in their interpretations (Gopher 1996b: 155, Gopher and Goring-Morris 1998: 16-17). Both Jericho and Byblos types were available throughout the MPPNB period all over the Southern-Central Levant. Why, on this basis the site has to be counted as EPPNB, but not as MPPNB, is not clear.

4.2.11.3 Typology Among the 641 retouched tools recovered from this cave, Ronen (1984: 173-185) counts only 65 tools as typical Neolithic which consist of: three projectile points (two Jericho and one Amuq), five sickle blades and 57 bifacial tools. Furthermore, Ronen (1984: 305) counts an extra three projectile points (two Jericho and one Helwan) in Layer III of the terraces as well as three points in Layer IV (Byblos, Jericho and Helwan, Ronen 1984: 326) and an extra three points from the rock shelter assemblage, which are not further elucidated (Ronen 1984: 442). Neither Ronen nor any of the other contributors, claim that Sefunim cave or the nearby sites (i.e. Sefunim terraces and the rock shelter) are EPPNB assemblages. Gopher on the other hand, states: “The arrowhead assemblage from this Carmel site may serve as an important clue for understanding the introductory stages of the Helwan point to the Southern Levant since this type is the most important in the assemblage (Gopher 1989c: 96).

Gopher and Goring-Morris (1998: 16) state that: “although the chipped stone tool assemblage recovered is mixed with intrusive Harifian artefacts, the use of commonly quite different sources of flint enabled separation into their respective components with a high degree of reliability”. The reliability of this system is a matter of speculation and the available information about this site in this regard does not convince, particularly when there are no dates to support the hypothesis. Accordingly, the EPPNB phase at Abu Salem is at best questionable.

Gopher refers to Ronen (1984) as the source of reference for his information, but Ronen states: “Arrowheads are poorly represented in our series: three examples only; two are Jericho points… and the third is “Amuq type” leaf shape (Ronen 1984: 173).

4.2.11 Sefunim 4.2.11.1 Introduction Sefunim is a cave site in Mount Carmel, and features multiple occupation periods. The excavators labelled Layer 7 of the cave as the Neolithic component and thus the following presentation discusses only this particular cave layer (Table 4.1, FIG. 4.1, see also Ronen 1984: 133-199). However, within the region of the Sefunim cave, two other Neolithic sites have been identified: the first is on the terrace (Layers III, IV, and V, Ronen 1984: 299), and the second is in the nearby rock-shelter of Modi Lamdan (Ronen 1984: 435).

Neither Ronen nor the Sefunim assemblages support Gopher. 4.2.11.4 Radiocarbon dating Three radiocarbon dates were obtained from Layer V of the terraces of Sefunim and show the following: 9,395±130 (Hv 3368), 9,120±85 (KN-I 366) and 7,730±115 (Hv 2597, Ronen 1984: 342). The first date would fit in the PPNA, the second in the MPPNB, and the last in the PPNC (Table 4.4). 4.2.11.5 Discussion The possibility that Sefunim cave has mixed deposits is very high and Ronen indeed acknowledges this. He also divided the recovered 43

Chapter 4

A comparative analysis of EPPNB sites Other types such as El Khiam, Jericho and Byblos points are also available (Gopher 1989c: 96, see also Noy et al. 1973: 86).

material culture into ‘typical Neolithic’ components and ‘non-typical Neolithic’ components. The ‘typical components’ contains 10% of the retouched tools, and of these only three pieces are identical projectile points. However, Ronen does not mention anything about Helwan points in his assemblage, and for unknown reasons Gopher decided that Helwan points are well represented at Sefunim and thus the site should be classified as EPPNB. The judgment of Gopher is wholly unjustified in this case and there is not enough information at present to fix this assemblage within any of the Neolithic periods.

4.2.13.4 Radiocarbon dating No C14 dates were obtained from this site. 4.2.13.5 Discussion The nature of this site is open to question for many reasons. 1) No radiocarbon dates are available. 2) It is located on a slope, and the possibility of mixed deposits is very high. 3) The existence of Helwan points accompanied by many other types of projectile points such as El Khiam, Jericho and Byblos does not necessarily reflect a new period of occupation. It might be a result of mixing between the various layers of occupation, or all the above material culture elements might belong to the MPPNB.

4.2.12 Nahal Lavan 109 4.2.12.1 Introduction The site of Nahal Lavan 109 was discovered in 1973 by Friedmann and Burian, and is located in the Negev between Wadi Lavan and Wadi Ruth. The assemblage consists of a single eroded layer on the top of a loess slope. A grid of 125 squares, two square meters each, was arranged on the site and surface collections were gathered from 46 squares (Burian et al. 1976, Table 4.1, FIG. 4.1).

4.2.14 Michmoret 26, 26a 4.2.14.1 Introduction The Michmoret sites are located on the coastal plain (Table 4.1, FIG. 4.1), and our knowledge comes from the 1960s survey by Burian and Friedmann (Burian and Friedmann 1965).

4.2.12.2-3 Lithic technology and typology The vast majority of artefacts were manufactured from flint, but sixty pieces of obsidian were also recovered (Burian et al. 1976: 55). The retouched tools of this assemblage include many types such as retouched blades (15.1%), retouched flakes (14.6%), borers (6.6%), burins (5.0%), varia (4.0%), notches (2.0%), denticulated blades (0.8), scrapers (0.7); and there are 727 projectile points (41.9%, Burian et al. 1976: 53). Surprisingly, Gopher (1989: 97) claims that as many as 1000 projectile points were gathered from the surface, as well as from the limited excavation of this assemblage, and that 80% of the projectile points were Helwan type, though some Jericho and Byblos points were also present.

4.2.14.2-3 Lithic technology and typology The available information regarding lithics indicates that hundreds of projectile points were collected and half of these are Helwan types. Other types such as Jericho and Byblos are also present. 4.2.14.4 Radiocarbon dating No C14 dates were obtained from this site. 4.2.14.5 Discussion The lack of excavations and radiocarbon dates means that there is no solid evidence for using this site for any chronological comparisons.

4.2.12.4 Radiocarbon dating No radiocarbon dates were obtained.

4.3 Discussion and concluding remarks Most of the above-mentioned sites do not supply enough information to cover the minimum reportage of an archaeological site, with respect to stratigraphy, radiocarbon dates, architecture and a basic knowledge of material culture (e.g. Mujahiya, Horvat Galil, Abu Hudhud, Abu Salem, Nahal Lavan 109, Nahal Oren I, Michmoret 26, 26a, Wadi Jilat 7 and Jebel Quiesa 24). The only available information in most cases are the projectile point typologies, and - once in a while limited information about naviform cores (e.g. Mujahiya, Horvat Galil).

4.2.12.5 Discussion This assemblage does not supply enough information in regard to stratigraphy, architecture, radiocarbon dates or formal tool types which might support the existence of an EPPNB phase. 4.2.13 Nahal Oren I 4..2.13.1 Introduction Nahal Oren is located on the western cliff of Mount Carmel, about 10 km south of Haifa (Table 4.1, FIG. 4.1). The 1951-1960 excavations revealed two layers of occupations: Layer II (PPNA) and Layer I (PPNB, see Noy et al. 1973, see also Chapter 3 section 3.2.12).

Most of the examined assemblages in this chapter do not provide any chronological understanding of the EPPNB period, as proposed by some archaeologists to cover the time period of 9,6009,200 BP. These sites, as was suggested by Kuijt (2003, see also 1997b), could easily fit at some point between or within both the PPNA and the

4.2.13.2-3 Lithic technology and typology Almost half of the identified projectile points from Layer I are classified by Gopher as Helwan points. 44

Chapter 4

A comparative analysis of EPPNB sites

MPPNB period. This suggestion is also supported by the tight range of radiocarbon dates obtained from ZAD 2, which challenges the entire proposed time range of this ill-defined EPPNB phase (see Chapter 5, section 5.5). Kuijt further argues that even if one accepts that there is a Southern Levantine EPPNB phase, it does not differ in material culture from the MPPNB (Kuijt 2003, see also Gebel 1987: 344). For instance, the Helwan points appear in many MPPNB sites, such as Abu Gosh, Abu Madi III, and Beidha (see Gopher 1994a). Furthermore, Tell Aswad, the most important site for our basic knowledge and chronology of the PPNA and EPPNB, now appears to be MPPNB at the earliest (see section 4.2.1 above). The final publications for Mureybet are not yet available and without a clear understanding of the material culture of the various levels of occupations, including a comprehensive description of the lithics - particularly from Level III and IV A - the nature of the EPPNB will remain open to debate. Finally, the EPPNB period has been heavily critiqued by various researchers who are keen to understand the transitional phase between the PPNA and the MPPNB in the Southern Levant (e.g. Baird 1997, Gopher 1996b, 1999, Kuijt 2003, Rollefson 1998). Ultimately, it is better to avoid using sites with poor data for analysis; consequently, I suggest that only excavated sites which are dated and where material culture is clearly related to stratified deposits can help to clarify this debatable phase of the Neolithic. Since many key sites, such as Mujahiya, Horvat Galil and Jilat 7 are either damaged or inaccessible, Abu Hudhud should become a potential target for future excavation toward this end. Judging from the available data, it seems clear that the Southern Levant did not witness a ‘gap’ between the late PPNA assemblages (e.g. ZAD 2) and the early MPPNB assemblages (e.g. Jericho); therefore, I argue that a direct shift from the PPNA to the MPPNB seems to be the most probable chronology for the introduction of PPNB culture to the Southern Levant.

45

Chapter 4 Table 4.1:

Comparative analysis, tables List of the claimed EPPNB sites in the Southern Levant as well as five sites from the Central and Northern Levant.

N 1 2 3

Site Mureybet Dja’de el Mughara Jerf el Ahmar

Location The Middle Euphrates Basin The Middle Euphrates Basin The Middle Euphrates Basin

4

Tell Aswad

Damascus basin

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Mujahiya Horvat Galil Sefunim Nahal Oren I Michmoret 26, 26a Jilat 7 Jebel Queisa (J24) Abu Hudhud

The Golan Heights Upper Galilee Mount Carmel Mount Carmel The coastal plain Eastern Jordanian desert Southern Jordan Southern Jordan

13

Abu Salem

The Negev

14

Nahal Lavant 109

The Negev

46

Reference Van Loon 1968, J. Cauvin 1979, 1987a Coqueugniot 1994, 1998 Stordeur 2000, Stordeur and Abbès 2002 J. Cauvin 1995, de Contenson 1995, Stordeur et al. 2002 Gopher 1990, 1996b Gopher 1989d, 1996b, 1997a Ronen 1984 Noy et al. 1973 Burian and Freidmann 1965 e.g. Garrard et al. 1994a, 1994b Henry 1995 Rollefson 1996, 1998 Gopher 1996b, Gopher and Goring-Morris 1998 Burian et al. 1976

47

Debris Debitage Cores Retouched tools TOTAL Debris: debitage Debris: cores Debris: retouched tools Debitage: cores Debitage: retouched tools Core: retouched tools

TYPES

* Obsidian chips only

Sefunim N % 4,000 68.0 1,239 21.1 641 10.9 5,880 100 3.2 6.2 1.9

Tell Aswad Aswadian Phase IAa Phase IAb N % N % 80 155 -

-

-

Nahal Oren I

N -

% -

J. Cauvin

Michmoret 26, 26a N % -

Mureybet van Loon I-VIII IX-XVII N % N % 1* 0.0 4* 0.1 10,180 90.6 3,109 85.1 239 2.1 61 1.7 819 7.3 480 13.1 11,242 100 3,651 100 51.0 42.6 12.4 6.5 0.3 0.1

Nahal Lavan 109 N % 77 1,737 0.04

EPPNB Phase IB N % 88 -

% -

Wadi Jilat 7 N % -

N -

Jerf el Ahmar

-

% -

Jebel Queisa 24 N % -

N -

Mujahiya % 73.8 17.8 0.7 7.7 100

N 653 9,000 -

% 8.5 100

Abu Hudhud

Dja’de elMughara N % 3,335 33.0 5,830 57.6 36 0.4 915 9.0 10,116 100 0.6 92.6 6.4 162.0 6.4 0.03

4.1 98.5 8.9 23.8 2.1 0.1

N 5,502 1,568 66 681 8,817

Horvat Galil N 26,723 5,043 44 346 32,156

83.1 15.7 0.1 1.1 100 5.3 607.3 77.2 114.6 14.6 0.1

Abu Salem %

Lithic technology: for putative EPPNB Southern Levantine sites plus some Syrian PPNB sites: Mureybet (J. Cauvin 1979, M-C. Cauvin 1974c, 1978, Calley 1986, van Loon 1968, Skinner 1968), Dja’de el Mughara (Coqueugniot 1994), Jerf el Ahmar (Stordeur 2000, Stordeur et al. 1996, Stordeur and Abbès 2002), Tell Aswad (Cauvin 1995, Contenson 1995, Stordeur et al. 2002), Mujahiya (Gopher 1990, 1996b), Horvat Galil (Gopher 1989d, 1996b, 1997a), Nahal Oren I (Noy et al. 1973), Sefunim (Ronen 1984), Michmoret 26, 26a (Burian and Friedmann 1965), Wadi Jilat 7 (see chapter 3, section 3.2.15), Nahal Lavan 109 (Burian et al. 1976), Abu Hudhud (Rollefson 1998), Abu Salem (Gopher 1996b, Gopher and Goring-Morris 1998, the amount is calculated according to Level 1-3 and exclude the surface collection), and Jebel Queisa 24 (see chapter 3, section 3.2.14).

Debris Debitage Cores Retouched tools TOTAL Debris: debitage Debris: cores Debris: retouched tools Debitage: cores Debitage: retouched tools Core: retouched tools

TYPES

Table 4.2:

Chapter 4 Comparative analysis, tables

48

Scrapers Burins Retouched flakes Backed tools Truncated tools Retouched blades Beit Ta’amir sickles Retouched bladelets Projectile points Notches, denticulation Borers Multiple tools Bifacial tools Varia Sickle blades Others Total

Types

Sefunim N % 117 18.4 43 6.7 65 10.2 15 2.3 3 51 8.1 11 1.7 120 18.8 5 0.8 211 33.0 641 100 -

-

-

-

Michmoret 26, 26a N % A few -

Mureybet van Loon I-VIII IX-XVII N % N % 255 31.2 145 30.1 33 4.0 38 7.9 92 11.2 42 8.8 13 1.6 7 1.5 8 1.0 10 2.1 46 5.6 38 7.9 46 5.6 81 16.9 70 8.5 54 11.3 72 8.8 17 3.5 184 22.5 48 10.0 819 100 480 100

Nahal Oren I N % A few -

EPPNB Phase IB N % 2 2.3 5 5.7 29 33.0 1 1.1 24 27.3 17 19.3 9 10.2 1 1.1 88 100

Nahal Lavan 109 N % 13 0.7 86 5.0 254 14.6 277 15.9 727 41.9 34 2.0 115 6.6 162 9.3 69 4.0 1,737 100

Tell Aswad Aswadian Phase IAa Phase Iab N % N % 4 5.0 3 1.9 5 6.3 12 7.7 29 36.3 66 42.7 4 5.0 4 2.6 21 26.3 38 24.5 9 11.3 18 11.6 7 8.6 14 9.0 1 1.2 80 100 155 100 N -

N -

-

-

N 12 16 61 18 115 14 1 80 17 10 116 19 157 636

-

-

% 1.9 2.5 9.6 2.8 18.1 2.2 0.2 12.6 2.7 1.6 18.2 3.0 24.6 100

Mujahiya

Jebel Queisa 24 N % -

% -

Jerf el Ahmar

Wadi Jilat 7 N % -

% -

J. Cauvin % 1.6 4.3 7.0 1.3 20.5 14.7 14.2 2.3 0.8 16.0 17.3 100 Dja’de el Mughara N % 121 13.2 31 3.4 163 17.8 41 4.5 46 5.0 82 9.0 431 47.1 915 100

N 11 29 48 9 138 100 97 16 8 108 117 681

Horvat Galil N -

% -

Abu Hudhud N 36 16 25 2 37 70 48 29 1 1 79 2 346

% 10.4 4.6 7.2 0.6 10.7 20.2 13.9 8.4 0.3 0.3 22.8 0.6 100

Abu Salem

Lithic typology: for putative EPPNB Southern Levantine sites plus some Syrian PPNB sites: Mureybet (J. Cauvin 1979, M-C. Cauvin 1974c, 1978, Calley 1986, van Loon 1968, Skinner 1968), Dja’de el Mughara (Coqueugniot 1994), Jerf el Ahmar (Stordeur 2000, Stordeur et al. 1996, Stordeur and Abbès 2002), Tell Aswad (Cauvin 1995, Contenson 1995, Stordeur et al. 2002), Mujahiya (Gopher 1990, 1996b), Horvat Galil (Gopher 1989d, 1996b, 1997), Nahal Oren I (Noy et al. 1973), Sefunim (Ronen 1984), Michmoret 26, 26a (Burian and Friedmann 1965), Wadi Jilat 7 (see chapter 3, section 3.2.15), Nahal Lavan 109 (Burian et al. 1976), Abu Hudhud (Rollefson 1998), Abu Salem (Gopher 1996b, Gopher and Goring-Morris 1998, the amount is calculated according to Level 1-3 and exclude the surface collection), and Jebel Queisa 24 (see chapter 3, section 3.2.14).

Scrapers Burins Retouched flakes Backed tools Truncated tools Retouched blades Beit Ta’amir sickles Retouched bladelets Projectile points Hagdud truncations Notches, denticulation Borers Multiple tools Bifacial tools Varia Sickle blades Microliths Unspecified Total

Types

Table 4.3:

Chapter 4 Comparative analysis, tables

RT-1397 9,340±70

Square G11d

-

-

-

8,300-7,700

8,790-8,320

Cal. BC

-

-

-

Context

Abu Hudhud

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lab code Un-cal. BP Cal. BC

Abu Salem *

I-5499

I-5498

49

Sefunim

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Un-cal. BP

-

-

-

Un-cal. BP

Mujahiya

Lab code

-

-

Context

-

Lab code

-

-

-

Cal. BC

-

-

-

Cal. BC

7,730±115 7,050-6,350

Michmoret 26, 26a

-

Context

HV 2597

8,650-7,950

-

9,120±85

HV-3368 9,395±130 9,150-8,250

KN-I 366

Cal. BC

-

Lab code Un-cal. BP

-

Context

-

-

-

Context

-

-

-

Context

Nahal Lavan 109

Wadi Jilat 7

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lab code Un-cal. BP

-

-

-

Lab code Un-cal. BP

-

-

-

Cal. BC

-

-

-

Cal. BC

-

-

-

Context

-

-

-

Context

Nahal Oren I

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lab code Un-cal. BP

Jebel Queisa 24

-

-

-

Lab code Un-cal. BP

-

-

-

Cal. BC

-

-

-

Cal. BC

10,280+150 10,900-9,300

10,280+150 10,900-9,300

10,020+150 10,400-9,200

Lab code Un-cal. BP Cal. BC

Harifian: Level 11 I-5500

Harifian: Level 6

Harifian: Level 4

Context

* There are extra six dates from the Epi-Paleolithic levels of Abu Salem, for further details see Goring Morris (1991: 212).

-

Posthole, Str. 1 RT-1396 8,950±100

Lab code Un-cal. BP

Horvat Galil

C14 dates; for putative EPPNB Southern Levantine sites plus some Syrian PPNB sites. Horvat Galil (Camri and Segal 1992, Gopher 1996b), Abu Hudhud (Rollefson 1998), Abu Salem (Bar-Yosef 1981a, Marks and Scott 1976, GoringMorris 1991), Sefunim (Ronen 1984), Nahal Lavan 109 (Burian et al. 1976), Nahal Oren I (Noy et al. 1973), Michmoret 26, 26a (Burian and Friedmann 1965), Wadi Jilat 7 (see chapter 3, section 3.2.15), and Jebel Queisa 24 (see chapter 3, section 3.2.14), Tell Aswad (J. Cauvin 1987a, de Contenson 1995, Stordeur et al. 2002), Mureybet (J. Cauvin 1979, 1987a, M-C. Cauvin 1974c, Calley 1986, van Loon 1968, Skinner 1968), Dja’de el Mughara (Coqueugniot 1998), Jerf el Ahmar (Stordeur 2000, Stordeur et al. 1996, Stordeur and Abbès 2002) and Mujahiya (Gopher 1996b).

Context

Table 4.4:

Chapter 4 Comparative analysis, tables

50

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Phase IV B

Phase IV B

Phase IV A

Phase IV A

Phase IV A

Phase IIIb

Phase IIIb

Phase IIIb

Phase IIIb

Phase IIIb

Phase IIIb

Phase IIIb

Phase IIIa

Phase IIIa

8,690-8,290 Phase IIIa

8,610-8,280 Phase II

7,760-7,530 Phase II

8,540±110 7,950-7,300 Phase II

-

-

-

B381 = Phase IA LY-11385

-

9,805±115 9,750-8,750 Phase IIIa

B378 = Phase IA LY-11383

-

9,285±51

B390 = Phase IA LY-11384

-

9,219±68

LY-11386

C = Phase II

-

8,602±51

GIF-2369

Phase II

Phase II

7,870-7,580 Phase I B

8,240-7,760 Phase I A

8,240-7,790 Phase I A

8,560±110 8,000-7,300 Phase II

8,720±75

8,650±55

8,865±60

8,875±55

GIF-2373

GRN-6679

Phase IB

Phase II

GRN-6678

Phase IB

9,270±120 9,100-8,200 Phase I A

GRN-6676

GIF-2371

Phase IB

9,340±120 9,150-8,250 Phase I A

9,640±120 9,300-8,600 Phase I A

GRN-6677

GIF-2370

Phase IB

Context

Phase II

GIG-2372

Phase IA

Cal. BC

9,730±120 7,600-8,650 Phase I A

Un-cal. BP

Phase II

GIF-2633

Lab code

Tell Aswad

Continued.

Phase IA

Context

Table 4.4: Mureybet

Mc 737

Mc 736

Mc 861

Mc 862

Mc 863

P 1222

P 1224

Mc 611

Mc 612

Mc 613

Mc 614

Mc 615

Mc 616

Mc 735

Mc 734

P 1220

Lv 605

Lv 606

P 1217

P 1215

P 1216

Lv 607

Mc 733

Mc 635

Mc 674

Mc 731

Mc 732

Mc 675

Cal. BC

8,910±150 8,450-7,600

9,280±150 9,150-8,200

9,600±150 9,350-8,450

9,130±150 8,750-7,800

9,030±150 8,650-7,700

9,921±114 10,050-9,150

9,509±122 9,250-8,450

9,840±260 10,400-8,500

9,520±150 9,250-8,450

9,620±200 9,700-8,300

9,570±200 9,400-8,200

9,540±130 9,250-8,550

9,675±110 9,300-8,650

9,730±150 9,700-8,600

9,950±150 10,400-9,100

9,985±115 10,150-9,200

10,590±170 11,100-9,800

10,460±200 11,000-9,600

10,232±117 10,700-9,300

10,023±96 10,150-9,250

10,109±118 10,400-9,200

10,590±140 11,050-10,000

10,030±150 10,400-9,200

10,170±200 10,700-9,200

10,090±170 10,700-9,200

10,230±170 10,900-9,300

10,230±170 10,900-9,300

10,350±150 10,900-9,400

Lab code Un-cal. BP -

-

Jerf el Ahmar

LY 10647

LY 275

LY 7489

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Phase V east (floor)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

LY 10651

Phase III east (EA 47) LY 10648

Cal. BC

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9,965+55 9,750-9,250

9,855+70 9,610-9,190

9,445+75 9,150-8,450

9,395 +55 9,100-8,450

9,790±80 9,600-8,800

9,680±90 9,300-8,750

Lab code Un-cal. BP

Phase II west (EA 30) LY 10649

Phase I (EA 53)

Context

Dja’de el Mughara

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cal. BC

9,160±75

9,100±80

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ly-6166 8,990±100

Ly-6165

Ly-6164 9,070±220

UtC-2369 9,200±100

Ly-5823 9,140±390

Ly-5822

Ly-5821 9,610±170

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8,450-7,750

8,550-7,950

8,800-7,500

8,690-8,240

9,600-7,300

9,230-8,740

9,400-8,300

Ly-5820 9,540±290 10,000-7,900

Context Lab code Un-cal. BP

Chapter 4 Comparative analysis, tables

Chapter 4 FIG. 4.1:

Putative EPPNB sites Putative EPPNB sites mentioned in the text.

51

52

Tell Aswad

Calibrated date

12000CalBC11000CalBC10000CalBC9000CalBC 8000CalBC 7000CalBC

Aswad LY-11385 9805±115BP

Aswad LY-11383 9285±51BP

12000CalBC

Mureybet Mc-612 9520±150BP

Mureybet Mc-613 9620±200BP

Mureybet Mc-614 9570±200BP

Mureybet Mc-615 9540±130BP

Mureybet Mc-616 9675±110BP

Aswad LY-11386 8602±51BP

Aswad LY-11384 9219±68BP

Mureybet Mc-735 9730±150BP

Mureybet Mc-734 9950±150BP

Mureybet P-1220 9985±115BP

10000CalBC

Mureybet

Calibrated date

Mureybet Lv-605 10590±170BP

Mureybet Lv-606 10460±200BP

Mureybet P-1217 10232±117BP

Mureybet P-1215 10023±96BP

Mureybet P-1216 10109±118BP

Mureybet Lv-607 10590±140BP

Mureybet Mc-733 10030±150BP

Mureybet Mc-635 10170±200BP

Aswad GiF-2369 8540±110BP

Aswad GiF-2373 8560±110BP

Aswad GRN-6676 8650±55BP

Aswad GRN-6679 8865±60BP

Aswad GRN-6678 8875±55BP

Aswad GiF-2371 9270±120BP

Aswad GiF-2370 9340±120BP

Aswad GiF-2372 9640±120BP

Aswad GiF-2633 9730±120BP

Mureybet Mc-674 10090±170BP

Mureybet Mc-731 10230±170BP

Mureybet Mc-732 10230±170BP

Mureybet Mc-675 10350±150BP

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

C14 dates analyzed by using Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000).

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

FIG.4.2:

8000CalBC

Chapter 4 Putative EPPNB sites

Continued.

10000CalBC

Calibrated date

53

9000CalBC

8000CalBC

Abu Salem (Harifian)

Calibrated date

12000CalBC

8000CalBC

Sefunim

Calibrated date

10000CalBC

Sefunim HV 2597 7730±115BP

Abu Salem I-5500 10280±150BP 8000CalBC

Sefunim KN-I 266 9120±85BP

Abu Salem I-5499 10280±150BP

9000CalBC

Sefunim HV-3368 9395±130BP

13000CalBC 12000CalBC 11000CalBC 10000CalBC

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

Abu Salem I-5498 10020±150BP

Horvat Galil

Calibrated date

6000CalBC

10000CalBC 9500CalBC 9000CalBC 8500CalBC 8000CalBC 7500CalBC

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

Jerf el Ahmar

11000CalBC

Horvat Galil RT-1396 8950±100BP

Ahmar LY-10651 9965±55BP

12000CalBC

Horvat Galil RT-1397 9340±70BP

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

Ahmar LY-10648 9855±70BP

Ahmar LY-10649 9445±75BP

Ahmar LY-10647 9395±55BP

Ahmar LY-275 9790±80BP

Ahmar LY-7489 9680±90BP

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

FIG. 4.2:

Chapter 4 Putative EPPNB sites

Continued.

54

12000CalBC

Ly-6166 8990±100BP

Ly-6165 9100±80BP

Ly-6164 9070±220BP

UtC-2369 9200±100BP

Ly-5823 9140±390BP

Ly-5822 9610±75BP

Ly-5821 9610±170BP

Ly-5820 9540±290BP

8000CalBC

Dja’de el Mughara

Calibrated date

10000CalBC

Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.8 Bronk Ramsey (2002); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

FIG. 4.2:

6000CalBC

Chapter 4 Putative EPPNB sites

5.

THE SITE OF ZAHRAT ADH-DHRA‘ 2 (ZAD 2)

Relating material culture to stratigraphy is a basic practice at any archaeological site. However, as was presented in Chapters 3 and 4, many of the published PPNA and putative EPPNB site reports on the Southern Levant provide inadequate information about stratigraphy. As a result, it remains quite difficult to gain an overall view of the complexity and the divisions of the proposed PPNA and EPPNB periods. Thus I believe that prior to presenting the material culture of ZAD 2, a complete description of site stratigraphy is essential, and this will assist in providing a comprehensive overview of the assemblage. ZAD 2, which has various phases of occupation belonging to a single period supported by a tight range of radiocarbon dates, is an excellent example of how extensive stratigraphical descriptions can add to archaeological research. The purpose of this chapter is to therefore present and introduce ZAD 2, and to show how its assemblage will contribute towards clarifying the ambiguities of the PPNA and the EPPNB periods in the Southern Levant.

5.1 The site of ZAD 2 Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 2 is located on the eastern side of the Lisan Peninsula of the Dead Sea about 1.5 km north of adh-Dhra‘ village and has an elevation of around 180 m.b.s.l. (FIG. 5.1, Edwards and Higham 2001; Edwards and Meadows 1999; Edwards et al. 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2002b, 2002c; Falconer et al. 2001; Sayej 2001a, 2001b, 2003). Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 2 is situated on a small plateau; the western edge of the site is cut by erosion while the rest forms an oval mound about two metres thick and approximately 2,000 m2 in area (FIG. 5.2). Steep gorges - up to 30 metres deep - formed through heavy erosion throughout the millennia surround the small plateau. This evidence supports the possibility that higher Dead Sea levels in antiquity may have permitted spring waters to emerge in a less dissected landscape than at present (see section 5.2.2b.2, see also Edwards et al. 2001b). The existence of freshwater Melanopsis shells in ZAD 2 deposits indicate clearly that spring water was accessible to the inhabitants of ZAD 2 (see also section 5.2.2b.2 and Edwards et al. 2001b).

The goal of this chapter will be achieved by conducting a comprehensive and detailed study with six major aspects. The first part (section 5.1) describes the location of ZAD 2, including the circumstances of its discovery and excavation. The second part (section 5.2) deals with the regional context and discusses the various types of raw stone materials which have been recovered from and were used at ZAD 2 (subsection 5.2.1). This section also discusses the geology of the surrounding region in order to examine whether or not the relevant raw stone materials were obtainable in the vicinity. A discussion of the current environment and palaeoclimate of the region is included in order to clarify both the extent to which current conditions reflect the past and the role of the ZAD 2 region in the transition to agriculture (subsection 5.2.2). The third part of this chapter (section 5.3) discusses the subsistence economy of ZAD 2 by presenting the available archaeo-botanical evidence (subsection 5.3.1) and the archaeo-zoological remains (subsection 5.3.2), which may have been dependent on predomestication cultivation and gathering with minor hunting activities. The last portion of this section (subsection 5.3.3) includes a discussion of the role of exotic materials that reflect the long distance exchange of material culture and knowledge at the site. The fourth part of this chapter (section 5.4) discusses the excavation process, architecture and also highlights two types of recovered finds, i.e. lithics and groundstone objects. The fifth part (section 5.5) deals with the chronology of the site. Finally, the concluding remarks (section 5.6) highlight the importance of ZAD 2.

The site was first discovered by George Findlater in 1994 and was excavated in three different seasons, November-December 1999, JanuaryFebruary 2001 and November-December 2002, under the direction of Phillip Edwards as a part of the ‘Archaeology and Environment of the Dead Sea Plain project’ (see Edwards et al. 2001b, 2002a, 2002b). The latter is a joint project directed by Phillip Edwards (La Trobe University), Steven Falconer and Patricia Fall (both Arizona State University). Prior to excavation, remains of seventeen curvilinear structures appeared clearly through the topsoil, accompanied by 35 groundstone artefacts made from basalt, limestone and sandstone including pestles, querns, cup-holes, hand-stone and a shaft straightener. Furthermore, a large quantity of lithics litters the surface of ZAD 2 and indicates the presence of an extensive flint knapping industry (see Edwards et al. 2001b). The results of the surface collection shows that the site has many typical diagnostic PPNA tool types such as borers, dozens of bifacial tools including tranchet axes and a single El Khiam point. Many other tool types, such as scrapers, retouched bladelets, retouched blades, as well as a vast amount of debris, debitage and cores, were also found on the surface (Sayej 2001a). 5.2 Regional context This section provides an overview of the geomorphology and environment of the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ region; and has been divided into several sub-sections. The first part discusses the

55

Chapter 5

The site of ZAD 2 agricultural activities in the vicinity of ZAD 2 (see also Edwards et al. 2001b: 137).

geomorphology and the relevant raw stone materials found at ZAD 2. The second section discusses the current environment and palaeoclimate of the ZAD 2 region in order to understand the role of a marginal environment in the transition to agriculture.

5.2.1b Raw stone materials During excavation at ZAD 2, an abundant quantity of flint as well as a few pieces of quartz, quartzite and obsidian were recovered. Diverse varieties of basalt, limestone and sandstone were also found among the groundstone objects (see Chapter 6, section 6.2). The sources for all of these raw materials, except for obsidian, are available in the vicinity of ZAD 2.

5.2.1a Geomorphology The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ region, which is located between Wadi al Karak, Wadi adh-Dhra‘ and the Jordan Valley margin, has been named ‘The ZAD Triangle’ by the directors of the Archaeology and Environment of the Dead Sea Plain project (see Edwards et al. 2001b, 2002a). This area lies at the margin between the largest known outcrops of the Lisan Marl Formation and the Dana Conglomerate Formation (Khalil 1992: 42). The Lisan Marl Formation consists of lacustrine deposits from the bed of ancient Lake Lisan, which are exposed from the Dead Sea Basin in the south to Lake Tiberias in the north (Abed 1985: 87-88, Horowitz 1979: 145, Schuldenrein and Goldberg 1981: 59). This lacustrine formation has a maximum thickness of 40 meters (Begin et al. 1974: 8, Khalil 1992: 42) and contains laminated sediments formed by seasonal winter flood and high evaporation (Arkin 1985: 57, 61, Copeland and Vita-Finzi 1978: 10, Zak 1997: 134). The original level of Lake Lisan was ca. 180 m.b.s.l. (Khalil 1992: 45).

The Dana Conglomerate Formation is divided into early and later phases. Basalt is found in the early phase of the formation in the area known today as Wadi al-Karak (Barberi et al. 1980: 667-683, Khalil 1992: 40-41, 57), as well as around 300 meters upslope of ZAD 2 (Day in Edwards et al. 2002b). It is also found along the main road of alKarak / Ghor al-Mazra‘a (Khalil 1992: 1, 46), which is located within 2-3 km to the south and east of ZAD 2 (FIG. 5.1). Outcrops of limestone units accompanied by flint are found along the edges of the Jordan Valley as well as gravel caps on top of the Dana formation (Bender 1974: 96, Powell 1988). Sandstone formations including quartz pebbles are also present (Khalil 1992: 1014, Powell 1988: 34-40) to the east of ZAD 2, next to the Wadi al-Karak road. The Dana Formation thus has large deposits of several raw materials, including basalt, sandstone, limestone and flint cobbles (Khalil 1992: 40-41) of which were all used at ZAD 2 (Edwards et al. 1998: 28-34, Edwards et al. 2001b). For example, extensive sources of flint lie only a ten-minute walk from the site to the east (Sayej 2003), within the Dana Conglomerate Formation outcrop. These scatters of dark brown layers of flint could be seen scattered over hundreds of square meters on the surface and massive veins of flint cobbles occur within the Dana Conglomerate (see also Edwards et al. 1998: 32). Furthermore, the pebbles that washed down Wadi adh-Dhra‘ from the eastern quarries (around one km to the east of ZAD 2) as well as from the adh-Dhra‘ region (approximately two km to the southeast of ZAD 2), are widely scattered over the area surrounding ZAD 2, and these could also have been exploited for flint knapping. The existence of cortex on both cores and many flaked elements supports the idea that these cobbles provided the main source for flaking flint elements.

According to some researchers (see Vogel in Horowitz 1979: 151, see also Abed 1985: 87, Khalil 1992: 42-45), this formation was formed between 70,000BP and 12,000/11,500BP. According to Niemi (1997) however, Lake Lisan disappeared between 13,000-11,000 BP (Niemi 1997: 226-234). Whatever the case, two separate aquatic basins were subsequently created in the Jordan Valley - Lake Tiberias in the north and the Dead Sea in the south - (Macumber 1992: 36, Macumber and Head 1991: 170-172). The Lisan sediments in the southern part of the Jordan Valley, i.e. the Dead Sea Basin, include higher percentages of salt (40 grams per litre, Arkin 1985: 61) than those of the Central Jordan Valley. This high percentage of salt places limits on the viability of agriculture in the region (see section 5.2.2b.4, see also Begin et al. 1974: 21-23). The other main formation in the region, the Dana Conglomerate Formation, was probably formed during the late Miocene or Pliocene periods, ca. 10 to 5 Ma. (Khalil 1992: 59-60). The elevation of this formation ranges between ca. 300 m.b.s.l. and mean sea level; in some places it is covered by the Lisan Marl Formation as well as by alluvial sediments (Khalil 1992: 57). The formation is characterised by six conglomeratic beds of pebble to boulder conglomerate and includes grey, pink and white rounded flint chalk and limestone (Khalil 1992: 40). As is the case with the Lisan Marl Formation, the Dana Conglomerate Formations are saline, which greatly reduces the possible

During a survey that was undertaken in 1993/1994 by La Trobe University, many flint samples were collected from the region. These samples were obtained from four different localities (Spots 1, 2, 3 and 4) along a ridge overlooking Wadi adh-Dhra‘ as well as from three spots (Spots 5, 6 and 9) on the Conglomerates that served as quarries (FIG. 5.1, see Edwards et al. 1998: 32-34). All samples are stored in the archaeological laboratories at La 56

Chapter 5

The site of ZAD 2 agriculture, extensive research has been conducted on the palaeoclimate of the Levant. Zohary and Hopf (2000), for instance, have identified various types of crops from many early Neolithic assemblages. These types include emmer wheat (Triticum turgidum), einkorn wheat (T. monococcum), barley (Hordeum vulgare), lentil (Lens culinaris), pea (Pisum sativum), bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia), chickpea (Cicer arietinum), and flax (Linum usitatissimum). According to Zohary and Hopf (2000: 241-243), the natural habitat of these crops in the Levant is the Mediterranean zone. During his archaeobotanical research at ZAD 2, Meadows (Meadows in Edwards et al. 2002b, Meadows 2003) has identified four species: barley, legumes, fig and pistachio nuts (see also section 5.3.1 below). The Sudanian tropical natural vegetation that surrounds ZAD 2 does not include any of the above-mentioned crops (see also Edwards and Higham 2001: 139-142, 147-149). Therefore, all crops identified at ZAD 2 either had to be brought in as wild species from somewhere else, or cultivated in the ZAD 2 vicinity. Taking crops from their natural habitat and trying to plant them in a new region is a contribution to agriculture. However, it is first worth discussing briefly how the palaeoclimate changed through time in order to judge whether the ancient environment was substantially different to the modern one.

Trobe University and were analysed in a similar way to those recovered from ZAD 2. The collected samples from Spots 5 and 6 - classified as quarries - are very similar in quality, type and colour to those found at ZAD 2, and would thus appear to indicate that these samples are from the same source as the ZAD 2 materials (for the analysis of these samples, see Chapter 6, section 6.3.2.2). 5.2.2a Current environment The present climate of the Mediterranean and the Near Eastern region is characterised by dry, warm summers and wet, mild winters (e.g. El-Eisawi 1985: 45-46, 1996, Shehadeh 1985: 29-37, Wigley and Farmer 1982: 4, 31). However, the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ region (ca. 180 m.b.s.l.) is located in the arid area of the Dead Sea Basin, which is the lowest spot on land in the world (ca. 300-400 m.b.s.l.). This region receives around 50-100 mm annual rainfall and has an average humidity of 4550%. The temperature of the Dead Sea region is around 45°C in summer, 15°C in winter, and the surface soil temperature may reach 50°C in summer (see El-Eisawi 1985: 47, 51, 1996: 43, Bowman 1997: 217, Shehadeh 1985: 35). Furthermore, the soil of the Dead Sea region is mostly sandy and saline. This harsh environmental reality reflected negatively on local vegetation. The Zahrat adhDhra‘ area is considered to be part of the Sudanian environmental region, which is very dry and poor in vegetation. The natural vegetation of the Dead Sea region is therefore limited to specific types that are able to tolerate the lack of water and the saline soil, such as Arthrocnemum spp., Suaeda spp., Juncus littoralis, Limonium meyeri, Tamarix spp., Lycium spp., Nitraria retusa, Sonchus maritimus, Frankenia pulverulenta, Aeluropus littoralis, Desmostachya biblinnata, Prosopis fracta, Alhagi murorum, Beta vulgaris, Inula crithmoides, and Rhus tripartita (El-Eisawi 1985: 50-55, 1996: 91, 196-197, see also Danin 1998: 34-35).

5.2.2b.1 Palynological evidence Palynological evidence for vegetational and climatic changes in the Levant has come from various regions of the Eastern Mediterranean as well as the Near East, such as Israel (e.g. Baruch and Bottema 1991), Syria (e.g. Yasuda et al. 2000), Turkey, Iran and Greece (e.g. van Zeist and Bottema 1982). Pollen diagrams obtained from these regions indicate that the vegetation of these areas varied significantly. The expansion and contraction of forest and steppe vegetation did not occur at the same time across the whole of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (van Zeist and Bottema 1982: 287-289). In the following discussion, I will focus only on evidence from Lake Hula which is the principal source of evidence for the Southern Levant.

One might well ask how the local inhabitants in antiquity could live in such an extremely arid region. As opposed to the low-altitude of the Dead Sea region, the surrounding eastern and western highlands have an average altitude of 800-1000 m, with an average annual rainfall of ca. 600 mm. This altitude contrast between the two regions causes an intensive flood into the Dead Sea region during winter (see Bowman 1997: 217). Combined with the existence of a major permanent spring feeding Wadi adh-Dhra‘ approximately 2 km southeast of ZAD 2, this seasonal flow made life possible for the inhabitants of the region (Raikes 1985, see also Niemi et al. 1997: 3, Bowman 1997: 217).

During the Upper Pleniglacial period (ca. 24,00014,000 uncalibrated years BP), the Southern Levant witnessed dry conditions, and temperatures were much lower than at present (e.g. Bar-Yosef 2002a: 40, Bottema 1987: 299, van Zeist and Bottema 1982: 287, 290-291). On the basis of fluctuations in the main arboreal pollen curves, such as olive and oaks, Baruch and Bottema (1999: 79) divided the pollen diagram of Lake Hula into ten pollen assemblage zones. Zone 1 coincides with the final stages of the Last Glacial Maximum (16,000-14,650 BP), which is marked by low global temperatures and dryness. Zone 2 coincides with the Late Glacial period (14,650-10,540 BP),

5.2.2b Plant food resources Due to the importance to human development of the transition from hunting-gathering to 57

Chapter 5

The site of ZAD 2 of ZAD 2, shows that the current landscape surrounding the site does not reflect the situation as it existed in antiquity, and the inhabitants of the site are likely to have had better arable land to exploit than is the case today.

which witnessed a significant increase in both humidity and temperature (the Geometric Kebaran and Natufian periods). The transition to the Holocene is apparent in Zone 3 of Lake Hula (10,540-9,540 BP), which approximately coincides with the latest dates for the Younger Dryas period; temperatures decreased and severe aridity increased (e.g. Baruch and Bottema 1999: 79).

5.2.2b.3 Effect of early Holocene climate on food plant resources New evidence for environmental change in the region was recognised among the food-plant remains recovered from Abu Hureyra (Moore and Hillman 1992: 486). Moore and Hillman (1992: 488) suggested that an abrupt environmental change occurred during the Younger Dryas (though Helmer et al. 1998 disagree on the severity of the Younger Dryas). A reduction in moisture availability was reflected in the expansion of forests characterised by more drought-resistant types. Consequently, the availability of some foodplants decreased, these were replaced by other types such as legumes (Moore and Hillman 1992: 488-489). During the early Holocene, climatic conditions improved, and agricultural communities flourished. However, the subsistence economy of the PPNA communities in the Jordan Valley relied on the gathering of wild fruits and seeds, and on the hunting of gazelle, fox, and smaller quantities of fallow deer, wild boar, and wild cattle. Large numbers of birds, lizards and tortoises were also used as a food supply for these communities. This subsistence pattern seems to indicate a similar ‘broad spectrum’ economy to that of the Natufian (see Bar-Yosef 2002a: 50-51).

The Younger Dryas period (ca. 11,000-10,000 BP), was first recognized in the pollen record of the northern hemisphere, and has been recently understood much more clearly through the study of Greenland ice cores (e.g. Dansgaard et al. 1989: 532-534, Taylor et al. 1993: 432-436, White 1993: 186). These cores indicate that during the Younger Dryas, the climate of the North Atlantic region changed dramatically; the annual rainfall increased by almost 50% and the temperature increased by 7ºC (Dansgaard et al. 1989: 533). The Hula core indicates that after the severe aridity of the Younger Dryas (the transition to the Holocene), local forest cover began to expand again ca. 9,750 BP, and within Zone 4 (9,5407,760 BP) the climate became relatively stable and the temperature increased (Baruch and Bottema 1999: 78-83). The occupation of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 2 took place between the later part of Zone 3 and the earlier part of Zone 4, and the climate during the settlement of ZAD 2 was stable and warm, though the precipitation was very limited. Thus, conditions were probably similar to today’s.

5.2.2b.4 Conclusion The above palaeoenvironmental considerations indicates that the beginning of plant cultivation in the Southern Levant did not occur under favourable climatic conditions, but under crisis conditions associated with the climatic deterioration of the Younger Dryas (Baruch and Bottema 1999: 81, Yasuda et al. 2000: 130-131). This harsh deterioration probably reduced the wild plant-food resources available to the inhabitants of the Levant, and forced them to rely more on the small-scale cultivation of large-seeded grasses and herbaceous legumes (the progenitors of domesticated cereals and pulses). Cultivated types may have appeared during the PPNA in the Middle Euphrates Basin (see Willcox 1996: 143-152). The Southern Levant may also have relied on pre-domestication cultivation types (Harris 1996: 554-557) since evidence for domesticated types before the PPNB period is not certain (e.g. Zohary and Hopf 2000: 241, for other views see College 2001).

5.2.2b.2 Evidence from Dead Sea cores and geomorphology In their analysis of sediment cores recently collected from the Lisan Peninsula of the Dead Sea, Fall and Swoveland provided additional data to support the evidence from the above-mentioned pollen cores. They further suggested that the climate prior to 14,500 uncalibrated years BP was relatively cold and dry, whereas afterwards the region became warmer and dryer. The temperature of the Dead Sea Basin rose and then fluctuated dramatically between 14,500-12,300 BP (Fall and Swoveland in Edwards et al. 2002b: 137-140). After 7,000 BP the Dead Sea level dropped (Schuldenrein and Goldberg 1981: 70), resulting in the creation of the current dissected landscape (Horowitz 1979: 116-117). The current steep gorges that surround ZAD 2 were formed by heavy erosion - probably within the last five millennia judging by the dissection of both Bab adh-Dhra‘ and ZAD 1 (Donahue 1985: 131-140, Edwards and Higham 2001:141, Frumkin et al. 1994). This evidence supports the possibility that higher Dead Sea levels in the early Holocene (Frumkin 1997: 141) may have permitted spring waters to emerge in a less dissected landscape than at present (Fall and Davies in Edwards et al. 2001b: 137-140, Fall and Swoveland in Edwards et al. 2002a). The lack of erosion in the farmland immediately to the south

The combination of the above geomorphological, palaeoclimatic and current environmental evidence strongly indicates that the region of ZAD 2 was and still is arid with saline soil. Such circumstances would not provide a natural habitat for the species, particularly barley, which have been recovered from ZAD 2. The existence of 58

Chapter 5

The site of ZAD 2 Sea Basin, ZAD 2 has a very low proportion of projectile points. They constitute only 11 in total, or 0.7% of the retouched tools. At Dhra‘, they make up 309, or 18.3% (Goodale and Smith 2001: 2, see also Kuijt 2001a, Kuijt and Mahasneh 1998: 159), and 66, or 17.4 % at WF 16 (Finlayson et al. 2000: 16, 21, Mithen et al. 2000: 661, Pirie 2001: 6). Other tool types at ZAD 2, such as scrapers and borers are represented by 202 pieces, or 12.3% of the total amount of retouched tools. This indicates that either meat/skin processing or wood/reeds working took place at the site. These results suggest that hunting existed but was not a major preoccupation for the inhabitants of ZAD 2. The loss of bone through natural decomposition could also be a major reason behind the limited fauna. In contrast, the quantities of groundstone equipment and botanical remains imply an emphasis on plant food processing.

barley at ZAD 2 supports the idea that the inhabitants of this site must have either brought this species from the adjacent Mediterranean zone on the Karak plateau, or cultivated it near the site. The running water of Ain Waida and the seasonal water flow would make cultivation possible in this arid area. For this and other botanical reasons (Meadows 2003), it seems very likely that the inhabitants of ZAD 2 practiced pre-domestication cultivation, and that the Dead Sea Basin should be investigated more thoroughly. 5.3 The subsistence economy of ZAD 2 Prior research on PPNA settlements in the Jordan Valley shows that the economy was based on hunting and on the intensive collection or cultivation of cereals such as barley and wheat (e.g. Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989a: 476-484). In the following discussion, the cultivation of cereals, hunting and the role of exotic materials will be presented.

Although the recent microwear analysis by Goodale and Smith (2001) indicates the use of Dhra‘ projectile points as borers, it does not necessarily mean that points were not also used for hunting. Thus I will assume here that hunting at Dhra‘ was, at least, one of the major sources of the site economy, and therefore several explanations for the site’s subsistence economy can be suggested: 1) ZAD 2 is a little bit younger than Dhra‘, as the known dates indeed suggest (see Section 5.5 below), and therefore ZAD 2, with its extensive tracts of irrigable flat land (see subsection 5.2.2b.2 above), might represent a successor site to Dhra‘ with more emphasis on plant processing and cultivation. 2) If there was no connection between the two sites whatsoever, then it is possible that ZAD 2 was a seasonal site, with an emphasis on crop growing (Edwards et al. 2001b), and that its inhabitants moved to the highlands during the hot dry season to practise foraging. My analysis of flaked stone, groundstone, and usewear presented in the following chapters of this thesis, will provide more context for the botanical and faunal evidence.

5.3.1 Cultivation or domestication? Relying on his analysis of plant remains recovered from Netiv Hagdud, Kislev (1997: 225-230) argued that in order for plants to be domesticated, there must have been aperiod of pre-domestication cultivation, in which the wild ancestors of domestic crops were intentionally cultivated. Hillman and Davies (1999: 99) reached a similar conclusion through their extensive experimental research. Based on his analysis of the archaeobotanical samples from ZAD 2 and other PPNA sites in the Southern Levant, Meadows (Meadows in Edwards et al. 2001b: 144-147, Meadows in Edwards et al. 2002a, Meadows 2003), agreed with the above results and also suggested that the economy of the PPNA was based on a combination of collecting wild plants, pre-domestication cultivation and domestication (for further discussion about this issue see Hillman 1996, Kislev 1997, Zohary and Hopf 2000). Many groundstone objects were recovered during excavation at ZAD 2, such as pestles, cup-hole mortars, querns, and stone bowls, as well as picks and axes, which support the idea that the intensive processing of plant foods occurred. Edwards and Higham (2001) proposed two scenarios for subsistence at ZAD 2, and these are: either ZAD 2 occupants were hunter-cultivators who spent a considerable part of the year at the site, or they were mobile hunter-gathers who supplemented their food search by practicing the small-scale cultivation of cereals in the lee of Wadi adh-Dhra‘ (Edwards and Higham 2001: 148-149).

5.3.3 Exotic materials (trade or exchange) The absence of obsidian sources in the Southern Levant makes this raw material particularly vital for understanding ancient trade or exchange patterns (J. Cauvin 1998, M.-C. Cauvin 1998, Yellin et al. 1996: 361). Many PPNA sites, such as Jericho, Beisamoun, Netiv Hagdud, Yiftahel, Munhatta and El Khiam, received most of their obsidian from Göllü Dağ in Cappadocia in Central Anatolia (e.g. Bar-Yosef, 1991, Dixon et al. 1968, Perlman and Yellin 1980, Redman 1978: 78, Renfrew et al. 1966, Yellin and Garfinkel 1986, Yellin and Gopher 1992, Yellin 1997, Yellin et al. 1996). Six pieces (4.9 grams) of this rare raw

5.3.2 Hunting During the first season of excavation, a few bone specimens (34 pieces) identifiable as goats or gazelle, badger and freshwater crabs were found on site (Metzger in Edwards et al. 2001b: 147). In contrast to other contemporaneous sites in the Dead 59

Chapter 5

The site of ZAD 2 to this structure, another semi-circular wall was uncovered on the eastern side toward Structure 2 (F 4, see Edwards et al. 2001a, 2001b, 2002b). Square E28 was dug as a deep sondage in order to ascertain the depth of the structure. The natural Dana Conglomerate sediment appeared at about 130-140 centimetres below the surface (Loci 2225). These 25 loci were divided into three occupational phases (FIGS. 5.5, 5.6) as follows:

material have been found at ZAD 2 - including a single piece that was recovered in the third season (Sayej 2003, for definition see Chapter 6, section 6.2.4). The exact locations of this rare raw material are: Structure 2, where four pieces were collected (L23: 2.1, L22: 1.1, M20: 3.1, M23: 2.1), and in Structure 3, where two pieces were found (V22: 1.3). Preliminary analyses indicates Central Cappadocia as the source of the obsidian recovered from ZAD 2 (Edwards, personal communication).

(Phase 1) The first (uppermost) phase of occupation is scattered over eight different squares, and has Dark Greyish Brown sediments (10YR: 4/2), to a depth of 25 cm. It extends from the surface deposits to the earthen floor (Loci 1-9). As mentioned above, this phase uncovered most of the dwelling to floor level. This phase included an abundant number of lithics (N = 21,908 including 422 retouched tools, see Table 5.1 and for more detailed description see Chapters 6 and 7), as well as four fragments of groundstone (one limestone, two basalt, one sandstone).

The existence at ZAD 2 of Anatolian obsidian as well as other exotic materials such as copper ore, and Red Sea or Mediterranean dentalium shells, implies the existence of a long-distance exchange of knowledge and material culture between the inhabitants of this site and those of other Neolithic sites in the Near East (e.g. J. Cauvin 2002: 93-94, M.-C. Cauvin et al. 1998, Renfrew et al. 1966). This kind of reciprocity probably produced the basic capability for adopting the new farming economy and helped spread similar typological and technological aspects within lithic production, as well as the social identity and ideology of the PPNA societies across the entire Levant.

(Phase 2) The next phase of occupation appeared only in excavated Square E28 down to almost 85 cm of depth. It extends from the floor (Locus 9) to the surface of the Dana Conglomerate (Loci 10-21). It is also not clear whether all these loci belong to the same building or to a different one. The limited size of the excavation in this particular structure does not provide further evidence and all of these eleven loci are therefore classified as one analytical unit which does not contain any structural or obvious floor remains. Other material culture traces were found herein, but in lesser amounts than in Phase 1. A total of 4,498 pieces of lithics were recovered in the sediment ascribed to this phase including 26 retouched tools, as well as a single fragment of groundstone (sandstone, see Tables 5.1). Two radiocarbon dates were also obtained from this phase: 9,635±59 BP (WK-9633) in Locus 20.1 and 9,552±59 BP (WK-9445) in Locus 22.3 (Table 5.2 see also section 5.5 below).

5.4

The excavation procedures of ZAD 2 The excavations were carried out within meter squares, following natural layers. All sediments were dry-sieved on site and then wet-sieved at the dig house. The excavation procedures are described below. 5.4.1 Stratigraphy and architecture Fifty-nine square meters associated with four structures named 1, 2, 3 and 4 were excavated in the first two seasons of excavation (FIGS. 5.3a.5.3b, unless otherwise stated, the third season of excavation is not included in the analysis), and a total amount of 27.5 cubic meters of soil were removed (Structure 1 = 3.3 m3, Structure 2 = 20.2 m3, Structure 3 = 3 m3 and Structure 4 = 1 m3). Each structure will be discussed below according to stratigraphy, and some of the recovered material culture will be addressed (lithics and groundstone).

(Phase 3) To confirm that the exposed Dana Formation was the natural layer, the excavator dug down almost 30 cm (Loci 22-25). The first two loci (Loci 22, 24) included 1,654 pieces of debris, as well as a single specimen of debitage (see Table 5.1). While no material culture was found in the lowest loci, remains of a child’s skull covered by a little dome of mud was found in the centre of the square (Locus 25.1) accompanied by a number of loose deciduous human teeth (FIG. 5.7, see also Edwards et al. 2002a). Accordingly, Locus 25.1 was counted as belonging to a third phase of occupation. The odd discovery of the skull demonstrates that the inhabitants of ZAD 2 dug a pit into the natural Dana Formation into which they laid the infant’s skull with its mud brick cap,

5.4.1.1 Structure 1 Although Structure 1 is located on the edge of a ravine, and parts of it are missing, this spot was chosen because the remains of a curvilinear structure could be seen associated with dark, organic sediments. During the first two seasons of excavation, eight square metres were excavated, and the excavation exposed the curvilinear dwelling (Structure 1), accompanied by an earthen floor within its interior (see E28 Locus 9). The major dimensions of this structure are not known as most of it was destroyed by erosion. However, judging by the remaining parts of the structure, the estimated thickness of the wall is around 40 cm, and the available depth of the hut is around 25 cm with one to two courses of stones (FIG. 5.4). Next 60

Chapter 5

The site of ZAD 2 sandwiched between the surface of the uppermost floor (Locus 3.1) and the underlying one (Locus 4.1). Fewer finds were recovered from this phase. For example, lithics comprise 26,651 pieces including 258 retouched tools (Table 5.1) and no groundstone fragments were recovered. Two radiocarbon samples obtained from this phase provide the following dates: 9,323±59 BP (WK 9444) and 9,623±91 BP (WK 9568, Table 5.2, see also section 5.5 below).

before infilling the pit prior to the commencement of occupation in the same area. (Discussion) Three different occupational phases of occupation were identified in Structure 1. The vast majority of the identified material culture such as diagnostic PPNA tool types (Hagdud truncations, Ta‘amir sickles, bifacial tools and projectile points) and groundstone objects, were recovered from Phase 1 (78.1%). In contrast, Phase 2 has fewer identified materials (16%), and these diminish again in Phase 3 (5.9%, Table 5.1). The radiocarbon dates recovered from Phase 2 indicate a PPNA occupation. Accordingly, both material culture and dates support a late PPNA occupation for this particular structure. The concentration of lithics in the upper phases seems to be a result of natural deflation rather than human action.

(Phase 3) After digging approximately 10 cm beneath the second floor (Locus 4.1), a new phase (No.3) was identified (Locus 5.1). The deposit varies from Brown (10YR: 6/3) to Greyish Brown (10YR: 5/2) in colour. Within this level, remains of the lower level of the hearth (F 4) were recovered. Finds were fewer in this phase (N = 3,136 including 88 retouched tools, see Table 5.1) as well as a fragmentary sandstone tool.

5.4.1.2 Structure 2 This structure was excavated over an area of 36 square meters in order to trace and uncover its curvilinear wall lines, which could be partly seen through the topsoil. The first (F 1) runs from north to southeast and the second (F 2) runs from north to southwest. After two seasons of excavation, it became apparent that Feature 1 has a tear-drop shape with an opening to the northeast (see Edwards et al. 2001b, 2002a). The major axis of this structure is around seven metres with a wall thickness of 50-60 cm and a depth of around 100 cm. The walls of this structure are constructed entirely from mortared stones in two rows standing five to seven courses in height (FIG. 5.8). Four squares within the interior western side of the structure (K22, L22, K23 and L23), as well as the interior parts of J22 and J23, were excavated to the natural Dana Formation in order to clarify the extent of its deposits (FIG. 5.9). Five different occupational phases were identified in Structure 2 (FIGS. 5.10, 5.11) and these are as follows:

(Phase 4) After removing the Phase 3 floor (Locus 5.1) and digging through approximately 15 cm (Locus 6) of Light Brown sediment (7.5YR: 6/4), a fourth earthen floor (Phase 4) was identified (Locus 6.1). A total of 1,245 pieces of lithics were recovered, including four retouched tools (Table 5.1) and a complete basalt pestle from this phase. (Phase 5) After digging about 15 cm beneath the fourth floor, the lowest deposits of Structure 2 were uncovered lying on top of the natural Dana Formation. I classified this thin layer as phase 5 in order to separate the recovered material culture from that found above the surface of the fourth floor, but it may consist only of material trampled into the natural sediments, and is not a clear phase of occupation. Only 45 pieces of debris were recovered (Table 5.1), and a single radiocarbon date obtained: 9,603±59 BP (WK 9447, Table 5.2).

(Phase 1) This upper phase includes two layers (Loci 1, 2). The depth of Locus 1 is around 20 cm and consists of a pale brown surface sediment (10YR: 6/3). The depth of Locus 2 is around 20-25 cm, and consists of a greyish brown sediment (10YR: 5/2). The latter is sandwiched between the surface soil and the earthen floor, Locus 3.1. In this level, a plastered stone hearth (F 4) was discovered just above the floor and approximately one meter from the western wall (F 1). This phase was rich in finds, and large quantities of lithics were recovered (N = 56,043 including 530 retouched tools, Table 5.1). A few fragments of groundstone objects were also recovered (18 sandstones, five limestone and four basalt).

(The exterior) A secondary burial was excavated just outside the southwest side of Wall 1, between Structures 1 and 2 (F 5). The presence of many teeth, three mandibles and a cranium shows that the burial contained at least three individuals deposited in fill near the uppermost floor (FIG. 5.12, see also Edwards et al. 2002a). No burial pit was visible at any stage of the excavation, although three large stones based around the skull were found. Many lithic artefacts, including Hagdud truncations, picks and scrapers, were also recovered in this grave, as well as a small stone figurine. (Discussion) Structure 2 comprises four superimposed floors and a large exterior stone wall with an opening oriented toward the northeast (for further description see Edwards et al. 2002a). Lithic

(Phase 2) Phase 2 which has a depth of 20 cm and consists of a Light Brownish Grey sediment (10YR: 6/2), is 61

Chapter 5

The site of ZAD 2 (The natural sediment) In order to check whether the layer underneath Phase 4 was indeed part of the Dana Formation, the excavation went further in Square V22 to a depth of 40 cm. One locus was identified in V22 (Locus 7.5) and two loci in U22 (Loci 5.5 and 5.6). Very few lithics were recovered from this phase (618 pieces including 6 retouched tools), and no further finds appeared (Table 5.1). At 150 cm below the surface, the natural Dana sediment was encountered all over the excavated area and the excavator stopped digging.

frequency decreased with depth, until almost nothing was found close to the natural sediments (see Chapters 6 and 7). Diagnostic PPNA retouched tool types were mainly found in Phase 1, whereas very few were recovered in the other phases. It seems likely that the surface lithics became concentrated in the upper layers throughout the years due to the steady erosion of fine surface sediment. 5.4.1.3 Structure 3 This structure was positioned at the highest point of the site and excavated over an area of two square meters (FIG. 5.13). The main reason for choosing this specific location was to investigate the deepest deposits within the mound (see Edwards et al. 2001b, 2002a). Four occupational phases have been identified within the exterior and one phase in the exterior (FIGS. 5.14, 5.15) and they are as follows:

(Exterior loci) The excavators removed the stones which formed part of wall in Square V22. By doing so, three natural loci were excavated (Loci 9, 10 and 11). At a depth of 50 cm, an earthen floor (Locus 11.1) was uncovered associated with the first course of the wall. A total of 1,777 lithics was recovered from these exterior loci (eleven of them classified as retouched tools, see Table 5.1).

(Phase 1) The first phase includes two deposits (U22 Loci 1.1-1.3 and V22 Loci 1.1-1.3) recovered above the surface floor (V22 Locus 2.1). This floor was discovered at a depth of 40 cm, and was associated with a hearth (F 3). A large quantity of lithics was recovered from these sediments (N = 4,187 including 126 retouched tools, see Table 5.1), as well as some groundstone fragments (one basalt, four sandstone).

(Discussion) This structure provided excellent chronological evidence for ZAD 2. Three dates were obtained from Phase 2, and one date was obtained from Phase 4 associated with the lowest floor of the structure. This evidence supports the idea that the various layers of occupation belong to a relatively short-lived site dating to the late PPNA.

(Phase 2) Underneath Phase 1 was a curvilinear structure running from east to west (F 1). After removing 40 cm of sediment, a second earthen floor was recovered (V22 Locus 7.3). One layer was identified in Square U22 (Locus 5) and four layers in Square V22 (Loci 4, 5, 6, 7). Many lithics were recovered from this phase (N = 3,847 including 35 retouched tools, Table 5.1), as well as a single fragment of basalt groundstone. Three radiocarbon samples were also collected and analysed (V22 Locus 7.2) and have yielded the following dates: 9,440±50 (OZE 606), 9,470±50 BP (OZE 607), and 9,490±50 BP (OZE 605, Table 5.2).

5.4.1.4 Structure 4 Thirteen square meters were excavated in Structure 4, which is located in the northern part of ZAD 2, and these tracked a large curvilinear wall (F 1, see also FIG. 5.16). After removing the sediments, the wall appeared to be only one course high, sitting on a thin layer of small pebbles and rocks, with a maximum height of 25 cm and a width ranging from 55-68 cm. In contrast to Structure 2, the interior of Structure 4 was associated with a ‘cobblestone’ floor composed of pebbles and small stones set into a rough, greyish soil (F 5). Structure 4 is much less well preserved than the other excavated structures, and this is easily attributable to its position near the edge of the mound where deposits are thinner (see Edwards et al. 2002a). Due to the shallow nature of the deposits associated with this structure, only two layers were identified in Squares P10 and Q10 (FIG. 5.17), but many lithics were recovered (N = 20,823 including 130 retouched tools, Table 5.1), as well as fragments of bone needles.

(Phase 3) This phase has the depth of 10 cm and comprises a floor, V22 Locus 7.3. A few finds including 621 pieces of lithics (three retouched tools) were recovered in this phase which is associated with the surface of a second earthen floor (see Phase 4 below).

(Discussion) Although the available data are quite limited due to the shallow deposits of Structure 4, the techno/typological characteristics of the recovered lithics are very similar to those recovered from the other structures (see Chapters 6, 7). Once again many typical PPNA tool types features. The latter identification and its closeness to the other

(Phase 4) Phase 4 comprises an earthen floor (V22 Locus 7.4 and U22 Locus 5.4) associated with a radiocarbon sample collected from U22 Locus 5.4 and dated 9,528±61 BP (WK 9570, see Table 5.2). A total quantity of 504 pieces of lithics were recovered (no retouched tools).

62

Chapter 5

The site of ZAD 2 tested by digging some squares to the natural deposits at about 100-150 cm below the surface. The site plan consists of curvilinear stone huts, which adjoin each other. Despite identifying various phases in various structures, it seems that all of these belong to the same period, and both material culture and radiocarbon dates support this suggestion. These well-preserved architectural remains provide further evidence for the complexity of early Neolithic societies, and highlight the importance of the arid areas to the development of agrarian societies.

structures support the idea that Structure 4 belongs to the same short-lived period of occupation that was identified in the other structures. 5.5 Chronology Many charcoal samples were collected from the various excavated structures, excluding Structure 4, which has a very shallow occupation. Nine samples were analyzed by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) and provided the chronology of the site. The series of radiocarbon dates are presented in Table 5.2. The uncalibrated dates obtained from the lowest to the uppermost floor deposits of the site show that ZAD 2 has a range of ca. 300 years between 9,635 to 9,323 BP, while the calibrated dates show with 95.4 % probability that ZAD 2 has a range of ca. 900 years sandwiched between 9,250 to 8,330 BC (Sayej 2003, see also Edwards et al. 2002b). In both cases, the tight range of radiocarbon dates indicates that ZAD 2 seems to be the youngest and the shortest-lived site among all the identified PPNA sites in the Southern Levant (see Chapter 3). This kind of clear context clarifies that the PPNA period in the Southern Levant lasted at least until ca. 9,300 BP, and therefore indicates that the chronology of the supposed Early PPNB period is no longer relevant (see Chapter 4).

It is worth mentioning that the density of lithics decreased with depth in all the excavated structures. The probable explanation for this pattern may relate to natural deflation whereby the surface lithics were concentrated in the upper layers due to the steady erosion of fine surface sediment. This indicates that natural causes are behind the distribution of lithics rather than human behaviour. The analysis of lithics (see Chapter 6 and 7), architecture and radiocarbon dates indicate that ZAD 2 was a relatively short-lived settlement dating to the late PPNA period. ZAD 2 thus contributes strongly to the understanding of cultural development in the PPNA period, and helps in clarifying the nature of its debatable Khiamian and Sultanian phases (see Chapter 3). The tight range of radiocarbon dates obtained from ZAD 2 also aids in clarifying the ambiguity of the so-called Early PPNB phase (see Chapter 4). Chapter 6 will present a comprehensive analysis of lithics recovered in the first two seasons of excavation at ZAD 2, and will discuss the technological aspects of these lithics. Lithic typology will be discussed separately in Chapter 7.

5.6 Concluding remarks Although ZAD 2 is located in an arid environment and the present topography of the site is heavily dissected by erosion, in antiquity the region featured a more hospitable landscape and predomestication cultivation probably happened on site. None of the plant remains uncovered at ZAD 2 could grow in the vicinity naturally, and thus had to be brought to the region from somewhere else. Palaeoenvironmental studies indicate that the climate of the Dead Sea region prior to 14,500 BP was relatively cold and dry, whereas by the early Holocene the region became warmer and dryer. Within the latter period, the Dead Sea level was higher than at present, and the vicinity of ZAD 2 was therefore less dissected. Within the last 7,000 years, however, the Dead Sea level decreased dramatically as a result of erosion, seasonal water flow and human-effected ecosystem change. Geological research in the ZAD 2 region indicates that all raw materials obtained at ZAD 2 are local, excluding obsidian. The latter probably originated in Anatolia, and thus reflects the long-distance exchange of material culture and knowledge between the inhabitants of ZAD 2 and other PPNA communities. The stratigraphical analysis of ZAD 2 indicates that all structures were built from stones, and at least two of them were built on top of the Natural Dana Formation (Structures 2 and 3). Within each structure there were various occupational levels of floors, up to four in the case of Structure 2. The depth of all structures - excluding Structure 4 - was 63

Chapter 5 Table 5.1:

The site of ZAD 2, tables Lithic artefacts recovered per loci per structure, ZAD 2 Structure

Strata

Phase

Lithic artefacts Tools

Debitage

TOTAL Debris

N

1

1

1

288

281

6,214

6,783

1

2

1

85

520

7,616

8,221

1

3

1

5

42

1,307

1,354

1

4

1

5

37

690

732

1

5

1

2

33

412

447

1

6

1

16

162

2,029

2,207

1

8

1

Subtotal

21

15

2,128

2,164

422

1,090

20,396

21,908

1

10

2

9

154

1,151

1,314

1

11

2

3

74

119

196

1

12

2

1

18

349

368

1

13

2

2

38

215

255

1

14

2

2

7

337

346

1

15

2

1

21

230

252

1

16

2

3

11

91

105

1

17

2

1

25

36

62

1

18

2

1

2

526

529

1

19

2

2

36

40

78

1

20

2

1

14

710

725

1

21

2

-

49

219

268

26

449

4,023

4,498

Subtotal

%

78.1

16.0

1

22

3

-

1

1,623

1,624

-

1

24

3

-

-

30

30

-

Subtotal

-

1

1,653

1,654

5.9

TOTAL

448

1,540

26,072

28,060

100

Structure

Strata

Phase

Lithic artefacts

TOTAL

Tools

Debitage

Debris

N

%

2

1

1

530

3,122

31,074

34,726

2

2

1

-

2,275

19,042

21,317

530

5,397

50,116

56,043

64.3

3

2

258

1,355

25,038

26,651

30.6

Subtotal 2 2

4

3

88

160

2,888

3,136

3.6

2

5

4

4

36

1,205

1,245

1.4

2

6

5

-

-

45

45

0.1

880

6,948

79,292

87,120

100

TOTAL

64

Chapter 5 Table 5.1:

The site of ZAD 2, tables Continued. Structure

Strata

Phase Tools

Debitage

Debris

3

1

1

85

308

2170

3

2

1

42

80

1496

127

388

3,666

3

2

7

16

154

4

2

8

16

179

5.1 + 6

2

2

19

168

5

18

185

8

92

22

77

778

1

24

601

1

24

601

6

498

Subtotal 3 3 3

5.2 + 7.1

2

3

7.2

2

5.3 + 7.3

3

Subtotal 3 Subtotal

Lithic artefacts

N

%

4,181

39.4

877

8.3

626

5.9

504

4.7

618

5.8

5.4 + 7.4

4

6

498

5.5 + 7.5

Dana

5

7

172

5.6

Dana

1

15

418

6

22

590

3

5

6

43

1176

3

8

Exterior Exterior

4

45

765

3

9

Exterior

10

64

1265

3

10

Exterior

1

10

337

11

Exterior

7

84

21

169

3,627

3,817

35.9

686

9,760

10,623

100

Subtotal 3 Subtotal

3 Subtotal TOTAL

177

Structure

Strata

Phase

4

1

1

4

2

1

TOTAL

Table 5.2:

TOTAL

Lithic artefacts

TOTAL

Tools

Debitage

Debris

N

119

1,158

16,477

17,754

%

11

187

2,871

3,069

130

1,345

19,348

20,823

100

The chronology of ZAD 2 (after Edwards et al. 2002a) the calibrating dates analyzed by using Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000). Structure

Context

Lab code

Un-cal. BP

Cal. BC

1

E28. Locus 20.1

WK 9633

9,635±59

9,230-8.790

1

E28. Locus 22.3

WK 9445

9,552±59

9,250-8.650

2

L23. Locus 3.2

WK 9444

9,323±59

8,750-8.330

2

K22. Locus 3.3

WK 9568

9,623±91

9,240-8.740

2

K22. Locus 6.1

WK 9447

9,603±59

9,220-8.790

3

V22. Locus 3.1

OZE 605

9,490±50

9,150-8.600

3

U22. Locus 5.4

WK 9570

9,528±61

9,200-8.600

3

V22. Locus 7.2

OZE 606

9,440±50

9,150-8.550

3

V22. Locus 7.2

OZE 607

9,470±50

9,150-8.550

65

Chapter 5

FIG. 5.1:

Figures

The Dead Sea Plain in Jordan showing the location of ZAD 2 (after Edwards et al. 2001a).

66

Chapter 5 FIG. 5.2:

Figures The current landscape of the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ region (view west).

67

Chapter 5 FIG. 5.3a:

Figures ZAD 2 after the second season of excavation (after Edwards et al. 2001a).

68

Chapter 5

Figures

FIG. 5.3b:

View of ZAD 2 after the second season of excavation (looking west).

FIG. 5.4:

Structure 1 looking northeast, ZAD 2

69

Chapter 5

Figures

FIG. 5.5:

The stratigraphy of Structure 1, ZAD 2 (after Edwards et al. 2002a).

FIG. 5.6:

Harris Matrix, Structure 1, ZAD 2 STRUCTURE 1

D26 1

D27 1

E27

E28

F26

E26

1

1

2

1

F28

F27

1

3 2

2

2

4

6

7

F2

WALL 8 Phase 1

5

9

9

UNEXCAVATED FLOOR 3

UNEXCAVATED FLOOR

10

10

F3 STONE ALIGNMENT

11

WALL F1

F4 WALL

12 13

14 STONE IN MUD BRICKS INSTALLATION F5 15 16 17 18 19

20

21

22

23

Phase 2 Dana sediment

24

25

F6

Phase 3 UNEXCAVATED

26

70

Chapter 5 FIG. 5.7:

Figures The infant skull (E28: 25.1), Structure 1, ZAD 2

71

Chapter 5

Figures

FIG. 5.8:

Structure 2 after two seasons of excavation, ZAD 2

FIG. 5.9:

Structure 2 looking west, ZAD 2

72

Chapter 5

Figures

FIG. 5.10:

The stratigraphy of Structure 2, ZAD 2 (after Edwards et al. 2002a)

J22

L22

K22

W

North Baulk

E R

L.1.1 L.1.2

R

F.1 Wall

L.2.2

9,323+- 59 b.p. L.3.4 9,623+- 91 b.p. floor

R

floor

L.3.1

L.3.2 L.3.3

R

L.5.1

floor

R L.6.1 L.6.2 L.6.3

L.7.1

lithified Dana (unex)

0

floor

L.4.1

L.5.2

L.5.3 L.6.1

9,603+- 59 b.p.

FIG. 5.11

L.2.1

1m

Harris Matrix, Structure 2, ZAD 2 STRUCTURE 2 (in)

K20

1

L20

1

2

M20

1

2

3

3

N20

1

O20

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

3

Phase 1 3

2

Q22

L22

1ST FLOOR

3

3

3

4

4

2ND FLOOR

4

4

L23

Q23

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

4TH FLOOR

3

3

3

5

1

1

2

2

3

3

1

1

FLOOR

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

5

4

6

6

FLOOR

4

2

K25

R24

3

3

3

L27

M28

N28

O28

1

1

1

1

2

3

1

1

2 3

4

2

O27

1

FLOOR

4 4

N27

1

4 5

M27

1

3 UNEXCAVATED

P26

1

STRUCTURE 2 (out) I25

O26

1

Phase 5

J25

L26

HEARTH

Phase 4

J24

P25

1

7 DANA SEDIMENTS

J23

Q24

5

4

4

4

L24

K24

2ND FLOOR

4

Phase 3

6

6

R23

1ST FLOOR

5

5

4 4 4 The 1st course of Structure 2

K23

S22

Phase 2 4

3RD FLOOR

UNEXCAVATED 2

R22

J22

2

3

K22

P21

2

2

73

3

2

5

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

5

5

5

Chapter 5 FIG. 5.12

Figures The secondary burial (F 5), Structure 2, ZAD 2

74

Chapter 5 FIG. 5.13:

Figures Structure 3 looking north, ZAD 2

75

Chapter 5 FIG. 5.14:

Figures The stratigraphy of Structure 3, ZAD 2 (after Edwards et al. 2002a)

U22

V22 E

South Baulk

W

L.1.1

L.1.1

L.1.2

(stone tumble)

L.1.2

L.1.3

F.3

L.2.1 L.3.1

R

9,490+- 50 b.p.

F.6

R R

L.4.2 R R

L.5.2

L.7.2

F.7 L.5.6

R

L.7.3

L.5.4 = 7.4

floor

9,528+- 61 b.p. (unex) L.7.5

0

FIG. 5.15:

1m

Harris Matrix, Structure 3, ZAD 2 STRUCTURE 3 U22

V22

1

1

2

2

1st FLOOR

4

4

5.1

6

5.2

7.1

Phase 2

2nd FLOOR

F.3 HEARTH Phase 1

3

3

5

8

7.2

9 5.3

7.3

Phase 3 7.4

5.4

PLATFORM 10 FLOOR

Phase 4 5.5

11 7.5

DANA SEDIMENT 5.6

UNEXCAVATED 6

12

DANA SEDIMENT 8

76

L.2.4 L.4.1 L.4.2

L.5.1

L.7.1 R

L.2.2 L.2.3

L.4.1

L.6.1

Wall 9,440+- 50 b.p. 9,470+- 50 b.p.

R

L.4.1

L.2.1

L.1.3

13

Chapter 5

Figures

FIG. 5.16:

Structure 4 looking south, ZAD 2

FIG. 5.17:

Harris Matrix, Structure 4, ZAD 2 STRUCTURE 4

K11

L11

1

1

L12 1

M11

M12

N11

N12

O11

O12

P10

P11

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Q9

Q10

1

1 2

2 UNEXCAVATED 2

2

2

2

2

2

2

77

2

2

3

2

2

3

6.

TECHNOLOGICAL DEBITAGE, ZAD 2

ANALYSIS

OF

LITHIC

DEBRIS

AND

87,120 specimens, Structure 3 provided 10,623, and Structure 4 supplied 20,823 specimens (Table 6.2). Each section of this chapter follows the same format for ease of reference.

This chapter provides a comprehensive technological study of the lithic artefacts from ZAD 2. This analysis is particularly necessary given the lack of comprehensive comparative studies on PPNA sites in the Southern Levant, with the exception of Netiv Hagdud (Nadel 1997). Through this comprehensive report on lithic technology at ZAD 2, it will also be possible to evaluate the site’s position within the PPNA complex. Both debris and debitage will be examined in detail. Discussions of debris will only include brief summaries of numbers and weights, whereas discussions of debitage - in keeping with previous studies from various time periods of lithic traditions (e.g. Brezillon 1977; Crew 1976; Edwards 1987; Holdaway and Stern 2003; Marks 1976; and Nadel 1997) - will be presented according to various attributes such as material dimensions, cortical coverage, platform type, platform angle, type of percussion bulb, scar orientation, blank profile and shape, cross section type, termination type, breakage rates and colour. The distribution of both debris and debitage within structures and phases will also be discussed.

6.2 Raw materials The use and identification of raw material are fundamental requirements for understanding both lithic technology and typology. Lithic knappers selected specific raw materials for specific tasks. The results of the excavations show that ZAD 2 has an abundant flint flaked stone assemblage, supplemented by a few pieces of quartz, quartzite and obsidian, and a diverse groundstone assemblage of basalt, limestone and sandstone. Table 6.3 shows that flint forms 99.3% (N = 1,623) of the retouched tool category, and an even higher percentage of both the debitage / cores and debris categories (N = 10,517 and 134,457 respectively). The main colours of the flint used in knapping at ZAD 2 - debris and broken debitage are excluded from this analysis - are: brown (80.6%), followed by grey (15.1%), black (3.3%) and others (1%; see Tables 6.4, 6.5a, 6.5b). Among the groundstone objects, 61.5% (N = 24) are made from sandstone, 23.1% (N = 9) from basalt and 15.4% (N = 6) from limestone.

Several topics are covered in the course of this chapter, the first being a discussion of the raw materials used for flint knapping. Cores collected from Spots 5 and 6 of the nearby flint quarries during the 1993 / 1994 survey season in the ZAD region (Edwards et al. 1998) will also be analysed and compared to those found at the site itself in order to see whether or not these quarries are the likely source of the flint used at ZAD 2. Then comes a detailed discussion of the debris and debitage. Finally, a chapter summary will highlight the general features of ZAD 2’s lithic technology.

As discussed in Chapter 5, geological studies in the ZAD 2 region indicate that sources for all of the above-mentioned raw materials are available in the vicinity, except for obsidian (e.g. Khalil 1992; Powell 1988). Some technical definitions of the raw materials that were identified at ZAD 2 may prove useful. 6.2.1 Basalt Basalt is an igneous (volcanic) rock, which contains 45-55% silica, and is rich in iron and magnesium (Crabtree 1972: 36; Holdaway and Stern 2003: 26; Morris 1992: 223). Basalt is available in the Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ region in Wadi al-Karak in the form of dykes which intrude the Dana Conglomerate Formation (see Khalil 1992; Powell 1988).

6.1

The flaked stone assemblage of ZAD 2 The lithic artefacts of ZAD 2 were recovered and collected by dry sieving the entire volume of excavated sediments on site using 3 mm mesh. All samples were then wet-sieved at 3 mm mesh and sorted in the dig-house in Ghor al-Mazra‘a village in Jordan (see FIG. 5.1 in the previous chapter), and La Trobe University’s laboratories. All materials from both the 1999 and 2001 excavation seasons were included, yielding a total number of 146,626 flint artefacts, of which 1,635 were classified as retouched tools recovered from Structures 1 to 4 (Tables 6.1, 6.2, FIGS. 6.1, 6.2). Structure 1 provided 28,060 specimens of debitage, debris and retouched tools. Structure 2, which is the largest of the four excavated areas, supplied

6.2.2 Flint Flint is a crypto-crystalline siliceous rock, which features a high degree of variability in quality and colour. It appears as veins in geological layers, or as wadi pebbles and nodules in secondary deposition (e.g. Crabtree 1972: 65, Gopher 1999: 116, Holdaway and Stern 2003: 27-28, Morris 1992: 848, Rosen 1997: 24-25, 32). Flint is available in the ZAD 2 region as massive veins in

78

Chapter 6

Debris and debitage, ZAD 2

Crew 1976: 78-79). In other words, lithic technology is the comprehensive process of knapping, core reduction and preparation of tools. The following section will study the lithic technology of ZAD 2 through a discussion of debris, cores and debitage, whereas lithic typology will be discussed in Chapter 7.

the Dana Formation and in the wadis in the form of pebbles and cobble (see Khalil 1992, Powell 1988). 6.2.3 Limestone Limestone is a sedimentary rock often composed of calcium carbonate (Morris 1992: 1240). The Wadi al-Karak region has several major types of limestone. In particular, the ZAD 2 dwellings were built from fragments of Amman Silicified Limestone, outcrops of which are available at the Jordan Valley margins and also scattered over the Dead Sea Plain (see Khalil 1992, Powell 1988).

6.3.1 Debris Debris is defined by a lack of the diagnostic features which characterise flaking. It is formed through intentional or unintentional flaking, breakage, or thermal shock. Debris is divided into two categories based on size: firstly chips, which are less than 15 mm in length, and secondly chunks, which are more than 15 mm in length. Chunks also include fragments of cores or raw materials that could not be classified under any of the other available categories (e. g. Crabtree 1972: 58, Marks 1976: 374, Mortensen 1970: 20, Stekelis 1972: 23).

6.2.4 Obsidian Obsidian is a natural black or dark-coloured igneous glass with no internal crystalline geometry. It is characterized by conchoidal fracture patterns and is usually composed of rhyolite. Obsidian does not occur naturally in the Southern Levant and the closest source is in Anatolia (e. g. BarYosef 1991, Crabtree 1972: 79, Dixon et al. 1968, Morris 1992: 1496, Perlman and Yellin 1980, Renfrew et al. 1966, Rosen 1997: 24, Yellin and Gopher 1992).

6.3.1.1 Debris distribution within structures The debris class at ZAD 2 consists of 91.7% (N = 134,472) of the total number of lithics, subdivided into chips (85.7%) and chunks (14.3%). In Structure 1, 92.9% (N = 26,072) of the lithics are classified as debris (9.6% chunks and 90.4% chips). The figure for Structure 2 is 91% (N = 79,292; 16% chunks and 84% chips), for Structure 3 91.9% (N = 9,760; chunks 14.1% and chips 85.9%), and for Structure 4 92.9% (N = 19,348; 14% chunks and 86% chips (Tables 6.1, 6.2).

6.2.5 Quartz Quartz is a mineral with a specific crystalline composition (SiO2). It occurs in a number of differently coloured varieties, including milkywhite and translucent rock crystal (e.g. Gourgaud 1998: 18, Holdaway and Stern 2003: 28-29, 126128, Morris 1992: 1771, Rosen 1997: 24). The basalt layer of the Numayri Dolomite in the Dhra‘ region has a high proportion of quartz (Powell 1988).

The distribution of debris within each structure is about 92% of each sub-assemblage. That each structure features almost equal quantities of waste material indicates that flint knapping was carried out in all structures, using similar techniques throughout. This large amount of debris also reflects the easy availability of raw materials at ZAD 2 and indicates that the flint knappers produced most of their tools on site (see Sayej in Edwards et al. 2001b, Sayej in Edwards et al. 2002a, Sayej 2001a, 2001b, 2003).

6.2.6 Quartzite Quartzite is a sedimentary rock consisting of pure quartz sandstone cemented with silica. It has a milky-white colour (Morris 1992: 1771). A few pieces of this raw material have been recovered at ZAD 2, but their source is unknown. 6.2.7 Sandstone Sandstone is a sedimentary rock consisting primarily of quartz, and featuring sand-sized grains between >0.06 and 2 mm in diameter. It is often used to make groundstone artefacts (Crabtree 1972: 90, Morris 1992: 1907). The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ region has many types of sandstone (see Khalil 1992, Powell 1988: 28-30), but the closest to ZAD 2 are outcrops of lithified Dana Conglomerate, which in fact directly underlie the site.

The total weight of all debris is almost 100 kg (Table 6.6), distributed as 14.2 kg in Structure 1, 65 kg in Structure 2, 6.5 kg in Structure 3, and 14.2 kg in Structure 4 (although Tables 6.6, 6.7 appear in grams, weight in the text has been converted to the nearest kilogram for greater clarity of presentation). Table 6.7 shows the number and weight of debris, analysed by using an Alpha Electronic Balance - AN-500N - with a minimum measurement of 0.1 gram, in comparison to retouched tools. These numbers are as follows:

6.3 Technology The term ‘lithic technology’ refers to the techniques of stone tool manufacture and includes knapping stone tools into certain types that feature distinct characteristics (Crabtree 1972: 93, see also

79

Chapter 6

Debris and debitage, ZAD 2

The lithics and their densities within Structures 1, 2 and 3 decreased with depth. The probable explanation for this pattern may relate to natural deflation whereby the surface lithics concentrated in the upper layers throughout the years due to the steady erosion of fine surface sediment. This indicates the importance of taphonomic processes in the vertical distribution of lithics.

Structure 1 has 26,072 pieces of debris (14.2 kg) and 448 retouched tools (3.2 kg). Structure 2 has 79,292 pieces of debris (65 kg) and 880 retouched tools (12 kg). Structure 3 has 9,760 pieces of debris (6.5 kg) and 177 retouched tools (1.7 kg), and finally Structure 4 has 19,348 pieces of debris (14.2 kg) and 130 retouched tools (1.5 kg). The ratios for each site show that Structure 1 has 58.2 pieces of debris per retouched tool and 4.4 kg of debris per 1 kg of retouched tools. Structure 2 has 90.1 pieces of debris per retouched tool and 5.4 kg of debris per 1 kg of retouched tools. Structure 3 has 55.1 pieces of debris per retouched tool and 3.8 kg of debris per 1 kg of retouched tools. Structure 4 has 148.8 pieces of debris per retouched tool and 9.5 kg of debris per 1 kg of retouched tools (Table 6.7). The combined ratios for the entire site are 82.2 pieces of debris per retouched tool and 5.4 kg of debris per 1 kg of retouched tools (Table 6.6).

Many of the quantitative differences between Structure 4 and the other structures are due to the fact that Structure 4 is stratigraphically very shallow. Only one course was recovered from the original wall whereas the other structures were as deep as 100-130 cm (see Chapter 5). The high quantities of material in the upper phase contain proportionally more debris, leading to the high debris/core ratio for Structure 4. 6.3.1.2 Debris distributions by phase Although the majority of lithic artefacts came from the first two layers (where the most excavation took place), it is still possible to observe that the number of lithics and their densities decrease with depth (see Tables 6.8a-c). In order to illustrate this pattern, the distribution and density of debris in each phase of the excavated four structures has been examined. Tables 6.8a and 6.8b show that Structure 1, which is divided into two phases, Phase 1 features 11% (N = 2,131) of the chunk category and 15.9% (N = 18,265) of the chips category (both chips and chunk has a density of 81,584 pieces per m3 in Phase 1). In contrast, Phase 2 features only 1.9% (N = 371) of the chunks and 4.6% (N = 5,305) of the chips (both chips and chunk has a density of 3,784 pieces per m3 in Phase 2). Although five different phases were recorded in Structure 2, a similar pattern to that in Structure 1 occurs. Phase 1 of Structure 2 features 45.8% (N = 8,830) of the chunks and 35.9% (N = 41,286) of the chips (a density of 62,689 pieces per m3). These numbers decrease almost by half in Phase 2, which features only 17.5% (N = 3,377) of the chunks and 18.8% (N = 21,661) of the chips (a density of 76,168 per m3). Phase 3 has 2.2% (N = 420) of the chunks and 2.1% (N = 2,468) of the chips (a density of 125,540 per m3). Phase 4 has 0.4% (N = 82) of the chunks and 1% (N = 1,123) of the chips (a density of 1,440 per m3), and the last phase has only 0.03% (N = 7) of the chunks and 0.03% (N = 38) of the chips (a density of 450 per m3). A slightly different pattern is observable at Structure 3. Phase 1 of Structure 3 produced 4.0% (N = 761) of the chunks and 2.4% (N = 2,905) of the chips (a density of 12,098 pieces per m3). Phase 2 has 0.5% (N = 100) of the chunks and 0.6% (N = 678) of the chips (a density of 3,112 per m3). Phase 3 has 0.3% (N = 65) of the chunks and 0.5% (N =

The above analysis indicates that Structure 4 has by far the highest amount of debris per retouched tool (148.8), whereas the rest of the Structures have 40-90 pieces of debris per retouched tool. Furthermore, the weight of the debris at most of the structures is almost 4 times greater than the weight of retouched tools, except at Structure 4, where the weight of debris is 9.5 times greater than the weight of retouched tools. In order to understand the above patterns, it is important to see the ratio of debris in comparison to cores. The ratios of debris and cores in each structure are as follows: Structure 1 has 26,072 pieces of debris (14.2 kg) and 62 cores (2.3 kg) for a count ratio of 421:1 and a weight ratio of 6:1. Structure 2 has 79,292 pieces of debris (65 kg) and 327 cores (22.2 kg) for a count ratio of 243:1 and a weight ratio of 3:1. Structure 3 has 9,760 pieces of debris (6.5 kg) and 40 cores (1.9 kg) for a count ratio of 244:1 and a weight ratio of 3:1. Finally, structure 4 has 19,348 pieces of debris (14.2 kg) and 36 cores (1.5 kg) for a count ratio of 537:1 and a weight ratio of 10:1. The combined ratios for the site as a whole are a count of 289.2:1 in favour of debris over cores, and 3.6 kg of debris for each kg of cores (Tables 6.6, 6.7). The high ratio of debris in comparison to cores supports the idea that flint knapping took place on site. The above analysis features similar results to those of the ratios of debris / retouched tools. Structure 4 has the highest amount of debris per core (537:1), followed by Structure 1 (421:1). Structures 2 and 3 have around 240 pieces of debris per core. In terms of weight, Structure 4 has the highest ratio per core (10:1) followed by Structure 1 (6:1). The other two structures have a ratio of almost 3 kg of debris per 1 kg of core.

80

Chapter 6

Debris and debitage, ZAD 2

536) of the chips (a density of 7,513 per m3). Phase 4 has 0.2% (N = 47) of the chunks and 0.4% (N = 451) of the chips (a density of 4,980 per m3). A few specimens of the chunks (0.3%, N = 56) and a few pieces of chips (0.5%, N = 534, a density of 767 per m3), had also percolated down into the underlying sterile Dana sediments. The exterior phases have 1.9% (N = 349) of the chunks and 2.8% (N = 3,278) of the chips (a density of 87,048 per m3, for variability within structures see Table 6.8c).

not only be important for understanding ZAD 2, but also contribute to understanding the PPNA period as a whole. In keeping with common practice for various time periods and lithic traditions (e.g. Crew 1976, Edwards 1987, Holdaway and Stern 2003, Marks 1976 and Nadel 1997), the debitage will be presented according to numerous quantitative and qualitative attributes such as: dimension, weight, heat-treatment, cortex, platform type, platform angle, percussion bulb, scar orientation, shape, profile, cross section, termination, breakage and colour. The distribution of debitage and cores within structures and phases will also be discussed.

As mentioned earlier, the probable explanation for this pattern relates to natural deflation whereby the surface lithics concentrated in the upper layers due to the steady erosion of fine surface sediment. This indicates that natural causes, rather than human behaviour, have exerted most influence on the vertical distribution of lithics.

The debitage category comprises 6.9% of the total lithics recovered from ZAD 2 and is divided as follows: flakes (74.2%), bladelets (22.4%), blades (1%) and core trimming elements (2.4%). Cores, on the other hand, only form 0.3% (N = 465) of the total lithics (Tables 6.1, 6.2). The combination of debris (91.7%), debitage (6.9%) and cores (0.3%) emphasizes the low frequency of retouched tools (1.1%) at ZAD 2. This high percentage of unretouched artefacts is most likely related to the availability of raw materials in the vicinity of the site. When raw material sources are located far from the site where they are used, the consequence is often a high frequency of retouched tools (see the case at Gesher; Garfinkel and Nadel 1989).

6.3.1.3 Summary Approximately 92% of the lithic artefacts from each of the four excavated structures were classified as debris. The ratio of debris to retouched tools for the site as a whole indicates that for each retouched tool there are 82.2 pieces of debris and for each core there are 289.2 pieces of debris. As for weight, for each 1 kg of retouched tools, there are almost 4.5 kg of debris in Structures 1-3 and 9.5 kg in Structure 4. In comparison to cores, the weight of debris indicates that Structure 4 has the highest ratio per core (9.5 kg of debris per 1 kg of core), followed by Structure 1 (6.2 kg), while the other two structures have the ratio of almost 3 kg of debris per 1 kg of core. The position of Structure 1 on the edge of a ravine and Structure 4 on a slope has led to a different artefact preservation pattern within the upper phases of these structures compared to Structures 2 and 3.

6.3.2.1 Cores Cores are the original blanks from which flakes are removed, and the evidence of removal includes negative scars on the core and a lack of positive facets and ventral surfaces (e. g. Crabtree 1972: 5456, Holdaway and Stern 2003: 41-47, Hodges 1971: 100-102, Marks 1976: 374, White 1963: 6). The percussion bulb appears on the ventral surface at the proximal end of the flake where it is detached from the core (e.g. Crabtree 1972: 48, Rosen 1997: 23).

6.3.2 Debitage The term ‘debitage’ is defined as all of the lithic flaking products resulting from knapping (besides the retouched component). In addition to cores, it includes flakes, bladelets, blades and core trimming elements (e. g. M.-C. Cauvin et al. 1998: 385, Crabtree 1972: 58, Marks 1970: 28, Marks 1976: 375, Stekelis 1972: 23). As cores are the nuclei that produce debitage, they will be counted as a separate class in this dissertation, but the remaining types will all be included in the debitage category.

(a)

Quality, dimensions, weight and ratios Cores constitute only 0.3% of the lithics recovered from ZAD 2, and this percentage equates to 465 pieces (Table 6.1). The mean dimensions of the cores are 3.8 cm in length (a standard deviation of 1.2 cm and a range of 1.5-9.4 cm) by 3.8 cm in width (a standard deviation of 1.2 and a range of 1.2-10.8 cm) by 3.2 cm in thickness (a standard deviation of 1.2 and a range of 1.1-8.4 cm). The mean weight of the cores is 61.5 grams (a standard deviation of 58.6 grams and a range of 4.6-570 grams; see Table 6.9).

According to Collins (1975: 19), debitage and cores are very reliable sources of data as these types are more common than retouched tools and are available in most prehistoric sites. Thus, the comprehensive analysis of debitage and cores will

81

Chapter 6

Debris and debitage, ZAD 2

(f) Core size Adopting the classification system used at Netiv Hagdud (Nadel 1997), cores were divided into three different categories according to their length from the platform: small (< 30 millimetres), medium (30-70 millimetres) and large (> 70 millimetres). Table 6.18 shows that 74.8% (N = 348) of cores belong to the medium size category followed by 23% (N = 107) in the small and 2.2% (N = 10) in the large size categories. The smaller sizes might result from a deliberate strategy to produce small size tool blanks. The availability of very small tool types such as Hagdud truncations and some borers supports this assumption.

In comparison to the rest of the debitage (see Table 6.7), the ratios between cores and debitage are 1: 21.6 for numbers and 1 kg: 2.4 kg for weights. The ratios between cores and debris are 1: 289, and 1 kg: 3.6 kg. The ratios of cores to retouched tools are 1: 3.5 and 1 kg: 1.5 kg. (b) Burning There are very few burnt cores among the recovered lithics of ZAD 2. Only 7.5% (N = 35) of the cores feature evidence of burning, and evidence of heat treatment was absent (Table 6.10). The burnt cores were identified according to the presence of cracks and pot-lidding in each individual piece. The characteristics of heat treatment such as glossy lustre, double lustre, greasy surface texture and colour changes, were lacking in this assemblage (see Edwards and Edwards 1990).

(g) Scars Although the retouched tools at ZAD 2 are manufactured almost equally from flakes (52%) and from blades and bladelets (48%), 52.2% (N= 243) of the cores have blade/let scars, 40.9% (N = 190) have flake scars and 6.9% (N = 32) have atypical scar types (Table 6.18). The average number of scars on both the small and medium size cores is 6 scars per core, whereas the large size has an average of 4 scars per core (Table 6.18).

(c) Cortex Table 6.11 shows that 26.7% (N = 124) of the assemblage consists of cores that have more than 30% cortex. The remaining 73.3% (N = 341) have less than 30% cortex and can be further subdivided as 40% (N = 186) which have less than 30% cortex coverage, and 33.3% (N = 155) which have no cortex at all. Enough cortex remains on both cores and many flaked elements to show that local cobbles provided the main source for flaking flint elements (see discussion below). Furthermore, the high percentage of cores that have less than 30% cortex coverage indicates that the flint knappers at ZAD 2 intentionally favoured using prepared cores with relatively few primary elements.

(h) Core tool types In addition to their role as producers of flakes and blades, 36 cores were further retouched and used as tools. Of these, 4.7% (N = 22) were used as convex scrapers, 1.7% (N = 8) as side scrapers, 13.9% (N = 5) as bifacial tools and 0.2% (N = 1) as concave scrapers (Table 6.19). (i) Colour analysis The predominant colour among the cores (80.5%, N = 374) is brown. Of the other cores, 16.1% (N = 75) are grey and 3.4% (N = 16) are black (Table 6.4). Munsell analysis shows that 36% (N = 168), of the cores can be colour-typed as Brown (7.5YR: 4/2, 4/3, 4/4 + 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, 10YR: 4/3 + 5/3). Another 9.5% (N = 44) are Dark brown (7.5YR: 3/2, 3/3, 3/4), 9% (N = 42) are Dark greyish brown (10YR: 4/2) and 6.8% (N = 31) are Dark grey (7.5YR: 4/1). Another 5.6% (N = 26) are Very dark greyish brown (10YR: 3/2), and the final 33.1% (N = 154) are scattered among various colour charts in small percentages (Table 6.5b, see also Sayej 2001a, Sayej in Edwards et al. 2002a).

(d) Platform types and angle Over half (55.9%, N = 260) of the cores have single platforms, 26.9% (N = 125) have opposed (double) platforms, 10.3% (N = 48) have multiple platforms, and for 6.9% (N = 32) of the sample, platforms were missing (Tables 6.12, 6.13, FIG. 6.3). Furthermore, analysis indicates that 54% (N = 251) of the cores have platform of 80-90º angles, 38.7% (N = 180) have 70-80º angles and the remaining 7.3% (N = 34) have 45-70º angles (Table 6.14). The mean angle of the cores is 76.3º (with 7.5º of standard deviation and a range of 4590º; see Table 6.15).

(j) Core distribution within structures Table 6.1 shows the distribution of cores within Structures 1-4. For Structure 1, 0.2% (N = 62) of lithics are classified as cores and these were found in all eight excavated squares. The figure for Structure 2 is 0.4% (N = 327) cores recovered from 34 of the 36 excavated squares. For Structure 3, 0.3% (N = 40) of the total number of lithics are classified as cores in both of the two excavated

(e) Scar orientation The analysis of scar orientation in relation to the core platforms shows that 58.6% (N = 273) have unidirectional orientation, while 22.2% (N = 103) feature bidirectional orientation. A further 16.8% (N = 78) of the cores feature a radial orientation, and 2.4% (N = 11) are change of orientation cores (Tables 6.16, 6.17).

82

Chapter 6

Debris and debitage, ZAD 2

provide maximum force during striking. Unidirectional scar orientations formed the overwhelming majority on cores, followed by the bidirectional opposed platform scar type. The majority of cores are of medium size. Blade/let scars feature on more than half of the entire collection, although a large number of flake scars on the face below the platform also occur. Around 8% of the cores were further retouched and used as tools. Brown is by far the predominant core colour according to the Munsell chart (1994 version), and Brown (7.5YR: 4/2, 4/3, 4/4 + 5/2, 5/3, 5/4) are the most common Munsell categories. The overall ratio of cores to retouched tools 1 per 3.5 retouched tools.

squares. Finally, for Structure 4, 0.2% (N = 36) of the lithics are identified as cores, and these were recovered from eleven of the thirteen excavated squares (for lithic densities, see Table 6.8c). Table 6.7 shows the number and weight of cores in comparison to retouched tools, and these are as follows: Structure 1 has 62 cores (2.3 kg) and 448 retouched tools (3.2 kg). Structure 2 has 327 cores (22.2 kg) and 880 retouched tools (12 kg). Structure 3 has 40 cores (1.9 kg) and 177 retouched tools (1.7 kg), and finally Structure 4 has 36 cores (1.5 kg) and 130 retouched tools (1.5 kg). The ratios of retouched tools to cores for each site show that Structure 1 has 7.2: 1 in count and 1.4: 1 kg in weight. Structure 2 has 2.7: 1 and 1: 1.8 kg. Structure 3 has 4.4: 1 and 1: 1.1 kg. Structure 4 has 3.6: 1 and 1: 1 kg. The combined ratios for the entire site are 3.5 retouched tools per core and 1 kg of retouched tools per 1.5 kg of core (Tables 6.6, 6.7).

6.3.2.2

Analysis of cores collected from the Dhra‘ quarries (Spots 5 and 6) The same type of analysis employed at ZAD 2 was also used to analyse cores and cobbles collected from the Dhra‘ quarries (Spots 5 and 6) during the 1993 / 1994 survey season (see Edwards et al. 1998: 31-34). This analysis was designed to examine whether these quarries were the main source of flint employed at ZAD 2, or if the flint knappers instead obtained their raw materials from somewhere else.

(k) Core distribution by phase According to Table 6.8, Structure 1 has 10.3% (N = 48) of cores in Phase 1 and 2.9% (N = 14) in Phase 2. Structure 2 shows an enormous difference between Phase 1 where 60.1% (N = 279) of the cores were found, and Phase 2 where only 10.1% (N = 47) were recovered. This percentage drop continues into Phase 3, where only 0.2% (N = 1) were found, and none were recovered in either Phases 4 and 5. In Structure 3, Phase 1 produced 4.0% (N = 18) of the cores and Phase 2 produced 3.5% (N = 16). Phase 3 did not feature any, whereas Phase 4 had 0.2% (N = 1) of cores. The underlying Dana sediments produced 0.6% (N = 3) and the exterior phases produced 0.4% (N = 2). Structure 4 only has one excavated phase, and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion, though it yielded 36 cores or 7.7% of the cores.

(a) Quality, dimensions and weight A total number of 116 cores recovered from both collection Spots 5 and 6 were analysed. The mean dimensions of Spot 5 cores are 5.3 cm in length (a standard deviation of 1.5 cm and a range of 2.1-8.8 cm) by 4.2 cm in width (a standard deviation of 1.5 cm and a range of 1.7-7.9 cm) by 2.9 cm in thickness (a standard deviation of 1.2 cm and a range of 1.3-5.8 cm). The mean weight of these cores is 94.6 grams (a standard deviation of 96.6 grams and a range of 7.4-414 grams; Table 6.20). The mean dimensions of Spot 6 cores, on the other hand, are 7.3 cm in length (a standard deviation of 2.2 cm and a range of 3-12.7 cm) by 5.5 cm in width (a standard deviation of 2.1 cm and a range of 1.8-11.8 cm) by 3.8 cm in thickness (a standard deviation of 1.4 cm and a range of 0.8-7.5 cm). The mean weight of these cores is 217.6 grams (a standard deviation of 185.6 grams and a range of 9.4-880 grams; Table 6.20).

(l) Summary Many cores have evidence of incidental burning whereas evidence for heat treatment was absent. The majority of cores feature less than 30% cortex, which indicates a preference for secondary elements over primary elements for tool production. However, the existence of cortex on some flaked elements, including retouched tools, supports the idea that the local cobbles from the nearby quarries provided the main raw stone materials. In order to examine this suggestion, a large number of cores were collected from the quarries; the evidence from these cores is discussed in section 6.3.2.2 below.

(b) Colour In addition to the 116 cores, 646 pieces of flakes and blades were collected from Spots 5 and 6, and the colour of these was examined (Tables 6.21, 6.22). The dominant colour is brown, which forms 81.8% (N = 36) of Spot 5 cores and 88.6% (N = 225) of the debitage. The second dominant colour is grey, which forms 15.9% (N = 7) of the cores and 8.3% (N = 21) of the debitage. Black forms only 2.3% (N = 1) of cores and 1.2% (N = 3) of

Single platforms and double platforms were the most common types on cores, and the majority of the cores have platform angles of 80-90º in order to

83

Chapter 6

Debris and debitage, ZAD 2

cm) by 4.4 cm in width (a standard deviation of 1 cm and a range of 1.2-10.7 cm) by 0.7 cm in thickness (a standard deviation of 0.3 cm and a range of 0.1-5 cm). The mean weight of these flakes is 22.4 grams (a standard deviation of 49.3 grams and a range of 0.8-245.7 grams; Table 6.9).

debitage. Finally, 2% (N = 5) of the debitage collected from Spot 5 was classified as yellow (Table 6.21). Colour analysis from Spot 6 shows that brown is the dominant colour here too at 97.2% (N = 70) of the cores and 96.2% (377) of the debitage. Another 2.8% (N = 2) of the cores and 3.6% (N = 14) of the debitage are grey, followed by 0.2% (N =1) of yellow colour among the debitage category (Table 6.21). The combination of all the collected samples from both spots show that 92.9% (N = 708) are brown, 5.8% (N = 44) are grey, 0.8% (N = 6) are yellow and 0.5% (N = 4) are black (Table 6.21). As for the Munsell colours, more than half of the samples at both collection Spots are Brown (7.5YR: 4/2, 4/3, 4/4 + 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, 10YR: 4/3 + 5/3, Table 6.22).

(b) Burning There are very few (2.6%, N = 195) burnt flakes among the recovered lithics (Table 6.10). (c) Cortex Table 6.11 shows that 12.8% (N = 957) of the unbroken flakes are primary flakes (FIG. 6.5: a), whereas 32.2% (N = 2,399) are secondary. The remaining 55% (N = 4,098) are classified as tertiary flakes (FIG. 6.5: b-c). (d) Platform types Analysis has demonstrated that 43.6% (N = 954) of the unbroken flakes have plain platforms, 25% (N = 542) have punctiform platforms, 7.7% (N = 168) have dihedral faceted platforms, 6.4% (N = 140) have flaked platforms, 6.1% (N = 133) have cortical platforms, 5.7% (N = 124) have crushed platforms, 3% (N = 66) have absent platforms and 2.5% (N = 55) have multiple faceted platforms (Table 6.24). The platform angles indicate that 53.3% (N = 1,161) of the flakes have been struck at 80-90º, whereas 30.7% (N = 670) have been struck at 70-80º and the remaining 16% (N = 351) have been struck at 45-70º (Table 6.14). The mean platform angle of these flakes is 76.5º with 9.3º of standard deviation and a range of 45-90º (Table 6.15).

(c) Summary All samples from Spot 5 and 6 as well as from ZAD 2 have similar colours as well as cortex type and originated from the same flint sources (see Table 6.5a, FIG. 6.4). 6.3.2.3 Flakes Any piece of stone that is removed from a larger stone by the use of force, and which exhibits fracture patterns is called a flake (e.g. Crabtree 1972: 64, Holdaway and Stern 2003: 5). The flake margin at the bulb (the end from which it was struck) is called the proximal end, whereas the opposite margin is called the distal end. The inner face of the flake is called the ventral surface and the opposite side is called the dorsal surface (e.g. Bordes and Crabtree 1969: 3-4, Hodges 1971: 100103, Holdaway and Stern 2003: 41-47, 117-120, Marks 1976: 371-372, Mortensen 1970: 18-19, Tixier 1963: 33, White 1963: 5-8). In this dissertation, flakes are subdivided into three different categories: primary flakes (flakes struck from a core with more than 30% of the dorsal surface covered by cortex); secondary flakes (flakes struck from a core or from another flake with less than 30% of the dorsal surface covered by cortex); and tertiary flakes (flakes struck from a core or from another flake with 0% of the dorsal surface covered by cortex).

(e) Percussion bulb The majority of the unbroken flakes, 76.3% (N = 1,663), have prominent bulbs. A further 18.1% (N = 396) feature normal bulbs and 5.6% (N = 123) have diffuse bulbs. Moreover, 58.2% (N = 1,269) of the flakes do not have bulbar scars, and 41.8% (N = 913) do (Table 6.25). (f) Scar orientation Analysis of dorsal scar orientations shows that 72.2% (N = 1,575) of the unbroken flakes have unidirectional orientations, while 9.3% (N = 202) feature bidirectional orientation and 9.6% (N = 209) lack scars. A further 4.9% (N = 108) of the flakes feature change of orientation scar patterns and 4% (N = 88) have radial orientations (Tables 6.16, 6.17).

(a) Quality, dimensions and weight The flake category contains 74.2% of the total amount of debitage recovered from ZAD 2 during the two seasons of excavation, and constitutes 7,454 pieces (Table 6.2). Of these, only 29.3% (N = 2,182) were complete flakes and thus analysed in great detail, whereas the rest were only counted and weighted (Table 6.23). The mean dimensions of the unbroken flakes are 3.7 cm in length (a standard deviation of 1 cm and a range of 1.6-9

(g) Shape The unbroken flakes have been classified according to six different shapes, viewed dorsally in plan, and Table 6.26 shows that 41.7% (N = 908) of the flakes are rectangular, 32.1% (N = 700)

84

Chapter 6

Debris and debitage, ZAD 2

5/2 and 6.8% (N = 149) are Dark brown 7.5YR: 3/2, 3/3, 3/4. Another 5.2% (N = 113) are Dark grey 7.5YR: 4/1, 4.6% (N = 100) are Very dark brown 7.5YR: 2.5/2, 2.5/3 and finally 34% (N = 721) are scattered among various colour cells (Table 6.5b).

are ovoid, and 9.9% (N = 217) are triangular. Another 6.6% (N = 145) are canted, while 2.3% (N = 50) have ‘expanding’ distal sections. Finally, 7.4% (N = 162) of the flakes are classified as ‘other’. (h) Profile Almost 58% (N = 1,259) of the unbroken flakes are incurvate, followed by 17.1% (N = 374), are twisted, 13.1% (N = 285) are flat, and 12.1% (N = 264) are out-curving (Table 6.27).

(m) Flake distribution within structures Table 6.2 shows the distribution of flakes within Structures 1-4. Of the Structure 1 debitage (N = 1,478), 75.2% (N = 1,111) are classified as flakes. The figure for Structure 2 is 74.2% (N = 4,916), 74% (N = 478) for Structure 3 and 72.5% (N = 949) for Structure 4. The total weight of these flakes is 58.2 kg, divided into 6.4 kg for Structure 1, 40.2 kg for Structure 2, 3.7 kg for Structure 3, and 7.9 kg for Structure 4 (Table 6.6). Table 6.7 shows the number and weight of flakes in comparison to retouched tools, and these are as follows: Structure 1 has 1,111 flakes (6.4 kg) and 448 retouched tools (3.2 kg). Structure 2 has 4,916 flakes (40.2 kg) and 880 retouched tools (12 kg). Structure 3 has 478 flakes (3.7 kg) and 177 retouched tools (1.7 kg), and finally Structure 4 has 949 flakes (7.9 kg) and 130 retouched tools (1.5 kg). The ratios for each site show that Structure 1 has 2.5 flakes per retouched tool and 2 kg of flakes per 1 kg of retouched tools. Structure 2 has 5.6 flakes per retouched tool and 3.3 kg of flakes per 1 kg of retouched tools. Structure 3 has 2.7 flakes per retouched tool and 2.1 of flakes per 1 kg of retouched tools. Structure 4 has 7.3 flakes per retouched tool and 5.3 kg of flakes per 1 kg or retouched tools. The combined ratios for the entire site are 4.6 flakes per retouched tool and 3.2 kg of flakes per 1 kg of retouched tools (Tables 6.6, 6.7, 6.8a-c).

(i) Cross-section Table 6.28 shows that 67.5% (N = 1,473), of the unbroken flakes feature lenticular cross-sections, 22.1% (N = 482) have triangular cross-sections, 6.9% (N = 150) have trapezoidal cross-sections and 3.5% (N = 77) have other types. (j) Termination Some 51.6% (N = 1,128) of the unbroken flakes have hinged terminations, 21.7% (N = 473) have feathered terminations, 18% (N = 393) stepped terminations, and 7.7% (N = 167) overshot terminations. For 1% (N = 21) of the unbroken flakes, termination type was unclear and was thus counted as ‘absent’ (Table 6.29). (k) Breakage types Information on breakage types among debitage is generally unavailable from reports of Levantine prehistoric sites (Edwards 1987: 207-208), and identifying this data will be of great benefit not just for ZAD 2, but for other PPNA assemblages as well. Studying the breakage types among the debitage categories might give us a better understanding of the material discard patterns employed either intentionally or un-intentionally, by flint knappers. It also gives us a better picture of formation processes.

The ratios of flakes and cores in each structure were also examined, and these are as follows: Structure 1 has 1,111 flakes (6.4 kg) and 62 cores (2.3 kg) for a count ratio of 17.9: 1 and a weight ratio of 2.8: 1. Structure 2 has 4,916 flakes (40.2 kg) and 327 cores (22.2 kg) for a count ratio of 15: 1 and a weight ratio of 1.8: 1. Structure 3 has 478 flakes (3.7 kg) and 40 cores (1.9 kg) for a count ratio of 12: 1 and a weight ratio of 1.9: 1. Structure 4 has 949 flakes (7.9 kg) and 36 cores (1.5 kg) for a count ratio of 26.4: 1 and a weight ratio of 5.3: 1. The combined ratios for the site as a whole are a count of 16: 1 in favour of flakes over cores and 2.1 kg of flakes for each kg of cores (Tables 6.6, 6.7). This high ratio of flakes in comparison to cores indicates that flint knapping occurred on site and the flint knappers concentrated on producing certain shapes of debitage usable for tool production, in particular rectangular-shaped flakes (around 42% of the unbroken flake shapes).

The analysis of breakage amongst the flake category indicates that 70.7% (N = 5,272) are broken (Table 6.23). From these 44.9% (N = 2,367) are distal fragments, as well as 13.6% (N = 715) medial fragments, and 9.8% (N = 517) distal fragments. The remaining pieces, 31.7% (N = 1,673), are fragments broken from all margins (see Table 6.30). (l) Colour analysis The predominant colour of unbroken flakes is brown (78.7%, N = 1,718). Of the other flakes, 17.5% (N = 383) are grey, 2.8% (N = 61) black, and 1% (N = 20) are other colours (Table 6.4). Munsell analysis shows that 42% (N = 935) of the unbroken flakes can be typed as Brown (7.5YR: 4/2, 4/3, 4/4 + 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, 10YR: 4/3 + 5/3. Another 7.4% (N = 164) are Greyish brown 10YR:

85

Chapter 6

Debris and debitage, ZAD 2

(n) Flake distribution by phase Table 6.8a shows the distribution of flakes within each phase of the four excavated structures. Phase 1 of Structure 1 includes 11.9% (N =893) of the total number of flakes recovered from the entire assemblage, whereas only 3% (N = 218) were recovered from Phase 2. Phase 1 of Structure 2 includes 51.5% (N = 3,843) of the total number of flakes, followed by 12.5% (N = 931) in Phase 2, 1.6% (N = 120) in Phase 3, 0.3% (N = 22) in Phase 4 and none in Phase 5. Phase 1 of Structure 3 features 4.3% (N = 310) of the total number of flakes, whereas Phase 2 has 0.7% (N = 50), Phase 3 features 0.1% (N = 8), and Phase 4 has 0.02% (N = 2). The Dana sediments contained 0.1% (N = 11) of the total number of flakes and the exterior phases featured 1.3% (N = 97, see also Tables 6.8b-c for lithic densities).

(a) Quality, dimensions and weight Only 1% (N = 107) of the total quantity of debitage recovered from ZAD 2 during the two seasons of excavation consisted of blades (Table 6.2). Of these, 72.9% (N = 78) were counted as unbroken blades (Table 6.23), and their mean dimensions are 5.5 cm in length (a standard deviation of 0.9 cm and a range of 5.0-12.1 cm) by 1.9 cm in width (a standard deviation of 0.5 cm and a range of 1.2-3.4 cm) by 0.6 cm in thickness (a standard deviation of 0.3 cm and a range of 0.3-1.7 cm). The mean weight of these blades is 8 grams (a standard deviation of 8.6 grams and a range of 1.6-78 grams; Table 6.9).

(o) Summary The majority of flakes feature less than 30% dorsal cortex, which seems to indicate that the flint knappers habitually used secondary elements for their tool production rather than primary elements. Plain platforms were the most common flake platform type and a majority of the flakes were struck at 80-90º in order to get the maximum force of striking. The ‘prominent’ category forms by far the most common percussion bulb type, and the majority of the bulbs lack bulbar scars, which indicate the use of strong force. Unidirectional scars formed the overwhelming majority among scar orientations. The majority of flakes have incurvate profiles and hinged terminations, while the most common unbroken flake shape is rectangular (though ovoid flakes are not uncommon). Flake cross-sections are mostly of a lenticular shape. Almost half of the flakes are broken from the proximal end. Brown is by far the predominant flake colour and the most common category is Brown (7.5YR: 4/2, 4/3, 4/4 + 5/2, 5/3, 5/4) of the Munsell chart.

(c) Cortex According to Table 6.11, 7.5% (N = 8) of blades were classified as primary elements, 37.4% (N = 40) were secondary (FIG. 6.6b) whereas 55.1% (N = 59) were tertiary elements (FIG. 6.6a).

(b) Burning Only 6.5% (N = 7) of blades have any evidence of burning (Table 6.10).

(d) Platform types Table 6.24 shows that 44.9% (N = 35) of the unbroken blades have punctiform platforms, 26.9% (N = 21), have plain platforms, 10.2% (N = 8) have crushed platforms, 9% (N = 7) have platform absent, 6.4% (N = 5) have dihedral platforms and 2.6% (N = 2) have cortical platforms. Some 55.1% (N = 43) of the blades have platform angles of 8090º, whereas 30.8% (N = 24) are at 70-80º and the remaining 14.1% (N = 11) are at 45-70º (Table 6.14). The mean platform angle of these blades is 76.8º with a standard deviation of 11.1º and a range of 45-90º (Table 6.17). (e) Percussion bulb Table 6.25 shows that 53.9% (N = 42) of the unbroken blades have prominent bulbs, 25.6% (N = 20) have normal bulbs and 20.5% (N = 16) have diffuse bulbs. Almost 40% (N = 28) have bulbar scars, and 64.1% (N = 50) do not.

Flakes comprise 70% of debitage in each of the four excavated structures. They were ubiquitous in all excavated contexts. The ratio of flakes to retouched tools for the site is 4.6: 1 and the flake to core ratio is 16: 1. Finally, flakes dramatically decrease in quantity with depth.

(f) Scar orientation The analysis of scar orientation shows that 71.8% (N = 56) of the unbroken blades have unidirectional orientation, as opposed to 23% (N = 18) which have bidirectional orientation, and 2.6% (N = 2) are ‘change of orientation’ types. A further 2.6% (N = 2) of the blades lack scars (Tables 6.16, 6.17).

6.3.2.4 Blades Blades are counted as specialized flakes with parallel lateral edges, where the length is at least twice as the width (e. g. Crabtree 1972: 42, Bordes and Crabtree 1969: 1, Garfinkel 1994: 551, Hodges 1971: 102, Holdaway and Stern 2003: 18, 164, Marks 1970: 28, Marks 1976: 372, Mortensen 1970: 19-20, White 1963: 8). In this dissertation, I have used 5 cm as the minimum length for blades.

(g) Shape Table 6.26 shows that 66.7% (N = 52) of the unbroken blades have a rectangular shape, 32% (N

86

Chapter 6

Debris and debitage, ZAD 2

retouched tools (1,731.5 grams), and Structure 4 has twelve blades (72.9 grams) and 130 retouched tools (1,487.1 grams). The ratio of retouched tools to blades for Structure 1 is 50: 1 and 48: 1 by weight. Structure 2 has 11: 1 and 20: 1 by weight, for Structure 3 35: 1 and 38: 1 by weight, and for Structure 4 the ratios are 11: 1 and 20: 1 by weight. The combined tool: blade ratios for the site are 15: 1 and 23: 1 by weight (Tables 6.6, 6.7).

= 25) have a triangular shape and 1.3% (N = 1) are in the ‘other shapes’ category. (h) Profile Incurvate profiles form 65.4% (N = 51) of the unbroken blades, followed by 20.5% (N = 16) classified as twisted profiles, and 14.1% (N = 11) as flat profiles (Table 6.27). (i) Cross-section Table 6.28 shows that 59% (N = 46), of the unbroken blades have triangular cross-sections, 26.9% (N = 21) have lenticular cross-sections, 10.3% (N = 8) have trapezoidal cross-sections and 3.8% (N = 3) are in the ‘other shapes’ category.

The proportions of blades and cores were also examined, and are as follows: Structure 1 has 9 blades (66.3 grams) and 62 cores (2,267.7 grams). Structure 2 has 81 blades (610.8 grams) and 327 cores (22,188.8 grams). Structure 3 has 5 blades (45.3 grams) and 40 cores (1,909.2 kg), and Structure 4 has 12 blades (72.9 grams) and 36 cores (1,487.2 grams). The core to blade ratios for Structure 1 were 7: 1 and 34: 1 by weight, for Structure 2 4: 1 and 36: 1 by weight, for Structure 3 8: 1 and 42: 1 by weight, and for Structure 4 3: 1 and 20: 1 by weight. The combined site core to blade ratio is 4: 1, and 35: 1 by weight (Tables 6.6, 6.7). This low ratio of blades in comparison to cores leads us to the following conclusions: 1) the production of flakes was used for large size tools, whereas 2) the desired endpoint was bladelet production in order to make small sized tools (see section 6.3.2.5.m).

(j) Termination Analysis of the unbroken blades shows that 44.9% (N = 35) have hinged terminations, 24.4% (N = 19) have feathered terminations, 15.4% (N = 12) have overshot terminations, 14.1% (N = 11) are stepped, and on 1.2% (N = 1) the termination is absent (Table 6.29). (k) Breakage types Analysis indicates that 27.1% of blades (N = 29) are broken (Table 6.23). Of these, 51.8% (N = 15) are proximal fragments, 37.9% (N = 11) are distal fragments and 10.3% (N = 3) are medial fragments (Table 6.30).

(n) Blade distribution by phase Blade distributions were recorded for the individual phases of each structure. Phase 1 of Structure 1 features 7.5% (N = 8) of blades, while Phase 2 only features 0.9% (N = 1). Structure 2 shows a clear decrease of blades with depth, where 61.8% (N = 66) were recorded in Phase 1, followed by 11.2% (N = 12) in Phase 2 and 2.8% (N = 3) in Phase 4. Phase 1 of Structure 3 has 1.9% (N = 2), followed by 0.8% (N = 1) in Phase 2, and 1.9 % (N = 2) in the exterior phases (Tables 6.8a-c).

(l) Colour analysis The main colour of the unbroken blades is brown (84.5%, N = 66) followed by 10.3% (N = 8) which are grey, 2.6% (N = 2) black, and 2.6% (N = 2) white (Table 6.4). Munsell analysis shows that 22% (N = 17) of the unbroken blades can be typed as Brown (7.5YR: 4/2, 4/3, 4/4 + 5/2, 5/3, 5/4), followed by 9% (N = 7) as Very dark brown (7.5YR: 2.5/2, 2.5/3). The other colours (69% or N = 54) are scattered among various colour types (Table 6.5b).

(o) Summary The majority of blades are made on either secondary or tertiary blanks. Punctiform platforms are the most common platform type, and the major platform angle category is 80-90º. Prominent bulbs are in the majority, and most bulbs lack bulbar scars. Unidirectional scar orientations are predominant, corresponding with the dominance of single platform cores. The majority of blades have rectangular shapes, incurvate profiles and hinged terminations. Blade cross-sections are mainly triangular. More than half of the broken blades are broken from the distal ends. Brown is the most common colour, and ‘7.5YR: 4/2, 4/3, 4/4 + 5/2, 5/3, 5/4’ is the most common Munsell chart type.

(m) Blade distribution within structures Table 6.2 shows the distribution of blades within Structures 1-4. In Structure 1, 0.6% (N = 9) of the debitage category are blades. In Structure 2, 1.2% (N = 81) are classified as blades. The figure for Structure 3 is 0.8% (N = 5), and 0.9% (N = 12) in Structure 4. The total weight of blades is almost 0.8 kg, made up of 66.3 grams in Structure 1, 610.8 grams in Structure 2, 45.3 grams in Structure 3, and 72.9 grams in Structure 4 (Table 6.6). Table 6.7 shows the number and weight of blades in comparison to retouched tools: Structure 1 has 9 blades (66.3 grams) and 448 retouched tools (3,159.6 grams). Structure 2 has 81 blades (610.8 grams) and 880 retouched tools (12,039.9 grams). Structure 3 has five blades (45.3 grams) and 177

87

Chapter 6

Debris and debitage, ZAD 2

(e) Percussion bulb The majority of unbroken bladelets, 56.1% (N = 573) have prominent bulbs, followed by 30.8% (N = 314) with normal bulbs, and 13.1% (N = 134) with diffuse bulbs. Seventy percent (N = 715) of the bladelets lack bulbar scars (Table 6.25).

Blades form approximately 1% of debitage and these were collected from 33 excavation squares. The low percentage of blades shows that this type was relatively uncommon in comparison to bladelets (see below section 6.3.2.5). The ratio of blades to retouched tools indicates that for each blade there are 15.3 retouched tools and for each blade there are 4.3 cores. Finally, as was the pattern among the other types, blades decreased with depth from one phase to another.

(f) Scar orientation The analysis of scar orientation on the dorsal surface shows that 80.4% (N = 821) of the unbroken bladelets have unidirectional orientations, while 17% (N = 174) have bidirectional orientations, 1.6% (N = 16) have ‘change of orientation’ type, 0.7% (N = 7) lack scars and 0.3% (N = 3) have radial orientations (Tables 6.16 and 6.17).

6.3.2.5 Bladelets Bladelets are small blades that have a maximum length of less than 50 millimetres (e. g. Nadel 1997: 77, Marks 1976: 373, Rosen 1997: 31, Tixier 1963). (a) Quality, dimensions and weight The bladelet category contains 22.4% of the total amount of debitage recovered from ZAD 2 during the two seasons of excavation, and includes 2,254 pieces (Table 6.2). Of these, only 45.3% (N = 1,021) were classified as unbroken bladelets and analyzed in any detail (Table 6.23). The mean dimensions of the unbroken bladelets are 3.2 cm in length (a standard deviation of 0.7 cm and a range of 1.6-4.9 cm) by 1.3 cm in width (a standard deviation of 0.3 cm and a range of 0.4-2.3 cm), by 0.4 cm in thickness (a standard deviation of 0.1 cm and a range of 0.1-0.9 cm). The mean weight of the bladelets is 2.6 grams (a standard deviation of 3.1 grams and a range of 0.1-41.1 grams; Table 6.9).

(g) Shape Table 6.26 shows that 63.5% (N = 648) of the bladelets have rectangular shapes, 33.4% (N = 341) are triangular, 1.5% (N = 15) are canted, 1.4% (N = 14) are ovoid and 0.2 (N = 3) are classified as the ‘other shapes’. (h) Profile Table 6.27 illustrates that 61.8% (N = 631) of the unbroken bladelets have incurvate profiles, followed by 19.5% (N = 199) flat profiles, 17.6% (N = 180) twisted and 1.1% (N = 11) out-curving profiles. (i) Cross-section Almost 54% (N = 548) of the unbroken bladelets have triangular cross-sections, with 40.6% (N = 415) lenticular, 3.2% (N = 33) ‘other shapes’, and 2.4% (N = 25) trapezoidal (Table 6.28).

(b) Burning There are a few burnt bladelets (4.7%, N = 106) among the recovered lithics (Table 6.10).

(j) Termination Forty-four percent (N = 451) of bladelets have hinged terminations, followed by 37.1% (N = 379) with feathered terminations, 13.8% (N = 141) with stepped terminations, and 3.6% (N = 37) with overshot terminations. The reminder 1.3% (N = 13) were undeterminable and thus counted as ‘absent’ (Table 6.29).

(c) Cortex Table 6.11 shows that 19.6% (N = 441) of the bladelets are primary bladelets, 2.1% (N = 48) are secondary bladelets, and 78.3% (N = 1,765) are tertiary bladelets (FIG. 6.7). (d) Platform types In terms of platform types, 43.8% (N = 447) of the unbroken bladelets have punctiform platforms, 21.2% (N = 216) have plain platforms, 14.9% (N = 152) have crushed platforms, 14.4% (N = 147) have absent platforms, 2.1% (N = 21) have flaked platforms, 2% (N = 20) have cortical platforms and 1.8% (N = 18) have dihedral faceted platforms (Table 6.24). The platform angles indicate that 73.9% (N = 755) of the bladelets were struck at 8090º, whereas 19.1% (N = 195) were struck at 70-80 and the remaining 7% (N = 71) at 45-70º (Table 6.14). The mean platform angle of these bladelets is 81º (with almost 9º of standard deviation and a range of 45-90º, Table 6.15).

(k) Breakage types Almost 55% (N = 1,233) of bladelets are broken (Table 6.23). Of these, 44.8% (N = 553) are proximal fragments as opposed to 42.9% (N = 528) distal fragments, and 12.3% (N = 152) medial fragments (Table 6.30). (l) Colour analysis Table 6.4 shows that 78% (N = 796) of the unbroken bladelets are brown in colour. There are also 17.1% (N = 175) grey, 3.9% (N = 40) black, and 1% (N = 10) have various colours (Table 6.4). Munsell analysis shows that 36% (N = 373), of the

88

Chapter 6

Debris and debitage, ZAD 2

Phase 3 has 0.6% (N = 16), and Phase 4 comprises 0.1% (N = 3). The basal Dana sediments have 0.3% (N = 6) of the bladelets and the exterior phases have the rest (2.4%, N = 53).

unbroken bladelets can be typed as Brown (7.5YR: 4/2-4 + 5/2-4), followed by 8.7% (N = 89) as Dark brown (7.5YR: 3/2, 3/3, 3/4) and the remaining 55.3% (N = 559) are other various colours (Table 6.5b).

(o) Summary The majority of bladelets were made on tertiary blanks. Punctiform platforms were the most common type and the majority of bladelets have platform angles of 80-90º. Prominent bulb scars were most common and the majority of bulbs lack bulbar scars. Unidirectional scars were in the majority. Rectangular shapes and incurvate profiles were also predominant. Bladelet crosssections were mostly triangular and hinges comprised the most common termination type. Proximal bladelet fragments form a slightly higher percentage than distal fragments. Brown was by far the predominant bladelet colour and one-third of them belong to Brown (7.5YR: 4/2, 4/3, 4/4 + 5/2, 5/3, 5/4) on the Munsell chart.

(m)

Bladelet distribution within structures In Structure 1, 22.2% (N = 329) of the debitage category are bladelets (Table 6.2). The figure for Structure 2 is 22% (N = 1,454), 21.7% (N = 140) for Structure 3 and 25.3% (N = 331) for Structure 4. The total weight of bladelets is 3.6 kg, distributed as 0.5 kg in Structure 1, 2.3 kg in Structure 2, 0.2 kg in Structure 3, and almost 0.5 kg in Structure 4 (Table 6.6). Table 6.7 shows the number and weight of bladelets in comparison to retouched tools and these are as follows: Structure 1 has 329 bladelets (0.5 kg) and 448 retouched tools (3.2 kg). Structure 2 has 1,454 bladelets (2.3 kg) and 880 retouched tools (12 kg). Structure 3 has 140 bladelets (0.2 kg) and 177 retouched tools (1.7 kg), and Structure 4 has 331 bladelets (0.5 kg) and 130 retouched tools (1.5 kg). The ratio of bladelets to retouched tools for Structure 1 is 2: 3 and 1: 6 by weight, for Structure 2 2: 1 and 1: 5 by weight, for Structure 3 1: 1 and 1: 8 by weight, and for Structure 4 3: 1 and 1: 3 by weight. The combined bladelets to retouched tools ratios for the site are 3: 2 and 1: 5 by weight (Tables 6.6, 6.7).

Bladelets made up approximately 22% of debitage in each of the four excavated structures, and these were collected from all of the excavated squares. Bladelet to tool ratio was 3: 2 and bladelet to core ratio was 5: 1. 6.3.2.6 Core trimming elements (CTEs) ‘Core Trimming Elements’ (CTEs) and ‘Core Rejuvenation flakes’ are defined as flakes intentionally removed from a core in order to prepare or rejuvenate the platform and initiate blade production (e.g. Hodges 1971: 102-103, Marks 1976: 375, Rosen 1997: 31-32). Core Trimming Elements are subdivided in this dissertation into five different shapes: 1) ‘core rejuvenation spall’, when the rejuvenation spall is thin with a trihedral cross-section, 2) ‘crested blade’, or ‘ridge-straightening’ blade, 3) ‘crested bladelet’ for specimens shorter than 5 cm long, 4) ‘crested flake’ for squat blanks, and 5) ‘core tablet’, when a previous platform has been detached with a transverse blow (for further definitions see Marks 1976: 374-275).

The proportion of bladelets and cores in each structure were also examined, and are as follows: Structure 1 has 329 bladelets (0.5 kg) and 62 cores (2.3 kg) for a ratio of 5: 1 and 1: 5 by weight. Structure 2 has 1,454 bladelets (2.3 kg) and 327 cores (22.2 kg) for a ratio of 4: 1 and 1: 10 by weight. Structure 3 features 140 bladelets (0.2 kg) and 40 cores (1.9 kg) for a ratio of 4: 1 and 1: 10 by weight. Structure 4 has 331 bladelets (0.5 kg) and 36 cores (1.5 kg) for a ratio of 9: 1 and 1: 3 by weight. The combined bladelets to cores ratios for the site as a whole are 5: 1 and 1: 8 by weight (Tables 6.6, 6.7). As this data shows, the production of bladelets was an important goal for the ZAD 2 knappers.

(a) Quality, dimensions and weight The CTE category features 2.4% of the total amount of debitage, or 239 pieces (Table 6.2). The unbroken 71.5% (N = 171) were metrically analyzed; the rest were only counted, weighed and classified according to their types (Table 6.23). The mean dimensions of CTEs are 4.3 cm in length (a standard deviation of 1.3 cm and a range of 1.912 cm) by 2.5 cm in width (a standard deviation of 1 cm and a range of 0.8-5.9 cm) by 1.1 cm in thickness (a standard deviation of 1.1 cm with a range of 0.3-11.5 cm). The mean weight of the

(n) Bladelet distribution by phase Table 6.8 shows the distribution of bladelets within each phase of the excavated structures. Phase 1 of Structure 1 has 12.5% (N = 279) of the total number of the recovered bladelets, whereas Phase 2 has only 2.4% (N = 50). Structure 2 features the following distribution: Phase 1 has 47.5% (N = 1,075) of the bladelets, Phase 2 has 14.9% (N = 335), Phase 3 has 1.5% (N = 34), Phase 4 has 0.4% (N = 10), and Phase 5 does not include any bladelets. Phase 1 of Structure 3 includes 2.1% (N = 46) of the bladelets, Phase 2 has 0.6% (N = 16),

89

Chapter 6

Debris and debitage, ZAD 2

(i) Cross-section Table 6.28 shows that 54.4% (N = 93), of the CTE category have triangular cross-sections, whereas 25.7% (N = 44) are lenticular, 15.2% (N = 26) are trapezoidal and 4.7% (N = 8) are classified ‘other’.

CTEs is 21.4 grams (a standard deviation of 57.9 grams and a range of 0.6-83 grams; Table 6.9). (b) Burning Table 6.10 shows that only 2.1% (N = 5) of the CTEs feature evidence of burning.

(j) Termination Table 6.29 shows that 46.1% (N = 79) of the CTE category have hinged terminations, 24.6% (N = 42) have stepped terminations, 14.6% (N = 25) have overshot terminations, and 12.9% (N = 22) have feathered terminations. For 1.8% (N = 3) of the sample, terminations were ‘absent’.

(c) Cortex Table 6.11 shows that 1.7% (N = 4) of the CTEs were classified as primary, 20.5% as secondary and 77.8% (N = 186) as tertiary. (d) Platform types Table 6.24 shows that 35.7% (N = 61) of the CTEs have multiple faceted platforms, followed by 25.7% (N = 44) with punctiform platforms. Dihedral faceted platforms form 15.8% (N = 27) of the CTE category, followed by 11.1% (N = 19) with absent platforms, 7% (N = 12) with cortical platforms, 3.5% (N = 6) with crushed platforms, and 1.2% (N = 2) with flaked platforms (Table 6.24). The platform angles indicate that 53.2% (N = 91) of the CTEs have been struck at 80-90º, whereas 30.4% (N = 52) have been struck at 70-80º and the remaining 16.4% (N = 28) have been struck at 45-70º (Table 6.14). The mean platform angle of these CTEs is 76.2º (with 8.7º of standard deviation and a range of 45-90º, Table 6.15).

(k) Breakage types Almost 29 % (N = 68) of the CTEs were broken (Table 6.23). (l) Core Trimming Element Types The CTE category forms 2.4% (N = 239 of 10,045) of debitage and as shown on Table 6.31, five different types were found at ZAD 2. Forty-six percent (N = 110) of the CTE category are classified as core tablets, 25.1% (N = 60) are crested bladelets, 21.3% (N = 51 are crested blades, 5.9% (N = 14) are core rejuvenation spalls, and finally 1.7% (N = 4) are crested flakes (FIG. 6.8).

(e) Percussion bulb The majority of the unbroken CTEs, 62.6% (N = 107) have prominent bulbs, followed by 24.6% (N = 42) with normal bulbs, and 12.8% (N = 22) with diffuse bulbs. However, 66.1% (N = 113) of the CTEs do not have bulbar scars, whereas 33.9% (N = 58) do (Table 6.25).

(m) Colour analysis The dominant colour of the unbroken CTEs is brown, at 78.4% (N = 134). Of the other CTEs, 14.6% (N = 25) are grey, 6.4% (N = 11) black, and 0.6% (N = 1) are white (Table 6.4). Munsell analysis shows that 25% (N = 42), of the CTE category can be typed as Brown (7.5YR: 4/2, 4/3, 4/4 + 5/2, 5/3, 5/4), followed by 6.4% (N = 11) as Dark greyish brown (10YR: 4/2), 5.3% (N = 9) as Very dark greyish brown (10YR: 3/2), and the remaining 63.3% (N = 109) are various other colour types (Table 6.5b).

(f) Scar orientation Tables 6.16 and 6.17 show that 46.2% (N = 79) of the CTE category have a unidirectional orientation, as opposed to 33.3% (N = 57) which have a change of orientation. A further 12.9% (N = 22) of the CTE category have a radial orientation and 7.6% (N = 13) have a bidirectional orientation.

(n) Core trimming element distribution within structures Table 6.2 shows the distribution of the CTE category within Structures 1-4. Two percent (N = 29) of the debitage category in Structure 1 are classified as CTEs. The figure for Structure 2 is 2.6% (N = 170), 3.5% (N = 23) for Structure 3 and 1.3% (N = 17) for Structure 4. The total weight of the CTE category is 4.2 kg, distributed as 0.6 kg in Structure 1, 3.1 kg in Structure 2, 0.3 kg in Structure 3, and 0.2 kg in Structure 4 (Table 6.6). Table 6.7 shows the number and weight of CTEs in comparison to retouched tools and these are as follows: Structure 1 has 29 CTEs (0.6 kg) and 448 retouched tools (3.2 kg). Structure 2 has 170 CTEs (2.3 kg) and 880 retouched tools (12 kg). Structure 3 has 23 CTEs (0.3 kg) and 177 retouched tools

(g) Shape Table 6.26 shows that 42.1% (N = 72) of the CTE category have rectangular shapes, 26.3% (N = 45) are ovoid and 23.4% (N = 40) are triangular. Canted and expanding shapes make up 1.3% (N = 3) of the total, and 4.8% (N = 8) are classified as ‘other shapes’. (h) Profile Sixty-two percent (N = 106) of the CTE category have incurvate profiles, followed by 18.2% (N = 31) with flat profiles, 14% (N = 24) with twisted profiles, and 5.8% (N = 10) with out-curving profile (Table 6.27).

90

Chapter 6

Debris and debitage, ZAD 2

and hinges make up the most common termination type. Almost one-third of the CTEs are broken. Core tablets form the most common type among the CTEs subclasses. Brown is the major CTE colour and almost one-fourth of the type belong to ‘7.5YR: 4/2, 4/3, 4/4 + 5/2, 5/3, 5/4’ on the Munsell chart.

(1.7 kg), and Structure 4 has 17 CTEs (0.2 kg) and 130 retouched tools (1.5 kg). For Structure 1, the ratios of CTEs to retouched tools are 1: 15 and 1: 5 by weight, for Structure 2 1: 5 by number and weight, for Structure 3 1: 8 and 1: 6 by weight and for Structure 4 1: 8 by number and weight. The combined ratios of CTEs to tools are 1: 7 and 1: 4 by weight (Tables 6.6, 6.7).

Approximately 2.4% of the debitage category in the excavated structures were classified as CTEs and these were collected from 47 of the 59 excavated squares. The ratios for CTEs to retouched tools over the site indicate that for each CTE there are 7 retouched tools and for each CTE there are 2 cores. The low ratio of CTEs in comparison to cores indicates that further preparation of used cores was unnecessary due to the abundance of cores in the vicinity of ZAD 2.

The ratios of the CTE category and cores in each structure were also examined, and are as follows: Structure 1 has 29 CTEs (0.6 kg) and 62 cores (2.3 kg) for a ratio of 1: 2 and a weight ratio of 1: 4 kg. Structure 2 has 170 CTEs (3.1 kg) and 327 cores (22.2 kg) for a ratio of 1: 2 and a weight ratio of 1: 7 kg. Structure 3 has 23 CTEs (0.3 kg) and 40 cores (1.9 kg) for a ratio of 1: 2 and a weight ratio of 1: 6 kg. Structure 4 has 17 CTEs (0.2 kg) and 36 cores (1.5 kg) for a ratio of 1: 2 and a weight ratio of 1: 8 kg. The overall core to CTE ratio is 1: 2 and 1: 7 by weight (Tables 6.6, 6.7).

6.4 Summary and concluding remarks The results of the excavations show that ZAD 2 has an abundant flint flaked stone assemblage supplemented by a few pieces of quartz, quartzite and obsidian, and a diverse groundstone assemblage of basalt, limestone and sandstone. The Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ region contains all the above raw materials excluding obsidian. The closest source of the latter is in Anatolia.

The low ratio of CTEs to cores clearly indicates that extensive preparation and rejuvenation of cores was not a matter of priority at ZAD 2. The abundance of flint in the vicinity provided copious materials for tool production. However, as can be seen in section 6.3.2.1.f, 23% of the recovered cores are of small size. It seems likely that this was not because flint knappers needed to exploit cores to the maximum extent, but because they were producing particular tool types, such as Hagdud truncations and borers that required small blanks.

The lithic artefacts in each of the four excavated structures were classified as: 91.7% debris, 0.3% cores, 6.9% debitage and 1.1% retouched tools. Some incidental burnt specimens were recorded among the lithic artefacts of ZAD 2 whereas there was no evidence for flint heat treatment. Almost 60% of debitage, including cores, were made on tertiary blanks, which indicate the practice of substantial core reduction prior to the production of tool blanks. The majority platform angles are 8090º, which facilitated maximum force during striking. Plain platforms and punctiform platforms frequencies of about 66% of debitage. Almost 70% of debitage has prominent bulbs, and twothirds of the bulbs lack scars. Unidirectional orientations formed the overwhelming majority of dorsal scar patterns. Incurvate profiles, hinged terminations and rectangular shapes are the majority types in their respective categories. The debitage cross-sections are lenticular. More than two-thirds of debitage was broken and the most common elements are proximal fragments. Brown is by far the predominant debitage colour and the most common Munsell colour ‘type’ is Brown (7.5YR: 4/2, 4/3, 4/4 + 5/2, 5/3, 5/4), though there is quite a wide spread of additional colours.

(o) The CTE category by phase Table 6.8 shows that Phase 1 of Structure 1 includes 10% (N = 24) of the CTE category, whereas Phase 2 has 2% (N = 5). Phase 1 of Structure 2 includes 56.3% (N = 134) of the CTE category, followed by Phase 2 which has 12.6% (N = 30), Phase 3 with 2.1% (N = 5), Phase 4 with 0.4% (N = 1) and Phase 5 has no CTEs. Phase 1 of Structure 3 has 7.9% (N = 19) of the CTE category, Phase 2 has 1.6% (N = 4), and the other phases have no CTEs. (p) Summary The majority of the CTEs occur on tertiary blanks and have multiple faceted as well as punctiform platform types. More than half of the CTEs were struck at 80-90º. Prominent bulb scars were the most common type of percussion bulbs, and the majority of the bulbs do not have bulbar scars. Unidirectional scar orientation and ‘change of orientation’ formed the majority of the CTEs’ scar orientations. Rectangular shapes and incurvate profiles formed the majority of their respective categories. Cross-sections are mostly triangular

By observing the high percentage of punctiform platforms on blade/lets, one can argue that the flint knappers at ZAD 2 had a reasonable control of

91

Chapter 6

Debris and debitage, ZAD 2

knapping techniques. Flint knappers applied strong force, which is apparent from the high percentage of prominent bulbs. One desired endpoint of the reduction process was bladelet production, but there is no evidence for systematic blade production. The small pyramidal cores with single platforms were favoured over the other types of cores and there was no sign of any naviform core type. Flakes were also frequently produced for the production of scrapers, bifacial tools, burins and notches, and many large chunks and cobbles were utilised to make large scrapers and bifacial tools. Although Structures 1 to 3 have many phases of occupation, the majority of lithics in each of these structures were recovered from the uppermost phases. The number and density of lithics decreased dramatically in the lower phases, though the lower phase lithics share the same technological characteristics as those recovered in the upper phases. Technologically, the ZAD 2 lithic industry belongs to a single PPNA tradition. The technological analysis undertaken here demonstrates that ZAD 2 belongs to the PPNA tradition. In order to support this argument a detailed typological analysis will be presented in the following chapter.

92

Chapter 6

Tables

Table 6.1:

Abridged list of lithic artefacts in Structures 1-4, ZAD 2.

Types

Structure 1 No. % 26,072 92.9 62 0.2 1,478 5.3 448 1.6 28,060 100 19.1

Debris Cores Debitage Retouched tools TOTAL % per Structure

Table 6.2:

Structure 2 No. % 79,292 91.0 327 0.4 6,621 7.6 880 1.0 87,120 100 59.5

Structure 3 No. % 9,760 91.9 40 0.3 646 6.1 177 1.7 10,623 100 7.2

Structure 4 No. % 19,348 92.9 36 0.2 1,309 6.3 130 0.6 20,823 100 14.2

The numbers and percentages of lithic artefacts in Structures 1-4, ZAD 2.

Types Debris Chunks Chips Subtotal Cores Debitage Flakes Blades Bladelets Core trimming element Subtotal Retouched tools TOTAL OF LITHICS

Table 6. 3:

Structure 1 No. %

Structure 2 No. %

Structure 3 No. %

Structure 4 No. %

No.

2,502 23,570 26,072 62

9.6 90.4 100 100

12,716 66,576 79,292 327

16 84 100 100

1,378 8,382 9,760 40

14.1 85.9 100 100

2,699 16,649 19,348 36

14 86 100 100

19,295 115,177 134,472 465

14.3 85.7 100 100

1,111 9 329 29 1,478 448 28,060

75.2 0.6 22.2 2.0 100 100

4,916 81 1,454 170 6,621 880 87,120

74.2 1.2 22.0 2.6 100 100

478 5 140 23 646 177 10,623

74.0 0.8 21.7 3.5 100 100

949 12 331 17 1,309 130 20,823

72.5 0.9 25.3 1.3 100 100

7,454 107 2,254 239 10,054 1,635 146,626

74.2 1.0 22.4 2.4 100 100

Lithic artefacts Retouched Tools

Basalt

-

Flint Limestone

%

Debitage / cores

-

-

%

Debris

-

-

100

134,457

% -

1,623

99.3

10,517

100

2

0.1

-

-

-

0

Quartz

4

0.2

1

0

12

Quartzite

1

0.1

-

-

1

0

Obsidian

2

0.1

1

0

2

0

Sandstone TOTAL

Type Black Brown Grey Red White Yellow Others TOTAL

TOTAL %

Raw materials used for lithic artefacts, ZAD 2.

Raw material

Table 6.4:

TOTAL No. % 134,472 91.7 465 0.3 10,054 6.9 1,635 1.1 146,626 100 100

3

0.2

1,635

100

-

-

10,519

-

100

134,472

100

Colour analyses of retouched tools, cores and unbroken debitage, ZAD 2. Retouched tools No. % 51 3.1 1,385 84.7 173 10.6 6 0.4 1 0.1 7 0.4 12 0.7 1,635 100

No. 16 374 75 465

Cores % 3.4 80.5 16.1 100

Flake No. % 61 2.8 1,718 78.7 383 17.5 10 0.5 2 0.1 8 0.4 2,182 100

No. 2 66 8 2 78

Blade % 2.6 84.5 10.3 2.6 100

Bladelet No. % 40 3.9 796 78 175 17.1 2 0.2 5 0.5 2 0.2 1 0.1 1,021 100

No. 11 134 25 1 171

CTE % 6.4 78.4 14.6 0.6 100

Total No. % 181 3.3 4,473 80.6 839 15.1 18 0.3 11 0.2 17 0.3 13 0.2 5,552 100

This table is a summary of Table 4.5b and shows the dominant colour of the Munsell chart (e.g. dark greyish brown, appears in this table as brown).

93

Chapter 6

Tables

Table 6.5a: Munsell colour analyses of cores and unbroken debitage, ZAD 2 and adh-Dhra‘ quarries. adh-Ddhra' quarries samples 10YR

7.5YR 1

2

3

4

6

8/

1

5YR 2

3

4

6

1

8/

7/

5

10

6/

7

16

5/

3

16

4/

1

25

178

3/

3

39

13

2/

6/

48

5/

25

6

426

7

98

217

99 5

2

3

4

6

8/

7/ 26 5

2.5YR

2

4/

9

249

4

4

7/

7/

6/

6/

5/

5/

4/

3/

10

25

3/

2.5/

4

17

2.5/

324

23

293

4

4

1 8/

1

2

5

2

3

4

6

6

1 1

1

4/

1

3/ 2.5/

9

1

3

5

3

1

1

1

2

3

4

1

TOTAL 762 ZAD 2 samples 10YR

7.5YR 1

2

3

4

6

1

5YR 2

3

4

6

1

8/

7

8

6

1

8/

7/

9

25

26

24 4

7/

3

6/

6

101

150

60 4

6/

2

9

5/

14

299

731

121

5/

9

646

4

5/

4/

88

201

138

39

4/

214 891

24

4/

3/

71

161

67

18

3/

118 464

2/

50

40

2.5/

2,469 245 835 1,118 263 8

2.5Y

8/

69

2

7/

4

6/

192

2,674 415 2,202 23

34

2

3

8/

1

2

8/

1

7/

2

1

7/

1

6/

3

5

1

6/

1

5/

1

4

1

5/

4/

1

3/

2

2/ 10

12

2

4

6

N

4/

4

3/

11

2.5/

35

53

53

2

3

4

2

3

4

6

1

1 8/

1

7/

22

2

2

7

16

66

4

1

6/ 1

2

1 3

2

3

7

1

7

5

1

18

8

2

5/ 4/

3/

30

70

3/

4

2.5/

23

32

2.5/

4

277

76

177

42

14

N/ 1

24

23

2.5YR

6

TOTAL 5,539 (excluding 13 pieces that are counted as others)

94

22

1

1

Chapter 6

Tables

Table 6.5b: Munsell colour analyses, ZAD 2. Munsell

Colour

R. tools No.

Core

% No. %

Flake No.

Blade

% No. %

Bladelet No.

%

CTE No. %

TOTAL No.

%

10YR: 2/1

Black

15

0.9

5

1,1

15

0.7

-

-

7

0.7

8

4.7

50

0.9

10YR: 2/2

Very dark brown

11

0.7

5

1.1

15

0.7

1

1.3

5

0.5

3

1.8

40

0.7

10YR: 3/1

Very dark grey

24

1.5 10 2.2

20

1

1

1.3

12

1.2

4

2.3

71

1.3

10YR: 3/2

V. dark greyish brown

53

3.2 26 5.6

59

2.7

1

1.3

13

1.3

9

5.3

161

2.9

10YR: 3/3

Dark brown

17

1

4

1

37

1.7

2

2.6

3

0.3

4

2.3

67

1.2

10YR: 3/4-6+4-6

Dark yellowish brown

36

2.2

9

2

7

0.3

-

-

2

0.2

3

1.7

57

1.0

10YR: 4/1

dark grey

21

1.3

6

1.3

34

1.6

1

1.3

21

2.1

5

2.9

88

1.6

10YR: 4/2

Dark greyish brown

83

5.1 42

9

50

2.3

3

3.8

12

1.2

11 6.4

201

3.6

10YR: 4/3+5/3

Brown

285

17

66

14

360

16

13

17

118

12

27

16

869

15.7

10YR: 5/1+6/1

Grey

5

0.3

1

0.2

9

0.4

-

-

4

0.4

1

0.6

20

0.4

10YR: 5/2

Greyish brown

52

3.2 18

4

164

7.4

5

6.4

48

4.7

12

7

299

5.4

10YR: 5/4-8

Yellowish brown

76

4.6 13

3

9

0.4

-

-

21

2.1

2

1.2

121

2.2

10YR: 6/2

Light brownish grey

16

1

1

0.2

55

2.5

2

2.6

27

2.6

-

-

101

1.8

10YR: 6/3

Pale brown

38

2.3

5

1.1

71

3.3

5

6.4

27

2.6

4

2.3

150

2.7

10YR: 6/4

Light yellowish brown

35

2.1

5

1.1

13

0.6

-

-

5

0.5

2

1.2

60

1.1

10YR: 6/6-8

Brownish yellow

1

0.1

-

-

2

0.1

-

-

1

0.1

-

-

4

0.1

10YR: 7/1-2

Light grey

6

0.4

2

0.4

17

0.8

1

1.3

7

0.7

1

0.6

34

0.6

10YR: 7/3-4+8/2-4 Very pale brown

7

0.4

3

0.6

40

1.8

3

3.8

11

1.1

1

0.6

65

1.2

10YR: 7/6-8+8/6-8 Yellow

2

0.1

-

-

2

0.1

-

-

-

-

-

-

4

0.1

10YR: 8/1

White

-

-

-

-

1

-

2

2.6

4

0.4

-

-

7

0.1

2.5Y: 3/1

Very dark grey

1

0.1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0.6

2

0.0

2.5Y: 5/1+6/1

Grey

-

-

-

-

3

0.1

-

-

-

-

1

0.6

4

0.1

2.5Y: 4/1

Dark grey

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0.1

-

-

1

0.0

2.5Y: 5/2

Greyish brown

1

0.1

-

-

2

0.1

-

-

1

0.1

-

-

4

0.1

2.5Y: 5/3-6

Light olive brown

1

0.1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0.0

2.5Y: 6/2

Light brownish grey

2

0.1

1

0.2

2

0.1

-

-

-

-

-

-

5

0.1

2.5Y: 6/3

Light yellowish brown

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0.1

-

-

1

0.0

2.5Y: 7/1-2

Light grey

1

0.1

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

0.0

2.5Y: 8/1

Pale yellow

1

0.1

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

0.0

2.5Y: 7/3-4+8/2-5 White

-

-

-

-

2

0.1

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

0.0

2.5YR: 2.5/1

Reddish black

4

0.2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4

0.1

2.5YR: 3/1+4/1

dark reddish grey

1

0.1

1

0.2

3

0.1

-

-

2

0.2

-

-

7

0.1

2.5YR: 3/2

Dusky red

3

0.2

-

-

4

0.2

-

-

-

-

-

-

7

0.1

2.5YR: 3/3-4

Dark reddish brown

1

0.1

1

0.2

2

0.1

-

-

2

0.2

-

-

6

0.1

2.5YR: 4/2+5/2

Weak red

3

0.2

-

-

5

0.2

-

-

2

0.2

-

-

10

0.2

2.5YR:4/3-4+5/3-4 Reddish brown

1

0.1

-

-

2

0.1

-

-

1

0.1

-

-

4

0.1

2.5YR: 5/1+6/1

Reddish grey

-

-

-

-

2

0.1

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

0.0

2.5YR: 6/2

pale red

-

-

-

-

1

0.1

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0.0

2.5YR: 8/1

White

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0.1

-

-

1

0.0

5YR: 2.5/1

Black

9

0.6

1

0.2

8

0.4

1

1.3

4

0.4

-

-

23

0.4

5YR: 2.5/2+3/2-4 dark reddish brown

27

1.6 16 2.5

41

1.9

3

3.8

14

1.4

1

0.6

102

1.8

5YR: 3/1

Very dark grey

7

0.4

2

0.4

15

0.7

1

1.3

5

0.5

-

-

30

0.5

5YR: 4/1

dark grey

6

0.4

2

0.4

9

0.4

-

-

4

0.4

1

0.6

22

0.4

5YR: 4/2

dark reddish grey

3

0.2

1

0.2

39

1.8

-

-

20

2

3

1.8

66

1.2

5YR: 4/3+5/3-4

Reddish brown

11

0.7

1

0.2

2

0.1

-

-

6

0.6

-

-

20

0.4

5YR: 4/6+5/6-8

Yellowish red

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0.0

5YR: 5/2

reddish grey

-

-

-

-

5

0.2

-

-

-

-

2

1.2

7

0.1

5YR: 6/2+7/2

Pinkish grey

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

0.1

-

-

2

0.0

5YR: 6/3-4

Light reddish brown

1

0.1

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

0.1

-

-

3

0.1

95

Chapter 6

Tables

Table 6.5b: Continued. R. TOOL

Colour

No.

%

5YR: 8/1

White

1

0.1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0.0

7.5YR: 2.5/1

Black

21

1.3

9

2

23

1.1

1

1.3

12

1.2

3

1.8

69

1.2

7.5YR: 2.5/2-3

Very dark brown

42

2.6 11 2.4

100

4.6

7

9

29

2.8

3

1.8

192

3.5

7.5YR: 3/1

Very dark grey

35

2.1 17 3.8

41

1.9

1

1.3

23

2.3

1

0.6

118

2.1

7.5YR: 3/2-4

Dark brown

170

10

44 9.5

149

6.8

4

5.1

89

8.7

8

4.7

464

8.4

7.5 YR: 4/1

dark grey

214

3.9

No.

CORE

% No. %

FLAKE No.

BLADE BLADELET

% No. %

CTE

TOTAL

Munsell

No. %

No.

%

25

1.5 31 6.8

113

5.2

1

1.3

39

3.8

5

2.9

7.5YR:4/2-4+5/2-4 Brown

426

26 102 22

575

26

17

22

373

36

42

25 1,535 28.0

7.5YR: 4/6+5/6-8 Strong brown

11

0.7

3

0.1

2

2.6

9

0.9

2

1.2

30

0.5

3

0.6

7.5YR: 5/1+6/1

grey

5

0.3

-

-

4

0.2

-

-

2

0.2

-

-

11

0.2

7.5YR: 6/2+7/2

Pinkish grey

5

0.3

-

-

2

0.1

-

-

2

0.2

-

-

9

0.2

7.5YR: 6/3-4

Light brown

3

0.2

-

-

14

0.6

-

-

6

0.6

-

-

23

0.4

7.5YR:6/6-8+7/6-8 Reddish yellow

3

0.2

-

-

2

0.1

-

-

1

0.1

-

-

6

0.1

7.5YR: 8/1

3

0.2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3

0.1

Light grey

N: 2.5/

Black

2

0.1

1

0.2

15

0.7

-

-

17

1.7

-

-

35

0.6

N: 3/

Very dark grey

2

0.1

-

-

7

0.3

-

-

2

0.2

-

-

11

0.2

N: 4/

dark grey

1

0.1

-

-

1

-

-

-

2

0.2

-

-

4

0.1

N: 5/- 6/

Grey

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0.0

N: 7/

Light grey

1

0.1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0.0

N: 8/

White

Others TOTAL

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0.6

1

0.0

12

0.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0.1

-

-

13

0.2

1,635 100 465 100 2,182 100 78 100 1,021

100

171 100 5,552 100

Colours were taken according to the Munsell soil colour charts, 1994. Specimens that have many colours, the dominant was chosen and identified according to the closest colour of the chart.

Table 6.6: Types Debris Chunks Chips Subtotal Cores Debitage Flakes Blades Bladelets C. T. E. Subtotal R. tools TOTAL

Abridged list of numbers, weights and percentages of lithic artefacts in Structures 1-4, ZAD 2. Lithics No. %

Structure 1 (g) %

Structure 2 (g) %

Structure 3 (g) %

Structure 4 (g) %

(g)

TOTAL (kg)

19,295 115,177 134,472

14.3 85.7 91.7

8,115.0 6,115.7 14,230.7

57 43 100

46,865.2 18,175.8 65,041.0

72.1 27.9 100

4,535.5 1,919.9 6,455.4

70.3 29.7 100

9,736.5 4,460.9 14,197.4

68.6 31.4 100

69,252.2 30,672.3 99,924.5

69.2 30.7 99.9

465

0.3

2,267.7

100

22,188.8

100

1,909.2

100

1,487.2

100

27,852.9

27.8

7,454 107 2,254 239 10,054

74.2 1.0 22.4 2.4 6.9

6,436.9 66.3 550.8 580.5 7,634.5

84.3 0.9 7.2 7.6 100

40,159.0 610.8 2,315.9 3,102.8 46,188.5

87.0 1.3 5.0 6.7 100

3,664.7 45.3 228.3 314.0 4,252.3

86.2 1.0 5.4 7.4 100

7,900.8 72.9 471.9 192.4 8,638

91.5 0.8 5.5 2.2 100

58,161.4 795.3 3,566.9 4,189.7 66,713.3

58.2 0.8 3.6 4.2 94.6

1,635 146,626

1.1 100

3,159.6 27,292.5

100 12.9

12,039.9 145,458.2

100 68.6

1,731.5 14,348.4

100 6.7

1,487.1 25,809.7

100 11.8

18,418.1 212,908.8

18.41 212.9

96

Chunks Chips Subtotal Cores

Types

75.2 0.6 22.2 2.0 100 3.8 1.1 39.4 1.3 2.0 0.2 35.6 0.4 0.9 2.2 4.7 5.8 0.4 1.8 0.4 100 19.1

17 5 176 6 9 1 159 2 4 10 21 26 2 8 2 448 28,060

9.6 90.4 100 100

97 0.2 0.0 5.7 3.3 1.4 5.9 0.1 100 12.9

27,292.5

0.3 9.1 0.1

2.4

19 1.2 48.2 3.1

84.3 0.9 7.2 7.6 100

57.0 43.0 100 100

%

600.4 36.6 1,522.2 98.1 76.4 9.6 285.1 3.7 7.5 1.5 181.1 103.7 44.4 185.6 3.7 3,159.6

6,436.9 66.3 550.8 580.5 7,634.5

8,115.0 6,115.7 14,230.7 2,267.7

Structure 1 % (g)

1,111 9 329 29 1,478

2,502 23,570 26,072 62

No.

71 5 263 6 1 32 2 286 1 1 3 44 66 43 6 45 5 880 87,120

4,916 81 1,454 170 6,621

12,716 66,576 79,292 327

No.

8.1 0.6 29.8 0.7 0.1 3.6 0.2 32.6 0.1 0.1 0.3 5.0 7.5 4.9 0.7 5.1 0.6 100 59.5

74.2 1.2 22.0 2.6 100

145,458.2

2,820.7 48.6 3,769.7 78.6 18.4 279.7 31.8 582.2 2.4 5.7 2.1 6.1 719.6 177 193.1 3,105.1 199.1 12,039.9

40,159.0 610.8 2,315.9 3,102.8 46,188.5

46,865.2 18,175.8 65,041.0 22,188.8

Structure 2 (g)

16.0 84.0 100 100

%

List of numbers, weights and percentages of lithic artefacts in Structures 1-4, ZAD 2.

Flakes Blades Bladelets C. T. E. 10,054 Subtotal Retouched Tools Scrapers Burins Retouched flakes Backed flakes Truncated flakes Retouched blades Truncated blades Sickles/Beit Ta’amir Retouched bladelets Backed bladelets Truncated bladelet Projectile points Hagdud truncations Notches Perforators Multiples Bifacial Varia 1,635 Subtotal TOTAL 146,626 (N) TOTAL 212,908.8 (g)

134,472 465 Debitage

Debris

Table 6.7:

68.6

23.3 0.4 31.2 0.7 0.2 2.3 0.3 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 6.0 1.5 1.6 25.8 1.7 100

87.0 1.3 5.0 6.7 100

72.1 27.9 100 100

%

14 3 60 4 7 63 1 1 9 9 2 2 2 177 10,623

478 5 140 23 646

1,378 8,382 9,760 40

No.

7.9 1.6 33.9 2.3 4 35.6 0.6 0.6 5.1 5.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 100 7.2

74.2 1.2 22.0 2.6 100

14,348.4

435.1 21.5 742.4 19.1 63.0 111.1 2.8 0.0 66.3 36.9 78.0 152.0 3.3 1,731.5

3,664.7 45.3 228.3 314.0 4,252.3

4,535.5 1,919,9 6,455.4 1,909.2

Structure 3 (g)

14.1 85.9 100 100

%

6.7

25.1 1.2 42.9 1.1 3.6 6.5 0.2 3.8 2.1 4.5 8.8 0.2 100

86.2 1.0 5.4 7.4 100

70.3 29.7 100 100

%

8 24 2 1 8 2 1 36 4 3 6 7 14 3 10 1 130 20,823

949 12 331 17 1,309

2,699 16,649 19,348 36

No.

6.2 18.5 1.5 0.8 6.2 1.5 0.8 27.6 3.1 2.3 4.6 5.4 10.7 2.3 7.7 0.8 100 14.2

25,809.7

253.6 302.8 35.6 7.0 116.4 8.8 13.1 80.0 10.5 4.1 1.0 73.2 16.4 143.2 416.4 5.0 1,487.1

7,900.8 72.9 471.9 192.4 8,638.0

9,736.5 4,460.9 14,197.4 1,487.2

Structure 4 (g)

72.5 0.9 25.3 1.3 100

14 86 100 100

%

11.8

17.0 20.4 2.4 0.5 7.8 0.6 0.9 5.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 4.9 1.1 9.6 28.0 0.3 100

91.5 0.8 5.5 2.2 100

68.6 31.4 100 100

%

Chapter 6 Tables

4

3

71.8 12.4 0.5 3.4 11.9

8.0 100

127 22 1 6 21

98

130 1,635 1.1

1 TOTAL %

1 2 3 4 Dana Exterior

0.1 -

4

3 4 5

-

48.2 5.4

788 88

1 2

2

25.8 1.6

422 26

1 2

1

%

Retouched tools

No.

Phase

Str.

% Flake

4.0 3.5 0.2 0.6 0.4

0.2 -

310 50 8 2 11 97

120 22 -

36 7.7 949 465 100 7,454 0.3 5.1

18 16 1 3 2

1 -

279 60.1 3,843 47 10.1 931

48 10.3 893 14 2.9 218

No.

Core

12.7 100

4.3 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.3

1.6 0.3 -

51.5 12.5

11.9 3.0

%

12 107 0.1

2 1 2

3 -

66 12

8 1

Blade

11.2 100

1.9 0.8 1.9

2.8 -

61.8 11.2

7.5 0.9

%

331 2,254 1.5

46 16 16 3 6 53

34 10 -

1,075 335

279 50

Bladelet

Debitage

14.7 100

2.1 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.3 2.4

1.5 0.4 -

47.5 14.9

12.5 2.4

%

17 239 0.2

19 4 -

5 1 -

134 30

24 5

CTE

Table 6.8a: The distribution of lithic artefacts in structures and phases, ZAD 2.

7.1 100

7.9 1.6 -

2.1 0.4 -

56.3 12.6

10.0 2.0

%

2,699 19,295 13.2

761 100 65 47 56 349

420 82 7

8,830 3,377

2,131 371

Chunk

14.0 100

4.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 1.9

2.2 0.4 -

45.8 17.5

11.0 1.9

2.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 2.8

2.1 1.0 -

35.9 18.8

15.9 4.6

%

100

10,623

100 39.5 8.3 5.9 4.7 5.8 35.8

87,120 4,188 887 626 504 616 3,802

3.5 1.4 0.1

3,052 1,241 45

64.6 30.4

100

28,060 56,301 26,481

78.7 21.3

100

14.2

2.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.4 2.6

0.8 0.0

38.4 18.1 2.1

15.1 4.1

TOTAL % Total %

22,070 5,990

No.

16,649 14.5 20,823 100 115,177 100 146,626 100 78.5 100

2,905 678 536 451 534 3,278

2,468 1,123 38

41,286 21,661

18,265 5,305

chips

Debris %

Chapter 6 Tables

99

-

Number

Density per Structure

Actual total

448

-

-

-

-

Density per Structure

-

Number

Density per Structure

-

-

Number

-

Number

Density per Structure

-

17

Density per Structure

Density per Structure

26

1,688

Density per Structure

Number

422

1,540

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

197

296

4,976

1,244

26,072

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,784

5,676

81,584

20,396

Debris

Structure 1

Tools Debitage

Number

Number

Exterior Number

Dana

5

4

3

2

1

Phase

880

-

-

-

-

-

-

20

4

440

88

1,032

258

1,166

530

6,948

-

-

-

-

360

36

800

160

6,980

1,396

9,140

2,275

6,780

3,082

Tools Debitage

97,292

-

-

-

-

12,500

1,250

1,440

2,888

125,540

25,108

76,168

19,042

62,689

28,495

Debris

Structure 2

Table 6.8b: The density of lithic artefacts in structures and phases, ZAD 2.

177

504

21

8

6

-

-

-

13

1

88

22

419

127

686

4,056

169

29

22

-

-

60

6

300

24

1,925

77

1,280

388

Tools Debitage

9,760

87,048

3,627

767

590

-

-

4,980

498

7,513

601

3,112

778

12,098

3,666

Debris

Structure 3

130

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

429

130

1,345

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4,439

1,345

Tools Debitage

19,348

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

72,125

21,856

Debris

Structure 4

146,626

3,817

618

1,286

3,556

27,218

28,450

81,681

TOTAL

Chapter 6 Tables

Chapter 6

Tables

Table 6.8c: The density of lithics per structures, ZAD 2 Structure

Number

Excavated volume (m3)

Density

1

28,060

3.25

8,634

2

87,120

20.05

4,345

3

10,623

3.0

3,541

4

20,823

0.7

29,747

TOTAL

146,626

27

1,714

Table 6.9:

Descriptive Statistics for size and weight of cores and unbroken debitage, ZAD 2.

Types

N=

Length (cm)

Width (cm)

Thickness (cm)

Weight (g)

Mean

S.D

Range

Mean

S.D

Range

Mean

S.D

Range

Mean

S.D

Range

Cores

465

3.8

1.2

1.5-9.4

3.8

1.2

1.2-10.8

3.2

1.2

1.1-8.4

61.5

58.6

4.6-570.0

Flake

2,182

3.7

1.0

1.6-9.0

4.4

1.0

1.2-10.7

0.7

0.3

0.1-5.0

22.4

49.3

0.8-245.7

Blade

78

5.5

0.9

5.0-12.1

1.9

0.5

1.2-3.4

0.6

0.3

0.3-1.7

8.0

8.6

1.6-78.0

Bladelet

1,021

3.2

0.7

1.6-4.9

1.3

0.3

0.4-2.3

0.4

0.1

0.1-0.9

2.6

3.1

0.1-41.1

C. T. E.

171

4.3

1.3

1.9-12.0

2.5

1.0

0.8-5.9

1.1

1.1

0.3-11.5

21.4

57.9

0.6-83.0

Note: S. D. = Standard deviation. is calculated based on the following: 1) Shennan’s formula (1997: 42)

n

_   x − x   ∑ i  i =1  s= n −1

2

2) The statistical program “STDEV” in Excel software

Table 6.10: The number and percentage of burnt artefacts, ZAD 2. Category

Debitage Flake

%

Bladelet %

Core

Blade

%

CTE

%

Retouched Tools

No.

%

35

No.

Total

%

No.

%

Burnt Yes

195

2.6

106

4.7

7

No

7,259

97.4

2,148

95.3

100

93.5 234 97.9

TOTAL

7,454

107

239

2,254

6.5

5

7.5

12

0.7

360 3.4

430 92.5

1,623

99.3

10,171 96.6

465

1,635

2.1

10,519 100

Table 6.11: The percentage of cortex among the debitage category, ZAD 2. Type

% cortex coverage Flake

% Bladelet % Blade

Tertiary

0%

4,098 55

Secondary

0 – 30 %

2,399 32.2

Primary

30 – 100 %

957 12.8

TOTAL

% total surface

% dorsal surface

7,454

Total

% CTE %

Core

%

78.3

59

55.1 186 77.8

155

33.3

6,263 59.5

48

2.1

40

37.4 49 20.5

186

40.0

2,722 25.9

441

19.6

8

124

26.7

1,534 14.6

1,765

2,254

107

100

7.5

4 239

1.7

465

No.

%

10,519 100

Chapter 6

Tables

Table 6.12: Number of platforms for cores, ZAD 2. No. of platforms Single Double Multiple Unidentified

No. 260 125 48 32 465

% 55.9 26.9 10.3 6.9 100

Table 6.13: Platform types for cores, ZAD 2. Platform types

No. % 71 15.3 6 1.3 14 3 19 4.1 17 3.7

Single flake Single 90º flake Discoidal flake Opposed flake Multiple flake Single bladelet/flake Single 90º bladelet/flake Single pyramidal bladelet/flake Opposed bladelet/flake Opposed bladelet/flake, 90 degree and one face Opposed bladelet/flake, pyramidal and one face Multiple bladelet/flake

7 3 20 11 1 8 16

Single bladelet Single 90º bladelet Single pyramidal bladelet Opposed bladelet Opposed bladelet, pyramidal and one face Multiple bladelet Unidentified TOTAL

1.5 0.1 4.3 2.4 0.2 1.7 3.5

6 1.3 5 1.1 142 30.7 17 3.7 55 11.9 15 3.3 32 6.9 465 100

Table 6.14: Platform angle for cores and unbroken debitage, ZAD 2. Angle

Types Flake

%

Blade

%

CTE

%

Core

%

351

16.0

71

7.0

11

14.1

28

16.4

34

7.3

495

12.6

70 – 80º

670

30.7

195

19.1

24

30.8

52

30.4

180

38.7

1,121

28.6

80 - 90º

1,161

53.3

755

73.9

43

55.1

91

53.2

251

54.0

2,301

58.8

2,182

100

1,021

100

78

100

171

100

465

100

3,917

100

45 - 70º

TOTAL

%

Bladelet

Total

101

No.

%

Chapter 6

Tables

Table 6.15: Descriptive Statistics for platform angles of cores and unbroken debitage, ZAD 2. Types

N=

Angle Mean

S. D

Range

Cores

465

76.3

7.5

45 - 90

Flake

2,182

76.5

9.3

45 –90

Blade

78

76.8

11.1

45 – 90

Bladelet

1,021

80.8

8.6

45 - 90

C. T. E.

171

76.2

8.7

45 – 90

Note: S. D. = Standard deviation is calculated based on the following: 1) Shennan’s formula (1997: 42) n

_    xi − x  ∑  s = i =1  n −1

2

2) The statistical program “STDEV” in Excel software

Table 6.16: Scar orientation for cores and unbroken debitage, ZAD 2. Scar orientation

Types

Total

Flake

%

Bladelet

%

Blade

%

CTE

%

Core

%

No.

%

1,575

72.2

821

80.4

56

71.8

79

46.2

273

58.6

2,804

71.5

Bidirectional

202

9.3

174

17.0

18

23.0

13

7.6

103

22.2

510

13.0

Change of orient.

108

4.9

16

1.6

2

2.6

57

33.3

11

2.4

194

5.0

88

4.0

3

0.3

-

.

22

12.9

78

16.8

191

4.9

209

9.6

7

0.7

2

2.6

-

-

-

-

Unidirectional

Radial None TOTAL

2,182

1,021

78

171

102

465

218

5.6

3,917

100

Chapter 6

Tables

Table 6.17: Scar orientation for cores and unbroken debitage, ZAD 2. Scar orientation Unidirectional

Bidirectional crossed

Change of orientation

Radial

None TOTAL

Scars

Types

Total

No.

Flake

Bladelet

Blade

CTE

Core

No.

%

1

391

66

7

12

2

478

12.2

2

794

447

26

16

15

1,298

33.1

3

340

284

21

25

63

733

18.7

4

39

20

1

18

70

148

3.8

5

11

1

4

40

60

1.5

6

-

-

-

4

31

35

0.9

7

-

-

-

-

28

28

0.7

8

-

-

-

-

8

8

0.2

9

-

-

-

-

7

7

0.2 0.2

4

10

-

-

-

-

9

9

2

44

22

2

-

4

72

1.8

3

93

101

9

-

3

206

5.3

4

49

48

6

-

11

114

2.9

5

16

3

1

9

19

48

1.2

6

-

-

-

-

25

25

0.6

7

-

-

-

4

15

19

0.5

8

-

-

-

-

11

11

0.3

9

-

-

-

-

5

5

0.1

10

-

-

-

-

10

10

0.3

2

19

-

-

-

-

19

0.5

3

38

5

2

26

-

71

1.8

4

37

11

-

22

1

71

1.8

5

14

-

-

4

4

22

0.6

6

-

-

-

3

-

3

0.1

7

-

-

-

2

5

7

0.2

10

-

-

-

-

1

1

0.1

3

27

3

-

-

3

33

4

34

-

-

6

-

40

5

16

-

-

8

5

29

0.7

6

11

-

-

8

13

32

0.8

7

-

-

-

-

9

9

0.2

8

-

-

-

-

16

16

0.4

9

-

-

-

-

11

11

0.3

10

-

-

-

-

10

10

0.3

11

-

-

-

-

4

4

0.1

12

-

-

-

-

7

7

0.2

-

0.8 1

209

7

2

-

-

218

5.6

2,182

1,021

78

171

465

3,917

100

103

Chapter 6

Tables

Table 6.18: Core size, scar types and the average number of scars below the platforms, ZAD 2. Size

Number of cores

%

Scar types Number of cores

%

Average scars per core

Small: < 30 mm

107

23.0 Flakes

190

40.9

6

Medium: = 30-70 mm

348

74.8 Blade/lets

243

52.2

6

32

6.9

4

465

100

Large: = > 70 mm

10

TOTAL

2.2 Un-identified

465

Table 6.19

100 TOTAL

Core tool types, ZAD 2.

Type

No.

%

Bifacial tools

5

13.9

Concave scrapers

1

2.8

Convex scrapers

22

61.1

8

22.2

36

100

Side scrapers TOTAL

Table 6.20: Descriptive Statistics for size and weight of core collected from adh-Dhra‘ quarries (Spots 5 and 6) during the 1993/1994 survey season (see Edwards et al. 1998). Spots

No.

Length (cm)

Width (cm)

Thickness (cm)

Weight (g)

Mean

S. D

Range

Mean

S. D.

Range

Mean

S. D.

Range

Mean

S. D.

Range

5

44

5.3

1.5

2.1- 8.8

4.2

1.5

1.7- 7.9

2.9

1.2

1.3- 5.8

94.6

96.6

7.4- 414

6

72

7.3

2.2

3- 12.7

5.5

2.1

1.8- 11.8

3.8

1.4

0.8- 7.5

217.6

185.6

9.4- 880

Note: S. D. = Standard deviation. is calculated based on the following: 1) Shennan’s formula (1997: 42) n

_   x − x   ∑ i  i =1  s= n −1

2

2) The statistical program “STDEV” in Excel software

Table 6.21: Colour analysis for cores collected from adh-Dhra‘ quarries (Spots 5 and 6) during the 1993/1994 survey season (see Edwards et al. 1998). Colour

Spot 5 Cores No.

%

Spot 6

Debitage No.

%

Cores No.

All samples

Debitage %

No.

%

No.

%

Black

1

2.3

3

1.2

-

-

-

-

4

0.5

Brown

36

81.8

225

88.6

70

97.2

377

96.2

708

92.9

Grey

7

15.9

21

8.3

2

2.8

14

3.6

44

5.8

Yellow

-

-

5

2.0

-

-

1

0.2

6

0.8

44

100

254

100

144

100

392

100

762

100

TOTAL

This table is a summary of Table 4.7 and shows the dominant colour of the Munsell chart (e.g. dark greyish brown, appears in this table as brown).

104

Chapter 6

Tables

Table 6.22: Colour analysis for cores collected from adh-Dhra‘ quarries (Spots 5 and 6) during the 1993/1994 survey season (see Edwards et al. 1998). Munsell

Colour

Spot 5 Core No. %

TOTAL

Spot 6

Blade Flake No. No.

Core No. %

Blade Flake Tools No. No. No.

No.

%

10YR: 2/2

Very dark brown

-

-

-

4

-

-

-

1

1

6

0.8

10YR: 3/1

Very dark grey

1

2.3

-

1

-

-

-

1

-

3

0.4

10YR: 3/2

Very dark greyish brown

4

9.1

1

22

2

2.8

1

9

-

39

5.1

10YR: 3/3

Dark brown

-

-

-

5

4

5.5

-

4

-

13

1.7

10YR: 3/4-6+4/4-6

Dark yellowish brown

-

-

1

4

4

5.5

-

15

1

25

3.3

10YR: 4/1

dark grey

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

0.1

10YR: 4/2

Dark greyish brown

6

13.6

2

8

1

1.4

-

8

-

25

3.3

10YR: 4/3+5/3

Brown

6

13.6

8

32

19

26.4

6

105

2

178

23.4

10YR: 5/1+6/1

Grey

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

2

3

0.4

10YR: 5/2

Greyish brown

4

9.1

1

8

-

-

-

3

-

16

2.1

10YR: 5/4-8

Yellowish brown

-

-

-

16

8

11.1

3

21

-

48

6.3

10YR: 6/2

Light brownish grey

2

4.5

-

3

-

-

-

2

-

7

0.9

10YR: 6/3

pale Brown

2

4.5

3

5

1

1.4

-

5

-

16

2.1

10YR: 6/4

Light yellowish brown

-

-

2

15

2

2.8

1

6

-

26

3.4

10YR: 6/6

Brownish yellow

-

-

2

2

-

-

-

1

-

5

0.6

10YR: 7/2

Light grey

-

-

1

3

-

-

1

-

-

5

0.6

10YR: 7/3-4+8/2-3

Very pale brown

1

2.3

2

6

-

-

-

1

-

10

1.3

2.5Y: 5/3

Light olive brown

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

0.1

2.5Y: 7/1-2

Light grey

1

2.3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0.1

2.5Y: 8/2

Pale yellow

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

0.1

5YR: 3/2-4

dark reddish brown

1

2.3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0.1

5YR: 4/1

dark grey

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0.1

5YR: 4/2

dark reddish grey

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

-

2

0.3

5YR: 4/3-4+5/3-4

Reddish brown

-

-

-

3

-

-

1

1

-

5

0.6

7.5YR: 2.5/1

Black

1

2.3

-

3

-

-

-

-

-

4

0.5

7.5YR: 2.5/2-3

Very dark brown

2

4.5

2

8

3

4.2

-

2

-

17

2.2

7.5YR: 3/1

Very dark grey

1

2.3

-

4

1

1.4

1

3

-

10

1.3

7.5YR: 3/2-4

Dark brown

4

9.1

6

9

-

-

-

6

-

25

3.3

7.5 YR: 4/1

dark grey

1

2.3

1

4

1

1.4

-

2

-

9

1.2

6

13.6

5

44

24

33.3

25

142

3

249

33.0

-

-

2

2

2.8

-

-

-

4

0.5

7.5YR: 4/2-4+5/2-4 Brown 7.5YR: 4/6+5/6-8

Strong brown

7.5YR: 6/2

Pinkish grey

1

2.3

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

2

0.3

7.5YR: 6/3-4

Light brown

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4

-

4

0.5

9 762 100 TOTAL 44 100 38 216 72 39 344 Colours were taken according to the Munsell soil colour charts, 1994. For multi-coloured specimens, the dominant one was chosen and identified according to the closest colour of the chart.

Table 6.23: The breakage rates among debitage category, ZAD 2. Breakage

Types

Total

Flake

%

Bladelet

%

Blade

%

Broken

5,272

70.7

1,233

54.7

29

Complete

2,182

29.3

1,021

45.3

78

TOTAL

7,454

2,254

107

105

CTE

%

No.

%

27.1

68

28.5

6,602

65.7

72.9

171

71.5

3,452

34.3

10,045

100

239

Chapter 6

Tables

Table 6.24: Platform types for unbroken debitage, ZAD 2. Category

Types

Total

Flake

%

Bladelet

%

Blade

%

CTE

%

66

3.0

147

14.4

7

9.0

19

11.1

239

6.9

Absent

No.

%

Cortical

133

6.1

20

2.0

2

2.6

12

7.0

167

4.8

Crushed

124

5.7

152

14.9

8

10.2

6

3.5

290

8.4

Dihedral faceted

168

7.7

18

1.8

5

6.4

27

15.8

218

6.3

Flaked

140

6.4

21

2.1

-

-

2

1.2

163

4.7

Multiple faceted Plain Punctiform

55

2.5

-

-

-

-

61

35.7

116

3.4

954

43.6

216

21.2

21

26.9

-

-

1,191

34.5

447

43.8

35

44.9

44

25.7

1,068

31.0

3,452

100

542

TOTAL

25.0

2,182

1,021

78

171

Table 6.25: Bulb types for unbroken debitage, ZAD 2. Bulb Scar

Types Flake

%

Bladelet

%

Total Blade

%

CTE

%

No.

%

Diffuse

123

5.6

134

13.1

16

20.5

22

12.8

295

8.5

Normal

396

18.1

314

30.8

20

25.6

42

24.6

772

22.4

Prominent

1,663

76.3

573

56.1

42

53.9

107

62.6

2,385

69.1

TOTAL

2,182

100

1,021

100

78

100

171

100

3,452

100

913

41.8

306

30

28

35.9

58

33.9

1,305

37.8

Bulbar scar absent

1,269

58.2

715

70

50

64.1

113

66.1

2,147

62.2

TOTAL

2,182

100

1,021

100

78

100

171

|00

3,452

100

Bulbar scar present

Table 6.26: Shape categories for unbroken debitage, ZAD 2. Types

Shape Canted

Flake

% Expanding %

Other

Total

% Ovoid

%

Rectangular

%

Triangular

7.4

700

32.1

908

41.7

217

9.9 2,182 100

0.2

14

1.4

648

63.5

341

33.4 1,021 100

52

66.7

25

32.0

78 100

72

42.1

40

23.4

171 100

50

2.3

1.5

-

-

Blade

-

-

-

-

1

1.3

-

-

1.7

3

1.7

8

4.8

45

26.3

Total

163

53

174

759

1,680

623

%

4.7

1.5

5

22

48.8

18

3,452 100 100

Table 6.27: Profile types for unbroken debitage, ZAD 2. Types

Profile

Total

Flat

%

Incurvate

%

Out-curving

%

Twisted

%

No.

%

Flake

285

13.1

1,259

57.7

264

12.1

374

17.1

2,182

100

Bladelet

199

19.5

631

61.8

11

1.1

180

17.6

1,021

100

11

14.1

51

65.4

-

-

16

20.5

78

100

31

18.2

106

62.0

10

5.8

24

14.0

171

100

Blade C. T. E.

%

3

6.6

15 3

No.

162

145

Bladelet C. T. E.

%

Total

526

2,047

285

594

3,452

%

15.2

59.3

8.3

17.2

100

106

Chapter 6

Tables

Table 6.28: Cross section types for unbroken debitage, ZAD 2. Types

Cross-section

Total

Lenticular

%

Other

%

Trapezoid

%

Triangular

%

No.

%

1,473

67.5

77

3.5

150

6.9

482

22.1

2,182

100

415

40.6

33

3.2

25

2.4

548

53.8

1,021

100

21

26.9

3

3.8

8

10.3

46

59.0

78

100

44

25.7

8

4.7

26

15.2

93

54.4

171

100

Flake Bladelet Blade C. T. E. Total

1,953

121

209

1,169

3,452

%

56.5

3.5

6

34

100

Table 6.29: Termination types for unbroken debitage, ZAD 2. Types

Termination types

Total

Absent

%

Feathered

%

Hinged

%

Overshot

%

Stepped

%

No.

%

Flake

21

1.0

473

21.7

1,128

51.6

167

7.7

Bladelet

13

1.3

379

37.1

451

44.2

37

3.6

393

18.0

2,182

100

141

13.8

1,021

100

Blade

1

1.2

19

24.4

35

44.9

12

15.4

11

14.1

78

100

C. T. E.

3

1.8

22

12.9

79

46.1

25

14.6

42

24.6

171

100

Total

38

893

1,693

241

587

3,452

%

1.1

25.9

49

7

17

100

Table 6.30: Breakage types among debitage category, ZAD 2. Breakage

Types Flake

Broken distal

517

Total % 9.8

Bladelet

%

Blade

%

No.

%

553

44.8

15

51.8

1,085

16.5

715

13.6

152

12.3

870

13.2

Broken distal, proximal and lateral

1,673

31.7

-

-

-

-

1,673

25.5

Broken proximal

2,367

44.9

528

42.9

11

37.9

2,906

44.8

TOTAL

5,272

6,534

100

Broken distal and proximal

1,233

Table 6.31: Core Trimming Element types, ZAD 2. Types

TOTAL

Of all debitage

No.

%

%

Core rejuvenation spalls Core tablets Crested blades Crested bladelets Crested flakes

14 110 51 60 4

5.9 46.0 21.3 25.1 1.7

0.1 1.1 0.5 0.6 0.1

TOTAL

239

100

2.4

107

3

29

10.3

Chapter 6 FIG. 6.1:

Figures Lithics in Structures 1-4, ZAD 2. Lithic artefacts

100% 80% %

60%

tools

40%

debitage

20%

debris

0%

str. 1

str. 2

str. 3

str. 4

Structure

FIG. 6.2:

Retouched tools in Structures 1-4, ZAD 2. tools

1000 800 amount

600 400 200 0

str. 1

str. 2

str. 3

str. 4

structure

108

Chapter 6

Figures

FIG. 6.3:

Core samples: (a) single platform, (b) two platforms, (c) multiple platforms, and (d) missing platforms.

A)

B)

D) C) FIG. 6.4:

D)

Munsell colour analysis for ZAD 2 lithics and adh-Dhra‘ quarries samples (Spot 5 and 6). 10YR

adh-Ddhra' quarries samples 5YR 1 2 3 4 6 1 2 3 4 8/ 7/ 6/ 5/ 4/ 3/ 2.5/

7.5YR 1 2 3 4 6

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

8/ 7/ 6/ 5/ 4/ 3/ 2.5/

10YR

ZAD 2 samples 5YR 1 2 3 4 6 1 2 8/ 7/ 6/ 5/ 4/ 3/ 2.5/

7.5YR 1 2 3 4 6

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

8/ 7/ 6/ 5/ 4/ 3/ 2.5/

2.5Y

1 2 3 4 8/ 7/ 6/ 5/ 4/ 3/ 2.5/

2.5YR 3

4

6

1 2 3 4 8/ 7/ 6/ 5/ 4/ 3/ 2.5/

N/ 1 2 3

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

2.5YR

N 8/ 7/ 6/ 5/ 4/ 3/ 2.5/

more than 10 % 5-10 % 1-5 % less than 1 %

109

Chapter 6 FIG. 6.5:

Figures Flakes: (a) primary flake dorsal, (b) tertiary flake dorsal, and (c) tertiary flake ventral.

a) FIG. 6.6:

b)

c)

Blades: (a) broken tertiary blade and (b) complete secondary blade.

a)

b)

110

Chapter 6 FIG. 6.7:

Figures Bladelets: (a) broken tertiary bladelet, (b) complete tertiary bladelet, dorsal, and (c) complete bladelet, ventral (d) complete secondary rectangular bladelet.

a)

b)

c)

d)

111

Chapter 6 FIG. 6.8:

Figures Core trimming elements: (a) crested blade, (b) crested blade, and (c) core tablet.

A)

B)

C)

112

7.

TECHNOLOGICAL AND TYPOLOGICAL RETOUCHED TOOLS, ZAD 2

ANALYSES

OF

Due to the lack of a unified classification system for the various PPNA sites in the Southern Levant, the retouch from ZAD 2 have been classified into different types following the classification system of Marks (1976: 377-378):
Backing or steep retouch: an angle that is more than 85º.
Semi-steep retouch: an angle that is between 55º and 85º.
Marginal retouch: extremely fine retouch barely modifies the shape of the retouch edge. It could be inverse or obverse, partial or continuous.
Flat invasive retouch: fine retouch that has a very low angle relative to the faces of the blank, less than 55º, and can be inverse or obverse.
Use-wear: fine or heavy retouch caused while using the edge of the stone tool.
Ouchtata: a very fine retouch that occurs usually on a sharp edge.
Couze: unintentional retouch that appears on the dorsal surface of the tool, but not along the lateral margins or the distal or proximal ends. It occurs when a blade is snapped, producing small flat scars on a dorsal or ventral facet.

The two aims of this chapter are to characterise the retouched tools of ZAD 2 and then to place the site within the framework of the PPNA period. The chapter presents a comprehensive study of the retouched tools that were recovered at ZAD 2 during the 1999 and 2001 seasons of excavation. Each tool type is presented according to numerous quantitative and qualitative attributes: definition, dimension, weight, blank type, retouch mode, retouch position, raw material, colour, burning, breakage types and cortex. The distribution of retouched tools within structures and phases is also discussed. Finally, the concluding remarks will highlight the general features of the retouched tools of ZAD 2. Generally, projectile points are among those tools more widely used by lithic analysts to define the chronology of Neolithic phases (e.g. Gopher 1994a, Rollefson 2001c). However, in the case of ZAD 2, very few projectile points were recovered and more than half were broken. Relying mainly on projectile points would therefore prove inadequate for dating ZAD 2. It also is necessary to examine other tool types, such as Hagdud truncations, Beit Ta’amir sickles, borers, bifacial tools, scrapers, burins, backed tools, notches, truncated tools, retouched flakes, retouched blades, retouched bladelets, multiple tools, and varia tools. Although the format of this chapter may seem to be repetitive, I have chosen the same standard for each tool type for ease of reference and so that each section is self-contained. This chapter will therefore be used as the standard typological report of ZAD 2.

7.2 Tool types of ZAD 2 Tool types of ZAD 2 were classified according to the terminology used by various scholars such as: Bar-Yosef (1970), Gopher (1994a), Marks (1976, 1977, 1983), and Nadel (1997). Special attention was paid to the site of Netiv Hagdud because the final publication is available and the site is thus one of the best published PPNA sites in the Southern Levant. Each tool type found at ZAD 2 will be presented in the following sections:

7.1 Definition of retouch Retouch refers to an intentionally worked edge of a specimen and according to the definitions used at ZAD 2, is divided into: a) obverse, when retouch was applied from the ventral side of the specimen towards the dorsal side, b) inverse, when retouch was applied from the dorsal side towards the ventral side, c) alternate, when retouch was applied as inverse at one edge and obverse at another, d) alternating, a combination of obverse and inverse retouch at the same edge but not in the same place, e) invasive, when flat retouch was applied to a dorsal or ventral face, and f) bifacial when invasive retouch was applied to both faces.

7.2.1 Scrapers The scrapers from ZAD 2 are designated as end scrapers, side scrapers, or round, convex or concave scrapers, depending on the position of the scraping edge in relation to the lateral edge of the tool (e.g. Bordaz 1989: 65, Bar-Yosef 1970: 202, 208, Holdaway and Stern 2003: 17, 246-251, 267, Nadel 1997: 109, for further definitions see Marks 1976: 380-381). 7.2.1.1

Quantity, dimensions, weight and ratio There are 110 scrapers, or 6.7% of the total number of retouched tools (Tables 7.1, 7.2). The mean length of the unbroken scrapers is 4.9 cm (a standard deviation of 1.4 cm and a range of 2.5-9.5 cm) by 3.5 cm in width (a standard deviation of 1.0 cm and a range of 1.5-7.8 cm) by 1.8 cm in thickness (a standard deviation of 0.6 cm and a range of 0.6-3.7 cm). The mean weight of scrapers

The position of the retouch on the blank can be: a) unilateral, when retouch occurs on any lateral margins of the blank, b) bilateral, when retouch occurs on both lateral edges, c) proximal, when retouch occurs on the bulbar end of the blank, and d) distal, when retouch occurs at the opposite end to the bulb of percussion (Marks 1976: 376-378, see also Holdaway and Stern 2003: 47). 113

Chapter 7

Retouched tools, ZAD 2 (with a standard deviation of 1.4 cm and a range of 1.8-7.8 cm) by 1.6 cm in thickness (with a standard deviation of 0.7 cm and a range of 0.7-2.8 cm). The mean weight of the side scrapers is 43.2 grams (with a standard deviation of 37.4 grams and a range of 7.6-141.7 grams, Table 7.3 and FIG. 7.1.b).

is 37.4 grams (with a standard deviation of 29.3 grams and a range of 3.8-143.8 grams, Tables 7.3, 7.4). 7.2.1.2 Blank types Table 7.5 shows that 76.6% (N = 84) of the scrapers are made from flakes, whereas 21.4% (N = 24) are made from large chunks or raw flint cobbles, and 2% (N = 2) are made from blades.

The mean dimensions of the end scrapers are 4.4 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 0.8 cm and a range of 2.9-5.7 cm) by 2.6 cm in width (with a standard deviation of 0.4 cm and a range of 1.8-3.0 cm) by 1.6 cm in thickness (with a standard deviation of 0.5 cm and a range of 0.9-2.4 cm). The mean weight of the end scrapers is 20.6 grams (with a standard deviation of 8.0 grams and a range of 6.8-29.3 grams, Table 7.3 and FIG. 7.1.c).

7.2.1.3 Retouch mode and position Almost 77.3% (N = 85) of the scrapers have semisteep retouch and 22.7% (N = 25) have flat invasive retouch (Table 7.6). The vast majority of these scrapers (91% or N = 100) have obverse retouch, whereas the rest have inverse (4.5% or N = 5), and obverse/inverse or bifacial retouch (4.5% or N = 5, Table 7.7).

Finally, the mean dimensions of the concave scrapers are 5.1 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 1.0 cm and a range of 3.1-6.2 cm) by 3.2 cm in width (with a standard deviation of 0.8 cm and a range of 1.8-4.1 cm) by 1.4 cm in thickness (with a standard deviation of 0.4 cm and a range of 0.6-2.0 cm). The mean weight of the concave scrapers is 25.7 grams (with a standard deviation of 12.8 grams and a range of 3.8-37.7 grams, Table 7.3 and FIG. 7.1.d).

7.2.1.4 Raw material and colour According to Table 7.8, all scrapers are made from flint and the colours of these tools are divided into 83.7% (N = 92) brown, 11.8% (N = 13) grey, and 4.5% (N = 5) black (Table 7.8, see also Tables 7.9, 7.10). 7.2.1.5 Burning Only 1.8% (N = 2) of the scrapers have evidence of burning (Table 7.11).

7.2.1.9

The distribution of scrapers within structures Seventeen (3.8%) of the retouched tools found in Structure 1 were scrapers (seven convex / five side / four end / one concave). These scrapers were recovered from five of the eight excavated squares. Structure 2 supplied 71 scrapers (8.1%, 45 convex/ 14 side/ six end/ six concave), recorded from 23 of the 36 excavated squares. Of the 177 retouched tools from Structure 3, only 14 (7.9%) were counted as scrapers (seven convex / four side / two concave / one end) and were recovered from both of the two excavated squares. Finally, Structure 4 yielded eight scrapers (6.2%, five convex / two side / one concave), recovered from six of the thirteen excavated squares (Table 7.1, see also Table 7.14).

7.2.1.6 Breakage types Twelve scrapers (10.9%) are broken, one from the distal end and eleven partially from the medial (Table 7.12). 7.2.1.7 Cortex Scrapers are classified into: 39.1% (N = 43) tertiary, with 0% cortical coverage, 38.2% (N = 42) secondary, with 1-29% cortical coverage, and 22.7% (N = 25) primary, with 30-100% cortical coverage (Table 7.13). 7.2.1.8 Tool sub-types According to the morphology and location of the retouched edge on the blank (Table 7.2), ZAD 2 scrapers are divided into four sub-types: a) convex scrapers (58.2% or N = 64), b) side scrapers (22.7% or N = 25), c) end scrapers (10% or N = 11), and d) concave scrapers (9.1% or N = 10). The mean dimension of the convex scrapers is 4.8 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 1.3 cm and a range of 2.5-9.5 cm) by 3.6 cm in width (with a standard deviation of 0.9 cm and a range of 1.5-5.4 cm) by 1.9 cm in thickness (with a standard deviation of 0.6 cm and a range of 0.8-3.7 cm). The mean weight of the convex scrapers is 39.8 grams (with a standard deviation of 28.8 grams and a range of 5.8-143.8 grams, Table 7.3 and FIG. 7.1.a).

7.2.1.10 The distribution of scrapers by phase Twelve scrapers (2.8%) were recovered from Phase 1 of Structure 1 (the uppermost phase), and five (19.3%) from Phase 2. The scrapers of Structure 2 numbered 60 pieces (7.4%) in Phase 1 (the uppermost phase), ten pieces (15.2%) in Phase 2, and one piece (50%) in Phase 3. However, Phases 4 and 5 did not include any retouched tools. As for Structure 3, ten scrapers (7.9%) were recovered in Phase 1, followed by two pieces (9.1%) in Phase 2, one piece (16.7%) in the Dana sediments, and one piece (4.8%) in the exterior phases. Finally, Structure 4 has only one phase in which eight pieces were found (Table 7.15).

The mean dimensions of the side scrapers are 5.5 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 1.7 cm and a range of 2.8-8.8 cm) by 3.9 cm in width 114

Chapter 7

Retouched tools, ZAD 2 7.2.2.7 Cortex More than two-thirds (N = 9) of the burin blanks were classified as tertiary, 15.4% (N = 2) as secondary and another 15.4% (N = 2) as primary (Table 7.13).

7.2.1.11 Summary Overall, convex scrapers form 58.2% of the scraper category, followed by 22.7% side scrapers, 10% end scrapers and finally 9.1% concave scrapers. The majority of scrapers are made from large flakes and from large chunks or cobbles, and show semi-steep retouch with obverse retouch on lateral edges. The vast majority are brown in colour, and only two pieces show some evidence of burning. Almost 10% of the scrapers are partially broken from the medials, which might reflect heavy-duty action. All three cortex categories are represented. The distribution of scrapers indicates their existence in all excavated structures, particularly in the upper phases, as is the case with the other tool types.

7.2.2.8 Tool sub-types Burins are divided into three subtypes: single 46.2% (N = 6: see FIG. 7.2: a), dihedral 46.2% (N = 6; see FIG 5.2: b), and double 7.6% (N = 1, Table 7.2). There are no transverse burins, or burins on truncations. 7.2.2.9

The distribution of burins within structures The distribution of burins within structures is as follows: five pieces or 1.1% of the total number of retouched tools were recovered from Structure 1. These were found in three of the eight excavated squares. Structure 2 produced five pieces (0.6%) from five of the 36 excavated squares, whereas Structure 3 yielded three specimens (1.6%) recovered from the two excavated squares, and Structure 4 did not produce any burins (Table 7.1, see also Table 7.14).

7.2.2 Burins The burins of ZAD 2 are defined as any artefact which is formed by the detachment of a spall from an edge creating a burin facet (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1970: 207-210, Holdaway and Stern 2003: 259, 268, Marks 1976: 379-380). 7.2.2.1

Quantity, dimensions, weight and ratio The mean dimension of the unbroken burins are 4.7 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 1.9 cm and a range of 2.5-9.8 cm) by 2.8 cm in width (with a standard deviation of 1.1 cm and a range of 1.5-5.5 cm) by 0.9 cm in thickness (with a standard deviation of 0.9 cm and a range of 0.4-2.7 cm). The mean weight of these burins is 8.2 grams (with a standard deviation of 4.9 grams and a range of 2.2-18.4 grams, Table 7.3, see also Table 7.4).

7.2.2.10 The distribution of burins by phase Table 7.15 shows the distribution of burins by phase. Three burins (0.7%) were recovered from Phase 1 of Structure 1 and two pieces (7.7%) from Phase 2. Five burins (38.5%) were recovered in Phase 1 of Structure 2, whereas the other four phases did not yield any. Only one piece (0.8%) was recovered in Phase 1 of Structure 3, and two (9.5%) in the exterior phases. 7.2.2.11 Summary Burins are divided into three subtypes: dihedral 53.8%, single 38.5% and double 7.7%. The majority of burins are brown in colour, with variable cortical coverage. Only one specimen is broken. Burins are represented in three of the four excavated structures, though their typology is relatively simple, with no transverse bruins nor burins on truncations.

7.2.2.2 Blank types The vast majority of burins (76.9% or N = 10) are made from flakes, whereas 15.4% (N = 2) are made from bladelets, and one piece (7.7%) is made from a blade (Table 7.5). 7.2.2.3 Retouch mode and position The burin blows are located on the lateral margins of the blanks, struck from either distal or proximal ends (Table 7.6, see also section 7.2.2.8 below).

7.2.3 Retouched flakes Every retouched flake which does not belong to any other specific tool type is included in this category (see Bar-Yosef 1970: 222).

7.2.2.4 Raw material and colour All burins are made from flint. Seventy percent (N = 9) of them are brown and 30% (N = 4) are grey in colour (Table 7.8, see also Tables 7.9, 7.10).

7.2.3.1

Quantity, dimensions, weight and ratio This category is the second largest at ZAD 2, and comprises 523 pieces or 32% of the total number of retouched tools (Tables 7.1, 7.2). The mean dimensions of the unbroken retouched flakes are 4.1 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 2.1 cm and a range of 2.0-8.2 cm) by 2.8 cm in width (with a standard deviation of 1.6 cm and a range of 1.2-6.5 cm) by 0.9 cm in thickness (with a standard deviation of 0.5 cm and a range of 0.3-7.5 cm). The mean weight of retouched flakes is 12.6 grams

7.2.2.5 Burning None of the burins shows any evidence of either burning or heat treatment (Table 7.11). 7.2.2.6 Breakage types A single broken burin was recovered, partially broken from the medial section. The rest were complete (Table 7.12).

115

Chapter 7

Retouched tools, ZAD 2 lateral edges as well as from distal and proximal ends comprise 10.7% (N = 56) of the total number. A very limited number of retouched flakes were either retouched partially from the distal ends - 1% (N = 5) - or partially from the proximal ends 0.8% (N = 4).

(with a standard deviation of 14.4 grams and a range of 1.2-140.8 grams, Table 7.3, see also Table 7.4). 7.2.3.2 Blank types Naturally, all retouched flakes are made on flake blanks (Table 7.5).

7.2.3.9

The distribution of retouched flakes within structures In Structure 1, 39.4% (N = 176) of the identified retouched tools are classified as retouched flakes. They were recorded in all eight excavated squares. In Structure 2, 29.8% (N = 263) of the retouched tools are retouched flakes. They were recovered from 33 of the 36 excavated squares. In Structure 3, 33.9% (N = 60) of the retouched tools are retouched flakes and these were recovered from the two excavated squares. The percentage in Structure 4 is 18.5% (N = 24), and these were recorded from eleven of the thirteen excavated squares (Table 7.1, 7.14).

7.2.3.3 Retouch mode and position This tool type features various retouch modes. Table 7.6 shows that 41.3% (N = 216) of the retouched flakes have flat marginal retouch, 32.9% (N = 172) have semi-steep retouch, and 23.9% (N = 125) have flat invasive retouch. A further 1.9% (N = 10) of the retouched flakes bear use-wear traces. The overwhelming majority (87.8% or N = 459) of these tools feature obverse retouch, followed by 8% (N = 42) which have invasive retouch, and 4.2% (N = 22) which have inverse retouch (Table 7.7). The retouch was mainly applied to lateral edges of the flakes, (87.6% or N = 458), followed by 10.7% (N = 56) at both lateral edge and distal ends. On the remaining pieces, retouch was either on the distal end (1% (N = 5), or on the proximal end (0.8% or N = 4).

7.2.3.10

The distribution of retouched flake by phase One hundred and seventy specimens of this tool type - 40.4% of the retouched tools in that structure - were recovered from Phase 1 of Structure 1, followed by six pieces from Phase 2 (23.1%). Only the upper two phases of Structure 2 included retouched flakes, with 245 (30.2%) in Phase 1 and 18 (27.3%) in Phase 2. In Structure 3, 49 retouched flakes (37.8%) were recovered from Phase 1, followed by seven pieces (31.9%) from Phase 2, one piece (16.7%) from the Dana sediments and four pieces from the exterior phases. The last 24 pieces were recovered from Structure 4 and form 18.5% of the retouched tool in that structure (see Table 7.15).

7.2.3.4 Raw material and colour Excluding five pieces made from quartz, quartzite, obsidian and sandstone (Table 7.10, see also Table 7.9), all retouched flakes are made from flint and have the following colours: 88.2% (N = 456) brown, 8.9% (N = 46) grey, 2.1% (N = 11) black and 0.8% (N = 4) yellow (Table 7.8). 7.2.3.5 Burning Four specimens of this tool type are burnt, whereas the rest show no evidence of either burning or heat treatment (Table 7.11).

7.2.3.11 Summary Retouched flakes form the second largest category of the tools at ZAD 2 after the retouched bladelets. They are divided into five subtypes, with the most common type featuring flat obverse marginal retouch along lateral edges. The overwhelming majority of retouched flakes were made from flint, but other raw materials such as quartz, quartzite, obsidian and even sandstone were exploited occasionally. Less than 1% of the retouched flakes show evidence of burning and around 7% are broken. Although tertiary flakes are the most common type, secondary flakes were also not uncommon. Finally, the distribution of retouched flakes in structures and phases strongly indicates that this tool type is one of the most dominant and well represented in the various excavated phases.

7.2.3.6 Breakage types According to Table 7.12, 6.7% (N = 35) of the retouched flakes are broken. Almost half of the broken specimens are broken from the distal end (N = 17) and a quarter from the proximal end (N = 9). The remainder are broken medially (N = 7), and the last two pieces bear remains of breakage at both ends. 7.2.3.7 Cortex More than half of the retouched flakes (N = 289) are classified as tertiary, whereas 36% (N = 188) are classified as secondary and 8.8% (N = 46) as primary (Table 7.13). 7.2.3.8 Tool sub-types Five subtypes of retouched flakes have been identified at ZAD 2 and these are summarised in Table 7.2. The majority of the retouched flakes 70.1% (N = 367) - are classified as unilateral flakes (FIG. 7.3), followed by 17.4% (N = 91) classified as bilateral flakes. Those retouched from both

7.2.4 Backed tools A backed tool is a specimen with an edge that has been intentionally blunted or partially removed by retouching, along part or the entire length of the lateral. The retouch, known as ‘abrupt or steep retouch’, is often struck from either the ventral or 116

Chapter 7

Retouched tools, ZAD 2 The mean dimensions of the backed bladelets are 3.2 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 0.6 cm and a range of 2.4-4.2 cm) by 1.3 cm in width (with a standard deviation of 0.4 cm and a range of 0.8-1.9 cm) by 0.6 cm in thickness (with a standard deviation of 0.10 cm and a range of 0.5-0.8 cm). The mean weight of the backed bladelets is 2.4 grams (with a standard deviation of 1.1 grams and a range of 1.3-4.7 grams, Table 7.3 and FIG. 7.4.b).

the dorsal surface, and has an angle of approximately 85-90º (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1970: 210, Holdaway and Stern 2003: 276, 282, Marks 1976: 377-379). 7.2.4.1 Quantity, dimensions, weight and ratio Backed tools account for 1.5% (N = 25) of the total number of retouched tools (Tables 7.1, 7.2). The mean dimensions of the unbroken backed tools are 3.8 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 1.1 cm and a range of 2.4-7.1 cm) by 2.1 cm in width (with a standard deviation of 0.9 cm and a range of 0.80-3.9 cm) by 0.9 cm in thickness (with a standard deviation of 0.4 cm and a range of 0.501.90 cm). The mean weight of these tools is 9.9 grams (with a standard deviation of 10.1 grams and a range of 1.3-37.5 grams, Tables 7.3, 7.4).

When these two sub-types are classified according to the position of the backed edge, 68% (N = 17) have backed lateral edges on flakes, 28% (N = 7) have backed lateral edges on bladelets, and one flake (4%) has a backed edge (Table 7.2). 7.2.4.9

The distribution of backed tools within structures In Structure 1, eight backed tools (1.7%) were recovered in four of the eight excavated squares. In Structure 2, seven pieces (0.8%) were recovered from five of the 36 excavated squares. In Structure 3, four specimens (2.3%) were recovered from the two excavated squares. Finally, in Structure 4, six pieces (4.6%) were recovered from five of the thirteen excavated squares (Tables 7.1, 7.14).

7.2.4.2 Blank types Backed tools are made both on flakes (N = 18) and on bladelets (N = 7), but none on blades (Table 7.5). 7.2.4.3 Retouch mode and position All of the backed tools have abrupt steep retouch in an obverse position on the lateral edge (Tables 7.6, Table 7.7).

7.2.4.10

The distribution of backed tools by phase Eight backed tools (1.9%) were found in Phase 1 of Structure 1. None were found in Phase 2. Backed tools were only recovered from Phase 1 of Structure 2 in which they constituted seven pieces (0.9%). In Structure 3, three backed tools (2.4% of the retouched tools) were recovered from Phase 1. The exterior phases include also one piece (4.8%). The last six pieces were recovered from Structure 4 (Table 7.15).

7.2.4.4 Raw material and colour As can be seen on Table 7.8, all backed tools are made from flint. These tools are 92% (N = 23) brown, 4% (N = 1) grey and 4% (N = 1) black (Tables 7.8, 7.9, 7.10). 7.2.4.5 Burning None of the backed tools show any evidence of either burning or heat-treatment (Table 7.11). 7.2.4.6 Breakage types Two of the backed tools are broken, one from the distal end and one from the proximal end (Table 7.12).

7.2.4.11 Summary The majority of backed tools are made from brown-flint flake blanks. All of them are made by abrupt steep retouch applied to the dorsal face. Backed tools were found in all four of the excavated structures, though only within the upper phases.

7.2.4.7 Cortex Three specimens are classified as secondary, whereas the rest do not have any cortical coverage and are therefore classified as tertiary (Table 7.13).

7.2.5 Truncated tools Any artefact that is retouched at either the distal or the proximal end and has abrupt retouch or flat invasive retouch- often struck from both obverse and inverse surfaces - is counted as a truncated tool (see Bar-Yosef 1970: 211).

7.2.4.8 Tool sub-types Backed tools are divided into two sub-types: 72% are counted as backed flakes (N = 18) and 28% (N = 7) as backed bladelets. The mean dimensions of the backed flakes are 4 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 1.2 cm and a range of 2.6-7.1 cm) by 2.5 cm in width (with a standard deviation of 0.80 cm and a range of 1.4-3.9 cm) by 1.1 cm in thickness (with a standard deviation of 0.4 cm and a range of 0.5-1.9 cm). The mean weight of the backed flakes is 12.9 grams (with a standard deviation of 10.50 grams and a range of 1.9-37. 5 grams, Tables 7.2, 7.3, FIG. 7.4.a).

7.2.5.1

Quantity, dimensions, weight and ratio Truncated tools account for 0.3% (N = 5) of the total number of retouched tools (Tables 7.1, 7.2). The mean dimensions of the unbroken truncated tools are 4.5 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 0.7 cm and a range of 3.5-5.3 cm) by 2.3 cm in width (with a standard deviation of 0.7 cm and a range of 1.50-3.3 cm) by 0.8 cm in 117

Chapter 7

Retouched tools, ZAD 2 7.2.5.11 Summary Truncated tools are divided into three subtypes: truncated flakes, truncated blades and truncated bladelets. They are made equally on flakes and on blades, but only one of them is made from a bladelet. The majority have semi-steep retouch with obverse retouch on distal ends. All of them are made from brown flint and none show evidence of either burning or breakage. More than half of them are made from tertiary blanks. This tool type was only found in the upper phases of Structures 2 and 4.

thickness (with a standard deviation of 0.3 cm and a range of 0.50-1.30 cm). The mean weight of these tools is 8.0 grams (with a standard deviation of 5.9 grams and a range of 4.4-18.4 grams, Tables 7.3, 7.4). 7.2.5.2 Blank types According to Table 7.5, truncated tools are made equally on flakes and on blades (two for each) as well as on one bladelet. 7.2.5.3 Retouch mode and position Four of the truncated tools (80%) have semi-steep retouch and one (20%) has flat marginal retouch (Table 7.6). All truncated tools feature obverse retouch on distal ends (Table 7.7).

7.2.6 Retouched blades Any blade that has either partial or continuous retouch is included in this category (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1970: 213).

7.2.5.4 Raw material and colour All truncated tools are made from brown flint (Tables 7.8, 7.9, 7.10).

7.2.6.1

Quantity, dimensions, weight and ratio Retouched blades form 3.4% (N = 56) of the total number of retouched tools (Tables 7.1, 7.2). The mean dimensions of the unbroken retouched blades are 5.9 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 0.9 cm and a range of 5.0-8.3 cm) by 2.1 cm in width (with a standard deviation of 0.6 cm and a range of 1.1-3.8 cm) by 0.7 cm in thickness (with a standard deviation of 0.3 cm and a range of 0.3-1.6 cm). The mean weight of these tools is 10.2 grams (with a standard deviation of 8.3 grams and a range of 2.0-49.1 grams, Tables 7.3, 7.4).

7.2.5.5 Burning None of the truncated tools show any evidence of either burning or heat-treatment (Table 7.11). 7.2.5.6 Breakage types None of the truncated tools are broken (Table 7.12). 7.2.5.7 Cortex Three specimens among the truncated tools (60%) are made from tertiary flakes and two pieces (40%) on secondary flakes (Table 7.13).

7.2.6.2 Blank types Obviously, all retouched blades are made from blade blanks (Table 7.5).

7.2.5.8 Tool sub-types Three sub-types have been identified among the truncated tools and divided as: two truncated flakes, two truncated blades and one truncated bladelet. The truncated flakes are 4.6 cm in length by 3.0 cm in width by 0.9 cm in thickness and weigh 12.7 grams. The truncated blades are 5.0 cm in length by 1.6 cm in width by 0.6 cm in thickness and weigh 4.4 grams. The truncated bladelet is 3.5 cm in length by 2.0 cm in width by 0.8 cm in thickness and weighs 5.7 grams (Table 7.3, FIG. 7.5).

7.2.6.3 Retouch mode and position The majority of the retouched blades (89.3%) have flat marginal retouch, followed by 10.7% (N = 6) with semi-steep retouch (Table 7.6). All of them have retouch on obverse retouch along the lateral edges (Table 7.7). 7.2.6.4 Raw material and colour All retouched blades are made from flint and 47 of them are brown in colour, four pieces are grey, three pieces are black and two pieces are yellow (Tables 7.8, 7.9, 7.10).

7.2.5.9

The distribution of truncated tools within structures Two of the truncated tools come from two squares in Structure 2 and three were found in three squares in Structure 4 (Tables 7.1, 7.14).

7.2.6.5 Burning None of the classified retouched blades show any evidence of burning (Table 7.11). 7.2.6.6 Breakage types Only 16.1% (N = 9) of retouched blades are broken, six are proximal fragments and from the distal ends and three from the proximal ends (Table 7.12).

7.2.5.10

The distribution of truncated tools by phase Truncated tools account for 0.1% (N = 1) of the total number of retouched tools recovered from Phase 1 of Structure 2 and 1.5% (N = 1) from Phase 2. The other three pieces were recovered from Structure 4 (Table 7.15).

7.2.6.7 Cortex More than half of the retouched blades (N = 33 or 58.9%) do not have any cortical coverage, whereas

118

Chapter 7

Retouched tools, ZAD 2 these sickles is 13.4 grams (with a standard deviation of 0.4 grams and a range of 13.1-13.7 grams, Tables 7.3, 7.4).

the rest (N = 23 or 41.1%) have some, and are thus counted as secondary (Table 7.13). 7.2.6.8 Tool sub-types According to Table 7.2, retouched blades are divided into two sub-types: 53.6% (N = 30) unilateral and 46.4% (N = 26) bilateral (FIG. 7.6).

7.2.7.2 Blank types All the Beit Ta’amir sickles are made from blades (Table 7.5). 7.2.7.3 Retouch mode and position All the Beit Ta’amir sickles have flat invasive retouch initiated from lateral edges (Tables 7.6, 7.7).

7.2.6.9

The distribution of retouched blades within structures Structure 1 had nine retouched blades, which form 2% of the total number of retouched tools recovered from that structure. These were found in six of the eight excavated squares. Structure 2 had 32 pieces (3.6%), which were recovered from 17 of the 36 excavated squares. Structure 3 had seven specimens (4%), recovered from both excavated squares. Finally, Structure 4 produced eight pieces (6.2%), found in six of the thirteen excavated squares (Tables 7.1, 7.14).

7.2.7.4 Raw material and colour The four Beit Ta’amir sickles are made from flint. Three are brown in colour and the fourth is grey (Tables 7.8, 7.9, 7.10). 7.2.7.5 Burning Only one of the Beit Ta’amir sickles is burnt (Table 7.11).

7.2.6.10

The distribution of retouched blades by phase In Structure 1, retouched blades constitute 1.9% (N = 8) of the retouched tools in Phase 1 and 3.8% (N = 1) in Phase 2. In Structure 2, they are 3.7% (N = 30) in Phase 1, 3% (N = 2) in Phase 2 and nil in the other three phases. In Structure 3, retouched blades constitute 5.5% (N = 7) of the retouched tools in Phase 1, and nil in the other phases. The last eight pieces were recovered from Structure 4 (Table 7.15).

7.2.7.6 Breakage types Two of the Beit Ta’amir sickles are broken, one from the distal end and one from the proximal end (Table 7.12). 7.2.7.7 Cortex None of the Beit Ta’amir sickles have any cortical coverage and thus all of them were classified as tertiary (Table 7.13). 7.2.7.8 Tool sub-types This particular tool type was not divided into any subtype (Table 7.2, FIG. 7.7).

7.2.6.11 Summary Most of the retouched blades at ZAD 2 have either unilateral or bilateral flat marginal retouch. All of these tools are made from brown flint. None of them is burnt and more than half do not have cortical coverage. Although a few pieces were broken, the vast majority were complete. Retouched blades are almost equally represented in the upper phases of the four excavated squares.

7.2.7.9

The distribution of Beit Ta’amir sickles within structures One Beit Ta’amir sickle was found in Structure 1 (E26: Locus 2.2), which is equal to 0.2% of the total number of retouched tools recovered from that particular structure. Structure 2 supplied two specimens (I22: Locus 1.1 and L22: Locus 2.3), or 0.2% of the total number of retouched tools from that structure. Structure 3 did not supply any of these sickles, and Structure 4 yielded one piece (Q10: Locus 2.2) or 0.8% of the recovered retouched tools (Tables 7.1, 7.14).

7.2.7 Sickle Blades (Beit Ta’amir sickles) This tool type is defined as a blade which is backed from either one or both sides and which is invasively retouched on both dorsal and ventral surfaces (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1981a: 562, M.-C. Cauvin 1983: 71, Nadel 1997: 94). It is also considered one of the typical tool types of the PPNA period (e.g. Rosen 1997: 135).

7.2.7.10

The distribution Beit Ta’amir sickles by phase Beit Ta’amir sickles were found only in Phase 1 of Structure 1, where they formed 0.2% (N = 1) of the total number of retouched tools, and from Phase 1 of Structure 2, where they also formed 0.2% (N = 2). The last piece was recovered from Structure 4 (Table 7.15).

7.2.7.1

Quantity, dimensions, weight and ratio Only 0.2% (N = 4) of the total number of retouched tools were Beit Ta’amir sickles (Tables 7.1, 7.2). The mean dimensions of the unbroken sickles are 8.2 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 0.04 cm and a range of 8.2-8.3 cm) by 2.2 cm in width (with a standard deviation of 0.1 cm and a range of 2.1-2.3 cm) by 0.8 cm in thickness (with a standard deviation of 0.1 cm and a range of 0.75-0.85 cm). The mean weight of

7.2.7.11 Summary Beit Ta’amir sickles are made from blades and have flat invasive retouch on the dorsal and ventral faces, initiated from one lateral margin. The majority of them are brown in colour and one is 119

Chapter 7

Retouched tools, ZAD 2 More than 60% (N = 329) of them are broken, 62% (N = 204) from distal ends, 20.1% (N = 66) from proximal ends, and finally 17.9% (N = 59) from both distal and proximal ends (Table 7.12).

burnt. Two of the four are broken and none has any cortical coverage. This typical PPNA tool type was recovered from three of the four excavated structures, though only within the upper phases of occupation.

7.2.8.7 Cortex According to Table 7.13, 88.6% (N = 482) of the retouched bladelets do not have any cortical coverage. More than 10% (N = 59) have some, and are thus classified as secondary, and only 0.6% (N = 3) bear more than 30% coverage and are therefore counted as primary (Table 7.13).

7.2.8 Retouched bladelets Any bladelet that has either partial or complete retouch is included in this type (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1970: 213). 7.2.8.1

Quantity, dimensions, weight and ratio This is the largest tool category at ZAD 2 and comprises 544 pieces, or 33.3%, of the total number of retouched tools (Tables 7.1, 7.2). The mean dimensions of the unbroken retouched bladelets are 3.4 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 0.8 cm and a range of 1.9-4.9 cm) by 1.4 cm in width (with a standard deviation of 0.4 cm and a range of 0.5-2.5 cm) by 0.4 cm in thickness (with a standard deviation of 0.2 cm and a range of 0.2-2.5 cm). The mean weight of retouched bladelets is 2.2 grams (with a standard deviation of 1.7 grams and a range of 0.1-12.1 grams, Tables 7.3, 7.4).

7.2.8.8 Tool sub-types The retouched bladelets of ZAD 2 are divided into two subtypes: 72.4% (N = 394) have bilateral retouch and 27.6% (N = 150) have unilateral retouch (Table 7.2, FIG 7.8). 7.2.8.9

The distribution of retouched bladelets within structures In Structure 1, 35.6% (N = 159) of the total number of retouched tools were retouched bladelets, found in all of the excavated squares. In Structure 2, 286 retouched bladelets (32.6%) were found in 32 of the 36 excavated squares. In Structure 3, 63 pieces (35.6%) were found in both excavated squares. As for Structure 4, 36 specimens (27.6%) were recorded from ten of the thirteen excavated squares (Tables 7.1, 7.14).

7.2.8.2 Blank types Naturally, all retouched bladelets are made on bladelet blanks (Table 7.5).

7.2.8.10

The distribution of retouched bladelets by phase Table 7.15 indicates that 154 retouched tools (36.5%) were recovered from Phase 1 of Structure 1, followed by five pieces (19.3%) from Phase 2. Only the upper two phases of Structure 2 include retouched bladelets, 33.4% (N = 271) in Phase 1 and 22.7% (N = 15) in Phase 2. In Structure 3, 41 pieces (32.3%) were recovered from Phase 1, followed by eleven (50%) in Phase 2, three (50%) in the Dana sediments and eight (38.1%) in the exterior phases. The last 36 pieces were recovered in Structure 4.

7.2.8.3 Retouch mode and position According to Table 7.6, this category includes most retouch modes identified at ZAD 2. The most common retouched mode is flat marginal type, found on 62.9% (N = 342) of the retouched bladelets. A further 86 pieces (15.8%) have flat invasive retouch, 64 (11.8%) bear semi-steep retouch, 51 (9.3%) have usewear, and one piece (0.2%) has Ouchtata retouch. Retouch is always on a lateral edge. Almost 90% (N = 487) of the bladelets have obverse retouch, followed by 7.5% (N = 41), which have invasive retouch, and 2.9% (N = 16), which have inverse retouch (Table 7.7).

7.2.8.11 Summary Retouched bladelets constitute the most common tool type at ZAD 2. The vast majority of them have bilateral flat marginal retouch. Although the overwhelming majority of the retouched bladelets are made from flint, small amounts of other raw materials, such as quartz and obsidian, were also exploited. Less than 1% of retouched bladelets bear evidence of burning. More than 60% of this tool type are broken, and this percentage is the highest among the tool types of ZAD 2. The vast majority of these tools do not have any cortical coverage, which strongly indicates that flint knappers were interested in using tertiary products for their tool production rather than secondary or primary elements. Finally, the distribution of retouched bladelets in structures and phases indicates that this tool type is the second most

7.2.8.4 Raw material and colour Excluding three pieces, made from quartz and obsidian (Tables 7.9, 7.10), all the retouched bladelets are made from flint and have the following colours: 83.9% (N = 454) brown, 11.3% (N = 61) grey, 3.7% (N = 20) black and 0.7% (N = 4) red, 0.2% (N = 1) white and 0.2% (N = 1) yellow (Table 7.8). 7.2.8.5 Burning Only two (0.4%) of the retouched bladelets show evidence of burning (Table 7.11). 7.2.8.6 Breakage types The breakage rate of retouched bladelets is the highest among the retouched tools of ZAD 2. 120

Chapter 7

Retouched tools, ZAD 2 Group A:

common tool type in Structure 1 (after the retouched flakes) and the most common tool type in the other three structures. Retouched bladelets are represented in the upper two phases of structure 1 and 2 and the upper two phases of structure 3 as well as in the exterior phases.

Group B: Group C:

Projectile points with 1-3 mm of the distal end missing. Projectile points that lack the distal half. Projectile points that are counted as complete pieces.

As shown in Table 7.12, six of the projectile points are broken from the distal end. Three pieces were identified as Jordan Valley ‘2’ and belong to Group A. Group B has also three pieces, two of them identified as Jordan Valley ‘2’, while the third was identified as the Jordan Valley ‘5’ (see section 7.2.9.8).

7.2.9 Projectile points Projectile points are fashioned usually from either blades or bladelets and retouched from the dorsal surface so as to form a point (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1970: 216, Haaland 1972: 98, Holdaway and Stern 2003: 17, 283, 289). As I mentioned in the introduction of this chapter, projectile points are among those tools more widely used by lithic analysts to chronologically assign the Neolithic phases (e.g. Gopher 1994a, Rollefson 2001c). The various subtypes will therefore be discussed in detail in section 7.2.9.8 below.

The rest of the projectile points are not broken and belong to Group C. Two of them were identified as Jordan Valley ‘6’, two as Type 3 and one as El Khiam type. It is worth mentioning here, that the five projectile points identified as the Jordan Valley ‘2’ type were either missing the distal end (three of them) or the distal half (two of them), which might indicate that they either broke while being hafted, or broke due to heavy use. There is no presence of impact fractures on any of the recovered projectile points.

7.2.9.1

Quantity, dimensions, weight and ratio There are eleven projectile points, or 0.7% of the total number of retouched tools (Tables 7.1, 7.2). The mean dimensions of the unbroken projectile points are 2.7 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 1.0 cm and a range of 1.3-3.9 cm) by 1.2 cm in width (with a standard deviation of 0.4 cm and a range of 0.6-1.9 cm) by 0.4 cm in thickness (with a standard deviation of 0.1 cm and a range of 0.2-0.6 cm). The mean weight of the projectile points is 1.5 grams (with a standard deviation of 1.2 grams and a range of 0.2-3.3 grams, Tables 7.3, 7.4).

7.2.9.7 Cortex All projectile points are classified as tertiary, apart from one piece, which has some cortical coverage and is thus counted as secondary (Table 7.13). 7.2.9.8 Tool sub-types According to the typology of Gopher (1994a) and Nadel (1997), two of the three types found at ZAD 2 can be identified as Jordan Valley points (N = 8) and El Khiam points (N = 1). The third type (N = 2), however, does not have any parallel examples from contemporaneous sites, and I will therefore refer to it as Type 3 (Table 7.2).

7.2.9.2 Blank types All projectile points are made from bladelets (Table 7.5). 7.2.9.3 Retouch mode and position All projectile points bear semi-steep retouch (Table 7.6). Seven of these projectile points have obverse retouch, followed by four that have obverse/inverse or bifacial mode (Table 7.7). As for the position of the retouch on the blank, the projectile points have retouch at lateral edges, and distal and proximal ends, and thus the entire row in that table is marked with an ‘x’.

(a) The Jordan Valley points Eight projectile points belong to the Jordan Valley group and all but two of them have broken distal ends. They can be further divided into three subgroups: (a.1)

Jordan Valley 2: long rectangular tang: Five points belong to this subgroup, in which the angle between the tang and the body is greater than 90 degrees. Three of them are almost complete but missing the distal end (F27: Locus 1.1, U22: Locus 5.1 and F26: Locus 8.1), while the other two have only the proximal tangs (F26: Locus 8.2 and Q10: Locus 1.1). All of them have flat invasive retouch on the tangs (FIG. 7.9.a).

7.2.9.4 Raw material and colour All projectile points are made from flint and are brown in colour, excluding one piece that is grey (Tables 7.8, 7.9, 7.10). 7.2.9.5 Burning None of the projectile points shows any evidence of burning (see Table 7.11). 7.2.9.6 Breakage types Following the classification system of Nadel (1997), the projectile points are divided into three sub-groups according to their breakage types:

(a.2)

Jordan Valley 5: Long, drop-shaped tang One point belongs to this subgroup (L 24: locus 1.2), which is characterized by the shoulder or neck positioned between the tang and the body at an 121

Chapter 7

Retouched tools, ZAD 2 7.2.9.9

The distribution of projectile points within structures Structure 1 provided four projectile points (0.9% of the recovered retouched tools), which were found in two of the eight excavated squares. Structure 2 had only three pieces (0.3%) from three of the 36 excavated squares. Structure 3 had only one specimen (0.6%) and finally Structure 4 supplied three pieces (2.3%), from three of the thirteen excavated squares (Table 7.1, see also Table 7.14).

angle greater than 90 degrees. The tang is modified by flat invasive retouch, whereas the distal half is missing (FIG. 7.9.b). (a.3) Jordan Valley 6: Tang and barbs: This subtype is characterized by the angle between the tang and the body. The angle must be less than 90 degrees. Two points belong to this subtype (F26: Locus 1.1 and L11: Locus 1.1). Both points have flat invasive bifacial retouch tangs and unifacial proximal retouch. The mean dimensions of this subtype are 3.50 cm in length (with standard deviation of 0.20 cm and a range of 3.40-3.60 cm) by 1.80 cm in width (with standard deviation of 0.10 cm and a range of 1.80-1.90 cm) by 0.50 cm in thickness (with standard deviation of 0.04 cm and a range of 0.50-0.60 cm). The mean weight of this subtype is 2.80 grams (with standard deviation of 0.70 grams and a range of 2.30-3.30 grams, Table 7.3 and FIG. 7.9.c).

7.2.9.10

The distribution of projectile points by phase According to Table 7.15, projectile points were only recovered from Phase 1 of Structure 1 and constitute 0.9% (N = 4) of the total number of retouched tools. A similar situation occurs in Structure 2 where three projectile points (0.4%) were recorded, all from Phase 1. Structure 3 had one projectile point (4.5%) in Phase 2. Finally, the last three projectile points were recovered from Structure 4.

(b) El Khiam type: This type was identified by Nadel (1997: 83) as: ‘a point with one or more pairs of notches near the base or at the sides, the tip is retouched and the base is usually truncated, straight or concave’. One of the ZAD 2 points might be counted as ‘El Khiam 1 type’ (K23: Locus 1.2). It has two notches on the proximal half of the piece (one is smaller than the other), fashioned by direct unilateral retouch. The rest of the body is hardly retouched whereas the distal end has direct unilateral retouch. The dimensions of this specimen are 2.80 cm in length by 1.20 cm in width by 0.40 cm in thickness and weigh 1.10 grams, Table 7.3, FIG. 7.9.d).

7.2.9.11 Summary Five projectile points belong to the Jordan Valley 2 category, two each to the Jordan Valley 6 and Type 3 categories, and one each to the Jordan Valley 5 and El Khiam categories. All of them are made from bladelets and have semi-steep retouch. The majority of projectile points are brown in colour and have no cortical coverage. None of them are burnt or show any evidence of heat treatment. Although projectile points were recovered from all four excavated structures, they only appeared in the upper phases. The small number of points and their atypical appearance categorise this tool type.

(c) Type 3 The third type of projectile point is very diminutive. Two of them were recovered during the excavations. These points, to my knowledge, do not have any clear parallel examples from other contemporaneous sites, and therefore I will discuss them as a separate group. Both points are made from flint and have similar dimensions, shapes and techniques (FIG. 7.9.e). The first was recovered from Structure 2 (Square K22: Locus 2.1) and the second was recovered from Structure 4 (Square M12: Locus 1.1). Both of them have only one notch on the left side of the tang. The retouch mode is bifacial flat invasive, made from both the distal and the proximal ends. Neither has any remains of cortex and there is no evidence of heat treatment or burning. One of them is pale brown in colour (10 YR: 6/3) and the second is dark brown (7.5 YR: 3/2). Both pieces are complete and their mean dimensions are 1.70 cm in length by 0.70 cm in width by 0.20 cm in thickness and weigh 0.20 grams (Table 7.3 and FIG. 7.9.e).

7.2.10 The Hagdud Truncation This tool type is defined as an implement with two parallel retouched truncations (bi-truncated) made from the proximal and the distal ends of a small fragment of a blade or a bladelet, while the two lateral edges are unmodified (e.g. Bar-Yosef et al. 1987: 151; Nadel 1997: 111). Although this typical PPNA tool type (Kuijt 1994b: 169), was first discovered in the Nacharini cave in Lebanon (Schroeder 1976, 1977, 1991), it was named after the site of Netiv Hagdud (Bar Yosef et al. 1987). 7.2.10.1

Quantity, dimensions, weight and ratio According to Table 7.1, 3.7% (N = 61) of the total number of retouched tools were counted as Hagdud truncations. The third season of excavation at ZAD 2 uncovered many other Hagdud truncations as well, but these specimens are not included here. ZAD 2 has by far the highest proportion of Hagdud truncations recovered from any site in the Southern Levant, and thus particular attention was paid to this tool type (see Chapter 8). The mean dimensions of the Hagdud truncation are 1.00 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 0.30 cm and a range of 0.30-1.50 cm) by 0.85 cm in width (with 122

Chapter 7

Retouched tools, ZAD 2

a standard deviation of 0.25 cm and a range of 0.40-1.40 cm) by 0.18 cm in thickness (with a standard deviation of 0.04 cm and a range of 0.100.25 cm). The mean weight of these tools is 0.14 grams (with a standard deviation of 0.10 grams and a range of 0.01-0.40 grams, Tables 7.3, 7.4).

from 26 of the 36 excavated squares. Structure 3 had only one specimen (0.6% of the retouched tools), whereas Structure 4 yielded six pieces (4.6% of the retouched tools), which were recorded from four of the thirteen excavated squares (Tables 7.1, 7.14).

7.2.10.2 Blank types All Hagdud truncations are made from fragments of bladelets (Table 7.5).

7.2.10.10

The distribution of Hagdud truncations by phase Table 7.15 shows the distribution of Hagdud truncations by phase. In Structure 1, nine (2.1%) Hagdud truncations were recovered from Phase 1 and one (3.8%) from Phase 2. In Structure 2, 37 pieces (4.6%) were recovered from Phase 1 and seven (10.6%) from Phase 2. In Structure 3, only one piece was recovered from Phase 2 (4.5%). The remaining six pieces were recovered from Structure 4.

7.2.10.3 Retouch mode and position Tables 7.6 and 7.7 show that Hagdud truncations have steep/semi-steep retouch at either ends of the distal and proximal, or at both ends. Only twelve of these have Couze retouch along dorsal surfaces. 7.2.10.4 Raw material and colour All Hagdud truncations are made from flint. Almost 74% (N = 45) of them are brown in colour, 18% (N = 11) are grey and 8.2% (N = 5) are black (Tables 7.8, 7.9, 7.10).

7.2.10.11 Summary Hagdud truncations are made from fragments of bladelets and have steep/semi-steep retouch at distal or proximal ends. All the Hagdud truncations are made from flint and the vast majority of them are brown. Although a few pieces are partially broken, the overwhelming majority are complete. They show no evidence of either cortical coverage or burning. The distribution of Hagdud truncations by phase is very interesting; since this tool type is a diagnostic tool type for the PPNA, its presence across various phases in each structure strongly reinforces the conclusion that the entire site dates from this period.

7.2.10.5 Burning None of the Hagdud truncations show any evidence of either burning or heat treatment (Table 7.11). 7.2.10.6 Breakage types Three specimens are partially broken from one of the ends, whereas the rest are complete (Table 7.12). 7.2.10.7 Cortex None of the Hagdud truncations have any cortical coverage and thus were all made on tertiary blanks (Table 7.13).

7.2.11 Notches A notch is any implement with a concave retouched edge which is less than 15 mm long (Haaland 1972: 99, see also Holdaway and Stern 2003: 255-256, 268).

7.2.10.8 Tool sub-types According to morphology, this tool type is divided into six different subtypes (Table 7.2, see also Table 7.3 for descriptive statistics for each subtype).

7.2.11.1

Quantity, dimensions, weight and ratio Table 7.1 shows that 6.4% (N = 103) of the total number of retouched tools were counted as notches. The mean dimensions of the unbroken notches are 3.7 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 1.1 cm and a range of 1.8-6.5 cm) by 2.6 cm in width (with a standard deviation of 0.8 cm and a range of 0.8-5.2 cm) by 0.9 cm in thickness (with a standard deviation of 0.4 cm and a range of 0.2-2.6 cm). The mean weight of these tools is 10.1 grams (with a standard deviation of 8.4 grams and a range of 0.3-43.7 grams, Tables 7.3, 7.4).

Type A Double straight truncations (23 specimens, or 37.7%: FIG. 7.10.a). Type B Straight-concave truncations (15 specimens, or 24.6%: FIG. 7.10.b). Type C Double concave truncations (8 specimens, or 13.1%: FIG. 7.10.c). Type D Single concave truncations (7 specimens, or 11.5%: FIG. 7.10.d). Type E Single straight truncations (7 specimens, or 11.5%: FIG. 7.10.e). Type F Concave-convex truncation (1 specimen, or 1.6%: FIG. 7.10. f).

7.2.11.2 Blank types Eighty-six pieces of the notches (83.5%) are made from flakes, followed by 14 pieces (13.6%) made from bladelets. Other notches are made from large fragments (1.9% or N = 2) and on blades (1% or N = 1).

7.2.10.9

The distribution of Hagdud truncations within structures Structure 1 provided ten specimens (2.2% of the total number of retouched tools), which were recorded in six of the eight excavated squares. Structure 2 supplied 44 pieces (5% of the total number of retouched tools), which were recovered 123

Chapter 7

Retouched tools, ZAD 2 from Phase 1 and four (6.1%) from Phase 2. Structure 3 had six notches (4.7%) in Phase 1, one (16.6%) in The Dana sediments and two (9.5%) within the exterior phases. The last seven pieces were recovered from Structure 4.

7.2.11.3 Retouch mode and position The overwhelming majority of notches (92.2% or N = 95), bear flat marginal retouch, followed by 7.8% (N = 8) with semi-steep retouch (Table 7.6). Table 7.7 shows that 94.2% (N = 97) of the notches have obverse retouch, while the rest are equally divided between inverse and obverse/inverse or bifacial position. All retouch is located at the lateral edges, apart from two specimens (2%), in which the notches are located on the distal ends. None of these notches are opposed to each other and none indicate that they are the early stages of El Khiam point production.

7.2.11.11 Summary This tool type is divided into four subtypes: single (83.5%), double (10.7%), multiple (3.9%) and end (1.9%). The majority of them are made from flakes and have flat marginal retouch on lateral edges. The majority of them are brown in colour, and a single piece is burnt. Almost 11% of them are made from broken blanks. Although notches made on tertiary blanks are very common, notches on secondary planks are also not uncommon. Notches are represented in all excavated structures and in the upper phases, same pattern for most of the retouched tools.

7.2.11.4 Raw material and colour All notches are made from flint. The vast majority of them (87.4% or N = 90) are brown in colour; followed by 10.7% (N = 11) that are grey, and 1.9% (N = 2) that are black (Tables 7.8, 7.9, 7.10). 7.2.11.5 Burning Only one piece (1%) of this tool type was classified as burnt (Table 7.11).

7.2.12 Borers Generally, borers can be defined as those artefacts that have abrupt retouched edges and have a pointed retouched end which forms the intended working point (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1970: 222, Nadel 1997: 90). However, at ZAD 2 this tool type is divided into five different subtypes: bilateral with pointed end, bilateral with double pointed ends, unilateral with pointed end, single pointed end without retouch on laterals, and pointed end on notches without retouch on laterals. Each of these subtypes will be discussed in section 7.2.12.8 below.

7.2.11.6 Breakage types Eleven notches (10.7%) are made from broken blanks, five are broken from the proximal ends, whereas the rest are equally divided between those broken from the distal ends and medial fragments (Table 7.12). 7.2.11.7 Cortex Fifty-six notches (54.4%) are made from tertiary blanks, 33 (32%) on secondary and 14 (13.6%) on primary flakes (Table 7.13).

7.2.12.1

Quantity, dimensions, weight and ratio Ninety-two borers (5.6% of the total number of retouched tools) were identified. The mean dimensions of the unbroken borers are 3.3 cm in length (with a standard deviation cm and a range of 0.2-3.0 cm). The mean weight of these tools is 4.8 grams (with a standard deviation of 6.5 grams and a range of 0.1-28.4 grams, Tables 7.1, 7.3, 7.4).

7.2.11.8 Tool sub-types Notches are divided into four different subtypes (Table 7.2): single, which includes 83.5% (N = 86) of the notches (FIG. 7.11.a), double 10.7% (N = 11), multiple 3.9% (N = 4), and on end 1.9% (N = 2, FIG. 7.11.b). All of these notches are made along lateral edges but two pieces have notches on the distal ends.

7.2.12.2 Blank types More than 60% of the borers are made from bladelets (N = 62), whereas 26.1% (N = 24) are made from flakes, 3.3% (N = 3) on blades, 3.2% (N = 2) on CTE and 1.1% (N = 1) on a large flake fragment (Table 7.5).

7.2.11.9

The distribution of notches within structures The distribution of notches within structures is as follows (Table 7.1): In Structure 1, 4.7% (N = 21) of the retouched tools were classified as notches, recovered from all eight excavated squares. In Structure 2, 7.5% (N = 66) of the retouched tools were notches, recorded in 27 of the 36 excavated squares. In Structure 3, 5.1% (N = 9) were recovered from both excavated squares. In Structure 4, 5.4% (N = 7) of them were occurred in six of the thirteen excavated squares (see also Table 7.14).

7.2.12.3 Retouch mode and position Sixty-two borers (67.4%) bear steep retouch and 20.6% (N = 19) feature semi-steep retouch. The rest are divided as 8.7% (N = 8), with flat invasive and 3.3% (N = 3) with flat marginal retouch (Table 7.6). Table 7.7 indicates that 67.4% (N = 62) of the borers have obverse retouch, 27.2% (N = 25) have invasive and the remaining 5.4% (N = 5) have inverse retouch. Almost 78% (N = 72) of the borers bear the retouch at lateral edges and distal ends, and the other 22% (N = 20) have the retouch at distal ends only.

7.2.11.10 The distribution of notches by phase Nineteen notches (4.5%) were recovered from Phase 1 of Structure 1 and two (7.7%) from Phase 2. In Structure 2, 62 pieces (7.6%) were recovered 124

Chapter 7

Retouched tools, ZAD 2 on the distal end, and one remains undetermined. Three of them are made from bladelets and one is made from a core-trimming element (FIG. 7.12.d). b) Unilateral inverse retouch: Three pieces belong to this subgroup and have the working point on the distal end. They are made from bladelets (FIG. 7.12.e). c) Unilateral obverse retouch: Twelve pieces belong to this subgroup. Eight of them have the working point on the distal end, two on the proximal end, and two have an undetermined position. Six of them are made from bladelets, five on flakes, and one on a blade (FIG. 7.12.f). 3) Single pointed end without retouch on laterals (N = 20): This group is characterized by having the retouch on the working point only and is divided into four subgroups: a) Unilateral obverse retouch: two pieces belong to this sub-group. One of them is made from a bladelet and the other is made from a flake (FIG. 7.12.g). b) Bilateral invasive retouch: five of them belong to this sub-group. One piece is made from a blade, one from a core-trimming element, one from a flake, and two from bladelets (FIG. 7.12h). c) Bilateral inverse retouch: two pieces belong to this sub-group. They are made from bladelets (FIG.7.12i). d) Bilateral obverse retouch: eleven pieces belong to this sub-group. (FIG.7.12j). 4) Pointed borer on notches, without retouch on laterals (N = 8): this group is characterised by the working point, which is created by either having one notch on a side (N = 1), or by having two notches on both sides (N = 7). All of them are made from flakes, except one which is made from a large fragment. Four pieces have flat invasive retouch and four have marginal partial retouch (Fig 7.12.k). 5) Bilateral retouch with double pointed ends (N = 4): three of this group are made from bladelets and have steep retouch on both laterals and both distal and proximal ends. The fourth piece is made from a flake and has two working points. One of these working points has obverse retouch on the right side and inverse retouch on the left side, while the other working point has obverse retouch on the right side only (FIGS. 7.12.L, 7.12.m).

7.2.12.4 Raw material and colour All borers are made from flint and 83.7% (N = 77) of them are brown in colour, while the rest are grey (Table 7.8, see also Tables 7.9, 7.10). 7.2.12.5 Burning Only one of the borers is burnt (Table 7.11). 7.2.12.6 Breakage types Twenty-nine borers (31.5%) are broken. Of these, 18 (62.2%) are broken from proximal ends, while eight (27.6%) are broken from distal ends, two (6.8%) from medial sections, and one from both distal and proximal ends (Table 7.12). 7.2.12.7 Cortex According to Table 7.13, 84.8% (N = 78) of the borers were classified as tertiary, 14.1% (N = 13) as secondary and 1.1% (N = 1) as primary. 7.2.12.8 Tool sub-types Based on the retouch position on lateral edges and on both distal and proximal ends, borers are divided into five subtypes (Table 7.2, FIG 7.12): 1) Bilaterally retouched borers with pointed end (44.6% or N = 41): This group is characterised by retouch on both lateral margins as well as on the working point, and can be divided into three subgroups: a) Obverse retouch on one lateral margin and inverse retouch on the other lateral margin (N = 14): Ten borers have obverse retouch along the left laterals and inverse retouch along the right lateral. The other four pieces have the opposite pattern, where inverse retouch was noticed along the left lateral and obverse retouch along the right lateral. All of these borers are made from bladelets. Eleven of them have the working end on distal ends and three have it on proximal ends (FIG. 7.12.a). b) Invasive retouch on both laterals (N = 1): This specimen is made from a huge flake and has a single pointed end made by invasive retouch at both laterals (FIG. 7.12.b). c) Obverse retouch along both laterals (N = 26): Three of these are made from flakes while the rest are made from bladelets. Twenty-three of them have the working points on the distal end and three have them on the proximal ends (FIG. 7.12.c). 2) Unilaterally retouched borers with pointed end (N = 19): This group is characterized by having retouch on one lateral margin as well as on the working point, and can be divided into three sub-groups: a) Invasive retouch: Four pieces belong to this group. Two of them have the working point on proximal ends, one 125

Chapter 7

Retouched tools, ZAD 2 tools have obverse retouch and two have invasive retouch. Twelve of the multiple tools bear retouch on a lateral edge and distal ends, and one has retouch on a lateral edge only.

7.2.12.9

The distribution of borers within structures Structure 1 contained 26 pieces (5.8% of the recovered retouched tools), which were found in all eight excavated squares. Structure 2 produced 43 pieces (4.9% of the retouched tools) recovered from 22 of the 36 excavated squares. Structure 3 had nine pieces (5.1%) found in both excavated squares, and finally Structure 4 had 14 pieces (10.7% of the retouched tools), which were found in seven of the thirteen excavated squares (Tables 7.1, 7.14).

7.2.13.4 Raw material and colour Except for one which is grey, all the multiple tools are brown in colour. Flint was the sole raw material used for this tool type (Table 7.8, see also Tables 7.9, 7.10). 7.2.13.5 Burning None of the multiple tools shows evidence of burning (Table 7.11).

7.2.12.10 The distribution of borers by phase According to Table 7.15, 5.7% (N = 24) of the retouched tools recovered from Phase 1 of Structure 1 were classified as borers, followed by 7.7% (N = 2) in Phase 2. In Structure 2, 5.3% (N = 43) were borers, and all of them came from the upper phase. In Structure 3, borers constitute 4.7% (N = 6) of Phase 1 retouched tools, 100% (N = 1) in Phase 3, and 9.5% (N = 2) in the exterior phases. The last 14 borers (10.7%) were recovered from Structure 4.

7.2.13.6 Breakage types None of the multiple tools is broken (Table 7.12). 7.2.13.7 Cortex Seven of the multiple tools have slight cortical coverage (secondary, 53.8%) and six have no cortical coverage at all (tertiary, 46.2%, Table 7.13).

7.2.13 Multiple tools Any retouched tool which is related to more than one tool type is included in this category (e.g. Magid 1995: 77). For further details see section 7.2.13.8 below.

7.2.13.8 Tool sub-types According to morphology, this tool type is divided into: (Table 7.2, FIG 7.13). Backed tool + burin 1 piece Concave scraper + side scraper 1 piece Concave scraper + side scraper + notch 1 piece Concave scraper + borer 2 pieces Convex scraper + side scraper 1 piece Convex scraper + borer + notch 1 piece Side scraper + borer 1 piece Side scraper + borer + notch 1 piece Side scraper + broken axe 1 piece Side scraper + burin 2 pieces Side scraper + notch 1 piece

7.2.13.1

7.2.13.9

7.2.12.11 Summary The borers are divided into five groups. The largest group consists of borers with bilateral retouch. The majority of these tools are made from bladelets and have steep and semi-steep retouch. Borers were recovered from the upper phases of the four excavated structures.

The distribution of multiple tools within structures Two pieces (0.4%) were found in two of the eight excavated squares in Structure 1. In Structure 2, six pieces (0.7%) were recovered in six squares. Two pieces were also recovered from the two excavated squares of Structure 3. The last three pieces were recovered from Structure 4 and gathered from three different squares (see Tables 7.5, 7.14).

Quantity, dimensions, weight and ratio Thirteen multiple tools (0.8% of the total number of retouched tools) were recovered. The mean dimensions of the tool type are 6.0 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 1.6 cm and a range of 3.1-8.3 cm) by 3.3 cm in width (with a standard deviation of 1.3 cm and a range of 1.5-6.1 cm) by 1.6 cm in thickness (with a standard deviation of 0.6 cm and a range of 0.6-2.7 cm). The mean weight of these tools is 35.3 grams (with a standard deviation of 26.9 grams and a range of 6.2-97.7 grams; Tables 7.1, 7.3, 7.4).

7.2.13.10

The distribution of multiple tools by phase One multiple tool was found in Phase 1 of Structure 1 and one in Phase 2. All six of the multiple tools from Structure 2 were found in Phase 1 accounting for 0.7% of the retouched tools in that phase. Phase 1 of Structure 3 includes two multiple tools (1.6% of the retouched tools in that phase), and the other three pieces were recovered from Structure 4 and formed 2.3% of the retouched tools in that phase (Table 7.15).

7.2.13.2 Blank types Eight of the multiple tools are made from flakes, three are made from blades, one is made from a core trimming element and one is made from a large flake fragment (Table 7.5). 7.2.13.3 Twelve of retouch and 7.6). Table

Retouch mode and position the multiple tools have semi-steep one has flat invasive retouch (Table 7.7 shows that eleven of the multiple 126

Chapter 7

Retouched tools, ZAD 2 7.2.14.5 Burning None of the bifacial tools shows evidence of either burning or heat-treatment (Table 7.11).

7.2.13.11 Summary This tool type is divided into eleven subtypes. Most specimens are made from flakes, with semisteep retouch at unilateral edges and distal ends. Nearly all the multiple tools are made from brown flint on either tertiary or secondary blanks, and were found in the upper phases of all four excavated structures.

7.2.14.6 Breakage types Table 7.12 shows that 46.2% (N = 30) of the bifacial tools are broken. Eighty-three percent of these are broken from the proximal end and the rest (N = 5) are broken from the distal end.

7.2.14 Bifacial tools This category includes all artefacts with bifacial modification, and is divided into three subtypes: picks, axes (tranchet) and bifacially-flaked axes or chopping tools. 1) Picks are identified as elongated bifacials with a triangular cross section. The distal end is sharp whereas the proximal end is thick and wide (e.g. Nadel 1997: 101). 2) Tranchet axes are identified as elongated bifacials that have either straight or convex distal end (e.g. Nadel 1997: 99). 3) Bifacially-flaked axes at ZAD 2 are made from either pebbles or on large flakes and the active ends are formed by either unifacial or bifacial flaking. The cortex usually covers a large percentage of the tool’s surface. This tool type is very similar to the chopping tools in Nadel’s classification of varia types (see Nadel 1997: 120).

7.2.14.7 Cortex Excluding the four pieces which are made from limestone and sandstone, 59% (N = 36) of the bifacial tools are counted as tertiary, 32.3% (N = 21) are counted as secondary and 6.2% (N = 4) are counted as primary (Table 7.13). 7.2.14.8 Tool sub-types Following the classification system employed at Netiv Hagdud (see Nadel 1997), the bifacial tools of ZAD 2 are divided into three major sub-types: 30 tranchet axes (46.2%), 31 picks (47.6%), and four (6.2%) bifacially-flaked axes or chopping tools (Table 7.2). The mean dimension of the unbroken tranchet axes is 7.1 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 1.4 cm and a range of 4.0-9.7 cm) by 4.0 cm in width (with a standard deviation of 1.20 cm and a range of 2.35-6.8 cm) by 2.5 cm in thickness (with a standard deviation of 0.6 cm and a range of 1.5-3.7 cm). The mean weight of these axes is 88.5 grams (with a standard deviation of 64.10 grams and a range of 18.5-233. 5 grams, Table 7.3 and FIG. 7.14.a).

7.2.14.1

Quantity, dimensions, weight and ratio Bifacial tools account for 4% (N = 65) of the total number of retouched tools (Tables 7.1, 7.2). The mean dimensions of the unbroken bifacial tools are 7.3 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 1.5 cm and a wide range of 3.8-9.7 cm) by 3.9 cm in width (with a standard deviation of 1.5 cm and a wide range of 1.50-7.2 cm) by 2.4 cm in thickness (with a standard deviation of 0.3 cm and a wide range of 1.0-5.0 cm). The mean weight of these tools is 83.6 grams (with a standard deviation of 63.5 grams and a range of 7.1-233.5 grams, Tables 7.3, 7.4).

The tranchet axes or adzes are also divided according to shape and breakage. Table 7.2 shows that 24.6% (N = 16) of the bifacial tools were complete and counted as tranchet axes, 7.7% (N = 5) were broken axes with more than half of the tools remaining, 6.2% (N = 4) were broken axes with only the tip surviving and 4.6% (N = 3) were tranchet axes missing the tips. One axe was missing the base, and finally another one had retouch on the tip only, whereas the rest of the tool is unmodified.

7.2.14.2 Blank types Excluding two which are made from large flakes, all bifacial tools are made from large chunks or cobbles (Table 7.5).

The bifacially-flaked axes or chopping tools are all complete. The mean dimensions are 8.4 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 1.8 cm and a range of 5.8-9.7 cm) by 6.3 cm in width (with a standard deviation of 0.9 cm and a range of 5.2-7.2 cm) by 3.4 cm in thickness (with a standard deviation of 1.10 and a range of 2.8-5.0 cm). The mean weight of these bifacially-flaked axes is 175.4 grams (with a standard deviation of 57.3 grams and a range of 96.7-222.3 grams, Table 7.3 and FIG. 7.14.b).

7.2.14.3 Retouch mode and position Table 7.6 shows that all bifacial tools have flat invasive retouch initiated from the lateral margins, covering the ventral and dorsal surfaces as well as both the distal and proximal ends (Table 7.7). 7.2.14.4 Raw material and colour According to Table 7.8, the vast majority of the bifacial tools, 92.3% (N = 60) are made from brown flint. One piece is made from red flint. Two bifacial tools were made from limestone and another two were made from sandstone (Tables 7.9, 7.10).

The mean dimensions of the unbroken picks are 6.8 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 1.8 cm and a range of 3.8-9.4 cm) by 2.9 cm in width (with a standard deviation of 1.1 cm and a range of 1.5-5.4 cm) by 2.0 cm in thickness (with a standard 127

Chapter 7

Retouched tools, ZAD 2 7.2.15.1

Quantity, dimensions, weight and ratio Only 10 specimens, or 0.6% of the total number of retouched tools were counted as varia (Tables 7.1, 7.2). The mean dimensions of this tool type are 4.2 cm in length (with a standard deviation of 2.5 cm and a range of 1.5-10.1 cm) by 2.0 cm in width (with a standard deviation of 1.2 cm and a range of 1.0-5.3 cm) by 0.9 cm in thickness (with a standard deviation of 1.1 cm and a range of 0.2-4.0 cm). The mean weight of the varia is 21.1 grams (with a standard deviation of 54.4 grams and a range of 0.5-175.9 grams, Tables 7.3, 7.4).

deviation of 0.50 and a range of 1.0-2.7 cm). The mean weight of the picks is 46.0 grams (with a standard deviation of 27.0 grams and a range of 7.1-89.9 grams, Table 7.3 and FIG. 7.14.c). Picks were also divided according to shape and breakage patterns. Table 7.2 featured that 20% (N = 13) of the recovered bifacial tools were complete picks, 10.8% (N = 7) were broken picks with only the working end present, and 7.7% (N = 5) were missing the base. Three other picks (4.6%) were broken with only half of the tools present, two (3.1%) were missing the tips and one (1.5%) was irregular.

7.2.15.2 Blank types Seven of the items are made from bladelets, whereas two are made from flakes, and one is made from a large fragment (Table 7.5).

7.2.14.9

The distribution of bifacial tools within structures Structure 1 contained eight bifacial tools (three axes and five picks), which were found in four of the eight excavated squares. Structure 2 supplied 45 bifacial tools (25 axes, four bifacially-flaked axes/chopping tools and 16 picks), which were recorded in 22 of the 36 excavated squares. Structure 3 supplied only two bifacial tools (one axe and one pick) both from the same square. Finally, Structure 4 produced ten bifacial tools (one axe and nine picks), which were found in seven of the thirteen excavated squares (Table 7.1).

7.2.15.3 Retouch mode and position Table 7.6 shows that seven varia items have semisteep (70%) retouch and three (30%) have flat invasive retouch. Furthermore, eight of the varia tools have obverse retouch and two have obverse/inverse or bifacial mode (Table 7.7). 7.2.15.4 Raw material and colour All ‘varia’ are made from flint. Eight pieces are brown and two pieces are grey (Table 7.8, see also Tables 7.9, 7.10).

7.2.14.10

The distribution of bifacial tools by phase Bifacial tools account for 1.7% (N = 7) of the total number of retouched tools in Phase 1 of Structure 1, and 3.8% (N = 1) in Phase 2. In Structure 2, bifacial tools account for 4.4% (N = 36) of the total number of retouched tools in Phase 1, 13.6% (N = 9) in Phase 2 and none in the other three phases. In Structure 3, bifacial tools account for 0.7% (N = 1) of the recovered retouched tools in Phase 1, and one (4.8%) in the exterior phases. The last ten pieces were recovered from Structure 4 and formed 7.7% of the retouched tools in that structure (Table 7.15).

7.2.15.5 Burning One piece among the varia category is burnt (Table 7.11). 7.2.15.6 Breakage types Only one specimen among is counted among the broken tools, and is distal fragment (Table 7.12). 7.2.15.7 Cortex The tools are equally divided between those with tertiary and those with secondary blanks (Table 7.13). 7.2.15.8 Tool sub-types Due to their unusual forms, the ten tools allocated to the ‘varia’ category are essentially variants of the following types: a crested blade, a crested bladelet, a Hagdud truncation, a pick, a burin, and double notches and triple notches. One of these pieces (see FIG.7.15.a) looks similar to the Hagdud truncation in principle, with retouch on both proximal and distal end, while the lateral edges are not retouched. Nevertheless, this tool has very deep concave truncation and does not resemble any other published type. Though Nadel describes a similar tool from Netiv Hagdud which he labelled as ‘varia’ (Nadel 1997: 117; fig. 4.29: 11). Another piece (see FIG 7.15.b) looks like a concave scraper on a broken flake and has flat invasive retouch at one lateral.

7.2.14.11 Summary Tranchet axes form 46.2% of the bifacial tools, while the bifacially-flaked axes account for 6.2% and picks constitute 47.6%. Bifacial tools are made from large cobbles or chunks and bear flat invasive retouch initiated from lateral and distal margins. Although the majority of bifacial tools are made from brown flint, limestone and sandstone were also used. None of the bifacial tools shows any evidence of being either burnt or heat-treated. Many of the bifacial tools were broken from proximal ends. Finally, bifacial tools were found in all four of the excavated structures. 7.2.15 Varia The ‘Varia’ category includes retouched pieces that do not fit in any of the above categories (e.g. BarYosef 1970: 223).

128

Chapter 7

Retouched tools, ZAD 2 as were many bifacial tools, including the tranchet axe type. The existence of these major diagnostic tool types indicates that the lithic typology of ZAD 2 is typically PPNA.

7.2.15.9

The distribution of varia within structures In Structure 1, two varia pieces (0.4% of the retouched tools) were recovered from two squares. In Structure 2, five varia tools (0.6%) were recovered from five squares. In Structure 3, two varia tools (1.1%) were recovered from one square. Finally, in Structure 4, one varia (0.8%) was found (Table 7.1, see also Table 7.14).

Other tool types such as scrapers, restricted types of burins, retouched flakes, backed tools, truncated tools, retouched blades, retouched bladelets, notches, various types of borers, multiple tools, and varia were also found at ZAD 2. Although not analysed here, it is worth noting that edge-ground and polished axes were also found (made on basalt, limestone and sandstone), which are also typical PPNA types.

7.2.15.10 The distribution of varia by phase The varia items were recovered from the four excavated structures and are distributed as follows: two (0.5%) from Phase 1 of Structure 1, four (0.5%) from Phase 1 of Structure 2, one (50%) from Phase 3 of Structure 2, two (1.6%) from Phase 1 of Structure 3 and one (0.8) from Structure 4 (Table 7.15).

ZAD 2 has by far the highest proportion of Hagdud truncations recovered from any site in the Southern Levant, and this tool type is therefore considered to be the most significant at ZAD 2. In Chapter 8, microwear analysis and experimental studies will be employed to investigate the function of these tools.

7.2.15.11 Summary Most of the items in the ‘varia’ category are made from bladelets and feature semi-steep retouch. The majority are made from un-burnt brown flint. Varia items are made on tertiary and secondary blanks. These items are also represented in the upper phases of the excavated structures. 7.3 Summary and concluding remarks The majority of the retouched tools at ZAD 2 are made from bladelets and have obverse marginal continuous and obverse flat invasive retouch. Heavy tool categories made from flakes, cobbles or chunks are also important. The location of the retouch is primarily along lateral edges. Brown flint is the raw material source for the vast majority of these tools (see Tables 7.16, 7.17 and FIG. 7.16). Remains of heat treatment are not found on any of the retouched tools, though twelve pieces were classified as burnt, which probably occurred incidentally. One third of the tools are broken, most commonly from the distal ends. The majority of them do not have any cortical coverage, which indicate that flint knappers sought cortex-free blanks for their tool production. The retouched tools at ZAD 2 are divided into 15 different types, which are further subdivided into 69 subtypes. Of these, almost one third are found in Structure 1, more than half in Structure 2, and the rest are divided between Structures 3 and 4. A similar pattern was noticed in all of the excavated structures in regard to the distribution of retouched tools. The vast majority of them were recovered from the upper phases, and the amount and percentage decreased with depth as a result of natural deflation (see also Chapters 5, 6). Many Hagdud truncations were recovered from ZAD 2, and were divided into six subtypes. Very few projectile points were found, and these were divided into three different types: the Jordan Valley, El Khiam, and a new type, labelled as Type 3. Beit Ta’amir sickles were also found at the site 129

Chapter 7

Table 7.1:

Tables

Abridged retouched tool list for Structures 1 - 4, ZAD 2.

N

Types

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

Scrapers Burins Retouched flakes Backed tools Truncated tools Retouched blades Beit Ta’amir sickles Retouched bladelets Projectile points Hagdud truncations Notches Borers Multiple tools Bifacial tools Varia Total

Table 7.2: N

Types Scrapers

2

Subtotal Burins

3

Subtotal Retouched flakes

5

Subtotal Backed tools

Subtotal Truncated tools

Subtotal Retouched blades

6 7

8

Structure 2 N % 71 8.1 5 0.6 263 29.8 7 0.8 2 0.2 32 3.6 2 0.2 286 32.6 3 0.3 44 5.0 66 7.5 43 4.9 6 0.7 45 5.1 5 0.6 880 100

Structure 3 N % 14 7.9 3 1.6 60 33.9 4 2.3 7 4.0 63 35.6 1 0.6 1 0.6 9 5.1 9 5.1 2 1.1 2 1.1 2 1.1 177 100

Structure 4 N % 8 6.2 24 18.5 6 4.6 3 2.3 8 6.2 1 0.8 36 27.6 3 2.3 6 4.6 7 5.4 14 10.7 3 2.3 10 7.7 1 0.8 130 100

Comprehensive retouched tool list, ZAD 2.

1

4

Structure 1 N % 17 3.8 5 1.1 176 39.4 8 1.7 9 2.0 1 0.2 159 35.6 4 0.9 10 2.2 21 4.7 26 5.8 2 0.4 8 1.8 2 0.4 448 100

Subtypes Convex scrapers Side scrapers End scrapers Concave scrapers Single burin Dihedral burin Double burin Unilaterally retouched Bilaterally retouched Bilaterally retouched, distal and proximal margins Distal margin Proximal margin Backed edge on flake Backed lateral margin on bladelet Backed lateral margin, broken proximal margin on bladelet Double backed on flake Truncated flakes Truncated blades Truncated bladelets Unilaterally retouched Bilaterally retouched

Subtotal Beit Ta'amir sickles Retouched bladelets Unilaterally retouched Bilaterally retouched Subtotal Jordan Valley 2 Projectile points Jordan Valley 5 Jordan Valley 6 El Khiam Type 3 Subtotal

130

TOTAL N % 64 58.2 25 22.7 11 10.0 10 9.1 110 100 5 38.5 7 53.8 1 7.7 13 100 367 70.1 91 17.4 56

10.7

5 4 523 17 5

1.0 0.8 100 68.0 20.0

2

8.0

1 25 2 2 1 5 30 26 56 4 150 394 544 5 1 2 1 2 11

4.0 100 40.0 40.0 20.0 100 53.6 46.4 100 100 27.6 72.4 100 45.4 9.1 18.2 9.1 18.2 100

TOTAL N % 110 6.7 13 0.8 523 32.0 25 1.5 5 0.3 56 3.4 4 0.2 544 33.3 11 0.7 61 3.7 103 6.4 92 5.6 13 0.8 65 4.0 10 0.6 1,635 100

Chapter 7 Table 7.2: N 9

10

11

12 13

14

15

Tables Continued. Types

Subtypes

Hagdud truncation Type A Type B Type C Type D Type E Type F Subtotal Single Notches Double Multiple End Subtotal Bilaterally retouched Borers Unilaterally retouched Single pointed borer Borer with notches Double pointed borer Subtotal Backed tool + burin Multiple tools Concave scraper + side scraper Concave scraper + side scraper + notch Concave scraper + borer Convex scraper + side scraper Convex scraper + borer + notch Side scraper + borer Side scraper + borer + notch Side scraper + broken axes Side scraper + burin Side scraper + notch Subtotal Tranchet axe, broken base Bifacial tools Tranchet axe, broken tip Tranchet axe, fragment, tip only Tranchet axe, more than half remaining Tranchet axe, retouch end only Tranchet axe Flaked axes Pick, broken base Pick, broken tip Pick, fragment, tip only Pick, more than half remaining Pick, irregular Pick, complete Subtotal Varia Varia TOTAL %

131

TOTAL N % 23 37.7 15 24.6 8 13.1 7 11.5 7 11.5 1 1.6 61 100 86 83.5 11 10.7 4 3.9 2 1.9 103 100 41 44.6 19 20.7 20 21.7 8 8.7 4 4.3 92 100 1 7.7 1 7.7 1 7.7 2 15.4 1 7.7 1 7.7 1 7.7 1 7.7 1 7.7 2 15.4 1 7.6 13 100 1 1.5 3 4.6 4 6.2 5 7.7 1 1.5 16 24.6 4 6.2 5 7.7 2 3.1 7 10.8 3 4.6 1 1.5 13 20.0 65 100 10 100 1,635 100

132

s=

n

i

_  − x  n −1



i =1

∑  x

2

Width (cm) S. D Range 1.00 1.50 -7.80 0.90 1.50 -5.40 1.40 1.80 -7.80 0.40 1.80 –3.00 0.80 1.80 -4.10 1.10 1.50 -5.50 1.60 1.20 -6.50 0.90 0.80 -3.90 0.80 1.40 -3.90 0.40 0.80 -1.90 0.70 1.50 -3.30 0.40 2.70 -3.30 0.20 1.50 -1.80 0.00 2.00 0.60 1.10 -3.80 0.10 2.10 -2.25 0.40 0.50 -2.50 0.40 0.60 -1.90 0.30 0.90 -1.50 0.00 1.10 0.10 1.80 -1.90 0.00 1.20 0.10 0.60 -0.80 0.25 0.40 -1.40 0.25 0.40 -1.20 0.28 0.50 -1.40 0.25 0.50 -1.30 0.10 0.80 -1.00 0.32 0.40 -1.20 0.00 0.85 0.80 0.80 -5.20 1.00 0.30 -3.90 1.00 0.30 -3.90 0.70 0.60 -1.90 1.30 1.50 -6.10 1.50 1.50 -7.20 1.20 2.35 -6.80 0.90 5.20 -7.20 1.10 1.50 -5.40 1.20 1.00 -5.30

Descriptive statistics for the complete retouched tools, ZAD 2.

N Length (cm) Total Complete Mean S. D Range Mean Scrapers 110 98 4.90 1.40 2.50 -9.50 3.50 Convex 64 58 4.80 1.30 2.50 -9.50 3.60 Side 25 22 5.50 1.70 2.80 -8.80 3.90 End 11 10 4.40 0.80 2.90 -5.70 2.60 Concave 10 9 5.10 1.00 3.10 -6.20 3.20 Burins 13 12 4.70 1.90 2.50 -9.80 2.80 Retouched flakes 523 488 4.10 2.10 2.00 -8.20 2.80 Backed tools 25 23 3.80 1.10 2.40 -7.10 2.10 Backed flake 18 18 4.00 1.20 2.60 -7.10 2.50 Backed bladelets 7 5 3.20 0.60 2.40 -4.20 1.30 Truncated tools 5 5 4.50 0.70 3.50 -5.30 2.30 Truncated flakes 2 2 4.60 0.40 4.20 -4.90 3.00 Truncated blades 2 2 5.00 0.30 4.80 -5.30 1.60 Truncated bladelet 1 1 3.50 0.00 3.50 2.00 Retouched blades 56 47 5.90 0.90 5.00 -8.30 2.10 Beit Ta’amir sickles 4 2 8.20 0.04 8.20 -8.25 2.20 Retouched bladelets 544 215 3.40 0.80 1.90 -4.90 1.40 Projectile points 11 5 2.70 1.00 1.30 -3.90 1.20 J. V. 2 5 2.90 1.20 1.30 -3.90 1.20 J. V. 5 1 2.20 0.00 2.20 1.10 J. V. 6 2 2 3.50 0.20 3.40 -3.60 1.80 El Khiam 1 1 2.80 0.00 2.80 1.20 Type 3 2 2 1.70 0.04 1.65-1.70 0.70 Hagdud truncations 61 58 1.00 0.30 0.30-1-50 0.85 Type A 23 23 0.90 0.29 0.40-1.25 0.80 Type B 15 15 1.00 0.31 0.30-1.45 0.90 Type C 8 7 0.92 0.30 0.40-1.35 0.84 Type D 7 5 1.04 0.36 0.30-1.40 0.90 Type E 7 7 0.90 0.29 0.40-1.30 0.80 Type F 1 1 1.05 0.00 1.05 0.85 Notches 103 92 3.70 1.10 1.80 -6.50 2.60 Borers 92 63 3.30 1.10 1.10 –8.00 1.60 Borers (single point) 88 28 3.40 1.20 1.10 -8.00 1.60 Double points 4 3 3.20 0.80 2.30 -4.00 1.00 Multiple tools 13 13 6.00 1.60 3.10 -8.30 3.30 Bifacial tools 65 35 7.30 1.50 3.80 -9.70 3.90 Axe 30 17 7.10 1.40 4.00 -9.70 4.00 Bifacial flaked axes 4 4 8.40 1.80 5.80 -9.70 6.30 Pick 31 14 6.80 1.80 3.75 -9.40 2.93 Varia 10 9 4.20 2.50 1.50 -10.10 2.00 Note: S. D. = Standard deviation. which is calculated based on the following: Shennan’s formula (1997: 42 see below) and the statistical program “STDEV” in Excel software

Types

Table 7.3: Mean 1.80 1.90 1.60 1.60 1.40 0.90 0.94 0.90 1.10 0.60 0.80 0.90 0.60 0.80 0.70 0.80 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.30 0.50 0.40 0.20 0.18 0.20 0.02 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.15 0.90 0.60 0.60 0.50 1.60 2.40 2.50 3.40 2.00 0.90

Thickness (cm) S. D Range 0.60 0.60 -3.70 0.60 0.80 -3.70 0.70 0.70 -2.80 0.50 0.90 -2.40 0.40 0.60 -2.00 0.90 0.40 -2.70 0.54 0.25 -7.50 0.40 0.50 -1.90 0.40 0.50 -1.90 0.10 0.50 -0.80 0.30 0.50 -1.30 0.60 0.50 -1.30 0.10 0.50 -0.70 0.00 0.80 0.30 0.30 -1.60 0.10 0.75 –0.85 0.20 0.20 -2.50 0.10 0.20 -0.60 0.10 0.30 -0.50 0.00 0.30 0.04 0.50 -0.60 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.20 -0.20 0.04 0.10 -0.25 0.04 0.10 -0.25 0.04 0.10 -0.25 0.05 0.10 -0.25 0.05 0.15 -0.25 0.04 0.10 -0.20 0.00 0.15 0.40 0.20 -2.60 0.50 0.20 -3.00 0.50 0.20 -3.00 0.30 0.30 -0.80 0.60 0.60 -2.70 0.30 1.00 -5.00 0.60 1.50 -3.70 1.10 2.80 -5.00 0.50 1.00 -2.70 1.10 0.20 –4.00 Mean 37.40 39.80 43.20 20.60 25.70 8.20 12.60 9.90 12.90 2.40 8.00 12.70 4.40 5.70 10.20 13.40 2.20 1.50 1.70 0.80 2.80 1.10 0.20 0.14 0.10 0.20 0.11 0.19 0.10 0.10 10.10 4.80 4.90 1.90 35.30 83.60 88.50 175.40 46.00 21.10

Weight (g) S. D Range 29.30 3.80 - 143.80 28.80 5.80 -143.80 37.40 7.60 -141.70 8.00 6.80 -29.30 12.80 3.80 -37.70 4.90 2.20 -18.40 14.40 1.20 -140.80 10.10 1.30 -37.50 10.50 1.90 -37.50 1.10 1.30 -4.70 5.90 4.40 –18.40 8.10 7.00 -18.40 0.00 4.40 0.00 5.70 8.30 2.00 -49.10 0.40 13.10 -13.70 1.70 0.10 -12.10 1.20 0.20 -3.30 1.20 0.40 -2.80 0.00 0.80 0.70 2.30 -3.30 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.20 -0.20 0.10 0 - 0.40 0.08 0.10-0.30 0.14 0.10-0.40 0.14 0.10-0.40 0.09 0.10-0.30 0.09 0.10-0.30 0.00 0.10 8.40 0.30 -43.70 6.50 0.10 -28.40 6.70 0.10 -28.40 2.10 0.60 -4.30 26.90 6.20 -97.70 63.50 7.10 –233.50 64.10 18.50 -233.50 57.30 96.70 -222.30 27.00 7.10 -89.90 54.40 0.50 -175.90

Chapter 7 Tables

Scrapers Burins Retouched flakes Backed tools Truncated tools Retouched blades Beit Ta’amir sickles Retouched bladelets Projectile points Hagdud truncations Notches Borers Multiple tools Bifacial tools Varia Total

Lithics N % 110 6.7 13 0.8 523 32.0 25 1.5 5 0.2 56 3.4 4 0.2 544 33.4 11 0.7 61 3.7 103 6.4 92 5.6 13 0.8 65 4.0 10 0.6 1,635 1.1

Structure 1 (g) % 600.4 19.0 36.6 1.2 1,522.2 48.2 101.8 3.2 76.4 2.4 9.6 0.3 285.1 9.1 7.5 0.2 1.5 0.0 181.1 5.7 103.7 3.3 44.4 1.4 185.6 5.9 3.7 0.1 3,159.6 100

Structure 2 (g) % 2,820.7 23.3 48.6 0.4 3,769.7 31.2 81.0 0.7 24.1 0.2 279.7 2.3 31.8 0.3 582.2 4.9 2.1 0.0 6.1 0.1 719.6 6.0 177.0 1.5 193.1 1.6 3,105.1 25.8 199.1 1.7 12,039.9 100

The weights of retouched tools from Structures 1-4, ZAD 2.

Types

Table 7.4: Structure 3 (g) % 435.1 25.1 21.5 1.2 742.4 42.9 19.1 1.1 63.0 3.6 111.1 6.5 2.8 0.2 66.3 3.8 36.9 2.1 78.0 4.5 152.0 8.8 3.3 0.2 1,731.5 100

Structure 4 (g) % 253.6 17.0 302.8 20.4 46.1 3.1 15.8 1.1 116.4 7.8 13.1 0.9 80.0 5.4 4.1 0.3 1.0 0.1 73.2 4.9 16.4 1.1 143.2 9.6 416.4 28.0 5.0 0.3 1,487.1 100

TOTAL Weight (g) 4,109.8 106.7 6,337.1 248.0 39.9 535.5 54.5 1058.4 16.5 8.6 1,040.2 334.0 458.7 3,859.1 211.1 18,418.1

Chapter 7 Tables

133

Chapter 7 Table 7.5:

Tables Blank types for retouched tools, ZAD 2.

N

Types

Subtypes

Blank type

TOTAL

Fragment Flake Blade bladelet CTE 1

Scrapers

Convex scraper

Burins

17

47

-

-

-

64

58.2

3

20

2

-

-

25

22.7

End scraper

3

8

-

-

-

11

10.0

Concave scraper

1

9

-

-

-

10

9.1

24

84

2

-

-

110

100

Single burin

-

4

1

1

-

5

38.5

Dihedral burin

-

5

-

1

-

7

53.8

Double burin

-

1

-

-

-

1

7.7

-

10

1

2

13

100

Unilaterally retouched

-

367

-

-

-

367

70.1

Bilaterally retouched Bilaterally retouched, distal and proximal margins Distal margin

-

91

-

-

-

91

17.4

-

56

-

-

-

56

10.7

-

5

-

-

-

5

1.0

Subtotal 3

Retouched flakes

Proximal margin

-

4

-

-

-

4

0.8

-

523

-

-

-

523

100

Backed edge

-

17

-

-

-

17

68.0

Backed lateral margin Backed lateral margin, broken proximal margin Double backed on flake

-

-

-

5

-

5

20.0

-

-

-

2

-

2

8.0

-

1

-

-

-

1

4.0

-

18

-

7

-

25

100

2

Subtotal 4

Backed tools

Subtotal 5

Truncated tools

Truncated flakes

-

-

-

-

2

40.0

Truncated blades

-

-

2

-

-

2

40.0

Truncated bladelets

-

-

-

1

-

1

20.0

2

1

-

5

100

30

-

-

30

53.6 46.4

Subtotal 6

Retouched blades

%

Side scraper

Subtotal 2

N

Unilaterally retouched

-

Bilaterally retouched

2 -

-

-

26

-

-

26

Subtotal

-

-

56

-

-

56

100

7

Beit Ta'amir sickles

-

-

4

-

-

4

100

8

Retouched bladelets

Unilaterally retouched

-

-

-

150

-

150

27.6

Bilaterally retouched

-

-

-

394

-

394

72.4

Subtotal 9

Projectile points

-

-

-

544

-

544

100

Jordan Valley 2

-

-

-

5

-

5

45.4

Jordan Valley 5

-

-

-

1

-

1

9.1

Jordan Valley 6

-

-

-

2

-

2

18.2

El Khiam

-

-

-

1

-

1

9.1

Type 3

-

-

-

2

-

2

18.2

-

-

-

11

-

11

100

Type A

-

-

-

23

-

23

37.7

Type B

-

-

-

15

-

15

24.6

Type C

-

-

-

8

-

8

13.1

Type D

-

-

-

7

-

7

11.5

Subtotal 10

Hagdud truncation

Type E

-

-

-

7

-

7

11.5

Type F

-

-

-

1

-

1

1.6

-

-

-

61

-

61

100

Single

2

73

1

10

-

86

83.5

Subtotal 11

Notches

Double

-

9

-

2

-

11

10.7

Multiple

-

3

-

1

-

4

3.9

End Subtotal

134

-

1

-

1

-

2

1.9

2

86

1

14

-

103

100

Chapter 7 Table 7.5:

Tables Continued.

N

Types

Subtypes

Blank type

TOTAL

Fragment Flake Blade bladelet CTE 12

Borers

Multiple tools

Bifacial tools

44.6

4

-

5

1

12

1

19

20.7

Single pointed borer

-

7

2

10

1

20

21.7

Borer with notches

1

7

-

-

-

8

8.7

Double pointed borer

-

1

-

3

-

4

4.3

1

24

3

62

2

92

100

Backed tool + burin

-

-

-

-

1

1

7.7

Concave scraper + side scraper Concave scraper + side scraper + notch Concave scraper + borer

-

-

1

-

-

1

7.7

-

1

-

-

-

1

7.7

-

2

-

-

-

2

15.4

Convex scraper + side scraper

-

1

-

-

-

1

7.7

Convex scraper + borer + notch

-

1

-

-

-

1

7.7

Side scraper + borer

-

1

-

-

-

1

7.7

Side scraper + borer + notch

-

1

-

-

-

1

7.7

Side scraper + broken axes

1

-

-

-

-

1

7.7

Side scraper + burin

-

-

2

-

-

2

15.4

Side scraper + notch

-

1

-

-

-

1

7.7

1

8

3

-

1

13

100

Tranchet axe, broken base

1

-

-

-

-

1

3.3

Tranchet axe, broken tip

3

-

-

-

-

3

10.0

Tranchet axe, fragment, tip only Tranchet axe, more than half remaining Tranchet axe, retouch end only

4

-

-

-

-

4

13.3

5

-

-

-

-

5

16.7

1

-

-

-

-

1

3.3

16

-

-

-

-

16

53.4

Tranchet axe Flaked axes

2

2

-

-

-

4

100

Pick, broken base

5

-

-

-

-

5

16.1

Pick, broken tip

2

-

-

-

-

2

6.5

Pick, fragment, tip only

7

-

-

-

-

7

22.6

Pick, more than half remaining

3

-

-

-

-

3

9.7

Pick, irregular

1

-

-

-

-

1

0.2

Pick, complete

13

-

-

-

-

13

41.9

63

2

-

-

-

65

100

1

2

-

5

2

10

100

TOTAL

56

272

72

1,230

5

1,635

%

3.4

16.6

4.4

75.3

0.3

Subtotal 15

41

-

Unilaterally retouched

Subtotal 14

%

Bilaterally retouched

Subtotal 13

37

N

Varia

Varia

135

100

Chapter 7

Tables

Table 7.6: N

1

Retouch modes for tools, ZAD 2. Types

Scrapers

Subtypes

Burins

Steep

Semi-steep

-

50

14

-

-

-

-

64

58.2

Side scraper

-

20

5

-

-

-

-

25

22.7

End scraper

-

6

5

-

-

-

-

11

10.0

Concave scraper

-

9

1

-

-

-

-

10

9.1

-

85

25

-

-

-

-

110

100

Single burin

-

-

-

-

-

-

5

5

38.5

Dihedral burin

-

-

-

-

-

-

7

7

53.8

Double burin

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

7.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

13

13

100

Unilaterally retouched

-

111

98

150

8

-

-

367

70.1

Bilaterally retouched Bilaterally retouched, distal and proximal margins Distal margin

-

31

16

42

2

-

-

91

17.4

-

26

8

22

-

-

-

56

10.7

-

2

1

2

-

-

-

5

1.0

Proximal margin

-

2

2

-

-

-

-

4

0.8

-

172

125

216

10

-

-

523

100

Subtotal 3

Retouched flakes

Subtotal 4

Backed tools

TOTAL

Convex scraper

Subtotal 2

Retouch mode Flat invasive

Backed edge Backed lateral margin Backed lateral margin, broken proximal margin Double backed on flake

Flat Burin Usewear Ouchtata N marginal Blow

%

17

-

-

-

-

-

-

17

68.0

5

-

-

-

-

-

-

5

20.0

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

8.0

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

4.0

25

-

-

-

-

-

-

25

100

Truncated flakes

-

2

-

-

-

-

-

2

40.0

Truncated blades

-

1

1

-

-

-

-

2

40.0

Truncated bladelets

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

20.0

-

4

1

-

-

-

-

5

100

Unilaterally retouched

-

5

-

25

-

-

-

30

53.6

Bilaterally retouched

-

1

-

25

-

-

-

26

46.4

Subtotal

-

6

-

50

-

-

-

56

100

7

Beit Ta'amir sickle

-

-

4

-

-

-

-

4

100.0

8

Retouched bladelet Unilaterally retouched

-

24

33

80

12

1

-

150

27.6

-

40

53

262

39

-

-

394

72.4

Subtotal 5

Truncated tools

Subtotal 6

Retouched blades

Bilaterally retouched Subtotal 9

10

Projectile points

-

64

86

342

51

1

-

544

100

Jordan Valley 2

-

5

-

-

-

-

-

5

45.4

Jordan Valley 5

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

9.1

Jordan Valley 6

-

2

-

-

-

-

-

2

18.2

El Khiam

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

9.1

Type 3

-

2

-

-

-

-

-

2

18.2

Subtotal

-

11

-

-

-

-

-

11

100

Hagdud truncation Type A

-

23

-

-

-

-

-

23

37.7

Type B

-

15

-

-

-

-

-

15

24.6

Type C

-

8

-

-

-

-

-

8

13.1

Type D

-

7

-

-

-

-

-

7

11.5

Type E

-

7

-

-

-

-

-

7

11.5

Type F

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

1.6

Subtotal 11

Notches

Subtotal

-

61

-

-

-

-

-

61

100

Single

-

8

-

78

-

-

-

86

83.5

Double

-

-

-

11

-

-

-

11

10.7

Multiple

-

-

-

4

-

-

-

4

3.9

End

-

-

-

3

-

-

-

2

1.9

-

8

-

95

-

-

-

103

100

136

Chapter 7

Tables

Table 7.6: N

12

Continued. Types

Borers

Subtypes

Bilaterally retouched Unilaterally retouched Single pointed borer

Multiple tools

Bifacial tools

Varia

Steep

N

%

38

3

-

-

-

-

-

41

44.6

7

8

2

2

-

-

-

19

20.7 21.7

6

2

1

-

-

-

20

3

1

4

-

-

-

-

8

8.7

Double pointed borer

3

1

-

-

-

-

-

4

4.3

62

19

8

3

-

-

-

92

100

Backed tool + burin Concave scraper + side scraper Concave scraper + side scraper + notch Concave scraper + borer Convex scraper + side scraper Convex scraper + borer + notch Side scraper + borer Side scraper + borer + notch Side scraper + broken axes

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

7.7

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

7.7

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

7.7

-

2

-

-

-

-

-

2

15.4

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

7.7

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

7.7

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

7.7

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

7.7

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

7.7

Side scraper + burin

-

2

-

-

-

-

-

2

15.4

Side scraper + notch

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

1

7.7 100

-

12

1

-

-

-

-

13

Tranchet axe, broken base

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

1

3.3

Tranchet axe, broken tip Tranchet axe, fragment, tip only Tranchet axe, more than half remaining Tranchet axe, retouch end only Tranchet axe

-

-

3

-

-

-

-

3

10.0

-

-

4

-

-

-

-

4

13.3

-

-

5

-

-

-

-

5

16.7

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

1

3.3

-

-

16

-

-

-

-

16

53.4

Flaked axes

-

-

4

-

-

-

-

4

100

Pick, broken base

-

-

5

-

-

-

-

5

16.1

Pick, broken tip

-

-

2

-

-

-

-

2

6.5

Pick, fragment, tip only Pick, more than half remaining Pick, irregular

-

-

7

-

-

-

-

7

22.6

-

-

3

-

-

-

-

3

9.7

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

1

0.2

Pick, complete

-

-

13

-

-

-

-

13

41.9

-

-

65

-

-

-

-

65

100

-

7

3

-

-

-

-

10

100

1,635

Subtotal

15

Flat Burin Usewear Ouchtata marginal blow

11

Subtotal 14

TOTAL

Falt invasive

Borer with notches Subtotal 13

Retouch mode Semisteep

Varia

TOTAL

87

449

318

706

61

1

13

%

5.3

27.5

19.4

43.2

3.7

0.1

0.8

137

100

Chapter 7

Tables

Table 7.7:

Position and location of retouch on tools, ZAD 2.

Types

N

Subtypes

Retouch position

Burin Obverse/ Lateral / Obverse Inverse Lateral Blow inverse distal 1

Scrapers

Burins

Distal

Proximal N

%

Convex scraper

-

60

1

3

55

9

-

-

64 58.2

Side scraper

-

21

2

2

25

-

-

-

25 22.7

End scraper

-

11

-

-

-

-

11

-

11 10.0

Concave scraper

-

8

2

-

10

-

-

-

10

9.1

-

100

5

5

90

9

11

-

110

100

Single burin

6

-

-

-

-

6

-

-

5 38.5

Dihedral burin

6

-

-

-

-

6

-

-

7 53.8

Subtotal 2

TOTAL

Location

Double burin

1

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

1

7.7

13

-

-

-

-

13

-

-

13

100

Unilaterally retouched

-

325

18

24

367

-

-

-

367 70.1

Bilaterally retouched Bilaterally retouched, distal and proximal margins Distal margin

-

79

3

9

91

-

-

-

91 17.4

-

47

1

8

-

56

-

-

56 10.7

-

4

-

1

-

-

5

-

5

Proximal margin

-

4

-

-

-

-

-

4

4

0.8

-

459

22

42

458

56

5

4

523

100

Backed edge

-

17

-

-

17

-

-

-

17 68.0

Backed lateral margin Backed lateral margin, broken proximal margin Double backed on flake

-

5

-

-

5

-

-

-

5 20.0

-

2

-

-

2

-

-

-

2

-

1

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

4.0

-

25

-

-

25

-

-

-

25

100

Truncated flakes

-

2

-

-

-

-

2

-

2 40.0

Truncated blades

-

2

-

-

-

-

2

-

2 40.0

Truncated bladelets

-

1

-

-

-

-

1

-

1 20.0

-

5

-

-

-

-

5

-

Unilaterally retouched

-

25

1

4

30

-

-

-

Bilaterally retouched

-

23

-

3

26

-

-

-

26 46.4

Subtotal

-

48

1

7

56

-

-

-

56

7

Beit Ta'amir sickles

-

-

-

4

4

-

-

-

4 100.0

8

Retouched bladelets Unilaterally retouched

-

136

7

7

150

-

-

-

150 27.6

-

351

9

34

394

-

-

-

394 72.4

-

487

16

41

544

-

-

-

544

Jordan Valley 2

-

4

-

1

-

-

-

5

5 45.4

Jordan Valley 5

-

1

-

-

-

x

-

x

1

Jordan Valley 6

-

-

2

x

-

x

x

2 18.2

El Khiam

-

1

-

-

-

x

x

-

1

Type 3

-

1

-

1

-

x

x

x

2 18.2

Subtotal 3

Retouched flakes

Subtotal 4

Backed tools

Subtotal 5

Truncated tools

Subtotal 6

Retouched blades

Bilaterally retouched Subtotal 9

Projectile points

Subtotal

-

1.0

8.0

100

5

30 53.6

100

100

9.1

9.1

-

7

-

4

x

x

x

x

11

10 Hagdud truncation Type A

-

23

-

-

-

-

x

x

23 37.7

Type B

-

15

-

-

-

-

x

x

15 24.6

Type C

-

8

-

-

-

-

x

x

8 13.1

Type D

-

7

-

-

-

-

x

-

7 11.5

Type E

-

7

-

-

-

-

x

-

7 11.5

Type F

-

1

-

-

-

-

x

x

1

1.6

-

61

-

-

-

-

x

x

61

100

Single

-

81

3

2

86

-

-

-

86 83.5

Double

-

10

-

1

11

-

-

-

11 10.7

Multiple

-

4

-

-

4

-

-

-

4

End

-

2

-

-

-

-

2

-

2

1.9

-

97

3

3

101

-

2

-

103

100

Subtotal 11 Notches

Subtotal

138

100

3.9

Chapter 7 Table 7.7: N

Tables Continued.

Types

Subtypes

Retouch mode Burin Blow

12

Borers

N

%

26

-

15

-

41

-

-

41

44.6

Unilaterally retouched

-

12

3

4

-

19

-

-

19

20.7

Single pointed borer

-

13

2

5

-

-

20

-

20

21.7

Borer with notches

-

8

-

-

-

8

-

-

8

8.7

Double pointed borer

-

3

-

1

-

4

-

-

4

4.3

-

62

5

25

-

72

20

-

92

100

Backed tool + burin

-

1

-

-

-

1

-

-

1

7.7

Concave scraper + side scraper Concave scraper + side scraper + notch Concave scraper + borer

-

1

-

-

-

1

-

-

1

7.7

-

1

-

-

-

1

-

-

1

7.7

-

1

-

1

-

2

-

-

2

15.4

Convex scraper + side scraper

-

1

-

-

-

1

-

-

1

7.7

Convex scraper + borer + notch

-

1

-

-

-

1

-

-

1

7.7

Side scraper + borer

-

1

-

-

-

1

-

-

1

7.7

Side scraper + borer + notch

-

1

-

-

-

1

-

-

1

7.7

Side scraper + broken axes

-

-

1

-

1

-

-

1

7.7

Side scraper + burin

-

2

-

-

-

2

-

-

2

15.4

Side scraper + notch

-

1

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

7.7

-

11

-

2

1

12

-

-

13

100

Tranchet axe, broken base

-

-

-

1

-

1

X

-

1

3.3

Tranchet axe, broken tip

-

-

-

3

-

3

X

-

3

10.0

Tranchet axe, fragment, tip only Tranchet axe, more than half remaining Tranchet axe, retouch end only

-

-

-

4

-

4

X

-

4

13.3

-

-

-

5

-

5

X

-

5

16.7

-

-

-

1

-

X

1

-

1

3.3

Tranchet axe

-

-

-

16

-

16

X

-

16

53.4

Flaked axes

-

-

-

4

-

4

X

-

4

100

Pick, broken base

-

-

-

5

-

5

X

-

5

16.1

Pick, broken tip

-

-

-

2

-

2

X

-

2

6.5

Pick, fragment, tip only

-

-

-

7

-

X

7

-

7

22.6

Pick, more than half remaining

-

-

-

3

-

3

X

-

3

9.7

Pick, irregular

-

-

-

1

-

1

X

-

1

0.2

Pick, complete

-

-

-

13

-

13

X

-

13

41.9

-

-

-

65

-

57

8

-

65

100 100

Subtotal

15 Varia

Distal Proximal

-

Subtotal 14 Bifacial tools

Obverse Lateral / Lateral / inverse distal

Bilaterally retouched

Subtotal 13 Multiple tools

Obverse Inverse

TOTAL

Location

Varia

-

-

8

-

2

9

-

1

-

10

TOTAL

13

1,397

49

176

1,284

213

90

48

1,635

%

0.8

85.4

3.0

10.8

78.5

13.0

5.5

3.0

139

100

Chapter 7 Table 7.8:

Tables Colour analysis of retouched tools, ZAD 2.

N

Types

Colour Black

1

Scrapers

Burins

Retouched flakes

4

6

54

-

-

-

64 58.2

1

4

20

-

-

-

25 22.7

End scraper

-

1

10

-

-

-

11 10.0

Concave scraper

-

2

8

-

-

-

5

13

92

-

-

-

-

2

4

-

-

-

6 46.2

-

2

4

-

-

-

6 46.2

Double burin

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

4

9

-

-

-

13 100

Unilaterally retouched

8

33

321

-

-

3

365 70.6

Bilaterally retouched Bilaterally retouched, distal and proximal margins Distal margin

2

9

76

-

-

1

88 17.0

1

4

51

-

-

-

56 10.8

-

-

5

-

-

-

Truncated tools

5

0.8

4

0.8

-

4

-

-

-

46

457

-

-

4

518 100

Backed edge

1

1

15

-

-

-

17 68.0

Backed lateral margin Backed lateral margin, broken proximal margin Double backed on flake

-

-

5

-

-

-

5 20.0

-

-

2

-

-

-

2

8.0

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

4.0

1

1

23

-

-

-

25 100

Truncated flakes

-

-

2

-

-

-

2 40.0

Truncated blades

-

-

2

-

-

-

2 40.0 1 20.0

Truncated bladelets Retouched blades

7.6

-

Subtotal 6

1

11

Subtotal 5

9.1

Single burin

Proximal margin Backed tools

10

110 100

Dihedral burin

Subtotal 4

%

Convex scraper

Subtotal 3

N

Side scraper

Subtotal 2

TOTAL

Grey Brown Red White Yellow

Unilaterally retouched Bilaterally retouched

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

5

-

-

-

1

2

26

-

-

1

30

53.6 46.4

5 100

2

2

21

-

-

1

26

Subtotal

3

4

47

-

-

2

56

100

7

Beit Ta'amir sickles

-

1

3

-

-

-

4

100

8

Retouched bladelets Unilaterally retouched

7

12

129

1

-

1

Bilaterally retouched Subtotal 9

10

Projectile points

13

49

325

3

1

-

391 72.3

20

61

454

4

1

1

541 100

Jordan Valley 2

-

1

4

-

-

-

5 45.4

Jordan Valley 5

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

Jordan Valley 6

-

-

2

-

-

-

2 18.2

El Khiam

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

Type 3

-

-

2

-

-

-

2 18.2

9.1 9.1

Subtotal

-

1

10

-

-

-

11 100

Hagdud truncation Type A

2

3

18

-

-

-

23 37.7 15 24.6

Type B

1

4

10

-

-

-

Type C

1

1

6

-

-

-

8 13.1

Type D

1

-

6

-

-

-

7 11.5

Type E

-

3

4

-

-

-

7 11.5

Type F

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

Subtotal 11

150 27.7

Notches

Single

5

11

45

-

-

-

61 100

2

11

73

-

-

-

86 83.5 11 10.7

Double

-

-

11

-

-

-

Multiple

-

-

4

-

-

-

End Subtotal

140

1.6

-

-

2

-

-

-

2

11

90

-

-

-

4

3.9

2

1.9

103 100

Chapter 7 Table 7.8:

Tables Continued.

N

Types

Colour

TOTAL

Black Grey Brown Red White Yellow 12

Borers

Multiple tools

Bilaterally retouched

-

11

30

-

-

-

41

44.6

-

2

17

-

-

-

19

20.7 21.7

Single pointed borer

-

2

18

-

-

-

20

Borer with notches

-

-

8

-

-

-

8

8.7

Double pointed borer

-

-

4

-

-

-

4

4.3

-

15

77

-

-

-

92

100

Backed tool + burin

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

7.7

Concave scraper + side scraper Concave scraper + side scraper + notch Concave scraper + borer

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

7.7

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

7.7

-

-

2

-

-

-

2

15.4

Convex scraper + side scraper

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

7.7

Convex scraper + borer + notch

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

7.7

Side scraper + borer

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

7.7

Side scraper + borer + notch

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

Side scraper + broken axes

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

7.7

Side scraper + burin

-

-

2

-

-

-

2

15.4

Side scraper + notch Subtotal 14

Bifacial tools

-

1

-

-

-

1

7.7

-

12

-

-

-

13

100

-

-

3

-

-

-

3

4.9

-

-

3

1

-

-

4

6.6

-

-

5

-

-

-

5

8.2

-

-

15

-

-

-

15

24.5

Flaked axe

-

-

4

-

-

-

4

6.6

Pick, broken base

-

-

4

-

-

-

4

6.6

Pick, broken tip

-

-

2

-

-

-

2

3.3

Pick, fragment, tip only

-

-

7

-

-

-

7

11.5

Pick, more than half remaining

-

-

3

-

-

-

3

4.9

Pick, irregular

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

1.6

Pick, complete

-

-

13

-

-

-

13

21.3

-

-

60

1

-

-

61

100 100

TOTAL % See also Table 7.9 and 5.10.

Table 7.9:

1

Tranchet axe, broken tip

varia

Varia

-

2

8

-

-

-

10

48

170

1,392

5

1

7

1,623

3

10.4

85.8

0.3

0.1

0.4

Raw materials used for retouched tools, ZAD 2.

Raw material Flint Limestone Quartz Quartzite Obsidian Sandstone TOTAL

7.7

Tranchet axe, fragment, tip only Tranchet axe, more than half remaining Tranchet axe

Subtotal 15

%

Unilaterally retouched

Subtotal 13

N

N 1,623 2 4 1 2 3 1,635

% 99.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 100

141

100

Chapter 7

Tables

Table 7.10: Other raw materials used for retouched tools, ZAD 2. Raw material Limestone Limestone Quartz Quartz Quartz Quartz Quartzite Obsidian Obsidian Sandstone Sandstone Sandstone TOTAL

Type Tranchet axe Tranchet axe Retouched bladelet Retouched bladelet Retouched flake Retouched flake Retouched flake Retouched bladelet Retouched flake Retouched flake Pick Tranchet axe

Sub-types Retouched end only Tranchet Unilateral, broken distal Bilateral, broken proximal, pointed distal Unilateral Unilateral Unilateral Bilateral Bilateral Bilateral Broken base Broken base

Table 7.11: The numbers and percentage of burnt retouched tools, ZAD 2. Type Flake Bladelet Concave scraper End scraper Borer Notch Ta'amir sickle Varia Total of burnt tools TOTAL OF RETOUCHED TOOLS % of burnt tools

1 1 1 448 0.2

Structures 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 3 880 177 0.9 1.7

142

TOTAL 4 130 0

4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1,635 2.8

N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12

% 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 100

Chapter 7

Tables

Table 7.12: Breakage types for retouched tools, ZAD 2. Types Scrapers

Subtypes

%

Convex scraper

64

58.2

-

6

Side scraper

25

22.7

1

3

End scraper

11

10.0

-

1

-

Concave scraper

10

9.1

110

100

Single burin

5

38.5

Dihedral burin

7

53.8

Double burin

1

7.7

Subtotal Retouched flakes

Unilaterally retouched Bilaterally retouched Bilaterally retouched, distal / proximal margins Distally retouched Proximal margin

Subtotal Backed tools

Backed edge on flake Backed lateral margin on bladelet Backed lateral margin on bladelet Double backed on flake

Subtotal Truncated tools

-

6

5.5

-

-

4

3.6

-

-

1

0.9

1

-

-

1

0.9

11

-

-

12

10.9

-

1

-

-

1

7.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

13

100

-

1

-

-

1

7.7

367

70.1

11

6

4

2

23

4.4

91

17.4

5

-

5

-

10

1.9

56

10.7

0.2

5

1.0

-

1

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

4

0.8

1

-

-

-

1

0.2

523

100

17

7

9

2

35

6.7

17

68.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

5

20.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

8.0

-

-

2

-

2

8.0

1

4.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

2

8.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

Truncated blades

2

40.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

Truncated bladelets

1

20.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Unilaterally retouched

1

5

100

-

-

-

-

-

30

53.6

4

-

1

-

5

8.9

26

46.4

2

-

2

-

4

7.2

56

100

6

-

3

-

9

16.1 50.0

4

100

1

-

1

-

2

Unilaterally retouched

150

27.6

67

-

14

17

98

18.0

Bilaterally retouched

394

72.4

137

-

52

42

231

42.5

544

100

204

-

66

59

329

60.5

Jordan Valley 2

5

45.4

5

-

-

-

5

45.5

Jordan Valley 5

1

9.1

1

-

-

-

1

9.1

Jordan Valley 6

2

18.2

-

-

-

-

-

-

El Khiam

1

9.1

-

-

-

-

-

-

Type 3

2

18.2

-

-

-

-

-

-

Subtotal

11

100

-

-

-

Type A

23

37.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

Type B

15

24.6

-

-

-

-

-

-

6

6

54.5

Type C

8

13.1

-

-

1

-

1

1.6

Type D

7

11.5

-

-

2

-

2

3.3

Type E

7

11.5

-

-

-

-

-

Type F

1

1.6

-

-

-

-

-

61

100

-

-

3

-

Subtotal

Subtotal

-

100

Subtotal

Notches

%

40.0

Beit Ta'amir sickles

Hagdud truncation

N

2

Bilaterally retouched

Projectile points

Breakage

Distal/proximal

25

Subtotal Retouched bladelets

Distal Medial Proximal

Truncated flakes

Subtotal Retouched blades

Breakage position

N

Subtotal Burins

TOTAL

3

4.9

Single

86

83.5

1

-

4

3

8

7.7

Double

11

10.7

1

-

-

-

1

1.0

Multiple

4

3.9

-

-

1

-

1

1.0

End

2

1.9

-

-

-

1

1.0

103

100

-

5

3

11

10.7

143

3

Chapter 7

Tables

Table 7.12: Continued. Types

Subtypes

TOTAL N

Borers

TOTAL %

N

%

41

44.6

7

-

15

1

23

25.0

19

20.7

-

2

3

-

5

5.4

Single pointed borer

20

21.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

Borer with notches

8

8.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

Double pointed borer

4

4.3

1

-

-

-

1

1.1

92

100

8

2

18

1

29

31.5

Backed tool + burin

1

7.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

Concave scraper + side scraper Concave scraper + side scraper + notch Concave scraper + borer

1

7.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

7.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

15.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

Convex scraper + side scraper

1

7.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

Convex scraper + borer + notch

1

7.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

Side scraper + borer

1

7.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

Side scraper + borer + notch

1

7.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

Side scraper + broken axes

1

7.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

Side scraper + burin

2

15.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

Side scraper + notch

1

7.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

13

100

-

-

-

-

-

-

Tranchet axe, broken base

1

3.3

-

-

1

-

1

1.5

Tranchet axe, broken tip

3

10.0

3

-

-

-

3

4.6

Tranchet axe, fragment, tip only Tranchet axe, more than half remaining Tranchet axe, retouch end only

4

13.3

-

-

4

-

4

6.2

5

16.7

-

-

5

-

5

7.7

1

3.3

-

-

-

-

-

Tranchet axe

16

53.4

-

-

-

-

-

Flaked axes

4

100

-

-

-

-

-

-

Pick, broken base

5

16.1

-

-

5

-

5

7.7

Pick, broken tip

2

6.5

2

-

-

-

2

3.1

Pick, fragment, tip only

7

22.6

-

-

7

-

7

10.1

Pick, more than half remaining

3

9.7

-

-

3

-

3

4.6

Pick, irregular

1

0.2

-

-

-

-

-

-

Pick, complete

13

41.9

-

-

-

-

-

-

65

100

5

-

25

-

30

46.2

10

100

Subtotal Varia

Breakage

Distal/proximal

Bilaterally

Subtotal Bifacial tools

Breakage position Distal Medial Proximal

Unilaterally retouched

Subtotal Multiple tools

%

varia

1,635 %

144

-

-

1

-

1

10

252

21

132

65

470

28.7

53.6

4.5

28.1

13.8

100

Chapter 7

Tables

Table 7.13: Cortex frequencies on retouched tools, ZAD 2. Types

Subtypes

% Cortex coverage Tertiary Secondary

Scrapers

0%

1-29 %

Convex scraper

24

26

14

64

58.2

Side scraper

10

8

7

25

22.7

End scraper

4

3

4

11

10.0

Concave scraper

5

5

-

10

9.1

43

42

25

110

100

4

1

1

6

46.2

Dihedral burin

4

1

1

6

46.2

Double burin

1

-

-

1

9

2

2

13

Subtotal Burins

Single burin

Subtotal Retouched flakes

30 – 100 % N

%

7.6 100

Unilaterally retouched

194

141

29

364

70.4

Bilaterally retouched Bilaterally retouched, distal / proximal margins Distally retouched

57

21

11

89

17.2

30

20

6

56

10.8

3

2

-

5

0.8

Proximal margin

2

2

-

4

0.8

286

186

46

518

100

14

3

-

17

68.0

5

-

-

5

20.0

2

-

-

2

8.0

Subtotal Backed tools

TOTAL

Primary

Backed edge on flake Backed lateral margin on bladelet Backed lateral margin on bladelet Double backed on flake

1

-

-

1

4.0

22

3

-

25

100

Truncated flakes

-

2

-

2

40.0

Truncated blades

2

-

-

2

40.0

Truncated bladelets

1

-

-

1

20.0

3

2

-

5

100

Unilaterally retouched

15

15

-

30

53.6

Bilaterally retouched

18

8

-

26

46.4

Subtotal

33

23

-

56

100

Beit Ta'amir sickles

4

-

-

4

100

Unilaterally retouched

113

34

2

149

27.5

Bilaterally retouched

366

25

1

392

72.5

Subtotal Truncated tools

Subtotal Retouched blades

Retouched bladelets Subtotal Projectile points

479

59

3

541

100

Jordan Valley 2

4

1

-

5

45.4

Jordan Valley 5

1

-

-

1

9.1

Jordan Valley 6

2

-

-

2

18.2

El Khiam

1

-

-

1

9.1 18.2

Type 3

2

-

-

2

10

1

-

11

100

Type A

23

-

-

23

37.7

Type B

15

-

-

15

24.6

Subtotal Hagdud truncation

Type C

8

-

-

8

13.1

Type D

7

-

-

7

11.5 11.5

Type E

7

-

-

7

Type F

1

-

-

1

1.6

61

-

-

61

100

Subtotal Notches

Subtotal

Single

44

28

14

86

83.5

Double

8

3

-

11

10.7

Multiple

3

1

-

4

End

1

1

-

56

33

14

145

3.9 2

1.9

103

100

Chapter 7

Tables

Table 7.13: Continued. Types

Subtypes

% Cortex coverage Tertiary Secondary

Borers

0%

1-29 %

Bilaterally retouched

39

2

-

41

Unilaterally retouched

16

3

-

19

20.7

Single pointed borer

17

2

1

20

21.7

Borer with notches

3

5

-

8

8.7

Double pointed borer

44.6

1

-

4

4.3

13

1

92

100

Backed tool + burin

1

-

-

1

7.7

Concave scraper + side scraper Concave scraper + side scraper + notch Concave scraper + borer

-

1

-

1

7.7

1

-

-

1

7.7

1

1

-

2

15.4

Convex scraper + side scraper

-

1

-

1

7.7

Convex scraper + borer + notch

-

1

-

1

7.7

Side scraper + borer

-

1

-

1

7.7

Side scraper + borer + notch

-

1

-

1

7.7

Side scraper + broken axes

1

-

-

1

7.7

Side scraper + burin

2

-

-

2

15.4

Side scraper + notch

-

1

-

1

7.7

6

7

-

13

100

Tranchet axe, broken base

-

-

-

-

-

Tranchet axe, broken tip

2

1

-

3

4.9

Tranchet axe, fragment, tip only Tranchet axe, more than half remaining Tranchet axe, retouch end only

1

2

-

3

4.9

3

2

-

5

8.2

-

-

1

1

1.6

Tranchet axe

7

7

1

15

24.6

Flaked axes

-

3

1

4

6.6 6.6

Pick, broken base

3

1

-

4

Pick, broken tip

1

1

-

2

3.3

Pick, fragment, tip only

7

-

-

7

11.5

Pick, more than half remaining

3

-

-

3

4.9

Pick, irregular

1

-

-

1

1.6

Pick, complete Subtotal Varia

%

3

Subtotal Bifacial tools

30 – 100 % N

78

Subtotal Multiple tools

TOTAL

Primary

varia

8

4

1

13

21.3

36

21

4

61

100

5

5

-

10

TOTAL

1,129

399

95

1,623

%

69.6

24.6

5.8

146

100 100

Chapter 7

Tables

Table 7.14: The distribution of retouched tools in structures and squares, ZAD 2. Structure

Square

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Subtotal 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Subtotal 3 3 Subtotal 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Subtotal TOTAL

D 26 D 27 E 26 E 27 E 28 F 26 F 27 F 28 I 25 J 22 J 23 J 24 J 25 K 20 K 22 K 23 K 24 K 25 L 20 L 22 L 23 L 24 L 26 L 27 M 20 M 27 M 28 N 20 N 27 N 28 O 20 O 26 O 27 O 28 P 21 P 25 P 26 Q 22 Q 23 Q 24 R 22 R 23 R 24 S 22 U 22 V 22 K 11 L 11 L 12 M 11 M 12 N 11 N 12 O 11 O 12 P 10 P 11 Q 10 Q9

TOTAL N 10 38 33 69 91 98 52 57 448 28 40 26 81 57 6 61 84 59 6 7 75 51 55 4 8 6 14 3 14 20 17 19 14 24 4 16 9 7 11 8 9 12 3 3 19 880 92 85 177 8 5 8 12 5 4 6 7 11 33 8 17 6 130 1,635

% 0.6 2.3 2.0 4.2 5.6 5.9 3.2 3.5 27.4 1.7 2.4 1.6 5.0 3.5 0.4 3.7 5.1 3.6 0.4 0.4 4.6 3.1 3.4 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.2 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.2 0.9 1.5 0.2 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.2 1.2 53.8 5.5 5.1 10.8 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.7 2.0 0.5 1.0 0.6 8.0 100

147

Scrapers Burins Retouched flakes Backed tools Truncated tools Retouched blades Beit Ta’amir sickles Retouched bladelets Projectile points Hagdud truncations Notches Borers Multiple tools Bifacial tools Varia Total per phase % per phase % of total amount

Types

12 3 170 8 8 1 154 4 9 19 24 1 7 2 422

N

1

2.8 0.7 40.4 1.9 1.9 0.2 36.5 0.9 2.1 4.5 5.7 0.2 1.7 0.5 100 94.2 25.8

%

N o 5 2 6 1 5 1 2 2 1 1 26

Structure 1 Phase

%

19.3 7.7 23.1 3.8 19.3 3.8 7.7 7.7 3.8 3.8 100 5.8 1.6

2

60 5 245 7 1 30 2 271 3 37 62 43 6 36 4 812

N

1

7.4 0.6 30.2 0.9 0.1 3.7 0.2 33.4 0.4 4.6 7.6 5.3 0.7 4.4 0.5 100 92.3 49.7

% 10 18 1 2 15 7 4 9 66

N

2 15.2 27.3 1.5 3.0 22.7 10.6 6.1 13.6 100 7.5 4

%

2

1

1

N 50 50 100 0.2 0.1

%

N NIL

Structure 2 Phase 3

Table 7.15: The distribution of retouched tools by phase, ZAD 2.

4 NIL NIL NIL

% NIL

N

5 NIL NIL NIL

% 10 1 49 3 7 41 6 6 2 1 2 127

N

1 7.9 0.8 37.8 2.4 5.5 32.3 4.7 4.7 1.6 0.7 1.6 100 71.8 7.8

% 2 7 11 1 1 22

N

2

31.9 50.0 4.5 4.5 100 12.4 1.3

9.1

% 1 1

N

3 100 100 0.6 0.0

% NIL

N

Structure 3 Phase 4 NIL NIL NIL

% 1 1 3 1 6

N 16.7 16.7 50.0 16.6 100 3.4 0.4

%

Dana 1 2 4 1 8 2 2 1 21

4.8 9.5 19 4.8 38.1 9.5 9.5 4.8 100 11.8 1.3

%

Exterior N

8 24 6 3 8 1 36 3 6 7 14 3 10 1 130

N

6.2 18.5 4.6 2.3 6.2 0.8 27.6 2.3 4.6 5.4 10.7 2.3 7.7 0.8 100 100 8

%

Structure 4 Phase 1

%

148

100

110 6.7 13 0.8 523 32.0 25 1.5 5 0.3 56 3.4 4 0.2 544 33.3 11 0.7 61 3.7 103 6.4 92 5.6 13 0.8 65 4.0 10 0.6 1,635

N

TOTAL

Chapter 7 Tables

Chapter 7

Tables

Table 7.16: Munsell colour analyses for retouched tools, ZAD 2.

10YR

7.5YR 1

2

3

4

6

1

8/ 7/

8/ 6

7

6/

16

38

52

35

5/

5

4/

21

83

285

3/

24

53

17

2/

15

11

783

71

215 347 147

2

7/

1

6/

5YR 2

3

4

6

3

3

3

3

6/

5

36

4/

25

426

4/

6

3/

35

170

3/

7

2.5/

21

42

2.5/

9

27

749

89

643

65

23

30

12

N

2

3

3

4

11

3

14

2

3

4

6

1

8/

7/

7/

1

7/

6/

6/

2

5/

5/

1

3/

1

2.5/

4

13

5

3

1

3

3/

1

4

7

1 3

3

1

Table 7.17: Munsell colour analyses for retouched tools, ZAD 2. Munsell

Colour

10YR: 2/1 10YR: 2/2 10YR: 3/1 10YR: 3/2 10YR: 3/3 10YR: 3/4-6+4-6 10YR: 4/1 10YR: 4/2 10YR: 4/3+5/3 10YR: 5/1+6/1 10YR: 5/2 10YR: 5/4-8 10YR: 6/2 10YR: 6/3 10YR: 6/4 10YR: 6/6-8 10YR: 7/1-2 10YR: 7/3-4+8/2-4 10YR: 7/6-8+8/6-8 2.5Y: 3/1 2.5Y: 5/2 2.5Y: 5/3-6 2.5Y: 6/2 2.5Y: 7/1-2 2.5Y: 8/1

Black Very dark brown Very dark grey Very dark greyish brown Dark brown Dark yellowish brown Dark grey Dark greyish brown Brown Grey Greyish brown Yellowish brown Light brownish grey Pale brown Light yellowish brown Brownish yellow Light grey Very pale brown Yellow Very dark grey Greyish brown Light olive brown Light brownish grey Light grey Pale yellow

1

6/ 1

2/ 3

3

4

6

11

N/ 1

4/

6

5/

8/

1

4

1

5/

8/

4/

3

7/ 5

2.5Y 2

2

1

76

2.5YR 1

1 8/

TOTAL N % 15 0.9 11 0.7 24 1.5 53 3.2 17 1.0 36 2.2 21 1.3 83 5.1 285 17.0 5 0.3 52 3.2 76 4.6 16 1.0 38 2.3 35 2.1 1 0.1 6 0.4 7 0.4 2 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1

149

5/ 4/

1

3/

2

2.5/

2

6

6

Chapter 7

Tables

Table 7.17: Continued. Munsell

Colour

2.5YR: 2.5/1 2.5YR: 3/1+4/1 2.5YR: 3/2 2.5YR: 3/3-4 2.5YR: 4/2+5/2 2.5YR: 4/3-4+5/3-4 5YR: 2.5/1 5YR: 2.5/2+3/2-4 5YR: 3/1 5YR: 4/1 5YR: 4/2 5YR: 4/3+5/3-4 5YR: 6/3-4 5YR: 8/1 7.5YR: 2.5/1 7.5YR: 2.5/2-3 7.5YR: 3/1 7.5YR: 3/2-4 7.5 YR: 4/1 7.5YR: 4/2-4+5/2-4 7.5YR: 4/6+5/6-8 7.5YR: 5/1+6/1 7.5YR: 6/2+7/2 7.5YR: 6/3-4 7.5YR: 6/6-8+7/6-8 7.5YR: 8/1 N: 2.5/ N: 3/ N: 4/ N: 7/ Others TOTAL

Reddish black Dark reddish grey Dusky red Dark reddish brown Weak red Reddish brown Black Dark reddish brown Very dark grey Dark grey Dark reddish grey Reddish brown Light reddish brown White Black Very dark brown Very dark grey Dark brown Dark grey Brown Strong brown grey Pinkish grey Light brown Reddish yellow Light grey Black Very dark grey dark grey Light grey

TOTAL N % 4 0.2 1 0.1 3 0.2 1 0.1 3 0.2 1 0.1 9 0.6 27 1.6 7 0.4 6 0.4 3 0.2 11 0.7 1 0.1 1 0.1 21 1.3 42 2.6 35 2.1 170 10.0 25 1.5 426 26.0 11 0.7 5 0.3 5 0.3 3 0.2 3 0.2 3 0.2 2 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 12 0.7 1,635 100

150

Chapter 7

FIG. 7.1:

Figures

Scrapers: (a) Convex, (b) Side, (c) End, and (d) Concave, ZAD 2.

A)

C)

B)

D)

151

Chapter 7

FIG. 7.2:

Figures

Burins: (a) single (b) dihedral on truncated tool, ZAD 2.

A) FIG. 7.3:

B) Broken retouched flake, ZAD 2.

152

Chapter 7

FIG. 7.4:

Figures

Backed tools: (a) on flake, (b) on bladelet, ZAD 2.

A) FIG. 7.5:

B) Truncated flake, ZAD 2.

153

Chapter 7

Figures

FIG. 7.6:

Retouched blade, ZAD 2.

FIG. 7.7:

Beit Ta’amir sickle, ZAD 2.

Dorsal

Ventral

154

Chapter 7 FIG. 7.8:

Figures Retouched bladelet, ZAD 2.

155

Chapter 7 FIG. 7.9:

A)

C)

Figures Projectile points: (a) Jordan Valley 2, (b) Jordan Valley 5, (c) Jordan Valley 6, (d) El Khiam, and (e) Type 3, ZAD 2.

B)

D)

E)

156

Chapter 7

Figures

FIG. 7.10:

Hagdud truncation: (a) Type A, (b) Type B, (c) Type C, (d) Type D, (e) Type E, and (f) Type F, ZAD 2.

A)

B)

C)

D)

E)

F)

157

Chapter 7

FIG. 7.11:

Figures

Notches: (a) single, (b) on end, ZAD 2.

A)

B)

158

Chapter 7

Figures

FIG. 7.12:

Borer: (a) alternate retouch, (b) bilateral invasive on each lateral, (c) bilateral obverse on both laterals, (d) unilateral invasive, (e) unilateral inverse, (f) unilateral obverse, (g) single pointed borer unilateral obverse, (h) single pointed borer bilateral invasive, (i) single pointed point bilateral inverse, (j) single pointed point bilateral obverse, (k) pointed end with notches, (l) double pointed ends on bladelet, and (m) double pointed end on flake, ZAD 2.

A)

B)

C)

D)

E)

F)

G)

H)

I)

J)

K)

L)

M)

159

Chapter 7 FIG. 7.13:

Figures Multiple tools: a) concave scraper + side scraper + notch), b) side scraper + notch, ZAD 2.

A)

B)

160

Chapter 7 FIG. 7.14:

Figures Bifacial tools: (a) Tranchet axe, (b) Bifacial flaked axe, and (c) Pick, ZAD 2.

A) Dorsal

Ventral

Dorsal

Ventral

Dorsal

Ventral

B)

C)

161

Chapter 7

Figures

FIG. 7.15:

Varia: (a) Truncated tool and (b) Retouch on broken blade (intermediate), ZAD 2.

A)

B)

FIG. 7.16:

Munsell colour analysis for retouch tools, ZAD 2.

10YR

7.5YR 1

2

3

4

8/

6

5YR 1

2

3

4

6

8/

7/

7/

7/

6/

6/

6/

5/

5/

5/

4/

4/

4/

3/

3/

3/

2/

2.5/

2.5/

2.5YR

2.5Y 1

2

3

4

2

3

4

6

N

2

3

4

6

N/ 1

2

3

4

6

8/

8/

7/

7/

7/

6/

6/

6/

5/

5/

5/

4/

4/

4/

3/

3/

3/

2/

2.5/

2.5/

1 8/

8/

More than 10 % 5-10 % 1-5 % Less than 1 %

162

8.

THE HAGDUD TRUNCATION: MICROWEAR ANALYSIS AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES experimental study with detailed descriptions of the manufacture, use and analysis of these artefacts. Particular attention is drawn to these experimental tools as they were made in a similar way to the Hagdud truncation type in order to study the functionality of these tools. Section 8.4 presents the main interpretations in regard to both the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations and the experimental artefacts. Section 8.5 presents a comparative analysis between the current work and that available in the literature. The latter section also compares the results of some experimental studies from the Levant and other parts of the world to the Hagdud truncations in regard to manufacture, repair and function. The last part of this chapter (section 8.6) concludes by highlighting the fact that none of the Hagdud truncations have any remains of either striation or polishing. Thus it appears that this tool type could be used variously either as micro-adzes, scrapers or notches.

There are two reasons for choosing the Hagdud truncation for usewear analysis in this thesis. Firstly, the Hagdud truncation is a typical diagnostic feature in PPNA period sites in the Southern Levant, and is the dominant type at ZAD 2. Secondly, usewear or experimental studies have not yet been undertaken to determine the probable functions for this particular tool type. Other formal tool types such as projectile points, bifacial tools, sickle blades and scrapers provide some clues as to function from their forms, but the Hagdud truncation does not. However, some archaeologists have attempted to speculate on the function of Hagdud truncations. Noy (1994: 423) suggests that the related tool type known as Gilgal truncations might have been used as transverse arrowheads or as delicate scrapers. Nadel (1997: 115-116) further suggests that the Hagdud truncations might have been used as arrow tips or barbs. However, these theories have certain fundamental flaws. The position of the retouch and the shape of these tools do not support the above theories (see section 8.6). In contrast, according to their comparison of Hagdud truncations to Australian Tula flakes, Edwards and Sayej (2002) suggest that Hagdud truncations might have been used as micro-adzes. Hagdud truncations recovered from ZAD 2 have a wide range of sizes, particularly in length (from 0.3-1.0 cm), and this may support the idea that these tools were used extensively and were resharpened until the tools could no longer be used. This re-sharpening procedure was not required for tools used as transverse arrowheads, arrow tips and barbs.

8.1 Literature review There is an abundant literature on usewear techniques (e.g. Grace 1989, Fullagar 1986, van Gjin 1989, Kamminga 1978, Keeley 1980, Semenov 1964, Unger-Hamilton 1988, Vaughan 1982), and the role of this chapter is neither to present a complete literature review of this field nor to address its variability. It is rather to clarify microwear analysis in general and how it will be employed in this research. Cook and Dumont (1987: 53) define usewear as: “The use of optical and/or scanning electron microscopy to observe and record the presence, character and distribution of modifications to the micro topography of the artefact surface caused by its use on one or more materials”.

I believe that the only plausible way to go beyond mere speculation is to employ usewear analysis and experimental studies to examine this particular tool type. In this research, these techniques will therefore be employed as a step to further investigate the function of the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations (FIG. 8.1). This research focuses on the retouched distal and proximal ends as well as on the lateral margins of the analysed specimens. All edges were examined from the ventral and dorsal surfaces.

According to this definition, microwear analysis was introduced and employed to help researchers in understanding the function of archaeological artefacts. The full development of this field started with Semenov (1964), who recognized the significance of usewear traces for inferring the motion and the function of archaeological artefacts (Cook and Dumont 1987: 53, Edmonds 2001: 466). Microwear analysis requires particular steps in order to be productive, and these are discussed in the following sections:

This chapter is divided into six major parts. Section 8.1 consists of a literature review, including a background for microwear analysis, and discusses the four major types of usewear (edge fracturing, edge rounding, striae and polish). Section 8.2 discusses the methodology of this investigation, which was informed by various sources (Anderson 1980b, Debney 1996, Fullager 1986, Grace 1989, Kamminga 1978, 1982, Stanin 2000, Unger-Hamilton 1988), followed by an outline of the methods of analysis used on the ZAD 2 materials. Section 8.3 illustrates the

8.1.1 Microscopy There are two ways of doing microscopic analysis, and these are either low power magnifications (up to x100) or high power magnifications (x100 to x500 and Scanning Electron Microscope). Due to time efficiency and simplicity of operation, the low power magnification is used frequently and provides fairly successful results (e.g. Gould 1971, 163

Chapter 8

Usewear analysis experimentalists, such as Anderson (1991), Mansur-Franchomme (1983) and Unger-Hamilton (1991a, 1991b), have used both systems in their analysis. In the current investigation a similar method was employed (see section 8.2.1.1 below).

Kamminga 1978: 9, Odell and Odell-Vereechen 1980: 89-90). This approach often determines the direction and intensity of particular actions such as slicing, piercing and scraping as well as distinguishing between use on soft or hard materials (Edmonds 2001: 467).

8.1.2 Cleaning The cleaning of specimens prior to analysis is an important part of the preparation for microscopic analysis, and researchers utilise two main approaches for achieving this goal. The first approach uses chemical methods such as carbon tetrachloride, sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, hydrochloride acid, alcohol and ammonia-based detergent solutions to remove minerals and organic residues (e.g. Brose 1975: 93, van Gjin 1989: 11, Keeley 1980: 10-11). The second approach uses a simpler method of hot water and normal non-biodegradable detergent (e.g Semenov 1964: 24, Grace 1989: 63, Hayes 1973: 163-177, Kamminga 1978: 464). The second approach was adopted in the current research (see section 8.2.1.2 below).

High power magnification has a higher resolution and shorter depth of field, but it is time consuming (e.g. Anderson-Gerfaud 1983: 81, van Gjin 1989: 12, Yoshii et al. 1976: 15). The disadvantage of this system is that it involves working with lower light levels, and there are problems with establishing the target area due to a very narrow focal range. The Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) also offers high-power magnification. It utilises an electron beam to obtain an image by collecting the secondary electrons produced from the specimen surface (Kimoto and Russ 1969: 8-9, Yoshii et al. 1976: 15). This instrument employs a technique of ‘painting the image through a time sequence of points’, a technique similar to that used in television (Hayes 1973: 153-154). The most essential characteristic of the SEM is the point-topoint correspondence between an object and its image at a precise moment. Thus this instrument has the ability to deal with various kinds of information produced by interactions between the electrons and the analysed specimen (Yoshii et al. 1976: 5).

8.1.3 Photography Photography is a very important element for comparative analysis (e.g. Grace et al. 1985). However, the scale, position, angle, colour, quality and type of images varies from one source to another. Many publications feature poor quality images which obviously complicate comparison. Furthermore, one of the most common problems with published photographs is the translation of common microwear features such as striations, edge rounding, etc., from the actual microscope image to the actual printed photograph with the proper angle and brightness. In this research, both the optical and the SEM images were compared with those available in literature (see section 8.2.1.3 and section 8.5 below).

Brothwell first used an SEM on stone tools in the late 1960s, and introduced its suitability for usewear studies (e.g. Kamminga 1978). Since then, this technique has become very popular among experimentalists and archaeologists who work in the Levant, as well as in other parts of the world (e.g. Anderson 1980b, 1991, 1994, Kamminga 1978, Meeks et al. 1982, Kimoto and Russ 1969: 9). The importance of an SEM is that it has a minimum magnification of x15 - x25 and a maximum magnification of over x20,000 (Glaisher personal communication). Furthermore, this technique does not use light to produce its image and thus an image of a highly reflective surface will appear clearly (Kamminga 1978: 10). Experimentalists such as Meeks and colleagues (1982) have shown that an SEM can be used to characterise and differentiate between the microfeatures of various optical polishes. Anderson (1980b) has managed to identify organic residues in association with polishes, whereas Edmonds (2001: 467) suggests that it could perhaps be used to identify blood.

8.1.4 Observations There is an abundant literature describing the methodology of usewear analysis. A summary follows. 8.1.4.1 Edge fracturing Edge fracturing can be caused in various ways, such as the direct result of tool contact against other worked materials (e.g. Dumont 1982, Gould et al. 1971: 157-160, Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980: 102), or as a result of intentional retouch, as well as by pre/post-depositional damage such as trampling and transportation (e.g. Kamminga 1978: 25, 37-38, 44-46, Semenov 1964: 11-12). It can also be caused through carelessness (Vaughan 1982: 23), or by mechanical damage caused by frost and weed action (e.g. Fullagar 1991: 1-24). It is quite difficult to distinguish accidental fractures from those derived from tool-use and retouch (Kamminga 1978: 39) and thus microwear traces visible on archaeological specimens are not necessarily derived from tool use (Cook and

The disadvantage of using an SEM, however, is that the use of the visible light spectrum allows a light microscope to inspect broader areas than the electron beam. It is therefore crucial prior to using the SEM, to first examine a specimen with a light microscope (Hayes 1973). For this reason many 164

Chapter 8

Usewear analysis the formation of silica gel which causes plant cell elements to be trapped on the surface of the tool, as well as by digging soil with a flint hoe (e.g. Anderson 1991: 525-526, Anderson-Gerfaud 1983: 88). Sickle sheen can also occur through abrasion (e.g. Diamond 1979: 165-166, Kamminga 1979:151-154).

Dumont 1987: 55). Kamminga (1978) suggested that the nature of both the artefact and the worked material, as well as the orientation of the tool to the worked materials, are variables that can affect the morphology and regularity of use fractures (Kamminga 1978: 150). 8.1.4.2 Edge rounding Edge rounding is caused when the sharp edge of the tool becomes abraded and worn down. Abrasion of the edge occurs through the use of tools against contact materials, which leads to rounding. The relative degree of edge rounding is dependent upon four categories: tool motion, the nature of contact material, lithic material and duration of use (e.g. Akoshima 1987, Grace 1989: 96, Kamminga 1978: 70). Experimental works have shown that when the contact angle is very high, rounding is equally dispersed on both sides of the edge (Vaughan 1985: 26), whereas when the contact angle is low, rounding appears only on one side of the edge (Kamminga 1982: 16-17). Edge rounding is vital in the detection of worked edges, and indicates the motion of the tool. Significantly, the edge is usually also rounded in cross-section (Kamminga 1982: vii).

8.2

Usewear analysis of the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations

8.2.1 Methodology The ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations were analysed as follows: 8.2.1.1 Microscopy A Wild Heerbrugg binocular microscope and an Olympus BHM (x50 and x100) were employed for optical inspection. These are housed in the Department of Archaeology, La Trobe University. A Leica MZ 125 microscope, which is housed at the Department of Geology (La Trobe University), was also used for the low magnification digital images. JSM-840 and JSM-834OF Scanning Electron Microscopes (SEM) were employed for high magnification. Both of these machines are housed at the Electron Microscope Faculty, La Trobe University.

8.1.4.3 Striae The first systematic classification of striations based on morphology, width, depth and quantity became available through the use of the SEM (Vaughan 1985: 12, see also Mansur 1982). Striations are characterised by Hayden and Kamminga (1973: 8, Kamminga 1978: 51) as: “All linear features, whether scratches, shallow, grooves, or lines of abraded single grain surfaces”.

8.2.1.2 Cleaning All samples were cleaned and left to soak in warm water and ammonia-free detergent to remove any mineral or organic residues remaining on the specimens. This approach was chosen because the use of chemical solutions may have affected the nature of the specimen (see van Gjin 1989: 11). Afterwards, all artefacts were left to dry naturally and each artefact was then placed in a sealed plastic bag and numbered.

Striations can be caused in various ways, from particles such as sand or dust and other abrasive materials (e.g. Mansur 1982, Semenov 1964: 88), or as a result of either abrasion or adhesive wear (e.g. van Gjin 1989: 7, Kamminga 1978: 47). Striations can be used to identify the original motion of the tool, and how it was oriented in relation to the worked material (e.g. Grace 1989: 102, Keeley 1980: 23). According to various researchers, archaeological and experimental artefacts do not always exhibit striation even when viewed at very high magnifications (e.g. van Gjin 1989: 7, Vaughan 1985: 12). Thus, while striations have been shown to be a valuable indicator of use motion, their presence is dependent on the circumstances under which the work is carried out; therefore, dusty or clean environments are of more significance than the type of material worked (e.g. Mansur-Franchomme 1983, Odell 1975: 229).

8.2.1.3 Photography Colour photographs were employed to record 50x magnification (uncalibrated or 40x calibrated) and digital photographs were used to record even lower magnifications (x10) from a Leica MZ 125 camera. Digital photographs were also taken by the SEM. Both types of images were compared to each other and the clarity of the SEM images were far more revealing (compare between FIG. 8.2: Nos. 1-25, and FIGS. 8.4-8.15). 8.2.1.4 Specimens Among the 25 analysed Hagdud truncations, six pieces feature retouch on one end, whereas the rest have retouch on both ends. Due to the absence of percussion bulbs, it was quite difficult to identify the distal end from the proximal end with these specimens. For the purpose of orientation, one of the working ends was selected and marked in a pencil and counted as the distal end.

8.1.4.4 Polish (also called sheen or gloss) Polish can be caused in many ways, such as by chemical interaction between the surface of tool and plant stalks (e.g. Diamond 1979: 159, 165, Kamminga 1978: 61-67). It can also be caused by

Following the classification methods of Kamminga (1978: 14-70) and Grace (1989: 67-70), a drawing 165

Chapter 8

Usewear analysis was better than the colour x40 images and the latter photographs were therefore discarded and analysis was based on the digital images only (see FIG. 8.2).

was made of each specimen on which the positions of features were plotted and the location of photographs was marked. If there was more than one working edge on the tool, each edge was treated separately (i.e. distal and proximal ends). In order to control observations, a registration form partially based on Grace’s research (1989), was developed, which includes the following categories (see also Table 8.1): 1) Lab number of each specimen. 2) Provenance: locus, unit, square and structure. 3) Dimensions (length, width and thickness in centimetres). 4) Weight (gram). 5) Retouch mode (flat invasive, backing, marginal, etc.). 6) Retouch position (obverse, inverse, invasive). 7) Colour (according to the Munsell chart). 8) Edge morphology (concave, convex or straight). 9) Working surface (whether on dorsal, ventral, or both surfaces). 10) Number of edge fractures (the amount of fractures per centimetre). 11) Fracture terminations were divided into: a) Feathered: removal by conchoidal fractures. b) Snapped: fractures caused by bending stress. c) Stepped: fractures that are scalar in shape and terminate in hinge fracture. d) Absent: no fractures observable. 12) Edge rounding: attrition of the working edge to produce a rounded cross section, classified as light, heavy and / or absent. 13) Edge angle: refers to the contact angle of the tool. This was measured with a goniometer and thus there was a margin of error. 14) Notes: includes any aspects that were detected while analysing the tool not described in the previous categories. Also used for noting any usewear remains on lateral margins and determining the hafted end.

Although a total of 25 Hagdud truncations were analysed, the study of both distal and proximal ends provides a total of 50 analysed margins. The vast majority of these ends (N = 44) were included in the analysis but a few (N = 6) were excluded because they were snapped and did not feature any retouch or usewear. The results of the macroscopic and the optical microscopy appear in Table 8.1 and are summarized below: 8.2.2.1 Edge morphology Nineteen of the distal ends (43.2%) have concave truncations whereas one is convex (2.3%) and 24 have straight truncations (54.5%) (see FIG. 8.1). 8.2.2.2 Retouch type Although there were six pieces (13.6%) with invasive retouch along the distal ends, the vast majority of the Hagdud truncations have obverse retouch (38 or 86.4%). 8.2.2.3 Edge fractures The average number of micro-flake scars per centimetre was 7.9 (with a standard deviation of 2.4 and a range of 4-13). 8.2.2.4 Fracture types All of the Hagdud truncations feature extensive retouch on their distal ends (the working edges) and as many as twelve pieces also bear some edge fractures on the lateral margins (see Table 8.1; the note section). 8.2.2.5 Edge rounding The majority of the analysed specimens have edge rounding along the retouched ends (FIG. 8.2) and two pieces (Nos. 1-2) also have edge rounding along the laterals (see FIG. 8.2: No. 2). 8.2.2.6 Angle Measuring edge angles (from the ventral flat surfaces to the distal ends) on diminutive tools with a goniometer was a difficult task and an unidentified margin of error almost inevitably occurs. The average estimated edge angle was 67° (with a standard deviation of 10° and a range of 40°-85°, see Table 8.1).

8.2.2

Optical microscopy results for the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations A camera was attached to the low magnification microscope and photographs were taken of each artefact at a magnification of x50. This magnification was subsequently calibrated by photographing a millimetre scale ruler. Both calibrated and uncalibrated photographs were compared to each other and the results of the calibration indicated that the camera provided an actual magnification of x40. All photographs were accordingly measured to the same magnification. These photographs were compared to other digital photographs taken with a Leica MZ 125 (x10 calibrated). The quality of the digital photographs

8.2.2.7 Notes Among the 25 analysed specimens, twelve pieces (48%) have some usewear on the lateral margins (FIG. 8.2: No. 2), and four have ‘Couze retouch’ along one of the ends (FIG. 8.3). This type of unusual retouch appears only on the dorsal surface of the tool not along the lateral margins or the distal / proximal ends. It occurs when a blade is snapped, producing small flat scars on the surface, but it is not a result of intentional flaking. 166

Chapter 8

Usewear analysis worked object. A few pieces with inverse retouch (from dorsal side toward ventral side) and some with retouch from both directions (i.e. obverse and inverse) were also prepared. After making more than fifty of these experimental tools, the following observations were made: a) The medial part of bladelet was the best part for processing. The distal end was too thin and the proximal end was too thick to be retouched and controlled effectively. b) Obverse retouch was much easier to form than either inverse or invasive retouch. c) While forming the retouched ends, the angle of the retouch was unintentionally formed according to the thickness of the bladelet. For example, if the selected piece was thin, then the retouched angle was low and vice versa. d) Couze retouch was noticed on some of the selected bladelets and seemed to appear when a bladelet was snapped or when a flat end was prepared prior to the retouch process. e) Some of the prepared tools feature some usewear on the lateral margins (FIG. 8.18), and this was also an unintentional outcome. Prior to retouching the distal and proximal ends, both lateral margins were smooth and did not bear any usewear traces. After retouching the tool, eight of the selected 25 analysed experimental examples had micro-fractures on the lateral margins. f) Three of the 25 analysed pieces had some observable striations on the ventral surface of the lateral margins, running from the corner of the lateral/proximal edge towards the centre of the tools. Obviously, the striations in this case, which occur on unused specimens, were parallel to neither the retouched ends nor to the lateral margins and resulted from the flaking process. g) Under the light binocular microscope, some of the thin lateral margins from the ventral surface have the appearance of having been polished. It seems apparent that this shiny colour was due to the reflection of light on the thin lateral margins in comparison to the rest of the tool. Such polish might be misleading while analysing prehistoric tools. h) While finalizing the retouch, a couple of the experimental tools broke into two pieces each and were not used any further.

8.2.3

SEM microscopy results for the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations After the completion of the low magnification analysis, artefacts were re-examined by using two different SEM machines. The first (JSM-840) supplies images on negative film, whereas the second (JSM-634OF) produces digital images. The reason for using the JSM-840 was the ease of manoeuvrability of the specimen. The JSM-634OF has a smaller hatch and this limited the size of tools that could be used (53% of the analysed samples). Thirteen of the 25 samples were analysed and these specimens were coated with gold in order to minimise electron interference and to provide conductivity on the insulating surfaces (e.g. Kimoto and Russ 1969: 9). The SEM results confirm the observations taken from the optical microscopes, and produced better images of both edge rounding and edge fracturing. For instance, edge rounding was noticed along the segment of the ventral side and the working edge (FIGS. 8.48.14) and twelve of these have some usewear remains along lateral margins (FIG. 8.15). 8.2.4

A brief note on the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations According to these results, it seems likely that the working edges of the Hagdud truncations were on either distal or proximal ends. Due to the diminutive size of these tools, one of the ends had to be hafted whereas the second functioned as the working edge. These working ends have edge rounding that extends from the ventral surface toward the dorsal face. Some of the lateral margins also have some edge rounding and microfracturing, probably due to the movement of the tool in the haft (see section 8.3.10 below). 8.3 The experimental tools 8.3.1 Flint knapping Cobbles collected from quarries in the vicinity of ZAD 2 (Spot 6, see FIG. 8.16) were used as raw materials for manufacturing the experimental specimens. With the help of Simon Greenwood, who used a cobblestone as a heavy hammer and an antler as a light hammer, dozens of bladelets were prepared through the direct flaking method. All flaked samples were collected directly by hand before they reached the floor in order to prevent any direct damage or fractures. Each sample was then stored in a plastic bag until it was retouched. 8.3.2 Retouch process A thin piece of antler (FIG. 8.17) was employed as a pressure tool to form the retouched ends of the experimental tools. One end of the blank tool was held in the right hand (the dorsal side facing up) and the antler percussor was held in the left hand. The latter directly formed the retouch from the ventral side of the blank toward the dorsal side (obverse retouch), at an angle of ca. 70°, and was supported by the left-hand thumb which was located on the opposite side of the antler and the

8.3.3 Macroscopic analysis The 25 selected samples were analysed comprehensively prior to hafting by using the naked eye as well as the light binocular microscope. The same registration form developed for the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations was also used 167

Chapter 8

Usewear analysis crushed into powder by using a stone hammer, then sieved through one mm mesh in order to minimize the existence of large-sized residue. Each type was stored in a separate sealed bag and later on the three types were mixed together. The Aboriginal recipe includes: one part charcoal and molluscs to seven parts resin. Warm water was added to the powder and stirred until it became a paste. The resin dried quickly and more warm water was needed to control the shape and the position of the resin in the hafting of the artefacts.

for the experimental artefacts and included the following categories: lab number, dimension, weight, retouch mode, retouch position, colour, edge morphology, working edge, edge fracture per centimetre, fracture type, edge rounding and retouch angle. Any further observations on lateral margins were described in the notes column (see Table 8.2). In comparison to the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations, where the average dimension was (L) 1.07 cm x (W) 0.83 cm x (Th.) 0.17 cm and weight 0.17 grams (Table 8.1), the mean dimension of these experimental tools was slightly bigger: (L) 1.60 x (W) 1.40 cm x (Th.) 0.30 cm and weight 0.80 grams (Table 8.2). The reason for manufacturing the experimental tools slightly larger was functional. If the experimental tools were manufactured as small as the exhausted ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations, it would have been hard to haft and use them in a productive manner.

Apart from the resin, the rest of the materials used in the experiments have Levantine origins. The stone materials used were Jordanian and most of the wood and bone species were types of Levantine origin. The following discussion of the experimental procedure describes how each tool was used, and with what materials. Each of these experiments includes a retouched flint bladelet (morphologically similar to the Hagdud truncations) hafted to a wooden handle and held in place with resin.

8.3.4 Hafting procedure Due to the diminutive size of these experimental tools, it was necessary to haft them prior to use. Wooden branches were selected from fresh domestic oak trees and cut into 10-20 cm lengths (FIG. 8.19). The cutting of these wooden branches was controlled by using a sharp flake as a chisel (FIG. 8.20) and a prepared cobblestone as a hammer (FIG. 8.21). Another sharp flake was utilized to cut through one of the ends (FIG. 8.22) to form a base for the hafted side of the branch. The experimental tools were inserted into the wooden branches and were afterwards covered by resin.

8.3.7 Experimental procedure Five pieces of bone (sheep and pig), as well as six branches of various tree species (olive, oak, pine and cypress), were used in the experimental work. All species were obtained from Melbourne (domesticated species). Any experimental tool employed on a specific material was not applied on other materials in order to control usewear development. The angle of the working edge was kept steady at ca. 45°. The tool motion was either scraping in a backward motion (the ventral side of the tool facing the worked material), or adzing in a forward motion (the dorsal side of the tool facing the worked material). Although the average movement of the experimental tools was one stroke per second, each experimental tool was employed for different periods of time. The reason for varying the time period was to investigate the circumstances under which edge rounding becomes visible and whether these experimental tools resemble the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations.

8.3.5 The angles The proximal ends of the experimental tools were inserted into the wooden hafts parallel to the axes of the hafts. The reason for maintaining the same angle was the small size of the haft, which allow more flexibility if the tool acts as a direct extension to the handle. The angle of the working edge played a major role in the process of shaping the worked materials. When adzing (forward movement), the angle of the working edge has to be low in order to work effectively (ca. 45º), but it could be higher for the scraping motion (backward movement).

All samples were first analysed by employing a light binocular microscope (Wild Heerburgg) without washing in order to observe any formation of usewear and any remains of organic materials. No photographs were taken. Later on, all tools were washed in a similar pattern to those recovered from ZAD 2 and were analysed with both the optical Leica MZ 125 microscope, and the SEM (JSM-840 and JSM-834OF) and subsequently recorded by photography (see sections 8.3.8 and 8.3.9 below). Due to time limitations, only eleven experiments were conducted, and they are presented below.

8.3.6 The resin Due to the fact that the experimental study was conducted in Australia and Middle Eastern resin was not obtainable, a traditional Australian Aboriginal recipe was adopted to make the resin (Greenwood personal communication). The resin was prepared by using a mixture of Xanthorrhea resin (FIG. 8.23), charcoal and burnt marine molluscs (FIG. 8.24). The latter were collected from St. Kilda beach in Melbourne, and burnt for more than half an hour until the colour of the shells became grey. The three ingredients were initially

8.3.7.1 Experimental tool No. 1 The first experimental tool (FIG. 8.25: a-c) was used on a dry sheep bone. This bone was part of a 168

Chapter 8

Usewear analysis strokes at ca. 45° angle). Two points on both ends of the wooden piece were made (FIG. 8.30: d). Some parts of the resin cracked after 20 minutes of use and the hafted tool became unstable.

metacarpal leg bone and was obtained from the La Trobe Archaeology collections. This bone was from an adult animal. A large stone was employed to smash this bone and the remaining fragments were utilised in the experimental study. This tool was employed for a period of 120 minutes (about 7,200 strokes at ca. 45° angle), producing a sharp point on the bone (FIG. 8.25: d). The tool stayed in the haft and the resin did not crack (to view the actual images for all experimental tools, see sections 8.3.8 and 8.3.9 below).

8.3.7.7 Experimental tool No. 7 This experimental tool (FIG. 8.31: a-c) was utilised on a dry branch of olive wood (Olea europaea) for a period of 135 minutes (about 8,100 strokes at ca. 45° angle). In order to examine the extent to which these experimental tools could be used, it was originally intended to make a larger tool (FIG. 8.31: d), but the job was not completed due to the difficulty of working a dry piece of wood with such a diminutive tool. This tool stayed attached to the haft for the entire experiment.

8.3.7.2 Experimental tool No. 2 The second experimental tool (FIG. 8.26: a-c) was exploited on a part of a fresh sheep metacarpal bone. This was purchased from a butcher and defleshed by using a sharp flake as a scraper. It was then broken by employing the same flake as a chisel, and a cobblestone as a hammer (all fresh bones in the following experiments were prepared using the same method). The experiment lasted for 120 minutes (about 7,200 strokes at ca. 45° angle) and a sharp point on the bone was prepared (FIG. 8.26: d). The tool stayed in the haft for the entire experimental process.

8.3.7.8 Experimental tool No. 8 The eighth experimental tool employed in this study (FIG. 8.32: a-c) was used on a branch of a fresh oak (Quercus spp.) for a period of 45 minutes (about 2,700 strokes at ca. 45° angle) to prepare fine points on both ends of the branch (FIG. 8.32: d). The resin on the hafted branch became loose after 15 minutes of work, after which it dropped out. The hafted tool was then utilised without resin for an extra 20 minutes. When the tool detached itself from the haft, the unhafted tool was employed directly by hand for an extra ten minutes until the wooden tool was completed. Using the unhafted tool as a scraper was much easier than utilising it as an adze. However, employing these diminutive tools when hafted was more effective and achieved better results.

8.3.7.3 Experimental tool No. 3 The third experimental tool (FIG. 8.27: a-c) was utilised on a branch of domestic olive wood (Olea europaea). This process lasted for a period of 30 minutes (about 1,800 strokes at ca. 45° angle) and a small wooden tool with two pointed ends was made (FIG. 8.27: d). Throughout the process of manufacturing these pointed ends, the resin destabilized after eight minutes of use. The tool was then used for an extra ten minutes until it fell out of the haft. Afterwards, the artefact was employed in the hand for a period of twelve minutes, until the wooden tool was completed.

3.3.7.9 Experimental tool No. 9 This experimental tool (FIG. 8.33: a-c) was employed on a fresh sheep metacarpal bone for 60 minutes (about 3,600 strokes at ca. 45° angle) in order to form a pointed end on the bone (FIG. 8.33: d). The tool stayed attached to the haft and the resin did not crack. However, while making the pointed end of this bone, it was much easier to keep the hafted tool on a solid base and move the bone itself. Used in this way, the sharpening was more controlled.

8.3.7.4 Experimental tool No. 4 The fourth experimental tool (FIG. 8.28: a-c) was exploited on a fresh metacarpal bone fragment from a domestic pig (Sus scrofa). This tool was employed for a period of 70 minutes (about 4,200 strokes at ca. 45° angle) and produced a thick pointed end on the bone (FIG. 8.28: d). The tool stayed in the haft for the entire period.

3.3.7.10 Experimental tool No. 10 The tenth experimental tool had concave ends (FIG. 8.34: a-c) and was used on a fresh rib bone of domestic sheep (Ovis aries). This tool was employed for a period of 210 minutes (about 12,600 strokes at ca. 45° angle), and produced a pointed end on the bone (FIG. 8.34: d). The experimental tool stayed attached to the haft for the entire experiment, though part of the resin cracked. The deep concave end was utilised for the first two hours, and the other less concave end was then used for 90 minutes. The latter end was much more efficient for both scraping and adzing.

8.3.7.5 Experimental tool No. 5 The fifth experimental tool (FIG. 8.29: a-c) was used on a branch of a fresh pinewood (Pinus radiata) for a period of 90 minutes (about 5,400 strokes at ca. 45° angle). Pointed ends were fashioned on both ends of the piece (FIG. 8.29: d). The experimental tool stayed attached to the haft for the entire experimental time, though the resin started to weaken after ten minutes of use. 8.3.7.6 Experimental tool No. 6 The sixth experimental tool (FIG. 8.30: a-c) was employed on a branch of fresh cypress (Cupressus spp.) for a period of 50 minutes (about 3,000 169

Chapter 8

Usewear analysis 8.3.8.8 Experimental tool No. 8 Light edge rounding appeared along the ventral side of the working edge (FIG. 8.36: Exp. No. 8), and no usewear was noticed on the lateral margins.

3.3.7.11 Experimental tool No. 11 The eleventh experimental tool (FIG. 8.35: a-c) was utilised to work a long branch of fresh domestic olive wood (Olea europaea). Within 60 minutes (3,600 strokes at ca. 45° angle) a pointed end was formed (FIG. 8.35: d). The tool was extensively covered with resin and thus the only possible way of using it was by scraping. The resin remained attached to the hafted tool for the entire experiment.

8.3.8.9 Experimental tool No. 9 Microwear evidence along the working edge of this tool was very limited, though some edge rounding could be noticed (FIG. 8.36: Exp. No. 9). Some micro-fractures were also noticed along the lateral margins.

8.3.8

Optical microscopy results for the experimental tools In the following section, the results of the optical images obtained from the Wild Heerbrugg binocular microscope (10x) and the Olympus BHM (x50) images (see FIGS. 8.36, 8.37 and Table 8.3) are presented, followed by the SEM images (see FIG. 8.38-8.43).

8.3.8.10 Experimental tool No. 10 Microwear analysis did not show any usewear traces along the working edge of the tool (FIG. 8.36: Exp. No. 10). Surprisingly, the left lateral margin includes some striations and microfractures. 8.3.8.11 Experimental tool No. 11 Some light edge rounding appeared along the working edge (FIG. 8.36: Exp. No. 11), and some micro-fractures along the right lateral margin of the tool.

8.3.8.1 Experimental tool No. 1 This tool was the only one among the eleven experimental tools that was used on a dry bone and the results of the optical investigation showed extensive edge rounding accompanied by some sheen on the ventral side of the working edge of the tool (FIG. 8.36: Exp. No. 1). The lateral margins also have some micro-fractures.

8.3.9

SEM microscopy results for the experimental tools Due to both time limitations and the limited number of tools that could fit through the hatch of the SEM (JSM-834OF), only six of the eleven experimental tools were examined. Edge rounding could be seen as smooth parallel lines along the working edge and the micro-fractures along the lateral margins appear as micro-denticulations. The descriptions are presented below (see also Table 8.3):

8.3.8.2 Experimental tool No. 2 The ventral side of the working edge of this tool included many micro-fractures and some edge rounding (FIG. 8.36: Exp. No. 2). Both lateral margins also display some edge alteration. 8.3.8.3 Experimental tool No. 3 Microscopical analysis did not show any differences between the shape of the working edge before and after the use of tool No. 3 (see FIG. 8.36: Exp. No. 3).

8.3.9.1 Experimental tool No. 1 Edge rounding could be seen along the intersection of the working edge and the ventral surface (FIG. 8.38: a-c). Extensive micro-fractures along the lateral margins could be noticed (FIG. 8.38: d-e).

8.3.8.4 Experimental tool No. 4 This tool has well developed edge-rounding along the ventral side of the working edge (FIG. 8.36: Exp. No. 4). The lateral margins of this tool also bear extensive micro-fractures and some striations (FIG. 8.37).

8.3.9.2 Experimental tool No. 3 No usewear was noticed along the working edge (FIG. 8.39: a-b) or along the lateral margins. 8.3.9.3 Experimental tool No. 5 No usewear was observed along the working edge (FIG. 8.40: a-b) or along the lateral margins.

8.3.8.5 Experimental tool No. 5 Microscopic analysis did not show any differences along the working edge and the lateral margins of this tool before and after use (FIG 8.36: Exp. No. 5).

8.3.9.4 Experimental tool No. 6 No usewear was noticed along the working edge (FIG. 8.41: a-b) or the lateral margins.

8.3.8.6 Experimental tool No. 6 Some light edge rounding appeared on the working edge of this tool (FIG. 8.36: Exp. No. 6), but nothing was visible on the lateral margins. 8.3.8.7 Experimental tool No. 7 The working edge of this tool has some microfractures on the ventral surface. Edge rounding was not clear (FIG. 8.36: Exp. No. 7), and there were no micro-fractures on the lateral margins.

8.3.9.5 Experimental tool No. 8 Some edge rounding was seen on the working edge of the tool (FIG. 8.42: a-b), but no usewear occurred along the lateral margins.

170

Chapter 8

Usewear analysis worked material and whether it was dry or fresh. On the one hand, among the eleven experimental tools that were employed in this research, edge rounding appeared clearly on four of the five tools that were used on bone. The most extensive edge rounding accompanied by some sheen appeared only on the tool which was employed on a dry bone. On the other hand, none of the experimental tools which were used on wood (except No. 8) have any clear edge rounding.

8.3.9.6 Experimental tool No. 9 Some edge rounding was noticed along the working edge of the tool (FIG. 8.43: a-c) and some micro-fractures appeared along the lateral margins. 8.3.10

Interpretations of usewear traces on experimental tools The most effective method was to use the retouched end toward the dorsal surface as an adze, and the ventral surface as a scraper. The evidence strongly suggests that the experimental tools were more effective when used as scrapers or notches instead of adzes. The best approach was to hold the hafted tool as a pen and then use it at any angle by manoeuvring the hand and the worked material.

In the following section, the similarities and differences between the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations and the experimental tools are highlighted.

Micro-fractures along the lateral margins appear clearly on some tools, but not on others. This depends on the material used, the period of use and the durability of the resin adhesive. The latter stayed attached to some tools and handles, but did not last on other tools. This was due to various features. Firstly, after water was added to the powder, the materials dried out very fast, so tools hafted in the early stages of mixing cured better than those hafted when the resin became harder. Secondly, some tools were inserted in the wooden tool for a few millimetres only, whereas others were inserted more deeply. The latter arrangement lasted better. Thirdly, the worked material played a major role in the tool’s stability. The resin did not stay attached to tools when the worked material was wood. It did, however, when the worked material was bone (the tougher the material, the more effective the resin). It seems very likely that knots in the timber were the cause for the problems with wood. Fourthly, due to the fact that tools were inserted at the same angle as the shaft, the lower part of the resin often made contact with the worked material and therefore cracked within a very short period of time. Fifthly, while employing the tool at an angle of ca. 45° in forward movement, the resin lasted for a longer period of time than when the tool was used at the same angle in a backward movement. Sixthly, three tools were utilised (Nos. 3, 5, 8) on the same day that they were hafted with the resin (three-six hours). The resin of these tools detached within a very short period of time. In contrast, tools exploited the following day were stronger and tougher. Therefore, it seems that resin should be cured for at least 24 hours prior to use.

8.4

Comparison between the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations and the experimental tools Although the distal ends of both the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations and the experimental tools were retouched, this analysis did not focus on the retouched ends but rather on the intersections of the working edges and the ventral surfaces of the tools. Each tool was also examined along the lateral margins and for signs of any striations or sheen on either the ventral or the dorsal surfaces. Sections 8.2.2, 8.2.3 presented the optical and SEM images of the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations, whereas sections 8.3.8, 8.3.9 presented the experimental images. After comparing all these various images to each other, it seems apparent that there are similarities in morphology and usewear remains on both the working edges as well as the lateral margins. Among the optical images for instance, there are clear similarities between the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations (FIG. 8.2) and the experimental tools (and FIG. 8.36). In FIG. 8.2 Nos. 4, 5, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 have a similar shape in regard to edge rounding and micro-fractures along the working edges to those of FIG. 8.36 Nos. 4, 6, 7,8, 9 and 10. Among the SEM images, there are also great similarities between the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations (FIGS. 8.4-8.15) and some of the experimental tools (FIGS. 8.38-8.43). Compare for example the similarities of FIG. 8.4 to FIG. 8.38:b, FIG. 8.7 to FIG. 8.38, and FIG. 8.9 to FIGS. 8.41, 8.42. There are also great similarities for the microfractures along the lateral margins between those of the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations (FIG. 8.11:c, FIG. 8.12:b) and the experimental tools (FIG.8.38:d-e).

The most important observations on these experimental tools are as follows: 1) Edge damage on lateral margins, particularly micro-fractures, were caused by hafting - not by use - and appeared more clearly when the tool moved (the resin did not hold the tool properly and the tool was loss, see Table 8.3). 2) Edge rounding along the working end was greatly influenced by the type of the

As far as both the experimental and the archaeological remains were similar, it is suggested that the range of functions for the Hagdud truncations were very similar to the function of the experimental tools, except for No. 1. The latter experiment was employed on a dry sheep bone and 171

Chapter 8

Usewear analysis polish, whereas the scraping of dry bone produces deep striations (Unger-Hamilton 1988: 122-127). These results are quite important because a similar pattern on tools used on dry bone was noticed in the current investigation, whereas nothing was detected on tools employed on either fresh bone or fresh wood branches. The moisture of the worked material apparently plays a major role on the formation of usewear remains along the employed tool.

produced some sheen along the working edge. None of the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations have similar remains and it thus seems very likely that they were not used on dry bone. Accordingly, adzing, scraping and notching both wood and fresh bone to form cylindrical objects such as needles and borers were the most probable functions for the Hagdud truncations. Some cylindrical bone needles were recovered during excavations at ZAD 2, which support this suggestion (see also section 8.6 below).

In her analysis of archaeological artefacts collected from the Natufian layers of Hayonim Terrace, Abu Hureyra and Mureybet, Anderson found that very few had features similar to her experimental tools. The edges of the archaeological artefacts have a visible reflective gloss of 1-2 mm in width, and the microwear traces indicate that they were used in one direction and to cut rather than to saw (Anderson 1991: 540-541). FIG. 8.45 presents an example from Hayonim terrace for edge rounding and edge polish. Again, the quality of the image was not the best for comparative analysis and very little could be detected from this image.

8.5 Comparative evaluation with other studies The current research is entirely new, which makes it more difficult to compare and evaluate the current results relative to past work. Although there is no literature which describes the Hagdud truncations, some analogies from the Levant and other parts of the world are presented in this section. These examples provide comparative examples of edge rounding and fracturing, since these were the most frequent traces identified on both the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations and the experimental tools.

Unger-Hamilton has also undertaken some experimental work on arrow barbs. However, she did not find any particular usewear traces (UngerHamilton 1988: 161-163). If the Hagdud truncations were used as arrow barbs, as was suggested by Noy (1994) and Nadel (1997), then none of them should have usewear remains. In contrast, most of the analysed samples from ZAD 2 and the experimental tools bear usewear remains, particularly edge rounding and micro-fractures.

8.5.1 The Levantine experimental studies 8.5.1.1 Netiv Hagdud In the late 1980s, Bueller examined some of the borers recovered from Netiv Hagdud but none of his images illustrated either edge rounding or edge fracturing (Bueller 1989: 21-28). Yerkes and colleagues (2003) recently published an article regarding the function of axe spalls and bifacial tools from Netiv Hagdud. The result of microwear analysis and experimental studies led these researchers to suggest that the vast majority of the bifacial tools were employed to work wood (Yerkes et al. 2003: 1060-1062, see also Yamada 2000). Chisels were also investigated and seem to have been exploited to plane or scrape wood, bone and hide (Yerkes et al. 2003: 1062-1063). An example of edge rounding from Netiv Hagdud was published but the quality of the photo prevents any further comparison or discussion (FIG. 8.44:a).

8.5.2 The Australian Tula flakes Although neither the time period nor the region of the Australian Tula flake, adze or scrapers were similar to the Hagdud truncations, they were utilised in this research as an analogy due to their similarities in resharpening (Edwards and Sayej 2002), discarding and - probably - in function. The prehistoric and ethnographic Tula flake type (FIG. 8.46) was recovered from various locations in the Australian desert where they were designed for adzing and scraping dense woods, or for making and maintaining spears (e.g. Holdaway and Stern 2003: 270-273, Kamminga 1978: 347-349). The available dates for this particular tool type indicate that they were employed within the last millennium (Mulvaney 1975: 233-235), though at Puntutjarpa Gould (1968: 167-170) has dated the Tula slugs (the exhausted Tula flakes) to ca. 10,000 years ago.

8.5.1.2 Jericho Keeley (1983b: 759) examined two Sultanian tranchet adzes from Jericho and noted bright, smooth wood polish with many striations and wood working traces (no images were available). 8.5.1.3

Hayonim Terrace, Abu Hureyra and Mureybet P. Anderson noticed in her experimental work that striations occur on tools employed for harvesting wild cereals at about 20-30 cm from the soil, whereas striations were rarely found on tools when cereals were harvested high on the stems. She also detected that climate plays a major role: the dryer the climate, the more striations appear (Anderson 1991: 536-537). Unger-Hamilton (1988) noticed that the scraping of wood leaves smooth lines of

Tulas were manufactured on the prominent percussion bulbs of the blank in order to provide a double convex cross section. The retouch was initiated from the ventral surface and occurs along the distal and lateral margins. While resharpening, the size of the tool decreases until no further 172

Chapter 8

Usewear analysis

retouch was possible and the remaining piece, ‘a slug’, would be discarded (Holdaway and Stern 2003: 270-271). The Tulas were hafted onto round wooden shafts and attached by resin. These hafted adzes were identified by Kamminga (1978: 223) as: “A woodworking tool which has its working edge oriented in a transverse plane to the direction in which the tool was propelled. The tool’s working edge was above the wood when the adzing stroke was initiated and the tool was ‘dynamically loaded’ when it meets the surface of the wood. The velocity of the load carries through the impact and when the adze lead (stone or metal) cuts into the wood the wooden handle acts as a counterbalance, its distal end swiftly dropping downward, which in turn, through a leverage action, redirects the edge of the adze head to the surface”.

8.6 Discussion and concluding remarks The experimental study and microwear analysis both support the idea that Hagdud truncations were probably employed as micro adzes, scrapers or notches in order to manufacture pointed wooden and bone objects. As was shown by Kamminga (1978: 234-236), some Tula adzes for example, do not leave any clear traces of usewear and could be used for many hours without evident reduction in their effectiveness. However, as a result of extensive use, other Tula flakes have clear remains of edge rounding and micro-fractures along the working edges (Kamminga 1982: 109-110). A similar pattern was noticed on the experimental tools that were employed in this research indicating that this tool type can be employed for many hours before edge rounding forms. Relying on his experimental observations, Patterson (1981) further suggests that whittling and planning of soft woods such as pine, produces a low edge rounding due to the fact that the tool edge was used parallel to the material being worked (Patterson 1981: 12).

According to Kamminga’s experimental study, the Tulas were more efficient if hafted at a low angle, whereby better balance could be achieved and the tools were less likely to break from the hafts (Kamminga 1982: 75-76). Tulas could be used for many hours without evident reductions in their effectiveness and, as a consequence, edge rounding would develop. If a small amount of sand was scattered over the worked material, smoothing and long sub parallel grooves of striation would develop as well (Kamminga 1978: 234-236).

While analysing hundreds of lithics from various periods and sites in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Vaughan (1987: 136) observed that some Neolithic tools were small and retouched on two edges to produce various triangular shapes. Many of these specimens do exhibit traces along the unretouched edges, whereas the retouched edges either lack microwear or feature some near the corner with the unretouched edge. Vaughan concluded as a result that some of these tools were hafted longitudinally as barbs, and others were hafted as transverse arrowheads (Vaughan 1987: 136-137). Other trapezoidal-shaped microliths were employed for cutting soft plant material (Vaughan 1987: 136138).

Although there were no available micro-images for the working edges of the Tula flakes in the literature, some examples from other Australian tool types were collected and these indicate the presence of both edge fracturing and edge rounding (see FIG. 8.47: a-f, see also the Pirri Graver example in Kamminga 1985). These images provide a clear morphology for both edge rounding and edge fracturing which can be used for comparative analysis. Some edge rounding along an experimental tool (from van Gjin 1989: fig 25:a), are presented in FIG. 8.48, but the quality is not good enough for any comparison.

Due to their diminutive size, the ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations were probably hafted before use. However, limited traces along the unilateral lateral margins revealed that they functioned as the working edges whereas the retouched ends were hafted. Furthermore, there were no usewear traces to support the claims that these tools were hafted as trapezoids (Noy 1994) or barbs (Nadel 1997). Most of the corners with the unretouched lateral margins do not exhibit any micro-fractures or edge rounding. In contrast, edge rounding appears clearly at most of the intersections of the working ends (the distal ends) and the ventral surfaces. The variability of the Hagdud truncations length was also a good indication for the resharpening procedure, which was not necessary in the case of barbs or transverse arrowheads. These results contradict the suggestions of Noy (1994) and Nadel (1997). Moreover, some of the analysed ZAD 2 Hagdud truncations and the experimental tools bear micro-fractures along their lateral margins which seem to be a result of hafting, rather than of use.

In sum, a comparison of the optical images taken for this research to those available in the literature is quite complicated. Many of the published images were either not clear enough or do not indicate the angle from which the image was taken. Furthermore, images produced by regular chemical photographic development are not as clear as those taken by an optical digital camera. Images taken by an SEM are the best for comparisons, but unfortunately not so many SEM images are available in the literature. Consequently, among the published examples, some edge rounding and edge fracturing can be seen in FIG. 8.47, but nothing could be interpreted from images such as those of FIG. 8.44.

173

Chapter 8

Usewear analysis

The experimental tools worked very effectively and in a reasonably short period of time on both bone and wood materials. The most effective motion was scraping at low angle, although adzing and planing were also employed. Some of the experimental tools developed edge rounding whereas others did not; and there are several explanations for this. Firstly, these tools were employed for a limited period of time which was not long enough to cause edge rounding. Secondly, the material worked on was probably not the type of material which creates edge-rounding, particularly when the process was done in a delicate way due to the small sizes of these tools. At ZAD 2, many cylindrical bone needles (some are more than 100mm long and 2-8mm thick) were recovered (see FIG. 8.49). These bone needles are very well made, thin and sharp and could not be controlled by using a large stone tool. It therefore seems likely that the Hagdud truncations were manufactured to produce these cylindrical needles. Edge rounding appeared more clearly on experimental tools used on bone and the majority of the Hagdud truncations have edge rounding. The current investigation confirms the previous suggestions made by Edwards and Sayej (2002) that these tools probably were used as micro-adzes or scrapers.

174

2

2

4

1

2

2

2

10

11

12

13

14

15

1

6

9

1

5

1

2

4

8

1

3

2

2

2

7

1.1

1

1

175

1.2

1.1

3.2

1.1

1.1

3.2

1.2

1.1

1.1

2.3

2.2

1.1

2.3

1.1

L.

No St.

Table 8.1:

Type

Proximal

J 24 Distal

Proximal

M 20 Distal

Proximal

N 20 Distal

Proximal

F 27 Distal

Proximal

O 12 Distal

Proximal

O 27 Distal

Proximal

L 23 Distal

Proximal

F 28 Distal

Proximal

J 24 Distal

Proximal

D 27 Distal

Proximal

E 27 Distal

Proximal

L 24 Distal

Proximal

D 27 Distal

Proximal

K 24 Distal

Proximal

F26 Distal

Sq.

W.

Th.

1.00 0.80 0.15

1.30 1.00 0.15

1.05 1.00 0.20

1.15 0.65 0.20

1.25 1.00 0.25

1.10 1.35 0.20

1.00 0.45 0.20

1.20 0.35 0.20

0.90 0.45 0.20

0.95 0.65 0.20

1.35 0.55 0.15

0.5

0.80 0.25

0.65 0.20

1.05 0.85

1.4

1.2

1.00 0.80 0.15

L.

Dimensions

0.10

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.30

0.40

0.10

0.00

0.00

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.30

0.20

0.20

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Gram Retouch mode

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Retouch position

7.5YR: 5/3

7.5YR: 5/2

10YR: 5/4

7.5YR: 3/2

7.5YR: 2.5/2

10YR: 4/3

10YR: 4/1

7.5YR: 4/3

7.5YR: 3/3

10YR: 6/4

7.5YR: 2.5/1

7.5YR: 3/2

10YR: 6/4

R. Brown

5YR: 4/4

Strong Brown 7.5YR: 5/6

Brown

Brown

Y. Brown

Dark Brown

v. d. Brown

Brown

Dark Grey

Brown

Dark Brown

L. y. Brown

Black

Dark Brown

L. y. Brown

Munsell

Colour

The results of usewear analysis: Hagdud truncations. ZAD 2.

-

1

-

-

-

1

1

1

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

1

-

-

1

1

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

Cv.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cx.

Working edge

1

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

1

1

-

1

-

1

1

1

-

-

-

1

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

1

1

1

-

1

-

1

1

1

1

1

-

1

-

1

1

-

-

-

1

1

-

1

1

1

-

1

1

1

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

1

1

1

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ventral/ Straight Dorsal Dorsal 1 1 -

Edge morphology

6

9

-

8

-

6

8

8

8

9

10

10

-

12

11

9

6

7

9

7

5

13

10

10

-

5

8

13

4

5

Per1 cm

Edge fracture

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

-

1

1

1

1

1

Absent

Fracture type

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

-

1

1

1

1

1

Heavy

Edge rounding

45

65

-

70

-

45

55

40

65

75

70

75

-

60

85

85

60

75

75

50

65

65

70

85

-

65

75

75

65

75

Angleº

No usewear on laterals

The proposed hafted end

The proposed hafted end

Left lateral has inverse usewear

The proposed hafted end

Right lateral has usewear

The proposed hafted end

No usewear on laterals

The proposed hafted end

No usewear on laterals

Both laterals have usewear

The proposed hafted end

Couze retouch, hafted end

Right lateral has usewear

The proposed hafted end

No usewear on lateral

No usewear on lateral

The proposed hafted end

The proposed hafted end

Right lateral has usewear

The proposed hafted end

No usewear on laterals

No usewear on laterals

The proposed hafted end

Couze retouch, hafted end

Both laterals have usewear

The proposed hafted end

Left lateral has usewear

Left lateral has inverse usewear

The proposed hafted end

Notes

Chapter 8 Tables

1.1

1

2

2

2

2

4

2

3

2

2

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

176

24

25

1.1

2.2

7.1

2.2

1.1

2.2

2.2

1.1

1.2

L.

No St.

Table 8.1:

Type

W.

Th.

0.24 0.28 0.03 0.40- 0.35- 0.151.40 1.35 0.25

S.D.

Range

1.07 0.83 0.19

Mean

0.17

0.13 0.000.40

2

43.2

4

Grey

1

-

1

-

-

1

1

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

Black

19

10YR: 5/3

10YR: 4/1

10YR: 7/2

7.5YR: 3/2

10YR: 4/4

10YR: 2/1

10YR: 6/4

10YR: 5/3

10YR: 5/4

N: 7/

%

Brown

D. Grey

L. Grey

D. Brown

d. y. Brown

Black

L. Y. Brown

Brown

Y. Brown

Light Grey

Cv.

2.3

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cx.

Working edge

54.5

24

1

-

1

-

-

1

-

-

1

-

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

-

86.4

38

1

1

1

1

-

-

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

-

13.6

6

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ventral/ Straight Dorsal Dorsal 1 -

Edge morphology

19

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Munsell

Colour

Brown

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Flat invasive

Retouch position

TOTAL

0.20

0.30

0.00

0.40

0.10

0.00

0.20

0.20

0.00

0.40

Gram Retouch mode

-

1.15 0.95 0.20

1.00 1.10 0.20

0.40 1.10 0.20

1.35 1.25 0.25

1.15 0.60 0.15

1.20 0.40 0.15

1.10 0.70 0.15

1.00 1.10 0.20

0.40 0.95 0.20

1.15 1.15 0.25

L.

Dimensions

Proximal

P 26 Distal

Proximal

K 22 Distal

Proximal

V 22 Distal

Proximal

N 27 Distal

Proximal

O 12 Distal

Proximal

J 23 Distal

Proximal

K 24 Distal

Proximal

P 25 Distal

Proximal

L 24 Distal

Proximal

D 27 Distal

Sq.

Continued

4 - 13

2.4

7.9

5

7

7

6

-

6

4

5

6

10

13

9

7

8

5

10

8

7

-

7

Per1 cm

Edge fracture

100

44

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Absent

Fracture type

100

44

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Heavy

Edge rounding

40 - 85

10

67

80

75

65

70

-

70

60

65

70

65

65

60

65

60

70

60

70

70

-

70

Angleº

The proposed hafted end

No usewear on laterals

No usewear on laterals

The proposed hafted end

Couze retouch, hafted end

No usewear on laterals

No usewear on laterals

The proposed hafted end

The proposed hafted end

No usewear on laterals

The proposed hafted end

Both laterals have usewear

The proposed hafted end

Left lateral has usewear

The proposed hafted end

No usewear on laterals

The proposed hafted end

Left lateral has usewear

Couze retouch, hafted end

Both laterals have usewear

Notes

Chapter 8 Tables

2

2

177

5

12

16

15

14

13

4

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

1

1

3

Exp. No.

No.

Table 8.2:

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Type

W.

Th.

2.00 1.65 0.30

0.90 1.10 0.20

1.40 1.30 0.20

1.50 1.15 0.30

1.30 1.00 0.25

1.75 1.75 0.45

2.40 1.30 0.45

1.20 1.40 0.25

1.35 1.70 0.25

1.70 1.40 0.40

1.45 1.40 0.20

1.40 1.20 0.30

0.75 0.75 0.20

1.00 0.90 0.20

1.85 1.10 0.30

1.40 1.20 0.30

L.

Dimensions

Flat inverse

1.30 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

0.20 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

0.50 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

0.50 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

0.40 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

1.50 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

1.40 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

0.50 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

0.60 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

1.00 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

0.50 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

0.40 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

0.10 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

0.20 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

0.70 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

0.60 Flat inverse

Gram Retouch mode

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Retouch position

L. br. Grey

L. br. Grey

L. Grey

Gr. Brown

Gr. Brown

Pale Brown

L. br. Grey

10YR: 6/2

10YR: 6/2

10YR: 7/2

10YR: 5/2

10YR: 5/2

10YR: 5/3

10YR: 6/2

7.5YR: 3/4

10YR: 6/2

10YR: 5/3

10YR: 5/2

10YR: 7/2

10YR: 5/2

10YR: 6/2

10YR: 5/2

10YR: 6/2

Munsell

Dark Brown

L. br. Grey

Pale Brown

Gr. Brown

Light Grey

Gr. Brown

L. br. Grey

Gr. Brown

L. br. Grey

Colour

The results of usewear analysis: Experimental tools before use

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cv.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cx.

Edge morphology

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Straight

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Working edge Dorsal

4

9

5

4

5

7

3

6

4

4

5

6

6

5

6

6

7

7

4

5

6

4

6

6

3

5

5

4

6

5

7

7

Edge fracture Per1 cm

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Fracture type

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Edge rounding

75

65

70

55

55

50

65

60

70

60

65

40

75

65

75

50

55

60

55

60

70

55

45

65

65

55

65

55

70

55

60

55

Angleº

-

Some fractures on left lateral

-

-

-

-

Fractures on left lateral

Inverse retouch on left lateral

-

-

Fractures, striation on right lateral

Obverse retouch on left lateral

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Snaps on left lateral

Inverse retouch on left lateral

-

Some fractures on right lateral

-

Some fractures on right lateral

-

-

-

Usewear on laterals

-

Usewear on laterals

Notes

Chapter 8 Tables

8

9

20

21

178

25

24

23

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

Distal

Type

W.

Th.

0.8

L. br. Grey

L. br. Grey

L. br. Grey

L. br. Grey

Gr. Brown

Gr. Brown

Gr. Brown

L. br. Grey

0.4 0.3 0.8- 0.82.4 1.8

S. D.

Range

1.6

Mean

0.1 0.20.5

0.5 0.11.6

Grey

0.3

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

Obverse

L. br. Grey

%

Flat inverse

1.30 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

1.60 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

1.60 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

0.40 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

0.70 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

0.80 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

1.10 Flat inverse

Flat inverse

1.00 Flat inverse

Obverse

Obverse

Retouch position

Brown

1.4

2.35 1.50 0.35

2.10 1.60 0.50

1.90 1.75 0.40

1.25 1.10 0.30

1.45 1.30 0.35

1.50 1.50 0.25

2.10 1.60 0.30

1.60 1.65 0.30

Flat inverse

0.80 Flat inverse

Gram Retouch mode

Total

Proximal

Distal

Proximal

11 Distal

Proximal

L.

Dimensions

1.65 1.40 0.40

Continued.

10 Distal

7

19

22

6

Exp. No.

18

17

No.

Table 8.2:

14

11

10YR: 6/2

10YR: 6/2

10YR: 6/2

10YR: 6/2

10YR: 5/2

10YR: 5/2

10YR: 5/2

10YR: 6/2

10YR: 6/2

Munsell

Colour

10

5

-

-

-

-

1

1

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

Cv.

2

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cx.

Edge morphology

88

44

1

1

1

1

-

-

1

-

-

-

1

1

1

1

1

1

-

-

Straight

100

50

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Working edge Dorsal

3-9

1.2

5.5

5

7

4

5

7

4

6

6

5

4

7

7

6

6

6

7

5

5

Edge fracture Per1 cm

100

50

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Fracture type Absent

100

50

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Edge rounding Light

40-85

9.8

61.7

65

50

65

70

80

70

55

55

75

80

60

55

85

55

60

40

60

65

Angleº

-

-

-

-

Striation on left lateral

-

Fractures on right lateral

-

Striation on left lateral

Usewear on laterals

-

-

-

-

-

-

Fractures on laterals

Fine retouch on laterals

Notes

Chapter 8 Tables

1 2 8 11 12 18 19 20 21 23 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

No. Exp. No.

Table 8.3:

Bone Bone Wood Bone Wood Wood Wood Wood Bone Bone Wood

Dry lamb Fresh lamb Fresh olive Fresh pig Fresh pine Fresh cypress Dry olive Fresh oak Fresh lamb Fresh lamb Fresh olive

Worked material

Duration Resin lasted Production Minutes Minutes 120 120 Needle 120 120 Needle 30 8 Borers 70 70 Borers 90 10 Borers 50 20 Borers 135 135 Incomplete pick 45 15 Borers 60 60 Needle 210 210 Drill 60 60 Spare

Usewear remains Working edge Fractures, edge rounding, sheen/like Fractures, edge rounding Nil Fractures, edge rounding Nil Nil Fractures, sheen/like Edge rounding and fractures Fractures, edge rounding Fractures Nil

The results of usewear analysis: experimental tools after use. Laterals Usewear Usewear Nil Usewear Nil Nil Nil Nil Usewear Usewear Nil

Chapter 8 Tables

179

Chapter 8

Use-wear analysis

FIG. 8.1: The various types of Hagdud truncations, ZAD 2: a) double straight, b) straight-concave, c) double concave, d) single concave, e) single straight, f) concave-convex.

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

180

Chapter 8

FIG. 8.2:

Use-wear analysis

Optical images for various Hagdud truncations, ZAD 2 (ventral side, x10).

No. 1, 45° angle

No. 2, flat

No. 3, 45° angle

No. 4, 45° angle

No. 5, 45° angle

No. 6, 45° angle

No. 7, 45° angle

No. 8, flat

No. 9, 45° angle

No. 10, 45° angle

No. 11 45° angle

No. 12, 45° angle

181

Chapter 8

FIG. 8.2:

Use-wear analysis

Continued.

No. 13, 45° angle

No. 14, 45° angle

No. 15, 45° angle

No. 16, 45° angle

No. 17, 45° angle

No. 18, 45° angle

No. 19, 45° angle

No. 20, flat

No. 21, 45° angle

No. 22, 45° angle

No. 23, 45° angle

No. 24, 45° angle

No. 25, 45° angle 182

Chapter 8

FIG. 8.3:

FIG. 8.4:

FIG. 8.5:

Use-wear analysis

Couze retouch: Hagdud truncations No.23, ZAD 2 (note the lower side where the retouch is on the dorsal surface itself instead of being on the proximal end).

a) b) Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 02 (SEM x50) edge rounding along the working distal edge taken at ca. 70° angle (see the two black arrows and note that the flat surface in the lower part of the photo is the ventral surface).

Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 04 (SEM x50) a) a cross section of the distal working edge taken at ca. 85° angle, b) the working edge in relation to the ventral surface taken at ca. 75° angle (the flat side in the lower part of the photo is the ventral side).

a)

b)

183

Chapter 8

FIG. 8.6:

Use-wear analysis

Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 05 (SEM x50) a) edge rounding along the right side of the working edge taken at ca. 80° angle, b) edge rounding along the left side of the working edge taken at ca. 80°.

a) FIG. 8.7:

b)

Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 06 (SEM x50, x25) the same edge rounding at different magnifications and angles, a) at ca. 75°, and b) at ca. 70°.

a)

b)

184

Chapter 8

FIG. 8.8:

Use-wear analysis

Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 08 (SEM x50, x1000) the same working edge at various angles taken at x50 magnification (the surface in the lower part of the photos is the ventral surface). No. a) at 90°, No. b) at 85°, No. c) at 80°, No. d) at 75° and No. e) at 70°. The last three images were taken at x1000 in different angles: No. f) at 90°, No. g) at 80° and No. h) at 70°.

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

g)

h)

185

Chapter 8

FIG. 8.9:

Use-wear analysis

Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 09 (SEM x50) a) edge rounding at ca. 90° angle and b) at 70°.

a) FIG. 8.10:

b)

Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 12 (SEM x50) edge rounding at 70° angle.

186

Chapter 8

FIG. 8.11:

Use-wear analysis

Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 16 (SEM x50) a) edge rounding at 80° angle, b) edge rounding at 70° and c) edge fractures along one of the laterals at 70°.

a)

b)

c) FIG. 8.12:

Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 17 (SEM x50) a) edge rounding along the working end at 80° angle and b) usewear remains along one of the laterals at 70°.

(a)

(b)

187

Chapter 8

FIG. 8.13:

Use-wear analysis

Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 20 (SEM x50, taken at 90° angle) a) the right side of the working edge, and b) the left side of the working edge.

a) FIG. 8.14:

b)

Hagdud truncation, ZAD 2: No. 23 (SEM x50) the same position of the working edge at three different angles: a) at 90°, b) at 85°, and c) and 70°.

a)

b)

c)

188

Chapter 8

FIG. 8.15:

Use-wear analysis

Usewear remains along the laterals of the Hagdud truncations, ZAD 2: a) tool No. 1 shows edge rounding at 70°, b) tool No. 16 shows edge fracturing at 75°, and finally c) tool No. 17 shows edge fracturing at 75°.

a) b)

c)

189

Chapter 8

Use-wear analysis

FIG. 8.16:

Cobbles collected from quarries in the vicinity of ZAD 2 and supplied the stone raw material for the experimental study.

FIG. 8.17:

Antler used to form retouch on experimental tools

FIG. 8.18:

Usewear along lateral margins, experimental tool No. 11.

190

Chapter 8

Use-wear analysis

FIG. 8.19:

Experimental study: No. 14 (the upper one) was attached to the haft with resin, No. 12 (the lower one) was attached to the haft without resin.

FIG. 8.20:

Experimental study: sharp flake used as chisel for cutting the wooden branches for hafting

191

Chapter 8

Use-wear analysis

FIG. 8.21:

Experimental study: prepared cobblestone used as hammer for preparing the wooden branches for hafting

FIG. 8.22:

Experimental study: a sharp flake used to prepare the ends of the wooden branches for inserting the experimental tools

192

Chapter 8

Use-wear analysis

FIG. 8.23: Experimental study: the Xanthorrhea resin.

FIG. 8.24: Experimental study: the ingredients of the resin before mixing, the upper left is burnt mollusc powder, the upper right is charcoal powder and the lower one is resin powder.

193

Chapter 8

Use-wear analysis

FIG. 8.25:

Experiment No. 1 was conducted on a dry sheep leg for a period of 120 minutes (7,200 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (sharp point).

(a)

(c)

(b) (d)

194

Chapter 8

Use-wear analysis

FIG. 8.26:

Experiment No. 2 was conducted on a fresh sheep leg for a period of 120 minutes (7,200 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (sharp point).

(a)

(c)

(b)

(d)

195

Chapter 8

Use-wear analysis

FIG. 8.27: Experiment No. 3 was conducted on a fresh branch of olive wood for a period of 30 minutes (1,800 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (pointed ends).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

196

Chapter 8

Use-wear analysis

FIG. 8.28:

Experiment No. 4 was conducted on a fresh pig leg for a period of 70 minutes (4,200 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (pointed end).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

197

Chapter 8

Use-wear analysis

FIG. 8.29: Experiment No. 5 was conducted on a fresh branch of pinewood for a period of 90 minutes (5,400 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (pointed ends).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

198

Chapter 8

Use-wear analysis

FIG. 8.30: Experiment No. 6 was conducted on a fresh branch of cypress wood for a period of 50 minutes (3,000 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (pointed ends).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

199

Chapter 8

Use-wear analysis

FIG. 8.31:

Experiment No. 7 was conducted on a dry branch of olive wood for a period of 135 minutes (8,100 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (incomplete wooden pick).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

200

Chapter 8

Use-wear analysis

FIG. 8.32: Experiment No. 8 was conducted on a branch of fresh oak wood for a period of 45 minutes (2,700 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (pointed ends).

(a)

b)

c)

(d)

201

Chapter 8

Use-wear analysis

FIG. 8.33: Experiment No. 9 was conducted on a fresh sheep leg for a period of 60 minutes (3,600 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (pointed end).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

202

Chapter 8

Use-wear analysis

FIG. 8.34:

Experiment No. 10 was conducted on a fresh sheep rib for a period of 210 minutes (12,600 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (pointed ends).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

203

Chapter 8

Use-wear analysis

FIG. 8.35:

Experiment No. 11 was conducted on a fresh branch of olive wood for a period of 60 minutes (3,600 movements in ca. 45° angle): a) the hafted tool after use, b) the dorsal surface of the tool, c) the ventral surface of the tool, d) the worked material (pointed end).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

204

Chapter 8 FIG. 8.36:

Use-wear analysis Experimental tools, taken from the ventral side at 45° angle (optical images, x10).

Exp. No. 1

Exp. No. 2

Exp. No. 3

Exp. No. 4

Exp. No. 5

Exp. No. 6

Exp. No. 7

Exp. No. 8

Exp. No. 9

Exp. No. 10

Exp. No. 11

205

Chapter 8 FIG. 8.37:

Use-wear analysis Experimental tool (No. 4), usewear remains on laterals (optical images x10).

Dorsal

Ventral

206

Chapter 8

Use-wear analysis

FIG. 8.38:

Experiment No. 1: a) edge rounding along the working edge, 90° angle (SEM x35), b) edge rounding along the working edge, 85° (SEM x37), c) edge rounding along the working edge, 80° (SEM x40), d) edge damage along one of the laterals, 70° (SEM x30), and e) edge damage along the other lateral, 70° (SEM x50).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

207

Chapter 8

Use-wear analysis

FIG. 8.39:

Experiment No. 3 (SEM x50) the same edge rounding at different angles: a) at 85° and b) at 75°.

(a) FIG. 8.40:

(b)

Experiment No. 5: the same edge rounding along the working end at different angles and magnifications: a) at 85° (SEM x50), b) at 70° (SEM x25).

(a)

(b)

208

Chapter 8

Use-wear analysis

FIG. 8.41:

Experiment No. 6: the same working edge at different angles: a) at 85° (SEM x30) and b) at 75° (SEM x50). The micro-fractures along the working edge were formed by use.

(a) FIG. 8.42:

(b)

Experiment No. 8: the same working edge at different angles: a) at 85° (SEM x50), and b) at 70° (SEM x25). The micro-fractures along the working edge were formed by use.

(a)

(b)

209

Chapter 8

Use-wear analysis

FIG. 8.43:

Experiment No. 9 (SEM x50): the same working edge at different angles: a) at 90°, b) at 80°, and c) at 70°. The micro-fractures along the working edge were formed by use.

(a)

(b)

(c)

210

Chapter 8

FIG. 8.44:

Figures

Edge rounding from various sites. a) Netiv Hagdud (after Yerkes et al. 2003: fig 16), b) Middle Woodland site, USA (after Yerkes et al. 2003: fig 6).

a) Unifacial end scraper, well rounded edge (x100)

b) Edge rounding on ventral face of distal edge of small bifacial tool (No. 13) (x100) FIG. 8.45:

Some edge rounding and edge polish on an unidentified tool from Hayonim (x100) after Anderson 1991:fig 7).

211

Chapter 8

FIG. 8.46:

Figures

The Tula flake/adze. a) the actual size before use, b) the remaining slug after use (after Holdaway and Stern 2003 with permission).

a)

b)

212

Chapter 8

FIG. 8.47:

Figures

Australian examples after Kamminga 1982: a) edge rounding and use-polish on a chert flake, x256 (plate 133), b) edge rounding on use-polished flake of quartzite, x16 (plate 131), c) edge rounding and use-polish on a quartzite backed flake, x30 (plate 132), d) shallow step fractures on the underside of a hafted scraper, x14 (plate 113), e) edge rounding, abrasion and intersecting on the underside of an obsidian flake, x27 (plate 72), f) the same tool of “No. e” photographed by using the SEM, x40.

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

213

Chapter 8

Figures

FIG. 8.48:

An experimental example from van Gijn (1989: fig 25: a), edge-rounding from working putrefied flax, x200.

FIG. 8.49:

A complete bone needle, ZAD 2.

214

9.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS Beit Ta’amir sickles are present at ZAD 2 (N = 4) and at Dhra‘ (N = 3), but are not available at WF 16 (for further evidence and for references see Chapter 3).

Relying on the recovered material culture and chronology from the site of ZAD 2, an important part of the Levantine history has been investigated. The early Neolithic periods have been re-examined and modifications to and re-evaluations of traditional approaches have been suggested. This chapter is divided into four parts. Section 9.1 presents a brief functional summary for the PPNA sites in the Dead Sea Basin and other ecological zones. Section 9.2 presents a brief summary of the entire dissertation, followed by section 9.3 which addresses the outcome of this research. The last part of this chapter, section 9.4, proposes some suggestions for future research.

The existence of these three sites with specific individual characteristics and dated more or less, to the same period, give clear evidence for broadly contemporaneous differences between them. Various explanations might be offered here, such as the sites being occupied by different social groups, or each site having different functional emphases, or even subtle chronological changes which we can not yet clearly discern (e.g. Edwards and Higham 2001). It seems also that ZAD 2 is later than Dhra‘ and is also functionally different, a complex scenario to disentangle. The varieties of tool types might suggest also different ideology, or social status, or simply the adoption of a different economy. What might be convenient for one group does not necessarily apply for others. Thus, interand intra-assemblage variability occurs in PPNA assemblages, even among sites which are located in similar environmental conditions.

9.1

The PPNA assemblages in the Dead Sea Basin and other ecological zones Excavations from the sites of Dhra‘, WF 16, and ZAD 2 indicate that PPNA sites were unequivocally distributed much further south in environmentally marginal regions than previously assumed (Kuijt and Mahasneh 1998: 160), out of the ‘early farming corridor’ (e.g. Bar-Yosef and Kislev 1989). The existence of these sites at the juncture between hunter-gatherer and agrarian lifestyles is important, particularly when sites dated to this period are rare in the Southern Levant when compared with Natufian or PPNB sites (e.g. BarYosef and Belfer-Cohn 1989a). Therefore, the Dead Sea Basin is an important area for further archaeological and environmental investigation.

If we compare the Dead Sea Basin PPNA sites to other PPNA assemblages in the Central Jordan Valley, functional differences can also be noticed. Jericho for instance, has a few projectile points (N = 9), a huge number of bifacial tools (N = 194), an unknown number of Beit Ta’amir sickles, an unknown number of Hagdud truncations and no microliths. Netiv Hagdud comprises 14 Beit Ta’amir sickles, 120 projectile points, 63 Hagdud truncations, 151 bifacial tools, and 383 microliths. The large amount of bifacial tools and Beit Ta’amir sickles in these Central Jordan Valley PPNA sites may reflect more dependence on cultivation than those assemblages in the Dead Sea Basin.

The available data from the above-mentioned sites, particularly ZAD 2, have enriched our understanding of early farming and foraging communities in the Southern Levant, and has opened a new phase of archaeological investigations for these marginal regions. The saline soil and the low altitude of ZAD 2 region prevent plants growing and the existence of barely on site is clear evidence for the transition to agriculture in these marginal regions.

If we compare the Jordan Valley PPNA sites to those in the highlands, functional differences are also apparent. The site of Ain Darat for example, has a single Beit Ta’amir sickle, 41 projectile points, 14 Hagdud truncations, ten microliths, and no bifacial tools. Iraq ed-Dubb has 23 projectile points, 46 Hagdud truncations, three bifacial tools, 27 microliths (including lunates), and no Beit Ta’amir sickles. It seems likely thus that the highland sites were more dependant on hunting rather than on cultivation (see also the case of Nachcharini cave in Chapter 3).

Although ZAD 2, Dhra‘ and WF 16 are dated to the PPNA period and located in the same marginal region, their diagnostic PPNA tool types are different. For instance, types such as Hagdud truncations are available in high proportion at ZAD 2, whereas they are very limited at both Dhra‘ and WF 16. Bifacial tools are also available in high proportion at ZAD 2, whereas they are very limited at Dhra‘ and at WF 16. Conversely other tool types such as projectile points are few at ZAD 2, but occur in larger quantities at WF 16, and even larger numbers at Dhra‘. Furthermore, WF 16 contains a large quantity of microliths (N = 85, of these only four are geometric), whereas Dhra‘ has a single lunate and ZAD 2 did not include any lunates. Other diagnostic PPNA tool types such as

The lithic artefacts of the various PPNA sites in the Southern Levant are one of the major components in understanding these early communities and their role in the transition to agriculture. The various ecological zones of the Southern Levant are reflected directly in the functionality of the PPNA assemblages.

215

Chapter 9

Summary and concluding remarks and also bladelets rather than blades. Small pyramidal cores with single platforms were favoured over other types of cores. These technological characteristics strongly suggest that ZAD 2 belongs to the PPNA period.

9.2 Summary of the research As a counterpoint to the previous lack of detailed information in the literature, this research intended to be as precise as possible in its presentations and discussions. In the first chapter, the reader was introduced to the general problems of understanding the Levantine early Neolithic communities, particularly as regards differences between Southern and Northern Levantine terminology, techno/typology and chronology. The lack of regular communication between the francophone Northern Levantine archaeologists and their anglophone Southern Levantine counterparts was also highlighted. The main topic of the research, its aims and significance was also outlined.

The typical diagnostic PPNA tool types, such as Hagdud truncations, bifacial tools (including tranchet axes), projectile points (including a single El Khiam) and Beit Ta’amir sickles were among the 15 different identified tool types at ZAD 2, and were presented in chapter seven. The existence of these major diagnostic tool types indicates that the lithic typology of ZAD 2 is a typically PPNA. Among the diagnostic tool types of ZAD 2, Hagdud truncations were prominent and formed (to date) the highest proportion in any assemblage yet recovered in the Southern Levant. For this reason and due to the lack of similar work, an experimental microwear analysis was conducted, which was discussed in chapter eight. The results of this analysis support the idea that the Hagdud truncation was probably used as an abrading tool to manufacture pointed (cylindrical) objects, most likely of bone.

In chapter two, an historical overview for the Neolithic period of the Southern Levant was presented which also addressed the problematic divisions of the PPNA and the EPPNB periods. Chapter three was dedicated to thoroughly discussing the PPNA sites and explained why the division between the two phases of the PPNA period is based on unreliable data. Consequently, I strongly argued that the PPNA period should be dealt with as one period with inter- and intraassemblage variability, rather than a period with two sequential phases.

9.3 The outcome of the research This dissertation aimed at clarifying two points. The first was the nature of the PPNA in the Southern Levant in regard to chronology, techno/typology and the role of a marginal region in the transition to agriculture. This goal was achieved not only through the analysis of material culture recovered from ZAD 2, but also through the analysis of similar materials from the other known PPNA sites in the Southern Levant. The results of the current investigation indicated that the presence/absence of certain tool types may relate to functional rather than to chronological differences. This research therefore recommended that the PPNA should be dealt with as one period with inter- and intra-assemblage variability.

Chapter four was devoted to highlighting the lack of material culture and chronology supporting an EPPNB phase. Relying on the radiocarbon dates of ZAD 2 (9,635-9,323 uncalibrated years BP, 9,2508,330 calibrated years BC), I suggested that the Southern Levant did not witness a ‘gap’ between late PPNA assemblages and early MPPNB assemblages as was suggested by some scholars, such as Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen (1998: 86), and argued that a direct shift from the PPNA to the MPPNB seem to be the most probable situation for the introduction of PPNB cultures in the Southern Levant.

The second main point of this research was concentrated on understanding the ill-defined EPPNB phase. Due to the lack of clearly defined material culture and well-dated sites this research suggested that it would be better to avoid identifying sites according to poorly described evidence. The apparent single short period of occupation at ZAD 2 makes this site distinctive, and lessened the possibility of artefact mixtures from either earlier or later periods of occupation. ZAD 2 has also provided decisive evidence for an extension of the PPNA in the Southern-Central Levant to at least ca. 9,300 uncalibrated years BP. The earliest dates of the MPPNB at ’Ain Ghazal give a similar indication for ca. 9,200 uncalibrated years BP (e.g. 9,200±110BP GrN-12966 and 9,100±140BP AA-1164, see Kuijt and Bar-Yosef 1994: 235-236). Therefore, there is probably no

The location of ZAD 2 in regard to geomorphology, palaeoenvironment, current environment, subsistence economy, as well as the site’s stratigraphy, material culture and chronology were the main topics in chapter five. The latter chapter also emphasised the importance of the marginal area of the Dead Sea Basin in the transition to agriculture. ZAD 2 is located in an arid environment and the current topography of the site does not reflect that of antiquity, where the site inhabitants occupied a more congenial landscape and probably practiced pre-domestication cultivation. The technology of lithic artefacts recovered in the first two seasons of excavations at ZAD 2 was discussed in chapter six and indicated that the intentions of the knappers were to produce flakes, 216

Chapter 9

Summary and concluding remarks

chronological gap between the PPNA and the MPPNB period in the Southern Levant. 9.4 Future research Although the Neolithic period in the Southern Levant is one of the most important phases of human history, featuring the earliest evidence in the world for the transition from hunting gathering to farming societies, the early phases of this period are poorly defined. For many decades, various researchers from international and local institutions have been involved in providing and clarifying evidence which sheds new light on this significant period. In the course of this research, I have investigated the early Neolithic periods and developed the following suggested objectives for future research. 9.4.1

The EPPNB phase and the site of Abu Hudhud Investigating the still-problematic EPPNB phase is a primary aim for any future research. Only nine potential EPPNB sites are known in the entire Southern Levant, and only five have been excavated. However, as noted extensively in this dissertation, none of the excavated sites have provided a clear chronology or consistent material culture to support the existence of an EPPNB phase. Furthermore, the only excavated putative EPPNB assemblage in Jordan, Jilat 7, has several radiocarbon dates generated but none matches the recovered material culture and therefore were rejected by the excavators (see Garrard et al. 1994a, 1994b). This site thus has ambiguities between stratigraphy, carbon dates and material culture. It was also recently destroyed (Garrard 2003: personal communication). Excavating the site of Abu Hudhud (see Chapter 4, section 4.2.7), the only known potential EPPNB site in Jordan, should prove a crucial test as to whether there really is an EPPNB site in Jordan (and in the Southern Levant). 9.4.2 Reinvestigating Jericho The site of Jericho was investigated many decades ago (see Chapter 3, section 3.3.5) and much of the research has been superseded by current knowledge and practice. Jericho is still considered to be the largest and most complex PPNA site in the Levant and clarifying its nature should be one of the primary aims of any future work. In the late 1990s a joint Italian-Palestinian team reinvestigated the Bronze age layers of the site, but no one has re-investigated the Neolithic layers. The Neolithic remains of Jericho need to be sieved and well understood. The claim for domestic PPNA plants should also be re-evaluated in the light of newer research. Jericho should therefore be classified as a world cultural heritage site due to its importance in understanding the transition to agriculture and early village life.

217

References “Cayönü tools”. In H. G. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent: Proceedings of the First Workshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries, pp. 61-82. ex Oriente: Berlin. Anderson, P., 1999 - Experimental cultivation, harvest, and threshing of wild cereals: their relevance for interpreting the use of EpiPalaeolithic and Neolithic artefacts. In P. Anderson (ed.), Prehistory of Agriculture: New Experimental and Ethnographic Approaches, pp. 118-144. Monograph 40, the Institute of Archaeology, University of California: Los Angeles. Anderson-Gerfaud, P., 1983 - A consideration of the uses of certain backed and lustred stone tools from late Mesolithic and Natufian levels of Abu Hureyra and Mureybet (Syria). In M. C. Cauvin (ed.), Traces D’utilisation: sur les Outils Neolithicques du Proche Orient, pp. 77-105. GIS-Maison du l’Oreint. Arkin, Y., 1985 - Deformation of laminated sediments of the Dead Sea. Geological Survey of Israel: Current Research 5: 57-61. Aurenche, O., 1998 - Villages d’été, villages d’hiver: un modéle peu connu d’occupation de l’espace dans la vallée de l’Euphrate (20ème siècle après J. -C.). In M. Fortin and O. Aurenche (eds.), Natural Space, Inhabited Space in Northern Syria (10th-2nd millennium BC), pp. 35-42. Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies Bulletin 33: Québec. Aurenche, O. P. Galet, E. Régagnon-Caroline and J. Évin, 2001 - Proto-Neolithic and Neolithic cultures in the Middle East - the birth of agriculture, livestock raising and ceramics: a calibrated 14C chronology 12,500-5,500 cal. BC. In H. Bruins, I. Carmi and E. Boaretto (eds.), Near East Chronology: Archaeology and Environment. Radiocarbon 43/3: 1191-1202. Proceedings of the 17th International 14C conference. Aurenche, O. and S. K. Kozlowski, 1999 - La naissance du Néolithique au proche orient. Editions Errance: Paris. Baird, D., 1994 - Chipped stone production technology from the Azraq project Eolithic sites. In H. G. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski (eds.), A Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, pp. 525-541. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 1. ex Oriente: Berlin. Baird, D., 1995 - Chipped stone raw material procurement and selection in the Neolithic Azraq Basin: implications for Levantine Neolithic cultural developments. In Studies

Abbès, F., 1994 - Techniques de débitage et gestion de silex sur le Moyen-Euphrate (Syrie) an PPNA final et au PPNB ancien. In H. G. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, pp. 299-312. Proceedings of the First Workshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries. ex Oriente: Berlin. Abbès, F. and G. Déraprahamian, 2001 - Pression et percussion. identification des stigmates sur des nucléus naviformes. In L. Bourguignon, I. Ortega and M. -C. Freré Sautot (eds.), Préhistoire et Approche Expérimentale, pp. 203-212. Monique Mergoil: Montagnac. Abed, A., 1985 - Palaeoclimates of the Upper Pleistocene in the Jordan Rift. In A. Hadidi (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, pp. 81-93. Vol. II. Department of Antiquities: Amman. Akoshima, K., 1987 - Micro-flaking quantification. In G. Sieveking and M. Newcomer (eds.), The Human Uses of Flint and Chert, pp. 7179. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Anderson, P., 1980a - A microwear analysis of selected flint artefacts from the Mousterian of SW France. Lithic Technology 9/2: 32-33. Anderson, P., 1980b - A testimony of prehistoric tasks: diagnostic residues on stone tool working edges. World Archaeology 12/2: 181-194. Anderson, P., 1982 - A few comments concerning residue analysis of stone plant-processing tools. In D. Cahen (ed.), Tailler pour quoi faire: préhistoire et technologie lithique II: Recent progress in microwear studies, pp. 69-81. Studia praehistorica Belgica 2. Musée royal de l’Afrique Central: Tervuren. Anderson, P., 1983 - A consideration of the uses of certain backed and “lustred” stone tools from late Mesolithic and Natufian levels of Abu Hureyra and Mureybet (Syria). Traces d’utilisation sur les outlils Néolithiques du proche orient, pp. 77-105. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 5. Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen: Lyon. Anderson, P., 1991 - Harvesting of wild cereals during the Natufian as seen from experimental cultivation and harvest of wild einkorn wheat and microwear analysis of stone tools. In O. Bar-Yosef and F. Valla (eds), The Natufian Culture in the Levant, pp. 521-556. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 1: Ann Arbor. Anderson, P., 1994 - Reflections on the significance of two PPN typological classes in light of experimental and microwear analysis: flint ‘sickles” and obsidian

218

ZAD 2

References Vorderen Orients, pp. 217-235. Contribution to the environmental history of Southwest Asia: Wiesbaden. Bar-Yosef, O., 1982 - Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites in Southern Sinai. Biblical Archaeologist 45/1: 9-12. Bar-Yosef, O., 1984a - Near East. In Forschungen zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Archäologie, pp. 233-298. Band 4, Neue Forschungen zur Altsteinzeit: Sonderdruck. Bar-Yosef, O., 1984b - Seasonality among Neolithic hunter-gatherers in Southern Sinai, pp. 145-159. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 202: Oxford. Bar-Yosef, O., 1985 - The Stone Age of the Sinai Peninsula. Estratto da Studi di Paletnologia in onore di Salvatore M. Puglisi, pp. 107122, Universita di Roma: La Sapienza. Bar-Yosef, O., 1987 - Direct and indirect evidence for hafting in the Epi-Paleolithic and Neolithic of the Southern Levant. La Main et l’Outil: Manches et Emmanchements Préhistoriques, pp. 155-164. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 15: Lyon. Bar-Yosef, O., 1989 - PPNA in the Levant - an overview. Paléorient 15/1: 57-63. Bar-Yosef, O., 1991 - The early Neolithic of the Levant: Recent advances. The Review of Archaeology 12/2: 1-18. Bar-Yosef, O., 1992 - The Neolithic period. In A. Ben Tor (ed.), Ancient Israel, pp. 10-39. Yale University Press: London. Bar-Yosef, O., 1994 - Form, function and numbers in Neolithic lithic studies. In, H. G. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski (eds.), A Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, pp. 5-14. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 1. ex Oriente: Berlin. Bar-Yosef, O., 1995 - Earliest food producers - Pre Pottery Neolithic (8000-5500). In T. Levy (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy land, pp. 190-204. Leicester University Press: London. Bar-Yosef, O., 1996 - Late Pleistocene lithic traditions in the Near East and their expressions in Early Neolithic assemblages. In S. K. Kozlowski and H. G. Gebel (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions, pp. 207-216. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 3. ex Oriente: Berlin. Bar-Yosef, O., 1998a - Introduction: some comments on the history of research. The Review of Archaeology 19/2: 1-5. Bar-Yosef, O., 1998b - Agricultural origins: caught between hypotheses and a lack of hard evidence. The Review of Archaeology 19/2: 58-64. Bar-Yosef, O., 1998c - Jordan Prehistory: a view from the West. In D. Henry (ed.), The Prehistoric Archaeology of Jordan, pp. 162-

in the History and Archaeology of Jordan V: 505-514. Department of Antiquities: Amman. Baird, D., 1997 - Goals in Jordanian Neolithic research. In H. G. Gebel, Z. Kafafi and G. O. Rollefson (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan II, Perspectives From the 1997, pp. 371-381. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 4. ex Oriente: Berlin. Banning, E., 1998a - The Neolithic period. Near Eastern Archaeology 61/4: 188-237. Banning, E., 1998b - Milestones in Jordan’s Prehistory. ACOR Newsletter 10/2: 1-3. Barberi, F., G. Capaldi, P. Gasperini, G. Marinelli, R. Santacroce, R. Scandone, M. Treuil, and J. Varet, 1980 - Recent basaltic vulcanism of Jordan and its implications on the geodynamic history of the Dead Sea shear zone. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei international meeting 47, pp. 667-683. Accademia Nazionale del Lincei: Rome. Barkai, R., 1999 - Re-sharpening and recycling of flint bifacial tools from the Southern Levant Neolithic and Chalcolithic. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65: 303-318. Barkai, R. and A. Gopher, 2001 - Flint quarries in the Southern Levantine Holocene: a routine procedure? New evidence from the Upper Galilee, Israel. In I. Caneve, C. Lemorini, D. Zampetti, and P. Biagi (eds.), Beyond Tools, pp. 17-25. Senepse 9. ex Oriente: Berlin. Baruch, U. and S. Bottema, 1991 - Palynological evidence for climatic changes in the Levant ca. 17,000-9,000 BP. In O. Bar-Yosef and F. Valla (eds.), The Natufian Culture in the Levant, pp. 11-20. International Monographs in Prehistory. Archaeological Series 1: Ann Arbor. Baruch, U. and S. Bottema, 1999 - A new pollen diagram from Lake Hula: vegetational, climatic and anthropogenic implications. In, H. Kawanabe, G. Coulter and A. Roosevelt (eds.), Ancient Lakes: Their Cultural and Biological Diversity, pp. 75-86. Kenobi Productions: Belgium. Bar-Yosef, O., 1970 - The Epi-Palaeolithic cultures of Palestine. Un-published PhD Thesis. Hebrew University: Jerusalem. Bar-Yosef, O., 1976 - Early Nomads in Southern Sinai. National Geographic Society: Research Reports: 147-159. Bar-Yosef, O., 1980 - A human figurine from a Khiamian site in the Lower Jordan Valley. Paléorient 6: 193-199. Bar-Yosef, O., 1981a - The Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period in the Southern Levant. In J. Cauvin and P. Sanlaville (eds.), Préhistoire du Levant, pp. 555-569. Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen: Paris. Bar-Yosef, O., 1981b - Neolithic sites in Sinai. In W. Frey and H. P. Uerpmann (eds.), Beiträge zur Umweltgeschichte des 219

ZAD 2

References American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 43. Harvard University: Cambridge. Bar Yosef, O., A. Gopher and N. Goring-Morris, 1980 - Netiv Hagdud: A Sultanian mound in the lower Jordan Valley. Paléorient 6: 201206. Bar-Yosef, O., A. Gopher and D. Nadel, 1987 The Hagdud Truncation - a new type from the Sultanian industry at Netiv Hagdud, the Jordan Valley. (Mitekufat Haeven) Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 20: 151157. Bar-Yosef, O., A. Gopher, E. Tchernov and M. Kislev, 1991 - Netiv Hagdud: an early Neolithic village site in the Jordan Valley. Journal of Field Archaeology 18: 405-424. Bar-Yosef, O. and M. Kislev, 1989 - Early farming communities in the Jordan Valley. In D. Harris and G. Hillman (eds.), Foraging and Farming, pp. 633-642. Unwin Hymn: London. Bar-Yosef, O. and A. Mazar, 1982 - Israeli Archaeology. World Archaeology 13/3: 310325. Bar-Yosef, O. and R. Meadow, 1995 - The origins of agriculture in the Near East. In D. Price and B. Gebauer (eds.), Last Hunters-First Farmers, pp. 39-94. School of American Research Press: New Mexico. Baruch, U. and S. Bottema, 1991 - Palynological evidence for climatic changes in the Levant ca. 17,000-9,000 BP. In O. Bar-Yosef and F. Valla (eds.), The Natufian Culture in the Levant, pp. 11-20. International Monographs in Prehistory. Archaeological Series1: Ann Arbor. Baruch, U. and Bottema, S. 1999 - A new pollen diagram from lake Hula: vegetational, climatic and anthropogenic implications. In H. Kawanabe, G. Coulter, and A. C. Roosevelt (eds.), Ancient Lakes: Their Cultural and Biological Diversity, pp. 7586. Kenobi Productions: Belgium. Begin, Z., A. Ehrlich and Y. Nathan, 1974 - Lake Lisan, the Pleistocene precursor of the Dead Sea. Geological Survey of Israel Bulletin 63: 1-30. Belfer-Cohen, A., 1990 - The origins of sedentism and agricultural communities in the Levant. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 23: 176-178. Belfer-Cohen, A., 1994 - The lithic continuity in the Jordan Valley: Natufian into the PPNA. In H. G. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, pp. 91-100. Studies in early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 1. ex Oriente: Berlin. Belfer-Cohen, A and N. Goring-Morris, 1996 - The late Epi-Palaeolithic as the precursor of the Neolithic: the lithic evidence. In S. K. Kozlowski and H. G. Gebel (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile

178. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 705: Oxford. Bar-Yosef, O., 2000 - The impact of radiocarbon dating on old world archaeology: past achievements and future expectations. Radiocarbon 42: 23-39. Bar-Yosef, O., 2002a - The role of the Younger Dryas in the origin of agriculture in West Asia. In Y. Yoshinori (ed.), The Origins of Pottery and Agriculture, pp. 39-54. Yangtze River Civilization Programme, Lustre Press, Roli Books: New Delhi. Bar-Yosef, O., 2002b - The context of animal domestication in South-Western Asia. In M. Mashkour, A. Choyke, H. Buitenhuis and F. Poplin (eds.), Archaeo-zoology of the Near East IV A: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas, pp. 185-195. ARC-Publicatie 32: Groningen. Bar-Yosef, O. and A. Belfer-Cohen, 1989a - The origins of sedentism and farming communities in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 3/4: 447-498. Bar-Yosef, O. and A. Belfer-Cohen, 1989b - The Levantine “PPNB” interaction sphere. In I. Hershkovitz (ed.), People and Culture in Change: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic Populations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, pp. 59-72. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 508 (I): Oxford. Bar-Yosef, O. and A. Belfer-Cohen, 1991 - From sedentary hunter-gatherers to territorial farmers in the Levant. in S. Gregg (ed.), Between Bands and States, pp. 181-202. Centre for archaeological investigations, occasional paper No. 9. Board of trustees. Southern Illinois University. Bar-Yosef, O. and A. Belfer-Cohen, 1994 - Form, function and numbers in Neolithic lithic studies. In H. G. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent: Proceedings of the First Workshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries, pp. 5-14. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 1. ex Oriente: Berlin. Bar-Yosef, O. and A. Gopher, 1997a - An early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley, pp. V-X and 247-261. Part I. The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 43. Harvard University: Cambridge. Bar-Yosef, O. and A. Gopher, 1997b - The excavations of Netiv Hagdud: stratigraphy and architectural remains. In O. Bar-Yosef and A. Gopher (eds.), An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley, pp. 41-69. Part I. The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud.

220

ZAD 2

References Mallaha. Traces d’utilisation sur les outlils Néolithiques du proche orient. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 5: 107-125. Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen: Lyon. Burian, F. and E. Friedmann, 1965 - Prehistoric survey of the Dunes of the Mediterranean Coastline of Israel (Mitekufat heaven) The Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 6-7: 1-39 (in Hebrew). Burian, F. E. Friedmann and E. Mintz, 1976 - An Early PPNB site in the Nahal Lavan region Site No. 109. (Mitekufat heaven) The Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 14: 50-60. Burleigh, R., 1981 - Radiocarbon dates. In K. Kenyon and T. Holland (eds.), Excavation at Jericho, Vol. III text, pp. 501-504. British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem: London. Burleigh, R., 1983 - Additional radiocarbon dates for Jericho. In K. Kenyon and T. Holland (eds.), Excavation at Jericho, Vol. V, pp. 760-765. British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem: London. Buzy, D., 1928 - Une industrie Mésolithique en Paléstine (Ouâdy Tahouneh). Revue Biblique 37: 558-578. Byrd, B., 1994 - From early humans to farmers and herders-recent progress on key transitions in Southwest Asia. Journal of Archaeological Research 2/3: 221-253. Cahen, D., 1982 - Tailler! Pour quoi faire: Préhistoire et technologie lithique II (recent progress in microwear studies). Studia praehistorica Belgica 2. Koninklijk Museum voor Midden-Afrika, Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale: Tervuren. Calley, S., 1986 - Technologie du debitage á Mureybet, Syrie 9e-8e millenaire. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 312 (i-ii): Oxford. Carmi, I. and D. Segal, 1992 - Rehovot Radiocarbon measurements IV. Radiocarbon 34: 115-132. Cauvin, J., 1968 - Les outillages néolithiques de Byblos et du littoral Libanais. Universite de Paris: Beyrouth. Cauvin, J., 1979 - Les fouilles de Mureybet (19711974) et leur signification pour les origins de la sédentarisation au proche-orient. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 44: 19-48. Cauvin, J., 1980 - ‘Mureybet et Cheikh Hassan’.In J. Margueron (ed.), Le Moyen Euphrate, Zone de Contacts et d’échanges, pp. 21-34. Université des Science Humanies: Strasbourg. Cauvin, J., 1987a - Chronologie relative et absolue dans le Néolithque du Levant nord et d’Anatolie entre 10,000 et 8,000 BP. In O. Aurenche, J. Evin and F. Hours (eds.), Chronologies in the Near East: Relative Chronologies and Absolute Chronology

Crescent and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions, pp. 217-225. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 3. ex Oriente: Berlin. Brezillon, M., 1977 - La denomination des objects de pierre taillee: materiaux pour un vocabulaire des prehistoriens de langue francaise. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique: Paris. Bender, F., 1974 - Geology of Jordan. Gebrüder Borntraeger: Berlin. Bennett, C., 1980 - Soundings at Dhra’, Jordan. Levant XII: 30-39. Binford, L., 1983 - In Pursuit of the Past. Thames and Hudson: London. Binford, L., 1989 - Debating in Archaeology. Academic Press Inc: New York. Bordaz, J., 1989 - Tools of the Old and New Stone Age. Dover publication: New York. Bordes, F., 1965 - Utilisation possible des cotes des burins. Fundberichte aus schwaben, noue folge 17: 3-4. Bordes, F. and D. Crabtree, 1969 - The Corbiac blade technique and other experiments. Tebiwa 12/2: 1-21. Bottema, S., 1987 - Chronology and climatic phases in the Near East from 16,000 to 10,000 BP. In O. Aurenche, J. Evin and F. Hours (eds.), Chronologies in the Near East: Relative Chronologies and Absolute Chronology 16,000-4,000 BP, pp. 295-310. British Archaeological Reports International Series 379 (i): Oxford. Bottema, S. and W. van Zeist, 1981 - Palynological evidence for the climatic history of the Near East, 50,000-6,000 BP. In J. Cauvin and P. Sanlaville (eds.) Préhistoire du Levant, pp. 111-132. Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen: Lyon. Bowman, D., 1997 - Geomorphology of the Dead Sea western margin. In T. Niemi, Z. BenAvraham and J. Gat (eds.), The Dead Sea: The Lake and its Setting, pp. 217-255. Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics No. 36. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Brose, D., 1975 - Functional analysis of stone tools: a cautionary note on the role of animal fats. American Antiquity 40/1: 86-94. Buchbinder, B., Z. Begen and G. Friedman, 1974 Pleistocene Algal Tufa of Lake Lisan, Dead Sea area. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 23: 131-138. Bueller, J., 1989 - A microwear analysis of sampled borers from Netiv Hagdud, a PPNA settlement in the Jordan Valley. In O. Haex, H. Curvers and P. Akkermans (eds.), To the Euphrates and Beyond: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Maurits N. van Loon. A. A. Balkema: Rotterdam. Büller, H., 1983 - Methodological problems in the microwear analysis of tools selected from the Natufian sites of El Wad and Aïn 221

ZAD 2

References Fertile Crescent, pp. 15-22. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 1. ex Oriente: Berlin. Cauvin, M. -C., 1995 - L’industrie lithique de Tell Aswad. In H. de Contenson (ed.), Aswad et Ghoraifé: sites néolithiques en Damascène (Syrie), Aux IXème et VIIIème millénaires avant l’ére chrétienne, pp. 83-121. Institut Français d’archéologie, du Proche-Orient: Beyrouth. Cauvin, M. -C., 1998 - L’obsidienne: données récentes provenant de sites - habitats Néolithique. In M.-C. Cauvin, A. Gourgaud, B. Gratuze, N. Arnaud, G. Poupeau, J. -L. Poidevin and C. Chataigner (eds.), L’obsidienne au proche et moyen orient: du volcan à l’outil, pp. 259-271 . British Archaeological Reports, International Series 738: Oxford. Cauvin, M.-C. and C. Chataigner, 1998 Distribution de l’obsidienne dans les sites archéologiques du proche et moyen orient. In M.-C. Cauvin, A. Gourgaud, B. Gratuze, N. Arnaud, G. Poupeau, J. -L. Poidevin and C. Chataigner (eds.), L’obsidienne au proche et moyen orient: du volcan à l’outil, pp. 325-350 . British Archaeological Reports, International Series 738: Oxford. Cauvin, M.-C., A. Gourgaud, B. Gratuze, N. Arnaud, G. Poupeau, J.-L. Poidevin and C. Chataigner, 1998 - L’obsidienne au proche et moyen orient: du volcan à l’outil. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 738: Oxford. Childe, G., 1971 - The Neolithic revolution. In S. Struever (ed.), Prehistoric Agriculture, pp. 15-21. American Museum source books in Anthropology: New York. Clark, G. A., 1991 - Perspectives on the Past: Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean HunterGatherer Research. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia. Colledge, S., 2001 - Plant Exploitation on EpiPalaeolithic and early Neolithic Sites in the Levant. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 986: Oxford. Collins, M., 1975 - Lithic technology as a means of processual inference. In E. Swanson (ed.), Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, pp. 15-34. Mouton Publishers: The Hague. Contenson de, H., 1989 - L’Aswadien, un nouveau faciés du Néolithique Syrien. Paléorient 15: 259-262. Contenson de, H., 1995 - Aswad et Ghoraifé: sites néolithiques en Damascène (Syrie), Aux IXème et VIIIème millénaires avant l’ére chrétienne. Institut Français d’archéologie, du Proche-Orient: Beyrouth. Contenson de, H., M. -C. Cauvin, W. van Zeist, J. Bakker-Heeres and A. Leroi-Gourhan, 1979 - Tell Aswad (Damascene). Paléorient 5: 153-176.

16,000-4,000 BP, pp. 325-342. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 379 (i): Oxford. Cauvin, J., 1987b - Chronologies relatives et chronologie absolue au proche orient de 10,000 a 8,000 BP: synthése. In O. Aurenche, J. Evin and F. Hours (eds.), Chronologies in the Near East: Relative Chronologies and Absolute Chronology 16,000-4,000 BP, pp. 395-398. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 379 (i): Oxford. Cauvin, J., 1989 - La Néolithisation au Levant et sa première diffusion. In: O. Aurenche and J. Cauvin (eds.), Néolithisation: proche et moyen orient, Méditerranée orientale, nord de l’Afrique, Europe méridionale, Chine, Amérique du Sud, pp 3-36. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 516: Oxford. Cauvin, J., 1998 - La signification symbolique de l’obsidienne. In M.-C. Cauvin, A. Gourgaud, B. Gratuze, N. Arnaud, G. Poupeau, J. -L. Poidevin and C. Chataigner (eds.), L’obsidienne au proche et moyen orient: du volcan à l’outil, pp. 379-382 . British Archaeological Reports, International Series 738: Oxford. Cauvin, J., 2000a - The symbolic foundations of the Neolithic revolution in the Near East. In I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic farming communities: social organization, identity, and differentiation, pp. 235-251. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publisher: New York. Cauvin, J., 2002 - The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Cauvin, M. -C., 1974a - Outillage lithique et chronologie à Tell Aswad (DamascéneSyrie). Paléorient 2/2: 429-36. Cauvin, M. -C., 1974b - Étude comparative d’après l’outillage lithique (Tell Aswad). Paléorient 5/1: 157-160. Cauvin, M. -C., 1974c - Fléches à encoches de Syrie: essai de classification et d‘interpretation culturelle. Paléorient 2/2: 311-322. Cauvin, M. -C., 1974d - Note preliminaire sur l’outillage lithique de la phase IV de Tell Mureybet (Syrie). Annales Archeologiques Arabes Syriennes 23: 59-63. Cauvin, M. -C., 1978 - L’outillage lithique. In M. C. Cauvin and D. Stordeur (eds.), Les outillages lithiques et ossuex de Mureybet, Syrie (Fouilles van Loon 1965). Cahiers de l’Euphrate, pp. 3-79. No. 1. CNRS: Paris. Cauvin, M. -C., 1983 - Les faucilles préhistoriques du proche-orient donnes morphologiques et fonctionnelles. Paléorient 9/1: 63-79. Cauvin, M. -C., 1994 - La ciculation de l’obsidienne au proche-orient Néolithique. In H. G. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski (eds.), A Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the 222

ZAD 2

References pp. 24-39. Leicester University Press: London. Dansgaard, W., J. White and S. Johnsen, 1989 The abrupt termination of the Younger Dryas climate event. Nature 339: 532-534. Debney. T., 1996 - Form and Function: Assemblage Variability and Usewear Analysis of a Flaked Stone Assemblage from Marki Alonia, Cyprus. Unpublished honours thesis, La Trobe University: Melbourne. Diamond, G., 1979 - The nature of so-called polished surfaces on stone artefacts. In B. Hayden (ed.), Lithic Usewear Analysis, pp. 159-177. Academic Press INC.: Sydney. Dixon, J. E., J. Cann and C. Renfrew, 1968 Obsidian and the origins of trade. Scientific American 218/3: 38-46. Donahue, J., 1985 - Hydrologic and topographic change during and after Early Bronze occupation at Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira. In A. Hadidi (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, pp. 131-140. Vol. II. Department of Antiquities: Amman. Ducos, P., 1997 - A re-evaluation of the fauna from the Neolithic levels of el-Khiam. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 27: 75-81. Dumont, J., 1982 - The quantification of microwear traces: a new use for interferometry. World Archaeology 14/2: 206-217. Echegaray, J. G. 1964 - Excavaciones en la Terraza de El-Khiam (Jordania). Vol. I. Biblioteca Prehistórica Hispana. Vol V. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas: Madrid. Echegaray, J. G., 1966 - Excavaciones en la Terraza de El-Khiam (Jordania). Vol. II. Biblioteca Prehistórica Hispana. Vol V. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas: Madrid. Edmonds, M., 2001 - Lithic exploitation and use. In D. Brothwell and A. Pollard (eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Sciences. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.: New York. Edwards, P. C., 1987 - Late Pleistocene Occupation in Wadi al-Hammeh, Jordan Valley. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Sydney: Australia. Edwards, P. C., 1989 - Problems of recognizing earliest sedentism: the Natufian example. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 2/1: 5-48. Edwards, P. C., 1991 - Wadi Hammeh 27: an early Natufian site at Pella, Jordan. In O. BarYosef and F. Valla (eds.), The Natufian Culture in the Levant, pp. 123-148. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 1: Ann Arbor. Edwards, P. C., 1995 - The formation of large sites and their interpretation: evidence from the Pleistocene archaeological record of the east Jordan Valley. Artefacts 18: 60-63.

Cook, J. and J. Dumont, 1987 - The development and application of microwear analysis since 1964. In G. Sieveking and M. Newcomer (eds.), The Human Uses of Flint and Chert, pp. 53-61. Proceedings of the Fourth international flint symposium held at Brighton Polytechnic 10-15 April 1983. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Copeland, L., 1991 - Natufian sites in Lebanon. In O. Bar-Yosef and F. Valla (eds.), The Natufian culture in the Levant, pp. 27-42. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 1: Ann Arbor. Copeland, L. and C. Vita-Finzi, 1978 Archaeological dating of geological deposits in Jordan. Levant 10: 10-25. Coqueugniot, E., 1994 - L’industrie lithique de Dja’ade al-Mughara et le début du P.P.N.B. sur l’Euphrate Syrien (Sondages 1991 et 1992). In H. G. Gebel and S. L. Koslowski (ed.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, pp. 313-330. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 1. ex Oriente: Berlin. Coqueugniot, E., 1998 - Djade el Mughara (moyen-Euphrate), un village Néolithique dans son environment natural à la veille de la domestication. Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies BCSMS 33: 109-114. Coudart, A., 1998 - Pourquoi n’y a-t-il pas d’archéologie “postprocessuelle” en France ? Les nouvelles de l’archéologie 72: 41-45. Coudart, A., 1999 - Is post-processualism bound to happen everywhere? The French case. Antiquity 73/279: 161-168. Crabtree, D. E., 1972 - An Introduction to Flint Working. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum, No. 28. Pocatello: Idaho. Crew, H., 1976 - The Mousterian site of Rosh Ein Mor. In A. Marks (ed.), Prehistory and Palaeoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, pp. 75-112. Vol. 1. Institute for the Study of Earth and Man. SMU Press: Dallas. Crowfoot, J., 1935 - Notes on the flint implements of Jericho, 1935. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 22: 174-184. Crowfoot, J., 1937 - Notes on the flint implements of Jericho, 1936. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 24: 35-51. Crowfoot Payne, J., 1976 - The terminology of the aceramic Neolithic period in the Levant. In F. Wendorf (ed.), Terminology of Prehistory of the Near East, pp. 131-137. Southern Methodist University: Dallas. Crowfoot Payne, J., 1983 - The flint industries of Jericho. In K. Kenyon and T. Holland (eds.), Excavations at Jericho, pp. 622-757. Vol. 5. The British School of Archaeology Jerusalem: London. Danin, A., 1998 - Man and the natural environment. In T. Levy (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, 223

ZAD 2

References

Edwards, P. C., P. Macumber and M. Green, Edwards, P. C., 1999 - Archaeology and 1998 - Investigations into the early environment of the Dead Sea plain. Near prehistory of the east Jordan Valley: Eastern Archaeology Foundation Bulletin results of the 1993 / 1994 La Trobe 34: 1-4. University survey and excavation season. Edwards, P. C., 2000 - Archaeology and Annual of the Department of Antiquities of environment of the Dead Sea Plain: Jordan 42: 15-40. excavations at the PPNA site of ZAD 2. Edwards, P. C. and J. Meadows, 1999 - Report to ACOR Newsletter 12/2: 7-9. the Department of Antiquities of Jordan on Edwards, P. C., 2001 - Nine Millennia by lake the 1999 La Trobe University excavation Lisan: the Epi-Palaeolithic in the east Jordan season at the site of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 2. Valley between 20,000 and 11,000 years Unpublished paper: Amman. ago. Studies in the History and Archaeology Edwards, P. C., J. Meadows, M. Metzger and G. of Jordan VII, pp. 85-93. Department of Sayej, 2002b - Results from the first season Antiquities: Amman. at Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 2: a new Pre-Pottery Edwards, P. C., S. Bourke, S. Colledge, J. Head Neolithic A site on the Dead Sea Plain in and P. Macumber, 1988 - Late Pleistocene Jordan. Neo-Lithics 1/2: 11-16. prehistory in the Wadi al-Hammeh, Jordan Edwards, P. C., J. Meadows, M. Metzger and G. Valley. In A. Garrard and H. G. Gebel Sayej, 2002c - Zahrat adh-Dhra’ 2: a Pre(eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan: the State of Pottery Neolithic A site on the Dead Sea Research in 1986, pp. 525-564. Part II. plain in Jordan. Bulletin of the American British Archaeological Reports, Schools of Oriental Research 327: 1-15. International Series 396 (ii): Oxford. Edwards, P. C. and G. Sayej, 2002 - Was the Edwards, P. C., Day, J. Meadows, G. Sayej, R. Hagdud Truncation a hafted micro-adze? Brodie, M. Chamberlain, R. Frank, A. alNeo-Lithics 1/2: 8-11. Khayyat, Z. Stanin and M. Westaway, El-Eisawi, D., 1985 - Vegetation in Jordan. In A. 2001a - Report to the Department of Hadidi (ed.), Studies in the History and Antiquities of Jordan on the 2001 La Trobe Archaeology of Jordan, pp. 45-57. Vol. II. University excavation season at the site of Department of Antiquities: Amman. Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 2 (Permit 3/ 2001). El-Eisawi, D., 1996 - Vegetation of Jordan. Unpublished report: Amman. UNESCO: Cairo. Edwards, P.C. and W. Edwards, 1990 - HeatEnoch-Shiloh, D. and O. Bar-Yosef, 1997 treatment of Chert in the Natufian period. Salibiya IX. In O. Bar-Yosef and A. Gopher Mediterranean Archaeology 3: 1-5. (eds.), An early Neolithic village in the Edwards, P.C., S. Falconer, P. Fall, I. Berelov, C. Jordan Valley, pp. 13-40. Part I. The Davies, J. Meadows, C. Meegan, M. archaeology of Netiv Hagdud American Metzger and G. Sayej, 2001b - Archaeology School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 43. and environment of the Dead Sea plain: Harvard University: Cambridge. preliminary results of the first season of Falconer, S., P. Fall and P. Edwards, 2001 - Zahrat investigations by the joint La Trobe adh-Dhra’. In S. Savage, K. Zamora and D. University / Arizona State University Keller (eds.), Archaeology in Jordan, pp. Project. Annual of the Department of 441-443, American Journal of Archaeology Antiquities of Jordan 45: 135-157. 105: 427-461. Edwards, P.C., S. Falconer, P. Fall, I. Berelov, J. Finlayson, B., S. Mithen, A. Pirie, R. Tipping D. Czarzasty, C. Day, J. Meadows, C. Meegan, Carruthers and R. Ceron-Carrasco, 1997 G. Sayej, T. Swoveland and M. Westaway, The Dana-Faynan-Ghuwayr Early 2002a - Archaeology and Environment of Prehistory Project. First in-term report. Unthe Dead Sea Plain: preliminary results of published paper. The University of Reading: the second season of investigations by the Reading. joint La Trobe University / Arizona State Finlayson, B., S. Mithen, D. Carruthers, A. University Project. Annual of the Kennedy, A. Pirie, P. and R. Tipping, 1998 Department of Antiquities of Jordan 46: 51The Dana-Faynan-Ghuwayr Early 92. Prehistory Project. Second in-term report. Edwards, P. C. and T. Higham, 2001 - Zahrat adhUn-published paper. The University of Dhra‘ 2 and the Dead Sea Plain at the dawn of Reading: Reading. the Holocene. In A. Walmsley (ed.) Australians Uncovering Ancient Jordan: Fifty Years of Finlayson, B., S. Mithen, R. Tipping, A. Pirie, D. Carruthers, A. Kennedy, P. Austin and C. Middle Eastern Archaeology, pp. 139-152. The Roberts, 1999 - The Dana-Faynan-Ghuwayr Research Institute for Humanities and Social Early Prehistory Project. Third in-term Sciences, University of Sydney: Sydney. report. Un-published paper. The University Edwards, P. C., P. Macumber and M. John Head, of Reading: Reading. 1996 - The early Epi-Palaeolithic of Wadi Finlayson, B., S. Mithen, D. Carruthers, A. al-Hammeh. Levant XXVII: 115-130. Kennedy, A. Pirie and R. Tipping, 2000 224

ZAD 2

References Garrard, A., D. Baird, S. Colledge, L. Martin and K. Wright, 1994a - Prehistoric environment and settlement in the Azraq basin: an interim report on the 1987 and 1988 excavation seasons. Levant XXVI: 73-109. Garrard, A., D. Baird and B. Byrd, 1994b - The chronological basis significance of the late Palaeolithic and Neolithic sequence in the Azraq basin, Jordan. In O. Bar-Yosef and R. Fra (eds.), Late Quaternary Chronology and Palaeoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean, pp. 177-199. Radiocarbon. The University of Arizona: Tucson. Garrard, A., A. Betts, B. Byrd and C. Hunt, 1987 Prehistoric environment and settlement in the Azraq basin: an interim report on the 1985 excavation season. Levant XIX: 5-25. Garrard, A., A. Betts, B. Byrd, C. Hunt, S. Colledge, L. Copeland, R. Montague and B. West, 1988a Summary of palaeoenvironmental and prehistoric investigations in the Azraq basin. In A. Garrard and H. G. Gebel (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan: the State of Research in 1986, pp. 311-336. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 396 (ii): Oxford. Garrard, A., S. Colledge, C. Hunt, and R. Montague, 1988b - Environment and subsistence during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene in the Azraq basin. Paléorient 14/2: 40-49. Garrard, A., N. Stanley Price and L. Copeland, 1975/7 - A survey of prehistoric sites in the Azraq basin, eastern Jordan. Paléorient 3: 109-126. Garstang, J., 1935 - Jericho: City and Necropolis (Fifth report). Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 22: 143-184. Garstang, J. and J. Garstang, 1948 - The story of Jericho. Marshall, Morgan and Scott, LTD: London. Gebel, H. G., 1987 - Relative and absolute chronologies of the Southern Levant between 10,000 and 8,000 BP. In O. Aurenche, J. Evin and F. Hours (eds.), Chronologies in the Near East: Relative Chronologies and Absolute Chronology 16,000-4,000 BP, pp. 343-351. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 379 (i): Oxford. Gebel, H. G., 1988 - Late Epi-PalaeolithicAceramic Neolithic sites in the Petra area. In A. Garrard and H. G. Gebel (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan: the State of Research in 1986, pp. 67-100. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 396 (i): Oxford. Gebel, H. G., 2002 - The Neolithic of the Near East: an essay on a “Polycentric Evolution” and other current research problems. In A. Hausleiter, S. Kerner and B. Muller-Neuhof (eds.), Material Culture and Mental

The Dana-Faynan-Ghuwayr Early Prehistory Project. Levant 32: 1-26. Finlayson, B. and S. Mithen, 2001 - The DanaFaynan Ghuwayr Early prehistory project. Newsletter of the Council for British Research in the Levant, p. 17. Frankel, D., 1994 - Colour variation on prehistoric Cypriot red polished pottery. Journal of Field Archaeology 21/2: 205-219. Frumkin, A., 1997 - The Holocene history of Dead Sea levels. In T. Niemi, Z. Ben-Avraham and J. Gat (eds.), The Dead Sea: The Lake and its Setting, pp. 237-248. Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics No.36. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Frumkin, A., I. Carmi, I. Zak and M. Magaritz, 1994 - Middle Holocene environmental change determined from the salt caves of Mount Sedom, Israel. in O. Bar-Yosef and R. S. Kra (eds.), Late Quaternary Chronology and Palaeoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean, pp. 315-332. Radiocarbon, University of Arizona: Tucson. Fullagar, R., 1986 - Usewear and Residues on Stone Tools: Functional Analysis and its Application to Two Southeastern Australian Archaeological Assemblages. Unpublished PhD Thesis, La Trobe University: Melbourne. Fullagar, R., 1991 - The role of silica in polish formation. Journal of Archaeological Science 18: 1-24. Garfinkel, Y., 1989 - The Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site of Gesher. (Mitekufat Haeven), Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 22: 145. Garfinkel, Y., 1994 - The PPNC flint assemblage from Tel Ali. In H. G. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, pp. 543562. Proceedings of the first workshop on PPN chipped lithic industries. ex Oriente: Berlin. Garfinkel, Y., 1996 - Critical observations on the so-called Khiamian flint industry. In S. K. Kozlowski and H. G. Gebel (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions, pp. 15-21. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 3. ex-Oriente: Berlin. Garfinkel, Y. and D. Nadel, 1989 - The Sultanian flint assemblage from Gesher and its implications for recognizing early Neolithic entities in the Levant. Paléorient 15/2: 139151. Garrard, A., 1998 - Environment and cultural adaptations in the Azraq basin: 24,000-7,000 BP. In D. Henry (ed.), The Prehistoric Archaeology of Jordan, pp. 139-148. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 705: Oxford.

225

ZAD 2

References Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, pp. 387-392. Proceedings of the first workshop on PPN chipped lithic industries. ex Oriente: Berlin. Gopher, A., 1995 - Ain Darat: a PPNA site in the Judean Desert. Neo-Lithics 1/95: 7-8. Gopher, A., 1996a - A preliminary report on the flints from Ain Darat: a PPNA site in the Judean Desert. In S. K. Kozlowski and H. G. Gebel (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions, pp. 443-452. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 3. ex Oriente: Berlin. Gopher, A., 1996b - What happened to the Early EPPNB? In S. K. Kozlowski and H. G. Gebel (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions, pp. 151-158. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 3. Berlin, ex Oriente. Gopher, A., 1997a - Horvat Galil - an Early PPNB site in the Upper Galilee, Israel. Tel Aviv 24/2: 183-222. Gopher, A., 1997b - Ground stone tools and other stone objects from Netiv Hagdud. In O. BarYosef and A. Gopher (eds.), An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley, pp. 151-176. Part I: Part I. The archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 43. Harvard University: Cambridge. Gopher, A., 1999 - Lithic industries of the Neolithic period in the Southern-Central Levant: a review. In C. Kozlowski (ed.), The Eastern Wing of the Fertile Crescent: Late Prehistory of Greater Mesopotamian Lithic Industries, pp. 116-138. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 760: Oxford. Gopher, A. S. Abo and S. Lev-Yadun, 2001 - The “when”, the “where” and the “why” of the Neolithic revolution in the Levant. In M. Budja (ed.), Documenta Praehistorica XXVIII. Univerza v Ljubjani: Ljubljana. Gopher, A. and R. Baraki, 1997 - Here are the microliths: a reply to “where are the microlithic?” Neo-Lithics 1/97: 16-18. Gopher, A. and R. Gophna, 1993 - Cultures of the eight and seventh millennia BP in the Southern Levant: a review for the 1990s. Journal of World Prehistory 7/3: 297-353. Gopher, A. and N. Goring-Morris, 1998 - Abu Salem. A Pre-Pottery Neolithic B camp in the central Negev highlands, Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 312: 1-20. Goring-Morris, N., 1991 - The Harifian of the Southern Levant. In O. Bar-Yosef and F. Valla (eds.), The Natufian Culture in the

Spheres, pp. 313-325. Alter Orient und Altes Testament Bd. 293. Rezeption archaologischer denkrichtungen in der vorderasiatischen alterumskunde. International Symposium fur Hans J. Nissen: Berlin. Gibbon, G., 1989 - Explanation in Archaeology. Basil Blackwell: Oxford. Gjin van, A., 1989 - The wear and tear of flint: principles of functional analysis applied to Dutch Neolithic assemblages. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 22: University of Leiden: Leiden. Goldberg, P. and O. Bar-Yosef, 1982 Environmental and archaeological evidence for climatic change in the Southern Levant. In J. Bintliff and W. van Zeist (eds.), Palaeoclimates, Palaeoenvironments and Human Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region in Later Prehistory, pp. 399-414. British Archaeological Report, International Series 133 (ii): Oxford. Goodale, B, I. Kuijt, and B. Finlayson, 2002 Results from the 2001 excavations at Dhra‘, Jordan: chipped stone technology, typology, and intra-assemblage variability. Paléorient 28/1: 115-130. Goodale, N. and S. Smith, 2001 - Pre-Pottery Neolithic A projectile points at Dhra’, Jordan: Preliminary thoughts on form, function, and site interpretation. Neo-Lithics 2/01: 1-5. Gopher, A., 1989a - Neolithic arrowheads of the Levant: results and implications of a seriation analysis. Paléorient 15/1: 43-56. Gopher, A., 1989b - The flint assemblages of Munhata (Israel) final report. Du centre de recherché Francais de Jerusalem. Association Paléorient 4: Paris. Gopher, A., 1989c - Diffusion process in the PrePottery Neolithic Levant: The case of the Helwan point. In I. Hershkovitz (ed.), People and Culture in Change: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic Populations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, pp. 91-105. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 508 (i): Oxford. Gopher, A., 1989d - Horvat Galil and Nahal Bezet I: two Neolithic sites in the Upper Galilee. (Mitekufat Haeven) Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 22: 82-92. Gopher, A., 1990 - Mujahiya, an early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site in the Golan Heights. Tel Aviv 17: 115-143. Gopher, A., 1994a - Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant: a seriation analysis. American School of Oriental Research dissertation series 10. Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake. Gopher, A., 1994b - Central-Southern Levant PPN cultural sequences: time-space systematic through lithic typology and style. In H. G. 226

ZAD 2

References review. Newsletter of Lithic Technology 2/12: 3-8, 13-14. Hayes, T., 1973 - Scanning electron microscope techniques in biology. In J. K. Koehler (ed.), Advanced Techniques in Biological Electron Microscopy, pp 153-214. Springer-Verlag: Berlin. Henry, D., 1985 - Pre-agricultural sedentism: the Natufian example. In D. Price and J. Brown (eds.), Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, pp. 365-384. Academic Press: Sydney. Henry, D., 1986 - The prehistory and palaeoenvironments of Jordan: an overview. Paléorient 12/2: 5-26. Henry, D., 1989 - From Foraging to Agriculture: the Levant at the End of the Ice Age. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia. Henry, D., 1995 - Prehistoric Cultural Ecology and Evolution: Insights from Southern Jordan. Plenum Press: New York. Helmer, D., V. Roitel, M. Sana and G. Willcox, 1998 - Interprétations environmentales des données archéozologiques et archéobotaniques en Syrie du nord de 16000 BP à 7000 BP et les débuts de la domestication des plants et des animaux. In M. Fortin and O. Aurenche (eds.), Natural Space, Inhabited Space in Northern Syria (10th-2nd millennium BC), pp. 9-33. Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies Bulletin 33: Québec. Hillman, G., 1996 - Late Pleistocene changes in wild plant-foods available to huntergatherers of the northern Fertile Crescent: possible preludes to cereal cultivation. In D. Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, pp. 159-203. University College London Press: London. Hillman, G. and M. Stuart Davies, 1999 Domestication rate in wild wheat and barley under primitive cultivation: preliminary results and archaeological implications of field measurements of selection coefficient. In P. Anderson (ed.), Prehistory of Agriculture: New Experimental and Ethnographic Approaches, pp. 70-102. The Institute of Archaeology, University of California: Los Angeles. Hodder, I., 1982 - The Present Past: an Introduction to Anthropology for Archaeologists. B. T. Batsford Ltd: London. Hodder, I., 1986 - Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Hodges, H., 1971 - Artefacts: an Introduction to Early Materials and Technology, pp. 98111. John Backer: London. Holdaway, S. and N. Stern, 2003 - Decoding the Australian flaked Record. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Levant, pp. 173-216. International monographs in prehistory, archaeological series 1: Ann Arbor. Goring-Morris, N. and A. Belfer-Cohen, 1998 The articulation of cultural processes and late quaternary environmental changes in Cisjordan. Paléorient 23/2: 71-93. Gould, R., 1967 - Preliminary report on excavations at Puntutjarpa rock-shelter, near the Warburton ranges, western Australia. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 3/3: 161-181. Gould, R., 1971 - The archaeologist as ethnographer: a case from the western desert of Australia. World Archaeology 3/1: 143177. Gourgaud, A., 1998 - Géologie de l’obsidienne. In M. -C. Cauvin, A. Gourgaud, B. Gratuze, N. Arnaud, G. Poupeau, J. -L. Poidevin and C. Chataigner (eds.), L’obsidienne au proche et moyen orient: du volcan à l’outil, pp. 15-29. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 738: Oxford. Grace, R. 1989, - Interpreting the function of stone tools: the quantification and computerisation of microwear analysis. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 474: Oxford. Grace, R., I. Graham and M. Newcomer, 1985 The quantification of microwear polishes. World Archaeology 17/1: 112-120. Haaland, R., 1972 - Lithic artefacts. In H. Nordstrom (ed.) Neolithic and A-Group Sites. The Scandinavian joint expedition to Sudanese Nubia. Scandinavian University books 3/1. Harding, P., P. Gibbard, J. Lewin, M. Macklin, and E. Moss, 1987 - The transport and abrasion of flint hand axes in a gravel-bed river. In G. Sieveking and M. Newcomer (eds.), The Human Uses of Flint and Chert, pp. 115126. Proceedings of the fourth international flint symposium held at Brighton Polytechnic 10-15 April 1983. Cambridge University press: Cambridge. Hardy-Smith, T., 1996 - The Spatial Distribution of Artefacts in the Early Natufian Site of Wadi Hammeh 27, Jordan and Implications for Early Sedentism in the Levant. Unpublished Honours Thesis, La Trobe University: Melbourne. Harris, D., 1996 - The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia: an overview. In D. Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, pp. 552-573.University College London Press: London. Harris, D., 1998 - The origins of agriculture in Southwest Asia. The Review of Archaeology 19/2: 5-11. Hayden, B. and J. Kamminga, 1973 - Gould, Koster and Sontz on “microwear”: a critical

227

ZAD 2

References Keeley, L., 1983a - Neolithic novelties: the view from ethnography and microwear analysis. Traces d’utilisation sur les outlils Néolithiques du proche orient. Travaux de la Maison de l’orient 5: 251-256. Masion de l’Orient Méditerranéen: Lyon. Keeley, L., 1983b - Microscopic examination of adzes. In K. Kenyon and T. Holland (eds.), Excavations at Jericho, p. 759. Vol. V. British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem: London. Keeley, L and M. Newcomer, 1977 - Microwear analysis f experimental flint tools: a test case. Journal of Archaeological Science 4: 29-62. Kenyon, K., 1957 - Digging up Jericho. Ernest Benn limited: London. Kenyon, K., 1960 - Excavations at Jericho. Vol. I. British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem: London. Kenyon, K., 1970 - Archaeology in the Holy Land. Ernest Benn limited: London. Kenyon. K., and T. Holland 1981 - Excavations at Jericho. Vol. 3. The British school of archaeology, Jerusalem: London. Kenyon. K. and T. Holland, 1983 - Excavations at Jericho. Vol. 5. The British school of archaeology, Jerusalem: London. Kimoto, S. and J. Russ, 1969 - The characteristics and Applications of the Scanning Microscope. Materials Research and Standards 9: 8-16. Kirkbride, D., 1984 - Beidha 1983: an interim report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 28: 9-12. Kirkbride, D., 1985 - The environment of the Petra region during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. In A. Hadidi (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan II, pp. 117-469. Department of Antiquities: Amman. Kislev, M., 1984 - Emergence of wheat agriculture. Paléorient 10/2: 61-70. Kislev, M., 1989 - Pre-domesticated cereals in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period. In I. Hershkovitz (ed.), People and Culture in Change: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic Populations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, pp. 147-151. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 508 (i): Oxford. Kislev, M., 1997 - Early Agriculture and Paleoecology of Netiv Hagdud. In O. BarYosef and A. Gopher (eds.), An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley, pp. 209-236. Part I. The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 43. Harvard University: Cambridge. Koucky, F. and Smith, R., 1986 - Lake Beisan and the prehistoric settlement of the northern Jordan Valley. Paléorient 12/2: 27-36.

Islander Studies, Canberra and Museum Victoria: Melbourne (in press). Horowitz, A., 1979 - The Quaternary of Israel. Academic Press: New York. Horwitz, L., E Techernov, P. Ducos, C. Becker, A. von den Driesch, L. Martin and A. Garrard. 1999 - Animal domestication in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 25/2: 63-80. Hovers, E., 1989 - Settlement and subsistence patterns in the lower Jordan Valley from Epi-Palaeolithic to Neolithic times. In I. Hershkovitz (ed.), People and Culture in Change: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic Populations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, pp. 37-51. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 508 (i): Oxford. Hovers, E., 1997 - Physical environment of Netiv Hagdud. In O. Bar-Yosef and A. Gopher (eds.) An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley, pp. 1-11. Part I: The archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. American School f Prehistoric Research Bulletin 43. Harvard University: Cambridge. Hutchings, W. K., 1990 - The Nachcharini Composite Projectile: Design Theory and the Study of Hunting Systems Technology at Mugharat en-Nachcharini in the PostNatufian Levant. Unpublished Master of Arts thesis, University of Toronto: Toronto. Kamminga, J., 1978 - Journey into the Microcosms: a Functional Analysis of Certain Classes of Prehistoric Australian Stone Tools. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Sydney University: Sydney. Kamminga, J. 1979 - The nature of use-polish and abrasive smoothing on stone tools. In B. Hayden (ed.), Lithic Usewear Analysis, pp. 143-157. Academic Press INC: Sydney. Kamminga, J., 1982 - Over the Edge: Functional Analysis of Australian Stone Tools. Occasional papers in Anthropology 12. Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland: Queensland. Kamminga, J., 1985 - The Pirri Graver. Australian Aboriginal Studies 1985/2: 225. Khalil, B., 1992 - The Geology of the Ar-Rabba area. Map sheet no. 3152 IV. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, Natural Resources Authority. Geology Directorate, Geological Mapping Division. Bulletin 22: Amman. Keeley, L., 1974 - Technique and methodology in microwear studies: a critical review. World Archaeology 5: 322-336. Keeley, L., 1980 - Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: a Microwear Analysis. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Keeley, L., 1982 - Hafting and retooling: effects on the archaeological record. American Antiquity 47/4: 798-809. 228

ZAD 2

References Kuijt, I. and O. Bar-Yosef, 1994 - Radiocarbon chronology for the Levantine Neolithic: observations and data. In O. Bar-Yosef and R. Fra (eds.), Late Quaternary Chronology and Palaeoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean, pp. 227-245. Radiocarbon. The University of Arizona: Tucson. Kuijt, I. and B. Finlayson, 2001 - The 2001 excavation season at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period settlement of Dhra’. Jordan: Preliminary results. Neo-Lithics 2/01: 12-15. Kuijt, I. and B. Finlayson, 2002 - The 2002 excavation season at Dhra‘, Jordan: preliminary results from the Jericho IX and Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period components. Neo-Lithics 2/02: 17-21. Kuijt, I. and N. Goring-Morris, 2002 - Foraging, farming, and social complexity in the PrePottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: a review and synthesis. Journal of World Prehistory 16/4: 361-440. Kuijt, I., J. Mabry, G. Palumbo, 1991 - Early Neolithic use of upland area of Wadi elYabis: preliminary evidence from the excavations of Iraq ed-Dubb, Jordan. Paléorient 17/1: 99-108. Kuijt, I. and H. Mahasneh, 1998 -Dhra: an early Neolithic village in the southern Jordan Valley. Journal of Filed Archaeology 25: 153-161. Lechevallier, M., D. Philibert, A. Ronen and A. Samzun, 1989 Une occupation Khiamienne et Sultanienne á Hatoula (Israel)? Paléorient 15/1: 1-10. Lechevallier, M. and A. Ronen, 1985 - Le site Natoufien-Khiamien de Hatoula, près de Latroun, Isräel. Fouilles 1980-1982 rapport préliminaire, pp. 5-58. Les Cahiers du Cente de Recherche Français de Jérusalem, No. 1. Association Paléorient: Paris. Lechevallier, M. and A. Ronen, 1989 L’occupation post-Natoufiénne de Hatoula, en Judée occidentale, et sa place dans le cadre régional. In O. Bar-Yosef and B. Vandermeersch (eds.), Investigations in South Levantine prehistory (préhistoire du Sud-Levant), pp. 309-320. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 497: Oxford. Lechevallier, M. and A. Ronen, 1994a - Les Gisement de Hatoula en Judée occidentale, Israël: Rapport des fouilles 1980-1988. Mémories et Travaux du Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem 8. Association Paléorient: Paris. Lechevallier, M. and A. Ronen, 1994b - The lithic of the early Neolithic Hatoula. In H. G. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski (eds.), The Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, pp. 395-406 Studies in early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 1. ex Oriente: Berlin.

Kuijt, I., 1994a - A brief note on the chipped stone assemblage from Iraq ed-Dubb, Jordan. Neo-Lithics 2: 2-3. Kuijt, I., 1994b - Pre-Pottery Neolithic A settlement variability: evidence for social political developments in the Southern Levant. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 7/2: 165-192. Kuijt, I., 1995 - New Perspectives on Old Territories: Ritual Practices and the Emergence of Social Complexity in the Levantine Neolithic. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Harvard University: Cambridge. Kuijt, I., 1996a - Negotiating equality through ritual: a consideration of late Natufian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period mortuary practices. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15: 313-336. Kuijt, I., 1996b - Where are the microliths? Lithic technology and Neolithic chronology as seen from the PPN occupation at Dhra’, Jordan. Neo-Lithics 2/96: 7-8. Kuijt, I., 1997a - Interpretation data and the Khiamian of the Southern-Central Levant. Neo-Lithics 3/97: 3-6. Kuijt, I., 1997b - Trying to fit round houses into square holes: re-examining the timing of the Southern-Central Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and Pre-Pottery Neolithic B cultural transition. In H. G. Gebel, Z. Kafafi and G. O. Rollefson (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan II, pp. 193-202. Perspectives from 1997. Studies in early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 4. ex Oriente: Berlin. Kuijt, I., 2000 - Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. Kluwer Academic / Plenum publisher: New York. Kuijt, I., 2001a - Lithic inter-assemblage variability and cultural-historical sequences: a consideration of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A occupation of Dhra‘, Jordan. Paléorient 27/1: 107-125. Kuijt, I., 2001b - Place, death and the transmission of social memory in early agricultural communities of the Near East Pre-Pottery Neolithic. In, M. Chesson (ed.), Social Memory, Identity and Death: Anthropological Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals, pp. 80-92. Archaeological papers of the American Anthropological Association Number 10. Kuijt, I., 2003 - Between foraging and farming: critically evaluating the archaeological evidence for the Southern Levantine Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic period. Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Archaeology. (in press). Kuijt, I., n.d. - Architecture, Stratigraphy, and Chronology of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and Late Natufian Period Occupation of Iraq ed-Dubb, Jordan. Unpublished paper. 229

ZAD 2

References Marks, A., 1976 Prehistory and Palaeoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Vol. I. Department of Anthropology, Institute for the study of earth and man. Southern Methodist University: Dallas. Marks, A., 1977 Prehistory and Palaeoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Vol. II. Department of Anthropology, Institute for the study of earth and man. Southern Methodist University: Dallas. Marks, A., 1983 Prehistory and Palaeoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Vol. III. Department of Anthropology, Institute for the study of earth and man. Southern Methodist University: Dallas. Marks, A. and T. Scott, 1976 - Abu Salem: Type Site of the Harifian industry of the Southern Levant. Journal of Field Archaeology 3: 4360. McConaughy, M. A., 1979 - Formal and Functional Analysis of the Chipped Stone Tools from Bab edh-Dhra, Jordan. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh. Meadows, J., 2003 - The earliest farmers? Archaeobotanical research at Pre-Pottery Neolithic A sites in Jordan. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VIII. Department of Antiquities: Amman. (in press). Meeks, N., G. Sieveking, M, Tite, and J. Cook, 1982 - Gloss and usewear traces on flint sickles and similar phenomena. Journal of Archaeological Science 9: 317-340. Mellaart, J., 1975 - The Neolithic of the Near East. Thames and Hudson: London. Mithen, S. and B. Finlayson, 2000 - WF16, a New PPNA site in southern Jordan. Antiquity 74: 11-12. Mithen, S., B. Finlayson, A. Pirie, D. Carruthers and A. Kennedy, 2000 - New evidence for economic and technological diversity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A: Wadi Faynan 16. Current Anthropology 41/4: 655-663. Moore, A., 1982a - A four-stages sequence for the Levantine Neolithic, ca. 8500-3750 BC. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 246: 1-34. Moore, A., 1982b - Agricultural origins in the Near East: a model for the 1980s. World Archaeology 14/2: 224-235. Moore, A., 1985 - The development of Neolithic societies in the Near East. In, F. Wendorf and A. Close (eds.), Advance in World Archaeology, pp. 1-69. Vol. 4. Academic Press: San Diego. Moore, A. and G. Hillman, 1992 - The Pleistocene to Holocene transition and human economy in Southwest Asia: the impact of the Younger Dryas. American Antiquity 57/3: 482-494.

Lechevallier, M., A. Ronen, D. Philibert, A. Samzun and J. Sarel, 1994 - Chapitre XIII: L’industries lithique. In M. Lechevallier and A. Ronen (eds.), Le Gisement de Hatoula en Judée Occidentale, Israël, pp. 141-180. Mémories et travaux du Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem 8. Association Paléorient: Paris. Liphschitz, N and T. Noy, 1991 - Vegetational landscape and the macroclimate of the Gilgal region during the Natufian and PrePottery Neolithic A. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 24: 59-63. Loon van, M., 1968 - The Oriental Institute excavations at Mureybit, Syria: preliminary report on the 1965 campaign. Part 1: architecture and general finds. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 27/4: 265-282. Ludwig, H., E. Patek, L. Nilsson, H. Metzger and E. Hafez, 1975 - Methodology of scanning electron microscopy. In, E. Hafez (ed.), Scanning Electron Microscopic Atlas of Mammalian Reproduction, pp.1-20. Igaku Shoin LTD: Tokyo. Luz, B., 1982 - Palaeoclimatic interpretation of the last 20,000 years record of deep-seas cores around the Middle East. In J. Bintliff and W. van Zeist eds.), Palaeoclimates, Palaeoenvironments and Human Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region in Later Prehistory, pp. 41-61. British Archaeological Report, International Series 133 (i): Oxford. Macumber, P., 1992 - The geological setting of Palaeolithic sites at Tabaqat Fahl, Jordan. Paléorient 18/2: 31-44. Macumber, P. and M. Head, 1991 - Implications of the Wadi al-Hammeh sequences for the terminal drying of Lake Lisan, Jordan. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 84: 161-173. Magid, A., 1995 - The lithic material from the sites of Aneibis, Abu Darbin, and el- Damer. In R. Haaland and A. Magid (eds.), Aquatic Sites Along the Rivers Nile and Atbara, Sudan, pp. 52-83. Alma Mater: Bergen. Mansur, M., 1982 - Microwear analysis of natural and use striations: new clues to the mechanisms of striations formation. In D. Cahen (ed.), Tailler pour quoi faire: préhistoire et technologie lithique II: Recent progress in microwear studies, pp. 213-233. Studia praehistorica Belgica 2. Musée royal de l’Afrique Central: Tervuren. Mansur-Franchomme, M., 1983 - Scanning electron microscopy of dry hide working tools: the role of abrasives and humidity in microwear polish formation. Journal of Archaeological Science 10: 223-230. Marks, A., 1970 - Pre-ceramic sites. The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia, pp. 23-70: Helsinki.

230

ZAD 2

References Niemi, T., 1997 - Fluctuations of Late Pleistocene Lake Lisan in the Dead Sea rift. In T. Niemi, Z. Ben-Avraham and J. Gat (eds.), The Dead Sea: the Lake and its Setting, pp. 226-236. Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics No.36. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Niemi, T. and Z. Ben-Avraham, 1997 - Active tectonics in the Dead Sea Basin. In T. Niemi, Z. Ben-Avraham and J. Gat (eds.), The Dead Sea: the Lake and its Setting, pp. 73-81. Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics No.36. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Niemi, T., Z. Ben-Avraham and J. Gat, 1997 Dead Sea research - an introduction. In T. Niemi, Z. Ben-Avraham and J. Gat (eds.), The Dead Sea: the Lake and its Setting, pp. 3-7. Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics No.36. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Noy, T., 1979 - Stone cup-holes and querns from Gilgal 1, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site in Israel. Paléorient 5: 233-238. Noy, T., 1987 - Small truncated notches tools from Gilgal III. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 20: 158-159. Noy, T., 1989 - Gilgal I – a Pre-Pottery Neolithic site, Israel - the 1985-1987 seasons. Paléorient 15/1: 11-18. Noy, T., 1994 - Gilgal truncation, a new type of tool from early PPNA. In H. G. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski (eds.), A Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, pp. 423-426. Studies in early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 1. ex Oriente: Berlin. Noy, T., E. Friedmann and F. Burian, 1981 - Nahal Lavan 108: a Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site in the western Negev, Israel. Palestine Exploration Quarterly: 81-88. Noy, T. and S. K. Kozlowski, 1996 - A basket of flint artefacts from house 11 at Gilgal I, locus 37/42. In S. K. Kozlowski and H. G. Gebel (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions, pp. 271-288. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 3. ex Oriente: Berlin. Noy, T., A. Legge and E. Higgs, 1973 - Recent excavations at Nahal Oren, Israel. Proceedings of the Prehistoric society 39: 75-99. Noy, T., J. Schuldenrein and E. Tchernov, 1980 Gilgal, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site in the lower Jordan Valley. Israel Exploration Journal 30: 63-82. Odell, G., 1975 - Microwear in perspective: a sympathetic response to Lawrence Keeley. World Archaeology 7/2: 226-240. Odell, G. and F. Odell-Vereecken, 1980 Verifying the reliability of lithic usewear

Morris, C., 1992 - Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology. Academic Press: San Diego. Moss, E., 1984/86 - What microwear analysts look at. In L. Owen and G. Unrath (eds.), Early Man News 9/10/11, pp. 91-96. Newsletter for human Palaeoecology. Part 1. Commission for the Palaeoecology of early man of International union for quaternary research: Tübingen. Mortensen, P., 1970 - A preliminary study of the chipped stone industry from Beidha. Acta Archaeologica 41: 1-54. Moustafa, M., 1995 - The Political Economy of the Peace Process in a Changing Middle East. World Development Studies 8. United Nations University, World Institute for Development Economic Research: Helsinki. Mulvaney, D., 1975 - The Prehistory of Australia. Penguin books: Australia. Nadel, D., 1989 - Flint heat treatment at the beginning of the Neolithic period in the Levant. (Mitekufat Haeven) Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 22: 61-67. Nadel, D., 1990 - The Khiamian as a case of Sultanian inter-site variability. (Mitekufat Haeven) Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 23: 86-99. Nadel, D., 1994 - New symmetry of early Neolithic tools: arrowheads and truncated elements. in H. G. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski (eds.), A Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, pp. 407-421. Studies in early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 1. ex Oriente: Berlin. Nadel, D., 1997 - The chipped stone industry of Netiv Hagdud. In O. Bar-Yosef and A. Gopher (eds.) An early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley, pp. 71-149. Part I. The archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. Harvard University: Cambridge. Nadel, D., 1998 - A note on PPNA intra-site variability. Neo-Lithics 1/98: 8-10. Nadel, D., O. Bar-Yosef and A. Gopher, 1991 Early Neolithic arrowhead types in the Southern Levant: a typological suggestion. Paléorient 17/1: 109-119. Nadel, D., A. Tsatskin, A. Zertal and T. Simmons, 2000 - Ein Suhum - a PPNA/B settlement in the eastern Samarian Hills. (Mitekufat Haeven) Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 30: 73-87. Neev, D., and K. Emery, 1967 - The Dead Sea: depositional processes and environments of evaporites. Geological survey of Israel, Bulletin 41: 1-147. Newcomer, M. and L. Keeley, 1979 - Testing a method of microwear analysis with experimental flint tools. In B. Hayden (ed.), Lithic Usewear Analysis, pp. 195-205. Academic Press INC: Sydney. Neuville, R., 1934 - Le préhistorique de Paléstine. Revue Biblique 43: 237-259. 231

ZAD 2

References 1997. Studies in early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 4. ex Oriente: Berlin. Raikes, R., 1985 - The climate and hydrological background to the post-glacial introduction of farming in the Middle East and its subsequent spread, with examples from Jordan. In A. Hadidi (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, pp.: 267-272. Vol. II. Department of Antiquities: Amman Raikes, T., 1980 - Notes on some Neolithic and later sites in Wadi Araba and the Dead Sea Valley. Levant XII: 40-60. Redman, C., 1978 - The Rise of Civilization: From Early Farmers to Urban Society in the Ancient Near East. W. H. Freeman and company: San Francisco. Renfrew, C., J. Dixon and J. Cann., 1966 Obsidian and early cultural contact in the Near East. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32: 30-72. Rollefson, G. O., 1987 - Local and regional relations in the Levantine PPN period: Ain Ghazal (Jordan) as a regional centre. In A. Hadidi (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan III, pp. 29-32. Department of Antiquities: Amman. Rollefson, G. O., 1988 - Stratified burin classes at Ain Ghazal: implications for the desert Neolithic of Jordan. In A. Garrard and H. G. Gebel (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan: The State of Research in 1986, pp. 437-449. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 396 (ii): Oxford. Rollefson, G. O., 1989 - The Late Aceramic Neolithic of the Levant: a synthesis. Paléorient 15/1: 168-173. Rollefson, G. O., 1992 - Neolithic settlement patterns in northern Jordan and Palestine. In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan IV, pp. 123-127. Department of Antiquities: Amman. Rollefson, G. O., 1993a - Prehistoric time. In Å. Gosta (ed.), The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest, pp. 72-111. Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield. Rollefson, G. O., 1993b - The origins of the Yarmoukian at Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Paléorient 19/1: 91-100. Rollefson, G. O., 1996 - An EPPNB settlement in the Wadi el-Hasa, central Jordan. In S. K. Kozlowski and H. G. Gebel (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions, pp. 159-160. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 3. ex Oriente: Berlin. Rollefson, G. O., 1997 - Changes in architecture and social organization at Ain Ghazal. In H. G. Gebel, Z. Kafafi and G. O. Rollefson (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan II:

assessments by blind tests: the low-power approach. Journal of Field Archaeology 7/1: 87-120. Orni, E. and E. Efrat, 1966 - Geography of Israel. Israel program for scientific translations: Jerusalem. Patterson, L., 1981 - Comments on wear rates of lithic tool edges. Lithic Technology X/1: 1112. Perlman, P., 1971 - Basic Microscope Techniques. Chemical publishing company, Inc: New York. Perlman, I. and J. Yellin., 1980 - The province of obsidian from Neolithic sites in Israel. Israel Exploration Journal 30/1-2: 83-88. Perrot, J., 1951 - La Terrasse d’el-Khiam. In R. Neuville (ed.), Le paléolithique et le mésolithique du désert de Judée, pp. 134178. Archives de l’Institut de Paléontologie Humaine Mémoire 24. Masson: Paris. Perrot, J., 1952a - Les industries lithiques Paléstiniénnes de la fin du Mésolithique à l’Age du Bronze. Israel Exploration Journal 2/2: 73-81. Perrot, J., 1952b - Têes de flèches du Natoufien et du Tahounien (Paléstine). Bulletin de la Sociétié Préhistorique Français 49: 439449. Perrot, J., 1964 - Les deux premières campagnes de fouilles à Munhatta (1962-1963): premiers resultants. Syria 41: 323-345. Perrot, J., 1966a - La troisième campagne de fouilles à Munhatta (1964). Syria 43: 49-63. Perrot, J., 1966b - Munhata (Kh. Minha). Israel Exploration Journal 16/4: 269-271. Peterson, J., 1999 - Early Epi-Palaeolithic settlement patterns: insights from the study of ground stone tools from the southern Levant. Levant 31: 1-17. Pirie, A., 2001a - Wadi Faynan 16 chipped stone: PPNA variability at one site. Neo-Lithics 2/01: 5-8. Pirie, A., 2001b - A brief note on the chipped stone assemblage from PPNA Nachcharini cave, Lebanon. Neo-Lithics 2/01: 10-12. Powell, J., 1988 - The Geology of the Karak Area. Map sheet No. 3152 III. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Ministry of Energy and Mineral resources, Natural Resources Authority. Geology Directorate, Geological Mapping Division. Bulletin 8: Amman. Prausnitz, M., 1966 - A study in terminology, the Kebaran, the Natufian and the Tahunian. Israel Exploration Journal 16: 220-230. Quintero, L. and P. Wilke 1995 - Evolution and economic significance of naviform coreand-blade technology in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 21/1: 17-33. Quintero, L., P. Wilke and G. Waines, 1997 Pragmatic studies of Near Eastern Neolithic sickle blades. In H. G. Gebel, Z. Kafafi and G. O. Rollefson (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan II, pp. 263-286. Perspectives from 232

ZAD 2

References Rosen, S., 1997 - Lithics after the Stone Age: a Handbook of Stone Tools From the Levant. Altamira Press: London. Rosenfeld, A., 1971 - The examination of use marks on some Magdalenian end scrapers. The British Museum Quarterly 35: 176-182. Sayej, G., 1997a - Tell Jenin: a Pre-Ceramic Site; North West Bank-Palestine. Unpublished Master of Philosophy Thesis, University of Bergen: Bergen. Sayej, G., 1997b - The Neolithic strata of Tell Jenin north West Bank, Palestine. NeoLithics 1/97: 3-5. Sayej, G., 2001a - A new Pre-Pottery Neolithic A cultural region in Jordan: the Dead Sea basin. In A. Walmsley (ed.), Australians Uncovering Ancient Jordan: Fifty Years of Middle Eastern Archaeology, pp. 225-232. The University of Sydney: Sydney. Sayej, G., 2001b - Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ (b) (ZAD 2). In A. Negev and S. Gibson (eds.), The Archaeological Encyclopaedia of the Holy Land, pp. 552. The continuum Publishing Group: New York. Sayej, G., 2002 - Lithic inter and intra-assemblage variability: a case study from the PrePottery Neolithic A site of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 2, Jordan. Paper presented at the 2002 meeting of the American Society of Oriental Research (ASOR): Toronto. Sayej, G., 2003 - Lithic production at the PPNA site of Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ and its context. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VIII. Department of Antiquities: Amman. (in press). Schroeder H., 1975 - Anti-Lebanon cave of Mugharet Nachcharini: a Preliminary Report. Un-published paper. Schroeder H., 1977 - Nachcharini, a Stratified Post-Natufian Camp in the Anti Lebanon Mountains. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the society for American archaeology. Un-published paper. Schroeder H., 1991 - Adaptational Complexities of the PPNA in the Central Levant Reflected by Mugharet en-Nachcharini, a 2200 m High Cave in the Anti-Lebanon Mountains. Paper presented at the Cachmool conference, University of Calgary: Calgary. Unpublished paper. Schuldenrein, J. and P. Goldberg, 1981 - Late quaternary palaeoenvironments and prehistoric site distributions in the lower Jordan Valley: a preliminary report. Paléorient 7/1: 57-71. Scott, T., 1977 - The Harifian of the central Negev. In A. Marks (ed.), Prehistory and Palaeoenvironments in the central Negev, Israel, pp. 271-322. Vol. II. Department of Anthropology, Institute for the study of earth and man. Southern Methodist University: Dallas.

Perspectives From 1997, pp. 287-308. ex Oriente: Berlin. Rollefson, G. O., 1998 - The Aceramic Neolithic in Jordan. In D. Henry (ed.), The Prehistoric Archaeology of Jordan, pp. 102-125. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 705: Oxford. Rollefson, G. O., 2000 - Ritual and social structure at Neolithic Ain Ghazal. In I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, pp. 165-190. Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publisher: New York. Rollefson, G. O., 2001a - Review feature: 2001: an archaeological odyssey. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11/1: 112-114. Rollefson, G. O., 2001b - Jordan in the Seventh and Sixth Millennia BC. In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan. VII, pp. 95-100. Department of Antiquities: Amman. Rollefson, G. O., 2001c - The Neolithic period. In B. MacDonald, R. Adams and P. Bienkowski (eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan, pp. 67-105. Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield. Rollefson, G. O., 2002 - A book review: The birth of the Gods and the origins of agriculture, by Jacques Cauvin. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 326: 83-87. Rollefson, G. O. and A. Simmons, 1986 - The Neolithic village of Ain Ghazal, Jordan: preliminary report on the 1984 season. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplement 24: 145-164. Ronen, A., 1984 - Sefunim Prehistoric Sites: Mount Carmel, Israel. British Archaeological Reports International Series 230 (I): Oxford. Ronen, A., 1985 - The Natufian-Early Neolithic site Hatula, near Latrun, Israel. Sonderdruck aus Quartär 35/6: 141-164. Ronen, A., A. Bentur and I. Soroka, 1991 - A plastered floor from the Neolithic village, Yiftahel (Israel). Paléorient 17/2: 149-155. Ronen, A., M. Lechevallier, J. Sarel and A. Efenberger 1994a - La repartition spatiale dans les structures Néolithiques. In M. Lechevallier and A. Ronen (eds.), Le gisement de Hatula en Judée occidentale, Israel, pp. 239-250. Mémories et travaux du Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem 8. Association Paléorient: Paris. Ronen, A. and M. Lechevallier, 1999 - Save the Khiamian. Neo-Lithics 1/99: 6-7. Ronen, A., H. Winter and D. Chinn, 1994b - The Hatoula borers and their possible role in the Neolithic. In M. Lechevallier and A. Ronen (eds.), Le gisement de Hatula en Judée occidentale, Israel, pp. 181-192. Mémories et travaux du Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem 8. Association Paléorient: Paris.

233

ZAD 2

References southwest of the Dead Sea, Israel (Ramat Tamar and Mesad Mazzal). In I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, pp. 495-509. Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publisher: New York. Taylor, K., G. Lamorey, G. Doyle, R. Alley, P. Grootes, P. Mayewski, J. White and L. Barlow, 1993 - The ‘flickering switch’ of late Pleistocene climate change. Nature 361: 432-436. Tixier, J., 1963 - Typologie de l’Épipaleolithique du Maghreb. Centre de recherché anthropologiques prehistoriques et éthnographiques d’Algier. Memoire 2. Arts et Metiers: Paris. Trigger, B., 1984 - Alternative archaeologies: nationalist, colonialist, imperialist. Man 19: 355-370. Trigger, B., 1986 - Prospects for a world archaeology. World Archaeology 18/1: 1-20. Trigger, B., 1989 - A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Unger-Hamilton, R., 1983 - An investigation into the variables affecting the development and the appearance of plant polish on flint blades. Traces d’utilisation sur les outlils Néolithiques du proche orient. Travaux de la maison de l’orient 5: 243-250. Masion de l’orient Méditerranéen: Lyon. Unger-Hamilton, R., 1985 - Microscopic striations on flint sickle-blades as an indication of plant cultivation: preliminary results. World Archaeology 17/1: 121-126. Unger-Hamilton, R., 1988 - Method in Microwear Analysis: Prehistoric Sickles and Other Stone Tools From Arjoune, Syria. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 435: Oxford. Unger-Hamilton, R., 1989 - The Epi-Paleolithic Southern Levant and the origins of cultivation. Current Anthropology 30/1: 88103. Unger-Hamilton, R., 1991a - Microwear analysis of scraper and sickle blades. In A. Betts (ed.), Excavations at Jawa 1972-1986: Stratigraphy, Pottery and Other Finds, pp. 149-153. Vol. I. Excavations and explorations in the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan I. University of Edinburgh Press: Edinburgh. Unger-Hamilton, R., 1991b - Natufian plant husbandry in the Southern Levant and comparison with that of the Neolithic period: the lithic perspective. In O. BarYosef and F. Valla (eds), The Natufian Culture in the Levant, pp. 483-520. International monographs in prehistory, archaeological series 1: Ann Arbor. Valla, F., 1995 - The first settled societies-Natufian (12,500-10,200 BP). In T. Levy (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy land, pp.

Semenov, S., 1964 - Prehistoric Technology: an Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. Cory, Adams and Mackay: London. Shehadeh, N., 1985 - The climate of Jordan in the past and the present. In A. Hadidi (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, pp.: 25-37. Vol. II. Department of Antiquities: Amman Shennan, S., 1997 - Quantifying Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh. Simmons, A., 2000 - Villages on the edges: regional settlement change and the end of the Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic. In I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, pp. 211-230. Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publisher: New York. Singh, P., 1974 - Neolithic Cultures of Western Asia. Seminar Press: London. Skinner, J., 1968 - The oriental institute excavations at Mureybit, Syria: preliminary report on the 1965 campaign. Part 2: chipped stone finds. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 27/4: 282-290. Stanin, Z., 2000 - Hammeh and sickles: functional analysis of Helwan Bladelets From the Natufian Site of Wadi Hammeh 27, Jordan. Unpublished Honours thesis, La Trobe University: Melbourne. Stekelis, M., 1950-1 - A new Neolithic industry: the Yarmukian of Palestine. Israel Exploration Journal 1: 1-19. Stekelis, M., 1972 - The Yarmukian Culture of the Neolithic period. The Magnes Press. The Hebrew University: Jerusalem. Stekelis, M. and T. Yizraely, 1963 - Excavations at Nahal Oren: preliminary report. Israel Exploration Journal 13/1: 1-12. Stordeur, D., 1978 - L’outillage osseux. In M. -C. Cauvin and D. Stordeur (eds.), Les outillages lithiques et ossuex de Mureybet, Syrie (Fouilles van Loon 1965). Cahiers de l’Euphrate, pp. 81-96. No. 1. CNRS: Paris. Stordeur, D., 2000 - New discoveries in architecture and symbolism at Jerf el Ahmar (Syria), 1997-1999. Neo-Lithics 1/00: 1-4. Stordeur, D. and Abbès, F., 2002 - Du PPNA au PPNB: mise en lumière d’une phase de transition à Jerf el Ahmar. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française: 99/3: 563595. Stordeur, D., F. Abbès, D. Helmer, B. Jammous and G. Willcox., 2002 - Reprise des fouilles à Tell Aswad de Damascene resultats préliminaries. A Paratrc Symposium 3 ICAANE. Paris. Stordeur, D., B. Jammous, D. Helmer and G. Willcox, 1996 - Jerf el Ahmar, a New Mureybetian site (PPNA period) on the Middle Euphrates. Neo-Lithics 2/96: 1-2. Taute, W., 2000 - Pre-Pottery Neolithic flint mining and flint workshop activities 234

ZAD 2

References Wright, G., 1971 - Origins of food production in Southwestern Asia: a survey of ideas. Current Anthropology 12/4-5: 109-139. Wright, G. and A. Gordus, 1969 - Distribution and utilization of obsidian from lake Van sources between 7500 and 3500 BC. American Journal of Archaeology 73: 7577. Wright, K., 1991 - The origins and development of groundstone assemblages in late Pleistocene southwest Asia. Paléorient 17/1: 19-45. Wright, K., 1992 - A classification system for ground stone tools from the prehistoric Levant. Paléorient 18/2: 53-81. Wright, K., 1993 - Early Holocene ground stone assemblages in the Levant. Levant XXV: 93-111. Wright, K., 2000 - The social origins of cooking and dinning in early villages of Western Asia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66: 89-121. Yamada, S., 2000 - Development of the Neolithic: Lithic Usewear Analysis of Major Tool Types in the Southern Levant. PhD Thesis, Harvard University: Cambridge. Yartah, T., 2001 - Emmanchement de points de flèches Khiamiennes de Syrie du nord. In L. Bourguignon, I. Ortega and M. -C. FrèreSautot (eds.), Préhistoire et approche expérimentale, pp. 281-292. Monique Mergoil: Montagnac. Yasuda, Y., H. Kitagawa, and T. Nakagawa, 2000 The earliest record of major anthropogenic deforestation in the Ghab Valley, northwest Syria: a palynological study. Quaternary International 73/74: 127-136. Yellin, J., 1997 - Miscellaneous finds: the obsidian artefacts from Netiv Hagdud. In O. BarYosef and A. Gopher (eds.), An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley, pp. 193-196. Part I: the archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 43. Harvard University: Cambridge. Yellin, J. and Y. Garfinkel, 1986 - The source of archaeological obsidian from a Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site at Yiftahel, Israel. Paléorient 12\2: 99-103. Yellin J. and A. Gopher, 1992 - The origin of the obsidian artifacts from Mujahiya - a PPNB site in the Golan Heights. Tel Aviv 19: 9499. Yellin, J., T. Levy and Y. Rowan, 1996 - New evidence on prehistoric trade routes: the obsidian evidence from Gilat, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 23: 361-368. Yerkes, R., R. Barkai, A. Gopher, and O. BarYosef, 2003 - Microwear analysis of early Neolithic (PPNA) axes and bifacial tools from Netiv Hagdud in the Jordan Valley, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 1051-1066.

169-187. Leicester University Press: London. Valladas, H., and M. Arnold, 1994 - Datation C14 par accélérateur du site de Hatoula. In M. Lechevallier and à. Ronen (eds.), Le gisment de Hatoula en Judée occidentale, Israël, pp. 35-36. Mémories et Travaux du Centre de Recherche Francais de Jérusalem 8. Association Paléorient: Paris. Vaughan, P., 1982 - Lithic microwear experimentation and the functional analysis of a lower Magdalenian stone assemblage. Microfilm PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania: Ann Arbor. Vaughan, P., 1985 - Usewear analysis of flaked stone tools. The University of Arizona Press: Tucson. Vaughan, P., 1987 - Positive and negative evidence for hafting on flint tools from various periods (Magdalenian through Bronze Age). In La main et l’outil: manches et emmanchements prehistoriques, pp. 135143. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 15: Lyon. Vaux de, R., 1966 - Palestine During the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods, pp. 3-49. Vol. 1, Chapter IX. The University Press: Cambridge. Vaux de, R., 1970 - Palestine During the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods, pp. 498-538. Cambridge Ancient History 1/1 Chap. IX b. Cambridge. Vincent, L.-H., 1938 - L’aube de l’histoire à Jéricho. Revue Biblique 47: 561-589. Wasse, A., 2002 - Final results of an analysis of the sheep and goat bones from Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Levant 34: 59-82. Wasse, A., 2001 - The wild goats of Lebanon: Evidence for Early Domestication? Levant 33: 21-33. White, A., 1963 - Analytic description of the chipped stone industry from Snyders site Calhoun County, Illinois. In A. White, L. Binford and M. Papworth (eds.), Miscellaneous Studies in Typology and Classification 19, pp. 1-70. Museum of anthropology, The University of Michigan: Michigan. White, J., 1993 - Don’t touch that dial. Nature 364: 186. Wigley, T. and G. Farmer, 1982 - Climate of the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East. In J. Bintliff and W. van Zeist eds.), Palaeoclimates, Palaeoenvironments and Human Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region in Later Prehistory, pp. 3-37. British Archaeological Report, International Series 133 (i): Oxford. Wilcox, 1996 - Evidence for plant exploitation and vegetation history from three early Neolithic Pre-Pottery sites on the Euphrates (Syria). Vegetations History and Archaeobotany. 5: 143-152. 235

ZAD 2

References Near East during the last 20,000 years. In J. Bintliff and W. van Zeist eds.), Palaeoclimates, Palaeoenvironments and Human Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region in Later Prehistory, pp. 277-321. British Archaeological Report, International Series 133 (ii): Oxford. Zohary, M., 1973 - Geobotanical Foundations of the Middle East. Vol. 1-2. G. Fischer: Stuttgart. Zohary, D. and M. Hopf, 2000 - Domestication of Plants in the Old World. Oxford University Press: The archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 43. Harvard University: Cambridge.

Yoshii, Z., J. Tokunaga and J. Tawara, 1976 - Atlas of Scanning Electron Microscopy in Microbiology. Igaku Shoin LTD: Tokyo. Zak, I., 1997 - Evolution of the Dead Sea brines. In T. Niemi, Z. Ben-Avraham and J. Gat (eds.), The Dead Sea: the Lake and its Setting, pp. 133-144. Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics No. 36. Oxford University Press: Oxford Zeist van, W., 1985 - Past and present environments of the Jordan Valley. In A. Hadidi (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, pp.: 199-204. Vol. II. Department of Antiquities: Amman Zeist van, W. and S. Bottema, 1982 - Vegetational history of the Eastern Mediterranean and the

236