kujit&gorring-morris2002

7/28/2019 Kujit&Gorring-Morris2002

1/80


2/80

362 Kuijt and Goring-Morris

and Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian Autonomous Authority, Jordan, andthe Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, this transition occurs during the Pre-PotteryNeolithic B (PPNB) period (ca. 11,700ca. 8400 B.P.). Among important so-cial, economic, and political changes during this period, usually subsumedunder the poorly defined and overgeneralizing rubric of the Neolithic Revo-lution, are the aggregation of people into large villages occupied on a year-round basis, a dramatic increase in global population levels, and the reorga-nization of the processes and structures by which human social interactionsoccurred. Collectively, these fundamental changes eventually transformedthe economic, social, and technological landscapes, including the develop-ment of the interrelated economic systems of domesticated plants and ani-mals, which serve as the core of later food-producing economies in southwest

Asia and Europe.In light of the importance of an understanding the mechanisms and pro-

cesses by which the transition from foraging to food production occurred,researchers exploring the emergence of social differentiation, the links be-tween emerging food production and population growth, and/or the natureof human responses to paleoclimatic change must be able to draw upon cur-rent understandings of the archaeological record for the Levantine Neolithicperiod. A number of important studies have provided important considera-tions of economic and subsistence changes (Bar-Yosef and Meadow, 1995),

technology (Quintero and Wilke, 1995), and social organization (Byrd, 1994;Kuijt, 2000a), or in a few cases, have provided regional and inter-regionalsyntheses of the Near Eastern Neolithic (Aurenche and Kozlowski, 1999;Banning, 1998; Bar-Yosef, 1980, 1991; Cauvin, 1994, 2000; Goring-Morrisand Belfer-Cohen, 1998; Mellaart, 1975; Moore, 1985; Rollefson, 1998, 2001).It is important, however, to be able to place these individual contributionsinto a broader comparative context. The process of generating such regionalsyntheses is difficult for a number of reasons. First, the scale offield researchsince the 1980s has drastically increased the amount of archaeological in-

formation that needs to be considered in a regional synthesis. This has cre-ated the unenviable situation where our most current regional syntheses areclearly outdated and require the integration of new data. For example, moresouthern Levantine Neolithic sites have been excavated over the last twodecades than in the preceding 80 years of research. Thus, a number of im-portant regional syntheses of this period (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1980; Cauvin, 1977,2000; Mellaart, 1975; Moore, 1985) are undermined by the rapid appearanceof new archaeological data sets. Finally, and clearly related to the first is-sue, the expansion of archaeological research in the Levant has drastically

changed our understanding of both individual phases of the Neolithic aswell as the transitions between these phases. This point is most clearly madeby a consideration of the ways in which recent archaeological research has


3/80

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic 363

illustrated the differences in Neolithic adaptations from the northern andsouthern Levant. In contrast to most general treatments of the Neolithic inthe broader Near East, a host of recent field research has illustrated a signi-ficant degree of regional variability in different geographical areas (e.g.,the southern Levant, the northern Levant, and Anatolia) and has high-lighted the need to consider these developments independently fromeach other.

In addressing the need for such a synthetic study of the Neolithic, ourgoals for this study are to (a) present an updated perspective on the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) periods of the southern Levantine Neolithic, in-cluding such topics as settlement patterns, architectural systems, mortuarypractices, population aggregation, and subsistence; (b) consider how these

practices change through different stages of the PPN; and (c) illustrate how,viewed in combination with each other, these practices provide insights intothe nature of social, ritual, and political organization for southern LevantineNeolithic. To aid in clarity, this review is organized chronologically. At thesame time, we have attempted to highlight what we see as some of the com-monalities, shared practices, and connections between these different peri-ods to convey to the reader some of the inter-weavings through time. In thesecondhalfofthisreviewweturntohowthesedatahelpusunderstandsocial,economic, and political developments in the southern Levantine Neolithic.

In this essay we explore cult and ritual systems, evidence for the emergence ofsocial inequality and conflict, population aggregation and regional growth,evidence for craft specialization, and regional and inter-regional connec-tions, and conclude with a brief consideration of future research directions.As collaborators, we have deliberately crafted this paper in such a way as toboth address areas of consensus and acknowledge and discuss areas in whichwe disagree. In the process of writing this paper we have struggled to finda balance in our own different perspectives. Attempting to balance thesehas not always been easy, but we believe that the process of this dialog both

has opened up our own views of the Neolithic and is likely to provide thereader insight into some of the active debates and discussions in Near EasternPrehistory.

BACKGROUND CONSIDERATIONS

Before moving on to a consideration of the archaeology of the southernLevantine Neolithic, we must first provide some essential background and

context. This includes outlining the main ecological zones of the southernLevant, paleoenvironmental change, and culturalhistorical framework. Al-though an understanding of the environmental, geomorphic, and climatic


4/80


backdrop is vital for comprehension of the revolutionary changes in humansocial, economic, and technological behavior during the PPN, this is a sub-

ject that is beyond the scope of this study. We provide a brief overviewof the environmental, ecological, and climatic context of culture change,but refer readers to more detailed considerations of these topics presentedelsewhere.

Main Ecological Zones of the Southern Levant

The southern Levant comprises a number of distinct ecological zones.The principal features of the southern Levant are (1) the northern exten-

sion of the Syro-African Rift Valley, which divides the landscape into aseries of longitudinal strips (from west to east); (2) the coastal plain, whichwidens to the south; (3) the central hilly zone (reaching elevations up to1000 m) between the coastal plain and Rift Valley; (4) the Rift Valley, withmany areas almost entirely below sea level; (5) the Transjordanian escarp-ment and mountains to the east of the Rift Valley with elevations commonlyconsiderably higher than west of the Rift; and (6) the gently east-slopingplateau to the east, extending into Saudi Arabia and including a series ofclosed seasonally flooded basins (e.g., Damascus and Azraq). Other than

the Jordan River, most valleys and major wadi systems flow eastwards orwestwards. A general rainfall gradient exists from both North to Southand West to East, modified by the orographic effects of elevation, rangingfrom 1000-mm to less than 50-mm annual precipitation. Dependent uponthese factors, the underlying bedrock and resultant soil types, a mosaic offour major phytogeographic zones (often in close proximity) can be rec-ognized. These zones include the Mediterranean forests and maquis, theIrano-Turanian steppes, and the dispersed and contracted desertic Saharo-Arabian zone, with Sudanian vegetation protruding into the lower Jordan

Valley.

Early Holocene Environmental Changes

Identifying correlations between climatic and culture changes is bothhighly complex and essential to understanding the context of Neolithic so-cial development. In general, previous research on this topic can be dividedinto two camps: considerations of the theoretical links between population

growth, paleoenvironmental change, and culture change in the Near EasternNeolithic (e.g., Binford, 1968; Cohen, 1977; Flannery, 1973), and detailedconsideration of archaeological data sets and how these might be linked


5/80


to culture change (e.g., Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998; Hershkovitzand Gopher, 1990; Ozdogan, 1998; Simmons, 1997). Needless to say, chrono-logical control is paramount in terms of evaluating the relationships, if any,between extraneous climatic shifts and material culture change. Beyondconsidering the timing and magnitude of environmental changes, it is im-portant to document their tempo and intensity, especially in sem-iarid re-gions. For example, gradual changes in the environment could sometimesbe accommodated whereas abrupt changes would have necessitated radicalreadjustments.

Several recent research projects provide more detailed evidence of en-vironmental changes during the Early Holocene than were hitherto avail-able. These include the palynological core from the Hula Valley (Baruch

and Bottema, 1991) displaying a high degree of correlation with long-termcultural developments, and in some instances, with shorter climatic fluctu-ations. Study of the Late Quaternary Nahal Soreq Cave speleotherms hasrecently been completed (Bar-Matthews et al., 1997), and provides estimatesof temperature and precipitation changes. High isotopic values indicate thatthe later part of the Natufian coincides with the relatively brief global returnto cold and dry conditions of the Younger Dryas. In the southern Levant,the effects of this may have lasted into at least the beginning of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA). During the first four millennia of the Holocene,

temperatures reached 14.519.0C, and a high mean precipitation of 675950 mm (almost twice the present) was recorded. This may indicate heavyyear-round rainstorms, although, interestingly, isotopic signatures do not in-dicate the penetration of Indian Ocean systems. About 8700 B.P. a short aridperiod is observed. Other changes in landforms are relevant, especially asthe coastal plain at the onset of the Holocene was still considerably largerthan at present. At ca. 13,700 B.P. (the end of the Early Natufian) the sea levelwas about 75 m below present, and by 8700 B.P. the sea level was still some20 m below present. Only during the Chalcolithic did levels approach those

observed today.During the Holocene, widespread erosion of hillsides and alluviation

occurred in the low-lying areas of the Mediterranean zone. These processeswere important for the replenishing of cultivable soils during the EarlyHolocene as well as the burial of Neolithic settlements. Diverse humanadaptations, as reflected by the densities and geographical distributions ofsettlements, provide an excellent means for monitoring the nature, rapidity,and intensity of changes in the physical environment. Thus, following inten-sive exploitation during the Middle and Late Epipaleolithic of the presently

hyper-arid regions of both the Jordanian plateau and Negev and Sinai, thesubsequent virtual abandonment of those areas during the PPNA reflectsparticularly unfavorable environmental conditions.


6/80


Calibrated/Uncalibrated CulturalHistorical Frameworks

A plethora of terminologies has been used to describe and organize PPNmaterial culture remains from different ecological regions of thesouthern Levant (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1981; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen,1998; Moore, 1985). The approach we employ in this study follows the gen-erally accepted convention of dividing the PPN (ca. 11,700ca. 8400 B.P.) intotwo main units, namely the PPNA and PPNB, which is further subdividedinto the Early, Middle, Late, and Final PPNB, or alternatively, PPNC pe-riod. (Tables I and II). A variety of technological, typological, and stylisticcriteria concerning the flaked stone tool assemblages within each period (to-gether with other types of material culture remains such as architecture, art,

decorative items, bone tool assemblages, and burial practices) are used toisolate these groupings in time and space. These data, in conjunction withstratigraphic and radiometric considerations, provide researchers with theability to link archaeological data sets to broader evolutionary trajectoriesof human social development.

In this study, we have tried to bridge between a splitters-and-lumpers approach, since an illustration of the diversity and complexityof dynamic social and economic developments requires us to alternativelyreflect upon similarities and differences. Moreover, the chronology followed

here is based on calibrated radiocarbon dates. As prehistorians we tend to de-fine archaeological units as normalized and presumably stabilized units. It isdifficult to isolate the beginnings of trends from background noise; therefore,

Table I. CulturalHistorical Sequence for the Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery NeolithicPeriods

Conventional CalibratedConventional 14C years B.P. 14C years B.P.

Time stratigraphic units Entity/phase 14C years B.P.a (this paper) (this paper)

Late Epipaleolithic Final Natufianb 10,50010,300 10,60010,200 12,50012,000Pre-Pottery Neolithic A PPNAc 10,3009600 10,2009400 11,70010,500Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Early PPNBd 96009300 95009300 10,50010,100

Middle PPNB 93008500 93008300 10,1009250Late PPNB 85008000 83007900 92508700Final PPNB/PPNC 80007500 79007500 86008250

Pottery/Late Neolithic Yarmukian 75007000 75007000 82507800

a Following others (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1981; Rollefson, 1998).bIncludes Harifian.cOne of the authors of this paper argues (Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1997) that PPNA

should be subdivided into two phases (see text).dOne of the authors of this paper has argued (Kuijt, 1997, in press) that there are insufficient

data from excavated and radiocarbon-dated archaeological sites to support arguments foran EPPNB phase. From this perspective the transition from PPNA to MPPNB would haveoccurred at ca. 10,500 B.P. with no intervening phase.


7/80


Table II. Select Pre-Pottery Neolithic Sites, by Period, in the Southern Levant

PPNAAbu Madi I, Ain Darat, Beit Taamir, Dhra, Ein Suhun?, Ein Suhun, El-Khiam, Gesher,

Gilgal I, Hatoula, Iraq ed-Dubb, Jericho, Modiin, Mujahiya?, Nacharini, Nahal Lavan108, Nahal Oren II, Netiv Hagdud, Neve Ilan, Poleg 18M, Ramat Beit Shemesh?, RekhesShalmon, Sabra I, Salibiya IX, Tell Aswad IA, Tell Batashi, Wadi Faynan 16, Zahratedh-Dhra 2, Zur Nathan

EPPNBAbu Hudhud, Abu Salem II, Ail 4, Horvat Galil?, Jilat 7 lower, Michmoret, Mujahiya?,

Nahal Lavan 109, Nahal Boqer, Nahal Hemar 4?, Sefunim IV, Tell Aswad IB, TelRamad??

MPPNBAbu Gosh, Ain Ghazal, Beidha, Beer Menuha, Ein Qadis I, Divshon, Er-Rahib (?),

Es-Sifiya?, Gebel Rubshah, Ghwair I?, Jericho, Jilat 7 middle, Jilat 26, Jilat 32 lower,Horvat Galil, Kfar Giladi, Kfar HaHoresh, Khirbet Rabud??, Lavan Elyon 1, Munhata

4-6, Nahal Betzet I, Nahal Hemar 4, Nahal Nizzana IX, Nahal Oren I, Nahal Qetura,Nahal Reuel, Sefunim, Tell Aswad IB-III?, Tell Fara North??, Tell Ramad ??, WadiShueib, Wadi Tbeik, Yiftahel

LPPNBAbu Gosh?, Ain Abu Nekheileh, Ain Ghazal, Ain al-Jammam, Ain Sabha, Al-Baseet,

Al-Ghirka, Azraq 31, Baja (?), Basta, Beisamoun, Burqu 35, Dhuweila 1, Ein Qadis I?,Es-Sayyeh, Esh-Shallaf, El-Hammeh, El-Khiam IB?, Es-Sifiya, Ghoraif e II, Ghwair I?,Jilat 7 upper?, Jilat 25, Jilat 32 trench 1, Kfar HaHoresh, Khirbet Hammam, MazadMazal, Munhata, Mushabi VI, Nahal Aqrav IV, Nahal Efe, Nahal Hemar 3, NahalIssaron, Ras Shamra Vc1, Tell Eli, Tell Rakan I, Tell Ramad II, Ujrat el-Mehed, UjratSuleiman I, Wadi Jibba I, Wadi Jibba II, Wadi Shueib

Final PPNB/PPNC

Ain Ghazal, Ain al-Jammam??, Atlit Yam, Azraq 31??, Basta (?), Beisamoun (?),Es-Seyyeh, Es-Sifiya, Hagoshrim, Jilat 13 lower, Jilat 27, Labweh, Nahal Efe??, NahalIssaron?, Ramad II, Ras Shamra Vc2, Tell Eli (?), Wadi Jibba II?, Wadi Shueib,Yiftahel IV

we define sociocultural units in their classical stages. We should bear inmind, however, that there are chronological phases and geographical facies,and that not all developments were synchronous across the southern Levant,let alone the Near East. We should also note that the current archaeological

record is admittedly poorly understood for some periods of the Neolithic(e.g., the Early PPNB) and some geographical areas of the southern Levant.Therefore our culturalhistorical overview is subject to continued revisionand may require modification as the results from additional studies becomeavailable.

Numerous radiocarbon dates have been obtained for PPN sites dur-ing the past few decades, and have led to far better documentation of thechronology. Unfortunately, in many cases the original excavators did notpresent details of the materials being dated (seeds, wood, bone, etc.), the pre-

cise stratigraphic contexts, and a consideration of the potential for dating oldwood. Needless to say, such information is vital to critically evaluate the ma-terial associations, research relevance, and chronological significance of the


8/80


dates provided. The adoption of recent advances in radiocarbon calibrationis both urgent and important, especially given that it changes the duration ofdifferent phases within the PPN period. Radiocarbon calibration indicatesthat the duration of some culturalhistorical stages are much longer, and insome cases shorter, than uncalibrated data indicate. Additionally, calibra-tion of radiocarbon dates significantly alters the rate at which archaeologistsmodel the diffusion of certain innovations and changes from core to otherareas (e.g., the naviform technology and projectile point types).

The chronological scheme employed in this paper is based upon cal-ibrated dates B.P. While there are subtle differences between various au-thors concerning the precise dating of the different phases, Table I providesone estimate, based on critical examination of the dates, including recently

obtained results and syntheses (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 2000; Goring-Morris andBelfer-Cohen, 1998; Kuijt and Bar-Yosef, 1994; Rollefson, 1998).

In discussing a wide range of changes in the southern Levantine PPN,the following sections employ a standardized and explicit terminology tohelp the reader understand the scale and nature of changes being discussed(Table III). These working definitions represent a series of compromisesand necessary generalizations, and draw upon the works of others (e.g.,Bar-Yosef, 2001). Despite the complicated nature of this terminology, itsdevelopment and employment is vital in comprehending Neolithic social

units. For example, the scale of settlements directly relates to potential mat-ing networks, the emergence of contagious diseases, as well as the size offields, pastures, and hunting grounds that were required to support individ-ual communities. Our point here is not to debate the nature and labelingof Neolithic social organization, so much as to provide readers with a de-tailed introduction to the archaeological data upon which future discussionmight be based. We have adopted a conservative approach to the labelingof different scales of settlements, and in some cases, the architecture foundwithin settlements. For example, we have deliberately avoided the use of

Table III. Generalized Dimensions of Different Scales of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Settlements

Camps Hamlets Villages Specialized sites

Communitysize ca. 1030 ca. 30100 ca. 100750 VariableSocialorganization

Band tribe(extended

family clan)

Band tribe(clan)

Band tribechiefdom?

(clan/housesocieties)

Variable

Permanence Seasonal

occupation

Year round Year round Variable

Economicorientation

Hunting andforaging

Foraging andfarming

Farmingand/orherding

Variable


9/80


the terms town, urbanism, and mega-site, all of which have been usedto describe the emergence of large aggregate villages in the LPPNB period.Rather than employ terms such as temple, which carries considerable in-tellectual baggage, we have opted to treat these buildings in a descriptivemanner, identifying the structures and at the same time allowing researchersto peruse individual arguments for the nature of ritual and social activitiesthat might have occurred within them.

PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC A PERIOD

Until the early 1990s, relatively little was known about the PPNA in com-parison to the PPNB. With the publication of several regional syntheses (e.g.,

Bar-Yosef, 1991; Kuijt, 1994a), as well as active fieldwork in Israel, Jordan,and southern Syria, research in the 1980s and 1990s has dramatically ad-vanced our understanding of the PPNA, a period which lasted from approx-imately 11,700 to 10,500 B.P. Research and publication of the materials fromJericho, Netiv Hagdud, Gilgal I, Salibiya IX, Gesher, Ain Darat, Hatoula,Tell Aswad, Dhra, Zahrat adh-Dhra 2, Jilat 7, Iraq ed-Dubb, Tell Aswad,Nachcharini Cave, and Wadi Faynan 16 have provided a new awareness ofthe nature of cultural adaptation for this period (see Bar-Yosef and Gopher,1997; Bar-Yosef and Kislev, 1989; Bennett, 1980; de Contenson, 1989, 1995;

Edwards et al., 2001; Finlayson et al., 2000; Garfinkel, 1989; Garfinkel andNadel, 1989; Garrard et al., 1996; Goodale et al., 2002; Gopher, 1995, 1996a;Kuijt, 1994a,b, 1996a, 2001a; Kuijt etal., 1991; Kuijt and Finlayson, 2001; Kuijtand Mahasneh, 1995, 1998; Lechavallier and Ronen, 1985; Mithen et al.,2000;Noy, 1989; Pirie, 2001a,b; Sayej, 2001, 2002, and references therein) (Fig. 1)(Table III).

Over the last 30 years, researchers have debated whether the PPNAshould be divided into two different phases or treated as a single culturalhistorical unit. The intellectual foundations for the two subfacies of the

PPNA (referred to as the Khiamian and Sultanian) were originally articu-lated by Echegaray (1966) and Crowfoot-Payne (1976, 1983). This culturalhistorical foundation remained unchallenged until the late 1980s. Subse-quent publications (e.g.,Garfinkel,1996;GarfinkelandNadel,1989;Goodaleet al., 2002; Nadel, 1990, 1996; Pirie, 2001a; Ronen and Lechevallier, 1999;Sayej, 2001, 2002) have debated Crowfoot-Paynes chronological division ofPPNA. Some researchers now argue that this model does not account foravailable data on regional technological and typological patterning in thesouthern Levantine PPNA, specifically for the large settlements in the Jor-

dan Valley. Kuijt (1997, 1998, 2001a) argues that post-1990 archaeologicalresearch and publication of data from Netiv Hagdud, Salibiya IX, Gilgal I,and Dhra illustrate that (a) data from new and publication of previous


10/80


Fig. 1. Pre-PotteryNeolithic A period site distribution in thesouthern Levant. Note the

contraction of communities into the Levantine Corridor from the preceding Natufianperiod.


11/80


excavations do not fit the technological, typological, and chronological ex-planatory model of two subfacies; and (b) we clearly understand neither thereasons for, nor processes by which, technological and typological variabil-ity was created in PPNA lithic assemblages. We believe, albeit with differentdegrees of conviction, that debate continues on these topics and that noclear consensus has emerged among researchers. For these reasons, we haveopted in the following discussion to treat PPNA as one cultural entity, withthe hope that future field and laboratory research will resolve this debate.

Settlement Patterns

Mediterranean Zone

The majority of known PPNA settlements are found in the Mediter-ranean zone of the southern Levant, in specific settings within or adjacent tothe Jordan Valley (Bar-Yosef, 1991; Kuijt, 1994a). Sites identified within theJordan Valley include Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Gilgal I, Dhra, Wadi Faynan16, Gesher, and Salibiya IX. Sites located in areas adjacent to the JordanValley include Ain Darat, Sabra I, Hatoula, Iraq ed-Dubb, Nahal Oren,and Tell Aswad. Data indicate that most PPNA sites larger than 0.5 ha (e.g.,Tell Aswad, Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Gilgal I, Zahrat adh-Dhra 2, and Dhra)

are generally located along fertile alluvial terraces at low elevations withinthe Rift Valley. Usually, smaller hamlets and seasonal camps are adjacent tothe Jordan Valley (Hatoula, Tell Batashi, Nahal Oren, Iraq ed-Dubb, andWadi Faynan 16). Indeed, there are also more ephemeral specialized siteslacking architecture (with bifacial tools and sickle blades as major compo-nents, but seemingly no projectile points) on and adjacent to the centralmountain ridge. These could represent logistical localities for forest clear-ance, wood provision for construction and fuel, as well as the harvesting ofcereals in the clearings, to supply parent communities to the east and west.

The importance of the Jordan Valley as a PPNA settlement focus is ex-pressed through thehorizontal extent of settlements, thedepth of cultural de-posits, the presence of specialized architecture, and economic practices (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1989, 1991; Kuijt, 1994a). Although the reason(s)for this pattern remain complex, the relative florescence of human occupa-tion along what Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen term the Levantine Corridorappears to be linked to developments in food production, such as agriculture(and the domestication of plants?), population aggregation for social andeconomic reasons, and perhaps illustrates the earliest development of large

regional centers, such as at Jericho. The delayed reaction to the effects of theYounger Dryas at the end of the Natufian (and Harifian), especially in thearid periphery, necessitating the contraction of populations back into better


12/80


watered localities, has also been suggested as a part of a pushpull mecha-nism (Goring-Morris, 1987, 1991; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998).

Arid Zone

In contrast to what is known about the PPNA occupation of the Mediter-ranean zone, very little evidence exists for any intensive occupation of sur-rounding desertic zones. In considering the Eastern Desert areas, Garrardet al. (1994) and Byrd (1994) outline that, with the possible exception ofWadi Jilat 7 (late in the period, as is Aswad), there does not appear to be ev-idence for long-term human occupation. This pattern is supported by surveysaround Jebel Druze and in the Black Desert, as well as further south around

Wadi Hasa andin theHisme. West of theRift Valley, extensive systematicsur-veys throughout the Negev have revealed extremely sparse PPNA remainsfollowing the Harifian and prior to EPPNB (Goring-Morris, 1987). Excava-tions at Abu Madi I (Bar-Yosef, 1991) in the South Sinai High Mountainsrevealed a single semi-subterranean oval structure as a seasonal (summer)camp of a small group of hunter-gatherers. Together with other untestedsites in that area (J. Phillips, 2001, personal communication), high residen-tial mobility is indicated perhaps by residual Harifian-related communities.In sum, current evidence suggests that regional PPNA settlement patterns

focused on large logistically based permanent communities, supplementedby smaller hamlets, in the Mediterranean zone (and perhaps more specif-ically the Jordan Valley), immediately adjacent to unusually well-wateredlocalities with alluvial lands. The PPNA was also characterized by meageruse of desertic areas by highly mobile foragers.

Site Structure

Settlement Organization

With the exception of the sites of Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Nahal Oren,and Hatoula, excavations in the southern Levant give little understanding ofthe spatial organization within communities. Excavations either have for themost part focusedon internal areas of structures, or perhaps more commonly,have been restricted so that the areas between structures are poorly under-stood. In open-air sites where we have some understanding of extramuralareas, PPNA settlement organization appears to be similar to that of theLate Natufian: individual oval-to-circular structures spaced apart from each

other with the occasional small stone feature, silo, or fire hearth betweenstructures (see Bar-Yosef and Gopher, 1997). At Nahal Oren, the small set-tlement was arranged in two rows along terraces in the hillside (Stekelis


13/80


and Yizraeli, 1963). With the exception of the storage/residential structuresabutting the PPNA tower at Jericho, site organization generally appears tobe similar to that of the Natufian period.

Residential Architecture

Residential architecture in the PPNA, based upon the presence of grind-ing stones and internal storage features, consisted of oval-to-subcircularstructures that were either freestanding (Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Hatoula),or, more often, semi-subterranean or built in such a way that one side of thestructure is built into a terrace (Dhra, Gilgal, Nahal Oren) (Figs. 2 and 3).Where available, fieldstones were employed to construct a stone foundationwith mud brick added for the superstructure. In cases such as Jericho andNetiv Hagdud, the majority of residential structures were semi-subterraneanwiththestonewallfoundationsbeingbetween20and60cminheight.At AinDarat, Zahrat edh-Dhra 2, and Dhra, structures were somewhat deeper,with walls being recovered to a height of 7080 cm (Edwards et al., 2001;Gopher, 1996b; Kuijt and Finlayson, 2001; Kuijt and Mahasneh, 1995, 1998).In contrast to later periods, residential buildings in the PPNA appear to haveminimal floor preparation, with most floors being composed of terre piseeoverlying stone cobbles where necessary. Entrance was either by way of a

few steps (Jericho) or through a gap in the wall at one end (Netiv Hagdud,Hatoula, Nahal Oren, Gilgal I). While the overall shape of PPNA residentialstructures appears to be relatively consistent, their size and internal organi-zation vary considerably. At Netiv Hagdud, Jericho, and Hatoula, residentialstructures vary between 5 and 8 m in length, although at Nahal Oren theywere smaller. Similarly, the internal organization of residential structuresvaries considerably, including in some cases the construction offire hearths,inset limestone slabs as cupholes, and storage features. In rare cases, such asthat of Netiv Hagdud locus 008, partitions divided the residential structure

into different areas. In contrast to the preceding Natufian, a major innova-tion begun during the PPNA and becoming widespread during the PPNB inthe Mediterranean zone was systematic house cleaning and the dumping ofrefuse in clearly defined adjacent refuse areas.

Non-residential Architecture

In the southern Levant there is only one unequivocal example of non-residential architecture: the large PPNA stone tower and associated wall at

Jericho. When originally built, this sturdy tower stood at least 8.5 m in heightand 8 m in diameter (Fig. 4). One side of the tower is surrounded by smalleroval and circular structures that may have served as storage facilities, or


14/80


Fig. 2. Plan view of Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period residential architecture from (a) JerichoSq M1, stage VIII, phase xxxix; (b) Iraq ed-Dubb, Structure I; and (c) Netiv Hagdud, Locus40 (based on Bar-Yosef and Gopher 1997, Fig. 3.22).

perhaps (although less likely) as residential buildings. A narrow and steep

staircase leads directly to the top of the structure. It was subsequently re-paired by adding a new outer layer of stones and replastering it at some pointduring the PPNA. Kenyon (1957) argued that this tower, in conjunction with


15/80


Fig. 3. Reconstruction of Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period residential structures.

Fig. 4. Cross-section of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period tower and internal passage, andplan view of select burials found inside of the passage.


16/80


the adjacent wall, would have served a defensive role. More plausibly, giventhe total absence of fortifications elsewhere in the Near East during the Ne-olithic, Bar-Yosef (1986) has argued that the wall system around one side ofJericho was linked to the diversion of flash floods and that the tower mighthave been a shrine. Exploring the possible links between burial practices atJericho, specifically differences between the individuals buried in the towerentranceway once it was closed off and the rest of the Jericho population,Bar-Yosef (1986) and Kuijt (1996b) have argued that this tower served as aritual focal point for the community and its role varied at different points ofits life history. However one chooses to view the structure, the PPNA towerreflects the ability of community members to build an enormous structure:a feat that required considerable pre-planning and collective labor.

Ritual and Mortuary Practices

Mortuary Practices

Although cemetery sites have not been documented so far, excavationsat Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Hatoula, and Nahal Oren illustrate that burialsystems of the PPNA period, as presently understood, were relatively stan-dardized and differentiated between adults and children (Bar-Yosef et al.,

1991; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1991; Kuijt, 1996b; Kurth and Rohrer-Ertl, 1981). These illustrate a highly standardized mortuary system continu-ing practices initiated by at least the late Natufian, involving primary burialand secondary skull removal, as well as some differences in the treatmentof adults and children. Significantly, however, as in later and earlier phases,post-mortem skull removal even for adults was by no means ubiquitous.After death, adults and young adults were buried without grave goods in in-dividual primary interments. Research has also indicated that at this time thelocation of the skull was also marked by community members. The repeated

recovery of articulated adult skeletons in anatomically correct positions il-lustrates that many, if not most, crania were removed after decay of thesoft tissues. Community members returned to the grave, excavated an areaaround the skull, removed it, sometimes together with the mandible, andthen refilled the excavated pit. While very difficult to trace archaeologically,several ethnographic accounts suggest that removed skulls were cleaned andprepared for use by the living community, after which they were subjected toreburial often in groups as part of a communal event. After completion, theskulls were reburied in extra-, intermural, or outlying areas of the settlement.

It is interesting to note that at Abu Madi the single, articulated burial recov-ered from beneath the floor of the hut included the cranium (Hershkovitzet al., 1995). Currently, we are unable to determine the spatial relationshipbetween the original postcranial skeletons and the reburied skulls, although


17/80


this determination would unquestionably provide insight into the rationaleof these mortuary practices and the underlying belief structure. Similarly,excavations have yet to determine unequivocally whether adults and chil-dren were systematically interred in different kinds of locations. Existingevidence from Jericho indicates that some infant skeletons were placed indedicatory contexts within houses, such as post foundations. In contrast, itappears that adult community members were interred in either intra- orextramural locations, but again the nature of this patterning (fortuitous orplanned) is unclear.

Drawing upon previous studies (Amiran, 1962; Belfer-Cohen, 1995;Bienert, 1991; Garfinkel, 1994; Hershkovitz and Gopher, 1990; Kenyon,1957; Kurth and Rohrer-Ertl, 1981), Kuijt (1996b, 2001b) argues that skull

removal as a form of secondary mortuary practice reflects one of severalthematically interrelated aspects of a ritual belief system focused on enhanc-ing community cohesion and reaffirming household and community beliefsduring the PPNA and later MPPNB (Middle PPNB). He argues that LateNatufian and PPNA mortuary practices, specifically the (apparent) absenceof grave goods, burial of individuals, use of simple graves, and practice ofskull removal served to integrate communities and downplay socioeconomicdifferences between individuals and kin groups in the face of economic andsocial changes.

Other Symbolic Realms

Although quite rare, several PPNA sites have yielded small clay or stonefigurines and sculptures (Figs. 5(a)(c)). Characteristic specimens from NetivHagdud are a clay figurine and two fragments that schematically portray aseated woman with two stubby legs (Bar-Yosef, 1991, p. 40). Excavations atDhra in 2001 produced a similar clay figurine (Kuijt and Finlayson, 2001).

Excavations at Gilgal I and Salibiya IX recovered several human and animal(mainly bird) figurines. The figurine from Salibiya IX, carved from chalk,appears to represent a kneeling woman, although, when inverted, it mayrepresent a phallus. Here it is of interest to note that, while many discussionsof symbolic imagery focus on the mother-goddess theme in relation to theorigins of agriculture (e.g., Cauvin, 2000), carved stone phalli have also beenrecovered from other PPNA settlements continuing traditions begun alreadyduring the Natufian.

Integration With Architecture

While difficult to address from a material stand point, there appearsto be some clear links between mortuary and architectural practices in the


18/80


Fig. 5. Anthropomorphic and Zoomorphic Figurines from the Natufian through Pottery Ne-olithic period of the southern Levant: (a) female figurine, PPNA, Dhra; (b and c) femalefigurine, PPNA, Netiv Hagdud; (d) female figurine, MPPNB, Ain Ghazal; (e) human figurine,Pottery Neolithic, Ramad; (f) cattle figurine, MPPNB, Jericho.

PPNA. First, the mortuary practices at the PPNA tower appear to be specificto this location (see Bar-Yosef, 1986; Kuijt, 1996b). Second, examinationof the placement of infant/child burials indicates that many PPNA burialsserved as dedicatory caches, such as under postholes or under walls. While

it is not clear if all human burials were deliberately placed under the flooror walls of structures, examination of the location of the burials vis-a-visbuildings indicates that the majority was deliberately interred under theinternal areas of a floor, instead of postburial house construction.

Economy

Subsistence (Flora and Fauna)

A number of recent studies have illustrated that PPNA economieswere based on the consumption of cereals and legumes and the hunting ofmedium- and small-sized mammals, reptiles, fish, and birds. A consideration


19/80


of the vegetal products consumed by people in the PPNA illustrates that awide array of seeds and fruits were utilized, several of them intentionally cul-tivated and domesticated (see Colledge, 1998; Hillman et al., 2001). Hillmanand Davis (1990) argue that there is evidence for domesticated wheat at TelAswad, Jericho, Gilgal, and Netiv Hagdud. Alternatively, Kislev (1992) con-cludes that most of the barley recovered from these sites was harvested fromwild stands, a point that Zohary (1989) agrees with, although, at the sametime, Zohary argues that carbonized grains from Netiv Hagdud, Gilgal, andJericho reflect the cultivation of two-rowed barley. Although debate con-tinues on the issue of the existence and role of domesticated vs. cultivatedplant resources within PPNA communities, this discussion should not divertattention from the major implication that members of Late Natufian and

PPNA communities were intentionally manipulating, managing, and culti-vating plant resources in a previously unprecedented manner in the NearEast and elsewhere (see Colledge, 1998; Smith, 2001).

During the PPNA, people relied on a number of wild game species,including gazelle, wild ass, occasional cattle, and caprines, as well as smallergame, such as wild boar, fox, and hare (Tchernov, 1994). In contrast to thearguments for the early cultivation of plant crops in the PPNA, most re-searchers argue that there is no real evidence for animal husbandry (with theexception of the dog which had been domesticated during the Natufian). It is

interesting to note that in many PPNA sites, especially in the Jordan Valley,there is a very high frequency of bird bones; thus birds probably served asimportant food resources. Excavations at Netiv Hagdud, for example, recov-eredlarge numbers of aquatic species that inhabited marshy environments. Ahigh percentage (greater than 50% of the assemblage) of bird bone has alsobeen noted at Dhra, Hatoula, Wadi Faynan 16, and Iraq ed-Dubb, and pos-sibly at Jericho. The high representation of these species has implications forthe environmental conditions during the PPNA, as well as for broader sub-sistence practices (the Rift Valley serves as one of the major migration routes

between Africa and Eurasia). Moving beyond an emphasis on the huntingof gazelle, a practice clearly seen in the Natufian, subsistence in the PPNAappears to shift to the intensive collecting and cultivation of local plant re-sources and the intensive hunting of water fowl and gazelle inhabiting marshor riparian environments. The hunting of foxes and birds of prey might havebeen fornondietary, symbolic purposes, perhaps for pelts, feathers, andclaws.

Lithic Technology, Groundstone, and Bone Tools

In terms offlaked stone technology, the PPNA lithic assemblages showa primary focus on the use of single platform blade and bladelet coresfor the production of specific tools such as El-Khiam, Jordan Valley, and


20/80


Salibiya projectile points (see Abbes, 1994; Bar-Yosef and Gopher, 1997; deContenson, 1989; Goodale et al., 2002; Kuijt, 2001a; Nadel et al., 1991; Sayej,2001; Stordeur and Abbes, 2002), sickles blades, perforators, and burins.Depending on the location of communities, these implements were man-ufactured from a variable range of raw materials (Fig. 6). Heavy wood-working tools include bifacial axes, often with tranchet blows, chisels offlintand limestone, and ground and polished basalt and greenstone adzes. Otherground-stone tools include a wide array of limestone and basalt pestles, to-gether with shallow limestone cuphole mortars, presumably for poundingseeds. Importantly, the ground-stone tool repertoire is thus intermediatebetween that of the Natufian with its deep mortars for pounding and thegrinding querns of the PPNB. Researchers have also noted the existence of

specific tool forms that are temporally diagnostic of the PPNA. Not surpris-ingly, many of them are hunting and/or food-processing tools. These includeHagdud and Gilgal truncations (which were probably mounted behind pro-

jectile points on arrowshafts to cause hemorrhaging), bifacially retouchedBeit Taamir and unretouched sickle blades, and possibly lunates. It shouldbe noted that serious questions have been raised about the chronologicalplacement of lunates in PPNA (Garfinkel, 1996; Garfinkel and Nadel, 1989;Goodale et al., 2002; Kuijt, 1997, 2001a; Pirie, 2001a,b).

Trade and Exchange

In comparison with other periods of the Neolithic, there is only limitedarchaeological evidence for long- or short-distance trade and exchange ofgoods during PPNA. Currently, our best evidence for short distance, thatis to say interregional trade and exchange, is the presence of shell, green-stone, malachite, and bitumen. Marine shells from the Mediterranean andthe Red Sea are found in many, if not most, PPNA settlements together withthe beginnings of a shift in preference away from dentalia to bivalves and

gastropods (Bar-Yosef Mayer, 1997). As in the preceding Natufian period,these appear to have been used as beads, although it is interesting to notethat they are not recovered with human burials. While more difficult to traceto specific source areas, bitumen (which is found within the Dead Sea re-gion), used as an adhesive for implements and probably also as a sealantfor baskets, was also collected and traded within the southern Levant, anexchange system that expanded in the MPPNB. Greenstone and malachite,found along the heavily faulted areas of the southern Rift Valley at Faynanand Timna, are other resources that were extracted and distributed within

the southern Levant. While not recovered in large quantities, greenstonebeads, bidirectionally drilled using long perforators, are found. Arguablythe most extensive evidence for long-distance trade and exchange is that of


21/80


Fig. 6. Stone tools from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period of the southern Levant:(a and b) El-Khiam projectile point; (c and d) Hagdud truncation; (e) borer/awl; (f)Beit Tam knife; (g) cuphole; (h) polished axe; (i and j) shaft streightener.


22/80


obsidian, greenstone, and malachite. Obsidian has been documented at somePPNA settlements in the Levantine Corridor, including Jericho, Dhra, andNetiv Hagdud. All analyzed samples trace from central Turkey. It is of someinterest to note varying quantities in different sites, even when taking intoaccount excavated areas and retrieval methods, perhaps hinting that somesites served as more central distribution nodes, a pattern that seeminglycontinues later.

EARLY PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC B PERIOD

Presently the EPPNB is one of the most poorly documented periods of

the PPN; in fact, its very existence has been questioned. There is a notablepaucity of well-excavated, radiocarbon-dated settlements dating betweenca. 10,500 and ca. 10,100 B.P. From one perspective, it was a transitionalphase between the better-defined PPNA and MPPNB, which researchershave termed EPPNB (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1981; Gopher, 1996b; Goring-Morrisand Belfer-Cohen, 1998). Others argue that there are insufficient data tosupport the creation of a transitional phase, and that the transformationfrom PPNA to MPPNB was more rapid that previously thought and with noobservable intervening phase (e.g., Kuijt, 1998, in press). With the exception

of Tell Aswad in the Damascus Basin, no site in the southern Levant dis-playssubstantialevidence of continuity from the PPNA to PPNB with intactarchitecture, cultural deposits, and representative lithic material from bothperiods (see Cauvin, 2000; Stordeur, 2000a,b; Stordeur and Abbes, 2002, formore detailed discussion of PPNA and EPPNB flaked stone tool technologyfor other areas). While disagreement and debate continue on this subject,even between the authors of this work, it is necessary to discuss possible sup-portive data for an EPPNB phase as well as alternative interpretations of thetransition from the the PPNA to MPPNB. For some researchers, these ques-

tions, as well as the limited number of well-dated and excavated sites datingto this period, underline the critical need for caution and the developmentof consensus as to the material correlates of EPPNB.

Settlement Patterns

Mediterranean Zone

The few possible large EPPNB sites are located in more northerly parts

of the region, especially east of the Rift Valley, at Aswad IB in the DamascusBasin or Mujahiya on the slopes of the Golan, or perhaps at er-Rahib in WadiYabis (Fig. 7). All excavations at these sites, however, were limited in extent


23/80


Fig. 7. Early andMiddle Pre-PotteryNeolithic B period site distributionin thesouthern

Levant. Note clustering of MPPNB villages and hamlets around the Jordan Valley,and the appearance of small settlements and seasonal sites in marginal environmentalzones.


24/80


and, with the exception of Tell Aswad, where continuity is certainly present,none has been radiocarbon-dated. On the basis of the brief descriptions ofthe small assemblages published, Mujahiya could actually be PPNA while er-Rahib might be primarily MPPNB, given the predominance of Jericho andByblos points in relation to Helwan points (see Gopher, 1996b). Smaller,possibly later, sites are known in the Galilee (e.g., Horvat Galil) as wellas in ephemeral and sporadic occupations in and immediately adjacent tothe coastal plain (e.g., Nahal Oren, Michmoret, Sefunim, el Wad). Havingnoted this, one of us (Kuijt) argues that the architecture, plaster floors, burialsystems, and published radiocarbon dates from Horvat Galil may representthe earliest phase of MPPNB (Kuijt, in press). Although there is presentlyno documented evidence for EPPNB settlements within the Rift itself (and

all PPNA sites there were abandoned), the complete depopulation of thisarea is difficult to understand.

Arid Zone

In the Negev and Sinai, following a virtual hiatus for the first half of the10th millennium, there is some evidence for a slight increase in settlementdensity, which nevertheless remains quite sporadic. While there are few pos-sible EPPNB sites in southern Sinai, evidence from the Negev is slightly

greater, namely small hunter-gatherer occupations featuring beehive-typearchitecture in and around the Negev Highlands (Abu Salem and NahalBoqer), as well as camp sites in the western Negev dunes (Nahal Lavan 109),although dating is based only upon typological seriation (Burian et al., 1976;Gopher and Goring-Morris, 1998). Similarly, in eastern and southern Jordanthere would appear to be sparse reoccupation following an even longer hia-tus, dating back to the Early Natufian. Jilat 7 displays oval architecture whileJebel Queisa is an ephemeral encampment.

Site Structure


If representative of EPPNB, the sites of Tel Aswad, Mujahiya, er-Rahib,Horvat Galil, and Ain Abu Hudhud were all modest hamlet-sized set-tlements extending up to no more than 2 ha, yet the limited excavationsdo not permit any observations regarding internal site structure. In theCarmel (Sefunim, el Wad), the scanty data indicate sites were probably

quite ephemeral, perhaps resembling those in more peripheral regions. TheEPPNB occupation at Abu Salem, encompassing a mere 150 m2, comprisesa series of small interlocking oval structures 1.5 to 2.0-m in diameter, with


25/80


shared walls to a height of 40 cm; it is difficult to believe they could all havebeen used as residential dwellings (Gopher and Goring-Morris, 1998). Open-air sites, which possibly may have had more flimsy architecture of organicmaterials, include Michmoret and Nahal Lavan 109. The collections fromboth sites, which are undated by radiometric means, indicate they may havefunctioned as hunting camps. Nahal Lavan 109 is in many respects anoma-lous: superficially, this occupation could be viewed as a short-term huntingencampment, yet, in addition to quantities of projectile points, the represen-tation of numerous tranchet axes and obsidian artifacts is otherwise quiteunprecedented during the entire PPN in the desert areas (see Bar-Yosef,1981). Perhaps this site served as an aggregation locality for exchange andredistribution.


Although no complete radiocarbon-dated structures have been exca-vated at any site in the Mediterranean zone, there may be indications for theincomplete beginnings of a shift from oval to small-scale sub-rectangular ar-chitecture at Aswad, Horvat Galil, Abu Hudhud, and Jilat 7. House walls areoften made offieldstones, but at Aswad and Horvat Galil rectangular mudbricks were used in tandem with colored lime-plaster floors, which curved

up the walls. Based upon other lines of data, these structures likely re flectchronological trends within the Mediterranean zone where settlements arelikely to have been permanent. Irrespective of area, the small scale of domes-tic structures is notable. In more desertic areas, at Abu Salem in the NegevHighlands, and at Jilat 7, structures were still oval, with low stone-built wallsand probable light, organic superstructures, reflecting less permanent usage.Of note is the dichotomy between house-cleaning activities in the Mediter-ranean zone as opposed to the accumulations of ash and other debris withintemporary structures in the desert.


Currently there is no known nonresidential architecture from thisperiod.


Mortuary Practice

Human skeletal material is extremely rare, but assuming that HorvatGalil is representative of EPPNB rather than MPPNB, this suggests a


26/80


continuation of previous practices of burial in and around domestic dwellings(Gopher, 1989; Hershkovitz and Gopher, 1990).

Economy


At Aswad, van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres (1985) argue that there weredomesticated cereals present and that they were cultivated. At the sametime, wild plants continued to play a major role. The presence at Jilat 7 ofcultivars is especially intriguing given its steppe setting (Garrard et al., 1996).

The small faunal assemblages from throughout the southern Levant indicatea hunting economy based on locally available game. Although both avifaunaand fish do occur in some sites, there appears to be a shift away from theprevious emphasis on such species.

Lithic Technology

It is important to note that lithic assemblages from this period, suchas the collections from Nahal Lavan 109, Mujahiya, er-Rahib, and Abu

Hudhud, are not dated by radiometric means. Therefore, caution must beemployed when employing these collections as type objects for EPPNB.In general, lithic assemblages assumed to be from EPPNB display numer-ous technotypological features transitional between PPNA and MPPNB.Notable too is the common but not completely ubiquitous preference forchalcedony and other fine-grained stone, often non-local in origin, as rawmaterial in many assemblages (e.g., Nahal Lavan 109, Abu Salem II, Jilat 7)(see also Garrard et al., 1994, p. 193). There may also be some evidence forintentional heat treatment of stone (already occurring since at least the Natu-

fian). Although pyramidal cores are initially predominant (following fromPPNA), an innovation is used with opposed-platform naviform techniqueto produce fine, elongated blade blanks for retouch into projectile points.It appears that this technique originated along the Middle Euphrates in thenorthern Levant and diffused southwards, together with the Helwan point(Gopher, 1989). Rare Hagdud truncations may initially continue to appearin some (northerly) assemblages. Burins are often dihedral types, some beingfashioned on naviform blades. Heavy-duty bifacial tools in the form of axesand chisels were knapped using a totally separate reduction sequence, but

they also display continuity in the common use of tranchet blows. Polishedaxes may also begin to appear. Perforating tools appear to be less com-mon and less standardized than those during PPNA. Microliths have now


27/80


disappeared from the repertoire (but see Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen,1998, for a discussion of the problematic aspects of microliths in Neolithicassemblages).

Other Technology

As with the flaked stone, ground-stone tools display considerable conti-nuity from PPNA in the number of cupholes, while indicating an increasingemphasis on quern use. Polished basalt and limestone axes rarely occur.Lime plaster, sometimes colored, is now used in some sites for architecturalpurposes (Aswad, Horvat Galil), continuing practices initiated during the

Natufian.

Trade and Exchange

Obsidian, greenstones, and other minerals, as well as marine mollusks,sometimes modified, may attest to continued exchange networks.

MIDDLE PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC B PERIOD

Compared to the paucity of well-excavated and radiocarbon-dated set-tlements dating between ca. 10,500 and ca. 10,100 B.P., there is a relativewealth of information for PPN occupations between ca. 10,100 andca. 9500 B.P. Field research at a number of sites (see Table I), includingJericho, Ain Ghazal, Yiftahel, Kfar HaHoresh, Ghwair I, Nahal Hemar,Munhata, Tell Aswad, Wadi Shueib, and Beidha provide us with our mostdetailed understanding of this period of time (see Bar-Yosef and Alon, 1988;Bienert, 2001; Byrd, 1994; Garfinkel, 1987; Gopher et al., 1995; Goring-Morris, 1991; Kenyon, 1981; Kirkbride, 1968; Rollefson, 1998; Rollefson

et al., 1992; Simmons et al., 1989, and references therein; Simmons andNajjar, 1996, 1999) (Fig. 7). Characterized by elaborate mortuary practicesincluding skull removal and plastering, well-established sedentary villageswith well-made residential buildings, clear evidence for domesticated plantsand animals, in many ways the Neolithic of MPPNB exemplifies the entireNeolithic in the minds of general archaeologists and the public. Startingwith Kenyons research at Jericho in the 1950s through the ongoing excava-tions ofAin Ghazal in the 1990s, numerous field projects have documentedthat PPN village life was characterized by the emergence of larger com-

munities through population aggregation, highly formalized lithic technol-ogy, and surprisingly elaborate primary and secondary mortuary practices.While this has resulted in considerable and highly positive field research


28/80


on MPPNB settlements, it has also resulted in the unfortunate stereotypingof the broader PPNB on the basis of MPPNB. Sadly, this process of gener-alizing fails to recognize the considerable variability in many, if not most,material practices between MPPNB, LPPNB, and PPNC, and perhaps moreimportant, the ways in which these changes in practices inform researchersas to the nature of social, economic, technological, and political change overthese periods.

Settlement Patterns

Mediterranean Zone

As with PPNA, most of the large MPPNB communities are locatedin the Mediterranean zone, and more specifically along the Jordan Valleyand neighboring areas. The larger MPPNB occupations, such as Jericho andAin Ghazal, may have covered a horizontal area of 45 ha (Rollefson et al.,1992). The depth of cultural deposits as well as in the density of residen-tial housing indicates that these were medium-sized agricultural commu-nities. In the western areas of the Mediterranean zone, settlements suchas Khirbet Rabud, el-Khiam, Abu Gosh, Tell Fara North, Nahal Oren 1,Yiftahel, Horvat Galil, and Nahal Betzet appear to have covered close to

1 or 1.5 ha in area at most, with many of these probably existing as smallagricultural hamlets. Communities in western areas of the Mediterraneanzone, including Yiftahel, appear to have been closer to 1 or 1.5 ha in area,with most of these probably existing as smaller agricultural villages. MPPNBcommunities in transitional environmental areas, such as Ghwair I andBeidha, also appear to have been smaller agricultural villages, often under1 ha (Simmons, 2000).

The distribution and size of settlements in the Mediterranean zone raisethe possibility of the existence of regional economic, ritual, and social centers

in MPPNB (Rollefson, 1987). Economic linkages between these centers re-main unclear, however, as is the degree of autonomy of the smaller villages.Alternatively, such a distribution of settlements might not reflect economicsystems so much as the existence of large agricultural towns recognized aslocations for the enactment of ritual practices. Whatever the reason, MPPNBsettlement practices were clearly focused on the Mediterranean zone, andperhaps more specifically on the eastern foothills and center of the JordanValley.

Desertic Zone

In comparison to the large agricultural villages located along the Levan-tine Corridor, the occupation of desertic areas during MPPNB is relatively


29/80


rare and quite small, especially compared to the number and size of oc-cupations dating to after 9500 B.P. (Betts, 1989; Byrd, 1994; Garrard et al.,1994). A steady increase in settlements from the earlier periods is seen inthe exploitation of arid zones during MPPNB, presumably reflecting bothnatural population increase and perhaps also recolonization (Byrd, 1992;Hole, 1984). In the south, this is valid primarily for the Negev but also forSinai, at Nahal Efe, Divshon, Ramat Matred, Nahal Nizzana IX,Nahal Lavan109, Lavan Elyon 1, Ein Qadis I, Mushabi VI, Beer Menuha, Nahal Qetura,Nahal Reuel, Wadi Tbeik, and Gebel Rubshah. Sites rarely reach 250 m2 inextent and, where architecture is present, comprise a series of small roundeddwellings in a beehive arrangement. These are probably the small, seasonalencampments and hunting camps of bands continuing a mobile foraging

existence, although some may represent logistical hunting forays of groupsresidentially based close to the edge of the Mediterranean zone. MPPNBsettlements situated in desertic areas are characterized by a limited numberof round/oval structures, often with a semisubterranean foundation, usuallycovering an area of less than 20 20 m2. Along the Azraq basin, for exam-ple, settlements were usually characterized by shallow occupation depositsand a restricted number of storage or food-preparation features (Garrardet al., 1994). Unlike in the Mediterranean, the walls and floors of buildingsare not plastered, and elaborately prepared floors and walls are formed with

upright stones. Moreover, some MPPNB occupations consist of short-termuse areas, such as hunting camps, in which the only evidence of architec-ture consists offire hearths with no residential structures. Collectively, thelimited extent of archaeological remains and the flimsy nature of MPPNBarchitecture in desertic areas are suggestive of short-term or seasonal use bysmall families or perhaps households.

Site Structure


Although archaeologists working in the southern Levant have a rela-tively extensive understanding of material culture and economic practicesfor the MPPNB, we have only the most limited understanding of how spacewas organized within these communities. As with the PPNA and the EPPNB,our poor understanding of MPPNB settlement organization is linked to thelimited excavation of extramural areas. In some cases, such as Jericho and

Ain Ghazal, it is not feasible to open large horizontal areas because of lateroccupations. In cases where opening horizontal areas has been possible, al-most all buildings appear to have been freestanding with variable spacing ofstructures (Figs. 8 and 9). For example, at Beidha and Ghwair I, structures


30/80


Fig. 8. Schematic representation of Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period residential architec-tural and mortuary practices. Illustrated ritual and mortuary practices include (1) primary adultburial, skull removed, subfloor, and inside of structure; (2) primary adult burial, complete, ex-tramural; (3) primary child burial, complete, under wall of structure; (4) secondary burial cacheof three skulls.

were built next to each other with little space between them. At Ain Ghazaland Jericho, excavations reveal that structures were often placed next toeach other, but that there were also cases where individual buildings wereseparated by 58 m. At Yiftahel and Kfar HaHoresh, we see a pattern inwhich buildings were separated from each other. It is also interesting to notethat with expanded excavation of extramural areas, archaeologists are doc-umenting the existence of large fire hearths, plaster-manufacturing facilities,and other general domestic areas.


Over the last 20 years, a growing number of researchers have exam-ined Neolithic patterns of architectural change in the southern Levant asa means of understanding past social organization, changes in the size andcomposition of the household, and economic practices in different regions(Akkermans et al., 1983; Aurenche, 1981; Banning and Byrd, 1987; Byrd,1994; Banning and Byrd, 1987, 1989; Flannery, 1973; Kuijt, 2000a; Rollefson,

1998, 2000). Expanding upon this body of data, other studies have exploredthe possible reasons for site and regional-level patterning of residentialand non-residential architecture (cf. Banning and Byrd, 1987; Byrd, 1994;Flannery, 1973; Kuijt, 2000a). In general, MPPNB period residential


31/80


Fig. 9. Plan view of Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period non-residential buildingsat Beidha, Jordan. Note placement of upright stones, stone paving on floors, and largeground stone basin.


32/80


structures from the Mediterranean zone of the southern Levant were rectan-gular or sub-rectangular with an entrance at one end, internally partitioned,and in many cases had an open internal space opposite the entrance with acentral hearth (Fig. 9). In the MPPNB occupations at Jericho, Ain Ghazal,and Yiftahel, and the ongoing excavations at Kfar HaHoresh, for example,the walls of rectangular structures were usually built upon an earlier groundsurface and without a foundation trench. Depending on the available lo-cal building materials, the walls consisted of courses of field stones oftenarranged in two parallel rows that were later filled with mud and irregularstones. Floors were almost always constructed of a thick plaster, painted red,pink, or white, and punctured by multiple postholes for roof supports. Asseen at Jericho, Beidha, and Ain Ghazal, MPPNB structures were highly

standardized in their length, width, and internal layout within individualsettlements. Settlements that were close to each other tend to have sim-ilar architectural practices. For example, the internal dimensions of mostMPPNB period residential structures from Ain Ghazal and Jericho, the twosites with the most complete data, are approximately 8 4.5 m2, with rarelymore than 50-cm variation in any dimension and with internal partitions. Inother early MPPNB settlements in areas adjacent to the Jordan Valley, thereappears to be a greater degree of variation in the size, shape, and internalorganization of residential architecture. The settlements of Yiftahel, Kfar

HaHoresh, and possibly Horvat Galil illustrate the existence of rectangu-lar or sub-rectangular buildings but with greater variability in the size ofstructures and the use of internal partitions.

Along transitional environmental zones, such as the southern desert ar-eas, it appears that the transition from circular/oval structures to rectangularfree standing structures occurred slightly later in PPNB. Excavations at theimportant MPPNB occupation of Ghwair I provide evidence of an inward-looking cell plan, often built around a small central courtyard (Najjar, 1994;Simmons, 1995; Simmons and Najjar, 1999). Here, individual cells tend to be

more or less square, with awkward access from the central courtyard throughraised rectangular entrances/windows. Construction was usually of shapedstones and chinking. Although details are presently scanty, some may havehad upper stories for residential dwellings, the small cells serving as storageand other activity facilities. Courtyards and some cells were plastered. Thesestructures facilitated the construction of additional cells around the exterior,ultimately creating a warren of rooms and open spaces. Collectively, researchat Beidha and Ghwair I illustrates that in peripheral Mediterranean areas,rectangular systems of architecture appear to be adopted several hundred

years later, and when they are adopted, they do not display the degree ofstandardization seen in communities in the Mediterranean area. In desertareas, presumably occupied seasonally, circular structures continue to be


33/80


constructed for the entire PPN sequence. The specific reasons for these dif-ferences are unclear, although, given the geographical nature of this pat-terning, they may well be related to unrecognized differences in economicpractices, differential rates of diffusion of cultural practices from commu-nities living in Mediterranean areas to communities situated in transitionalenvironmental zones, and/or differences in social organization.


Recent regional synthesis and ongoing field research at Ain Ghazal,Ghawair I, Kfar HaHoresh, and Beidha have provided enticing glimpses

of how and where MPPNB communities created spaces within settlementsfor nonresidential or collective purposes. One aspect of this is seen in theconstruction of distinctive, if not unique, structures both within and outsidesettlement boundaries. At Beidha, excavations some 40 m away from theresidential areas revealed three stone structures that were different fromresidential structures in construction and character. Beyond their physicalplacements, these structures differed from residential structures in the con-struction of upright stone slab walls, the presence of a huge 3 .0 2.2 m2

stone-slab basin and a very large, raised stone-slab platform, and a large rect-

angular stone in one building (Byrd, 1994, p. 657; Kirkbride, 1968) (Fig. 9).Both the location and contents of these structures suggest that communitymembers constructed them for ritual practices, perhaps with different house-holds associated with different structures.

In a pattern that anticipates the LPPNB construction of non-residentialarchitecture at Ain Ghazal, there are also cases in MPPNB Beidha in whichnon-residential buildings were integrated with residential buildings. On thebasis of the presence of very large, centrally located raised rimmed hearths,larger than those in residential structures, and the absence of in situ artifacts

associated with domestic activities, Byrd (1994) argues that select buildingsin the MPPNB occupation at Beidha were probably employed for commu-nal and ritual practices. In contrast to residential structures, most of thesebuildings were constructed with unique architectural features. Excavationsat Ghwair I also provide evidence for the construction of public areas, withmajor outdoor stairways, that according to preliminary reports by Simmonsand Najjar (1999, p. 6) may have served as some sort of public area. Theuse of orthostats is also seen at Kfar HaHoresh, Ghwair I, and Jericho. AtGhwair I, excavations have revealed that community members commonly

constructed small niches along wall areas, and at times cached objects inthese niches. The use of niches is also seen in the buildings at Jericho. AtJericho, a large chipped stone upright was recovered on the floor of a room


34/80


in front of a niche, and Kenyons interpretation places this stone as origi-nally standing in the niche. Interestingly, the small wall niches documented atmost settlements appear in both residential and non-residential structures,and this architectural feature may indicate that some aspects of broadercommunity ritual or beliefs were practiced within single households as wellas communally in non-residential structures.


Mortuary Practices

Over the last 20 years, archaeological research projects at MPPNB set-tlements have revealed a remarkable level of continuity in broader mortuarypractices in the southern Levant, and at the same time, a high degree of vari-ation in the ways in which mortuary practices were implemented withinand between individual settlements (Cornwall, 1981; Goring-Morris, 2000;Hershkovitz and Gopher, 1990; Kuijt, 2000b, 2001b; Kurth and Rohrer-Ertl,1981; Rollefson, 1998; Rollefson et al., 1992; Verhoeven, 2002). One of themore remarkable by-products of nearly 100 years of archaeological researchat PPN settlements has been the documentation of formalized mortuary

practices that have intrigued, puzzled, and fascinated the general public andprofessional archaeologists alike. This discussion has centered on two scalesof research: that of the nature of and variability within mortuary practices atindividual communities, and the degree to which select mortuary practiceswere shared between regional communities, and between regional areas,such as the southern and northern Levant. Drawing upon well-known exca-vations at Jericho, Ain Ghazal and Beidha, as well as more recent field workat the MPPNB sites of Nahal Hemar, Yiftahel, and Kfar HaHoresh, a num-ber of shared mortuary practices can be noted (see Goring-Morris, 2000;

Kuijt, 2000b, 2001a; Rollefson, 2000; Verhoeven, 2002, for more detailedconsiderations).

In MPPNB, we see the coexistence of three interrelated mortuary sys-tems: (1) the primary interment of adults, probably both males and females,in single graves; (2) the interment of infants in single graves; and (3) thesecondary removal of some, but not all, adult skulls from primary graves forsome form of unknown ritual use with eventual reburial in caches of singleor multiple skulls. Infants, usually but not always buried as single individuals,were occasionally buried in areas of architecture but more often were placed

in fill and courtyard areas. While crania were occasionally removed from theskeletons of infants/youths (Cornwall, 1981; Kirkbride, 1968; Rollefson et al.,1992), at Ain Ghazal infant remains were usually interred as complete and


35/80


articulated individuals, at times associated with adults with intact skulls. Onother occasions, infants appear to have been interred in a ritual context,such as in sub-floor foundations and as dedicatory offerings with foundationor walls of buildings. The majority of infants, however, were buried in filldeposits in courtyard areas or outside buildings. At Jericho, the primary in-terment of adults is usually associated with architecture, although not alwaysso, and often the crania are removed from the grave to a secondary loca-tion. As seen in the excavations of Ain Ghazal, Beidha, Yiftahel, and KfarHaHoresh (Garfinkel, 1987; Goring-Morris, 1991; Kirkbride,1968; Rollefsonetal., 1992), adults generally continue to be interred as individuals and almostalways without grave goods.

Community members in MPPNB appear to have expanded secondary

mortuary practices with extensive caching of multiple human skulls, some ofthem plastered and painted. As part of this elaboration, there also appearsto be a formalization in the locations in which ritual practices occurred, bothin terms of the interment of skull caches, and in the location of specific ritualpractices within structures. The on-going excavations at Ain Ghazal, forexample, have uncovered several skull caches. Characteristic of this patternis a cache of three skulls placed in a row facing away from the center of theroom, and recovered from beneath the floor of the southeast corner of ahouse. In the same house but in a separate room, a single adolescent skull

was placed beneath the southwest corner of the floor. The rear portion of thiscranium was thinly coated with black pigment, possibly bitumen (Rollefson,1986, p. 51). Similarly, at Nahal Hemar, a cache of six skulls, as well asmiscellaneous skeletal elements, was uncovered from the PPNB levels. Thesix skulls, some very fragmented, were at least partially covered in asphaltorganized in a geometric pattern. All of these skulls were recovered fromthe southwest corner of the cave, a close spatial clustering that is consistentwith the simultaneous interment of skulls in some form of cache at otherMPPNB sites.

The plastering of human skulls represents an enhanced aspect of theMPPNB ritual complex in the southern Levant. A comparison of plasteredskulls from different areas of the region illustrates a pattern of local vari-ation in the amount and type of plaster employed, the degree to whichskulls were plastered, and the artistic techniques employed (Arensburg andHershkovitz, 1988; de Contenson, 1966, 1971; Ferembach, 1978; Griffin et al.,1998; Kenyon, 1953, 1969; Rollefson, 1986; Rollefson et al., 1992, 1999). Cur-rently, there are fewer than 20 known plastered skulls from the southernLevant, all dated to MPPNB and LPPNB. The majority of these were re-

covered from group caches; plaster helped to preserve the skull and gavethe appearance of still maintaining lifelike flesh. Some skulls provide exten-sive evidence of variation in the remodeling of facial features, such as the


36/80


construction of a nose, eyes, and mouth. Kenyons excavations at Jerichouncovered a total of 14 plastered and/or painted skulls, 10 of which were re-modeled plastically with multiple plastering events to form representationsof painted faces. In some of the plastered skulls the eyes were outlined byshell insets and repainted multiple times. Of this group of 10, only 1 hasa completely plastered face with the mandible present. The excavation atthe MPPNB Kfar HaHoresh uncovered a single plastered and painted skullwithout a mandible, plastered to reconstruct a smaller scale lifelike face onthe reduced surface area; thus, the bottom of the maxilla region was coveredby plaster to form the lower portions of the mandible and chin. Like theskull from Ain Ghazal, the eyes were formed by enlarging areas around theeye orbit rather than using shell insets like at Jericho.

The presence of secondary skull removal and reburial provides re-searchers with some important insights as to PPNB social organization. Incontrast to primary, single-stage, mortuary practices, aspects of multi-stagesecondary mortuary practices are planned in advance, often held in conjunc-tion by multiple households as part of a community festival, and require ex-traordinary levels of community involvement. As a number of ethnograpicand archaeological studies illustrate, ritual practitioners and communitiesoften organize secondary mortuary rituals as part of high-profile public cer-emonies. Beyond these logistical dimensions, secondary mortuary practices,

with the deliberate removal of some or all of the skeleton, are often linked tobroader beliefs in ancestor worship. For these reasons, secondary mortuaryrituals differ from primary burial of individuals as these ceremonies oftencrosscut kin and household lines, thereby emphasizing the community overthe individual.

Other Symbolic Realms (Masks, Statues, Figures)

In contrast to earlier periods, members of MPPNB communities em-ployed a wide range of masks, statues, and figurines in their daily and rituallives (Fig. 10). One of the important results from the excavations at AinGhazal and Jericho is the discovery of a number of large MPPNB anthropo-morphic statues. These plaster figurines, often about half of life size, were ofpainted human figures or busts of the upper torso. The statues have clearlyformed legs and arms and were often painted to draw attention to the face.They were probably constructed in multiple steps and would have requireda considerable investment of time and energy over several days, if not weeks,

for their manufacture. Although thelimited scale of horizontal excavations atAin Ghazal limits our understanding of whether the pits in which the statueswere cached were associated with architecture, Rollefson (1986) argues that


37/80


Fig. 10. Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period ritual and cultic objects: (a and b) humanbusts, Ain Ghazal; (c) plaster human skull, Kfar HaHoresh; (d) human mask, Jericho; (e)human figurine statue cache, Ain Ghazal.

the statue caches were from extramural locations. Anthropomorphic stat-

ues have also been recovered from the MPPNB Jericho and Nahal HemarCave (Goren et al., 1993). Although poorly preserved, four caches of an-thropomorphic statues made of plaster were also recovered in Garstangs


38/80


excavations at Jericho; of these caches, two contained three statues, and theremaining each contained a single statue. As at Ain Ghazal, all of the cachesfrom Jericho appear to be from pit contexts.

A second important, although very rare, material representation of theMPPNB ritual world is seen in the carving of limestone masks. Designed aslife-size masks that covered the face, with carved eye and mouth holes as wellas drilled holes for attachment to the face or for attaching materials/features,these masks have only been recovered from settlements flanking the south-ern Rift Valley. The construction and use of small clay animal figurines alsoappears to have been important in some communities. Many researchershave commented on the association of MPPNB small clay animal figurineswith residential architecture and their possible connection to household cul-

tic practices. The clay figurines, most of which appear to be cattle (but occa-sionally also goats or equids), have frequently been thematically linked tothe possible existence of a widespread cattle cult throughout the PPNB pe-riod (Cauvin, 1994, 2000; Kenyon, 1957; Kirkbride, 1968; Rollefson, 1986).To date, at least 56 cattle figurines have been identified from the early exca-vation seasons at Ain Ghazal (Rollefson et al., 1992). While some of thesefigurines may have served as toys or art objects, Rollefson (1986) also notesthat many of these clay animal figurines appear to have been ritually killedby stabbing them with pieces offlint while they were still pliable.

It is interesting to note that all three types of MPPNB material objectsappear to be geographically restricted to select, and perhaps overlapping,areas of the southern Levant. For example, clay animal figurines have yetto be recovered from settlements west of the Jordan Valley. Although it ispossible that this distribution is related to sampling, it is surprising that ex-cavations at least five MPPNB and LPPNB settlements in this area have notrecovered clay anthropomorphic figurines. Similarly, the rare stone maskshave only been recoveredunfortunately most from secondary or uniden-tified contextsfrom areas around Jerusalem and the eastern side of the

Jordan Valley. The large anthropomorphic statuary is even more restricted,known only at Jericho and Ain Ghazal. While recovered from slightly differ-ent geographical areas, these items appear to have been distributed mainlyaround the Jordan Valley.

Integration With Architecture

One of the more important recent advancements in our understanding

of the MPPNB is seen in the exploration of the possible interrelationships be-tween architectural and ritual practices. A number of recent studies (Byrd,1994; Goring-Morris, 2000; Rollefson, 1997, 2000; Verhoeven, 2002) have


39/80


explored the nature of social arrangements as seen in the built environmentand spatial distribution of material culture within settlements. While stillpreliminary, these studies have noted that select areas of MPPNB settle-ments appear to have been employed in a non-residential and presumablycommunal capacity. This ranges from the construction of unique buildingsaway from residential areas, such as at Beidha, to the construction of uniquebuildings inside what are taken to be residential areas, such as at Beidha,Ain Ghazal, and Jericho, to potentially even the construction of entire set-tlements for funerary purposes, as at Kfar HaHoresh. With the exception ofthe research at Beidha, there are few detailed analyses of the intrasite dis-tribution of cultural materials at MPPNB settlements. Instead, most archae-ologists have focused on the construction of features found inside buildings,

such as fire hearths and orthostats, or on differences in the construction of in-dividual buildings. While in their infancy, these studies illustrate that at manyMPPNB-sites-specific buildings were constructed and used in very differentways from other buildings. Presumably, such uses would have included intra-and interhouse communal events such as funerals and coming-of-age rituals.

Economy


When considering the nature of paleobotanical and faunal remains fromMPPNB sites, one must recognize that while a wide range of domesticatedplant crops were utilized, the degree to which they served as a major foodsource varies on a regional level. Paleobotantical remains from Ain Ghazalindicate that MPPNB villagers incorporated a wide range of plants into theirdiet, including wheat, barley, peas, lentils, and chickpeas, along with otherresources, such as figs, almonds, and pistachios (Rollefson et al., 1992). The

degree to which this is representative of plant use at other communities,especially those in different environmental locations, is subject to debateand in need of further study. This is especially clear when considering therelative absence of wheat from Yiftahel, a site in an upland location in thewestern Mediterranean area with an apparent high reliance on peas andlentils. Similarly, flax was found at Nahal Hemar, but it is not clear howimportant this resource was at other sites.

Although the transition from earlier periods to MPPNB of the south-ern Levant is often conceived of by researchers as representing a shift from

the exploitation of gazelles to caprines (sheep and goat), this generaliza-tion fails to recognize that variation exists between communities in differentareas of the southern Levant (Horwitz et al., 1999). For example, analysis


40/80


of MPPNB Ain Ghazal fauna illustrates a clear diminution in the size ofcaprines, presumably linked to their domestication for meat as well as sec-ondary products (Bar-Yosef and Meadow, 1995). In other contexts, however,such as at Kfar Hahorish and Yiftahel, there is no evidence for domesticatedgoat, and sheep. At the moment, therefore, while there is evidence for

kujit&gorring-morris2002

Documents