neo-lithics 1/11 - ex oriente · jean-denis vigne, françois briois, antoine zazzo, isabelle...

Editorial

FieldReports Vigne,Briois,Zazzo,Carrère,Daujat,Guilaine AyiosTychonas-Klimonas Barzilai,Getzov

MishmarHa‘emeq Makarewicz,Rose

el-Hemmeh Olszewski,al-Nahar

Yutilal-Hasa(WHS784) Rollefson,Rowan,Perry

WisadPools Kinzel,Abu-Laban,HoffmannJensen,Thuesen,Jørkov ShkāratMsaied

NewTheses DawnCropper,DannyRosenberg,MariaTheresiaStarzmann

ConferencesNewPublications

NEO-LITHICS1/11TheNewsletterofSouthwestAsianNeolithicResearch

2Neo-Lithics1/11

Contents

Editorial

Editorial 2

FieldReports Jean-DenisVigne,FrançoisBriois,AntoineZazzo,IsabelleCarrère,JulieDaujat,JeanGuilaine 3 ANewEarlyPre-PotteryNeolithicSiteinCyprus:AyiosTychonas-Klimonas(ca.8700cal.BC) OmryBarzilai,NimrodGetzov 19 The2010excavationseasonatMishmarHa‘emeqintheJezreelValley CherylMakarewicz,KatherineRose 23 EarlyPre-PotteryNeolithicSettlementatel-Hemmeh:ASurveyoftheArchitecture DeborahI.Olszewski,Maysoonal-Nahar 30 AFourthSeasonatYutilal-Hasa(WHS784):RenewedEarlyEpipaleolithicExcavations GaryO.Rollefson,YorkeRowan,MeganPerry 35 ALateNeolithicDwellingatWisadPools,BlackDesert

MoritzKinzel,AiyshaAbu-Laban,CharlottHoffmannJensen,IngolfThuesen, andMarieLouiseJørkov 44

InsightsintoPPNBarchitecturaltransformation,humanburials,andinitialconservationworks: Summaryonthe2010excavationseasonatShkāratMsaiedNewTheses DawnCropper LithicTechnologyinLateNeolithicJordan(PhD) 50 DannyRosenberg

TheStoneIndustriesoftheEarlyCeramicBearingCulturesoftheSouthernLevant(PhD) 50 MariaTheresiaStarzmann StoneToolTechnologiesatFıstıklıHöyük(PhD) 52

Conferences 55Masthead 55NewPublications 56

ForeignNeolithic research, like other archaeological research, benefited for decades from the relatively stableconditionsgovernmentscreatedinthecountrieswelove.Theprojectsenjoyedstabilitywhileprivatelywelistenedtothediscontentofourworkmen,ourArabfriendsandcolleagues, themanonthestreet.Wefelt thatwewerewitnessestoproblemsbutbehavedasguestsshouldbehave.Projectinterestsruledoursorrowsandsympathies.

“Academicsilence”continues,observeswhat’sgoingon.Somenottrustingtherestorationofstabilityintheircountryofresearchstartedtoevaluatechancesincountrieswhosegovernmentsseemtooffermorestableconditions.ShiftsinNeolithicresearchfocimayresultasaconsequence.

Neo-Lithicseditorialshavealwaystriednottobeopportunistic,andtolinkourresearchwiththeproblemsinwhichittakesplace.Butthistimeitismostdelicatetowritetheeditorial.Thus,weprefertotranslatethequestionofrevolutionintotheNeolithic.

Revolutions, itseems,aresudden,powerfulandrapidevents.Theysweepawayoldordersandframeworks.UnliketheNeolithicRevolutionthattookplaceoverthousandsofyears,Neolithicsocialandeconomicimplosionsmustbevisiblebychronologicalsharpness:ProductiveNeolithicframeworksrequirednewtypesofsocietalstabilityandhierarchy,thuscreatingtheconditionsfornewtypesofincubatormilieusofsocialandeconomicoverthrowwheneverthebalancewasdisturbed.ItallstartedwiththeNeolithic…

IngriefanddeeprespectwededicatethisissueofNeo-Lithicstoourdearfriend,colleague,andformerdirector-generaloftheJordanianDepartmentofAntiquities,lateFawwasal-KrayshehwhopassedawayonJuly29th.

HansGeorgK.Gebel&GaryRollefson

Vigneetal.,AyiosTychonas–Klimonas

Neo-Lithics1/113

Introduction

During the 1990’s, several new archaeological sitespushedback the earliestNeolithic occupationofCy-prusfromthe7thmillenniumBC1(AceramicNeolithicof theKhirokitiaphase) to the secondhalfof the9thmillennium.RadiocarbondatesfromShillourokambos(early phaseA;Guilaine et al. 2000, 2011;Guilaine2003;GuilaineandBriois2007)andfromwell116atMylouthkia(Peltenburgetal.2000,2001),respectively,indicated that human groups were living in Cyprusfromasearlyas8500-8300BC.Theirflint industrieswerecharacterizedbyvirtuallytypicalPPNBbidirec-tionalbladetechnology,thecultivationofcerealsandthe exploitation of largemammals (cattle, goat, pig)which,inmostcases,hadrecentlybeenintroducedtoCyprusintheformofearlydomesticates.Thesesocie-tiesofvillagersdevelopedinCyprusthroughoutthe8thmillenniumwiththeirmaterialcultureshiftingtowardstheKhirokitiaculture.

Several authors suspected that Cyprus was fre-quentedbeforethattime(Watkins2004;Wasse2007).However,untilrecently,evidencewasmissingforthe

presenceofhumansintheislandbetweentheoccupa-tionsoftheEpipaleolithicsiteofAkrotiri-Aetokremnos,ca.10,500BC,andtheseearliestNeolithicsettlements,i.e.a2000yeargap.RevisionanddatingofthelimitedseriesofsuidbonesofAetokremnosrecentlydemonst-ratedthatsmallislandwildboarwerelivinginCyprusca.9,700BC,andcouldhavesurvivedduringthe9thmillenniumastheonly,butprobablyabundant,gamefor humans (Vigne et al. 2009, 2011). In addition,some discoveries of chipped stone assemblageswithunidirectional blade knapping, closer to the PPNAorEarlyPPNB traditions (namely:AyiosTychonas–Throumbovounos,AyiosTychonas–Klimonas)(Brioisetal.2005:42-47,52-55;GuilaineandBriois2007);AyiaVarvara–Asprokremmos(McCartney1998;Mc-Cartneyetal.2006)thantothemiddlePPNB,sugge-stedthattheislandmighthavebeenfrequentedatthattime.Alldata,however,camefromsurveyslackingawelldatedarchaeologicalcontext.

Recent excavations at Asprokremmos, however,begantofillthegaps.Atthisopenairsite,McCartneyandcollaborators(McCartneyetal.2006,2007,2008,in press; McCartney 2010) discovered a semi-sub

ANewEarlyPre-PotteryNeolithicSiteinCyprus:AyiosTychonas–Klimonas(ca.8700cal.BC)

Jean-DenisVigne,FrançoisBriois,AntoineZazzo,IsabelleCarrère,JulieDaujat,andJeanGuilaine

Abtract:AtrialtrenchingarchaeologicalevaluationatKlimonas(AyiosTychonas,Limassol,Cyprus)evidencedthepresenceofanopenairarchaeo-logicalsitewithabundantchippedstoneandboneindustry,andwithwellpreservedanimalbones,beadsandpendants.Thepreservedsiteappearedtocovermorethan700m².Thelithicmaterialwascharacterizedbyaunidirectionalbladedebitageandsmallarrowheadscorres-pondingtothePPNAtradition.Thefaunacomprisedonlytwospeciesoflargemammals:asmalldog(earliestattestationofadoginCyprus)andthesmallCypriotwildboarwhichhasalreadybeenevidencedinCypruspreviously,ca.10,000-9,500cal.BC.Aseriesofradiocarbondatesfromcharcoal,burntboneandtoothenamelindicatethatatleastoneoftheoccupationsdatestoca.8,700cal.BC.TogetherwithAyiaVarvara–Asprokremmos, the radiocarbondatingbeing strictlycontemporaneous,Klimonasmovesback theearliestCypriotPre-PotteryNeolithictothebeginningofthe9thmillennium,synchronouswiththePPNAonthemainland,andca.500yearsearlierthantheearliestPPNoccupationatShillourokambos.SubsequentlyKlimonasisduetobefurtherexcavated.

Résumé:UndiagnostiquearchéologiqueàKlimonas(AyiosTychonas,Limassol,Chypre)amisenévidencelaprésenced’unsitearchéologiquedepleinair,comportantuneabondanteindustrielithiqueetosseuse,ainsiquedesrestesfauniquesetdesparuresbienconservés.Ilsemblequelesitesoitpréservésurplusde700m².L’industrielithique,caractériséeparundébitagelaminaireunipolaireetpardespetitespointesdeprojectile,évoqueunetraditionPPNA.Lagrandefaunenecomportequedeuxespèces,unchiendepetitetaille(plusancienneattestationduchienàChypre)etlepetitsanglierinsulairechypriotedontl’existenceàChyprearécemmentétémiseenévidence,entre10000et9500cal.BC.Unesériededatationsradiométriquessurcharbondebois,osbrûléetémaildentaireindiquequ’unedesphasesd’occupationaumoinsremonteauxalentoursde8700cal.BC.AvecAyiaVarvara–Asprokremmos,dontlesdatationsradiométriquessontstrictementcontempo-raines,KlimonasamèneàreculerledébutduNéolithiqueprécéramiquechypriotejusquedanslapremièremoitiédu9emillénaire,périodecontemporaineduPPNAcontinental, c’est-à-dire environ500 ans avant la plus ancienneoccupationprécéramiquedeShillourokambos.Klimonasferal’objetd’unefouilleextensivedurantlesprochainesannées.

Key-Words:Cyprus,Pre-PotteryNeolithic,Chippedstoneindustry,CypriotwildboarMotsClés:Chypre,Néolithiqueprécéramique,Industrielithique,Sanglierchypriote

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/114

structure, postholes, channels and hearths associatedwithunidirectionalknappedlithics,numerouslozengepoints, calcareous bowls, picrolite and shell beads, aPPNA like shaft-straightener, aclayhumanheadandrare and poorly preserved suid and bird bones.Theyinterpretedthissiteasahuntersettlement.Theoverallrange of dates of six charcoals were between 9,141and 8,569 cal. BC, the consistency and similarity of

thedates,however, allowedManningetal. tomodelashortertimeintervalofbetween8,800and8,630cal.BC(Manningetal.2010).

Presentedinthispaperarethemainresultsfromarecent trial evaluationatKlimonas, a sitewhichpro-duced dating evidence from the first half of the 9thmillennium,similar to that fromAsprokremmos.Thisuniquediscoverybringstogethernotonlynewlydisco-

50km

10m

N

A

B

C

D

50m

road

168.1

168.2

168.3

168.4

168.6

168.7

168.5 168.8

169.1

169.2

169.3

Removed archaeological deposits (colluvium)

No archaeological deposit Unremoved early PPN layers

Test trenches

Area where the Early PPN site is supposed to be preserved

0 4 1

168

0 6 1

8 4 1

0 4 1

176

435

130 135

500m

Ayios Tychonas

Roadside profile

Ayia Varvara

Fig. 1 Location of Ayios Tychonas-Klimonas and of Ayia Varvara-Asprokremmos: A in Cyprus, B in the Ayios Tychonas – Pyrgos area (drawing P. Devèze; contour lines equidistance 25 feet); C north-east to the old village of Ayios Tychonas with the location of the Pre-Pottery flints (grey) zone located by Briois et al. (2005)(contour lines equidistance 4 meters); D Location of the 11 trenches with reference to the plots (computer graphics P. Gerard (A), P. Devèze (B,C) & JDV (D)).


Neo-Lithics1/115

veredinformationbutalsoperspectivesonthehumangroupswhichlivedinCyprusduringthelatePPNAandontheiranimalresources.

SurveyBackground;AimsandProtocoloftheArchaeologicalAssessment

C.Petit-Aupert and collaboratorsdetected the site ofKlimonas in 1989, whilst carrying out a systematicsurveyof theAmathous region (Fig. 1). It is locatedbetween135and145ma.s.l.,onalargeterracegentlytilting to the south, less than 500m east of the siteof Throumbovounos, dominating both the LimassolplainandtheMediterraneanSea.Heresurfacesurveysevidenced numerous flint scatter across a large area(8plots;Fig. 1C).However, themain concentrationsseemed to be located at two of these plots (168 and169) which potentially represented the main unit ofoccupation.This impressionwas strengthenedby theexistenceofathickgrey-brownlayerintheprofilead-joined to the roadwhich contained ahighdensityofanthropogenicflints(Brioisetal.2005:42-47).

Twoperiodswereattestedtobythesesurveys:(1)averyearlyPre-PotteryNeolithic(withcompleteandfragmentedroughorretouchedblades,differentkindsofangleburinsandscrapersandtwoprojectilepoints,type“Byblospoints”,withshorttang);(2)aNeolithicoccupationwithSotirapotsherdaspects.

The trial evaluation conducted in October 2009aimedtoestimatethepotentialofthesiteprimarilyinorder toascertain if therewereanyundisturbedearlyPPNdeposits.Thegeneralstrategyconsistedofase-riesof11trencheslimitedtotwoplots,168and169,whichwere adjacent to the road profilewhere densearchaeological deposits were observed. The trencheswereroughlyarrangedatthemaincrosspointsofthreenorth-southlinesandfoureast-westlines(Fig.1DandFig.2A).Auniformapproachtotheexcavationofeachtrenchwasadopted(Fig.2B):(i)mechanicalscrapping2mwideandca.5mlongdowntothefirstarchaeolo-gicallayer,ifany,otherwisetothebedrock;(ii)partial,

1mwide,mechanicaltrenchingofanyarchaeologicallayerdowntothebedrock;(iii)manualtestexcavationof any archaeological layer found duringmechanicalscrapping.

StratigraphicObservations

RoadsideProfile(Fig.3)

Anaturalnorth-southprofileofplot168wascreatedbytheconstructionof thenarrowroadwhichadjoinsitseasternlimit(Fig.2D).Afterrapidcleaningofthis48mlongprofilewedistinguishedfivegroupsofsedi-mentarylayers(frombottomtotop).

SterilebasalgeologicallayerswithPPNfeatures(Fig.3,layer1andfeatureA)Thebasalgeologicallayerswereobservedinthesou-thernhalfoftheprofile.TheylayonabankofHavara-Kafkalla(1a)acalcretewhichisknowninCyprustodate mostly to the Upper Pleistocene (Waters et al.2009).Theywerecomposedofaseriesofthreesterilecolluvial layers: a light grey colluvium (1b), a lightbrownreddishsiltwithfewstones(1c)andawhitishcarbonatedsiltwithveryfewstones(1d).Afirepit(A)whichismostlikelyassociatedwiththeearlyPre-Pot-teryNeolithicoccupationofthesiteextendedinto1b.

SterilesiltfillingsoferosivegullieswithNeolithicfea-tures(Fig.3,layer2andfeatureB)Fillings of erosive gullies with no archaeologicalmaterialinthemwerecutbytheprofilemoreorlesstransversally, which indicated to at least three dis-cordanterosiveevents.Suchfeatureswererestrictedto the southern half of the profilewhere theymadeincisionsinto1a,1band1ccolluviums.Fillingswerecomposedofa35cmthickseriesofgreenish,reddishand light brown clayey silts (2a), eroded by 70 cmofcarbonatedsiltlyingonnumerousroundedlimes-toneblocks(2b),erodedfurtherbymorecarbonatedsiltwith numerous limestone blocks of various size(2c). Three thin lenses of light grey sediment (2d)

Mechanical scrapping

Mechanical trench

Manualtest excavation

A

Vigne et al., Fig. 2

B

Fig. 2 Test excavation at Klimonas: A, the 11 trenches (white arrows); B, mechanical trenching and manual test excavation in Trench 168.5 (photos and computer graphics JDV).

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/116

withsomesmallstonesbutnoobviousarchaeologicalremainsmay be connected with these three erosivephases.Pit(B)hadbeen(artificially?)excavatedintothesefillingsatalaterdate.Itwasfilledwithalight,

dusty, dark grey silt with some undated archaeolo-gicalitemswhichincludedapartiallyperforatedthickcylinderfossilshell.

Under the limit of the digging Chipped stones

Upper fillings of erosive gillies channels Whitish carbonated colluvium 4 1d Fire pit (Pre-Pottery Neolithic?) A

Stony grey colluvium with mixed Sotira and PPN material

3 1c Light brown reddish colluvium Pit (Pre-Pottery Neolithic?) B

Sterile silk fillings of erosive gullies 2 1a Kafkalla

Arable soil and erosive gullies in it 5 1. Sterile basal geological layers Archaeological features

1b Light grey sterile colluvium Pottery water pipe (3rd-1st c. BC) C

1a

B

2b 1c

A 1b

5

1d

1c

5

2d 2d

US 3e

3e

3b' 1d

5

5a 5

4a 3a

3a

3d 3c

3b 4d

4b

5

3a

5b

4d

4c

2c 2d

3b

1d?

2a

5

C

South

North

Fig. 3 Klimonas roadside profile from the south (top) to the north (bottom). (section drawing JG, IC, FB, JDV; computer graphics FB, JDV).


Neo-Lithics1/117

StonygreycolluviumwithrichmixedSotiraandPre-Potterymaterial(Fig.3,layer3andfeatureC)This sedimentary complexwas composed of a basalhomogenous silt layer with no stones (3a) lying di-rectly on the sterile basal colluvium (1d) in almostall theupper thirdof theprofile.Twosmall lensesofgreyish siltwith somesmall limestoneblocksbutnoobviousarchaeologicalmaterial in themmaybecon-nected to the sedimentary complex. This basal layerhadbeenerodedbyone(3b)orperhapstwo(3b)largegullychannels refilled fromthesamegreycolluviumwhichincludedmixedSotiraandPre-Potteryremains,and numerous, rounded centimetre limestone blocks.Atalaterdatethisdeposithadbeenlocallyeroded(3cand3d).Atthebaseofthehistoricaltrench(C),whichcutsthrough3d,3aand1d,potterywaterpipesjoinedwith mortar were observed and sampled. They havebeendated fromaround the1st to3rd centuryBCbyP.Aupert andC.Dieulafait.Thougharchaeologicallysterile,twosmalllensesofstonygreysilts(3e)maybeconnectedtothissedimentarycomplex.

Upperfillingsoferosivegullychannels(Fig.3,layer4)Atleastfourmorerecenterosionchannels,similarto3cand3d,hadbeenfilledwithamorearablesedimentwhich included small quantities of mixed Neolithicarchaeological remains. Sediment 4b contained nu-merousshardsofhistoricalpottery.

Arablesoil(Figure3,layer5)The arable soil (0.4 to 0.7m) still contained an ab-undanceofarchaeological items. Its lower limitwas,however,ratherabruptsuggestingthatitwasdepositedonanaturallyorartificiallylevelledsurface.Thearablesoilhadbeencutbyrecenterosivegulliesintwoplaceswhichwere emphasized in the profile by large stoneaccumulations(5aand5b).

Theroadsideprofileclearlyevidencedthat:-Thesedimentationoftheterrace,plot168,consistedofasuccessionofcolluvialdepositsanderosiveeventsfurrowedbynumerouserosivegulliesflowingtowardsthesouth-east.-Thoughveryrichthearchaeologicaldepositslocatedintheupperpartoftheplot(sediment3)appearedtobethecolluvialfillingsoftheseerosivechannels.Allofthemshouldbesuspectedtobedisturbed.-Onthecontrary,thearchaeologicaldepositsandfea-tures (A and perhaps B) settled on the colluvial anderosivefillingsofthelowerpartoftheplot(sediments1and2)weremuchmoreliabletocontainundisturbedarchaeologicalfeatures.

Sterileordisturbedtrenches

The northernmost (169.1, 169.2; Fig. 1D) and sou-thernmost(168.4,168.8)trenchesrapidlyreachedthebedrock,asdidtrench168.2,withtheothersixprovi-

dingarchaeologicaldeposits.The two trenches located in the northern half of

thesite (168.7and169.3) revealedaonemetre thickcolluvial accumulation covering rich archaeologicaldeposits,thoughwithoutanypottery(PPN).However,thesmallamountofanimalbones,themixtureofuni-directionalandbidirectionalflintbladesandcores,theabsence of any clear anthropogenic arrangement andthe presence of several sedimentological features oferosionsuggestedthatthesedepositsresultedfromthefillingoferosivechannelsbycolluviums.Duetopos-sibledisturbance,therefore, theywerenotfurtherex-ploited.Fifteenmetresfurthertothesouthtrench168.1provideda1.7mthickhomogeneouslayer,mixedfromthe top to the bottom, containing numerous animalbones (namely Dama d. mesopotamica), lithics andpotterysherdsfromtheLateNeolithic(Sotira),aswellas large quantities of unidirectional blades togetherwithlozengearrowheads(earlyPPN).Thislayercor-respondedwithsediment3oftheroadprofile(Fig.3)locatedlessthan10mawayconfirmingthatthisdeeperosivedepressionalsoresultedfromtheaccumulationofcolluviums.

Trench168.3Under20-40cmofarablesoilandatruncatedscrapofwhitishcarbonatedcolluviumtrench168.3providedarich, and apparently, undisturbed grey archaeologicaldeposit (Fig.4). Itwas30 to50cmthickand layontopofanoldsterilecolluviumwhichcouldbeparal-leledwiththe1b/1ccolluviumsoftheroadsideprofile(Fig.3).Theupperpartofthearchaeologicallayerpro-vidednumerousfeaturesandartefacts.Inthemiddleoftheprofileanaccumulationofsmallroundedlimestoneblocksindicatedapotentialpit.Whilstthelowermost15to20cmprovidedaparticularlydenseaccumulationofflintflakes,bladesandcoressuggestiveofaknap-


Arable soil Carbonated colluvium

Light brown reddish colluvium Grey archaeological layer

1m

North

Fig. 4 Klimonas, Trench 168.3, western profile (section drawing FB; computer graphics FB, JDV).

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/118

pingworkshop.Theseweremixedwithbothwellpre-servedanimalbonesandsmalllimestonestonessomeof which were burnt. This basal flint deposit spreadbeyondthelimitsofthetrench.

Trench168.5This1.4mdeeptrenchevidencedaseriesofrich,un-disturbedarchaeologicalstratigraphicunitslyingonaprobablearchaeologicalfeature(Fig.5A).

Between0and-0.15m:Heterogeneouscompactedlight-grey silt containing numerous flint remains (in-cludinganarrowhead)andsomefaunalremains.Intheeasternpartofthetrench,ashallow(-0.2/-0.25mdeep)quadrangularpitwithonehistoricalpotsherdindicatedthatthislayerhadbeenrecentlydisturbed.

Between-0.15and-0.3m:Verycompactlightgreysedimentwithdenseflintremains.Increaseinanimalbones.Somepicrolitebeads.

Between-0.3and-0.45/0.5m:Thesiltbecamemorelooseandturnedfrombeigetoochreincolouragainsttheeasternedgeoftheexcavatedsquaremetre.Itwasstillveryrichinflintremainswithnumerousbladesandanarrowheadatthebottom.Faunalremainswerealsomorenumerousandmuchlarger.At-0.5m,againsttheeasternprofile,andat-0.57m,thewesternlimitofthetrench,thefillingabruptlyturnedtoamorecompactedfawnsediment.Thisveryclearcutlimittiltedslightlyfromeasttowest.

Between-0.55and-0.6/-0.7m:Greysiltwithnu-merous rounded sandstones, abundant lithic materialandfaunalremains.Thiswasactuallyanewstratigra-phicunitdifferinggreatlyfromtheupperfillings.Ontheeasternlimitofthetestexcavationthisstratigraphic

unit lay on a brown-yellow stony and gravely com-pactedsediment;thesubstratumcolluvium(1b/1c).

Between-0.7and-0.95m:Furthergreysilt inthemainpartoftheexcavatedsurface,exceptagainsttheeastern profile,where itmet the sub-vertical limit ofthe substratumcolluvium.At -0.95m the excavationmetthesubstratuminthewesternhalfofthesondagetoformawellflattenedsurface(Fig.5B).

Between-0.95and1.15m:Achannel,30to40cmwideand2cmdeep,withanasymmetricsectionwasexcavated running alongside the vertical wall of thesubstratum.Thefillingwascomposedofgreysiltandwasrichinlithics.

The bottom of this test excavation evidenced anarchaeologicalfeaturedugattheexpenseofthesubst-ratum(hereacolluvium)witharightangledfloorandwall,thelatterbeinglinedbyachannel.

Trench168.6No manual excavation was performed in this trench,however, the mechanical digging extracted numerousarchaeologicalitemsandevidencedasedimentologicalsuccessionsimilartotheonesobservedintrenches168.3and5.Beneath15to20cmofarablesoillayagreylayerwith numerous rounded centimetric and decimetric li-mestoneblocks andflint.Theseprobable stratigraphicunitslaythemselvesonagrey-greenishcolluviumwithlarge limestoneblockswhich followedapotentionallyunnatural,irregulartopography.Thistrenchalsoattestedto a dense early Pre-Pottery Neolithic archaeologicallayerpresent17mnorthoftrench168.5.


Arable soil Carbonated colluvium

Light brown reddish colluviumGrey archaeological layer

A BNorth

1m

Vigne et al., Figure 5

Fig. 5 Klimonas, Trench 168.5: A, western profile; B, manual test excavation with the archaeological feature at the bottom. (section drawing FB; picture JDV; computer graphics FB, JDV).


Neo-Lithics1/119

Conclusion:DelimitationofthePreservedPartofthePPNSite

The road profile and the 11 trenches gave comple-mentary informationwhich indicated that the terrace,onwhichthesiteissituated,isatleastpartlyduetoathickdepositofUpperPleistoceneHavara-Kafkallah,initslowerpart,onwhichlieaseriesofLatePleisto-cene/EarlyHolocenecolluviallayers.OntheshouldercreatedbytheHavara,thecolluviumwaserodedandno further archaeological deposits were preserved(trenches168.4and168.8).Both thenorthernhalfoftheroadprofileandthe6trenchesofthenorthernhalfof thesite indicated that theupperpartof the terracehadbeenfurrowedseveraltimesduringtheHolocenebyerosivechannelstencentimetrestoonemeterdeeprunningfromWNWtoESE.Theyhadbeenfilledbycolluvial deposits removing archaeological materialfromdifferentNeolithicperiods2.Conversely, the re-maining trenches (168.3, 168.5 and 168.6) providedarchaeological features or undisturbed and chronolo-gicallyhomogeneousarchaeologicalEarlyPre-Potterydeposits. The part of the site that survives, coveringalmost700m²,couldthereforebedelimited(Fig.1D).

FlintIndustries(FB)

Thelithicmaterialcollectedduringthe2009soundingseason came mainly from trenches 1, 3, 5 and 7 ofplot168,whichtogetherprovidedanimportantseries.Presentedhereisthematerialfromtrenches168.3and168.5, themostundisturbedandhomogeneousof thepre-potteryNeolithiclithicassemblages.

Thisindustrywascharacterisedbythealmostsoleuseof translucentflint.The typesofflint represented

N %

Burins 140 36.6

Retouched Flakes 60 15.7

End scrapers 47 12.3

Retouched Blades 34 8.9

Clactonian notches 33 8.6

Projectile points 24 6.3

Retouched notches 10 2.6

Denticulates 8 2.1

Awls/Borers 6 1.6

Pointed blades 5 1.3

Truncations 5 1.3

Scrapers 3 0.8

Backed blades 3 0.8

Blades with gloss 2 ß.5

Pièces esquillées 1 0.3

Notches on blade 1 0.3

Blades with tang 1 0.3

Total 383

Table 1 Tool distribution from trenches 168.3 and 168.5.

0 5cm

1

2

0 5cm

1 2

3

4

5

6 7

Fig. 6 Klimonas, Trench 168.3. Unipolar blade cores (drawing FB).

Fig. 7 Trenches 168.5 and 168.3. Projectile points and fragments (Drawing FB)

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1110

(blonde, brown, red-brown, green and grey)were si-milar to thoseusedduringtheearlyphaseatShillou-rokambos (Briois 2003).Thismaterial, the source ofwhichislocatedinAthiaki,afewhundredmetresnor-thwestofthesite(Brioisetal.2005:114ff),iseasilyaccessible in the slopedeposits and in thebottomofthevalleyslocatednorthtothemodernvillageofAyiosTychonas.

Numerous waste pieces, sometimes in heaps(168.3), testified to intense knapping activities onthe site itself.Theflintwastewas largely dominatedby flakes; however, the main part of the productionwas clearly oriented towards blades emanating fromflintcoreswhichwereshapedonthesiteitself.Bladeproduction appeared to have been exclusively unidi-rectionalandaimedtoproducesmalltriangularbladesof4-5cmlongwitharectilinearprofile.Largerbladeswerealsopresentwithsomeofthemcorrespondingtothebeginningofthepreparationofthecores(corticalblades, semi-cortical blades or rough crested blades)themselves.Buttsweremostlysmoothbuttherewerealso facetted convex butts. Blade cores were repre-sentedbytwentyexamplesorsothoughonlyintrench168.3.Theywereconicalandunidirectionalandshowa strikingplatformmadebyflat centripetal removals(Fig.6).Manyofthemwereabandonedseeminglyafteranextremedecreaseinsize,orfollowingasuccessionof knapping accidents (hinged or plunging) whichmadethemunusable;muchrarerexamplesshowevi-denceofreshapingoftheactivesurfacestartingfromtheoppositestrikingplatform.

The rich set of tools (383 specimens: 315 from168.5and68from168.3)comprisednumerousburins(36.6%), end-scrappers (12.3%), clactoniannotches(8.6%),andarrowheads(6.3%)(Table1).Theburinsweremainlyburinsonabreakethoughsomedihedralburins and burins on a truncationwere also attested.The scrapers were mostly reused blades, several ofwhichwerebroadand/orthick.

A total of 24 arrowheads were excavated. Mostweresmallwith triangularbasesorwithashort tangmade by bifacial oblique retouches (Fig. 7).The op-

posite extremity showed evidence of directmarginalretouchesonly,andunusuallybyinverse,skimmedandpeeledretouches.Amongtenremarkablespecimensofblades a largebladewithbilateral retouches (23 cm)wasparticularlysignificant.Onlytwobladesshowedalongitudinalglossduetouse.

Detailed analyses of the flint material from Kli-monas confirmed the existence of the special lithicfeatureobservedduringtheinitialsurveys(Brioisetal.2005). The material collected here presented manysimilaritieswiththatcollectedatAyiaVarvara–Aspro-kremmos(McCartneyetal.2006,2007,2008,inpress;McCartney2010,2011;Manningetal.2010).

Beads,PendantsandBoneIndustry(JG,JDV)

Bone, shell and rock artefacts were plentiful forsucha small excavatedarea.Trench168.3provideda suid tibiawith two parallel grooves,madewith aflintburin,oneithersideofthetibiacrestinordertoextractalongbonestick,however,theboneprobablybroke during the process and was abandoned (Fig.8D). Trench 168.5 also provided evidence of boneindustry in the form of the proximal extremity of alarge bird’s humerus sawn distally for extracting abonecylinder,apolishedbladeofenamelfromamalesuidlowercanine,asectionofapolishedboneneedle,and a small polished long bone blade. Three ratherlarge(0.12to2cm)stonebeads(discoid,oblongandkeg-shaped) made from a light green picrolite alsocamefromtrench168.5.Eightspecimensevidencedtheuseofsea-shellsforpendantsandbeads;threeofthemwere small portionsof polishedDentalium cf.inaequicostatum; three others were small Turritellasp.shells(0.24;0.26and0.24cm)withaperforationonthelastturnmadebysawingtheshell,oneoftheholesshowsclearwearduetosuspension(Fig.8B);aportionofacylinderbead(2.5x1cm)madefrompo-lishedsea-shellandanapparentlyunworkedfragmentofaGlycymerissp.seeminglycroppedonthebeachafterthedeathoftheanimal.

168.3 (0.15 m2) 168.5 (1 m2) Total

NISP Weight (g)

NISP Weight (g)

NISP % Weight (g)

%

Fresh water tortoise Cf. Mauremys rivulata 1 2 1 0.4 2 0.2

Bird Aves 11 11 11 4.6 11 1.0

Unidentified carnivore Carnivora 1 1 1 0 2 0.8 1 0.1

Domestic dog Canis familiaris 2 1 2 0.8 1 0.1

Small wild boar Sus scrofa ssp. 41 279 182 792 223 93.3 1071 98.6

Total identified 42 280 197 806 239 100.0 1086 100.0

Unidentified small vertebrate 2 1 18 6 20 7

Unidentified large mammal 52 102 296 358 348 460

Unidentified vertebrate 16 6 16 6

Total unidentified 54 103 330 370 384 61.6 473 30.3

Total 96 383 527 1176 623 1559

Burnt bones 4 26

Table 2 Faunal spectra of the trenches 168.3 and 168.5 (NISP, Number of Identified Specimens).


Neo-Lithics1/1111

AnimalRemains(JDV)

Five trenches provided a total of 976 faunal remains(168.1, 168.3, 168.5, 168.7 and 169.3) though 64%ofthem(84.1%ofdeterminatespecimens)camefromtrenches168.3and168.5,whereboneswerealsolessfragmented.Bonesweregenerallywellpreservedwithfewofthemshowingsignificantrootorchemicalsoilat-tacks,quiteunlikethefaunalmaterialatAsprokremmoswhichwasbadlyeroded(McCartneyetal.2011).Theywere coveredwith a thinmanganese sheen and thenwith a millimetric carbonated crust. Numerous longbonediaphysesshowedclearfeaturesofpercussionofthefreshboneformarrowconsumption.Allwerefoodrefuse.

In trenches 168.3 and 168.5 only eight molluscswere represented (seeabove),and38.4%of the623vertebratespecimensi.e.239specimens(Table2)wereable to be determined. The average density of boneremainscouldbeestimatedfromca.44(168.5)toca.200 specimens/m²/10 cm. The most striking featurewas the rather low taxonomicdiversity: a freshwatertortoise, probably theBalkan terrapin (cf.Mauremysrivulata,alreadymentionedatShillou-rokambos and Ayia-Varvara and stilllivinginCyprus(Vigne2011;Vigneetal. in press), somemedium and largesize birds of undeterminable species(long bone diaphyses), the domesticdog(Canisfamiliaris),andasmallsuid(Susscrofassp.).

The domestic dogwas representedsolelybyaportionoflumbarvertebraand the distal half of a first phalanx(Fig. 8A) both pieces coming fromthelowestlayersoftrench168.5.Twoother bones of carnivore (fragment ofthoracic vertebra from trench 168.3and a fragment of squamosal) couldpotentially have belonged to a dog.The presence of this specieswas alsoevidencedbythreedigestedphalanges(Fig.8C)andbyintensivegnawingofthe suid bones, long bone epiphysesbeing virtually absent. This situation

wascompletelydifferentfromShillourokambos(earlyphaseBonwards)wheredogremainswerescarceandbone extremitieswell preserved (Vigne andGuilaine2004).

DogbonesatKlimonasweresmallinsize,liketheoneswhichwere associated, but not stratigraphicallyreliable,totheearlyphaseAatShillourokambos(Vigne2011).

Suidsrepresented93.3%oftheNISPanoverwhel-mingdominationverysimilar to theearlyAphaseatShillourokambos(Vigneetal.2003;Vigneetal.2011).However, here suids were the only ungulate speciesin the pure Pre-Pottery layers of trenches 168.3 and168.53.Thebonesample is largeenoughtoconcludethat the absence of goat is statistically significant (ztest=5.8, p=2.10-9with reference to ShillourokambosearlyA).

All the skeletal parts of suids were representedthough it seems that the rear skulls (including themolars; see, however,Figs. 8E-H)were indeficit. Intrench 168.5 first upper and lower incisors gave theMNI(5 to6).Allageclasseswererepresentedbut itwasimpossibleatthistimetodeterminebetweensuid

Fig. 9 Some archaeozoological remains from Klimonas: A, first phalanx of a small adult domestic dog (lateral view); B, three Turritella sp. shells holed on their last turn; C, suid second phalanges, the two on the right with heavy digestion marks; D, cranial view of the suid left tibia with parallel grooves for extracting a bone stick; E, occlusal view of a right upper third molar of suid; F, occlusal view of a right lower third molar of suid; G, occlusal view of a right suid mandible; H, lateral view of the same portion of mandible (same scale; photos and computer graphics JDV).

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1112

+ +

Çayönü Early Ph. A1-2

Middle Ph. A1-2

Halula LPPNB

Gürcu- tepe

Khirokitia Modern wild boar

-0,1

0

0,1

(N = 19) (N = 4) (N = 16) (N = 4) (N = 15)

(N = 31) (N = 26)

L M3 (log size index)

Halula Pre-Halaf

Khirokitia

Middle Ph. A1-2

Halula MPPNB

Early Ph. A2-BC

Early Ph. A1

Mureybet PPNA

Mureybet Natuf-Kh.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

L M2 (mm)

18 20 22 24 29 31 33 35 37 39

60

40

50

Halula LPPNB

Middle Ph. A1-2

Halula MPPNB

Early Ph. A2-BC

Early Ph. A1

Mureybet PPNA

Mureybet Natuf-Kh.

Middle Ph. A1-2

Halula MPPNB

Early Ph. A2-BC

Early Ph.

Mureybet PPNA

Mureybet Natuf-Kh.

Khiamian PPNA (N = 24)

EPPNB (N = 7)

Early Ph. A1 (N = 3)

MPPNB (N = 23)

(N = 15)

Early Ph. B-C (N = 19)

LPPNB Middle Ph.A1-2 (N = 30)

Khirokitia (N = 339)

L M3 (mm) L M2 (mm)

GLl Talus (mm)

KLIMONAS KLIMONAS

KLIMONAS KLIMONAS

KLIMONAS (N = 2)

Fig. 10 Comparisons of some of the measurements of the suids of Klimonas with pre-Neolithic and pre-pottery Neolithic sites of the Near East mainland. Measurements were taken according to von den Driesch (1976). Early/Middle Ph., Phases of Shillourokambos, after Guilaine et al. 2011; PPN, Pre-Pottery Neolithic, after Davis (1994, Khirokitia), Gourichon and Helmer (pers. comm. and 2008; Mureybet), Helmer (pers. comm.; PPNB for talus), Peters et al. (2005, Figure 12 ; Çayönü, Gürcü Tepe, modern wild boar), Saña Segui (1999; Halula). For M/3, log size indexes were calculated with reference to the average length of the Israel wild boar (after Davis 1984), i.e. 38.5 mm; the 25-75 percent quartiles are drawn using a box, the median is shown with a horizontal line inside the box, and the minimal and maximal values are shown with short horizontal lines.Cyprus data are represented by solid black icons (excepted for Klimonas), whereas the mainland data are figured by empty icons.


Neo-Lithics1/1113

huntingorbreeding.Fourteenmeasurementswere takenfrombonesor

teeth found in reliablearchaeological layers.Prelimi-nary observations (Fig. 10) indicate that these suidswere very small in size, and comparable to one oftheendemic smallwildboaratAkrotiri-Aetokremnos(Vigneetal.2009)and thesuidsofearlyphaseAatShillourokambos.

Rodentswerenotrepresentedbuttheirpresencewasattestedtobythegnawingmarksonabonefromthelower layer of trench168.5.Theonly candidate spe-cieswasthemouseeithertheendemicCypriotmouse(Mus cypriacus) or,maybe, the greymouse (Musm.domesticus).Thelatterspecies,however,isnotconfir-mablepriorto8500-8400BC(well116atKissonerga-Mylouthkia)(Cucchietal.2002).

Theevolutionof faunaldensity remains, fromthefillingoftrench168.5,suggestedtwodifferentlayers,at least,with a lower density peakca. -90 cm and asecondmoreimportantoneca.-40cm.

RadiocarbonDating(AZ)

Klimonas produced the most abundant material forradiocarbondating in the formof suidbones, andasdating the remains fromhuntedanimalswasalso themostdirectway todatehumanpresenceherewede-cided to focusonbones in this area.Collagen,whenpreserved,isthemostreliablesupportforboneradio-carbon dating. Unfortunately climatic conditions didnot favourbonecollagenpreservation inKlimonas,asimilarsituationalsooccurredinAetokremnos(Vigneet al.2009).Other fractions, however, can be dated;eitherorganic(decomposedcollagenfromburntbones)ormineral (biogeniccarbonatepresent inbone, tooth

enamelanddentineapatite,aswellasincalcinedboneapatite)buttheycannotbeconsideredaprioriimmuneto contaminationor isotopeexchangewith theburialenvironment.Anindirectwayofcheckingforsamplecontamination consists of dating different bone frac-tions from the same individual (Zazzo and Saliège2011). The underlying assumption behind the con-vergencecriterion is that it ishighly improbable thatcontaminationwouldcausethesameerrorindifferentfractions.Acontrario,concordanceinthe14Cdatesob-tainedondifferentfractionsofthesameboneprovidesstrongevidenceoftheaccuracyofthedatesinferences.

Intotaltwosuidbonesfromtrench168.3,sixbonesandteethfrom168.5,andonecharcoal(comingfromasmallbranchofPrunussp.determinationStéphanieThiébault,CNRS)wereselectedforradiocarbondatingwiththemajorityofdatesbeingobtainedfromburnedbones.

When bones are burned at low temperature (ca.300°C)collagendecomposesandreducedcarbonbe-comes trapped in itsmineral (apatite) structure.Thisorganic carbon can be extracted following an acid-alkali-acidpre-treatment,similar to theprotocolusedfor charcoal. Unfortunately humic and fulvic acidscan also become trapped in the porosity of the boneduringdiagenesisandthisforeigncarbonmaynotbecompletely removed during the alkali wash. Unlikewithcollagenthereisnobiochemicaltestforcheckingtheintegrityofthedecomposedcollagenotherthanthecoherenceofthedateitself.Thereforeinordertomo-nitorpossiblecontaminationwedatedboth thealkaliinsolubleandthealkalisolublefractionwhenpossible.

Three teethofdifferentsuid individualswerealsoselected for dating. Enamel is thematerial of choiceforstableisotopeanalysisasitshighcrystallinityandlowporositymakesitresistanttodiageneticalteration.

Designation Stratigraphic position

Fraction dated

Pre-treat-ment*

Extrac-tion ** % C

δ13C (‰.

VPDB)

Radiocarbon age (BP) Reference

Calibrated age BC

1 σ (68.2 %) 2 σ (95.4 %)

from to from to

Trench 168-3

KL09-1 burnt bone n.a. (sieved) insoluble 1 A 25.0 -24.3 9200 ± 52 AA88544 8466 8312 8551 8296

KL09-2 burnt bone n.a. (sieved) alkali soluble 1 A 41.4 -25.1 9087 ± 70 AA88547 8423 8236 8544 8014

KL09-2 burnt bone n.a. (sieved) insoluble 1 A 45.3 -24.0 9122 ± 63 AA88545 8431 8274 8537 8243

KL09-2 burnt bone n.a. (sieved) alkali soluble 1 A 40.2 -24.8 8966 ± 52 AA88548 8274 7998 8282 7967

Trench 168-5

KL09-3 burnt bone 15/30 cm insoluble 1 A 22.3 -25.6 8852 ± 51 AA88546 8203 7848 8221 7787

KL09-3 burnt bone 15/30 cm alkali soluble 1 A 36.7 -25.8 8831 ± 55 AA88549 8175 7793 8210 7747

KL09-4 tooth enamel 30/55 cm bioapatite 2 B 0.9 -12.7 7741 ± 46 AA88541 6627 6506 6645 6477


KL09-5R tooth root 30/55 cm bioapatite 2 B 0.8 -14.0 7823 ± 46 AA88539 6691 6597 6814 6510


KL09-7 burnt bone 55/70 cm insoluble 1 A 16.2 -27.0 9460 ± 54 AA88550 8815 8638 9120 8615

KL09-10 charcoal 75 cm insoluble 3 A 40.4 -27.3 9544 ± 53 AA88551 9121 8792 9155 8743

KL09-9 calcined bone 85/100cm bioapatite 2 B 0.4 -25.5 9085 ±52 AA88540 8319 8248 8446 8228

Table 3 Radiocarbon dating of Ayios Tychonas – Klimonas. * pre-treatment: 1: HCl (3N) for 48h - NaOH (0.1N) for 1.5h - HCl (0.1M) for 24h; 2: acetic acid (1N) for 4h under vacuum; 3: HCl (3N) for 6h - NaOH (0.01N) for 1.5h - HCl (1N) for 24h; ** extraction: A: degazing under vacuum at 200°C for 4h, followed by combustion at 450°C for 3h in the presence of oxygen; B: CO2 extraction with 100% ortophosphoric acid at 70°C for 25mn.

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1114

Fewattemptsatdatingthecarbonatefractionoftoothenamelhavebeenpublishedso far,with limitedsuc-cess(Hedgesetal.1995).

One calcined bonewas also dated. Carbonate re-maining in calcined (i.e.heated above 600°C) bonesafter the acetic acid pre-treatment is believed to beextremely resistant to diagenetic alteraction, and hasbeenshown toproducereliabledates,at least for theHolocene(Lantingetal.2001).(Table3)

Theoldestdatesfromthisserieswereobtainedfromcharcoal (AA88551: 9,544±53 BP; 9,155-8743 cal.BC,2σ),followedbythealkaliinsolublefractionofaburntbone(AA88550:9,460±54BP;9,120-8,615cal.BC,2σ).Thesetwosampleswerefoundinthelowerpartoftrench168.5.Togetherthesedatesattesttotheoccupationofthesiteduringthefirsthalfofthe9thmil-lenniumBCand,possibly,attheveryendofthe10thmillennium(9,155-8,615cal.BC,2σ).

All the remaining samples were significantlyyounger,withdatesrangingfrom9,200±52BP(secondhalf of the 9th millennium cal. BC) to 7,716±47 BP(mid7thmillenniumcal.BC).Arecentliteraturesurvey(ZazzoandSaliège2011)showedthat thevastmajo-rityof thealteredbonesamples tendtogiveyoungerrather than older dates so it is tempting to reject theyoungestsamplesonthatbasis.Theyoungestdatesofthe series (between 7,823±46 BP and 7,716±47 BP)were obtained from the carbonate fraction extractedfrom toothenamel andunburnedboneapatite.Theseresults confirm that tooth enamel is not immune toisotope exchange as previously suggested, based onthe dating of Paleolithic sites fromEngland (Hedgesetal.1995).Thealkalisolubleandinsolublefractionfromburnedbonesgavedates ranging frombetween9,460±54BPand8,831±55BPwithcalcinedboneso-mewhereinbetween(9,085±52BP).Whetherthisvari-abilityreflectsthetruedifferencesindatesorindicatescontamination isdifficult toestablish.Datesobtainedfromcalcinedbonesarewidelyconsideredreliablesothisresultcannotberejectedongeochemicalgroundsalone.Comparisonbetweenthealkalisolubleandinso-lublefractioninthreebonesshowedthatthedifferenceinyearsbetweenthealkalisolubleandinsolublefrac-tionwassmall,lessthan200years,withtheinsolublefractionyieldingtheoldestdate.Radiocarbondatesob-tainedonhippobonesfromAetokremnossuggestthatboth the soluble and insoluble fractions fromburnedbonesarenotimmunetocontaminationbyorganicsoilmatterandthat thiscontaminationcanleadtoareju-venationofdatesofbetweenafewhundredandafewthousandyears(Simmons1999).

DiscussionandConclusion

The first archaeological assessment atKlimonas re-vealedseveralkindsofarchaeologicaldepositsspreadacrossalargearea;stretchedca.70mnorthtosouthandatleast35measttowest.However,theroadsideprofileandthenorthernmosttrenchesevidencedthat,

thoughveryrichinarchaeologicalmaterial,thesedi-mentdepositsfromtheupperpartoftheterraceswerethecolluviumsandfillingsoferosivegullychannels.These caused the amalgamation of sometimes highdensities of archaeological material from variousNeolithic periods, from an early phase of the Pre-PotteryNeolithic (themost dominant) to the SotiraCeramicNeolithic.

Conversely, from the lower part of the terrace,reflected in trenches168.3, 168.5 and168.6,we re-cognisedthick,richandun-disturbedPPNarchaeolo-gicallayers.Theyhavebeenpreservedowingtolesserosiveactivity, and toabankofUpperPleistocenecalcrete(havara)atthesouthernmostlimitoftheter-race(trenches168.4and168.8)whichprecludedthembeingdrivendowntheslope.Theextentofthiswellpreservedarchaeological layercoveredaband25mnorth to south and at least 30m east towest (withapotentialextensionintoanearbyplot), i.e.at least750m².

Trench168.3cutsthrougha30cmdeepknappingaccumulation. Trench 168.5 evidenced a one metrethicksuccessionofstratigraphicunitscontainingricharchaeologicalmaterial, exclusively referring to thePre-PotteryNeolithic,andsealingaprobablefeature.Inboththesetrenchesthearchaeologicalmaterialwasabundant, well preserved and diverse. Lithics wereespeciallyprofuseandofhighquality.Wecollected17smallarrowheads,withtang,togetherwithalargenumberofburinsandscrapers.Trench168.3providedalargelithicserieswhichallowedthereconstructionof several chaînes opératoires of blade production.Thoughfarfrombeingasnumerousaslithics,beads,pendants and bone industry were surprisingly plen-tiful for such a small excavated area.Animal boneaccumulationwasdenseandbetterpreservedthanatAsprokremmos.Klimonas,therefore,appearstohavebeenmuchmorethanpurelyahuntingcamp,andwasprobablyasmallPPNsettlement.

Bothlithicandfaunalmaterialevidencedthatthedepositsintrenches168.3and168.5wereundisturbedanddatetoaphaseoftheCypriotPPN.UnidirectionalbladeproductionclearlypredatestheearliestdepositsatShillourokambos (8,500-8,300cal.BC)andreferstoknapping traditionswhichcharacterize thePPNAandearlyPPNBculturalcomplexesonthemainland,namelythoseoftheMiddleEuphratesvalley(Abbès2002).ThefactthatnoobsidianhassofarbeenfoundinKlimonas(andinAsprokremmostoo)alsospeaksforanoccupationearlierthantheoneofShillourokambos.Regardingfauna,theabsenceofanyungulateexceptthesmallendemicCypruswildboarwhichis,todate,only attested at Aetokremnos (ca. 9,700-9,400 BC)also indicates a phase comprised between this dateand theearliest layersofShillourokambos (ca.8500BC)where goat and cattle appear for thefirst time.Theradiocarbondatesobtainedherestretchfromtheveryendofthe10thmillenniumtotheendofthe7thmillenniumcal.BC.Thefactthatbothlithicmaterialsand animal bones preclude a datemore recent than


Neo-Lithics1/1115

8500-8400BC indicates that theyoungestdatesob-tainedfromtoothenamelandsomeoftheburntboneswereprobablyduetodiageneticalteration.However,the oldest date obtained from a burnt bone gives aterminus ante quem for these deposits atAA88550:9,460±54 BC, i.e. 9,120-8,615 cal. BC (2σ). Thisdate is not statistically different4 from the charcoaldateobtainedfromasmallbranchofPrunussp.(i.e.there isnoriskof inbuiltage): AA88551:9544±53BP,i.e.9155-8743cal.BC(2σ).Altogether,thelithicandfaunalmaterialand thesetof radiocarbondatesindicatethatthefillingsoftrenches168.3and168.5atKlimonasdatetothefirsthalfofthe9thmillennium;morepreciselyto9155-8615cal.BC(2σ).

Lithic material, animal bones and radiocarbondates atKlimonas were very similar to those fromAsprokremmos (McCartneyet al. 2006, 2007, 2008,inpress;McCartney2010;Manningetal.2010).Thecoretechnologyisdominatedbywelldevelopeduni-directionalbladesdebitageandtheproductionischa-racterizedbyanabundanceofarrowheads,primarilyshortwithtriangularbasesorwithashorttang,whichisunusualinCyprus.Suidsaretheonlyungulateandoverwhelminglydominatetheothervertebratespeciesofmainlybirdandfreshwatertortoises(Vigneetal.inpress).Atbothsites,beadsandpendantswererathernumerous in relation to the later Cyprio-PPN sites.Andfinally,thetimerangedefinedbythetwooldestdatesofKlimonasoverlapsthetimerangedefinedbythe six dates obtained atAsprokremmos (9141-8569BC,Manning et al. 2010) with no statistical diffe-rencebetweenthem5.

TheexcellentpreservationofthefaunalremainsatKlimonasstrengthenstheideathatthesehumangroupsbasedtheiranimalsubsistenceontheexploitationofthelocalresources;principallyasmallendemicsuid.This isanunprecedentedexample,within theMedi-terraneanEuropeandtheNearEast,ofthesustainabledevelopment of human groups based purely on onespecies of large game. TheKlimonas suid was thesamesizeastheonesofAetokremnosandoftheear-liestphaseofShillourokambos.ThethreeofthemarelikelyrepresentativesoftherecentlydescribedsmallendemicCypriotsuid,whichissupposedtohavebeenintroduced to the island short before the end of theLateGlacial(Vigneetal.2009,2011).Inthepresentstateofknowledge,theearliestundisputableevidenceof pig domestication on the nearmainland dates toca. 8,500 cal BC (Nevalı Çori, Çayönü, South-EastAnatolia) (Peters et al. 2005; Hongo et al. 2009).It is thereforemore likely that the small size of theAetokremnos-Klimonas suids resulted from severalcenturiesoflifeontheisland,ratherthanfromado-mesticationprocess.Furtheranalysesonthearchaeo-zoologicalseriesofKlimonaswillhopefullyallowustotestthishypothesis.

The archaeozoological data retrieved has alsoenabledustodemonstratethatthedomesticdoghadalreadybeenintroducedtoCyprusatthattime,andtoevidence that itwas livingwith humangroups pos-

siblyhelpingthemtohuntorcontrolsmallsuids.Althoughthearchaeologicalinformationextracted

fromthetwosmalltrenchesofKlimonasisofcoursemuchlesssignificantthaninformationgatheredfromseveral excavation sessions atAsprokremmos, it hasprovideduswithintriguingconfirmationthathumanswere living inCyprusduring thefirsthalfof the9thmillenniumBC.ItalsoconfirmedthatAsprokremmoswasnot an isolated settlement and,because it is lo-catedfarfromAsprokremmos(Fig.1),suggeststhat,atthattime,severalhumangroupslivedontheislandduringseveraldecadesorcenturiesatleast.Therefore,documentingthisperiodisoftheutmostimportanceforunderstandingnotonlytheearlyprehistoryofCy-prusbutalsothebehaviourofitshumansocieties.

Pendingquestionsaremany: is theearly9thmil-lennium an isolated episode ofmassive peopling inCyprus or is it documenting only one period of acontinuousoccupationofCyprus since themid11thmillennium? The use of various materials, picroliteinparticular, suggests that this community (whetheratthelevelofKlimonas,orattheleveloftheislandcommunityofCyprus)knewtheresourcesoftheis-landwell,andwerenotnewarrivals,stillfindingtheirway.Whatwas the cultural origin(s) of the humansgroupslivingatAsprokremmosandKlimonasanddidtheystillintensivelyexchangewiththemainlandPPNsocieties?Didtheyhuntoralreadymanagethesmallwildboar,assuggestedbythenumerousarrowheads,orhadtheybeguntodomesticatethem?Whatplantsdid theyuseanddid theybegin topractice“pre-do-mestic”agriculturelikesomehumangroupsdidatthesametimeonthemainland?

FarfrombeingsolelydependantonthewestAsianmainland,Cyprusappears tohavehaditsowncom-plex and original neolithization process, in whichlocal cultural evolutions, technical inputs from themainland,andadaptationstoparticularislandcondi-tionswouldhaveintegratedtoformanew,uniquelyCypriot, Neolithic way of life. The abundance andqualityofthelithicandfaunalmaterialfoundduringthese test excavations augur for promising perspec-tives toaddress thesequestions.NewexcavationsatKlimonaswillbeconductedinthenearfuture.

Acknowledgements. The French School at Athens,theCyprusDepartmentofAntiquitiesandtheFrenchMinistryofForeignAffairssupportedourfieldwork.Graphitization, AMS-measurements and data pro-cessingwere performed at theUniversity ofArizonaAMS14CLaboratory(Tucson,USA).Wearegratefulto Stéphanie Thiébault for charcoal identification,to Jill Cucchi for copy-editing and three anonymousPaléorient’srefereesfortheirconstructivesuggestions.

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1116

Endnotes1Allthedatesinthispaperwillbegivencal.BC.CalibrationshavebeenperformedusingCalib5.0,StuiverandReimer1993;Reimeretal.2004.

2Theabsenceofanypost-SotiraitemindicatesthattheseerosiveeventsdidnottakeplacelaterthantheLateNeolithic.TherichnessofarchaeologicalmaterialalsoindicatesthatthisareawasintensivelysettledduringtheentireCypriotNeolithic.ProbablyduetotheproximityoftheimportantsourceofgoodqualityflintmaterialattheAthiakisite(seeBrioisetal.2005,114ff).

3Suidsarealsooverwhelminglydominant(87%;N=31)inallothertrenchesexcepttrench168.1.

495%confidence:Chi²=3.84;T=1.23;Calib5.0,Reimeretal.2004.

595%confidence:Chi²=14.1;T=4.67;Calib5.0,Reimeretal.2004.

Jean-DenisVigneCNRS,Muséumnationald’Histoirenaturelle,Paris,[email protected]

AntoineZazzoCNRS,Muséumnationald’Histoirenaturelle,Paris,[email protected]

FrançoisBrioisEHESS,UniversitéToulouseLeMirail,[email protected]

IsabelleCarrèreEHESS,UniversitéToulouseLeMirail,[email protected]

JulieDaujatUniversityofAberdeen,Muséumnationald’Histoirenaturelle,Paris,[email protected]

JeanGuilaineCollègedeFranceandCentredeRecherchessurlaPréhistoireetlaProtohistoiredelaMéditerranée,[email protected]

References

AbbèsF.2002 Étudedesindustrieslithiquesdunéolithique précéramiquedeSyrieduXèmeauVIIIème millénaireB.P.BARInternationalSeries.Oxford- Lyon:Archaeopress/Maisondel’Orient.

BrioisF.2003 Natureetévolutiondesindustrieslithiquesde Shillourokambos.InJ.GuilaineandA.LeBrun (eds.),LeNéolithiquedeChypre,Bulletinde CorrespondanceHellénique,43esupplément:121-133. Athens.

BrioisF.,Petit-AupertC.,andPéchouxP.Y.2005 Histoiredescampagnesd’Amathonte.I.L’occupation dusolauNéolithique.Athens:Ecolesfrançaise d’Athènes(EtudesChypriotesXVI:42-43).

CucchiT.,VigneJ.-D.,AuffrayJ.-C.,CroftP.,andPeltenburgE.2002 Introductioninvolontairedelasourisdomestique(Mus musculusdomesticus)àChypredèsleNéolithique précéramiqueancien(finIXeetVIIIemillénairesav. J.-C.),C.R.AcadémiedesSciences,Palévol1:235-241.

DavisS.J.M.1984 Khirokitiaanditsmammalremains.ANeolithic Noah‘sark.InA.LeBrun(ed.),Fouillesrécentesà Khirokitia(Chypre)1977-1981:147-162.Paris:ADPF (EditionRecherchessurlesCivilisations).1994 EvenmorebonesfromKhirokitia:the1988-1991 excavations.InA.LeBrun(ed.),Fouillesrécentesà Khirokitia(Chypre)1988-1991:305-334.Paris:ADPF (EditionRecherchessurlesCivilisations).

DrieschA.vonden1976 DasVermessenvonTierknochenausvor-und frühgeschichtlichenSiedlungen.Munich:Institutfür Paläoanatomie,Domestikationsforschungund GeschichtederTiermedizinderUniversitätMünchen.

GourichonL.andHelmerD.2008 EtudearchéozoologiquedeMureybet.InIbañezJ.J. (ed.),TellMureybet.Unsitenéolithiquedansle MoyenEuphratesyrien:115-227.Oxford: Archaeopress.BARInternationalSeries.

GuilaineJ.2003 Parekklisha-Shillourokambos.Périodisationet aménagementsdomestiques.InJ.GuilaineJ.and A.LeBrunA.(eds.),LeNéolithiquedeChypre:3-14. BulletindeCorrespondanceHellénique,43e supplément.Athens.

GuilaineJ.andBrioisF.2007 ShillourokambosandtheneolithizationofCyprus: somereflections.EurasianPrehistory4,1-2:159-175.


Neo-Lithics1/1117

GuilaineJ.,BrioisF.,VigneJ.-D.,andCarrèreI.2000 Découverted’unNéolithiqueprécéramiqueancien chypriote(fin9e.début8emillénairescal.BC), apparentéauPPNBancien/moyenduLevantnord. CompteRendudel’AcadémiedesSciences.Sciences delaTerreetdesplanètes330:75-82.

GuilaineJ.,BrioisF.,andVigneJ.-D.(eds.)2011 Shillourokambos.Unétablissementnéolithiquepré- céramiqueàChypre.Lesfouillesdusecteur1.Errance/ EcoleFrançaised‘Athènes:Athens.

HedgesR.E.M.,Lee-ThorpJ.A.,andTurossN.C.1995 Istoothenamelcarbonateasuitablematerialfor radiocarbondating?Radiocarbon37:285-290.

HongoH.,PearsonJ.,ÖksüzB.,andIlgezdiG.2009 TheprocessofungulatedomesticationatCayönü, SoutheasternTurkey:Amultidisciplinaryapproach focusingonBossp.andCervuselaphus. Anthropozoologica44,1:63-78.

LantingJ.N.,Aerts-BijmaA.T.,andvanderPlichtJ.2001 Datingcrematedbone.Radiocarbon43:249-254.

ManningS.W.,McCartneyC.,KromerB.,andStewartS.T.2010 TheearlierNeolithicinCyprus:recognitionanddating ofaPre-PotteryNeolithicAoccupation.Antiquity84: 693-706.

McCartneyC.1998 Preliminaryreportonthechippedstoneassemblage fromtheAceramicNeolithicsiteofAyiaVarvara– Asprokremmos,Cyprus.Levant30:85-90.2010 Outsidethecorridor?TheNeolithisationofCyprus.In D.BolgerandL.Maguire(eds.),TheDevelopment ofPre-StateCommunitiesintheAncientNearEast: 185-196.Oxford:OxbowBooks(BANEAPublication Series2).2011 ThelithicassemblageofAyiaVarvaraAsprokremmos: AnewperspectiveontheEarlyNeolithicofCyprus. InE.Healey,S.CampbellandO.Maeda(eds.),The StateoftheStone.Terminologies,Continuitiesand ContextsinNearEasternLithics.Proceedingsofthe 6thPPNConferenceonChippedandGroundStone ArtefactsintheNearEast.StudiesinEarlyNear EasternProduction,Subsistence,andEnvironment 13:185-196.Berlin:exoriente.

McCartneyC.,ManningS.,SewellD.,andStewartS.T.2006 ElaboratingEarlyNeolithicCyprus(EENC).Reportof theDepartmentofAntiquity,Cyprus,2006:39-62.2007 TheEENC2006fieldseason:ExcavationsatAgia Varvara-Asprokremmosandsurveyofthelocalearly Holocenelandscape.ReportoftheDepartmentof Antiquity,Cyprus:27-44.inpress ReconsideringEarlyHoloceneCypruswithinthe easternMediterraneanlandscape.InB.Finlaysonand G.Warren(eds.),LandscapesinTransition.Oxford, OxbowBooks(LevantSupplementarySeries).

McCartneyC.,ManningS.,RosendahlS.,andStewartS.T.2008 ElaboratingEarlyNeolithicCyprus(EENC). PreliminaryReportonthe2007FieldSeason: ExcavationsandregionalfieldsurveyatAgiaVarvara- Asprokremmos.ReportoftheDepartmentofAntiquity, Cyprus:67-86.

PeltenburgE.,ColledgeS.,CroftP.,JacksonA.,McCartneyC.,andMurrayM.A.2000 Agro-pastoralistcolonizationofCyprusinthe10th millenniumBP:initialassessments.Antiquity74:844- 853.2001 Well-establishedcolonists:Mylouthkia1andthe cypro-potteryNeolithicB.InS.Swiny(ed.),The earliestprehistoryofCyprus:61-93.Boston:American SchoolsofOrientalResearch.

PetersJ.,DrieschA.vonden,andHelmerD.2005 TheupperEuphrates-Tigrisbasin:Cradleof agropastoralism?InJ.-D.Vigne,J.Peters,and D.Helmer(eds.),FirstStepsofAnimalDomestication. Newarchaeozoologicalapproaches:96-124.Oxford: OxbowBooks.

ReimerP.J.,BaillieM.G.L.,BardE.,BaylissA.,BeckJ.W.,BertrandC.J.H.,BlackwellP.G.,BuckC.E.,BurrG.S.,CutlerK.B.,DamonP.E.,EdwardsR.L.,FairbanksR.G.,FriedrichM.,GuildersonT.P.,HoggA.G.,HughenK.A.,KromerB.,McCormacG.,ManningS.,BronkRamseyC.,ReimerR.W.,RemmeleS.,SouthonJ.R.,StuiverM.,TalamoS.,TaylorF.W.,vanderPlichtJ.,andWeyhenmeyerC.E.2004 IntCal04TerrestrialRadiocarbonAgeCalibration,0- 26kacalBP.Radiocarbon46,3:1029-1058.

SañaSeguiM.1999 Arqueologíadeladomesticacíonanimal.Lagestiónde losrecursosanimalesenTellHalula(Valledel Éufrates–Siria)de8.800al7.000BP.Barcelona: Treballsd’ArqueologiadelPròximOrient1.

SerrandN.,VigneJ.-D.,andGuilaineJ.2005 EarlyPreceramicNeolithicmarineshellsfrom Shillourokambos,Cyprus(late9th-8thmill.calBC): Amainly-ornamentalsetwithsimilaritiestomainland PPNB.InD.BarYosefMayer(ed.),Archaeo- malacology:Molluscsinformerenvironmentsof humanbehaviour:122-129.Oxford:Oxbowbooks.

SimmonsA.H.1999 FaunalExtinctioninanIslandSociety.NewYork: KluwerAcademic–PlenumPublishers.

StuiverM.andReimerP.J.1993 Extended14Cdata-baseandrevisedCALIB. Radiocarbon35:215-230.

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1118

VigneJ.-D.2011 Lespetitsetmicrovertébrésterrestres(chéloniens, squamates,oiseaux,rongeursetcarnivores): contributionsàl’histoiredupeuplementreptilienet mammaliendeChypre.InJ.Guilaine,F.Brioisand J.-D.Vigne(eds.),Shillourokambos.Unétablissement néolithiquepré-céramiqueàChypre.Lesfouillesdu secteur1:847-870.Errance/EcoleFrançaised‘Athènes: Athens.

VigneJ.-D.,BailonS.,CroftP.,CucchiT.,andZazzoA.inpress LateGlacialandearlyHoloceneintroductionof vertebratespeciestoCyprus:Newarchaeozoological data.JournalofBiologicalInvasions(specialissue ICAZ-2010proceedings).

VigneJ.-D.andGuilaineJ.2004 Lespremiersanimauxdecompagnie8500ansavant notreère?…oucommentj’aimangémonchat,mon chienetmonrenard.InP.Bonte,A.-M.Brisebarre, D.HelmerandH.SidiMaamar(eds.),Domestications animales:dimensionssocialesetsymboliques. Anthropozoologica39,1:249-274.

VigneJ.-D.,CarrèreI.,andGuilaineJ.2003 Unstablestatusofearlydomesticungulatesinthe NearEast:theexampleofShillourokambos(Cyprus, IX-VIIIthmillenniacal.B.C.).InJ.GuilaineandA. LeBrun(eds.),LeNéolithiquedeChypre:239-251. BulletindeCorrespondanceHellénique,43e supplément.Athens.

VigneJ.-D.,CarrèreI.,BrioisF.,andGuilaineJ.2011 TheEarlyProcessoftheMammalDomesticationinthe NearEast:NewCypriotPre-NeolithicandPrepottery NeolithicEvidence.InO.Bar-YosefandD.Price(eds.), TheBeginningsofAgriculture:NewData,NewIdeas. CurrentAnthropology52,54.

VigneJ.-D.,ZazzoA.,SaliegeJ.-F.,PoplinF.,GuilaineJ.,andSimmonsA.2009 Pre-Neolithicwildboarmanagementandintroduction toCyprusmorethan11,400yearsago.Proceedingsof theNationalAccademyofSciencesUSA106,38:16131- 16138.

WatersJ.V.,JonesS.J.,andArmstrongH.A.2009 ClimaticcontrolsonlatePleistocenealluvialfans, Cyprus.Geomorphology115(2010):228–251.

WasseA.2007 Climate,economyandchange:CyprusandtheLevant duringtheLatePleistocenetomidHolocene.In J.Clarke(ed.),OnthemarginsofSouthwestAsia:44- 63.Oxford:OxbowBooks.

WatkinsT.2004 PuttingthecolonizationofCyprusintocontext.In E.PeltenburgandA.Wasse(eds.),TheNeolithic Revolution:NewPerspectivesonSouthwestAsiain LightofRecentDiscoveriesonCyprus:23-34.Oxford: OxbowBooks.

ZazzoA.andSaliègeJ.-F.2011 Radiocarbondatingofbiologicalapatites:areview. Palaeogeography,Palaeoclimatology,Palaeoecology 310:52-61.

Neo-Lithics1/1119

FieldReports

Proto-historic Mishmar Ha'emeq was discoveredand excavated in 2007 (Barzilai and Getzov 2008;Cinamon2010).Themajor discoveries of the 2007excavationsincludedauniqueritualbuildingrelatedtoaburialground(AreaH)datedtothePre-PotteryNeolithicBperiod,andsixrock-cutpitinstallations(AreaG) aswell as a grave (AreaH) dated to thePotteryNeolithic(Yarmukian)(BarzilaiandGetzov2008).

In2010twomoreexcavationswereundertakenatthenorthernpartofthesite(AreaI)priortoconstruc-tionofanewresidentialquarter(Fig.1).Theinves-tigatedareawasdividedintofoursecondaryareasofwhich thewesternmost (I4-I3)weredevoidof anyarchaeological finds.The excavation in I2 revealedathinlayerca.40cmbelowthesurfacedatedtothePotteryNeolithicperiod.Thislayerconsistedoffist-sizedangularburntstones,potterysherds,flintarti-facts and animal bones, thus resembling the “stonesurface”phenomenon(e.g.Barzilai2010).

The excavation in sub-area I1 revealed to oursurprisesevensuperimposedlayersdatedtothePre-Pottery Neolithic B, Pottery Neolithic (Yarmukian/

Lodian), Early Chalcolithic (Wadi Rabah), EarlyBronzeAgeI,MiddleBronzeAge,RomanandLateMuslim (Ottoman) periods. In this short report webriefly present the Pre-PotteryNeolithic B, PotteryNeolithicandEarlyChalcolithicoccupations(LayersVII-V).

ThelowermostLayerVII isembeddedontopofvirgin soil andwas excavated in a limited area (12m²). The archaeological remains consist of a limeplasteredfloorthatwassetonafoundationofsmallstones(Fig.2).Thisfloorsegmentlikelybelongstoastructureasdecayedmudbricksedimentwasuncov-eredontopofthefloorandnexttoit.Theflintassem-blagefromlayerVIIissimilartotheonerecoveredatAreaH,inparticular thebidirectionalbladesthatweremadeonhighqualityflints(Barzilaietal.2011).Notablynobidirectionalbladecoreswerefound.ThetoolsincludeJerichopointsandinverselyretouchedsickleblades(Fig.3:1-4).Otherdiagnosticartifactsincludeagreenstonebead(probablymadeofama-zonite)andpolishedbonetools(Fig.3:5-8).

LayerVIwasexposedinthenorthernandsouthernpartofsub-areaI1andinsub-areaI2.Thenorthern

The2010ExcavationSeasonatMishmarHa'emeqintheJezreelValley

OmryBarzilaiandNimrodGetzov

Fig. 1 A plan showing the location of the excavation areas at Mishmar Ha‘emeq.

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1120

exposure included two walls that converge into acornerofalargestructure(Fig.4)towhichYarmu-kianpotterysherdswerefoundassociated(Fig.5:1).

Althoughnoarchitecturalremainswerefoundinthesouthernsub-areaI1itwasricher inpotterysherds,mainly Jericho IX (Fig. 5: 2). Likewise the lithicsfromLayerVIconsistofYarmukianandJerichoIXsicklebladesandpoints(Fig.6).Duetolackoftimethese two sectors were not connected in the exca-vation therefore it is unclear if theYarmukian andJericho IX finds derived from the same horizon ornot.

LayerVwasuncovered in a limited area (5m²)at thesoutheasternpartofsub-areaI1.Theremainsincludetworowsofstoneswithpavements(Fig.7).Itisunclearwhetherthisfeaturerepresentsthefoun-dationsofastructureoraninstallation.Thepotteryand flint artifacts from this layer are typical to theEarlyChalcolithicWadiRabahculture(Fig.8).Thepotteryincludesthumbnaildecorationswhereasthesicklebladesarebackedanddenticulated.

Fig. 2 Mishmar Ha‘emeq Area I1: Remains of a plastered floor from Layer VII.

Fig. 3 Mishmar Ha‘emeq Area I1: Diagnostic flint artifacts, a stone bead and bone tools from Layer VII. 1 bidirectional blade; 2-3 arrowheads; 4 sickle blade; 5 stone bead; 6-8 polished bone tools.

Fig. 4 Mishmar Ha‘emeq Area I1: Remains of a structure from Layer VI.

Fig. 5 Mishmar Ha‘emeq Area I1: Pottery sherds from Layer VI. 1 Yarmukian sherds; 2 Jericho IX sherds.

Neo-Lithics1/1121

FieldReports

TherecentexcavationsatMishmarHa'emeqcon-tributetothecomprehensionofthesite’scharacteris-ticsaccordingtochronology.Asforthenatureofthesite, apparentlyMishmarHaemeq is a subterraneanproto-historicTell,asattestedinareaI1wheresevensuperimposedlayerswereexposed.Theabsenceofarchaeologicalfinds in I3-I4, alsonoted inAreasEand F (Cinamon 2010), outline the north-westernboundaryofthesite(Fig.1).

Although the PPNB remains in Layer VII arefew they clearly indicate a residential area withinthe PPNB village.While, the preliminary report ofthe 2007 excavation could not conclude if PPNBMishmarHaemeqwasavillageoraritualsite, it iscleartodaythatitwasapermanentsettlementwitharitualcomplexlocatedatitsmargins.

AsforthePNoccupationinLayerVI,theremainsof thestructuresuggestMishmarHa'emeqwasalsoasettlementduringthePNperiod.Howeveritisun-cleariftheYarmukianandtheJerichoXIfindsderivefrom the same phase or from different occupationsatthesite.AfurtherexcavationisneededinordertocomprehendtheculturaldiversityandthechronologyofthistimeperiodatMishmarHa'emeq.

AndfinallythediscoveryofthefewWadiRabahremains suggests the sitewas occupied also duringthistimeperiod.

In sum, the presence of all three periods (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, Pottery Neolithic and EarlyChalcolithic)atMishmarHa'emeqsupportaculturalcontinuity in the Jezreel Valley as was identifiedin the central JordanValley (e.g.Munhata) and theAkko Plain regions (e.g.Ard el Samra andNahalBetzet2)(Getzovetal.2009;Perrot1964).

Acknowledgements.The2010excavationatMishmarHa'emeq was conducted under the auspices of theIsrael Antiquities Authority and financed by Kib-butzMishmarHa'emeq.Thefieldworkincludedtwoseasons(licensepermitsA5932/2010;A-5988/2010)respectivelydirectedbyOmryBarzilai (June2010)andNimrodGetzov(July-September2010).

We wish to thank the following people fortheir work in the field: T. Surickub (registration),Z.Horowitz,F.Abu-Zidane,O.MarderandM.Hartal(consultantanddirecting),V.Assmann,Y.Shmidov,R. Mishayev and M. Kahan (measurements anddraftspersons), L. Barda andA. Shapiro (GPS), O.Ackerman(geomorphology)andJ.Jacoby,J.LabbanandH.Iz-Dean(logistics).

Fig. 6 Mishmar Ha‘emeq Area I1: Pottery Neolithic flint artifacts from Later VI. Fig. 7 Mishmar Ha‘emeq Area I1: Structure remains from Layer

V.

Fig. 8 Mishmar Ha‘emeq Area I1: Flint artifacts and pottery sherds from layer V. 1 decorated Wadi Rabah pottery. 2 denticulated sickle blades.

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1122

OmryBarzilaiIsraelAntiquitiesAuthority,[email protected]

NimrodGetzovIsraelAntiquitiesAuthority,[email protected]

References

BarzilaiO.2010 Naturaloranthropogenicagents?Someexamples forthevarietyofstonesurfacesinlateprehistoric sitesinCisjordan.Neo-Lithics1/09:19-23.

BarzilaiO.andGetzovN.2008 MishmarHa'emeq:ANeolithicSiteintheJezreel Valley.Neo-Lithics2/08:12–17.

BarzilaiO.,GetzovN.,Givol-BarzilaiY.,MaromN.,andMarderO.2011 LithicsinaRitualContextatthePNNBSiteof MishmarHa'emeq,Israel:DoTheyDisplaySpecial Characteristics?InE.Healey,O.Maeda,and S.Campbell(eds.),TheStateoftheStone: Terminologies,ContinuitiesandContextsinNear EasternNeolithicLithics.Proceedingsofthesixth PPNConferenceonChippedandGroundStone ArtefactsintheNearEast,Manchester,3rd-5th March2008.StudiesinEarlyNearEastern Production,Subsistence,andEnvironment13:305- 316.Berlin:exoriente.

CinamonG.2010 MishmarHa-Emeq.Preliminaryreport.Hadashot Arkheologiyot122.http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il

GetzovN.,BarzilaiO.,LeDosseurG.,Eirikh-RoseA.,KatlavI.,MarderO.,MaromN.,andMilevskiI.2009 NahalBezetIIandArdelSamra:TwoLate PrehistoricSitesandSettlementPatternsintheAkko Plain.MitekufatHaeven.JournaloftheIsrael PrehistoricSociety39:81-158.

PerrotJ.1964 LesdeuxpremièrescampagnesdefouillesàMunhata (1962–63):premiersrésultats.Syria41:323-345.

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1123

El-Hemmeh is amulti-period Pre-PotteryNeolithicsitelocatedintheWadiHasa,Jordan,intheshadowoftheprominentvolcanicplugofJebelHammatedh-Dhikr.Situatedonanalluvialfanwithineasyreachof the water supply flowing in the wadi, Hemmehwas ideally positioned to take advantage of arablesoils and a consistent water source required forcultivation. Aspartofa long-termresearchprojectinvestigatingthesubsistenceandsocialsystemsthatcontributedtothetransitionfromgatheringtoplantcultivation, recentexcavationsatHemmehhavefo-cusedexclusivelyontheearliestPPNoccupationofthesite.

PPNAdepositsatHemmehwerefirstidentifiedin2004,whenanexploratoryexcavationunit(3x2m)revealedaportionofasemi-subterraneanstonestruc-ture (Structure 1) and an associated clay floor thatcontainedamoldedhearthfeature(F1)(Makarewiczetal.2006).TwoHagdudtruncationsandasmallba-saltcupsimilartothoseidentifiedatWadiFaynan16wererecoveredfromthisstructure(Shaffrey2007),and the hearth yielded a radiocarbon determinationdating to the latest portion of the PPNA (9,450 ±60uncal bp; 9120 - 8570 calBC).Exploratory ex-cavationscontinuedduring2007topartiallyexposetwomorestructuresandconsiderabledepthofstra-tigraphy.Thesedepositsalsoyieldedwell-preservedbotanicalandfaunalassemblages.

Inordertobettercapturediachronicshiftsinthecharacterandspatialdistributionofarchitecture,sub-sistence strategies, and mortuary practices throug-hout the earliest PPN at el-Hemmeh, five new 5 x5m excavation unitswere opened during the 2010season. Excavations revealed a complex sequenceof architectural construction, deconstruction, anddecay, trashdumpingevents, andhuman interment.Here,webriefly report results from the2010exca-vationsandprovideapreliminarydescriptionofthearchitecturalremainsandinternalfeatures.

StructuralRemains

TheearliestPPNsettlementatel-Hemmehislocatedon the western face of an eroded alluvial fan. Thesteep slope produces an ca. 25-30 cm drop in hillsurface elevation permeter.Consequently, depositsthatliejustunderthemodernsurfaceatwesternmostextent of the excavation unit are almost two and ahalfmeters below surface deposits located only 10mawaytotheeast. Anas-yetunquantifiedamount

of the site’s western margin, downslope, has beenerodedaway.

TwelveearlyPPNsemi-subterraneanstonestruc-tures,rangingindiameterfrom2mto4mhavesofarbeenidentifiedatHemmeh(Fig.1).Structures2through8andStructure10werepartiallyexcavatedduringthe2010season,butonlytheuppermostwallcourses have so far been revealed for Structures 9,11, and12.Althoughadditional excavationwork isrequired in order to precisely define stratigraphicrelationshipsbetweenstructures,andbetweenstruc-tures and extramural spaces, documented stratigra-phicrelationshipsmakeitclearthatnotallstructureswere occupied at the same time and that there areseveral broad phases of early PPN construction atHemmeh.

TheconstructiontechniqueemployedatHemmehwasbroadlysimilarforeachstructure,withthepos-sible exceptionsofStructures4 and10. Ingeneral,asteeplycutfoundationpitwasdug,oftenintopre-existing(alsoearlyPPN,thusfar)culturaldeposits,and then a two-coursed stonewall set in temperedmudmortarandsupportedbythepitwallwasbuilt.Theuppermostcoursesofthestonewallusuallyex-tended10-30cmabovetheexteriorgroundlevelandsupportedaroofand,insomecases,pisésuperstruc-ture built on top of thewalls.While the placementofastonewallinafoundationpitisasharedfeatureof many early PPN structures so far identified atHemmeh, several structures exhibit different stylesofstonecoursing.

Structures2,3,and4

Structures2,3,and4,eachca.2-3mindiameter,ex-hibit similar architecture styles.Each structure fea-turesuprightfoundationalstonesthatsupportuppercourses,two-rowswide,ofsmallerirregularlyshapedstonesheldtogetherbyclaymortar.Thestonewallsof these structures arepreserved toheights rangingfromca.40cmto1.5m.Thesewallsappeartohavebeen capped with a low-lying pisé superstructurebuiltupontopofthestonewalls,suggestedbythesi-gnificantvolumeofcleanpisémeltdepositedwithineach structure. Further intramuraldeposits suggestthatalighteightroofmadeoutofpackedmud,cerealandgrasschaff,andotherorganicmaterialslikelyco-veredeachdwelling.ForStructures3and4,roofingwas supported solely by the walls, while a centralpostholehelduparoofinStructure2.

EarlyPre-PotteryNeolithicSettlementatel-Hemmeh:ASurveyoftheArchitecture

CherylMakarewiczandKatherineRose

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1124

Structure2

Intermsofthenumberofinteriorconstructioneventsandfeatures,Structure2isoneofthemoredynamicbuildings,sofarencounteredatHemmeh.Theinteriorspace ofStructure 2 underwent several different re-modelingeventswhennewfeatureswereaddedand/oroldonesremodeled.Structure2wasalsoregularlyre-floored, with at least ten floor flooring episodesvisible in a sectionprofile createdwhen illegal dig-ging damaged the site.The looting occurred duringthe 2007 season,when a large pitwas dug into thesouthernportionofStructure2-aswellasotherareasof the site - exposed during excavation, destroyingfloors and, unfortunately, a human burial. The thinclay floors observed in the profile were sometimeslaid down successively, but more frequently, alter-natewithaverythinlayerofpisemelt,aeoliandustand,occasionally,redepositedash.ThedepositionofmeltedpiséandaeoliandustsuggeststhebriefdisuseofStructure2atregularintervals;ashgenerallyaccu-mulatedduringoccupationphases.

Anumberofinteriorfeatures,installedatvarioustimes and associated with different flooring events,werelocatedinStructure2.Theoldestfeaturesofaridentified is a substantial posthole (F39) positionedat the center ofStructure 2 (Fig. 2).The interior ofthe posthole is linedwith two elongated stones andsmallerangularstonessetinaclaymortar.

Asmallca.40x25cmsemi-rectangularbinwaslater installed directly against the eastern curve of

theStructure2wallsometimebefore thehearthandfinalfloorwerebuilt,butafterthepostholewascon-structed(Fig.2).Thisbin(F38)isapartialsub-floorinstallation and extends ca. 20 cm below the finalfloorsurface;alargeflatstoneandaseriesofangularstones firmly set in claymortar builds the edges ofthebinca.5cmupabovethefloor.Aspartofalaterflooringevent, thevolumeofthebinwasmorethandoubledwhen amoderately sized stonewall ca. 50cminheightwasinstalledontopoftheraisedstoneedgingofthebin.

A raised circular platform (F36) built of smallangular stones set in a dense mudmortar was alsolocated inStructure2.Theplatform isca.80cm indiameter,andabutstheinnerfaceofthewesternpor-tionoftheStructure2wall.Likethebin,thisplatformwas installed sometime during themid-point of thelifecycleofthestructure.Theexactstratigraphicre-lationship between the platform and the binwill bedeterminedinfutureseasonsduringexcavationoftheStructure2floorlayers.

Just to the north of the posthole is a raised, cir-cularmoldedclayhearth(F40).Theinstallationofthehearth appears to be the final construction event inStructure2,asthehearthsitsupontheterminalfloorofthestructure.Theclayofthehearthwasbakedfromexposure toheatandstainedwithash,andalthoughsomecharcoalpieceswereembeddedintheclay,thehearthhadbeensweptcleanofsubstantialashyaccu-mulationbeforeitsburialandnodepositsofashwereexcavatedfromwithinit.

Fig. 1 Horizontal plan of early PPN structures at el-Hemmeh.

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1125

Structure3

Structure3isawell-preservedcircularstonebuildingca.2mindiameterandpreservedtoaheightof1.5meters.Althoughonly a quarter of Structure 3wasexcavatedduring2010,severalphasesofoccupationand a substantial stone platform featurewere iden-

tified.Theplatform(F7) isca.1mindiameterandreaches ca. 15 cm above a compact clay floor, andconsistsofaringofstonesfirmlysetinaclaymortar,withsmallangularstonesandflatfine-grainedbasaltslabsalsosetinmortar,fillingthering(Fig.3).Twooverturnedgroundstoneitemswerealsoincorporatedintotheplatform,whileanotherstoneexhibitingmul-tipledivotscreatedbypeckingwasalsorecycledandusedintheplatform.Oneofthegroundstoneitems,asmalllimestonebowl,yieldedwell-preservedstarchremains(Weber,personalcommunication).However,sincetheworkingsurfaceofthebowlisfaceddowninto the platform, the grains recovered from thisgroundstone are likely not derived from activitiesassociatedwiththeuseofplatform.Multiplebasaltpestles, a bone spatula, and a clay ball were alsofoundonthefloornexttotheplatform.Atleastfivesuccessiveclayfloorswerelaiddownwhilethestoneplatformwas in use.Aswas observed in Structure2,extremelythinlayersofpisémeltweredepositedbetween eachof thesefloors, suggestingperiods oftemporarydisusefollowedbyreoccupation.

Fig. 2 Structure 2 bin (F38) and posthole (F39) features.

Fig. 3 The stone platform feature (F7) located in Structure 3.

Fig. 4 Platform/shallow bin feature (F5) located in Structure 4. Note that this feature construction and associated clay floor are associated with relatively late occupation of the structure and covers the foundation stones of the Structure 4 wall.

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1126

Eventually, the stone platform and associatedfloorsfellintopermanentdisuse,andStructure3ap-pears to have been abandoned for a relatively longperiodoftime.TheinteriorspaceofStructure3wasturnedintoamidden,andsubsequently,theroofandpossibly pisé superstructure began to decay.WhileStructure 3 appears to have been briefly occupiedagainwiththecreationofinformaltrampledsurfaces(Floors733and837), thespacewasneverused in-tensivelyagain.

Structure4

Structure 4 is a circular structure ca. 3 m in dia-meter defined by a low stonewall that reaches ca.40cminheight,althoughthiswallappearstohavesupportedapisé superstructure.Thevery lowden-sityof architectural stonespresent in thematrixofpisé melt layer that formedwith the structurewasabandonedsuggeststhatthewallneverreachedtheheightsseeninStructure2and3.Approximately50%ofStructure4wasexcavated;theremaininghalfwas destroyed during the installation of a modernwatercisternonthesiteoveradecadeago.Structure4 appears to be free-standing, but additional exca-vation work is required in the extramural depositsoutside of the structure in order to determine thecomplete construction sequence. Structure 4 wasre-flooredmultiple times, usually after a period of

disusewhenthestructurewasturnedintoanashandmiddendump.Floorsarerelativelythick(ca.1cm)andaremadeofacompactclay.InteriorfeaturesareremarkablysparseinStructure4.Onlyonefeature,ashallowraisedclaylinedbinorplatformca.1.2mx50cminsize,furnishedtheinteriorofthespaceforasingleoccupationphase(F5;Fig.4).Thisconstruc-tionutilizestheeasternportionofthestructurewallandseveral largestonesset inclayarcingoutfromthewall. The compact clay bottom of the featureis raisedca5cmrelative to the structurefloor.No-tably, theuppermost courseof another round stonestructure (Structure 12) was identified underneathStructure4.

Structure5

Structure 5 is unusual in that, unlike other earlyPPN structures so far encountered at Hemmeh, itswall fabric was heavily remodeled several times.TheoriginalfootprintofStructure5wasdefinedbya circular semi-subterranean, two-coursewall con-structionpreserved toaheightof1mandca. 2mindiameter(Wall813).Theoriginalfloorassociatedwiththisfirstphaseofconstructionhasnotyetbeenidentified.Eventually,thenorthernhalfofWall813awas completely removed except for the lowermostcourses,and thestructurewasexpandednorthwardwith the installation of a relatively straight wall

Fig. 5 A general view of the mortuary installations (from left to right F13, F14, F15) located in Structure 6 after the removal of interred human remains.

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1127

(Wall 813b). However, there is a slight curvaturevisibleatthenorthernextentofthewall,whichmayindicatethatWall813boriginallyturnedtothewestand increased the diameter Structure 5 to ca. 3m.Subsequently,thisportionofWall813bwouldhavebeen removed inorder to further expand the struc-ture. This is a plausible scenario that wouldmakeroomfortheinstallationofWall813c,whichabutsWall812btothenorth,inordertoextendStructure5toover6minlength.However,theawkwardangleand joinbetweenWalls813band813cand theca.25cmdifferenceinthebottomdepthsofthesewallswithWall813bgroundedlower, isperplexing.It ispossible thatWall 813c is actually an earlier con-struction thanWall 813b, perhaps forming anotherstructure,andthesouthernportionofWall813cwasremoved in order accommodateWall 813b, whichservedtojoinWall813awithWall813c.Aclayfloorwas subsequently installedacross theentire,newlyenlarged, interior space of Structure 5.Additionalexcavationontheeasternsideofthe813wallswillhelpclarifytheconstructionsequenceofStructure5.

Surprisingly, the interior spaceofStructure5 islargely devoid of substantial features. On the sou-thern end of the structure, the use of an informalhearth (F9) is suggested by a concentrated burneventthatbakedoneoftheclayfloors.Acircularar-rangementofpostholes(F8)locatednearthehearthmayhavesupportedaraisedplatformorasmallen-closure.

Structure6

MuchofStructure 6 has beendestroyedbyhillslopeerosion and only a portion of the remaining const-ructionwasexcavatedduring the2010 season,but itappears that the structurewas circular and relativelylarge. Defined by a two course wide stone wall ca.50cminheight,Structure6cutsintothenorthernendofStructure5.

Structure 6 yielded some of the most intriguingfindsofthe2010season.Althoughitisnotwithinthescopeofthispreliminarypapertopresentanddiscussindetailallofthedata,threeuniquemortuaryinstalla-tionscontaininghumanburialswerediscovered.Theseinstallations,which all appear to have been installedsimultaneously,includeamoldedclayplatform(F13)intowhichseveralcutswereplaced,astonecistfeature(F14),andasmall rectangularbin(F15)(Figs.1and5).Contained in thepit sunk into theplatform (F13)was a single skull from a young juvenile individual.Theskulldisplayedseveralpathologiesand/ormodifi-cationsthatrequirefurtherinvestigation.

Acompleteindividual,possiblyayoungadult,wasinterredinstonecistfeature(F14).Thefeatureitselfisca.80cmindiameterandbuiltupofcarefullycoursedsmallstonestoadepthofca.70cm.Builtintothewallat bottom of the cist is a slab of fine-grained basaltbench.Theindividualwasplacedinasittingpositiononthebench,andthelegsandmuchofthearmsandtorsocoveredwithwhitelimeorgypsumplaster.The

Fig. 6 Child burial interred in a small bin (F15) located in Structure 6.

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1128

cistandtheinterredindividualwerecappedbyspreadofconcavemudplaster,aroundwhichangularstoneswereplacedtoformacircletracedtheedgeofthecistbelow.Anintentionalgapca.30cmwidewasleftinthenorthernportionofthestonecircle,andasmall(ca.20cmhigh)blackuprightstoneplacedattheendofthegap.Thisentirecomplexwasfurthercappedbythreebasaltslabsca.1minlengthandseveralsmallerbasalpieces.

Athirdcompleteindividual,asmallchild,wasin-terred in a small stonebin (F15)built out of uprightstoneslabsandca.40x20x20cminsize(Fig.6).Thisindividualwasalsoplacedinasittingposition,andthelegsandmuchofthetorsoandarmscoveredinwhite lime or gypsum plaster.The bin and indi-vidualwere cappedwith twowhite limestone slabssupported by a mud foundation. At some point intime later, these featureswere covered bymultipleflooringevents.

Structure7

Structure7 isasemi-subterraneancircularstructureca.2mindiameteranddefinedbyastonewallpre-servedtoaheightof90cminsomeareas.Comparedtootherstructures,thestoneworkoftheStructure7wallisremarkablyorganized,andconsistsoftabularstonessecuredinmudmortarlaiddowninneatcour-sing.Thestructurewasre-flooredwithhardpackedclay numerous times; flooring events are separatedbythinlayersofpisémeltindicativeofbriefperiodsofdisuse.Extendingalongtheeasternquarterofthestructure is an impressively large (ca. 2mx1mx70cm)subterraneanbin feature (F17;Fig.1). Inte-restingly,ratherthanrequiringnewconstruction,thesubterraneanbinfeatureexploitswhatapre-existingwall (W1056) that likely formed part of an earlierstructure(Structure11).ThebinappearstohavebeenmaintainedthroughouttheentirelifeofStructure7,asthefloorslapover,butdonotextendbeyond,Wall1056.

Cutting into the easternmost edgeofStructure7is a laterwall construction (W946).Curving to theeastandintothesectionprofile,thisdoublecoursedstonewall forms thecircularStructure9.Nofloorsor installationswere found in associationwith thisstructure, which appears to have been damaged bycolluvialerosion.

Structure8

Structure 8 is a circular semi-subterranean const-ructionca.2mindiameterandisdefinedbya lowstonewallpreservedtoaheightof50cm.Structure8 is unique in that it contains a break in the wallthatsuggestsanaccesspointintotheinteriorspace.LikeotherearlyPPNstructuresatHemmeh,thelifehistoryofStructure8ischaracterizedbyalternating

cyclesofuseanddisuse.Sandwichedinbetweenclayfloorswereashdumps,middens,andverythinlayersof degradedpisémelt. In at least one instance, thestructurewasabandoned for some time - suggestedby relatively thickmidden andpisémelt deposits -beforebeingrejuvenatedwithanewfloor.Structure8floorsaregenerallythinanddelicate,andsomeex-hibitconcentrationsofredandorangediscolorationcaused by intense heating, probably from informalhearths.NointernalfeatureswereinstalledinStruc-ture8.

Structure10

Structure10 is a large circular structureca. 4m indiameter, and preliminary stratigraphic analysessuggest thatStructure10 isoneof theearliestPPNstructuressofaridentifiedatHemmeh.Itistheonlystructure built using primarily pisé wall construc-tion,althoughthereissomeinternalstonefacing.AmassivelayerofmeltedpiséidentifiedintheinteriorofStructure10suggests that theoriginalpisécons-tructionwasquitesubstantial.Theremainsofthreehumaninfants,twocompleteindividualsandathirdrepresentedonlybyavertebralcolumn,wereinterredin this pisé melt layer. Interestingly, no burial cutsorfillwereidentifiedinassociationwiththeseinter-ments. Instead,each individualwassolidlyencasedinmeltedpiséconstructionmaterialand,whilealsotaking into consideration that the delicate remainsof the infants are in full articulation, suggests thatthe construction debris was very rapidly depositedovertheinterments.ItmaybethatthepiséwallsofStructure10were intentionally toppled inwardand,aspartoftheactivitiesassociatedwiththeclosingofthe structure, the infants placedwithin the destruc-tiondebris.

ConcludingRemarks

The2010seasonhasrevealedanextensiveearlyPPNoccupationatel-Hemmeh.Anintensiveradiocarbondatingprogram iscertainly required tohelpclarifythe cultural-chronological sequence at Hemmeh.While the single radiometric determination fromStructure1isaPPNAdate-albeitalateone-,thiscertainlydoesnotexcludethepossibilitythatsomeofthestructuresdatetotheearlierPPNA,orperhapslater toa locallyderivedEPPNB.Thearchitecturalstyleseenatel-Hemmehof relativelyhighcoursedstone walls is certainly very different from earlierPPNAsites suchas ‘Dhra andNetivHagdud (Bar-Yosef1997),butarguablyhintsat similaritieswiththe walls and molded heaths of Shaqarat Mazyed(Kaliszan et al. 2002). It is alsoworth noting thatremarkablyfewdiagnosticformal toolshavesofarbeen recovered fromHemmeh,andare representedby only two Hagdud truncations from Structure 1

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1129

(Makarewicz et al. 2006), and a single el-KhiampointfromStructure6(Paige,personalcommunica-tion).Thepoor representationof ‘projectilepoints’is also seen at the later PPNA sites of ZAD2 andWF16Trench3(Edwardsetal.2004;Pirie2007).FurtherexcavationsintheearliestPPNdepositswillhelp clarify the stratigraphic relationships withinthe site, andposition el-Hemmeh in the earlyPPNarchitecturalandtechnologicalsequenceofthesou-thernLevant.

Acknowledgements. We thank the JordanianDepartment of Antiquities for granting permissiontoconductexcavationsatthesite,andtheJordanianWater Authority for providing logistical supportduringthefieldseason.WealsothankDanContrerasforhiscommentsonthismanuscript.Fundingforthe2010excavationseasonwasprovidedbytheNationalGeographicCouncilforExploration.

CherylMakarewiczInstitutfürUr-undFrühgeschichte,Christian-Albrechts-UniversitätzuKiel,[email protected]

KatherineRoseStanfordArchaeologyCenter,StanfordUniversity,[email protected]

References

Bar-Yosef,O.1997 AnearlyNeolithicvillageintheJordanValleyI:The archaeologyofNetivHagdud.Cambridge MA:PeabodyMuseumofArchaeologyandEthnology, HarvardUniversity.

EdwardsP.C.,MeadowsJ.,SayejG.,andWestawayM.2004 FromthePPNAtothePPNB:newviewsfromthe southernLevantafterexcavationsatZahratadh-Dhra’ 2inJordan.Paléorient30/2:21-60

KaliszanL.R.,HermansenB.D.,JensenC.H.,SkuldbolT.B.B.,BilleM.,BangsgaardP.,IhrA.,SorensenM.L.,andMarkussenB.2002 ShaqaratMazyad-Villageontheedge.Neo-Lithics 1/02:16-19.

MakarewiczC.,GoodaleN.,RassmannP.,WhiteC.,MillerH.,HarounJ.,CarlsonE.,PantosA.,KrootM.,KadowakiS.,CassonA.,WilliamsJ.T.,AustinA.E.,FabreB.2006 El-Hemmeh:Amulti-periodPre-PotteryNeolithicsite intheWadiel-Hasa,Jordan.EurasianPrehistory4(1- 2):183-220.

PirieA.2007 Thechippedstone.InB.FinlaysonandS.Mithen (eds.),TheearlyprehistoryofWadiFaynan,southern Jordan:227-283.Oxford:OxbowBooks.

ShaffreyR.2007 Thegroundstone.InB.FinlaysonandS.Mithen (eds.),TheearlyprehistoryofWadiFaynan,southern Jordan:323-356.Oxford:OxbowBooks.

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1130

During the 2010 field season, theWesternHighlandsEarlyEpipaleolithicProject (WHEEP)returned to thesite ofYutil al-Hasa (WHS784) in theWadi al-Hasainwest-centralJordan.Ourpreviousworkatthesitein1984,1993,and1998revealedthreedifferentphasesofoccupation(Coinmanetal.1999;Olszewskietal.1990,1994,1998).TheseincludetheLateUpperPaleolithic(LateAhmarian), theEarlyEpipaleolithic (Nebekian),andtheLateEpipaleolithic(EarlyNatufian).Therearealsobedrockmortarsandcupmarksinthebedrockledgeabove the site; some of these are patinated andmayhave some antiquity, although we cannot definitivelyassociatethemwithoneormoreoftheoccupationsatYutil al-Hasa.We focused the2010excavation in theareasofthesitecontainingEarlyEpipaleolithicdeposits(Fig.1).

Yutil al-Hasa is located in themainWadi al-Hasadrainage,where thedrainagenarrowsand topographysteepens. The site is on a southeast facing slope andcontainedatleastonerockshelter.Todaylargebouldersrepresentingrocksheltercollapsecharacterizemuchoftheareainwhichtheprehistoricoccupationsweresitu-ated.Acrossthedrainagefromthesitearepaludalse-dimentslikelyrepresentingpondingormarshcontexts,whichwouldhavebeenpresent at the time thatYutilal-Hasawasoccupiedbyhunter-gatherergroups.

During the previous excavations, theEarlyEpipa-leolithicoccupationwasencounteredinAreasCandE.Theserepresenttheupperdepositsinthelowerrocks-

helter(AreaC)andathinlayerofoccupationonthebe-drockledgethatformstheroofofthelowerrockshelter(AreaE).ItisnotclearifAreaEwasalsoarockshelter,althoughtherearenumerouslargebouldersthatappeartoberooffallfromtheupperbedrockledgethatformsthetopofthefingerridgeonwhichthesiteissituated.Thismay indicate that an upper rockshelter alsowaspresentduringtheEarlyandLateEpipaleolithicoccu-pationsatYutilal-Hasa.In1993and1998,AreaCwasinvestigatedwith twoadjacent1mx1munits,bothofwhichweredugtoabout1.5mintotaldepthbelowgroundsurface.In1993,AreaEwasinvestigatedwithone1mx1munit,whichreached90cmindepthinthenorthendand58cmindepthinthesouthend.PreviousunitsinAreaCdidnotreachbedrock;theunitinAreaEreachedbedrock.

Descriptionofthe2010Excavations

Duringthe2010excavationseasonatYutilal-Hasa,weopenedunitsinAreasCandE,andalsoinanewportionofthesite,AreaF.AreaFrepresentstheextensionofthelowerrocksheltertothesouthwestfromAreaC.ModerngroundsurfaceelevationsinAreaFsuggestthatitisap-proximatelyatthesameelevationasAreaC,andthushasthepotentialtoyieldadditionalEarlyEpipaleolithicma-terials,ratherthantheunderlyingLateUpperPaleolithic,asinAreasAandBfromthe1984and1998excavation

AFourthSeasonatYutilal-Hasa(WHS784):RenewedEarlyEpipaleolithicExcavations

DeborahI.OlszewskiandMaysoonal-Nahar

Fig. 1 Excavation areas at Yutil al-Hasa (WHS 784). Areas C, E, and F contain Early Epipaleolithic; new units were excavated here in 2010. Areas A and B contain Late Upper Paleolithic, and Area D contains Late Epipaleolithic (Early Natufian).

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1131

seasons(Clarketal.1988;Coinmanetal.1999).Atopographicmapwasmadeusingcoordinatescal-

culatedbythetotalstationandassociatedGISsoftware.Themapincludesthe2010excavationunits,theapproxi-matelocationsoftheexcavationunitsfrom1984,1993,and1998,thethreemainbedrockledges,the38bedrockmortarsandcupmarksabove thesite,andmuchof thelarge boulder rock fall that likely resulted from rocks-heltercollapseovertime.AportionofthismapisshowninFig.2.

All excavationwasdone in50 cmx50 cmquads.Sizeoftheunitsvarieddependingonareaavailableandthe constraintsofboulders encountered subsurface. In-crementsof3cmweredugineachquadandthenpointproveniencedby“bucket” coordinates calculatedusingatotalstationandGISsoftware.Abucketthereforecon-tains all sediment and artifacts recovered froma3 cmincrementwithina50cmx50cmquad.Thedimensionsofallrockslargerthanabout10cmalsowererecordedusingthetotalstation.ThethreeunitsinAreaCfurtherhadallartifactsandfaunalargerthan2.5cmpointprove-niencedusingthetotalstation.Allsedimentwasscreenedthrough2mmmeshandartifactscollectedandbaggedforwashing,labeling,andanalysis.Samplesforflotation,pollen,phytoliths,andgeoarchaeologyweretakenfromeachunit.Becauseofconstraintsonareasavailableforexcavation,unitswereplaced tomaximize excavation.Thisresultedineachunitfallingwithintwoormoregrid1mx1mblocks.Wereporttheunitshereusingaconven-tionalnameforeach, rather than thegridblocknamesbecauseseveralapplytoeachunit.

AreaC

Threeunitsofvaryingsizes (C2010-1,C2010-2,andC2010-3)were excavated inAreaC (see Fig. 2).Asnotedabove,allartifactsandfaunalargerthan2.5cm

thatwererecoveredfromthesethreeunitswerepointproveniencedusingthetotalstation.

C2010-1(1mx1m)issituatedabout1.5msouthof Unit C98-1 from the 1998 excavation season; itwasdugtoadepthofabout1.10mandyieldedsevennatural levels. There are clear distinctions betweentheupper and lowerportionsof this excavationunit.Comparedtootherunitsatthesite,nongeometricsandmicroburinsarerelativelyrare.Aboutone-thirdofthenongeometricsareattenuatedcurved (archedbacked)andcurvedtypes,withtheremainderbeingrelativelyevenly distributed between pointed, La Mouillah,Ouchtata, backed and truncated, and truncated types.Thedistributionofmicroliths is similar inLevels, 2,3,4,5and7.However,microburinsarefoundonlyinLevels1-4.Thiscoincideswithadistinctioninrawma-terialusedtomanufacturelithicswithabouttwo-thirdsofthelithicsinLevels5,6,and7madeonchalcedony,while upper levels have a greater frequency of fine-grained and phosphatic flint. Beyond this, cores andcore fragments aremore common inLevels 5 and 7thanintheupperlevels.Thereareseveralexamplesofendscrapers,burins,retouchedpieces,andnotch/denti-culatesfromthroughoutthesequence.Faunalremainsareparticularlyabundant inLevel7compared to theoverlyinglevels.

C2010-2(50cmx50cm)isadjacenttoUnitCfromthe1993seasonandapproximately1.5mnorthofand1.75meastofC2010-3;itwasexcavatedtoadepthof70cmandcontainedfournaturallevels.Althoughthisunit is situated relatively close to both C2010-1 andC2010-3, its levelsaredifferentandcannotbeeasilycompared tootherunits at the site.The sediments inC2010-2, however, do closely approximate the stratadescribedforUnitC(whichisadjacent)fromthe1993season. Unit C2010-2 has an interesting distributionof lithics, which are particularly abundant in Level2/2dark.Thisdepositcontainsabouthalfofthenon-

geometrics, and more than two-thirdsof themicroburins found in this unit.In fact, the Level 2/2 dark depositmicroburinsconstitute51%ofthemi-croburinsfoundinallareasofthesite,suggestingaconcentrationofactivitieshere focused onmicrolith production.Level3alsocontainsalargequantityofnongeometricmicrolithsandmicrobu-rins,althoughnottotheextentfoundinLevel2/2dark.Abouthalfofthenon-geometrics from this unit are attenu-atedcurvedandcurvedbladelets;thereare threeQalkhan points fromLevels2and3.CoresandcorefragmentsarefoundmainlyinLevels2and3.Some

Fig. 2 Plan view of a portion of the Yutil al-Hasa (WHS 784) map showing the 2010 excavation units. Light grey areas are boulder rockfall likely representing collapse of a lower and upper rockshelters. Grid is in 1 m increments.

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1132

of the larger tools include endscrapers, burins, andtruncations,butmostareretouchedpiecesandnotch/denticulates.Faunaisfoundinalllevels,butismostabundantinLevel2/2dark.

C2010-3 (80 cm E-W x 1 m N-S) is approxi-mately60cmnorthofC2010-1;itwasexcavatedtoadepthofapproximately75cminthesouthwesternand southeastern quads.Most of the four levels inthisunitcanbedirectlycorrelatedwiththoseinUnitC2010-1, as theseunits are incloseproximity. Li-thics are relatively evenly distributed between allthelevelsinthisunit.However,thesmallnumberofmicroburins(withtwoexceptions)arefromLevels3and3a,andthenongeometricsareexclusivelyfoundinLevel4.Aboutone-thirdofthenongeometricsareattenuatedcurvedandcurvedbladelets;therearealsoafewOuchtatabladelets.Coresandcorefragmentsaremainly found inLevel 3.Thepatternofmicro-burins being restricted to deposits overlying Level4 is similar to that seen in C2010-1. However, thefactthatmicrolithsarenotfoundbelowLevel3ainC2010-3isadifferentpatternfromthatobservedinC2010-1.ThesmallamountoffaunarecoveredfromC2010-3ismainlyfromLevel4.

AreaE

Two new units (E2010-1 and E2010-2) were exca-vatedinAreaE.E2010-1is1mN-Sand1.5mE-W;this is due to the fact that the eastern two50 cmx50 cm contain a large disintegrating boulder and itwasnotpossibletoexcavateintheNEquad,soweextended the unit to compensate. E2010-2 is 1 mE-Wand2mN-S.TheextensionofthisunittothesouthwastofacilitateexposureofthebedrockledgeatthebaseoftheunitinanefforttolocatetheEarlyEpipaleolithic horizon found on this surface in the1993UnitE.

UnitE2010-1wasdugtoadepthofabout70cmintheeasternmostquadsandissituatedapproximately2.5msouthwestofUnitEfromthe1993excavationseason,butabout1minelevationaboveUnitE.Dueto its upslope position, there is abundant colluvial(downslope)washedmaterialsincludingrocksofva-rioussizes;itcontainedfournaturallevels.NearlyallofthenongeometricmicrolithsfoundinthisunitarefromLevel3,andincludeattenuatedcurved,curved,andOuchtata types.The same is true for the smallnumber ofmicroburins in this unit; all but one arefromLevel3.Onlyonecoreandonecorefragmentwerefound.AsmallamountoffaunawasrecoveredfromLevels1and3.

InUnitE2010-2therearefivenatural levelsandexcavationsreachedbedrockacrosstheunit.LithicsarefoundinLevels1,2,3,and5,withmostof thematerialsbeingpresent inLevel2.These includeasmall handful of nongeometric microliths indica-tiveofEarlyEpipaleolithicoccupationinthisupper(rockshelter)portionofthesite.Mostofthenongeo-

metrics are attenuated curved and curved bladelets.Microburins are present in small quantities,mainlyinLevels1and2.Thereisabundantshatterandnu-merous core fragments. Very little faunal materialwas recovered from thisunit, allof it coming fromLevels1and2.

AreaF

Thetwounits(F2010-1andF2010-2)openedinAreaFrepresent testing inanewareaof thesite.Wesi-tuated these to examine if the Early Epipaleolithicoccupation extended into this part of the collapsedrockshelter.Bothunitsare1mx1minsize,andbothareatessentiallythesameelevationasC2010-1.

UnitF2010-1isatthefarthestsouthwesternpor-tionofthesite,containsthreenaturallevels,andwasdug to a depth of approximately 40 cm. It is about3.5 m southwest of F2010-2 and 12 m southwestofC2010-1.Themajorityof the lithicsderive fromLevel3inthisunit.Therearesixnongeometricmi-crolithsfromthislevel,includingattenuatedcurved,curved, and one Qalkhan point, as well as a smallnumber of microburins. Most lithic materials fromLevel 3 are debitage including small bladelets andsmall flakes. The small amount of fauna present isfromLevel1.

UnitF2010-2liesbetweenF2010-1andC2010-1;itisabout8msouthwestofC2010-1.Therearefivenatural levels inUnit F2010-2,whichwas dug to adepthofabout1.05m.Whileculturalmaterialswerefoundinalllevelsofthisunit,thegreatestquantitiesarefromLevel4,andtoalesserextent,fromthesmallportionofLevel5thatwasexcavated.BeginningwithLevel2,attenuatedcurvedandcurvednongeometricsappear and are the most frequent nongeometrics ineach level.A couple of Qalkhan points are presentinLevel4,andOuchtatabladeletsarefoundinbothLevels4and5.MicroburinsareparticularlyabundantinLevel 4 (about 80%of the total recovered fromthis excavation unit). Nearly all the cores and corefragmentsarefromLevels4and5.Aswiththelithicassemblage,faunaisfoundmainlyinLevels4and5.

StratigraphyandLithicAssemblage

The 2010 excavations at Yutil al-Hasa (WHS 784)greatly augmented our understanding of the EarlyEpipaleolithic occupation at this site, building uponknowledge gained from excavations in 1993 and1998.Basedonthedistributionofculturalmaterials,theoccupationareaofthelowerrockshelterextendedforaminimumofabout15msouthwesttonortheast,and about 6mnorthwest to southeast (ie., from theback of the rockshelter toward the front [estimatedfront]). The dimensions of the upper portion of thesite,aprobableadditionalrockshelter,cannotbeesti-matedbasedoncurrentlyavailabledata.

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1133

Stratigraphy

ThestratigraphyoftheunitsexcavatedinAreaCandinAreaF(lowerrockshelter)canbecorrelatedtosomeextent.Theclearestattributionsarebetweenlevels inF2010-1,F2010-2,C2010-1, andC2010-3, as showninTable1.

Natural levels inC2010-2aresomewhatdifferent,especially the Level 2/2 dark portion which is notreplicated elsewhere (except for the adjoining UnitC excavated in 1993). However, although there areslightcolordifferences,itispossiblethatLevel3cor-respondsapproximatelytoLevels3and4inC2010-1andC2010-3,andthatLevel4inC2010-2correspondstoLevel 5 inC2010-1.This correlation is suggestedbytheelevationdataandfurtheranalysisofthelithicsfromthesestrata in theseunitsmayhelp resolve thisissue.

StratainE2010-1andE2010-2representtheupperportionof thesite (upper rockshelterarea).Levels inthetwounitsarelikelycolluvialdeposits.Inthecaseof

E2010-1,theseareloosesedimentatthetopoftheunitfollowedbyadenseconcentrationof large limestonecobblesandboulderswithveryfewculturalmaterials.Basedonthepresenceoflithicsinparticularlevelsandthelevelcharacterization,itispossiblethatLevel3inE2010-1isthesamedepositasLevel2inE2010-2.Asthebottomof excavation inE2010-1 is about50 cmabovethetopofE2010-2,thereisapossibilitythatde-positssuchasLevels3and5inE2010-2couldunderliethecobble/boulderstrataofE2010-1.Thereareculturalmaterials in the levelsofE2010-2:Levels2and3 inparticularcontainabundantshatterandcorefragmentsthatmay indicate redepositionof lithics in thisupperportionofthesite.

DescriptionofLithics

Theoverall lithic assemblage from the2010 excava-tionsnumbers16,192pieces, and is shown inTables2-4.Not including small elements (e.g., small flakesandsmallbladelets),thedebitageassemblageisaboutevenlydistributedbetweenblade/bladeletsandflakes.

Thereareasmallpercentageofburinspallsindicatingthemanufactureofsomeburinsatthesite(seeTable4)andaconsiderablenumberofmicroburins(Imbtr=46.8),especially fromLevel 2/2 dark ofC2010-2.There isalsoaconsiderableamountofshatter,ofwhichabout20%isfromthecolluviallevelsinAreaE.OnepieceofpossiblegroundstonewasrecoveredfromC2010-2,andthereareasmallnumberofmanuports.

Single platform cores are the most frequent coretypeduringtheEarlyEpipaleolithic(seeTable3);thisisacommonphenomenonoflithicassemblagesofthischronologicalperiod.Aswith thedebitage, there isarelativelyevendistributionofblade/bladeletandflakecores.Corefragmentationisrelativelyhigh,andmay

F2010-1 F2010-2 C2010-1 C2010-3

1 1 1 -

2 1 2 2

- 2 - -

- 3 upper 3 3

- - - 3a

- 3 lower 4 4

- 4 5 not excavated

- - 6 not excavated

3 5 7 not excavated

Table 1 Correlation of Stratigraphy at Yutil al-Hasa (WHS 784).

Debitage N %

Blades 763 4.9

Bladelets 1299 8.5

Flakes 1944 12.6

Small Bladelets 1407 9.2

Small Flakes 7054 45.9

Burin Spalls 77 0.5

Microburins 394 2.6

Shatter 2423 15.8

Total 15,361

Ground Stone 1

Manuport 3

Total 4

Table 2 Preliminary Analysis of Yutil al-Hasa (WHS 784) Debitage and Other Finds.

Cores N %

Blade (8) 4%

single 6

core-on-flake 2

Bladelet (22) 11%

single 16

opposed 3

ninety-degree 2

core-on-flake 1

Flake (34) 17%

single 11

opposed 1

multiple 2

core-on-flake 16

tested 3

other 1

Mixed (29) 14.5

single 17

ninety-degree 5

multiple 4

tested 3

Core Fragment 107 53.5

Total 200

Table 3 Preliminary Analysis of Yutil al- Hasa (WHS 784) Cores.

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1134

reflectprocessessimilartothosegeneratingtheabun-danceofshatteratthesite.

The tool assemblage is primarily nongeometricmicroliths (seeTable 4), suggesting that activities atYutilal-Hasamayhavebeenlimitedtoasmallrangeof tasks.Nongeometricsaredominatedbyattenuatedcurved (narrow double arched) bladelets and curvedbladelets (which togethermake up about half of thenongeometrics); other forms includeOuchtata blade-lets,pointed/spikebladelets,truncatedbladelets,frag-ments,andasmallnumberofDufour,LaMouillah,andQalkhanpoints.SomeoftheQalkhanpointsappeartobeunfinishedexamples.Therearealsoasmallnumberof geometricmicroliths,whichmainly are trapezeorrectangleforms.Theselikelyare linkedto themanu-factureofbackedandtruncatedmicrolithsfoundinthenongeometricclass.The larger tools includeendscra-pers,retouchedpieces,notch/denticulates,truncations,burins, and rare backedpieces andperforators. Side-scrapersarefoundinSpecialTools.

Summary

The 2010 excavations at Yutil al-Hasa (WHS 784)openedsevenunitsofvaryingsizes(seeFig.2).Thesewere placed to investigate the lower rockshelter andaprobableupper rockshelter.Theoveralldimensionsof the lowerrockshelterEarlyEpipaleolithicarenowknown to be approximately 90 m2 (essentially mostofAreasCandF).TheefforttofindadditionalinsituEarly Epipaleolithic occupation in the upper rocks-helterwas not successful, as the deposits in the newAreaEunitsweremainlycolluvial.

Culturalmaterialsrecoveredwereprimarilylithics,withabundantevidenceformicroburintechniqueandthemanufactureofnongeometricformsofmicroliths,especially narrow, double curved (attenuated curved)bladeletsandcurvedbladelets.ThesearetypicaloftheNebekian industry. Other tools such as endscrapers,burins,truncations,andbackedpiecesarerare.Faunalpreservationwas not exceptional, however, some le-vels did preserve identifiable elements; analysis of

theseison-going.Interestingly,asinthe1993and1998excavations into the Early Epipaleolithic occupation,examplesoffossilsharkteethwerefoundin thenewunits inAreasC,E, andF;possibly thesewere coll-ectedandbroughttothesitebyitsinhabitants.MinutecharcoalfragmentswererecoveredfromlevelsinUnitsF2010-2,C2010-1, andC2010-3.Thesewill providethefirstradiocarbondatesfortheEarlyEpipaleolithicphaseofoccupationatYutilal-Hasa.Pollen,phytolith,flotation,andgeoarchaeological samples from the le-velsinthevariousexcavationunitscurrentlyarebeinganalyzed.

DeborahI.OlszewskiDepartmentofAnthropologyandPennMuseum,UniversityofPennsylvania,[email protected]

Maysoonal-NaharDepartmentofArchaeology,UniversityofJordan,Amman,[email protected]

References

ClarkG.A.,LindlyJ.,DonaldsonM.,GarrardA.,CoinmanN.,SchuldenreinJ.,FishS.,andOlszewskiD.I.1988 ExcavationsatMiddle,UpperandEpipaleolithic sitesintheWadi‘Hasa,westcentralJordan.InA. GarrardandH.G.Gebel(eds.),ThePrehistoryof Jordanin1986,BARInternationalSeries396:209- 285.Oxford:Archaeopress.

CoinmanN.R.,OlszewskiD.I.,AbdoK.,ClausenT.,CooperJ.,FoxJ.,al-NaharM.,RicheyE.,andSaeleL.1999 TheEasternHasaLatePleistoceneProject: PreliminaryReportonthe1998Season.Annualofthe DepartmentofAntiquitiesofJordan43:9-25.

OlszewskiD.I.,ClarkG.A.,andFishS.1990 WHS784X(Yutilal-Hasa):ALateAhmarianSite intheWadiHasa,WestcentralJordan.Proceedingsof thePrehistoricSociety56:33-49.

OlszewskiD.I.,CooperJ.B.,andRicheyE.1998 TheThirdSeasonatYutilal-Hasa(WHS784),the EpipaleolithicComponents.Neo-Lithics2/98:5-7.

OlszewskiD.I.,StevensM.,GlassM.,BeckR.,CooperJ.,andClarkG.A.1994 The1993ExcavationsatYutilal-Hasa(WHS784), West-CentralJordan:theEpipaleolithicPeriods. Paléorient20(2):129-141.

Tools N %

Scrapers 26 4.1

Burins 12 1.9

Backed Pieces 6 0.9

Perforators 2 0.3

Truncations 13 2.1

Geometric Microliths 42 6.7

Nongeometric Microliths 447 71.3

Special Tools 1 0.2

Notch/Denticulates 38 6.1

Retouched Pieces 40 6.4

Total 627

Table 4 Preliminary Analysis of Yutil al- Hasa (WHS 784) Tools.

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1135

Introduction

Approximately 100 km ESE ofAzraq,Wisad Pools(Fig.1)consistsofaseriesofnaturalbasinsinashort(ca. 1 km)wadi that leads fromaplateau to anotherlying only 8-9m lower in altitude.The landscape ischaracterizedbyaLateMiocenebasaltcover(thusthename “Black Desert”) overlying undifferentiated (orat least unnamed) Middle to Late Eocene limestoneformationsandperhapstheEarlyMioceneQirmacal-careousSandstoneformation(Rabb’a2000).Theland-scapeinthelocalareaincludeslowhillsandnumerousextensivemudflats (qi’an) that collect surface runoffwhen precipitation in the rainy season pelts the de-nudedhard-packedsiltsandbasaltblocksinthewinterrainyseason.

AlthoughknowntolocalBedouins,toJordanianandSyrianhunters,andresearchersconcernedwithdesertecology formanyyears, the archaeological characterof theWisadPools areawas not acknowledgeduntil2002when a survey included a stop at this concent-ration of prehistoric archaeological remains (WasseandRollefson2005).Subsequentsurveysandmappingfollowedin2007,2008and2009(cf.Rollefsonetal.n.d.-a),andin2011weundertookcontinuedmappingaswell as limited excavation of structures thatweredenselydistributedoveranexpanseofca.1.5x1.0km.

ALateNeolithicDwellingatWisadPools,BlackDesert

GaryO.Rollefson,YorkeRowan,andMeganPerry

Therearehundredsof structures (Fig.2), all con-structed of local rectangular basalt slabs and moreirregularblocks,thatfallintoseveralmajortypes,in-cludinglargemulti-chamberedtumuli(asevidencedbylooting);smaller,lowermoundsthatalsoappeartobemortuaryinnature;impressivelymassivetowers,some-timeswithattendant“chains”or“tails”ofsmaller(ca.1x2x1m)chambersorbasaltpilesofvariouslengths;whatappeartobeopen-airbuildingswithinteriorfea-tures suggesting non-residential (ritual?) functions;“lanes”orpathwaysoutlinedbysmallbasaltbouldersthat continue for tensofmeters but that donot haveobviousoriginsordestinations;smallandlargeenclo-sureswithwallsofbasaltbouldersandslabscollectedfromtheinteriorsoftheenclosures,exposingfloorsofaccumulatedlight-coloredsiltsintheprocess;probableresidentialcompoundswithinteriorstructuresthatmayrepresent dwellings, animal enclosures, and storagefacilities;circularplatforms(ca.2-4mdiameter)thatperhapsrepresenteitherburialsorwork/storageareas;andlinesofadjacentrectilinearchambers(eachca.2x1x1m,fromfourtoeightinaline),whichmayhavebeen storage features for pastoralistswho visited thelocationonaregularbasis.Overall,weinterpretedthesiteasbeinganenormousnecropoliswithoccasionalvisitsbypastoralgroupsthatmayhavehadnodirectrelationshiptomortuaryactivity.

Surfaceartifactsaregenerallyrareacrossmostofthesite,althoughthetopof“LateNeolithicHill”includesdensedistributionsofEpipaleolithiccores, tools, anddebitageaswellashighlyconcentratedclustersofLateNeolithicchippedstoneartifactsthatoverlapEpipaleo-lithicchippingareas.Tothenorth,neartheuppermostpool inWadiWisad, looters working in a couple ofareas have dug through Middle/Late PPNB chippedstonematerialinrelativelyhighquantitiesalso.Butformostoftheexpansesbetweenstructuresthereisalightdispersion of usually small-sized debitage characte-rizedbysteep,broad,single-facetplatforms.Therearerare fragments of tabular scrapers usually associatedwith a structure. Taken altogether, this “backgroundnoise”ofdebitagecouldhavedatedto theLateNeo-lithic,theChalcolithic,ortheEarlyBronzeAge(orallthreeperiods).

BasedonresearchinotheraridareasoftheLevantand farther afield, much of the architecture seen atWisadwasdeemedtoreflectprincipallyLateChalco-lithicorEarlyBronzeconstruction,especiallythebuil-dingsthatcouldbeinterpretedasmortuarystructures(Steimer-Herbet 2004), and there certainly aremanypointsofsimilarityacrossmuchof thedesert region(cf.Braemeretal.2001;2010).We selected several

Fig. 1 Location of Wisad Pools in the Black Desert of Eastern Jordan.

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1136

constructionswetooktorepresenttombsthatappearedtohavebeenlootedinthepast;oneofthemturnedoutnottobeassociatedwithmortuarypracticesatall,anditwasbuiltmuchearlierthantheChalcolithicperiod.

TheLateNeolithicDwellingandPlatform

W-66wasabuildingcomplexthatappearedtoallout-wardappearancestohavebeenalowtowertombwhoseceilinghadbeendisturbedbylooters.Thedimensionsofthelargercircularelement(W-66a;Fig.3)weredif-ficulttoassessduetothecollapseofmanyhugebasaltblocks, up to ameter in length, 40-50 cmwide, and10-20cmthick,whichwerelyingpiledallaroundthevirtuallyinvisibleexteriorofthestructure’swall.Adja-centtoitontheeasternsidewasanevenlowercurvili-nearplatform(W-66b)pavedwithrelativelysmall(ca.30-35cmaveragemaximumdimension)basaltblocks.

W-66a

Thetopofthetumbleofstonesinthemainpartofthecomplexwasless than2mabovethepresentgroundsurface.Excavationofthisunitrevealedseveralphasesof intensive occupation with intervening periods oflittle evident activity.The earliest phase represents alow circular or sub-circular one-room constructionthat incorporated a gypsum plaster floor, which lies35cmbelowthemodernground level to thewestof

Fig. 2 Numbers refer to structures mapped in 2009. The W-66 complex is indicated by a white rectangle in the center of this aerial photo. (Photo: D. Kennedy).

Fig. 3 Relationship of W-66a and W-66b is shown in this kite aerial photo. The role of the large structure (W-65) at the top of the photo remains unknown. Orientation of north arrow is approximate. (Photo: W. Abu-Azizeh).

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1137

Fig. 4 a View of W-66a (left) and W-66b (right) towards the NE. b Condition of the top of W-66a before excavation. (Photos: G. Rollefson).

Fig. 5 Top plan of the earliest phase(s) of construction and occupation of W-66a. C = corbeling stone; S = possible anthropomorphic standing stone; P = central pillar; Pl = plaster; and Pl B = plaster basin. (Drawing: M. Perry and G. Rollefson)

Fig. 6 A niche in the SE corner of W-66a; note the jutting stack of basalt slabs at the right, probably to stabilize the corbel stones. Two gypsum plaster patches are inside the niche, and another is at lower right. (Photo: M. Perry).

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1138

thebuilding(Fig.5).Theroommeasuredca.4.25mfromthewesternedgeofthelargebasaltbedrockslabinthenorthwestpartoftheroomtotheSEcorner,alt-houghtheroommayhavebeenextendedbyalmostameter at a later time (see below).Thefloor includedaplasterbasinnearthewesternsideoftheroom.Thebasinwasellipticalwithamajoraxisof58cmNW/SEandaminoraxisof44cmSW/NE.Theplasterofthebasinwasaboutacentimeterthick,whichmatchedthe thicknessof thefloorplasterpreserved inseveralpatchesnearthesouthernwalloftheroom.Thebasinwasprobably simply a depression excavated about 5cmintothelevelfloorsurfaceandcoatedwithplaster

whenthefloorwaslaid.Dominating the center of

the room was a large basaltpillar 102 x 44 x 30 cm; ha-vingcalculatedthedensityofthebasaltintheareatobe3.7gm/cm3, this feature weighs500kg.Thewestern,southern,and southeastern walls showclearly that the constructionhere involvedseveralstraightwall segments consisting ofstacked basalt slabs. Eachsegment was angled slightlyin relation to its adjacentneighbors,sothat theinteriorgeometry (at least) was notcurvilinearbutpolygonal.Theheightofthestackedslabswasapproximately50cm,atwhichpoint the succeeding stonesabovewere corbeled towardsthecenterof the room,even-tually reaching the centralpillarthatservedasthecentralsupport for the last corbelingstones. The corbelling stoneswere huge, measuring morethanameterinlengthinmanyinstancesandwithwidths re-aching80 cm; average thick-ness was between 10-15 cm,with estimatedweights up toa couple hundred kilogramseach (though therewere alsosome much smaller). At the“corners” of the segmentsof the polygonally-arrangedwalls there were occasionalcolumns of smaller flat slabsstacked ostensibly in orderto increase the stability ofthe corbeling (Fig. 6). Theupshot of this design is thatthe inhabitants would havevirtually had to crawl aboutin theroom,witharoofonly

ameterhighatitsmaximumandreducedtoonlyhalfthatdimensionnearthewalls.

At the northwestern edge of the room, and pos-siblyaddedata later timeduring the initialphaseofoccupation, there is an alcovemeasuring 1.5mSW/NEby0.85cmNW/SE.Gypsumplasterwasusedtosurfacethefloorofthealcoveatleastfourtimes,andthelastplasteringepisodeis28-35cmhigherthanthefloorlevelinthemainroom(Fig.7).Thealcoveissetrelativelyfarfromthepillar,addingadecidedlyasym-metricalaspecttothestructure.

Attheoppositesideoftheroomthereisaflatstan-dingstone93x90x10cm(ca.300kg)standingagainst

Fig. 7 a: View towards the northwest of the plastered alcove (top center). The plaster basin is between the pillar (center) and the basalt bedrock outcrop. Scale = 40 cm; b: close-up view of the plaster episodes in the alcove – numbers point to the different layers. Scale = 20 cm. (Photos: a: M. Perry; b: Y. Rowan).

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1139

theeasternwall.Thetopofthisslabbears“shoulders”,althoughthesearenaturalcontoursandnottheresultofintentionalshaping.Thestonenowleansconsiderablytothewestasaconsequenceoftheroofcollapse;likelythecorbelleaningagainsttheupperpartofthestandingstoneinFig.8oncerestedontopofit.Thebaseofthestanding stone is atfloor level, but it is possible thisisalateradditiontotheroomsinceitpartiallyblocksaccesstothenicheimmediatelybehindit.

There was no dense accumulation of ash or fire-crackedrockinside thestructureduringthisphaseofoccupation; however, therewas a light concentrationofcharcoalandashfromarestrictedareaonacircularbedofcobblesjusttothenorthofthepillar.Iftheoc-cupationof the structurewas seasonal, asonewouldpredict if the patterns of precipitationwere anythinglikemodernones,thesmallhearthmayhavefurnishedsomeheatandlightduringthewinternights.

Theendoftheearliestphaseofhabitationismarkedbytheaccumulationofsedimentsatopthefloor,afterwhich there is no longer any use of gypsum plaster.Layer 5, which is practically devoid of stones, mayhavebeenaccumulatingovertheoriginalfloorbeforeabandonment,butafterabout20cmofsedimentation,the structure appears to have begun to deteriorate.Layer 5 is characterized by dense concentrations ofcemented beetle pupation chambers (Fig. 9), sugges-tingasustained intervalofabandonment.Lithicsandanimalbonearerelativelyrare,andonlytwogrindingstoneitemswererecoveredfromthislayer.InLayers4and3cobblesandbouldersofaround35cmmaximumdimension appeared throughout the room, and hand-stones, grinding slabs, and chipped stone tools weredenselydispersedthroughoutthelayers.Moreover,inbothlayerstherewerefrequentmassesofanimalboneofovicapridandequidsizes.Layer2waslessheavilyproductiveofboneandtools,althoughacacheofnine

pestlesofdifferingsizesaswellasahugehandstonewere placed in the upper reaches of the niche at therightinFig.6.

Layers2through5indicatethattherewereoccasi-onalusesoftheshellofthestructureofundetermineddurations.During these sojourns thenorthern sideofthe building was probably altered considerably. Theareatothenortheastoftheaxisfromthestandingstoneat theeasternwalland thenorthernwallof thenorthalcove (Fig. 5) did not provide any evidence of thewallstructuresandcorbelarrangementsnotedforthefirstphase(s)ofuse in theotherhalfof thestructure.Infact,manyoftheon-edgeslabsattheperipheryofthenorthandeasternsidesofthebuildingsuggesttheymayoriginallyhavebeencorbelslabsthatwerepartoftheinitialoccupationalphase.Fig.9demonstratesthattheerectstonesonthissideofthestructureareatami-nimumof35cm(andupto60cm)abovetheoriginalfloor.Whathadoriginallybeenawell-builtlodginghadbecomeaworkareafortoolmanufacture,butchering,andplantfoodprocessing.

W-66b

Adjacent to theeastofW-66a (wedidnothave timeto determine the stratigraphic relationship betweenthetwo)isW-66b,aplatform3.25mindiameterandca.40cmhigh,exceptforthreelargerstandingstones(40-75cmhigh,40-70cmwide,and10-20cmthick)ontheeasternandwesternedges.Theaxisofthecen-tralstonesofthetwotriosofstoneswastothenorthoftrue east.Theplatformconsistedof several layersofsmall(25x15x5cm)flatstonesplacedontopofeachother.Removalofthenorthernandwesternsectorsinarbitrary layers indicated that the platform was pro-bablyaworkarea(muchdebitageandmanychipped

Fig. 8 View towards the east. The standing stone partially blocks the compartment immediately east of it. The “column” just above the word “stone” in the image is not original: we left it in place to support the corbel stone above it. (Photo: G. Rollefson).

Fig. 9 View towards the NE. The on-edge stones at the left and top were erected on fallen stones from the earliest phase of use. The pillar is at center right, the plaster basin and basalt outcrop at lower right. Note the dimpled surface of the floor due to the dense presence of insect pupation chambers. Entrance to this later series of use phases may have been from the area to the upper left of the pillar. (Photo: G. Rollefson).

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1140

stone tools, though rare animal bone) thatmay havealsoserved tostoregoodsaboveground levelduringtherainyseason.

Duringtheremovalofthelayersofstones,alargebasaltslab(98x37x10cm)wasfoundlyinghorizon-tallyinaN-Sdirectiondirectlyoverasmalltriangulararrangement(sidesca.60x75x80cm)ofsmallflatstones;excavationwithin thisdelimitedareaencoun-teredonlysterilesoiltoadepthof25cm.

Asmentioned,theprecisestratigraphicrelationshipoftheplatformwiththelargerW-66astructurehasnotbeendetermined, but in viewof the typological cha-racteroftheartifacts(particularlyarrowheads),W-66batleastoverlapstheuseofoneormoreofthephasesof

W-66a.Therewasnoindicationoftheuseoffireinanypartoftheplatform.

Artifacts

Therehasbeennoopportunitytoundertakeintensiveinvestigationofanyofthechippedstone,groundstone,potsherds,faunalremains,orsmallfindsfromtheW-66complex.Nevertheless,fromtherecoveredinsituarti-facts,itisclearthatwearedealingwithanearlypartoftheLateNeolithic.

In terms of ceramics, one excellent example of aYarmoukianherring-boneincisedandpaintedfragment

Fig. 10 Subsurface stone enigma in W-66b. a: Beneath several layers of flat stones of the platform is a horizontal large rectangular basalt slab; b: the horizontal slab in relation to the western trio of standing stones of the platform; c: The triangular arrangement of stones under the horizontal slab. (Photos: G. Rollefson and M. Perry).

a

b c

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1141

thatincludedahandlewasfound,virtuallyidenticaltoonefrom‘AinGhazal (Kafafi1990:Fig.10), thoughotherpotsherds remain tobeexamined.We retrievedmore than 40 in situ arrowheads from insideW-66aandW-66b, all of themHaparsa, transverse, orotherLateNeolithictypes(Fig.11);basedonthisinforma-tion,onecanconcludewearedealingwithaperiodintheearlierpartof theLateNeolithic,between6,500-6,000calBC.Tensofthousandsofpiecesofdebitage(including retouch flakes and debris)were recoveredfrom the sieving of sediments through 5 mm meshscreen.Therearealsotwofigurines,oneofanexoticfine-grained sandstone thatmight represent anovica-prid or even a dog, and another of very fine-grainedbasaltnotknowninthisregionthatcouldbeastylizedhuman(Rollefsonetal.n.d.-a).FaunalremainsbecameveryabundantinLayers3and4,andalthoughweareawaitingprofessionalanalysis,ovicaprids,gazelle,and

equidsallappear tobepresent.BeadsofbothDabbamarbleandmalachitewerealsofoundthroughoutthestructure, as was a broken bladelet of dark speckledobsidiannotchedbilaterallyatthebase,verysimilartotheproximalendofaHelwanpoint.

Discussion

The fourplaster episodes in thenorthwest alcove in-dicate that therewere repeatedvisits to thebuilding,and thefiveormorecentimetersofsiltaccumulationbetweentheplasterlayerssuggesttheremayhavebeenrelativelyextendedperiodsofabsence,perhapscoinci-dingwithprolongedperiodsofdecreasedrainfallthatwouldhavefedintothepoolsofthewadi(cf.Rollefsonetal.n.d.-b).Theuseofgypsumplasterontheoriginalfloorandseveral timesinthealcoveiscurious,since

Fig. 11 a: transverse arrowheads; b and d: Haparsa points; and c: Late Neolithic arrowhead. (Photo: G. Rollefson).

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1142

gypsumplasterhasnowaterproofqualitiesthatmighthavebeendesirableduring the rainy season;perhapsthis was simply to provide a brighter interior to anotherwiseenclosedstructure?

Atthispointinouranalysis,theonlyreportofearlyuse of corbeled roofing comes from theEB-I site ofKhirbet al-Umbashi (Braemer and Sorins 2011; Bra-emeretal.2010),althoughinthosecasesthebuildingswerelongandnarrowandincorporatedseveralpillarsascorbelsupports.Nevertheless,W-66appearstobeamodelthatdwellersoftheBlackDesertfoundtobeef-fectivesheltersthatwouldspanseveralthousandyearsofuseandmodification.

OfparticularinterestissimplythefactthatW-66awas not just a tent foundationor a simple hut, but awell-constructedpermanent(inthesenseofdurability)buildingforlong-termuse,evenifthattermwasinter-ruptedoccasionallybyclimaticvagariesthatmadere-turntothespecificlocationimpossible.Thecollapseofthesturdystructurealsoraisesthepossibilitythattheremayhavebeenoneormoretectoniceventsduringthelatterpartofthe7thmillennium,andthatlatervisitorswerecontentwithusingtheshellofthesouthernpartofthebuildingaspartofamoreephemeralshelterfortoolmanufactureandfoodprocessing.

Inanyevent,onemustconfronttheclimaticmodelsthat indicate a severe decrease in rainfall around the8.2 kya “event” (e.g.Weninger 2009, and referencestherein),whichsuggeststhatasuddendecreaseintem-peratureandprecipitationmayhaveresulted in inter-continental deterioration of environmental conditionssufficient to cause widespread abandonment of LateNeolithicsettlementsfromeasternEuropethroughtheLevant.TheinformationfromW-66doesnot,initself,indicatesufficientlythatthe8.2kyaeventdidn’toccur,butthereisthepossibilitythattheeffectswitnessedinthecoastalregionsoftheMediterraneanmaynothavepertainedtothesamedegreefartherinland.Theproxiesusedforpaleoclimaticreconstructionscomealmostex-clusively from thecoastal/Mediterraneanareasof theLevant,andwesuggesttheyarenotentirelyapplicableto the interior areas.We agree whole-heartedly withBraemer and Échallier (2004) that the landscape weseetodaythroughouttheBlackDeserthasbeencreatedasmuchbyhuman/economicfactors(especiallyover-grazing and fuel collecting) than by climatic changealone.Whatwehave recovered fromW-66 indicatesthat theLateNeolithic residentshadample resourcestosupportlarge-scaleinvestmentsoflabortoconstructpermanentdwellings,eveniftheywouldonlybeusedonadiscontinuousbasis.ThelandscapeweseetodayintheBlackDesertisoneofdismalandbleakexpansesofbasaltandsand,but this isnotwhatourNeolithicancestorsenjoyed.

Acknowledgements.WearegratefultotheDepartmentof Antiquities for the opportunity to undertake theresearch,andtoMr.WesamTalal,ourdepartmentre-presentativewhowasofinvaluableassistance.WealsowouldliketothankWaelAbu-Azizehforhisskillswith

kiteaerialphotographyandfieldwork.WealsoexpressourappreciationtoMargaretDuBrayandIanKretzler,WhitmanCollegestudentswhowereexemplaryinthefield.Andfinally,weexpressourgratitudetoDr.Bar-baraPorterandthepersonneloftheAmericanCenterof Oriental Research inAmman for their invaluablesupport. Principal funding for the project came fromWhitmanCollegeandtheco-authors.

GaryO.RollefsonWhitmanCollege,[email protected]

YorkeRowanOrientalInstitute,UniversityofChicago,[email protected]

MeganPerryEasternCarolinaUniversity,[email protected]

References

BraemerF.andÉchallierJ.-Ca.2004 Delasteppeviergeàlasteppedégradée.InF.Braemer, J.-Ca.Échallier,andA.Taraqji(eds.),Khirbetal Umbashi.Villagesetencampementsdepasteurs dansle“désertnoire”(Syrie)àl’âgeduBronze:245. Beirut:BibliothèqueArchéologiqueetHistorique.

BraemerF.,NicolleCa.andCriaudH.2010 Maisonsetagglomérationsàl’âgeduBronzeenSyrie duSud.InM.al-Maqdissi,F.BraemerandJ.-M. Dentzer(eds.),HauranV.LaSyrieduSuddu Néolithiqueàl’antiquitétardive:recherches récentes:83-102.Beirut,BibliothèqueArchéologique etHistorique.

BraemerF.andSorinsS.2011 Toituresdebasalte:encorbellementetportiquedans l’architectureduHawran(Syrie)duIVeauIIe Millénaire.Paléorient36.1:89-102.

BraemerF.,Steimer-HerbetT.,BuchetL.SaliègeJ.-F.andGuyH.2001 LeBronzeAncienduRamlatas-Sabatayn(Yémen). DeuxnécropolesdelapremièremoitiéduIIIe millénaireàlabordeurdudésert:JebelJidranetJebel Ruwaiq.Paléorient27/1:21-44.

KafafiZ.1990 EarlyPotteryContextsfrom‘AinGhazal,Jordan. BulletinoftheAmericanSchoolsofOrientalResearch 280:15-30.

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1143

Rabb’aI.2000 GeologicalMapofal-Wassad3553.Amman:Natural ResourcesAuthority.

RollefsonG.,RowanY.,PerryM.andAbu-AzizehW.n.d.-a WisadPools,EasternBadia:PreliminaryReportonthe 2011Season.AnnualoftheDepartmentofAntiquities ofJordan(inprep).

RollefsonG.,RowanY.andWasseA.n.d.-b TheDeep-TimeNecropolisatWisadPools,Eastern Badia,Jordan.AnnualoftheDepartmentof AntiquitiesofJordan(inpress).

Steimer-HerbetT.2004 Classificationdessépulturesàsuperstructurelithique dansleLevantetl’Arabieoccidentale(IVeetIIIe millénairesavantJ.-Ca.).BARInternationalSeries 1246.Oxford,Archaeopress.

WasseA.andRollefsonG.2005 TheWadiSirhanProject:Reportonthe2002 ArchaeologicalReconnaissanceofWadi HudrujandJabalTharwa,Jordan.Levant37:1-20.

WeningerB.2009 YarmoukianRubbleSlides.EvidenceforEarly HoloceneRapidClimateChangeinSouthernJordan. Neo-Lithics1/09:5-11.

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1144

Introduction

Since1999theMPPNBsiteShkāratMsaiedhasbeenexcavatedbyaDanish teamfrom theUniversityofCopenhagen,andthroughouteightconsecutivecam-paigns app. 600 m² of the settlement was exposed(Hermansen et al. 2006; Kinzel 2011). The teamreturned in the summerof2010with twomainob-jectives: toresumefurtherexcavationmainly in thesouthernareaofthesite,andtoconductpreliminarypreservationandconservationoperations.

Shkārat Msaied is situated ca. 13 km north ofPetraintheNemellahregionandconsistsmainlyofcircular architectural structures which are arrangedin clusters. There are open spaces and passages inbetween the clusters and also smaller room arran-

gements, and semi-circular enclosures connected tosomeofthelargerbuildings(seeFig.1).

Theresultsfromthisseasonhaveledtosomere-visions of the occupation history of the site, as upto six construction phases are identified altogether.Someofthebuildings–amongothersF–havemorethantwobuildingphases,andmostimportantlysomebuildingssuchasbuildingHbearclearevidenceofalterations to more sub-rectangular layouts. Threefurtherhuman internmentscontainingmore than30individualswereuncoveredfrombuildingF.Simple,lowimpactconservationandpreservationtechniquesof primarily the northern and centrally situatedbuildingswerecarriedout.Using localmaterial forconserving the constructions proved to be themostsuitableatthetimebeing.

InsightsintoPPNBArchitecturalTransformation,HumanBurials,andInitialConservationWorks:

Summaryonthe2010ExcavationSeasonatShkāratMsaiedMoritzKinzel,AiyshaAbu-Laban,CharlottHoffmannJensen,

IngolfThuesen,andMarieLouiseJørkov

Fig. 1 Site plan, 2010 (after Kinzel 2011: Fig.2.007).

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1145

BuildingH

BuildingH isoneof the largestbuildingsdiscoveredsofarhavingasurfaceinteriorofca.28m2.Thefloorsurfacewascoveredwithplastermaterialandisintactin restricted areas.Damage to the floor ismost pro-bablycausedbyheatasaconsequenceofburningofthebuilding.

Acoupleoflargesandstoneslabswerefoundamongthecollapsedwallandroofmaterial.Thesestoneslabsbearsimilarcharacteristicstotheonesobservedinbuil-dingKandthusconfirmthetheorythatlargesandstoneslabswereplacedontheroofsusedprobablyasworkplatforms(Kinzel2011).Onestone ring–measuring40x40cm–hasacentralcircularholemeasuring17cmindiameter.Thisstoneringmighthavebeenusedintheroofconstructionasaframeofaventilationope-ning(seeFig.2).Theother largestonefeatureworthmentioningmeasures88x152cmandis8-13cmthick(seeFig.3).Thestoneslabhasroundededgeswithpe-ckingmarksinoneend,anditistemptingtoconcludethat this stone was originally situated in an uprightstandingpositionsimilartowhathasbeenobservedinmanyoftheotherbuildingssuchasFandK.Althoughthefunctionandtheoriginallocationofthestoneslabareunclear, thecontext implicates that thestoneslabseemstohavebeenplacedontheroof.

Elevenso-called“wallchannels”or“postsockets”wereidentifiedalongtheinnerfaceofthewalls,aswellas twodoorbeamsandacentral roofposthole.Twoentrancesweredocumented;aneasternandawesternentrance; the latter was blocked during the life spanofthebuilding.Theeasternentrancehadatleastfourstoneslabsservingasastaircaseleadingdowntothebuilding.Theentrancesarequitewidecomparedtotheotherbuildings,astheymeasureroughly75cm.

BuildingHhasprovedtobeoneofthelargestbuil-dingsinthesettlement.Thereisaquestionifitserveda“specialpurpose”functionasisthecasewithbuildingFandK(Hermansenetal.2006).Thebuildingmighthavebeenforcommunalactivities,howeverthefindsretrieved from this building do not particularly pointto a specific activity as the finds include the regulargroundstonetoolinventoryaswellaschippedlithics.

TheMissingLink?EvidencesofSub-rectangularConstructions

It has previously been suggested that the partitionwallsbelongingtothelatestphaseinbuildingFwerean attempt to create a more rectangular outline tothe building. The walls run in a north-south direc-tiononbothsidesofthebuilding–i.e.theeastandwest (Kinzel 2004, 2011). This season alterationsandadditionsinthreebuildingscouldalsobeofsuchattempt. In buildingH twowall segments – one inthewest and one in the north –were added to theinnerwallfaceoftheencircling-wallofthebuilding.These alterations to the building have transformedtheoutlineofthebuildinginteriorfromcirculartoasub-rectangularshape(seeFig.1).IntheareasouthofbuildingFandwestofbuildingKacircularstruc-ture–Unit‘g’–waspartlyexcavated,andseemstohavebeenoutofuse,forpartofbuildingKwasbuiltintoitandontopoftheeasternhalfofthestructure(seeFig.4).Sometimeduringtheuseofbuilding‘g’,awallsegmentwasalsoaddedabuttingthewesternwall,asitwasobservedinH.Thisgivesthebuildingasub-rectangularormorepolygonaloutline.Finally,althoughbadlypreserved,unitDD,whichissituatedinthenorthernareaofthesiteseemstobearectan-gularorcurvilinearbuilding.A limeplasterfloor,afewwallstones,androofcollapsematerial,togetherwith a plaster feature and a post hole, are the onlyremainsofthisbuilding.However,thedatingofbuil-

Fig. 2 Stone features in building H, stone ring. Fig. 3 Stone features in building H: large stone slab with pecking marks and rounded edges.

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1146

dingDDisstillvagueandconclusionshavetowaituntilthe14Csamplesareanalysed.

BuildingF-ConstructionPhases

In most buildings two construction phases wereidentified, and in the 2003 season thiswas alreadyestablishedforbuildingF.Awhiteplasterfloorunderwhichmostoftheburialswereinterredbelongstotheearliestphase.Thelaterphaseconsistsofahardpa-ckedmudfloortowhichfourpartitionwallsbelongaswellasastonecircularconstructionsituatedatthecentreofthebuilding.Thisseason,inthesouth-wes-ternpartofthebuilding,anevenearlierplasterfloorwasuncovered.Partofanouterwallofthebuildingwasdiscoveredwhichindicatesthattheoriginalsur-faceofthebuildingwasslightlysmaller.Fillbetweentheearliestoccupationphaseandtheplasterfloorisquitecompactandclayeywithanextremelylowcon-tentoffinds.Thissuggeststhatbeforeexpandingthesizeofthebuildingandconstructingtheplasterfloor,the building was thoroughly cleared and cleaned.Althoughonlyminorpartsoftheearliestphasehavebeen excavated, it is suggested that the function ofthebuildinghasclearlychangedthroughitslifespan.

HumanBurials

Duringthe2010fieldseasononeburialcist(Burial6)wasdiscoveredinthenortheasternpartofthebuilding,andoneintactburialofachild(Burial8)inthesouth-westernareaofbuildingF.Additionally,disarticulatedsmaller human and animal bones were found in thesurroundingfillofBurial6andbetweenBurial4and3(Fig.5).Theareaarounditandthetopofburialcist6werecoveredwithseveralflatsandstoneslabs,aswasalsothecasewiththeotherburialcists(Burials2-5).ThebonesfoundinBurial6andthesurroundingareabelongtoatotal37individuals(MNI)–17adultsand20sub-adults.Basedontheunorganizedpositioningofthe remains, it canbedetermined that theburialsaresecondary,astheboneremainswereplacedinthecistafterdecompositionhadtakenplace.Thebonesseemto have been directly dumped into the cist withoutsortingorproperlyorganizingthem.

Duetothepoorstateofpreservationoftheremains,littlepathologycouldbeobserved.However,onechildca.1yearoldexhibitedsmallporoticpittingintheor-bital roofs (mildcribraorbitalia [CO]).Thismayberelatedtoanemiaormalnutrition,althoughtheetiologybehindCOismanifold(Ortner2003).Thelesionwashealed,suggestingrecovery.Anotherchild–estimatedtobeattheageof6years,showedhorizontallinesinthe enamel surface (enamel hypoplasia) on some of

Fig. 4 Building g (in relation to building K).

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1147

thenot fullydeveloped teeth (permanentcaninesandlateral incisors in themaxilla).These lines indicateadisturbanceintheformationoftheteeth(enamel)andcould be due to possible malnutrition, high fever orsimilarstressofthebody(Hillson1996).Thepositionof the lines suggests the disturbance occurred when

thechildwas1-2yearsold.Afewsingleadultremainsdisplayeddegenerativejointdiseasesinfootbonesorvertebrae,whichcouldbeduetooveruseandstressonjoints.

Burial8consistsofanarticulatedskeletonofa2-year-oldchild.Thisistheonlycompleteintactskeleton

Fig. 5 Unit F plan drawing with indication of burial numbers (after Kinzel 2011: Fig.2.087).

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1148

foundinthisbuilding.TheburialwasorientedNorth-South with the face towards the west, and the childwasplacedinafoetalposition(seeFig.6).Similarly,achildburialwasalsofoundintheeasternareaofbuil-dingR,estimatedtobe1yearoldwiththesamefoetalposition close to the outerwall of the building.ThisburialisthefirsttobefoundoutsidebuildingF,butthisdiscoverydoesnotchangeourpreviousinterpretationofthefunctionofbuildingFas“anarchitecturalframeformortuaryritesoftheinhabitants”(Hermansenetal.2006:3).

Sofara totalof55inhumations(MNI)havebeenretrievedfrombuildingFalone,andit isexpectedtofind furtherburials in the areasbelow the rest of theplasterfloor.

TheFinds

Thefindsconsistmainlyofchippedstoneandanimalbonesaswellasgroundstonetools.Thegroundstoneindustrycomprisesalargenumberofgrinders.Thema-terialsusedtoproducethegrindersincludelimestone,graniteandbasaltasthemostcommon.Thegrindingstonesfoundwereallfragmented.Theyarerepresentedbysevenexamples,ofwhichsomeseemtobeunfini-shed and/or hardly used.A singlemortarwas found,

aswellassomepestlesandpounders.Thepestlesaremostly of basalt, while the pounders are of variousmaterials.Otherstoneobjectsderivingfromthisyear’sexcavationincludebowls,polishersandshaftstraigh-teners(Harpelund2011).

The chipped stone material has not been closelyexaminedyet;howeverthematerialingeneralshowsthebipolarknappingtechnologytypicalof thePPNBperiod. Someworked pieceswere discovered amongthe chipped stone material. These mostly consist ofarrowheads,primarilyoftheso-calledJerichotype.Afewsickleblades,borers,scrapers,knivesandhammer-stoneswerealsoidentifiedamongtheassemblage.

Apossibledumporflintworkshopareawasiden-tified in the areawest of building ‘g’ as a very highconcentration of chipped lithics, countingmore than200piecesfromaveryrestrictedspacemeasuringnomorethan90cm2(seeFig.1).

PreservationandConservationWorks

Inordertoavoidfurtherdamagetotheuncoveredar-chaeologicalremains,mucheffortwasputonpreser-vationandconservationthisseason.Mostpartsofthesitewerebackfilled.Thematerialusedtobackfill thebuildingsisoffinegrained,sterilesandfromthewadiadjacenttothesite.Thesandanditstransportationwasorganized and conducted by the Petra Development&TourismRegionAuthorities-PetraArchaeologicalPark & Cultural Heritage Department.According tothegeneralguidelinesforthepreservationandpresen-tationofsiteswithintheframeworkofthe“NeolithicHeritage Trail”-Initiative, to which Shkārat Msaiedalsobelongs,itwasdecidedtokeepsomeofthestruc-tureswithoutorwithonlyaslightamountofbackfill(Finlaysonetal.2007;Kinzel2008).For thecomple-tely backfilled structures, it was considered that thewalltopsandupperwallpartsbestillvisibleinordertogivevisitorstothesiteaclearpictureofthesettlementlayout.

Minor consolidation operations were undertaken,especiallyofthecollapseddoordemarcationstonesandtumbledwallstones.Thesewererepositionedandfixedby using simple soil/mud mortar as bonding agent.Also some voids in wall structures and open jointswerefilledwiththesamesoilmortar.Themortarwasproducedwith sieved soil taken from the excavationdump,wadisand,andwater.Themortar shouldonlystabilizethestructuresaslongasthefinalbackfillisnotfinished.Sandmaterialwasthenaddedbothinsidethebuildingsandoutsideinordertopreventfragilewallsfromfurtherdamageandcollapse.

For the presentation of the larger houses in thesouthernpartofthesite,differentconceptsforpresen-tationandpreservationwerediscussedwith thePetraArchaeologicalPark&CulturalHeritageDepartment.A final decision still awaits, although the buildingswhichbearahighriskofbeingfurtherdamaged,e.g.BuildingK,werealsopartlybackfilled.Themeasures

Fig. 6 Photo burial 8.

FieldReports

Neo-Lithics1/1149

takenduringthisseason,i.e.cleaning,backfill,conso-lidation, access-regulation/fending should be seen asinitialstepsformorecomprehensivesitemanagementandpreservationinvestigationsinthenearfuture.

Acknowledgements.WethankourrepresentativeoftheDepartment ofAntiquities Talal Hamad al-Ammarinforhisgreatsupportofourmission.AlsoourthanksgotothePetraParkAuthorityfortheirsupportandhelptofindadequatesandtostartthebackfillofthebuildingsandtoorganizethetransport.

MoritzKinzelDepartmentofCross-CulturalandRegionalStudies -ToRS,UniversityofCopenhagen,[email protected]

AiyshaAbu-LabanDepartmentofCross-CulturalandRegionalStudies -ToRS,UniversityofCopenhagen,[email protected]

CharlottHoffmannJensenDepartmentofCross-CulturalandRegionalStudies -ToRS,UniversityofCopenhagen,[email protected]

IngolfThuesenDepartmentofCross-CulturalandRegionalStudies -ToRS,UniversityofCopenhagen,[email protected]

MarieLouiseJørkovLaboratoryofBiologicalAnthropo-logy, InstituteofForensicMedicine,UniversityofCopenhagen,[email protected]

References

FinlaysonB.,DennisS.,GebelH.G.,JensenC.H.,NajjarM.,SimmonsA.,ThuesenI.,andal-AmarinT.H.2007a ANeolithicHeritageTrail,Proposalhandedintothe DoA.2007b NeolithicHeritageTrail.InCBRL2007:Bulletinof theCouncilforBritishResearchintheLevant2:42. Amman.

HarpelundA.M.2011 Ananalysisofthegroundstoneassemblageatthe ShkaratMsaied,unpublishedMAthesis,ToRS, UniversityofCopenhagen.

HermansenB.D.,ThuesenI.,JensenC.H.,KinzelM.,BillePetersenM.,JørkovM.L.,andLynnerupN.2006 ShkâratMsaied:The2005SeasonofExcavations.A shortPreliminaryReport.Neo-Lithics1/2006:3-7.

HillsonS.1996 Dentalanthropology.Secondedition.Cambridge.KinzelM.2008 PreservationandPresentationofNeolithicSites:A CaseStudyofShkaratMsaied,SouthernJordan.In N.MarchettiandI.Thuesen,ARCHAIA:CaseStudies onResearchPlanning,Characterization,Conservation andManagementofArchaeologicalSites.BAR InternationalSeries1877:329-338.Oxford: Archaeopress.

2011 AmBeginndesHausbaus.StudienzurPPNB- ArchitekturvonShkāratMsaiedundBa‘ jainder Petra-Region,Südjordanien.UnpublishedPhDthesis, TechnicalUniversityBerlin.

OrtnerD.J.2003 IdentificationofPathologicalConditionsinHuman SkeletalRemains.Secondedition.Amsterdam: AcademicPress.

Theses

Neo-Lithics1/1150

Cropper,Dawn

2006 BridgingtheGapbetweenthe MediterraneanandtheSteppe:Lithic TechnologyinLateNeolithic Jordan.PhDThesis,UniversityofSydney.

Abstract

ThisdissertationconsiderstherelationshipbetweentheLateNeolithicpopulationslivingintheMediterraneanregionandbadiaofJordan.Inparticular,thisresearchwill compare the lithic technology to determine ifthere isevidenceofasinglegroupofpeoplemovingbetweenthetworegionsorifthepopulationsineachregionwerepredominantlyindependentofoneanother.Thedatageneratedfromthisresearchareappliedtothedebateovertheappearanceofovicapridsinthebadia,whichproposesthattheywereeitherintegratedintotheeconomyof theexistinghunter-gatherers (integrationmodel),orthattheywerebroughtintothebadiaonaseasonalbasisbyMediterraneanvillagers(fluctuatingvillagemodel).

Thisdissertationcanbedividedintothreesections.Thefirst section introduces the researchproblemandprovidesthenecessarybackgroundresearch,includinganoverviewofthekeysitesandthematerialculture.Thesecondsectionoutlinestheresearchmethodologyandpresentstheprimarydata,theanalysesofthelithicassemblagesfromPellaandUmmMeshratI.Finally,the primary data are comparedwith the assemblagesfromthebadia.

This research demonstrates that the reductionstrategies used in each region are disparate and thedifferencesamong theassemblagesarenot related torawmaterial constraints. Some similarities betweentheassemblagesfromtheMediterraneanregionandthebadiawere identified,suggesting that thepopulationsmayhaveoriginated in the samearea. As there is asuddenappearanceofsitesinthebadiaintheMiddlePre-Pottery Neolithic B period and the knappingmethodsusedatthesesitesincludestechniquesthatweredevelopedintheMediterraneanregion,itislikelythattheearliestNeolithicoccupationofthebadiamigratedfromthemoreverdantareas.Becausethepopulationswere largely isolated, their reduction strategiesdivergedovertime,althoughsomecommontechniqueswereretained.Theconclusionofthisresearchisthatthe populations living in the Mediterranean regionandthebadiawereunique;thus,thelithictechnologysupports the integration model, whereby ovicapridswereadoptedbythehunter-gatherersinthebadia.

Contact:

DawnCropper,[email protected]

Rosenberg,Danny

2011 Development,ContinuityandChange:The StoneIndustriesoftheEarlyCeramicBearing CulturesoftheSouthernLevant.(Hebrew withEnglishsummary)PhDThesis, DepartmentofArchaeology,Universityof Haifa. Supervisors:Prof.MinaWeinstein-Evronand Dr.DaniNadel.

Abstract

This research focuses on the study of groundstone(henceforth=stone) assemblages and selected tooltypesofthePre-PotteryNeolithicC(FinalPre-PotteryNeolithic B) and the Pottery Neolithic Periods. Thestudyconcentratesonacomprehensiveanalysisofthestoneassemblagesof the threemajorculturalentitiesofthePotteryNeolithicperiod,namelytheYarmukian,Lodian(JerichoIX)andWadiRabahcultures(thelatterare considered here as representing the later parts ofthe Neolithic period). Pre-Pottery Neolithic C stoneassemblageswere examinedhere as abackground totheappearanceofthestoneassemblagesofthePotteryNeolithicperiod.

Thechronological frameworkof thisstudyrangesbetweenca.7,000and5,200years(cal.BC).Thistimespan encompasses significant developments in theculturalandeconomichistoryofthesouthernLevant.Thesechanges include,amongstothers, thedesertionof the large Middle and Late PPNB settlements;the establishment of new, usually small agriculturalvillages;changesinarchitecture;thediggingofwellsand the appearance of pottery vessels, which willbecomeapartof thematerialculture from thispointon.Significantshiftswerenotedintheflintindustries,including a notable shift toward flake-orientedindustries, changes in the frequency of arrowheads,aswellasintheirtechnologyofproduction,typologyand size. Changes also occurred in the sickle bladesand bifacial tool assemblages, reflecting changes inthe way communities exploited their environment.Importantshiftswerenotedinthefaunalandbotanicalassemblagesinwhomdomesticatedspeciesgraduallyincreaseinfrequency.AttheendofthePotteryNeolithicperiod,duringthetimespanoftheWadiRabahculture,arrowheads virtually disappeared from most sites.ThisdramaticchangeaccompaniestheextremelylowfrequenciesofhuntedgameinWadiRabahvillagesintheMediterraneaneco-zone.

These processes beginning in the early stages ofthe‘AgriculturalRevolution’wereapparentlygradual.Some of them however would have far-reachingeffectson social and economicprocesses locally andoverawiderculturalandgeographicalarena.Possibleexamples include changes in the social importanceof the ‘hunter’ versus the ‘herder’ and the ‘farmer’,increased importance of food producers and food

Theses

Neo-Lithics1/1151

processors within the community, possible changesinsocialcomplexity, structureandhierarchy insomevillages,aswellaspossiblechangesinthespheresofsymbolismandbeliefs.Someofthesesocio-economicchangesareseeninthestoneindustry,specificallytoolsutilizedinfoodprocessing,aswellasvariousothercraftsandtasks.Stonetools,suchasgrindingandpoundingimplements, vessels, mortars and bowlets, grooveditems,weightsandperforatedpebbles,spindlewhorls,maceheads,slingstonesandflakeddiscsareconceivedasdistinctmaterialcultureitemsandasmeansthroughwhichPotteryNeolithicvillagecommunitiesexploitedtheir environment and as tools to which social andeconomicsignificanceandmeaningswereattached.

Their importance lies in the role they played inthe seventh and Sixth Millennia (cal. BC) in thedevelopment of village communities during thePotteryNeolithicperiod.Differenttasksandfunctionsperformed by these tools include the production,processinganddistributionoffood,andawiderangeofapplicationssuchasprocessingmaterialsotherthanfood; the production and maintenance of tools; forshaping architectural features, wood, bone and stoneimplements,inthemakingofpotteryvessels;weavingaswellasfishingandhunting.Someoftheseimplementsmay have been used in combat and ceremonies.Amongst the many uses of stone tools, only a fewspecifictoolsortooltypescanbelinkedtoparticularfunctions.Itseemsthattheversatilestoneindustrywasemployed in different modes of environmental andsocialadaptationswithawidevarietyofapplications,specific rawmaterial selection, technological choicesintoolmanufacture,techniquesoftooluseandstylisticpreferences.Thestonetools,however,constituteonlyafractionofthesocialandeconomicfabricsofawholerange of cultural manifestations. Their social andeconomic significance is embodied in the reciprocalrelationshipswithotherkindsofmaterialculture.Thetoolsincludedinthisresearcharebutonepartofawiderange of social and ecological adaptations of PotteryNeolithicvillagecommunitiestotheirsurroundings.

Themaingoalofthisresearchwastostudychangesin the composition and characteristics of stone toolassemblages from the later parts of the Pre-PotteryNeolithic period through the end of the PotteryNeolithic period, in order to decode and understandtheirculturalsignificance.Thestudyexamineswhetherassemblagesandselectedtooltypesrepresentchrono-cultural changes during the PotteryNeolithic period,or rather reflect inter-site variability related to thegeographic location of sites and their economic foci.Inordertotesttheimpactoftheappearanceofpotteryonthestoneassemblages,theresearchalsoinvestigatesthe nature of change in stone assemblages betweenthe Pre-Pottery Neolithic C and Pottery Neolithic,specificallyinthevesselgroup.Toachievetheresearchgoals,astandardizedmethodologywasdevelopedandemployed.Throughthissystematicapproach,selectedassemblagesbelongingtothePre-PotteryNeolithicCand to the threemajorculturalentitiesof thePottery

Neolithic period, the Yarmukian, Lodian and WadiRabahculturesand relatedassemblageswere studiedand analyzed. The detailed study encompasses over3,000 stone tools retrieved from 13 sites and 20chrono-stratigraphichorizons.Theseassemblageswereexamined through a specifically constructed detailedtypologicallist,andtheircharacteristicswererecordedand analyzed through a comprehensive attributeanalysis in order to enable the characterization anddefinitionofthestoneindustriesofeachofthemajorculturalentitiesstudied.

Inadditiontothetypologicalanalyses,othertraitswereinvestigatedforeachassemblage.Theseincludeselectionofrawmaterialforspecifictooltypes;morpho-metric, technological and stylistic characteristics, aswellasspatialinformationconcerningthedepositionalcontext and discard patterns of stone items. Inaddition to the detailed analyses conducted on theseselected assemblages, data regarding other relevantstone assemblages were collected from the availablearchaeological literature and integrated into thediscussions.Relevantethnographicliteratureonstonetoolswasalsosurveyed,andresultsandconclusionsofafewexperimentswereincorporatedaswell.Theentiredatawereexaminedinordertoreachconclusionsaboutthe changes stone tool assemblages and specific tooltypesunderwentfromthelaterpartsofthePre-PotteryNeolithic C period through the end of the PotteryNeolithicperiod.

The study includes a preface (Chapter 1); achaptersurveyingtheoreticalandspecificbackgrounddata regarding stone tool research, its advantages,limitationsandaccomplishments(Chapter2);achaptersummarizing the chrono-cultural and geographicframeworksdiscussedinthisstudy–fromthelastphaseofthePre-PotteryNeolithicperiodthroughtheendofthe Pottery Neolithic period in the southern Levant(Chapter 3).A comprehensive chapter is devoted tothemethodology developed and terminology used inthisstudy,includingthetypologythatwasutilized,thedefinitions of raw materials, technological data andotherattributes(Chapter4).Fourchaptersarededicatedtopresentingthedatacollectedfromeachassemblagestudiedorsurveyed,andofferpreliminaryanalysesandsummariesof the recorded information.Eachchapterdealswithassemblagesofoneperiodorculture,namelythePre-PotteryNeolithicCassemblages (Chapter5),YarmukianandotherassemblagesoftheearlypartofthePotteryNeolithicperiod(Chapter6),Lodian/JerichoIVassemblages(Chapter7)andWadiRabahandotherrelatedassemblagesattributedtothelastphaseofthePottery Neolithic or the Early/Middle Chalcolithicperiod (Chapter 8). The final chapter (Chapter 9)summarizesandanalysesthedatapresentedinchapters5-8anddiscussestheresultsoftheanalyses,focusingonthenatureandmeaningofthechangesinthestoneassemblagesandspecifictool typeduringthePotteryNeolithic period. The standardized research protocolusedinthisstudyenabledincorporationandanalysesofwholeassemblagesandspecifictooltypesandtheir

Theses

Neo-Lithics1/1152

characteristicsinasingleinterpretiveframework.Theresearchofthestonetoolassemblagesfromtheperiodsunderdiscussionshowsthatwiththeaidofasystematicmethodology, stone tools can be analyzed and usedto reflectondifferentsocialandeconomicaspectsofarchaeologicalandculturalentities.Theseobservationscanalsobeusedtodrawconclusionsaspartofbroaderstudies,integratingdatafromotherrealmsofmaterialculture.

The results of the comprehensive study suggestthatthestoneassemblagesofthePre-PotteryNeolithicC represent continuity from those of the Pre-PotteryNeolithicBperiod,althoughthenumberandsizesoftheassemblagesstudiedprecludedrawingclearconclusionson thismatter.While some of the technological andtypological characteristics of the stone assemblagesof the early phases of the Pottery Neolithic period,specificallyYarmukianassemblages,signifycontinuityfromthePre-PotteryNeolithicCperiod,someof theattributes demonstrate unmistakable change. Stoneassemblages of the Pottery Neolithic period reflectconsiderableinvestmentinmanufacturingstonetools,aswellasinexploitationanduseof‘expedient’tools.These clearly reflect different utilization techniquesand purposes. Stone tool frequencies vary amongassemblages but not in a systematic way. Whilechrono-cultural differences and similarities regardingthe composition of stone assemblages and theircharacteristicswerenoted, thestudyclearly indicatesthattherelativefrequenciesoftooltypesandselectionof raw materials are predominantly site-related andgoverned mostly by factors such as the geographiclocationofthesiteanditseconomicfocus.

The study of PotteryNeolithic stone assemblagessuggests that artisans were familiar with differentrawmaterialpropertiesand therequirementsdictatedbytoolfunction.Thisisreflectedintheutilizationofdifferentcarvingandmodificationtechniquessuitableforspecifictooltypesandrawmaterials.Furthermore,itseemsthatalthoughstonetoolassemblagespresentsome general, chrono-cultural characteristics,conventionsandconstrains, their characteristicswerealsodependenton localdemandsandpreferences forspecifictoolsorrawmaterials.

OneofthemostintriguingconclusionsofthestudyisthattheappearanceofceramicvesselsinthesouthernLevantdidnothaveanimmediateimpactonthestonevesselindustry.Thismaysuggestthatstoneandpotteryvesselswereuseddifferentlyorweremadefordistinctpurposes,actingindifferentfunctionalsystems.Stonevesselsarefrequent in thestoneassemblagesandareoneofthemostsignificantcomponentsofthisindustrythroughout the Pottery Neolithic period. However, achange in stone vessel characteristics (types, shapes,raw material selection) was noted in Wadi Rabahassemblages, in comparisonwith earlier assemblagesof theYarmukianandLodiancultures.Thisseems tobepartofamoregeneralchangeintheseassemblages,signifying the later parts of the Pottery Neolithicperiodand/orthebeginningoftheChalcolithicperiod.

These changes do not stand alone. They seem to bereflectionsofsignificantchangesinthesocio-culturalandeconomicpatternsandfociofthelaterpartsofthePottery Neolithic period and the Chalcolithic periodandrepresenttheculminationofsocialandeconomicprocesses, which evolved from earlier stages of the‘AgriculturalRevolution’.

Theresearchdemonstratesthepotentialembeddedin stone tool research and its ability to contribute toimproving our understanding of different socio-economic aspects of the cultures that flourished inthis part of the Levant during the Pottery Neolithicperiod. Stone tools reflect a wide array of functionsand techniques, which made major contributions tothe development of agricultural villages during thistimespan.Itseemsthattheimportanceofstonetoolsas a means through which Pottery Neolithic villagecommunities exploited their environments providedthese tools with special significance in both socialand economic systems.This significance is linked toa growing dependence on self-controlled economicresources alongside technological achievementswhich improved the capabilities of food storing andprocessingduring thedevelopmentof the ‘secondaryproductrevolution’.

Contact:

DannyRosenberg,[email protected]; [email protected]

Starzmann,MariaTheresia

2011 EmbodiedKnowledgeandCommunity Practice:StoneToolTechnologiesatFıstıklı Höyük.PhDthesis,Departmentof Anthropology,BinghamtonUniversity Supervisor:Prof.ReinhardW.Bernbeck

Abstract

This study explores questions of the formation andchange of small-scale communities during the LateNeolithicHalafperiodinsoutheasternTurkey.Througha technologicalandspatialanalysisofca.5000lithicartifacts from Fıstıklı Höyük (6080-5750 cal. BC), Ihaveinvestigatedissuesofcraftproductionandsocialorganization.Basedonthearchaeologicaldata,Iwasable to document communities of practice over thecourseofseveraloccupationalphasesandinterpretmyfindings in terms of routine practices, idiosyncrasies,and differential skill in the context of stone tooltechnologiesoftheHalaftradition.

My thesis is part of a larger body of scholarly

Theses

Neo-Lithics1/1153

workonvillageculturesof theLateNeolithicperiodintheMiddleEast.Inmystudy,Ihaveintroducedthenotionof‘communitiesofpractice’(LaveandWenger1991;Wenger1998)tocontextsoflithicproductionatFıstıklıHöyükinordertoprovidenewunderstandingsoftheHalaftradition.Doingso,Iwasabletodiscusscraft production in terms other than traditionalapproaches to standardization and specialization.Myfocus on practice-theoretical approaches has allowedme toproposeadissolutionofastrictspecialist/non-specialist distinction and develop a more realistic,dynamicunderstandingoftechnologicalpractices.

Drawing on ideas from material cultureand technology studies, as well as literature onapprenticeship,thenotionofanapprenticewhograduallygrows into a community of skilled practitioners iscentral tomyunderstandingofcraftproduction(e.g.,Grimm2000;Wallaert2008).Duringthisprocess,theartisan’s gestures become more and more routinizedandembodied, so that the stepsbywhich the artisanproduces objects are likely to be quite standardizedthroughouttheproductionprocessandnotjustinsome‘end product.’Yet, the practices of different artisansremainvariabletosomedegree,dependingonwhetherthe community of practice to which a craftspersonbelongsislargerorsmaller,moreorlessconstraining.Ithusaimedatidentifyingsmallgroupsofartisans–oreven individualcraftpractitioners–withinclassesofartifactsthatareotherwisetreatedfairlynormatively.

Applied to the archaeological context of FıstıklıHöyük this means that if a number of skilledflintknappersworkedtogetheratthesite,theirsharingof skills and knowledge would have been expressedin relative similarity of artifacts. Consequently, it is‘likeness,’notabsolutestandardization,whichbecomesthe defining criterion for a community of practice atFıstıklı Höyük (cf. Castro Gessner 2008). The goalof my dissertation was to detect such likeness, ordegreesofsimilarity,inlithicartifactsinordertotracecommunitiesofpracticeinthearchaeologicalrecord.Isetouttoanalyzehowmanycommunitiesofpracticeexisted during each of the four Halaf occupationalphases at Fıstıklı Höyük (Phase IV and Phases IIIcthroughIIIa);howthesecommunitiesvariedintermsoftechnologicalpractices,includingattitudestowardsrawmaterials;andhowtheywereorganizedspatially.

Methodologically, I looked at processes of lithicproduction with the aim of reconstructing chaînesopératoires (operational chains).Analytically, severalsimilaroperationalchains–lumpedintoanaggregatechain–areunderstoodasacorrelateforacommunityof practice. Depending on the size and kind of alithic operational chain, the scale of a community ofpractice is not defined from theoutset, but identifiedempirically, so that a community could have formedonascalebeloworabovethatofthewholesettlement.

Asaresultofmyresearch,Iwasabletodemonstratethat a total of seven communities of practice existedat Fıstıklı Höyük, which engaged in expedientflintknapping activities. Over time, the number of

communitiesincreasedandcommunitiesbecamemorediverse (i.e., they contained an increasing variety offormal tool types), although assemblages remainedlargely flake-based. Each of these communities wascharacterizedbyahighdegreeofsimilarityintermsofthetechnologicalpracticesofitsmembers.Yetitwasalsopossibletolocateidiosyncrasies(statisticaloutliers)intheartifactassemblages.Basedonmyunderstandingthatspontaneityandexpediencywereintegralaspectsof a Halaf life world, I have conceptualized theseidiosyncrasiesaspracticesofanindividualartisanthatwere incorporated into a sharedway of doing thingsratherthanascategoricaldifferencesthatdistinguishedonecommunityofpracticefromallothercommunitiesofpractice.

Another result of my analysis makes clear thatvariation in lithic practices may not always refer usto idiosyncrasies per se, but can also be explainedin terms of differential skill (Bamforth and Finlay2008;BamforthandHicks2008).This is reflected inthe archaeological record in the formof themergingor splitting of operational chains at moments whenartisans chose to follow slightly different productionpaths. For example, it appears that at times moreskilledartisansbranchedofffromthemainproductionsequence, following a separate operational chain; atother moments in the production process, artisansmerged production paths when they worked closelytogether, applying a smaller range of practices thatrequiredlessskill.

Lastbutnotleast,whileitisclearthatthecommunitiesofpracticeatFıstıklıHöyükgrewlargerovertime,thisincreaseinsizedoesnotappear tobeproportional tothegrowthofthesettlementitself.Whereastherewasonecommunityofpracticeintheearliestoccupationalphase(IV),IcouldtracetwocommunitiesofpracticeineachofPhaseIIIcandIIIb,andthreecommunitiesinthelatestoccupationalphase(IIIa).However,basedonaspatialanalysisofartifactdensitieswithinthesite,Iwasabletodiscernadifferentiationofcommunitiesof practice in terms of the intensitywithwhich theyengaged in flintknapping activities. Communities ofpracticeatFıstıklıHöyükworkedintheshorttermupuntilPhaseIIIb;inPhaseIIIawefindtwocommunitiesworkingintheshorttermwhileathirdandmuchlargercommunityworkedcontinuouslyoryear-round.Short-term work also characterizes those communities ofpractice that were composed of artisans with higherskilllevels,thussuggestingthatintheHalaftraditionskillwaslocatedwithinageneralhabitusofspontaneityandnot,asisoftenassumed,inthecontinuousworkofso-calledfull-timespecialists.

Notwithstandingthesedevelopments,communitiesof practice atFıstıklıHöyükused spaces in a sharedmanner throughout all occupational phases. In otherwords, spaces within the site were either sharedby several communities of practice or used inmultifunctionalways, that is, forcarryingoutseveralsuccessive production steps in the same spot. Ofcourse,itisverywellpossiblethattheseareaswerenot

Theses

Neo-Lithics1/1154

only used for flintknapping activities, but that socialevents–including‘mundane’socializing–tookplacehere as well.Working in such shared spaces wouldlikelyhaveexposedartisanstosocialscrutiny(PollockandBernbeck2010).Thismighthavecontributedtoatighterwebofsocialrelationsaswellastocooperationbetween artisans.As a result, we should understandsocial organization at Fıstıklı Höyük, and possiblyalso at other Halaf sites, as characterized by opensocial networks. In the context of such networks –highlyflexible,dynamic,andfuzzyinnature–peopleoperatedonthebasisofskilledpractice,thusintegratingroutineflintknappingpracticeswithidiosyncrasiesanddifferentialskilllevels.Acknowledgments. This research was funded bythe Wenner-Gren Foundation for AnthropologicalResearch,theAmericanSchoolforOrientalResearch,the Department of Anthropology at BinghamtonUniversity,andtheGerdaHenkel-Stiftung.

SelectedReferences

BamforthD.B.,andFinlayN.2008 Introduction:Archaeologicalapproachestolithic productionskillandcraftlearning.Journalof ArchaeologicalMethodandTheory15:1-27.

BamforthD.B.,andHicksK.2008 ProductionskillandPaleoindianworkgroup organizationintheMedicineCreekDrainage, SouthwesternNebraska.Journalof ArchaeologicalMethodandTheory15:132-153.

CastroGessnerA.G.2008 TheTechnologyofLearning:PaintingPracticesof EarlyMesopotamianCommunitiesofthe6th Millennium,B.C.UnpublishedPh.D.Dissertation,State UniversityofNewYorkatBinghamton.

GrimmL.2000 Apprenticeflintknapping:Relatingmaterialculture andsocialpracticeintheUpperPalaeolithic.InJ.Soafer (ed.),ChildrenandMaterialCulture:53-71.London: Routledge.

LaveJ.,andWengerE.1991 SituatedLearning:LegitimatePeripheralParticipation. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

PollockS.,andBernbeckR.2010 NeolithicWorldsatTol-eBaši.InS.Pollock, R.Bernbeck,andK.Abdi(eds.),The2003 ExcavationsatTol-eBaši,Iran:SocialLifeinaNeolithic Village:274-287.Mainz:VerlagPhilippvonZabern.

WallaertH.2008 Thewayofthepotter’smother:Apprenticeship strategiesamongDiipottersfromCameroon,West Africa.InM.T.Stark,B.J.Bowser,andL.Horne(eds.), CulturalTransmissionandMaterialCulture:Breaking DownBoundaries:178-198.Tucson:Universityof ArizonaPress.

WengerE.1998 CommunitiesofPractice:Learning,Meaning,and Identity.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Contact:

MariaTheresiaStarzmann,[email protected]

Conferences/Masthead

Neo-Lithics1/1155

Masthead

7thInternationalConferenceontheChippedandGroundStoneIndustriesofthePre-PotteryNeolithic

14-17thofFebruary,2012(BarcelonaandBellaterra,InstitutMilàiFontanals&UniversitatAutònomadeBarcelona,)

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE: Ferran Borrell ([email protected]), Juan José Ibáñez ([email protected]),MiquelMolist([email protected])

CONTACT:[email protected](circularscanbeobtainedviathisaddressorfromFerranBorell)

DEADLINEFORREGISTRATION,PAYMENTANDABSTRACTSSUBMISSION:31stofDecember2011

REGISTRATION: BeforeOctober 15th, 2011 at http://www.imf.csic.es/conferenceppn7/inscriptionf.asp . Fees:80€.AfterOctober15th,2011:100€ (Studentsandunemployedpeople:BeforeOctober15th,2011:40€.AfterOctober15th,2011:50€).BothpriceswillincludethePPN7Conferenceproceedings.Paymentdeadline:December31st,2011.

EditorialBoard AdvisoryBoard

Co-EditorsGaryO.Rollefson,WhitmanCollege,WallaWallaHansGeorgK.Gebel,FreeUniversityofBerlin

ManagingEditorsDörteRokitta-Krumnow,FreeUniversityofBerlinJanKrumnow,UniversityofAppliedSiences,Berlin

OferBar-Yosef,HarvardUniversityDidierBinder,C.N.R.S.,ValbonneFrankHole,YaleUniversityPederMortensen,CopenhagenUniv.HansJ.Nissen,FreieUniversitätBerlinMehmetÖzdoğan,UniversityofIstanbulDanielleStordeur,Archéorient,CNRS,Jalès

Submissions NEO-LITHICS,Prof.Dr.GaryO.Rollefson,DepartmentofAnthropology, WhitmanCollege,WallaWalla,WA99362,USA,Email:[email protected].

NEO-LITHICS,DörteRokitta-Krumnow/JanKrumnow/Dr.HansGeorgK.Gebel, exoriente,c/oFreeUniversityofBerlin,Hüttenweg7,14195Berlin,Germany, Emails:[email protected]·[email protected],Fax00493098311246.Orderspleasesendto:exorientee.V.,c/oFreeUniversityofBerlin,Hüttenweg7,14195Berlin,Germany,www.exoriente.org·[email protected]·Fax00493098311246.

SubscriptionMinimumofthreeyearssubscriptionrequested=6issues,c.40-50pageseach,66Eurofor6issues/minimumsubscriptionperiod(postageincluded);backissuesavailable;membersofexorientereceiveNeo-Lithicsfreeofcharge(includedintheannualmembershipfee:40Euroforemployedmembers,15Euroforstudents/unemployedmembers).

Deadlines twiceayear:15thofMayand15thofNovember

SubmissionGuidelinesTextformats:inWordwithoutformatting;forthegeneralstyleoftext,bibliography,andcaptionsconsultthisorarecentissueofNeo-Lithics-Illustrationformats:individualEPS,TIFF-filesorJPEGinhighresolutions;illustrationsshouldnotbeembeddedintheWordfile.Please,sentahardcopyof themanuscript incaseofcomplexcontributions;keepbibliographicreferences to theutmostminimum.Authorsareobligedtopresentwiththeirsubmissionsformallettersofagreementbycopyrightownersiftheyuseillustrations,texts,materials,orideasfromoralpresentationsobtainedfromsourcesnottheirown.

SubscriptionInformationIntheupperrightpartoftheaddressfield(envelope)youwillfindtheissuementioneduntilwhich(included)youpaidyoursubscription.Ifyoufindaninvoicewiththisissue,arenewalofsubscriptionisnecessaryforthenextthreeyears/6issues.Ifaninvoiceisnotpaidaftertwomonthsitisunderstoodthataprolongationofthesubscriptionisnotdesired,andnofurtherissueswillbesend.

NoteAuthorsofNeo-Lithics receiveaPDFfileof their individualcontributionuponpublication.Please,understand thatyourcontribution issubjecttothecopyrightsofexorientePublishers.However,youarelicensedtocirculatethepdffileofyourcontributionprivately,butbeyondthisweaskyounottopublishit(orpartsofit)intheWorldWideWeb,orinanyotherformwithoutourpriorpermission.Neo-Lithicsispublishedanddistributedbyexoriente,Berlin.PrintingHouse:dbusiness,Berlin©exorientee.V.,Berlin-ISSN1434-6990

NewExOrientePublications

‘Ain Ghazal Excavation Reports 2: Evolution of

Lithic Economies in the Levantine Neolithic:

Development and Demise of Naviform Core

Technology, as Seen at ‘Ain Ghazal,

by Leslie A. Quintero. bibliotheca neolithica Asiae meridionalis et occidentalis (2010) & Yarmouk University, Monograph of the Faculty of Archaeology and Anthropology (2010). Berlin, ex oriente. (XIV+ 184 pages, 7 figures, 51 plates, 10 tables. hardcover – 72 Euro) [ISBN 978-3-9811888-4-4]

The State of the Stone: Terminologies,

Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern

Neolithic Lithics, edited by Elizabeth Healey,

Stuart Campbell and Osamu Maeda. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 13 (2011). Berlin, ex oriente. (44 + 2 contributions, XIV + 490 pages, 348 figs., 4 color figs., 73 tables, paperback – 76 Euro) [ISBN 978-3-9811888-2-0] Contents

E. Healey, S. Campbell and O. Maeda: Introduction: ix-xiii

H.G. K. Gebel: The PPN 1-6 Workshops: agendas, trends and the future: 1-24

PPN predecessors

L.A. Maher and T. Richter: PPN predecessors: current issues in Late Pleistocene chipped stone analyses in the southern Levant: 25-32

T. Richter: Nebekian, Qalkhan and Kebaran: variability, classification and interaction. New insights from the Azraq Oasis: 33-50

D.I. Olszewski: Lithic “culture” issues: insights from the Wadi al-Hasa Epipalaeolithic: 51-66

C. Delage: Technological rationality of core reduction and blank production in the Natufian lithic industries of the Galilee: 67-78

Y. Nishiaki, Y. Kanjo, S. Muhesen and T. Akazawa: Newly discovered Late Epipalaeolithic lithic assemblages from Dederiyeh Cave, the northern Levant: 79-88

A. Pirie: The Epipalaeolithic chipped stone from Pınarbası, on the central Anatolian plateau: 89-96

Beyond chipped stone

D. Rosenberg and D. Nadel: On floor level: PPNA indoor cupmarks and their Natufian forerunners: 99-108

P.M. Rassmann: Pestle sectioning at Dhra’: a chaîne opératoire for basalt pestles and their derivatives: 109-124

M.W. Hintzman: Stone ring production in the Neolithic of the Near East and analogies from the American West: 125-134

E.H. Belcher: Halaf bead, pendant and seal ‘workshops’ at Domuztepe: technological and reductive strategies: 135-144

Change or continuity?

J. José Ibáñez and J. González Urquijo: Social and symbolic meanings of lithic technology during the PPN in the Middle Euphrates: 147-156

A. Yaroshevich, O. Bar-Yosef and V. Zbenovich: Lunates as projectiles at the onset of the Neolithic period: 157-162

M. Abe: Geometrics from the Neolithic settlement of Tall i Mushki, south-west Iran: 163-170

N. Shirai: Did the diffusion of Levantine Helwan points to north-eastern Africa really take place? A study of side-notched and tanged projectile points in north-eastern Africa: 171-184

C. McCartney: The lithic assemblage of Ayia Varvara Asprokremnos: a new perspective on the Early Neolithic of Cyprus: 185-196

F. Bocquentin, O. Barzilai, H. Khalaily and L. Kolska Horwitz: The PPNB site of Beisamoun (Hula Basin): present and past research: 197-212

F. Borrell: Changes in chipped stone industries in south-eastern Anatolia: Akarçay Tepe (7,600–6,800 cal. BC): 213-226

Z. Matskevich: The lithic assemblage of Sha‘ar Hagolan: PPN/PN continuity? 227-242

D. Nadel and M. Nadler-Uziel: Is the PPNC really different? The flint assemblages from three layers at Tel Roim West, Hula Basin: 243-256

L. Astruc: A note on the complexity of lithic assemblages: 257-264

Social contexts of production and use

O. Barzilai and N. Goring-Morris: Nahal Lavan 1021: a PPNB knapping site in the western Negev dunes: 267-276

M. Birkenfeld and N. Goring-Morris: A methodological approach, using GIS applications, to stratigraphy and spatial analysis at PPNB Kfar HaHoresh: 277-290

F. Borrell: Knapping methods and techniques at Tell Halula (middle Euphrates valley),

during the mid VIIIth millennium cal. BC: 291-304

O. Barzilai, N. Getzov, Y. Givol-Barzilai, N. Marom and O. Marder: Lithics in a ritual context at the PNNB site of Mishmar Ha‘emeq: do they display special characteristics? 305-316

O. Maeda: The social roles of the use of flint and obsidian artefacts at Salat Cami Yanı in the upper Tigris valley: 317-326

S. Campbell and E. Healey: Stones of the living and bones of the dead? Contextualising the lithics in the Death Pit at Domuztepe: 327-342

J. Vardi and I. Gilead: Side-blow blade-flakes from the Ghassulian sickle blade workshop of Beit Eshel: a Chalcolithic

solution to a Neolithic riddle: 343-356

A. Davidzon and Isaac Gilead: On becoming a skilled flint knapper: practising flint knapping at the Chalcolithic sickle blade workshop of Beit Eshel, a preliminary refitting study: 357-368

4th International Workshop on Chipped Lithic Industries

(Nigde, Cappadocia, Turkey) 4th–8th June 2001

N. Balkan-Atlı: Introduction: 371-372

M. Arimura: LPPNB blade caches at Tell Ain el-Kerkh, north-west Syria: 373-384

G. Coskunsu: Flint and obsidian industry of Mezraa-Teleilat (Urfa, south-east Anatolia), PPN-PN: 385-394

A. Gopher, O. Marder and R. Barkai: An obsidian industry from Neolithic Hagoshrim, Upper Galilee: 395-402

Y. Garfinkel: Obsidian distribution and cultural contacts in the southern Levant during the 7th millennium cal. BC: 403-410

S. Yıldırım Balcı: The typological analysis of Asıklı arrowheads and problems: 411-416

N. Kayacan and M. Özbasaran: Preliminary results of the technological analyses of Musular obsidian – central Anatolia: 417-420

O. Marder, H. Khalaily and I. Milevski: Parallel lives: Abu Ghosh and Yiftahel, economic strategies of two PPNB sites in the southern Levant: 421-428

D.I. Olszewski: Assessing lithic raw material availability, abundance and use in the Late Upper Palaeolithic, Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic of the Wadi al-Hasa, Transjordanian Plateau: 429-442

R. Barkai: PPNA stone and flint axes as cultural markers: technological, functional and symbolic aspects: 443-448

O. Aurenche and S.K. Kozlowski: The spatial distribution of arrowheads and microliths in the Near East (10,200–8,000 cal. BC): 449-456

Y. Nishiaki: Preliminary notes on the Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic lithics from Tell Seker al-Aheimar, the upper Khabur: the 2000–2001 seasons: 457-464

L. Astruc: Points and glossed pieces from Tell Sabi Abyad II and Tell Damishliyya I (Balikh Valley, Djezireh): 465-474

O. Bar-Yosef: Symbolic behaviour reflected in stone and bone objects from Nahal Hemar Cave, Judean Desert: 475-480

D. Nadel: Stones in their symbolic context: Epipalaeolithic – Pre-Pottery Neolithic continuity in the Jordan Valley: 481-490

neo-lithics 1/11 - ex oriente · jean-denis vigne, françois briois, antoine zazzo, isabelle...

Documents