 |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Contents:
6.1 Introduction to the Pottery Neolithic The Pottery Neolithic (PN) covers the eighth and seventh millennia bp. It is divided into an Early and Late phase and as Gopher and Gophna state (1993, p.298) “very different socioeconomic systems appeared in the southern Levant during the eighth and seventh millennia and laid the foundation for the development of complex, urban societies”. From an archaeological point of view, there have been problems in achieving a modern assessment of the period due to the variable quality of, and the application of different methodologies applied by early projects. Gopher and Gophna (1993) have raised several questions about the nature of the PN data, and point to the problem of excavation techniques which have been used in the past which have lead either to difficulties in opening up or examining intra-site sequences or loss of data (p.301-2). In addition, multiple terminologies have led to considerable confusion, and “insufficient research, a large body of unpublished data, and the many small assemblages coming from problematical contexts . . . . Additional problems in time-space systematics are the use of long-distance typological, but non quantitative, comparisons, mainly of ceramic traits . . ., and the neglect of seriation and the study of diffusion processes” (Gopher and Gophna, p.302). The attempt by Gopher and Gophna to tease out a coherent overview and a chronological framework for this period is used extensively in this section. Please note that all dates for the beginning and end of the PNA and PNB follow Rosen (1997). However, there are other schemes and as more C14 dates become available these will be filled out and will become more transparent - and this site will be updated accordingly. 6.2 Early Pottery Neolithic / Pottery Neolithic A (PNA 5900 - 5200 bc) 6.2.1 The Establishment of the Early pottery Neolithic The Early Pottery Neolithic or Pottery Neolithic A (EPN or PNA) begins at the end of the ninth millennium bp, when the complex interactive networks that had built up during the PPNB apparently cease to operate, and the relative continuity which had been visible from the Natufian onwards can no longer be observed. A number of possible causes for this have been put forward, including the frequently suggested climatic changes, which are thought to have lead to hotter and drier conditions causing abandonment of some areas and the establishment of new sites in other areas. Estimates put this period of hotter conditions at between a few centuries and 1000 years duration. This would certainly help to explain the thinning of occupation in the Sinai and the Negev at this time. This agrees with Rollefson’s analysis of the PPNC at Ain Ghazal, discussed earlier. However, the climate change explanation is by no means universally accepted, partly because it is based on archaeological rather than environmental data. 6.2.2.1 Chronology The Yarmukian, named after the perennial Yarmouk River, appears to be the earliest identifiable entity within the PN, and contain the earliest pottery to be found in the Levant. Yarmukian sites include Shaar Hagolan, Munhata, Nahal Qanah, Nahal Zehora II, Ain Ghazal, Ein Rahub, Wadi Shu’eib, and others. There are very few chronometric dates for the Yarmukian, but where it is within a stratigraphic sequence it is usually above PPNB or PPNC contexts, and below typologically later levels. Observed similarities with the Byblos NA may place it within the second half of the eighth millennium bp. It certainly predates the Chalcolithic at Munhata, where the Yarmoukian Level 2b, possibly dating to around 5500BC, is stratified beneath the Early Chalcolithic Level 2a, dating to 4600BC (Lovell 2004, p.49). Munhata 2b appears to be contemporary with Sh’ar Hagolan. 6.2.2.2 Industry The definition of the period is largely based on the flint industry and the introduction of pottery. The earliest pottery appears in the EPN, with the Yarmukian industry. The pottery is distinctive in terms both of vessel form and applied decoration. There are a variety of forms including bowls and globular jars with tall necks. Some have handles or knobs and/or pedestals. Decoration is not applied to all vessels, but where present it may be painted, incised or both, and is confined to geometric forms – zigzag lines and simple bands. There are no anthropomorphic representations. Painted vessels without incisions appear to be a late feature of the Yarmukian (Gopher and Gophna 1993, p.311). Lithics represent both continuities and innovations. Blade production was still practiced, but an increasing flake component is notable. Clearly defined tools include axes, borers, scrapers, sickle blades, notches, denticulates and tanged blades. Specific innovations include new types of heavily retouched bifacial sickle blades, Haparsa and Herzliya arrowheads, and new forms of Byblos and Amuq points (Gopher and Gophna 1993, p.308). Sickle blades feature deep and regular pressure, flaked denticulation on both or one lateral edges, made on relatively short truncated blades from cores which are very similar to those of the PPNB (Rosen 1997). Lovell (2004, p.14) points to the fact that an absence of arrowheads could indicate a fall-off in hunting (but also points out that lithic arrowheads could have been replaced by wooden or other spearpoints). 6.2.2.3 Settlement Distribution Sites are mainly distributed in central Israel and Jordan in the southern Levant, and occur in all the main topographical areas. Sites include: Sha’ar Hagolan near Kibbutz, Munhata, and Ain Ghazal near Jordan on the Wadi Zerqa (following the PPNC phase), ‘Ain Rahub, Jebel Abu Thawab and Wadi Shueib. Contemporary sites, like Qadesh Barnea 3, feature in the Negev and Sinai, but are not the same and do not feature pottery. 6.2.2.4 Site Organization Individual structures may be either circular or rectangular, and are usually built using drystone techniques for the foundations. Plaster was only used occasionally. Storage pits accompany these structures. 6.2.2.5 Burials and Ritual There have been only very few burials found from Yarmukian contexts. On the rare occasions that they have been found, they were interred in a flexed position, in on-site situations. There are no grave goods. 6.2.2.5 Art and Craft Figurines are particularly notable from middle Jordan Valley sites with smaller numbers elsewhere. Forms are divided into two principal types: stone peoples which are incised with human images and body parts (e.g. at Shaar Hagolan and Munhata), and clay figurines which are often interpreted as representing women (e.g. at Shaar Hagolan). These may represent “a new symbolic framework and new perceptions, probably related to changes in social structure” (Gopher and Gophna 1993, p.344). 6.2.2.6 Economy Most of the information about the economy during the Yarmukian comes from Ain Ghazal, but additional information about faunal resources comes from Jebel Abu Thawwab and Munhata. Faunal resources are represented as follows (tabulated from Gopher and Gophna 1993, p.314):
Plant remains represented at Ain Ghazal include:
At Ain Rahub plant remains include:
Gopher and Gophna (1993, p.343) conclude that: “the Yarmukian economy represents a change in the exploitation of animals which began in the PPNC . . . . Both household animals such as the pig and pastoral species such as the sheep, goat, and cattle were exploited. We may also have early evidence for the use of secondary products like wool. Cereals, legumes, and flax were cultivated and almonds were gathered. Hunting was still practiced”. 6.2.3 Jericho IX/PNA or Lodian 6.2.3.1 Status, Definition and Chronology After the Yarmoukian things become somewhat less straight forward in chronological terms. Gopher and Gophna (1993, p.317-326) define a grouping that, while similar to the Yarmoukian, is distinguished from it in a small number of ways. The biggest difference described is in the pottery, which is “quite distinctive, mainly in its painted and burnished surface treatment and its decorative elements” (p.324) but also in other ceramic differences between the two groupings, and in the typology of arrowheads, tabular scrapers, bifacial knives and sickle blades (p.326). They have labeled this grouping Jericho IX after the site and entity where it was first identified. However, it appears at other sites as well including Teleiliat Batashi (Layer IV) and possibly Tel Ali, Abu Zureiq and Megiddo, as well as Horvat Usa, Wadi Shu’eib, Nizzanim and Givat Haparsa. Lovell (2004) suggests that other sites in this category are Lod, Dhra’, Khirbet ed-Darih and Ghorubba (p.6). However, many of these sites are composed of very small assemblages and and not all writers agree on how these sites should be grouped: “Creating cultural assemblages from evidence such as this is a distortion of that evidence. Until we have quantitative information on these sites it will be difficult to assess the validity of this division (Lovell 2004, p.6). Gopher (1995) adopted the term “Lodian” to describe some cultural features in this general period, while others see the Lodian as being more or less synonymous with Jericho IX. Jericho IX type sites usually predate those containing Wadi Raba pottery. At Jericho the Layer IX level overlies PPNB material. It is likely that Jericho IX lies within the first half of the seventh millennium bp. 6.2.3.2 Industry The pottery, which is the most distinguishing feature of the Yarmukian and Jericho IX assemblages, is divided into a cruder type and a finer type. The former are handmade, straw-tempered and usually of simple form, with uneven surfaces. Forms include jars with narrow necks, bowls, and flat trays. They may have handles, knobs, pedestals and include burnishing on red slip. The finer vessels are usually open bowls without organic temper and are often decorated with paint on the interior surface, which was then burnished (Gopher and Gophna, p.319). Lithics also show differences from those found at Yarmukian sites. Debitage and cores are missing from most of the assemblages, as are non-diagnostic tools (due to the criteria used in the original collection methods) but completed tools include arrowheads, sickle blades, axes, knives made on blades, scrapers, denticulates, notches, subtypes of Amuq and Byblos points, Haparsa, Nizzanim and Herzliya arrowheads, and borers. Sickle blades are particularly distinctive – as well as those typical of the Yarmukian, sorter and wider examples are also found, sometimes trapezoid, curved, and bifacially pressure-flaked (Gopher and Gophna 1993, p.319-321) 6.2.3.1 Site Distribution Sites are distributed from the coastal plain through Shephelah to the Jordan Valley, with a small number in areas to the east of the Dead Sea. None are reported from higher areas. It extends further to the south than the Yarmukian. 6.2.3.1 Site Organization There is very sparse data about the structure of sites in the Jericho IX phase. Some stone walls and plastered pits, hearths and some mud-brick structures have been found at different sites. 6.2.3.1 Burial and Ritual There is almost no data for burial or ritual at the Jericho IX sites 6.2.3.1 Art and Craft Nothing comparable with the Yarmukian figurines and pebble forms has yet been found at any of the Jericho IX sites. Only one anthropomorphic representation has been found, at Givat Haparsa. 6.2.3.1 Economy The only site which clearly represents any information about the economy is Nizzanim where sheep and goat, cattle and pig were accompanied by wild fauna including gazelle and fish. Plant remains are uncertain. 6.3 Later Pottery Neolithic / Pottery Neolithic B (PNB 5200-4500 bc) Named after the site of Wadi Raba, the main grouping from the LPN is the Wadi Raba culture. It is distinguished from marginal areas, where the Wadi Raba is not represented. For the purposes of this paper I have simply referred to a “Late Neolithic” in the marginal areas to distinguish them from the core area, and have dealt with this under a separate heading. However, they are contemporary and not consecutive. 6.3.2.1 Introduction, Chronology and Homogeneity The Wadi Raba layers appear above those of the Yarmukian and Jericho IX levels, and below Ghassulian levels. There may be a temporal gap between the Yarmoukian and the Wadi Raba phases. There are very few chronometric dates, so most of the conclusions about dating are besed on both stratigraphy and on the scanty dates available. Gopher and Gophna (1993, p.328) suggest on the basis of problematical data that the Wadi Raba covers most of the seventh millennium bp. The Wadi Raba sites appear to be broadly contemporary with the Late PNB deposits at Jericho. The earliest dates for the succeeding Ghassulian place its beginnings in the 6th millennium bp. Wadi Raba sites include Munhata Layer 2, Nahal Zehora I, Nahal Zehora II, Wadi Raba, Teluliot Batashi, Ein el Jarba, Tel Ali, Abu Zureiq, Tel Qiri, Tor, Portugali, Kabri, Jericho Layer VIII, Bethsan Layer XVIII, Tell Farah North, and sites with variants of the main Wadi Raba assemblage. The main area is concentrated in one area, but variants extend over a wide area. Gopher and Gophna (1993, p.34) believe that the central Wadi Raba area is homogenous, but that the variants do not fall into this category: “The ‘normative’ Wadi Raba does fulfill most of the criteria for the definition of an archaeological culture. It includes a group of assemblages which display clear repetitiveness in the various components of material culture, some of which, such as sling stones, are very specific. It occurs within a limited geographical range of about 10,000km2, and over a time span of about 500 years. However, there are other contemporaneous assemblages that do not meet the strict definition.” Variants include Jericho Layer VIII, Tel Bethshan-Tel Tsaf, the Huleh Valley, Fazael/Farah, the Northern Coastal Plan-Western Galilee and the Carmel-Coastal Plain (Gopher and Gophna 1993, p.336-337). An early Wadi Raba phase (or a variant) may have been identified by Stager (1992) at Kfar Giladi, Abu Zureiq and Teleilat Batashi IVb. Variants are not always clearly defined and are often disputed. Those discussed below represent the core industry. In total, the Wadi Raba appears to be less homogenous than the Yarmukian.
Pottery is handmade, using a coiling technique, and was decorated before firing with incisions, impression, combing, painting, and relief motifs, using a number of designs. Some vessels were burnished. Different types of handles were attached when required, and a number of forms were represented, including numerous forms of bowl and a few platters. The main type produced was a jar with a bow rim. Another particularly characteristic form of vessel was “Dark Faced Burnished Ware” a small carinated bow which usually had an application of slip and was burnished deep black or red (Gopher and Gophna 1993, p.328). A wider range of motifs were used on Wadi Raba pottery than in the previous Yarmukian or Jericho IX phases. Key features of the Wadi Raba lithic assemblages are a 2:1 preference for flakes over blades (Gopher and Gophna 1993, p.328), single-platform cores, large numbers of bi-truncated, backed rectangular sickle blades, and bifacial tools including borers, scrapers, denticulates, and burins. There are almost no arrowheads and burins are either abundant or rare, depending on the site. Sickle blades are very different from those in the marginal areas, discussed below. 6.3.2.3 Site Distribution The Wadi Raba core and related sites are spread over quite a wide area, over a number of topographical profiles including coastlines, valleys and mountain areas. The core Wadi Raba area is primarily in norhter Israel but also in southern and south eastern Israel. It is specifically concentrated around the Jezreel Valley with extensions south and north. Sites include: Wadi Raba, Tel Aviv, ‘Ain el-Jarba, TElielat Bateshi, Lod, Newe Yam, Munhata 2a. 6.3.2.4 Site Organization Earlier forms of settlement structure, already described, were based around dwellings of round huts. In the Wadi Raba, at a number of sites, these round forms appear to have been replaced by rectilinear structures - for example at Munhata and Teleilat Ghassul. Circular buildings begin to fall out of usage. At a number of sites dwellings were formed of stone foundations and some of them may have been internally divided into different areas, but no wall material survives. Unlined pits and plaster-lined basins feature regularly outside dwellings, and at Nahal Zehora II and Ein el Jarba circular plaster-lined basins were sunk into internal floors. Small paved areas appear outside structures occasionally. 6.3.2.5 Burials and Ritual A small number of burials indicate that at least two types of burial were probably practiced – adult interments in the ground, and burial in jars of babies. An adult burial from Nahal Betzet I was supine and the skull was missing; another at Ein el Jarba, consisting of three burials, were under the floor of a structure and their skulls were present. Burials were still on-site. No grave goods accompanied the dead. 6.3.2.6 Arts and Crafts Again, there is not much evidence for artistic activity. A vessel from Ein el Jarba had an image of a human figure, and something similar was found from Tepe Gawra. Clay figures have been found at a small number of sites. 6.3.2.7 Economy Faunal remains from Wadi Raba sites include:
The use of sheep, goat or cattle for dairy products may be suggested by an early form of churn from Nahal Zehora I. Some evidence for cereal cultivation exists, and olives may have been used quite intensively. Spindle whorls and loom weights suggest that fabric was being woven – possibly from goat hair. The lack of plant remains does not rule out the use of flax, which was known from EPN sites. Gopher and Gophna (1993, p.343-344) conclude that “the Wadi Raba entity saw a continuation of an economy based on agriculture, livestock, and greater use of secondary products; there was almost no hunting. Cereals and legumes were cultivated and olives were used . . . The higher frequencies of cattle and pig in Wadi Raba reflect a deemphasis of ovicaprines which has wide implications. The use of animal hair continued.” 6.3.3 The Qatifian (Marginal Areas) 6.3.3.1 Chronology and Homogeneity Restricted to southern parts of Israel and some areas of Jordan, the Qatifian dates to the second half of the seventh millennium bp, preceding the Ghassulian “thus suggesting a continuous sequence of cultural development for southern Israel from the Late Neolithic to the Chalcolithic” (Gopher and Gophna 1993, p.337). Sites include P14, D11 and Qatif Y-3 in the Besor Basin. 6.3.3.2 Industry The ceramic tradition includes a small number of different forms of vessel, with smoothed surfaces, only occasionally painted. A particularly distinctive type of handle is a key feature. Bases tend to be coarse and thick. Typical types are carinated bowls, bow-rim jars and occasional but distinctive surface decoration. The lithics are dominated by flake tools. Of the diagnostic tools, the notches and denticulate are the most numerous. Other tools are blades, borers, scrapers, burins, and sickle blades. 6.3.3.3 Site Distribution and Organization The main area of distribution is concentrated in southern Israel and parts of Jordan., particularly the Nahal Besor It is possible that Qatifian sites are also present in the Dead Sea area, in the Jordanian Plateau, and in areas which became the core of the later Ghassulian. Pits, hearths and paved areas are characteristic. Postholes appear on the living floors. 6.3.3.4 Burial and Ritual A single burial consists of an infant buried in a jar at Qatif Y-3. 6.3.3.5 Economy The economy is very similar to preceding arrangements: “Economic continuity is seen in the mixed farming based on sheep/goat, pig, and cattle combined with agriculture” (Gopher and Gophna 1993, p.337) The Besorian follows the Qatifian, and precedes the Chalcolithic Beershevan of the Negev. It is defined mainly by the site of Wadi Gazzeh, but Lovell (2004, p.49) suggests that the lowest phases of Teleilat Ghassul (layers H-J) represent a late Neolithic phase that could be associated with the Besorian. He suggests that this phase of the site lies between the Jericho PNA and PNB transition. Teleilat Ghassul ceramics from this phase consist of bowls, basins, holemouths, and jar forms, some with loop handles. Rectinlinear buildings are associated with the Besorian.
6.3.5 Late Neolithic (Marginal areas) Eastern Jordan Amongst lithics flake tools were increasingly common in the Late Neolithic. The naviform core technique was used from the Early PPNB throughout the Earlier Neolithic, but only continued until the earliest stages of the Late Neolithic, represented at the basal layer of Jilat 13 (Garrard 1998). There were fewer pounding and milling tools at the Wadi el-Jilat and Azraq sites, which is consistent with the situation at Ain Ghazal Sickle blades from the Qatifian in the northern Negev were made from bitruncated blade segments. Stone beads were made of recrystallised apatitic limestone: green, red or black, sometimes called “Dabbah Marble”. The most impressive are at Jilat 13, Jilat 25, and Azraq 31. They take a number of forms including disc, ring, cylinder and barrel. Bone Tools include bone points and bone beads were both features of the eastern Jordanian areas. Marine shells of the Conus type and mother of pearl were common in the Late Neolithic.
6.3.6 Agriculture and Subsistence 6.3.6.1 Core Area Many sites in the southern Levant, dating to the mid/late seventh millennium bc were abandoned, including Jericho, although some, including Ain Ghazal and Tell Ramad, survived, and new ones, like Basta and Beisamoun, were built. There is no evidence of climate change at this time. One suggestion is that the activities of plant cultivation and animal domestication may have been practiced in excessively close proximity, leading first to economic stress and failure of village settlements, and then to the separation of the two types of practice, with animal tending becoming largely nomadic (Rollefson and Kohler-Rollefson 1993). 6.3.6.2 Marginal Area Eastern Jordan Nothing has been found on the limestone steppe but at Wadi Jilat two sites, Jilat 13 and Jilat 25 have been produced numerous faunal remains. Those most represented are sheep and goat, gazelle, hare and fox – “Given the almost complete absence of caprine bones from earlier sites in this habitat, it is assumed that the caprines were introduced by humans during the late seventh millennium bc” (Garrard et al 1996, p.218). Caprines are also found at Burqu, 140km east of Azraq, where they make up over 50% of the late sixth millennium bc faunal assemblage. Gazelle and hare continued to be exploited. If, as described above, Rollefson and Kohler-Rollefson (1989, 1993) are correct, then the appearance of sheep and goat in these areas could be the result of increasingly mobile pastoralism. Alternatively, Byrd (1992) suggests that hunter-gatherer communities, forced east by encroaching agricultural expansion, may have had to adopt agriculture in order to survive in circumstances where local natural resources failed to supply the population. In the Chalcolithic sickle segments were technologically very similar to this in the Late Pottery Neolithic B. But there was much less typological variability. Assemblages were dominated by backed truncated segments and non-backed items. Edge retouch varies from light to heavy. Site to site variation occurs in terms of length and width. They may have been hafted into a curved haft. After the end of the Chalcolithic, Rosen (1997) highlights the point that lithics continued to be an important part of the tool manufacturing technology well after the introduction of metals, and suggests that this implies that there was a range of activities and skills continuing at this stage “for which there is no counterpart in our own society” (p.11). He emphasizes a high level of continuity between the desert Bronze Age sites and their Neolithic predecessors, contrasting this with the tells of northern Israel, which had significant differences. He believes that lithics highlight continuities in economic practices and these continuities are disguised in the archaeological record by variations in the ceramic forms which emphasize change rather than continuity. This is not to say that social changes didn’t occur, because they clearly did, but to emphasize that the underlying economy did not change in any considerable way. The pattern of change and continuity in the lithic record in the core area is revealing. For example, arrowheads vanish at the end of the late Neolithic, but stone sickle blades continue into the Iron Age. However, Rosen (1997) says that regional variability in sickle blades may well reflect different sorts of agricultural exploitation in different areas (p.135). He suggests that the sickle blade, which continued to be important into the Iron Age, only appeared in its fully evolved form in the Early Bronze Age in the south of the Levant at around 3500-2200BCE. Canaanean sickle blades “constitute a major typological and technological change” (Rosen 1997, p.140) with blades that showed an overall increase in both length and width. After EBA III Rosen (1997 p.143) concludes that there was no relationship between the distribution of sickle types and ethnicity. Like Garrard and others working in marginal areas, Rosen notes that there are considerable differences between the occupations of the Mediterranean zone and the desert zones in terms of both character and integration. In the desert arrowheads continue at the end of the Neolithic, although in the core areas they vanish. Sickle blades show changes in the Negev – typically backed, either straight or arched, but much less sophisticated than the Canaanean sickles which are thought to be contemporary: “Canaanean blades were never adopted in to the desert EBA system because the two systems did not mesh. The specialized commodities of the north had no place nor appeal in the fundamentally domestic economy of the south”. 6.5.2 Conclusions about Pristine Agriculture in the southwest Asian Neolithic Plants were domesticated before animals. The precise mechanism by which this was achieved is still much discussed, and more work needs to be carried out before confidence about any given model will be achieved. However, a number of facts can be pulled from the archaeological record. Wild ancestors of domesticated species are thought to have been distributed to the north and west of the Fertile Crescent. The following species have been traced to the following areas (summarized from Bellwood 2005):
These species were first domesticated by c.8500BC. By 8000BC naked-grained tetraploid and hexaploid wheats appeared. Bread wheat (a naked-grained hexaploid) was next. 6-row barley came later. Legumes (pea, lentil, and chickpea) were all from the Levant and were probably also distributed in north Syria and southeast Anatolia. They were not domesticated until around 8000BC. Flax was another important plant which was domesticated – used for clothing and perhaps oil. It is not known whether there were one or more centres of domestication. There are diverse views about this, as there are with so many other aspects of the original establishment of agriculture in the Near East. Proponents of a single point of origin are Zohary and Hopf (2000) and Blumer (1998), who argue that all knowledge of cultivation diffused from here. Supporters of several points of origin see them as a set of broadly contemporary opportunistic occurrences. It is relatively certain that einkorn came only from one place in southeast Anatolia (Bellwood 2005), but there is much less decisive data about the other cereals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Copyright (text and images) Andie Byrnes 2005, unless otherwise stated
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||