Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies: The bidirectional blade industries 9781407307305, 9781407337265

Citation preview

BAR S2180 2010

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies

BARZILAI

The bidirectional blade industries

Omry Barzilai SOCIAL COMPLEXITY IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANTINE PPNB

BAR International Series 2180 2010 B A R Barzilai 2180 cover.indd 1

15/12/2010 17:11:14

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies The bidirectional blade industries

Omry Barzilai

BAR International Series 2180 2010

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 2180 Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies © O Barzilai and the Publisher 2010 COVER IMAGE

‘Toolkit’ cache from Kfar HaHoresh, courtesy of N. Goring-Morris

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

ISBN 9781407307305 paperback ISBN 9781407337265 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407307305 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2010. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

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

TABLE OF CONTENS LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................................................vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.........................................................................................................................ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Theoretical background........................................................................................................................1 1.2 The PPNB in the southern Levant........................................................................................................2 1.3 Lithics as a mean for understanding social identity and complexity.................................................... 3 1.4 The bidirectional blade industry: technology, typology and style........................................................4 1.5 Research aims.......................................................................................................................................6 CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Site selection......................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Assemblage sampling............................................................................................................................9 2.3 Ranking the reliability of samples...................................................................................................... 14 2.4 Attribute analysis................................................................................................................................ 16 2.5 Estimation of blade productivity......................................................................................................... 16 2.6 Examining blade productivity formula...............................................................................................18 CHAPTER 3: THE NORTHERN PROVINCE........................................................................................ 20 3.1 History of research.............................................................................................................................. 22 3.2 The settlement pattern......................................................................................................................... 23 3.3 Analyzed assemblages........................................................................................................................ 24 3.4 Raw material choice............................................................................................................................25 3.5 Core management............................................................................................................................... 30 3.6 Blade production.................................................................................................................................31 3.7 Estimation of blade productivity......................................................................................................... 35 3.8 Core maintenance................................................................................................................................ 36 3.9 Tools.................................................................................................................................................... 36 3.10 Projectile points................................................................................................................................ 41 3.11 Tools from other sites in the Northern Province...............................................................................45 3.12 Workshop dumps............................................................................................................................... 46 3.13 Stocks and caches.............................................................................................................................52 3.14 Summary........................................................................................................................................... 55 CHAPTER 4: THE CENTRAL PROVINCE........................................................................................... 57 4.1 History of research.............................................................................................................................. 57 4.2 The settlement pattern......................................................................................................................... 59 4.3 Analyzed assemblages........................................................................................................................ 59 4.4 Raw material choice............................................................................................................................60 4.5 Core management............................................................................................................................... 62 4.6 Blade production.................................................................................................................................63 4.7 Estimation of blade productivity ........................................................................................................ 66 4.8 Tools ................................................................................................................................................... 66

i

4.9 Projectile points ................................................................................................................................. 69 4.10 Tools from Jericho and Ain Ghazal................................................................................................... 75 4.11 Workshop dumps .............................................................................................................................. 77 4.12 Stocks and caches ............................................................................................................................77 4.13 Summary........................................................................................................................................... 82 CHAPTER 5: THE SOUTHWESTERN PROVINCE.............................................................................84 5.1 History of research.............................................................................................................................. 84 5.2 The settlement pattern......................................................................................................................... 86 5.3 Analyzed assemblages........................................................................................................................ 86 5.4 Raw material choice............................................................................................................................87 5.5 Core management............................................................................................................................... 90 5.6 Blade production.................................................................................................................................95 5.7 Estimation of blade productivity......................................................................................................... 97 5.8 Core maintenance................................................................................................................................ 97 5.9 Tools ................................................................................................................................................... 99 5.10 Projectile points.............................................................................................................................. 102 5.11 Summary......................................................................................................................................... 105 CHAPTER 6: THE SOUTHEASTERN PROVINCE............................................................................ 106 6.1 History of research............................................................................................................................ 108 6.2 The settlement pattern....................................................................................................................... 108 6.3 Analyzed assemblages...................................................................................................................... 109 6.4 Raw material choice.......................................................................................................................... 110 6.5 Core management............................................................................................................................. 114 6.6 Blade production............................................................................................................................... 116 6.7 Estimation of blade productivity....................................................................................................... 121 6.8 Core maintenance.............................................................................................................................. 121 6.9 Tools.................................................................................................................................................. 122 6.10 Projectile points ............................................................................................................................. 126 6.11. The bidirectional blade component at other sites in the Southeastern Province............................130 6.12 Workshop dumps............................................................................................................................. 130 6.13 Stocks and caches...........................................................................................................................131 6.14 Summary......................................................................................................................................... 137 CHAPTER 7: THE BIDIRECTIONAL BLADE INDUSTRIES OF THE SOUTHERN LEVANT.................................................................................................................................................141 7.1 A synopsis of the bidirectional blade component in he southern Levantine assemblages................ 141 7.2 Cultural territories within the southern Levant.................................................................................143 CHAPTER 8: CRAFT SPECIALIZATION........................................................................................... 151 8.1 Identification of the specialization types...........................................................................................151 8.2 Bidirectional flint blade networks.....................................................................................................154 CHAPTER 9: SOCIAL COMPLEXITY AND CULTURAL IDENTITIES WITHIN THE SOUTHERN LEVANTINE PPNB.........................................................................................................157 9.1 The Mediterranean and Negban cultures.......................................................................................... 157 9.2 The Transjordanian culture .............................................................................................................. 158 ii

9.3 The Northern and Central (Ghazalian) cultures................................................................................158 9.4 Summary........................................................................................................................................... 158 9.5 Conclusions....................................................................................................................................... 159 APPENDICES........................................................................................................................................ 161 Appendix 1.............................................................................................................................................. 161 Appendix 2.............................................................................................................................................. 162 Appendix 3.............................................................................................................................................. 171 Appendix 4.............................................................................................................................................. 178 List of abbreviations............................................................................................................................... 181 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................... 181

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Schematic illustration of a bidirectional blade core and blade types....................................... 5 Figure 2.1: Distribution of the analyzed southern Levantine PPNB sites and the studied geographical provinces..........................................................................................................................8 Figure 2.2: Schematic illustration for the calculation of blade productivity............................................ 16 Figure 2.3: A refitted core from Locus 1559 at Kfar HaHoresh ..............................................................17 Figure 2.4: Observations required for calculating the volume of a wedge............................................... 17 Figure 2.5: Observations required for calculating the volume of a blade.................................................18 Figure 2.6: An initial blade from Motza................................................................................................... 18 Figure 2.7: Produced blades from the second series of production of the Kfar HaHoresh Locus 1559 refitted core. ........................................................................................................................................ 19 Figure 3.1: Location of the PPNB sites in the sub-regions within theNorthern Province........................21 Figure 3.2: Purple-pink flint......................................................................................................................25 Figure 3.3: Beige HaSollelim flint ...........................................................................................................26 Figure 3.4: Carmel Grey flint.................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 3.5: Bidirectional blade core, initial platform spall and initial blades from the Galilee............... 29 Figure 3.6: Targeted blade types from the Galilee....................................................................................32 Figure 3.7: Frequencies of targeted blade types in KHH Middle, Yiftahel and KHH Late...................... 33 Figure 3.8: Average sizes of targeted blade by sub-types in KHH Middle, Yiftahel and KHH Late ......33 Figure 3.9: Targeted blade symmetries in KHH Middle, Yiftahel and KHH Late assemblages .............34 Figure 3.10: Frequencies of butt preparation on targeted blade blanks in KHH Middle, Yiftahel and KHH Late assemblages................................................................................................................ 34 Figure 3.11: Tools on bidirectional blades from the Galilee .................................................................... 37 Figure 3.12: Burin sub-types on bidirectional blades in the Galilean assemblages..................................39 Figure 3.13: Sickle blade sub-types in the Galilean assemblages............................................................ 39 Figure 3.14: Projectile points on bidirectional blades from the Galilee................................................... 40 Figure 3.15: Projectile point sub-type frequencies and blank types in the Galilean assemblages...........41 Figure 3.16: Projectile point symmetries in the Galilean assemblages.................................................... 43 Figure 3.17: Projectile point tang retouch frequencies in the Galilean assemblages................................43 Figure 3.18: Bifacially pressure flaked tang on a Jericho point from Munhata........................................ 44 Figure 3.19: Abu Gosh retouch on Amuq and Byblos points from Kfar HaHoresh.................................44 Figure 3.20: Projectile point tip retouch frequencies in the Galilean Assemblages.................................44 Figure 3.21: Bidirectional core and lateral crested blades on spotted beige flint from L35 at Atlit Yam.............................................................................................................................................50 iii

Figure 3.22: Stock L5047 at House 503, Area I, Yiftahel......................................................................... 51 Figure 3.23: Cache L1317 at Kfar HaHoresh the Galilean stocks and caches.........................................51 Figure 3.24: Frequencies of butt preparation on targeted blade blanks in the Galilean stocks and caches........................................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 3.25: Refitted aggregates in Kfar HaHoresh cache L1319 ........................................................... 54 Figure 4.1: Location of the PPNB sites in the sub-regions within the Central Province ......................... 58 Figure 4.2: A stock of 58 bidirectional blades made on high-quality lustrous purple-pinkish flint from Motza VI..................................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 4.3: Natural purple-pink flint outcrops at Har Adar, Judean Hills assemblages............................61 Figure 4.4: Frequencies of targeted blade types in the Judean Hills assemblages...................................63 Figure 4.5: Targeted blades from the Judean Hills .................................................................................. 64 Figure 4.6: Targeted blade symmetries in the Judean Hills assemblages................................................. 65 Figure 4.7: Frequencies of butt preparation on targeted blade blanks in the Judean Hills assemblages......................................................................................................................................... 65 Figure 4.8: Motza VI stock. Seven aggregates of refitted targeted blades from a single reduction sequence (scale in cm)......................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 4.9: Tools on bidirectional blades from the Judean Hills .............................................................67 Figure 4.10: Burin sub-types on bidirectional blades in Judean Hills assemblages................................. 68 Figure 4.11: Sickle blade sub-types in the Judean Hills assemblages......................................................70 Figure 4.12: Projectile points on bidirectional blades from the Judean Hills ..........................................71 Figure 4.13: Projectile points sub-type frequencies and blank types in the Judean Hills assemblages......................................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 4.14: Projectile point symmetries in the Judean Hills assemblages..............................................73 Figure 4.15: Projectile point tang retouch frequencies in the Judean Hills assemblages......................... 73 Figure 4.16: Bifacially pressure flaked Jericho points from Motza VI..................................................... 74 Figure 4.17: Projectile point tip retouch frequencies in the Judean Hills assemblages............................ 74 Figure 4.18: Retouched blades from stock Cave XIII/2 and a sickle blade From Motza made on purple flints.......................................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 4.19: Frequencies of butt preparation on targeted blade blanks in the Central Province stocks and caches................................................................................................................................ 78 Figure 4.20: A variety of Nahal Hemar knives from Nahal Hemar..........................................................79 Figure 4.21a:. Motza VI stock. The reduction sequence in aggregate 1................................................... 80 Figure 4.21b: Motza VI stock. The reduction sequence in aggregate 1.................................................... 80 Figure 4.21c: Motza VI stock. The reduction sequence in aggregate 2.................................................... 80 Figure 4.21d: Motza VI stock. The reduction sequence in aggregate 3.................................................... 81 Figure 4.21e: Motza VI stock. The reduction sequence in aggregate 4.................................................... 81 Figure 4.21f: Motza VI stock. The reduction sequence in aggregate 5.................................................... 81 Figure 4.21g: Motza VI stock. The reduction sequence in aggregate 6.................................................... 81 Figure 4.21h: Motza VI stock. The reduction sequence in aggregate 7.................................................... 81 Figure 4.22: Motza VI. A predetermined brown flint blade from the stock and a Helwan point made from the same flint type............................................................................................................. 82 Figure 5.1: Location of the PPNB sites in the Southwestern Province ................................................... 85 Figure 5.2: Flint outcrops at Har Qeren ................................................................................................... 88 Figure 5.3: Grey-pinkish flint at Nahal Lavan 1021.................................................................................88 Figure 5.4: Natural configuration of flint blocks as attested by cores in the Negev assemblages............89 Figure 5.5: Bidirectional blade core, initial platform spall and initial blade from Nahal Lavan 1021....92 Figure 5.6: Refitted bidirectional blade core with a dominant striking platform from Nahal Lavan 1021 ......................................................................................................................................... 93 iv

Figure 5.7: Targeted blades and maintenance debitage from the Negev.................................................. 94 Figure 5.8: Frequencies of targeted blade types in the Negev assemblages............................................. 95 Figure 5.9: Average sizes of targeted blade by sub-types in the Negev assemblages (in mm)................. 96 Figure 5.10: Targeted blade symmetries in the Negev assemblages ........................................................ 96 Figure 5.11: Frequencies of butt preparation on targeted blade blanks in the Negev assemblages.........97 Figure 5.12: Refitted W-fronted core on nodule from Nahal Lavan 1021................................................ 98 Figure 5.13: Refitted N-fronted cores on a flake from Nahal Lavan 1021............................................... 98 Figure 5.14: Secondary platform spall frequencies in Nahal Lavan 1021 and Nahal Nizzana IX assemblages......................................................................................................................................... 99 Figure 5.15: Tools on bidirectional blades from the Negev ...................................................................100 Figure 5.16: Retouched blade sub-types in the Negev assemblages......................................................101 Figure 5.17: Projectile points sub-type frequencies and blank types in the Negev assemblages...........102 Figure 5.18: Projectile point symmetries in the Negev assemblages...................................................... 103 Figure 5.19: Projectile point tang retouch frequencies the Negev Assemblages ...................................104 Figure 5.20: Projectile point tip retouch frequencies in the Negev assemblages .................................. 104 Figure 6.1: Location of the PPNB sites in the sub-regions within the Southeastern Province............... 107 Figure 6.2: A ‘mega blade’ on Flint Raw Material Group 1 (Late Beidha)............................................ 111 Figure 6.3: An exhausted core made on grey-pink flint of the Amman Silicified Formation (Ayn Abu Nukheyla) ........................................................................................................................ 111 Figure 6.4: Chalcedony micro-borers (Shaqarat Msaied)....................................................................... 111 Figure 6.5: An orthoquartzite projectile point (Early Beidha)................................................................ 111 Figure 6.6: Natural configuration of flint blocks attested by cores in the Southeastern Province assemblages....................................................................................................................................... 112 Figure 6.7: Bidirectional blade core, initial platform spall and initial blade from Edom ..................... 113 Figure 6.8: Targeted blades and maintenance debitage from Southeastern Province............................ 117 Figure 6.9: Frequencies of targeted blade types in the Southeastern Province assemblages................. 118 Figure 6.10: Average sizes of targeted blade by sub-types in the Southeastern Province assemblages (in mm)......................................................................................................................... 119 Figure 6.11: Targeted blade symmetries in the Southeastern Province assemblages............................. 119 Figure 6.12: Frequencies of butt preparation on targeted blade blanks in the Southeastern Province assemblages........................................................................................................................ 120 Figure 6.13: Hinge removal blade frequencies in Shaqarat Msaied, Early Beidha and Late Beidha assemblages.................................................................................................................. 122 Figure 6.14: Secondary ridge blade frequencies in the Southeastern Province assemblages................122 Figure 6.15: Secondary platform spall frequencies in Ayn Abu Nukheyla and Nahal Issaron assemblages....................................................................................................................................... 122 Figure 6.16: Tools on bidirectional blades from the Southeastern Province ........................................ 123 Figure 6.17: Retouched blade sub-types in the Southeastern Province assemblages............................. 124 Figure 6.18: Perforator sub-types in the Southeastern Province assemblages ....................................... 125 Figure 6.19: Perforator blank types in the Southeastern Province assemblages.....................................126 Figure 6.20: Denticulated blade sub-types in Ayn Abu Nukheyla and Nahal Issaron assemblages.......126 Figure 6.21: Projectile points sub-type frequencies and blank types in the Southeastern Province assemblages....................................................................................................................................... 127 Figure 6.22: Projectile point symmetries in the Southeastern Province assemblages............................ 127 Figure 6.23: Projectile point tang retouch frequencies in the Southeastern Province assemblages......129 Figure 6.24: Projectile point tip retouch frequencies in the Southeastern Province assemblages.........129 Figure 6.25: Knapping waste products from Basta Locus 5 .................................................................. 131 Figure 6.26: The Nahal Issaron Locus 40 stock.....................................................................................133 v

Figure 6.27: The Ayn Abu Nukheyla Locus 22 stock............................................................................. 134 Figure 6.28: Frequencies of butt preparation on targeted blade blanks in the Southeastern Province stocks and caches.............................................................................................................................. 134 Figure 6.29: Beidha L418, refitted aggregate of projectile points..........................................................135 Figure 6.30: Refitted aggregates of target blades, Beidha L418 ............................................................ 136 Figure 6.31: Beidha L418. The reduction sequence in aggregate 1........................................................ 137 Figure 6.32: Beidha L418. The reduction sequence in aggregate 2........................................................ 137 Figure 6.33: Refitted aggregates in Nahal Issaron Locus 40 .................................................................138 Figure 7.1: Schematic illustration of the bidirectional blade technological variants in the southern Levant................................................................................................................................................ 143 Figure 7.2: Suggested bidirectional blade lithic scale units for the EPPNB and E/MPPNB..................145 Figure 7.3: Suggested bidirectional blade lithic scale units for the MPPNB.......................................... 147 Figure 7.4: Suggested bidirectional blade lithic scale units for the LPPNB...........................................148 Figure 7.5: Suggested bidirectional blade lithic scale units for the FPPNB........................................... 150 Figure 8.1: Proposed flow chart for flint circulation by individual Specialists in the Negev.................152 Figure 8.2: Proposed inter-site lithic organization by community specialists........................................ 153 Figure 8.3: Suggested networks for bidirectional blade products in the southern Levant......................155

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: Terminology and 14C dating employed in this research............................................................ 1 Table 2.1: Geographical location, chronology and type of the sites examined in this research............... 10 Table 2.2: Genuine sizes and composition of assemblages from which bidirectional blade samples were obtained...................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 2.3: Composition of studied blade and tool stocks and caches ...................................................... 12 Table 2.4: Composition of studied workshop dumps................................................................................ 13 Table 2.5: Number of diagnostic debitage types, tools and cores produced in one bidirectional reduction sequence..............................................................................................................................14 Table 2.6: Sample size ranking for the analyzed assemblages based on diagnostic bidirectional blade components................................................................................................................................15 Table 2.7: The metric attributes and estimated productivity of targeted blade blanks from experimental bidirectional cores......................................................................................................... 19 Table 3.1: Analyzed samples of bidirectional blade component within the Galilee general assemblages ........................................................................................................................................ 24 Table 3.2: Frequencies of flint types according to texture in the Galilean assemblages (%)...................27 Table 3.3: Flint color varieties in the Galilean assemblages.....................................................................27 Table 3.4: Bidirectional core type frequencies in the Galilean assemblages............................................28 Table 3.5: Average core sizes (in mm) and platform angles in the Galilean assemblages........................ 28 Table 3.6: Initial platform spall attributes at KHH Middle, Yiftahel and KHH Late (in mm)................. 30 Table 3.7: Initial blade attributes at KHH Middle and Yiftahel (in mm).................................................. 31 Table 3.8: Average sizes of targeted blades at KHH Middle, Yiftahel and KHH Late (in mm)............... 33 Table 3.9: Average sizes of upsilon blades and predetermined blades (in mm), and degree of exploitation of the removal surface at Kfar HaHoresh and Yiftahel .................................................. 35 Table 3.10: Estimated targeted blade productivity at Yiftahel and Kfar HaHoresh..................................35 Table 3.11: The tool component on bidirectional blades within the Galilean assemblages (%)..............36 Table 3.12: Burin blank selection in the Galilean assemblages................................................................38 Table 3.13: Average sizes of burins in the Galilean assemblages (in mm)...............................................38 Table 3.14: Sickle blade blank selection in the Galilean assemblages..................................................... 39 vi

Table 3.15: Average sizes of sickle blades in the Galilean assemblages (in mm)................................... 39 Table 3.16: Sizes of projectile point types in the Galilean assemblages (in mm)....................................42 Table 3.17: General breakdown of artifact categories in workshop dumps at Kfar HaHoresh, Atlit Yam and Yiftahel.........................................................................................................................47 Table 3.18. Analyzed bidirectional blade components within the Galilean stocks and caches................ 52 Table 3.19. Average sizes of unretouched blades within the Galilean stocks and caches (in mm)..........53 Table 3.20: Bidirectional blade characteristics within the Northern Province in the Early-Middle and Middle-Late PPNB....................................................................................................................... 55 Table 4.1: Analyzed samples of bidirectional blade component within the Judean Hills general assemblages......................................................................................................................................... 60 Table 4.2: Frequencies of the flint types according to texture in Judean Hills assemblages (%)............. 62 Table 4.3: Flint color varieties in Judean Hills assemblages.................................................................... 62 Table 4.4: Average sizes of targeted blades in the Judean Hills assemblages (in mm)............................. 63 Table 4.5: The tool component on bidirectional blades within the Judean Hills assemblages (%)..........68 Table 4.6: Burin blank selection in the Judean assemblages.................................................................... 68 Table 4.7: Average sizes of burins in the Judean Hills assemblages (in mm).......................................... 69 Table 4.8: Sickle blade blank selection in the Judean Hills assemblages.................................................69 Table 4.9: Average sizes of sickle blades in the Judean Hills assemblages (in mm)...............................69 Table 4.10: Sizes of projectile point types in the Judean Hills assemblages (in mm)............................. 70 Table 4.11: Analyzed bidirectional blade component within the Central Province stocks and caches....76 Table 4.12: Average sizes of unretouched blades within the Central Province stocks and caches (in mm)................................................................................................................................................ 78 Table 5.1: Analyzed samples of bidirectional blade component within the Negev general assemblages......................................................................................................................................... 87 Table 5.2: Frequencies of the flint types according to texture in the Negev assemblages (%) ................ 89 Table 5.3: Flint color varieties in the Negev assemblages........................................................................ 90 Table 5.4: Bidirectional core type frequencies in the Negev assemblages............................................... 90 Table 5.5: Average core sizes (in mm) and platform angles in the Negev assemblages........................... 91 Table 5.6: Initial platform spall attributes at Nahal Nizzana IX, Nahal Lavan 1021 and Ramat Matred (in mm)................................................................................................................................................ 93 Table 5.7: Initial blade attributes at Nahal Lavan 1021 (in mm).............................................................. 93 Table 5.8: Average sizes of targeted blades in the Negev assemblages (in mm)...................................... 95 Table 5.9: The tool component on bidirectional blades within the Negev assemblages (%)...................99 Table 5.10: Retouched blade blanks in the Negev assemblages.............................................................101 Table 5.11: Average sizes of retouched blades in the Negev assemblages (in mm)............................... 101 Table 5.12: Sizes of projectile point types in the Negev assemblages (in mm)......................................103 Table 6.1: Analyzed samples of bidirectional blade component within the Southestern Province general assemblages .........................................................................................................................109 Table 6.2: Frequencies of flint types according to texture in the Southestern Province assemblages (%)................................................................................................................................ 112 Table 6.3: Flint color varieties in the Southestern Province assemblages.............................................. 112 Table 6.4: Bidirectional core type frequencies in the Southestern Province assemblages..................... 114 Table 6.5: Average core sizes (in mm) and platform angles in the Southestern Province assemblages....................................................................................................................................... 114 Table 6.6: Initial platform spall attributes at Shaqarat Msaied, Early Beidha and Late Beidha (in mm).............................................................................................................................................. 115 Table 6.7: Initial blade attributes at Shaqarat Msaied, Early Beidha and Late Beidha (in mm)............ 116 Table 6.8: Average sizes of targeted blades in the Southestern Province assemblages (in mm)............ 118 vii

Table 6.9: Average sizes of upsilon blades and predetermined blades (in mm), and degree of exploitation of the removal surface at Late Beidha, Ayn Abu Nukheyla and Nahal Issaron............120 Table 6.10: Estimated targeted blade productivity at Shaqarat Msaied, Early Beidha and Late Beidha.......................................................................................................................................121 Table 6.11: The tool component on bidirectional blades within the Southestern Province assemblages (%)................................................................................................................................ 122 Table 6.12: Retouched blades, perforators and denticulated blade blanks in the Southestern Province assemblages........................................................................................................................ 124 Table 6.13: Average sizes of retouched blades in the Southestern Province assemblages (in mm)....... 125 Table 6.14: Sizes of projectile point types in the Southestern Province assemblages (in mm).............. 128 Table 6.15: Analyzed bidirectional blade components within the Southestern Province stocks and caches................................................................................................................................................ 132 Table 6.16: Average sizes of unretouched blades within the Southestern Province stocks and caches (in mm).............................................................................................................................................. 133 Table 6.17: Tool composition on bidirectional blades component within the Southestern Province stocks and caches.............................................................................................................................. 135 Table 6.18: Bidirectional blade characteristics within the Southestern Province in Middle and Late PPNB.........................................................................................................................................139 Table 7.1: Major characteristics of the bidirectional blade industries of the southern Levant according to province........................................................................................................................142 Table 9.1: Major characteristics of the southern Levantine PPNB cultures according to sub-periods... 157

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book presents the results of my Ph.D. dissertation guided by Prof. Nigel Goring-Morris at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The research was completed thanks to the assistance of many people. Firstly, I would like pay my deepest gratitude to my advisor Prof. Nigel Goring-Morris who introduced me to the ‘Neolithic world’. I believe that this research could never have been accomplished but for the Kfar Hahoresh excavation project. Thank you for teaching and instructing me, and for all you have done along the way to make this work reach its destination. Other members of my Ph.D. dissertation committee Anna Belfer-Cohen, Isaac Gilead, Avi Gopher and Erella Hovers. I thank you for your guidance and a constructive advising. Professionally, I owe special thanks to six lithic experts whose pioneering research and fruitful input and discussions have inspired the methodology conducted in this work: Fredric Abbès, Angela Davidzon, Avi Gopher, Bo Madsen, Leslie Quintero and Phil Wilke. The study of the numerous assemblages in this work was conducted in several institutions in Israel and abroad. The Ruth Amiran Fund for Archaeological research in EretzIsrael of the Hebrew University financed the study of the Mishmar Haemeq lithic. The Irene Levi-Sala CARE Foundation sponsored the excavation and refitting studies at Nahal Lavan 1021. The examination of lithic assemblages abroad was supported by a DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) scholarship to Germany, the Nahmias Foundation at the Hebrew University to France, and the Graduate Student Travel Support Fund of the Hebrew University to the USA. I thank the following researchers for providing access to lithic assemblages kept abroad: - Frederic Abbès, Marie-Claire Cauvin and Danielle Stordeur from the CNRS, France for accessing the Mureybet collections. I thank you all for the warm hospitality as well as for fruitful discussions during my visits to Jalès in 2003 and 2007. - Hans Georg Gebel from the Free University of Berlin, Germany for permitting a non-quantified study of two workshop dumps from Basta during my visit to Berlin in 2004. - Donald Henry from Tulsa University, USA for providing free access to the Ayn Abu Nukhayla lithic assemblage during my visit to Tulsa in 2005. - Charlott Hoffmann Jensen from the Carsten Niebuhr Institute, Denmark for making the Beidha and Shaqarat Msaied assemblages available during my visit to Copenhagen in 2004. - Leslie Quintero and Phil Wilke from the University of California Riverside, USA for their warm hospitality and for providing access to experimental collections, a blade cache from Ain Ghazal and a professional field trip during my visit to Riverside in 2005.The research conducted in Israel included the study of both unpublished and published materials. I thank the following researchers for providing access to assemblages recovered from their excavations: - Ofer Bar-Yosef for the Nahal Hemar flint assemblage. - Ehud Galili for the Atlit Yam workshop dump assemblage. - Yosef Garfinkel for the Yiftahel (Area C) flint assemblage. - Avi Gopher for the Hurvat Galil flint assemblage. - Nigel Goring-Morris for the Kfar HaHoresh (supported by Israel Science Foundation grants 840/01 and 558/04 to Nigel Goring-Morris), Nahal Nizzana IX, Ramat Matred and Nahal Shacharut flint assemblages. - Nigel Goring-Morris and Avi Gopher for the Abu Salem and Nahal Issaron flint assemblages. - Hamoudi Khalaily for the Motza flint assemblages. - Hamoudi Khalaily and Ofer Marder for the Abu Gosh flint assemblage. - Hamoudi Khalaily, Nimrod Getzov and Ianir Milevski for the Yiftahel (Area I) flint assemblages. - Ofer Marder, Hamoudi Khalaily and Ianir Milevski for Yiftahel (Area E) flint assemblage. - Ofer Marder for the Judean desert Cave XIII/2 flint assemblage. - Avraham Ronen for the Nahal Re’uel flint assemblage. I also wish to express my thanks to:- Natalia Gubenko, prehistory curator at the Israel Antiquities Authority for help in accessing the Munhata (Perrot’s excavation), Beisamoun (Lechavellier’s excavation), Abu Gosh (Perrot’s excavation) and Nahal Divshon (Marks’ excavation) flint assemblages. - Yoav Zionut, curator of the Archaeological Staff Officer of the Judea and Samaria Civil Administration for access to the lithic assemblage from Hurvat Rabud. I would like to thank my other teachers in the Institute of Archeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: Anna Belfer-Cohen, Yosef Garfinkel, Erella Hovers, and Naama Goren-Inbar. Thank you for all you have taught me, whether in the class or in the field, about prehistoric archaeology. I deeply thank you, my friends and colleagues Nuha Agha, Anna Eirikh-Rose, Nimrod Getzov, Hamoudi Khalaily, Ofer Marder and Ianir Milevski at the Israel Antiquities Authority, for the supportive environment. Our joint Neolithic projects certainly have contributed to this manuscript. I also thank my friends and classmates from the prehistory lab at the Institute of Archaeology for support and encouragement: Nira Alperson-Afil, Hila Ashkenazy, Michal Birkenfeld, Rebecca Biton, Doron Dag, Angela Davidzon, Ravid Ekshtain, Mae Goder, Ariel Malinski-Buller, Zinovi Matskevich, Leore Grosman, Maya Oron Gonen Sharon and Ariel Vered. I merit the following people for improving the final manuscript: Michal Birkenfeld, Doron Dag, Hamoudi Khalaily, Ofer Marder and Ianir Milevski for editorial comments on some parts of the paper draft; Nigel Goring-Morris and Sam Wolff for editing of the grammar for the entire text. Lastly, I thank my family, and in particular my mother Naomi, my wife Yael and my son Roy, for your endless support and tolerance that made all of this possible. ix

x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The Neolithic period in the Near East corresponds to major transformations that included, among others, the domestication of animal and plants, demographic growth, the emergence of social institutions and the manifestation of new technologies (Mellaart 1975; Banning 1998; Cauvin 2000; Kuijt 2000a; Bar-Yosef 2001a; Kuijt and GoringMorris 2002; Simmons 2007). This process received much attention in the history of research, going back to V. Gordon Childe (1928) who termed it ‘the Neolithic Revolution’. The peak of the Neolithic Revolution in the Levant occurred during the early Holocene Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period, also referred in the literature as the ‘PPNB Interaction Sphere’, ‘PPNB Koine’, or ‘PPNB Civilization’ (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989; Cauvin 1994:126; Aurenche and Kozlowski 1999:123; Bar-Yosef 2001b). At its apex, it extended over a vast area, from central Anatolia in the north to Sinai in the south, the Jezireh in the east and as far as Cyprus in the west.

scholars (e.g. Bar-Yosef and Meadow 1995:73; GoringMorris and Belfer-Cohen 1997) while others accepted part of the divisions, but suggested that other sub-stages (e.g. EPPNB) were not present in the southern Levant (Kuijt 1997), or alternatively redefined them into a new phase (e.g. PPNC) (Rollefson 1990; Simmons 2007:123). Recently, in his quest for new explanatory frameworks for the Near Eastern Neolithic, Watkins (2008:141-147) summarized the connotations and meanings of the term PPNB. In this study we follow Kenyon’s division in the chronological sense, in which ‘phase’ equates with ‘period’. Furthermore, we will use herein the modified subdivision scheme for the southern Levant PPNB (e.g. Bar-Yosef 2001b: Fig. 1) and the absolute dating proposed by Kuijt and Goring-Morris (2002) (Table 1.1). Period

The Neolithic period in the Levant has received many cultural designations which were influenced by chronological and cultural frameworks (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1981:556-559; Gopher 1994:15-21; Banning 1998:190; Watkins 2008:141-147). The initial taxon, the “Tahunian”, was used for describing the stone tool industry from Wadi Khareitoun (Buzy 1928). The Tahunian was further divided into stages I and II, which supposedly represented two consecutive stages within the Neolithic Period (Perrot 1951), and was also used to describe a regional culture (Crowfoot-Payne 1976); however since these were based on mixed collections the taxon became irrelevant (Gopher 1994:5, 7).

Pre-Pottery Neolithic B

Sub-stages

Calibrated 14C years B.P.

Early (EPPNB)

10,500-10,100

Middle (MPPNB) 10,100-9,250 Late (LPPNB) Final* (FPPNB)

9,250-8,700 8,600-8,250

Table 1.1: Terminology and 14C dating employed in this research (modified after Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002: Table I).

*The FPPNB is equivalent to the PPNC (Rollefson 1990).

1.1 Theoretical background The Neolithic Revolution (Childe 1936) has received a great deal of attention in theoretical research, which mainly sought explanations for the transition from hunter-gatherer societies to food-producing communities (e.g. Bender 1975:17-36; Redman 1978:93-107; Henry 1989:11-25; Simmons 2007:10-29). On the whole, the theories can be broadly divided into environmental (Childe 1936; Braidwood 1960), demographic (Binford 1968; Flannery 1973), ‘multifactor’ (Redman 1978), and ideologically triggered models (Hodder 1990; Cauvin 2000).

The most widely adopted classification for the Neolithic Period was the classic division by Kenyon (1957) based on the stratigraphy of Jericho. This included: (1) PrePottery Neolithic A (PPNA), (2) Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB), (3) Pottery Neolithic A (PNA) and (4) Pottery Neolithic B (PNB). Despite being used for chronological purposes, Kenyon used Jericho’s phases for describing successive cultures (Kenyon 1979; Watkins 2008:143). In the following years other chronologically based classifications were also proposed by Moore (1982) and by the “School of Lyon” (Aurenche et al. 1981). These proposed a ‘periodization’ scheme for the Levantine Neolithic in which cultural entities or type-site terms were to be presented separately (Aurenche et al. 1981: 572; Moore 1982: Table 2).

Over the last few decades several paradigms and models were specifically proposed (or could be inferred) regarding the PPNB period in the Levant: (1) the initiation and expansion of the Neolithic Revolution, termed ‘Neolithization’ (Cauvin 2000); (2) the collapse of the PPNB - the ‘Neolithic Devolution’ (Rollefson and KöhlerRollefson 1989; Rollefson 1996); (3) the Neolithic tribes or ‘Regionalism’ model (in Bar-Yosef and Bar-Yosef Mayer 2002); and (4) the issue of ‘Craft Specialization’ (Quintero and Wilke 1995).

Over the years the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B was further divided into sub-stages for the northern Levant region: Early, Middle, Late and Final (e.g. Cauvin 1987). This scheme was adopted for the southern Levant by some

1

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies on farming and herding and smaller satellite settlements (Bienert et al. 2004; Gebel 2004a; Simmons 2007:175197). This whole phenomenon was interpreted by some scholars as evidence for ‘proto-urbanism’ (Rollefson 2004; contra Gebel et al. 2004a; Nissen 2004). In other regions such as the Mediterranean Woodlands west of the Rift Valley settlement patterns appear to have been of smaller autonomous villages (1-4 hectares) that relied on hunting, farming and also fishing along the Mediterranean coast (Bar-Yosef and Meadow 1995; Horwitz et al. 1999; Galili et al. 2002; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002). These apparently had small regional centers (e.g. Kfar HaHoresh) where social interactions were made (Goring-Morris 2005; Goring-Morris and Horwitz 2007). A simpler pattern was recorded within the desert zone. This included seasonal movements of hunter-gatherer bands between small base camps (ca. 250 sqm) and ephemeral sites, for example in the Negev and Sinai (Simmons 1981; Bar-Yosef 1985; Goring-Morris 1993a).

The Neolithization paradigm, which is a component of Cauvin’s (2000) “Symbolic Revolution” model, assumes that the PPNB was initiated in the northern Levant in the Middle Euphrates Valley by ca. 10,500 cal B.P. From there it spread throughout the Near East by means of migrations and cultural diffusions, as reflected in the material culture. The provinces of Anatolia and Cyprus were subjected to population migrations, while the expansion to the southern Levant was mainly accomplished by cultural diffusion which supposedly introduced, for example, domesticated animal and plants, as well as bidirectional blade lithic technology the subject of this book. The ‘Neolithic Devolution’ is assumed to have occurred due to ecological degradation around large villages in Jordan (e.g. ‘Ain Ghazal), thus forcing its populations to shift to a more nomadic way of life. Apparently this process was accompanied by alterations in the lithic technologies, which was the basis for defining the Pre-Pottery Neolithic C (Rollefson 1990).

For the most part, the economic transition to agriculture was accompanied by alterations in architectural traditions. This included a shift from single/clusters of circular domestic dwellings to rectangular structures forming planned villages (Byrd 1994; Flannery 2002; GoringMorris and Belfer-Cohen 2008). Domestic architecture in the PPNB also displays regional characteristics (Banning 1998; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2008). ‘Megaron’ houses built of mudbrick walls and plastered floors are characteristic of the Mediterranean area; twostoried, ‘corridor’ and ‘courtyard’ houses built of dressed stones feature in southern Jordan, while circular ‘beehive’ compounds are common in the Negev, Hisma and Sinai.

The “Regionalism” paradigm proposes to divide the Levant into six main cultural units by the end of the PPNB on the basis of the material culture remains (Bar-Yosef and Bar-Yosef-Mayer 2002). The classification of these ‘Early Neolithic tribes’ relies mainly on geography and subsistence (i.e. farming, herding and hunting), partially supplemented by architecture, ritual paraphernalia and flint tools (Ibid., Fig. 8). The southern Levant is assumed to incorporate three entities: farmer-herders in the Mediterranean core area, herder-hunters in the eastern deserts, and mobileforagers in the Negev, Sinai and southern Jordan. The last hypothesis proposes that bidirectional blade production at ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan was made by craft specialists (Quintero and Wilke 1995; Quintero 1998). This accords with the notion that craft specialization reflects increasingly complex social structure (e.g. Brumfiel and Earle 1987; Costin 1991; Clark 1995), since PPNB ‘Ain Ghazal was clearly one of the largest and most culturally complex sites in the Levant (Rollefson 2001; Rollefson et al. 1992). Specialization at ‘Ain Ghazal was explained by the technological and economic requirements of large Neolithic settlements (Quintero and Wilke 1995:26-28), which were conceived by some researchers to reflect towns (Quintero et al. 2004; Rollefson 2004).

Public architecture consisted of communal buildings, storage silos, and agricultural features such as long terrace walls (fences?) wells and water reservoirs (e.g. Galili 2004; Fujii 2007). Public buildings displayed variable forms and were mostly associated with ritual activities (Rollefson 2000). These appear to have been constructed in designated areas within villages in the Mediterranean zone and southern Transjordan regions (Banning 1998; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2008). Ritual activities in the southern Levant are expressed by burial practices, plastered skulls and other finds. Like public architecture, burials were mainly recorded in the Mediterranean area and southern Transjordanian regions. These embrace a wide spectrum of practices (primary and secondary burials, simple and multiple burials) accompanied by grave goods in what appear to be on- and off-site cemeteries (e.g. Goring-Morris 2000; Kuijt 2000b; Galili et al 2005). Burial customs were suggested to reflect social inequality (Goring-Morris 2005) as attested, for example, in infant burials that sometimes received special treatment (GoringMorris 2000; Simmons 2007:171-172). Social complexity is also attested by the post-mortem skull removal for some parts of the population (Goring-Morris 2000; Kuijt 2000b). Some of these skulls were further modified into plastered skulls, which are one of the hallmarks of southern Levantine PPNB (e.g. Bonogofsky 2006 and

1.2 The PPNB in the southern Levant The transition from mobile foragers to complex settled village communities in the southern Levantine PPNB occurred in the Mediterranean zone (Bar-Yosef and Meadow 1995; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002). This was accompanied by alterations in settlement types and patterns, subsistence economies, architecture, burial customs, ritual, and technologies amongst others. Settlement patterns during the PPNB in the southern Levant were multifaceted and appear to correlate with broad geographical regions. For example, inter-site hierarchy was possibly the pattern in Transjordan. This included large central villages (ca. 10 hectares) that relied 2

Introduction here is that lithic studies can be used for defining cultural units, as proposed, for example, for the Epipalaeolithic period in the southern Levant (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1970; Goring-Morris 1987; Henry 1989); and that they may also assist in elucidating aspects of social structure and craft specialization, issues that elsewhere have been investigated using such an approach in complex societies (e.g. Torrence 1986; Gero 1989; Clark 1997; Olausson 1997).

references therein; Stordeur and Khawam 2007; Milevski et al. 2009). Other finds that appear to have been related to ritual activities include anthropomorphic statues, masks and figurines (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002). Lime-plastered statues and stone masks are restricted to the southern Levant. Some of these appear to have been cached after use, likely representing favissae (Garfinkel 1994a). Another class that might be related to ritual is animal clay figurines, some of which were ‘stabbed’ by flint, thus possibly reflecting ritual activity (Rollefson 1986; 2008).

The significance of lithic studies has always been crucial in Palaeolithic research due to the relative scarcity of other finds. For instance, the techno-typological aspects of lithics have been used for ordering Epipalaeolithic sites in southern Transjordan into three classificatory scales modified by Henry (after Clarke 1968): ‘complex’, ‘industry’ and ‘phase/facie’ (Henry 1995:34-35; 337-342). Regarding the Neolithic, it appears that lithic studies play a lesser role, even though there are ongoing efforts for improving the status of PPN lithic research in the Near East (e.g. Gebel and Kozlowski 1994). Neolithic lithic research was summarized by Bar-Yosef (1994:5) during the first workshop on PPN chipped lithic industries “… the study of Near Eastern Neolithic lithic assemblages has not been, nor is it presently, divorced from the more general field of lithic analysis.” Or, in other words, Neolithic chipped stone studies should and can be as comprehensive as they are in Palaeolithic research. However, it appears that Neolithic lithic studies do differ from the Palaeolithic periods in respect to their role in determining cultural units, since no such divisions have been proposed for the PPNB based on lithics alone1 despite the intensive research that was conducted during the last two decades (Gopher 1994; Quintero 1998; Nishiaki 2000; Abbès 2003; Barkai 2005; Borrel 2006). This probably has to do with both the research objectives, as well as with the fact that lithics represent but one of many components comprising PPNB material culture remains.

The PPNB in the southern Levant also witnessed technological innovations such as lime-plaster and flint blade production. Lime-plaster production appears to have been a communal industry involving significant energy investment (Garfinkel 1987b; Goren and Goring-Morris 2008). The plaster was mainly used for architectural constructions, but also for burials and fashioning ritual objects such as plastered skulls and human statues (Kingery et al. 1988; Goring-Morris 2000). The lithic industries display a shift from late Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic bladelet technologies to new bifacial tools and blades technologies in the Neolithic (GoringMorris 1987; Henry 1989; Quintero and Wilke 1995; Gopher 1999; Barkai 2005). Accordingly this was accompanied by replacing the old Palaeolithic huntingrelated toolkit with new tools such as projectile points, sickle blades, adzes and axes (Gopher 1994; 1999; Barkai 2005), which are associated with agriculture, sedentism, big game hunting and possibly warfare (Cauvin 2000:126). 1.3 Lithics as a means for understanding social identity and complexity Lithic studies are commonly used in prehistoric archaeology as a means for understanding various aspects such as subsistence economy, identification of social groups, craft specialization and trade and exchange systems (e.g. Henry and Odell 1989; Torrence 1989; Odell 1996; Bar-Yosef 2001c). The present research attempts to explore aspects of cultural history and social complexity during the PPNB in the southern Levant by using comparative studies of chipped stone artifacts. More specifically, the focus is made on bidirectional blade technology, which was the formal method for producing blades during the PPNB (Banning 1998:201-202; Cauvin 2000:102; Kozlowski 1999:97-115; Kuijt and GoringMorris 2002). This method, often termed ‘naviform core technology’ (Cauvin 1968; Quintero 1998; Nishiaki 2000; Abbès 2003), was chosen for investigation for two major reasons: (1) the technique is evident in almost all PPNB sites throughout the Levant; and (2) it appears to have been used for making chronologically and regionally ‘sensitive’ formal tools such as projectile points and sickle blades (e.g. Burian and Friedman 1979; Bar-Yosef 1981; Cauvin M.-C. 1994; Gopher 1994), thus allowing regional and chronological comparisons to be drawn.

Unlike the PPNB, divisions for cultural units have been proposed for the PPNA; namely the “Mureybetian” and the “Sultanian”, which are geographically distinct ‘cultural groups’ (Cauvin 2000:34-50 and references therein).2 These divisions were based on components of the material culture including architecture, grooved stones, burial practices, small finds, as well as by the lithic industries. The accumulating data on the PPNB suggest that sociocultural units also likely existed during this period. Still, the only current attempt to divide it into cultural groups was made mainly on the basis of subsistence economies (Bar-Yosef 2001a). Another aspect that is usually not dealt with in Palaeolithic lithic studies concerns social structure, perhaps because hunter-gatherer social structure was intensively explored in social anthropology and ethno-archaeological studies   Except for a recent proposal for the early PPNB in northern Syria (Arimura 2007a: Fig. 6.12). 2  A third group, the “Aswadian” (de Contenson 1989), was recently dismissed after renewed excavations in Tell Aswad (Cauvin 2006). 1

The working hypothesis underlying the research presented 3

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies The other two were termed: ‘bipolar cores’, which were not subjected to preparations; and ‘postero-lateral cores’ , which were angularly prepared (Abbès 2003: Pl. 8).

(e.g. Lee and Devore 1968; Sahlins 1972), or simply because research questions focused on other issues such as functional vs. cultural; i.e., the ‘Binford-Bordes’ debate (Bar Yosef 1994:5-6 and references therein).

All three preformation types reflect a general system for producing blades which he termed ‘systèmes bipolaires’. This encompasses two concepts of production; bipolar and predetermined (Abbès 2007: Fig. 4). The bipolar concept is a simple method in which small blades were randomly produced from both sides of an opposed platform core. The predetermined concept is more sophisticated, focusing on producing long symmetrically pointed blades. The term ‘bipolar’ in Abbès’ vocabulary has triple meanings, describing the general system (bipolar system), unprepared cores (bipolar cores) and the concept of production (bipolar concept).

The study of social structure, and in particular craft specialization, trade and exchange through lithic studies has been applied more commonly to complex societies, for instance the Maya in Mesoamerica or the Bronze Age in the Aegean Sea (Torrence 1986; Clark 1997). Recently such aspects (i.e. craft specialization) were examined for the PPNB period by the study of flint blade technology at the site of ‘Ain Ghazal in Jordan (Wilke and Quintero 1994; Quintero and Wilke 1995; Quintero 1998). Inspired by these approaches, the current research will examine the proposed schemes of cultural groups and social structure through the study of the PPNB bidirectional blade industries in the southern Levant.

In order to avoid confusion we have modified the scheme in the research presented here as follows. The term ‘bidirectional’ is employed instead of ‘bipolar system’ in order to describe the general system, while the terms ‘naviform’, ‘postero-lateral’ and ‘bipolar’ are used for describing core types. The concepts of predetermination and bipolar are not used, but instead their occurrences are reflected by the types of the blades produced (see Chapter 2).

1.4 The bidirectional blade industry: technology, typology and style The PPNB period is well acknowledged for its wide range of raw materials for making portable objects including plaster, clay, shells, bones, minerals such as greenstone, sandstone, obsidian and flint (Bar-Yosef 2001a; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002). Flint, which is the most common raw material for chipped-stone tool production in the southern Levant, was manipulated during the PPNB using at least four distinct technologies. These were each aimed at producing specific morphometric configurations— flakes for ad hoc tools, bifacial tools, bladelets for microborers and small arrowheads and bidirectional blades for standardized formal blade tools (e.g. Goring-Morris 1994; Rollefson 2002; Barkai 2005; Simmons and Najjar 2006). The latter, which is the concern of this research, was innovated by the end of the PPNA in the Middle Euphrates region in northern Levant (Stordeur and Abbès 2002; Abbès 2007). Variations on this technology were subsequently widely adopted in the following PPNB period throughout the Levant (Cauvin 2000). This distinctive technique was commonly used throughout the period to produce standardized formal tool classes such as projectile points, sickle blades, burins and borers, which were often made on high quality raw materials.

Technology Until recently, most lithic investigations on bidirectional blade systems have focused on technology. These included comprehensive works that described all lithic technologies (i.e. unipolar blades, bidirectional blades and flakes) within confined regions mainly in the northern Levant (Calley 1986; Baird 1994; Nishiaki, 2000; Abbès 2003; Borrel 2006; Arimura 2007a). In the southern Levant the only research that focused exclusively on bidirectional blade technology is the important work by Wilke and Quintero on the lithics of ‘Ain Ghazal (Wilke and Quintero 1994; Quintero and Wilke 1995; Quintero 1996, 1998). Their studies included experimental knapping whose results serve as the basis for the typo-technological list used in this research (see Chapter 2 and Appendix 2). To date bidirectional blade technology has not been systematically investigated in the areas west of the Rift Valley (i.e. Israel), except for a refitted core from Kfar HaHoresh that has provided insights on some technological and social aspects at the site (Davidzon and Goring-Morris 2007).

This bidirectional blade technology, originally termed ‘naviform’ (Cauvin 1968:226), emphasized blade production from cores with two opposed striking platforms (Figure 1.1). According to Cauvin naviform cores have an elongated removal surface, from which long straight blades were detached. The base of the core is parallel to the removal surface and it is fashioned by bifacial flaking, forming a crest. This general shape of the cores resembles a boat, hence ‘naviform’.

Despite employing different methodologies, all of the above studies have presented broadly similar results for the reconstructed scheme of the reduction sequence or chaîne opératoire (e.g. Calley 1986: Fig. 2). First a flint block was shaped into an oval or trapezoidal preform by bifacial flaking. Then two striking platforms were established at both ends. After that the removal surface was established by detaching a primary ridge blade followed by an opposed upsilon “clean-up” removal. The next stage, which was the aim of knapping, was the series removal of long blades, alternately, from both striking platforms. And, finally, the core was abandoned.

In his comprehensive work on PPNB lithic technologies in northern Syria, Abbès has noted that the naviform cores described by Cauvin represent just one variant out of three distinct modes of core preformation (Abbès 2003:25-30).

4

Introduction

Figure 1.1: Schematic illustration of a bidirectional blade core and blade types.

Typology

Still, all of these studies illustrated unique characteristics within this technology, probably reflecting regional and chronological factors. For example, research at Douara Cave II in the Palmyra basin by Nishiaki (1994) showed that cores were slightly twisted and their lateral edges were maintained by blade removals. Another example is the EPPNB in northwestern Syria, which is characterized by the classic long and narrow naviform cores, initially described by Cauvin (1968) (Arimura 2007b). Even though different knapping modes were apparent, it is quite clear that all had the same objective, the production of standardized blade blanks that were to be modified into standard Neolithic tools.

A variety of type-lists for PPNB tool assemblages have been compiled and applied to specific sites or regions in the Levant (e.g. Cauvin 1968; Mortensen 1970; Gopher 1981; Crowfoot-Payne 1983; Rollefson et al. 1992; Cauvin M.C. 1995; Nishiaki 2000:37; Abbès 2003:36-43). These lists aimed to describe the repertoire of tools, often assuming their function on the basis of the configuration and location of retouch/working edge. By their very nature, however, these type-lists do not consider the technology by which these tools were produced, as was done for example for the Levallois technique for the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic (Bordes 1961). Currently, no bidirectional blade indices are

5

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies 1.5 Research aims

presented in lithic reports, and tools made on bidirectional blades are classified together with others that were made by different technologies.

The aims of this research are two-fold. First is to present and systematically analyze the bidirectional flint blade industries from PPNB sites throughout the southern Levant. As noted above this formal ‘hallmark’ PPNB technology is only briefly reported in most publications, thus requiring some sort of quantification methods, such as indices for formal lithic technologies as has been done, for example, in Palaeolithic research (e.g. Henry 1974; Goring-Morris 1987; Marks 1977). Broadly, the principles of indices could be employed for the bidirectional blade component; however this is inapplicable for this research since the studied samples include only complete items, thus requiring counts of complete items within the general assemblages, something not presented in most reports. Therefore the bidirectional blade component within the examined provinces will be presented by their major characteristics (mode of production, raw material, technology, typology and style) in respect to sample size (Chapter 2).

The tool class on bidirectional blades that has received most attention is the projectile points, possibly due to the fact that they tend to reflect chronological and regional variations (Cauvin 1974; Burian and Friedman 1979; BarYosef 1981; Eighmey 1992; Gopher 1994; Kozlowski 1999; Powell 2001). The most comprehensive work on projectile points was carried out by Gopher (1994), who demonstrated alterations of shape and size through time and space. According to him, the early stages in the PPNB of the southern Levant were dominated by Helwan and Jericho points. These were gradually replaced by Byblos and Amuq points and later during the Pottery Neolithic period by smaller points made on flakes. Gopher’s research also demonstrated that the Helwan type originated in the Northern Levant, while Jericho points were restricted to the southern Levant (Gopher 1989a; 1994). Another tool class that was also mainly fashioned on bidirectional blades in the PPNB is the sickle blade. These appear to display chronological differences but with lower resolution, being more appropriate for distinguishing between periods rather than within them (Burian and Friedman 1979; Noy 1996; Gopher et al. 2001). Indeed studies of PPNB sickle blades mainly focused on function and hafting methods (e.g. Anderson 1994; Olszewski 1994; Quintero et al. 1997).

The other aim is to examine two of the models discussed above, ‘Regionalism’ and ‘Craft specialization. With regards to ‘Regionalism’ we will examine whether the proposed cultural units for the southern Levant region (Bar-Yosef and Bar-Yosef Mayer 2002) are also reflected in the bidirectional blade industries. The focus will be on the area from the Litani River in the north to the Gulf of Aqaba in the south, the Transjordanian highlands to the east and the Mediterranean coast in the west (Chapter 2). The investigation of aspects of the bidirectional blade lithic industries should complement other material culture such as architecture, burial customs and subsistence economy, amongst others, in contributing to the identification of cultural units in time and space with the southern Levant.

Style Like many other objects, lithic tools are presumed to reflect encoded social information, i.e. style (e.g. Sacket 1985; Gero 1989; Conkey and Hastorf 1990). Among the formal tools, projectile points were noted for having great potential for stylistic studies in ethnoarchaeology (Wiessner 1983; Larick 1991; Sinopoly 1991), as well as in archaeology (Wills 1988:71-89; Rick 1996). In the southern Levantine Neolithic, stylistic attributes were briefly examined in Gopher’s (1994:245) research on the Neolithic arrowheads. This revealed differences for some arrowheads that reflected chronological and geographical patterning (ibid., Fig. 8.1).

The issue of ‘Craft specialization’ will be examined to consider whether complex lithic economies such as the one described for ‘Ain Ghazal (Quintero and Wilke 1995; Quintero 1998) can be identified at other sites in the southern Levant. Evaluation of this matter, including the nature of specialization, will be made following the parameters proposed by Costin (1991) and Clarke (1995). The results will be further correlated with site types (e.g. permanent and seasonal villages, ephemeral camps, ritual sites) in an attempt to detect possible inter and intra-site patterns for bidirectional blade products, and in order to provide a wider perspective on PPNB social complexity.

Chronological variations were also noted amongst projectile points at Ayn Abu Nukheyla (Henry and Nowell 2007). This research demonstrated that retouch types have the potential for stylistic studies, at least for chronological patterning, as standardized pressure retouched points (‘invasive flat retouch’) were found to be characteristic of the early phase at the site. Other forms of retouch types for projectile points have been reported in many PPNB assemblages, including simple modes such as marginal abrupt retouch as well as extremely elaborate forms, such as ‘Abu Gosh’ pressure retouch (e.g. Lechevallier 1978:4953). Accordingly, the current research will examine style through the study of the retouch that appears on projectile point tangs (Chapter 2; Appendix 3).

In sum, the proposed research aims to characterize and define the nature and variability of the use of bidirectional blade technology through time and space. It is expected to provide information concerning aspects of social structure and complexity amongst the PPNB communities in the southern Levant before the rise of early urban civilizations in the Near East.

6

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

In order to accomplish the research aims as presented in the introduction, data sets must be collected from sites that represent and reflect different environmental settings, specific chronologies and functions, and a practical strategy must be planned for assemblage sampling.

medium-sized villages such as Baja II (ca. 1.5 hectares), thus reflecting a composite settlement pattern (Bienert 2004:23; Gebel 2004a:13; Simmons 2007: Table 7.1). In the Mediterranean woodlands west of the Rift Valley the settlement pattern appears to have been less complex as no mega-sites have been identified there. These include medium-sized villages like Yiftahel (ca. 4 hectares) that apparently were bonded with regional ritual centers such as the site of Kfar HaHoresh in the lower Galilee (GoringMorris 2000:113; Khalaily et al. 2008).

The southern Levant comprises a mosaic of three main, yet quite different phytogeographic units: the mild Mediterranean woodlands, the Irano-Turanian steppes and the arid Saharo-Arabian desert areas (Danin 1988). Between these units there are significant differences in climate over relatively short distances. For example, the Mediterranean climate with mean annual precipitation of 600 mm is found on the watershed of the Judean Hills, while hyper-arid conditions with annual rainfall of ca. 50 mm supporting Saharo-Arabian and Sudano-Decanian vegetations is found only ca. 15 km to the east in the Dead Sea basin. Needless to say, such environmental factors surely affected the nature of PPNB settlement patterns, as well as their population sizes, mobility, economies and other characteristics.

In general, these sedentary villagers built rectangular structures, had mixed economies (domesticated plants and animals, hunting, and fishing), and emphasized human figures as seen in lime plaster statues, modelled skulls and small anthropomorphic figurines as parts of symbolic practices (Bar-Yosef 2001a; Galili et al. 2002; Kuijt and Goring Morris 2002). Seasonal Settlements Seasonal settlements are found at the edges of the core area, mainly in the southern Negev and south Transjordan. They are divided into larger (80% of the original size of the artifact.

1

This research Diagnostic debitage

Experimental Research*

Refitting Research**

One sequence

20 sequences

Ratio (%)

Initial platform spalls

2

0

1

20

Initial blades

1

1

1

20

20-25

18

10

200

2

1

1

20

25-30

20

13

260

54

-

-

10

200

42

Targeted blades Secondary platform spalls Debitage Tools Cores TOTAL

1

1

1

20

4

26-31

21

24

480

100

*After Wilke and Quintero (1994). **After Davidzon and Goring-Morris (2007).

Table 2.5: Number of diagnostic debitage types, tools and cores produced in one bidirectional reduction sequence. 14

Methodology  

DEBITAGE 

 

N

TOOLS 

%

N

%

CORES  N

TOTAL

%

N

  %

Level 1: Three categories representing at least 20 sequences  Ayn Abu Nukheyla

608

56.3

437

40.5

35

3.2

1080

100.0

Nahal Issaron

328

44.1

380

51.1

35

4.7

743

100.0

Shaqarat Msaied

477

66.7

215

30.1

23

3.2

715

100.0

Yiftahel

400

50.8

324

41.1

64

8.1

788

100.0

Level 2: Two categories representing at least 20 sequences  Beidha A-B

557

51.6

220

20.4

19

1.8

796

100.0

Beidha C

629

65.2

323

33.5

12

1.2

964

100.0

Nahal Nizzana IX

383

75.2

90

17.7

36

7.1

509

100.0

Nahal Lavan 1021

271

88.3

7

2.3

29

9.4

307

100.0

Nahal Re’uel

291

57.9

177

35.2

35

7.0

503

100.0

Ramat Matred V;VI; VIII

333

65.6

142

28.0

33

6.5

508

100.0

25

9.5

262

100.0

Level 3: One category representing at least 20 sequences Abu Salem

212

80.9

25

9.5

Munhata 4-6

53

17.1

256

82.6

1

0.3

310

100.0

Kfar HaHoresh Middle phase

123

36.1

207

60.7

11

3.2

341

100.0

Kfar HaHoresh Late phase

77

26.2

204

69.4

13

4.4

294

100.0

Nahal Shacharut I

0

0.0

0

0.0

26

100.0

26

100.0

Nahal Shacharut II

0

0.0

0

0.0

26

100.0

26

100.0

162

90

2

1.1

180

100.0

Level 4: None of the categories represent 20 sequences Abu Gosh

16

8.9

Hurvat Galil

4

11.4

31

88.6

0

0.0

35

100.0

Hurvat Rabud

96

41.4

132

56.9

4

1.7

232

100.0

Mishmar Ha’emeq

21

21.0

77

77.0

2

2.0

100

100.0

Motza V

26

36.6

45

63.4

0

0.0

71

100.0

Motza VI

11

11.0

89

89.0

0

0.0

100

100.0

Nahal Divshon

254

65.8

114

29.5

18

4.7

386

100.0

Table 2.6: Sample size ranking for the analyzed assemblages based on diagnostic bidirectional blade components. contextual information, such as on-site production or importation. It is noted that the sample size is affected by three factors: the scale of excavation, its location within the site, and the nature of the bidirectional blade industry at the site. An example for such factors is the underrepresentation of samples at Abu Gosh, Hurvat Rabud, and Mishmar Haemeq, classified as Level 4 assemblages.

information. For example, the degree of resolution for studying cores in the Southeastern Province is excellent, since the analyzed assemblages include sufficient samples from five sites (Ayn Abu Nukheyla, Nahal Shacharut I, Nahal Shacharut II, Nahal Re’uel and Nahal Issaron). By contrast, in the Central Province not a single site provided a sufficient sample of cores (Motza VI, Motza V, Abu Gosh and Hurvat Rabud) (and see Chapters 4 and 7 for discussion of the implications).

The debitage/tool/core ratio at Abu Gosh clearly shows a tendency for tools (90%). This bias reflects the true nature of the bidirectional blade industry at the site, since the site was extensively excavated (730 sqm) revealing various activities areas (Lechevallier 1978; Khalaily and Marder 2003:1-2). Consequently this ratio likely reflects the importation of tools and/or blades that were locally modified (and see Khalaily et al. 2003:44).

For this reason the assemblages were ranked according to the sample sizes of the three categories: cores, debitage and tools (Table 2.6). Level 1 assemblages include those sites with sufficiently large samples for all of the three categories; Level 2 assemblages yielded sufficient samples for two categories to be studied; Level 3 assemblages provided a sample from only a single category; and Level 4 assemblages did not furnish a sufficient sample for any of the categories.

A similar interpretation could be proposed for Mishmar Ha’emeq, where the ratio is also biased towards the tools (Table 2.6). However, this is more likely to be explained by the location of the excavation area, as it was made at the site’s margins (Barzilai and Getzov 2008). Accordingly,

It is important to note that the ranking reflects reliability for the assemblage size that does not necessarily imply

15

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies blade blanks in the assemblage and hence on toolkit composition. This provides evidence concerning the range of tasks that the tools were used for in the examined sites and regions. The second relates to the retouch style applied to the tangs of the projectile points (variables Y-Z). The manner of fashioning the tang is thought to provide evidence for regional and/or chronological variability.

bidirectional blade production did not occur in this complex but other parts of the site should not be excluded. The last example, Hurvat Rabud, is under-represented due to the small scale of excavation (100 sqm) (Gubenko et al. 2009). In this case it is reasonable to assume that knapping occurs on-site, as attested by the debitage-tool-core ratio that accords well with the expected ratio (Table 2.5).

2.5 Estimation of blade productivity

2.4 Attribute analysis

A method for calculating blade productivity has been devised in collaboration with Goring-Morris based on observations of replicated bidirectional reduction sequences (knapped by Philip Wilke) and a refitted core from Kfar HaHoresh (Davidzon and Goring-Morris 2007). Blade productivity refers to the number of targeted blades that were produced in a single reduction sequence. This is based on calculating the volume of the blade removals, i.e. the space delimited by the initial platform spalls and the core (Figure 2.2).

The attribute analysis in this research is composed of parametric and non-parametric observations. The observations are made on diagnostic debitage types, tools and cores (Appendixes 3-4). For the debitage 22 variables were examined (A-V), 26 for the tools (A-Z), and 21 variables for the cores (AA-UU). All of the observations were intended to assist in identifying possible patterns in raw material selection, core management, blade production and the composition of tools on blades. (1) Raw material choice refers to its qualities and sources. Examining the raw material qualities (type, texture and color) can provide evidence concerning the nature of production. For example, the consistent use of high quality colored flint, such as in the case of ‘Ain Ghazal has been assumed to reflect specialized knapping; while selection of lower quality opaque flint was interpreted as resulting from non-specialized household knapping (Quintero 1996, 1998; Quintero and Wilke 1995). Similar logic can be used concerning other high quality flint sources, if they can be identified. Thus, the systematic exploitation of a particular source could indicate a monopoly in procurement that is commonly attributed to specialist knappers; while more opportunistic exploitation manifested by raw materials from many sources could be interpreted as reflecting household behavior (Costin 1991). (2) Core management refers to the preformation of the core and its subsequent maintenance. The preformation process is illustrated by the core base type (variable NN), the dorsal scar pattern (variable P) on the initial platform spall, and by the type of initial blades.

Figure 2.2: Schematic illustration for the calculation of blade productivity. This volume is then divided by the average volume of a single targeted blade from the same assemblage. The result provides the estimated number of targeted blades that were produced in a single reduction sequence in that assemblage.

Core maintenance reflects the means of overcoming knapping accidents, such as hinges by hinge removal blades (II4 in the type-list), retaining the removal surface’s width and convexity by renovation blades (type II5), or sharpening the angle between the striking platform and the removal surface using secondary platform spalls (type II6).

Preformed bidirectional blade cores display a trapezoidal wedge-shaped configuration (Figures 2.3; 2.4). The upper part corresponds to the total volume from which targeted blade blanks were removed, displaying the same configuration whose volume could be calculated using the formula for wedges:

(3) Blade production relates to the quality of the targeted blades (types II2-II3). This is accomplished by examination of the size (variables D-F), nature and intensity of preparations prior to removal (variable K), and the symmetry of the targeted blade blanks (variables M-O).

V = (2*A + C) * B*H/6 (www.onlineconversion.com/object_volume.htm).

(4) Tools are observed from two perspectives. The first relates to the tool types produced on such bidirectional 16

Methodology

Figure 2.3: A refitted core from Locus 1559 at Kfar HaHoresh. Note the volume of the removed blades display a trapezoidal wedge-like shape.

Figure 2.4: Observations required for calculating the volume of a wedge.

17

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies

Figure 2.5: Observations required for calculating the volume of a blade.

Figure 2.6: An initial blade from Motza. In the case of bidirectional cores, the height (H) is the average length of initial platform spalls in the assemblage minus the average length of the core striking platforms (Figures 2.3-2.4). The base length (A) is the average length of the top of the core. The base width (B) is the average width of the core.

sequence followed the bidirectional knapping scheme, and thus should broadly reflect similar numbers of diagnostic debitage for the sequence. This particular core displays 115 refitted items deriving from all knapping stages (Davidzon and Goring-Morris 2007: Table 1). Here, targeted blade production included two distinct successions of blade knapping. The first included the removal of five blades including the ridge blade (lame à crête); all were missing. The second series of targeted blanks were removed after the striking platform was renewed (Figure 2.3). This series included 22 items, of which two blades were missing. According to the morphometric configurations and butt preparations prior to their removal we may assume that eight blades were intended to be targeted blades, while the remaining small and short unprepared items were actually platform isolation elements and correction blades (Figure 2.7).

The top length (C) is the average length of the initial blades plus the average length of the clean up initial upsilon removals, if present. The next step is to calculate the average volume of a single targeted blade from the same assemblage. These include initial blades, débordante blades, centrale blades and renovation blades (type II1-II3, II5 in the type list). The general volumetric configuration of the targeted blades is of an elongated and relatively flat wedge and can therefore be calculated similarly to the cores (Figure 2.5). Here, the height (H) is the average thickness of a targeted blade, the base length (A) is the average length of the blades, the base width (B) is the blades’ mean width, and the top length (C) is the blades’ mean length (Figure 2.6).

Since the initial stage of blade production was missing in this sequence, computation of the productivity formula was conducted only for the second series of blades. Notably some of the blades in the second series were missing; accordingly, their volumes were estimated on the basis of empty spaces.

2.6. Examining blade productivity formula In order to verify the logic and applicability of the productivity formula a refitted bidiredctional blade core from Kfar HaHoresh (Figure 2.3) was examined.

In this case the wedge height (H) is the average length of the core’s striking platforms prior to the extraction of the second series of blades minus the average length of the abandoned core’s striking platforms (Figures 6, 8). The base length (A), as in the experimental sequences, is the length of the top of the core. The base width (B) is the width of the core. And the top length (C) is the length of removal surface.

The refitted core from Locus 1559 at Kfar HaHoresh, although tentatively interpreted as being an unusual, perhaps apprentice’s core (Davidzon and Goring-Morris 2007). It is provisionally attributed to a late Middle PPNB phase at the site (Birkenfeld 2008). The reduction

18

Methodology

Figure 2.7: Produced blades from the second series of production of the Kfar HaHoresh Locus 1559 refitted core.

Attribute

It can be seen that the resulting estimate of blade productivity for the refitted core at Kfar HaHoresh closely corresponds with the actual value based on the refits (9 vs. 8), indicating that the formula indeed provides an accurate reflection of blade production (Table 2.7).

Refitted core

A. Core: Height (cm)

2.4

Base Length A (cm)

5.7

Base Width B (cm)

1.9

Top Length C (cm)

9.8

‘Missing’ wedge volume (cm³)

16.2

Overall, the presented methodology is summarized as follows:

Height (cm)

0.5

(1) The selection of the analyzed assemblages was subjected to geographical, chronological and site function considerations.

Base Length A (cm)

4.6

Base Width B (cm)

1.5

Top Length C (cm)

4.6

Blade volume (cm³)

1.8

B. Targeted Blades:

Wedge volume/Blade volume

(2) The analyzed samples included complete items deriving from the general assemblages, stocks and caches, and workshop dumps. (3) The general assemblage sample was aimed at 20 reduction sequences represented by diagnostic debitage, tools and cores. These were ranked according to the sample size of these three categories.

9

(4) The samples were subjected to detailed attribute analysis that focused on raw material, core management, tool composition and retouch style, and to estimate blade productivity and refitting (when relevant).

Table 2.7: The metric attributes and estimated productivity of targeted blade blanks from the L1559 Kfar HaHoresh refitted core.

19

CHAPTER 3: THE NORTHERN PROVINCE

The Northern Province refers to the area that includes (from east to west) the Golan, Gilead, the Central Jordan Valley, the Galilee and the northern Mediterranean Coast (Figure 3.1). The PPNB sites within this province are largely concentrated along the major alluvial valleys of the Hula Basin, the Jezreel, Biqat Beit Netofa, the Acre Plain, and the Central Jordan Valley (Figure 3.1).

Sea. The Lower Galilee has plentiful fresh water sources, including perennial streams that drain to the east (Nahal Harod, Nahal Tavor) and to the west (Nahal Qishon, Nahal Zippori, Nahal Hilazon), springs, and seasonal lakes and swamps that are formed in the interior valleys (i.e. Beit Netofa, Jezreel) during the rainy season (Orni and Efrat 1971:75). Extensive excavations and surveys revealed that this sub-region was intensively occupied during the MPPNB by permanent settlements, which were founded near perennial streams and springs (e.g. Yiftahel; Garfinkel 1987a; Braun 1997; Khalaily et al. 2008).

This chapter focuses on these regions with an emphasis on the Galilee, which appears to have been the most densely settled region in the Northern Province during the MPPNB. The bidirectional blade industry within this region was comprehensively studied by analyzing assemblages (Tables 3.1; 3.17-18), and by reviewing publications (Gopher 1989c; Oshri et al. 1999; Frankel et al. 2001; Gal 2002; Barzilai in press; Barzilai and Milevski in press). The Mediterranean Coast, the Hula Basin and the Jordan Valley were evaluated by the study of one assemblage in each region (Atlit Yam, Beisamoun and Munhata, respectively; Tables 3.1; 3.17-18) and through many publications on other sites within these subregions (e.g. Prausnitz 1959; 1970; Burian and Friedman 1965; Noy et al. 1973; Noy 1993; Garfinkel 1994b; 2004; Banning and Najjar 1999; Eisenberg et al. 2001; Frankel et al. 2001; Kirkbride 1956; Khalaily 2006; Nadel et al. 2006; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 2007; NadlerUziel 2007; Getzov 2008a; 2008b; Getzov et al. 2009; Bocquentin et al. in press). The Golan and Gilead, where the PPNB was less explored, are briefly discussed in light of preliminary site reports (Edwards and Thorpe 1986; Mabry and Palumbo 1992; Simmons et al. 1988; Gopher 1990; Al-Nahar 2006).

The landscape in the Upper Galilee is characterized by high anticline mountains dissected by ancient deep narrow gorges (e.g. Nahal Amud). In some parts, particularly in the western Galilee, the vegetation, comprising Mediterranean woodlands, is dense (Zohary 1980). The higher parts in the Upper Galilee reach up to 1200 m asl at the watershed, around Har Meron. From this divide there is a sharp descent to the Hula Valley to the east, forming a natural barrier, known also as the Manara Cliff. The declination to the west is longer and more moderate, draining to the Acre Plain and eventually reaching the Mediterranean Sea. The water sources in the Upper Galilee are less abundant than in the Lower Galilee but are relatively steady. These include perennial streams that drain to the east (Nahal Amud, Nahal Dishon) and to the west (Nahal Keziv, Nahal Bezet) and many springs. Most of the PPNB sites were recorded in the western Galilee (e.g. Hurvat Galil; Nahal Bezet I; Gopher 1989c; 1997; Frankel et al. 2001) although several occupations were also reported in the highlands of the eastern Galilee (e.g. Ain Miri; Frankel et al. 2001; Shimelmitz et al. 2004).

The Galilee is the hilly region bordered by the Zevulon Valley and the Acre Plain to the west, the Jezreel and Harod Valleys to the south, the Jordan Valley to the east and the Litani River to the north (Orni and Efrat 1971:73; see Figure 3.1). The climate in this region is Mediterranean, averaging 600-1000 mm annual precipitation (Orni and Efrat 1971:142-149). The Galilee is divided into two major parts, Upper and Lower, divided by the Biqat Bet Ha-Kerem Basin. The two regions differ from each other in altitudes and landscapes.

The northern Mediterranean Coast includes the Carmel Coast, the Zebulon Valley and the Acre Plain (Orni and Efrat 1971:49-52). This sub-region has favorable conditions for agriculture, since it has groundwater sources and an annual precipitation rate of ca. 600-700 mm. The beaches are typified by small islands and bays formed due to erosion of kurkar ridges. Currently it appears that this region was characterized by ephemeral cave occupations and open-air sites during EPPNB (e.g. Michmoret; Nahal Oren; el-Wad; Sefunim; Burian and Friedman 1965; Ronen 1984; 1993; Noy 1993; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 2007), and was more densely settled in the FPPNB in large permanent villages (e.g. Atlit Yam; Ard el Samra; Nahal Bezet II; Galili 2004; Getzov et al. 2009).

The Lower Galilee is typified by Mediterranean vegetation including open park forests (Zohary 1980). The highest altitudes reach up to ca. 600 m asl at the mountain peaks in the watershed roughly forming a north-south axis (Har Kamun–Givat Hamoreh). The eastern part descends to the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan Valley, ultimately dropping to ca. 200 m below sea level. The western part is composed of low hills (Shefar’am) moderately inclining to the Zebulon Valley and to the Mediterranean

The Jordan Valley is divided by the Sea of Galilee into Upper and Central parts (Orni and Efrat 1971: 83-94). This sub-region is extremely rich in water sources that include the Sea of Galilee, which is the largest fresh water source

20

The Northern Province

Figure 3.1: Location of the PPNB sites in the sub-regions within the Northern Province. Note that most sites are located along major streams and alluvial valleys. in the southern Levant, and strong permanent streams (e.g. Jordan River, Yarmuk River). The average annual rain in this region is ca. 900 mm.

The Golan region is basically a large volcanic plateau, which is divided into lower and upper parts (Orni and Efrat 1971:114-119). The lower part is found in the south at ca. 200-600 m asl, sloping down toward the Yarmuk River; it includes permanent streams and fertile basalt soils. The upper Golan, whose elevation reaches up to ca. 1200 m asl, is a rock-strewn area with many non-active volcanic cones. There are plenty of water sources in the Golan including perennial streams, small lakes formed in volcanic craters (e.g. Birkat Ram), and ca. 1000 mm annual precipitation. At present the only known site is Mujahyia in the lower western Golan, which dates to the EPPNB (Gopher 1990).

The Upper Jordan Valley, at ca. 100 asl, includes the Hula Basin, formerly a lake that fluctuated in size due to tectonic events until ca. 18000 BP (Ashkenazi 2004:170172; Greenberg 1987: 4-8). The Central Jordan Valley (including the Bet Shean Valley) extends from the southern end of the Sea of Galilee to the confluence with Wadi Malih. It is a fertile land composed of several river terraces at ca. 100-200 below sea level. The favorable conditions supported large permanent villages around the Hula Basin (e.g. Beisamoun; Hagoshrim) and in the Central Jordan Valley (e.g., Tel Ali; Munhata 4-6; Tell Rakan; Perrot 1964; Prausnitz 1970; Lechevallier 1978; Gopher 1989b; Garfinkel 1994b; Banning and Najjar 1999; Getzov 2008a; Bocquentin et al. in press).

The Gilead region is the mountainous area located south of the Golan and east of the Jordan River (Orni and Efrat 1971:113). This region has environmental conditions similar to those in the regions to the west (Samarian Hills), with copious permanent springs (e.g. Wadi Yabis, Wadi Ziqlab) and annual rainfall average of 700-800 mm. Only a few sites have been identified in this region as a 21

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies to be the northern-most megasite in Jordan (Al-Nahar 2006; Simmons 2007).

result of surface collections, regional surveys and small test excavations (Edwards and Thorpe 1986; Simmons et al. 1988; Marby and Palumbo 1992; Al-Nahar 2006). They appear to have been large permanent villages (e.g. er-Rahib; Tell es-Sawwan; Kharaysin) dated to the E/MPPNB-LPPNB (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002; Simmons 2007).

Many salvage excavations were conducted in the Northern Province since the 1980s. These included large and medium-scale excavations and smaller trial excavations. Large scale projects were conducted at Yiftahel, Tel Teo, Hagoshrim and Atlit Yam (Lamdan 1982; Garfinkel 1987a; Galili et al. 1993; Braun 1997; Eisenberg et al. 2001; Getzov 2008a; Khalaily et al. 2008).

3.1 History of research

The excavations at Yiftahel, conducted by five archaeological expeditions (Braun 1997; Garfinkel 1987a; Lamdan 1982; Khalaily et al. 2000; Khalaily et al. 2008), are the largest ever conducted west of the Rift Valley, revealing a total of ca. 2000 m² (Khalaily et al. 2008). The various expeditions revealed an excellently preserved and securely dated, large (ca. 4 hectares) PPNB village (Garfinkel et al. 1987; Segal and Carmi 1998). The main contribution of Yiftahel to PPNB research is in respect to architecture, botanical remains, lime-plaster production, ritual practice, and the study of bidirectional blade technology (Garfinkel 1987a; 1987b; 2007; Khalaily et al. 2008; Milevski et al. 2009).

Pre-Pottery Neolithic occurrences in the Northern Province were first noted in the 1950s following excavations at Tel Ali and Nahal Oren and a survey at Wadi al Yabis (Kirkbride 1956; Prausnitz 1959; 1970:84-144; Stekelis and Yizraeli 1963; Noy 1993). In the 1960’s projects were conducted at Munhata and Sefunim Cave (Perrot 1964; 1993; Ronen 1984). The excavation at Munhata was one of the important field projects conducted at that time since it revealed three PPNB layers (4-6), which spread out over several hectares. The archaeological finds at Munhata included rich flint, faunal and groundstone tool assemblages which, continue to be used for comparative studies until today (Ducos 1968; Gopher 1989b; Gopher and Orrelle 1995; Horwitz and Ducos 2005). The 1970’s witnessed a small but important salvage excavation at Beisamoun that revealed a complete rectangular structure (Habitation 150) containing two plastered skulls (Lechevallier 1978).

The salvage project at the submerged site of Atlit Yam, despite being of limited scale, documented architecture, installations (including wells), burial grounds and a wide range of artifacts, thus revealing the characteristics of a FPPNB village in this region (Galili 2004; Galili et al. 2005).

Since the 1980’s PPNB research in the Northern Province has intensified following initiated excavation projects, salvage excavations, test excavations and surveys. A longterm excavation is still ongoing at Kfar HaHoresh in the Lower Galilee (Goring-Morris 2008). This excavation revealed a small ceremonial site (0.5 hectare) dated from the Early through Late PPNB (Goring-Morris et al. 1995; 2001; 2008). The profusion of human burials (ca. 70) and special finds (e.g. plastered skulls) at the site illuminate the wide variety of PPNB ritual practices in this region (Goring-Morris 2000; 2005; Goring-Morris and Horwitz 2007; Horwitz and Goring-Morris 2004; Eshed et al. 2008).

FPPNB occupations were also recorded by salvage excavations at Hagoshrim, Tel Teo and Tell Ro’im in the Hula Basin and Ard el-Samra, Nahal Bezet II and Hurvat Uza in the Acre Plain (Eisenberg et al. 2001; Nadler-Uziel 2007; Getzov 2008a; 2008b; Getzov et al. 2009). While the occupations at Tell Teo, Tell Ro’im, Ard el-Samra, Nahal Bezet II and Hurvat Uza were limited, Hagoshrim was extremely rich in finds, including a large obsidian assemblage that attests to cultural contacts with Anatolia in this sub-stage (Gopher et al. 1998; Getzov 2008a). Several salvage excavations conducted in the Lower Galilee in recent years have revealed previously unknown Neolithic sites at Mishmar Ha’emeq, Kfar Kana, Ain Zippori and Givat Rabi. The excavation at Mishmar Ha’emeq revealed a unique paved flagstone structure, which was built adjacent to a burial ground dated to the E/MPPNB (Barzilai and Getzov 2008). The excavations at Kfar Kana and Ain Zippori revealed limited PPNB occupations, whose nature is unclear due to the small size of the excavations (Barzilai in press; H. Smithline pers. comm.), while the excavation at Givat Rabi exposed bidirectional blade workshops, which were set directly on HaSollelim flint outcrops (Barzilai and Milevski in press).

Another long term project at Sha‘ar Hagolan (Garfinkel and Miller 2002), primarily focused on the Pottery Neolithic period, but also apparently revealed a FPPNB occupation below the Yarmukian Village (Garfinkel 2004). Initiated small-scale excavations were conducted at Hurvat Galil and Nahal Bezet I in the western Galilee, Mujahyia in the Golan, Tel Ali in the Jordan Valley, Beisamoun in the Hula Basin, and Tell Abu as-Sawwan in the northern Gilead region (Gopher 1989c; 1990; 1997; Garfinkel 1994b; Al-Nahar 2006; Bocquentin et al. 2007; in press). The main contribution of these excavations was made regarding PPNB chronology; Hurvat Galil and Mujahyia for characterizing the EPPNB (Gopher 1996), and Tel Ali and Beisamoun for the FPPNB (Garfinkel 1994b; Bocquentin et al. in press). The excavation at Tell Abu asSawwan is expected to reveal information on what appears

Additional PPNB sites were discovered in regional surveys in the Lower Galilee, Sea of Galilee, Wadi Ziqlab, Wadi Yabis and the Jerash region (Edwards and Thorpe 1986; Marby and Palumbo 1992; Banning et al. 1996;

22

The Northern Province Maher and Banning 2001; Gal 2002; Nadel et al. 2006). Archaeological surveys in the Lower Galilee revealed more settlements along Nahal Zippori (Gal 2002; Marder pers. comm.). The survey at Ohalo I, located in the southwestern coast of the Sea of the Galilee, revealed ex situ PPNB artifacts (Nadel et al. 2006).

Morris 2002; Nadler-Uziel 2007; Bocquentin et al. in press). The LPPNB shows a decline in the number of settlements in the Lower Galilee; the only attested occurrence is reported at Kfar HaHoresh (Goring-Morris 2008). The demise in settlements, also recorded in the Central Province (chapter 4), was termed the “Jericho stimulus”, which proposes a population movement from Cisjordan to Transjordan (Gebel 2004a). Accordingly the shift eastwards was suggested to stimulate the establishment of the large LPPNB settlements across the Rift Valley (Bienert et al. 2004). If this was the case, then the Lower Galilean population possibly moved to Tell Rakan located by the outlet of Wadi Ziqlab, and/or to Kharaysin and esSayyeh at the upper Zarqa River (Edwards and Thorpe 1986; Banning and Najjar 1999; Caneva et al. 2001). Still, other directions should also be considered, for example the Mediterranean Coast to the west, or the Samarian Hills to the south.

Regional surveys across the Rift Valley revealed what appear to be large permanent villages. LPPNB Tell Rakan was discovered and excavated in the Wadi Ziqlab regional survey (Banning and Najjar 1999); the site of er-Rahib was reported in the Wadi Yabis survey (Marby and Palumbo 1992; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002); and Kharaysin, estimated to be a LPNNB mega-site, was discovered in the Jerash regional survey (Edwards and Thorpe 1986; Simmons 2007). 3.2 The settlement pattern EPPNB occupations in the Northern Province were recorded in the Mediterranean Coast and Central Jordan Valley. These regions were also inhabited during the PPNA (Noy 1993; Garfinkel and Dag 2006), thus suggesting continuity in occupation. The EPPNB along the Mediterranean Coast included small villages at Hurvat Galil (Gopher 1997) and Nahal Oren (Noy et al. 1973: Fig. 3:4), brief occupations at cave sites such as Sefunim, ElWad and Kebara (Ronen 1984; Belfer-Cohen and GoringMorris 2007), and ephemeral camps such as at Michmoret (Burian and Friedman 1965). The EPPNB in the Central Jordan Valley was recorded at Mujahyia (Gopher 1990), and most likely at Tell Ali (VI) and Ohalo I (see below pp. 45).

The FPPNB is characterized by a growth in the number of settlements in three regions; the Mediterranean Coast, the Hula Basin and the Central Jordan Valley. The Mediterranean Coast included large villages such as Atlit Yam, which apparently involved fishing in addition to farming and herding (Galili et al. 1993; 2002). Large permanent villages also appeared around the edges of the Hula Basin at Hagoshrim (VI), Tel Ro’im West (IV), Tel Teo (XIII-X) and Beisamoun (sector E) (Eisenberg et al 2001; Nadler-Uziel 2007; Getzov 2008a; Bocquentin et al in press). The third cluster of sites is found in the Central Jordan Valley, attested at Sha’ar Hagolan (Area G), Tell Ali (Stratum 2) and possibly Munhata (layer 3) (Garfinkel 1994b; 2004).

Shortly afterwards, in what appears as a transition between the Early and Middle PPNB,1 larger settlements emerged in the Central Jordan Valley (i.e. Munhata 4-6) and smaller occupations (i.e. Mishmar Ha’emeq; Kfar HaHoresh early phase; Yiftahel E-4) appear for the first time in the interior valleys of the Lower Galilee (Barzilai and Getzov 2008; Gopher 1989b; Goring-Morris et al. 2001; Goring-Morris et al. 2008; Garfinkel et al. in prep).

In the following Pottery Neolithic period it appears that there was a continuation in occupation in the Central Jordan Valley and the Mediterranean Coast as opposed to the Hula Basin. The Central Jordan Valley apparently became the ‘core area’ of the Yarmukian culture, as attested by establishment of large and complex settlements at Sha’ar Hagolan and Munhata (layer 2B) and by smaller settlements such as Hamadiya (Kaplan 1993). Yarmukian sites were also evident in the Gilead region (Kirkbride 1956; Muheisen et al. 1988; Caneva et al. 2001), the Harod Valley (Khalaily 2006) and the Jezreel Valley (Barzilai and Getzov 2008). Notably most of the Yarmukian sites in these regions display continuation of bidirectional blade technology (Barzilai and Garfinkel 2006; and references therein).

By the MPPNB, the ‘core area’ shifted to the interior valleys, as attested by a wide variety of site-types that included large central village/s (Yiftahel), a regional ceremonial center (Kfar HaHoresh), small village sites (Ain Zippori; Kfar Kana) and specialized workshop sites (Givat Rabi East and Q-1) (Garfinkel 1987a; Oshri et al. 1999; Goring-Morris 2005; Khalaily et al. 2008; Barzilai in press; Barzilai and Milevski in press; Marder and Smithline, pers. comm.).

The Yarmukian culture was also documented recently in the Acre Plain at Hurvat Uza, Ard el-Samra and Nahal Bezet II (Getzov et al. 2009). At present no Yarmukian occurrences are documented in the Hula Basin. Another Early PN variant, recently termed the ‘Korenian’, which is present at Hagoshrim V, Tell Teo (X-VIII) and Tell Ro’im West (Eisenberg et al 2001; Nadler-Uziel 2007; Getzov 2008b; 2008c), apparently characterizes the material culture in this region.

Concurrently, another ‘core area’ likely existed in the Hula Basin during the MPPNB, as evidenced at Beisamoun (sector C), Tel Ro’im West (layer V) and possibly Kfar Giladi (Lechevallier and Dollfus 1973; Kuijt and Goring  As suggested by presence of Helwan and Jericho points (Gopher’s group 2) and C14 dates (Crane and Griffin 1970; Gopher 1994).

1

23

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies

 

Hurvat Galil

Munhata 4-6

Mishmar Ha’emeq

KHH (Middle) N

DEBITAGE

N

%

N

%

N

%

Initial platform spalls

0

0.0

2

3.8

1

4.3

Primary ridge blades

0

0.0

1

1.9

0

0.0

Débordante blades

0

0.0

11

21.2

9

39.1

43

Centrale blades

2

50.0

28

53.8

11

47.8

47

Maintenance blades

0

0.0

1

1.9

1

4.3

Renovation blades

0

0.0

8

15.4

0

Secondary platform spalls

2

50.0

1

1.9

1

Total

4

100

52

100

Yiftahel

KHH (Late)

%

N

%

N

%

8

6.6

54

13.5

6

7.9

14

11.5

34

8.5

3

3.9

35.2

119

29.8

22

28.9

38.5

148

37.0

40

52.6

 

0.0

27

6.8

1

1.3

0.0

6

4.9

8

2.0

3

3.9

4.3

4

3.3

10

2.5

1

1.3

23

100

122

100

400

100

76

100

DEBITAGE

4

11.4

52

16.8

23

22.5

122

36.4

400

50.8

76

26.2

TOOLS

31

88.6

256

82.8

77

75.5

202

60.3

324

41.1

201

69.3

CORES

0

0.0

1

0.3

2

2.0

11

3.3

64

8.1

13

4.5

TOTAL

35

100

309

100

102

100

335

100

788

100

290

100

Table 3.1: Analyzed samples of bidirectional blade component within the Galilee general assemblages.

3.3 Analyzed assemblages

E/MPPNB (Birkenfeld 2008) but since the assemblage size is too small at the time of writing for systematic analysis it will be referred to only in Chapter 7.

The analyzed material include samples from general assemblages, workshop dumps and stocks and caches from sites in the Galilee1, the Central Jordan Valley, the Hula Basin and the Carmel Coast (Figure 3.1; Tables 3.1; 3.10; 3.11). The assemblages are dated to the EPPNB (Hurvat Galil), E/MPPNB (Mishmar Ha’emeq, Munhata), MPPNB (Beisamoun, Yiftahel, Kfar HaHoresh Middle), LPPNB (Kfar HaHoresh Late) and FPPNB (Atlit Yam) (Perrot 1964; Lechevallier 1978; Garfinkel 1987a; Galili et al. 1993; Gopher 1997; Khalaily et al. 2000; 2008; Barzilai and Getzov 2008; Goring-Morris 2008; Bocquentin et al. in press).

The Yiftahel sample derives from the 1982, 1997 and 2007–2008 campaigns (Garfinkel 1987a; Garfinkel et al. in prep.; Khalaily et al. 2000; 2008). The cores and debitage were sampled from Areas I and H (2007-2008 excavations), and the tools from Areas I and H (2007-2008 excavations), Area E (1997 excavation) and Area C (1982 excavation). Three workshop dumps were analyzed (Table 3.17): Kfar HaHoresh (L1007), Atlit Yam (L35) and Yiftahel (F33). Kfar HaHoresh and Yiftahel were completely analyzed using the typo-technological list (Appendix 2). The Atlit Yam workshop dump was previously analyzed using a different methodology (Galili 2004: Tables 29-32) and was thus sampled to enable comparisons to the workshop dumps at Kfar HaHoresh and Yiftahel.

The general assemblage samples are from Hurvat Galil, Munhata, Mishmar Ha’emeq, Kfar HaHoresh (Middle and Late phases) and Yiftahel (Table 3.1). The Hurvat Galil, Munhata and Mishmar Ha’emeq samples were obtained from the entire assemblages of these sites; Hurvat Galil is from Areas A and B of Gopher’s excavation (1989a; 1997), Munhata is from layers 4-6 from Perrot’s excavations (Perrot 1964; Gopher 1989b) and the Mishmar Ha’emeq sample is from Area H of Barzilai and Getzov’s excavation (2008).

The analyzed stocks and caches (Table 3.18) include: two stocks from Yiftahel found in domestic structures (L5047; L5058); a cache from Beisamoun (L 180) placed next to burials and two plastered skulls in the antechamber of structure 150; and two caches from Kfar HaHoresh, which appear to be related to a skull nest (L1317; L1319) (Lechevallier 1978: Fig. 47; Khalaily et al. 2008; Barzilai and Goring-Morris 2007; Bocquentin et al. in press).

The samples from Kfar HaHoresh and Yiftahel were obtained from specific excavation seasons. Kfar HaHoresh was divided into middle and late phases that accordingly correspond to MPPNB and LPPNB occupations at the site (Birkenfeld 2008; Goring-Morris 2008). The middle phase sample was obtained from the 1998–2002 excavation seasons (hence KHH Middle), while the late phase, from the 1991–1997 seasons (hence KHH Late). Notably there is also an early phase at Kfar HaHoresh which dates to the 1 

The samples from the general assemblages were divided into three analytical levels (Chapter 2.3). Yiftahel falls into the most reliable level, level 1, where the entire knapping process occurred on-site as attested by the abundance of bidirectional blade cores, diagnostic debitage and tools (Table 2.6). Munhata 4-6 and KHH Middle and Late phases were ranked as level 3, having sufficient tool samples but not for the debitage and cores. Apparently most of the

Including the Jezreel Valley.

24

The Northern Province et al. 2003; Delage 2007; Khalaily et al. 2007b; Rollefson et al. 2007).

knapping at Kfar HaHoresh occurred on-site as attested by a bidirectional blade workshop dump and by a few cores and diagnostic debitage in both phases. By contrast, the dominance of tools and the virtual absence of cores and diagnostic debitage at Munhata suggest off-site production of bidirectional blades.

This flint type closely resembles the high lustrous purple/ pink flint at ‘Ain Ghazal (pers. observation). Since no such outcrops were recognized within the Northern Province west of the Rift, it is likely that the source for this flint type in the Galilee sites was in northwest Jordan (Delage 2007:268; 285), possibly near Tell Abu as-Sawwan1, where it is reported to be abundant (Rollefson et al. 2007).

Mishmar Ha’emeq and Hurvat Galil were ranked as level 4, since neither had a sufficient number of items for the examined categories. The absence of diagnostic debitage and cores and the presence of relatively few tools at Mishmar Ha’emeq and Hurvat Galil suggest that knapping did not occur on-site (Gopher 1997:218; Barzilai et al. in press), although it could have been done in other areas within theses sites, since the contexts of the samples were too small (Hurvat Galil) or non-domestic in nature (Mishmar Haemeq).

The purple-pinkish flint in the analyzed assemblages comprised 37–57% of the raw material in the EPPNB–E/ MPPNB (Hurvat Galil; Munhata 4–6; Mishmar Ha’emeq), while during the MPPNB–LPPNB (KHH Middle; Yiftahel; KHH Late) it was used less, dropping to 11-17% (Table 3.3). Notably, purple-pinkish flint appears to have been dominant also at EPPNB Nahal Oren (Noy 1993: 1169) and E/MPPNB KHH (early phase) (Birkenfeld 2008: Table 4.6; pers. observation).

3.4 Raw material choice The raw material choices in the Galilee focused on three dominant types that correspond with chronology. The first is a high quality lustrous purple-pinkish flint that was the dominant type in the EPPNB and E/MPPNB assemblages in the Northern Province (Figure 3.2; Tables 3.2–3.3). Although pink colored flint may result from heat treatment (e.g. Nadel 1989; Crowfoot-Payne 1983:629), discoveries of several outcrops in Jordan suggest that these were the major resources for the purple-pinkish bidirectional blade component in the southern Levant (Quintero 1996; Henry

The second flint type, which we term ‘HaSollelim’, is a fine-grained beige flint that was dominant at MPPNB Kfar HaHoresh and Yiftahel and at LPPNB Kfar HaHoresh (Figure 3.3; Table 3.3). HaSollelim flint appears in nodular blocks with a thick cortex and includes three color variants (Barzilai and Goring-Morris in prep.).  Which means in Arabic ‘father of the flint’ (Simmons et al. 1988).

1

Figure 3.2: Purple-pink flint. 1 Hurvat Galil, 2 Mishmar Ha’emeq, 3 Munhata 4-6. 25

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies

Figure 3.3: Beige HaSollelim flint. 1-2, solid beige (Triangulation point Q-1); 3, beige with pink veins (Kfar HaHoresh L1007); 4, spotted beige and dark brown (Kfar HaHoresh L1007).

Figure 3.4: Carmel Grey flint. 1, bidirectional core (Atlit Yam L35); 2, crested blade (Atlit Yam L35); 3, overpassed blades (Atlit Yam L35); 4, proximal blade fragments (Atlit Yam L35); 5, projectile point (KHH Middle). 26

The Northern Province The first most common group (A) is solid beige (Figure 3.3: 1-2); Group B is beige with dark brown spots; and Group C is solid beige with pink veins (Figure 3.3: 3–4). Currently, two sources of this flint type have been discovered within the Lower Galilee. The first, known as triangulation point Q-1, is located very close to Yiftahel (Oshri et al. 1999). This source extends over an area of ca. two hectares where three clusters of production waste were noted. Their contents suggest local large-scale production of preformed cores, bidirectional blades and bifacial tools.

Kfar HaHoresh, respectively located ca. 2 km to the west and ca. 5 km to the southwest (Figure 3.1). Notably, the assemblages of these sites are dominated by HaSollelim flint, thus suggesting Givat Rabi as a potential source. Another flint type, which we term ‘Carmel Grey’, is an extra fine-grained dark grey with red veins and spots, usually covered by thick cortex (Figure 3.4). This type was one of two dominant types used for bidirectional blade production at FPPNB Atlit Yam, as attested in workshop dump L35 (see below), although it was sporadically used in previous sub-stages at Munhata, Kfar HaHoresh and Yiftahel (Table 3.3).

The second source was test-excavated at Givat Rabi East (Barzilai and Milevski in press). This source extends over an area of ca. 20 hectares in a large depression that drains into Nahal Zippori. The Givat Rabi outcrops include large nodular and tabular blocks embedded in the bedrock, overlain by ca. 1 m of alluvium sediment. Apparently, these outcrops were intensively exploited for producing bidirectional blades and bifacial tools during the PPNB period, as attested by several workshops. The closest sites to Givat Rabi East are Ain Zippori, Ilut and %

At present, two outcrops of Carmel Grey flint were sourced at Nahal Me’arot, ca. 2 km east of El-Wad Cave (Druck 2004). These include embedded nodular and tabular blocks. One exposure (site 1) appears to have been used during the PPNB as attested by the presence of a bidirectional core and many flakes (ibid,:118).

Fine-grained

Extra fine-grained

Lustrous

Total

Hurvat Galil (n=35)

0.0

25.7

74.3

100

Munhata 4-6 (n=309)

1.6

28.5

69.8

100

Mishmar Haemeq (n=102)

0.0

36.3

63.7

100

KHH Middle (n=335)

3.6

63.9

32.5

100

Yiftahel (n=788)

0.4

74.0

25.6

100

KHH Late (n=290)

0.7

72.8

26.6

100

Table 3.2: Frequencies of flint types according to texture in the Galilean assemblages (%).

Hurvat Galil

Munhata

Mishmar Ha’emeq

KHH (Middle)

Yiftahel

 

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Beige HaSollelim

0

0

0

0

8

8

186

56

570

72

183

63

947

51

 

KHH (Late)

Total

Beige

0

0

39

13

8

8

9

3

13

2

2

1

71

4

Black

0

0

3

1

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

5

0

Brown

6

17

43

14

4

4

21

6

58

7

9

3

141

8

Burnt

0

0

10

3

 

0

8

2

7

1

2

1

27

1

Carmel Grey

0

0

6

2

0

0

10

3

3

0

6

2

25

1

Dark brown

0

0

6

2

2

2

3

1

18

2

4

1

33

2

Grey

13

37

31

10

5

5

14

4

17

2

13

4

93

5

Light brown

2

6

1

0

1

1

9

3

1

0

0

0

14

1

Light grey

0

0

6

2

1

1

5

1

2

0

2

1

16

1

Off-white

0

0

3

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

3

1

8

0

Patinated

1

3

8

3

14

14

9

3

2

0

34

12

68

4

Purple-Pink

13

37

147

48

58

57

58

17

87

11

32

11

395

21

Varia

0

0

5

2

0

0

2

1

8

1

0

0

15

1

TOTAL

35

100

308

100

102

100

335

100

788

100

290

100

1858

100

Table 3.3: Flint color varieties in the Galilean assemblages. 27

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies The other flint types include beige, black and brown and grey varieties whose sources are unknown (Table 3.3). Interestingly, a breakdown by raw material color shows a similar pattern for the other flint types at Yiftahel and KHH (Middle and Late). Another observation is the extensive use of grey colored flint at Hurvat Galil, a feature also noted at FPPNB sites in the Acre Plain (Getzov et al. 2009).  

A textural comparison between the assemblages shows that the higher quality flint is most frequent at EPPNB Hurvat Galil, where 74% of the items were made on lustrous flint (Table 3.2). During the E/MPPNB it decreased to 6470% at Munhata 4–6 and Mishmar Ha’emeq, while in the MPPNB and LPPNB at Yiftahel and Kfar HaHoresh the dominant texture is the fine-grained flint (64–74%).

Postero-lateral

Bipolar

Naviform

Preform

Total

SITE

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Hurvat Galil

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Munhata

0

0

1

100

0

0

0

0

1

100

Mishmar Ha’emeq

1

50

1

50

0

0

0

0

2

100

KHH (Middle)

4

36

4

36

2

18

1

9

11

100

Yiftahel

18

35

27

52

5

10

2

4

52

100

KHH (Late)

6

46

5

38

2

15

0

0

13

100

TOTAL

29

37

38

48

9

11

3

4

79

100

Table 3.4: Bidirectional core type frequencies in the Galilean assemblages. Munhata 4-6

 

Mishmar Ha’emeq

KHH (Middle)

Yiftahel

KHH (Late)

TOTAL

Core length N Mean Std

1

2

11

52

13

79

135.5

73.7

87.4

91.8

76.1

88.7

 

25.1

16.4

16.0

12.9

17.4

1

2

11

52

13

79

36.6

32.7

34.1

36.9

37.9

36.5

 

3.6

5.9

6.9

6.5

6.6

Core width N Mean Std Core height N Mean Std L/W ratio

1

2

11

52

13

79

34.9

40.5

39.9

36.8

35.2

37.0

 

2.4

11.1

12.7

5.7

11.3

3.7

2.3

2.6

2.5

2.0

2.4

1st platform angle N Mean Std

1

2

11

52

13

79

52.0

52.5

48.4

48.0

55.4

49.4

 

26.2

11.8

9.9

12.7

11.1

1

2

9

49

12

73

1289.6

1171.7

696.9

938.9

686.6

878.8

324.6

292.7

380.6

299.1

372.4

1st platform size (mm²) N Mean Std 2nd platform angle N Mean

1

2

10

51

13

77

55.0

44.5

50.5

47.7

53.5

49.1

12.0

10.2

11.6

11.2

11.3

Std 2nd platform size (mm²)  N Mean Std

1

2

9

49

12

73

286.7

789.5

678.9

993.0

689.1

889.1

407.8

295.4

369.9

319.3

379.0

Table 3.5: Average core sizes (in mm) and platform angles in the Galilean assemblages.

28

The Northern Province

Figure 3.5: Bidirectional blade core, initial platform spall and initial blades from the Galilee: 1, Postero-lateral Core (Yiftahel); 2, initial platform spall (Yiftahel); 3, crested blade (Kfar HaHoresh); 4 crested upsilon blade (Yiftahel) (After Barzilai and Goring-Morris 2007: Fig. 8:8; Khalaily 2006: Fig. C6:6; Khalaily et al. 2000: Fig. 2:1).

29

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies TYPE

Cortical/Plain

 

N

Mean

Std

Bifacially crested N

Mean

L

1

W T

Std

Faceted

Flat

TOTAL

N

Mean

Std

N

Mean

Std

N

Mean

Std

77.0

3

66.0

10.9

4

79.3

7.2

8

74.0

10.1

1

21.4

3

24.4

2.7

4

28.1

4.0

8

25.9

4.0

1

12.0

3

10.2

4.0

4

9.0

1.0

8

9.8

2.5

KHH (Middle) 

L/W

3.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

Yiftahel  L

13

81.5

17.1

3

80.0

3.2

22

76.3

11.1

15

75.3

13.7

53

77.1

13.4

W

13

30.9

6.8

3

22.3

1.7

22

31.0

5.3

15

29.4

5.3

53

30.1

5.8

T

13

16.4

5.3

3

14.5

0.8

22

11.7

3.2

15

9.2

3.9

53

12.2

4.7

L/W

2.6

3.6

2.5

2.6

2.6

KHH (Late)  L

4

71.3

1.3

2

79.2

4.6

6

73.9

4.7

W

4

27.2

1.0

2

27.5

8.9

6

27.3

4.1

T

4

9.1

2.8

2

7.7

1.2

6

8.6

2.4

L/W RATIO

2.6

2.9

2.7

Table 3.6: Initial platform spall attributes at KHH Middle, Yiftahel and KHH Late (in mm).

3.5 Core management

differences should be attributed to reflect a bias caused by small sample size.

Core management refers to the initial stage of core preparation (Wilke and Quintero 1994: Table 1) that is attested in the core type, the initial platform spalls and the initial blades scar patterns.

Initial platform spalls (Figure 3.5:2) Sufficient samples of initial platform spalls were found only at Yiftahel (Table 3.1). However, due to morphometric similarities the initial platform spalls from KHH (Middle and Late) are also presented in Table 3.6. The dominant spall at Yiftahel is the faceted type, which was also common at KHH (Middle and Late). Flat and cortical/plain types were also frequent at Yiftahel, while bifacial types rare. The type frequencies reflect two approaches to core preparation at Yiftahel. The most common is angular preparation, as indicated by the dominance of faceted spalls. The other approach is without preparation as attested by the presence of cortical/plain spalls. The use of bifacial preparations indicative of naviform cores was rarely encountered. The presence of flat spalls indicates that, in many cases, core striking platforms were not achieved by the first blow, necessitating subsequent secondary (flat) spall removals. Interestingly, the general morphological characteristics at Yiftahel and Kfar HaHoresh are very similar, since most spalls have curved profiles, converging ends, a convex edge arrangement, triangular cross-sections, and display similar average L/W ratios (Table 3.6).

Cores (Figure 3.5:1) The most common core type in the Galilean assemblages is the postero-lateral (48%), followed by bipolar (37%), and naviform (11%) (Table 3.4). A few preformed cores from Yiftahel and KHH Middle support the assumption that bidirectional blade production was made at these two sites. The Galilean cores are elongated, averaging 2.4:1 length/ width ratio (Table 3.5). It appears that the striking platforms in the cores were equally used, as indicated by similar sizes (879 mm² platform 1; 889 mm² platform 2) and angles of the striking platforms (49.4 and 49.1 degrees) at the time of abandonment. A unique, extremely elongated (3.7:1) core from Munhata (Gopher 1989b: Fig. 4:10) is the only analyzed core in the Northern Province assemblages that was made on lustrous purple/pink flint. This core displays much longer (135.5 mm) proportions than the other cores (average length 88.7 mm) from Galilean sites. Since its height (34.9 mm) is smaller than the other cores in the region (average 37 mm), it is unlikely to be explained by abandonment in early stages of production (Table 3.5). Therefore, it is tempting to see it as being representative of a distinct knapping mode of elongated cores made on purple-pinkish flint, similar to the classic northern Levantine naviform cores (Cauvin 1968). However, until more lustrous purple/pink flint cores are recovered from the Northern Province these

Initial blades (Figure 3.5:3-4) Like the initial platform spalls, sufficient samples of initial blades derive from Yiftahel (Tables 3.1; 3.7). Likewise, the KHH (Middle) blades are also presented due to similar morphometrics. The fully crested lame á crête is the most common type in both assemblages. These long-ridge blades (107.6 mm mean in Kfar HaHoresh, 95.5 mm mean in Yiftahel) were carefully prepared by alternate removals

30

The Northern Province Type  

Full crest

Crested upsilon

Partially crested

Natural ridge

TOTAL

N

Mean

Std

N

Mean

Std

N

Mean

Std

N

Mean

Std

N

Mean

Std

L

10

107.6

15.5

1

55.6

 

1

46.8

 

 

 

 

12

98.2

26.1

KHH (Middle) W

11

15.0

1.6

1

18.6

 

1

14.2

 

 

 

 

13

15.2

1.8

T

11

8.8

0.9

1

11.5

 

1

5.9

 

 

 

 

13

8.8

1.4

L/W

 

7.2

 

 

3.0

 

 

3.3

 

 

 

 

 

6.5

 

Yiftahel  L

18

95.5

23.0

11

90.5

17.8

1

67.9

 

1

62.5

 

31

91.8

21.5

W

18

15.4

2.0

11

15.6

3.4

1

13.0

 

1

10.9

 

31

15.3

2.6

T

18

9.3

2.1

11

8.9

2.2

1

5.4

 

1

6.2

 

31

8.9

2.2

L/W

 

6.2

 

 

5.8

 

 

5.2

 

 

5.7

 

 

6.0

 

Table 3.7: Initial blade attributes at KHH Middle and Yiftahel (in mm). predetermined, central and upsilon types (Figures 3.6; 3.7). The frequencies at KHH (Middle) and Yiftahel display similar breakdowns, in which the débordante types are the most frequent (ca. 40%) and the predetermined types are less common (ca. 10%).

to form a straight ridge on the dorsal face. It appears that in most cases at Yiftahel, these were followed by upsilon removals from the other striking platform (Figure 3.5:4). Partially crested and natural/cortical blades with a natural ridge were rarely used at Yiftahel and Kfar HaHoresh, suggesting that most cores in these two sites were subjected to careful preparation, at their top, before commencing blade production.

At KHH (Middle) the central blade type (ca. 25%) is more frequent than the upsilon blade (ca. 20%), while at Yiftahel the situation is the opposite, with the upsilon blade (ca. 25%) being more frequent than the central type (ca. 20%). The ratio between the targeted blade types at KHH (Late) differs slightly, since débordante, predetermined and central blades display similar frequencies (ca. 25–30%), while the upsilon type is rare (ca. 15%). However, this difference may be attributed to sample size rather than to the knapping method.

Preformation type The common mode of core preparation in the Galilean assemblages seems to have been of angular preformation, where the top of the core was bifacially flaked, while its base and ends were angularly modified. The bifacially flaked top is attested by carefully prepared lames á crête, while angular preformation is indicated by the posterolateral cores and the faceted initial spalls (Tables 3.53.7). An example for such preparation is illustrated by a preformed core from Area E at Yiftahel (Khalaily 2006: Fig. C3:1).

The average size of the targeted blades at Kfar HaHoresh are larger and more elongate (L/W ratio 1:4.5–4.6) than at Yiftahel (L/W ratio 1:4.3) (Table 3.8). The middle and late phases at Kfar HaHoresh show similarities in size, as does the degree of standardization (reflected by the std.). The mean size for all blades in the Lower Galilee assemblages is 75.2 x 17.1 mm x 5.3 mm. However, when checked according to sub-type, it is evident that predetermined blades are the largest targeted items, averaging 98.2 x 18.4 x 5.1 mm (Figure 3.8); débordante blades average 80.9 x 17.1 x 6 mm, while central blades average 71.2 x 16.9 x 5 mm and upsilon blades average only 56 x 16.6 mm x 4.8 mm.

A less common mode involves partial preformation, whereby the top of the core was bifacially flaked with no modification of the base. This is attested by the carefully prepared lames á crête and by the presence of bipolar cores and cortical spalls (Tables 3.5-3.7). An example for such preparation is illustrated by a preformed core from Area C at Yiftahel (Garfinkel 2007: Fig. 2). Bifacial preformations were rarely practiced, since naviform cores comprise ca. 10% of the total in the Northern Province assemblages (Table 3.4).

When symmetry is examined, it is evident that most of the targeted items (73%) in the analyzed assemblages are symmetrical (Figure 3.9). The KHH (Late) target blades are the most symmetrical (84%), followed by KHH (Middle) (75%) and Yiftahel (73%).

3.6 Blade production (Figure 3.6)

The butts of the targeted blade blanks in the Lower Galilee assemblages were intensively prepared by micro-chipping and abrasion and by polishing (Figure 3.10). The blades from KHH (Middle and Late) were slightly more prepared than at Yiftahel, as attested by more micro-chipped and polished butts.

The quality of blade production is estimated by combinations of size, symmetry, and preparations of the targeted blades within each assemblage. Sufficient samples of targeted blades were present for KHH (Middle and Late) and Yiftahel (Table 3.1). These comprise débordante,

31

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies

Figure 3.6: Targeted blade types from the Galilee: 1-2, predetermined blades (Kfar HaHoresh); 3, predetermined blade (Munhata); 4, central blade (Yiftahel); 5, central blade (Mishmar Ha’emeq); 6, débordante blade (Kfar HaHoresh); 7, upsilon blade (Kfar HaHoresh); 8, upsilon blade (Yiftahel) (After Gopher 1989b: Fig. 1:8; Goring-Morris 1994: Figs. 8:1; Khalaily 2006: Fig. C7:3, 8; Barzilai and Getzov 2008: Fig. 8:2). 32

The Northern Province

SITE KHH Middle     Yiftahel     KHH Late     Total    

 

LENGTH

WIDTH

THICKNESS

N

77

79

79

 

Mean

80.5

17.5

5.2

4.6

Std

21.6

3.4

1.5

 

N

230

233

233

 

Mean

72.3

16.9

5.3

4.3

Std

21.0

3.2

1.6

 

57

57

57

Mean

79.9

17.6

5.5

4.5

Std

19.3

3.9

1.4

 

N

L/W ratio

N

364

369

369

 

Mean

75.2

17.1

5.3

4.4

Std

21.2

3.3

1.5

 

Figure 3.8: Average sizes of targeted blade by sub-types in KHH Middle, Yiftahel and KHH Late (in mm).

33

Table 3.8: Average sizes of targeted blades at KHH Middle, Yiftahel and KHH Late (in mm).

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies

Figure 3.9: Targeted blade symmetries in KHH Middle, Yiftahel and KHH Late assemblages.

Figure 3.10: Frequencies of butt preparation on targeted blade blanks in KHH Middle, Yiftahel and KHH Late assemblages.

Upsilon blades were common in the Lower Galilee assemblages, comprising ca. 20-30% of the total targeted blades (Figures 3.6:7-8; 3.7). When size is examined against the predetermined blades, given that they are their ‘clean-ups’, it is evident that upsilons comprise ca. 37% of the removal surface (Table 3.9); this indicates that the predetermined blades in these assemblages exploited approximately 63% of the removal surfaces.

In summing up the size, symmetry and nature of preparation, it is clear that the targeted blades from the Lower Galilee are elaborate. Those from KHH (Late) appear to be the most elaborate, followed by KHH (Middle) and Yiftahel. Upsilon clean-up blades were used commonly, as they comprise ca. 1/4 of the targeted blades. When comparing their sizes to the predetermined blades, it is suggested that the latter exploited slightly more than 60% of the removal surfaces of the cores. 34

The Northern Province

 

Upsilon

SITE

 

KHH Middle

L

L

W

Th

 15

 15

 15

 10

 10

51.1

16.0

4.1

98.9

18.0

5.2

Std

 9.5

2.7 

0.7 

18.5 

2.6 

0.5 

34% 60

60

60

28

55.9

16.8

4.9

96.5

Std

 14.6

 3.3

1.2 

19.6 

37% N Mean Std

29

10 

10 

10 

 14

16.1

5.2

101.0

29

18.3

4.9

3.4 

 1.3

4.3

1.2

17.4 

14

    150.0   100%  

63%

64.0 12.6

 10

66%

Mean Relative exploitation of the removal surface

KHH Late

Th

Mean

N Yiftahel

W

N

Relative exploitation of the removal surface

Removal surface 1length*

Predetermined

  152.4    100%

14

18.8

5.4

4.4 

1.7 

  164.9  

Relative exploitation of the removal surface

39%

61%

100%

Average exploitation

37%

63%

100%

* Calculated according to upsilon length + predetermined length.

Table 3.9: Average sizes of upsilon blades and predetermined blades (in mm), and degree of exploitation of the removal surface at Kfar HaHoresh and Yiftahel. 3.7 Estimation of blade productivity

makes it impractical to reconstruct blade productivity within them.

Estimation of the number of produced targeted blades in one core reduction was calculated according to the volumetric principles presented in Chapter 2. Reconstruction is presented for Yiftahel and Kfar HaHoresh. The latter is a combination of the two phases (Middle and Late), since the sample size for each phase alone was too small (Table 3.10). The lack of statistically significant numbers of initial platform spalls and initial blades in the other assemblages  

Productivity in the two sites was high, averaging 28.2 targeted blades per single reduction sequence. Yiftahel was slightly more productive, averaging 29.6, while at Kfar HaHoresh it is 26.81 (Table 3.12).   This rate is higher than the 18 targeted blades produced in the KHH refitted core sequence (Table 2.5; Davidzon and Goring-Morris 2007).

1

Yiftahel

Kfar HaHoresh

Average

Height

42.6

48.6

45.6

Base length A

91.8

81.3

86.5

Base width B

36.9

36.2

36.5

Top length C

183.0

175.9

179.4

Wedge volume

960.4

992.5

976.5

Height

5.3

5.3

5.3

Base length A

16.9

17.5

17.2

Base width B

72.3

80.3

76.3

Top length C

16.9

17.5

17.2

Blade volume

32.4

37.1

34.8

29.6

26.8

28.2

WEDGE VOLUME (mm)

  BLADE VOLUME (mm)

PRODUCED BLADES Wedge volume/Blade volume

Table 3.10: Estimated targeted blade productivity at Yiftahel and Kfar HaHoresh. 35

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies 3.8 Core maintenance

Burins (Figure 3.11: 1–3)

Three core maintenance types were recognized in the Galilean assemblages: maintenance blades, renovation blades and secondary platform spalls (Table 3.1). The samples of the maintenance blades, which aimed to maintain the removal surface, were statistically sufficient for Yiftahel (n=27), while the samples of renovation blades and secondary platform spalls were insufficient for any of the assemblages. Two methods of cleaning step hinges were practiced at Yiftahel: opposed removals, which was the common mode (ca. 75%); and removals from the same direction, which was less common (ca. 25%).

Burins are represented by five subtypes (Figure 3.12), of which double burins and transversal burins (chanfreins) are the most frequent. Double burins are more frequent at KHH (Middle) and Hurvat Galil, transversal burins at Munhata and Yiftahel, while at KHH (Late) they are equally represented. Angle burins are common at Mishmar Ha’emeq and are also fairly common at Munhata. Dihedral burins and burins on truncation are the least common subtypes in all assemblages. The favored blanks for burins are débordante blades, predetermined blades central blades, ridge blades and tools (sickle blades and projectile points) (Figure 3.11:2; Table 3.12). The latter indicate a pattern of systematic recycling, especially at Munhata, Yiftahel and KHH (Middle).

The relative lack of maintenance debitage in the Galilean assemblages might give the impression that little maintenance was practiced during knapping. This could result from three scenarios: 1, the knappers were extremely proficient and therefore no maintenance was needed; 2, the knappers were clumsy and did not bother to maintain the core; or 3, the diagnostic maintenance debitage was disposed of elsewhere. The presence of dedicated bidirectional blade workshop dumps in the Galilean sites, especially at Yiftahel and Kfar HaHoresh, makes the third explanation the mostly likely one, since extensive core maintenance debitage was identified within them (see below).

Most burins are on sectioned blades, thus being relatively short, with an average L/W ratio of 3.2:1 (Table 3.13). Those from Hurvat Galil are the shortest, followed by Munhata and Mishmar Ha’emeq. By contrast, those from Yiftahel and Kfar HaHoresh are relatively long. Sickle blades (Figure 3.11: 4–6) Sickle blades comprise 23.6% of the tools in the Galilean assemblages (Table 3.11). They are divided into five subtypes (Figure 3.13). The most frequent sub-type is the retouched sickle blade, including complete, transversally and dorsally truncated items (Figures 3.13; 3.14:4–6). The second most frequent are plain sickles, which also include complete and transversally truncated items (Figure 3.11: 2–3). Other sub-types include tanged sickle knives and sickles with two glossed edges, which were common at KHH (Middle) and Munhata, and denticulated sickles, which were rare and appear only at Munhata.

3.9 Tools The bidirectional blade tools in the Galilee are dominated by projectile points, burins and sickle blades (Figures 3.11; 3.14; Table 3.11); other types include retouched blades, perforators, notches and denticulates, endscrapers, knives and varia.

The favored blade blanks for sickle blades are predetermined blades, followed by débordante and

Hurvat Galil (N=35)

Munhata 4–6 (N=256)

Mishmar Ha’emeq (N=77)

KHH Middle (N=207)

Yiftahel (N=324)

KHH Late (N=204)

Mean

Projectiles

38.7

24.6

27.3

41.1

28.4

15.2

27.7

Sickle blades

12.9

27.0

19.5

17.4

23.8

28.4

23.6

Burins

22.6

25.8

23.4

18.4

24.1

27.9

24.0

Perforators

3.2

 -

9.1

8.7

10.8

7.8

7.0

Endscrapers

 -

0.8

 

0.5

0.3

0.5

0.5

Ret. Blades

16.1

9.0

18.2

8.2

10.8

10.8

10.6

3.2

0.8

- 

0.5

0.9

4.9

1.5

3.2

 -

- 

0.5

0.3

0.5

0.4

  -

12.1

2.6

4.8

0.6

3.9

4.8

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

 

Notches Denticulates Knives Varia TOTAL

&

Table 3.11: The tool component on bidirectional blades within the Galilean assemblages (%).

36

The Northern Province

Figure 3.11: Tools on bidirectional blades from the Galilee: 1, multiple burin (Mishmar Ha’emeq); 2, transversal burin on a projectile point (Yiftahel); 3, transversal burin (Kfar HaHoresh); 4, inversely retouched sickle (Munhata); 5, tanged sickle (Kfar HaHoresh); 6, truncated sickle (Kfar HaHoresh) (After Gopher 1989b: Fig. 17:6; Goring-Morris et al. 1995: Fig. 11:5; Khalaily 2006: Fig. C9:2).

37

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies

 

Débordante blade

Burins

N

% 0.0

5

8.1

2

5.0

10

16.7

9

14.5

21

52.5

Hurvat Galil Munhata 4–6

Predetermined blade N

%

Central blade N

%

Ridge blade N

%

5

19.2

0.0

Mishmar Ha’emeq

1

1.7

6

9.7

1

2.5

3

11.5

KHH Middle

11

18.3

5

8.1

3

7.5

6

23.1

Yiftahel

24

40.0

20

32.3

5

12.5

5

19.2

KHH Late

14

23.3

17

27.4

8

20.0

7

26.9

Total

60

100.0

62

100.0

40

100.0

26

100.0

 

Sickle blade

Burins

N

%

Hurvat Galil

 

0.0

Projectile point N

%

Other N

0.0

Munhata 4–6

5

27.8

9

23.1

Mishmar Ha’emeq

5

27.8

2

5.1

6

Total %

N

%

0.0

7

2.7

46.2

65

25.2

0.0

18

7.0

KHH Middle

3

16.7

8

20.5

1

7.7

37

14.3

Yiftahel

4

22.2

13

33.3

3

23.1

74

28.7

KHH Late

1

5.6

7

17.9

3

23.1

57

22.1

Total

18

100.0

39

100.0

13

100.0

258

100.0

Table 3.12: Burin blank selection in the Galilean assemblages.

SITE

 

Length

Width

Thickness

L/W ratio

Hurvat Galil

N

7

7

7

 

 

Mean

38.8

17.0

5.2

2.3

 

Std

4.1

2.5

1.4

 

Munhata 4–6

N

52

66

66

 

 

Mean

54.6

19.5

6.8

2.8

 

Std

11.9

3.8

1.9

 

Mishmar Ha’emeq

N

17

18

18

 

 

Mean

53.9

17.9

7.2

3.0

 

Std

19.9

4.1

2.2

 

KHH Middle

N

38

38

38

 

 

Mean

65.6

18.7

7.0

3.5

 

Std

16.3

4.7

2.4

 

Yiftahel

N

78

78

78

 

 

Mean

63.8

19.4

8.1

3.3

 

Std

15.8

4.3

7.6

KHH Late

N

55.0

57.0

57.0

 

Mean

57.0

17.7

6.7

3.2

 

Std

14.1

3.7

2.1

 

Total

N

247.0

264.0

264.0

 

 

Mean

59.3

18.8

7.2

3.2

 

Std

15.8

4.1

4.5

 

Table 3.13: Average sizes of burins in the Galilean assemblages (in mm).

38

   

The Northern Province

Figure 3.12: Burin sub-types on bidirectional blades in the Galilean assemblages.

Figure 3.13: Sickle blade sub-types in the Galilean assemblages.  

Débordante

Predetermined

Central

Crested

Other

Total

Retouched blades

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Munhata 4–6

15

22.1

33

48.5

16

23.5

2

2.9

2

2.9

68

100

Mishmar Ha’emeq

3

20.0

10

66.7

1

6.7

 

0.0

1

6.7

15

100

KHH Middle

11

30.6

16

44.4

8

22.2

 

0.0

1

2.8

36

100

Yiftahel

13

16.9

53

68.8

7

9.1

1

1.3

3

3.9

77

100

KHH Late

15

25.9

25

43.1

10

17.2

3

5.2

5

8.6

58

100

Total

57

22.4

137

53.9

42

16.5

6

2.4

12

4.7

254

100

Table 3.14: Sickle blade blank selection in the Galilean assemblages. centrale blades (Table 3.14). Crested blades were also used for making sickles, but in lower quantities, at KHH (Late), Munhata and Yiftahel. SICKLE BLADES

 

Complete

N

 

The average size of sickle blades in the Galilee is presented according to complete and truncated types (Table 3.15). The complete sickles are relatively elongated, averaging

LENGTH

WIDTH

THICKNESS

L/W ratio

87

120

120

Mean

90.5

18.0

5.9

5.0

 

Std.

17.5

3.1

1.6

 

Truncated

N

117

134

134

 

Mean

56.7

19.1

6.5

3.0

 

Std.

18.1

3.1

1.5

 

Total

N

204

254

254

 

Mean

71.1

18.6

6.2

3.8

 

Std.

24.4

3.2

1.6

 

Table 3.15: Average sizes of sickle blades in the Galilean assemblages (in mm). 39

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies

Figure 3.14: Projectile points on bidirectional blades from the Galilee: 1–3, Helwan points (Kfar HaHoresh, Yiftahel, Mishmar Ha’emeq); 4–5, Jericho points (Mishmar Ha’emeq, Munhata); 6–7, Byblos points (Kfar HaHoresh); 8–9, Amuq points (Yiftahel, Kfar HaHoresh) (After Gopher 1989b: Fig. 9:7 ; Khalaily 2006: Fig. C-9: 1, 5; Barzilai and Getzov 2008: Fig. 8:1–2; Goring-Morris nd).

40

The Northern Province 5:1 L/W ratio, while the truncated types are shorter, averaging 3:1 L/W ratio.

(Munhata and Mishmar Ha’emeq), as attested by L/W ratios. When symmetry is examined, it is evident that the Galilean projectiles display a high degree of symmetry (Figure 3.16). In all of the assemblages, except for Munhata, more than 90% of the projectiles are symmetrical.

3.10 Projectile points (Figure 3.14) Projectile points comprise 27.7 % of the complete bidirectional blade tools in the Galilean assemblages (Table 3.11). Chronologically, early Helwan points (including the Aswad sub-type) are the most common type at Hurvat Galil (Figure 3.15). Jericho points are the common type at Munhata and Mishmar Ha’emeq, while at Yiftahel they are slightly more frequent than the Amuq and Byblos types. The most common type at Kfar HaHoresh is the Amuq point, comprising ca. 50% in the Middle phase, followed by Byblos and Jericho (ca. 20% each). In the Late phase the Amuq point comprises ca. 60%, followed by Byblos points (ca. 25%).

The retouch type is examined using two parameters, the tang for the hafting of the projectile and the distal tip. There are six tang retouch types: Abu Gosh, bifacial pressure flaking, abrupt, inverse, alternate, and other (Figure 3.17). The first two are standardized, elaborate and display a homogenous pattern, corresponding to the type of the point— bifacial pressure flaking for Jericho points, and ‘Abu Gosh’ retouch for Amuq points (Figures 3.18–3.19). Bifacial pressure flaking was the common retouch technique for Jericho point tangs in the E/MPPNB assemblages of Munhata and Mishmar Ha’emeq, as well as for MPPNB Yiftahel (Figure 3.17). The bifacial pressure flaking was applied at the proximal end of the blade, creating a pronounced tang with delicate barbs (Figure 3.18).

The blank selection indicates that predetermined blades were the common choice in all assemblages for all types. Centrale blades and sickle blades were also used, but in low frequencies.

‘Abu Gosh’ retouch was frequent in the MPPNB assemblages of KHH (Middle) and Yiftahel and LPPNB KHH (Late) (Figure 3.19). This retouch formed elongated, standardized tangs with plano-convex sections. These were made by invasive pressure flaking, which resulted in narrow oblique parallel scars crossing the dorsal ridge of the blank, from left to right.

In terms of size, Jericho (67.9 mm), Byblos (70 mm) and Amuq (68.8 mm) points are large in size, while Helwan points (49.1 mm) are medium-sized (Table 3.16). Despite the fact that type variability affects the average size, one can observe that the M/LPPNB points (Yiftahel and Kfar HaHoresh) are more elongated than the E/MPPNB points

Figure 3.15: Projectile point sub-type frequencies and blank types in the Galilean assemblages. 41

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies Hurvat Galil (n=12) TYPE

 

Helwan

Jericho JerichoByblos

Byblos ByblosAmuq

Amuq

L

W

Munhata 4–6 (n=63) T

L

W

Mishmar Ha’emeq (n=21) T

L

W

T

N

4

6

6

1

1

1

1

1

1

Size

50.4

15.7

3.5

42.5

11.0

4.8

38.4

15.3

5.1

Std.

4.4

1.1

0.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

N

4

4

4

35

43

43

11

11

11

Size

54.3

14.7

4.4

61.2

18.4

6.4

66.2

19.0

6.4

Std.

19.5

4.0

1.6

13.3

3.0

1.1

12.4

2.8

0.9

N

 

 

 

2

3

3

3

3

3

Size

 

 

 

49.1

17.0

5.8

60.8

17.3

5.9

Std.

 

 

 

2.5

2.6

1.2

1.2

3.1

0.5

N

2

2

2

11

13

13

6

6

6

Size

69.3

17.1

6.7

60.7

15.7

5.8

66.9

15.6

5.1

Std.

15.4

0.5

0.0

21.7

3.6

2.2

20.2

1.5

0.8

N

 

 

 

1

1

1

 

 

 

Size

 

 

 

53.5

16.8

7.0

 

 

 

Std.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N

 

 

 

1

2

2

 

 

 

Size

 

 

 

82.8

17.4

6.0

 

 

 

Std.

 

 

 

 

0.4

0.3

 

 

 

N

10

12

12

51

63

63

21

21

21

Size

55.7

15.6

4.3

60.5

17.6

6.2

64.3

17.6

5.9

TOTAL

Std.

14.6

2.4

1.5

15.4

3.3

1.4

14.8

2.8

1.0

L/W

   

TYPE

Helwan

Jericho JerichoByblos

Byblos ByblosAmuq

Amuq

3.6 

3.4 

3.6 

KHH Middle (n=85)

Yiftahel (n=92)

KHH Late (n=31)

 

L

W

T

L

W

T

L

W

T

N

2

2

2

 

 

 

4.0

4.0

4.0

Size

28.4

10.4

3.0

 

 

 

59.0

16.0

5.4

Std.

2.8

0.4

0.8

 

 

 

14.6

1.8

3.0

N

16

20

20

32

33

33

2

2

2

Size

66.6

19.0

6.0

77.9

20.2

6.2

73.1

21.3

5.5

Std.

10.4

2.5

0.8

14.9

3.0

1.5

3.9

2.4

0.1

N

1

2

2

2

2

2

 

 

 

Size

55.9

21.1

5.8

72.6

18.7

5.7

 

 

 

0.5

0.3

1.5

0.7

0.2

 

 

 

N

18.0

18.0

18.0

23.0

23.0

23.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

Size

77.2

18.5

6.3

69.3

17.3

6.8

71.3

18.4

5.9

Std.

12.5

2.5

1.0

15.1

3.0

6.3

9.0

1.6

1.2

N

3

3

3

1

1

 

 

 

 

Size

78.2

14.6

5.4

58.6

18.8

 

 

 

 

Std.

13.6

0.9

1.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

Std.

N

40

40

40

29

29

29

17

17

17

Size

66.5

16.2

5.0

70.0

15.8

5.0

71.3

15.8

5.3

Std.

10.3

2.2

1.0

11.8

1.5

1.2

9.9

1.8

1.1

N

80

85

85

91

92

91

31

31

31

Size

68.3

17.3

5.5

72.0

17.9

5.9

69.8

16.8

5.4

TOTAL

Std.

13.3

2.9

1.2

14.4

3.1

3.4

10.6

2.4

1.1

L/W

 

4.0 

4.0 

4.1 

Table 3.16: Sizes of projectile point types in the Galilean assemblages (in mm). 42

The Northern Province

Figure 3.16: Projectile point symmetries in the Galilean assemblages.

Figure 3.17: Projectile point tang retouch frequencies in the Galilean assemblages.

43

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies

Figure 3.18: Bifacially pressure flaked tang on a Jericho point from Munhata.

Figure 3.19: ‘Abu Gosh’ retouch on Amuq and Byblos points from Kfar HaHoresh.

The other retouch types are not standardized and do not display correlations with specific projectile types, or sites, except for a small sample of bifacially retouched tangs at Hurvat Galil.

While the retouch patterns for tips do not seem to correspond to particular projectile types, interestingly there is a correlation with sites. Thus, tips display a predominance of inverse retouch at Hurvat Galil and

Figure 3.20: Projectile point tip retouch frequencies in the Galilean assemblages. 44

The Northern Province An EPPNB presence in the Central Jordan Valley is recorded at Mujahyia and possibly also at Tell Ali IV and Ohalo I. At Mujahyia it appears that bidirectional blade technology was not common. No bidirectional blade cores are reported, except for what appears to be a bidirectional bladelet core (Gopher 1990: Fig. 7:2). Similarly, among the tools, most of the projectile points appear to have been made on small unidirectional blades, although some of the Helwan points were noted to be made on purple flint (ibid, Fig. 8:3–4), as were some of the burins (ibid., Fig. 10:1–3), which appear to have been made on bidirectional blades. At Tell Ali it appears that Stratum IV of the earlier excavations should be dated to the EPPNB (Prausnitz 1970:141–142). This layer was reported to include bidirectional cores and blades, seemingly on purple-pinkish flint (ibid, 106). Although the tool sample from this layer is small, two projectile points within this layer are of the Helwan type (ibid, 118–122). Helwan points were also recovered from Layer 2 in the later excavation, suggesting that they derive from earlier levels (Garfinkel 1994b: Fig. 2:1–2; p. 555). Another locality that may date to the EPPNB is Ohalo I on the southeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (Nadel et al. 2006:69–74). It appears that this beach was exploited during the EPPNB as attested by the sporadic presence of Helwan points.

Mishmar Ha’emeq, inverse and no retouch at Yiftahel and Kfar HaHoresh, and bifacial pressure flaking at Munhata (Figure 3.20). In sum, it is noted that two types of projectile points display standardized retouch, thus reflecting stylistic features. These seem to correspond to chronology, since Jericho points with pronounced tangs fashioned by bifacial pressure retouch are typical of the E/MPPNB, while Amuq points with ‘Abu Gosh’ retouched tangs are common during the M/LPPNB.

3.11 Tools from other sites in the Northern Province Tools on bidirectional blades were reported from many sites in the Northern Province. However, it is unclear which types dominate these assemblages, since in most reports the tool counts include also tools made on other debitage types such as flakes. Still, some observations can be made for the bidirectional blade component, which is presented according to sub-period. Early PPNB Reports on EPPNB sites are available for Nahal Oren (Layer I), Sefunim (Cave Layer 7; Terrace Layers III–V) and Michmoret (26; 26A) on the Carmel Coast and Mujahyia, Tell Ali IV and Ohalo I in the Central Jordan Valley (Burian and Friedman 1965; Gopher 1990; Nadel et al. 2006; Noy et al. 1973; Prausnitz 1970; Ronen 1984). The nature of the Carmel Coast assemblages is unclear. Nahal Oren and Sefunim have earlier occupations, indicating some degree of admixture and disturbance (Noy 1993), while Michmoret is a surface collection (Gopher 1994: 161–163). The bidirectional blade component at Sefunim appears to be very small (pers. observation) and is found mainly in Layer IV on the terrace, as illustrated by transversal burins and projectile point fragments (Ronen 1984: Fig. 21.5:8–9; 21.10:2–3). At Nahal Oren, the bidirectional blade component appears to be higher and includes complete predetermined blades as well as projectile points, sickle blades and retouched blades (Noy et al. 1973: Fig. 7:1–2). The projectile points (n=131) date the major occupation of Layer I to the EPPNB, since the dominant type is the Helwan point (44%), followed by the Jericho point (24%; Gopher 1994: 100–103). It seems that at Nahal Oren there was a preference for purple/pinkish flint for making the projectile points. Some of the Helwan points display short, bifacially flaked tangs (Noy et al. 973: Fig. 7:4), thus resembling Hurvat Galil (Gopher 1997: Fig. 15:7–8). The sickle blades were noted to be made on brown colored flint. Some appeared to be long, bearing fine denticulation on the dorsal face.

Middle and Late PPNB The MPPNB and LPPNB bidirectional blade component from other sites are discussed together since most of the assemblages only provided small samples of indicative flint artifacts (i.e. projectile points) and most sites were not securely dated by 14C dates.1 The review is made for Nahal Bezet I, Kfar Giladi, Ain Zippori, Givat Rabi and Tell Ali III from Cisjordan, and Tell Rakan, Tell esSawwan and Kharaysin from Transjordan (Prausnitz 1970; Gopher 1989a; Edwards and Thorpe 1986; Simmons et al. 1988; Banning and Najjar 1999; Al-Nahar 2006; Barzilai in press; Barzilai and Milevski in press). The bidirectional blade component at Nahal Bezet I is small; it was reported to be made on pink flint and to include bidirectional blade cores together with Jericho and Byblos points (Gopher 1989a:87). The assemblage from Layer V at Ain Zippori is also small. The only bidirectional items recovered were crested blades and a Byblos point (Barzilai in press). The bidirectional component at Givat Rabi is sizeable, including bidirectional cores, initial platform spalls, crested blades, hinged blades and platform isolation elements (Barzilai and Milevski in press). However, the absence of diagnostic tools causes difficulties in dating; nevertheless, since the bidirectional blades were made on HaSollelim flint it is assumed to post-date the E/MPPNB.

The Michmoret assemblages were reported to be dominated by blades, and projectile points (Burian and Friedman 1965). Notably, Helwan points were the dominant type within the projectiles (Gopher 1996). Apparently most were large symmetrical items, of which some were fashioned by pressure flaking (Gopher 1994:161).

Stratum III at Tell Ali was reported to be very similar to Jericho (Prausnitz 1970:141–142). This layer is   Except for two dates (8430+/-70; 8100+/-70 BP) from Tell Rakan (Banning and Najjar 1999).

1

45

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies Yarmukian assemblages of Sha’ar Hagolan and Hamadiya (Barzilai and Garfinkel 2006 and references therein). It appears that Ohalo I on the southeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, was also exploited during the FPPNB, as attested by pressure-flaked points and daggers (Nadel et al. 2006: Figs. 27:2, 28:1, 29:1).

characterized by large Jericho and Byblos points (ibid., 118–122) and sickle blades (ibid., 127–130) made on bidirectional blades. The nature of the lithic assemblage at Tell Rakkan is also not clear; it was generally reported to contain crested blades, naviform cores, Amuq and Byblos points and reaping knives (Banning and Najjar 1999:2).

3.12 Workshop dumps

Tell es-Sawwan appears to date to the E/MPPNB, on the basis of large, elaborate Jericho points (Al Nahar 2006: Fig. 4). The assemblage seems to represent the entire reduction sequence as attested by the presence of diagnostic cores, debitage and tools (Al-Nahar 2006; Simmons et al. 1988) that were probably made on purple-pinkish flint (Rollefson et al. 2007).

To date, presence of workshop dumps have been reported at three sites in the Northern Province: Yiftahel, Kfar HaHoresh, and Atlit Yam (Galili 2004; Goring-Morris 1994; Khalaily et al. 2008). All were identified in the field as pits containing large quantities of bidirectional bladeknapping waste.

Surface collections at Kharaysin yielded a MPPNB– LPPNB occupation (Edwards and Thorpe 1986). The raw material apparently included purple-pinkish flint used for making some of the blades at the site. Indicative items include naviform cores, transversal burins on blades and projectile points. The latter were reported to include Jericho and Byblos types and tang fragments fashioned by ‘Abu Gosh’ retouch.

The bidirectional workshop dump from Yiftahel (Area F, K33—recent excavations) is but one of a dozen dumps that were noted during the various excavations in Areas C, E and I (Khalaily 2006; Garfinkel et al. in prep; Barzilai pers. observation; Garfinkel pers. comm.). These represent just a small component within the general bidirectional blade assemblage, thus making Yiftahel one of largest production centers in the southern Levant (Garfinkel 2007; Khalaily et al. 2008).

Final PPNB

In contrast, only single bidirectional workshop dumps have been identified to date at Kfar HaHoresh (L1007) and Atlit Yam (L35). Interestingly, they account for a full half of the bidirectional blade components within these site assemblages (Galili 2004; Goring-Morris 1994).

The resolution for the FPPNB is high for three regions within the Northern Province: the Acre Plain, the Hula Basin and the Central Jordan Valley. In the Acre Plain FPPNB occupations were recorded at: Ard el-Samra, Nahal Bezet II and Hurvat Uza (Getzov 2008b; Getzov et al. 2009). Like in the M/LPPNB, the scale of excavations was limited, resulting in small samples. However, they included bidirectional components, mainly blade fragments, ridge blades, burins and pressure-flaked points (Getzov et al. 2009).

It should also be noted that at least two separate workshop sites are known near Yiftahel, with both located in close proximity to flint sources; Q-1 and Givat Rabi (Oshri et al. 1999; Barzilai and Milevski in press). These sites were not analyzed but will be referred to in the following discussion.

FPPNB occupations in the Hula Basin were documented at Hagoshrim (VI), Tell Ro’im West (IV), Tell Teo (XII–X), and Sector E at Beisamoun (Eisenberg et al. 2001; Nadler-Uziel 2007; Getzov 2008b; Bocquentin et al. in press). Diagnostic wide bidirectional cores, debitage (crested blades) and tools were recorded at Beisamoun (Bocquentin et al. in press: Figs. 4–5). The tools include denticulated sickle blades and pressure-flaked Byblos and Amuq points. Although bidirectional blade technology was reported to be absent at Hagoshrim VI, it is clear that some of the denticulated sickle blade and the points were made on bidirectional blades (Khalaily 2006: Fig. D-9, D-10). A similar pattern was also noted at Tell Teo XII–XI (Gopher and Rosen 2001:51).

The workshop dumps from Yiftahel Area F, K33 and Kfar HaHoresh were fully analyzed. The results are presented below according to their knapping stages (Wilke and Quintero 1994), while the dump from Atlit Yam, having been previously analyzed (Galili 2004), is evaluated through the study of a small representative sample. Yiftahel (Area F, square K33) The workshop dump from Yiftahel contained 8801 artifacts that were all produced on one flint type, namely the beige HaSollelim type. The artifacts included debris (2076), debitage (6366), tools (206) and cores (153; Table 3.17). The dump in K33 appears to represent only certain stages in the reduction sequence, while others were missing or, alternatively, seem to be over-represented. The represented stages include core preformation, final core preparation, blade production and core abandonment.

In the Central Jordan Valley bidirectional blade technology was identified in the FPPNB occupations at Tell Ali Stratum 2 and at Area G in Sha’ar Hagolan below the Yarmukian settlement (Garfinkel 1994b; 2004). The bidirectional blade component at Area G in Sha’ar Hagolan is characterized by wide bidirectional blade cores, crude blades and Amuq points (pers. observation). This show a similar pattern to the bidirectional blade component in the proceeding PN

Core preformation is evident in the non-diagnostic debitage (n=4350) that includes large primary elements, as well as flakes, blades and core trimming elements of various sizes. The only type within the non-diagnostic debitage 46

The Northern Province

KHH L1007

ATLIT YAM L35 (Galili 2004)

ATLIT YAM L35 (sample)

YIFTAHEL F K33

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Primary flakes and blades

1354

14.6

2735

25.1

248

29

816

18.8

Flakes

6579

71

5508

50.5

457

53.5

2923

67.2

Blades

783

8.5

2325

21.3

73

8.5

359

8.3

5

0.1

10

0.1

14

1.6

68

1.6

NON-DIAGNOSTIC DEBITAGE

Burin spalls Core trimming elements

540

5.8

338

3.1

62

7.3

184

4.2

Total

9261

100

10916

100

854

100

4350

100

341

5.5

-

-

13

1.4

202

10

DIAGNOSTIC DEBITAGE Initial platform spalls Initial blades

243

3.9

-

-

38

4.1

83

4.1

Lame débordantes

2747

44.1

-

-

139

15

504

25

Lames centrales

2279

36.6

-

-

701

75.5

1162

57.6

7

0.8

16

0.8

0

0

5

0.2

Maintenance blades

146

2.3

-

-

Maintenance flakes

58

0.9

-

-

Core tablets

89

1.4

-

-

3

0.3

5

0.2

Secondary crested blades

319

5.1

-

-

27

2.9

39

1.9

Total

6222

100

-

-

928

100

2016

100

Non-diagnostic

9261

60

-

-

854

48

4350

68

diagnostic

6222

40

-

-

928

52

2016

32

TOTAL DEBITAGE

15483

100

10916

-

1782

100

6366

100

Tools on non-diagnostic debitage types

44

78.6

- 

-

16

100

142

68.9

Tools on diagnostic debitage types

12

21.4

 -

-

0

0

64

31.1

TOTAL

56

100

153

100

16

100

206

100

13

76.5

12

44.4

7

100

127

83

Other

4

23.5

15

55.6

0

0

26

17

TOTAL

17

100

27

100

7

100

153

100

95632

99.8

72554

94.1

983

98.9

1725

83.1

TOOLS

CORES Naviform blade

DEBRIS Chips Chunks

207

0.2

4580

5.9

11

1.1

351

16.9

TOTAL

95839

100

77134

100

994

100

2076

100

DEBITAGE

15483

13.9

10916

12.4

1782

63.7

6366

72.3

DEBRIS

95839

86

77134

87.4

994

35.5

2076

23.6

TOOLS

56

0.1

153

0.2

16

0.6

206

2.3

CORES

17

0

27

0.0

7

0.3

153

1.7

TOTAL

111395

100

88230

100

2799

100

8801

100

Table 3.17: General breakdown of artifact categories in workshop dumps at Kfar HaHoresh, Atlit Yam and Yiftahel.

47

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies that clearly does not relate to this stage are the burin spalls (n=67), which are by-products of tool manufacture.

Knowing that at Yiftahel the contents of workshop dumps vary in composition, it appears that the dumping was made by stages and not at the end of the whole knapping process. It is therefore suggested that K33 includes by-products of ca. 50 reduction sequences, in addition to a similar number of cores that represent a separate disposal event of the final stage of previous knapping sessions.

The next stage in the reduction sequence is the final core preparation, which is represented by the initial platform spalls and by the initial blades. The initial platform spalls (n=202) are divided into unprepared (21%), crested (10%), faceted (24%) and flat spalls (45%). These represent at least 56 separate reduction sequences, calculated as follows: the flat spalls (n=90), indicating secondary attempts at establishing the striking platforms, are deducted from the total number of spalls (n=202). The remaining 112 items are divided in half, since each core features two striking platforms, resulting in a minimum of 56 reduction sequences.

Kfar HaHoresh (Locus 1007)  L1007 contains 111,395 flint artifacts2, consisting of debris (95,839), debitage (15,483), tools (56) and cores (17; Table 3.17). These were produced from two flint group types, the majority (over 90%) on beige HaSollelim flint (including all three variants), and the rest, possibly representing a single reduction sequence, on lustrous purple-pinkish flint whose source remains unknown.

The other diagnostic type produced during the final core preparation stage are the initial blades (n=83). These include mainly fragments of what appear to be fully crested blades (75%), while the rest are crested upsilons (5%), cortical blades (3%) and bladelets (19%).

L1007 appears to represent all stages in the reduction sequence except for core abandonment. Interestingly, huge quantities of chips (n=95,632) are present, as are platform isolation elements (see below), attesting to intensive preparations before blade detachment.

The blade production stage of dump K33 is represented by the targeted blade component, which is divided into central (n=1162) and débordante (n=504) blades. Both categories include fragments of targeted blades (35%), ridgestraightening blades (35%), platform isolation elements (20%), hinged blades (5%), and ‘clean-up’ blades (5%).

The preformation stage is represented by the non-diagnostic debitage types (n=9,261). These include primary elements, flakes, blades (not removed from the removal surface), CTE, and burin spalls (Table 3.17). It appears that most of these (excluding the burin spalls) should be ascribed to the preformation stage as indicated by the presence of different size groups (>7 cm, 5–7 cm; 3–4 cm; >3 cm) and by radial scar patterns that occasionally include cortical remnants. The five burin spalls found within the dump include three blade truncation spalls and two transversal spalls produced from flakes. These could represent tool fabrication at the end of the knapping process, or simply ‘background noise’.

Interestingly, the core maintenance stage appears to be significantly under-represented, since there are relatively few secondary crested blades (n=39), hinge removal blades (n=16) and secondary spalls (n=5). Similarly, the debris comprises only 2076 items, of which chips represent 99%. In contrast, the 202 cores are over-represented. These include 128 bidirectional blade cores, of which 53% are postero-lateral, 40% bipolar and 7% naviform sub-types. The 206 tools are also over-represented, with ca. 50% being ad hoc. Accordingly, it appears likely that some tools, burin spalls and probably some of the non-diagnostic debitage represent ‘background noise’.

Final core preparation is indicated in L1007 by the initial platform spalls and the initial blades. The 341 initial platform spalls (one-third were complete) were further divided into unprepared, crested, faceted and flat, thus reflecting variability in core preparation (Wilke and Quintero 1994). Accordingly the common mode of preformation is angular, as demonstrated by faceted spalls (n=100), followed by unprepared (n=62) and bifacial (n=52) sub-types. The high number of the flat subtype (N=127) represents secondary attempts to create platforms as indicated by unipolar scars on the dorsal surfaces. The initial platform spalls in L1007 represent ca. 117 separate reduction sequences, calculated as described above for K33 at Yiftahel—total number of spalls (341) minus the flat spalls (127) = 234, divided in half.

In summary, the K33 workshop dump appears to represent a bidirectional blade workshop dump representing at least 50 reduction sequences. Some stages of the reduction sequence are well-represented and others, in particular the debris and platform isolation elements, are under-represented.1 Over-represented categories in K33 include the cores and tools. Some of the cores (the nonbidirectional) and the tools certainly do not belong to the reduction sequence and should be attributed to background noise. Still, the number of bidirectional blade cores in K33 is twice (n=112) the number of the reduction sequences suggested (56) by the initial platform spalls. This could reflect under-representation of the latter, which is not supported by the number of initial blade and targeted blades, or, more likely, over-representation of cores.

The initial blades (n=243) include mostly fragments (82%); the rest are hinged (10%) or complete (8%) items. The most common sub-type is the crested type (n=60), which was carefully designed by creating a central crest (lame à crête). These occasionally were followed by

1  On the other hand, another dump in Area E (L24) was reported to contain platform isolation elements and chips, but lacks the large component such as primary elements (Khalaily 2006; Garfinkel et al. in press).

  Differences with counts in Goring-Morris 1994.

2

48

The Northern Province The last category consists of the tools. They appear as background noise since most are ad hoc flake tools, although some (two retouched blades and an Amuq point with ‘Abu Gosh’ retouch) might have been produced in one of the represented sequences, since they were made on targeted blades.

‘clean-up’ removals of upsilon-crested blades (n=18) from the opposite direction. Cortical/natural initial blades with a thick triangular/plano-convex cross section are also occasionally present (n=12), thus indicating that most cores were carefully preformed. Interestingly, there are many crested bladelets (n=153). These are smaller versions of the preceding types, but are shorter with widths 5 cm) appear less frequently. These were likely produced immediately after decortication continuing the process of core preparation. Core trimming elements and smaller flakes appear to derive from the core preparation or core maintenance stages (Wilke and Quinter0 1994).

6.12. Workshop dumps (Figure 6.25)

The diagnostic debitage types in L3 and L5 represent all of the knapping stages (Appendix 2). These include core trimming flakes (Gebel 1996: Plate 2:a) and initial platform spalls (type I1), which were produced during final core preparations. Blade production is signified by the presence of initial crested blades (type II1; Gebel 1996: plate 2:b), targeted blades, maintenance blades and bladelet-sized items. The targeted blades mainly comprise fragments and hinges of débordantes blades and centrale blades (II2-3; Figure 6.25). Maintenance of the removal surface was made by hinge removal blades (II4) and renovation blades (II5), while the striking platforms were maintained by secondary platform spalls (II6; Gebel 1996: plate 2:c).

Workshop dumps in the Southeastern Province are reported only at Basta (Gebel 1996), although it is reasonable to assume that they will be found at other mega-sites in the region such at al-Basit or Ain Jammam.

In sum, the contents of the two workshop dumps at Basta are estimated to represent hundreds of reduction sequences that were produced in a relatively short period of time. The raw material used for the bidirectional blade production

The workshop dumps at Basta contain bidirectional blade byproducts that were disposed of in abandoned structures

1

Perforators are also noted in some of the assemblages. Micro-borers are attested at al-Basit and Jebel Arqa, while large drills resembling those from Nahal Issaron are noted at Ba’ja and Wadi Fidan 1 (Rollefson 2002: Fig. 2; Fabiano et al. 2004: Fig. 5; Levy 2007:23-24; Purschwitz and Kinzel 2007: Fig. 5). Denticulated blades similar to the ones from Nahal Issaron and Ayn Abu Nukheyla are reported at Wadi Abu Tulayha (Fujii 2006: Fig. 10:16-17).

  These blades are elongated flakes that were not removed from the debitage surface.

130

The Southeastern Province

Figure 6.25: Knapping waste products from Basta Locus 5: a, medium-sized hinged blade (raw material 2); b, medial fragments of medium-sized blades (raw material 2); c, proximal fragment of a mega-blade (raw material 1); d, medial fragments of mega-blades (raw material 1). includes three types obtained from nearby sources at Jebel Jiththa and Ain Abu al-Idham. It is unclear whether this flint was quarried. It appears that many of these flint blocks were brought unmodified to the site as indicated by the frequency of primary elements and initial platform spalls within the dumps. The bidirectional blade industry at Basta had at least two knapping modes, one for mediumsized blades made on material groups 2 and 3, and another for production of mega-blades using material group 1 (Figure 6.25). Blade production was carried out at Basta as attested by the large quantity of diagnostic debitage types in L3 and L5. The re-deposition of considerable amounts of knapping waste (estimated to weigh several hundreds kg) in a designated place (abandoned houses, in this case) suggests

this was an organized act of waste disposal, likely of centralized workshop/s that operated at Basta.

6.13. Stocks and caches Stocks and caches of bidirectional blades and tools are present at Early Beidha, Ayn Abu Nukheyla, Nahal Issaron, Ghwair I and Ba’ja (Barzilai and Goring-Morris 2007: Table 1). Those from Early Beidha, Ayn Abu Nukheyla and Nahal Issaron were analyzed (Table 6.15), while those from Ghwair I and Ba’ja are reviewed in light of publications (Simmons and Najjar 2000:7; Gebel et al. 2006a; Simmons 2007:171). 131

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies

 

Beidha (L418)

Ayn Abu Nukheyla (L22)

Nahal Issaron (L40)

DEBITAGE

N

%

N

%

N

%

Flake

2

3.0

1

4.8

0

0.0

Débordante blades

4

6.0

9

42.9

4

17.4

Centrale blades

59

88.1

8

38.1

19

82.6

Maintenance blades

1

1.5

0

0.0

0

0.0

Secondary ridge blades

1

1.5

3

14.3

0

0.0

Total

67

100

21

100

23

100

DEBITAGE

67

58.8

21

41.2

23

100

TOOLS

46

40.4

30

58.8

0

0

CORES

1

0.9

0

0

0

0

TOTAL:

114

100

51

100

23

100

Table 6.15: Analyzed bidirectional blade component within the Southeastern Province stocks and caches. Contexts Stocks and caches in the Southeastern Province likely represent three different activities: domestic stocks, seasonal reserves and grave goods. Domestic stocks These household stocks derive from small-scale knapping localities within seasonal village settlements. Such stocks were stored in houses at Early Beidha and Ghwair I (Mortensen 1988; Simmons and Najjar 2000). The stock from Beidha was found in a wooden box on the floor of a burnt house (XVIII) in layer VI (Mortensen 1988). It was found together with two straw baskets coated with lime plaster and bitumen, pigments, milling stones, bone tools and an axe, suggesting domestic activities, probably a small workshop (Mortensen 1988; Barzilai and Goring-Morris 2007). A stock from Ghwair I was recovered from the floor of a bin adjacent to the ‘niche’ room in Area I (Simmons and Najjar 2000:7); it could have a similar function as Beidha, although it is unclear if it was associated with other finds (Simmons and Najjar 2006). Seasonal ‘reserves’ The second recognized activity is stocking for future use in small seasonal sites such as Ayn Abu Nukheyla and Nahal Issaron (Barzilai and Goring-Morris 2007:290-292). These ‘seasonal reserves’ were also placed in structures. The Nahal Issaron stock was found on the floor of a circular structure (Barzilai and Goring-Morris in 2007). At Ayn Abu Nukheila two blade and tool bundles were stored within structures, one adjacent to a structure wall (Locus 20) and another (Locus 22) hidden underneath a quern (Henry et al. 2002: Fig. 5; 2003: Fig. 8). Grave goods The third activity appears to be symbolic caching associated with burials. Examples have been found at Ba’ja

and Ghwair I (Gebel and Hermansen 2000; 2001; Gebel et al. 2006a; Simmons 2007:171-172). At Ba’ja arrowheads were placed with other grave goods in three separate collective burial chambers (Area D; Area C Locus 152; Area C Locus 170). The grave goods from Area D were placed in a chamber that had a red figurative fresco painted on one of its walls. The grave goods included nine projectile points (of which some were red-stained), a broken dagger, mother-of-pearl ornaments and a macehead. Locus 152 in Area C included four projectile points, a dagger, beads and pigments, while Locus 170 included 12 projectiles and animal bones (Gebel et al. 2006a). In addition to the stock, two more caches of retouched blades were associated with the primary burial of an infant with a mother-of-pearl pendant around the neck were recovered at Ghwair I (Simmons 2007: 171). The blades were placed on top of a plastered floor that covered the burial together with polishing stones, malachite, a skull of wild cattle and five skulls of goat/sheep. Contents The stocks and caches from the Southeastern Province differ in the numbers and composition of the items: 114 items at Beidha; 51 at Ayn Abu Nukheyla; 23 at Nahal Issaron; 23 at Ghwair I; 12, 9 and 4 at Ba’ja (Tables 6.15; 6.17). The typological composition also varies. The stocks at Beidha and Ayn Abu Nukheyla consist of unretouched blades and tools, while that from Nahal Issaron includes only unretouched blades and those from Ghwair I and Ba’ja only points. The Beidha stock includes bidirectional bladelets and tools (Mortensen 1988: Figs. 2-6). The artifacts were made on extra fine-grained flint of six colors: beige (72%), grey (10%), brown (8%), light brown (8%), striped brown (1%), and off-white (1%). The items on the beige flint appear to derive from one or two sequences (see below). The unretouched blades are extremely small (Table 6.16), 132

The Southeastern Province with many actually fitting the definition of bladelets ( 50,000 artifacts) poses the question as to whether the cores were transported in organized expeditions, or brought in randomly by individuals to the site. At the moment it is difficult to answer without further research, but it seems likely that organized expeditions are

blades and bladelets appear to have been produced mainly in workshops at the mega-sites. Among the raw materials it is evident that local flint nodules in various colors were utilized in the MPPNB assemblages; and it seems that the texture quality in the Greater Petra Area proper is better (extra fine-grained) than in either Biqat Uvda or the Hisma. In the LPPNB targeted flint types were transported to some of the megasites from particular outcrops for specific needs. At Basta, for example, three flint types were brought from Ain Abu al-Idham (Muheisen et al. 2004); one (FRMG 1) was used for producing mega-blades, while the other two (FRMG 2-3) were used for medium-sized blades. In the peripheral satellite sites flint acquisition displayed a pattern similar to the MPPNB; that is, the exploitation of local flint in various colors. In addition to flint other materials were also used for bidirectional blade production but in lesser quantities. These include chalcedony, which was used for bidirectional bladelet production at Shaqarat Msaied, and orthoquartzite, which was used for projectile points and borers in the LPPNB sites.

MPPNB: Small villages & seasonal sites

  It should be noted that no raw material sources are found near the site (Henry et al. 2003).

1

LPPNB: Mega-sites

LPPNB: Seasonal sites (satellites)

Production modes: Medium-sized blades; Production modes: Medium-sized blades; Production modes: Medium-sized blades. bladelets? mega-blades; bladelets. Raw material: Local fine-grained flint in Raw material: Exported flint from specific Raw material: Local fine-grained flint in various colors for the medium-sized blades. outcrops. various colors and orthoquartzite for the medium-sized blades. Chalcedony/translucent flint for bladelets. Use FRMG 1 for mega blades. FRMG 2-3 and orthoquartzite for mediumsized blades. Translucent flint for bladelets. Production place: On-site production in Production place: On-site production Production place: On-site production (Nahal small indoor workshops. in large workshops; disposal of waste in Issaron & Wadi Abu Tulayah). abandoned buildings. -Partial production (Ayn Abu Nukheyla). - Off-site production (Ba’ja). Production scale: Medium scale. Estimated Production scale: Mass production (Basta). Production scale: Medium scale. Estimated at at hundreds of sequences. Estimated at thousands of sequences. hundreds of sequences. Stocks and caches: household stocks Stocks and caches: ? (Beidha; Ghwair I).

Stocks and caches: seasonal domestic reserves (Nahal Issaron; Ayn Abu Nukheyla); grave goods (Ba’ja).

Cores: Bipolar

Cores: Bipolar

Cores: Bipolar, bladelet

Toolkit: Projectile points, retouched blades, Toolkit: Projectile points, retouched blade, Toolkit: Projectile points, retouched blades; micro-borers, few sickle blades. knives, drills, micro-borers, few sickle blades. denticulated blades. Projectile points: Jericho and Byblos types. Projectile points: Amuq type. Fashioned by Projectile points: Amuq type. Fashioned by Tangs are fashioned by abrupt and Helwan invasive pressure retouch. invasive pressure retouch. retouch. Knapping skills: Average.

Knapping skills: High for the mega-blades; Knapping skills: Average. average knapping skills for the micro-blades & standard blades.

Table 6.18: Bidirectional blade characteristics within the Southeastern Province in Middle and Late PPNB.

139

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies more likely, since most of the lithic industry at the site is homogenous. Bidirectional blade and tool stocks are evident as household stocks in the MPPNB and as seasonal domestic reserves in the LPPNB. Grave good caches are reported in both MPPNB (Ghwair I) and LPPNB (Ba’ja). Surprisingly, no stocks or caches have been reported from the mega-sites. Technological reconstruction is available for the mediumsized blade production. The technology included the production of medium-sized, targeted blades that occasionally were followed by atypical ‘clean-up’ upsilon blades. These were produced from partially prepared bipolar cores that were subjected to maintenance of the removal surface by hinge removal blades and renovation blades; and striking platform rejuvenation that was mostly carried out in LPPNB assemblages. The targeted blades apparently exploited ca. 60% of the removal surface and are estimated to have produced between 14-17 blades per reduction sequence in the MPPNB assemblages. Another, individual mode of production was recognized for the Beidha stock bladelets, which display a similar concept to that seen in the Motza cache (Chapter 4). This involved balanced alternate removals of elongated pointed bladelets that required no upsilon ‘clean-ups’, ultimately producing at least 20 targeted bladelet blanks from the sequence.

The bidirectional blade toolkit within the Southeastern Province assemblages is characterized by an abundance of projectile points and retouched blades and a dearth of sickle blades. Chronological differences are apparent in the projectile point types and retouch and by the appearance of denticulated blades in the LPPNB as attested at Ayn Abu Nukheyla and Nahal Issaron. The latter seems to reflect more specific activities, possibly related to the shell ornament industry. Projectile points are highly symmetrical in all assemblages (65-81%). The typological variability reflects a chronological vector, as expected (Gopher 1994); in the MPPNB the Jericho (Shaqarat Msaied) and Byblos points (Early Beidha, Nahal Reu’el and Late Beidha) are dominant, while the Amuq point (Ayn Abu Nukheyla and Nahal Issaron) is the common type in the LPPNB. The retouch on points also varies respectively. Abrupt and alternate retouch are the common modes for tang fashioning in the MPPNB, while bifacial pressure flaking and abrupt retouch are dominant in the LPPNB. The tips were mostly unmodified in the MPPNB, while fine and abrupt retouch were commonly applied on the LPPNB tips. In conclusion, it is apparent that the level of the knappers’ performance within the examined assemblages is homogenous with minor ranking in the MPPNB, while considerable expertise, in particular for mega-blade production, was probably needed in the LPPNB.

140

CHAPTER 7: THE BIDIRECTIONAL BLADE INDUSTRIES OF THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

Bidirectional blade technology is the most common formal PPNB material culture component in the Levant, and therefore is properly regarded by Nishiaki (2000:93) as the ‘chief unifying factor’, for the period quoting Crowfoot-Payne (1983:705). The geographic expansion of this technology during the PPNB was confined to the ‘western wing of the Fertile Crescent’, corresponding to Kozlowski’s (1999:105) ‘Big Arrowhead Industries’. In the northern Levant, bidirectional blade technology was recognized to have had regional variants, as has been described for the Orontes Valley, the Middle Euphrates, and the Palmyra Basin (Nishiaki 2000; Abbès 2003; Borrel 2006; Arimura 2007a). Regional variability is also assumed to be present in the southern Levant (Gopher 1999:131; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002:400), probably corresponding with the Damascus Basin, Jilat/Azraq/Black Desert and Southern Sinai (Gopher 1981; Baird 1994; Cauvin 1995; McCartney and Betts 1998). However, due to insufficient regional studies in the provinces examined in this research, bidirectional blade technology was often presented as a single variant (i.e., naviform) described after type-site assemblages (e.g., Banning 1998:201–202; Rollefson 2001:71). The results presented in Chapters 3–6 indicate considerable variability in the use of the technique within the southern Levant, with respect to both regional and chronological trends (Table 7.1). The following summary of the use of bidirectional blade technological variants in the southern Levant is further employed to examine the issues of ‘craft specialization’ and ‘cultural regionalism’, respectively in Chapters 8 and 9.

7.1. A synopsis of the bidirectional blade component in southern Levantine assemblages The analysis presented above has shown that it is possible to identify at least three distinct variants of bidirectional blade technology in the southern Levantine PPNB assemblages. 1 These include the ‘Predetermined-Upsilon’, the ‘Single Dominant Platform’, and the ‘One-on-One’ technological variants (Figure 7.1). The ‘PredeterminedUpsilon’ variant was the most common one in the Northern (Galilee), Central (Ammon and Judea) and Southeastern provinces (Edom and Southern Negev), while the ‘Single Dominant Platform’ was characteristic of the Southwestern Province (Central and Western Negev). The ‘One-on-One’ 1  It remains unclear exactly what mode of production was used for the mega-blades and bladelets of the Southeastern Province.

method, which was rarely used, is attested in extraordinary contexts in the Central (Motza) and Southeastern (Beidha) provinces. Raw material Raw material selection in the Northern (Galilee) and Central Provinces (Ammon and Judea) focused on one high-quality flint type for the ‘One-on-One’ and the ‘Predetermined-Upsilon’ bidirectional variants. The acquisition of suitable flint apparently required considerable systematic investment in time and energy, including quarrying (e.g., Quintero 1996). In the Southeastern Province (Edom) raw material selection for bidirectional cores was more varied; particular flint types were selected for specific tool classes at the large mega-sites, while the smaller seasonal sites displayed more eclectic assortments of raw materials. Notably, other materials, including chalcedony and orthoquartzite, were also exploited for bidirectional blade production. In the Southwestern Province (central and western Negev) raw material selection was opportunistic, similar to some of the seasonal settlements in the Southeastern Province. Chronological trends for raw material use were observed in the Northern (Galilee) and Southeastern Province (Edom) Provinces (Chapters 3, 6). Purple-pinkish flint was commonly used for the Galilean bidirectional blade industry during the EPPNB–E/MPPNB, while during the MPPNB it shifted to the beige HaSollelim type. In MPPNB Edom local flint nodules in various colors were utilized for the bidirectional blade industry. During the LPPNB, however, the selection became more complex, as specific flint types were used: ‘FRMG 1’ for mega-blades and ‘FRMG’ 2–3 for medium-sized blades (Muheisen et al. 2004). Technology The ‘Predetermined-Upsilon’ bidirectional mode involved repeated core preformation and maintenance through the reduction sequence. The preformation type variety (angular, bifacial and partial) appears to have been determined by cultural choice, as nodular blocks were commonly used for the ‘Predetermined-Upsilon’ cores in the Northern, Central and Southeastern Provinces. Core maintenance was persistently made to renew the removal surface and striking platforms. This mode focused on producing elongated pointed blades, which were ‘cleaned’ by upsilon blades. The highest blade qualities were noted for the Northern Province, where production yielded ca. 30 large symmetrical blades per sequence. Medium– large symmetrical blades, estimated at 20–25 blades per sequence, were achieved in the Central Province, while in

141

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies

 

Northern Province

Method/s

PredeterminedUpsilon

Sources

Specific outcrops

Raw material types

One, high quality

Core preformation

Angular (Postero-lateral) Removal surface; Striking platform

Core maintenance

Central Province*

Southeastern Southwestern Province Province Single Dominant Predetermined-Upsilon; Platform Predetermined-Upsilon; One-on-One (W-shaped; N-shaped) One-on-One Raw Material Specific outcrops Opportunistic Specific outcrops; (Quarrying) opportunistic One, high quality Various Various (including chalcedony & orthoquartzite) Technology Bifacial Unprepared; Partial preparations (Naviform?) Cores on flakes Removal surface? Striking platform Removal surface; Striking platform? (occasionally) Striking platform

Targeted items

Elongated pointed blades Elongated pointed blades Blank quality Large (7.5 cm); Medium–large (6.9 cm); symmetric (78%) symmetric (80%) 30 20–25? Blade productivity >35 (Motza stock) Typology Projectile points; Tool types Projectile points; sickle blades; sickle blades; burins burins; knives Style Projectile point Large (6.7 cm) Medium (5.4 cm) size Projectile point Elaborate Elaborate retouch Knapping skills

High

Blunt débordante & central blades Small (5.7 cm); asymmetric (15%) 6–7

Elongated pointed blades; bladelets; mega-blades Medium (6.4 cm); relatively symmetric (50%) 14–17 >20 (Beidha stock)

Projectile points; retouched blades

Projectile points; retouch blades; perforators; denticulated blades

Medium (5 cm)

Medium (5.3 cm)

Simple

Simple; Elaborate Medium

High

Low

* The technological reconstruction for the Central Province is following ‘Ain Ghazal’s experimental knapping research (Wilke and Quintero 1994; Quintero and Wilke 1995)

Table 7.1: Major characteristics of the bidirectional blade industries of the southern Levant according to province. the Southeastern Province ca. 14–17 relatively symmetrical medium-sized blades were produced in a sequence. The second mode of production, the ‘Single Dominant Platform’ approach, was detected only in the Southwestern Province. These cores were made on unprepared nodular blocks and large flakes and, except for infrequent renovations of the striking platforms, these cores were hardly maintained. Here, blade production seems to have been less precise, as attested by the commonly small, asymmetric débordante and central blanks produced, yielding only ca. 6 blades per sequence. The ‘One-on-One’ variant was the most elaborate mode for making bidirectional blades. This mode seems to have been employed only rarely. Perhaps this was a nonindigenous mode, since it has been discerned only in two stocks, at Motza and Beidha.1 The ‘One-on-One’ technique 1  Sporadic blades were likely introduced to other sites as well, as was recorded, for example, by a foundation deposit of a predetermined blade made on purple-pinkish flint at KHH Early phase (Davidzon and Goring-

was made on unprepared blocks and was not subjected to any core maintenance. The lack of maintenance here attests to first-class knapping abilities with virtually no mistakes; this contrasts with the ‘Single Dominant Platform’ mode, where the dearth of preparations and maintenance reflect low investment in knapping. The ‘One-on-One’ mode of production focused on making extremely elongated, pointed symmetrical blades (Motza) and bladelets (Beidha). The productivity of this mode yielded higher rates of targeted items (>35 at Motza, > 20 at Beidha) than was achieved using the ‘PredeterminedUpsilon’ mode in the Central and Southeastern Provinces (respectively ca. 20–25, ca. 14–17). Typology Seven formal types of tools were produced by the three bidirectional methods: projectile points, sickle blades, burins, perforators, retouched blades, denticulated Morris 2007: Fig. 12, right blade).

142

The Bidirectional Blade Industries of the Southern Levant long), except for those from the Northern Province where they were somewhat larger (mean ca. 6.7 cm). It seems that the size differences between the Northern and the other provinces does not reflect functional aspects, at least not with respect to hunting, since medium-sized species (e.g., Gazella) also dominated the Northern Province faunal assemblages during the MPPNB (Horowitz and Ducos 2005). If size was to reflect function, then we should expect to find a dominance of larger animal species (e.g., Bos) in the Northern Province sites but, quite the opposite, these are more represented in the Central Province, where the points were smaller. The retouch types on the projectile points in the southern Levant included elaborate forms such as bifacially pressure flaked and ‘Abu Gosh’ retouch, and more simple forms of abrupt and alternate retouch. The elaborate forms were more common in the Northern and Central Provinces, while simple forms were characteristic of the Southwestern Province. The Southeastern Province displays both modes—simple types being common during the MPPNB and elaborate during the LPPNB. Knapping skills In sum, it appears that bidirectional blade knapping skills in the southern Levant were varied and may be ranked according to three levels of ability: a high performance level in the Northern and Central Provinces; medium for the Southeastern Province; and low in the Southwestern Province.

7.2. Cultural territories within the southern Levant In this section we will examine whether the proposed regional cultural units for the southern Levant (BarYosef and Bar-Yosef Mayer 2002) are also reflected in the bidirectional blade component of the material culture remains. As described in Chapter 1, O. Bar-Yosef has suggested that the southern Levant incorporated three geographical entities, distinguished mainly on the basis of economy: farmer-herders in the Mediterranean core area, herder-hunters in the eastern deserts, and mobile-foragers in the Negev, Sinai and southern Jordan. Figure 7.1: Schematic illustration of the bidirectional blade technological variants in the southern Levant. blades and knives. Projectile points were common in all provinces. Sickle blades and burins were common in the Northern and Central Provinces, while retouched blades were characteristic of the Southwestern and Southeastern Provinces. Perforators and denticulated blades were restricted to the Southeastern Province, and knives were found only at Nahal Hemar in the Central Province. Style (projectile points) Stylistically, the projectile points in the southern Levant can be described as medium-sized (slightly more than 5 cm

The examination follows Clarke’s (1968) classificatory scheme following Henry’s (1995: Table 3.1) three-step modifications of which the first two are make use of in this chapter while the third in chapter 9. The first step is the classification of the lithic assemblages into complex, industry and phase/facies. (1) A ‘complex’ is defined when lithic assemblages share a high degree of technological affinities and low typological ones. (2) An ‘industry’ describes lithic assemblages that display high levels of technological and typological resemblances. (3) A ‘phase’/’facies’ illustrates many similarities in 143

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies technological, typological and stylistic aspects between lithic assemblages, respectively through time and space. These classificatory scales for the examined assemblages were applied in this study as follows. Technological affinities were observed by the identified technological variants: ‘Predetermined-Upsilon’, ‘Single Dominant Platform’, and ‘One-on-One’ methods of bidirectional blade production. Tool resemblances were examined with respect to the formal types made on bidirectional blades, and style by variability in projectile point sizes and retouch types. The second step in the scheme is ordering the identified lithic scales into time and space units. This was done according to the accepted chronological sub-stages (EPPNB, EPPNB-MPPNB, LPPNB, and FPPNB) and geographical provinces (Northern, Central, Southwestern, and Southeastern). The third step, which will be made in chapter 9, is classification into socio-economic units (techno-complex, culture group and culture), accomplished by integrating the ordered lithic scales with other elements of the material culture. Accordingly, the discussion below is based on the 28 assemblages examined in detail above, supplemented by other assemblages described elsewhere in greater or lesser detail in the literature. Bidirectional blade cultural units in time and space (steps 1–2) EPPNB–E/MPPNB (ca. 10,500–10,000 calBP) The bidirectional blade component in the early stages of the PPNB included two complexes among the studied assemblages, the Mediterranean and the Negev (Figure 7.2). However, it should be noted that bidirectional blade technology at this point in time was rarely employed in the southern Levant, comprising just a small portion of the general lithic assemblages (e.g., Gopher 1996:153; Khalaily et al. 2007a:13–14). The Mediterranean complex The identification of this complex relies on the detailed examination of 15 sites confined to the Northern and Central Provinces. Here, the most common technological variant in this complex was the ‘Predetermined-Upsilon’ method, which was mainly made on high quality lustrous purple-pinkish flint. However, since no production sites dated to this sub-stage are known the degrees of core preformation, maintenance, and blade productivity remain unclear. The presence of a single example of the ‘One-on-One’ variant at EPPNB Motza is currently the earliest occurrence of bidirectional blade technology in the southern Levant (Khalaily et al. 2007b). Given that no other occurrences are known, it is assumed that this particular case represents the initiation of this technology in the region. The high

knapping qualities attested in the stock, on the one hand, and the dominance of flake technology elsewhere at Motza on the other (Khalaily et al. 2007a) suggest that the knowledge for making ‘One-on-One’ bidirectional blades was non-local. The presence of a similar ‘One-onOne’ scheme noted at LPPNA Mureybet on the Middle Euphrates (Abbès 2008:261–263; pers. obs.) may indicate that its presence at Motza derived from the Northern Levant, thus supporting Cauvin’s (2000) ‘Neolithization’ paradigm, at least in respect of the bidirectional blade technology. Typologically, the common formal tools on bidirectional blades in the Mediterranean complex were projectile points, sickle blades and burins. The points consist mainly of Helwan and Jericho types. Stylistically, the projectile points were medium-sized in the Central Province, and larger in the Northern Province. In both provinces elaborate bifacial pressure flaking was used for fashioning elongated Jericho point tangs. The Negev complex Reconstruction of the Negev complex is more challenging, since it is based on assemblages from only three sites (Nahal Lavan 109, Abu Salem and Nahal Boqer). Apparently bidirectional blade technology in the Negev was limited, being more common at Abu Salem, while it was nearly absent at Nahal Lavan 109 and Nahal Boqer. The latter appear to have been dominated by flake and prismatic unipolar-blade technologies (Gopher 1994:154–159). Regardless of technology, it appears that high quality translucent flint and chalcedony were the preferred raw materials. Based on the cores from Abu Salem, it appears that the bidirectional blade variant in the Negev during this sub-stage was the ‘Single Dominant Platform’ method. The technological variability within the Negev complex is also reflected by the Helwan points, which were made on elongated flakes at Nahal Lavan 109 and Nahal Boqer (Gopher 1994: Figs. 5.63; Burian et al. 1999: Fig. 3), and probably on bidirectional blades and broad, unipolar blades at Abu Salem (Gopher 1994:105; Gopher and Goring-Morris 1998: Figs. 8:1–3; 9:1–2). MPPNB–M/LPPNB (ca. 10,000–9200 calBP) At this point in time the use of bidirectional blade technologies became frequent within the general lithic assemblages in all regional provinces in the southern Levant (e.g., Mortensen 1970; Noy 1976; Quintero 1998; Garfinkel 2007; Barzilai and Goring-Morris in press). The Mediterranean and the Negev complexes continued into the MPPNB–M/LPPNB, displaying higher resolution. The ‘Mediterranean’ complex was defined following the study of 12 sites, and the ‘Negev’ complex after at least seven sites (Figure 7.3). Additionally, the specific characteristics of the ‘Mediterranean’ complex enable further sub-division into two regional facies in Galilee, Judea and an industry in Edom.

144

The Bidirectional Blade Industries of the Southern Levant

Figure 7.2: Suggested bidirectional blade lithic scale units for the EPPNB and E/MPPNB. Estimared boundary is marked by the dotted line. 145

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies The Mediterranean complex The Galilean facies The Galilean assemblages display a predominance of the ‘Predetermined-Upsilon’ variant. Raw material selection in this sub-region shifted to local, extra-fine-grained beige flint, which outcrops in the lower Galilee. Blade production followed extensive preformations (posterolateral) and core maintenance (removal surface and striking platforms). This resulted in long symmetrical targeted blades, providing ca. 30 blades per sequence, thus attesting to advanced knapping skills. Likewise, the tools on bidirectional blades included projectile points, sickle blades and burins. The projectile points in the Galilean facies were large and dominated by Jericho, Byblos and Amuq types. Some of the Jericho points continued to display elongated, bifacially pressure-flaked tangs, whereas standardized Amuq and Byblos points were commonly fashioned by ‘Abu Gosh’ retouch. The Judean facies Like in the EPPNB–E/MPPNB, the Judean assemblages continued to use the ‘Predetermined-Upsilon’ variant on high quality, lustrous purple/pinkish flint whose outcrops were likely across the Rift Valley in Ammon. Production included extensive ‘naviform’ core preformation and maintenance, resulting in ca. 20–25 long, symmetrical targeted blades per sequence. The Judean facies toolkit on bidirectional blades remained similar to that during the EPPNB–E/MPPNB, consisting mainly of projectile points, sickle blades and burins. In addition, exceptional Nahal Hemar knives were common at the Nahal Hemar Cave. Notably, this tool type has not been identified in any other Judean assemblage nor, indeed, elsewhere in the entire southern Levant. The projectile points were dominated by medium-sized Jericho and Byblos types. Like in the Galilee, the Jericho point tangs were fashioned by bifacial pressure-flaking, while ‘Abu Gosh’ retouch was applied to the Byblos points. The Edomite industry The MPPNB assemblages in Edom also feature extensive use of the ‘Predetermined-Upsilon’ variant, but of lesser quality than in the Galilean and Judean facies. Raw material selection in this sub-region was more opportunistic and variable, exploiting many flint sources. Production featured partial (bipolar) preformation and core maintenance, resulting in relatively symmetrical, mediumsized blades, averaging 14–17 blades per sequence. The ‘One-on-One’ variant was also present in an exceptional stock at Early Beidha, which showed similarities to the stock from Motza. It apparently dates to the earliest occupational stages within the Edom region (Mortensen 1988; Byrd 2005). Like at Motza, the Beidha stock demonstrates advanced knapping skills. Production focused on elongated, pointed blanks from an unprepared core, requiring no maintenance. Still, some differences

between the two stocks are noteworthy. The Beidha stock produced bladelets which exploited ca. 2/3 of the removal surface, while at Motza >90% of the removal surface was utilized for extremely long blades. The productivity rate at Beidha per sequence (ca. 20) was lower than at Motza (ca. 35), but greater than the rest of the assemblages in Edom. Consequently, like the Motza stock, it is suggested that this stock represents the initial stages of the introduction of bidirectional blade technology to Edom, possibly coming from the Central Province. The Edomite industry toolkit differs from that of the Galilee and Judea, particularly in having very few sickle blades. Rather, the most common formal tools include projectile points, retouched blades and perforators. The projectile points include mainly medium-sized Jericho and Byblos types, with short tangs fashioned by simple modes of retouch (abrupt and alternate). The Negev complex The Negev complex was defined after examining seven sites in the Negev highlands and lowlands, and in north Sinai. The bidirectional blade technology in this complex is of the ‘Single Dominant Platform’ variant. This was made using un-preformed nodules or large flakes of various flint types. The Negev complex cores were rarely maintained and are estimated to have produced ca. 6–7 small and asymmetrical blades per reduction sequence. The most common formal tools on bidirectional blades in the Negev complex were projectile points and retouched blades. Stylistically, the projectile points were mainly medium-sized Jericho points with short tangs, which were fashioned by simple modes of retouch (abrupt and alternate). LPPNB (ca. 9200–8700 calBP) The cultural units indicated by the bidirectional blade component for the LPPNB include one complex confined mainly to the areas within and east of the Rift Valley in the Central and Southeastern Provinces. The Transjordan complex was defined after analyzing 16 sites and can be divided into two industries, Edomite and Ammonite (Figure 7.4). The Transjordan complex The Edomite industry Bidirectional blade technology in the Edomite industry was aimed at producing medium-sized blades, bladelets and mega-blades. The ‘Predetermined-Upsilon’ variant was the scheme for making medium-sized blades, while the modes for bladelet and mega-blade production remain unclear. Apparently, the ‘Predetermined-Upsilon’ was made on specific flint types at the large mega-sites, whereas in seasonal sites a variety of flints were exploited. Like in the MPPNB Edomite industry, the cores were partially preformed and were subjected to maintenance; however, it is unclear how many blades were produced per reduction sequence. 146

The Bidirectional Blade Industries of the Southern Levant

Figure 7.3: Suggested bidirectional blade lithic scale units for the MPPNB. Estimared boundary is marked by the dotted line. 147

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies

Figure 7.4: Suggested bidirectional blade lithic scale units for the LPPNB. Estimared boundary is marked by dotted red line.

148

The Bidirectional Blade Industries of the Southern Levant The LPPNB Edomite formal toolkit remained similar, consisting of projectile points, retouched blades and perforators, but lacking sickle blades. In addition a new formal tool, the denticulated blade, appeared in seasonal sites. Edomite projectile points mainly included the medium-sized Amuq type, which was fashioned by invasive pressure retouch. The Ammonite industry? The Transjordan complex apparently included another industry north of Edom. The Ammonite industry seems to have employed the ‘Predetermined-Upsilon’ variant as attested at LPPNB ‘Ain Ghazal, and possibly also at Wadi Shu’eib and es-Sifiya (Mahasneh 1997; Quintero 1998; Simmons et al. 2000). The most common formal tools included projectile points, sickle blades and perforators. Remarkable are the sickle blades, the presence of which is the major reason for dividing the Transjordan complex into two industries, since these were not an essential element in the Edomite toolkit. FPPNB (ca. 8700–8250 calBP) Reconstructing bidirectional blade cultural units is difficult for this sub-stage, since this technology was not used in some sub-regions (cf. Rollefson 1990; Dag 2008b:179). Likewise, the characteristics of bidirectional blade production remain uncertain, since only one assemblage, Atlit Yam, was examined in this research, while others yielded samples too small to yield significant results. Still, some evaluation could be made indicating the presence of two complexes confined to the Northern and Central Provinces and possibly another in the Southeastern Province (Figure 7.5). The Northern complex relies mainly on the Atlit Yam assemblage, while the Central Province corresponds to the lithic characteristics identified for the ‘Ghazalian’ culture by Khalaily (2006). The Northern complex The Northern complex included three sub-regions where bidirectional blade technology continued to be used: the Mediterranean Coast, the Hula Basin and the Central Jordan Valley (cf. Garfinkel 1994a; Galili 2004; Bocquentin et al. in press; Getzov et al. 2009). Currently, it remains unclear which of the technological variants were practiced, but the presence of upsilon blades at Atlit Yam (Galili 2004: Fig. 126) suggests that it was the ‘Predetermined-Upsilon’ variant. Notably, many of the bidirectional blade cores in the Northern complex display wide proportions (cf. Galili 2004: Fig. 124; Bocquentin et al. in press: Fig. 4:1–2, 4; Getzov et al. 2009: Fig. 18:1; pers. obs.), which fits the definition of W-shaped cores (Goring-Morris and Davidzon 2006). The formal tools on bidirectional blade blanks mainly included projectile points and denticulated sickle blades (Garfinkel 1994a: Figs. 2–3; Gopher and Rosen 2001: Figs. 4.2; 4.5; Galili 2004: Figs. 122, 125). These tools are typical of the following Pottery Neolithic Yarmukian

culture (Gopher 1999:131–133). The points, mainly consisting of Amuq and Byblos types, were fashioned by invasive pressure-flaking (e.g., Gopher 1999: Fig. E). The Central complex Flake technologies seemingly dominated this complex, while bidirectional blade production was hardly used (e.g., Rollefson 1990; Simmons et al. 2000; Dag 2008b). Currently two sub-regions can be identified within the Central complex: the Ammon-Moab region (i.e. ‘Ain Ghazal; Wadi Shu’eib; el-Hemmeh); and the southern Coastal Plain (i.e. Ashkelon; Rollefson 1990; Simmons et al. 2000; Makarewicz et al. 2004; Garfinkel and Dag 2008). Although no actual production was attested from sites within this complex, some bidirectional blade tools were noted in its assemblages, such as pressure-flaked Amuq and Byblos points and denticulated sickle blades (cf. Dag 2008a: Figs. 44–45; 57). Their presence could be explained by importat/exchange (e.g., Ashkelon), or by the recycling of blade blanks from older contexts (e.g., ‘Ain Ghazal; Quintero and Wilke 1995: 29; Garfinkel and Dag 2008:284–285). The scarcity of bidirectional blade technology on one hand, and the emergence of formal tools that are typical of the PN on the other, were assumed to reflect socioeconomic changes that occurred at the end of the PPNB (Rollefson 1996), recently termed ‘Ghazalian’ (Khalaily 2006). The latter correspond to Rollefson’s PPNC (1990) and referrs to flake dominated assemblages (Khalaily 2006). Since bidirectional blade technology was common in FPPNB and early PN sites along the Mediterranean Coast, in the Hula Basin and in the Central Jordan Valley (e.g., Gopher 1999; Galili 2004; Barzilai and Garfinkel 2006), the appellation ‘Ghazalian’ should not be applied to these Northern complex assemblages. Therefore, it seems more parsimonious to use this term for describing the Central complex assemblages that were dominated by flake technologies (e.g., ‘Ain Ghazal, Wadi Shu’eib and Ashkelon). The Southern complex? A third complex likely existed in the western and southern Negev and the Edom-Sinai region. The western Negev apparently included the Tuwailan industry, which was defined in light of distinctive cortical knives, together with a few bidirectional blade cores and pressure flaked Byblos and Amuq points (Goring-Morris 1993a; Goring-Morris et al. 1994). Another potential industry likely existed in the area of Edom, since Final PPNB occupations were noted at Basta, Ain Jammam, and Nahal Issaron (GoringMorris and Gopher 1983; Gopher et al. 1994; Carmi et al. 1994; Gebel 1996:265; Gebel et al. 2004b; Rollefson 2001:90). However, since no detailed publications are available for these occupations, it is difficult to discuss their characteristics.

149

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies

Figure 7.5: Suggested bidirectional blade lithic scale units for the FPPNB. Estimared boundary is marked by dottedd lines.

150

CHAPTER 8: CRAFT SPECIALIZATION

In this chapter we will examine whether complex lithic economies, such as the one described for ‘Ain Ghazal (Quintero and Wilke 1995; Quintero 1998), were also evident at other sites in the southern Levant. It has been suggested that bidirectional blade production at ‘Ain Ghazal was made by part-time craft specialists (Quintero and Wilke 1995; Quintero 1998). Such specialization at ‘Ain Ghazal was explained by the technological and economic needs of the local population (Quintero and Wilke 1995:26–28). The term ‘craft specialization’ is usually employed to describe manual skilled production of surplus to be traded or exchanged (Brumfiel and Earle 1987; Costin 1991; Clark 1995). The association between craft specialization and archaeology was first made by Gordon Childe (1936:35), who argued that craft specialization was initiated during the Bronze Age in the Near East with the onset of metallurgy. Childe’s approach was influenced by social evolutionary schemes and a priori assumptions that considered specialization to exist within urban societies (Wails 1996). Today most archaeological research on craft specialization is oriented towards comprehending social complexity and identity (e.g., Brumfiel and Earle 1987; Costin 1991; 1998; Clark 1995; Wattenmaker 1998a). Generally speaking, it is accepted that craft specialization can be divided into ‘independent’ and ‘attached’ specialists: “Independent specialists produce goods or services for an unspecified demand crowd that varies according to economic, social, and political conditions. In contrast, attached specialists produce goods or provide services to a patron, typically either a social elite or governing institution” (Brumfiel and Earle 1987: 5–6). As research progressed further subdivisions for specialization types were proposed (Clark and Perry 1990: Table 1; Costin 1991: Table 1.1), and other themes, such as social identity were explored (Costin and Wright 1998). The craft specialization types relating to bidirectional blade production in the southern Levant were examined here according to Costin’s (1991) parameters of context, concentration, scale and intensity. Here, concentration and scale were examined directly from the data generated by this research, while the other two, context and intensity, were estimated by indirect information. Context Context refers to the association between the producers (i.e., knappers) and consumers (Costin 1991). On one hand there were the attached specialists, who were sponsored and managed by patrons (e.g., elites, government), while on the other the independent specialists produced for a general market of potential customers.

Basically this assumes that non-stratified societies are characterized by independent specialists,1 while attached specialists are found only in complex societies (i.e., urban) and vice versa. The implications for our case study are clear; since PPNB social structure did not include monarchies or elites2, it is reasonable to assume that bidirectional blade technology was probably made by independent specialists. Concentration Concentration refers to the geographical location and spatial organization of the producers and consumers (Costin 1991). Types range from dispersed specialists, who were evenly distributed within the communities, to nucleated/aggregated specialists in one community serving other communities. This parameter is examined by the identification of bidirectional blade lithic organization within the geographical provinces as expressed by ‘on-site’ and ‘offsite’ production, types of production unit (e.g., centralized workshops, household production, knapping stations), consumption patterns, and possible exchange networks. Scale Scale reflects the quantities of produced items and the knapper’s identities within production units (Costin 1991). Scale ranges from small, kin-based units to ‘factories’ that rely on recruited labor. The data provided by this research permits some quantification estimates from the number of bidirectional blade sequences, although recognition of the producers’ identities remains unclear. Intensity The last parameter, intensity, should reflect the relative time spent by the specialist knapper—if it was part-time or full-time (Costin 1991). This parameter also cannot be evaluated directly, but it is assumed that it was part-time, since full-time is considered to be oriented toward making prestige commodities by attached specialists (ibid). 8.1. Identification of the specialization types Costin (1991: Table 1.1) defined eight discrete specialization types. However, since ‘attached’ specialists are irrelevant for PPNB communities, we are left with ‘independent’ specialization types, of which three appear relevant to bidirectional blade production:  Independent specialization also occurs in complex urban societies (e.g., Wattenmaker 1998b). 2  Although there is some evidence to support the initiation of social stratification (e.g., Cauvin 2000; Bar-Yosef 2001a; Rollefson 2004; Goring-Morris 2005). 1

151

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies

Figure 8.1: Proposed flow chart for flint circulation by individual specialists in the Negev. (1) Individual specialization, as attested in the Negev complex. (2) Dispersed workshops that were identified in the MPPNB Edomite industry. (3) Community specialization, which was identified in the Mediterranean (EPPNB–MPPNB) and the Transjordan (LPPNB) complexes. Individual specialization This simplest form of specialization is found in the Negev, where the concentration of production was dispersed. Bidirectional blade production was apparently made at all site types, including ephemeral camps and base camps. None of the sites display evidence for intra-site organization, while the recognized inter-site variability broadly resembles late Palaeolithic flint circulation patterns (e.g., Goring-Morris and Davidzon 2006), which included the removal of targeted blades from ephemeral sites as part of seasonal movements (Figure 8.1). Movement could have been from any site to another and in all directions. The low productivity rate (ca. 6–7 blades per a sequence) and small number of sequences per site (ca. 50) suggest this

was kin-based in terms of scale. Knapping was probably conducted for the personal consumption of the hunters, as attested by the low investment in blade production, small variety of tools (projectile points) and simple mode of fashioning projectile points. Dispersed workshops The second specialization type is attested in the small MPPNB–LPPNB seasonal villages of Southern Edom. Bidirectional blade production was on-site, as reflected by diagnostic debitage, cores and tools, which were found in almost every structure throughout these sites. However, unlike the Negev sites, internal organization was noted within these villages in the form of small indoor workshops (e.g., Beidha) and house stocks (e.g., Nahal Issaron). Productivity levels (ca. 14–17 blades per sequence) and the scale of production (estimated at 100’s of sequences per site) indicate intra-site movements fulfilling household needs, and perhaps exchange as gifts with other households within these villages (Clark and Perry 1991: Table 1). The average knapping performance attested in blade production (relatively symmetrical, medium-sized items) and tool making (simple retouch forms) suggests that production was not for commercial exchange. 152

Craft Specialization

Figure 8.2: Proposed inter-site lithic organization by community specialists. Community specialization This highest form of specialization is attested in the EPPNB–MPPNB Mediterranean and the LPPNB Transjordan complexes, where concentration of production was nucleated. Bidirectional blade production in these complexes was not conducted in all sites: rather, centralized workshops operated in the large regional centers (e.g., ‘Ain Ghazal, Yiftahel, Basta), while smaller villages were involved in small-scale production (e.g., Jericho), or virtually no production at all (e.g., Motza, Abu Gosh, Mishmar Haemeq, Ba’ja). Lithic organization was very complex and displayed intra and inter-site patterns. Intra-site organization is attested by large workshop dumps, high quality, premium household stocks in the large regional centers (e.g., Motza; Yiftahel; ‘Ain Ghazal), and the caching of grave goods in ceremonial contexts (e.g., Nahal Hemar, Kfar HaHoresh, Beisamoun). Inter-site organization was complex and likely included four stages (Figure 8.2). The first stage was procurement

of high quality raw material from specific outcrops. The flint was transported to large, centralized workshops in the large villages, and possibly also to smaller workshops in medium-sized villages, for further production. The next stage was knapping that included core preformation, blade production, maintenance and tool manufacture. The following stage was the distribution of the produced blades and/or tools to the local community and to other villages in the form of bundles or single items. A final stage could have been redistribution of acquired products from the large and small villages to ceremonial sites in the form of bundles or single items. The scale of production at the large regional centers (estimated at 1000s of sequences per site) was clearly more than was needed locally, thus indicating inter-site flint exchange. This is further supported by the selection of exclusive, high quality flint that required considerable investment in acquisition, skilled and efficient blade knapping abilities (ca. 20–30 blades per sequence), and by the high-quality and variety of tools produced. Tools served domestic purposes (projectile points, sickle blades 153

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies and burins), as well as ceremonial uses (e.g., Nahal Hemar knives). Tool manufacture, in particular of projectile points, indicates that some were made for commercial exchange, as attested by extremely elaborate types of retouch. These aesthetic features likely encoded social information, possibly even as knappers’ trademarks; since the retouch on the projectile point tangs is concealed in the shaft once hafted, it seems likely that exchange involved unhafted points.

8.2. Bidirectional flint blade Networks Two of the identified specialization types, individual and community, displayed inter-site circulation patterns that apparently reflect three networks (Figure 8.3). These included: (1) an EPPNB–MPPNB Mediterranean complex one-way east to west network; (2) a LPPNB Transjordan complex centripetal core-periphery arrangement; and (3) a MPPNB Negev complex circular, radial pattern. The Purple/pink Flint Network in the Mediterranean Complex EPPNB–E/MPPNB bidirectional blade organization in the Mediterranean complex was a one-way network that consisted of production centers east of the Rift Valley and consumption sites in the west (Figure 8.3). It may be hypothesized that transport of such purple/pink flints final products (blades and tools) occurred along two major routes: Wadi Yabis— Central Jordan Valley—Nahal Harod in the Northern Province, and Wadi Shu’eib—Wadi el Qelt in the Central Province. The northern route apparently began in the Gilead region, perhaps near Tell es-Sawwan, where natural sources of purple-pink flint were recently located (Delage 2007; Rollefson et al. 2007). Survey and excavation at Tell esSawwan indicate that it was a ‘mega-site’ (Simmons 2007), where bidirectional blade production occurred on-site as attested by the presence of naviform cores (Simmons et al. 1988: Fig. 5) and other diagnostic debitage types (Al Nahar 2006: Fig. 4). Although no absolute dates are available yet, the site may date to the E/MPPNB on the basis of the described projectile points (Chapter 3). Purple/pink products may have been transported from there westwards to smaller sites in the Jezreel and Beit Netofa Valleys (e.g., Mishmar Haemeq, Kfar HaHoresh Early). Purple/pink flint tools dominated the bidirectional blade components of these assemblages. The route to the inner valleys apparently diverged into two paths1: Nahal Yavniel—Beit Netofa and the Nahal Harod—Jezreel Valley. It is likely that additional paths were used for further distribution from the inner valleys along Nahal Oren to the Carmel Coast (e.g., Nahal Oren, Sefunim Cave), and from the eastern shores of the Sea of Galilee through Nahal Amud—Nahal Kziv to the western Galilee (e.g., Hurvat Galil).

 As also proposed later for the Iron Age (Gal 1990: Fig. 8).

1

The southern route was shorter and less diverted. Starting in Wadi Huweijir, where high quality lustrous purplepink flint was quarried and transported to ‘Ain Ghazal for further production (Quintero 1996; Rollefson et al. 2007). On-site blade production apparently supplied local needs and was exchanged with other sites to the west. The products (blades, tools and probably core preforms) would have been transported (through Wadi Shu’eib?) to Jericho, where purple/pink flint bidirectional blades and tools were noted (Crowfoot-Payne 1983:629). From Jericho further redistribution westwards likely occurred (through Wadi Qelt?), for consumption at smaller sites such as Motza and Abu Gosh, and/or stocking at cave sites in the Judean Desert for various activities.2 Accordingly, this network may have included four components: (1) extensive blade production and tool manufacturing in the large Transjordanian mega-sites (e.g., ‘Ain Ghazal; Tell Abu Sawwan?); (2) small-scale production supplemented by imports in medium-sized Jordan Valley villages (e.g., Jericho); (3) consumption of final products (blades and tools) in smaller villages (e.g., Mishmar Haemeq, Motza, Abu Gosh) in the Mediterranean core areas of Cisjordan; and (4) stocking and caching in cave sites (e.g., Sefunim, Cave XIII/2, Nahal Hemar) in marginal areas within Cisjordan. The HaSollelim Flint Network in the Mediterranean Complex This network appears to have replaced the purple/pink flint in the Galilean facies during the MPPNB. The HaSollelim lithic organization seems to have maintained the same principals as that described above, in that most blades and tools were made in large production centers and transported to consumption sites. However, while the beginning of this network clearly started in the Lower Galilee its destinations are less clear; they may have been oriented westwards towards coastal sites. Raw material preferences shifted to beige HaSollelim flint, the sources of which are abundant in Lower Galilee. Specialized knapping sites (e.g., Q-1 and Givat Rabi) were established adjacent to two of these flint outcrops (Oshri et al. 1999; Barzilai and Milevski in press). At Givat Rabi it appears that blades and tools were made at the outcrops for export to other local sites, since the assemblage was comprised of cores, diagnostic debitage types and debris, but no targeted blades or tools. The outcrop at Q-1 was apparently a major supplier of flint blocks and preformed cores to Yiftahel, since it is located only ca. 1 km away (Garfinkel 2007:205). Nodules were further worked in centralized workshops at Yiftahel, as attested by workshop dumps (Garfinkel 2007; Khalaily et al. 2008). Like at ‘Ain Ghazal, blades and tools were made for local needs and for exchange with other villages, as indicated by the abundance of targeted blades, tools and domestic-related stocks, and by 100,000s of waste products and bidirectional blade cores. 2 

The cave sites stocks could also have originated in the Judean villages.

154

Craft Specialization

Figure 8.3. Suggested networks for bidirectional blade products in the southern Levant.

155

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies Since no M/LPPNB occupations are currently known in the neighboring regions (i.e., the Central Jordan Valley, Upper Galilee and the Carmel Coast), the direction of this network remains unclear. Still, it is suggested that the orientation was westwards towards the Mediterranean Coast, which was densely settled during the subsequent FPPNB. The Bastan Flint Network of the Southern Transjordan Complex This network operated in southern Edom during the LPPNB. Like the former networks, blades and tools were made in regional centers that supplied smaller consumption sites. However, this network displays a core-periphery or centripetal pattern rather than a ‘down-the-line’ track. Raw material procurement included extraction of specific flint types from the Ain Abu al-Idham and Jiththa outcrops near Basta (Muheisen et al. 2004). Apparently the selected nodules were designated for specific blank sizes; dark grey tabular flint (FRMG 1) was used to produce mega-blades, while pale brown and light grey types (FRMG 2–3) were

chosen for medium-sized blades. These flint-types were transported to centralized workshops at Basta for further (mass) production, the knapping wastes from which were disposed in abandoned buildings (Gebel 1996). In Edom there were sites, such as Ba’ja (Gebel and Bienert 1997; Purschwitz and Kinzel 2007) that imported only final products (blades and tools) and others, like Ayn Abu Nukheyla to which preformed cores were transported to be locally knapped (Henry et al. 2003). The Forager Circulation Network in the Negev Complex The last network relates to a forager settlement pattern, similar to Binford’s (1980: Fig. 1) ‘foragers model’. PPNB settlement patterns in the Negev and North Sinai maintained or reinstated the late Epipalaeolithic circulating patterns between base camps and ephemeral camps (Goring-Morris 1991; Simmons 1981). This involved the circulation of final products (blades and tools) and large flakes that were used as core blanks, for example at Nahal Lavan 1021 (Barzilai and Goring-Morris in press).

156

CHAPTER 9: SOCIAL COMPLEXITY AND CULTURAL IDENTITIES WITHIN THE SOUTHERN LEVANTINE PPNB

The third step in classifying socio-economic units into culture, culture group and techno-complex (Henry 1995) is made in this study by integrating the bidirectional blade units identified above within the framework of broader lithic industries, as well as with other diagnostic material culture components of the southern Levantine PPNB. In our case this was accomplished in reference to differences in the economic, architectural, funerary and ritual spheres, since these have been demonstrated to display diachronic and regional variability within the southern Levantine PPNB (e.g., Kuijt 2000; Bar-Yosef 2001a; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2008). The results reveal the existence of two distinct cultures during the early sub-stages of the PPNB (EPPNB–MPPNB), one culture group during the LPPNB, and perhaps three cultures during the FPPNB (Table 9.1).

9.1. The Mediterranean and Negban cultures During the EPPNB–MPPNB the southern Levant incorporated two cultures, respectively confined to the EPPNB–MPPNB Culture

Economy

Lithics

Mediterranean

Farming, hunting, incipient animal domestication

Negban

Hunting

Bidirectional Ad hoc flake; bifacial blades tools; bidirectional blades

Community Bidirectional blade and dispersed technology specializations

Individual specialization

Circular Megaron houses with subterranean mudbrick walls & structures lime-plastered floors Public architecture Ritual complexes Domestic Architecture

Burial customs Ritual

Skull removal; Lime-plaster capping Plastered skulls, human statues, masks, figurines

-

Mediterranean and the desert (Negev) regions. These territories accord well with the regionalism scheme of BarYosef (Bar-Yosef and Bar-Yosef Mayer 2002), since they also reflect different economies. The two cultures display differences in all of the inspected variables. The economy in the Mediterranean culture relied on farming, hunting and was most likely in the early stages of animal domestication. In contrast, the Negban culture depended solely on hunting (Horwitz et al. 1999). In both, lithic industries were diverse and included ad hoc flake, bidirectional blade and bifacial tools (Burian et al. 1999; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002; Barkai 2005). However, the bidirectional blade technology in the Mediterranean culture was highly developed, including community and dispersed specialization, while in the Negban it was relatively poor and made by individual knappers for personal use. Architecture in the Mediterranean culture included domestic and public buildings (Banning 1998; GoringMorris and Belfer-Cohen 2008). Domestic architecture included rectangular, megaron-plan houses that were LPPNB

Northern (Atlit Yam)

Transjordanian

Incipient farming, herding, hunting

Ad hoc flake; bifacial tools; bidirectional blades; unidirectional blades; pressure flaked knives Community and dispersed specialization

FPPNB Central (Ghazalian)

Farming; herding; fishing

Ad-hoc flake; bifacial tools; Ad hoc flake; bidirectional bifacial tools; blades; pressure tabular knives flaked knives Community specialization?

Two storied courtyard ? and cellular buildings

Dispersed? Courtyard and cellular buildings

Southern

Hunter/Herders

Bidirectional blades; tabular knives

Personal? Circular subterranean structures?

Ritual complexes; slope terraces

Ritual complexes; ? Ritual complexes; long walls long walls; wells Indoor Skull intact; chamber Outdoor Sub-floor burials ? burials Burial-grounds grounds Skull intact Skull intact Masks, animal & human figurines ? ? -

Table 9.1: Major characteristics of the southern Levantine PPNB cultures according to sub-periods.

157

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies mainly built of mudbrick walls and lime-plastered floors. Public architecture included ritual complexes within sites (Kirkbride 1968; Barzilai and Getzov 2008). On the other hand, architecture in the Negban culture was restricted to small circular semi-subterranean structures in seasonal base camps (Simmons 1981; Goring-Morris and BelferCohen 2008). Evidence for burial customs and ritual practices were attested only for the Mediterranean culture; none were evident for the Negban. The former were complex and included on-site sub-floor burials, outdoor burial complexes, and cemetery sites (e.g., Goring-Morris 2000; Barzilai and Getzov 2008; Khalaily et al. 2008). Burial positions were varied and included primary and secondary burials and individual and multiple graves (Goring-Morris 2005). A common denominator was the use of limeplaster for constructing the grave capping and frequent skull removal. Ritual activities were apparently intensive, as attested by modelled skulls, human statues and small figurines that are attested both in villages and special sites (Bar-Yosef and Alon 1988; Bonogofsky 2006; Rollefson 2000; 2008). 9.2. The Transjordanian culture group During the LPPNB one culture group, the Transjordanian, probably existed in the southern Levant. This had a complex economy relying on incipient farming, herding, and hunting (Helbaek 1966; Horwitz et al. 1999; Becker 2004). The lithic industries were diverse and included ad hoc flakes, bidirectional blades, bifacial tools, unipolar blades and pressure flaked knives (e.g., Gebel and Bienert 1997; Gebel et al. 2006a; Makarewicz et al. 2004). Bidirectional blade technology was made by community and dispersed specialists, focusing on various sizes of blades. Domestic and public buildings required considerable pre-planning and communal efforts in execution (Kinzel 2006). Domestic architecture east of the Rift Valley included rectangular two-storied buildings built of dressed stones in two major layouts: courtyard and cellular houses (Byrd 2005; Gebel et al. 2006b; GoringMorris and Belfer-Cohen 2008). Public architecture included slope breaking terraces and ritual complexes/ shrines (Rollefson 2000). Burial customs were complex and included mainly multiple secondary graves (Gebel et al. 2004b; 2006a). The common denominator for the burials in Edom was burial in chambers without skull removal (ibid.). Other ritual practices were apparently also complex, as expressed by a variety of objects including stone masks, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic figurines, and extensive use of ochre (Nissen et al. 1987; Makarewicz and Austin 2006; Gebel et al. 2004b; 2006a). 9.3. The Northern (Atlit Yam) and Central (Ghazalian) cultures During the FPPNB there were possibly three cultures that apparently relied economically on domesticated animals

(e.g., Horwitz et al. 1999; Haber and Dayan 2004). The Northern culture was mainly defined after the material culture from Atlit Yam, while the central, recently termed “Ghazalian” (Khalaily 2006), on the basis of ‘Ain Ghazal. These two cultures were likely to have also been involved in farming and fishing (Galili et al. 2002). Lithic technologies in the Northern and Central cultures included ad hoc flake, bifacial tools and pressure-flaked knife sequences. The major difference between the two was the continuation of bidirectional blades in the Northern culture. The presence of a bidirectional blade workshop dump at Atlit Yam indicates that it was of community specialization. The architecture in both cultures apparently included domestic and public structures. Domestic architecture in the Central culture maintained similar house dimensions with previous sub-stages, but displayed varied internal organization schemes (Rollefson et al. 1992). Unfortunately, the domestic house plan for the Northern culture is not clear yet, although recently excavated quadrilateral limeplastered structures at Yiftahel may reflect continuation in building techniques (Khalaily et al. 2008). Public architecture in both cultures included ritual complexes and long terrace walls (Rollefson et al. 1992; Galili 2004; Garfinkel and Dag 2008). A ritual complex at Atlit Yam in the Northern culture included a megalithic structure located adjacent to a burial ground (Galili 2004). In the Central culture is the ‘Ain Ghazal two-room temple that included an altar (Rollefson 2000). Currently, the only difference in the public architecture between the two cultures is the construction of wells in the Northern (Galili 2004), a feature that continued into the Yarmukian culture (Garfinkel et al. 2006). Burials were concentrated in designated outdoor areas in the Northern culture (Galili et al. 2005), while in the Central culture indoor sub-floor burials were attested (Rollefson et al. 1992). Apparently the major difference from the former PPNB stages was that skull removal ceased to be practiced (Rollefson et al. 1992:464; Galili et al. 2005). Regarding the Southern culture, its characteristics are unclear and further investigations are needed in order to define it.

9.4. Summary The identified socio-cultural units for the EPPNB and MPPNB periods correspond to the regionalism scheme that differentiated farmers from foragers at the border between the Mediterranean woodland zone and the Negev (BarYosef and Bar-Yosef Mayer 2002: Fig. 8). This boundary likely served as a ‘zone of interactive interaction’ between farmers and foragers (ibid. Fig. 6; Figures 7.2–7.3). By the LPPNB this ‘border’ shifted to the Rift Valley, supposedly defining the western frontier of the Transjordanian culture (Figure 7.4). The ‘heartland’ of this culture was located along the Transjordan highlands, with 158

Social Complexity and Cultural Identities within the Southern Levantine PPNB branches to the east and west. Subsistence in this culture was diverse and included herding, hunting and farming (e.g., Helbaeck 1966; Horwitz et al. 1999; Becker 2004; Goring-Morris 1987: Table x-4), thus not according with a territorial division on the basis of economy. Very few occupations were attested in Cisjordan, complicating the identification of other entities in this vast area. This observation accords well with the ‘Jericho stimulus’ hypothesis of demographic movement from formally populated regions, such as the Galilee and Judea to Transjordan (Gebel 2004a). Consequently, the ‘border’ more likely reflects demographic and social structure differences between Transjordan and Cisjordan than differences in subsistence modes. During the FPPNB the boundary apparently shifted to divide the northern, central and southern regions as defined here (Figure 7.5). Yet again, no correlation between subsistence and the territories is attested, since all complexes relied on farming and herding economies (e.g., Haber and Dayan 2004; Horwitz et al. 1999; Horwitz and Ducos 2005; Garfinkel and Dag 2008). The reasons for this division were likely influenced by the collapse of the Transjordanian culture (Rollefson 1996; Simmons 2007); but they may also reflect the initiation of the Yarmukian regional culture in the north and the Jericho IX/Lodian culture in the central region in the Pottery Neolithic period (Garfinkel 1993; 1999).

9.5 Conclusions This research on bidirectional blade technology emphasizes the varied social complexity that existed during the PPNB in the southern Levant. These apparently included early chiefdom characteristics, such as community specialization (e.g., Levy 1995) and exchange networks (e.g., Milevski 2005) on the one hand, and mobile individual specialization typical of Late Palaeolithic foragers (e.g., Goring-Morris 1987) on the other. Bidirectional blade technologies were used in all settlement types throughout the southern Levant. However, it was not uniform and included several variations that were attested in different relative quantities throughout the sites. The technological variants included ‘One-on-One’, ‘Predetermined-Upsilon’ and ‘Single Dominant Platform’, which respectively reflect different levels of knapping skills, from high to low. On the whole, bidirectional blade technology was most common during the MPPNB and LPPNB, and less frequent in the EPPNB and FPPNB. The relative quantities of the bidirectional blade component within the general flint assemblages vary, likely relating to settlement patterns. While flint assemblages from seasonal sites in the Negev and Edom were dominated by bidirectional blade technologies, they were less frequent in the permanent villages of the Mediterranean core zone (i.e., Northern and Central Provinces). This relative ‘deficiency’ likely is

related to the presence of other technologies (ad hoc flake and bifacial tool technologies) that were common in these provinces (e.g., Goring-Morris 1994). It should be noted that the nature and composition of lithic assemblages in the large villages (e.g., Yiftahel; ‘Ain Ghazal) were surely affected by the large workshops that operated within them, as some areas in theses sites (i.e., the workshop dumps) are extremely over-represented in bidirectional blade products (e.g., Khalaily et al. 2008). The research presented here supports the existence of recognizable socio-cultural units (Henry 1995:34–35), which fluctuated in respect to time and space. Two entities, the settled ‘Mediterranean’ farmer-hunters and ‘Negban’ foragers were identified for the EPPNB–MPPNB. By the LPPNB they apparently shifted to Transjordan (Gebel 2004a) to form one large entity, the ‘Transjordanian’. The collapse of Neolithic settlements in Transjordan towards the end of the LPPNB (Rollefson 1996) likely resulted in population dispersals that were responsible for the appearance of three entities during the FPPNB: ‘Northern’, ‘Central’ and ‘Southern’. Interestingly, territorial boundaries as well as lithic characteristics in the Northern and Central cultures show continuity with the subsequent Yarmukian and Jericho IX PN cultures. Comparisons between the identified entities and specialization types indicate that the Mediterranean and Transjordanian cultures were specialized communities, while the Negban was of individual specialization. Dispersed specialization occurred in small seasonal villages, mainly in Edom; and also likely operated on a smaller scale within the Mediterranean and Transjordanian cultures. In addition, the presence of exceptional blade stocks (e.g., at Motza) and single elaborate blades and tools (e.g., at Kfar HaHoresh) made by the ‘One-onOne’ method probably reflect the importation of final products, or locally made blades by highly skilled itinerant specialists from neighboring entities to the north. The three specialization types were clearly related to population size, since the nature and scale of production correspond to consumption demands (Costin 1991; Wattemaker 1998b). However, since population estimates for the PPNB are not absolute and are problematic (e.g., Bar-Yosef 2001a:24; Bienert 2004:25), the different specialization types are related to settlement sizes (BarYosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989: Table 1). Thus community specialization apparently operated in densely populated permanent villages (ca. 2.5–12 hectares); dispersed specialization was characteristic of the small seasonal villages (0.4 hectares); and individual specialization was typical in forager camps (0.02 hectares). Evidence for community specialization apparently was also found in other industries; see, for example, the limeplaster industry in the Mediterranean culture (Garfinkel 1987b; Kingery et al. 1988; Goren and Goring-Morris 2008), the stone ring industry (Stark 1988) and the malachite/ore industries (Levy 2007) in the Transjordanian culture group. Apparently community specialization in 159

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies bidirectional blade and lime-plaster in the Mediterranean culture was conducted in the same sites (e.g., Yiftahel), while in Transjordan it was done at separate sites (e.g. bidirectional blades at Basta, sandstone rings at Ba’ja, and greenstones at Wadi Fidan 1). Dispersed specialization was likely relevant for bone tools (Le Dossier 2009) and clay figurines (Rollefson 2008), whereas individual specialization could have been the case for making stone beads in the Azraq Basin (Wright and Garrard 2003). Regarding networks, the bidirectional blade distribution routes do not correlate with networks for other commodities, such as obsidian and Red Sea shells (Cauvin and Chataigner 1988; Bar-Yosef Mayer 1997). While obsidian and the shell networks display longitudinal interregional networks, bidirectional blade exchange networks were confined to the southern Levantine PPNB cultures and exclusively operated for intra-regional exchange. In sum, the southern Levantine bidirectional blade industries reflect a high degree of social complexity within the PPNB. The highest form, community specialization, is attested for the complex, densely populated communities that resided in large permanent villages; dispersed specialization at the household level was the case for small seasonal villages at the edge; and individual specialization at smaller forager bands.

The current research has demonstrated the great potential in the study of bidirectional blade technologies, and encourages further investigations with respect to other theories and hypotheses regarding the PPNB. Two issues that emerge from this research relate to ‘Neolithization’ and the ‘Neolithic Devolution’ hypotheses (Rollefson 1996; Cauvin 2000). For example, it will be intriguing to investigate the emergence of this technology in the southern Levant and to examine how it was introduced from the northern Levant (Cauvin 2000); whether by population movements, cultural diffusion, or itinerant craft specialists, as was proposed for the early metalworkers in Bronze Age Europe (Childe 1936). Another topic for further inquiry concerns the termination of this technology, and how it is related to the proposed models for the end of the PPNB and the onset of the PN cultures (Rollefson 1990; 1996; Garfinkel 1993; Gopher and Gophna 1993; Gopher 1999; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 1997; Khalaily 2006; Getzov et al. 2009). Such further investigations should hopefully assist in clarifying terminological and chronological issues, and possibly some of the interpretations for this time-span.

160

APPENDICES Appendix 1. 14C Dates from the Analyzed Sites. SITE

Context

Lab #

Uncal. BP

Abu Gosh

L-A7 (Level III)

RT-2453

8895+/-60

Abu Gosh

Level III

RT-2844

8450+/-145

Atlit-Yam

Near L13

Pta-3950

8000+/-90

Reference

Cal BP* 10 200-9770

Probability 95.4%

Segal and Carmi 2003  9800-9000

95.4%

9150-8550

95.4%

Atlit-Yam

Near L13

RT-707

8140+/-120

9450-8650

95.4%

Atlit-Yam

L10/a

RT-44A

7670+/-85

8630-8330

95.4%

Atlit-Yam

L10/a

RT-944C

7610+/-90

Atlit-Yam

L10/a

PITT-0622

7550+/-80

Atlit-Yam

L11

RT-1431

7300+/-120

Atlit-Yam

L11

RT-2479

7460+/-55

   

Atlit-Yam

L11

RT-2477, 2427

7605+/-55

Atlit-Yam

L11

RT-2475

7465+/-50

Atlit-Yam

L66

RT-2495, 2493

7755+/-55

Atlit-Yam

L66

RT-2489

7880+/-55

   

Galili 2004: Table 34  

8590-8280

89.2%

8480-8180

93.2%

8380-7930

95.4%

8380-8180

95.4%

8550-8330

95.4%

8380-8180

95.4%

8630-8410

95.4%

8810-8550

75.5%

Atlit-Yam

L32

RT-2681

6580+/-35

Atlit-Yam

Near L54

RT-3038

8000+/-45

Atlit-Yam

Near L56

RT-3043

7250+/-45

 

8170-7970

95.4%

Atlit-Yam

Near L65

RT-2497, 2496

8170+/-55

 

9290-9000

95.4%

Ayn Abu Nukheyla

L2; level 9

9890-9470

95.4%

Ayn Abu Nukheyla

L5; level 12

9550-9000

95.4%

9530-9130

95.4%

9670-9460

95.4%

9910-9440

95.4%

9550-9140

93.7%

9540-9120

95.4%

9270-900

95.4%

Ayn Abu Nukheyla Ayn Abu Nukheyla Ayn Abu Nukheyla Ayn Abu Nukheyla

L20; level 10/11 L20; level 7 L22;level 15 L25; level 13

A-11802 A-11803 A11805 A11804 A-11806 A-11807

8625+/-85 8365+/-120 8370+/-80 8565+/-55 8610+/-95 8410+/-80

?

GrN-14537

8380+/100

Basta

?

GrN-14538

8155+/-50

Beidha A-B

Layer VI

K-1410

8850+/-150

Beidha A-B

Layer VI

K-1411

8770+/-150

Beidha A-B

Layer VI

K-1412

8720+/-150

Basta

 

Beidha A-B

Layer VI

K-1086

8940+/-160

Beidha A-B

Layer VI

K-1082

8710+/-130

Beidha A-B

Layer VI

GrN-5063

8640+/-50

Beidha A-B

Layer VI

P-1378

8715+/-100

Beidha A-B

Layer VI

P-1379

8246+/-100

Beidha A-B

Layer V

K-1083

8640+/-160

Beidha A-B

Layer IV

P-1380

9128+/-103

Beidha A-B

Layer IV

GrN-5136

8810+/-50

Beidha A-B

Layer IV

P-1381

8765+/-108

Beidha A-B

Layer IV

BM-111

8790+/-200

Beidha A-B

Layer IV

K-1084

8730+/-160

* Calibration was made using OX Pal program.

161

Henry et al. 2003           Nissen et al. 1987            

7520-7420

81.8%

9010-8700

94.3%

10250-9500

95.4%

10200-9500

95.4%

10200-9450

95.4%

10450-9550

95.4%

10200-9500

95.4%

9710-9520

94.3%

10150-9500

95.4%

9470-9010 Barker and Mackey 10200-9300 1968; Stuckenrath and Lawn 1969; Vogel 10600-9900 and Waterbolk 1972; 9970-9670 Weinstein 1984 10200-9500   10400-9400

95.4%

10200-9450

95.4%

 

95.4% 95.4% 95.4% 72.7% 95.4%

Appendix 2. Techno-type List for Bidirectional Blade Products

I. Distinctive Debitage from Final Core Preparation Process 1. Initial Platform Spalls (IPS) – The IPS reflect the type of preformations applied to the flint block. These are blade-sized items which were removed from the core’s keel in order to establish the striking platforms (Wilke and Quintero 1994). Most of the IPS have a dihedral butt which indicates they were removed immediately after core preformation, prior to the detachment of the crested blade II1 (lame à crête1). In several cases when no core preformation was done the IPS butt and dorsal face have cortical or natural patinated surfaces.

distal is attributed to the initial removal attempt while the proximal is a secondary crest which was made prior to the spall detachment.

IPS Types A-C and E were defined by Wilke and Quintero (1994: Table 1), while Type D was defined after an analysis of a workshop dump from Kfar HaHoresh (Barzilai and Goring-Morris forthcoming). All have a curved/twisted profile and a wide angle (~115º-135º) between the butt’s striking surface and ventral face; this indicates the narrow angle between the striking platform and the removal surface (~45º-65º). A. Unprepared/Non-crested spall. This is an elongated item with a triangular or plano-convex cross section. The presence of cortex/natural patina on its dorsal face indicates it was detached from unprepared nodules. B. Crested spall. An elongated item with a triangular cross section. Its dorsal face is configured by bifacial removals, implying it was struck from bifacially preformed precores. C. Faceted spall. This type displays elongated features with a trapezoidal/flat triangular cross section. The dorsal face is configured by flat perpendicular unifacial removals, indicating it was struck off tabular or flat nodules which needed minor faceting. D. Flat spall. Secondary items with unidirectional scars on their dorsal face, an indication of unsuccessful previous spall removal/s. Despite being secondary attempts for establishing the striking platform, these items are classified within the final core preparation stage since no blade removals were made from the striking platform yet, as indicated by the flat spalls dihedral butts.

Appendix 2 I1 II. Distinctive Debitage from Core Reduction and Maintenance 1. Initial Blades - These are the first blade blanks to be removed from the removal surface immediately after the core preparation was completed. The primary ridge blades are carefully designed by creating a crest by bifacial, unifacial or alternating flaking. Most of the blanks had their butt carefully prepared (usually by micro-chipping and intensive abrasion). The profiles tend to be straight or straight with a proximal curve and triangular cross-section. Types A and D were defined by Wilke and Quintero (1994: Table 1), while the remainder follow Barzilai and GoringMorris (forthcoming). A. Crested blade (Lame à crête). This type has a full central ridge and a pointed distal end. The ridge blade results from bifacial flaking. The crested blades have a triangular cross-section and their size (length, width and thickness) varies according to the original size of the preformed core. B. Crested upsilon blade. This type is removed immediately after Type A, if needed. It is struck from the opposite direction as a “clean-up”

E. Two crested spall. Secondary items with unidirectional scar/s and two crests on their dorsal face. The unidirectional scars indicate unsuccessful previous spall removal/s. The crests correspond with the distal and proximal parts; the 1  If the spall would have been removed after the lame à crête then the butt would have been plain or faceted, as in the case of the secondary platform spalls (II6).

162

Appendices removal. Its proximal part is crested and bears a triangular cross-section. The distal part has a trapezoidal section bearing a negative V-shaped scar created by the previously removed crested blade. C. Partially crested blade. This type has a partial crest formed by bifacial, unifacial or alternating removals. Like Type A it has a triangular crosssection. The partially crested blade is usually made for narrow nodules which needed minor preparations for establishing the removal surface. D. Cortical/Natural blade. This type bears cortex or patina on its dorsal face. It usually has a plano-convex/triangular cross-section. The cortical blade usually occurs when the natural configuration of the flint block did not require any preparations prior to blade removals. E. Crested bladelet. A smaller version of Types A or C, whose width is smaller than 12 mm. F. Crested upsilon bladelet. A smaller version of Type B, whose width is smaller than 12 mm.

items bear remnants of the core flanks on their dorsal face, indicating their lateral location on the removal surface. The remnants could be cortical top scars indicating preparation of a ridge blade (Type II1), or bottom scars indicating base modification. Types A, C, E and F are “targeted blades” since they were often modified into standardized tools (especially sickles and retouched blades).

2. Débordante Blade - The category of lame débordante is defined after Abbès (2003: 33–34), and the other sub-types after Barzilai and Goring-Morris (forthcoming). These

D. Débordante bladelet. These are bladelets with flank remnants on the right, left or both sides. They are also known as “platform isolation elements” (Wilke and Quintero 1994: Table 1). These were removed as part of the preparation process prior to removal of targeted blades (Types A, C, E and F).

A. Lame débordante. This is a targeted blade with flank remnants on its lateral part. The blade was carefully planned before detachment as indicated by intensive butt preparation. B. Upsilon lame débordante. This type is struck from the opposite direction as a “clean-up” removal for blade A. Its distal end has a trapezoidal cross-section bearing a negative V-shaped scar created by the previously removed blade. C. Sous-crête. This type has flank remnants on both edges with top scars indicating it was removed immediately following the crested blade (Type II1A).

E. Débordante overpass. This is an overshot targeted blade that displays remnants of the opposite striking platform on its distal end. F. Lame débordante with lateral core flank remnants on both edges. This is a targeted blade with flank remnants on both edges, indicating it was removed from a narrow core. Like Type A, it was carefully prepared.

Appendix 2 II1

G. Interceptive lame débordante. This is a short feathershaped blade with an opposed scar at its distal end. It served as clean-up stage (atypical upsilon) for non-pointed blades. This type corresponds with Wilke and Quintero’s ‘ridge straightening blades’ (1994).

Appendix 2 II2

163

Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through Lithic Studies 3. Centrale Blades. The centrale blades category was also defined by Abbès (2003: 33–34). Types A–B were defined by Abbès (2003), Type C by Calley (1988) and Types D–E by Barzilai and Goring-Morris (forthcoming). The central blades were removed from the center of the removal surface bearing scars with no flank remnants. Types A and B are targeted blades, with many tools being made on this blank type. A. Predetermined. These are long symmetrical and pointed blades that were mainly selected to be modified into projectile points and spears. Their butt preparations are intensive, a sign of careful pre-planning before detachment. B. Central blade. Here the carefully prepared blades are not as symmetrical or as long as Type A. The size and configuration are similar to those of Type II2A. C. Upsilon blade. This type is struck from the opposite direction as a “clean-up” removal for Type A. Its distal part has a trapezoidal section bearing a negative V-shaped scar created by the previously removed blade. D. Bladelet. Some of these items were prepared before removal, and bear triangular cross-sections, widths