Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley: Excavations at Tell Abu en-Ni'aj and Dhahret Umm el-Marar, Jordan 9781407316925, 9781407355641

Citation preview

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley Excavations at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Dhahret Umm el-Marar, Jordan

Steven E. Falconer and Patricia L. Fall with contributions by

Ilya Berelov and Steven Porson B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 2 9 2 2

2019

by Published in BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley © The authors and contributors severally A herd of sheep traverses the southeastern slope of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj at the outset of the 1985 excavations. The Author’s moral rights under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reser ved. No par t of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any for m of digital for mat or transmitted in any for m digitally, without the written per mission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407316925 paperback ISBN 9781407355641 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407316925 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing Banbury Rd, Oxford, [email protected] + ( ) + ( ) www.barpublishing.com

,

To our parents, Barbara and Sam Fall, and Judy and Bob Falconer, and our children, Sam and Will Falconer, for their love, help and inspiration.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to the Department of Antiquities of Jordan and to our friends and colleagues in the Jordan Valley who made our investigations into Bronze Age life at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj so enjoyable, and who helped us not only in all aspects of the research, but shared their hospitality and culture with us. We would like to acknowledge the help of the “Jericho Men,” who worked with us in 1985: “Sheikh” Sadek Abdullah, Ali Abdul Rusool (Abu Said), Mohammed Darwish and Mohammed Jumrah. Excavations at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj were conducted under permits from the Department of Antiquities, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and were made possible through professional collaboration with Department of Antiquities Directors-General Drs. Adnan Hadidi, Ghazi Bisheh and Fawwaz al-Khraysheh, and with the support of the American Center of Oriental Research (ACOR), Amman. We thank ACOR Directors Drs. David McCreery, Bert Devries, Pierre Bikai, and Barbara Porter for their collegial support over several decades. During the 1985, 1996-97, and 2000 field seasons we lived at the Deir Alla Station for Archaeological Studies, which is supported by a consortium among the Department of Antiquities, Jordan, Yarmouk University, and Leiden University (Professor Gerrit van Der Kooji). We are indebted to the staff at the Deir Alla Station, including Mohammed Jumrah (manager), Umm Salem

(cook), Fatmeh Umm Mahmoud (housekeeper), Haj Faris Joudeh and Ahmed Joudeh (caretakers) and many village women from Deir Alla who washed pottery and provided companionship while we worked in Jordan (Photo A.1). We are grateful for the following funding sources that supported our field research: The 1985 excavation season at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj was co-directed by Steven Falconer and Bonnie MagnessGardiner with funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities (grant #RO-21027), the National Geographic Society (#2984-84), the University of Arizona Foundation, and by support from Dr. William Dever, the University of Arizona. Ali Ghandour, President of Royal Jordanian Airlines, provided half-price airline tickets for our crew, and Bob and Judy Falconer paid for our cook (Umm Salem). The 1996/1997 excavation season at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj was directed by Falconer and Fall with funding from the National Science Foundation (grant #SBR 96-00995), the National Geographic Society (#5629-96), the WennerGren Foundation for Anthropological Research (#6006), the National Endowment for the Humanities (#RO-2246792), and two Faculty Research Grants-in-Aid from Arizona State University.

Photo A.1. 1985 crew at Umm Salem’s house, Deir Alla. (l-r) Jonathan Mabry, Paula Marcoux, Steve Falconer, Pat Fall, Bonnie Magness-Gardiner, Ron Gardiner, Susan Morton, Umm Salem, Lynn Grant, Glen Peterman, Salem (photo by Karen Scholz).

Acknowledgements The 2000 excavation seasons at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj were directed by Falconer and Fall with funding from the National Science Foundation (grant #SBR 99-04536). The 2010 vegetation and landscape study season in Jordan was conducted by Fall, Mariela Soto-Berelov and Liz Ridder with funding from the National Science Foundation (grant # 0410269; Falconer and Fall, PIs). We thank our colleagues, and graduate and undergraduate students who worked in the field with us: 1985 field season: Department of Antiquities representatives – Mohammed Darwish and Saad Hadidi; the “Jericho Men” – Ali Abdul Rusool (Abu Said) and “Sheikh” Sadek Abdullah. Bonnie Magness-Gardiner (Co-Director), Ron Gardiner (excavation supervisor and artist), Lynn Grant (registrar), Mary Metzger (excavation supervisor and faunal analyst), Jonathan

Mabry (excavation supervisor and draftsperson), Paula Marcoux (excavation supervisor and specialty chef), John Meloy (excavation supervisor), Susan Morton (excavation supervisor), Gaetano Palumbo (excavation supervisor), Glen Peterman (excavation supervisor) and Karen Scholz (photographer) (Photos A.2 and A.3). 1996/1997 field season: Department of Antiquities representatives Yusha al-Amri & Muhammad Abu Abileh; Excavators: Maysoon al-Nahar, Jennifer Belcastro, Jennifer Biringer, Caroline (Molly) Davies, Diane Douglas, Jim Eighmey, Steve Emrick, Said Ennahid, Nazeh Fino, Brett Hill, Jen Jones, Erika Kauppi, Alex Mack, Mary Metzger, Abdul-Nassar Hindawi, Andrea Leinberger, Chris Papalas, Sarah Paciorek, Matthew Peters, Jean Savoie, Steven Schmich, Kim Sonderegger, Carla Wheeler and Jim Wheeler. Tutor: Sarah Fumusa. (Photos A.4 and A.5).

Photo A.2. Excavation crew for the 1985 excavation season at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj; photo taken on the site (photo by Karen Scholz).

Photo A.3. Field and house staff for the 1985 excavation season at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj; photo taken at the Deir Alla Station. Back row (l-r) Karen Scholz, Saad Hadidi, Mohammed Jumrah, Mary Metzger, Steve Falconer, Pat Fall, Glen Peterman, John Meloy, Ron Gardiner, Gaetano Palumbo. Front row (l-r) Haj Faris Joudeh, ibn Mohammed Jumrah, Raida Jumrah, Jalal Jumrah, Susan Morton, Rima Jumrah, Lynn Grant, Imad Jumrah, Paula Marcoux, Jonathan Mabry, Bonnie MagnessGardiner, Umm Salem (photo by Karen Scholz).

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley

Photo A.4. Excavation crew for the 1996/1997 excavation season at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj; photo taken on the site.

Photo A.5. Field supervisors for the 1996/1997 excavation season at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj; photo taken at the Deir Alla Station. Back row (l-r) Steve Emrick, Jennifer Biringer, Sarah Paciorek, Andrea Leinberger, Matthew Peters, Abdul-Nassar Hindawi, Jim Wheeler, Diane Douglas. Middle row (l-r) Steven Schmich, Jeff Eighmey, Said en-Nahid, Molly Davies, Kim Sonderegger, Jennifer Belcastro, Erika Kauppi, Maysoon al-Nahar, Carla Wheeler, Sarah Fumusa. Front row (l-r) Chris Papalas, Alex Mack, Jen Jones, Jean Savoie.

2000 field season: Department of Antiquities representative Yusha al-Amri; Excavation Supervisors: Oralia Cabrera Cortez, John Czarzasty, Jen Jones and Bonnie MagnessGardiner. Excavators: Wedal al-Hindawi, Bonita Bennett, David Downum, Alia Fazza, Abdul-Nasser Hindawi, Bruce Howell, Michelle Jaramillo, Cynthia Keller, Atis Krigers, Cathryn Meegan, Greg Schachner, Chad Thomas, Ruth Tucker, Jennifer Tulloch, Michelle White and Emily Yeska. Tutor: Wendy Cluff. (Photos A.6 and A.7). 2010 vegetation survey season: Mariela Soto-Berelov and Liz Ridder. Special thanks for assistance in the field go to the staff of the Deir Alla Archaeological Station, especially its Manager Mr. Ahmed Joudeh. The University of Arizona provided institutional support during the 1985 field season. Arizona State University was

the institutional sponsor during the 1996/1997 and 2000 excavation seasons at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, and the 2010 vegetation study season. We thank Dr. Arleyn Simon for facilitating the accession and storage of the collections and field notebooks from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, Dhahret Umm el-Marar, Umm el-Ba‘ir and Tell el-Hayyat (phases 3-1) at the Center for Archaeology and Society Repository, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University. Analyses were continued at La Trobe University and ACOR. The final manuscript was produced at the University of North Carolina Charlotte (UNCC) and while on reassignment of duties from UNCC at the Amerind Foundation in Dragoon, Arizona. Materials from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj were analysed as parts of four Ph.D. dissertations: John Czarzasty (Anthropology, ASU), Jennifer Jones (Anthropology, ASU), JoAnna Klinge (Geography, ASU), Lee Lines (Geography, ASU); and one

Acknowledgements

Photo A.6. Excavation crew for the 2000 excavation season at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj; photo taken on the site.

Photo A.7. Staff and field crew for the 2000 excavation season at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj; photo taken at the Deir Alla Station. Seated (l-r) Alia Fazza, Benita Bennett, Cathryn Meegan, Pat Fall, Steve Falconer, Sam Falconer, Will Falconer, Michelle Speidel-White, Jennifer Tulloch. Standing (l-r) Ruth Tucker, David Downum, Jennifer Jones, Wendy Cluff, Bruce Howell, Jessica Assad, Greg Schachner, Fatmeh Umm Mahmoud, Michelle Jaramillo, Emily Yeska, Umm Salem, Bonnie MagnessGardiner, Chad Thomas, Oralia Cabrera, Atis Krigers, Cynthia Keller, John Czarzasty.

M.S. Thesis: Steven Porson (Geography & Earth Sciences, UNCC). Our vegetation modelling research led to Mariela Soto-Berelov’s Ph.D. dissertation (Geography, ASU). We thank the many individuals who aided in the analyses of materials from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Dhahret Umm elMarar. Drs. Moawiyah Ibrahim, James Sauer and Khair Yassine kindly provided access to the field notes and ceramic collections of the East Jordan Valley Survey. Bonnie Magness-Gardiner, Ilya Berelov, John Czarzasty and Jennifer Jones helped analyse the pottery from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj. Ilya Berelov, Jen Jones, Maysoon al-Nahar, and Gary James drew some of the Ni‘aj pottery. Jen Jones contributed substantially to the analysis of the pottery from Dhahret Umm el-Marar. The Marar pottery was drawn by Jen Jones, J. Anders, A. Caywood and Maysoon

al-Nahar. Figurines, bone tools and copper artefacts were drawn by A. Veldhuijzen, Oralia Cabrera and Gary James. Jim Eighmey supervised the analyses of chipped stone evidence from the 1996/97 excavation season. John Czarzasty and Cynthia Keller supervised the preliminary analyses of chipped stones during the 2000 excavations. Cynthia Keller analysed the blade tools. Jane Peterson analysed our ground stone implements. John Czarzasty compiled the chipped stone databases for the 1996/97 and 2000 excavation seasons. Mary Metzger analysed the faunal material from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and several other Bronze Age villages along the Jordan Rift. Lee Lines (ASU) helped analyse the carbonised plant remains from the 1985 season; JoAnna Klinge (ASU) analysed carbonised wood samples; Steven Porson (UNCC) analysed the 1996/1997 and 2000 carbonised seeds. Dr. William Boynton and

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley his staff at the University of Arizona’s NSF Planetary and Space Sciences Laboratory facilitated neutronactivation analysis of ceramics. Radiocarbon analyses were conducted by the University of Arizona Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, the Oxford University Radiocarbon Laboratory and the Vienna Environmental Research Accelerator. Erik Steinbach (ASU) digitized and compiled the photos for the project databases from 1985. Ilya Berelov assisted with the pottery chronology analyses and compiled the pottery plates. Marilyn Brown (UNCC) assisted with the photos from the 1985, 1996/1997 and 2000 seasons, compiled the project databases for all three seasons, photographed selected pottery and objects, and helped prepare the final manuscript for publication. We thank Barbara Trapido-Lurie (ASU), Wei Ming (La Trobe University) and Patrick Jones (UNCC) for drafting the figures in this volume. Dr. Barbara Porter provided collegial support during our research at ACOR in Spring 2012. Dr. Christine Szuter, Director of the Amerind Foundation, facilitated our stay at Amerind during our research leave from UNCC in spring 2018 allowing for the completion of this book. Our four anonymous reviewers provided thorough constructive suggestions that strengthened the presentation of our work considerably. We thank our editors at BAR, Jane Burkowski and Chris Myers, for their very professional and expeditious contributions in bringing this volume to press. The research and compilation of the manuscript for this final publication were made possible through a generous grant from The Shelby White and Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications. Additional funding for the write up of the excavations at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj came from an American Center of Oriental Research (ACOR) Publication Fellowship held by Falconer in 2012, an ACOR-Council of American Overseas Research Centers Fellowship held by Fall in 2012. The Amerind Foundation in Dragoon, Arizona provided a quiet and congenial place to write during spring and summer 2018.

Traditional mudbrick farmstead in the Jordan Valley, 1985. View to the northwest toward the modern floodplain of the Jordan River.

Contents List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................................................xiv List of Photographs .........................................................................................................................................................xviii List of Maps ......................................................................................................................................................................xxii List of Tables....................................................................................................................................................................xxiii Preface ..............................................................................................................................................................................xxvi Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................................xxvii 1. The Advent and Abandonment of Levantine Urbanism ..............................................................................................1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................1 The Levantine Bronze Age................................................................................................................................................2 Traditional and Revised Views of Early Bronze IV ..........................................................................................................3 Archaeological Inference of Early Bronze IV Society......................................................................................................5 2. Excavation Methods and Interpretive Framework ......................................................................................................7 Archaeological Investigations at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ..........................................................................................................7 Excavation Methods and Terms ......................................................................................................................................10 Spatial Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................... 11 Classification and Analysis of Material Remains............................................................................................................12 Ceramics .....................................................................................................................................................................13 Animal Bones .............................................................................................................................................................13 Carbonised Seeds and Wood ......................................................................................................................................13 Vegetation Modelling .................................................................................................................................................14 Lithic Industries..........................................................................................................................................................15 Multiple Lines of Evidence and Analyses.......................................................................................................................15 3. Modern and Past Environmental Dynamics in the Southern Levant ....................................................................... 17 The Southern Levant .......................................................................................................................................................17 Modern Vegetation of the Southern Levant ....................................................................................................................18 Modern Environmental Setting of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj......................................................................................................21 Modelling Bronze Age Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................22 Methods ......................................................................................................................................................................22 Results ........................................................................................................................................................................22 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................................24 Orchard Cultivation in the Southern Levant ...................................................................................................................24 Dung Burning as a Primary Source of Carbonised Seeds at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ..............................................................27 Charcoal Analysis and Wood Resource Use at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Tell el-Hayyat....................................................27 Results ........................................................................................................................................................................27 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................................28 Animal Bones and Shells at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Dhahret Umm el-Marar .................................................................29 Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Animal Bones ................................................................................................................................29 Dhahret Umm el-Marar Animal Bones ......................................................................................................................33 Dhahret Umm el-Marar Shells ...................................................................................................................................34 Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Shells .............................................................................................................................................34 4. Community Architecture at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................37 Stratified Village Architecture .........................................................................................................................................37 Phase 7 Architecture........................................................................................................................................................42 Phase 6 Architecture........................................................................................................................................................43 Phase 5 Architecture........................................................................................................................................................45 Phase 4 Architecture........................................................................................................................................................52 Phase 3 Architecture........................................................................................................................................................52 xi

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley

Phase 2 Architecture........................................................................................................................................................58 Phase 1 Architecture........................................................................................................................................................64 Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Village Planning in Overview ............................................................................................................66 5. Radiocarbon Chronology for Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .......................................................................................................... 69 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................................69 Methods: Sampling of Carbonised Seeds for AMS Radiocarbon Ages ..........................................................................69 Results: AMS Ages and Bayesian Modelling .................................................................................................................72 Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ........................................................................................................................................................72 Tell el-Hayyat .............................................................................................................................................................72 Discussion .......................................................................................................................................................................73 Comparison with Levantine Early Bronze IV Radiocarbon Evidence.......................................................................73 Comparative Evidence for the Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze Age Transition.......................................................74 Articulation with Emerging Bronze Age Chronologies for the Southern Levant ......................................................74 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................................................74 6. Early Bronze IV Ceramic Typology and Chronology at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj (by Steven E. Falconer, Ilya Berelov and Patricia L. Fall) ...........................................................................................................................................................75 Traditions of Early Bronze IV Ceramic Chronology ......................................................................................................75 Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Vessel Forms and Levantine Typological Parallels ............................................................................75 Pottery Manufacturing and Exchange .............................................................................................................................75 Stratified Ceramic Assemblages at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .....................................................................................................78 Phase 7 Pottery ...........................................................................................................................................................78 Phase 6 Pottery ...........................................................................................................................................................81 Phase 5 Pottery ...........................................................................................................................................................81 Phase 4 Pottery ...........................................................................................................................................................85 Phase 3 Pottery ...........................................................................................................................................................86 Phase 2 Pottery ...........................................................................................................................................................89 Phase 1 Pottery ...........................................................................................................................................................93 Chronological Implications ...........................................................................................................................................101 7. Ceramic Vessel Form, Function and Style at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .............................................................................. 103 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................103 Pottery Form and Function............................................................................................................................................103 Functional Changes in the Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Assemblages .....................................................................................103 Shifts in Vessel Form Frequency and Size ...............................................................................................................104 Pottery Style ..................................................................................................................................................................106 Decorative Motifs .....................................................................................................................................................106 Trends in Pottery Decoration....................................................................................................................................107 Handle Types ............................................................................................................................................................ 110 Rim Profiles .............................................................................................................................................................. 111 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................................... 112 8. Stone and Metal Tool Technology at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................ 115 Chipped Stone Tools ..................................................................................................................................................... 115 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 115 Sampling and Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 115 Analytical Results..................................................................................................................................................... 116 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................121 Ground Stone Implements.............................................................................................................................................121 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................121 Ground Stone Functional Typology and Interpretation ............................................................................................122 Spatial Patterning .....................................................................................................................................................126 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................128 Metal Objects ................................................................................................................................................................129 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................................129 9. Archaeobotanical Analyses of Carbonised Plant Remains from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj (by Steven Porson, Patricia L. Fall and Steven E. Falconer) ........................................................................................................................131 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................131 xii

Contents

Processing of Carbonised Seeds....................................................................................................................................131 Trend Analysis...............................................................................................................................................................132 Seed Classifications.......................................................................................................................................................132 Barley .......................................................................................................................................................................132 Wheat........................................................................................................................................................................132 Wild Grasses .............................................................................................................................................................133 Cultivated Legumes..................................................................................................................................................133 Wild Legumes ..........................................................................................................................................................133 Fruits.........................................................................................................................................................................133 Wild Seeds ................................................................................................................................................................133 Unknowns.................................................................................................................................................................133 Stem Fragments ........................................................................................................................................................133 Notable Absences .....................................................................................................................................................133 Quantitative Results ......................................................................................................................................................133 Discussion .....................................................................................................................................................................137 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................................138 10. Early Bronze IV Ritual Behaviour at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ........................................................................................139 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................139 Phase 6 Animal Burials and Temple .............................................................................................................................139 Phase 1 Shrine and Animal Interment ...........................................................................................................................142 Discussion .....................................................................................................................................................................155 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................................158 11. Excavations at Dhahret Umm el-Marar and Umm el-Ba‘ir...................................................................................159 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................159 Setting and Sampling of Dhahret Umm el-Marar .........................................................................................................159 Results ...........................................................................................................................................................................162 Material Culture .......................................................................................................................................................169 Stone Tool Technology .............................................................................................................................................173 Metal Implements .....................................................................................................................................................178 Discussion .....................................................................................................................................................................178 Enclosure Wall..........................................................................................................................................................178 Domestic Architecture and Pottery...........................................................................................................................179 Dhahret Umm el-Marar and Early Bronze IV Settlement and Society .........................................................................179 Test Excavations at Umm el-Ba‘ir ................................................................................................................................179 Background ..............................................................................................................................................................179 Setting.......................................................................................................................................................................180 Methods ....................................................................................................................................................................180 Results ......................................................................................................................................................................181 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................................................182 12. Early Bronze IV Village Life during Urban Abandonment ................................................................................... 183 Revised Interpretation of Levantine Early Bronze IV Settlement and Society.............................................................183 Evidence and Inference from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ...........................................................................................................183 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................................186 Bibliography .....................................................................................................................................................................189 The following appendices are available to download from www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html: Appendix 1. Excavated loci at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj by excavation area and stratigraphic phase Appendix 2. Ceramics from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Appendix 3. Archaeobotanical remains from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Appendix 4. Chipped stone artefacts from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, Dhahret Umm el-Marar and Umm el-Ba‘ir, 1996/97 Appendix 5. Chipped stone artefacts from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, 2000 Appendix 6. Ground stone implements from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Appendix 7. Objects from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Dhahret Umm el-Marar Appendix 8. Ceramics from Dhahret Umm el-Marar xiii

List of Figures Figure 2.1. Topographic plan of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj showing locations of Fields 1-4 and 5 x 5 m excavation squares ....... 8 Figure 2.2. Example of locus sheet used during excavation of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................ 11 Figure 3.1. Modelled mean annual temperature and mean annual precipitation for Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Pella, 5500-3000 cal years BP ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 3.2. Area modelled for the three main plant geographical regions, 5500-3000 cal BP and 0 years BP (modern): (a) Mediterranean and Coastal Mediterranean woodlands; (b) Irano-Turanian steppe; and (c) Sudanian and Saharo-Arabian deserts ............................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 3.3. Ceramic animal figurine from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2 ............................................................................... 29 Figure 3.4. Ceramic animal figurine from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2 ............................................................................... 29 Figure 3.5. Ceramic animal figurines from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj modern surface, Phase 2, Phase 4 and Phase 7 ................ 30 Figure 3.6. Bone awls from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 4 and Phase 7 ................................................................................. 31 Figure 3.7. Bone awl from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 3 ....................................................................................................... 32 Figure 3.8. Copper pin from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 1 .................................................................................................... 32 Figure 3.9. Bone needles from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 4 and Phase 5 ............................................................................ 33 Figure 4.1. Topographic plan of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj showing locations of Fields 1-4 ........................................................ 38 Figure 4.2. Key to graphic conventions used to depict excavated architecture and features at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj............ 42 Figure 4.3. Phase 7 architectural plan and associated features at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ......................................................... 42 Figure 4.4. Phase 7 architectural plan and associated features in Field 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ......................................... 43 Figure 4.5. Phase 6 architectural plan and associated features in Fields 2 and 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................. 45 Figure 4.6. Phase 6 architectural plan and associated features in Field 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ......................................... 46 Figure 4.7. Stratigraphic section drawing of north baulk faces of Areas C and K at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ........................... 47 Figure 4.8. Phase 5 architectural plan and associated features in Fields 2, 3 and 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ......................... 48 Figure 4.9. Phase 5 architectural plan and associated features in Fields 2 and 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................. 48 Figure 4.10. Phase 5 architectural plan and associated features in Field 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ....................................... 49 Figure 4.11. Stratigraphic section drawing of the north baulk face of Area X at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ................................. 50 Figure 4.12. Stratigraphic section drawing of the south baulk face of Area BB at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .............................. 50 Figure 4.13. Phase 5, 4 and 3 architectural plans and associated features in Field 3 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ....................... 51 Figure 4.14. Phase 4 architectural plan and associated features in Fields 2, 3 and 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ....................... 52 Figure 4.15. Phase 4 architectural plan and associated features in Field 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ....................................... 53 Figure 4.16. Phase 4 architectural plan and associated features in Fields 2 and 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ........................... 55 Figure 4.17. Phase 6, 5, 4 and 3 architectural plans and associated features in Field 1 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ................... 55 Figure 4.18. Phase 3 architectural plan and associated features in Fields 1, 2, 3 and 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ................... 56 Figure 4.19. Phase 3 architectural plan and associated features in Fields 1, 2 and 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ....................... 57 Figure 4.20. Phase 3 architectural plan and associated features in Field 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ....................................... 58 Figure 4.21. Phase 3 architectural plan and associated features in Field 1 (Areas N15 and O14) at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ... 59 Figure 4.22. Phase 2 architectural plan and associated features in Fields 1 and 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ........................... 61

xiv

List of Figures Figure 4.23. Phase 2 architectural plan and associated features in Field 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ....................................... 62 Figure 4.24. Phase 2 architectural plan and associated features in Field 1 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ....................................... 65 Figure 4.25. Phase 1 architectural plan and associated features in Fields 1 and 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ........................... 66 Figure 4.26. Phase 1 architectural plan and associated features in Field 1 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ....................................... 67 Figure 4.27. Phase 1 architectural plan and associated features in Field 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ....................................... 68 Figure 5.1 Bayesian sequencing of 14C dates for seed samples from Phases 7-2 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, Jordan................. 71 Figure 6.1. Pottery from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 7 .......................................................................................................... 79 Figure 6.2. Seven-spouted lamp from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 7 ..................................................................................... 80 Figure 6.3. Four-handled jug from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 7 .......................................................................................... 81 Figure 6.4. Pottery from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 6 .......................................................................................................... 82 Figure 6.5. Miniature shallow open bowl from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 6 ....................................................................... 83 Figure 6.6. Miniature shallow open bowl with impressed ledge handle from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 6 ....................... 83 Figure 6.7. Pottery from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 5 .......................................................................................................... 84 Figure 6.8. Pottery (bowls and cook pots) from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 4 ...................................................................... 85 Figure 6.9. Amphoriskos-type pitcher from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 4 ............................................................................ 86 Figure 6.10. Pottery (jars) from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 4 ............................................................................................... 87 Figure 6.11. Pottery (bowls and cook pots) from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 3 .................................................................... 88 Figure 6.12. Pottery (jars) from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 3 ............................................................................................... 90 Figure 6.13. Jug with double loop handles from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 3 ..................................................................... 91 Figure 6.14. Pottery (bowls and cook pots) from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2 .................................................................... 92 Figure 6.15. Plain rim deep bowl from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2.................................................................................... 93 Figure 6.16. Rilled rim deep bowl from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2 .................................................................................. 93 Figure 6.17. Pottery (jars) from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2 ............................................................................................... 94 Figure 6.18. Pottery (bowls) from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 1 ........................................................................................... 96 Figure 6.19. Pottery (cook pots and lamps) from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 1 .................................................................... 97 Figure 6.20. Pottery (jars) from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 1 ............................................................................................... 98 Figure 6.21. Small bottle jug from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 1 ........................................................................................ 100 Figure 7.1. Relative sherd frequencies according to vessel form and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............. 104 Figure 7.2. Relative sherd frequencies according to vessel functional category and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................................................................................ 104 Figure 7.3. Relative frequencies for deep bowl and open bowl rim sherds according to architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .................................................................................................................................................................... 105 Figure 7.4. Mean diameters for deep bowl and open bowl rim sherds according to architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................................................................................ 105 Figure 7.5. Mean diameters for holemouth cook pot and short-necked cook pot rim sherds according to architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .......................................................................................................................... 105 Figure 7.6. Relative frequencies for holemouth cook pot and short-necked cook pot rim sherds according to architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .......................................................................................................................... 106 Figure 7.7. Relative frequencies for everted rim jar and holemouth jar rim sherds according to architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj.......................................................................................................................................................... 106 Figure 7.8. Mean diameters for everted rim jar and holemouth jar rim sherds according to architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................................................................. 106

xv

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley Figure 7.9. Relative sherd frequencies according to decoration type and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ....... 107 Figure 7.10. Relative sherd frequencies for everted rim jars according to decoration type and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................................................................. 108 Figure 7.11. Relative sherd frequencies for holemouth jars according to decorative type and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................................................................. 108 Figure 7.12. Relative sherd frequencies for holemouth cook pots according to decoration type and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................................................... 109 Figure 7.13. Relative sherd frequencies for deep bowls according to decoration type and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .................................................................................................................................................................... 110 Figure 7.14. Relative sherd frequencies for open bowls according to decoration type and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................................................................. 110 Figure 7.15. Relative sherd frequencies according to handle type and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............111 Figure 7.16. Relative rim sherd frequencies for everted rim jars according to rim style and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ..............................................................................................................................................................111 Figure 7.17. Relative rim sherd frequencies for holemouth jars according to rim style and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................................................................. 112 Figure 7.18. Relative rim sherd frequencies for holemouth cook pots according to rim style and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................................................... 112 Figure 7.19. Relative rim sherd frequencies for open bowls according to rim style and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .................................................................................................................................................................... 113 Figure 8.1. Canaanean knife blades and Canaanean sickle blades from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................ 117 Figure 8.2. Relative frequencies of chipped stone artefact types from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 7-4, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 3-2 and Tell el-Hayyat Phases 4-3 ......................................................................................................... 119 Figure 8.3. Relative frequencies of cortex amounts on chipped stone cores from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 7-4, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 3-2 and Tell el-Hayyat Phases 4-3 ................................................................................................. 119 Figure 8.4. Relative frequencies of cortex amounts on flake tools from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 7-4, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 3-2 and Tell el-Hayyat Phases 4-3 ......................................................................................................... 119 Figure 8.5. Mean weights for chipped stone artefact types from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 7-4, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 3-2 and Tell el-Hayyat Phases 4-3 ....................................................................................................................... 120 Figure 8.6. Mean weights for Canaanean blades from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 7-6, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 5-4, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 3, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2, Tell el-Hayyat Phase 4 and Tell el-Hayyat Phase 3 .................. 120 Figure 8.7. Gini-Simpson diversity indices for Canaanean blade colours from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 7-4, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 3, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2, Tell el-Hayyat Phase 4 and Tell el-Hayyat Phase 3 ......................... 121 Figure 8.8. Ground stone portability ratios for Phases 7-1 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................. 125 Figure 8.9. Stone mace head from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2 ......................................................................................... 128 Figure 9.1 Harris matrix illustrating stratigraphic relationships among sample contexts in Area GG at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................................................................................ 132 Figure 9.2. Relative frequencies of cultivated and wild plant taxa according to phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .................. 134 Figure 9.3. Relative frequencies for six seed categories according to phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj: cultivated cereal, wild grass, cultivated legumes, wild legumes, cultivated fruit and other wild taxa ........................................................ 134 Figure 9.4. Seed ratios (barley/wheat count) for Hordeum and Triticum according to phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ........ 136 Figure 9.5. Ubiquities for Hordeum and Triticum according to phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj............................................ 136 Figure 9.6. Ubiquities for the five major cereal taxa according to phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ....................................... 136 Figure 9.7. Ubiquities for the fruit taxa Vitis vinifera, Olea europaea and Ficus carica according to phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .................................................................................................................................................................... 137 Figure 9.8. Ratios of stem fragments to total cereal remains according to phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj........................... 137 xvi

List of Figures Figure 9.9. Stem fragment ubiquities according to phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................... 138 Figure 10.1. Phase 6 architecture in Field 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, showing plan of broad room temple and associated features, including lamb and calf burials ........................................................................................................ 140 Figure 10.2. Phase 6 features in Area GG at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, showing a) stones marking animal burials and pits, and b) positions of underlying sheep yearling burials ..................................................................................................... 153 Figure 10.3. Phase 1 architecture in Field 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, showing plan of shrine with anterior buttressed doorways in Area C, and sheep yearling burial and associated goods in Area W ........................................................... 155 Figure 11.1. Topographic plan of Dhahret Umm el-Marar showing enclosure wall and excavation units. Contour lines indicate metres below sea level ............................................................................................................................... 161 Figure 11.2. Locations of test units and excavation areas at Dhahret Umm el-Marar..................................................... 162 Figure 11.3. Stone wall foundations for a two-room structure in Areas I and III, Dhahret Umm el-Marar .................... 167 Figure 11.4. Stone wall foundations and associated evidence in Excavation Area II at Dhahret Umm el-Marar ........... 168 Figure 11.5. Deep bowls, a jug and open bowls from Dhahret Umm el-Marar .............................................................. 170 Figure 11.6. Short-necked cook pots, a holemouth cook pot, holemouth jars and everted rim jars from Dhahret Umm el-Marar ................................................................................................................................................................. 171 Figure 11.7. A jug, deep bowls, open bowls and a holemouth cook pot from the ceramic floor assemblage in Excavation Area II at Dhahret Umm el-Marar ................................................................................................................ 174 Figure 11.8. Deep bowls and a churn from the ceramic floor assemblage in Excavation Area II at Dhahret Umm el-Marar............................................................................................................................................................................ 175 Figure 11.9. Everted rim jars from the ceramic floor assemblage in Excavation Area II at Dhahret Umm el-Marar ..... 175 Figure 11.10. Everted rim jars with folded envelope ledge handles and appliqué decoration from the ceramic floor assemblage in Excavation Area II at Dhahret Umm el-Marar ......................................................................................... 176 Figure 11.11. Copper axe head from Excavation Area II.009 at Dhahret Umm el-Marar ............................................... 179 Figure 11.12. Plan of Umm el-Ba‘ir showing locations of Trenches 1-3 ........................................................................ 181

xvii

List of Photographs Photo A.1. 1985 crew at Umm Salem’s house, Deir Alla ................................................................................................... iv Photo A.2. Excavation crew for the 1985 excavation season at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj; photo taken on the site ....................... v Photo A.3. Field and house staff for the 1985 excavation season at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj; photo taken at the Deir Alla Station .................................................................................................................................................................................. v Photo A.4. Excavation crew for the 1996/1997 excavation season at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj; photo taken on the site ............. vi Photo A.5. Field supervisors for the 1996/1997 excavation season at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj; photo taken at the Deir Alla Station ................................................................................................................................................................................. vi Photo A.6. Excavation crew for the 2000 excavation season at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj; photo taken on the site ..................... vii Photo A.7. Staff and field crew for the 2000 excavation season at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj; photo taken at the Deir Alla Station ................................................................................................................................................................................ vii Frontispiece. Traditional mudbrick farmstead in the Jordan Valley, 1985. View to the northwest toward the modern floodplain of the Jordan River............................................................................................................................................. ix Photo 1.1. Excavations at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Field 4, winter 2000; facing northwest with Area GG in foreground ........... 1 Photo 2.1. Beginning excavation at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj in fall 1985; facing west ................................................................ 7 Photo 2.2. Beginning excavation at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Field 4, winter 2000; facing northeast with town of Meshara in background at foot of Transjordanian escarpment ........................................................................................................... 9 Photo 2.3. Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj in 2012, facing north; water tower and buildings of Jordan Gateway Project in back........ 10 Photo 2.4. Pottery sorting on Deir Alla Archaeological Station roof with Tell Deir Alla in background; facing northeast ............................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Photo 2.5. Non-mechanised water flotation used in 1985 ................................................................................................. 14 Photo 2.6. Float Tech 2000 machine used for water flotation of samples collected in 1996/97 and 2000 ........................ 14 Photo 3.1. Mediterranean woodlands and forests; a) Oak and pistachio woodland in Ajlun Woodland Reserve with olive orchard in foreground; b) Oak and pistachio woodland with pine trees in foreground in Ajlun Woodland Reserve; c) Open oak and pistachio woodland in Southern Highlands near Petra, Jordan ............................................... 19 Photo 3.2. Orchards; a) Olive orchard and open Mediterranean woodland near Um Qais; b) Forests and orchards near Ajlun taken in 1982 .................................................................................................................................................... 19 Photo 3.3. Irano-Turanian steppe; a) Steppe grasslands with orchards in background near Na‘ur; b) Shrub and grassland steppe overlooking Dana Canyon; c) Steppe vegetation near Shobak .............................................................. 20 Photo 3.4. Saharo-Arabian desert; a) Desert vegetation in southern Jordan; b) Desert vegetation on alluvial fans in Wadi Araba; c) Desert vegetation on sand dunes in Wadi Rum......................................................................................... 21 Photo 3.5. Sudanian desert; a) Tropical desert vegetation in Jordan Rift Valley near Dead Sea; b) Palms growing near springs along eastern shore of the Dead Sea; c) Acacias growing on alluvial fans in southern Jordan..................... 21 Photo 3.6. Cultural deposits of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj sitting atop Pleistocene lacustrine sediments; photo taken 1985 ........ 22 Photo 3.7. Steppe annuals and grasses growing on Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj in 2012 ................................................................. 22 Photo 3.8. Ceramic animal figurines from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj (facing right) ...................................................................... 30 Photo 3.9. Ceramic animal figurine from surface of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj............................................................................. 30 Photo 3.10. Ceramic animal figurines from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj (facing right) .................................................................... 31 Photo 3.11. Ceramic animal figurine fragments from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj........................................................................... 31 Photo 3.12. Pierced astragalus with cut marks from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj............................................................................. 31

xviii

List of Photographs

Photo 3.13. Bone awls from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj.................................................................................................................. 32 Photo 3.14. Drilled ceramic spindle whorls from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ................................................................................. 32 Photo 3.15. Copper pin fragments from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................... 33 Photo 3.16. Pierced shell ornaments from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................ 34 Photo 4.1. Beginning of 1985 excavations in Field 1 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing west ................................................... 39 Photo 4.2. Excavations underway during 1985 season in Field 3 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing northeast ......................... 39 Photo 4.3. Excavations in Field 4 during 1996/97 season, facing northwest across Jordan Valley................................... 40 Photo 4.4. View of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj in 1985, facing northwest....................................................................................... 40 Photo 4.5. Test trench excavated in 1985 on south-eastern flank of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj showing clay layer at base of archaeological deposits ...................................................................................................................................................... 41 Photo 4.6. View of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing northeast, during backfilling at the end of the 1996/97 field season.......... 41 Photo 4.7. Rammed earth wall foundations in Area AA, Phase 7 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing south ............................... 44 Photo 4.8. Postholes and pits in basal Phase 7 sediments in Area M at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing southeast.................... 44 Photo 4.9. Mudbrick walls enclosing a flagstone paved interior floor in Phase 6, Area M at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing southwest................................................................................................................................................................. 47 Photo 4.10. Phase 5 mudbrick walls frame two rooms with an interior clay-lined bin and doorway in Area AA at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing southwest .................................................................................................................................. 51 Photo 4.11. Mudbrick walls bound two Phase 4 rooms with flagstone paved floors connected by a doorway in Area AA at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing west ................................................................................................................................. 54 Photo 4.12. Phase 4 mudbrick walls enclose an interior floor covered with smashed open bowls in Area K at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing north ................................................................................................................................................. 54 Photo 4.13. Tightly clustered Phase 3 rooms in Area BB defined by adjoining mudbrick walls at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing north ........................................................................................................................................................................ 57 Photo 4.14. Circular mud-lined bin built against curving mudbrick wall in Area N15, Phase 3 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing north ........................................................................................................................................................................ 59 Photo 4.15. Phase 3 architecture, including an interior bin and exterior alley in Areas G10 and H10 at Tell Abu enNi‘aj, facing west, with Area F10 in the background ........................................................................................................ 60 Photo 4.16. Phase 3 mudbrick walls associated with multiple rooms in Area F10 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing east ....... 60 Photo 4.17. Phase 3 clay-lined mudbrick settling basins in Areas J and H at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing west. Note runnel connecting two basins, descending downhill toward the foreground ..................................................................... 61 Photo 4.18. Phase 2 sherd pavement running across Area O14 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing south .................................. 63 Photo 4.19. Rectangular mudbrick room in Area AA adjoining sherd-paved street in Phase 2 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing west ......................................................................................................................................................................... 63 Photo 4.20. Clay bins in exterior space between mudbrick buildings in Area N, Phase 2 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing northeast ............................................................................................................................................................................. 64 Photo 4.21. Mudbrick walls enclosing irregularly shaped rooms and bins in Areas N15 and N16, Phase 2 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing south ................................................................................................................................................. 65 Photo 6.1. Holemouth cook pot rims from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 7 .............................................................................. 80 Photo 6.2. Everted rim jar rims from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 7 ....................................................................................... 80 Photo 6.3. Miniature shallow open bowl from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 6 ........................................................................ 83 Photo 6.4. Miniature shallow open bowl with impressed ledge handle from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ....................................... 83 Photo 6.5. Holemouth jar rim and spout, showing herringbone incision, from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 6 ...................... 83 Photo 6.6. Complete or nearly complete deep bowls from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj:.................................................................. 89 Photo 6.7. Complete or nearly complete four-spouted lamps from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ...................................................... 89 xix

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley

Photo 6.8. Jug with double loop handles from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 3 ........................................................................ 91 Photo 6.9. Tiny pinch pot bowls from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .................................................................................................. 91 Photo 6.10. Deep bowls from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2 .................................................................................................. 91 Photo 6.11. Deep bowl from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2 .................................................................................................... 91 Photo 6.12. Trickle-painted amphoriskos from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2 ....................................................................... 93 Photo 6.13. Trickle-painted holemouth jar from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2 ..................................................................... 95 Photo 6.14. Everted rim jar with body combing, incised and painted decoration from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2 .......... 95 Photo 6.15. Fragment of ceramic slag from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2 ............................................................................ 95 Photo 6.16. Circular seal impression on clay from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2 ................................................................. 95 Photo 6.17. Folded envelope ledge handles from painted everted rim jars in Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 1......................... 99 Photo 6.18. Trickle-painted amphoriskos from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 1 ....................................................................... 99 Photo 6.19. Undecorated amphoriskos from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 1 ........................................................................... 99 Photo 6.20. Plain ware amphoriskos with spout from surface of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ....................................................... 100 Photo 6.21. Wide-necked pitcher from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 1 .................................................................................. 100 Photo 6.22. Bottle jug from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 1 ................................................................................................... 100 Photo 6.23. Ceramic bottle stopper from the west cross-section at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .................................................... 101 Photo 6.24. Four-spouted lamp from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 1 ..................................................................................... 101 Photo 8.1. Blade production flakes from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................ 116 Photo 8.2. Non-prismatic blades from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ................................................................................................ 116 Photo 8.3. Reworked non-Canaanean blades from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................. 116 Photo 8.4. Canaanean blades from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj...................................................................................................... 116 Photo 8.5. Canaanean blades from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj...................................................................................................... 118 Photo 8.6. Broken, possibly hafted Canaanean blades from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .............................................................. 118 Photo 8.7. Drilled ground stones from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ................................................................................................ 122 Photo 8.8. Drilled ground stones from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ................................................................................................ 122 Photo 8.9. Circular ground stones pecked on both faces from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ........................................................... 122 Photo 8.10. Ground stone pestles from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................... 123 Photo 8.11. Grooved hammerstones from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .......................................................................................... 123 Photo 8.12. Incised limestone hammerstones from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................ 123 Photo 8.13. Grooved hammerstone from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................ 123 Photo 8.14. Partially drilled chert sphere from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ................................................................................... 123 Photo 8.15. Copper axe head in two pieces from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................... 123 Photo 8.16. Carved limestone metallurgical mould from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ................................................................... 124 Photo 8.17. Small drilled ornamental stones from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj.............................................................................. 124 Photo 8.18. Drilled stone pendant from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .............................................................................................. 124 Photo 8.19. Stone beads from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................. 124 Photo 8.20. Stone beads from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................. 124 Photo 10.1. Three sheep yearling burials in Area GG at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing south ............................................... 141 Photo 10.2. Calf burial GG.053 stratified under Phase 5 mudbrick wall at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing south .................. 141 Photo 10.3. Sheep yearling burial GG.084 in pit GG.097 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing east ........................................... 141 xx

List of Photographs

Photo 10.4. Sheep yearling burial GG.090 in pit GG.091 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing east ........................................... 142 Photo 10.5. Sheep burial GG.093 in pit GG.092 (left), and burial GG.090 in pit GG.091 (right) at Tell Abu enNi‘aj, facing east .............................................................................................................................................................. 142 Photo 10.6. Sheep yearling crania and vertebrae in burial GG.093 in pit GG.092 (left), and burial GG.090 in pit GG.091 (right) at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing east ............................................................................................................. 143 Photo 10.7. Eastern mudbrick temple wall in Area AA, Phase 6 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing southeast ........................ 154 Photo 10.8. Mudbrick enclosure wall and stone pavement in Area M, on south side of Phase 6 temple at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing southwest ............................................................................................................................................... 154 Photo 10.9. Eastern mudbrick temple forecourt wall in Area BB, Phase 6 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing southeast ........ 154 Photo 10.10. Mudbrick walls of Phase 1 shrine in Area C at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, showing anterior buttress framing doorway to southwest, facing northwest .......................................................................................................................... 156 Photo 10.11. South-western mudbrick wall of Phase 1 shrine in Area C at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, showing doorway framed by anterior buttress and in situ jar in adjoining street, facing west ..................................................................... 156 Photo 10.12. Alignment of three standing stones on mudbrick foundation at south-eastern end of Phase 1 shrine in Area C at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing southeast ................................................................................................................. 157 Photo 10.13. Sheep yearling remains and associated goods in Area W, Phase 1 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, facing east ........ 157 Photo 11.1. Photo of Dhahret Umm el-Marar during initial surface survey by Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj staff members in fall 1985, facing north ...................................................................................................................................................... 160 Photo 11.2. View from upper eastern slope of Dhahret Umm el-Marar in 1996 toward foothills of Transjordanian Escarpment, facing east ................................................................................................................................................... 160 Photo 11.3. View from upper western slope of Dhahret Umm el-Marar in 1985 overlooking the Jordan Valley, facing southwest............................................................................................................................................................... 161 Photo 11.4. Photo from northern slope of Dhahret Umm el-Marar in 1985 showing disturbed areas possibly associated with tomb locations on adjacent hill slope, facing north ................................................................................ 162 Photo 11.5. View of Dhahret Umm el-Marar enclosure wall foundation course prior to excavation in 1997, facing north ................................................................................................................................................................................. 163 Photo 11.6. View of Dhahret Umm el-Marar enclosure wall during excavation in 1997, showing units 4, 6 and 7, facing north ...................................................................................................................................................................... 166 Photo 11.7. Excavation Areas I and III at Dhahret Umm el-Marar, showing two rooms defined by three abutting walls, with Excavation Area IV in background, facing south.......................................................................................... 167 Photo 11.8. Excavation of ceramic floor assemblage in Excavation Area II at Dhahret Umm el-Marar, facing westsouthwest. Note shaved off jars and associated churn in front of stone wall foundation ................................................ 168 Photo 11.9. Remains of large everted rim jar, deep bowls and churn in ceramic floor assemblage in Excavation Area II at foot of stone wall foundation at Dhahret Umm el-Marar, facing south-southwest ......................................... 177 Photo 11.10. Ceramic churn from floor assemblage in Excavation Area II at Dhahret Umm el-Marar .......................... 178 Photo 11.11. Two deep bowls from Umm el-Marar Excavation Area II floor assemblage ............................................. 178 Photo 11.12. Deep bowl with unusual double angular lug handles from Umm el-Marar Excavation Area II floor assemblage ....................................................................................................................................................................... 178 Photo 11.13. View of southern slope of Umm el-Ba‘ir overlooking Trench I, facing southwest across Jordan Valley .. 180 Photo 11.14. Trench I at Umm el-Ba‘ir showing exposures of two parallel stone walls, facing west ............................ 180

xxi

List of Maps Map 1.1. Location of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, Tell el-Hayyat, and other Early Bronze IV and Middle Bronze Age archaeological sites in the Levant ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Map 3.1. a) Major topographic features in the Southern Levant; inset shows location of modelled study area in the Eastern Mediterranean; b) Modelled modern distributions of plant geographical regions in the Southern Levant at 0 BP ................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Map 3.2. Modelled potential vegetation in the Southern Levant by plant geographical regions at: a) 4200 cal BP; and b) at 4000 cal BP ......................................................................................................................................................... 24 Map 3.3. Oblique projections of modelled potential vegetation in the Northern Rift Valley by plant geographical regions at: a) 4200 cal BP; and b) at 4000 cal BP.............................................................................................................. 26 Map 5.1. Map of the eastern Mediterranean, showing Early Bronze IV and Middle Bronze Age sites in the Southern Levant, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt that provide 14C ages discussed in this study .............................................. 73 Map 6.1. Map of Southern Levant showing Early Bronze IV archaeological sites mentioned in text.............................. 76 Map 11.1. Dhahret Umm el-Marar and other Early Bronze IV settlements in the northern Jordan Valley ..................... 159

xxii

List of Tables Table 1.1. Traditional and revised Early and Middle Bronze Age chronologies for the Southern Levant .......................... 1 Table 2.1. Locus types at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and abbreviations used in Appendix 1 ......................................................... 12 Table 3.1. The five main plant geographical regions used for modelling, including environmental setting and main woody plant species ........................................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 3.2. Charcoal ubiquity at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Tell el-Hayyat .............................................................................. 28 Table 3.3. Charcoal diversity indices for Tell el-Hayyat and Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj................................................................ 28 Table 3.4. Numbers of identified bone specimens and relative frequencies for animal taxa from Dhahret Umm el-Marar.............................................................................................................................................................................. 34 Table 3.5. Freshwater shells from Dhahret Umm el-Marar ............................................................................................... 34 Table 3.6. Marine and freshwater shells and land snails from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .............................................................. 35 Table 5.1. AMS radiocarbon results for seed samples from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, Jordan..................................................... 70 Table 5.2. Radiocarbon chronologies for the occupations of Early Bronze IV Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Middle Bronze Age Tell el-Hayyat ............................................................................................................................................................. 72 Table 6.1. Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Ceramic Typology ................................................................................................................ 77 Table 7.1. Rim sherd counts according to vessel form and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................. 103 Table 7.2. Rim sherd counts according to vessel functional category and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ...... 104 Table 7.3. Rim sherd counts for deep bowls and open bowls by architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ..................... 105 Table 7.4. Rim sherd counts and mean rim diameters for deep bowls and open bowls by architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .................................................................................................................................................................... 105 Table 7.5. Rim sherd counts and mean rim diameters for holemouth cook pots and short-necked cook pots by architectural phase at Ni‘aj .............................................................................................................................................. 105 Table 7.6. Rim sherd counts for holemouth cook pots and short-necked cook pots by architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................................................................................ 106 Table 7.7. Rim sherd counts for everted rim jars and holemouth jars by architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ........ 106 Table 7.8. Rim sherd counts and mean rim diameters for everted rim Jars and holemouth jars by architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj.......................................................................................................................................................... 106 Table 7.9. Sherd counts according to decoration type and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .............................. 107 Table 7.10. Sherd counts for everted rim jars according to decoration type and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................................................................................ 108 Table 7.11. Sherd counts for holemouth jars according to decoration type and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................................................................................ 108 Table 7.12. Sherd counts for holemouth cook pots according to decoration type and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................................................................................ 109 Table 7.13. Sherd counts for short-necked cook pots according to decoration type and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .................................................................................................................................................................... 109 Table 7.14. Sherd counts for deep bowls according to decoration type and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .... 110 Table 7.15. Sherd counts for open bowls according to decoration type and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ... 110 Table 7.16. Sherd counts for handle types by architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ...................................................111 Table 7.17. Sherd counts for everted rim jars according to rim type and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .........111 xxiii

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley

Table 7.18. Sherd counts for holemouth jars according to rim type and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ......... 112 Table 7.19. Sherd counts for holemouth cook pots according to rim type and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................................................................................ 112 Table 7.20. Sherd counts for short-necked cook pots according to rim type and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................................................................................ 113 Table 7.21. Sherd counts for open bowls according to rim type and architectural phase at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............... 113 Table 8.1. Counts of chipped stone cores, flake tools, non-prismatic blade tools and prismatic Canaanean blades from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 7-4, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 3-2 and Tell el-Hayyat Phases 4-3 ................................. 118 Table 8.2. Counts of chipped stone cores according to categories of remaining cortex from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 7-4, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 3-2 and Tell el-Hayyat Phases 4-3 ....................................................................... 118 Table 8.3. Counts of chipped stone flake tools according to categories of remaining cortex from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 7-4, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 3-2 and Tell el-Hayyat Phases 4-3 ....................................................................... 118 Table 8.4. Chert colour categories for Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Canaanean blades ................................................................... 120 Table 8.5. Relative frequencies of colour categories for Canaanean blades from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 7-4, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 3, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2, Tell el-Hayyat Phase 4 and Tell el-Hayyat Phase 3 ......................... 120 Table 8.6. Counts of base stones according to functional type for Phases 7-1 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................... 122 Table 8.7. Counts of hand stones according to functional type for Phases 7-1 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .............................. 125 Table 8.8. Counts of base stones according to excavated context for Phases 7-1 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .......................... 125 Table 8.9. Counts of hand stones according to excavated context for Phases 7-1 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .......................... 125 Table 8.10. Ground stone clusters in Phases 7-2 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj............................................................................. 126 Table 8.11. Metal objects from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ........................................................................................................... 129 Table 9.1. Numbers of flotation samples analysed per phase from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .................................................... 131 Table 9.2. Counts, densities, relative frequencies and ubiquities for the major cultivated plant taxa from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................................................................................ 134 Table 9.3. Results of two-factor ANOVA without replication by phase for six vegetation categories at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................................................................................ 135 Table 9.4. Two-sample t-test results for analysis of phase-by-phase relative frequencies of seeds from cultivated taxa vs. wild taxa from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ........................................................................................................................ 135 Table 9.5. Two-sample t-test results for analysis of phase-by-phase relative frequencies of barley vs. wheat seeds from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ..................................................................................................................................................... 135 Table 10.1. Summary of animal burials at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .......................................................................................... 139 Table 10.2. Abbreviations used for animal burial data in Tables 10.3-10.8..................................................................... 143 Table 10.3. Female sheep yearling (Ovis aries) skeletal elements in Phase 6 burial GG.084 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ........ 144 Table 10.4. Female sheep yearling (Ovis aries) skeletal elements in Phase 6 burial GG.090 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ........ 146 Table 10.5. Female sheep yearling (Ovis aries) skeletal elements in Phase 6 burial GG.093 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ........ 148 Table 10.6. Lamb (Ovis aries) skeletal elements in Phase 6 burial BB.064 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ................................... 150 Table 10.7. Calf (Bos taurus) skeletal elements in Phase 6 burial BB.053 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj .................................... 151 Table 10.8. Sheep yearling (Ovis aries) skeletal elements in Phase 6 burial W.005 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ...................... 157 Table 11.1. Excavation areas and test units at Dhahret Umm el-Marar. Field designations for each excavation unit refer to the distance from the southwest corner of each unit to the main site datum....................................................... 163 Table 11.2. Munsell colour designations for interior and exterior surfaces on pots from Dhahret Umm el-Marar shown in Figures 11.3 and 11.4........................................................................................................................................ 172 Table 11.3. Relative frequencies for ceramic vessel forms at Dhahret Umm el-Marar and Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj (all phases).............................................................................................................................................................................. 172

xxiv

List of Tables

Table 11.4. Relative frequencies for ceramic vessel functional categories at Dhahret Umm el-Marar and Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj (all phases) ......................................................................................................................................................... 172 Table 11.5. Relative frequencies for deep bowls and open bowls at Dhahret Umm el-Marar and Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj (all phases) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 173 Table 11.6. Rim sherd counts and mean rim diameters for deep bowls, open bowls, holemouth cook pots, shortnecked cook pots, everted rim jars and holemouth jars at Dhahret Umm el-Marar ........................................................ 173 Table 11.7. Relative frequencies for everted rim jars and holemouth jars at Dhahret Umm el-Marar and Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj (all phases) ......................................................................................................................................................... 173 Table 11.8. Relative frequencies for holemouth cook pots and short-necked cook pots at Dhahret Umm el-Marar and Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj (all phases) ................................................................................................................................... 173 Table 11.9. Relative frequencies for handle styles on deep bowls, open bowls, holemouth cook pots, short-necked cook pots, everted rim jars and holemouth jars at Dhahret Umm el-Marar .................................................................... 173 Table 11.10. Relative frequencies for decoration types on deep bowls, open bowls, holemouth cook pots, shortnecked cook pots, everted rim jars and holemouth jars at Dhahret Umm el-Marar ........................................................ 174 Table 11.11. Munsell colour designations for interior and exterior surfaces on pots from the floor assemblage in Excavation Area II at Dhahret Umm el-Marar ................................................................................................................ 177 Table 11.12. Counts and relative frequencies of ground stone implements at Dhahret Umm el-Marar and Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ............................................................................................................................................................................ 178

xxv

Preface The research detailed in this volume investigates agrarian life amid the dramatic abandonment of southern Levantine towns in the late third millennium BC. The catalyst for our investigations lay in the ground-breaking results of the East Jordan Valley Survey (EJVS) (Ibrahim et al. 1975), which highlighted evidence from Tell el-Hayyat (“mound of the snakes”) and Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj [N] (“mound of the father of ewes”), Jordan. Surface ceramics from Tell el-Hayyat indicated an unprecedented sequence of occupation across the transition from Early Bronze IV non-urbanised society into the re-urbanized Middle Bronze Age, while newlydiscovered Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj carried the rare potential of a sizeable, deeply-stratified village occupied solely in Early Bronze IV. The excavation of Tell el-Hayyat in 1982, 1983 and 1985 documented this settlement’s founding in late Early Bronze IV and its subsequent development as a temple-centred community through the Middle Bronze Age (Falconer and Fall 2006). The 1985 field season at Tell el-Hayyat provided the opportunity for test excavations at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, as well as reconnaissance of several other sites reported by the EJVS as likely Early Bronze Age settlements, including Dhahret Umm el-Marar and Umm el-Ba‘ir. The 1985 excavations at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj revealed multiple strata of mudbrick architecture and abundant material remains of an Early Bronze IV village extending across Fields 1, 2 and 3, implicating settlement over the entire roughly 2.5 ha expanse of the tell. The winter 1996/97 field season provided the first complete documentation of seven architectural phases of habitation in Field 4 at Ni‘aj, while simultaneous excavations exposed the remains of Early Bronze IV Dhahret Umm elMarar, a walled settlement about eight km to the southeast, perched in the foothills of the Transjordanian Escarpment. Just to the south of Marar, surface evidence suggested possible Early Bronze Age occupation at Umm el-Ba‘ir, although our test trenches revealed remains most likely of an Iron Age farmstead. In spring 2000, the excavation of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj reached fruition by expanding Field 4 to further expose extensive and repeatedly rebuilt multiroom domestic compounds linked by alleyways and sherd-paved streets as community planning evolved over multiple centuries. This architectural history incorporates links with Levantine ritual practices in preceding and subsequent periods, as represented by the broad room temple of Phase 6 (paralleled by Early Bronze Age temples at Megiddo and elsewhere), and a prominently-located Phase 1 shrine marked by anterior buttresses and standing stones (similar to buttresses and standing stones associated with the Phase 5 temple at nearby Tell el-Hayyat).

maintained our attention to natural and social landscapes that characterized the investigation of Tell el-Hayyat. In this case, we link Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj with its surroundings on the basis of vegetation modelling and archaeobotanical analysis. Bayesian modelling of AMS 14C ages from carbonised seeds at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj supports a particularly detailed single-site Early Bronze IV chronology, which contributes most importantly to a significantly earlier start date (ca. 2500 cal BC) and expanded timeframe for this period. In turn, this stratigraphic and chronological structure enables newly detailed diachronic analyses of life at Ni‘aj focused on cultivation practices, pottery form and function, chipped stone manufacture, and activity areas defined by ground stone. Our exploration of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Dhahret Umm el-Marar ultimately strives to weave a variety of related analytical perspectives into the fabric of a detailed portrait of Early Bronze IV village life in the northern Jordan Valley, which expands and augments current appreciations of this society and timeframe, and inspires avenues of investigation in the future.

In order to paint a broadly-informed portrait of ancient agrarian life during town abandonment we have xxvi

Abstract This volume synthesises the results and interpretations from the excavation of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, Jordan directed by the authors in 1985, 1996/97 and 2000. We also integrate evidence from the excavation of Dhahret Umm el-Marar during the 1996/97 season. The inhabitants of these villages witnessed the dramatic abandonment of Bronze Age towns across the southern Levant in the late third millennium BC. The excavated evidence from these agrarian communities accordingly provides a particularly detailed portrait of rural life during one of the most pronounced episodes of non-urbanised society in ancient Southwestern Asia. A notably turbulent stretch of Levantine social history featured the wholesale abandonment of towns during Early Bronze IV (sometimes labelled the “Intermediate Bronze Age,” ca. 2500-2000 BC) and their equally dramatic rejuvenation in the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 2000-1600 BC). Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj embodies the remains of an Early Bronze IV farming community (2.5 ha in size; estimated to house 500-750 people) in the rich alluvial farmland of the Jordan Valley, Jordan. The site lies approximately 1.5 km southwest of Middle Bronze Age Tell el-Hayyat, also excavated by the authors, and published previously in British Archaeological Reports (Falconer and Fall 2006). Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj illustrates village life in the absence of town centres, in contrast to Hayyat, a hamlet occupied amid the redevelopment of towns in the subsequent Middle Bronze Age. Only a few Early Bronze IV villages in the Levant have been excavated; fewer still have Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj’s long stratified record and its correspondingly fine-grained portrait of an Early Bronze IV rural agrarian community. Our research on Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj is presented in a series of 12 chapters. We begin by reviewing the larger context of previous archaeological investigations and inferences of Levantine society during Early Bronze IV. Chapter One thereby introduces Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj in a broad interpretive context. With this background in mind, in Chapter Two we summarize the methods we applied to the excavation and analysis of material evidence at this focal site in the northern Jordan Valley. Chapter Three positions Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj amid the environmental dynamics of the third millennium BC on the basis of seed and charcoal analyses of local vegetation and landscapes, and modelling of changing potential vegetation in the Jordan Valley and the greater Southern Levant. The architectural configurations of this Early Bronze IV community are presented in Chapter Four as they reveal spatial distinctions and chronological trends that we incorporate in our interpretations of social behaviour at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj. Chapter Five presents the chronological framework for our analyses, which is based

on Bayesian modelling of newly-expanded suites of AMS ages from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Tell el-Hayyat. These models are related to one another and as they articulate with the ongoing revision of Bronze Age absolute chronologies in the Jordan Valley and the Levant more generally. In light of a revised Early Bronze IV chronology beginning about 2500 cal BC, we present the ceramic evidence from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj in Chapter Six according to its seven stratified assemblages, stylistic and functional trends through time, and in comparison to the assemblages from other Early Bronze IV excavated settlements and cemeteries. Chapter Seven explores the behavioural and demographic implications of changing pottery repertoires through the founding, development and abandonment of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, as well as possible linkages with the establishment of nearby Tell el-Hayyat during its Early Bronze IV Phase 6. Chapter Eight highlights the stone and metal tool technologies used at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj. A remarkable Canaanean blade assemblage represents a hallmark Early Bronze IV technology, which is analysed on the basis of inferred patterns of chert procurement, blade manufacture and agricultural intensification. Functional and spatial analysis of ground stone implements infers shifting household activity areas at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, while copper artefacts are discussed in terms of their utilitarian use and Early Bronze IV exchange patterns. Chapter Nine presents a synthesis and interpretation of the carbonised seeds from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj as they reveal agrarian responses to social flux and environmental change during Early Bronze IV. Chapter Ten explores village ritual behaviour on the basis of a remarkable suite of animal burials associated with a Phase 6 temple and a Phase 1 shrine, which find architectural parallels at other Levantine sites in preceding and subsequent periods of the Bronze Age. During our 1996/97 field season, we excavated the nearby Early Bronze IV hilltop village of Dhahret Umm al-Marar and tested the small Iron Age site of Umm el-Ba‘ir. Chapter Eleven synthesises the Marar excavations and considers the relationship of this settlement to Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and larger implications for Early Bronze IV settlement patterns and society. We conclude our study with a synthetic summation in Chapter Twelve of the contributions generated by the excavation of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj (as well as Tell el-Hayyat and Dhahret Umm al-Marar) for archaeological inference of Early Bronze IV chronology, settlement, and society in the Southern Levant. Through its discussion and interpretation of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj as a sedentary agrarian community, this volume portrays village life during a particularly dramatic example of region-wide town abandonment as a contribution to the archaeological interpretation of pronounced social dynamics in early civilisations.

xxvii

By the same authors

Bronze Age Rural Ecology and Village Life at Tell el-Hayyat, Jordan Steven E. Falconer and Patricia L. Fall with contributions by Ilya Berelov and Mary C. Metzger Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2006

BAR International Series 1586

For more information, or to purchase these titles, please visit www.barpublishing.com xxviii

1 The Advent and Abandonment of Levantine Urbanism Introduction

nearby hamlet inhabited during the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 1950-1650 BC) (Falconer and Fall 2017), a subsequent era of re-urbanisation. The excavation of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj (and comparison with Hayyat) provides a highly unusual rural perspective on the economic impacts and responses engendered by urban collapse and redevelopment in early complex societies (Table 1.1).

The ancient Near East is much celebrated as a hearth of early urbanised civilisation. Yet small villages, rather than large cities, housed most farmers whose labour enabled the rise of state governments, institutionalised religion and mercantile economies. Ironically, village life remains less well-documented archaeologically and textually during the development of early urbanised Levantine society. This is especially pronounced during periods of social transformation in which city life declined or was abandoned altogether. This volume synthesises the results and inferences derived from the archaeological excavation of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, Jordan (Photo 1.1) that illuminate agrarian village life during a particularly pervasive abandonment of early towns in the Southern Levant (i.e., modern Palestine, Israel and western Jordan). These excavations reveal that Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj was a largely sedentary agrarian village in the latter part of the Early Bronze Age, during a period of dramatic de-urbanisation and increased mobile pastoralism throughout the region in the late third millennium BC (Falconer and Fall 2016).

Table 1.1. Traditional and revised Early and Middle Bronze Age chronologies for the Southern Levant. Traditional chronology based on Levy (1995: fig. 3); revised chronology based on Regev et al. (2012a), Falconer and Fall (2016, 2017) and Höflmayer (2017)

Our interpretations of rural life at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj will build on comparisons with our completed excavation and analyses of Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer and Fall 2006), a

Period

Traditional (BC)

Revised (cal BC)

MB III

1650-1500

1700-1600

MB II

1800-1650

1850/1800-1700

MB I

2000-1800

2000/1900-1850/1800

EB IV

2200-2000

2500-2000/1900

EB III

2700-2200

2900-2500

EB II

3000-2700

3000-2900

EB I

3500-3000

3500-3000

Photo 1.1. Excavations at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Field 4, winter 2000; facing northwest with Area GG in foreground.

1

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley The rise of early Near Eastern civilisations is particularly noteworthy for the variety of paths by which cities and states grew and receded. In systematic terms, cities are envisioned as the nuclei that integrated urban communities with each other and with the myriad villages that housed most ancient populations (e.g., Adams 1981; Wright 1986; Maisels 1990; Pollock 1999; Yoffee 2005). In the Southern Levant, partially in recognition of the modest size of Bronze Age “cities,” the appearance and development of fortified towns leads to inference of “city-states” (Esse 1991; Bunimovitz 1995; Finkelstein 1995; Ilan 1995; de Miroschedji 1999; cf. Savage et al. 2007; Philip 2008). The city-state concept (see discussions in Griffeth and Thomas 1981; Maisels 1990; Charlton and Nichols 1997; Hansen 2000) can be applied to infer a Levantine political landscape populated by localised independent polities with small centres and their subordinate villages (Savage and Falconer 2003; Falconer and Savage 2009). Early Near Eastern urbanism, however, particularly when manifested in shifting configurations of city states, was an intriguingly fragile edifice that incorporated an inherent tension between central authorities and traditional kinbased society (e.g., Stein 1998), and, correspondingly, between cities and villages. Even in regions that were undeniable urban heartlands (e.g., Adams 1981), the fortunes of ancient city life waxed and waned significantly and repeatedly. Archaeologists have become effective assessors of societal collapse (e.g., Yoffee and Cowgill 1988; Tainter 1988, 2006; Weiss, et al., 1993; Wilkinson 1994; Cooper 2010; Schwartz and Nichols 2010; but see discussion in McAnany and Yoffee 2009), but less prolific analysts of specific components of “collapsed” societies. While the roles of village communities in early complex societies have begun to receive long-overdue attention in the Near East and elsewhere (e.g., Schwartz and Falconer 1994; Wattenmaker 1998; Wilkinson 2003; Falconer and Redman 2009; Schwartz 2015), the economic strategies practiced by rural farmers in the absence of urban markets and authority remain poorly appreciated.

especially pottery, to previously defined preceding and following periods. Kenyon (e.g., 1951; 1957), on the other hand, interjected a new term, “Intermediate Early BronzeMiddle Bronze,” to bolster her inference of “an intrusive culture with a minimum of connections with the preceding and succeeding phases” (1957: 41), which was introduced by an invasion of Amorites from Syria. Kenyon’s “Amorite Invasion Hypothesis” provided a formal explanation for the derivation of material assemblages found primarily in tombs, rather than stratified tell deposits, proposed to date to the late third millennium BC. This hypothesis accorded with some previous, less formalised thought (e.g., Wright 1938; Albright 1940; de Vaux 1946), gained strong new adherents (e.g., Lapp 1966), and inspired more nuanced ideas of nomadic movement and influence (e.g., Tufnell 1958; Amiran 1960; Dever 1970; 1971; Prag 1974; Rowton 1974, 1977). We might trace the original inspiration for non-sedentism as the prevailing explanatory paradigm for Early Bronze IV society to Kenyon’s provocative contributions. While dogmatic incorporation of Amorites, whether invaders or otherwise, has faded from current discourse, chronological terminology continues to carry implicit interpretive connotations. “Intermediate Bronze Age” nomenclature tends to detach interpretations of its communities and society from those of immediately earlier or subsequent periods. “Middle Bronze I,” on the other hand, leads to potential confusion with newer usage of this term to denote the first major subdivision of the Middle Bronze Age at the beginning of the second millennium BC (traditionally known as “Middle Bronze IIA”). Thus, in this volume we adopt “Early Bronze IV” terminology for the period of town abandonment and its material evidence to avoid potential ambiguity and to entertain inter-period ties, especially to preceding periods. Likewise, we adopt “Middle Bronze I, II and III” terminology (corresponding to traditional “Middle Bronze IIA, B and C” nomenclature) in reference to the tripartite redevelopment of towns, town life and nascent localised polities during the Middle Bronze Age.

The Levantine Bronze Age The rise of complex societies in the Southern Levant provides a particularly dramatic setting in which to specify how village communities endured processes of drastic social flux. The Levantine Bronze Age featured the advent of town life in Early Bronze II-III (ca. early third millennium BC), town abandonment during Early Bronze IV (ca. late third millennium BC), and a dramatic rejuvenation of towns and cities in the Middle Bronze Age (ca. early second millennium BC). The “Early Bronze IV” terminology adopted here results from an evolution of social hypotheses and accompanying nomenclature (see also discussion in Palumbo 1991: 6-22). Albright (1932; 1962; 1966) first utilised “Middle Bronze I” to denote evidence from the terminal portion of the third millennium BC. Wright (1938) subsequently introduced “Early Bronze IV” to suggest a slightly earlier period for several mortuary assemblages in Palestine. Albright and Wright implicitly tried to link a relatively distinct body of material culture,

In overview, the Bronze Age represents a watershed in the development of complex society in the Southern Levant. Archaeological investigations over the last several decades have inferred a roughly two millennium trajectory of highly fluid, and sometimes dramatic social changes that led from the emergence of towns spanning the Early and Middle Bronze Age to the establishment of localised polities by the Late Bronze Age (Helck 1971; Richard 1987; Na’aman 1988, 1992; Falconer 1994; Bunimovitz 1995; Falconer and Savage 1995, 2009; Finkelstein 1996; Harrison 1997; Strange 2000; Prag 2001; Savage and Falconer 2003; Fischer 2014). Limited numbers of walled communities in Early Bronze I (Joffe 1993; Gophna 1995; Philip 2003, 2008) anticipated more nucleated Early Bronze II and III settlement patterns, signified by widespread fortified towns across the region (Greenberg 2002, 2014; de Miroschedji 2009, 2

The Advent and Abandonment of Levantine Urbanism the economic foundation for the rise of Levantine urbanised society and persisted through its periodic collapse (e.g., Fall et al. 1998; 2002; Schwartz and Nichols 2010; Schwartz 2015). These same communities also hold great promise in the construction of independent chronological and social interpretive paradigms for the Southern Levant.

2014). The Early Bronze Age witnessed a multi-century process of de-urbanisation, culminating in the pervasive abandonment of towns in favour of farming villages, hamlets and seasonal encampments during Early Bronze IV (Palumbo 1991; Dever 1989, 1995; Cohen 2009; Prag 2014). Middle Bronze I was marked by the relatively sudden redevelopment of walled towns, which proliferated in number, size and scale of fortification during an apex of regional population in Middle Bronze II and III (Greenberg 2002; Bourke 2014; Cohen 2014).

Traditional and Revised Views of Early Bronze IV The synthetic interpretation of Early Bronze IV society (e.g., Prag 1974, 2014; Dever 1980, 1995; Palumbo 1991) has built on several salient characteristics of material culture and settlement patterns:

Chronological and social interpretations of Levantine society depend traditionally on systematic trends in material culture style (especially pottery vessel morphology) and typological parallels with adjacent regions (e.g., pottery and metal implements in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt) (Cohen 2002, 2014; Bourke 2014; de Miroschedji 2014; Prag 2014; Richard 2014). Levantine chronology has been calibrated on the basis of estimated linkages with Egyptian dynastic chronologies. As a case in point, the similar phenomena of town abandonment in the Levant and the collapse of central political authority in Egypt have led to the traditional inferred contemporaneity of Early Bronze IV with the Egyptian First Intermediate Period between about 2200 and 2000 BC (Bell 1971; BenTor 1991; Stager 1992; Dever 1995; Prag 2014). Likewise, the well-documented ascension of the 12th Dynasty in Egypt ca. 2000 BC provides a reference point for the social and political coalescence of large towns at the beginning of the Levantine Middle Bronze Age (Dever 1987a; Stager 1992; Greenberg 2002). These assumed chronological linkages, however, apply a form of tautological reasoning in which Egyptian political dynamics are used to both date and explain seemingly related phenomena in the Southern Levant (see also Bruins 2007: 65 for a similar perspective from Egypt).

• Virtually all Levantine fortified towns were abandoned by the end of Early Bronze III. • In striking contrast to those in preceding and succeeding periods, Early Bronze IV sites are small, often seasonal, and spread into the arid margins of the Southern Levant. • Following Early Bronze IV, urbanised settlements redeveloped in the Middle Bronze Age even more rapidly than they had collapsed previously. • Early Bronze IV ceramics, chipped stone, and metal implements are stylistically and technically distinct from those in preceding and, especially, succeeding periods. Considering these features, Early Bronze IV has been portrayed as an abrupt and anomalous punctuation in the development of Levantine complex society during which the basis for agrarian urbanism was abandoned in favour of non-sedentary settlement and transhumant sheep/goat pastoralism (see Prag 1974; Dever 1980 for classic syntheses). However, a variety of tantalising considerations now suggest that Early Bronze IV research may reveal crucial insights on the long-term social foundations of Levantine civilisation if we can balance our current emphasis on non-sedentary pastoralism with greater attention to the roles of sedentary villages and their constituent households. Perhaps most fundamentally, Near Eastern historic and ethnographic accounts document a fundamental interdependence between sedentary farmers and nonsedentary pastoralists that also must have held true in the more distant past (e.g., Kramer 1982; Gilead 1991; Levy 1991; Finkelstein 1991; Abdi 2015; Honeychurch and Makarewicz 2016; Cakirlar 2017). Thus, unless we wish to invoke ethnographic analogy based on more independent and historically more recent forms of nomadism (Khazanov 1978; 1984: 44-53), our models must link non-sedentary sheep/goat pastoralists in seasonal encampments with sedentary farmers in permanent villages. This argument finds some corroboration in an analysis of survey data from the Mediterranean coastal plain, which suggests that Early Bronze IV settlement patterns strongly resemble the rural components of the systems of Early Bronze II-III and the Middle Bronze Age (e.g., Falconer and Savage 1995). Although most Early Bronze IV sites occupy new locations, this unexpected result suggests a persistent element of rural settlement amid the waxing and waning of Levantine Bronze Age cities. In light of these

With this critique in mind, it is particularly noteworthy that the Levantine Early Bronze Age is experiencing a comprehensive chronometric revision. Bayesian modelling of calibrated radiocarbon ages from sites across the Northern and Southern Levant has moved the beginning of the Early Bronze Age and its sub-periods substantially earlier than assumed by traditional chronologies. Of particular interest for this study, the Early Bronze III/IV transition is now repositioned at least as early as 2450 cal BC (Regev et al. 2012a) (see Table 1.1). Similarly, coordinated multi-site analyses of 14C ages has pushed back the advent of the Middle Bronze Age later than the traditional start date ca. 2000 BC (Bruins and van der Plicht 1995, 2003; Marcus 2010, 2013; Bourke 2006; Fischer 2006; Kutschera et al. 2012; Falconer and Fall 2017). Many of the most influential studies of Bronze Age society emphasise the formative social, religious and political influences of urban communities and institutions, which more likely manifest foreign connections and perpetuate preconceived chronological and social interpretations. However, a growing archaeological literature now highlights the crucial roles of rural villages that provided 3

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley

Map 1.1. Location of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, Tell el-Hayyat, and other Early Bronze IV and Middle Bronze Age archaeological sites in the Levant.

Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj (which covers about 2.5 ha) had 500 to 750 inhabitants in Early Bronze IV, while Hayyat (0.5 ha) housed only 100 to 150 people during the Middle Bronze Age. Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj lies approximately 250 metres below sea level (mbsl), perched on Pleistocene lacustrine clay at the edge of the ghor overlooking the present floodplain of the Jordan River (the zor) (Ibrahim, Sauer and Yassine 1976: 51, site 64). Tell el-Hayyat is situated amid Holocene alluvial soil 1.5 km to the northeast of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and about ten metres higher in elevation (Ibrahim, Sauer and Yassine 1976: 51-54, site 56). During the Bronze Age, many basic characteristics of the two villages were very similar: they were both small agrarian villages set in similar environmental situations (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1989; Fall et al. 1998; Falconer et al. 2004; Falconer and Fall 2006). The most significant social factor to inspire different behaviours in the two communities was the presence or absence of Levantine towns. Thus, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Tell el-Hayyat provide

characteristics, village communities like Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj take on special importance as points of sedentary/nonsedentary articulation within the fabric of “de-urbanised” Early Bronze IV society, and as touchstones for linking the rural foundations of early Levantine civilisation through periods of fortified town centres, their abandonment, and their rebirth. The research presented here examines the economic and ecological impacts of rural agrarian communities amid trajectories of urbanisation and de-urbanisation in the early civilisations of the Near East. The excavation and analysis of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj brings to fruition a comparative study of village life tailored to illuminate the rural effects of town abandonment, as exemplified at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, and its rebirth, as seen at Tell el-Hayyat. Both sites embody the remains of small Bronze Age farming settlements in the Jordan Valley (Map 1.1). Judging from population densities in traditional Middle Eastern villages (e.g., Kramer 1982), 4

The Advent and Abandonment of Levantine Urbanism an ideal controlled comparison of rural responses to town abandonment in Early Bronze IV and redevelopment in the Middle Bronze Age.

Iskandar (Parr 1960) in the Wadi Wala east of the Dead Sea, and Bab edh-Dhra‘ (Rast and Schaub 2003) on the Dead Sea Plain, while the most influential evidence arose from the excavation of Iktanu just northeast of the Dead Sea (Prag 1971, 1974). Iktanu provided the first instance of an Early Bronze IV site (as opposed to a minor EB IV component of a multi-period site) with detailed evidence of stratified sedentary settlement. While still appealing to in-migration of pastoral groups from Syria to explain the changes from Early Bronze III into IV, Prag (e.g., 1984, 1985) instigated a shift toward incorporation of sedentary communities into Early Bronze IV social reconstructions, making use of evidence excavated east of the Jordan River. The excavation of Tell Iktanu revealed a settlement with two distinct stratified phases of stone-built houses (Prag 1974, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990), opening a window on Early Bronze IV village life that became amplified by surveys and excavations conducted in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

Archaeological Inference of Early Bronze IV Society The long-standing emphasis on non-sedentary pastoralism as a social and economic mainstay of Early Bronze IV society stems from a variety of factors, some of which have been introduced briefly above. In the considerable discussion surrounding Kenyon’s Amorite Invasion Hypothesis and its numerous amended variants, much attention was directed first to cemeteries associated with larger excavated tells in the hope of tying mortuary assemblages into stratified sequences of material culture. Kenyon’s own tomb excavations at Jericho led to a tomb typology with direct implications for a chronology of ethnic incursions (Kenyon 1960: 180-259; 1965: 33161), and Amiran (1960) looked to tomb pottery and stratified parallels, for example at Tell Beit Mirsim, Lachish and especially Megiddo. Amiran introduced the analytical concept of pottery “families” to accommodate the non-stratified nature of these tomb groups, originally as sequential Families A, B and C (1960), which were modified over the years into the largely contemporaneous Southern Group, Northern Group and Bethel Group (Amiran 1974). In the early 1970s, Dever adopted the concept of families and elaborated them by embracing other lines of material evidence, notably metal tools, and hypothesised a suite of seven families related both temporally and geographically (Dever 1970, 1971, 1973). The fundamental social mechanism that linked seemingly disparate evidence from across the Southern Levant arose from the articulation of anthropological theory with the results of archaeological excavation. Ethnographic analogy based on modern pastoralists (especially Rowton’s [1967] concept of “dimorphic society”) offered a means for linking cemeteries and settlements as way stations visited by Early Bronze IV transhumant herders during their annual migratory cycle. An influential body of literature drew considerable inspiration from the excavation of cemetery sites in the Levantine hill country (Dever 1972, 1975a, 1975b, 1981; Gitin 1975) and seasonal encampments in the Negev desert (Kochavi 1963a; 1963b; Cohen and Dever 1978, 1979, 1981; Dever 1983, 1985, 2014; Haiman 1996). The classic synthesis of this approach (Dever 1980; see also 1992, 1995) posited seasonal transhumance between winter herding camps in desert regions (e.g., at Har Yeruham and Be’er Resisim) and highland summer pastures and cemeteries (e.g., at Jebel Qa‘aqir and Khirbet Kirmil).

Systematic regional reconnaissance (e.g., Ibrahim, Sauer and Yassine 1976, 1988; Gophna and Portugali 1988; Palumbo 1991) revealed numerous sedentary Early Bronze IV sites throughout the Southern Levant. A general comparison of geographical distributions and densities reveals a noticeable concentration of settlements (largely seasonal) in the Negev (Palumbo 1991: fig. 2) and of cemeteries in the southern hill country (i.e., Hebron hills) (Palumbo 1991: figs. 3, 24), apparently in keeping with hypothesised Early Bronze IV transhumance. Regional survey data demonstrate, however, that the Jordan Valley features more permanent settlements than in any other portion of the Southern Levant (Palumbo 1991: figs. 23 A and B; 2008: fig. 7.1). These data provide a first indication of a distinct geographic pattern of Early Bronze IV village communities arrayed along the bottom lands of the Jordan Valley, the wadis of the Transjordanian escarpment and the western edge of the Transjordanian uplands. These villages constitute one component of the Early Bronze IV settlement system (especially east of the Jordan Rift) in which the most striking changes between Early Bronze II/ III and IV are relocation and decrease in average settlement size, rather than a drastic decline in settlement frequency (Palumbo 2008: 234). Several village excavations along the Jordan Rift figure prominently in emerging interpretations of sedentary Early Bronze IV communities. The East Jordan Valley Survey (Ibrahim, Sauer and Yassine 1976) reported surface evidence from Tell el-Hayyat that suggested a stratified Early Bronze IV-Middle Bronze Age occupation sequence, which was corroborated by subsequent excavation of a basal Early Bronze IV stratum and five superimposed Middle Bronze Age levels (Falconer and Fall 2006). Elsewhere in the northern Jordan Valley, excavations at Tell Umm Hammad (Helms 1986) exposed Early Bronze IV domestic architecture in four stages of deposition (Helms 1989). Along the Wadi Wala east of the Dead Sea, excavations at Khirbat Iskandar have exposed architecture interpreted as a village gateway, as

Interestingly, as argued by Palumbo (1991, 2008), the development of this “dimorphic” transhumant model did not incorporate a modest, but growing, body of evidence derived from excavations east of the Jordan River. Very limited assemblages of Early Bronze IV material culture had been excavated from sites with permanent architecture at Ader (Albright 1934; Cleveland 1960) and Aro’er (Olavarri 1969) on the Transjordanian Plateau, Khirbat 5

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley well as exposures of domestic structures in lower strata (Richard et al. 2010). While substantial evidence has been recovered from pastoral encampments, excavations at stratified Early Bronze IV farming villages like Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj remain limited. In the context of the growing evidence for Early Bronze IV sedentary communities summarised above, this volume reports on the excavation and interpretation of seven stratified phases of extensive village remains at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, as well as the excavation of the nearby hilltop Early Bronze IV site of Dhahrat Umm al-Marar. Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj provides an unprecedented, deeply stratified record with which to study how Canaanite village farmers coped with the abandonment of Bronze Age towns, perhaps the most dramatic example of regionwide urban collapse in the ancient Near East.

6

2 Excavation Methods and Interpretive Framework Archaeological Investigations at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj

(allowing for 4 x 4 m squares separated by 1 m baulks) labelled alphabetically west to east and numerically south to north. Six units (Areas N14-O16) were established on the western top of the site in Field 1, in anticipation of finding deep sedimentation and exposing architecture at the centre of the village. Three squares in Field 2 (F10-H10) sampled a slightly lower terrace to the southwest that might reveal evidence from within the village but away from its centre, and a lone unit in Field 3 (Y29) was stationed at a greater distance to help determine the northern extent of the village or expose peripheral trash deposits (Figure 2.1).

The East Jordan Valley Survey, directed by Dr. Khair Yassine of the University of Jordan, Dr. Moawiyah Ibrahim of Yarmouk University, and Dr. James Sauer of the American Center of Oriental Research (ACOR) in Amman, discovered Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj [N] in 1975 (Ibrahim, Sauer and Yassine 1976: 49, 51; site 64), while also re-identifying Tell el-Hayyat, which had been reported previously by Glueck (1951: 259, site 154, “Tell Abu Hayet”) and Mellaart (1962: 144-145). Ibrahim, Sauer and Yassine immediately recognised the importance of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, not only as a rare Early Bronze IV farming village with great potential for excavation, but as an irreplaceable site potentially endangered by modern economic development, a prescient observation borne out by subsequent events.

All three fields produced abundant material culture, floral and faunal remains, and mudbrick and rammed earth architecture consistent with a sedentary Early Bronze IV farming village. Soundings in Fields 2 and 3 (F10, G10 and Y29) reached archaeologically sterile sediments and exposed at least four major Early Bronze IV strata (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1989). In addition, we excavated a 2 x 15 m trench on the eastern flank of the tell across a mudbrick-hued discoloration, to explore the possibility that it indicated a wall surrounding the settlement. The reddish sediment exposed in this trench appeared to be the natural deposition on which the village was founded, rather than a mudbrick wall. Following the 1985 season, all excavation areas at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj were backfilled.

The initial two weeks of test excavations at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj were conducted in October 1985, during field work at Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1989; Falconer and Fall 2006) (Photo 2.1). Ten 4 x 4 metre units were grouped in three fields with the intent of distinguishing differing depositional contexts across the site (e.g., domestic enclosures vs. industrial areas vs. trash middens). These units were designated according to an alphanumeric grid that utilised five-metre increments

Photo 2.1. Beginning excavation at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj in fall 1985; facing west.

7

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley

Figure 2.1. Topographic plan of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj showing locations of Fields 1-4 and 5 x 5 m excavation squares.

8

Excavation Methods and Interpretive Framework We resumed excavation at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj in a fiveweek season during December 1996 and January 1997 (Falconer et al. 1998). Upon our arrival in December 1996, we discovered that the modern surface of Ni‘aj had been disturbed significantly by the dumping of sediments and debris scraped from the King Abdullah (East Ghor) Canal, which carries water from the Yarmouk River to fields along the eastern Jordan Valley. Accordingly, we established and excavated a new grid of sixteen 4 x 4 metre units, designated Field 4 (see Figure 2.1), in areas of minimal disturbance on the highest area of the tell and on its eastern flank, reaching the bottom of the site in two units.

contiguous units, two of which (Areas D and H) reached archaeologically sterile sediments and exposed seven stratified architectural phases. Following the 1996/97 season, all excavation areas at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj were backfilled. The excavation of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj continued in a tenweek third season between January and March 2000 (Photo 2.2) (Falconer et al. 2001). Upon our return that year, we discovered that Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj had been included within an area of the northern Jordan Valley slated for development as part the Jordan Gateway Project industrial zone. Levelling of the project zone, begun in September 1999, included the complete removal of the adjacent mainly Umayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman age site of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj [S] (Ibrahim, Sauer and Yassine 1976: 49; site 67) and bulldozing of the 1996/97 excavation units on Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj [N]. Following our arrival, representatives of the Department of Antiquities, accompanied by police officers from nearby Meshara, intervened on two occasions to stop continued bulldozing of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj [N]. In the wake of these events, an editorial published in the Jordan Times on March 1, 2000 detailed the importance of preserving Jordan’s heritage while at the same time building the nation’s economic future.

We labelled the 1996/97 units with a simpler alphabetic designation, which streamlined artefact labelling and insured distinction between the 1985 and 1996/97 excavation seasons. We began with six 4 x 4 m units (Areas A-F) positioned approximately 10 metres east of the 1985 Field 1 units to continue exposing the deepest sedimentation at the centre of the village. Four units (GJ) on the same newly re-established grid sampled the site’s eastern flank. The outset of the 1996/97 excavations quickly revealed mudbrick structures just below the site’s modern surface, so Areas K-O were positioned to link Areas A-F with Areas G-J, and thus provide a broad exposure of architectural plans at the heart of the settlement. The location of Area P, which revealed a possible industrial installation immediately down the site’s eastern flank in Phase 3, was shifted one metre north of the normal grid lines to insure full exposure of the installation. Following the dispersed sampling of 1985, the 1996/97 excavations provided a broad exposure of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj over 16

Our research plan for 2000 was to finish the units started in the 1996/97 season, and to open adjacent units to the north to recover architecture from the earliest and latest phases of occupation at the site. Despite the bulldozing, we reestablished the 1996/97 grid of excavation units in Field 4, and continued the excavation of minimally-damaged areas,

Photo 2.2. Beginning excavation at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Field 4, winter 2000; facing northeast with town of Meshara in background at foot of Transjordanian escarpment.

9

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley while adding new adjoining units. We began the 2000 season by placing sixteen new 4 x 4 m squares in what appeared to be the least disturbed portions of the top of the tell in Field 4. These units were designated Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, and HH. After working for ten days we discovered the sediments in some of these units had been disturbed by bulldozers, so we stopped work in units Q, R, S, T, U, V, and HH to concentrate on excavation units previously begun in the 1996/97 season. We then could connect the intervening space between our new 2000 units and the previous 1996/97 squares with units GG and II. A new area designated “FF” turned out to be laid directly over the 1996/97 Area K, so we dropped the “FF” designation and resumed excavation of Area K. Similarly, we re-established and resumed excavation of 1996/97 Areas C, F, L and M.

Photo 2.3. Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj in 2012, facing north; water tower and buildings of Jordan Gateway Project in back; (l-r) Steve Falconer, Jack Green, Ahmed Joudeh, and representative from Jordan Gateway Project (photo by B. Porter).

Ultimately, the 2000 season at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj involved excavation of fifteen 4 x 4 m units (C, F, J, K, L, M, W, X, Y, Z, AA, BB, DD, GG and II) all of which (except II) documented seven architectural phases down to archaeologically sterile sediments at the base of the tell. We also trimmed and drew a 15 m long stratigraphic crosssection through a portion of the site’s south-western flank that had been exposed by bulldozer cuts. The stratigraphy in this portion of the site shows three architectural phases with mud brick architecture atop at least two earlier phases represented by horizontal layers of archaeological sediments, and a stratigraphic discontinuity that may have been caused by ancient seismic activity (in Phase 4 or 5). All of the areas excavated at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj in 2000 were backfilled at the end of the season.

intervention will preserve the remaining portions of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj [N], potentially allowing future research to recover new evidence and improve our understanding of life in the Jordan Valley during this crucial period in the history of the earliest civilisation of Jordan. Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj represents a unique opportunity to insure the preservation of an important chapter in Jordan’s past amid new economic development for Jordan’s future. Excavation Methods and Terms A 5 x 5 m grid was used to excavate Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, as first established in 1985, and expanded in the 1996/97 and 2000 seasons. In 1985, each excavation area was assigned an alphanumeric designation (i.e., N10), as described above. In the subsequent years, each new grid square or “excavation area” was assigned an alphabetic designation, according to the sequence in which the excavation first was begun in the area. Each area was excavated in “loci;” each “locus” being a three-dimensional context identified and defined by the excavation supervisor (e.g., a wall, pit, surface, etc.). Each locus was numbered sequentially according to the order in which it was excavated, using a three-digit designation beginning with “001.” During excavation, the field crews collected bags of pottery, chipped stone, ground stone, animal bones, sediment for botanical flotation, and other specialised remains from each locus. These bags were numbered sequentially, beginning with “1” in a sequence that continued independent of locus numbers through the excavation of each unit. Accordingly, each bag number was used only once within each excavation area. Thus, the specific context for any artefact type from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj is reflected hierarchically by its excavation area, locus number and bag number, with the area, locus and bag numbers separated by periods (e.g., A.003.16) (Figure 2.2).

The evidence from all three excavation seasons reveals that Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj consists of seven successive Early Bronze IV strata totalling 3.5 m in depth (referred to as Phases 7 to 1, from bottom to top). A very small number of Early Bronze III sherds in Phases 6 and 7 suggests that the village was founded at the beginning of Early Bronze IV, with occupation continuing unbroken through much of the period. Each of these phases reveals the mudbrick houses, adjoining courtyards, alleys and sherd-paved streets of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj’s inhabitants. In conjunction, the stratified remains of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Tell el-Hayyat jointly span, albeit discontinuously, roughly 800 years of agrarian village life in 13 stratified phases from early EB IV through the Middle Bronze Age (Falconer and Fall 2006; 2016; 2017). Today, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj lies within a large area which was planned for development as part of the Jordan Gateway Project, a major international industrial development that was expected to included facilities on both sides of the Jordan River (Photo 2.3). Although some of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj [N], and all of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj [S] were bulldozed in late 1999 and early 2000, most of the central remaining portion of EB IV Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj is now fenced and preserved. The active participation by the Department of Antiquities of Jordan has limited the effects of this construction and will protect the remaining parts of the tell from further impact. This

The sediments from all loci within the excavation areas, as well as excavated loci in baulks, were sieved through 1 x 1 cm mesh in the field (the thickness of sieve wire 10

Excavation Methods and Interpretive Framework left openings approximately 0.75 x 0.75 cm). All material remains collected during excavation or recovered through sieving (e.g., stone, bone, ceramic and other artefacts) were washed, counted and examined at the Deir Alla

Station for Archaeological Research (Photo 2.4), where we lived, and sorted and conducted preliminary analysis of excavated pottery, stone artefacts and bones. Sediment samples also were taken from selected loci for water flotation, allowing for the retrieval of carbonised seeds and wood. Occasionally, smaller artefacts, shells and bones were recovered in the flotation process. Following our excavation seasons, material evidence saved for further analysis was shipped to Arizona State University. Electronic databases were constructed (in Access or Excel) to archive information on ceramics, stone tools, animal bones, shells, botanical remains, and objects. The locus number (usually in the form of a combined area and locus designation; e.g., C.019) serves as the key field in each record, allowing us to relate records to each other so that different types of artefacts, and plant and animal remains can be quantified and correlated spatially and temporally across Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj. Spatial Analysis Each locus, the smallest unit of excavation, has a unique spatial definition that reflects its depositional history and spatial context. After completing the excavation, each locus was assessed according to its location, description, contents and relationship to architecture, then assigned to a stratigraphic phase and a “locus code” based on its depositional character. The “TAN Locus” database (see Appendix 1) lists each locus with its Phase and Locus Code. The locus codes classify the loci according to oneand two-letter abbreviations (Table 2.1). Loci that indicate village activities most directly include those with “primary refuse” deposited in or near locations of apparent original use and “de facto refuse” left behind when a structure was abandoned (Schiffer 1987). Primary refuse deposits

Figure 2.2. Example of locus sheet used during excavation of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj.

Photo 2.4. Pottery sorting on Deir Alla Archaeological Station roof with Tell Deir Alla in background; facing northeast.

11

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley Table 2.1. Locus types at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and abbreviations used in Appendix 1 (loci found in multiple phases will have separate entries for each phase) Abbreviation

Locus Type

Comments

A

Ash Lens

usually embedded in a surface

B

Bin

clay constructed bin; may be free standing

BF

Bin Fill

DO

Occupational Debris

DM

Mudbrick Debris

DF

Fill Debris

H

Posthole

I

Installation

M

Modern Tell Surface

P

Pit

i.e., build up on surface

in situ material culture, or industrial or architectural feature usually embedded in a surface

PB

Burial Pit

PS

Stone-lined Pit

R

Rodent Burrow

S

Surface

earthen

SC

Ceramic Surface

i.e., sherd pavement

SP

Plaster Surface

SS

Stone Surface

T

Tabun

TF

Tabun Fill

U

Unused Locus Number

V

Virgin Sediment

WE

Earthen Wall

WM

Mudbrick Wall

X

Test Trench

earthen oven

i.e., archaeologically sterile deposit

and domestic contexts. These analyses allow multiple inferences of depositional patterns and their behavioural implications for Early Bronze IV village life at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj.

are found at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj on use surfaces (usually earthen, sometimes sherd or stone-paved), build-up immediately above surfaces (up to roughly 10 cm deep), and shallow ash lenses and pits embedded in surfaces. Thus, we interpret deposits at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj as most directly indicative of daily household or communal behaviour to include surfaces, occupational debris, pits and ash lenses. Other locus types play lesser roles in our interpretations since they more commonly incorporate “secondary refuse” (especially fill and mudbrick debris) that may contain material that has been redeposited (e.g., due to mudbrick disintegration, wall collapse, or mudbrick manufacture using sediments from more distant locations around the village).

Classification and Analysis of Material Remains Excavation and dry sieving produced large samples of ceramics, animal bones, chipped stone and ground stone, as well as smaller amounts of worked bone and shell, stone and shell beads, and metal artefacts. Through water flotation we recovered abundant plant macrofossils, as well as occasional small animal bones and small artefacts (e.g., beads). We tailored our methods of recovery, sampling and analysis to each line of evidence. Processing, sampling and preliminary analyses during the 1985 season were supervised in the field by Steve Falconer and Bonnie Magness-Gardiner (ceramics), Patricia Fall (botanical remains), Mary Metzger (animal bones), and Ron Gardiner (lithics). In 1996/97 and 2000, the initial analyses of artefacts were supervised by Steve Falconer and Jennifer Jones (ceramics), Jim Eighmey (lithics 1996/97), John Czarzasty and Cynthia Keller (lithics 2000), botanical remains by Patricia Fall (aided by Steven Emrick in 1996/97), faunal remains by Mary Metzger. These initial analyses of artefacts, and floral and faunal

The evidence found in various house interiors, courtyards, streets, alleys, and other structures can be analysed collectively. This method brings together data from multiple excavation areas to facilitate spatial analysis of behavioural patterns, since human activities often are bounded and segregated by architecture (Rapoport 1990). Our interpretations of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj consider several lines of evidence as they illustrate changes through time, especially by comparing data from phases 7-1, and across space, by contrasting patterns of behaviour in communal 12

Excavation Methods and Interpretive Framework material took place in Jordan at the Deir Alla Station in all three seasons. Further analyses were undertaken at Arizona State University (floral material, pottery, lithics), Vancouver Community College (bones) and the University of North Carolina Charlotte (floral material).

Quantified patterns of bone deposition commonly reflect animal management strategies, economic relations within and between communities, and environmental settings. The Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj animal bone data are reported as numbers of identified specimens (NISP) following various arguments (e.g., Crabtree 1990: 159-160; Redding 1992) that NISP is preferable to MNI (minimum number of individuals) for estimating relative abundances of taxa (cf. Grayson 1984: 94-96). The common use of NISP in literature pertaining to Southwestern Asia (e.g., Meadow and Zeder 1978; Hellwing and Gophna 1984; Horwitz 1989, 2003; Zeder 1991, 2006a; Redding 1992) also recommends its use, particularly for comparing trends across space and through time.

Ceramics Our methods for generating ceramic data from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj were designed to provide representative samples of pottery vessel types and sizes, decorative motifs and manufacturing methods. These data provide the basis for the typological analysis of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj’s ceramics and a variety of interpretations of domestic and villagewide behaviours. All sherds roughly 1 x 1 cm and larger were collected from every locus, washed, and checked for restorable pieces. If restorable vessels were present, then all the sherds from that locus were saved for potential vessel reconstruction. All sherds were counted, and a sample was selected from each locus for further analysis (Photo 2.4). The excavation of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj produced approximately 574,000 potsherds.

Carbonised Seeds and Wood Carbonised plant remains were recovered to infer the array of wood and seeds incorporated in Tell Abu enNi‘aj’s Bronze Age agricultural practices and surrounding environment. We employed a non-random sampling strategy in which sediment samples were collected from excavated deposits that showed evidence of burning, or contained visible carbonised seeds or wood. Samples were taken from hearths, tabuns (cooking ovens), surfaces (floors), storage pits, trash deposits, and other burned sediments. These sediment samples were processed by water flotation to recover plant macrofossils (see Pearsall 1989 and see detailed methods in Klinge and Fall 2010: 38–43). Our results from the excavation of Tell el-Hayyat and Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 1, Jordan and Politiko-Troullia, Cyprus show that this sampling method optimises recovery of macrobotanical remains from archaeological sediments (e.g., Falconer and Fall 2006; Klinge and Fall 2010; Fall et al. 2015).

The samples selected in the field for further processing consisted of sherds diagnostic of vessel form and size (rims, bases, handles, spouts and decorated sherds), as well as selected body sherds. Unsaved body sherds were returned to Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj. The saved sherds were labelled in ink with a site abbreviation (TAN), Area letter, Locus number (three digits starting with “001”), and Bag number (one to three digits starting with “1”) (e.g., TAN A.011.35). The labelled sherds were shipped to the United States for analysis at Arizona State University. Descriptive processing involved recording each sherd according to its appropriate contextual information (Area, Locus and Bag), and identifying sherd type (rim, handle, body, etc.), vessel form, surface decoration and vessel size (e.g., rim or base diameter, body thickness, largest sherd dimension). Detailed analyses of pottery style, function and demographic implications are based on a sample of nearly 11,300 diagnostic sherds excavated during all three seasons from spatial contexts across Tell Abu enNi‘aj and through all seven stratified architectural phases (Appendix 2).

During the 1985 excavations at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, each flotation sample was poured into a metal basket with 3.2 mm mesh screen across the bottom; this basket was suspended in a metal tub of water (Photo 2.5). Each sample was then agitated gently to dissolve the sediment and free the carbonised plant fragments from the soil matrix. Suspended plant material was removed with a large tea strainer (1.6 mm mesh). The smallest seeds were recovered by placing a piece of cheese cloth over the tea strainer. The contents of the metal basket were checked for heavier seeds that may not have floated (e.g., olive stones). Following flotation, plant remains were dried indoors for about 24 hours.

Animal Bones Animal bones were recovered and sampled to reflect the range of domestic and wild animals characteristic of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and its environmental setting in Early Bronze IV. As with pottery sherds, animal bones were recovered during excavation and dry sieving in the field. In field camp, all recovered bones and bone fragments were washed, sorted and counted. Potentially identifiable bones were shipped to the United States for detailed analysis. Following the excavation seasons, taxonomic identifications were finalised by referring to comparative collections at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. and the Burke Museum at the University of Washington. Shells were identified by David Reese utilising his own collections.

During the 1996/97 and 2000 seasons, we utilised a Float Tech (Flote Tech) 2000 to mechanically separate the organic material from the sediment matrix (Photo 2.6). In all three seasons, the light sample fraction recovered through flotation was poured through nested 4.75 mm, 2 mm, 1 mm and 0.5 mm mesh sieves (Falconer and Fall, 2006: 38–43; Klinge and Fall 2010; Klinge, 2013). All recovered material 0.5 mm or larger was sorted under a binocular microscope (e.g., Heergurgg WILD M3Z at 6 to 10x magnification) to separate charcoal fragments 13

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley

Photo 2.6. Float Tech 2000 machine used for water flotation of samples collected in 1996/97 and 2000.

between 5500 and 3000 cal BP (Soto-Berelov et al. 2015; Fall et al. 2018). In addition, a database of plant species locations was compiled from several other past vegetation surveys in the region (Eig 1931/32, 1938, 1946; Zohary 1944, 1973; Kasapligil 1956; Danin 1988, 2004; Davies and Fall 2001; Soto-Berelov 2011) and from the Israel Biodiversity Information System (BioGIS 2000, 2002). The locations of historic 20th century sample points were established by georeferencing and digitising published maps (see especially Eig 1946; Kasapligil 1956; Zohary 1944, 1973), and by crosschecking these locations with the distances reported between them. More recent sample points were established from GPS readings taken in the field (Soto-Berelov 2011). Our fully-assembled data set includes the modern locations of individual woody plant species at 1696 locations, including 1052 historical data points, 425 data points from BioGIS (2000, 2002), and 219 new data points surveyed by the authors (Davies and Fall 2001; Soto-Berelov 2011; Soto-Berelov et al. 2015; Fall et al. 2018). Climatic values for modelling present and past vegetation were derived through the application of a Macrophysical Climate Model (MCM) (Bryson and Bryson, 2000; Bryson and DeWall, 2007), which serves as an alternative to General Circulation Models (GCM) and provides 1 km temporal resolution.

Photo 2.5. Non-mechanised water flotation used in 1985.

from charred seeds. Seed remains were identified using Fall’s personal reference collection and comparative literature (e.g., Helbaek 1958, 1966; Renfrew 1973; Zohary and Hopf 1973; Zohary and Spiegel-Roy 1975; Van Zeist 1976; Hillman 1978; Van Zeist and BakkerHeeres 1982; Hubbard 1992; Jacomet 2006), counted and categorized taxonomically (Klinge and Fall 2010; Klinge 2013; Porson 2018). Charcoal specimens were identified taxonomically by comparing images from scanning electron microscopy (JEOL JSM6300 at Arizona State University) with those in published keys (Fahn et al. 1986; Schweingruber 1990; Gale and Cutler 2000; Schweingruber et al. 2011; Akkemik and Yaman 2012) and categorised taxonomically. Analysis by Steven Porson at the University of North Carolina Charlotte of 123 flotation samples (ranging between 1 and 14 litres each) from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj has enabled the identification of more than 20,000 carbonised seeds (Porson 2018) (Appendix 3). Analyses of 52 flotation samples by JoAnna Klinge at Arizona State University produced seed to charcoal ratios for the interpretation of fuel use at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj (Klinge and Fall 2010).

Our modelled species distributions correlate the locations at which a species is observed with the environmental variables that characterise those locations. Present and past plant geographical regions are modelled by using MAXENT, a species distribution modelling software package with a probabilistic framework (Phillips et al., 2006; Phillips and Dudik, 2008; Phillips 2017). Modern plant geographical regions are based on the predicted distributions of indicator species and are then combined into a single map of the Southern Levant. Models of past plant geographical regions are trained with modern species observations and environmental values (see split sample approach in Fielding and Bell 1997), and then projected onto 1 km grids of past climatic values generated by the Macrophysical Climate Model for each of the 100-year increments between 5500 and 3000 cal BP. The resulting distributions of plant geographical regions capture, in

Vegetation Modelling Modern plant distributions around Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and across the Southern Levant were surveyed for the purpose of modelling present and past potential vegetation according to Mediterranean, Coastal Mediterranean, Irano-Turanian, Saharo-Arabian, and Sudanian plant geographic regions (following Zohary 1973). Vegetation survey along Jordan Rift and Transjordanian Plateau by Pat Fall, Mariela Soto-Berelov and Elizabeth Ridder in 2010 provided our basis for constructing models of potential vegetation today and in 100-year increments 14

Excavation Methods and Interpretive Framework quantified graphic terms, the environmental setting of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, and the climatic and vegetation dynamics of the Southern Levant before, during and after the abandonment of towns in Early Bronze IV.

The field notebooks and excavated collections from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, Dhahret Umm el-Marar and Umm el-Ba‘ir, as well as the collections from Tell el-Hayyat Phases 3-1, are stored at the Center for Archaeology and Society Repository, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University.

Lithic Industries The remains of stone tools were collected to document the range of raw materials, manufacturing debris, and flake and blade tools at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj. Along with ceramics and animal bones, all chipped stone remains greater than 1 x 1 cm were recovered during excavation and dry sieving in the field. The chipped stone collections were sorted to segregate cores, blades, flakes and debitage, which were saved for analysis, from naturally-caused shatter and debris, which was returned to the tell (Appendices 4 and 5). Ground stone objects were sampled for descriptive analysis in the field and a subsequent database was compiled by Jane Peterson (Appendix 6). Analysis of the chipped stone assemblage from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj considered more than 7500 tools categorised as flake tools, flake cores, blade tools (non-Canaanean) and Canaanean blades (typology following Rosen 1983, 1997). More detailed analysis of flakes and blades, including Canaanean prismatic blades, from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Tell el-Hayyat considered if and how flint procurement and lithic tool manufacture differed during the abandonment of towns through Early Bronze IV as compared to their redevelopment in the Middle Bronze Age. Each blade was weighed, measured, and analysed for edge damage, intensity of use, and amount of remaining cortex. Colour analysis under visible light was used to distinguish lithic tools from different sources (e.g., Hofman et al. 1991; Shackley 1998; MacDonald 1999a, 1999b). The results of this colour analysis were used to distinguish different raw materials, which in turn reflect the variety of changing sources used in the lithic industries at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Tell el-Hayyat. Multiple Lines of Evidence and Analyses Our interpretations of Early Bronze IV village life at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj in this volume derive most fundamentally from architectural remains, and patterns of ceramics, stone tools, animal burials, carbonised plant remains and modelled vegetation. Spatial patterning distinguishes communal behaviours (e.g., in streets, public spaces or industrial areas) from smaller scale household practices reflected by domestic remains. Temporal patterning reveals trends of village life over multiple centuries of Early Bronze IV town abandonment. More specific data, derived from a variety of other remains, including figurines, metal tools, and stone and shell beads, flesh out details of Bronze Age village life, including metallurgy, pottery manufacture, and village and household ritual. Jointly, these many lines of evidence and interpretation help portray the course of village life during urban collapse from the perspective of the rural farmers of the Jordan Valley.

15

3 Modern and Past Environmental Dynamics in the Southern Levant The Southern Levant

particularly acute in the desert margins of the region and along the fertile, but arid low elevation bottom lands of the Jordan Rift Valley. Extreme elevational differences between the lowest elevations at sea level along the Coastal Plain and the Rift Valley (410 metres below sea level at the Dead Sea) versus the higher elevation Levantine Central Hills (up to 1200 masl) and Transjordanian Plateau (over 1700 masl) to the east of the Jordan Valley illustrate this environmental variability (Map 3.1a). Ancient climatic and vegetation dynamics over this relatively small geographic area would have impacted these marginal environments and the people relying on them. These environmental impacts would have been especially notable along the major wadis draining into the Jordan Rift, particularly involving spring-fed sources along the eastern side of the Rift

The Southern Levant (modern Israel, Palestine, Jordan and southern Lebanon) saw the development, and geographic and temporal fluctuations of Bronze Age towns and villages. Complex societies in this region were strongly tied to the surrounding civilisations of Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Northern Levant, and featured discontinuous trends of aggregation and dispersal among the populations of Bronze Age towns, villages, and pastoral encampments. The availability of water sources and rainfall, as well as considerable geographic and topographic variability throughout the region, led to temporal and spatial unevenness in the success of agro-pastoral communities, which were vulnerable to environmental fluctuations. These conditions were

Map 3.1. a) Major topographic features in the Southern Levant; inset shows location of modelled study area in the Eastern Mediterranean (left); b) Modelled modern distributions of plant geographical regions in the Southern Levant at 0 BP (right) (Reprinted from Journal of Archaeological Science 53, Soto-Berelov et al., Modeling vegetation dynamics in the Southern Levant through the Bronze Age, figures 1 and 4, [2015], with permission from Elsevier).

17

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley Valley. Similarly, the northern Jordan Valley from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea Basin, the Hill Country west to Megiddo and Hebron, and the Transjordanian Plateau would have seen comparable environmental fluctuations.

with cooler temperatures and wetter conditions: (1) Sudanian, (2) Saharo-Arabian, (3) Irano-Turanian, and (4) Mediterranean “plant geographical regions” (following Zohary 1973; Al-Eisawi 1985). These broad vegetation zones are characterized by woody plant species that range from Sudanian and Saharo-Arabian deserts in the southernmost areas, along the Rift Valley and in the eastern deserts, to the Irano-Turanian steppe and Mediterranean woodlands in the middle and higher elevations, and along the Mediterranean coast. The pronounced biodiversity of the Southern Levant is due to the region’s variability in topography, climate, and soils, as well as its location at the juncture between Europe, Africa and Asia. Modern vegetation has evolved through the Holocene as a product of climate change, plant and animal domestication, and a series of ever-shifting anthropogenic impacts (e.g., Rollefson and Kohler-Rollefson 1992; Miller 1997; Fall et al. 2002, 2004; Cordova 2007; Rosen 2007; Butzer 2012; Cordova et al. 2013).

The Southern Levant is characterized by a Mediterranean climate with mild, rainy winters and long, hot summers. The coolest temperatures are found at higher elevations in the Levantine Central Hills and on the Transjordanian Plateau, while the highest temperatures (up to 50 °C) occur in the lowest reaches of the Jordan Rift around the Dead Sea (Al-Eisawi 1996). Annual precipitation, received mostly in winter and spring, decreases from west to east with increasing distance from the Mediterranean Sea, and from north to south with declining influence of cyclonic storms. Topography also influences rainfall, leading to particularly low precipitation in the lower reaches of the Jordan Rift and in the Eastern Desert. Modern precipitation in the northern Jordan Valley averages 250 mm per year, an amount just sufficient for dry farming. A mean annual temperature greater than 20° C permits yearround orchards and horticulture in the Jordan Valley.

The Mediterranean flora consists of sclerophyllous evergreen plants that form forests or maquis (woodlands) (Table 3.1). The Southern Levant marks the southernmost extent in the Middle East of this widespread vegetation, which surrounds the Mediterranean Sea, extending across southern Europe, north-western Africa and into Turkey and Iran, as well as dominating the coastal plain and uplands of the Levant. In the Southern Levant,

Modern Vegetation of the Southern Levant Traditionally, modern Levantine vegetation is categorized into four main vegetation types, from the lowest elevations with the hottest and driest climates to higher elevations

Table 3.1. The five main plant geographical regions used for modelling, including environmental setting and main woody plant species (after Soto-Berelov et al. 2015) Plant geographical region

Description of environment and vegetation

Mediterranean woods & forest

Highest rainfall and coolest temperatures support Pinus halepensis, Quercus ithaburensis and Quercus calliprinos forests along the northern Mediterranean coast and surrounding the Sea of Galilee. Open woodlands with Ceratonia siliqua and Pistacia lentiscus grow on the Coastal Plain and Central Hills; the Transjordanian Plateau supports open woodlands of Quercus calliprinos, Pistacia atlantica and Juniperus phoenicea trees.

Coastal Mediterranean vegetation

A north-south precipitation gradient supports Quercus ithaburensis and Pinus halepensis along the north coast; Pistacia lentiscus, Ceratonia siliqua and Ziziphus spina-christi trees grow on the central coast; Acacia radianna and Ziziphus spina-christi trees are common in the more arid south. Coastal dunes support grasses (e.g., Ammophila arenaria), shrubs (Artemisia monosperma, Retama raetam, and Calicotome villosa) and a few trees (Pistacia lentiscus and Ceratonia siliqua).

Irano-Turanian steppe

Plants withstand most extreme temperatures in this continental climate with low precipitation, hot summers and cold winters. Distinguished by steppe grasses and shrubs, with scattered Pistacia atlantica and Juniperus phoenicea trees. Artemisia herba-alba is the most common shrub species, accompanied by Noaea mucronata, Salsola vermiculata and Anabasis syriaca.

Saharo-Arabian desert

Drought tolerant species of the Rift Valley, Negev Desert and Eastern Desert of Transjordan. Shrubs include Zygophyllum dumosum, Retama raetam, Haloxylon articulatum, Anabasis articulata, Astragalus spinosus, Suaeda palaestina, Salsola tetrandra, Suaeda asphaltica, and Achillea fragrantissima. Tamarix sp., Phragmites sp., Salix sp., Nerium oleander, Populus euphratica and Tamarix jordanensis grow in wadis and/or along the Jordan River.

Sudanian desert

High temperatures, minimal precipitation; tropical vegetation with Acacia tortilis, A. albida, Ziziphus spina-christi, Balanites aegyptica, Moringa aptera, Ocradenus baccatus, Salvadora persica, and Calotropis procera.

After Eig (1931/1932, 1938); Zohary (1966, 1972); Zohary (1973); Feinbrun-Dothan (1978, 1986); Al-Eisawi (1985, 1996); Danin (1995, 2004); AlEisawi et al. (2000); Davies and Fall (2001); Soto-Berelov (2015); Fall et al. (2018).

18

Modern and Past Environmental Dynamics in the Southern Levant Mediterranean vegetation receives about 400-1200 mm annual precipitation. The highest rainfall and coolest temperatures support Pinus halepensis, Quercus ithaburensis and Quercus calliprinos forests along the northern Mediterranean coast and in the hills surrounding the Sea of Galilee. Open woodlands with Ceratonia siliqua and Pistacia lentiscus grow on the Coastal Plain and Central Hills (Photo 3.1).

In Jordan, Mediterranean flora is less diverse in comparison to areas adjacent to the Mediterranean Sea. On the Transjordanian Plateau, Mediterranean vegetation is found mainly as a maquis, and its flora is mixed with IranoTuranian deciduous shrubs and trees (Zohary 1973: 133). In the remnant evergreen woodlands of southern Jordan, Quercus calliprinos (common evergreen oak), Pistacia palestina (Palestine terebinth) and Pistacia atlantica form distinctive stands. Juniperus phoenicea grows in scattered stands at elevations below the oak-pistachio woodlands. Today, much of the Mediterranean forests and woodlands have been planted with Olea europaea (olive) orchards, and the distribution of olive generally defines the extent of late Holocene Mediterranean forests (Photo 3.2). A north-south precipitation gradient (with a range of about 400-250 mm annual precipitation) on the Coastal Plain extends from southern Lebanon along the coast of Israel to the Sinai, supporting a vegetation gradient from Mediterranean trees to trees characteristic of the Sudanian and Saharo-Arabian vegetation regions. Quercus ithaburensis and Pinus halepensis dominate the north coast, accompanied by Pistacia lentiscus, Ceratonia siliqua, and Ziziphus spina-christi as one moves south; Acacia radianna and Ziziphus spina-christi are common

Photo 3.1. Mediterranean woodlands and forests; a) Oak and pistachio woodland in Ajlun Woodland Reserve with olive orchard in foreground; b) Oak and pistachio woodland with pine trees in foreground in Ajlun Woodland Reserve; c) Open oak and pistachio woodland in Southern Highlands near Petra, Jordan (photos by M. Soto-Berelov).

Photo 3.2. Orchards; a) Olive orchard and open Mediterranean woodland near Um Qais; b) Forests and orchards near Ajlun taken in 1982 (photos by P. Fall).

19

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley in the more arid south. Coastal dunes support grasses (including Ammophila arenaria), shrubs (Artemisia monosperma, Retama raetam, and Calicotome villosa [spiny broom]) and a few trees (Pistacia lentiscus and Ceratonia siliqua). Irano-Turanian vegetation forms a broad steppe distinguished by grasses and small shrubs, which endure extreme high and low temperatures, and a continental climate with low precipitation. Annual rainfall varies between about 150 and 350 mm. These conditions favour plant species that can be dormant during hot summers and cold winters. The Irano-Turanian flora grows in the higher elevations and drier climates of Turkey and Iran, and extends into the northern Jordan Valley and upper drier portions of Israel, Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon. This floral region has a higher diversity than the other three floral regions, and is characterized particularly by its variety of non-arboreal, xerophytic species (Photo 3.3). The most distinctive woody shrub is Artemisia herba-alba (white wormwood). Few tree species are derived from Irano-Turanian flora, with the exception of Pistacia palestina (Palestine terebinth) and scattered Juniperus phoenicea, which are found dispersed widely within the Artemisia steppe. Other common woody Irano-Turanian shrubs include Noaea mucronata (thorny saltwort), Hammada scoparia (black hammada), Anabasis syriaca (Syrian anabasis) and Salsola vermiculata (saltwort). Saharo-Arabian vegetation extends across North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, and is found in environments with very short, cool winters and long, dry, very hot summers. Annuals may appear in abundance during relatively wet years, but often are not seen for years or even decades. In the Southern Levant, Saharo-Arabian vegetation is found along the Rift Valley, in the Negev desert, and in the eastern desert of Transjordan (Photo 3.4). Annual precipitation is extremely variable from year to year, generally measuring about 25-150 mm. Woody species of Saharo-Arabian origin in the Southern Levant include desert adapted taxa: Zygophyllum dumosum (bean caper), Retama raetam (white broom), Haloxylon articulatum, Anabasis articulata (jointed anabasis), Astragalus spinosus, Suaeda palaestina, Salsola tetranda (saltwort), and Suaeda asphaltica, Achillea fragrantissima, and several species of Tamarix (tamarisk). Tamarix and Acacia trees are common, and characterize the lower elevations of the Rift Valley. Tamarix, Phragmites, Salix, Nerium oleander and Populus euphratica grow in wadis and along the Jordan River.

Photo 3.3. Irano-Turanian steppe; a) Steppe grasslands with orchards in background near Na‘ur; b) Shrub and grassland steppe overlooking Dana Canyon; c) Steppe vegetation near Shobak (photos by M. Soto-Berelov).

Sudanian vegetation, which is most similar to vegetation found from east Africa to Pakistan, lies at the northernmost edge of the Palaeotropic Flora of Africa. In the Southern Levant, this defines the northern range limit of several species of Acacia (acacia), including Acacia tortilis and Acacia albida, which grow in desert environments with less than 50 mm annual rainfall (Photo 3.5). The extreme high temperatures along the Jordan Rift allow

the northward penetration of these subtropical and tropical species around the Dead Sea (Zohary 1973). Other species of Sudanian origin include Hammada salicornica (white hammada), Ziziphus spina-christi (Christ-thorn), Balanites aegyptica, Moringa aptera, Ocradenus baccatus, Salvadora persica and Calotropis procera (apple of Sodom). 20

Modern and Past Environmental Dynamics in the Southern Levant

Photo 3.4. Saharo-Arabian desert; a) Desert vegetation in southern Jordan; b) Desert vegetation on alluvial fans in Wadi Araba; c) Desert vegetation on sand dunes in Wadi Rum (photos by M. Soto-Berelov).

Photo 3.5. Sudanian desert; a) Tropical desert vegetation in Jordan Rift Valley near Dead Sea; b) Palms growing near springs along eastern shore of the Dead Sea; c) Acacias growing on alluvial fans in southern Jordan (photos by M. Soto-Berelov).

Modern Environmental Setting of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj The Early Bronze IV village of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj lies on Pleistocene lacustrine sediments on a the terrace at the edge of the ghor, overlooking the zor, the active floodplain of the Jordan River. Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj is located about 250 m below sea level amid the productive agricultural fields of the ghor adjacent to irrigated lands along the modern Jordan River floodplain (Photo 3.6). The Middle Bronze Age village of Tell el-Hayyat lies about 1.5 km to the northeast where it rises about 4 m above arable soils of Holocene alluvium. This landscape is among the most fertile lands in the Levant (Zohary 1982) and has been

intensively cultivated throughout the history of the region (Photo 3.7). Wheat is the main cereal grain in the Jordan Valley today, where it is a rain-fed crop grown mainly in the winter. The northern Jordan Valley is intensively cultivated yearround, with use of greenhouses and extensive irrigation systems. Vegetables and orchards on the terraces in the vicinity of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj are irrigated from the King Abdullah (East Ghor) Canal, which diverts water from the 21

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley impacts, especially shifting agro-pastoral strategies (e.g., Fall et al. 2002, 2004; Cordova 2007; Rosen 2007; Butzer 2012; Cordova et al. 2013). Methods Our vegetation modelling incorporates a suite of environmental variables to produce a series of timespecific maps of vegetation, modelled according to its potential distribution (i.e., without anthropogenic influences) along the Jordan Rift and its adjacent uplands (see methods in Soto-Berelov et al. 2015). This modelling is based on observations of woody plant species at nearly 1700 locations across the southern Levant (see SotoBerelov et al. 2015: fig. 2), augmented with data from the Israel Biodiversity Information System database (BioGIS 2000, 2002). Climatic values were derived from a Macrophysical Climate Model (MCM) (Bryson and Bryson 2000; Bryson et al. 2006; Bryson and DeWall 2007) and historical temperature and precipitation data from 40 weather stations across the southern Levant (see Soto-Berelov et al. 2015: fig. 3). The climate model chronology is based on calibrated radiocarbon dates (expressed as years cal BP) for volcanic dust events (Bryson and DeWall 2007). Our modelling incorporates four environmental parameters: mean annual temperature, mean annual precipitation, elevation, and geological substrate. We have used this MCM to generate past mean annual temperature and precipitation values for one km2 grid cells across the Southern Levant at one-century intervals between 6500 and 2800 cal BP (see Soto-Berelov et al. 2015; Fall et al. 2018). This discussion summarizes the resulting potential vegetation models for the Bronze Age, especially as they pertain to the Jordan Rift around Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj. Our modelling uses the probabilistic modelling program MAXENT (version 3.3.3e; Phillips et al. 2006; Phillips and Dudik 2008; Phillips 2017) to create past and present potential vegetation models according to plant geographical regions (see discussions in Galletti et al. 2013; Soto-Berelov et al. 2015), which are presented in visualizations along the Jordan Rift at chronological junctures of pronounced change (see Fall et al. 2018).

Photo 3.6. Cultural deposits of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj sitting atop Pleistocene lacustrine sediments; photo taken 1985 (photo by S. Falconer).

Photo 3.7. Steppe annuals and grasses growing on Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj in 2012; (l-r) S. Falconer, A. Joudeh, Representative of Jordan Gateway Project, P. Fall and B. Porter (photo by Jack Green).

Yarmouk River (20–30 km north of the site), a tributary of the Jordan River. Along the zor, water from the Jordan River is used to water extensive orchards found on the modern floodplain. There is also a permanent spring about seven km to the northeast and upslope of Tell Abu enNi‘aj, adjacent to the ancient town of Pella. During the Bronze Age, water could have been obtained directly from the Jordan River (one to two km to the west) or from the spring at Pella.

Results

Modelling Bronze Age Vegetation

The distribution of modern potential vegetation (see Map 3.1b) reflects the interaction of the four prime variables used in our modelling. Mean annual precipitation is the most influential environmental variable for modelling modern Mediterranean, Irano-Turanian and SaharoArabian potential vegetation. The probability of Mediterranean vegetation increases with greater mean annual precipitation, while the probability of IranoTuranian or Saharo-Arabian vegetation rises at much lower precipitation levels. Elevation and annual temperature are most important for modelling the Sudanian and Coastal Mediterranean plant geographical regions. Increased temperature is associated with greatly increased probability of Sudanian vegetation and sharply diminished probability of Coastal Mediterranean vegetation. While the Coastal

Modelling of modern and ancient potential vegetation provides a means of inferring the greater environmental context in which Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj was inhabited. Two studies (Soto-Berelov et al. 2015; Fall et al. 2018) model present and past Levantine vegetation according to seven “plant geographical regions” (following Zohary 1973). These regions are comprised of woody plant species that range from desert Sudanian and Saharo-Arabian vegetation to Irano-Turanian steppe and Mediterranean woodlands, as well as the transitional zones between them (see Soto-Berelov et al. 2015: table 1). The evolution of this multi-faceted vegetation regime through the Bronze Age was influenced by climate change and anthropogenic 22

Modern and Past Environmental Dynamics in the Southern Levant Mediterranean plant geographical region is associated closely with elevations near sea level, the probability of Sudanian vegetation increases as elevations descend below sea level. The regional MCM underlying our vegetation modelling produces a long-term drying trend beginning at least as early as the Levantine Chalcolithic, and continuing through the Bronze Age and into the Iron Age. Modelled regional precipitation values include punctuated intervals of increased rainfall at the start of the Early Bronze Age (5400 cal BP) and again at the outset of the Middle Bronze Age (4000 cal BP) (Figure 3.1; Soto-Berelov et al. 2015: fig. 11; Fall et al. 2018: fig. 6.2). Modelled temperature shows even more dramatic drops in mean annual temperature, again at the beginnings of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages. Potential vegetation modelling provides more nuanced indications of natural environmental dynamics around Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, and how they may have influenced the agrarian lifeways of its inhabitants. Environmental conditions at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age (5400 cal BP; ca. 3400 cal BC) would have supported vegetation distributions similar to those of the present. Irano-Turanian steppe vegetation extended around the Rift just south of the Sea of Galilee, west into the Jezreel Valley, and along the Jordan Valley south to Tell es-Saidiyyeh (Soto-Berelov et al. 2015: fig. 5; Fall et al. 2018: fig. 6.3). The mound of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, not yet inhabited, lay in a zone of transitional Sudanian/Saharo-Arabian potential desert vegetation, although Irano-Turanian steppe and transitional IranoTuranian/ Mediterranean woodlands lay not far away along the valley flanks. Upland settlements in the Central Hills to the west and on the Tranjordanian Plateau would have enjoyed environmental conditions conducive to Mediterranean woodlands.

Figure 3.1. Modelled mean annual temperature and mean annual precipitation for Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Pella, 55003000 cal years BP.

Roughly two centuries after the abandonment of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, regions of potential steppe and Mediterranean vegetation expanded in concert with two changes in our MCM: a sharp drop in mean annual temperature and a slight increase in annual precipitation. By the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (4000 cal BP; ca. 2000 cal BC), the remains of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj lay in an area of potential Sudanian/Saharo-Arabian vegetation, but in close proximity to potential steppe and Mediterranean vegetation south of the Sea of Galilee and in the lower Jezreel Valley (see Map 3.2b; Soto-Berelov 2015: fig. 7; Fall et al. 2018: fig. 6.7). As a reflection of dramatic climatic change at this juncture, the wadis draining into both sides of the northern Jordan Valley, as well as the uplands on both sides of the Rift, are modelled as Mediterranean woodlands.

By the latter portions of Early Bronze IV (4200 cal BP; ca. 2200 cal BC), our modelling indicates that the inhabitants of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj would have endured about 350 years of gradual environmental desiccation. Nearing its abandonment, the village would have been situated in a zone of Sudanian desert vegetation (Map 3.2a; Soto-Berelov et al. 2015: fig. 6; Fall et al. 2018: fig. 6.5), although charcoal from Ni‘aj shows the proximity of considerable riparian trees along the Jordan River throughout the history of the village. Drier environmental conditions would have shifted vegetation along the northern Rift toward desert species, with steppe vegetation modelled only for the fringes just south of the Sea of Galilee, near Beit Shan and around settlements in the eastern foothills of the Rift (e.g., Pella, Tell Abu Kharaz). Even transitional steppe vegetation, and the resources it would have provided, lay much farther away from valley bottom settlements like Ni‘aj than it had at the outset of the Early Bronze Age. The uplands west of the Rift remain modelled as Mediterranean woodlands, while contracted Plateau woodlands east of the Rift no longer formed a continuous forested region. The wadis cutting through these woodlands now supported steppe vegetation, rather than woodlands.

Long-term trends of vegetation change in the Southern Levant are illustrated by histograms for the expanses of modelled Mediterranean, steppe and desert vegetation between 5500 and 3000 cal BP (Figure 3.2). The time frame around 4000 cal BP clearly occupies one of two particularly volatile junctures in this 2500 year interval (the other lies about 5400 cal BP). At both times, the areas of modelled Mediterranean and steppe vegetation increase sharply (most dramatically for Mediterranean woodlands), while the extent of desert vegetation contracts appreciably. Vegetation changes over the Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze Age transition are depicted clearly in oblique views 23

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley

Map 3.2. Modelled potential vegetation in the Southern Levant by plant geographical regions at: a) 4200 cal BP (left); and b) at 4000 cal BP (right). (Reprinted from Journal of Archaeological Science 53, Soto-Berelov et al., Modeling vegetation dynamics in the Southern Levant through the Bronze Age, figures 6 and 7, [2015], with permission from Elsevier).

climatic conditions. In particular, the situation of Ni‘aj near the margins of steppe and Mediterranean vegetation made even modest climatic changes particularly influential on the productivity and sustainability of its agricultural lifeways.

of modelled vegetation from the Sea of Galilee south to the Dead Sea (Maps 3.3a and 3.3b) between about 4200 and 4000 cal BP (2200-2000 cal BC). This widespread vegetation shift brought woodland and steppe resources much closer to Middle Bronze Age Tell el-Hayyat than had been the case for Early Bronze IV Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, reflecting increased annual rainfall and decreased annual temperature about 4000 cal BP (2000 cal BC).

Orchard Cultivation in the Southern Levant Widespread cultivation of orchards in the Southern Levant is arguably the most distinctive and pervasive mark that humans have made on the landscapes of the Near East and eastern Mediterranean. Orchard crops were domesticated in the Chalcolithic by the fourth millennium BC (Helbaek 1959; Zohary and Spiegel-Roy 1975; Neef 1990). However, the economic and environmental effects of the secondary products revolution and a second wave of agricultural innovation in the Bronze Age forever altered the countryside, leading to the creation of the modern Mediterranean landscape (Sherratt 1981; Falconer and Fall 1995; Fall et al. 1998, 2002). Approximately 5000 years after the domestication of annual cereals and legumes (Stager 1985; Miller 1991), fruit products were grown and traded widely during the Early Bronze Age. The major orchard crops, olive (Olea europaea), grape (Vitis vinifera)

Discussion The geographic shifts in modelled potential vegetation before, during and after Early Bronze IV are most pronounced in the region surrounding Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj along the margins of the northern Jordan Valley, in the Jezreel Valley and into the wadi systems east of the Rift. The mound of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj would have been situated near potential steppe or Mediterranean woodlands prior to and just after its occupation, but its Early Bronze IV village lay increasingly amid potential desert vegetation through the course of its habitation. In overview, potential vegetation modelling portrays the community of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj in the midst of a fluid landscape of potential natural vegetation reflective of comparably changeable 24

Modern and Past Environmental Dynamics in the Southern Levant planted as seeds and could be harvested several months later by either sedentary or non-sedentary agriculturalists (Zohary and Hopf 1988; LaBianca 1990), fruit trees require a longer period of several years before they produce fruits. Olives, grapes, figs, dates, pomegranates and sycamore figs could be planted using vegetative methods. These species are cultivated by cloning of individual trees and then propagation through the use of cuttings (grape, fig, sycamore fig and pomegranate), basal knobs (olive), or by transplanting offshoots (dates) (Zohary and SpiegelRoy 1975). These cultivated clones (particularly in the case of olives) may persist for hundreds or even thousands of years, and have undergone very few cycles of sexual reproduction, changing little since they were first domesticated (Zohary and Hopf 1988). Olive trees optimally are adapted to Mediterranean climates and highly productive when planted on well-drained soils (Polunin and Huxley 1965; Renfrew 1973). Olive oil provides a versatile product, prized for eating and cooking, ointments, and lamp fuel (Goor 1966a; Zohary 1982). As a valued trade commodity, olive oil could be stored and transported readily. Accordingly, it has endured as a status symbol and source of wealth around the Mediterranean since the Early Bronze Age (Zohary and Hopf 1988; Neef 1990). While olive seeds and charred wood have been recovered from earlier archaeological contexts, there is little evidence for use of olive wood for construction or fuel prior to the Chalcolithic (Liphschitz et al. 1991). Extensive use of olive wood for fuel and construction during the Chalcolithic is indicated most clearly by ash deposits from Abu Hamid and Tell esh-Shuna (North) (Dollfus and Ibrahim 1988; Neef 1990: Table II), and by beams found at Teleilat Ghassul (Hennessy 1969; Bourke et al. 2000) and Abu Hamid (Dollfus and Ibrahim 1988). While oak woodlands supplied the needs of Neolithic communities (Kohler-Rollefson and Rollefson 1990), the use of olive wood for construction and fuel accelerated rapidly with Bronze Age population growth, urbanization and accompanying deforestation. A study of charcoal samples from 47 archaeological sites in Israel shows that the frequency of olive fragments jumps from 20-30% of samples at Chalcolithic sites to 40-60% of samples from Early Bronze Age sites (Liphschitz et al., 1991, Table 3). Virtually every excavated Bronze Age town or village along the Jordan Rift has produced olive seeds or charcoal in abundance (e.g., Helbaek 1958; McCreery 1980; Hopf 1983; Lines 1995; Meadows 1996; Fall et al. 2015). This pronounced shift from oak to olive implies intensive Bronze Age cultivation of olive trees, and heavy reliance on orchards and anthropogenic forests to supply fuel and construction timber.

Figure 3.2. Area modelled for the three main plant geographical regions, 5500-3000 cal BP and 0 years BP (modern): (a) Mediterranean and Coastal Mediterranean woodlands; (b) Irano-Turanian steppe; and (c) Sudanian and Saharo-Arabian deserts. (Reprinted from Journal of Archaeological Science 53, Soto-Berelov et al., Modeling vegetation dynamics in the Southern Levant through the Bronze Age, figure 10, [2015], with permission from Elsevier).

and fig (Ficus carica), along with pomegranate (Punica granatum), date (Phoenix dactylifera) and sycamore fig (Ficus sycomorus), were widespread in this region. The development of arboriculture involving the cultivation of these trees and vines originated in the Levant (olive, grape, fig and pomegranate), in Mesopotamia (date), and in the Nile Valley (sycamore fig). In the Southern Levant, the three most important fruits, olive, grape and fig, were grown in dry farming regions and traded throughout the Mediterranean basin (Zohary and Hopf 1988), enhancing the economic importance of the Southern Levant in the greater region.

Grape vines, another facet of the secondary products revolution, produced fruit that could be eaten fresh, dried into raisins, or pressed to produce wine (Zohary 1982). Wine could be stored and traded widely like olive oil, particularly to areas like Egypt and Mesopotamia where these plants did not flourish (Goor 1966b; Stager 1985). Archaeological excavations have recovered domesticated

Perennial fruit cultivation required new knowledge and greater labour commitment on the part of Bronze Age farmers. While annual crops, cereals and legumes were

25

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley

Map 3.3. Oblique projections of modelled potential vegetation in the Northern Rift Valley by plant geographical regions at: a) 4200 cal BP (above); and b) at 4000 cal BP (below). (Reprinted from Cyber-Archaeology and Grand Narratives, Fall et al., Toward a Grand Narrative of Bronze Age Vegetation Change and Social Dynamics in the Southern Levant, figures 6.5 and 6.7, [2018], with permission from Springer Nature).

26

Modern and Past Environmental Dynamics in the Southern Levant grapes from the beginning of the Early Bronze Age (Zohary and Spiegel-Roy 1975), after which they became common throughout Bronze Age Levantine communities (Helbaek 1958; Hopf 1978; McCreery 1980; Hopf 1983; Meadows 1996).

Analysis of charcoal from Ni‘aj reveals relatively modest fuel wood consumption, primarily from riparian stands, rather than upland forests (see below). In contrast to wooded landscapes on Bronze Age Cyprus, for example, charcoal evidence portrays the countryside around Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj as largely cultivated and deforested (Klinge and Fall 2010; Fall et al. 2015). In this environmental context, agro-pastoral communities would have turned to animal dung as a major fuel source (Bottema 1984; Miller 1984b; Miller and Smart 1984; Anderson and Ertuğ-Yaras 1996; Charles 1998; Hastorf and Wright 1998; Reddy 1998; Shahack-Gross 2011). Thus, carbonised seeds provide a profile of vegetation through animal consumption and dung burning, whereas charcoal analysis profiles vegetation as it was harvested for combustible woody fuel.

Two other Mediterranean trees, fig and date, provided fruits rich in sugar, which could be dried, stored and exchanged. The earliest evidence for fig cultivation in the Levant also stems from Chalcolithic sites (e.g., Hopf 1983), after which figs became ubiquitous at Bronze Age villages and towns. Traditionally, fig and grape may be planted together, enabling grapevines to climb on fig trees as a natural arbour (Goor 1965). While fig, grape and olive flourish in Mediterranean environments, date palms prefer warmer and drier subtropical and tropical environments (Zohary and Hopf 1988).

Charcoal Analysis and Wood Resource Use at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Tell el-Hayyat

Wild date palms in the Levant thrive in wet seeps along wadis, around brackish springs, and along the southeast shore of the Dead Sea (Zohary 1973). Dates were cultivated first in fourth millennium BC Mesopotamia (Zohary and Spiegel-Roy 1975), after which they appear in Levantine Chalcolithic sites (Zaitschek 1961; Hennessy 1969). Date stones are reported from Bronze Age Jericho (Hopf 1983), Bab edh-Dhra‘ (McCreery 1980) and Tell Halif (Zohary and Spiegel-Roy 1975), which are situated in particularly hot and dry locations. Dates are absent from other Bronze Age settlements (e.g., Tell el-Hayyat in the northern Jordan Valley; Lines 1995; Falconer and Fall 2006), and did not enjoy the same widespread cultivation and consumption attained in the Southern Levant by olive, grape and fig.

Wood charcoal fragments were recovered from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj using the methods of flotation, sieving and identification described in Chapter 2. Analysis of charcoal from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Tell el-Hayyat (where the same methods were employed; Falconer and Fall 2006) illuminate patterns of fuel wood harvesting and burning in the northern Jordan Valley during Early Bronze IV and the Middle Bronze Age. We use taxonomic ubiquity as a primary measure for comparative discussion of the Ni‘aj and Hayyat charcoal assemblages (Table 3.2). Results The villagers at Ni‘aj and Hayyat collected and burned wood from comparable numbers of woody taxa (23 and 20 taxa, respectively). Diversity indices for these charcoal assemblages produce very similar values for both sites, according to which the Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj assemblage is slightly more diverse (Table 3.3; see also Fall et al. 2015: table 6). However, identifiable charcoal fragments were recovered from only 75% of the flotation samples from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj, while one-quarter of the samples produced no wood remains. In contrast, charcoal was present in virtually all (98%) of the flotation samples from Tell el-Hayyat. The overall density of charcoal remains also is much greater at Hayyat than at Ni‘aj. Further, while the ubiquities of tree and shrub charcoal are very similar, charcoal from orchard taxa is twice as common at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj. These general comparative results provide first indications of substantially differing fuel wood availability and probable vegetation proximity, which suggest that native wood sources were more readily available to the Middle Bronze Age occupants of Hayyat, while the villagers at Ni‘aj did not burn wood at the same intensity, and harvested substantially more of their wood from nearby orchards.

Thus, a suite of three major orchard crops—olives, grapes and figs—thrived in the Mediterranean climate of the Southern Levant, beginning in the Chalcolithic and spreading region-wide by the Bronze Age. Olive stones, grape seeds and fig pips are virtually ubiquitous across excavated Levantine Bronze Age towns and villages. Orchards and vineyards inherently denote long-term land tenure, and intensive cultivation and investment, since they bear fruit only after 3–8 years, and become fully productive only ten or more years after planting (Hopkins 1985; Stager 1985). Dung Burning as a Primary Source of Carbonised Seeds at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Carbonised plant seeds enter the archaeological record in a variety of ways, including food processing and accidental burning (e.g., Hastorf 1988; Jones and Halstead 1995; van der Veen 2007; Fuller and Stevens 2009). A number of factors make the intentional burning of dung fuel a more likely source for the plentiful and widespread deposition of carbonised seeds at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj. Our vegetation modelling suggests that woodland fuel sources lay increasingly distant from the Jordan Valley during the Early Bronze Age before potentially rebounding at the outset of the Middle Bronze Age (see discussion above).

Further distinctions between wood harvesting and fuel burning practices become apparent according to specific taxa and taxonomic groups. Charcoal from native trees is found in comparable ubiquities (nearly two-thirds of 27

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley Table 3.3. Charcoal diversity indices for Tell el-Hayyat and Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj

Table 3.2. Charcoal ubiquity (% samples with taxon present) at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Tell el-Hayyat (after Fall et al. 2015) Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Tell el-Hayyat Flotation samples (n)

52

60

Weight of charcoal (g)

83.35

515

5

0

cf. Ceratonia siliqua

0

2

cf. Crataegus

0

3

Cupressus sp.

0

4

Pinus sp.

2

0

cf. Pistacia

2

4

cf. Populus

21

2

Quercus sp.

9

9

Rosaceae

12

0

Salicaceae

0

4

Salix sp.

2

0

Tamarix sp.

30

50

Vitex sp.

7

0

Ziziphus sp.

0

6

Tree Subtotal

65

63

Asteraceae

0

7

Capparis sp.

0

2

Chenopodiaceae

0

19

Ephedra sp.

0

2

Euphorbiaceae

7

0

Fabaceae

2

0

Loranthaceae

2

0

Malvaceae

2

0

Monocot

12

7

cf. Myrtus

2

2

Nerium oleander

0

4

Ranunculaceae

2

0

cf. Rubus

2

0

cf. Rubia

0

2

Solanaceae

2

0

2

0

Shrub Subtotal

26

33

9

0

Ficus carica

40

9

Olea europaea

19

17

Vitis vinifera

23

11

Orchard Subtotal

67

33

Total

75

98

Shannon*

2.208

2.474

Gini-Simpson**

0.823

0.880

Charcoal from shrubs is found in about one-quarter of the Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj samples, and slightly less commonly in about one-third of the Tell el-Hayyat samples. Monocots contribute the most ubiquitous shrub charcoal at Ni‘aj, perhaps representing a reed from along the river. Chenopododiaceae clearly are the leading source of shrub charcoal at Hayyat, with lesser amounts of Asteraceae and Monocots, but chenopod charcoal is absent at Ni‘aj. Charcoal from other shrubs occurs only at very low ubiquities at both sites (50%

Hayyat 4-3

282

121

99

62

Ni‘aj 3-2

352

218

127

7

Ni‘aj 7-4

212

121

83

8

of decreasing average weight across the three temporal assemblages from Ni‘aj and Hayyat (Figure 8.5). Cores show a particularly pronounced decline in weight from a mean of nearly 80 g in Ni‘aj Phases 7-4 to less than 40 g in Hayyat Phases 3-2. Canaanean blades drop most sharply in average weight from about 10 g in Ni‘aj Phases 3-2 to 1.3 g in Hayyat Phases 4-3. Declining weight is also readily apparent when the Canaanean blade weight data is presented in more detail according to six temporal assemblages from Ni‘aj Phases 7-6 to Hayyat Phase 3 (Figure 8.6). Once again, the sharpest drop is apparent between Ni‘aj Phase 2 and Hayyat Phase 4. One factor that contributes to stone tool manufacturing expediency or intensity is raw material availability (Daniel 2001). One means of addressing this variable is to estimate changes in the number of chert sources utilized by the lithic technicians of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Tell el-Hayyat. Chert sources are challenging to differentiate since chert is relatively homogeneous and may cover a large geographical area (Luedtke 1979; Shackley 1998). However, analysis of chert colour under visible light can be used to distinguish slightly differing mineralogy and source areas (e.g., Hofman, Todd, and Collins 1991). A sample of 195 Canaanean blades were observed

Photo 8.6. Broken, possibly hafted Canaanean blades from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj: Area P (left), G10.001.2 (right) (photo by M. Brown).

less expedient, more intensive reduction of cores and manufacture of flakes and blades. Another indicator of intensity of tool manufacture is provided by the weights of cores, flakes, non-prismatic blades and Canaanean blades (Newman 1994). All four of these artefact classes shows a clear and consistent pattern 118

Stone and Metal Tool Technology at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj

Figure 8.2. Relative frequencies of chipped stone artefact types from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 7-4, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 3-2 and Tell el-Hayyat Phases 4-3.

Figure 8.3. Relative frequencies of cortex amounts on chipped stone cores from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 7-4, Tell Abu enNi‘aj Phases 3-2 and Tell el-Hayyat Phases 4-3.

Figure 8.4. Relative frequencies of cortex amounts on flake tools from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 7-4, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 3-2 and Tell el-Hayyat Phases 4-3.

119

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley

Figure 8.5. Mean weights for chipped stone artefact types from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 7-4, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 3-2 and Tell el-Hayyat Phases 4-3.

Figure 8.6. Mean weights for Canaanean blades from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 7-6, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 5-4, Tell Abu enNi‘aj Phase 3, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2, Tell el-Hayyat Phase 4 and Tell el-Hayyat Phase 3. Table 8.4. Chert colour categories for Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Canaanean blades Categories

Munsell Colour

Description

1

10 YR 4/2

Greyish yellow brown

1

10 YR 5/4

Dull yellowish brown

1

10YR 6/2

Greyish yellow brown

2

10YR 6/6

Bright yellowish brown

2

10YR 7/4

Dull yellowish orange

3

5YR 4/1

Brownish grey

4

5YR 4/4

Dull reddish brown

4

5YR 5/2

Greyish brown

5

5YR 6/4

Dull orange

5

5YR 7/2

Light brownish grey

6

N 2/0

Black

7

N 3/0

Dark grey

7

N 4/0

Grey

7

N 5/0

Grey

8

N 7/0

Greyish white

Table 8.5. Relative frequencies (%) of colour categories for Canaanean blades from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 7-4, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 3, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2, Tell elHayyat Phase 4 and Tell el-Hayyat Phase 3 Categories 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Hayyat 3

30

0

0

0

40

7

22

0

Hayyat 4

52

10

0

17

21

0

0

0

Ni‘aj 2

76

6

0

10

5

0

4

0

Ni‘aj 3

71

0

1

17

0

1

9

1

Ni‘aj 7-4

60

3

0

7

0

14

16

0

under visible light and classified in eight colour groups according to the Munsell soil colour classification system (Table 8.4). The resulting distribution of blade colours in five chronological categories (Table 8.5) was assessed by calculating Gini-Simpson diversity index values (Figure 8.7). Gini-Simpson indices are expressed as values ranging from 0 to 1. A higher index value reflects the presence of a greater number of categories populated more evenly, whereas a lower index value indicates more concentration 120

Stone and Metal Tool Technology at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj

Figure 8.7. Gini-Simpson diversity indices for Canaanean blade colours from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phases 7-4, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 3, Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2, Tell el-Hayyat Phase 4 and Tell el-Hayyat Phase 3.

of examples in fewer categories. Visible light colour classification produced diversity indices that declined through the sequence at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj (Phases 7-2) then increased noticeably in Hayyat Phases 4 and 3.

en-Ni‘aj, however, notably features minimal amounts of cortex. For example, more than 60% of the Ni‘aj Phase 3-2 flake assemblage has only 0-10% cortex. This result provides a first indicator of intensive flake manufacture at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj. A more robust indication of intensified tool manufacture and use appears in the dramatic reductions in mean weights for cores, flakes and blades through time across both sites. Interestingly, this trend is especially pronounced for cores, which drop 50% in mean weight, and Canaanean blades, whose fragments become relatively miniscule at Tell el-Hayyat. Colour analysis suggests access to chert sources declining in diversity for the villagers of Ni‘aj, but becoming more diverse for Hayyat.

Discussion The chipped stone tool assemblages from Tell Abu enNi‘aj and Tell el-Hayyat are dominated by the remains of flake tools, suggesting the importance of less formal, technologically simpler tools. However, through time these tools are accompanied by increasing frequencies of more formal, technically more demanding non-prismatic and prismatic (i.e., Canaanean) blades. A shift to blade technology for utilitarian agricultural tools (as opposed to flake technology) signifies more efficient use of raw material, offsetting the higher manufacturing costs and skill level entailed with blade tools (Edmonds 1987; Bamforth 1986; Bamforth and Bleed 1997; Hartenberger et al. 2000; Whittaker 2000; Frahm 2014). For settlements that were not near a preferred stone source, blade technology allowed for exchange of relatively light pre-forms (rather than heavier cores) and offered more usable edge per tool than provided by flake technology. Canaanean blades, made from high quality raw material, commonly are interpreted as technologically sophisticated tools that involved specialized manufacture and widespread exchange across the Southern Levant (Rosen 1983, 1997; Shimelmitz 2009; Milevski 2011, 2013). Their increased frequency between Early Bronze IV Ni‘aj and Middle Bronze Age Hayyat may indicate enhanced trade between villages like Tell el-Hayyat and rejuvenated Middle Bronze towns.

In overview, multiple analytical trends describe intensified tool manufacture and use at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj in a context of less diverse raw material sources, perhaps reflective of attenuated exchange networks during the abandonment of towns in Early Bronze IV. A number of significant changes between Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Tell el-Hayyat, on the other hand, implicate more expedient manufacture and discard at Hayyat, in conjunction with broadened access to an increasingly diverse array of chert sources, perhaps as a corollary to enhanced trade among villages and reestablished towns in the Middle Bronze Age. Ground Stone Implements Introduction During the Bronze Age, ground stone technology was used for a wide variety of tasks associated with food preparation and raw material processing. The ground stone evidence from Field 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj was analysed as technological components of ground stone processing in two general categories: “base stones” and “hand stones.” These categories are inherently functional, given that stone, as a less pliable medium, is minimally subject to the kinds of stylistic variables that characterize ceramic typologies, for example. From this functional perspective, base stones, also termed “nether stones”

A variety of other analytical results illustrate trends in the expediency and intensity of tool manufacture and use at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj and Tell el-Hayyat. Chert cores and flakes with substantial amounts of cortex increase markedly between Ni‘aj and Hayyat, while those with minimal or modest cortex decline slightly. These results suggest more expedient manufacture and immediate discard at Tell elHayyat, possibly in keeping with greater access to and exchange of raw materials. The flake industry at Tell Abu 121

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley (Adams 2002: fig. 4.6), provide working surfaces on which a substance was ground, hammered or polished. By virtue of their larger size or weight, or when embedded as stationary features, base stones tended to be minimally portable. In contrast, hand stones were implements sufficiently small to be handheld and readily portable or discarded. The ground stone remains from Ni‘aj were classified according to several functional types within the categories of base stones and hand stones, recognizing that these tools often are multi-functional (Rowan and Ebeling 2008). More specific typological categories are modified from typologies applied to other Bronze Age assemblages (see Swiny et al. 2003: 221–254; Webb 2000; Frankel and Webb 2006: 197–207).

or multi-function forms, comprise more than 75% of the aggregate hand stone assemblage, with much lesser amounts of hand stones (nearly 13%) and pestles (6.4%) (Table 8.7). Subdivision of the hand stones into phase-byphase assemblages, especially given the repeated majority

Ground Stone Functional Typology and Interpretation Base stone types found at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj include the remains of slabs, mortars, basins, door sockets and forms of indeterminate function. Field 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj provides a sample of 103 base stone remains, in which 90% of the base stones consist of slabs (58%) and mortars (30%), with very few basins (3) and door sockets (3) (Table 8.6). When subdivided further according to stratigraphic phases, the relative abundances of slabs and mortars show no apparent trends through time at Ni‘aj. A wider range of hand stone types includes round perforated stones that may have served as weights or hammerheads (Photos 8.78.9), hand stones for grinding, pestles for pounding (Photo 8.10), polishing stones and hammerstones (some incised for hafting, Photos 8.11-8.13).

Photo 8.7. Drilled ground stones from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj: top row: DD.024.115 (left), DD.013.57 (right); centre row: L.038.220 (left), W.005.46 (centre), L.053.258 (right); bottom row: Z.029.144 (left), AA.057.352 (right).

The ground stone from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj includes a chert sphere that may have proven too hard to drill completely (Photo 8.14). The category of hand implements for hammering or chopping could be expanded to other media to include metal axe heads, for example (Photo 8.15), which may have been cast on-site, as attested by a carved limestone metallurgical mould (Photo 8.16). Further expressions of ground stone technology include small drilled pebble-sized stones, possibly intended for ornamentation (Photo 8.17). Numerous other examples of personal adornments feature a drilled stone pendant (Photo 8.18), and perforated beads in a variety of materials (Photos 8.19 and 8.20). Hammerstones, in single function

Photo 8.8. Drilled ground stones from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj: AA.019.162, BB.001.46, BB.054.207, II.029.143, K.077.259, L.037.226, M.030.143, Surface, X.036.299.

Table 8.6. Counts of base stones according to functional type for Phases 7-1 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase

Slab

Basin

Mortar Door Socket

Indeter. Sum

1

7

1

1

9

2

8

8

2

18

3

6

2

1

1

10

4

15

11

2

5

12

3

1

16

6

8

2

2

7

4

1

4

60

3

31

Total

28 12

3

2

11

7

104

Photo 8.9. Circular ground stones pecked on both faces from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj: M.049.205 (left), DD.053.235 (right).

122

Stone and Metal Tool Technology at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj

Photo 8.10. Ground stone pestles from Tell Abu enNi‘aj: top row: F.061.455 (left), Y.008.39 (right); centre: DD.017.99; bottom row: Y.049.136 (left), W.005.46 (right).

Photo 8.13. Grooved hammerstone from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj: Z.006.24.

Photo 8.11. Grooved hammerstones from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj: L.038.222 (left), W.005.67 (right).

Photo 8.14. Partially drilled chert sphere from Tell Abu enNi‘aj: H.020.96.

Photo 8.12. Incised limestone hammerstones from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj: I.045.158 (left), B.011.65 (right).

of hammerstones, again does not reveal any temporal trends in hand stone types through time. Interestingly, although the stratified pottery assemblages from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj show trends of functional change through time, the ground stone assemblage does not show comparable chronological changes. A number of archaeological studies interpret large base stones as abandoned de facto refuse, which most likely

Photo 8.15. Copper axe head in two pieces from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj: Area II deep sounding, bag 2.

123

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley

Photo 8.16. Carved limestone metallurgical mould from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj: W.005.53.

Photo 8.19. Stone beads from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj: M.051.234.

Photo 8.20. Stone beads from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj: top row: BB.073.299 (left), F.081.473 (centre left), C.068.290 (centre right), BB.065.276 (right); bottom row: X.030.244 (left), Y.049.116 (centre), M.051.251 (right).

Photo 8.17. Small drilled ornamental stones from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj: top row: G.006.6 (left), N.035.96 (right); bottom row: I.032.121 (left), J.009.44 (centre), N.034.159 (right).

indicate focal points for group behaviour in activity areas (Brooks 1993; Byrd 1994; Webb 2000; Wright 2000; Frankel and Webb 2006: 201; Kadowaki 2008). Ground stone remains can be quantified according to a simple ground stone portability ratio (the number of hand stones [omitting weights] divided by the number of base stones), which may be used to infer varying levels of ground stone portability, including change in portability through time. The Field 4 ground stone evidence from Ni‘aj reveals an overall portability ratio of 1.31. The phase-by-phase portability ratios range closely around this cumulative value and show a modest and oscillating decline in portability at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj from Phase 7 to Phase 2 (Figure 8.8). These values are lower than most of those calculated for multiple components of the Bronze Age settlement of Politiko-Troullia, Cyprus (Falconer and Fall 2013: table 4). Specifically, the Ni‘aj values parallel the low portability ratios calculated for a domestic compound in PolitikoTroullia East, a focal point of household-level metallurgy

Photo 8.18. Drilled stone pendant from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj: K.088.298.

124

Stone and Metal Tool Technology at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Table 8.7. Counts of hand stones according to functional type for Phases 7-1 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase

Hand Stone Pestle

Weight

Polishing Stone

2

1

Hammer Stone

Hammer Indet. Stone/Mano

Sum

1

1

1

2

4

3

3

1

1

4

3

1

5

6

1 1

14

1

16

3

1

12

1

17

18

9

91

15

6 7 Total

2

2

4

1

4

8

4

8

3

26

3

21

3

22 1

14 33

1

34

2

140

Figure 8.8. Ground stone portability ratios for Phases 7-1 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj. Portability ratio = no. of hand stones/no. of base stones (excluding weights). Table 8.8. Counts of base stones according to excavated context for Phases 7-1 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj

Table 8.9. Counts of hand stones according to excavated context for Phases 7-1 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj

Phase

Bin Fill

Phase

1

1

Surfaces Debris

Pits

8

Sum

Bin Fill

Surfaces Debris

9

1

4 18

4

Pits

Sum 4

2

14

4

18

2

3

7

3

10

3

10

4

4

25

3

28

4

1

22

8

2

6

3

16

5

7

10

4

13

34

10

2

12

6

13

1

2

16

7

5

1

6 7 Total

2

6

8

2

1

11

78

17

7

104

Total

22 14 33

2

9

3

3

17

10

86

24

20

140

surfaces or occupational debris built up on surfaces (Table 8.8). This result suggests that base stones tended not to be redeposited after use, and accordingly serve as particularly good indicators of in situ features and associated behaviours involving ground stone. Hand stones also were recovered in abundance, but slightly less frequently (61%) from these primary contexts (Table 8.9). While hand stones were more likely to be redeposited in non-surface debris loci or pits, the recovery of most hand stones from surface contexts makes them valuable secondary indicators of activity areas.

at Politiko-Troullia. The low ratios at Ni‘aj reflect overabundances of base stones relative to modest numbers of hand stones, and the rough declining trend in these ratios suggests that activity areas may have become more pronounced through time. The Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj ground stone assemblages do show depositional consistencies that allow us to build on these portability ratios to infer spatial patterns of group behaviour. For instance, an impressive majority of base stones (75%) was recovered from living 125

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley Spatial Patterning

associations of hand stones without accompanying base stones are not defined as ground stone clusters. The patterning at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj emerges most clearly from associations of base stones, while ground stone groups without base stones tend to include relatively few hand stones. On the basis of these interpretive guidelines, the patterning of ground stone and inferred activity areas may be charted through Phases 7-2 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj (Table 8.10). The evidence from Phase 1 is omitted from this discussion based on its modest sample size and limited enclosed space.

An overview of the spatial patterning of ground stone deposition in Field 4 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj reveals clustered patterning, especially of base stones, that may be used to infer localized (possibly household) activity patterns. Based on the inference that base stones tend to be deposited in primary surface contexts, and therefore are more likely to represent relatively in situ features, each of these inferred clusters is defined by multiple base stones in a shared space bounded by mudbrick walls. In light of the less frequent deposition of hand stones in surface contexts,

Table 8.10. Ground stone clusters in Phases 7-2 at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase

Cluster

Areas

Base Stones

Hand Stones

Architectural Space

2

2-1

AA, BB

6

4

interior

2

2-2

W, X, Y, Z

5

7

street

2

2-3

GG, II

7

6

courtyard

2

DD

4

interior

2

CC

1

interior

3

3-1

X, Y

6

3

interior

3

3-2

AA, BB, K

4

3

interior

3

3-3

W, Z

2

II

5

street

3

exterior

4

4-1

F, L, M

12

8

interior & exterior

4

4-2

GG, II

7

7

courtyard

4

4-3

X, Y, BB

2

9

passageway/courtyard

4

4-4

C, Z

4

1

interior

4

AA

1

2

interior

4

K

1

4

DD

2

interior

2

interior

5

5-1

DD, BB

7

12

courtyard pit

5

5-2

GG, L, M

4

14

courtyard

5

5-3

6

C, F

4

5

K

1

5

AA

6

6-1

C, F, W, X, Z

alley interior

8

2

interior

3

alley

6

6-2

K

1

6

interior

6

6-3

L, M

2

6

interior

6

GG

1

6

AA

2

interior

6

BB

1

courtyard

courtyard

7

7-1

C, F, L, M

5

7

exterior

7

7-2

BB, X

2

2

exterior

7

7-3

K

2

4

interior

7

GG

1

2

courtyard

7

AA

1

interior

126

Stone and Metal Tool Technology at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj The relatively open architectural plan of Phase 7 (see Figure 4.4) reveals three ground stone clusters and two very small groups of hand stones. Cluster 7-1 lies in a large exterior space between structures in the southwestern portion of the Phase 7 exposure. This possible courtyard is marked by numerous pits and postholes, with five base stones, including an in situ basin and slab grinding stone, accompanied by seven hand stones (mostly hammerstones). Cluster 7-2 similarly lies in a large exterior space in the north-eastern portion of Field 4, and again features pits, postholes, an in situ boulder, and a large in situ socket stone that may have supported an upright pole. Both of these clusters suggest exterior activity areas associated with in situ ground stone features and embedded wooden features (e.g., in Areas F, Y, Z) or covered areas (e.g., in Area M). Cluster 7-3 consists of a grouping of two base stones and four hand stones in Area K, within the long rectangular structure stretching into Areas AA, BB and DD. The remaining ground stone in Phase 7 includes isolated hand stones in the interior space of Area AA and the courtyard in Area GG.

six hand stones from Areas C and F, stemming from the southern end of the alley, and again suggests exterior use. The remaining ground stone remains from Phase 5 include a single interior slab in Area K and two interior hand stones in Area AA. Phase 4 represents a shift in the spatial orientation of ground stone clusters, in which the most distinct clusters are found more commonly in interior spaces, sometimes with associated courtyards or passageways. The most pronounced cluster (4-1) includes 12 base stones and eight hand stones within a two-roomed structure marked by flagstone floors, bins and a jar embedded in the dividing wall in Area L (see Figure 4.15). This collection provides a distinct activity signature possibly including interior space in Area F with an enclosed courtyard in Areas L and M, based on the presence of clay-lined bins, which appear to be exterior features. Immediately to the east lies Cluster 4-2, consisting of seven base stones and seven hand stones in the courtyard spaces of Areas GG and II. At the northern end of the Field 4 room blocks, Cluster 4-3 pertains to a passageway/courtyard running north-south through Areas X, Y, BB, K and DD. This cluster includes two in situ features, a mortar/pot stand and a door socket, both in Area X, as well as nine hand stones, all in an enclosure with a particularly large clay-lined bin. Cluster 4-4 includes four base stones and one hand stone that pertain to an interior space west of the alley, which features a large in situ jar in Area Z. The remaining Phase 4 ground stone remains are scattered in small groups of two or three fragments in interior settings in Areas AA, K and DD. In general, the ground stone clustering in Phase 4 marks the first instance in which activity areas associated with ground stone technology appear to shift from larger open exteriors to interiors or interior spaces closely associated with adjacent courtyards.

Phase 6 presents a very different architectural plan featuring a large broad room building, its forecourt to the east, with an attached enclosure to its south, and the first iteration of an alley on the west (see Figure 4.6). As in Phase 7, the most readily defined ground stone cluster (Cluster 6-1) lies in the alley stretching north-south through Areas W, Z, C and F, and includes eight base stones and three hand stones. Given its large number of base stones, this cluster appears to represent exterior activities involving grinding (on slabs) and pounding (using a pestle and hammerstones). Two smaller, less distinct clusters with fewer base stones may reflect indoor behaviour within the broad room building (Cluster 6-2) or in the attached enclosure with flagstone floor to its south (Cluster 6-3). Isolated hand stones come from the broad room building interior (in Area AA) and forecourt (Area BB). As in Phase 7, the ground stone clustering in Phase 6 most clearly reflects exterior activity patterns, based on the alleyway distribution of Cluster 6-1.

The ground stone remains in Phase 3 are aggregated in three clusters at the northern end of Field 4. Clusters 3-1 and 3-2 pertain to several adjoining rooms, all of which lie north of an apparent east-west passageway that runs through Areas E, F, L and GG, which seems to divide a room block to the north from one or more room blocks to the south. Cluster 3-1 features six base stones and five hand stones, including an in situ mortar and door socket, from interior space in Areas X and Y at the northernmost end of Field 4 (see Figure 4.20). Cluster 3-2 combines four base stones and three hand stones from interconnecting rooms in Areas AA, BB and K. A street assemblage is apparent in Cluster 3-3 from Areas W and Z, including two base stones and five hand stones. The small number of base stones and larger number of hand stones in this cluster suggests that it represents deposition of refuse from activities upslope along the sherd-paved street. The remaining ground stone from Phase 3 includes three hand stones from Area II, isolated in exterior space toward the southern end of Field 4. One striking aspect of the Phase 3 assemblage is the absence of evidence from the room block architecture or sherd-paved streets in the southern and western areas in Field 4, which once again reinforces

Phase 5 provides evidence of three distinct ground stone clusters in exterior contexts. Cluster 5-1 provides a remarkable aggregation of seven base stones and 12 hand stones, 17 of which were deposited in a large pit in Area DD (see Figure 4.10). Although not recovered from surface contexts, this pit assemblage most likely pertains to exterior activities in the courtyard extending across Areas DD, BB and further to the east in Field 4. Cluster 5-2 similarly includes a large cluster of four base stones and 14 hand stones in a courtyard with two very large clay-lined bins in the southern portion of the Phase 5 room blocks. While the base stones come from a variety of surface and debris loci in Areas L, M and GG, suggesting possible re-deposition of some elements, nine of the hand stones were recovered from the clay-lined bin in Area M. Thus, as with Cluster 5-1, the concentration of ground stone remains in a courtyard pit or bin suggests an exterior activity area. Cluster 5-3 consists of four base stones and 127

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley the distinct spatial clustering of the ground stone remains at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj. The ground stone recovered from Phase 2 includes a combination of interior, courtyard and street clusters in a manner similar to that of Phase 3. Cluster 2-1 combines six base stones with four hand stones, including two in situ mortars, from room contexts in Areas AA and BB (see Figure 4.23). Immediately to the north, Cluster 2-2 provides a street assemblage of five base stones and seven hand stones, including three in situ mortars from the intersection of streets in Areas W, X, Y and Z at the northern end of Field 4. The substantial number of base stones and the inclusion of in situ mortars suggests exterior activity areas at the northern end of the street, perhaps as it branches off into smaller passageways, like the one leading east through Area Y into adjacent room blocks. Cluster 2-3, consisting of seven base stones and six hand stones, lies distinctly to the south in Areas GG and II, representing another courtyard assemblage associated with exterior stone flagging and clay-lined bins. This cluster also includes a stone mace head (Figure 8.9), which provides an unusual example of another facet of ground stone pounding technology at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj. The remaining Phase 2 ground stone remains include isolated hand stones recovered from interior spaces in Areas DD and CC. Discussion A number of functional and spatial characteristics distinguish the ground stone evidence from Tell Abu enNi‘aj. Based on the functional typology employed in our ground stone analysis, the hand stones, and especially the base stones, are found in a relatively narrow range of functional types. Hand stones are most commonly involved in hammering and, to lesser extents, grinding (as hand stones) and pounding (as pestles). Base stones fall overwhelmingly in two categories: slabs for grinding and mortars for pounding. Presumably a variety of stones could have served as anvils in conjunction with hammering activities. The abundance of hand stones relative to base stones generates an aggregate ratio that suggests only modest portability. Further, the sequence of phase-specific portability ratios shows a net decline in these values, suggesting that these ground stone assemblages declined in portability and thereby increased in their potential to distinguish activity areas associated with ground stone technology. This specificity is compounded by the deposition of base stones and, to a lesser extent, hand stones in surface or surface-related contexts, rather than in trash pits or debris loci, once again rendering ground stone remains, especially base stones, as sound indicators of household behavioural patterns.

Figure 8.9. Stone mace head from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase 2 (GG.011.35) (drawn by O. Cabrera and G. James).

en-Ni‘aj, commencing with patterns of ground stone use in exterior settings with pits and postholes in Phase 7. The most pronounced cluster in Phase 6 pertains to an alleyway assemblage, which is accompanied by much smaller interior clusters. Phase 5 again features exterior clustering, including two large aggregations buried in a pit and a clay-lined bin, as well as a sizeable alley assemblage. The distribution of the Phase 4 assemblage reflects more deposition of ground stone remains, especially base stones, in interiors and associated courtyards and passageways. This spatial shift continues in Phases 3 and 2, in which the most distinct clusters appear in interior spaces, adjacent courtyards and in sherd-paved streets. The tendency toward more interior deposition of ground stone is accompanied by an increasing concentration of ground stone toward the room blocks north of the Phase 3 east-west passageway through Areas E, F, L and GG, and a near absence of ground stone south of this passageway in Phases 3 and 2. These trends reflect greater concentration of ground stone deposition and the activities associated with them through time, in which increasingly distinct clusters tend to shift

The distributions of ground stone remains also describe distinct architecturally-defined spatial patterns, which may be used to infer foci of behaviour related to hammering, grinding or pounding involving ground stone technology. This patterned behaviour shifts through time at Tell Abu 128

Stone and Metal Tool Technology at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Table 8.11. Metal objects from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Phase

Area

Locus

Bag No.

Locus Type

Description

Quantity

7

C

102

484

DO

metal slag frags

20

7

C

109

535

S

copper fragments

5

2

CC

003

034

S

copper fragments

10

3

DD

014

044

S

copper pin

1

5

DD

058

260

WM

copper pin

1

1

E

007

48

SC

copper pin

1

7

F

086

500

DO

copper pin

1

5

GG

046

163

BF

copper fragments

3

II

Sounding

2

copper object

2

II

Sounding

2

copper axe head

1

4

K

054

184

DO

copper piece

1

4

W

010

172

WM

copper pin

1

from clearly exterior locations to architecturally-defined interior and immediately adjacent spaces. The shift toward indoor ground stone activities may be partially attributable to increasingly dense habitation at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj. However, the rising concentration of remains in the northern portions of Field 4 points primarily to greater segregation and specialization of work spaces and ground stone-related behaviours through time.

in the temple compounds at nearby Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer and Fall 2006: 83-110). Conclusions The chipped stone remains from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj suggest intensified tool production, potentially involving decreased access to raw materials during the abandonment of Levantine town life in the late third millennium BC. The modest evidence for copper tool manufacture and use at Ni‘aj may likewise suggest limited access to copper sources and finished products, including those stemming from Faynan in the southern Jordan Rift. The phase-byphase ground stone assemblages reveal activity areas that become increasingly distinct through time and shift from exterior spaces to interior settings, implicating increasingly specialized activities, especially those involving ground stone technology. Thus, the lithic, ground stone and metallurgical profiles emanating from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj portray increasingly localized technologies and focused activity spaces through the course of Early Bronze IV town abandonment.

Metal Objects The assemblage of copper objects from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj primarily includes copper pins (e.g., see Figure 3.8; Photo 3.15) and pin fragments that would have augmented the array of bone awls and needles used for piercing and sewing (Table 8.11). Likewise, the copper axe head from Area II (Photo 8.15) expands the range of chopping tools beyond the realm of ground stone. Copper tools were cast on-site, as attested by a carved limestone metallurgical mould (Photo 8.16) and a concentrated collection of about 20 fragments of copper slag recovered from Phase 7 occupational debris in Area C. In general, the modest amount of metallurgical remains suggests either intensive conservation and resmelting of copper artefacts by the Ni‘aj villagers or it may corroborate the inference of diminished access to raw materials stemming from the chipped stone evidence. These characteristics of chipped stone and copper manufacture might suggest that the farming community at Ni‘aj lay somewhat removed from Early Bronze IV regional trade networks, including the distribution of copper emanating from the Wadi Faynan in the southern Jordan Rift (Adams 2002; Hauptmann 2007). Interestingly, the metal remains from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj are decidedly utilitarian, do not include the elite connotations of Early Bronze IV formal weaponry (e.g., daggers from Bab edh-Dhra‘, a spearhead from Khirbet Iskandar; Richard 2006), and stand in contrast to the largely ritual orientation of Middle Bronze Age copper metallurgy and artefact deposition (featuring miniature oxhide ingots, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic figurines)

129

9 Archaeobotanical Analyses of Carbonised Plant Remains from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Steven Porson1, Patricia L. Fall and Steven E. Falconer University of North Carolina Charlotte

1

Introduction

fraction and sieve size, carbon isotope information (when known) and taxon-by-taxon seed counts (including counts of seeds, seed fragments, stem fragments and unknowns). In total, plant remains from 123 flotation samples ranging from 1 to 14 litres were analysed for this study, with an average of about 170 seeds per sample. The analysed data set from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj includes more than 20,000 identified carbonised seeds, as well as almost 5000 stem fragments.

Analysis of carbonised plant remains recovered from archaeological deposits at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj enables inference of cultivated crops and natural vegetation surrounding this Early Bronze IV community. This chapter summarizes the methods and results pertaining to the identification and quantification of plant macrofossils. Patterns in these data illuminate trends of environmental change and agrarian responses through Early Bronze IV in the northern Jordan Valley, as a community-specific case study that exemplifies localized responses to regional environmental change in the third millennium BC (e.g., Courty and Weiss 1997; Rosen 1994).

Taxonomic seed counts were used to interpret the wild and domesticated vegetation present and the farming practices used by the inhabitants of Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj. To ensure adequate chronological coverage of the stratified samples from Ni‘aj, we chose samples from excavation units that provided carbonised plant remains from all seven stratified phases of occupation at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj. To minimize the potential for chronological mixing, samples were selected as often as possible from living surfaces, occupation debris and ash lens on surfaces, and shallow pits or depressions. Table 9.1 below shows the number of samples sorted and analysed for each phase. Harris matrices were created for the excavation units sampled most extensively (see example in Figure 9.1) to display the stratigraphic relationships among these sample contexts.

Processing of Carbonised Seeds Following field processing of flotation samples at the Deir Alla Station during the 1985, 1996/97 and 2000 excavation seasons, the carbonised plant remains from these samples were processed in the Paleoecology Laboratory, Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, at the University of North Carolina Charlotte. Carbonised remains were poured through nested 4 mm, 2 mm, 1 mm and 0.25 mm mesh sieves. All recovered material 0.25 mm or larger was sorted under a binocular microscope (e.g., Zeiss Stemi 305 at 8x to 40x magnification) to separate charcoal fragments from charred seeds. A sample splitter was used to separate particularly large collections of seeds. Seed remains were identified using Fall’s personal reference collection and comparative literature (e.g. Helbaek 1958; Zohary 1966; 1972; Delorit 1970; Martin and Barkley 1973; Zohary and Hopf 1973; Van Zeist 1975; Zohary and Spiegel-Roy 1975; Van Zeist 1976; Feinbrun-Dothan 1978, 1986; Van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1982; Feinbrun-Dothan 1986; Hubbard 1992; Jacomet 2006). Following identification, these remains were counted and categorized taxonomically. Seed identification made considerable use of the work of Van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres (1982), which details the most common crop plants found in the Near East, including the major wheat and barley species, as well as several common weed species.

In addition to carbonised seeds, other plant fragments were examined, including glumes, rachis fragments and spikelets bases. These additional plant fragments may provide evidence of trade involving agricultural communities like Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj. For example, exchange of seeds may be reflected by changes in the number of pre-cleaned samples with no rachis, glumes or spikelet fragments. Greater amounts of pre-cleaned samples would suggest crop processing away from Ni‘aj (and possibly agricultural Table 9.1. Numbers of flotation samples analysed per phase from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj

Each sample was documented according to year of excavation, stratigraphic phase, excavation area, locus, locus type, bag number, sample ID, floated sample volume, 131

Phase

Sample Count

1

14

2

20

3

17

4

22

5

15

6

19

7

16

Early Bronze IV Village Life in the Jordan Valley exchange), while lesser amounts would imply processing closer to the village. Accordingly, all three of these forms of stem fragments were tabulated to assess this aspect of crop processing. Trend Analysis Quantitative analysis primarily examines counts of seeds and how their relative proportions change over time. Further analysis includes interpretation of trends in relative abundances among taxa or plant categories. This study uses several measures of abundance, including relative frequencies, densities, ratios and ubiquities. Seed densities are calculated as the number of seeds for any taxon divided by the volume (in litres) of sediment from which the seeds were recovered. Ratios represent the number of seeds of one taxon divided by the seed count of another, which gives a direct comparison of the relative abundance of one plant type to another. Relative frequency is expressed as the count of a taxon divided by the total number of seeds from the site or a stratigraphic phase, which provides a measure of taxonomic abundance among all plant remains. Finally, ubiquity is calculated as the percent of samples in which a taxon is present. This measure provides an alternative measure for taxa that appear in very high or low frequencies due to variables such as fragmentation rate or the number of seeds produced per plant. Our analyses consider counts of whole seeds and seed fragments together, a practice common among other archaeobotanical studies. Seed Classifications Barley The two prominent barley groups distinguished in this study were hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare) and naked barley (Hordeum vulgare L. var. nudum). Hulled and naked barleys were distinguished based on several key characteristics, the most important being seed crosssection. Hulled barley was identified from its highly angular cross-section, with thick longitudinal ridges, a coarser texture and many thin longitudinal ridges. Naked barley was identified from a more rounded seed, a lack of ridges and a smooth exterior. Hulled barley fragments were easier to recognize than naked barley fragments because of their pronounced ridges. Barley fragments that were not clearly identifiable as hulled or naked were classified as undifferentiated barley.

Figure 9.1 Harris matrix illustrating stratigraphic relationships among sample contexts in Area GG at Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj. Boxes indicate individual samples (according to locus and bag number) grouped by phase (7-1, shown in the top right of each larger box). (T = top; G = ground).

Wheat Three categories of wheat were recovered from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj: bread wheat (Triticum aestivum), emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum) and einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum). Emmer is distinguishable from its triangular cross-section, steep embryo ridge, flat bottom and slightly rounded tip, though a second morphology with a slightly curved cross-section also was noted (van Zeist 1976). Einkorn appeared in two common morphologies. One

was recognizable from its thin and often highly skewed cross-sectional profile. A second, less common variety was denoted by a curved base, rounded cross-section and highly pointed tip (Van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1982). Bread wheat was identified by its thicker cross-section and a less prominent embryo ridge than emmer wheat, as well as its puffy, rounded sides. 132

Archaeobotanical Analyses of Carbonised Plant Remains from Tell Abu en-Ni‘aj Wild Grasses

Wild Seeds

The most common wild grass found at Ni‘aj was Phalaris, while the next most common were larger grasses such as Bromus or Lolium. Certain wild grasses, particularly Avena, Bromus and Lolium were identified from their elongated shape, usually with a vertically-pinching groove down one face, while Phalaris was identified by its unique circular-sector shape, thin cross section, and wellpreserved embryo. Wild grasses included a diverse range of genera with a wide variety of morphologies.

There were 68 other identified seed categories in addition to those above, which were classified as wild taxa. While the quantities of most of these taxa are quite low, several are represented by more than 50 seeds, including Anagallis, Chenopodium, Malva and Rumex/Polygonum. Seeds of Anagallis were identified easily from their small size (