2002NeolithicKuijtANGMJournalofWorldPrehistory PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/227138426
Foraging, Farming, and Social Complexity in the Pre-

Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: A Review and
Synthesis
Article in Journal of World Prehistory · January 2002

DOI: 10.1023/A:1022973114090
CITATIONS READS
346 7,536
2 authors:
Ian Kuijt Adrian Nigel Goring-Morris

University of Notre Dame Hebrew University of Jerusalem
103 PUBLICATIONS 2,252 CITATIONS 217 PUBLICATIONS 3,127 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Neolithic of the Near East View project
The Clay Repertoire from Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Kfar HaHoresh View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Adrian Nigel Goring-Morris on 30 July 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

P1: GCR
Journal of World Prehistory [jowo] pp804-jowo-462621 March 17, 2003 16:12 Style file version June 30th, 2002
Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 16, No. 4, December 2002 (

C 2002)
Foraging, Farming, and Social Complexity

in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Southern
Levant: A Review and Synthesis
Ian Kuijt1,3 and Nigel Goring-Morris2
The transition from foraging to farming of the Neolithic periods is one of,
if not, the most important cultural processes in recent human prehistory. In-
tegrating previously published archaeological materials with archaeological
research conducted since 1980, the first half of this essay synthesizes our cur-
rent understanding of archaeological data for the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period
(ca. 11,700–ca. 8400 B.P.) of the southern Levant, generally defined as including
southern Syria and Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian Autonomous Authority,
Jordan, and the Sinai peninsula of Egypt. The second half of the essay explores
how these data inform archaeologists about the processes by which social dif-
ferentiation emerged, the nature of regional and interregional connections,
and the mechanisms and processes by which the transition from foraging to
food production first occurred in the Neolithic.
KEY WORDS: southern Levant; Neolithic; early agriculture; social organization.
INTRODUCTION
The transition between foraging and food producing economies from

the Levantine Late Natufian through to the Pottery Neolithic embodies
profound changes in subsistence practices and economic systems and is
widely recognized as representing a crucial threshold in human prehistory. In
the southern Levant, a largely self-contained area including southern Syria
1 Department of Anthropology, The University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana.
2 Department of Prehistory, Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel.
3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Anthropology, The Univer-
sity of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556; e-mail: [email protected].
361
0892-7537/02/1200-0361/0
C 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation
P1: GCR
362 Kuijt and Goring-Morris
and Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian Autonomous Authority, Jordan, and

the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, this transition occurs during the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic B (PPNB) period (ca. 11,700–ca. 8400 B.P.). Among important so-
cial, economic, and political changes during this period, usually subsumed
under the poorly defined and overgeneralizing rubric of the Neolithic Revo-
lution, are the aggregation of people into large villages occupied on a year-
round basis, a dramatic increase in global population levels, and the reorga-
nization of the processes and structures by which human social interactions
occurred. Collectively, these fundamental changes eventually transformed
the economic, social, and technological landscapes, including the develop-
ment of the interrelated economic systems of domesticated plants and ani-
mals, which serve as the core of later food-producing economies in southwest
Asia and Europe.
In light of the importance of an understanding the mechanisms and pro-
cesses by which the transition from foraging to food production occurred,
researchers exploring the emergence of social differentiation, the links be-
tween emerging food production and population growth, and/or the nature
of human responses to paleoclimatic change must be able to draw upon cur-
rent understandings of the archaeological record for the Levantine Neolithic
period. A number of important studies have provided important considera-
tions of economic and subsistence changes (Bar-Yosef and Meadow, 1995),
technology (Quintero and Wilke, 1995), and social organization (Byrd, 1994;
Kuijt, 2000a), or in a few cases, have provided regional and inter-regional
syntheses of the Near Eastern Neolithic (Aurenche and Kozlowski, 1999;
Banning, 1998; Bar-Yosef, 1980, 1991; Cauvin, 1994, 2000; Goring-Morris
and Belfer-Cohen, 1998; Mellaart, 1975; Moore, 1985; Rollefson, 1998, 2001).
It is important, however, to be able to place these individual contributions
into a broader comparative context. The process of generating such regional
syntheses is difficult for a number of reasons. First, the scale of field research
since the 1980s has drastically increased the amount of archaeological in-
formation that needs to be considered in a regional synthesis. This has cre-
ated the unenviable situation where our most current regional syntheses are
clearly outdated and require the integration of new data. For example, more
southern Levantine Neolithic sites have been excavated over the last two
decades than in the preceding 80 years of research. Thus, a number of im-
portant regional syntheses of this period (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1980; Cauvin, 1977,
2000; Mellaart, 1975; Moore, 1985) are undermined by the rapid appearance
of new archaeological data sets. Finally, and clearly related to the first is-
sue, the expansion of archaeological research in the Levant has drastically
changed our understanding of both individual phases of the Neolithic as
well as the transitions between these phases. This point is most clearly made
by a consideration of the ways in which recent archaeological research has
P1: GCR
Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic 363
illustrated the differences in Neolithic adaptations from the northern and

southern Levant. In contrast to most general treatments of the Neolithic in
the broader Near East, a host of recent field research has illustrated a signi-
ficant degree of regional variability in different geographical areas (e.g.,
the southern Levant, the northern Levant, and Anatolia) and has high-
lighted the need to consider these developments independently from
each other.
In addressing the need for such a synthetic study of the Neolithic, our
goals for this study are to (a) present an updated perspective on the Pre-
Pottery Neolithic (PPN) periods of the southern Levantine Neolithic, in-
cluding such topics as settlement patterns, architectural systems, mortuary
practices, population aggregation, and subsistence; (b) consider how these
practices change through different stages of the PPN; and (c) illustrate how,
viewed in combination with each other, these practices provide insights into
the nature of social, ritual, and political organization for southern Levantine
Neolithic. To aid in clarity, this review is organized chronologically. At the
same time, we have attempted to highlight what we see as some of the com-
monalities, shared practices, and connections between these different peri-
ods to convey to the reader some of the inter-weavings through time. In the
second half of this review we turn to how these data help us understand social,
economic, and political developments in the southern Levantine Neolithic.
In this essay we explore cult and ritual systems, evidence for the emergence of
social inequality and conflict, population aggregation and regional growth,
evidence for craft specialization, and regional and inter-regional connec-
tions, and conclude with a brief consideration of future research directions.
As collaborators, we have deliberately crafted this paper in such a way as to
both address areas of consensus and acknowledge and discuss areas in which
we disagree. In the process of writing this paper we have struggled to find
a balance in our own different perspectives. Attempting to balance these
has not always been easy, but we believe that the process of this dialog both
has opened up our own views of the Neolithic and is likely to provide the
reader insight into some of the active debates and discussions in Near Eastern
Prehistory.
BACKGROUND CONSIDERATIONS
Before moving on to a consideration of the archaeology of the southern

Levantine Neolithic, we must first provide some essential background and
context. This includes outlining the main ecological zones of the southern
Levant, paleoenvironmental change, and cultural–historical framework. Al-
though an understanding of the environmental, geomorphic, and climatic
P1: GCR
backdrop is vital for comprehension of the revolutionary changes in human

social, economic, and technological behavior during the PPN, this is a sub-
ject that is beyond the scope of this study. We provide a brief overview
of the environmental, ecological, and climatic context of culture change,
but refer readers to more detailed considerations of these topics presented
elsewhere.
Main Ecological Zones of the Southern Levant
The southern Levant comprises a number of distinct ecological zones.

The principal features of the southern Levant are (1) the northern exten-
sion of the Syro-African Rift Valley, which divides the landscape into a
series of longitudinal strips (from west to east); (2) the coastal plain, which
widens to the south; (3) the central hilly zone (reaching elevations up to
1000 m) between the coastal plain and Rift Valley; (4) the Rift Valley, with
many areas almost entirely below sea level; (5) the Transjordanian escarp-
ment and mountains to the east of the Rift Valley with elevations commonly
considerably higher than west of the Rift; and (6) the gently east-sloping
plateau to the east, extending into Saudi Arabia and including a series of
closed seasonally flooded basins (e.g., Damascus and Azraq). Other than
the Jordan River, most valleys and major wadi systems flow eastwards or
westwards. A general rainfall gradient exists from both North to South
and West to East, modified by the orographic effects of elevation, ranging
from 1000-mm to less than 50-mm annual precipitation. Dependent upon
these factors, the underlying bedrock and resultant soil types, a mosaic of
four major phytogeographic zones (often in close proximity) can be rec-
ognized. These zones include the Mediterranean forests and maquis, the
Irano-Turanian steppes, and the dispersed and contracted desertic Saharo-
Arabian zone, with Sudanian vegetation protruding into the lower Jordan
Valley.
Early Holocene Environmental Changes
Identifying correlations between climatic and culture changes is both

highly complex and essential to understanding the context of Neolithic so-
cial development. In general, previous research on this topic can be divided
into two camps: considerations of the theoretical links between population
growth, paleoenvironmental change, and culture change in the Near Eastern
Neolithic (e.g., Binford, 1968; Cohen, 1977; Flannery, 1973), and detailed
consideration of archaeological data sets and how these might be linked
P1: GCR
to culture change (e.g., Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998; Hershkovitz

and Gopher, 1990; Özdögan, 1998; Simmons, 1997). Needless to say, chrono-
logical control is paramount in terms of evaluating the relationships, if any,
between extraneous climatic shifts and material culture change. Beyond
considering the timing and magnitude of environmental changes, it is im-
portant to document their tempo and intensity, especially in sem-iarid re-
gions. For example, gradual changes in the environment could sometimes
be accommodated whereas abrupt changes would have necessitated radical
readjustments.
Several recent research projects provide more detailed evidence of en-
vironmental changes during the Early Holocene than were hitherto avail-
able. These include the palynological core from the Hula Valley (Baruch
and Bottema, 1991) displaying a high degree of correlation with long-term
cultural developments, and in some instances, with shorter climatic fluctu-
ations. Study of the Late Quaternary Nahal Soreq Cave speleotherms has
recently been completed (Bar-Matthews et al., 1997), and provides estimates
of temperature and precipitation changes. High isotopic values indicate that
the later part of the Natufian coincides with the relatively brief global return
to cold and dry conditions of the Younger Dryas. In the southern Levant,
the effects of this may have lasted into at least the beginning of the Pre-
Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA). During the first four millennia of the Holocene,
temperatures reached 14.5–19.0◦ C, and a high mean precipitation of 675–
950 mm (almost twice the present) was recorded. This may indicate heavy
year-round rainstorms, although, interestingly, isotopic signatures do not in-
dicate the penetration of Indian Ocean systems. About 8700 B.P. a short arid
period is observed. Other changes in landforms are relevant, especially as
the coastal plain at the onset of the Holocene was still considerably larger
than at present. At ca. 13,700 B.P. (the end of the Early Natufian) the sea level
was about 75 m below present, and by 8700 B.P. the sea level was still some
20 m below present. Only during the Chalcolithic did levels approach those
observed today.
During the Holocene, widespread erosion of hillsides and alluviation
occurred in the low-lying areas of the Mediterranean zone. These processes
were important for the replenishing of cultivable soils during the Early
Holocene as well as the burial of Neolithic settlements. Diverse human
adaptations, as reflected by the densities and geographical distributions of
settlements, provide an excellent means for monitoring the nature, rapidity,
and intensity of changes in the physical environment. Thus, following inten-
sive exploitation during the Middle and Late Epipaleolithic of the presently
hyper-arid regions of both the Jordanian plateau and Negev and Sinai, the
subsequent virtual abandonment of those areas during the PPNA reflects
particularly unfavorable environmental conditions.
P1: GCR
Calibrated/Uncalibrated Cultural–Historical Frameworks
A plethora of terminologies has been used to describe and organize PPN

material culture remains from different ecological regions of the
southern Levant (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1981; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen,
1998; Moore, 1985). The approach we employ in this study follows the gen-
erally accepted convention of dividing the PPN (ca. 11,700–ca. 8400 B.P.) into
two main units, namely the PPNA and PPNB, which is further subdivided
into the Early, Middle, Late, and Final PPNB, or alternatively, PPNC pe-
riod. (Tables I and II). A variety of technological, typological, and stylistic
criteria concerning the flaked stone tool assemblages within each period (to-
gether with other types of material culture remains such as architecture, art,
decorative items, bone tool assemblages, and burial practices) are used to
isolate these groupings in time and space. These data, in conjunction with
stratigraphic and radiometric considerations, provide researchers with the
ability to link archaeological data sets to broader evolutionary trajectories
of human social development.
In this study, we have tried to bridge between a “splitters”-and-
“lumpers” approach, since an illustration of the diversity and complexity
of dynamic social and economic developments requires us to alternatively
reflect upon similarities and differences. Moreover, the chronology followed
here is based on calibrated radiocarbon dates. As prehistorians we tend to de-
fine archaeological units as normalized and presumably stabilized units. It is
difficult to isolate the beginnings of trends from background noise; therefore,
Table I. Cultural–Historical Sequence for the Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Periods
Conventional Calibrated
Conventional 14C years B.P. 14C years B.P.
Time stratigraphic units Entity/phase 14C years B.P.a (this paper) (this paper)
Late Epipaleolithic Final Natufianb 10,500–10,300 10,600–10,200 12,500–12,000
Pre-Pottery Neolithic A PPNAc 10,300–9600 10,200–9400 11,700–10,500
Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Early PPNBd 9600–9300 9500–9300 10,500–10,100
Middle PPNB 9300–8500 9300–8300 10,100–9250
Late PPNB 8500–8000 8300–7900 9250–8700
Final PPNB/PPNC 8000–7500 7900–7500 8600–8250
Pottery/Late Neolithic Yarmukian 7500–7000 7500–7000 8250–7800
a Following others (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1981; Rollefson, 1998).
b Includes Harifian.
c One of the authors of this paper argues (Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1997) that PPNA
should be subdivided into two phases (see text).
d One of the authors of this paper has argued (Kuijt, 1997, in press) that there are insufficient
data from excavated and radiocarbon-dated archaeological sites to support arguments for
an EPPNB phase. From this perspective the transition from PPNA to MPPNB would have
occurred at ca. 10,500 B.P. with no intervening phase.
P1: GCR
Table II. Select Pre-Pottery Neolithic Sites, by Period, in the Southern Levant
PPNA
Abu Madi I, Ain Darat, Beit Ta’amir, Dhra‘, Ein Suhun?, Ein Suhun, El-Khiam, Gesher,
Gilgal I, Hatoula, ‘Iraq ed-Dubb, Jericho, Modi’in, Mujahiya?, Nacharini, Nahal Lavan
108, Nahal Oren II, Netiv Hagdud, Neve Ilan, Poleg 18M, Ramat Beit Shemesh?, Rekhes
Shalmon, Sabra I, Salibiya IX, Tell Aswad IA, Tell Batashi, Wadi Faynan 16, Zahrat
edh-Dhra‘ 2, Zur Nathan
EPPNB
Abu Hudhud, Abu Salem II, Ail 4, Horvat Galil?, Jilat 7 lower, Michmoret, Mujahiya?,
Nahal Lavan 109, Nahal Boqer, Nahal Hemar 4?, Sefunim IV, Tell Aswad IB, Tel
Ramad??
MPPNB
Abu Gosh, Ain Ghazal, Beidha, Beer Menuha, Ein Qadis I, Divshon, Er-Rahib (?),
Es-Sifiya?, Gebel Rubshah, Ghwair I?, Jericho, Jilat 7 middle, Jilat 26, Jilat 32 lower,
Horvat Galil, Kfar Giladi, Kfar HaHoresh, Khirbet Rabud??, Lavan Elyon 1, Munhata
4-6, Nahal Betzet I, Nahal Hemar 4, Nahal Nizzana IX, Nahal Oren I, Nahal Qetura,
Nahal Re’uel, Sefunim, Tell Aswad IB-III?, Tell Fara North??, Tell Ramad ??, Wadi
Shu’eib, Wadi Tbeik, Yiftahel
LPPNB
Abu Gosh?, Ain Abu Nekheileh, Ain Ghazal, Ain al-Jammam, Ain Sabha, Al-Baseet,
Al-Ghirka, Azraq 31, Baja (?), Basta, Beisamoun, Burqu 35, Dhuweila 1, Ein Qadis I?,
Es-Sayyeh, Esh-Shallaf, El-Hammeh, El-Khiam IB?, Es-Sifiya, Ghoraifé II, Ghwair I?,
Jilat 7 upper?, Jilat 25, Jilat 32 trench 1, Kfar HaHoresh, Khirbet Hammam, Mazad
Mazal, Munhata, Mushabi VI, Nahal Aqrav IV, Nahal Efe, Nahal Hemar 3, Nahal
Issaron, Ras Shamra Vc1, Tell Eli, Tell Rakan I, Tell Ramad II, Ujrat el-Mehed, Ujrat
Suleiman I, Wadi Jibba I, Wadi Jibba II, Wadi Shu’eib
Final PPNB/PPNC
Ain Ghazal, Ain al-Jammam??, Atlit Yam, Azraq 31??, Basta (?), Beisamoun (?),
Es-Seyyeh, Es-Sifiya, Hagoshrim, Jilat 13 lower, Jilat 27, Labweh, Nahal Efe??, Nahal
Issaron?, Ramad II, Ras Shamra Vc2, Tell Eli (?), Wadi Jibba II?, Wadi Shu’eib,
Yiftahel IV
we define sociocultural units in their “classical” stages. We should bear in

mind, however, that there are chronological phases and geographical facies,
and that not all developments were synchronous across the southern Levant,
let alone the Near East. We should also note that the current archaeological
record is admittedly poorly understood for some periods of the Neolithic
(e.g., the Early PPNB) and some geographical areas of the southern Levant.
Therefore our cultural–historical overview is subject to continued revision
and may require modification as the results from additional studies become
available.
Numerous radiocarbon dates have been obtained for PPN sites dur-
ing the past few decades, and have led to far better documentation of the
chronology. Unfortunately, in many cases the original excavators did not
present details of the materials being dated (seeds, wood, bone, etc.), the pre-
cise stratigraphic contexts, and a consideration of the potential for dating old
wood. Needless to say, such information is vital to critically evaluate the ma-
terial associations, research relevance, and chronological significance of the
P1: GCR
dates provided. The adoption of recent advances in radiocarbon calibration

is both urgent and important, especially given that it changes the duration of
different phases within the PPN period. Radiocarbon calibration indicates
that the duration of some cultural–historical stages are much longer, and in
some cases shorter, than uncalibrated data indicate. Additionally, calibra-
tion of radiocarbon dates significantly alters the rate at which archaeologists
model the diffusion of certain innovations and changes from core to other
areas (e.g., the naviform technology and projectile point types).
The chronological scheme employed in this paper is based upon cal-
ibrated dates B.P. While there are subtle differences between various au-
thors concerning the precise dating of the different phases, Table I provides
one estimate, based on critical examination of the dates, including recently
obtained results and syntheses (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 2000; Goring-Morris and
Belfer-Cohen, 1998; Kuijt and Bar-Yosef, 1994; Rollefson, 1998).
In discussing a wide range of changes in the southern Levantine PPN,
the following sections employ a standardized and explicit terminology to
help the reader understand the scale and nature of changes being discussed
(Table III). These working definitions represent a series of compromises
and necessary generalizations, and draw upon the works of others (e.g.,
Bar-Yosef, 2001). Despite the complicated nature of this terminology, its
development and employment is vital in comprehending Neolithic social
units. For example, the scale of settlements directly relates to potential mat-
ing networks, the emergence of contagious diseases, as well as the size of
fields, pastures, and hunting grounds that were required to support individ-
ual communities. Our point here is not to debate the nature and labeling
of Neolithic social organization, so much as to provide readers with a de-
tailed introduction to the archaeological data upon which future discussion
might be based. We have adopted a conservative approach to the labeling
of different scales of settlements, and in some cases, the architecture found
within settlements. For example, we have deliberately avoided the use of
Table III. Generalized Dimensions of Different Scales of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Settlements

Camps Hamlets Villages Specialized sites
Community size ca. 10–30 ca. 30–100 ca. 100–750 Variable
Social Band tribe Band tribe Band tribe Variable
organization (extended (clan) chiefdom?
family clan) (clan/house
societies)
Permanence Seasonal Year round Year round Variable
occupation
Economic Hunting and Foraging and Farming Variable
orientation foraging farming and/or
herding
P1: GCR
the terms “town,” “urbanism,” and “mega-site,” all of which have been used
to describe the emergence of large aggregate villages in the LPPNB period.
Rather than employ terms such as “temple,” which carries considerable in-
tellectual baggage, we have opted to treat these buildings in a descriptive
manner, identifying the structures and at the same time allowing researchers
to peruse individual arguments for the nature of ritual and social activities
that might have occurred within them.
PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC A PERIOD
Until the early 1990s, relatively little was known about the PPNA in com-
parison to the PPNB. With the publication of several regional syntheses (e.g.,
Bar-Yosef, 1991; Kuijt, 1994a), as well as active fieldwork in Israel, Jordan,
and southern Syria, research in the 1980s and 1990s has dramatically ad-
vanced our understanding of the PPNA, a period which lasted from approx-
imately 11,700 to 10,500 B.P. Research and publication of the materials from
Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Gilgal I, Salibiya IX, Gesher, ‘Ain Darat, Hatoula,
Tell Aswad, Dhra‘, Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 2, Jilat 7, ‘Iraq ed-Dubb, Tell Aswad,
Nachcharini Cave, and Wadi Faynan 16 have provided a new awareness of
the nature of cultural adaptation for this period (see Bar-Yosef and Gopher,
1997; Bar-Yosef and Kislev, 1989; Bennett, 1980; de Contenson, 1989, 1995;
Edwards et al., 2001; Finlayson et al., 2000; Garfinkel, 1989; Garfinkel and
Nadel, 1989; Garrard et al., 1996; Goodale et al., 2002; Gopher, 1995, 1996a;
Kuijt, 1994a,b, 1996a, 2001a; Kuijt et al., 1991; Kuijt and Finlayson, 2001; Kuijt
and Mahasneh, 1995, 1998; Lechavallier and Ronen, 1985; Mithen et al., 2000;
Noy, 1989; Pirie, 2001a,b; Sayej, 2001, 2002, and references therein) (Fig. 1)
(Table III).
Over the last 30 years, researchers have debated whether the PPNA
should be divided into two different phases or treated as a single cultural–
historical unit. The intellectual foundations for the two subfacies of the
PPNA (referred to as the Khiamian and Sultanian) were originally articu-
lated by Echegaray (1966) and Crowfoot-Payne (1976, 1983). This cultural–
historical foundation remained unchallenged until the late 1980s. Subse-
quent publications (e.g., Garfinkel, 1996; Garfinkel and Nadel, 1989; Goodale
et al., 2002; Nadel, 1990, 1996; Pirie, 2001a; Ronen and Lechevallier, 1999;
Sayej, 2001, 2002) have debated Crowfoot-Payne’s chronological division of
PPNA. Some researchers now argue that this model does not account for
available data on regional technological and typological patterning in the
southern Levantine PPNA, specifically for the large settlements in the Jor-
dan Valley. Kuijt (1997, 1998, 2001a) argues that post-1990 archaeological
research and publication of data from Netiv Hagdud, Salibiya IX, Gilgal I,
and Dhra‘ illustrate that (a) data from new and publication of previous
P1: GCR
Fig. 1. Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period site distribution in the southern Levant. Note the
contraction of communities into the Levantine Corridor from the preceding Natufian
period.
P1: GCR
excavations do not fit the technological, typological, and chronological ex-

planatory model of two subfacies; and (b) we clearly understand neither the
reasons for, nor processes by which, technological and typological variabil-
ity was created in PPNA lithic assemblages. We believe, albeit with different
degrees of conviction, that debate continues on these topics and that no
clear consensus has emerged among researchers. For these reasons, we have
opted in the following discussion to treat PPNA as one cultural entity, with
the hope that future field and laboratory research will resolve this debate.
Settlement Patterns
Mediterranean Zone
The majority of known PPNA settlements are found in the Mediter-

ranean zone of the southern Levant, in specific settings within or adjacent to
the Jordan Valley (Bar-Yosef, 1991; Kuijt, 1994a). Sites identified within the
Jordan Valley include Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Gilgal I, Dhra‘, Wadi Faynan
16, Gesher, and Salibiya IX. Sites located in areas adjacent to the Jordan
Valley include ‘Ain Darat, Sabra I, Hatoula, ‘Iraq ed-Dubb, Nahal Oren,
and Tell Aswad. Data indicate that most PPNA sites larger than 0.5 ha (e.g.,
Tell Aswad, Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Gilgal I, Zahrat adh-Dhra‘ 2, and Dhra‘)
are generally located along fertile alluvial terraces at low elevations within
the Rift Valley. Usually, smaller hamlets and seasonal camps are adjacent to
the Jordan Valley (Hatoula, Tell Batashi, Nahal Oren, ‘Iraq ed-Dubb, and
Wadi Faynan 16). Indeed, there are also more ephemeral specialized sites
lacking architecture (with bifacial tools and sickle blades as major compo-
nents, but seemingly no projectile points) on and adjacent to the central
mountain ridge. These could represent logistical localities for forest clear-
ance, wood provision for construction and fuel, as well as the harvesting of
cereals in the clearings, to supply parent communities to the east and west.
The importance of the Jordan Valley as a PPNA settlement focus is ex-
pressed through the horizontal extent of settlements, the depth of cultural de-
posits, the presence of specialized architecture, and economic practices (Bar-
Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1989, 1991; Kuijt, 1994a). Although the reason(s)
for this pattern remain complex, the relative florescence of human occupa-
tion along what Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen term the “Levantine Corridor”
appears to be linked to developments in food production, such as agriculture
(and the domestication of plants?), population aggregation for social and
economic reasons, and perhaps illustrates the earliest development of large
regional centers, such as at Jericho. The delayed reaction to the effects of the
Younger Dryas at the end of the Natufian (and Harifian), especially in the
arid periphery, necessitating the contraction of populations back into better
P1: GCR
watered localities, has also been suggested as a part of a push–pull mecha-

nism (Goring-Morris, 1987, 1991; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998).
Arid Zone
In contrast to what is known about the PPNA occupation of the Mediter-

ranean zone, very little evidence exists for any intensive occupation of sur-
rounding desertic zones. In considering the Eastern Desert areas, Garrard
et al. (1994) and Byrd (1994) outline that, with the possible exception of
Wadi Jilat 7 (late in the period, as is Aswad), there does not appear to be ev-
idence for long-term human occupation. This pattern is supported by surveys
around Jebel Druze and in the Black Desert, as well as further south around
Wadi Hasa and in the Hisme. West of the Rift Valley, extensive systematic sur-
veys throughout the Negev have revealed extremely sparse PPNA remains
following the Harifian and prior to EPPNB (Goring-Morris, 1987). Excava-
tions at Abu Madi I (Bar-Yosef, 1991) in the South Sinai High Mountains
revealed a single semi-subterranean oval structure as a seasonal (summer)
camp of a small group of hunter-gatherers. Together with other untested
sites in that area (J. Phillips, 2001, personal communication), high residen-
tial mobility is indicated perhaps by residual Harifian-related communities.
In sum, current evidence suggests that regional PPNA settlement patterns
focused on large logistically based permanent communities, supplemented
by smaller hamlets, in the Mediterranean zone (and perhaps more specif-
ically the Jordan Valley), immediately adjacent to unusually well-watered
localities with alluvial lands. The PPNA was also characterized by meager
use of desertic areas by highly mobile foragers.
Site Structure
Settlement Organization
With the exception of the sites of Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Nahal Oren,
and Hatoula, excavations in the southern Levant give little understanding of
the spatial organization within communities. Excavations either have for the
most part focused on internal areas of structures, or perhaps more commonly,
have been restricted so that the areas between structures are poorly under-
stood. In open-air sites where we have some understanding of extramural
areas, PPNA settlement organization appears to be similar to that of the
Late Natufian: individual oval-to-circular structures spaced apart from each
other with the occasional small stone feature, silo, or fire hearth between
structures (see Bar-Yosef and Gopher, 1997). At Nahal Oren, the small set-
tlement was arranged in two rows along terraces in the hillside (Stekelis
P1: GCR
and Yizraeli, 1963). With the exception of the storage/residential structures

abutting the PPNA tower at Jericho, site organization generally appears to
be similar to that of the Natufian period.
Residential Architecture
Residential architecture in the PPNA, based upon the presence of grind-

ing stones and internal storage features, consisted of oval-to-subcircular
structures that were either freestanding (Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Hatoula),
or, more often, semi-subterranean or built in such a way that one side of the
structure is built into a terrace (Dhra‘, Gilgal, Nahal Oren) (Figs. 2 and 3).
Where available, fieldstones were employed to construct a stone foundation
with mud brick added for the superstructure. In cases such as Jericho and
Netiv Hagdud, the majority of residential structures were semi-subterranean
with the stone wall foundations being between 20 and 60 cm in height. At ‘Ain
Darat, Zahrat edh-Dhra‘ 2, and Dhra‘, structures were somewhat deeper,
with walls being recovered to a height of 70–80 cm (Edwards et al., 2001;
Gopher, 1996b; Kuijt and Finlayson, 2001; Kuijt and Mahasneh, 1995, 1998).
In contrast to later periods, residential buildings in the PPNA appear to have
minimal floor preparation, with most floors being composed of terre pisée
overlying stone cobbles where necessary. Entrance was either by way of a
few steps (Jericho) or through a gap in the wall at one end (Netiv Hagdud,
Hatoula, Nahal Oren, Gilgal I). While the overall shape of PPNA residential
structures appears to be relatively consistent, their size and internal organi-
zation vary considerably. At Netiv Hagdud, Jericho, and Hatoula, residential
structures vary between 5 and 8 m in length, although at Nahal Oren they
were smaller. Similarly, the internal organization of residential structures
varies considerably, including in some cases the construction of fire hearths,
inset limestone slabs as cupholes, and storage features. In rare cases, such as
that of Netiv Hagdud locus 008, partitions divided the residential structure
into different areas. In contrast to the preceding Natufian, a major innova-
tion begun during the PPNA and becoming widespread during the PPNB in
the Mediterranean zone was systematic house cleaning and the dumping of
refuse in clearly defined adjacent refuse areas.
Non-residential Architecture
In the southern Levant there is only one unequivocal example of non-

residential architecture: the large PPNA stone tower and associated wall at
Jericho. When originally built, this sturdy tower stood at least 8.5 m in height
and 8 m in diameter (Fig. 4). One side of the tower is surrounded by smaller
oval and circular structures that may have served as storage facilities, or
P1: GCR
Fig. 2. Plan view of Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period residential architecture from (a) Jericho
Sq M1, stage VIII, phase xxxix; (b) ‘Iraq ed-Dubb, Structure I; and (c) Netiv Hagdud, Locus
40 (based on Bar-Yosef and Gopher 1997, Fig. 3.22).
perhaps (although less likely) as residential buildings. A narrow and steep

staircase leads directly to the top of the structure. It was subsequently re-
paired by adding a new outer layer of stones and replastering it at some point
during the PPNA. Kenyon (1957) argued that this tower, in conjunction with
P1: GCR
Fig. 3. Reconstruction of Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period residential structures.
Fig. 4. Cross-section of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period tower and internal passage, and
plan view of select burials found inside of the passage.
P1: GCR
the adjacent wall, would have served a defensive role. More plausibly, given
the total absence of fortifications elsewhere in the Near East during the Ne-
olithic, Bar-Yosef (1986) has argued that the wall system around one side of
Jericho was linked to the diversion of flash floods and that the tower might
have been a shrine. Exploring the possible links between burial practices at
Jericho, specifically differences between the individuals buried in the tower
entranceway once it was closed off and the rest of the Jericho population,
Bar-Yosef (1986) and Kuijt (1996b) have argued that this tower served as a
ritual focal point for the community and its role varied at different points of
its life history. However one chooses to view the structure, the PPNA tower
reflects the ability of community members to build an enormous structure:
a feat that required considerable pre-planning and collective labor.
Ritual and Mortuary Practices
Mortuary Practices
Although cemetery sites have not been documented so far, excavations

at Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Hatoula, and Nahal Oren illustrate that burial
systems of the PPNA period, as presently understood, were relatively stan-
dardized and differentiated between adults and children (Bar-Yosef et al.,
1991; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1991; Kuijt, 1996b; Kurth and Röhrer-
Ertl, 1981). These illustrate a highly standardized mortuary system continu-
ing practices initiated by at least the late Natufian, involving primary burial
and secondary skull removal, as well as some differences in the treatment
of adults and children. Significantly, however, as in later and earlier phases,
post-mortem skull removal even for adults was by no means ubiquitous.
After death, adults and young adults were buried without grave goods in in-
dividual primary interments. Research has also indicated that at this time the
location of the skull was also marked by community members. The repeated
recovery of articulated adult skeletons in anatomically correct positions il-
lustrates that many, if not most, crania were removed after decay of the
soft tissues. Community members returned to the grave, excavated an area
around the skull, removed it, sometimes together with the mandible, and
then refilled the excavated pit. While very difficult to trace archaeologically,
several ethnographic accounts suggest that removed skulls were cleaned and
prepared for use by the living community, after which they were subjected to
reburial often in groups as part of a communal event. After completion, the
skulls were reburied in extra-, intermural, or outlying areas of the settlement.
It is interesting to note that at Abu Madi the single, articulated burial recov-
ered from beneath the floor of the hut included the cranium (Hershkovitz
et al., 1995). Currently, we are unable to determine the spatial relationship
between the original postcranial skeletons and the reburied skulls, although
P1: GCR
this determination would unquestionably provide insight into the rationale

of these mortuary practices and the underlying belief structure. Similarly,
excavations have yet to determine unequivocally whether adults and chil-
dren were systematically interred in different kinds of locations. Existing
evidence from Jericho indicates that some infant skeletons were placed in
dedicatory contexts within houses, such as post foundations. In contrast, it
appears that adult community members were interred in either intra- or
extramural locations, but again the nature of this patterning (fortuitous or
planned) is unclear.
Drawing upon previous studies (Amiran, 1962; Belfer-Cohen, 1995;
Bienert, 1991; Garfinkel, 1994; Hershkovitz and Gopher, 1990; Kenyon,
1957; Kurth and Röhrer-Ertl, 1981), Kuijt (1996b, 2001b) argues that skull
removal as a form of secondary mortuary practice reflects one of several
thematically interrelated aspects of a ritual belief system focused on enhanc-
ing community cohesion and reaffirming household and community beliefs
during the PPNA and later MPPNB (Middle PPNB). He argues that Late
Natufian and PPNA mortuary practices, specifically the (apparent) absence
of grave goods, burial of individuals, use of simple graves, and practice of
skull removal served to integrate communities and downplay socioeconomic
differences between individuals and kin groups in the face of economic and
social changes.
Other Symbolic Realms
Although quite rare, several PPNA sites have yielded small clay or stone
figurines and sculptures (Figs. 5(a)–(c)). Characteristic specimens from Netiv
Hagdud are a clay figurine and two fragments that schematically portray a
seated woman with two stubby legs (Bar-Yosef, 1991, p. 40). Excavations at
Dhra‘ in 2001 produced a similar clay figurine (Kuijt and Finlayson, 2001).
Excavations at Gilgal I and Salibiya IX recovered several human and animal
(mainly bird) figurines. The figurine from Salibiya IX, carved from chalk,
appears to represent a kneeling woman, although, when inverted, it may
represent a phallus. Here it is of interest to note that, while many discussions
of symbolic imagery focus on the mother-goddess theme in relation to the
origins of agriculture (e.g., Cauvin, 2000), carved stone phalli have also been
recovered from other PPNA settlements continuing traditions begun already
during the Natufian.
Integration With Architecture
While difficult to address from a material stand point, there appears

to be some clear links between mortuary and architectural practices in the
P1: GCR
Fig. 5. Anthropomorphic and Zoomorphic Figurines from the Natufian through Pottery Ne-
olithic period of the southern Levant: (a) female figurine, PPNA, Dhra‘; (b and c) female
figurine, PPNA, Netiv Hagdud; (d) female figurine, MPPNB, ‘Ain Ghazal; (e) human figurine,
Pottery Neolithic, Ramad; (f) cattle figurine, MPPNB, Jericho.
PPNA. First, the mortuary practices at the PPNA tower appear to be specific
to this location (see Bar-Yosef, 1986; Kuijt, 1996b). Second, examination
of the placement of infant/child burials indicates that many PPNA burials
served as dedicatory caches, such as under postholes or under walls. While
it is not clear if all human burials were deliberately placed under the floor
or walls of structures, examination of the location of the burials vis-à-vis
buildings indicates that the majority was deliberately interred under the
internal areas of a floor, instead of postburial house construction.
Economy
Subsistence (Flora and Fauna)
A number of recent studies have illustrated that PPNA economies

were based on the consumption of cereals and legumes and the hunting of
medium- and small-sized mammals, reptiles, fish, and birds. A consideration
P1: GCR
of the vegetal products consumed by people in the PPNA illustrates that a

wide array of seeds and fruits were utilized, several of them intentionally cul-
tivated and domesticated (see Colledge, 1998; Hillman et al., 2001). Hillman
and Davis (1990) argue that there is evidence for domesticated wheat at Tel
Aswad, Jericho, Gilgal, and Netiv Hagdud. Alternatively, Kislev (1992) con-
cludes that most of the barley recovered from these sites was harvested from
wild stands, a point that Zohary (1989) agrees with, although, at the same
time, Zohary argues that carbonized grains from Netiv Hagdud, Gilgal, and
Jericho reflect the cultivation of two-rowed barley. Although debate con-
tinues on the issue of the existence and role of domesticated vs. cultivated
plant resources within PPNA communities, this discussion should not divert
attention from the major implication that members of Late Natufian and
PPNA communities were intentionally manipulating, managing, and culti-
vating plant resources in a previously unprecedented manner in the Near
East and elsewhere (see Colledge, 1998; Smith, 2001).
During the PPNA, people relied on a number of wild game species,
including gazelle, wild ass, occasional cattle, and caprines, as well as smaller
game, such as wild boar, fox, and hare (Tchernov, 1994). In contrast to the
arguments for the early cultivation of plant crops in the PPNA, most re-
searchers argue that there is no real evidence for animal husbandry (with the
exception of the dog which had been domesticated during the Natufian). It is
interesting to note that in many PPNA sites, especially in the Jordan Valley,
there is a very high frequency of bird bones; thus birds probably served as
important food resources. Excavations at Netiv Hagdud, for example, recov-
ered large numbers of aquatic species that inhabited marshy environments. A
high percentage (greater than 50% of the assemblage) of bird bone has also
been noted at Dhra‘, Hatoula, Wadi Faynan 16, and ‘Iraq ed-Dubb, and pos-
sibly at Jericho. The high representation of these species has implications for
the environmental conditions during the PPNA, as well as for broader sub-
sistence practices (the Rift Valley serves as one of the major migration routes
between Africa and Eurasia). Moving beyond an emphasis on the hunting
of gazelle, a practice clearly seen in the Natufian, subsistence in the PPNA
appears to shift to the intensive collecting and cultivation of local plant re-
sources and the intensive hunting of water fowl and gazelle inhabiting marsh
or riparian environments. The hunting of foxes and birds of prey might have
been for nondietary, symbolic purposes, perhaps for pelts, feathers, and claws.
Lithic Technology, Groundstone, and Bone Tools
In terms of flaked stone technology, the PPNA lithic assemblages show

a primary focus on the use of single platform blade and bladelet cores
for the production of specific tools such as El-Khiam, Jordan Valley, and
P1: GCR
Salibiya projectile points (see Abbès, 1994; Bar-Yosef and Gopher, 1997; de
Contenson, 1989; Goodale et al., 2002; Kuijt, 2001a; Nadel et al., 1991; Sayej,
2001; Stordeur and Abbès, 2002), sickles blades, perforators, and burins.
Depending on the location of communities, these implements were man-
ufactured from a variable range of raw materials (Fig. 6). Heavy wood-
working tools include bifacial axes, often with tranchet blows, chisels of flint
and limestone, and ground and polished basalt and greenstone adzes. Other
ground-stone tools include a wide array of limestone and basalt pestles, to-
gether with shallow limestone cuphole mortars, presumably for pounding
seeds. Importantly, the ground-stone tool repertoire is thus intermediate
between that of the Natufian with its deep mortars for pounding and the
grinding querns of the PPNB. Researchers have also noted the existence of
specific tool forms that are temporally diagnostic of the PPNA. Not surpris-
ingly, many of them are hunting and/or food-processing tools. These include
Hagdud and Gilgal truncations (which were probably mounted behind pro-
jectile points on arrowshafts to cause hemorrhaging), bifacially retouched
Beit Ta’amir and unretouched sickle blades, and possibly lunates. It should
be noted that serious questions have been raised about the chronological
placement of lunates in PPNA (Garfinkel, 1996; Garfinkel and Nadel, 1989;
Goodale et al., 2002; Kuijt, 1997, 2001a; Pirie, 2001a,b).
Trade and Exchange
In comparison with other periods of the Neolithic, there is only limited

archaeological evidence for long- or short-distance trade and exchange of
goods during PPNA. Currently, our best evidence for short distance, that
is to say interregional trade and exchange, is the presence of shell, green-
stone, malachite, and bitumen. Marine shells from the Mediterranean and
the Red Sea are found in many, if not most, PPNA settlements together with
the beginnings of a shift in preference away from dentalia to bivalves and
gastropods (Bar-Yosef Mayer, 1997). As in the preceding Natufian period,
these appear to have been used as beads, although it is interesting to note
that they are not recovered with human burials. While more difficult to trace
to specific source areas, bitumen (which is found within the Dead Sea re-
gion), used as an adhesive for implements and probably also as a sealant
for baskets, was also collected and traded within the southern Levant, an
exchange system that expanded in the MPPNB. Greenstone and malachite,
found along the heavily faulted areas of the southern Rift Valley at Faynan
and Timna, are other resources that were extracted and distributed within
the southern Levant. While not recovered in large quantities, greenstone
beads, bidirectionally drilled using long perforators, are found. Arguably
the most extensive evidence for long-distance trade and exchange is that of
P1: GCR
Fig. 6. Stone tools from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period of the southern Levant:
(a and b) El-Khiam projectile point; (c and d) Hagdud truncation; (e) borer/awl; (f)
Beit Tam knife; (g) cuphole; (h) polished axe; (i and j) shaft streightener.
P1: GCR
obsidian, greenstone, and malachite. Obsidian has been documented at some

PPNA settlements in the Levantine Corridor, including Jericho, Dhra‘, and
Netiv Hagdud. All analyzed samples trace from central Turkey. It is of some
interest to note varying quantities in different sites, even when taking into
account excavated areas and retrieval methods, perhaps hinting that some
sites served as more central distribution nodes, a pattern that seemingly
continues later.
EARLY PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC B PERIOD
Presently the EPPNB is one of the most poorly documented periods of

the PPN; in fact, its very existence has been questioned. There is a notable
paucity of well-excavated, radiocarbon-dated settlements dating between
ca. 10,500 and ca. 10,100 B.P. From one perspective, it was a transitional
phase between the better-defined PPNA and MPPNB, which researchers
have termed EPPNB (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1981; Gopher, 1996b; Goring-Morris
and Belfer-Cohen, 1998). Others argue that there are insufficient data to
support the creation of a transitional phase, and that the transformation
from PPNA to MPPNB was more rapid that previously thought and with no
observable intervening phase (e.g., Kuijt, 1998, in press). With the exception
of Tell Aswad in the Damascus Basin, no site in the southern Levant dis-
plays substantial evidence of continuity from the PPNA to PPNB with intact
architecture, cultural deposits, and representative lithic material from both
periods (see Cauvin, 2000; Stordeur, 2000a,b; Stordeur and Abbès, 2002, for
more detailed discussion of PPNA and EPPNB flaked stone tool technology
for other areas). While disagreement and debate continue on this subject,
even between the authors of this work, it is necessary to discuss possible sup-
portive data for an EPPNB phase as well as alternative interpretations of the
transition from the the PPNA to MPPNB. For some researchers, these ques-
tions, as well as the limited number of well-dated and excavated sites dating
to this period, underline the critical need for caution and the development
of consensus as to the material correlates of EPPNB.
Settlement Patterns
Mediterranean Zone
The few possible large EPPNB sites are located in more northerly parts
of the region, especially east of the Rift Valley, at Aswad IB in the Damascus
Basin or Mujahiya on the slopes of the Golan, or perhaps at er-Rahib in Wadi
Yabis (Fig. 7). All excavations at these sites, however, were limited in extent
P1: GCR
Fig. 7. Early and Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period site distribution in the southern
Levant. Note clustering of MPPNB villages and hamlets around the Jordan Valley,
and the appearance of small settlements and seasonal sites in marginal environmental
zones.
P1: GCR
and, with the exception of Tell Aswad, where continuity is certainly present,
none has been radiocarbon-dated. On the basis of the brief descriptions of
the small assemblages published, Mujahiya could actually be PPNA while er-
Rahib might be primarily MPPNB, given the predominance of Jericho and
Byblos points in relation to Helwan points (see Gopher, 1996b). Smaller,
possibly later, sites are known in the Galilee (e.g., Horvat Galil) as well
as in ephemeral and sporadic occupations in and immediately adjacent to
the coastal plain (e.g., Nahal Oren, Michmoret, Sefunim, el Wad). Having
noted this, one of us (Kuijt) argues that the architecture, plaster floors, burial
systems, and published radiocarbon dates from Horvat Galil may represent
the earliest phase of MPPNB (Kuijt, in press). Although there is presently
no documented evidence for EPPNB settlements within the Rift itself (and
all PPNA sites there were abandoned), the complete depopulation of this
area is difficult to understand.
Arid Zone
In the Negev and Sinai, following a virtual hiatus for the first half of the
10th millennium, there is some evidence for a slight increase in settlement
density, which nevertheless remains quite sporadic. While there are few pos-
sible EPPNB sites in southern Sinai, evidence from the Negev is slightly
greater, namely small hunter-gatherer occupations featuring beehive-type
architecture in and around the Negev Highlands (Abu Salem and Nahal
Boqer), as well as camp sites in the western Negev dunes (Nahal Lavan 109),
although dating is based only upon typological seriation (Burian et al., 1976;
Gopher and Goring-Morris, 1998). Similarly, in eastern and southern Jordan
there would appear to be sparse reoccupation following an even longer hia-
tus, dating back to the Early Natufian. Jilat 7 displays oval architecture while
Jebel Queisa is an ephemeral encampment.
Site Structure
If representative of EPPNB, the sites of Tel Aswad, Mujahiya, er-Rahib,

Horvat Galil, and ‘Ain Abu Hudhud were all modest hamlet-sized set-
tlements extending up to no more than 2 ha, yet the limited excavations
do not permit any observations regarding internal site structure. In the
Carmel (Sefunim, el Wad), the scanty data indicate sites were probably
quite ephemeral, perhaps resembling those in more peripheral regions. The
EPPNB occupation at Abu Salem, encompassing a mere 150 m2 , comprises
a series of small interlocking oval structures 1.5 to 2.0-m in diameter, with
P1: GCR
shared walls to a height of 40 cm; it is difficult to believe they could all have
been used as residential dwellings (Gopher and Goring-Morris, 1998). Open-
air sites, which possibly may have had more flimsy architecture of organic
materials, include Michmoret and Nahal Lavan 109. The collections from
both sites, which are undated by radiometric means, indicate they may have
functioned as hunting camps. Nahal Lavan 109 is in many respects anoma-
lous: superficially, this occupation could be viewed as a short-term hunting
encampment, yet, in addition to quantities of projectile points, the represen-
tation of numerous tranchet axes and obsidian artifacts is otherwise quite
unprecedented during the entire PPN in the desert areas (see Bar-Yosef,
1981). Perhaps this site served as an aggregation locality for exchange and
redistribution.
Although no complete radiocarbon-dated structures have been exca-

vated at any site in the Mediterranean zone, there may be indications for the
incomplete beginnings of a shift from oval to small-scale sub-rectangular ar-
chitecture at Aswad, Horvat Galil, Abu Hudhud, and Jilat 7. House walls are
often made of fieldstones, but at Aswad and Horvat Galil rectangular mud
bricks were used in tandem with colored lime-plaster floors, which curved
up the walls. Based upon other lines of data, these structures likely reflect
chronological trends within the Mediterranean zone where settlements are
likely to have been permanent. Irrespective of area, the small scale of domes-
tic structures is notable. In more desertic areas, at Abu Salem in the Negev
Highlands, and at Jilat 7, structures were still oval, with low stone-built walls
and probable light, organic superstructures, reflecting less permanent usage.
Of note is the dichotomy between house-cleaning activities in the Mediter-
ranean zone as opposed to the accumulations of ash and other debris within
temporary structures in the desert.
Currently there is no known nonresidential architecture from this

period.
Mortuary Practice
Human skeletal material is extremely rare, but assuming that Horvat

Galil is representative of EPPNB rather than MPPNB, this suggests a
P1: GCR
continuation of previous practices of burial in and around domestic dwellings

(Gopher, 1989; Hershkovitz and Gopher, 1990).
Economy
At Aswad, van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres (1985) argue that there were
domesticated cereals present and that they were cultivated. At the same
time, wild plants continued to play a major role. The presence at Jilat 7 of
cultivars is especially intriguing given its steppe setting (Garrard et al., 1996).
The small faunal assemblages from throughout the southern Levant indicate
a hunting economy based on locally available game. Although both avifauna
and fish do occur in some sites, there appears to be a shift away from the
previous emphasis on such species.
Lithic Technology
It is important to note that lithic assemblages from this period, such

as the collections from Nahal Lavan 109, Mujahiya, er-Rahib, and Abu
Hudhud, are not dated by radiometric means. Therefore, caution must be
employed when employing these collections as type objects for EPPNB.
In general, lithic assemblages assumed to be from EPPNB display numer-
ous technotypological features transitional between PPNA and MPPNB.
Notable too is the common but not completely ubiquitous preference for
chalcedony and other fine-grained stone, often non-local in origin, as raw
material in many assemblages (e.g., Nahal Lavan 109, Abu Salem II, Jilat 7)
(see also Garrard et al., 1994, p. 193). There may also be some evidence for
intentional heat treatment of stone (already occurring since at least the Natu-
fian). Although pyramidal cores are initially predominant (following from
PPNA), an innovation is used with opposed-platform naviform technique
to produce fine, elongated blade blanks for retouch into projectile points.
It appears that this technique originated along the Middle Euphrates in the
northern Levant and diffused southwards, together with the Helwan point
(Gopher, 1989). Rare Hagdud truncations may initially continue to appear
in some (northerly) assemblages. Burins are often dihedral types, some being
fashioned on naviform blades. Heavy-duty bifacial tools in the form of axes
and chisels were knapped using a totally separate reduction sequence, but
they also display continuity in the common use of tranchet blows. Polished
axes may also begin to appear. Perforating tools appear to be less com-
mon and less standardized than those during PPNA. Microliths have now
P1: GCR
disappeared from the repertoire (but see Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen,

1998, for a discussion of the problematic aspects of microliths in Neolithic
assemblages).
Other Technology
As with the flaked stone, ground-stone tools display considerable conti-

nuity from PPNA in the number of cupholes, while indicating an increasing
emphasis on quern use. Polished basalt and limestone axes rarely occur.
Lime plaster, sometimes colored, is now used in some sites for architectural
purposes (Aswad, Horvat Galil), continuing practices initiated during the
Natufian.
Trade and Exchange
Obsidian, greenstones, and other minerals, as well as marine mollusks,

sometimes modified, may attest to continued exchange networks.
MIDDLE PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC B PERIOD
Compared to the paucity of well-excavated and radiocarbon-dated set-

tlements dating between ca. 10,500 and ca. 10,100 B.P., there is a relative
wealth of information for PPN occupations between ca. 10,100 and
ca. 9500 B.P. Field research at a number of sites (see Table I), including
Jericho, ‘Ain Ghazal, Yiftahel, Kfar HaHoresh, Ghwair I, Nahal Hemar,
Munhata, Tell Aswad, Wadi Shu’eib, and Beidha provide us with our most
detailed understanding of this period of time (see Bar-Yosef and Alon, 1988;
Bienert, 2001; Byrd, 1994; Garfinkel, 1987; Gopher et al., 1995; Goring-
Morris, 1991; Kenyon, 1981; Kirkbride, 1968; Rollefson, 1998; Rollefson
et al., 1992; Simmons et al., 1989, and references therein; Simmons and
Najjar, 1996, 1999) (Fig. 7). Characterized by elaborate mortuary practices
including skull removal and plastering, well-established sedentary villages
with well-made residential buildings, clear evidence for domesticated plants
and animals, in many ways the Neolithic of MPPNB exemplifies the entire
Neolithic in the minds of general archaeologists and the public. Starting
with Kenyon’s research at Jericho in the 1950s through the ongoing excava-
tions of ‘Ain Ghazal in the 1990s, numerous field projects have documented
that PPN village life was characterized by the emergence of larger com-
munities through population aggregation, highly formalized lithic technol-
ogy, and surprisingly elaborate primary and secondary mortuary practices.
While this has resulted in considerable and highly positive field research
P1: GCR
on MPPNB settlements, it has also resulted in the unfortunate stereotyping

of the broader PPNB on the basis of MPPNB. Sadly, this process of gener-
alizing fails to recognize the considerable variability in many, if not most,
material practices between MPPNB, LPPNB, and PPNC, and perhaps more
important, the ways in which these changes in practices inform researchers
as to the nature of social, economic, technological, and political change over
these periods.
Settlement Patterns
Mediterranean Zone
As with PPNA, most of the large MPPNB communities are located

in the Mediterranean zone, and more specifically along the Jordan Valley
and neighboring areas. The larger MPPNB occupations, such as Jericho and
‘Ain Ghazal, may have covered a horizontal area of 4–5 ha (Rollefson et al.,
1992). The depth of cultural deposits as well as in the density of residen-
tial housing indicates that these were medium-sized agricultural commu-
nities. In the western areas of the Mediterranean zone, settlements such
as Khirbet Rabud, el-Khiam, Abu Gosh, Tell Fara North, Nahal Oren 1,
Yiftahel, Horvat Galil, and Nahal Betzet appear to have covered close to
1 or 1.5 ha in area at most, with many of these probably existing as small
agricultural hamlets. Communities in western areas of the Mediterranean
zone, including Yiftahel, appear to have been closer to 1 or 1.5 ha in area,
with most of these probably existing as smaller agricultural villages. MPPNB
communities in transitional environmental areas, such as Ghwair I and
Beidha, also appear to have been smaller agricultural villages, often under
1 ha (Simmons, 2000).
The distribution and size of settlements in the Mediterranean zone raise
the possibility of the existence of regional economic, ritual, and social centers
in MPPNB (Rollefson, 1987). Economic linkages between these centers re-
main unclear, however, as is the degree of autonomy of the smaller villages.
Alternatively, such a distribution of settlements might not reflect economic
systems so much as the existence of large agricultural towns recognized as
locations for the enactment of ritual practices. Whatever the reason, MPPNB
settlement practices were clearly focused on the Mediterranean zone, and
perhaps more specifically on the eastern foothills and center of the Jordan
Valley.
Desertic Zone
In comparison to the large agricultural villages located along the Levan-

tine Corridor, the occupation of desertic areas during MPPNB is relatively
P1: GCR
rare and quite small, especially compared to the number and size of oc-
cupations dating to after 9500 B.P. (Betts, 1989; Byrd, 1994; Garrard et al.,
1994). A steady increase in settlements from the earlier periods is seen in
the exploitation of arid zones during MPPNB, presumably reflecting both
natural population increase and perhaps also recolonization (Byrd, 1992;
Hole, 1984). In the south, this is valid primarily for the Negev but also for
Sinai, at Nahal Efe, Divshon, Ramat Matred, Nahal Nizzana IX, Nahal Lavan
109, Lavan Elyon 1, Ein Qadis I, Mushabi VI, Beer Menuha, Nahal Qetura,
Nahal Re’uel, Wadi Tbeik, and Gebel Rubshah. Sites rarely reach 250 m2 in
extent and, where architecture is present, comprise a series of small rounded
dwellings in a beehive arrangement. These are probably the small, seasonal
encampments and hunting camps of bands continuing a mobile foraging
existence, although some may represent logistical hunting forays of groups
residentially based close to the edge of the Mediterranean zone. MPPNB
settlements situated in desertic areas are characterized by a limited number
of round/oval structures, often with a semisubterranean foundation, usually
covering an area of less than 20 × 20 m2 . Along the Azraq basin, for exam-
ple, settlements were usually characterized by shallow occupation deposits
and a restricted number of storage or food-preparation features (Garrard
et al., 1994). Unlike in the Mediterranean, the walls and floors of buildings
are not plastered, and elaborately prepared floors and walls are formed with
upright stones. Moreover, some MPPNB occupations consist of short-term
use areas, such as hunting camps, in which the only evidence of architec-
ture consists of fire hearths with no residential structures. Collectively, the
limited extent of archaeological remains and the flimsy nature of MPPNB
architecture in desertic areas are suggestive of short-term or seasonal use by
small families or perhaps households.
Site Structure
Although archaeologists working in the southern Levant have a rela-

tively extensive understanding of material culture and economic practices
for the MPPNB, we have only the most limited understanding of how space
was organized within these communities. As with the PPNA and the EPPNB,
our poor understanding of MPPNB settlement organization is linked to the
limited excavation of extramural areas. In some cases, such as Jericho and
‘Ain Ghazal, it is not feasible to open large horizontal areas because of later
occupations. In cases where opening horizontal areas has been possible, al-
most all buildings appear to have been freestanding with variable spacing of
structures (Figs. 8 and 9). For example, at Beidha and Ghwair I, structures
P1: GCR
Fig. 8. Schematic representation of Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period residential architec-

tural and mortuary practices. Illustrated ritual and mortuary practices include (1) primary adult
burial, skull removed, subfloor, and inside of structure; (2) primary adult burial, complete, ex-
tramural; (3) primary child burial, complete, under wall of structure; (4) secondary burial cache
of three skulls.
were built next to each other with little space between them. At ‘Ain Ghazal
and Jericho, excavations reveal that structures were often placed next to
each other, but that there were also cases where individual buildings were
separated by 5–8 m. At Yiftahel and Kfar HaHoresh, we see a pattern in
which buildings were separated from each other. It is also interesting to note
that with expanded excavation of extramural areas, archaeologists are doc-
umenting the existence of large fire hearths, plaster-manufacturing facilities,
and other general domestic areas.
Over the last 20 years, a growing number of researchers have exam-

ined Neolithic patterns of architectural change in the southern Levant as
a means of understanding past social organization, changes in the size and
composition of the household, and economic practices in different regions
(Akkermans et al., 1983; Aurenche, 1981; Banning and Byrd, 1987; Byrd,
1994; Banning and Byrd, 1987, 1989; Flannery, 1973; Kuijt, 2000a; Rollefson,
1998, 2000). Expanding upon this body of data, other studies have explored
the possible reasons for site and regional-level patterning of residential
and non-residential architecture (cf. Banning and Byrd, 1987; Byrd, 1994;
Flannery, 1973; Kuijt, 2000a). In general, MPPNB period residential
P1: GCR
Fig. 9. Plan view of Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period non-residential buildings

at Beidha, Jordan. Note placement of upright stones, stone paving on floors, and large
ground stone basin.
P1: GCR
structures from the Mediterranean zone of the southern Levant were rectan-
gular or sub-rectangular with an entrance at one end, internally partitioned,
and in many cases had an open internal space opposite the entrance with a
central hearth (Fig. 9). In the MPPNB occupations at Jericho, ‘Ain Ghazal,
and Yiftahel, and the ongoing excavations at Kfar HaHoresh, for example,
the walls of rectangular structures were usually built upon an earlier ground
surface and without a foundation trench. Depending on the available lo-
cal building materials, the walls consisted of courses of field stones often
arranged in two parallel rows that were later filled with mud and irregular
stones. Floors were almost always constructed of a thick plaster, painted red,
pink, or white, and punctured by multiple postholes for roof supports. As
seen at Jericho, Beidha, and ‘Ain Ghazal, MPPNB structures were highly
standardized in their length, width, and internal layout within individual
settlements. Settlements that were close to each other tend to have sim-
ilar architectural practices. For example, the internal dimensions of most
MPPNB period residential structures from ‘Ain Ghazal and Jericho, the two
sites with the most complete data, are approximately 8 × 4.5 m2 , with rarely
more than 50-cm variation in any dimension and with internal partitions. In
other early MPPNB settlements in areas adjacent to the Jordan Valley, there
appears to be a greater degree of variation in the size, shape, and internal
organization of residential architecture. The settlements of Yiftahel, Kfar
HaHoresh, and possibly Horvat Galil illustrate the existence of rectangu-
lar or sub-rectangular buildings but with greater variability in the size of
structures and the use of internal partitions.
Along transitional environmental zones, such as the southern desert ar-
eas, it appears that the transition from circular/oval structures to rectangular
free standing structures occurred slightly later in PPNB. Excavations at the
important MPPNB occupation of Ghwair I provide evidence of an inward-
looking cell plan, often built around a small central courtyard (Najjar, 1994;
Simmons, 1995; Simmons and Najjar, 1999). Here, individual cells tend to be
more or less square, with awkward access from the central courtyard through
raised rectangular entrances/windows. Construction was usually of shaped
stones and chinking. Although details are presently scanty, some may have
had upper stories for residential dwellings, the small cells serving as storage
and other activity facilities. Courtyards and some cells were plastered. These
structures facilitated the construction of additional cells around the exterior,
ultimately creating a warren of rooms and open spaces. Collectively, research
at Beidha and Ghwair I illustrates that in peripheral Mediterranean areas,
rectangular systems of architecture appear to be adopted several hundred
years later, and when they are adopted, they do not display the degree of
standardization seen in communities in the Mediterranean area. In desert
areas, presumably occupied seasonally, circular structures continue to be
P1: GCR
constructed for the entire PPN sequence. The specific reasons for these dif-
ferences are unclear, although, given the geographical nature of this pat-
terning, they may well be related to unrecognized differences in economic
practices, differential rates of diffusion of cultural practices from commu-
nities living in Mediterranean areas to communities situated in transitional
environmental zones, and/or differences in social organization.
Recent regional synthesis and ongoing field research at ‘Ain Ghazal,

Ghawair I, Kfar HaHoresh, and Beidha have provided enticing glimpses
of how and where MPPNB communities created spaces within settlements
for nonresidential or collective purposes. One aspect of this is seen in the
construction of distinctive, if not unique, structures both within and outside
settlement boundaries. At Beidha, excavations some 40 m away from the
residential areas revealed three stone structures that were different from
residential structures in construction and character. Beyond their physical
placements, these structures differed from residential structures in the con-
struction of upright stone slab walls, the presence of a huge 3.0 × 2.2 m2
stone-slab basin and a very large, raised stone-slab platform, and a large rect-
angular stone in one building (Byrd, 1994, p. 657; Kirkbride, 1968) (Fig. 9).
Both the location and contents of these structures suggest that community
members constructed them for ritual practices, perhaps with different house-
holds associated with different structures.
In a pattern that anticipates the LPPNB construction of non-residential
architecture at ‘Ain Ghazal, there are also cases in MPPNB Beidha in which
non-residential buildings were integrated with residential buildings. On the
basis of the presence of very large, centrally located raised rimmed hearths,
larger than those in residential structures, and the absence of in situ artifacts
associated with domestic activities, Byrd (1994) argues that select buildings
in the MPPNB occupation at Beidha were probably employed for commu-
nal and ritual practices. In contrast to residential structures, most of these
buildings were constructed with unique architectural features. Excavations
at Ghwair I also provide evidence for the construction of public areas, with
major outdoor stairways, that according to preliminary reports by Simmons
and Najjar (1999, p. 6) may have served as some sort of public area. The
use of orthostats is also seen at Kfar HaHoresh, Ghwair I, and Jericho. At
Ghwair I, excavations have revealed that community members commonly
constructed small niches along wall areas, and at times cached objects in
these niches. The use of niches is also seen in the buildings at Jericho. At
Jericho, a large chipped stone upright was recovered on the floor of a room
P1: GCR
in front of a niche, and Kenyon’s interpretation places this stone as origi-

nally standing in the niche. Interestingly, the small wall niches documented at
most settlements appear in both residential and non-residential structures,
and this architectural feature may indicate that some aspects of broader
community ritual or beliefs were practiced within single households as well
as communally in non-residential structures.
Mortuary Practices
Over the last 20 years, archaeological research projects at MPPNB set-

tlements have revealed a remarkable level of continuity in broader mortuary
practices in the southern Levant, and at the same time, a high degree of vari-
ation in the ways in which mortuary practices were implemented within
and between individual settlements (Cornwall, 1981; Goring-Morris, 2000;
Hershkovitz and Gopher, 1990; Kuijt, 2000b, 2001b; Kurth and Röhrer-Ertl,
1981; Rollefson, 1998; Rollefson et al., 1992; Verhoeven, 2002). One of the
more remarkable by-products of nearly 100 years of archaeological research
at PPN settlements has been the documentation of formalized mortuary
practices that have intrigued, puzzled, and fascinated the general public and
professional archaeologists alike. This discussion has centered on two scales
of research: that of the nature of and variability within mortuary practices at
individual communities, and the degree to which select mortuary practices
were shared between regional communities, and between regional areas,
such as the southern and northern Levant. Drawing upon well-known exca-
vations at Jericho, ‘Ain Ghazal and Beidha, as well as more recent field work
at the MPPNB sites of Nahal Hemar, Yiftahel, and Kfar HaHoresh, a num-
ber of shared mortuary practices can be noted (see Goring-Morris, 2000;
Kuijt, 2000b, 2001a; Rollefson, 2000; Verhoeven, 2002, for more detailed
considerations).
In MPPNB, we see the coexistence of three interrelated mortuary sys-
tems: (1) the primary interment of adults, probably both males and females,
in single graves; (2) the interment of infants in single graves; and (3) the
secondary removal of some, but not all, adult skulls from primary graves for
some form of unknown ritual use with eventual reburial in caches of single
or multiple skulls. Infants, usually but not always buried as single individuals,
were occasionally buried in areas of architecture but more often were placed
in fill and courtyard areas. While crania were occasionally removed from the
skeletons of infants/youths (Cornwall, 1981; Kirkbride, 1968; Rollefson et al.,
1992), at ‘Ain Ghazal infant remains were usually interred as complete and
P1: GCR
articulated individuals, at times associated with adults with intact skulls. On

other occasions, infants appear to have been interred in a ritual context,
such as in sub-floor foundations and as dedicatory offerings with foundation
or walls of buildings. The majority of infants, however, were buried in fill
deposits in courtyard areas or outside buildings. At Jericho, the primary in-
terment of adults is usually associated with architecture, although not always
so, and often the crania are removed from the grave to a secondary loca-
tion. As seen in the excavations of ‘Ain Ghazal, Beidha, Yiftahel, and Kfar
HaHoresh (Garfinkel, 1987; Goring-Morris, 1991; Kirkbride, 1968; Rollefson
et al., 1992), adults generally continue to be interred as individuals and almost
always without grave goods.
Community members in MPPNB appear to have expanded secondary
mortuary practices with extensive caching of multiple human skulls, some of
them plastered and painted. As part of this elaboration, there also appears
to be a formalization in the locations in which ritual practices occurred, both
in terms of the interment of skull caches, and in the location of specific ritual
practices within structures. The on-going excavations at ‘Ain Ghazal, for
example, have uncovered several skull caches. Characteristic of this pattern
is a cache of three skulls placed in a row facing away from the center of the
room, and recovered from beneath the floor of the southeast corner of a
house. In the same house but in a separate room, a single adolescent skull
was placed beneath the southwest corner of the floor. The rear portion of this
cranium was thinly coated with black pigment, possibly bitumen (Rollefson,
1986, p. 51). Similarly, at Nahal Hemar, a cache of six skulls, as well as
miscellaneous skeletal elements, was uncovered from the PPNB levels. The
six skulls, some very fragmented, were at least partially covered in asphalt
organized in a geometric pattern. All of these skulls were recovered from
the southwest corner of the cave, a close spatial clustering that is consistent
with the simultaneous interment of skulls in some form of cache at other
MPPNB sites.
The plastering of human skulls represents an enhanced aspect of the
MPPNB ritual complex in the southern Levant. A comparison of plastered
skulls from different areas of the region illustrates a pattern of local vari-
ation in the amount and type of plaster employed, the degree to which
skulls were plastered, and the artistic techniques employed (Arensburg and
Hershkovitz, 1988; de Contenson, 1966, 1971; Ferembach, 1978; Griffin et al.,
1998; Kenyon, 1953, 1969; Rollefson, 1986; Rollefson et al., 1992, 1999). Cur-
rently, there are fewer than 20 known plastered skulls from the southern
Levant, all dated to MPPNB and LPPNB. The majority of these were re-
covered from group caches; plaster helped to preserve the skull and gave
the appearance of still maintaining lifelike flesh. Some skulls provide exten-
sive evidence of variation in the remodeling of facial features, such as the
P1: GCR
construction of a nose, eyes, and mouth. Kenyon’s excavations at Jericho

uncovered a total of 14 plastered and/or painted skulls, 10 of which were re-
modeled plastically with multiple plastering events to form representations
of painted faces. In some of the plastered skulls the eyes were outlined by
shell insets and repainted multiple times. Of this group of 10, only 1 has
a completely plastered face with the mandible present. The excavation at
the MPPNB Kfar HaHoresh uncovered a single plastered and painted skull
without a mandible, plastered to reconstruct a smaller scale lifelike face on
the reduced surface area; thus, the bottom of the maxilla region was covered
by plaster to form the lower portions of the mandible and chin. Like the
skull from ‘Ain Ghazal, the eyes were formed by enlarging areas around the
eye orbit rather than using shell insets like at Jericho.
The presence of secondary skull removal and reburial provides re-
searchers with some important insights as to PPNB social organization. In
contrast to primary, single-stage, mortuary practices, aspects of multi-stage
secondary mortuary practices are planned in advance, often held in conjunc-
tion by multiple households as part of a community festival, and require ex-
traordinary levels of community involvement. As a number of ethnograpic
and archaeological studies illustrate, ritual practitioners and communities
often organize secondary mortuary rituals as part of high-profile public cer-
emonies. Beyond these logistical dimensions, secondary mortuary practices,
with the deliberate removal of some or all of the skeleton, are often linked to
broader beliefs in ancestor worship. For these reasons, secondary mortuary
rituals differ from primary burial of individuals as these ceremonies often
crosscut kin and household lines, thereby emphasizing the community over
the individual.
Other Symbolic Realms (Masks, Statues, Figures)
In contrast to earlier periods, members of MPPNB communities em-

ployed a wide range of masks, statues, and figurines in their daily and ritual
lives (Fig. 10). One of the important results from the excavations at ‘Ain
Ghazal and Jericho is the discovery of a number of large MPPNB anthropo-
morphic statues. These plaster figurines, often about half of life size, were of
painted human figures or busts of the upper torso. The statues have clearly
formed legs and arms and were often painted to draw attention to the face.
They were probably constructed in multiple steps and would have required
a considerable investment of time and energy over several days, if not weeks,
for their manufacture. Although the limited scale of horizontal excavations at
‘Ain Ghazal limits our understanding of whether the pits in which the statues
were cached were associated with architecture, Rollefson (1986) argues that
P1: GCR
Fig. 10. Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period ritual and cultic objects: (a and b) human
busts, ‘Ain Ghazal; (c) plaster human skull, Kfar HaHoresh; (d) human mask, Jericho; (e)
human figurine statue cache, ‘Ain Ghazal.
the statue caches were from extramural locations. Anthropomorphic stat-

ues have also been recovered from the MPPNB Jericho and Nahal Hemar
Cave (Goren et al., 1993). Although poorly preserved, four caches of an-
thropomorphic statues made of plaster were also recovered in Garstang’s
P1: GCR
excavations at Jericho; of these caches, two contained three statues, and the
remaining each contained a single statue. As at ‘Ain Ghazal, all of the caches
from Jericho appear to be from pit contexts.
A second important, although very rare, material representation of the
MPPNB ritual world is seen in the carving of limestone masks. Designed as
life-size masks that covered the face, with carved eye and mouth holes as well
as drilled holes for attachment to the face or for attaching materials/features,
these masks have only been recovered from settlements flanking the south-
ern Rift Valley. The construction and use of small clay animal figurines also
appears to have been important in some communities. Many researchers
have commented on the association of MPPNB small clay animal figurines
with residential architecture and their possible connection to household cul-
tic practices. The clay figurines, most of which appear to be cattle (but occa-
sionally also goats or equids), have frequently been thematically linked to
the possible existence of a widespread cattle cult throughout the PPNB pe-
riod (Cauvin, 1994, 2000; Kenyon, 1957; Kirkbride, 1968; Rollefson, 1986).
To date, at least 56 cattle figurines have been identified from the early exca-
vation seasons at ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson et al., 1992). While some of these
figurines may have served as toys or art objects, Rollefson (1986) also notes
that many of these clay animal figurines appear to have been ritually killed
by stabbing them with pieces of flint while they were still pliable.
It is interesting to note that all three types of MPPNB material objects
appear to be geographically restricted to select, and perhaps overlapping,
areas of the southern Levant. For example, clay animal figurines have yet
to be recovered from settlements west of the Jordan Valley. Although it is
possible that this distribution is related to sampling, it is surprising that ex-
cavations at least five MPPNB and LPPNB settlements in this area have not
recovered clay anthropomorphic figurines. Similarly, the rare stone masks
have only been recovered—unfortunately most from secondary or uniden-
tified contexts—from areas around Jerusalem and the eastern side of the
Jordan Valley. The large anthropomorphic statuary is even more restricted,
known only at Jericho and ‘Ain Ghazal. While recovered from slightly differ-
ent geographical areas, these items appear to have been distributed mainly
around the Jordan Valley.
One of the more important recent advancements in our understanding

of the MPPNB is seen in the exploration of the possible interrelationships be-
tween architectural and ritual practices. A number of recent studies (Byrd,
1994; Goring-Morris, 2000; Rollefson, 1997, 2000; Verhoeven, 2002) have
P1: GCR
explored the nature of social arrangements as seen in the built environment

and spatial distribution of material culture within settlements. While still
preliminary, these studies have noted that select areas of MPPNB settle-
ments appear to have been employed in a non-residential and presumably
communal capacity. This ranges from the construction of unique buildings
away from residential areas, such as at Beidha, to the construction of unique
buildings inside what are taken to be residential areas, such as at Beidha,
‘Ain Ghazal, and Jericho, to potentially even the construction of entire set-
tlements for funerary purposes, as at Kfar HaHoresh. With the exception of
the research at Beidha, there are few detailed analyses of the intrasite dis-
tribution of cultural materials at MPPNB settlements. Instead, most archae-
ologists have focused on the construction of features found inside buildings,
such as fire hearths and orthostats, or on differences in the construction of in-
dividual buildings. While in their infancy, these studies illustrate that at many
MPPNB-sites-specific buildings were constructed and used in very different
ways from other buildings. Presumably, such uses would have included intra-
and interhouse communal events such as funerals and coming-of-age rituals.
Economy
When considering the nature of paleobotanical and faunal remains from

MPPNB sites, one must recognize that while a wide range of domesticated
plant crops were utilized, the degree to which they served as a major food
source varies on a regional level. Paleobotantical remains from ‘Ain Ghazal
indicate that MPPNB villagers incorporated a wide range of plants into their
diet, including wheat, barley, peas, lentils, and chickpeas, along with other
resources, such as figs, almonds, and pistachios (Rollefson et al., 1992). The
degree to which this is representative of plant use at other communities,
especially those in different environmental locations, is subject to debate
and in need of further study. This is especially clear when considering the
relative absence of wheat from Yiftahel, a site in an upland location in the
western Mediterranean area with an apparent high reliance on peas and
lentils. Similarly, flax was found at Nahal Hemar, but it is not clear how
important this resource was at other sites.
Although the transition from earlier periods to MPPNB of the south-
ern Levant is often conceived of by researchers as representing a shift from
the exploitation of gazelles to caprines (sheep and goat), this generaliza-
tion fails to recognize that variation exists between communities in different
areas of the southern Levant (Horwitz et al., 1999). For example, analysis
P1: GCR
of MPPNB ‘Ain Ghazal fauna illustrates a clear diminution in the size of

caprines, presumably linked to their domestication for meat as well as sec-
ondary products (Bar-Yosef and Meadow, 1995). In other contexts, however,
such as at Kfar Hahorish and Yiftahel, there is no evidence for domesticated
goat, and sheep. At the moment, therefore, while there is evidence for do-
mesticated caprines at some MPPNB settlements, at other contemporaneous
settlements significant quantities of meat were provided by the hunting of
gazelle, ibex, wild goat, and sheep. Collectively, this suggests that while the
domestication of caprines was an important economic event in the MPPNB,
in some areas of the southern Levant, such as the western Mediterranean
region, this transition was gradual and by no means total.
Lithic Technology
Over the last 30 years, considerable field and laboratory research has
explored the nature of PPNB lithic technology (Abbès, 1994; Bar-Yosef,
1980; Crowfoot-Payne, 1983; Gopher, 1994; Nishiaki, 2000; Quintero and
Wilke, 1995). These studies have outlined that MPPNB assemblages are
characterized by long, inversely retouched sickle blades, a high frequency of
Jericho and Byblos points and variants, a limited number of Amuq points,
and the use of oval axes (Bar-Yosef, 1980) (Figs. 11 and 12). One of the most
important technological developments appearing around 10,500 B.P. in the
southern Levant is that of the use of naviform blade cores. The important
technological advantage of naviorm blade cores is that they allow for better
control over blade morphology, thus permitting the consistent production
of long, straight, parallel-sided blades. Such blades were employed to make
sickle blades, arrowheads, borers, and perforators.
Having observed these general patterns, we should note that a compari-
son of recovered lithic materials from a range of MPPNB sites indicates that
there was considerable regional/local variation in the number and percent-
ages of some tool types as well as the degree to which lithic technological
systems focused on ad-hoc vs. specialized core systems, such as naviform
cores. Traditionally, specialized core systems and the tools produced from
them have received a disproportionate degree of attention from researchers,
often overlooking the considerable importance of ad-hoc tool systems. It is
also clear, moreover, that the relative importance of tool types differs con-
siderably depending upon the geographical location of the settlement. One
aspect of this is seen in the reduction of sickle blades and the increase in per-
centages of projectile points and burins in lithic assemblages in desertic areas
(Garrard et al., 1994). While these observations have yet to be articulated
in any detailed fashion, preliminary impressions suggest that unrecognized
P1: GCR
Fig. 11. Chipped stone tools from the Early, Middle, and Late Pre-Pottery
Neolithic B periods of the southern Levant: (a) Jericho projectile point; (b)
Byblos projectile point; (c) Amuq projectile point; (d) Jericho projectile
point; (e) Helwan projectile point; (f–h) burin; (i and j) sickle blades; (k
and l) generalized bipolar core.
401
P1: GCR
Fig. 12. Ground and polish stone tools from the Early, Middle, and Late Pre-
Pottery Neolithic B periods of the southern Levant: (a and b) grinding stone; (c
and d) pestle; (e and f) hand stones; (g and h) ground and polished stone axes.
levels of inter- and intra-assemblage variability exists, possibly depending

upon access to raw materials, the location of individual settlements, and the
nature and spatial location of economic activities within communities.
The MPPNB groundstone assemblages display an emphasis on grind-
ing equipment, exemplified by various saddle and trough querns, grinding
P1: GCR
slabs, bowls, and platters of limestone, chalk, sandstone, basalt, and meta-
morphic rocks; these items sometimes showing a clear correlation between
morphology and raw material. Handstones are often oval and found on a va-
riety of raw materials. Mortars are rare, although combination of pounding/
grinding handstones are often quite common. Polished and grooved stones
are also found, as well as whetstones and palettes. Stones with multiple in-
cised parallel or crossed lines, probably of symbolic significance, are some-
times found.
Other Technology
The production of lime plaster represents a further example of tech-

nological development in MPPNB. As noted earlier, almost all forms of
MPPNB architecture contain plaster floors. These floors appear to have
been replastered on a regular basis, with the total thickness of plaster reach-
ing 15 cm. Field research at Yiftahel and Kfar HaHorish has identified areas
in which limestone was heated, reduced to a powered form, and then later
mixed with water to be applied to floors and, potentially, to interior and exte-
rior walls of structures. At Yiftahel, limestone production is indicated by the
excavation of a large number of exterior fire hearths, some of which still con-
tained limestone cobbles. In light of the number of plaster floors, continual
replastering episodes, and reflections on the significant quantities of firewood
required for fabrication, lime plaster production must have involved a con-
siderable amount of labor and resources. Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson
(1989), for example, argue that the demand for wood used in lime plaster
production may have led to local deforestation around large settlements.
Trade and Exchange
Both long-distance trade and local production of flaked stone and bone
beads occurred in the MPPNB. Studies of lithic technology hint at the emer-
gence of some form of limited craft specialization focused on naviform core
reduction, although this appears to have been restricted to regional rather
than interregional areas (Quintero and Wilke, 1995). Such craft specializa-
tion might have occurred as a production activity performed on a part-time
basis by a few members who supplied blades for all of their immediate com-
munity. Beyond the need for specific skills in the production of blades from
naviform cores, Quintero and Wilke (1995, p. 28) note the presence of exca-
vated workshop areas and debris dumps at ‘Ain Ghazal.
One of the other important sources of information about trade and ex-
change comes from shell-bead production (Bar-Yosef Mayer, 1997). In areas
P1: GCR
of the Sinai, shell beads may have been exchanged for cereals from agricul-
tural communities within the Mediterranean zone. As would be expected,
shell-bead production in southern areas focused on Red Sea mollusks. In
contrast, communities in more northern areas of the southern Levant used
Mediterranean mollusks, and the MPPNB and LPPNB communities of ‘Ain
Ghazal, Beidha, and Basta used Mediterranean as well as Red Sea species.
Collectively, this distribution illustrates the long-distance movement of shell
materials. As noted by Bar-Yosef Mayer (1997), one possibility is that these
objects were exchanged for subsistence resources.
LATE PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC B PERIOD
Up to the mid-1980s, researchers’ understanding of the LPPNB was

based almost entirely on excavations at the settlements of Ramad, Abu
Gosh, Beisamoun, and a number of other smaller settlements (see Bar-
Yosef, 1981). With the identification and excavation of other LPPNB set-
tlements since 1983 including ‘Ain Ghazal, El-Hemmeh, Khirbet Hammam,
Wadi Shu’ieb, Es-Sifiya, Nahal Issaron, Tell Rakan, Ba’Ja, ‘Ain el-Jammam,
and Basta (Banning, 2001; Bisheh et al., 1993; de Contenson, 1971; Gebel and
Bienert, 1997; Gebel and Hermansen, 2000; Mahasneh, 1997, 2001; Mahasneh
and Bienert, 2000; Nissen et al., 1988, 1992; Peterson, 2000; Rollefson, 1997,
1999; Rollefson et al., 1992; Simmons et al., 1989, 2001), researchers have de-
veloped a profoundly different perspective of the terminal PPNB (Fig. 13).
Most notably, researchers have now clearly demonstrated that the tran-
sition from the MPPNB to LPPNB included dramatic shifts in economic
practices, settlement systems, and village life between ca. 9250 and
ca. 8700 B.P.
Settlement Patterns
Mediterranean Zone
Over the last 10 years, it has become clear that one of the most impor-
tant changes with the initiation of the LPPNB was a shift in large agricultural
villages from all areas of the Mediterranean zone, often centered on the Jor-
dan Valley, to Mediterranean/desertic ecotone areas along the eastern side
of the Jordan Valley. Only a few LPPNB settlements are known west of the
Jordan Valley, such as Abu Gosh and Beisamoun, and almost all MPPNB
settlements in this area are abandoned by the start of the LPPNB. In con-
trast, in areas east of the Jordan Valley, there are several settlements where
P1: GCR
Fig. 13. Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period site distribution in the southern Levant.
Note the shift of large villages to the eastern side of the Jordan Valley and expansion
into eastern desert marginal zones.
P1: GCR
there is occupational continuity between MPPNB and LPPNB, including the

large 10 ha sites of ‘Ain Ghazal and Wadi Shu’ieb. Just as importantly, in the
eastern areas we see the appearance of many new LPPNB settlements, many
of which are considerably larger than any previously existing. For example,
large LPPNB occupations east of the Jordan Valley include Es-Sifiya, ‘Ain
el-Jammam, Ramad, Basta, El-Hemmeh, and Khirbet Hammam. Many of
these are at least 10 ha in area (between two and three times larger than
any known MPPNB settlement) and were founded in locations with no ev-
idence for previous occupation. It is possible that the perceived absence
of LPPNB settlements in western areas is a by-product of site visibility in
general, and the formation of later period tells on top of LPPNB sites. If
correct, this apparently illustrates an important shift in the location of major
settlements in the LPPNB to the eastern areas Mediterranean zone of the
southern Levant, with the continued appearance of smaller settlements in
all areas.
Desertic Zone
Simultaneous with the shift to eastern areas of the Mediterranean zone,

we find considerable archaeological evidence for new or expanded human
occupations of desertic areas in the southern Levant. As outlined by several
researchers (Byrd, 1992; Garrard et al., 1994), there is a significant increase
in the number of settlements in the areas of Azarq and further east in the
LPPNB. These occupations are quite small, usually no more than 4–6 small
oval stone structures, but occur in greater frequency than earlier periods of
the PPNB. As with earlier occupations, it is not entirely clear if these LPPNB
settlements are the remains of short-term seasonal occupations or of some
longer period of use. While debate exists as to why such settlements were
established and maintained (resource stress in the Mediterranean zone and
new developments in herding being two important possibilities), it is clear
that the LPPNB witnesses an expansion of adaptations into desertic areas
at an unprecedented scale.
Site Structure
Recently, several LPPNB settlements have been excavated in relatively

broad horizontal areas, and as a result archaeologists are quickly developing
an understanding of the nature of settlement organization at different sites
P1: GCR
in the southern Levant and in northern areas (for important works, readers
are directed to Akkermans and Verhoeven, 1995; Özdögan and Özdögan,
1998; Verhoeven, 1999). At Beisamoun, Abu Gosh and Ramad, for exam-
ple, buildings are freestanding with the spacing of structures creating al-
leyways and distinct areas between buildings. In contrast, at the LPPNB
settlements east of the Jordan River, such as Basta, ‘Ain Ghazal, Es-Sifiya,
‘Ain el-Jammam, El-Hemmeh, and Khirbet Hammam, buildings are usu-
ally built next to other structures, resulting in areas with remarkably high
architectural density (Kuijt, 2000a). It is not clear if this reflects a greater
density of human occupation or is actually a by-product of more elaborate
architecture. However one views this, it is important to note the remarkably
high-density building systems compared to earlier periods, and also to rec-
ognize that this is not achieved again in this region until some 3000 years
later in the Early Bronze Age.
As with the MPPNB, residential architecture in LPPNB settlements is

usually characterized by rectangular or subrectangular buildings with plas-
tered floors and walls (Figs. 14 and 15). In regions of the southern Levant
where large stone material was not readily available, buildings were con-
structed of unfired mud brick. At settlements where angular or flat stones
were available, residential structures were quite elaborate, and in several
cases included the development of true second-story architecture. At Basta,
Ba’Ja, and Es-Sifiya, for example, excavations have uncovered evidence of
two-story buildings with prepared stairways and stone platforms to support
roof beams. In some cases, external walls preserved to a height of 2–3 m
illustrate a system of stone working not unlike that seen in the American
Southwest during the Pueblo periods.
There are two other important aspects to LPPNB residential architec-
ture: the existence of freestanding or abutting architecture at different sites
and the appearance of room systems that probably served as dedicated stor-
age areas. In many settlements where there was no readily available flat or
rectangular stone (such as Beisamoun, Abu Gosh, and Ramad), freestand-
ing buildings were often constructed. In larger settlements, buildings were
often constructed against each other, using existing walls as a form of struc-
tural support. Beyond producing the conditions for second-story residential
architecture, these practices appear to have created, intentionally or not,
ground-floor room blocks composed of adjoining small 1.5- to 2-m rooms.
In light of their size and the perceived absence of domestic artifacts, these
areas possibly functioned as dedicated storage rooms.
P1: GCR
Fig. 14. Plan view of Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period residential architecture from (a) Ba’Ja
and (b) Es-Sifyia, Jordan. Note the considerable segmentation of space compared to earlier
periods and many, if not most, structures are connected to other buildings.
Broad horizontal excavations at several LPPNB settlements have pro-

vided important insights on spatial organization within these villages, and
by extension, the existence of evidence for non-residential architecture. As
P1: GCR
Fig. 15. Architectural reconstruction of two-story LPPNB (ca. 8900 B.P.) building at Area B,
Basta, Jordan, based on excavated architectural remains. Note storage rooms surrounding
first-floor central room, and the open second-floor area that likely served as the residential
area.
one example of this, research at ‘Ain Ghazal illustrates that LPPNB commu-
nities organized their space so as to distinguish residential vs. community or
communal space (Rollefson, 1998). Excavations at the North Field at ‘Ain
Ghazal uncovered two partially preserved round structures situated between
rectangular buildings. The more northerly of these two structures was built
with four subfloor channels, each oriented in a cardinal direction. It is not
clear if these channels were designed to improve air circulation or if perhaps
there was some ritual significance in their construction. While the building
was void of contents, on the basis of material patterning and the unique na-
ture of the structures, the excavators at ‘Ain Ghazal argue that they served
as “cult buildings.” A second oval structure, similar in construction and size,
lay 4 m to the south. Excavation undertaken in the mid-1990s at the East
Field of ‘Ain Ghazal uncovered two LPPNB structures, both of which have
been identified as LPPNB “Temples” or “Special Buildings.” Both buildings
are characterized by fireplaces built with inset stones forming the rims and
several upright monoliths at one end of the rooms. While it was originally be-
lieved that one of these two rooms dated to PPNC, two radiocarbon samples
have dated the PPNC structure to ca. 8700 B.P., and Rollefson now considers
P1: GCR
these to date to LPPNB (Rollefson, 1998, p. 51). Against the back wall of
one of the rooms was a 2-m-long rectangular “altar” of large stones, in front
of which was a large plastered floor hearth surrounded by seven limestone
slabs. Centered in the north wall of the same room was a rectangular cubicle
made of slabs.
With this increased awareness of the non-residential use of some build-
ings in the LPPNB, debate has centered on the nature of social activities that
might have taken place and the terminology used to describe the structures.
For example, Rollefson (1998, p. 117) uses the term “temple” to describe
a complex of rooms in the East Field across Wadi Zarqa from the main
occupation area at ‘Ain Ghazal, an area that apparently served ritual and
cultic purposes. An understanding of the significance of the buildings must
be formulated with the knowledge that excavations at other LPPNB settle-
ments have not revealed buildings similar to the special purpose and Apsidal
Buildings found at ‘Ain Ghazal. We agree with Rollefson on the probable
cultic or communal function of this area. At the same time, however, we
urge caution in the use of terms such as “altar” and “temple” as these are
linked to levels of formalized ritual and religion that may not be applica-
ble to PPN (see also Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998). We have only
a limited understanding of the nature of architectural variability within a
single LPPNB community, and it is thus very difficult to argue confidently
for the use of individual structures, and the links between such architectural
features and domestic/residential activities or ritual practices.
Mortuary Practices
While archaeologists usually perceive LPPNB mortuary practices as

reflecting continuity with the preceding MPPNB, fieldwork at a number
of large LPPNB settlements has illustrated that while there are elements
of continuity, dramatic changes also occur. As with the earlier phases of
the Neolithic, community members continued to bury the dead individually,
placing them in a wide range of locations and positions. Burials continue to be
found underneath house floors, in courtyard areas, and as dedicatory caches.
Skulls continued to be removed from adult individuals but not as regularly
as before ca. 9250 B.P. As seen at Ramad, skull plastering also continues
to be practiced. Within the context of this continuity, however, significant
changes are seen with the increased burial of humans with animals, and, for
the first time in PPN the systematic interment of goods with the dead. At ‘Ain
Ghazal, Basta, Ba’Ja, and Es-Sifiya, burials are found with pendants, shell
necklaces, palettes, stone beads, and bracelets. These grave goods are never
P1: GCR
found in large quantities. This pattern, at least as seen from evidence of large
agricultural LPPNB villages dating between ca. 9250 and 8700 B.P., stands in
clear opposition to the absence of mortuary goods in MPPNB and PPNA
settlements. Of note, however, is the fact that burial practices continue to be
quite variable, and not all burials are found with grave goods.
Other Symbolic Realms (Masks, Statues, Figurines)
There are several lines of material evidence for continuity in ritual prac-
tices from the MPPNB and LPPNB. Two of these are the continued man-
ufacture of stone skull masks, such as seen at Basta, and the continued re-
moval and plastering of human skulls. Excavations at Ramad, dating between
ca. 9250 and ca. 8700 B.P., have produced two plastered human skulls, while
excavations at Beisamoun yielded one. Another important shared cultural
element is the manufacture and use of small anthropomorphic clay figurines
and geometric tokens (Mahasneh and Gebel, 1999; Rollefson et al., 1992).
Recent attention has focused on the possible relationships between rit-

ual practices and the built environment in LPPNB settlements. Most of this
research prioritizes architecture as a means of identifying nonresidential
locations. Needless to say, such identifications depend upon a clear under-
standing of architectural variability within a restricted period of a settle-
ment history. In some cases, archaeologists are starting to document the na-
ture of architectural variability within individual settlements. As described
earlier, excavations in the North Field of ‘Ain Ghazal have illustrated that
the contemporaneous construction of two round structures that are com-
pletely different from the normative LPPNB architectural systems. In many
cases, limited funding has restricted the excavation of broad horizontal
areas. Even when archaeologists are able to document variability, it has
proved to be difficult to link specific architectural practices with the oc-
currence of other types of material culture such as figurines or plastered
skulls.
Economy
Samples from a few LPPNB settlements indicate that a wealth of ce-

reals and pulses continued to be used. It should be noted, however, that
archaeologists have only the most limited understanding of the degree to
P1: GCR
which individual plant species were relied on in different communities and

that our understanding is based on only a few sites. In many ways this is a
reflection of the effects of limited excavation of LPPNB settlements during
the 1980s, and the as yet uncompleted floral analyses for the large LPPNB
settlements on the eastern slope of the Jordan Valley.
One of the most important phenomena in subsistence economy is the
continued transition to domesticated animal species within settlements lo-
cated in the Mediterranean zone of the southern Levant (Horwitz et al.,
1999). At ‘Ain Ghazal, for example, by the end of the LPPNB domesticated
species including goat, pig, cattle, and possibly sheep provided more than
80% of meat protein (Köhler-Rollefson et al., 1988). In desertic areas, do-
mesticated animals are also well represented, although in some settlements
wild species continue to be a major economic focus. As pointed out by Bar-
Yosef and Meadow (1995), several regional studies have noted evidence for
the domestication of pig and cattle at some point between 9250 and 8700 B.P.,
although the limited published data from the southern Levant limits our
understanding of the degree to which these and other domesticated species
were important in sites located in different ecological areas.
Lithic Technology
For the most part, lithic technology of LPPNB is quite similar to that
of MPPNB, with a continued emphasis on opposed-platform core systems
as well as more informal blade-and-flake core systems. While not systemati-
cally studied, the importance of naviform core systems may have decreased
in some cases. Byblos and Amuq projectile points dominate assemblages,
characterized by an increased use of flat retouch. Sickle blades continue
to be an important tool at most settlements in the Mediterranean zone.
Ground-stone industries also show considerable continuity, with wide use of
limestone-grinding stones.
Recent excavations at Basta, ‘Ain Ghazal, Ba’ja, and Es-Sifiya have
highlighted the importance of sandstone and limestone bracelets. These were
produced by a combination of direct percussion and grinding of sandstone,
most of which appears to have been acquired in southern areas. Presumably
these were worn as a form of decoration. It is not clear if these items were
produced and used locally or if they were also exchanged and traded to
neighboring communities.
Other Technology
Limestone plastering continues to be an important technology, although

there is a clear reduction (compared to MPPNB) in the frequency in which
P1: GCR
floors were plastered. Unlike the MPPNB, many floors were not covered
in lime plaster, and when they were plastered, reflooring events appear to
be less frequent. Two possible reasons for this are that community needs
for wood may have reduced local resources, together with regional pale-
oclimatic changes which resulted in the restriction of forest habitats (see
Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998; Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson,
1989).
Trade and Exchange
Very little is known about the nature of economic interactions within

and between settlements in LPPNB. Part of this is due to the recent nature
of excavations at many LPPNB settlements, for which final reports are still
many years away. There are some indications that communities were rela-
tively self-sufficient and did not engage in many forms of long-distance trade
and exchange. Shells still appear to have been produced and exchanged from
the Red Sea and Mediterranean to inland settlements. In contrast, obsidian
does not appear as frequently as in PPNA and MPPNB. This may be re-
lated to changes in interregional exchange systems, or perhaps increased
economic, ritual, and political independence within communities.
PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC C/FINAL PRE-POTTERY

NEOLITHIC B PERIOD
Until 25 years ago, researchers thought there was a gap of almost a

millennium between the end of PPNB and the appearance of the subse-
quent Pottery Neolithic of the southern Levant (Kenyon, 1957; Moore, 1985;
Perrot, 1968). Recent research at numerous projects such as ‘Ain Ghazal and
the processing of many new radiocarbon dates, however, have shown that
there is no occupational gap between the two periods. Recognizing impor-
tant elements of cultural continuity between the Pre-Pottery and Pottery
Neolithic and important differences in mortuary practices, lithic technology,
and architecture, Rollefson has identified this transitional PPN phase as the
PPNC. While recognizing that there are important differences between the
LPPNB and this period, other researchers have suggested that the elements
of cultural continuity are more important, and that this transitional period
should be referred to as the Final Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. Debate contin-
ues as to the relative merits of these approaches, the extent to which this
period/phase is manifested in all areas of the southern Levant, and which
archaeological sites exemplify the material remains of this phase.
P1: GCR
Settlement Patterns
Mediterranean Zone
While there certainly appear to be signs of overall population contrac-

tion following the LPPNB, there is also evidence for direct occupational
continuity from the LPPNB at ‘Ain Ghazal and Wadi Shu’eib, and perhaps
also at Basta, Es-Sifiya, Yiftahel, Tell Eli, Ramad, and Beisamoun. There
are also apparently newly founded sites such as Hagoshrim in the Huleh
Valley. Perhaps most striking, however, are village settlements which were
founded along the littoral at Atlit Yam in the Carmel area and Ashkelon
much farther to the south. It is also possible that earlier PPN settlements are
submerged, especially given that rising PPNC sea levels were still initially
18–20 m lower than present.
Desertic Zone
There is also some evidence for continued occupation in adjacent desert

regions. In eastern Jordan, a series of small settlements is documented on
the western side of the Azraq Basin at Jilat as well as in the Black Desert
at Burqu 35 (Garrard et al., 1994) that may be contemporary with PPNC
occupations in the Mediterranean zone. These are particularly important
regarding the possible introduction of domesticated animals and the origins
of pastoralism at the desert fringe. Additional evidence from sites in the
Negev and Sinai (such as Nahal Issaron and perhaps part of Wadi Jibba II)
illustrates continued occupation. As with the Mediterranean zone, however,
there appears to be a decrease in overall population density. Here it seems
that foraging continued to form the basis of the economy.
Site Structure
Because of the limited horizontal area excavated at any site with a PPNC
occupation, it is almost impossible to say anything substantial about site
structure for this period. It is argued that ‘Ain Ghazal reaches its maximum
size (10 ha) during the PPNC, but little is known of internal spatial organi-
zation, or if structures were occupied contemporaneously. If there was an
increasing reliance on domestic herd animals from the MPPNB through the
PPNC, then the space requirements for residential units would have likely
P1: GCR
increased, and would be evidenced by the addition of courtyards, animal

pens, and corrals, thus providing a misleading indication of total community
size. Certainly the continued use of some of these sites for a millennium was
beginning to take its toll, and the overall impression (at ‘Ain Ghazal at least)
is one of decline. In spite of this decline, which is most visible in the reduction
of energy invested in the construction, maintenance and use of domestic ar-
chitecture, there are also signs of more massive construction efforts of large
walls.
The majority of our understanding of PPNC residential architecture is

based on ‘Ain Ghazal. In several cases, there appears to be evidence for
the modification and reuse of LPPNB structures at ‘Ain Ghazal, especially
in the South Field. Rollefson describes two types of house plans in PPNC
‘Ain Ghazal: one with small rectangular structures 3 × 4 m2 for farming
families, the other as storage “bunkers.” It should be noted, however, that
the sample is very small and this organization might not necessarily be seen
at other contemporaneous sites. Semi-subterranean pier (House C2) and
cell (House C1) houses in the South Field probably served as combination
of basement workshop/storage-rooms (Rollefson, 1998). Rollefson claims
there is no evidence for upper stories despite the configuration and the
presence of buttresses.
Use of plaster for flooring decreases markedly in both quantity and
quality, and, when present, these floors were manufactured primarily from
crushed marl, as opposed to lime plaster. There is a 14-m-long, low, massive
wall in the Central Field at Ain Ghazal, probably representing the separation
of different courtyard areas (Rollefson et al., 1992, p. 450). Parallel but some
22-m north of the massive wall is a walled street, 2.5-m wide and uncovered
over a distance of 9 m, into which are set two entrances on the north side,
presumably leading courtyard areas. Long massive walls are also present at
Atlit Yam.
The original excavations at Ashkelon indicated that domestic archi-
tecture was based on semi-subterranean pit dwellings. Recent excavations,
however, indicate that the pits were refuse dumps and other installations.
Also being located on a sandy ridge, surface architecture may have been con-
structed of locally available kurkar and mud brick, resulting in subsequent
weathering and extremely poor preservation on the surface (Garfinkel, per-
sonal communication, 2001). Although located adjacent to the sea, the site
of Atlit Yam was also located close to the Carmel, hence easy access to
limestone for building foundations.
P1: GCR
The identification of non-residential architecture in this phase is very

difficult and complicated. A complex of rooms in the East Field across Wadi
Zarqa from the main occupation area at Ain Ghazal that apparently served
ritual and cultic purposes, originally considered to be PPNC, is now thought
to be LPPNB (Rollefson, 1998, p. 117). Of considerable interest is the con-
struction of several wells at Atlit Yam, one of which is 7-m deep, indicating a
complex understanding of hydrological principles and sophistication in con-
struction methods. This is shown through the use of sandstone blocks and
wood as well as complex quarrying techniques in the construction of this
feature (Galili et al., 1993).
Mortuary Practices
Although the designation of PPNC was originally based at least par-

tially on changes in mortuary practices, the growing awareness of the over-
all variability in PPNB burial systems, as well as limited documentation of
burial systems in PPNC, confuses our understanding of mortuary practices
for this period. Although there are relatively few obvious burials reported
from PPNC ‘Ain Ghazal, isolated human bones are actually quite common-
place. This may reflect PPNC secondary burials, a general departure from
earlier LPPNB mortuary practices at the site, as Rollefson (1998, p. 117)
recently pointed out, or perhaps disturbed earlier L/MPPNB burials. Thus,
South Field corridor building complexes appear to contain concentrations
of human bone, often lacking smaller hand and foot bones, and with little
meaningful contexts. Within primary burials, multiple interments of 2–3 in-
dividuals in the same pit are found, in addition to single burial contexts.
At ‘Ain Ghazal, primary burials often included infants placed in courtyard
or open areas. Skull removal is still practiced but occurs less frequently.
When burials are found inside structures, they are all secondary to varying
degrees—in House C2 a skull and mandible were found on the floor; two
of the secondary burials were associated with pig bones or tusk. At Atlit
Yam, numerous primary burials have been documented, but this may reflect
unique aspects of underwater taphonomy. As Rollefson (1998) notes, burial
systems appear to have changed at the end of the PPNB. A lingering ques-
tion centers on how these changes should be viewed—as a matter of degree
or of considerable magnitude.
P1: GCR
Other Symbolic Realms (Masks, Statues, Figurines)
There are few human or animal figurines (usually of clay, if any) in

PPNC. There are a few examples of anthropomorphic figurines, including
an elegant red-painted stylized limestone figurine of a pregnant woman from
‘Ain Ghazal. It is also possible that stone bracelets, mother of pearl pendants,
and the use of Dabba marble continue into PPNC.
Economy
As with other aspects of culture conventions for this period, subsistence

practices appear to have changed significantly with the onset of the PPNC.
There is, for example, a clear decrease in the range of hunted species at
‘Ain Ghazal and an increased reliance on a limited number of domesticated
plants and animals. Domesticated caprines at PPNC ‘Ain Ghazal compose
about 70% of the recovered faunal assemblage, as compared to 50% in the
MPPNB. Moreover, sheep (85%) far outnumber goat (15%) (Wasse, 1997).
Bar-Yosef and Meadow (1995) also argue that by the PPNC there is evidence
for the domestication of the pig, forming nearly 11% of the assemblage at
‘Ain Ghazal. There are also large quantities of cattle recovered from Atlit
Yam, although these remains have not yet been shown to be domesticates. In
addition, all of these species, but especially pig and cattle, were used in both
subsistence and ritual contexts. Many of the hunted animals at ‘Ain Ghazal
reflect a steppic orientation (gazelle), including an increased reliance on
onager, rather than purely Mediterranean forest and marquis.
Lithic Technology
Rollefson (1993; Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson, 1993) has suggested

that changes in lithic technology and flaked stone tool typologies are partic-
ularly useful in defining the PPNC. There are also apparent differences in
the use of specific raw materials at ‘Ain Ghazal, with a significant reduction
in the use of pink flint. There is also a reduced emphasis upon the naviform
core technology, perhaps resulting from the use of proportionately far fewer
sickle blades in the PPNC than in the M/LPPNB. Earlier MPPNB patterns
in Mediterranean zone indicate that naviform blades were primarily used
as blanks for sickles and later recycled into projectile points and dihedral
P1: GCR
burins. Rollefson suggests that this decreased emphasis might be linked to

the harvesting of reeds rather than cereals. No archaeological evidence ex-
ists for discrete work areas during the PPNC, although this may reflect the
limited excavation areas at most PPN settlements. Smaller, lighter projectile
points are recovered from PPNC and, interestingly, in similar proportions
to those recovered in M/LPPNB.
PPN OF THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND

POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS
As with any synthesis of prehistoric research, this overview of the south-

ern Levantine PPN periods has two critical goals: understanding how social
and behavioral practices changed through time and placing these in a com-
parative context in which the cultural interconnections and developments
in a single period can be understood. Elements of cultural continuity are
critical to understanding the subtle connections between periods. While rec-
ognizing such continuity, however, it is also important to reflect upon some
of the critical social changes of the PPN from an evolutionary perspective.
In the remaining section, we want to address some of these broader themes
and to attempt to place the PPN within broader archaeological and anthro-
pological debates, including the emergence of social inequality, changes in
population levels, possible developments in craft specialization, and the na-
ture of regional and interregional connections in the Near East.
Pre-Pottery Neolithic Cult and Ritual Systems
While considerable research has explored Neolithic cult and ritual prac-
tices, the majority of these studies have focused on either descriptions of
possible material evidence for rituals or reflections on the ways in which
cultic and ritual practices may reflect beliefs in the afterlife, ancestry wor-
ship, and/or alternative worlds. These studies, as well as several others that
explore the possible relations among ideology, ritual practices, and archi-
tectural systems, illustrate that there is considerable regional continuity in
cultural practices (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1989; Cauvin, 2000; Kuijt,
2000c).
While recognizing that select practices crosscut different cultural–
historical phases—for example, skull removal—researchers should note that
many cultic and ritual practices are apparently more pronounced in MPPNB
than in other periods. This ‘florescence’ is illustrated through a consideration
of the spatial and temporal correlates of select ritual and cultic practices. As
P1: GCR
noted earlier, skull removal is seen as early as the Early Natufian and widely
practiced throughout the PPNA. With the onset of the MPPNB, however, we
see an expansion of these practices with skull plastering, painting, and mod-
ification in a wide range of communities. There is also evidence for several
different forms of cranial deformation. Beyond these highly visual forms of
ritual, there is clear evidence from ‘Ain Ghazal and Jericho for the develop-
ment and use of large statues and busts for community rituals. The largest of
these statues had relatively detailed painted faces, with little artistic concern
paid to other areas of the body, and would have been displayed by place-
ment in upright positions in public locations. The importance of ritual and
cultic practices in MPPNB is also seen in the widespread appearance of spe-
cial purpose/communal architecture. Although there are examples dating
as early as the PPNA, the frequency of special purpose buildings increases
starting in the MPPNB and continuing into the LPPNB. These structures
often appear to have been situated in highly visible locations. For example,
the MPPNB cultic buildings at Beidha were placed in a distinct location that
was physically separated from residential areas. While in need of further
research, this period also gives evidence for sites that probably functioned
as places in which cultic practices were focused (such at Nehal Hemar).
The diversity of post mortem treatment afforded individuals, ranging
from simple interment with skull removal, daubing of the skull with pig-
ment, application of caps and plaster modeling, to intentional secondary
burials, clearly indicates some sort of differential status within communi-
ties. Internal homogeneity (vis-à-vis plastered skulls) within sites certainly
appears to indicate local community-level traditions. As argued elsewhere
(Goring-Morris, 2000; Kuijt, 1996b, 2000b, 2001b), the lack of obvious ma-
terial differentiation among individual burials in MPPNB may be linked to
the intentional homogenization of community members at times of death,
and, by extension, the existence of social and ritual mechanisms designed
to minimize real and perceived differences within and between households
and communities.
Various Repetitive Ideological, Cosmological, and Iconographic Themes
As a result of a newfound interest in ritual and cultic practices in the

PPN periods, over the last 10 years researchers have moved beyond site-level
patterning and begun an attempt to understand aspects of shared cultural
practices and beliefs through a consideration of the repetitive nature of
ideological, cosmological, and iconographic themes. Among these shared
practices, especially in MPPNB, is the use of plaster statues, busts, and stone
masks. In combination with the widespread, but by no means ubiquitous,
P1: GCR
practice of skull removal is the use of plaster in ritual and architectural

practices. Many skull caches, including those with votive offerings, are in
sets of twos and threes. This is often seen in the number of skulls cached
and/or in the number of objects placed with the skulls. There is archaeological
evidence to suggest that these beliefs were also expressed in architectural
systems. In several cases, such as Beidha, ‘Ain Ghazal, and Kfar HaHoresh,
the presence of monoliths, orthostats, and stelae of various sizes (25–100 cm
in height) is observed in groups of three.
As noted earlier, the antecedents of these practices are often found in
the beginnings of PPNA and, indeed, perhaps in the beginnings of sedentism
during the Late Epipalaeolithic and Early Natufian (Belfer-Cohen, 1995;
Byrd and Monahan, 1995). Some cultic and ritual practices, such as skull
removal, were expanded in PPNA and especially in MPPNB. While difficult
to quantify, these practices appear to be more frequent, or at least more
visible in the MPPNB, with some practices continuing to appear into the early
seventh millennium. This longevity of 2000–3000 years is surely indicative
of the intensity and stability of the belief system(s) in operation.
Social Inequality, Conflict, and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic
The Neolithic of the Near East is best known as the first period in which
domesticated plants and animals emerged, and, as a result, considerable re-
search has explored the possible links between the development of food
production and the emergence of social inequality (Hayden, 1995, 2001;
Price and Feinman, 1995, and references therein). There are many possible
ways to conceptualize how power and authority might have been controlled
and/or shared in Neolithic communities. While often unrecognized, many
discussions of Neolithic social systems are also situated within the much
broader discussion of whether, or how, social relations in agricultural com-
munities are organized along hierarchical and heterarchical lines. In the case
of the Neolithic, debates center on whether the pathways of power existed
as either a single hierarchical system, or one in which there were numerous
coexisting hierarchical power structures. While there is no consensus on the
matter, we suspect that most Near Eastern Neolithic archaeologists would
agree that there is no convincing evidence for organized central social hierar-
chy characterized by the existence of hereditary elites, and ethnographically
exemplified by chiefdom-level organizations. Many researchers (e.g., Byrd,
1994; Kuijt, 2001b; Rollefson, 2000) note, however, that there is evidence
of some limited forms of social differentiation among individuals, house-
holds, or communities, especially in the later periods of PPN. While almost
no archaeological research has directly addressed the topic, it is likely that
P1: GCR
social differentiation in the Neolithic was derived from the authority of ritual
practitioners, civic leaders, or perhaps community or household elders.
Many cross-cultural models for the development of social inequality
do not accurately represent archaeological data of the southern Levantine
Neolithic, thereby overlooking critical contradictory data (see also Smith
[2001] for broader discussion of what he identifies as “fact free” models
for the origins of agriculture). For example, Hayden (1995, 2001) argues
that food production created an economic context for the usurping and
consolidating of authority and power by select individuals. It is important to
note, however, that the archaeological record of PPN does not support many
of the expectations of this argument. Specifically, our current understanding
of the southern Levant indicates that (1) there is no clear material evidence
for extensive food storage until ca. 9500 B.P. (Kuijt, 2000b); (2) there is no
convincing material evidence for profound social differentiation, as would
be expressed by widespread differentiation of individuals at death, or shown
in life by differential access to residential housing, until 9500 B.P. (Goring-
Morris, 2000; Kuijt, 1996b, 2001b); (3) with one possible exception, there
is no evidence for extensive interpersonal conflict in the PPN periods; and
(4) consideration of the standardized nature of cultic and ritual practices
within and among communities illustrates that social cohesion and collective
identity were important aspects of PPN lifeways. Collectively, these patterns
stand in direct contradiction to social competition models for the origins of
agriculture.
As illustrated in the earlier discussions of mortuary and architectural
practices for different periods of the PPN, mortuary practices from these
periods provide only limited evidence for individuals being abstracted from
the community at times of death. Almost without exception, deceased in-
dividuals in the early PPN were buried without any form of grave goods or
ornamentation. Only in the LPPNB and PPNC are ornamentation or grave
goods found with individuals, and then only occasionally. There is some evi-
dence, most noticeably with MPPNB of Kfar HaHoresh, of votive offerings
or the burial of humans and animals occurring before and into LPPNB. It is
only in the later phases of PPN, however, that there is systematic evidence
for the recognition of individuals through the material culture at the time of
death or in life.
The near-total absence of evidence for interpersonal or intercommu-
nity aggression or violence in PPN both is surprising and appears to con-
tradict models prioritizing human conflict as a means of developing social
inequality, especially in light of the dramatic regional increase in size and
density of communities. We are aware of only a few burials (out of some
ca. 300 described) from the entire southern Levantine Neolithic that may
reflect physical evidence for interpersonal conflict. As noted by Kafafi and
P1: GCR
Rollefson (1995), a single individual from the LPPNB levels of ‘Ain Ghazal
was found with a flint blade embedded in the cranium, although it is not
entirely clear if this was intentional or rather the result of post-depositional
processes. Similarly, Kenyon’s early interpretations of the tower of Jericho
(Kenyon, 1958) as a defensive structure have been rebuffed by Bar-Yosef
(1986). There is, in sum, no convincing architectural or skeletal evidence for
extensive interpersonal or intercommunity conflict in the south Levantine
PPN. Perhaps more important, our existing evidence provides no evidence
for the extensive control of one group of Neolithic communities over others
through the use of force. Undoubtedly, conflict did occur in these commu-
nities, but current evidence indicates that it was limited in scale, and does
not support arguments for extensive interpersonal conflict for control over
others.
As an alternative to discussions focusing on the emergence social dif-
ferentiation in PPN, we suggest that researchers would benefit more in envi-
sioning social relations and their material manifestations as amalgamations
of social practices that serve to highlight elements of coexisting social dif-
ferentiation and collective identity in communities. Ethnographic and an-
thropological research illustrates three aspects of social relations in present
and past middle-range communities such as those of the Neolithic: (1) social
inequality is ubiquitous and found in all societies; (2) “egalitarian” social
systems require highly complex codes of social behavior, codes that are as
complex as those seen within systems of hereditary power exist; and (3) hier-
archy and egalitarianism are fundamentally interrelated and coexist in many,
if not most, social systems. A number of recent ethnographic and archae-
ological studies have clearly demonstrated that most forms of governance
in small-scale agricultural or horticultural communities combine hierarchi-
cal and egalitarian dimensions. Recognizing the coexistence of egalitarian
and hierarchical relations diverts researchers from placing cultural labels
on societies and simultaneously facilitates the development of realistic and
comprehensive models of cultural dynamics, including the possible pathways
to power and authority in Neolithic communities.
It is also important to recognize that Neolithic social relations may
have focused on an organized series of interrelated, coexisting hierarchical
units, rather than a hierarchically organized system of individual leadership.
From some perspectives, archaeological evidence from the Near Eastern Ne-
olithic reflects several forms of hierarchical ritual and civic administration.
For example, some dimensions of ritual practice found expression on the
community level and would have undoubtedly involved ritual practitioners
who controlled the timing, nature, and context of some, but not necessar-
ily all, community rituals (Cauvin, 2000; Goring-Morris, 2000; Kuijt, 1996b;
Mellaart, 1975; Rollefson, 1986; Verhoeven, 2002; Voigt, 1983). Researchers
P1: GCR
have also reflected on the importance of civic leadership for other tasks, such
as the construction and maintenance of community buildings (Byrd, 1994;
Kafafi and Rollefson, 1995; Özdögan and Özdögan, 1989; Schmidt, 1995). In
light of the number of people living in some of these Neolithic communities,
some form of civic, community-oriented leadership might have been nec-
essary for organizing the planting and harvesting of crops. On the basis of
spatial patterning of lithic debitage from ‘Ain Ghazal, Quintero and Wilke
(1995) note that there is evidence for stone tool workshops in MPPN, and
that a high degree of standardization may well reflect some from of craft spe-
cialization. Given the absence of differentiation in residential architecture
and mortuary practices, we believe that envisioning Neolithic communities
as social realms in which there was a balance of economic centralization
and autonomy with coexisting dimensions of egalitarianism and hierarchy is
helpful in reconstructing past social relations. Moreover, in understanding
the shifting nature of these relationships through time, we can conceive of
Neolithic community relations as focused on a series of interrelated coex-
isting social units which might have included, but were not limited to, kin
groups, the household, ritual sodalities, and the community.
Population Aggregation and Regional Growth
The PPN of the southern Levant is characterized by remarkable in-

creases in the size of communities as well as changes in their economic
and subsistence orientations. Consideration of the overall trajectory of the
PPNA through FPPNB outlines two interrelated processes: regional popu-
lation growth and the dynamic aggregation and dispersal of communities
at different periods of the Neolithic. Field research is only now provid-
ing a general understanding of site-level demographic change within spe-
cific geographical areas and periods of time (see Hershkovitz and Gopher,
1990; Kuijt, 2000b; Smith et al., 1984, for general considerations of Neolithic
demography). The development of accurate estimates of Neolithic pop-
ulation growth is highly complex and complicated by issues of changing
archaeological visibility of settlements through different periods (such as
PPNA with mud architecture and PPNB with stone architecture and painted
plaster floors), as well as variations in the location, architectural remains,
and size of settlements within individual cultural–historical periods in dif-
ferent environmental regions (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1991; Kuijt,
2000a).
In recent considerations of the change of settlement size and demog-
raphy for the Levantine PPN, several researchers (Bar-Yosef and Meadow,
1995; Hershkovitz and Gopher, 1990; Kuijt, 2000a) explore changes in the
largest identified settlements through the PPN periods. They outline a
P1: GCR
pattern of considerable expansion in communities from the period of

ca. 11,700 to ca. 8700 B.P. For example, while the five largest known Late
Natufian settlements are each approximately 2000 m2 , this figure increased
dramatically in the PPNA with some settlements over 10,000 m2 . The largest
known MPPNB settlements range in area from 45,000 to 50,000 m2 , and, af-
ter 9500 B.P., LPPNB settlements such as Basta and ‘Ain Ghazal, cover nearly
140,000 m2 . The distribution of PPN sites by size illustrates a trajectory of a
steady increase in the size of largest settlements through time. It is interest-
ing to note, however, that at the end of the PPN, settlements are abandoned
either entirely with new, smaller, hamlets established, or in cases such as
with ‘Ain Ghazal, communities became smaller.
While the overall size of PPN settlements seemingly increased through
time (and by extension the number of people who lived there), it is unclear if
this reflects regional population growth or a high degree of population aggre-
gation. Probably this represents a conflation of two interrelated processes:
(1) gradual and steady regional population growth through the Neolithic, and
(2) population aggregation in large and important settlements, like Basta and
‘Ain Ghazal, for ritual, political, and economic reasons (Rollefson, 1987). On
the basis of figures for the total settlement area from ca. 12,500 to ca. 8700 B.P.,
one could argue that population levels increased gradually, up to and includ-
ing PPNA. While difficult to demonstrate, it appears that in the LPPNB, and
perhaps more specifically from ca. 9500 to ca. 8700 B.P., the population of hu-
man communities increased at a much greater rate during and immediately
after the widespread introduction of domesticated plants and animals in the
southern Levant.
An interesting speculation is that regional population growth and
settlement-level aggregation might have been centered on specific geograph-
ical areas of the southern Levant. For example, in contrast to the end of the
Natufian, there is clear evidence for the centralization of PPNA commu-
nities within or around the Jordan Valley (Fig. 1). Ranging up to 1.5 ha,
these relatively large, early villages were situated on alluvial fans. Although
smaller (and in some cases, seasonal) PPNA settlements occurred in areas
adjacent to the Jordan Valley, the largest communities were founded in the
Rift Valley refugium. The MPPNB is characterized by the appearance of
numerous new settlements centered on the Jordan Valley and adjacent hill
areas, with the largest settlements reaching approximately 3–5 ha. This pe-
riod is also characterized by the development of small seasonal camps in
ecologically marginal areas. Starting about ca. 9500 B.P. in the LPPNB, there
is evidence for dramatic demographic change characterized by the founding
of new large aggregate villages, most of which were situated along the high-
lands of the Jordan Valley. These communities, 10–14 ha in area, are charac-
terized by extensive architectural ruins and evidence for two-story buildings.
P1: GCR
Interestingly, there is also clear evidence for the LPPNB expansion of hu-
man groups into desertic areas (Betts, 1988; Byrd, 1994; Goring-Morris and
Belfer-Cohen, 1998) (Fig. 13). At the moment, evidence for PPNC/FPPNB
does not permit a clear understanding of regional demographic changes (or,
for that matter, the size of sites) for this period, but in general there is some
evidence for both an occupational continuity from LPPNB and the found-
ing of new sites along the littoral areas. As such, it is important to note that
the PPN reflects the regional founding and abandonment of communities
in specific regions (see Banning et al., 1994; Gopher and Gophna, 1993, and
references therein).
Craft Specialization: Evidence, Materials, and Evaluation
A number of researchers have directed increased attention to how ma-

terial culture may or may not reflect some form of specialization of labor or
craft specialization. Becuase of a limited understanding of the spatial distri-
bution of material culture within individual settlements, let alone between
settlements, most arguments for craft or labor specialization have centered
on the perceived complexity of lithic technology. While this is an important
first step in understanding how labor was organized, studies have only re-
cently started to explore the central questions: (1) to what degree were labor
and production activities specialized in different communities through time;
(2) how might these activities be expressed in the archaeological record;
and (3) is there evidence for differential control of, or access to, specific
resources at different periods of the Neolithic? Disappointingly, archaeolo-
gists have yet to develop data sets of sufficient resolution to directly address
these critical questions. A contributing factor to this is the paucity of pub-
lished intra-site data, making it almost impossible to understand whether or
how activities such as flint knapping, skull plastering, and bead production
occurred on or off individual sites.
In one of the few explicit attempts to look at issues of labor and special-
ization in the Levantine Neolithic, Quintero and Wilke (1995) have argued
that the spatial distribution of production materials and the technique of
naviform core-production at MPPNB ‘Ain Ghazal reflect some form of craft
specialization. Through debitage analysis and a consideration of the spatial
distribution of these materials, they argue that at ‘Ain Ghazal naviform core
production occurred in discrete areas and is the result of some form of lithic
specialization. Focusing on the LPPNB, research at Ba’Ja and Basta provides
two other interesting examples of possible lithic specialization. In both of
these communities, there is good evidence for the manufacture of stone
bracelets between ca. 9500 and ca. 8700 B.P. (Gebel and Bienert, 1997; Nissen
et al., 1988). Excavation indicates that stone bracelets were manufactured
P1: GCR
from local sandstone and limestone materials. At Ba’Ja, stone bracelets were
recovered in various stages of production, clearly reflecting on site manu-
facture (Gebel and Hermansen, 2000, p. 21). It is still unclear, however, if
these objects were distributed to neighboring communities, if manufacture
was focused on the needs of individual communities, and the extent to which
these represent labor specialization.
Another possible locus for some form of LPPNB labor specialization is
that of control of ritual practices and the materials employed therein. Again,
while archaeological research has yet to address this question in a detailed
manner, we must consider the degree to which ritual practices might have
been controlled by individuals or groups of ritual practitioners. For example,
skull plastering possibly was a ritual activity practiced by only certain indi-
viduals who fulfilled defined roles within the community. The extent to which
artisans might have fulfilled other specific roles (shamans?) within the com-
munity is, of course, unresolved. Other possible community activities that
could be described as being some form of craft specialization might include
lime-plaster production, weaving, construction of residential and commu-
nity buildings, and shell- and stone-bead production. While recognizing this
possibility, there is no obvious, unequivocal evidence at present to indicate
that such individuals or groups depended primarily upon these skills for their
livelihoods.
Regional and Inter-regional Connections
Debate exists as to the extent to which lithic technology, architectural

systems, and ritual activities were shared by PPN communities in differ-
ent regions of the Near East. Arguments for shared practices are based on
observations of specific material manifestations of behavior (e.g., the ap-
pearance of specific projectile point types), and the assumption that these
manifestations present a greater utility in understanding shared practices
than do others (e.g., the appearance of a specific projectile point over other
projectile points). Interpretation is complicated by the fact that the distri-
bution of select important economic objects appears to be restricted in their
distribution across the Near East, in many cases without overlap. Thus the
archaeological interpretation of how different Neolithic communities were
economically and socially linked is related to which types and material cat-
egories of objects are believed to be more or less important.
Southern Levant
The distribution and similarities in stone tool technology, residential

architecture, and shell- and stone-bead production provide important
P1: GCR
preliminary insight into connections between communities. As outlined by

several researchers (Byrd, 1994; Rollefson, 2000; Rollefson et al., 1992),
architecture provides some indication that regional architectural practices
changed through time, and can, therefore, be used to understand in a general
way the period(s) of occupation for individual settlements. It is important
to recognize, however, that only limited consideration has been given to ar-
chitectural variation for individual periods of time (e.g., MPPNB), as well
as to how this variation may or may not reflect shared cultural practices
across the southern Levant. The MPPNB and LPPNB provide one of the
few examples in which archaeologists are starting to understand the nature of
regional variation in architectural and mortuary practices. Recent archae-
ological data for the MPPNB demonstrate that residential architecture at
select settlements, such as ‘Ain Ghazal and Jericho, was very similar. At the
same time excavations of other MPPNB settlements, such as Yiftahel and
Kfar HaHoresh, have revealed architecture distinct from both ‘Ain Ghazal
and Jericho. One possible interpretation of the similarities between larger
MPPNB settlements centered on the Jordan Valley, and the variations in
comparison to neighboring communities, is that the former existed as an
economic and social core area.
Stone tool technology provides a second important means of recon-
structing interconnections between southern Levantine Neolithic commu-
nities in the form of shared material practices. In the context of PPNB, for
example, projectile point styles illustrate that at least two major stylistic
provinces can be recognized. First, the northern areas are characterized by
relatively large and heavy ’classic’ naviform blanks. Second, southern areas
appear to be characterized by lighter, slender blanks from shorter opposed-
platform cores. In a similar way, the production of bifacial tools (at least for
PPNB) may reflect distinct regional stone tool practices.
The distribution of malachite, Dabba marble, marine mollusks, and ob-
sidian provides some indication of inter-regional contacts, and, in many cases,
the sources of specific materials are relatively well known. At the same time,
researchers have yet to directly address how trade materials were distributed
across the southern Levant, as well as the degree to which such distribution
mechanisms reflect shared cultural practices rather than economic connec-
tions limited to the trade and exchange of finished products.
Within the Near East
Although widely recognized as an important issue by prehistorians,

the nature of contact between contemporary Neolithic communities in dif-
ferent areas of the Near East remains an important topic (Bar-Yosef and
P1: GCR
Belfer-Cohen, 1989; Cauvin, 1994, 2000). While this topic is beyond the
scope of this paper, it is necessary to discuss at least briefly some of the inter-
regional connections between the southern Levant and neighboring regions.
There is no question that prehistorians know more about the links
between this area and the northern Levant and Anatolia than any other
neighboring area in the southern Levant (see, for example, Aurenche and
Kozlowski, 1999; Cauvin, 2000; Kozlowski, 1999). There are obvious and
marked connections in both directions between the southern and northern
Levant and parts of east-central Anatolia during PPN, with shared material
culture traits as well as direct exchange in various commodities. Contacts
with the northern Levant (and by extension with east-central Anatolia)
probably occurred by way of three main routes: along the narrow coastal
plain, up the Rift Valley, and along the edge of the ante-Lebanon mountains.
Certain innovations, for example, naviform blade production and typolog-
ical differences in projectile point morphology seem to have diffused from
the north (Gopher, 1989, 1994). While there are differences in architecture,
iconographic themes, and mortuary practices, there are nevertheless many
areas of similarity in these practices between groups in the southern Levant
and those in Turkey and northern Syria. Intraregional considerations of ar-
chitectural practices (see Akkermans and Verhoeven, 1995; Özdögan and
Özdögan, 1998; Verhoeven, 1999, 2002) and mortuary practices illustrate
aspects of continuity, such as the regional transition from circular to rectan-
gular houses, the development and maintenance of skull removal, and the
use of similar zoomorphic figurines. While there is clear variation in their
application, the shared nature of these practices is suggestive of important
social, economic, and political links between these different areas.
All the above renders the apparent absence of evidence for contact
between the southern Levant and the Nile Valley during PPN all the more
surprising, especially considering that the distances involved could have been
easily traversed in a matter of days, and that conditions in the Negev and
Sinai were relatively favorable for much of the period. Despite considerable
research in areas of the Nile Valley and intervening areas of the Negev and
Sinai, there is almost no evidence for extensive and regular social or eco-
nomic connections between the southern Levant and the Nile Valley during
PPN. It is probably only during the early Pottery Neolithic, ca. 8400 B.P. or
somewhat later, that contacts with the Nile Valley were initiated, probably
involving the diffusion of a package of domesticated plants and animals.
These cultural connections are minor when compared with the extensive
evidence for shared ideological developments, lithic technology, and subsis-
tence systems between the southern and northern Levant in PPN.
A number of recent field projects in Cyprus have shed new light on
the broader dispersal of Neolithic communities across the Mediterranean,
P1: GCR
and revealed significant evidence for substantial and sustained links be-
tween communities living on the mainland and those in Cyprus (Peltenburg
et al., 2001; Swiny, 2001). Previous studies have generally viewed the cultural
connections between Neolithic Cypriot and Levantine populations as being
rather limited and occurring only in the LPPNB (Cauvin, 1989). Since the
1990s, at least six Neolithic sites have been recognized as being contempo-
raneous with and perhaps earlier than MPPNB sites in the southern Levant.
While still preliminary, arguments have been made that the connections be-
tween these two areas were much earlier than previously thought, so much
so that Peltenburg et al. (2001) argue that the Cypro-PPNB should be viewed
as a facies of the better understood mainland PPNB. Drawing upon architec-
tural, mortuary, and lithic evidence, they argue that the sudden appearance
of these cultural practices and strong material similarities between the two
areas indicate that migration played a significant role in the earliest spread
of farming across the Near East. This growing awareness of cultural similar-
ities between the two areas raises a number of important questions about
the nature of PPN social and economic connections between areas of the
southern Levant and communities along the East and West side of the Red
Sea, as well as with groups living along the Persian Gulf. An assessment of
the links between these PPN communities is currently impossible, however,
because of the limited nature of research that has occurred in these areas.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Over the last 30 years, archaeological research has transported us be-

yond the general statement that the development of food production was
a critical evolutionary event to producing numerous case studies of the na-
ture of social and economic change during the southern Levantine PPN.
Researchers are now developing a sophisticated understanding of (1) the
material culture of past communities through different periods; (2) the na-
ture of regional and interregional trade and exchange patterns; and (3) the
links between food production and social organization at the household,
community, and regional scale. Recent studies have been instrumental in
expanding our understanding of the Neolithic in the Near East, while at
the same time reaffirming both our exploration of a number of new topics,
and our reexploration of old topics from the standpoint of new data and
methodological developments.
In concluding this overview, it is important to highlight several avenues
of future research (see also Baird, 1997). Study of the nature of leadership
and governance at varying scales, such as the individual, household, commu-
nity, and regional levels, is one such avenue of future research. Although a
P1: GCR
number of works have illustrated how many, if not most, Neolithic commu-
nities shared material practices at the regional level (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-
Cohen, 1989; Bar-Yosef and Meadows, 1995; Cauvin, 1994, 2000), in many
ways our understanding of governance remains highly theoretical, abstract,
and largely removed from the specifics of archaeological data sets from in-
dividual sites (Hayden, 1995, 2001), and rarely moves beyond consideration
of community ideology. There is growing consensus among researchers that
social practices existed at certain points in the past to differentiate among in-
dividuals within the overall Neolithic community. On a material level, many
discussions of Neolithic social organization focus on the issues of how (or
whether) select Neolithic material culture reflects the interests, behavior,
and social role(s) of individuals vs. a collective group of individuals.
A second avenue of future research centers of ritual and civic leader-
ship. Detailed consideration of Neolithic architecture, mortuary practices,
and ritual actions collectively brings researchers to the point where we can
start to reflect upon how ritual and civic leadership might have been orga-
nized in different Neolithic communities. While there are exceptions, most
research has either focused on the classification of nuclear or extended fam-
ily households, or has explored governance at the scale of the community; in
either case, this research rarely addresses the existence of the household or
“House” as a social and economic unit. While often based on field work con-
ducted many years ago, recent reflections (e.g., Akkermans and Verhoeven,
1995; Banning and Byrd, 1987; Byrd, 1994; Byrd and Banning, 1988; Özdögan
and Özdögan, 1989, 1998; Rollefson, 1997; Rollefson et al., 1992; Schmidt,
1995; Verhoeven, 1999, 2002) on observed patterning of residential and non-
residential architecture have greatly enhanced our understanding of social
life. We believe that future research will benefit from renewed attention to
the focus of Neolithic social practices on either individual households or
the broader “House” as a social and economic unit. A critical examination
of this issue in the future, as well as expanded discussion of issues related
to the nature of Neolithic governance and leadership, will be central to ex-
panding our understanding of Neolithic social complexity and the origins of
agriculture.
A third important avenue for future research is that of the potential links
between economic and social changes at different points in the Neolithic.
In the broadest of scales, we can note that the initial development and later
entrenchment of different kinds of food production must have radically al-
tered the nature of ownership, land tenure, labor, and civic organization.
Who, for example, organized people to undertake farming, planting, herd-
ing, and harvesting? There is no question that these issues are central to
our understanding of economic developments (such as the appearance of
domesticated plants and animals) as well as the ways in which control of
P1: GCR
these resources would have been linked to social changes. Future scholars
will need to address the degree of social and economic independence of
Neolithic communities from select periods, and economic linkages between
communities through marriage, trade, and ritual beliefs. A better under-
standing of the ways in which leaders- or households-controlled trade will
also be important to future research on Neolithic social and economic prac-
tices.
A final important area of future research is the refinement of cultural–
historical sequences and their relation to changing paleoenvironmental con-
ditions. On a relative basis, the culture–history of the prehistoric periods of
the southern Levant is well understood. Considerable debate among archae-
ologists continues, however, on the organization of these cultural–historical
schemes, as well as on the length and period of time for individual phases.
Exploration of these subjects will produce a new awareness of the social, eco-
nomic, and political developments in the Near Eastern Neolithic in specific,
and in the forager–farmer transition in general.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper draws upon conversations with many researchers over the
years and has been supported directly and indirectly by numerous sources of
funding. We have also benefited enormously from dialogue with numerous
friends and colleagues over the years. They include A. Garrard, B. Byrd,
O. Bar-Yosef, M. Chesson, A. Belfer-Cohen, J. Cauvin, M.-C. Cauvin, Y.
Garfinkel, B. Finlayson, F. Hole, R. Meadow, Y. Goren, A. Simmon, D.
Binder, H. Mahasneh, P. Edwards, H. G. Gebel, S. Colledge, E. Banning,
P. Akkermans, M. Verhoeven, Z. Kaffafi, M. Özdögan, I. Gilead, D. Baird,
A. Gopher, I. Hershkowitz, M. Cochrane, M. Najjar, G. Rollefson, and the
late T. Noy. Ian Kuijt acknowledges the support of the Institute for Schol-
arship in the Liberal Arts at the University of Notre Dame and the Notre
Dame Department of Anthropology. The authors thank M. Cochrane, who
spent the better part of a week in May 2002 copy editing and working on
the figures for submission. We also thank A. E. Close for her remarkable
patience and guidance in this project, as well as the “Herdmaster” and two
anonymous reviewers for their detailed and constructive comments. Finally,
we specifically acknowledge the critical role of Ofer Bar-Yosef in the devel-
opment of this paper and his assistance over the years. As a friend, colleague,
and mentor, Ofer has profoundly influenced both of our academic careers
in ways too numerious to mention. While not agreeing with some of the
concepts and interpretations presented in this paper, Ofer and the people
listed above have been instrumental in the development of the arguments
P1: GCR
put forward in this essay. The constructive, and at times lively, discussion
and debate with these individuals has immeasurably improved the clarity
and organization of this paper.
REFERENCES
Abbès, F. (1994). Techniques de débitage et gestion de silex sur le Moyen-Euphrate (Syrie)

au PPNA final et au PPNB ancien. In Gebel, H. G., and Kozlowski, S. K. (eds.), Neolithic
Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, Proceedings of the First Workshop on PPN
Chipped Lithic Industries, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 299–312.
Akkermans, P. A., Boerma, J. A. K., Clason, A., Hill, S. G., Lohof, E., Meiklejohn, C., Mière,
M. L., Molgat, G. M. F., Roodenberg, J. J., Waterbolk-van Rooyen, W., and van Zeist, W.
(1983). Bouqras revisited: Preliminary report on a project in eastern Syria. Proceedings of
the Prehistoric Society 49: 335–372.
Akkermans, P. M. M. G., and Verhoeven, M. (1995). An image of complexity—The burnt village
at Late Neolithic Sabi Abyad, Syria. American Journal of Archaeology 99(1): 5–32.
Amiran, R. (1962). Myths of the creation of man and the Jericho statues. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 167: 23–25.
Arensburg, B., and Hershkovitz, I. (1988). Neolithic remains. In Bar-Yosef, O., and Alon, D.
(eds.), Nahal Hemar Cave, Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums, Jerusalem,
pp. 50–58.
Aurenche, O. (1981). La Maison Oriental. L’architecture du Proche-Orient Ancien, des origines
au milieu du Quatriéme Millénaire, Geuthner, Paris.
Aurenche, O., and Kozlowski, S. (1999). La Naissance du Néolithique au Proche Orient ou La
Paradis Perdu, Editions Errance, Paris.
Baird, D. (1997). Goals in Jordanian Neolithic research. In Gebel, H. G. K., Kafafi, Z., and
Rollefson, G. O. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan II. Perspectives From 1997, Studies in Early
Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 4, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 371–
381.
Banning, E. B. (1998). The Neolithic period: Triumphs of architecture, agriculture, and art. Near
Eastern Archaeology 61(4): 188–237.
Banning, E. B. (2001). Settlement and economy in Wadi Ziqlab during the Late Neolithic. In
Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VII, Department of Antiquities of Jordan,
Amman, pp. 149–155.
Banning, E. B., and Byrd, B. F. (1987). Houses and changing residential unit: Domestic archi-
tecture at PPNB ’Ain Ghazal. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53: 309–325.
Banning, E. B., and Byrd, B. F. (1989). Renovations and the changing residential unit at ’Ain
Ghazal, Jordan. In MacEachern, S., Archer, D., and Garvin, R. D. (eds.), Households and
Communities, Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Conference, University of Calgary,
Calgary, Canada, pp. 525–533.
Banning, E. B., Rahimi, D., and Siggers, J. (1994). The Late Neolithic of the southern Levant:
Hiatus, settlement shift, observer bias? The perspective from Wadi Ziqlab. Paléorient 20(2):
151–164.
Bar-Matthews, M., Ayalon, A., and Kaufman, A. (1997). Late Quaternary paleoclimate in the
Eastern Mediterranean region from stable isotope analysis of speleotherms at Soreq Cave,
Israel. Quaternary Research 47: 155–168.
Baruch, U., and Bottema, S. (1991). Palynological evidence for climate change in the Levant
ca. 17,000–9,000 B.P. In Bar-Yosef, O., and Valla, F. R. (eds.), The Natufian Culture in the
Levant, International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 11–21.
Bar-Yosef, O. (1980). Prehistory of the Levant. Annual Review of Anthropology 9: 101–133.
Bar-Yosef, O. (1981). The “Pre-Pottery Neolithic” period in the Southern Levant. In Cauvin,
J., and Sanlaville, P. (eds.), Préhistoire du Levant, CNRS, Paris, pp. 551–570.
P1: GCR
Bar-Yosef, O. (1986). The walls of Jericho: An alternative interpretation. Current Anthropology

27: 157–162.
Bar-Yosef, O. (1991). The Early Neolithic of the Levant: Recent advances. The Review of
Archaeology 12(2): 1–18.
Bar-Yosef, O. (2000). The impact of radiocarbon dating on Old World Archaeology: Past
achievements and future expectations. Radiocarbon 42(1): 1–17.
Bar-Yosef, O. (2001). From sedentary foragers to village hierarchies: The emergence of social
institutions. In Runciman, G. (ed.), The Origin of Human Social Institutions, Proceedings
of the British Academy, Vol. 110, Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp. 1–38.
Bar-Yosef, O., and Alon, D. (1988). Excavations in the Nahal Hemar Cave. Atiqot 18.
Bar-Yosef, O., and Belfer-Cohen, A. (1989). The Levantine “PPNB” interaction sphere. In
Hershkovitz, I. (ed.), People and Culture in Change, Proceedings of the Second Symposium
of Upper Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic Populations of Europe and the Mediter-
ranean Basin, British Archaeology Reports, International Series 508, Oxford, pp. 59–72.
Bar-Yosef, O., and Belfer-Cohen, A. (1991). From sedentary hunter-gatherers to territorial
farmers in the Levant. In Gregg, S. A. (ed.), Between Bands and States, Center for Archae-
ological Investigations, Carbondale, IL, pp. 181–202.
Bar-Yosef, O., and Gopher, A. (eds.) (1997). An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part
I: The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud, American School of Prehistoric Research, Peabody
Museum, Cambridge.
Bar-Yosef, O., Gopher, A., Tchernov, E., and Kislev, M. E. (1991). Nativ Hagdud—An Early
Neolithic village site in the Jordan valley. Journal of Field Archaeology 18(4): 405–
424.
Bar-Yosef, O., and Kislev, M. (1989). Early farming communities in the Jordan valley. In Harris,
D. R., and Hillman, G. C. (eds.), Foraging and Farming: The Evolution of Plant Exploitation,
Hyman and Unwin, London, pp. 632–640.
Bar-Yosef, O., and Meadow, R. H. (1995). The origins of agriculture in the Near East. In Price,
T. D., and Gebauer, A. B. (eds.), Last Hunters—First Farmers: New Perspectives on the
Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM,
pp. 39–94.
Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. (1997). Neolithic shell bead production in Sinai. Journal of Archaeological
Science 24: 97–111.
Belfer-Cohen, A. (1995). Rethinking social stratification in the Natufian culture: The evidence
from burials. In Campbell, S., and Green, A. (eds.),The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient
Near East, Oxbow Monographs, Edinburgh, pp. 9–16.
Bennett, C. M. (1980). Soundings at Dhra‘, Jordan. Levant 12: 30–39.
Betts, A. (1989). The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period in Eastern Jordan. Paléorient 15(1): 147–
153.
Bienert, H. D. (1991). Skull cult in the prehistoric Near East. Journal of Prehistoric Religion 5:
9–23.
Bienert, H. D. (2001). The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) of Jordan: A first step towards
proto-urbanism? In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VII, Department of
Antiquities of Jordan, Amman, pp. 107–119.
Binford, L. R. (1968). Post-Pleistocene adaptations. In Binford, S., and Binford, L. R. (eds.),
New Perspectives in Archaeology, Aldine, Chicago, pp. 313–341.
Bisheh, G., Farajat, S., Palumbo, G., and Waheeb, M. (1993). The cultural resources manage-
ment project in Jordan archaeological rescue survey of the Ras An-Naqab-Aqaba highway
alignment, 1992. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 37: 119–131.
Burian, F., Friedman, E., and Mintz, E. (1976). An Early PPNB site in the Nehal Levan region—
site no. 109. Mitakufat Haeven 14: 54–60.
Byrd, B. F. (1992). The dispersal of food production across the Levant. In Gebauer, A. B., and
Price, T. D. (eds.), Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI,
pp. 49–61.
Byrd, B. F. (1994). Public and private, domestic and corporate: The emergence of the southwest
Asian village. American Antiquity 59(4): 639–666.
P1: GCR
Byrd, B. F., and Banning, E. B. (1988). Southern Levantine pier houses: Intersite architectural
patterning during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. Paléorient 14: 65–72.
Byrd, B. F., and Monahan, C. M. (1995). Death, mortuary ritual, and Natufian social structure.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14: 251–287.
Cauvin, J. (1977). Les Fouilles de Mureybet (1971–1974) et Leur Signification pour les Orig-
ines de la Sedentarisation au Proche-Orient. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 44: 19–48.
Cauvin, J. (1989). La Néolithisation au Levant et sa Première diffusion. In Aurenche, O., and
Cauvin, J. (eds.), Néolithisation, British Archaeology Reports, International Series 516,
Oxford, pp. 3–36.
Cauvin, J. (1994). Naissance des divinités, Naissance de l’agriculture, CNRS, Paris.
Cauvin, J. (2000). The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Cohen, M. N. (1977). Population pressure and the origins of agriculture: An archaeological
example from the coast of Peru. In Reed, C. A. (ed.), Origins of Agriculture, Mouton, The
Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 135–178.
Colledge, S. (1998). Identifying pre-domestication cultivation using multivariate analysis. In
Damania, A. B., Valkoun, J., Willcox, G., and Qualset, C. O. (eds.), The Origins of Agricul-
ture and Crop Domestication, ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria, pp. 121–131.
Cornwall, I. W. (1981). Appendix A. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic burials. In Holland, T. A. (ed.),
Excavations at Jericho: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell, British School of
Archaeology in Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel, pp. 395–406.
Crowfoot-Payne, J. (1976). The Terminology of the Aceramic Neolithic Period in the Levant.
In Terminology of Prehistory of the Near East, Pre-print IX UISPP Congress, Nice, France.
Crowfoot-Payne, J. (1983). The flint industries of Jericho. In Kenyon, K. M., and Holland, T. A.
(eds.), Excavations at Jericho, The British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London,
pp. 622–759.
de Contenson, H. (1966). Les Trois Premières Campagnes de Fouilles à Tell Ramad (Syrie). C.
R. Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres pp. 531–536.
de Contenson, H. (1971). Tell Ramad, a village of Syria of the 7th and 6th millennia B.C.
Archaeology 24: 278–283.
de Contenson, H. (1989). L’Aswadien: un nouveau facies de Néolithique Syrien. Paléorient 15:
259–262.
de Contenson, H. (1995). Aswad et Ghoraifé, site Néolithiques en Damascène (Syrie) au IX-
VIII millénaires avant l’ère chretienne, Bibliothèque Archaélogique et Historique, 137,
Beyrouth.
Echegaray, G. J. (1966). Excavation en la Terraza de El-Khaim (Jordania), Part II, Casa Espanola
de Santiago en Jerusalem, Madrid.
Edwards, P. C., Falconer, S. E., Fall, P. L., Berelov, I., Davis, C., Meadows, J., Meegan, C., Metzger,
M. C., and Sayej, G. (2001). Archaeology and environment of the Dead Sea plain: Prelim-
inary results of the first season of investigations by the Joint La Trobe University/Arizona
State University project. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 45: 135–157.
Ferembach, D. (1978). Etude Anthropologique. Les Cranes Surmodelés. In Lechevallier, M.
(ed.), Abou Gosh et Beisamoun, Association Paléorient, Paris.
Finlayson, B., Mithen, S., Carruthers, D., Kennedy, A., Pirie, A., and Tipping, R. (2000). The
Dana–Faynan–Ghuwayr early prehistory project. Levant 32: 1–26.
Flannery, K. V. (1973). The origins of agriculture. Annual Review of Anthropology 2: 271–310.
Galili, E., Weinstein-Evron, M., Hershkovitz, I., Gopher, A., Kislev, M., Lernau, O., Kolska-
Horwitz, L., and Lernau, L. (1993). Atlit-Yam: A prehistoric site on the sea floor off the
Israeli coast. Journal of Field Archaeology 20: 133–157.
Garfinkel, Y. (1987). Yiftahel: A Neolithic village from the Seventh millennium B.C. in Lower
Galilee, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 14: 199–212.
Garfinkel, Y. (1989). The Pre-Pottery Neolithic a site of Gesher. Mitequfat Ha’even 22: 145.
Garfinkel, Y. (1994). Ritual burial of cultic objects: The earliest evidence. Cambridge Archae-
ology Journal 4(2): 159–188.
P1: GCR
Garfinkel, Y. (1996). Critical observations on the so-called Khiamian flint industry. In

Kozlowski, S. K., and Gebel, H. G. K. (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile
Crescent, and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 15–21.
Garfinkel, Y., and Nadel, D. (1989). The sultanian flint assemblage from Gesher and its impli-
cations for recognizing Early Neolithic entities in the Levant. Paléorient 15(2): 139–152.
Garrard, A., Baird, D., and Byrd, B. (1994). The chronological basis and significance of the Late
Paleolithic and Neolithic sequence in the Azraq Basin, Jordan. In Bar-Yosef, O., and Kra,
R. (eds.), Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean,
Radiocarbon, Tucson, AZ, pp. 177–199.
Garrard, A., Colledge, S., and Martin, L. (1996). The emergence of crop cultivation and caprine
herding in the “Marginal Zone” of the southern Levant. In Harris, D. (ed.), The Origins
and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, University College London Press,
London, pp. 204–226.
Gebel, H. G. K., and Bienert, H. D. (1997). Ba’ja hidden in the Petra mountains. Preliminary Re-
port on the 1997 Excavation. In Gebel, H. G. K., Kafafi, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (eds.),The
Prehistory of Jordan II, Perspectives From 1997, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production,
Subsistence, and Environment 4, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 221–262.
Gebel, H. G. K., and Hermansen, B. D. (2000). The 2000 season at Late PPNB Ba’Ja. Neo-Lithics
2(3): 20–22.
Goodale, N. B., Kuijt, I., and Finlayson, B. (2002). The chipped stone assemblage of Dhra‘,
Jordan: Preliminary results on technology, typology, and intra-assemblage variability.
Paléorient 28(1): 125–140.
Gopher, A. (1989). Neolithic arrowheads in the Levant: Results and implications of a seriation
analysis. Paléorient 15(1): 57–64.
Gopher, A. (1994). Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant, American Schools of Oriental Re-
search, Dissertation Series, Volume 10, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana.
Gopher, A. (1995). Ain Darat: A PPNA site in the Judean desert. Neo-Lithics 1: 7–8.
Gopher, A. (1996a). A preliminary report on the flints from ‘Ain Darat: A PPNA site in the
Judean desert. In Kozlowski, S. K., and Gebel, H. G. K. (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone
Industries of the Fertile Crescent, and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Region, Studies
in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 3, Ex Oriente, Berlin,
pp. 443–452.
Gopher, A. (1996b). What happened to the Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B? In Neolithic Chipped
Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, and their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions,
Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 3, Ex Oriente,
Berlin, pp. 443–452.
Gopher, A., and Gophna, R. (1993). Cultures of the eighth and seventh millennia B.P. in the
southern Levant: A Review for the 1990’s. Journal of World Prehistory 7(3): 297–353.
Gopher, A., and Goring-Morris, A. N. (1998). Abu Salem: A Pre-Pottery Neolithic B camp in
the Central Negev Highlands, Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
312: 1–20.
Gopher, A., Goring-Morris, A. N., and Rosen, S. A. (1995). A Pre-Pottery Neolithic B occupa-
tion near Ein Qadis at the edge of the Central Negev Highlands. Atiqot 27: 15–33.
Goren, Y., Segal, I., and Bar-Yosef, O. (1993). Plaster artifacts and the interpretation of the
Nahal Hemar Cave. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 25: 1201–1231.
Goring-Morris, A. N. (1987). At the Edge: Terminal Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev
and Sinai, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 361, Oxford.
Goring-Morris, A. N. (1991). A PPNB settlement at Kfar Hahoresh in lower Galilee: A pre-
liminary report of the 1991 season. Mitekufat Haeven 24: 77–101.
Goring-Morris, A. N. (2000). The quick and the dead: The social context of aceramic
Neolithic mortuary practices as seen from Kfar HaHoresh. In Kuijt, I. (ed.), Life in
Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, Kluwer
Academic/Plenum, New York, pp. 103–136.
Goring-Morris, A. N., and Belfer-Cohen, A. (1998). The articulation of cultural processes and
Late Quaternary environmental changes in Cisjordan. Paléorient 23(2): 71–93.
P1: GCR
Griffin, P. S., Grissom, C. A., and Rollefson, G. O. (1998). Three late eight millennium plastered
faces from ‘Ain Ghazal. Paléoreint 24(1): 59–70.
Hayden, B. (1995). Pathways to power: Principles for creating socioeconomic inequalities. In
Price, T. D., and Feinman, G. M. (eds.), Foundations of Social Inequality, Plenum, New
York, pp. 15–88.
Hayden, B. (2001). Richman, poorman, beggarman, chief: The dynamics of social inequality.
In Feinman, G. M., and Price, T. D. (eds.), Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook,
Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp. 231–272.
Hershkovitz, I., and Gopher, A. (1990).Paleodemography, burial customs, and food-producing
economy at the beginning of the Holocene: A perspective from the southern Levant.
Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 23: 9–48.
Hershkovitz, I., Zohar, M., Speirs, M. S., Segal, I., Meirav, O., Sherter, U., Feldman, H., and
Goring-Morris, A. N. (1995). Remedy for an 8,500-year-old plastered human skull from
Kfar HaHoresh, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 779–788.
Hillman, G. C., and Davis, M. S. (1990). Measured domestication rates in wild wheat and
barley under primitive cultivation, and their archaeological implications. Journal of World
Prehistory 4(2): 157–222.
Hillman, G. C., Hedges, R., Moore, A., Colledge, S., and Pettitt, P. (2001). New evidence for
Late Glacial cereal cultivation at Abu Hureyra on the Euphrates. Holocene 11(4): 383–
393.
Hole, F. (1984). A reassessment of the Neolithic revolution. Paléorient 10: 49–60.
Horwitz, L. K., Tchernov, E., Ducos, P., Becker, C., von den Driesch, A., Martin, L., and Garrard,
A. (1999). Animal domestication in the southern Levant. Paléorient 25(2): 63–80.
Kafafi, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (1995). The 1994 excavations at ‘Ayn Ghazal: Preliminary report.
Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 39: 13–29.
Kenyon, K. M. (1953). Excavations at Jericho, 1953. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 85: 81–95.
Kenyon, K. M. (1957). Digging Up Jericho, Benn, London.
Kenyon, K. M. (1969). The origins of the Neolithic. The Advancement of Science 6: 1–17.
Kenyon, K. M. (1981). Excavations at Jericho, Vol. III: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the
Tell, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, London.
Kirkbride, D. (1968). Beidha 1967: An interim report. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 100:
90–96.
Kislev, M. E. (1992). Agriculture in the Near East in the 7th Millennium B.C. In Anderson, P.
(ed.), Préhistoire del’Agriculture, CNRS, Paris, pp. 87–93.
Köhler-Rollefson, I., Gillespie, W., and Metzger, M. (1988). The fauna from Neolithic ‘Ain
Ghazal. In Garrard, A. N., and Gebel, H. G. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan, British
Archaeology Reports, International Series 396, No. 1, Oxford, 423–430.
Kozlowski, S. (1999). The eastern wing of the fertile crescent: Late prehistory of greater
Mesopotamian lithic industries, British Archaeology Reports International Series 760,
Archaeopress, Oxford.
Kuijt, I. (1994a). Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period settlement systems of the southern Levant:
New data, archaeological visibility, and regional site hierarchies. Journal of Mediterranean
Archaeology 7(2): 165–192.
Kuijt, I. (1994b). A brief note on the chipped stone assemblage from ‘Iraq ed-Dubb, Jordan.
Neo-Lithics, A Newsletter of Southwest Asian Lithic Research 2: 2–3.
Kuijt, I. (1996a). Where are the microlithics?: Lithic technology and Neolithic chronology as
seen from the PPNA occupation at Dhra‘, Jordan. Neo-Lithics, A Newsletter of Southwest
Asian Lithic Research 2: 7–8.
Kuijt, I. (1996b). Negotiating equality through ritual: A consideration of Late Natufian and Pre-
Pottery Neolithic a period mortuary practices. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
15(4): 313–336.
Kuijt, I. (1997). Interpretation, data, and the khiamian of the south-central Levant. Neo-Lithics,
A Newsletter of Southwest Asian Lithic Research 3: 3–6.
Kuijt, I. (1998). Trying to fit round houses into square holes: Re-examining the timing of the
south-central Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and Pre-Pottery Neolithic B cultural tran-
sition. In Gebel, H. G., Kafafi, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan
P1: GCR
II, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment, Ex Oriente,
Berlin, pp. 193–202.
Kuijt, I. (2000a). People and space in early agricultural villages: Exploring daily lives, commu-
nity size and architecture in the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 19: 75–102.
Kuijt, I. (2000b). Keeping the peace: Ritual, skull caching and community integration in the
Levantine Neolithic. In Kuijt, I. (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Or-
ganization, Identity, and Differentiation, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp. 137–
163.
Kuijt, I. (2000c). Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and
Differentiation, Plenum, New York.
Kuijt, I. (2001a). Lithic inter-assemblage variability and cultural–historical sequences: A con-
sideration of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period occupation of Dhra‘, Jordan. Paléorient
27(1): 107–126.
Kuijt, I. (2001b). Meaningful masks: Place, death, and the transmission of social memory in early
agricultural communities of the Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic. In Chesson, M. S. (ed.),
Social Memory, Identity, and Death: Intradisciplinary Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals,
Vol. 10. American Anthropological Association, Archaeology Division, Washington, DC,
pp. 80–99.
Kuijt, I. (in press). Between foraging and farming: Critically evaluating the archaeological evi-
dence for the southern Levantine Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period. Turkish Academy
of Sciences Journal of Archaeology.
Kuijt, I., and Bar-Yosef, O. (1994). Radiocarbon chronology for the Levantine Neolithic: Ob-
servations and data. In Bar-Yosef, O., and Kra, R. (eds.), Late Quaternary Chronology
and Paleoenvironments of the Eastern Mediterranean, Radiocarbon, Tucson, AZ, pp. 227–
245.
Kuijt, I., and Finlayson, B. (2001). The 2001 excavation season at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic
A period settlement of Dhra’, Jordan: Preliminary results. Neo-Lithics: Southwest Asian
Lithic Research 2(1): 12–15.
Kuijt, I., Mabry, J., and Palumbo, G. (1991). Early Neolithic use of upland areas of Wadi El-
Yabis: Preliminary evidence from the excavations of ‘Iraq ed-Dubb, Jordan.Paléorient
17(1): 99–108.
Kuijt, I., and Mahasneh, H. (1995). Preliminary excavation results from Dhra‘ and ‘Ain Waida.
American Journal of Archaeology 99: 508–511.
Kuijt, I., and Mahasneh, H. (1998). Dhra‘: An Early Neolithic site in the Jordan valley. Journal
of Field Archaeology 25: 153–161.
Kurth, G., and Röhrer-Ertl, G. (1981). On the anthropology of Mesolithic to Chalcolithic human
remains from the Tell es-Sultan to Jericho, Jordan. In Kenyon, K. M. (ed.), Excavation at
Jericho, British School of Archaeology, Jerusalem.
Lechavallier, M., and Ronen, A. (1985). La site Natoufien-Khiamien de Hatoula, Les Cachiers
de Centre de Recherche Français de Jerusalem, No. 1.
Mahasneh, H. M. (1997). The 1995 season at the Neolithic site of Es-Sifiya, Wadi Mujib, Jordan.
In Gebel, H. G. K., Kafafi, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan
II. Perspectives From 1997, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and
Environment 4, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 203–213.
Mahasneh, H. M. (2001). The Neolithic burial practices in Wadi al-Mujib during the seventh
millennium B.C. In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VII, Department of
Antiquities of Jordan, Amman, pp. 121–141.
Mahasneh, H., and Bienert, H. D. (2000). Unfolding the earliest pages of sedentism: The Pre-
Pottery Neolithic settlement of Es-Sifiya in southern Jordan. In Bienert, H. D., and Müller-
Neuhof, B. (eds.), At the Crossroads: Essays on the Archaeology, History and Current
Affairs of the Middle East, German Protestant Institute of Archaeology in Amman,
Amman, Jordan, pp. 1–14.
Mahasneh, H. M., and Gebel, H. G. K. (1999). Geometric objects from LPPNB Es-Sifiya, Wadi
Mujib, Jordan. Paléorient 24(2): 105–110.
Mellaart, J. (1975). The Neolithic of the Near East, Thames and Hudson, London.
P1: GCR
Mithen, S., Finlayson, B., Pirie, A., Carruthers, D., and Kennedy, A. (2000). New evidence for
economic and technological diversity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A: Wadi Faynan 16.
Current Anthropology 41(4): 655–663.
Moore, A. (1985). The development in Neolithic societies in the Near East. In Close, A. E., and
Wendorf, F. (eds.), Advances in World Archaeology, Vol. 4, Academic Press, New York,
pp. 1–70.
Nadel, D. (1990). The Khiamian as a case of sultanian intersite variability. Mitekufat Hae’ven
23: 86–99.
Nadel, D. (1996). The chipped stone industry of Netiv Hagdud. In Bar-Yosef, O., and Go-
pher, A. (eds.), An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part I: The Archaeology of
Netiv Hagdud, American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 43, Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, pp. 71–150.
Nadel, D., Bar-Yosef, O., and Gopher, A. (1991). Early Neolithic arrowhead types in the south-
ern Levant: A typological suggestion. Paléorient 17(1): 109–119.
Najjar, M. (1994). Ghwair I, a Neolithic site in Wadi Feinan. In Kerner, S. (ed.), The Near East
in Antiquity, Al Kutba, Amman, Jordan, pp. 75–85.
Nishiaki, Y. (2000). Lithic Technology of Neolithic Syira, Bar International Series 840, Oxford.
Nissen, H. J., Muheisen, M., and Gebel, H. G. (1988). Report on the first two seasons of exca-
vation at Basta. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 31: 79–119.
Nissen, H. J., Muheisen, M., Gebel, H. G., Becker, C., Hermansen, B. D., Kharasneh, W., Qadi,
N., Schultz, M., and Scherer, N. (1992). Report on the excavations at Basta (1988). Annual
of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 36: 13–40.
Noy, T. (1989). Gilgal I, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site, Israel. The 1985–1987 seasons. Paléorient
15(1): 11–18.
Özdögan, M. (1998). Anatolia from the last glacial maximum to the Holocene climatic optimum:
Cultural formations and the impact of the environmental setting. Paléorient 23(2): 25–38.
Özdögan, M., and Özdögan, A. (1989). Çayönü. Paléorient 15: 65–74.
Özdögan, M., and Özdögan, A. (1998). Buildings of cult and cult of buildings. In Arsebük, G.,
Mellink, M., and Schirmer, W. (eds.), Light on Top of the Black Hill: Studies Presented to
Halet Cambel, Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul, pp. 581–601.
Peltenburg, E., Colledge, S., Croft, P., Jackson, A., McCartney, C., and Murray, M. A. (2001).
Neolithic dispersals from the Levantine corridor: A mediterranean perspective. Levant 33:
35–64.
Peterson, J. (2000). Test excavations at PPNB/PPNC Khirbet Hammam, Wadi el-Hasa, Jordan.
Neo-Lithics 1: 4–6.
Pirie, A. (2001a). Wadi Faynan 16 chipped stone: PPNA variability at one site. Neo-Lithics:
Southwest Asian Lithic Research 2(1): 5–8.
Pirie, A. (2001b). A brief note on the chipped stone assemblage from PPNA Nachcharini Cave,
Levanon. Neo-Lithics: Southwest Asian Lithic Research 2(1): 10–12.
Price, T. D., and Feinman, G. M. (1995). Foundations of Social Inequality, Plenum, New York.
Quintero, L. A., and Wilke, P. J. (1995). Evolution and economic significance of naviform core-
and-blade technology in the southern Levant. Paléorient 21(1): 17–33.
Rollefson, G. O. (1986). Neolithic ’Ain Ghazal (Jordan): Ritual and ceremony II. Paleorient 12:
45–52.
Rollefson, G. O. (1987). Local and regional relations in the Levantine PPN period: ‘Ain Ghazal
as a regional center. In Hadidi, A. (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan,
Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Amman, pp. 2–32.
Rollefson, G. O. (1989). The Late Aceramic Neolithic of the Levant: A synthesis. Paléorient
15(1): 168–173.
Rollefson, G. O. (1993). Neolithic chipped stone technology at ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan: The status
of the PPNC. Paléorient 16(1): 119–124.
Rollefson, G. O. (1997). Changes in architecture and social organization at ‘Ain Ghazal. In
Gebel, H. G. K., Kafifi, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan II, Perspec-
tives from 1997, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 4,
Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 287–307.
P1: GCR
Rollefson, G. O. (1998). The Aceramic Neolithic. In Henry, D. O. (ed.), The Prehistoric Archae-
ology of Jordan, Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 102–126.
Rollefson, G. O. (1999). El-Hemmeh: A Late PPNB-PPNC village in the Wadi el-Hasa, southern
Jordan. Neo-Lithics 2: 6–8.
Rollefson, G. O. (2000). Ritual and social structure at Neolithic ’Ain Ghazal. In Kuijt, I. (ed.),
Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation,
Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp. 165–190.
Rollefson, G. O. (2001). The Neolithic period. In MacDonal, B., Adams, R., and Bienkowski,
P. (eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, UK, pp. 67–
105.
Rollefson, G. O., and Köhler-Rollefson, I. (1989). The collapse of the Early Neolithic settlements
in the southern Levant. In Hershkovitz, I. (ed.), People and Culture in Change, British
Archaeology Reports, International Series, 508, Oxford, pp. 73–89.
Rollefson, G. O., and Köhler-Rollefson, I. (1993). PPNC adaptations in the first half of the 6th
millennium B.C. Paléorient 19(1): 33–42.
Rollefson, G. O., Schmandt-Besserat, D., and Rose, J. C. (1999). A decorated skull from MPPNB
‘Ain Ghazal. Paléorient 24(2): 99–104.
Rollefson, G. O., Simmons, A. H., and Kafafi, Z. (1992). Neolithic cultures at ’Ain Ghazal,
Jordan. Journal of Field Archaeology 19: 443–470.
Ronen, A., and Lechevallier, M. (1999). Save the Khiamian! Neo-Lithics 1(99): 6–7.
Sayej, G. (2001). A new Pre-Pottery Neolithic—A culture region in Jordan: The Dead Sea
basin. In Walmsley, A. (ed.), Australians Uncovering Ancient Jordan: Fifty Years of Middle
Eastern Archaeology, University of Sydney, Sydney, pp. 225–232.
Sayej, G. (2002). Lithic inter and intra-assemblage variability: A case study from the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic site of Zahrat edh-Dhra‘ 2, Jordan. Paper presented at The 2002 Annual Meeting
of the American Society of Oriental Research, Toronto, Canada.
Schmidt, K. (1995). Investigations in the Upper Mesopotamian Early Neolithic: Göbekli Tepe
and Gürcütepe. Neo-Lithics 2(95): 9–10.
Simmons, A. (1995). Town planning in the Neolithic—Is ‘Ain Ghazal ”Normal?” In ‘Amr, K.,
Zayadine, F., and Zaghloul, M. (eds.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan,
V: Art and Technology Throughout the Ages, Jordan Press Foundation, Amman, pp. 119–
122.
Simmons, A. (1997). Ecological changes during the Late Neolithic in Jordan: A Case study. In
Gebel, H. G. K., Kafafi, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan II, Perspec-
tives From 1997, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment
4, Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 309–318.
Simmons, A. (2000). Villages on the edge: Regional settlement change and the end of the
Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic. In Kuijt, I. (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities:
Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York,
pp. 211–230.
Simmons, A., Rollefson, G. O., Kafafi, Z., Mandel, R. D., al-Nahar, M., Cooper, J., Köhler-
Rollefson, I., and Durand, K. D. (2001). Wadi Shu’eib, a large Neolithic community in
Central Jordan: Final report of test investigations. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research, pp 1–39.
Simmons, A., Rollefson, G. O., Kafafi, Z., and Moyer, K. (1989). Test excavations at Wadi
Shu’eib, a major Neolithic settlement in Central Jordan. Annual of the Department of
Antiquities of Jordan 33: 27–42.
Simmons, A., and Najjar, M. (1996). Current investigations at Ghwair I, a Neolithic settlement
in southern Jordan. Neolithics 2: 6–7.
Simmons, A., and Najjar, M. (1999). Preliminary field report of the 1998–1999 excavations at
Ghwair I, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic B community in the Wadi Feinan regions of southern
Jordan. Neolithics 2: 4–6.
Smith, B. (2001). The transition to food production. In Feinman, G. M., and Price, T. D. (eds.),
Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York,
pp. 199–229.
P1: GCR
Smith, P., Bar-Yosef, O., and Sillen, A. (1984). Archaeological and skeletal evidence for dietary
change during the late Pleistocene. In Cohen, M., and Armelagos, G. (eds.), At the Origins
of Agriculture, Academic Press, New York, pp. 101–136.
Stekelis, M., and Yizraeli, T. (1963). Excavations at Nahal Oren. Israel Exploration Journal 13:
1–12.
Stordeur, D. (2000a). New discoveries in architecture and symbolism at Jerf el Ahmar (Syria),
1997–1999. Neo-Lithics 1: 1–4.
Stordeur, D. (2000b). Jerf el Ahmar: et l’émergence du Néolithique au Proche Orient. In J.
Guilaine (ed.), Premiers paysans du monde: Naissances des agricultures, Collection de
Hesperides, Editions Errance, Paris, pp. 31–60.
Stordeur, D., and Abbès, F. (2002). Du PPNA au PPNB: Mise en lumiere d’une phase de
transtion at Jerf el Ahmar (Syrie). Bulletin de la Société Prehistorique Francaise 99(03):
563–595.
Swiny, S. (2001). The Earliest Prehistory of Cyprus, American Schools of Oriental Research,
Boston.
Tchernov, E. (1994). An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley, II: The Fauna of Netiv
Hagdud, American Schools of Research Bulletin 44, Peabody Museum of Archaeology
and Ethnography, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Wasse, A. (1997). Preliminary Results of an Analysis of the Sheep and Goat Bones from ‘Ain
Ghazal, Jordan. In Gebel, H. G. K., Kafifi, Z., and Rollefson, G. O. (eds.), The Prehistory of
Jordan II, Perspectives from 1997. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence
and Environment 4. Ex oriente, Berlin, pp. 287–307.
van Zeist, W., and Bakker-Heeres, J. B. (1985). Archaeobotanical studies in the Levant: Neolithic
sites in the Damascus Basin, Aswad, Ghoraife, Ramad. Prehistoria (1982) 24: 165–256.
Verhoeven, M. (1999). An Archaeolical Ethnography of a Neolithic Community: Space, Place,
and Social Relations in the Burnt Village of Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria, Nederlands Historisch-
Archaeologisch Instituut, Istanbul.
Verhoeven, M. (2002). Ritual and ideology in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Levant and
southeast Anatolia. Cambridge Archaeology Journal 12(2): 233–258.
Voigt, M. M. (1983). Hajji Firuz Tepe, Iran: The Neolithic Settlement, The University Museum,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Zohary, D. (1989). Domestication of the southwest Asian crop assemblage of cereals, pulses and
flax: The evidence from the living plants. In Harris, D. R., and Hillman, G. (eds.), Foraging
and Farming: The Evolution of Plant Exploitation, Unwin & Hyman, London, pp. 359–373.
View publication stats

2002NeolithicKuijtANGMJournalofWorldPrehistory PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2002NeolithicKuijtANGMJournalofWorldPrehistory PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2002NeolithicKuijtANGMJournalofWorldPrehistory PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Foraging, Farming, and Social Complexity in the Pre-

Article in Journal of World Prehistory · January 2002

Ian Kuijt Adrian Nigel Goring-Morris

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Neolithic of the Near East View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 16, No. 4, December 2002 (

Foraging, Farming, and Social Complexity

The transition between foraging and food producing economies from

362 Kuijt and Goring-Morris

and Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian Autonomous Authority, Jordan, and

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic 363

illustrated the differences in Neolithic adaptations from the northern and

Before moving on to a consideration of the archaeology of the southern

364 Kuijt and Goring-Morris

backdrop is vital for comprehension of the revolutionary changes in human

Main Ecological Zones of the Southern Levant

The southern Levant comprises a number of distinct ecological zones.

Early Holocene Environmental Changes

Identifying correlations between climatic and culture changes is both

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic 365

to culture change (e.g., Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 1998; Hershkovitz

366 Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Calibrated/Uncalibrated Cultural–Historical Frameworks

A plethora of terminologies has been used to describe and organize PPN

Table I. Cultural–Historical Sequence for the Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic 367

we define sociocultural units in their “classical” stages. We should bear in

368 Kuijt and Goring-Morris

dates provided. The adoption of recent advances in radiocarbon calibration

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

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic 369

PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC A PERIOD

370 Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic 371

excavations do not fit the technological, typological, and chronological ex-

The majority of known PPNA settlements are found in the Mediter-

372 Kuijt and Goring-Morris

watered localities, has also been suggested as a part of a push–pull mecha-

In contrast to what is known about the PPNA occupation of the Mediter-

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic 373

and Yizraeli, 1963). With the exception of the storage/residential structures

Residential architecture in the PPNA, based upon the presence of grind-

In the southern Levant there is only one unequivocal example of non-

374 Kuijt and Goring-Morris

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

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic 375

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

376 Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Ritual and Mortuary Practices

Although cemetery sites have not been documented so far, excavations

Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic 377

this determination would unquestionably provide insight into the rationale

Other Symbolic Realms

Integration With Architecture

While difficult to address from a material stand point, there appears

378 Kuijt and Goring-Morris

Subsistence (Flora and Fauna)