Ancient Jericho (Tell Sultan)
Selected Excerpts on Jericho:
Known today as Tell Sultan - Jericho lies in an oasis in the Jordan Valley north of the Dead Sea on a main east-west route. Its long stratigraphy documents almost continuous occupation from before 9000 BC to circa 1580 BC. At the base of the tell (mound) was a Natufian Culture deposit associated with a rectangular platform surrounded by stone walls; interpreted by the excavator Kathleen Kenyon as a shrine. The Natufian deposit was four metres thick in places but has provided little evidence of other structural remains or of subsistence economy. It was succeeded by Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) levels with radiocarbon dates in the range 8350-7370 BC. At this stage the settlement covered a surprisingly large four hectares and was surrounded by a stone wall and a ditch reinforced by at least one massive stone tower. The houses of this period were round and built of mud-brick.
The population was already growing emmer wheat - barley - pulses while the meat portion of the diet was supplied in the main by gazelle supplemented by wild cattle - boar - goat. It is possible that some of these animals were being herded although the evidence is exiguous (scanty or inadequate). In the succeeding Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) levels (with radiocarbon dates 7220-5850 BC) rectangular houses with plastered floors and walls were built; an increased range of cultivated plants was exploited and it is possible that domesticated sheep were kept. Evidence of an ancestor cult is present in the form of skulls with facial features restored in plaster and - in some cases - eyes set with cowrie or other shells. A break in occupation followed the PPNB levels but there is evidence of some re-occupation in later Neolithic and Chalcolithic times. From the late 4th millennium BC there was a walled town on the site which was continuously occupied until circa 1580 BC when the settlement - with a sloping plastered ramp of Hyksos type - was destroyed by the Egyptians ... (AHSFC)
Chapter 3: Neolithic 1 Jericho (Pages 87-99)
Pre-History and Archaeology Glossary
Excerpts and Definitions and Addendums:
The Natufian settlement at Jericho was found at the bottom of Trench E alone of the five trenches (I-II-III-M-E) that were excavated to bedrock by Kathleen Kenyon. This settlement was therefore confined to the northeast corner of the mound. Thin deposits of the next phase - the Proto Neolithic - were found in Trench I (DI-DII-F) and Trench II on the bedrock and in E (I-II-V) overlying the Natufian. A much greater accumulation of Proto-Neolithic debris some 4 metres deep was found above the bedrock in Square MI (See Page 99 in *1 Below). It appears that the focus of the settlement at Jericho had moved away from the north-east corner of the tell. The maximum extent of the Proto-Neolithic settlement was quite considerable covering perhaps one third of the area of the mound; but only part of the site in the vicinity of MI was occupied for any length of time. Thus for much of the period of occupation the Proto-Neolithic settlement was perhaps about the same size as the Natufian site.
The deposit in MI was made up of very many floor surfaces on which had been constructed shelters or huts. These huts had walls made of clay lumps probably supported by a timber frame. The rest of the deposit seems to have consisted of occupational debris so its considerable depth here implies that the settlement was inhabited for a long period. The Proto-Neolithic occupation sequence in MI was uninterrupted suggesting continuous or at least repeated occupation of the site. Likewise there was no marked stratigraphic break between the Proto-Neolithic and PPNA deposits. Although the centre of the settlement shifted between the Natufian and Proto-Neolithic phases there seems to have been no great interval of time between them. This stratigraphic evidence is corroborated by the appearance of the flint industries in these levels as we shall see.
A very rapid growth of the site seems to have taken place after the Proto-Neolithic for the PPNA settlement was from its inception much larger than its predecessors. Very early PPNA deposits have been found above the Proto-Neolithic in Trench I (DI-DII-F) and at the northern end of the mound in Trench II. They have also been found on the bedrock in Trench III at the southern extremity of the site (See Page 98 ibid). Elsewhere there were PPNA levels above the Proto-Neolithic in every trench that was excavated to a sufficient depth; in E (I-II-V) - M - 0. It is estimated that the settlement was about 4 hectares (10 acres) in area.
The early PPNA settlement was open but soon after the initial expansion a wall was built around it. The settlement continued to be occupied for a long period but the considerable depth of debris that accumulated was contained within the confines of this wall at least on the evidence from Trenches I-II-III. We do not know exactly how far the settlement extended to the east nor if it subsequently expanded on that side.
The typical buildings of this phase were subcircular structures constructed of plano-convex or hog-backed mud bricks. They seem to have been free-standing but were set close together. When replaced they were not always rebuilt on the same alignment (See Page 102 in *2). Most of these structures which have been interpreted as houses seem to have had a single room although one example had at least three (See Page 106 ibid); none was excavated in its entirety so one cannot be certain of the exact number. The rooms were from 4 to 6 metres in diameter and their floors were sunk below the level of the surrounding ground as much as 0.8 metres in one instance. The houses were entered through a timber-framed projecting doorway or porch and down a flight of several steps with stone or wooden treads (See Page 102 ibid). Inside they were simply finished with mud floors and plain walls although in one instance the latter were lined with reeds or bamboo covered with mud (See Page 72 in *3 Below). The walls were strengthened with timber or wattle and enough debris was found in some of these houses to suggest that they stood quite high originally (See Page 6 in *4 Below). They also sloped inward which shortened the roof span. The roofs themselves may have been conical or domed and were probably made of timber - branches - reeds and mud. A depression was found in the floor of one hut in Trench M indicating that its roof had been supported on a central post.
The houses seem to have contained few domestic structures although in a yard adjoining one building a grinding stone and possible oven were found (See Page 106 in *2 Below). These were surrounded by an expanse of charcoal indicating that fires had been lit in the area - possibly for preparing food-stuffs.
The stone walls surrounding the PPNA settlement were best preserved in Trench I. The sequence of construction here was complex indicating that the walls had been modified several times during the life of the settlement. The first perimeter wall - designated TW I - was built on sterile soil; it was freestanding and aligned approximately north-south. The wall was 1.5 metres wide (See Page 102 ibid) and still stood 3.9 metres high when excavated (See Page 93 in *1 Below). Behind this wall to the east and above an earlier PPNA structure a solid stone tower was built; this tower was semicircular at the bottom where it was joined to the wall and circular at the top. The tower survived to a height of a little over 8 metres but may have been slightly taller originally. Its shape suggests that it was built higher than the perimeter wall in front. To reach the top one entered a passage at the foot of the tower and climbed a staircase up through the centre. From the top one would have commanded a view over the roofs of the houses within the settlement and the Jordan Valley beyond.
The function of these structures is not entirely clear. The wall which apparently surrounded the whole settlement seems to have been too tall for a simple enclosure wall to protect stock and humans at night from predatory animals and so may have been intended as a defensive curtain wall against other human groups. As the tower and the wall were built together they probably had a combined function. The tower is altogether too massive to have served simply as a buttress although it would have afforded a good lookout. Even this seems inadequate as a functional explanation for a structure as large as this which took much time and labour to build and would presumably have been constructed in response to some compelling need. Yet it is hard to see what essential purpose it might have served in a defensive system beyond functioning as some sort of observation post and fighting tower.
The area around the foot of the tower seems to have been open at first but later it was completely built over. A series of curved stone walls thickly coated with mud plaster was constructed around the foot of the tower forming at least five enclosures (See Page 103ff in *2 and Page 93ff in *1 Below). These walls originally stood at least 3.12 metres high without any connecting doors between the enclosures with only a small window or porthole high up in one wall. It is possible that these structures were covered over and approached through an opening in the roof. The entrance at the foot of the tower was now almost closed in and could only have been reached across the roofs of the surrounding rooms. Two suggestions have been put forward to explain the purpose of the enclosures; one that they were water storage tanks (See Page 95 in *1 Below) and the other that at least some were for storing grain (See Page 153 in *5 Below). Large quantities of water would soon have washed away the mud plaster of these structures so the latter explanation seems more probable especially as possible burned vegetable deposits were found within one of the enclosures. If these enclosures were used as granaries they would have held enough grain to feed many households. Such indications of communal storage combined with the evidence for large-scale structures such as the tower and wall would suggest that PPNA Jericho had a system of community organization.
Eventually these enclosures ceased to be used and the area around the tower was remodelled. First the walls of the enclosures began to collapse and their interiors were filled with coarse rubble (See Page 104 in *2 Below). Then a new stone face was built around the outer surface of the tower. Part of the new face of the tower and the open area around its foot were plastered over completely burying the old entrance to the stairway which now passed out of use. The old town wall was replaced by a new one (TW II) on a slightly different alignment. This wall ran 3.75 metres to the west of wall TW I and was joined to the new outer face of the tower. At about this time a ditch 8.5 metres wide and 2.10 metres deep was cut in the bedrock to the west of the new wall (See Page 97 in *1 Below) and the chippings from the ditch were used to fill the gap between the old and the new town walls.
The area around the tower remained open for a while and some layers of washed-out debris accumulated on the plastered surface. Then a new series of enclosures was built behind the town wall around the tower (See Page 104 in *2 Below). These structures which were made of stone and mud-brick and plaster were built in at least three stages. There was a doorway between two of the enclosures with a sill raised 0.35 metres high above the floor. This doorway did not survive intact but it is similar in size and type to the complete doorway found at Abu Hureyra in a later context (See Page 60 in *6 Below). The raised sill would have helped to keep the floors free of rubbish from outside. Like the earlier enclosures this series may have been used for storage.
In the next stage the wall and tower were modified further. Another stone face was added to the west side of the tower (See Page 71 in *3 Below) which now stood only a few metres above the surrounding structures. The stone wall of the settlement was considerably heightened though the new face was set back slightly from the old one below. This wall was joined to the new face of the tower which probably served as an additional support. The wall itself was set on a slight batter and presented a formidable exterior rising above the ditch which continued in use. It would appear to have still been a defensive structure but the tower probably played little part in such a scheme now. As the interior of the settlement built up this perimeter wall also served as a terrace wall supporting the considerable depth of deposit within.
The second series of enclosures behind the wall was partly filled in and then rebuilt on much the same alignment (See Page 104 in *2 Below). These were then in their turn filled with debris and no more buildings of this type were built here. The character of the area now changed. The wall and ditch were no longer maintained - the top of the wall began to collapse and the ditch gradually filled with silt and debris. The area over the tower reverted to domestic use and several phases of typical PPNA houses were built on top (See Page 105 ibid). These houses were built out over the wall and down the slope of the mound. This enlarged settlement now covered the top and part of the slope of a steep-sided mound. Then the site was abandoned and the surface of the tell was considerably eroded (See Page 73 in *3 Below).
The dead of the PPNA settlement were buried in a contracted position in graves about 1 metre deep beneath the floors of the houses (See Page 106 in *2 Below). The inhabitants were thus continuing a burial tradition that typified Mesolithic 2 and which had been practised at least as early as Mesolithic 1. One interesting modification of the burial rite was the custom of treating skulls separately from the rest of the skeleton. This rite began quite late in the PPNA sequence when two elaborate instances of it were found: in one seven skulls had been set upright around an eighth and in another several groups of three skulls each were buried close together (See Page 75 in *3 Below). A third group consisted of several infants' skulls and a complete infant skeleton. This preoccupation with skulls had a long history in subsequent cultural stages throughout the Levant and further afield.
Flint and bone tools were the most common artifacts in the PPNA settlement but a range of other tools and ornamental objects was also made. A number of hollow querns and many rubbing stones were found as well as grooved stones and rough stone bowls. The inhabitants also manufactured stone axes with ground and polished cutting edges. The ornamental artifacts consisted of a variety of beads.
The bone tools were numerous and included several different types (See Page 72 ibid). These consisted principally of points - none of which was very large - and spatulae. Some of the latter are better described as scoops and these seem to have been characteristic of the assemblage. There were some pins and scrapers made of rib bones as well as a few tiny toothed combs too small for an adult's personal use.
Both Proto-Neolithic and PPNA flint too1s [NOTE 5] were made from the same kind of very varied raw material. Most of this came from small pebbles presumably collected from the beds of wadis running down from the Judean hills to the west of the site. Almost all of the material was carefully selected fine-grained flint although some coarse flint was used. The flint was of many different colours and shades both opaque and translucent including grey - brown - veined purple and pink; the latter two in particular are usually thought of as being distinctive of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) in Palestine but they were used throughout the Jericho Natufian and Neolithic sequence. A few fragments of obsidian - usually from small blades - were found in the Proto-Neolithic and PPNA layers. This was the first time that this material had been used in Palestine. Six pieces from the PPNA layers were analysed by Renfrew and his collaborators in the first major programme of analyses of Near Eastern obsidian ever undertaken. All of then proved to have come from Ciftlik (source 2b) in Anatolia (See Table I in *8 Below). I am conducting another programme of obsidian analyses in association with Bradford University in which we have analysed three more pieces from Neolithic 1 levels at Jericho - one from the Proto-Neolithic and two from the PPNA. These three pieces likewise came from Ciftlik. Obsidian from the Ciftlik source reached the Levant more regularly than that from any other locality throughout the Neolithic on present evidence.
Tools in the Proto-Neolithic were fashioned on flakes and blades struck from small prismatic or pyramidal cores. Crested blades were a regular by-product. Flakes and blades usually had tiny prepared platforms and probably were struck off with a punch. Blades were short and irregular with most being between 3 and 5 centimetres long though a few were as much as 6 to 7.5 centimetres long.
All the flake and blade tools were small like the waste material. The most numerous retouched tools were burins and scrapers while nibbled blades were also common. Retouched blades and flakes of no specific type occurred quite frequently. Although burins were abundant there were very few types for apart from some single and multiple blow burins most were angle burins on preparation or truncation. The scrapers were a little more varied and consisted of flake - side and steep-scrapers and end and nosed scrapers on blades. There were some borers on flakes and blades with a short point defined by a little retouch. Sickle blades - that is blades with silica sheen - were also found though these do not appear to have been very common. They were made on irregular flakes and blades and usually had some retouch particularly an the back. All were quite small so several must have been hafted together to make a composite cutting tool. These tools were all finished with abrupt retouch or nibbling.
One new tool was the axe or adze. These had a straight or convex flaked cutting edge with a rounded or pointed butt. They were oval or circular in cross-section and were flaked all over. These tools were almost certainly hafted and were probably used for woodworking. Most were too small to have been used to cut large pieces of timber so it is likely that trees were felled and split by other means.
This industry was based more on retouched flakes than on blades and so cannot be described as a blade industry. The typological range was restricted which suggests a fairly limited range of tool uses. Microliths and microburins were not found but this may be because the deposits were not sieved. Composite tools as such were certainly made and as the tools were so small many of them would have been hafted for use.
The raw material used in the PPNA industry was the same as in the Proto-Neolithic. The core technique was also similar in that most flakes and blades were struck from prismatic and pyramidal cores although discoid cores were now used as well. Blades were still irregular although some were longer than in the Proto-Neolithic and had parallel sides. These larger blades were used for sickle blades and knives. Some of them were struck from double-ended cores - a few of which were found for the first time. A further refinement in the choice of raw material was discernible: the larger blades were usually fashioned from fine-grained purple and honey-coloured flint while the smaller ones were made on coarser raw material.
Burins - scrapers and nibbled blades were still the most common tools. The same range of burin types was used as in the Proto-Neolithic with the addition of a number of dihedral burins but the scrapers now included a few discoids. Scrapers in general were perhaps less frequent than before. Borers appear to have been more common and now included drills and long awls. Sickle blades were also more common and somewhat different. Most were made on long blades with little retouch. Their form suggests that they were still probably hafted to make composite tools. Axes and adzes were similar to those found in the Proto-Neolithic. A few had such narrow ends that they are better described as picks. As before the tools were formed by flaking. Axe/adze rejuvenation flakes were common in the PPNA indicating that the cutting edges frequently broke and needed renewing. This was done by a blow from the side followed by further flaking. The true tranchet edge occurred rarely.
A few new tools were found in the PPNA levels the most important of which were Khiamian points. These were the first recognisable projectile points in the Levant although as many microliths and other retouched tools or even flint waste can be used to arm an arrow or lance (See Page 203 in *9 Below) there is no reason to suppose that the use of the bow did not begin much earlier. Another new type was a tanged knife retouched by squamous pressure-flaking. A lunate was also found in the PPNA levels but it is not known if it belonged to this industry or was derived from the Natufian by subsequent disturbance. A few of the obsidian blade segments were now retouched at both ends to form rectangles. Most tools were still finished by nibbling or abrupt retouch as in the Proto-Neolithic. The use of squamous pressure-flaking was new but it was not yet used on many tools.
The flint industry of the PPNA was similar to that of the Proto-Neolithic. The same raw material and techniques of preparation were used and the same tool types. Techniques were a little more varied in the PPNA; some new tools were introduced and the relative proportions of the main tool types were somewhat different but these changes were such as one would expect in a long-lived industry. Gradual changes would take place with the passage of time and new tool types would be developed in response to new needs. As the excavated material represented only some of the activities that were practised on the site differences were bound to occur from level to level which would effect the total sample we have of the industry.
This Neolithic flint industry had many similarities with the Natufian industry at Jericho. The same varieties of raw material and the same techniques of production of small blades and flakes from prismatic cores were used in the Natufian. The waste blades and flakes were similar and both this component and the tools were all small; neither could be described as a blade industry at least not before the evolved PPNA anyway. Some of the tool types such as the scrapers - sickle blades and borers were common to both industries. There were differences of course: microliths and the microburin technique appear to have been absent in the Neolithic industry for example but nevertheless the similarities are striking. Since the similarities embrace raw material - techniques of production and tool types it would appear that the Neolithic industry developed directly from the Natufian. One can go further and suggest that for such an industry to be continued in this way the population must have remained the same. Although other cultural and economic changes were taking place the earlier Neolithic population of Jericho was descended from the Natufian inhabitants of the area.
It is very difficult to determine when the Proto-Neolithic/PPNA at Jericho began and how long it lasted because although no less than eleven C-14 determinations have been made on samples from PPNA levels the dates do not form a consistent series. Two determinations made when C-14 dating was a new technique; 6850 ± 160 B.C. F-39 (See Page 7 in *4 Below) and 6775 ± 210 B.C. F-40 (See Page 37 in *10 Below) should probably be ignored from the outset as they give no more than a general indication of the age of the deposits. The remaining determinations were all carried out by the British Museum and Philadelphia laboratories often on samples from the same phases. Unfortunately these two series of dates differ by as much as 500 or 600 years with the British Museum dates being the older. The earliest dated phase is one immediately after the construction of the PPNA wall and tower. The two British Museum dates for this are 8350 ± 500 B.C. BM-250 (See Page 290:11:1969 in *11 Below) and 8300 +/- 200 B.C. BM-105 (See Page 107:5:1963 ibid) but the Philadelphia date is 7825 +/- 110 B.C. P-378 (See Page 84:5:1963 ibid). There is another series of dates for phases late in the PPNA: 8350 ± 200 B.C. BM-106 for a phase succeeding stage VI of the defences and 8230 ± 200 B.C. BM-110 (See Page 107:5:1963 ibid) for the final destruction of the wall - both of which may be compared with 7705 ± 84 B.C. P-379 (See Page 84:5:1963 ibid) which is also for a stage succeeding stage VI. The problem is made even more difficult by other dates obtained more recently; 7440 ± 150 B.C. BM-251 for stage VI and 737O +/- 150 B.C. BM-252 (See Page 290:11:1969 ibid) for a phase succeeding stage VII - both are much later than the series above which may be aberrant. One other date should be mentioned here to give a complete picture: 7632 +/- 89 B.C. P-377; this is for the earliest PPNA occupation in Trench E (I-II-V) which is so unlike all the other determinations mentioned which were obtained from material in Trench I.
One of the difficulties with these determinations is that the charcoal from which they were obtained was excavated many years ago and most of the dating was done soon after the excavations were finished. This means that the dates are probably not very exact although it does not explain the discrepancies between dates from the two laboratories. This has to be accounted for by different sample preparation and counting procedures. If one considers the British Museum dates alone then it would appear that the PPNA at Jericho began about 8500 B.C. although from the Philadelphia dates 8000 B.C. would be more correct. In either case the Proto-Neolithic settlement must have been founded some time before. The end of the PPNA came about 8000 B.C. on the British Museum dates or 7500 B.C. on those from Philadelphia. From these determinations it is possible to argue for either a long duration of the PPNA from 8500 to 7500 B.C. or for a much shorter sequence of two or three hundred years. For the moment it is best to be cautious and to take an average of the dates recognising that this can only be an estimate. On this basis PPNA may have begun about 8200 or 8300 B.C. and ended about 7700 or 7800 B.C. The Proto-Neolithic may thus be dated to about 8500 B.C. and is an estimate that accords reasonably well with the date suggested earlier for the end of Mesolithic 2 in the Levant ...
NOTE 5: Description based on an examination of the unpublished flints and
report of Kirkbride in Page 114ff of *7 Below
BIBLIOGRAPHY
*1 Excavations at Jericho (1957-58)
K. Kenyon (1960) [Pages 88-113]
Palestine Exploration Quarterly
Library of Congress # DS 111 A1 Q57
*2 Excavations at Jericho 1957
K. Kenyon (1957) [Pages 101-107]
Palestine Exploration Quarterly
Library of Congress # DS 111 A1 Q57
*3 Excavations at Jericho 1956
K. Kenyon (1956) [Pages 67-82]
Palestine Exploration Quarterly
Library of Congress # DS 111 A1 Q57
*4 Earliest Jericho [1959] K. Kenyon
Antiquity Volume 33 (Pages 5 - 9)
Library of Congress # CC 1 A7
*5 The Origins of the Neolithic (1969)
K. Kenyon : Number 128 (Pages 144 - 160)
in The Advancement of Science
Library of Congress # Q 41 B812
*6 The Excavation of Tell Abu Hureyra in Syria
A. M. T. Moore [1975] Volume 41 (Pages 50 - 77) in
Proceedings Brittish Academy LC # DA 670 E13 P8
*7 A Brief Report on the Pre-Pottery Flint Cultures of Jericho
D. Kirkbride (1960) [Pages 114-119] Palestine Exploration Quarterly
Library of Congress # DS 111 A1 Q57
*8 Obsidian and Early Cultural Contact in the Near East
C. Renfrew et al (1966) Volume 32 [Pages 30 - 72]
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
Library of Congress # DA 670 E13 P8
*9 The Stone-Tipped Arrow; Late Stone-Age
Hunters of the Tropical Old World (1966)
B. Allchin : LC # GN 422 A48
*10 Compendium of C-14 Determinations Derived
From Near Eastern PreHistoric Deposits
D. Henry and A. Servello (1974) in
Volume 2 (Pages 19-44) Paleorient
Library of Congress # DS 56 P34
*11 Radiocarbon: American Journal of Science Supplement
Library of Congress # QC 798 D3 A48
Chapter 4: Neolithic 2 Jericho (Pages 211-218)
Pre-History and Archaeology Glossary
Excerpts and Definitions and Addendums:
The PPNA settlement at Jericho was abandoned about 7700 BC as we have already seen. The site remained unoccupied for several centuries and then a new settlement - designated Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) - was founded on top of the weathered surface of the mound. The reasons why the site was deserted for so long are not known but probably depend on local factors which affected Jericho alone. There are no indications of such a break in occupation at this time at sites further north such as Tell Aswad and Mureybat nor at the two sites in Palestine with sratified Neolithic 1 and 2 deposits - Nahal Oren and Khiam.
The new settlement was at least as large as the PPNA one for remains of it were found in Trenches I and III and sites E and M. The settlement may have been even larger for in Trenches II and III it extended beyond the limits of the Middle Bronze Age town wall which had been cut into PPNB settlement levels.
The buildings of the PPNB settlement were rectilinear and built of mud-bricks sometimes on stone foundations. The bricks were parallel-sided with rounded ends and had deep thumb prints in them to act as keys for mud mortar. No buildings were fully exposed so it is not known what their complete plan was but a good idea of the arrangement of some of them was obtained. They consisted of a number of rooms arranged around a courtyard. The main rooms were very large - two examples being 6.5 by 4 metres and 7 by 3 metres each and were subdivided by partition walls with two or three openings each framed with wooden posts. These spacious rooms were accompanied by much smaller chambers and storage bins. The floors of the rooms were covered with plaster painted red or cream and then burnished. Recent analyses have confirmed that the plaster was made of lime. Some floors were covered with reeds or circular rush mats.
The courtyards had clay floors which were covered with ashes from numerous fires. They formed the core of each building complex but it is not certain if the rooms around them belonged to one or more buildings. These complexes were frequently rebuilt on a slightly different alignment - one of them in site E no less than 14 times. They apparently had a single storey and the same type was found all over the mound. It is probable that they were family houses.
One building similar in other respects to these houses had an unusual feature. A rectangular room had been separated off and a niche cut in an end wall. Nearby a chipped-out pillar of volcanic stone was found which fitted into the niche (See *1 Below). Kenyon has suggested that the room was a shrine but there is no clear indication of what purpose it served.
The overall plan of another building was different from the usual houses even if details of its construction were the same as in the other buildings. It consisted of a series of rooms with curvilinear walls which surrounded a rectangular plastered space 6 metres long and at least 4 metres wide. This area was believed to be a central room. In the centre of the floor of this room lay a sunken basin plastered like the floor which had apparently been used as a hearth. This building was different from the houses; Kenyon thought it may have been a temple but it could equally well have served as a communal building.
The houses of the early PPNB settlement were built down the side of the mound on the evidence from Trench I. Some were rebuilt ten times before there was any change. Then a wall was built near the top of the slope. The ground in front was levelled off and the debris piled up behind the wall so that it formed a terrace. Houses were then built on top of the terrace behind the wall. The line of this wall was irregular and since it has only been found in Trench I and Site M it is not known if it encircled the site. The ground in front of it sloped very gently so it may been simply a terrace wall rather than a defensive work as Kenyon has suggested. It may be that the settlement contracted on this side and that the wall was built to strengthen the upper part of the settlement as more debris accumulated. Eventually this terrace was partly collapsed and a replacement was built further to the west. It is thought that yet another well may ultimately have been built even further out as the settlement expanded still more.
The dead of the PPNB settlement were buried beneath the floors of the houses or in the fill of abandoned buildings. The graves frequently contained collective burials in which many of the skeletons were disordered. Some bones were articulated but others were not and many of the corpses lacked skulls. A cache of seven skulls was found beneath the floor of a room and two more under another floor in the same house. The jaws had been removed from all but one and the face and base of the skull covered with plaster. The features were modelled naturalistically with shells for eyes to give the appearance of live human beings. One other plastered skull was found at the north end of the mound making a total of ten altogether. Five of these skulls have recently been examined and were shown to be adult males.
The practice of separating skulls from corpses and reburying the disordered skeletal remains in collective graves was widespread in the Levant in Neolithic 2. Restoring the faces of these skulls with plaster was a more localised custom found only at Jericho - Tell Ramad and as we shall see at Beisamun. One other aspect of the treatment of detached skulls at Jericho differed from the practice on West Syrian and Euphrates sites such as Tell Ramad and Abu Hureyra. Apart from the ten plastered examples hardly any detached skulls were found buried in the excavated parts of the settlement which suggests that they had been gathered together and deposited in one or two special locations.
The flint raw material for the PPNB chipped stone industry was quite as varied as in the Proto-Neolithic/PPNA. Some of it was buff - brown or grey and of obvious local derivation. A proportion however was fine-grained and often veined and more lightly coloured in pink - even purple or a honey brown. We have already noted that this colourful flint was used at Jericho and at Nahal Oren in Neolithic 1 but in Neolithic 2 large blade tools - particularly arrowheads - were made of this material at these and and a number of other sites in Palestine and southern Syria such as Munhatta and Tell Ramad. The sources of the brightly coloured flint have not been determined but it has tentatively been suggested that one may lie in the hills that form the southeast extension of Mount Carmel between the coastal plain and the Plain of Esdraelon.
Although the sources of this flint have not been located with certainty the idea has been put forward that this raw material formed an object of trade or exchange - a hypothesis which might be questioned if only because the material is heavy and since so much has been found on archaeological sites it is difficult to see how it might have been transported before beasts of burden were domesticated. It is noticeable that this special flint was preferred for the larger blade tools - many of which were retouched with pressure-flaking. This functional distinction in the use of raw material may point to another explanation. Long blades may be pressure-flaked more readily when the flint has been heated. This process can alter the appearance of the flint by turning it pink or other colours and also may make the surface of struck pieces shiny and smooth - all of which can be seen on the distinctive Neolithic 2 flint. This suggests that the material is medium-grained flint of the usual kind found in beds in the limestone of Palestine and southern Syria or nodules in wadis. They were then collected and heated to make them easier to work. This would also explain why no sources of this material have been identified with certainty.
Most of the flint tools in the PPNB at Jericho were made on blades struck off double-ended cores of which some were keeled. The basic core technique was thus exactly the same as on most Neolithic 2 sites in the West Syrian and Middle Euphrates groups.
Some of the most common tool types were the arrowheads. Almost all were tanged but some had pairs of side notches as well - quite like examples on West Syrian sites. Another group had long tangs with pronounced wings or barbs formed by deep notches on either side of the tang. These appear to have been a specifically Palestinian type. A third group had tangs defined by shoulders or a simple narrowing of the blade at the tang end. These types were common on West Syrian sites and were found on other sites throughout the Levant. The tangs of most of the arrowheads were heavily retouched with pressure-flaking but although some also had pressure-flaking on the rest of the blade most were only lightly retouched at the tip.
The other main class of tool was the sickle blades. These had nibbled or finely-denticulated cutting edges but were usually not otherwise retouched. Dihedral and angle burins on blades were fairly common. Borers on blades were also made but these were quite rare.
Scrapers of all types were common especially when compared with sites further north. Some discoids were made on core tablets but there were few other flake scrapers or end-scrapers on blades. Core tools were also exceedingly scarce. There were no large core tools at all and only one or two small flaked axes with a tranchet cutting edge. Small greenstone axes were found which - like these flaked flint ones - may have been used for woodworking.
About 1% of the chipped stone industry at Jericho was of obsidian. Two pieces analysed by Renfrew (See *2 Below) and his colleagues were found to be from the Ciftlik source as was a third piece recently analysed in the Bradford program. One other piece analysed at Bradford was of green obsidian but it could not be ascribed to any known source. It did not however come from Ciftlik so we now know that obsidian from at least two sources was reaching PPNB Jericho.
The ground stone tools at Jericho were numerous and varied. The most characteristic objects were the open-mouthed querns - some of which were stepped - a type which has since been found at Munhatta and Tell Ramad. Plano-convex rubbers were used with these querns to grind grain. Hammerstones - stone balls and stone polishers were all made and also pestles which are rare on other Neolithic 2 sites. Dishes and bowls were carved from a local soft limestone and some were then given a fine polish. Among the other stone tools were spindle whorls and weights which may have been used in single looms. Bone tools such as borers and spatulae were made but these were less abundant than in the PPNA at Jericho and also less common than on most West Syrian and Middle Euphrates Neolithic 2 sites.
One of the more unusual groups of finds from PPNB Jericho was a series of stylised anthropomorphic plaster figures. Fragments of several of these were found in Square DII. One which could be reconstructed from the waist up was almost life-sized and had a rectangular head but no indication of facial features. It was decorated with red - brown and cream paint. Two groups of three plaster figures were found by Garstang (See *3 Below) in Neolithic levels at the northern end of the site but their precise stratigraphic position was uncertain. It now seems likely that they can be associated with the figures found in Kenyon's excavations and so dated to the PPNB phase of occupation. The groups each consisted of a life-size man and a smaller woman and child. Garstang was able to recover only one head of these figures; it was thin and spade-shaped like those found by Kenyon but its face was naturalistically modelled as were the other plaster fragments which could be identified - with eyes made of shells. The face was made more life-like still with painted lines to represent hair on the forehead and a beard.
The modelling of these figures with plaster - shells and paint reminds one of the way the plastered skulls were made but there is no indication that the two were used together like the plaster figures and plastered skulls at Tell Ramad. For the moment the function of the Jericho plaster figures remains obscure.
Clay was used to make human and animal figurines - finds which are common to most excavated Neolithic 2 sites. There were also objects of adornment such as shell and malachite beads; the raw material for the latter was probably brought up from the Wadi Arabah. Turquoise was imported from Sinai and cowrie shells from the Mediterranean or Red Sea. A little oval piece of bone carved to resemble a human face with two holes for eyes may have been a bead or button.
The C-14 determinations for PPNB Jericho are even more difficult to interpret than those for the preceding phases. Six have been made altogether and of these two from the British Museum and three from the Philadelphia laboratories probably give results approaching the true age of the samples. Unfortunately when considered together they are contradictory. The British Museum determinations of 7220 +/- 200 BC BM-115 and 6760 +/- 150 BC BM-253 are thought to date the middle of the PPNB phase. Yet two of the Philadelphia dates which should date early PPNB levels are 6660 +/- 75 BC P-380 and 6708 +/- 101 BC P-381. It seems that once again the Philadelphia determinations are several centuries later than those from the British Museum. One other sample stratified above P-380 in Site E gave a date of 7006 +/- 103 BC P-382 which only adds to the confusion. It is not possible from these dates to make an accurate estimate of when PPNB Jericho was resettled or when it was abandoned although given the clustering of the determinations it is probable that the total duration of the phase may have been nearer a half than a whole millennium. One might guess that the PPNB settlement began about 7000 BC and lasted until 6500 BC or a little after but this estimate would be in error by several centuries. One inference from this would be that Jericho was deserted for about half a millennium between PPNA and PPNB. PPNB Jericho was apparently abandoned well before the end of the 7th millennium and was not resettled until much later.
Jericho was occupied during Neolithic 2 and the general character of the remains on the site link it culturally with Neolithic 2 sites in the West Syrian and Middle Euphrates groups. There are the rectilinear mud-brick buildings and plaster floors - a basically similar flint industry though with some typological differences and the Neolithic 2 burial systems though again with certain local special features. These broad similarities place PPNB Jericho firmly within Neolithic 2 of the Levant but the particular local differences we have noted mean that Jericho must be regarded as a site within a third regional cultural grouping. This third regional cultural group consists of sites in Palestine ...
Bibliography
*1 Digging Up Jericho by Kathleen Kenyon (1957)
Library of Congress # DS 110 J4 K39
*2 Obsidian and Early Cultural Contact in the Near East
Renfrew et al (1966) Proceedings of the PreHistoric Society
Library of Congress # DA 670 E13 P8
*3 Jericho: City and Necropolis (1935) Garstang
Liverpool Annual Archaeology and Anthropology
Volume 22 (Pages 143-184)
Chapter 3: Neolithic 1 Jericho (Pages 87-99)
Pre-History and Archaeology Glossary
Excerpts and Definitions and Addendums:
The Natufian settlement at Jericho was found at the bottom of Trench E alone of the five trenches (I-II-III-M-E) that were excavated to bedrock by Kathleen Kenyon. This settlement was therefore confined to the northeast corner of the mound. Thin deposits of the next phase - the Proto Neolithic - were found in Trench I (DI-DII-F) and Trench II on the bedrock and in E (I-II-V) overlying the Natufian. A much greater accumulation of Proto-Neolithic debris some 4 metres deep was found above the bedrock in Square MI (See Page 99 in *1 Below). It appears that the focus of the settlement at Jericho had moved away from the north-east corner of the tell. The maximum extent of the Proto-Neolithic settlement was quite considerable covering perhaps one third of the area of the mound; but only part of the site in the vicinity of MI was occupied for any length of time. Thus for much of the period of occupation the Proto-Neolithic settlement was perhaps about the same size as the Natufian site.
The deposit in MI was made up of very many floor surfaces on which had been constructed shelters or huts. These huts had walls made of clay lumps probably supported by a timber frame. The rest of the deposit seems to have consisted of occupational debris so its considerable depth here implies that the settlement was inhabited for a long period. The Proto-Neolithic occupation sequence in MI was uninterrupted suggesting continuous or at least repeated occupation of the site. Likewise there was no marked stratigraphic break between the Proto-Neolithic and PPNA deposits. Although the centre of the settlement shifted between the Natufian and Proto-Neolithic phases there seems to have been no great interval of time between them. This stratigraphic evidence is corroborated by the appearance of the flint industries in these levels as we shall see.
A very rapid growth of the site seems to have taken place after the Proto-Neolithic for the PPNA settlement was from its inception much larger than its predecessors. Very early PPNA deposits have been found above the Proto-Neolithic in Trench I (DI-DII-F) and at the northern end of the mound in Trench II. They have also been found on the bedrock in Trench III at the southern extremity of the site (See Page 98 ibid). Elsewhere there were PPNA levels above the Proto-Neolithic in every trench that was excavated to a sufficient depth; in E (I-II-V) - M - 0. It is estimated that the settlement was about 4 hectares (10 acres) in area.
The early PPNA settlement was open but soon after the initial expansion a wall was built around it. The settlement continued to be occupied for a long period but the considerable depth of debris that accumulated was contained within the confines of this wall at least on the evidence from Trenches I-II-III. We do not know exactly how far the settlement extended to the east nor if it subsequently expanded on that side.
The typical buildings of this phase were subcircular structures constructed of plano-convex or hog-backed mud bricks. They seem to have been free-standing but were set close together. When replaced they were not always rebuilt on the same alignment (See Page 102 in *2). Most of these structures which have been interpreted as houses seem to have had a single room although one example had at least three (See Page 106 ibid); none was excavated in its entirety so one cannot be certain of the exact number. The rooms were from 4 to 6 metres in diameter and their floors were sunk below the level of the surrounding ground as much as 0.8 metres in one instance. The houses were entered through a timber-framed projecting doorway or porch and down a flight of several steps with stone or wooden treads (See Page 102 ibid). Inside they were simply finished with mud floors and plain walls although in one instance the latter were lined with reeds or bamboo covered with mud (See Page 72 in *3 Below). The walls were strengthened with timber or wattle and enough debris was found in some of these houses to suggest that they stood quite high originally (See Page 6 in *4 Below). They also sloped inward which shortened the roof span. The roofs themselves may have been conical or domed and were probably made of timber - branches - reeds and mud. A depression was found in the floor of one hut in Trench M indicating that its roof had been supported on a central post.
The houses seem to have contained few domestic structures although in a yard adjoining one building a grinding stone and possible oven were found (See Page 106 in *2 Below). These were surrounded by an expanse of charcoal indicating that fires had been lit in the area - possibly for preparing food-stuffs.
The stone walls surrounding the PPNA settlement were best preserved in Trench I. The sequence of construction here was complex indicating that the walls had been modified several times during the life of the settlement. The first perimeter wall - designated TW I - was built on sterile soil; it was freestanding and aligned approximately north-south. The wall was 1.5 metres wide (See Page 102 ibid) and still stood 3.9 metres high when excavated (See Page 93 in *1 Below). Behind this wall to the east and above an earlier PPNA structure a solid stone tower was built; this tower was semicircular at the bottom where it was joined to the wall and circular at the top. The tower survived to a height of a little over 8 metres but may have been slightly taller originally. Its shape suggests that it was built higher than the perimeter wall in front. To reach the top one entered a passage at the foot of the tower and climbed a staircase up through the centre. From the top one would have commanded a view over the roofs of the houses within the settlement and the Jordan Valley beyond.
The function of these structures is not entirely clear. The wall which apparently surrounded the whole settlement seems to have been too tall for a simple enclosure wall to protect stock and humans at night from predatory animals and so may have been intended as a defensive curtain wall against other human groups. As the tower and the wall were built together they probably had a combined function. The tower is altogether too massive to have served simply as a buttress although it would have afforded a good lookout. Even this seems inadequate as a functional explanation for a structure as large as this which took much time and labour to build and would presumably have been constructed in response to some compelling need. Yet it is hard to see what essential purpose it might have served in a defensive system beyond functioning as some sort of observation post and fighting tower.
The area around the foot of the tower seems to have been open at first but later it was completely built over. A series of curved stone walls thickly coated with mud plaster was constructed around the foot of the tower forming at least five enclosures (See Page 103ff in *2 and Page 93ff in *1 Below). These walls originally stood at least 3.12 metres high without any connecting doors between the enclosures with only a small window or porthole high up in one wall. It is possible that these structures were covered over and approached through an opening in the roof. The entrance at the foot of the tower was now almost closed in and could only have been reached across the roofs of the surrounding rooms. Two suggestions have been put forward to explain the purpose of the enclosures; one that they were water storage tanks (See Page 95 in *1 Below) and the other that at least some were for storing grain (See Page 153 in *5 Below). Large quantities of water would soon have washed away the mud plaster of these structures so the latter explanation seems more probable especially as possible burned vegetable deposits were found within one of the enclosures. If these enclosures were used as granaries they would have held enough grain to feed many households. Such indications of communal storage combined with the evidence for large-scale structures such as the tower and wall would suggest that PPNA Jericho had a system of community organization.
Eventually these enclosures ceased to be used and the area around the tower was remodelled. First the walls of the enclosures began to collapse and their interiors were filled with coarse rubble (See Page 104 in *2 Below). Then a new stone face was built around the outer surface of the tower. Part of the new face of the tower and the open area around its foot were plastered over completely burying the old entrance to the stairway which now passed out of use. The old town wall was replaced by a new one (TW II) on a slightly different alignment. This wall ran 3.75 metres to the west of wall TW I and was joined to the new outer face of the tower. At about this time a ditch 8.5 metres wide and 2.10 metres deep was cut in the bedrock to the west of the new wall (See Page 97 in *1 Below) and the chippings from the ditch were used to fill the gap between the old and the new town walls.
The area around the tower remained open for a while and some layers of washed-out debris accumulated on the plastered surface. Then a new series of enclosures was built behind the town wall around the tower (See Page 104 in *2 Below). These structures which were made of stone and mud-brick and plaster were built in at least three stages. There was a doorway between two of the enclosures with a sill raised 0.35 metres high above the floor. This doorway did not survive intact but it is similar in size and type to the complete doorway found at Abu Hureyra in a later context (See Page 60 in *6 Below). The raised sill would have helped to keep the floors free of rubbish from outside. Like the earlier enclosures this series may have been used for storage.
In the next stage the wall and tower were modified further. Another stone face was added to the west side of the tower (See Page 71 in *3 Below) which now stood only a few metres above the surrounding structures. The stone wall of the settlement was considerably heightened though the new face was set back slightly from the old one below. This wall was joined to the new face of the tower which probably served as an additional support. The wall itself was set on a slight batter and presented a formidable exterior rising above the ditch which continued in use. It would appear to have still been a defensive structure but the tower probably played little part in such a scheme now. As the interior of the settlement built up this perimeter wall also served as a terrace wall supporting the considerable depth of deposit within.
The second series of enclosures behind the wall was partly filled in and then rebuilt on much the same alignment (See Page 104 in *2 Below). These were then in their turn filled with debris and no more buildings of this type were built here. The character of the area now changed. The wall and ditch were no longer maintained - the top of the wall began to collapse and the ditch gradually filled with silt and debris. The area over the tower reverted to domestic use and several phases of typical PPNA houses were built on top (See Page 105 ibid). These houses were built out over the wall and down the slope of the mound. This enlarged settlement now covered the top and part of the slope of a steep-sided mound. Then the site was abandoned and the surface of the tell was considerably eroded (See Page 73 in *3 Below).
The dead of the PPNA settlement were buried in a contracted position in graves about 1 metre deep beneath the floors of the houses (See Page 106 in *2 Below). The inhabitants were thus continuing a burial tradition that typified Mesolithic 2 and which had been practised at least as early as Mesolithic 1. One interesting modification of the burial rite was the custom of treating skulls separately from the rest of the skeleton. This rite began quite late in the PPNA sequence when two elaborate instances of it were found: in one seven skulls had been set upright around an eighth and in another several groups of three skulls each were buried close together (See Page 75 in *3 Below). A third group consisted of several infants' skulls and a complete infant skeleton. This preoccupation with skulls had a long history in subsequent cultural stages throughout the Levant and further afield.
Flint and bone tools were the most common artifacts in the PPNA settlement but a range of other tools and ornamental objects was also made. A number of hollow querns and many rubbing stones were found as well as grooved stones and rough stone bowls. The inhabitants also manufactured stone axes with ground and polished cutting edges. The ornamental artifacts consisted of a variety of beads.
The bone tools were numerous and included several different types (See Page 72 ibid). These consisted principally of points - none of which was very large - and spatulae. Some of the latter are better described as scoops and these seem to have been characteristic of the assemblage. There were some pins and scrapers made of rib bones as well as a few tiny toothed combs too small for an adult's personal use.
Both Proto-Neolithic and PPNA flint too1s [NOTE 5] were made from the same kind of very varied raw material. Most of this came from small pebbles presumably collected from the beds of wadis running down from the Judean hills to the west of the site. Almost all of the material was carefully selected fine-grained flint although some coarse flint was used. The flint was of many different colours and shades both opaque and translucent including grey - brown - veined purple and pink; the latter two in particular are usually thought of as being distinctive of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) in Palestine but they were used throughout the Jericho Natufian and Neolithic sequence. A few fragments of obsidian - usually from small blades - were found in the Proto-Neolithic and PPNA layers. This was the first time that this material had been used in Palestine. Six pieces from the PPNA layers were analysed by Renfrew and his collaborators in the first major programme of analyses of Near Eastern obsidian ever undertaken. All of then proved to have come from Ciftlik (source 2b) in Anatolia (See Table I in *8 Below). I am conducting another programme of obsidian analyses in association with Bradford University in which we have analysed three more pieces from Neolithic 1 levels at Jericho - one from the Proto-Neolithic and two from the PPNA. These three pieces likewise came from Ciftlik. Obsidian from the Ciftlik source reached the Levant more regularly than that from any other locality throughout the Neolithic on present evidence.
Tools in the Proto-Neolithic were fashioned on flakes and blades struck from small prismatic or pyramidal cores. Crested blades were a regular by-product. Flakes and blades usually had tiny prepared platforms and probably were struck off with a punch. Blades were short and irregular with most being between 3 and 5 centimetres long though a few were as much as 6 to 7.5 centimetres long.
All the flake and blade tools were small like the waste material. The most numerous retouched tools were burins and scrapers while nibbled blades were also common. Retouched blades and flakes of no specific type occurred quite frequently. Although burins were abundant there were very few types for apart from some single and multiple blow burins most were angle burins on preparation or truncation. The scrapers were a little more varied and consisted of flake - side and steep-scrapers and end and nosed scrapers on blades. There were some borers on flakes and blades with a short point defined by a little retouch. Sickle blades - that is blades with silica sheen - were also found though these do not appear to have been very common. They were made on irregular flakes and blades and usually had some retouch particularly an the back. All were quite small so several must have been hafted together to make a composite cutting tool. These tools were all finished with abrupt retouch or nibbling.
One new tool was the axe or adze. These had a straight or convex flaked cutting edge with a rounded or pointed butt. They were oval or circular in cross-section and were flaked all over. These tools were almost certainly hafted and were probably used for woodworking. Most were too small to have been used to cut large pieces of timber so it is likely that trees were felled and split by other means.
This industry was based more on retouched flakes than on blades and so cannot be described as a blade industry. The typological range was restricted which suggests a fairly limited range of tool uses. Microliths and microburins were not found but this may be because the deposits were not sieved. Composite tools as such were certainly made and as the tools were so small many of them would have been hafted for use.
The raw material used in the PPNA industry was the same as in the Proto-Neolithic. The core technique was also similar in that most flakes and blades were struck from prismatic and pyramidal cores although discoid cores were now used as well. Blades were still irregular although some were longer than in the Proto-Neolithic and had parallel sides. These larger blades were used for sickle blades and knives. Some of them were struck from double-ended cores - a few of which were found for the first time. A further refinement in the choice of raw material was discernible: the larger blades were usually fashioned from fine-grained purple and honey-coloured flint while the smaller ones were made on coarser raw material.
Burins - scrapers and nibbled blades were still the most common tools. The same range of burin types was used as in the Proto-Neolithic with the addition of a number of dihedral burins but the scrapers now included a few discoids. Scrapers in general were perhaps less frequent than before. Borers appear to have been more common and now included drills and long awls. Sickle blades were also more common and somewhat different. Most were made on long blades with little retouch. Their form suggests that they were still probably hafted to make composite tools. Axes and adzes were similar to those found in the Proto-Neolithic. A few had such narrow ends that they are better described as picks. As before the tools were formed by flaking. Axe/adze rejuvenation flakes were common in the PPNA indicating that the cutting edges frequently broke and needed renewing. This was done by a blow from the side followed by further flaking. The true tranchet edge occurred rarely.
A few new tools were found in the PPNA levels the most important of which were Khiamian points. These were the first recognisable projectile points in the Levant although as many microliths and other retouched tools or even flint waste can be used to arm an arrow or lance (See Page 203 in *9 Below) there is no reason to suppose that the use of the bow did not begin much earlier. Another new type was a tanged knife retouched by squamous pressure-flaking. A lunate was also found in the PPNA levels but it is not known if it belonged to this industry or was derived from the Natufian by subsequent disturbance. A few of the obsidian blade segments were now retouched at both ends to form rectangles. Most tools were still finished by nibbling or abrupt retouch as in the Proto-Neolithic. The use of squamous pressure-flaking was new but it was not yet used on many tools.
The flint industry of the PPNA was similar to that of the Proto-Neolithic. The same raw material and techniques of preparation were used and the same tool types. Techniques were a little more varied in the PPNA; some new tools were introduced and the relative proportions of the main tool types were somewhat different but these changes were such as one would expect in a long-lived industry. Gradual changes would take place with the passage of time and new tool types would be developed in response to new needs. As the excavated material represented only some of the activities that were practised on the site differences were bound to occur from level to level which would effect the total sample we have of the industry.
This Neolithic flint industry had many similarities with the Natufian industry at Jericho. The same varieties of raw material and the same techniques of production of small blades and flakes from prismatic cores were used in the Natufian. The waste blades and flakes were similar and both this component and the tools were all small; neither could be described as a blade industry at least not before the evolved PPNA anyway. Some of the tool types such as the scrapers - sickle blades and borers were common to both industries. There were differences of course: microliths and the microburin technique appear to have been absent in the Neolithic industry for example but nevertheless the similarities are striking. Since the similarities embrace raw material - techniques of production and tool types it would appear that the Neolithic industry developed directly from the Natufian. One can go further and suggest that for such an industry to be continued in this way the population must have remained the same. Although other cultural and economic changes were taking place the earlier Neolithic population of Jericho was descended from the Natufian inhabitants of the area.
It is very difficult to determine when the Proto-Neolithic/PPNA at Jericho began and how long it lasted because although no less than eleven C-14 determinations have been made on samples from PPNA levels the dates do not form a consistent series. Two determinations made when C-14 dating was a new technique; 6850 ± 160 B.C. F-39 (See Page 7 in *4 Below) and 6775 ± 210 B.C. F-40 (See Page 37 in *10 Below) should probably be ignored from the outset as they give no more than a general indication of the age of the deposits. The remaining determinations were all carried out by the British Museum and Philadelphia laboratories often on samples from the same phases. Unfortunately these two series of dates differ by as much as 500 or 600 years with the British Museum dates being the older. The earliest dated phase is one immediately after the construction of the PPNA wall and tower. The two British Museum dates for this are 8350 ± 500 B.C. BM-250 (See Page 290:11:1969 in *11 Below) and 8300 +/- 200 B.C. BM-105 (See Page 107:5:1963 ibid) but the Philadelphia date is 7825 +/- 110 B.C. P-378 (See Page 84:5:1963 ibid). There is another series of dates for phases late in the PPNA: 8350 ± 200 B.C. BM-106 for a phase succeeding stage VI of the defences and 8230 ± 200 B.C. BM-110 (See Page 107:5:1963 ibid) for the final destruction of the wall - both of which may be compared with 7705 ± 84 B.C. P-379 (See Page 84:5:1963 ibid) which is also for a stage succeeding stage VI. The problem is made even more difficult by other dates obtained more recently; 7440 ± 150 B.C. BM-251 for stage VI and 737O +/- 150 B.C. BM-252 (See Page 290:11:1969 ibid) for a phase succeeding stage VII - both are much later than the series above which may be aberrant. One other date should be mentioned here to give a complete picture: 7632 +/- 89 B.C. P-377; this is for the earliest PPNA occupation in Trench E (I-II-V) which is so unlike all the other determinations mentioned which were obtained from material in Trench I.
One of the difficulties with these determinations is that the charcoal from which they were obtained was excavated many years ago and most of the dating was done soon after the excavations were finished. This means that the dates are probably not very exact although it does not explain the discrepancies between dates from the two laboratories. This has to be accounted for by different sample preparation and counting procedures. If one considers the British Museum dates alone then it would appear that the PPNA at Jericho began about 8500 B.C. although from the Philadelphia dates 8000 B.C. would be more correct. In either case the Proto-Neolithic settlement must have been founded some time before. The end of the PPNA came about 8000 B.C. on the British Museum dates or 7500 B.C. on those from Philadelphia. From these determinations it is possible to argue for either a long duration of the PPNA from 8500 to 7500 B.C. or for a much shorter sequence of two or three hundred years. For the moment it is best to be cautious and to take an average of the dates recognising that this can only be an estimate. On this basis PPNA may have begun about 8200 or 8300 B.C. and ended about 7700 or 7800 B.C. The Proto-Neolithic may thus be dated to about 8500 B.C. and is an estimate that accords reasonably well with the date suggested earlier for the end of Mesolithic 2 in the Levant ...
NOTE 5: Description based on an examination of the unpublished flints and
report of Kirkbride in Page 114ff of *7 Below
BIBLIOGRAPHY
*1 Excavations at Jericho (1957-58)
K. Kenyon (1960) [Pages 88-113]
Palestine Exploration Quarterly
Library of Congress # DS 111 A1 Q57
*2 Excavations at Jericho 1957
K. Kenyon (1957) [Pages 101-107]
Palestine Exploration Quarterly
Library of Congress # DS 111 A1 Q57
*3 Excavations at Jericho 1956
K. Kenyon (1956) [Pages 67-82]
Palestine Exploration Quarterly
Library of Congress # DS 111 A1 Q57
*4 Earliest Jericho [1959] K. Kenyon
Antiquity Volume 33 (Pages 5 - 9)
Library of Congress # CC 1 A7
*5 The Origins of the Neolithic (1969)
K. Kenyon : Number 128 (Pages 144 - 160)
in The Advancement of Science
Library of Congress # Q 41 B812
*6 The Excavation of Tell Abu Hureyra in Syria
A. M. T. Moore [1975] Volume 41 (Pages 50 - 77) in
Proceedings Brittish Academy LC # DA 670 E13 P8
*7 A Brief Report on the Pre-Pottery Flint Cultures of Jericho
D. Kirkbride (1960) [Pages 114-119] Palestine Exploration Quarterly
Library of Congress # DS 111 A1 Q57
*8 Obsidian and Early Cultural Contact in the Near East
C. Renfrew et al (1966) Volume 32 [Pages 30 - 72]
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
Library of Congress # DA 670 E13 P8
*9 The Stone-Tipped Arrow; Late Stone-Age
Hunters of the Tropical Old World (1966)
B. Allchin : LC # GN 422 A48
*10 Compendium of C-14 Determinations Derived
From Near Eastern PreHistoric Deposits
D. Henry and A. Servello (1974) in
Volume 2 (Pages 19-44) Paleorient
Library of Congress # DS 56 P34
*11 Radiocarbon: American Journal of Science Supplement
Library of Congress # QC 798 D3 A48
Chapter 4: Neolithic 2 Jericho (Pages 211-218)
Pre-History and Archaeology Glossary
Excerpts and Definitions and Addendums:
The PPNA settlement at Jericho was abandoned about 7700 BC as we have already seen. The site remained unoccupied for several centuries and then a new settlement - designated Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) - was founded on top of the weathered surface of the mound. The reasons why the site was deserted for so long are not known but probably depend on local factors which affected Jericho alone. There are no indications of such a break in occupation at this time at sites further north such as Tell Aswad and Mureybat nor at the two sites in Palestine with sratified Neolithic 1 and 2 deposits - Nahal Oren and Khiam.
The new settlement was at least as large as the PPNA one for remains of it were found in Trenches I and III and sites E and M. The settlement may have been even larger for in Trenches II and III it extended beyond the limits of the Middle Bronze Age town wall which had been cut into PPNB settlement levels.
The buildings of the PPNB settlement were rectilinear and built of mud-bricks sometimes on stone foundations. The bricks were parallel-sided with rounded ends and had deep thumb prints in them to act as keys for mud mortar. No buildings were fully exposed so it is not known what their complete plan was but a good idea of the arrangement of some of them was obtained. They consisted of a number of rooms arranged around a courtyard. The main rooms were very large - two examples being 6.5 by 4 metres and 7 by 3 metres each and were subdivided by partition walls with two or three openings each framed with wooden posts. These spacious rooms were accompanied by much smaller chambers and storage bins. The floors of the rooms were covered with plaster painted red or cream and then burnished. Recent analyses have confirmed that the plaster was made of lime. Some floors were covered with reeds or circular rush mats.
The courtyards had clay floors which were covered with ashes from numerous fires. They formed the core of each building complex but it is not certain if the rooms around them belonged to one or more buildings. These complexes were frequently rebuilt on a slightly different alignment - one of them in site E no less than 14 times. They apparently had a single storey and the same type was found all over the mound. It is probable that they were family houses.
One building similar in other respects to these houses had an unusual feature. A rectangular room had been separated off and a niche cut in an end wall. Nearby a chipped-out pillar of volcanic stone was found which fitted into the niche (See *1 Below). Kenyon has suggested that the room was a shrine but there is no clear indication of what purpose it served.
The overall plan of another building was different from the usual houses even if details of its construction were the same as in the other buildings. It consisted of a series of rooms with curvilinear walls which surrounded a rectangular plastered space 6 metres long and at least 4 metres wide. This area was believed to be a central room. In the centre of the floor of this room lay a sunken basin plastered like the floor which had apparently been used as a hearth. This building was different from the houses; Kenyon thought it may have been a temple but it could equally well have served as a communal building.
The houses of the early PPNB settlement were built down the side of the mound on the evidence from Trench I. Some were rebuilt ten times before there was any change. Then a wall was built near the top of the slope. The ground in front was levelled off and the debris piled up behind the wall so that it formed a terrace. Houses were then built on top of the terrace behind the wall. The line of this wall was irregular and since it has only been found in Trench I and Site M it is not known if it encircled the site. The ground in front of it sloped very gently so it may been simply a terrace wall rather than a defensive work as Kenyon has suggested. It may be that the settlement contracted on this side and that the wall was built to strengthen the upper part of the settlement as more debris accumulated. Eventually this terrace was partly collapsed and a replacement was built further to the west. It is thought that yet another well may ultimately have been built even further out as the settlement expanded still more.
The dead of the PPNB settlement were buried beneath the floors of the houses or in the fill of abandoned buildings. The graves frequently contained collective burials in which many of the skeletons were disordered. Some bones were articulated but others were not and many of the corpses lacked skulls. A cache of seven skulls was found beneath the floor of a room and two more under another floor in the same house. The jaws had been removed from all but one and the face and base of the skull covered with plaster. The features were modelled naturalistically with shells for eyes to give the appearance of live human beings. One other plastered skull was found at the north end of the mound making a total of ten altogether. Five of these skulls have recently been examined and were shown to be adult males.
The practice of separating skulls from corpses and reburying the disordered skeletal remains in collective graves was widespread in the Levant in Neolithic 2. Restoring the faces of these skulls with plaster was a more localised custom found only at Jericho - Tell Ramad and as we shall see at Beisamun. One other aspect of the treatment of detached skulls at Jericho differed from the practice on West Syrian and Euphrates sites such as Tell Ramad and Abu Hureyra. Apart from the ten plastered examples hardly any detached skulls were found buried in the excavated parts of the settlement which suggests that they had been gathered together and deposited in one or two special locations.
The flint raw material for the PPNB chipped stone industry was quite as varied as in the Proto-Neolithic/PPNA. Some of it was buff - brown or grey and of obvious local derivation. A proportion however was fine-grained and often veined and more lightly coloured in pink - even purple or a honey brown. We have already noted that this colourful flint was used at Jericho and at Nahal Oren in Neolithic 1 but in Neolithic 2 large blade tools - particularly arrowheads - were made of this material at these and and a number of other sites in Palestine and southern Syria such as Munhatta and Tell Ramad. The sources of the brightly coloured flint have not been determined but it has tentatively been suggested that one may lie in the hills that form the southeast extension of Mount Carmel between the coastal plain and the Plain of Esdraelon.
Although the sources of this flint have not been located with certainty the idea has been put forward that this raw material formed an object of trade or exchange - a hypothesis which might be questioned if only because the material is heavy and since so much has been found on archaeological sites it is difficult to see how it might have been transported before beasts of burden were domesticated. It is noticeable that this special flint was preferred for the larger blade tools - many of which were retouched with pressure-flaking. This functional distinction in the use of raw material may point to another explanation. Long blades may be pressure-flaked more readily when the flint has been heated. This process can alter the appearance of the flint by turning it pink or other colours and also may make the surface of struck pieces shiny and smooth - all of which can be seen on the distinctive Neolithic 2 flint. This suggests that the material is medium-grained flint of the usual kind found in beds in the limestone of Palestine and southern Syria or nodules in wadis. They were then collected and heated to make them easier to work. This would also explain why no sources of this material have been identified with certainty.
Most of the flint tools in the PPNB at Jericho were made on blades struck off double-ended cores of which some were keeled. The basic core technique was thus exactly the same as on most Neolithic 2 sites in the West Syrian and Middle Euphrates groups.
Some of the most common tool types were the arrowheads. Almost all were tanged but some had pairs of side notches as well - quite like examples on West Syrian sites. Another group had long tangs with pronounced wings or barbs formed by deep notches on either side of the tang. These appear to have been a specifically Palestinian type. A third group had tangs defined by shoulders or a simple narrowing of the blade at the tang end. These types were common on West Syrian sites and were found on other sites throughout the Levant. The tangs of most of the arrowheads were heavily retouched with pressure-flaking but although some also had pressure-flaking on the rest of the blade most were only lightly retouched at the tip.
The other main class of tool was the sickle blades. These had nibbled or finely-denticulated cutting edges but were usually not otherwise retouched. Dihedral and angle burins on blades were fairly common. Borers on blades were also made but these were quite rare.
Scrapers of all types were common especially when compared with sites further north. Some discoids were made on core tablets but there were few other flake scrapers or end-scrapers on blades. Core tools were also exceedingly scarce. There were no large core tools at all and only one or two small flaked axes with a tranchet cutting edge. Small greenstone axes were found which - like these flaked flint ones - may have been used for woodworking.
About 1% of the chipped stone industry at Jericho was of obsidian. Two pieces analysed by Renfrew (See *2 Below) and his colleagues were found to be from the Ciftlik source as was a third piece recently analysed in the Bradford program. One other piece analysed at Bradford was of green obsidian but it could not be ascribed to any known source. It did not however come from Ciftlik so we now know that obsidian from at least two sources was reaching PPNB Jericho.
The ground stone tools at Jericho were numerous and varied. The most characteristic objects were the open-mouthed querns - some of which were stepped - a type which has since been found at Munhatta and Tell Ramad. Plano-convex rubbers were used with these querns to grind grain. Hammerstones - stone balls and stone polishers were all made and also pestles which are rare on other Neolithic 2 sites. Dishes and bowls were carved from a local soft limestone and some were then given a fine polish. Among the other stone tools were spindle whorls and weights which may have been used in single looms. Bone tools such as borers and spatulae were made but these were less abundant than in the PPNA at Jericho and also less common than on most West Syrian and Middle Euphrates Neolithic 2 sites.
One of the more unusual groups of finds from PPNB Jericho was a series of stylised anthropomorphic plaster figures. Fragments of several of these were found in Square DII. One which could be reconstructed from the waist up was almost life-sized and had a rectangular head but no indication of facial features. It was decorated with red - brown and cream paint. Two groups of three plaster figures were found by Garstang (See *3 Below) in Neolithic levels at the northern end of the site but their precise stratigraphic position was uncertain. It now seems likely that they can be associated with the figures found in Kenyon's excavations and so dated to the PPNB phase of occupation. The groups each consisted of a life-size man and a smaller woman and child. Garstang was able to recover only one head of these figures; it was thin and spade-shaped like those found by Kenyon but its face was naturalistically modelled as were the other plaster fragments which could be identified - with eyes made of shells. The face was made more life-like still with painted lines to represent hair on the forehead and a beard.
The modelling of these figures with plaster - shells and paint reminds one of the way the plastered skulls were made but there is no indication that the two were used together like the plaster figures and plastered skulls at Tell Ramad. For the moment the function of the Jericho plaster figures remains obscure.
Clay was used to make human and animal figurines - finds which are common to most excavated Neolithic 2 sites. There were also objects of adornment such as shell and malachite beads; the raw material for the latter was probably brought up from the Wadi Arabah. Turquoise was imported from Sinai and cowrie shells from the Mediterranean or Red Sea. A little oval piece of bone carved to resemble a human face with two holes for eyes may have been a bead or button.
The C-14 determinations for PPNB Jericho are even more difficult to interpret than those for the preceding phases. Six have been made altogether and of these two from the British Museum and three from the Philadelphia laboratories probably give results approaching the true age of the samples. Unfortunately when considered together they are contradictory. The British Museum determinations of 7220 +/- 200 BC BM-115 and 6760 +/- 150 BC BM-253 are thought to date the middle of the PPNB phase. Yet two of the Philadelphia dates which should date early PPNB levels are 6660 +/- 75 BC P-380 and 6708 +/- 101 BC P-381. It seems that once again the Philadelphia determinations are several centuries later than those from the British Museum. One other sample stratified above P-380 in Site E gave a date of 7006 +/- 103 BC P-382 which only adds to the confusion. It is not possible from these dates to make an accurate estimate of when PPNB Jericho was resettled or when it was abandoned although given the clustering of the determinations it is probable that the total duration of the phase may have been nearer a half than a whole millennium. One might guess that the PPNB settlement began about 7000 BC and lasted until 6500 BC or a little after but this estimate would be in error by several centuries. One inference from this would be that Jericho was deserted for about half a millennium between PPNA and PPNB. PPNB Jericho was apparently abandoned well before the end of the 7th millennium and was not resettled until much later.
Jericho was occupied during Neolithic 2 and the general character of the remains on the site link it culturally with Neolithic 2 sites in the West Syrian and Middle Euphrates groups. There are the rectilinear mud-brick buildings and plaster floors - a basically similar flint industry though with some typological differences and the Neolithic 2 burial systems though again with certain local special features. These broad similarities place PPNB Jericho firmly within Neolithic 2 of the Levant but the particular local differences we have noted mean that Jericho must be regarded as a site within a third regional cultural grouping. This third regional cultural group consists of sites in Palestine ...
Bibliography
*1 Digging Up Jericho by Kathleen Kenyon (1957)
Library of Congress # DS 110 J4 K39
*2 Obsidian and Early Cultural Contact in the Near East
Renfrew et al (1966) Proceedings of the PreHistoric Society
Library of Congress # DA 670 E13 P8
*3 Jericho: City and Necropolis (1935) Garstang
Liverpool Annual Archaeology and Anthropology
Volume 22 (Pages 143-184)
Chapter 6: Neolithic 4 Jericho (Pages 451-453)
Pre-History and Archaeology Glossary
Excerpts and Definitions and Addendums
Kenyon has called the Neolithic 4 or Late Neolithic phase 2 settlement at Jericho Pottery Neolithic B. This settlement covered the whole mound and so was as extensive as that of Pottery Neolithic A. The first structures built in this stage were circular semi-subterranean huts set in pits like those used in Pottery Neolithic A. There walls were made of plano-convex or bun-shaped bricks. Later curved walls of bun-bricks with stone foundations were built on the surface. These structures may have been circular huts. Other rectilinear buildings with the same walling were constructed which may also have been houses. In one building phase there was a substantial enclosure wall. Towards the end of Pottery Neolithic B more solid rectilinear structures were built.
The coarse pottery of this stage was quite similar in shape to that of Pottery Neolithic A though not quite so crude. The fine ware was much better made since the clay was tempered with sand and grit but less straw and the vessels were thinner walled. These pots were hand-made but many were finished by turning on a mat. The common shapes were hole-mouth jars - jars with everted rims or splayed necks and bow rim jars. Some had knob or ledge handles - other strap handles with splayed attachments. There were some simple globular bowls - others with splayed sides and some carinated ones. Small cups also were made. These vessels were frequently decorated with a red wash or slip which was sometimes carried over the rim; other vessels were just painted at the rim. Some vessels also had a little incised decoration - the most common design being a band of herringbones just below the rim. Many Pottery Neolithic B vessels were burnished all over and a few were pattern burnished. This pottery developed gradually from that used in Pottery Neolithic A while the dwellings constructed in Pottery Neolithic B were also a straightforward development of those made in the previous stage. Pottery Neolithic B thus evolved from Pottery Neolithic A without a break.
The dwelling used at Jericho during Pottery Neolithic B were Palestinian in type without parallels on South Syrian Sites. Only when rectilinear houses began to be built later in this stage did the appearance of the settlement at Jericho resemble that of sites like Byblos or Tell Ard Tlaili. The pottery however shared certain general characteristics with sites further north throughout this stage. There were the same vessel shapes at Byblos in the Neolithique Moyen and Recent - Tells Ard Tlaili - Ain Nfaikh and Tel Jisr; while the use of red colouring - often highly burnished - pattern burnish and some incised decoration is also typical of these sites. The closest parallels are with the Bekaa Valley and Damascus Basin sites since the shapes of Pottery Neolithic B vessels and the way they were decorated are most closely matched at these settlements. These comparisons confirm that Pottery Neolithic B Jericho was occupied in Neolitihc 4 ...
Pre-History and Archaeology Glossary
Excerpts and Definitions and Addendums
Kenyon has called the Neolithic 4 or Late Neolithic phase 2 settlement at Jericho Pottery Neolithic B. This settlement covered the whole mound and so was as extensive as that of Pottery Neolithic A. The first structures built in this stage were circular semi-subterranean huts set in pits like those used in Pottery Neolithic A. There walls were made of plano-convex or bun-shaped bricks. Later curved walls of bun-bricks with stone foundations were built on the surface. These structures may have been circular huts. Other rectilinear buildings with the same walling were constructed which may also have been houses. In one building phase there was a substantial enclosure wall. Towards the end of Pottery Neolithic B more solid rectilinear structures were built.
The coarse pottery of this stage was quite similar in shape to that of Pottery Neolithic A though not quite so crude. The fine ware was much better made since the clay was tempered with sand and grit but less straw and the vessels were thinner walled. These pots were hand-made but many were finished by turning on a mat. The common shapes were hole-mouth jars - jars with everted rims or splayed necks and bow rim jars. Some had knob or ledge handles - other strap handles with splayed attachments. There were some simple globular bowls - others with splayed sides and some carinated ones. Small cups also were made. These vessels were frequently decorated with a red wash or slip which was sometimes carried over the rim; other vessels were just painted at the rim. Some vessels also had a little incised decoration - the most common design being a band of herringbones just below the rim. Many Pottery Neolithic B vessels were burnished all over and a few were pattern burnished. This pottery developed gradually from that used in Pottery Neolithic A while the dwellings constructed in Pottery Neolithic B were also a straightforward development of those made in the previous stage. Pottery Neolithic B thus evolved from Pottery Neolithic A without a break.
The dwelling used at Jericho during Pottery Neolithic B were Palestinian in type without parallels on South Syrian Sites. Only when rectilinear houses began to be built later in this stage did the appearance of the settlement at Jericho resemble that of sites like Byblos or Tell Ard Tlaili. The pottery however shared certain general characteristics with sites further north throughout this stage. There were the same vessel shapes at Byblos in the Neolithique Moyen and Recent - Tells Ard Tlaili - Ain Nfaikh and Tel Jisr; while the use of red colouring - often highly burnished - pattern burnish and some incised decoration is also typical of these sites. The closest parallels are with the Bekaa Valley and Damascus Basin sites since the shapes of Pottery Neolithic B vessels and the way they were decorated are most closely matched at these settlements. These comparisons confirm that Pottery Neolithic B Jericho was occupied in Neolitihc 4 ...
Chapter 5: Neolithic 3 South Palestine (Pages 360-368)
Excerpts and Definitions and Addendums:
The site with the most ample record of phase 1 occupation is Jericho. After a long period between Neolithic 2 and Neolithic 3 when the mound was inhabited, the site was occupied once more in what Kenyon has termed the Pottery Neolithic A phase. The earliest deposits of this phase consisted of trodden floor surfaces with hearths. Then the inhabitants dug out numerous pits which apparently served as dwellings and working hollows. Some of the eariy pits were as much as 5 metres deep but others were much shallower though still several metres wide. Their sides were recut periodically and lined with stone and clay walls for support. The interiors had successive trodden earth floors testifying to their use over a long period. An oven and numerous hearths were found on the floors in these pits. There were low stone walls around the rims of some pits which supported a roof, traces of which were found within the pits themselves. These pits were found in Trenches I, II and II and in areas M and E, that is all over the mound so the Pottery Neolithic settlement was probbly as large as those of the preceding Neolithic stages.
The Pottery Neolithic flint industry was different in a number of aspects from that of Neolithic 2 at Jericho. The raw material was usually buff, brown or grey flint, very few tools being made on the pink, purple or honey coloured flint of earlier stages. A very little obsidian was also used in this phase. Most of the tools were made on blades struck off pyramidal cores. These tools were quite small, the arrowheads for example being usually about 3 or 4 centimetres long. These were tanged and often had marked shoulders or wings. The tips of some of them were thinned to a sharp point. All these arrowheads were extensively retouched by pressure-flaking.
The sickle blades were always segmented and often had flat retouch along the back. They were usually about 3 tp 4 centimetres long and 1 to 2 centimetres wide. This type has a coarsely denticulated cutting edge. Another which was more than 2 centimetres wide had flat retouch over part or all or both surfaces. The cutting edges were finely or coarsely denticulated and a few were backed.
A third characteristic tool was a knife made on thin tabular flint. This had a cutting edge retouched by squamous pressure-flaking which was usually bifacial. There were some flake side-scrapers and also a characteristic flake scrpaer with a retouched side and end meeting to form a right angled corner. Among the other tools were end-scrapers on blades, small borers and several types of burin.
The heavy tools at Jericho were also quite small like the arrowheads and sickle blades. These consisted of axes, adzes and chisels which had been flaked all over. They were elliptical in cross-section or more rarely oval and had rounded, flaked cutting edges which were sometimes polished. The assemblage also included a few small picks.
The pottery of this phase at Jericho was all made of clay tempered with much straw and some grit. There was a coarse plain ware, some sherds of which were very thick and crumbly, and also a painted fine ware. The most common shapes were baggy jars with flat bases, globular hole-mouth pots and other jars with a collar neck. There were also simple bowls and cups with flat bases and splayed sides. The larger vessels had knobs, ledge or strap handles for lifting. These pots were built up in strips or coiled and then scraped or wiped on the surface, a technique that left a characteristic rough, striated surface. The decorated vessels were coloured with cream and red slips to produce reserved chevron and triangle patterns which were sometimes burnished. A very few vessels had a little incised decoration.
The rest of the artifact inventory was quite simple. There were some borers and other bone tools but most of the remaining artifacts were made of stone. These consisted of simple bowls, querns and rubbers as well as some pestles and mortars.
Tell Ras Ain is northwest of Jericho and a little to the west of the springs of Ain Duq and Ain Nueima on the edge of the Jordan Valley. The tell was occupied in the Bronze Age but there are indications from surface collections that the site was also inhabited in the Neolithic. Several arrowheads were found here, one of which was tanged and pressure-flaked, and also denticulated, segmented sickle blades as well as other flint tools. Among the sickle blades were examples of the broad, flat, extensively pressure-flaked type found at Jericho in Pottery Neolithic A. Tell Ras Ain was thus definitely occupied in the later Neolithic, probably in phase 1.
Abu Gosh on the Mediterranean side of the Judean hills was also occupied in this phase. The surface level at the site contained a mixture of material from several periods which included some flints and sherds resembling Pottery Neolithic A artifacts from Jericho. No structures were found in this level although there were a few shallow pits dug into earlier levels. The site can have covered no more than 1000 square metres in this phase and so was quite small.
Perrot found a few Neolithic sherds in this level during his excavations at the site. They were coarse fragments with much straw filler and one of them had been roughly wiped on the surface. Among the other finds from this level were narrow, segmented, coarsely denticulated sickle blades and burins. Perrot also found many flaked and polished trapezoidal, oval and almond-shaped axes and other heavy tools which we now know mostly came from this level although a few have been found in level 1, the level beneath the surface layer containing remains of a Neolithic 2 settlement.
The pottery and sickle blades indicate that Abu Gosh was inhabited briefly at a time approximately contemporary with Jericho in Pottery Neolithic A though we do not know if this phase of occupation immediately succeeded the Neolithic 2 settlement. The axes and other flaked tools have been found on very few other Palestinian settlements but they closely resemble those found at Beisamun, Tannur and other Neolithic 3 sites at the headwaters of the Jordan.
Another site which was probably occupied in phase 1 is the cave of Tauamin in the Wadi Said west of Bethlehem. Neuville excavated a thin deposit here which contained a mixture of Bonze Age, Roman and Byzantium artifacts and also a hollow with Neolithic material. The hollow was about 2 metres across and within it was a homogeneous collection of flints and pottery. Among the flints were two small tanged arrowheads, one of which was winged, an oval flaked axe with tranchet edge and some segmented, denticulated, sickle blades. Several of the latter were wide and flat with thinning retouch of the type found at Jericho in phase 1.
The pottery was coarse with grit filler. One of the vessels was a small necked globular jar with a handle at the juction of the neck and body. There were also fragments of several bowls and cups in the hollow and some of these sherdshad had been painted in red with lines and chevrons. The other finds consisted of bone borers, spatulae and a needle, spindle whorls made from potsherds and a small basalt ring.
Some of these artifacts are characteristic of phase 1 and 2 in Palestine but the evidence of the sickle blades and the fabric and decoration of the pottery would suggest that the site was in fact occupied in phase 1.
A little more material of this stage was found in the upper levels of Khiam. This consisted of several denticulated sickle blades, a few of which were of the flat, pressure-flaked type found in Pottery Neolithic A Jericho. Some sherds of coarse, straw tempered pottery were also recovered which may be of phase 1 type. This evidence suggests that Khiam was used occasionally in phase 1 as it continued to be in later periods.
More phase 1 material was found by Kaplan at Lydda on the coastal plain. The pottery and flints were mixed with Chalcolithic artifacts but could clearly be distinguished from them. We do not know if there were any structures on the site but it seems to have been another small settlement which was not inhabited for long.
Several diagnostic types of flint tools were found, among them two small tanged arrowheads, one of which was also winged and notched. There were also segmented, coarsely denticulated sickle blades and a few of the wider, flat retouched, denticulated sickle blades found at Jericho. The other recognisably Neolithic tools consisted of flake scrapers and blades.
Some of the pottery fabrics were like Pottery Neolithic A vessels from Jericho being buff or brown in colour with much straw filler. Other vessels were made of a grey ware which contained a little straw and grit. The shapes of the vessels resembled the Jericho pots and they had the same handles. Some of these vessels were decorated with triangles or chevrons painted in red, occasionally on a cream slip as at Jericho. The surface of these vessels was then usually burnished.
Kaplan found a little more phase 1 material in his excavations at the site ofWadi Rabah situated a few kilometres north of Lydda and to the east of Tel Aviv. The diagnostic pottery consisted of some painted sherds and a knob handle resembling the material found at Jericho. Among the flints were several of the broad, segmented sickle blades also typical of phase 1 at Jericho. The principal phases of occupation at Wadi Rabah were in late Neolithic phase 2 and the Chalcolithic but this evidence indicates that the site was inhabited briefly in the preceding stage also.
More phase 1 material was found at Teluliot Batashi, another site excavated by Kaplan. This site is to the south of Lydda and is situated on a terrace in the Wadi Sorek. It consists of several small mounds and was first occupied in the Neolithic then in several subsequent periods. Two shelter-pits were found in level IV at the bottom together with much pottery and some flints of phase 1 type. The pottery consisted of plain and painted jars and bowls, some of which had ledge handles or pierced lugs for support. The painted designs consisted of broad bands, chevrons and triangles in red or brown paint. Some of both the painted and plain wares were burnished. Among the flints were several tiny arrowheads, segmented denticulated blades and an oval flaked axe with a round polished cutting edge.
Further south but also at the junction of the central plain and the hills of Judea lies the site of Tell Duweir. A painted sherd of phase 1 type was found here in Cave 6019. The sherd has since been lost so that it is not now possible to check this attribution. It is possible however that the site was occupied in Neolithic 3.
Givat Haparsa is situated in the dunes on the coast a little north of Ashdod. Some shallow dwelling pits or working hollows were excavated here and hearths were also found. The excavation yielded a few rough potsherds as well as a rich assemblage of flint tools and some carved stone objects.
The diagnostic flint tools were both tanged and tanged and winged arrowheads, mostly of which were small, denticulated segmented sickle blades and bifacially retouched tabular flint knives. All match the Jericho Pottery Neolithic A material very closely. The arrowheads were particularly numerous, 680 being found. Among the other flint tools were many small borers, another typical tool of phase 1 and 2 assemblages, and burins. There were also a few flaked oval axes and some trapezoidal flaked and polished axes.
The structure and flints at Givat Haparsa are all characteristic of phases 1 and 2 in Palestine. The pottery gives the best indication of when the site was actually occupied since it resembles the coarser Pottery Neolithic A wares at Jericho. This suggests that the site was inhabited in phase 1 although since the arrowhaeads are mostly developed types it may not have been used until quite late in that phase.
Nizzanim is in the dunes a little further south down the coast. Several pits about 2 metres in diameter and from 30 to 70 centimetres deep have been excavated here which may have been dwellings or working hollows. Associated with the pits were floors of crushed sandstone and hearths on beds of pebbles.
Among the flints were both tanged and tanged and winged arrowheads as well as rod points, all of which were pressure-flaked. The sickle blades were denticulated and usually segmented. The other diagnostic tools were tabular flint knives with pressure-flaked edges while the remaining flint tools consisted of burins and scrapers. There were also stone grinding tools and some ornamental objects, including turquoise beads. The pottery was distinctive and homogeneous. There were hole-mouth jars with flat or ring bases which had lug, knob or strap handles for lifting. Some of these jars had collar necks. The other vessels were simple bowl and cups. A number of vessles were painted with red designs of parallel lines or chevrons. The surface was then highly burnished.
Most of the flint tools are quite typical of phase 1 and 2 sites. The pottery is all of one kind, that of Pottery Neolithic A at Jericho, which indicates that Nizzanim was occupied in phase 1 only.
Ashkelon is another site in the dunes which was discovered when the new port was built. Perrot excavated it and found a number of pit dwellings from 2 to 5 metres in dimaeter and as much as 1 metre deep. There were also smaller hollows interpreted as storage pits and hearths.
The arrowheads were either tanged or leaf-shaped, often with very thin points. The sickle blades were segmented and denticulated. There were several flaked and polished trapezoidal and oval axes as well as bifacially retouched tabular flint knives. The remainder of the chipped stone assemblage consisted of burins, borers and scrapers and also a scrap of obsidian. No pottery was found at Ashkelon but there were a number of other finds, among them grinding tools, stone bowls and bone points. There were several ornamental objects such as bone bracelets and shell beads together with some spindle whorls. Th affinities of the flint tools are with other phase 1 sites but the absence of tanged and winged arrowheads and also pottery suggests that the site may have been occupied quite early in this phase.
A small site was discovered several years ago near Herzliya north of Tel Aviv and has since been excavated. This site too is in the dunes near the coast. Several small pits which were too small for dwelling, a number of trodden floors and some hearths were found here.
The chipped stone assemblage included several standard phase 1 and 2 types such as tabular flint pressure-flaked knives, segmented, denticulaated sickle blades and both tanged and tanged and winged arrowheads. There were also some tranchet arrowheads which have been found on several other coastal sites, some oval flaked axes and picks, scrapers, burins and blade knives. Among the sickle blades were several of the broad, flat segmented type found only in the Pottery Neolithic A levels at Jericho.
A number of coarse gritty potsherds were found in the excavation, some of which had been painted with a red wash. The most remarkable find was a complete jar which had a small flat base, splayed sides broken with a carination and a flat rim. The upper part of the body had a series of knobs and strap handles for lifting. The fabric was also a coarse, gritty ware and the surface was covered with a red wash. This vessel was found sitting upright in a pit, the position in which it had been made to stand.
The sickle blades are characteristic of phase 1 rather than phase 2. The pottery is of less diagnostic value since the complete jar is a unique object. The fabric of the pottery from Herzliya is coarse enough for phase 1 but the red wash finish is a typical phase 2 feature. I believe the site was probably occupied in phase 1 on the evidence of the flints though perhaps late in the phase but we cannot be sure on the evidence available.
Many surface stations with chipped stone assemblages characteristic of phases 1 and 2 have been found in the coastal dunes. No pottery has been found on these sites and it is not possible to decide from the flints alone in which phase they were inhabited. I will describe all of them in the next chapter in which I shall consider the last stage of the Neolithic but we should remember that some of these sites may have been occupied in this phase ...
Chapter 5: Neolithic 3 North Palestine (Pages 368-380)
Excerpts and Definitions and Addendums
Megiddo was first inhabited towards the end of Neolithic 2 but was also occupied in the next stage. A layer of debris, designated Stratum XX, which contained a mixture of Neolithic and Chalcolithic material was found on the rock in Area BB on the northeast side of the mound. A number of post-holes and small pits, mostly about 1 metre in diameter had been cut in the rock here. Built on te rock were the fittings of a curved stone wall and also a mud-brick wall which may have been parts of dwellings originally.
There were no arrowheads among the flints from Stratum XX but there were a number of segmented sickle blades with fine or coarse denticulation. These are similar in type to the group of sickle blades found in Stratum XX. There were also two denticulated blades, an end-scraper on a blade, a piece of delicately retouched tabular flint and a fragment of obsidian. The sickle blades are the most dignostic type and these resmble examples from phases 1 and 2 at Jericho. One of the broad, segmented sickle blades with extensive retouch characteristic of phase 1 at Jericho was found on the surface at Megiddo in 1925 and is now in the Oriental Institute in Chicago. It probably originated in Stratum XX.
Both coarse and finer Neolithic pottery was found in Stratum XX at Megiddo. The most common vessel shapes were hole-mouth pots with knobs or lugs and collared jars with strap handles. Some of these pots had rounded bases. The fabric was tempered with white grit and straw. Some vessels were wiped over and their surfaces left rough but others were burnished. The pots were usually grey in colour on the surface. The finer vessels had thinner walls and were decorated with horizontal bands or rows of zigzag lines painted in red. The shapes of these vessels and the decoration of the finer ware resemble the pottery of Pottery Neolithic A at Jericho but the burnished grey finish of many of them is a northern feature found also at Kfar Giladi.
The similarities between the flints and pottery from Megiddo and material from Pottery Neolithic A Jericho and Kfar Giladi indicate that the site was occupied in phase 1. It is also fairly clear, despite the mixture of material in each stratum, that the phase 1 settlement of Stratum XX was inhabited not long after the Neolithic 2 occupation of Stratum XX. It is thus possible, though incapable of proof given the evidence we have, that Megiddo was continuously occupied from the end of Neolithic 2 into Neolithic 3.
Mallon found a Neolithic surface station at Sepphoris a little way north of Nazareth. He collected a number of flat flaked trapezoidal flint axes there on what seems to have been a workshop site used also in other periods. These axes are similar to some found at Abu Gosh, Tannur and Qat in Neolithic 3 so the flint at Sepphoris was probably worked then as well as at other times.
The great mound of Beth Shan was first occupied in this stage. The earliest habitations were large pits dug into the subsoil at the bottom of the site. Some simple pottery was found in these pits though very little was kept for later study. The sherds still in museum collections consist for the most part of a series of strap and other loop handles. One of these and several other sherds were painted with thin lines in chevron or criss-cross patterns. This pottery is quite like the phase 1 material from both Megiddo and Jericho in shape and decoration while the dwelling pits found at the site are another indication of Nelithic 3 occupation.
The site of Wadi Yabis is beside a spring on the west side of the road from Deir Alla to Khirbet Shuneh in the Jordan Valley. It was discovered when a cistern was made and all the material recovered came from this pit. No pottery was noticed but a number of flint and ground stone artifacts were recovered. The most diagnostic flints were denticulated, segmented sickle blades and a pressure-flaked tanged arrowhead though long nibbled blades, a burin on a a blade and several flake scrapers were also found. Most of the ground stone tools were made of basalt and the remainder of limestone. Among these were several hammers and pestles, a ring which may have been a weight and an axe with a stright edge and rounded butt.
The sickle blades indicate that the site was occupied in phase 1 but the arrowhead and nibbled blades taken together with the absence of pottery suggest that the site was occupied at the beginning of this phase, that is early in Neolithic 3. The ground stone tools would also fit such a context.
Munhatta was inhabited again in both Neolithic 3 and Neolithic 4. The deposits of these stages have been called phase 2. Phase 2 at Munhatta has been divided into a later sub-phase, 2A or the Wadi Rabah phase and two earlier sub-phases, 2B1 or the Munhatta phase and 2B2 or the Shaar Hagolan phase. The levels of 2A are later than the stage which we are considering in this chapter so it is only phase 2B which concerns us here.
In 2B2 the inhabitants seem to have lived in large pits 3 to 4 metres in diameter which contained paved areas, benches and hearths. There were also some bell-shaped pits about 1 metre deep which may have been used for storage. In 2B1 the large pits were replaced by hollow shallows which were as much as 10 or 12 metres in diameter. The floors of these hollows were pock-marked with smaller pits and depressions. One had a circular structure in the middle with walls of bun bricks on stone foundations.
The two principal flint tool types were segmented, denticulated sickle blades and tanged arrowheads. The sickle blades were quite abundant and included some relatively wide and flat ones like those found at Jericho. The tanged arrowheads were retouched by pressure-flaking and were mostly quite small. A few large flaked axes with rounded polished cutting edges were found in 2B2 but none in 2B1; they resemble examples from Abu Gosh and the sites in the Upper Jordan Valley. The only other stone tools were small flat basalt querns.
Some obsidian found in the phase 2 levels at Munhatta has been analysed. It may have come from the 2B settlement. Two pieces were from Ciftlik, one from Nemrut Dag and a fourth from near Lake Van.
The pottery of phase 2B was tempered with grit but relatively little straw compared with sites in the southern group. The shapes include collared jars with loop handles at the base of the neck, hole-mouth jars also with loop handles or lugs and handled cups. The pots were grey or buff in colour and their surfaces were scraped or wiped before firing. Some of the vessels were burnished. The fabric and surface finish of the vessels resemble the grey wares of Megiddo and Kfar Giladi. This pottery was decorated with incised designs or paint. The incised designs usually took the form of lines of herringbone incisions which ran around the vessel near the rim and in zigzag bands across the body. These designs were sometimes combined with areas of red wash. There were also many vessels painted with groups of lines with chevron patterns or bands of paint which formed simple patterns on the body. This painted decoration resembles that found at Jericho, Megiddo and Beth Shan in phase 1. The incised herringbone patterns are characteristic of phase 2 at Jericho and elsewhere but seem to have been used earlier on this northern group of sites. Several other kinds of objects were made of baked clay in Munhatta 2B2, among them rods with a conical end, animal and human figurines. The human figurines were females with pointed heads and eyes and ears made of applied pieces of clay, the eyes being shaped like coffe beans. These stylized figurines were made in the same way as those from Tell Ramad III and they are quite like the one from Kfar Giladi. It is also of interest that a number of pebbles were found in this level which had been marked with a few lines to represent human beings just like ones from Neolithique Ancien Byblos.
The large pit dwellings, the typology of the flint tools and pottery together with unusual objects found on other sites such as the human figurines in baked clay and on pebbles all indicate that Munhatta 2B was occupied in phase 1. There are changes in both the flint industry and the pottery as the settlement developed which imply that the site was occupied for longer than would seem to be the case on most of the sites I have discussed so far.
The site of Shaar Hagolan is situated about 3 kilometres south of the Sea of Galilee on the present course of the Yarkon River a little way upstream from its juction with the Jordan. It thus lies only 6 kilometres north of and across the valley from Munhatta. Additional material was collected in later years as more of the site was exposed when fishponds were made there. A little of the site has been tested in archaeological excavation but most of the considerable amount of material collected has been picked up from these other disturbances. The principal phase of occupation was in the Neolithic from which stage most of the artifacts date but the site was also inhabited in periods as late as the Bronze Age.
A wide variety of flint tools has been found on the site. The arrowheads were usually tanged or leaf-shaped and retouched by pressure-flaking. At least two Amuq points were collected and one arrowhead with a swollen tang, types familiar in Neolithic 3 contexts futher north, particularly on sites in the North Syrian group. The numerous sickle blades were segmented and most were narrow with coarse denticulation. The other tools included some burins, flake-scrapers and very many small flake borers. These tools were made on flakes and blades struck off prismatic, pyramidal and also double-ended, hump-backed cores.
A considerable number of core tools have also been found at Shaar Hagolan. Most of these were relatively small, often between 5 and 7 centimetres in length and flaked all over although a few had polished cutting edges. The principal types were axes, chisels and picks. These core tools are usually found on phase 1 and 2 sites though rarely in such quantities as at Shaar Hagolan.
The pottery at Shaar Hagolan consisted of collar jars with loop handles at the base of the neck and deep hole-mouth jars with lugs or loop handles at the rim; all had flat bases. The fabric of these vessels was relatively well levigated with grit and straw filler. Their surfaces were grey or brown in colour, hand smoothed or scraped and then burnished in some instances. Many of the collared jars and a few of the other vessels were decorated with incised or incised and painted decoration. The incised paterns were usually bands of oblique dashes or herringbones between parallel lines running horizontally or in zigzag fashion around the pots. The bands were sometimes outlined with red paint. A very few pieces were decorated with lines of red paint alone, occasionally on a cream slip.
The remaining artifacts from Shaar Hagolan included a range of bone borers and hafts, hollow querns and many small stone cups and dishes. There were also numerous incised pebbles, spindle whorls and a conical-ended rod like those from Munhatta. Many of these incised pebbles were stylised human beings similar to those from Munhatta and Byblos. Another link with Munhatta, Tell Ramad III and other sites was a group of clay figurines with pointed heads, coffee bean eyes and applied ears.
When discussing Shaar Hagolan in my earlier article I placed it in phase 2 because I thought the pottery with its characteristic herringbone patterns was contemporary with similar pottery found at Jericho at the phase 2 stage there, Neolithic Pottery B. I thought that certain typologically earlier elements in the flints, notably the Amuq and other tanged arrowheads and the double-ended cores, were evidence of an earlier Neolithic 2 occupation not recognized when the site was found. In reviewing the evidence I believe this interpretation should be modified. Firstly, most of the flints and pottery seem to form a homogeneous group with the exception of certain obvious Chalcolithic, Bronze Age and other elements not discussed here. Secondly this material is matched closely in the stratified deposits of Munhatta 2B and there are general parallels also for much of it in Byblos Neolithique Ancien, Tell Ramad III and at the Neolithic 3 sites at the head of the Jordan Valley and in the Bekaa. Thirdly, there is none of the fine red wash and red burnished ware at Shaar Hagolan typical of Pottery Neolithic B Jericho, Munhatta 2A and other phase 2 sites all over Palestine.
The presence of relatively early elements among the flint tools such as Amuq arrowheads and double-ended cores would indicate that the site was first settled early in Neolithic 3 at a time when Beisamun, Tannur, Qat and Abu Gosh were probably inhabited. The pottery resembles that from Munhatta 2B, Megiddo and Kfar Giladi though there is very little of the painted pottery found at Munhatta and Jericho in Pottery Neolithic A. It now appears to me that the grey incised pottery typical of Shaar Hagolan, Munhatta and other sites in the Northern Palestinian group came into use earlier there than at Jericho though it continued to be made well into phase 2 as the evidence of Pottery Neolithic B Jericho makes clear. Shaar Hagolan, then, was probably quite early in phase 1 on the evidence of the flints and may have been inhabited as late as phase 2 since its characteristic pottery was made in both phases.
One other phase 1 site has been excavated at Hamadiya east of Beth Shan on the edge of the Jordan Valley. Some pits, floors and hearths were found here and also a chipping floor on which sickle blades were made. These sickle blades were segmented and coarsely denticulated. The pottery was in general like that from Shaar Hagolan although there were some painted and coarse sherds more like those from Pottery Neolithic A Jericho. Among the other finds were baked clay spindle whorls and female figurines.
It will be clear from the descriptions I have given of phase 1 sites in Palestine that they form a distinct group somewhat different from Neolithic 3 sites further north. The only habitations found on most of them are pit dwellings and buildings of any sort are rare whereas further north the normal type of house is a rectilinear structure with several rooms. The phase 1 flint industry has much in common with sites further north since its core technique and several types of tools such as the tanged arrowheads and segmented denticulated sickle blades are similar to those of Neolithique Ancien Byblos, Tell Ramad III and other sites in the South Syrian group. Nonetheless the phase 1 industry differs in certain details from that of these sites: for example the arrowheads are mostly quite small, the large arrowheads of the Byblos and Amuq types being absent on most sites. On the other hand the small winged Palestinian arrowheads are rarely found further north.
The difference between the pottery of the Palestinian sites and those further north are more striking. There is a link between the grey, incised burnished pottery of the North Palestine group of sites and that of Kfar Giladi, then at a greater distance Tell Ramad III, Labweh and Neolithique Ancien Byblos. The painted pottery, particularly of the South Palestine group, is a local development not seen elsewhere in the Levant.
Certain unusual objects provide a cultural link with sites in the South Syrian group. These are the human pebble figurines of Shaar Hagolan and Munhatta which are found at Byblos and also the distinctive baked clay figurines which are matched at Tell Ramad III and Kfar Giladi. The sites in the Upper Jordan Valley, Kfar Giladi, Hagosherim, Tannur and the others, provide a cultural link between the sites in Palestine proper and those further north in the Bekaa, on the Lebanes coast and east of the Anti-Lebanon. Phase 1 in Palestine thus appears to be a distinctive local variant of Neolithic 3 in the rest of the Levant and is probably broadly contemporary with it
The question of chronology is of importance for another problem connected with the beginning of Neolithic 3 in Palestine. It will be apparent from my description of Palestine phase 1 or Neolithic 3 sites that the remains on most of them, their structures, flint industry and other finds, are different from those on Neolithic 2 sites in the region. The same is true of the settlement pattern since although a few Neolithic 2 sites were also occupied in Neolithic 3 most were not and the majority of Neolithic 3 sites are in different locations. There is thus apparently a cultural break and an abrupt change in settlement pattern between Neolithic 2 and Neolithic 3 in Palestine more complete than anything that took place in Syria. We may now ask how long did this cultural break last and was Palestine partly or completely abandoned during that period? I will discuss these questions now and consider the reasons for this cultural break and its implications for the economy and society of the inhabitants of the region later in the chapter.
The fact that there was a cultural break, hiatus or gap in the Palestinian sequence between Neolithic 2 and Neolithic 3 has been accepted by most archaeologists for some time although views have differed on the degree of depopulation that this implied. When discussing the problem in my earlier article I could see no evidence of settlements in Palestine which followed on directly from those of Neolithic 2 and so reluctantly accepted that Palestine was completely abandoned. I argued then that this gap in occupation must have lasted at least 1000 and perhaps as many as 1500 years, that is from about 6000 BC to 5000 or 4500 BC. I arrived at these dates by comparing the Palestinian sequence of phases 1 and 2 with sites in Lebanon which were dated by C-14 determinations. The most important of these was Byblos with two determinations for theNeolithique Ancien phase.
There is now new evidence to take into account in discerning the question of chronology and we also know more about the cultural changes that took place at the end of the 7th and during the 6th millennia BC. Firstly as I mentioned earlier in the chapter following the definitive publication of the Byblos dates by the Groningen laboratory it now appears that Neolithique Ancien Byblos was settled about 5600 or 5700 BC, perhaps four centuries earlier than we had thought. I also think that the transition from Neolithique Ancien to Moyen at Byblos took place around 5000 or 4800 BC rather than 4500 BC as was once supposed. The two original C-14 determinations from which I have derived these dates were made long ago and so could be greatly in error. In any case it is unsatisfactory to have to rely on only two C-14 determinations for the chronology of Neolithic 3 not only in Lebanon but also in Palestine. Although this remains a serious difficulty fortunately we do not have to depend upon these dates alone. There is now a great deal of evidence from the material remains of the South Syrian group of sites to indicate that they were occupied approximately contemporaneously with those in the North Syrian group, that is during the 6th millennium, and with this my proposed dating for Byblos accords very well. Within the South Syrian group itself there is supporting evidence for this dating. Tell Ramad III was probably occupied soon after Ramad II or even as a continuatuion of it. The site was then inhabited until perhaps 5500 BC. The material from Ramad III has always seemed to be like that of Neolithique Ancien Byblos yet Byblos was believed to be so much later in date and so out of step in its cultural development. On the new dating which I am proposing the Neolithic 3 occupation at the two sites would be almost contemporary which fits the cultural sequence much better. We have seen that there are resemblances between the material remains on Neolithic 3 sites in Palestine, particularly those on the northern group, and those in the South Syrian group, especially Byblos. Neolithic 3 in Palestine probably began a little after the earliest developments in southern Syria and certainly well after the abandonment of late Neolithic 2 sites such as Munhatta in Palestine. Bearing in mind the new dates for Byblos I would now suggest with due caution that this might have happened about 5500 BC.
The second factor which needs to be considered when discussing the length of the gap in occupation between Neolithic 2 and Neolithic 3 in Palestine is the effect of calibration on the few C-14 determinations that we have. I have not calibrated the C-14 determinations discussed in this thesis since I do not believe that it is possible yet to do so, as I explain in the Appendix. Calibration would however alter the apparent length of the gap between Neolithic 2 and Neolithic 3 in Palestine so in this instance its effects should be considered. The published calibration curves, for example those at Switsur, Ralph et al and Clark, all extend back in time no further than the mid 5th millennium BC at which time the difference between the C-14 determinations and the corrected dates obtained from them is between 700 and 850 years. Although the graphs published so far extend no further back in time they do indicate that the difference between the C-14 determinations and the corrected dates is slightly reduced in the earlier 5th millennium. It is thought that this trend continues during the 6th and 7th millennia until a point is reached at which C-14 determinations are believed to give the approximately correct absolute dates. Thus there would still be a difference of several hundred years between a mid 6th millennium C-14 determination and the calibrated date but this difference would be a few centuries less in the 7th millennium. This means that the apparent difference between the Byblos date of 5410 +/- 70 BC GrN-1544 and the dates for middle and late Neolithic 2 sites in the 7th millennium would be greater before than after calibration perhaps by as much as two or three centuries. Thus an apparent gap of 500 years between the end of Neolithic 2 and the beginning of Neolithic 3 in Palestine would be significantly reduced if these figures were converted to absolute dates. Given the uncertainties surrounding the dates themselves it would not be helpful to attempt to give precise figures in absolute years for this gap except to say that it may have lasted no more than a few centuries.
Was Palestine completely abandoned during that time? Now that we know more about Neolithic 2 and Neolithic 3 it seems that there was some continuity of occupation though on a much reduced scale, a possibility that Perrot indicated some years ago using other evidence. It is clear that occupation continued on sites in the Upper Jordan Valley from late in Neolithic 2 well into Neolithic 3 though these sites belong within the Syrian zone both culturally and geographically. The chipped stone assemblage in the surface layer at Abu Gosh resembles that of the sites in the Upper Jordan Valley quite closely so it would seem that it was occupied very early in Neolithic 3 as they were even if we do not know for certain that Abu Gosh was inhabited continuously from late Neolithic 2. The presence of Amuq arrowheads, double-ended cores and even tranchet axes at Shaar Hagolan indicates that this site too was inhabited at the end of Neolithic 2 or the beginning of Neolithic 3. There was certainly a long gap in occupation between the Neolithic 2 and Neolithic 3 settlements at Munhatta but since the large flaked and polished axes found in Munhatta 2B2, though not in later phases, are similar to those at Abu Gosh and the Upper Jordan Valley sites it may be that this site too was occupied very early in Neolithic 3.
The evidence from these three sites; Abu Gosh, Shaar Hagolan and Munhatta, suggests that Palestine was not completely abandoned between Neolithic 2 and Neolithic 3 but that the area continued to be inhabited albeit by much smaller groups. We can also see an element of typological continuity between the flint industries of Neolithic 2 and Neolithic 3 in Palestine at these sites which means that the culture of Neolithic 3 could have developed locally, at least in part, and need not have been brought in completely from further north by new colonists. This helps us to explain the strictly local style of painted pottery made on sites in the South Palestine group and also some of the Palestinian idiosyncracies in the Neolithic 3 chipped stone industry.
I do not think there was a complete gap in occupation between Neolithic 2 and Neolithic 3 in Palestine but it remains true that there is very little archaeological evidence of any settlement in Palestine between about 6000 and perhaps 5500 BC on the carbon 14 chronology. Most sites were deserted during this period so that one must suppose there was a serious disruption in the way of life practiced in Neolithic 2. It should also be noted that relatively few sites were inhabited in Neolithic 3 and some of them only quite late in the period so that Palestine was not occupied so intensively as before ...
Ancient Hyksos Dynasty
Selected Excerpt on the Hyksos
Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times
Donald Redford -- Princeton University (1992)
Donald Redford -- Princeton University (1992)
A blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly from the regions of the East invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land. By main force they easily overpowered the rulers of the land; they then burned our cities ruthlessly and razed to the ground the temples of the gods and treated all the natives with a cruel hostility -- massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others ..... (Author and Egyptian Priest Manetho)
Egyptian records tell of a great invasion of desperate peoples through the Eastern Delta although in reality
semitic immigrants had been steadily entering the country for some time ...
semitic immigrants had been steadily entering the country for some time ...
Ruling dynasty of the Second Intermediate Period in ancient Egypt of foreign origin or more specifically Western Asia. The rise of the Hyksos to power was a turning point in the history of the Ancient Near East. They took control over the capital of Memphis in 1674 BC and founded the 15th Dynasty (1674-1567 BC) which ran parallel to the 16th Dynasty -- a dynasty of vassal chiefs under Hyksos control. The conquerors were mainly Semites either from Canaan or from Syria -- the latter having been displaced from their homeland by the influx of the warring Anatolians from Asia Minor. Avaris or Tell (mound) Daba in the northeastern part of the Delta was the capital of the Hyksos ...
No comments:
Post a Comment