Transitions in Prehistory

Essays in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef

Oxbow Books Oxford and Oakville

AMERICAN SCHOOL OF PREHISTORIC RESEARCH MONOGRAPH SERIES

Series Editors C. C. LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY, Harvard University DAVID PILBEAM, Harvard University OFER BAR-YOSEF, Harvard University Editorial Board STEVEN L. KUHN, University of Arizona, Tucson DANIEL E. LIEBERMAN, Harvard University RICHARD H. MEADOW, Harvard University MARY M. VOIGT, The College of William and Mary HENRY T. WRIGHT, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Publications Coordinator WREN FOURNIER, Harvard University The American School of Prehistoric Research (ASPR) Monographs in Archaeology and Paleoanthropology present a series of documents covering a variety of subjects in the archaeology of the Old World (Eurasia, Africa, Australia, and Oceania). This series encompasses a broad range of subjects from the early prehistory to the Neolithic Revolution in the Old World, and beyond including: huntergatherers to complex societies; the rise of agriculture; the emergence of urban societies; human physical morphology, evolution and adaptation, as well as; various technologies such as metallurgy, pottery production, tool making, and shelter construction. Additionally, the subjects of symbolism, religion, and art will be presented within the context of archaeological studies including mortuary practices and rock art. Volumes may be authored by one investigator, a team of investigators, or may be an edited collection of shorter articles by a number of different specialists working on related topics.

American School of Prehistoric Research, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

Transitions in Prehistory
Essays in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef
Edited by John J. Shea and Daniel E. Lieberman

www.oxbowbooks.com

Published by Oxbow Books on behalf of the American School of Prehistoric Research. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Oxbow Books and the individual contributors 2009 ISBN 978-1-84217-340-4

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Shea, John J., 1960 Lieberman, Daniel E., 1964 Transitions in prehistory : essays in honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef / edited by John J. Shea and Daniel E. Lieberman. p. cm. -- (American School of Prehistoric Research monograph series) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-84217-340-4 1. Paleolithic period. 2. Anthropology, Prehistoric. 3. Antiquities, Prehistoric. 4. Bar-Yosef, Ofer. I. Shea, John J. II. Lieberman, Daniel, 1964- III. Bar-Yosef, Ofer. GN771.T76 2009 930.1'2--dc22 2009002081

TYPESET AND PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

15
THE NEOLITHICCHALCOLITHIC TRANSITION IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: LATE SIXTHFIFTH MILLENNIUM CULTURE HISTORY
Isaac Gilead

Introduction Transitions in prehistory have occupied Ofer BarYosef for quite a long time now. He focuses mostly upon two transitions: between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods, which he labels the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Revolution, and between the Epipaleolithic and the Neolithic periods, which he calls the Agricultural Revolution or the Neolithic Revolution. In his 1998 paper in Cambridge Archaeological Journal, he made an interesting attempt to use the relatively more abundant data on the Neolithic Revolution as an analogy to the study of the less known Middle to Upper Paleolithic Revolution (Bar-Yosef 1998). Below, I will apply some elements of this approach to my analysis of another transition, between the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods in the southern Levant. Before turning to the problems of the Neolithic to Chalcolithic transition, I would like to discuss three issues of more general nature. The first one is the transitionrevolution dichotomy. It is abundantly clear from Bar-Yosef s writings that revolution is a form of transition, i.e., a transition may be either revolutionary or nonrevolutionary. For example, when discussing the differences between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods across Europe and Western Asia, he states that this transition can be defined as a revolution (Bar-Yosef 1995:115), implying that there are transitions that are not revolutions. Thus, when studying transitions, including the

NeolithicChalcolithic transition in the southern Levant, it is important to define whether the transition is of a revolutionary nature. The archaeological correlates that can be used to establish the revolutionary nature of a transition are not agreed upon since scholars disagree on the number of recognizable major cultural changes that merit the label revolution (Bar-Yosef 1998:141). The second issue concerns gradual versus sudden change. As Bar-Yosef (1998:142) notes, for gradualists there are practically no revolutions since they see even dramatic change as a slow process. Bar-Yosef takes the opposite position and regards rapid change as revolution. I endorse this approach, and I even suggest that the Natufian Culture of the Levant was not just a last stage in a long series of Epipaleolithic entities but rather a drastic shift that warrants the label the Natufian Revolution (Gilead 1988:180181). Furthermore, even if a transition was not of dramatic magnitude and cannot be categorized as a revolution, it still could be a sudden event and not necessarily a gradual one. The third issue concerns culture history: defining and classifying archaeological entities and examining their relation in time and space. I agree with Bar-Yosef (2003:273) that these are bare necessities. It is argued below that understanding the Neolithic Chalcolithic transition is either biased or impossible without recognition of cultural entities, or the culture history of the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods (Gilead

336

Transitions in Prehistory

1985). Thus, any generalization or reconstruction concerning transitions should be related to specific cultural entities defined in time and space. The methodology used below for defining archaeological entities in time and space and establishing the culture history of the late sixthfifth millennia is based on comparative typo-technological observations combined with 14C dates. In general terms, a culture consists of a polythetic set of artifact types that consistently recurs in assemblages within a limited geographical zone (Clarke 1978). A culture is equivalent to what Banning (1998:190191), following Henry (1989:82118), calls either industry or facies in his overview of the Levantine Neolithic. The taxon Natufian Culture, used extensively since its introduction by Garrod (1932), is a good example of a most useful term that is essential for interpretations. Usually, the phrase the Natufian site of Eynan is used, rather than the Late Epipaleolithic site of Eynan. The same should apply to sixthfifth millennia entities. To set sites and cultural entities in time, 14C dates are grouped into statistically similar clusters that are averaged (combined). The OxCal calibration software, version 3.10 (Bronk Ramsey 2001), is used for calibration (based on the 2004 data), for testing the similarity of the dates and for combining them when possible. Late NeolithicChalcolithic Entities Wadi Rabah Culture and Its Variants Assemblages unearthed in the late 1950s by Kaplan (1958) in the Tel Aviv area, especially at the site of Wadi Rabah (Figure 15.1), were defined as Wadi Rabah Phase. The stratigraphy at the site of Wadi Rabah consists of an upper layer (A) labeled Ghassulian and two layers underneath it (B and C) labeled Pre-Ghassulian/

Wadi Rabah (Kaplan 1958:151). After new sites yielded Wadi Rabah assemblages, especially the site of Ein el Jarba in the Plain of Esdraelon (Figure 15.1) (Kaplan 1969), Wadi Rabah Culture became an established entity (e.g., Banning 1998; Gopher and Gophna 1993). In terms of artifact types (Kaplan 1969:7, 23, 27), the hallmarks of the Wadi Rabah pottery assemblages are the black and red burnished ware, carinated bowls, and bow-rim jars. The absence or rarity of arrowheads and the abundance of finely denticulated and bi-truncated sickle blades characterize the flint assemblage. Gopher and Gophna (1993:336339) examined many assemblages and suggest that the taxon Wadi Rabah has two meanings: Wadi Rabah sensu stricto and Wadi Rabah sensu lato. The first, normative Wadi Rabah, consists of sites that feature the attributes as defined by Kaplan and are located in the central and northern parts of the southern Levant. The second, Wadi Rabah Variants, consists of contemporary sites that do not meet the strict definition and, in addition, are also located in the eastern and southern provinces. Adopting Clarkes approach, Gopher and Gophna define Wadi Rabah as a culture, and its variants as regional subcultures. They assume the probable existence of subcultures such as the Huleh Culture in the Huleh Valley, the Tsaf Culture in the Jordan Valley, and the Newe Yam Culture in the Carmel coast. As to the Qatifian in the south, they regard it as a culture rather than a subculture. Two main problems obstruct attempts to subdivide the taxon Wadi Rabah into temporal and regional constituents. The first is the problem of establishing accepted criteria for defining attributes to be used as cultural and subcultural markers. To illustrate this, one can compare

The NeolithicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant

337

Figure 15.1. Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites mentioned in the text.

338

Transitions in Prehistory

Gopher and Gophnas (1993:Figure 15) and Garfinkels (1999:108) lists of Wadi Rabah sites. While Garfinkel considers Jericho, Newe Yam (Figure 15.1), Lod, Nahal Betzet I, Assawir, and Hagoshrim to be Wadi Rabah assemblages, Gopher and Gophna consider them as variants. Garfinkel regards the Qatifian and the Tsafian as belonging to a different period and excludes them from his list of Wadi Rabah assemblages. In more general terms, Garfinkel (1999:152) considers Wadi Rabah to be a highly uniform cultural phenomenon, while Gopher and Gophna (1993:340341) consider it a relatively diversified phenomenon. The Transjordanian sites, only cursorily mentioned by Gopher and Gophna (1993) and Garfinkel (1999), further complicate the issue. This has been recently demonstrated by Banning (2002:Table 1), who lists the disagreements regarding Wadi Rabah or Wadi Rabah like sites in Jordan. The controversy between Banning (2002) and Bourke and Lovell (2004) regarding the cultural attribution of sites such as Tabaqat al-Bma and the lower layers of Abu Hamid and Teleilat Ghassul (Figure 15.1) illustrates well the problem. The second problem is that the radiometric chronology of Wadi Rabah Culture is poorly known. This is due mostly to the low number of dates available compared, for example, with the Chalcolithic Ghassulian Culture (Burton and Levy 2001; Gilead 1994; Joffe and Dessel 1995). The only dates from the sites excavated by Kaplan and defined by him as Wadi Rabah (Table 15.1, dates 12) derived from the lowermost layer at Ein el Jarba, and it is agreed that they are too late. Thus, there are practically no dated normative Wadi Rabah sites. The Lebanese site of Ard Tlaili, with a pronounced Wadi Rabah component (Garfinkel

1999:151), is a Wadi Rabah variant in the opinion Gopher and Gophna (1993:Figure 15). The combined date of four measurements from the site is ca. 58505600 BC cal. (Table 15.1, dates 36). The combined three dates from Newe Yam demonstrate that a later phase of Wadi Rabah existed at about 55005300 BC cal. (Table 15.1, dates 79). The dates from the Wadi Rabahlike levels at Tabaqat al-Bma (Banning et al. 1994) range between ca. 5600 and 5100 BC cal. (Table 15.1, dates 1016). It seems therefore that the Wadi Rabah Culture sensu lato existed between ca. 5800/5700 and 5200/5100 BC cal. In the areas to the east and south of the core Mediterranean vegetation zone, mainly in the northern Negev and the lower Jordan Valley, there are practically no Wadi Rabah sites. However, the highest numbers of Ghassulian and Pre-Ghassulian sites have been discovered in these parts of the southern Levant, some of them known since the late 1920s. We will therefore devote more attention to these parts of the country in the next sections.

The Qatifian Culture

Epstein (1984) started excavating the site of Qatif (Figure 15.1) in 1973, and I sounded it for an additional three short season in 1979, 1980, and 1983. There is a single 14C date from Qatif, 604080 BP (Table 15.1, date 17). The soundings at Qatif and Besor site P14 were the basis for defining these and similar assemblages as The Qatifian Culture (Gilead 1990; Gilead and Alon 1988). The pottery of Qatif is coarse and crudely fashioned, with little variety of shapes, and many vessels are made of straw-tempered ware (Epstein 1984:212). It is similar to the pottery of sites D1 in Nahal Besor (Figure 15.1), known

The NeolithicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant

339

since the late 1920s (Macdonald 1932). The common shape is a wide-mouthed jar with thrust-through broad and flat loop handles low on the body. Garfinkel (1999:189199) attributes the pottery of Qatif and sites in the Besor area and beyond to the Qatifian Ware and dates it to his Middle Chalcolithic. It has been suggested that the geographical distribution of the Qatifian includes sites in the Feinan area, Teleilat Ghassul, and Teluliyot Batashi (Figure 15.1) (Garfinkel 1999; Gilead 1990; Goren 1990). The pottery from the Feinan area and from Teluliyot Batashi seems to be Qatifian, but the attribution of Feidan 4 (Gilead 1990:6061) to the Qatifian has proven to be unjustified, since it became clear that Feidan 4 is an Early Bronze Age I site (Adams and Genz 1995). The suggestion that phase I of Teleilat Ghassul is Qatifian (Goren 1990:105* 106*) is not substantiated by the new evidence (Lovell 2001). Another Qatifian site is Ain Waida on the east side of the Dead Sea (Figure 15.1) (Kuijt and Chesson 2002). Most diagnostic are loop handles and the group of straw-tempered ware. The radiocarbon date from the site, 617055 BP (Table 15.1, date 18), falls well within the range of the date from Qatif. Kuijt and Chesson (2002:Table 1) list nine radiocarbon dates as a temporal framework for the Qatifian: one from Qatif and the rest from Jordan. The most probable 2 averaged calibrated range for Qatif and Ain Waida is 52104840 BC cal. Garfinkel (1999:189) mentions 28 Qatifian sherds from the Pottery Neolithic levels of Tell Wadi Feinan (Figure 15.1) (Najjar et al. 1990). One of the dates from this site is within the range of the Qatif-Ain Waida dates (Table 15.1, date 19), but two dates from profile B are more than 200 years earlier (Table 15.1, dates 2021).

The four early 14C dates from Abu Hamid (Table 15.1, dates 2225) are clearly within the Qatif-Ain Waida range (52604990 BC cal.). The pottery assemblages of basal Abu Hamid, however, are not Qatifian, neither technologically nor typologically. Vessel shapes and the relatively high frequency of painted decoration and red/black burnish at basal Abu Hamid are reminiscent of Wadi Rabah ware and of other sites, for example, Beth Shean and Tel Tsaf (Figure 15.1) (Lovell et al. 1997:366, 399). Sites in northern Israel such as Megadim and Newe Yam yielded radiometric dates in the range of the Qatifian, but they are considered as Wadi Rabah (Gopher and Gophna 1993:Table I, Figure 15) and are clearly non-Qatifian in their ceramic technology and typology. The combined probable ranges of Qatif and Tell Wadi Feinan suggest that the Qatifian began at about 5400 BC cal. or somewhat later and terminated at about 50004900 BC cal. Our knowledge of the Qatifian is scanty. It is currently being studied by Yael Abadi-Reiss in the framework of her Ph.D. dissertation, and more data will hopefully be available soon. Some of the Qatifian attributes are shared by assemblages with pottery dubbed as Beth Shean Ware by Garfinkel (1999:153188), and especially worth noting are the loop handles that are 50 times more frequent in assemblages of Beth Shean Ware than in Wadi Rabah Ware (Garfinkel 1999:198).

The Besorian
The Besorian Culture is a precursor of the northern Negev Ghassulian (Gilead 1990; Gilead and Alon 1988). The original definition, Besor Phase, is based on the results of a limited sounding we carried out at Macdonalds site D (Gilead and Alon 1988) and a reevaluation of

340

Transitions in Prehistory

Table 15.1 Date No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

14C

dates mentioned in the text

Provenance Ein el-Jarba Ein el-Jarba Ard Tlaili Ard Tlaili Ard Tlaili Ard Tlaili Newe Yam Newe Yam Newe Yam Tabaqat al-Bma Tabaqat al-Bma Tabaqat al-Bma Tabaqat al-Bma Tabaqat al-Bma Tabaqat al-Bma Tabaqat al-Bma Qatif 'Ain Waida' B Tell Wadi Feinan Coll.Sec. Tell Wadi Feinan Profile B Tell Wadi Feinan Profile B Abu Hamid A1/A2 Abu Hamid AG2 Abu Hamid A1/A2 Abu Hamid A3 Ramot Nof Gilat Gilat Gilat Gilat Gilat Gilat Gilat Gilat Ghassul H-I Ghassul H-I Ghassul H-I Ghassul E-G Ghassul A-D Ghassul A-D Ghassul E-G Ghassul E-G Ghassul A-D Ghassul A-D Ghassul Phase A

Lab number Gx-786 Gx-787 K-1431 K-1434 K-1433 K-1432 Hv-4256 RT-1723 RT-1724 TO-3408 TO-3410 TO-3412 TO-4277 TO-2114 TO-2115 TO-3411 Pta-2968 AA-29771 HD-12388 HD-10567 HD-12335 Ly-6174 Ly-6254 Ly-6255 Ly-6259 ETH-8828 RT-2058 RT-860B RT-860A OxA-4011 Beta-131729 OxA-3555 Beta-131730 OxA-3566 OZD024 OZD025 OZD026 OZD028 OZD029 OZD030 OZD031 OZD032 OZD033 OZD034 OZG251

Years BP 4920 5690 6660 6790 6850 6870 6310 6390 6565 6190 6350 6380 6490 6590 6630 6670 6040 6170 6110 6410 6360 6200 6190 6160 6135 5715 4530 4800 5440 5540 5560 5700 5730 5790 5791 5902 5851 5581 5524 5552 5605 5577 5454 5342 5100

S.D. 240 140 130 130 130 130 395 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 80 60 80 55 75 115 45 80 55 70 80 75 85 135 180 70 50 100 40 105 86 71 117 67 88 163 80 71 58 71 50

Source Kaplan 1969:27 ibid.. Gopher and Gophna 1993:Table 1 ibid.. ibid. ibid. Burton and Levy 2001:1240 ibid. ibid. Banning et al. 1994:Table 1 ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. Gilead 1988:Table 1. Kuijt and Chesson 2002:Table 1 Adams 1997:Table 1 ibid. ibid. Lovell et al. 1997:Table 1 ibid. ibid. ibid.. Nahshoni et al. 2002:3* Levy and Burton 2006:Appendix 2 ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. Bourke et al. 2001:Table 3 ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. Bourke et al. 2004:Table 3

The NeolithicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant

341

Table 15.1 continued Date No. 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

Provenance Ghassul Phase A Ghassul Phase A Ghassul Phase A Ghassul Phase B-C Ghassul Phase A Ghassul Phase A Ghassul Phase B-C Ghassul Phase D Ghassul Phase D Ghassul Phase B-C Ghassul Phase F-G Tel Ali Ib Tel Ali Ib Tel Ali Ib Tel Ali Ib Safadi, low phase Safadi, upper phase Safadi, middle phase Safadi, locus 309 Safadi, locus 528 Safadi, locus 721 Safadi, locus 144 Safadi, sub locus 144 Abu Matar, basket 1335 Abu Matar, basket 1339 Abu Matar, basket 1310 Abu Matar, basket 1313 Abu Matar, basket 1332 Abu Matar, basket 1332 Abu Matar, basket 1334 Beter III Beter, loc. 37 Beter, loc 30 Tel Sheva 36 Tel Sheva 36 Tel Sheva 36 Rasm Harbush Rasm Harbush Rasm Harbush Rasm Harbush Silo Site Daliyyot

Lab number OZG252 OZF423 OZF420 OZG250 OZF417 OZF419 OZG249 OZF422 OZG248 OZF418 OZF421 OxA 7802 OxA 7801 OxA 7804 OxA 7800 M-864A M-864C M-864B LY-3906 LY-3905 LY-3904 Pta-3655 RT-862C RT-1610 RT-1613 PR-1 PR-2 PR-3 PR-4 PR-5 W-254 Pta-4312 Pta-4212 RTT-4795 RTT-4796 RT-4797 RT-1866 RT-1862 RT-1863 RT-525 RT-718 RT-1864

Years BP 5320 5370 5400 5440 5450 5490 5490 5500 5520 5750 5870 5770 5815 5930 5950 5420 5120 5270 5190 5190 5170 5420 5220 5250 5275 5340 5470 5230 5270 5260 5280 5100 5180 5196 5314 5153 4810 4945 5130 5270 5540 5565

S.D. 60 40 40 40 40 40 50 40 40 40 40 45 45 45 45 350 350 300 100 100 110 70 105 55 55 80 80 80 80 90 150 130 70 41 41 65 90 65 70 140 110 60

Source ibid.. ibid.. ibid.. ibid.. ibid.. ibid.. ibid.. ibid.. ibid.. ibid.. ibid.. Garfinkel 1999:Table 26 ibid. ibid. ibid. Gilead 1994:Table 1 ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. Cohen 1999:36 ibid. Sugar 2000:Table 3.02 ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. Rosen and Eldar 1993:24 ibid. ibid. Yael Abadi-Reiss pers. comm. ibid. ibid. Carmi and Segal 1998:Tables 12 ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid. ibid.

342

Transitions in Prehistory

the assemblages from other Besor sites such as A, B, D, and M (Figure 15.1) (Macdonald 1932; Roshwalb 1981). After the taxon Besorian Phase had been introduced, a number of scholars found it difficult to accept the independent status of this cultural entity (e.g., Garfinkel 1999:198199). New sites and radiocarbon dates obtained since the early 1990s support the suggestion that the Besorian is indeed an independent entity, Post-Qatifian and PreGhassulian. The Besorian has been discussed at some length in a number of recent papers (Gilead in press; Gilead and Fabian in press), and it is not our intention to examine the details here. Besorian sites differ from Ghassulian sites in major aspects, and there is stratigraphic and radiometric evidence to support the argument that the Besorian is the precursor of the Ghassulian. The sites of Ramot Nof and Ramot 3 in Beer Sheva are located ca. 4 km north of Nahal Beer Sheva (Figure 15.1). Ramot Nof was discovered and excavated in 1991 by Nahshoni et al. (2002). Ramot 3, located several hundreds of meters north of Ramot Nof, was excavated in late 1997early 1998 by Fabian et al. (2004). The nature of these sites, their artifact assemblages, and the radiometric date of Ramot Nof demonstrate that they are significantly different from the group of Ghassulian sites along Nahal Beer Sheva: Abu Matar, Safadi, Horvat Beter, and Tel Sheva (Figure 15.1). The pottery assemblages of the two groups of sites illustrate both the typological and the petrographic differences. Neither churns nor typical V-shaped bowls, so common in the Ghassulian sites, has been discovered at the Ramot sites. The extensive use of red pigment for decorating numerous vessels in the Ghassulian sites is almost completely missing

from the Ramot sites. The typical and dominant vessels of the Ramot sites, jars and holemouth jars with large loop handles the Beth Pelet jars (Gilead and Alon 1988:127*) are absent at the sites along the Nahal. Moreover, Gorens petrographic study shows that an important component of the Ramot pottery is made of Motza marl or clay with crushed calcite, a petrographic profile that is extremely rare in the Beer Sheva Ghassulian assemblages (Nahshoni et al. 2002:9*12*). Beyond the pottery assemblages, the Ramot sites differ from the other group of Beer Sheva sites in the absence of many attributes that are hallmarks of the latter. The Ramot sites are much smaller than the sites near the Nahal, and while the former seem to be isolated hamlets, the latter are actually villages. Another obvious difference is the absence at the Ramot sites of underground structures, another hallmark of the Beer Sheva Ghassulian. All the sites along the Nahal produced evidence of metallurgical activities such as copper ores, slag, crucibles, and copper implements. At the Ramot sites, there is no evidence of any metallurgical activities or use of copper artifacts. Ivory carving, another feature of the Beer Sheva Ghassulian, is also entirely missing from the Ramot sites. The nature of the Ramot sites and the broad spectrum of pottery and flint artifact types negate the option that they are specialized activity loci of people coming for specific tasks from the large Ghassulian sites of Beer Sheva. There are 21 radiocarbon determinations from the Beer Sheva Ghassulian sites (Table 15.1, dates 6181), and since they are generally similar, their combined average was calculated. Their 2 combined date is ca. 42004000 BC cal. This tight cluster of dates, derived from sites of a homogenic nature, clearly differs from the date of

The NeolithicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant

343

Ramot Nof (571575 BP) with a 2 calibrated range of 47304440 BC cal. (Table 15.1, date 26). Its probable date is ca. 45504600 BC cal., hundreds of years earlier than the Ghassulian sites along the Nahal. Although there is only one date from the Ramot sites, the new radiocarbon dates from Teleilat Ghassul and Gilat (see below) further support the suggestion that the Ramot sites represent an entity that is centuries earlier than the other sites. Since the Ramot sites are different and earlier than the nearby Ghassulian sites, similar assemblages should be sought somewhere else. The most diagnostic vessels at Ramot, the Beth Pelet jars and holemouth jars with large loop handles, are known from the Besor sites A, B, D, and M (Macdonald 1932; Roshwalb 1981). The Ramot sites are thus most similar to the Besor sites defined as Besorian (Fabian et al. 2004; Gilead in press; Gilead and Fabian in press; Nahshoni et al. 2002). The petrographic study of pottery from site DII, a segment of Macdonalds site D (Goren 1988:Appendix 2) revealed that the Motza marl or clay, an attribute of the ceramic industry at Ramot, was used in these sites, too. The small size of the Ramot and western Negev sites, as well as their meager architectural remains (pits and mudbrick features), further substantiate the claim that they are Besorian. Sometimes Ghassulian and Besorian or Besorian-like assemblages are found in the same sites. Now that the Gilat excavation report has been published (Levy 2006), it seems that Gilat is one of these cases (Figure 15.1). It is clear that there is a Ghassulian component at Gilat, best represented by the figurine of a woman carrying a churn. Goren (2006), however, notes the similarity of vessel types from Gilat to the Besorian types, for example, the Beth Pelet jars. Also similar is the use of crushed calcite for pottery

manufacturing. On this basis, Goren suggests that the Besorian is an important element at Gilat, a suggestion that can be supported by radiocarbon dates. The eight 14C dates from Gilat (Levy and Burton 2006) cover a very long time span, from the first half of the fifth millennium to the end of the fourth millennium BC cal. (Table 15.1, dates 2734). The third set of dates is earlier, and the most probable (95.4 percent) 2 averaged range is 46904490 BC cal. The range of these dates in the late first half of the fifth millennium accords with the previously proposed date for the Besorian (Gilead 1994). The publication of the Teleilat Ghassul stratigraphy and pottery assemblages (Lovell 2001) is an important contribution towards a better understanding of Ghassulian and PreGhassulian entities (Gilead 2003). The pottery of the earliest phases at Teleilat Ghassul is defined by Lovell (2001:49) as Late Neolithic. The layers of these phases are best preserved in section AXI, where a complex depositional history of the Late Neolithic phases JH can be observed. Lovell (2001:49) concludes that [t]he lowest levels of Teleilat Ghassul . . . might be associated, in part, with the Besorian. Teleilat Ghassul also furnished a set of dates relevant to the Besorian. At present, after the problematic too-early dates (SUA 732739) have been declared as erroneous (Bourke et al. 2001:1219) and there are new dates for the deepest levels of the site, its chronology can be better reconstructed. The three dates from the earliest phases (H, J) are similar, and their most probable (95.4 percent) 2 calibrated range is 48404580 BC cal. (Table 15.1, dates 3537). These dates accord well with the date of the Besorian site Ramot Nof and the dates of Gilat discussed above.

344

Transitions in Prehistory

To conclude, it is clear that Besorian assemblages immediately predate the Ghassulian. The Besorian is known from parts of northeastern Sinai, the Nahal Besor, Gilat, Qiryat Gat (P. Nahshoni and E. Aladjem, personal communication), Beer Sheva, and Teleilat Ghassul. These are parts of the southern Levant, where the most typical and developed manifestations of the Ghassulian were subsequently established. The formal status of the Besorian, in terms of Clarkes hierarchy of entities, is not easily determined. Currently, with more assemblages and a better chronological control, it seems that the possibility of the Besorian being a culture cannot be excluded. Continuity between the Besorian and the Ghassulian can be seen in the flint assemblages as well as in a few types of pottery. However, the richness in shapes and types of decoration in the Ghassulian pottery assemblages gives the impression of a profound technological, typological, and aesthetic change that occurred after the Besorian. The small size of the Besorian sites, the less intensive construction activities, and the limited repertoire of industries, raw materials, and ritual manifestations set it further apart from the Ghassulian and support the division of these entities into independent cultures.

Other Pre-Ghassulian Entities

The possible geographical distribution of the Besorian north to the BesorGhassul line is unclear. However, the work carried out since the 1990s in northern Israel suggests that Post-Wadi Rabah and Pre-Ghassulian entities were present there, too. The site of Natzur 4 (Figure 15.1) excavated by Yannay (forthcoming) represents most probably a cultural entity in the northern half of Israel that is contemporaneous with the Besorian. Yannay suggests that the assemblages

at the site form a cultural entity he terms Natzur 4 Culture. The pottery, flint, and stone vessels suggest to Yannay that the Natzur 4 Culture is Post-Wadi Rabah and Pre-Ghassulian. Typologically and chronologically, it is regarded by him as a northern counterpart of the Besorian. At the site of Horvat Uza in western Galilee (Figure 15.1), excavated by Getzov (forthcoming), a sequence of Pre-Ghassulian layers has been uncovered between layer 20 (Wadi Rabah) and layer 15 (Ghassulian). It is probable that layer 16 is contemporaneous with Natzur 4. Unfortunately, there are no radiometric dates for these sites; therefore, their exact chronological position cannot be ascertained. The Besorian covers the second quarter of the fifth millennium cal., in the later part of the period referred to by Garfinkel (1999:309310) as Middle Chalcolithic, which started, in his opinion, at about 5300 BC cal. Layer Ib at Tel Ali (Figure 15.1) yielded four radiocarbon dates that cover the second quarter of the fifth millennium BC cal. (Table 15.1, dates 5760). It is therefore contemporary with the Besorian, although no cultural attribution is mentioned beyond the fact that the ware common in the pottery assemblage is the Beth Shean ware. With more sites and radiometric dates, cultural attribution of sites such as Tel Ali 1b will hopefully become possible. Tel Tsaf in the Jordan Valley (Figure 15.1) was first excavated by Gophna and Sadeh (1989). The site yielded a pottery assemblage that includes numerous fragments decorated in a style known as Tel Tsaf: painting of black or red geometric patterns on white wash. Garfinkels renewed excavations at the site (20042006) yielded an exotic fragment, probably from northern Syria, with a Late Ubaid decoration style. New radiocarbon dates from Tel Tsaf suggest that the Tsafian assemblages, here and at a number of

The NeolithicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant

345

adjacent sites, are to be dated to the second quarter of the fifth millennium BC cal., about one thousand years later than the previous 14C date suggested (Garfinkel, personal communication). The unique Tel Tsaf decoration is limited to several sites in the central Jordan Valley (Garfinkel 1999:186188). It represents, therefore, an entity that is contemporary with the adjacent Tel Ali Ib and the distant Besorian sites in the south, but it is clearly distinct culturally.

The Ghassulian Culture

The Ghassulian Culture, the most prominent entity of the Chalcolithic period, consists of assemblages broadly similar to those uncovered in the upper levels of Teleilat Ghassul (North 1959). Temporal boundaries of the Ghassulian are relatively well established on the basis of 14C dates (ca. 45003900 BC cal.) and it is distributed in the northern Negev, the Dead Sea basin, the southern and central coastal plain, the Shephella, and the Jordan valley. One can attribute to the Ghassulian Culture assemblages that yielded all or many characteristic artifact types such as V-shaped bowls, churns, cornets, vessels with lug handles and/or red painted bands, narrow-backed sickle blades, microliths, clay ossuaries, basalt bowls, copper artifacts, broad room architecture, and primary burials in habitation sites and secondary burials in off-settlement community cemeteries. The Ghassulian is a homogeneous entity in terms of artifact types, but variations are apparent and they probably signify geographic subcultures, to use Clarkes (1978:249261) terminology. The existence of two different subcultures is most apparent in the northern Negev, where the Beer Sheva cluster and the Besor-Grar (Figure 15.1) cluster have already been described (Gilead 1989:390392; 1995:473476). The

chronological relation between the two subcultures is a complex issue, but recent dates from Gilat and Teleilat Ghassul suggest that the BesorGrar cluster is earlier (Gilead in press). It seems therefore that the Ghassulian of Teleilat GhassulBesor-Grar is about 4400 4300 BC cal. (Table 15.1, dates 2931, 3854), a century or two earlier than the Ghassulian of the Beer Sheva area (Gilead in press). However, it is probable that Teleilat Ghassul was also occupied later, during the centuries when the Beer Sheva sites were settled. The set of dates from Shiqmim, the mostdated Ghassulian site (Burton and Levy 2001:12341237), is not discussed here since the pottery assemblages of the different phases have not yet been published in detail.

Non-Ghassulian Chalcolithic Entities

The Chalcolithic sites of the Golan Heights (Epstein 1998) lack many of the Ghassulian artifact types, have a markedly different ceramic repertoire, and feature distinct architecture and settlement pattern. Ceramic difference between the Ghassulian and the Golan sites are well illustrated by Garfinkel (1999:276290), who distinguishes between Ghassulian ware and Golan ware. Epstein (1998:334) is very explicit about the unique nature of the Golan sites and consistently labels them as the Golan Chalcolithic. She separates the Golan Chalcolithic, or The Golanian Culture (Gilead 2006), from GhassulBeer Sheba, a taxon she regards as too extensively used and not appropriate in conjunction with the Golan assemblages. The Golanian 14C dates, most of them from Rasm Harbush (Figure 15.1), fall within the second half of the fifth millennium, and it is therefore contemporary with the Ghassulian (Table 15.1, dates 8287). Two of the six available dates fall in the second quarter of the fourth millennium (Table 15.1, dates 8283), but

346

Transitions in Prehistory

since the validity of one of them is questioned (Carmi and Segal 1998:343), the likelihood of such late dates is minimal. Another geographically distinctive cultural entity is the Timnian Culture, located mainly in the southern Negev, the Aravah, and the eastern Sinai (Henry 1995). The 14C dates indicate that it is broadly contemporary not only with the Ghassulian but also with the Besorian, and it lasts until the Early Bronze Age. While it is possible to outline cultural transformations in the Beer Sheva area and northward, the Timnian seems to represent a relatively stable cultural system, in terms of both the artifact types and the nature of its sites, which is very different from both the Besorian and the Ghassulian. The NeolithicChalcolithic Transition Kaplan (1958, 1969) regards the Wadi Rabah Culture as an Early Chalcolithic entity, a precursor of the Ghassulian. Since the late 1960s, the consensus has been, contrary to Kaplans periodization, that the Wadi Rabah Culture is an archaeological entity of the Late Neolithic (Pottery Neolithic) period. Garfinkels (1999:Table 1) survey of the literature shows that between 1969 and 1993, all ten main proposals (his term) for the periodization of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods treated Wadi Rabah Culture as a Late Neolithic entity. Garfinkel, contrary to this consensus, returns to Kaplans periodization and regards now the Wadi Rabah Culture as the earliest manifestation of the Chalcolithic period. In general, Garfinkel (1999:6) sees a gradual change over 5,000 years, from the PrePottery Neolithic A to the Ghassulian Late Chalcolithic in his terminology. He therefore states that placing Wadi Rabah in either Late Neolithic or Chalcolithic is largely a question of

semantics. However, since he thinks that the Wadi Rabah ware resembles more what he regards as subsequent Chalcolithic ware, he attributes it to his Early Chalcolithic period. In the terminology of Bar-Yosef (2003:265) mentioned in the introduction above, Garfinkel seems to belongs to gradualists who would interpret the most dramatic cultural and socioeconomic changes as slow incremental processes lasting hundreds or even thousands of years. For supporters of this approach, drawing dividing lines between periods when the incremental processes was slow is an arbitrary decision that amounts to nothing more than a question of semantics. I think that periodization has a major role in the study of transitions, and it is not merely a question of semantics. The beginning of a period, be it Upper Paleolithic or Chalcolithic, must signify a noticeable change, revolutionary or not, rapid or slow. In cases of revolutionary transitions, it is easier to determine the beginning of a new period. In cases of gradual cumulative changes, it is practically impossible to trace the starting point. However, even in such cases, changes become apparent in the cultural assemblages at a certain stage. The least we can say is that when such changes become archaeologically visible, we witness a new period, although it could start at an earlier point in time. To illustrate this approach, the Natufian Culture will be used again as an example. It is abundantly clear that the entire array of Natufian artifact assemblages, and not just the lithic industry, is dramatically different from that of the earlier cultural entities such as the Geometric Kebaran or Ramonian. The Natufian signifies the beginning of a new era in the prehistory of the Near East and the world in general. The question is, When did this change start? At this point,

The NeolithicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant

347

scholars should begin to negotiate period boundaries. If the change was rapid and took a century or two, then the new period corresponds to the earliest Natufian, as I see it. If the process of change started a millennium or more earlier, in the Geometric Kebaran, Ramonian, or even earlier, as gradualists may see it, the lower boundary of the period is to be pushed back accordingly. Most syntheses dealing with the beginning of agriculture start with the Natufian, notably those of Bar-Yosef (e.g., 1998:146147). He encapsulates one of the far-reaching events in human history in the heading From sedentary foragers [Natufian] to farming communities (Bar-Yosef 1998:146). The Natufian Culture signifies for him a major shift in subsistence and social behavior, probably a reaction to an abrupt environmental change. The current consensus, however, is that the Natufian is an entity of the Epipaleolithic period, the last in a long chain of entities that started about 10,000 years earlier. The major shift and the beginning of a new era are not reflected in discussions of period boundaries, and to most authorities, the Natufian signifies the beginning of the Late Epipaleolithic. Moving from the Late Pleistocene back to the mid-Holocene, the questions are, When did the Chalcolithic period start? and What is the nature of the NeolithicChalcolithic transition? It is accepted that the three major and distinctive cultural entities that existed between the beginning of the Late Neolithic and the Bronze Age are the Yarmukian Culture, the Wadi Rabah Culture, and the Ghassulian Culture. In addition, it is unanimously agreed that the Yarmukian is a Neolithic entity and the Ghassulian is Chalcolithic. The status of the Wadi Rabah Culture is disputed since, as indicated above, some scholars regard it as Neolithic and others as Chalcolithic.

In his introductory book to the archaeology of the land of the Bible, Mazar writes: In the history of archaeological research in Palestine, various cultures have been named Chalcolithic, confusing its designation. In this book, we shall not use ambiguous terms such as Early Chalcolithic or Late Chalcolithic. The main culture of the Chalcolithic period is the Ghassulian Culture; this latter term will be used here in its most comprehensive framework including regional variants (Mazar 1990:59). This statement epitomizes the essence of the Chalcolithic period by practically equating the period with its most typical cultural entity. Although this is a sweeping textbook generalization (but see also Banning 1998:188), the core of the statement is adequate: excluding relatively few sites that are different due to either geographical or temporal circumstances, almost everything Chalcolithic is Ghassulian. Not less important, the Ghassulian is Chalcolithic in producing and using copper artifacts along with an elaborate flint industry, attributes fully compatible with the copperflint dichotomy embedded in the name of the period. Beyond the artifacts, the distribution of sites in the landscape and aspects of inter- and intrasite variability, such as off-settlement community cemeteries, are also essential attributes of the Ghassulian, and thus, of the Chalcolithic period as a whole. Comparing other cultures to the Ghassulian cannot be based solely on a number of ceramic attributes but should include the entire array of artifact assemblages, petrography, 14C dates, settlement patterns, and so forth. Following the example of the Natufian, it is obvious that the appearance of the Ghassulian Culture signifies the fact that the transition was over and the Chalcolithic period had already started. Now we have to negotiate the period

348

Transitions in Prehistory

boundary, or in other words, determine which sites predate the Ghassulian, and define artifact assemblages and settlement patterns that feature changes that might have led to the Ghassulian. Fortunately, there are relatively numerous radiocarbon dates relevant for the study of NeolithicChalcolithic transition, although most of them derive from sites located to the south and east of the southern Levant core area. The site that fits best in terms of negotiating the boundary of the Chalcolithic period is Teleilat Ghassul. This is the only site with a recently published, long stratigraphic sequence, with rich pottery assemblages that span the entire sequence, and a fair number of radiocarbon dates (Bourke et al. 2001; Bourke et al. 2004; Gilead 2003; Lovell 2001). The earliest Ghassulian appears in either phase G or phase F, hence it seems to have started at about 4500 BC cal. or shortly after. Most of the dates cluster in the third quarter of the fifth millennium, suggesting that this is the major phase of occupation at the site. The phases below the Ghassulian, mainly the Besorian-like phases HJ, are dated to the second quarter of the fifth millennium and should therefore be PreGhassulian (but see Bourke 1997:405 408). The mere fact that the site was preferred by a group of people who settled it and were followed by the Ghassulians suggests that the former were the people who started the change. Their Besorian-like pottery assemblages further support this assumption. A similar phenomenon is observed in the Beer Sheva area. Numerous Ghassulian sites along Nahal Beer Sheva are mostly dated to the last quarter of the fifth millennium. However, the Besorian assemblages of Ramot, dated to the second quarter of the fifth millennium, are similar both chronologically and culturally to the

Pre-Ghassulian assemblages of Teleilat Ghassul. It has also been demonstrated above that at Gilat and at other sites in the Nahal Besor area, there is a Besorian phase of occupation, prior to the Ghassulian. Thus, the changes that led to the Ghassulian are not restricted to the pottery and flint assemblages but are also apparent in the settlement patterns discussed above. The Ghassulian Culture started at about 4500 BC cal. or shortly later and signifies the inception of the Chalcolithic period. The changes that led from the Neolithic to the Chalcolithic period started about two centuries earlier, and the time span of ca. 47004500 BC cal. should be regarded as the phase of the NeolithicChalcolithic transition. All the assemblages that predate the Besorian, at least in southern Israel and Jordan, are, in fact, Neolithic. Some of the assemblages referred to by Garfinkel as the Beth Shean ware and Middle Chalcolithic probably also belong to the Neolithic Chalcolithic transitional phase (Table 15.2). If the start and the end of the Chalcolithic period are defined in accordance with its principal cultural entity, terms such as Early, Middle, or Late become redundant in the case of the Chalcolithic period. Early or Late are terms to refer to phases of the Ghassulian, or other contemporary cultures such as the Timnian. This accords well with our example above, the Natufian: the terms Early and Late Natufian are in use and not Early Late Epipaleolithic and Late Late Epipaleolithic. The transition to the Ghassulian lasted most probably one or two centuries. Do a couple of centuries signify a sudden event or a revolution? No one currently suggests that the inception of the Ghassulian is a revolutionary event, and it seems to be a justified attitude. However, in the terminology of Sherratt (1981,

The NeolithicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant

349

1983), the Chalcolithic period in the Near East witnessed what he calls The Secondary Products Revolution. This revolution, if the term is at all applicable, is a process that lasted for thousands of years, starting before the southern Levant Chalcolithic began and continuing after it had terminated. Conclusions Albright (1932:12) in his initial definition of the Chalcolithic period, wrote that [t]hanks to this rich new body of material for comparison, we can now attack the problem of the chronology of the Ghassulian culture with confidence. Now, 75 years later, it is obvious that his statement was somewhat exaggerated. However, a rich new body of material was added during the decades that elapsed since, and the coming decades will undoubtedly add even more. Nevertheless, it seems that controversies surrounding the NeolithicChalcolithic transition are not going to fade away with additional data. This is due to the fact that different opinions are not just based on data but also reflect scholars intellectual tendencies and especially the way they estimate the nature and pace of culture change. The proper way to attack problems of transition is to define cultural entities and incorporate them into archaeological periods after both entities and periods have been clearly defined. These definitions depend on successful dating of cultural assemblages, either stratigraphic or, preferably, radiometric. The geographic distribution of cultural entities is also a major element in the study of prehistoric transitions, because it is possible for different cultural entities to coexist in different geographic zones, even in relatively small areas such as the southern Levant. It is suggested that the Chalcolithic period, in accordance with the meaning of its name, is

to be strongly related to the Ghassulian Culture, a culture featuring copper metallurgy as one of its attributes. The most recent radiometric dating, especially from the type site of Teleilat Ghassul, indicates that the Ghassulian started at about 4500 BC cal. or slightly later. The more intensive occupation at that site is relatively early, at about 44004300 BC cal., and signifies the early phase of the Ghassulian. Gilat and other sites in the northwestern Negev were also settled during this early phase. The later phase of the Ghassulian, ca. 42004000 BC cal, is best manifested in the sites around the city of Beer Sheva, on the banks of the local Nahal. Cultural assemblages of the Golan Heights and the Upper Galilee represent a different entity, the Golanian Culture of the Chalcolithic period. The transition between the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic took place during one or two centuries before the Ghassulian started (Table 15.2). This is best evinced by the lower layers of Teleilat Ghassul, below the Ghassulian layers and supported by the earlier radiocarbon dates from these layers. A similar phenomenon is represented in the northern Negev by the Besorian sites, as indicated by the dates from Gilat and Ramot Nof. This phase, from about 4750 to 4500 BC cal., should be formally regarded as the NeolithicChalcolithic transition or PreGhassulian. Achnowledgments Patrice Kaminski prepared the map. I have benefited immensely from discussing aspects of the issues raised above with Peter Fabian, Steve Rosen, Yuval Goren, Hamoudi Khalaily Jaimie Lovell, Yael Abadi-Reiss, and Koby Vardi. Angela Davidzon critically read the drafts of the paper, and her comments were invaluable. I thank them all; the remaining mistakes are my responsibility.

350

Transitions in Prehistory

Table 15.2 The Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic of the southern Levant: Periodization and cultural entities Southern Levant cultural entities North and center South and east Late Ghassulian Golanian** 4250 CHALCOLITHIC Early Ghassulian 4500 Pre-Ghassulian Early Ghassulian Late Ghassulian

Years BC (cal.) 4000/3900

Period

4700

NEOLITHIC CHALCOLITHIC TRANSITION

Natzur 4 Beth Sean Tsafian

Besorian Teleilat Ghassul G/HJ

5000

Qatifian Timnian* Wadi Rabah LATE NEOLITHIC (POTTERY NEOLITHIC)

5600 Lodian Yarmukian Lodian

* The Timnian of the southern Negev and Aravah and Eastern Sinai yielded 14C dates that cover the Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age periods. ** The Golanian yielded 14C dates that cover the second half of the fifth millennium and early fourth millennium

The NeolithicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant

351

References
Adams, R. 1997 On early copper metallurgy in the Levant: A response to claims of Neolithic metallurgy. In The Prehistory of Jordan, II. Perspectives from 1997, edited by H. G. K. Gebel, Z. Kafafi, and G. O. Rollefson, pp. 651656. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Envirnoment 4. Ex oriente, Berlin. Adams, R., and H. Genz 1995 Excavations at Wadi Fidan 4: A Chalcolithic village complex in the copper ore district of Feinan, southern Jordan. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 127:820. Albright, W. F. 1932 The Chalcolithic Age in Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 48:1013. Banning, E. B. 1998 The Neolithic period: Triumphs of architecture, agriculture and art. Near Eastern Archaeology 61:188237. 2002 Consensus and debate on Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic of the southern Levant. Palorient 28:148155. Banning, E. B., D. Rahimi, and J. Siggers 1994 The Late Neolithic of the southern Levant: Hiatus, settlement shift or obsereved bias? The perspectives from Wadi Ziqlab. Palorient 20:151164. Bar-Yosef, O. 1995 The origins of modern humans. In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, edited by T. E. Levy, pp. 110123. Leicester University Press, London. 1998 On the nature of transitions: The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8:141163. 2003 Reflections on selected issues of the Upper Palaeolithic. In More Than Meets the Eye, Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East, edited by A. Goring-Morris and A. Belfer-Cohen, pp. 265273. Oxbow Books, Exeter. Bourke, S. J. 1997 The Pre-Ghassulian sequence at Teleilat Ghassul: Sydney University excavations 19751995. In The Prehistory of Jordan, II. Perspectives from 1997, edited by H. G. K. Gebel, Z. Kafafi, and G. O. Rollefson, pp. 395417. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 4. Ex oriente, Berlin. Bourke, S. J., and J. L. Lovell 2004 Ghassul, chronology and cultural sequencing. Palorient 30:179182. Bourke, S., E. Lawson, J. L. Lovell, Q. Hua, U. Zoppi, and M. Barbetti 2001 The chronology of the Ghassulian period in the Southern Levant: New 14C determinations from Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan. Radiocarbon 43:12171222. Bourke, S., U. Zoppi, J. Meadows, Q. Hua, and S. Gibbins 2004 The end of the Chalcolithic period in the south Jordan Valley: New 14C determinations from Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan. Radiocarbon 46:315323.

352

Transitions in Prehistory

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001 Development of the radiocarbon program OxCal. Radiocarbon 43:355363. Burton, M., and T. E. Levy 2001 The Chalcolithic radiocarbon record and its use in the southern Levantine archaeology. Radiocarbon 43:12231246. Carmi, I., and D. Segal 1998 14C dates from the Chalcolithic sites in the Golan. In The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan,by C. Epstein, p. 343. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 4. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem. Clarke, D. L. 1978 Analytical Archaeology, 2d ed. Methuen & Co. Ltd., London. Cohen, R. 1999 Ancient Settlements of the Central Negev. Vol. 1, The Chalcolithic Period, The Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age I. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 6. The Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Epstein, C. 1984 A Pottery Neolithic site near Tel Qatif. Israel Exploration Journal 34:209219. 1998 The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 4. Israel Antiquity Authority, Jerusalem. Fabian, P., S. Hermon, and Y. Goren 2004 Ramot 3: A Pre-Ghassulian open-air site in the northern Beer-Sheva basin. Atiqot XLVII:5780. Garfinkel, Y. 1999 Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant. Qedem 39. The Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem. Garrod, D. A. E. 1932 A new Mesolithic industry: The Natufian of Palestine. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Breatin and Ireland 62:257269. Getzov, N. forthcoming. Hurvat Uza 1991. Final Report of the 1991 Excavations. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem. Gilead, I. 1985 Chalcolithic and accompanying terms: On the need for definition of terms in archaeological research. In Beer Sheva, Vol. 2, edited by M. Cogan, pp. 6574. The Magness Press, Jerusalem (Hebrew). 1988 The Upper Palaeolithic to Epi-Palaeolithic transition in the Levant. Palorient 14:177182. 1989 Grar: A Chalcolithic site in Nahal Grar, northern Negev, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 16:377394. 1990 The Neolithic-Chalcolithic transition and the Qatifian of the northern Negev and Sinai. Levant 22:4763. 1994 The history of the Chalcolithic settlement in the Nahal Beer Sheva area: The radiocarbon aspect. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 296:113.

The NeolithicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant

353

1995 Grar, A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev. Beer-Sheva VII. Ben-Gurion University Press, Beer Sheva. 2003 Review of The Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods in the Southern Levant by J. L. Lovell. Mitekufat Haeven Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 33:218223. 2006 Fifth millennium culture history: Ghassulian and other Chalcolithic entities in the Southern Levant. Paper presented at the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid. in press The Besorian: A Pre-Ghassulian cultural entity. Palorient. Gilead, I., and D. Alon 1988 Excavations at proto-historic sites in the Nahal Besor and the Late Neolithic of the Northern Negev. Mitekufat Haeven Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 21:109*130*. Gilead, I., and P. Fabian in press Pre-Ghassulian sites in the Ramot Neighborhood, Beer Sheva: Chronological and cultural perspectives. In Or Le-Mayer, edited by Y. Shamir and D. Sivan. Ben-Gurion University Press, Beer Sheva. Gopher, A., and R. Gophna 1993 Cultures of the eight and seventh millennia B.P. in the Southern Levant: A review for the 1990s. Journal of World Prehistory 7:297352. Gophna, R., and S. Sadeh 1989 Excavations at tel Tsaf: Aan Early Chalcolithic site in the Jordan Valley. Tel Aviv 1516:336. Goren, Y. 1988 A petrographic analysis of pottery from sites P14 and DII. Mitekufat Haeven Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 21:131*137*. 1990 The Qatifian Culture in southern Israel and Transjordan: Additional aspects for its definition. Mitekufat Haeven Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 23:100*112*. 2006 The technology of the Gilat pottery assemblage. In Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult, The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel, edited by T. E. Levy, pp. 369393. Equinox, London. Henry, D. O. 1989 From Foraging to Agriculture: The Levant at the End of the Ice Age. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 1995 Prehistoric Cultural Ecology and Evolution: Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. Plenum Press, New York. Joffe, A. H., and J. P. Dessel 1995 Redefining chronology and terminology for the Chalcolithic of the southern Levant. Current Anthropology 36:507518. Kaplan, J. 1958 Excavations at Wadi Raba. Israel Exploration Journal 8:149160. 1969 Ein El Jarba Chalcolithic remains in the Plain of Esdraelon. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 194:239.

354

Transitions in Prehistory

Kuijt, I., and M. S. Chesson 2002 Excavations at Ain Waida, Jordan: New insights into Pottery Neolithic lifeways in the southern Levant. Palorient 28:109122. Levy, T. E. (editor) 2006 Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel. Equinox, London. Levy, T. E., and M. Burton 2006 Radiocarbon dating of Gilat. In Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel, edited by T. E. Levy, pp. 863866. Equinox, London. Lovell, J. L. 2001 The Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods in the Southern Levant: New Data from the Site of Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 974, Oxford. Lovell, J. L., Z. Kafafi, and G. Dollfus 1997 A preliminary note on the ceramic from the basal levels of Abu Hamid. In The Prehistory of Jordan, II. Perspectives from 1997, edited by Gebel, H. G. K., Z. Kafafi and G. O. Rollefson, pp. 361370. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 4. Ex oriente, Berlin. Macdonald, E. 1932 Prehistoric Fara, Beth Pelet II. The British School of Archaeology in Egypt, London. Mazar, A. 1990 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000586 B.C.E. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. Doubleday, New York. Nahshoni, P., Y. Goren, O. Marder, and N. A. Goring-Morris 2002 A Chalcolithic site at Ramot Nof, Beer-Sheva. Atiqot 43:1*24* (Hebrew). Najjar, M., A. Abu Dayya, E. Suleiman, G. Weisgerber, and A. Hauptmann 1990 Tell Wadi Feinan the first Pottery Neolithic tell in the south of Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 34:2756. North, R. S. J. 1959 Ghassulian in Palestine chronological nomenclature. Biblica 40:541555. Rosen, S. A., and I. Eldar 1993 Horvat Beter revisited: The 1982 salvage excavations. 'Atiqot 22:1327. Roshwalb, A. F. 1981 Protohistory in the Wadi Ghazzeh: A typological study based on the Macdonald excavations. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of London. Sherratt, A. G. 1981 Plough and pastoralism: Aspects of the secondary products revolution. In Patterns of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke, edited by I. Hodder, G. Isaac, and N. Hammond, pp. 261305. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1983 The secondary exploitation of animals in the Old World. World Archaeology 5:90104.

The NeolithicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant

355

Sugar, A. N. 2000 Archaeometallurgical investigation of the Chalcolithic site of Abu Matar, Israel: A reassessment of technology and its implications for the Ghassulian culture. Ph.D. Dissertation, University College, London. Yannay, E. forthcoming Nazur An Early Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Coastal Plain Israel. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports. Jerusalem.