UNDERSTANDING COMMUNITY:

A COMPARISON OF THREE LATE ASSEMBLAGES

FROM WADI ZIQLAB,

by

Kevin Timothy Gibbs

A thesis submitted in with the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Graduate Department of

University of Toronto

© Copyright by Kevin Timothy Gibbs 2008 Abstract

Understanding Community: A Comparison of Three Pottery Assemblages from Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan

Kevin Timothy Gibbs Doctor of Philosophy Department of Anthropology University of Toronto 2008

This study presents the results of an analysis of three Late Neolithic pottery assemblages from Wadi Ziqlab, northern Jordan. These sites were occupied during the 6th millennium BC

(calibrated) and are therefore contemporary with sites in other parts of the southern that are attributed to the Wadi Rabah . The assemblages are analyzed from a stylistic perspective, broadly defined, which includes an examination of technological in addition to a more traditional examination of vessel form and surface treatment. Different stages in the pottery production sequence are investigated using a range of analytical techniques, including thin-section petrography and xeroradiography. While there are some similarities between the assemblages, there are also some noticeable differences.

The results of the pottery analysis are used to explore the nature of community in the context of the Late Neolithic. A critique of more traditional archaeological approaches to prehistoric communities leads to a re-conceptualization of community that combines interactional and ideational perspectives. Similarities in pottery among the sites, especially technological similarities, suggest that pottery producers may have comprised a dispersed community of practice. At the same time, pottery may have also been a symbolic marker of community boundaries. Differences in pottery among the sites, including surface treatment, may reflect the flexibility of these boundaries as different parts of the dispersed community negotiated their place in it.

ii The presence of variation among contemporary pottery assemblages in a localized area suggests that social organization during the 6th millennium may have been more complex than is normally assumed for the Late Neolithic in the . A dispersed community, with its members spread throughout the wadi, would require a sufficiently complex and flexible system of relationships to maintain it. Failing to acknowledge this has contributed to the difficulties archaeologists have encountered when trying to understand the culture-history of the

6th millennium BC in and east of the Jordan Valley.

iii Acknowledgements

I would like to thank everyone who provided assistance and encouragement while I was working on this dissertation. Firstly, I thank my supervisor, Ted Banning. Ted not only directed me towards this research topic and allowed me to work on the Wadi Ziqlab material, but he also provided encouragement, valuable insights, and comments at every stage of this research.

I would also like to thank my other dissertation committee members, Michael Chazan and

Heather Miller, for their encouragement and advice, especially during the final stages of this study when time was of the essence, and Gary Coupland and Reinhard Bernbeck for their valuable comments.

A number of other people assisted at various stages of this research by sharing opinions, ideas, and publications on the Late Neolithic and pottery analysis, including Ruth Eyal, Yosef

Garfinkel, Nimrod Getzov, Avi Gopher, Hamoudi Khalaily, Jaimie Lovell, Kostalena Michelaki, and Valentine Roux. I also thank Timothy Harrison and Robert Mason for allowing me to enrol in their classes in the Department of Near and Middle Eastern and, along with

Stanley Klassen, for assistance with the petrographic analysis. The xeroradiographic analysis was made possible through the very generous assistance of Pamela Vandiver and Blythe

McCarthy. Viviene Cucevic and Kasia Harasiewicz assisted with the micro-CT analysis.

I also thank the members of the various Wadi Ziqlab Project field crews for their diligent excavation of the material used in this dissertation, and the various lab volunteers who helped process it. Seiji Kadowaki generously shared data on the phasing of the sites.

Of course, I thank my parents, family, and friends whose encouragement helped throughout the entire process of completing this study.

Finally, and most importantly, Lisa Maher contributed to this project in innumerable ways, and I cannot thank her enough times. In addition to working on the excavations at al-Basatîn and iv sharing her expertise on the geoarchaeology of Wadi Ziqlab, Lisa read and commented on every chapter of this study. But more than anything else, her support, patience, and encouragement kept me going. Lisa, I couldn’t have done it without you.

 Table of Contents

Abstract ii

Acknowledgements iv

Table of Contents vi

List of Tables vii

List of Figures viii

List of Appendices xi

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 2: Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab in Context 12

Chapter 3: Communities and Style 55

Chapter 4: Form and Surface Treatment 81

Chapter 5: 198

Chapter 6: Communities in Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab 255

Chapter 7: Conclusion 301

Bibliography 310

vi List of Tables

Table 1.1: Chronology of late prehistoric archaeological entities. 11 Table 2.1: List of Late Neolithic sites in Wadi Ziqlab and surrounding area. 32 Table 2.2: Radiocarbon determinations from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 35 Table 2.3: Radiocarbon determinations from al-Basatîn. 38 Table 4.1: Vessel segments represented by site. 94 Table 4.2: Forms represented by site. 96 Table 4.3: Forms represented by site, “indeterminate indeterminate” removed. 97 Table 4.4: Lip forms represented by site. 101 Table 4.5: Base forms represented by site. 102 Table 4.6: Handle forms represented by site. 102 Table 4.7: Surface treatments by site. 103 Table 5.1: Evidence for identifying primary forming techniques of pottery. 209 Table 5.2: Evidence for identifying secondary forming techniques of pottery. 210 Table 5.3. Frequency of surface colours of pottery. 232 Table 5.4.Frequency of core colours of pottery 234 Table 5.5: Observed changes in refired sherds. 236 Table 6.1: Petrofabric group by site. 259 Table 6.2: Fabric group by site. 261 Table 6.3: Primary forming methods identified by site. 267 Table 6.4: Other forming evidence. 268 Table D.1: XRGL range of five types of inclusion. 351

vii List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Map of the southern Levant showing sites mentioned in text. 9 Figure 1.2: Map of Wadi Ziqlab showing location of Late Neolithic sites. 10 Figure 2.1: Map of southern Levant showing major geographical features. 44 Figure 2.2: Map showing soil distribution in Wadi Ziqlab. 45 Figure 2.3: View of Wadi Ziqlab showing location of Tabaqat al-Bûma. 46 Figure 2.4: Map of excavation areas at Tabaqat al-Bûma. 47 Figure 2.5: Plan of main architectural features at Tabaqat al-Bûma. 48 Figure 2.6: View of Wadi Ziqlab showing location of al-Basatîn. 49 Figure 2.7: Cluster diagram of pottery surface treatments and form. 50 Figure 2.8: Plan of excavation units at the lower terrace of al-Basatîn. 51 Figure 2.9: Plan of excavation units at the upper terrace of al-Basatîn. 52 Figure 2.10: Late Neolithic features at al-Basatîn. 53 Figure 2.11: Late Neolithic features at al-Basatîn. 54 Figure 4.1: Garfinkel’s typology of “Early ” pottery. 113 Figure 4.2: “Typological elements” used in Sadeh’s typology. 114 Figure 4.3: Sadeh’s master typology. 115 Figure 4.4: Pottery forms used in Blackhams UAM analysis. 116 Figure 4.5a and b: Types, base forms, and lip forms used in this dissertation. 117 Figure 4.6: Everted straight vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 118 Figure 4.7: Everted straight vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 120 Figure 4.8: Everted concave vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 122 Figure 4.9: Everted convex vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 124 Figure 4.10: Everted convex vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 126 Figure 4.11: Vertical straight vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 128 Figure 4.12: Inverted straight vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 130 Figure 4.13: Inverted straight vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 132 Figure 4.14: Inverted straight vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 134 Figure 4.15: Inverted convex vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 136 Figure 4.16: Inverted convex vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 138 Figure 4.17: Necked everted vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 140 Figure 4.18: Necked inverted vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 142 Figure 4.19: Necked vertical straight and indeterminate from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 144 Figure 4.20: Flat bases from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 146 Figure 4.21: Other bases from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 148 Figure 4.22: Strap handles from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 150 Figure 4.23: Ledge handles from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 152 Figure 4.24: Everted straight vessels from al-Basatîn. 154 Figure 4.25: Everted concave vessels from al-Basatîn. 156 Figure 4.26: Everted convex vessels from al-Basatîn. 158 Figure 4.27: Vertical straight vessels from al-Basatîn. 160 Figure 4.28: Inverted vessels from al-Basatîn. 162 Figure 4.29: Necked vessels from al-Basatîn. 164 Figure 4.30: Flat bases from al-Basatîn. 166 Figure 4.31: Other bases from al-Basatîn. 168 Figure 4.32: Handles from al-Basatîn. 170 viii Figure 4.33: Everted straight vessels from al-‘Aqaba. 172 Figure 4.34: Everted concave vessels from al-‘Aqaba. 174 Figure 4.35: Everted convex vessels from al-‘Aqaba. 176 Figure 4.36: Vertical straight vessels from al-‘Aqaba. 178 Figure 4.37: Inverted straight vessels from al-‘Aqaba. 180 Figure 4.38: Inverted convex vessels from al-‘Aqaba. 182 Figure 4.39: Necked vessels from al-‘Aqaba. 184 Figure 4.40: Bases from al-‘Aqaba. 186 Figure 4.41: Handles from al-‘Aqaba. 188 Figure 4.42: Surface treatments from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 190 Figure 4.43: Combed sherds from al-Basatîn. 192 Figure 4.44: Surface treatments from al-Basatîn. 194 Figure 4.45: Surface treatments from al-‘Aqaba. 196 Figure 5.1: Simplified production sequence for pottery. 239 Figure 5.2: Limestone inclusions in pottery from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 240 Figure 5.3: Limestone/calcite inclusion in pottery from al-Basatîn. 240 Figure 5.4: Oolitic limestone inclusions in pottery from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 240 Figure 5.5: Two photomicrographs of same pottery from al-Basatîn. 241 Figure 5.6: Possible grog temper in pottery from al-‘Aqaba. 241 Figure 5.7: Clay matrix of pottery from al-Basatîn. 242 Figure 5.8: Fired clay sample from al-Basatîn. 242 Figure 5.9: Fired clay sample from al-Basatîn. 242 Figure 5.10: Fired clay sample from vicinity of al-‘Aqaba. 242 Figure 5.11: Coiled pottery from al-Basatîn. 243 Figure 5.12: Coiled pottery from al-Basatîn. 243 Figure 5.13: Coiled base from al-Basatîn. 244 Figure 5.14: Coiled jar neck from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 244 Figure 5.15: Pottery from al-Basatîn with corrugations. 245 Figure 5.16: Slab-built pottery from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 245 Figure 5.17: Base fragment from al-Basatîn showing laminar fracture. 246 Figure 5.18: Body sherd from al-Basatîn showing laminar fracture. 246 Figure 5.19: Pinched pottery from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 247 Figure 5.20: Drawn pottery from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 247 Figure 5.21: Possible mold-made pottery from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 248 Figure 5.22: Shoulder join on pottery from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 248 Figure 5.23: Possible wiped carinated vessel from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 248 Figure 5.24: Scraped pottery from al-Basatîn. 249 Figure 5.25: Pottery from Tabaqat al-Bûma showing “clay smearing”. 249 Figure 5.26: Base fragment from Tabaqat al-Bûma showing added clay. 250 Figure 5.27: Base fragment from Tabaqat al-Bûma showing impression. 250 Figure 5.28: Handles from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 251 Figure 5.29: Handle attachment from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 251 Figure 5.30: Handle with “core” from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 251 Figure 5.31: Pottery from al-Basatîn showing combing under handle attachment. 252 Figure 5.32: Xeroradiographs of pottery showing section joins. 252 Figure 5.33: Xeroradiographs of pottery showing slab joins. 253 Figure 5.34: Xeroradiographs of pottery showing coils. 253 ix Figure 5.35: Xeroradiographs of pottery showing thin strips added at lip. 254 Figure 5.36: Xeroradiograph of jar neck showing section join. 254 Figure 6.1: Histogram of clay matrix by site. 292 Figure 6.2: Histograms of fabric class by site. 293 Figure 6.3: Cluster analysis diagram of fabric class. 294 Figure 6.4: Histogram of pottery with possible basalt inclusions. 294 Figure 6.5: Line graph of fabric class over time at Tabaqat al-Bûma. 295 Figure 6.6a: Histogram of “bowl” shape by site. 296 Figure 6.6b: Histogram of “holemouth jars” by site. 296 Figure 6.7: Histogram of lip shape by site. 297 Figure 6.8: Histogram of base type by site. 297 Figure 6.9: Histogram of handle form by site. 298 Figure 6.10: Histogram of surface treatment by site. 298 Figure 6.11: Histogram of exterior surface colour by site. 299 Figure 6.12: Histogram of number of cores by site. 299 Figure 6.13: Histogram of different firing atmospheres by site. 300 Figure D.1: Multiple micro-CT views of a single sherd from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 355 Figure D.2: Isosurface of inclusions in a sherd from al-Basatîn. 355 Figure D.3: Isosurface of pores/voids showing vegetal inclusion. 356 Figure D.4: Two views of an isosurface showing orientation of pores/voids. 356 Figure D.5: Two views of an isosurface showing orientation of inclusions. 357 Figure D.6: Isosurface of inclusions in a sherd from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 357 Figure D.7: Isosurface showing high XRGL in a rim sherd from Tabaqat al-Bûma. 358 Figure D.8: Histogram showing gray levels on various points through a sherd. 358

 List of Appendices

Appendix A: Variables Recorded for Form and Surface Treatment Analysis 333 Appendix B: Fabric Group Descriptions 342 Appendix C: Petrofabric Group Descriptions 347 Appendix D: Micro-CT Analysis 350 Appendix E: Thin-section Summary 359

xi Chapter 1: Introduction

Is it not time that inanimate objects—and plants and animals—resume their rightful place in the affairs of the world? How long can humankind continue to slight these integral pieces of the whole reality? (Tom Robbins Skinny Legs and All p.77).

The goal of this study is to examine Late Neolithic pottery from Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan

(approximately the sixth millennium BC calibrated) and to investigate how this pottery can inform on an intermediate level of social organization that seems to have differed from that of preceding periods. The study of pottery has been of fundamental importance in attempts to construct a culture-historical framework for the Late Neolithic of the southern Levant. Pottery has been used primarily to delimit archaeological on a broad regional scale (e.g.,

Garfinkel 1999; Gopher and Gophna 1993; Sadeh 1994) and to resolve the sequences of cultural phases at individual sites (e.g., Garfinkel 1992; Kenyon and Holland 1982; Lovell 2001; Lovell et al. 2004, 2007; Obeidat 1995). Few studies, however, have taken a detailed look at inter-site pottery variation in more localized areas and few analyses have considered the archaeological potential of pottery beyond its use as a simple “index fossil”.

These are significant omissions. Implicit in many discussions of the Late Neolithic is an assumption that proximate, contemporary sites will have similar assemblages as a result of a shared normative culture. This assumption needs to be examined critically as it has been in some other parts of the world (e.g., Bauer 2006; Canuto and Yaeger 2000). Looking at inter- site pottery variation within localized areas, such as a single wadi system, may shed light on the complexities of community organization during this period. This scale of analysis is particularly important for studies of the Late Neolithic because there is some evidence that, at least during parts of this period, communities may have been organized at a level between the individual site and the broad regional “culture” (Banning 2001b). It is important, therefore, to refocus our analyses to match this scale in order to highlight social practice on a potentially more realistic level. 1  To achieve this goal, the current state of Late Neolithic research requires an emphasis on the examination of pottery. However, the common treatment of Late Neolithic pottery as a passive reflection of cultural norms or simply as a tool for the spatial and temporal ordering of sites and assemblages undermines the potential role it played in shaping the Neolithic social world. During the Late Neolithic, pottery, like other elements of the material world, would have actively shaped human experience and influenced the relationships between people that form the basis of communities and community identity. Many of the problems and debates that plague the study of the Late Neolithic derive, in part, from not considering the complexities of prehistoric communities and not considering the active role that played in the construction of these communities.

The main objective of this thesis, then, is to present the results of an analysis of Late Neolithic pottery from three sites in Wadi Ziqlab, a small river valley in northwestern Jordan (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). Under the direction of E.B. Banning (2001, 2007), the Wadi Ziqlab Project has carried out a programme of survey and excavation that provides an opportunity to study approximately contemporaneous Late Neolithic sites within a relatively small area. Pottery is used here to gain insight into the nature of Late Neolithic community organization.

Pottery has often been used by archaeologists to gauge the level of interaction among groups of people both within and between sites. The “ceramic sociology” studies popularized in the

1960s and 1970s provide the most explicit examples (e.g., Deetz 1965, Hill 1970; LeBlanc and

Watson 1973; Longacre 1970; Whallon 1968). While the theoretical and methodological bases for these studies have been subjected to severe critique (e.g., Hegmon 1992, 1998; Hodder 1982;

Plog 1978, 1980), I argue that pottery can still reveal important information about interaction and social organization providing that we adopt a more theoretically nuanced perspective that considers the nature of community and the complex relationships between material objects and the groups of people who create or use them.

As part of this, it is necessary to explore the role of “style” in archaeological studies. While  chapter 3 considers style in some detail below, it is worth noting here that style can be defined broadly, and simply, as “a way of doing things” (Hegmon 1992:518, 1998:518; Hodder

1990:45). Unlike most studies of Late Neolithic pottery, which focus primarily on vessel form and surface treatments, a broader definition of style that includes technological style or “the choices made in the practice of technological processes where alternative choices exist” (Miller

2007:193; see also Lechtman 1977; Sackett 1977) is productive. Like decorative style and vessel form, the technical choices involved in pottery manufacture derive from and can inform on social contexts (Gosselain 1998).

In this thesis I consider the importance of pottery in shaping social experiences and forming social identities. Archaeologists working in the Neolithic of other parts of the world have similarly stressed the importance of understanding the role that material culture played in these processes (e.g., Robb 2007; Thomas 1996; Tilley 1996). This assertion is in marked contrast, however, to a number of recent suggestions that the introduction of pottery in the Near East at the beginning of the Late Neolithic had little impact on Neolithic : In many ways, the addition of ceramics was far less significant than other changes that occurred (Simmons 2007:199). The adoption of pottery did not really have the importance that we have attributed to it: first, the whole cultural context is not transformed at a single stroke as pottery comes into use, and second, because pottery on the one hand can appear at some sites from 7500 BC or just as easily on the other hand can show a long retardation until the last third of the sixth millennium (Cauvin 2000:76). It remains to be seen, however, whether the invention of pottery initially made such a difference in the Neolithic communities…In the beginning, pottery was probably little more than a useful type of container (in addition to vessels made of white ware, basketry, etc.). It was not until seven or eight centuries after its first appearance, with the rise of the elaborate painted-pottery styles at the very end of the seventh millennium, that ceramics may have received a wider significance and served in social networks as gifts or as emblems of local identity and allegiance. (Akkermans et al. 2006).

However, these studies tend to consider early pottery primarily as an economic tool. As a new technology, however, pottery likely had a noticeable social impact throughout the Late Neolithic even if its economic impact was not dramatic. Similar suggestions have been made by scholars  interested in the introduction of pottery in other parts of the world. Vitelli (1995, 1999) for example, argues that early pottery in Greece had social or symbolic roles that were at least as important as their economic ones and Pyburn (1994) argues that the very materiality of early

Mayan pottery stimulated its use as a symbol of emerging social complexity.

Examining the social and symbolic roles of pottery in the shaping of Late Neolithic communities requires engaging recent archaeological discussions on the relationship between people and the material world. A number of archaeologists have critiqued the traditional dichotomization between the cultural and material worlds, arguing instead that objects affect people just as people make objects (e.g., Gosden 2005; Thomas 1996). McLuhan’s (1964) realization that “the medium is the message” may be relevant to these discussions and I explore this in Chapters 3 and 6 below. McLuhan (1964:24) stressed that when a new technology or

“extension of man” [sic] is introduced to society it is the “change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs” that is significant, and not just the specific technology itself. This is as relevant to the study of Neolithic as it is to the “electric” societies that

McLuhan studied.

In carrying out this study, I draw upon a diverse body of literature, incorporating elements of culture-historical , archaeometry, and more interpretive approaches, and I hope, in turn, to make contributions to each of these areas. Archaeology as a discipline is at risk of becoming increasingly factionalized, with limited dialogue between archaeological theorists, scientists, and culture historians (Trigger 2006:485). Yet, these approaches can be complementary in attempts to create a coherent picture of Neolithic society (Jones 2002).

While culture-historical approaches are sometimes derided for their normative view of culture

(e.g., Binford 1962, 1965), Trigger (2006:312) notes their necessity in regions where little archaeological research has been conducted and culture-historical frameworks are needed as a prerequisite for other research problems (see also Morris 2000). While the Near East has a long history of archaeological research, for a number of reasons the Late Neolithic of the southern  Levant has received surprisingly little attention (see Chapter 2). As recently as the 1970s, scholars could plausibly argue that the early Pre-Pottery Neolithic was followed by a period of regional abandonment that lasted for as much as 1000 years (de Vaux 1966; Kenyon 1970;

Perrot 1972). For this reason, I imagine that some readers will find the detailed description and illustration of the various Wadi Ziqlab assemblages a welcome part of this study. The wadi’s geographical position at the eastern margin of the known distribution of sixth millennium BC sites in the Levant makes it a particularly interesting region of study and the presentation of its pottery will contribute to a better overall understanding of the Late Neolithic.

More excavation, analysis, and publication of material are surely needed if we are to improve our understanding of the Late Neolithic. However, contrary to some scholars who have suggested that postponing interpretations of the data until new sites and stratigraphic sequences are analyzed (e.g., Lovell et al. 2004), I argue that theories and interpretations concerning social organization are integral to each stage of the research programme. I suggest that our generally poor understanding of the Late Neolithic does not simply reflect a lack of excavation, publication, and radiocarbon dates. Rather, it results from the a priori application of inadequate theories and models to Late Neolithic assemblages. Certain aspects of the theoretical approach taken in this dissertation are most commonly associated with post-processual or interpretive schools of archaeology. Cultural-historical archaeology, and arguably the processual reaction to it, both saw a straightforward association between particular archaeological cultures and groups of people. As Hegmon (1998:266) notes, one of the crucial flaws of the ceramic- sociology approaches mentioned above was their tendency to reify social categories. More recent discussions of “ethnic” and “community” groups have viewed these as complex, socially constructed identities rather than natural categories (e.g., Canuto and Yaeger 2000; Jones 1997).

 ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Dates used in this thesis are in years BC calibrated. Note that many authors interested in the Late Neolithic (e.g. Sadeh 1994) use years BC uncalibrated. My “sixth millennium BC” is approximately the same time span as their “fifth millennium BC”. If I mention specific radiocarbon determinations they are presented in years BP uncalibrated. See Manning (2007) and Banning (2007, in press) for discussions of the complexities and problems of radiocarbon dating the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic.  In addition to culture-historical and interpretive approaches, this study incorporates analytical methods that are, perhaps, most often associated with the scientific emphasis of processual archaeology, especially in Chapter 5, where I present the results of a technological analysis of pottery from Wadi Ziqlab. In fact, both culture-historical and post-processual approaches generally welcome rigorous scientific methods. But it was the processual archaeology of the

1960s and 1970s that solidified the branch of archaeological research that emphasizes methods derived from the physical sciences. For example, the petrographic and radiographic techniques that I employ in this study are influenced by developments in this area.

The remainder of this chapter outlines the rest of the study. Before I do that, however, it is worth elaborating on why pottery is the focus of this thesis because, as number of scholars have noted (e.g., Lovell et al. 2004), studies that focus on one class of artifact may be insufficient to resolve many of the disagreements that characterize the study of the Late Neolithic. While

I agree that studying a range of artifact types and would give a clearer picture of the Late Neolithic, pottery, as a relatively new technology, even during the sixth millennium

BC, may have played important social roles (e.g., Goren et al. 1993; Orrelle and Gopher 2000) and may have been particularly influential on changes in social patterns. From a more practical point of view, pottery is ubiquitous on most Late Neolithic sites and can be studied from a range of stylistic perspectives, including form, decoration, and technology. Current discussions of the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic rely heavily on regional comparisons of published ceramic assemblages and, as noted above, this study is intended to contribute to these. Nevertheless, I hope the theory and data from this study will stimulate further, more-encompassing analyses of

Late Neolithic communities that incorporate other technologies, such as lithics (e.g. Kadowaki

2005).

Dissertation Summary

In addition to a brief introduction to the physical geography of the southern Levant and Wadi

Ziqlab in particular, Chapter 2 introduces the various Late Neolithic cultures that have been  discussed in the literature (Table 1.1). It also provides introductions to the three sites in Wadi

Ziqlab that are the basis of this dissertation. Banning (2001b) suggests that these sites may have been part of a dispersed community that was arranged linearly or dendritically along the course of the wadi.

In light of this suggestion, Chapter 3 considers how archaeologists have approached the idea of prehistoric communities. I suggest that the standard model of the community as a natural and bounded unit is flawed, and that recent critiques of this model (e.g.Y aeger and Canuto 2000) have relevance for the study of Late Neolithic communities. I suggest that studies of dispersed communities in particular require a dualistic approach that considers simultaneously the practices of the members of the group and the maintenance of boundaries between groups. Both aspects of the dispersed prehistoric community require a consideration of the concept of style as it has been used by archaeologists, including the idea of technological style. Building on a discussion of style, I discuss the relevance of a “symmetrical” archaeology that does not regard humans and things as ontologically distinct and I introduce the writings of McLuhan (1964) as relevant to this line of thinking.

In Chapter 4, after a general discussion of the role of pottery typologies in archaeology, I summarize other typologies of Late Neolithic pottery that have been proposed. I then discuss the approach used in this study, which considers vessel form and surface treatment. Quantitative descriptions and a series of pottery illustrations are provided to show the range of variation of vessel forms and surface treatments.

Chapter 5 continues the presentation of the Wadi Ziqlab pottery from a technological perspective. I summarize earlier investigations of Late Neolithic pottery that have looked at the composition of the clay body and forming techniques. I then introduce the analytical techniques used in this dissertation, including thin-section petrography and xeroradiography. Finally I present evidence for raw material selection, forming techniques, and firing temperature.  Chapter 6 combines the results of Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 to evaluate similarities and differences in the pottery assemblages of the Wadi Ziqlab sites. This discussion is arranged in order to give insights into the production sequence of the pottery. Following this, I explore how the results of my pottery analysis can inform on the theoretical issues introduced in Chapter 3, specifically the nature of Late Neolithic communities.

Chapter 7 summarizes the dissertation and outlines the conclusions and contributions drawn from my pottery analysis. It also suggests avenues for future research. 

Late Neolithic Sites in the Tel Dan Southern Levant Nahal Betset Tel Te’o Hagoshrim

‘Ein el-Jarba, Kabri Hazorea, Abu Zureiq Horvat Uza Tel Qiri

‘Ain Rahub ‘Atlit Yam Tel ‘Ali Newe Yam Sha’ar Hagolan Nahal Zehora I & II Megiddo Beth She’an Wadi Ziqlab Tel Tsaf ‘En Asawir Abu Habil Abu Hamid Nahal Qanah Jebel Abu Thuwwab

HaBashan St. Wadi Rabah Kataret es-Samra ‘Ain Ghazal Lod Wadi Shu’eib Giv’at HaParsa Ghrubba

Nizzanim Ghassul Tel Batashi Horvat ‘Illin Ashkelon Ziqim

Qatif Y-3 P14 ‘Ain Waida D11 Dhra’

0 50km

Figure 1.1. Map of the southern Levant showing location of Wadi Ziqlab (black box) and other prehistoric sites mentioned in the text.

10 700

600 Tabaqat al-Bûma (WZ200) Tabaqat

al-’Aqaba (WZ310)al-’Aqaba 500 400 WZ312 WZ307

400 Tell Rakan 1 Tell (WZ120) 300

WT4 al-Basatîn (WZ135/140) 200

3km 100

0

-100 0 -200 Late Neolithic Sites in Wadi Ziqlab Wadi in Sites Neolithic Late Figure 1.2. Map of western end of Wadi Ziqlab showing location of Late Neolithic sites mentioned in the text. Wadi Figure 1.2. Map of western end 11

Radiocarbon Selected Cultures/ Calibrated Years BP Industries/Facies Years BC 5000 Chalcolithic Qatifian

5000 6000 Wadi Rabah

6000 7000 Late Neolithic Jericho IX Yarmoukian

PPNC

8000 7000 PPNB

9000 8000 PPNA

10000 Natufian 9000

Epipalaeolithic 11000 10000

Geometric Kebaran

Table 1.1. Chronology of late prehistoric archaeological entities. Chapter 2: Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab in Context

The Neolithic in the southern Levant is well known for the numerous economic, technological, and social milestones that occurred there (Banning 1998; Bar-Yosef 1992, 1995;

Simmons 2007). While scholarly interest in these events has a long history, research biases and issues of methodology have left our overall understanding of the Neolithic incomplete. In particular, archaeological investigation of the Late Neolithic is underdeveloped despite a number of recent projects and publications that have addressed this period (e.g., Blackham 2002; Bourke

2007; Eisenberg et al. 2001; Garfinkel 1999; Garfinkel and Matskevich 2002; Garfinkel and

Miller 2002; Garfinkel et al. 2002; Gilead 2007; Gopher and Orelle 1991; Gopher and Blockman

2004; Kuijt and Chesson 2002; Lovell 2001; Lovell et al. 2007). Excavations and survey in

Wadi Ziqlab play an important role in further developing our knowledge of the Late Neolithic east of the Jordan River, especially the 6th millennium BC.

The Geography of the Southern Levant

The Levant encompasses the eastern shores of the Mediterranean and the adjacent highlands, including parts of modern Jordan, , Palestine, , and . The tectonically active region is characterized by substantial diversity of topographic and physiographic features,

“resulting in a jumble of hills, valleys, and ravines” (Beitzel 2003:5). This “geographical brokenness” has contributed to the geopolitical fragmentation that has characterized the region throughout history (Beitzel 2003:5).

Discussions of Levantine conventionally divide the region into northern and southern portions, which, during the Late Neolithic, may actually correspond somewhat to divergent cultural trajectories. The major geographical regions of the southern Levant, where

Wadi Ziqlab is located, are the Jordan Valley, including the Huleh basin, Lake Tiberias, the Dead

Sea, and the Jordan River itself; the coastal Mediterranean plain; the central hilly zone between

12 13 the Jordan and the coast; the Jezreel Valley, which stretches from the coast east towards the

Jordan; the Negev desert; the highlands east of the Jordan; and the desert east of those (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002; Reifenberg 1947; Figure 2.1).

Other than the Jordan, most rivers and wadi systems in the southern Levant flow either east or west, into the Jordan Valley or the Mediterranean. Four major rivers—the Yarmouk, the

Zarqa, the Mujib, and the Hasa—and a number of smaller ones, including Wadi Ziqlab, drain the eastern highlands to the Jordan Valley.

Currently, precipitation in the southern Levant is seasonal, with mild, rainy winters and hot, dry summers. Rainfall decreases as one moves south or east, with annual precipitation levels ranging from more than 800 mm to less than 50 mm (Zohary 1962). Three main vegetations zones are represented—Mediterranean forest and maquis, Irano-Turanian steppe, and Saharo-

Arabian desert, with Sudanian vegetation protruding into parts of the lower Jordan Valley

(Zohary 1962). Of course, precipitation and vegetation during the Neolithic were not necessarily the same as they are today. An analysis of speleothems ( deposits) from Soreq cave suggests that from ca.7000-10,000 years ago precipitation in the southern Levant may have been nearly twice that of the present with less seasonality, although the Neolithic seems to be have been a period of environmental fluctuations (Bar-Mathews et al. 1997, 1999; Bar-Matthews and

Ayalon 2004; Simmons 2007:40). Speleothems provide good evidence for local environmental conditions because they can be dated using the 230Th-U method and analysis of their δ18O and

δ13C levels can inform on past precipitation levels, temperature, and vegetation type.

Chronology of Late Prehistory

A number of different schemes have been proposed to subdivide and order the late prehistoric periods of the southern Levant (Banning 1998; Garfinkel 1999:table 1; Kuijt 2000:figure

3; Twiss 2007). There is general agreement, however, that the Neolithic followed the Late

Epipalaeolithic (or Natufian) and preceded the Chalcolithic. Kenyon’s (1981) division of the 14 Neolithic into two Pre-Pottery Neolithic phases (PPNA and PPNB) followed by two Pottery

Neolithic phases (PNA and PNB) on the basis of her excavations at Jericho has achieved widespread acceptance. Modifications to her general scheme include further subdivision of the

PPNB into early, middle, late, and sometimes final or PPNC stages (Rollefson 1989; Rollefson et al. 1992).

In this study, following Moore (1973), I use the term Late Neolithic rather than Pottery

Neolithic for the period following the PPN. This is because certain site-specific connotations are associated with the term Pottery Neolithic, which, in a narrow sense, can refer specifically to particular strata of Kenyon’s excavations at Jericho (Kenyon 1981; Kenyon and Holland 1982).

Moreover, some sites in the eastern desert, while contemporary with other Pottery Neolithic sites, seem to lack pottery (Betts 1998). The term Late Neolithic, by referring to chronology rather than specific strata or a single class of material culture, therefore seems more appropriate.

Many late prehistoric periods are poorly represented by radiocarbon dates and the absolute chronology of the region is therefore incomplete. The earliest Neolithic cultures of the southern

Levant appear to have developed directly out of the Natufian, roughly 10,000 cal BC (Kuijt and

Goring-Morris 2002), while the Late Neolithic likely began around 6500 BC and ended around

5200 cal BC (Banning 2007). In fact, dating the end of the Neolithic is contingent on whether one identifies Wadi Rabah and related sites (discussed below) as Neolithic (e.g., Banning 1998;

Gopher and Gophna 1993) or Chalcolithic (e.g., Garfinkel 1999; Kaplan 1958, 1969).The differences between the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic are arguably minor (Banning 1998:188;

Garfinkel 1999:6) and it is difficult to identify a distinct cultural or temporal boundary between them (but see Bourke 2007; Gilead 2007). The preference for the term Late Neolithic over Early

Chalcolithic in this study is therefore somewhat arbitrary. It is worth noting that Wadi Rabah sites lack copper artifacts, although many Late Chalcolithic sites also have no evidence of copper artifacts. 15 Approaching Late Neolithic Archaeology

That the Pre-Pottery Neolithic has attracted archaeological focus is due largely to ongoing interest in the origins and consequences of agriculture, sedentism, and the possible emergence of social differentiation (Gopher 1995; Gopher and Gophna 1993). Syntheses of these issues tend to focus on their origins and rarely give more than terse mention of their later development in the Late Neolithic (e.g., Byrd 2005; Cauvin 2000; Verhoeven 2004), despite the important developments that occurred during this time.

Kuijt and Goring-Morris (2002) and Simmons (2007) provide recent summaries of the current state of knowledge of the PPN. Important developments during this period included the emergence of large villages, including “megasites” over 10 ha in size with population estimates ranging into the thousands (Kuijt 2000b; but see Verhoeven 2006); indisputable evidence of plant and animal ; architectural complexity (Banning 2003; Kuijt 2000b); standardized mortuary patterns; and “symbolic artifacts”, including masks, statues, plastered skulls, and figurines, that some scholars believe hint at widespread sharing of religious beliefs

(Cauvin 2000).

In the recent past, scholars saw a hiatus between the end of the PPNB and the beginning of the Late Neolithic, when the region remained unoccupied until new pottery-using settlers re- colonized it centuries later (de Vaux 1966; Kenyon 1970; Perrot 1972). More recent evidence has rendered this model untenable. Continuity of populations from the PPN to the LN has been observed at a few sites, including ‘Ain Ghazal, Beisamoun, and Wadi Shu’eib (Lechevallier

1978; Rollefson et al. 1992; Simmons et al. 2001), while other sites may have been founded soon after the “collapse” of the PPNB (e.g., Galili et al. 1993). It is evident now that the dissolution of the wide interaction sphere that influenced many aspects of PPNB society

(cf. Asouti 2006) did not lead to a regional abandonment but, rather, to a shift in settlement, economy, and social organization. 16 Problems with Late Neolithic Research

With few exceptions, the study of the Late Neolithic has not kept pace with research focussing on the earlier PPN or the later Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages and, in a sense, the period remains a “black hole” in the archaeology of the southern Levant (Garfinkel 1999:1).

There are multiple reasons for this. Gopher and Gophna (1993; Gopher 1995) see a general, though unwarranted, lack of interest in the Late Neolithic period, with many researchers preferring to focus their attention either on the earlier Pre-Pottery Neolithic cultures that first adopted agriculture as a mode of subsistence or on later urban sites, especially those with

Biblical significance. They also cite methodological problems. Early excavators favoured the horizontal exposure of large areas over the careful recovery of small artifacts and botanical remains through sieving and flotation, and although field methods have improved in recent decades, a balance between a suitable “scale” and “level” of recovery often remains difficult to attain (Gopher and Gophna 1993:302; cf. Kenyon 1981:116). Banning et al. (1994:154) point out that most survey strategies have not been designed to detect small Late Neolithic settlements, which often lie hidden under colluvial deposits at the bottoms of wadis.

Furthermore, surveyors may be hard-pressed to identify Late Neolithic sites, even if they are looking in the right place, as Neolithic pottery is often too soft and friable to survive for long on an exposed ground surface (Banning et al. 1994:154). There is also often a delay in the publication of Late Neolithic excavations. While this problem may be systemic to archaeology as a discipline, more particular to the study of the Late Neolithic of the southern Levant is the notable dearth of published radiocarbon dates and, consequently, significant confusion persists in our understanding of even the basic chronology of the period (Gopher and Gophna 1993:301;

Garfinkel 1999; Banning 2007, n.d.). Published dates are too often presented incorrectly or inconsistently, which only adds to the confusion (Banning 2007). Finally, much of our understanding of the Late Neolithic comes from small assemblages derived from problematic or unstratified contexts (Gopher and Gophna 1993:302; Lovell et al. 2004). Several of the Late 17 Neolithic “type sites”, including Wadi Rabah, fall into this category.

Late Neolithic “Cultures”

The Late Neolithic was first recognized during the1930s, when excavations at a number of tell sites, including Jericho (Garstang 1935, 1936), Megiddo (Loud 1948; Shipton 1939) and Bethshan (Fitzgerald 1934, 1935; Braun 2004), revealed strata containing Late Neolithic ceramic material. By the end of the 1950s, the emerging picture of Late Neolithic settlement included a number of “cultures” or cultural “entities” that were defined primarily by their ceramic assemblages (Gopher and Gophna 1993). Stekelis (1950-51, 1972) identified the

Yarmoukian culture after his work at Sha’ar Hagolan, while Kenyon’s (1957, 1981) renewed excavations at Jericho gave us the terms Pottery Neolithic A and Pottery Neolithic B, which roughly parallel Layers IX and VIII from Garstang’s (1935, 1936) earlier excavations at the site. Kaplan (1958a, 1958b, 1969) applied the name Wadi Rabah to a number of sites that he investigated west of the Jordan. Mellaart’s (1956) excavation at Ghrubba produced an enigmatic corpus of pottery that he thought was stylistically different from other Late Neolithic assemblages. Fieldwork conducted since the 1950s, and especially since the 1980s, has contributed more to our understanding of the period, although, arguably, the general framework has not changed significantly, with the Yarmoukian, Jericho IX, and Wadi Rabah remaining as persistent entities (Garfinkel 1999; Gopher and Gophna 1993; Banning 1998; 2007).

Gopher and Gophna (1993; Gopher 1995), Garfinkel (1999), Banning (1998, 2003), Kafafi

(1992, 1998), Kerner (2001), Lovell (2001), and others have published summaries of varying lengths of the main Late Neolithic cultures, often with discussions of how they should be ordered chronologically. There has been relatively little discussion, however, of what these cultures actually represent. Gopher and Gophna (1993) and Gilead (2007) apply Clarke’s (1978) definition of “culture” to some of the entities (e.g., the Yarmoukian and the Qatifian), but believe others (e.g., Wadi Rabah) are too broad, both spatially and temporally, to fit this definition 18 and should be sub-divided into “cultural variants”. Banning (1998), adapting Henry’s (1989) framework for the Epipalaeolithic, suggests that using a hierarchical framework to organize

Late Neolithic material culture, with industries comprised of facies that are made up of groups of assemblages from specific sites. The benefit of this scheme is that is makes clear distinctions between chronological, material, and socio-economic variation (Banning 1998:190). The current state of research, however, is insufficient to classify all entities as either a facies or an and, as it stands, there is a confusing proliferation of terms, often ill-defined or ambiguous, that are used to identify the various entities, assemblages, or complexes that characterize Late

Neolithic prehistory (Banning 1998, 2002; Garfinkel 1999:4). As Banning (1998, 2001a) notes, some terms or entities are based on particular sites or ceramic assemblages, some on stratigraphy, some refer to “cultures”, and some are simply chronological designations based on radiocarbon dates; “Consequently, even when two authors have used the same term, they do not always mean the same thing.” (Banning 2001a:79).

The following sections outline the cultures (or cultural variants, entities, industries, or facies) that commonly appear in discussions of the Late Neolithic (see table 1.1). This is provided not only as a general background but also to demonstrate the profusion of terms that are found in literature relating to later prehistory in the southern Levant. Most important for this study are the sections on Wadi Rabah and the Wadi Rabah variants. I emphasize the pottery evidence as it has usually been considered the most culturally diagnostic aspect of Late Neolithic material culture and is the one most directly relevant to this study.

The Yarmoukian

The Yarmoukian has been studied in greater detail than other Late Neolithic “cultures” in the southern Levant (Garfinkel 1992, 1993, 1999; Garfinkel and Miller 2002; Kafafi 1993, 2001).

As mentioned above, Stekelis (1950-51, 1972) first identified and named theY armoukian on the basis of his work at Sha‘ar Hagolan. Similar ceramic material had been found earlier at Megiddo 19 (Shipton 1939) and Jericho (Sellin and Watzinger 1913; Garfinkel 1999:16) but it was not recognized at the time as belonging to a separate entity.

Stekelis’s definition of the Yarmoukian was based on the most characteristic aspects of the material culture that he recovered from Sha‘ar Hagolan, including sickle blades with coarse denticulation, an abundance of distinctive figurines, and pottery. Typical Yarmoukian or

“Sha‘ar Hagolani” pottery decoration consists of straight and zigzag bands demarcated by incised parallel lines and filled with incised herringbone pattern (Garfinkel 1999).The incised decoration is generally in a reserved band on an otherwise red-slipped vessel. Other types of decoration do occur on Yarmoukian pots, including plain red slip or rectilinear bands of red paint, but these are considered less diagnostic. As in all southern Levantine Late Neolithic cultures, pottery without decoration is abundant. The dominant pottery forms are deep bowls, necked and holemouth jars (neckless, closed forms), and pithoi (large, neckless jars typically with a wide opening).

Since the 1950s, Yarmoukian pottery has been recovered from a number of sites in the southern Levant, although many of these assemblages have yet to be published in full. Munhata, in the central Jordan Valley, yielded a large assemblage of Yarmoukian pottery in its stratum

2B (Perrot 1964, 1966). This assemblage forms the basis of Garfinkel’s extensive typology of

Late Neolithic pottery (Garfinkel 1992, 1999). The sites of ‘Ain Ghazal and Wadi Shu’eib are noteworthy because they seem to show the local development of the Yarmoukian from an earlier

Pre-Pottery Neolithic C (PPNC) phase (Kafafi 1990; Rollefson 1993; Rollefson et al. 1992).The renewed excavations at Sha‘ar Hagolan have enhanced our overall picture of the Yarmoukian

(Garfinkel and Miller 2002), including architecture. Nahal Zehora II, Nahal Qanah, Jebel

Abu Thuwwab and ‘Ain er-Rahub are other significant Yarmoukian sites (Gopher and Orelle

1991; Gopher and Tsuk 1996; Kafafi 1989, 2001; Obeidat 1995). Garfinkel (1999) argues that the néolithique ancien stratum at should be identified asY armoukian, although others disagree (Gopher and Gophna 1993). 20 Analysis of the radiocarbon evidence by Banning (2007) suggests that the Yarmoukian began sometime around 6500-6400 cal BC and ended around 6000-5800 cal BC.

Jericho IX/Pottery Neolithic A/Lodian

The earliest pottery that Garstang (1935, 1936) discovered at Jericho came from his stratum

IX (Ben-Dor 1936; Droop 1935). When Kenyon ( Kenyon and Holland 1982) encountered similar material in her subsequent excavations, she used the term “Pottery Neolithic A” rather than Garstang’s “Jericho IX” and both terms are used to refer to stylistically similar material from other sites in the southern Levant. Recently “Lodian” has been offered as an alternative term with less specific stratigraphic connotations (Gopher 1995; Gopher and Gophna 1993;

Gopher and Blockman 2004), although this has met with some resistance (Garfinkel 1999:68;

Lovell 2001:6).

In several aspects, Jericho IX “culture” is similar to the Yarmoukian, although we cannot yet see it with the same clarity (Gopher and Gophna 1993; see further comments below). The main distinction between the two is the pottery, although there also seem to be differences in sickle element morphology (Gopher and Blockman 2004) and the general lack of figurines from

Jericho IX sites is noteworthy. Two pottery wares, one coarse and vegetable-tempered, the other finer, have been identified in Jericho IX pottery assemblages. Decoration is found on vessels of the finer ware and is comprised of lines and triangles painted in red or brown, sometimes over a buff or “creamy-pink” slip (Garfinkel 1999:96). The painted areas are likely to be burnished.

The primary design elements, including bands and triangles, recall the incised patterns on

Yarmoukian vessels. The main pottery forms are also very similar to those from Yarmoukian sites, although shallow and hemispherical bowls seem to be more common (Garfinkel 1999).

Necked jars with a groove or “gutter” at the junction of neck and body are common and some have considered them diagnostic (Eisenberg et al. 2001:200; Gopher and Blockman 2004; cf.

Garfinkel 1999). 21 It is worth noting that painted pottery, although the most diagnostic aspect of Jericho IX material culture, actually comprises a small part of Jericho IX pottery assemblages. For example, of the pottery recovered during the 1992 excavations at Lod (Nevé Yaraq), less than

1% of sherds had painted decoration (Gopher and Blockman 2004:table 16). Slipped pottery, sometimes with burnish, was much more common (23%). In addition, incised decoration occurs in small amounts on Jericho IX sites and, as mentioned above, painted decoration occurs on

Yarmoukian sites, although generally without burnish.

Apart from Lod (Nevé Yaraq) and Jericho itself, purported Jericho IX sites tend to be small or incompletely published (e.g., Teluliyot Batash, Dhra‘, Khirbet ed-Dharih). Interestingly, test excavations at Wadi Shu‘eib, which lies midway between Jericho and ‘Ain Ghazal, reportedly has both Yarmoukian and Jericho IX pottery in the same context (Simmons et al. 2001).

In fact, the similarities between Jericho IX and the Yarmoukian have generated much discussion about how the two might be related if they are, in fact, distinct entities. Banning

(1998) suggests that Jericho IX may be a “facies” of the Yarmoukian industry, while Garfinkel

(1999) sees two distinct “cultures” despite a number of similarities he identifies between them.

If they are in fact distinct entities, two current hypotheses seem plausible (but see Kafafi 1995).

The first sees two contemporaneous cultures exhibiting regional variation, with the Jericho IX range occurring south of the Yarmoukian range (Garfinkel 1999). The second sees the difference as primarily temporal, with Jericho IX developing out of and replacing the Yarmoukian (Gopher and Blockman 2004; Gopher and Gophna 1993). At present, the radiocarbon evidence is too limited to resolve the issue. The few available dates are in the range of cal 5600-5900 BC.

It may be, however, that too much weight is being placed on minor differences in pottery decoration and the continued separation of the two groups may be more a reflection of the history of Neolithic research than any significant cultural distinction (c.f. Campbell 2007).

Clearly, any resolution of this debate will hinge on a clearer definition of Jericho IX, which will require further excavation, publication, and radiocarbon dates. 22 Ghrubba

Mellaart’s (1956) excavation of a pit at the site of Ghrubba produced an assemblage of pottery that is difficult to interpret. Painted decoration, including horizontal bands, dots, and zigzag motifs occur on both bowls and jars. Despite the painted decoration, Mellaart (1956) thought this pottery was unlike that of Jericho IX/PNA and for parallels looked to the northern Levant, where painted pottery are more common. More recently, similarities between Ghrubba pottery and that from other sites in Jordan have been noted, including material from the basal layers at Abu Hamid (Dollfus and Kafafi 1993; Lovell et al. 1997) and a small number of sherds in the post-Yarmoukian material at Jebel Abu Thuwwab (Kafafi 1998; Obeidat 1995). During his excavations at Munhata, Perrot (1972:415) identified a “Munhata Phase” (stratum 2B1) that lay stratigraphically above Yarmoukian material (stratum 2B2) and below Wadi Rabah material

(stratum 2A), and which contained painted pottery with supposed Ghrubba affinities. However, in-depth analyses of the lithics (Gopher 1989) and pottery (Garfinkel 1992) from the site were unable to distinguish this Munhata Phase, although the analytical approach used by Garfinkel

(1992) was not directed at identifying transitional facies (Blackham 2002; Lovell 2001). Others disagree entirely with the identification of Ghrubba as a distinct culture or phase (e.g., Garfinkel

1999) and associate the supposed Ghrubba assemblages with either Jericho IX or some later entity such as the “Middle Chalcolithic” (see below).

Nizzanim

Garfinkel (1993, 1999; Garfinkel et al. 2002) suggests that a distinct “regional ” or “unit” can be identified in the southern coastal plain of Israel, which he identifies with something he calls Nizzanim Ware. This tradition is defined by coarse, poorly made pottery, primarily holemouth jars and bowls, that are only infrequently decorated. Only three sites—

Nizzanim, Giv’at Haparsa, and Ziqim—have so far been attributed to this tradition. Other researchers have grouped these sites with Jericho IX sites (Gopher 1993, 1995; Gopher and 23 Gophna 1993).

Wadi Rabah/Pottery Neolithic B/Jericho VIII

Kaplan (1958a, 1958b) identified the from his excavations at Wadi

Rabah and Tuleilat Batashi. Similar material had been found earlier at Habashan Street (Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993), and at Jericho in Garstang’s (1935, 1936) layer VIII and Kenyon’s

(Kenyon and Holland 1982) Pottery Neolithic B layers. A number of sites in the Jezreel Valley, including ‘En Jarba, Hazorea, Abu Zureiq, Tel Qiri, and Nahal Zehora I and II (Kaplan 1969;

Anati et al. 1973; Garfinkel and Matskevich 2002; Baruch 1987; Gopher 1993; Orelle 1993), and farther north, including Tel Dan, Hagosherim, Beisamoun, Kabri, Horvat Usa (Gopher and

Gophna 1993) have also produced Wadi Rabah material. At Munhata, Wadi Rabah layers were found stratigraphically above Yarmoukian ones (Garfinkel 1992) and, similarly, at Jericho, the

Jericho VIII/PNB layers are stratigraphically higher than the Jericho IX/PNA layers (Kenyon

1981) suggesting Wadi Rabah/Jericho VIII is later than both the Yarmoukian and the Jericho IX.

Radiocarbon dates suggest that Wadi Rabah sites span much of the sixth millennium BC.

Pottery is perhaps the most diagnostic aspect of Wadi Rabah material culture. Sickle elements are also distinct, although there is some overlap with Yarmoukian ones. Compared to the

Yarmoukian, figurines are rare on Wadi Rabah sites and anthropomorphic imagery is particularly uncommon (Orelle and Gopher 2000). Wadi Rabah pottery is sometimes decorated with a variety of incised and impressed patterns, including “combed” decoration. Burnish is also present in most assemblages, usually over a red-slipped or black surface. Particularly diagnostic vessel forms include bow-rim jars and carinated bowls, although holemouth jars and simple, deep bowls tend to be more common.

Several scholars have compared Wadi Rabah pottery with Halafian pottery from the northern

Levant (Garfinkel 1999; Kaplan 1960; Kirkbride 1971) but similarities are primarily in form and the elaborately painted vessels found on some Halafian sites do not typically appear inW adi 24 Rabah assemblages. Comparisons have also been made between the black-burnished component of Wadi Rabah pottery and the “dark-faced burnished ware” of the Amuq Valley.

Wadi Rabah Variants and the Middle Chalcolithic

A number of pottery assemblages (e.g., Tel Tsaf, Kataret as-Samra, Abu Habil, Beth Shean stratum XVIII, Tell ash-Shûna North), including several in or east of the Jordan Valley, seem not to correspond directly to any of the Late Neolithic cultures described above or to the relatively well-understood, Late (Ghassulian) Chalcolithic. A few of these sites, most notably Tel Tsaf, have pottery with fine, linear painting but others lack this (Garfinkel et al. 2007). Other features shared by some, but not all, of these assemblages include applied decoration,

“swollen-necked” jars, and strap handles with splayed attachments.

Garfinkel (1999) suggests that these assemblages collectively represent a transitional phase from Wadi Rabah (which he calls Early Chalcolithic) to the Ghassulian Chalcolithic and classifies them as Middle Chalcolithic, with “Beth Shean Ware” as the most diagnostic pottery repertoire. Others disagree with this scenario (Braun 2004). Gopher and Gophna (1993) identify many of the same assemblages as Wadi Rabah “variants”, which lack certain diagnostic features of the Wadi Rabah, such as bow-rim jars, but are otherwise similar and contemporaneous. To them, then, these assemblages represent geographical variation. Braun (2004) argues that there is no basis for a “Middle Chalcolithic” at Beth Shan and suggests that Garfinkel’s (1999) “Beth

Shean Ware” is actually a conflation of pottery from Late Neolithic and Early deposits. Lovell (2001:7) sees the painted “Tsafian” ware decoration at some of these sites as part of a long decorative tradition that includes presumably earlier material from Ghrubba and later material from Ghassul, and is therefore not a simple indicator of either temporal or spatial variation.

Interestingly, Garfinkel’s (1999:figure 65) distribution map of Wadi Rabah sites shows few in the middle Jordan Valley and none east of it, which might suggest that at least some of his 25 “Middle Chalcolithic” sites should be seen as contemporary with Wadi Rabah ones. Otherwise it implies a substantial shift in settlement during the “Middle Chalcolithic”, although this may also be a reflection of the greater amount of work conducted west of the Jordan River (but see

Ibrahim et al. 1976; Kafafi 1982). As it stands, the Middle Chalcolithic/Wadi Rabah Variant/

Tsafian Ware material seems to represent a somewhat elusive “catchall” group (cf. Banning

2002). Further investigation and more radiocarbon dates are needed to sort out which sites are contemporary with Wadi Rabah and which are later (e.g., Blackham 2002; Banning 2007). The renewed excavations at Tel Tsaf are a welcome contribution and new radiocarbon dates from the site that suggest an occupation sometime between 5100 and 4600 BC indicate that there is validity to recognizing a post-Wadi Rabah occupation there (Garfinkel et al. 2007).

Qatifian

The term “Qatifian” has been applied to a “cultural entity” in the northern Negev, based on the pottery and lithics from a number of sites along Nahal Besor (Gilead 2007; Gilead and Alon

1988; see also Macdonald 1932) and in the coastal plain of Israel, including Qatif and Herzliya

(Gilead 1993). In Jordan, comparable material has been identified at ‘AinW aida’ near Dhra’

(Kuijt and Chesson 2002), and perhaps in Wadi Feinan (Najjar et al. 1990; Garfinkel 1999:189) and the pre-Ghassulian Chalcolithic layers at Ghassul (Goren 1990). Layer IIIa at Teluliot

Batashi, which is stratigraphically above the Wadi Rabah deposits, produced pottery and flints reminiscent of the Qatifian (Goren 1990:106*).

Qatifian pottery is rarely decorated, although thumb-impressed rims appear on some bowls and red slip occurs. Forms include necked jars, holemouth jars, and V-shaped bowls (Garfinkel

1999; Goren 1990). Loop handles are common (Gilead and Alon 1988). Goren’s (1988) petrographic analysis identified two distinct fabrics. The first is “straw”-tempered and poorly fired, the second is grit-tempered and less friable.

Gilead (1988, 1990, 2007; Gilead and Alon 1988) suggests that the Qatifian is followed by 26 a distinct Chalcolithic cultural stage, which he refers to as the “Besor Phase” of “Besorian”.

Further research is required to assess the validity of this claim (Garfinkel 1999:199; Lovell

2001:7).

Summary of the Late Neolithic

Gopher and Gophna (1993) imply that a better understanding of the Late Neolithic period of the southern Levant will rely on the clearer definition and identification of cultures and “cultural variants” or “”. This will require further excavation of relevant sites, especially stratified ones (Lovell et al. 2004), detailed analysis and publication of data, including data other than pottery, and additional radiocarbon dates. However, it will also require a reconsideration of the validity and usefulness of the concept itself (Campbell 2007). With these points in mind, a few important aspects of the Late Neolithic are summarized here (see also Simmons 2007).

In general, the Late Neolithic has been characterized as “an adaptation of local settlements”

(Simmons 2007:227), with trade and interaction being more regionalized than during the PPNB.

Many sites are small although some, such as Sha‘ar Hagolan, are quite large (Garfinkel and

Miller 2002). Even the larger sites are less densely agglomerated than their PPNB counterparts, however.

The economy involved mixed strategies with a general reliance on domesticated plants and animals. Significant economic developments during the Late Neolithic may include the emergence of pastoral nomadism as an important strategy (Köhler-Rollefson 1992) and the domestication of the olive (Galili et al. 1989; cf. Willcox 1996). Both of these developments had long-lasting impact on the southern Levant and are important elements of the modern local economy. Lithic production was predominantly flake-based and expedient (Siggers 1997), which may reflect the limited role of hunting in the economy. Pottery production, on the other hand, sometimes indicates a considerable investment of time, suggesting it may have played a social 27 or ceremonial role in addition to utilitarian ones (Banning and Siggers 1997; Goren and Gopher

1995; Goren et al. 1993). Figurines at some sites may also indicate ceremonial or symbolic behaviour (Gopher and Orelle 1996).

The Late Neolithic has been interpreted by many as a period of devolution or retrogression, following the “collapse” of a more complex and sophisticated PPNB interaction sphere (e.g.,

Kenyon 1970; Rollefson 1996). Banning et al. (1994:162), however, argue that “this view involves unjustifiable -judgements” and that the Late Neolithic was not necessarily less complex than the preceding part of the Neolithic, but rather represented a shift in social and economic organization. Simmons (2007:227) similarly sees claims of cultural deterioration as unsubstantiated.

The Late Neolithic in Wadi Ziqlab

Wadi Ziqlab is a key region for understanding the diversity of Late Neolithic cultures in the southern Levant, especially those of the 6th millennium BC. The wadi is one of very few areas that have been intensively surveyed with the discovery of Late Neolithic sites as a primary research goal. Consequently, it is one of the few areas where we can gain insights into social organization at a scale between the individual site and the broader “culture”. Also, sites in

Wadi Ziqlab are among the easternmost that have produced Late Neolithic pottery and they can therefore inform on broader regional variation in material culture.

The Environment of Wadi Ziqlab

The environment of the Wadi Ziqlab basin has been discussed elsewhere (Banning 1985,

1993; Banning and Fawcett 1983; Banning et al. n.d.b; Field 1993; Fisher et al. 1966; Maher

2005) and is only briefly summarized here.

Wadi Ziqlab is one of several tributaries of the Jordan River that drain the western part of the

Irbid Plateau in north-western Jordan. The catchment of the wadi basin is relatively small, with an area of approximately 106 km2. Wadi Ziqlab itself has two main tributaries, Wadi ad-Dimna 28 and Wadi ‘Ain Zubiya, which drain to the northwest. These unite north of the modern village of Tubna to form the main channel of Wadi Ziqlab, which continues to flow west toward the

Jordan River. In the summer months, flowing water is found only in the west part of this main stream. Elevation in the watershed ranges from over 1075m above sea level in the east to more than 200m below sea level where the wadi meets the Jordan River. Broad U-shaped valleys characterize the upper basin, while, downstream, after the confluence of the main tributaries, the valley forms a deeply incised, steep-sided gorge (Banning 1993; Fisher et al. 1966:4). Marine sediments of Cretaceous age dominate the geology of Wadi Ziqlab, including strata consisting of grey siliceous limestone, chalk, and marl, and containing beds of chert and chert nodules

(Bender 1974; Fisher et al. 1966).

The availability of clay sources is obviously important for understanding pottery production.

It is worth commenting, therefore, on the types of soils that occur in Wadi Ziqlab. The soil study of Fisher et al. (1966) produced the map of soil distributions that is included here as Figure

2.2. Six main groups of soils were identified by their survey—terra rossa soil, brown stony soil, brown wadi soil, grey-white rendzina, brown steppe soil, and grey white slope soil (see

Banning et al. [n.d.b] and Maher [2005] for summaries). Most of these have high clay content.

Unfortunately, the abundance of clay-rich soils has made it impossible to identify which specific sources were exploited by Late Neolithic potters (see Chapter 5).

Presently, Wadi Ziqlab falls primarily within the Mediterranean ecological zone characterized by oak-pistachio forest, although the western end falls within the Irano-Turanian territory characterized by herbaceous and dwarf shrub communities (Banning 1993; Zohary 1962; cf.

Al-Bakri and Suleiman 2004). Al-Shraydah (1992) notes the presence of 11 springs within Wadi

Ziqlab’s catchment, which, in the past, may have promoted the development of hydrophytic plant communities. In addition to these springs, Wadi Ziqlab benefits from some of Jordan’s highest levels of precipitation. Mean annual rainfall levels in Wadi Ziqlab and the surrounding area can reach over 400 mm, although yearly totals are highly variable (Al-Bakri and Suleiman 29 2004; Fisher et al. 1966:12). This variability has a direct impact on modern crop yields in the wadi (Beaumont 1989) and likely similarly affected the farmers who occupied the area in the past.

But climate has not remained unchanged in Wadi Ziqlab. Most importantly, changes in the intensity and seasonality of rainfall seem to have occurred during the late Pleistocene and early

Holocene (Field 1993; Maher 2005). These changes had a significant effect on soil formation and erosional processes that affect the physical character of the wadi, its suitability for human habitation during certain periods, and the recovery of archaeological material dating to certain periods (Field 1993; Field and Banning 1998; Maher 2005). Notably, Late Epipalaeolithic

(Natufian) and PPNA sites have not been detected in the wadi, despite intensive search for them.

Either sites dating to these periods have eroded away or were never present (Maher 2005).

History of Archaeological Research in Wadi Ziqlab

Prior to the 1980s, little archaeological work was carried out in the vicinity of Wadi Ziqlab and very few prehistoric sites had been identified. Glueck (1951) surveyed the area in the 1940s and noted the presence of numerous sites, but none of these, with the possible exception of some isolated flints and dubious fields predate the Early BronzeAge and most are Roman,

Byzantine, or Islamic in date (cf. Banning and Fawcett 1983:300). De Contenson’s (1964) survey of the Jordan Valley produced some Late Chalcolithic material at Tell Fendi, near the mouth of Wadi Ziqlab. Ibrahim et al. (1976) revisited this site during their 1975 survey and also mention possible Neolithic or Chalcolithic material at Khirbet ‘Araq ar-Rashadan and Tel al-

‘Arba’în, also near the mouth of Wadi Ziqlab in the Jordan Valley.

Banning initiated the ongoing Wadi Ziqlab Project (WZP) in 1981 with a survey undertaken for his doctoral research (Banning 1985). Apart from providing a general inventory of archaeological sites in Wadi Ziqlab, the aims of this survey were to reveal patterns in site location with respect to environmental variables and to look for evidence of ancient pastoral 30 camps in association with agricultural villages (Banning 1982, 1983; Banning and Fawcett

1983; see also Banning 1993). Survey of a 20% random sample of the wadi’s catchment, supplemented by a purposive survey of known sites and environmental zones missed by the random sample, led to the identification of over 100 sites ranging in date from the Lower

Palaeolithic to the Ottoman period. The Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic periods were not well represented in this survey but subsequent investigation of the wadi has modified this initial picture.

In 1986 and 1987, the project conducted test excavations and subsurface survey at a number of sites including a possible Roman-Byzantine pastoral camp (WZ22), a multi-component site with EB to Ottoman deposits (Khirbet Mahrama, WZ60), three “towers” of or

Ottoman date (WZ8, WZ9, and WZ116), and an Ottoman mill (WZ204), in addition to resuming its investigation of the ancient natural environment of Wadi Ziqlab through palaeobotanical, phytogeographical, and geomorphological survey (Banning 1993; Banning et al. 1987, 1989).

Most importantly for this dissertation, while probing a modern pastoral camp, the project discovered a stone-lined tomb, which later investigation proved to be related to a Late Neolithic hamlet or farmstead site now known as Tabaqat al-Bûma (WZ200 [Banning et al. 1989, 1992,

1996]). A lower stratum at the site contained Epipalaeolithic lithics (Banning et al. 1989; Maher et al. 2001; table 1.1). As material from these two periods was not observed during the 1981 survey, the importance of sub-surface testing for ephemeral occupations and sites in areas affected by geomorphological processes became more evident (Banning et al. 1994; Field and

Banning 1998).

Since the discovery of the late prehistoric occupation at Tabaqat al-Bûma, the investigation of the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods has been a primary goal of the WZP (Banning 1999,

2007). In 1990 and 1992, the project continued excavation at Tabaqat al-Bûma and resumed its programme of subsurface testing, which involved excavating small trenches into terraces that may have been occupied in prehistory. The most significant of these, at locality WZ310 (al- 31 ‘Aqaba), revealed artifacts dating to the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (Banning 1995;

Banning et al. 1992, 1996), although undiagnostic flints from a number of other test trenches could conceivably be of Late Neolithic date as well. The 1995 and 1996 seasons focussed on excavating later Chalcolithic sites at Tubna (WZ121) and Tell Fendi (WZ126), respectively

(Banning et al. 1998; Blackham et al. 1997). The 1999 season involved excavation at Tell Rakan

I (site WZ120), a large multi-component site with Late PPNB, Late Neolithic (Yarmoukian),

Chalcolithic, EB I, and later material (Banning 1999; Banning and Najjar 1999). The project also investigated a nearby EB I site, Tell Rakan II (WZ130). Geoarchaeological survey conducted in 2000 led to the discovery of multiple sites, ranging in date from the Palaeolithic to the Iron Age (Maher and Banning 2001). Two test pits at one of these sites, lower al-Basatîn

(WZ140), produced Late Neolithic pottery and sickle elements. Three seasons of excavation upslope from these test pits (at WZ135), in 2002, 2004, and 2006, continued to produce Late

Neolithic material (Banning et al. 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, Kadowaki et al. n.d.).

Fieldwork in 2001, 2002, and 2005 included geoarchaeological survey and test trenches in Wadi Ziqlab and neighbouring Wadi Taiyyiba in addition to excavation at ‘Uyun al-

Hammam (WZ148), a Middle Epipalaeolithic site that also produced a very small number of

Late Neolithic sherds (Maher and Banning 2001, 2002; Maher et al. 2001; Maher 2005:table

2.3). Surface survey of one large terrace in Wadi Taiyyiba (WT4) produced Late Neolithic or

Chalcolithic material.

Late Neolithic Sites in Wadi Ziqlab

As mentioned above, Late Neolithic material has been recovered from a number of locations in Wadi Ziqlab (Banning 1995, 1999, 2001b; Figure 1.2; Table 2.1). A few of these have been investigated through intensive excavations. In other cases, isolated sherds or flakes of possible

Late Neolithic date were recovered from test excavations as part of the project’s programme of subsurface survey (Banning 1996). In addition, surface survey has led to the discovery of 32 n/a Banning 1996 Banning et al. 1996 Banning and Najjar 1999 Banning et al. 1998 Banning et al. 1996 Banning 1996 n/a 1992 1987, 1990, 19922000, 2002, 2004, 2006 Banning et al. 2006 Banning et al. 1996 1990 2000, 2002, 2005 Maher 2005 Unexcavated terrace WZ119/121WT4 Primarily chalcolithic. Basal LN? 1995 Site Number Nature of Neolithic Material Excavation Year Select Publication WZ312/313 Flint source WZ135/140 Likely farmstead WZ300WZ301 Single flake and possible sherd Single sherd 1990 WZ310 Disturbed (overlies EB material) 1990, 1992 WZ200 Farmstead WZ120 Multi-component. Early Late Neolithic 1999 WZ148 Isolated sherds Al-'Aqaba Tubna n/a Site Name Tabaqat al-Bûma n/a Al-Basatîn Uyun al-Hammam n/a n/a Tell Rakan I Table 2.1. List of Late Neolithic sites in Wadi Ziqlab and surrounding area. 33 a number of lithic scatters (Banning and Fawcett 1983; Maher and Banning 2001). While the presence of amorphous multi-directional cores and certain types of sickle elements may be suggestive of a Late Neolithic date for some of these scatters (Maher and Banning 2001), unfortunately, Late Neolithic lithic assemblages from Wadi Ziqlab have few diagnostic tool types (Kadowaki 2007; Siggers 1997). It should be noted that the absence of pottery in association with these lithic scatters does not preclude a Late Neolithic date as Late Neolithic pottery found in the area is generally too friable to survive on the ground surface (Banning et al.

1994).

What follows is a summary of the three excavated sites in Wadi Ziqlab that form the core of this thesis.

Tabaqat al-Bûma (WZ200)

The most intensively studied Late Neolithic site in Wadi Ziqlab is Tabaqat al-Bûma. Banning and others have written a number of short articles summarizing excavations at the site (Banning

1995, 1999; Banning et al. 1989, 1992, 1994, 1996, n.d.a; Banning and Siggers 1997; Blackham

1997) and a series of theses and dissertations have focussed on specific issues in greater detail

(Blackham 1994; Kadowaki 2007; Shafiq 1996; Siggers 1997).

The site is situated on a low colluvial terrace on the southern bank of a section of Wadi Ziqlab known as Wadi ‘Aqaba, near the confluence of Wadi Ziqlab’s two main tributaries and beside the modern road leading to the village of Tubna (Figure 2.3). Lying near the bottom of the wadi, the site is sheltered by steep slopes to the north, south, and east. An intermittent spring is located nearby (Banning et al. 1992). In recent years, the terrace has been used as an agricultural field and a temporary campsite, and in the early 1970s, there was a military camp on the site.

As mentioned above, the Late Neolithic component of the site was initially discovered when a sub-surface sounding encountered a well-made grave. A second sounding also encountered Late Neolithic material. Excavations during two subsequent field seasons included 34 the placement of a series of 1 m x 3 m test trenches across the terrace to estimate the size of the site, in addition to the horizontal exposure of the area around the two initial soundings (Banning et al. 1992). The excavators established a 4 m x 4 m grid over the site, with coordinates labelled by letters on one axis and by numbers along the other. Excavated material from a particular grid square or “Area” was assigned to a “bag”, which in turn was assigned to a “locus”. A locus is defined by the WZP as a three-dimensional volume of sediments that has lithostratigraphic or artifactual characteristics indicating it was the result of a single natural or cultural depositional episode (Banning et al. n.d.a; Blackham 1997). A bag is a subdivision of a locus that represents a volume excavated on a particular day over a circumscribed portion of the locus’s spatial extent.

Over the course of three seasons, the Wadi Ziqlab Project excavated approximately 350m2 of the site’s uppermost layers (Figure 2.4). Stratigraphic analysis of the site by Blackham (1994;

1997), with revisions by Kadowaki (2007), provides the basis for subdividing Late Neolithic use of the site into five phases, distinguished primarily by episodes of architectural construction and demolition. Blackham’s original analysis identified only four phases but his phase 1 actually includes two distinct uses of the site and is subdivided here (Banning et al. n.d.a).

The earliest Late Neolithic use of the site, phase LN1, was likely as a , while the following phase, LN2, probably represents the initial habitation of the site. Later construction activity seems to have destroyed most of the architecture belonging to LN2 (Blackham 1997).

Phases LN3 to LN5 also represent occupation phases, with LN3 being the first well-preserved phase at the site. Kadowaki’s (2007) spatial analysis suggests that two distinct households existed during this phase, although with a shared outdoor activity area. The beginning of LN4 is marked by the abandonment and partial collapse of two of the LN3 structures. Two households may have also existed during LN4 but seemingly with a greater segregation of spaces. LN5 is the final Late Neolithic phase at the site, which involved the construction of two new structures, apparently after a brief episode of abandonment. As in phase LN4, there seems to have been two household groups, each with its own distinct space (Kadowaki 2007). A series of radiocarbon 35

Date BP ±1ı Phase 6190 70 6350 70 LN4 6590 70 6380 70 6490 70 6630 80 LN3 6670 60 6900 70 7350 160 7800 70 LN1 7830 670

Table 2.2. Radiocarbon determinations from the Late Neolithic levels at Tabaqat al-Bûma. determinations suggests dates for these phases (Banning 2007; Table 2.2).

During excavation, architecture belonging to the latest occupational phases was encountered just below the modern surface. Architecture at the site is characterized by rectilinear structures with double-leaf fieldstone walls that are, in some cases, preserved to a height of almost

1m (Figure 2.5). These buildings had crude cobblestone or earthen floors. Blackham (1997) identifies ten different buildings although at any given time only two or three of these were likely in use. Other features at the site include pits, a stone “platform”, plaster , and stone-lined graves (Banning et al. 1992, 1996).

The bulk of the artifacts at the site consist of ceramics and lithics. The pottery, discussed in detail elsewhere in this thesis, includes a variety of bowls and jars. Chipped-stone tools are predominantly expedient flake tools, with sickles being the dominant formed tool (Siggers

1997; Banning and Siggers 1997; Kadowaki 2005). Groundstone is not common although large querns, handstones, and small mortars do occur (Banning et al. 1996). A few pierced ceramic disks that were recycled from potsherds could be spindle whorls (Gibbs n.d.). Bone tools, including awls and flat “spatula-like tools”, are rare (Banning and Siggers 1997:327).

Faunal remains are not well preserved at Tabaqat al-Bûma and few specimens can be identified to the species level. Represented genera include Capra/Ovis, Bos, Gazella, and Sus 36 (Banning et al. 1992:61).

Banning and Siggers (1997) suggest that the artifact assemblage from Tabaqat al-Bûma represents the toolkit of a small agro-pastoral farmstead. Siggers (1997) argues that lithics were used for a variety of farming tasks including cereal harvesting, processing sheep or goat hair, animal butchery, land clearance, and woodworking. Pottery could have been involved in the storage, processing, and serving of foodstuffs (Banning 2001b; Banning and Siggers 1997).

More limited evidence, including the pierced ceramic disks, suggests textile production at the site (Gibbs in press).

Al-Basatîn (WZ135/WZ140)

Al-Basatîn occupies a sloping terrace (WZ135) around 25 m asl, on the south bank of Wadi

Ziqlab, opposite the Classical or Byzantine site Tell Abu Fokhkhar (Figure 2.6; Banning et al.

2002, 2003, 2005a, 2005b; Maher and Banning 2001), approximately 6 km from Tabaqat al-

Bûma. Along this stretch of the wadi the stream is perennial, a result of the numerous nearby springs. Thanks to the relative abundance of water, modern land use in the vicinity is primarily agricultural. The terrace currently supports abundant olive trees, the necessary avoidance of which has had a moderate impact on our excavations. Closer to the stream itself, pomegranate groves are plentiful.

Late Neolithic cultural material was also recovered from an adjacent, lower terrace (WZ140) around 0 m asl. I include this material in the al-Basatîn assemblage for a number of reasons.

First, only 40 diagnostic sherds were recovered at the lower terrace. Second, less than 100 m separates the two terraces. Third, the Late Neolithic deposits at the north end of the upper terrace (WZ135) are closer to the surface than at the south end (upslope), suggesting the possible removal of sediments from the north end, which would likely be re-deposited down- slope at WZ140. The WZ140 material was not found associated with any features or surfaces, indicating it could be re-deposited. Fourth, although the small sample size of diagnostic sherds 37 from WZ140 makes it difficult to statistically compare the two pottery assemblages, a cluster analysis including a number of surface treatment and formal attributes of the pottery suggests that the WZ140 material clusters more closely with that from WZ135 than the pottery from any of the phases at Tabaqat al-Bûma or al-‘Aqaba (figure 2.7).

Excavation units at al-Basatîn were based on a nominal grid of 3 m x 3 m units, with provenience of artifacts being attributed to a bag and a locus. All Late Neolithic deposits were screened through 3.5 mm mesh.

Cultural material at al-Basatîn was originally identified on the lower terrace during the 2000 field season, when the WZP excavated two 1 m x 1 m test pits at WZ140 (Maher and Banning

2001). During the 2002 field season we excavated a further 10 m2 on the lower terrace (Figure

2.8) before deciding to focus our efforts upslope at WZ135. To date, we have excavated approximately 100 m2 on the upper terrace (Figure 2.9).

Stratigraphic analysis, a suite of radiocarbon dates (Table 2.3), and the examination of the pottery and lithics recovered from the site suggests that there are three main phases of occupation, dating to the Late Neolithic, the Early Bronze I, and the Classical periods

(Hellenistic or Roman). Banning et al. (2005a) refer to these as strata I, II, and III, respectively.

Stratum I radiocarbon determinations suggest that a calibrated range of 5731-5572 to 5496-5292

BC at 68% confidence (Banning 2007), which is statistically likely to be contemporary with

LN3 or LN4 at Tabaqat al-Bûma (Banning 2007). Three radiocarbon determinations suggest a later, mid-fifth to early fourth millennium BC (Chalcolithic?) use of the site, although this has so far not been substantiated by analyses of the stratigraphy or artifacts, despite earlier speculation

(Banning et al. 2005b:532). These dates may reflect the presence of intrusive material or the use of “old wood” during the EB occupation of the site. A few lithics recovered as surface finds or as residuals during excavation are of early or middle Epipalaeolithic and PPNB date, indicating even earlier occupations at or near the site. 38

Date BP ±1ı Phase 1250 50 1270 60 2030 60 2030 60 Phase 3 2040 80 (Classical) 2040 60 2060 60 2080 40 2110 60 4400 60 4550 40 4570 80 4590 60 Phase 2 4630 60 (EB) 4660 60 4720 70 4790 50 5510 130 5290 60 5340 170 6400 80 6410 510 Phase 1 6550 60 (LN) 6650 140 6680 60 6710 70

Table 2.3. Radiocarbon determinations from al-Basatîn.

Compared to Tabaqat al-Bûma, substantial Late has not yet been discovered at al-Basatîn. There could be a number of reasons for this including differences in site type or function (Banning et al. n.d.a; but see Chapter 6); the greater depths below surface of the Late Neolithic layers at al-Basatîn make them less accessible, especially as one moves upslope, where the overlying Early Bronze Age deposits are more substantial; disturbances caused by episodes of ancient gullying as well as ancient or modern landscaping efforts may have destroyed much of the Late Neolithic architecture; or our sampling strategy may simply have missed the areas with most of the Late Neolithic architecture.

The most substantial Late Neolithic architectural features that have been excavated are five cobbled or paved surfaces that show no evidence of accompanying walls (Figure 2.10 and 2.11). 39 These may be the remains of uncovered outdoor platforms, or the floors of tents or some other insubstantial structures (Banning et al. 2005a). Two short segments of walls or wall foundations were found near one of these cobbled surfaces, although it is difficult to tell with confidence how they are all associated. One of the walls seems to derive from a small, round structure with a inside of it. The other is a straight, double-leaf wall that abuts the curved wall (Figure

2.11).

Late Neolithic material recovered from the site includes pottery, lithics, groundstone, animal bones, and a few other small finds, including pierced disks and a biconical spindle whorl

(Kadowaki et al. n.d.). Apart from the pottery, which is described elsewhere in this thesis, the chipped-stone assemblage is most diagnostic of the Late Neolithic. This assemblage includes denticulated sickle elements, flint or chisels with a ground bit, and cortical scrapers

(Banning et al. 2005a; Kadowaki 2005). Groundstone artifacts include fragments of vessels or mortars, a large quern, handstones, and pierced stones that could be loom weights. Preservation of faunal remains is poor, but preliminary analysis indicates a reliance on domestic sheep and goat, supplemented by cattle and pig. Hunted animals include gazelle and some of the large bovid bones that cannot be identified to species could derive from deer (Kadowaki et al. n.d.).

Notable among the small finds from the site are a few pieces of worked bone that are likely awls, a pierced shell, a biconical spindle whorl, and a group of small pierced clay and stone objects that could also be spindle whorls.

Despite the architectural differences, it is likely that al-Basatîn, like Tabaqat al-Bûma, was a small, largely self-sufficient farmstead, its inhabitants engaging in a variety of activities such as cereal harvesting and the processing of primary and secondary animal products (Banning

2005a). Faunal material includes pig bones, and stone implements include sickle elements and grinding stones, so a strictly pastoral explanation for this site is unlikely. 40 Al-‘Aqaba (WZ310)

The site of al-‘Aqaba is located on a terrace in the stretch of Wadi Ziqlab known as al-

‘Aqaba, about 650 m west of Tabaqat al-Bûma on the opposite side of the wadi (Banning et al.

1996). Wadi Ziqlab Project members discovered the site when they noticed cultural material eroding out of a road cut. Over two seasons of excavation, a 3 m x 4.25 m trench produced Late

Neolithic ceramics and lithics. Unfortunately, this material is clearly re-deposited, most likely from upslope, as it occurs in strata overlying a series of pits that contain later, Early Bronze

Age material. The poorly preserved remains of a stone structure likely do not date to the Late

Neolithic.

The nature of the site precludes detailed interpretation, although it is noteworthy that the same kinds of artifacts that occur at Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn, including pottery, sickle elements, and pierced disks, are represented here and it is likely al-‘Aqaba is the same kind of site. To the west of al-‘Aqaba, on the same terrace, the WZP has excavated a number of

(Maher 2007). While most of these are obviously related to the large Middle Epipalaeolithic site of ‘Uyun al-Hamman (WZ148), one secondary was discovered in a significantly different context and could be of a later date, perhaps the Late Neolithic. Unlike the rest of the burials, which were primary interments in simple pits, this one was found in a substantial stone-lined and stone-filled pit. A very small number of probable Late Neolithic sherds were also found at

‘Uyun al-Hammam in strata overlying this later burial, although all the other artifacts recovered in association with this burial are clearly of Middle Epipalaeolithic date.

Other Sites with Possible Late Neolithic Material

In addition to Tabaqat al-Bûma, al-Basatîn, al-‘Aqaba, and the test pits described above, two other sites in Wadi Ziqlab may have approximately contemporary Late Neolithic occupations

(Banning 1995, 2001b). Unfortunately, if present, this material cannot be separated with confidence from the bulk of the artifacts at these sites, which are clearly either earlier or later in 41 date and, consequently, material from these sites is not discussed in detail in this thesis.

Tell Rakan I (WZ120/WZ144) is a large, multi-component site with PPNB, Late Neolithic,

Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze Age material, occupying a lower slope around 100 m asl, close to a waterfall in the main canyon of Wadi Ziqlab (Banning and Najjar 1999). The nearby spring,

‘Ain Jahjah, provides perennial water to this segment of the stream. The original excavation area at Tell Rakan I was designated WZ120 but subsequent survey of the site demonstrated its continuation onto the adjacent terrace (WZ144, Maher and Banning 2001). Although, unfortunately, the site has been largely disturbed by modern terracing and the construction of a series of fish tanks, Maher and Banning (2001:63) estimate its size during the PPNB as approximately 2 ha. The Late Neolithic occupation was likely smaller.

Dense vegetation and the necessary avoidance of fish tanks and pomegranate groves confined excavation to the site’s periphery. Four 3 m x 3 m trenches were dug just south of a bulldozer cut where Neolithic material had previously been observed. In some cases, these trenches reached depths of over 5 m. Most of the excavated deposits are “thick, rubbly fills”, which often contain artifacts deriving from multiple occupations of the site (Banning and Najjar 1999).

In the deepest contexts, the excavators encountered PPNB artifacts, double-leaf stone walls, and plaster floors. Two radiocarbon dates from these levels suggest an occupation in the later 9th millennium BP (or Late PPNB). Apart from one possible wall, no architecture was associated with the Late Neolithic levels. A number of sherds with typical Yarmoukian decoration indicate that this site was occupied in the earlier part of the Late Neolithic. Evidence for occupation during the later part of the Late Neolithic, contemporary with Tabaqat al-Bûma, al-Basatîn, and al-‘Aqaba, has not been identified with certainty.

The rarity of southern Levantine sites spanning the PPNB and Late Neolithic periods makes

Tell Rakan I a site of some interest. Unfortunately, the lack of architecture and the mixing of deposits in the excavated units has made it difficult to determine with certainty which deposits, 42 if any, contain in situ Late Neolithic material. Nevertheless, Banning (1999:47) speculates that

Tell Rakan I may have served as a central place “for social and ideological activities” during the Late Neolithic, and perhaps was the ancestral PPNB home of the wadi’s Late Neolithic population (Banning 2001b).

The site of Tubna (WZ121) lies within the modern village of Tubna, around 550 m asl on an elevated ridge between Wadi Ziqlab’s two major tributaries (Banning 1997; Banning et al. 1998). Tubna is a predominantly Late Chalcolithic site lying in some modern agricultural terraces on the western slopes of the modern village. Material was initially recovered from a terrace downslope (WZ119), but this was likely re-deposited from the main site upslope. The site was tested during a short field season in 1993. A longer field season in 1995 produced considerable architecture, lithics, and pottery, all with parallels in the later part of the

Chalcolithic (Banning et al. 1998). Although this material is too late to be a major concern of this thesis, a small number of sherds from the earliest deposits of the site, which the excavators identify as “Early Chalcolithic” (Banning et al. 1998:table 1), are noteworthy as they may date to a transitional period between the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic (cf. Banning et al.

1998:144). These early deposits are associated with a natural hollow in the bedrock that was modified by the addition of a crude wall. Banning et al. (1998) suggest that this hollow was roofed with some perishable material to provide a simple shelter. This contrasts with the later

Chalcolithic architecture at the site, which is characterized by substantial stone buildings.

Model of Late Neolithic Settlement in Wadi Ziqlab

While the evidence remains limited, a model for Late Neolithic settlement in Wadi Ziqlab is beginning to emerge. Based on the evidence available at the time, Banning (1999, 2001b;

Banning et al. 1994) has suggested that Late Neolithic occupation in the wadi comprised a series of small, dispersed agricultural hamlets or farmsteads. The wadi course itself would provide a convenient route for movement between these sites, facilitating communication and cooperation. 43 This is a significantly different picture from the one usually painted for the PPNB in the southern Levant, which emphasizes the presence of the large “megasites”. Comparable Late

Neolithic data from other parts of the southern Levant are generally lacking and it may be too early to tell if this pattern occurs elsewhere. However, as Banning et al. (1994:154) point out, the area around Hazorea in the Jezreel Valley also shows a fairly dense concentration of small

Late Neolithic sites (Anati et al. 1973; Baruch 1987; Garfinkel and Matskevich 2002; Kaplan

1969).

Banning (2001b:153-154) sees a number of advantages of a settlement system organized linearly or dendritically along the main wadi channel and its tributaries. First, the spacing of settlements would decrease competition for land in addition to decreasing the overall distance to agricultural fields. Second, competition between agricultural and pastoral land use could be more easily resolved through spacing and scheduling. Third, a dispersed settlement pattern would situate individual sites throughout the range of micro-environments that the wadi passes through, from the cooler, wetter highlands in the east to the hotter, drier Jordan Valley in the west. If we assume some level of cooperation between the inhabitants of the different sites, as

Banning (2001b) does, this would permit labour-sharing as the various highland and lowland crops would likely require harvesting at different times of the year. In addition, relying on a range of crops and resources would decrease agricultural risk.

The possibility of Late Neolithic communities arranged linearly or dendritically in this fashion is an intriguing one that deserves further exploration. Typically archaeologists have discussed prehistoric communities as if their boundaries were congruous with those of the archaeological site. The model proposed by Banning (2001b) suggests that, in some cases, this position needs to be reconsidered. Rather than seeing the Wadi Ziqlab sites as distinct communities, it may be productive to view them as multiple components of the same community. Indeed, each of the sites was likely too small to have been a self-reproducing community. The following chapter, therefore, discusses the idea of the community in archaeology in more detail. 44

Geographical Regions of the Southern Levant

Lake Tiberias Mediterranean Sea Jezreel Valley Yarmouk

Wadi Ziqlab

Eastern Desert Jordan River Jordan Zarqa Jordanian Highlands Jordanian

Central Hills

Coastal Plain

Dead Sea Mujib

Northern Negev

Hasa 0 50km

Figure 2.1. Map of southern Levant showing major geographical features and regions. 45 5 km N 0 Soils in Wadi Ziqlab Wadi Soils in Brown Stony Soil Stony Brown Soil/Bare Rock Complex Stony Brown Brown Steppe Soil Steppe Brown Wadi-Fill Soil Wadi-Fill Terra Rossa under Open Forest Terra Rendzina Soil Soil/Bare Rock Complex Steppe Brown Soils Slope Grey-White Cultivated Terra Rossa Terra Cultivated Villages Terra Rossa/Bare Rock Rossa/Bare Complex Terra Bare Rock Bare Terra Rossa under Dense Forest Terra Figure 2.2. Map showing soil distribution in the Wadi Ziqlab watershed (after Fisher et al. 1966). Wadi Figure 2.2. Map showing soil distribution in the 46 47 48 49 50

Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine

C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25 Label Num +------+------+------+------+------+

WZ200 LN3 4 «´«««««««««± WZ200 LN4 5 «° ²«««««««««««««««««««± WZ200 LN5 6 «««««««««««° ²«««««««««««««««««± WZ135 1 «««««««««««««««««««««««´«««««««° ¬ WZ140 2 «««««««««««««««««««««««° ¬ WZ310 3 «««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««°

Figure 2.7. Cluster analysis diagram of numerous including numerous pottery attributes (including counts of red slip, burnish, combing, other incisions, impressions, paint, handle shape, pebble-impressed bases, mat-impressed bases, s-shaped profiles, carinations, necked vessels, square lips, convex “holemouth jars”, and straight holemouth jars). Cluster method = between-groups linkage, Interval = squared-Euclidean distance. 51

WZ 140 Excavation Unit Tree G12 Contour Interval = 1m

G13 0 10m

-5 J15 F16 P14 K15

P16 H18

L20

0

L23 J24

K28

5

Figure 2.8. Plan of excavation units at the lower terrace of al-Basatîn (WZ140). 52

48

47

46

45 25 G44 H44 44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34 G34 30 33

32

31

30 G29 M29 29

28

27

26

25

24 WZ 135 23 Modern Road Excavation Unit Recent Structure 22 Olive tree 21 Contour Interval = 1m

20 0 10m

ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRST VWX

Figure 2.9. Plan of excavation units at the upper terrace of al-Basatîn (WZ135). 53 R41 (R4108-10) Rock-filled pit 2m WZ135 0 Stone platform (Q4117) Q41 P40 P4218 P42 P41 Cobble-paved surfaces N41/N4207 N41 N42 M41 Handstone M40 Figure 2.10. Late Neolithic features at al-Basatîn (WZ135) around units M41, N41, Q41, and R41. L42 L41 54

P37 0 2m

Q37

P3722

Hearth (Q3706) WZ135

Q3622 P36 Q36 R36 P3622

Q3609

Handstone P3620

P35

Handstone and pestle

unexcavated

unexcavated Ground Q35

Figure 2.11. Late Neolithic features at al-Basatîn around units P36, Q36, Q35, and R36. Chapter 3: Communities and Style

Many attempts to sort out the culture-history of the South Levantine Late Neolithic have been based on the assumption that spatially contiguous and culturally discrete groups can be identified through the examination of material remains. As noted in Chapter 2, looking primarily at pottery, but also occasionally other material culture, some archaeologists have been preoccupied with grouping and labelling assemblages as Wadi Rabah, Yarmoukian, etc.

The difficulty with achieving general agreement, for the sixth millennium cal BC in particular, has been attributed to a number of factors, including a poor history of publication, a reliance on reports from small, unstratified sites, and an adherence to cultural frameworks that may be outdated. However, the assumption that Late Neolithic groups were internally homogeneous, bounded units may itself be unfounded and may contribute to the confusion that characterizes our understanding of the period. If groups were not separated by clear, relatively impermeable cultural boundaries in the past, archaeologists will be hard pressed to identify them convincingly as distinct and discrete units in the present.

Previous studies of the Late Neolithic have often focussed on developments that occurred at individual sites or on comparing broad regional cultures. However, a key to understanding Late

Neolithic social organization may lie at an intermediate scale, which may give insights into variation within cultures. As noted in Chapter 2, Banning (2001b) argues that Late Neolithic communities may have been dispersed and, perhaps, loosely integrated units, arranged linearly or dendritically along individual wadis. This proposal is not, in fact, inherently contradictory to the bounded culture model discussed in the previous paragraph, and Banning’s suggestion that certain social and economic practices were focussed on “central places” can be interpreted as support for it. This idea is akin to the “focal village” model critiqued by Abbott et al. (2006) in their discussion of dispersed Hohokam communities in the American southwest.

55 56 Archaeological and ethnographic analogies do exist, however, for dispersed communities that do not fit this focal village model. Abbott et al. (2006), for example, use ceramic sourcing methods to identify a “linear community” characterized by a “cross-cutting patchwork” of groups dispersed along canals that does not rely on any particular site being a focus for community organization. Goody’s (1956) ethnographic work in Ghana provides an extreme example of a linear, dispersed group with no central focus: …when we examine the system of group designations used in this region, we find that it is based not upon a series of exclusive tribal names, but upon a ‘directional’ system in which a number of contiguous peoples refer to themselves obliquely by means of two names (Goody 1956:17).

In Goody’s research area, the term “Lo”, along with a related term “Dagaba” (or Dagaa), was used by congeries of people to refer to their neighbours and, depending on context, sometimes themselves. Loose groups of people referred to those living to the east as Lo and those living to the west as Dagaba. But adjacent groups in either direction used the same system of naming, calling groups to the east Lo and groups to the west Dagaba. In essence, the boundary between groups continually shifted, as any particular congeries perceived themselves to be at the boundary between Lo and Dagaba (see also Lentz 2006).

To explore the idea of a dispersed, unbounded Late Neolithic community in greater detail it is necessary to consider the nature of the community as a social institution more localized than the “ethnic” group but broader than the household. This requires not only abandoning the general assumption that the community is a unit spatially contiguous with an archaeological site (e.g. Simmons 2001;Verhoeven 1999), but also accepting that communities may be socially constituted through shared practices and the interpretation of shared symbols.

The Archaeology of Communities

It should be evident that my position is to reject the idea of communities as discrete and bounded social units. But beyond this, how am I defining the community? Unfortunately, community, like so many other important terms in the social sciences, is rather difficult to 57 define. A number of scholars (e.g., Amit and Rapport 2002:13; Cohen 1985:11) have noted that community is a vague, even “slippery” concept, and that the term has been used in a variety of different ways. Over half a century ago, Hillery (1955) was able to identify 94 distinct definitions of community and he noted that the introduction of new definitions was accelerating.

Today, an in-depth assessment of published literature would likely find hundreds, if not thousands, of potentially contradictory definitions being used in the social sciences.

The complexity of the term stems, in part, from it being both a category of social analysis and a category of social practice. But it also derives from community having currency in the non-academic world, which gives it intuitive meanings that can be difficult to operationalize.

Creed (2006:4, emphasis original) suggests, then, that “community does not need defining, and this is precisely why scholars need to pay attention to it”. Cohen (1985:12, emphasis original) suggests that in discussing community, starting with a definition may not be the best way to proceed: “rather, it is proposed to follow Wittgenstein’s advice and seek not lexical meaning, but use”. Therefore, the following section explores how the idea of community has been used by archaeologists (see also Kolb and Snead 1997). From this discussion I arrive at an approach to community that is used in this study. This is summarized in the concluding remarks on the chapter.

Not surprisingly, the archaeological uses of community are influenced by earlier discussions derived from sociology and anthropology. Early sociological discussions of community tended to envision them as natural units of social organization that are positioned dichotomously to other forms of social organization. The work of Tönnies (1887) and Durkheim (1893) have been particularly influential. Tönnies contrasted the idea of Gemeinschaft (often translated as

“community”), which denotes small-scale societies with close ties between members, with that of Gesellschaft (society), which conjures ideas of larger, internally differentiated social groups.

Similarly, Durkheim’s notion of “mechanical solidarity” refers to collectives based on likeness, which approximate many definitions of community, while “organic solidarity” relies on the 58 interdependence of heterogeneous parts, and is typically common in economies with specialized labour.

These early studies as well as more recent ones (e.g., Murdock 1949; Redfield 1955) have influenced many archaeological approaches to community that have tended to envision communities as fundamental social units, Communities are seen as natural units of social organization, reproduction, and subsistence production (e.g., Kolb and Snead 1997), characterized by distinct boundaries, small size, self-sufficiency, and homogeneity (Redfield

1955:4) and maintained by residential proximity, shared daily experiences, and common normative culture (Canuto and Yaeger 2000).. Isbell (2000) notes that this position appears to be implicitly accepted by many archaeologists, especially those trained in the school of processual and evolutionary archaeology.

A recent volume edited by Canuto and Yaeger (2000) provides the most thorough critique of this view. Building on the work of Wolf (1956), Anderson (1991), Cohen (1985), Bourdieu

(1977), and other social anthropologists, this critique acknowledges that communities can be loosely integrated and that they are rarely, if ever, internally homogeneous. In contrast to the normative approach, the community is viewed as “a dynamic socially constituted institution that is contingent upon human agency for its creation and continued existence” (Yaeger and Canuto

2000:5). Consequently, it is fluid and changing as actors strategically pursue their goals and strive to create new opportunities (Isbell 2000). The boundaries between communities, then, are neither fixed nor impermeable.

Yaeger and Canuto’s (2000) proposed alternative to the normative/natural community approach looks to practice theory to explore how communities are created through the interactions and practices of agents (e.g., Bourdieu 1977). Rather than seeing the community simply as the basis for interaction, they argue that communities are also institutions that structure the practices of their members and the continually emergent products of social interaction. A sense of shared identity emerges through interactions that occur in a particular 59 place, but this shared identity also fosters and directs interaction.

This suggestion is similar to Lave and Wenger’s (1991; Wenger 1998) idea that the community is the locus for situated learning. They argue that learning, rather than being internalized in the mind of the individual, is a shared experience emerging from participation in

“communities of practice”: In contrast with learning as internalization, learning as increasing participation in communities of practice concerns the whole person acting in the world. Conceiving of learning in terms of participation focuses attention on ways in which it is an evolving, continuously renewed set of relations (Lave and Wenger 1991:49-50).

Learning, therefore, is never simply a process of transfer or assimilation. Rather, learning and change are implicated in one another so communities of practice are “engaged in the generative process of producing their own future” (Lave and Wenger 1991:57-58).

As Bauer (2006) notes, for Yaeger and Canuto’s (2000) model to be tenable, the spatial proximity of community members is required. This aspect of their model is, in fact, similar to many earlier definitions of community that emphasized locality (e.g., Hillery 1955): Daily interactions rely on and, in turn, develop shared premises or understandings, which can be mobilized in the development of common community identities. We do not neglect the spatial aspect of the community because there must exist physical venues for the repeated, meaningful interaction needed to create and maintain a community (Yaeger and Canuto 2000:5-6).

Yaeger and Canuto’s (2000:6) requirement of “frequent co-presence”, however, becomes problematic when dealing with dispersed communities, which I define provisionally as being comprised of multiple congeries of people separated by space, but who share some sense of a communal identity. The degree of interaction among the community’s constituent elements is likely to be variable and in some cases intermittent, and is something to be tested, rather than assumed, by archaeologists.

Yaeger and Canuto (2000) identify an alternative approach to community, which they call “ideational”. Although they largely dismiss this perspective, perhaps because their

“interactional” approach is seemingly better suited to answer questions about the origins of 60 communities, it has relevance to the study of dispersed communities. Building largely on the work of Anderson (1991) and Cohen (1985), ideational approaches focus on how people perceive themselves and the boundaries between themselves and other communities (Yaeger and Canuto 2000:2). Cohen (1985), for example, argues that communities are symbolically constructed as individuals share in, and interpret, the symbols that mark the boundaries of their communities. Although each individual member of a community may interpret these symbols in a different way, allowing flexibility in how the community and its boundaries are perceived, the sharing of them engenders a shared sense of identity that marks a community as distinct from others. Community, then, is a relational category; an “us versus them” identity which arises when a group of people believe themselves to be distinct from others. Anderson’s (1991) idea of “imagined communities” is related to this approach. Individuals can feel as if they are part of the same community, even if they have never met, if they share in some kind of perceived experiences or symbols. While Anderson’s discussion of imagined communities focuses on the origin of certain forms of print media in the milieu of emergent , objects may have the capacity to play a similar role in the context of prehistoric community organization through their ability to act as symbols (Robb 1998).

Like interactional approaches, ideational ones treat the community as potentially dynamic, with changing and permeable boundaries, and both approaches consider community as having a sense of identity that results from an active process of engagement and belonging. However, the focus of the ideational approach is on the boundary between communities. It defines community in relational terms, opposing one community to others. The interactional approach, on the other hand, focuses on the practices that occur within the boundaries of a single community.

These approaches seem to be somewhat contradictory, then, despite their shared critique of the normative position. However, rather than perceive the ideational and interactional approaches as distinct and competing, it may be worthwhile to see them as ends of a continuum (c.f. Wernke

2007). Indeed, Isbell’s (2000) critique of the “natural community” seems to conflate the two 61 by not adopting the division between interactional and ideational approaches that Yaeger and

Canuto (2000) suggest. His interpretation of “imagined communities” brings in aspects of both ideational and interactional approaches to community. As communities become less integrated and practices become less common there may be a greater reliance on the use of symbols to maintain a sense of community identity; this is the sense of the “imagined community” as used by Anderson (1991). But it is the cultural context, which emerges through interaction and shared practices, that provides the requisite symbolic equipment.

Therefore, the archaeologist interested in the study of dispersed communities has both to gauge the level of interaction among different sites and to explore how community boundaries may have been symbolically marked. Neither task is straightforward but both may benefit from recent archaeological approaches that advocate dissolution of the boundaries between the material and cultural realms. These approaches may be productive because they assign a more active role to material culture. Artifacts do not simply reflect patterns of social interaction but, rather, constitute the various material conditions that structured practice in the past (Barrett

1988). Stylistic similarity, rather than reflecting social organization, may indicate a shared

“material habitus” (Meskell 2005) or “matrix” (Hacking 1999:10) that actively structures the community and provides the material “indicia” of social boundaries (c.f. Hall 1997).

In the following sections, I discuss these ideas and how archaeologists have approached social groups through the study of artifact style. Before doing this, it is worth outlining some of the parallels between the study of communities as described above and the archaeology of ethnicity

(see Gerritsen [2004] for a comparison of community and household archaeology). There is a long history in archaeology of interest in cultural groups that can be equated with “ethnic” groups (e.g., Kossinna 1911; Childe 1929) and this continues to the present (e.g., Jones 1997;

Díaz-Andreu 2005; Stone 2003). In recent years, ethnicity has received more attention than community, probably because the scale of the is often thought to approximate more closely the scale of the archaeological “culture”. Jones’s (1997) discussion of the archaeology 62 of ethnicity positions primordialist approaches to ethnicity against more recent instrumentalist ones, and parallels the debate between normative/natural approaches to community and the critique outlined by Yaeger and Canuto (2000). Geertz (1963:109) summarizes the primordial imperative succinctly: One is bound to one’s kinsman, one’s neighbour, one’s fellow believer, ipso facto; as the result not merely of personal affection, practical necessity, common interest, or incurred obligation, but at least in great part by virtue of some unaccountable absolute import attributed to the very tie itself (Geertz 1963:109).

Although this perspective is relatively uncommon, and may represent somewhat of a straw man

(Banks 1996:185), it has been central to some approaches to ethnicity, particularly the Soviet

Ethnos Theory of Bromley (1980; see also Banks 1996) and, as Comaroff and Comaroff (1992) note, the process of categorization itself may be primordial even if the resultant categories are not.

The instrumentalist imperative, conversely, conceptualizes ethnicity as “a dynamic and situational form of group identity embedded in the organization of social behaviour and also in the institutional fabric of society” (Jones 1997:72; see also Banks 1996; Jenkins 1997). Stone

(2003) notes that the instrumentalist critique to primordialism has actually encouraged two divergent views that, in turn, parallel the interactional and ideational approaches to the study of community. One camp (e.g., Jones 1997) looks to Bourdieu’s theory of practice, especially his concept of habitus, as a means of providing an objective basis for the subjectivity of ethnicity: According to the practice theory of ethnicity, sensations of ethnic affinity are founded on common life experiences that generate similar habitual dispositions…It is commonality of experience and of the preconscious habitus it generates that gives members of an ethnic cohort their sense of being both familiar and familial to each other (Bentley 1987:32-33).

Similar to the interactional approach to community, this view emphasizes the cultural content of ethnic groups that both structures and is structured by the habitus. For archaeologists, it is significant that the shared experiences and practices that bring about a sense of ethnic similarity may include the production and use of material things (Jones 1997). 63 The other approach looks primarily to the ethnographic work of Barth (1969) and Cohen

(1969) and, like the ideational concept of community, focuses squarely on the boundaries between ethnic groups (e.g., Emberling 1997). In a critique of the primordialist ethnic imperative, Barth emphasizes the permeability of ethnic boundaries as individuals strategically changed ethnic affiliation for economic or political reasons. For example, Pathans of western

Pakistan and Afghanistan who had been displaced from their social positions would sometimes align themselves with the Baluchi who lived to the south to avoid being marginalized in their own group. Likewise, the Fur of Sudan, whose hoe-agriculture economy was based on growing millet, would sometimes adopt the lifestyle and identity of the Baggara who, as cattle herders, were seen to have greater economic prospects (Barth 1969; Haaland 1969).

Noting the parallels between the study of communities and ethnic groups is useful for two reasons. First, the more extensive debates about ethnicity highlight some problems that also apply to the study of community. For example, the ideational approach, like the work of Barth

(1969) and his followers, with its focus on the interaction and boundaries between groups, can be criticized for ignoring the cultural dimensions of identity and neglecting the study of interaction within groups (e.g., Jones 1997; Stone 2003). Furthermore, the inherent relational aspects of these approaches suggest that community can only be studied in the plural. By adopting an ideational perspective we must assume a priori that multiple communities existed in a given area in the past even though this may be the very question that we as archaeologists are trying to address. Interactional and practice approaches, with their emphasis on activities within individual communities or ethnic groups, have also been criticized, however, for assuming the isolation of communities and not giving sufficient attention to interaction between groups (rather than within groups). Furthermore, by stressing Bourdieu’s (1977) doxic mode of consciousness, which tends to emphasize homeostasis, practice approaches may be ill-suited to exploring changes over time.

The second reason for noting the parallels between community and ethnicity is to assess 64 the differences between them as social categories, if any, in fact, exist. Yaeger and Canuto

(2000), like most who have discussed community before them, clearly situate the archaeology of communities between household archaeology and regional studies. For them, the difference between community and ethnicity is a matter of scale, with ethnicity representing a broader sort of identity. However, as noted by Bauer (2006), the processes of interaction and practice that engender a sense of community may not be restricted to a single scale and may occur in both smaller and larger groups, potentially blurring or even breaking down the perceived scalar distinctions between ethnicity and community. Cohen’s (1985:12) interpretation of the use of the word community is similarly independent of scale: “people (a) have something in common with each other, which (b) distinguishes them in a significant way from the members of other putative groups”. However, Comaroff and Comaroff (1992), while noting that ethnicity is in some ways similar to other social classifications, suggest that it is unique in that it “has its origins in the asymmetric incorporation of structurally dissimilar groupings into a single political economy”

(Comaroff and Comaroff 1992:54). The idea of community, as Yaeger and Canuto (2000) use it, and as I use it in this dissertation, is perhaps more similar to Comaroff and Comaroff’s notion of “totemic consciousness”, which “emerges with the establishment of symmetrical relations between structurally similar social groupings” (Comaroff and Comaroff 1992:54).

Style and Social Interaction

Understanding prehistoric communities requires both a means of exploring prehistoric social interaction within and between groups and an appreciation for how material culture is used as a symbol of community boundaries (see various papers in Stark 1998). The relationship between material culture of any kind and the investigation of prehistoric social interaction requires consideration of the concept of style as it is used in archaeology. Like community, style is a complex idea that resists straightforward definition. Although the importance of artifact style has been considered since the beginning of the discipline and its multiple facets have been examined from many different perspectives, no dominant approach to style has yet emerged (see papers in 65 Carr and Neitzel 1995; Conkey 2006; Conkey and Hastorf 1990), and many scholars even argue for the co-existence of different kinds of style. Hegmon (1992:517-518) notes, however, that definitions of style often have at their core some sense that style “is a way of doing something” and “involves a choice among various alternatives” (cf. Sackett 1977, 1986). For these points to be relevant to the archaeologist, however, it is generally assumed that these ways of doing must result in some kind of material patterning in objects (Dietler and Herbich 1998:236).

Passive Style and Ceramic Sociology

Prior to the late 1970s, most discussions of style considered it a passive phenomenon. Culture- historical archaeologists generally assumed that pottery styles were transmitted through learning and were simply shared as an element of culture. This view promoted the use of stylistic attributes as index fossils for the dating of sites or as signifiers of groups of people.The belief that culture is shared and homogeneous supported the assumption that broad culture areas characterized by cultural norms such as pottery designs could be identified and equated with prehistoric “ethnic” groups. This tradition continues in the archaeology of the Near East, as well as many other parts of the world (e.g., Gilead 1990, 2007; Gopher and Gophna 1993).

While a distinction between the stylistic elements of material objects and elements that are strictly functional may have been assumed by many culture-historical archaeologists (O’Brien and Leonard 2001), Binford’s (1962, 1965) general critique of the normative view of culture made the division more explicit. Binford (1962) identified three major classes of artifacts distinguished by their functional roles—technomic, socio-technic, and ideo-technic—while style was defined negatively in relation to these functions (and also to the technological requirements required to produce the artifact): Cross-cutting all of these general classes of artifacts are formal characteristics which can be termed stylistic, formal qualities that are not directly explicable in terms of the nature of the raw materials, technology of production, or variability in the structure of the technological and social sub-systems of the total (Binford 1962:220). 66 Not surprisingly, in the study of prehistoric pottery, style was most often equated with decorative elements and, because it was not considered functional, changes in pottery decoration could be explained in terms of random drift. The explicit separation of style from function was also promoted by Dunnell (1978), whose application of evolutionary concepts to discussions of style continues to have some influence (see papers in Hurt and Rakita [2001]; O’Brien and ymanL

[2003]). Dunnell (1978:199) argues that “style denotes those forms that do not have detectable selective values” while “function is manifest as those forms that directly affect the Darwinian fitness of the populations in which they occur”.

In the 1960s and 1970s a number of influential studies explored how style could be used to identify prehistoric social interaction (e.g., Deetz 1965; Hill 1970; Longacre 1970; Whallon

1968). Most of these studies focussed on the pottery of the American Southwest but other areas, including the Near East, were also discussed (e.g., LeBlanc and Watson 1975). While some variation occurs, these studies tend to share the idea that [t]he degree of stylistic similarity between individuals, residence groups, or villages is directly related to the amount of social interaction between those individuals, groups, or villages…many of the studies based on the social interaction theory explicitly assumed that levels of stylistic similarity or agreement could be used as direct estimates of interaction intensities (Plog 1983:126).

Measuring the level of stylistic similarity usually involved the identification of individual design elements of pottery decoration and assessing their spatial distribution within a single site

(e.g., Hill 1970; Longacre 1970) or among sites (e.g., Whallon 1968), either synchronically or over time (e.g., Deetz 1965). Clusters of stylistic elements were taken to be the result of close interaction among potters who learned within the same potting tradition, which was thought to standardize pottery manufacture. Assuming potting was a female activity, learned by daughters from their mothers or grandmothers, and that pottery was not traded among households, some studies suggested that stylistic clusters would imply a residence pattern of post-marital matrilocality. Alternatively, if women changed residence after marriage, a residence unit may have a mixture of pottery styles. For example, Deetz (1965:82) observed a “breakdown in 67 the association patterns” of stylistic elements on protohistoric pottery from an Arikara village site in central South Dakota. This shift towards increased randomization of design elements is attributed to a disruption of the traditional matrilocal residence rule due to stresses caused by hostile neighbours and encroaching Europeans (Deetz 1965:86).

The methodological and theoretical foundations of these studies have seen thorough scrutiny and critique (Hill 1985; Plog 1978, 1980; Rice 1987:254-258; Stanislawski and Stanislawski

1978). As Plog (1978) notes, contrary to the assumptions of the social-interaction hypothesis, the location where an archaeologist finds an artifact is not necessarily where it was made or even initially deposited; during the learning process, potters are frequently exposed to a number of influences, not just their mother; patterns can result from temporal change rather than social interaction; the identification of design elements by the archaeologist is subjective; and sample size is often too low for effective statistical comparison of sites or residence units. We can add to this list the fact that learning is not always an individual process with information passed from one person to another. Rather, as noted above, much learning involves participating in

“communities of practice” (Wenger 1998) in which information comes from multiple sources.

Furthermore, Hegmon (1998), importantly points out that [a]t the same time that archaeologists were attempting to find prehistoric kinship systems, social anthropologists were questioning the existence of kinship as social fact…The problem is that kinship systems had been reified and turned into things, rather than being understood as potentially problematic concepts in the dynamics of social relations (Hegmon 1998:266).

It is worth noting that the overall perspective on style that the ceramic sociologists and Binford adopted did not differ significantly from that of earlier culture-historical archaeologists (Plog

1980:115), even if they were more explicit in their discussions of the locus of stylistic behaviour.

They still assumed that style is a passive phenomenon transmitted through learning. The critique of the social interaction hypothesis encouraged reconsideration of this view and new ideas about the role of style in prehistory, including the suggestions that “style has function” and

“technology has style” (Hegmon 1998:264). 68 Active Style and Technological Style

Wobst (1977), for example, advocates a more active role for style as a cost-effective means of conveying information. In other words, style has a function. By conveying information about group identity and affiliation, either between groups or within groups, style can make social interaction more predictable and less stressful and is therefore functionally adaptive (Wobst

1977:327). According to Wobst, to send stylistic information efficiently, messages should be simple and invariate, should be found primarily in visible contexts, and should be intended for a target group of an appropriate “social distance”, this being [n]ot too close—since the message usually would be known already or generally could be more easily transmitted in other communication modes, and not too distant—since decoding or encountering the message could not be assured (Wobst 1977:324).

Wiessner (1983, 1985) advances the information-exchange approach by proposing a multi- faceted view of style. For her, there are two kinds of style that convey different kinds of information. Emblemic style “has a distinct referent and transmits a clear message to a defined target population about conscious affiliation or identity” (Wiessner 1983:257) while assertive style “carries information supporting individual identity” (Wiessner 1983:258) and tends to be more vague.

Style in the information-exchange model is more sophisticated in many respects than the social-interaction model as it is rescued from being automatically assigned a residual or passive role (Hegmon 1992:520). Nevertheless, the information-exchange model has also experienced critique from a variety of perspectives (see Hegmon 1992; Shanks and Tilley 1992:142).

For example, Wobst’s (1977:321) definition of style as “that part of the formal variability in material culture that can be related to the participation of artifacts in the process of information exchange” is perhaps too restrictive and, to a certain extent, tautological (Hill 1985). As

Wiessner (1990:111) notes, stylistic messages can be purposely ambiguous in order to “avoid laying one’s cards on the table” during social interactions, and could, in fact, be manipulated to invert or misrepresent social practices. Wobst’s suggestion that stylistic information will be 69 found primarily in visible contexts has also been questioned by ethnoarchaeological evidence that indicates subtle variation in close social relations may convey important information (e.g.,

Hodder 1982). Furthermore, Dietler and Herbich (1998) point out that the information-exchange model still requires separation between function and style since style is something “affixed” to objects at an extra “cost” of labour and time (Wobst 1977:326). As in the social-interaction model, pottery style is still equated with pottery decoration. Style, then, may be more active than in the social interaction model but, to a certain extent, is still passively reflecting identity

(Shanks and Tilley 1992:142).

Sackett (1982, 1985) provides a more integrated model of style, although one that is more explicitly passive. Therefore, his notion of isochrestic variation is often positioned against the information-exchange model. Isochrestic variation exists when alternative ways to make functionally equivalent objects exist. Sackett argues that people will usually choose only one of the many alternatives and that this choice reflects their “ethnic” or social identity: Style enters the equation when it is recognized that the choices artisans make among the range of options potentially available to them tend to be quite specific and consistent, and that these are dictated largely by the craft traditions within which the artisans have been enculturated as members of social groups (Sackett 1985:157).

Style, then, is not something affixed to an object after functional considerations had been met, but rather, is inseparable from function. While Sackett (1982) does acknowledge the occasional existence of “iconic” style that conveys intentional information, isochrestic variation as the passive result of largely unconscious perceptions of the way things should be made is seen as more pervasive.

Importantly, and in contrast to the social-interaction and information-exchange models, in the analysis of pottery Sackett’s definition of style is not restricted primarily to decoration affixed to an otherwise functional pot. The functionally equivalent choices that a potter makes occur throughout the production process. In other words, technological choices also have style. A similar concept of technological style has been articulated by others, most notably Lechtman 70 (1977, 1999; Lechtman and Steinberg 1979) whose work on Andean technologies provides frequently-cited examples. For example, her analysis of Andean metallurgy demonstrates that the gold and silver colours of metal objects were achieved not by gilding or silvering but, rather, by metalworkers making their objects from alloys containing gold or silver and then treating the surface of an object to remove other constituent elements. The remaining element—gold or silver—provided the colour of the final object. Lechtman (1999:228) believes the choice to incorporate the colour-providing precious metals into the object itself makes “the relations between technological performance and the shared cultural expectations that render the world intelligible to Andean peoples seem close”.

Lemonnnier (1986, 1992) is also interested in the relationship between technical systems and social logic, including social relations. He views technical choices as dynamic strategies that are sometimes related to social identity and difference (see also Dobres and Hoffman

1994). For example, his study of the Anga of New Guinea demonstrated how certain options for creating pig traps (among other things) were voluntarily left aside by members of a given group despite a perfect understanding of the technology involved in their production (Lemonnier

1986). In addition to rejecting potentially useful technologies, people will also sometimes retain seemingly illogical ones: “some technical behaviors are technically illogical and outlandish because they fail to achieve their material goal. But they are right and coherent from the standpoint of the social logics of which they are a part” (Lemonnier 1993:4).

Killick (2004) suggests the work of Lechtman and Lemonnier are part of a diverse body of theory that he designates “social constructionist approaches to the study of technology”.

Central to such approaches is the idea that technological choices “may be strongly influenced by the beliefs, social structure and prior choices of the society or group under study” (Killick

2004:571). A number of volumes, mostly published since the 1990s, show the both the importance and diversity of studies that consider the social aspects of technology, including pottery technology (e.g., Dobres and Hoffman 1999; Kingery 1986, 1993, 1996; Lemonnier 71 1993; Lubar and Kingery 1993; Schiffer 2001; Stark 1998).

In pottery studies, technological interest has focused on determining the production sequences involved in the manufacture of a pot (e.g., Rye 1981) and especially the selection of raw materials. As Gosselain (1998) notes, however, this is most often carried out according to a number of assumptions derived from the field of “ceramic ecology” that neglect the social and symbolic roles of pottery production (e.g., Arnold 1985). These assumptions suggest that (1) the choices made during pottery production are constrained largely by the specific chemical and physical properties of the available raw materials; (2) the risks inherent in pottery production stifle attempts at innovation; and (3) the intended function of a pot and the mechanical properties required to meet this function further constrain technological choices. Gosselain argues against this approach and suggests that there is still significant room for potters to make choices not dictated strictly by environmental factors. He believes that integrating technological style into pottery studies provides a productive way to study these choices. Similarly, van der Leeuw

(1993) argues that ceramic ecology stresses description over explanation, and more importantly, that the assumptions made by ceramic ecologists are often largely unfounded: virtually all known prehistoric techniques of pottery-making, and most ethnographically observed ones, have a rather wide tolerance for the clays and other raw materials needed…In pre-industrial societies, one must assume a considerable freedom of action for the pottery” (van der Leeuw 1993:239).

Nature and Culture

By reintegrating style, technology, and function, archaeologists are better positioned to investigate the social role and meaning of material culture. Dietler and Herbich (1998) suggest that, in particular, this view opens the door for the same kinds of practice-centred approaches that Yaeger and Canuto (2000) propose for the study of communities: The theoretical work of Bourdieu…offers a means of situating both material culture and the chaînes opératoires and social actors responsible for its production and transformation within a framework that mediates structure and agency (Dietler and Herbich 1998:246). 72 Some scholars have argued, however, that even the theoretical rigour that characterizes recent approaches to style is insufficient as it perpetuates an unrealistic dichotomization of the natural and cultural worlds (e.g., Boast 1995; Thomas 1996; Witmore 2007). This dichotomization, which is an essential element of modernist thinking goes back at least as far as Descartes

(c.f. Boyd 2004; Gosden 1994:108; Olsen 2007; Thomas 2004), who advocated disengaging mental processes from material things in order to better understand the physical world (see

Latour 1999). Although style is no longer considered to be something that is added onto a functional object, social meaning (accessed through stylistic analysis) becomes something that is added onto a pre-existing material thing. This is true of approaches that perceive style as passively reflecting social information as well as ones that see style as actively employed in the constituting of society (e.g., Hodder 1982).

As a reaction to this, some archaeologists have suggested that taking the integration of artifacts further and argue that we should dismantle the traditional scientific separation between people/subjects and things/objects (e.g., Shanks 2007; Thomas 1996; Witmore 2007). The benefits of a “symmetrical archaeology” that does not regard humans and things as ontologically distinct a priori become evident when we start to think of things as conceived and constructed by people, yet equally responsible for the shaping of human experience. For the archaeologist, the search for communities or other groups shifts from looking at style as passively reflecting groups or actively manipulated by groups to mark boundaries, to examining the “material habitus or lifeworld” (Meskell 2005:3) that combines humans and objects. The identification of a community derives from the identification of a material habitus. It is worth noting here that the

Cartesian perspective that has typified discussions of archaeological style has led Boast (1997) to suggest the abandonment of the term altogether. However, as Gosden (2005; after Gell 1998) demonstrates, style can be effectively incorporated into symmetrical archaeological approaches.

Archaeologists have explored a number of related theories in attempts to integrate the material and cultural worlds, including the phenomenology of Heidegger (1962) and Actor Network 73 Theory (ANT, Latour 2005 and references therein). Contrary to the “mind in a vat” perspective

(Latour 1999), Heidegger argued that the human body does not exist external to and prior to history and language. Rather, humans are always engaged in a meaningful world, which, consequently, can only be experienced from the perspective of an embedded and sensual human body. Being in the world in this manner is about involvement with material things, rather than about occupying a spatial position. As Heidegger (1962:98) suggested, if we hammer a nail

“the hammering itself uncovers the specific ‘manipulability’ of the hammer” (see also Gosden

1994:111). Our knowledge of the world, then, is derived from everyday practice “developed primarily in the process of coping with everyday life” (Gosden 1994:113). In archaeology, phenomenology has had its greatest impact on the study of prehistoric landscapes (Brück 2005).

Tilley (1994), in particular, has argued that landscapes should be engaged with and experienced from the perspective of an embedded and sensual human body. But portable things such as pottery can also be approached from a phenomenological perspective. Thomas (1996, 1999), for example, argues that the meaning of pottery is not a structural attribute of it, but is produced through an interpretive engagement with it. Pots are not something to be simply thought about, but, rather, “‘thinking’ can be a practice to which the material world is integral, rather than something carried out exclusively in the brain” (Thomas 1999:94). Thomas explores this idea in the context of the increased decoration of Peterborough Ware, which he believes contributed to the mediating of social life during the British Neolithic.

Latour (2005) similarly stresses the inter-connectedness of humans and objects. He argues, for example, that the question, “do guns kill people, or do people kill people?” is misguided. It is a person with a gun that kills, which is a fundamentally different concept than either taken alone.

For Latour, humans and non-human things can both be said to act through the connections they make with other things. An actor (or actant in ANT terminology) is “any thing that does modify a state of affairs by making a difference” (Latour 2005:71). Objects are capable of making a difference through intimate engagements with people, as in the case of the person with a gun, 74 but can also influence at a distance, for example, a speed-bump forcing a driver to slow down.

My intent in mentioning the works of Heidegger and Latour is to emphasize the fundamental role that objects play in all human activities. Objects are not simply parts of a passive structure within which practices take place. Attributing “agency” to objects, as Latour does, may be an unsettling suggestion to some, but if we acknowledge that no human act can occur outside the realm of the material, objects are necessarily thrust to the foreground of the study of agency. Arguably, the attribution of agency to objects may simply represent a transference of the intentions of people to inanimate things, and Gell (1998) maintains a distinction between

“primary” agents that exercise intention (i.e., humans) and “secondary” agents (i.e., objects) that do not. But this is not to suggest that objects are any less capable of agency or of causing intended events. In an example of soldiers with land-mines, Gell states: In speaking of artefacts as ‘secondary agents’ I am referring to the fact that the origination and manifestation of agency takes place in a milieu which consists (in large part) of artefacts, and that agents, thus, ‘are’ and do not merely ‘use’ the artefacts which connect them to social others. Anti-personnel mines are not (primary) agents who initiate happenings through acts of will for which they are morally responsible, granted, but they are objective embodiments of the power or capacity to will their use, and hence moral entities in themselves (Gell 1998:21, emphasis original).

Objects, like land-mines and pots, can be responsible for intended events, and indeed, are necessary for these to occur. It is possible to argue that objects cannot be agents without people but, likewise, people cannot be agents without objects.

It is important to note, however, that the idea of “intention” as a crucial aspect of agency is not without its problems. Bernbeck (1999:92) suggests that the primacy given to intentional or “goal-oriented” acts in discussions of agency may be a reflection of the importance of rationalized thought in the modern world and that, in prehistory, this may not have been the case. He argues, then, for the importance of material “adornments” that contain no discursive meaning: “the common and unquestioned material environment of a group is just there. It continues to be effective even after the act of production, unlike speech” (Bernbeck 1999:94). 75 Gell (1998:16) notes that “agents’ actions very often have ‘unintended consequences’ so that it cannot be said that real-world (social) events are just transcriptions of what agents intended to happen”. If agency is as much about unintended acts as intended ones, this strengthens the case for object agency. Furthermore, it may be of no consequence whether or not an act was intended to the people affected by the act. In an example concerning the construction of women refugees as a category or kind of individual, Hacking (1999:10-11) points out the importance of the material “matrix” within which the refugee is situated: “Material influences the people…

Sheer matter, even the color of the paint on the walls, can gradually replace optimistic hope by a feeling of impersonal grinding oppression”. To the woman refugee sitting for hours in a drably-painted room it does not matter whether the paint colour was intentionally chosen for its oppressive qualities or because it was the cheapest paint colour available; it affects her just the same.

McLuhan (1964) was also concerned with the unintended consequences of material things or “media” and his proposal that “the medium is the message” may be interpreted along similar lines to the arguments of Heidegger and Latour. McLuhan believed that a thorough understanding of the relationship between things and people was hindered by the modernist predilection for “splitting all things as a means of control” (McLuhan 1964:23) and his equation tries to rectify this. McLuhan has had little impact on archaeology, probably because his interest in the “electric age” seems to distance him from the interests of most archaeological research, although John Carpenter, one of McLuhan’s earliest collaborators, did have a background in archaeology. However, his equation is equally relevant to prehistoric technologies because, for

McLuhan, a “medium” was not simply restricted to the mass-media of communication of the

20th century. Rather, a medium is “any extension of ourselves” (McLuhan 1964:23), which includes all technologies, particularly new technologies. A hammer, for example, extends a person’s arm and a extends their feet. As part of his discussion, McLuhan identified specific media as either “hot” or “cool”. A hot medium is one that is “well filled with data” while 76 a cool medium provides little information: Hot media are, therefore, low in participation, and cool media are high in participation of completion by the audience. Naturally, therefore, a hot medium like radio has very different effects on the user from a cool medium like the telephone (McLuhan 1964:36).

For McLuhan, the message of a medium is not its content or information in the conventional sense. Rather, the message of a medium is “the change in scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs” (McLuhan 1964:24). In other words, “any technology gradually creates a totally new human environment” (McLuhan 1964:vii). For example, the message of a theatrical production is not the words or music conveyed by the players, but, perhaps, the change in tourism that the production may encourage (Federman 2004). In the case of Neolithic pottery, the content of the technology can be interpreted more literally. Understanding the social changes afforded by pottery becomes just as important to studies of prehistoric groups as determining what the physical content of a particular pot was, whether foodstuffs or something else.

Concluding Remarks on Chapter 3

This chapter presents a discussion of two concepts that I suggest are important for interpreting the Late Neolithic pottery assemblages from Wadi Ziqlab (community and style) and these will be revisited in Chapter 6. Here I would like to comment more specifically on my approach to these ideas, how I think they are related, and why they are significant to this thesis.

Understanding a scale of social organization between that of the household or site and the broad cultural group is important, firstly and simply, because it has not frequently been the focus of Late Neolithic research. More significantly, however, following Banning (2001b),

I suggest that understanding social organization at this scale may be particularly important because it may have been central to a new system of social organization that developed during the Late Neolithic (i.e., dispersed communities). Therefore, my perspective in this study is in alignment with Yaeger and Canuto’s (2000) suggestion that community has a scalar aspect. As 77 noted above, this is a position that may not stand up to scrutiny (e.g., Bauer 2006). However, for my immediate purposes this is not a crucial problem. Whether community is inherently a scalar phenomenon or not, I am studying community at a scale that many others would typically associate with that of the community.

Also like Yaeger and Canuto (2000) I believe practice is an important part of community.

However, I also advocate the incorporation of ideational approaches such as those associated primarily with Cohen (1985) and Anderson (1991). Approaching community strictly as an outcome of practice has led some archaeologists to suggest that particular individuals or groups of individuals could simultaneously belong to multiple communities representing different practice that may or may not be congruent. For example, archaeologists working in the American Southwest have argued for the co-existence of residential communities, political communities, subsistence communities, demographic communities, and ritual communities, among others (e.g., Abbott 2000; various papers in Varien and Wilshusen 2002; various papers in Wills and Leonard 1994). I agree that this is one viable way to conceive of community.

Adopting such an approach would place the focus of this study solely on the community of potters in Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab, which may not be equivalent to other communities of practice. However, I suggest that the study of dispersed communities will benefit from a more explicit focus on the ideational aspects of community, including boundary maintenance, because spatial distance may preclude frequent interaction between the groups that comprise the community. This approach puts more emphasis on community as a form of identity. Although ideational aspects of community are much more difficult to identify archaeologically than interactional ones, numerous recent studies have demonstrated the importance and potentials of considering the archaeology of identity (e.g., Casella and Fowler 2005; Díaz-Andreu and Lucy

2005; Insoll 2007; Meskell 2001; Meskell and Preucel 2004), which suggest the need to study community as fully as possible.

I consider ideational aspects of community to be important because dispersed communities, 78 such as those Banning (2001b) proposes for the Late Neolithic, may contradict some of the elements of the interactional model as proposed by Yaeger and Canuto (2000). I am defining dispersed communities as groups of people spread out over some distance who may not engage in daily or frequent practices of community-wide interaction, but who identify with one another and who would consider themselves to be part of the same community. My overall approach to community, then, sees it as a dual process, combining elements of both the interactional and ideational models. Practice engenders a sense of community but symbols of social significance allow the boundaries between communities to be emphasized or de-emphasized by the members of the community.

Both aspects of this approach require a consideration of the concept of style as it has been used by archaeologists. Ultimately, the patterning of material objects is crucial for any understanding of prehistoric practice or social organization. I follow Hegmon’s (1998:518) suggestion that, in general, style is “a way of doing things”, which includes all stages of the manufacture of objects. More specifically, I see style as actively engaged in constituting Late

Neolithic community in Wadi Ziqlab in two ways. First, the style of objects (i.e., pottery) can exist as symbols of a group’s identity similar to the iconic style of Sackett (1982) or the emblemic style of Wiessner (1983). However, contrary to these two perspectives I would argue that the meaning or referent of a symbol is not necessarily fixed. I suggest that Robb’s metaphor of symbols as “mosaic tessarae” is more suitable: Symbols thus resemble mosaic tesserae, or perhaps Legos: fragments with qualities such as color, shape, and size, inherently arbitrary, that are temporarily assembled and experienced as meaningful by people playing with them (Robb 1998:338).

Second, in a more general sense, objects comprise the material world which influences the organization of human behaviour and social interaction (e.g., Thomas 1996, 1999). It is in this sense that objects can be said to have a kind of agency, in that they have a causal effect on the human world. Different styles of artifacts will influence this process in different ways.

It is tempting to associate my first use of style with the ideational aspects of community and 79 the second with the interactional aspects and this is, in fact, how I treat these issues in Chapter 6.

Indeed, symbols constitute a fundamental part of Cohen’s (1985) discussion of the construction of community boundaries and, as Lave and Wenger note, objects do play an important role in structuring communities of practice: Becoming a full participant certainly includes engaging with the technologies of everyday practice, as well as participating in the social relations, production processes, and other activities of communities of practice…Participation involving technology is especially significant because the artifacts used within a carry a substantial portion of that practice’s heritage (Lave and Wenger 1991:101).

However, it should be noted that both “kinds” of style that I am advocating here are contingent on the intersection of the human and material worlds and are really not that different.

The next two chapters present the three pottery assemblages that form the core of this study.

Chapter 6 interprets these assemblages in light of the ideas on community and style presented in this chapter. As noted earlier, there is a trend in away from treating early pottery as an important part of the prehistoric world, preferring instead to see it as a simple utilitarian tool with little impact on the Neolithic economy. My approach sees pottery, like all things, as important in configuring the social realm. As Miller (1985:193) notes, the importance of a “trivial” thing such as pottery is that it “constitutes an environment for living”.

To summarize this chapter:

1) A community-based approach provides a productive avenue for investigating Late

Neolithic occupation in Wadi Ziqlab. However, traditional archaeological considerations of the community are based on an unrealistic model that does not consider the ways communities are socially constituted. The study of prehistoric dispersed communities, in particular, will benefit from an approach that combines the ideational and interactional aspects of community.

2) Exploring prehistoric communities, or any prehistoric group, requires a consideration of style as it is used in archaeology. Ultimately, archaeologists must consider stylistic similarities in order to gauge prehistoric interaction. I suggest that a multi-faceted view of style is suited to 80 investigating community in Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab.

3) Approaches that integrate the cultural and material worlds may be productive.

McLuhan’s discussion of “the medium is the message” is introduced as one of several theories that attempt to do this. Chapter 4: Form and Surface Treatment

This chapter and the following one present the results of an analysis of more than 4000 pottery sherds and vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma, al-Basatîn, and al-‘Aqaba. This chapter focuses on vessel form and surface treatment while Chapter 5 deals with pottery technology. Appendix A outlines the specific variables recorded in the analysis of form and surface treatment.

Pottery Typology

Arranging sherds and vessels into groups or classes is generally the first step in any pottery analysis (Sinopoli 1991:43). Orton (1980:27-29) notes at least two good reasons for doing this.

First, it condenses an assemblage into a format that more easily conveys information. Second, and more importantly, it allows us to identify patterns (see also Read 2007).

The arrangement of pottery can be approached in a number of ways. One approach is what

Sinopoli (1991:49) calls Intuitive Typology—“the common practice of laying out sherds on a table and sorting them into piles of more or less similar sherds” (Sinopoli 1999:49).

Dunnell (1971) would refer to this process as grouping. It is related to Orton et al.’s (1993:78) unstructured type-series where each sherd or pot is examined in succession to see if it is different in some way from the preceding examples and, if so, identified as a new “type”.

A different approach, which Dunnell (1971) calls classification, involves assigning items to categories in a pre-arranged system. This is related somewhat to Orton et al.’s (1993:78) structured type-series. Dunnell (1971) sees classification as either paradigmatic or taxonomic.

Paradigmatic classes operate through the intersection of sets of “mutually exclusive alternative features” or dimensions (Dunnell 1971:71). They are consequently non-hierarchical and unweighted. Paradigms are similar to the single-level Basic Typology of Adams and Adams

(1991). Taxonomies, on the other hand, are hierarchical and weighted. They employ a series of ordered sets of oppositions, resulting in categories, sub-categories, sub-sub-categories, and so on

81 82 (Banning 2000:39). Sinopoli (1991:50) refers to taxonomies as “tree classification”.

Many archaeologists acknowledge that the arrangement of pottery, whether by grouping or classification, should have some specific purpose or research question (e.g.,Adams and Adams

1991; Banning 2000:53; Dunnell 1971:60; Hill and Evans 1972:237; c.f. Sinopoli 1991:52) and that attempts to identify “real”, “universal”, or all-purpose classes or groups should be abandoned (e.g., Ford 1954a, 1954b). The specific attributes that are selected to construct groups or classes should vary with the archaeologist’s intended purpose. Researchers interested specifically in pottery decoration, for example, might consider the range of design elements represented in an assemblage but would likely not consider fabric when devising groups or classes. Adams (1988:52) argues, however, that a single arrangement can potentially serve more than one purpose and Sinopoli (1991:43-44) suggests that certain basic data such as size and vessel form should be recorded when grouping or classifying pottery, regardless of one’s specific research question, in order to be more widely useful (but see Dunnell 1971:61-62).

Although, the term typology is frequently used synonymously with either the practice or results of arrangement, a narrower definition of typology may be more productive. Banning

(2000:53), for example, suggests that using the term typology to refer to groupings or classifications that have explanatory relationships with attributes that are extrinsic to the grouping or classification itself, such as spatial, chronological, social, economic, functional, or symbolic context. This is similar to Gardin’s (1980:63) assertion that typologies are “used as the basis of inferences relating to facts that are not included in the initial representation of those materials”. Similarly, Adams and Adams (1991:163) argue that many classifications have

“instrumental purposes” that are “unconnected with any interest in the artifacts themselves”.

They also note, however, that more basic classifications may have purposes that are not necessarily extrinsic to the material being classified, such as descriptive or comparative purposes

(Adams and Adams 1991:159-160). 83 Late Neolithic Pottery Typology

A number of arrangements of Late Neolithic pottery of the southern Levant have recently been proposed. Most of these are included in reports of single sites (e.g., Kenyon and Holland

1982; Lovell 2001; Lovell et al. 1997, 2004, 2007; Obeidat 1995) but a few incorporate multiple sites and are designed to address issues that are regional in scale (e.g., Blackham 2002;

Garfinkel 1999; Goren 1991; Sadeh 1994; see also Amiran 1969; Hendrix et al. 1996). The basis for most of these arrangements is the identification of spatial (e.g., Sadeh 1994) or chronological

(e.g., Blackham 2002) significance, or both (Garfinkel 1999). They are typologies, therefore, in the sense that Banning (2000) and Gardin (1980) suggest. Most of these typologies are based on pottery form and surface treatment, although fabric sometimes receives consideration (e.g.,

Goren 1991).

It can be difficult to determine the procedures that scholars use to create their typologies—for example, through grouping, classification, or some combination of the two—as these may not be explicit. Compared to later periods, Late Neolithic pottery is fairly simple, with a limited repertoire of shapes and surface treatments, and perhaps some see this as justification for not detailing their typological approach or for relying on arrangements based on intuition.

Nevertheless, even relatively simple assemblages can be approached in different ways, resulting in types that are not directly analogous:

The way in which a type series/catalogue is constructed will have a direct effect upon its final appearance and the way in which it is used by others. The comparison of various published assemblages from the southern Levant is hampered by things as basic as the language of approach (Lovell 2001:29).

Banning (2000) for example, identifies differences between bounded groups and groups that emphasize central tendencies. The former relies on extrinsic properties such as stratigraphy to emphasize the boundaries between types while the latter focuses on the intrinsic attributes 84 of artifacts themselves to identify and describe exemplars of each type (e.g., Amiran 1969;

Hendrix et al. 1996). The application of these two approaches by different scholars has, in some cases, led to disagreement over how specific assemblages should be interpreted. Lovell (2001), for example, questions Garfinkel’s (1992:19) dismissal of certain stratigraphic contexts in his analysis of the Late Neolithic pottery from Munhata. Garfinkel chose to emphasize the pottery rather than its stratigraphic context: Dating the pits and relating them to the corresponding layers was based on a typological analysis. In other words, according to the pottery found in it, the pit was referred to one layer or the other. When a pit yielded a mixed pottery assemblage, or contained no indicative pottery at all, it was not included in the study (Garfinkel 1992:19).

Lovell (2001) rejects Garfinkel’s assumption that pure or unmixed deposits can be identified on the basis of pottery alone and, indeed, on any long-lived or repeatedly occupied site we should probably expect the site’s occupants to redeposit earlier artifacts on later surfaces and in later fills during episodes of construction and use (Banning et al. n.d.a). Conversely, Garfinkel

(2006) suggests that Lovell’s (2001) grouping of pottery according to stratigraphic contexts at the site of Ghassul is not supported by an examination of the pottery itself. He argues, based on similarities in pottery form and decoration, that most of the pottery at the site should be assigned to a single Late Chalcolithic period, rather than divided into Lovell’s tripartite division of the

Chalcolithic.

Typologies Proposed by Others

Before presenting the Late Neolithic pottery from Wadi Ziqlab, I will briefly summarize some of the typologies that others have recently proposed for contemporary pottery in the southern

Levant. A small number of comparable types have prominent roles in each of these typologies and, arguably, the overall differences between them are minor. This is due to a number of factors. First, as mentioned above, Late Neolithic potters did employ a limited number of simple forms, wares, and surface treatments, and this is reflected in the types emphasized. Second, a 85 practice that archaeologists dealing with Late Neolithic pottery usually employ has been the direct comparison of new assemblages with published material, which requires the identification of comparable types. Third, the influence of early analyses of Late Neolithic pottery has endured. For example, Ben-Dor’s (1936) description of the pottery from Garstang’s (1935,

1936) stratum VIII at Jericho includes many of the types emphasized in later sixth millennium typologies, including hole-mouth jars, “bow-rim” jars, and carinated bowls.

Garfinkel (1999) provides the most extensive published typology for prehistoric pottery from the southern Levant. It is heavily influenced by his detailed analysis of theY armoukian and

Wadi Rabah pottery from Munhata (Garfinkel 1992). It arranges material according to four phases—Pottery Neolithic, Early Chalcolithic, Middle Chalcolithic, and Late Chalcolithic— with the Early Chalcolithic (Wadi Rabah) being the most directly comparable to the Wadi

Ziqlab pottery (figure 4.1; contra Garfinkel 1999:158). Garfinkel’s Early Chalcolithic typology distinguishes open from closed vessels, which are then divided into types. In this sense it is a taxonomy. Four open types (deep bowls, shallow bowls, chalices/stands, and pithoi) and two closed types (holemouth jars and necked jars) are identified, which are usually further divided.

Handles, bases, and decoration are discussed separately. Garfinkel advocates using a small number of types, which he thinks is more appropriate for pottery manufactured at the household level because “each vessel is somewhat different in size, thickness of wall, angle of wall, shape of rim or decoration. The classification system should conform with this situation by using a flexible definition of the different pottery types” (Garfinkel 1999:73). Nevertheless, Garfinkel’s typology has been criticized for adopting an overly rigid “top-down” approach that relies on an a priori assumption that certain types belong to certain phases (Banning 2001a). His treatment of material from east of the Jordan River has suffered the most from this approach (Banning 2001a;

Lovell 2001b).

Sadeh’s (1994) typology has a narrower temporal focus than Garfinkel’s (1999), including only pottery from sites thought to date to the sixth millennium cal BC. She attempts to identify 86 regional pottery traditions during this time period. She defines types by combinations of “basic typological elements”, including rim (or lip) shape, base form, handle type, and body shape

(figure 4.2). From the thousands of possible combinations she derives a number of types that she considers useful for classifying sixth millennium BC pottery, and represents these by 69 illustrations (figure 4.3). These are organized by general shape (open or closed) and by size

(smallest to largest). Her main categories are cups, platters, V-shaped bowls, hemispherical bowls, S-shaped bowls, carinated bowls, pedestals, large open kraters, holemouth bowls, spouted vessels, handled amphoriskoi or juglets, jars (necked bow-rim, everted-rim, upright-rim, inclined-rim, and collar-rim), and holemouth jars. Other elements, including decoration, fabric, and function, are discussed separately and in a less systematic way.

Goren’s (1991) petrographic analysis of Late Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze Age pottery aims to identify spatial and temporal variation in ceramic fabrics. His main types, then, are petrofabric groups that are characterized by combinations of clays and inclusions rather than vessel shape. However, Goren also arranges his samples according to vessel form. His formal typology distinguishes between open vessels, including pedestaled bowls, basins, platters, bowls, kraters, cups with handles and cups without handles, and closed vessels, including churns, spouted vessels, holemouth jars, amphoriskoi, straight-based jars, and round-based amphoriskoi. Not all of these forms are represented in Late Neolithic assemblages.

Blackham (2002) devises a typology of Late Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze Age pottery as part of his attempt to correlate strata from multiple sites in the Jordan Valley using an adaptation of the Unitary Association Method of relative dating (Guex 1977, 1987; Blackham

1998). The criteria he selects for his analysis include vessel form, rim (lip) form, decorative techniques, and handle design. His typology has a strict purpose in mind and he describes in considerable detail the steps he used to devise it. His classification is paradigmatic, with pottery

(and in a few cases, other artifacts) divided into “main types”, including three main types of bowls, five main types of jars, and one of jugs (compare the “metatypes” of Lovell et al. [2007]). 87 Main types are further classified as “main classes”, to account for the variation in general form within each of the main types. Blackham further classifies vessels into “subclasses”, which define “secondary form characteristics” such as wall shape, and then into “size classes”, which are determined by orifice diameter. Of the thousands of potential classes, 738 are identified from the 13 sites included in the analysis. Once classes with little chronological significance are culled from the list, Blackham is left with 368 useful classes (figure 4.4). On account of its intended purpose, Blackham’s typology is more cumbersome than the others described here and it is unlikely that anyone will adapt it to meet other purposes. However, he introduces the important concept of permutationality when dealing with fragmentary assemblages.

Permutational methods allow us to consider and correlate specimens that can be classified to varying levels of specificity. For example, a general category of “bow-rim jar” is included in his analysis even though more specific classes based on secondary form characteristics and size can often be identified. Blackham’s desire to measure vessel shape objectively is also laudable, although it may rely on an unrealistic assumption of vessel uniformity resulting, in many cases, from his apparent measurement of published figures rather than sherds themselves.

Late Neolithic Pottery from Wadi Ziqlab

The primary goal of this dissertation is to explore differences among Late Neolithic pottery assemblages from three key sites in Wadi Ziqlab. As discussed in Chapter 3, this involves an analysis of style in a broad sense, including vessel form, decoration, and technology. To describe the form of the Wadi Ziqlab pottery, one of the typologies described in the previous section could have been employed or adapted. However, it became evident early in my analysis that none of these would be sufficient to categorize the pottery fromW adi Ziqlab.

The main reason for this derives from the nature of the Wadi Ziqlab material. Late Neolithic pottery from the area is often soft and friable, and the bulk of the sherds recovered during excavation are small fragments. Most previous classifications, groupings, and typologies have been based on the description of complete forms (e.g., “deep undecorated bowl” or “decorated 88 holemouth jar”) and the assignment of sherds or vessels to these forms (e.g., Hendrix et al.

1996). Garfinkel’s (1999) typology, in particular, in the tradition of Amiran (1969) and Hendrix et al. (1996), stresses the importance of key whole forms as type fossils for particular periods.

When dealing with highly-fragmented assemblages like those from Wadi Ziqlab, this strategy becomes problematic. Many of the sherds cannot be confidently assigned to a single particular vessel form and, in many cases, small rim sherds could potentially derive from a number of different forms. Had I employed a typology that relies on complete forms, either I would have to omit large numbers of sherds from the analysis or many assessments of form would be spurious.

Further, many sherds may not retain the key elements of particular forms included in other typologies. For example, carinated vessels can usually only be identified if a sherd is sufficiently large to retain part of the carination. A carinated vessel broken above the carination would likely be assigned to some other category. The identification of necked jars can be similarly problematic. Unless the junction between the neck and the body is preserved, rim sherds from necked jars are likely to be classified as neckless vessels.

A potentially problematic kind of Late Neolithic pot is a shallow, neckless vessel with an inverted rim, sometimes described as a holemouth bowl or in-turned bowl. Under many schemes these would be classified as a closed vessel because of their inverted rim (i.e., the diameter of the orifice is less than the greatest diameter of the pot), but the short height of the vessel leads to them being identified as bowls. If this height is not preserved, however, it can be difficult to distinguish a holemouth bowl from a holemouth jar, another common form that is also inverted but with a greater height.

The typologies of Garfinkel (1999), Sadeh (1994), and Blackham (2002) employ size

(usually determined by orifice diameter) as a defining characteristic for some of their types

(e.g., “small, deep, carinated bowl” vs. “large, deep, carinated bowl” [Garfinkel 1999]). This was generally not followed for the classification scheme used here for two reasons. First, there is often a gradual transition or continuum from one size class to the next. Histograms of orifice 89 diameter of the different types described below are generally unimodal, and thus do not provide justification for multiple size classes. Second, determining orifice diameter is not always an unproblematic process (Plog 1985), especially when dealing with small rim sherds. The orifices of hand-made pots may not be perfectly circular. Indeed, in some early potting traditions, orifices seem to have been intentionally oval or other shapes (e.g., Goren and Fabian 2002: fig. 4.1:13-15; cf. Vitelli 1993:180-181) and some methods of pottery production, such as slab- building, may encourage non-circular pots. Rye (1981) notes that even wheel-thrown vessels rarely have a perfectly circular orifice. Although diameters for rim sherds and base sherds were recorded for the Wadi Ziqlab pottery and are included on many of the drawings of the material, in many cases the error in these diameters is high.

Wadi Ziqlab Typology

The arrangement of pottery form presented here is based on sherds rather than whole vessels in order to accommodate the nature of the Wadi Ziqlab assemblages. The variables recorded in my analysis were selected in order to gather information about the choices that potters made during pottery manufacture, including the shape and surface treatment of a vessel, and how these differed among the three sites. Different questions (e.g., function) would have required a different approach to the analysis. It is a paradigmatic classification based primarily on the stance and profile of rim sherds and evidence for the presence of a distinct neck (empty paradigmatic classes are omitted from the classification). While I decided not to employ a previously existing typology for the reasons outline above, I did adopt elements of some of them. As in Garfinkel’s (1999) Late Neolithic typology, as well as Sadeh’s (1994) and Goren’s

(1991), I consider the shape of the rim important. Unlike these typologies, however, the main distinction is not between open and closed vessels, as these categories can be problematic when dealing with fragmented assemblages (see above). Like Garfinkel, I employ a relatively small number of flexible types in order to more realistically represent the nature of Late Neolithic pottery production (Garfinkel 1999:73). Like Sadeh, and to a certain extent Blackham, my 90 types can be seen as combinations of main typological elements (stance, profile, evidence of a distinct neck). Appended to these are observations on other elements, such as lip shape and base form. Blackham’s employment of a permutational typology is similarly adopted here.

Types can sometimes be classified to a greater level of specificity depending on degree of sherd preservation. For example, one class is “convex everted”. A subform of this class is “convex everted with carination”. The permutational approach acknowledges the relationship between the two (i.e., many “convex everted” pots could be “convex everted with carination” if only more of the sherd were preserved). As noted above, the distinction between vessels with and without necks may also frequently be the result of preservation. The permutational approach also acknowledges the possible relationship between “convex everted” vessels and “necked convex everted” ones.

The main types used in my arrangement of the Wadi Ziqlab material are shown in figure

4.5. Six types without evidence for a distinct neck and seven necked types are included in the classification. For both categories (necked, no neck), three options exist for stance (everted, inverted, vertical) and three for profile (straight, concave, convex).Actually , the intersection of the three dimensions would suggest that the possibility of 18 classes but some of these are not feasible. An un-necked “concave inverted” or “concave vertical” vessel would be difficult to distinguish from a “necked concave inverted” vessel, as would a “necked concave vertical” vessel. Likewise “convex vertical” vessels would be classified as “convex everted” and “necked convex vertical” classified as “necked convex everted”.

A limited number of sherds were classified as subforms of these types on the basis of a

“carinated” or “S-shaped profile”, and a few vessels with no evidence for a distinct neck were classified as subform “pithos” due to their thick bodies and distinctive lip shape.These are primarily vessels with straight profiles and vertical or slightly inverted stances. Only two

“necked convex inverted” sherds were given the subform “bow-rim”. While neither case is a clear example of vessels commonly referred to as bow-rim jar, the typological importance of this 91 form as “the most characteristic vessel of the Wadi Rabah assemblage” (Garfinkel 1999:133) warrants mentioning the possibility (compare Lovell et al. 2007).

In some cases, not enough of the lip remains to stance the vessel. In this case, a sherd may be classified as “indeterminate” for stance. If no lip remains on a sherd it is classified as

“indeterminate indeterminate”, as neither stance nor profile can be assessed with any degree of confidence. This includes most sherds that are not rim sherds. When a lip is present, additional observations allow further classification of form, including the general shape of the lip (i.e., rounded, squared, pointed) and its interior/exterior symmetry.

While rim sherds (and, in rare cases, vessels with complete profiles) form the basis for the formal typology, other sherds are also included as diagnostic for form. These include base sherds, handles, necks/shoulders of necked vessels, and carinated body sherds. For bases and handles, additional information was recorded to characterize their morphology further.

As no two vessels are exactly alike, especially when dealing with Late Neolithic pottery, a series of pottery illustration are provided to show the range of variation of particular types. In addition, I sometimes attempt to correlate my typology with Garfinkel’s “Early Chalcolithic” typology as it is the most readily available (cf. Banning et al. n.d.a; Lovell et al. 2007).

Limitations of the Wadi Ziqlab Pottery

All prehistoric pottery assemblages have their own suite of characteristics that may introduce errors into the analysis. It is imperative that the analyst recognize these limitations as they can influence the interpretation of an assemblage. For the Late Neolithic pottery inW adi Ziqlab, two issues are particularly relevant. First, the pottery is often very friable, especially from al-Basatîn.

This affects its preservation and much of the assemblages consist of small crumbly pieces.

Consequently, it can be difficult to gauge vessel form and size or to identify technological markers. Furthermore, the friability of the pottery means that oftentimes it cannot be washed.

Attempts at washing the pottery showed that, after being immersed in water, or even just having 92 the surfaces wetted, sherds would sometimes crack, crumble, or dissolve entirely. Unfortunately, it is difficult to tell which sherds are likely to survive the washing process and which ones are likely to be damaged or destroyed. The inability to wash the pottery thoroughly is particularly unfortunate as much of it is covered in a layer of precipitated carbonate that can be up to several millimetres thick. In some cases, this greatly reduces the possibility of identifying surface treatments such as slip and paint, or even deep impressions and incisions. Attempts to remove these encrustations mechanically often result in a thin layer of the vessel’s surface coming off with the carbonate encrustation, which can be harder and more durable than the pottery itself. A secondary and less significant problem with cleaning the pottery sometimes arises when little or no carbonate encrustation is present. The pottery can be so soft that cleaning it with a brush may leave artificial “wiping” or “smoothing” marks or even a false burnish.

Second, at both al-Basatîn and al-‘Aqaba, Early Bronze Age occupations follow the Late

Neolithic ones. Unfortunately, Early Bronze Age pottery is somewhat similar to Late Neolithic pottery, exhibiting similar raw materials, and frequent use of red slip, and similar simple forms.

Consequently, it can be difficult to identify to which occupation a particular sherd belongs. On any site with multiple occupations a certain amount of mixing of deposits is to be expected

(Banning et al. n.d.a) and, at al- Basatîn, some Late Neolithic material is likely residual in later deposits. At al-‘Aqaba the situation is even more problematic as much of the Late Neolithic material seems to be redeposited from upslope and actually lies above the Early Bronze Age material. Eisenberg (2001) also notes the resemblance between the Early Bronze Age and Late

Neolithic pottery at Tel Te’o. At that site, however, a distinct Chalcolithic stratum acted as a buffer between the Early Bronze Age and Late Neolithic strata, which does not occur at al-

Basatîn or al-‘Aqaba. Recently, Braun (2004) has argued that problems with sorting out the prehistoric occupations on the tell at Beth Shan derive largely from difficulties in distinguishing between Early Bronze Age and Late Neolithic pottery in strata XIX and XVIII at that site. He suggests that Garfinkel’s (1999) recognition of a Middle Chalcolithic “Beth Shean Ware” is 93 actually the result of conflating two temporally distinct assemblages. For the present study, ambiguous sherds were omitted from the analysis, so it is possible that some Late Neolithic material is not included. Most notably, undiagnostic body sherds (i.e., body sherds with no recognizable surface treatments) do not figure into this study because these were the most difficult to assign accurately to a particular period on stylistic grounds.The main problem arising from this is that I cannot easily determine the frequency of particular surface treatments by comparing the proportion of “decorated” sherds to “undecorated” ones, for example. A thorough analysis of the stratigraphy, in addition to an assessment of published Late Neolithic assemblages, assisted in recognizing most of the Late Neolithic diagnostic material.

Vessel Form

A total of 4110 sherds and vessels were analyzed for form and surface treatment. This includes all sherds identified as diagnostic, including rims, handles, bases, carinations, necks, spouts, modified body sherds (i.e., disks, pierced disks), and body sherds showing evidence of slip, burnish, paint, impressions, incisions, or other modifications. In other words, I analysed everything except body sherds with no visible surface treatment. From al-Basatîn, I analyzed

931 pieces, from al-‘Aqaba 816, and from Tabaqat al-Bûma, 2363.

A number of scholars (e.g., Garfinkel 1999; Lovell et al. 2007) have noted the importance of presenting quantitative data concerning the form and surface treatment of Late Neolithic pottery, rather than simply noting the presence or absence of key types. Tables 4.1-4.7 summarize the various aspects of form and surface treatment that are discussed in the remainder of this chapter.

A comparison of the assemblages from the three sites is provided in Chapter 6, where the ceramic data are integrated with the theoretical discussions in the previous chapter.

Table 4.1 shows the breakdown of vessel segments represented. The percentage of bases, handles, and rims appears higher at Tabaqat al-Bûma but this is, in fact, a reflection of the fewer diagnostic body sherds (i.e., body sherds with evidence of surface treatment; see below). If body 94 0.17 0.13 0.06 0.04 al-Bûma al-Bûma al-'Aqaba al-'Aqaba Proportion Proportion n n î î 0.21 0.11 3 3 1 0.63 1 0.32 14 0.32 0.49 0.60 14 0.63 1.06 0.79 13 0.63 0.53 0.73 13 0.32 0.24 0.56 97 1.17 2.80 4.16 97 2.31 6.07 5.48 al-Bûma al-Basat al-Bûma al-Basat 4 4 2 2 41 335 7.32 5.0041 14.36 335 14.50 10.82 18.92 6423 385 10.82 7.80 16.50 6423 385 21.43 16.89 21.74 al-'Aqaba al-'Aqaba Frequency Frequency 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 69 69 11 11 n n î î 284 245 923 59.66 64.64 52.12 284 245 923 30.12 29.88 39.56 102 102 467 441 562 49.52 53.78 24.09 al-Basat al-Basat WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 rim spout whorl indeterminate handle handle neck/shoulder rim spout whorl B indeterminate disk disk neck/shoulder A base carination base carination body Table 4.1. Vessel segments represented by site (A) and with body sherds removed (B). Note that sherds/vessels with multiple segments are counted more than once. 95 sherds are removed from the list, the proportions of vessel segments become more equal, with the most noticeable differences being the fewer bases and handles at al-`Aqaba, and the fewer rims at Tabaqat al-Bûma (Table 4.1b).

Tabaqat al-Bûma Form

As discussed in Chapter 2, Tabaqat al-Bûma is divided into five phases of Late Neolithic occupation. The remainder of this chapter considers the pottery from phases LN3, LN4, and

LN5, as well as pottery that cannot confidently be attributed to a particular phase. Most of the latter comes from upper strata at the site and presumably was made towards the end of the

Late Neolithic occupation, perhaps in phase LN5. Phases LN1 and LN2 are not included in the following discussion unless otherwise stated, as these may represent an earlier cultural tradition.

Of the 2363 diagnostic sherds from Tabaqat al-Bûma that I analyzed for this dissertation, 62 derive from phases LN1 and LN2. Therefore, 2301 derive from phases LN3-LN5 or from a context that is not attributable to a particular phase. These are the sherds that are discussed in the remainder of this chapter. However, in some cases vessels from LN1 and LN2 are shown in the accompanying illustrations for comparative purposes. In these cases their context is indicated accordingly in the accompanying captions.

The majority of vessels (92.2%, n = 799) at Tabaqat al-Bûma have no evidence of a neck

(including everted straight, everted concave, everted convex, inverted straight, inverted convex, vertical straight, everted indeterminate, indeterminate convex, and indeterminate straight, see table 4.3). They represent forms commonly described as bowls or holemouth jars (e.g., Garfinkel 1999:fig. 66). Necked vessels (n = 44, i.e., jars) comprise only 5.2% of the assemblage. The remaining 4.5% (n = 44) represents vessels that are ambiguous (i.e., indeterminate concave, inverted indeterminate).

 �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� The percentages used in this section are proportions of the entire assemblage of diagnostic pottery for each site excluding sherds that are indeterminate for both stance and profile.This is because some sites have higher percentages of surface treatments and thus more diagnostic body sherds which inflate the level of sherds that are indeterminate for both stance and profile. 96 0.35 0.04 0.26 0.04 0.13 0.52 0.13 0.09 4.95 0.56 0.35 0.83 5.91 0.09 0.52 0.04 4.65 0.09 0.04 3.91 4.35 0.17 0.04 0.22 1.22 0.13 0.09 3.22 6.69 al-Bûma 0.12 0.25 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 1.96 0.25 0.25 0.61 0.12 3.31 0.12 0.37 2.94 0.12 3.80 4.05 0.25 0.37 0.74 2.94 4.91 0.25 al-'Aqaba Proportion n î 0.21 0.11 2.58 0.86 2.58 0.32 2.36 0.21 0.11 0.86 3.01 0.11 0.21 0.11 1.72 6.23 0.21 8 1 1 6 3 8 3 2 2 2 1 1 4 1 5 3 2 13 19 12 90 28 74 12 114 136 107 100 154 al-Bûma al-Basat 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 5 1 3 1 1 2 3 6 2 16 27 24 31 33 24 40 y 594 1418 78.63 72.88 61.63 al-'Aqaba Frequenc 1 2 8 3 2 8 1 1 2 1 2 24 24 22 28 16 58 n î 732 WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 al-Basat necked everted concave necked everted straight necked everted convex necked inverted straight Table 4.2. Forms represented by site. Indented entries are subforms that also counted with the main entry. -pithos necked inverted concave everted straight -bowrim necked vertical straight necked inverted convex -upturned holemouth -s-shaped necked indeterminate straight everted concave -bowrim -carinated necked indeterminate everted convex -s-shaped necked indeterminate convex -carinated inverted straight -carinated inverted convex -pithos -pithos vertical straight -carinated -carinated -pithos everted indeterminate indeterminate indeterminate concave indeterminate convex indeterminate straight -pithos inverted indeterminate -carinated 97 0.00 0.69 0.92 0.34 0.11 0.11 0.34 2.17 0.23 1.49 0.92 0.23 1.37 0.11 0.23 0.11 0.46 0.11 0.57 0.23 0.34 3.20 8.47 1.37 al-Bûma 0.46 0.46 0.46 7.37 13.04 2.30 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.92 0.92 0.46 1.38 0.46 0.92 1.38 2.76 0.46 0.92 0.92 al-'Aqaba Proportion n î 4.02 0.50 1.01 1.51 1.01 0.50 4.02 14.29 10.30 0.50 1.01 0.50 8.04 11.06 1.01 8 6 1 3 1 3 8 2 2 2 1 1 4 1 5 2 3 19 13 12 90 28 74 12 114 12.06 136 12.06 12.44 15.56 107 11.06 11.06 12.24 100 14.07 15.21 11.44 154 29.15 18.43 17.62 al-Bûma al-Basat 1 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 6 1 2 2 16 27 24 31 33 24 40 y al-'Aqaba Frequenc 8 1 2 3 2 8 1 1 1 2 2 24 24 22 28 16 58 n î WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 al-Basat necked everted concave Table 4.3. Forms represented by site with "indeterminate indeterminate" removed. Indented entries are subforms that are also counted with the main entry. Table 4.3. Forms represented by site with "indeterminate indeterminate" removed. Indented entries are subforms that also counted everted straight necked everted convex necked inverted straight everted concave -carinated necked inverted concave -bowrim necked vertical straight -s-shaped everted convex necked inverted convex -s-shaped -upturned holemouth necked indeterminate -carinated -bowrim necked indeterminate straight necked indeterminate convex inverted straight -carinated inverted convex -pithos -carinated vertical straight -pithos -carinated indeterminate concave -pithos everted indeterminate indeterminate convex indeterminate straight inverted indeterminate -pithos -carinated necked everted straight -pithos 98 Vessels without a neck

Of the everted vessels with no neck, 13.0% (n = 114) have a straight profile (including what are sometimes referred to as “V-shaped bowls”; figure 4.6 and 4.7), 2.2% (n = 19) have a concave profile (including what is sometimes referred to as “flaring” rim [cf. Garfinkel 1999: fig. 69]; figure 4.8), and 15.6% (n = 136) have a convex profile (including what are sometimes referred to as “hemispherical bowls”; figure 4.9 and 4.10). Everted straight vessels occasionally have an exterior inflexion at the lip (e.g., figure 4.6.1 and 4.6.20) but the overall profile of the vessel is straight rather than “flaring”. This class includes vessels with a range of depths, including some rather shallow ones (e.g., figure 4.6.13 and 4.7.6) that may be a kind of “platter”

(cf. Garfinkel 1999: fig. 76). Everted concave vessels are rarer (figure 4.8).This class includes vessels with a sinuous profile that were given the subform designation “s-shaped” (e.g., figure

4.8.1 and 4.8.4). These make up only 0.3% (n = 3) of the assemblage. Vessels with a convex profile are the most common type of everted vessel (figure 4.9 and 4.10). Like the everted straight vessels, they include a range of depths and diameters.

A small number of both everted straight (0.69%, n = 6) and everted convex (0.23%, n =

2) vessels were given the subform designation “carinated” (e.g., figure 4.6.17).These are characterized by a sharp change in direction partway down the body. As mentioned above, other rim sherds may also derive from carinated vessels but, if broken above the carination they cannot be classified as such. It is worth noting here that 97 carinated body sherds were also recovered at the site. Some of these may derive from everted vessels although inverted forms may also have been carinated.

At Tabaqat al-Bûma, 11.4% (n = 100) of the assemblage was classified as vertical straight.

The majority of these probably derive from deep bowls, although the lower part of the vessel is often not preserved and some of them may come from necked jars. In cases where the lower part of the vessel is preserved, they appear to be bowls (e.g., figure 4.11.14) sometimes carinated

(e.g., figure 4.11.19). 99 Inverted vessels with no neck make up 22.5% (n = 197) of the assemblage. These have either a straight profile (12.2%, n = 107; figure 4.12 and 4.13) or a convex one (10.3%, n = 90; figure

4.14, 4.15, and 4.16). As mentioned above, this class includes vessels that are frequently divided by others into two distinct classes—holemouth jars and holemouth (or incurving, inverted) bowls. Because the Wadi Ziqlab material is so fragmented and the lower part of the vessel is usually not preserved, I decided to lump them together. Inverted forms can be carinated (e.g., figure 4.12.5 and 4.12.13).

A small number of specimens were given the subform designation “pithos” (n = 5, 0.6%; c.f.

Garfinkel 1999:fig. 79). These are characterized by a thick wall, generally large orifice diameter, and a lip that is thickened on both sides (t-shaped). Pithoi can be either inverted or vertical in stance, and one specimen has a small lug handle near the lip (figure 4.16.7).

Vessels with a neck

As mentioned above, necked vessels are not common at Tabaqat al-Bûma. Apart from sherds that preserve only the junction with the neck and shoulder, which are therefore indeterminate for both stance and profile (figure 4.19.8-12), the most common type of necked vessel is inverted in stance and concave in profile (figure 4.18.2-7). Some of these are, in fact, similar to “holemouth jars” but have a slightly raised or “upturned” rim that I identify as a short neck (c.f. Garfinkel

1999: EC type E2). Other specimens have a longer neck but this often merges gradually with the rest of the body (e.g., figure 4.18.3 and 4.18.6). One small, black-burnished vessel was given the subform “s-shaped” and may represent some kind of cup (figure 4.18.2). Most of the vessels that are classified as necked everted concave are, in fact, quite similar to those classified as necked inverted concave (figure 4.17.1-8). However, the rim is turned out more sharply so the lip itself is not the narrowest part of the vessel. Straight-necked vessels (e.g., figure 4.18.1 and figure

4.19.1-7) typically have a longer neck and are what other scholars would typically refer to as

“necked jars” (e.g., Garfinkel’s [1999] Early Chalcolithic type 5). 100 Lip Shape

At Tabaqat al-Bûma vessels have predominantly simple rounded lips (58.8%, n = 554, see table 4.4). These are typically symmetrical or, more rarely, bevelled on the interior. Square lips

(21.5%, n = 203) and pointed ones (19.2%, n = 181) comprise most of the rest lips that could be identified. In both cases symmetrical lips dominate, although the pointed ones also have a relatively high proportion of lips that are bevelled on the interior. Concave lips, with a groove running along the lip, make up only 0.5% (n = 5).

Bases

Bases at Tabaqat al-Bûma are predominantly flat (69.4% of all bases from the site, n = 268; figure 4.20, table 4.5) or are disk-bases (20.5%, n = 79; figure 4.21.1-15). Smaller numbers are concave (n = 6), pedestal-bases (n = 4, figure 4.21.21), ring-bases (n = 4, figure 4.21.16), or rounded (n = 4, figure 4.21.19). A small number of the flat and disk-based vessels shows clear evidence for matt-impressions on the base (figure 4.20.21-26). Together these comprise 3.1% of the bases in the assemblage (n = 12). The junction between the base and the vessel wall is typically rounded (72.5%, n = 274), or more rarely angled (20.4%, n = 75), although vessels with a protruding junction do occur (5.7%, n = 21).

Handles

The majority of handles at Tabaqat al-Bûma are strap handles (80.4%, n = 270, table 4.6).

Ledge handles make up 9.2% (n = 31), with the rest being indeterminate (mostly body sherds that preserve a handle attachment but little of the handle itself, n = 35). Strap handles usually have oval or convex cross-sections, although some have a characteristic concave cross-section

(e.g., figure 4.22.3, 4.22.6, and 4.22.21; 15%, n = 44). One specimen is pierced through the strap handle (figure 4.22.22). A small number of strap handles were identified as having “splayed” attachments with the body of the vessel. The splayed strap (or “loop”) handle is sometimes  �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� In this dissertation “disk base” refers to a formal category rather than a technological choice. Refer to the pottery illustrations to see example of disk bases. 101 0.21 0.11 0.74 0.21 al-Bûma 1.63 0.41 2.45 0.85 3.671.22 0.53 0.42 al-'Aqaba Proportion n î 3 0.71 0.82 0.32 3 0.35 0.41 0.32 2 1 7 6 0.71 0.41 0.64 2 6 0.35 1.63 0.64 8 5 4 8 1.06 1.63 0.85 5 1.41 0.82 0.53 20 0.35 1.63 2.12 41 2.12 8.57 4.35 86 10.25 10.20 9.12 77 1.77 7.35 8.17 al-Bûma al-Basat 2 1 4 4 1 4 1 6 9 3 4 2 77 203 13.43 31.43 21.53 21 89 404 67.14 36.33 42.84 25 23 118 3.89 9.39 12.51 36 115 8.83 14.69 12.20 45 181 13.43 18.37 19.19 18 al-'Aqaba Frequency 2 1 1 6 2 1 3 4 5 38 11 29 25 38 n î 190 207 114 554 73.14 46.53 58.75 al-Basat WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 r -indeterminate square -bevelled interior -thickened interior -bevelled exterior -thickened both -thickened exterior -thickened interior round -bevelled interior -bevelled exterior -thickened both -thickened exterior -symmetrical -indeterminate -indeterminate -symmetrical -bevelled exterior -bevelled interior -indeterminate -symmetrical -thickened exterior -thickened interio -thickened both -thickened exterior -thickened interior -symmetrical pointed -bevelled interior concave -thickened both -bevelled exterior Table 4.4. Lip forms represented by site. Indented entries show lip symmetry and are also counted with the main entry. 102 0.60 0.30 1.04 1.04 al-Bûma al-Bûma 1.56 0.52 al-'Aqaba al-'Aqaba Proportion Proportion n n î î 7.25 2.44 2.02 6 1.45 2.44 1.79 2 1.45 1 444 1.01 1.01 3.13 1.04 2 6 2.02 1.56 1.55 24 11.59 2.44 7.14 31 31.88 7.32 9.23 35 20.29 14.63 10.42 1021 1.01 6.06 3.13 3.13 2.59 5.44 79 11.11 9.38 20.47 al-Bûma al-Basat al-Bûma al-Basat 1 1 1 3 6 2 2 2 1 1 6 32 270 47.83 78.05 80.36 53 268 78.79 82.81 69.43 al-'Aqaba al-'Aqaba Frequency Frequency 1 1 5 8 1 1 6 1 2 2 33 22 14 78 11 n n î î al-Basat al-Basat WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 r -splayed -pierced lug strap -lug -knob ledge indeterminate -tubula Figure 4.6. Handle forms represented by site. Indented entries are subforms that also counted with the main entry. pedestal rounded ring indeterminate -pebble impressed -matt impressed concave disk flat -matt impressed Figure 4.5. Base forms represented by site. Indented entries are subforms that also counted with the main entry. 103 0.20 0.10 0.10 al-Bûma 1.36 0.81 al-'Aqaba Proportion n î 2 0.17 7 1.16 0.17 0.71 1 0.50 1 2.15 8 42 38.12 1.87 4.75 65 42.24 6.12 7.28 11 4.79 0.68 1.42 45 0.83 12.07 4.85 al-Bûma al-Basat 1 8 4 11 36 71 al-'Aqaba Frequency 1 7 3 5 13 7629 202 108 12.54 34.35 11.73 n î 231 256 309 468 812 50.99 79.59 85.14 al-Basat WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 -rope applique applique -combing -fingernail impression incision -comb impression impression -and burnish burnish only paint slip Figure 4.7. Surface treatments by site. Indented entries are also included with the main entry. 104 thought to be diagnostic of certain cultures or periods (e.g., Garfinkel 1999) so its presence was noted. However, this was often difficult to assess, especially when the attachment between the body of the vessel and the handle was not preserved. Ledge handles are predominantly small lugs (n = 24, figure 4.23) that rarely are pierced (n =2, figure 4.23.18-19).

Al-Basatîn Form

Vessels without a Neck

At al-Basatîn, vessels without evidence of a neck make up 95.5% (n = 190, table 4.3) of the assemblage while necked vessels make up only 3.0% (n = 6). The remaining sherds are ambiguous. Everted vessels comprise 28.1% of the assemblage (n = 3). Ones with straight

(figure 4.24) and convex profiles (figure 4.26) occur in equal numbers (12.1%, n = 24) while ones with a concave profile are rarer (4.0%, n = 8; figure 4.25). Many vessels with a vertical stance and straight profile (figure 4.27; 14.1% of the assemblage, n = 28) likely derive from deep bowls of some kind, but the lower part of the vessel is rarely preserved. One vertical straight vessel (0.5% of the assemblage) was given the subform designation “carinated” (figure 4.27.4).

Inverted vessels with no evidence of a neck make up 15.1% (n = 30)of the assemblage. These have either a straight profile (figure 4.28.1-11) or a convex one (figure 4.28.12-14) and are sometimes carinated (e.g., figure 4.28.1). Eleven other body sherds were carinated, which could have come from either inverted or everted forms.

Vessels with a Neck

Vessels with evidence of a distinct neck are rare (figure 4.29). Only six specimens were identified, half of which are indeterminate for both stance and profile, as they represent only the junction between the neck and shoulder (e.g., figure 4.29.1). Necked vessels that are inverted in stance and concave in profile (e.g., figure 4.29.2) are the most common type of necked vessel at the site. 105 Lip Form

At al-Basatîn 73.1% (n = 207) of rims have simple rounded lips (table 4.4). Most of these are symmetrical. Square and pointed lips make up the remainder of the lips and occur in equal proportions (13.4%, n = 38). These are also primarily symmetrical.

Bases

Bases are predominantly flat (figure 4.30; 78.8%, n = 78, table 4.5) ,or more rarely, disks

(figure 4.31.1-4; 11.1%, n = 11). Rare examples of pedestals (figure 4.31.7, n = 1), concave

(figure 4.31.5-6, n = 2), and rounded (figure 4.26.1, n = 1) bases occur. A single example of a matt-impressed base was recovered during excavations (figure 4.30.18), as were two examples of pebble-impressed bases (figure 4.30.19-20). The junction between the base and the wall of the vessel is usually rounded (56.6%, n = 56) or angled (28.3%, n = 28).

Handles

Both strap (47.8%, n = 33) and ledge handles (31.3%, n = 22) occur at the site (figure 4.32, table 4.6). Several handles (20.3%, n = 14) were classified as indeterminate for form.These usually consisted of a body sherd showing evidence of a handle attachment with little of the actual handle preserved. Strap handles have simple oval, convex, or flat cross-sections. Ledge handles come in a variety of shapes, including triangular (figure 4.32.23) and round knobs

(figure 4.32.24-25), in addition to the more common variety that is flat with a semi-circular profile. Some of the ledge handles are very small lugs (figure 4.32.18-20, n = 8) and one of these is pierced (figure 4.32.18). In one case a ledge handle occurs on the interior of a vessel (figure

4.32.16). 106 Al-‘Aqaba Vessel Form

Vessels without a Neck

At al-‘Aqaba, inverted vessels with no evidence of a neck (24.9%, n = 55) are slightly more common than everted ones (21.7%, n = 48, table 4.3). The latter include vessels with straight

(7.21%, n = 16; figure 4.33), concave (2.3%, n = 5; figure 4.34), and convex (12.2%, n = 27; figure 4.35) profiles. A single vessel with a convex profile was given the subform designation

“carinated” (0.45%; figure 4.35.8). Vessels that are vertical for stance and straight for profile comprise 14.9% (n = 33) of the assemblage. Most of these rim sherds likely derived from deep bowls. In one case, enough of the body is preserved to show a carination (figure 4.36.7).

Carinated vessels are also represented by 23 carinated body sherds. Vertical straight vessels with the subform designation “pithos” comprise 1.4% of the assemblage (figure 4.36.12-14, n = 3).

Inverted vessels have either a straight (10.9%, n = 24) or convex profile (14.0%, n = 31). One vessel with a straight profile is carinated (figure 4.37.1).Some of the inverted vessels are clearly what are sometimes described as holemouth or incurving bowls (e.g., figure 4.37.1 and 4.38.10), while others are likely deeper holemouth jars.

Vessels with a Neck

At al-‘Aqaba 5.9% (n = 12) of the assemblage is made up of necked vessels. Necked vessels that are indeterminate for both stance and profile are the largest group (1.4%, n = 3; figure

4.39.7-9). Other types include vertical straight (figure 4.39.1-2), inverted straight (figure 4.39.3), everted concave (figure 4.39.5), and everted straight (figure 4.39.6) vessels.T wo sherds were given the subform designation “bow-rim” (e.g., figure 4.39.4). However, these have only a very slightly incurving neck and are not like the classic bow-rim that occurs on sites identified as

“Wadi Rabah”. 107 Lip Form

Rounded lips occur on most rims (46.5%, n = 114), followed by square (31.4%, n = 77), pointed (18.4%, n = 45), and concave (3.7%, n = 9, table 4.4). In each case, symmetrical lips dominate followed by ones that are bevelled on the interior.

Bases

Bases are predominantly flat (82.8%, n = 53; figure 4.40.1-6), or more rarely disk-shaped

(9.4%, n = 6; figure 4.40.7-10), concave (1.6%, n = 1; figure 4.40.12), or pedestals (3.1%, n = 2; figure 4.40.13, table 4.5). Both flat and disk bases sometimes have matt impressions (together making up 4.7% of the bases, n = 3). The junction between the base and the wall is usually rounded (51.6%, n = 33) or angled (39.1%, n = 25), and is only rarely protruding (3.1%, n = 2).

Handles

Handles at al-‘Aqaba are predominantly strap handles (78.1%, n = 32), with ledges making up only 7.3% (n = 3) of the handles (table 4.6). Most strap handles have flat or oval cross- sections, although ones with a concave cross-section are also significant (25%, n = 9; e.g., figure

4.41.2 and 4.41.7). One example of a fine, black, burnished ledge handle with a square profile is noteworthy (figure 4.41.16).

Surface Treatments

Surface treatments include any modification of the surface of the vessel that was likely intentional, including slip, burnish and other “decorative” treatments, including incisions, impressions, and appliqué. The following sections are summarized in table 4.7. Below, the occurrence of surface treatments are expressed in terms of percentages of all diagnostic sherds and percentages of all sherds with surface treatment, which is a subset of the former. Neither number is ideal. It would be preferable to indicate percentage of particular surface treatments in terms of all sherds. However, the difficulty with distinguishing between undiagnostic Late 108 Neolithic and Early Bronze Age sherds at al-‘Aqaba and al-Basatîn makes this problematic (see above).

Tabaqat al-Bûma Surface Treatments

At Tabaqat al-Bûma, I counted 948 sherds or vessels that had some evidence of a surface treatment (excluding sherds from LN1 and LN2). The most common treatment is slip (n = 812), which occurs on 35.3% of all diagnostic sherds and 85.1% of all pieces with surface treatment.

Over 90% of the time, the colour of the slip is red or red-brown. White, brown, yellow, and black slips also occur. It should be noted that these other colours may be under-represented because they are not as easy to identify, especially when dealing with carbonate-encrusted pottery. Slip commonly occurs on the exterior and interior of vessels or sometimes just in a band along the lip on one or both surfaces. It is occasionally found on handles as well (e.g., figure

4.22.13). Of the slipped pieces, 13.3% also have a burnish (n = 108, i.e., slipped and burnish comprise 4.7% of all diagnostic sherds and 11.7% of all sherds with surface treatment). Sherds with a burnish but no recognizable slip are rare (n = 45), comprising 2.0% of all diagnostics and

4.9% of all sherds with surface treatment.

After slip, incisions are the most common type of surface treatment. These include incised patterns made with a “comb” that has two or more “teeth” (n = 42, e.g., figure 4.42.1-13) as well as bands of short incisions (e.g., figure 4.42.14-15) and straight or intersecting lines in groups

 �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� The term slip is used in a myriad of ways by archaeologists. It can refer to a material (a slurry of clay and water), a surface treatment (distinct layer, presumably of clay), a method of applying this layer (dipped or poured on, rather than brushed on), or a colour (in the southern Levant, usually red). In this study, I use slip to refer to any distinct layer, presumably of clay, that is applied over an entire surface or both surfaces of the vessel, or in thick bands, sometimes at the lip of the vessel but sometimes also lower. The term paint is used to refer to colour that is likely applied with a brush, usually in a linear design comprised of thin lines (Rye 1981). The material of paint does not seem to differ from that of slip (it is also likely a slurry of clay). One possible area of confusion involves thin trails or drips of “slip” that sometimes extend downward from a coloured band around the lip, likely due to gravity. On suitably small sherds, these may be confused with thin painted lines.  ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ Burnish is identified by its reflective (shiny) properties. It is likely the result of polishing the leather-hard surface of a pot with a smooth stone or other smooth object. Burnish often occurs on a red slip.  Many of the sherds identified as burnished with no slip are black-burnished specimens. In fact, many of these could have a slip (Goren 1992) but it is difficult to tell with certainty. Chazan and McGovern (1984) demonstrate, contrary to prior assumptions, that EB Khirbet Kerak ware finished with a lustrous black-burnished surface was not necessarily slipped before burnishing. The same may hold true for Late Neolithic black-burnished pottery. 109 (figure 4.42.17-23) or individually (figure 4.42.24-27). Incised herringbone pattern is rare (e.g., figure 4.42.16). Incisions occur on 2.8% (n = 65) of all diagnostics (7.3% of sherds with surface treatment). Combed incisions occur on 1.8% of all diagnostics (4.8% of sherds with surface treatment, n = 42).

Impressions (n = 11) , paint (n = 8), and appliqué (n = 7) are rare, together occurring on only

1.1% of all diagnostics (2.9% of sherds with surface treatment). Impressions are often made with a simple stylus, more rarely they are made with a comb or a curved instrument (e.g.,

“fingernail” impression). Paint occurs as net pattern (figure 4.42.28), wavy lines (figure 4.42.29 and figure 4.42.31), or parallel lines extending from a horizontal band of slip (figure 4.42.30 and

4.42.32). Appliqué includes impressed “rope” decoration (figure 4.42.33 and 4.42.35) as well as linear bars applied vertically in pairs (figure 4.42.34 and 4.42.37) or horizontally and singly

(figure 4.42.38). Small protrusions, similar to very small rounded lug handles also occur (figure

4.42.36). Occasionally multiple surface treatments occur on the same vessel, such as red slip adjacent to a combed band (figure 4.42.1 and 4.42.4) and fields of impressed punctates outlined by straight incised lines (figure 4.17.9).

Al-Basatîn Surface Treatments

At al-Basatîn, I counted 594 sherds with evidence of a surface treatment. Slip is the most common surface treatment, occurring on 33.2% (n = 309) of all diagnostics and 51.0% of all sherds with a surface treatment. Slip is red or red-brown 90.0% of the time. Brown, yellow, black, and white slip occurs more rarely. Slip occurs on the interior and exterior surfaces of vessels, or sometimes just in a band along the lip. Of the slipped sherds, 2.5% (n = 76) also have a burnish (i.e., slipped and burnish is found on 8.2% of all diagnostics, 12.5% of all sherds with surface treatment). Sherds with burnish but no evident slip comprise less than 1% (n = 5) of sherds with a surface treatment.

 Definitions of incising, impressing, and combing follow Rye (1981). 110 After slip, incisions are the most common surface treatment, occurring on 27.5% (n = 256) of all diagnostic sherds (42.2% of sherds with surface treatment). Of sherds with incisions, 90.2%

(n = 231) are made with a comb. Combed incisions occur in straight parallel bands (e.g., figure

4.43.26-27), isolated bands (e.g., figure 4.43.28), intersecting bands (e.g., figure 4.43.24), and in a wavy pattern (figure 4.28.14 and 4.43.33). Frequently, dense combing covers the entire exterior or interior surface of a sherd or both surfaces (e.g., figure 4.43.15-16). Combing occurs on all parts of the vessel, including the rim (e.g., figure 4.28.13, 4.43.18-19), the interior base

(figure 4.30.12), and on strap handles (figure 4.32.6-7). Other incisions include dense fields of coarse parallel lines (figure 4.44.1-3) that seem to mimic some of the effects of combing.

Straight lines occurring in groups (figure 4.44.4-5) or singly (figure 4.44.7) also occur.

Impressions occur on 3.1% of all diagnostics (4.8% of all sherds with surface treatment, n =

29). These include impressions made with a “comb” (figure 4.44.16-22), which are sometimes dragged slightly, or with a simple stylus (figure 4.44.11-15). “Fingernail” impressions also occur

(figure 4.44.8-10). Appliqué (n = 7) includes rare examples of impressed rope decoration (figure

4.44.23) and very small knobs that are similar to small lug handles. These occur singly (figure

4.44.25) or in pairs (figure 4.44.24).

Two or more surface treatments may occur on the same vessel, such as impressions adjacent to red slip (figure 4.44.8 and 4.44.15). One example has fingernail impressions over combing adjacent to a band of red slip (figure 4.44. 9).

Al-’Aqaba Surface Treatments

At al-’Aqaba, I identified 581 sherds with some kind of surface treatment. Slip is the most common surface treatment, occurring on 57.4% (n = 468) of all diagnostic sherds (80.0% of sherds with surface treatment). Usually the slip is red or red-brown (90.0%) although brown, white, yellow, and black also occur. Slip occurs on both the interior and exterior surfaces of vessels or in a band along the slip. Occasionally, a reserved horizontal band divided two fields 111 of slip (e.g., figure 4.37.1). Of the slipped sherds 43.2% (202) also have a burnish (i.e., 24.8% of all diagnostic sherds have slip and burnish, 34.4% of all sherds with surface treatment have slip and burnish). Sherds that have a burnish but no clear evidence of slip make up 8.7% (n = 71) of all diagnostics (12.1% of sherds with surface treatment).

Incisions are the next most common surface treatment, making up 4.4% (n = 36) of diagnostics (6.1% of sherds with surface treatment). Combing occurs (n = 11) , as do parallel or intersecting straight lines (figure 4.45.1-4). A small number of sherds have herringbone or “triple herringbone” incisions that are not framed by parallel lines (figure 4.45.7; c.f. Garfinkel 1999: fig. 90.8-10) or have a single band of short diagonal lines (figure 4.45.8-9).These usually occur on sherds with a dark fabric. Impressions are rare (n = 4, 0.5% of diagnostic sherds, 0.7% of sherds with surface treatment), and are usually made with a simple rounded or triangular stylus

(figure 4.45.14-15). Paint occurs on 1.0% (n = 8) of all diagnostic sherds (1.4% of sherds with surface treatment). Parallel lines, dots, and a single example of possible net pattern occur (figure

4.45.16-22). Appliqué consists of a single example of what may be a thick band of added clay

(figure 4.45.23).

Concluding Remarks on Chapter

In addition to providing a description of the pottery from Tabaqat al-Bûma, al-Basatîn, and al-‘Aqaba, this chapter demonstrates the importance of considering how typologies are constructed. As noted above, a primary goal of much Late Neolithic research has been the comparison of assemblages, usually based on published data (e.g., Banning 2007; Blackham

2002; Garfinkel 1999; Sadeh 1994). This can be difficult to do if scholars have approached the creation of typologies in different ways or if they are not using comparable types. Also, if entire assemblages are not included in analyses this may affect the results of comparative analyses and especially the identification of “transitional” phases. As noted above, Lovell (2001) criticizes

Garfinkel’s (1992) rejection of certain stratigraphic contexts in his analysis of pottery from

Munhata. This decision was based on a priori typological assumptions even though the creation 112 of a typology was a primary objective. Similarly, it is important to present the quantitative results of typological analyses. Others have noted this (e.g., Garfinkel 1992; Lovell et al. 2007) but it is only infrequently done for Late Neolithic assemblages and published quantitative data on pottery are missing from some of the most important sites. Furthermore, as Banning

(2007:83) notes, people need to be explicit about how they are quantifying their data. Sherds can be counted in different and incommensurable ways (e.g., sherd count, rim count, estimated vessel equivalents) and proportions of particular traits may be offered as the percentage of the entire assemblage, of just diagnostic sherds or some other way.

I contextualize the data presented in this chapter elsewhere (Chapter 6) but I will provide a couple of brief comments here. First, the pottery from each site shows affinities with other sites attributed to the Wadi Rabah culture (Banning 2007). This includes both surface treatments (e.g., combed and impressed decoration, black and red slip and burnish) and vessel forms, although there are some differences (e.g., the lack of bow rim jars). Second, there are some typological differences among the Wadi Ziqlab sites, especially the surface treatments, that become most evident when the data are examined quantitatively. These differences will be explored in

Chapter 6 and combined with the results of a technological analysis of the pottery which I present in Chapter 5. 113 114 115 116 117 12 18 24 4 3 6 11 17 23 10 16 22 9 15 21 5 2 1 8 14 20 7 13 19 Figure 4.5b. Base forms and lip forms used in this study. 1-2, flat bases with Figure 4.5b. Base forms and lip used in this study. angled (1) and rounded (2) junctions. 3-4, disk bases with (3) (4) junctions. 5, flat base with protruding junction. 6-24 are lips, interior at lip. 7-12, rounded lips. 13-18, pointed 19-24, square T-shaped left. 6, 9, 15, and 21 7, 13, and 19 are symmetrical, 8, 14, 20 bevelled interior. 17, and 23 are 11, 10, 16, and 22 are thickened interior, are bevelled exterior. 12, 18, and 24 are thickened on both surfaces. thickened exterior. Everted Convex Everted Inverted Convex Inverted Necked Convex Everted Necked Inverted Convex Necked Inverted Everted Concave Everted Necked Inverted Concave Necked Inverted Vertical Straight Vertical Everted Straight Everted Inverted Straight Inverted Figure 4.5a. Types used in this dissertation to describe the form of Late Neolithic pottery. Types Figure 4.5a. Necked Vertical Straight Vertical Necked Necked Straight Everted Necked Concave Everted Necked Inverted Straight Necked Inverted 118

1 11 20

2 12 21

3

13

22 14 4

5 23 15

6 16 24

17 7

25

8 18

9 26

19 10 27

Figure 4.6. Everted straight vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma (scale 1:4). 119 g? p ro ? 3 ? 1 ? 1 ? 3 ? 1 ? 3 ? 1 r r r r g g g g g g g g r r ro ro ro ro ro ro ro g g g g g g g rit 2 g ht clea ht ht ht ht ht ht ht clea ht clea ht clea ht g g g g g g g g g g g rit 3 rit 1 rit 3 rit 3 rit 3 rit 3 rit 1 rit 3 ink rit 1 g g g g g g g g p g abundant 0 bri 0 bri 0 buff clea 0 buff clea 0 bri 0 0 n/a 0 bri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 bri 0 0 bri 0 bri 0 bri 0 reduced 2 0 bri 0 bri 0 0 bri 0 n/a 0 5 6 8 6 7 6 6 5 3 5 6 3 4 6 5 3 3 9 17 7 6 3 5 11 12 13 n/a n/a w p p p p p p p p Surface Rim EVE Base EVE Fabric Grou red sli r n/a 7.5YR 7/6 Int Colou 10YR 7/4 n/a red sli 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/6 red sli 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 2.5YR 6/6 n/a 2.5YR 6/6 red sli 2.5YR 6/6 red sli 10YR 6/4 n/a reddish-bro 10YR 7/4 red sli 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 red sli 10YR 7/4 n/a 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/410YR 7/4 red sli 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 3 3 6 6 Core Colours 2.5YR 6/6; 5YR 6/ r 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 n/a5YR 6/6 7.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 6/3 10YR 5/2; 4/2 10YR 5/3 10YR 3/1; 6/3; 5/ n/a 10YR 6/3 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6; 10YR 6/4 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/3; 5/2; 7/ 10YR 7/4 10YR 6/4 7.5YR 7/67.5YR 7/6 10YR 7/4 n/a 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 n/a 7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 7/62.5YR 5/6 7.5YR 6/6 5YR 6/6; 7.5YR 6/4; 6/ 5YR 6/610YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/6 10YR 7/4 2.5YR 6/6 5YR 7/62.5YR 6/6 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6; 2.5YR 6/6 5YR 7/4 10YR 8/2 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 6/6; 2.5YR 6/6 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 10YR 6/3 10YR 6/3 Sub-form Ext Colou r Sherd Numbe 5 WZ200.E36.14.2 8 WZ200.E34.6.2 4 WZ200.F35.4.5 6 WZ200.F33.26.2 9 WZ200.E35.4.82 1 WZ200.F32.13.22 2 WZ200.E35.5.7 3 WZ200.F35.16.5 7 WZ200.E37.1.95 11 WZ200.F34.74.5 20 WZ200.E36.105.92 10 WZ200.F33.12.5 13 WZ200.E35.36.5 15 WZ200.E33.20.4 24 WZ200.F32.5.4 27 WZ200.E34.73.2 18 WZ200.E33.15.26 19 WZ200.I33.20.18 21 WZ200.F34.17.3 22 WZ200.F34.67.9 26 WZ200.E35.11.7 12 WZ200.J33.4.2 14 WZ200.A.45.3 16 WZ200.E33.21.14 17 WZ200.E35.5.6 carinated 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/6 23 WZ200.F34.32.12 25 WZ200.G35.48.7 Figure 4.6 120

1 7

2 8

3

4

9

5

10

6

11

12

13

Figure 4.7. Everted straight vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma (scale 1:4). 121 p ? 2 ? 1 r g g ro ro g g rit 1 rit 1 rit 1 rit 1 g g g g ht clea ht ht g g g rit 3 rit 2 ink rit 2 rit 2 ink rit 1 ink ink g g p g g p g p p bri 4 5 bri 5 6 4 3 2 8 5 8 bri 5 reduced 2 4 3 p p p roove int. li Surface Rim EVE Fabric Grou g r n/a 5YR 7/6 n/a n/a 2.5YR 6/8 2.5YR 6/6 Int Colou 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/6 red sli 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 4/1 5YR 6/6 n/a brown sli 10YR 7/4 8 6 Core Colours r Ext Colou r Sherd Numbe 9 WZ200.E36.10.2 7.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 6/6 4 WZ200.F34.5.2 n/a 10YR 6/2; 5YR 7/4 1 WZ200.E35.5.8 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 6 WZ200.G35.75.59 5YR 6/6 2.5YR 6/8; 7.5YR 6/6; 6/ 2 WZ200.E33.11.73 WZ200.F32.5.5 5YR 7/65 WZ200.F34.17.4 5YR 7/6 10YR 6/4 5YR 6/6 5YR 7/6; 10YR 7/4; 7/ 8 WZ200.F34.14.4 7.5YR 7/6 2.5YR 6/6 10YR 4/2 7 WZ200.E33.4.2 10YR 6/4 10YR 6/3; 5YR 7/4 11 WZ200.E33.28.9 7.5YR 6/613 WZ200.H34.6.1 7.5YR 6/6 10YR 7/4 2.5YR 6/6 12 WZ200.I33.18.6 10YR 7/4 5YR 6/6 10 WZ200.H34.39.9 10YR 7/4 2.5YR 6/6 Figure 4.7 122

1

2

3

4

Figure 4.8. Everted concave vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma (scale 1:4). 123 p ? 1 ? 1 g g ro ro g g ht ht g g rit 1 g 0 bri 0 bri 0 black burnish 27 7 7 7 p Surface Rim EVE Base EVE Fabric Grou r Int Colou 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 7/4 red sli 10YR 4/1 burnish n/a Core Colours 10YR 7/4 r 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 ed 10YR 3/1ed 10YR 4/1 n/a p p Sub-form Ext Colou ) LN1 ( r WZ200.A.72.10 Sherd Numbe 2 3 WZ200.E33.8.14 4 WZ200.D35.30.1+3+4 s-sha 1 WZ200.E32.18.13 s-sha Figure 4.8 124

1 11

20 2 12

3 21 13

4 14 22

5 15 23

16 6 24

7 17

8 25

18

9 26 10 19

Figure 4.9. Everted convex vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma (scale 1:4). 125 p ? 1 ? 1 ? 1 ? 1 ? 1 ? 2 ? 1 r g g g g g g g ? ? ? ? r r g g g g ro ro ro ro ro ro ro g g g g g g g rit 3 rit 3 ro ro ro ro y g g g g g g ht ht ht ht ht ht clea ht ht g g g g g g g g ink ink rit 1 rit 3 rit 3 rit 3 p p g g g g 0 reduced 2 0 bri 0 bri 0 bri 0 0 0 buff 0 bri 0 bri 0 0 buff clea 0 reduced 2 0 bri 0 bri 0 0 0 buff 0 reduced 1 0 0 earth 0 buff clea 0 bri 0 buff 7 7 8 9 7 5 6 7 3 3 6 7 5 7 4 8 6 2 25 13 15 80 100 n/a 20 23 17 buff n/a n/a n/a Rim EVE Base EVE Fabric Grou n/a p , burnish p , burnish p p p p p p p p p p p p p sli y ra es Surface y g red sli red sli red sli r n/a 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 4/1 red sli 5YR 6/6 red sli n/a n/a Int Colou 10YR 6/2 10YR 7/4 red sli 7.5YR 7/62.5YR 6/6 red sli 2.5Y 3/1 black sli 5YR 6/6 red sli 10YR 7/4 red sli 7.5YR 7/6 red sli 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/610YR 4/1 red sli 10YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/6 red sli 10YR 6/4 10YR 7/4 n/a 7.5YR 7/6 reddish-brown sli 10YR 7/4 2.5YR 6/6 10YR 5/1 4 6 2.5YR 6/6 n/a n/a Core Colours 5YR 7/6; 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 7/6; 2.5YR 6/6 r Ext Colou n/a n/a ) ) LN1 ( LN1 ( r Sherd Numbe WZ200.A.72.8 7 WZ200.E35.87.73 n/a 2 3 WZ200.F35.23.37 n/a 4 WZ200.D35.40.445 WZ200.E36.36.7 n/a 6 WZ200.E35.9.23 5YR 7/6 2.5Y 3/19 WZ200.F34.15.1 7.5YR 6/4; 2.5YR 6/6 2.5Y 5/3; 10YR 6/4 5YR 6/6 5YR 6/6 1 WZ200.A.72.22 8 WZ200.E33.21.19 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 6/6; 2.5YR 5/6; 10YR 5/ 11 WZ200.E32.18.4 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 10 WZ200.E33.36.3 10YR 6/3 10YR 5/1 22 WZ200.E34.21.18923 WZ200.E32.22.2 5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6; 10YR 5/1; 7/ 2.5Y 6/3 13 WZ200.E36.31.3 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 6/4 12 WZ200.E34.73.4 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 17 WZ200.J34.3.74 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 25 WZ200.F32.8.13926 WZ200.F34.67.16 10YR 7/4 10YR 4/1 10YR 7/4 2.5Y 2.5/1 15 WZ200.E37.1.108 n/a 18 WZ200.E35.87.7419 WZ200.G35.74.820 7.5YR 7/6 WZ200.D35.4.11 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/4 10YR 7/4 10YR 6/4; 5/2 10YR 6/6 14 WZ200.F33.6.116 WZ200.F32.13.33 10YR 7/4 10YR 6/4 10YR 7/4 10YR 5/4 21 WZ200.E35.5.9 7.5YR 7/624 WZ200.E33.3.33 7.5YR 7/6; 10YR 5/2 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 Figure 4.9 126

7 1

8

2

9 3

10 4

5 11

6 12

Figure 4.10. Everted convex bowls from Tabaqat al-Bûma (scale 1:4). 127 g? p ro ? 1 ? 3 ? 3 r g g g g ? ? r r g g ro ro ro g g g ro ro g g ht ht ht clea ht g g g g rit 3 rit 1 rit 1 g g g 0 buff 0 bri 0 bri 0 buff clea 0 bri 0 bri 0 buff clea 0 0 0 abundant 0 buff 0 5 6 7 4 5 3 5 7 2 3 3 10 p p p p p p p Surface Rim EVE Base EVE Fabric Grou r 5YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/6 red sli 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 Int Colou 10YR 7/4 red sli 5YR 7/6 10YR 7/3 red sli 7.5YR 6/6 red-brown sli n/a red sli n/a red sli 5YR 7/67.5YR 6/3 red sli 3 4 4 6 Core Colours r Ext Colou r Sherd Numbe 3 WZ200.E33.10.104 WZ200.E33.31.1 5YR 7/6 7.5YR 6/6 10YR 7/4; 5YR 7/6 5YR 5/6; 10YR 4/2; 5/ 7 WZ200.F35.20.20 7.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 6/6 1 WZ200.H33.13.1 n/a6 WZ200.G35.46.1 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 7/48 WZ200.F35.4.1 10YR 7/4; 5/1; 7/ n/a 10YR 7/4 2 WZ200.G35.51.2 10YR 7/35 WZ200.A.66.1 10YR 7/3; 4/1; 7/ 10YR 7/49 WZ200.E32.1.26 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4; 5/1; 7/ 12 WZ200.F33.26.6 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/4 10 WZ200.E33.6.3711 WZ200.E36.36.13 5YR 7/6 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/4; 5/3 Figure 4.10 128

1 11 17

2 12 18 3

13

4

14 19 5

6 20 15

7

21 16 8

9

22

10

23

Figure 4.11. Vertical straight vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma (scale 1:4). 129 p ? 1 ? 1 ? 2 ? 1 r g g g g ? g ro ro ro ro g g g g rit 2 rit 3 rit 1 rit 1 rit 3 rit 1 rit 1 ro g g g g g g g g ht ht ht clea ht ht g g g g g rit 3 rit 2 ink ink ink rit 1 ink rit 3 rit 1 ink rit 3 ink ink g g p p p g p g g p g p p 5 8 7 5 bri 6 9 3 bri 4 5 6 7 4 5 buff 6 8 bri 5 bri 6 bri 6 black burnish 10 10 , burnish 11 white lime 1 , burnish 7 black burnish , burnish 5 p p p p p p p p p p p es Surface Rim EVE Fabric Grou y red sli r n/a 10YR 7/4 2.5YR 6/8 red sli 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/4 5YR 6/6 2.5YR 5/6 red sli 10YR 7/4 red sli 5YR 6/6 n/a red sli 5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 red sli Int Colou 7.5YR 7/4 n/a red sli 5YR 7/4 2.5Y 2.5/1 burnish 7.5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6 red sli 5YR 7/4 red sli 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 2.5YR 6/8 red sli 6 6 8 Core Colours 5YR 6/8; 6/ r 5YR 7/4 10YR 7/3; 4/2 5YR 7/410YR 7/4 2.5YR 7/6; 10YR 7/4 5YR 6/6; 2.5YR 5/8 n/a 2.5YR 6/8; 10YR 7/3; 3/1 2.5Y 2.5/1 red sli 5YR 6/6 5YR 6/6; 7.5YR 7/6 2.5YR 5/6 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/3 5YR 7/6 5YR 6/6 10YR 7/4 10YR 6/3 7.5YR 7/4 5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/6 2.5YR 6/8 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 n/a 5YR 7/4; 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 2.5Y 2.5/1 2.5Y 2.5/1 n/an/a 2.5YR 6/6; 7.5YR 7/6 5YR 5/6 7.5YR 8/4 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 4/1 10YR 4/1; 7.5YR 7/6 2.5YR 6/8 2.5YR 6/6 ithos 5YR 7/6 5YR 6/6; 10YR 6/3; 6/ Sub-form Ext Colou p r Sherd Numbe 6 WZ200.G34.31.1 7 WZ200.G35.75.3 9 WZ200.E35.70.1 4 WZ200.F33.6.4 1 WZ200.I34.17.9 2 WZ200.E36.25.18 5 WZ200.E35.85.204 3 WZ200.F33.5.2 8 WZ200.D35.25.1 10 WZ200.F34.60.30+40 18 WZ200.F34.22.25 11 WZ200.F35.22.1 22 WZ200.F34.10.8 12 WZ200.F35.22.3 14 WZ200.G35.49.215 WZ200.E35.9.18+30+32 carinated19 7.5YR 7/4 WZ200.E35.65.43 10YR 6/2; 4/1; 5YR 6/ carinated n/a 7.5YR 7/6 16 WZ200.F34.32.14 20 WZ200.D32.1.2 21 WZ200.F35.38.1 13 WZ200.F34.45.2 17 WZ200.F34.70.4 23 WZ200.F35.39.1 Figure 4.11 130

1 10

2 11

12 3

4

13

5

14 6

15 7

8 16

17 9

Figure 4.12. Inverted straight vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma (scale 1:4). 131 p ? 1 r g ? r g ro g rit 1 rit 1 rit 2 rit 3 rit 2 rit 1 rit 1 ro g g g g g g g g ht ht clea g g ink ink ink rit 3 ink rit 1 ink ink ink p p p g p g p p p buff 2 black burnish 8 6 7 bri 7 2 6 5 6 buff clea 5 basalt 1 5 reduced 2 4 8 reduced 2 4 6 8 17 bri p , burnish p p p p roove ext. li Surface Rim EVE Fabric Grou g red sli red sli r 10YR 7/4 10YR 3/1 burnish Int Colou 2.5YR 7/6 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 6/4 10YR 5/4 5YR 6/6 red sli 2.5YR 6/6 red sli 10YR 6/3 10YR 4/1 5YR 4/1 10YR 7/4 8 6 6 / 7.5YR 7/6 Core Colours 2.5YR 6/8; 10YR 7/4; 6/ r 10YR 7/4 2.5YR 5/6 7.5YR 7/6 2.5Y 2.5/1 10YR 3/1 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4; 2.5YR 5/6; n/a 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 8/4 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 10YR 5/1 5YR 6/6 2.5YR 6/6 2.5YR 6/6 10YR 4/1; 7/4; 2.5YR 6/ 10YR 7/3 10YR 4/1 10YR 7/4 10YR 5/3; 4/1 5YR 7/6 5YR 6/4 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6; 10YR 6/3; 7/ Sub-form Ext Colou ) LN1 ( r Sherd Numbe 3 WZ200.E33.15.37 8 WZ200.E33.3.39 2 WZ200.E34.66.3 4 WZ200.E35.36.8 5 WZ200.F34.33.14+34.1 carinated 10YR 7/49 WZ200.E36.47.39 7.5YR 6/6 7 WZ200.F35.10.6 1 WZ200.E33.15.29 6 WZ200.F34.87.2 13 WZ200.G34.21.34 carinated 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/6; 10YR 4/2 10 WZ200.I33.18.3 14 WZ200.F33.4.1 12 WZ200.E33.31.2 11 WZ200.D36.2.40 15 WZ200.G34.39.8 16 WZ200.E33.3.42 17 WZ200.E36.105.2 Figure 4.12 132

7

1 8

9

2 10

3 11

4 12

5 13

6 14

Figure 4.13. Inverted straight vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma (scale 1:4). 133 p r rit 3 rit 1 rit 1 rit 1 rit 1 rit 1 rit 1 g g g g g g g ink ink ink rit 2 rit 1 ink ink rit 1 ink ink buff clea p p p g g p p g p p reduced 2 reduced 1 100 n/a 5 6 3 3 5 3 8 3 2 7 5 6 15 100 p Surface Rim EVE Base EVE Fabric Grou red sli r Int Colou 10YR 5/1 2.5YR 7/8 5YR 6/6 5YR 6/3 5YR 6/6 n/a n 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/3 10YR 4/1 5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/4 5YR 7/6 3 3 6 8 10YR 7/4 Core Colours 10YR 7/4; 2.5YR 6/ 7.5YR 5/4; 10YR 5/3; 5YR 6/ r 5YR 7/410YR 7/410YR 7/4 2.5YR 5/4; 10YR 5/2 5YR 6/6; 10YR 6/4; 5/ 10YR 7/4 n 10YR 7/310YR 7/4 10YR 4/1 n 10YR 5/210YR 7/4 10YR 4/1 5YR 6/6 n/a n/a 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 5YR 6/4 ithos 5YR 6/6 5YR 6/6; 10YR 6/4; 6/ Sub-form Ext Colou p ) LN1 ( r Sherd Numbe 5 WZ200.H34.5.56 6 WZ200.G33.12.6 7 WZ200.E33.3.34 8 WZ200.E33.28.2 9 WZ200.E33.21.10 1 WZ200.A.72.3 3 WZ200.F34.30.4 4 WZ200.G35.18.1 2 WZ200.F34.17.5 10 WZ200.E33.25.2 13 WZ200.F32.5.3 11 WZ200.F34.14.3 12 WZ200.E36.36.8 14 WZ200.E36.104.1 Figure 4.13 134

1 11

2

3 12

4 13

5 14

6 15

7

16

8

17 9

10 18

Figure 4.14. Inverted convex vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma (scale 1:4). 135 p ? 1 r r g ? ? r g g ro g rit 3 rit 3 rit 3 rit 1 rit 3 ro ro g g g g g g g ht clea ht clea ht g g g rit 3 rit 3 ink ink ink rit 3 ink rit 3 ink g g p p p g p g p 5 5 4 buff clea 6 bri 8 8 buff 4 7 reduced 2 8 8 6 bri 8 10 bri 10 buff 25 11 reduced 1 12 n/a p p p p p p Surface Rim EVE Fabric Grou red sli red sli r Int Colou 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/6 red sli 7.5YR 7/6 red sli 5YR 7/4 red sli 10YR 7/4 n/a 7.5YR 7/4 red sli 10YR 4/1 10YR 7/4 n/a n/a 10YR 6/4 10YR 7/4 n/a 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 4/1 10YR 4/1 7.5YR 8/4 6 / 5YR 7/4 Core Colours 2.5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6; 7.5YR 7/4 n/a 2.5YR 6/6 r Ext Colou n/a ) LN1 ( r Sherd Numbe 2 WZ200.E33.4.26 5YR 6/65 WZ200.E33.16.7 10YR 6/3 10YR 3/1 10YR 3/1 6 WZ200.E35.66.11 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 3 WZ200.F32.8.80 7.5YR 7/67 7.5YR 7/6 WZ200.I34.1.19 n/a 1 WZ200.F32.8.79 7.5YR 7/64 WZ200.D35.44.7 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4; 10YR 5 9 WZ200.G35.55.3 n/a 8 WZ200.E36.13.2 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/6 17 WZ200.E36.33.4+5 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4; 6/2 15 WZ200.F35.18.5? n/a 14 WZ200.E35.5.5 n/a 10 WZ200.H34.22.10111 5YR 7/6 WZ200.G34.20.38 10YR 7/4 5YR 6/6; 10YR 6/4; 6/ 10YR 7/4; 4/1 16 WZ200.F35.7.13 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 4/1 12 WZ200.A.72.5 18 WZ200.G34.17.64 5YR 7/6 5YR 6/6; 10YR 4/1 13 WZ200.E33.8.115 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 Figure 4.14 136

1

8

2

9

3

10

4 11

5

12

6

13

7

Figure 4.15. Inverted convex vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma (scale 1:4). 137 p ? 1 g ro g rit 1 rit 3 rit 3 rit 1 rit 3 rit 1 rit 2 y g g g g g g g ht g ink rit 3 rit 1 rit 3 ink ink ink ink ink ink p g g g p p p p p p 4 5 6 5 bri 4 6 6 earth 5 6 7 5 15 13 black burnish p , burnish p p Surface Rim EVE Fabric Grou r Int Colou 5YR 6/6 7.5YR 6/4 n/a 5YR 7/4 red sli 10YR 3/12.5YR 7/6 burnish 10YR 3/1 reddish-brown sli 10YR 7/4 red sli 5YR 5/3 10YR 7/4 n/a 7.5YR 7/4 5YR 6/4 8 6 4 6 Core Colours r Ext Colou 2.5Y 2.5/1 10YR 5/1 8 r Sherd Numbe 5 WZ200.F35.39.20 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 6/3; 2.5YR 6/6 3 WZ200.E33.8.2 10YR 7/3 10YR 6/3; 2.5Y 5/3 1 WZ200.E32.18.10 5YR 6/6 2.5YR 6/8; 10YR 6/4; 6/ 2 WZ200.E36.5.1 7.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 6/6; 10YR 5/4; 7/ 8 WZ200.F33.12.19 WZ200.E32.1.6 n/a n/a 5YR 7/6; 10YR 7/3 2.5YR 6/4; 10YR 6/3; 6/ 4 WZ200.E33.31.4+5+7+ 6 WZ200.G35.55.17 WZ200.E36.106.27 7.5YR 7/4 n/a 10YR 7/4 2.5YR 6/4 10 WZ200.E32.15.212 WZ200.E32.15.313 WZ200.E35.5.10 5YR 7/4 7.5YR 4/3 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 2.5YR 7/6 5YR 5/6 11 WZ200.E32.8.33 n/a 5YR 7/6; 10YR 7/4; 7/ Figure 4.15 138

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Figure 4.16. Inverted convex vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma (scale 1:4). 139 p rit 1 rit 2 rit 1 rit 1 rit 2 y g g g g g rit 3 ink ink rit 1 ink ink ink g p p g p p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 earth 6 8 5 3 5 6 5 12 Rim EVE Base EVE Fabric Grou r 2.5YR 6/8 5YR 7/6 Int Colou 2.5Y 4/1 10YR 4/1 10YR 4/1 5YR 6/6 6 Core Colours r 2.5YR 7/6 2.5YR 6/8 10YR 6/6 5YR 6/6; 10YR 6/4 7.5YR 7/610YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 10YR 5/3 2.5YR 6/8; 10YR 4/1 10YR 6/3; 5/3; 4/1 10YR 4/1 10YR 7/4 2.5YR 7/6; 10YR 7/3; 4/15YR 6/6 10YR 4/1 5YR 6/6 ithos 5YR 6/6 5YR 6/6; 10YR 6/3; 6/ Sub-form Ext Colou p 5 r Sherd Numbe 3 WZ200.I34.16.4 4 WZ200.E33.16.9+20 6 WZ200.E33.16.12 7 WZ200.F35.37.1 8 WZ200.D35.4.27+53 1 WZ200.E32.1.3+14+1 2 WZ200.D31.7.1 5 WZ200.E33.26.5 Figure 4.16 140

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Figure 4.17. Necked everted vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma (scale 1:4). 141 bright grog? 1 bright clear bright clear bright grog? 2 bright grog? 1 limey paste buff grog? buff grog? 8 8 8 8 7 10 12 n/a Rim EVE Base EVE Fabric Group 5YR 7/6 n/a incised, impressed 50 100 n/a 7.5YR 7/4 Int Colour Surface 7.5YR 7/6 red slip 2.5YR 6/8 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/6 Sherd Number Ext Colour Core Colours 9 WZ200.A.72.6 (LN1) n/a n/a 5 WZ200.E35.17.146 WZ200.E34.65.3 n/a7 WZ200.E34.13.1 7.5YR 8/3 5YR 7/6 10YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 6/3; 7.5YR 5/4 7.5YR 6/4 reddish-brown slip 8 WZ200.F34.18.1 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 5/4 2 WZ200.E36.12.53 WZ200.H34.40.3 10YR 6/44 WZ200.E32.8.2 2.5YR 6/8 10YR 5/3; 6/4 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 6/6 10YR 7/4 1 WZ200.F34.9.5 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 6/6 Figure 4.17 142

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Figure 4.18. Necked inverted vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma (scale 1:4). 143 p ? 1 r g r r ro g ht clea ht g g rit 3 rit 3 g g 5 buff clea 7 buff clea 7 bri 9 bri 5 10 reduced 2 13 p p p Surface Rim EVE Fabric Grou red-brown sli r Int Colou 10YR 6/3 black sli 5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 5YR 7/67.5YR 7/6 red sli 4 Core Colours r n/a 10YR 6/6 5YR 7/4 10YR 7/6 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 6/6 10YR 8/2 10YR 7/3 2.5YR 7/6 2.5YR 7/6; 7.5YR 7/6 ed 10YR 6/3 10YR 5/3; 4/1; 6/ p Sub-form Ext Colou r Sherd Numbe 3 WZ200.E33.13.14 5 WZ200.F33.4.4 7 WZ200.E34.65.4 1 WZ200.E32.18.1 2 WZ200.F34.31.164 WZ200.H34.39.10 s-sha 6 WZ200.D36.2.39 Figure 4.18 144

4

5 1

6

2

7 3

8

9

10

11

12

Figure 4.19. Necked vertical straight and necked indeterminate indeterminate vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma (scale 1:4). 145 p r rit 1 rit 1 rit 1 g g g ink rit 1 ink rit 3 ink p g p g p black burnish reduced 1 reduced 1 reduced 1 white lime 1 buff clea 4 0 0 0 5 30 30 16 10 20 100 100 n/a , burnish 0 p p Surface Rim EVE Base EVE Fabric Grou red sli red sli r Int Colou 5YR 7/6 n/a 5YR 7/6 10YR 3/1 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/4 2.5Y 5/1 7.5YR 4/1 n/a 10YR 5/2 10YR 7/2 5YR 6/6 6 Core Colours r Ext Colou n/a n/a ) LN1 ( r Sherd Numbe 2 WZ200.E32.8.5 5YR 6/6 5YR 6/6 1 WZ200.A.72.4 5 WZ200.G35.68.2 10YR 7/4 5YR 6/6 3 WZ200.E33.8.11+12 7.5YR 7/66 10YR 6/6; 5YR 6/6 WZ200.H33.6.28 WZ200.H34.23.30 7.5YR 7/4 2.5Y 3/1 10YR 5/2; 5YR 7/6 2.5Y 3/1 9 WZ200.G34.20.35 10YR 5/2 10YR 5/2 4 WZ200.E33.20.10 10YR 8/27 WZ200.H35.8.4 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/6 2.5YR 7/6; 10YR 5/1; 7/ 12 WZ200.F33.26.5 10YR 3/1 10YR 4/1 10 WZ200.G35.75.211 WZ200.E33.42.6+12 10YR 3/1 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 2/1 5YR 6/4; 7.5YR 4/1 Figure 4.19 146

1 8 15

2 9 16

3 10

4 17 11

5

18 12

6 19 13

20

7 14

21 25 23

22 26

24

Figure 4.20. Flat bases from Tabaqat al-Bûma (scale 1:4). 147 35 grit 3 11 pink grit 1 40 grit 1 27 pink grit 3 20 pink grit 1 12 grit 1 13 bright grog? 1 21 grit 1 12 bright grog? 1 15 pink grit 3 27 buff clear 16 pink grit 3 25 grit 1 12 bright grog? 3 30 black burnish 18 grit 2 30 white lime 1 12 bright grog? 3 14 pink grit 1 n/a pink grit 3 n/an/a bright grog? 1 grit 3 n/a grit 1 n/a pink grit 1 n/an/a bright grog? 2 grit 2 10YR 6/3 10YR 7/45YR 6/8 red slip red slip 5YR 7/4 10YR 4/1 2.5YR 7/6 n/a 2.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 n/a 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 3/1 5YR 6/6 Int Colour Surface Base EVE Fabric Group 10YR 4/1 5YR 7/6 n/a10YR 6/3 red slip 10YR 7/4 burnish 5YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/6 5YR 7/6 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/47.5YR 7/6 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 6/4; 4/1 2.5YR 7/610YR 7/4 5YR 6/6; 10YR 4/2 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 6/3; 2.5Y 5/2; 6/310YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/8 n/a 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 7/3; 2.5YR 7/6 10YR 8/3 7.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/6 10YR 7/4; 2.5Y 6/3 5YR 7/4 10YR 6/3; 4/1; 6/3 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 6/4 5YR 6/6; 10YR 6/4 5YR 7/65YR 6/6 5YR 7/6; 7.5YR 6/4 10YR 7/4 5YR 6/6; 7.5YR 6/4; 6/6 10YR 7/4 5YR 6/6 red slip 2.5Y 2.5/1 2.5Y 3/1 7.5YR 7/65YR 6/6 2.5YR 6/6 5YR 6/4; 10YR 5/3 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 7/6 mat-impressed 7.5YR 5/3 5YR 6/4; 10YR 5/1 Sub-form Ext Colour Core Colours WZ200.E33.13.18+36 Sherd Number WZ200.E33.3.35 7 WZ200.F32.23.11 8 6 WZ200.F34.30.11 9 WZ200.F32.27.19 5 WZ200.H34.22.132 2 WZ200.E33.28.12 3 WZ200.E35.36.2 4 WZ200.F35.2.10 1 WZ200.E33.11.17 26 WZ200.E35.66.8 mat-impressed 5YR 7/6 10YR 6/3; 5YR 6/6 25 WZ200.J33.1.6 10 WZ200.E35.5.11 11 WZ200.E33.6.4 12 WZ200.E35.7.1+2 13 WZ200.F33.12.2 14 WZ200.E35.1.4 15 WZ200.E33.26.1 16 WZ200.E33.8.3 24 WZ200.E35.75.9 mat-impressed 5YR 6/6 5YR 6/6 17 WZ200.E33.16.21 18 23 WZ200.F35.20.18 mat-impressed 5YR 7/6 5YR 6/6 22 WZ200.G35.34.2 mat-impressed 5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 19 WZ200.F34.22.24 (LN2) 20 WZ200.F32.2.24 21 WZ200.D36.5.10 mat-impressed 10YR 7/4 10YR 6/3; 4/2; 2.5YR 7/6 2.5YR 7/6 Figure 4.20 148

1 7

12

8 2

3 13

9

4 10 14

5

6 11 15

16

17 18

19 21

20

Figure 4.21. Other bases from Tabaqat al-Bûma (scale 1:4). 149 E 5 pink grit 1 0 grit 3 7 pink grit 3 7 grit 3 0 grit 3 23 buff clear 17 pink grit 1 13 grit 3 36 pink grit 1 15 buff clear 17 pink grit 3 18 grit 3 13 reduced 2 16 buff grog? 12 buff clear 11 grit 1 12 pink grit 3 n/a pink grit 1 n/an/a buff clear buff grog? red slip 10YR 7/6 5YR 6/6 2.5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6 5YR 6/6 red slip 10YR 7/4 red slip 7.5YR 7/6 red-brown slip 17 abundant grog? Int Colour Surface Base EV Fabric Group 10YR 7/4 n/a10YR 7/410YR 7/3 red slip red slip red slip 10YR 5/2 10YR 4/1 7.5YR 7/6 5YR 6/4 10YR 4/1 n/a WZ200.F33.5.4 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 Sherd Number Ext Colour Core Colours 9 WZ200.I34.11.1 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6 8 WZ200.H34.22.134 n/a 10YR 4/1; 7.5YR 7/6 6 WZ200.J33.2.2 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/6; 2.5Y 6/2; 6/6 5YR 6/6 7 WZ200.H34.42.2 10YR 8/3 10YR 7/4 3 WZ200.E32.1.134 WZ200.F33.24.55 WZ200.H34.23.26 n/a n/a 10YR 7/3 7.5YR 6/3 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/4 1 WZ200.E36.17.482 WZ200.E36.12.1 7.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 6/6; 10YR 5/2 10YR 4/1 10YR 4/1 11 WZ200.E36.17.4912 WZ200.F35.33.1 7.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 7/4 10YR 6/4; 2.5YR 6/6 10 WZ200.J33.4.1 10YR 7/413 WZ200.E36.105.614 5YR 6/4; 10YR 7/3; 6/4 WZ200.F35.30.7 10YR 7/3 5YR 6/4 16 5YR 6/6 5YR 6/6 2.5YR 7/6 15 WZ200.F34.5.7 7.5YR 6/4 5YR 5/3; 10YR 7/3; 2.5YR 7/6 2.5YR 7/6 17 WZ200.F33.5.1 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 18 WZ200.F32.23.1419 WZ200.H34.32.1 10YR 8/220 WZ200.H34.22.13521 10YR 4/1; 7/4 WZ200.F32.26.4 10YR 5/2 5YR 7/4 10YR 5/2; 5YR 6/4 10YR 7/4; 5/1 10YR 7/3 5YR 6/4; 10YR 5/3 Figure 4.21 150

3 1 2

8 5 4 6 7

9 11 13 10 12

16 15 17 14

18 19 20 21

23 22

Figure 4.22. Strap handles from Tabaqat al-Bûma (scale 1:4). 151 buff clear pink grit 1 pink grit 1 buff clear grit 1 grit 1 abundant grog? bright grog? 1 pink grit 1 bright grog? 1 grit 3 pink grit 1 grit 1 bright grog? 1 white lime 1 bright grog? 1 white lime 1 grit 3 grit 1 pink grit 1 grit 3 pink grit 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 n/a n/a n/a 2.5YR 6/8 10YR 6/3 n/a WZ200.G35.25.1 2.5YR 7/6 2.5YR 7/6 Sherd Number Ext Colour Core Colours Int Colour Surface Fabric Group 9 8 WZ200.H33.21.1 5YR 7/6 5YR 6/6; 10YR 6/3 10YR 7/3 7 WZ200.E35.71.1 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6; 2.5YR 7/6 2.5YR 6/6 6 WZ200.F35.17.8 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 6/4 5 WZ200.F35.18.7 10YR 7/4 n/a 4 WZ200.I34.17.10 10YR 7/4 n/a 3 WZ200.F34.74.9 n/a 2.5YR 7/6; 7.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/4 red slip pink grit 3 2 WZ200.D35.25.41 10YR 7/6 n/a 1 WZ200.F34.11.6+7 5YR 7/6 n/a 21 WZ200.E33.16.18 10YR 7/4 n/a 20 WZ200.E32.1.1 7.5YR 7/6 n/a 19 WZ200.E33.9.16 10YR 7/4 n/a 18 WZ200.E35.130.2 10YR 8/3 n/a 17 WZ200.E35.17.1 5YR 7/4 n/a 16 WZ200.E37.1.78 7.5YR 7/6 n/a 15 WZ200.H34.20.16 n/a n/a 14 WZ200.E35.21.4 2.5YR 6/6 5YR 5/8; 6/6 n/a 13 WZ200.E36.22.1 10YR 7/4 n/a 12 WZ200.G34.12.16 5YR 6/6 n/a 10 WZ200.E36.33.811 WZ200.H35.10.1 n/a n/a 10YR 7/3; 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/4; 5/3 2.5YR 7/4 n/a 23 WZ200.J34.1.1 10YR 6/3 10YR 5/2 22 WZ200.I34.16.1 2.5YR 6/8 2.5YR 6/6 Figure 4.22 152

2 3 1

4 6 5

10 9 7 8

11 12 13 14

17

15

18

16

19

Figure 4.23. Ledge handles (including lugs) from Tabaqat al-Bûma (scale 1:4). 153 pink grit 2 grit 1 bright grog? 3 bright grog? 1 pink grit 1 earthy reduced 2 grit 2 bright grog? 2 buff clear pink grit 1 pink grit 1 grit 3 bright grog? 1 buff grog? buff clear grit 1 grit 1 3 pink grit 1 n/a n/a 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/6 10YR 7/45YR 6/4 black slip 5YR 6/6 10YR 3/1 10YR 7/4 2.5YR 6/6 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/4 Int Colour Surface Rim EVE Fabric Group n/a 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 WZ200.E35.36.5b 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4; 2.5YR 7/6 Sherd Number Ext Colour Core Colours 9 WZ200.E35.87.78 10YR 6/4 5YR 4/4 8 WZ200.G35.73.6 5YR 7/6 10YR 8/3 7 WZ200.J34.3.58 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/4; 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/6 5 WZ200.H35.5.36 WZ200.A.46.1 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 7.5YR 4/3; 10YR 3/2; 5YR 5/6 5YR 7/4 2 WZ200.F34.30.103 10YR 7/4 WZ200.F34.17.84 WZ200.F32.3.3 7.5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6 2.5YR 7/4; 7/2; 7/4 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6; 10YR 7/4 1 WZ200.D31.5.1 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4; 6/3; 7/4 10YR 7/4 10 WZ200.E35.84.4711 10YR 5/4 WZ200.E36.38.3612 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 4/2; 4/4 WZ200.F35.8.1513 10YR 4/2; 3/1 WZ200.G35.36.23 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 10YR 7/4; 2.5YR 7/6 2.5YR 6/6 14 20 WZ200.E35.5.2 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6 15 WZ200.H34.23.32 10YR 5/2 10YR 7/2 16 WZ200.H34.39.918 WZ200.E36.36.2 10YR 7/4 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 6/4 2.5YR 6/6 19 WZ200.F33.4.2 5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 Figure 4.23 154

1 10

2

3 11

4

12

5

13

6

14

7

15 8

16 9

17

Figure 4.24. Everted straight vessels from al-Basatîn (scale 1:4) 155 reduced 2 8 reduced 2 3 chaff 4 bright grit 2 5 bright clear 7 grit 3 3 abundant grog? 7 bright grit 2 6 bright grit 2 6 buff clear 5 grit 3 5 buff clear 4 bright grog? 1 10 buff clear 14 bright clear 10 grit 3 h n/a bright clear 7.5YR 7/4 5YR 7/6 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/4 5YR 7/6 red-brown slip 5YR 6/4 7.5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6 n/a red-brown slip n/a n/a red slip, burnish 10YR 8/4 red slip Int Colour Surface Rim EVE Fabric Group 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4; 10YR 3/1; 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 red slip, burnish 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/3; 4/; 7/3 n/a red-brown slip 5YR 6/4; 10YR 6/3; 6/4 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 4/1 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6; 10YR 6/3; 7/6 10YR 5/1 10YR 5/1; 6/2 7.5YR 7/4 2.5Y 7/2 7.5YR 7/6n/a 10YR 6/3; 7.5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 5YR 6/4; 10YR 6/3; 6/4 7.5YR 7/65YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 n/a n/a 5YR 7/4 5YR 6/4; 10YR 6/2; 6/4 n/a 5YR 6/6 10YR 7/3; 3/1; 7/3 5YR 6/6 10YR 8/4 7.5YR 6/4 10YR 7/4 10YR 6/3 Ext Colour Core Colours Sherd Number 8 WZ135.Q41.44.105 9 WZ140.G13.4.104 7 WZ135.P34.17.105 5 WZ135.P33.56.100 6 WZ135.P41.16.105 3 WZ135.Q41.19.102 4 WZ135.P41.27.100 2 WZ135.Q41.22.100 1 WZ135.Q41.57.100 17 WZ135.Q33.35.100 16 WZ135.P33.54.105+106 7.5YR 7/6 5YR 6/6; 10YR 7/3; 6/6 15 WZ135.P33.54.101b 14 WZ135.P41.2?.101 13 WZ135.Q41.26.101 11 WZ135.P36.56.101 12 WZ135.P42.69.100 10 WZ135.P41.20.1 Figure 4.24 156

1

2

Figure 4.25. Everted concave vessels from al-Basatîn (scale 1:4). 157 4 bright grog? 3 6 bright grit 2 Int Colour Rim EVE Fabric Group Sherd Number Ext Colour Core Colours 1 WZ135.Q41.26.1002 WZ135.Q41.19.104 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/6 10YR 7/3; 7.5YR 7/4 2.5YR 7/6; 7.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/6 2.5YR 7/6 Figure 4.25 158

1 9

2

10

3

11

4

5 12

6

7 13

14 8

Figure 4.26. Everted convex vessels from al-Basatîn (scale 1:4). 159 buff grog? buff clear chaff bright clear grit 3 bright grit 2 bright grit 1 chaff grit 3 chaff chaff grit 3 bright grit 2 5 8 7 7 3 5 3 6 7 6 10 10 10 30 bright clear 10 10YR 7/3 Int Colour Surface Rim EVE Base EVE Fabric Group 5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 red slip 7.5YR 7/6 2.5Y 7/3 n/a 10YR 8/3 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 10YR 7/3 5YR 7/4; 10YR 6/2; 7/4 5YR 7/4 n/a 10YR 5/2 10YR 7/3 2.5Y 7/3; 10YR 3/1; 7/3 10YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 Ext Colour Core Colours 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6; 10YR 7/3; 7/6 5YR 7/6 5YR 6/6 5YR 6/6; 10YR 6/3; 6/6 5YR 6/6 7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/4; 10YR 5/2; 6/4 7.5YR 6/4 groove int. lip 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4; 6/2; 7/4 10YR 7/4 2.5Y 7/3 2.5Y 6/3 10YR 7/3 n/a 10YR 8/3 5YR 6/6; 10YR 4/1 WZ135.P33.51.100+101 Sherd Number 3 WZ135.Q33.32.100 5 WZ135.P41.12.1 6 WZ135.Q41.123.108 2 4 WZ135.P40.15.1 7 WZ135.P33.28.100 1 WZ135.P34.17.100+101 8 WZ135.P34.15.100 9 WZ135.Q38.17.100+101+102+103 7.5YR 7/3 5YR 7/4; 10YR 8/3; 7/4 7.5YR 7/6 red slip 10 WZ135.P33.30.106 11 WZ140.G13.6.119 12 WZ135.Q37.8.100 13 WZ135.P33.50.114 14 WZ135.N41.25.1 Figure 4.26 160

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Figure 4.27. Vertical straight vessels from al-Basatîn (scale 1:4). 161 5 bright grit 2 6 chaff 2 6 bright grog? 1 3 bright grit 2 3 black burnish 6 bright grit 2 5 grit 1 10 grit 3 10 bright clear Rim EVE Fabric Group 2.5YR 6/6 Int Colour Slip 10YR 3/1 burnish 5YR 7/6 red slip, burnish 5YR 7/3 5YR 7/3; 10YR 6/2; 7/3 5YR 7/3 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/3; 5/1; 7/3 10YR 7/3 5YR 7/6 5YR 6/6; 2.5YR 6/6 n/a 10YR 6/4; 4/2; 6/4 n/a brown slip n/a 5YR 7/6; 10YR 3/1; 7/6 5YR 7/6 red slip 10YR 2/1 10YR 4/1 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/4; 10YR 4/1 7.5YR 7/3 5YR 7/4; 10YR 7/3; 7/4 7.5YR 7/3 red slip, burnish carinated 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/4; 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/6 red slip Sub-form Ext Colour Core Colours Sherd Number 9 WZ135.P33.53.112 8 WZ135.Q38.7.102+103+105 7 WZ135.R41.24.100 6 WZ135.P33.42+46.vessel 5 WZ135.P33.48.104 4 WZ140.J15.18.1 3 WZ135.R41.11.100 2 WZ135.Q41.21.106 1 WZ135.Q41.26.106 Figure 4.27 162

1 6

7

2

8

3 9

10 4

5 11

13

15 14

Figure 4.28. Inverted vessels from al-Basatîn (scale 1:4). 163 grit 3 earthy grit 3 bright grit 2 grit 3 grit 3 earthy earthy earthy chaff bright grit 1 5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 combed buff clear 7.5YR 5/4 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/6 5YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 Int Colour Surface Fabric Group / 5YR 7/6 red slip bright grit 2 5YR 7/67.5YR 7/6 5YR 7/4; 10YR 6/3 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 6/2 10YR 3/1; 7.5YR 4/3 10YR 7/35YR 7/6 5YR 7/3; 10YR 7/310YR 7/4 5YR 7/6; 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6; 10YR 5/1 5YR 6/3 10YR 3/1; 5YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 10YR 4/1; 6/3 10YR 8/3 5YR 7/3; 10YR 6/1; 7/3 10YR 8/3 10YR 6/3 10YR 5/4 5YR 7/6 5YR 6/6; 10YR 6/3; 6/6 5YR 7/6 carinated 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4; 2.5YR 7/6; 7/4 10YR 7/4 red slip, combed bright grog? 1 Sub-form Ext Colour Core Colours carinated 5YR 6/6 5YR 6/6; 10YR 6/4; 6/6 5YR 6/6 incised bright grog? 3 Sherd Number 9 WZ135.P36.45.100 8 WZ135.P33.36.100 7 WZ135.P41.16.108 6 WZ135.P41.28.100 5 WZ135.Q38.11.100+102 4 WZ135.Q37.19.100 1 WZ135.Q38.14.100+101+102+103 carinated 5YR 7/6 10YR 8/3; 5YR 7/6 3 WZ135.P33.54.108 2 WZ135.Q43.vessel 13 WZ135.Q33.38.100 14 WZ135.Q37.25.104 15 WZ135.P33+P34.vessel 12 WZ135.P33.52.116 10 WZ135.Q41.20.101 11 WZ135.P41.16.102 Figure 4.28 164

1

2

Figure 4.29. Necked vessels from al-Basatîn (scale 1:4). 165 black burnish 6 bright grit 2 Rim EVE Fabric Group Sherd Number Ext Colour Core Colours Int Colour Surface 2 WZ135.P33.61.117 n/a 5YR 6/4 n/a red slip, burnish 1 WZ135.P40.5.8 10YR 2/1 10YR 5/1 n/a red-brown slip, burnish Figure 4.29 166

13 1 7

2 8

14

3 9

10 4 15

5 11 16

6 12 17

18

20 19

Figure 4.30. Flat bases from al-Basatîn (scale 1:4). 167 8 bright grit 2 9 grit 3 6 grit 3 15 chaff 12 crumbly yellow 25 abundant grog? 15 buff clear 95 bright grit 1 10 bright grog? 3 22 grit 1 13 chaff 17 bright grog? 1 15 bright grit 2 10 chaff 2 10 bright clear 12 buff clear n/a chaff n/a chaff Int Colour Surface Base EVE Fabric Group 10YR 4/1 7.5YR 74/ 5YR 7/4 10YR 4/1 / 5YR 7/4 10YR 8/4 red-brown slip 20 grit 3 10YR 7/4 red-brown slip 100 bright grit 1 10YR 7/3 red slip 5YR 6/6 2.5YR 7/6 5YR 7/4 10YR 4/2 5YR 6/4 10YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 10YR 7/4; 5YR 7/4 5YR 6/610YR 6/3 5YR 6/6; 10YR 5/2; 6/6 5YR 7/4; 10YR 5/1; 6/310YR 8/3 5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4; 10YR 7/3; 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 3/1 10YR 7/37.5YR 5/4 10YR 6/3 7.5YR 5/4; 10YR 5/1 7.5YR 7/67.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/6 n/a n/a 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/6; 2.5YR 6/6 10YR 8/3 5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 5YR 7/6 2.5YR 7/6; 7.5YR 6/6; 7/6 5YR 7/6 combed 10YR 7/4 2.5Y 6/3; 5YR 6/6 10YR 8/3 10YR 5/2; 5YR 7/3 pebble-impressed 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/3; 5/1; 7/3 10YR 7/4 pebble-impressed 10YR 7/3 5YR 6/3 Sub-form Ext Colour Core Colours matt-impressed 5YR 6/4 10YR 7/3; 3/1; 7/3 5YR 6/4 Sherd Number 8 WZ135.P42.85.101 3 WZ135.P42.19.101 4 WZ135.Q36.56.109+110+111+112 5 WZ135.P33.62.117 6 WZ135.P40.11.4 9 WZ135.R41.16.105 2 WZ135.Q36.56.100A 7 WZ135.Q38.10.100+101 1 WZ135.Q41.26.104+105 18 WZ135.P33.48.108 20 WZ135.P41.10.28 13 WZ135.P33.56.103 14 WZ135.Q38.15.102 15 WZ135.Q37.25.120+121+123 16 WZ135.Q41.31.100 17 WZ135.P36.42.100 19 WZ140.K15.15.1 10 WZ135.Q41.20.109+110 12 WZ135.P33.61.107 11 WZ135.Q41.121.100 Figure 4.30 168

5 1

6

2

3

7

4

Figure 4.31. Other bases from al-Basatîn (scale 1:4). 169 bright grit 2 7 buff grog? 27 buff clear 17 chaff 2 12 chaff 12 grit 3 22 bright grog? 3 10YR 7/2 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 7/4 Sherd Number Ext Colour Core Colours Int Colour Surface Base EVE Fabric Group 7 WZ135.Q37.24.106 10YR 6/1 10YR 7/3; 5YR 7/4 5YR 7/6 combed V 6 WZ135.P36.12.100 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 5 WZ135.P33.25.100 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 6/6 4 WZ140.K15.16.1 7.5YR 5/3 10YR 5/3 3 WZ135.Q33.23.105 10YR 7/3 5YR 7/3 2 WZ135.Q41.17.104 10YR 6/2 10YR 6/2; 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/4 1 WZ135.P36.30.100 10YR 8/3 10YR 7/4; 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 8/4 Figure 4.31 170

4 3 1 2 5

7 8 9 6

11 12

10

13 14

15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22

25 23 24

Figure 4.32. Handles from al-Basatîn (scale 1:4). 171 chaff 2 buff clear buff clear chaff buff clear bright grit 2 bright grog? 3 chaff chaff buff clear bright grit 2 bright grit 2 buff clear bright grit 2 chaff 2 grit 3 grit 3 grit 3 bright grit 2 grit 1 buff clear earthy bright grit 2 buff clear bright clear n/an/a combed combed n/a red slip red n/a combed n/a incised Int Colour Surface Slip Colour Fabric Group 7.5YR 5/2 10YR 7/4 n/a 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/45YR 6/4 red slipn/a red 10YR 7/4 red slip red 7.5YR 7/4 n/a 10YR 7/3 n/a 7.5YR 7/4 5YR 6/610YR 7/4 n/a n/a 5YR 7/4 n/a 5YR 7/6 n/a 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6; 10YR 7/4; 7/6 5YR 7/6 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/3; 5/1; 7/3 5YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/4 n/a 10YR 8/3 5YR 7/4; 10YR 7/3; 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 red slip red 10YR 7/4 5YR 6/6; 10YR 4/1; 6/4 5YR 6/6 Ext Colour Core Colours 10YR 7/4 10YR 5/1 10YR 7/4 n/a 5YR 7/3 5YR 7/3; 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/47.5YR 7/4 10YR 7/3 5YR 7/6 5YR 6/4 2.5YR 7/6 n/a 2.5YR 7/6; 10YR 6/4; 7/6 2.5YR 7/6 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4; 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 5YR 7/310YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/4; 10YR 7/2; 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 5YR 7/3 7.5YR 5/4 n/a 5YR 7/47.5YR 7/4 2.5YR 7/6; 2.5Y 7/2; / 7.5YR 7/4 Sherd Number WZ135.Q37.25.113-119 9 WZ135.P33.54.103 6 WZ135.Q37.14.100 7 WZ135.Q41.18.100 8 WZ135.P33.48.100+101 4 WZ135.P41.11.3 5 WZ135.Q41.44.106 3 WZ140.J15.10.1 1 WZ135.Q36.48.102+103+104+105 10YR 8/4 n/a 2 WZ135.Q38.17.104 10 WZ135.P33.56.106+107+10811 WZ135.Q36.42.100 12 WZ135.P33.61.119 5YR 6/4 5YR 6/6 13 WZ135.P33.52.100 19 WZ135.P33.56.112 18 WZ135.P42.81.100 14 WZ135.P42.15.100 15 WZ135.P36.55.101 16 WZ135.P36.42.101 17 WZ135.N41.24.5 20 WZ135.P34.9.114 21 WZ135.P41.7.1 22 WZ135.Q37.4.112 23 WZ135.P33.48.107 24 25 WZ135.Q41.123.100 Figure 4.32 172

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Figure 4.33. Everted straight vessels from al-’Aqaba (scale 1:4). 173 8 grit 3 7 grit 3 5 grit 1 9 bright grog? 2 3 grit 1 calcite 3 grit 1 2 pink grit 1 calcite 3 grit 1 Rim EVE Fabric Group Int Colour Slip n/a10YR 7/47.5YR 8/4 red slip red slip, burnish 5YR 7/4 red slip 10YR 5/1 red-brown slip Sherd Number Ext Colour Core Colours 4 WZ310.A.57.2 10YR 5/1 2.5YR 6/6; 7.5YR 4/2; 6/6 10YR 7/4 red slip 1 WZ310.A.57.242 WZ310.A.63.30 n/a3 WZ310.A.56.2 n/a5 7.5YR 8/4 WZ310.A.50.4 7.5YR 7/4 6 7.5YR 8/4 WZ310.A.57.3 10YR 7/3 7 10YR 8/3 WZ310.A.80.198 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 7/3; 5YR 7/4 WZ310.A.49.12 n/a 7.5YR 7/4; 10YR 5/1; 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 5/2 red slip 5YR 6/6; 10YR 5/2; 6/6 5YR 7/4 red slip, burnish Figure 4.33 174

1

2

Figure 4.34. Everted concave vessels from al-’Aqaba (scale 1:4). 175 5 bright clear 5 pink grit 1 calcite 7.5YR 7/4 WZ310.A.17.29 5YR 6/6 5YR 7/6; 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 Sherd Number Ext Colour Core Colours Int Colour Rim EVE Fabric Group 2 1 WZ310.A.64.6 10YR 7/4 2.5YR 6/6 Figure 4.34 176

1 8

2 9

3 10

4

11

5

12 6

13 7

14

Figure 4.35. Everted convex vessels from al-’Aqaba (scale 1:4). 177 6 pink grit 1 5 buff clear 3 pink grit 1 3 grit 1 calcite 6 pink grit 1 calcite 4 reduced 1 4 pink grit 2 3 pink grit 1 6 pink grit 1 calcite 3 buff clear 4 buff clear 5 pink grit 3 10 white lime 1 15 grit 1 Rim EVE Fabric Group 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 n/a red slip, burnish 5YR 7/6 red slip, burnish 10YR 7/4 red-brown slip, burnish 10YR 3/1 Int Colour Slip 5YR 7/6 red slip 7.5YR 8/3 red slip 5YR 6/6 n/a red slip, burnish 10YR 7/4 5YR 6/6 10YR 7/4; 5YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 red slip, burnish 5YR 7/6 2.5YR 6/6 n/a 10YR 7/4n/a 5YR 7/4 10YR 8/310YR 7/4 10YR 8/3 10YR 7/4; 2.5YR 6/6; 7/4 10YR 7/4 red slip n/a 10YR 7/4 2.5YR 7/6 10YR 3/1 10YR 5/1 5YR 7/6 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 8/4 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 7/6n/a 7.5YR 6/4 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/3 Sherd Number Sub-form Ext Colour Core Colours 7 WZ310.A.17.56 8 WZ310.A.19.569 WZ310.A.42.35 carinated 5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4; 10YR 6/3; 7/4 5YR 7/4 red slip 6 WZ310.A.63.22 5 WZ310.A.81.9 4 WZ310.A.53.10 1 WZ310.A.5.3 2 WZ310.A.18.1 3 WZ310.B.7.1 10 WZ310.A.61.20 11 WZ310.A.56.10 12 WZ310.A.61.9 13 WZ310.A.56.5 14 WZ310.A.7.2 Figure 4.35 178

1 7

2 8

3

9

4 10

5

11

6

12

13

14

Figure 4.36. Vertical straight vessels from al-’Aqaba (scale 1:4). 179 6 pink grit 1 7 grit 1 5 pink grit 1 calcite 5 pink grit 1 calcite 5 bright grog? 2 3 grit 1 6 bright grog? 1 5 black burnish 6 pink grit 1 4 pink grit 1 3 black burnish 5 bright grog? 1 4 black burnish 13 bright clear Rim EVE Fabric Group 10YR 7/3 5YR 6/4 7.5YR 7/6 red slip n/a red-brown slip, burnish 5YR 7/6 red slip 10YR 2/1 burnish 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/3 red slip, burnish n/a red slip Int Colour Surface 10YR 7/4 5YR 6/4 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 n/a n/a 7.5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4; 10YR 4/1; 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 2/1 10YR 4/1 7.5YR 7/6 2.5YR 6/6; 10YR 7/4 n/a 2.5YR 5/6 10YR 3/1 10YR 4/1; 5/3; 4/1 10YR 3/1 burnish n/a 5YR 7/6 10YR 2/1 10YR 5/1; 5YR 5/3; 5/1 10YR 4/1 burnish Sherd Number Sub-form Ext Colour Core Colours 9 WZ310.A.74.7 8 WZ310.B.9.26 7 WZ310.A.19.48 carinated 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6 6 WZ310.A.81.11 5 WZ310.A.35.2 4 WZ310.A.61.11 3 WZ310.A.63.25 2 WZ310.A.53.47 1 WZ310.A.64.22 14 WZ310.A.54.1 pithos 2.5YR 7/6 5YR 7/4; 10YR 5/2; 7/4 2.5YR 7/6 13 WZ310.A.54.2 pithos 2.5YR 7/6 2.5YR 7/6; 10YR 5/2; 7/6 2.5YR 7/6 12 WZ310.A.50.1 pithos 7.5YR 7/3 5YR 6/4 11 WZ310.A.80.2 10 WZ310.A.51.31 Figure 4.36 180

6

1

2 7

3 8

4 9

5 10

Figure 4.37. Inverted straight vessels from al-’Aqaba (scale 1:4). 181 5 pink grit 1 5 pink grit 1 7 pink grit 1 calcite 4 pink grit 2 4 pink grit 1 3 pink grit 1 8 pink grit 1 calcite 4 grit 2 7 grit 3 n/a pink grit 1 5YR 7/4 5YR 6/4 7.5YR 5/2 5YR 6/6 10YR 7/4 Int Colour Surface Rim EVE Fabric Group 10YR 7/3 2.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/4 red slip 5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 5YR 6/4 5YR 6/45YR 7/65YR 6/6 5YR 5/3 2.5YR 7/6; 10YR 6/3; 7/6 5YR 6/6 5YR 7/6 10YR 7/4 2.5YR 7/6 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/4; 2.5YR 7/4 5YR 7/6 2.5YR 6/6 10YR 7/6 10YR 7/4; 2.5YR 7/6; 7/4 10YR 7/6 Sherd Number Sub-form Ext Colour Core Colours 9 WZ310.A.53.21 6 WZ310.A.70.2 7 WZ310.A.50.6 8 WZ310.B.14.71 5 WZ310.A.81.14 4 WZ310.A.49.8 3 WZ310.A.49.23 2 WZ310.A.63.29 1 WZ310.A.49.6+25+37 carinated 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 6/4 10 WZ310.A.7.1 Figure 4.37 182

1 7

2 8

3 9

4 10

5 11

12 6

Figure 4.38. Inverted convex vessels from al-’Aqaba (scale 1:4). 183 5 pink grit 1 7 grit 3 7 pink grit 1 3 grit 1 5 grit 1 9 pink grit 1 7 grit 1 8 pink grit 2 6 pink grit 1 10 pink grit 1 11 grit 1 Int Colour Surface Rim EVE Fabric Group 10YR 6/3 2.5YR 7/6 5YR 6/6 10YR 4/1 5YR 7/4 10YR 7/3 n/a red-brown slip 5 pinkish earthy 10YR 6/3 5YR 7/4 Sherd Number Ext Colour Core Colours 2 WZ310.A.76.5 10YR 7/4 10YR 8/3; 5/1; 8/3 10YR 7/4 1 WZ310.A.63.11 2.5YR 7/6 2.5YR 7/6 3 WZ310.B.14.2 7.5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4; 10YR 7/3; 5/1 10YR 4/1 4 WZ310.A.49.365 WZ310.A.42.19 10YR 7/46 WZ310.A.53.4 5YR 7/4 10YR 7/4; 4/1 10YR 7/3 5YR 7/4; 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/3; 5/1 9 WZ310.A.47.19 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/3; 5/2 7 WZ310.A.63.20 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4; 5YR 7/4 8 WZ310.A.15.201 10YR 7/3 2.5YR 6/6; 10YR 6/3; 4/1 10YR 4/1 12 WZ310.A.64.154 10YR 7/4 5YR 5/4 10 WZ310.A.56.911 WZ310.A.53.13 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 5YR 6/4; 10YR 5/2 5YR 6/4 Figure 4.38 184

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Figure 4.39. Necked vessels from al-’Aqaba (scale 1:4). 185 pink grit 1 pink grit 2 reduced slipped 6 buff clear 4 bright clear 8 reduced 2 6 reduced slipped 5 grit 2 8 grit 1 Rim EVE Fabric Group 5YR 7/4 red slip 10YR 6/2 red-brown slip, burnish 7.5YR 7/6 n/a Int Colour Slip 10YR 6/3 n/a red slip n/a 5YR 7/4 10YR 5/2 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 6/3 n/a 2.5YR 7/6n/a 2.5YR 7/6; 7.5YR 7/4; 7/6 2.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/4 n/a 10YR 5/3 2.5Y 6/1 7.5YR 7/410YR 5/2 5YR 6/6; 10YR 5/1; 6/6 10YR 5/1 n/a red slip Sherd Number Sub-form Ext Colour Core Colours 9 WZ310.A.33.3 7 WZ310.A.53.17 8 WZ310.A.47.115 6 WZ310.A.20.1 4 WZ310.B.14.70 bowrim? n/a 5 WZ310.A.19.83 3 WZ310.A.63.6 1 WZ310.B.13.45 2 WZ310.A.75.5 Figure 4.39 186

7

1

8 2

3 9

4

10

5

11

6 12 13

Figure 4.40. Bases from al-’Aqaba (scale 1:4). 187 0 buff grog? 8 black burnish calcite 6 black burnish calcite 17 pink grit 3 15 pink grit 1 20 grit 1 18 pink grit 1 10 grit 1 15 grit 2 16 pink grit 1 20 grit 1 23 pink grit 1 calcite 17 pink grit 1 5YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/4 10YR 7/3 10YR 5/1 10YR 5/1 red slip 10YR 3/1 5YR 7/4 10YR 4/110YR 8/3 burnish 7.5YR 4/2 Int Colour Surface Base EVE Fabric Group 5YR 7/4 5YR 6/4 2.5Y 7/2 10YR 4/2; 5YR 6/4 7.5YR 5/2 5YR 6/4 10YR 8/3 n/a 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4; 10YR 5/1; 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 8/3 10YR 8/3 10YR 2/1 10YR 4/1; 5/1 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 4/2; 5YR 6/4 10YR 3/1 10YR 3/1; 5YR 5/3; 3/1 10YR 2/1 burnish 7.5YR 5/3 5YR 4/4 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6; 10YR 7/3; 6/1 10YR 5/1 Sherd Number Sub-form Ext Colour Core Colours 9 WZ310.A.56.15 8 WZ310.A.49.16 7 WZ310.B.9.19 6 WZ310.A.56.3 5 WZ310.A.39.8 4 WZ310.A.49.26 2 WZ310.A.47.6 3 WZ310.A.49.3 1 WZ310.A.50.2 13 WZ310.A.70.5 stand? 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/3 12 WZ310.A.57.9 10 WZ310.A.81.111 WZ310.A.57.17 matt-impressed 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/4; 4/1 Figure 4.40 188

3 4 5 7 1 2 6

10 8 9 11 12 13

14 16 15

Figure 4.41. Handles from al-’Aqaba (scale 1:4). 189 reduced 2 pink grit 1 pink grit 1 pink grit 1 pink grit 1 grit 3 pink grit 2 buff grog? pink grit 1 pink grit 1 calcite bright clear bright grog? 1 bright clear pink grit 1 burnish black burnish yellow slip pink grit 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5YR 6/4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Sherd Number Ext Colour Core Colours Int Colour Surface Fabric Group 9 WZ310.A.56.4 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/4; 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/4 8 WZ310.A.54.8 10YR 7/4 5YR 6/4 4 WZ310.A.51.55 WZ310.A.53.14 7.5YR 8/46 WZ310.A.53.5 5YR 7/4 n/a 7 WZ310.A.47.5 10YR 7/4 n/a 5YR 7/6 n/a 5YR 7/6; 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 1 WZ310.A.40.12 WZ310.A.43.12 7.5YR 7/43 WZ310.A.49.18 7.5YR 7/6 n/a n/a 10YR 8/4 n/a 16 WZ310.A.68.4 7.5YR 3/1 n/a 15 WZ310.A.61.2 5YR 6/4 5YR 6/4; 10YR 5/1 10YR 4/1 12 WZ310.A.19.613 WZ310.A.56.1 7.5YR 7/614 WZ310.A.19.10 n/a 10YR 8/4 5YR 7/3 n/a 2.5YR 6/4; 10YR 6/2 5YR 7/4 11 WZ310.A.64.4 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/4 10 WZ310.A.57.19 n/a n/a Figure 4.41 190

1 3 2

4 5 6 7

12 13 8 9 10 11

16 18 19 20 14 15 17

21 23 24 22 25 26 27

29 28

31 32 30

34 35 36

33

37 38

Figure 4.42. Surface treatments from Tabaqat al-Bûma (scale 1:4). 191 w w p ? 3 ? 3 ? 3 ? 1 ? 3 r r r r r ello ello g g g g g ? r r y y g ro ro ro ro ro y y g g g g g rit 2 rit 3 rit 1 rit 3 rit 3 rit 3 rit 1 rit 3 ro g g g g g g g g g ht ht ht clea ht clea ht ht clea ht clea ht ht ht clea g g g g g g g g g g ink ink rit 1 ink rit 3 ink ink rit 3 ink rit 3 ink rit 1 rit 3 ink rit 3 rit 2 crumbl p p g p g p p g p g p g g p g g bri bri bri buff clea reduced 2 white lime 1 white lime 1 bri white lime 1 reduced 2 reduced 2 buff 5 bri 7 bri 0 buff clea 6 bri 12 crumbl 10 bri 10 bri n/a bri Rim EVE Fabric Grou ue ue q q e e li li aint u u p q q aint pp pp , li li p p , combed , combed , incised , , a , a pp pp ue ue p p p p p p q q t t t li li e a e a p p ain ain ain pp pp Surface p p p r 5YR 7/6 combed 2.5YR 6/6 red sli 5YR 7/6 black burnish, incised Int Colou 5YR 7/45YR 7/6 combed combed 5YR 6/6 combed 10YR 7/4 combed 10YR 7/4 incised 10YR 3/1 incised 10YR 7/4 incised 10YR 4/1 incised 5YR 7/6 combed 7.5YR 8/3 red sli 5YR 6/4 combed 5YR 7/6 red sli n/a combed 5YR 7/4 incised 7.5YR 7/6 n/a n/a7.5YR 7/6 a n/a red sli a 5YR 6/6 combed 5YR 7/4 incised 7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 7/4 combed 7.5YR 7/4 combed 10YR 7/3 burnish, incised 10YR 7/4 red sli 10YR 4/1 red sli n/a incised n/an/a10YR 7/4 incised incised incised 7.5YR 7/6 white sli 10YR 7/4 ro 10YR 4/4 ro 4 2 3 4 6 6 3 Core Colours 5YR 6/6; 10YR 6/3; 6/ 10YR 7/3; 5YR 7/4; 7/ r n/an/a 5YR 7/6; 2.5YR 6/6 10YR 8/4 10YR 6/3 5YR 7/6 Ext Colou r Sherd Numbe 6 WZ200.I33.18.4 10YR 7/4 9 WZ200.G35.67.22 10YR 7/3 2.5YR 5/4 2 WZ200.J33.1+2.vessel 10YR 7/35 WZ200.F34.32.16 5YR 7/4; 10YR 7/3; 7/ 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/4 1 WZ200.D36.2.7+85 10YR 8/3 7.5YR 7/6 8 WZ200.F35.5.52 7.5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 3 WZ200.E35.87.13+594 WZ200.E35.85.207 5YR 7/6 n/a 5YR 7/6; 10YR 7/3; 7/ 5YR 6/6 7 WZ200.F34.77.1 2.5YR 7/6 n/a 21 WZ200.G35.64.108 10YR 7/4 n/a 10 WZ200.G35.74.3712 WZ200.F35.14.7113 WZ200.F32.23.17 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/4; 10YR 6/2; 7/ 5YR 7/416 WZ200.I34.16.9 10YR 7/4 5YR 6/6 10YR 5/2 20 WZ200.F35.31.3 10YR 7/3 10YR 6/3 10YR 7/425 WZ200.E35.36.23 7.5YR 6/6; 10YR 6/3; 4/ 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/6; 10YR 7/ 19 WZ200.F35.22.38 5YR 7/4 5YR 6/4 29 WZ200.G35.60.931 WZ200.E37.1.10232 WZ200.F35.18.58 10YR 7/434 WZ200.H33.24.4 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 36 WZ200.D35.2.1 5YR 6/6 37 WZ200.F33.2.3 38 n/a WZ200.F35.6.5 10YR 8/6 5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 27 WZ200.G35.67.27 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 5/3; 4/1 11 WZ200.I34.16.8A+8B 5YR 6/614 WZ200.I34.17.1215 WZ200.A.67.3 5YR 6/6 17 WZ200.E34.8.4 10YR 7/418 WZ200.F35.11.163 10YR 7/4; 6/3; 4/1 10YR 7/4 2.5Y 4/1 10YR 4/122 WZ200.F34.46.1823 10YR 4/1 WZ200.H35.8.10 combed 24 WZ200.F35.23.2 10YR 7/426 WZ200.H33.20.26 n/a 10YR 7/3; 5YR 7/4 28 5YR 7/4 WZ200.D35.4.75 10YR 7/4 2.5YR 6/6 10YR 4/1 10YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/6 30 WZ200.E34.2.333 WZ200.F32.2.3+5 n/a35 WZ200.F34.76.4 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4; 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 4/4 10YR 4/4 Figure 4.42 192

3 5 1 2 4 6

7 8 9 12 13 14 10 11

19 18 15 16 17

21

23 24 20 22

25

27 26

30 31 28 29

32 33 34

Figure 4.43. Combed sherds from al-Basatîn (scale 1:4). 193 grit 3 grit 3 bright clear bright grit 2 chaff bright grit 1 grit 1 bright clear bright grit 2 bright grit 2 buff clear buff clear bright grit 2 buff clear bright grit 2 buff clear grit 1 grit 3 bright grit 2 grit 2 grit 3 buff clear grit 3 chaff bright grit 2 buff clear buff clear chaff grit 3 7 buff clear 11 bright clear n/a bright grit 1 n/a bright clear Int Colour Surface Rim EVE Fabric Group 7.5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6 7.5YR 3/ 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 5YR 6/6 red slip n/a bright grog? 3 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 8/3 10YR 8/3 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 7/3 7.5YR 6/6 10YR 6/2 10YR 6/2 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 7/4 10YR 8/4 7.5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 10YR 7/3 10YR 6/3 5YR 7/4 10YR 8/3 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/610YR 8/3 10YR 5/2; 5YR 6/6 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/3 5YR 7/4; 10YR 6/3; 7/4 7.5YR 7/3 Ext Colour Core Colours 10YR 7/3 10YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/4 5YR 7/4; 10YR 7/3; 7/4 5YR 6/4 10YR 5/1 5YR 6/4; 10YR 5/2 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 6/6; 2.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4; 7/4 10YR 7/4 n/a 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/3 10YR 8/3 10YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/3 10YR 7/4 5YR 6/6; 10YR 3/1 7.5YR 7/3 5YR 7/4; 10YR 7/3; 7/4 7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 7/45YR 6/6 7.5YR 6/6 5YR 6/6 5YR 6/310YR 6/3 5YR 6/4; 10YR 6/3 10YR 6/3 10YR 8/3 10YR 8/3 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4; 10YR 7/3; 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 5YR 6/4 5YR 6/6 5YR 7/6; 10YR 7/4; 7/6 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 10YR 7/3 5YR 6/4 5YR 6/4; 10YR 5/2; 6/4 n/a 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 10YR 8/3 5YR 7/4; 10YR 7/3; 7/4 57 3/ WZ135.Q37.15.100-108 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 7/3 Sherd Number WZ135.P41.10.3 3 WZ135.M41.35.2 5 WZ135.P33.30.100 7 WZ135.P41.10.5 9 WZ135.N41.24.3 1 WZ135.P41.2.100 4 WZ135.P41.28.102 6 WZ135.Q43.9.100+1118 WZ135.P36.39.100 5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4; 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 2 WZ135.P36.37.102 28 WZ135.P34.16.100 29 WZ135.P40.11.2 31 WZ135.P41.6.2 33 WZ135.Q33.32.104+105+106 10YR 8/3 10YR 7/4 12 WZ135.P41.16.199 15 WZ135.M41.33.1 16 WZ135.P33.30.104 27 WZ135.P42.26.100 30 WZ135.P36.42.102 26 32 WZ135.P33.61.118+12434 WZ135.P34.9.102 10YR 7/3 5YR 6/6; 10YR 7/3; 6/6 5YR 7/4 red slip 10 WZ135.Q41.8.100 11 WZ135.P36.51.102 13 WZ135.P36.51.100 14 WZ135.P42.7.100 17 WZ135.P34.16.108 18 WZ135.N41.13.6 23 WZ135.P41.5.2 24 WZ135.P33.45.100 19 WZ135.P40.14.1 21 22 WZ135.M40.12.4 25 WZ135.Q37.25.104 20 WZ135.Q43.9.109 Figure 4.43 194

1 12

6 3 5 2 4

8 9 7

11 12 10 13 14

17 18 15 16

19 20 21

23 24 25 22

Figure 4.44. Surface treatments from al-Basatîn (scale 1:4). 195 grit 3 grit 3 bright grog? 1 grit 3 grit 1 grit 2 grit 1 white lime 1 buff clear chaff bright grit 2 grit 1 bright grit 2 bright clear grit 3 bright grit 2 buff clear bright grit 1 chaff buff clear bright grit 2 buff grog? 8 bright clear 7 grit 3 Rim EVE Fabric Group n/a bright grit 2 Int Colour Surface 5YR 7/4 impressed 5YR 6/4 impressed 7.5YR 7/3 red slip, incised 10YR 7/4 incised 10YR 7/210YR 7/3 incised, impressed impressed 10YR 5/2n/a applique 5YR 7/6 applique applique n/a incised 7.5YR 7/6 red slip, burnish, impressed 10YR 7/310YR 8/3 incised, impressed 7.5YR 6/4 red slip, burnish, incised 10YR 7/4 impressed impressed 10YR 7/4 red-brown slip, impressed 10YR 4/110YR 7/2 impressed impressed Ext Colour Core Colours 5YR 6/4 10YR 7/3; 5YR 6/4 7.5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4; 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 impressed 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 6/6 Sherd Number 1 WZ135.Q36.58.vessel 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/6; 10YR 6/3; 7/6 5YR 7/6 incised 4 WZ135.R41.28.1015 WZ135.P42.27.100 10YR 8/2 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/3; 10YR 8/2 5YR 7/4; 10YR 7/3; 7.5YR 7/4 n/a incised 3 WZ135.P33.30.103 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/3 2 WZ135.Q43.3.106 2.5YR 6/8 2.5YR 6/8; 7.5YR 6/4; 6/8 2.5YR 6/8 incised 6 WZ135.P33.30.111 7.5YR 7/3 10YR 7/3 7 WZ135.N41.25.4 8 WZ135.P33.56.1189 WZ135.P33.54.100 10YR 7/3 10YR 8/3 n/a 10YR 8/3 17 WZ135.P33.42.107 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/4 18 WZ135.Q36.11.100 7.5YR 6/4 5YR 6/4; 10YR 6/2; 7.5YR 6/4 n/a impressed 19 WZ135.P33.62.11520 WZ135.P34.20.10321 WZ135.M40.7.4 10YR 7/3 10YR 7/3 n/a 10YR 6/3 22 WZ135.P33.56.11023 WZ135.Q41.36.10024 WZ135.P33.52.10325 10YR 8/3 WZ135.Q37.14.101 10YR 7/3 5YR 6/4; 5/4; 6/4 5YR 7/4 10YR 7/3; 4/1 5YR 7/6 5YR 7/4 5YR 6/4 5YR 7/6; 10YR 7/3 rope applique 10 WZ135.P34.22.100A+10311 5YR 6/4 WZ135.P33.50.10312 WZ135.P41.5.3 5YR 6/3 10YR 7/4 10YR 6/3 13 WZ135.Q36.19.100 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4; 10YR 7/3; 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 impressed 14 WZ135.P34.16.109 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 6/4; 5YR 7/4 15 WZ135.P36.20.100+10116 WZ135.P34.13.100+101 10YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 7/3; 3/1 7.5YR 6/4; 10YR 6/3 Figure 4.44 196

1 2 3 4 5 6

9 10 11 7 8

12 15 13 14

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23

Figure 4.45. Surface treatments from al-’Aqaba (scale 1:4). 197 grit 3 grit 1 pink grit 1 calcite pink grit 1 buff clear pink grit 1 grit 1 pink grit 1 impressed Int Colour Surface Fabric Group 10YR 4/15YR 7/4 paint 5YR 7/4 paint paint 5YR 7/4 red slip, incised pink grit 1 7.5YR 7/4 red slip, incised grit 1 10YR 6/110YR 4/1 burnish, incised black burnish 10YR 5/1 incised5YR 7/4 incised red slip, combed grit 1 reduced 1 reduced 1 10YR 6/110YR 7/3 incised incised10YR 5/1 pink grit 1 10YR 4/1 incised grit 2 10YR 4/1 incised incised reduced 1 reduced 1 reduced 1 7.5YR 5/210YR 7/4 combed pinkish earthy 5YR 7/67.5YR 4/1 impressed paint bright grog? 1 7.5YR 5/35YR 6/4 paint paint 5YR 6/4 5YR 6/4 Sherd Number Ext Colour Core Colours WZ310.A.79.41 10YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/4; 10YR 4/1 WZ310.A.54.6B 10YR 7/4 10YR 7/6 1 WZ310.A.47.69 5YR 7/34 WZ310.A.64.66 5YR 6/4 n/a 9 WZ310.A.59.3 10YR 2/1 10YR 3/1; 7.5YR 4/2 2 WZ310.A.61.143 WZ310.A.63.41 7.5YR 7/4 10YR 7/35 WZ310.A.57.33 2.5YR 5/4 6 WZ310.A.51.6 10YR 6/3 10YR 3/17 WZ310.A.62.58 10YR 4/1 WZ310.A.51.12 10YR 3/1; 4/1; 3/1 10YR 3/1 10YR 3/1 10YR 4/1 10YR 2/1 10YR 4/1 burnish, incised 10YR 3/1; 4/1 black burnish 20 WZ310.A.61.14721 WZ310.A.75.89 10YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 2.5YR 7/6 2.5YR 6/6 10 WZ310.A.63.3211 WZ310.A.78.2 10YR 2/112 WZ310.A.64.11 10YR 2/1 10YR 4/1 n/a 10YR 4/1 22 WZ310.B.14.87 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 7/6; 10YR 5/1; 7/6 7.5YR 7/6 paint 13 WZ310.A.15.19414 10YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/1 23 WZ310.A.56.11 2.5YR 6/6 2.5YR 6/6; 10YR 6/3; 6/6 2.5YR 6/6 applique pink grit 1 15 WZ310.A.53.48 5YR 7/6 5YR 6/6 16 WZ310.B.9.21 2.5YR 7/4 2.5YR 6/6; 7.5YR 4/1 17 WZ310.A.15.11818 WZ310.A.77.2 7.5YR 6/319 10YR 7/3; 5YR 7/4 10YR 7/4 5YR 6/4 Figure 4.45 Chapter 5: Technology

Many researchers have discussed the various stages involved in pottery production and the archaeological techniques that can be used to determine which of the many available options potters used at each stage of the manufacturing of a pot (e.g., Henderson 2000; Hodges 1989;

Miller 2007; Rice 1987; Rye 1981; Shepard 1956; Tite 1999; Velde and Druc 1999). These range from simple macroscopic examination to more complex archaeometric techniques. After providing a generalized outline for the production sequence of low-fired pottery (figure 5.1) and a discussion of some earlier studies that have addressed the issue of southern Levantine Late

Neolithic pottery technology, I introduce the methods used in this study and present the results of a technological analysis of the Wadi Ziqlab material.

The production sequence of low-fired pottery

The production sequence of low-fired pottery (i.e., and earthenware) begins with the and preparation of raw materials including clay, fuel, and water. It may also include the collection and preparation of materials for temper and surface treatments, including , as well as the tools needed for applying surface treatments (e.g., tools for incising, impressing, or burnishing). Clay suitable for producing low-fired pottery is widely available in many parts of the world because, unlike higher-fired pottery, almost any natural clay can be used, although with varying degrees of success (Rye 1981:16). Even within a single clay deposit, however, there will be variation in quality, and potters will typically select the clay with the most appropriate properties for their intended purposes. After collection, the clay is usually transported to a processing location where the rest of pottery production takes place. Minimally, processing of the dry clay includes breaking it up in order to remove any unwanted inclusions, such as plant matter or rock fragments, and mixing it with water. Many different tempering materials can be added to the clay at this point to affect its workability, drying characteristics,

198 199 firing behaviour, or other properties (Rice 1987). Rocks and minerals, plant material, shell, and grog (crushed fired clay) are commonly used as temper, although many other materials have also been used. Occasionally clay is “tempered” with another kind of clay (e.g., Rye and

Evans 1976). Clay can sometimes be used without tempering if its characteristics are already suitable for pottery production or if there are sufficient kinds and amounts of naturally-occurring inclusions within the clay.

After the clay and temper are blended with water and kneaded or wedged to a suitable consistency, a range of techniques can be used to form the shape of a pot, including hand- building, molding, or forming with the use of turning devices. The simplest hand-building technique involves pinching or modelling a lump of clay in the hand to produce small vessels.

Drawing is a similar hand-building technique that involves squeezing and pulling up the edges of a ring or lump of clay to make the vessel walls. Coiling and ring-building techniques build up the vessel wall by stacking or spiralling elongated coils or rings of clay. Vessels can also be built by joining the edges of flat slabs of clay. Sequential slab construction (Vandiver 1987) is a variation of this technique that involves compressing small, overlapping disks of clay to construct the vessel. Molds can be used to make complex and elaborately decorated vessels but they can also be used to make simpler shapes by pressing a layer of clay into a simple concave mold, such as a bowl, or over a convex one. that rotate on a pivot at high speeds can create centrifugal force that is sufficient to form (throw) the primary shape of a vessel, as long as the rotation persists for a sufficient duration. Tournettes also rotate on a pivot but, unlike true wheels, they do not spin fast enough or long enough to throw a vessel. Pot rests, such as a mat or large potsherd, facilitate the rotation of a vessel during production but they do not have a fixed pivot point. Tournettes and pot rests, therefore, are generally used in conjunction with  In this study, I use the term “temper” to refer to material in the clay matrix that was intentionally added by the potter. Temper can be aplastic rocks or minerals, but in my definition I also include added clay minerals and organic (usually vegetal) material. The latter is generally identified by voids. The term inclusion refers to any material in the clay matrix regardless of how they got there. Inclusions can include temper and naturally occurring materials. It should be noted, however, that differentiating between the intentional addition of temper and naturally occurring inclusions can be difficult, although temper may be more angular and better sorted than naturally occurring inclusions. 200 another forming technique, such as coiling.

After the general shape of the vessel is formed, it can be further modified through a range of techniques while still wet or at the leather-hard stage. These are sometimes referred to as secondary forming techniques (e.g., Rye 1981) although, as Miller (2007) points out, the same techniques are sometimes used for both primary and secondary forming and it can be difficult to differentiate between the two. Scraping and trimming to remove excess clay, or beating it with a paddle and anvil to thin and shape the walls, are common techniques used to modify the shape of a pot. Trimming can also be carried out on a wheel or tournette. It is not uncommon for different parts of a vessel to be made or finished using different techniques. For example, a necked jar can be formed from a wheel-thrown neck that is attached to a coiled body. Other elements, including handles, spouts, and some decorative elements, are also often made separately.

After the vessel is formed it must be dried, otherwise it will not survive firing. Surface treatments are often applied when the vessel has dried, usually at the leather-hard stage, although some may be applied while the vessel is still wet. For example, smoothing with a cloth or the hands is often carried out while the vessel is wet, while polishing or burnishing with a hard object such as a stone may be done when the vessel is leather-hard. Incisions and impressions made with the hands or a variety of other tools are other common surface treatments, as is the application of slip. The term painting, as it is used in this dissertation, refers to the application of coloured slip or with a brush or other thin tool to form designs on the surface. Vessels that are “slipped”, on the other hand, have a slip that occurs over one or both surfaces or in broad bands at the lip or elsewhere on the vessel. These are applied by immersing all or part of the vessel in the liquid slip, pouring the slip over the object, or by applying the slip with a cloth or sponge. It is important to note that surface treatments and “secondary” forming techniques can obscure most traces of the “primary” forming techniques used to shape a pot.

Consequently, two pots made in different ways can, superficially at least, look very similar. 201 The firing of the vessel (or more likely a batch of vessels) is a particularly risky part of the production sequence of low-fired pottery, as incorrect loading of the firing structure can mar, damage, or even destroy the vessels. Miller (2007) divides firing structures into ephemeral firing structures, single-chamber firing structures, and multi-chamber firing structures, although she notes that these categories actually represent a continuum. Ephemeral firing structures, including bonfires, are difficult to detect archaeologically as they consist simply of an open fire, with fuel surrounding the vessels being fired, and possibly some covering such as a layer of large potsherds or earth. Single-chamber firing structures, including pit-kilns, are more permanent.

These may be semi-subterranean or walled on one or more sides, and typically the fuel is placed at the bottom or at one end of the structure while the vessels are placed on top of or next to the fuel, possibly separated by some kind of insubstantial divider. Multi-chamber firing structures, or kilns, have separate chambers for the fuel and the vessels. Updraft kilns, with the fuel chamber below the vessel chamber, were probably the most common pre-industrial multi- chamber firing structures outside of eastern Asia (Miller 2007).

The firing conditions contribute to the final appearance of the vessels.The colour of the fired pot is determined, in part, by the atmosphere of the firing structure, although other factors, not least of which is the content of the clay, also affect colour. An oxidizing (oxygen-rich) atmosphere will generally result in red, buff, or white pots, depending on the iron content of the clay. A reducing (oxygen-poor) atmosphere will turn iron-rich clays gray or black. The intentional deposition of carbon on the surface of the vessel (smudging) can also result in black-coloured vessels. This is achieved at the end of the firing by covering the pots with fine material such as powdered manure or sawdust, which serves to deposit carbon on the surface

(Rice 1987:158). Irregular black or gray spots on the surface of a vessel (fire-clouding) are usually unintentional and can result from part of the vessel not being exposed to oxygen or from localized carbon deposition if part of the vessel comes into contact with smouldering fuel.

Most low-fired, unglazed vessels are finished after the initial firing, although further surface 202 treatments and additional firings might be carried out subsequent to this stage.Vessel repair, including the drilling and binding of mending holes, is a peripheral stage in the production of pottery. If pots are not repaired after breakage they can be used as raw materials for the production of other pots (as grog) or other objects (e.g. spindle whorls, jar stoppers; see Rice

1987:table 9.3). Although the recycling of pottery to form other objects is not strictly part of the production sequence of pottery, archaeologists often group the resultant objects with ceramic vessels.

Previous Studies of Late Neolithic Pottery Technology

At each stage of the production sequence of low-fired pottery, numerous choices are presented to the potter—what types of raw materials to use? How to prepare them? What forming techniques to use? How to fire the vessels? As noted above, many archaeological methods have been used in attempts to address these technological questions (Rice 1987).

Technological discussions of pottery with a specifically Near Eastern focus have a long history

(e.g., Frankfort 1924; Kelso and Thorley 1943; Franken and Kalsbeek 1969), although these have always been overshadowed by typological studies focussed on using pottery as a temporal and cultural marker. Studies that are specifically relevant to the Late Neolithic of the southern

Levant, although not common, have considered both the production of pottery as described above—“the actual process of fabrication or creation” (Miller 2007:5), what Rice (1996:173) refers to as “manufacturing”—and, more rarely, the organization of production. Although the latter is not a primary focus of this dissertation, Kerner’s (2001a, 2001b) attempt to identify changes in ceramic specialization during the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic should be noted.

Looking primarily at surface treatment, but also at form and fabric, she suggests an increase in specialization over time. She argues that earlier Late Neolithic pottery decoration (i.e.,

Yarmoukian) required more work to produce than “Early Chalcolithic” decoration (i.e., Wadi

Rabah), which in turn, required more work than Late Chalcolithic pottery decoration. For example, a “typical” Yarmoukian jar may have required six “steps” to decorate, including a 203 combination of incisions and paint, while a later Wadi Rabah vessel would have generally required three steps or less. Kerner suggests the decreased number of steps “shows that pottery was produced in a continuously more effective, standardized and less time-consuming way” (Kerner 2001b:161; cf. Feinman et al. 1981). The difficulties with isolating individual production steps notwithstanding, it is worth noting that others have interpreted the same evidence differently and in less economic terms. Orelle and Gopher (2000), for example, suggest that changes in pottery decoration were related to changes in the roles and status of women (see

Chapter 6).

Studies that have examined Late Neolithic pottery production rather than the organization of production have focussed on determining the composition of the clay body or the specific forming techniques used to make a vessel. Franken’s (1974) seminal analysis of Late Neolithic pottery from Jericho attempts to do both because, he argues, the choice of raw materials that a potter uses hinges on the forming technique to be used and, consequently, they should be studied together. He identifies different fabric groups, based primarily on the types of inclusions present, and correlates these with specific manufacturing techniques. He does not discuss in detail the specific methods used to assess fabric composition or manufacturing techniques, although he notes that his work was augmented by thin-section petrography and that it benefited from consultations with a skilled potter.

Goren’s (1991) analysis of pottery from a number of Late Neolithic sites west of the Jordan

River also uses petrography to identify fabric composition (see also Goren 1992a, 1992b, 1996,

2004). He identifies petrofabric groups on the basis of characteristics of the clay and “the most common temper in each sample” (Goren 1992a:332). He then maps the spatial distribution of these groups to assess patterns of regional variation. For example, sixth millennium BC pottery from the site of Lod in the coastal plain is tempered primarily with crushed calcite (Goren

2004), while contemporary pottery from Kabri in the Galilee has chalk inclusions (Goren

1992b), and pottery from Munhata in the Jordan Valley primarily has volcanic inclusions (Goren 204 1992a). Comparing the components of the pottery fabrics with locally available raw materials suggests that most pottery during this time was locally made, although some “foreign” wares are present at some sites (e.g., Munhata [Goren 1992a:339]). Petrographic analyses by other scholars have also demonstrated the predominance of local pottery manufacture during the Late

Neolithic (e.g., al Saa’d et al. 1997).

Roux and Courty (1997; Roux 2003; Courty and Roux 1995) have been influential in studying late prehistoric pottery technology in the southern Levant, especially from the site of Abu

Hamid. They use SEM and thin-section petrography to study the plastic deformations of clay materials in conjunction with the identification of diagnostic surface features in an attempt to reconstruct a more complete chaîne opératoire for prehistoric pottery than is possible by looking solely at raw material selection. Roux and Courty (2005) suggests that the resultant “techno- petrographic” groups can be correlated at a regional scale with specific social groups.They are, however, most interested in the identification of pottery made on, or at least finished on, the wheel using “rotative kinetic energy” (RKE) and they have, consequently, focussed their attention on the upper layers at Abu Hamid, which produced typical Late Chalcolithic pottery, including V-shaped bowls (Roux and Courty 1997, 2005; Courty and Roux 1995; Dollfus and

Kafafi 1993). However, evidence for RKE in the stratigraphically lower middle levels at the site suggests an earlier introduction for the wheel or tournette, although its use seems to be restricted to certain types of slipped and burnished pottery (Roux et al. in press, cited in Lovell et al.

2007).

Ali (2005) is also interested in pottery technology from Abu Hamid, but specifically from the basal and middle layers. His main approach involves examination of diagnostic “macro-traces” using a hand lens. The basis for this approach is that “each forming technique is assumed to correlate with a set of surface features” (Ali 2005:74; see also Rye 1981). Ali suggests that three

“technical groups” of basal layer pottery can be identified: coiled, molded, and pinched.The coiled group is dominant and is further subdivided based on vessel form and surface finish. Like 205 Roux et al. (in press), he identifies the presence of RKE in the middle layers at the site. Pottery from these layers can also be divided into three groups. In this case, all groups have the same

“rough out” or primary forming stage, which involves creating a basic shape through coiling.

Groups are then defined on the basis of secondary forming and finishing: vessels formed and finished without RKE, vessels with the upper part shaped by RKE, and vessels with the upper part finished by RKE. Ali (2005) uses radiography to corroborate the results derived from the surface feature analysis and to make a few comments about the inclusions. For example, basal level ceramics tend to have few aplastic inclusions, while middle level ceramics have dense, angular inclusions that are taken to be indicative of intentional tempering of the clay.

The presence of vessels made on a wheel using RKE in the middle layers at Abu Hamid is noteworthy. Unfortunately, there is some debate about how these layers correlate with other pottery assemblages in the southern Levant. While Lovell et al. (2004, 2007) argue that the middle layers at Abu Hamid are contemporary with Wadi Rabah, Banning (2007), on the basis of radiocarbon evidence, suggests these layers substantially post-date Wadi Rabah, and

Garfinkel (1999), looking at the pottery, argues they are Late Chalcolithic. It should be noted that Gopher and Gophna (1993) suggest that some Wadi Rabah jar rims may have been made on the wheel and then attached to “handmade” bodies, although they offer no evidence for this suggestion.

Yannai (1997, 2006) argues that some Wadi Rabah bowls from ‘En Asawir were partially made in concave stone molds. He suggests clay was pressed into a mold to form the lower half of the bowl and then an upper part of the vessel was constructed with coils. The junction between the two parts creates a kind of carination. He suggests that “pebble base” jars from the site of Tel Te’o that have pebble impressions part way up the profile of the vessel were similarly made with the bottom portion of the vessel in a mold, perhaps a stone-lined pit, and the top portion extending above it (Yannai 1997; cf. Sadeh and Eisenberg 2001). Unfortunately, despite his assurance that “clear signs” of mold production occur at ‘En Asawir (Yannai 1997:254), 206 these are not clearly illustrated in publications of the pottery. Interestingly, Yannai suggests that the rotation of stone molds during pottery production may have been a precursor to the later

Chalcolithic development of the tournette and presumably the potter’s wheel.

Vandiver (1987) uses xeroradiography to identify pots made using “sequential slab construction” (see above), which involves compressing small, irregular slabs together to form the vessel. Extra layers of slabs are sometimes added to increase the thickness of the vessel wall.

While Vandiver’s study is focussed on the Neolithic of the Zagros, she argues that sequential slab construction was a widespread production method that included Late Neolithic sites in the southern Levant, including Jericho.

Analytical Methods Used in this Dissertation

In order to assess the production sequence of the Wadi Ziqlab material I employed a range of analytical methods. I used thin-section petrography primarily to examine the raw materials used in ceramic production. The visual examination of surface features and xeroradiography informed primarily on forming methods, and I carried out preliminary re-firing tests to gauge firing temperature. These methods have proven to be beneficial in other technological studies, including several of the studies of Late Neolithic pottery described above.

Thin-Section Petrography

The use of petrographic techniques to study the mineralogical characteristics of archaeological pottery has a long history (e.g., Shepard 1936) and is becoming an increasingly common analytical method (e.g., Freestone 1995; Freestone et al. 1982; Mason 2004; Middleton and

Freestone 1991; Peacock 1970; Stoltman 2001; Vaughan 1999). In this dissertation, I use ceramic petrography to assess choices made during selection of raw materials (clay and temper) and preparation of the clay body. As is typical for ceramic petrography, I generally focus on describing the particles greater than silt-sized (>0.06mm), treating smaller particles as part of the clay matrix (Tite 1999:195). I refer to all of these larger particles as “inclusions” and retain 207 the term “temper” for those inclusions that are intentionally added by the potter. Petrography can also be used to make technological inferences about forming techniques by looking at the orientation of elongated aplastic inclusions, pores, and textural concentration features (e.g.,

Whitbread 1996), and about firing temperatures by observing transformations in the mineral inclusions and in the clay matrix, but observations about these characteristics are not made here in a systematic way. In addition to technological choices, petrography is frequently used to study the provenance of the raw materials used in pottery production and, it is often assumed by extension, the pots themselves (Peacock 1970).

Petrographic analysis of archaeological pottery most often involves making a thin section, which is usually cut perpendicular to the surface of the pot and, where evident, parallel to the vertical axis of the vessel (a radial section). To do this, a sample of pottery is ground to a flat surface, which is then attached to a glass slide. The opposite side is then ground until the sample reaches a uniform thickness of 0.03 mm. At this thickness, light is able to pass through most materials. If necessary, the sample is impregnated with a bonding substance before grinding to consolidate it. The prepared thin sections are examined under a polarizing microscope, which allows identification of minerals on the basis of their optical properties.The degree of inclusion sorting and angularity is usually estimated through comparison with standard visual charts. The frequency of inclusions can be similarly estimated, although a number of other grain-counting methods have been proposed (e.g., point count, area count).

Examination of Surface Features

Archaeologists occasionally recover the tools used to make prehistoric or ancient pots

(although they are not always recognized), and these can indicate the forming methods employed by a group of people (e.g., potter’s wheels, clay molds). However, this is a rare situation, especially for prehistoric pottery production, and it is more common for archaeologists to infer forming methods by looking at the pots themselves. Different forming techniques can 208 leave characteristic traces on the surfaces of pottery that may be identifiable macroscopically or under magnification (Rye 1981). There is a long history of archaeologists attempting to correlate these traces with specific forming methods but, as Franken and Kalsbeek (1969) note, the most productive studies have been carried out in conjunction with skilled potters (e.g., Franken and

Kalsbeek 1969; Schreiber 1999) or by consulting detailed ethnographic research into pottery production (e.g., Rye 1981; Rye and Evans 1976).

Rye (1981) provides thorough comparative data for correlating surface features with production techniques (tables 5.1 and 5.2). Through analogies with ethnographically-observed pottery production, he outlines a number of lines of evidence that can be used to infer forming techniques from archaeological materials (surface markings, surface finish, surface deposits, variation in wall thickness, fracture, preferred orientation of inclusions, particle size, and vessel shape). He divides forming techniques into primary forming techniques (coiling, pinching, slab building, drawing, throwing, and molding) and secondary forming techniques (beating, scraping, trimming, shaving, and turning; cf. Miller 2007:117). Others have made refinements to Rye’s observations (e.g., Martineau 2005).

A challenge to determining forming techniques through an examination of surface features is that secondary forming techniques and surface finishing may obliterate any traces that are indicative of primary forming. Furthermore, “accidental” attributes can complicate the identification of diagnostic surface features. For example, “a potter accidentally rubbing his clothing against a vessel will produce a mark that is unique and contains no information about forming techniques” (Rye 1981:58). Studying Neolithic pottery introduces a couple of other issues that need to be considered. First, complete or nearly complete vessels, which provide the best evidence for surface features (Rye 1981:59) are uncommon on early pottery sites. Consequently, in the present study the overall number of surface features identified is small (see below). Second, Late Neolithic pottery production likely has no direct connection to existing, traditional pottery production in the southern Levant or elsewhere, so no clearly 209 molding absent on mold side absent on mold side; seams cut parting agents on mold side absent on mold side along joins if present parallel to the surface throwing spiral ; fine parallel lines depends on tool used; regular evidence of non- uniform slurry thicker near base; rhythmic ridges spiral; s-shaped cracks on base diagnol alignment; parallel to surface depends on wall thickness round; distorted during removal vertical grooves usually none slab building drawing depends on method of making slabs often scraped or combed normally removed vertical variations possible along slab joins rectangular shapes; large vessels pinching regular, shallow indentations round bases; small vessels coiling usually none usually none usually noneusually none smooth horizontal corrugations usually nonestep-like, possibly along coil lines parallel to coils none parallel to surfaceround and pointed parallel to surfacebases vertical surface markings opposing pressure surface finish surface deposits variations in wall thickness fracture preferred orientation of particle size vessel shape Table 5.1. Evidence for identifying primary forming techniques of pottery (summarized from Rye 1981). 210 turning grit drag marks; spiral facets varies with size of inclusions; burnish shaving trimming facets are smooth facets are smooth variation with facets variation with facets eccentricity scraping grit drag marks sharp edged facets sharp edged facets varies with size of inclusions beating repeated casts, facets depends on surface of beater possible slip-like coating on exterior rhytmic variation laminar surface markings opposing pressure surface finish surface deposits variations in wall thickness fracture Table 5.2. Evidence for identifying secondary forming techniques of pottery (summarized from Rye 1981). 211 analogous traditions can be consulted when determining forming techniques (c.f. Ali 2005; Rye

1981:59). The general mechanical properties of clay mean that the comparative data provided by Rye (1981), Ali (2005) and others (see above) can be used as a guide for the examination of Late Neolithic pottery manufacturing. By consulting a wide range of published discussions of pottery production, the ceramic analyst is better suited to understand the range of potential manufacturing techniques. There is always the possibility, however, that certain prehistoric methods do not have modern analogies, and these must be gleaned through a detailed study of the pottery itself.

Radiography

Like thin-section petrography, radiography has a long history in the study of archaeological ceramics (e.g., Digby 1948; Titterington 1933, 1935). In this dissertation, its primary purpose is to corroborate the visual assessment of forming methods as determined through the analysis of surface features. Radiographic examinations of forming techniques have taken two general approaches. The first, which I employ in this dissertation, attempts to identify joins between the coils or slabs of hand-built pots, which appear as elongated air spaces or differences in wall thickness (e.g., Vandiver 1987, 1988; Glanzman 1983; Glanzman and Fleming 1986). The second approach focuses on the orientation of inclusions or pores within the vessel. Pots made by coiling, pinching, slab building, drawing, throwing, and molding each exhibit characteristic

“preferred orientations of inclusions” that may be visible in radiographs (Rye 1977, 1981). The mineralogy and density of inclusions has also been examined using radiography (e.g., Bruan

1982; Carr and Komorowski 1995; Foster 1985; Titterington 1933). While in this application it is less accurate than thin-section petrography, it has the benefit of being non-destructive.

Radiography has also been used in conservation, restoration, and authentication projects involving archaeological ceramics (Middleton 1997).

A number of radiographic methods have been used to examine pottery technology (Vandiver 212 et al. 1991). Xeroradiography is used in this dissertation rather than traditional film x- radiography because the edge-enhancement effects of the former provide sharper images that are better-suited to identifying pottery forming techniques (Alexander and Johnston 1982; Carr and

Riddick 1990; Foster 1983, 1985; Glanzman and Fleming 1986; Heinemann 1976). Unlike x- radiography, which uses film to create an image, xeroradiography employs a selenium sulphide- coated plate that has been electrostatically charged to order the particles. A sample of pottery is interposed between the plate and an x-ray source. Differences in remnant radiation cause different parts of the plate to lose their charge, creating a latent image on the plate. Oppositely charged pigment (toner) particles are attracted to the image in proportion to the residual charge on the plate to create a real image that is then transferred to paper. Edge enhancement occurs at the border between two areas of different exposure when toner particles are attracted from the edge of an area of greater exposure (and less residual charge) to an area of lesser exposure (and greater residual charge) (Carr and Riddick 1990:55; Foster 1985).

I also explore the potentials of micro-CT (Appendix D). While traditional radiographic techniques create an internal image of overlapping or superimposed structures that can be difficult to decipher, CT creates a series of x-ray “slices” through any plane within a ceramic object (e.g., Applbaum and Applbaum 2002, 2004; Jansen et al. 2001; Anderson and Fell 1995).

Particular slices can be viewed in isolation or 3D images can be constructed from the slices.

Micro-CT scanners have high resolutions that are measured in microns rather than millimetres

(Séguin et al. 1985; Séguin and Bjorkholm 1989). The main limitation of these scanners, apart from availability and cost, is that they often cannot accommodate objects larger than a few centimetres in diameter while still providing high resolution.

Pottery Refiring

A number of techniques have been used to assess the original firing temperature of archaeological ceramics (Heimann 1982; Heimann and Franklin 1979; Tite 1995; Rice 1987). 213 Many of these involve refiring archaeological sherds. A sherd is broken or cut into multiple pieces and each fired to a different temperature. One piece usually remains unfired to act as a comparison. In theory, if a piece of the sherd is refired to a higher temperature than the original firing temperature it may undergo a suite of physical and mineralogical changes, including colour, density, strength, texture, elasticity, magnetic properties, electronic structure, and expansion (Heimann and Franklin 1979). “Any sherds showing radical differences from the original…will obviously have been fired at a higher temperature than initially” (Hodges

1989:200). The specific analytical technique used to identify difference is determined by the property to be observed. For example, Chazan and McGovern (1984) use SEM to assess changes in the vitrification of Khirbet al-Kerak pottery from Beth Shan.

The reason for assessing firing temperature is usually to determine the type of installation used for firing the pottery (e.g., kiln, bonfire), assuming higher firing temperatures reflect more sophisticated kiln structures (Livingstone Smith 2001). This is a particularly relevant issue for the study of the 6th millennium BC because authors suggest that sophisticated kilns would be required to produce the seemingly well-fired black-burnished pottery that is characteristic of the period (e.g., Goren 1992), although, as Wright (1986) discusses, a range of options can result in black-coloured pottery. Unfortunately, ethnoarchaeological work has demonstrated that there is no straightforward correlation between maximum firing temperature and the type of firing structure used and that, even within a single bonfire firing, a range of temperatures may occur

(Gosselain 1992). Furthermore, the properties observed during assessments of firing temperature

(e.g., colour, density, expansion) are determined by more than just the original maximum firing temperature. The rate of heating, soak time (i.e., the duration of maximum temperature), and firing atmosphere are also contributing factors. For these reasons, no attempt is made here to identify a particular type of firing structure that may have been used by theW adi Ziqlab potters, although, in all likelihood, the pottery was made in either an ephemeral or single-chambered structure. Rather, I comment solely on whether pottery from the different sites may have been 214 fired in the same way, whatever that way is. Because my question is rather simple, I take

Heinmann and Franklin’s (1979:29) advice and use simple visual methods of assessing colour and texture change, rather than “using overly sophisticated devices where less complex ones will do”.

Results of Technological Analyses

The remainder of this chapter presents the results of the technological analysis I carried out.

Interpretation of these results, including a comparison of the different sites, is presented in the

Chapter 6.

Fabric Analysis

As a precursor to the petrographic analysis, I examined the fabric of most of the diagnostic sherds from Tabaqat al-Bûma, al-Basatîn, and al-‘Aqaba using a binocular microscope and grouped them according to fabric (see figure 6.2). The fabric of a pot, as used in this dissertation, refers primarily to the combination of aplastic inclusions and clay colour and texture. Occasionally, I refer to specific surface treatments in the description of particular fabric groups (see Appendix B). In these cases a “fabric” is more akin to the common definition of a

“ware” (Rice 1987).

For each available diagnostic sherd, a fresh break was examined under a binocular microscope to identify its fabric. Some sherds were too small or too delicate to create a fresh break without causing the complete or near complete destruction of the sherd and they were omitted from the fabric analysis. Similarly, some pieces were deemed too valuable to make a fresh break (e.g., complete pots, museum display pieces) and they were omitted from the fabric analysis. A total of 4054 sherds were therefore grouped according to fabric.

In contrast to the form analysis (see Chapter 4), the arrangement of fabrics was carried out as a process of grouping in Dunnell’s (1971) sense of the word. While several published sources describe the range of forms one might expect in a Late Neolithic assemblage, allowing 215 the creation of a pre-arranged classification system of form to which sherds may be assigned, relatively few publications describe in detail the types of fabrics present at a site (but see

Goren 1991; Lovell 2001). Therefore, I decided to group the sherds by examining each one in succession, looking first at the kinds and relative abundance of inclusions, then at clay colour and texture, and occasionally surface treatments. If a sherd was similar in fabric to any previously examined sherds it was grouped with them. Otherwise it was assigned to a new group. Because sherds were grouped in this way (relative to the fabric of other sherds) the fabric descriptions in Appendix B sometimes refer to other fabric groups that were defined earlier. For example, the “Grit 1 Calcite” fabric group is defined as “Like Grit 1 but with 5-10% calcite”.

It should be noted that, although two systems of ordering are used in this dissertation, grouping for fabrics and classification for formal types, neither is intended to recognize “real” types that would have been necessarily recognizable to the potters themselves (Hill and Evans

1972). Both are intended to simplify the data for comparative purposes, and in that sense, the two systems of ordering are comparable.

A total of 36 fabric groups was identified and described. These, in turn, I combined into five broader fabric “classes”, in order to emphasize the similarity between many of the different fabric groups. The different classes are: limestone grit class, argillaceous class, black burnish class, chaff class, clear class. Minor or irregular fabrics comprise a sixth “other” class. The six fabric classes are described below.

Limestone Fabric Class

This is the most abundant class at each site in Wadi Ziqlab. At Tabaqat al-Bûma it comprises

59.1% (n = 1375) of the diagnostic sherds, at al-‘Aqaba it comprises 74.2% (n = 598) of the diagnostic sherds, and at al-Basatîn it comprises 55.2% (n = 507). It is characterized by the occurrence of limestone inclusions and usually smaller amounts of other inclusions that co- occur with limestone in the local geology, especially chert, fossils such as foraminifera, and 216 occasionally crystalline calcite. Differences among fabric groups within this class are based on the frequency of inclusions, the colour of the paste, and, in some cases, the texture of the paste, the texture of the inclusions, or the surface treatment. Sometimes, the occurrence of minor types of inclusions was used to differentiate groups. In particular, fabric groups “Grit 2” and “Pink

Grit 2” contain small amounts of hard, black or very dark gray, usually rounded, grits. Otherwise they are identical to the “Grit 1” and “Pink Grit 1” fabric groups, respectively. I initially assumed that these inclusions were basalt as a sample did not effervesce in diluted hydrochloric acid. However, the subsequent petrographic analysis (see below) indicates that some (perhaps most) of these are actually rounded chert grains. Others that were not tested with hydrochloric acid could be unusually hard, rounded grains of a dark limestone.

Argillaceous Fabric Class

This is the second-most abundant fabric class at Tabaqat al-Bûma, making up 23.0% (n = 535) of the diagnostic sherds at that site. It also comprises 7.3% (n = 67) of the sherds at al-Basatîn and 9.6% (n = 77) of the sherds at al-‘Aqaba. It is characterized by the presence of what appear to be distinct clay inclusions. Compared to the surrounding clay matrix of the sherd, these are distinct in colour but are otherwise similar (e.g., in hardness, texture). They are usually not visible without magnification, and even under magnification can be difficult to discern. Initially,

I identified these as grog. However, the subsequent petrographic analysis could not determine if these clay inclusions were, in fact, fired before being added to the clay that makes up the bulk of the body of the sherd. Otherwise they could be the result of “tempering” the clay with other clay and not thoroughly mixing them together (Whitbread 1986). The differences between the groups in this fabric class are based primarily on the relative abundance of argillaceous inclusions, but also on the colour of the fabric and, in some cases, the occurrence of other inclusions (e.g., the group “Bright Argillaceous 3” also contains limestone grits). 217 Clear Fabric Class

This fabric class is characterized by the absence, or near absence, of inclusions. It is the second-most abundant fabric class at al-Basatîn, making up 21.1% (n = 194) of the diagnostic sherds at that site. It also comprises 14.7% (n = 341) of the sherds at Tabaqat al-Bûma and 6.5%

(n = 52) of the sherds at al-‘Aqaba. Distinctions between the fabric groups in this fabric class are based primarily on differences in fabric colour, but also in some cases on fabric texture.

It should be noted that, in some cases, sherds assigned to the “clear” fabric class are very similar in colour and texture to some sherds in the “argillaceous” fabric class and there may be some overlap between the two. Sherds “tempered” with a different clay may be classified as argillaceous if the clay and inclusions were poorly mixed, while, if they were well mixed, all evidence of the clay “temper” may disappear, leading to classification as “clear class”.

Black Burnish Fabric Class

This class is unusual because the groups that comprise it are defined, not primarily by their inclusions, but by their diagnostic surface treatment, although the fabrics themselves are consistent. Sherds in this class have a fine black-burnished exterior or interior surface, or both.

Occasionally this blends into a red-slipped and burnished surface. This is the second-most abundant fabric class at al-‘Aqaba, making up 9.7% (n = 78) of the diagnostic sherds from that site. It comprises only 1.0% (n = 9) of the sherds from al-Basatîn and 2.0% (n = 46) of the sherds from Tabaqat al-Bûma. The decision to base a fabric class on a particular surface treatment rather than the usual factors used in this dissertation derives from the importance assigned to black-burnished pottery in later Levantine prehistory. The material in this class is akin to “Dark Faced Burnished Ware” at other sites in the Levant (e.g., Balossi Restelli 2006;

Braidwood and Braidwood 1960; see also Lovell et al. 2007). There are only two fabric groups assigned to this class (“Black Burnish” and “Black Burnish Calcite”) and both are dominated by limestone grit inclusions. The distinction between the two groups is based on the greater 218 abundance of calcite in one of them. This distinction is only noticeable when a fresh break is viewed under magnification. If surface treatment was not considered, the sherds belonging to this class would be grouped with the limestone fabric class.

Chaff Fabric Class

This is a small class that is only represented at al-Basatîn, where it comprises 2.2% (n = 20) of the diagnostic sherds. Sherds in this class are characterized by the presence of fibrous vegetal inclusions in sufficient amounts to suggest that it was intentionally added.There is only one fabric group in this fabric class (Chaff 2). Note that the fabric group “Chaff” does not fall within this fabric class (see below).

Other Fabric Class

This class contains five fabric groups that are minor or irregular (see table 6.2).T wo of these groups (“Basalt? 1” and “Basalt? 2”) are characterized by the abundance of hard, black or dark gray inclusions that I initially thought were basalt (see discussion of Limestone Fabric

Class above). The distinction between the two groups is based on differences in the texture and angularity of these inclusions. One group (“Limey Paste”) has a distinct chalky texture and white colour. Another group (“Hard Gray”) has a distinct light gray colour and is particularly hard. The definition of the final group (“Chaff”) is somewhat irregular and deserves further comment. At a number of Late Neolithic sites in the Near East vegetal material, sometimes referred to as “chaff”, represents an important type of inclusion. Because of its possible significance, I decided to group together all sherds that showed evidence of vegetal inclusions regardless of the other characteristics of fabric (e.g., other inclusions, colour) and the amount of vegetal material. Nevertheless, in the “chaff” fabric group voids representing vegetal material comprise only a small amount of the body of the sherd (less than 3% and usually only one or two voids from vegetal material are visible in a fresh break). It is possible that in many of these cases the occurrence of vegetal material may be incidental rather than an intentional addition 219 of vegetal material as a tempering agent and, apart from the presence of the small amount of vegetal inclusions, most of the sherds in this group look like either “Limestone Class” sherds, or, more rarely, “Argillaceous Class” sherds. The distinction between fabric group “Chaff 2”

(i.e., fabric class “Chaff”) and fabric group “Chaff” lies in the greater abundance of vegetal material in the former, which suggests it was intentionally added. The fabric analysis of al-

Basatîn, the only site where fabric class “Chaff” is represented, was conducted after the other sites. It is worth noting that al-Basatîn does have a higher proportion of sherds belonging in the

“Chaff” group than the other sites. If combined with sherds belonging to the “Chaff 2” group

(i.e., “Chaff” class), these comprise 14.5% (n = 135) of the sherds from al-Basatîn, compared to only 0.5% (n = 8) from Tabaqat al-Bûma and 0.5% (n = 1) from al-‘Aqaba. It is unlikely that vegetal material was more common at al-Basatîn than the other sites, so the greater occurrence of vegetal material is likely the result of a “technological stylistic” choice. Less care was likely taken in getting or keeping clay clean (see also Chapter 6).

Petrographic Analysis

After the initial grouping of the diagnostic sherds, I selected a sample of 107 sherds for petrographic analysis (see Appendix E, table 6.1). Sherds were selected to cover the greatest possible range of fabric groups that I had identified with the binocular microscope. I submitted these to the Department of Geology at the University of Toronto for thin-sectioning and then I analyzed them under a Nikon petrographic microscope that was fitted with a digital camera.The thin-sections were grouped into 17 different “petrofabric” groups based primarily on the kinds of inclusions present and their abundance (see Appendix C). Note that samples for petrographic analysis were chosen to cover the widest range of fabric groups and are thus not a random sample of the entire assemblage of pottery. For this reason, quantitative comparison of thin-  In fact, many of the Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-‘Aqaba thin-sections analyzed as part of this dissertation were prepared prior to the start of my analysis of the Wadi Ziqlab pottery. The selected sample was chosen to augment those thin-sections already made. It should be noted that a small number of the thin-sections from site Tabaqat al-Bûma had been previously analyzed by students in Robert Mason’s Polarized-light Microscopy in Archaeology class at the University of Toronto. Their results were sometimes used to double-check my own observations. 220 sections is not attempted there.

The petrographic analysis of the thin sections confirms many of the observations made in the initial fabric grouping. Most importantly, it confirms the presence of most of the major types of inclusions identified under the binocular microscope and confirms that the distinction between sherds with limestone inclusions and those with argillaceous inclusions is significant.

It also confirms that the “Earthy” fabric group should be included in the “Limestone Fabric

Class”. However, the petrographic analysis also allowed a number of further clarifications and observations.

Most of these observations relate to the further classification of the inclusions present in the fabric groups. Notably, the petrographic analysis demonstrates that more than one type of limestone occurs as inclusions in the pottery. Both chalky/micritic limestone and sparry limestone occur, sometimes in the same sherd (figure 5.2). The former is sometimes highly fossiliferous. Rocks comprising both limestone and crystalline calcite also sometimes occur as inclusions (figure 5.3), suggesting that the calcite present in some sherds derives directly from the local limestone geology. The limestone inclusions are often poorly sorted and include some large, rounded grains. Also worth re-mentioning is that many of the inclusions tentatively identified as basalt in the initial fabric grouping are not basalt but, rather, are rounded grains of chert or unusually hard limestone. In one case, what was initially identified as basalt turned out to be limestone ooids (figure 5.4).

In a number of cases (n = 23), the petrofabric group of a sherd does not seem to correspond to the initial fabric group designation, although usually they do. For example, some sherds assigned to the “Limestone Fabric Class” may, under petrographic inspection, turn out to have an abundance of argillaceous inclusions or may be generally free of inclusions. A number of factors may contribute to these apparent inconsistencies. First, as noted for basalt, when examining a fresh break under the binocular microscope it may sometimes be difficult to identify particular aplastic inclusions accurately. The petrographic analysis provides more 221 accurate mineralogical identification. Second, when looking at a fresh break under the binocular microscope, or even a thin-section under the petrographic microscope, only a small portion of the entire vessel is being observed. The view may not be representative of the entire vessel, especially if the clay is poorly mixed, and in some cases there is evidence that the inclusions are not distributed uniformly through the body of the sherd (figure 5.5a and 5.5b). Finally, sherds were sometimes sectioned prior to my analysis. This means that my observations of fabric (rather than petrofabric) were conducted on impregnated and sawn sherd off-cuts that were typically very small. Because of this last factor, in particular, I believe my assessment of fabric is more reliable than suggested by the high number of inconsistencies. However, these inconsistencies do show the importance of petrographic analysis. Of the 23 inconsistencies,

7 relate to calling sherds clear when they have argillaceous inclusions and 5 relate to the misidentification of basalt (either identifying it when it was not present, or missing it when it was present). These issues surrounding clear vs. argillaceous inclusions and basalt are discussed elsewhere in this dissertation.

The petrographic analysis also allowed identification of minor inclusions that could not be identified in a fresh break under the binocular microscope. These include small amounts of plagioclase, clinopyroxenes, sandstone, chalcedony, and others. Three thin-sections do indicate the presence of basalt inclusions, although the initial fabric grouping did not identify basalt in any of these. One thin section does seem to have evidence of inclusions more typically identified as grog (figure 5.6a and 5.6b), rather than the more common gillaceousar inclusions.

Another observation made under the petrofabric microscope concerns the co-occurrence of different types of inclusions. While some sherds have only limestone-grit inclusions or only argillaceous inclusions or only vegetal inclusions, many actually have a mix of two of these kinds of inclusions, or higher or lower proportions of other minerals that co-occur with limestone in the local geology (e.g., chert) or that occur in local clay deposits (e.g., quartz,

 In fact, I was only able to examine the corresponding sherd off-cuts for two of these. The third thin- section was made prior to my analysis of the Wadi Ziqlab material and it appears that no off-cut remains. 222 opaques that are likely iron oxides). Fabrics with a mix of inclusions were generally not as obvious in the initial fabric grouping.

Petrographic analysis also allowed me to make some observations on the clay matrix. A range of different clays seems to have been used by the Late Neolithic potters in Wadi Ziqlab, but mostly these are calcareous with evidence of either small rhombs of calcite or many small bioclasts, especially foraminifera and ostracods, although larger bivalves also occur (figure 5.7).

Calcareous clays are common in Wadi Ziqlab. Porosity ranges from 3% to 20% and each sample typically contains both elongated pores and rounded or amorphous ones. The anisotropy of the clay matrix is retained in most samples suggesting firing temperatures below the vitrification point (Rice 1987:431; see below). Although the near ubiquity of clayey sedimentary deposits in Wadi Ziqlab precludes the correlation of thin-sections with specific clay sources (cf. Tite

2007:226), a sample of clays that were fired into briquettes, thin-sectioned, and examined under the petrographic microscope, gives some indication of the kinds of clays present in Wadi

Ziqlab and the minerals that occur naturally in them, as do the micromorphological thin-section samples presented by Maher (2005). These include iron-rich and fossiliferous clays with natural opaque inclusions, some of which are likely hematite, and small amounts (typically 1% or less) of very small quartz grains (figure 5.8). Larger limestone, chert, and calcite inclusions also occur naturally in some clay sources (figure 5.9). Other clays present in the wadi are not iron-rich and are basically free of large inclusions (figure.10).

Limestone Inclusions

The prevalence of calcium carbonate inclusions in the Wadi Ziqlab pottery deserves comment.

It is well known that during firing calcium carbonate decomposes into calcium oxide and carbon dioxide, although there is some uncertainty about the temperature at which this occurs, with reports ranging from less than 600 °C to more than 900 °C (Hoard et al. 1995). Tests by Shoval et al. (1993) indicate that decomposition can be gradual, occurring over a range of temperatures. 223 The exact temperatures at which decomposition begins and ends seems to depend on a variety of factors including the form of the calcium carbonate (e.g., limestone or monocrystalline calcite), grain size, the firing atmosphere, the rate of temperature increase, and perhaps the type of clay used (Henderson 2000; Hoard et al. 1995: Shoval et al. 1993). If the firing temperature reaches higher than about 1000 °C the calcium forms part of the glassy phase of the ceramic and is stable (Henderson 2000:134), although the release of carbon dioxide gas can cause fractures in the vessel. More significant problems arise if the firing temperature is below about 1000 °C, as the calcium oxide may later absorb atmospheric water to create quicklime. The result is the release of heat and grain expansion, potentially causing the pot to crack, spall, and in some instances crumble entirely. Hoard et al. (1995) argue that this kind of damage is more intensive with limestone inclusions than monocrystalline calcite. The addition of salt to the paste may inhibit spalling, as might quenching the pot in water after firing (Rye 1981; Hoard et al. 1995).

With this obvious drawback to calcium carbonate in the body of low-fired ceramics, why does it occur so frequently in prehistoric pots in the form of limestone, as in Wadi Ziqlab, or in other areas as calcite or shell (usually aragonite)? Most answers to this question consider the functional benefits of calcium carbonate, primarily in pots.The thermal expansion of calcium carbonate is similar to that of many clays, so stresses caused by the differential expansion of inclusions and matrix are minimal when the vessel is repeatedly heated and cooled during use in cooking (Rye 1981:33). Further, the occurrence of limestone can make clays more workable by increasing flocculation, allowing the production of thinner vessels that conduct heat better during cooking (Hoard et al. 1995). Calcium carbonate may also make low-fired pots more watertight (Vitelli 1999:193).

Vitelli (1999) notes, however, that most Early Neolithic pots from in Greece were likely not used for cooking, despite the presence of calcium carbonate inclusions. She suggests that the spalling and cracking that resulted from the creation of quicklime may have been a “magical” effect desired by the shaman-potters who, she argues, constructed the pots. 224 In a similar vein, Goren and Gopher (1995; Goren, Gopher, and Goldberg 1993) argue that the use of calcareous clays in the production of Late Neolithic pottery in the southern Levant was for “non-utilitarian” purposes. They argue that pottery production evolved from a longstanding tradition of plaster production, which may have involved some burned lime, and that the desired effect of using calcareous clays for pottery was the resultant light colour of the vessel.

They suggest that light coloured vessels, which make up a large part of Late Neolithic pottery including that from Wadi Ziqlab, more effectively shows paint and slip, which may be important for vessels used in “socially-oriented” contexts rather than “functional” (i.e., utilitarian) ones

(Goren and Gopher 1995:26).

Of course, in very low-fired pottery (under approximately 600 °C), the effects of lime decomposition would not be a serious issue, and the manufacturers of low-fired pottery may not have given much consideration to either the benefits or detriments of having calcium carbonate inclusions in their pottery.

Surface Traces

I investigated all diagnostic pieces with a hand lens , binocular microscope, or both, for surface features that may indicate particular forming techniques, with the exception of complete vessels from Tabaqat al-Bûma that are on display in the Irbid Museum in Jordan (see table 6.3).

Rye’s (1981) comprehensive discussion of forming techniques and the corresponding surface features served as a guide for this analysis.

Observations that were taken to be indicative of particular forming techniques include fracture, regular variations in wall thickness, vessel shape and orientation of finger impressions, linear voids or air spaces, shape, and possibly surface texture. As in most stages of my analysis of the Late Neolithic pottery from Wadi Ziqlab, the poor preservation of the pottery and the frequent presence of calcium carbonate encrustations on the surface of the sherds hampered my observations. The encrustations made surface features difficult to identify while the small size 225 of many of the sherds meant that it was difficult to identify the regular or repeated variations that may be specifically indicative of some forming methods. Often a sherd showed evidence of having irregular thickness or shallow indentations, which in some cases may indicate beating or coiling, for example (Rye 1981). However, if the sherd is not large enough to orient the variations or to determine their repeated pattern, the forming technique cannot be determined with any certainty. Also, because the number of sherds showing evidence of particular surface treatments was small, they cannot be quantified with any degree of certainty.

In addition to making observations about primary forming techniques, the examination of the pottery also allows me to make some comments on the construction of handles, and the shaping of bases as well as surface finishing (see table 6.4).

Coiling

Evidence for coiling is observed primarily in regular, vertical variations in vessel thickness that gives a corrugated appearance to the sherd (figure 5.11). Thinner areas correspond to the joins between coils or rings. Linear, horizontal voids are also possible indicators of coil- built pots (figure 5.12; Ali 2005:76). Most examples of coil-building are body sherds and the orientation of the vessel can only be inferred from the direction of the coils. However, in some cases rim sherds also show probable evidence of coiling. Bases may also be constructed by spiralling a coil of clay so that it forms a flat disk (figure 5.13). Jar necks also show some evidence of being coiled (figure 5.14; c.f. Gopher and Gophna 1993). Note that it is difficult to distinguish coil-built pots from ring-built ones and, following Rye (1981:67), I make no attempt to distinguish between them.

Problematic sherds include ones that have a corrugated appearance that may not be the result of coiling. Impressions made by running the fingers across wet clay may also produce parallel horizontal impressions that may be confused with evidence for coils (figure 5.15).Also, section joins evidenced by variations in thickness, fracture, or voids may be difficult to interpret if they 226 are found on small sherds. While they might be the result of using large coils, they can also be the result of other techniques, including slab-building.

Slab and Sequential Slab Construction

Rye (1981:71) notes that slab-built pottery is difficult to identify from archaeological material.

In the Wadi Ziqlab assemblages, the best evidence for slab-building comes from vessel shape. A small number of sherds from large, rectangular vessels likely derive from slab-built pots (figure

5.16). Rye suggests that the surfaces of slab-built vessels are frequently scraped or combed.

While combing does occur, especially at al-Basatîn (see Chapter 4), there is no additional evidence that associates this particular surface treatment with slab-building.

The variation of slab-building that Vandiver (1987) calls sequential slab construction may have been employed by the Wadi Ziqlab potters. The laminar fracture of some sherds may result from pressing together small, over-lapping slabs (compare Vandiver 1987:plate 1). This is particularly evident on some base sherds (figure 5.17) although it does occur on body sherds as well (figure 5.18). Rye (1981:85) suggests that laminar fractures are also characteristic of beating (paddle and anvil) as a shaping technique but other evidence for this secondary forming technique, including repeated facets where the paddle struck the vessel, was not observed.

Pinching

Pinching is evidenced by the presence of regular, shallow indentations and a consequent irregular thickness of the vessel. These indentations are rounded, corresponding to the shape of fingertips (figure 5.19; Rye 1981:70). Some of the vessels identified as “pinched” are larger than the small vessels that Rye (1981) suggests are characteristic of the technique. Shepard (1956:54) notes, however, that in some cases fairly large vessels can be constructed through “modelling” in this manner.

It should be noted that it is not uncommon for isolated finger impressions to be observed on 227 the surface of sherds. While some of these may derive from pinching as a primary construction technique, there are also other possible explanations for these, including pinching as a secondary forming technique, touching or lifting a vessel before it has dried, or, if the impressions are only on one side, pushing clay into a mold. Only sherds that are large enough to show repeated, rhythmic indentations can clearly be identified as pinched.

Drawing

Like pinching, the primary evidence for drawing is the presence of irregular thickness of the vessel caused by rhythmic, shallow indentations that correspond to areas where the fingers of the potter touched the clay. In the case of drawing, however, these indentations are elongated and oriented vertically (figure 5.20). Drawing is most reliably identified, therefore, when examining base sherds and rim sherds, which can be confidently oriented.

Mold-made

There is little clear evidence for mold-made pottery in the Wadi Ziqlab assemblages. A small number of sherds have an unusual texture on one side that could be the result of clay being pressed against a rough surface (figure 5.21). As noted above, Yannai (1997, 2006) argues that some Wadi Rabah vessels were made in stone molds, which might be expected to create such a texture. However, the textured surfaces on the Wadi Ziqlab sherds are all interior surfaces, which suggests production on a convex mold rather than in the concave molds Yannai proposes.

Wheel-made/Thrown Pottery

There is no clear evidence for pottery produced on a wheel. As noted in Chapter 4, a number of mat-impressed bases were recovered from the Wadi Ziqlab sites. These mats are usually circular and the pots stood in their centre, suggesting that they may have acted as pot rests that were turned during pottery production. However, the RKE required to throw a pot would not be produced by this method. Some sherds have evidence of parallel, continuous striations similar to 228 the ones that Ali (2005) takes as evidence of the use of RKE for finishing a vessel. In the case of the Wadi Ziqlab pottery, however, these are likely the result of wiping the wet clay, perhaps with a cloth, as they are not always oriented horizontally.

Other Observations on Vessel Formation

A few other observations about the pottery were made during the examination of surface features. Although, contrary to Gopher and Gophna (2003), there is no clear evidence for wheel- made jars rims being attached to handmade bodies, there is some evidence for jar necks being made separately. Sherds that show the juncture of neck and body often have a characteristic ridge of clay that likely derives from this joining process (figure 5.22; Garfinkel 1999:109).The carination on some vessels may be the result of applying pressure to the inside of the vessel to deform the shape of the pot. This is evidenced by the presence of finger marks or grooves on the inside of the vessel. Others have suggested that carinations may result from joining two individually made parts or from making the lower part of the vessel in a concave mold (Yannai

1997). This was not observed in the Wadi Ziqlab assemblages. In one case of an S-shaped vessel, the limestone inclusions of the vessel are clearly exposed on the exterior surface in a band along the inflection point (figure 5.23). This may be the result of vigorously wiping the area, perhaps to remove marks resulting from the forming of the vessel’s inflection point, or perhaps from stretching the clay during re-shaping of the vessel. In addition to the wiping marks mentioned in the previous section, the presence of grit drag marks is suggestive of secondary forming of pottery, perhaps scraping (figure 5.24; Rye 1981). In some cases a layer of clay was added to the exterior of a vessel, possibly to even out the surface or repair cracking damage during the drying of the vessel (figure 5.25). Ali (2005:86) noticed a similar procedure at Abu

Hamid, which he describes as clay smearing.

Forming the Base

I have already mentioned the use of mats as possible pot rests and how some bases were 229 formed from a coil of clay while others were likely made with slabs. A few other comments about bases are noteworthy. In several cases, a layer of clay was added to the exterior of the base, similar to the clay smearing just mentioned (figure 5.26).While this may represent an effort to even the surface of the lower part of the pot, it may also serve to bolster or strengthen the join between the base and the wall of the vessel by thickening it, similar to the process of adding slabs to the interior base (as noted above).

It is common for archaeologists to divide Late Neolithic bases into flat and disk bases (see

Chapter 4), although there has been little discussion of the technological differences between the two. There is limited evidence from Wadi Ziqlab that at least some of the “disk” bases were formed, intentionally or unintentionally, by applying pressure to the outside wall of flat-based vessels. This is evidenced by finger impressions or a groove and it is particularly evident in cases where the procedure was not completed (figure 5.27).

Handles

Perhaps the most interesting technological observation on handles is how poorly they were sometimes attached to the vessel. Often a large gap or air space was left under the handle so relatively little contact between the handle and the body of the vessel was achieved (figure

5.28). In other cases, it is clear that the potter made no attempt to roughen the vessel surface to increase the bond between the handle and vessel body. Rather the handle was attached to a perfectly smooth surface (figure 5.29).

In other cases, however, it appears that extra clay was added to the exterior surface of the vessel at the junction between handle and body, perhaps to strengthen the join between the two parts. If this layer continues up the handle it may give the appearance of the handle having a distinct “core” (figure 5.30). In one case, it is clear that the handle was attached after the exterior surface of the vessel was combed (figure 5.31). Although this might simply reflect the preferred order of two steps in the production sequence, with surface treatment before handle attachment, 230 it would also serve to enhance the bond between the handle and the body of the vessel.

Xeroradiography

I produced xeroradiographs of 127 Late Neolithic sherds from Tabaqat al-Bûma, al-

Basatîn, and al-‘Aqaba (see tables 6.3 and 6.4). These included both diagnostic sherds and some undiagnostic body sherds that were selected because of their large size. Sherds were arranged so that the direction of the X-rays was perpendicular to the surface of the sherds. An alternative approach to producing xeroradiographs involves making pottery thick-sections that are arranged so that the direction of the X-rays is parallel to the surface of the sherds. Although this potentially gives more specific information about how different manufacturing elements are joined (Glanzman 1983; Vandiver 1987), it is a destructive technique and, consequently, was not used in this study.

The xeroradiographs were examined for evidence of production technique, such as the presence of coils and slabs. After comparing the xeroradiographs with the sherds, I determined that 38 showed potential joins that may be indicative of particular forming methods.

Unfortunately, none of the sherds from al-‘Aqaba, and only five from al-Basatîn, revealed any evidence of forming technique. This may be due to differences in forming technique among the sites but, more likely it reflects the greater sample size of the assemblage fromT abaqat al-Bûma, and my ability to select larger sherds from that site for xeroradiographic analysis. Several of the sherds showed only a single, relatively straight, section join that is not particularly suggestive of any single production technique (figure 5.32). These could be produced through coiling or slab building, or through making a vessel in separate parts and then joining them together. Other sherds showed evidence for more specific forming methods.

Sherds from both Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn show evidence for sequential slab construction, including rounded or squarish slabs that sometimes overlap (figure 5.33). Both sites also show evidence for coiling, or perhaps construction of a vessel using strips of clay, as 231 evidenced by parallel, horizontal section joins (figure 5.34). In some cases, a thin coil or strip of clay has been added at the lip of the pot to complete the rim (figure 5.35).This can occur on vessels made with thicker coils, slabs, or on vessels where no other section joins can be identified, and which might have been made through pinching or some other technique. One jar neck shows evidence of being made with thick coils or strips of clay (figure 5.36).

Colour and Refiring

At this point it is worth commenting on sherd colour because, as noted above, firing temperature and atmosphere contribute significantly to the final colour of a pot. Other factors, especially clay composition, but also use and post-depositional processes, also contribute. For each sherd, I recorded up to five Munsell colours; one for each of the surfaces and up to three for the core, depending on how many core colours were present. If a surface was not visible because of encrustations or a slip, I did not record its colour. I recorded all core colours in a fresh break. Nominal colour descriptions mentioned below are from the Munsell Soil Colour

Chart (2000). See tables 5.3 and 5.4 for frequencies of particular surface and core colours.

At Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-‘Aqaba, the majority of sherds have a single core colour (i.e., core margins and core are the same colour; 57.1%, n = 1209 and 57%, n = 441 respectively). At al-

Basatîn, sherds with a single core colour (42.5%, n = 374) are outnumbered by those with two or three core colours.

At Tabaqat al-Bûma exterior surface colours are dominated by reddish yellow (32.8%) and very pale brown (31.3%), followed by pink (14.0%) and light red (9.1%). Interior surface colours are similar, with reddish yellow (34.7%) and very pale brown (18.8%) dominating.

Light red (13.3%), pink (13.3%), and dark gray (5.7%) also occur. Sherds with a single core colour typically have the same colours, as they tend to be consistently fired throughout, with reddish yellow (31.0%), very pale brown (16.3%), light red (15.2%) and pink (6.5%) being the most common core colours. If a second core colour is present, the colour nearer the interior 232

Exterior Interior al-Basatîn al-'Aqaba al-Bûma al-Basatîn al-'Aqaba al-Bûma black 4 49 30 1 15 7 brown 8 6 10 6 18 7 brownish yellow 1 1 dark brown 1 1 dark gray 5 10 18 7 99 96 dark grayish brown 1 3 3 5 dark yellowish brown 1 1 gray 7 9 8 15 51 46 grayish brown 4 6 14 6 7 21 light brown 16 11 20 17 17 19 light brownish gray 3 5 2 3 10 8 light gray 10 4 7 10 2 7 light red 29 26 150 32 63 225 light reddish brown 26 11 17 32 19 21 light yellowish brown 6 1 21 3 2 14 pale brown 9 1 17 6 6 11 pale yellow 2 5 1 1 4 pink 184 105 231 214 151 226 pinkish gray 1 1 1 pinkish white 2 2 red 1 2 2 4 reddish brown 1 2 1 3 3 reddish gray 1 1 1 reddish yellow 169 75 540 162 90 589 strong brown 2 very dark gray 3 26 21 9 47 52 very pale brown 260 147 515 211 97 319 white 2 1 2 1 yellow 3 4 8 4 1 3 yellowish brown 1 1 1 yellowish red 2 1 2

Table 5.3. Exterior and interior surface colours. surface may be similar and very pale brown (17.6%), reddish yellow (12.7%), and light red

(11.9%) dominate. Darker browns and grays also occur, however, including pale brown (7.6%), brown (6.7%), dark gray (6.6%), and light yellowish brown (5.8%). If a third core colour is present, this is typically light red (25.6%), reddish yellow (21.9%), very pale brown (9.1%), pink (8.7%), or dark gray (6.8%).

At al-Basatîn exterior surface colours are dominated by very pale brown (34.5%), pink

(24.4%), and reddish yellow (22.4%). Interior surface colours are similar with pink (28.6%), very pale brown (28.2%), and reddish yellow (21.7%) dominating. If a sherd has a single core 233 colour, it may be similar to the surfaces with pink (24.0%), very pale brown (21.3%), and reddish yellow (19.6%) dominating, although other colours also occur, including light reddish brown (7.1%), light red (5.2%), and pale brown (5.1%). If a second core colour is present it is typically in the brown or gray range, with very pale brown (32.0%), pale brown (10.8%), gray

(9.2%), and dark gray (7.6%) being most common. Reddish yellow (5.8%), pink (5.6%), and grayish brown (5.4%) are the next most common colours. If a third core colour is present it tends to be similar to the first core colour and the surfaces, with pink (37.8%), reddish yellow

(25.4%), and very pale brown (12.7%) dominating, followed by light red (9.1%) and light reddish brown (6.8%).

At al-‘Aqaba, exterior surfaces are dominated by light colours, including very pale brown

(29.3%), pink (21.0%), and reddish yellow (15.0%), although darker colours also occur, including black (9.8%) and very dark gray (5.2%). Interior surfaces also have a range of lighter and darker colours, including pink (21.4%), dark gray (14.0%), very pale brown (13.8%), reddish yellow (12.8%), light red (8.9%), gray (7.2%), and very dark gray (6.7%). If a sherd has a single core colour, it is typically light red (16.7%), very pale brown (14.4%), pink (14.0%), reddish yellow (12.4%), light reddish brown (11.0%), or dark gray (7.5%). If a second core colour is present, it is typically very pale brown (22.4%), dark gray (13.1%), gray (8.4%), pale brown (5.7%), pink (5.7%), reddish yellow (5.7%), or light red (5.4%). If a third core colour is present, it is typically light red (19.7%), dark gray (19.1%), pink (13.6%), very dark gray

(12.9%), reddish yellow (10.2%), very pale brown (8.8%), or gray (8.2%).

Although there is some variation, the dominance of light colours, including pink and buff, suggest that the prevalence of oxidizing atmospheres during firings.The presence of iron oxides in the clay likely contributes to the pink or red colour of some sherds, although the full colour development of iron may not have been achieved in all sherds as this process may not be complete until a firing temperature of 900-950 °C is reached (Rice 1987:335; see below).

The lime in some sherds may contribute to the colour of the pale yellow/buff sherds (Rice 234 1 5 1 2 2 8 5 1 5 3 3 5 9 1 8 10 7 14 1 1 2 12 Core 3 1 2 7 1 19 25 1 2 1 1 1 28 26 2 6 3 2 1 3 1 7 6 4 2 1 8 1 1 2 1 6 18 23 1 1 9 20 2 1 1 1 4 25 4 1 4 54 Core 2 7 3 1 1 1 1 1 12 16 4 6 2 9 6 25 12 18 1 3 5 1 5 1 1 1 5 7 8 11 76 12 3 2 4 1 25 1 7 15 3 9 19 1 4 Core 1 1 4 1 1 7 30 41 1 1 6 1 11 4663 129 85 323 64 14 18 110 31 29 98 13 18 22 19 57 14 10 22 30 27 15 44 11 31 44 17 15 34 12 25 29 46 28 34 23 58 62 38 44 61 45 13 66 54 19 70 13 12 62 17 24 62 188 111 347 160 75 163 43 13 35 173 96 661 29 19 118 86 15 84 212 108 139 28 19 39 128 20 32 al-Basatîn al-'Aqaba al-Bûma al-Basatîn al-'Aqaba al-Bûma al-Basatîn al-'Aqaba al-Bûma light yellowish brown light reddish brown light olive brown light red light gray yellowish red light brownish gray yellowish brown weak red yellow white light brown very dark grayish brown very pale brown grayish brown reddish gray reddish yellow strong brown very dark gray dark yellowish brown dusky red gray reddish brown dark red dark reddish gray red dark grayish brown pinkish gray pale yellow pale red pink dark brown dark gray brownish yellow pale brown Figure 5.4. Frequency of core colours diagnostic sherds. black brown 235 1987:336). Sherds that are dark brown or gray are likely the result of the incomplete oxidization and removal of organic material or the occurrence of reducing atmospheres during firing.

The presence of fire-clouding was not recorded systematically because, due to the frequent carbonate encrustations, it was often difficult to see the entire surface of a vessel. Furthermore, because of the high degree of fragmentation of the assemblages, a fire-cloud may appear simply as a gray-coloured sherd. For both of these reasons it would be difficult to quantify the occurrence of fire-clouding. However, it should be noted that some clear examples of fire-clouds were observed, but these were not frequent.

Pottery Re-firing

I refired a sample of 13 sherds to gauge their initial firing temperature; six fromTabaqat al-

Bûma, five from al-‘Aqaba, and 2 from al-Basatîn. Each sherd was cut into five pieces with a low-speed saw. One piece of each sherd was left unfired for comparison and the remaining ones were fired in an electric kiln in an oxidizing environment to temperatures of approximately

650 °C, 800 °C, 850 °C, and 970 °C. I observed changes in the colour of the clay as well as the disintegration of limestone inclusions and warping. Changes were observed macroscopically and with the aid of a binocular microscope (table 5.5).

At 650 °C, I observed minor changes in the colour of some sherds. These were all sherds that had been originally fired in a reducing environment or retained organic material in their core. The colour changes observed likely relate to the oxidizing atmosphere of the refiring environment or the removal of organics rather than the initial firing temperatures of the vessels.

At this temperature one sherd exhibited some minor warping and cracking of the surface, suggesting it was initially fired at a temperature around or slightly below 650 °C.

At 800 °C, eight of 13 sherds exhibited changes. Three sherds belonging to the limestone fabric class and one sherd belonging to the black burnish class showed some disintegration of

 Fire-clouds are dark areas on the surface of a vessel caused by incorporation of carbon in the pores of the vessel during firing or heating (Rye 1981). 236 reaction, colour change 3 CaCO warping, minor colour change disintegration disintegration disintegration ~970 °C minor warping, colour change disintegration - reaction reaction reaction 3 3 3 minor colour change minor colour change, warping warping colour change disintegration ~850 °C warping, colour change warping, minor colour change - warping, colour change warping, colour change reaction CaCO reaction CaCO 3 3 reaction reaction CaCO 3 3 - - CaCO - minor colour change minor warping, colour change warping, colour change ~800 °C - minor CaC0 minor CaC0 minor colour change minor warping, colour change warping, colour change CaCO minor warping minor colour change warping - - oxidization minor warping - WZ310.A.11.51 clear WZ200.F34.4.4 clear WZ200.F34.4.3 argillaceous - WZ200.A.15.83 limestone grit - WZ200.E34.15.6 argillaceous - WZ135.P33.52.131 argillaceous - WZ135.P33.53.128 clear WZ200.E33.16.13 argillaceous - Sherd Number Fabric Class ~650 °C WZ310.A.11.69 limestone grit WZ310.A.12.10WZ310.A.57.16 limestone grit oxidization black burnish oxidization - WZ200.D36.8.2+3+5 clear WZ310.A.15.173 limestone grit oxidization Table 5.5. Observed changes in refired sherds. Changes occurred at a temperature between that indicated in the column heading and the previous Table 5.5. Observed changes in refired sherds. Changes occurred at a temperature between that indicated the column heading and column heading. 237 the limestone inclusions. The other sherds, which belong to either the clear fabric class or the argillaceous fabric class showed some minor changes in colour or some minor warping and cracking of the surface. This suggests that most sherds were fired at a temperature between approximately 650 °C and 800 °C. Since most of the changes observed at 800 °C were minor ones, it is likely that the original firing temperatures were closer to 800 °C.

At 850 °C, four of the remaining five sherds, all of which are of the argillaceous or clear fabric class, showed changes in colour or minor warping. One of the limestone fabric class sherds completely disintegrated subsequent to firing through lime spalling.

At 970 °C, all of the argillaceous class and clear class sherds that exhibited changes at lower temperatures continued to warp and crack, while sherds with limestone inclusions, including the black burnish sherd, completely disintegrated through lime spalling. One clear fabric class sherd also began to show some lime spalling, suggesting that small amounts of calcium carbonate are present in that sherd. A single sherd from al-‘Aqaba showed no signs of changes even when refired to 970 °C, apart from minor colour changes due to oxidization.

Concluding Remarks on Chapter 5

Technological studies of prehistoric and ancient pottery production are becoming increasingly common in archaeology. This is certainly the case for the study of southern Levantine Late

Neolithic pottery. The data presented in the second half of this chapter are part of a growing emphasis on understanding the entire production sequence of Late Neolithic pottery (e.g. Goren

1992; Ali 2005; Franken 1974). This is an important development because, as noted in Chapter

3, the study of technology informs on more than just the functional or utilitarian aspects of pottery. Rather, it gives insights into all aspects of society because, as Pfaffenberger (1988) points out, technology is a “total social phenomenon”.

Unfortunately, assessing the specific production techniques that went into making a pot can be a difficult process. The identification of forming methods, in particular, can be problematic, 238 despite important advances by Rye (1981), Franken (1974; Franken and Kalsbeek 1969), Roux

(1994; Roux and Courty 1997, 1998, 2005), and others. Surface features or “macro-traces” could only be identified on a small number of sherds that may or may not be representative of the entire assemblage. Due to the destructive nature of thin-section petrography and refiring tests, these archaeometric techniques can only be carried out for a sample of the pottery. It is unfortunate, therefore, that I cannot easily comment on the frequency of particular technological choices or correlate particular production sequences with specific formal types.

Nevertheless, some observations can be made on each step of the production sequence of the Wadi Ziqlab pottery and, like the analysis of form and surface treatment presented in the previous Chapter, some differences among the sites can be observed. The following chapter considers the significance of these differences in context, and combines the results of the pottery analysis with the theories discussed in Chapter 3. 239

Fuel Mineral/Pigment Temper CLAY Collection Collection Collection Collection RAW MATERIAL RAW PROCUREMENT

Fuel Preparation: Crushing, Crushing, Crushing, Sorting, – Storage for Drying Sorting, Sorting, Sieving, Levigation – Charcoal Burning Levigation Sieving MATERIALS

– Dung-Cake Making PREPARATION

FORMATION of SLIPS, PAINTS FORMATION and other of CLAY BODY

SURFACE TREATMENTS ‘PRIMARY’ PRODUCTION

SHAPING of OBJECT Processes Include: Hand-Forming directly from clay lump Hand-Forming from Slabs Hand-Forming from Coils Wheel-Throwing alone or combined, or with some combination of: Use of a Tournette Paddle & Anvil/Rush of Air Techniques

SURFACE PRODUCTION TREATMENT DRYING

FIRING

Post-firing Surface Treatment

Figure 5.1. Simplified production sequence for pottery (after Miller 2007: fig. 108). 240

Figure 5.2. Limestone inclusions in pottery from Tabaqat al-Bûma (WZ200.D35.29.1).

Figure 5.3. Limestone/calcite inclusion in pottery from al-Basatîn (WZ135.P33.30.105).

Figure 5.4. Oolitic limestone inclusions in pottery from Tabaqat al-Bûma (WZ200.H34.22.35+119). 241 Figure 5.5a (left) and 5.5b (right). Two different photomicrographs taken from the same thin section showing uneven distribution of photomicrographs taken different Two Figure 5.5a (left) and 5.5b (right). inclusions (WZ135.N41.13.3). Figure 5.6a (ppl) and b (xpl). Possible grog temper in pottery from al-’Aqaba (WZ310.N41.13.3). 242 Figure 5.8. Fired clay sample from the vicinity of al-Basatîn showing inclusions of small bioclasts, opaques, quartz, and limestone. Figure 5.10. Fired clay sample from the vicinity of al-’Aqaba showing very few inclusions. Note the white colour which is likely due to the absence of iron oxides. Figure 5.9. Different view of same fired clay sample as Figure 5.9. Different limestone inclusions. figure 5.8, showing larg Figure 5.7. Clay matrix of pottery from al-Basatîn showing inclusions that typically occur naturally in clays used by prehistoric potters, including bioclasts, opques (likely hematite), and small quartz grains (WZ135.P37.19.100). 243

Figure 5.11. Coiled pottery from al-Basatîn. indicate raised “corrugations”. Scale bar is 2 cm (WZ135.P33.53.129).

Figure 5.12. Coiled pottery from al-Basatîn. Arrows indicate location of voids between coils. Scale bar is 2 cm (WZ135.P33.50.108+109+112). 244

Figure 5.13. Coiled base from Tabaqat al-Bûma. Arrows indicate areas between coils. Scale is 2 cm (WZ200.D36.12.18).

Figure 5.14. Coiled jar neck from Tabaqat al-Bûma. Arrows indicate areas of lesser thickness. Scale is 2 cm. (WZ200.E33.8.11). 245

Figure 5.15. Pottery from al-Basatîn with “corrugations” likely created by the fingers of the potter rather than through coiling. Scale is 2 cm. (WZ135.P33.55.125).

Figure 5.16. Slab-built pottery from Tabaqat al-Bûma. Scale is 2 cm. (WZ200.H34.22.135). 246

Figure 5.17. Base fragment from al-Basatîn showing laminar fracture indicative of a slab- reinforced base. Scale is 2 cm. (WZ135.P33.62.117).

Figure 5.18. Body sherd from al-Basatîn showing laminar fracture possibly indicative of separating slabs. Scale is 2 cm. (WZ135.Q41.13.106). 247

B A

Figure 5.19. Pottery from Tabaqat al-Bûma. Arrows indicate location of shallow indentations suggestive of pinching. Scales are 2 cm. (A=WZ200.D35.4.11, B=WZ200.F34.87.2).

Figure 5.20. Pottery from Tabaqat al-Bûma. Arrows indicate location of vertical indentations suggestive of drawing. Scale is 2 cm. (WZ200.H34.22.132). 248

Figure 5.21. Pottery from Tabaqat al-Bûma showing textured interior surface. Possible evidence for mold-made pottery. Scale is 2 cm. (WZ200.E35.9.120).

Figure 5.22. Pottery from Tabaqat al-Bûma showing the interior of the vessel where the neck meets the shoulder. Note the fold of clay. Scale is 2 cm. (WZ200.F33.26.5).

Figure 5.23. S-shaped vessel with visible inclusions at inflection point. Possible due to differential wiping of the surface. Scale is 2 cm. (WZ200.D35.30.3A). 249

Figure 5.24. Pottery from al-Basatîn showing grit drag marks indicative of scraping. Scale is 2 cm. (WZ135.P33.61.100+101+103).

Figure 5.25. Pottery from Tabaqat al-Bûma showing “clay smearing”. Scale is 2 cm. (WZ200.A.103.3). 250

Figure 5.26. Base fragment from Tabaqat al Bûma showing an extra layer of clay added to the exterior. Scale is 2 cm. (WZ200.F34.15.3).

Figure 5.27. Base fragment from Tabaqat al-Bûma showing impression at juntion with wall. Scale is 2 cm. (WZ200.C36.1.11). 251

A B

Figure 5.28. Handles from Tabaqat al-Bûma. Scales are 2 cm. (A=WZ200.E35.75.12, B=WZ200.E36.104.4).

Figure 5.29. Handle attachment from Tabaqat al-Bûma. Scale is 2 cm (WZ200.E35.75.11).

Figure 5.30. Handle with “core” from Tabaqat al-Bûma. Scale is 2 cm. (WZ200.D31.4.7). 252

Figure 5.31. Pottery from al-Basatîn showing combing under handle attachment. Scale is 2 cm. (WZ135.P33.61.118+124).

A

B

Figure 5.32. Xeroradiographs of sherds from Tabaqat al-Bûma showing locations of section joins. Scales are 2 cm. (A=WZ200.A.67.3, B=WZ200.E36.101.1) 253

A B

Figure 5.33. Xeroradiographs from Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn showing location of slab joins. Scales are 2 cm. (A=WZ200.F35.8.60, B=WZ135.P41.22.100).

B

A

Figure 5.34. Xeroradiographs from Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn showing location of coils. Scales are 2 cm. (A=WZ200.G35.64.1, B=WZ135.P33.30.106). 254

A

B

Figure 5.35. Xeroradiographs from Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn showing thin strips of clay added at lips (oriented with lips up). Scales are 2 cm. (A=WZ200.G35.74.8, B=WZ135.Q43.9.109).

Figure 5.36. Xeroradiograph of a jar neck from Tabaqat al-Bûma showing section join. Scale is 2 cm. (WZ200.E32.8.5). Chapter 6: Communities in Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab

This chapter considers the pottery evidence presented in Chapters 4 and 5 in the context of the theoretical framework of community and style discussed in Chapter 3.

More methodological discussions concerning prehistoric communities have focussed on how they can be identified, although the two issues are obviously related; how we define communities (see Chapter 3) will influence how we look for them and identify them in the archaeological record. Some archaeological studies identify prehistoric communities by grouping sites according to spatial proximity. These are based on the assumption that communities require frequent, perhaps daily, interaction among members. Peterson and Drennan

(2005), for example, use GIS to group prehistoric Hongshan sites in by tracing around them a buffer “that satisfyingly groups together occupations separated by distances that would seem only trivial impediments to frequent interaction” (Peterson and Drennan 2005:10).

The authors identify the resultant clusters as community groups. Although emphasizing a different scale of analysis, Düring (2007) also focuses on spatial proximity in his attempt to identify “neighbourhood communities” within the Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük. He does this by identifying “clearly bounded” clusters of buildings that likely shared a “roof-scape” where domestic activities presumably occurred. Adler (2002) succinctly summarizes approaches that define communities through the identificiation of spatial proximity: The proximity of occupation, then, becomes a proxy for social relatedness above the household level, and people who live near enough for ongoing social interaction thence form the community (Adler 2002:28).

As suggested in Chapter 3, however, one can make an argument for the existence of dispersed communities that do not necessarily conform to the “distance-interaction principles” that

Peterson and Drennan (2005) suggest. In these cases, other methods of identifying communities must be employed.

255 256 Hegmon (2002) contrasts analytical methods that emphasize “spatialization” (Adler 2002:28), such as Peterson and Drennan’s approach, with those that seek to identify interaction. Rather than looking primarily at site distributions, the latter may incorporate differences in artifact patterning to determine the presence, and perhaps the intensity, of interaction between groups.

Rather than assuming interaction as a function of spatial proximity, these approaches give priority to the identification of interaction.

How, then, is interaction to be identified? On some level, archaeologists must rely on parallels in the patterning of material things; in other words, similar style (see Chapter 3). The equation of stylistic similarity with social interaction formed the explicit basis for many pottery studies conducted during the 1960s and 1970s, and was implicit in many discussions of interaction before those studies and since. However, as noted in Chapter 3, many of these studies have been criticized for adopting a narrow definition of style that looks primarily at pottery “decoration”.

For example, LeBlanc and Watson’s (1973) analysis of the relationships between seven Halaf sites in the upper and Euphrates Rivers considers painted design elements and motifs to the exclusion of other pottery attributes. By adopting a broader definition of style, especially one that includes technological style, archaeologists are better situated to identify meaningful patterns of interaction. For example, Gosselain’s (1998), ethnoarchaeological study of pottery production in southern Cameroon demonstrates that forming techniques may be a better indicator of social groups than other stages of the production sequence.

This first part of this chapter, then, considers the evidence for vessel production, including raw material selection, forming techniques, final vessel form, and surface treatment, through a comparison of the pottery assemblages from al-Basatîn, al-‘Aqaba, and Tabaqat al-Bûma, on the basis of data presented in Chapters 4 and 5. I arrange this section to follow the steps of the production sequence for low-fired pottery and, where applicable, provide further comments on the production sequence of Late Neolithic pottery in Wadi Ziqlab. Although the nature of the

 Note that many of these studies, including LeBlanc and Watson (1973), were looking at scales of interaction that are not usually associated with the community. 257 assemblages precludes detailed reconstructions of the entire production sequence for specific formal vessel types (compare Ali 2005), general technological features can be compared.

Following this, I explore the significance of similarities and differences among the pottery assemblages from the three sites.

A Comparison of Pottery Production

Raw Material Selection

More can be said about the selection of raw materials than other stages in the pottery production sequence because I was able to asses the fabric of almost every sherd using a binocular microscope and to examine a large sample in thin-section (see Chapter 5). Information related to other stages in the production sequence, such as forming technique, is less extensive.

Clay

Petrographic assessment of the clay matrix of 107 pottery thin sections demonstrates that the clay used in many vessels from each site is calcitic, with small calcite rhombs dispersed throughout the matrix (figure 6.1 and Appendix E). Calcitic clays are particularly common at

Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn, and are less common at al-‘Aqaba. Calcite-filled bioclasts, including foraminifera, are occasionally dispersed throughout the clay matrix in pottery made using these calcitic clays but they also occur in clays that are not described as calcitic. The latter are more common at al-‘Aqaba than either al-Basatîn or Tabaqat al-Bûma. Non-calcitic clays with no visible bioclasts occur in small numbers of thin-sections from al-‘Aqaba and Tabaqat al-Bûma but were not identified in any of the thin-sections from al-Basatîn.These differences are probably not strictly due to the proximity of available clay resources because the site of al-‘Aqaba is located between the other two sites and is quite close to Tabaqat al-Bûma. A chi- squared test of clay carbonate content by site indicates the differences between the sites are close to being statistically significant, although they are not quite (χ2 = 9.3, p = 0.054). 258 Although the near ubiquity of clay deposits in the wadi precludes the correlation of specific clays and pottery fabrics in this study (see Chapter 2), the high occurrence of calcitic and foraminiferous clays is consistent with local production. Clay deposits in Wadi Ziqlab derive from the weathering of the limestone bedrock that occurs throughout the wadi (see Chapter 2) and, consequently, they are often calcitic, foraminiferous, or both. Some clay samples collected in the vicinity of Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn look quite similar to clays used in the production of pottery at these sites when fired and examined in thin-section, although they are not identical and are likely not the actual clay sources used by Neolithic potters.

One clay sample collected from the wadi bottom near al-‘Aqaba contains almost no naturally- occurring inclusions and fires to a white colour rather than the more typical red or reddish- brown colour. The fine, homogeneous texture of this clay and its location at the bottom of the wadi suggest that it was deposited by flowing water (Velde and Druc 1999:67). The occurrence of transported and deposited clays such as this serves as a reminder that not all existing clay deposits were necessarily available to Neolithic potters and, conversely, that other clay deposits that were present during the Neolithic may no longer be extant. They also demonstrate that very clean clay (i.e., lacking inclusions) may have been available in Wadi Ziqlab during the

Late Neolithic but it was not typically used in pottery production. However, some of the pottery attributed to the “limey” fabric group is quite similar to this white, wadi-bottom clay sample.

Inclusions

Fabrics discussed in this dissertation are defined largely by the inclusions present in the matrix. While fabrics typically occur at more than one site, there is variation in the proportion of fabrics represented at each site. Table 6.1 shows the occurrence of petrofabric group by site and figure 6.2 shows the distribution of fabric class by site as assessed with the binocular microscope. Pottery with inclusions consisting primarily of limestone and other inclusions that typically co-occur with limestone in the local geology, especially chert and calcite (the 259

al-Basatîn al-'Aqaba al-Bûma WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 Argillaceous 7 4 17 Argillaceous-Calcite 1 Argillaceous-Chaff 2 Argillaceous-Quartz-Limestone 1 Basalt 2 1 Calcite-Opaque 1 Chaff 5 Clear 5 2 2 Grog 1 Limestone 5 2 13 Limestone-Argillaceous 4 4 Limestone-Chaff 4 Limestone-Chert 1 4 7 Limestone-Chert-Quartz 3 3 Limestone-Quartz 1 2 1 Oolitic Limestone 1 Yellow Chunks 1

Table 6.1. Frequency of petrofabric group by site.

“limestone grit” class), comprise the dominant fabric class at each site. Al-‘Aqaba has the highest proportion of limestone grit pottery, although al-Basatîn and Tabaqat al-Bûma are not far behind. Like the clays discussed in the previous section, the high frequency of limestone inclusions and other locally available inclusions suggests that much of the Late Neolithic pottery in Wadi Ziqlab was produced locally. A cluster analysis of fabric class shows the three latest phases at Tabaqat al-Bûma cluster together. Al-Basatîn, which is spatially more distant than al-

‘Aqaba, is also more distant in the cluster analysis (figure 6.3).A chi-squared test indicates the differences in fabric class among the sites are statistically significant (χ2 = 697.8, p < 0.005).

Both the petrofabric analysis and the micro-CT analysis (see Appendix D) indicate that the limestone found as inclusions in the pottery can be poorly sorted, and usually includes large, rounded grains. This is suggestive of naturally occurring inclusions rather than temper that was intentionally added by the potter. Large rounded limestone inclusions can occur in the clay samples as well. The presence of other locally available inclusions in small amounts in some sherds (e.g., chert, calcite, quartz) suggests that the clay was not well cleaned before use and

 As noted in Chapter 5, the petrographic samples were not chosen randomly. Therefore results are not expressed quantitatively. 260 that the potters were not concerned about having a paste with multiple kinds of inclusions (see

Appendix E).

It should be noted, that even within individual fabric classes, there is some variation by site

(table 6.2). The limestone grit class is most notable. As discussed in Chapter 5, this fabric class is actually comprised of several different fabric groups, all of which have varying amounts and kinds of inclusions (although limestone is always dominant) or different colours or textures. The distribution of these groups is not uniform among the three sites. Most noticeably, the fabric groups “grit 1 calicte”, “pink grit 1 calcite”, and “black burnish calcite” do not occur or occur only in very small numbers at al-Basatîn and Tabaqat al-Bûma, while they comprise 2.0%,

9.2%, and 2.5% of the assemblage at al-‘Aqaba (see table 6.2). Apart from having a higher amount of crystalline calcite, these three fabric groups are similar to the groups “grit 1”, “pink grit 1”, and “black burnish”. Despite having a noticeably higher abundance of calcite, the calcite in these fabric groups is not usually abundant and is unlikely to have been intentionally added as temper. This suggests that the potters at al-‘Aqaba sometimes used clay deposits with higher amounts of naturally occurring calcite inclusions. Note, however, that the petrographic analysis shows that calcite does occur in small amounts in pottery from al-Basatîn and Tabaqat al-Bûma as well. The major difference seems to be that al-‘Aqaba has pottery with larger inclusions of calcite so they are more readily visible in a fresh break under the binocular microscope.

It appears that much of the pottery with limestone inclusions was not intentionally tempered.

Other fabric groups also indicate the use of clays without the intentional addition of temper, suggesting the presence of a more widespread tradition of using untempered clay for pottery production. The “clear” fabric class, which is defined by the general lack of any inclusions, is the most obvious of these. This fabric class occurs at each site, but is most common at al-Basatîn

(figure 6.2).

Intentionally tempered pottery does occur in Wadi Ziqlab, however. I discussed the fabric class “chaff” in the previous chapter, but it is worth commenting on it further, not only because 261 1.07 0.04 2.41 4.12 5.07 3.18 7.26 1.98 8.51 0.86 0.39 5.76 0.43 0.17 0.04 2.79 0.17 0.30 2.28 0.09 2.06 0.34 2.58 1.12 7.44 10.82 0.25 9.18 4.220.25 11.25 3.10 2.61 2.23 2.23 2.48 7.20 3.35 3.35 1.24 3.10 0.12 0.12 0.37 1.49 2.73 1.24 0.50 1.99 0.12 1.99 Proportion 0.11 24.44 14.65 0.22 3.26 0.11 0.44 2.18 2.94 0.76 0.98 0.54 6.31 0.54 4.35 0.76 1.85 0.11 1.41 0.33 0.22 0.44 0.54 7.40 11.54 11.38 1.85 18.72 1 9 1 4 87 12.51 4 2 25 56 96 74 46 20 65 53 10 48 60 252 17.08 341 262 118 169 198 134 14.04 265 9 2 2 1 3 1 1 4 60 34 74 25 18 21 58 18 27 27 20 10 25 12 10 22 93 16 16 y 197 Frequenc 1 2 1 4 7 9 5 5 7 4 1 2 3 5 30 27 20 58 17 40 13 68 17 129 172 115 157 al-Basatîn al-'Aqaba al-Bûma al-Basatîn al-'Aqaba al-Bûma WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 Chaff 2 Bright clear Buff clear Crumbly yellow Basalt 1 Basalt 2 Chaff Limey paste Hard gray Fabric Class Fabric Group Argillaceous Abundant argillaceous Limestone gritLimestone grit Grit 3 crumbly Pink grit 1 Argillaceous Bright argillaceous 1 Argillaceous Bright argillaceous 2 Limestone grit Pink grit 1 calcite Argillaceous Bright argillaceous 3 Argillaceous Buff argillaceous Limestone grit Pink Grit 2 Black Burnish Black burnish Limestone grit Pink grit 3 Chaff Clear Black Burnish Black burnish calcite Limestone grit Reduced 1 Limestone grit Pinkish earthy Clear Limestone grit Reduced 2 Limestone grit Bright grit 1 Limestone grit Bright grit 2 Clear Limestone grit Earthy Limestone gritLimestone grit Reduced slipped Sandy Limestone grit Reduced 2 calcite Limestone grit White lime 1 Limestone grit Grit 1 Other Other Other Limestone grit White lime 2 Other Limestone gritLimestone grit Grit 1 calcite Grit 2 Other Limestone grit Grit 3 Table 6.2. Fabric group by site. 262 it indicates the intentional tempering of pottery, in this case with abundant vegetal material, but also because it is a fabric class that is unique to one site. While it occurs only in small numbers at al-Basatîn it is totally absent at both Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-‘Aqaba. Furthermore, most of the “other” class pottery from al-Basatîn actually belongs to the fabric group chaff (i.e. pottery that has vegetal material in lower amounts, which may or may not be intentionally added). If we combine all pottery that has any evidence for vegetal inclusions and assign them all to the fabric class “chaff”, we see a noticeable change in the distribution of fabric classes at al-Basatîn but not the other sites (figure 6.2b). Although much of this material is likely not intentionally added, it does suggest that the presence of vegetal inclusions in the clay body, regardless of how it got there, was an accepted or even encouraged practice at al-Basatîn, but not Tabaqat al-Bûma or al-‘Aqaba. It should be noted here that much of the vegetal material in the “chaff” fabric class/ group is not technically chaff. A micro-CT isosurface of voids from a vegetal-tempered sherd from al-Basatîn shows the presence of elongated vegetal material that is likely some kind of grass (see figure D.3 in Appendix D). This can also be seen, although with less clarity, under the binocular microscope and in thin section.

The argillaceous fabric class is, in some ways, more difficult to interpret. This class is most common at Tabaqat al-Bûma, but it does occur at the other sites as well. In thin-section, pottery in this class has inclusions that appear as distinct argillaceous grains. These can be well-sorted with angular pieces, suggesting they were intentionally added as temper. In other cases, the argillaceous inclusions are not well sorted and are predominantly rounded, occassionally with merging boundaries, which suggests that they are naturally occurring (Whitbread 1986). A single sherd can have a combination of both angular and rounded grains. The argillaceous class should, perhaps, be thought of as encompassing a range of different inclusion types and clay preparation traditions. On the basis of the discussion that Whitbread (1986) provides, it is likely that the argillaceous class contains a mixture of both intentionally and unintentionally added argillaceous rock fragments (perhaps a soft mudstone or siltstone), naturally occurring clay 263 pellets, and perhaps intentionally added clay temper. Examining the argillaceous fabric class in thin section demonstrates that the Wadi Ziqlab potters sometimes did not thoroughly knead or wedge their clay before forming their vessels. Otherwise the inclusions would be less distinct. In

Chapter 5, I mention the uneven distribution of inclusions in the pottery, which also points to the poor mixing of clays.

In Chapter 5, I mentioned the difficulties of identifying basalt macroscopically or under the binocular microscope. It is worth noting that I did identify basalt inclusions in a small number of thin-sections of pottery from Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-‘Aqaba using the petrofabric microscope

(n=3) and none from al-Basatîn. One of the thin sections from al-‘Aqaba has only a single visible basalt inclusion, but basalt is more common in the other two samples, especially the second sample from al-‘Aqaba.Because basalt does not occur naturally in Wadi Ziqlab, this may be suggestive of the importation of pottery from outside the wadi. However, it should be noted that basalt does occur on Late Neolithic sites in the form of groundstone artifacts that must have been imported from elsewhere. It is possible that small amounts of basalt were, intentionally or unintentionally, incorporated into locally produced pottery as these groundstone artifacts were used, maintained, and recycled on sites within Wadi Ziqlab. The presence of basalt inclusions, then, is not unequivocal evidence for the import of pottery, although in some cases it does seem likely. It should be noted, however, that, apart from the possible basalt inclusions, there are no other clear indicators of a foreign origin for these sherds (e.g., distinct shapes, decoration).

Fabrics over Time and Among Households at Tabaqat al-Bûma

The stratified sequence of architecture at Tabaqat al-Bûma enables identification of changes in fabric over time and among different “households” at this site. The excavators of the site were able to identify multiple phases of Late Neolithic occupation (see Chapter 2). Analyses of the stratigraphy by Blackham (1994, 1997) and Kadowaki (2007) indicate the presence of five Late

Neolithic phases (see also Banning et al. n.d.), designated LN1 to LN5 (from earliest to latest). 264 The sample of diagnostic pottery from the earliest phases is small, numbering only 16 sherds or vessels from LN1 and 46 from LN2. The final three phases, LN3, LN4, and LN5, have greater numbers of diagnostic pottery (n=319, 410, and 682 respectively). The remaining diagnostic

Late Neolithic sherds from the site come from contexts that cannot be attributed with certainty to particular phases, although as mentioned above, they are generally found in upper deposits mixed with Classical pottery and, therefore, it seems likely that much of this material derives from the latest phases at the site (i.e., phase LN5).

The most noticeable trend in fabrics over time is the decrease from phase LN1 to LN5 in the proportion of “limestone grit” class pottery in the assemblage (although this fabric class is always dominant, even in phase LN5) and the concomitant increase in the “argillaceous” fabric class (figure 6.5). The “clear” fabric class also increases over time. As noted elsewhere in this dissertation, it is likely that some “clear” sherds are actually “argillaceous” sherds that were well-kneaded, thus eliminating any evidence of argillaceous inclusions. This is an interesting pattern. As noted in Chapter 5, archaeologists often assume that the occurrence of calcium carbonate inclusions in pottery is due to the benefits they provide to cooking vessels (see

Chapter 5). The fact that the abundance of limestone inclusions drops over time may suggest that either that pottery was not becoming more “functional” over time (contra Goren et al.1993) or that the occurrence of limestone inclusions is not related to cooking pots in the first place

(Goren et al.1993). The latter option may be more likely, as little other evidence for cooking

(e.g., soot marks) can be identified on the Wadi Ziqlab pottery.

As noted in Chapter 2, Kadowaki (2007) argues that differences in household organization can be seen at Tabaqat al-Bûma. In each of the phases LN3, LN4, and LN5, he identifies two households and observes some differences between them, including differences in tool production and perhaps other domestic activities such as food preparation. His analysis of architecture and other aspects of material cultures suggests that the phase LN3 households were more integrated than those of later periods and may have shared some outdoor activity areas. 265 Kadowaki argues that, over time, households at the site become more segregated.

Little can be said about the possible differences in pottery between households because the sample of diagnostic pottery that can be attributed to specific households is quite small, especially in phases LN3 and LN4. In phase LN5, which has a larger sample, it is interesting to note that the two households identified by Kadowaki (2007) have similar proportions of most fabric classes. The most notable difference is the absence of black burnished pottery from household I33/I34. In the other household, D31, black burnished pottery comprises 2.0% of diagnostic pottery recovered. The overall similarity between the households in terms of fabric class seems to contradict Kadowaki’s suggestion that households in phase LN5 were segregated.

However, the nature of pottery production may encourage more inter-household cooperation than other activities such as food or lithic production, which might explain why significant differences are not observed here. Pottery production may be a less individualistic activity than lithic production or cooking as it can benefit from the sharing of resources and firing structures.

Moreover, pottery production may have occurred outside the household. (Although see the discussion of expedient pottery production below).

Unfortunately, the Late Neolithic occupations at al-Basatîn and al-‘Aqaba cannot be, or at least have not yet been, similarly subdivided into smaller temporal or spatial units and it is impossible to comment on variation over time or between architectural units at these sites.

Summary of Raw Material Selection and Preparation

Before making comments on the next step in the production sequence (i.e., forming) I offer a few summary words about raw material selection and preparation. Overall there are many similarities among the sites. Most of the fabric classes are found at every site, apart from the chaff class, which only occurs at al-Basatîn. Most of the pottery at each site is made from clay that is micritic or foraminiferous, and that includes small amounts of opaque inclusions, likely hematite, and sometimes quartz. With the possible exception of basalt, virtually all of the 266 inclusions in the pottery from each site are locally available. At each site it appears that potters were sometimes using “naturally tempered” clays or were selecting clean clays that were not subsequently tempered. In other cases, clay was tempered before use.

There are some differences among the sites, however, including differences in the proportions of the fabric classes represented. We also see some differences in the occurrence of the petrofabric groups. Al-‘Aqaba has one petrofabric group (grog) that was not identified at

Tabaqat al-Bûma or al-Basatîn, while Tabaqat al-Bûma has two petrofabric groups that were not identified at the other sites (oolitic limestone, yellow chunks).Al-Basatîn has six petrofabric groups that do not occur at the other sites. Three of these contain chaff (chaff, limestone-chaff, argillaceous-chaff). The other three are identified by combinations of inclusions that occur on each site (argillaceous-calcite, argillaceous-quartz-limestone, calcite-opaque).

It is worth noting here the difficulties in defining both the fabric groups using the binocular microscope and the petrofabric groups using the petrographic microscope. In almost all cases, groups blended into others, and the boundaries between them are rather fuzzy. Distinct fabric or petrofabric groups are not easily identified. Even the broad groups that I discuss as significant, especially the limestone groups and the argillaceous groups, are not rigidly divided. There are some fabrics that contain both limestone (and other co-occurring grits) and argillaceous inclusions. This suggests that distinct, well-defined “recipes” were not being used by the potters in Wadi Ziqlab. Rather, a range of options was available and a range of variation was acceptable.

The selection and preparation of clays might have been, in some cases, expedient with little attempt to clean the clay or add temper. The potters at each site used various clay sources, some with naturally occurring inclusions, some without. Sometimes these clays were tempered, sometimes they were not.

Forming

In this section I discuss variations in the techniques used to shape the Wadi Ziqlab pottery, and 267 also variations in the shapes themselves (i.e., the formal types).

Primary and Secondary Forming Techniques

As mentioned above, evidence for forming method is sometimes difficult to determine and even the final form or shape of the vessel can be difficult to assess when dealing with fragmented assemblages (see Chapter 4). However, there is some evidence that at each site a range of different primary forming techniques was used. Table 6.3 indicates the frequency of some primary forming techniques by site on the basis of surface features (macrotraces) and xeroradiography discussed in Chapter 5. Evidence for coiling, pinching, and drawing occurs on every site. Evidence for large, slab-built vessels is not found in the al-Basatîn assemblage, although this forming technique seems to have been used at both Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-

‘Aqaba. It should be noted, however, that, during excavation at al-Basatîn, we encountered many extremely crumbly pieces of large, low-fired, clay objects, that were typically too friable to recover successfully. The thickness of these objects suggests they were very large, perhaps immobile, objects, and they were provisionally identified as “tabun” (oven) fragments.

Alternatively, they could have been some other kind of large installation that fulfilled the same function as the large slab-built vessels at Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-‘Aqaba. Sequential slab production does seem to have occurred at al-Basatîn and also at Tabaqat al-Bûma. Its use at al-

‘Aqaba is less clear. No clear evidence for mold production occurs at any of the sites, although a couple of possible mold-made pieces were recovered at Tabaqat al-Bûma.

al-Basatîn al-'Aqaba al-Bûma WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 coiling 28 12 36 pinching 12 3 12 drawing 1 1 5 slab 1 7 sequential slab 2 2 19 mold 2 strip at lip 3 4

Table 6.3. Frequency of primary forming methods as identified by. surface features and xeroradiography. 268 Mat impressions on bases occur in small numbers at each site (see table 4.5). These were likely used to facilitate rotating the vessel during production. Pebble-impressed bases, however, only occur at al-Basatîn, although there are only two clear examples. It is difficult to say if these are the result of the use of some kind of pit-mold as Yannai (1997, 2006) suggests, or if the vessels were simply placed on a layer of pebbles while still wet, because in both examples very little of the vessel wall remains.

The only evidence for “secondary” forming techniques that I observed are grit drag marks, which according to Rye (1981) may indicate scraping or turning. As other evidence for the latter does not occur, scraping is more likely. Grit drag marks occur on pottery from each site.

Frequently finger impressions occur on the surface of sherds. I suggested above that some of these may be related to the shaping or molding of a vessel after its general shape has been made, especially the carinations on carinated vessels. In this sense, finger impressions may, in some cases, be indicative of a type of secondary forming of the vessel. At both al-Basatîn and Tabaqat al-Bûma there is evidence that flat bases were molded in this way to produce disk-shaped bases

(table 6.4). al-Basatîn al-'Aqaba al-Bûma WZ135/140 WZ310 WZ200 wiping 8 8 23 clay smearing 4 1 base: mat impressions 1 3 15 base: pebble impressions 2 base: slab reinforced 2 8 base: clay added at junction 6 3 9 base: forming disk 2 3 handle: gap under strap 2 2 17 handle: reinfored 1 2 5

Table 6.4. Frequency of other observations on forming technique as identified by surface features and xeroradiography.

Base and Handle Forming

As discussed in Chapter 5, I made a number of other observations concerning the shaping of the pot, including the form of bases and handles (see table 6.4). At each site there is evidence 269 that vessel bases were thickened or bolstered by adding clay, either in a layer on the outside of the base or as a slab on the interior of the base. Both types of bolstering occur at al-Basatîn and

Tabaqat al-Bûma, while al-‘Aqaba only has the former type.

There are examples from each site of strap handles with a concavity or air space between the vessel wall and the handle. This results in little contact between the vessel wall and the handle itself, indicating a weak bond between the elements. It is possible that there is some functional reason for this method of handle attachment, although more research is required to ascertain this. Handles can be points of fracture during the drying process as wall and handle may shrink at different rates. Perhaps the air space does something to regulate this. At both al-Basatîn and

Tabaqat al-Bûma there is evidence that strap handles were reinforced by adding layers of clay to the exterior, so it is unlikely that strap handles were simply non-functional elements of the vessel.

Differences in Shape

Most of the same general shapes occur at each site. As discussed in Chapter 4, the majority of these are either open forms that are typically identified as “bowls” or inverted forms that are typically identified as “holemouth jars”. Necked vessels occur more rarely. If we assume that the profile (straight, concave, or convex) is a “stylistic” feature rather than a functional one, we can see if there are differences in proportion between bowls or holemouth jars with straight, concave, and convex profiles. Figure 6.6a shows differences in proportions of everted straight, everted concave, everted convex, and vertical straight sherds which may derive from open bowls. The proportion of the different types is fairly similar, although at Tabaqat al-Bûma everted convex vessels are most common, while al-‘Aqaba and al-Basatîn vertical straight vessels are most common. However, a chi-squared test indicates that these differences are not

 It is difficult to accurately quantify the proportion of this feature, as it would require breaking or sectioning each strap handle. At Tabaqat al-Bûma n = 17, al-Basatîn n = 2, and al-‘Aqaba n = 2. If we assume that all other strap handles did not have this feature this gives proportions of 6.3%, 6.1%, and 6.3%, respectively. However, as I was not able to assess this feature on most strap handles, these figures are likely under-estimated. 270 statistically significant (χ2 = 11.9, p=0.064). Figure 6.6b shows differences in proportions of inverted straight, inverted convex, and necked inverted concave vessels, which may derive from holemouth jars (the latter are primarily vessels with a slightly upturned rim and are typically classified as holemouth jars). There seems to be more variation in holemouth jar form than in bowl form. At al-Basatîn, holemouth jars with a straight profile are more abundant than other kinds of holemouth jars, while at the other sites holemouth jars with a convex profile have a greater representation. However, these differences are also not statistically significant (χ2 = 7.55, p = 0.109).

In addition to the general formal type of pottery, there are variations in other aspects of vessel form, including lip shape, base form, and handle form. Figure 6.7 shows the proportion of four different lip shapes at each site. Although simple, rounded lips are most common at each site, at al-‘Aqaba they are followed more closely by squared lips. At al-Basatîn squared and pointed lips are much less common than rounded ones. Tabaqat al-Bûma shows an intermediate pattern. A chi-squared test indicates that these differences are significant (χ2 = 63.12, p < 0.005). The most noticeable difference in terms of base form is the higher proportion of disk bases at Tabaqat al-

Bûma (figure 6.8). Otherwise the three sites are quite similar and a chi-squared test indicates that the differences are not statistically significant (χ2 = 20.15, p = 0.064). The most noticeable difference in terms of handle form is the higher number of ledge handles, which includes small lugs, at al-Basatîn (figure 6.9). A chi-squared test indicates that the distribution of handles among the sites is statistically different (χ2 = 34.07, p < 0.005) While there could be a functional reason for the production of lugs rather than strap handles, in fact, arguably many of these lugs are too small to have had an obvious utilitarian function. Furthermore, as discussed in Chapter 5, many of the strap handles are characterized by a weak join between the handle and the body of the vessel, so these too, may not have been intended for use. 271 Surface Treatments

Late Neolithic potters in Wadi Ziqlab used a range of surface treatments on their vessels

(figure 6.10). Some of these are what are typically called “decoration”, having no obvious utilitarian role (e.g., paint, various impressions and incisions). Others may have served to enhance the functionality of the vessel (e.g., slip or burnish may affect permeability, some combing may improve one’s grip on the vessel), although their users may have also appreciated their aesthetic qualities. In some cases, certain surface treatments could have been used to affect the overall shape of the vessel and could be considered a “secondary” forming technique.

Combing, for example, can cover the entire surface of a vessel and, in some cases, could have been used to thin the vessel wall.

It is difficult to determine the overall proportion of surface treatments at each site.As discussed above, at al-Basatîn and al’-Aqaba some contexts are mixed, containing both Late

Neolithic and Early Bronze Age material. While it is often possible to determine to which period sherds with surface treatment belong, sherds without surface treatment are more problematic.

This makes it difficult to determine the overall proportion of sherds with surface treatment. Even at Tabaqat al-Bûma, where the problem of mixed deposits is not as critical, it can be difficult to come up with precise numbers of body sherds without surface treatment as sherds can be very friable, breaking into smaller pieces.

Slip is a common surface treatment at every site. A noticeable difference among the sites is that, at al-‘Aqaba, slip with a burnish is almost as common as unburnished slip. Also, burnish without a visible slip is more common at this site than the others (although as noted above, black-burnished sherds are included in this category, and many of them do likely have a slip).

Slip with a burnish is less common at Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn, as is burnish without slip.

Another noticeable difference among the sites is the high frequency of combing at al-Basatîn, 272 which is almost as common as unburnished slip at that site. Combing is much less frequent at al-‘Aqaba and Tabaqat al-Bûma. At al-Basatîn combing frequently occurs as dense combing over the entire surface of the sherd and sometimes both surfaces (Garfinkel’s [1999:142] type 7 combing). This pattern in particular is not common at the other sites. At Tabaqat al-

Bûma combing is usually restricted to a horizontal band around the rim, or occurs as distinct intersecting bands in a weave pattern (Garfinkel’s [1999:142] type 5 combing). At al-‘Aqaba clear examples of combing are infrequent. At this site, however, there are a number of clear examples of herringbone incisions (Garfinkel’s [1999:145] types 8-10) which sometimes give a broadly similar effect. These usually occur on gray or dark gray sherds and do not occur at the other sites.

Other differences include the occurrence of small numbers of painted sherds at Tabaqat al-

Bûma and al-‘Aqaba, which have not been identified at al-Basatîn.Applied rope decoration and

“fingernail” impressions occur at Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn but have not been identified at al-‘Aqaba.

Summary of Forming Techniques and Surface Treatments

There is a range of variation in both forming methods and surface treatment at each site.

Coiled, pinched, drawn, and perhaps sequential slab-constructed vessels seem to occur at each site. There are some differences among the sites in forming techniques, although these may reflect, in part, the smaller sample size of sherds that reveal forming technique. For example, slab and mold-made vessels may occur only at Tabaqat al-Bûma. As mentioned in Chapter 5, one method of finishing the rim of a vessel was to add a thin strip of clay. This occurs at both

Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn but not al-‘Aqaba.

Variation in surface treatment is more noticeable because it is easier to identify the frequency of particular surface treatments and because, unlike forming methods, it usually was not eradicated during subsequent stages of the production sequence. In fact, most kinds of surface 273 treatment are found at each site and it is the differences in proportion that are most noticeable.

These differences are statistically significant (χ2 = 734.62, p < 0.005). The high frequency of combed sherds at al-Basatîn and burnish at al-‘Aqaba are the most noticeable variations in surface treatment.

Firing

The occurrence of well-made black and red burnished pottery on Late Neolithic sites leads

Goren (1992:339) to suggest that the use of kilns during the 6th millennium BC. However, no actual kiln structures dating to this period have been recovered, although, as Goren (1992:340) points out, they may occur in other parts of the Near East (e.g., Majidzadeh 1975). As noted in

Chapter 4, the refiring tests carried out for this study show that the approximate original firing temperature of most of the pottery is not inconsistent with the use of multi-chamber firing structures, single-chamber firing structures, or even ephemeral firing structures (Gosselain 1992: table 1), so none of these can be ruled out. The single black-burnished sherd that was refired for this study does not seem to have been fired at a higher temperature than the majority of the other sherds.

In terms of firing temperature, no discernable differences can be identified among the three assemblages studied here, although the sample size is very small and not all fabric groups are included in the analysis. If anything, differences in firing temperature may be associated with the kinds of inclusions found in the sherds. Sherds with limestone grit inclusion seem to be fired slightly lower than sherds with argillaceous inclusions or those with few visible inclusions

(i.e., “clear” class). This may be due to a desire to avoid the effects of lime spalling at higher temperatures. Most of the sherds with limestone inclusions that were fired to a temperature between 650 and 800 °C exhibited some degree of calcium carbonate decomposition and lime spalling. At this same temperature sherds with argillaceous inclusions or no visible inclusions generally showed no changes or only minor changes in colour, although some did show some 274 minor warping. It is worth pointing out, however, that the sample of sherds with limestone inclusions available for refiring may be biased. It is possible that some vessels with limestone inclusions were fired to temperatures as high as other vessels, but subsequent to firing these may have disintegrated entirely due to the effects of lime spalling. This would mean that only low-fired sherds with limestone inclusions would be available for archaeological analysis, thus skewing our observations. It may seem counterintuitive that people would fire pots to a temperature that they surely knew would likely cause them to disintegrate sometime after firing but as Vitelli (1999) notes, there may have been some kind of symbolic value to this.

Furthermore, if some pots were expedient tools (as I suggest below), they may not have been intended to function for long periods of time, so their eventual disintegration may not have been an issue.

Differences in fabric colour may be related to firing practices. The colour of sherds is sometimes used to determine whether vessels were fired in an oxidizing or reducing atmosphere.

As noted above, there are difficulties with this kind of assessment as sherd colour is actually the result of a number of factors. Moreover, the colour of the Wadi Ziqlab pottery at each site is best viewed as a gradient, with darker colours grading into lighter ones, so it is difficult to say which specific Munsell colours might relate to oxidized or reduced firing atmospheres. However, if we assume that Munsell colours identified as black, dark gray, dark grayish brown, gray, grayish brown, and very dark gray (Munsell 2000) correspond to reducing firing atmospheres and all other colours correspond to oxidizing firing atmospheres, and that the exterior surface colour is the best indicator of firing atmosphere, we see that the majority of vessels at each site were fired in an oxidizing atmosphere (figure 6.11).Al-‘Aqaba has the highest number of reduced sherds

(20.2%) This is a direct reflection of the high proportion of black burnished sherds found at that site, which results in a statistically significant difference among the sites (χ2 = 119.94, p <

0.005) 275 The presence of multiple core colours may be indicative of a sherd that was fired with a low soak time (i.e., the maximum temperature of the firing was not held for long), although other factors can contribute (Rye 1981). Figure 6.12 shows that al-Basatîn has the highest proportion of sherds with multiple core colours. Al-‘Aqaba and Tabaqat al-Bûma have approximately the same proportion of sherds with multiple core colours. The contribution of the al-Basatîn sherds makes the differences among the sites statistically significant (χ2 = 56.96, p < 0.005).

It is interesting to note that, overall, al-Basatîn has more friable pottery than al-‘Aqaba or

Tabaqat al-Bûma. This may be due, in part, to the incomplete firing of the pottery, although other factors may also be involved. The post-depositional absorption of ground minerals can be seen in several thin sections from the site, which could potentially weaken the pottery

It is also interesting to note that the interior and exterior surface colours of sherds are not always the same colour. In some cases sherds have one surface that is one of the colours described here as a “reducing” colour, while the other surface is an “oxidizing” colour. When this occurs it is more common at each site for the reducing colour to be on the interior surface and the oxidizing colour to be on the exterior surface (figure 6.13).V elde and Druc (1999:123) suggest that this pattern is indicative of vessels being fired orifice down, inhibiting the free movement of oxygen to the inside of the vessel. Al-Basatîn has a lower proportion of sherds that fit this pattern, leading to a statistically significant difference among the sites (χ2 = 10.98, p =

0.004). This may indicate a different way of loading pots into the firing structure at this site.

Recycling and Repair

Archaeological and ethnographic evidence demonstrate that pottery vessels often continue to remain in use after their initial breakage. They can be repaired, recycled into a variety of different objects, or sherds may be reused without any modification (Rice 1987:table 9.3).

 Multiple core colour as I use it here refers to a cross-section that has more than one distinguishable colour between the surfaces. A single core colour has only one colour between the surfaces (i.e., the margins are the same colour as the coure). 276 In Wadi Ziqlab there is some evidence that vessels were repaired or used in different ways.

A number of sherds show evidence of holes that were clearly made after the vessel was fired.

These are likely mending holes and they may reflect attempts to repair cracked or broken vessels, although paired holes on either side of a break have not been found. Another instance of repair may be seen on a particularly fine thumb-nail impressed vessel fromT abaqat al-Bûna.

An examination of the rim of this vessel suggests that it was formed as a necked jar. However, it appears as if the neck was later removed and a new lip fashioned at the former junction of the neck and shoulder through grinding. This created a kind of holemouth jar with an inverted rim and a rather irregular lip. A different “vessel” found in a LN1 tomb at the same site may, in fact, be a body sherd showing the attachment of a now missing strap handle. It would be useable, however, as a shallow bowl, with the attachment forming the base of the bowl. Unfortunately, the carbonate deposits on vessels from this context are particularly thick so it is impossible to say that if any reworking of the sherd had occurred, but its inclusion in a tomb with several other complete vessels suggests that it may have been considered “complete” at the time of its deposition.

The largest category of recycled tool types includes a variety of “disks” that were fashioned from body or base sherds. I examined three of these from al-Basatîn, 14 from Tabaqat al-Bûma, and four from al-‘Aqaba. The largest of these would have had a diameter of about 9cm and was likely made from the base of a flat-bottomed vessel that had had its entire wall removed.These larger disks have sometimes been referred to as jar-stoppers (e.g., Garfinkel 1992 fig. 141).

Most of the disks are smaller, however (mean estimated diameter=4.5cm). These often have a single hole pierced through the centre, although unpierced examples exist. It is impossible to tell if some of the broken disks had a hole or not. The experimental reproduction of some of the pierced disks indicates they are expedient tools made quickly with expedient stone tools (Gibbs in press).

A number of explanations have been offered to explain the occurrence of these disks 277 (Verhoeven 1999:238-239). Frequently they are referred to as spindle whorls and this is supported by ethnographic examples (e.g., Crowfoot 1931) and some experimental work

(Gibbs in press). Other authors see them as gaming pieces (Eirikh-Rose and Garfinkel 2002), accounting tokens (Schmandt-Besserat 1992), markers of identity (Tsuneki 1998), pendants or ornaments (Liu 1978), jar stoppers (Mallowan and Rose 1935; Garfinkel 1992), or as flywheels for pump-drills or children’s spinning-tops.

The possibility of grog as a tempering agent is another example of the recycling of pottery

(see above).

The small sample size makes it difficult to identify any trends in the reuse or recycling of pots at the Wadi Ziqlab sites. Each site has examples of “mending holes” and pierced disks. Tabaqat al-Bûma has the most examples of repaired and reused items but this may not be significant as it also has the greatest sample size of pottery of all the sites. It is worth noting that the only well- made, biconical spindle whorl found at a Late Neolithic site comes from the smaller assemblage from al-Basatîn, and not from Tabaqat al-Bûma, indicating a possible divergent tradition of spindle whorl manufacture

Pottery and Communities in Wadi Ziqlab

A comparison of the pottery from Tabaqat al-Bûma, al-Basatîn, and al-‘Aqaba indicates some similarities but also a number of differences among the sites, especially in surface treatment and fabric. The same basic repertoire of vessel forms was used at each site, with an emphasis on open bowls and holemouth jars, and with relatively few clear examples of necked jars, although there is some variation in the proportions of particular forms. Assessment of vessel function is beyond the scope of this study, so it is difficult to comment on how functional differences contribute to the formal variation, although it is worth noting that Skibo and Shiffer

(2008:2) suggest that “neckless jars were the Swiss Army of the pottery world—a container that was used to carry out a variety of functions”. It is possible, then, that some of the 278 vessels from Wadi Ziqlab, especially the inverted neckless vessels (i.e., holemouth jars), were multipurpose pots and, therefore, the contribution of functional variation may be limited. The pottery assemblages from each site have a number of surface treatments in common with pottery from sites normally attributed to the Wadi Rabah culture, including a variety of impressed and incised or combed motifs, as well as red slip and burnish and black burnished pieces (Banning

2007; c.f. Garfinkel 1992b). However, these are not found in equal proportions at the three Wadi

Ziqlab sites. Certain surface treatments are found in significantly higher numbers at some sites than others, for example combing at al-Basatîn. While these could also reflect some functional difference (Schiffer et al. 1994) the occurrence of combing and slip on disparate parts of the vessel (i.e., interior and exterior, body and rim) would suggest that a single function is unlikely for these treatments. Likewise, certain fabric groups are unique to individual sites or are found more often at one site than the others (figure 6.2). In some cases this may reflect the availability of raw material sources, which may be a factor of site location more than anything else. In other cases, for example the use of vegetal material as a tempering agent at al-Basatîn, the observed variations are likely the result of unique technological choices. Vegetal material was certainly available to the potters at the other sites, but they chose, for whatever reason, not to use it in their pottery.

It seems, then, that at most stages in the production sequence, a number of different options were available to Late Neolithic potters in Wadi Ziqlab. Although most of the same options were available at each site, there was some flexibility in the options that potters chose, leading to noticeably different assemblages at the three sites, even if they have some similarities. Although each of the Wadi Ziqlab sites may fit within what Gopher and Gophna (1993) label as “Wadi

Rabah Sensu Lato”, none of the sites are exactly like each other, or like other published Wadi

Rabah sites (compare Lovell et al. 2007). The remainder of this chapter explores the potential reasons for both the similarities and the differences in pottery production and considers what these mean for the study of the Late Neolithic in Wadi Ziqlab. 279 Practice and Boundaries

In Chapter 3, I argue that two divergent approaches may be relevant to the study of prehistoric communities, and dispersed communities in particular. Interactional approaches focus on the interaction between community members as an element of social practices and, as such, are concerned primarily with the cultural content of communities. Ideational approaches look at how communities perceive themselves and are perceived by others, which requires a consideration of how boundaries between groups are constructed and maintained. I suggest that both the cultural content of a community and its boundaries need to be studied in order to achieve a fuller understanding of the nature of community. Therefore, the patterns observed in the Wadi Ziqlab pottery assemblages should be seen as the result of a dual process of community construction.

Pottery Similarities and Communities of Practice

I argue that the first process involves the emergence of a sense of community identity that was largely brought about by the cultural practices that were shared by the people in Wadi Ziqlab, in the sense discussed by Yaeger and Canuto (2000). The numerous stylistic similarities between al-Basatîn, Tabaqat al-Bûma, and al-‘Aqaba suggest that there was some interaction between producers at these sites and that there was some sharing of ideas about how pottery should be made. This might have involved people coming together explicitly to make pottery or, perhaps, even the relocation of potters from one site to another. However, this process may also have involved people coming together for purposes other than pottery making, but which allowed access to pottery and potentially ideas about how it should be made. Banning (2001b) suggests that pottery might have been used to serve food to people from different sites when they came together to achieve other economic goals, such as plant harvesting. This could take place as formal feasts (Hayden 1995), or more casually, depending on the context. The presence of both fine and coarse wares in the Wadi Ziqlab assemblages can be taken as evidence for different 280 contexts of use. It should be noted that, in this scenario, I am conflating what are arguably two distinct communities of practice—pottery producers and pottery users. However, if we assume that the household was the locus for much of both production and use of pottery, then there was likely significant overlap between the two.

It is also worth noting that communities of practice do not necessarily require daily or even regular interaction between the members of the community, which is an important point when discussing dispersed communities of practice. For example, Wenger (n.d.) points out that impressionist painters comprised a community of practice even though the practice of painting was generally a solitary endeavour. Intermittent discussions in cafes and studios allowed the painters to develop a unity of style. Moreover, when the communities of practice involve the production of material things, such as paintings or pottery, the things themselves have the ability to influence even if the maker is not present.

The influence of material things in communities of practice does not require that those things have explicit or “discursive” symbolic meanings. As noted in Chapter 3, Bernbeck (1999) suggests that some things, what he calls “adornments”, may have “intuitive” meanings that are not a part of intentional or questioned discourse. Nevertheless, adornments play important roles in maintaining group cohesion, even though the members of the group may not recognize this importance. In Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab, the influence of pottery in communities of practice may have been largely intuitive.

Of course, other technologies would have also influenced the emergence of community identity in Wadi Ziqlab. Miller (2007) notes the importance of studying cross-craft interactions, which may be a productive way of exploring the emergence of community identity through cultural practices. The identification of overlapping communities of practice might be suggestive of a stronger sense of community. Although a thorough discussion of other technological practices falls beyond the scope of the current study, it is interesting to note some relationships between pottery production and other technologies. Khalaily and Kamaisky (2002) suggest that 281 Late Neolithic sickle elements may have been used to decorate Wadi Rabah pottery from Tel

Dover, which might also account for some of the incised and impressed decoration on vessels in Wadi Ziqlab. This may suggest that some level of interaction between users of lithics and producers of pottery, although they could, in fact, be the same people; or discarded lithics could be picked up by potters as expedient decoration tools. What may be more interesting, however, is the comparison of organizational methods of different technologies at sites in Wadi Ziqlab.

As discussed in Chapter 5, much of the pottery is rather crudely made, with little preparation of locally available materials. Arguably, this pottery can be considered an expedient technology.

This suggestion is in contrast with other ideas that interpret early pottery as a “prestige” item

(e.g., Hayden 1995) or interpret it in terms of economic cost efficiency (e.g., Brown 1989).

In Wadi Ziqlab, however, there is evidence for other expedient technologies. Siggers (1997) demonstrates that lithic production at Tabaqat al-Bûma was based on the use of informal and expedient tools. Formal tools, most notably denticulated sickle elements, comprise a relatively small part of the lithic assemblage from that site. Likewise, Gibbs (n.d.) suggests that pierced disks, which might have been used as spindle whorls, were quickly produced using expedient materials. The importance of expedient tools may be something that was learned in multiple communities of technological practice.

Pottery Differences and Community Boundaries

In the preceding section I suggest that the similarities in pottery among the Late Neolithic

Wadi Ziqlab sites stem from the existence of a community of practice. Perhaps more interesting than the similarities among the pottery assemblages, though, are the differences. A number of factors can contribute to differences in pottery style among archaeological assemblages but

I think some can be ruled out in the context of Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab. Madsen (1997) notes that studies of dispersed communities require demonstration of site contemporaneity; otherwise any observed variations between sites may simply be the result of change over time.

Likewise, the relocation of a single group of people may result in multiple sites with similar 282 artifact assemblages. It would be fallacious to treat these as parts of a dispersed community.

Furthermore, it is possible that observed variation among sites is the result of different site function. A single group of people could be responsible for producing multiple sites with stylistically different pottery assemblages if different activities were occurring at each site.

Again, these should not be considered different parts of a single dispersed community.

I argue, however, that these factors likely have only a minor influence on the study of Late

Neolithic pottery in Wadi Ziqlab. Site contemporaneity is estimated from radiocarbon dates and artifact similarity. Radiocarbon dates from al-Basatîn and Tabaqat al-Bûma suggest that these two sites are at least partially contemporary, although al-Basatîn seems to have a shorter duration of occupation, beginning later than Tabaqat al-Bûma and ending earlier. Banning

(2007:96) indicates that the radiocarbon determinations from al-Basatîn are statistically likely to be contemporary with LN3 or LN4 from Tabaqat al-Bûma. It is unlikely that al-Basatîn represents the relocation of people from Tabaqat al-Bûma or is a short-term encampment of people from that site. The cluster analysis discussed in Chapter 2 (figure 2.7) shows that the pottery from the three latest phases at Tabaqat al-Bûma cluster closely, while the al-Basatîn pottery does not fall within that cluster. If people from Tabaqat al-Bûma were responsible for the al-Basatîn pottery we would not expect such a difference.

Unfortunately, no radiocarbon dates from al-‘Aqaba are available. The assignment of that site to the same period as the others is based primarily on general artifact similarity, including pottery and lithics. The material from this site is more like other assemblages from the sixth millennium cal BC than either earlier or later south Levantine pottery assemblages (see Chapter

2). In the absence of independent radiocarbon determinations, it is more difficult to reject chronological difference as an explanation for the differences that do occur between al-‘Aqaba and the other sites. However, the long duration of Tabaqat al-Bûma, probably over most of the sixth millennium BC, suggests that al-‘Aqaba likely overlapped with the occupation of at least part of that site. 283 As noted in Chapter 2, I suggest that each site discussed in this dissertation had a similar function (c.f. Banning et al. in press b). Artifacts recovered from each site, including sickle blades, pierced disks, and groundstone, suggest that their occupants were engaged in similar household and agricultural activities. The lack of substantial architecture at al-Basatîn and al-

‘Aqaba is a noticeable difference but as discussed in Chapter 2, this may reflect excavation sampling strategy rather than different site function. As Banning (1995, 2001b; Banning and

Siggers 1997) notes, the assemblages from the three sites are consistent with the sites being small farmsteads.

If temporal and functional variation can be ruled out, what might account for the differences in pottery assemblages among the three sites? If people were interacting and learning in communities of practice as suggested above, should not the assemblages exhibit a greater degree of similarity? To address these questions I suggest it is useful to redirect analytical focus towards the boundaries of communities. In Chapter 3, I discuss how ideational perspectives on community have demonstrated the permeability and flexibility of community boundaries.This position builds on the work of Barth (1969), who argues that this can be the result of strategic negotiation as individuals attempt to increase economic or social standing, which may involve the manipulation of material culture (e.g., Hodder 1982). Others (e.g., Cohen 1985) suggest that the boundaries themselves are social constructions that rely on the differential interpretation of symbols of those boundaries.

In both perspectives, cultural practices and material things can be taken as markers of community boundaries, which in Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab may have included pottery. If community boundaries are flexible and changing, then the markers of these boundaries may also be flexible and changing, which, I suggest, may account for some of the differences observed among the Wadi Ziqlab pottery assemblages. Because of their spatial separation, the different constituent parts of a dispersed community may come into contact with other communities differentially. This would require each group to symbolize community in their own way. This is 284 similar to Cohen’s (1985) suggestion that individuals symbolize community boundaries in their own way. It would also mean, however, that conscious or strategic construction of community boundaries may have been different at each site in the Wadi Ziqlab Late Neolithic community because each site may have interacted with other communities to different extents.

Of course, it should not simply be assumed that pottery had some kind of symbolic value during the Late Neolithic and that it necessarily marked boundaries. As Cohen (1985:19) notes, when it comes to the symbolic marking of community boundaries “everything…may be grist to the mill of symbolism” and it is therefore difficult for the prehistorian to gauge whether a particular class of artifact should be approached in this way. I suggest above that pottery, as a new technology in the Late Neolithic, likely did have an important role in the community. But is there other evidence for Late Neolithic pottery having some kind of “symbolic” value, which might suggest that it was used as a marker of community boundaries?

Late Neolithic Pottery Symbolism

Prior to Kenyon’s (1970, 1981) excavations at Jericho, most archaeologists working in the

Near East believed that the emergence of pottery production was tied to the development of agriculture and that ceramic vessels were used primarily for storing or preparing new kinds of foodstuffs (Moore 1995). Kenyon demonstrated, however, that in the southern Levant, the beginnings of an aceramic Neolithic period preceded the emergence of pottery by as much as two millennia. At the other end of the , Braidwood and Howe (1960:49) noted a similar pattern at . The now widely accepted disassociation of the origins of pottery and farming has prompted some scholars to comment on possible symbolic or social roles for Near

Eastern Neolithic pottery, rather than utilitarian ones.

Goren et al. (1993; Gopher and Goren 1995; Goren 1992a; Goren and Gopher 1995), for example, suggest that the earliest pottery in the southern Levant can be interpreted in symbolic or social terms. They argue that some Yarmoukian and Jericho IX pottery can be seen as a 285 continuation of earlier PPNB plaster production, which included the production of vaisselle blanche (white ware) plaster vessels (see also Garfinkel 1999; Goren et al. 1993; Gourdin and

Kinger 1975; Kingery et al. 1988; Moore 1995). Specifically, they suggest that the prevalence of highly carbonatic paste in some Neolithic pottery is an extension of the use of calcium carbonate in plaster. This is significant because the use of highly carbonatic paste resulted in light-coloured pottery that was easily decorated with a darker paint or slip. They argue, then, that for the Late

Neolithic two regulating mechanisms act simultaneously in the process of ceramic production: one is driven by utilitarian needs such as cooking, storing, etc., whereas the other is affected by non-utilitarian factors. The former sees pottery as functional, whereas the latter categorizes ceramic vessels as intended for consolidation of the social status of members of the society (Goren et al. 1993:38).

The authors see decorated pottery as having symbolic or social roles, while undecorated pottery could fill utilitarian or functional ones. Over time, there is a decrease in decorated pottery and a concomitant increase in undecorated pottery “with a greater investment in functional properties of the vessel, such as impact and thermal shock resistance” (Goren et al. 1993:39). According to this scheme, Wadi Rabah vessels of the 6th millennium BC have a lower “investment value” than earlier Yarmoukian and Jericho IX pottery (Goren et al. 1993:36; Goren and Gopher

1995:25; cf. Kerner 2001a, 2001b). The decline of decorated pottery is best seen at the site of

Munhata, where 12.8% of the Yarmoukian assemblage was decorated compared to 6.2% of the

Wadi Rabah assemblage (Garfinkel 1999b).

While Goren et al. (1993; Goren and Gopher 1995) do not elaborate on what the social roles or symbolic meanings of Neolithic pottery might be, Orrelle and Gopher (2000) interpret the decoration of Yarmoukian and Wadi Rabah pottery in terms of changing gender roles. They suggest that female imagery occurs in both Yarmoukian and Wadi Rabah pottery assemblages as repeated V-patterns (= vulvae) in the former and “red color/blood” around the orifice (= symbolic vulva) in the latter. They suggest that the decorative transition from the Yarmukian triangle/vulvae arranged in a unified 286 pattern to the single isolated, Wadi Raba vulva symbols on the woman pot, represent a deliberately altered use of the vulva symbol from one of solidarity to one of isolation…[that] may have been linked to a reorganization of a woman’s rights, roles, and position within Pottery Neolithic communities (Orrelle and Gopher 2000:302).

While ultimately it may be difficult to interpret the specific meaning of Late Neolithic pottery symbolism (Garfinkel 1999a), both of these studies are significant because they represent rare attempts at interpreting this pottery in non-economic ways (Kerner 2001a, 2001b).

However, I offer an alternative view here that, although perhaps equally speculative, fits with some of the broader ideas explored in this dissertation, specifically the problem with identifying bounded groups in the 6th millennium BC. I suggest that McLuhan’s (1964) notion of hot and cool media may give some insights into pottery decoration. As discussed in Chapter 3, McLuhan identified media as either hot or cool, depending on how much audience involvement they demanded. A hot medium requires low participation because it is “well filled with data”, while a cool medium requires more participation and more information must be “filled in” by the audience (McLuhan 1964).

I suggest that Yarmoukian pottery decoration is more rigid and homogeneous than that of the later Wadi Rabah pottery (Gopher and Gophna 1993:345). Although there is some variation, Yarmoukian pottery is most often decorated with a combination of incised horizontal and “zigzag” bands, usually filled with incised herringbone pattern. Red paint or slip is then applied to the adjacent areas (Garfinkel 1999b). This decoration is generally easy to identify and, consequently, there is little disagreement about what sites should be attributed to the

Yarmoukian culture. Wadi Rabah and contemporary pottery, on the other hand, in addition to being decorated less often, show a greater variety of surface treatments, including a range of slipped, burnished, incised, impressed, and applied decoration (Garfinkel 1999b).The majority of pottery “decoration” at many sites, in fact, consists simply of red or black slip, sometimes with a burnish. At Munhata, for example, slip accounts for 86.4% of the “decorated” Wadi

Rabah assemblage (Garfinkel 1992b:82). I suggest that the range of variation and the overall 287 low numbers of surface treatments, when compared to Yarmoukian pottery, contribute to the considerable disagreement about how Wadi Rabah and contemporary sites should be grouped

(see Chapter 2). This is most evident in the areas in and east of the Jordan Valley. In light of these differences, I suggest that, in McLuhan’s terms, Yarmoukian pottery is a compartively hot medium while Wadi Rabah pottery is a relatively cool one. Whatever meaning Yarmoukian pottery had was likely rather fixed, while the meaning of Wadi Rabah pottery was less so. The users or viewers of Wadi Rabah pottery had to “fill in” more of the symbolic information but, contra Goren et al. (1993), it should not be considered less symbolic.

But what is the purpose of a simple symbol with a mutable meaning? In fact, all symbols require a certain amount of imprecision to be effective (Cohen 1981:5). However, some are more flexible than others in order to encourage more polyvalent and allusive interpretations.

Danesi (n.d.), looking at the uses of the letter “X” as a symbol, suggests that, because of its simplicity, it “reverberates with an inbuilt ambiguity, pitting the divine against the profane, the spiritual against the material” (Danesi 2004:2). It is the very ambiguity of this sign that makes it such a potent symbol, and he is able to count over 250 meanings for it. Thomas (2005) makes a related argument in a discussion of symbolic representation on Neolithic pottery and other portable artifacts in Britain. Symbols there include a range of spirals, lozenges, and other abstract motifs that are similar to designs found on earlier megalithic monuments, while representations of the human form are conspicuously absent. Thomas suggests that the abstract designs were purposefully ambiguous and polyvalent. He suggests they were used in ritual practices to allude to and commemorate remote places and the past, but in a deliberately flexible way.

While I am not in total agreement with Thomas’s (2005) suggestion that abstract motifs are inherently more ambiguous than representations of the human form, or in McLuhan’s terms, that they are more “cool”, the existence in the Neolithic of symbols requiring considerable information to be “filled in” is important. It is worth noting here that, like the Late Neolithic in 288 Britain, human imagery is very uncommon in the 6th millennium BC of the southern Levant as compared to 7th millennium BC, when a rich figurine industry was part of the cultural repertoire.

But why would there be a need for ambiguous symbols during the later part of the Late

Neolithic? I suggest that in some areas, such as Wadi Ziqlab, changes in settlement patterns and networks of interaction may have benefited from symbols that could be interpreted differentially according to social context. As discussed in Chapter 2, Banning (2001b) argues that Late

Neolithic settlement may have been dispersed linearly or dendritically along individual wadi courses and, as I suggested in Chapter 3, the boundaries between dispersed communities such as this may have been flexible, or even shifting (Goody 1956). This is a different picture from the

PPN when populations of individual sites, especially the megasites east of the Jordan, may have been large enough to comprise a single community. During the earlier part of the Late Neolithic it is possible that this pattern continued, at least in some areas, although the available data are not sufficient to say this with much certainty. The renewed excavations at Sha’ar Hagolan, however, demonstrate that the Yarmoukian occupation at this site covered an area perhaps 20 ha in size (Miller 2002) with a population of hundreds or perhaps thousands of individuals

(Garfinkel 2002:table 19.1). The ambiguity and flexibility of “cool” symbols would allow people to emphasize or de-emphasize boundaries and allegiances in different ways, according to whatever social context was most salient at the time. This might have the effect of making material culture varied, even within a small area such as Wadi Ziqlab.

It should be noted that my suggestion up to this point is based on looking at pottery decoration exclusively (table 4.7). Similarly, in the studies of Goren et al. (1993; Gopher and Goren

1995; Goren 1992a; Goren and Gopher 1995) and Orelle and Gopher (2000), it is specifically the decoration on pottery that has a symbolic or social role. Undecorated pots are thought to represent a different trajectory that fills other, more economic roles. We see a division here, with the meaning of things severed from their materiality. Pottery exists foremost as an object, with a 289 separate meaning appended to it in the form of surface decoration.

In a discussion of British Neolithic pottery, Thomas (1999:92) criticizes this sort of division.

He suggests that a more productive approach to pottery is to see its meaning emerging through interpretive engagements with people: The materiality and the symbolic significance of objects are deeply interwoven, and cannot be distinguished in the way in which they are experienced and understood. Rather than being recognised in the first place simply as material entities, and then afforded a symbolic significance as a secondary happening, artefacts are always experienced as meaningful things (Thomas 1999:92).

He suggests that the common separation of meaning from object is a result of the modernist dualism that divides the natural and the cultural worlds (Thomas 1996, 2004). Rejecting the severance of objects from their social contexts moves away from perceiving pottery as

“something to think about” and towards pottery as something “to think with” (Thomas 1999:94).

This perspective is in line with the “symmetrical” approaches to archaeology discussed in

Chapter 3. For example, Actor Network Theory, as described by Latour (2005), allows both human and non-human actors to enter into, and influence, social relationships.Any meaning that an object might have will emerge through these engagements. Arguably, this is most likely to occur when objects are being used to perform some kind of function, as this is when the boundaries between human and non-human actors become most fuzzy.

In this sense it is not just the decoration on pottery that should be analyzed. Recall that, according to McLuhan, the content of a medium, whether literal or symbolic, is not the most crucial thing. It is the message—the change in pace, scale, or pattern—that the technology itself provides. Pottery itself is a cooler medium than others because it can be manipulated in so many ways. In fact, undecorated pottery may represent the “coolest” symbol of all.

Concluding Remarks on Chapter 6

In this chapter I draw attention to both the similarities and differences among the pottery assemblages from Tabaqat al-Bûma, al-Basatîn, and al-‘Aqaba. I suggest that the similarities 290 are the result of inter-site interaction that may have engendered a sense of community dispersed across multiple sites, in the sense discussed by Banning (2001b). This proposition is in line with practice-centred approaches to the study of the community (e.g., Lave and Wenger 1991; Yaeger and Canuto 2000). However, this community may have been loosely integrated with ties to other sites lying outside of Wadi Ziqlab. It is these ties and the flexibility of boundaries they would require that may account for the differences. I suggest the possibility that particular sites in the wadi emphasized ties with outside areas through their pottery. In a sense they were emphasizing the fuzzy boundaries that I suggest existed between communities. Unfortunately, the current state of Late Neolithic research makes it difficult to comment on the pottery assemblages of neighbouring areas to test the validity of this claim and to see what these networks of interaction outside the wadi might have been like.

Nevertheless, I suggest that a couple of important implications stemming from the patterns of difference discussed in this chapter. First, the common practice of grouping similar Late

Neolithic sites together into broader cultural groups may be flawed. Even within a small area such as Wadi Ziqlab, there are differences among contemporary sites that may, in fact, be parts of the same community. Second, I suggest that this indicates the Late Neolithic is a far more complicated time period than is sometimes assumed. The relationships among sites in the wadi and also with sites outside the wadi would have been more complex than is often suggested for the Late Neolithic.

In the model I have proposed, pottery is important because it can contribute to the construction of a community by being part of the “material habitus” of a group, and not simply because it has some utilitarian function. Pottery did not simply reflect the relatively complex patterns of social organization and interaction that I suggest characterized Late Neolithic Wadi

Ziqlab, but, rather, it was an active participant in creating these patterns. It is entirely possible that this social role of pottery was not anticipated by the people of Wadi Ziqlab when pottery was first introduced. It very well could have been adopted for its perceived economic role, 291 however minor that may have been. But as McLuhan (1964) discusses, it is the unanticipated consequences of the introduction of a technology that can be most significant.As people produced pottery in communities of practice and used it in social settings, a sense of community was created and maintained throughout the wadi. But pottery also became a symbol that could be used to negotiate difference. Pottery may seem to be a trivial utilitarian thing. But as Miller

(1985) points out, that is why it is significant. Trivial, “functional” things such as pottery contribute to the construction of an “order of the world that constitutes an environment for living” (Miller 1985:193). 292

Carbonate in Clays

100.00 28 36 calcitic (possibly some forams) 10 50.00 9 foram s not calcareous 9

P roportion 9 1 5 0 0.00 al-B asatîn al-'A qaba al-B ûm a W Z135/140 W Z310 W Z200 S ite

Figure 6.1. Petrographic characterization of the clay matrix by site. 293

Fabric Class

100 598 Argillaceous 507 1334 B urnish

194 527 Chaff P roportion 122 338 67 77 78 52 Clear 9 20 0 1 43 0 31 0 Limestone grit al-B asatîn al-'A qaba al-B ûm a O ther W Z135/140 W Z310 W Z200 S ite A

Fabric Class Adjusted

100.00 598 Argillaceous 507 1334 B urnish

194 527 Chaff P roportion 135 338 67 77 78 52 Clear 9 7 1 0 43 8 23 0.00 Limestone grit al-B asatîn al-'A qaba al-B ûm a O ther W Z135/140 W Z310 W Z200 S ite B Figure 6.2 A and B. Fabric class by site (A) and fabric class by site with “chaff” class adjusted (all chaff “group” attributed to chaff “class”). Note the only significant change is at al-Basatîn. 294

C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25 Label Num +------+------+------+------+------+

WZ200 LN3 3 «´«««««««««««««««± WZ200 LN4 4 «° ²«««««««««««± WZ200 LN5 5 «««««««««««««««««° ²«««««««««««««««««««± WZ310 2 «««««««««««««««««««««««««««««° ¬ WZ135 1 «««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««°

Figure 6.3. Cluster analysis diagram of fabric class. Cluster method = between-groups linkage, Interval = squared-Euclidean distance.

Proportion of Pottery with Possible Basalt Inclusions

10 Proportion

0 al-Bas atîn al-'Aqaba al-Bûm a W Z135/140 W Z310 W Z200 Site

Figure 6.4. Proportion of pottery with possible basalt inclusions. 295

Tabaqatal-Bûma (WZ200)Fabric Class by Phase

100.00

Limestone Grit Argillaceous Clear Burnish Pro p o rtio n O ther

0.00 LN1 LN2 LN3 LN4 LN5 Ph ase

Figure 6.5. Change in fabric class over time at Tabaqat al-Bûma. 296

Shape of"Bowls"

50 33 134 28 27 111 everted straight 24 24 98 everted concave 16 everted convex 8 P roportion 5 vertical straight 16 0 al-B asatîn al-'A qaba al-B ûm a W Z135/140 W Z310 W Z200 S ite

Figure 6.6a. Proportion of different kinds of vessels that could be described as bowls.

Shape of "Holemouths"

80 22

31 107 inverted straight 24 90 inverted convex 40 8 necked inverted

P roportion concave 2 2 13 0 al-B asatîn al-'A qaba al-B ûm a W Z135/140 W Z310 W Z200 S ite

Figure 6.6b. Proportion of different kinds of vessels that could be described as holemouth jars. 297

Lip Shape by Site

100

207 Rounded 554 114 S quare 77 P ointed 203

P roportion 45 181 38 38 Concave 0 9 5 0 al-B asatîn al-'A qaba al-B ûm a W Z135/140 W Z310 W Z200 S ite

Figure 6.7. Proportion of different lip shapes by site.

B ase Form

100 concave 53 78 disk 268 flat indeterminate pedestal P roportion 79 11 6 rounded 2 6 2 2 21 1 1 0 1 0 0 9 4 4 4 0 ring al-B asatîn al-'A qaba al-B ûm a W Z135/140 W Z310 W Z200 S ite

Figure 6.8. Proportions of different base types by site. 298

H andle form

100 32 270 indeterminate 33 50 ledge 22 14 strap P roportion 6 3 35 31 0 al-B asatîn al-'A qaba al-B ûm a W Z135/140 W Z310 W Z200 S ite

Figure 6.9. Proportion of different handle forms by site.

Surface Treatments

100 S lip only Slip and Burnish B urnish P aint P roportion Im pression 0 Com bing al-B asatîn al-'A qaba al-B ûm a Other incision W Z135/140 W Z310 W Z200 A pplique S ite

Figure 6.10. Proportion of surface treatments by site. See table 4.7 for treatment frequencies. 299

Exterior Surface Colours

100.00 731 1556 400

reduced colours oxidized colours

P roportion 101

23 91 0.00 al-B asatîn al-'A qaba al-B ûm a W Z135/140 W Z310 W Z200 S ite

Figure 6.11. Proportion of dark (reduced) exterior surface colours versus light (oxidized) colours.

Number ofCores

100.00

503 441 1209 Single Core Colour 372 333 910 Multiple Core Colour P roportion

0.00 al-B asatîn al-'A qaba al-B ûm a W Z135/140 W Z310 W Z200 S ite

Figure 6.12. Number of cores by site. 300

Sherds with Surfaces Indicative of Different Firing Atmospheres

100.00 61 117 23 reduced ext oxidized int 11 oxidized ext 7 15 P roportion reduced int 0.00 al-B asatîn al-'A qaba al-B ûm a W Z135/140 W Z310 W Z200

S ite

Figure 6.13. Sherds with surfaces indivative of different firing atmospheres. Chapter 7: Conclusion

In this dissertation I attempt to demonstrate the potentials of studying inter-site variation over small regions during the Late Neolithic of the southern Levant. Of course, such studies should not simply replace research that focuses on the detailed examination of individual sites, which can inform on such important issues as household activities and organization, and change over time. Nor should they replace broader studies that are necessary for creating a cohesive picture of the period and examining interregional interaction. However, studying variation at an intermediate scale provides complementary insights into the communities that formed an important part of social organization.

In addition to this, my study of localized variation in Wadi Ziqlab suggests a reason why archaeologists have faced such difficulty in explaining the nature of 6th millennium BC occupation in and east of the Jordan Valley. Attempts to define bounded cultural groups have not been entirely successful because the communities that are thought to comprise these groups likely were not homogeneous or bounded themselves. Communities should not simply be seen as a natural building block of broader cultural units. Rather, they emerge through complex and multi-faceted relationships among individuals and groups of people, and also between people and objects such as pottery.

In this dissertation, I argue that in Wadi Ziqlab a dual process of community building may have been significant during the Late Neolithic. Recent studies that focus on the archaeology of communities have emphasized either the cultural practices and intra-community interaction that engendered a sense of common identity, or the marking of boundaries that identified one group as distinct from another (Stone 2003). If the Late Neolithic sites in Wadi Ziqlab do indeed comprise a dispersed community, as Banning (2001b) suggests, then I argue that both of these need to be considered simultaneously.

The study of pottery gives insights into both processes. Yaeger and Canuto (2000) argue 301 302 that communities both structure practice and emerge from it. During the Late Neolithic, pottery production was one of the technological practices that was involved in this process. By participating in the production of pottery and through interaction with other potters, people not only learned how to make pottery but also became members of the community. Importantly, the pots themselves should be seen as active participants in this process. People learn through interaction with other people but also through interaction with the material things, such as pottery, that are involved in and structure this interaction. Pottery may have also been one of the material “indicia” that could have been perceived as a marker of community boundaries

(Hall 1997). It is difficult to determine if this should be considered an explicit act of intentional information exchange (e.g., Wobst 1977; Wiessner 1983, 1985) or if pottery’s main influence in this regard was as a more passive element of a “material habitus” that structured the boundaries between groups of people. The occurrence of both crude, often undecorated pottery and finer wares may suggest that some (i.e., the finer ones) had a more explicitly symbolic role while the rest were used primarily in utilitarian contexts. In this dissertation, I resist separating them in this way because I believe that all forms of material culture may contribute to the processes of community building and, furthermore, because there is not, actually, a clear break in any of the assemblages between a “fine ware” and a “coarse ware”. In fact, as my discussion of McLuhan’s hot and cool media suggests, highly decorated pots are not necessarily the best-suited to convey symbolic messages in all contexts.

If communities were discrete, bounded units, the tension that exists between those studies that focus on the cultural content of a community and those that focus on its boundaries would, in a sense, be inconsequential. If a group of people were completely insular, it would be fairly straightforward to identify the social boundaries that separate it from other groups. But communities rarely, if ever, fit this mold. While intra-group interaction can lead to a sense of community, there is always the potential for outside influence. This is because the boundaries between groups can also be loci of identity construction, where people negotiate the ties they 303 have with other groups and symbolize what it means to be a member of the community (Cohen

1985). From an archaeological perspective, this complicates how communities are identified.

On the one hand, shared practices may lead to similarities in material culture within the group.

On the other hand, the flexibility of community boundaries may lead to unexpected variation in material culture (Hodder 1982).

The picture of Late Neolithic community that I see in Wadi Ziqlab comprises a dispersed community with at least three different sites, but probably more (Banning 1995, 2001b). In terms of the pottery assemblages, there are general similarities among the sites, but there are also some differences. I see the similarities as a result of interaction among potters, and it is through this interaction that a common sense of identity would have emerged. I cannot comment on what members of Late Neolithic society actually produced the pottery but, in a sense, this is inconsequential. The small size of the sites included in this study would suggest that the pottery itself would likely have been accessible to and have engaged all members of the group, so all would have learned and been influenced by the particular style of pottery that was present. I see the variations in the pottery stemming from differences in the way people perceived the boundaries of their community. This includes the way symbols of boundary would have been interpreted by individuals within the site and it may reflect the different relationships that each particular site had with other sites in the wadi, but also with sites outside the wadi. For example, even though the people at al-Basatîn may have considered themselves a member of a

Wadi Ziqlab community, their spatial location closer to the Jordan Valley may have promoted more substantial interaction with other sites lying in that direction. I do not see, contra Banning

(2001b), evidence for a central place that would have been an anchor or focus of community identity within the wadi. Without such an anchor, the boundaries between the Wadi Ziqlab community and others may have been rather flexible, and perhaps even shifting in the way

Goody (1956) observed for the LoWilli (see Chapter 3).

This picture of community and social organization in Wadi Ziqlab is a more complex one 304 than has often been assumed for the Late Neolithic. This may stem, in part, from new economic strategies (Banning 2001b). For example, the emergence of pastoral nomadism would have introduced new “kinds” of people (Hacking 1999), and would have required more complex processes of social interaction to either include or exclude them from particular social groups.

As discussed in previous chapters, pottery as an element of material culture would also have been involved in the changes in “scale or pace or pattern” (McLuhan 1964:24) that emerged during the Late Neolithic.

Contributions of the dissertation

A primary goal of this dissertation is to explore a scale of social organization that has not often been considered in the study of the Late Neolithic of the southern Levant. Indeed, Yaeger and Canuto (2000) argue that the scale of a community intermediate to that of the household and the broader culture group has not often been explicitly considered by archaeologists working in other parts of the world either. However, this is beginning to change, and a number of recent works have demonstrated the importance of this scale of organization (e.g., Abbott

2000, Sassaman and Rudolphi 2001; Wernke 2007; various papers in Canuto and Yaeger 2000;

Varien and Wilshusen 2002; Wills and Leonard 1994). I see my dissertation as contributing to this growing body of literature by expanding its geographical focus and advancing discussions of dispersed communties. Most of these other works focus on the New World but I believe the theoretical and methodological potentials of an archaeology of community are relevant to the study of the late prehistory of the Near East as well (compare Gerritsen 2004).

Arguably, the study of communities has long been implicit in archaeology. It is really the introduction of new ways of thinking about community that have brought the issue to the foreground of some recent archaeological research. In the past, archaeologists often thought of the community as a natural or universal unit of social organization that, consequently, did not warrant much theoretical emphasis. More recent research has focussed on the practices of 305 agents in the construction of communities or the symbolic marking of community boundaries.

In this dissertation, I try to combine these approaches in a novel way in order to provide a more comprehensive view of Late Neolithic community in Wadi Ziqlab. I argue that this is particularly important for the study of dispersed communities, which Banning (2001b) suggests may have been a significant mode of social organization during the Late Neolithic. If this is the case, we need to develop theoretical and methodological approaches that are designed to study this pattern of social organization. Typically, archaeologists have assumed that the boundaries of the prehistoric community are congruent with those of the archaeological site. This may have been the case in earlier Neolithic periods, and probably was in later periods as well, but during the sixth millennium a different pattern seems to have emerged. It is problematic to uncritically apply theories of community developed for different periods or in different areas to the Late Neolithic of the southern Levant (compare Gopher and Gophna [1993:302] concerning excavation methods). Varberg (2007) has similarly argued that the study of the Late Neolithic in Scandinavia has been treated as if it is a “third space”, viewed as either an extension of the earlier Neolithic or as a precursor to the Bronze Age. She suggests that the Late Neolithic there should be studied as an important entity in its own right, and I argue the same applies to the Late Neolithic in the southern Levant. As discussed above, failure to appreciate the complex relationships that characterize the Late Neolithic has contributed to the generally poor understanding we have of the period.

As part of my attempt to understand the intricacies of Late Neolithic communities, I introduce the work of Marshall McLuhan to the study of . In particular, I believe his suggestion that “the medium is the message”, with its emphasis on the change in social scale or pattern that is introduced with a new technology, can provide insights into the Late Neolithic of the southern Levant. As part of this, I apply his notion of hot and cool media to the study of pottery symbolism. While these theories have not, to my knowledge, been explored before in archaeology, I suggest that they fit with recent theoretical approaches that emphasize the role of 306 material culture in constructing prehistoric societies, including “symmetrical” archaeological approaches that incorporate the work of Latour (2005).

In addition to contributing to theoretical discussions concerning the archaeology of community, my dissertation makes contributions to the culture-history of the southern Levant and to the study of Neolithic pottery. The detailed pottery illustrations and descriptions will be useful for researchers who wish to compare the assemblages from Wadi Ziqlab with those from other regions. As well as demonstrating the range of variation that occurs within the wadi, they show the features that the Wadi Ziqlab pottery has in common with assemblages in other regions of the southern Levant. The most obvious parallels are with assemblages commonly attributed to the Wadi Rabah culture (Banning 2007), but there are some differences (compare Lovell et al.

[2007]). Presenting the pottery from Wadi Ziqlab is a particularly important contribution in this regard as the sites in Wadi Ziqlab are some of the easternmost sites that have affinities with this pottery tradition.

I designed my pottery analysis to incorporate style in a broad sense, including assessments of form and surface treatment. This included a formal typology that is somewhat different from the classifications that other scholars have used to describe Late Neolithic pottery. These have tried to classify sherds as discrete whole types, usually including a range of bowls and holemouth and necked jars. I choose not to follow directly this approach because, given the fragmented nature of the assemblage, it would have limited the number of sherds that could be accurately assigned to a formal category. I believe this study demonstrates the importance of, first, adapting one’s analytical methods to the assemblage being studied, and, second, of analyzing as large a sample size as possible. Comparative studies that focus just on the presence or absence of key forms are omitting potentially significant information.

My analysis also includes information on technological style to get insights into the choices that the Wadi Ziqlab potters made when manufacturing their pots. While form and surface treatments are commonly included in descriptions of Late Neolithic pottery, technological 307 information is provided more rarely. By employing different analytical methods, I am able to get insights into various stages of the production sequence of Late Neolithic pottery and to assess the variations that exist among the sites from a technological perspective. The importance of understanding technological systems is becoming increasingly evident (see Chapter 3), and my research contributes to this important body of literature by exploring the relationship between pottery technology and the organization of Late Neolithic communities.

Although the theoretical, methodological, and culture-historical contributions made in this study are important on their own, I believe my attempt to combine them into a coherent picture of Late Neolithic community in Wadi Ziqlab is just as important. As Jones (2002) discusses in depth, frequently the various threads of archaeological analysis become untwined, with

“scientific” results of pottery analysis presented separately from their culture-historical context or from consideration of the broader research questions and theories that drive archaeological research. The importance of integrating multiple perspectives to better understand the past is not unique to the study of the Late Neolithic of the southern Levant. Integrative approaches will be necessary to further the discipline of archaeology as a whole.

While the research presented in this dissertation focuses on a specific time, place, and archaeological problem, I hope that my research contributes, on some level, to a broader understanding of the nature of communities. The importance of understanding the influence of communities in the present, including dispersed or diaspora communities, is evident in the conflicts that occur all too often between different community groups.

Future Directions

While conducting the research presented in this dissertation, I frequently encountered new ideas and new possibilities for investigating the Late Neolithic pottery assemblages from Wadi

Ziqlab. Because many of these could not be explored fully in the present study, I propose here a few future directions that I hope will grow out of this dissertation. 308 First, it may be productive to think of social organization in the Late Neolithic in terms of networks (Banning and Gibbs n.d.). Knappett (2005:83) notes that networks, as combinations of nodes and connections, combine both “structure and flow”. This idea parallels my suggestion that community construction involves a dual process. A network approach may be particularly fruitful to the study of dispersed communities because the connections between nodes take on a particular importance. I did not explore a network approach in this dissertation because I wanted to keep my focus within Wadi Ziqlab and, consequently, on just three sites. It would have been difficult to examine convincingly a network with just three nodes. However, future excavation in and around Wadi Ziqlab will, I hope, provide further assemblages of pottery to include in this kind of analysis. Importantly, networks can be multi-scalar, providing insights into broader connections. In the future, it will be productive to examine the ties between Wadi Ziqlab and other parts of the southern Levant, and a network approach may be productive in this respect.

Second, I hope to expand and refine the archaeometric techniques that I used in this dissertation to explore technological style. The suite of techniques that I used provide important insights into the production sequence of Late Neolithic pottery in Wadi Ziqlab, but certain steps are not as well understood as others. For example, using chemical sourcing techniques (e.g.,

INAA) may be helpful to identify the particular clay sources used by the Wadi Ziqlab potters.

Although there is some discussion about the benefits of chemical sourcing methods versus mineralogical ones such as thin-section petrography (e.g., Blomster et al. 2005; Flannery et al. 2005; Neff et al. 2006; Sharer et al. 2006; Stoltman et al. 2005), using both together may be productive. This combination of approaches may be a particularly fruitful way of exploring networks (see above). I explored the use of micro-CT in this dissertation in a preliminary way.

As the technology develops and larger pieces can be scanned at higher resolutions, I believe the benefits of this technique for assessing forming methods will become increasingly evident.

During my analysis of forming methods, it become obvious that large sample sizes are needed because many pieces do not retain evidence of forming method. In the future, the cost of micro- 309 CT analysis may be lower so that more pieces of Late Neolithic pottery can be scanned, in order to explore the potentials of this technique more fully. It should be noted that new techniques for non-destructive analysis of the internal structure of materials may provide information that is comparable or superior to that of micro-CT. Sychrotrons, for example, may play a role in future archaeological research (Bertrand 2008). However, it will likely be some time before this kind of technology is available to most archaeological projects.

Third, although my aim in this study was to integrate various approaches, it focuses on only one kind of artifact. Combining the results presented here with other lines of evidence will provide a more complete picture of communities in the Late Neolithic. Interestingly, Kadowaki

(2005) notes some technological differences between al-Basatîn and Tabaqat al-Bûma in sickle production. I also note that a number of different technologies contain elements that can be described as expedient, including pottery production, lithic production, and pierced-disk production. The reasons for and implications of these observations warrant further exploration.

I believe these future directions will further highlight the fact that Late Neolithic communities were more complex than is often assumed. As I hope I demonstrated in this dissertation, far from being a time of devolution or collapse, the Late Neolithic was a varied period, characterized by complex interaction between people and things and a dynamic restructuring of social organization. The variability and complexity of interaction suggests that the picture of community that I have painted here may have been one of many organizational strategies that occurred during the Late Neolithic. Indeed, it may be specific toW adi Ziqlab itself. Future work should examine the extent that this model can be applied to other regions. It should also focus on understanding why the social and economic changes that characterize the period came about, and how seemingly mundane things such as pottery contributed to them. 310 Bibliography

Abbott, D. R. 2000. Ceramics and Community Organization among the Hohokam, Tucson, University of Arizona Press. Abbott, D. R., Ingram, S. E. & Kober, B. G. 2006. Hohokam Exchange and Early Classic Period Organization in Central Arizona: Focal Villages or Linear Communities? Journal of Field Archaeology, 31, 285-305. Adams, W. Y. 1988. Archaeological Classification: Theory versus Practice.Antiquity, 61, 40-56. Adams, W. Y. & Adams, E. W. 1991. Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality: A Dialectical Approach to Artifact Classification and Sorting,Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Adler, M. A. 2002. The Ancestral Pueblo Community as Structure Strategy. In Varien, M. D. & Wilshusen, R. H. (Eds.) Seeking the Center Place: Archaeology and Ancient Communities in the Mesa Verde Region. Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, 25-39. Akkermans, P. M. M. G., Cappers, R., Cavallo, C., Nieuwenhuyse, O., Nilhamn, B. & Otte, I. N. 2006. Investigating the Early Pottery Neolithic of Northern Syria: New Evidence from . American Journal of Archaeology, 110, 123-156. al-Bakri, J. T. & Suleiman, A. S. 2004. NDVI Response to Rainfall in Different Ecological Zones in Jordan. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 25, 3897-3912. al-Shraydah 1992. Water Resources and Systems in the Wadi Abu Ziyad Basin and their Relationship with Human Settlement: a Hydrological and Archaeological Study. Unpublished MA thesis. Yarmouk University. al Saa’d, Z., Abu-Jaber, N. & Bataineh, S. 1997. Provenance and Technology of Late Neolithic Pottery from Wadi Shu’eib, Jordan. In Gebel, H. G. K., Kafafi, Z. & Rollefson, G. O. (Eds.) The Prehistory of Jordan II: Perspectives from 1997. Berlin, ex Oriente, 615-624. Alexander, R. E. & Johnston, R. H. 1982. Xeroradiography of Ancient Objects: A New Imaging Modality. Archaeological Ceramics. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press, 145-154. Ali, N. 2005. The Development of Pottery Technology from the Late Sixth to the Fifth Millennium B.C. in Northern Jordan: Ethno- and Archaeological Studies: Abu Hamid as a Key Site, Oxford, Archaeopress. Amiran, R. 1969. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land: From Its Beginnings in the Neolithic Period to the End of the Iron Age, Jerusalem, Massada Press. Amit, V. & Rapport, N. 2002. The Trouble with Community: Anthropological Reflections on Movement, Identity and Collectivity, London, Pluto Press. Anati, E., Avnimelech, M., Haas, N. & Meyerhof, E. 1973. Hazorea I, Brescia, Italy, Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici. Anderson, B. 1991. Imagined Communities, London, Verso. Anderson, T. & Fell, C. 1995. Analysis of Roman Vessels by Computerized Tomography. Journal of Archaeological Science, 22, 609-617. 311 Applbaum, N. & Applbaum, Y. H. 2002. The Use of Medical Computed Tomography (CT) in the Study of Ceramic Technology of Figurines. In Garfinkel, Y. & Miller, M. A. (Eds.) Sha’ar Hagolan 1: Neolithic Art in Context. Oxford, Oxbow, 215-220. Applbaum, N. & Applbaum, Y. H. 2004. Medical Computed Tomography (CT) of Selected Pottery: Preliminary Results. In Maeir, A. M. (Ed.) Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tel Gezer, Israel: Finds from Raymond-Charles Weill’s Excavations in 1914 and 1921. Oxford, BAR, 55-60. Arnold, D. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Asouti, E. 2006. Beyond the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Interaction Sphere. Journal of World Prehistory, 20, 87-126. Avril, E. B. & Bonadies, S. D. 1991. Non-Destructive Analysis of Ancient Chinese Bronzes Utilizing Industrial Computed Tomography. In Vandiver, P. B., Druzik, J. & Wheeler, G. S. (Eds.) Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology II. Pittsburgh, Materials Research Society, 49-63. Balossi Restelli, F. 2006. The Development of ‘Cultural Regions’ in the Neolithic of the Near East: the ‘Dark Faced Burnished Ware Horizon’, Oxford, Archaeopress. Banks, M. 1996. Ethnicity: Anthropological Constructions, London, Routledge. Banning, E. B. 1982. The Research Design of the Wadi Ziqlab Survey, 1981. ACOR Newsletter, 8, 4-8. Banning, E. B. 1983. Wadi Ziqlab Survey. In Keller, D. R. & Rupp, D. W. (Eds.) Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Area. Oxford, BAR International Series. Banning, E. B. 1985. Pastoral and Agricultural Land Use in the Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan: An Archaeological and Ecological Survey. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Toronto, University of Toronto. Banning, E. B. 1993. Noble Harvests and Bald Countries: Environmental Archaeology in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan. In Jamieson, R., Abonyi, S. & Mirau, N. (Eds.) Environment and Archaeology: A Fragile Coexistance. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Chacmool Conference. Calgary, University of Calgary, 98-104. Banning, E. B. 1995. Herders or Homesteaders?: A Neolithic Farm in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan. Biblical Archaeologist, 58, 2-13. Banning, E. B. 1996. Highlands and Lowlands: Problems and Survey Frameworks for Rural Archaeology in the Near East. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 301, 25-45. Banning, E. B. 1997. Excavations at Tubna, Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan. Echos du Monde Classique/ Classical Views, XLI-n.s. 16, 75-80. Banning, E. B. 1998. The Neolithic Period: Triumphs of Architecture, Agriculture, and Art. Near Eastern Archaeology, 61, 188-237. Banning, E. B. 1999. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Archaeology in Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan. Occident & Orient, 4, 46-48. 312 Banning, E. B. 2000. The Archaeologist’s Laboratory: the Analysis of Archaeological Data, New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Banning, E. B. 2001. Settlement and Economy in Wadi Ziqlab During the Late Neolithic. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VII: Jordan by the Millennia. Amman, Department of Antiquities, 149-156. Banning, E. B. 2002. Consensus and Debate on the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant. Paléorient, 28, 148-155. Banning, E. B. 2003. Housing Neolithic Farmers. Near Eastern Archaeology, 66, 4-21. Banning, E. B. 2007a. Wadi Rabah and Related Assemblages in the Southern Levant: Interpreting the Radiocarbon Evidence. Paléorient, 33, 77-102. Banning, E. B., Blackham, M. & Lasby, D. 1998. Excavations at WZ 121, a Chalcolithic site at Tubna, in Wadi Ziqlab. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 42, 141-159. Banning, E. B., Buehrle, A., Field, J. J., McCorriston, J. & Monckton, S. n.d. Mountains of Balm: The Environment and Paleoenvironment of al-Kura. Banning, E. B., Dods, R., Field, J. J., Kuijt, I., McCorriston, J., Siggers, J., Ta’ani, H. & Triggs, J. 1992. Tabaqat al-Buma: 1990 Excavations at a Kebaran and Late Neolithic Site in Wadi Ziqlab. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 36, 43-69. Banning, E. B., Dods, R., Field, J. J., Maltby, S. L., McCorriston, J., Monckton, S., Rubenstein, R. & Sheppard, P. 1989. Wadi Ziqlab Project 1987: A Preliminary Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 33, 43-58. Banning, E. B., Dods, R., McCorriston, J., Monckton, S. & Sheppard, P. 1987. Report on the Wadi Ziqlab Project 1986 Season of Excavations. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 31, 321-342. Banning, E. B. & Fawcett, C. 1983. Man-land Relationships in the Ancient Wadi Ziqlab: Report of the 1981 Survey. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 27, 291-307. Banning, E. B. & Gibbs, K. n.d. Networking in the Neolithic: Wadi Ziqlab in its Regional Context. Submitted to Adumatu. Banning, E. B., Gibbs, K., Gregg, M., Kadowaki, S. & Maher, L. 2005a. Al-Basatîn, Wadi Ziqlab IN Archaeology in Jordan. S. Savage et al. (eds.). American Journal of Archaeology, 109, 530-533. Banning, E. B., Gibbs, K. & Kadowaki, S. 2003. Al-Basatîn IN Archaeology in Jordan. S.H. Savage et al. (eds.). American Journal of Archaeology, 107, 454-456. Banning, E. B., Gibbs, K. & Kadowaki, S. 2005b. Excavations at Late Neolithic al-Basatîn, in Wadi Ziqlab, northern Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 49, 229-243. Banning, E. B. & Najjar, M. 1999. Excavations at Tell Rakan, A Neolithic Site in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan. Neo-Lithics, 99, 1-3. Banning, E. B., Rahimi, D. & Siggers, J. 1994. The Late Neolithic of the Southern Levant: Hiatus, Settlement Shift or Observer Bias? The Perspective from Wadi Ziqlab. Paléorient, 20, 151-164. 313 Banning, E. B., Rahimi, D., Siggers, J. & Ta’ani, H. 1996. The 1992 Season of Excavations in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 40, 29-49. Banning, E. B. & Siggers, J. 1997. Technological Strategies at a Late Neolithic Farmstead in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan. In Gebel, H. G. K., Kafafi, Z. & Rollefson, G. O. (Eds.)The Prehistory of Jordan II: Perspectives from 1997. Berlin, ex oriente. Bar-Matthews, M. & Ayalon, A. 2004. Speleothems as Palaeoclimate Indicators: A Case Study from Soreq Cave Located in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, Israel. In Battarbee, R. W., Gasse, F. & Sickley, C. E. (Eds.) Past Climate Variability through and Africa. Dordrecht, Springer, 363-391. Bar-Matthews, M., Ayalon, A. & Kaufman, A. 1997. Late Quaternary Paleoclimate in the Eastern Mediterranean Region from Stable Isotope Analysis of Speleothems at Soreq Cave, Israel. Quaternary Research, 47, 155-168. Bar-Matthews, M., Ayalon, A., Kaufman, A. & Wasserburg, G. 1999. The Eastern Mediterranean Paleoclimate as a Reflection of Regional Events, Soreq Cave, Israel.Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 166, 85-95. Bar-Yosef, O. 1992. The Neolithic Period. In Ben-Tor, A. (Ed.) The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. New Haven, Yale University Press, 10-39. Barrett, J. C. 1988. Fields of Discourse: Reconstituting a Social Archaeology. Critique of Anthropology, 7, 5-16. Barth, F. 1969. Introduction. In Barth, F. (Ed.) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: the Social Organization of Culture Difference. Bergen-Oslo, Universitets Forlaget, 9-38. Baruch, U. 1987. The Early Bronze Age, Chalcolithic and Neolithic Periods. In Ben-Tor, A. & Portugali, Y. (Eds.) Tell Qiri: A Village in the Jezreel Valley, Report of the Archaeological Excavations 1975-1977. Jerusalem, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 274-. Bauer, A. A. 2006. Fluid Communities: Interaction and Emergence in the Bronze Age Black Sea. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania. Beaumont, P. 1989. Drylands: Environmental Management and Development, London, Routledge. Beitzel, B. J. 2003. Geography of the Levant. In Richard, S. (Ed.) Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader. Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 3-9. Ben-Dor, I. 1936. Pottey of the Middle and Late Neolithic Periods IN J. Garstang, I. Ben-Dor, and G.M Fitzgerald. Jericho: City and Necropolis (Report for sixth and concluding seasons). Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, 23, 77-90. Bender, F. 1974. Geology of Jordan, Berlin, Gebrüder Bornträger. Bentley, G. C. 1987. Ethnicity and Practice. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 29, 24- 55. Bernbeck, R. 1999. Structure Strikes Back: Intuitive Meanings of Ceramics from Qale Rostam, . In Robb, J. E. (Ed.) Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory. Carbondale, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, 90- 111. 314 Bertrand, L. 2007. Synchrotron Imaging for Archaeology, Art History, Conservation, and Palaeontology. In Creagh, D. & Bradley, D. (Eds.) Physical Techniques in the Study of Art, Archaeology and . Elsevier, 97-114. Betts, A. V. G. Ed. (1998) The Harra and the Hamad: Excavations at Surveys in Eastern Jordan, Volume 1, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press. Binford, L. 1962. Archaeology as Anthopology. American Antiquity, 28, 217-225. Binford, L. 1965. Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. American Antiquity, 31, 203-210. Blackham, M. 1994. Chronological Correlations of Archaeological Stratigraphy: An Intrasite Test at Tabaqat al-Buma, Jordan. Unpublished MA Thesis. Toronto, University of Toronto. Blackham, M. 1997. Changing Settlement at Tabaqat al-Bûma in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan: A Stratigraphic Analysis. In Gebel, H. G. K., Kafafi, Z. & Rollefson, G. O. (Eds.) The Prehistory of Jordan, II: Perspectives from 1997. Berlin, Ex Oriente, 345-360. Blackham, M. 2002. Modeling Time and Transition in Prehistory: The Jordan Valley Chalcolithic (5500-3500 BC), Oxford, Archaeopress. Blomster, J. P., Neff, H. & Glascock, M. D. 2005. Olmec Pottery Production and Export in Ancient Mexico Determined Through Elemental Analysis. Science, 307, 1068-1072. Boast, R. 1997. A Small Company of Actors. Journal of Material Culture, 2, 173-198. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Bourke, S. J. 2007. The Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic Transition at Teleilat Ghassul: Context, Chronology and Culture. Paléorient, 33, 15-32. Boyd, B. 2004. Agency and landscape: abandoning the ‘nature/culture’ dichotomy in interpretations of the Natufian and the transition to the Neolithic. In Delage, C. (Ed.)The last hunter-gatherer societies in the Near East. Oxford, John and Erica Hedges. Braidwood, R. J. & Braidwood, L. S. 1960. Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I: the Earlier Assemblages, Phases A-J, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Braidwood, R. J. & Howe, B. 1960. Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Braun, D. P. 1982. Radiographic Analysis of Temper in Ceramic Vessels: Goals and Initial Methods. Journal of Field Archaeology, 9, 183-192. Braun, E. 2004. Early Beth Shan (Strata XIX-XIII): G.M. FitzGerald’s Deep Cut on the Tell, Philadelphia, Univeristy of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Bromley, Y. 1980. The object and subject matter of . In Gellner, E. (Ed.) Soviet and Western Anthropology. London, Duckworth, 151-60. Brown, J. A. 1989. The Beginnings of Pottery as an Economic Process. In van der Leeuw, S. E. & Torrence, R. (Eds.) What’s New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation. London, Unwin Hyman, 203-224. Brück, J. 2005. Experiencing the Past? The Development of a Phenomenological Archaeology in British Prehistory. Archaeological Dialogues, 12, 45-72. 315 Byrd, B. F. 2005. Reassessing the Emergence of Village Life in the Near East. Journal of Archaeological Research, 13, 231-290. Campbell, S. 2007. Rethinking Halaf Chronologies. Paléorient, 33, 103-136. Canuto, M. A. & Yaeger, J. (Eds.) (2000) The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, London, Routledge. Carr, C. & Komorowski, J.-C. 1995. Identifying the Mineralogy of Rock Temper in Ceramics useing X-Radiography. American Antiquity, 60, 723-749. Carr, C. & Neitzel, J. E. 1995. Style, Society and Person: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, New York, Plenum Press. Carr, C. & Riddick Jr., E. B. 1990. Advances in Ceramic Radiography and Analysis: Laboratory Methods. Journal of Archaeological Science, 17, 35-66. Casella, E. C. & Fowler, C. 2005. Beyond Identification: An Introduction. In Casella, E. C. & Fowler, C. (Eds.) The Archaeology of Plural and Changing Identities: Beyond Identification.New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 1-8. Cauvin, T. 2000. The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Chazan, M. & McGovern, P. E. 1984. Khirbet Kerak Pottery at Beth Shan: Technological Evidence for Local Manufacture. MASCA Journal, 3, 20-24. Clarke, D. L. 1978. Analytical Archaeology, New York, Columbia University Press. Cohen, A. 1969. Custom and Politics in Urban Africa, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul. Cohen, A. P. 1985. The Symbolic Construction of Community, London, Tavistock. Comaroff, J. & Comaroff, J. 1992. Ethnography and the Historical Imagination, Boulder, Westview Press. Conkey, M. 2006. Style, Design, and Function. In Tilley, C., Keane, W., Kuechler, S., Rowlands, M. & Spyer, P. (Eds.) Handbook of Material Culture. London, SAGE Publications, 355- 72. Conkey, M. & Hastorf, C. 1990. The Uses of Style in Archaeology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Courty, M. A. & Roux, V. 1995. Identification of Wheel Throwing on the basis of Ceramic Surface Features and Microfabrics. Journal of Archaeological Science, 22, 17-50. Creed, G. W. 2006. Reconsidering Community. In Creed, G. W. (Ed.) The Seductions of Community: Emancipations, Oppressions, Quandries. Sante Fe, School of American Research Press, 3-22. Danesi, M. 2004. X Marks the Spot: the Power of Sign-Making and Sign-Use in Today’s World. Toronto, Paper presented to Designthinkers Conference, Oct. 21-22. Davis, R. 1997. Clinical Radiography and Archaeo-Human Remains. In Lang, J. & Middleton, A. (Eds.) Radiography of Cultural Material. Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann, 117-135. de Contenson, H. 1964. The 1953 Survey of the Yarmuk and Jordan Valleys. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 8/9, 30-42. 316 de Vaux, R. 1966. Palestine during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods. Cambridge Ancient History. Cambridge, University of Cambridge Press, 498-520. Deetz, J. 1965. The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceramics, Urbana, University of Illinois Press. Díaz-Andreu, M., Lucy, S., Babić, S. & Edwards, D. N. 2005. The Archaeology of Identity: Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion, London, Routledge. Dietler, M. & Herbich, I. 1998. Habitus, Techniques, Style: An Integrated Approach to the Social Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries. In Stark, M. T. (Ed.) The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press, 232-263. Digby, A. 1948. Radiographic Examination of Peruvian Pottery Techniques. Actes du xxviii Congrès International des Américanistes, Paris, 1947. Paris, Musée de l’Homme, 605- 608. Dobres, M.-A. & Hoffman, C. R. 1994. Social Agency and the Dynamics of . Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 1, 211-258. Dobres, M.-A. & Hoffman, C. R. (Eds.) (1999) The Social Dynamics of Technology: Practice, Politics and World Views, Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press. Dollfus, G. & Kafafi, Z. 1993. Recent Researches at Abu Hamid. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 37, 241-255. Droop, J. P. 1935. Jericho: City and Necropolis, Fifth Report. Pottery from the Chalcolithic and Neolithic Levels. Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, 22, 169-173. Dunand, M. 1973. Fouilles de Byblos, Paris. Dunnell, R. 1978. Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity, 43, 192- 202. Dunnell, R. C. 1971. Systematics in Prehistory, New York, Free Press. Eisenberg, E., Gopher, A. & Greenberg, R. 2001. Tel Te’o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley, Jerusalem, Israel Antiquities Authority. Emberling, G. 1997. Ethnicity in Complex Societies: Archaeological Perspectives. Journal of Archaeological Research, 5, 295-344. Feinman, G. M. 1981. The Production Step Measure: an Ordinal Index of Labor Input in Ceramic Manufacture. American Antiquity, 46, 871-884. Field, J. J. 1993. Rainfall Patterns and Landscape Changes in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan. In Jamieson, R. W., Abonyi, S. & Mirau, N. (Eds.) Culture and Environment: A Fragile Coexistence. Calgary, Chacmool: The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, 257- 259. Field, J. J. & Banning, E. B. 1998. Hillslope Processes and Archaeology in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan. Geoarchaeology, 13, 595-616. Fisher, W. B., Atkinson, K., P., B., Coles, A. & Gilchrist-Shirlaw, D. 1966. Soil Survey of Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan. FitzGerald, G. M. 1934. Excavations at Beth-Shan in 1933. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, 66, 123-134. 317 Fitzgerald, G. M. 1935. The Earliest Pottery of Beth-Shan. The Museum Journal, 24, 6-7. Flannery, K., Balkansky, A. K., Feinman, G. M., Grove, D. C., Marcus, J., Redmond, E. M., Ryeynolds, R. G., Sharer, R. J., Spencer, C. S. & Yaeger, J. 2005. Implications of New Petrographic Analysis for the Olmec ‘Mother Culture’ Model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 11219-11223. Ford, J. A. 1954a. Comment on Spaulding, “Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types”. American Antiquity, 19, 390-391. Ford, J. A. 1954b. On the Concept of Types. American Anthropologist, 56, 42-54. Foster, G. V. 1983. Xeroradiography: Non-invasive Examination of Ceramic Artifacts. In England, P. A. & van Zelst, L. (Eds.) Application of Science in Examination of Works of Art. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 213-216. Foster, G. V. 1985. Identification of Inclusions in Ceramic Artifacts by Xeroradiography. Journal of Field Archaeology, 12, 373-376. Franken, H. J. 1974. In Search of the Jericho Potters: Ceramics from the Iron Age and from the Neolithicum, Ansterdam, North-Holland. Franken, H. J. & Kalsbeek, J. 1969. Excavations at Tell Deir ‘Alla I: a Stratigraphical and Analytical Study of the Early Iron Age Pottery, Leiden, E.J. Brill. Frankfort, H. 1924. Studies in Early Pottery of the Near East, London, Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. Freestone, I. C. 1995. Ceramic Petrography. American Journal of Archaeology, 99, 111-115. Freestone, I. C., Johns, C. & Potter, T. (Eds.) (1982) Current Research in Ceramics: Thin- section Studies. The British Museum Seminar 1980, London, British Museum. Galili, E., Weinstein-Evron, M., Hershkovitz, I., Gopher, A., Kislev, M., Lernau, O., Kolska- Horwitz, L. & Lernau, H. 1993. Atlit-Yam: A Prehistoric Site on the Sea Floor off the Israeli Coast. Journal of Field Archaeology, 20, 133-157. Galili, E., Weinstein-Evron, M. & Zohary, D. 1989. Appearance of Olives in Submerged Neolithic Sites Along the Carmel Coast. Mitekufat Haeven, 22, 95*-97*. Gardin, J.-C. 1980. Archaeological Constructs, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Garfinkel, Y. 1992. The Pottery Assemblages of the Sha’ar Hagolan and Rabah Stages of Munhata (Israel), Paris, Association Paléorient. Garfinkel, Y. 1993. The in Israel.Paléorient, 19, 115-134. Garfinkel, Y. 1999. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Garfinkel, Y. 2002. Conclusions: The Effect of Population Size on the Human Organization at Sha’ar Hagolan. In Garfinkel, Y. & Miller, M. A. (Eds.) Sha’ar Hagolan: Volume 1, Neolithic Art in Context. Oxford, Oxbow Books, 257-262. Garfinkel, Y. 2006. The Middle Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant, Paper presented at the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the , Madrid. Garfinkel, Y., Ben Shlomo, D., Freikeman, M. & Vered, A. 2007. Tel Tsaf: The 2004-2006 Excavation Seasons. Israel Exploration Journal, 57, 1-33. 318 Garfinkel, Y., Dag, D., Horwitz, L. K., Lernau, O. & Mienis, H. K. 2002. Ziqim, A Pottery Neolithic Site in the Southern Coastal Plain of Israel: A Final Report. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society, 32, 73-145. Garfinkel, Y. & Matskevich, Z. 2002. Abu Zureiq, a Wadi Rabah Site in the Jezreel Valley: Final Report of the 1962 Excavations. Israel Exploration Journal, 52, 129-166. Garfinkel, Y. & Miller, M. A. 2002. Sha’ar Hagolan Volume 1: Neolithic Art in Context, Oxford, Oxbow. Garstang, J. 1935. Jericho: City and Necropolis (fifth report).Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, 22, 143-184. Garstang, J. 1936. Jericho: City and Necropolis. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, 23, 67-100. Geertz, C. 1963. The integrative revolution: primordial sentiments and civil politics in the new states. In Geertz, C. (Ed.) Old Societies and New States. New York, The Free Press, 105- 57. Gell, A. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory, Oxford, Clarendon Press. Gerritsen, F. 2004. Archaeological Perspectives on Local Communities. In Bintliff, J. (Ed.) A Companion to Archaeology. Oxford, Blackwell, 141-154. Gibbs, K. T. in press. Pierced Clay Disks and Late Neolithic Textile Production. Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Gilead, I. 1990. The Neolithic-Chalcolithic Transition and the Qatifian of the Northern Negev and Sinai. Levant, 22, 47-63. Gilead, I. 1993. Qatif (the Neolithic Site). In Stern, E. (Ed.) The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society, 1224-1225. Gilead, I. 2007. The Besorian: A Pre-Ghassulian Cultural Entity. Paléorient, 33, 33-50. Gilead, I. & Alon, D. 1988. Excavations of Protohistoric Sites in the Nahal Besor and the Late Neolithic of the Northern Negev and Sinai. Mitekufat Haeven, 21. Glanzman, W. 1983. Xeroradiographic Examination of Pottery Manufacturing Techniques: A Test Case from the Bag’ah Valley, Jordan. MASCA Journal, 2, 163-169. Glanzman, W. D. & Fleming, S. J. 1986. Xeroradiography: A Key to the Nature of Technological Change in Ancient Ceramic Production. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, A242, 588-595. Glueck, N. 1951. Explorations in Eastern Palestine, IV. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 25-28, 1-423. Goody, J. 1956. The Social Organisation of the LoWiili, London, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. Gopher, A. 1989. The Flint Assemblages of Munhata, Paris, Association Paléorient. Gopher, A. 1993. Sixth-Fifth Millennia B.C. Settlements in the Coastal Plain, Israel. Paléorient, 19, 55-63. 319 Gopher, A. 1995. Early Pottery-Bearing Groups in Israel: The Pottery Neolithic Period. In Levy, T. E. (Ed.) The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York, Facts on File, 205- 225. Gopher, A. & Blockman, N. 2004. Excavations at Lod (Nevé Yaraq) and the Lodian Culture of the Pottery Neolithic Period. ‘Atiqot, 47, 1-50. Gopher, A. & Gophna, R. 1993. Cultures of the Eighth and Seventh Millennia BP in the Southern Levant: A Review for the 1990s. Journal of World Prehistory, 7, 297353. Gopher, A. & Goren, Y. 1995. The Beginning of Pottery. In Levy, T. E. (Ed.) The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York, Facts on File, 224-225. Gopher, A. & Orrelle, E. 1991. Preliminary Report on Excavations of Nahal Zehora II--Seasons of 1990 and 1991. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society, 24, 169-172. Gopher, A. & Orrelle, E. 1996. An Alternative Interpretation for the Material Imagery of the Yarmukian, a Neolithic Culture of the Sixth Millennium BC in the Southern Levant. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 6, 255-279. Gopher, A. & Tsuk, T. 1996. The Nahal Qanah Cave: Earliest Gold in the Southern Levant, Tel Aviv, . Goren, Y. 1988. A Petrofabric Analysis of Pottery from Sites P14 and D11. Mitekufat Haeven, 21, 131*-137*. Goren, Y. 1990. The “Qatifian Culture” in Southern Israel and Transjordan: Additional Aspects for its Definition.Mitekufat Haeven, 23, 100-112. Goren, Y. 1991. The Beginnings of Pottery Production in Israel: Technology and Typology of Proto-Historic Ceramic Assemblages in Eretz-Israel (6th-4th Millenia B.C.E.). Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Jerusalem, Hebrew University. Goren, Y. 1992a. Petrographic Study of the Pottery Assemblage from Munhata. In Garfinkel, Y. (Ed.) The Pottery Assemblages of the Sha’ar Hagolan and Rabah Stages of Munhata (Israel). Paris, Association Paléorient, 329-342. Goren, Y. 1992b. Technological Study of the Late Pottery Neolithic Ceramic Assemblage from Kabri, Area B. In Kempinski, A. & Niemeier, W.-D. (Eds.) Excavations at Kabri: Preliminary Report of 1991 Season. Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv University, 12-20. Goren, Y. 1996. Petrographic Study of the Pottery Assemblage. In Gopher, A. (Ed.) The Nahal Qanah Cave: Earliest Gold in the Southern Levant. Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv University. Goren, Y. 2004. Technological Study of the Ceramic Assemblage from Nevé Yaraq, Lod. ‘Atiqot, 47, 51-55. Goren, Y. & Fabian, P. 2002. Kissufim Road: A Chalcolithic Mortuary Site,Jerusalem, Israel Antiquities Authority. Goren, Y. & Gopher, A. 1995. The Beginnings of Pottery Production in the Southern Levant: A Model. In Vincenzini, P. (Ed.) The Ceramics Cultural Heritage. Faenza, Techna, 21-28. Goren, Y., Gopher, A. & Goldberg, P. 1993. The Beginnings of Pottery Production in the Southern Levant: Technological and Social Aspects. Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society. Gosden, C. 1994. Social Being and Time: an archaeological perspective, Oxford, Blackwell. 320 Gosden, C. 2005. What do Objects Want? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 12, 193-211. Gosselain, O. P. 1992. Bonfire of the Enquiries. Pottery Firing Temperatures in Archaeology: What For? Journal of Archaeological Science, 19, 243-259. Gosselain, O. P. 1998. Social and Technical Identity in a Clay Crystal Ball. In Stark, M. T. (Ed.) The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press, 78-106. Gourdin, W. H. & Kingery, W. D. 1975. The Beginnings of Pyrotechnology: Neolithic and Egyptian Lime Plaster. Journal of Field Archaeology, 2, 133-150. Guex, J. 1977. Une nouvelle méthode d’analyse biochronologique. Bulletin Laboratoire Géologie, Université de Laussanne, 224, 309-322. Guex, J. 1987. Corrélations Biochronologiques et Associations Unitaires, Laussane, Presses Polytechniques Romandes. Haaland, G. 1969. Economic determinants in ethnic processes. In Barth, F. (Ed.) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. London, George Allen & Unwin, 58-73. Hacking, I. 1999. The Social Construction of What?, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press. Hall, J. M. 1997. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Hayden, B. 1995. The Emergence of Prestige Technologies and Pottery. In Barnett, W. K. & Hoopes, J. W. (Eds.) The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies. Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press, 257-265. Hegmon, M. 1992. Archaeological Research on Style. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 517- 536. Hegmon, M. 1998. Technology, Style, and Social Practices: Archaeological Approaches. In Stark, M. T. (Ed.) The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press, 264-279. Hegmon, M. 2002. Concepts of Community in Archaeological Research. In Varien, M. D. & Wilshusen, R. H. (Eds.) Seeking the Center Place: Archaeology and Ancient Communities in the Mesa Verde Region. Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, 263- 279. Heidegger, M. 1962. Being and Time, Oxford, Blackwell. Heimann, R. & Franklin, U. M. 1979. Archaeo-thermometry: The Assessment of Firing Temperatures of Ancient Ceramics. Journal of the International Institute for Conservation--Canadian Group, 4, 23-45. Heimann, R. B. 1982. Firing Technologies and Their Possible Assessment by Modern Analytical Methods. In Olin, J., S. & Franklin, A. D. (Eds.) Archaeological Ceramics. Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press, 89-96. Heinemann, S. 1976. Xeroradiography: A New Archaeological Tool. American Antiquity, 41, 106-111. Henderson, J. 2000. The Science and Archaeology of Materials: an Investigation of Inorganic Materials, London, Routledge. 321 Hendrix, R. E., Drey, P. R. & Storfjell, J. B. 1996. Ancient Pottery of Transjordan, Berrien Springs, Andrews University. Henry, D. O. 1989. From Foraging to Agriculture: The Levant at the End of the Ice Age, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press. Herbich, I. 1987. Learning Patterns, Potter Interaction and Ceramic Style Among the Luo of Kenya. The African Archaeological Review, 5, 193-204. Hershkovitz, I., Zohar, I., Segal, M. S., Meirav, O., Sherter, U., Feldman, H. & Goring-Morris, N. 1995. Remedy for an 8500 Year-old Plastered Human Skull from Kfar Hahoresh, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science, 22, 779-788. Hill, J. A. 1985. Style: A Conceptual Evolutionary Framework. In Nelson, B. A. (Ed.) Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press, 362-388. Hill, J. N. 1970. Broken K Pueblo: Prehistoric Social Organization in the American Southwest, Tucson, University of Arizona Press. Hill, J. N. & Evans, R. K. 1972. A Model for Classification and Typology. In Clarke, D. L. (Ed.) Models in Archaeology. 231-274. Hoard, R. J., O’Brien, M. J., Khorasgany, M. G. & Gopalaratnam, V. S. 1995. A Materials- science Approach to Understanding Limestone-tempered Pottery from the Midwestern United States. Journal of Archaeological Science, 22, 823-832. Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Hodder, I. 1990. Style as Historical Quality. In Conkey, M. W. & Hastorf, C. A. (Eds.) The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 44-51. Hodges, H. 1989. Artifacts: an Introduction to Early Materials and Technology, London, Duckworth. Hurt, T. D. & Rakita, G. R. M. (Eds.) (2001) Style and Function: Contemporary Issues in Evolutionary Archaeology, London, Bergin & Garvey. Ibrahim, M. A., Sauer, J. A. & Yassine, K. 1976. The East Jordan Valley Survey, 1975. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 222, 41-66. Insoll, T. 2007. Introduction: Configuring Identities in Archaeology. In Insoll, T. (Ed.)The Archaeology of Identities: a Reader. London, Routledge, 1-18. Isbell, W. H. 2000. What We Should be Studying: The “Imagined Community” and the “Natural Community”. In Canuto, M. A. & Yaeger, J. (Eds.) The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective. London, Routledge, 243-266. Jansen, R. J., Koens, H. F. W., Neeft, C. W. & Stoker, J. 2001. Scenes from the Past: CT in the Archaeologic Study of Ancient Greek Ceramics. RadioGraphics, 21, 315-321. Jenkins, R. 1997. Rethinking Ethnicity: Arguments and Explorations, London, Sage Publications. Jones, A. 2002. Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice,Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Jones, S. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity, London, Routledge. 322 Kadowaki, S. 2005. Designs and Production Technology of Sickle Elements in Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan. Paléorient, 31, 69-85. Kadowaki, S. 2007. Changing Community Life at a Late Neolithic Farmstead: Built Environments and the Use of Space at Tabaqat al-Bûma in Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan, University of Toronto, Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Kadowaki, S., Gibbs, K., Allentuck, A. & Banning, E. B. n.d. Late Neolithic and Early Bronze I Occupations at al-Basatîn, in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan. Paléorient. Kafafi, Z. 1982. The Neolithic of Jordan (East Bank). Berlin, Freien Universität Berlin. Kafafi, Z. 1989. Late Neolithic 1 Pottery from ‘Ain er-Rahub, Jordan. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 105, 1-7. Kafafi, Z. 1990. Early Pottery Contexts from ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 280, 15-30. Kafafi, Z. 1992. Pottery Neolithic Settlement Patterns in Jordan.Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, 4, 115-122. Kafafi, Z. 1993. The Yarmoukians in Jordan.Paléorient, 19, 101-114. Kafafi, Z. 1998. The Late Neolithic in Jordan. In Henry, D. O. (Ed.) The Prehistoric Archaeology of Jordan. Oxford, BAR International Series, 127-138. Kafafi, Z. A. 2001. Jebel Abu Thawwab (Er-Rumman), Central Jordan: The Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age I Occupations, Berlin, ex oriente. Kaplan, J. 1958a. Excavation at Teluliot Batashi in the Vale of Sorek. Eretz-Israel, 5, 83-84. Kaplan, J. 1958b. Excavations at Wadi Rabah. Israel Exploration Journal, 8, 149-160. Kaplan, J. 1960. The Relation of the Chalcolithic Pottery of Palestine to Halafian Ware.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 159, 32-36. Kaplan, J. 1969. ‘Ein el Jarba: Chalcolithic Remains in the Plain of Esdraelon. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 194, 2-39. Kaplan, J. & Ritter-Kaplan, H. 1993. Tel Aviv. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. 1451-1457. Kelso, J. L. & Thorley, J. P. 1943. The Potter’s Technique at Tell Beit Mirsim, Particularly in Stratum A. In Albright, W. A. (Ed.) The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim Vol. III: the Iron Age. New Haven, American Schools of Oriental Research, 86-142. Kenyon, K. M. 1957. Digging Up Jericho, London, Ernest Benn. Kenyon, K. M. 1970. Archaeology in the Holy Land, New York, Praeger. Kenyon, K. M. 1981. Excavations at Jericho, volume three: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell, London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Kenyon, K. M. & Holland, T. A. 1982. Excavations at Jericho, volume four: The pottery type series and other finds, London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Kerner, S. 2001a. Das Chalkolithikum in der südlichen Levante, Rahden, VML. Kerner, S. 2001b. Pottery Decoration as a Medium to Examine Specialised Production in the Sixth to Fourth Millennia BC. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VII: Jordan by the Millennia. Amman, Department of Antiquities, 157-162. 323 Kingery, W. D. Ed. (1986) Technology and Style, Columbus, American Ceramic Society. Kingery, W. D. Ed. (1993) The Social and Cultural Contexts of New Ceramic Technologies, Westerville, American Ceramic Society. Kingery, W. D. Ed. (1996) Learning from Things: Method and Theory of Material Culture Studies, Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press. Kingery, W. D., Vandiver, P. B. & Prickett, M. 1988. The Beginnings of Pyrotechnology, Part II: Production and Use of Lime and Gypsum Plaster in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Near East. Journal of Field Archaeology, 15, 219-244. Kirkbride, D. 1971. A Commentary on the Pottery Neolithic of Palestine. Harvard Theological Review, 64, 281-289. Knappett, C. 2005. Thinking Through Material Culture: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press. Köhler-Rollefson, I. 1992. A model for the development of nomadic pastoralism on the Transjordanian Plateau. In Bar-Yosef, O. & Khazanov, A. (Eds.) Pastoralism in the Levant, Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives. Madison, Prehistory Press, 11-18. Kolb, M. J. & Snead, J. E. 1997. It’s a Small World After All: Comparative Analyses of Community Organization in Archaeology. American Antiquity, 62, 609-628. Kuijt, I. 2000a. Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: An Introduction. In Kuijt, I. (Ed.) Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 3-13. Kuijt, I. 2000b. People and Space in Early Agricultural Villages: Exploring Daily Lives, Community Size, and Architecture in the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 19, 75-102. Kuijt, I. & Chesson, M. S. 2002. Excavations at ‘Ain Waida’, Jordan: New Insights into Pottery Neolithic Lifeways in the Southern Levant. Paléorient, 28, 109-122. Kuijt, I. & Goring-Morris, N. 2002. Foraging, Farming, and Social Complexity in the Pre- Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of World Prehistory, 16, 361-440. Latour, B. 1999. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press. Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. LeBlanc, S. A. & Watson, P. J. 1973. A Comparative Statistical Analysis of Painted Pottery from Seven Halafian Sites.Paléorient, 1, 117-133. Lechevallier, M. 1978. Abu Gosh et Beisamoun, deux gisements du VII millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israel, Paris, Association Paléorient. 324 Lechtman, H. 1977. Style in technology--some early thoughts. In Lechtman, H. & Merrill, R. (Eds.) Material Culture: Styles, Organization, and Dynamics of Technology. St. Paul, Minn., West Publishing, 3-20. Lechtman, H. 1999. Afterword. In Dobres, M.-A. (Ed.) The Social Dynamics of Technology: Practice, Politics and World Views. Washington DC, Smithsonian Institution Press, 223- 232. Lechtman, H. & Steinberg, H. 1979. The : An Anthropological Point of View. In Bugliarello, G. & Doner, D. B. (Eds.) The History and Philosophy of Technology. Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 135-160. Lemonnier, P. 1986. The study of material culture today: toward an anthropology of technical systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 5, 147-186. Lemonnier, P. 1992. Elements for an Anthropology of Technology, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan. Lemonnier, P. Ed. (1993) Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic, London, Routledge. Lentz, C. 2006. Ethnicity and the Making of History in Northern Ghana, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Livingstone Smith, A. 2001. Bonfire II: The Return of Pottery Firing Temperatures.Journal of Archaeological Science, 28, 991-1003. Longacre, W. A. 1970. Archaeology as Anthopology: A Case Study, Tucson, University of Arizona Press. Loud, G. 1948. Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935-39, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Lovell, J. 2001a. Review of Yosef Garfinkel “Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant”. Paléorient, 26, 162-163. Lovell, J., Dollfus, G. & Kafafi, Z. 2007. The Ceramics of the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic: Abu Hamid and the Burnished Tradition. Paléorient, 33, 51-76. Lovell, J. L. 2001b. The Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods in the Southern Levant: New Data from the Site of Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan, Oxford, Archaeopress. Lovell, J. L., Dollfus, G. & Kafafi, Z. 2004. The Middle Phases at Abu Hamid and the Wadi Rabah Horizon. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, 8, 263-274. Lovell, J. L., Kafafi, Z. & Dollfus, G. 1997. A Preliminary Note on the Ceramics from the Basal Levels of Abu Hamid. In Gebel, H. G. K., Kafafi, Z. & Rollefson, G. O. (Eds.) The Prehistory of Jordan, II. Perspectives from 1997. Berlin, Ex Oriente, 361-370. Lubar, S. & Kingery, W. D. (Eds.) (1993) History from Things: Essays on Material Culture, Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press. Macdonald, E. 1932. Prehistoric Fara. Beth Belet II. Cairo, British School of Archaeology, 1-22. Madsen, M. E. 1997. Problems and Solutions in the Study of Dispersed Communities. In Dancey, W. S. & Pacheco, P. J. (Eds.) A Community Model of Ohio Hopewell Settlement. Kent OH, Kent State University Press, 85-103. Mafart, B. & Delingette, H. (Eds.) (2002) Three-dimensional Imaging in Paleoanthropology and Prehistoric Archaeology, Oxford, BAR International Series. 325 Maher, L. & Banning, E. B. 2001. Geoarchaeological Survey in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 45, 61-70. Maher, L. & Banning, E. B. 2002. Geoarchaeological Survey and the Epipalaeolithic in Northern Jordan. Antiquity, 76, 313-314. Maher, L., Lohr, M., Betts, M., Parslow, C. & Banning, E. B. 2001. Middle Epipalaeolithic Sites in Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan. Paléorient, 27, 5-19. Maher, L. A. 2005. The Epipalaeolithic in Context: Palaeolandscapes and Prehistoric Occupation of Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan, University of Toronto, Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Majidzadeh, Y. 1975. The Development of the Pottery Kiln in Iran from Prehistoric to Historical Periods. Paléorient, 3, 207-221. Martineau, R. 2005. Identification of the Beater and Anvil Technique in Neolithic Context: Experimental Approach. In Livingstone Smith, A., Bosquet, D. & Martineau, R. (Eds.) Pottery Manufacturing Processes: Reconstitution and Interpretation. Oxford, BAR. Mason, R. B. J. 2004. Shine like the Sun: Lustre-Painted and Associated Pottery from the Medieval Middle East, Costa Mesa CA, Mazda. McLuhan, M. 1964. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, New York, Signet. Mellaart, J. 1956. The Neolithic Site of Ghrubba. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 3, 24-40. Meskell, L. 2001. Archaeologies of Identity. In Hodder, I. (Ed.) Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge, Polity, 187-213. Meskell, L. 2005. Introduction: Object Orientations. In Meskell, L. (Ed.) Archaeologies of Materiality. Oxford, Blackwell, 1-17. Meskell, L. & Preucel, R. W. 2004. Identities. In Meskell, L. & Preucel, R. W. (Eds.) A Companion to Social Archaeology. Oxford, Blackwell, 121-141. Middleton, A. 1997. Ceramics. In Lang, J. & Middleton, A. (Eds.) Radiography of Cultural Material. Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann, 60-81. Middleton, A. & Freestone, I. C. 1991. Recent Developments in Ceramic Petrology, London, British Museum. Miller, D. 1985. Artefacts as Categories: A Study of Ceramic Variability in Central , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Miller, H. M.-L. 2007. Archaeological Approaches to Technology, Burlington MA, Academic Press. Miller, M. A. 2002. The Spatial Distribution of Ancient Human Occupations: Results of an Intensive Surface Survey and Test Excavations. In Garfinkel, Y. & Miller, M. A. (Eds.) Sha’ar Hagolan: Volume 1, Neolithic Art in Context. Oxford, Oxbow Books, 35-46. Moore, A. M. T. 1973. The Late Neolithic in Palestine. Levant, 10, 36-68. Moore, A. M. T. 1995. The Inception of Potting in Western Asia and its Impact on Economy and Society. In Barnett, W. K. & Hoopes, J. W. (Eds.) The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies. Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press, 39-53. 326 Morris, I. 2000. Archaeology as , Oxford, Blackwell. Murdock, G. P. 1949. Social Structure, New York, Macmillan. Najjar, M., Abu Dayya, A., Suleiman, E., Weisgerber, G. & Hauptmann, A. 1990. Tell Wadi Feinan: The First Pottery Neolithic Tell in the South of Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 34, 27-56. Neff, H., Blomster, J., Glascock, M. D., Bishop, R. L., Blackman, M. J., Coe, M. D., Cowgill, G. L., Diehl, R. A., Houston, S., Joyce, A. A., Lipo, C. P., Stark, B. L. & Winter, M. 2006. Methodological Issues in the Provenance Investigation of Early Formative Mesoamerican Ceramics. Latin American Antiquity, 17, 54-76. O’Brien, M. J. & Leonard, R. D. 2001. Style and Function: An Introduction. In Hurt, T. D. & Rakita, G. F. M. (Eds.) Style and Function: Contemporary Issues in Evolutionary Archaeology. London, Bergin & Garvey, 1-24. O’Brien, M. J. & Lyman, R. L. 2003. Cladistics and Archaeology, Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press. Obeidat, D. 1995. Die neolithische Keramik aus Abu Thawwab, Jordanien, Berlin, Ex Oriente. Olsen, B. 2007. Keeping Things at Arm’s Length: A Genealogy of Asymmetry. World Archaeology, 39, 579-588. Orrelle, E. 1993. Nahal Zehora I and II: Fifth Millennium B.C. Villages of the Wadi Rabah Culture--Quantitative Studies on the Pottery Assemblages. Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies. Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv University. Orrelle, E. & Gopher, A. 2000. The Pottery Neolithic Period: Questions about Pottery Decoration, Symbolism, and Meaning. In Kuijt, I. (Ed.) Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 295-308. Orton, C. 1980. Mathematics in Archaeology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Orton, C., Tyers, P. & Vince, A. 1993. Pottery in Archaeology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Peacock, D. P. S. 1970. The Scientific Analysis of Ancient Ceramics: A Review.World Archaeology, 1, 375-389. Perrot, J. 1964. Les Deux Premières Campagnes de Fouilles a Muhnatta (1962-1963): Premiers Résultats. Syria, 41, 323-345. Perrot, J. 1966. La Troisième Campagne do Fouilles a Munhata. Syria, 43, 49-64. Perrot, J. 1972. La Préhistoire Palestinienne. Dictionnaire de la Bible--supplément, 8, 286-446. Peterson, C. E. & Drennan, R. D. 2005. Communities, Settlements, Sites, and Surveys: Regional-scale Analysis of Prehistoric Human Interaction. American Antiquity, 70, 5-30. Pfaffenberger, B. 1988. Fetishised Objects and Humanised Nature: Towards an Anthropology of Technology. Man, 23, 236-252. Plog, S. 1978. Social Interaction and Stylistic Similarity: A Reanalysis. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 1, 143-182. 327 Plog, S. 1980. Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics: Design Analysis in the American Southwest, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Plog, S. 1983. Analysis of Style in Artifacts. Annual Review of Anthropology, 12, 125-142. Plog, S. 1985. Estimating Vessel Orifice Diameters: Measurement Methods and Measurement Error. In Nelson, B. A. (Ed.) Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press, 243-256. Pyburn, K. A. 1994. The Origin of Ancient Maya Pottery: Special Products and Specialist Production. Terre Cuite et Société: La Céramique, Document Technique, Économique, Culturel. Juan-les-Pins, APDCA, 425-433. Read, D. W. 2007. Artifact Classification: A Conceptual and Methodological Approach,Walnut Creek CA, Left Coast Press. Redfield, R. 1955. The Little Community: Viewpoints for the Study of a Human Whole, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Reifenberg, A. 1947. The Soils of Palestine: Studies in Soil Formation and Land Utilization in the Mediterranean, London, Thomas Murby & Co. Rice, P. M. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Rice, P. M. 1996. Recent Ceramic Analysis: 2. Composition, Production, and Theory. Journal of Archaeological Research, 4, 165-202. Robb, J. 2007. The Early Mediterranean Village, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Rollefson, G. O. 1989. The Aceramic Neolithic of the Southern Levant: The View from ‘Ain Ghazal. Paléorient, 15, 135-140. Rollefson, G. O. 1993. The Origins of the Yarmoukian at ‘Ain Ghazal. Paléorient, 19, 91-100. Rollefson, G. O. 1996. The Neolithic Devolution: Ecological Impact and Cultural Compensation at ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan. In Seger, J. D. (Ed.) Retrieving the Past: Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W. Van Beek. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 219-229. Rollefson, G. O., Simmons, A. H. & Kafafi, Z. 1992. Neolithic Cultures at ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Journal of Field Archaeology, 19, 443-470. Roux, V. 1994. La Technique du Tournage: Définition et Reconnaissance par les Macrotraces. Terre Cuite et Société: La Céramique, Document Technique, Économique, Culturel. Juan-les-Pins, APDCA, 45-58. Roux, V. 2003. A Dynamic Systems Framework for Studying Technological Change: Application to the Emergence of the Potter’s Wheel in the Southern Levant. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 10, 1-30. Roux, V. & Courty, M.-A. 1997. Les Bols Élaborés au Tour D’Abu Hamid: Rupture Technique au 4e Millénaire avant J.-C. dans le Levant-Sud. Paléorient, 23, 25-43. Roux, V. & Courty, M.-A. 1998. Identification of Wheel-fashioning Methods: Technological Analysis of 4th-3rd Millennium BC Oriental Ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science, 25, 747-763. 328 Roux, V. & Courty, M.-A. 2005. Identifying Social Entities at a Macro-Regional Level: Chalcolithic Ceramics of South Levant as a Case Study. In Livingstone Smith, A., Bosquet, D. & Martineau, R. (Eds.) Pottery Manufacturing Processes: Reconstitution and Interpretation. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, 201-214. Roux, V., Courty, M.-A. & Lovell, J. L. in press. A Techno-petrographic Approach for Defining Cultural phases and Communities: Explaining the Variability of Abu Hamid (Jordan Valley) Early 5th Millennium cal. BC Ceramic Assemblage. In Lovell, J. L. & Rowan, Y. (Eds.) Culture, Chronology, and the Chalcolithic. Oxford, Oxbow. Rye, O. S. 1977. Pottery Manufacturing Techniques: X-Ray Studies. Archaeometry, 192, 205- 211. Rye, O. S. 1981. Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction, Washington, Taraxacum. Rye, O. S. & Evans, C. 1976. Traditional Pottery Techniques of Pakistan: Field and Laboratory Studies, Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press. Sackett, J. R. 1977. The Meaning of Style in Archaeology. American Antiquity, 42, 369-380. Sackett, J. R. 1982. Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 1, 59-112. Sackett, J. R. 1985. Style and ethnicity in the Kalahari: a reply to Weissner. American Antiquity, 50, 154-159. Sackett, J. R. 1986. Isochrestism and style: a clarification.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 5, 266-277. Sadeh, S. 1994. Pottery of the Fifth Millennium BC in Israel and Neighbouring Regions. Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures. Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv University. Sadeh, S. & Eisenberg, E. 2001. Pottery of Strata X-VIII, the Pottery Neolithic Period. In Eisenberg, E., Gopher, A. & Greenberg, R. (Eds.) Tel Te’o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley. Jerusalem, Israel Antiquities Authority. Sassaman, K. E. & Rudolphi, W. 2001. Communities of Practice in the Early Pottery Traditions of the American Southeast. Journal of Anthropological Research, 45, 407-425. Schiffer, M. B. Ed. (2001) Anthropological Perspectives on Technology, Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press. Schiffer, M. B., Skibo, J. M., Boelke, T. C., Neupert, M. A. & Aronson, M. 1994. New Perspectives on Experimental Archaeology: Surface Treatments and Thermal Response of the Clay Cooking Pot. American Antiquity, 59, 197-217. Schreiber, T. 1999. Athenian Vase Construction: a Potter’s Analysis, Malibu, J. Paul Getty Museum. Séguin, F. H. 1991. High-Resolution Tomography and Digital Radiography of Archaeological and Art-Historical Objects. In Vandiver, P. B., Druzik, J. & Wheeler, G. S. (Eds.) Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology II. Pittsburgh, Materials Research Society, 65- 72. 329 Séguin, F. H. & Bjorkholm, P. J. 1989. Optimization of Parameters for High-Resolution X-Ray Computed Tomography. Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, 8A, 373-380. Séguin, F. H., Burstein, P., Bjorkholm, P. J., Homburger, F. & Adams, R. A. 1985. X-Ray Computed Tomography with 50-µm Resolution. Applied Optics, 24, 4117-4123. Sellin, E. & Watzinger, C. 1913. Jericho: die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen, Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs. Shafiq, R. N. 1996. Histological Investigation of Late Neolithic Agriculturist Settlement in Northern Jordan. Department of Archaeological Sciences. Bradford, University of Bradford. Shanks, M. 2007. Symmetrical Archaeology. World Archaeology, 39, 589-96. Shanks, M. & Tilley, C. 1992. Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice, New York, Routledge. Sharer, R. J., Balkansky, A. K., Burton, J. H., Feinman, G. M., Flannery, K. V., Grove, D. C., Marcus, J., Moyle, R. G., Price, T. D., Redmond, E. M., Reynolds, R. G., Rice, P. M., Spencer, C. S., Stoltman, J. B. & Yaeger, J. 2006. On the Logic of Archaeological Inference: Early Formative Pottery and the Evolution of Mesoamerican Societies. Latin American Antiquity, 17, 90-103. Shennan, S. 1989. Introduction: archaeological approaches to . In Shennan, S. (Ed.) Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. London, Unwin Hyman, 1-31. Shepard, A. O. 1936. Technology of Pecos Pottery. In Kidder, A. V. & Shepard, A. O. (Eds.) The Pottery of Pecos, vol. 2. Andover, 389-587. Shepard, A. O. 1956. Ceramics for the Archaeologist, Washington D.C., Carnegie Institution of Washington. Shipton, G. M. 1939. Notes on the Megiddo Pottery of Strata VI-XX, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Shoval, S., Gaft, M., Beck, P. & Kirsh, Y. 1993. Thermal Behaviour of Limestone and Monocrystalline Calcite Tempers During Firing and Their Use in Ancient Vessels. Journal of Thermal Analysis, 40, 263-273. Siggers, J. 1997. The Lithic Assemblage from Tabaqat al-Bûma: A Late Neolithic Site in Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan. Department of Anthropology. Toronto, University of Toronto. Simmons, A. H. 2001. Core and Periphery Models during the Neolithic--Is the Analogy Appropriate? Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VII: Jordan by the Millenia. Amman, Department of Antiquities, 143-147. Simmons, A. H. 2007. The in the Near East: Transforming the Human Landscape, University of Arizona Press. Sinopoli, C. M. 1991. Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics, New York, Plenum. Skibo, J. M. & Schiffer, M. B. 2008. People and Things: A Behavioral Approach to Material Culture, New York, Springer. Smith, A. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations, Oxford, Blackwell. 330 Stanislawski, M. B. & Stanislawski, B. B. 1978. Hopi and Hopi-Tewa Ceramic Tradition Networks. In Hodder, I. (Ed.) The Spatial Organisation of Culture. London, Duckworth, 61-76. Stark, M. T. Ed. (1998) The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press. Stekelis, M. 1950-1951. A New Neolithic Industry: the Yarmukian of Palestine. Israel Exploration Society, 1, 1-19. Stekelis, M. 1972. The Yarmoukian Culture of the Neolithic Period, Jerusalem, The Magnes Press. Stoltman, J. B. 2001. The Role of Petrography in the Study of Archaeological Ceramics. In Goldberg, P., Holliday, V. T. & Fering, C. R. (Eds.) Earth Sciences and Archaeology. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 297-326. Stoltman, J. B., Marcus, J., Flannery, K. V., Burton, J. H. & Moyle, R. G. 2005. Petrographic Evidence Shows that Pottey Exchange Between the Olmec and their Neighbours was Two-way. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 11213-11218. Stone, T. 2003. Social Identity and Ethnic Interaction in the Western Pueblos of the American Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 10, 31-67. Thomas, J. 1996. Time, Culture and Identity: An Interpretive Archaeology, London, Routledge. Thomas, J. 1999. Understanding the Neolithic, London, Routledge. Thomas, J. 2004. Archaeology and Modernity, London, Routledge. Thomas, J. 2005. Ambiguous Symbols: Why There Were No Figurines in Neolithic Britain. Documenta Praehistorica, 32, 167-175. Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths, and Monuments, Oxford, Berg. Tilley, C. 1996. An Ethnography of the Neolithic: Early Prehistoric Societies in Southern Scandinavia, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Tite, M. S. 1995. Firing Temperature Determinations--How and Why? In Lindahl, A. & Stilborg, O. (Eds.) The Aim of Laboratory Analyses of Ceramics in Archaeology. Stockholm, Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, 37-42. Tite, M. S. 1999. Pottery Production, Distribution, and Consumption--The Contribution of the Physical Sciences. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 6, 181-233. Titterington, P. F. 1933. Has the X-Ray a Place in the Archaeological Laboratory? American Anthropologist, 35, 297-301. Titterington, P. F. 1935. Certain Bluff Mounds of Western Jersey County, Illinois. American Antiquity, 1, 6-46. Trigger, B. G. 2006. A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. van der Leeuw, S. E. 1993. Giving the potter a choice: Conpceptual aspects of pottery techniques. In Lemonnier, P. (Ed.) Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic. London, Routledge, 238-88. 331 Vandiver, P. B. 1987. Sequential Slab Construction; A Conservative Southwest Asiatic Ceramic Tradition, ca. 7000-3000 B.C. Paléorient, 13, 9-35. Vandiver, P. B., Ellingson, W. A., Robinson, T. K., Lobick, J. J. & Séguin, F. H. 1991. New Applications of X-Radiographic Imaging Technologies for Archaeological Ceramics. Archeomaterials, 5, 185-207. Varberg, J. 2007. Dawn of a New Age: The Late Neolithic as Third Space. In Cornell, P. & Fahlander, F. (Eds.) Encounters, Materialities, Confrontations: Archaeologies of Social Space and Interaction. Newcastle, Cambridge Scholars Press, 58-82. Varien, M. D. & Wilshusen, R. H. (Eds.) (2002) Seeking the Center Place: Archaeology and Ancient Communities in the Mesa Verde Region, Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press. Vaughan, S. J. 1999. Contributions of Petrography to the Study of Archaeological Ceramics and Man-Made Building Materials in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. In Pike, S. & Gitin, S. (Eds.) The Practical Impact of Science on Near Eastern and Aegean Archaeology. London, Archetype, 117-125. Velde, B. & Druc, I. C. 1999. Archaeological Ceramic Materials: Origin and Utilization, Berlin, Springer. Verhoeven, M. 2004. Beyond Boundaries: Nature, Culture and a Holistic Approach to Domestication in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory, 18, 179-282. Vitelli, K. D. 1993. Franchthi Neolithic Pottery, volume 1: Classification and Ceramic Phases 1 and 2, Bloomington, Indiana University Press. Vitelli, K. D. 1995. Pots, Potters, and the Shaping of Greek Neolithic Society. In Barnett, W. K. & Hoopes, J. W. (Eds.) The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies. Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press, 55-63. Vitelli, K. D. 1999. “Looking Up” at Early Ceramics in Greece. In Skibo, J. M. & Feinman, G. M. (Eds.) Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction. Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, 184-198. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Wernke, S. A. 2007. Negotiating Community and Landscape in the Peruvian Andes: A Transconquest View. American Anthropologist, 130-152. Whallon Jr., R. 1968. Investigations of Late Prehistoric Social Organization in New York State. In Binford, S. R. & Binford, L. R. (Eds.) New Perspectives in Archeology. Chicago, Aldine, 223-244. Whitbread, I. K. 1986. The Characterisation of Argillaceous Inclusions in Ceramic Thin Sections. Archaeometry, 28, 79-88. Whitbread, I. K. 1996. Detection and Interpretation of Preferred Orientation in Ceramic Thin Sections. In Higgins, T., Main, P. & Lang, J. (Eds.) Imaging the Past: Electronic Imaging and Computer Graphics in Museums and Archaeology. London, British Museum, 173- 181. Wiessner, P. 1983. Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity, 48, 253-276. 332 Wiessner, P. 1985. Style or isochrestic variation? a reply to Sackett. American Antiquity, 50, 160-166. Wiessner, P. 1990. Is There a Unity to Style? In Conkey, M. W. & Hastorf, C. A. (Eds.) The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 105-112. Willcox, G. 1996. Evidence for Plant Domestication and Vegetation History from Three Early Neolithic Pre-Pottery Sites on the Euphrates (Syria(Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 5, 143-152. Wills, W. H. & Leonard, R. D. (Eds.) (1994) The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization, Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press. Witmore, C. 2007. Symmetrical archaeology: Excerpts of a manifesto. World Archaeology, 39, 546-562. Wobst, H. M. 1977. Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In Cleland, C. E. (Ed.) For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin. Ann Arbor, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, 317-342. Wolf, E. R. 1956. Aspects of Group-Relations in a Complex Society - Mexico. American Anthropologist, 58, 1065-1078. Wright, R. P. 1986. The Boundaries of Technology and Stylistic Change. In Kingery, W. D. (Ed.) Technology and Style. Columbus, The American Ceramic Society, 1-20. Yaeger, J. & Canuto, M. A. 2000. Introducing an Archaeology of Communities. In Canuto, M. A. & Yaeger, J. (Eds.) The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective. London, Routledge, 1-15. Yannai, E. 1997. The Possible Origin of the Tournette? A Group of Ceramic Bowls Made in Stone Moulds from ‘En Asawir. Tel Aviv, 24, 253-257. Yannai, E. 2006. ‘En Esur (‘Ein Asawir) I: Excavations at a Protohistoric Site in the Coastal Plain of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel Antiquities Authority. Zohary, M. 1962. Plant Life of Palestine: Israel and Jordan, New York, Ronald Press. 333 Appendix A: Variables Recorded for Form and Surface Treatment Analysis

Artifact Code Description: Unique code indicating a particular artifact. Comprised of a site number, area number(s), bag number(s), artifact number(s). Multiple sherds are combined only when it is demonstrable that they come from a single vessel (usually by a physical mend or join).

Site

Area and Bag

Sherd Number

Date Examined

Segment Refers to part (or parts) of vessel represented by sherd. Values: Rim (any sherd retaining part of the lip of the vessel but no part of the base) Base (any sherd retaining part of the junction between base and wall, but not the lip) Handle (any sherd with a handle or a body sherd showing where a handle attached) Body (any sherd that does not fit any of the other segment values) carination (body sherd with sharp change in direction) neck (body sherd that derives from the neck of a jar; usually includes the shoulder) rim+carination (rim sherd with a sharp change in direction parallel to plane of lip) rim+handle (rim sherd with a handle or attachment for a handle) body+handle (body sherd with a handle or attachment for a handle) base+handle (base sherd with a handle or attachment for a handle) complete (includes at least part of lip and base) indeterminate (cannot be identified as any of the above values)

Mass Mass of sherd(s) in grams. If multiple sherds are analyzed as one, mass is combined. Values: 334 1-998g 999=indeterminate

Maximum Dimension The longest dimension of the sherd, in any direction.

Form Describes the general shape of the vessel. Usually only available for rim sherds. Form is derived from a combination of two other variables: stance and profile. Sub-form categories are optional.

Rim Stance Refers to the angle between the horizontal plane of the vessel and the general orientation of the rim. Values: inverted everted vertical indeterminate

Rim Profile Refers to the curvature of the upper part of the vessel as it appears in section. Values: straight concave convex indeterminate

Rim Sub-form Used to identify specific, potentially important variations of form. Values: carinated s-shaped platter 335 Lip Shape Describes the shape of the part of the rim that makes contact with the stance line. Values: square round pointed concave indeterminate

Rim Symmetry Compares the overall shape of the interior surface of the rim with the exterior surface. Values: symmetrical bevelled exterior bevelled interior thickened exterior thickened interior indeterminate

Rim Diameter The diameter of the orifice of the vessel in cm. Determined using diameter chart.

Rim EVE The preserved circumference of the orifice of the vessel in %.

Neck Height For necked vessels, the distance from shoulder to lip.

Base Form Describes the general impression of the base. Values: flat concave disk 336 ring rounded pedestal indeterminate

Base Sub-form Used to identify specific, potentially important variations of base form. Only occur with flat or disk bases. Values: matt-impressed pebble-impressed

Base Stance Refers to the angle between the horizontal plane of the vessel and the wall. Values: inverted everted vertical indeterminate

Base Profile Refers to the curvature of the lower part of the vessel wall. Values: straight concave convex indeterminate

Base Junction Describes the join between the base and the wall of the vessel. Values: angled rounded protruding indeterminate 337 Base Diameter The diameter of the base in cm. Determined using diameter chart.

Base EVE The preserved circumference of the base in %.

Handle Segment Refers to the part of handle represented by the sherd. Values: body+handle body+attachment (no part of the handle is preserved) handle+attachment (point where handle attaches to the body is preserved) handle section

Handle Form Describes the general class of handle. Values: strap ledge indeterminate (usually for body+attachment segment)

Handle Sub-form Used to identify specific, potentially important variations of handle form. Values: Splayed (subform of strap) Tubular (subform of strap) Lug (subform of ledge) pierced lug (subform of ledge) knob (subform of ledge)

Strap Handle Cross-section Describes the general shape of strap handles. Values: round 338 oval (convex on both surfaces) flat (flat on both surfaces) concave (on outer surface) convex (on outer surface, flat or other on inner surface) indeterminate (usually when body+attachment)

Handle Orientation Describes the orientation of the handle relative to the overall orientation of the vessel. Usually only available when a rim or base is present. Values: horizontal (strap attachments are at same height on vessel; or long axis of ledge is parallel to horizontal plane of vessel) vertical (upper strap attachment is directly above lower strap attachment; or long axis of ledge is perpendicular to horizontal plane of vessel) diagonal (neither horizontal or vertical) indeterminate (usually when no rim or base is present)

Handle Placement Records the placement of the handle relative to an identifiable segment of the vessel. Values: Rim (part of the handle is in close proximity with the lip of the vessel) Base (part of the handle is in close proximity with the base of the vessel) indeterminate

Strap Handle Measurement Refers to the width of the strap handle at the preserved point farthest from the attachment.

Wall Thickness Thickness of the wall in mm, measured at a point that appears to be the average thickness of the sherd. Note the thickness on hand-built pottery can be variable.

Surface Treatment

Slip Indicates presence or absence of a slip. Usually only recorded when slip is a different colour than surface colour of the vessel. 339 Values: yes no (includes indeterminate)

Slip Location Indicates location of slip. If the slip is localized on part of the sherd/vessel (e.g., lip) this is recorded in the comments. Values: interior exterior interior+exterior

Slip Colour Indicates general colour of slip. Munsell colours were not recorded for slip in order to more obviously group colours that were likely intended to be the same. Munsell designations in brackets are approximate colours only. Values: Black (5YR-10YR 2.5/1) Brown (7.5YR-10YR 3-4/2) Gray (7.5YR-10YR 4/1) Red (10R-2.5YR 4-5/6-8) reddish-brown (2.5YR-5YR 4-5/4-5) white (2.5Y 8/1) yellow (2.5Y 7-8/4-6)

Burnish Indicates presence or absence. Values: yes no (includes indeterminate)

Burnish Location Indicates location of burnish. Values: interior 340 exterior interior+exterior

Impression Indicates presence or absence. Values: yes no (includes indeterminate)

Impression Location Indicates location of impressions Values: interior exterior interior+exterior

Incision Indicates presence or absence. Values: yes no (includes indeterminate)

Incision Location Indicates location of impression. Values: interior exterior interior+exterior Appliqué Indicates presence or absence. Values: yes no (includes indeterminate) 341 Appliqué Location Indicates location of burnish. Values: interior exterior interior+exterior

Preservation/Visibility Indicates how easily the sherd is observed (especially surfaces). Primarily indicates level of surface wear and carbonate encrustations. Values: High (easily visible) Middle (mostly visible) Low (difficult to see surface)

Perforations Description: Records the presence of post-firing perforations (e.g., mending holes) 342 Appendix B: Fabric Group Descriptions

Abundant Argillaceous Like Bright Argillaceous 2 but brown to gray in colour rather than the distinctive orange of that fabric. Occasionally with a distinct core.

Basalt 1 Usually buff or gray fabric. Distinguished by the dominance of 5-20% sub-rounded to rounded hard, dark gray or black grits (likely basalt). <5% of other grits, especially limestone.

Basalt 2 Usually buff or light pink fabric. Distinguished by the dominance of 3-20% mostly sub-angular to angular hard, dark gray black grits (likely basalt). Distinguished from Basalt 1 by the texture of these inclusions which often appear to be more friable and with a reddish (iron-rich?) colour.

Black Burnish Like Reduced 1 but with one or both surfaces burnished, sometimes very highly. This material is sometimes referred to as DFBW.

Black Burnish Calcite Similar to Black Burnish but with 3-10% calcite. Occasionally with a reddish-brown core. Occasionally surfaces are incompletely reduced leading to a mottled red and black surface.

Bright Clear Distinctive fabric, generally with few voids and usually orange coloured, though ranging into pink. Few inclusions of any kind though <1-5% grit inclusions sometimes occur including limestone and iron oxides.

Bright Grit 1 Orange to light pink fabric with poorly sorted grit inclusions, usually 5-15% subangular to rounded limestone with lesser amounts of angular to subangular chert, iron oxides, and argillaceous Similar to Pink Grit 1 but with fewer inclusions and colour is less intense pink. Similar to Bright Grit 2 but with more inclusions.

Bright Grit 2 Similar to Bright Grit 1 but with <2% limestone inclusions. Similar to Bright Clear but with noticeably higher inclusions. 343 Bright Argillaceous 1 Fabric is like Bright Clear but 1-15% distinctive, fairly or well sorted, sub-angular to sub- rounded calcareous inclusions. These are like the surrounding fabric but can usually be distinguished by having a slightly different colour although often only under magnification. These are either textural concentration areas, perhaps indicating the addition of dry clay as temper, or low fired grog. Occasionally, a distinct buff or gray core occurs.

N.B. It is possible that some of the Bright Clear sherds actually contain possible grog inclusions but if they were the same colour as the surrounding fabric they might have been missed even under magnification. Sometimes grog inclusions were only observable in BrightAr gillaceous1 when a distinct core was present to provide colour contrast.

Bright Argillaceous 2 Like Bright Argillaceous 1 but with >15-25% argillaceous inclusions. These are always observable macroscopically.

Bright Argillaceous 3 Like Bright Argillaceous 1 but with >5-15% other grit inclusions, mostly sub-rounded to rounded limestone, but also sometimes sub-angular chert, basalt?, and/or iron oxides.

Buff Clear Like Grit 3 but with even fewer inclusions (<3%). Like Bright Argillaceous 3 but with buff colour rather than the orange typical of that fabric. Sometimes trace amounts of limestone, argillaceous, basalt?, and/or iron oxides. Occasionally a thin orange margin occurs.

Buff Argillaceous Like Bright Argillaceous1 but with a buff or light brown colour rather than the distinctive orange of that fabric. Sometimes with a dark core.

Chaff This group includes sherds that would otherwise be grouped with a range of grit-tempered fabrics (including Grit 1, Grit 3, White Lime 1, Earthy). However, each has voids indicating the presence of vegetal material in the paste, usually <3%.

N.B. It is highly likely that the vegetal material was not intentionally added as temper.

Chaff 2 Like Chaff fabric, this is a combination of a number of other fabrics, mostly limestone grit group. But the frequency of vegetal inclusions is 5-15%. Unlike Chaff fabric, this indicates the 344 likely intentional addition of vegetal material as temper.

Crumbly Yellow Friable yellow to light orange fabric. Inclusions are rare and variable, sometimes including argillaceous or limestone and limestone derivatives. Most similar to Bright Argillaceous1 or Buff Argillaceous

Earthy Grit tempered, primarily with limestone and other inclusions derived from limestone but with a distinctive brown fabric with an earthy texture.

N.B. Distinctive fabric likely derives from a high organic content in the clay and may indicate incomplete firing of other grit-tempered fabrics (e.g. Grit 1, Grit 2) rather than a different paste recipe.

Grit 1 Buff fabric with poorly or fairly sorted grit inclusions, usually 10-20% light or dark gray subangular or subrounded limestone with lesser amounts of angular or subangular chert (1- 10%) and rounded iron oxides (<1-5%). Trace amounts of quartz and calcite occur in some specimens. Occasionally, thin pink or orange margins occur as do gray cores. Similar to Grit 2 but lacks possible basalt inclusions. Similar to Pink Grit 1 but different colour. Similar to Grit 3 but noticeably higher density of inclusions.

Grit 1 Calcite Like Grit 1 but with 5-10% calcite. Occasionally with a darker core.

Grit 2 Like Grit 1 but with 1-5% small, hard, sub-angular to rounded black grits that do not effervesce in diluted hydrochloric acid.

Grit 3 Like Grit 1 but with only 3-10% grit inclusions. Trace amounts of possible basalt occur in rare specimens.

N.B. It was decided not to separate examples with possible basalt from those without because with lower overall frequency of inclusions this distinction would likely reflect sampling size of inclusions rather than actual presence or absence in any particular sherd. 345 Grit 3 Crumbly Like Grit 3 but with a crumbly texture. Inclusions are <2% limestone, chert, and argillaceous

Hard Gray Light gray fabric with <2% subangular to subrounded limestone and <2% angular chert. Well- fired.

Limey Paste Distinctive smooth texture, with light gray or buff fabric (sometimes greenish) and light surfaces. Clay is likely very highly calcareous. Inclusions are few but include limestone and possible grog. Inclusions tend not to be visible on surfaces (self slipped?).

Pink Grit 1 Like Grit 1 but with distinctive pink colour. Sometimes quite crumbly. Occasionally, a thin buff core or margin occurs. Like Grit 2 but without possible basalt.

Pink Grit 1 Calcite Like Pink Grit 1 but with 5% calcite.

Pink Grit 2 Like Pink Grit 1 but with 1-5% small, hard, sub-angular to rounded black grits that do not effervesce in diluted hydrochloric acid.

Pink Grit 3 Like Grit 1 but with less than 10% grit inclusions. Trace amounts of possible basalt occur in rare specimens.

Pinkish Earthy Pinkish-brown mottled with gray fabric, usually 5-15% subangular to subrouned limestone, with <2% subangular chert, rounded black grit (basalt?), iron oxides, and calcite.

N.B. This fabric is probably the same as Pink Grit 1 but incompletely fired.

Reduced 1 Identified primarily by dark gray colour of both body and surfaces. Grit inclusions, usually 3- 10% gray limestone. Like Black Burnish but without visible burnished surfaces. 346 N.B. in many cases the distinction between Reduced 1 and Black Burnish could be the result of taphonomic processes with surface treatment not being preserved or visible under carbonate.

Reduced 2 Light or dark gray core but with buff or mottled surfaces. Grit inclusions. Somewhat similar to Reduced 1 but colour not as consistent.

N.B. These sherds may derive from buff vessels that were incompletely oxidized.

Reduced 2 Calcite Like Reduced 2 but with10% calcite.

Reduced Slipped Like reduced 1 but with a reddish slip.

Sandy Buff fabric with 20% subrounded to rounded well-sorted limestone inclusions. <2% black grit (basalt?), iron oxides, and calcite. Like Grit 1 but inclusions are smaller (<0.5mm), which gives a distinct texture.

White Lime 1 Usually buff, but sometimes pink or orange fabric, and sometimes with gray core. Distinguished from other grit tempered fabrics by the dominance of 5-15% large (often >1mm), chalky white lime inclusions.

N.B. It is not uncommon for sherds with grit inclusions to have white limestone inclusions visible on the surface. This is related to firing (and post-firing) conditions and is not necessarily an indicator of a White Lime fabric, which has white limestone inclusions throughout.

White Lime 2 Similar to White Lime 1 but with distinctive pale pink colour. 347 Appendix C: Petrofabric Group Descriptions

Limestone Group Petrofabric group consists of 7-25% usually poorly to moderately sorted rounded to subangular limestone (maximum=2.4mm, modal=0.1-0.3mm), usually consisting of both sparry and micritic limestone but sometimes only one of the two, with up to 3% quartz, 1-5% opaques, up to 5% calcite, up to 3% bioclasts, rare to occasional occurrence of up to 3% chert and up to 5% argillaceous. Trace amounts of other inclusions occur, including shell, plagioclase, fibrous vegetal matter, clinopyroxene.

Argillaceous Group Petrofabric group consists of 5-30% poorly to well sorted rounded to angular argillaceous inclusions (maximum=2.4mm, modal=0.15-0.5mm), with up to 3% quartz, 2-7% opaques, up to 5% limestone, occasionally up to 1% calcite and up to 3% bioclasts, and occasionally trace amounts of shell, clinopyroxene.

Chaff Group Petrofabric group consists of 5-10% fibrous vegetal inclusions, with up to 1% quartz, 2-3% opaques, up to 5% limestone, up to 3% calcite, up to 3% bioclasts, and rarely trace amounts of chert.

Limestone-Argillaceous Group Petrofabric group consists of 5-20% rounded to angular argillaceous inclusions (maximum=1.8mm, modal=0.2-0.7mm) and 5-15% poorly to moderately sorted rounded to subangular limestone (maximum=4.5mm, modal=0.1-1.5mm), often including both micrtic and sparry limestone but sometimes only one of the two, with up to 3% quartz, 2-3% opaques, up to 3% calcite, up to 3% chert, up to 3% bioclasts, rare occurrences of fibrous vegetal inclusions, and occasionally trace amounts of plagioclase, and possibly clinopyroxene

Argillaceous-Chaff Group Petrofabric group consists of 7-10% moderately sorted rounded to subangular argillaceous inclusions (maximum=2.5mm, modal=0.2-0.5mm) and 1-7% fibrous vegetal inclusions, with up to 1% quartz, 2-3% opaques, 2-3% bioclasts, and trace amounts of calcite.

Argillaceous-Calcite Group Petrofabric group consists of 10% moderately sorted subrounded to rounded argillaceous inclusions (maximum=0.8mm, modal=0.2mm) and 7% moderately sorted subangular to angular calcite (maximum=0.9mm, modal=0.3mm) in a fossiliferous clay matrix, with 2-3% subangular opaques, subrounded sparry limestone, and bioclasts. 348 Limestone-Chaff Group Petrofabric group consists of 5-11% poorly to well sorted rounded to subangular limestone (maximum=5.3, modal=0.2-0.9mm) and 1-7% fibrous vegetal inclusions, with up to 1% quartz, 2-3% opaques, trace amounts of calcite, and up to 2% bioclasts.

Argillaceous-Quartz-Limestone Group Petrofabric groups consists of 15% moderately sorted subrounded to subangular argillaceous inclusions (maximum=1.3mm, modal=0.2mm), 15% carbonates, including 10% poorly sorted rounded to subrounded micritic limestone (maximum=3.1mm, modal=0.2mm) and 5% subrounded to subangular sparry limestone (maximum=1.7mm, modal=0.2mm), and 7% poorly sorted rounded to subangular quartz (maximum=0.4mm, modal=0.5mm), with 1-2% subangular opaques and subrounded to angular chert, and trace amounts of fibrous vegetal inclusions.

Limestone-Quartz Group Petrofabric group consists of 7-18% poorly to moderately sorted carbonates, including sparry and micritic limestone (maximum=2mm, modal=0.2-0.4mm) and up to 3% calcite (maximum=0.8mm, modal=0.1-0.3mm) and 5-7% poorly to well sorted rounded to angular quartz (maximum=0.9mm, modal=0.05-0.2mm) in a fossiliferous clay matrix, with 3% subrounded to angular chert, 1-3% well-rounded to angular opaques and trace to 1% amounts of bioclasts, shell, chalcedony, and clinopyroxene.

Limestone-Chert Group Petrofabric group consists of 10-27% poorly to well sorted rounded to subangular limestone (maximum=2mm, modal=0.2-0.8mm), usually consisting of both sparry and micritic limestone but sometimes only one of the two, and 5-7% moderately to well sorted, rounded to angular chert (maximum=2.0mm, modal=0.2-0.9mm), with 2-3% opaques, up to 3% quartz, occasionally up to 3% calcite, up to 5% bioclasts, and trace amounts of shell, sandstone, clinopyroxene.

Limestone-Chert-Quartz Group Petrofabric group consists of 7-30% poorly to moderately sorted rounded to subangular limestone (maximum=1.9, modal=0.1-0.5mm), 5-10% moderately to well-sorted subrounded to angular chert (maximum=2.2, modal=0.2-0.7mm), and 5-10% poorly to moderately sorted rounded to subangular quartz, with 2-5% well rounded to subangular opaques, up to 3% calcite, and less than 1% bioclasts. Rare occurrences include 2-3% rounded argillaceous and trace amounts of shell and clinopyroxene.

Calcite-Opaque Group Petrofabric group consists of 5% moderately sorted rounded to subangular opaques (maximum=0.4mm, modal=0.2mm) and 3% moderately sorted subangular calcite (maximum=1.4mm, modal =0.4mm), with trace amounts of quartz, 2% limestone. 349 Clear Petrofabric group is defined by the lack of many inclusions of any kind but may include subrounded to angular quartz (maximum=0.3mm, modal=0.02-0.1mm), 1-3% moderately to well sorted rounded to subangular opaques (maximum=1.1mm, modal=0.05-0.2mm), up to 2% limestone, up to 3% argillaceous, up to 5% bioclasts, and trace amounts of chert. Some specimens have high amounts (up to 15%) of textural concentration features.

Oolitic Limestone Group Petrofabric group consists of 27% carbonates (maximum=1.4mm, modal=0.3mm), including well-rounded to rounded micritic limestone and ooliths, with 2% well sorted subrounded to subangular quartz and 2% moderately sorted shell.

Yellow Chunks Group Petrofabric group consists of 7% well sorted rounded inclusions that may be cloudy quartz (maximum=1.3mm, modal=0.7mm), with1% quartz, 5% opaques, and 1% argillaceous.

Basalt Group Petrofabric group consists of up to 10% well sorted rounded to subangular volcanics (maximum=0.8mm, modal=0.3mm), with 20% moderately sorted rounded to subangular limestone (maximum=1.0mm, modal=0.3mm), 7% well sorted angular chert (maximum=1.2mm, modal=0.3mm), 3% moderately sorted rounded to subrounded quartz (maximum=0.5mm, modal=0.05mm), 2% opaques, 1% calcite, 2% bioclasts, 2% argillaceous, 2% shell, and 2% clinopyroxene.

Grog Group Petrofabric group consists of 30% moderately sorted subrounded to subangular grog or argillaceous inclusions (maximum=1.2mm, modal=0.2mm), with 5% well sorted rounded to subangular quartz (maximum=0.2mm, modal=0.05mm), 2% opaques, and trace amounts of micritic limestone, sandstone. 350 Appendix D: Micro-CT Analysis

A trial analysis of pottery using micro-CT examined two sherds from al-Basatîn and three from Tabaqat al-Bûma. For reasons outlined below, this avenue of research was not taken further. However, I present some results of this preliminary study here as they do, in some cases, provide insights into the technology of pottery from Wadi Ziqlab and because micro-CT is a relatively novel approach that may benefit other analyses of prehistoric pottery technology.

Computed tomography (CT) was developed for medical uses but quickly found applications in other areas of research, including anthropology. Paleoanthropological and ancient human remains from archaeological sites have been examined using CT (e.g., papers in Mafart and Delingette 2002). The study of has particularly benefited from CT analysis as a specimen can be studied without being unravelled or dissected (Davis 1997). While archaeological artifacts have received less attention than human remains, a number of scholars have realized the potential of CT to investigate ancient technologies. For example, CT of a

PPNB plastered skull from Kfar Hahoresh provided information on both the cranium and the plaster that covered it (Hershovitz et al. 1995). While using CT to examine human bone within

Roman cremation vessels, Anderson and Fell (1995) noted that technological features of the pots could also be observed. Jansen et al. (2001) use CT to study the form and technology of complete ancient Greek vases, and Applbaum and Applbaum (2004) apply the technique in their technological investigation of complete vessels from Bronze and Iron Age Tel Gezer.

Other studies have looked at ancient Chinese bronzes (Avril and Bonadies 1991), 17th century

Japanese woodblock (Séguin 1991), and Neolithic figurines (Applbaum and

Applbaum 2002).

Micro-CT scanners are CT scanners that have resolutions measured in microns rather than millimetres (Séguin et al. 1985; Séguin and Bjorkholm 1989). At this level of resolution, aplastic inclusions and small voids within ceramics can be more readily characterized by their preferred orientation, X-ray gray level, volume within the specimen, etc. (Vandiver et al. 1991). Vandiver 351 et al. (1991) and Séguin (1991; Séguin and Bjorkholm 1989) carried out limited tests using micro-CT to investigate ancient ceramics. They observed the internal structures of a Roman terracotta figurine, a storage vessel from Neolithic Hajji Firuz l, and a PPNB whiteware bowl

(Vandiver et al. 1991).

CT images of the Wadi Ziqlab pottery were produced using an EVS scanner at Sunnybrook hospital in Toronto. Resolution of the images ranges from 17 to 52 μm. I observed and analyzed the images using GE MicroView software (version 2.1.2). Although this software is geared towards the study of bone, it can be adapted to study other materials. In the case of pottery, it has the capacity to contribute to both the characterization of inclusions and voids, and forming methods, through the observation of the distribution and preferred orientation of inclusions and voids, as well as through the observation of clay density.

Characterization of Inclusions

Like thin-section petrography, micro-CT can be used to identify the kinds of inclusions present in a sample of pottery. However, X-ray gray level is used rather than the optical properties of minerals. As in standard X-radiographic analysis, gray level reflects the amount of X-rays that passed through features within the sherd. In addition to scanning the five pottery samples, I also scanned five rocks and minerals that occur in theW adi Ziqlab pottery for comparative purposes. Gray-level ranges for these are shown in table D.1. Not surprisingly, the gray-level values for calcite and limestone are similar, as are the values for chert and quartz.

Basalt has the greatest range of values. Note that heating the samples tended to reduce the gray-levels values. This is most notable for limestone and calcite and probably relates to the

Unheated Heated Basalt 4400-6600 3800-5300 Calcite 4900-5100 3000-3500 Limestone 5000-5200 3000-3800 Chert 2000-2600 2000-2400 Quartz 2600-3100 2500-2600

Table D.1. XRGL range of five rocks and minerals that may be found as inclusions in pottery. 352 degradation of calcium carbonate during heating (see discussion in Chapter 5).

The benefit of micro-CT for viewing inclusions is that it allows slices or “thin sections” to be viewed in multiple orientations non-destructively. For example, figure D.1 shows multiple slices from the same sherd. Limestone is the most abundant kind of inclusion in this sample, but others include what are likely hematite and clay nodules. The frequency, angularity, and sorting of inclusions can be assessed in the same manner as thin-section petrography or these attributes can be assessed for inclusions above a designated gray level by creating a 3D isosurface.

This process hides voxels (3D pixels) that have a lower gray-level, creating a rotatable and manipulable image of just the inclusions in the sample. For example, figure D.2 shows the inclusions in a sample of pottery from al-Basatîn. Most of these poorly-sorted inclusions are limestone. The kind and orientation of voids and pores can be similarly studied. For example, figure D.3 shows vegetal inclusions in another sherd from al-Basatîn.The volume of voids

(or inclusions) in a 3D region of interest (ROI) can be calculated. In this same sample, voids comprised 3.6% in a 1590 mm3 ROI.

Forming Methods

If elongated voids or inclusions are present in the sherd, these can be examined to determine their preferred orientation, which may be indicative of particular forming techniques (Rye 1981;

Whitbread 1996). These can be viewed in 2D slices or as a 3D isosurface or rendering. If viewed in 2D, the benefit of micro-CT is, again, that the orientation of the slice can be altered to best observe the preferred orientation (cf. Whitbread 1996). However, 3D renderings or isosurfaces seem to give a better sense of the preferred orientation of inclusions and voids. Figure D.4 shows two views of the same isosurface of the vegetal-tempered sherd from al-Basatîn. These images show voids (from elongated vegetal inclusions) that are parallel to the sherd surface but are otherwise randomly oriented. According to Rye (1981) this pattern may be indicative of pinching (cf. Whitbread 1996:fig. 2) or slab-building, or perhaps molding or beating. Elongated 353 aplastic inclusions in another sherd from al-Basatîn (likely hematite) show a similar pattern

(figure D.5).

Isosurfaces of aplastic inclusions may give other relevant information. Figure D.6 shows a sherd from Tabaqat al-Bûma. Note the uneven distribution of inclusions in this sherd. This may simply be the result of poor mixing of clay and inclusions. Alternatively, it could conceivably relate to the joining of elements, for example in sequential slab construction. More work is needed to assess this claim, however.

Micro-CT can also be used to assess variation in gray level within the clay matrix itself, which might be relevant to studies of forming techniques. Figure D.7, for example, shows a sherd from Tabaqat al-Bûma with both the aplastic inclusions and the clay with the highest gray level appearing as an isosurface. A band of clay at the lip of the vessel, and another at the opposite end are visible. These could relate to the compression of these areas as coils or slabs, giving them a higher density. Recall from Chapter 5 that some vessels seem to have a thin strip of clay added at the rim. Another sherd from Tabaqat al-Bûma has a core with a lower gray level than the margins (figure D.8). This can be seen more easily in a histogram showing the gray level values of a line across the sherd. If higher gray levels indicate regions of denser clay, this might suggest that the surfaces of this sherd were compressed more than the core. This particular sherd is burnished on both sides, which might account for this compression.

Discussion

Micro-CT has a number of benefits over other archaeometric techniques that have been used to study pottery technology. For example, compared to thin-section petrography it is non-destructive and it allows the analyst to view slices or “thin-sections” in any orientation within the same sherd. It may also provide more accurate assessments of inclusion density, angularity, and sorting. It is not as accurate for determining kinds of inclusions, however,

Compared to xeroradiography and other 2D x-radiography it has the benefit of not relying on the 354 interpretation of over-lapping or superimposed structures within the specimen, and the ability to render or isosurface inclusions facilitates the assessment of their preferred orientation.

I have mentioned some of the drawbacks of micro-CT earlier in this paper, namely high cost and the inability to scan large sherds. Another drawback is that not all kinds of inclusions are easily analyzed with micro-CT. For example, it is difficult to determine the preferred orientation of inclusions if they are predominantly equidimensional, as is the case for much of the Wadi

Ziqlab material, although this is also the case for other methods that look at the orientation of inclusions. Furthermore, the gray levels of some kinds of inclusions are very similar to that of the clay matrix itself and my not be easily visible. In particular, the argillaceous inclusions that occur in the Wadi Ziqlab pottery may not show up clearly using any radiographic technique.

Limestone inclusions, especially when degraded, may be difficult to see within a calcareous clay matrix. For these reasons, micro-CT was only explored in a preliminary way for this study and to corroborate other lines of evidence. Other pottery assemblages, especially ones with high numbers of elongated inclusions with a much higher gray level will benefit more from the application of micro-CT. 355

C

A B D

Figure D.1. Four micro-CT slices through a sherd from Tabaqat al-Büma (WZ200.E35.70.1). A and B are two slices perpendicular to both the orifice and the surface of the vessel (oriented with lip up); C is horizontal to the orifice and perpendicular to the surfaces (exterior is up); D is tangential (parallel) to the surface. Most of the visibile incusions (light gray) are limestone (rouned to subangular, poorly sorted). The white inclusions are probably hematite, the darker gray rounded inclusions are likely clay nodules. The black and elongated areas are pores/voids.

Figure D.2. Isosurface of inclusions in a sherd from al-Basatîn (WZ135.Q41.123.108). Inclusions are primarily poorly sorted limestone. 356

Figure D.3. Isosurface of pores/voids in a sherd from al-Basatîn (WZ135.Q43.11.132) showing an example of a vegetal inclusion, likely a piece of grass.

A B

Figure D.4. Two views of an isosurface of pores/voids from the same sherd (WZ135.Q43.11.132). A is normal to the surface, B is in cross-section. Elongated vegetal inclusions are parallel to the surface, but are otherwise randomly distributed. 357

A B

Figure D.5. Two views of an isosurface of inclusions in a sherd from al-Basatîn (WZ135.Q43.11.132). A is normal to the surface, B is in cross-section. Elongated inclusions (likely hematite) are parallel to the surface buth otherwise randomly distributed.

Figure D.6. Isosurface of inclusions in a sherd from Tabaqat al-Bûma (WZ200.I34.16.9). Note the uneven distribution of inclusions. 358

A

C

D

B

Figure D.7. Isosurface of inclusions and areas of clay matrix with highest XRGL in a rim sherd from Tabaqat al-Bûma (WZ200.E34.21.189). Sherd is oriented with lip at top. Note the visible bands of clay beside A and B which suggest a higher clay density. C and D are surface deposits of carbonate.

Figure D.8.Z.8. Histogram showing gray levels at various points on a line through a sherd from Tabaqat al-Bûma (WZ200.E35.70.1). Location of line is shown in slice at right. Note that gray levels near centre of line (core area) are lower than at the ends (margins/sufaces). 359 Appendix E: Thin Section Summary

This appendix is a summary of each petrographic thin-section sample, including the petrofabric group to which each sample was assigned. It also notes the fabric group that the associated sherd was assigned. Cases of apparent discrepancy between the fabric and petrofabric group are noted in column N.B. The reasons for these discrepancies are discussed in Chapter

5. Frequencies of inclusions are expressed as percentages. “Trace” indicates an occurrence less than 1%. 360 7 7 1 5 5 10 10 20 10 10 10 20 10 15

Arg. % 1

Shell % trace 1

Volcanics % 3 7 trace 3

Chert % trace 5 5 10 trace Textural Concentration % 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 3

Foram. % trace 7 2 2 3 trace 2 1 trace trace trace trace 3 trace Calcite % trace 7 2 1 5 1 5 2 15 10 1 2 Sparry Limestone %

Micritic Limestone % 3 3 3 2 5 3 trace trace trace3 3 5 trace 3 2 5 10 3 3 2 15

Opaque % 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 11 2 2 5 3 5 7 1 3 5 11 2 1 5 1 7 1 1 3 trace 2 3 5 trace 2 1 10 trace 3 7 tracetrace 5 2 trace 2 2 trace trace 3 10 tracetrace 3 trace 5 7 trace trace 3 trace 3 trace Quartz % trace x x x x limey paste buff clear x bright grit 2 x grit 3 hard gray x Fabric Groupbright arg 1 N.B. buff clear chaff buff arg bright clear x grit 3 bright arg 2 chaff grit 3 buff clear grit 3 crumbly yellow grit 3 bright grit 2earthy x grit 3 grit 1 grit 3 chaff chaff 2 chaff 2 grit 1 grit 3 earthy bright arg 1 Petrofabric Group WZ135.P37.8.110 Limestone-Chert WZ135.P37.19.100 Clear WZ135.P34.21.101 Limestone-Argillaceous WZ135.P36.46.103 Argillaceous WZ135.P41.12.1 Limestone-Chaff WZ135.P37.19.101 Chaff WZ135.P36.56.100 Limestone-Argillaceous WZ135.P37.22.100 Argillaceous-Calcite WZ135.P34.14.101 Chaff WZ135.P33.30.105WZ135.P33.46.103 Limestone-Chaff Argillaceous WZ135.P36.46.102 Chaff Sherd WZ135.M41.8.2WZ135.N41.10.1WZ135.N41.11.12WZ135.N41.13.3 Argillaceous Clear Argillaceous-Chaff Argillaceous-Chaff WZ135.P36.46.101 Argillaceous WZ135.Q43.11.100 Argillaceous WZ135.Q41.44.107 Limestone WZ135.P41.21.102 Limestone WZ135.P42.85.101 Chaff WZ135.P41.29.100 Limestone WZ135.Q36.17.102 Limestone-Argillaceous WZ135.Q41.125.100 Limestone WZ135.N41.13.8 Limestone-Chaff WZ135.P36.41.102 Limestone-Argillaceous WZ135.P42.29.100 Limestone WZ135.Q41.123.108WZ135.Q41.123.111 Argillaceous Clear WZ135.P33.30.101 Limetone-Quartz 361 2 7 2 7 1 20 10 10 15 15 25 10 25 10 15 15

Arg. % trace Shell % trace

Volcanics % 5 1 3 2 trace Chert % trace 3 10 15 Textural Concentration % 3 1 1 2 3 3 21 trace 1 1 1 5 2 1 1 5 7 trace

Foram. % 2 1 1 5 3 1 1 5 trace

Calcite % 5 1 1 2 10 15 25 Sparry Limestone %

Micritic Limestone % 2 1 3 1 1 10 5

Opaque % 11 2 3 20 111 2 3 51 3 2 5 21 2 15 1 trace 111 3 3 1 2 15 22 3 1 2 7 20 1 11 3 1 3 2 20 1 121 5 1 3 5 trace 1 2 5 trace 2 1 7 trace 3 1 7 trace 3 trace 5 trace 3 1 trace 5 trace 2 3 Quartz % trace 2 trace x abundant arg pink grit 3 buff clearlimey pastegrit 1 x x basalt 1buff arg bright arg 1 x limey paste reduced 2grit 3 grit 1 x bright arg 2 buff argillaceous grit 1 bright arg 3 chaff 2 bright arg 1bright clear x bright arg 1 x grit 1 x grit 2 grit 1 bright arg 1 grit 3 chaff Fabric Groupbright arg 3 N.B. grit 3 chaff Petrofabric Group WZ200.E35.1.27WZ200.E35.40.15 Limestone-Argillaceous Limestone WZ200.E35.77.1WZ200.E36.105.12WZ200.E36.17.63 Limestone Limestone-Argillaceous Limestone WZ200.E36.25.1WZ200.E36.5.4WZ200.E36.8.8 Limestone WZ200.E37.3.33 Argillaceous Argillaceous Clear WZ200.E35.5.85 Argillaceous WZ200.E35.71.15 Argillaceous WZ200.E36.17.68WZ200.E36.17.117 Limestone Argillaceous WZ200.E35.5.100WZ200.E35.68.14 Limestone-Chert WZ200.E35.71.23 Limestone Argillaceous WZ200.D35.22.2 Clear WZ140.J15.10.7 Argillaceous-Quartz-LimestoneWZ140.K15.8.2 chaff WZ200.D35.22.3WZ200.D35.29.1 Chaff WZ200.D35.38.2 Argillaceous Limestone Limestone WZ135.R41.26.101 Calcite-Opaque WZ135.Q43.11.113 Clear WZ200.D36.2.84WZ200.E34.21.189WZ200.E35.1.24 Yellow Chunks Argillaceous Limestone-Argillaceous WZ140.K15.12.1WZ140.K15.15.2 Limestone-Chaff Clear Sherd WZ135.Q43.11.109 Argillaceous 362 5 20 30 15 10 10 10 15 20 15

Arg. % 2 trace tracetrace trace 2 Shell % trace

Volcanics % trace 7 3 5 37 trace 5 5 7 5 3 3 7 5 5 10 trace Chert % trace

Textural Concentration % 1 trace 1 3 1 3 5 trace Foram. % trace 3 1 3 2 2 3 1

Calcite % 3 3 5 7 3 15 20 10 1 2 Sparry Limestone % 20 Micritic Limestone % 2 10 3 2 3 2

Opaque % 7 3 10 5 57 10 3 trace 15 5 trace 1 1 3 2 15 10 1 trace 115 3 2 trace 3 10 10 1 3 20 331 23 2 1 10 3 2 trace 3 1 10 3 trace 1 3 1 5 2 1 3 15 15 2 2 3 15 1 1 312 2 2 15 7 2 1 2 2 1 1 10 3 15 15 2 trace trace 2 20 2 Quartz % trace 2 20 5 1 pink grit 1 calcite earthy pink grit 1 pink grit 2 bright arg 1 abundant arg grit 1 basalt 1 x not available grit 1 grit 1 bright arg 1 grit 1 bright arg 3 pink grit 3 bright arg 1 Fabric Groupgrit 1 N.B. bright arg 1 pink grit 1 earthy bright arg 1 grit 2 pink grit 1 pink grit 1 pink grit 1 basalt 1 pink grit 1 bright arg 1 reduced 2 abundant arg Limetone-Quartz Limestone-Chert-Quartz Petrofabric Group WZ310.A.13.6 WZ200.I34.19.6WZ310.A.12.30WZ310.A.15.1 Limestone-Chert-Quartz Limestone-Chert WZ200.I31.101.10WZ200.I33.20.10 Limestone-Chert Limestone-Argillaceous WZ200.F35.7.14WZ200.G34.14.98WZ200.G34.18.3 Argillaceous WZ200.H34.22.20 Argillaceous Limestone-Chert-Quartz Limestone WZ200.I34.14.7WZ200.I34.17.6 Basalt Limestone WZ200.F35.2.25WZ200.F35.3.7WZ200.F35.33.2 Limestone-Chert WZ200.F35.5.13WZ200.F35.5.44 Argillaceous Limestone WZ200.F35.6.8 Argillaceous Limestone-Chert Argillaceous WZ200.H34.4.12WZ200.H34.4.14 Argillaceous Argillaceous Sherd WZ200.F32.13.25 Limestone-Chert WZ200.F32.13.41WZ200.F32.31.2 Argillaceous Limestone-Chert-Quartz WZ200.F35.19.94 Limestone WZ200.F34.15.38WZ200.F34.21.184WZ200.F35.10.7 Argillaceous Limetone-Quartz Limestone-Chert-Quartz WZ200.H34.22.77WZ200.H34.22.145WZ200.H34.22.35+119 Limestone Oolitic Limestone Limestone-Chert 363 2 2 3 7 10 15 15

Arg. % 30 grog trace 7 Shell % trace 1

Volcanics % 3 7 5 3 5 7 7 10 2 2 10

Chert %

Textural Concentration % 3 1 1 1

Foram. % trace 2 1 2

Calcite % 2 1 2 20 Sparry Limestone %

Micritic Limestone %

Opaque % 535 2 trace 5 33 2 10 2 2 7 7 7 15 5 10 1 trace 1 31 2 2 7 2 2 trace 111 23 2 trace 2 3 2 trace 7 5 3 2 5 3 20 7 10 3 10 10

Quartz % trace tracetrace 2 2 1 x abundant arg pink grit 1 pinkish earthy grit 1 grit 3 pink grit 1 bright argi 2 Fabric Groupbright clear N.B. bright clear x bright clear x pink grit 1 x earthy reduced slipped bright clear buff clear pink grit 1 sandy Grog Limestone-Chert Limetone-Quartz Limestone Argillaceous Petrofabric Group Argillaceous Clear Limestone-Chert-Quartz Basalt WZ200 sample 1 WZ200 sample 1 WZ135.Q37.16 sample WZ148 sample WZ310.A.9.3 WZ310.B.13.8 WZ310.B.13.14WZ310.B.14.2 WZ310.B.14.5 Limestone-Chert-Quartz Clay Sample Clay Sample Clay Sample Clay Sample WZ310.B.14.72 Limestone WZ310.B.9.26 Sherd WZ310.A.17.13 Basalt WZ310.A.17.29WZ310.A.17.31WZ310.A.17.40 Argillaceous Argillaceous Limestone-Chert WZ310.A.18.10WZ310.A.19.8 WZ310.A.19.83WZ310.A.20.1 Limestone-Chert WZ310.A.20.4 WZ310.A.51.4 Clear 364 fine calcitic, trace forams, 5% pores (linear and amorphous) dense calcitic, 10% pores (linear and amorphous) dense, 1% forams, iron-rich clayey, 3% pores (amorphous) fine calcitic, trace forams, 5% pores (linear and amorphous) very fine calcitic, 3% forams, 7% pores (linear and amorphous) very dense, fine clayey, 2% forams, 15% pores (linear and amorphous) very calcitic, fossiliferous, grey, 15% pores (linear and amorphous) very fine, silty (quartz), calcitic, 5% pores (linear and amorphous) fine calcitic, 10% pores (linear and amorphous) dense calcitic, 15% pores (linear and amorphous) very fine clayey, lots forams and fossils, 5% pores (linear amorphous) fine calcitic, 5% forams, 7% pores (linear and amorphous) fine calcitic, fossiliferous and forams (>20%), 10% pores (linear amorphous) very fine calcitic, 7% pores (linear and amorphous) Clay/Paste fine, dense calcitic, 5% forams, 7% pores (linear and amorphous) very fine, calcitic, 7% pores (linear and amorphous) dense calcitic and forams, 5% pores (linear amorphous) dense calcitic, 3% pores (linear and amorphous) dense, 5% forams, silty (quartz), 10% pores (linear and amorphous) dense calcitic, 5% forams, pores (amorphous) dense, fine clayey, 3% forams, pores (amorphous) dense, grey, calcitic 10% pores (linear and amorphous) dense, fine clayey, 5% forams, 2% pores (linear and amorphous) silty, lots forams (>20%), 15% pores (amorphous) fine calcitic, trace forams, 10% pores (amorphous) very fine calcitic, trace forams, 10% pores (linear and amorphous) dense calcitic, 5% forams, 10% pores (linear and amorphous) calcitic and silty, trace forams, 3% pores (linear amorphous) very fine, dense calcitic, trace forams, 3% pores (linear and amorphous) calcitic and silty (quartz), 5% pores (linear amorphous) 10 vegetal 5 vegetal 2 vegetal 7 vegetal 7 vegetal trace clinopyroxene? 7 vegetal trace vegetal 1 vegetal 2 vegetal trace chalcedony; clinopyroxene trace red? 7 vegetal 2 vegetal Other % Sherd WZ135.M41.8.2 WZ135.N41.10.1 WZ135.N41.11.12 WZ135.N41.13.3 WZ135.N41.13.8 WZ135.P33.30.101 WZ135.P33.30.105 WZ135.P33.46.103 WZ135.P34.14.101 WZ135.P34.21.101 WZ135.P36.41.102 WZ135.P36.46.101 WZ135.P36.46.102 WZ135.P36.46.103 WZ135.P36.56.100 WZ135.P37.19.100 WZ135.P37.19.101 WZ135.P37.22.100 WZ135.P37.8.110 WZ135.P41.12.1 WZ135.P41.21.102 WZ135.P41.29.100 WZ135.P42.29.100 WZ135.P42.85.101 WZ135.Q36.17.102 WZ135.Q41.123.108 WZ135.Q41.123.111 WZ135.Q41.125.100 WZ135.Q41.44.107 WZ135.Q43.11.100 365 Clay/Paste dense, fine clayey, 1% forams, 15% pores (linear and amorphous) fine calcitic, 10% forams, 3% pores (linear and amorphous) very fine clayey, 1% forams, 15% pores (linear and amorphous) fine calcitic, 5% pores (linear and amorphous) very fine, dense calcitic, trace pores (amorphous) very fine calcitic, trace forams, 3% pores (amorphous) very fine calcitic, trace forams, 3% pores (amorphous) very fine, moderate calcitic, lots fossils and forams, 3% pores (amorphous) dense, fine clayey, lots fossils and forams, 3% pores (amorphous) very dense, fine calcitic and forams (>20%), 5% pores (linear amorphous) fine calcitic and forams, 3% pores (linear amorphous) fine calcitic, 5% forams, trace fossils, 10% pores (linear and amorphous) clayey and calcitic, 10% forams, 5% pores (linear amorphous) calcitic, trace forams and fossils, 20% pores (linear amorphous) fine calcitic and forams, 5% pores (linear amorphous) very thick/dense calcitic, trace forams, 5% pores (linear and amorphous) very, very fine clayey, 3% pores (amorphous) fine calcitic, trace forams, 5% pores (linear and amorphous) very dense, fine clayey, lots forams, 3% pores (amorphous) dense, fine calcitic, <2% pores (amorphous) dense calcitic, very silty (quartz), 30% pores (linear and amorphous) very fine, dense calcitic, 3% pores (amorphous) fine calcitic, 3% pores (linear and amorphous) very fine calcitic with forams, 3% pores (amorphous) clayey, lots forams, some fossils, 5% pores (linear and amorphous) dense, fine clayey, moderate calcitic, trace fossils, 15% pores (linear and amorphous) very dense, fine clayey, lots forams, 3% pores (amorphous) dense, clayey, lots forams, trace fossils, 3% pores (linear and amorphous) dense, clayey, 3% pores (linear and amorphous) fine calcitic, 3% forams, 5% pores (linear and amorphous) Other % trace olivine 5 vegetal 5 quartz-filled rock trace plagioclase; orange? trace rounded orange? trace vegetal 1 vegetal 7 degraded yellow (quartz?) trace plagioclase; round quartz 1 bivalve; qu rock 1 linear opaques Sherd WZ135.Q43.11.109 WZ135.Q43.11.113 WZ135.R41.26.101 WZ140.J15.10.7 WZ140.K15.12.1 WZ140.K15.15.2 WZ140.K15.8.2 WZ200.D35.22.2 WZ200.D35.22.3 WZ200.D35.29.1 WZ200.D35.38.2 WZ200.D36.2.84 WZ200.E34.21.189 WZ200.E35.1.24 WZ200.E35.1.27 WZ200.E35.40.15 WZ200.E35.5.85 WZ200.E35.5.100 WZ200.E35.68.14 WZ200.E35.71.15 WZ200.E35.71.23 WZ200.E35.77.1 WZ200.E36.105.12 WZ200.E36.17.63 WZ200.E36.17.68 WZ200.E36.17.117 WZ200.E36.25.1 WZ200.E36.5.4 WZ200.E36.8.8 WZ200.E37.3.33 366 dense clayey and calcitic, 20% pores (linear amorphous) very dense clayey, 3% forams, pores (linear and amorphous) very dark brown, dense clayey, silty, 20% pores (linear and amorphous) calcitic with lots forams and trace fossils, 3% pores (linear amorphous) fine, very calcitic with forams, 5% pores (linear and amorphous) calcitic and fossils, 5% pores (linear amorphous) very fine, dark clayey, moderate calcitic, 3% fossils, pores (amorphous) dense clayey, forams and fossils, 3% pores (linear amorphous) calcitic, little left, lots basalt, pores - cannot assess very fine and dense calcitic with forams fossils, 3% pores (amorphous) silty, fossils and lots forams (>20%), 3 pores (amorphous) dense silty, fossils and lots forams, 3% pores (linear amorphous) Clay/Paste very fine clayey, 5% pores (linear and amorphous) very fine, dense clayey with forams, 3% pores (linear and amorphous) fine calcitic and clayey, 5% silty (quartz), 3% pores (linear amorphous) dense, clayey and calcitic, trace fossils, 3% pores (linear amorphous) dense, fine clayey calcitic, 3% forams and fossils, pores (amorphous) dense, clayey, dark, 5% pores (linear and amorphous) fine, silty, calcitic with fossil and forams, 5% pores (linear amorphous) very fine, dense calcitic and fossils forams, 5% pores (linear amorphous) very dense clayey and calcitic, trave fossils, 3% pores (linear amorphous) fince, dense calcitic with fossils and forams, 5% pores (linear amorphous) very calcitic and forams, 3% pores (linear amorphous) fine clayey and calcitic, 5% forams, pores (linear amorphous) very fine, dense calcitic with fossils and forams, 5% pores (linear amorphous) very fine and dense clayey calcitic, 3% fossils, <2% pores (amorphous) fine clayey and calcitic, 10% forams, 3% pores (amorphous) dense calcitic with forams and fossils, 3% pores (linear amorphous) very dense, fine clayey with lots fossils and forams, 3% pores (linear amorphous) trace clinopyroxene?; quartz-filled arg. trace clinopyroxene? trace orange? trace orange? trace linear orange? trace clinopyroxene? trace orange? trace clinopyroxene? trace green?; bone; clinopyroxene? silty (quartz), fossils and lots forams, 3% pores (linear amorphous) trace quartz rock trace chalcedony trace orange? Other % trace orange? Sherd WZ200.F32.13.25 WZ200.F32.13.41 WZ200.F32.31.2 WZ200.F34.15.38 WZ200.F34.21.184 WZ200.F35.10.7 WZ200.F35.19.94 WZ200.F35.2.25 WZ200.F35.3.7 WZ200.F35.33.2 WZ200.F35.5.13 WZ200.F35.5.44 WZ200.F35.6.8 WZ200.F35.7.14 WZ200.G34.14.98 WZ200.G34.18.3 WZ200.H34.22.20 WZ200.H34.22.77 WZ200.H34.22.145 WZ200.H34.22.35+119 WZ200.H34.4.12 WZ200.H34.4.14 WZ200.I31.101.10 WZ200.I33.20.10 WZ200.I34.14.7 WZ200.I34.17.6 WZ200.I34.19.6 WZ310.A.12.30 WZ310.A.13.6 WZ310.A.15.1 367 Clay/Paste very fine clayey, trace forams, <2% pores (amorphous) very fine clayey, trace fossils and forams, 5% pores (linear amorphous) very fine clayey, trace fossils and forams, 5% pores (linear amorphous) fine calcitic, trace fossils, 5% forams, 3% pores (linear and amorphous) very sparse calcitic, fine, 5% pores (amorphous) very dense clayey, trace fossils, 3% pores (amorphous) very calcitic, lots fossils and forams, 5% pores (amorphous) calcitic, fine and silty (large), 5% forams, 10% pores (linear amorphous) very fine and dense calcitic, fossils, <2% pores (amorphous) very fine and dense calcitic, fossil, silty (quartz), <2% pores (amorphous) very calcitic, fossils, 3% forams, pores (amorphous) very dense clayey, forams, 3% pores (amorphous) dense, fine calcitic, 10% forams, 3% pores (linear and amorphous) very fine calcitic, fossil and forams, 5% pores (linear amorphous) very fine and dense, reddish-brown, lots forams, calcitic (quartz rare) Red, Fe-rich, lots forams, quartz silt very fine and dense, reddish-brown, lots forams fossils, calcitic, quartz silt very, very fine, dark colour, dense - notable for colour and no inclusions very dense, silty, fossiliferous, 10% forams, 3% pores (amorphous) very fine calcitic, silty (quartz and opaques), 15% pores (linear amorphous) very dense clayey, lots fossils and forams, 5% pores (linear amorphous) Other % trace sandstone; red? 2 clinopyroxene? trace sandstone; orange? Sherd WZ310.A.17.13 WZ310.A.17.29 WZ310.A.17.31 WZ310.A.17.40 WZ310.A.18.10 WZ310.A.19.8 WZ310.A.19.83 WZ310.A.20.1 WZ310.A.20.4 WZ310.A.51.4 WZ310.A.9.3 WZ310.B.13.8 WZ310.B.13.14 WZ310.B.14.2 WZ310.B.14.5 WZ310.B.14.72 WZ310.B.9.26 Clay Sample Clay Sample Clay Sample Clay Sample