Environmental Adaptations at Neolithic Ghwair I As Seen from a Zooarchaeological Perspective

UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones

5-1-2012

Environmental Adaptations at Neolithic Ghwair I as seen from a Zooarchaeological Perspective

Doss F. Powell University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations

Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons

Repository Citation Powell, Doss F., "Environmental Adaptations at Neolithic Ghwair I as seen from a Zooarchaeological Perspective" (2012). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 1611. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/4332592

This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself.

This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ENVIRONMENTAL ADAPTATIONS AT NEOLITHIC GHWAIR I AS SEEN

FROM A ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

Doss F. Powell, Jr.

Bachelor of Arts The University of Georgia 1998

Master of Arts University of Nevada, Las Vegas 2001

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology

Department of Anthropology College of Liberal Arts The Graduate College

University of Nevada, Las Vegas May 2012

THE GRADUATE COLLEGE

We recommend the dissertation prepared under our supervision by

Doss F. Powell, Jr. entitled

Environmental Adaptations at Neolithic Ghwair I as Seen from a Zooarcheological Perspective be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology School of Community Health Sciences

Alan Simmons, Ph.D., Committee Chair

Barbara Roth, Ph.D., Committee Member

Levent Atici, Ph.D., Committee Member

Andrew Bell, Ph.D., Graduate College Representative

Ronald Smith, Ph. D., Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies and Dean of the Graduate College

May 2012

ABSTRACT

ENVIRONMENTAL ADAPTATIONS AT NEOLITHIC GHWAIR I AS SEEN FROM A ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

Doss F. Powell, Jr.

Dr. Alan Simmons, Examination Committee Chair Professor of Anthropology University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Understanding the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) environmental adaptations, subsistence patterns, and lifestyles in the southern Levant is pivotal in investigating the consequences of the human transformation from the exploitation of wild resources to the production of food through domestication or, the "Neolithic Revolution". At the most fundamental level, this investigation provides a comprehensive zooarchaeological study of the archaeological faunal assemblage from Ghwair I, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic B

(PPNB) community in southern Jordan, in effort to explore local exploitation patterns and refine our understanding of the community’s social and economic systems. This type of investigation enhances our current understanding of the spatial organization, village life, and the eventual abandonment of villages at the end of the PPNB.

This research was designed to address the following questions: (1) What were the economic strategies and adaptations utilized at Ghwair I during the PPNB? (2) Was

Ghwair I an autonomous village structured to meet local subsistence demands and focused on self-sufficiency, or was it part of a regional system? and (3) What role did the subsistence strategies play in social organization of the community at Ghwair I?

iii

The combined results of an extensive archaeological investigation at Ghwair I and a comprehensive zooarchaeological analysis that integrates faunal taxonomic identification, quantification, assemblage composition and characterization, has yielded the following interpretations:

1) The macrofaunal assemblage at Ghwair I reflects a pastoral animal economy

focused heavily on goat herding, supplemented with exploitation of a range of

other wild species. Ecological degradation is not suggested.

2) The inhabitants of Ghwair I appear to have made a deliberate choice to rely on

goats over other animal resources available in their environmental zone. The

presence of wild animals in the assemblage indicates their availability to the

community as a resource, even if they were only utilized on a limited bases or

for special occasions.

3) Social complexity and differentiation within the community is implicated by

the unequal distribution to aurochs across the community and suggests that

aurochs was primarily utilized during feasting to build and maintain solidarity.

4) The presence and location of cache of several goat skulls, a Bos primigenius

skull, and a very well preserved horn core suggests their use as dedicatory

items for an associated infant burial, thus hinting at a level of social

complexity that included ascribed status and some level of inequality within

the community that was heredity based.

This investigation confirms that Ghwair I was a developed and socially complex community and provides researches with data to explore new ideas about human adaptations during the PPNB in the southern Levant.

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research would not have been possible without the support and guidance of

Dr. Alan Simmons. As my advisor, Dr. Simmons allowed me the opportunity to work in

Jordan for two wonderful field seasons, provided me with support to conduct my research, and allowed me unlimited access to his personal library. I wish to thank Dr.

Mohammad Najjar, co-director of the Ghwair I project, for his direction, support, and friendship during our excavations at Ghwair I. Additionally, special thanks goes out to my committee members, Dr. Barbara Roth, Dr. Levent Atici, and Dr. Andrew Bell for their guidance, patience, and direction during the investigation that facilitated my completion of the dissertation program. In addition, I like to thank Dr. Barbara Roth for providing me insight, mentorship, and the necessary “prodding” that motivated me to finish this dissertation. She also proved to be a great friend when my family needed her the most during Sophie’s birth and surgery. I have appreciation for Dr. Paul Croft for his mentorship and friendship over the past few years as I conducted my research analysis in

Cyprus. Dr. Croft providing me access to his preliminary data from Ghwair I and full access to his faunal reference collection at Lemba Research facility in Cyprus. Most of all I am indebted to Dr. Croft for his patience with me as I tried to “properly sort things out” at night when he was trying to enjoy his evening on the porch.

Special thanks goes to the funding agencies for the Ghwair I Project. Primary funding was through grants from the National Science Foundation (SBR-9708241) and the National Geographic Society (6033-97), with additional funding from the Brennan

Foundation. Susan Thompson and the International Studies Abroad Program provided financial assistance for UNLV students to participate on the project. Without her help,

v my research abroad would have never happened. This research was also funded by grants from the Graduate Students Association that made some of the radiocarbon dating possible for Ghwair I.

Above all I would like to thank Marie Powell, Sophie Powell, Amanda Barrier,

Cindy Shortridge, Wayne Shortridge, and “Indy” for their unfailing support and encouragement that made the completion of this dissertation a reality. Without my family’s words of encouragement I might never have made it this far. I am grateful that my mother, Cindy, always stressed the importance of education and my happiness.

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... v

LIST OF TABLES ...... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ...... x

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Research Questions and Objectives ...... 3 The Role of Zooarchaeology in the Investigation ...... 5 Economic Organization ...... 6 Dissertation Structure ...... 10

CHAPTER 2 CULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT OF THE SOUTHERN LEVANT ...... 11 Paleoenvironmental Conditions ...... 13 Cultural Entities ...... 16 Natufian ...... 16 Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period ...... 19 Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Complex (ca. 10,500/10,200-9,500/9,200 BP) ...... 20 Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Complex / Final PPN (ca. 9,500/9,200-7,750 BP) ..... 25 Environmental and Cultural Context of the Wadi Faynan Region ...... 37 Wadi Faynan 16 ...... 39 Wadi Fidan I ...... 42 Ghwair I ...... 44

CHAPTER 3 GHWAIR I: ANALYTICAL METHODS ...... 54 Taxonomic Identification ...... 55 Total Number of Fragments ...... 57 Element Representation ...... 57 The Frequency of Taxa ...... 58 Minimum Number of Elements ...... 62 Minimum Animal Units ...... 62 Age Determination ...... 63 Sex ...... 65 Bone Modifications ...... 65 Horizontal and Vertical Clustering of Fauna ...... 67 Study Implications ...... 67

CHAPTER 4 TAXONOMIC IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE ...... 68 Equidae ...... 70

vii Bos primigenius ...... 76 Caprines and Capra sp...... 83 Gazella sp...... 101 Sus scrofa ...... 105 Other Taxa ...... 108 Aves ...... 112 Bone Modifications ...... 113

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 114 Local Exploitations and Environmental Implications ...... 114 Social Implications ...... 119 Implications of Economic Adaptations ...... 122 Conclusions ...... 124

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 129

VITA ...... 157

viii LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic Chronologies...... 12 Table 2 Ghwair I Faunal Assemblage: Total Number of Fragments by Taxon ...... 72 Table 3 Ghwair I Taxonomic Distribution by % NISP ...... 73 Table 4 Comparative Equidae Measurements from Selected PPN Sites...... 74 Table 5 Equidae body parts/NISP distribution at Ghwair I...... 74 Table 6 Skeletal Elements, Portions, and Survivorship for Equidae...... 75 Table 7 Epiphyseal Fusion Data for Equidae Long Bone Specimens ...... 76 Table 8 Bos primigenius Body Parts/NISP Distribution ...... 79 Table 9 Skeletal Elements, Portions, and Survivorship for Bos primigenius...... 80 Table 10 Comparative Bos primigenius Measurements From Selected PPN Sites...... 81 Table 11 Epiphyseal Fusion Data for Bos primigenius Long Bone Specimens ...... 82 Table 12 Comparative Capra Measurements from Selected PPN and LN Sites ...... 88 Table 13 Caprine Body Parts/NISP Distribution...... 89 Table 14 Capra sp. Body Parts/NISP Distribution...... 89 Table 15 Frequency of Major Skeletal Elements in a Single Mature Skeleton...... 90 Table 16 Skeletal Elements, Portions, and Survivorship for Caprines...... 91 Table 17 % Survivorship of Caprine Skeletal Parts ...... 92 Table 18 Skeletal Elements, Portions, and Survivorship for Capra sp...... 95 Table 19 % Survivorship of Capra sp. Skeletal Parts ...... 96 Table 20 Epiphyseal Fusion Data for Caprine Long Bone Specimens ...... 100 Table 21 Epiphyseal Fusion Data for Capra sp. Long Bone Specimens ...... 101 Table 22 Skeletal Elements, Portions, and Survivorship for Gazella sp...... 103 Table 23 Gazella sp. Body Part/NISP Distribution ...... 104 Table 24 Epiphyseal Fusion Data for Gazella sp. Long Bone Specimens ...... 104 Table 25 Sus scrofa body parts/NISP distribution at Ghwair I ...... 106 Table 26 Skeletal Elements, Portions, and Survivorship for Sus scrofa ...... 107 Table 27 Epiphyseal Fusion Data for Sus scrofa Long Bone Specimens...... 108 Table 28 Vulpes vulpes Body Part/NISP Distribution...... 110 Table 29 Felis sp. Body Part/NISP Distribution ...... 111 Table 30 Lepus Body Part/NISP Distribution ...... 111

ix LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 % Skeletal Parts in the Ghwair I Assemblage for Caprines...... 93 Figure 2 Scatter Plot of Bone Density and %MAU for Caprine...... 94 Figure 3 Scatter Plot of Bone Density and %MAU for Capra sp...... 94 Figure 4 % Skeletal Parts in the Ghwair I Assemblage for Capra sp...... 97

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Background

The Neolithic period of the Near East has long been the focus of studies on emerging social, political, ritual, and economic complexities associated with increased sedentism and the consequences associated with transitioning from a foraging lifeway to one focused on agriculture. Tremendous change and profound shifts in social organization, technology, health, diversity, and economic innovations occurred as a consequence of the shift to a more sedentary lifeway focused on agriculture (Simmons

2007; Twiss 2007a, 2007b). Until recently, research in the Near East has been concerned primarily with both descriptive objectives and theoretical issues related to the emergence of food production. These goals have traditionally focused on defining the temporal sequence for the region (Bar-Yosef 1981; Moore 1985; Rollefson et al. 1992) or have concentrated on recovering representative cultural materials, changes in material culture, and subsistence strategies through the different cultural periods. These methods have resulted in a relatively coarse-grained reconstruction of the changing social and economic systems during the early Neolithic (Banning 1998; Bar-Yosef & Meadow 1995; Goring-

Morris & Belfer-Cohen 1998; Rollefson 1996, 2001).

In the quest to define the “first farmers” and subsequent expansion of village life in the Near East, the level of organizational variability in village life has typically been overlooked or minimized, especially during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) which is usually dated from 10,500 ~ 7,750 BP, uncalibrated (note: all dates in this dissertation are

1 presented as uncalibrated in conventional radiocarbon years BP)(Kuijt 2000:6). Focused on broader research goals of description, documentation, and modeling of the transition from foraging to farming, researchers have spent considerable attention on the Epi-

Paleolithic and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA; 10,500/10,200 ~ 9600/9200 BP).

This has highlighted the emergence of the first sedentary communities within the Jordan

Valley and the subsequent socially and economically complex villages of the Pre-Pottery

Neolithic B period (PPNB; 9500 ~ 7,750 BP) with true domestic economies (Bar-Yosef

1991; Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen 1989a, 1991; Bar-Yosef & Meadow 1995; Byrd 1994;

Flannery 1973; Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 1998; Hayden 1995; Price & Gebauer

1995; Simmons 2007; Smith1998).

Previous attempts to understand the social and economic context of the transition to full blown village life, as well as further modeling of this transition, are constrained by several problems. First, until recently, researchers have just begun to understand the spatial organization of human behavior within small to medium size villages, especially located in the peripheral zones of southern Levant (Becker 1991; Banning and Byrd

1988; Byrd 1994; Bienert and Gebel 1998; Gebel et al. 1988; Henry 2004; Mithen et al

2000; Simmons and Najar 1996, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2000a, 2000b, 2001, 2003, 2006;

Twiss 2003, 2007). Many of the earlier investigations of villages from this period are largely geographically limited to sites in the northern portion of the southern Levant due to a lack of comparative research on medium village settlements outside of this geographical area. Thus, it has not been easy to reconstruct the temporal and spatial interrelationships between the mega sites to the north with the more environmentally peripheral sites in the south, nor delineate what the periphery sites might inform us with

2 regards to the social and economic organization of PPNB settlements on both a local and regional scale.

Research interest in the southern portion of the Levant for the past two decades has been driven by a renewed interest in the social, ritual, and economic variability of smaller communities in more marginal environments (Banning 1998; Finlayson and

Mithen 2007; Mithen et al. 2000; Simmons 2007; Twiss 2007). It is this renewed interest that provided the stimulus and rationale for this dissertation’s comprehensive zooarchaeological investigation of the archaeological faunal evidence from Ghwair I in order to explore local fauna exploitation patterns and refine our understanding of the community’s social and economic systems at a local level and on a broader regional level.

Research Questions and Objectives

Ghwair I, a PPNB community located in Wadi Feinan of southern Jordan firmly dated by a series of radiocarbon determinations to between 8880 to 8390 BP, provides an opportunity to improve our understanding of the social context of the food production and use during the PPNB and add to our current understanding of the spatial organization, village life and the eventual abandonment of villages at the end of the

PPNB. Central to the successful evaluation and refinement of our understanding of early village life at Ghwair I is the ability to: (a) define the economic adaptations; (b) assess the extent to which the community’s adaptations occurred as a local event for that specific area; and, (c) investigate the role and extent of social and economic activities were interrelated and their role, if any, in the apparent abandonment of the community

3 toward the end of the PPNB. With this in mind, the research was designed to address several critical questions: (1) What were the economic strategies and adaptations utilized at Ghwair I during the PPNB? (2) Was Ghwair I an autonomous village structured to meet local subsistence demands and focused on self-sufficiency and risk mitigation, or was it part of a regional system focused on supporting larger sites within this “system”?

(3) What role did subsistence strategies play in social organization of the community at

Ghwair I?

Some researchers have hypothesized that desert-edge communities overexploited local resources and were forced into major economic re-adaptation in these so-called

“peripheral” regions (Bar-Yosef and Belfer Cohen 1989a; Renfrew 1986; Gebel 2002).

Changing climatic patterns starting with the Younger Dryas have been hypothesized as a factor impacting people during the early stages of developing agricultural subsistence economies on through the PPNB (Bar-Yosef and Meadow 1995:44). Increasingly arid landscapes would have forced desert-edged communities to change their cultivation technologies, herding strategies, resource exploitations, and water management.

Ultimately, the research adds to our understanding of whether the occupants of Ghwair I and other sites in the Wadi Faynan contributed to environmental degradation and abandonment of the area. In addition, these critical questions seek to further our understanding of the social processes during the PPNB and the range of variation of social and economic practices within PPNB communities of the southern Levant, and the extent to these are identifiable within the archaeological record.

The Role of Zooarchaeology in the Investigation

The first goal of the investigation centers on the economic adaptation at Ghwair I by examining the animal remains recovered. It attempts to expand our understanding of the animals’ biological behavior and to reconstruct their environmental habitat while putting them into the social and economic context of the site.

To meet the stated goals, this dissertation integrates the following aspects of zooarchaeological analyses and techniques:

(1) Faunal Taxonomic Identification and Quantification

(a.) Taxonomic Identification

(b.) Number of Identified Specimens

(c.) Minimal Number of Individuals

(d.) Minimum Number of Elements

(2) Faunal Assemblage Composition and Characterization

(a.) Skeletal Abundance

(b.) Differential Survivorship

(c.) Bone Density and Survivorship

(d.) Bone Modifications / Alterations (Non-Human)

(e.) Age Profiles

While working within this framework, several interesting challenges emerge.

First, due to the limited knowledge of the ancient geographic distribution of the different species and their reduction or even extinction in recent years, the determination of the species present in the area during the PPNB is an important purpose in itself. Secondly,

5 only until recently has an interest developed in the area and therefore previous zooarchaeological studies in Wadi Faynan region are limited. It is therefore an important aspect of this research to examine what degree of human control and for which species the inhabitants of Ghwair I attained. Collectively, these data will provide some details of the environment during the PPNB in this area of the southern Levant. This will add to our knowledge base and development of a critical regional comparative perspective on the interface between environmental and cultural change.

Economic Organization

The Epi-Paleolithic and the PPN has long been the focus of studies on emerging economic and social complexity. As noted earlier, the rush to define earliest centers for the origins of agriculture and interaction spheres, the high level of organizational variability had been lost in the shuffle until researchers began discussing Super-Regional

Concepts in 2003 and 2004 (Rollefson and Gebel 2004, Simmons 2004).

During the Super-Regional discussions, a consensus was reached that we need to better understand the regional variability and complexity of “Neolithization” in the Near

East. Newer investigations at Göbekli Tepe (Schmidt 2003) in Turkey, Cyprus

(Simmons 2004), and several Jordanian “Mega-Sites” (see Rollefson 2000) do not appear to be fully explainable within the past theoretical frameworks such as the “Levantine primacy” paradigm that focused on the idea of a “core zone” in the Levant as the center of development for critical innovations and transmitted these innovations by diffusion of one kind or another to the rest of western Asia (Watkins 2003). Likewise, the cultural history paradigm developed early on by Childe and later expanded by Kenyon is not

6 suitable for explaining the situation during Late Epi-Paleolithic and PPN in the Levant and the “koine” model was to simplistic and masked distinctive variability at the local level (Rollefson and Gebel 2004:21). In addition, a few models had suggested that

Levantine communities were connected in relations of economic interactions. Those models are built on the theoretical Core/Periphery model developed by Wallerstein

(1974) to explain modern world economic systems and adapted to Near Eastern archaeology by scholars such as Algaze (1986, 1989, 1993, 2004). Within this framework, much of the distinction in pre-modern systems revolves around an economic system of tribute and redistribution (Simmons and Najjar 2001). The idea is that surplus is redistributed from centralized communities through elaborate systems of trade. There is a pattern of unequal exchange and exploitation that develops between the core and periphery where the core communities are the beneficiaries of elite commodities at the expense of the periphery communities, resulting in implied dependency relationships as well.

Some researchers, such as Simmons and Najjar (2001), began offering alternative explanations for the distinctions in size between these communities and concluded that it is more likely that settlements arose independent and self-sufficiently in a wide variety of environmental settings to produce their own essential materials. It was becoming clearer that the introduction and establishment of a new means of production during the formative period of the PPNB would have entailed major transformations social and economic organization of individual settlements and the way communities would have expressed their identity (Asouti 2004).

The consensus by researchers in the region for now is to focus on a bottom-to-top approach to describe the character of local adaptations and change in order to gain a better understanding of the Near Eastern Neolithic from a regional perspective. One notable concept proposed is the idea of “community network,” were the focus is on descriptions and explanations of local and sub-regional cultural systems in order to flesh out regional variability and developmental trajectories (Rollefson and Gebel 2004:22).

Developing this concept requires subsistence studies to broaden their approach from investigating and testing models relating to origins of agriculture to broader scope of subsistence related studies to address social organization, settlement patterns, ritual expressions, and the rationale for the exploitation of resources at a local level. While the

Neolithic should not be defined solely in terms of the means of production (cf. Cauvin

2000), it can not be ignored that domesticate plants and animals formed an important part of the economies of the Neolithic village life during the PPNB and was an intricate part of the changes occurring in the socio-cultural and ideological domains that define the

Neolithic. Cultural manipulation of animals and domestication would have afforded more than food in that they could bind communities together through implementation of risk-aversion strategies, feasting, and rituals at the local level (Asouti 2004:23). Some communities could have exhibited features more socially and economically complex, particularly those positioned to control some form of production and/or exchange of goods by centralization, while others could have retained an essentially community based or autonomous character. Therefore, detailed analyses of the production, preparation, and consumption of plants and animals helps develop our understanding of the local social

8 organization and relationships and form reference points for inter-regional comparisons later.

Unfortunately, understanding of medium and smaller communities in the southern

Levant or more marginal areas has been hindered by the lack of research on the local economic systems, particularly in the agro-pastoral communities of the PPNB. While long-distance trade networks have been one area of interest in the past research, household and village level production is poorly understood and severely limits our understanding of economic systems that ultimately laid the foundation for what became urbanization later on in the Neolithic.

To address the level of autonomy of community of Ghwair I and if the possibility exist of its role in a regional “core-periphery” hierarchal system, this study concentrates on assessing the extent to which the adaptations occurred as a local event structured to meet local needs, the nature of production, and the focus of their economic system.

Evidence for social organization and complexity may be gleamed through the consideration of food processing, spatial distribution of food production and consumption behaviors, and the examination of animal exploitation/use practices in the community. In addition, social complexity and/or differentiation within the community are explored through consideration of the extent of differential access that different household groups had to particular animals or food items. To address the research questions, this investigation examines the fauna remains from Ghwair I to define the economic organization in the village with respects to herd management and/or animal production systems.

Dissertation Structure

This dissertation follows the logical progression of the faunal taxonomic identification and quantitative analysis of the Ghwair I fauna assemblage to provide supporting lines of evidence leading to a greater understanding of the local economic and social complexities during the PPNB in the southern Levant. Chapter 2 sets out the cultural and environmental context of the southern Levant in general and then elaborates on Ghwair I’s place in the Wadi Feinan tributary system. In addition, Chapter 2 reviews the archaeological investigations at Ghwair I and it’s neighboring PPNA and PPNB sites.

Chapter 3 outlines the methodological framework and analytical approaches for the faunal analysis used in this dissertation. Chapter 4 presents the results of the taxonomic identification and analysis of the faunal assemblage. Chapter 5 expands on the interpretations of analysis by through discussion and concluding thoughts with reference to the research questions being asked.

CHAPTER 2

CULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

OF THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

The earliest expression of the Neolithic in the Levant and is referred to as the Pre-

Pottery Neolithic (PPN), or Aceramic Neolithic. The PPN emerges from the Natufian cultural complex (ca. 12, 800-10,200 BP) around 10,500 BP and is marked by increased settlement size and economically characterized by the shift from an essentially hunter- gatherer strategy to one of food production through domestication of plants and animals

(Simmons 2007).

The PPN has typically been divided into three chronological phases originally based on Kenyon's (1957) sequences at Jericho in the Jordan Valley during the 1950s.

The three primary phases are the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA), Pre-Pottery Neolithic

PPNB, and the end of the PPN/Pre-Pottery Neolithic C (PPNC) (Bar-Yosef 1995, 1998;

Bar-Mathews et al. 1999; Rollefson 1989; Simmons 2007; Weiss 2000) (Table 1). The

PPN phases are typically characterized and defined by settlement patterns, economy, social organization, and material culture, primarily architecture and artifact typologies

(Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002; Simmons 2007). Following the PPN phases is a series of sequences containing ceramics, referred to as the Pottery Neolithic (PN) with various subdivisions (Kafafi 1982; Stekelis 1973)

The term “Levant” is generally recognized as a geographical area comprising only a portion of the Near East. The geographical area is dominated by four longitudinal, north-south trending topographical features, each with different geomorphological, climatic, faunal, and floral characteristics. The area borders the eastern edge of the

Mediterranean Sea, bounded in the north by the Taurus and Zagros mountains. To the east is the Euphrates River and to the south is the Negev and Arabian Deserts. The geographical land features of the Levant are located within the present-day political boundaries of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Israel. The diverse climatic and highly variable topographic zones in the area also contain large quantities of fossil marine materials that have given rise to limestones (Finlayson and Mithen et al. 2007).

Table 1. Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic Chronologies.

Note: All dates in Conventional Radiocarbon Years Before Present (BP) Uncalibrated.

Phase Years Ago BP

Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) 10,500/10,300 – 9,500/9,200

Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) 9,500/9,200 – 8,000

End of PPN/ Pre-Pottery Neolithic C (PPNC) 8,000 – 7,750

The present study focuses on the archaeological site of Ghwair I, a small and richly preserved PPNB community, that is located in the remote Wadi Feinan region of

Jordan in the southern Levant. Geographically, Ghwair I is located approximately 200 kilometers southwest of Amman, Jordan and 120 kilometers north of Aqaba in the Wadi

Feinan region, a transitional zone between the Dead Sea Valley and the Jordanian

Plateau. The settlement is situated on a hillside at an elevation of 290-320m above sea level with a spectacular view of Wadi Feinan; the site covers approximately 1-1.2 ha.

The area is a degraded step desert, with unstable soils and Saharo-Arabian vegetation, or

12 open xeromorphic scrub, sparsely dispersed across the landscape with some salt-tolerant flora flourishing where the groundwater is saline (Colledge 1994; Horowitz 1979).

Arid plant regimes (Saharo-Arabian) typically cover areas where annual precipitation is less than 400 mm (Zohary 1973). This is certainly the case in the Wadi

Feinan drainage system, where annual rainfall ranges between approximately 50 and 150 mm, with an average of 70.7 mm (Levy et al., 2001). Even though the area is extremely arid, it has been noted that large episodes of precipitation can occur during the winter months. Impacted by current precipitation regimes, the modern flora distributions include evergreen oak in abundance above 1100 m in elevation; pistachio and juniper occur at elevations above 600 m.; and areas below 200 m are typically semi-desert shrubland and pseudo-savanna (Simmons and Najjar 2003). Since flora have specific ecological niches and water requirements, a suite of variables that include moisture, temperature, humidity, and soil quality in addition to the annual precipitation levels limits their distribution.

Paleoenvironmental Conditions

The vast environmental heterogeneity of the Near East has had a major impact on human behavior in the region. This has led to recent emphasis on reconstructing the paleoenvironmental conditions in an effort to gain a better understanding of human and environment interactions and the role environment actually played as a variable in the transition to agriculture and the subsequent fluorescence of village life (Bar-Yosef and

Meadow 1995). The primary sources of information used to characterize and reconstruct environmental conditions include fossil pollen cores, glacial records, deep-sea cores, lake

13 level fluctuations, and sediment studies (Baruch and Bottema 1991; Bar-Yosef 1998,

2001; Goldberg 1986). Despite the quantity of work done in the Levantine portion of the

Near East, there is no single paleoenvironmental sequence that encompasses the region due to the mosaic nature of the environmental condition. As a result, there is high variability in the climatic/environmental sequences occurring at the local level throughout the span of the Neolithic (Henry 1989).

One of the most comprehensive reviews of paleoenvironmental conditions for the area east of the Jordan Rift was provided by Henry (1989) and spans the time range from

80,000 to 5,000 BP. Henry (1989) draws on information pertaining to site-specific conditions to reconstruct episodes of wet and dry. During the terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene, the landscape of the Eastern Mediterranean region typically was not like today’s degraded step desert with Saharo-Arabian vegetation or open xeromorphic scrub.

Between ca. 21,000 and 17,000 BP, a series of climatic events left the entire region cold and dry with the exception of the hilly costal areas (Bar-Yosef 1998). Based on the current palynological, paleobotanical, and geomorphological data, it appears the

Mediterranean coastal plains and hilly areas enjoyed increased winter precipitation and were covered by oak-dominated parkland and woodland (Bar-Yosef 1998). The parkland and woodland forest provided some of the highest biomass foods that were exploitable by humans (Bar-Yosef 1998; Simmons 2007). Between 17,000 and 15,000 BP, climatic conditions appear to have changed and the environment became moister and warmer.

This climatic change is indicated in the archaeological deposits by the presence of greater amounts of arboreal pollen and greater alluvial depositions.

Around 15,000 BP, there was a sudden increase in oxygen isotope levels that were associated with a short cooling and aridification event (Bar-Yosef 1998). These were typically found within aeolian deposits and contained higher frequencies of steppe and desert plant pollens (Bar-Yosef 1998). Moister conditions return around 13,000 BP, as evident in the archaeological deposits by the higher frequencies of arboreal pollens

(Bar-Yosef 1998). This wet, mesic period persisted to about 11,000 BP and was followed by a period of increased aridity, also referred to as the Younger Dryas (Bar-

Yosef 1995:44).

The emergence of the Holocene brought about a warmer interglacial period.

Early Holocene environmental conditions appear to have been mostly dry with some moist periods during the Neolithic (9000-8500 B.P.) The gradual processes of desertification within the southern Levant resulted in a gradual expansion of the steppe zone (Henry 1989). This process stabilized by 8,000 B.P., with the rainfall patterns predominant during the Neolithic only slightly higher then those of today.

Within this environmental context, mobile hunters and gatherers had made the transition to a sedentary lifestyle during which settled village life and plant cultivation became commonplace by the end of the PPNA (Simmons 2007). Initially, there was a diverse subsistence strategy in which both wild and domesticated plant and animal species were exploited. During the PPNB, increased sedentism, increased population size, domestication of plants and animals, and the proliferation of expanding villages were ushered in (Bar-Yosef 1981). The associated economic, technological, social, and symbolic transformations occurring during this period heavily influenced how humans interacted with their environment and each other (Simmons 2007). These

15 transformations and interactions were manifested in material culture, primarily in the public architecture, lithic materials, burial practices, ceremonial objects, and the domestication of both plants and animals in the region.

Cultural Entities

Natufian

Between 13,000 and 10,000 years ago, the limited emergence of sedentary village life began in the Levant and involved a culmination of trends that included changes in settlement patterns, subsistence strategies, and social organization. The Natufian culture is the archaeological entity that bridges this transformation that involved complex changes in human lifeways, specifically from a foraging lifeway to one mostly sedentary focusing on domestication of plants (Barker 2000; Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef 2000).

The Natufian culture was originally defined by Garrod (1932) following her excavations at Shukba Cave and later Neuville (1934) in the Judean Desert on the basis of the lithic, bone, ground stone industries, and burials uncovered during their excavations (Simmons 2007). Natufian sites stand out from preceding archaeological entities primarily in their material culture. Settlement size, the dwelling structures, burials, art objects, lithics, elaborate bone industry, profusion of groundstone, and objects of personal adornment define the complexity of Natufian culture and their socioeconomic system (Bar-Yosef 1998).

Initially, Natufian communities were mobile hunter-gatherers, but some Early

Natufian aggregations in the core Mediterranean area were more permanent settlements.

By the Late Natufian period (11,000-10,500/10,300 BP), however, mobility was the norm again, with the exception of some large Middle Euphrates settlements. Where

16 aggregation into more permanent settlements can be shown, Natufians became more specialized in their food procurement strategies and focused on intensive collection wild plants (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef 2000). The archaeological evidence supports the extensive exploitation of legumes, cereals, various nuts, and fruits (Hillman 2000). There is a proliferation of tools for the processing, and cooking of the resources that supports the idea that the Natufians harvested and processed wild cereals and legumes (Bar-Yosef

2002). Evidence from large sedentary settlements such as Abu Hureyra also suggest that they were sustained by a combination of intensive exploitation of wild cereals/grasses and the exploitation of key faunal resources through fishing, fowling, and hunting

(Hillman 1996). Making the transition into intensive exploitation of wild resources and the accompanying technological developments have led to some scholars to define the

Natufian as a “complex” society of specialized foragers/hunter-gatherers (Henry 1985).

As noted by Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef (2000), the same complexity that promoted sedentism, population growth, and intensified resource exploitation ultimately makes complex groups fragile and facilitates the collapse or failure of sedentary foraging.

As cooler and dryer conditions (Younger Dryas 10,800 – 10,300 B.P.) returned, the yield of C3 plants (i.e., wild cereals) decreased and the lake levels receded (Barker 2000).

During this climatic regime the steppelands were a resource-poor environment and led some Natufian groups to respond by moving and diversifying their subsistence strategies.

On the other hand, some communities responded by engaging in cultivating activities in areas with perennial water sources (Barker 2000). Within this environmental context, social and technological transformations of the Natufian culture played a major role in the emergence of early Neolithic farming communities (Baharav 1983; Bar-Yosef 1983,

1998; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1992; Bar-Yosef and Meadow 1995; Belfer-Cohen

1991; Henry 1989; Smith 1994).

Based on current interpretations, there appears to be a dichotomy in Natufian sites based primarily on their size and material culture. Smaller sites seem to have minimum architecture, bone, and groundstone assemblages (Bar-Yosef 1983). Yet these smaller camps have a high concentration of lithics and seem to be located primarily in marginal environments (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef 2000). In contrast, larger Early Natufian sites with domestic structures, burials, large quantities of groundstone and lithic assemblages have been interpreted as base camps or “hamlets” (Bar-Yosef 2002). Most of these sites are located in woodland-parkland belt that is dominated by oak and pistachio forest with a high frequency of cereals as herbaceous undergrowth (Bar-Yosef

2002). These base camps are architecturally characterized by pithouses, 3-6 meters in diameter, that had stone retaining wall foundations in the lower portions that supported the circumference of the dwellings (Bar-Yosef 2002). While the circular form and foundations were common features of Natufian pithouses, the upper walls and ceiling lacked the labor investment that is reflected in latter circular structures of the PPNA with solid mud brick walls. Natufian circular structures probably consisted of wood and brush materials with occasional wattle (Bar-Yosef 2002).

Natufian material culture is also characterized by the lithics, groundstone, and bone and horn-core industries. The groundstone tools include bedrock mortars, cupholes, and pestles with some of the boulder mortars weighing up to 100 kg and 80 cm deep.

Archaeometric analyses indicate that some of the basalt was transported over a distance of 100 km from the source (Weinstein-Evron et al. 1995). Microscopic analyses have

18 also shown that some of the groundstone was used not only for more than just food processing, but also for crushing burned limestone and red ochre (Weinstein-Evron and

Ilani 1994).

Lithic assemblages are typically characterized by the production of small short and wide bladelets and flakes, exhausted cores, and microliths/geometrics that comprise

40% or more of every assemblage (Bar-Yosef 2002). Natufians utilized long bone shafts, teeth, and horn-cores of gazelles, wolves, deer, and birds to make tools that were used for hide working, basketry, spears or arrows, hooks, and hafts for sickle blades (Campana

1989, 1991; Bar-Yosef 1991). Beads and pendants were also made from animal bones

(Pichon 1983). The intensification of artistic activities and personal adornment could have functioned as a means to mitigate or alleviating secular stress caused by intensive social interactions (Bar-Yosef 1998).

Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period

As noted before, researchers typically propose subdividing the Pre-Pottery

Neolithic, characterized by diagnostic stone tool technology, the development of plant and animal domestication, and the first aggregate villages, into three periods termed the

Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA, approximately 10,500/10,300 ~ 9,500/9200 BP), the

Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB, approximately 9,500/9,200 ~ 8,000 BP), and the end of

PPN, or the PPNC (PPNC, approximately 8,000 ~ 7,750 BP) in the southern Levant.

Many researchers further subdivide the PPNA into the Khiamian and the Sultanian (Kuijt and Goring-Morris, 2002). The PPNB in the southern Levant, on the other hand, is typically divided into a modified scheme proposed by Cauvin (1977, 1987) that

19 delineates the PPNB period into the Early PPNB (9,300 ~9,000 BP), the Middle PPNB

(9,000 ~ 8,500 BP), Late PPNB (8,500 ~ 8,000 BP). The chronological division referred to as the Final PPNB (8,000~ 7,750 B.P.) is ignored by some researchers in favor of the

Pre-Pottery Neolithic C (PPNC) (Garrard et al. 1994; Rollefson 1989; Rollefson and

Köhler-Rollefson 1993).

Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Complex (ca. 10,500/10,300 - 9,500/9,200 BP)

The emergence of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic occurs quite abruptly from the Final

Natufian and is typically delineated by the cultivation of plants, although clear domestication is not demonstrated. It was suggested in the past that the PPNA should be viewed as “derived Natufian” complex based on similarities in lithic assemblages

(Prausnitz 1966). This argument was based in part on several findings that suggest cereal cultivation during the Late Natufian. Morphologically domestic rye has been identified at Abu Hureyra from ca. 11,000 BP years ago and both einkorn rye and barley have been identified at Mureybet as early as 10,500 BP years ago (Hillman 2000).

The PPNA period is marked by changes in artifacts, settlement distribution, economics, and social behavior. Some components of chipped stone assemblages, such as microlothic technology, from the PPNA reflect a continuation with the preceding

Natufian culture and remained prominent throughout the rest of the PPNA (Simmons

2007). Based on earlier studies of lithic assemblages, the PPNA in the southern Levant is often divided into separate archaeological entities, the Khiamian and Sultanian (Bar-

Yosef 1996). The Khiamian has been interpreted as a transitional short-term stage leading to fully farming communities of the Sultanian period (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-

Yosef 2000). The Khiamian industry is delineated by microliths, which include small lunates and sickle blades, with a focus on medium-size blades over bladelets and an increase in perforators in the assemblages (Bar-Yosef 1991, 1996). The Sultanian assemblages, while having an abundant michrolithic element, are delineated by an emphasis on blade production and bifacial flaking (Crowfoot-Payne 1983, Bar-Yosef

1991). Among the projectile points, el-Khiam points are the most distinctive and considered diagnostic for the Sultanian period (Gopher 1994). These small, double- notched tools, typically referred to as projectile points, may actually been used as drill or perforators based on microwear analysis of the Khiam points from Dhra`(Finlayson et al.

2003). Regardless of their use, their frequency and style distribution across the region suggest that there was a high level of communication between communities throughout the region (Bar-Yosef 1991).

PPNA domestic architecture is characterized by semi-subterranean oval or rounded structures, usually 4-5 meters (13-16 feet) in diameter, whose foundations are usually stone and whose upper walls were slightly inward-leaning and typically made of adobe, mud brick, or wattle-and-daub (Bar-Yosef 1991; Mazar 1990). Wooden beams and plaster were also used in construction, and roofs are thought to have been flat (Bar-

Yosef 1991). They had wooden doorjambs and a few steps with wooden treads leading down to the floor. These structures were often isolated, but some were subdivided or partitioned (Bar-Yosef 1991). Some structures had storage facilities of mud, limestone bins, and paved oval hearts with fire-cracked rocks and outside the houses were limestone slabs pocked with cup-holes (Bar-Yosef 1991). Grain storage bins associated with individual houses and each household seems to have supplied most or all of its own

21 needs. Some researchers have interpreted the increasing amount of open space between houses as reflective of a decreasing emphasis on kinship relations (Bar-Yosef 1991).

There was great diversity in site size during the PPNA and some researchers have argued that this may reflect a settlement hierarchy during the PPNA (Banning 1998;

Kuijt 1994). Small sites outside the very fertile areas are usually thought to represent the seasonal camps of hunter-gatherer bands, while ones within the better watered areas are interpreted as bands’ gathering camps (Bar-Yosef 1991). Bigger sites are considered villages. It appears that most of these large sites were occupied year-round. Even if the inhabitants did practice short-term mobility, the investment in building and storage indicates that people meant to use the site many times over many years. Interestingly enough, such architectural investments are also found at smaller sites such as Iraq ed-

Dubb, which raised questions as to whether such sites were indeed used only seasonally

(Bar-Yosef 1991).

PPNA communal architecture in the Levant includes a large stone tower and wall at Jericho. The early village at Jericho was one of many similar ones in the PPNA, but it grew rapidly and became unusually large with an estimated range from 400 to 2000 inhabitants (Kenyon and Holland 1981). The inhabitants built a wall around the village.

The first wall was at least 4 m (13 feet) high and 1.8 m (6 feet) thick at the base, built of stacked stones. (Kenyon and Holland 1981). These dimensions represent the minimum measurements based on preservation since the top has been eroded away and we do not know how much is missing. Within the confines of the wall there is the remaining portion of a circular stone tower, 9 m (30 feet) in diameter, and 8.2 m (27 feet) high

(Kenyon 1957). A doorway at the base leads to an internal corridor and has a stairway of

20 steps. The step stones and roof stones are up to a meter long and were hammered into shape. The interior was roughly plastered with mud. Later, a large ditch or moat was cut into the bedrock outside the wall, 9 m (30 feet) wide by 3 m (9 feet) deep.

The function or purpose of these structures is still debated. Some have argued that the walls were built for a defensive posture (Kenyon 1957), for protection from threats of flooding and silt buildup (Bar-Yosef 1991), and the tower may have had some ceremonial/religious function (Mazar 1990). Regardless of function, the implications of the town wall and tower are significant. Their construction was absolutely unprecedented and such monumental or public architecture implies at some level of designs there were project managers, directors, and architects with authority or some level of power over others, even if that authority was based solely on persuasiveness.

This is clearly an indicator of change in social organization emerging during the PPNA.

Such architectural construction also implies surplus of grain to support all the labor during building episodes, suggesting that some people may have had control of this surplus. Yet, PPNA burials all contain relatively few, simple goods and no significant delineation of individuals with lots of wealth. Ritual behavior during the PPNA shows continuity with the preceding Natufian and burials are common at most sites and tend to contain single, flexed adults. The adult burials tend to have the crania removed postmortem and typically little or no grave goods. The comparative abundance of burials near the Jericho tower has led some to interpret the tower as having special ritual significance (Kuijt 1996).

From an economic perspective, subsistence practices during the PPNA were based on intensive resource exploitation and the development of surpluses. While there

23 is some debate whether or not morphologically domesticated plants were present during the PPNA, the major implication of the archaeological evidence is that many of the plant species were used in a domestic sense (Simmons 2007). As noted by Simmons (2000),

PPNA communities had acquired the knowledge and understanding of how to obtain maximal output from key resources, and significance of plant resources in their diet is highlighted by the evidence that there was an increase in the number of sites that contained ground stone implements suggesting they were used for grinding and pounding, increased food storage. There is even evidence of structures that may have served as silos (Wright 1994, 2000).

Archaeological evidence also supports that early PPNA communities supplemented their collection or cultivation of cereals and legumes with wild seeds, fruits, and a variety of animals through hunting, trapping, and even fishing where practical (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef 2000). Our current understanding of the faunal record suggests that animals had not been domesticated for food until the PPNB where the emphasis was on caprines. During the PPNA in the southern Levant, gazelle (Gazella gazella) was the primary source of animal protein based on relative frequencies in the archaeological assemblages (Finlayson and Mithen et al. 2007). In addition, other wild mammals exploited to a lesser degree included wild goats and sheep (Capra aegagrus and Ovis orientalists), deer (Cervus sp.), pig (Sus scrofa) and occasionally aurochs (Bos primigenius) (Bar-Yosef 1998; Finlayson and Mithen et al. 2007; Kuijt 2000; Twiss

2003). In addition, gazelle dominated many of these faunal assemblages, even more so than reflected in the Natufian assemblages (Tchernov 1994). Smaller animals, such as

24 birds of prey and foxes, contributed to the diet or were used for symbolic purposes (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002; Simmons 2007).

By the end of the PPNA, the overall trend suggests that mobile hunters and gatherers completed the transition to a more sedentary lifestyle, and that plant cultivation possibly became more commonplace. Initially, there was a diverse subsistence strategy in which both wild and soon to be domesticated plant and animal species were being exploited.

Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Complex / Final PPN (ca. 9,500/9,200 – 7,750 BP)

The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) was ushered in by dramatic developments that included definitive morphological domestication of plants and animals, elaboration of ritual and social behavior, public architecture, widespread sedentism and the subsequent increase in populations, widespread exchange networks, and the proliferation of expanding villages (Bar-Yosef 1981; Simmons 2007).

One of the major innovations in material culture delineating the transition from the PPNA to the PPNB is architecture. While some groups in the desert continued to build rounded structures similar those of the PPNA (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002), most structures shifted from circular or oval to well-formed multi-roomed rectangular structures took over in the villages of the central Mediterranean zone and were well established by the Middle PPNB (MPPNB, dating from 9300~8300BP) (Simmons 2007).

The new and highly standardized rectangular structures or “pier-houses” can be classified into two forms (Banning 1998; Byrd and Banning 1988). At `Ain Ghazal, Jericho,

Beidha, and Beisamoun, for example, these rectangular stone and mudbrick buildings

25 were typically 20~30 m2 in area, and identified by entrances at one end with internal partitions and symmetrical arrangements of posts or piers (Twiss 2003). Some of these structures had open internal space just opposite of the entrance with a central hearth

(Banning and Byrd 1988; Rollefson 2001; Rollefson and Simmons 1986; Simmons

2007). Observed variations in living space and the layout designs were most likely due to periodic and labor-intensive remodeling episodes that resulted in entire rooms being altered or demolished (Banning and Byrd 1988; Ladah 2003). These rectangular structures had floors and sometimes walls that were coated with thick white lime plaster and had recessed basins that appear to serve as indoor fire pits. The walls were typically constructed of fieldstones, one to two coarse deep, and filled with a combination of mud and irregular stones (Simmons 2007). The floors were constructed with a colored plaster topcoat and even occasionally covered with woven mats based on the impressions in the plaster (Rollefson and Simmons 1987; Simmons 2007). What really stands out is the level of standardization reflected in these structures (length, width, and layout) and frequency that they were remodeled. Another noteworthy feature is the occurrence of niches that are frequently found in walls of these structures, implying some form of domestic ritual behavior (Twiss 2003). When size of the structures and their associated artifact density are considered, it appears that these structures housed small nuclear families and were at the core of their daily activities (Banning 1998; Rollefson 1997).

The second form of PPNB architecture is the “Corridor Building”. These structures were possibly two story houses with the lower story defined by central corridors dispersing into bins or workshops (Twiss 2003). It has been hypothesized that these lower stories could have supported upper levels of the “Pier House” form or some

26 other multiple stories as indicated by wall heights and internal stairways at `Ain Ghazal,

Ba'ja, Basta, Beidah, and Ghwair I (Banning and Byrd 1988; Gebel and Hermansen

2000; Rollefson 1997, 2001, Ladah 2003, Simmons 2007). Thus, the “Corridor

Building” form may have simply been the lower basement of the structures with an intended design focused on storage given the limited access, lighting, and internal space.

This implies that there may be a trend toward increasingly more compartmentalization and delineation of space during the PPNB to facilitate increased storage, production, and food preparation within a more privatized setting. (Kuitj and Goring-Morris 2002; Ladah

2003).

During the PPNB the fluorescence of village life is also highlighted by new levels of population aggregation and the variability in site size, ranging from smaller ephemeral hunting sites to sizable agricultural villages housing upwards of couple of thousand people (Kuijt 1995; Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson 1989). The emergence of larger settlement sites (“mega-sites”) such as `Ain Ghazal and Basta, which are up to 12 ~ 13 ha, followed by sites such as Wadi Shueib that range in size between 10 ~ 12 ha, and sites such as Jericho that are estimated to cover upwards of 4 ~ 5 ha, all attest to the changes in social complexity that are occurring. It seems plausible that some of these villages may have served as earliest presence of settlements that functioned as centers to facilitated social, economic, and religious activities in the region, as indicated by a cache of finely painted plaster statues and caches of material remains from `Ain Ghazal

(Rollefson 2000) and the location of such communities along ancient trade routes for exchange such as hypothesized about the growth of Jericho as a regional center for minerals and bitumen trade (Anati 1962).

Public architecture and the implications of power to mobilize work forces to facilitate building and maintenance of such structures become more evident during the

PPNB (Simmons 2007). Two levels at Beidha each contained decorated buildings placed near the center of the village that had oversize hearths with associated middens suggesting some form of use in communal activities (Banning 1998). Adding to the evidence of possible communal structures is the delineation of several PPNB constructions at 'Ain Ghazal that have been identified as "cultic shrines and temples" by

Rollefson (2001).

Ritual space and practices are also addressed through mortuary analysis of burials during the PPNB. It is quite common during the PPNB to find burials beneath the floors of the houses of single flexed adults whose skulls were removed after skeletonization had occurred (Rollefson 2001). The majority of these burials lack significant grave goods and some of the skulls were plastered and even adorned with seashells or bitumen to represent eyes and hair (Rollefson 2001). It has also been suggested that the skulls were retrieved shortly after death during some form of periodic festival in which survivors retrieved the skulls and decorated, and deposited in groups in abandoned houses or under plastered floors (Banning 1998). This may suggest that some form of ancestor cult was emerging during the PPNB (Hershkovitz and Gopher 1990; Kenyon 1953a, 1953b) or that these mortuary practices served to bind households together in the community (Kuijt

1995, 2000b). This would imply that households served as the basic social, economic, and ritual units during the PPNB. One interesting pattern is that subfloor burials makeup a very limited subset of the population and typically excludes infants and small children

(Twiss 2003). Other burials have also been discovered in a variety of contexts such as

28 middens and between buildings with a high degree of variation in their position and arrangement suggesting the possibility of social differentiation, status, health, or even cause of death (Rollefson 1983, 1986, 2000; Rollefson and Simmons 1987). Kuijt (1995) argues that in the PPNB ritual elites were administering and controlling the mortuary/ritual practices that served to integrate communities both socially and politically.

Figurines abound during the PPNB and some of the figurines have been found in contexts that suggest their use was ritual in nature, since some of the zoomorphic and anthropomorphic figurines were decapitated. During the analysis of two aurochs figurines at `Ain Ghazal, it became apparent that they were intentionally pierced with chert flakes and bounded with twine (Rollefson 1983, 1986, 2000; Rollefson and

Simmons 1987). These aurochs may have been used ritually to invoke some form of magic before being deposited in a sub-floor pit in the corner of the house. Other aurochs figurines were found decapitated or beheaded. As noted by McAdams (1997:136) these figurines suggest that the images of bulls were bound, mutilated, and decapitated. Some of the human figurines seem to be intentionally decapitated as well, possibly paralleling human burials or used to ritually “disarm” or control their power before deposition into pits (McAdams 1997). Human figurines with indications of sex are typically female and are crafted carefully and modeled with sagging breast and wide hips (Banning 1998), which has led some researchers to refer to them as “'mother goddesses” or fertility figurines. Thus the associated aurochs are interpreted as masculine elements for some form of a cult (Cauvin 2000).

Both Jericho and `Ain Ghazal have yielded clustered caches of stylized human statues made of reed and plaster materials (Rollefson 1983, 1986, 2000). They typically stand between half a meter and a meter tall, and typically have very simple bodies with comparatively detailed faces. What is unusual is that several have six fingers/toes per limb, while some from `Ain Ghazal have two heads per body (Rollefson 2000). Banning

(1998) has noted that polydactyl is used as a marker of special individuals or witches in some ethnographic cultures, and that such an idea in the past may be why the condition is so common in the PPNB statues. Other potential ritual objects in the form of stone masks have been recovered from several sites (Bar-Yosef 1985; Perrot 1979). The masks are solid and heavy, leading Banning to conclude that they were intended to be hung as totems (Banning 1998).

The PPNB exchange networks and craft production are well established through the material remains in the archaeological record. Patterns in long-distance trade items such as Anatolian obsidian, Dabbah marble (greenstone), Wadi Rum carnelian, Wadi

Dana copper ore, Dead Sea shells and coral, Mediterranean shells, and jade axes as well as similarities in material culture all attest to exchange networks that indicating a complex interaction sphere (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989; Simmons 2007; Twiss

2003). PPNB people produced a wide assortment of well-made artifacts, in addition to tools produced in a more ad hoc manner. Lithics include sickle blades, axes, long-bladed knives, burins, borers, scrapers, and a variety of arrowheads (Mazar 1990; Quintero

1996; Rollefson 2001), many of which were made by pressure flaking. These tools display high levels of variation, and required considerable skill to produce and maintain

(Quintero and Wilke 1995). Typical assemblages during the PPNB tend to be blade-

30 dominated. Although PPNB assemblages include a variety of points, Byblos points have the highest frequency of occurrence in most assemblages and traditional Amuq points

(Cauvin 1968) gradually increase in significance over the course of the PPNB.

One of the interesting distinctions in the chipped stone technology between the

PPNA and the PPNB is the emergence of naviform core-and-blade technology as well as the presence of bidirectional blades. By the Middle PPNB, lithic technology reflects a dual character that satisfies relatively undemanding needs and centers on sophisticated blade production techniques (Rollefson 1998). The naviform blade technique requires elaborate core preparation and maintenance as well as a narrow range of chert qualities

(Quintero and Wilke 1995).

During the PPNB, groundstone vessels are finer and more diverse in their shape and size than previously produced in the PPNA period, thus providing tantalizing evidence of the sophisticated craft industry that was established and flourishing during the PPNB (Simmons 2007). Various saddle and trough querns, grinding slabs, stone bowls, and platters are common as are miniature bowls and plates, globular bowls, platters, handstones and querns, and large milling tools (Simmons 2007). At Beidha, some of the grinding slabs weighed as much as 52 kg and some of the platters were up to

1 m in diameter (Simmons 2007). Ground implements such as palettes, bowls, axes, and implements referred to as “gaming boards” are also frequent in the archaeological record

(Simmons 2007). In addition, it has been suggested that the bins at Beidha's corridor buildings functioned as workshops for the lithic and craft production, as well as work areas for food processing activities (Kirkbride 1966). Similarly, sites like Ba'ja have been interpreted as production and distribution centers for goods such as sandstone rings,

31 with manufacture possibly occurring at the level of "specialized households" (Gebel et al.

1997).

With regards to subsistence economy of the PPNB, an agricultural lifeway was firmly established with considerable regional variation. Botanical remains from PPNB sites include such species as barley (Hordeum spontaneum), winter wheat (Triticum aestivum), emmer (T. dicoccum), peas (Pisum sativum), lentils (Lens culinaris), and chickpeas (Cicer sp.). Analyses of sickle blades and their gloss from 'Ain Ghazal suggests that the majority of plants still displayed wild morphological characteristics, primarily with regards to the spikes, rachis, and their propensity to shatter at maturity.

Even though there is evidence from Nahal Hemar and Nevali Cori during the Early

PPNB (Nesbitt 2002) for domesticates, it has been suggested that it was not until the

Middle and Late PPNB that plants were morphologically identifiable on a large scale as domesticates (Quintero et al. 1997). It also appears that domestication of individual species were temporally and geographically independent events (Simmons 2007). The primary economic focus was mixed and included cereals, peas, and lentils. An example of the variability in focus crops is seen at `Ain Ghazal where a strong argument has been made for legumes as the dominant aspect of the economy based on the high frequency of peas and lentils in the botanical remains recovered at the site (Rollefson 2001). At other sites, there is evidence that pistachios, acorns, and barley bulbs were all significant at some level in the region during the PPNB (Simmons 2007).

As for animal domestication and exploitation, there appears to be a shift away from hunting gazelles as the primary meat source in the southern Levant by the MPPNB and a more focused exploitation of goats, possibly a direct result of overexploitation of

32 gazelles during the Natufian and PPNA periods. There may be a direct correlation between the decline in gazelle and the increasing trend of sedentism /population growth

(Horwitz et al. 1999). As hunting intensity increased during the Natufian and the PPNA, a concurrent shift also occurs towards more extensive exploitation of smaller animals and marine resources in addition to intensified gazelle hunting (Carruthers and Dennis 2007).

These two shifts are thus a direct consequence of sedentism and the subsequent population increases in the region, as suggested by an increase in sites (Cohen 1977;

Davis 2005). As a result, these new population levels were possibly the driving force during the PPNA and PPNB behind the need to adopt husbandry (Cohen 1977; Davis

2005). In the southern Levant, population level continued to rapidly rise and the carrying capacity of the environment in many areas was exceeded during the Late PPNB. With gazelle populations too scarce, groups began to exert more control over their environmental resources. During the MPPNB and the LPPNB interval, morphological characteristics were possibly being selected through some form of cultural manipulation that eventually led to the suite of characteristics that are used today to define and delineate domesticate animals from their wild progenitors in the archaeological record

(Davis 2005). Subsistence strategies continued to include hunted protein sources to supplement the domesticated resources and included a wide variety of species such as the aurochs, boar, gazelle, Mesopotamian fallow deer, ibex, and onager. Some have suggested that the reliance and intensification of domesticates ultimately contributed to the decline of the PPNB through environmental degradation (Rollefson 1998).

The end or ultimate fate of the PPN is an increasingly complex problem for archaeologists. The PPNB lasted approximately a thousand years and culminated with

33 the apparent abandonment of larger villages and a marked change in settlement patterns throughout the region around 8000BP (Moore 1985; Simmons 1997; 2007). Substantial architectural projects ceased and larger communities in the Jordan Valley were abandoned. The few sites that have continued occupation through the Late PPNB and into the PN are considered anomalies. There is a decline in standard of living for some sites during the transition from the Late PPNB/Final PPN Period to the PN (ca.

8000/7500 ~ 6000 BP) (Simmons 2000). The collapse of the PPNB cultural complex and the abandonment of many villages may have been linked to internal social factors. As populations grew, economic and social organization became increasingly elaborate and existing social strategies may have failed to meet the new demands and new social strategies to relieve social stress where needed (Twiss 2003).

The line of evidence utilized for this model is the developments in site size and architecture. Initially the standard architectural pattern during the LPPNB was still focused on the rectangular multi-roomed buildings with plastered walls and floors. So the most dramatic development during the Late/Final PPNB is the steady increase in site size as the number of rooms in each structures increased while the overall size of each room decreased (Simmons 2007). Population estimates for the MPPNB sites are around

700 people per site while the LPPNB/Final PPN estimates are above 3000 people per site with estimations for Basta as high as 4,116 people (Kuijt 2000).

During the MPPNB domestic buildings began to show a considerable degree of formal subdivision and compartmentalization with hearths in the floor, and distinct areas for storage, processing, and craft production (Byrd 2000). This suggests that there is a trend toward greater use of internal space at the domestic level instead of all domestic

34 activities occurring in open space or the public’s view. The rooms with hearths were the most secluded space in domestic structures and suggest that consumption may have been more private at the residential level to reinforce enculturation within the nuclear families and lineage, while food preparation was a social event in the open arena or areas between households. Facilities for communal storage, milling, and feasting typically would have been placed between household groups in community spaces or courtyards well within the public view, making food preparation highly visible and a social event in the community. This would have facilitated the sharing of grinding slabs, large fire pits, milling/cooking ware, and the sharing of labor by work groups (Wright 2000).

By the LPPNB, however, population levels continued to rise and this led to greater stress on the social fabric as the PPNB cultural complex no longer held communities together and relieved social stress as certain household vied for more access to power and to resources (Twiss 2003). Standardization in domestic architecture declined and community-level mortuary practices decreased in frequency (Kuijt 1996).

By the end of the LPPNB, architectural and ritual symbolic structures that had promoted an egalitarian social fabric had disappeared (Kuijt 1996). Larger milling tool assemblages are found in domestic structures and more specialized cooking facilities begin to show up in domestic structures (Wright 2000). This suggested that food preparation was shifting from the public arena to a more private event within the household. Wright (2000) suggests that there is an overall intensification and privatization of food preparation and consumption during this period.

In addition, increasing floor space at the household level would have served as a coping mechanism for the increasing social tensions resulting from crowding, increased

35 demand for resources, and increasing demands for access to lands suitable for agricultural practices (Byrd 1994; Simmons 2007). The domestic architectural increases imply a change or shift in the nuclear family’s autonomy. The increasing settlement size could have required the establishment of centralized authority for negotiating social order within and between households (Byrd 2000).

During the LPPNB/Final PPN there is also a distinct drop in the quality of architectural elaborations and increase in the reuse of LPPNB structures. This pattern of decline or labor/resource investment can be seen in the drop in quality of the plaster used in the domestic structures at `Ain Ghazal (Simmons 2007). Artifacts likewise became less sophisticated and the frequency of symbolic/ritual items such as plaster statues and skulls of the PPNB decreased in frequency. Lithic production shifted away from the complex naviform strategy toward one that emphasized opposable-platform core systems and the use of sickle blades declined in favor for lighter and smaller projectile points

(Simmons 2007).

One model for the collapse of the PPNB focuses on human induced environmental degradation as a result of overuse of local environments. Acquisition and clearing of land for agricultural purposes and the over exploitation of resources for fuel and building materials have led to deforestation of the local environment. Wet precipitation regimes would have contributed to the degradation by eroding away the topsoils and thus severely impacting the agricultural productivity in these deforested areas (Simmons 1997). The cultural decision to manipulate or manage goat herds would have heavily restricted the natural environment’s ability to rebound/recover from the deforestation. Goats would have fed off of the young shoots and trees before the

36 vegetation could have gotten a strong foothold on recovery. An indicator of this in the archaeological record would be the increased reliance on domesticates as forest-dwelling wild game populations declined (Twiss 2003). This would have resulted in agricultural areas being depleted of their rich organic top soils by the end of the PPNB, and led to the abandonment and dispersal of people from the larger agricultural villages (Rollefson and

Kohler-Rollefson 1989; Rollefson and Simmons 1987, Rollefson 1996; Simmons 2007).

Regardless of the variable or extent of the collapse of the PPNB sites, it must be noted that the southern Levant did have some sites that continued to exist well after the

LPPNB. Sites such as `Ain Ghazal and Wadi Shu’eib continued to be occupied well after the abandonment period in the LPPNB into a transitional period referred to as the Pre-

Pottery Neolithic C and into the PN (Rollefson and Kohler-Rollefson 1989; Rollefson

1997; Simmons 1997, 2007).

In summary, social life in the PPN appears to have centered increasingly on smaller domestic groups rather than the entire community. There is tantalizing evidence that corporate groups existed at some level within the larger community and acted to some degree of autonomy (Twiss 2003). Increasing reliance on domesticated plants and animals and increased population led to social transformations and possible evidence for the emergence of social and economic inequalities.

Environmental and Cultural Context of the Wadi Faynan Region

The catchment of Wadi Faynan (Figure 2.2) forms a transect about five km wide running for some 15 km westward from the rim of the Jordanian Plateau around 1500 m above sea level to the floor of Wadi Arabah and the rift valley at about sea level. The

37 main wadi today is degraded step desert, arid and largely denuded of vegetation. As the wadi cuts through the plateau escarpments, the channels of the three main feeder tributaries, Wadi Dana, Wadi Ghwair, and Wadi Shayqar are in places well watered and comparatively well vegetated. The Wadi Faynan today is part of the Dana Nature

Reserve of Jordan’s Royal Society for Conservation of Nature and used mainly by

“nomadic” Bedouin herders. The confluence of three wadis, Wadi Ghwair (Ghuwayr),

Wadi Dana, and Wadi Shayqar, meet to form the Wadi Faynan. The area has a very diverse environment, with an altitudinal variation from c. 30m above sea level in Wadi

Faynan to the limestone uplands c.1200m above sea level on the edge of the Jordanian plateau, combining both Mediterranean and arid zone regions. This area has various

microenvironments, partly reflecting its geological diversity. Rainfall in the Faynan desertic zone varies from a monthly mean of 0-0.1 mm from June to September, rising to only 17mm a month in December and January, although flash floods can occur as rainfall on the plateau is more than 200mm a year. In Faynan the topography largely consists of a series of flat and broad wadi bottoms and terraces. When traveling eastwards up the wadis, the topography becomes very rugged as they become narrow gorges with few areas suitable for either cultivation or habitation. Before reaching Jordanian Plateau, the topography becomes varied and spectacular, with steep hills and cliffs (Simmons and

Najjar 2002, 2003, 2006).

Archaeological work in the Wadi Faynan area has taken place for over a century.

Initial visits by pioneering scholars such as Lagrange, Musil, Frank, Glueck and Kind established the importance of the area, particularly in relation to mining and early

Christian history (Finlayson and Mithen et al. 2007). More recently, Raikes, King, and

MacDonald conducted survey work, while the German Mining Museum at Bochum conducted a project to examine the mining history of the area (Barker et al. 1999;

Finlayson and Mithen et al. 2007). Adjacent to Faynan, Adams and Levy direct a substantial field project dedicated to later prehistory (Finlayson and Mithen et al. 2007;

Twiss 2003).

Despite the extent of archaeological activity, very little was known about early prehistoric settlement in the Wadi Faynan region until recently. Survey work by the

Centre for Field Archaeology (CFA), Edinburgh University, had identified and sampled numerous archaeological sites within the Dana Reserve, part of the Faynan area (Barker

1997, 1998, 1999). Some artifact scatters were thought to be Middle Paleolithic in date but the earliest dated settlement in the region is the PPNB site of Ghwair I. Up until

1996, no major concentration of pre-PPNB material had been identified within the

Faynan (Twiss 2003).

Despite this lack of existing evidence, the study area appeared to provide considerable potential for addressing issues in Paleolithic, Epi-Paleolithic and early

Neolithic archaeology of the Levant. Surveys elsewhere in Jordan and in similar landscapes to the study area had identified sites from all of these periods (Simmons 2007;

Twiss 2003). Key relevant sites are summarized below

Wadi Faynan 16

Wadi Faynan 16 (WF16) is a PPNA site located in the juncture between Wadi

Faynan and Wadi Ghwair in southern Jordan (Finlayson and Mithen et al. 2007). The site was initially recorded during a field survey of the Dana-Fayna-Ghuwayr Early

Prehistory project and subsequently excavated by Steven Mithen and Bill Finlayson during the 1996-2002 field seasons (Mithen 2003; Mithen et al. 2000). WF16 lies about

60 km southwest of the current southern most tip of the Dead Sea and about 500 meters west of the PPNB site Ghwair I.

Three trenches (Trench 1, 2 and 3) were excavated as a means of evaluating the site and to secure material to address the questions with regards the paleoenvironment.

Surface features consisted of a dense chipped and coarse stone artifact scatter, and several stone features. Mithen and Finlayson’s excavations have documented typical

PPNA characteristics at WF16 such as the presence of circular dwellings, lithic assemblages defined by microliths and the large frequency el-Khiam points, and burials similar in type to those found at Jericho (Mithen et al. 2000). Calibrated radiocarbon dating suggests an occupation of WF16 spanned from 10,190 + 50 ~ 9,400 +50 BP.

The material remains include a rich array of shell and stone beads, carved objects, and pieces of worked bone. Floral remains suggest a wide range of plant foods and environments were exploited, ranging from upland coniferous woodlands, to broad leaf and gallery forest, and steppe. A few of the seeds were identifiable and belong to the

Brassicaceae family, legumes (cf. Astragalus/Trigonelly type), and a few pulses from the

Vicieae tribe (Mithen et al. 2000). During the analysis it was not possible for them to ascertain whether the pulses were wild or domestic peas, lentils, or vetches. The assemblage also contained evidence of wild fruits such as Pastacia sp. (pistachio) and

Ficus sp. (fig) (Mithen et al. 2000).

The faunal assemblage from WF16 contained teeth, distal limb bones and long bone fragments of aurochs or Bos primigenius (8% NISP) and equids of Equis sp. (1%

NISP)(Carruthers and Dennis 2007). Other wild mammals identified were foxes (Vulpes vulpes 8% NISP) and cats (Felis sp. 2% NISP). The analyses of the bird bones suggest a relatively open habitat surrounding the site. Interestingly there are no butchery marks on the bird bones and the highest frequency of birds in the assemblage is raptors, especially buzzard represented by a large number of phalanges. Game birds have a low frequency in the assemblage and appear to be slightly exploited (Rielly 2007).

Significantly, WF 16 faunal assemblage is dominated by Capra sp. remains (78%

NISP) (Carruthers and Dennis 2007), instead of gazelle that typically dominate other

PPNA sites (Davis 1985; Clutton-Brock 1979; Tchernov 1980, 1994). Since the local environment surrounding WF 16 and Ghwair I is relatively rocky terrain and the habitat preference for gazelle is typically steppe environments, it is perhaps not surprising that the inhabitants were exploiting locally available resources resulting in a higher frequency of caprines over gazelle (Mithen 2003; Carruthers and Dennis 2007). Based on the low frequency of recovery of elements such as the skulls, vertebrae, and hoofs in the assemblage, Mithen and Finlayson (Mithen et al. 2000) have concluded that the initial butchery was conducted off site and meat-bearing elements were transported back to

WF16.

Complementing the taxonomic findings is evidence of smaller stature and the mortality profiles constructed for the goat remains (Mithen et al. 2000). A large portion of the individuals present appears to be immature represented by unfused long bones

(48%) (Carruthers and Dennis 2007). While not all zooarchaeologists would necessarily agree, Carruthers and Dennis (2007) suggest that the epiphyseal fusion data may be indicative of a herding economy rather than a hunting economy since hunting economies

41 tend to have mortality profiles that are more random based on encounter, whereas herding economies tend to be characterized by a mortality profile favoring the slaughter of immature individuals. This has led to the conclusion that the inhabitants at WF 16 were practicing some level of herding or at least cultural manipulation of goats during the

PPNA period (Carruthers and Dennis 2007; Mithen et al. 2000).

WF16 is also significant for the patterns of breakage, damage and wear identified on the lithic points that suggest a reduced emphasis on hunting activities (Mithen et al.

2000). Less than a third of the el-Khiam projectile points displayed evidence of being utilized as projectiles. The majority of the points were used as perforators and drill-bites.

Mithen and Finlayson (Mithen 2003) propose that the PPNA inhabitants focused on intensive manufacturing activities such as the working of reeds, woods, hides, stone, and other materials. Combining such intensive activities with the substantial quantity of ground stone recorded at the site, WF16 emerges as a sedentary village possibly inhabited year round.

Wadi Fidan I

The village of Wadi Fidan 1 (WFD I) sits on top of a small outcrop of rock, about

100 m in diameter, in the middle of a gorge in southern Jordan (Twiss 2007). Using chipped stone typologies and radiocarbon samples the occupation of WFD I has been confidently placed in the LPPNB (LPPNB: 8300 ~ 7900 BP) (Twiss 2007). WFD I site is rich in architecture and has remarkable preservation of artifacts, especially the organic materials. Initially the site was describe in 1980 by T.D. Raikes in his survey of the

Wadi Fidan and major excavations were undertaken at the site beginning in 1999 by the

Jabal Hamrat Fidan Regional Archaeology Project under the direction of the University of California, San Diego and the Department of Antiquities of Jordan (Twiss 2003).

The faunal assemblage from WFD I is quite large with some 12,855 bones analyzed. Of these, 4% belonged to Capra and another 7% were classified as belonging to goats. In addition, about 3% where lumped into a category defined as remains from sheep/goat/gazelle, and another 4% from a category that included sheep / goat / gazelle / cervids. An additional 64% were identified as coming from sheep/goat sized animals.

Given that there are only 13 bones were identified as gazelle, and perhaps 2 from cervids,

Twiss (2003) feels there is a high probability that the overwhelming majority of these bones came from sheep or goats. In sum, caprines may have contributed up to 82% of the bones in the assemblage. Of the rest, 9% could be identified as belonging animals about the size of cattle. Gazelles, leporids, equids, canids, lizards, and possibly pigs and deer each contributed less than 1% of the bones in the assemblage.

Based on Twiss’ (2003) findings, the villagers of WFD I appear to have relied primarily on caprines and many of the specimens appear to have been slaughtered between the ages of 2 to 3 1/2 years old, suggesting they were procured after they had completed most of their growth, but before they reached full maturity (Twiss 2007).

Based on sexing of pelvis fragments as well as on measurements, Twiss (2003) also found that the female caprines outnumber males in the assemblage by a ratio of approximately 3 to 2 and thus possibly implying some minor form of cultural manipulation. Interestingly, cattle also made up a portion of the meat diet, contributing about 9% of the bones in the assemblage. As with the caprines, there does seem to have been a pattern of preference for young animals at the threshold of being fully grown.

Twiss (2003) found that no other large species seems to have contributed significantly to their diet, thus implying that the people of WFD I chose to narrowly focus on caprines and cattle almost exclusively while the inhabitants of contemporaneous sites continued to eat significant quantities of wild meat.

Twiss (2003) also found that the bones in the WFD I assemblage are representative of all areas of the body in roughly equal proportions and concluded that there is a strong possibility that villagers were not slaughtering or hunting the animals far from the site and then hauling the entire animal over some distance. Rather, the animals were likely killed quite close to the village itself. In addition, Twiss (2003) utilized the low bone fragmentation levels and the low frequency of butchery marks in the assemblage to conclude that the inhabitants of Wadi Fidan were not overly concerned with extracting every possible nutrient from the animals. These low levels suggested that the people of WFD I were clearly not desperate to get all of the meat off of the bones or to extract the marrow from them (Twiss 2003). While many of the bones in the assemblage do bear marks of burning, almost all of the burned bones are burned equally across their entire surfaces, which suggest that they were exposed to the heat after they had been defleshed as part of the discard process, or even post-depositional (Twiss 2003,

2007).

Ghwair I

The settlement of Ghwair I initially was investigated by M. Najjar in 1993 (Najjar

1994). Subsequent to that study, a joint investigation between the University of Nevada,

Las Vegas (UNLV) and the Jordanian Department of Antiquities was conducted between

1996 and 2001 (Powell and Gervasoni 2000; Simmons and Najjar 1996, 1998a, 1998b,

1999, 2000). The excavation at Ghwair I throughout the years has demonstrated that this relatively medium size village (3 acres) was occupied in the early stages of the PPNB between ca. 8880 ~ 8,390 BP (10,033/9,542 to 9,510/9,285 cal. BP) (Simmons 2007).

Although only five areas have been excavated, substantial artifact, fauna, and plant assemblages have been acquired due to the outstanding preservation (Powell et al. 2003).

Ghwair I is around 500 m east of WF16 and situated on a hillside at an elevation of 290-320 m with a spectacular view of Wadi Feinan. Today, the area is a degraded step desert, with unstable soils and little vegetation. Ghwair I is bounded by high cliffs to the south and east, Wadi Ghwair to the north, and erosional cuts to the west and south.

A limited geomorphological study was conducted at Wadi Ghwair by Rolfe

Mandel and identified Wadi Ghwair’s role in the arid tributary system that drains into

Wadi Feinan from steep bedrock exposed upland to the west. Vegetation is sparse and concentrated around water sources within the wadis or near springs. Previous research and preliminary observations indicate at least five geomorphic surfaces ranging in age from Pleistocene to late Holocene (Barker et al. 1998, 1999; Barker 2000). Most of the western third of the site is associated with an alluvial fan that formed at the mouth of a small, high-gradient wadi that joins Wadi Ghwair from the south (Mandel 1998). A lobe of the fan extends out into the high Pleistocene terrace. The PPNB horizon at Wadi

Ghwair 1 is sealed beneath about 1 meter of stratified fan deposits on the western edge of the site. Most of the eastern two-thirds of the site is associated with colluvial apron that formed at the foot of the valley wall. The northern third of the site is associated with a high Pleistocene terrace underlain by gravel-rich alluvium (Upper Ghuwayr Beds). The

PPNB horizon is sealed beneath a very thin veneer (less than 40 cm) of slope wash that covers the terrace surface.

The 1996-2000 field investigations also included a general study of the flora, which will be used to provide a more complete economic picture of Ghwair I. Some of the preliminary results from the botanical flotation samples at Ghwair I suggest the presence of cultivated barley, pea, and emmer (Powell et al. 2003; Simmons and Najjar

2006). The results of the charcoal analyses do not show the degraded vegetation of today. Most of the charcoal belongs to Phoenician Juniper and Pistachio. In addition, the wood used for building purposes at Ghwair I appears to belong to these two species.

Some of the charcoal belonged to willow (Salix sp.), an indication for the fresh water and perennial stream of Wadi Ghwair. This suggests that the environment may have been more humid, with less temperature extremes, than today.

A limited pollen, phytolith, and starch analyses at Ghwair I has noted incredible variety in the samples (Neef 2003). The pollen diagram from the 1999-2000 excavation season is characterized by moderately abundant levels of the aster family in the local vegetation (Powell et al. 2003; Scott 2002a, 200b). The recovery of moderately large quantities of Cheno-am pollen raises the question of use of these greens and/or seeds in the diet (Scott 2002a, 2002b). These plants produce small seeds relatively high in protein and lower in carbohydrates than many other seeds, such as those of the grass family.

Plantain has been present in all of the samples from this study and appears to be of the local vegetation.

The recovery of a variety of starches, particularly from washes on groundstone, attests to the grinding starchy foods, which appear to have included seeds, roots, tubers,

46 and mustard. Fairly sparse tree pollen is present, including Pine, Pistachio, Cypress, and

Olive. These are probably reflective of the Mediterranean forest on the plateau land above the Wadi Faynan and higher up Wadi Dana. Vegetation in the pollen record for

Ghwair I appear to have been mixed between steppeland and remnants of plateau vegetation. The flora is considerably richer during the PPNB occupation represented by these samples. While inconclusive, these results suggest that several different microenvironments were exploited along the wadi and on the slopes.

Architecturally, Ghwair I follows the general pattern of a PPNB village, but with some major distinctions. The original investigation in 1993 revealed a deep sequence of well-preserved architecture that has been identified as Area I for reference purposes. A renewed study of Area I exposed a series of detailed architectural structures characterized by small rooms that are sectional and appear to have adjacent passageways (Ladah 2003;

Powell and Gervasoni 2000; Simmons 2007; Simmons and Najjar 1999). Rooms exhibit a wide range of variability and many are not symmetrical. In addition to the expected room blocks, there is a D-shaped room with a possible altar and a large rectangular room with several niches surrounded by bins (Ladah 2003; Simmons and Najjar 2000). In total, eight bins were excavated in various multiple arrangements, with red plaster floors extending up the walls in some of the structures. One of the bins contained a cache of points that were significantly different from the projectile points recovered thus far at

Ghwair I (Powell 2001). In addition, one other feature that is unique is set of stairs in one of the room complexes of Area I, suggesting that the architecture was multistory.

Also, there is a large stair-like feature in an outdoor area located in Area I. Immediately

47 in front of these stairs is a hard packed surface that could have served as an "outdoor theater" or public area (Simmons and Najjar 2000).

Both chipped and ground stone artifacts were abundant and included small cups, a possible phallic representation, "game" boards, tokens, stone palettes with pigment remaining, and possibly stone weights used in grinding activities (Simmons and Najjar

1999). Also, there were three adult burials and one child buried in a crude cobble-lined grave within the structural tumble of Area I (Simmons and Najjar 2000).

In Area II there is a highly complex architecture exhibiting more than thirty separate walls and building episodes. At depths of 3.6 m, excavations uncovered a floor with an intact work area. Within this area, researchers recorded a hearth, flat stones, in- situ ground stone, and mat impressions that will eventually aid in assessing the floor type

(Ladah 2003; Simmons and Najjar 1999).

Other studies at Ghwair I exposed a section of Area III that contained an ash pit with no architecture. Although the ash pit was too small (1.5 m thick) to be the primary refuse area for the entire PPNB settlement, a PPNA-style point (el Khiam) and a large number of bladelets were recovered from the area (Powell 2001). Continued investigations have led to the exposure of a stratified series of at least three floors that are plastered (Simmons and Najjar 1999).

In Area IV of Ghwair I, there is a rather large architectural complex (Najjar

1994). One of the excavated rooms contained a sub-floor burial and a cache of goat and cattle skulls lying on the plastered floor, as well as two caches of finely produced blades, polishing stones, and several malachite pendant blanks (Simmons and Najjar 2000). The burial is especially intriguing, consisting of an infant (9-12 months old) in a flexed

48 position, with the skull intact. The infant was adorned with a mother of pearl ornament around its neck. While sub-floor burials are common in the PPNB, they are usually decapitated adults, not children or infants (Powell and Simmons 2000). There also are a limited number of adult burials throughout the site that are unusual in that they are buried in crude cobble-lined graves in structural tumble and retain their craniums. These burials have provided valuable insight into the social mechanisms of Ghwair I. The infant burial suggests some form of ascribed status had emerged at Ghwair I by the PPNB.

Area V is located mid-site and the surfaces of two 5x5 m units were cleared in anticipation of additional investigations. There appears to be abundant amount of architecture based on these limited exposures. Area VI is located between Areas III and

IV and was investigated with the aid of ground penetrating radar. The results of this study suggest considerable depth and/or major wall features in the area. Based on this information, excavations were carried out on one 5x5 m unit to test these results.

Although not fully excavated, the results were positive, as a large and deep wall was exposed.

Both chipped and ground stone are abundant at Ghwair I. The chipped stone artifacts of Ghwair I reflected a typical PPNB blade-dominated assemblage. More than

60,000 artifacts have been recovered, with tools representing approximately 5.4% of all chipped stone (Powell and Gervasoni 2000). Projectile points dominate chipped stone tools. Sickles and other implements also are common, and bladelets are plentiful. The most frequent tool classes excluding retouched flakes and blades were as follows: projectile points (N=453), microliths (N=218), piercing tools (N=192), notches (N=120), tanged (N=103), scrapers (N=70), and sickle/glossed (N=59). These tool classes

49 combined account for 45.62% of the recovered tool population. The chipped stone summary analysis conducted on all five areas did little to discern any real differentiation within the site. In every case the most prominent chipped stone artifact class recovered was the tertiary blade. This reinforces the initial conclusion of Ghwair I being a blade- based technology. One interesting note by Gervasoni (2000) was the high concentration of secondary flakes recovered in Areas 2, 3, 4 and 6, with area six showing a higher percentage of secondary flakes over tertiary.

Within all five areas, excluding chips and chunks, the most dominant classes were similar. These include tertiary blades and flakes, bladelets, tools, and secondary flakes.

Bladelets, dominant in the overall lithic summary, were significant in the individual lithic array for each area. The proportion of bladelets within each area was never less than 5%, with a minimum of 5.8% in Area 1 and maximum of 12.5% in Area 2 (Gervasoni 2000).

The uniform occurrence of bladelets in each area again raises the issue regarding a PPNA component in a presumably 'pure' PPNB site. If this profusion of bladelets was more area specific, perhaps some explanation could be forthcoming. However, since it is uniform over the entire site, this phenomenon appears to be the rule rather than the exception thus suggesting no PPNA component despite the close proximity to WF16

(Powell and Gervasoni 2000).

One other interesting development is the low proportion of cores in each area.

The percentage of cores range from 0.7% in Area 2 to 1.3% in Areas 1 and 6. It seems unlikely that 567 cores, total for the site, could produce 48,388 chipped stone implements. Cores are not adequately represented in the lithic summary, and this paucity of cores seems to be dispersed evenly over all five areas. A concentration of the cores in

50 one or two areas could have suggested a workstation or production area, but the even distribution leads itself to a more self-sufficient family unit explanation (Gervasoni

2000).

Within tools, projectile points comprise an unusually large number. They account for some 28% of the restricted tool assemblage, which omits “retouched pieces.” A total of 472 points were recovered and analyzed, 152 complete and 320 broken (Powell 2001).

An examination of the points, using formal attributes, classified them according to the detailed morphological typologies derived from previous studies, such as Mortensen

(1970), Gopher (1994), and Eighmey (1992). With a few exceptions, the projectile points are consistent with previously recorded types for PPNB assemblages. The majority are Byblos variants, dominating the entire point assemblage at 70 percent

(Powell 2001). This trend is consistently reflected in each individual area of the site excavated.

Other types of projectile points encountered included El-Khiam projectile points that are traditionally associated with the earlier Pre-Pottery Neolithic A phase. Their frequency at Ghwair I was low (1%) and may be associated with a nearby PPNA site,

Site WF 16, or they could represent a technological continuity that extends into the

PPNB. Based on currently available radiocarbon dates, there is no evidence for a PPNA occupation at Ghwair I.

One interesting facet of the assemblage is the presence of what was provisionally termed “miniature” projectile points, manufactured on bladelets; similar artifacts are noted by Gopher and others, but usually in reference to Pottery Neolithic contexts

(Powell 2001). At Ghwair I, there were 63 “miniature” Byblos points, representing 19%

51 of all Byblos points found, as well as miniature Jericho and ‘Ain Ghazal points, each comprising 15% of their respective types.

Exploring the significance of bladelets and miniature points at Ghwair I, Powell and Simmons (2000) found that aside from the projectile points, microliths (defined as tools manufactured on bladelets) are the second predominant diagnostic tool class present at Ghwair I, at approximately 13% of all tools. Wilke and Quintero (1995) have demonstrated that bladelets are by-products of the specialized naviform technology used during the PPNB. However, at Ghwair, the dominance of bladelets in the overall chipped stone tally and the presence of microliths possibly represents a conscious choice by the Neolithic inhabitants to utilize bladelets as a key production blank for their tools.

Another aspect of the projectile points worth mentioning is the presence of what was provisionally termed “Ghwair points” for discussion purposes (Powell 2001). All twenty-two were found in a cache on the floor of a small room. These Ghwair points are manufactured on long, thin blades produced from high quality raw materials found locally.

A closer examination of the morphological attributes of these artifacts revealed the statistical significance in their size when compared to the other projectile points in the assemblage. In addition, all of the Ghwair points exhibit considerable skill in their manufacture. This raised questions concerning individual specialization at the site. The

Ghwair points were prepared and struck from the core in a fashion that requires little or no retouch to achieve the point, an extremely practical and efficient method of production. The Ghwair points have no significant retouch along the cutting edge, which varies from marginal to abrupt in the regular sample of projectile points from Ghwair.

The “Ghwair points” were too fragile to be functionally used as projectile per se.

One could argue that they were intentionally manufactured in this form as an intermediate step that would then be reduced to a functional point similar to the regular sample of projectile points. If that were the case, however, we would not expect to find the labor intensive modification on the tang if it was to be reduced to a smaller size and form. While not advocating a new typology based on size variation, they concluded that current typologies used to define projectile points primarily by overall morphology and hafting area tend to mask significant aspects of their attributes. Random variations occur in projectile points over time and space as they do in most other cultural and natural phenomena. However, since this artifact class has traditionally been considered functionally homogenous, other perspectives such as manufacture or social significance tend to be under- emphasized in projectile points from the Levant. Clearly one area of future inquiry is in the realm of ceremonial or social function for the Ghwair points.

Little direct evidence exists concerning the paleoenvironment or human-induced ecological deterioration at Wadi Ghwair. It is clear, however, that while Ghwair I may be located in a marginal environment, its rich flora, fauna, material culture, and hints of complex social development all attest that it was not a rural outlier. Thus it appears that the Neolithic occupation and adaptations of southern Jordan were quite distinct from that of the other adjacent portions of the Levant.

CHAPTER 3

GHWAIR I: ANALYTICAL METHODS

The faunal preservation at Ghwair I was poor due to the high moisture content of the matrix and resulted in heavy fragmentation of the assemblage. During excavation, a random sample of twenty percent of the sediments excavated was screened (¼ inch mesh) and all of the faunal remains were separated and bagged according to their provenience. For each bag, provenience information included its area, level and feature number (FN), and unit supervisor information for reference. The bags were processed and packaged for shipment back to the field lab and eventually shipped to Lemba Field

Project Research Center in Cyprus (LFPRC) for the analysis stage under the direction of

Dr. Paul Croft.

Where appropriate and feasible, complete elements were photographed in-situ and field consolidated for transport. The study of the faunal remains was carried out at the

LFPRC and examined using standard zooarchaeological methods outlined in the literature (Grayson 1984; Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984; Reitz and Wing 2008). The identification phase consisted of recording the primary data for each bone specimen. This included taxonomic identification, total number of fragments, specimen count, element represented by specimen, portion of element present, side, age based on epiphyseal fusion, degree of burning, natural taphonomic factors (encrustation, weathering, etc.), and pathologies. In addition, other surface modifications present (e.g., rodent or carnivore gnawing) were also recorded. Specimens not identified to element represented but were distinguishable to taxonomic class as mammals were separated into size categories: small

54 mammals, medium-sized mammals, and large-sized mammals. During this analysis, other classes were not separated into size categories. Caprines were separated into lower taxonomic levels whenever possible using reference collection and published criteria by

Boessneck (1969), Buitenhuis (1995), Payne (1968), Prummel and Frisch (1986), and

Rowley-Conwy (1998). Animal aging and sexing follows Boessneck (1969), Silver

(1969), and Thomas (1988) criteria when possible. Where preservation allowed, measurements were taken following the guidelines established by Angela von den

Driesch (1976).

Taxonomic Identification

The faunal remains were analyzed and assigned to the lowest taxonomic level whenever possible. While a few of the specimens were identified to the species level, given the capabilities of the analyst, the majority of the fragments were identified to more general taxonomic classes or to size categories. Genus and species identifications remained the ideal goal throughout the analysis.

Taxonomic identifications under Croft’s direct supervision were made using the comparative collection housed at the LFPRC facility and osteological manuals and zoological species guides (Harrison and Bates 1991, Gilbert 1990, 1996; Lawrence 1951;

Olsen 1964, 1968, 1979). Specimens were only identified to a particular taxon if they could be unquestionably assigned to it on the basis of morphological features found through comparison with reference specimens after all possible identifications were excluded by the same procedure.

Identification was a multi-step process delineating what element was represented and the lowest taxonomic level it belonged to. During the analysis, a standard zoological classification hierarchy scheme was utilized: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family,

Genus, and Species. Class identification included the sorting of the faunal assemblage into mammal, fish, bird, reptile and amphibian remains and typically was undertaken during the initial sort of the assemblage. Taxonomic identification during this process was based on morphological features, age, and sex. For vertebrate specimens, the element represented and the side was recorded.

During the taxonomic identification stage, attempts were made to identify all fragments of the larger mammals (Bos, Gazella, Sus, and Caprines), but excluded ribs and vertebrae with the exception of the atlas, axis and sacrum. In addition, teeth fragments represented by less than 50% of the original specimen were excluded for larger species, whereas less abundant smaller animals any identifiable fragments were counted.

With some of the bird and small mammal specimens, identification of family or genus level was beyond the scope of the reference collection at LFPRC. In these cases, identification was attained with the aid of Croft’s experience and published zoological criteria when possible. Specimens that were only identifiable mammals were grouped into general categories based on their size. Vertebrae and ribs were mainly included in these categories. If the specimen was not identified to class, then it was classified as unidentified fragment (UID). Once taxonomic identification was established, the symmetry and portion of each element present was noted.

While trying to identify specimens to the lowest taxonomic level possible, caution was exercised as not to over-identify specimens as suggested by Twiss (2003) during her

56 analysis of Neolithic Wadi Fidan 001. Given the high frequency of Caprines

(Ovis/Capra), and, to a lesser degree, Gazelle in the assemblage, only definitive morphological indicators of taxonomic identity were considered when delineating caprines and gazelle to genus and species taxonomic levels (Boessneck 1969; Payne

1969; Rowley-Conwy 1998; Zeder and Lapham 2006). Because there is great difficulty in delineating sheep from goat bones, some researchers lump them into one category,

Caprines, during their analyses even though they are very different in terms of behavior and archaeological significance (Twiss 2003).

Total Number of Fragments

Total Number of Fragments (TNF) was used to assess the relative abundance of the bone fragments. Use of this quantification measure facilitates summarizing the entire assemblage including skeletal parts not identifiable to element represented or to taxonomic category. This included long bone fragments and splinters.

Element Representation

Element representation refers to the type of skeletal parts represented by the specimens in the assemblage. While an element is an atomically complete bone or tooth and are the easiest to identify, most of the elements in the Ghwair I assemblage were fragmentary due to cultural and non-cultural processes. Therefore, each fragment is considered a specimen of the element that it represents. Because of the fragmentary state of the assemblage, great care was taken to note any diagnostic morphological characteristics that facilitated the identification and classification of the specimen’s

57 condition as: Complete, Minor Damage, ca. 50%, Fragmented. It is common to distinguish and document the different body parts and completeness within each taxonomic class based on the fairly constant shape and number of the specimens within each grouping. Even in the case of fragmentary elements, there may be enough diagnostic morphology retained by the specimen to allow for identification (Twiss 2008).

The Frequency of Taxa

Relative frequencies of taxa in assemblages is most commonly employed to compare animal use through time and space, to identify activity areas, and evaluate the relative importance of taxa within a group’s subsistence strategies (Reitz and Wing

2008). I used Number of Identified Specimens (NISP), Minimum Number of Individuals

(MNI), and Weight and Biomass estimates (Grayson 1984; Reitz and Wing 2008) during the study of the Ghwair I assemblage to record the skeletal parts preserved and estimate relative frequency of taxa.

The NISP or Number of Identified Specimens is a method used to calculate the relative abundance of any taxon within the faunal assemblage (Lyman 1994). NISP was used when the fragments could be assigned to a general taxonomic category or a size category and identified to skeletal element represented. All of the identified bone and teeth fragments within each taxon are added together to determine the frequency of the fragments for each animal present in the assemblage (Grayson 1984; Stiner 1994).

Because components can be fragmentary or articulated, skeletal parts are counted as separate NISP units regardless of their condition. NISP gives each identified specimen an individual numeric number for that animal within a overall count of all specimens in

58 the assemblage and delineates the taxon’s frequency in the overall assemblage. As

Stiner (1994) points out, this application of NISP is well suited for inter-assemblage comparisons when bone fragmentation is proportional and faunal assemblages are comparable.

There are some inherent shortcomings with using the NISP method (Grayson

1979, 1984; Reitz and Wing 2008). Most notably are the assumptions that the bones being counted are representative of the overall population, and that all bones are equally affected by taphonomic processes. Since it is difficult to establish an association between bone fragments and individual animals, NISP fails to control for interdependence and the degree of fragmentation. NISP also fails to account for differential fragmentation among different taxa as a product of size, mineral density, and recovery techniques or biases, such as screen size (Reitz and Wing 2008). Finally, NISP values are affected by cultural decisions such as processing and transport of animals for consumption/use that affects the specimen counts. Larger animals are possibly field dressed or processed in order to facilitate the transport of targeted areas of meat back to use/consumption areas, while smaller animals are more likely to transported whole.

Since NISP represents only the number of fragments identified to particular taxon and does not directly consider the differences between taxon in size and in meat weight, some researchers have combined this technique with MNI to provide a more complete assessment of relative dietary importance of various species. While NISP attempts to calculate the maximum number of bone fragments on a site, MNI establishes the minimum number of animals represented for a particular taxon. By taking into consideration differences in age, sex, and size for each specimen, the most abundant

59 element represented for each taxon is delineated and used to determine MNI or the least number of animals that are present for a given taxon. MNI effectively corrects for the differential number of bones found in different classes of animals and accounts for complete skeletons.

When using MNI, it is important to recognize some of the inherent weakness with the method (Grayson 1984; Reitz and Wing 2008). Differential success in identification of elements due to size, density, and morphological characteristics will make some elements more readily identified than others and leads to overemphasizing the relative dietary significance of some taxa (Grayson 1984). MNI is also influenced by the manner in which data from the archaeological record are aggregated during analysis into units or levels. In small samples, MNI of smaller taxon are emphasized over larger ones since large and small taxa are treated as equally important in dietary terms, despite the difference in kilograms of meat provided by each (Grayson 1984). During the analysis of the material from Ghwair I, both NISP and MNI calculations were used in order to take advantage of the best of both methods without ignoring their weaknesses.

Additional quantification tools, bone weight and biomass, can be employed to make estimates of biomass to compensate for problems encountered with MNI. They provide information on the quantity of meat supplied by identified animals. Unlike the other methods, these methods are based on the biological premise that the weight of bone is correlated with the amount of flesh attached to it. Body size and body weight can be determined from the size of a bone specimen, since a specific quantity of bone represents a predictable amount of tissue or the quantity of biomass for the skeletal mass recovered rather than the total original weight of the individual animal (Reitz and Scarry 1985).

This technique provides a balance to NISP and MNI methods. Biomass counters the problem of interdependence since it accounts for the presence/absence of partial and complete skeletons (Reitz and Wing 2008). It does not rely on thoroughness or assemblage composition and fragmentation has no real affect on the analysis. In order to use this analytical method, it does require that each bone be weighed individually.

Biomass calculations were made utilizing the allometric equation:

Y=aXb

In this equation, X is the skeletal weight, Y is the quantity of meat or total live weight, b is the constant of allometry (the slope of the line), and a is the Y-intercept for a log-log plot using the method of least squares regression and the best fit line (Lyman 2008; Reitz and Wing 2008).

We cannot assume a direct relation between the relative frequency of the animals in the faunal sample and their relative frequency in the living populations in the landscape surrounding the site, far less their relative importance in the subsistence, economic or social system of the human population. Nevertheless, the calculation of relative frequency provides the starting point for the process of reconstruction of subsistence and economy. While quantification techniques like MNI, NISP, Weight and

Biomass are subject to sample size bias, Grayson (1984) suggests a sample size of at least

200 individuals for reliable interpretation since small samples frequently will generate a short species list with undue emphasis on one species in relation to others. Since the materials from Wadi Ghwair I meets these minimums, the data therefore represents a

61 reasonable view of the subsistence activities practiced at Ghwair I, but still should not be viewed as indicative or representative of all the diverse activities that occurred there.

Minimum Number of Elements

Minimum Number of Elements (MNE) is a derived measure to delineate the minimum number of skeletal elements necessary to account for the specimens under study in the fauna assemblage. Several methods have been suggested to determine MNE

(Bunn and Kroll 1986; Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984; Lyman 2008; Marean and Spencer

1991; Morlan 1994). Klein and Cruz-Uribe (1984:108) record each specimen as a fraction of the element represented. All recorded fractions are summed to estimate the

MNE for a category of skeletal part. This method was utilized during this study, but it should be noted that this procedure fails to take into account anatomical overlap. As suggested by Atici (2007:153-154), a combination of Morlan’s definition of discrete features or landmarks (1994) and Bunn and Kroll’s (1986) manual overlap method would have produced a better degree of standardization in estimating the MNE values and limited the double counting and inflating of the element numbers that can occur with

Klein and Cruz-Uribe method (Atici 2007). MNE values were used in assessing taxonomic abundance, skeletal part abundance, and body part distributions.

Minimum Animal Units

Minimum Animal Units (MAU) is calculated by dividing MNE values for each anatomical part or portion by the number of times that part or portion occurs in one complete skeleton (Binford 1978, 1981, 1984). This skeletally standardizes the observed

MNE counts to individual skeletons. Typically, dividing each of the MAU by the value of the one element with the greatest observed MAU value and then multiplying each by

100 standardize each MAU values. Once calculated, each of the %MAU are ranked by value and used with bone density values to explore taphonomic histories and sources of bone loss.

Age Determination

Since different economic and social strategies based on age and sex will result in different animal slaughter patterns, determination of the age at death is a technique commonly used in faunal analyses. The determination of the age at which an animal died or was slaughtered, is important because it provides data critical to the study of animal husbandry and agricultural economies (Twiss 2003). Age determination or age at death patterns are determined by evaluating the relative size and characteristics of the bone, tooth wear, and long bone epiphyseal fusion states (Reitz and Wing 2008). During this study, age determination was made where possible in the Wadi Ghwair I assemblage by evaluating the relative size and characteristics of the bone and the degree of fusion of long bone epiphyses. Unfortunately, the assemblage did not contain sufficient numbers to reconstruct age at death patterns from mandibular tooth wear for any of the species present in the assemblage.

Age at death determinations are typically based on long bones in mammals that have one or more epiphyseal ends, or on dental evidence such as a mandible having both the fourth premolar and one or more molars. When working with mammalian long bones and epiphyseal ends, the process of epiphyseal fusion is based on general developmental

63 morphology. There are typically three key growth areas in mammalian long bones: the diaphysis and the epiphyses on both ends. These growth areas as separated by cartilage that is progressively ossified as the epiphyses “fuse” to the diaphysis. The fusion of elements occurs at a relatively consistent sequence within a particular taxon (Reitz and

Wing 2008:72).

By noting which epiphyses are fused and which are not, the sequence of bone fusion can be used to determine the relative age of the animal at death. As a word of caution, it must be noted that the age at which epiphyseal fusion occurs can also be influenced by diet, environmental factors, and variation within different breeds of the same species and affect age determination. Even with this variation, the age, process, and sequence are consistent enough to serve as an indicator of relative age.

During this study, the outlines on epiphyseal fusion from Schmid (1972) and

Silver (1970) were followed and the fused/unfused condition of long bone epiphyses were recorded whenever possible for mammals, especially for Caprines. Once the age at death was determined for each individual bone, the demographic structure of the species or taxonomic group was constructed since mortality data gleamed by age determination profiles are an invaluable guide to the nature of subsistence strategies.

As Twiss (2003) noted, such techniques provide important information on systems of animal husbandry and their focus on intensive meat production and secondary byproducts. For example, with intensive meat production strategies, the group concentrates on killing off surplus young males as soon as they reached a satisfactory sub-adult weight, whereas groups focusing on secondary byproducts such as a wool

64 economy would find it important to retain both adult males and females since the adult male has a heavier fleece than the female (Twiss 2003).

Sex

Where possible, sex identification was determined during the analysis of the

Ghwair I assemblage. Different husbandry strategies will result in the slaughter of particular groups of animals in a herd, defined not simply by age but by sex.

Unfortunately, the fragmentary nature of most faunal samples means that individual bones can rarely be sexed. For this analysis, it was attempted to determine sexual groups within the slaughtered population using size measurements taken from individual bones or epiphyses based on the principal sexual dimorphism. It should be noted, however, that the size of an animal reflects a number of factors apart from sex, such as health and nutrition, resource stress, and population gene pool (Reitz and Wing 2008).

Bone Modifications

There are many physical, chemical, and biological processes that modify bones and affect interpretations of faunal assemblages. Besides identifying alterations resulting from natural processes, it is important to identify modifications resulting from cultural activities. The bones were examined to ascertain bone modifications, butchery patterns and species-specific mortality profiles (Grayson 1984). During the analysis of the

Ghwair I assemblage, modifications observed on the elements were noted and reported using the following criteria:

1. “Cut” category is modifications defined as small incisions across the

surface of the bone. They have a characteristic “V” shape with grooved

walls and striations parallel to the long axis.

2. “Hacked” category is associated with modifications that have a deep, non-

symmetrical “V” shape that lacks striations.

3. “Burned” are associated modifications reflecting contact with heat. Bones

were recorded “Burned” only if they exhibited distinctive charring or

scorch marks that were detectable. Experiments have shown that it often

takes extreme temperatures to produce burn marks when cooking bones.

Size, density, temperature, and type of cooking influence the appearance

of burn marks on bones (Pearce and Luff 1994). So the classification of

bones as “Burned” in the Wadi Ghwair I assemblage should be viewed as

a conservative identification since there may have been other bones in the

assemblage not recorded.

4. “Pierced” as evident by the fragments being pierced or punctured by

canine teeth

5. “Gnawed” is apparent by specific gnawing patterns or groves left on the

surface of the bone.

6. In addition, each element was examined for discoloration due to contact

with carnivore gnawing, pathologies, and manufacturing activities (Reitz

and Wing 2008).

Horizontal and Vertical Clustering of Fauna

Counts of the numbers of teeth, bones, and fragments were grouped first by arbitrary level and then by 5 x 5 meter units to gauge the frequency distribution per unit.

These results were combined with a measurement of bone weights per 5 x 5 meter unit plotted on a site map. Counts of bones bearing cut marks, burning, or green fractures per unit were combined with the spatial data to evaluate possible behaviors at faunal spatial aggregations.

Study Implications

The foregoing methodology was constructed to identify the subsistence strategy and

ecology at Ghwair I. The faunal analysis allows for inferences to be made regarding

taxonomic diversity in the faunal assemblage, the proportions of body parts in the

sample, and economic complexity of the inhabitants at the settlement. The completed data from this study were utilized for environmental reconstruction, economic modeling,

and determining whether the inhabitants at Ghwair I practiced broad-spectrum faunal exploitation, as previously suggested (Powell 2001). The investigation undertaken in this study attempts to reconstruct the full range of human activities and modes of subsistence that were practiced at Ghwair I. In addition, another area of interest is the determination whether the occupants of Ghwair I relied primarily on Caprines for animal protein and if their subsistence strategy reflects a focus on meat or a focus on the secondary bi-products

of the animals exploited. Such an investigation adds to our understanding and

appreciation of the “wealth” of the ecological community at Ghwair I. A diversity of

resources is indicative of a more abundant and rich economy, while a restricted range

could suggest a more marginally based economic structure (Twiss 2003).

CHAPTER 4

TAXONOMIC IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS

OF THE FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE

The PPNB is associated with the increased reliance on both plants and animals.

From the onset, it is important to recognize that taphonomic processes and cultural factors severely attenuate the faunal assemblages over time and in turn bias the resulting data sets used to reconstruct the past economic lifeways. Given these limitations, the bones recovered from Ghwair I are recognized as being just a small representation of the original skeletal material from which they are derived and provide us with a limited

“snapshot” of the animals that interacted or were exploited by the past inhabitants. Still, our understanding of the complex economic developments within these confines are still extremely important in understanding the long process of domestication and dependence on herds as an adaptive strategy for survival in the arid southern Levant.

During this study, the total amount of faunal material recorded and analyzed consisted of 32,626 bone fragments (weight = 69,906 grams), coming from Areas I through VI that were excavated during the 1996 ~ 2000 field seasons. Table 2 presents the general characteristics of the assemblage and includes basic quantitative summaries of the total number of fragments (TNF), bone weight, and biomass for each taxonomic category. The color of the cortical bone surface and fracture surfaces are generally dark brown to dark gray and heavily encrusted. The overall state of preservation of the faunal material is generally poor with a high degree of fragmentation. As such, the percentage of the nonidentified bones was very high (ca. 88.6%). The majority of the specimens not

68 identified to “Element Represented” were at the minimum attributed to the taxonomic class Mammal (FN = 28,918; weight = 40,294.9g) and suggest that the recovery methods utilizing only ¼ inch screening techniques at Ghwair I were biased in favor of medium to larger mammals during excavation. This type of recovery bias typically results in smaller animals, particularly microfauna and birds, being under represented in the bone assemblage (Reitz 1985, 2008).

As noted earlier, Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) is utilized when fragments could be identified to element and a taxonomic level. Minimum Number of

Individuals (MNI) is a derived secondary data technique used to address relative abundance in the Ghwair I assemblage (Lyman 1994). The extent to which the Ghwair I faunal assemblage’s NISP and MNI actually represents all taxon that contributed economically is impacted and dependent on environmental and cultural factors. Critical cultural factors that impact NISP include cultural decisions such as transport, butchering, distribution of meat, cooking, disposal, and utilization of elements as tools (Reitz and

Wing 1999). It should be noted that it is within this framework of biases and constraints that NISP and MNI were utilized in the analysis of the faunal assemblage at Ghwair I.

The NISP counts for taxon and skeletal elements represented in the Ghwair I assemblage are presented in Table 3. Of the TNF (Total Number of Fragments = 32,626) analyzed, 3,037 fragments were identified to skeletal element and assigned to a general taxonomic level. Several 5x5 meter units from the site were excluded from further analysis since they were specifically exploratory in nature to delineate architecture and probed surface levels during the excavation phase. The resulting sub-assemblage was

69 utilized as a basic analytical unit to address the relative abundance of specimens (NISP and MNI).

Of the identified specimens, 78% belonged to Capra taxon. Morphological indicators or diagnostic features/landmarks typically used to identify to the two taxa to genus level were not represented on the specimens to facilitate differentiate these specimens specifically as either sheep or goats. An additional 7.5% of the identified bones came from gazelle (Gazella), thus suggesting that the overwhelming majority of medium mammal bones probably came from sheep/goats. Of the identified large mammal specimens, 5.1% were identified to aurochs (Bos primigenius). During the study, it is noteworthy that 3.1% was identified at the taxonomic level as Aves or lower level within the class of Aves. In addition, 2.2% was identified at the taxonomic level as fox (Vulpes sp.). The remaining identified taxa in the assemblage contributed less than

1% each to the overall assemblage. The more abundant mammalian macrofaunal species and Aves are reviewed below.

Equidae

Equid remains represented 1.4 % (NISP = 42) of the total NISP of the Ghwair I assemblage and a MNI = 3 based on epiphyseal fusion and identified side data. Several species of wild equids are found in the southern Levant during the Pleistocene/Holocene transition: Equus hemionus (onager), Equus ferus (wild horse), Equus africanus or asinus

(African wild ass), and Equus hydruntinus (European wild ass) (Uerpmann 1987). It remains unclear which species are present in the Ghwair I assemblage since there is overlap in geographical distribution of the species and the lack of key morphological

70 indicators (i.e., teeth) in the assemblage, thus making it extremely difficult to definitively identify the specimens to species.

Both E. africanus/asinus and E. hemionus have tentatively been identified at `Ain

Ghazal and at Ba’ja (von den Driesch and Wodtke 1997, 2004). The osteometric trend observed is that Ghwair I equids are slightly larger than those found at WFD 001 (Table

4). Both onagers and African wild asses are herd animals and prefer arid zones with hillocks to use for surveying the landscape and as shelters from the heat of the day (Twiss

2003).

The majority of the identified bone fragments in the assemblage are from the feet and the forelimbs (Tables 5 and 6), with no cranial fragments in the assemblage. This may imply that the inhabitants only transported nutritionally higher portions to the site for processing, but sample size renders this weak speculation at best. The absence of axial elements is primarily based on the bias that the analyst introduced by excluding the axial fragments during the analysis.

The trend that the equids at Ghwair I were on the larger end of the size scale also suggested by comparison with equid remains found in later assemblages from the southern Levant during the LPPNB and PPNC (Table 4). This is speculative at best given the inadequate sample size. From the mortality profile for Equidae long bone epiphyseal fusion data, there appears to be an even age distribution (Table 7) or exploitation pattern of a wild species hunted rather than a targeted age of development pattern reflected in mortality profiles of culturally managed species. The mortality profile reflects that all animals survived past 12 months, 82% past 30 months, and 77% past 42 months.

Table 2. Ghwair I Faunal Assemblage: Total Number of Fragments by Taxon

Taxonomic ID Number of Wt (g.) Biomass (kg.) Assignment Fragments (NF) Mammalia (Indeterminate) 29,589 40294.9 367.05 Erinaceidae 6 1.4 0.036 Canis sp. 4 4.0 0.092 Hyaena hyaena 1 1.0 0.026 Vulpes vulpes 69 58.6 1.026 Felis sp. 11 13.0 0.265 Equidae 42 2035.1 24.988 Bos primigenius 157 8013.0 85.786 Caprine 2088 17518.4 173.438 Capra sp. 280 666.7 9.153 Gazella sp. 229 1081.1 14.141 Sus scrofa 21 173.8 2.729 Dama mesopotamia 2 3.0 0.071 Lepus cf. capensis 15 13.0 0.265 Rodentia 7 3.4 0.079

Aves (Indeterminate) 56 16.9 0.268 Alectoris chukar 8 0.8 0.017 Anatidae 2 0.2 0.005 Accipitridae 17 2.0 0.038 Columba cf. livia 6 0.4 0.009 Coracias garrulus 1 0.1 0.001 Corvus sp. 3 0.4 0.009

Reptilia (Indeterminate) 11 2.8 0.039

Amphibia (Indeterminate) 1 2.0 0.015

Total: 32,626 69,906 679.546

Table 3. Ghwair I Taxonomic Distribution by % NISP.

Taxon NISP % NISP

Erinaceidae 6 0.2 Canis sp. 4 <0.1 Hyaena hyaena 1 <0.1 Vulpes vulpes 69 2.3 Felis sp. 11 0.4 Equidae 42 1.4 Bos primigenius 157 5.2 Caprine 2,088 68.8 Capra sp. 280 9.2 Gazella sp. 229 7.5 Sus scrofa 21 0.7 Cervidae 2 <0.1 Lepus cf. capensis 15 0.5 Rodentia 7 0.2

Aves 56 1.8 Alectoris chukar 8 0.3 Anatidae 2 <0.1 Accipitridae 17 0.6 Columba cf. livia 6 0.2 Coracias garrulus 1 <0.1 Corvus sp. 3 0.1

Reptilia 11 0.4

Amphibia 1 <0.1

Totals: 3,037 100.0

Table 4. Comparative Equidae measurements from selected PPN sites.

Measurement Site Era N Range Mean SD C.v.

Astragalus (GB) WFD 001 LPPNB 1 47.2

`Ain Ghazal LPPNB-PPNC 4 49.0~50.5 49.8 0.7 1.4

Ghwair I MPPNB 2 54.2~56.9 55.5 1.9 3.4

Astragalus (GH) WFD 001 LPPNB 1 48.0

`Ain Ghazal LPPNB-PPNC 4 46.0~53.0 49.4 1.7 3.4

Ghwair I MPPNB 2 54.8~55.9 55.4 0.8 1.4

Phalanx II (Gl) WFD 001 LPPNB 3 35.0~38.0 37.0 1.7 4.6

Ba’ja LPPNB 2 37.0~40.8 38.9 2.7 6.9

`Ain Ghazal MPPNB-LN 9 36.5~43.0 39.5 2.5 6.3

Ghwair I MPPNB 1 42.6

Modified after Twiss 2007. Measurements follow von den Driesch (1976): GB-Greatest Breadth; GH-Greatest Height; Gl-Greatest length)

Table 5. Equidae body parts/NISP distribution from Ghwair I.

Body Part Element NISP %NISP

Head Cranium, mandible, teeth, & hyoid 0 0

Axial Vertebrae, ribs, and sternum 0 0

Forelimb Scapula, humerus, radius, and ulna 15 36

Hindlimb Innominate, femur, tibia, fibula, and patella 5 12

Feet Carpal/tarsal, metapodials, and phalanges 22 52

Total 42 100

Table 6. Skeletal Elements, Portions, and Survivorship for Equidae.

One Complete MNE MNE % % Element Equidae Expected * Observed Survival MAU MAU

Cranium 1 3 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mandible 2 6 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Atlas 1 3 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Axis 1 3 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cervical 5 15 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Thoracic 18 54 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lumbar 6 18 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rib 36 8 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sternum 1 3 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Scapula 2 6 3 50.00 1.50 0.60 Humerus prox. 2 6 1 16.67 0.50 0.20 Humerus distal 2 6 2 33.33 1.00 0.40 Radius prox. 2 6 3 50.00 1.50 0.60 Radius distal 2 6 3 50.00 1.50 0.60 Ulna prox. 2 6 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ulna distal 2 6 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Carpals 14 42 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Metacarpus prox. 2 6 1 16.67 0.50 0.20 Metacarpus distal 2 6 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pelvis 2 6 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Femur prox. 2 6 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Femur distal 2 6 2 33.33 1.00 0.40 Tibia prox. 2 6 1 16.67 0.50 0.20 Tibia distal 2 6 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Astragalus 2 6 5 83.33 2.50 1.00 Calcaneus 2 6 3 50.00 1.50 0.60 Metatarsus prox. 2 6 2 33.33 1.00 0.40 Metatarsus distal 2 6 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phalanx 1 4 12 2 16.67 0.50 0.20 Phalanx 2 4 12 2 16.67 0.50 0.20 Phalanx 3 4 12 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

* Note: MNE Expected based on Klein and Cruz-Uribe Method (1984:108)

Table 7. Epiphyseal Fusion Data for Equidae long bone specimens at Ghwair I.

Stage Elements Fused Unfused

<12 months phalanx 2 proximal 2 0

12~30 months distal humerus 2 0 proximal radius 4 0 pelvis 0 0 distal tibia 0 0 distal metapodia 1 1 phalanx 1 proximal 2 1

30~42 months proximal humerus 1 1 distal radius 1 1 ulna 0 0 proximal femur 0 0 distal femur 1 0 proximal tibia 1 0 calcaneus 3 0

Total 18 4 Note: Epiphyseal fusion timing after Davis (1980) and Silver (1970).

Bos primigenius

During the analysis of the Ghwair I assemblage, Bos primigenius was found to represent 5.2% of the total NISP (NISP = 157) and a MNI = 4 based on epiphyseal fusion and the specimen’s side data. The majority of the specimens identified were appendicular, primarily represented by long bones and the lower limbs (Table 8 and

Table 9). Modern day breeds of cattle in the Middle East are the result of a long selection process that started around 8,000 years ago and ultimately led to domestication

(Twiss 2003). The wild progenitor of the domestic cattle was the extinct aurochs, Bos

76 primigenius. The geographical distribution of the aurochs was quite widespread in the

Middle East and included the areas of the southern Levant.

Even though Bos primigenius is very adaptable, it was essentially an animal that favors woodland vegetation with open grasslands, marshy areas, and alluvial plains that had a large supply of water (Ducos, 1991; Uerpmann 1987). As far as the process of domestication is concerned, there is some debate about the period and area in which domestication first occurred. In general, it is suggested that cattle were introduced into the area in domesticated form at a later time than in the northern regions. Domestication is clearly present during the PPNC (8100~7600 BP) components of the southern Levant

(Twiss 2003). Horwitz et al. (1999) and Helmer (1989) have argued that the beginning of cattle domestication occurred even earlier during the PPNB at sites such as Ras

Shamra on the Syrian coast and Abou Gosh in Palestine. Overall, data from earlier sites in the region, such as Nasta and Khirbet el Hammam, generally show a minor reliance on cattle with an NISP under 4% during the Late PPNB (Becker, 2002; Peterson, 2004).

Similarly, data from MPPNB site of Beidha reflected a similar pattern of minor reliance with a reported NISP of 3.1% (Hecker, 1982).

Focusing on sites near Ghwair I, like Wadi Faynan 16 (WF 16), Bos primigenius bones represent 8% of the NISP for the PPNA faunal assemblage (Carruthers and Dennis,

2007). As noted by Twiss (2007), this is close to the mean frequency (9.9%) of aurochs found at sites at lower elevations of the Jordan Valley. Additionally, Carruthers and

Dennis (2007) found that the majority of the bones were appendicular, primarily represented by long bones and the lower limbs. Based on their findings, they concluded that the inhabitants of nearby WF 16 hunted and butchered aurochs offsite and

77 transported only meat-bearing bones back to WF16 for final preparation and consumption, referred to as the “schlepp effect” (Perkins and Daly 1968). Theoretically, human hunters tend to carry only parts of their prey back to their home base worth the labor investment to transport at a distance when compared to the return or yield of the investment, the payoff. The "schlepp effect" is linked to both the size of the animal slaughtered and the distance between procurement and the consumers home (Perkins and

Daly 1968). The assumption that is lighter and more nutritious parts of animals are transported to consumption and processing sites, while less nutritional and heavier axial skeletal elements tend to be at kill or butchering sites. In addition to the proportions of appendicular bones noted, Carruthers and Dennis (2007) also found that their mortality profiles indicated that primarily juvenile individuals were targeted by the inhabitants of

WF16 based on analysis of epiphyseal fusion data.

At WFD 001, located less than 10 km from Ghwair I and WF16, Twiss’s (2007) analysis of the faunal assemblage has revealed that there was a significant increase in reliance on aurochs (13.1%) during the LPPNB component. She attributed the higher proportions of cattle to local ecological factors, such as relatively moister environment that would naturally support a higher carrying capacity.

Based on the relative frequency of Bos primigenius specimens identified in the assemblages at WF16, Ghwair I, and WFD 001, it seems likely that relatively moister micro-environment existed to some degree in or near Wadi Fidan/Wadi Ghwair/Wadi

Faynan during the PPNA and PPNB that naturally supported far more cattle than did other areas in the arid south of the southern Levant. Additionally, high numbers of cattle may also be linked to some form of human manipulation or control rather than hunting.

Unfortunately, the Ghwair I assemblage size and the extent of fragmentation prevented me from addressing the domestication status of cattle at the site definitively.

In the Ghwair I assemblage, cattle seem to be similar in size to cattle found in later assemblages from the southern Levant during the LPPNB and PPNC (Table 10). In addition, the variety of skeletal elements represented in the Ghwair I assemblage (Table

8), following the line of reasoning offered by Twiss (2007) and Carruthers and Dennis

(2007), suggest that the cattle were processed at the site. The even distribution of identified body parts, even with the analyst bias against axial fragment identification, implies that cattle possibly lived in close proximity to Ghwair I and could suggest further that the inhabitants were practicing some form of cultural control or management to encourage that close proximity (Twiss 2007).

Table 8. Bos primigenius body parts/NISP distribution for Ghwair I.

Body Part Element NISP %NISP

Head Horncore, cranium, mandible, teeth, & hyoid 13 8

Axial Vertebrae, ribs, and sternum 3 2

Forelimb Scapula, humerus, radius, and ulna 37 24

Hindlimb Innominate, femur, tibia, fibula, and patella 32 20

Feet Carpal/tarsal, metapodials, and phalanges 72 46

Total 157 100

Table 9. Skeletal Elements, Portions, and Survivorship for Bos primigenius.

One Complete MNE MNE % % Element Bovid Expected* Observed Survival MAU MAU

Horn 2 8 3 37.50 1.50 0.50 Cranium 1 4 1 25.00 1.00 0.33 Mandible 2 8 2 25.00 1.00 0.33 Atlas 1 4 1 25.00 1.00 0.33 Axis 1 4 1 25.00 1.00 0.33 Cervical 5 20 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Thoracic 13 52 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lumbar 6 24 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rib 26 104 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sternum 1 4 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Scapula 2 8 4 50.00 2.00 0.67 Humerus proximal 2 8 2 25.00 1.00 0.33 Humerus distal 2 8 3 37.50 1.50 0.50 Radius proximal 2 8 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Radius distal 2 8 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ulna Proximal 2 8 2 25.00 1.00 0.33 Ulna distal 2 8 1 12.50 0.50 0.17 Carpals 12 48 5 10.42 0.42 0.14 Metacarpus proximal 2 8 3 37.50 1.50 0.50 Metacarpus distal 2 8 2 25.00 1.00 0.33 Pelvis 2 8 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Femur proximal 2 8 2 25.00 1.00 0.33 Femur distal 2 8 2 25.00 1.00 0.33 Tibia proximal 2 8 3 37.50 1.50 0.50 Tibia distal 2 8 3 37.50 1.50 0.50 Astragalus 2 8 6 75.00 3.00 1.00 Calcaneus 2 8 4 50.00 2.00 0.67 Metatarsus proximal 2 8 3 37.50 1.50 0.50 Metatarsus distal 2 8 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phalanx 1 8 32 10 31.25 1.25 0.42 Phalanx 2 8 32 8 25.00 1.00 0.33 Phalanx 3 8 32 6 18.75 0.75 0.25

* Note: MNE Expected based on Klein and Cruz-Uribe Method (1984:108)

Table 10. Comparative Bos primigenius measurements from selected PPN sites in the southern Levant.

Measurement Site Era N Range Mean SD C.v.

Astragalus (Bd) Nahal Hemar MPPNB 2 51.8~56.1 53.9 3.04 5.6 `Ain Ghazal M-LPPNB 1 48.0 Basta LPPNB 8 45.5~59.4 48.9 4.7 9.6 WFD 001 LPPNB 7 42.1~49.5 46.1 2.4 5.2 `Ain Ghazal PPNC 2 47.0~50.0 48.5 2.1 4.3 Ghwair I MPPNB 2 47.6~55.0 51.3 5.2 10.1

Astragalus (GL1) Jericho PPNA/PPNB 1 80.85 Nahal Hemar MPPNB 2 83.0~84.5 83.75 1.1 1.3 `Ain Ghazal M~LPPNB 1 76 Basta LPPNB 8 70.9~89.2 74.5 6.3 8.5 WFD 001 LPPNB 9 58.7~81.6 72.2 6.5 9.0 `Ain Ghazal PPNC 2 76.0~80.0 78.0 2.8 3.6 Ghwair I MPPNB 4 74.1~81.3 77.4 3.8 4.8

Phalanx I (Bp) Beidha MPPNB 12 29.8~40.3 34.6 3.0 8.7 `Ain Ghazal M~LPPNB 3 32.0~37.0 35.0 2.7 7.7 Basta LPPNB 13 31.7~45.7 35.4 3.5 9.9 WFD 001 LPPNB 17 27.5~40.0 34.1 3.9 11.4 `Ain Ghazal PPNC 2 28.2~31.0 29.6 2.0 6.8 Ghwair I MPPNB 4 34.3~38.8 35.65 2.13 5.97

Phalanx II (Bp) Basta LPPNB 12 30.6~37.7 34.2 2.5 7.3 `Ain Ghazal LPPNB 4 30.0~38.5 34.4 4.2 12.2 `Ain Ghazal LPPNB/PPNC 5 29.5~35.0 32.1 2.4 7.5 WFD 001 LPPNB 14 29.3~36.8 32.6 1.4 4.3 Ghwair I MPPNB 5 30.8~38.9 34.3 3.11 9.0

Phalanx III (DLS) Nahal Hemar MPPNB 10 67.4~79.3 73.6 3.6 4.9 Basta LPPNB 3 59.1~91.7 74.8 16 21.4 `Ain Ghazal LPPNB 2 71.5~95.0 83.3 17 20.4 `Ain Ghazal LPPNB/PPNC 4 58.0~78.0 63.4 9.8 15.5 WFD 001 LPPNB 6 74.2~81.5 78.3 3.2 4.1 Ghwair I MPPNB 1 71.1 (Modified after Twiss 2007)

Table 11. Epiphyseal fusion data for Bos primigenius long bone specimens at Ghwair I.

Stage Elements Fused Unfused

< 12 months pelvis 0 0 scapula 6 1

12~24 months distal humerus 2 3 proximal radius 6 0 phalanx 1 proximal 10 0 phalanx 2 proximal 8 1

24~36 months distal tibia 2 3 metapodia 6 8 phalanx 1 proximal 2 0 phalanx 2 proximal 3 0

36~48 months proximal humerus 0 3 proximal ulna 0 0 distal ulna 0 0 distal radius 0 2 proximal femur 0 1 distal femur 0 0 proximal tibia 2 1 calcaneus 1 1

Total: 48 24 Note: Epiphyseal fusion timing after Davis (1980) and Silver (1970).

The mortality profile for Bos bones identified suggest an expected age distribution (Table 11) or exploitation pattern that targeted the species at a specific age of development. The mortality profile reflects 86% surviving past 12 months, 87% past 24 months, 54% past 36 months, and only 27% past 48 months.

Caprines and Capra sp.

The occupants of Ghwair I appear to have relied primarily on caprines based on their relatively high NISP frequency in the assemblage at 78% of the total NISP and a

MNI = 60 based on epiphyseal fusion and identified side data. Of the specimens identified as caprines, 280 (MNI = 21) were identifiable to the genus Capra, which is the probable taxon represented by most of the specimens identified as caprine based on the absence of any specimens specifically being identified to the genus Ovis.

Currently, our understanding of the geographical distribution of Capra in the past and present suggest the possibility of two species inhabiting the region around Ghwair I.

Because of parapatric distribution, the Capra ibex (Ibex) inhabiting the lower elevational zones of Wadi Araba to Dead Sea and Capra aegagrus (Bezoar goat) higher up on the

Jordanian Plateau (Tchernov and Bar-Yosef 1982). The transitional location of Ghwair I between these two zones would have possibly facilitated the exploitation of either species or both by the inhabitants at Ghwair I. Delineation of the two species typically focuses on soft tissue and horn cores. Since only seven horn core fragments were recovered from the Ghwair I faunal assemblage, specimens identified within the assemblage to the genus of Capra were recorded as Capra sp. to encapsulate both species as adopted by

Carruthers and Dennis (2007) at WF16.

Behaviorally, the ibex inhabit rocky and steep mountain terrain and has adapted well to climbing with great agility in these settings. In the wild, it usually lives in small herds comprised of three to six individuals and follows an older male (Harrison and Bates

1991). Ibex have been observed in the Sinai following an east-west transect while grazing during the day, starting on eastward facing slopes and ending on southwesterly

83 slopes by evening, as an adaptation to extreme temperature swings in higher elevations as the sun sets (Baharav and Meiboom 1982). In addition, ibex shelter in the evenings in locations that have crevices between large rocks to absorb stored solar radiation that is being emitted in an effort to combat the rapid drop in air temperature which occurs in the evenings.

Ibex adults feed on annual forbs or non-wooded, broad leaved plants that have a high nutrient value during the winter and then shift towards shrubs and wilted annuals during warmer seasons. The high nutrient values of forbs during the winter correlate with the mating season and birth rates. Rutting season typically occurs during the autumn months between October and November, followed typically by birthing of a single kid after six months of gestation (Hakham1985). Following birth, there is a maternal nutritional investment for six months and the kids live in nursery bands with females and subadult individuals exploiting a home range approximately one km2. Ibex birthing rates are heavily dependent on rainfall and the subsequent availability of vegetation (Harrison and Bates 1991).

Bezoar goats have also adapted to rocky terrain and are quite agile in rocky ledges and ridges, with a great sense of balance and the ability to leap. Their herd patterns in the wild range from solitary to herds numbering in the hundreds, being led by an old male member. Older males inhabit the higher elevations during the summer months, while females and their young are found on the lower ridges. During winter months, the herd aggregates back together in the lower elevations to exploit resources in bushier biotic zones, sometimes as low as sea level. Bezoar goats feed primarily on mountain grasses, shoots of small species of oak and cedar, and various berries (Harrison and Bates 1991).

While similar patterns in gestation and suckling have been observed between Bezoar and

Ibex goats, there seems to be a noteworthy difference in reproductive strategy and investment. Bezoar females have one to three kids per litter and the young seem to stay with the mother for more than one year.

The identification of basic faunal subsistence patterns practiced by the inhabitants at Ghwair I, based solely on the relative frequencies of taxa, is focused on the exploitation of caprines given their overwhelming contribution of bone in the assemblage. This raises important questions with regards the notable reliance on domesticates as opposed to wild species and the relative levels of reliance on goats as opposed to other areas where sheep were domesticated and utilized. Domesticated goats were utilized earlier in the area than sheep, but recent studies have challenged the notion that there would not have been any sheep in the PPNB faunal assemblages (Henry 2003).

Within the Ghwair I assemblage, there were no clear indications for the presence of sheep in the specimens identified to species level.

Given the transitional zone of Ghwair I within the natural distribution of Ibex and

Bezoar goats, the exploitation of Capra as a protein source would be a reasonable subsistence strategy for the inhabitants. Based on the village size, labor investment into public works, and permanence of the architecture at Ghwair I, the possibility of cultural manipulation or domestication should be considered even in absence of key elements containing morphological indicators in the assemblage. Interestingly, no evidence has been offered for age selective culling or herd management of Capra ibex in the southern

Levant during the PPNB (Horwitz 1993; Horwitz and Ducos 1998, Zeder and Hesse

2000; Wasse 2000). Given our current understanding of the behavioral patterns of ibex

85 and the lack of evidence for ibex ever being domesticated in the archaeological record, the Ghwair I Capra sp. specimens are probably dominated by Capra aegagrus remains, although the possibility of both species being exploited is not ruled out.

Since domesticated goats have been documented and shown to have been the dominant species in other faunal assemblages from the southern Levant during the

LPPNB, the prevalence of goat remains at Ghwair I fits well with the regional subsistence patterns. While high proportions of goats have been taken as evidence for domestication elsewhere in the southern Levant, it should be noted that 78% of the bones from the nearby PPNA site of Wadi Faynan 16 are identified as wild goats, Capra sp.

(either aegagrus or ibex) (Carruthers and Dennis 2007). Therefore, it seems that the proportions of goat remains at Ghwair I is indicative of some degree of herd management already developing in the area.

Although body size is a highly problematic marker of animal domestication

(Zeder 2001), it is still commonly used line of evidence. Table 12 compares Ghwair I's

Capra measurements against measurements from goats from other PPN and LN sites in the region. It is interesting that the pattern observed by Twiss (2003) concerning the mean sizes of Capra at WFD 001 were relatively similar to the means at other sites where domesticated goats were identified and dominated the assemblages, such as Ba’ja and LPPNB/PPNC/LN `Ain Ghazal, is reflected earlier during the MPPNB at Ghwair I.

This possibly suggests that most of the goats might have been culturally manipulated or managed to some level in addition to wild goats or ibexes (Capra aegagrus/ibex) being present. This pattern resembles the one seen later at other LPPNB sites. The Ghwair I and

WFD 001 goat/ibex remains are slightly larger than those from PPNA Faynan 16, which

86 may be attributable to ecological amelioration from the PPNA to the PPNB, or perhaps to closer genetic links between PPNB domestic populations at different sites (Twiss 2003).

Given the established relative frequencies of skeletal parts in a complete single individual (Table 15), this analytical tool can be used to assess the completeness of the fauna and predict what should be found in the assemblage if taphonomic processes have not resulted in the removal or differential destruction of certain kinds of bones, and as

Lyman (1994:223) notes, sampling and recovery processes have not failed in recovery of certain types of skeletal parts. Documenting frequency of skeletal parts in relation to their nutritional and density values is usual as an analytical tool in inferring the mechanisms involved in their modification and identifying the agent(s) or processes responsible for accumulation (Lyman 1994:189). Analysis of differential survivorship of skeletal parts was performed by comparing expected and observed MNE values and recording the calculated percentage of survival (% Survival) along with their density and economic values for the principal taxa, Caprines, and for Capra sp.

Caprine body parts based on NISP for the assemblage are presented in Table 13 and their skeletal elements and % Survival are presented in Table 17 and in Figure 1.

The percent survivorship of Caprine skeletal parts along with their density values are presented in descending order in Table 17 after Atici (2007).

From these data, it is apparent that all skeletal elements are represented in the assemblage in varying proportions. Astragali, distal tibiae, scapulae, pelves, and crania are represented in proportions 50 percent or higher of the expected. In contrast, nine skeletal part categories are represented in proportions of less than 20 percent. Given the fact that low-density elements such as distal femur, distal radius, proximal tibia, axis and

Table 12. Comparative Capra measurements from southern Levant PPN and LN sites.

Measurement Site Era N Range Mean SD C.v. Humerus (Bd) Faynan 16 PPNA 3 25.9~30.2 28.1 2.14 7.6

Beidha I 8 30.9~36.4 34 1.6 4.8

Beidha II-III 124 26.0~43.8 33.5 3.6 10.9

Beidha IV-V 113 25.5~45.0 32.8 3.7 11.2

Beidha VI-VIII 45 27.7~39.8 32.2 2.6 8.2

WFD 001 LPPNB 51 29.3~42 34.9 3.6 10.3

Ghwair I MPPNB 12 29.2~38.0 33.3 2.6 7.8

Humerus (BT) `Ain Ghazal M-LPPNB 26 29.0~42.0 33.5 3.4 10.1

Ba'ja LPPNB 24 28.0~36.5 32.7 2.5 7.6

WFD 001 LPPNB 55 28.9~39.6 33.5 3.0 9.0

`Ain Ghazal PPNC 18 28.0~38.5 33.3 3.1 9.3

Ghwair I MPPNB 11 27.6~38.2 32.8 2.9 8.8

Radius (BFp) WFD 001 LPPNB 35 25.3~38.8 31.7 3.1 9.8

`Ain Ghazal LPPNB 8 28.5~38.0 33.3 3.7 11.1

Ba'ja LPPNB 11 28.8~34.5 30.7 1.8 5.9

`Ain Ghazal LN 6 30.0~38.0 34.8 2.9 8.3

Ghwair I MPPNB 15 29.2~37.6 33.5 2.7 8.1

Astragalus (Bd) Faynan 16 PPNA 4 17.6~18.0 17.8 0.15 0.8

`Ain Ghazal M-LPPNB 34 17.0~24.0 20.8 1.85 8.9

Ba'ja LPPNB 12 17.5~22.0 20.1 1.47 7.3

WFD 001 LPPNB 61 15.6~22.4 19.24 1.57 8.2

`Ain Ghazal PPNC, LN 27 16.0~28.8 20.2 2.49 12.3

Ghwair I MPPNB 13 17.7~23.7 20.2 1.6 7.9 (Modified after Twiss 2007)

Table 13. Caprine body parts/NISP distribution for Ghwair I.

Body Part Element NISP %NISP

Head Horncore, cranium, mandible, teeth, & hyoid 289 24

Axial Vertebrae, ribs, and sternum 72 3

Forelimb Scapula, humerus, radius, and ulna 421 20

Hindlimb Innominate, femur, tibia, fibula, and patella 514 24

Feet Carpal/tarsal, metapodials, and phalanges 829 39

Total 2125 100

Table 14. Capra sp. body parts/NISP distribution for Ghwair I.

Body Part Element NISP %NISP

Head Horncore, cranium, mandible, teeth, & hyoid 10 3

Axial Vertebrae, ribs, and sternum 10 3

Forelimb Scapula, humerus, radius, and ulna 104 37

Hindlimb Innominate, femur, tibia, fibula, and patella 19 7

Feet Carpal/tarsal, metapodials, and phalanges 142 50

Total 285 100

Table 15. Frequency of major skeletal elements in a single mature skeleton

Element Bovid/Cervid Equid Suid Horn 2 Cranium 1 1 1 Mandible 2 2 2 Atlas 1 1 1 Axis 1 1 1 Cervical 5 5 5 Thoracic 13 18 14~15 Lumbar 6~7 6 6~7 Rib 26 36 28~30 Sternum 1(6) 1 1 Scapula 2 2 2 Humerus proximal 2 2 2 Humerus distal 2 2 2 Radius proximal 2 2 2 Radius distal 2 2 2 Ulna Proximal 2 2 2 Ulna distal 2 2 2 Carpals 12 14 16 Metacarpus proximal 2 2 8 Metacarpus distal 2 2 8 Sacrum 1(4~5) 1(5) 1(4) Pelvis 2 2 2 Femur proximal 2 2 2 Femur distal 2 2 2 Tibia proximal 2 2 2 Tibia distal 2 2 2 Astragalus 2 2 2 Calcaneus 2 2 2 Metatarsus proximal 2 2 8 Metatarsus distal 2 2 8 Phalanx 1 8 4 16 Phalanx 2 8 4 16 Phalanx 3 8 4 16 (Modified after Lyman (2008:228) Table 6.4)

Table 16. Skeletal Elements, Portions, and Survivorship for Caprines.

One MNE MNE % % Element Complete (Exp.)* (Obs.) Survival Density MAU MAU MGUI Bovid Horn 2 78 8 10.26 0 4.00 0.10 1.03 Cranium 1 78 12 15.38 0 12.00 0.31 12.87 Mandible 2 78 14 17.95 0.55 7.00 0.18 43.60 Atlas 1 39 10 25.64 0.11 10.00 0.26 18.68 Axis 1 39 9 23.08 0.14 9.00 0.23 18.68 Cervical 5 195 0 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 55.33 Thoracic 13 507 0 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 46.49 Lumbar 6 234 0 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 38.90 Rib 26 1014 0 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 100.00 Sternum 1 39 0 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 90.52 Scapula 2 56 27 48.21 0.33 13.50 0.35 45.06 Humerus prox. 2 56 8 14.29 0.13 4.00 0.10 37.28 Humerus distal 2 78 39 50.00 0.34 19.50 0.51 32.79 Radius prox. 2 78 23 29.49 0.36 11.50 0.30 24.30 Radius distal 2 78 33 42.31 0.21 16.50 0.43 20.06 Carpals 12 468 46 9.83 0.48 3.83 0.10 13.43 Metacarpus prox. 2 78 43 55.13 0.55 21.50 0.56 10.11 Metacarpus distal 2 78 19 24.36 0.44 9.50 0.25 8.45 Pelvis 2 78 23 29.49 0.26 11.50 0.30 81.50 Femur prox. 2 78 30 38.46 0.28 15.00 0.39 80.58 Femur distal 2 78 55 70.51 0.22 27.50 0.71 80.58 Tibia prox. 2 78 18 23.08 0.16 9.00 0.23 51.99 Tibia distal 2 78 77 98.72 0.36 38.50 1.00 37.70 Astragalus 2 78 7 8.97 0.63 3.50 0.09 23.08 Calcaneus 2 78 34 43.59 0.58 17.00 0.44 23.08 Metatarsus prox. 2 78 45 57.69 0.68 22.50 0.58 15.77 Metatarsus distal 2 78 13 16.67 0.39 6.50 0.17 12.11 Phalanx 1 8 312 194 62.18 0.55 24.25 0.63 8.22 Phalanx 2 8 312 89 28.53 0.40 11.13 0.29 8.22 Phalanx 3 8 312 43 13.78 0.30 5.38 0.14 8.22 * Note: MNE Expected based on Klein and Cruz-Uribe Method (1984:108)

Table 17. % Survivorship of Caprine Skeletal Parts, along with their density values

(Lyman 1994) and arranged categorically and in descending order after Atici (2007).

Skeletal Elements Density Category % Survival

Metatarsus proximal 0.68 High 57.7 Astragalus 0.63 9.0 Calcaneus 0.58 43.6 Phalanx 1 0.55 62.2 Metacarpus proximal 0.55 55.1 Mandible 0.55 17.9 Carpals 0.48 9.8 Metacarpus distal 0.44 24.4 Phalanx 2 0.40 28.5 Metatarsus distal 0.39 16.7

Tibia distal 0.36 Medium 98.7 Radius proximal 0.36 29.5 Humerus distal 0.34 50.0 Scapula 0.33 48.2 Phalanx 3 0.30 13.8 Femur proximal 0.28 38.5

Pelvis 0.26 Low 29.5 Rib 0.25 0.0 Thoracic vertebra 0.24 0.0 Femur distal 0.22 70.5 Sternum 0.22 0.0 Lumbar vertebra 0.22 0.0 Radius distal 0.21 42.3 Tibia proximal 0.16 23.1 Axis 0.14 23.1 Humerus proximal 0.13 14.3 Cervical vertebra 0.13 0.0 Atlas 0.11 25.6 Cranium - 15.4 Horncore - 10.3

Figure 1. % Skeletal Parts in the Ghwair I Assemblage for Caprines after Atici (2007).

% MAU

Bone Density Figure 2. Scatter plot showing the relationship between bone density and % MAU for

Caprine.

% MAU

Bone Density

Figure 3. Scatter plot showing the relationship between bone density and % MAU for

Capra sp. 94

Table 18. Skeletal Elements, Portions, and Survivorship for Capra sp.

One MNE MNE % % Element Complete (Exp.)* (Obs.) Survival Density MAU MAU Bovid

Horn 2 42 6 14.29 N/A 3.00 0.15 Cranium 1 21 2 9.52 N/A 2.00 0.10 Mandible 2 42 1 2.38 0.55 0.50 0.03 Atlas 1 21 3 14.29 0.11 3.00 0.15 Axis 1 21 7 33.33 0.14 7.00 0.36 Cervical 5 105 0 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 Thoracic 13 273 0 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 Lumbar 6 126 0 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 Rib 26 546 0 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 Sternum 1 21 0 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 Scapula 2 42 18 42.86 0.33 9.00 0.46 Humerus prox. 2 42 0 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 Humerus distal 2 42 30 71.43 0.34 15.00 0.77 Radius prox. 2 42 24 57.14 0.36 12.00 0.62 Radius distal 2 42 13 30.95 0.21 6.50 0.33 Carpals 12 252 0 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 Metacarpus prox. 2 42 0 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 Metacarpus distal 2 42 3 7.14 0.44 1.50 0.08 Pelvis 2 42 9 21.43 0.26 4.50 0.23 Femur prox. 2 42 4 9.52 0.28 2.00 0.10 Femur distal 2 42 0 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 Tibia prox. 2 42 0 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 Tibia distal 2 42 0 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 Astragalus 2 42 39 92.86 0.63 19.50 1.00 Calcaneus 2 42 38 90.48 0.58 19.00 0.97 Metatarsus prox. 2 42 1 2.38 0.68 0.50 0.03 Metatarsus distal 2 42 1 2.38 0.39 0.50 0.03 Phalanx 1 8 168 12 7.14 0.55 1.50 0.08 Phalanx 2 8 168 4 2.38 0.40 0.50 0.03 Phalanx 3 8 168 26 15.48 0.30 3.25 0.17

* Note: MNE Expected based on Klein and Cruz-Uribe Method (1984:108)

Table 19. % Survivorship of Capra sp. skeletal parts, along with their density values

(Lyman 1994) and arranged categorically and in descending order after Atici (2007).

Skeletal Elements Density Category % Survival

Metatarsus proximal 0.68 High 2.4 Astragalus 0.63 92.9 Calcaneus 0.58 90.5 Phalanx 1 0.55 7.1 Metacarpus proximal 0.55 0.0 Mandible 0.55 2.8 Carpals 0.48 0.0 Metacarpus distal 0.44 0.0 Phalanx 2 0.40 2.4 Metatarsus distal 0.39 2.4

Tibia distal 0.36 Medium 0.0 Radius proximal 0.36 57.1 Humerus distal 0.34 71.4 Scapula 0.33 42.9 Phalanx 3 0.30 15.5 Femur proximal 0.28 9.5

Pelvis 0.26 Low 21.4 Rib 0.25 0.0 Thoracic vertebra 0.24 0.0 Femur distal 0.22 0.0 Sternum 0.22 0.0 Lumbar vertebra 0.22 0.0 Radius distal 0.21 31.0 Tibia proximal 0.16 0.0 Axis 0.14 33.3 Humerus proximal 0.13 0.0 Cervical vertebra 0.13 0.0 Atlas 0.11 14.3 Cranium - 9.5 Horncore - 14.3

Figure 4. % Skeletal Parts in the Ghwair I Assemblage for Capra sp.

97 atlas preserved well even with the analyst bias against axial fragment identification, suggest that it is not likely that the pattern documented at Ghwair I can be attributed only density-mediated bone destruction. If bone destruction were density dependent, we would expect the pattern to be biased against low-density bones and dominated by high- and medium-density bones.

The relationship between bone density values and % MAU values for Caprines were assessed for their degree of correlation through a scatter plot (Figure 2) and the use of Spearman’s rank correlation statistic (Spearman’s rho) to determine whether there is a real correlation between the bone density and % MAU and its statistical significance.

The Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient value is 0.146, indicating weak positive correlation, but not statistically significant (Sig. (2-tailed)=0.507; N=23).

For comparative purposes, the elements identified to a lower taxonomic level of

Capra sp. were also analyzed for their % Survival as presented in Tables 18 and 19, their

% survivorship in skeletal parts graphically represented in Figure 3.

Table 19 presents the % survivorship of Capra sp. skeletal parts and their density values in descending order. There is a higher rate of bone loss and a lower rate of bone survivorship for Capra sp. in comparison to the data for Caprines, but this particular pattern may be an artifact of the sample size and the analyst’s ability to distinguish morphological characteristics in delineating Caprines specifically. Small sample size and other complex phenomena, such as recovery biases, may better explain the pattern observed rather than density-mediated attrition. What is interesting to note is the over representation of astragali and calcanei, both of which can be attributed to the

98 compactness and hardness of the bone and the distinguishable characteristics present to make lower level taxonomic assessments.

The relationship between bone density values and % MAU values for Capra sp. were also assessed for the degree of correlation through a scatter plot (Figure 4) and the use of Spearman’s rank correlation statistic. The Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient value is -0.549, indicating moderate negative correlation that is statistically significant

(Sig. (2-tailed)=0.023; N=17), but in light of the forgoing discussion, this may be more a consequence of sample size and analytical bias.

Epiphyseal fusion patterns indicate significant caprine mortality between the ages of 2 and 3 years (Tables 20 and 21). Specimens identified as caprines show 91% survival at 10 months and 69% survive past the 10 to 30 months stage, but only 35% past the 30 to 36 month stage, and 21% survive past the 36 to 42 months (subadult stage). Capra sp. specimens indicate that 97% of animals survived past the age of 10 months, 82% past the

10 to 30 months stage, 63% past the 30 to 36 months stage, and no evidence present in the assemblage for identified specimens past 36 to 42 months (subadult stage). Based on the epiphyseal fusion data presented, many of these animals were slaughtered before they reached full maturity. Bones from all areas of the body were found in roughly equal proportions, suggesting they were slaughtering in or quite close to the settlement itself and were optimizing for highest return on meat. When emphasis is placed on meat production, slaughter in the late second or third year typically provides the highest meat return for feed cost (Twiss 2003). However, it is also consistent with a focus on exploitation of secondary products such as milk and hair in addition to meat.

Table 20. Epiphyseal fusion data for Caprine long bone specimens from Ghwair I.

Stage Elements Fused Unfused

< 10 months distal scapula 10 4 distal humerus 57 3 proximal radius 41 3

10~30 months phalanx 1 proximal 120 33 phalanx 2 proximal 64 16 distal tibia 70 27 distal metacarpal 17 10 distal metatarsal 11 3 distal metapodial 15 42

30~36 months calcaneus 14 29 distal radius 19 35 proximal femur 20 22 proximal ulna 8 28

36~42 months distal femur 11 69 proximal humerus 3 10 proximal tibia 14 28

Total 494 362 Note: Epiphyseal fusion timing after Davis (1980) and Silver (1970).

100

Table 21. Epiphyseal fusion data for Capra sp. long bone specimens from Ghwair I.

Stage Elements Fused Unfused

< 10 months distal scapula 16 1 distal humerus 30 1 proximal radius 27 0

10~30 months phalanx 1 proximal 9 1 phalanx 2 proximal 3 1 distal tibia 0 0 distal metacarpal 3 0 distal metatarsal 1 distal metapodial 3 2

30~36 months calcaneus 24 13 distal radius 8 7 proximal femur 4 0 proximal ulna 2 2

36~42 months distal femur 0 0 proximal humerus 0 0 proximal tibia 0 0

Total 130 28 Note: Epiphyseal fusion timing after Davis (1980) and Silver (1970).

Gazella sp.

Within the Ghwair I assemblage, 229 specimens in that were identifiable taxonomically to Gazella sp., which represents about 7.5% of the total NISP in the assemblage and a MNI = 5 based on epiphyseal fusion and identified side data.

Currently, three species of gazelle have been recovered from archaeological sites in the southern Levant that have been temporally and contextually assigned to the Neolithic

101

Period: Gazella gazella (Palestine or Mountain Gazelle), Gazella subgutturosa (Persian or Goitered), and Gazella dorcas (Dorcas Gazelle) (Becker 1991; Martin 1998, 2000).

Gazella gazella is typically an inhabitant of the highlands in the western and southern periphery of the Arabian Peninsula. Their geographical span encompasses the

Judean Desert to central Lebanon, as well as the Transjordan Mountains and from Syria down to Petra (Uerpmann 1987). There appears to be a correlation in the geographical distribution of Gazella gazella and the biogeographical distribution of the acacia tree

(Harrison and Bates 1991). As for Gazella dorcas, it is typically a desert dweller geographically dispersed in the Negev, Wadi Araba, and the area down and around the

Dead Sea (Uerpmann 1987). Tchernov et al. (1987) have argued that Gazella dorcas possibly expanded into arid zones of the Levant comparatively recent from northeast

Africa after the PPNB. Gazella subgutturosa prefers steppic and semi-desertic environments found in western and northern Persia and southern Central Asia. These three species are not thought to mix, although their geographical distribution and range overlap (Harrison and Bates 1991; Martin 1998).

The primary morphological feature to reliably differentiate the three species osteologically is their horncores. The Ghwair I assemblage was problematic to securely speciate the eleven specimens identified as Gazella sp. due to their preservation and fragmentation. In addition, there are differing opinions on Gazella subgutturosa being native to the southern Levant and there are issues with some of the identifications made and published for Neolithic assemblages in the southern Levant (Becker 1991; Martin

1998; vonDriesch and Wodtke 1997). Given the current issues, the Ghwair I specimens were assigned to Gazella sp. following Twiss’s (2003) analysis at WFD 001.

102

Table 22. Skeletal Elements, Portions, and Survivorship for Gazella sp.

One Complete MNE MNE % % Element Cervid Expected* Observed Survival MAU MAU Horn 2 10 4 40.00 2.00 0.50 Cranium 1 5 3 60.00 3.00 0.75 Mandible 2 10 3 30.00 1.50 0.38 Atlas 1 5 2 40.00 2.00 0.50 Axis 1 5 3 60.00 3.00 0.75 Cervical 5 25 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Thoracic 13 65 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lumbar 6 30 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rib 26 130 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sternum 1 5 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Scapula 2 10 7 70.00 3.50 0.88 Humerus prox. 2 10 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Humerus distal 2 10 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Radius prox. 2 10 3 30.00 1.50 0.38 Radius distal 2 10 7 70.00 3.50 0.88 Ulna prox. 2 10 3 30.00 1.50 0.38 Ulna distal 2 10 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Carpals 12 60 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Metacarpus prox. 2 10 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Metacarpus distal 2 10 2 20.00 1.00 0.25 Pelvis 2 10 6 60.00 3.00 0.75 Femur prox. 2 10 6 60.00 3.00 0.75 Femur distal 2 10 8 80.00 4.00 1.00 Tibia prox. 2 10 3 30.00 1.50 0.38 Tibia distal 2 10 6 60.00 3.00 0.75 Astragalus 2 10 6 60.00 3.00 0.75 Calcaneus 2 10 4 40.00 2.00 0.50 Metatarsus prox. 2 10 2 20.00 1.00 0.25 Metatarsus distal 2 10 6 60.00 3.00 0.75 Phalanx 1 8 40 22 55.00 2.75 0.69 Phalanx 2 8 40 10 25.00 1.25 0.31 Phalanx 3 8 40 7 17.50 0.88 0.22

* Note: MNE Expected based on Klein and Cruz-Uribe Method (1984:108)

103

Table 23. Gazella sp. Body Part/NISP distribution for Ghwair I.

Body Part Element NISP %NISP

Head Horncore, cranium, mandible, teeth, & hyoid 29 13

Axial Vertebrae, ribs, and sternum 14 6

Forelimb Scapula, humerus, radius, and ulna 39 17

Hindlimb Innominate, femur, tibia, fibula, and patella 59 25

Feet Carpal/tarsal, metapodials, and phalanges 91 39

Total 232 100

Table 24. Epiphyseal fusion data for Gazella sp. long bone specimens from Ghwair I.

Stage Elements Fused Unfused <6 months pelvis 2 2 scapula 5 2 12~36 months distal humerus 5 0 proximal radius 3 0 distal tibia 7 1 distal metapodia 12 4 phalanx 1 proximal 25 2 phalanx 2 proximal 10 1 36~48 months proximal humerus 1 0 distal radius 2 4 ulna 1 0 proximal femur 3 4 distal femur 4 3 proximal tibia 5 1 calcaneus 2 2 Total 85 26 Note: Epiphyseal fusion timing after Davis (1980) and Silver (1970).

104

Similar to Carruthers and Dennis (2007) findings during the analysis of WF16 assemblage, the small number of identifiable gazelle remains and the body proportions

(Table 22 and Table 23) represented in the Ghwair I assemblage should be noted. The local ecology and very presence of gazelle in the assemblage suggest that gazelle were available to the inhabitants of Ghwair I at some level very early on to exploit as a protein source, yet it was a minor source compared to caprines (NISP % 7.5). The body proportions of gazelle suggest that processing of gazelles occurred locally at Ghwair I.

It has long been argued that Natufian and early PPNA cultural periods are characterized by the over-exploitation of gazelle and eventually led to a reliance of caprines and ultimately their domestication during the PPNB (Tchernov 1993). Yet,

WF16 is a PPNA assemblage characterized by a small number of gazelle remains and recent surveys during the Dana-Faynan-Ghwair project (Finlayson and Mithen 2003) have not identified any preceding Natufian sites (Carruthers and Dennis 2007) in the area, thus suggesting it is highly unlikely that reliance on caprines at Ghwair I arose exclusively, if at all, from earlier periods of over-hunting of gazelle by the inhabitants.

The mortality profile for gazelle at Ghwair I reflect the expected age distribution (Table

24) for exploitation of wild species hunted with 36% surviving past 6 months, 89% past

36 months, and 56% past 48 months.

Sus scrofa

Other taxa present at Ghwair I include specimens identified as Sus scrofa that made up less than 1% of the total NISP and an MNI = 2 based on epiphyseal fusion and siding data (Tables 25 thru 27). Sus scrofa are found throughout the steppe and broad-

105 leaved forest regions that contain dense thickets and reed areas along perineal streams and marshes. During winters mainly takes up residence in the oak forest on the hill slopes of higher elevations (Harrison and Bates 1991). As noted by Twiss (2003), no pig remains have been definitively identified as domestic in PPNB assemblages from the southern Levant and only a few incidences at sites with PPNC components.

As presented in Tables 25 and 26, the body parts identified from the Ghwair I assemblage come from the appendicular and cranial portions of the animal. The sample size is too small to completely understand the role pigs played in the subsistence strategy at Ghwair I and their relationship with humans. The mortality profile (Table 27) is not conclusive given the small sample size. But the distribution of body parts and presence of cranial parts suggest that wild boar might have been locally available enough to facilitate transport back to the village for processing. Given the temporal sequence of

Ghwair I, it is highly likely that the remains were those of wild boar.

Table 25. Sus scrofa body parts/NISP distribution from Ghwair I.

Body Part Element NISP %NISP

Head Cranium, mandible, teeth, & hyoid 6 28

Axial Vertebrae, ribs, and sternum 1 5

Forelimb Scapula, humerus, radius, and ulna 3 14

Hindlimb Innominate, femur, tibia, fibula, and patella 7 33

Feet Carpal/tarsal, metapodials, and phalanges 4 20

Total 21 100

106

Table 26. Skeletal Elements, Portions, and Survivorship for Sus scrofa.

One Complete MNE MNE % % Element Suid Expected* Observed Survival MAU MAU

Cranium 1 2 1 50.00 1.00 1.00 Mandible 2 4 1 25.00 0.50 0.50 Atlas 1 2 1 50.00 1.00 1.00 Axis 1 2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cervical 5 10 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Thoracic 15 30 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lumbar 7 14 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rib 30 60 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sternum 1 2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Scapula 2 4 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Humerus prox. 2 4 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Humerus distal 2 4 1 25.00 0.50 0.50 Radius prox. 2 4 1 25.00 0.50 0.50 Radius distal 2 4 1 25.00 0.50 0.50 Ulna prox. 2 4 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ulna distal 2 4 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Carpals 16 32 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Metacarpus prox. 8 16 1 6.25 0.13 0.13 Metacarpus distal 8 16 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pelvis 2 4 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Femur prox. 2 4 2 50.00 1.00 1.00 Femur distal 2 4 2 50.00 1.00 1.00 Tibia prox. 2 4 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tibia distal 2 4 1 25.00 0.50 0.50 Astragalus 2 4 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Calcaneus 2 4 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Metatarsus prox. 8 16 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Metatarsus distal 8 16 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phalanx 1 16 32 1 3.13 0.06 0.06 Phalanx 2 16 32 2 6.25 0.13 0.13 Phalanx 3 16 32 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

* Note: MNE Expected based on Klein and Cruz-Uribe Method (1984:108)

107

Table 27. Epiphyseal fusion data for Sus scrofa long bone specimens from Ghwair I.

Stage Elements Fused Unfused <9 months 0 0

9~30 months pelvis 0 0 scapula 0 0 distal humerus 0 0 proximal radius 1 1 distal fibula 0 0 distal tibia 0 1 calcaneus 0 0 distal metapodia 0 0 phalanx 1 proximal 0 1 phalanx 2 proximal 1 1

30~42 months proximal humerus 0 0 distal radius 0 1 proximal ulna 0 0 distal ulna 0 0 proximal femur 0 2 distal femur 0 2 proximal tibia 0 0 proximal fibula 0 0 Total: 2 9 Note: Epiphyseal fusion timing after Davis (1980) and Silver (1970).

Other Taxa

Several specimens are identified to the Family Canidae and represent less than

1% (NISP = 4) of the total NISP and a MNI = 2. These specimens morphologically resemble Jackal (Canis aureus) but are conservatively assigned to the taxon Canidae. In addition, the Ghwair I assemblage included specimens identified as Vulpes vulpes that represented 2.3 % (NISP = 69) of the total NISP and a MNI = 2 based on epiphyseal fusion and represented 2.3 % (NISP = 69) of the total NISP and a MNI = 2 based on 108 epiphyseal fusion and identified side data (Table 28). The red fox is widely distributed, and is found in virtually all of the southern Levant and is a remarkably adaptable omnivore. They are found in almost all available types of habitats, but prefer habitats with diverse flora (Fox 2003). They are primarily nocturnal and subsist on small birds, reptiles, and mammals. It has been noted that they have been known to consume figs, grapes, fruits, and insects (Harrison and Bates 1991).

Other taxon of indentified included a specimen belonging to the family

Hyaeniadae and identified as Hyaena hyaena. The striped hyaena represents less than 1%

(NISP = 1) of the total NISP from Ghwair I assemblage and a MNI = 1. Striped hyaena remains have been found in several other Neolithic assemblages and have a modern geographical range in the region today (Twiss 2003) and typically are opportunistic omnivores feeding on animal carcasses, insects, reptiles, fruits, and even vegetable matter

(Harrison and Bates 1991).

Another taxon present and identified in the Ghwair I assemblage is Felis sp., which represented less than 1% (NISP = 11) of the total NISP of the Ghwair I assemblage and a MNI = 3 based on epiphyseal fusion and identified side data (Table

29). The felid remains at Ghwair I could be either Felis silvestris or Felis margarita.

Both have a geographical distribution in the southern Levant that includes Wadi Ghwair.

Two antler fragments possibly used as hammerstones in lithic production, were identified to the taxonomic level of Cervidae (Family) and represent less than 0.1%

(NISP = 2) of the total NISP of the Ghwair I assemblage and a MNI = 1. The specimens were too small and lacking key indicators to identify to a lower taxonomic level by the analyst.

109

A few specimens were identified as Lepus cf. capensis and account for less than

0.5 % (NISP = 15) of the total NISP of the Ghwair I assemblage and a MNI = 2 based on epiphyseal fusion and identified side data (Table 30). The hare is a versatile mammal found in a wide variety of habitats with sufficient vegetation to support life. They are mainly nocturnal in the southern Levant partly attributed to climatic conditions and difficulty of concealment from predators in the general terrain (Harrison and Bates 1991).

Local environmental factors influencing nocturnal behavioral patterns may have limited their exploitation for meat and their skins either through formal hunts (Twiss 2003) or chance encounters during agricultural activities commonly referred to as “garden” hunting.

Table 28. Vulpes vulpes Body Part/NISP distribution for Ghwair I.

Body Part Element NISP %NISP

Head Cranium, mandible, teeth, & hyoid 8 11

Axial Vertebrae, ribs, and sternum 7 10

Forelimb Scapula, humerus, radius, and ulna 16 23

Hindlimb Innominate, femur, tibia, fibula, and patella 10 14

Feet Carpal/tarsal, metapodials, and phalanges 30 42

Total 71 100

110

Table 29. Felis sp. Body Part/NISP distribution from Ghwair I.

Body Part Element NISP %NISP

Head Cranium, mandible, teeth, & hyoid 1 9

Axial Vertebrae, ribs, and sternum 2 18

Forelimb Scapula, humerus, radius, and ulna 4 37

Hindlimb Innominate, femur, tibia, fibula, and patella 3 27

Feet Carpal/tarsal, metapodials, and phalanges 1 9

Total 11 100

Table 30. Lepus Body part/NISP distribution from Ghwair I.

Body Part Element NISP %NISP

Head Cranium, mandible, teeth, & hyoid 0 0

Axial Vertebrae, ribs, and sternum 0 0

Forelimb Scapula, humerus, radius, and ulna 5 33

Hindlimb Innominate, femur, tibia, fibula, and patella 6 40

Feet Carpal/tarsal, metapodials, and phalanges 4 27

Total 15 100

111

The microfaunal remains at Ghwair I comprised 33 fragments and represented

0.11% of the total NISP. Most of the bones retrieved were fragmentary and unidentified to specific lower taxonomic levels. The fragments identified as Erinaceidae were mandibular teeth and distal humerus fragments (NISP = 2). The distal breadth measurements for the humerus and the fusion data were used to establish an MNI = 2.

The specimens identified as Rodentia consisted of 7 bone fragments (NISP = 7) and a

MNI = 2 based of the fusional data recorded for the femurs. Their presence in the assemblage may be more intrusive or commensurable in nature. The remains of identified as Amphibia (NISP = 1; MNI=1) and Reptilia (NISP = 11; MNI=2) consisted primarily of vertebrae, long bone shaft fragments, and two mandible fragments.

Aves

A total of 93 specimens were identified to element and taxonomically to Aves or to a lower taxonomic group within Aves, representing 3.1% of the total NISP and MNI =

13. Within this grouping, specimens that were identified to the taxonomic level of Aves represented 1.8% of the total NISP and a MNI = 4. In addition, 37 specimens (NISP =

37, MNI = 9) were identified to lower taxonomic levels. Columba cf. livia (NISP = 6,

MNI = 1) is a graminivorous species that occupies a variety of climatic zones, but prefers nesting in rock faces and ledges in areas with daily access to water, such as the mountains of the Rift Margins and in the Rum Desert (Andrews 1995). The chukar partridge, Alectoris chukar, was identified in the assemblage (NISP = 8, MNI = 2).

Chukars are typically found in the open country in the rift margins and on hill and mountain slopes with access to water daily. The presence of Roller and Crow, Coracias

112 garrulus (NISP = 1, MNI = 1), and Corvus sp. (NISP = 3, MNI = 2), in the assemblage suggest preferred habitat of open country with hollow trees for nesting.

The two specimens of Anatidae (NISP = 2, MNI = 1) suggest that aquatic and semi-aquatic group of birds played a minor role in the economic strategy of the local community at Ghwair I. Due to the biogeographical location of Ghwair I on the Afro-

Eurasian migration route, migratory birds were expected in the assemblage. Among the migrants, Accipitridae (NISP = 17, MNI = 2) would be present in the area during migration periods. Today, raptors are present along the Jordan Valley during migration periods and come down to rest, roost, and prey (Tchernov 1994).

Bone Modifications

As noted before, the faunal assemblage was examined to ascertain specific bone modifications. Overall, only a few bones showed evidence of butchery (N=3; >0.01%). Nor were there large amounts of burned bone (N=161; 5.3%). Those bones that displayed evidence for burning were equally across their entire surfaces, which suggest that they were exposed to the heat after they had been defleshed. It is also very possible that the burning of the Ghwair I bones was part of the discard process, or even post-depositional and entirely unintentional. Other bone modifications noted were 5.6% gnawed, 20.2% encrusted, and 1% showed evidence of being worked.

113

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Local Exploitations and Environmental Implications

The majority of species present in the Ghwair I assemblage can be found in the region today. Within the assemblage, mammals clearly dominate the recovered bone fragments (See Tables 1 and 2). Most of the fragments were merely identified taxonomically as medium-large mammal (Mammalia Indeterminate) and comprised some

88% of the bone fragments (NF). These medium-large bone fragments accounted for about 54% of the potential biomass in the Ghwair I assemblage. Other medium-large mammal bone specimens were identified to element represented and to a specific lower taxonomic level that included caprines (Caprines and Capra sp.), aurochs (Bos primigenius), gazelles (Gazella sp.), and equines (Equus sp.) as the most prevalent among the identified (NISP = 2796; %NISP = 92%; %Biomass = 45%).

Caprines dominate the identified mammalian sub-assemblage (NISP = 2368; %

Biomass = 27%), of the identified taxon. Within this group, there are elements present that could be distinguished as goat (Capra sp. NISP = 280; % NISP = 9.2%), but none of the caprine remains where identified to sheep (Ovis). Given the published data for other

PPNB sites in the region (Henry et al. 2003; Twiss 2003, 2007; Wasse 2001, 2002), it is interesting that there is no evidence to indicate that sheep were present or mixed in the herds at Ghwair I. Since none of the other species in comparison seems to have contributed significantly to their diet based on this analysis, it appears that the people of

Ghwair I chose to consume goats almost exclusively among the medium-large mammals.

114

Gazelle (NIISP = 7.5%; % Biomass = 2.1%) contributed the next significant portion of the identified remains. Despite a primary focus on caprines, the local environment in and around Ghwair I supported suitable habitat for gazelle and suggest they may have been readily accessible. The importance of cattle relative to the other mammal remains (NISP =157) is suggested by their potential biomass contribution of

85.786 kg. In the assemblage this represents 13% of the total potential biomass available.

The other mammals identified such as pig, hare, hedgehog, canids, rodents, and foxes contributed 4.4% of the identified specimens in the assemblage and suggest a variety of microenvironments accessible to Ghwair I. The identified small animals may well have been important to subsistence strategy at Ghwair I, but their resolution may have been masked by differential recovery biases. In any event, the subsistence strategy at Ghwair I reflects a narrow focus on the meat of caprines.

As previously noted, 93 specimens were identified to element and taxonomically as Aves or to a lower taxonomic group within Aves, representing 3.1% of the total NISP and MNI = 13. Additionally, 37 specimens (NISP = 37, MNI = 9) were identified to lower taxonomic levels. Columba cf. livia (NISP = 6, MNI = 1) is a graminivorous species that occupies a variety of climatic zones, but prefers nesting in rock faces and ledges in areas with daily access to water, such as the mountains of the Rift Margins and in the Rum Desert (Andrews 1995). The chukar partridge, Alectoris chukar, was identified in the assemblage (NISP = 8, MNI = 2) and is typically found in the open country of the rift margins and on hilly slopes that have adequate access to water sources.

The presence of Roller and Crow, Coracias garrulus (NISP = 1, MNI = 1), and Corvus sp. (NISP = 3, MNI = 2), in the assemblage suggest preferred habitat of open country

115 with hollow trees for nesting. Complementing these data was the presence of Anatidae

(NISP = 2, MNI = 1) that suggests aquatic and semi-aquatic group of birds played at least a minor role in the economic strategy of the local community. Due to the biogeographical location of Ghwair I on the Afro-Eurasian migration route, migratory birds were expected in the assemblage. Among the migrants, Accipitridae (NISP = 17,

MNI = 2) would be present during migration periods similar to modern day raptors that rest, roost, and prey along the Jordan Valley during their migrations. (Tchernov 1994).

Supplementing the faunal data are the results from the botanical floatation samples from Ghwair I indicating that the inhabitants cultivated barley (Hordeum sp.), pea (Pisum sativum) and emmer wheat (Triticum diccoccum)(Neef 2003). In addition, the results from the charcoal analyses did not suggest a biotic regime of degraded vegetation regime that is present today. Rather, most of the charcoal belongs to

Phoenician Juniper (Juniperus phoenicea) and pistachio (Pistacia cf. atlantica) and the wood used for building purposes at Ghwair I appears to belong to these two species.

Within the sample, quite a lot of charcoal belonged to a species of willow (Salix sp.) that thrives in riverine forest along riverbanks, thus an indication for the presence of a perennial water source at Wadi Ghwair during Ghwair I’s occupation (Danin 1983:121).

Taken together, these data support the presence of a relatively wetter environment that may have been somewhat more humid and experiencing less temperature extremes than present today.

Data from several pollen, phytolith, and starch samples from Ghwair I were analyzed (Cumming 2002a, 2002b, 2002c). Aster family was moderately abundant in the local vegetation and also included olives, palms, mustards, sedges, legumes, and mints,

116 characterizes the samples. Recovery of moderately large quantities of Cheno-am pollen implies utilization of these greens and/or seeds in the diet. They typically produce small seeds that are relatively high in protein and lower in carbohydrates than many other seeds, such as those of the grass family.

Plantain (Plantago psyllium) pollen was also observed in the samples from the groundstone washes, suggesting the possibility of processing the plantains by the community. Plantain pollen is not readily transported by the wind, so it would be considered a more localized resource in its distribution (Cummings 2002c:8). Recovery of a variety of starches particularly from washes on ground stone, attests to grinding starchy foods, which appear to have included both seeds and roots or tubers. Fairly sparse tree pollen is present, including pine, pistachio, cypress, and olive, in the assemblage and reflective of the Mediterranean forest that are restricted more upslope toward the plateau region above the Wadi Faynan and in Wadi Dana today.

Of interest are the results of the samples (Samples 189 and 190; 25N/05E Level

4b) that were taken from two Caprine teeth. Polylobate phytolith, Pinus pollen, and 25 starches that belong to Apiaceae (root) family and some that represent a form of generic grass vegetation in Sample 189 (Cummings 2002c). In addition, lenticula starch consistent with those produced by Horeum (barley) implying hat the Caprine diet included at least barley, other grass seeds, roots and/or tubers.

The vegetation in the record reflects an environment mixed between steppeland, populated with Aster, Cyperaceae (sedge family), Erodium, Geranium, Liliaceae,

Plantago, Poaceae, and Rumex, and evidence of a more Plateau vegetation mix containing Juniperus, Pistachio, and Quercus (oak). It is apparent that the flora is

117 considerably richer during the PPNB then it is today based on these samples. While the

Cheno-am points to a possible desiccated desert component containing Cheno-am,

Tamarix, and Ephedra species, these results suggest that several different microenvironments were being exploited along the wadis and the slopes by the inhabitants of Ghwair I.

It is within reason that the animal economy of Ghwair I was significantly determined by the local environmental situation. It is important to note that Ghwair I is about 400m from PPNA WF16 and has similar assemblage composition of cattle (Ghwair

I = 8%NISP, WF16 = 8%NISP), but distinctly more gazelle (Ghwair I = 7.5%NISP;

WF16= >1%NISP) than WF16 (Carruthers and Dennis 2007). The inhabitants at Ghwair

I exploited multiple environments in the local wadis and along their slopes, but it seems they located their hunting efforts slightly differently than their PPNA predecessors at

WF16 given the increase in gazelle during the PPNB.

Such a change in economic strategy possibly reflects socioeconomic shifts mitigated by an increased focus on the production secondary by-products during the

PPNB, thus limiting the number of goats available for use as a protein source, or the inhabitants at Ghwair I may have reverted to supplementing their protein source with gazelle due to local ecological degradation.

Based on the macrofaunal assemblage at Ghwair I, ecological degradation or an overgrazed environment is not suggested. The faunal remains reflect a pastoral animal economy focused heavily on goat herding, supplemented with exploitation of gazelle, aurochs, and a range of other wild species. The aurochs identified in the Ghwair I

118 assemblage would have required access to grasses that would have not been readily available if the area was overexploited or degraded.

In addition, we would expect the diversity of wild animals species to be low for some species to be underrepresented in the assemblage if the local environment had degraded, but this is not the case given that the range of wild species identified in the assemblage reflects a diverse biotic regime. Wild boars found in the assemblage favor moist forest and shrub lands, whereas the equids and gazelles favor more steppe ecological niches. The flora and fauna data do not suggest that the area in and around the community of Ghwair was deforested or overgrazed during its occupation. Additionally, the low occurrence of butchering marks can possibly indicate the inhabitants at Ghwair I were not facing resource stress or overly concerned with extracting every possible nutrient from the animals.

Social Implications

The analysis of the faunal data suggests that the inhabitants of Ghwair I made a deliberate choice to rely on goats over other animal resources. They choose not to consume large amounts of meat from wild animals such as aurochs, gazelles, wild boars, or wild equids. Yet their presence in the faunal assemblage indicates their availability to the community as a resource, even if they were only utilized on a limited bases. As noted by Twiss (2003) at WFD 001, this has social implications. Culturally manipulated or domesticated herds are viewed more as property given their considerable investment of labor, cost, and other goods by their owners in the form of herd maintenance and growth

(Twiss 2003). Hunters value cooperative labor and shared resource access, whereas

119 herders favor “ownership” of resources (Russell 1998). Wild animals can be viewed as

“communal resources” given the value hunting groups place on cooperative labor and shared resource access (Twiss 2003).

From a social-economic perspective, the slaughter of animals represents a careful cost/benefits analysis. Prestige and fulfillment of ritual/social obligations can weigh heavily in decisions regarding when to slaughter, criteria for which individuals to slaughter, and the assessment of the benefits gained by utilization of the meat and/or secondary by-products, prestige, or fulfillment of ritual/social obligations (Twiss

2003:356). The consumption of goats at Ghwair I also suggests the inhabitants were possibly mitigating the household or household group’s needs since goats can be eaten at the household level without substantial consideration given to storage and herds can be built up relatively fast.

The choice to exploit larger mammals, such as Bos primigenius, has a different set of cost/benefits motivations. Twiss (2003) suggests larger mammals, such as Bos primigenius, cannot practically be consumed at the household level without some form of storage or preservation given the volume of meat supplied by one individual. If they are herded or culturally manipulated, they represent an even greater investment in time and resources. As the community grew and social inequality became more evident, feasts would have become increasingly important in building and maintaining social solidarity

(Twiss 2003:373).

As suggested by Twiss (2003), utilizing Bos primigenius would facilitate binding individuals together into social units at a communal level, thus creating a cooperative relationship and fostering social alliances between community segments. Value with

120 regards to prestige and publicly mitigated power relations would be assigned to Bos primigenius for these benefits given the investment and cost of consuming at a communal level (Hayden 2001).

Although evidence for animals as an indicator of prestige or wealth is ambiguous at Ghwair I, there are some implications that access to aurochs was not equally distributed across the community. When assessing the distribution of Bos primigenius across the excavation units at Ghwair I, we find 43% of the identified Bos primigenius specimens at Ghwair I were from Area IV. This is interesting given recent analysis of the architecture at Ghwair I during the PPNB at Ghwair I by Ladah (2003).

Ladah (2003) suggest that more formal mechanisms for integrating the entire community had already been developed as reflected in the built environment. At Ghwair

I there is delineated public space in the form of communal functioning buildings, courtyards with public stairs, and special purpose structures. One such special purpose structure is Room 44 located in Area IV. The room contained a cobbled lined pit in the western corner at the bottom of which was a large flat slab lining. In addition, the room was plastered and in the NE corner there was a subfloor burial of a nine-month-old infant. Around the infant’s neck was a mother of pearl necklace or earring (Simmons and

Najjar 2003). Directly above the infant burial on the overlying plaster floor there was a cache of four caprine skulls and one Bos primigenius skull including a very well preserved horn core. The context of these skulls and the horn core suggests they were dedicatory cache to the infant burial and imply social complexity had emerged to the level of ascribed status since infant burials in general were rare during the Early

121

Neolithic. The burial and the associated cache of animal skulls suggest the inequality within the community was heredity based.

With the emergence of social differentiation and inequalities, egalitarian social structure would be broken down and the inequality would have become more pronounced. Some individuals or household groups would have had relatively more wealth, prestige, and authority in the community. Ritual complexity would have been a prime mechanism to initiate the social change and this possibly is reflected in the dedicatory offerings and function of the special purpose structures, like Room 1 in Area I delineated by Ladah (2006:162). Feasting may have enabled households or individual to promote themselves while enhancing their status and facilitating their gain of power within the community. Such gains would have required constant renegotiation through additional communal feasting activities.

Implications of Economic Adaptation at Ghwair I

While making an assessment of the extent to which economic adaptations were a local event structured to meet the community’s needs, the nature of production, and the focus of their economic system at Ghwair I, other facets of the culture can be explored.

Evidence for social organization and complexity may be gleamed through the consideration of food and the extent of differential access that household groups had to particular animals.

Intensification in the classic sense increases output. Methods are diverse, and include modifications to the environment to improve the landscape, shorter fallow periods, movement to areas with resources that have higher productivity potential, and

122 the adoption of higher yield resources or the necessary technologies to maximize

(Boserup 1965). None of these are readily apparent in the archaeological record for the

PPNB in the southern Levant. Rather, increased production is more likely to have been achieved through specialization.

A strategy to increase production in an effort to maintain self-sufficiency results in greater emphasis being placed on risk minimization. Communities operating within a more regional system may increase total output potentially at the expense of self- sufficiency and increased risk by focusing on a single or few species that produce the highest yield (Crabtree 1996). Specialization needs to go beyond basic strategies coping with local ecological constraints to meet household demands and evidence for specialized surplus production of exchangeable goods. There would be increasing divergence in the proportions of animal taxa between villages in differing environmental zones (Gamble

1981). Those in more forested or wetland areas would focus on species such as pigs, fish, waterfowl, and forest game. Villages with access to more open grasslands would place more emphasis on aurochs, equids, caprines, and grassland game. When low production yields are encountered, dependency relationships between a distant coordinating authorities can become evident in the archaeological record (Zeder 1991).

While the inhabitants at Ghwair I did focus on goats, their focus seems more of an adaptation to a species that fares better in drier, more open areas such as goats and an increased procurement strategy that focused on gazelle. This emphasizes that the inhabitants were utilizing a diverse array of adaptations to produce reliable yields in an effort to meet their needs. It appears they chose to exploit a diverse range of plants and animals from a wide range of biotic zones in the area. Interestingly, there is no evidence

123 for degradation of the environment at Ghwair I, nor evidence of a countered dependency relationship between a distant coordinating authority/village. A similar pattern has been documented at other sites in the area such as Basta, Beidha, Faynan 16, and WFD 001

(Becker 1991; Carruthers and Dennis 2007; Twiss 2003; Wasse 2001).

At Ghwair I, animals consumed reflect proportions of herds maintained locally and adapted to local ecological conditions. We find that the inhabitants at Ghwair I were practicing a form of herd security (Dahl and Hjort 1976; Redding 1981) with most of the goats being slaughtered within the respective subadult periods evident from the a large off-take of individuals between six months and two years of age (Tables 20 and 21).

Unfortunately, due to the low sample size for the teeth and pelvic girdle, no sexing data is available for the assemblage and age determination is minimal at best given that it is based only on epiphyseal data of the long bones in the Ghwair I assemblage. Even so a trend in the fusional data reflects a pattern of culling subadults between two and three years of age that drastically deviates from mortality profiles for wild goats (Twiss 2003).

The species representation and fusional profiles for age reflect a generalized strategy favoring herd security, with most of the animals being slaughtered within the respective subadult periods for each species, typical of meat-maximization herd structure.

Conclusions

Understanding PPN environmental adaptations, subsistence patterns, and lifestyles in the southern Levant is pivotal in investigating the consequences of the human transformation from the exploitation of wild resources to the production of food through domestication. At the most fundamental level, this dissertation provides a

124 comprehensive zooarchaeological investigation of the archaeological faunal evidence from Ghwair I, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic B community in southern Jordan, in order to explore local fauna exploitation patterns and refine our understanding of the community’s social and economic systems at a local level and add to our current understanding of the spatial organization, village life, and the eventual abandonment of villages at the end of the PPNB.

The investigation undertaken in this study attempted to reconstruct the full range of human activities and modes of subsistence that were practiced at Ghwair I and to make a determination whether the occupants of Ghwair I relied primarily on goats for animal protein. Such an investigation adds to our understanding and appreciation of the

“wealth” of the ecological community at Ghwair I. A diversity of resources is indicative of a more abundant and rich economy, while a restricted range could suggest a more marginally based economic structure (Twiss 2003).

The research was designed to address the following questions: (1) What were the economic strategies and adaptations utilized at Ghwair I during the PPNB? (2) Was

Ghwair I an autonomous village structured to meet local subsistence demands and focused on self-sufficiency and risk mitigation, or was it part of a regional system focused on supporting larger sites within this “system”? (3) What role did subsistence strategies play in social organization of the community at Ghwair I?

Based on the results of zooarchaeological analysis and the extensive archaeological research done at Ghwair I, the following conclusions can be drawn with reference to community at Ghwair I during the PPNB:

125

1) The macrofaunal assemblage at Ghwair I reflects a pastoral animal

economy focused heavily on goat herding, supplemented with exploitation of

gazelle, aurochs, and a range of other wild species.

Within the Ghwair I assemblage, there were no clear indications for the

presence of sheep in the specimens identified to species level. Given the

transitional zone of Ghwair I within the natural distribution of Ibex and Bezoar

goats, the exploitation of Capra sp. as a protein source would be a reasonable

subsistence strategy for the inhabitants.

Since domesticated goats have been documented and shown to have been

the dominant species in other faunal assemblages from the southern Levant

during the LPPNB, the prevalence of goat remains at Ghwair I fits well with

the regional subsistence patterns. While high proportions of goats have been

taken as evidence for domestication elsewhere in the southern Levant, it was

noted that 78% of the bones from the nearby PPNA site of Wadi Faynan 16 are

identified as wild goats, Capra sp. (either aegagrus or ibex) (Carruthers and

Dennis 2007). Therefore, it seems that the proportions of goat remains at

Ghwair I is indicative of some degree of herd management already developing

in the area.

At the same time, the small number of identifiable gazelle remains and the

body proportions (Table 22 and Table 23) is notable in the assemblage. The

local ecology and very presence of gazelle in the assemblage suggest that

gazelle were available to the inhabitants of Ghwair I at some level very early

on to exploit as a protein source, yet it was a minor source compared to

126

caprines (NISP % 7.5). The body proportions of gazelle also suggest that

processing of gazelles occurred locally at Ghwair I.

Also of interest is the relative frequency of Bos primigenius specimens

identified in the assemblages at WF16, Ghwair I, and WFD 001, implying a

moister micro-environment existed to some degree in or near Wadi

Fidan/Wadi Ghwair/Wadi Faynan during the PPNA and PPNB that naturally

supported far more cattle than did other areas in the arid south of the southern

Levant. Additionally, high numbers of cattle may also be linked to some form

of human manipulation or control rather than hunting.

In addition, the cattle found at Ghwair I seem to be similar in size to cattle

found in later assemblages from the southern Levant during the LPPNB and

PPNC (Table 10). The variety of skeletal elements represented in the Ghwair I

assemblage (Table 8), following the line of reasoning offered by Twiss (2007)

and Carruthers and Dennis (2007), suggest that the cattle were processed at the

site. The even distribution of identified body parts, implies that cattle possibly

lived in close proximity to Ghwair I and could suggest further that the

inhabitants were practicing some form of cultural control or management to

encourage that close proximity (Twiss 2007). No evidence for ecological

degradation or an overgrazed environment is suggested by the data.

2) The inhabitants of Ghwair I made a deliberate choice to rely on goats over

other animal resources available in their environmental zone. The presence of

wild animals such as aurochs, gazelles, wild boars, and equids in the

assemblage indicates their availability to the community as a resource, even if

127

they were only utilized on a limited bases or for special occasions.

3) Increasing social complexity and differentiation within the community is

implicated by the unequal distribution and access to aurochs across the

community. Larger mammals, such as Bos primigenius, cannot practically be

consumed at the household level without some form of storage or preservation

given the volume of meat supplied by one individual. If they are herded or

culturally manipulated, they represent an even greater investment in time and

resources. As the community grew and social inequality became more evident,

feasts would have become increasingly important in building and maintaining

social solidarity (Twiss 2003:373). This further suggests that wild aurochs

were possibly utilized as a feasting resource at Ghwair I to build and maintain

community solidarity.

4) The presence and location of a cache of several goat skulls and one Bos

primigenius skull, including a very well preserved horn core, suggests their use

as dedicatory items for the associated infant burial. This implies a level of

social complexity at Ghwair I that included ascribed status and possibly

implies that inequality within the community was heredity based.

In sum, this investigation confirms that Ghwair I was a developed and socially complex community and provides researches with data to explore new ideas about human adaptations during the PPNB in the southern Levant.

128

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, R. 1991 The Wadi Fidan Project, Jordan. Levant 24:181-183.

Algaze, G. 1986 Monentum Toward Empire in Early Mesopotamian Society, PhD dissertation, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, University of Chicago. 1989 The Uruk Expansion: Cross-Cultural Exchange in Early Mesopotamian Civilization. Current Anthropology 30:571-608.

Alley, R. B., J. Marotzke, W. D. Nordhaus, J. T. Overpeck, D. M. Peteet, R. A. Pielke Jr., R. T. Pierrehumbert, P. B. Rhimes, T. F. Stocker, L. D. Talley, and J. M. Wallace 2003 Abrupt Climate Change. Science 299:2005-2010.

Almogi-Lubin, A, C. Hemieben, D. Meischner, and H. Erienkeuser 1991 Paleoenvironmental Events During the Last 13,000 years in the Central Red Sea as Recorded by Pteropoda. Paleoceanography 6:83-98.

Armitage, P. and J. Clutton-Brock 1976 A System for Classification and Description of Horn Cores of Cattle from Archaeological Sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 3:329-348.

Arnold, J.E. 1995 Social Inequality, Marginalization, and Economic Process. In Foundations of Social Inequality, edited by T. Douglas Price and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 87-103. Plenum, Press, New York.

Arz, H.W., F. Lamy, J. Oatzold, P.J. Muller, and M. Prins 2003 Mediterranean Moisture Source for an Early-Holocene Humid Period in the Northern Red Sea. Science 300:118-121.1

Asouti, E. 2004 Supra-Regional Concepts II: The Contribution of Subsistence Archaeology to Generating Supra-Regional Models for Understanding Near Eastern Neolithisation. Neo-lithics, 2004(1): 23-24.

Atici, A. L. 2007 Before the Revolution: A Comprehensive Zooarchaeological Approach to Terminal Pleistocene Forager Adaptations in the Western Taurus Mountains, Turkey. Harvard University, Boston Massachusetts.

129

Baharav, D. 1974 Notes on the Population Structure and Biomass of the Mountain Gazelle, Gazella gazella gazella. Israel Journal of Zoology 23:39-44. 1980 Habitat Utilization of the Dorcas Gazella in a Desert Saline Area. Journal of Arid Environments 3:161-167. 1981 Food Habits of the Mountain Gazelle in Semiarid Habitats of Eastern Lower Galilee, Israel. Journal of Arid Environments 4:63-69. 1983a Observation on the Ecology of the Mountain Gazelle in the Upper Galilee, Israel. Mammalia 47:59-69. 1983b Reproductive Strategies in Female Mountain and Dorcas Gazelles (Gazella gazella and Gazella dorcas). Journal of Zoological Society of London 200:445- 453.

Balasse, M., S. H. Ambrose, A. B. Smith, and T.D. Price 2002 The Seasonal Mobility Model for Prehistoric Herders in the South-western Cape of South Africa Assessed by Isotopic Analysis of Sheep Tooth Enamel. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:917-932.

Balasse, M., A. B. Smith, S. H. Ambrose, and S. R. Leigh 2002 Determining Sheep Birth Seasonality by Analysis of Tooth Enamel Oxygen Isotope Ratios: The Late Stone Age Site of Kasteelberg (South Africa). Journal of Archaeological Science 30:205-215.

Banning, E. B. 1998 The Neolithic Period: Triumphs of Architecture, Agriculture, and Art. Near Eastern Archaeology 61/4: 188-237.

Barker, G.W. 2000 Farmers, Herders and Miners in Wadi Faynan, Southern Jordan: A 10,000-year Landscape Archaeology. In The Archaeology of Drylands: Living at the Margin, edited by G.W. Barker and D. Gilbertson, pp. 63-85. Routledge, New York.

Barker, G. W., O. H.Creighton, D.D. Gilbertson, C. O. Hunt, D. J. Mattingly, S. J. McLarens, and D.C. Thomas 1997 The Wadi Faynan Project , Southern Jordan: A Preliminary Report on the Geomorphology and Landscape Archaeology Levant 29:19-40.

Barker, G. W., R. Adams, O. H.Creighton, D.D. Gilbertson, J.P. Grattan, C.O. Hunt, D.J. Mattingly, S. J. McLarens, H.A. Mohammed. P. Newson, T.E.G. Reynolds, and D.C. Thomas 1998 Environment and Land Use in the Wadi Faynan, Southern Jordan: The Second Season of Geoarchaeology and Landscape Archaeology (1997). Levant 30:5-25.

130

Barker, G. W., R. Adams, O. H.Creighton, D. Crook, D.D. Gilbertson, J.P. Grattan, C.O. Hunt, D.J. Mattingly, S. J. McLarens, H.A. Mohammed. P. Newson, C, Palmer, F.B. Pyatt, T.E.G. Reynolds, and R. Tomber 1999 Environment and Land Use in the Wadi Faynan, Southern Jordan: The Third Season of Geoarchaeology and Landscape Archaeology (1997). Levant 31:255- 292. Barlow, K. 2002 Predicting Maize Agriculture among the Fremont: An Economic Comparison of Farming and Foraging in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 67:65-88. Barton C. M., and M. P. Neeley 1996 Phantom Cultures of the Levantine Epipaleolithic. Antiquity 70:139-147.

Baruch, U., and S. Bottema 1991 Palynological Evidence for Climatic Changes in the Levant ca. 17,000-9,000 B.P. In The Natufian Culture on the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F.R. Valla, pp. 11-20. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Bar-Yosef, O. 1981 The Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period in the Southern Levant. Prehistorie du Levant. Pp. 551-569. Paris: Colloque International C.N.R.S. No. 598. 1990 The Last Glacial Maximum in the Mediterranean Levant. In Prehistoire du Levant, edited by J. Cauvin and P. Sanlaville, pp. 389-408. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris. 1998 The Natufian Culture in the Levant, Threshold to the Origins of Agriculture. Evolutionary Anthropology, vol. 6, Issue 5, pp. 159-177. 2002 Natufian: A Complex Society of Foragers. In Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gather Settlement Systems, edited by B. Fitzhugh and J. Habu, pp. 91-149. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. 2004 Supra-Regional Concepts II: Targets of Current Research in Southwestern Asia. Neo-lithics, 2004(1): 24-27.

Bar-Yosef, O. and A. Belfer-Cohen 1989a The Levantine “PPNB” Interaction Sphere. In People and Culture in Change, edited by I. Hershkovitz. Pp. 59-72. British Archaeology Review, International Series. 508(i). BAR: Oxford. 1989b The Origins of Sedentism and Farming Communities in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 3:445-498. 1991 From Sedentary Hunter-gatherers to Territorial Farmers in the Levant. In Between Bands and States, edited by S.A. Gregg, pp. 181-202. Occasional Papers 9. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois. 1992 From Foraging to Farming in the Mediterranean Levant. In Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory, edited by A.B. Gebauer and T.D. Price, pp. 21-48. Monographs in World Archaeology No.4, Prehistory Press, Madison Wisconsin.

131

2002 Facing environmental crisis. Societal and Cultural Changes at the Transition from the Younger Dryas to the Holocene in the Levant. In The Dawn of Farming in the Near East, edited by R.T.J. Cappers and S. Bottema, pp. 55-66. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 6. Berlin: Ex Oriente.

Bar-Yosef, O., A. Gopher, E. Tchernov, and M. E. Kislev 1991 Netiv Hagdud: An Early Neolithic Village Site in the Jordan Valley. Journal of Field Archaeology 18:405-24.

Bar-Yosef, O. and R. Meadow 1995 The Origins of Agriculture in the Near East. In Last Hunters, First Farmers: New Perspectives on the Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture, edited by D. Price and A. B. Gebauer, pp. 39-94. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Baruch, U., and S. Bottema 1991 Palynological Evidence for Climatic Changes in the Levant ca. 17,000-19,000 B.P. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F.R. Valla, pp.11-20. Archaeological Series 1. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Becker, C. 1991 The Analysis of Mammalian Bones from Basta, A Pre-Pottery Neolithic Site in Jordan: Problem and Potential. Paléorient 17:59-75.

Belfer-Cohen, A. 1989 The Natufian Graveyard in Hayonim Cave. Paléorient 14:297-308. 1991 The Natufian of the Levant. Annual Review of Anthropology 20:167-186.

Belfer-Cohen, A. and O. Bar-Yosef 2000 Early Sedentism in the Near East: A Bumpy Ride to Village Life. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, edited by I. Kuijt. Pp.19-37. Kluwer/Plenum Press, New York.

Bender, B. 1981 Gatherer-Hunter Intensification. In Economic Archaeology Towards an Integration of Ecological and Social Approaches, edited by A. Sheridan and G. Bailey. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 96. Oxford.

Benz, M. 2004 Supra-Regional Concepts II: The Emic View: Social Questions of the Neolithisation of the Near East. Neo-lithics, 2004(1): 27-28.

132

Bettinger, R.L. 1987 Archaeological Approaches to Hunter-Gatherers. Annual Review of Anthropology 16:121-142. 1991 Hunter-Gatherers Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory. Plenum Press, New York.

Betts, A. 1989 The Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period in Eastern Jordan. Paléorient 15:147-153.

Bienert, H.D. and Gebel, H.G.K. 1998 Archaeological Excavations at Late PPNB Ba’ja: A Preliminary Report on the 1997 Season. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan XLII:75-90.

Binford, L.R. 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-gather Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20. 1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York.

Bleed, P. 1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons. American Antiquity 51:737-747.

Boessneck, J. 1969 Osteological differences between sheep (Ovis aries Linne) and goat (Capra hircus Linne). In Science in Archaeology, edited by D. Brothwell and E. Higgs. Praeger, New York. 1971 Osteological Differences between Sheep (Ovis aries) and Goat (Capra hircus). In Science in Archaeology: A Survey of Progress and Research, edited by D.R. Brothwell and E.S. Higgs, 2nd ed. enlarged and revised, pp. 331-358. Praeger Publishing, New York.

Boessneck, J., H.H. Muller, and M. Teichert 1964 Osteologische Untersheidungsmerkmale zwischen Scaf (Ovis aries) und Ziege (Capra hircus). Kuhn Archiv 78 (½). Pp. 1-129.

Boserup, Ester 1965 The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change Under Population Pressure. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.

Broughton, J.M. 1994 Declines in Mammalian Foraging Efficiency During the Late Holocene, San Francisco Bay, California. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:371-401.

133

Byrd, B.F. 1989 The Natufian: Settlement Variability and Economic Adaptations in the Levant at the End of the Pleistocene. Journal of World Prehistory, 3/2: 159-197. 1994 Public and Private, Domestic and Corporate: The Emergence of the Southwest Asian Village. American Antiquity 59(4):639-666. 2000 Households in Transition: Neolithic Social Organization within Southwest Asia. Pp. 63-98 in I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. Kluwer Academic/Plunum Publishers.

Byrd, B.F. and C.M. Monahan 1995 Death, Mortality, Ritual, and Natufian Social Structure. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14:251-287.

Campbell, P. 1997 A Note on Growing Season Food Habits of Mountain Gazelles and Nubian Ibex in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Arid Environments 36:705-709.

Cannon, M. D. 2001 Archaeofaunal Relative Abundance, Sample Size, and Statistical Methods. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:185-195.

Carruthers, D.B and S.J. Dennis 2007 The Mammalian Faunal Remains. In Finlayson, B. and S. Mithen (ed.) The Early Prehistory of Wadi Faynan, Southern Jordan: Archaeological Survey of Wadi Faynan, Ghwuwayr and al-Bustan an Evaluation of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Site of WF16. Wadi Faynan Series 1, Levant Supplementary Series 4. Oxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford.

Cauvin, Jacques 2000 The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Church, R. R., and R .L. Lyman 2003 Small Fragments Make Small Differences in Efficiency When Rendering Grease From Fractured Artiodactyl Bones By Boiling. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:1077-1084.

Churcher, C.S. 1994 From the Natufian Level at Jebel Es- Saaïdé (Saaïdé II), Lebanon. Paléorient 20, 2: 35-58.

134

Clutton-Brock, J. 1971 The Primary Food Animals of the Jericho Tell From the Proto-Neolithic to Byzantine Period. Levant 3:41-55. 1978 early Domestication and the Ungulate Fauna of the Levant During the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period. In The Environmental History of the Near and Middle East Since the Ice Age, edited by W.C. Brice, pp.29-40. Academic Press, New York. 1979 The Mammal Remains from the Jericho Ell. Proceedings of the Prehistory Society 45:135-157.

Clutton-Brock, J. Dennis-Bryan, K. Armitage, P. L., and P.A. Jewell 1990 Osteology of the Soay Sheep. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Zoology 56(1) pp. 1-56.

Corbet, G.B., and J.E. Hill 1986 A World List of Mammalian Species. 2nd Edition. London: British Museum (Natural History).

Cope, C. 1991 Gazelle Hunting Strategies in the Southern Levant. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F.R. Valla, pp.341-358. Archaeological Series 1. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Crabtree, P. J. 1987 Identifying Specialized Agricultural Production in the Archaeological Record: A Response to Wells. Journal of Field Archaeology 14:241-243. 1990 Zooarchaeology and Complex Societies: Some Uses of Faunal Analysis for the Study of Trade, Social Status, and Ethnicity. Archaeological Method and Theory 2:155-205. 1996a Production and Consumption in an Early Complex Society: Animal Use in Middle Saxon East Anglia. World Archaeology 28(1):58-75. 1996b The Wool Trade and the Rise of Urbanism in Middle Saxon England. In Craft Specialization and Social Evolution: In Memory of V. Gordon Childe, edited by B. Wailes, pp. 99-105. The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Croft, Paul 1998 Animal Remains: Discussion. In Lemba Archaeological Project, Cyprus Volume II.1B: Excavations at Kissonerga-Mosphilia 1979 - 1992, edited by E. Peltenburg, pp. 295-316. Jonsered and Edinburgh.

Cummings, L.S 2002a Pollen, Starch, and Phytolith Analyses at Ghwair, 1999-2000 Field Season. Paleo Research Institute Technical Report 00-42. Report on file, Department of Anthropology and Ethnic Studies, University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada.

135

2002b Pollen, Phytolith, and Starch Analyses of Granding Stones from A Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Site, Wadi Feinan, Jordan. Paleo Research Institute Technical Report 00-68. Report on file, Department of Anthropology and Ethnic Studies, University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada. 2002c Pollen, Starch, and Phytolith Analyses at Ghwair I, Jordan. Paleo Research Institute Technical Report 99-30. Report on file, Department of Anthropology and Ethnic Studies, University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Driesch, A. 1976 A Guide to the Measurements of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Harvard University, Peabody Museum Of Archaeological and Ethnology Bulletin No. 1.

Danin, A. 1988 Flora and Vegetation of Israel and Adjacent Areas. In The Zoogeography of Israel, edited by Y. Yom-Tov and E. Tchernov, pp. 129-157. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, the Hague.

Davis, S. 1981 The Effect of Temperature Change and Domestication on the Body Size of Late Pleistocene to Holocene Mammals. Paleobiology 7:101-114. 1983 The Age Profiles of Gazelles Predated by Ancient Man in Israel: Possible Evidence for Shift from Seasonality to Sedentism in the Natufian. Paléorient 9:55-62. 1991 When and Why Did Prehistoric People Domesticate Animals. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F.R. Valla, pp.381-390. Archaeological Series 1. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1996 Measurements of a Group of Adult Female Shetland Sheep Skeletons form a Single Flock: A Baseline for Zooarchaeologists. Journal of Archaeological Science 23:593-612.

DeGusta, D., and E. Vrba 2003 A Method for Inferring Paleohabitats from the Functional Morphology of Bovid Astragali. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:1009-1022.

Deniz, E. and S. Payne 1982 Eruption and Wear in the Mandibular Dentition as a Guide to Ageing Turkish Angora Goats. In Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites,edited by B. Wilson, C. Grigson and S. Payne, pp. 155-206. vol. 109. B.A.R., Oxford.

Ducos, P. and L. R. Kolska Horwitz 1998 The Influence of Climate on Artiodactyl Size During the Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene of the Southern Levant. Paléorient 32:229-247.

136

Echegaray, J. G. 1966 Excavations en la Terraza de El Khiam (Jordan). Madrid: Casa Espanola de Santiago en Jerusalem.

Eder, James 1984 The Impact of Subsistence Change on Mobility and Settlement Pattern in a Tropical Forest Foraging Economy: Some Implications for Archaeology. American Anthropologist, 86(4):837-853.

Eshed, V., A. Gopher, T. Gage, and I. Hershkovitz 2004 Has the Transition to Agriculture Reshaped the Demographic Structure of Prehistoric Populations? New Evidence from the Levant. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 124:315-329.

Edwards, P.C. 1989 Problems of Recognizing Earliest Sedentism: the Natufian Example. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 2/1:5-48.

Fagan, B. 2005 A Brief History of Archaeology: Classical Times to the Twenty-First Century. Pearson Prentice Hall: New Jersey.

Field, J. 1994 Rainfall Patterns and Landscape Changes in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan. Pp. 257-259 in Archaeology and Environment: A Fragile Coexistence. Proceedings of the 24` Annual Chacmool Conference, edited by R. Jamieson, S. Abonyi and N. Mirau. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary.

Finlayson, B., and S. Mithen 1999 The Dana-Faynan-Ghuwayr Early Pre-History Project Second Interim Report 1998 Field Season. Manuscript on file, Center for Field Archaeology, University of Edinburgh.

Finlayson, B. and S. Mithen (ed.) 2007 The Early Prehistory of Wadi Faynan, Southern Jordan: Archaeological Survey of Wadi Faynan, Ghwuwayr and al-Bustan an Evaluation of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Site of WF16. Wadi Faynan Series 1, Levant Supplementary Series 4. Oxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford.

Fish, S. And P. Fish 1994 Prehistoric Desert Farmers of the Southwest. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23:83-108.

137

Fish, P. And S. Fish 1996 Gender and Status in the Hohokam Pre-Classic to Classical Transition. American Anthropologist, 98(4):803-817.

Gamble, C. 1979 Surplus and self-sufficiency in the Cycladic subsistence economy. In Papers in Cycladic prehistory, edited by J. L. Davis and J. Cherry, pp. 122-134. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1981 Social control and the economy. In Economic Archaeology : Towards an Integration of Ecological and Social Approaches, edited by A. Sheridan and G. Bailey, pp. 215-229. vol. 96. B.A. R., Oxford. 1982a Animal husbandry, population and urbanisation. In An Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos, edited by C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaff, pp. 161-171. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1982b Leadership and "surplus" production. In Ranking, Resource and Exchange: Aspects of the Archaeology of Early European Society, edited by C. Renfrew and S. Shennan, pp. 100-105. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Garrard, A.D. 1932 A New Mesolithic Industry: The Natufian of Palestine. Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute 62:257-269.

Garrard, A., D. Baird, S. Colledge, L. Martin, and K. Wright 1994 Prehistoric Environment and Settlement in the Azraq Basin: An Interim Report on the 1987 and 1988 Excavation Seasons. Levant 26:73-109.

Gebauer, A.B., and T.D. Price 1992 Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory. Monographs in World Prehistory 4. Madison: Prehistory Press.

Gebel, H.G 2002 The Neolithic of the Near East: An essay on Apolycentric Process and Other Research Problems. In: A.Hausleiter,S.Kerner, B.Müller-Neuhof (eds.), Material Culture and Mental Spheres. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 293: 313-324. Münster, Ugarit-Verlag. 2004 Supra-Regional Concepts II: There Was No Center: The polycentric Evolution of the Near Eastern Neolithic. Neo-lithics, 2004(1): 28-32.

Gebel, H.G., Hermansen, B.D., and Jensen C.H. (eds.) 2002 Magic Practices and Ritual in the Near Eastern Neolithic. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 8. Berlin: Ex Oriente.

138

Gebel, H.G., M. Mutheisen, H.J. Nissen 1988 Preliminary Report on the First Season of Excavations at Basta. In The Prehistory of Jordan: The State of Research in 1986 Part I, edited by A.N. Garrard and H.G. Gebel, pp. 101-134, Bar International Series 396(i), Oxford, England.

Getty, R. 1975 Sisson and Grossman’s The Anatomy of the Domestic Animals. 5th Edition. 2 Volumes. Philadelphia, London and Toronto: WB Saunders Co.

Gervasoni, J. 2000 A Chipped Stone Characterization of Ghwair I: A Neolithic Village in Southern Jordan. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology and Ethnic Studies, University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Goldberg, P. 1986 Late Quaternary Environmental History of the Southern Levant. Geoarchaeology 1:225-244.

Gopher, A., and Gophna, R. 1993 Cultures of the Eighth and Seventh Millennia BP in the Southern Levant: A Review for the 1990s. JWP 7:297-352.

Goring-Morris, N. and A.B. Belfer-Cohen 1998 The Articulation of Cultural Processes and Late Quaternary Environmental Changes in Cisjordan. Paléorient 23(2):71-93.

Grant, A. 1982 The Use of Tooth Wear as a Guide to the Age of Domestic Ungulates. In Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, edited by B. Wilson, C. Grigson and S. Payne, pp. 91-108. vol. 109. B.A.R., Oxford

Grayson, D. K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Academic Press, Inc., New York.

Gregg, S.A. 1988 Foragers and Farmers: Population Interaction and Agriculture Expansion in Prehistoric Europe. Pp. 21-35. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Gremillion, K. J. 2002 Foraging Theory and Hypothesis Testing in Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21:142-164.

139

Grigson, C. 1969 The Uses and Limitations of Differences in Absolute Size in the Distinction between the Bones of Aurochs (Bos primigenius) and Domestic Cattle (Bos taurus). In The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, edited by P. J. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 277-294. Duckworth, London. 1974 The Craniology and Relationships of Four Species of Bos. 1. Basic Craniology: Bos taurus L. and its Absolute Size. Journal of Archaeological Science 1:353- 379. 1975 The Craniology and Relationships of Four Species of Bos. 2. Basic Craniology: Bos taurus L. Proportions and Angles. Journal of Archaeological Science 2:109- 128. 1976 The Craniology and Relationships of Four Species of Bos. 3. Basic Craniology: Bos taurus L. Sagittal Profiles and Other Non-Measurable Characters. Journal of Archaeological Science 3:115-136. 1978 The Craniology and Relationships of Four Species of Bos. 4: The Relationship between Bos primigenius Boj. and B. taurus L. and its implications for the Phylogeny of the Domestic Breeds. Journal of Archaeological Science 5:123-152. 1982a Sex and Age Determination of some Bones and Teeth of Domestic Cattle: A Review of the Literature. In Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, edited by B. Wilson, C. Grigson and S. Payne, pp. 7-24. vol. 109. B.A.R., Oxford. 1982b Sexing Neolithic Domestic Cattle Skulls and Horn Cores. In Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, edited by B. Wilson, C. Grigson and S. Payne, pp. 25-36. vol. 109. B.A.R., Oxford.

Halstead, P., P. Collins, and V. Isaalidou 2002 Sorting the Sheep from the Goats: Morphological Distinctions between the Mandibles and Mandibular Teeth of Adult Ovis and Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:545-553.

Harrison, D. L., and P. J. Bates 1991 The Mammals of Arabia. Harrison Zoological Museum Publication. England: Harrison Zoological Museum.

Hayden, B. 1988 Nimrods, Piscators, Pluckers, and Planters: The Emergence of Food Production. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9:31-69. 1992 Models of Domestication. In Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory, edited by A.B. Gebauer and T.D. Price, pp. 11-19. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 4, Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. 1995 A New Overview of Domesticaiton. In Last Hunters, First Farmers: New Perspectives on the Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture, edited by T. D. Price and A. B. Gebauer, pp. 273-299. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

140

Heath, A. 1976 Rational Choice and Social Exchange: A Critique of Exchange Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Henry, D. O. 1975 Fauna in Near Eastern Archaeological Deposits. In Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and Levant, edited by F. Wendorf, pp.379-385. Southern Methodist University, Dallas. 1986 The Prehistory and Paleoenvironments of Jordan: An Overview. Paléorient 20/2:59-84. 1989 From Foraging to Agriculture: The Levant at the End of the Ice Age. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1991 Foraging, Sedentism, and Adaptive Vigor in the Natufian: Rethinking the Linkages. In Perspectives on the Past. Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean Hunter-Gatherers Research, edited by G.A. Clark, pp. 353-370. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2004 Supra-Regional Concepts II: Assessing the Degree of Supra-Regional Homogeneity in Cultural Elements within the Near Eastern. Neo-lithics, 2004(1): 32-33.

Henry, D.O., C. Cordova, J.J. White, R.M. Dean, J.E. Beaver, H. Ekstrom, S. Kadowaki, J. McCorriston, A. Nowell and L. Scott-Cummings 2003 The Early Neolithic Site of Ayn Abū Nukhayla, Southern Jordan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. 330 (May, 2003), pp. 1-30. The American Schools of Oriental Research.

Hermansen, Bo Dahl 2003 Supra-Regional Concepts I: Introductory Remarks. Neo-lithics. 2003(2):32-33.

Hillard, K. and K. Hill 1992 The Evolutionary Ecology of Food Acquisition. In Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior, edited by E. A. Smith and B. Winterhalder, pp. 167-201. Aldine De Gruyter, New York.

Hillman, G. C., Colledge, S., and D. Harris 1989 Plant Food Economy During the Epi-Paleolithic Period at Tell Abu Hureyra, Syria: Dietary Diversity, Seasonality and Modes of Exploitation. In Foraging and Farming: The Evolution of Plant Exploitation, edited by G. C. Hillman and D.R. Harris, pp.240-66. Unwin Hyman, London.

Hillson, S. W. 1990 Teeth. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

141

Hole, F. 2000 Is Size Important: Function and Hierarchy in Neolithic Settlements. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, edited by I. Kuijt. Pp.191-209. Kluwer/Plenum Press, New York.

Horwitz, L. K., C. Cope, and E. Tchernov 1991 Sexing Bones of Mountain Gazelle (Gazella gazella) Form Prehistoric Sites in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 16:1-11.

Horwitz, L. K., E. Tchernov, P. Ducos, C. Becker, A. Von Den Driesch, L. Maritn, and A Garrard 1999 Anima Domestication in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 25:63-80.

Ioannidou, E. 2003 Taphonomy of Animal Bones: Species, Sex, Age, and Breed Variability of Sheep, Cattle, and Pig Bone Density. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:355-365. Kafafi, Z. 1982 The Neolithic of Jordan (East Bank). Unpublished PhD dissertation, Freien Universitat, Berlin.

Kahila Bar-Gal, G., P. Ducos, and L. Kolska 2003 The Application of Ancient DNA Analysis t Identify Neolithic Caprinae: A Case Study from the Site of Hatoula, Israel. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 13:120-131.

Keegan, W. 1986 The Optimal Foraging Analysis of Horticultural Production. American Anthropologist, vol. 88, no.1:92-107.

Kenyon, K. M. 1956 Excavations at Jericho 1956. PEQ 88:67-82. 1957 Digging Up Jericho. New York: Frederick A. Praeger. 1970 Archaeology in the Holy Land. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Kirkbride, D. 1966 Five Seasons at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Village of Beidha in Jordan. PEQ 98:5- 61. 1968 Beidha: Early Neolithic Village Life South of the Dead Sea. Antiquity 42:263- 274.

Kislev, M. E. and O. Bar-Yosef 1988 The Legumes: The Earliest Domesticated Plants in the Near East? Current Anthropology 29:175-179.

142

Klein, R. G. and K. Cruz-Uribe 1984 The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Klevezal, G. A. and N. I. Shishlina 2001 Assessment of the Season of Death of Ancient Human from Cementum Annual Layers. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:481-486.

Kohler-Rollefson, L 1989 Changes in Goat Exploitation at `Ain Ghazal Between the Early and Late Neolithic: A Metric Analysis. Paléorient 15:141-146.

Kohler-Rollefson, L., W. Gillepsie, and M Metzger 1988 The Fauna from Neolithic `Ain Ghazal. In The Prehistory of Jordan. The State of Research in 1986, volume 2, edited by D.A. Garrard and H. Gebel, pp. 423- 430. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 396 (ii). Oxford.

Kuijt, I. 1996 Negotiating Equality through Ritual: A Consideration of Late Natufian and Pre- Pottery Neolithic A Period Mortuary Practices. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15(4):313-363. 1997 Interpretation, Data, and the Khiamian of the South-Central Levant. Neo-Lithics: Southwest Asian Lithic Research 3:3-6. 2000 People and Space in Early Agriculture Villages: Exploring Daily Lives, Community Size, and Architecture in the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19:75-102. 2001 Meaningful Masks: Place, Death, and the Transmission of Social Memory in Early Agricultural Communities of the Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic. In Social Memory, Identity, and Death: Intradisciplinary Perspectives of Mortuary Rituals, edited by M.S. Chesson. American Anthropological Association, Archaeology Division, Vol.10. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C.

Kuijt, I. (ed.) 2000 Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. Kluwer Academic/Plunum Publishers.

Kuijt, I. And N. Goring-Moris 2002 Foraging, Farming, and Social Complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of World Prehistory Vol. 16, No. 4:361-440.

143

Ladah, R. 2006 The Social Implications of the Architecture at PPNB Ghwair I. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology and Ethnic Studies, University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Landon, D.B. 1993 Testing a Seasonal Slaughter Model for Colonial New England Using Tooth Cementum Increment Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 20:439-455.

Layton, R., R. Foley, and E. Williams 1991 The Transition between Hunting and Gathering and the Specialized Husbandry of Resources: A Sociological Approach. Current Anthropology 32:255-274.

Legge, T. 1972 Prehistoric Exploitation of the gazelle in Palestine. In Papers on Economic Prehistory, edited by E. S. Higgs, pp.119-124. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1996 The Beginning of Caprine Domestication in Southwest Asia. In The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, edited by D. R. Harris, pp. 238-262. London: Smithsonian Press.

Linares, O. F. 1976 Garden Hunting n the American Tropics. Human Ecology 4(4):331-49.

Lieberman, D.E. 1998 Natufian “Sedentism” and Importance of Biological Data fro Estimating Reduced Mobility. In Seasonality and Sedentism: Archaeological perspectives from Old and New World Sites, edited by T.R. Rocek and O. Bar-Yosef. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum Bulletin, No 6, pp. 75-92.

Lieberman, D. E., T. W. Deacon, and R. H., Meadows 1990 Computer Image Enhanced and Analysis of Cementum Increments as Applied to Teeth of Gazella gazella. Journal of Archaeological Science 17(5):519-33.

Loreille, O., J. Vigne, C. Hardy, C. Callou, F. Treinen-Claustre, N. Dennebouy, and M. Monnerot 1997 First Distinction of Sheep and Goat Archaeological Bones by the Means of their Fossil mtDNA. Journal of Archeological Science 24:33-37.

Lyman, R. L. 1987 On the Analysis of Vertebrate Mortality Profiles: Sample Size, Mortality Type and Hunting Pressure. American Antiquity 52(1):125-142. 1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

144

2003 The Influence of Time Averaging and Space Averaging on the Application of Foraging Theory in Zooarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:595- 610. 2008 Quantitative Paleozoology. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Mainland, I. L. 1998 Dental Microwear and Diet in Domestic Sheep (Ovis aries) and Goats (Capra Hircus): Distinguishing Grazing and Fodder-fed Ovicaprids using a Quantitative Analytical Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:1259-1271.

Marean, C.W. and L.M. Spencer 1991 Impact of Carnivore Ravaging on Zooarchaeological Measures of Element Abundance. American Antiquity 56:645-658.

Martin, L. 1999 Mammal Remains from the Eastern Jordanian Neolithic, and the Nature of Caprine Herding in the Steppe. Paléorient 25(2):87-104.

Miller, N.F. 1992 The Origins of Plant Cultivation in the Near East. In The Origins of Agriculture: An International Perspective, edited by C. W. Cowan, and P. J. Watson, pp. 39- 58. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Mithen, S., B. Finlayson, A. Pirie, D. Carruthers, and A Kennedy 2000 New Evidence for Economic and Technological Diversity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A: Wadi Faynan 16. Current Anthropology, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 655-663.

Moore, A. 1985 The Development of Neolithic Societies in the Near East. Advances in World Archaeology, edited by F. Wendorf and A.E. Close, pp.1-69. Academic Press, New York.

Morlan, R.E. 1994 Bison Bone Fragmentation and Survivorship: A Comparative Method. Journal of Archaeological Science 21:797-807.

Morrison, K. D. 1994 The Intensification of Production: Archaeological Approaches. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1(2):111-159.

Mortenson, P. 1970 A Preliminary Study of the Chipped Stone Industry from Beidha. Acta Archaeologica 41:1-54.

145

Munro, N. 1999 Small Game as Indicators of Sedentization during the Natufian Period at Hayonim Cave in Israel. In Zooarchaeology of the Pleistocene/Holocene Boundary, edited by J.C Driver. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 800. Oxford. 2004 Zooarchaeological Measures of Hunting Pressure and Occupation Intensity in the Natufian: Implications for Agricultural Origins. Current Anthropology Volume 45, Supplement, pp. S5-S33.

Munro, N. and G. Bar-Oz 2005 Gazelle Bone Fat Processing in the Levantine Epipalaeolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 223-239.

Munson, P. J. 2000 Age-correlated Differential Destruction of Bones and its Effect on Archaeological Mortality Profiles of Domestic Sheep and Goats. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:391-407.

Nadel, D. 1997 The Chipped Stone Industry of Netiv Hagdud. In An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley, Part l: The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud, edited by O. Bar- Yosef and A. Gopher, pp. 71-144. Cambridge: American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.

Najjar, M. 1994 Ghwair I, a Neolithic Site in Wadi Feinan. In The Near East in Antiquity: Archaeological Work of National and International Institutions in Jordan, edited by Susanne Kerner, pp. 75-85. Vol. IV. Amman: A1 Kutba.

Neef, R. 2003a Plant Remains from PPNB Ghwair. Report on file, Department of Anthropology and Ethnic Studies, University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada. 2003b Overlooking the Steppe-Forrest: A Preliminary Report on the Botanical Remains from Early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe (southern Turkey). Neo-lithics 2003(2):13- 15.

Neeley, M. P. 1997 Assigning Meaning to Lithic Variability in the Epipaleolithic of the Southern Levant. Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Nelson, M. 1991 The Study of Technological Organization. In Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3, edited by M.B. Schiffer, pp. 57-100. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

146

Nesbitt, M. 2004 Supra-Regional Concepts II: Can We Identify a Centre, A Region, or a Supra- Region for Near Eastern Plant Domestication. Neo-lithics, 2004(1): 38-40.

Olsen, S. J. 1960 Post-Cranial Skeletal Characters of Bison and Bos. Harvard University, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 35 (4). 1964 Mammal Remains from Archaeological Sites: 1. Southeastern and Southwestern United States. Harvard University, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 56 (1). 1968 Fish, Amphibian, and Reptile Remains from Archaeological Sites. Harvard University, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 56 (2). 1972 Osteology for the Archaeologist: No. 3 The American Mastodon and the Wooly Mammoth; No. 4 North America Birds: Skulls and Mandibles. Harvard University, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 56 (3,4).

Pichon, J. 1991 Les oiseaux au Natoufien, avifaune et sédentarité. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F.R.Valla, pp.371-380. Ann Arbor, Michigan: International Monographs in Prehistory.

Powell, D. F. 2001 Alternative Perspectives of Projectile Point Variability During the Levantine Neolithic. Master’s Thesis, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Powell, D. F. and J. Gervasoni 2000 A Brief Note on the Projectile Points from Ghwair I, Jordan. Neo-Lithics: Southwest Asian Lithic Research 3/99:1-3.

Powell, D.F., A. Simmons, P. Croft, and M. Nijjar 2003 Environmental Adaptations and Impacts at Wadi Ghwair I. Paper presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, Milwaukee Wisconsin.

Powell, D.F., A. Simmons, and M. Nijjar 2000 Alternative Perspective of Projectile Variability During the Levantine Neolithic. Paper presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Payne, S. 1968 A Metrical Distinction Between Sheep and Goat. In The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, edited by P.J. Ucko and G.W. Dimbleby. Duckworth, London. Pp 295-306.

147

1973 Kill-off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: The Mandibles from Asvan Kale. Anatolian Studies 23:281-303. 1985 Morphological Distinction Between the Mandibular Teeth of Young Sheep Ovis, and Goats Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science 12:139-147. 1987 Reference Codes for Wear States in the Mandibular Check Teeth of Sheep and Goats. Journal of Archaeological Science 14:609-14.

Payne, S. and G. Bull 1988 Components of Variation in Measurements of Pig Bones and Teeth, and the Use of Meausurements to Distinguish Wild from Domestic Pig Remains. Archaeozoologia 2:27-66.

Price, T. D. 1995 Social Inequality at the Origins of Agriculture. In Foundations of Social Inequality, edited by T. Douglas Price and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 129-151. Plenum, Press, New York. 2000 Lessons in the Transition to Agriculture. In Europe’s First Farmers, edited by T.D. Price, pp. 301-318. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge United Kingdom. 2002 Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Retrospect and Prospect. In Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems, edited by B. Fitzhugh and J. Habu. Kluwer/Plenum Press, New York.

Price, T.D. and A.B. Gebauer 1995 New Perspectives on the Transition to Agriculture. In Last Hunters, First Farmers: New Perspectives on the Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture, edited by D. Price and A. B. Gebauer, pp. 3-20. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Prummel, W., and H. J. Frisch 1986 A Guide for the Distinction of Species, Sex and Body Side in Bones and Sheep and Goat. Journal of Archaeological Science 12:139-147.

Pumpelly, R. 1908 Explorations in Turkestan: Expedition of 1904. Prehistoric Civilizations of Anau: Origins, Growth, and Influence of Environment. Smithsonian Institute. Washington, DC.

Rafferty, J.E. 1985 The Archaeological Record on Sedentariness: Recognition, Development, and Implications. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8:113-156

Redding, R. W. 1981 Decision Making in Subsistence Herding of Sheep and Goats in the Middle East. Dissertation, University of Michigan.

148

1992 Egyptian Old Kingdom patterns of animal use and the value of faunal data in modeling socioeconomic systems. Paléorient 18(2):99-107.

Renfrew, Colin 1982 Socio-economic change in ranked societies. In Ranking, Resource and Exchange: Aspects of the Archaeology of Early European Society, edited by C. Renfrew and S. Shennan, pp. 1-8. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1986 Introduction: Peer Polity interaction and Socio-political Change. In Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, edited by C. Renfrew and J.C. Cherry, pp. 1-19. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge United Kingdom.

Rosenberg, M. 1990 The Mother of Invention: Evolutionary Theory, Territoriality, and the Origins of Agriculture. American Anthropologist 92:399-415.

Rowley-Conwy, P. 1995 Wild or Domestic? On the Evidence for the Earliest Domestic Cattle and Pigs in South Scandinavia and Iberia. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 5:115- 126. 1998 Improved Separation of Neolithic Metapodials of Sheep (Ovis) and Goats (Capra) from Arene Candide Cave, Liguria, Italy. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:251-258.

Redman, C.L. 1984 The Rise of Civilization. Pp. 89-139. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman

Reitz, E. J. 1982 Vertebrate Fauna From Four Coastal Mississippian Sites. Journal of Ethnobiology. Vol. 2,No.1. 1985 A Comparison of Spanish and Aboriginal Subsistence on the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Southeastern Archaeology 4(1): 41-50.

Reitz, E. J., and C. M. Scarry 1985 Reconstructing Historic Subsistence with an Example from Sixteenth-Century Spanish Florida. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The Society for Historical Archaeology, Special Publication Series, Number 3. 1990 Herbs, Fish, Scum, and Vermin: Subsistence Strategies in Sixteenth-Century Spanish Florida. In Columbian Consequences, Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands East, edited by D. Hurst Thomas, pp.343-354. Smithsonian Press, Washington, D.C.

Reitz, E. J., and E. S. Wing 2008 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

149

Renfrew, Colin 1986 Introduction: Peer Polity Interaction and socio-political Change. In Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, edited by C. Renfrew and J.C. Cherry, pp 1-19. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge United Kingdom.

Rindos, David 1984 The Origins of Agriculture: An Evolutionary Perspective. Academic Press, Inc, New York.

Rollefson, G.O. 1983 The 1982 Excavations at 'Ain Ghazal: Preliminary Report. ADAJ 27:115. 1989 The Late Aceramic Neolithic of the Levant: A Synthesis. Paléorient 15/1:168- 173. 1998 The Aceramic Neolithic of Jordan. In The Prehistoric Archaeology of Jordan, edited by Donald O. Henry, pp. 102-126. BAR International Series 705. Oxford: B.A.R. 1999 The Aceramic Neolithic of Jordan. In The Prehistoric Archaeology of Jordan, edited by Donald O. Henry, pp. 102-126. Oxford: BAR International Series 705. 2000 Ritual and Social Structure at Neolithic `An Ghazal. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, edited by I. Kuijt. Pp.165-190. Kluwer/Plenum Press, New York. 2004 Supra-Regional Concepts II: A Reconsideration of the PPN koine: Cultural Diversity and Centralities. Neo-lithics, 2004(1): 46-48.

Rollefson, G. O., E. B. Banning, B.F. Byrd, Z. Kafafi, I. Kohler, D. Petocz, S. Rolston, and L. Villiers 1984 The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Village of 'Ain Ghazal (Jordan) Preliminary Report of the 1982 Excavation Season. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft 116:139-83.

Rollefson, G., M. Forstadt, and R. Beck 1994 A Preliminary Typological Analysis of Scrapers, Knives, and Borers from 'Ain Ghazal. In Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent: Studies in Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment, edited by H.G. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski, pp. 445-466. Ex Orient, Berlin.

Rollefson, G. and H. G. Gebel 2004 Towards New Frameworks: Supra-Regional Concepts in the Near Eastern Neolithization. Neo-Lithics 1/04. Pp. 21-22.

Rollefson, G., and I. Kohler-Rollefson 1989 The Collapse of the Early Neolithic Settlements in the Southern Levant. In People and Culture in Change, edited by I. Hershkovitz. Pp. 73-89. British Archaeology Review, International Series. 508. BAR: Oxford.

150

1993 PPNC Adaptations in the First Half of the 6th Millennium B.C. Paléorient 19:33- 42.

Rollefson, G., Z. Kafaf, and A. Simmons 1990 The Neolithic Village of 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan: Preliminary Report on the 1988 Season. BASOR Supplement 27:95-116. 1992 Early Neolithic Exploitation Patterns in the Levant: Cultural Impact on the Environment. Population and Environment 13:243-254.

Rollefson, G. and A. Simmons 1984 The Neolithic Village of 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan: Preliminary Report on the 1984 Season. In Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research Supplement 24, pp. 145-164.

Schmid, E. 1972 Atlas of Animal Bones. Elsevier, Amsterdam, London, New York.

Schmidt, Klaus 2003 The 2003 Campaign at Göbekli Tepe (southeastern Turkey) Neo-Lithics 2003(2):3-8.

Schneider, H. K. 1974 Economic Man: The Anthropology of Economics. Sheffield Publishing Company, Salem, Wisconsin.

Shennan, S. 1993 Commodities, Transactions, and Growth in the Central-European Early Bronze Age. Journal of European Archaeology 1:59-72.

Silver, I. A. 1971 The Aging of Domestic Animals. In Science in Archaeology: A Survey of Progress and Research, edited by D.R. Brothwell and E.S. Higgs, 2nd ed. enlarged and revised, pp. 283-302. Praeger Publishing, New York.

Simmons, A. 1980 Early Neolithic Settlement and Economic Behavior in the Western Negev Desert of the Southern Levant. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.

1997a Ecological Changes During the Late Neolithic in Jordan: A Case Study. In The Prehistory of Jordan II. Perspectives from 1997, edited by H.G.K. Gebel, Z. Kafafi, and G.O. Rollefson, pp. 309-318. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 4. Berlin, ex oriente.

151

1997b Villages on the Periphery: Neolithic Adaptations at Ghwair I, Southern Jordan. Proposal to the National Science Foundation.

2007 The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East: Transforming the Human Landscape. University of Arizona Press.

Simmons, A., and M. Najjar 1996 Current investigations at Ghwair I, a Neolithic village in Wadi Faynan, southern Jordan. Neo-Lithics: Southwest Asian Lithic Research 2/96:6-7. 1998a Al-Ghuwayr I, A Pre-Pottery Neolithic Village in Wadi Faynan, Southern Jordan: A Preliminary Report of the 1996 and 1997/98 Seasons. Pp. 91-101 in the Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan XLII. 1998b Preliminary Report of the 1997-98 Ghwair excavation season, Wadi Feinan, southern Jordan. Neo-Lithics: Southwest Asian Lithic Research 1/98:5-7. 1999 Preliminary Field Report of the 1998-1999 Excavations at Ghwair I, a Pre- Pottery Neolithic B Community in the Wadi Feinan Region of Southern Jordan. Neo-Lithics 1/99: 4-6. 2000a Preliminary Report of the 1999-2000 Season at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Settlement of Ghwair I, Southern Jordan. Neo-Lithics: Southwest Asian Lithic Research 1/00:6-8. 2000b Villages on the Edge: Regional Settlement Change and the End of the Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities, edited by I. Kuijt, pp. 211-230. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. 2001 Core and Periphery Models During the Neolithic-Is the Analogy Appropriate? Appropriate?” In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan VII, 143-147. Amman: Department of Antiquities. 2003 Ghuwayr I, Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Settlement in Southern Jordan: Report of the 1996-2000 Campaigns. In Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Vol. 47, 407-430. Amman: Department of Antiquities. 2006 Ghwair I: A Small, Complex Neolithic Community in Southern Jordan. Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 31, Pp. 79-95.

Simmons, A., G. Rollefson, Z. Kafafi, and K. Moyer 1989 Test Excavations at Wadi Shu'eib, a Major Neolithic Settlement in Central Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 33:27- 42.

Simmons, A., G. Rollefson, I. Kohler-Rollefson, R. Mandel, and Z. Kafafi 1988 'Ain Ghazal: A Major Neolithic Settlement in Central Jordan. Science 240(4848):35-39.

Skerritt, G. C. and J. McLelland 1984 An Introduction to the Functional Anatomy of the Limbs of the Domestic Animals. John Wright and Sons Ltd., Bristol.

152

Smith, B. 1995 The Emergency of Agriculture. New York: Scientific American Library. 2001 Low-Level Food Production. Journal of Archaeological Research 9:1-43.

Stekelis, M. 1973 The Yarmukian Culture of the Neolithic Period. The Magnes Press, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

Stiner, M. C. 1991 Human Predators and Prey Mortality. Boulder and Oxford: Westview Press, Inc. 1994 Honor Among Thieves: A Zooarchaeological Study of Neanderthal Ecology. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2002 On in-situ Attrition and Vertebrate Body Part Profiles. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:979-991.

Stiner, M.C., N.D. Munro, T.A. Surovell, E. Tchernov, and O. Bar-Yosef 1999 Paleolithic Growth Pulses evidence by Small Animal Exploitation. Science 283:190-194.

Stutz, A. J. 2002 Polarizing Microscopy Identification of Chemical Diagenesis in Archaeological Cementum. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:13271347.

Tchernov, E. 1991 Biological Evidence for Human Sedentism in Southwest Asia During the Natufian. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F.R. Valla, pp.315-340. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1994 An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley, Part l: The Fauna of Netiv Hagdud. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 44, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge, MA. 1998 Are Late Pleistocene Environmental Factors, Faunal Changes and Cultural Transformations Causally Connected? The Case of the Southern Levant. Paléorient 23,2:209-228.

Thomas, R. N. W. 1988 A Statistical Evaluation of Criteria Used in Sexing Cattle Metapodials. Archaeozoologia 2:83-92.

Thompson, J.R. 2001 Faunal Analysis of the Upper Paleolithic Sites of Thalab al_Buhayra and `Ain al- Buhayra in the Wadi al-Hassa, South-Central Jordan. Master’s Thesis, Iowa State University.

153

Twiss, Katheryn 2002 Goats Galore: Faunal Remains from a Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Site in the Southern Levant. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, Denver. 2003 They Were What They Ate: Food and the Construction of Social Identity in the Neolithic of Southern Jordan. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. 2007a The Zooarchaeology of Tel Tif’dan (Wadi Fidan 001), Southern Jordan. Paléorient 33(2):127-145. 2007b The Neolithic of the Southern Levant. Evolutionary Anthropology 16(1): 24-35. 2008 Transformations in an Early Agricultural Society: Feasting in the Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 27:418-442.

Uerpman, H. P. 1987 The Ancient Distribution of Ungulate Mammals in the Middle East: Fauna and Archaeological Sites in Southwest Asia and Northeast Africa. Wiesbaden, Reichert. 1996 Animal Domestication- Accident or Intention? In The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, edited by D. R. Harris, pp. 227-238. London: Smithsonian Press.

Unger-Hamilton, R. 1991 Natufian Plant Husbandry in the Southern Levant and Comparison with That of the Neolithic Periods: The Lithic Perspective. In The Natufian Culture I the Levant, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and F.R. Valla, pp.483-520.

Valla, F.R. 1995 The First Settled Societies-Natufian (12,500~10,200 B.P.). In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, edited by T. Levy, pp. 169-189. Leicester University Press, London. van Loon, D. 1978 Small-Scale Pig Raising. Garden Way Publishing, Vermont.

Vierra, B. J. 1995 Subsistence and Stone Tool Technology: An Old World Perspective. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers No. 47, Tempe, Arizona.

Voight, M. 2000 Catal Höyük in Context: Ritual at Early Neolithic Sites in Central and Eastern Turkey. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, edited by I. Kuijt. Pp.253-293. Kluwer/Plenum Press, New York.

154 von den Driesch, A. 1976 A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum Publications, Cambridge, MA.

Wallerstein, I. 1974 The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Academic Press, New York.

Wasse, A. 2001 The Wild Goats of Lebanon: Evidence for Early Domestication? Levant 33:21- 33. 2002 Final Results of an Analysis of the Sheep and Goat Bones from `Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Levant 34:59-82.

Watkins, Trevor 2003 Supra-Regional Concepts I: Developing Socio-Cultural Networks. Neo-lithics. 2003(2):36-37.

Watson, P.J. 1995 Explaining the Transition to Agriculture. In Last Hunters, First Farmers: New Perspectives on the Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture, edited by T. D. Price and A. B. Gebauer, pp. 21-37. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. White, L. 1949 The Evolution of Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wilcox, G. 2004 Supra-Regional Concepts II: Last Gathers/First Cultivators in the Near East: Regional and Supra-Regional Developments. Neo-lithics, 2004(1): 51-52.

Winterhalder, B. and E.A. Smith 2000 Analyzing Adaptive Strategies: Human Behavioral Ecology at Twenty-five Years. Evolutionary Anthropology 9:51-72.

Woodman, C. 2005 An Analysis of Ground Stone Artifacts from Ghwair I, A Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Site in Southern Jordan. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology and Ethnic Studies, University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Wright, K. I. 2000 The Social Origins of Cooking and Dining in Early Villages of Western Asia. Proceeding of the Prehistoric Society 66:89-121.

Zeder, M. A. 1991 Feeding Cities: Specialized Animal Economy in the Ancient Near East. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.

155

1999 Animal Domestication in the Zargos: A Review of Past and Current Research. Paléorient, 25:11-25. 2001 A Metrical Analysis of a Collection of Modern Goats (Capra hircus aegargus and C. h. hircus) from Iran and Iraq: Implications for the Study of Caprine Domestication. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:61-79. 2006a Archaeological Approaches to Domestication Animal Domestication. In Zeder, M.A., Bradley D. Emshwiller, E., and Smith, B.D. (eds.). Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms. Pp. 171-189, Berkeley: University of California Press. 2006b Reconciling Rates of Long Bone Fusion and Tooth Eruption and Wear in Sheep (Ovis) and Goat (Capra). In D. Ruscillo (ed.) Ageing and Sexing Animals from Archaeological Sites. Pp. 87-118, Oxford: Oxbow Press.

Zeuner, F. 1957 Stone Age Exploration in Jordan, I. Palestine Exploration Quarterly: 1754.

Zohary, D., and M. Hopf 1988 Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants in West Asia, Europe and the Nile Valley. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

156

VITA

Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Doss F. Powell, Jr. Degrees: Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology, 1998 The University of Georgia, Athens Georgia

Master of Arts, Anthropology, 2001 University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Special Honors and Awards: UNLV Graduate Research Competition, First Place, April 2000 Phi Theta Kappa, International Honors Society Who’s Who Among American Junior Colleges

Publications: “Fort Irwin’s Cultural Resources Program: Priorities, Protocol, and Praxis- Issues in Seamless Management of the California Desert. Co-authored with Darrell Gundrum, Margarita Grable, and Jennifer Mitchell.

“Wonders of a Neolithic Village: Ghwair I, Jordan”. Graduate Research Competition Forum, UNLV, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 22, 2000.

“Alternative Perspective of Projectile Variability During the Levantine Neolithic”. Co-authored with Dr. Alan Simmons. Society of American Archaeology Conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 7, 2000.

A Brief Note on the Projectile Points from Jordan. Co-authored with John Gervasoni. Pp. 1-3 in Neo-Lithics 3/99.

Dissertation Title: Environmental Adaptations at Neolithic Ghwair I: As Seen From a Zooarchaeological Perspective.

Dissertation Examination Committee: Chairperson, Alan Simmons, Ph.D. Committee Member, Barbara Roth, Ph.D. Committee Member, Ahmet Levent Atici, Ph.D. Graduate Faculty Representative, Andrew Bell, Ph.D.

157