M. Benz (ed.), The Principle of Sharing. Segregation and Construction of Social Identities at the Transition from Foraging to Farming. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 14 (2010) 301-312. Berlin, ex oriente.

Clans, gods and temples at the LPPNB ‘Ayn Ghazal1

Zeidan A. Kafafi

"The Canaanites known to the writers of the biblical texts can be seen to be the same people who settled in farming villages in the eighth millennium BC." (Tubb 1998:13-14).

Abstract: The archaeological excavations conducted at the site of ‘Ayn Ghazal revealed several types of architecture identified as ritual buildings (including "temples") dated back to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. The excavators noted that those built in the western part of the site were curvilinear in plan while those constructed in the eastern part were rectangular. From these facts arise three questions: . Why did the prehistoric inhabitants of ‘Ayn Ghazal build several ritual constructions? . Why were these constructions built so near to each other? . Did these ritual buildings belong to several distinct social groups that lived side by side at ‘Ayn Ghazal? These questions are considered in the context of a parallel study of the Canaanite pantheon and of the construction, methods, and plans of the identified LPPNB ritual buildings at ‘Ayn Ghazal. This approach may help us understand the social and economic structure at the site during the LPPNB. Zusammenfassung: Bei den Ausgrabungen von ‘Ayn Ghazal kamen verschiedene Bautypen zu tage, die als rituelle Gebäude (inclusive “Tempel”) interpretiert wurden und ins Pre- Pottery Neolithic B datieren. Die Ausgräber konnten beobachten, dass die Gebäude im westlichen Bereich der Siedlung einen runden Grundriss hatten, während diejenigen im östlichen Teil einen rechteckigen Grundriss besaßen. Mehrere Fragen drängen sich daher auf: . Warum erbauten die prähistorischen Bewohner von ‘Ayn Ghazal mehrere rituelle Gebäude? . Warum wurden diese in so geringem Abstand zueinander erbaut? . Gehörten diese Ritualgebäude zu mehreren unterschiedlichen sozialen Gruppen, die Seite an Seite in ‘Ayn Ghazal lebten? Um diese Fragen zu diskutieren, werden in einem Vergleich das kanaanitische Pantheon sowie die Konstruktionsmethoden und Pläne der spät PPNB-zeitlichen Ritualgebäude von ‘Ayn Ghazal vorgestellt. Eine derartige Untersuchung könnte helfen, die sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Strukturen dieses Fundortes während des späten PPNB zu verstehen.

Introduction Neolithic culture represents a grand advance not only in economy and social structure, but also in the minds of men. However, it still was a world very different from that of modern times: though there is no doubt that people then did many of the same things we do today – they were born, they labored, they worshipped, and they died and their bodies became the focus of ritual attention – they did them in a different manner.

1 The ‘Ayn Ghazal Excavations is a joint project co-directed by Gary Rollefson of Willamate University, USA, and Zeidan Kafafi of Yarmouk University, Jordan. Alan Simmons served as a co-director for the project from 1983 to 1989.

301 Clans, gods and temples Kafafi

During the Neolithic period agriculture and animal husbandry were the main means of livelihood. But the process of dry cultivation is not only connected with human activities, it is dependent upon nature. This means that if the crops receive abundant rain, then the harvest will be abundant. Thus during the Neolithic period, people were necessarily closer to nature. Moreover, at the beginning of the Neolithic Period of Southwest Asia significant changes occurred in architecture. T. Watkins (2006:15) wrote that "significant cognitive and cultural developments enabled people to develop new frameworks of symbolic representation that were worked out in concrete terms in buildings, their fittings, their use, and the planning of settlements". At the beginning of the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, the highland of Jordan experienced a sudden population explosion that prompted drastic social changes in the organization of the communities. During this period the villages became the dwelling places for different groups of people and a sociopolitical realignment developed rapidly (Kafafi 2004; Rollefson, Kafafi 2007:216). It has been postulated by scholars that the LPPNB witnessed the appearance of extended family structures. This inference is based upon the change of the dominant house plan from one single room during the earlier periods to a house of several rooms during the LPPNB. This may indicate the establishment of lineages or clans. As a result, though family-oriented rituals continued, a shift towards community celebrations practiced in special buildings began. For this purpose, non- domestic buildings were constructed which have been called temples by their excavators (Kafafi, Rollefson 1994; Rollefson 1997, 2005). The archaeological excavations conducted at the Neolithic site of ‘Ayn Ghazal revealed several types of architecture which have been identified as ritual buildings, including "temples". Those built on the western side of the site were curvilinear in plan, while those constructed on the eastern part were rectangular. This fact prompts several questions: . Why did the prehistoric inhabitants of ‘Ayn Ghazal build several ritual constructions? . Why were these constructions built so near to each other? . Did these ritual buildings belong to several distinct social groups that lived side by side at ‘Ayn Ghazal? In this paper we engage in a discussion begun by G. Rollefson (1983, 1986, 1998, 2000), and continued most recently by D. Schmandt-Bessarat (forthcoming) and G. Avni (2007). We present new ideas about this problem, bearing in mind that answers to the above three questions will not be simple and straightforward. However, we wish to point out that the complex and interlinked social pacts that all Neolithic farming societies must have had, were formed by specific processes. Although we do have some indications of what these social processes were, the interpretation of the Neolithic mind, and of Neolithic religion and cults, remains a difficult task for archaeologists. For a better understanding of the religious concepts of the people living at ‘Ayn Ghazal, we would like to suggest a comparison with the historical Canaanites. With the development of writing during the second half of the fourth millennium BC in Mesopotamia and Egypt, a large amount of detailed information was recorded that is available to modern-day scholars who wish to reconstruct and interpret the practices and beliefs of early religion. Moreover, the tablets of Ugarit, dated to the 14th century BC, provide us with information concerning the Ugaritic religion, mainly its myths and rituals. We assume that a study of the Canaanite pantheon might help us in interpreting and understanding what was going on in the mind of the inhabitants of ‘Ayn Ghazal during the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. This method is in a way different from that which has been used before, which interprets the archaeological data within an anthropological model of ritual. The anthropological approach finds connections between human behaviors and ritual practices or actions (Kuijt 2002), whereas our approach tries to explain the different styles of the LPPNB temples by studying the religions and ritual

302 Kafafi Clans, gods and temples practices of the historical periods. This approach has also been used by other scholars (Schmandt-Bessarat 1998, 2002).

The terms ritual and religion Previous archaeological approaches to religion have often been branded as remarkably naïve, and such studies are frequently thought of as a relatively simplistic area of investigation (Insoll 2004:1). Thus the archaeology of religion, especially that of the prehistoric periods, has been neglected compared to the large number of studies discussing the social and economic aspects of this era. It has only been during the past two decades that several studies examining rituals and religion during the Neolithic Period have been published (Cauvin 1997; Kuijt 2000; Gebel et al. 2002). In the present study we do not intend to repeat what has already been published concerning the theories and methodologies of studying ritual in prehistoric archaeology (Verhoeven 2002), but will only investigate why the Neolithic inhabitants of the site ‘Ayn Ghazal built different types of ritual structures that were possibly "temples". First, rituals should be described as acts which are an element of a religion (Cauvin 1997). For example, in Ancient Mesopotamia religious rituals often involved the performance of songs or music accompanied by a number of symbolic acts (Garfinkel 2003). The written sources inform us that offerings to the gods were a means of purifying people from their sins. Two reliefs of Tukulti-Ninurta I found at Ashur and shown on the fronts of so-called symbol pedestals illustrate a worshipper in front of the symbol of god, a standing stone (Moortgat 1969:Fig. 246). Was this the same case during the LPPNB at ‘Ayn Ghazal? At Ugarit several tablets describe brief rituals, mostly concerning the king and listing sacrifices (Quaegerbeur 1993; Fleming 1997). The term "religion" has a very broad range of meaning, but centers on the belief in one or more superpowers known as "gods" who are entitled to obedience and worship (Bienkowski, Millard 2000:240; Christensen this volume). Nevertheless, it is out of the scope of this paper to discuss different definitions of religion. The institutionalized forms of religion might have developed as societies themselves became more settled and sites became more densely inhabited and needed administrative control. Due to the increasing number of persons living in one village, social conflicts probably occurred that had to be managed by (institutionalized?) mediators. Where a spatial segregation of adversary parties was no longer possible, conceptual or symbolic means of distinguishing different groups were probably used more frequently. By analogy with pre-dynastic times in the Near East, it may be proposed that the earliest evidence for the administration of religion is to be looked for in temple architecture, and in similar practices repeated at separate locations.

‘Ayn Ghazal temples The archaeological excavations conducted at the site of ‘Ayn Ghazal yielded a large amount of archaeological material associated with ritual. From the MPPNB layers, which represent the earliest phase of occupation at ‘Ayn Ghazal, human and animal figurines, burials, plastered skulls, and plaster statuary were recovered. Do such artifacts indicate a social order? Of particular importance from the excavations at ‘Ayn Ghazal are two MPPNB caches of human statues, masks, animal figurines with flint flakes inserted inside their bodies, and plastered skulls. These discoveries were interpreted as cultic objects (Schmandt- Bessarat 1998, 2002). But the religious scene changed completely during the LPPNB, when, instead of such ritual objects and practices, cultic structures were built to serve

303 Clans, gods and temples Kafafi some ritual purposes (Rollefson 2000). Three types of ritual structures/temples were revealed at ‘Ayn Ghazal: . The curvilinear, encountered in the North Field. . The apsidal with one orthostat, excavated in the Central Field. . The rectangular with three orthostats, found in the East Field. In the North Field two curvilinear buildings were unearthed and identified as circular shrines or cult buildings (Fig. 1). This type is considered to be an evolutionary development from the apsidal type (Rollefson 2000:175) excavated in the Central Field (Fig. 3). Based on construction methods, the excavators remarked that one of the two curvilinear buildings had been in use for a short time while the other was used for a very long period (Kafafi, Rollefson 1994, 1995; Rollefson, Kafafi 1994, 1996).

Fig. 1: The two Curvilinear Temples excavated in the North Field at ‘Ayn Ghazal (photo: Yousef Zubi).

Fig. 2: Drawings of the four construction phases of the major Curvilinear Temple in the North Field (drawings by Ali Omari).

304 Kafafi Clans, gods and temples

The latter (Fig. 2) underwent four construction phases. The first two included apses at the west end. The third phase closed the collapsing apse by building up a long north- south wall in front of it and filling the space between the apse and this wall with debris. And the fourth phase is represented by the construction of a small curvilinear room (2.5 m diameter) with a small antechamber to the east. In the center of this room a large pit was dug, with four channel-like openings still visible in the sides. The second type of LPPNB ritual building is the so-called apsidal, which was encountered in the Central Field. This building was re-used during the Yarmoukian Period (Rollefson et al. 1990; Kafafi 1993). The building measures 4-5 m N-S by 3-4 m E-W with a curved wall on its southern side which measures 1.40 m in diameter and contains a large upright stone built into the center of the apse (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3: Upright stone built into the apse of the LPPNB Apsidal Building . Re-used in the Pottery Neolithic (photo: Hisahiko Wada). It is clear that the building received several modifications (Fig. 4). First, it seems that the apsidal end was filled with debris and so became a kind of tower with a diameter ranging between 2.5 and 3 m. At that point the building consisted of two parts: the tower on the south end and a rectangular area on the north end. At a later period the apsidal wall was protected by a fragile wall only one stone thick. This building was on top of the area where the second MPPNB cache of statues was found. This may well indicate that this part of the site had a special significance amongst the inhabitants of ‘Ayn Ghazal through all the village’s settled periods. The third type of LPPNB ritual structure is the rectangular building. Two of these were unearthed on the eastern side of the site, across Seil ez-Zarqa. The first Fig. 4: The Apsidal Building after building (Fig. 5a) was constructed high upon the steep abandonment (photo: Hisahiko eastern slope of the site and measures ca. 4 m N-S by 5 Wada). m E-W. The excavators recognized two phases of use and organization in the structure. The earliest phase had three upright stones about 70 cm high (Fig. 5b) arranged symmetrically in an isosceles triangle [?] in the area between the northern and southern walls.

305 Clans, gods and temples Kafafi

Fig. 5a+b: Rectangular Late PPNB Temple with an orthostat; found in the East Field of ‘Ayn Ghazal (drawing: M. Bataineh and photo: Yousef Zu’bi). An arrangement of limestone blocks surrounding a bed of clay was found in the area between the southernmost orthostatic stone and the southern wall. It seems that this bed of clay had been repeatedly burned, forming a ceramic slab, suggesting an altar-like use (Rollefson 2000:177). A hearth made of red-painted lime plasters and surrounded by seven flat stones had been laid in the area between the eastern wall of the building and the central orthostat. A doorway approximately 1 m wide had originally been in the eastern wall of the building. This opening was blocked during the later phase of use by dressed limestone boulders and an orthostat. The upper part of the orthostat rises about 10 cm above the height of the walls, which suggests that the enclosure may have been open to the sky (Rollefson 2000:177). A low platform was also excavated inside a thin wall between the north wall and the northernmost upright stone. The second rectangular ritual building of ‘Ayn Ghazal was also excavated in the East Field, but on the bottom of the Field’s eastern slope. The structure has two rooms separated by a north-south wall, and an antechamber attached to the outer face of its eastern wall (Fig. 6). The east room of the main structure has a floor of yellow clay, an unpainted lime-plaster hearth surrounded by seven flat stones, and three standing stones of unequal heights (ca. 40-70 cm) built against the eastern wall. These upright stones support two thick slabs of lime that form a raised platform. The room had a doorway in the southern wall, but it was blocked at a later period. Another door was opened in the partition wall separating the east and west rooms. In conclusion: The LPPNB cultic structures excavated at ‘Ayn Ghazal show differences of plans, though most of them include orthostats/upright stones built into one of the walls of the building (Kafafi in prep.). The two structures found in the East Field both had similar hearths built in front of the standing pillars. Regarding the number of orthostats, the cultic buildings are of three types: . Temples with one orthostat. . Temples with three orthostats. . Temples without any orthostats. As is well known, during historical periods in the Near East menhirs were set up to represent gods, and worshippers would practice their rituals in front of these stones (Kafafi, Scheltema 2005). Thus upright stones were used as symbols for gods during historical times, and this may well have been the case in the temples at ‘Ayn Ghazal.

306 Kafafi Clans, gods and temples

Fig. 6a+b: LPPNB Temple excavated on the lower slope of the East Field (drawing: M. Bataineh and photo: Y. Zu’bi). In other words, it may be hypothesized that each cultic structure found at ‘Ayn Ghazal belonged to a god, and each god had his own symbol. It may also be that at ‘Ayn Ghazal some gods did not have symbols and the worshippers practiced the rituals for such gods inside the curvilinear buildings. The archaeological excavations indicated that the PPNB apsidal house excavated in the Central Field continued in use during the Pottery Neolithic (Yarmoukian). A large number of pottery shards were dug up inside and outside the building, and some of them were found underneath fallen stones inside the building. It is highly probable that at some point before the complete abandonment of the site by the end of the Yarmoukian Period worshippers had decided to bury the monolith by filling the apse area with stones, giving it the character of a tower. In addition, a flimsy wall consisting of one row of medium-sized unhewn stones was constructed outside to support the apse with the monolith (Fig. 4). We think this was also the case for the rectangular temples constructed in the East Field. At the southeastern corner of the upper temple, a number of Yarmoukian pottery sherds were excavated. This may indicate that the building was abandoned during the Pottery Neolithic Period of the Yarmoukian Culture. Thus the evidence suggests that during the LPPNB the inhabitants of ‘Ayn Ghazal built several cultic structures/temples very close to each other assigned to different gods. The question is why. It has been proposed that during the LPPNB several ethnic groups came from the west bank of the Jordan River and settled on its eastern side in already existing sites, including ‘Ayn Ghazal (Gebel 2004; Kafafi 2004). Those new immigrants may have consisted of ethnic groups different from those already living at the site during the LPPNB, and the differences in the cultic buildings uncovered at the site tend to confirm that there were indeed significant changes in the social structure from the MPPNB to the LPPNB. Some help in explaining the differences among the styles of cultic construction at ‘Ayn Ghazal can perhaps come from a consideration of the religions in the Levant during

307 Clans, gods and temples Kafafi the historical periods (Bronze Ages) which directly followed the prehistoric age. A comparison of the historical Canaanite pantheon with the ritual and cultic practices implied by the cultic structures at ‘Ayn Ghazal should provide us with more insight concerning the latter. Other scholars (Schmandt-Bessarat 2003) have already proposed that the religious and ritual practices of the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Ancient Near East stemmed from those of the Neolithic period.

The Canaan Pantheon "Canaan" is a term designating the region located along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean during the Bronze Ages (ca. 3,500 – 1,200 BC) and encompassing parts of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and the west of modern Jordan (Tubb 1998; Kafafi 2008). However, the boundaries of Canaan undoubtedly changed over time. Sources for Canaanite religion were at first limited to the Bible; but then archaeological excavations provided us with numerous texts and objects that have become the primary sources for such a study.

Fig. 7: Al-Hajar al Mansoub menhirs, visible very close to the dolmen fields of Zerqa’ Ma’in (photo: H.G. Scheltema). According to such Bronze Age texts from the Levant as the Ugarit archive, during the second millennium BC the Canaanite religion was polytheistic. The god El was the supreme deity who created the earth and men, and was the creator of all the other gods (of which there were seventy) and of the universe (Day 1992). El’s dwelling was in the sources of rivers and amid springs. His wife was the goddess Athirat, the mother of gods, and her cult symbol was a wooden pole of some kind, which was set up in high places beside altars and stone pillars (Albright 1942:78). The upright stones built into the walls of the cultic structures at ‘Ayn Ghazal (Fig. 5b) may represent the first stage of this icon. Menhirs dated to the Early Bronze Age (ca. 3500-2000 BC) are encountered at many places in the Levant, such as Zarqa' Ma'in in Jordan (Fig. 7). According to the Ugarit texts, the god Baal was the most active deity in the pantheon, and the bringer of rain and responsible for thunder and lightening (Gibson 1977; Caquot,

308 Kafafi Clans, gods and temples

Sznycer 1980). Baal originally had the same attributes as the god Hadad (thunderer), and was the adversary of the god Mot (death). Baal's wife was the goddess Anat, who cut up the god Mot like corn. The Ugaritic texts added that Baal had a second wife, Astarte, who had a lesser role than Anat (Albright 1942:71-94). Many other deities were worshipped by the Canaanites. One was Resheph, who was connected with burning and Shamash the sun-goddess. In addition to the large number of gods and goddesses which the Canaanites worshipped, the written texts show that they sacrificed animals and that their sacrificial rituals were very diverse. Archaeological excavations at several Late Bronze Age (ca. 1,550- Fig. 8: Temples: 3) Hazor Str.3. 4) Hazor Str.1B. 5) Hazor. 1,200 BC) sites in the Levant have 6) Tell Balata. 7) Megiddo Temple 2048, Str. X. 8) Megiddo revealed many structures which Temple 2048 Str. VIII. 9+10) Tell Mardikh. 11) Tell Mumbaqat. were identified as temples by the 12) Alalakh Str. VII. 13) Alalakh Str. VI. 14) Jerusalem? (Mazar excavators. Due to the rarity of 1992). inscriptions, only a few of these buildings could be attributed to specific deities. The excavated temples show a marked absence of uniformity in plan (Fig. 8). It has been observed that they consist of different types, sizes, locations, and contents. This no doubt reflects the diverse Canaanite pantheon and ultimately an ethnically diverse Canaanite population (Gonen 1992:22). At Hazor, a Late Bronze Age open- air temple was found that consisted of a row of stelae, one of which bears high-relief carving (Fig. 9). In addition, three basalt stones that were encountered in Stratum 1B of the Stelae Temple have been restudied and reinterpreted by Beck as schematic figures (Beck 2002). Thus it seems that this ritual custom started during the Neolithic period and continued to be practiced into Fig. 9: An open cult place found at Hazor (after Yadin 1970). the historical period. If this cult

309 Clans, gods and temples Kafafi symbol can be assigned to Athirat, the Canaanite mother goddess who gave birth to all the gods and goddesses, then it may be proposed that the original upright stones of the Neolithic were sacred to a deity connected with fertility.

Conclusion Defining what a cult is in an archaeological context is very difficult and requires an explicit explanation of assumptions and methods, such as the one published by Renfrew (1985). It seems that throughout history and prehistory, all religions were concerned with the universal themes of life. The Canaanites built open-air altars, stelae, and temples for their deities. The same seems to have been true for the LPPNB inhabitants of ‘Ayn Ghazal, and, as stated above, it may be suggested that different style ritual buildings were either for different gods, or built by different ethnic groups/clans, or both. This seems especially likely given that religion and cult are one of the most effective means of social and cultural differentiation. Religion/cult is inclusive and exclusive at the same time: on one hand the religious affiliation of a person demonstrates their association with a certain group very effectively; and on the other hand the rituals, and the material remains belonging to rituals, effectively delineate social and cultural distinctions. During the LPPNB cultivation was the main source of livelihood, and farming operations are directly dependent upon natural phenomena like rain and sun. Thus, nature had a great influence on the lives of Neolithic peoples and they sought to influence it through worshipping these natural phenomena and building cultic structures sacred to the spirits and deities controlling nature. Each natural phenomenon was personified as a god, represented by an appropriate symbol and given a house. We think that the fertility of nature and humans were the main concern of the Ghazalians' throughout all periods.

Acknowledgements: Thanks are due to Barbara Porter for reading the manuscript and editing the English, to Denise Schmandt-Bessarat for her valuable remarks and advice, and to Ali Omari and Yousef Zubi, Muwaffaq Bataineh, Hisahiko Wada and Gajus Hujo Scheltema for providing the line drawings and photos. I am also indebted to Hans Georg Gebel for his encouragement to finish this manuscript and to Marion Benz for her patience.

Zeidan A. Kafafi Faculty of Archaeology and Anthropology Yarmouk University HKJ-Irbid [email protected]

310 Kafafi Clans, gods and temples References Avni, G. 2007 From Standing Stones to Open Mosques in the Negev Desert: The Archaeology of Religious Transformation on the Fringes. Near Eastern Archaeology 70, 3:124-128. Beck, P.A. 2002 Imagery and Representation. Studies in the Art and the Iconography of Ancient Palestine: Collected Articles. Tel Aviv, Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Bienkowski, P., Millard, A. (eds.) 2000 Dictionary of the Ancient Near East. London, British Museum. Cauvin, J. 1997 Naissance des divintés. Naissance de l'agriculture. La Révolution des Symboles au Néolithique. Nouvelle édition. Paris, CNRS. Day, J. 1992 Canaan, Religion of. In: D.N. Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary 1. 831-837. New York, Doublday. Fleming, D. 1997 Rituals. In: W.W. Hallo and K.L. Younger (eds.), The Context of Scripture 1. 431-443. Leiden, Köln, Brill. Garfinkel, Y. 2003 Dance at the Dawn of Agriculture. Austin, Texas University Press. Gebel, H.G.K. 2004 Central to What? The Centrality Issue of the LPPNB Mega-Site Phenomenon. In: H.-D. Bienert et al. (eds.), Central Settlements in Neolithic Jordan. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 5:1-21. Berlin, ex oriente. Gebel, H.G.K et al. (eds.) 2002 Magic Practices and Ritual in the Near Eastern Neolithic. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 8. Berlin, ex oriente. Gibson, J.C.L. 1977 Canaanite Myths and Legends. Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark Ltd. Gonen, R. 1992 The Late Bronze Age. In: A. Ben-Tor (ed.) and R. Greenberg (trans.), The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. 211-257. New Haven, Yale University Press. Insoll, T. 2004 Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. London, Routledge. Kafafi, Z. 1993 The Yarmoukians in Jordan. Paléorient 19, 1:101-115. 2004 The 'Collapse' of the LPPNB Settlement Organization: The Case of ‘Ain Ghazal. In: H.-D. Bienert et al. (eds.), Central Settlements in Neolithic Jordan. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 5:113-119. Berlin, ex oriente. 2008 Characteristics of Late Bronze Age Canaanite Cities in Palestine. In: A.R. Al-Ansary et al. (eds.), The City in the Aran World in Light of Archaeological Discoveries. Evolution and Development. Proceeding of the Symposium: The City in the Arab World: Beginnings and Development. 5.-7. December 2005 in Al-Jouf-Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 39-56. Riyadh, AbdulRahman Al-Sudairy Foundation. in prep. Upright Stones of the Neolithic Village ‘Ayn Ghazal: Location and Function. To be published in the Proceeding of the Workshop Megalithics in Jordan held at the University of Jordan and organized by Tara Steimer. Kafafi, Z., Rollefson, G. 1994 ‘Ain Ghazal 1993-1994. Biblical Archaeologist 57, 4:239-241. 1995 The 1994 Season at ‘Ain Ghazal: Preliminary Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 39:13-29. Kafafi, Z., Scheltema, H.G. 2005 Megalithic Structures in Jordan. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 5, 2:5-23. Kuijt, I. 2002 Reflections on Ritual and Transmission of Authority in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant. In: H.G.K Gebel et al. (eds.), Magic Practices and Ritual in the Near Eastern Neolithic. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 8:81-90. Berlin, ex oriente. Kuijt, I. (ed.) 2000 Life in Neolithic Farming Communities Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. New York, Kluwer Academic, Plenum Publishers.

311 Clans, gods and temples Kafafi

Mazar, A. 1992 Temples of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages and the Iron Age. In: A. Kempinski and R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. 161-192. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society. Moortgat, A. 1969 The Art of Ancient Mesopotamia. The Classical Art of the Near East. London, Phaidon. Quaegebeur, J. (ed.) 1993 Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 55. Leuven, Peeters. Renfrew, C. 1985 The Archaeology of Cult. London, Thames and Hudson. Rollefson, G. 1983 Ritual and Ceremony at Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal (Jordan). Paléorient 9, 2:29-38. 1986 Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal (Jordan): Ritual and Ceremony II. Paléorient 12, 1:45-52. 1997 Changes in Architecture and Social Organization at ‘Ain Ghazal. In: H.G.K. Gebel et al. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan II. Perspectives from 1997. 287- 308. Berlin, ex oriente. 1998 ‘Ain Ghazal: Ritual and Ceremony III. Paléorient 24, 1:45-52. 2000 Ritual and Social Structure at Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal. In: I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. 165-190. New York, Kluwer Academic, Plenum Publishers. 2005 Early Neolithic Ritual Centers in the Southern Levant. Neo-Lithics 2:3-12. Rollefson, G., Kafafi, Z. 1994 The 1993 Season at ‘Ain Ghazal: Preliminary Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 38:11-32. 1996 The 1995 Season at ‘Ayn Ghazal: Preliminary Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 40:11-28. 2007 The Rediscovery of the Neolithic Period in Jordan. In: T. Levy et al. (eds.), Crossing Jordan, North American Contributions to the Archaeology of Jordan. 211-218. London, Equinox. Rollefson, G. et al. 1990 The Neolithic Village of ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan: Preliminary Report on the 1988 Season. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplement 27:97-118. Schmandt-Bessarat, D. 1998 ‘Ain Ghazal Monumental Figures. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 310:1-17. 2002 From Behind the Mask: Plastered Skulls from ‘Ain Ghazal. Originali XXIV:95-140. 2003 Masks of Death. Archaeology Odyssey 6, 2:19-27. in prep. Symbols at ‘Ain Ghazal. ‘Ain Ghazal Excavations Report I. http://menic.utexas.edu/ghazal/. Tubb, J.N. 1998 Canaanites. Peoples of the Past 2. Norman, University of Oklahoma Press. Verhoeven, M. 2002 Ritual and its Investigation in Prehistory. In: H.G.K. Gebel et al. (eds.), Magic Practices and Ritual in the Near Eastern Neolithic. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 8:5-40. Berlin, ex oriente. Watkins, T. 2006 Architecture and the Symbolic Construction of New Worlds. In: E.B. Banning and M. Chazan (eds.), Domesticating Space. Construction, Community, and Cosmology in the Late Prehistoric Near East. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 12:1-15. Berlin, ex oriente. Yadin, Y. 1970 Hazor, The Schweich Lectures 1970. London, Oxford University Press.

312