gilead i (2009) neolithic chalcolithic transition

7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition

1/26

Transitions in PrehistoryEssays in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef

Oxbow Books

Oxford and Oakville


2/26

AMERICAN SCHOOL OF PREHISTORIC RESEARCH MONOGRAPH SERIES

Series Editors

C. C. LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY, Harvard University

DAVID PILBEAM, Harvard UniversityOFER BAR-YOSEF, Harvard University

Editorial Board

STEVEN L. KUHN, University of Arizona, Tucson

DANIEL E. LIEBERMAN, Harvard University

RICHARD H. MEADOW, Harvard University

MARY M. VOIGT, The College of William and Mary

HENRY T. WRIGHT, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Publications Coordinator

WREN FOURNIER, Harvard University

The American School of Prehistoric Research (ASPR) Monographs in Archaeology and

Paleoanthropology present a series of documents covering a variety of subjects in the archaeology of the

Old World (Eurasia, Africa, Australia, and Oceania). This series encompasses a broad range of subjects

from the early prehistory to the Neolithic Revolution in the Old World, and beyond including: hunter-

gatherers to complex societies; the rise of agriculture; the emergence of urban societies; human physi-

cal morphology, evolution and adaptation, as well as; various technologies such as metallurgy, pottery

production, tool making, and shelter construction. Additionally, the subjects of symbolism, religion, and

art will be presented within the context of archaeological studies including mortuary practices and rock

art. Volumes may be authored by one investigator, a team of investigators, or may be an edited collec-

tion of shorter articles by a number of different specialists working on related topics.

American School of Prehistoric Research, Peabody Museum, Harvard University,

11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA


3/26

Transitions in PrehistoryEssays in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef

Edited by

John J. Shea and Daniel E. Lieberman

www.oxbowbooks.com


4/26

Published by Oxbow Books on behalf of the American School of Prehistoric Research.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Oxbow Books and the individual contributors 2009

ISBN 978-1-84217-340-4

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Shea, John J., 1960

Lieberman, Daniel E., 1964

Transitions in prehistory : essays in honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef / edited by John J. Shea and Daniel E.

Lieberman.

p. cm. -- (American School of Prehistoric Research monograph series)

Includes bibliographical references.

ISBN 978-1-84217-340-4

1. Paleolithic period. 2. Anthropology, Prehistoric. 3. Antiquities, Prehistoric. 4. Bar-Yosef, Ofer. I.

Shea, John J. II. Lieberman, Daniel, 1964- III. Bar-Yosef, Ofer.

GN771.T76 2009

930.1'2--dc22

2009002081

TYPESET AND PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


5/26

15

THE NEOLITHICCHALCOLITHICTRANSITION IN THE SOUTHERN

LEVANT: LATE SIXTHFIFTH MILLENNIUM CULTURE HISTORYIsaac Gilead

Introduction

Transitions in prehistory have occupied Ofer Bar-

Yosef for quite a long time now. He focuses most-

ly upon two transitions: between the Middle and

Upper Paleolithic periods, which he labels the

Middle to Upper Paleolithic Revolution, and

between the Epipaleolithic and the Neolithicperiods, which he calls the Agricultural

Revolution or the Neolithic Revolution. In his

1998 paper in Cambridge Archaeological Journal,

he made an interesting attempt to use the rela-

tively more abundant data on the Neolithic

Revolution as an analogy to the study of the less

known Middle to Upper Paleolithic Revolution

(Bar-Yosef 1998). Below, I will apply some ele-

ments of this approach to my analysis of another

transition, between the Neolithic and

Chalcolithic periods in the southern Levant.

Before turning to the problems of the

Neolithic to Chalcolithic transition, I would like

to discuss three issues of more general nature.

The first one is the transitionrevolution dichoto-

my. It is abundantly clear from Bar-Yosef s writ-

ings that revolution is a form of transition, i.e., a

transition may be either revolutionary or non-

revolutionary. For example, when discussing the

differences between the Middle and Upper

Paleolithic periods across Europe and WesternAsia, he states that this transition can be defined

as a revolution (Bar-Yosef 1995:115), implying

that there are transitions that are not revolutions.

Thus, when studying transitions, including the

NeolithicChalcolithic transition in the southern

Levant, it is important to define whether the tran-

sition is of a revolutionary nature. The archaeo-

logical correlates that can be used to establish the

revolutionary nature of a transition are not agreed

upon since scholars disagree on the number of

recognizable major cultural changes that meritthe label revolution (Bar-Yosef 1998:141).

The second issue concerns gradual versus

sudden change. As Bar-Yosef (1998:142) notes,

for gradualists there are practically no revolu-

tions since they see even dramatic change as a

slow process. Bar-Yosef takes the opposite posi-

tion and regards rapid change as revolution. I

endorse this approach, and I even suggest that

the Natufian Culture of the Levant was not just a

last stage in a long series of Epipaleolithic enti-

ties but rather a drastic shift that warrants the

label the Natufian Revolution (Gilead

1988:180 181). Furthermore, even if a transi-

tion was not of dramatic magnitude and cannot

be categorized as a revolution, it still could be a

sudden event and not necessarily a gradual one.

The third issue concerns culture history:

defining and classifying archaeological entities

and examining their relation in time and space. I

agree with Bar-Yosef (2003:273) that these are

bare necessities. It is argued below that under-standing the Neolithic Chalcolithic transition is

either biased or impossible without recognition

of cultural entities, or the culture history of the

Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods (Gilead


6/26

336 Transitions in Prehistory

1985). Thus, any generalization or reconstruction

concerning transitions should be related to spe-

cific cultural entities defined in time and space.

The methodology used below for definingarchaeological entities in time and space and

establishing the culture history of the late

sixthfifth millennia is based on comparative

typo-technological observations combined with14C dates. In general terms, a culture consists

of a polythetic set of artifact types that consis-

tently recurs in assemblages within a limited

geographical zone (Clarke 1978). A culture is

equivalent to what Banning (1998:190191),

following Henry (1989:82118), calls either

industry or facies in his overview of theLevantine Neolithic. The taxon Natufian

Culture, used extensively since its introduction

by Garrod (1932), is a good example of a most

useful term that is essential for interpretations.

Usually, the phrase the Natufian site of Eynan

is used, rather than the Late Epipaleolithic site

of Eynan. The same should apply to sixthfifth

millennia entities. To set sites and cultural enti-

ties in time, 14C dates are grouped into statisti-

cally similar clusters that are averaged (com-

bined). The OxCal calibration software, version

3.10 (Bronk Ramsey 2001), is used for calibra-

tion (based on the 2004 data), for testing the

similarity of the dates and for combining them

when possible.

Late NeolithicChalcolithic Entities

Wadi Rabah Culture and Its Variants

Assemblages unearthed in the late 1950s by

Kaplan (1958) in the Tel Aviv area, especially at

the site of Wadi Rabah (Figure 15.1), weredefined as Wadi Rabah Phase. The stratigraphy

at the site of Wadi Rabah consists of an upper

layer (A) labeled Ghassulian and two layers under-

neath it (B and C) labeled Pre-Ghassulian/

Wadi Rabah (Kaplan 1958:151). After new

sites yielded Wadi Rabah assemblages, espe-

cially the site of Ein el Jarba in the Plain of

Esdraelon (Figure 15.1) (Kaplan 1969), WadiRabah Culture became an established entity

(e.g., Banning 1998; Gopher and Gophna 1993).

In terms of artifact types (Kaplan 1969:7, 23,

27), the hallmarks of the Wadi Rabah pottery

assemblages are the black and red burnished

ware, carinated bowls, and bow-rim jars. The

absence or rarity of arrowheads and the abun-

dance of finely denticulated and bi-truncated

sickle blades characterize the flint assemblage.

Gopher and Gophna (1993:336339)

examined many assemblages and suggest thatthe taxon Wadi Rabah has two meanings:

Wadi Rabah sensu stricto and Wadi Rabah

sensu lato. The first, normative Wadi Rabah,

consists of sites that feature the attributes as

defined by Kaplan and are located in the central

and northern parts of the southern Levant. The

second, Wadi Rabah Variants, consists of con-

temporary sites that do not meet the strict defi-

nition and, in addition, are also located in the

eastern and southern provinces. Adopting

Clarkes approach, Gopher and Gophna define

Wadi Rabah as a culture, and its variants as

regional subcultures. They assume the proba-

ble existence of subcultures such as the Huleh

Culture in the Huleh Valley, the Tsaf Culture

in the Jordan Valley, and the Newe Yam

Culture in the Carmel coast. As to the

Qatifian in the south, they regard it as a cul-

ture rather than a subculture.

Two main problems obstruct attempts to

subdivide the taxon Wadi Rabah into temporaland regional constituents. The first is the prob-

lem of establishing accepted criteria for defining

attributes to be used as cultural and subcultural

markers. To illustrate this, one can compare


7/26

The Neoli thicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant 337

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


8/26


Gopher and Gophnas (1993:Figure 15) and

Garfinkels (1999:108) lists of Wadi Rabah sites.

While Garfinkel considers Jericho, Newe Yam

(Figure 15.1), Lod, Nahal Betzet I, Assawir, andHagoshrim to be Wadi Rabah assemblages,

Gopher and Gophna consider them as variants.

Garfinkel regards the Qatifian and the Tsafian

as belonging to a different period and excludes

them from his list of Wadi Rabah assemblages.

In more general terms, Garfinkel (1999:152)

considers Wadi Rabah to be a highly uniform

cultural phenomenon, while Gopher and

Gophna (1993:340341) consider it a relatively

diversified phenomenon.

The Transjordanian sites, only cursorilymentioned by Gopher and Gophna (1993) and

Garfinkel (1999), further complicate the issue.

This has been recently demonstrated by

Banning (2002:Table 1), who lists the disagree-

ments regarding Wadi Rabah or Wadi Rabah

like sites in Jordan. The controversy between

Banning (2002) and Bourke and Lov ell (2004)

regarding the cultural attribution of sites such as

Tabaqat al-Bma and the lower layers of Abu

Hamid and Teleilat Ghassul (Figure 15.1) illus-

trates well the problem.

The second problem is that the radiometric

chronology of Wadi Rabah Culture is poorly

known. This is due mostly to the low number of

dates available compared, for example, with the

Chalcolithic Ghassulian Culture (Burton and

Levy 2001; Gilead 1994; Joffe and Dessel

1995). The only dates from the sites excavated

by Kaplan and defined by him as Wadi Rabah

(Table 15.1, dates 12) derived from the lower-

most layer at Ein el Jarba, and it is agreed thatthey are too late. Thus, there are practically no

dated normative Wadi Rabah sites.

The Lebanese site of Ard Tlaili, with a pro-

nounced Wadi Rabah component (Garfinkel

1999:151), is a Wadi Rabah variant in the opin-

ion Gopher and Gophna (1993:Figure 15). The

combined date of four measurements from the

site is ca. 58505600 BC cal. (Table 15.1, dates36). The combined three dates from Newe

Yam demonstrate that a later phase of Wadi

Rabah existed at about 55005300 BC cal.

(Table 15.1, dates 79). The dates from the

Wadi Rabahlike levels at Tabaqat al-Bma

(Banning et al. 1994) range between ca. 5600

and 5100 BC cal. (Table 15.1, dates 1016). It

seems therefore that the Wadi Rabah Culture

sensu lato existed between ca. 5800/5700 and

5200/5100 BC cal.

In the areas to the east and south of the coreMediterranean vegetation zone, mainly in the

northern Negev and the lower Jordan Valley,

there are practically no Wadi Rabah sites.

However, the highest numbers of Ghassulian

and Pre-Ghassulian sites have been discovered in

these parts of the southern Levant, some of them

known since the late 1920s. We will therefore

devote more attention to these parts of the coun-

try in the next sections.

The Qatifian Culture

Epstein (1984) started excavating the site of

Qatif (Figure 15.1) in 1973, and I sounded it for

an additional three short season in 1979, 1980,

and 1983. There is a single 14C date from Qatif,

604080 BP (Table 15.1, date 17). The sound-

ings at Qatif and Besor site P14 were the basis

for defining these and similar assemblages as

The Qatifian Culture (Gilead 1990; Gilead

and Alon 1988).

The pottery of Qatif is coarse and crudelyfashioned, with little variety of shapes, and many

vessels are made of straw-tempered ware

(Epstein 1984:212). It is similar to the pottery of

sites D1 in Nahal Besor (Figure 15.1), known


9/26


since the late 1920s (Macdonald 1932). The

common shape is a wide-mouthed jar with

thrust-through broad and flat loop handles low

on the body. Garfinkel (1999:189199) attrib-utes the pottery of Qatif and sites in the Besor

area and beyond to the Qatifian Ware and

dates it to his Middle Chalcolithic.

It has been suggested that the geographical

distribution of the Qatifian includes sites in the

Feinan area, Teleilat Ghassul, and Teluliyot

Batashi (Figure 15.1) (Garfinkel 1999; Gilead

1990; Goren 1990). The pottery from the

Feinan area and from Teluliyot Batashi seems to

be Qatifian, but the attribution of Feidan 4

(Gilead 1990:6061) to the Qatifian has provento be unjustified, since it became clear that

Feidan 4 is an Early Bronze Age I site (Adams

and Genz 1995). The suggestion that phase I of

Teleilat Ghassul is Qatifian (Goren 1990:105*

106*) is not substantiated by the new evidence

(Lovell 2001).

Another Qatifian site is Ain Waida on the

east side of the Dead Sea (Figure 15.1) (Kuijt

and Chesson 2002). Most diagnostic are loop

handles and the group of straw-tempered ware.

The radiocarbon date from the site, 617055

BP (Table 15.1, date 18), falls well within the

range of the date from Qatif. Kuijt and Chesson

(2002:Table 1) list nine radiocarbon dates as a

temporal framework for the Qatifian: one from

Qatif and the rest from Jordan. The most proba-

ble 2 averaged calibrated range for Qatif and

Ain Waida is 52104840 BC cal. Garfinkel

(1999:189) mentions 28 Qatifian sherds from

the Pottery Neolithic levels of Tell Wadi Feinan

(Figure 15.1) (Najjar et al. 1990). One of thedates from this site is within the range of the

Qatif-Ain Waida dates (Table 15.1, date 19), but

two dates from profile B are more than 200

years earlier (Table 15.1, dates 2021).

The four early 14C dates from Abu Hamid

(Table 15.1, dates 2225) are clearly within the

Qatif-Ain Waida range (52604990 BC cal.).

The pottery assemblages of basal Abu Hamid,however, are not Qatifian, neither technological-

ly nor typologically. Vessel shapes and the rela-

tively high frequency of painted decoration and

red/black burnish at basal Abu Hamid are remi-

niscent of Wadi Rabah ware and of other sites,

for example, Beth Shean and Tel Tsaf (Figure

15.1) (Lovell et al. 1997:366, 399). Sites in

northern Israel such as Megadim and Newe Yam

yielded radiometric dates in the range of the

Qatifian, but they are considered as Wadi Rabah

(Gopher and Gophna 1993:Table I, Figure 15)and are clearly non-Qatifian in their ceramic

technology and typology. The combined proba-

ble ranges of Qatif and Tell Wadi Feinan suggest

that the Qatifian began at about 5400 BC cal. or

somewhat later and terminated at about

50004900 BC cal.

Our knowledge of the Qatifian is scanty. It

is currently being studied by Yael Abadi-Reiss in

the framework of her Ph.D. dissertation, and

more data will hopefully be available soon. Some

of the Qatifian attributes are shared by assem-

blages with pottery dubbed as Beth Shean

Ware by Garfinkel (1999:153188), and espe-

cially worth noting are the loop handles that are

50 times more frequent in assemblages of Beth

Shean Ware than in Wadi Rabah Ware

(Garfinkel 1999:198).

The Besorian

The Besorian Culture is a precursor of the

northern Negev Ghassulian (Gilead 1990;Gilead and Alon 1988). The original definition,

Besor Phase, is based on the results of a limit-

ed sounding we carried out at Macdonalds site

D (Gilead and Alon 1988) and a reevaluation of


10/26


Table 15.1 14C dates mentioned in the text

DateNo. Provenance Lab number Years BP S.D. Source

1 Ein el-Jarba Gx-786 4920 240 Kaplan 1969:272 Ein el-Jarba Gx-787 5690 140 ibid..3 Ard Tlaili K-1431 6660 130 Gopher and Gophna 1993:Table 1

4 Ard Tlaili K-1434 6790 130 ibid..5 Ard Tlaili K-1433 6850 130 ibid.6 Ard Tlaili K-1432 6870 130 ibid.

7 Newe Yam Hv-4256 6310 395 Burton and Levy 2001:12408 Newe Yam RT-1723 6390 70 ibid.9 Newe Yam RT-1724 6565 70 ibid.10 Tabaqat al-Bma TO-3408 6190 70 Banning et al. 1994:Table 1

11 Tabaqat al-Bma TO-3410 6350 70 ibid.12 Tabaqat al-Bma TO-3412 6380 70 ibid.13 Tabaqat al-Bma TO-4277 6490 70 ibid.

14 Tabaqat al-Bma TO-2114 6590 70 ibid.

15 Tabaqat al-Bma TO-2115 6630 80 ibid.16 Tabaqat al-Bma TO-3411 6670 60 ibid.

17 Qatif Pta-2968 6040 80 Gilead 1988:Table 1.18 'Ain Waida' B AA-29771 6170 55 Kuijt and Chesson 2002:Table 119 Tell Wadi Feinan Coll.Sec. HD-12388 6110 75 Adams 1997:Table 120 Tell Wadi Feinan Profile B HD-10567 6410 115 ibid.

21 Tell Wadi Feinan Profile B HD-12335 6360 45 ibid.22 Abu Hamid A1/A2 Ly-6174 6200 80 Lovell et al. 1997:Table 123 Abu Hamid AG2 Ly-6254 6190 55 ibid.

24 Abu Hamid A1/A2 Ly-6255 6160 70 ibid.25 Abu Hamid A3 Ly-6259 6135 80 ibid..26 Ramot Nof ETH-8828 5715 75 Nahshoni et al. 2002:3*27 Gilat RT-2058 4530 85 Levy and Burton 2006:Appendix 2

28 Gilat RT-860B 4800 135 ibid.

29 Gilat RT-860A 5440 180 ibid.30 Gilat OxA-4011 5540 70 ibid.

31 Gilat Beta-131729 5560 50 ibid.32 Gilat OxA-3555 5700 100 ibid.33 Gilat Beta-131730 5730 40 ibid.

34 Gilat OxA-3566 5790 105 ibid.35 Ghassul H-I OZD024 5791 86 Bourke et al. 2001:Table 336 Ghassul H-I OZD025 5902 71 ibid.37 Ghassul H-I OZD026 5851 117 ibid.

38 Ghassul E-G OZD028 5581 67 ibid.39 Ghassul A-D OZD029 5524 88 ibid.40 Ghassul A-D OZD030 5552 163 ibid.

41 Ghassul E-G OZD031 5605 80 ibid.42 Ghassul E-G OZD032 5577 71 ibid.43 Ghassul A-D OZD033 5454 58 ibid.

44 Ghassul A-D OZD034 5342 71 ibid.45 Ghassul Phase A OZG251 5100 50 Bourke et al. 2004:Table 3


11/26


Table 15.1 continued

DateNo. Provenance Lab number Years BP S.D. Source

46 Ghassul Phase A OZG252 5320 60 ibid..47 Ghassul Phase A OZF423 5370 40 ibid..48 Ghassul Phase A OZF420 5400 40 ibid..49 Ghassul Phase B-C OZG250 5440 40 ibid..

50 Ghassul Phase A OZF417 5450 40 ibid..51 Ghassul Phase A OZF419 5490 40 ibid..52 Ghassul Phase B-C OZG249 5490 50 ibid..

53 Ghassul Phase D OZF422 5500 40 ibid..54 Ghassul Phase D OZG248 5520 40 ibid..55 Ghassul Phase B-C OZF418 5750 40 ibid..

56 Ghassul Phase F-G OZF421 5870 40 ibid..57 Tel Ali Ib OxA 7802 5770 45 Garfinkel 1999:Table 2658 Tel Ali Ib OxA 7801 5815 45 ibid.59 Tel Ali Ib OxA 7804 5930 45 ibid.

60 Tel Ali Ib OxA 7800 5950 45 ibid.61 Safadi, low phase M-864A 5420 350 Gilead 1994:Table 162 Safadi, upper phase M-864C 5120 350 ibid.

63 Safadi, middle phase M-864B 5270 300 ibid.64 Safadi, locus 309 LY-3906 5190 100 ibid.65 Safadi, locus 528 LY-3905 5190 100 ibid.

66 Safadi, locus 721 LY-3904 5170 110 ibid.67 Safadi, locus 144 Pta-3655 5420 70 Cohen 1999:3668 Safadi, sub locus 144 RT-862C 5220 105 ibid.69 Abu Matar, basket 1335 RT-1610 5250 55 Sugar 2000:Table 3.02

70 Abu Matar, basket 1339 RT-1613 5275 55 ibid.71 Abu Matar, basket 1310 PR-1 5340 80 ibid.72 Abu Matar, basket 1313 PR-2 5470 80 ibid.

73 Abu Matar, basket 1332 PR-3 5230 80 ibid.74 Abu Matar, basket 1332 PR-4 5270 80 ibid.75 Abu Matar, basket 1334 PR-5 5260 90 ibid.76 Beter III W-254 5280 150 Rosen and Eldar 1993:24

77 Beter, loc. 37 Pta-4312 5100 130 ibid.78 Beter, loc 30 Pta-4212 5180 70 ibid.79 Tel Sheva 36 RTT-4795 5196 41 Yael Abadi-Reiss pers. comm.

80 Tel Sheva 36 RTT-4796 5314 41 ibid.81 Tel Sheva 36 RT-4797 5153 65 ibid.82 Rasm Harbush RT-1866 4810 90 Carmi and Segal 1998:Tables 12

83 Rasm Harbush RT-1862 4945 65 ibid.84 Rasm Harbush RT-1863 5130 70 ibid.85 Rasm Harbush RT-525 5270 140 ibid.86 Silo Site RT-718 5540 110 ibid.

87 Daliyyot RT-1864 5565 60 ibid.


12/26


the assemblages from other Besor sites such as

A, B, D, and M (Figure 15.1) (Macdonald 1932;

Roshwalb 1981). After the taxon Besorian

Phase had been introduced, a number of schol-ars found it difficult to accept the independent

status of this cultural entity (e.g., Garfinkel

1999:198199). New sites and radiocarbon

dates obtained since the early 1990s support

the suggestion that the Besorian is indeed an

independent entity, Post-Qatifian and Pre-

Ghassulian. The Besorian has been discussed at

some length in a number of recent papers

(Gilead in press; Gilead and Fabian in press),

and it is not our intention to examine the details

here. Besorian sites differ from Ghassulian sitesin major aspects, and there is stratigraphic and

radiometric evidence to support the argument

that the Besorian is the precursor of the

Ghassulian.

The sites of Ramot Nof and Ramot 3 in Beer

Sheva are located ca. 4 km north of Nahal Beer

Sheva (Figure 15.1). Ramot Nof was discovered

and excavated in 1991 by Nahshoni et al. (2002).

Ramot 3, located several hundreds of meters

north of Ramot Nof, was excavated in late

1997early 1998 by Fabian et al. (2004). The

nature of these sites, their artifact assemblages,

and the radiometric date of Ramot Nof demon-

strate that they are significantly different from

the group of Ghassulian sites along Nahal Beer

Sheva: Abu Matar, Safadi, Horvat Beter, and Tel

Sheva (Figure 15.1).

The pottery assemblages of the two groups

of sites illustrate both the typological and the

petrographic differences. Neither churns nor

typical V-shaped bowls, so common in theGhassulian sites, has been discovered at the

Ramot sites. The extensive use of red pigment

for decorating numerous vessels in the

Ghassulian sites is almost completely missing

from the Ramot sites. The typical and dominant

vessels of the Ramot sites, jars and holemouth

jars with large loop handles the Beth Pelet

jars (Gilead and Alon 1988:127*) are absent atthe sites along the Nahal. Moreover, Gorens pet-

rographic study shows that an important com-

ponent of the Ramot pottery is made of Motza

marl or clay with crushed calcite, a petrograph-

ic profile that is extremely rare in the Beer Sheva

Ghassulian assemblages (Nahshoni et al.

2002:9*12*).

Beyond the pottery assemblages, the Ramot

sites differ from the other group of Beer Sheva

sites in the absence of many attributes that are

hallmarks of the latter. The Ramot sites aremuch smaller than the sites near the Nahal, and

while the former seem to be isolated hamlets,

the latter are actually villages. Another obvious

difference is the absence at the Ramot sites of

underground structures, another hallmark of

the Beer Sheva Ghassulian.

All the sites along the Nahal produced evi-

dence of metallurgical activities such as copper

ores, slag, crucibles, and copper implements. At

the Ramot sites, there is no evidence of any met-

allurgical activities or use of copper artifacts.

Ivory carving, another feature of the Beer Sheva

Ghassulian, is also entirely missing from the

Ramot sites. The nature of the Ramot sites and

the broad spectrum of pottery and flint artifact

types negate the option that they are specialized

activity loci of people coming for specific tasks

from the large Ghassulian sites of Beer Sheva.

There are 21 radiocarbon determinations

from the Beer Sheva Ghassulian sites (Table 15.1,

dates 6181), and since they are generally similar,their combined average was calculated. Their 2

combined date is ca. 42004000 BC cal. This

tight cluster of dates, derived from sites of a

homogenic nature, clearly differs from the date of


13/26


Ramot Nof (571575 BP) with a 2 calibrated

range of 47304440 BC cal. (Table 15.1, date

26). Its probable date is ca. 45504600 BC cal.,

hundreds of years earlier than the Ghassuliansites along the Nahal. Although there is only one

date from the Ramot sites, the new radiocarbon

dates from Teleilat Ghassul and Gilat (see

below) further support the suggestion that the

Ramot sites represent an entity that is centuries

earlier than the other sites.

Since the Ramot sites are different and earli-

er than the nearby Ghassulian sites, similar

assemblages should be sought somewhere else.

The most diagnostic vessels at Ramot, the Beth

Pelet jars and holemouth jars with large loophandles, are known from the Besor sites A, B, D,

and M (Macdonald 1932; Roshwalb 1981). The

Ramot sites are thus most similar to the Besor

sites defined as Besorian (Fabian et al. 2004;

Gilead in press; Gilead and Fabian in press;

Nahshoni et al. 2002). The petrographic study of

pottery from site DII, a segment of Macdonalds

site D (Goren 1988:Appendix 2) revealed that

the Motza marl or clay, an attribute of the ceram-

ic industry at Ramot, was used in these sites, too.

The small size of the Ramot and western Negev

sites, as well as their meager architectural

remains (pits and mudbrick features), further

substantiate the claim that they are Besorian.

Sometimes Ghassulian and Besorian or

Besorian-like assemblages are found in the same

sites. Now that the Gilat excavation report has

been published (Levy 2006), it seems that Gilat

is one of these cases (Figure 15.1). It is clear that

there is a Ghassulian component at Gilat, best

represented by the figurine of a woman carryinga churn. Goren (2006), however, notes the simi-

larity of vessel types from Gilat to the Besorian

types, for example, the Beth Pelet jars. Also

similar is the use of crushed calcite for pottery

manufacturing. On this basis, Goren suggests

that the Besorian is an important element at

Gilat, a suggestion that can be supported by

radiocarbon dates.The eight 14C dates from Gilat (Levy and

Burton 2006) cover a very long time span, from

the first half of the fifth millennium to the end of

the fourth millennium BC cal. (Table 15.1, dates

2734). The third set of dates is earlier, and the

most probable (95.4 percent) 2averaged range

is 46904490 BC cal. The range of these dates

in the late first half of the fifth millennium

accords with the previously proposed date for

the Besorian (Gilead 1994).

The publication of the Teleilat Ghassulstratigraphy and pottery assemblages (Lovell

2001) is an important contribution towards a

better understanding of Ghassulian and Pre-

Ghassulian entities (Gilead 2003). The pottery

of the earliest phases at Teleilat Ghassul is

defined by Lovell (2001:49) as Late Neolithic.

The layers of these phases are best preserved in

section AXI, where a complex depositional his-

tory of the Late Neolithic phases JH can be

observed. Lovell (2001:49) concludes that [t]he

lowest levels of Teleilat Ghassul . . . might be

associated, in part, with the Besorian.

Teleilat Ghassul also furnished a set of

dates relevant to the Besorian. At present, after

the problematic too-early dates (SUA 732739)

have been declared as erroneous (Bourke et al.

2001:1219) and there are new dates for the

deepest levels of the site, its chronology can be

better reconstructed. The three dates from the

earliest phases (H, J) are similar, and their most

probable (95.4 percent) 2

calibrated range is48404580 BC cal. (Table 15.1, dates 3537).

These dates accord well with the date of the

Besorian site Ramot Nof and the dates of Gilat

discussed above.


14/26


To conclude, it is clear that Besorian assem-

blages immediately predate the Ghassulian. The

Besorian is known from parts of northeastern

Sinai, the Nahal Besor, Gilat, Qiryat Gat (P.Nahshoni and E. Aladjem, personal communica-

tion), Beer Sheva, and Teleilat Ghassul. These are

parts of the southern Levant, where the most typ-

ical and developed manifestations of the

Ghassulian were subsequently established.

The formal status of the Besorian, in terms

of Clarkes hierarchy of entities, is not easily

determined. Currently, with more assemblages

and a better chronological control, it seems that

the possibility of the Besorian being a culture

cannot be excluded. Continuity between theBesorian and the Ghassulian can be seen in the

flint assemblages as well as in a few types of pot-

tery. However, the richness in shapes and types

of decoration in the Ghassulian pottery assem-

blages gives the impression of a profound tech-

nological, typological, and aesthetic change that

occurred after the Besorian. The small size of

the Besorian sites, the less intensive construc-

tion activities, and the limited repertoire of

industries, raw materials, and ritual manifesta-

tions set it further apart from the Ghassulian

and support the division of these entities into

independent cultures.

Other Pre-Ghassulian Entities

The possible geographical distribution of the

Besorian north to the BesorGhassul line is

unclear. However, the work carried out since the

1990s in northern Israel suggests that Post-Wadi

Rabah and Pre-Ghassulian entities were present

there, too. The site of Natzur 4 (Figure 15.1)excavated by Yannay (forthcoming) represents

most probably a cultural entity in the northern

half of Israel that is contemporaneous with the

Besorian. Yannay suggests that the assemblages

at the site form a cultural entity he terms Natzur

4 Culture. The pottery, flint, and stone vessels

suggest to Yannay that the Natzur 4 Culture is

Post-Wadi Rabah and Pre-Ghassulian.Typologically and chronologically, it is regarded

by him as a northern counterpart of the

Besorian. At the site of Horvat Uza in western

Galilee (Figure 15.1), excavated by Getzov (forth-

coming), a sequence of Pre-Ghassulian layers has

been uncovered between layer 20 (Wadi Rabah)

and layer 15 (Ghassulian). It is probable that

layer 16 is contemporaneous with Natzur 4.

Unfortunately, there are no radiometric dates for

these sites; therefore, their exact chronological

position cannot be ascertained.The Besorian covers the second quarter of

the fifth millennium cal., in the later part of the

period referred to by Garfinkel (1999:309310)

as Middle Chalcolithic, which started, in his

opinion, at about 5300 BC cal. Layer Ib at Tel Ali

(Figure 15.1) yielded four radiocarbon dates that

cover the second quarter of the fifth millennium

BC cal. (Table 15.1, dates 5760). It is therefore

contemporary with the Besorian, although no cul-

tural attribution is mentioned beyond the fact

that the ware common in the pottery assemblage

is the Beth Shean ware. With more sites and

radiometric dates, cultural attribution of sites

such as Tel Ali 1b will hopefully become possible.

Tel Tsaf in the Jordan Valley (Figure 15.1)

was first excavated by Gophna and Sadeh

(1989). The site yielded a pottery assemblage

that includes numerous fragments decorated in a

style known as Tel Tsaf: painting of black or red

geometric patterns on white wash. Garfinkels

renewed excavations at the site (20042006)yielded an exotic fragment, probably from north-

ern Syria, with a Late Ubaid decoration style.

New radiocarbon dates from Tel Tsaf suggest that

the Tsafian assemblages, here and at a number of


15/26


adjacent sites, are to be dated to the second quar-

ter of the fifth millennium BC cal., about one

thousand years later than the previous 14C date

suggested (Garfinkel, personal communication).The unique Tel Tsaf decoration is limited to sev-

eral sites in the central Jordan Valley (Garfinkel

1999:186188). It represents, therefore, an enti-

ty that is contemporary with the adjacent Tel Ali

Ib and the distant Besorian sites in the south, but

it is clearly distinct culturally.

The Ghassulian Culture

The Ghassulian Culture, the most prominent

entity of the Chalcolithic period, consists of

assemblages broadly similar to those uncoveredin the upper levels of Teleilat Ghassul (North

1959). Temporal boundaries of the Ghassulian

are relatively well established on the basis of14C

dates (ca. 45003900 BC cal.) and it is distrib-

uted in the northern Negev, the Dead Sea basin,

the southern and central coastal plain, the

Shephella, and the Jordan valley. One can attrib-

ute to the Ghassulian Culture assemblages that

yielded all or many characteristic artifact types

such as V-shaped bowls, churns, cornets, vessels

with lug handles and/or red painted bands, nar-

row-backed sickle blades, microliths, clay

ossuaries, basalt bowls, copper artifacts, broad

room architecture, and primary burials in habi-

tation sites and secondary burials in off-settle-

ment community cemeteries.

The Ghassulian is a homogeneous entity in

terms of artifact types, but variations are appar-

ent and they probably signify geographic subcul-

tures, to use Clarkes (1978:249261) terminolo-

gy. The existence of two different subcultures ismost apparent in the northern Negev, where the

Beer Sheva cluster and the Besor-Grar (Figure

15.1) cluster have already been described

(Gilead 1989:390392; 1995:473476). The

chronological relation between the two subcul-

tures is a complex issue, but recent dates from

Gilat and Teleilat Ghassul suggest that the Besor-

Grar cluster is earlier (Gilead in press). It seemstherefore that the Ghassulian of Teleilat Ghassul-

Besor-Grar is about 44004300 BC cal. (Table

15.1, dates 2931, 3854), a century or two ear-

lier than the Ghassulian of the Beer Sheva area

(Gilead in press). However, it is probable that

Teleilat Ghassul was also occupied later, during

the centuries when the Beer Sheva sites were set-

tled. The set of dates from Shiqmim, the most-

dated Ghassulian site (Burton and Levy

2001:12341237), is not discussed here since

the pottery assemblages of the different phaseshave not yet been published in detail.

Non-Ghassulian Chalcolithic Entities

The Chalcolithic sites of the Golan Heights

(Epstein 1998) lack many of the Ghassulian arti-

fact types, have a markedly different ceramic

repertoire, and feature distinct architecture and

settlement pattern. Ceramic difference between

the Ghassulian and the Golan sites are well illus-

trated by Garfinkel (1999:276290), who distin-

guishes between Ghassulian ware and Golan

ware. Epstein (1998:334) is very explicit about

the unique nature of the Golan sites and consis-

tently labels them as the Golan Chalcolithic.

She separates the Golan Chalcolithic, or The

Golanian Culture (Gilead 2006), from Ghassul-

Beer Sheba, a taxon she regards as too extensive-

ly used and not appropriate in conjunction with

the Golan assemblages. The Golanian 14C dates,

most of them from Rasm Harbush (Figure 15.1),

fall within the second half of the fifth millennium,and it is therefore contemporary with the

Ghassulian (Table 15.1, dates 8287). Two of the

six available dates fall in the second quarter of the

fourth millennium (Table 15.1, dates 8283), but


16/26


since the validity of one of them is questioned

(Carmi and Segal 1998:343), the likelihood of

such late dates is minimal.

Another geographically distinctive culturalentity is the Timnian Culture, located mainly

in the southern Negev, the Aravah, and the east-

ern Sinai (Henry 1995). The 14C dates indicate

that it is broadly contemporary not only with the

Ghassulian but also with the Besorian, and it

lasts until the Early Bronze Age. While it is pos-

sible to outline cultural transformations in the

Beer Sheva area and northward, the Timnian

seems to represent a relatively stable cultural

system, in terms of both the artifact types and

the nature of its sites, which is very differentfrom both the Besorian and the Ghassulian.

The NeolithicChalcolithic Transition

Kaplan (1958, 1969) regards the Wadi Rabah

Culture as an Early Chalcolithic entity, a precur-

sor of the Ghassulian. Since the late 1960s, the

consensus has been, contrary to Kaplans peri-

odization, that the Wadi Rabah Culture is an

archaeological entity of the Late Neolithic

(Pottery Neolithic) period. Garfinkels

(1999:Table 1) survey of the literature shows

that between 1969 and 1993, all ten main pro-

posals (his term) for the periodization of the

Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods treated Wadi

Rabah Culture as a Late Neolithic entity.

Garfinkel, contrary to this consensus, returns to

Kaplans periodization and regards now the

Wadi Rabah Culture as the earliest manifesta-

tion of the Chalcolithic period.

In general, Garfinkel (1999:6) sees a grad-

ual change over 5,000 years, from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A to the Ghassulian Late

Chalcolithic in his terminology. He therefore

states that placing Wadi Rabah in either Late

Neolithic or Chalcolithic is largely a question of

semantics. However, since he thinks that the

Wadi Rabah ware resembles more what he

regards as subsequent Chalcolithic ware, he

attributes it to his Early Chalcolithic period.In the terminology of Bar-Yosef (2003:265)

mentioned in the introduction above, Garfinkel

seems to belongs to gradualists who would

interpret the most dramatic cultural and socio-

economic changes as slow incremental process-

es lasting hundreds or even thousands of years.

For supporters of this approach, drawing divid-

ing lines between periods when the incremental

processes was slow is an arbitrary decision that

amounts to nothing more than a question of

semantics.I think that periodization has a major role in

the study of transitions, and it is not merely a

question of semantics. The beginning of a period,

be it Upper Paleolithic or Chalcolithic, must sig-

nify a noticeable change, revolutionary or not,

rapid or slow. In cases of revolutionary transi-

tions, it is easier to determine the beginning of a

new period. In cases of gradual cumulative

changes, it is practically impossible to trace the

starting point. However, even in such cases,

changes become apparent in the cultural assem-

blages at a certain stage. The least we can say is

that when such changes become archaeological-

ly visible, we witness a new period, although it

could start at an earlier point in time.

To illustrate this approach, the Natufian

Culture will be used again as an example. It is

abundantly clear that the entire array of Natufian

artifact assemblages, and not just the lithic

industry, is dramatically different from that of the

earlier cultural entities such as the GeometricKebaran or Ramonian. The Natufian signifies the

beginning of a new era in the prehistory of the

Near East and the world in general. The question

is, When did this change start? At this point,


17/26


scholars should begin to negotiate period bound-

aries. If the change was rapid and took a century

or two, then the new period corresponds to the

earliest Natufian, as I see it. If the process ofchange started a millennium or more earlier, in

the Geometric Kebaran, Ramonian, or even ear-

lier, as gradualists may see it, the lower boundary

of the period is to be pushed back accordingly.

Most syntheses dealing with the beginning

of agriculture start with the Natufian, notably

those of Bar-Yosef (e.g., 1998:146147). He

encapsulates one of the far-reaching events in

human history in the heading From sedentary

foragers [Natufian] to farming communities

(Bar-Yosef 1998:146). The Natufian Culture sig-nifies for him a major shift in subsistence and

social behavior, probably a reaction to an abrupt

environmental change. The current consensus,

however, is that the Natufian is an entity of the

Epipaleolithic period, the last in a long chain of

entities that started about 10,000 years earlier.

The major shift and the beginning of a new era

are not reflected in discussions of period bound-

aries, and to most authorities, the Natufian signi-

fies the beginning of the Late Epipaleolithic.

Moving from the Late Pleistocene back to

the mid-Holocene, the questions are, When did

the Chalcolithic period start? and What is the

nature of the NeolithicChalcolithic transition? It

is accepted that the three major and distinctive

cultural entities that existed between the begin-

ning of the Late Neolithic and the Bronze Age are

the Yarmukian Culture, the Wadi Rabah Culture,

and the Ghassulian Culture. In addition, it is

unanimously agreed that the Yarmukian is a

Neolithic entity and the Ghassulian isChalcolithic. The status of the Wadi Rabah

Culture is disputed since, as indicated above,

some scholars regard it as Neolithic and others as

Chalcolithic.

In his introductory book to the archaeology

of the land of the Bible, Mazar writes: In the his-

tory of archaeological research in Palestine, vari-

ous cultures have been named Chalcolithic,confusing its designation. In this book, we shall

not use ambiguous terms such as Early

Chalcolithic or Late Chalcolithic. The main

culture of the Chalcolithic period is the

Ghassulian Culture; this latter term will be used

here in its most comprehensive framework

including regional variants (Mazar 1990:59).

This statement epitomizes the essence of

the Chalcolithic period by practically equating

the period with its most typical cultural entity.

Although this is a sweeping textbook generaliza-tion (but see also Banning 1998:188), the core of

the statement is adequate: excluding relatively

few sites that are different due to either geo-

graphical or temporal circumstances, almost

everything Chalcolithic is Ghassulian. Not less

important, the Ghassulian is Chalcolithic in pro-

ducing and using copper artifacts along with an

elaborate flint industry, attributes fully compati-

ble with the copperflint dichotomy embedded

in the name of the period. Beyond the artifacts,

the distribution of sites in the landscape and

aspects of inter- and intrasite variability, such as

off-settlement community cemeteries, are also

essential attributes of the Ghassulian, and thus,

of the Chalcolithic period as a whole. Comparing

other cultures to the Ghassulian cannot be based

solely on a number of ceramic attributes but

should include the entire array of artifact assem-

blages, petrography, 14C dates, settlement pat-

terns, and so forth.

Following the example of the Natufian, it isobvious that the appearance of the Ghassulian

Culture signifies the fact that the transition was

over and the Chalcolithic period had already

started. Now we have to negotiate the period


18/26


boundary, or in other words, determine which

sites predate the Ghassulian, and define artifact

assemblages and settlement patterns that feature

changes that might have led to the Ghassulian.Fortunately, there are relatively numerous radio-

carbon dates relevant for the study of

NeolithicChalcolithic transition, although most

of them derive from sites located to the south

and east of the southern Levant core area.

The site that fits best in terms of negotiat-

ing the boundary of the Chalcolithic period is

Teleilat Ghassul. This is the only site with a

recently published, long stratigraphic sequence,

with rich pottery assemblages that span the

entire sequence, and a fair number of radiocar-bon dates (Bourke et al. 2001; Bourke et al.

2004; Gilead 2003; Lovell 2001). The earliest

Ghassulian appears in either phase G or phase

F, hence it seems to have started at about 4500

BC cal. or shortly after. Most of the dates cluster

in the third quarter of the fifth millennium, sug-

gesting that this is the major phase of occupa-

tion at the site. The phases below the

Ghassulian, mainly the Besorian-like phases

HJ, are dated to the second quarter of the fifth

millennium and should therefore be Pre-

Ghassulian (but see Bourke 1997:405 408).

The mere fact that the site was preferred by a

group of people who settled it and were fol-

lowed by the Ghassulians suggests that the for-

mer were the people who started the change.

Their Besorian-like pottery assemblages further

support this assumption.

A similar phenomenon is observed in the

Beer Sheva area. Numerous Ghassulian sites

along Nahal Beer Sheva are mostly dated to thelast quarter of the fifth millennium. However,

the Besorian assemblages of Ramot, dated to the

second quarter of the fifth millennium, are sim-

ilar both chronologically and culturally to the

Pre-Ghassulian assemblages of Teleilat Ghassul.

It has also been demonstrated above that at

Gilat and at other sites in the Nahal Besor area,

there is a Besorian phase of occupation, prior tothe Ghassulian. Thus, the changes that led to the

Ghassulian are not restricted to the pottery and

flint assemblages but are also apparent in the

settlement patterns discussed above.

The Ghassulian Culture started at about

4500 BC cal. or shortly later and signifies the

inception of the Chalcolithic period. The

changes that led from the Neolithic to the

Chalcolithic period started about two centuries

earlier, and the time span of ca. 47004500 BC

cal. should be regarded as the phase of theNeolithicChalcolithic transition. All the assem-

blages that predate the Besorian, at least in

southern Israel and Jordan, are, in fact, Neolithic.

Some of the assemblages referred to by Garfinkel

as the Beth Shean ware and Middle Chalco-

lithic probably also belong to the Neolithic

Chalcolithic transitional phase (Table 15.2). If

the start and the end of the Chalcolithic period

are defined in accordance with its principal cul-

tural entity, terms such as Early, Middle, or

Late become redundant in the case of the

Chalcolithic period. Early or Late are terms

to refer to phases of the Ghassulian, or other con-

temporary cultures such as the Timnian. This

accords well with our example above, the

Natufian: the terms Early and Late Natufian

are in use and not Early Late Epipaleolithic and

Late Late Epipaleolithic.

The transition to the Ghassulian lasted

most probably one or two centuries. Do a couple

of centuries signify a sudden event or a revo-lution? No one currently suggests that the

inception of the Ghassulian is a revolutionary

event, and it seems to be a justified attitude.

However, in the terminology of Sherratt (1981,


19/26


1983), the Chalcolithic period in the Near East

witnessed what he calls The Secondary

Products Revolution. This revolution, if the

term is at all applicable, is a process that lastedfor thousands of years, starting before the south-

ern Levant Chalcolithic began and continuing

after it had terminated.

Conclusions

Albright (1932:12) in his initial definition of the

Chalcolithic period, wrote that [t]hanks to this

rich new body of material for comparison, we

can now attack the problem of the chronology of

the Ghassulian culture with confidence. Now,

75 years later, it is obvious that his statement wassomewhat exaggerated. However, a rich new

body of material was added during the decades

that elapsed since, and the coming decades will

undoubtedly add even more. Nevertheless, it

seems that controversies surrounding the

NeolithicChalcolithic transition are not going to

fade away with additional data. This is due to the

fact that different opinions are not just based on

data but also reflect scholars intellectual tenden-

cies and especially the way they estimate the

nature and pace of culture change.

The proper way to attack problems of transi-

tion is to define cultural entities and incorporate

them into archaeological periods after both enti-

ties and periods have been clearly defined.

These definitions depend on successful dating of

cultural assemblages, either stratigraphic or,

preferably, radiometric. The geographic distribu-

tion of cultural entities is also a major element in

the study of prehistoric transitions, because it is

possible for different cultural entities to coexistin different geographic zones, even in relatively

small areas such as the southern Levant.

It is suggested that the Chalcolithic period,

in accordance with the meaning of its name, is

to be strongly related to the Ghassulian Culture,

a culture featuring copper metallurgy as one of

its attributes. The most recent radiometric dat-

ing, especially from the type site of TeleilatGhassul, indicates that the Ghassulian started at

about 4500 BC cal. or slightly later. The more

intensive occupation at that site is relatively

early, at about 44004300 BC cal., and signifies

the early phase of the Ghassulian. Gilat and

other sites in the northwestern Negev were also

settled during this early phase. The later phase

of the Ghassulian, ca. 42004000 BC cal, is best

manifested in the sites around the city of Beer

Sheva, on the banks of the local Nahal. Cultural

assemblages of the Golan Heights and theUpper Galilee represent a different entity, the

Golanian Culture of the Chalcolithic period.

The transition between the Neolithic and

the Chalcolithic took place during one or two

centuries before the Ghassulian started (Table

15.2). This is best evinced by the lower layers of

Teleilat Ghassul, below the Ghassulian layers

and supported by the earlier radiocarbon dates

from these layers. A similar phenomenon is rep-

resented in the northern Negev by the Besorian

sites, as indicated by the dates from Gilat and

Ramot Nof. This phase, from about 4750 to

4500 BC cal., should be formally regarded as

the NeolithicChalcolithic transition or Pre-

Ghassulian.

Achnowledgments

Patrice Kaminski prepared the map. I have bene-

fited immensely from discussing aspects of the

issues raised above with Peter Fabian, Steve Rosen,

Yuval Goren, Hamoudi Khalaily Jaimie Lovell,Yael Abadi-Reiss, and Koby Vardi. Angela

Davidzon critically read the drafts of the paper,

and her comments were invaluable. I thank them

all; the remaining mistakes are my responsibility.


20/26


Table 15.2 The Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic of the southern Levant:

Periodization and cultural entities

Southern Levant cultural entities

Years BC (cal.) Period North and center South and east4000/3900

Late Ghassulian Late Ghassulian

Golanian**

4250 CHALCOLITHIC

Early Ghassulian Early Ghassulian

4500

NEOLITHIC Natzur 4 Besorian

4700 CHALCOLITHIC Beth Sean Teleilat Ghassul G/HJTRANSITION Tsafian

5000 Qatifian

Timnian*

Wadi Rabah

LATE NEOLITHIC

(POTTERY NEOLITHIC)

5600

Lodian Lodian

Yarmukian

* The Timnian of the southern Negev and Aravah and Eastern Sinai yielded 14C dates that cover the

Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age periods.

** The Golanian yielded 14C dates that cover the second half of the fifth millennium and early fourth

millennium

Pre-Gh

assulian


21/26


References

Adams, R.

1997 On early copper metallurgy in the Levant: A response to claims of Neolithic metallurgy. In The

Prehistory of Jordan, II. Perspectives from 1997, edited by H. G. K. Gebel, Z. Kafafi, and G. O. Rollefson,pp. 651656. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Envirnoment 4. Ex oriente,

Berlin.

Adams, R., and H. Genz

1995 Excavations at Wadi Fidan 4: A Chalcolithic village complex in the copper ore district of Feinan,

southern Jordan.Palestine Exploration Quarterly 127:820.

Albright, W. F.

1932 The Chalcolithic Age in Palestine.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 48:1013.

Banning, E. B.

1998 The Neolithic period: Triumphs of architecture, agriculture and art.Near Eastern Archaeology

61:188237.

2002 Consensus and debate on Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic of the southern Levant.Palorient28:148155.

Banning, E. B., D. Rahimi, and J. Siggers

1994 The Late Neolithic of the southern Levant: Hiatus, settlement shift or obsereved bias? The perspec-

tives from Wadi Ziqlab. Palorient20:151164.

Bar-Yosef, O.

1995 The origins of modern humans. In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, edited by T. E. Levy, pp.

110123. Leicester University Press, London.

1998 On the nature of transitions: The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution.

Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8:141163.

2003 Reflections on selected issues of the Upper Palaeolithic. In More Than Meets the Eye, Studies on Upper

Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East, edited by A. Goring-Morris and A. Belfer-Cohen, pp. 265273.

Oxbow Books, Exeter.

Bourke, S. J.

1997 The Pre-Ghassulian sequence at Teleilat Ghassul: Sydney University excavations 19751995. In

The Prehistory of Jordan, II. Perspectives from 1997, edited by H. G. K. Gebel, Z. Kafafi, and G. O.

Rollefson, pp. 395417. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 4.

Ex oriente, Berlin.

Bourke, S. J., and J. L. Lovell

2004 Ghassul, chronology and cultural sequencing.Palorient30:179182.

Bourke, S., E. Lawson, J. L. Lovell, Q. Hua, U. Zoppi, and M. Barbetti

2001 The chronology of the Ghassulian period in the Southern Levant: New14

C determinations fromTeleilat Ghassul, Jordan.Radiocarbon 43:12171222.

Bourke, S., U. Zoppi, J. Meadows, Q. Hua, and S. Gibbins

2004 The end of the Chalcolithic period in the south Jordan Valley: New14C determinations from Teleilat

Ghassul, Jordan.Radiocarbon 46:315323.


22/26


Bronk Ramsey, C.

2001 Development of the radiocarbon program OxCal.Radiocarbon 43:355363.

Burton, M., and T. E. Levy

2001 The Chalcolithic radiocarbon record and its use in the southern Levantine archaeology.Radiocarbon43:12231246.

Carmi, I., and D. Segal

1998 14C dates from the Chalcolithic sites in the Golan. In The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan,by C.

Epstein, p. 343. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 4. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Clarke, D. L.

1978Analytical Archaeology, 2d ed. Methuen & Co. Ltd., London.

Cohen, R.

1999Ancient Settlements of the Central Negev.Vol. 1, The Chalcolithic Period, The Early Bronze Age and Middle

Bronze Age I. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 6. The Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem

(Hebrew).

Epstein, C.

1984 A Pottery Neolithic site near Tel Qatif. Israel Exploration Journal 34:209219.

1998 The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 4. Israel Antiquity Authority,

Jerusalem.

Fabian, P., S. Hermon, and Y. Goren

2004 Ramot 3: A Pre-Ghassulian open-air site in the northern Beer-Sheva basin. AtiqotXLVII:5780.

Garfinkel, Y.

1999Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant. Qedem 39. The Institute of Archaeology,

Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.

Garrod, D. A. E.

1932 A new Mesolithic industry: The Natufian of Palestine.The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute

of Great Breatin and Ireland 62:257269.

Getzov, N.

forthcoming.Hurvat Uza 1991. Final Report of the 1991 Excavations. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports.

Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Gilead, I.

1985 Chalcolithic and accompanying terms: On the need for definition of terms in archaeological

research. InBeer Sheva,Vol. 2, edited by M. Cogan, pp. 6574. The Magness Press, Jerusalem

(Hebrew).

1988 The Upper Palaeolithic to Epi-Palaeolithic transition in the Levant.Palorient14:177182.

1989 Grar: A Chalcolithic site in Nahal Grar, northern Negev, Israel.Journal of Field Archaeology

16:377394.1990 The Neolithic-Chalcolithic transition and the Qatifian of the northern Negev and Sinai.Levant

22:4763.

1994 The history of the Chalcolithic settlement in the Nahal Beer Sheva area: The radiocarbon aspect.

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 296:113.


23/26


1995 Grar, A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev. Beer-Sheva VII. Ben-Gurion University Press, Beer Sheva.

2003 Review ofThe Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods in the Southern Levant by J. L. Lovell. Mitekufat

Haeven Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 33:218223.

2006 Fifth millennium culture history: Ghassulian and other Chalcolithic entities in the Southern Levant.Paper presented at the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East,

Madrid.

in press The Besorian: A Pre-Ghassulian cultural entity.Palorient.

Gilead, I., and D. Alon

1988 Excavations at proto-historic sites in the Nahal Besor and the Late Neolithic of the Northern Negev.

Mitekufat Haeven Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 21:109*130*.

Gilead, I., and P. Fabian

in press Pre-Ghassulian sites in the Ramot Neighborhood, Beer Sheva: Chronological and cultural

perspectives. In Or Le-Mayer, edited by Y. Shamir and D. Sivan. Ben-Gurion University Press,

Beer Sheva.

Gopher, A., and R. Gophna1993 Cultures of the eight and seventh millennia B.P. in the Southern Levant: A review for the 1990s.

Journal of World Prehistory 7:297352.

Gophna, R., and S. Sadeh

1989 Excavations at tel Tsaf: Aan Early Chalcolithic site in the Jordan Valley. Tel Aviv 1516:336.

Goren, Y.

1988 A petrographic analysis of pottery from sites P14 and DII.Mitekufat Haeven Journal of the Israel

Prehistoric Society 21:131*137*.

1990 The Qatifian Culture in southern Israel and Transjordan: Additional aspects for its definition.

Mitekufat Haeven Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 23:100*112*.

2006 The technology of the Gilat pottery assemblage. InArchaeology, Anthropology and Cult, The Sanctuary

at Gilat, Israel, edited by T. E. Levy, pp. 369393. Equinox, London.

Henry, D. O.

1989From Foraging to Agriculture: The Levant at the End of the Ice Age. University of Pennsylvania,

Philadelphia.

1995Prehistoric Cultural Ecology and Evolution: Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. Plenum Press,

New York.

Joffe, A. H., and J. P. Dessel

1995 Redefining chronology and terminology for the Chalcolithic of the southern Levant.Current

Anthropology 36:507518.

Kaplan, J.

1958 Excavations at Wadi Raba. Israel Exploration Journal 8:149160.1969 Ein El Jarba Chalcolithic remains in the Plain of Esdraelon.Bulletin of the American Schools of

Oriental Research 194:239.


24/26


Kuijt, I., and M. S. Chesson

2002 Excavations at Ain Waida, Jordan: New insights into Pottery Neolithic lifeways in the southern

Levant.Palorient28:109122.

Levy, T. E. (editor)2006Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel. Equinox, London.

Levy, T. E., and M. Burton

2006 Radiocarbon dating of Gilat. In Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel, edited

by T. E. Levy, pp. 863866. Equinox, London.

Lovell, J. L.

2001 The Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods in the Southern Levant: New Data from the Site of Teleilat

Ghassul, Jordan. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 974, Oxford.

Lovell, J. L., Z. Kafafi, and G. Dollfus

1997 A preliminary note on the ceramic from the basal levels of Abu Hamid. In The Prehistory of Jordan, II.

Perspectives from 1997, edited by Gebel, H. G. K., Z. Kafafi and G. O. Rollefson, pp. 361370. Studies

in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 4. Ex oriente, Berlin.Macdonald, E.

1932Prehistoric Fara, Beth Pelet II. The British School of Archaeology in Egypt, London.

Mazar, A.

1990Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000586 B.C.E.The Anchor Bible Reference Library.

Doubleday, New York.

Nahshoni, P., Y. Goren, O. Marder, and N. A. Goring-Morris

2002 A Chalcolithic site at Ramot Nof, Beer-Sheva. Atiqot43:1*24* (Hebrew).

Najjar, M., A. Abu Dayya, E. Suleiman, G. Weisgerber, and A. Hauptmann

1990 Tell Wadi Feinan the first Pottery Neolithic tell in the south of Jordan.Annual of the Department of

Antiquit ies of Jordan 34:2756.

North, R. S. J.

1959 Ghassulian in Palestine chronological nomenclature.Biblica 40:541555.

Rosen, S. A., and I. Eldar

1993 Horvat Beter revisited: The 1982 salvage excavations. 'Atiqot22:1327.

Roshwalb, A. F.

1981 Protohistory in the Wadi Ghazzeh: A typological study based on the Macdonald excavations. Ph.D.

Dissertation, University of London.

Sherratt, A. G.

1981 Plough and pastoralism: Aspects of the secondary products revolution. InPatterns of the Past: Studies

in Honour of David Clarke, edited by I. Hodder, G. Isaac, and N. Hammond, pp. 261305. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.1983 The secondary exploitation of animals in the Old World. World Archaeology 5:90104.


25/26


Sugar, A. N.

2000 Archaeometallurgical investigation of the Chalcolithic site of Abu Matar, Israel: A reassessment of

technology and its implications for the Ghassulian culture. Ph.D. Dissertation, University College,

London.Yannay, E.

forthcomingNazur An Early Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Coastal Plain Israel. Israel Antiquities

Authority Reports. Jerusalem.


26/26

gilead i (2009) neolithic chalcolithic transition

Documents