DESIGNS AND PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY
OF SICKLE ELEMENTS IN LATE NEOLITHIC
WADI ZIQLAB, NORTHERN JORDAN
S. KADOWAKI

Abstract : This paper examines sickle elements from Late Neolithic agricultural settlements in the southern Levant with a particularfocus on the tool morphology and the production technology. The results of the examination suggest that two Late Neolithic farmsteads
in Wadi Ziqlab share greater morphological similarity of sickle elements than do other sites of the same cultural group (the Wadi Rabah
culture) in other regions. However, the technological analyses of sickle elements suggest that the two farmsteads in Wadi Ziqlab had
different patterns in some technological practices during the production processes, including the blank production, the extent of retouch,backing technique, and possibly the sequence of retouching processes.
Based on these results, the subsequent discussion aims at explaining the standardized design of sickle elements and their varied production technology observed in Wadi Ziqlab, particularly focusing on several factors, including chronology, geography, the mechanicalfunctions of sickle elements, and the mechanical logistics of production technology. After examining these factors, I will briefly discusssocial contexts that may have been related to the production practices of sickle elements.
Résumé : Cette étude examine les éléments de faucille des établissements agricoles du Néolithique Récent dans le Sud du Levant ;l’attention se porte plus particulièrement sur la morphologie des outils et la technologie de production. Les résultats de l'analyse suggèrent que les deux établissements du Wadi Ziqlab présentent une plus grande similarité morphologique des éléments de faucille que ne lefont dans les autres régions les sites de même culture (Wadi Rabah). Les analyses technologiques des éléments de faucille suggèrent pourtant que les deux fermes du Wadi Ziqlab usaient de modes différents dans leurs technologies que ce soient celle de la production et de lasélection du support (éclats vs lames), l'étendue de la retouche et la retouche (denticulation, dos, troncature).
En se fondant sur ces résultats, la discussion cherche à comprendre comment s’est effectuée à la fois la standardisation des éléments defaucille et la variation dans les techniques de production observée sur les sites du Wadi Ziqlab. Plusieurs facteurs sont pris en compte :chronologie, géographie, fonctions mécaniques des éléments de faucilles, et logiques mécaniques des technologies de production. Après
l’examen de ces facteurs, une brève discussion porte sur les contextes sociaux qui peuvent avoir exercé une influence sur les mécanismesde production d'éléments de faucille.
Key-Words : Late Neolithic, Wadi Ziqlab, Sickle elements, Production technology.
Mots Clefs : Néolithique Récent, Wadi Ziqlab, Éléments de faucille, Technologie de production.

Sickle elements usually form a distinctive tool category inmany Neolithic lithic assemblages because of their standardized morphologies and distinct use-traces, i.e., macroscopic

Paléorient, vol. 31/2, p. 69-85 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005

sheens on their edges. These noticeable characteristics ofsickle elements have long attracted archaeologists’ attentions,
resulting in numerous studies of morphologies and use-traces.

Manuscrit reçu le 19 janvier 2005, accepté le 16 juin 2005

Tiré à part - CNRS ÉDITIONSPAL 31-2.book Page 69 Mardi, 16. mai 2006 2:41 14

PAL 31-2.book Page 70 Mardi, 16. mai 2006 2:41 14

S. KADOWAKI

These traits of sickle elements were analyzed to investigate
various culture-historical and anthropological questions,
including chronological and geographic distributions1, hafting methods2, mechanical functions3, and tool designs4.
In comparison to the morphologies and use-traces ofsickle elements, the production technology of sickle elements appears to have had only an auxiliary position in the
study despite its close relationship with economic andsocial contexts. This paucity of attention to the production
technology may be partly because many sickle elements,
particularly those of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, were usedwith little modification of their blanks, which were simply
snapped or segmented before use5, and because archaeologists have usually examined the technology of blank production as a separate subject6. However, some types ofsickle elements in the Late Neolithic southern Levant areusually manufactured into highly standardized shapes
through a variety of retouching processes, including thedenticulation of cutting edges and the modification ofblanks by invasive flaking, backing, and truncation7.
Although these retouching processes can be performed in ashort period, they may leave various morphological traces
that can be examined to detect patterns in the production
technology of sickle elements.
In order to approach the technological practices involvedin the production of sickle elements, this paper examines themorphological traits and production technology of sickle elements from Late Neolithic settlements in Wadi Ziqlab, northern Jordan (fig. 1). The technological analyses in this study
are based on an assumption that lithic technology and, more
specifically, the practices of lithic tool production are intertwined with both social and ecological contexts. In otherwords, the manufacture of lithic tools is structured under various social and ecological conditions. This perspective
towards technology derives from a series of analytical concepts used in two major kinds of approaches to lithic
technology : the chaîne opératoire and the technologicalorganization. The principal premise of the chaîne opératoire
approach is that technology is a representation of sociallyshared knowledge materialized through people’s actions8.
Technology is thus regarded as “a social construct”9. On theother hand, the technological organization approach tends tofocus on mechanical functions of technology to explain artefacts in terms of their various performance characteristics10 orin terms of economic factors, including efficiency, risk reduction, and versatility11.
The two analytical approaches are underpinned by different theoretical roots, and many lithic studies deal with themseparately12. Nonetheless, both approaches similarly examine
technological behaviours and people’s decisions during artefacts’ life-histories, i.e., processes from the acquisition of raw
materials through tool production, use, and maintenance, tothe point at which they are discarded13. Such analytical methods are also employed in this paper to investigate technological practices during the production of sickle elements.
Based on the examination of technological practices, thisstudy aims at providing insights into how the design and the

1. BURIAN and FRIEDMAN, 1979 ; GOPHER, 1989 ; ROSEN, 1997.
2. CAUVIN, 1983 ; FUJII, 1983 ; NISHIAKI, 2000, 2001 ; OLSZEWSKI,
1994.
3. ANDERSON, 1994 ; QUINTERO et al., 1997 ; UNGER-HAMILTON,
1988, 1989.
4. PEROS, 2000 ; SIGGERS, 1997 ; UNGER-HAMILTON, 1988.
5. NISHIAKI, 2000.
6. QUINTERO and WILKE, 1995 ; WILKE and QUINTERO, 1994.
7. BARKAI and GOPHER, 1999 ; GOPHER, 1989 ; ROSEN, 1997.

8. EDMONDS, 1990 ; LEMONNIER, 1986 ; PELEGRIN, 1990 ; SELLET,
1993 ; STARK (ed.), 1998.
9. LEMONNIER (ed.), 1993.
10. SKIBO and SCHIFFER, 2001.
11. BAMFORTH, 1986 ; BLEED, 1986 ; HAYDEN et al., 1996 ; NELSON,
1991 ; ODELL (ed.), 1996 ; SIGGERS, 1997.
12. BAR-YOSEF et al., 1992 ; BLEED, 2001 ; HENRY and ODELL, 1989 ;NISHIAKI, 2000 ; ODELL, 1996 ; SELLET, 1993.
13. BLEED, 2001 ; NISHIAKI, 2000 ; SELLET, 1993.

Fig. 1 : Late Neolithic sites mentioned in the text.

Paléorient, vol. 31/2, p. 69-85 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005

Tiré à part - CNRS ÉDITIONS

70

PAL 31-2.book Page 71 Mardi, 16. mai 2006 2:41 14

production technology of sickle elements were related to various factors, including chronology, geography, mechanicalfunctions of sickle elements, and social contexts of Late Neolithic settlements in Wadi Ziqlab. Before presenting theresults of analyses, the following will briefly present the cultural-history and general socio-economy of Late Neolithic
settlements in Wadi Ziqlab in order to present general backgrounds of the sickle elements analyzed in this study.

LATE NEOLITHIC FARMSTEADS IN WADIZIQLAB
The Late Neolithic settlements in Wadi Ziqlab appear tohave consisted of small farmsteads or hamlets at dispersed
locations with agriculture and livestock14. In such generalsocio-economic settings, sickle elements are likely to haveplayed a significant role in agricultural practices. This idea
may be supported by the high proportions of sickle elements
among formal tool types in many Late Neolithic lithic assemblages15. Although sickle elements could have been used toharvest various plant materials16, the high-power microscopic
use-wear analysis of 30 sickle elements from a Neolithic
farmstead in Wadi Ziqlab indicates that they were used “toharvest domesticated cereals… near their base with a sawing
motion”17.
The sickle elements analyzed in this study were obtained
from excavated collections from Tabaqat al-Bûma and alBasatîn, Late Neolithic agricultural settlements located only a
few kilometres apart from each other in Wadi Ziqlab (fig. 1).
The two sites also appear chronologically close to each other.
A series of radiocarbon dates from Tabaqat al-Bûma range
between 5 700 and 5 200 cal BC, while a radiocarbon date of
the Neolithic contexts at al-Basatîn falls within this range.
The chronological proximity between the two sites can be also
supported by the great similarity of their material cultures,
including lithic and pottery types18.

14. BANNING, 2001 ; BANNING et al., 1994, 2004 ; BANNING and SIGGERS, 1997 ; GOPHER, 1995 ; GOPHER and GOPHNA, 1993 ; KUIJT and CHESSON, 2002.
15. BANNING et al., 1994 ; BANNING and SIGGERS, 1997 ; BARKAI and
GOPHER, 1999 ; FINLAYSON et al., 2003.
16. ANDERSON, 1994 ; UNGER-HAMILTON, 1989.
17. SIGGERS, 1997 : 175.
18. BANNING et al., 1994 ; BANNING and SIGGERS, 1997 ; BANNING etal., 2002, 2004.

Paléorient, vol. 31/2, p. 69-85 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005

71

These small settlements in Wadi Ziqlab were probably
inhabited by agro-pastoralists that are directly or indirectlysuggested by ecofacts and artefacts. For example, animal husbandry is clearly indicated by faunal remains that include
sheep/goats, cattle, and swine19. Hunting may have been practiced occasionally as deer also contribute a significant portionin the recovered faunal remains ; however, its economic
importance appears to have declined as suggested by the virtual absence of arrowheads in chipped-stone artefacts. Agriculture is likely to have been practiced as sickle elementscharacterize formal tool categories of chipped-stone artefacts20. In addition, the importance of agricultural products is
also indirectly supported by various food-processing tools,
such as large grinding querns and handstones21.
In this way, the current archaeological evidence indicatesthat Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn likely had similar functions as farmsteads. This idea can be also supported by theirsmall settlement scales (smaller than 1 ha) and the small
number of building remains. Although nearly ten rectilinear
buildings were recovered at Tabaqat al-Bûma, stratigraphicalanalyses suggest that only some of the buildings were inhabited at a time, while open spaces or abandoned buildings werepotential outdoor activity areas22. Probable outdoor activity
areas were also discovered at al-Basatîn along with cobblepaved surfaces23. This small amount of building remains so
far discovered at al-Basatîn might suggest its more ephemeraluse, such as activity areas near agricultural fields or seasonal
occupations ; however, similar kinds and range of activities
were probably practiced at both sites as indicated by othermaterial records, including subsistence data and various kindsof tools, including not only agricultural tools but also large
food-processing tools.
These general characteristics in material culture, economy, and settlement scale at Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn
show affinity to the Wadi Rabah culture in the Neolithic
Levant24. According to Gopher and Gophna25, the Wadi Raba
culture is a rather broadly defined cultural entity, including“normative” components, which are essentially found in theJezreel Valley, and many “variants” distributed in other
19. BANNING et al., 1994 ; BANNING and SIGGERS, 1997.
20. SIGGERS, 1997 ; BANNING and SIGGERS, 1997 ; BANNING et al.,2004.
21. BANNING et al., 1994 ; BANNING and SIGGERS, 1997 ; BANNING etal., 2002, 2004.
22. BLACKHAM, 1997.
23. BANNING et al., 2002, 2004.
24. GOPHER, 1995 ; GOPHER and GOPHNA, 1993.
25. GOPHER and GOPHNA, 1993.

Tiré à part - CNRS ÉDITIONSDesigns and Production Technology of Sickle Elements in Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan

PAL 31-2.book Page 72 Mardi, 16. mai 2006 2:41 14

regions. The material cultures at Tabaqat al-Bûma and alBasatîn appear to represent a variant of the Wadi Raba culture
at the eastern side of the Jordan Valley26.
The following analysis will examine morphological andtechnological characteristics of sickle elements from Tabaqat
al-Bûma and al-Basatîn. Morphological traits of sickle elements from these sites will be compared with those from other
Wadi Rabah sites, while the technological analysis will compare the practices of sickle element production between these
two sites.

MORPHOLOGICAL EXAMINATIONS OFSICKLE ELEMENTS FROM WADI RABAH
SITESSickle elements from Wadi Rabah sites usually have a rectangular form with marginal, steep to semi-steep retouch at
one side, and truncated or snapped ends (fig. 2). This generalmorphology can be subdivided according to Gopher’s typology of sickle elements27. His Type C sickle elements are relatively thin and narrow with a trapezoidal cross-section
formed by semi-abrupt backing retouch (fig. 2 : 1-8), while
his Type D sickle elements are relatively thick and wide witha triangular cross-section formed by abrupt backing retouch(fig. 2 : 9-16). This typological scheme was employed byBarkai and Gopher to analyze sickle elements from Nahal
Zehora I, and this analysis let them to point out that Type D
sickle elements are characterized by coarse and semi-coarse
denticulations on their cutting edge, while Type C sickle elements are dominated by fine denticulations and plain cuttingedges28. In addition to these two types, Gopher originallydefined Type E sickle elements, which are similar to Type C
but tend to be longer and have plain or nibbled cutting edges
instead of denticulations29. However, Type C and E sickle
elements are grouped together in the analysis of Nahal
Zehora I30.
This typological scheme was employed for sickle elements from Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn to be comparedwith other Wadi Rabah assemblages. The results suggest that
26. BANNING et al., 1994 ; BANNING and SIGGERS, 1997 ; BANNING etal., 2002, 2004.
27. GOPHER, 1989.
28. BARKAI and GOPHER 1999.
29. GOPHER, 1989 : 95-108.
30. BARKAI and GOPHER, 1999 : 63.

S. KADOWAKI

the two sites in Wadi Ziqlab have higher proportions of TypeD sickle elements than other three Wadi Rabah sites (fig. 3)31.
As described above, Type D sickle elements are characterized
by their thick, triangular cross-sections that are formed byabrupt backing retouch, and their cutting edges tend to becoarsely denticulated. Some of these detailed attributes wereindividually analyzed, and the results show that abrupt backing retouch appears to characterize the sickle elements from
Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn (fig. 4), conforming to thedominance of Type D sickle elements at these sites32. In addition, sickle elements from Wadi Ziqlab have higher occurrences of coarse and semi-coarse denticulations on theirworking edges than those from other Wadi Rabah sites(fig. 5)33. Interestingly, coarse or semi-coarse denticulations
are frequently found on both Type C and D sickle elements in
Wadi Ziqlab (ca 75 % of Type C and ca 65 % of Type D),
while fine denticulations usually characterize Type C sickle
elements in other Wadi Rabah sites as noted above.
In this way, sickle elements of Tabaqat al-Bûma and alBasatîn appear to show greater morphological similarity incomparison to those from other Wadi Rabah sites. This morphological resemblance may not be surprising considering thechronological and geographical closeness between the twosites as explained earlier. Given this chronological and geographical proximity, it is likely that the formal similarity may
not be a coincidence but a result of transmitted knowledge
about the design of sickle elements.
However, this does not necessarily mean that inhabitantsof the two sites also had the same technology of producing
sickle elements because the same product design can beachieved through different manufacturing processes. Thus, tounderstand the technological knowledge, we need to investigate not only the morphologies of end-products but also thetechnological practices performed during the production ofsickle elements. To this end, I will analyze technological practices of the sickle element production at Tabaqat al-Bûma andal-Basatîn, focusing on several key production activities,
including raw material selection, blank production, andretouch.

31. Abu Zureiq : GARFINKEL and MATSKEVICH, 2002 ; Nahal Zehora I :BARKAI and GOPHER, 1999 ; Munhata : GOPHER, 1989.
32. Ibid.
33. Lower Horvat ‘Illin : MARDER et al., 1995 ; Tell Qiri : BARUCH,
1987 ; Abu Zureiq : GARFINKEL and MATSKEVICH, 2002 ; Nahal Zehora I :BARKAI and GOPHER, 1999 ; Munhata : GOPHER, 1989.

Paléorient, vol. 31/2, p. 69-85 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005

Tiré à part - CNRS ÉDITIONS

72

PAL 31-2.book Page 73 Mardi, 16. mai 2006 2:41 14

73

Fig. 2 : Late Neolithic sickle elements from Wadi Ziqlab, northern Jordan : 1-8 : Type C ; 9-16 : Type D ; 1-4, 9-12 from Tabaqat al-Bûma ;5-8, 13-16 from al-Basatîn.

înû

Fig. 3 : Relative frequencies of Gopher’s sickle-element types from
Wadi Ziqlab and several Wadi Rabah sites.

Paléorient, vol. 31/2, p. 69-85 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005

Fig. 4 : Relative frequencies of retouch types at the hafted side ofsickle elements from Wadi Ziqlab and several Wadi Rabah sites.

Tiré à part - CNRS ÉDITIONSDesigns and Production Technology of Sickle Elements in Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan

PAL 31-2.book Page 74 Mardi, 16. mai 2006 2:41 14

74

S. KADOWAKI

îû

Fig. 5 : Relative frequencies of working-edge morphologies observed
on Type C, D, and E sickle elements from Wadi Ziqlab and several
Wadi Rabah sites.

PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY OF SICKLEELEMENTS AT TABAQAT AL-BÛMA AND ALBASATÎN
RAW MATERIAL SELECTION
Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn were compared in thecolour and quality of raw materials used for sickle elements.
Colours were classified by seven categories (light brown,
medium brown, dark brown, light grey, medium grey, darkgrey, and purple/pink), while qualities were classified into
three grades (fine, medium, and coarse). As figure 6 shows,both colour and quality of raw materials used for sickle elements are quite similar at Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn.
Notably, fine-quality flint was most frequently chosen at bothsites, accounting for more than 80 % of the tools. Moreover,at both sites, fine-grained flint is selected for sickle elements
more frequently than for other major tool types, such as borers, scrapers, and retouched flakes, ca 50-70 % of which are
made on fine-quality flint. These similar patterns in the use of
raw material at the two sites may be partly explained by theeasy access to high-quality flint sources from both sites34.

34. BANNING et al., 1994 : 161.

In contrast to the similar preference of raw material quality, the blank morphology of sickle elements seems to differ
between the two sites. As figure 7 shows, ca 60 % of sickle
elements from al-Basatîn have been made on blades, while
blades have been used for only ca 30 % of sickle elementsfrom Tabaqat al-Bûma. In addition, over 30 % of sickle elements from Tabaqat al-Bûma do not allow the blank form tobe identified because they have been intensively modified
during the production processes. Assuming that sickle elements of indeterminate blank morphology are likely to have
had irregular shapes that needed to be retouched into standardized rectangular forms, the high percentage of indeterminate blank forms at Tabaqat al-Bûma conforms to the frequent
use of flakes for sickle elements at this site.
Despite the more frequent use of flakes at Tabaqat al-Bûmathan at al-Basatîn, blades still appear to have been preferred toflakes for the production of sickle elements in comparison toother retouched tool types. Retouched flakes dominate the tool
categories at both sites, while other major tool types, such as
borers, scrapers, denticulates, and notches, are also largely
made on flakes (ca 70-100 %). Given this frequent use of flakes
for other tool types both at Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn, thetechnology of blank production appears to differ between thetwo sites particularly in relation to the production of sickle elements rather than the production of other tool types.

RETOUCH
Cross-sectional morphology and backing technique
In order to examine the retouching technology employedin the production of sickle elements, cross-sectional morphologies and backing technique were analyzed. The cross-sectional morphology was classified into ten types, which aredefined by the combinations of three attributes as seen in the
figure 835 : the number of ridges on the dorsal surface (single
or double), retouch angle (abrupt or semi-abrupt), and theextent of backing retouch (away-from-ridge or at-ridge).
Backing retouch occurring “away from ridge” is marginal andindicates the less modification of blanks, while backing
retouch located “at ridge” is more invasive and indicates thegreater degree of blank modification.
35. BLACKHAM, 1997 : 160-163.

Paléorient, vol. 31/2, p. 69-85 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005

Tiré à part - CNRS ÉDITIONSBLANK PRODUCTION AND SELECTION

PAL 31-2.book Page 75 Mardi, 16. mai 2006 2:41 14

75

Fig. 6 : Colour and quality of flint used for Neolithic sickle elements from Wadi Ziqlab.

Figure 8 shows the occurrences of the ten types of crosssectional forms at Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn. While
several types occur in clearly different proportions, two main
patterns can be highlighted (table 1). First, the proportion of
single-ridged sickle elements is significantly higher at
Tabaqat al-Bûma than at al-Basatîn36. Second, backing
retouch tends to be observed at ridge more frequently at
Tabaqat al-Bûma, indicating that more extensive retouch was
performed there37. Furthermore, these two patterns in crosssectional forms seem to be related to blank morphologies. In
fact, table 2 shows that single-ridged sickle elements havebeen largely made on flakes, while backing retouch occurring
at ridge are more frequently observed on flakes than blades38,

36. 1-tailed p of Fisher’s exact test = 0.044.
37. The result of the difference-of-proportion test indicates that the proportion of retouch occurring at ridge differs significantly between Tabaqat alBûma and al-Basatîn (z-score = 1.645).
38. Fisher’s exact test of the correlation between the blank forms (bladesor flakes) and the number of ridge (single or double) resulted in 2-tailed p =0.00, while the chi-square test of the correlation between the blank forms(blades or flakes) and the extent of retouch (no retouch, away-from-ridge, or
at-ridge) resulted in the chi-square value = 19.9 and 2-tailed p = 0.00.

Paléorient, vol. 31/2, p. 69-85 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005

indicating that flakes tend to have received the greater degreeof modification than blades. Given this correlation between
the cross-sectional morphology and the blank forms, thehigher occurrences of single-ridged sickle elements and thebacking retouch occurring at ridge at Tabaqat al-Bûma coincides with the fact that flakes have been more frequently used
for the production of sickle elements there as described earlier.
In addition to the cross-sectional morphology, the technique of backing retouch was compared between the two sites(table 3). Three kinds of backing technique were identified ;two types were defined by the steepness of retouch (abrupt or
semi-abrupt), while the other type (abrupt-and-crossed) was
defined by abrupt retouch created by bidirectional (not bifacial) flaking from the dorsal and ventral surfaces as seen in
figure 9 : 1. Table 3 shows that although abrupt retouch dominates at both sites, the proportion of abrupt-and-crossedbacking is significantly higher at Tabaqat al-Bûma39.
39. The result of the difference-of-proportion test indicates that the proportion of abrupt-and-crossed retouch differs significantly between Tabaqat alBûma and al-Basatîn (z-score = 2.22).

Tiré à part - CNRS ÉDITIONSDesigns and Production Technology of Sickle Elements in Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan

PAL 31-2.book Page 76 Mardi, 16. mai 2006 2:41 14

76

S. KADOWAKI

Fig. 7 : Blank forms of Neolithic sickle elements from Wadi Ziqlab.

Moreover, the abrupt-and-crossed backing techniqueseems to be correlated with the blank form and the extent of
retouch as seen in table 3. In fact, the abrupt-and-crossedbacking occurs more frequently on flakes than blades, and it
also tends to occur at ridge, indicating the greater extent of
retouch. Additionally, sickle elements with abrupt-andcrossed backing are significantly thicker than those withabrupt retouch40, suggesting that the former technique wasselected to modify relatively thick blanks. This correlation of
the backing technique with the factors of the blank form andthe extent of retouch is in accordance with the fact that sickle
elements from Tabaqat al-Bûma are characterized by thehigher occurrences of the abrupt-and-crossed backing technique, the more frequent use of flakes as blanks, and thegreater extent of backing retouch than those from al-Basatîn.

40. 34. Abrupt-and-crossed (n=47) : Mean thickness = 6.2mm, s = 2.0 ;Abrupt (n=142) : Mean thickness = 5.3mm, s = 1.8 ; t value = 3.16 ; 2-tailed
p = 0.002.

Creating denticulations on the cutting edge should havebeen another important retouching process at Tabaqat alBûma and al-Basatîn because denticulations are observed onmost sickle elements from both sites (fig. 5) ; however, thequestion is whether the denticulations were made during the
production processes or the rejuvenation of cutting edges. The
former possibility is indicated by the fact that no distinct
sickle sheen or edge rounding can be observed on ca 30 % of
the denticulated sickle elements from Tabaqat al-Bûma andal-Basatîn. This suggests that these sickle elements werealready denticulated at the early stages of their use-lives.
However, denticulations also seem to have been made during
the edge maintenance as many sickle elements show polishremoved at flake scars created by denticulations (for example,
fig. 2 : 10 and 13).
In order to obtain further insights into the practices of creating denticulations, unfinished sickle elements were also
examined. Their sample size is small (18 pieces from Tabaqat
al-Bûma and 7 pieces from al-Basatîn), allowing no statisticalverification to be made concerning the significance of the patterns observed in the practices of creating denticulations ;however, the unfinished sickle elements may still be worth
being examined here because they clearly show anotherexample of technological practices, where people’s choices
lead to the technological variability.
At Tabaqat al-Bûma, all of the unfinished products areabruptly backed or truncated without denticulations on theirworking edges (fig. 9), indicating that backing and truncationof blanks preceded the application of denticulations on theworking edges. On the other hand, all seven pieces of unfinished sickle elements from al-Basatîn have denticulations on
their working edges, and most of them are not yet backed or
truncated (fig. 10). One broken piece with a denticulated edge
appears to have been abandoned because of a failure of truncation retouch (fig. 10 : 1). This suggests that denticulations
were usually made on the working edge before backing or
truncation of blanks at al-Basatîn. Thus, the unfinished sickle
elements indicate a contrast between the two sites in thesequence of retouching practices of sickle elements ; backing
and truncation preceded denticulation at Tabaqat al-Bûma,while the reverse prevailed at al-Basatîn.
As pointed out earlier, this hypothesis will need to beverified with larger sample size, which may also allow us to
examine how the sequence of retouching practices is related
to other technological factors, including blank forms, cross-

Paléorient, vol. 31/2, p. 69-85 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005

Tiré à part - CNRS ÉDITIONS

Denticulations on the cutting edge

PAL 31-2.book Page 77 Mardi, 16. mai 2006 2:41 14

77

Fig. 8 : Cross-sectional morphology of Neolithic sickle elements from Wadi Ziqlab. (Retouched areas are marked by dashed lines, while ridges
are indicated by dots).

Table 1 : Number of ridges and the extent of retouch observed on
Neolithic sickle elements from Wadi Ziqlab.
Tabaqat al-Bûma Al-Basatîn
(n=169)(n=43)
Number of ridges

Single76%

60%

Double

24%

40%

100%

100%

No retouch5%

5%

Away from ridge

44%

58%

TOTAL

Extent of retouch

At ridge
TOTAL

51%

37%

100%

100%

Paléorient, vol. 31/2, p. 69-85 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005sectional forms, and backing technique. Despite theseremaining questions, the above observations still indicatethat the sequence of retouching practices can provide
another viewpoint towards the variability of lithic technological practices.

IMPLICATIONS OF SICKLE ELEMENTS IN
LATE NEOLITHIC WADI ZIQLAB
The results of the above analyses indicate that some technological practices in the production processes of sickle elements probably differed between Tabaqat al-Bûma and alBasatîn, while their final morphology was quite similar in

Tiré à part - CNRS ÉDITIONSDesigns and Production Technology of Sickle Elements in Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan

PAL 31-2.book Page 78 Mardi, 16. mai 2006 2:41 14

78

S. KADOWAKI

Table 2 : Correlation between the blank forms and two attributes (the number of ridges and the extent
of retouch) of Neolithic sickle elements from Wadi Ziqlab.
Extent of retouchSingle(n=153)

Double(n=59)

No retouch(n=11)

Away from ridge(n=99)

At ridge(n=102)

Blade

30%

51%

55%

46%

25%

Flake

41%

15%

18%

20%

49%

Bladelet

1%

3%

9%

3%

0%

Indeterminate

28%

31%

18%

31%

27%

total

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Table 3 : Correlation between backing retouch of sickle elements and other factors, including sites, blank forms, and the extent of
retouch.
Site
Backing retouch

Tabaqat al-Bûma
(n=170)Blank form

Extent of retouch

Al-Basatîn (n=43) Blade (n=76) Flake (n=72)

Abrupt65%

74%

Abrupt and Crossed

25%

Semi-Abrupt

6%

Cortex

Away from ridge(n=99)

At ridge(n=102)

71%

49%

78%

61%

12%

9%

43%

10%

36%

9%

11%

6%

12%

1%

2%

0%

3%

1%

0%

2%

No retouch

2%

5%

7%

1%

0%

0%

total

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Fig. 9 : Unfinished sickle elements from Tabaqat al-Bûma.

Fig. 10 : Unfinished sickle elements from al-Basatîn.

Paléorient, vol. 31/2, p. 69-85 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005

Tiré à part - CNRS ÉDITIONS

Number of ridges

PAL 31-2.book Page 79 Mardi, 16. mai 2006 2:41 14

comparison to sickle elements from other Wadi Rabah sites.
In other words, sickle elements from Tabaqat al-Bûma and alBasatîn appear to have been manufactured according to ahighly standardized design, which was achieved through various technological practices in the production processes,
including the raw material selection, the blank production,and the blank modification. Although the variability of production technology also exists at each site, the results of thestatistical tests show that the patterns observed in several production practices are significantly different between Tabaqat
al-Bûma and al-Basatîn.
Based on these observations, the following discussion will
aim at explaining the standardized design of sickle elements
and their varied production technology in Wadi Ziqlab, particularly focusing on several factors, including chronology,
geography, people’s knowledge, the mechanical functions ofsickle elements, and the mechanical logics of production technology. After examining these factors, I will briefly discusssocial contexts that may have been related to the productionof sickle elements in Wadi Ziqlab.

CHRONOLOGY, GEOGRAPHY, AND THE
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SICKLE ELEMENTS
As described earlier, a series of radiocarbon dates indicatethat Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn were probably occupied
within the range of 5 700-5 200 cal BC. This chronologicalproximity between the two sites may partly explain the morphological similarity of their sickle elements, which are characterized by relatively high occurrences of Type D sickle
elements, coarsely denticulated cutting edges, and abrupt
backing technique. In fact, several researchers point out thatcoarsely denticulated sickle elements tended to appear earlyin the Late Neolithic period and were subsequently replacedby fine denticulations or plain edges at the end of the Late
Neolithic and early in the Chalcolithic period41. According tothis general trend from coarse to fine (or no) denticulation on
the working edges, the dominance of coarsely denticulated
sickle elements in Wadi Ziqlab may represent their earlier
chronological positions than other Wadi Rabah sites. It is currently difficult to verify this hypothesis due to the lack ofradiocarbon dates of Wadi Rabah sites that can be compared
41. BARKAI and GOPHER, 1999 ; FINLAYSON et al., 2003 ; GARFINKEL
and MILLER (eds), 2002 ; GOPHER, 1989 ; GOPHER and GOPHNA, 1993 ;GOPHER and ROSEN, 2001 ; ROSEN, 1997 ; WADA, 2001.

Paléorient, vol. 31/2, p. 69-85 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005

79

with Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn ; nonetheless, deeply
denticulated sickle elements have been found in a few sites,such as Tell Dan I layer XVI and Hagoshrim layer IV, which
reportedly date to the early Wadi Rabah period42.
On the other hand, the question is why the production
technology of sickle elements appears to differ between
Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn despite their chronologicalproximity. One reason may be a subtle chronological difference between Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn. While the
Neolithic occupations at Tabaqat al-Bûma consist of several
building phases within the range of 5 700-5 200 cal BC, theNeolithic occupations so far discovered at al-Basatîn are composed of less building remains, indicating its shorter occupational period43. This suggests that the production technology
of sickle elements could have changed during the relatively
long occupational period at Tabaqat al-Bûma (ca 500 years),
and the production technology at al-Basatîn might resemble
one of the temporal variations. This chronological question
could be effectively investigated by analyzing sickle elements
separately for each building phase at Tabaqat al-Bûma.
Although the chronological contexts may help us understand the morphological variations of sickle elements, geographical contexts also seem to explain the morphologicalvariations of sickle elements. In fact, as described earlier, similar morphological traits are clustered in Wadi Ziqlab, such as
at Tabaqat al-Bûma, al-Basatîn, and possibly another Late
Neolithic site (WZ310)44. These sites are all located within a
few kilometres range. In contrast, different morphologicalcharacteristics appear to be concentrated in another region,such as the Jezreel Valley, including Abu Zureiq, Nahal
Zehora I, Tell Qiri, and probably ‘Ein El Jarba45, where mostsickle elements are classified as Type C or E with finely denticulated (or plain) edges and less abrupt backing retouch.
These observations indicate that the morphological variationsof sickle elements can be understood as regional trends.
However, the question is whether these regional andchronological trends mean that people only knew the sickleelement designs of their region and time or that people madeselections from a series of known designs. In fact, the regionaland chronological variations of sickle-element morphologies
are recognized as proportional differences of certain morpho42. GARFINKEL and MATSKEVICH, 2002 : 154 ; GOPHER and GREENBERG, 1996 : 73-74.
43. BANNING, 2001 ; BANNING et al., 1994, 2002, 2004 ; BANNING and
SIGGERS, 1997 ; BLACKHAM, 1997.
44. BANNING et al., 1996 : 44-46.
45. KAPLAN, 1969 : 23-26.

Tiré à part - CNRS ÉDITIONSDesigns and Production Technology of Sickle Elements in Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan

PAL 31-2.book Page 80 Mardi, 16. mai 2006 2:41 14

logical attributes rather than as exclusive occurrences of different designs (figs 3-5). This suggests that people probably
knew several different options for sickle-element designs andmade choices according to some factors, including themechanical goals to be achieved by sickle elements of
selected designs. Thus, the standardized designs of sickle elements at Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn are likely to haveresulted from the similar patterns in people’ choices of thedesigns.
Likewise, the technological difference between the twosites is also recognized as proportional differences in theoccurrences of various technological practices rather than as
their exclusive occurrences (figs 7 and 8, and tables 1-3), indicating that the inhabitants of the two sites probably knew thesame range of technological options for the sickle-element
production whether these sites were exactly contemporaneousor not. This leads us to questions what factors other than chronology and geography may have affected people’s decisions
when selecting the sickle-element designs and the production
technology. To obtain some insights into this question, I will
focus on two possible factors, i.e., the mechanical functions
and the social contexts of the tool production. The influenceof mechanical factors will be examined first, and then I will
discuss the social contexts that may have affected people’s
choices of the designs and the production technology of sickle
elements.

DESIGN AND MECHANICAL FUNCTIONSAs described earlier, sickle elements constitute a major
formal lithic tool type and were likely important cutting tools
for agricultural practices in most Late Neolithic settlements46.
Given this primary function, sickle elements’ designs can be
influenced by intended mechanical performance characteristics47. For example, the standardized morphology of sickle
elements can facilitate their hafting and maintenance tasks48,
thus increasing the reliability and maintainability of sickles49.
According to Bleed50, an exploitation of resources that are
predictably available in a limited period of time, such as
migrant animals (or cultivated cereals in this case), is likely to
46. BANNING et al., 1994 ; BANNING and SIGGERS, 1997 ; BARKAI and
GOPHER, 1999 ; FINLAYSON et al., 2003 ; GOPHER, 1989, 1995.
47. SKIBO and SCHIFFER, 2001 : 143-146.
48. PEROS, 2000.
49. BLEED, 1986 ; SIGGERS, 1997.
50. BLEED, 1986 : 741.

S. KADOWAKI

lead people to design more reliable tools that are less likely to
break. In fact, the morphological formality of sickle elements
is distinct from other expedient flake tools, such as scrapers
and retouched flakes, in the lithic assemblages of Tabaqat alBûma and al-Basatîn. The standardized morphology of sickle
elements should secure their attachment to the haft. In addition, the uniformity of sickle elements is advantageous for thequick repair of broken sickles because it facilitates replacement of broken elements with new ones through quick adjustment of the size of new sickle elements by snapping51.
However, these mechanical performance characteristics
apply not only to sickle elements in Wadi Ziqlab but also
those in other regions. To explain the sickle-element design
specific to Wadi Ziqlab, a closer examination of performance
characteristics would be necessary. As mentioned earlier,sickle elements from Wadi Ziqlab are characterized by higher
occurrences of coarsely denticulated edges (fig. 5). Based onher cereal-harvesting experiments with sickle blades, UngerHamilton52 reports that denticulations do not make edges
sharper but extend the period of their utility. Siggers also suggests that denticulated edges do not cut as efficiently as unretouched ones when both types of edges are new, but
denticulated sickle elements “work within acceptable levelsof efficiency and maintain that efficiency for a far greater
period of time” than unretouched edges53. He also points outthat making denticulations is also a speedy way of resharpening edges, thus reducing the necessity of replacing dull sickle
elements with new ones. In this way, denticulated edges may
prolong the longevity of efficiency and enhance the maintainability of sickle elements.
Although these observations may partly explain the specific performance characteristics of denticulated sickle elements, the question remains why these particular performance
characteristics were selected in Wadi Ziqlab. This may berelated to differences in worked materials (e.g., kinds andconditions) ; however, use-wear studies of sickle elements do
not seem to support this idea54, indicating the influence of cultural or social factors. Clarifying this problem will require further investigations about the relationships between
mechanical performance characteristics and the sickle element designs.

51. PEROS, 2000.
52. UNGER-HAMILTON, 1988 : 183-184 and 1989 : 95.
53. SIGGERS, 1997 : 175.
54. SIGGERS, 1997 : 167-175 ; BARKAI and GOPHER, 1999 : 68.

Paléorient, vol. 31/2, p. 69-85 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005

Tiré à part - CNRS ÉDITIONS

80

PAL 31-2.book Page 81 Mardi, 16. mai 2006 2:41 14

PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGYAND MECHANICAL LOGICS
While the morphological traits of sickle elements can be
explained by their mechanical functions, the production technology may be understood by the mechanical logics involvedin the production processes. In order to manufacture sickle
elements of intended designs, the production technology
essentially needs to follow some mechanical logics. In thecase of sickle elements in Wadi Ziqlab, their desired morphologies require several mechanical goals to be achieved in the
production processes. As described earlier, sickle elements in
Wadi Ziqlab usually have a rectangular form and a denticulated cutting edge within a certain range of size. In order toachieve these morphological traits, blanks are modified
through various practices of production technology.
The comparative analyses of production technology at
Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn suggest that there are essentially two ways of achieving a rectangular shape of sickle
elements ; one is using blades that require less extent of backing retouch, while the other is using flakes that need to be
shaped into a rectangular form with a greater amount of modification. The former appears to have been more prevalent at
al-Basatîn, while the latter was employed more often at
Tabaqat al-Bûma. Although using blades that already haverectangular forms might appear more efficient than using
flakes that require greater modification, the production of
blades usually requires more skills and effort in the core
reduction processes. These investments in the production of
blades may be worthwhile when blades are intended to bemade into various kinds of tools, such as in many Upper Palaeolithic industries, or to be traded for their specialized use,such as Canaanean blades55 ; however, neither of these cases
seem to apply to the lithic industries in Wadi Ziqlab, wheremost tools other than sickle elements are made on flakes, andno evidence indicates the trade of blades. Thus, it is difficult
to decide whether using blades or flakes is a more efficient
way of achieving a rectangular shape of sickle elements. Bothways appear to be equally effective as a way of achieving
mechanical requirements for producing the sickle elements in
Wadi Ziqlab.
Similarly, the observations of unfinished sickle elementssuggested the different sequences of retouching practices ofsickle elements ; backing and truncation preceded denticulation at Tabaqat al-Bûma, while the reverse prevailed at al55. ROSEN, 1997 : 103-116.

Paléorient, vol. 31/2, p. 69-85 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 200581

Basatîn. At present, it is difficult to differentiate between thetwo retouch sequences in terms of mechanical logics ; bothways seem similarly effective in creating rectangular forms
and denticulations of sickle elements. However, the recovery
of more unfinished sickle elements and their analyses infuture may allow us to examine how the retouch sequences
are related to other technological factors, such as blank forms
and backing technique.

SOCIAL CONTEXTS OF SICKLE ELEMENTS AND
THEIR PRODUCTION PRACTICES IN WADI ZIQLAB
The above discussion examined how various mechanicalfactors can be related to the selections of the designs and the
production technology of sickle elements ; however, themechanical factors do not seem to explain some choices ofdesigns and production methods. For example, although denticulated cutting edges may have some mechanical advantages, it is still unclear why they were more frequently
selected in Wadi Ziqlab or in the early Wadi Rabah period
than in the Jezreel Valley or in the later Wadi Rabah period.
In addition, using flakes as a blank of sickle elements can be
as effective as using blades in achieving mechanical requirements for producing sickle elements. Moreover, no difference
can be seen between the different retouch sequences in termsof their mechanical advantages.
Now, the question is how we can explain these examples
that do not seem to be explained only by mechanical principles. As described above, the chronological and geographicalfactors are not sufficient either because people appear to have
known a range of optional designs and production technology
of sickle elements beyond the temporal and spatial boundaries56. Therefore, the observed patterns in selecting certain
designs and production technology may appear to reflect people’s habits or their arbitrary selections57, which leads us toconsider social or cultural factors affecting people’s technological choices.
As described earlier, the results of systematic regional surveys suggest that Late Neolithic settlements in Wadi Ziqlab
consisted of small farmsteads or hamlets at dispersed locations. Since little is still known about the social organizations
or ideological cultures of these rural agricultural communi-

56. See the preceding arguments based on the proportionally different
occurrences of designs and production technology.
57. LEMONNIER, 1993 : 16-18.

Tiré à part - CNRS ÉDITIONSDesigns and Production Technology of Sickle Elements in Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan

PAL 31-2.book Page 82 Mardi, 16. mai 2006 2:41 14

ties, it is difficult to specify social or cultural factors affecting
people’s choices of the sickle-element designs and the production technology. However, the following will discuss possible social implications of sickle elements in order to develop
the ongoing arguments about the settlement systems andsocial relations in Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab58.
The primary question arises as to the social implications ofhighly similar sickle-element morphologies in Wadi Ziqlab.
This similarity can indicate the frequent interactions among
inhabitants in Wadi Ziqlab. Although the frequency of people’s interaction does not always result in the material similarity59, Neolithic farmsteads in Wadi Ziqlab may have regularlyinteracted with each other because of the easy access to neighbouring settlements and for the socioeconomic advantage. For
the agriculturalists, who live in sparsely distributed small
farmsteads, such as in Wadi Ziqlab, the maintenance of socioeconomic ties among settlements can be an important strategy
to secure resource income in case of crop failure or to obtainnecessary labour forces for multiple simultaneous tasks60.
Banning points out that Late Neolithic pottery assemblages
tend to include high proportions of small jars and bowls,
which are suitable for preparing and serving food, and suggests that a “network of hospitability” had an important rolein maintaining socioeconomic ties in the dispersed settlement
system61. Although this idea needs to be tested by further
examinations of pottery assemblages, I suggest that laboursharing in agricultural tasks also help maintain reciprocal
relations among community members.
According to some ethnographic studies of agrarian societies, community members from different households often collaborate to manage complex simultaneous tasks during the timeof labour bottleneck, such as land clearance, planting, or harvesting62. One way to manage these occasions would be the useof efficient, well-designed tools, which are exemplified by thedesign investment in sickle elements as discussed above63. In
addition to this mechanical solution, the labour collaboration
would be another way to handle complex simultaneous tasks.
Particularly, when this labour collaboration occurs in dispersed
agricultural settlements, the travel distance to neighbours’
lands conditions the distributional patterns of farmsteads64. As
58. BANNING, 2001 ; BANNING et al., 1994, 2002, 2004 ; BANNING and
SIGGERS, 1997 ; BLACKHAM, 1997.
59. HODDER, 1979 : LEMONNIER, 1986.
60. BANNING, 1996, 2001.
61. BANNING, 2001 : 154.
62. STONE, 1993 ; WILK, 1984.
63. SIGGERS, 1997.
64. STONE, 1993 : 33.

S. KADOWAKI

noted earlier, Tabaqat al-Bûma, al-Basatîn, and another possible Late Neolithic settlement (WZ310) in Wadi Ziqlab arelocated within a few kilometres’ range. If their proximity represents the distributional pattern of Neolithic farmsteads in
Wadi Ziqlab, it is possible that inhabitants visited neighbouring
settlements in the occasions of labour bottleneck to accomplish
complex tasks. Such reciprocal group works should have contributed to the enhancement of interactions among inhabitantsof different farmsteads. In this way, the frequent interactions
between farmsteads, particularly through the collaborative
labour works involving the use of tools, can be a social factor
that contributed to the dissemination of the similar choices oftool designs.
However, the above discussion leaves us with a questionof why then the production technology of sickle elements statistically differed between Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn
despite their possible interactions. Although the two settlements may not have existed at exactly the same time and had
no direct interactions, we may still question why the technological practices of sickle element-production were not inherited in the same way as the morphology of sickle elements.
To answer these questions, helpful may be our earlier
observation that some technological options in the production
processes are not likely critical in achieving morphologicalrequirements of sickle elements. For example, it does notseem to matter in terms of mechanical logics whether people
use flakes or blades as a blank of sickle elements. Likewise,
denticulations can be equally created either before or after
modifying the blanks by backing or truncating. These observations suggest that people may not have transmitted theirchoices of the production technology as clearly as the final
morphology of sickle elements. People’s low awareness ofthese technological choices may have let to their greater variability.
Another possible reason for the technological variability isthat people may have selected the production technology
according to their various knapping skills and the labour
organizations of stone-tool production. For example, the different occurrences of blades as a blank of sickle elements at
Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn may reflect the inhabitants’different levels of skills of producing blades or the degree of
specialization of the sickle-element production at each site.
As described earlier, the production technology of sickle
elements at both sites appears distinct from other tool types
because the production of sickle elements involves more frequent use of fine-grained flint, blades, and retouching technique than other tool types, such as borers, scrapers, andPaléorient, vol. 31/2, p. 69-85 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005

Tiré à part - CNRS ÉDITIONS

82

PAL 31-2.book Page 83 Mardi, 16. mai 2006 2:41 14

retouched flakes. Despite these distinct production processesof sickle elements, it is still not clear whether their production
was conducted by specialized people or shared by most members in a settlement. This issue can be effectively investigatedthrough the spatial analyses of chipped-stone production
activities to detect whether specialized workshops existed or
not65. Once this problem is solved, we may clearly examine
how the production technology is related the labour organizations of stone-tool production.

CONCLUSION
This study examined the morphology and the production
technology of sickle elements from several Late Neolithic settlements in the southern Levant, particularly focusing on thesimilarity of designs and the variability of production technology observed at the two agricultural settlements in Wadi
Ziqlab. The subsequent discussion aimed at explaining theresults of the analyses by considering how observed patterns
in the design and the production technology of sickle elements
can be related to various factors, including chronology, geography, mechanical functions, and social contexts of Late Neolithic settlements in Wadi Ziqlab.
Some relations between these factors and sickle elements
appear relatively clear. For example, the patterns observed in
the morphological variations of sickle elements seem toreflect their chronological and geographical contexts. In addition, the standardized designs of sickle elements may beunderstood in terms of their intended mechanical advantages.
However, a number of questions are remaining, particularly
as to how the technological variability in the production ofsickle elements are related to chronological positions,mechanical principles, and social contexts of the sickleelement production.
One way of examining these questions would be systematic experimental productions of sickle elements, which may
allow us to objectively assess the mechanical requirements
and the effectiveness of various technical solutions involvedin the production processes. In addition, the spatial analysesof chipped-stone activities may help us obtain insights into thelabour organizations in the stone-tool production activities,
clarifying the social contexts of the sickle-element production. Thus, further investigations are necessary to better
65. QUINTERO, 1998.

Paléorient, vol. 31/2, p. 69-85 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005

83

explain the variability of the production technology of sickle
elements ; nonetheless, this paper hopefully showed that theanalyses of the production technology and the morphology ofsickle elements can provide essential archaeological records
that can effectively guide our subsequent investigations ofvarious archaeological and anthropological questions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Research in Wadi Ziqlab has been supported by a host of individuals and funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada, the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, and the University of Toronto. I would like to thank E. Banningfor his encouragement and support for this study and comments on
the draft of this paper. I am also grateful for M. Chazan for his thoughtful feedback to this paper. I would like to extend my thanks to all
the members of the Wadi Ziqlab project for their support in the field
and the laboratory. Thanks are also due to R. Stebelski and J. Pfaff
for their lithic illustrations. I am, however, responsible for the contents of this paper.

Seiji KADOWAKI
University of Toronto
Department of Anthropology
100 St. George Street
Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G3
Canadaseiji.kadowaki@utoronto.ca

BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANDERSON P.C.
1994
Reflections on the Significance of Two PPN TypologicalClasses in Light of Experimentation and Microwear
Analysis : Flint “Sickles” and Obsidian “Çayönü Tools”. In :GEBEL H.G. and KOZLOWSKI S.K. (eds), Neolithic Chipped
Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent : 61-82. Berlin : exoriente (SENEPSE 1).
BAMFORTH D.B.
1986
Technological efficiency and Tool curation. American Antiquity 51,1 : 38-50
BANNING E.B.
1996
Houses, Compounds and Mansions in the Prehistoric Near
East. In : COUPLAND G. and BANNING E.B. (eds), People
Who Lived in Big Houses : Archaeological Perspectives on
Large Domestic Structures : 165-185. Madison Wisconsin :Prehistory Press (Monographs in World Archaeology 27).
2001
Settlement and Economy in Wadi Ziqlab during the Late
Neolithic. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan
VII : 149-155. Amman : Department of Antiquities.
BANNING E.B. and SIGGERS J.
1997
Technological Strategies at a Late Neolithic Farmstead in
Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan. In : GEBEL H.-G., KAFAFI Z. and ROL-

Tiré à part - CNRS ÉDITIONSDesigns and Production Technology of Sickle Elements in Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan

PAL 31-2.book Page 84 Mardi, 16. mai 2006 2:41 14

84

S. KADOWAKIBANNING E.B., GIBBS K., GREGG M., KADOWAKI S. and MAHER L.
2004
Excavations at a Late Neolithic site in Wadi Ziqlab, northern
Jordan. Antiquity 78,302 : 764 (on the website).
BANNING E.B., GIBBS K., GREGG M., KADOWAKI S. and RHODES S.
2002
Excavations at al-Basatîn, Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan. Neo-Lithics
2/02 : 13-14.
BANNING E.B., RAHIMI D. and SIGGERS J.
1994
The Late Neolithic of the Southern Levant : Hiatus, Settlement Shift or Observer Bias ? The Perspective from Wadi
Ziqlab. Paléorient 20,2 : 151-164.
BANNING E.B., RAHIMI D., SIGGERS J. and TA’ANI H.
1996
The 1992 Season of Excavations in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan.
Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 40 : 29-49.
BARKAI R. and GOPHER A.
1999
The Last Neolithic Flint Industry : A study of the technology,
typology and social implications of the Lithic Assemblage
from Nahal Zehora I, A Wadi Raba (Pottery Neolithic) Sitein the Menashe Hills, Israel. Journal of The Israel PrehistoricSociety 29 : 41-122.
BAR-YOSEF O., VANDERMEERSCH B., ARENSBURG B., BELFER-COHEN
A., GOLDBERG P., LAVILLE H., MEIGNEN L., RAK Y., SPETH J.D.,
TCHERNOV E., TILLIER A.-M. and WEINER S.
1992
The Excavations in Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel. Current
Anthropology 33,5 : 497-550.
BARUCH U.
1987
The Early Bronze Age, Chalcolithic and Neolithic Periods.
In : BEN-TOR A. and PORTUGALI Y. (eds), Tell Qiri : A village in the Jezreel Valley. Jerusalem : The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Qedem 24).
BLACKHAM M.
1997
Changing Settlement at Tabaqat al-Bûma in Wadi Ziqlab,
Jordan : a Stratigraphic Analysis. In : GEBEL H.-G., KAFAFI,
Z. and ROLLEFSON G. (eds), The Prehistory of Jordan II.
Perspectives from 1997 : 345-360. Berlin : ex oriente.
BLEED P.
1986
2001

Optimal design of Hunting Weapons : maintainability or
reliability. American Antiquity 51,4 : 737-747.
Trees or Chains, Links or Branches : Conceptual Alternatives for Consideration of Stone Tool Production and Other
Sequential Activities. Journal of Archaeological Method andTheory 8, 1 : 101-127.

BURIAN F. and FRIEDMAN E.
1979
A Typology of Arrowheads and Sickle Blades and Its Chronological Implication. Mitekufat Haeven 16 : 1-16.

FINLAYSON B., KUIJT I., ARPIN T., CHESSON M., DENNINS S., GOODALE
N., KADOWAKI S., MAHER L., SMITH S., SCHURR M. and MCKAY J.
2003
Dhra’ Excavation Project, 2002 Interim Report. Levant 35 :1-38.
FUJII S.
1983

Classification of the Mounting Type of Sickle Blades. Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum 5 : 129-152 (In Japanese).

GARFINKEL Y. and MATSKEVICH Z.
2002
Abu Zureiq, a Wadi Rabah Site in the Jezreel Valley : Final
Report of the 1962 Excavations. Israel Exploration Journal
52,2 : 129-166.
GARFINKEL Y. and MILLER M.A. (eds)2002
Sha'ar Hagolan 1 : Neolithic Art in Context. Oxford : Oxbow
Press.
GOPHER A.
1989
1995

The Flint Assemblages of Munhata - Final Report. Paris :Association Paléorient. (Cahiers du CRFJ 4).
Early Pottery-Bearing Groups in Israel. The Pottery Neolithic Period. In : LEVY T. (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in
the Holy Land : 205-221. London and Washington : Leicester University Press.

GOPHER A. and GOPHNA R.
1993
Cultures of the Eighth and Seventh Millennia BP in theSouthern Levant : A Review for the 1990s. Journal of World
Prehistory 7,3 : 297-353.
GOPHER A. and GREENBERG R.
1996
The Pottery Neolithic Levels. In : BIRAN A., ILAN D. and
GREENBERG R. (eds), Dan I : A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the
Middle Bronze Age Tombs : 67-81. Jerusalem : Nelson
Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion.
GOPHER A. and ROSEN S.A.
2001
Lithics of Strata XIII-III, The Pre-Pottery Neolithic-Early
Bronze Age. In : EISENBERG E., GOPHER A. and GREENBERG R. (eds), Tel Te’o, A Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Early
Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley : 49-82. Jerusalem : Israel
Antiquities Authority.
HAYDEN B., FRANCO N. and SPAFFORD J.
1996
Evaluating Lithic Strategies and Design Criteria. In : ODELL
G. (ed.), Stone Tools : Theoretical Insights into Human
Prehistory : 9-45. New York and London : Plenum Press.
HENRY D.O. and ODELL G.H.
1989
Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis. Washington,
D. C. :
AmericanAnthropological
Association(Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological
Association 1).

CAUVIN M.-C.
1983
Les faucilles préhistoriques du Proche-Orient : données morphologiques et fonctionnelles. Paléorient 9,1 : 63-79.

HODDER I.
1979

EDMONDS M.
1990
Description, Understanding and the Chaîne Opératoire.
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9,1 : 55-70.

KAPLAN J.
1969

Economic and Social Stress and Material Culture Patterning.
American Antiquity 44,3 : 446-454.
’Ein El Jarba : Chalcolithic Remains in the Plain of Esdraelon. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
194 : 2-38.

Paléorient, vol. 31/2, p. 69-85 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005

Tiré à part - CNRS ÉDITIONSLEFSON G. (eds), The Prehistory of Jordan II. Perspectives
from 1997 : 319-331. Berlin : ex oriente.

PAL 31-2.book Page 85 Mardi, 16. mai 2006 2:41 14

Designs and Production Technology of Sickle Elements in Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan

LEMONNIER P.
1986
The Study of Material Culture Today : Toward an Anthropology of Technical Systems. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 5 : 147-186.

QUINTERO L.A., WILKE P.J. and WAINES J.G.
1997
Pragmatic Studies of Near Eastern Neolithic Sickle Blades.
In : GEBEL H.-G., KAFAFI Z. and ROLLEFSON G. (eds), The
Prehistory of Jordan II. Perspectives from 1997 : 263-286.
Berlin : ex oriente (SENEPSE 4).
ROSEN S.
1997

LEMONNIER P. (ed.)
1993Technological Choices : Transformation in material cultures
since the Neolithic. London and New York : Routledge.

SELLET F.
1993

MARDER O., BRAUN E. and MILEVSKI I.
1995
The Flint Assemblage of Lower Horvat ‘Illin : Some technical and economic considerations. ‘Atiqot XXVII : 63-93.

SIGGERS J.
1997

NISHIAKI Y.
2000
Lithic Technology of Neolithic Syria. Oxford (BAR Int.
Ser. 840).
2001
Hafting Systems of Sickle Elements from the Chalcolithic
Levels of Telul eth-Thalathat II, Iraq. In : CANEVA I., LEMORINI C., ZAMPETTI D. and BIAGI P. (eds), Beyond tools :Redefining the PPN Lithic Assemblages of the Levant : 5572. Berlin : ex oriente (SENEPSE 9).
NELSON M.C.
1991
The Study of Technological Organization. In : SCHIFFER M.
(ed.), Archaeological Method and Theory 3 : 57-100.
Tucson : The University of Arizona Press.
ODELL G.H. (ed.)
1996
Stone Tools : Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory.
New York and London : Plenum Press.
OLSZEWSKI D.I.
1994
The PPN Glossed Blades from ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan (19821985 and 1988-1989 seasons). In : GEBEL H.G. and KOZLOWSKI S.K. (eds), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the
Fertile Crescent : 467-478. Berlin : ex oriente (SENEPSE 1).
PELEGRIN J.
1990
Prehistoric Lithic Technology : Some Aspects of Research.
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9,1 : 116-125.
PEROS M.
2000

Sickle Blade Design and Hafting Strategies at Tabaqat alBuma, a Late Neolithic Farmstead in Wadi Ziqlab, Northern
Jordan. Neo-Lithics 2-3 : 2-4.

QUINTERO L.A.
1988
Evolution of Lithic Economies in the Levantine Neolithic :Development and Demise of Naviform Core Technology.
Riverside : University of California, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.
QUINTERO L.A. and WILKE P.J.
1995
Evolution and Economic Significance of Naviform Coreand-Blade Technology in the Southern Levant. Paléorient
21,1 : 17-33.

Paléorient, vol. 31/2, p. 69-85 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2005

Lithics After the Stone Age : A Handbook of Stone Tools fromthe Levant. Walnut Creek, London : Altamira Press.
Chaîne Opératoire ; The Concept and Its Applications. Lithic
Technology 18, 1-2 : 106-112.
The Lithic Assemblage from Tabaqat al-Bûma : A Late Neolithic Site in Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan. University ofToronto, Department of Anthropology, Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation.

SKIBO J. M. and SCHIFFER M.B.
2001
Understanding Artifact Variability and Change : A Behavioral Framework. In : SCHIFFER M.B. (ed.), Anthropological
Perspectives on Technology : 139-149. Arizona : An Amerind Foundation Publication.
STARK M.T. (ed.)
1998
The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Washington andLondon : Smithsonian Institution Press.
STONE G.D.
1993
Agrarian Settlement and the Spatial Disposition of Labor.
In : HOLL A. and LEVY T. (eds), Spatial Boundaries andSocial Dynamics : Case Studies from Food-Producing
Societies : 25-38. Ann Arbor, Mi : International Monographs
in Prehistory (Ethnoarchaeological Series 2).
UNGER-HAMILTON R.
1988
Method in Microwear Analysis : Prehistoric Sickles andOther Stone Tools from Arjoune, Syria. Oxford (BAR Int. Ser.
435).
1989
The Epi-Palaeolithic Southern Levant and the Origins of Cultivation. Current Anthropology 30,1 : 88-103.
WADA H.
2001

WILK R.R.
1984

The Chipped Stone Tools. In : KAFAFI Z. A. (ed.), Jebel Abu
Thawwab (Er-Rumman), Central Jordan : 117-154. Berlin :ex oriente.
Households in Process : Agricultural Change and Domestic
Transformation among the Kekchi Maya of Belize. In : NETTING R., WILK R. and ARNOULD E. (eds), Households :Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group :217-244. Berkeley : University of California Press.

WILKE P.J. and QUINTERO L.A.
1994
Naviform Core-and-Blade Technology : Assemblage Character as Determined by Replicative Experiments. In :GEBEL H.G. and KOZLOWSKI S.K. (eds), Neolithic Chipped
Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent : 33-60. Berlin : exoriente (SENEPSE 1).

Tiré à part - CNRS ÉDITIONSKUIJT I. and CHESSON M.S.
2002
Excavations at ‘Ain Waida’, Jordan : New Insights into Pottery Neolithic Lifeways in the Southern Levant. Paléorient
28,2 : 109-122.

85

Tiré à part - CNRS ÉDITIONSPAL 31-2.book Page 86 Mardi, 16. mai 2006 2:41 14