Ground-Stone Tools and Implications for the
Use of Space and Social Relations at 'Ain Abu Nukhayla,
a PPNB Settlement in Southern Jordan
Seiji Kadowaki
University of Toronto
The demography and social organization of early agricultural communities are among major research problems in archaeological investigationsof the Neolithic Levant (e.g., Banning
1996; 2003; Byrd 1994; 2000; Flannery
1972; 1993; 2002; Garfinkel 2002; Kuijt
2000a; 2000b; Saidel 1993; Verhoeven
1999; Wright 2000). These sociologicalapproaches to Neolithic communities
have successfully added new insights
into the developmental processes of early
agricultural communities from a different
perspective than those that emphasize
ecological factors (e.g., Köhler-Rollefson
1988; 1992; Moore 1985: 52; Moore et al.
2000; Rollefson et al. 1992).
Nonetheless, these social investigations have tended to focus on settlements in the Mediterranean environmental zone, or “Levantine Corridor”,
where a number of early agriculturalcommunities cluster. In contrast, suchsocial examinations have been underdeveloped for settlements in arid, marginalareas. There, archaeological research has
focused on investigation of the ecological aspects of prehistoric occupants(Bar-Yosef 1984; Goring-Morris 1993;
Simmons 1981) and hunting strategies(Betts 1998; Rosen and Perevolotsky
1998; Tchernov and Bar-Yosef 1982).
Little is known about the social
aspects of Neolithic communities in thearid regions except for brief remarks
occasionally made by some researchers.
They suggest that community organizations in the arid regions may have been
composed primarily of small groups thatwere similar to those of preceding periods, based on the small, seasonal occupations of the sites, the abundant evidence
for hunting and foraging activities, andthe paucity of evidence for agricultural
practices (Bar-Yosef and Meadow 1995;
Byrd 2000; Gopher and Goring-Morris
1998; Simmons 1981).

However, recent re-investigations at‘Ain Abu Nukhayla, a Middle to LatePPNB site in arid Wadi Rum, southern
Jordan, have recovered archaeologicalevidence for an extensive distributionof residential buildings and diverse
subsistence practices, including cereal
cultivation and animal herding as wellas hunting and foraging (Henry et al.
2003). The site is densely covered with
continuous architectural remains, mostwith curvilinear stone walls arranged ina so-called “beehive structure” (GoringMorris 1993) or “honeycomb” layout(Kirkbride 1967) (Fig. 2). The walls arepreserved up to a metre in height andenclose various features and archaeological deposits with remains such as
chipped-stone tools, ground-stone tools,
fauna, and botanical materials (Henryet al. 2003). These new archaeologicalfinds from the arid zone may require us
to reconsider the socioeconomic variability of Neolithic inhabitants in this zone.
The aim of this paper is to obtain insights
into the social relations at ‘Ain Abu
Nukhayla through an examination of
how ground-stone tools are distributed
in architectural spaces. During excavations at the site, archaeological remains
were systematically collected with anemphasis on accurate recording of spatial information, which provides critical
database for the spatial analysis in thispaper.
Using the results of the spatial analysis ofground-stone tools, I will infer how domestic spaces were used by the inhabitantsof ‘Ain Abu Nukhayla. Although it is difficult to infer the entire range of domestic
activities from the analysis of ground-stone
tools, they do suggest several key domestic
activities, such as food preparation, tool
production, and tool maintenance.
Finally, I will interpret patterns in
the use of space with regard to social
relations at the site. In particular, I will

Recent re-investigations
at ‘Ain Abu Nukhayla
have recoveredarchaeological evidence
for extensive distributionof residential buildings
and diverse subsistence
practices, including
cereal cultivation
and animal herding
in addition tohunting and foraging

53
53

discuss the relations among the groupsof people who cooperatively conducted
The basis for several domestic activities associatedwith ground-stone tools. The discusexamining both sion focusses on uniformity and variability among the activity groups inarchitecture and terms of architectural traits, the range ofdomestic activities, and the intensity ofactivities lies in food-processing activities. The results ofthis examination will provide a basis foranthropological theory inferring the social implications of these
activity groups.

about the recursive

Approaching prehistoric communities

relationship between through architecture and behaviour

As I point out in the introduction, Neararchitecture and Eastern archaeologists have often investigated social relations in Neolithic com-human behaviour. munities by examining architecture andthe spatial organization of activities. The
architectural attributes they have examined include histories of construction and
Adherents of this modification of buildings (Banning and
Byrd 1987), floor areas (Banning 1996;
approach assume Byrd 2000), arrangements and accessibility of spaces (Banning 1996; Banningthat architecture and and Byrd 1989; Flannery 1972: Garfinkel2002), and compartmentalization of spachuman behaviour are es (Kuijt 2000b). The spatial analysisof activities usually involves examining
mutually influential, how certain activities, such as tool production, storage, and food preparation,
so that architecture were spatially organized in settlements.
The spatial organization of tool-producconstraints human tion activities is usually discussed in thecontext of craft specialization (Conolly
activities to some 1999; Quintero 1998), while the spatialorganization of storage and food prepadegree, while human ration is often regarded as indicatinginter-household relations or householdbehaviour also organizations (Byrd 1994;2000; Flannery
1972; 1993; Wright 2000).
contributes to the The basis of examining both architecture and activities lies in anthropologicalformation of various theory based on the recursive relationship between architecture and humanaspects of architecture. behaviour (Rapoport 1990) that assumes
that architecture and human behaviour
are mutually influential. From this perspective, architecture constrains humanactivities to some degree, while humanbehaviour also contributes to the formation of various aspects of architecture.
I employ this approach to understandand explain the dynamic relationshipbetween archaeological evidence (architecture and ground-stone tools, in thiscase) and human behaviour (social relations).
54

Formation processes of architectureand ground-stone tools
Aims of the examination of formation
processes
In examining the association between
architecture and artifacts, it is criticalto separate “floor assemblages” from“house fill”. It is more likely that "floor
assemblages" represent direct remainsof past activities, while "house fill"probably includes dumped refuse or
artifacts tumbled down from a second storey (Cameron 1990; CiolekTorrello 1984, Jorgensen 1975; Lowell1991; Scarborough 1989; Schlanger1991). However, a number of ethnoarchaeological studies of site-formation
processes suggest that various accretion and depletion processes can alterarchaeological remains before andafter the abandonment of buildings(LaMotta and Schiffer 1999; Schiffer
1972; 1983; 1987). For example, “floor
assemblages” can include secondaryrefuse or structure collapse in addition
to de facto or primary refuse, whilethe “house fill” can contain de facto or
primary refuse that resulted from thereuse of abandoned buildings (LaMotta
and Schiffer 1999). Moreover, whenhouse floors are made of penetrable
materials, such as sand (the case at ‘Ain
Abu Nukhayla), the ambiguity of floor
surfaces and the artefacts’ vulnerability to post-depositional disturbances
makes the spatial delimitation of “floor
assemblages” difficult (Schiffer 1983:
690).
To this end, three datasets were
examined to delimit “floor assemblages” and to assess their integrity(Fig. 1): (1) the morphological dataof ground-stone tools, (2) the verticaland horizontal spatial data of groundstone tools, shells, and charcoal, and (3)the architectural remains, including thelocation of hearths, the bottom levelof walls, and cobble-pavement floors.
In the architectural dataset, the spatial
distribution of rubble, which represents
collapsed walls or roofs, was also taken
into account.
The following section only presentssummarized results of this examination of formation processes for two
reasons. The first is that analysis of theformation processes of house deposits
appears elsewhere in detail (Kadowaki
in press). The second is that the focus

Complete ground stones (n=27)
Broken ground stones (n=18)
Wall
Small quern

Fill
Reoccupations
Hearths

Floor
Cobble pavement
Occupation before
the building

Figure 1:
Stratigraphic
diagram ofhouse deposits in
Locus 20

Basin quern

Basin quern

Shells (n=120)
Charcoal (total weight=59.7g)
0%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

20%

40%

Arbitrary levels(10cm thickness)house-deposit of Locus 20of this paper Stratigraphic
is on the next diagram
stage of oftoolkits).
analysis: examining the use of space by
However, these characteristics someanalysing the distribution of ground- times suffer distortion by several cul- The close examinationstone tools that are likely to represent tural factors, such as subsequent scavactivities performed in the spaces.
enging (at Locus 5), relaxed cleaning of the formationactivities before the anticipated abanDelimitation and assessment ofdonment of the building (at Loci 5 and sensitive attributes of“floor assemblages”
25), or the dumping of refuse into abanFigure 1 illustrates the stratigraphy of doned rooms (at Loci 5 and 25). The refuse allows us tohouse deposit in Locus 20. On the left of close examination of the formationthe diagram are depositional phases that sensitive attributes of refuse allows us identify these kinds ofwere identified through examination to identify these kinds of depositionalof the above three datasets (Kadowaki events and to assess their influence on depositional eventsin press). The three main depositional the integrity of remaining tool assemand to assess theirphases are floor occupation, reoccupa- blages.
tion, and fill. However, only the floor
In the next section, I infer the use ofoccupational phase, described here, is space at ‘Ain Abu Nukhayla by exam- influence on the
directly relavant to the present study.
ining the ground-stone assemblages
Although floors are defined by archi- recovered in the floor levels. When integrity of remaining
tectural features, such as pavement, interpreting the use of space, I will also
hearths, and the bottom level of walls, take into account the possible distor- tool assemblages.
the “floor assemblages” need to be tions of original ground-stone assemdelimitated by examining the forma- blages during the life-histories of buildtion-sensitive attributes of refuse. The ings.
refuse recovered in floor levels is generally characterized by a high densityof refuse, as seen in the stratigraphic Approaching the use of space fromdiagram of Locus 20 (Fig. 1). Other ground-stone tools
characteristics of the refuse in the floor Activities indicated by ground-stone tools
levels are a size-sorted distributional For this study, it is critical to know
pattern, a high proportion of complete the functions of ground-stone tools.
ground-stone tools, and the functional Although it is difficult to reconstruct thecoherence of ground-stone tools (e.g., specific functions of all the ground-stone
milling toolkits or pigment-processing tools, some tool types are likely to indi55

Figure 2: cate general categories of activities. This
The distributions analysis classifies ground-stone tools intoof complete the following four categories of activifood-processing tools in ties: (1) food preparation, (2) tool manuloci 2, 5, 20, 22, 23, 25, facture and maintenance, (3) pigment
and features 1, 2, and 10 processing, and (4) others.
Food-preparation activities are indicated by several tool types: grinding
querns, handstones, mortars, and pestles. The use of these tool types forfood processing can be found in a number of ethnographic and archaeologicalexamples (Bartlett 1933; Eddy 1964;
Fullagar and Field 1997; Kraybill 1977).
Although these tool types can be used
for other purposes, such as processing
hide (Adams 1988), for pulverizing temper and clay for pottery manufacture(Euler and Dobyns 1983; Rye 1981), forprocessing pigment, and for sharpening bone artefacts (Schneider 1993), it
is reasonable to consider their principal use to have been food preparation.
First, these ground-stone tool types
developed in the Levant from the late
Epipalaeolithic through the Neolithic
period, coincident with an intensified
exploitation of plant resources and theemergence of agriculture (Wright 1992;
1993; 1994). Second, the frequencies
and morphologies of the above tooltypes at ‘Ain Abu Nukhayla show strong
similarity to those of food-processing
tools at contemporary agrarian villages(Kadowaki 2002). The grinding querns
and handstones at these Neolithic agrarian villages are likely to have served forprocessing plant foodstuffs (Miller 1992;
Wright 1992, 1993, 1994).
Tool manufacture and maintenance56

are indicated by chopping tools, pounders, shaft straighteners, cutmarked slabs,
preforms of handstones, and flaked debitage. Chopping tools and pounders arelikely to have been used for flaking
and pecking activities during the production and maintenance of groundstone tools. The use of chopping tools
and pounders for the production andmaintenance of ground-stone tools is
supported by ethnographic observations(Hayden 1987; Cook 1973), archaeological remains at prehistoric workshops(Hersh 1981; Hoffman and Doyel 1985;
Roubet 1989; Runnel 1981; Schneider
1996), and the experimental manufacture of ground-stone tools (Hersh 1981;
Wilke and Quintero 1996). In fact, various ground-stone tools from ‘Ain Abu
Nukhayla show traces of flaking andpecking on their lateral sides and working surfaces, indicating that flaking andpecking techniques were employed tomodify blanks or to rejuvenate grinding
surfaces to regain rough texture (Wright
1992: 134-5). This observation is also
supported by the recovery of preformsof handstones and flake debitage.
Pigment processing is suggested by
the presence of small, red sandstone
tablets that show wear facets and abrasive scratches on surfaces. Red pigment
is attached to the surfaces of some handstones and other ground-stone tools thatwere probably used to pulverise pigment.
Functions are unclear for the restof ground-stone tools, such as groundknives, perforated stones, and worked
cobbles and pebbles.

Distribution of ground-stone tools
in architectural spaces
Figures 2 and 3 show the distributions ofground-stone tools associated with floor
occupations of the buildings. The distributional maps do not include probablesecondary refuse (Kadowaki in press).
Figure 2 shows the distributions of complete food-processing tools. These tools
are distributed in Loci 2, 5, 20, 22, 23,
25, and Feature 1 of Locus 2. The concentration of handstones in Feature 1of Locus 2 likely represents a cache ofhandstones. In contrast, no food-processing tools occur in Loci 26, Feature 10 ofLocus 5, and Feature 2 of Locus 22.
Figure 3 shows the distributions ofvarious ground-stone tools that indicate
activities such as tool manufacture, tool
maintenance, and pigment processing.
The figure shows that red pigment tablets were recovered in Loci 2 and 5.
In the latter locus, the pigment tablet
was associated with a broken, perforated
stone that was partly covered with stainsof pigment, indicating that the tool wasused to process the pigment. Locus 2
also contains a perforated stone and ashaft straightener that suggests tool-production activities. Tool production andmaintenance are also indicated at Locus
25, which contains flaked debitage andpreforms of handstones. Other loci, suchas 20, 22, 23, and Feature 2 of Locus 22,
also contain some ground-stone toolsthat indicate tool production and maintenance or other unknown activities.
Locus 26 does not contain any groundstone tools.
Table 1, which summarizes theground-stone tools recovered at floor
levels of various loci, indicates that multiple activities were practiced at someloci, while other loci contain very scarce
traces of activities. In the next section,these occurrences of ground-stone tools
will be examined in light of architectural
attributes, such as floor areas and theoccurrence of hearths.

Figure 3:
Distributions ofvarious ground-stone
tools that indicate
activities such as tool
manufacture, tool
maintenance, andpigment processing

Patterns in the use of space
Figure 4 examines the occurrence ofcomplete ground-stone tools relative to
two architectural attributes: floor area
and the presence of hearths. This allows
us to group the loci into three categories.
The first group of loci includes Loci 2,
5, 20, 22, and 25. These loci are characterized by relatively large floor area, thepresence of hearths (except for Locus 5),
and large numbers of ground-stone toolsthat indicate food processing and otherkinds of activities, including tool production and pigment processing. These
characteristics suggest that this group ofloci is likely to represent general activity
areas.
In contrast to the first group, loci ofthe second and third groups are both
small in size and lack hearths. These
two groups differ from each other inthe density of ground-stone tools; thedensity of ground-stone tools is higher
in the second group of loci (Locus 23
and Feature 1 of Locus 2), while loci ofthe third group (Locus 26, Feature 2 ofLocus 22, and Feature 10 of Locus 5)
contain only a few or no ground-stone
tools. The high density of ground-stone57

Table 1:
Inventories ofgroundstone tools
from floor levels;
Number of complete tools/ Total number of tools
on floor		tools in the second group may represent
caching or storage of tools, while the useof the third group of loci is difficult to
identify with available data. Two loci inthe third group (Locus 26 and Feature
10 of Locus 5) also contain very few
chipped-stone tools. The small quantityof refuse from these loci and their small
floor areas may indicate their use forstorage of other (perishable) materials.
The three groups of loci can be
described in terms of their use of space.
Spaces of the first group have a relatively large floor area, usually havehearths, and were used for multiple
activities, including food preparation,
tool production, tool maintenance, andpigment processing. Spaces of the second group are small, lack hearths,
and were used for storage of groundstone tools. Although spaces of thethird group are also small and without
hearths, the small amount of artefacts
at these loci suggests their use forstorage of other materials.
To summarize, Figure 5 shows thespatial arrangement of loci by function. The three types of loci are
spatially arranged in such a way thatgeneral activity areas are usually associated with storage, creating recurrent
spatial units for multiple activities.
For example, Locus 2 and Feature 1of Locus 2 constitute one unit, while
Locus 5 and Feature 10 of Locus 5belong to another unit. In addition
to these relatively clear examples,

2
2
2
2

58

another unit of loci is formed by Loci
20, 23, and 26. Locus 22 and Feature
2 of Locus 22 also clearly constituteanother unit. Locus 25 also appears
to constitute a spatial unit with two
small loci that are located on its
northeastern side.
Implications for social relations at‘Ain Abu Nukhayla
Do recurrent spatial units of domestic
activities represent household units?
As pointed out earlier, this paper employs theview that architecture and human behaviour are mutually influential (Rapoport
1990; Steadman 1996). Employing thisframework for understanding material culture, the following discussion will focus
on the implications of the identification ofpatterns in the use of space for our understanding of the social relations among thesite’s inhabitants.
The use of space at ‘Ain Abu Nukhayla
is characterized by recurrent spatial units ofdomestic activities, including food preparation, tool production, pigment processing,and storage (Fig. 5). These repetitive spatial units likely represent multiple cooperative groups of people who conductedparticular kinds of activities.
These corporate activity groups may
correspond to households, which are
generally characterized by the practiceof various cooperative activities (Wilkand Nettings 1984; Wilk and Rathje
1982), including residence, production,
distribution, consumption, inheritance,and child-rearing (Wilk and Nettings
1984; Wilk and Rathje 1982). However,in contrast to this cooperative and homogeneous aspect of households, they also
have a conflictive and heterogeneous
aspect that is characterized by theirinternal diversity and dynamic organization (Blanton 1994; Goody 1969;
Steadman 1996; Tringham 1991). This
heterogeneous aspect is often detectablein the use of space, labour organization,and power relationships among different genders and ages within households(Blanton 1994; Goody 1969; Oetelaar
2000; Tringham 1991). In this way,households can be understood from twocontrasting viewpoints: cooperative vs.
conflictive or homogenous vs. heterogeneous.
In light of this potential ambiguity
in household organization, the archaeological evidence examined in this paper
does not allow us to determine whether
recurrent spatial units of domestic activities correspond to household units at‘Ain Abu Nukhayla. One spatial unit
may represent a single household unit,
or one household may be composed ofmultiple spatial units of activities.
We cannot be certain that the recurrent
spatial units of domestic activities directly correspond with household units. The
observed spatial units do allow us, however, to approach the groups of people
who cooperatively conducted certain
kinds of domestic activities, including
food preparation, tool production andmaintenance, pigment processing, andstorage. The occurrence of these activities in architecturally delimitated spaces
indicates that different groups conducted tasks autonomously. The group size
seems quite small, as indicated by themean floor area (ca. 8.7m2) of activity
spaces (excluding storage). In addition,these small groups of people appear tohave had restricted networks for sharing
domestic activities with other groups, as
doorways were not preserved, at leastin the remaining walls (preserved toheights of 25 to 100 cm).
Comparison among the activity groups
In order to understand the relations
among activity groups, it is useful to
examine the degree of variation among
them on the basis of three material andbehavioural characteristics:(1) architectural traits, (2) the range of

Figure 4:
domestic activities, and (3) the intensity Comparison of theof food-preparation activities.
occurrence ofcomplete groundArchitecturestone tools with
Several architectural traits indicate uni- two architectural
formity among activity groups. First, attributes: floor area
most activity areas are delimited by and the presence of
curvilinear stone walls that constitute hearths
contiguous rooms of round to semi-circular shape. These rooms are similarly
characterized by the absence of doorways, even in walls preserved as high as
100 cm. In addition, the spatial units ofactivity groups are routinely composedof rooms of two different sizes. The
larger rooms may be main activity areas(mean = 8.7 m2, s = 1.5 m2), while thesmaller rooms likely served for storage(mean = 1.4 m2, s = 0.6 m2).
In contrast to these similarities, architectural differences are observable on
floor surfaces and internal compartment
walls. Cobble pavement occurs at Loci 4,20, and 25, while others have loose sandfloors or a flagstone pavement (Locus
26). Internal compartment walls only
occur at Loci 2, 5, and 22.
Range of domestic activities
Although the range of domestic activities indicated by ground-stone tools is
limited, food preparation and storage are
the primary activities practiced by thegroups identified in this study (Table 1).
Other activities, such as tool production
and pigment processing, were also practiced by the same groups. These activi59

Uniformity
in activity groups
is observablein house shape,
floor size,
the absence ofdoorways, storage,
practices offood preparationand tool production,
density offood-processing tools,
and the design andefficiency of lower
grinding tools.

60

ties are indicated by certain ground-stone
tool types, such as shaft straighteners
and red pigment fragments, recoveredfrom general activity areas or storage
spaces (Table 1). Tool production took
place in all activity units except Locus 5,
while pigment processing was restricted
to Loci 2 and 5.
Intensity of food-processing activities
In order to evaluate the intensity offood-processing activities, I examine
the density and the grinding efficiency
of food-processing tools, which consistof upper grinding stones (handstones
and worked cobbles) and lower grinding stones (grinding slabs and querns).
The density of food-processing tools(the number of tools per square metreof floor in the locus, Table 1) is high instorage areas, as seen at Feature 1 ofLocus 2 and Locus 23, but these lociare excluded from this analysis because
these areas presumably represent tool
curation, rather than food-processing
activity. I assess the efficiency of foodprocessing tools by examining the sizeof grinding areas and the morphologicaltraits of the tools. Experimental usesof manos (upper grinding tools) indicate that larger grinding surfaces allow
greater grinding efficiency (Adams 1998;
Mauldin 1993). In addition, flat working
surfaces of grinding slabs allow more
efficient grinding than concave surfacesof basin querns (Adams 1998; Eddy
1964). I assume that the intensity of foodprocessing is proportional to the efficiency of the tools (Adams 1996: 35-6).

may have resulted from the removal ofhandstones after occupation. Post-depositional disturbance of Locus 25 is indicated by the shallow deposit above thefloor levels and the random distributionof tools in the floor levels (Kadowaki inpress). To summarize, the food-processing loci appear to have a uniform densityof food-preparation tools.

Design and grinding efficiencyof upper grinding tools
Table 2 shows the proportions of thevarious types of upper grinding tools
recovered from the food-processing loci.
Here, I assume that worked cobbles andirregular handstones are less efficientthan regularly shaped handstones, suchas loaf-shaped, oval, rectilinear, and discoidal handstones. Locus 2 is distinct
from other loci in the use of only regularly shaped handstones, while otherloci include both regular and irregularhandstones or worked cobbles (Locus 5,
20, 22, and 25). The higher proportionof regular handstones in Locus 2 may
indicate more efficient food processing
at this locus than in others.
Differences in the size of upper grinding tools among the loci also suggests different grinding efficiency between Locus
2 and other loci (Table 2). Handstones
from Locus 2 are longer than those fromother loci, although this difference does
not show statistical significance.
In sum, the design of upper grinding
tools varies between activity groups. In
particular, the upper grinding tools of
Locus 2 are larger and more regularly
shaped than those of other loci, indicatDensity of food-processing tools
ing greater grinding efficiency at Locus
As Table 1 shows, the densities of food- 2.
processing tools vary little among thegeneral activity areas, ranging from 0.6 to Design and grinding efficiency
1.1 tools/m2. Among these, Loci 5 and 25 of lower grinding tools
have the lowest densities of food process- Basin querns are associated with all theing tools (0.6 and 0.7 tools/ m2).
food-processing loci, except for Locus 5,
However, the analysis of formation where the querns were probably scavprocesses suggest that some food-pro- enged after its abandonment. Loci 20
cessing tools are likely to have been and 25 also include working slabs. As
removed from Loci 5 and 25. Two grind- shown by a t-test, the working surfaces
ing querns appear to have been scav- of the slabs in Loci 20 and 25 (Meanenged during the subsequent reoccu- area = 1731 cm2, s = 495.5 cm2) are sigpation at Locus 5 and relocated to the nificantly larger than those of the basin
upper levels. With these two grinding querns in other loci (Mean area = 763
querns included, the density of food- cm2, s = 204.8; t = -5.56, df = 13, p <preparation tools in Locus 5 increases 0.01). Thus, these working slabs may
to 0.8 tools/ m2. Likewise, the recov- have allowed more efficient grinding
ery of only one handstone at Locus 25 at Locus 20 and 25 than in otheractivity areas. However, these working
slabs are scarcely modified, while thebasin querns show extensive production
traces, such as flaking and pecking scars.
In addition, the flat surfaces of the working slabs do not show clear grinding traces, such as striations that are clearly visible on the working surfaces of the basin
querns. These observations suggest thatthe primary use of the slabs was not for
grinding food. Thus, despite their large
size and flat surfaces, the working slabs
from Locus 20 and 25 do not indicate
a significant difference in the grinding
intensity between these loci and theother food-processing loci.
To summarize, the design of lower
grinding tools appears fairly consistentamong the activity areas except for theoccasional occurrence of working slabs.
However, these slabs do not seem tohave contributed primarily to food preparation.
Summary
The above examination compared
the activity groups by focusing on
three aspects: architecture, the range ofdomestic activities, and the intensity offood processing activities. The analysis
identified several differences among theactivity groups in floor surfaces, compartment walls, evidence for pigmentprocessing, and the design and efficiency of upper grinding tools.
Despite these points of variability, uniformity among the groups appears more
prominent. This uniformity is observablein house shape, floor size, the absenceof doorways, the occurrence of storage,
practices of food preparation and tool
production, the density of food-processing tools, and the design and efficiency

of lower grinding tools.
Table 2:In sum, the activity groups identified Proportions ofthrough examination of the use of space various types ofis characterized by strong uniformity but upper grinding
some variation with regard to architectur- stones recovered at
al traits, the range of domestic activities, food-processing lociand the intensity of food preparation.
Social implications of the activity groups
At ‘Ain Abu Nukhayla there were fairly uniform groups for certain domestic
activities, including food processing, tool
production and maintenance, pigmentprocessing, and storage. This inferenceis based only on ground-stone tools
recovered in domestic spaces, which do
not reflect all the activities that the site’s
inhabitants conducted. Other archaeological remains indicate a wider rangeof activities, including hunting, animal
herding, cereal cultivation, production ofchipped-stone tools and shell beads, andbuilding construction. Some of these
activities may have been carried out by
the same activity groups identified in
the examination of ground-stone tools,
while others may have involved different social grouping.
Despite this limited view of activities
practiced at the site, the autonomous
practices of some domestic activities
could be explained in terms of social
processes in two ways: (1) the privatization of activities and (2) the fission ofactivity groups.
The first explanation involves a shift
in the organization of activities from
communal work to practices by individuals or small groups. This privatization process involves several domestic
activities, including food preparationand storage. Some authors suggest that
this process progressed during the Pre61

Pottery Neolithic period in the Near
East (Flannery 1993, 2002; Wright 2000).
Moreover, this process is consistent with
Byrd’s argument that social networks
for sharing domestic activities decreased
The patterns among households at the PPNB settlement of Beidha (Byrd 1994). A similar
detected in the use process of social change may explain theautonomous practices of some domesticof space activities by small activity groups at ‘Ain
Abu Nukhayla.
may allow two In contrast, the second explanation suggests that the activity groups may havepossible explanations resulted from periodic fission of groups
in their developmental cycle (Goodyregarding 1969). Based on his ethnographic observations, Goody suggests that groups ofthe social processes people who share a residence or certain
activities split periodically in accordanceat the site: with changes in their composition due
to the birth, aging, and death of groupthe privatization members (Goody 1969). Banning and
Byrd (1987) used this anthropologicalof activities observation to explain the sequence ofarchitectural renovations at ‘Ain Ghazal
and the fission of in the Middle PPNB. This developmental cycle of domestic or activity
activity groups. groups might also explain the repetitive
occurrences of spatial units for domestic
activities at ‘Ain Abu Nukhayla.
Thus, the patterns detected in the useof space allows for two possible explanations regarding the social processes at thesite: (1) the privatization of activities and(2) the fission of activity groups. These
two explanations operate over different
time scales. The privatization process
occurred over the PPNB period, while
the fission of activity groups occurred
over a shorter time, such as a generation.
Therefore, it is possible that both social
processes took place concurrently among
the inhabitants of ‘Ain Abu Nukhayla.
These social explanations need to be
substantiated with more evidence infuture research. For example, the privatization process of activities will need tobe re-examined by analyzing the labour
organization of a wider range of activities, including animal herding and the
production of chipped-stone tools. In
addition, we could obtain deeper insights
into the developmental cycle of domestic groups through closer examination of
the sequences of the construction andmodification of residential buildings.
When conducting these further analyses, it is also important to consider theprehistoric built environment at a single
62

moment. This built environment can beapproached through examination of thesite-formation processes and life-histories of building remains. For example,
at ‘Ain Abu Nukhayla (Kadowaki inpress), some abandoned buildings werelater reused as outside activity areas.
Moreover, the proposed presence of outdoor activity areas implies the patchy
distribution of contemporary housesin the settlement (see also Verhoeven,this volume). This suggestion is particularly significant at ‘Ain Abu Nukhayla
because of its settlement layout with aso-called “beehive structure” (GoringMorris 1993), in which curvilinear buildings are densely distributed with nospaces between them. Despite thisdense distribution of houses as archaeological residues, I suggest that the prehistoric built environment at ‘Ain Abu
Nukhayla was characterized by a patchy
distribution of occupied houses withoutdoor areas that facilitated movement
and interaction among inhabitants. In
sum, the high compartmentalization of
space at the site is likely the result of
the accumulation of successive building
phases over a long period of time, while
the prehistoric inhabitants of the site
probably experienced a more open built
environment.
Conclusion
This paper examines the use of spaceat ‘Ain Abu Nukhayla, a PPNB settlement in the arid marginal zone, throughthe spatial analyses of architecture andactivities inferred from ground-stone
tools. The proposed use of space is characterized by the repetitive occurrence of
spatial units for several domestic activities, including storage, food processing,tool production and maintenance, andpigment processing (Fig. 5). It is difficult to determine the relationship ofthese recurrent spatial units for domestic activities to household units becauseof the potential variability of householdorganizations. However, these recurrent
units of spatial activity, delimited byarchitecture, still indicate that groups ofpeople autonomously conducted certain
kinds of domestic activities.
Finally, the social implications ofthese uniform activity groups are that
two social processes were at work: (1)the privatization of activities, and (2) the
fission of activity groups. The formerprocess principally represents long-termchange in labour organization for production and consumption, and has beensuggested by several archaeologists who
examined the spatial organizations ofarchitecture and domestic activities in
Neolithic sites in the Levant (Byrd
1994; Flannery 1993, 2002; Wright2000). In contrast, the fission of activity
groups occurred over a shorter period,
such as a generation, according to thedevelopmental cycle of domestic groups(Goody 1969).
These two social implications need to
be further examined in future. It is particularly necessary to continue researchon the labour organization of other activities, such as the production of chippedstone tools and animal herding, and on
the sequences of the construction andmodification of residential buildings.
It is also important to consider the prehistoric built environment at a single
moment by examining the life histories
of buildings (Kadowaki in press). Several
lines of further research are necessary
better to illustrate social relations at ‘Ain

Abu Nukhayla and compare them with Figure 5:
those at other Neolithic settlements in Domestic activities
the Mediterranean zone. To this end, include storage,
examinations of architecture, the use of food processing,space, and site-formation processes may tool production
remain useful analytical methods.
and maintenance,and pigment processing
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Donald Henryfor his encouragement and support for
my Master’s research, on which thisstudy is based. I am also grateful toJoseph Beaver for providing me withoriginal architectural maps of ‘Ain Abu
Nukhayla. I wish to extend my appreciation to Ted Banning and Michael
Chazan for the opportunity to contribute to this volume and for their editorial assistance. I am, however, responsible for any shortcomings in this paper.
Funding support for the project at ‘Ain
Abu Nukhayla was provided by The
National Science Foundation Research
Grant SBR-9731418 and The Universityof Tulsa Office of Research.

63

References

64

Adams, J. L.1988 Use-Wear Analyses on Manos 		and Hide Processing Stones. Journal of Field 		Archaeology 15: 307-315.
1998 Ground stone artifacts. In Archaeological
Investigations of Early Village Sites in the 		
Middle Santa Cruz Valley. Analysis and 		Synthesis Part I, edited by J. B. Mabry, pp. 357422. Anthropological Papers No. 19, Center for
Desert Archaeology.
Banning, E. B. 1996 Houses, Compounds andMansions in the Prehistoric Near East. In
People Who Lived in Big Houses:
Archaeological Perspectives on Large Domestic
Structures, edited by G. Coupland and E. B.
Banning, pp. 165-185. Monographs in World
Archaeology, Vol. 27. Madison Wisconsin:
Prehistory Press.
2003 Housing Neolithic Farmers. Near
Eastern Archaeology 66(1-2): 4-21.
Banning, E. B. and B. F. Byrd 1987 Houses
and the Changing Residential Unit: Domestic
Architecture at PPNB 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53:309325.
1989 Alternative Approaches for Exploring
Levantine Neolithic Architecture. Paléorient
15(1):154-160.
Bartlett, K. 1933 Pueblo Milling Stones of the
Flagstaff Region and their Relation to Othersin the Southwest. Museum of Northern
Arizona Bulletin No. 3, Northern ArizonaSociety of Science and Art.
Bar-Yosef, O. 1984 Seasonality among Neolithic
Hunter-Gatherers in southern Sinai. In Animals
and Archaeology: Early Herders and their 		
Flocks, edited by Clutton-Brock and Caroline
Grigson, pp. 145-160. BAR International Series
202.
Bar-Yosef, O. and R. H. Meadow 1995 The
Origins of Agriculture in the Near East. In
Last Hunters First Farmers, edited by T. D.
Price and A. B. Gebauer, pp. 39-94. New
Mexico, Santa Fe: School of American
Research Press.
Betts, A. V. G. (Ed.) 1998 The Harra and theHamad. Sheffield Academic Press.
Binford, L. R. 1980 In Pursuit of the Past.
Thames and Hudson.
Blanton, R. 1994 Houses and Households; A
Comparative Study. Plenum Press.
Byrd. B. F. 1994 Public and Private, Domestic
and Corporate: the Emergence of theSouthwest Asian Village. American Antiquity
59(4): 639-666.
2000 Households in Transition. In Lifein Neolithic Farming Communities: Social
Organization, Identity, and Differentiation,edited by I. Kuijt, pp. 63-102. Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Cameron, C. M. 1990
Pit Structure Abandonment
in the Four Corners Region of the American
Southwest: Late Basketmaker III and Pueblo
Periods. Journal of Field Archaeology 17: 27-37.
Ciolek-Torrelo, R. 1984 An Alternative
Model of Room Function from Grasshopper
Pueblo, Arizona. In Intrasite Spatial Analysis in
Archaeology, edited by H. Hietala, pp. 127-153.
Cambridge University Press.
Conolly, J. 1999 The Çatalhöyük Flint andObsidian Industry: Technology and Typology
in Context. BAR International Series 787,
Oxford.
Cook, S. 1973 Stone Tools for Steel-Age
Mexicans? Aspects of Production in a Zapotec
Stoneworking Industry. American 			
Anthropologist 75: 1485- 1503.
Eddy, F. W. 1964 Metates and Manos. The basic 		
corn grinding tools of the southwest. Museumof New Mexico Press, Popular series pamphlet
No. 1.
Euler, R. C. and Dobyns, H. F. 1983 The
ethnoarchaeology of Pai milling stones. In
Collected Papers in Honor of Charlie R. Steen,
Jr. edited by Nancy L. Fox, pp. 253-267.
Papers of the Archaeological Society of New
Mexico: 8, Albuquerque Archaeological Society
Press.
Flannery, K. 1972 The origin of the village as asettlement type in Mesopotamian and the Near
East: A comparative study. In Man, settlement
and urbanism, edited by P. J. Ucko, R.
Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 23-53.
Duckworth.
1993 Will the Real Model Please Stand Up:
Comments on Saidel’s ‘Round House or
Square?’. Journal of Mediterranean
Archaeology 6(1): 109-117.
2002 The Origins of the Village Revisited:
From Nuclear to Extended Households.
American Antiquity 67(3): 417-433.
Fullagar, R. and Field, J. 1997 Pleistocene seedgrinding implements from the Australian aridzone. Antiquity 71: 300-307.

Garfinkel, Y. 2002 Conclusions: The Effect ofPopulation Size on the Human Organization
at Sha'ar Hagolan. In Sha’ar Hagolan 1:
Neolithic Art in Context, edited by Y.
Garfinkel and M.A.Miller, pp. 257-262. Oxbow
Books.
Goody, J. 1969 The Fission of Domestic Groups 		among the Lodagaba. In The Developmental
Cycle in Domestic Groups, edited by J. Goddy, 		pp. 53-91. Cambridge.
Gopher, A. and Goring-Morris, A. N. 1998 Abu
Salem: A Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Camp in theCentral Negev Highlands, Israel. Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research 312:
1-20.
Goring-Morris, A. N. 1993 From Foraging to
Herding in the Negev and Sinai: the Early toLate Neolithic Transition. Paléorient 19(1): 6589.
Hayden, B. 1987 Lithic Studies Among theContemporary Highland Maya. The
University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.
Henry, D. O., White, J., Beaver, J., Kadowaki, S.,
Nowell, A., Cordova, C., Dean, R., Ekstrom,
H., McCorriston, J., Scott-Cummings, L.2003
Early Neolithic Site of ‘Ain Abu Nukhayla,
Southern Jordan. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 330: 1-30.
Hersh, T. L. 1981 Grinding Stones and Food
Processing Techniques of the Neolithic
Societies of Turkey and Greece: Statistical,
Experimental and Ethnographic Approaches
to Archaeological Problem-Solving.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia
University.
Hoffman, T. L. and Doyel, D. E. 1985 Groundstone tool production in the new river basin.
In Hohokam Settlement and Economic
Systems in the Central New River Drainage,
Arizona. Volume II, edited by David E. Doyeland Mark D. Elson, pp. 521-564. Soil Systems
Publications in Archaeology Number 4.
Jorgensen, J.1976 A Room Use Analysis of Table
Rock Pueblo, Arizona. Journal of
Anthropological Research 31: 149-161.
Kadowaki, S. 2002 Structure of Food Processing
Activity and its Implications to the Community
Organization at ‘Ain Abu Nekheileh, southern Jordan. Unpublished M.A. thesis. The
Department of Anthropology, The Universityof Tulsa.
In press Ground Stone Tools, Refuse Structure
and the Life Histories of Residential Buildingsat ‘Ain Abu Nukhayla, Southern Jordan. In
New Approaches to Old Stones: Recent
Studies of Ground Stone Artifacts, edited by Y.
Rowan, and J. Ebeling. Equinox, London.
Kirkbride, D. 1967 Beidha 1965: An Interim
Report. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 99: 513.
Kraybill, N. 1977 Pre-Agricultural Tools for the
Preparation of Food in the Old World. In:
Origin of Agriculture, edited by C. A. Reed, pp.
485-521. Mouton Publishers, the Hague, Paris.
Kuijt, I. 2000a Life in Neolithic Farming
Communities: Social Organization, Identity,
and Differentiation. Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers.
2000b People and Space in Early Agricultural
Villages: Exploring Daily Lives, Community
Size, and Architecture in the Late Pre-Pottery
Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 19:75-102.
LaMotta, V. and Schiffer, M. B. 1999 Formation
Processes of House Floor Assemblages. In The
Archaeology of Household Activities, edited by
P. M. Allison, pp. 19-29. Routledge, London
and New York.
Lowell, J. C.1991 Prehistoric Households at 		
Turkey Creek Pueblo, Arizona. The Universityof Arizona Press, Tucson.
Mauldin, R. 1993 The Relationship between
Ground Stone and Agricultural Intensificationin Western New Mexico. KIVA 58(3): 317-330.
Miller, N. F. 1992 The Origins of Plant
Cultivation in the Near East. In The Origins
of Agriculture: An International Perspective,
edited by C. W. Cowan and P. J. Watson, pp. 3
9-58. Smithsonian Institution Press.
Oetelaar, G. 2000 Beyond Activity Areas:
Structure and Symbolism in the Organizationand Use of Space Inside Tipis. Plains
Anthropologist 45(171): 35-61.
Quintero, L. 1998 Evolution of Lithic Economies
in the Levantine Neolithic: Development andDemise of Naviform Core Technology. Ph.D.
dissertation. University of California, Riverside.
Rapoport, A. 1990 Systems of activities and systems of settings. In Domestic architecture andthe use of space, edited by S. Kent, pp. 9-20.
New Directions in Archaeology, Cambridge
University Press.
Rosen, B. and A. Perevolotsky 1998 The
Function of “Desert Kites” – Hunting or
Livestock Husbandry? Paléorient 24(1): 107-

111.
Roubet, C. 1989 Report on Site E-82-1: A
Workshop for the Manufacture of Grinding
Stones at Wadi Kubbaniya. In The Prehistory
of Wadi Kubbaniya Volume 3, edited by A.
E. Close, pp. 588-608. Southern Methodist
University Press. Dallas.
Runnels, C. N. 1981 A Diachronic Study andEconomic Analysis of Millstones from the
Argolid, Greece. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Program in Classical Archaeology,
Indiana University
Rye, O. S. 1981 Pottery Technology, Principles
and Reconstruction. Manuals on Archaeology
No.4, Taraxacum, Washington,
Saidel, B.1993 Round House or Square?
Architectural Form and Socio-Economic
Organization in the PPNB. Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology 6(1): 65-108.
Scarborough, V. L. 1989 Site Structure of a
Village of the Late Pithouse-Early Pueblo
Period in New Mexico. Journal of Field
Archaeology 16: 405-425.
Schiffer, M. 1972 Archaeological Context andSystemic Context. American Antiquity 37(2):156-165.
1983 Toward the Identification of Formation
Processes. American Antiquity 48(4): 675-706.
1987 Formation Processes of theArchaeological Record. University of New
Mexico Press.
Schlanger, S. H. 1991 On Mano, Metates, andthe History of Site Occupations. American
Antiquity 56(3): 460-474.
Schneider, J. S. 1993 Milling implements: Biases
and problems in their use as indicators of prehistoric behavior and paleoenvironment.
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly
29(4): 5-21.
1996 Quarrying and Production of Milling
Implements at Antelope Hill, Arizona. Journalof Field Archaeology 23: 299-311.
Simmons, A. H. 1981 A Paleosubsistence Modelfor Early Neolithic Occupation of the Western
Negev Desert. Bulletin of American School ofOriental Research 242: 31-49.
Steadman, S. 1996 Recent Research in the
Archaeology of Architecture: Beyond theFoundations. Journal of ArchaeologicalResearch 4(1): 51-93.
Tani, M. 1995 Beyond the Identification ofFormation Processes: Behavioral Inference
Based on Traces Left by Cultural Formation
Processes. Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory 2(3): 231-252.
Tchernov, E. and Bar-Yosef, O. 1982 Animal
Exploitation in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B
period at Wadi Tbeik, southern Sinai.
Paléorient 8(2): 17-37.
Tringham, R. E. 1991 Households with
Faces: the Challenge of Gender in PrehistoricArchitectural Remains. In Engendering
Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited
by J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey, pp. 93-131.
Blackwell.
Verhoeven, M. 1999 An Archaeological Ethnographyof a Neolithic Community: Space, Place and Social
Relations in the Burnt Village at Tell Sabi Abyad,
Syria. Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut
Te Istanbul.
Wandsnider, L.1996 Describing and Comparing
Archaeological Spatial Structures. Journal ofArchaeological Method and Theory 3(4): 319-384.
Wilk, R. R. and R. McC. Netting 1984 Households:
Changing Forms and Functions. In Households,edited by R.M. Netting, R. Wilk, and E. J. Arnould,
pp. 1-28. University of California Press.
Wilk, R. R. and W. L. Rathje 1982 Household
Archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist 25(6):617639.
Wilke, P. J. and Quintero, L. A. 1996 Near Eastern
Neolithic millstone production: Insights from researchin the arid southwestern United States. In Neolithic
Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, andtheir Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions, edited by S. K.
Kozlowski and H. G. K. Gebel, Studies in Early
Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, andEnvironment 3, pp. 243-260. Berlin, ex oriente.
Wright, K. I. 1992 Ground Stone Assemblage Variationand Subsistence Strategies in the Levant, 22,0005,500 b.p. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, Yale University.
1993 Early Holocene Ground Stone Assemblages inthe Levant. Levant XXV: 93-111.
1994 Ground-stone Tools and Hunter-gatherer
Subsistence in southwest Asia: Implications for theTransition to Farming. American Antiquity 59(2): 238263.
2000 The Social Origins of Cooking and Dining
in Early Villages of Western Asia. Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 66: 89-12

Domesticating SpaceConstruction, Community, and Cosmology
in the Late Prehistoric Near East

edited by

E. B. Banning and Michael Chazan

Studies in Early Near Eastern
Production, Subsistence, and Environment 6, 2006

Berlin, ex oriente (2006)

Gedruckt mit finanzieller Unterstützung von / Printed with the financial support ofex o r i en t e e .V ., B er l in

SENEPSE wird von Hans Georg K. Gebel und Reinder Neef herausgegeben für
SENEPSE is edited by Hans Georg K. Gebel and Reinder Neef for

ex oriente e.V., Produktion, Subsistenz und Umwelt im frühen Vorderasien, Berlin

Buchbestellungen bitte direkt an / Please, send book orders directly to :ex o ri en t e e.V.
F re i e U n i v e rs i t ä t B e r l i n
c/ o In s t i t u t fü r V o rd e r as i at i sch e A l t e rt u m sk u n d e
H ü t t en w eg 7 , D - 1 4 1 9 5 B er l i n
F ax 0 0 4 9 3 0 8 3 8 5 2 1 0 6 o r 9 8 3 1 1 2 4 6Eine Liste der Publikationen von ex oriente ist am Ende dieses Bandes zu finden.
A list of publications by ex oriente can be found at the end of this volume.

© 2006 ex oriente e.V. Produktion, Subsistenz und Umwelt im frühen Vorderasien, Berlin.
Alle Rechte vorbehalten. All rights reserved.
Gedruckt in Deutschland von dbusiness, Berlin.
Printed in Germany by dbusiness, Berlin.

ISSN 0947-0549
ISBN 3-9807578-3-8

Contents
Acknowledgements ………………………….............................................……..

4

E.B. Banning and Michael Chazan: Structuring interactions, structuring ideas:
Domestication of space in the prehistoric Near East …………………………

5

Trevor Watkins: Architecture and the symbolic construction of new worlds …..

15

Dani Nadel: Residence ownership and continuity: From the Early
Epipalaeolithic unto the Neolithic ……………………………………………….

25

Nicolas Samuelian, Hamudi Khalaily, and François R. Valla: Final Natufianarchitecture at ‘Eynan (‘Ain Mallaha): Approaching the diversity behind
uniformity ……………………………………………………...………………..

35

Stefan Karol Kozlowski: The hunter-gatherer “villages” of the PPNA/EPPNB

43

Seiji Kadowaki: Ground-stone tools and implications for the use of space andsocial relations at ‘Ain Abu Nukhayla, a PPNB settlement in southern Jordan

53

Hans Georg K. Gebel: The domestication of vertical space: The case of steepslope LPPNB architecture in southern Jordan …………………………………..

65

Marc Verhoeven: Megasites in the Jordanian Pre-Pottery Neolithic B:
Evidence for ‘Proto-Urbanism’? ……………………………………………..….

75

Zeidan A. Kafafi: Domestic activities at the Neolithic site, ‘Ain Ghazal ……….

81

Marion Cutting: Traditional architecture and social organisation: The agglomerated buildings of Aşıklı Höyük and Çatalhöyük in Neolithic Central Anatolia

91

Yosef Garfinkel: The social organization at Neolithic Sha‘ar Hagolan:
The nuclear family, the extended family, and the community ………………….

103