CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

LATE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT
IN WADI ZIQLAB, JORDAN: AL-BASATÎN
S. KADOWAKI, K. GIBBS, A. ALLENTUCK and E.B. BANNING

Abstract: Research in Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan, has focused on the discovery and excavation of Late Neolithic sites in an
attempt to understand its regional settlement system in the sixth millennium cal. BC. Previous evidence suggested that small hamlets
or farmsteads may have characterized this settlement system, as represented at Tabaqat al-Bûma. Recent excavations at a site
downstream, al-Basatîn, have revealed evidence for a settlement that was partly contemporary with Tabaqat al-Bûma and sharedmuch of its material culture, but seems to have been markedly different in character. Whether for seasonal or some other reasons,its architecture as currently understood consisted of stone platforms and possibly tents, rather than the substantial houses found at
the other site. Toward the end of the sixth millennium, like Tabaqat al-Bûma, it was abandoned, not to be reoccupied until Early
Bronze I.
Résumé : Les recherches dans le Wadi Ziqlab (Jordanie) ont porté sur la découverte et la fouille de sites du Néolithique récent afin decomprendre le système régional d’implantation des sites au sixième millénaire cal. av. J.-C. Si les recherches précédentes ont suggéré
que de petits hameaux ou fermes caractérisaient ce système, ainsi que l’illustre l’exemple de Tabaqat al-Bûma, les fouilles récentes dusite d’al-Basatîn, localisé en aval, ont mis en évidence une occupation partiellement contemporaine de Tabaqat al-Bûma. Malgré lesfortes similitudes de la culture matérielle avec celle de ce dernier site, al-Basatîn semble d’un caractère différent. Que ce soit pour desraisons saisonnières ou autres, son architecture, telle qu’elle est actuellement comprise, était constituée de plateformes en pierre etprobablement de tentes, plutôt que de maisons véritables, comme celles connues à Tabaqat al-Bûma. Vers la fin du sixième millénaire,le site, à l’instar de Tabaqat al-Bûma, a été abandonné, puis réoccupé à partir du Bronze Ancien I.
Keywords: Levant, Jordan, Late Neolithic, Early Chalcolithic, Early Bronze I, Wadi Rabah, Wadi Ziqlab.
Mots-clés : Levant, Jordanie, Néolithique récent, Chalcolithique ancien, Bronze Ancien I, Wadi Rabah, Wadi Ziqlab.

Much research in Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan, has
focused on the distribution and character of small Late Neolithic sites dating to the sixth millennium cal. BC.1 A hypothesis that has influenced this research is that the settlement
system for much of this period may have combined isolated
farmsteads with small villages and hamlets, organized in adendritic pattern along watercourses. This contrasts with thelarge and medium-sized, aggregated villages, which appear
on present evidence to have been typical of the Middle andLate PPNB and, perhaps, Yarmoukian periods.2 However, it
has been unclear what relationship, if any, existed among the
1. BANNING et al., 1994; F IELD and BANNING, 1998.
2. BANNING, 2001.

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 105

known Late Neolithic sites in this small region and any others
that may still lie undetected. Were they contemporary, or dothey result from periodic movement of settlement in responseto resource depletion or other factors? If the former, did their
inhabitants interact closely within a community, or did they
operate more independently?
To answer these questions, we have been investigating Late
Neolithic sites in Wadi Ziqlab by conducting systematic regional
survey and targeted excavations and analyzing site chronologies. One of the major goals of this long-term investigation is toprovide concrete archaeological evidence for the distributional
patterns of Late Neolithic sites, the natures of their occupation,and social and economic relations among sites that were likely
contemporary. Through their examination, we aim to provide

Manuscrit reçu le 3 mars 2008, accepté le 25 juin 2008

4/12/08 13:46:32

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

S. K ADOWAKI et al.

106

better understanding of the possibility that “dispersed communities” during the Late Neolithic arose, persisted, and transformed themselves through time.

Table 1 – Radiocarbon Determinations
from Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-Basatîn.
Context

Material

E33 locus 019

Charcoal

Lab No.

Date BPComments

TO-3408

6190 ± 70

LN4

Tabaqat al-Bûma

TABAQAT AL-BÛMA
Excavations at one Late Neolithic site in Wadi Ziqlab,
Tabaqat al-Bûma (site WZ 200), uncovered the remains of asmall settlement that appears to have been occupied by only one
or two households in each of its main Late Neolithic phases.3
Since this site has been discussed in some detail elsewhere,
here we only summarize some of its main features. The earliest Late Neolithic use of the site, phase LN1, was apparently
as a cemetery, while the following phase, LN2, probably represents the initial habitation of the site. Later construction
activity destroyed most of the architecture belonging to LN2.4
Phases LN3 to LN5 also represent occupation phases, with
LN3 being the first well-preserved phase at the site. On theassumption that the excavations have not missed any substantially built parts of the site,5 Kadowaki’s spatial analysis6 suggests that two distinct households existed during this phase,
although with a shared outdoor activity area. The beginningof LN4 is marked by the abandonment and partial collapseof two of the LN3 structures. Two households may have also
existed during LN4 but seemingly with a greater segregationof spaces. LN5 is the final Late Neolithic phase at the site,which involved the construction of two new structures, apparently after a brief episode of abandonment. As in phase LN4,
there appear to have been two household groups, each with
its own distinct space. A series of radiocarbon determinations
suggests dates for these phases (table 1).7

3. BANNING et al., 1994 and n.d.; BLACKHAM, 1997; K ADOWAKI,
2007.
4. BLACKHAM, 1997.
5. The wadi channel and a steep slope preclude any further extension of
the site to the north, east, or south. A series of test excavations in the northwest extension of the terrace failed to detect any Neolithic occupation, but it
is conceivable that they could have missed one or two structures northwest of
the main excavation areas.
6. K ADOWAKI, 2007.
7. BANNING, 2007.

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 106

E33 locus 014

Charcoal

TO-34106350 ± 70

LN4

D35 locus 016

Charcoal

TO-21146590 ± 70

LN4, residual?

G34 locus 018

Charcoal

TO-34126380 ± 70

LN3

E33 locus 026

Charcoal

TO-42776490 ± 70

LN3

E34 locus 031

Charcoal

TO-21156630 ± 80

LN3

F34 locus 017

Charcoal

TO-34116670 ± 60

LN3

E33 locus 026

Charcoal

TO-3409

6900 ± 70

LN3, residual

F34 locus 026

Bone

TO-76657350 ± 160

LN1

A locus 005

Bone

TO-1407

7800 ± 70

LN1

F34 locus 026

Bone

TO-76667830 ± 670

LN1, omitted

al-Basatîn
P33 locus 022

Charcoal

TO-13123 5340 ± 170

Intrusion

P33 locus 024

Charcoal

TO-13124

5290 ± 60

Intrusion

6400 ± 80

P34 locus 010

Charcoal

TO-13094

Q33 locus 014

Charcoal

TO-13093 6410 ± 510

Q37 locus 006

Charcoal

TO-13092

6680 ± 60

Q41 locus 016

Residue

TO-12151

6710 ± 70

Q41 locus 016

Residue

TO-12738 6650 ± 140

R36 locus 006

Charcoal

TO-13091

6550 ± 60

OTHER LATE NEOLITHIC SITESIN THE VICINITY
Archaeological survey, including subsurface survey bysmall test trenches, has detected several other small Late Neolithic sites as well as a village site that was occupied during
the Late PPNB, Yarmoukian and Chalcolithic, but not conclusively during the mid- to late sixth millennium cal. BC.8
This last, the site of Tell Rakan (WZ 120), is on the edge of abroad alluvial terrace in the canyon of Wadi Ziqlab, some 5 km
downstream of Tabaqat al-Bûma. Not only are there springs in
its vicinity, but even today the stream is perennial here, providing abundant water for irrigation of orchards. Although wehave no definitive evidence that the site was occupied at thesame time as Tabaqat al-Bûma, it remains the best candidate
for a village at that time, if indeed there was one. Our limited
8. BANNING and NAJJAR, 1999 and 2000; F IELD and BANNING, 1998;
MAHER and BANNING, 2002.

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

4/12/08 13:46:33

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

Late Neolithic Settlement in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan: al-Basatîn

excavations in 1999 exposed only about 30 m2 below the Late
Chalcolithic levels, and it is possible that sixth-millennium
occupation did not extend to the edge of the tell where the
excavations were located.
Small excavations at al-‘Aqaba (WZ 310), only about 600 m
away from Tabaqat al-Bûma, revealed artifacts dating to theLate Neolithic and Early Bronze Age.9 Unfortunately, most of
the site appears to have been destroyed during road constructionin the 1970s, and the Late Neolithic material found there wasredeposited, stratigraphically above some Early Bronze Agepits. The sample of artifacts recovered, however, yields usefulcomparisons to other Late Neolithic assemblages. The samekinds of artifacts that occur at Tabaqat al-Bûma, including pottery, sickle elements, and pierced disks, are represented here.
To the west of al-‘Aqaba, on the same terrace, at ‘Uyyun alHammam (WZ 148), a number of burials occur.10 While mostof these clearly pertain to the Middle Epipalaeolithic deposits
there, one secondary burial is stratigraphically later, and perhaps dates to the Late Neolithic. This burial was in a stonelined and stone-filled pit. A very small number of probable Late
Neolithic sherds was found in deposits above the burial.
Geoarchaeological survey of Wadi at-Taiyyiba,11 immediately north of Wadi Ziqlab, detected a small amount of Late
Neolithic artifacts, along with Epipalaeolithic ones, at alMenakh (WT 4). Here, the site occupies a broad alluvial fan
where a small wadi enters Wadi Taiyyiba from the north, witha reliable spring in the canyon at its foot. At present, it is notpossible to estimate the extent of occupation of this fan during
the Late Neolithic, especially as recent bulldozing of the fan
to create new agricultural fields may well have destroyed partof the site.
Undiagnostic flints from a number of other test trenches
and surface localities within the drainage basin of Wadi Ziqlab
could conceivably be of Late Neolithic date. These include
lithics in secondary deposition at site WZ 312,12 possibly Neolithic lithics at localities WZ 300, WZ 307, WZ 311, probable
Neolithic sherds at WZ 300 and WZ 301.13 In addition, somesubset of the surface scatters of lithics, mostly chronologically undiagnostic, at WZ 2, WZ 15, WZ 16, WZ 22, WZ 33,
WZ 35, WZ 36, WZ 38, WZ 39, WZ 41, WZ 46, WZ 47,
WZ 49, WZ 51, WZ 57, WZ 83, WZ 84, WZ 86, WZ 87,
WZ 93, WZ 94, and WZ 9514 are likely of Late Neolithic date.
9. BANNING, 1996; BANNING et al., 1992; F IELD and BANNING, 1998.
10. MAHER, 2006.
11. MAHER and BANNING, 2002.
12. BANNING, 1996: 37-38.
13. Ibid.: 35.
14. Ibid., 1985: App. A.

107

This paper presents interim results of excavations at another
Late Neolithic site, al-Basatîn, and analyses of its material
remains in order to discuss the nature of occupation and thesite’s significance with regard to the hypothesized settlement
system.

THE SITE AND EXCAVATIONSAT AL-BASATÎN
Al-Basatîn, which the Wadi Ziqlab Survey discovered in
2000, had significant occupation not only in the Late Neolithic
but also in Early Bronze I.15 Excavations there in 2002, 2004,
and 200616 have uncovered features and surfaces associatedwith artifacts that have apparent affinities to the Wadi Rabah
culture in Israel, while radiocarbon evidence dates these surfaces to the sixth millennium cal. BC (table 1).17 A number ofoverlying stone-founded structures dating to Early Bronze I
have associated radiocarbon dates of the fourth millennium
cal. BC, and there was also use of the site, probably as orchards
associated with the nearby Classical settlement of Tell Abu
Fokhkhar, in the first century cal. BC.
The site occupies a sloping terrace, around 25 m ASL, on
the south bank of Wadi Ziqlab, immediately opposite Tell Abu
Fokhkhar (fig. 1). A lower terrace to its northwest (WZ 140)
also exhibits some Late Neolithic and later remains, but test
excavations there in 2002 suggest that these are in secondary
deposits, probably with an origin uphill at WZ 135.18 The site
is only about 1 km downstream from Tell Rakan (WZ 120).19
Because of the numerous springs in this part of the wadi, thestream of Wadi Ziqlab is perennial here, and the intensive
modern land use includes pomegranate groves near the wadi
channel and olive groves and almonds on and around the site.
At the lower terrace, site WZ 140, we placed test trenches
in twelve places along the slope (fig. 2). Most of the Neolithic
material came from two deep soundings in Areas J15 and K15,
which are low on the slope and close to the test probe, G13,
where we first discovered Neolithic artifacts in 2000. Mostof the other test units in WZ 140 produced Neolithic artifacts
mixed with Epipalaeolithic or later artifacts in colluvium thatprobably derived from the upper terrace at WZ 135, or froman ancient extension of that terrace to the west, which erosion
15. MAHER and BANNING, 2001 and 2002.
16. BANNING et al., 2003, 2004 and 2005; GIBBS et al., 2006.
17. BANNING, 2007.
18. BANNING et al., 2003 and 2004.
19. BANNING and NAJJAR, 1999 and 2000.

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 107

4/12/08 13:46:33

Late Neolithic Site
Potential LN Flint Source
Wadi

WT4

3 km

0
400

WZ120
WZ135/140
WZ307

WZ310

WZ312

‘Ain al-Beidha
300

WZ200

200

500

10

0

0

400
-100

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

S. K ADOWAKI et al.

108

Fig. 1 – Distribution of Late Neolithic sites in Wadi Ziqlab. WZ 135/140: al-Basatîn; WZ 120: Tell Rakan;
WZ 130: al-‘Aqaba; WZ 200: Tabaqat al-Bûma.

has now cut away. It seems possible that the lower part of theslope, in the region of Areas G13, J15 and K15, has some insitu Neolithic deposits, but these are more than a meter deep
and the possibility of detecting undisturbed architecture without extensive excavation in this part of the site seems remote.
Consequently, most of our fieldwork has concentrated onsite WZ 135, the upper terrace, ca 100 m2 of which has so far
been excavated (fig. 3).20 Excavation areas were distributedin an attempt to define the extent of the site and maximize
horizontal exposures around architecture. Those north of
Q43, although containing some Neolithic material, exhibitedsigns of an ancient gully with substantial alluvial deposits
and appear to be off-site. South (upslope) of areas with Late
Neolithic architectural remains and outdoor surfaces, we
discovered Early Bronze deposits and architecture overlying
Neolithic deposits in Areas P33-P37, Q35-38, R41, and X37.

20. Excavations at the site employed a nominal 3 x 3 m grid, with screening of all archaeological deposits except the uppermost sediment (i.e., ploughzone). In most cases, this was 100% screening through a mesh with aperturesapproximately 3.5 mm. Samples of sediment were saved for pH, flotation, andmicromorphological analysis.

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 108

STRATIGRAPHY AND RADIOCARBON
CHRONOLOGY
Stratigraphic analysis, examination of finds, and a suiteof radiocarbon dates suggest that there are three main stratigraphic levels at the site in the Late Neolithic (sixth millennium cal. BC), Early Bronze I (fourth millennium cal. BC),and Classical period (at least late Hellenistic, and possibly
later). Residual and surface remains indicate, however, that
there was some Epipalaeolithic and PPNB activity on or near
the site as well.
Radiocarbon assays (table 1) are broadly consistent with thestratigraphy of the material culture. So far, we have eight dates
pertaining to the Late Neolithic deposits, but two of them areclearly later and outliers (TO-13125 and TO-13124 in Area P33),
probably resulting from the intrusion of later charcoal throughbioturbation, such as tree roots or rodent burrows, which were
frequently observed during excavations. Two dates come fromfood residue on the inner surface of sherds, clustering around6700 BP. The other samples, all small pieces of charcoal, provided determinations ranging from 6680 to 6400 BP. With noconstraints on their beginning or end (the next group of dates
from the site is much later, in Early Bronze I), these lead to

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

4/12/08 13:46:33

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

Late Neolithic Settlement in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan: al-Basatîn

109

WZ 140
Excavation Unit
G12

Tree
Contour Interval = 1 m
0

10 m

G13

-5
P14

F16

J15

K15

H18

P16

L20

0

L23

J24

K28

5

Fig. 2 – Excavation units at WZ 140.

the calibrated range of 5731-5572 to 5496-5292 cal. BC (68%confidence). These dates are statistically likely to be contemporary with LN3 or LN4 at Tabaqat al-Bûma, while also falling within the range of Wadi Rabah sites.21

ARCHITECTURE AND ACTIVITY AREAS
Neolithic architectural remains were not evident or werepoorly preserved in most of the excavated areas, but include
stone walls or foundations, cobbled surfaces, and pits.
21. BANNING, 2007. Calibration and analysis of radiocarbon evidence
was with BCal, BUCK et al., 1999.

We have so far discovered five cobble-paved surfaces(figs. 4-6) in the Late Neolithic deposits. Two of them, in
Areas N41-42 and P42, have rectilinear edges, but poor preservation makes their overall shape unclear (fig. 4). For example,
the northeast corner of the floor in N41 is cut by a later pit. A
better preserved pavement in Q41 is circular and composedof fairly flat stones. Stone slabs are also used in some partsof the paved surface in P35-36/Q35-36/R36 (fig. 5). Thissurface, although not completely revealed, is probably rectangular in shape. Regardless of the shape or degree of preservation, none of these cobbled surfaces is associated with walls.
Instead, large boulders are characteristically located in their
immediate vicinity, with the exception of the surface in Q41(figs. 4-5).

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 109

4/12/08 13:46:33

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 110

48
47
46
45

25

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

S. K ADOWAKI et al.

110

G44 H44

44
Q43

43
L42

42

P42

M41

R41

41
N41

40

Q41
P40

39
38

P37

37

X37
Q37

P36

36

R36

35

Q36

34

P34

G34

N34

30

33
P33

32
31

Q30
30

G29

M29

29

Q29

28
Q28
27
26
25
24
23

Mo

22

WZ 135
Excavation Unit
de

rn

Ro

Recent StructureadOlive tree

21

Contour Interval = 1 m

20

10 m

0
A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

J

K

L

M

N

P

Q

R

S

T

V

W

X

Fig. 3 – Excavation units at WZ 135.

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

4/12/08 13:46:33

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

Late Neolithic Settlement in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan: al-Basatîn

111

P42
P4218

WZ 135

Cobble-paved surfaces

L42

0

N42
Handstone Grinding slab

N41/N4207

M41 N41

L41

2m

Q41

P41

R41

Outdoor surface covered with
flat-lying artifacts and animal bones

Stone platform(Q4117)

M40

Rock-filled pit(R4108-10)

P40

Fig. 4 – Late Neolithic architecture in the northern part of excavated areas at al-Basatîn.

The paved surfaces are likely to have served as locationsof domestic activities and storage. Although we usually foundvery few artifacts on the cobbled surfaces, possibly as a resultof area maintenance and cleaning, material remains were relatively well preserved on the surface in P35-36/Q35-36/R36,
providing some evidence for the range of domestic activities
and the daily use of this space (fig. 5). This large cobbled surface (locus 023) extends over an area of at least 10 m2, andslopes noticeably downward to the northeast. A handstone andconcentration of chipped-stone debitage, some of which refits,were found near the eastern end of this cobble surface in Q36(fig. 5), possibly indicating a knapping area. Another handstone
and a pestle were found on a surface less than 5 cm above thecobbled floor in Area Q35 (fig. 5). These tools are also likely
to have been left during the occupation of the cobbled surface
given that there are some refits between lithic debitage on thefloor and those located a few cm above the floor. Lying on thecobbled surface in Q35 were a complete axe, some fragmentsof a basalt bowl, and a complete flake with invasive retouch.

We gridded this floor into 50 x 50 cm units and sampled each
unit for flotation, microdebitage, pH, and phytoliths. Althoughanalysis is not yet complete, so far the light fractions from thisfloor have yielded charcoal fragments, olive-pit fragments, andsome unidentifiable seed fragments.22
Although the cobbled floors were not associated with walls,
walls did occur rarely elsewhere in the Late Neolithic level.
In Areas P36-37 and Q36-37, a curved wall of several largestones (locus 022) may be all that remains of a round Late
Neolithic structure. In Area Q37, a single stone might conceivably be a continuation of this wall. A thin lens of dark, possibly burned, sediment (locus Q3706) in the southwest corner of
Q37 appears to be the remains of a hearth associated with thispoorly preserved structure. In P36, a segment of double-leaf
stone wall abuts this round structure.
In addition to these stone features, the excavations documented several outdoor surfaces upon which flat-lying artifacts
22. S. Monckton, personal communication.

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 111

4/12/08 13:46:33

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

S. K ADOWAKI et al.

112

P37
2m

0

Q37
P3722
Hearth(Q3706)P36

WZ 135

Q3622

Q36

P3622

R36

Concentration ofsickle elements
Q3609
Handstone
P3620

Concentration of lithic debitage

P35

Handstone and pestle

unexcavatedunexcavated

Ground axe

Q35

Fig. 5 – Late Neolithic architecture in the middle part of excavated areas at al-Basatîn.

and other debris were distributed. We detected such traces ofapparent outdoor surfaces in Areas P33, P34, P40-42, Q41,
and R41. However, it is still unclear whether deposits in theseareas are primary (de facto) ones that resulted from culturalactivities or represent secondary refuse redeposited by natural
or cultural agents. To investigate this issue, we piece-plotted
findings on several surfaces in P34, P40-41, and Q41, and did105-130-Kadowaki.indd 112

extensive sampling for flotation and microrefuse from one
surface in Areas Q41 and P42. These samples will allow us to
examine patterns in the distributions of macro- and microrefuse and their spatial distributions, which can then be used
to assess influence of various natural and cultural formation
processes.

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

4/12/08 13:46:33

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

Late Neolithic Settlement in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan: al-Basatîn

WZ 135P33

plaster

unexcavatedunexcavatedunexcavated01mFig. 6 – Late Neolithic cobble-paved surface in Area P33
at al-Basatîn.

LATE NEOLITHIC MATERIAL CULTURE
Deposits of this phase yielded material culture indicativeof a wide range of domestic activities, including the production
and use of stone tools, food preparation, storage, and consumption, and social display.

Lithics
During excavations and laboratory analyses, we madeefforts to define Late Neolithic assemblages with minimal
mixture of earlier or later artifacts. Excavations in the 2002,
2004, and 2006 seasons collected more than 50,000 piecesof chipped stone, of which more than 22,000 pieces (ca 43%)

113

were recovered in Late Neolithic contexts with very few intrusive materials from later deposits, as confirmed by pottery
sherds and radiocarbon dates. Although the Late Neolithic
assemblage includes residual PPNB and Epipalaeolithic lithics, they comprise only a small portion (less than 2%) and caneasily be distinguished from Late Neolithic pieces by identifying techno-morphological characteristics of the former periods(e.g., naviform blades and regular bladelets). Thus, our analyses focus on the securely defined Late Neolithic assemblage
to examine accurately characteristics of raw material exploitation, core-reduction, and the techno-morphology of retouched
tools.
Almost all Late Neolithic chipped-stone artifacts weremade of flint, and most of its varieties, as indicated by coresand cortical elements, are observable in local sources. For
example, flint nodules with limestone cortex or weathered surfaces are available at several outcrops of chalk and limestone
about 500 m northwest (downstream) of the site and also at‘Ain al-Beidha in nearby Wadi Abu Ziyad. These sources provide fine- to medium-grained flint with colours ranging fromdark brown to greyish brown, often without lustre. In addition,fine-grained flint of brown to beige colour is available in theform of rolled cobbles in areas a little upstream of ‘Ain alBeidha. Flint from this spot is often lustrous. Coarse-grained
flint of greyish brown is strewn in the immediate vicinity ofthe site. As clear indication of imported material, two obsidian
flakes were found, one in Late Neolithic deposits and anothermixed with Hellenistic remains.
The proportional distribution of debitage types (table 2)shows that flakes were major products of core-reduction. Veryfew occurrences of core-trimming elements indicate that corereduction rarely involved systematic preparation or rejuvenation of core morphology. However, such a debitage profile
does not necessarily mean that core reduction technology wascompletely “expedient”. Core reduction appears occasionallyto have involved intentional blade production by unidirectional flaking. This is suggested by a concentration of morethan 200 pieces of lithic debitage on the cobbled surface inAreas Q36 and R36 (fig. 5). These remains are likely primary
or de facto refuse from core reduction on this spot, as indicatedby more than 60 conjoinable pieces (nearly 30% of the lithics
there). The material in this context consists of at least 13 typesof flint, of which 11 are fine-grained, and is also characterized
by a very high ratio of blades to flakes (0.12) in comparison to
the ratio (0.01) in the total Late Neolithic assemblage.
Debitage of Tabaqat al-Bûma is also dominated by flakes
with very few occurrences of core-trimming elements. However, examinations of retouched tools, debitage, and cores

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 113

4/12/08 13:46:34

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

S. K ADOWAKI et al.

114

Table 2 – Inventory of chipped stone artifacts from al-Basatîn.
Arrowheads
Sickle elements
Unfinished sickles
BurinsBorersDenticulates
Notches
Scrapers
Truncations
Retouched
Backed pieces
toolRet. bladesRet. flakes
Axes, Adzes, Chisels
Bifacial knives
Cortical scrapers
Chopping tools
Tool fragments
RETOUCHED TOOL
TOTAL

BladesFlakesObsidian pieces
Chips
Debitage Burin spall
ChunksCore-trimming elements
Cores
DEBITAGE TOTAL
Late Neolithic total
Residual PPNB pieces
Residual Epipalaeolithic pieces
TOTAL

suggest that blades were not merely accidental by-products
during casual flake production, but their production is characterized by the selective use of fine-grained flint, unidirectional
flaking, and the frequent use of blades for some retouched tools,
particularly sickle elements.23 Thus, inhabitants of al-Basatîn,as at Tabaqat al-Bûma, appear to have employed a corereduction technology in which they primarily manufactured
flakes with some degree of blade production.
Retouched tools account for 2.6% (569 pieces) of the Late
Neolithic assemblage of al-Basatîn (table 2). Tools are mostly
made by marginal retouch on the edges of flakes of various
forms. Such informal tools include retouched flakes, scrapers,
denticulates, notches, and backed pieces. While a retouchedflake is a catch-all category of flakes with irregular marginal
23. K ADOWAKI, 2005.

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 114

n

%

0
68
6
1
22
21
23
96
5
6
32
273
4
0
3
1
8

0.0
12.0
1.1
0.2
3.9
3.7
4.0
16.9
0.9
1.1
5.6
48.0
0.7
0.0
0.5
0.2
1.4

% of tool total

569

2.6

% of Late Neolithic total

191
13,476
1
5,778
0
1,922
5
205
21,57822,147
6421
22,574

0.9
60.8
0.0
26.1
0.0
8.7
0.0
0.9
97.4
98.1
0.0
1.9

% of debitage total% of Late Neolithic total% of total% of total

retouch, we identified the other tool types according to theforms of retouched edges.24 Some scrapers are made on cortical flakes and separately reported as cortical scrapers (table 2
and fig. 7: 11). However, they tend to be small and curved in
profile in comparison to the generally larger size and flat profiles of tabular scrapers observed in later periods.
Tools with more standardized forms consist of sickle elements, retouched blades, borers, and truncations, which areoften made on blades. Among such formal tools, sickle elements are the most abundant (table 2). The elements have arectangular shape formed by steep retouch at one lateral edge
and the truncation of both ends of blades or, occasionally,
flakes. The cutting edges of sickle elements have denticulations
and often exhibit clear sickle sheen. According to Gopher’s
24. See ROSEN, 1997 for examples of these tool types.

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

4/12/08 13:46:34

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

Late Neolithic Settlement in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan: al-Basatîn

115

typology of sickle elements,25 most samples from al-Basatîn
can be classified as either Type C/E or D.
These two types are also main constituents of the sickle
elements from Tabaqat al-Bûma (table 3). One of the authors
presented previously that these two sites in Wadi Ziqlab are
more similar to each other than to other sites with Wadi
Rabah cultures in the proportional distributions of sickle element types and the frequency of coarsely denticulated cuttingedges.26 However, the production technology of sickle elements appears to have differed somewhat between al-Basatîn
and Tabaqat al-Bûma. Sickle elements found at al-Basatîn weremore frequently made on blades and tended to receive denticulation on the cutting edge before giving the blank its final shapethrough truncation and backing. These patterns also appear in
the results of more recent analyses, which include additional
samples from the 2006 season and which treated the Late Neolithic phases at Tabaqat al-Bûma separately (table 3).
Table 3 – Proportional distributions of types and blank formsof sickle elements from al-Basatîn and Tabaqat al-Bûma.
Tabaqat al-Bûma
al-Basatîn
Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5(n = 59)(n = 32) (n = 44) (n = 53)
Type A
Type B
Sickle Type C/E
element
types Type D
Indeterminate
TOTAL
Blade
Bladelet
Blank
Flake
forms
Indeterminate
TOTAL

3%
0%
22%
69%
6%
100%
16%
0%
38%
47%
100%

5%
0%
33%
50%
12%
100%
34%
2%
25%
39%
100%

2%
0%
36%
42%
21%
100%
36%
2%
36%
26%
100%

2%
2%
51%
27%
19%
100%
49%
2%
24%
25%
100%

Another characteristic tool type is axes/adzes/chisels.
Some axes have been regularly shaped into rectangular or trapezoidal forms either by bifacial flaking or by pecking the sidesof tabular flint (fig. 7: 9-10). Both methods, however, involvesome grinding at the cutting edges. Axes with similar forms,
but with grinding over more extensive areas, were recoveredin disturbed contexts with Hellenistic materials and classified
as ground-stone tools (fig. 8: 8-10). Both chipped and groundaxes are very similar in morphology and production technique.
Ground axes, adzes, or chisels are made on flint, and their
25. GOPHER, 1989; BARKAI and GOPHER, 1999.
26. K ADOWAKI, 2005.

cutting edges are formed by grinding perpendicular to thelong axis of the tool. The sides and proximal end of the axes
show traces of pecking and battering, probably employed during shaping of the tool. Several small flake scars at the groundedge may have resulted from use, while extensive flaking ofsome axes might represent the rejuvenation or modification of
the cutting edge.
These techno-morphological characteristics of chipped andground axes/adzes/chisels are also observable on the specimens from Tabaqat al-Bûma,27 and thus the two sites appear
to have had similar technology for manufacturing and usingaxes/adze/chisels. One noticeable difference is that at Tabaqat
al-Bûma the assemblage includes one basalt axe, which may
have had economic and symbolic significance because of therarity of the sources and production centres of basalt axes.28
The Late Neolithic chipped-stone assemblages from alBasatîn characteristically lack arrowheads, following theirdecreasing abundance from the Yarmoukian and Jericho IX tothe Wadi Rabah period.29 The absence of arrowheads at Wadi
Rabah sites is usually explained by the decline of hunting
activities and increasing reliance on domesticated animals.30
In fact, the faunal assemblage of al-Basatîn is dominated bydomestic taxa (sheep and goat, see below). On the other hand,the fauna of Tabaqat al-Bûma include a relatively high proportion of wild animals (e.g., deer). However, no arrowhead
was recovered from secure Neolithic contexts at Tabaqat alBûma, suggesting either that procurement of wild animals was
accomplished without flint arrowheads or that hunting was notpracticed as frequently as the faunal record would suggest.
As mentioned earlier, the excavations discovered a number of chipped-stone materials that clearly belong to earlier
periods (table 2). The majority of these are Epipalaeolithic
artifacts, including retouched and unretouched bladelets andbladelet cores (fig. 7: 15-18). Although some of the bladeletcores appear similar to ones from the Middle Epipalaeolithic,
there are no clearly Geometric Kebaran artifacts in the collection, such as trapeze/rectangles. Both narrow and wide bladelets appear, but none of them are retouched in ways that would
suggest any particular complex of the Epipalaeolithic. A few
artifacts may be from some nearby PPNB occupation, such as
the surface finds of a naviform core and an axe in 2004 (fig. 7:
13-14) and, in 2006 excavations, of some broken arrowheads.
In all cases, these earlier artifacts were on the surface or mixed
27. BANNING and SIGGERS, 1997.
28. ROSENBERG et al., 2008.
29. F INLAYSON et al., 2003; GARFINKEL and MILLER, 2002; GOPHER
and GOPHNA, 1993; ROLLEFSON et al., 1992.
30. BARKAI and GOPHER, 1999: 60.

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 115

4/12/08 13:46:34

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

S. K ADOWAKI et al.

116

0

1

2

3

4

5 cm

5

6

7

9

8

10

11

12

13

14

0

15

16

17

5 cm

18

Fig. 7 – Neolithic and Epipalaeolithic chipped stones at al-Basatîn. 1-4, denticulated sickle elements; 5-6, borers; 7, obsidian bladelet;
8, core; 9-10, partially ground axes; 11-12, scrapers; 13, PPNB axe; 14, naviform core; 15, Epipalaeolithic core; 16-18, Epipalaeolithic
retouched bladelets (1-12 are from Late Neolithic contexts; 13-14 are surface finds; 15-18 are residual remains in later contexts.)

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 116

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

4/12/08 13:46:35

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

Late Neolithic Settlement in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan: al-Basatîn

117

2

1

4

3

7

6

5

8

0

10

9

10 cm

11

12

13

14

15

Fig. 8 – Late Neolithic ground stones and clay objects. 1, grinding slab; 2, handstone; 3-4, perforated stones; 5, pestle; 6, flaked cobble;
7, limestone vessel; 8-10, ground axes; 11-13, limestone spindle whorls; 14-15, clay spindle whorls.

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 117

4/12/08 13:46:37

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

118

with later material and are thus residual, but indicate that somepart of the WZ 135 terrace was probably used, even if notintensively, in both Epipalaeolithic and PPNB times.
Excavations of Late Neolithic deposits yielded more than
50 groundstone artifacts. About 30% of them are made ofbasalt, which would have been imported to the site, probably
from the area east of Tell ash-Shûna North. Basalt was often
used for probable food-processing tools, such as grinding slabs
or querns, handstones, pestles, and stone vessels or mortars(fig. 8: 1-2 and 5). In addition, two large, perforated tools31
are also made of basalt (fig. 8: 3). The rest of the groundstone
tools are of limestone with a few pieces of flint. The limestone
artifacts are mostly natural cobbles and pebbles showing sometraces of grinding, pecking, or flaking. However, some limestone pieces were modified into formal tools, such as spindle
whorls and stone vessels (fig. 8: 7, 11-13).
Late Neolithic groundstone also occurred in later and disturbed deposits. For example, a set of large upper and lower
milling stones, made of basalt, was found in a disturbed context
in M41. The tools’ Neolithic origin is indicated by their morphological resemblance to other Late Neolithic milling stones
and their recovery locations close to the Late Neolithic cobbled
surface in N41 (fig. 4). In addition, five pieces of ground axes/
adzes/chisels, mixed with Hellenistic sherds in M41 and L42(fig. 4 and 10: 8-10), resemble axes from Late Neolithic contexts (fig. 7: 9-10).
These types of groundstone artifacts and their technomorphological characteristics at al-Basatîn are quite similar
to those of Tabaqat al-Bûma.32 This may not be surprising
given their chronological and geographical proximity. On theother hand, the possible difference in the nature of settlements
between the two sites, as suggested by architectural records,
is not observable in the kinds of food-processing or craftproduction activities represented by groundstone artifacts.

Late Neolithic Pottery
Almost 900 diagnostic sherds from al-Basatîn were identified as Late Neolithic. These include rims, bases, handles,
body sherds with decoration or other surface treatment,
carinated sherds, fragments of jar necks or shoulders, anda small number of pierced disks. Most of these came from
Late Neolithic contexts but a few from later strata were

31. “Counterpoise weights” according to the typology by WRIGHT,
1992.
32. BANNING and SIGGERS, 1997; K ADOWAKI, 2007.

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 118

S. K ADOWAKI et al.

identified as residual Late Neolithic sherds on the basis of theirfabric or surface treatment.
The Late Neolithic pottery is all handmade, and there issome evidence for coil construction. Although there are somebetter-made exceptions, in general, the pottery is rather crudely
constructed and poorly fired, and is now so fragile that we generally cannot wash it. The fabrics are usually soft and brown,
yellow or salmon-pink in colour, often with distinct dark or yellow cores. Limestone and chalk inclusions are common, withsmaller amounts of chert, iron oxides, and quartz, while somesherds show evidence of fibrous temper. All the raw materials
needed for pottery production are locally available.
The assemblage of Late Neolithic pottery is very fragmented and rims are often too small to stance accurately, but
forms appear to include small cups, bowls, holemouth jars, andnecked jars. A number of thick, very friable pieces appear similar to tabun fragments, but we have been able to refit some ofthem into portions of coarse vessels. Bowls occur in a range ofsizes and forms, including V-shaped ones (fig. 9: 6-8), roundedor hemispherical bowls (fig. 9: 16-22), and bowls with verticalor slightly inverted walls (fig. 9: 9-12) that are sometimes carinated (fig. 9: 10). A small number of rims could derive fromeverted bowls or perhaps jars with everted necks (fig. 9: 15),
while one body sherd (fig. 9: 14) is likely from a small bowl
with an S-shaped profile. Jars are primarily holemouths (fig. 9:1-5). Some of these are rather thick and coarse, while others
are finer and occasionally decorated with incisions. No clear
examples of necked jars occur in the assemblage, although asmall number of sherds seem to represent the junction between
a jar’s neck and shoulder (fig. 9: 13). Furthermore, becauseof the fragmented nature of the assemblage, some of the rim
sherds identified as bowls may actually derive from neckedjars. Bases are mainly flat or disk bases (fig. 10: 15-18), sometimes showing evidence of pebble or mat impressions (fig. 10:19) or thickened with layers of added clay (fig. 10: 21). Limited
evidence suggests the presence of vessels with pedestal bases(fig. 10: 20). Handles include strap or loop handles (fig. 9: 7 and24; fig. 10: 6), usually with oval cross-sections, and some knobs(fig. 9: 3; fig. 10: 3), small ledge handles (fig. 10: 5), and more
protruding, triangular or pointed lug handles (fig. 10: 1). In atleast one case, a small ledge handle seems to have been locatedon the interior of the vessel (fig. 10: 2), while another sherd has
two tiny lugs or protrusions located side-by-side (fig. 10: 4).
Surface treatments include a variety of incised and impressedmotifs. A fairly common treatment is combing (fig. 10: 9-14).
Often this is a very rough combing, apparently to roughen thesurface rather than to create a particular pattern, on one or both
surfaces. Some sherds display more regular combing, including

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

4/12/08 13:46:37

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

Late Neolithic Settlement in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan: al-Basatîn

119

9

16

10

17

1

2

11

18

12

19

3
13

20

14

21

4
15

22

5

6

0

7

23

8

24

10 cm

Fig. 9 – Late Neolithic pottery from al-Basatîn. 1-2, holemouth jars; 3, holemouth jar with applied knob; 4, holemouth jar
with red slip, wavy combing, and mending hole; 5, holemouth jar with combed decoration; 6-8, straight sided bowls; 9, small
red-slipped bowl or cup with a field of fingernail impressions; 10, carinated bowl; 11-12, vertical or slightly inverted bowls;
13, fragment of a necked jar; 14, fragment of an S-shaped bowl; 15, everted bowl or jar neck with small handle attachment;
16-22, rounded bowls (17 has fingernail impressions over combing; 20 is combed); 23-24, large crudely incised bowls.

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 119

4/12/08 13:46:37

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

S. K ADOWAKI et al.

120

1
3

2

5

6

4

7

11
9

8

10

12
13

15

17
19

16
0

14

18

20

21

10 cm

Fig. 10 – Late Neolithic handles, bases, and decorated pottery from al-Basatîn. 1-5, knob or small ledge handles (4 is doubled);
6, combed strap handle; 7-8, impressed decoration; 9-14, combed decoration (14 has a handle attachment showing combing underneaththe handle); 15-16, flat bases; 17, disk base; 18, flat base with combing on interior surface; 19, fragment of matt-impressed base;20, probably pedestal base with combing on exterior surface; 21, flat base thickened with additional layer of clay.

wavy combing (fig. 9: 4; fig. 10: 11), bands of horizontal
combing (fig. 10: 10), and cross-combing or “weave combing.”
Combing seems to occur on any part of the vessel including
the rim (fig. 9: 20), the interior of the base (fig. 10: 18) and on
strap handles (fig. 10: 6). Some vessels have fields of coarse,
parallel incisions made with a simple stylus that seem to mimic
combing (fig. 9: 23-24). Impressions are made with circular(fig. 10: 7) and semi-circular implements (fig. 9: 9), as well as
combs (fig. 10: 8). In a small proportion of sherds there are105-130-Kadowaki.indd 120

traces of red slip or perhaps paint, and rarer still are sherds
with both slip and burnish. This last group includes both red
and black burnished sherds. Surface treatments occasionallyoccur in combinations, such as impressions (fig. 9: 9) or combing (fig. 9: 4; fig. 10: 4) adjacent to red slip. One bowl with a
red-slipped rim has an adjacent field of fingernail impressions
over combing (fig. 9: 17).
The Late Neolithic pottery from al-Basatîn is most similar in form, surface treatment, and decoration to assemblages

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

4/12/08 13:46:37

attributed to the Wadi Rabah culture.33 The general absence ofevidence for necked jars is a noticeable difference, however.
As already mentioned, this is likely due, in part, to the poor
preservation of the pottery from al-Basatîn. It is worth noting,however, that no clear evidence of bow-rim jars in particular
has been found at any Late Neolithic site in Wadi Ziqlab. The
absence of these vessels, which are often considered the mostcharacteristic vessel of Wadi Rabah assemblages,34 may reflecta local tradition of pottery manufacture, rather than simply
poor preservation.

Late Neolithic Fauna from WZ 13535
Much like the Neolithic pottery, bones are highly fragmented, friable, and almost all display some structural damage.
The degree of fragmentation was noted on all material from the2006 season and on a sample of material excavated in 2004.
An ordinal scale ranging from 1 (complete) to 6 (less than oneeighth) was used to explore the synchronic distribution of bone
destruction and its variability over time. The results clearly
indicate that the size 6 fragments dominate both the Late Neolithic (74%) and EB I (82%) assemblages (fig. 11). All othersize categories are evenly, but only marginally represented. The
prevalence of size 6 fragments at al-Basatîn severely influenced
the low rate of identification. Weathering, which is marked byshallow surface fissures and exfoliation of outer cortical bone
surfaces, is prominent. This condition suggests that discardedbone refuse was not buried rapidly. Diagenesis also contributed
to the degradation of the cortical surfaces.
The faunal remains also exhibit ubiquitous concretion by
calcium carbonate, which may have mitigated somewhat thediagenetic attrition just mentioned. These mineral deposits
could not be removed without undue mechanical force andresultant damage, and thus hindered analysis by masking
surface characteristics such as butchery marks, root etching,trampling abrasion, and carnivore and rodent tooth marks.36
33. e.g., GARFINKEL, 1992; GARFINKEL and MATSKEVICH, 2002;
K APLAN, 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1969; LOVELL et al., 1997, 2004 and 2007.
34. GARFINKEL, 1999: 133.
35. Preliminary reports on faunal remains were by R HODES, n.d., and
LIPOVITCH, n.d., with most recent analysis by A LLENTUCK, n.d.
36. Identifications were conducted with the aid of the University ofToronto Faunal Osteo-Archaeology Collection. Methods of distinguishingelements of closely related species followed BOESSNECK et al., 1964, and
PRUMMEL and F RISCH, 1986. Determination of age at death followed theworks of GRANT, 1975; PAYNE, 1973; SILVER, 1969. Because the sample
sizes are so small, we only report NISP (Number of Identified Specimens per
taxon), with a faunal specimen deemed identifiable if it is minimally identified to a taxonomic Family (i.e., Bovidae or Cervidae). Specimens that could
not be identified beyond a taxonomic Class (i.e., Mammalia or Aves) were

121

Early Bronze I

Late Neolithic

100

Relative frequency (%)

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

Late Neolithic Settlement in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan: al-Basatîn

80
60
40
20
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Fragment size

Fig. 11 – Distribution of faunal remains according to fragment
size. Sizes range from 1 (complete) to 6 (less than one eighth oforiginal bone).

The Late Neolithic levels yielded 2,644 bone specimens,of which 180 were identified to a low taxonomic level.37 As
in most Near Eastern faunal assemblages, the most frequently
occurring animal taxa were sheep, goats, pigs and cattle. The
most frequently occurring body parts of these major taxa inboth periods were teeth. This is likely due to conditions thatfavour the preservation of enamel-protected teeth as well as
the fact that even small tooth fragments carry morphologicalcharacteristics that allow easier identification.
In total, 10 fragments were identified as Bos taurus(domestic cattle), accounting for about 6% of the Late Neolithic assemblage. An additional 11 fragments were identified
as Bos sp. (wild or domestic cattle), also representing about 6%(table 4). The domestication of Bos was determined by morphological gracility and size. The larger wild cattle (B. primigenius or aurochs) are known from other Late Neolithic
contexts at Hagoshrim and Munhata.38 However, this species
was not definitively identified in al-Basatîn’s assemblage. If theeleven Bos sp. specimens derive from B. taurus, cattle accountfor about 12% of the Late Neolithic fauna.
Sus scrofa (pig) is represented by 24 specimens, contributing 13% to the Late Neolithic faunal assemblage. The statusof domestication could not be determined as the six recovered
teeth were too fragmentary to be measured. Age-at-death estimates were feasible for eight bone and tooth specimens. Of
these, three survived beyond the age of 17 months, one wasclassified according to one of four live animal size categories (very small,small, medium or large) based on cortical bone thickness.
37. Fauna from the 2006 season were analysed by one of the authors[A.A.], who also reanalysed a sample from the 2004 season. To check forinter-observer variation, a 17% sample (n = 200) from the Late Neolithic and
EB I collections of 2004 was reanalysed. Inter-observer variability was notoverwhelming, as 91% of the specimens (n = 182) required no significant
change (i.e., taxon or anatomical element).
38. DUCOS, 1968.

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 121

4/12/08 13:46:37

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

S. K ADOWAKI et al.

122

Table 4 – Identified fauna from al-Basatîn.
Late
Neolithic
Scientific name Common name

NISP

%

Early
Bronze INISP%

Domestic
Bos taurus

cattle

10

5.6

1

3.4

Capra hircus

goat

3

1.7

–

–

Ovis aries

sheep

10

5.6

–

–

Ovis/Capra

sheep or goat

110

61.1

19

65.5

Wild or Domestic
Bos sp.

cattle or aurochs

11

6.1

–

–

gazelle, ibex,
Bovidae – medium
sheep or goat

1

0.6

1

3.4

Sus scrofa

pig

24

13.3

4

13.8

Canidaedog, wolf or fox

2

1.1

–

–

Canis sp.

dog or wolf

1

0.6

1

3.4

Felis sp.

small cat

–

–

1

3.4

Wild
Equus sp.

wild ass or
onager

1

0.6

–

–

Gazella sp.

gazelle

5

2.8

–

–

Cervidae

deer

1

0.6

–

–

Vulpes sp.

fox

1

0.6

2

6.9

180

100.0

29

100.0

TOTAL NISP

between 12 and 16 months of age at the time of death, and four
were between 6 and 11 months of age.39
Ovis aries (sheep) and Capra hircus (goat) remains accountfor the bulk of the Late Neolithic assemblage (68%, n = 123).
It was not usually possible to distinguish between the two taxa,
with the exception of ten Ovis and three Capra identifications.
The domestication of these taxa is not determinable on the basisof allometric criteria because of the very small sample of thebones and teeth that could be accurately measured. However,they appear to represent domestic sheep and goats, an assessment based on affinities to domestic specimens in the reference
skeletons. Only the most general remarks may be made about age
structure. Mandibular tooth rows, the body parts by which themost accurate estimates of age at death may be achieved, were
scarce. The four recovered sheep/goat mandibles were all fromanimals that died in adulthood (> 24 months). An additional
33 post-cranial bones could be assigned age estimates based on
rates of epiphyseal fusion, which are less useful than mandibular tooth eruption and attrition because of their wide ranges of

39. SILVER, 1969.

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 122

error. Nonetheless, bone-fusion data indicate that five sheep/goats were culled as juveniles in the first year of life; 13 wereat least 12 to 23 months of age at death (sub-adulthood); and11 individuals were at least 24 months (adulthood) when they
perished. However, immature animals with relatively thin cortical bone and low bone density are less likely to survive carnivore
and diagenetic attrition than the bones of mature animals.
Other taxa represented in the Late Neolithic assemblage,
although minimally, are Cervidae, Canidae, Gazella sp.,
Canis sp., Vulpes sp., and Equus sp. (table 4). Of note is a second phalanx from an Equus sp. The small size of this bonerelative to those of modern domestic horses in the modern reference skeletons suggests that it may be from the wild E. hemionus (onager) or the even smaller E. africanus (African wildass). The E. hemionus range extended to the Southern Levant,as this species has been found in Late Neolithic levels at ‘Ain
Ghazal.40 This bone was severely degraded by carnivore attrition. The proximal end had been heavily chewed in order toexpose the small marrow cavity, and the distal end had been
perforated by the canine tooth of a dog-sized carnivore. The
second phalanges of equids have marrow cavities so small thatthey are of low economic utility to humans41 but apparently
contain enough marrow to attract a carnivore’s attention.

Late Neolithic Small Finds
Late Neolithic small finds from the site include a small number of pierced ceramic disks that had been recycled from oldpots, including one that had combed decoration (fig. 8: 14-15).
These are similar in form to a small number of groundstonedisks. All of these may have been used as spindle whorls.42 A
single biconical spindle whorl was also recovered (fig. 8: 14). A
pierced bivalve shell (fig. 12), perhaps of one of the Cardiidae(cardium), likely represents jewelry or was sewn on clothing. It
was found on one of the Late Neolithic surfaces in Area P41.

Fig. 12 – Late Neolithic pierced bivalve shell from al-Basatîn.
40. DRIESCH (VON DEN) and WODTKE, 1997: 530-531.
41. OUTRAM and ROWLEY-CONWY, 1998: 841.
42. GIBBS, in press.

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

4/12/08 13:46:37

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

Late Neolithic Settlement in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan: al-Basatîn

AL-BASATÎN’S PLACE IN THE SETTLEMENTSYSTEM
A number of authors have attempted to identify site hierarchies as evidence for regional social integration as early as
Pre-Pottery Neolithic A.43 However, most arguments in favourof such identifications are based on variation in site size overmuch or all of the Southern Levant rather than evidence forinteractions among sites over a smaller region that might constitute the territory of a central place. Still others are based on
the presence of an unusual site that could be interpreted as aritual centre for some larger territory.44 In both cases, the argument for regional integration of settlements is weakened by theinability of these hypotheses, on the basis of present evidence,
to displace others that are arguably more plausible, such as
the hypothesis that PPN villages were logistically organized,45much like the base camps of the Early Natufian if sometimes
on a larger scale, with nothing more than temporary logistic
camps in lower tiers of the settlement “hierarchy”.
Meanwhile, excavations in other parts of the Southern
Levant have, as in Wadi Ziqlab, led to the discovery of Late
Neolithic sites whose material remains indicate occupations
by relatively small agro-pastoral groups. These include Dhra’,‘Ain Waida, Umm Meshrat, Nahal Zehora, Nahal Beset, andash-Sharaf.46 Although the scale and general nature of thesesites appear to fit the expectations of the hypothesis we propose
for Wadi Ziqlab’s Late Neolithic settlement system, it is still
unclear, for most of these sites, how they were related to othercontemporary settlements or what roles they had in regional
settlement systems.
By contrast, our research in and around Wadi Ziqlab has
the potential for identifying the relationships among closelyknit settlements that may have jointly formed a community.
Rather than view “community” as congruent with a single
archaeological site or settlement, we follow the view that communities are socially constituted through shared practices andthe interpretation of shared symbols. Communities are both
institutions that structure the practices of their members andcontinually emergent products of social interaction. A senseof shared identity emerges through interactions that occur in

43. BAR-YOSEF and BELFER-COHEN, 1991; KUIJT, 1994; ROLLEFSON,
1987. But see cautions by HOLE, 2000 and VERHOEVEN, 2006.
44. GORING-MORRIS, 2000; SCHMIDT, 2006.
45. BINFORD, 1982.
46. Ash-Sharaf (BIENERT and VIEWEGER, 1999 and 2000); Umm
Meshrat (CROPPER et al., 2003); Dhra’ (F INLAYSON et al., 2003); Nahal
Zehora (GOPHER and ORRELLE, 1991); Nahal Beset (GOPHER et al., 1992);‘Ain Waida (KUIJT and CHESSON, 2002).

123

a particular place, but this shared identity also fosters anddirects interaction.47 Typically, these are daily or at least frequent face-to-face interactions, so that they require physicalproximity, such as we would find within a single settlement.
However, frequent interactions are also possible, at least withthe closest neighbouring settlements, in a small regional network of social actors. We can expect the degree of interaction among the community’s constituent elements to have been
variable and often intermittent, and something to be tested,rather than assumed.
In this vein, our work investigates the hypothesis that Late
Neolithic sites in Wadi Ziqlab, and perhaps adjacent valleys,
constituted a dispersed community. To date, we have indeed
discovered a number of small Late Neolithic settlements andwhat are perhaps ephemeral camps, scattered up and down thewadi.48 If at least some of them were contemporary, there issome reason to believe that they would have interacted closelywith one another. First, all of these sites are too small to havebeen endogamous, so they would have depended on families
in other sites to provide potential marriage partners. Second,
it is plausible that the dispersed pattern of settlement was a
response to risks involved in the relatively novel agropastoral
economy.49 Third, their access to certain kinds of materials andproducts, such as basalt, obsidian, salt, and shell, would havebeen through intermediaries who would either have resided inother settlements of the community network or have passed
through such settlements.
Maintenance of these important links as well as negotiating actors’ positions in the network would likely have involvedsocial occasions, such as feasts or more ordinary meals, andrituals such as initiation rites, marriages and funerals. Sincematerial culture is implicated in such occasions, it can provide
clues to the scale of interactions.
Comparison of the assemblage from al-Basatîn with thoseof Tabaqat al-Bûma and other near-contemporary sites suggests that they all date to a few centuries in the mid- to latesixth millennium cal. BC, while the character of the sites andtheir distribution provides clues to the cultural landscape inthis part of Jordan at that time.
Excavations to date have not uncovered well-preserved
domestic architecture similar to that found at Tabaqat al-Bûma,suggesting that al-Basatîn’s occupation was of somewhat different character. While there is substantial evidence for thesame kinds of domestic activities as found at Tabaqat al-Bûma,47. YAEGER and CANUTO, 2000.
48. BANNING, 1996 and 2001
49. BANNING and SIGGERS, 1997.

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 123

4/12/08 13:46:38

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

S. K ADOWAKI et al.

124

including tool production, food preparation and consumption,
and waste disposal, the architectural investment in cobbled
surfaces rather than substantial houses and storage features
suggests that occupation may have been seasonal rather thanyear-round. The possibility that at least some of the cobbled
surfaces were the floors of tents50 is intriguing, but does notstrongly suggest any particular season of occupation. If thecobbling of tent floors was to counter damp or wet ground,
as in the digging of shallow channels around winter Bedouintents,51 this might be weak evidence for winter occupation, but
the floors could have had a different purpose. Yet it is also
possible that more typical houses occur elsewhere at the site;
for example, a similar cobbled platform occurs in combination
with more conventional Neolithic houses at Tabaqat al-Bûma
(LN5) while, at Sha‘ar Hagolan, similar platforms seem to be
the bases of silos.52
Small but important differences in the style and chaîne
opératoire of lithics and pottery between al-Basatîn andTabaqat al-Bûma indicate that the former was not simply atemporary camp occupied by the same social group found at
the latter. The groups that used the two sites had a broadly
similar lithic technology, emphasizing flake manufacture butwith a smaller blade component. However, there are also subtle
differences. For example, while they manufactured sickle elements with the same basic forms, they apparently employed
different production technology to accomplish this, with theflintknappers of al-Basatîn focusing more on blade blanks than
did those at Tabaqat al-Bûma.53
Similarly, although there are many similarities in form andfabric of pottery between the two sites, there are also distinct
differences in the selection of raw materials, decorative motifs
and other features. For example, pebble-impressed bases occur
at al-Basatîn, while they are not found at all at Tabaqat alBûma, where mat-impressed bases occur instead. Combing as
a surface treatment is common at al-Basatîn while it is comparatively rare at Tabaqat al-Bûma. Fiber temper occurs regularly
at al-Basatîn but is very rare at Tabaqat al-Bûma and al-‘Aqaba.
Some other fabric groups are fairly common at all the Wadi
Ziqlab sites that we have analysed, but they vary substantiallyin their proportions, even between the nearby sites of al-‘Aqaba
and Tabaqat al-Bûma. The similarities are strong enough to
50. Plastered floors without true walls at Byblos might also be the floorsof tents or tent-like structures, DUNAND, 1973: 14-15; see also CRIBB, 1991:
84-112.
51. BANNING and KÖHLER-ROLLEFSON, 1992; BANNING, 1993: 213.
52. BANNING et al., 1992: 53, 67; GARFINKEL and MILLER, 2002:
60-61.
53. BANNING et al., n.d.; K ADOWAKI, 2005 and 2007.

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 124

suggest shared conceptions of what the pottery should look
like, but the differences, especially technological ones, indicate that potters in different parts of Wadi Ziqlab made different choices in achieving similar vessel forms.
The Late Neolithic faunal assemblages of al-Basatîn andTabaqat al-Bûma, furthermore, have some elements that are
strikingly different despite their contemporaneity and geographical proximity. At the former site, 87% of the fauna arerepresented by the major domestic taxa while, at the latter site,
only 42% of the assemblage is composed of these domesticates, with the remainder defined by significant numbers ofdeer and dogs (table 5).54 This difference is mostly explainedby the overwhelming predominance of sheep and goat at alBasatîn. The focus on a few select domestic animals at alBasatîn reflects a subsistence regime almost exclusively reliant
on animal husbandry with wild animals such as gazelle andfox only marginally represented.
Table 5 – Comparison of the percentages of animal taxa from Late
Neolithic levels at al-Basatîn (NISP = 180) and Tabaqat al-Bûma(NISP = 573).
Sheep/goat (%) Pig (%) Cattle (%) Other (%)
al-Basatîn

68.3

13.3

5.6

12.8

Tabaqat al-Bûma

34.0

3.8

4.4

57.8

The proportion of pigs at these two sites also shows marked
contrast. The subsistence emphasis on pigs is often regarded
as a proxy for human mobility. High relative pig abundance isthought to reflect sedentary settlement because of the difficulty(though not impossibility) of engaging swine in a system of
pastoral nomadism.55 The aggressive disposition of pigs, combined with their propensity for crop and garden destruction,
often requires sties for their proper management. Pigs are in
greater proportion at al-Basatîn (13.3%) than at Tabaqat alBûma (3.8%). Though this distinction may have been driven
by local ecological differences, it also suggests that the inhabitants of al-Basatîn were sedentary. In combination with otherevidence for a wide range of domestic activities and consumption at the site, this would seem to contradict the architecturalevidence that occupation of the site could have been seasonal.
On the other hand, the high water requirements of even asmall number of pigs would have been met easily at al-Basatîn
because of its proximity to the perennial stream there.
54. BANNING et al., 1994: table 2.
55. F LANNERY, 1983: 183.

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

4/12/08 13:46:38

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

Late Neolithic Settlement in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan: al-Basatîn

A number of lines of evidence make it unlikely that thesimilarities and differences we observe among the sites are
simply a function of chronological difference. In a number ofcluster analyses, the LN3, LN4, and LN5 ceramic assemblages
from Tabaqat al-Bûma consistently cluster together, indicating only modest change over an occupation spread over several centuries. The assemblages from al-Basatîn and al-‘Aqaba
form their own distinct branches in the cluster analysis,56 while
radiocarbon evidence for their contemporaneity would lead
us to have expected similarity between al-Basatîn and LN4or LN5 at Tabaqat al-Bûma. The relatively long duration of
Tabaqat al-Bûma, furthermore, makes it rather likely that al‘Aqaba’s occupation should have overlapped with at least one of
the former’s phases, even though we lack radiocarbon evidence
to support this. Again, the similarities, in pottery especially,
from the three phases at Tabaqat al-Bûma suggests a stability
that would make it difficult to attribute al-‘Aqaba’s assemblage
to the same people, despite the sites’ proximity.
Overall, comparison of the sites for which we have reasonable samples suggests that the groups responsible for theassemblages participated in the same network of actors, andshared a number of concepts regarding what certain classesof material culture should be like. Thus sickles, axes, and pottery vessels, for example, had similar appearance and, to someextent, expressed characteristics also found at “Wadi Rabah”
sites farther west. Presumably the artifacts themselves wereactively implicated in the process of community formation andreformation, as residents of one site viewed the pots and toolsof other sites’ residents during visits, social occasions, andcommunal work parties. Yet the sometimes subtle differences
between them indicate that they made different decisions about
how to accomplish these forms and, indeed, which forms toemphasize. This could result in part from incongruity between
the social community and the technical communities in which
potters and knappers learned their crafts. Alternatively, it could
have arisen as producers and users of pots and tools actively
negotiated their positions in the community through material
culture, sometimes emphasizing links to communities farther
west, sometimes local practices or links in other directions.
Thus, community was a flexible and negotiable entity withrather fuzzy and mutable boundaries.

56. GIBBS, 2008.

125

CONCLUSIONS
Fieldwork at al-Basatîn builds on earlier work in Wadi
Ziqlab in helping to demonstrate the existence of an extensive
Late Neolithic settlement pattern, with several small sites,at least some of which appear to have been farmsteads. However, unless our excavations at this site have simply missed
substantial houses of the type discovered at Tabaqat al-Bûma,it would appear that the settlement system was more complex than we originally anticipated. In other words, it may
not have consisted simply of closely similar, peer farmsteads
and hamlets, possibly associated with one or two small villages. Instead, only some of the smaller sites were farmsteads
like Tabaqat al-Bûma. On current evidence, and lacking clear
indications of seasonality, it seems unlikely that al-Basatîn
was only seasonally occupied. Yet the possibility that itwas composed of relatively light structures, or even tents,
along with a variety of features and installations used in the
management of livestock or the extraction or processing ofagropastoral products suggests that it was a different sort ofsettlement.
Meanwhile, locality WZ 312, very close both to Tabaqat
al-Bûma and al-‘Aqaba, and perhaps some of the lithic scatters that we cannot assign to the Late Neolithic with certainty,
provide evidence for the use of places easily accessible frompermanent settlements, and thus “foraging camps” in Binford’s terminology,57 where knappers extracted lithic materialand carried out initial core preparation. At WZ 312, a highproportion of amorphous flake cores among lithics found in acolluvium probably represents material transported from flintextraction areas farther upslope.58
It is less certain whether Tell Rakan (WZ 120),59 quite
near al-Basatîn, participated in this settlement system, since
we have yet to identify an unambiguously contemporary occupation there. However, given the extremely limited extent of
our excavations at Tell Rakan and the clear presence of both
Yarmoukian and Chalcolithic deposits of considerable depth, itwould not be surprising if the site were continuously occupied
over at least part of its area throughout the sixth millennium
cal. BC. If so, it would be a likely candidate for the “central”
place for which, if it did not serve as a seasonal or logistic
camp, al-Basatîn may have been a relatively permanent, satellite settlement.
57. BINFORD, 1982.
58. BANNING, 1996: 37-38.
59. BANNING and NAJJAR, 2000.

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 125

4/12/08 13:46:40

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

S. K ADOWAKI et al.

126

Seiji KADOWAKI

We are not yet able to delineate clearly the circumstancesof settlement in Wadi Ziqlab in the sixth millennium cal. BC.
We suggest, however, that they took the form of a dispersed
community, not necessarily focused on a central site, in which
a variety of actors residing at various farmsteads, hamlets, andcampsites along the wadi actively negotiated their relationships, in part, through material culture. Through these relationships, they not only formed alliances that allowed themto pool labour, find marriage partners, reduce risk, or acquirevarious resources, but also forged their identities.

The University Museum
The University of Tokyo
7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo
Tokyo 113-0033
JAPANkadowaki@um.u-tokyo.ac.jp

Kevin GIBBS
Department of Anthropology, 19 Russell St.
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario – CANADA M5S 2S2
kevin.gibbs@utoronto.ca

Adam ALLENTUCKACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Department of Anthropology, 19 Russell St.
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario – CANADA M5S 2S2a.allentuck@utoronto.ca

We would like to thank A. Batainah, F.B. Ayseh, D. Campbell,
N. Goodale, M. Gregg, S. Karmi, S. Lynchehaune, J. MacKay,
L. Maher, I. Milhem, C. Parslow, D. Rahimi, S. Rhodes, A. Sumner,
A. ar-Raouf Tabishat, and I. Ullah for their help in fieldwork andother aspects of the research, Dr. F. al-Khraysheh, Director of the
Department of Antiquities, for supporting our efforts, and ‘A. Abu
Zeitoun and S. Ahmad for allowing us to excavate in their olive
groves and orchards. Preliminary analyses of faunal remains fromthe 2002 and 2004 field seasons were by S. Rhodes and D. Lipovitch.
Illustrations of pottery and lithics are by K. Gibbs, R. Stebelsky and
A. Sumner. We thank three anonymous reviewers for helping tostrengthen our paper, and gratefully acknowledge financial support
from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

Edward B. BANNING
Department of Anthropology, 19 Russell St.
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario – CANADA M5S 2S2
ted.banning@utoronto.ca

BIBLIOGRAPHY
A LLENTUCK A.
n.d.

Al-Basatîn Faunal Report, 2004 and 2006 seasons. Unpublished report on file, Wadi Ziqlab Project, University ofToronto, December 2007.

BANNING E.B.
1985

1993

1996

2001

2003

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 126

Pastoral and Agricultural Land Use in the Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan: An Archaeological and Ecological Survey. Unpublished
PhD. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Where the Wild Stones have been gathered aside: Pastoralist
Campsites in Wadi Ziqlâb, Jordan. Biblical Archaeologist 56,4:
212-221.
Highlands and Lowlands: Problems and Survey Frameworks for
Rural Archaeology in the Near East. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 301: 25-45.
Settlement and Economy in Wadi Ziqlab during the Late Neolithic. In: Jordan by the Millennia: 149-155. Amman: Departmentof Antiquities of Jordan (Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 7).
Housing Neolithic Farmers. Near Eastern Archaeology 66,1-2:
4-21.

2007

Wadi Rabah and Related Assemblages in the Southern Levant:Interpreting the Radiocarbon Evidence. Paléorient 33,1 :
77-101.

BANNING E.B. and KÖHLER-ROLLEFSON I.
1992

Ethnographic Lessons for the Pastoral Past: Camp Locations
and Material Remains near Beidha, Southern Jordan. In: BARYOSEF O. and K HAZANOV A. (eds), Pastoralism in the Levant:Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspective: 181204. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.

BANNING E.B. and NAJJAR M.
1999
2000

Excavations at Tell Rakan, a Neolithic Site in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan. Neo-Lithics 99: 1-3.
Tell Rakan, Wadi Ziqlab (with M. Najjar). In: EGAN V., BIKAI P.
and ZAMORA K. (eds), Archaeology in Jordan, American Journal of Archaeology 104,3: 571.

BANNING E.B. and SIGGERS J.
1997

Technological Strategies at a Late Neolithic Farmstead in
Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan. In: GEBEL H.G.K., ROLLEFSON G.O. andK AFAFI Z. (eds), Prehistory of Jordan II. Perspectives from

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

4/12/08 13:46:40

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

Late Neolithic Settlement in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan: al-Basatîn

1997: 319-331. Berlin: ex oriente (Studies in Early Near Eastern
Production, Subsistence and Environment 4).

127

BOESSNECK J., MULLER H.H. and T EICHERT M.
1964

BANNING E.B., GIBBS K. and K ADOWAKI S.
2002

2005

n.d.

Al-Basatîn. In: SAVAGE S.H., ZAMORA K. and K ELLER D.R.
(eds), Archaeology in Jordan, 2002 Season. American Journalof Archaeology 107,3: 454-456.
Excavations at Late Neolithic al-Basatîn in Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 49: 229-243.
Changes in Material Culture at Late Neolithic Tabaqat alBûma, in Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan. In: LOVELL J.L. and
ROWAN Y. (eds), Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic:
Theory and Transition. London: Council for British Research in
the Levant.

BANNING E.B., R AHIMI 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., GIBBS K., GREGG M., K ADOWAKI S. and MAHER L.
2004

Excavations at a Late Neolithic site in Wadi Ziqlab, Northern
Jordan. Antiquity 78,302: online project gallery.

BANNING E.B., DODS R.R., F IELD J., KUIJT I., MCCORRISTON J.,
SIGGERS J., TAANI H. and T RIGGS J.
1992

Tabaqat al-Bûma: 1990 excavations at a Kebaran and Late Neolithic site in Wâdî Ziqlâb. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 36: 43-69.

Osteologische Unterscheidungsmerkmale zwischen Schaf(Ovis aries Linné) und Ziege (Capra hircus Linné). KühnArchiv 78,1-2: 1-129.

BUCK C.E., CHRISTEN J.A. and JAMES G.N.
1999
CRIBB R.
1991

BCal: An on-line Bayesian Radiocarbon Calibration Tool. Internet Archaeology 7. http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue7/
Nomads in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press (New Studies in Archaeology).

CROPPER D., FOLEY C. and LINNAMAE U.
2003
Results from the Preliminary Investigations at Umm Meshrat I
and II. Neo-Lithics 1,03: 15-21.
DRIESCH A. VON DEN and WODTKE U.
1997
The Fauna of ‘Ain Ghazal, a Major PPNB and Early PN
Settlement in Central Jordan. In: GEBEL H.G.K., K AFAFI Z.
and ROLLEFSON G.O. (eds), The Prehistory of Jordan II:
Perspectives from 1997: 511-556. Berlin: ex oriente.
DUCOS P.
1968

L’origine des animaux domestiques en Palestine. Bordeaux :Institut de Préhistoire de l’Université de Bordeaux (Mémoire del’Institut de Préhistoire de l’Université de Bordeaux 6).

DUNAND M.
1973

Fouilles de Byblos 5. L’architecture, les tombes, le matériel
domestique, des origines à l’avènement urbain. Paris : Adrien
Maisonneuve (Études et documents d’archéologie 6).

BARKAI R. and GOPHER A.

F IELD J. and BANNING E.B.

1999

1998

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) site in
the Menashe Hills, Israel. Journal of the Israel PrehistoricSociety 29: 41-122.

BAR-YOSEF O. and BELFER-COHEN A.
1991

From Sedentary Hunter-Gatherers to Territorial Farmers in
the Levant. In: GREGG S.A. (ed.), Between Bands and States:
181-202. Carbondale, Illinois: Center for Archaeological
Investigations.

BIENERT H.D. and VIEWEGER D.
1999

2000

Archaeological Excavations at the Late Neolithic site of AshShalaf: A Preliminary Report on the 1998 season. Annual of the
Department of Antiquities of Jordan 43: 49-67.
Archaeological Excavations at the Late Neolithic site of AshShalaf in Northern Jordan: A Preliminary Report on the 1999
season. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 44:
109-118.

BINFORD L.R.
1982

1997

F INLAYSON B., KUIJT I., A RPIN T., CHESSON M., DENNINS S.,
GOODALE N., K ADOWAKI S., MAHER L., SMITH S., SCHURR M. and
MACK AY J.
2003

Changing Settlement at Tabaqat al-Bûma in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan: A Stratigraphic Analysis. In: GEBEL H.G.K., K AFAFI Z.
and ROLLEFSON G.O. (eds), The Prehistory of Jordan II. Perspectives from 1997: 345-360. Berlin: ex oriente (Studies in Early
Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 4).

Dhra’ Excavation Project, 2002 Interim Report. Levant 35:
1-38.

F LANNERY K.V.
1983
Early Pig Domestication in the Fertile Crescent: A Retrospective Look. In: YOUNG T.C., SMITH P.E.L. and MORTENSEN P.
(eds), The Hilly Flanks and Beyond: Essays on the Prehistoryof Southwestern Asia: 163-188. Chicago: The Oriental Instituteof the University of Chicago (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 36).
GARFINKEL Y.
1992

1999

The Archaeology of Place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 5-31.

BLACKHAM M.

Hillslope Processes and Archaeology in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan.
Geoarchaeology 13: 595-616.

The Pottery Assemblages of the Sha‘ar Hagolan and Rabah
Stages of Munhata (Israel). Paris : Association Paléorient(Cahiers du Centre de recherche français de Jérusalem 6).
Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant.
Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University(Qedem 39).

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:
129-166.

GARFINKEL Y. and MILLER M.A. (eds)2002

Sha’ar Hagolan 1: Neolithic Art in Context. Oxford: Oxbow Press.

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 127

4/12/08 13:46:40

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

S. K ADOWAKI et al.

128

1960

GIBBS K.
2008

in press

Understanding Pottery: Technology and Community in Late
Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab. Unpublished PhD. Toronto: Universityof Toronto.
Pierced Clay Disks and Late Neolithic Textile Production. Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Madrid.

GIBBS K., K ADOWAKI S. and BANNING E.B.
2006

The Late Neolithic at al-Basatîn in Wadi Ziqlab, Northern
Jordan. Antiquity 80,310: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/
gibbs/index.html

GOPHER A.
1989

The Flint Assemblages of Munhata: Final Report. Paris : Association Paléorient (Cahiers du Centre de recherche français deJérusalem 4).

GOPHER A. and GOPHNA R.
1993

Cultures of the eighth and seventh millennia BP in the Southern
Levant: A Review for the 1990s. Journal of World Prehistory 7:
297-353.

GOPHER A. and ORRELLE E.
1991

Preliminary Report on Excavations of Nahal Zehora II – Seasonsof 1990 and 1991. Journal of The Israel Prehistoric Society 24:
169-172.

GOPHER A., GOREN Y. and SADEH S.
1992

Pottery Assemblage of Nahal Beset I: A Neolithic Site in theupper Galilee. Israel Exploration Journal 42: 4-16.

GORING-MORRIS A.N.
2000

The Quick and the Dead: The Social Context of Aceramic
Neolithic Mortuary Practices as seen from Kfar Hahoresh. In:KUIJT I. (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social
Organization, Identity, and Differentiation: 103-136. New
York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

GRANT A.
1975

2007

1959

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 128

KUIJT 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.
LIPOVITCH D.R.
n.d.
Report on the Faunal Remains from WZ 135. Unpublishedreport on file at Wadi Ziqlab Project, University of Toronto,
February 2006.
LOVELL J.L., DOLLFUS G. and K AFAFI Z.
2004
The Middle Phases at Abu Hamid and the Wadi Rabah Horizon. In: AL-K HRAYSHEH F. (ed.), Studies in the History andArchaeology of Jordan VIII. Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on Society, Culture and Identity: 263-274.
Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan.
2007
The Ceramics of the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic: Abu
Hamid and the Burnished Tradition. Paléorient 33,1 : 51-76.
LOVELL J.L., K AFAFI Z. and DOLLFUS G.
1997
A Preliminary Note on the Ceramics from the Basal Levels
of Abu Hamid. In: GEBEL H.G.K., K AFAFI Z. and ROLLEFSON G.O. (eds), The Prehistory of Jordan II. Perspectives from1997: 345-356. Berlin: ex oriente (Studies in Early Near Eastern
Production, Subsistence and Environment 4).
MAHER L.
2006
Wadi Ziqlab. American Journal of Archaeology 110: 471-473.

Is size important? Function and Hierarchy in Neolithic Settlements. In: KUIJT I. (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation: 191209. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

OUTRAM A. and ROWLEY-CONWY P.
1998
Meat and Marrow Utility Indices for Horse (Equus). Journal ofArchaeological Science 25: 839-849.

Designs and Production Technology of Sickle Elements in
Late Neolithic Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan. Paléorient 31,2 :
69-85.
Changing Community Life at a Late Neolithic Farmstead:
Built Environments and the Use of Space at Tabaqat al-Bûma
in Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan. Unpublished PhD. Toronto:
University of Toronto, Department of Anthropology.

K APLAN J.
1958

Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Settlement Variability: Evidence forSociopolitical Developments in the Southern Levant. Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology 7,2: 165-192.

MAHER L. and BANNING E.B.
2001
Wadi Ziqlab Survey. American Journal of Archaeology 105:427-429.
2002
Geoarchaeological Survey and the Epipalaeolithic in Northern
Jordan. Antiquity 76,292: 313-314.

K ADOWAKI S.
2005

KUIJT I.
1994

Appendix B: The Use of Tooth Wear as a Guide to the Age ofDomestic Animals – A Brief Explanation. In: CUNLIFFE B.
(ed.), Excavations at Portchester Castle, vol. 1: Roman. London: Society of Antiquaries of London.

HOLE F.
2000

1969

The Relations of the Chalcolithic Pottery of Palestine to
Halafian Ware. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 159: 32-36.
‘Ein el Jarba, Chalcolithic Remains in the Plain of Esdraelon.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 194:
2-39.

Excavations at Wadi Rabah. Israel Exploration Journal 8: 149160.
The Neolithic Pottery of Palestine. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 156: 15-18.

PAYNE S.
1973

Kill-off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: The Mandibles from
Asvan Kale. Anatolian Studies 23: 281-303.

PRUMMEL W. and F RISCH H.J.
1986
A Guide for the Distinction of Species, Sex and Body Side inBones of Sheep and Goat. Journal of Archaeological Science 13:567-577.
R HODES S.
n.d.
Fauna from the 2002 Field Season at al-Basatîn. Unpublishedreport on file at Wadi Ziqlab Project, University of Toronto, 2003.
ROLLEFSON G.O.
1987

Local and Regional Relationships in the Levantine PPN period:‘Ain Ghazal as a Regional Center. In: HADIDI A. (ed.), Studies

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

4/12/08 13:46:40

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009

Late Neolithic Settlement in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan: al-Basatîn

in the History and Archaeology of Jordan: 29-32. Amman:
Department of Antiquities of Jordan.

129

SILVER I.A.
1969

ROLLEFSON G.O., SIMMONS A. and K AFAFI Z.
1992

Neolithic Cultures at ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Journal of Field
Archaeology 19: 443-470.

1997

VERHOEVEN M.
2006

ROSEN S.

The Ageing of Domestic Animals. In: BROTHWELL D.R. and
HIGGS E.S. (eds), Science in Archaeology, 2nd ed.: 283-302.
New York: Praeger.

Lithics after the Stone Age: A Handbook of Stone Tools from theLevant. Walnut Creek, London: Altamira Press.

Megasites in the Jordanian Pre-Pottery Neolithic B: Evidence for‘Proto-Urbanism’? In: BANNING E.B. and CHAZAN M. (eds),
Domesticating Space: Construction, Community, and Cosmology in the Late Prehistoric Near East: 75-80. Berlin: ex oriente.

ROSENBERG D., SHIMELMITZ R. and NATIV A.
2008

Basalt Bifacial Tool Production in the Southern Levant: A
Glance at the Quarry and Workshop Site of Giv’at Kipod, Israel.
Antiquity 82,316: 367-376.

A Classification System for Ground Stone Tools from the Prehistoric Levant. Paléorient 18,2 : 53-81.

YAEGER M.A. and CANUTO J.

SCHMIDT K.
2006

WRIGHT K.I.
1992

Sie bauten die ersten Tempel. Das rätselhafte Heiligtum derSteinzeitjäger. Die archäologische Endeckung am Göbekli
Tepe. München: C.H. Beck.

2000

Introducing an Archaeology of Communities. In: CANUTO M.A.
and YAEGER J. (eds), The Archaeology of Communities: A New
World Perspective: 1-15. London: Routledge.

Paléorient, vol. 34.1, p. 105-129 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2008

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 129

4/12/08 13:46:40

105-130-Kadowaki.indd 130

4/12/08 13:46:40

CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009 • CNRS EDITIONS 2009