DAILY PRACTICE AND THE ORGANIZATION OF SPACE AT THE …

To what extent do hunter- gatherers, for-agers, and farmers differentially create anduse space within settlements? If the social

creation of space among foragers and farmers wasdifferent, then how might these practices havebeen materialized, and how can researchers iden-tify changes in the pace and tempo of routine prac-tices through time? The answers to thesedeceptively simple questions are complex andevasive, and yet at the same time, critical in fur-thering our understanding of the human behav-ioral trajectory of emerging food production. Oneof the complications in addressing these ques-tions is that there is no single correct answer:rather, we need a contextualized understanding of hunter- gatherers, collectors, foragers, and agri-culturalists. In short, the answer is likely to belinked to issues of shifting mobility, and a muta-

ble and flexible use of space dependent upon spe-cific social and economic systems.

Exploring the Social Use of Space and the Forager- Farmer Transition

In the context of the prehistoric Near East, the path-ways to fully sedentary communities from rela-tively mobile foragers were multibranched withpeople living in conditions of reduced residentialmobility and then reverting back to more mobilelife ways (Belfer- Cohen and Bar- Yosef 2000;Henry 1991). The Epipaleolithic of the Near Eastis divided into a number of temporal and culturaldivisions (Table 1). Recent synthetic research (Bar- Yosef 2002; Byrd 2005; Henry 1989) has outlinedthe economic and cultural diversity within thesecultural periods. Multi- season occupation, or even

DAILY PRACTICE AND THE ORGANIZATION OF SPACE AT THEDAWN OF AGRICULTURE: A CASE STUDY FROM THE NEAR EAST

Ian Kuijt and Nathan Goodale

Drawing upon the lithic remains from the Late Natufian and Pre- Pottery Neolithic A occupations of ‘Iraq ed- Dubb, Jordan,we utilize a quantifiable statistical approach with Geographic Information Systems analysis to interpret shifting practicesthat influenced site structure. This study indicates that the highly mobile Late Natufian population who inhabited the sitehad fairly nondelineated use of space compared to a more delineated use of space during the Pre- Pottery Neolithic A. Itappears that intensified intra- community organization of space was a byproduct of decreased residential mobility. More-over, the emergence of more formal intra- community organization likely aided in the development of much more complexhuman societies that evolved several millennia after the onset of Holocene conditions.

Basándonos en los restos de industria lítica hallados en los niveles arqueológicos pertenecientes al Natufiense Reciente y alNeolítico Pre- cerámico A del yacimiento de ‘Iraq ed- Dubb, Jordania, utilizamos un método estadísticamente cuantificable conel análisis de Sistemas de Información Geográfica para poder entender e interpretar aquellos cambios en el comportamientohumano que afectaron la estructuración interna del asentamiento. Nuestro estudio demuestra como la población Natufienseque habitó el asentamiento, caracterizada por una alta movilidad, casi no disponía de un uso específico del espacio en com-paración con el mayor grado de organización del espacio interno del asentamiento durante el Neolítico Pre- cerámico A. Asípues, parece ser que esta mayor intensificación en la organización del espacio interno del asentamiento está directamenterelacionada con una disminución en la movilidad residencial de la población. Además, el surgimiento de esta organizacióninterna más formal de los asentamientos seguramente influyó en el posterior desarrollo de aquellas sociedades humanas,mucho más complejas, milenios después de la aparición de las condiciones específicas del Holoceno.

Ian Kuijt � Department of Anthropology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, ([email protected])Nathan B. Goodale � Department of Anthropology, Hamilton College, Clinton, NY 13323, ([email protected])

American Antiquity 74(3), 2009, pp. 403–422Copyright ©2009 by the Society for American Archaeology

403

AQ74(3) Kujit:Layout 1 7/10/09 1:10 PM Page 403

404 american antiquity [Vol. 74, no. 3, 2009

residing in a settlement for the majority of the year,first appeared in the late Epipaleolithic during theEarly Natufian tradition (14,500–12,800 cal B.P.) (Belfer- Cohen and Bar- Yosef 2000; Hardy- Smithand Edwards 2004; Lieberman 1993) but may havehad much earlier roots in Early Epipaleolithic (cf.the occupation at Ohallo II see Nadel et al. 1995,2006). While Early Natufian communities thrivedfor approximately 1,500 years, the degree of seden-tism declined for the following millennium duringthe Late Natufian. People eventually shifted togreater residential permanence during the EarlyNeolithic starting around c. 11,500 years ago (Belfer- Cohen and Bar- Yosef 2000; Grosman2003:572; Kuijt and Goring- Morris 2002; Twiss2007). Early Natufian societies are often characterized

as complex hunter- gatherers with the associatedcharacteristics of social organization and economicintensification (Bar- Yosef 2002; Belfer- Cohen and Bar- Yosef 2000; Goring- Morris and Belfer- Cohen1998). After the Early Natufian, Late Natufian pop-ulations appear to be more typical mobile hunter- gatherers with increased residential mobility (Bar- Yosef 1998:168, 2002:129–131; Goring- Morris and Belfer- Cohen 1998:80–82; Munro2004). Early Neolithic communities, and morespecifically, those of the Pre- Pottery Neolithic Aperiod, are broadly characterized as being complex forager- collectors, with elaborate chipped andground stone tool technology, and living in moreelaborate residential communities. While there is noquestion that these groups were engaged in variouslevels of wild plant manipulation, researchers gen-

erally agree that there is no systematic evidence forthe appearance of domesticated plants at this point.Discussion of the broad evolutionary shifts from

the Natufian to the early Neolithic has largely cen-tered on: (1) climatic change and the onset of coldand dry conditions of the Younger Dryas (e.g. Goring- Morris and Belfer- Cohen 1998), (2) thefragility of complex social frameworks (Belfer- Cohen and Bar- Yosef 2000:23–24) and, (3) popu-lation dynamics (Henry 1989). Beyond such broadevolutionary considerations, researchers havestarted to develop detailed understandings ofchanging practices of lithic technology within andbetween different stages of the forager- farmer tran-sition (e.g. Belfer- Cohen 1994; Belfer- Cohen and Goring- Morris 1996). There are, however, surpris-ingly few studies that have explored the degree ofspatial variation of lithic tools and technologywithin occupation phase, let alone between differ-ent phases of occupation of the same settlement. Inthis paper we argue that such studies can signifi-cantly contribute toward our understanding ofbroader, and largely unrecognized, patterns in gen-eral, and more specifically, help us identify signif-icant changes in the ways in which spaces wereused within settlements, practices were material-ized, and how settlements were structured throughhuman action.We believe that intra- site patterning, specifically

the spatial variability in cultural materials, can beused to track some of the shifts in intra- communityorganization. We identify two trends; first, anincreased formalization in the use of space throughtime, and second, the clear separation of the spa-

Table 1. Summary of Relevant Near Eastern Culture Historical Sequence*.

Period Cultural Horizon Calibrated Date Range

Middle Epipaleolithic Geometric Kebaran 18,000-14,500Late Epipaleolithic Early Natufian 14,500-12,800

Late Natufian 12,800-11,700Pre-Pottery Neolithic Pre-Pottery Neolithic A 11,700-10,500

Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B** 10,500-10,100Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B 10,100-9250Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B 9250-8700Pre-Pottery Neolithic C 8600-8250

*(Drawing on Bar-Yosef 2003; Byrd 2005; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 1997; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002; Munro2004).**The PPNB is traditionally subdivided into an Early, Middle, Late and Final PPNB. Debate exists as to the existence andpotential time span of an Early PPNB phase. It is not at all clear, however, if such a cultural-historical construct is supportedby archaeological data. While recognizing the historical precedent of the EPPNB phase, researchers have yet to demonstratethat practices within Early PPNB communities were significantly different from Middle PPNB communities.


tial organization of practices, such as the locationof flintknapping, refuse disposal, and where selectactivities occurred. These patterns reflect the vari-able pulses of changing settlement systems. At thebroadest level we argue that intra- community orga-nization during the Early and Late Natufian wasdifferent from those of early Neolithic communi-ties. To make this argument we draw upon data fromthe site of Iraq ed- Dubb, Jordan (Kuijt 2004; Kuijtand Goodale 2006). The site contains occupationsfrom the last hunter- gatherer/forager populations(Late Natufian) to some of the earliest relativelysedentary collector/agriculturalist communities (Pre- Pottery Neolithic A) in the Near East. Utiliz-ing the lithic remains from the Late Natufian and Pre- Pottery Neolithic A (or PPNA from here for-ward) occupations of ‘Iraq ed- Dubb, we worktoward a quantifiable statistical approach incorpo-rating Geographic Information Systems analysis.This enables us to document and better understandchanging systems of how people used space andthe variability accompanying these occupations.On this basis, we argue that the Late Natufian peo-ple were relatively mobile and had fairly nonde-lineated use of space compared to a more delineateduse of space during the PPNA. With corroboratingevidence from published literature on intra- community organization from Early Natufian andPPNA sites, we argue that intensified intra- community organization of space occurred hand inhand with decreased residential mobility. Whilethere is variation, it appears that the emergence ofa higher degree of formal intra- community orga-nization likely aided in the development of muchmore complex human societies that evolved sev-eral millennia after the onset of Holocene conditions.Even though mixing will have occurred between

stratigraphic layers, the use of well- established cul-tural historical understandings of lithic typology incombination with confirmatory and exploratorydata analysis statistical methods, allows us to sep-arate assemblages from the multicomponent sitewith a complex stratagraphic record. While thereare some technological similarities between thesetwo time periods, at the same time there are sev-eral distinct tool types for different period tool kitsthat make it possible to separate different occupa-tion periods (Belfer- Cohen 1994; Belfer- Cohenand Goring Morris 1996).

Archaeological Background

The Near Eastern archaeological record of the LateEpipaleolithic (14,500—11,700 cal B.P.) (Table 1)of the southern Levant is relatively well understoodbut highly complex. The changes we are concernedwith in this paper occurred in the geographic areaapproximately incorporating Mount Carmel, theGalilee, and the Jordan Valley, broadly known asthe “Natufian Homeland” or “core Natufian area” (Bar- Yosef 1998; Hardy Smith and Edwards2004:257; Valla 1998). According to Bar- Yosef(1998:68), Early Natufian tradition (14,500–12,800cal B.P.) hamlets in the “Homeland” are viewed asa “reaction to an abrupt environmental change thatnecessitated a shift of resource scheduling.” Thisgeneral improvement in climate, referred to as the Bölling- Alleröd interstadial (Baruch and Bottema1991), is an environmental shift to warmer and wet-ter conditions just before the end of the last glacialmaximum (Bar- Yosef 2002:106). With the onset ofthe Younger Dryas, a recognized global climaticepisode of cold and dry conditions (Kudrass et al.1991), Late Natufian (12,800–11,700 cal B.P.) peo-ples reverted to more mobile settlement systems,possibly as an adaptation to shrinking resourcepackages (Bar- Yosef 1998:168, 2002:129–131; Goring- Morris and Belfer- Cohen 1998:80–82).Evidence of stress among Late Natufian popula-tions (Bar- Yosef 1998; Belfer- Cohen et al.1991:421–422; Smith et al. 1984) and the subse-quent reversion in the Late Natufian to higher res-idential mobility and smaller group size (Bar- Yosef1998; Belfer- Cohen and Bar- Yosef 2000; Goring- Morris and Belfer- Cohen 1998), were likely sig-nificant contributions to how people adjusted theirsettlement strategy to cope with changing social andnatural environments. After the Younger Dryas, PPNA (11,700–10,500

cal B.P.) peoples established relatively sedentarycommunities in the southern Levant with anincreased reliance on plant foods (Bar- Yosef 1998;Byrd 2005; Kuijt and Goring- Morris 2002; Twiss2007). These communities, possibly under theinfluence of ideas from the northern Levant, werelater replaced with new larger villages that housedseveral hundred people during the Middle Pre- Pottery Neolithic B (MPPNB) (Gebel 2002; Rollef-son 1998, 2004). At the end of the PPNB, the largevillages of the Late PPNB collapse and people

Kujit & Goodale] DaiLy Practice anD tHe OrGaniZatiOn OF SPace 405


opted for a more mobile lifestyle focused on ani-mal husbandry characterized by ephemeral and/orreused PPNB architecture (Kuijt 2000; Rollefson1998:116).

‘Iraq ed- Dubb

‘Iraq ed- Dubb is located approximately 7 km north-west of Ajlun, Jordan. The cave of ‘Iraq ed- Dubbis one of several caves and rock shelters along alimestone escarpment 150 m above the extensivelyvegetated part of the Wadi el- Yabis (Figure 1). Thesite encompasses approximately 150 m2within the

cave and likely doubles this amount on the terraceat the mouth of the cave. Although natural andanthropogenic processes have mixed some of thecultural sediments, dating of intact deposits haveindicated that the upper deposits with structuresdate to the PPNA and the underlying deposits andthose extramural to the structures largely date tothe Late Natufian. The site was excavated for threefield seasons and in total recovered two oval stonestructures, multiple pit features, fire hearths, andburials (Figures 2 and 3) (see Kuijt 2004 for adetailed description of features and architectural


300 m

600 m

Med

iterr

anea

n Se

a

Nor

th

0 50 km

Study Area

0 m

900 m

0 m

Modern road

Hatoula

� � # % � $ * � � # * � # % � � * �

JerichoGilgal I

Netiv Hagdud

Nahal Oren

� # % � �

� � % � �*� �� % � �*� � � � � � $ � �

� % � � � #�

Modern road

� � � � * � � ) ) � # * � �

� � � * � � � � � # �Hayonim

Figure 1. Map of the study area and location of ‘Iraq ed-Dubb.

AQ74(3) Kujit:Layout 1 7/10/09 1:10 PM 06

elements). All of these artifacts were situated withinless than 1.5 m of vertical cultural fill and most ofthe excavation units were taken to bedrock. Eachstructure was 4 to 5 m in diameter and had mudplaster floors. Structure I was almost entirely exca-vated, and had multiple episodes of mud floor- plastering events and an internal fire hearth.Beneath Structure I were several Late Natufianadult and subadult burials. All of the burials lackedgrave goods and were placed in small hollowsbetween bedrock outcrops (Kuijt 2004). StructureII had large grinding and anvil stones inset into thefloor with a stone collar foundation and a central10 to 15 cm circular mud platform.The site of ‘Iraq ed- Dubb is one of only a few

sites in the Mediterranean Zone identified with bothLate Natufian and PPNA occupations containing well- dated sediments attributed to both periods(Kuijt 2004; Kuijt and Goodale 2006). Because theexcavations at ‘Iraq ed- Dubb provide a clear exam-ple of the transition from Late Natufian to PPNAadaptive strategies, this study addresses the role oflithic tools and use of space during this change insettlement systems. While illuminating the char-acteristics of both the Late Natufian and PPNAlithic assemblages, this study will set the lithic tech-nology into broader anthropological questions ofsettlement, intra- community organization, and res-idential mobility within the Late Natufian andPPNA occupations of ‘Iraq ed- Dubb.


al sample arenerG

elacS

GEL

aphic crrtigatrS

10

eaal sample arDNEG

tions oss secaphic cr

m2 htroN e IturtrucSea 1rA

'A

y Neolithic A upper sedimenerott-PerPwtu�an loe NatLa

e I and underturtrucS

tnec

60

80

100

tsy Neolithic A upper sedimentser sedimenwtslying sedimene I and under

C

on I

SkeletSkeleton I

on IISkelet

B

on II

C'

tu�an sedimene NatLa

B'

ea III sedimenA

ojecrPoinP

n= 47

creP

ic eometrGolithicrM

n=126

0

20

40

tstu�an sedimen

ea III sedimen

tile ojectoin

n= 47

HagdudtionruncaT

n= 134

C

ea 3rA

C'

ojecrPoinP

n= 6

ea III sedimenrA

tnecreP

ic eometrGolithicrM

n= 196

0

20

40

60

80

100

tile ojectoin

n= 6

HagdudtionruncaT

n= 2

tsea III sedimen

ockedrB

ortflaud PM

loorud FM

e IIturtrucSea 2rA

mor

loor

ea 2

y Neolithic A sedimenerott-PerP

e II sedimenturtrucS

tnecreP 40

60

80

100

tsy Neolithic A sedimen

tse II sedimen

ockedrB

e IIturtrucS

A

ojecrPoinP

n= 6

ic eometrGolithicrM

n=4

0

20

tile ojectoin

n= 6

HagdudtionruncaT

n=21

Figure 2. Site map of ‘Iraq ed-Dubb and density of temporally diagnostic tool types by area.


Analysis and Interpretation of the ‘Iraq ed- Dubb Chipped Stone Industry

During the excavation of ‘Iraq ed- Dubb, approxi-mately 50,000 lithic artifacts were recovered includ-ing high percentages of tools indicative of the LateNatufian and the PPNA (Table 2). The tool assem-blage is comprised of 1,102 artifacts, which are thefocus of this study. The datasets representing bothLate Natufian and PPNA loci (as defined in Table2) contain approximately the same number of toolsand tool types, suggesting that our patterns are notinfluenced by richness and/or diversity. Moreover,due to space limitations in this study we are onlyaddressing the spatial patterns and different activi-ties associated with stone tools. Future research willfocus on debitage analysis. Lithic artifacts wererecovered from 32 loci. As seen in Figure 4, Areas1 and 3 contained most of the lithic tools while Area2 contained far less. This pattern is in part due tothe depth of excavation where sediments werelargely left intact below the floor of Structure II/Area2, while Areas 1 and 3 were excavated to bedrock.Tool types include various nongeometric/geomet-ric microliths, El- Khiam and Salibiya projectilepoints, Hagdud truncations, scrapers, burins, per-forators, sickle blades, bifacial tools, variousretouched blades, bladelets, and flakes (see Kuijt andGoodale 2006 for a comprehensive description ofthe chipped stone from ‘Iraq ed- Dubb).

Normative typological analysis is the mainmethod used to document late Pleistocene and earlyHolocene Near Eastern lithic tool assemblages.Despite considerable field research there is on- going debate among archaeologists as to which tooltypes are characteristic of individual cultural- historical periods (see Belfer- Cohen 1994; Belfer- Cohen and Goring- Morris 1996; Finlayson et al.2003; Garfinkel 1996; Nadel 1997:133–134 foroverviews of the problem). The tool types that areimportant in this debate are microliths (both non-geometric and geometric forms), projectile points(both el- Khiam and Salibiya forms), truncations(both Hagdud and Gilgal forms, however, only Hag-dud truncations are present in the ‘Iraq ed- Dubbassemblage), and large, heavy utility biface picks,axes, and chisels (Figure 5). Researchers differ asto which tool types are, or are not, characteristic ofdifferent periods. In our analysis we have eliminatedspecific tools for analysis, and are not employingbifaces as a key to detecting PPNA assemblages.This is not to reduce their importance, but given thatonly three bifaces were found at the site (Table 2)they are not a major data set for analysis. We havenot included them in the chi- square analysis belowdue to the minimum sample size expectations of N> 5. However, because they are crucial to defininga PPNA lithic industry, they are utilized in the otherpattern recognition and exploratory statistical testsprovided later. Additionally, all of the bifaces were


Figure 3

Figure 3. Artist reconstruction of ‘Iraq ed-Dubb during the PPNA occupation. Illustration by Eric S. Carlson.


Kujit & Goodale] DaiLy Practice anD tHe OrGaniZatiOn OF SPace 409Table 2. Total Tools by Typological Category Ordered by *Locus used for the CA and by **Intuitive Group used for the DA.

Locus*

Intuitive**

Back1

Biface2

Burin3

Core4

Geo5

Non

6Notch7

Perf8

Proint9

Ret10

Scrap11

Sickle12

Trunc13

Extramural Area 3

001

Extra

00

00

80

00

60

00

0004

Extra

20

218

8054

41

616

61

4008

Extra

00

00

21

00

01

02

0013

Extra

00

02

611

00

01

00

0020

Extra

00

00

77

00

00

00

0025

Extra

10

28

6141

06

011

40

1032

Extra

10

14

87

01

11

20

0036

Extra

10

31

54

31

511

70

0038

Extra

00

00

20

00

00

00

0039

Extra

00

00

43

10

00

00

0042

Extra

00

01

62

10

21

00

0046

Extra

10

00

20

00

00

00

1Structure I Area 1

007

Upper Floor

50

01

1017

27

185

32

17014

Mixed Floor

10

17

2312

24

167

22

58016

Mixed Floor

00

03

54

00

30

11

21017

Mixed Floor

00

10

01

00

01

00

1021

Mixed Floor

00

00

00

00

00

10

0010

Lower Floor

00

02

106

10

02

10

5012

Sub Floor

30

00

00

02

00

00

3019

Sub Floor

00

23

2723

00

913

100

11023

Sub Floor

00

22

83

10

12

20

3029

Sub Floor

00

00

22

00

00

10

0033

Sub Floor

00

11

52

00

00

00

3037

Sub Floor

00

10

20

00

03

11

5Structure II Area 2

028

Fill

00

02

02

12

25

90

8030

Floor

02

02

27

30

623

48

13037

Sub Floor

00

12

20

11

16

11

5Total

163

1859

300

224

2328

78115

4920

163

1 Back = Backed Blades; 2Biface = Biface, Picks, Axes and Chisels; 3Burin = Burins; 4Core = All Cores; 5Geo = Geometric Microlithis; 6Non = Non-Geometric Microliths; 7Notch =

Notches and Denticulates; 8Perf = Perforators; 9Point = el-Khiam and Salibiya Points; 10 Scrap = Scrapers; 12 Sickle = Sickle Blade; 13 Trunc = Hagdud Truncations


found in association with PPNA sediments or thosethat were likely disturbed by the PPNA occupation.While it is generally accepted that Hagdud trunca-tions, and el- Khiam and Salibiya point types werenew inventions that are temporally restricted to thePPNA, researchers continue to debate if microlithswere continually manufactured from the Natufianfor 300–500 years into the Neolithic. Nonetheless,

it appears that microlithics at least drop signifi-cantly (Yartah 2002), if not completely (Garfinkel1996; Finlayson et al. 2003; Kuijt and Goodale2006) out of the PPNA lithic tool kit by the earlyPPNA and their presence is likely due to mixing.In other words, significant percentages ofmicrolithics should be indicative of Natufian com-ponents.


Figure 4. Geographic Information Systems plot of total tools across all areas of ‘Iraq ed-Dubb.

1 - 67 - 1 41 5 - 2 52 6 - 4 64 7 - 8 2

Total tool densityat 'Iraq ed-Dubb

0 0.5 1 m

Scale

LEGEND

North

Bedr

ock

Figure 4


Illustrating Two Disparate Occupations

In light of the debate on inter- assemblage vari-ability, it is necessary to address site scale variabilitythrough time before exploring how these data helpus understand the behavioral components that theposition of these artifacts may represent in the largerissue of the forager/farmer transition. To clarify theextent to which different tool types overlap, thenext section of the paper attempts to assign the lociaffiliated with each of the two occupations at ‘Iraq ed- Dubb. The 14C data shown in Figure 6 illustratea clear hiatus of ca. 550 years between the LateNatufian and PPNA occupations. To analyze thechronological separation of different diagnostictool types, we utilize both horizontal and verticalrelationships and consider the presence and/orabsence of certain tools types in different occupa-tional zones. To understand some of the detailed dimensions

of variability and how this fits with cultural- historical sequencing, we explore some of the spa-tial patterning of diagnostic artifacts. First, does thespatial occurrence of lithic tool types attributed tothe Late Natufian and the PPNA illustrate spatialpatterning horizontally across the site? Formally,the question is: can we elucidate differences withrespect to tool typologies that are expected to berestricted to either the Late Natufian or the PPNAon a horizontal scale? Figure 2, which depicts theoverall pattern in Area 2, illustrates that the inte-rior of Structure II exhibits a very high count of

truncations and very few geometric microliths. Thisfits well with the radiocarbon dating that assignsthis structure to the PPNA period (Kuijt 2004).Area 3 shows a very high percentage of geometricmicroliths indicative of a Late Natufian occupation.Area 1 contains a mixture of tool types associatedwith both periods. These initial results supportinterpretations that Areas 2 and 3 were discreteoccupations containing tools representative of aLate Natufian occupation in Area 3 and a PPNAoccupation in Area 2 (see Kuijt and Goodale 2006for a comprehensive analysis). Second, do the patterns in Structure I exhibit a

Late Natufian versus a PPNA signature on a verti-cal scale? As demonstrated in Figure 7, the sequenceof vertical deposition reveals that the lower strati-graphic levels (green) contain a high number of geo-metric microliths with some intrusive PPNA tools.The middle levels, most likely to have been mixedby the construction and rebuilding of Structure I(blue), are characterized by declining numbers ofgeometric microliths with increased numbers ofprojectile points and Hagdud truncations. In theupper levels (red), there is a decrease in microlithsand high quantities of PPNA tools. However, thereare still some microliths in the upper level. Webelieve the occurrence of the microliths are linkedto site formation processes where earlier tool formswere mixed during the construction of the laterPPNA structure floors. The fact that it is very evi-dent that some PPNA tools have changed in theirvertical position supports this view.


Geometric MicrolithLunate

el-Khiam Point

Hagdud Truncation

Late Natufian Pre-Pottery Neolithic ASalibiya

Point

Figure 5.

0 2 4 cm

Scale

Figure 5. Diagnostic tool typologies for the Late Natufian and PPNA.


Finally, can we determine if these spatial pat-terns are statistically significant? To demonstratethis we examined the stratigraphic layers utilizedin both the vertical and horizontal analysis by divid-ing them into Late Natufian (Area 3; green), mixed(Area 1; blue), and the PPNA (Area 2 and Area 1;red) as the independent variable and tool type (geo-metric microlith, projectile point, and Hagdud trun-cation) as the dependent variable. As demonstratedby chi- square analysis, these patterns are statisti-cally significant (�2 = 229; df = 4; p = <.0001; �R �C = .3053). While these results clarify the rela-tionship of certain tool types present in an overallpicture of the excavation area and indicate whatareas were likely utilized during the Late Natufianand the PPNA, they do not allow for further exam-ination of how lithic tool kits may help to identifycertain aspects of settlement organization such asthe existence of spatially delineated activity areas.To accomplish this we employ exploratory dataanalysis and confirmatory data analysis techniquesto extract patterns of tool variability in spatiallyrestricted areas at ‘Iraq ed- Dubb. The subsequentanalysis presented below demonstrates that we can

statistically define the tool kits of the Late Natu-fian and the PPNA to make interpretations on howthe site was structured differently through the tran-sition from the Late Natufian to PPNA.

Identifying Distinctive Tool Assemblages

To address spatial organization we utilizeexploratory data analysis (EDA) and correspon-dence analysis (CA) to detect overall patterns oflithic data and to evaluate evidence for a subdivi-sion of tools between each occupation. Second, weemploy a more confirmatory data analysis tech-nique, discriminate analysis (DA), to statisticallytest the results of the correspondence analysis andverify the patterns of the two cultural occupationsthat we can then interpret. The lithic data for this study were obtained

from 32 loci encompassing two structures and anextramural area from approximately 1.5 m of cul-tural sediments. The data used are representativeof all lithic tools (Table 2) found in associationwith all loci excavated during the 1989–1991 sea-sons. We did not analyze the materials recovered


9,592 +/-64 (AA-38140)

9,959 +/- 100 (OxA-17077)

11,145 +/-120 (GX-17077)

10,723 +/- 68 (AA-38279)

11,175 +/- 400 (GX-17398)

9,941 +/- 72 (AA-38145)

Adapted from Kuijt and Goodale 2006

Structure I Wood from fill deposits above mud floor 007 (AMS)

Structure IWood Charcoal within mud floor 007 (AMS)

Structure IPistacia and Amygalus sp. nut fragments below mud floor 007 (AMS)

Extramural AreaPistacia and Amygalus sp. nut fragments from burial stratigraphically below Structure 1 (AMS)

Structure IFill deposits under second floor 010

10,657+/-82 (AA38278)

10,785+/-285 (GX17399)

Structure IIWood charcoal from mud construction of inset limestone feature (AMS)

Structure IWood charcoal from below mud floor 007/010

Structure IIWood charcoal from above bedrock and below inset limestone feature

14000CalBP 12000CalBP 10000CalBP

Hiatus

Pre-Pottery Neolithic ALate Natufian

*All Dates conventional 14C unless noted (AMS) All dates calibrated with Ox Cal3

Occu

patio

nal

Figure 6

ood charcoal from below mud floor 007/010

om Kuijt and Goodale 2006

alBP 10000C

ood from fill deposits above mud floor 007 (AMS)

ood Charcoal within mud floor 007 (AMS)

ood charcoal from mud construction of inset limestone feature (AMS)

Amygalus sp. nut fragments below mud floor 007 (AMS)

Amygalus sp. nut fragments from burial stratigraphically below Structure 1 (AMS)

Fill deposits under second floor 010

ood charcoal from below mud floor 007/010

ood charcoal from above bedrock and below inset limestone feature

om Kuijt and Goodale 2006 Adapted fr

10000C

Structure I

Pre-Pottery Neolithic A

ood from fill deposits above Wmud floor 007 (AMS)

Structure Iood Charcoal within mud floor 007 (AMS)W

Structure IIood charcoal from mud construction W

of inset limestone feature (AMS)

Structure IPistacia and Amygalusfragments below mud floor 007 (AMS)

AreaExtramural Pistacia and Amygalusstratigraphically below Structure 1 (AMS)

Structure I

Structure IFill deposits under second floor 010

ood charcoal from below mud floor 007/010WWood charcoal from below mud floor 007/010

Structure IIood charcoal from above bedrock and W

below inset limestone feature

Pre-Pottery Neolithic A

tion

al ccu

pa

O

Hiatus

12000CalBP

Late Natufian

9,592 +/-64 (AA-38140)

9,959 +/- 100 (OxA-17077)

9,941 +/- 72 (AA-38145)

10,723 +/- 68 (AA-38279)

10,657+/-82 (AA38278)

12000CalBP

9,959 +/- 100 (OxA-17077)

9,941 +/- 72 (AA-38145)

10,723 +/- 68 (AA-38279)

10,657+/-82 (AA38278)

10,785+/-285 (GX17399)

1,145 +/-120 (GX-17077)

1,175 +/- 400 (GX-17398)

10,785+/-285 (GX17399)


1,145 +/-120 (GX-17077)1

1,175 +/- 400 (GX-17398)1

14000CalBP


Figure 6. Calibrated 14C data demonstrating a hiatus between the Late Natufian and PPNA occupations. Adapted fromKuijt and Goodale 2006.


from locus 000, representing approximately thetop 10–20 cm of each unit consisting of mixed pre-historic, Late Bronze Age, and modern occupa-tions. Four radiocarbon dates associated withlithic materials also facilitated the separation of

occupations at ‘Iraq ed- Dubb.

Correspondence Analysis

Correspondence analysis (CA) is an exploratorydata analysis technique designed to analyze sim-


10,785+/- 285 (GX-17399)

9,950+/-100(OaX-2567)

Plastering of multiple mud floors

Construction of stone walls

Fill deposits to level areas for floor

Phase I: Tool densityfor the Late Natu�anoccupation

Phase II: Tool density forLate Natu�an / PPNA transition and mixed zone

Phase III: Tool density for PPNA occupation of Structure I

B. Stratigraphic pro�le of Structure I and sub-structure deposits

0

20

40

60

80

Geometric Microliths

N = 66

ProjectilePointsN = 8

HagdudTruncations

N = 13

Perc

ent

Transitional/Mixed Zone Phase II

0

20

40

60

GeometricMicroliths

N = 30


HagdudTruncations

N = 77Pe

rcen

t

PPNA Phase III

0

20

40

60

Geometric Microliths

N = 10


HagdudTruncations

N = 62

Perc

ent

0 - 23 - 78 - 1 41 5 - 2 32 4 - 3 9

01 - 45 - 1 314 - 3536 - 44

0 - 12 - 67 - 1 011 - 1617 - 42

Tool density

Tool density

Tool density

10,657+/-82(AA-38278)

11,145+/-120 (GX-17077)

Late Natu�an Phase I

A. Planview of tool densities for the Late Natu�an, mixed, and PPNA sediments

PPNA

Mixed zone

Late Natu�an

LEGEND

Figure 7

Figure 7. Geographic Information Systems plot and densities of diagnostic tools on a vertical scale of Structure I.


ple two- way and multi- way tables containing somerelative measure of correspondence between casesand variables. CA is an analysis technique wheredata can be represented in a Euclidean coordinatesystem that is very similar to principal componentsanalysis (PCA) (Shennan 2001). Shennan(2001:308) notes that while PCA provides the foun-dations of to the CA technique, PCA is not suitedfor the analysis of data consisting of numericalcounts. Conversely, CA is specifically designed fordirect measurement data such as counts of lithic tool

types or ceramic sherds, which arguably is the mostcommon type of data in archaeology. CA providesa scatter plot in Euclidean distance illuminatingpatterns in numerical data that reflect relationshipsbetween cases and variables. CA was originallydeveloped in France and gained the appreciationof French archaeologists (Djindjian 1985), Scan-dinavian archaeologists (Madsen 1988), and laterof North American archaeologists focused on theSouthwest ceramics (Duff 1996). This analysis wasconducted with the raw data as it does not require


2

ed telineaDeasry AtivitcA

Dim

ensi

on 2

(16.

52%

)

1

10732+/-68

ANT 2ADRQU

elineaNon-Dry AtivitcA

et BladesR leSickticulaenches/DNot

ADRQU

ed telineaeasr

Bifacial

estticula

ANT 3ADR

Dim

ensi

on 2

(16.

52%

)

apercrS

inBur

eometrGNon

icseometrG

0

10732+/-68

ches/Daper

in

icseometr

ics

eorCortaorfforerP

tileojecrP

tionruncaT

ortile

9592+/-64

9959+/-100

-1

-1

10785+/-285

ANT 1ADRQU

etLatu�anNa

Backed Blade

0

Dimension 1 (32.43%)

QU

21

Dimension 1 (32.43%)

ANT 4ADRQU

PPNA

dinaoorC

ocusL

ypeool tTTool t

tu�anNa

aphic martigaor stre fe for stre sequenctdina

ype

TIME

LEGEND

e 9igurix in Ftraphic ma

Figure 8. Correspondence analysis with loci as the dependent variable and tool type as the independent variable.


the data within a variable to be normally distrib-uted to extract patterns of variability. The CA was run in the statistical program SAS

v. 8.0 with the data at the locus level presented inTable 2 (see Figure 8). Several interesting patternsemerge from this analysis. First, geometricmicroliths, nongeometric microliths, cores, burins,and scrapers exhibit negative loadings on Dimen-sion 1. Dimension 1 also provides positive load-ings on Hagdud truncations, projectile points,perforators, backed blades, retouched blades,notches and denticulates, sickle blades, and bifa-cial tools. We interpret Dimension 1 to reflect diff -erent periods of occupation, clearly dividing thediagnostic tool types associated with the Late Natu-fian period (geometric microliths and nongeomet-ric microliths), from those associated with PPNAperiod assemblages (projectile points and Hagdudtruncations).

Second, Dimension 2 is primarily responsiblefor the vertical distribution on the graph of the toolsand loci where those associated with the left quad-rants are tightly clustered with the juxtaposed dis-persed pattern on the right. Dimension 2 separatesLate Natufian loci that have negative loadings ongeometric microliths, nongeometric microliths, andcores in Quadrant 1 from those with positive load-ings on scrapers and burins in Quadrant 2. Dimen-sion 2 also separates PPNA loci having negativerelationships with projectiles, truncations, perfo-rators, and backed blades (Quadrant 3) from thosewith positive relationships including retouchedblades, notches and denticulates, sickle blades, andbifaces (Quadrant 4).As mentioned, this graph depicts a tight clus-

tering of what are likely Late Natufian period lociand tools compared to the PPNA period disperseddistribution. While this patterning can be inter-


D12/7 D12/3 D11/15 D11/7 D11/3 D10/14 D10/11 D10/7

000

001

Area 2 Area 3 Area 1

030

028

001

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

360

380

400

Dep

th (c

m)

001004

026

025032

003004 005007

008010

019022

029

A

300

320

340

360

380

400

South

D10/6 D10/7 D10/8 E10/5 Area 1Area 3

000

001

004

013

020

003005

007

019

029

010014021

023024

003

016

033

BWest

C10/15 C10/16 D10/13 D10/14Area 3

280

300

320

340

360

380

400

000

001

036

038 039042

046 026 004

026

032

025

CWest

000

Stratigraphic matrix of selected cross sections at 'Iraq ed-Dubb

Coordinate relationship to correspondence analysis

No Data or Data Eliminated Due to Modern Mixing (Locus 000)

025

B'East

C'East

A'North

Dep

th (c

m)

Dep

th (c

m)

001

10785+/-285

10732+/-68

9592+/-64

9959+/-100

Late Natufian assemblages

PPNA assemblages

LEGEND

Figure 9

Figure 9. Stratigraphic matrix of ‘Iraq ed-Dubb. Section lines A-A’, B-B’, and C-C’ follow those labeled on Figure 2.Color sequence is coded to Figure 8.


preted from multiple perspectives, one interpreta-tion is that Late Natufian and Pre- Pottery NeolithicA period groups organized and used space in verydifferent ways. In contrast to the more formal useof space during the Pre- Pottery Neolithic A period,the Late Natufian people did not restrict their activ-ities to specific spatial areas of the cave. Nearlyevery locus of the Late Natufian occupation showsthe occurrence of the entire range of typologicalvariability. In contrast, the loci affiliated with thePPNA are much more spread out with each locusmore likely to be different from the next suggest-ing formal activity areas where certain tasksoccurred. We suggest that this pattern reflects anintensified degree of PPNA period site organiza-tion and the formalization of specific activity areasassociated with decreased residential mobility.When we plot the CA results in vertical and

horizontal loci blocks from ‘Iraq ed- Dubb (Figure9), we see the relationship between loci and toolsthat are roughly comparable with the quadrant colorscheme in Figure 7. All of the areas contain sig-nificant correlation to the Late Natufian within theupper most layer (locus 001). PPNA people do notappear to have used the areas extramural to theirsemisubterranean structures. It is not clear why thisis the case; perhaps this is a function of shortnessof the occupation or that major activities occurredout front of the rockshlelter. The lower levels ofStructure II contain significant proportions ofretouched blades, sickle blades, notches and den-ticulates, and bifacial tools (Figure 9, A- A’ crosssection), which is consistent with the PPNA dateof 11,210–11,710 cal B.P. (p = .95) (Kuijt2004:295, AA-38145; wood charcoal �13C =–25.2‰). (Calibrated at 2� with the programOxCal 3.10 [Ramsey 1995, 2001].) Structure I con-tains significant proportions of tools associatedwith Quadrants 3 and 4 (Figure 7) in loci 003, 005,007, 014, 016, and 023 representing floors and fea-tures associated with the structure. Locus 010, thesecond floor in Structure I, is anomalous, with asignificant proportion of tools associated with theLate Natufian. Supported by the stratigraphicsequence of the rebuilding of Structure I, this anom-aly may be explained by the use of earlier depositscontaining Late Natufian tools to construct or levelthe PPNA floor of Structure I during the secondoccupation and/or rebuilding (represented as Locus007). The lower levels within Structure I, not actu-

ally associated with the structure, contain a signif-icant proportion of tools indicative of the Late Natu-fian. All of the extramural units have a significantnumber of tools associated with the Late Natufian,depicting the spatial constraint of the two occupa-tions.

Discriminant Analysis

In contrast to correspondence analysis, discrimi-nant function analysis (DA) presupposes the exis-tence of a given number of known groups and isconcerned with the allocation of cases that are col-lections of items to those groups to which theybelong most appropriately (Shennan 2001:350).Briefly, DA plots the case membership in rela-tionship to a centroid in a plot where the axes rep-resent the discriminant functions that characterizethe major dimensions of variation that differenti-ate groups allowing interpretation of the dimen-sions (e.g., temporal, spatial, or physical attributevariability) in a similar manner as CA (Shennan2001). To our knowledge, DA has been in use inarchaeology since the late 1970s (e.g. Bettinger1979). While this technique has not been appliedto Near Eastern prehistoric questions, the follow-ing discussion illustrates the utility of DA in con-firming the patterns presented by the CA.As DA assumes normality, each variable was

transformed with LOG10 to correct for the positiveskewness exhibited by each variable. Prior to tak-ing the LOG10, a small constant (.01) was added toeach value to avoid null values for the transforma-tion. As DA presupposes case membership to agroup, each locus was grouped intuitively into oneof the following classifications: Area 1: fill, firstfloor, second floor, or subfloor; Area 2: fill, floor,or subfloor; and Area 3. The analysis was run inSAS v.8.0 with the data provided in Table 2 by theintuitive groupings stated above. The maximumtwo discriminant functions were utilized explain-ing 71 percent of the variability. Both of the dis-criminant functions were statistically significant(�2 of Wilk’s lambda: p < .0001) as were the dif-ferences between all seven intuitive clusters as mea-sured by discriminant functions 1 and 2 (F- ratio ofcentroids: F < .0001 and F < .0015 respectively).The overall trend is highlighted by the DA is

most apparent when both functions are exploredsimultaneously. Both functions explain nearly thesame percentage of variability with 36 percent and



35 percent respectively. This confirms that the ovaltrend in Figure 9 is meaningful, which separatesthose loci affiliated with Area 3 and Area 1/ Struc-ture I subfloor in Quadrant 2 from the loci affili-ated with the PPNA occupation of Structures 1 and2 shown in Quadrants 1, 3, and 4. The pattern inQuadrants 1, 3, and 4 are very different from Quad-rant 2, indicating, again, as with the CA, that adiversity of discrete activity areas highlight PPNAoccupation while homogeneous activity areasbelong to the Late Natufian. In both the DA andCA analyses, geometric and nongeometricmicroliths were identified as contributing to cer-tain loci more consistently than others, while the

scattered distribution of the majority of the toolsappears to reflect the PPNA occupation.

Discussion

Our analysis and interpretation is complicated bythree factors. First, there are very few known Epi-paleolithic and Neolithic sites that bridge the LateNatufian/PPNA culture history periods (a very sig-nificant period linked to the forager- farmer transi-tion). Second, many Levantine Natufian andNeolithic sites were excavated before the intro-duction of systematic high- resolution dry sievingand flotation (Bar- Yosef 1998:166). In the excava-


-1 0 1 2 3

-1.2

-0.8

-0.4

0

0.4

0.8

Backed blade

Bifacial

BurinCore

Geometric microlith

Non-geometric

Notches/DenticulatePerforator

Projectile

Retouched Blade

Scraper

Sickle

Hagdud truncation

Area I �ll

Area I �rst �oor

Area I mixed �oorArea I second �oor

Area I sub �oor

Area II �ll

Area II �oor

Area II sub �oor

Area III

Function 1 (36%)

Func

tion

2 (3

5%)

Tool type

Locus / Area cluster

QUADRANT 1

QUADRANT 2 QUADRANT 3

QUADRANT 4

LEGEND

Figure 10

Figure 10. Discriminant analysis plot with area group as the dependent variable and tool type as the independent variable.


tion of Jericho, for example, no sieving wasemployed. Third, even when sieving was employedin excavations, subsequent analysis of Late Natu-fian and Neolithic sites are undermined by othercomplications. For example, there are a limitednumber of sites that have been excavated with ade-quate recording to conduct this type of analysis, andeven fewer that have been subsequently publishedin a manner that allows comparisons. Finally, andunquestionably the most challenging of these fac-tors, researchers have yet to identify the degree towhich human practices are, or not, systematicallypatterned within settlements. The analysis of the‘Iraq ed- Dubb materials provide an initial meansto explore the changing degree of intra- communityorganization and inter- community relationships(e.g., Bar- Yosef 2002; Belfer- Cohen and Bar- Yosef2000; Henry 1989). In concert with a detailed understanding of

changing diagnostic tools through time, the spatialpatterning of artifact deposition can help us under-stand aspects of community organization during the forager- farmer transition, highlighting shifts inbehavioral adaptations, and help us reconstruct theuse of delineated and nondelineated activity areas.Excavations at select Natufian sites illustrate aninteresting binary pattern of use: well- defined loca-tions, such as inside structures, and other areas thatare relatively homogenous (Hardy- Smith andEdwards 2004; Valla 1988). Hardy- Smith andEdwards (2004) argue that at the Early Natufian siteof Wadi Hammeh 27 (Edwards 1991) the inhabi-tants “had not tailored their indifferent householdsanitation practices to the long- term requirementsof sedentary living” (Hardy- Smith and Edwards2004:285). To substantiate their interpretation theynote that 82 percent of 423,858 flake stone artifactswere recovered from inside two structures with theremaining 18 percent recovered extramurally. Thestructures’ interior volumetric densities of flint arti-facts reach 4,669 m2. They argue that while therewere apparent activity areas, activities were “car-ried out against the generalized backdrop of every-day domestic duties, rather than in speciallyallocated areas or purpose- built buildings” (Hardy- Smith and Edwards 2004:277). They also suggestthat this pattern is seen at other sites occupied dur-ing the Early Natufian including Hayonim Cave (Bar- Yosef 1991; Belfer- Cohen 1988), the associ-ated Hayonim Terrace (Henry et al. 1981), and Ain

Mallaha (Valla 1988, 1991). While having a lowerdensity of artifacts and no permanent structures, thepattern from the Late Natufian occupation ‘Iraq ed- Dubb is strikingly similar to that Early Natu-fian occupation at Wadi Hammeh 27.Nadel (1998:8) argues that the spatial pattern

from Late Epipaleolithic settlements is relativelyhomogenous, and that nearly every archaeologicallocus contains the full gamut of typological vari-ability. With the Late Natufian occupation at ‘Iraq ed- Dubb, we see that everyday activities occurredin all areas of the site, and this has contributedtoward a material homogenization of the toolsrecovered from individual loci. As such, the LateNatufian occupation(s) at ‘Iraq- ed- Dubb appear tohave had similar intra- community spatial organi-zation, practices that resembled those of the pre-ceding Early and Middle Epipaleolithic periods.Some of this patterning may be related to theabsence of significant site furniture in the LateNatufian. Hardy- Smith and Edwards (2004:282)and Binford (1983:152–153) argue that under spe-cific conditions, different types of site furniture,such as fire hearths, are likely to produce drop zonesand spatial concentrations of materials. Echoingthese general observations, the evidence from “Iraq ed- Dubb illustrates how Late Natufian peoples”practices were characterized by comparably lessspatial segregation of activities, while PPNA pop-ulations appear to have carried out more formal-ized practices.A number of recent studies, including that of

Hodder and Cessford (2004), have drawn attentionto the increasingly structured use of space andrefuse management within large Neolithic villages.As one of the few available detailed studies, thisallows us to look at the end of what must have beena long- term trajectory starting in the Epipaleolithicperiods. At the moment, however, we have only alimited understanding of how and why the use ofspace shifted through the forager- farmer transition.Excavations at other PPNA sites provide hints ofthis transition. Further evidence for PPNA delin-eated activity areas and refuse management prac-tices comes from the recently excavated site ofDhra’, Jordan (Finlayson et al. 2003; Goodale etal. 2002; Kuijt 2001), and Wadi Faynan 16 (Fin-layson and Mithen 2007). At Dhra’, specific refusemiddens were found as well as overall smaller den-sities of lithic artifacts on cleaned floors and occu-



pation surfaces. Other excavations at PPNA sitesof Netiv Hagdud (Nadel 1997:126) and QermezDere (Watkins 1990) are inconclusive, but this maybe due to limited sampling and excavation of rela-tively shallow areas. At Netiv Hagdud, for exam-ple, the limited excavation, both vertically andhorizontally, has made it extremely difficult tophase individual loci, understand how these arechronologically related, and assess the taphonomicorigins of individual deposits. A more formal organization of space starting in

the PPNA may have provided social and organi-zational advantages by segregating more distinctareas of space in the community and tailoringeveryday tasks to the long- term requirements ofsedentism. While beyond the scope of this paper,we suggest that the adaptation of formalized intra- community organization during the early stages ofthe transition to agriculture served as a necessaryorganizational foundation for the development ofmore complex human societies. Despite the lim-ited study of this topic, preliminary considerations(e.g., Flannery 2002; Hodder and Cessford 2004;Twiss et al. 2008) of large agricultural villages inthe Pre- Pottery Neolithic B, illustrate a long- termtrajectory of continually intensifying communityorganization from Epipaleolithic foragers toNeolithic villagers.

Conclusions

In this paper, our analyses allow us to track the ori-gins of loci from two disparate occupations at ‘Iraq ed- Dubb. Based on this evidence we argue that toolkits can be identified for each occupation of the site,and demonstrate that the spatial patterns for eachoccupation are very different. The relatively non-delineated activity areas of the Late Natufian areconsistent with the assertion that they were a rela-tively mobile population. In contrast, the PPNAoccupation shows more intensive community orga-nization with designated activity areas even foreveryday domestic tasks. Finally, we suggest thatthe complete social and economic package thatfacilitated sedentism as a long- term viable strategywas only adopted with the emergence of later Pre- Pottery Neolithic period villages. In the Pre- PotteryNeolithic A period there is clear evidence for thedevelopment of early refuse management systemsand highly delineated activity areas. We suggest that

the development of formalized site organization, inconjunction with other ecological variations andhuman societal development, were both a byprod-uct of the transition to agriculture as well as facil-itating growth and organization of Neolithiccommunities. This analysis helps us understand some of the

broader aspects of the pathway to human seden-tism. While Natufian foragers /hunter- gathererslived in a world that shared some material aspectswith later Neolithic agriculturalists, including asubstantial ground stone industry and the con-struction of substantial residential buildings, spacewithin Late Natufian settlements was organized ina similar manner to preceding and other mobilesocieties. Subsequently, something quite different,in terms of the behavioral organization of space,began to happen in the early Neolithic with thedevelopment of more formalized uses of space. InTrevor Watkins words (1990:337), there mayindeed be the “change of view from the house as ashelter, the centre of certain everyday activities, tothe house as a home, the centre of the family,” andthe place where humans began to tailor their orga-nization to the long- term requirements of seden-tism.

Acknowledgments. Excavations at ‘Iraq ed- Dubb was sup-ported by the National Science Foundation, the SocialSciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, andHarvard University. Additional funding was from the Institutefor Scholarship in the Liberal Arts, the Dean of Art andLetters, University of Notre Dame, and the British Academy.The Department of Anthropology at Washington StateUniversity provided the Nicholas Michael ScoalesScholarship in Lithic Technology and the Edward MeyerGraduate Student Fellowship. Special thanks go to EricCarlson for his illustrations of the lithics presented in Figure4 and his artistic reconstruction of ‘Iraq ed- Dubb in Figure 3.This paper has benefited from discussions with and com-ments by William Andrefsky Jr., Meredith Chesson, AndrewDuff, Phillip Edwards, Bill Finlayson, Tim A. Kohler,William D. Lipe, Alissa Nauman, Stephen Plog, and Anna M.Prentiss. Thanks also to Emma Guerrero Vila for translatingour abstract into Spanish and Diane Curewitz who providedtechnical edits to the original submitted draft. We also extendour thanks to several anonymous reviewers whose commentsimmeasurably improved the clarity of our arguments. Whilenone of the above may agree with all of the concepts andinterpretations presented in this essay, the constructive criti-cism and advice of all of these people has immeasurablyimproved the clarity and organization of this essay. Anyerrors or flaws in logical thought are completely ours.



References Cited

Baruch, Uri, and Sytze Bottema1991 Palynological Evidence for Climatic Changes in theLevant ca. 17,000–9,000 B.P. In The Natufian Culture inthe Levant, edited by Ofer Bar- Yosef and François R. Valla,pp. 11–20. Archaeological Series 1, International Mono-graphs in Prehistory. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Bar- Yosef, Ofer1991 The Archaeology of the Natufian Layer at HayonimCave. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited by Ofer Bar- Yosef and François R. Valla, pp. 81–92. Archaeolog-ical Series 1, International Monographs in Prehistory. AnnArbor, Michigan.

1998 The Natufian Culture in the Levant, Threshold to theOrigins of Agriculture. Evolutionary Anthropology6:159–177.

2002 Natufian: A Complex Society of Foragers. In BeyondForaging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter- Gatherer settlement systems, edited by Junko Habu andBen Fitzhugh, pp. 91–149. Kluwer/ Plenum, New York.

Belfer- Cohen, Anna1988 The Natufian Settlement at Hayonim Cave: A Hunter- Gatherer Band, on the Threshold of Agriculture. Unpub-lished Ph.D. Thesis, The Institute of Archaeology, HebrewUniversity, Jerusalem.

1994 The Lithic Continuity in the Jordan Valley: Natufianinto the PPNA. In Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries ofthe Fertile Crescent. Studies in Early Near Eastern Pro-duction, Subsistence and the Environment I, edited by HansGeorg Gebel and Stefan Karol Kozlowski, pp. 91–100. Ex- Oriente, Berlin.

1995 Rethinking Social Stratification in the Natufian Cul-ture: The Evidence from Burials. In The Archaeology ofDeath in the Ancient Near East, edited by Stuart Camp-bell and Anthony Green, pp. 9–16. Oxbow Monograph 51,Oxford, United Kingdom.

Belfer- Cohen, Anna, and Ofer Bar- Yosef 2000 Early Sedentism in the Near East: A Bumpy Ride toVillage Life. In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities:Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, editedby Ian Kuijt, pp 19–37. Kluwer Academic / Plenum Pub-lishers, New York.

Belfer- Cohen, Anna, and Nigel Goring- Morris1996 The Late Epipaleolithic as a Precursor to the Neolithic:The Lithic Evidence. In Neolithic Chipped Stone Indus-tries of the Fertile Crescent, and their Contemporaries inAdjacent Regions. Studies in Early Near Eastern Produc-tion, Subsistence and the Environment 3, edited by StefanKarol Kozlowski and Han Georg Gebel, pp. 217–225. Ex- Oriente, Berlin.

Belfer- Cohen, A, L. A. Schepartz, and B. Arensburg1991 New Biological Data for the Natufian Populations inIsrael. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited byOfer Bar- Yosef and François R. Valla, pp. 411–424.Archaeological Series 1, International Monographs in Pre-history. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Bettinger, Robert L.1979 Multivariate Statistical Analysis of a Regional Subsistence- Settlement Model for Owens Valley. Ameri-can Antiquity 44:455–470.

Binford, Lewis R.1983 In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the ArchaeologicalRecord. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Byrd, Brian F.2005 Reassessing the Emergence of Village Life in the Near

East. Journal of Archaeological Research 13(3):231–290.Djindjian, François1985 Seriation and Toposeriation by CorrespondenceAnalysis. In P.A.C.T. II To Pattern the Past, edited by Alber-tus Voorrips and Susan H. Loving, pp. 119–135. Councilof Europe, Strasbourg, France.

Duff, Andrew I.1996 Ceramic Micro- Seriation: Types or Attributes? Amer-ican Antiquity 61:89–101.

Edwards, Phillip C.1991 Wadi Hammeh 27: An Early Natufian Site at Pella,Jordan. In The Natufian Culture in the Levant, edited byOfer Bar- Yosef and François R. Valla, pp. 123–148.Archaeological Series 1, International Monographs in Pre-history. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Finlayson, Bill, Ian Kuijt, Trina Arpin, Meredith Chesson,Samantha Dennis, Nathan Goodale, Seji Kadowaki, LisaMaher, Sam Smith, Mark Schurr, and Jode McKay

2003 Dhra’, Excavation Project, 2002 Interim Report. Lev-ant 35: 1–38.

Finlayson, Bill, and Steven Mithen2007 The Early Prehistory of Wadi Faynan, Southern Jor-dan: Excavations at the Pre- Pottery Neolithic A Site of WF16 and Archaeological Survey of Wadis Faynan, Ghuwayrand Al Bustan. Levant Supplementary Series 4, Wadi Fay-nan Series 1, CBRL and Oxbow, Oxford.

Flannery, Kent V.2002 The Origins of the Village Revisited: From Nuclearto Extended Households. American Antiquity67:417–433.

Garfinkel, Yosef1996 Critical Observations on the so- called Khiamian FlintIndustry. In Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fer-tile Crescent, and Their Contemporaries in AdjacentRegions., edited by Stefan Karol Kozlowski and Han GeorgGebel, pp. 15–21. Studies in Early near Eastern Produc-tion, Subsistence and Environment 3. Ex- Oriente, Berlin.

Gebel, Hans Georg K. 2002 The Neolithic of the Near East: An Essay on a “Poly-centric Evolution” and other Current Research Problems.In Material Culture and Mental Spheres, edited by A.Hausleiter, S. Kerner and B. Muller- Neuhof, pp 313–325.Alter Orient und Altes Testament, 293, Ugarit- Verlag.

Goodale Nathan B., Ian Kuijt, and Bill Finlayson2002 Results on the 2001 Excavation at Dhra’, Jordan:Chipped Stone Technology, Typology, and Intra- Assemblage Variability. Paléorient 28(1):125–140.

Goring- Morris, Nigel, and Anna Belfer- Cohen1998 The Articulation of Cultural Processes and Late Qua-ternary Environmental Changes in Cisjordan. Paléorient23(2):71–93.

Grosman, Leore2003 Preserving Cultural Traditions in a Period of Insta-bility: The Late Natufian of the Hilly Zone. Current Anthro-pology 44:571–580.

Hardy Smith, Tania, and Phillip C. Edwards 2004 The Garbage Crisis in Prehistory: Artefact DiscardPatterns at the Early Natufian Site of Wadi- Hammeh 27and the Origins of Household Refuse Disposal Strategies.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23:253–289.

Henry, Donald O.1989 From Foraging to Agriculture: The Levant at the Endof the Ice Age.University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadel-phia.

1991 Foraging, Sedentism, and Adaptive Vigor in the Natu-fian: Rethinking the Linkages. In Perspectives on the Past:Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean Hunter- Gatherer



Research, edited by Geoffrey A. Clark, pp. 353–370. Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Henry, Donald O., Arlette Leroi- Gourhan, and Simon Davis1981 The Excavation of Hayonim Terrace: An Examina-tion of Terminal Pleistocene Climatic and AdaptiveChanges. Journal of Archaeological Science 8:33–58.

Hodder, Ian, and Craig Cessford2004 Daily Practices and Social Memory at Çatalhöyük. Amer-

ican Antiquity 69:17–40.Kudrass, H. R., H. Erlenkeuser, R. Volbrecht, and W. Weiss1991 Global Nature of the Younger Dryas Cooling EventInferred from Oxygen Isotope Data from Sulu Sea Cores.Nature 349(6308):406–409.

Kuijt, Ian2000 People and Space in Early Agricultural Villages:Exploring Daily Lives, Community Size, and Architecturein the Late Pre- Pottery Neolithic. Journal of Anthropo-logical Archaeology 19, 75–102.

2001 Lithic Inter- assemblage Variability and Cultural- Historical Sequences: A consideration of the Pre- PotteryNeolithic A Occupation of Dhra’, Jordan. Paléorient27(1):107–125.

2004 The Pre- Pottery Neolithic A and Late Natufian Occu-pations at ‘Iraq ed- Dubb, Jordan. Journal of Field Archae-ology 29:291–308.

Kuijt, Ian, and Nathan B. Goodale2006 Chronological Frameworks and Disparate Technol-ogy: An Exploration of Chipped Stone Variability and theForager/Farmer Transition at ‘Iraq ed- Dubb, Jordan.Paléorient 32(1): 27–45.

Kuijt, Ian, and Nigel Goring- Morris2002 Foraging, Farming, and Social Complexity in the Pre- Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: A Review andSynthesis. Journal of World Prehistory 16:361–440.

Lieberman, Daniel E.1993 The Rise and Fall of Seasonal Mobility among Hunter- Gatherers: The Case of the Southern Levant. CurrentAnthropology 34:599–632.

Madsen, Torsten1988 Multivariate Statistics and Archaeology. In Multi-variate Archaeology: Numerical Approaches in Scandi-navian Archaeology, edited by Torsten Madsen, pp. 7–28.Aarhus University Press, Aarhus.

Munro, Natalie D. 2004 Zooarchaeological Measure of Hunting Pressure andOccupation Intensity in the Natufian. Current Anthropol-ogy 45 (supplement issue):S7–S33.

Nadel, Dani1997 The Chipped Stone Industry of Netiv Hagdud. AnEarly Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley Part I: TheArchaeology of Netiv Hagdud, edited by Ofer Bar- Yosefand Avi Gopher, pp. 71–149. American School of Prehis-toric Research Bulletin 43, Peabody Museum of Archae-ology and Ethnology Harvard University, Cambridge,Massachusetts.

1998 A Note on PPNA Intra- Site Tool Variability. Neo- Lithics 1(98):8–10.

Nadel, Dani, Israel Carmi, and Dror Segal 1995 Radiocarbon Dating of Ohalo II: Archaeological andMethodological Implications. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 22:811–822.

Nadel, Dani, Udi Grinberg, Elisabetta Boaretto, and Ella Werker2006 Wooden Objects from Ohalo II (23,000 cal BP), Jor-dan Valley, Israel. Journal of Human Evolution50:644–662.

Ramsey, Bronk C.

1995 Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy:The OxCal Program. Radiocarbon 37:425–430.

2001 Development of the Radiocarbon Program OxCal.Radiocarbon 43:355–363.

Rollefson, Gary O.1998 The Aceramic Neolithic of Jordan. In The PrehistoricArchaeology of Jordan, edited by Donald O. Henry, pp.102–126. Bar International Series 705. British Archaeo-logical Reports, Oxford.

2004 The Character of LPPNB Social Organization. InCen-tral settlements in Neolithic Jordan: Early Near EasternProduction, Subsistence, and Environment, edited by H.D.Bienert, H.G.K. Gebel, and R. Neef, pp. 5:145–155. ExOriente, Berlin.

Shennan, Stephen J.2001 Quantifying Archaeology. 2nd ed. Edinburgh Uni-versity Press, Edinburgh.

Smith, Patricia, Ofer Bar- Yosef, and Andrew Sillen1984 Archaeological and Skeletal Evidence for DietaryChange during the Late Pleistocene/ Early Holocene inLevant. In Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture,edited by Mark Nathan Cohen and George J. Armelagos,pp. 101–136. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

Twiss, Katheryn C. 2007 The Neolithic of the Southern Levant. EvolutionaryAnthropology 16(1):24–35.

Twiss, Katheryn, C., Amy Bogaard, Doru Bogdan, TristanCarter, Michael P. Charles, Shahina Farid, Nerissa Rus-sell, Mirjana Stevanovi_, E. Nurcan Yalman, and Lisa Yeo-mans

2008 Arson or Accident? The Burning of a Neolithic Houseat Çatalhöyük. Journal of Field Archaeology 33:41–57.

Valla, François R.1987 Chronologie absolue et chronologies relatives dans leNatoufien. In Chronologies in the Near East, Edited by O.Aurenche, J. Evin and F. Hours, pp. 276–294. BAR Inter-national Series 379. British Archaeological Reports,Oxford.

1988 Aspects du sol de labri 131 de Mallaha (Eynan).Paléorient 14(2):283–295.

1991 Les Natoufiens de Mallaha et l’espace. In The Natu-fian Culture in the Levant, edited by Ofer Bar- Yosef andFrançois R. Valla, pp. 111–122. Archaeological Series 1,International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michi-gan.

1998 The First Settled Societies – Natufian (12,500–10,200BP). In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land,edited by Thomas E. Levy, pp. 169–187. Leicester Uni-versity Press, London.

Watkins, Trevor1990 The Origins of House and Home? World Archaeol-ogy 21:336–347.

Yartah, T.2002 Emmanchement de points de fleches khiamiennes deSyria du nord. In Préhistoire et Approach Expérimentale.Editions Monique, edited by L. Bourguignon, I. Ortega andM. Frere- Sautot. Préhistoire 5 281–292.

Note

1. Researchers debate if the Natufian should be subdi-vided into two or three subphases. Traditionally, the Natufianhas been divided into the Early Natufian (ca. 15,000–13,500cal B.P.) and the Late Natufian (ca. 13,500–11,500 cal B.P.).Alternatively, Valla (1987) and Goring- Morris and Belfer-



Cohen (1998) argue that the Natufian period should be envi-sioned as consisting of the Early Natufian (ca. 15,000–13,500cal B.P.), the Late Natufian (ca. 13,500–12,700 cal B.P.) andthe Final Natufian (ca. 12,700–11,500 cal B.P.). In our view,there are merits to both arguments. For the purposes of thispaper we use the general label of Late Natufian, but would

like to stress that in using this label, we are not discounting aproposed revision of Natufian cultural- historical framework.

Received October 5, 2006; Revised May 30, 2008;Accepted August 20, 2008.

422 american antiquity [Vol. 74, no. 3, 2009]


DAILY PRACTICE AND THE ORGANIZATION OF SPACE AT THE …

Documents

Transcript of DAILY PRACTICE AND THE ORGANIZATION OF SPACE AT THE …