2012 abu hof burton and levy

CHALCOLITHIC SOCIAL ORGANIZATION RECONSIDERED 137

Chalcolithic Social Organization Reconsidered: Excavations at the Abu Hof Village,

Northern Negev, Israel

MARGIE M. BuRTON1

THOMAS E. LEVy2

1. San Diego Archaeological Center

2. university of California, San Diego

INTRODuCTIONA number of lines of material evidence, including settlement pattern, technological innovation and craft specialization, and burial customs have been used to advocate the emergence of complex societies during the Chalcolithic period in the northern Negev (Levy 1986, 1998a, for an opposing view see Gilead 1988, 1995). One of the keystones of the Chalcolithic ‘chiefdom’ model as put forth by Levy (1986) was the identification of a two-tiered settlement system along the Nahal Besor-Nahal Beersheva drainages (Levy and Alon 1987). using a Thiessen polygon analysis (Haggett 1971: 247; Renfrew 1973: 232) of the existing Chalcolithic survey and excavation data from the entire northern Negev region, Levy (1986: 99) suggested that larger sites such as Gilat, Grar, Shiqmim, Bir es-Safadi, and the Abu Hof village (all in the range of 10 hectares in size) may have functioned as centers of political, social, economic, and religious activities for smaller sites within their territorial spheres. Such an approach necessarily assumed site contemporaneity. However, differences in ceramic and other assemblages raised questions about chronological and cultural relationships among the northern Negev Chalcolithic sites, especially between sites on the Nahal Grar and those in the Beersheva valley (Burton 1998; Gilead 1994, 1995: 473-476, 479). Most recently, Gilead (2011: 16-20, Figure 2.3) has reviewed evidence from more assemblages and additional radiocarbon dates to make a case for a “Grar-Besor – Ghassulian” sub-culture that is definitively earlier than a “Beer Sheva – Ghassulian” sub-culture. Although some phasing seems likely, new dates from Shiqmim’s final occupation (Stratum I) in the Beersheva valley

Journal of The Israel Prehistoric Society 42 (2012), 137-192

137

MARGIE M. BuRTON AND THOMAS E. LEVy138

(Burton and Levy 2011: 179, Table 13.1) do not support the chronological gap between the two cultural entities depicted by Gilead (2011: 18, Figure 2.3) and Stratum II at Shiqmim, the site’s main building phase, is stratigraphically earlier than Stratum I (Burton and Levy 2001: 1236). Further, as pointed out by Roux et al. (2011: 114), assemblages different from each other may reflect co-existing distinct, yet interacting, socio-cultural groups. Relationships among the Chalcolithic northern Negev sites remain a topic for investigation.

In this paper, we report on excavations at the Abu Hof village, one of the two hypothetical Chalcolithic ‘territorial centers’ on the Nahal Tillah branch of the Nahal Grar. Typological and technological data from the Chalcolithic pottery assemblage (Burton 1998, 2004) is placed in chrono-cultural context with some other Chalcolithic sites with congruent pottery assemblages. Interpreted in light of published pottery seriation data and radiocarbon dates from the deeply-stratified Chalcolithic ‘type’ site of Teleilat Ghassul in the Jordan valley (Bourke et al. 2001; Bourke et al. 2004; Lovell 2001), the Abu Hof village ceramics offer evidence for evaluation of the time frame of Chalcolithic settlement on the Nahal Grar and the regional development of ceramic craft specialization. The results have important implications for overall population density and social complexity in the northern Negev during the late 5th-early 4th millennium. This research contributes not only to social archaeology studies of the southern Levantine Chalcolithic period (cf. Lovell and Rowan 2011), but also to an understanding of processes leading to the creation of social inequality in general (Flannery and Marcus 2012).

RESEARCH BACkGROuND, CHRONOLOGy, AND SOCIAL CONTExTInvestigation of Chalcolithic settlement in the northern Negev dates to the 1920’s with the discoveries of E. Macdonald (1932) along the wadi Ghazzeh (Hebrew=Nahal Besor) (Perrot 1962; Roshwalb 1981, 1987). Research accelerated significantly in the Beersheva valley in the 1950s with excavations at Bir es-Safadi, Abu Matar (Perrot 1955, 1984), and Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959; Rosen and Eldar 1993), and again in the late 1970s-1990s with survey and excavation at Shiqmim (Levy and Alon 1983; Levy 1987; Levy et al. in preparation) and its hamlet sites (Levy et al. 2006) and Gilat (Alon 1976, 1977; Alon and Levy 1989; Levy 2006; Levy and Alon 1993: 514-517). Until the 1980s, excavation and publication efforts were relatively less for Chalcolithic sites on the Nahal Grar to the north, though D. Alon (1961) surveyed about 30 sites along the Nahal Grar to the east of the main site of Grar and identified numerous cave sites near Kibbutz Lahav in the 1950s and early 1960s. Since that time, soundings by Alon and Levy (Alon 1988) exposed a Chalcolithic well at the Abu Hof village, on the northern bank of the Nahal Tillah, a branch of the Nahal Grar near Lahav, and Gilead (1995) carried out large-scale excavations at Grar and published a comprehensive report (see also kangas 1994 for some pottery data from Grar).


Although flint and pottery typologies clearly associated sites on the Nahal Grar with the Chalcolithic Ghassulian-Beersheva tradition (e.g., Gilead 1989, 1995: 473), their chronological placement within the broad Chalcolithic time frame of 4500 to 3600 BCE (Burton and Levy 2001) has been controversial. The absence of radiocarbon dates from Chalcolithic sites on the Nahal Grar has exacerbated the problem. Gilead (1994: 10-12, 1995: 479) argued that Grar could be earlier than, contemporary with, or even later than the Beersheva valley sites. Regardless of their relative chronological placement, he (Gilead 1995: 473-476) drew a cultural dichotomy, modeled as “two ‘tribes’”, between the Besor-Grar sites and the Beersheva valley sites based on stone versus mudbrick architecture (an untenable distinction since stone foundations are found in association with mudbrick superstructures at many of the relevant sites including the Abu Hof village reported here, contra Gilead 2011: 19), presence/absence of copper metallurgy and ivory carving, presence/absence of pig remains, and variances in flint and pottery type frequencies, especially the distinctive cornet vessel. The basic division between sites in the two wadi valleys (with some exceptions such as Gilat) has been supported by statistical clustering methods using vessel type frequencies (Burton and Levy 2011: 183, Figure 13.3). Recently, Gilead (2011: 19-20, Figure 2.3) has reiterated the distinctions between the “Grar-Besor—Ghassulian” and the “Beer Sheva—Ghassulian” “sub-cultures” and dates them to c. 4500-4300 and c. 4200-4000, respectively, based on averaged sets of 14C dates from Teleilat Ghassul, Abu Matar, Bir es-Safadi, Horvat Beter, and Tel Sheva. Gilead thus suggests a non-overlapping chronological shift in settlement pattern, rather than material culture differences between contemporary social groups occupying different wadi drainage systems.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SITE DESCRIPTIONThe site of the Abu Hof village, which extends over an area of c. 10 ha (Levy et al. 1997: 43), was discovered in 1980 by Salem ed-Touri while riding his donkey from the Wadi Kuch’la up the Nahal Tillah. The Nahal Tillah is a small secondary drainage that flows into the Nahal Grar from the foothills of the Judean mountains around Kibbutz Lahav. Set on the wadi’s northern bank, the Abu Hof village lies within the northeastern fringe of the semi-arid Irano-Turanian zone northern Negev desert (Figures 1-2). The locale is bordered by the moister Mediterranean zone southern Shephelah to the north and west and the Judean mountains to the east. Nearby Tell Halif, which rises to 490 meters above sea level, divides the drainage systems of the Nahal Grar flowing west into the Nahal Besor and the Mediterranean Sea, and the small wadis that flow east into the Yaval valley (Levy et al. 1997: 3, 2001: 411). The ecotonal environment with present-day average annual rainfall of 250 to 350 mm, adequate for dry farming, appears to be more favorable for human habitation than the dryer Beersheva valley some 15 km to the south (Alon and yekutieli 1995: 185). Conditions may have been


Fig. 1: Satellite image showing area of the Abu Hof village Chalcolithic site (dashed white outline) and 1996 excavations (white rectangle)

Fig. 2: View from the Abu Hof village site toward the southern bank of the Nahal Tillah and the re-forested area south of kibbutz Lahav


wetter in the past (for a review of palaeoenvironmental data for the area see Goldberg and Rosen 1987; Gilead 1995: 14-20; Rosen 2007).

Shortly after the discovery of the site, Alon and Levy (Alon 1988) conducted a small-scale excavation (Figure 3) that revealed evidence of an Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze Age presence and substantial Chalcolithic period architecture, including a ‘well’ similar to those described by Mallon et al. (1934: 39-40) at Teleilat Ghassul. Two rectilinear rooms were exposed with at least two floor levels and several pits. However, the limited excavation precluded an accurate interpretation of the purpose of the structures, their interrelationship, and the site stratigraphy.

In 1996, Levy and Alon, under the auspices of the university of California, San Diego, and the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology--Hebrew Union College (NGSBA-HUC), Jerusalem, conducted additional excavations at the Abu Hof village as part of the 1994-1996 Nahal Tillah Regional Project (Kansa and Levy 2002; Levy et al. 1997; Levy et al. 2001). The objective was to clarify the stratigraphy, architecture, and spatial organization of the site. Seven 5x5-meter squares (175 square meters) were opened to the west of the previously excavated area (Figure 3). Four occupation strata--Strata II, IIIA, IIIB, and

Fig. 3: The 1996 Abu Hof village excavations, looking south toward the wadi. The previously excavated well and rooms are visible at the upper left


IIIC--were defined as a result of the 1996 excavation (in addition to Stratum I, the topsoil layer consisting of packed silt, small limestone angular rocks, and mixed sherds and glass fragments attributable to the Chalcolithic, Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze I, Byzantine, and Ottoman periods).

The final occupation stage, after which the site served as agricultural land, is represented by Stratum II, identified as Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze I on the basis of recovered pottery sherds. Architecture related to this stratum consisted of four stone walls and a circular installation (Figure 4). The Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze I settlement was characterized as consisting of temporary, poorly-built houses, possible animal pens, and pits.

The Chalcolithic occupation was apparently longer-term with two well-defined building phases and possibly a third, detected below the Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze Age Stratum II. These three Chalcolithic levels have been distinguished on the basis of architectural stratigraphy and are designated as Stratum IIIA (Figure 5), the latest Chalcolithic occupation first identified by Levy and Alon in 1980; Stratum IIIB (Figure 6); and possibly an earlier occupation, Stratum IIIC, the original settlement phase represented by only two postholes dug into virgin soil (shown on the Stratum IIIB plan, Figure 6, Locus 583 and 584). It was not possible to determine on the basis of the stratigraphy and architecture whether there had been interruptions between the two main stages of Chalcolithic occupation (IIIA and IIIB) or what their duration may have been.

The dominant architectural feature in the Chalcolithic strata was a massive stone wall (Figures 5 and 6, Wall 18) that ran parallel to the wadi bed and was attached to the well that had been exposed during the 1980 excavation (Figure 3). The large wall consisted of at least four, and perhaps as many as six, courses of stones each about 0.1 cubic meter in volume, some of which may have been worked. This feature has been interpreted as a retaining wall that may have functioned to divert seasonal flood water. Wall 18 and the attached well (previously excavated, Figure 3) could not be attributed specifically to Stratum IIIA or IIIB and may have been used during both architectural phases. The distribution of alluvial silt and cobble deposits and the relative location of Stratum IIIA architecture suggested that the water system, consisting of the well and the attached wall (Figure 3), was built during the earlier Chalcolithic stage (IIIB), and that increasingly wet climatic conditions during the Chalcolithic occupation eventually resulted in the abandonment of the water system and a shifting of the settlement to the north.

A second long stone wall, also running parallel to the wadi, lay to the north of the first wall, and served as the southern boundary of the two rooms exposed by Alon and Levy in 1980 and two additional rooms excavated in 1996 (Figure 3; Figure 5, Wall 16). These structures are remains of the later Chalcolithic settlement represented by Stratum IIIA. One of the four rooms lacked clear wall limits along its north and east perimeters and may have been a large courtyard with a stone platform entrance through its western wall. This wall showed


Fig. 4: Abu Hof Village (1996) Stratum II


Fig. 5: Abu Hof Village (1996) Stratum IIIA


Fig. 6: Abu Hof Village (1996) Stratum IIIB. L. 583 and L. 584 are Stratum IIIC postholes


traces of rough white plaster. The courtyard floor, comprised of hard-packed silt and crushed limestone and indicated by a cupmark (Figure 5, Locus 582), had been built over the walls of the earlier Chalcolithic occupation, Stratum IIIB (Figure 6), and thus clearly distinguishes the two main phases of Chalcolithic settlement at the Abu Hof village.

Perhaps due to the later construction activities of the Stratum IIIA phase, only the foundations of a single, one-roomed building were found representing the earlier Stratum IIIB occupation (Figure 6, Room F). Walls on the east, north, and south sides of what appears to have been a typical Chalcolithic “wide room” or “broad house” (Mazar 1992: 65) were uncovered. There may have been benches built of stone lining the interior wall faces, but this is uncertain due to the poor state of preservation of the walls. An oval-shaped pit (Figure 6, Locus 579) about 0.6 m deep, probably used for storage as indicated by its contents of intact and partially restorable stone and ceramic artifacts, was found in the floor of packed silt and crushed limestone. A probe detected virgin soil approximately 0.2 m below the floor surface. Two postholes, possibly belonging to a third Chalcolithic Stratum IIIC preceding Stratum IIIB, were found dug into virgin soil about 0.2 m lower than the IIIB wall foundation (Figure 6, Locus 583 and 584). These features, which lacked associated artifacts, appear to represent the earliest occupation of the Abu Hof village.

CERAMIC ANALySISProcedures. All the rooms and ashy cultural deposits exposed at the Abu Hof village were sieved through c. 6 mm screens. All potsherds were bagged by locus, date, and basket number as they were collected. Initial processing of the ceramic finds from the July-August 1996 excavation was conducted by Burton in the field and at the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology at Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem, with the assistance of field school students. Baskets within loci were combined after preliminary examination unless pottery in a particular basket appeared to be distinctive. The locus assignment was rigorously controlled throughout all subsequent processing. After washing, diagnostic sherds (rims, bases, handles, shoulder sherds, and decorated sherds) were separated from body sherds. Further processing of the diagnostic sherds was carried out by Burton in the Levantine Archaeology Laboratory at the University of California, San Diego during 1997. The total Chalcolithic strata (IIIA-IIIB) diagnostic sample totaled 1059 sherds consisting of 587 rim sherds, 5 shoulder sherds, 385 base sherds, and 82 handle sherds. Of these, 763 were diagnostic of vessel form type. When data was migrated from several different computer systems, the weight information regarding the assemblage was lost.

Typology. Chalcolithic pottery from Israel/Palestine has been especially well-documented since the 1950s (e.g., de Contenson 1956). Amiran (1969) published the first comprehensive


synthesis of ancient pottery from Israel that includes a summary of Chalcolithic ‘Ghassulian’ and ‘Beersheva’ style pottery. Garfinkel (1999) provided an overview of Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic pottery from the area. Of particular importance to this study are the previous publication of Gilead’s and Goren’s (1995) pottery results from Grar on the Nahal Grar, Shiqmim pottery (the Shiqmim Phase I analysis, Levy and Menahem 1987); and Commenge-Pellerin’s (1987, 1990) reports, exemplary in their attention to technological detail, on the pottery of major Beersheva valley sites of Abu Matar, Zoumieli, and Bir es-Safadi. The publication of ceramics from Gilat (Commenge et al. 2006) documents the significantly greater typological and technological complexity of the pottery assemblage from that distinctive “sanctuary” site, the occupation of which may have chronologically overlapped that of the Abu Hof village (Levy and Burton 2006).

Like the pottery studies by Levy and Menahem (1987), and Gilead and Goren (1995), the Abu Hof village ceramic analysis proceeded from a relatively small number of Chalcolithic general vessel form types: bowls, basins, cornets, holemouth jars, necked jars, pithoi, churns, and pedestal vessels (see Figure 7 for a schematic of general vessel form types and their defining morphological characteristics). Such an approach is better suited to assemblages comprised mostly of sherds than are very detailed typologies with many subtypes (e.g., de Contenson 1956; Commenge-Pellerin 1987, 1990). This is because specifics of vessel profile and overall vessel size cannot be consistently and accurately discerned from small fragments. Furthermore, ethnographic studies (e.g., Miller 1985: 42; Roux 2003: 777) suggest that some of the minor variations in rim form that are the primary criteria for many archaeological subtypes are idiosyncratic of individual potters and functionally insignificant from an emic point of view. Use of general types also enhances the ability to make inter-site comparisons.

Some of the general vessel form terms, such as 'churn', may improperly connote a specific function which cannot be known a priori. Although function-neutral terms that simply describe the shape may be preferable (e.g., “vase fusiforme à goulot”, Commenge-Pellerin 1987: 44, 1990: 27), these tend to be cumbersome and difficult to introduce once nomenclature has been generally accepted. Therefore, such established terms have not been changed but should not be presumed to be reliable indicators of intended or actual vessel use.

Some difficulties in classifying sherds by vessel form type are encountered even within a generalized typology such as the one used here. These problems arise because some sherds that are not complete profiles may be of ambiguous form. For example, a rim sherd with a constricted neck but lacking a portion of the body may belong to either a necked jar or a churn; an open rim sherd without a portion of the base may belong to a bowl, a cornet, or a pedestal bowl. In practice, these issues are generally resolved by spatial association with other vessel parts that are definitive, such as churn body or handle fragments and pedestal or pointed base fragments, but the possibility of misclassification of individual sherds remains. The impact of potential classification errors on the results is discussed in greater detail within the affected general vessel form categories.


Fig. 7: Pottery Typology

All Form

s

Closed Form

sO

pen Forms

Pedestal Base

Pedestal Base

Flat Base

Pointed Base

Flat Base

Oblique w

alls

PedestalVessel

(Bow

l or‘chalice’)

Oblique w

allsu

pright thickw

alls, thickened

rim

Oblique w

allsN

o neckC

onstricted neck

perpendicularto body

Constricted

neck aligned w

ith body

Bow

lB

asinC

ornetH

olemouth

Jar/Pithos

Necked Jar/

PithosC

hurn

No neck

Pedestal Vessel

(‘Goblet’)


Another sherd classification problem presented by this and most other pottery typologies is the employment of some general form terms that introduce subjective size assessments into what should be, strictly-speaking, shape categories. An example of this problem is apparent in the distinction between bowl rims and basin rims which is mainly one of aperture diameter and wall and rim thickness when a complete profile is not available. A similar case in point is the pithos category, which is essentially a very large, thick-rimmed necked or holemouth jar. In this study, rim aperture diameters have been recorded for all rim sherds (equal to or exceeding 5% of the total circumference) so that objective metric parameters are placed on categories that otherwise may represent an implicit judgment, allowing the reader to re-evaluate the data as needed.

All other ceramic variables were recorded in association with the diagnostic sherds and their general vessel form types. Descriptive attributes included rim form, base form, and handle form, and decorative modes and motifs. Metric attributes included aperture or perimeter diameter and wall thickness. Trends in descriptive and metric attributes were examined within the general vessel form type categories and within rim form classes to identify vessel form type subcategories and size classes.

Ceramic technology. This study used evidence of technological choices as indirect correlates of ceramic craft specialization (Costin 1991: 32, Rice 1981). Attributes related to technological choice in raw materials/clay preparation and forming methods were systematically recorded.

(1) Raw materials/clay preparation. While inclusions occur naturally in most clay deposits, they can be manipulated by the potter and therefore represent a variable subject to technological choice. Different size ranges of non-plastic particles have functional relevance in terms of lending mechanical strength, but additionally must be appropriate to forming method. The size of non-plastic inclusions generally varies directly with vessel size and wall thickness. However, large (> c. 2 mm diameter) particles make wheel-throwing difficult (Rye 1981: 61). Inclusions in wheel-thrown thin-walled vessels are usually less than about 1 mm in diameter (Rye 1981: 80). When the clay raw material naturally contains very large inclusions, levigation is required for wheel-based pottery production. In such cases, inclusion size serves as a corroborative indicator of forming method (Rye 1981: 61) and further suggests a high degree of technological knowledge and attention to the production process typical of a specialized mode of manufacture. Thus sizes of inclusions present in pottery assemblages may be expected to reflect raw material options, technological knowledge and skills, and choices made by potters in the realms of vessel function, forming method, and production organization.

Pottery from northern Negev Chalcolithic sites including Shiqmim (1984-1987 Phase I assemblage, Goren and Gilead 1987) has been a subject of petrographic research, notably by


Goren (Gilead and Goren 1989; 1995: 187, 192-196; Goren 1988, 1995, 2006; Goren and Fabian 2002) since the 1980s. These studies have confirmed that, for nearly all the sites of this period and geographic regions that have been tested (with the exception of Gilat), the raw materials represented in the pottery were obtainable from local sources. For the Chalcolithic Beersheva valley and Nahal Grar sites, loess was used as clay and wadi sand served as a tempering agent. Wadi sand fractions occurred in both fine- and coarse-grain size categories. In this study of the Abu Hof village pottery, diagnostic sherds were assigned to one of three wadi sand particle size classes on the basis of visual inspection: fine (no inclusions exceeding 1 mm in diameter), medium (a mixture of fine and some coarse inclusions), and coarse (most inclusions greater than 1 mm and up to about 3 mm in diameter). Although this study did not include microscopic analysis of the ceramic fabrics, the macroscopically-determined inclusion type categories correspond well with the results of previous petrographic characterizations.

(2) Forming methods. Ethnographic and ceramic ethnoarchaeological studies have been especially helpful in discerning some of the links between choice of vessel forming methods, social motivations, and the organization of pottery production. For example, the likelihood that potters will adopt particular forming techniques has been shown to relate to a complex variety of factors including socially-embedded cognitive meanings and product conceptualizations (van der Leeuw 1994), skill levels (Costin 1991: 39-40), and the desired rate of product output (Costin 1991: 39; Rice 1984: 244; Zubrow 1992). As opposed to traditional hand-building methods of pinching, slab, and coiling, the wheel-throwing technique is commonly employed in modern and historic non-industrialized societies only where socio-economic conditions support the relatively long-term (c. 10 years, Roux 1989) apprenticeships necessary to acquire wheel-use skills and where the desired output level is of a supra-domestic scale (e.g., London and Sinclair 1991; Rye 1984). The high skill and product output levels that correlate with wheel-throwing are seen as consistent with a specialized production organization (Costin 1991: 39). Thus wheel-throwing is a forming method that serves as an important index of ceramic specialization. Such specialization further implies diversification and integration of socio-economic roles and relationships beyond the boundaries of the domestic socio-economic unit.

The elaboration of wheel-use during the Chalcolithic period in the southern Levant has been widely noted and generally associated with craft specialization and increasing social complexity (e.g., Levy 1986: 94, 1998: 232). Commenge-Pellerin (1987, 1990) has published systematic quantification of ceramic attributes associated with wheel-use and, specifically, wheel-throwing for Beersheva valley Chalcolithic sites. Roux and Courty (2005) and Roux et al. (2011) have conducted “techno-petrographic” studies of Chalcolithic ceramics (notably from Abu Hamid in the Jordan valley, Dollfus and Kafafi 1988, 1989, 1993) that classify pottery according to a hierarchy of technological, petrographic, and morpho-stylistic criteria


as a means of identifying the co-existence of interacting social groups. The Abu Hof village study sought to expand quantitative technological characterization of southern Levantine Chalcolithic pottery assemblages as an aid in reconstructing the organization of ceramic production and to explore intersite relationships. To this end, surface attributes related to vessel forming method were systematically observed and recorded for all general form types and rim form classes. For rim sherds and shoulder sherds, rilling, striations, and coil joins (see Courty and Roux 1995; Henrickson 1991; Rice 1987: 125-132, Rye 1981: 67-80 for discussions of the validity of these attributes as technological signifiers) were recorded as either present or absent. Striations were additionally noted as either horizontal and continuous in direction or irregular and discontinuous. In some cases, a rim sherd was deemed too small, worn, or concreted to attempt an observation and was therefore not included in quantitative analyses of forming method criteria.

Although flat base sherds are usually not diagnostic of general vessel form type, they do provide essential technological information regarding forming method (e.g., Rice 1987: 129, Rye 1981: 81; van As 1989). Especially in the case of wheel-throwing, the presence of rilling or continuous horizontal striations on rim sherds alone is not adequate to confirm the forming method for the vessel as a whole. Vessels may be manufactured as separate components that are later joined, or a coil-made vessel may be later smoothed during rotation on a wheel or tournette giving the false appearance of having been thrown. Base sherds with string-cut marks and/or continuous spiral rilling on their interior surfaces, on the other hand, provide unequivocal evidence that a vessel body has been formed by wheel-throwing. Therefore, in this study base sherds were also examined for surface attributes that correspond to forming method, including interior rilling, coil ridges, string-cut marks, grit drag marks, layering, mat impressions, and other bottom surface impressions following Commenge-Pellerin's (1987, 1990) analysis of bases at Abu Matar, Zoumieli, and Bir es-Safadi. Base manufacture technique was associated with general vessel form types mainly through the analysis of diameter data, but also by examination of some complete profiles and the few complete and reconstructed vessels. Such inferences are possible because particular forming methods tend to be consistent within vessel shape and size classes (Henrickson 1991). The attention devoted to quantification of base sherd technological attributes is considerably greater in this study than in most pottery assemblage reports for southern Levantine sites of this time period.

Quantification. Quantification of vessel type proportions for purposes of intra- and inter-site comparison was an important objective of this study. All methods of archaeological assemblage quantification are subject to various biases and practical considerations (Orton et al. 1993: 166-173). For example, sherd count data is biased by different breakage rates for different vessel sizes and types. Minimum number of vessel estimates (MNV or MNI) mitigate this source of error to some extent, but introduce greater subjectivity in the process of


grouping individual sherds into single vessels and in the definition and choice of the analytical unit (e.g., locus, basket) within which the grouping is conducted. Site formation processes may result in fragments of a single pot spread across several different areas and contexts of a site. In reality the exercise makes the most sense within a behaviorally meaningful spatial unit, such as a house floor.

When quantitative detail has been published for pre- and protohistoric southern Levantine site assemblages it has most often been presented as sherd counts. Therefore, for comparative purposes, the Abu Hof village assemblage data are provided in this paper as diagnostic sherd counts (Table 1). MNI were evaluated by locus (Burton 1998); total assemblage MNI percentages are noted parenthetically in the text. The general vessel form types are described below along with their associated technological and decorative attributes, relative frequencies, and size ranges. Evidence of intra-site chronological change and implied trends in socio-economic organization at the Abu Hof village are then discussed. Finally, the Abu Hof village results are compared to some other southern Levantine Chalcolithic ceramic assemblages.

Table 1: Abu Hof Village (1996) Vessel Type Frequencies by Stratum* (based on diagnostic sherd counts)

Stratum IIIA Stratum IIIA/IIIB Stratum IIIB TotalVessel Type N=407 N=193 N=163 N=763Bowls 56.0 49.7 44.8 52.1Cornets 19.2 21.2 28.8 21.7Basins 2.9 3.6 4.9 3.5Holemouth Jars 12.3 14.0 12.9 12.8Necked Jars 7.6 9.9 6.8 8.0Churns 0.7 1.6 1.8 1.2Pedestal vessels 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2Other/Not discernible 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5Total 100 100 100 100%

* Stratum IIIA and IIIB are significantly different at the 90% confidence level (Chi square=9.165, p=0.0571)

CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE RESuLTS AND DISCuSSIONDescription of forms. The general morphological vessel types identified in the Abu Hof village 1996 Chalcolithic strata assemblage are bowls, cornets, basins, holemouth jars, necked jars, churns, and pedestal vessels. Approximately 0.5% of the collection was of “other” or non-discernible form. The major categories are described below, along with their identifiable morphological and dimensional subtypes. In some cases likely vessel use is inferred based on


morphology, capacity, and absorbed organic residues. Diagnostic sherd counts and relative frequencies of the major form types by stratum are shown in Table 1.

Bowls (Figure 8). As is typical of most northern Negev Chalcolithic pottery assemblages, bowls are the most common vessel type at the Abu Hof village. Bowl rim sherds comprised about half the total diagnostic sherd assemblage (52.1%; MNI 42.3%). Two subcategories of bowls may be recognized based on observations of general morphology and on the multimodal distribution of bowl rim diameters as shown in the histogram (Figure 9).

Small bowls, commonly called ‘V-shaped’ bowls and known from every Chalcolithic site in the southern Levant (Gilead and Goren 1995: 143), have pointed rims and obliquely flaring walls that taper to small, flat bases (Figure 8: 1-4). The walls are thin, generally 5 mm in thickness or less measured 1 cm below the top of the rim. The rim diameters of V-shaped bowls ranged from 7 to 20 cm with a mean of 13.5 cm and an estimated modal volume of 0.5 liters (Burton 2004: 529, Table 8.3). This is consistent with small bowl dimensions reported for Abu Matar (“bols”: 10 to 15 cm; “petite jattes”: 16 to 20 cm, Commenge-Pellerin 1987: 37) and Bir es-Safadi (“bols”: 10.2 to 14.7 cm; “petite jattes”: 15.2 to 20 cm, Commenge-Pellerin 1990: 17). The aperture range for the small bowl category at Gilat was 9-12.5 cm (Commenge et al. 2006: 414). At Shiqmim (Levy and Menahem 1987: 315; Burton 2004: 187) small bowls were reported to average 10 to 15 cm in diameter. Gilead and Goren (1995: 143; kangas 1994: 76, Graph 3, 231) recorded a peak in bowl rim diameters at Grar between 15 and 20 cm, with a low end of the range at 10 cm. It is possible that some of the Abu Hof village cornet rim sherds, which are difficult to distinguish from small bowl rims, were classified as small bowls; this may account in part for the lower end of the range (7 to 10 cm) observed at the Abu Hof village compared to the other sites. Common decoration of pointed rim V-shaped bowls consisted of a red painted band of variable width around the rim of the vessel. Ninety-five percent of V-shaped bowl rim sherds had red-painted rims. Usually the rim band was visible on both the interior and exterior wall surfaces (85%) but sometimes only on the exterior (10%). The red paint could have been worn off during vessel use and deposition so that these variations cannot be assumed to represent different design motifs.

Large bowls at the Abu Hof village were similar in shape to the small bowls, but have thicker walls (generally thicker than 5 mm measured 1 cm below the rim) (Figure 8: 5-7). Rim diameters for large bowls ranged from 14 to 44 cm with a mean of 22 cm (cf. kangas 1994: 76) and estimated modal volume of 1.5 liters (Burton 2004: 529, Table 8.3). Large bowls show a low level of dimorphism in rim shape. While most (85%) have pointed rims like the V-shaped bowls, some (15%) have flattened rims. The most common decoration on large bowls is the same as for small bowls--red painted rims. Ninety-four percent of large bowl rim sherds had red rims. Five percent of large bowl rim sherds had no decoration. Three (1%) of the large bowl rim sherds had wavy thumbed rims, and one of these also had


Fig. 8: Abu Hof Village (1996) Strata IIIA-IIIB Bowls


Item # Year/Locus/Basket/Stratum

Description Inclusions Color*

1 1996/L.579/B.AllIIIB

V-shaped bowl profile, thrown, with interior and exterior rilling and red painted rim band

Medium wadi sand

Pink matrix

2 1996/L.549/B.AllIIIA/IIIB

V-shaped bowl rim, thrown, with interior and exterior rilling and red painted rim band

Medium wadi sand

Light reddish brown matrix

3 1996/L.549/B.90IIIA/IIIB

V-shaped bowl profile, thrown, with interior and exterior rilling and red painted rim band. Red paint “splotch” on bottom of base.

Coarse wadi sand


4 1996/L.579/B.218IIIB

Complete V-shaped bowl. Molded?

Limestone Pink matrix

5 1996/L.525/B.AllIIIA

Bowl profile, lower portion, with exterior rilling beginning c. 5cm from the base. Red paint “splotch” on exterior wall.

Coarse wadi sand


6 1996/L.521/B.AllII/IIIA

Bowl rim, flattened and thumb-impressed, with red painted rim band and red paint “drips”

Coarse wadi sand



Bowl profile with red painted rim band

Fine wadi sand Light reddish brown matrix

* Color descriptions based on Munsell Soil Color Chart (1994 edition) Hue 5yR

Fig. 9: Abu Hof Village (1996) Stratum IIIA-IIIB bowl rim diameters (n=220)


a red rim band (Figure 8: 6). The “large V-shaped bowl” category at Gilat is reported as including three size classes with opening diameters spanning from 15.3-24.8 cm (Commenge et al. 2006: 414). A ‘large bowl’ category is posited for Grar (Gilead and Goren 1995: 143) with a rim diameter mode between 30 and 35 cm (but see kangas 1994: Graph 3, 231 who places the Grar ‘large bowl’ category at c. 22 cm rim diameter), and for Shiqmim (Levy and Menahem 1987: 315) with an average aperture of about 30 cm (c. 25 cm according to Burton 2004: 189). There is only a small peak in the rim diameter histogram for the Abu Hof village around this point.

A few hemispherical bowls were present in the Abu Hof village assemblage. These are small bowls that have rims turned in toward the center of the vessel. Eight rim sherds identified as belonging to hemispherical bowls were found in the Chalcolithic levels of the Abu Hof village, all of which had red painted rim bands. One complete profile of a hemispherical bowl from Locus 549 had soot marks on the interior and extending over the rim (rim diameter 12 cm), suggesting that it may have been used as a lamp with a wick.

Rilling was commonly noted on bowl rim sherds, especially those of small aperture diameter, and is taken to be the main indicator of wheel-use at the Abu Hof village, either as a finishing device or for throwing the body of the vessel itself. The size of wadi sand inclusions also showed an association with bowl rim diameter, suggesting intentional manipulation consistent with wheel-throwing technology (Rye 1981: 61, 81). Table 2 presents a tabulation of the frequency of the presence of rilling and fine inclusions according to bowl rim diameter categories. The data suggests that small bowls were frequently built and/or finished on the wheel. Such a phenomenon accords well with data from Bir es-Safadi (Commenge-Pellerin 1990: 11), Abu Matar, and Zoumeili (Commenge-Pellerin 1987: 35, 107) where manufacture method is described as correlated with bowl rim diameter (and stands in contrast with technology at Gilat, where wheel-use is “a secondary procedure applied primarily to coil-made beakers”, Commenge et al. 2006: 405-406). Commenge-Pellerin (1987, 1990) concludes that at Bir es-Safadi, Abu Matar, and Zoumieli small bowls of 15 cm diameter or less were manufactured entirely by throwing. The technique/vessel size correspondence may have been due to technical limitations--the potter had to spin the wheel by hand and therefore could maintain adequate centrifugal force for throwing only small vessels and for only relatively short periods of time. The presence of rilling on larger bowls may be the result of smoothing following the vessel’s construction by the coiling method rather than by throwing. Courty and Roux (1995: 30) note that rilling that results from wheel-smoothing of a coil-built vessel is often visible on only one side of the wall. Thus a wheel-finishing procedure rather than wheel-throwing may account for the continued relatively frequent occurrence of exterior rilling on larger bowl rim sherds. An example of such a ‘hybrid’ manufacture technique is provided in Figure 8: 5 in which the bowl profile exhibits rilling only on the exterior wall surface of its upper portion, beginning about halfway up from the base. This kind of vessel


was probably constructed of clay coils and then given its final shaping and smoothing on a wheel (cf. Gilat, Plate 10.1: 2, Commenge et al. 2006: 405, 461). However, it is important to note when assessing the extent of adoption of wheel technology that not all small bowls at the Abu Hof village were manufactured or finished on a wheel. Figure 8: 4 shows a complete small hand-made ‘V-shaped’ bowl with coarse limestone inclusions from a Stratum IIIB pit in the floor of Room F.

Table 2: Abu Hof Village (1996) Stratum IIIA-IIIB Association of Wheel-Use Indicators with Bowl Rim Diameters

Wheel-Use Indicator Rim Diameter ≤ 15 cm Percent

Rim Diameter > 15 cm Percent

Rilling present 91% (n=74) 59% (n=137)Fine wadi sand inclusions only (up to 1 mm diameter) 64% (n=77) 15% (n=141)

Cornets (Figure 17: 1-4). Cornets, a unique Chalcolithic vessel type that is diagnostic of the Chalcolithic Ghassulian tradition, a fossile directeur, are numerous at the Abu Hof village, comprising 21.7% of the diagnostic sherd assemblage from the Chalcolithic strata (MNI 18.5%). Cornet base sherds are readily identifiable, but small rim sherds are often indistinguishable from small bowl rims so that base sherd counts are the primary means of quantifying cornet abundance in most assemblages. All the cornet base sherds (166 were found in Strata IIIA, IIIA/IIIB, and IIIB) were of the ‘cigar-shaped’ subtype (as described by Gilead and Goren 1995: 158), with an open v-shaped upper portion and a long, tapering “shaved” stem.

The relative abundance of cornets at the Abu Hof village is paralleled at only a few known Chalcolithic sites (Table 7), including Grar (14%, Gilead and Goren 1995: 158-161, Figure 4.9), the ‘sanctuary’ site of En Gedi (40%, Ussishkin 1980: 20, Figure 7; Gilead and Goren 1995: 205), Meitar (14%, Garfinkel 1999: 219), and Phases D and C at Teleilat Ghassul (Area A, 14% and 11% respectively, Lovell 2001: 200, Figure 4.48; Area E, 8% of total assemblage, Seaton 2008: 54, Table 1.15). The most recent publication of Gilat (Commenge et al. 2006: Table 10.1, 460) reports cornets as comprising only 1% of the MNI assemblage; previously, all pointed-base vessels at Gilat were categorized as ‘cornets’ (Levy and Alon 1987).

Most of the cornets illustrated for Teleilat Ghassul Phases E to A (Lovell 2001:Figure 4.17, 158-159, Figure 4.42, 188-189) appear to be of a different subtype, the ‘deep’ cornet, with a deeper open upper portion with convex curving walls and a shorter base stem. At Grar (Gilead and Goren 1995: 158), about 10% of the cornets were of the ‘deep’ subtype with the majority (90%) of the ‘cigar-shaped’ subtype. No ‘deep’ cornets were found at the Abu Hof village. Cornets at Gilat are described as either “elongated” or “truncated” (Commenge et al. 2006: 417). Neither of the Gilat subtypes seems to closely resemble the Abu Hof village


cornets in terms of the ‘cigar-shaped’ shaved stem. At Site 101 on the Halif Terrace, Dessel (2009: 63, 105) reports 22 cornet sherds (0.6% of the total assemblage) found mainly, but not exclusively, in the “terminal Chalcolithic” levels. Dessel describes these examples as “shaved”, like the ones at Grar and the Abu Hof village. Their presence in the Site 101 “terminal Chalcolithic” levels may suggest that the ‘cigar-shaped’ shaved-stem cornet is a relatively late variant within the general category of cornets.

In contrast to the sites mentioned above, Beersheva valley Chalcolithic sites have yielded very few cornets (0.0% at Shiqmim, Levy and Menahem 1987; Burton 2004; 0.03% at Bir es-Safadi, Commenge-Pellerin 1990: 3; 0.1% at Abu Matar, Commenge-Pellerin 1987: 27; none at Zoumeili, Commenge-Pellerin 1987: 103). There were 65 cornet sherds collected at Horvat Beter (Dothan 1959: 16), but the relative frequency, which is thought to be low (Dothan 1959; Gilead and Goren 1995: 162; Rosen and Eldar 1993), cannot be calculated due to the lack of systematic quantitative data from the site.

The interior wall surfaces of the pointed cornet bases at Abu Hof village showed that they had been formed by rolling flat slabs of clay into conical shapes and then trimming and shaving the sides to achieve the desired shape, sometimes leaving a ‘faceted’ appearance, hexagonal in horizontal cross-section (cf. Garfinkel 1999: 219; “pinching-drawing” technique for Gilat cornets, Commenge et al. 2006: 403). The interior seam was often clearly visible. Most of the cornet base sherds (81%) had coarse wadi sand inclusions. Some (16%) of the cornet base sherds at the Abu Hof village showed traces of red paint, usually horizontal bands or vertical stripes or drips. In contrast, “all” of the Gilat cornets are decorated with red paint (Commenge et al. 2006: 417).

The functions of cornet vessels have long been debated. Gilead and Goren (1995: 204) suggested that cornets and Chalcolithic V-shaped bowls were functional equivalents. The smaller capacities of cornets and multiple size categories of bowls imply that this may be an over-simplification (Burton 2004: 534). Commenge et al. (2006: 442-443) discuss the significance of cornets in both domestic and “sanctuary” contexts within the category of open serving wares. Seaton (2008: 43, 53, 249, Plate 72) suggests possible use in dairy processing or as suspended torches and further points to duel domestic/cult functions for cornets in light of their relative abundance in the Teleilat Ghassul Area E Sanctuary. Findings of odd and even-numbered n-alkane residues suggestive of beeswax have been used to support the view that some cornets were used as beeswax candleholders (Namdar et al. 2009). However, total lipid residue analysis of an Abu Hof village cornet conducted by Burton (2004: 585-589) yielded only low levels of saturated fatty acids (Figure 22: A), and none of the cornet sherds in the Abu Hof village assemblage showed evidence of sooting. Whatever their function, the presence of large numbers of cornets in ‘domestic’ spaces at the Abu Hof village indicates that this vessel type played an important role in social behavior.


Basins (Figure 10). Basins comprised 3.5% of the diagnostic sherd collection from the Abu Hof Chalcolithic levels (MNI 5.9%). They are large open vessels with rims that are thicker than the walls. The walls usually angle inward toward the bottom; however, some of the basins at the Abu Hof village appear to have been fairly straight-sided (Figure 10: 3), similar to the “cuvettes” at the Beersheva valley sites of Abu Matar (Commenge-Pellerin 1987: 38) and Bir es-Safadi (Commenge-Pellerin 1990: 19). There are also close parallels at Grar (Gilead and Goren 1995: 154-157). Basin rims were distinguished from bowl rims in this study by their very thick walls (generally more than 10 mm measured 1 cm below the rim) and thickened and flattened rims. Some researchers have classified large bowls with or without elaborated rims as basins (Levy and Menahem 1987: 315-316; Commenge-Pellerin 1987: 37-38, 1990: 19, 20; Gilead and Goren 1995: 153; Lovell 2001: 173, Figure 4.34: 7; 175, Figure 4.35: 4), so that, as pointed out by Garfinkel (1999: 215), there is some ambiguity between these two categories. Basins at the Abu Hof village were often (45% of basin rim sherds) decorated with impressions of various size, shape, and spacing made with either a finger or stick creating a ‘pie-crust’ effect. One very large thick rim sherd of uncertain orientation had an applied band and perforations made with a stick or other tool (Figure 21: 2). A few rim sherds (10%) showed traces of red paint or a pinkish wash or slip. Another 45% of basin rim sherds had no decoration. Basin rim diameters ranged from 20 to 50 cm with a mean of 36 cm and a mode of 38 cm (Figure 11). At Abu Matar (Commenge-Pellerin 1987: 38) basin apertures measured between 30 and 40 cm, at Bir es-Safadi (Commenge-Pellerin 1990: 19) 30 to 42 cm, and at Shiqmim (Levy and Menahem 1987: 316; Burton 2004), 30 to 50 cm. Gilead and Goren (1995: 152) report a basin rim diameter range at Grar of 20 to 60 cm, with the modal frequency between 35 and 45 cm. Commenge et al. (2006: 415) measure basin openings at Gilat between 27 and 48 cm. Manufacture was apparently by the coil and/or slab method using clay with coarse wadi sand inclusions. Striations on basin rim sherds were in discontinuous random directions and no rilling was observed.

Holemouth jars (Figure 12). Holemouth jars are closed vessels, generally ovoid in shape, and without a neck. This vessel type comprised 12.8% by diagnostic sherd count of the Chalcolithic assemblage from Strata IIIA-IIIB at the Abu Hof village (MNI 14.0%). Rim diameters for holemouth jars ranged from 6 to 22 cm, with a mean of 12.5 cm. The histogram (Figure 13) indicates more than one size category of holemouth jar: there is a peak between 9-12 cm and a secondary mode between 18 and 21 cm. These two vessel size categories correspond to estimated modal volumes of 4.9 liters and 44.4 liters, respectively (Burton 2004: 529, Table 8.3). This is consistent with ceramic data from Shiqmim (Levy and Menahem 1987: 316; Burton 2004) and Bir es-Safadi (Commenge-Pellerin 1987: 40, 1990: 22) which posit a small holemouth category with apertures between about 8 and 15 cm, and a large category for those with rim diameters of over 15 cm. For Grar, Gilead and Goren (1995: 171) suggested


Fig. 10: Abu Hof Village (1996) Strata IIIA-IIIB Basins




Shallow basin rim with pinkish slip Coarse wadi sand Light reddish brown matrix


Basin rim, flattened and extended with thumb impressions

Coarse wadi sand Light reddish brown matrix


Deep basin rim with thumb impressions and red paint on rim and interior surface




three holemouth subcategories based on rim diameter: small ( < 10 cm), medium ( > 10 < 20 cm), and large ( > 20 cm). At Gilat, Commenge et al. (2006: 420-421) distinguish small, medium, and large sizes of “holemouth jars with a wide opening” (from 10.1 to 23.8 cm opening diameter) and “holemouth jars with a narrow opening” (from 6.4 to 14.9 cm opening diameter). Holemouth jar measurements from the Abu Hof village offered no clear evidence for a tripartite subdivision. The rim was most often smoothed and shaped to a point (88% of rim sherds); less frequently (5% of rim sherds) the rim was rounded. The vast majority of holemouth jar rims were plain. Similar forms are found at all Chalcolithic sites throughout the southern Levant. Only 10% of holemouth jar rims at the Abu Hof village were decorated with red paint, probably banding the rim, and this decoration was restricted to small vessels with openings of 11 cm or less. There were a few holemouth rim sherds (5 examples) that had been thickened, angled, or indented with thumb or stick impressions (Figure 12: 5). Some researchers designate very large holemouth vessels with modified rims as 'holemouth pithoi' (cf. Commenge et al. 2006: 419-420, Plate 10.12: 3). There were two possible examples of this type, both from Stratum IIIB ashy fill Locus 543; however, these do not resemble the pithoi identified at Shiqmim which have different rim forms, sometimes everted (Levy and Menahem 1987: 626-631; Burton 2004). The relatively low frequency of decoration on holemouth jars compared to other vessel types in the Abu Hof village assemblage may be related to vessel function. Holemouth jars are thought to have been Chalcolithic ‘cooking

Fig. 11: Abu Hof Village (1996) Stratum IIIA-IIIB basin rim diameters (n=13)


Fig. 12: Abu Hof Village (1996) Strata IIIA-IIIB Holemouth Jars


pots’ (Amiran 1978: 19), a use that is ethnographically associated with minimal decorative expression (Rice 1987: Table 7.2, 238). Total lipid residue analysis of two large holemouth jar sherds from the Abu Hof village (Locus 579 and 522, Figure 22: B) revealed a range of fatty acids and a plant wax alcohol (octacosanol) (Burton 2004: 590-594, 601). These findings are consistent with the cooking of plant foods that included leaves and stems.




Holemouth jar rim with red paint on exterior surface and interior rim band



Holemouth jar rim Coarse wadi sand Light reddish brown matrix


Holemouth jar rim with coil join

Limestone Light reddish brown matrix


Holemouth jar rim Limestone Light reddish brown matrix


Holemouth jar or pithos rim, slightly flattened with finger impressions



Fig. 13: Abu Hof Village (1996) Stratum IIIA-IIIB holemouth jar rim diameters (n=78)


The vast majority of holemouth jars were probably coil-made: one example (Figure 12: 3) had a visible coil join on the interior surface. Almost all (94%) had coarse wadi sand inclusions. Holemouth jar rim sherds showed signs of smoothing, either with fingers or grass; however, this was mainly restricted to near the rim edge (within about 2 cm). Only two holemouth rim sherds from Stratum IIIA had rilling marks; these vessels were of very small diameter (8 cm).

Necked jars (Figures 14-15). The necked jar category includes all closed vessels with a narrowed neck and everted rim. This category comprised 8.0% (by diagnostic sherd count; MNI 16.5%) of the pottery assemblage from the Chalcolithic levels at the Abu Hof village. There is considerable variation within this category in terms of aperture size, rim angle, and neck length. Close parallels may be found at other northern Negev Chalcolithic sites where researchers have used a variety of necked jar subcategories in their typological descriptions (Commenge-Pellerin 1987, 1990; Levy and Menahem 1987: 317; Gilead and Goren 1995: 175-181; Commenge et al. 2006: 421-423). No attempt was made to do so in this report because the fragmented nature of the diagnostic assemblage prohibited discernment of trends in neck and body shape. Necked jar rim diameters at the Abu Hof village ranged from 6 to 34 cm. The mean was 14 cm; however, the bimodal distribution of rim diameter frequencies (Figure 16) implies that there may be at least two size categories of necked jars: small with a modal rim diameter of about 10-12 cm and estimated volume 4.7 liters, and large with a modal aperture of approximately 16-17 cm in diameter and estimated volume 16.6 liters (Burton 2004: 529, Table 8.3). Gilead and Goren (1995: 179-181) describe multiple size categories of necked jars at Grar and other Chalcolithic sites. Large necked jars were probably used for storage. Lipid residue analysis of a large necked jar from the Abu Hof village (L. 526; Figure 22: C; Burton 2004: 604-608) revealed traces of two ethnographically-documented vessel sealing agents: vanillin, a component of plant resins (DeBoer and Lathrap 1979: 114-117; Rice 1987: 163), and anthracene, a polycyclic hydrocarbon that derives from bitumen (Milevski 2002: 230).

No particular vessel size-related distinctions were noted in rim shape or decoration at the Abu Hof village. Most (78%) necked jar rim sherds curved and thinned to a point; some (10%) had a rounded edge, and an equal proportion (10%) were squared off at the rim edge. One rim sherd (2%) had been thickened and then drawn to an abrupt point. Red paint or red painted bands encircling the exterior surface of the rim were noted on 83% of all the necked jar rim sherds; one of these also had light thumb impressions below the rim edge (Figure 14:1). The remaining 17% were plain. Five jar shoulder sherds had red painted shoulder bands; however, the streaky red-brown wash banding pattern seen in the Beersheva assemblages (e.g., Commenge-Pellerin 1987: Planche IV, 136) was not evidenced at the Abu Hof village.


14. Abu Hof Village (1996) Strata IIIA-IIIB Necked Jars




Necked jar rim with red painted rim band and light thumb impressions below rim



Necked jar rim with red painted rim band



Necked jar rim with wavy red painted neck band


4 1996/L.579/B.209IIIB

Necked jar rim with red painted neck band with "drips"




Fig. 15: A necked jar (Stratum IIIA, Locus 544) in situ (Locus 554)

Fig. 16: Abu Hof Village (1996) Stratum IIIA-IIIB necked jar rim diameters (n=47)


Inspection of rim sherds from necked jars that included a portion of the neck-body join suggested that in a great majority of vessels of this kind the neck was continuous with the body of the vessel and had not been built as a separate module. Virtually all necked jar rim sherds exhibited continuous parallel horizontal striations as a result of either manufacture or the final smoothing process. Although the necks and rims may have been smoothed on a wheel, evidence corroborating manufacture by throwing was rare. Nearly all (97%) necked jar sherds contained coarse wadi sand inclusions. There were three examples (5%) of necked jar rim sherds with rilling in Stratum IIIA and IIIA/IIIB. These vessels were of small aperture diameter (6-10 cm). This suggests that the use of throwing for the construction of portions of necked jars at the Abu Hof village was perhaps more limited than at some other northern Negev sites (possibly Grar, Gilead and Goren 1995: 194, though quantitative data is lacking; Bir es-Safadi, Commenge-Pellerin 1990: 11; Shiqmim, Burton 2004).

Churns (Figure 20: 4). Churns, like cornets, are a fossile directeur for Chalcolithic ceramic assemblages from the southern Levant, but are typically found in low abundance (c. 0.5% at Shiqmim Phase I, Levy and Menahem 1987: 327-328, Table 12.2a, 12.3a; to 4.9% at Grar, Gilead and Goren 1995: 216, Table 4.3; Gilat’s churn frequency of 7.9% including miniature churns, Commenge et al. 2006: Table 10.1, 398, is the highest recorded). They have a barrel-shaped horizontally-oriented body with a neck, similar in appearance to a small jar, that rises up from the center of the body. There is a handle on both ends of the vessel body, one of which is usually flattened. These vessels are called churns because their shape is reminiscent of goat-skin churns used by herding societies in the Middle East (Amiran 1969: 33; Commenge-Pellerin 1987: 50-51; Kaplan 1954; Levy and Menahem 1987: 317). Nine churn lug handles or handle fragments (1.2% of the diagnostic sherd assemblage; MNI 1.3%) were found in the Chalcolithic strata at the Abu Hof village. Three of these had traces of red paint. It was not possible to determine the mode of manufacture for churn necks because none could be positively identified.

Pedestal vessels (Figure 21: 1). Pedestal vessels, or vessels supported on a raised base, are present but at very low frequencies at most northern Negev Chalcolithic sites (c. 0.1% at Bir es-Safadi, Commenge-Pellerin 1990: 3; to 1.9% at Gilat, Commenge et al. 2006: Table 10.1, 398). Only two sherds related to such vessels were identified at the Abu Hof village, one in a Stratum II/IIIA fill context (Figure 21: 1) and another in Stratum IIIA wadi fill (0.2% of the diagnostic sherd assemblage from the Chalcolithic strata; MNI 0.3%). The sherds are fragments of pedestal ‘legs’, indicating that the base was fenestrated. There was no indication of wheel-use for the manufacture of the 'legs'. The shape, decoration, and manufacture method of the upper portion of the vessel was uncertain due to the small size of the fragments.


Bases (Figure 8: 1, 3, 4, 7; Figures 17-18). As explained above, this study placed significant emphasis on base form as a technological signifier. Table 3 shows the categories of base form identified in the Abu Hof village ceramic analysis and their relative percentages. Pointed bases, which comprised 43.1% of the total base sherd assemblage from Strata IIIA, IIIA/IIIB, and IIIB (Table 3), are diagnostic of cornet vessels which have been discussed above (Figure 17: 1-4). Flat base sherds made up the remaining 56.9% of the base sherd assemblage. These ranged in diameter from 3 cm to 26 cm (Figure 19, mean 10.2 cm, mode 12 cm). Flat bases were categorized by morphology and manufacture-related attributes into four subtypes (Table 3). Bases with attributes associated with wheel-throwing, including concentric string-cut marks and rilling on the interior surfaces, comprised 9.9% of the total base sherd assemblage (17.5% of flat base sherds) (Figure 8: 1, 3; Figure 17: 5-7). Thrown bases are restricted to the small end of the base diameter spectrum (Figure 19, range 3 cm-7 cm, mean 4.8 cm, mode 4 cm, Coefficient of Variation 22.145). Thus the base sherd assemblage corroborates rilling and inclusion size data from the rim sherd collection (Table 2) indicating that only small vessels, primarily bowls, were completely wheel-made at the Abu Hof village.

Table 3: Abu Hof Village (1996) Strata IIIA, IIIA/IIIB, IIIB Base Type Frequencies by Stratum (based on sherd counts)

Stratum IIIA Stratum IIIA/IIIB Stratum IIIB TotalBase Type N=190 N=97 N=98 N=385Pointed--cornet 41.1 42.3 47.9 43.1%Flat--thrown 10.5 14.4 4.1 9.9%Flat--smooth corner 37.4 28.9 34.7 34.5%Flat--protruding corner 3.7 9.3 10.2 6.8%Flat--'ringed' 6.3 5.1 3.1 5.2%Flat--not discernible 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5%Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0%

*Stratum IIIA and IIIB are significantly different at the 95% confidence level (Chi square=9.99, p=0.0406)

A very high proportion (82%) of 'thrown' bases at the Abu Hof village were string-cut without further modification compared to other Chalcolithic sites for which this information has been quantified (6% of total thrown bases at Shiqmim, Burton 2004; 9% and 39% of small bowl bases at Abu Matar and Zoumieli respectively, Commenge-Pellerin 1987: 34, 106; 10.5% of small bowl bases at Bir es-Safadi, Commenge-Pellerin 1990: 14; “less than 0.04% of the thrown bowls at Gilat”, Commenge et al. 2006: 406). This implies differences in ceramic technological micro-traditions among Chalcolithic sites. Dessel (2009: 97) notes the presence of string-cut bases on V-shaped bowls from the “terminal Chalcolithic” level at


Halif Terrace Site 101, located within 5 km of the Abu Hof village. He suggests that these vessels were wheel-made and “probably thrown off a hump”.

Other flat base types, which often could not be specifically associated with particular vessel types, suggested a variety of hand-building methods for mostly larger vessels. Many were probably coil-made (Figure 18: 3, 5), while others were made by flattening clay slabs, sometimes on a straw mat (Figure 18: 4). Six flat base sherds (2.8%) showed multiple layers of clay. A few bases were very smooth with no visible manufacture or finishing marks at all (Figure 8: 4, 7). Molding is a possible manufacture technique for these. A minor proportion of flat base sherds (20, 5.2%) of a fairly broad size range (4 cm to 16 cm) had ring-like projections or indentations around the circumference of the base but no rilling on the interior or walls, perhaps indicating that the vessel base had been attached to a turntable by pushing the clay from the walls downward (Figure 18: 1-2; cf. Braun 2000: 125). This manufacture step could have facilitated the final shaping and smoothing of a hand-made vessel. Such bases may correspond to some bowls or jars that showed rilling on the upper portions of the vessel walls or near the rim only.

Handles (Figure 20). Handles in the Abu Hof village Strata IIIA-IIIB assemblage were almost exclusively of the lug type with a triangular cross-section (Table 4). Lug handles occurred in a variety of sizes. Of the 81 lug handles in the Chalcolithic strata, 63 were considered ‘large’ and 18 were ‘small’, possibly decorative rather than functional. In some cases the perforation was made by piercing the handle (Figure 20: 1). Some (13, or 16%) were splotched or vertically striped with red paint. Although uncertain due to the fragmented nature of the assemblage, it is likely that most of the handles belonged to jars. Some were found in association with holemouth jars in a well-defined pit (Locus 579). A small number (5, or 6.1%) of unperforated lug handles were present (Figure 20: 3). One large plain ledge handle was found in a Stratum IIIA floor context (Figure 20: 5). Ledge handles occur infrequently at Chalcolithic sites but become common in the following Early Bronze I period.

Table 4: Abu Hof Village (1996) Strata IIIA, IIIA/IIIB, IIIB Handle Type Frequencies (based on sherd counts)

Handle Type N=82Lug-Modeled or Pierced 92.7Lug-False (Unperforated) 6.1Ledge 1.2Total 100.0


Fig. 17: Abu Hof Village (1996) Strata IIIA-IIIB Cornets and Small Bases


Item #

Year/Locus/Basket/Stratum


1 1996/L.522/B.90IIIA/IIIB

Cornet fragment with red paint band and “shaved” stem


2 1996/L.522/B.90IIIA/IIIB

Cornet fragment with red paint band and “shaved” stem


3 1996/L.522/B.90IIIA/IIIB

Cornet base fragment with “shaved” stem



Cornet base fragment with “shaved” stem


5 1996/L.541/B.AllI

Base with concentric string-cut marks









CHRONOLOGICAL TRENDS IN CERAMICS AT THE ABU HOF VILLAGEThe presence of two architecturally well-defined and directly superimposed strata at the Abu Hof village allows for an examination of chronological development in the ceramic repertoire and technology. The time gap separating the two architectural levels is unknown, but it is unlikely to have been very lengthy given the apparent continued use of the large wall and well structures during Strata IIIA and IIIB. Comparison of vessel type frequencies in Table 1 suggests overall continuity between Stratum IIIB and Stratum IIIA with an apparent trend toward increasing numbers of bowls (44.8% to 56.0%) and decreasing numbers of cornets (28.8% to 19.2%) through time. The change, however, is slight with a Chi-square test indicating that the two strata are different at the 90% rather than the 95% confidence level (a Chi-square test using MNI showed an even lower probability that the two strata had quantitatively different vessel type assemblages, p=0.2596, Burton 1998: 99). Comparison of base type frequencies for the two strata in Table 3 appears to reflect a progression toward higher frequencies of thrown flat bases (4.1% to 10.5%) and fewer pointed bases (47.9% to 41.1%) that is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level in a two-by-two Chi square test (p=0.0477, p=0.0363 Fisher exact probability test, one-tailed). Meanwhile, there is no change through time in the frequency of rilling on bowls (Table 5) so that wheel-use within that vessel-type category appears to have been stable.


Fig. 18: Abu Hof Village (1996) Strata IIIA-IIIB Medium and Large Bases





Flat base with ring-like impression around circumference

Medium wadi sand Light reddish brown matrix


Flat base with ring-like protrusion around circumference



Flat base, coil-made. Coarse wadi sand Light reddish brown matrix


Flat base with mat impression

Medium wadi sand with limestone



Flat base. Complete perimeter with center broken out. Coil-made?

Coarse wadi sand with limestone



Fig. 19: Abu Hof Village (1996) Stratum IIIA-IIIB flat base diameters (n=197). Dark shading indicates bases with attributes associated with wheel-throwing (n=36)


Fig. 20: Abu Hof Village (1996) Strata IIIA-IIIB Handles


Table 5: Abu Hof Village (1996) Stratum IIIA-IIIB Frequency of Rilling on Bowl Rims by Stratum*

Stratum IIIAN=74

Stratum IIIBN=41

Rilling present 65 63Rilling absent 35 37Total 100 100

* Stratum IIIA and IIIB are not significantly different (Chi square=0.03, p=0.8635)

Thus the chronological analysis suggests a low degree of ceramic change between the strata, though the absolute time interval represented remains unknown. Wheel-throwing of small bowls was practiced from the inception of settlement. The direction of change, to the extent it is perceptible, is toward a replacement of small pointed-base vessels with small flat-base thrown vessels, with the overall category of small open vessels remaining fairly constant at 74-75% of the total diagnostic sherd assemblage.




Lug handle, pierced, with red paint


2 1996/L.561/B.AllI

Lug handle Coarse wadi sand Light reddish brown matrix


Lug handle, unperforated Limestone Light reddish brown matrix


Base of churn handle, pointed end, with red paint



Ledge handle Coarse wadi sand Light reddish brown matrix


21. Abu Hof Village (1996) Strata IIIA-IIIB Miscellaneous




Fenestrated vessel base, one leg

Coarse wadi grit Light reddish brown matrix

2 1996/L.522/B.65IIIA/IIIB

Basin (?) rim with perforated applied band decoration. Burnt.

Coarse wadi grit Dark reddish brown matrix



Fig. 22: Lipid residues in selected Abu Hof Village pottery: A, cornet; B, holemouth jar; C, necked jar. C8-C18, fatty acids; B, 4-hydroxy 3-methoxy benzaldehyde (vanillin); P, plasticizers; AK, long-chain alkanes; O, octacosanol; AT, anthracene (bitumen); Internal standard, n-tetratriacontane. See Burton 2004: 569-575 for methods


IMPLICATIONS FOR PRODUCTION AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONThe Abu Hof village ceramic assemblage exhibits a number of characteristics that have been associated with the development of ceramic craft specialization, i.e. an organization and intensity of production that exceeds single-household provisioning (e.g., Rice 1981: 222-223; Costin 1991). These product characteristics, which are as a set not found in Late Neolithic pottery assemblages, are evident from the beginning of settlement at the Abu Hof village and include:

(1) Uniformity within vessel shape and size categories in the choice and preparation of raw material (e.g., levigation of clay intended for small bowls), manufacture techniques (e.g., wheel-throwing for small bowls, coiling and slab for other vessels), and surface decoration and additions (e.g., red rim bands on bowls, lug handles) resulting in qualitatively homogeneous or ‘standardized’ products;

(2) Technological skill of the potters inferred from wheel-thrown products;

(3) Elaboration of class variety (as compared to Late Neolithic assemblages, e.g., Garfinkel 1999: 303) indicated by multiple vessel size categories and the appearance of 'special purpose' vessels such as churns; and

(4) Evidence of at least the potential for increased efficiency of production, in this case, simple decoration and use of the wheel for the manufacture of small bowls.

Although a certain level of ceramic uniformity can be expected as a result of functionality and culturally-shared notions of appropriate technologies and vessel forms (“mental templates”, Costin 1991), the significant degree of time-acquired skill implied by the presence of wheel-thrown pottery (Roux 1989) most clearly suggests the emergence of specialists (Costin 1991: 39-40). At least some aspects of pottery-making at the Abu Hof village, which might be minimally quantified in terms of the relative percentage of wheel-made bowls in the assemblage as approaching 50% of total accumulated vessel output, was conducted at a supra-domestic level.

Without the direct evidence that would be afforded by the finding of production loci (cf. Costin 1991: 33), it is difficult to specify the precise nature of ceramic craft specialization at the Abu Hof village. Quantitative measures of within-vessel type ‘standardization’, such as the Coefficient of Variation (CV, Eerkens and Bettinger 2001) suggest the possibility that small wheel-thrown bowls were more metrically uniform than other vessel types (rim diameter CV=19.36), within a range that could be considered consistent with an accumulation of independent, non-centralized, specialist-produced pottery (Burton 1998: 123). Wheel-throwing itself has two important socioeconomic implications: first, a motivation to adopt a new technique that potentially increases productive output, and second, a reorganization of labor. A desire for increased efficiency of production cannot be presumed


to be the only or even the primary catalyst behind the adoption of wheel-throwing in prehistory (e.g., “the primary stimulus and/or aim of technical innovation may have been prestige”, Commenge et al. 2006: 411). However, from a formalist economic point of view, the time and material investment in this technology on a measurable scale only makes sense when the potter produces at a supra-household level (Costin 1991: 39). Population aggregation suggested by the increasing size of Chalcolithic communities (Kafafi 2010; Levy 1998: 229) is a social condition that could have supported this kind of technological change (Rice 1984: 257, 274). Lack of mechanization means that the Chalcolithic potter had to rotate the wheel him/herself while simultaneously forming the vessel, or, more likely, that there was an assistant, such as a family member or an apprentice, to turn the wheel. A kind of ‘household industry’ (cf. Underhill 1991: 14) may be conjectured in which some kin-based social units, possibly lineages, working within a domestic context specialized in pottery production, probably on a part-time seasonal basis. It is possible that cooking and storage vessels, the jars and basins, continued to be made by traditional hand-forming methods for own-household consumption, while a few individuals became part-time specialist potters using the wheel to produce small bowls for inter-household exchange. In this scenario, Chalcolithic pottery manufacture may be described as having been “multifaceted” (London and Sinclair 1991: 426). Ethnographic studies (Balfet 1965; London and Sinclair 1991; Rye 1984) have documented the co-existence of two separate pottery-making traditions, one involving hand-formed vessels made by women for own family use and a second specialized workshop industry in which men make all vessels on the wheel, in North Africa, Jordan, and Israel. It is important to stress that only an ‘incipient’ level of ceramic craft specialization (Costin 1991: 43; Rice 1981: 222) can be conservatively supported by the indirect evidence from the Abu Hof village excavations. Nonetheless, it appears that multiple ceramic technologies and probably multiple kinds of production organization were present in Chalcolithic society during the occupation of the Abu Hof village. This indicates a differentiation of economic roles and social relationships not evidenced in the preceding Late Neolithic period.

ABU HOF VILLAGE CHALCOLITHIC OCCUPATION AND INTER-SITE COMPARISONSTwo kinds of evidence are now available that bear on the issue of relative and absolute chronology for Chalcolithic occupation at Abu Hof village and along the Nahal Grar drainage more generally. First is a 14C date on charcoal from the latest Chalcolithic level excavated during the 1996 Abu Hof village excavations (Stratum IIIA, Locus 554 Basket 207; Figure 15). This date of 4930±120 BP (Beta-167489), calibrated to 3970-3510 and 3430-3390 BCE (2-sigma, INTCAL98, Stuiver et al. 1998), falls toward the end of the Chalcolithic time frame and maintains the possibility of some temporal overlap with late-stage Shiqmim and


other Beersheva valley sites (Burton and Levy 2001: 1243-1244, 2011: 179). A single 14C date, however, is of little value for establishing settlement duration.

The second line of evidence is the ceramic seriation from the Late Neolithic-Chalcolithic stratigraphic sequence at Teleilat Ghassul in the Jordan valley, framed by 14C dates from that site (Bourke et al. 2001; Bourke et al. 2004), which can be used to indirectly date other sites assuming typological synchronism. Published by Lovell (2001: 200, Figure 4.48) in graphic format and presented here in Table 6, diagnostic sherd counts suggest that the relative abundance of the cornet, a fossile directeur of the Ghassulian Chalcolithic cultural period, is distributed through time as a lenticular curve—growing and then declining in frequency—and therefore may help to date sites at which this vessel type occurs. The Teleilat Ghassul sequence would place the main habitation of Chalcolithic sites with considerable numbers of cornets like the Abu Hof village on the Nahal Grar after c. 4500 and before c. 4000 BCE, earlier than suggested by the single 14C date from the Abu Hof village. If the presence of “shaved” cornets in the “terminal Chalcolithic” levels of Site 101 on the Halif terrace (Dessel 2009: 63, 105) is interpreted as indicating that “cigar-shaped” cornets (Gilead and Goren 1995: 158) are a relatively late variant within the cornet category, the occupation of Abu Hof village may fall somewhat late within the c. 4500-4000 BCE interval and contemporaneous with the main phase of settlement at Shiqmim (Burton and Levy 2001: 1236) in the Beersheva valley.

Table 6: Vessel Type Frequencies by Phase at Teleilat Ghassul Area A with 14C Date Ranges*

14C DatesCalibrated BCE

Phase Bowls Basins Cornets Holemouth Jars

Necked Jars

Other Total

3800 A+ 33 6 0 13 33 13 100/n=154000 A 26 14 5 47 5 1 100/n=91

B 43 10 7 30 7 3 100/n=604200 C 62 0 11 14 8 5 100/n=374400 D 46 8 14 26 6 0 100/n=654500 E 57 8 8 16 8 3 100/n=66

F 49 7 8 29 7 0 100/n=704600 G 36 7 4 40 11 2 100/n=75

* Diagnostic sherd data provided by Lovell (2003, personal communication). 14C dates from Lovell (2001: 49, Table 6.1), Bourke et al. (2001: 1220-1221), Bourke et al. 2004.

Although the Abu Hof village pottery assemblage contained vessel types that are widely distributed across Chalcolithic period sites in the southern Levant, relatively few have yielded cornet vessels in comparable abundance. In addition to Teleilat Ghassul, other published sites where cornets comprise five percent or more of the ceramic assemblage are located in the


Judean desert and the northern Negev and include the Chalcolithic ‘sanctuary’ at En Gedi (Ussishkin 1980), Grar (Gilead and Goren 1995), and Meitar (Garfinkel 1999) (Table 7). The Gilat assemblage includes 112 cornets, but this represents only 1% of total MNI (Commenge et al. 2006: Table 10.1, 398). Cornets are absent or rare at Chalcolithic sites in the Beersheva valley to the south. The differential distribution of cornets among northern Negev sites was noted by Gilead and Goren (1995: 214), and cluster analysis of vessel type frequencies for sites with quantitative data has further underscored the geographic dimension of the observed variation (Burton 1998: 103-114; Burton and Levy 2011: 181-184, Figure 13.3).

Table 7: Vessel Type Frequencies for Abu Hof Village and Other Chalcolithic Sites with Cornets Mentioned in the Text

Vessel Type Abu Hof VillageStrata

IIIA-IIIB1996

n=763(Table 1)

En Gedin=?(a)

Grarn=1251

(b)

Meitarn=?(c)

Teleilat GhassulPhase D

n=65(Table 6)

Teleilat GhassulPhase C

n=37(Table 6)

Gilatn=10429

(d)

Bowls 52 36 40 46 62 38Cornets 21 40 14 14 14 11 1Basins 4 17 12 8 0 7Holemouth jars 13 1 14 26 14 19Necked jars 8 2 12 6 8 9Churns 1 0 5 8Pedestal vessels 0 3 2 2Other 1 1 1 0 5 16Total 100 100 100 (b) 100 100 100

(a) Based on sherd counts, following Gilead and Goren 1995: Figure 4.29, 205.(b) Based on MNI. Gilead and Goren 1995: Table 4.3, 216.(c) As reported by Garfinkel 1999: 219 for his 1997 salvage excavation. Data on other vessel types not

provided.(d) Based on MNI. Commenge et al. 2006: Table 10.1.? Data not provided in publication.

Ceramic data from the Abu Hof village, Grar, and Meitar (Table 7; Garfinkel 1999: 202 writes “The pottery assemblage [at Meitar] is very like that at Gerar”) suggest that these three northern Negev habitation sites are similar in terms of their pottery assemblages: bowls are the most common vessel type, followed by cornets and holemouth jars. At En Gedi, interpreted as a Chalcolithic ‘sanctuary’ or ‘shrine’ in the Judean desert overlooking the Dead Sea, cornets and bowls also dominate but jars, probably primarily used for food preparation and storage, are largely absent. Such a pottery repertoire substantiates the non-domestic, probably ritual, function of that site as inferred from the large-scale courtyard and ‘broad


room’ architecture (ussishkin 1980). The sanctuary architecture at En Gedi also has parallels with ‘temple plans’ depicted in wall art at Teleilat Ghassul in the Jordan valley. The two stratigraphic phases at Teleilat Ghassul with the most cornets, at abundances approaching relative frequencies at the other habitation sites are Phases D and C (Tables 6, 7), 14C-dated to c. 4400-4200 BCE (Bourke et al. 2001: 1220; Bourke et al. 2004). In the absence of a reliable set of 14C dates for the En Gedi and Nahal Grar sites, the 14C-dated Teleilat Ghassul ceramic seriation data provides a chronological framework that suggests the contemporaneity and indirect absolute dating of the En Gedi ‘temple’ and Chalcolithic village sites in the Nahal Grar drainage system. It further implies that the main Chalcolithic habitations at Abu Hof village, Grar, and Meitar overlapped with, but may not have persisted as late as, Chalcolithic occupation in the Beersheva valley at sites like Shiqmim (Burton and Levy 2001: 1236; 2011: 179) and possibly others. Gilat has cultural affinities to these sites, but its ceramic assemblage represents a distinctively complex and varied range of manufacture techniques and vessel types with large numbers of imported items (Commenge et al. 2006; Goren 2006) that sets it apart from the others.

CHALCOLITHIC CERAMIC SEQUENCE AND SOCIAL TRAJECTORY: TELEILAT GHASSuL TO THE NAHAL GRARThe long-term 14C-dated stratigraphic sequence at Teleilat Ghassul is key to demonstrating the continuity of ceramic development in the southern Levant from the Late Neolithic into the Chalcolithic cultural period. As presented by Lovell (2001), Chalcolithic type fossils such as cornets, churns and fenestrated stands, appear first in the 'early' Chalcolithic levels (G) and become increasingly common in the ‘middle’ Chalcolithic phases (F, E, D). The 'late' Chalcolithic phases (C, B, A, A+) then witness a decline in the frequency of cornets and the introduction of new forms such as the V-shaped bowl. According to Lovell (2001: 35), wheel-turned vessels, including those with string-cut bases, appear in the latest phases but remain rare. 'Streaky wash' or scraped slip surface treatment, with parallels at the Beersheva valley sites but not at the Abu Hof village or Grar, also occurs toward the end of the Teleilat Ghassul sequence. The ceramic development is accompanied by increasingly substantial architecture at Teleilat Ghassul, including the appearance of ‘broad room’ structures in Phase E and wall paintings in Phase D, until the heavily eroded Phase A+ (Lovell 2001: 27). Although founded on a rather small sample of diagnostic sherds from Area A (n=479, Table 6) distributed across eight building phases, the Teleilat Ghassul ceramic seriation suggests a progression in ceramic forms and technology that can be associated with increases in architectural scale and some forms of art towards the end of Chalcolithic settlement in the Jordan valley.

Within the ceramic framework established by the Teleilat Ghassul sequence, the Abu Hof village and the culturally-affiliated sites of Grar and Meitar may be interpreted as newly


founded concurrent with the transition from the 'middle' to the ‘late’ Chalcolithic phases at Teleilat Ghassul by related social groups. This proposed settlement sequence is inferred from the pottery data presented here which shows that cornet production and an emergent stage of wheel-use were already established elements of the ceramic tradition at the time of the initial settlement of the Abu Hof village. The presence of bitumen in an Abu Hof village necked jar sherd (Figure 22: C) further implicates a connection with the Dead Sea region, where natural sources of asphalt are known to occur (Milevski et al. 2002: 222, 230). upon their settlement, the ceramic technological trajectory at the sites of the Abu Hof village and Grar seems to have diverged to some degree from Teleilat Ghassul. Wheel-throwing, though still primarily limited to small bowl production, appears to have been more extensively practiced at the Chalcolithic sites on the Nahal Grar than at any time during the occupation of Teleilat Ghassul (or Gilat, Commenge et al. 2006: 405, Tables 10.5a, b, 407). The reasons behind this divergence are unclear, but the elaboration of wheel-use suggests a trend toward socioeconomic specialization, at least in pottery production, that was not paralleled at Teleilat Ghassul. A chronological sequence in which small wheel-thrown, flat-based bowls begin to replace pointed-base cornets as the preferred small vessel type, suggested by statistical comparison of pointed base versus thrown base frequencies in Stratum IIIA and IIIB at the Abu Hof village (Table 3), can be seen as reflective of a technological shift toward an 'incipient' level of specialist wheel-based production that probably operated on only a part-time basis. Such a shift from pointed-base to flat-base vessels has been documented for a 3rd millennium urban site and shown to represent significantly increased efficiency in production (Senior 1998: 282, 411, 425). However, a desire for increased production efficiency cannot be asserted as the primary motivator behind the Chalcolithic transition to more extensive wheel-use (Commenge et al. 2006: 408). Social factors, such as the symbolic value derived from embodiment of a ‘new’ technology in its products (Renfrew 1978: 414-415; Roux and Courty 1998), may have been the most important stimulus, with the potential for faster production only a secondary, and perhaps not fully realized, advantage (cf. Commenge et al. 2006: 411). Beyond the pottery itself, other data supporting a differentiation of socioeconomic roles and statuses beyond the domestic and even intra-community sphere within the cluster of sites along the Nahal Grar that Alon (1961) first recorded includes: the relatively large site size (c. 5-10 hectares, but see Gilead 1995: 467 for an opposing view); the substantial nature of stone foundation architecture, some elements of which, such as the retaining wall and well at the Abu Hof village, may indicate a supra-domestic scale; and the existence of a functionally-specialized central place at En Gedi for the practice of ritual and cultic activities.


SuMMARyTwo lines of evidence for social complexity that leave material traces in the archaeological record are a two-tiered settlement pattern and the presence of craft specialists. In the Chalcolithic period in the southern Levant, a two-tiered settlement hierarchy in the northern Negev was described (Levy and Alon 1983, 1987a) and postulated to reflect the emergence of ‘chiefdom’-level society by the end of the 5th millennium (Levy 1998; see also Anfinset 2010; Golden 2009a, b; Gopher and Tsuk 1996; Schick 1998). Evidence of a cluster of innovative and/or specialized technologies (e.g., copper and gold metallurgy, ivory and stone carving, agro-technology [specifically floodwater farming, horticulture; Bourke 2002; Kislev 1987]), new burial customs including cemeteries, ritual centers, and widely-shared iconography has served to bolster the view of Chalcolithic society as on an accelerating path toward greater social, economic, and political complexity. This process of acceleration is marked by the absence of late Neolithic settlement in the vicinity of the Abu Hof village, and then the appearance of widespread Chalcolithic occupation. The ethnographic record shows these to be many of the variables that help create inequality (cf. Flannery and Marcus 2012) across time and space.

The 1996 excavation of the Abu Hof village, one of the hypothesized centers in the two-tiered settlement pattern in the Chalcolithic northern Negev (Levy 1986: 99), revealed the presence of two phases of stone foundation architecture and a large possibly supra-domestic stone wall probably involved in flood-water control. The description of the Abu Hof village ceramic assemblage provided here supports the view of an incipient level of ceramic craft specialization during the Chalcolithic occupation of this site on the banks of the Nahal Tillah, a tributary of the Nahal Grar. This is suggested by the overall uniformity within vessel categories of form, metric dimension, inclusion size, decoration, and manufacture method; as well as the evidence of time-acquired skill and potential production efficiency indicated by the predominant use of wheel-throwing for small bowls and simple decorative motifs. Diversification of form types, such as special-purpose vessels like churns and pedestal vessels, and size classes within type categories further implies differentiation in the ceramic subsystem. The socioeconomic implications of emerging ceramic craft specialization and especially of wheel-throwing as seen in contemporary and historical societies are significant and include a re-organization of traditional domestic activities and relationships. Ethnographic examples (Balfet 1965; London and Sinclair 1991; Rye 1984) of the co-existence of different kinds of ceramic production organization within traditional societies suggest that it is reasonable to expect that some hand-built pottery continued to be made by individuals for own-family use. That is, non-specialized ceramic production persisted even as some specialized practices developed. Such diversity in production organization is associated with social complexity: people began to participate in different kinds of activities with different levels of intensity and in a variety of social and economic relationships. These changes in utilitarian pottery


production may be understood within the context of an expanding population and/or population aggregation and concomitant socioeconomic differentiation (Rice 1984: 274) without presupposing 'elite' control or political centralization.

The ceramic sequence and chronological framework provided by the Chalcolithic 'type' site of Teleilat Ghassul in the Jordan valley serves to anchor the initial Chalcolithic founding of the Abu Hof village at c. 4500/4400 to 4200 BCE (cf. the “Grar-Besor—Ghassulian” sub-culture c. 4500-4300 CalBC, Gilead 2011: Figure 2.3). This dating is indirect and based on seriation of cornet abundance. The terminus of Chalcolithic occupation at the Abu Hof village is difficult to date precisely. Some activity could have occurred as late as c. 3900 BCE, as suggested by the single 14C date from the uppermost Chalcolithic stratum. Other Chalcolithic sites such as Grar, Meitar, and the En Gedi ‘sanctuary’ with closely related pottery assemblages distinguished by high frequencies of cornet vessels were distributed on an east-west route along the Nahal Grar from the Judean desert toward the Mediterranean coast. This distribution implies that the wadi drainage system was an important axis of population movement and social interaction during the late 5th millennium. Additional 14C dates from these sites may help to better establish the sequence and duration of Chalcolithic settlement on the Nahal Grar. However, single dates from individual sites, and even multiple dates, given methodological constraints (Burton and Levy 2001; Roux et al. 2011: 114), are likely to be inadequate to resolve debate surrounding the chronology of Chalcolithic settlement centers which may have waxed and waned along site-specific timelines.

From the time of initial settlement onward ceramic production methods at the Abu Hof village and probably Grar as described by Gilead and Goren (1995) diverged from those documented for Teleilat Ghassul. The two building phases at the Abu Hof village show the increased importance of wheel-throwing technology at that site compared to Teleilat Ghassul (and Gilat). That distinct ceramic and corresponding social trajectories were associated with particular subregional locales at the end of the 5th millennium has important implications for understanding population density, social interaction spheres, and the degree to which Chalcolithic society ultimately ‘collapsed’ during the first few centuries of the 4th millennium.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe look back with fond memories of working in the field with the late David Alon. For support and advice in the field and during post-excavation analysis, we thank Augustin Holl, Yorke Rowan, and Eric Kansa. We also thank the field school students and staff, and the residents and staff of kibbutz Lahav, in particular Dodik and Zahavka Shoshani, who allowed us access to their property and facilities. Catherine Commenge (CNRS) offered valuable insights regarding ceramic analysis, references, and access to comparative material.


The late Aviram Biran, former director of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology at Hebrew Union College (NGSBA-HUC) in Jerusalem, and his staff deserve special thanks for providing storage and work space for our study of the Abu Hof village pottery assemblage. We would like to particularly thank Malka Hershkovitz, NGSBA-HUC Curator, for her practical advice, hospitality, and friendship during our visits to Jerusalem. Other individuals at NGSBA-HUC whose advice, congeniality, and help with practical matters made our work there more pleasant and productive included David Ilan, Hanni Hirsch, Gila Cook, Nili Cohen, and Mati Negari.

Noga Ze’evi prepared the Abu Hof village pottery illustrations and Morag kersel prepared the site plans. Adolfo Muniz assisted with Figure 1. We thank them for their excellent work. Photos are courtesy of the Levantine Archaeology Laboratory at the university of California, San Diego.

The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research (Pre-Doctoral Grant #6496), the C. Paul Johnson Family Charitable Foundation, and the Department of Anthropology of the university of California, San Diego provided funding for portions of the Abu Hof village research. We very much appreciate their support.

We thank Steve Rosen for his comments on an earlier version of this paper. All errors of fact or interpretation remain our own.

REFERENCESAlon, D. 1961. Early settlements along the Nahal Grar and Nahal Patish. Mibifnim 24: 87-96. Alon, D. 1976. Two Cult Vessels from Gilat. 'Atiqot 11: 116-118.Alon, D. 1977. A Chalcolithic Temple at Gilath. Biblical Archaeologist 40: 63-65. Alon, D. 1988. The spatial distribution of Chalcolithic settlements in the southern Shefelah. In E. Stern

and D. urman (eds.): Man and Environment in the Southern Shefelah. Ramat Gan: Massada. 84-88. Alon, D. and T. E. Levy. 1980. Preliminary note on the distribution of Chalcolithic sites on the Wadi

Beer-Sheba—Lower Wadi Besor drainage systems. Israel Exploration Journal 30: 140-147. Alon, D. and T. E. Levy. 1989. The Archaeology of Cult and the Chalcolithic Structures at Gilat.

Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 2: 163-221.Alon, D. and y. yekutieli. 1995. The Tel Halif Terrace ‘Silo Site’ and Its Implications for the Early

Bronze Age I. ‘Atiqot 27: 149-189.Amiran, R. 1969. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Masada Press Ltd.Amiran, R. 1978. Early Arad:The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City Volume 1:First to

Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962-66. Jerusalem: the Israel Exploration Society.Anfinset, N. 2010. Metal, Nomads and Culture Contact: the Middle East and North Africa. London;

Oakville, CT: Equinox Publishing.Balfet, H. 1965. Ethnographical observations in North Africa and archaeological interpretation. In

F. R. Matson (ed.): Ceramics and Man. New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. 161-177.

Bourke, S. 2002. The origins of social complexity in the southern Jordan Valley: new evidence from


Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly 134: 2-27.Bourke, S., E. M. Lawson, J. Lovell, Q. Hua, U. Zoppi, and M. Barbetti. 2001. The Chronology of

the Ghassulian Chalcolithic Period in the Southern Levant: new 14C determinations from Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan. Radiocarbon 43 (3): 1217-1222.

Bourke, S. J., U. Zoppi, J. Meadows, Q. Hua, and S. Gibbins. 2004. The End of the Chalcolithic Period in the South Jordan Valley: New 14C Determinations from Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan. Radiocarbon 46 (1): 315-323.

Braun, E. 2000. Area G at Afridar, Palmachim Quarry 3 and the Earliest Pottery of Early Bronze Age I: Part of the ‘Missing Link’. In G. Philip and D. Baird (eds.): Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd. 113-128.

Burton, M. 1998. Ceramic Craft Specialization and Social Complexity in the Southern Levant: A Case Study from the Chalcolithic (c. 4500-3500 BCE) Site of Abu Hof, Israel. M.A. thesis. university of California, San Diego.

Burton, M. 2004. Collapse, Continuity, and Transformation: Tracking Protohistoric Social Change Through Ceramic Analysis. Case Studies of Late 5th-Early 4th Millennium Societies in the Southern Levant. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, university of California, San Diego. Ann Arbor: uMI.

Burton, M. and T. E. Levy. 2001. The Chalcolithic Radiocarbon Record and Its use in Southern Levantine Archaeology. Radiocarbon 43 (3): 1223-1246.

Burton, M. M. and T. E. Levy. 2011. The End of the Chalcolithic Period (4500-3600 BCE) in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel. In J. L. Lovell and Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture, Chronology, and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition. Levant Supplementary Series Volume 9. Oxford, uk: Council for British Research in the Levant and Oxbow Books. 178-191.

Commenge, C., T. E. Levy, and E. kansa. 2006. Gilat’s Ceramics:Cognitive Dimensions of Pottery Production. In T. E. Levy (ed.): Archaeology, Anthropology, and Cult—The Sanctuary at Gilat (Israel). London: Equinox. 394-506.

Commenge-Pellerin, C. 1987. La Poterie d’Abou Matar et de l’Ouadi Zoumeili (Beershéva) au IVe Millénaire Avant l’ère Chrétienne. Les Cahiers du Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem. Vol. 3. Paris: Association Paléorient.

Commenge-Pellerin, C. 1990. La Poterie de Safadi (Beershéva) au IVe Millénaire Avant l’ère Chrétienne. Les Cahiers du Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem. Vol. 5. Paris:Association Paléorient.

Costin, C. L. 1991. Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production. In M. Schiffer (ed.): Archaeological Method and Theory. Vol. 3. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. 1-56.

Courty, M. A. and V. Roux. 1995. Identification of Wheel Throwing on the Basis of Ceramic Surface Features and Microfabrics. Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 17-50.

DeBoer, W. R. and D. Lathrap. 1979. The making and breaking of Shipibo-Conibo ceramics. In C. kramer (ed.): Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of ethnography for archaeology. New york: Columbia University Press. 102-138.

de Contenson, H. 1956. La céramique chalcolithique de Beershéba: etude typologique. Israel Exploration Journal 6 (3, 4): 163-179, 226-238.

Dessel, J. P. 2009. Lahav I : Pottery and Politics: the Halif Terrace Site 101 and Egypt in the Fourth Millennium B.C.E. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.


Dollfus, G., and Kafafi, Z., 1993, Recent Researches at Abu Hamid: Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, v. 37, p. 241-262.

Dothan, M. 1959. Excavations at Horvat Beter (Beersheba). 'Atiqot 2: 1-42.Eerkens, J. W. and R. L. Bettinger. 2001. Techniques for Assessing Standardization in Artifact

Assemblages: Can We Scale Material Variability? American Antiquity 66 (3): 493-504.Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus. 2012. The creation of inequality: how our prehistoric ancestors set the

stage for monarchy, slavery, and empire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard university Press.Garfinkel, Y. 1999. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant. Qedem 39. Monographs

of the Institute of Archaeology. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Jeusalem: Keterpress Enterprises.

Gilead, I. 1988. The Chalcolithic Period in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 2 (4): 397-443.Gilead, I. 1989. Grar: A Chalcolithic site in the Northern Negev, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology

16: 377-394.Gilead, I. 1994. The History of the Chalcolithic Settlement in the Nahal Beer Sheva Area: The

Radiocarbon Aspect. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. No. 296: 1-13.Gilead I. (ed.) 1995. Grar, A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev. Studies by the Department of

Bible and Ancient Near East. Vol. VII. Ben Gurion university of the Negev.Gilead, I. 2011. Chalcolithic Culture History: Ghassulian and Other Entities in the Southern Levant.

In J. L. Lovell and Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture, Chronology, and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition. Levant Supplementary Series Volume 9. Oxford, uk: Council for British Research in the Levant and Oxbow Books. 12-24.

Gilead, I. and Y. Goren. 1989. Petrographic Analyses of Fourth Millennium B.C. Pottery and Stone Vessels from the Northern Negev, Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 275: 5-14.

Gilead, I. and y. Goren. 1995. The Pottery Assemblages from Grar. In I. Gilead (ed.): Grar: A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev. Beersheva, Israel:Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. 137-232.

Goldberg, P. and A. M. Rosen. 1987. Early Holocene Palaeoenvironments of Israel. In T. E. Levy (ed.): Shiqmim I:Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel. Oxford: B. A. R. International Series 356. 23-33.

Golden, J. 2009a. New Light on the Development of Chalcolithic Metal Technology in the Southern Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 22 (3): 283-300.

Golden, J. 2009b. Dawn of the Metal Age. London: Equinox.Gopher, A. and T. Tsuk (eds.). 1996. The Nahal Qanah Cave - Earliest Gold in the Southern Levant. Tel

Aviv: Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv university.Goren, y. 1988. Appendix: A petrographic analysis of pottery from sites P14 and DII. Mitekufat Haeven

21: 131-137.Goren, y. 1995. Shrines and ceramics in Chalcolithic Israel: the view through the petrographic

microscope. Archaeometry 37 (2): 287-305.Goren, y. 2006. The Technology of the Gilat Pottery Assemblage: A Reassessment. In T. E. Levy (ed.):

Archaeology, Anthropology, and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel. London: Equinox. 369-393. Goren, Y. and P. Fabian. 2002. Kissufim Road, a Chalcolithic Mortuary Site. Israel Antiquities Authority

Reports No. 16. Jerusalem:Israel Antiquities Authority .


Goren, y. and I. Gilead. 1987. Petrographic Analysis of Pottery from Shiqmim: A Preliminary Report. In T. E. Levy (ed.): Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel. Oxford: B. A. R. International Series 356. 411-418.

Haggett, P. 1971. Locational Analysis in Human Geography. London: Edward Arnold.Henrickson, R. 1991. Wheelmade or Wheel-Finished? Interpretation of ‘Wheelmarks’ on Pottery. In P.

Vandiver, J. Druzik, and G. Wheeler (eds.): Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology II. Pittsburgh: Materials Research Society. Vol. 185: 523-541.

Kafafi, Z., 2010. The Chalcolithic Period in the Golan Heights: A Regional or Local Culture: Paleorient, v. 36, p. 141-157.

Kaplan, J. 1954. Two Chalcolithic vessels from Palestine. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 76: 97-100. kangas, S. E. 1994. Social and Economic Organization During the Chalcolithic Period in the Northern

Negev: A Study of Ceramic Variability. Ph.D. dissertation. Brandeis university. kansa, E. and T. E. Levy. 2002. Ceramics, Identity, and the Role of the State: The View from Nahal

Tillah. In E. C. M. van den Brink and T. E. Levy (eds.): Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium B.C.E. New York: Leicester University Press. 190-212.

kislev, M. 1987. Chalcolithic Plant Husbandry and Ancient Vegetation at Shiqmim. In T. E. Levy (ed.): Shiqmim I. Oxford: BAR International Series 356. pp. 251-279.

Levy, T. E. 1986. The Chalcolithic Period: Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine. Biblical Archaeologist. June 1986: 83-108.

Levy, T. E. (ed.). 1987. Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel. Oxford: B. A. R. International Series 356.

Levy, T. E. 1998. Cult, Metallurgy, and Rank Societies--Chalcolithic Period (C. 4500-3500 BCE). In T. E. Levy (ed.): The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. New York: Facts on File, Inc. 226-244.

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

Levy, T. E. and D. Alon. 1983. Chalcolithic Settlement Patterns in the Northern Negev Desert. Current Anthropology 24 (1): 105-107.

Levy, T. E. and D. Alon. 1987. Settlement Patterns along the Nahal Beersheva Lower Nahal Besor: Models of Subsistence in the Northern Negev. In T. E. Levy (ed.): Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel. B. A. R. International Series 356 (1). 45-138.

Levy, T. E. and D. Alon. 1993. Gilat. In E. Stern (ed.): New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem. 514-517.

Levy, T. E., D. Alon, y. Rowan, E. C. M. van den Brink, C. Grigson, A. Holl, P. Smith, P. Goldberg, A. J. Witten, E. Kansa, J. Moreno, Y. Yekuteili, N. Porat, J. Golden, L. Dawson, and M. Kersel. 1997. Egyptian-Canaanite Interaction at Nahal Tillah, Israel (c. 4500-3000 B.C.E.): An Interim Report on the 1994-1995 Excavations. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. No. 307: 1-51.

Levy, T. E., D. Alon, E. C. M. van den Brink, E. C. kansa, and y. yekutieli. 2001. The Protodynastic/Dynasty 1 Egyptian Presence in Southern Canaan: A Preliminary Report on the 1994 Excavations at Nahal Tillah, Israel. In S. R. Wolff (ed.): Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglass L. Esse. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization No. 59. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 411-443.

Levy, T. E. and M. Burton. 2006. Appendix 2: Radiocarbon Dating of Gilat. In T. E. Levy (ed.): Archaeology, Anthropology, and Cult—The Sanctuary at Gilat (Israel). London: Equinox. 863-866.


Levy, T. E., M. M. Burton, and y. M. Rowan. 2006. Chalcolithic Hamlet Excavations near Shiqmim, Negev Desert, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 31 (1): 41-60.

Levy, T. E. and N. Menahem. 1987. The Ceramic Industry at Shiqmim: Typological and Spatial Considerations. In T. E. Levy (ed.): Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel. Oxford: B. A. R. International Series 356. 313-332.

Levy, T. E., y. M. Rowan, and M. M. Burton (eds.). In preparation. Shiqmim II.Löbert, H. 1984. Types of Potter’s Wheels and the Spread of the Spindle-Wheel in Germany. In S.

E. van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard (eds.): The Many Dimensions of Pottery. Amsterdam: The University of Amsterdam. 203-230.

London, G. and M. Sinclair. 1991. An Ethnoarchaeological Survey of Potters in Jordan. Madaba Plains Project 2: The 1987 Season at Tell-el-Umeiri and Vicinity and Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press. 420-428.

Lovell, J. L. 2001. The Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods in the Southern Levant. New data from the site of Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan. B. A. R. International Series 974. Monographs of the Sydney University Teleilat Ghassul Project 1. Oxford, England: Archaeopress.

Lovell, J. L. and Y. M. Rowan (eds.) 2011. Culture, chronology and the Chalcolithic. Oxford: Oxbow.Macdonald, E. 1932. Prehistoric Fara. Beth Pelet II. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.Mallon, A., R. koeppel, and R. Neuville. 1934. Tuleilat Ghassul I: Compte Rendu Des Fouilles de

L’Institute Biblique Pontifical 1929-1932. Rome: Pontifical Bible Institute. Mazar, A. 1992. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E. New york: Doubleday. Milevski, I., O. Marder, and A. N. Goring Morris. 2002. The Circulation of Asphalt in Southern Canaan

and Egypt during the Early Bronze Age I. In E. van den Brink and E. yannai (eds.): In Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscapes. Tel Aviv: Ramot Publishing—Tel Aviv University. 219-236

Miller, D. 1985. Artefacts as Categories—A Study of Ceramic Variability in Central India. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.

Namdar, D., R. Neumann, Y. Goren, and S. Weiner. 2009. The contents of unusual cone-shaped vessels (cornets) from the Chalcolithic of the southern Levant. Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (3): 629-636.

Perrot, J. 1955. The Excavations at Tel Abu Matar, near Beersheba. Israel Exploration Journal 5: 17-40, 73-84, 167-89.

Perrot, J. 1962. Chronique Archaeologique: Nahal Besor. Revue Biblique 69: 388-391. Perrot, J. 1984. Structures d’habitat, mode de vie et environnement, les villages souterrrains des pasteurs

de Beershéva, dans le sud d’Israël au Ive millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne. Paléorient 10: 75-96.Renfrew, C. 1973. Monuments, Mobilization, and Social Organization in Neolithic Wessex. Reprinted

in C. Renfrew (ed.) 1984: Approaches to Social Archaeology. Cambridge, Massachussetts: Harvard University Press. 225-245.

Renfrew, C. 1978. The Anatomy of Innovation. Reprinted in C. Renfrew (ed.) 1984: Approaches to Social Archaeology. Cambridge, Massachussetts: Harvard University Press. 390-418.

Rice, P. 1981. Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production: A Trial Model. Current Anthropology 22 (3): 219-240.

Rice, P. 1984. Change and conservatism in pottery-producing systems. In S. E. van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard (eds.): The Many Dimensions of Pottery. Amsterdam: The university of Amsterdam. 231-338.

Rice, P. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago: The university of Chicago Press.


Rosen, A. M. 2007. Civilizing climate: social responses to climate change in the ancient near East. Lanham: Altamira Press.

Rosen, S. A. and I. Eldar. 1993. Horvat Beter Revisited: The 1982 Salvage Excavations. 'Atiqot 22: 13-27.

Roshwalb, A. F. 1981. Prehistory in the Wadi Ghazzeh: A typological and technological study based on Macdonald Excavations. Ph.D. dissertation. London: London university.

Roshwalb, A. 1987. The Late Neolithic in the Lower Nahal Besor—The 1929 Macdonald Excavations and Survey. In T. E. Levy (ed.): Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel. Oxford: B. A. R. International Series 356. 139-152.

Roux, V. 1989. The Potter’s Wheel: Craft Specialization and Technical Competence. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. PVT. LTD.

Roux, V. 2003. Ceramic Standardization and Intensity of Production: Quantifying Degrees of Specialization. American Antiquity 68 (4): 768-782.

Roux, V. and M.-A. Courty. 1998. Identification of wheel-fashioning methods: technological analysis of 4th-3rd millenium BC oriental ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 747-763.

Roux, V. and M.-A. Courty. 2005. Identifying social entities at a macro-regional level: Chalcolithic ceramics of south Levant as a case study. In A. Livingstone Smith, D. Bosquet and R. Martineau (eds.): Pottery Manufacturing Processes: Reconstruction and Interpretation. Oxford, uk: BAR International Series 1349. 201-214.

Roux, V., M.-A. Courty, G. Dollfus, and J. Lovell. 2011. A Techno-Petrographic Approach for Defining Cultural Phases and Communities: Explaining the Variability of Abu Hamid (Jordan valley) Early 5th Millennium cal BC Ceramic Assemblage. In J. L. Lovell and Y. M. Rowan (eds.): Culture, Chronology, and the Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition. Levant Supplementary Series Volume 9. Oxford, UK: Council for British Research in the Levant and Oxbow Books. 114-132.

Rye, O. S. 1981. Pottery Technology. Washington, D.C.: Taraxacum, Inc.Rye, O. S. 1984. Traditional Palestinian Potters. Research Reports – National Geographic Society,

Washington, D.C. Vol. 7: 769-776.Schick, T. (ed.). 1998. The Cave of the Warrior – A Fourth Millennium Burial in the Judean Desert.

Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.Seaton, P. 2008. Chalcolithic Cult and Risk Management at Teleilat Ghassul: The Area E Sanctuary.

Monographs of the Sydney University Teleilat Ghassul Project 2. BAR International Series 1864. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Senior, L. M. 1998. Time and Technological Change: Ceramic Production, Labor, and Economic Transformation in a Third Millennium Complex Society (Tell Leilan, Syria). Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology. university of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona.

Stuiver, M., P. J. Reimer, E. Bard, J. W. Beck, G. S. Burr, K. A. Highen, B. Kromer, G. McCormac, J. van der Plicht, and M. Spurk. 1998. INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000-0 BP. Radiocarbon 40 (3): 1041-84. (http://depts.washington.edu/qil)

underhill, P. 1991. Pottery production in chiefdoms: the Longshan Period in northern China. World Archaeology 23(1):12-27.

Ussishkin, D. 1980. The Ghassulian Shrine at En-Gedi. Tel Aviv 7 (1/2): 1-44.van As, A. 1989. Some Techniques used by the Potters of Tell Hadidi During the Second Millenium

B. C. In G. Bronitsky (ed.): Pottery Technology:Ideas and Approaches. San Francisco: Westview Press. 41-79.


van der Leeuw, S. E. 1994. Cognitive Aspects of Technique. In S. E. van der Leeuw (ed.): Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 135-142.

Zubrow, E. B. 1992. Formal Models of Ceramic Production. In G. J. Bey and C. A. Pool (eds.): Ceramic Production and Distribution. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. 115-129.

2012 abu hof burton and levy

Documents