An 11 600 year-old communal structure from the Neolithic of southern Jordan.

Mithen, Steven J. ; Finlayson, Bill ; Smith, Sam 等

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Introduction

The Neolithic in south-west Asia marks the earliest transition in the world from mobile hunting and gathering to sedentary farming lifestyles (Mithen 2003). Once described as a 'revolution', this is now more often characterised as a process of gradual transition with complex inter-related changes in economy, social organisation, ideology and technology (Barker 2006). Our understanding of this process has been transformed by the discovery of early Neolithic sites in southern Turkey (Gobekli Tepe, Schmidt 2006) and northern Syria (Jerf el Ahmar, Stordeur et al. 1997), with architecture indicative of communal activity in its construction and/or use, some of which is monumental in scale. These sites suggest that changes in social organisation involving an increase in communal activity had occurred before the transition to agricultural economies. Here we describe a further large and architecturally complex structure, also dating to the earliest phase of the Neolithic but coming from the southern rather than the northern Levant.

This new discovery has been made at the early Neolithic site of WF16 (Finlayson & Mithen 2007) and is designated within the excavation as Structure O75. It is found in association with a dense cluster of mud-walled, semi-subterranean structures, some of which had been used as workshops, others for storage or grinding of foods and pigments. Structure O75 is of an unprecedented form in the Neolithic archaeological record. While the functional role of this structure remains unclear, it provides further evidence that changes in social organisation--notably the appearance of communal activity, collective labour and ideology manifest in art and architecture--preceded that of economic change within the Neolithic transition process. Moreover, contrary to recent proposals that the Neolithic 'originated' in a so-called 'Golden Triangle' of Upper Mesopotamia (Aurenche & Kozlowski 2001), this new discovery at WF16 indicates that socially-driven Neolithisation was widespread within south-west Asia at the very start of the Holocene.

The Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA)

The initial stages of the Neolithic transition in south-west Asia are denoted as the PPNA cultural phase (9750-8550 BC, Kuijt & Goring-Morris 2002), the start of which is coincident with the environmental changes that mark the end of the Pleistocene. PPNA settlements show significant similarities to those of the Epipalaeolithic in terms of having sub-circular structures and no traces of domesticated plants and animals. The PPNA is followed by the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) cultural phase (8750-6300 BC) when rectangular, two-storey buildings and domesticated sheep, goat and cereals are gradually developed and adopted (Kuijt & Goring-Morris 2002).

Prior to the 1990s, and apart from Nahal Oren (Noy et al. 1973) and Hatoula (Lechevallier & Ronen 1994), most of the key sites dating to the PPNA in the southern Levant were clustered on the western side of the Jordan Valley, notably Jericho (where the Neolithic architecture included a tower, Kenyon & Holland 1981), Netiv Hagdud (Bar-Yosef & Gopher 1997), Gesher (Garfinkel 1989) and Gilgal (Bar-Yosef et al. 2010). This locality was assumed to be the core area for the emergence of the Neolithic (Figure 1). That view has been challenged as sites with spectacular and complex architecture and artworks have been discovered in northern Syria and southern Turkey, notably at Jerf el Ahmar (Stordeur et al. 1997), Gobekli Tepe (Schmidt 2006) and Tell 'Abr 3 (Yartah 2004).

At Gobekli Tepe, numerous large (10-30m diameter, Schmidt 2002) structures with 'T'-shaped pillars are found, which are generally believed to have had a ceremonial or ritual role. At Jerf el Ahmar there are substantial structures, up to 7.5m in internal diameter (Stordeur et al. 2000), described by Watkins (2010) as 'monumental' in scale. These have been interpreted as multi-function communal buildings that developed into single-purpose communal structures with a possible cultic role (Stordeur et al. 2000). As a consequence of these discoveries, recent research has proposed that cognitive, social and cultural factors were the drivers of the Neolithic transition, with a focus on developments in Upper Mesopotamia (Aurenche & Kozlowski 2001; Mithen 2003; Watkins 2010).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

While Gobekli Tepe and Jerf el Ahmar were being excavated and their implications for Neolithisation first considered, three new PPNA sites were discovered on the eastern side of the Wadi Araba, south of the Dead Sea: Zaharat Adh-Dhra' 2 (ZAD 2, Edwards et al. 2002), El Hemmeh (Makarewicz et al. 2006) and WF16 (Finlayson & Mithen 2007). Renewed excavations were also undertaken at the previously known PPNA site of Dhra' (Finlayson et al. 2003). While each of these sites have produced valuable new evidence about the PPNA period in semiarid southern Jordan, the findings from WF16 are particularly striking because they include an unprecedented type of large structure (O75) with complex internal architecture. The function of this structure remains unclear but its size and form implies communal activity in both its construction and use in a similar manner to the early Neolithic sites in the northern Levant.

Evaluation and excavation at WF16

WF16 is located on two adjacent knolls in Wadi Faynan, Jordan, at the base of the escarpment leading to the Jordanian plateau (36R 3390442N 0739824E; 300m asl, Figure 1). It is c. 500m from the PPNB settlement of Ghuwayr 1 (Simmons & Najjar 2000) and 2km from the Pottery Neolithic site of Tell Wadi Feinan (Simmons & Najjar 2002; Figure 2). Following its original discovery as a surface artefact scatter in 1996, evaluation by test-pitting, trial trenching and geophysical survey between 1997 and 2003, demonstrated that occupation had occurred throughout the period of the PPNA (Finlayson & Mithen 2007). The site was shown to have stratification more than 2m deep, good preservation and a rich cultural inventory. Several sub-circular stone and pise walled structures containing domestic debris, grinding stones and human burials were exposed while geophysical survey indicated the presence of structures across the entire western knoll (0.6ha), including some of a particularly large size--approximately 15m in diameter (Astin & Mansfield 2007). Stone and bone artefacts with incised designs were recovered, along with anthropomorphic figurines and a diverse range of stone and shell beads (Ceron-Carrasco 2007; Critchley 2007; Finlayson 2007; Shaffrey 2007). The animal fauna came primarily from Capra sp., but included Bos primigenius, Gazella sp. Equus sp., Vulpes vulpes, Lepis capensis and Felis sp., with no signs of domestication--although herding of wild Capra sp. remained a possibility (Carruthers & Dennis 2007). The quantity of mortars, grinding stones, pestles and pounders (Shaffrey 2007) indicated intensive exploitation of wild flora which included Hordeum sponteneum, Pistacia sp., Ficus carica and Bromus sp. (Kennedy 2007). The plant and animal remains, along with climatic and hydrological modelling (Smith et al. 2011), indicated that when occupied the site was adjacent to a perennial water course with ready access to juniper woodland, evergreen oak woodland, steppe, riparian woodland and desert communities (Mithen et al. 2007).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

On the basis of the potential significance of WF16 for addressing the origins of sedentism and farming (Mithen & Finlayson 2007a), three seasons of excavations were undertaken (2008, 2009 and 2010) to expose a continuous area of 40 x 15m--the largest single exposure for a PPNA site in the southern Levant (Mithen et al. 2010). While the post-excavation analysis of finds has commenced, the majority of this research will be conducted once the detailed analysis of the stratigraphy and architectural evidence has been completed in order to provide the contextual information necessary for an integrated analysis and interpretation of the material recovered during excavation. Here we simply wish to report the discovery of an unprecedented type of Neolithic structure: Structure O75.

A large structure at WF16 indicative of communal activity

The 2008-10 excavation exposed more than 30 well-preserved semi-subterranean, pise-walled structures (Figure 3). Some of these structures were relatively small, such as Structure O56, which measured 2.15 x 1.30m internally, while a few were substantially larger, such as Structure O45, which measured 5.5 x 4.2m in its internal extent (Figure 3; see also Figure 10). They formed a dense cluster of conjoined structural spaces, which flanked an elliptical 22 x 19m structure constructed of pise designated as Structure O75 (Figure 4). This large structure consists of a mud-plaster floor with multiple surfaces surrounded by a 0.5m high bench on at least half of its circumference, part of which has a second tier (Figure 5). Although some parts have been eroded, and others are concealed by a later PPNA building, there is a general symmetry to the structure along an axis formed by a deep trough, also lined with mud-plaster, c. 0.75m wide and 1.2m deep. Towards the north-west end of the trough, a pit below the most recent floor surface is lined with burnt plaster and contained fragments of large broken stone bowls. Two cup-hole mortars, typical of the PPNA, are set into slightly raised platforms on the floor on either side of the trough. Three pairs of parallel 'gullies'--smooth ridges with a central 'channel'--are moulded into the floor, running from the edge of the benches to the central trough in a herringbone pattern. Each gulley has a pit at its midway point from which it appears a large post has been removed, leaving a ragged hole in the plaster (Figure 6). Although the gullies initially appear as if they were designed to carry liquids, they dip down in the centre of their course and the mud-plaster is not stable when damp. Indeed, two of these features are simply smooth ridges in the plaster floor, while the channel in a third has been deliberately filled with plaster. Their main purpose may have been to partition the internal area. The floor surface is marked with numerous small stakeholes, as well as pits and hearths.

The surrounding benches are over 1m wide and effectively comprise a double tier of platforms above the main floor. The face of the lower bench on the southern side of the monument has been partially decorated with a wave pattern in its mud-plaster coating (Figure 7). The pattern is similar to that found on stone artefacts from WF 16 and elsewhere in the PPNA (Figure 8). In some places the decoration appears to have been deliberately concealed by later plastering events. Massive postholes are moulded into the fabric of the pise wall that surrounds the structure. Combined with those in the gullies, these suggest that at least part of the structure had been covered. That would indeed have been essential because the mud mortar would not have survived rain.

The stratigraphy of the internal features and fills indicates multiple replastering events, episodes of repair and modification of the structure. The walls appear to have been significantly burnt, unlike the floor, suggesting that there was a burning event before the main excavated floor surface was laid. The mud-plaster decoration on the walls has been placed over the scorched surface. In the earliest phase so far excavated, the trough, gullies and mud-plastered pit had been in contemporary use, appearing to have been elements of a single functional design. Part of the trough was then covered with a new mud-plaster surface; the remainder was left exposed but filled with rubble and a goat/ibex cranial fragment with its horn-cores attached (faunal identifications have yet to be completed). A central hearth was then moulded into the floor, into which a further set of goat or ibex horn-cores was placed. After this the main floor went out of use. Sediment accumulated within the structure to a depth of c. 0.25m, at which point a substantial freestanding, oval pise and stone-walled building with mud-plaster floors was constructed in the interior of the structure towards its eastern side (Structure O100). This construction is stratigraphically congruent with the creation of a later phase of flooring across the interior of Structure O75. Structure O100 was subsequently modified by the construction of an inner stone wall and new floor layers containing massive stone cup-hole mortars (Figure 9). Outside of its now c. 1m-thick wall, dense midden deposits accumulated within the walls of Structure O75, containing fragmented animal bone, PPNA stone artefacts, charcoal and plant macrofossils. Apart from two probably Nabatean burials which truncate this midden infill, the stratigraphic sequence within Structure O75 remains entirely contained within the PPNA. Radiocarbon dates from deposits sealing its initial floor fall between 9578 and 8472 cal BC (Table 1). A total of 15 radiocarbon dates have so far been acquired from the 2008-10 excavation, the calibrated values of which all fall between 10 078 and 8220 BC, concurring with the 27 radiocarbon dates acquired during the evaluation (Mithen & Finlayson 2007b).

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

The large communal structure (O75) and oval structure (O100) with free-standing walls and massive cup-hole mortars are associated with a dense cluster of at least 30 semi-subterranean, pise-walled structures (Figures 3 & 10). These are all similar in their semi-subterranean construction but they vary considerably in size and internal design, having different combinations of structural features and furnishings. These include pise-moulded hearths, large and small wall niches and shelves, cup-holed mortars, stonework-benches, internal partitioning walls and, in at least one case, an entire sub-structure constructed within its interior (O45, Figure 10). Some of these appear to have been used as workshops for making stone artefacts and beads or for the preparation and storing of food; others might have been 'dwellings'--although we are cautious about the use of this ill-defined term. The excavation has demonstrated that several of the structures had been rebuilt by reusing the same structural footprint, often more than once. In certain cases several adjoining structures were redeveloped at the same time. This resulted in a prolonged life for the general honeycomb pattern of structures on the site, many of which are likely to have been co-existent. Others had been part of an earlier settlement arrangement and were either left open allowing sediment to accumulate or were deliberately back-filled before they were dug into by construction cuts for new structures. Numerous of them contain human burials, the site providing the largest collection of PPNA skeletal remains from the southern Levant.

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]

Large-scale architecture and its function in the PPNA

Architecture indicative of communal activity and sometimes of a monumental nature is known from the PPNA: a tower and wall were discovered at Jericho in the 1950s (Kenyon & Holland 1981) and more recently carved stone pillars within enclosures were found at Gobeldi Tepe in southern Turkey dated to 9130-8650 BC (Kromer & Schmidt 1998; Schmidt 2005). Although not as dramatic as Gobekli Tepe, Structure O75 at WF 16 provides further evidence for communal activity with regard to both the construction and use of Neolithic architecture in the earliest phase of the PPNA prior to the domestication of plants and animals. The floor of the WF 16 structure covers more than six times that of the so-called 'monumental' buildings (Watkins 2010) at Jeff el Ahmar (Syria) dated to 9650-8610 BC (Stordeur & Abbes 2002). These are equivalent in size to Structure O 100 and several other buildings at WF 16. Similarities with the Jerfel Ahmar buildings are found in the intentional deposition of animal skulls and decorated benches, the latter having been previously cited as an uniquely Upper Mesopotamian PPNA phenomenon (Aurenche & Kozlowski 2001). Although the ubiquity of naturalistic animal motifs at Jerf el Ahmar and Gobekli Tepe is not replicated at WF16, animal imagery is present, as illustrated in Figure 11. This is rare, however, the dominant symbols being primarily abstract and anthropomorphic in nature (Figure 8).

[FIGURE 10 OMITTED]

The function of Structure O75 at WF16 remains unclear. Whatever it had been used for, its size and form suggests communal activity for its construction, use and repair. The two cup-hole mortars set within the floor suggest the collective grinding of plants or some other material; the deposition of broken stone bowls and goat/ibex bones suggests feasting, while its scale, decoration and tiered benches imply ritual or at least performance activities. It is securely dated to c. 9650 BC, with the date of a preceding phase of architecture still to be determined. While being quite different in form to those at Jerfel Ahmar, Gobekli Tepe and Jericho, Structure O75 and its associated structures demonstrate that new forms of social organisation, manifest in architecture and settlement design, occurred in a significantly wider region than Upper Mesopotamia at the start of the transition to the Neolithic.

[FIGURE 11 OMITTED]

Acknowledgements

We thank the Department of Antiquities of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan for permission to excavate at WF16 and for assistance with the excavation. We also thank the Arts & Humanities Research Council for funding the 2008-10 excavation (AH/E006205/1) and the Wenner-Gren Foundation for additional funding to help excavate Structure O75 in 2010. Special acknowledgement is due to Lisa Yeomans, Nick Pankhurst, Samantha Hemsley and Gareth Rees (excavation supervisors) along with the rest of our field team and the local Bedouin community of Wadi Faynan. We are grateful to CBRL and the University of Reading for supporting our research.

References

ASTIN, T. & C. MANSFIELD. 2007. Geophysical investigation, in B. Finlayson & S. Mithen (ed.) The early prehistory of Wadi Faynan, southern Jordan: archaeological survey of Wadis Faynan, Ghuwayr and al-Bustan and evaluation of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site of WF16 (Wadi Faynan series 1 ; Levant supplementary series 4): 447-59. Oxford: Council for British Research in the Levant & Oxbow.

AURENCHE, O. & S.K. KOZLOWSKI. 2001. Le croissant fertile et le 'Triangle de'Or', in C. Breniquet & C. Kepinski (ed.) Etudes Mesopotamiennes: recueil de textes offert a Jean-Louis Huot (Bibliotheque de la Delegation Archeologique Francaise en Iraq 10): 33-43. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

BARKER, G. 2006. The agricultural revolution in prehistory: why did foragers become farmers? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

BAR-YOSEF, O. & A. GOPHER (ed.). 1997. An Early Neolithic village in the Jordan Valley. Part I: the archaeology of Netiv Hagdud. Cambridge (MA): Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

BAR-YOSEF, O., A. GOPHER & N. GORING-MORRIS. 2010. Gilgal: Early Neolithic occupations in the lower Jordan Valley: the excavations of Tamar Noy. Oxford: Oxbow.

CARRUTHERS, D. & S. DENNIS. 2007. The mammalian faunal remains, in B. Finlayson & S. Mithen (ed.) The early prehistory of Wadi Faynan, southern Jordan: archaeological survey of Wadis Faynan, Ghuwayr and al-Bustan and evaluation of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site of WF16 (Wadi Faynan series 1; Levant supplementary series 4): 372-86. Oxford: Council for British Research in the Levant and Oxbow.

CERON-CARRASCO, R. 2007. The marine molluscs, with a note on an echinoid fossil and the terrestrial snails, in B. Finlayson & S. Mithen (ed.) The early prehistory of Wadi Faynan, southern Jordan: archaeological survey of Wadis Faynan, Ghuwayr and al-Bustan and evaluation of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site of WF16 (Wadi Faynan series 1; Levant supplementary series 4): 362-6. Oxford: Council for British Research in the Levant and Oxbow.

CRITCHLEY, P. 2007. The stone beads, in B. Finlayson & S. Mithen (ed.) The early prehistory of Wadi Faynan, southern Jordan: archaeological survey of Wadis Faynan, Ghuwayr and al-Bustan and evaluation of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site of WF16 (Wadi Faynan series 1; Levant supplementary series 4): 356-61. Oxford: Council for British Research in the Levant and Oxbow.

EDWARDS, P.C., J. MEADOWS, M.C. METZGAR & G. SAYEI. 2002. Results from the first season at Zahart adh-Dhra' 2: a new Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site on the Dead Sea plain in Jordan. Neo-Lithics 1/02: 11-16.

FINLAYSON, B. 2007. The worked bone, in B. Finlayson & S. Mithen (ed.) The early prehistory of Wadi Faynan, southern Jordan: archaeological survey of Wadis Faynan, Ghuwayr and al-Bustan and evaluation of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site of WF16 (Wadi Faynan series 1; Levant supplementary series 4): 319-22. Oxford: Council for British Research in the Levant and Oxbow.

FINLAYSON, B. & S. MITHEN (ed.). 2007. The early prehistory of Wadi Faynan, southern Jordan: archaeological survey of Wadis Faynan, Ghuwayr and al-Bustan and evaluation of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site of WF16 (Wadi Faynan series 1; Levant supplementary series 4). Oxford: Council for British Research in the Levant and Oxbow.

FINLAYSON, B., I. KUIJT, T. ARPIN, M. CHESSON, S. DENNIS, N. GOODALE, S. KADOWKI, S. MAHER, S. SMITH, M. SCHURR & J. MCKAY. 2003. Dhra' excavation project, 2002 interim report. Levant 25: 1-38.

GARFINKEL, Y. 1989. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site of Gesher. Mitekufat Haeven: Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 22: 145.

KENNEDY, A. 2007. The plant macrofossils, in B. Finlayson & S. Mithen (ed.) The early prehistory of Wadi Faynan, southern Jordan: archaeological survey of Wadis Faynan, Ghuwayr and al-Bustan and evaluation of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site of WF16 (Wadi Faynan series 1; Levant supplementary series 4): 420-8. Oxford: Council for British Research in the Levant and Oxbow.

KENYON, K. & T. HOLLAND. 1981. Excavations at Jericho, Volume 3: the architecture and stratigraphy of the Tell. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

KROMER, B. & K. SCHMIDT. 1998. Two radiocarbon dates for Gobekli Tepe, south-east Turkey. Neo-Lithics 3/98: 8-9.

KUIJT, I. & A.N. GORING-MORRIS. 2002. Foraging, farming and social complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the south-central Levant: a review and synthesis. Journal of World Prehistory 16:361-440.

LECHEVALLIER, M. & A. RONEN (ed.). 1994. Le Gisement de Hatoula en Judee Occidentale, Israel. Paris: Association Paleorient.

MAKAREWICZ, C., N. GOODALE, P. RASSMAN, C. WHITE, H. MILLERS, J. HAROUN, E. CARLSON, A. PANTOS, M. KROOT, S. KADOWAKI, A. CASSON, J.T. WILLIAMS, A.E. AUSTIN & B. FABRE. 2006. El-Hemmeh: a multi-period Pre-Pottery Neolithic site in the Wadi el-Hasa, Jordan. Eurasian Prehistory 1(2): 183-220.

MITHEN, S. 2003. After the ice: a global human history 20 000-5000 BC. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. MITHEN, S.J. & B. FINLAYSON. 2007a. WF16 and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A of the southern Levant, in B. Finlayson & S. Mithen (ed.) The early prehistory of Wadi Faynan, southern Jordan: archaeological survey of Wadis Faynan, Ghuwayr and al-Bustan and evaluation of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site of WF16 (Wadi Faynan series 1; Levant supplementary series 4): 470-86. Oxford: Council for British Research in the Levant and Oxbow.

-- 2007b. The radiocarbon dates, in B. Finlayson & S. Mithen (ed.) The early prehistory of Wadi Faynan, southern Jordan: archaeological survey of Wadis Faynan, Ghuwayr and al-Bustan and evaluation of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site of WF16 (Wadi Faynan series 1; Levant supplementary series 4): 460-9. Oxford: Council for British Research in the Levant and Oxbow.

MITHEN, S.J., P. AUSTIN, A. KENNEDY, H. EMBERSON, N. LANCASTER & B. FINLAYSON. 2007. Early Neolithic woodland composition and exploitation in the southern Levant: a comparison between archaeobotanical remains from WF16 and present-day woodland at Hammam Adethni. Environmental Archaeology 12(1): 49-70.

MITHEN, S.J., B. FINLAYSON, M. NAJJAR, E. JENKINS, S. SMITH, S. HEMSLEY, D. MARICEVIC, N. PANKHUSRT, L. YEOMANS & H. AL-AMARAT. 2010. Excavations at the PPNA site of WF16: a report on the 2008 season. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 53: 115-26.

NOY, T., A. LEGGE & E. HIGGS. 1973. Recent excavations at Nahal Oren, Israel. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 39: 75-99.

SCHMIDT, K. 2002. The 2002 excavations at Gobekli Tepe (south-eastern Turkey)--impressions from an enigmatic site. Neo-lithics 2/02: 8-13.

--2005 'Ritual centres' and the Neolithisation of Upper Mesopotamia. Neo-lithics 21'05: 13-21.

--2006. Sie bauten die ersten Tempel: das ratselhafte Heiligtum der Steinzeitjager: die archaologische Entdeckungam Gobekli Tepe. Munchen: Beck.

SHAFFREY, R. 2007. The ground stone, in B. Finlayson & S. Mithen (ed.) The early prehistory of Wadi Faynan, southern Jordan: archaeological survey of Wadis Faynan, Ghuwayr and al-Bustan and evaluation of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site of WF16 (Wadi Faynan series 1; Levant supplementary series 4): 323--55. Oxford: Council for British Research in the Levant and Oxbow.

SIMMONS, A. & M. NAJJAR. 2000. Preliminary report of the 1999-2000 excavation season at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic settlement of Ghwair 1, southern Jordan. Neo-lithics 1/00: 6-8.

--2002. Preliminary report on the Tell Wadi Feinan Neolithic testing project. Neo-lithics 1/02: 19-21.

SMITH, S., A. WADE, E. BLACK, D. BRAYSHAW, C. RAMBEAU, & S. MITHEN. 2011. From global climate change to local impact in Wadi Faynan, in S. Mithen & E. Black (ed.) Water, life & civilisation: 218-44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press & UNESCO.

STORDEUR, D. & F. ABBES. 2002. Dur PPNA and PNB: mise en lumiere d'une phase de transition a Jerf el Ahmar (Syrie). Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 99: 563-95.

STORDEUR, D., D. HELMER & G. WILCOX. 1997. Jerf el-Ahmar, un nouveau site de I horizon PPNA sur le moyen Eurprate Syriean. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 94: 282-5.

STORDEUR, D., M. BRENET, G. DER, APRAHAMAIN & J.-C ROUX. 2000. Les batiments communautaires de Jerf el Ahmar et Murebet, horizon PPNA (Syrie). Paleorient 26(1): 29-44.

WATKINS, T. 2010. New light on Neolithic revolution in south-west Asia. Antiquity 84: 621-34.

YARTAH, T. 2004. Tell 'Abr 3, un village du neolithique preceramique (PPNA) sur le Moyen Euphrate: premiere approche. Paleorient 30(2): 141-58.

Steven J. Mithen (1), Bill Finlayson (2), Sam Smith (3), Emma Jenkins (4), Mohammed Najjar (5) & Darko Maricevic (1)

(1) University of Reading, Whiteknights, P.O. Box 217, Reading, Berkshire RG66AH, UK (Email: s.j.mithen@rdg.ac.uk)

(2) Council for British Research in the Levant, 10 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y5AH, UK

(3) Department of Anthropology and Geography, Oxford Brookes University, Headington Campus, Gipsy Lane, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK

(4) School of Applied Sciences, Bournemouth University, Christchurch House, Talbot Campus, Poole, Dorset BH12 5BB, UK

(5) The British Institute, P.O. Box 519, Jubaiha 11941, Amman, Jordan

Received: 19 July 2010; Accepted: 3 September 2010; Revised: 24 September 2010

Table 1. Radiocarbon dates from contexts within the fill of
Structure 075.

Lab no. Context

Beta 271681 (757) Fill of basal
 posthole in
 Structure O75
Beta 271680 ([dagger]) (747) Fill of hearth cut
 into secondary floor
 surface within
 Structure O75
Beta 253739 (340) Fill of hearth
 within midden
 accumulated in
 Structure O75
Beta 253738 (340) Fill of hearth
 within midden
 accumulated in
 Structure O75

Lab no. Specimen [sup.14]C years BP

Beta 271681 Unidentified twig 9940 [+ or -] 60
Beta 271680 ([dagger]) Twig, cf. Salicaceae 9380 [+ or -] 50
Beta 253739 Twig, tamarix 9660 [+ or -] 70
Beta 253738 Twig, tamarix 9950 [+ or -] 70

 Calibrated
Lab no. years BC * [sup.13]C/[sup.13]C

Beta 271681 9739-9280 -26.9%
Beta 271680 ([dagger]) 8807-8472 -11.6%
Beta 253739 9260-8822 -25.9%
Beta 253738 9758-9277 -25.6%

* (IntCal 09, 95.4%).

([dagger]) We recognise that the low [sup.13]C/[sup.12]C ratio for
Beta 271680 suggests that this date may be unreliable.