7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
1/26
Transitions in PrehistoryEssays in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef
Oxbow Books
Oxford and Oakville
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
2/26
AMERICAN SCHOOL OF PREHISTORIC RESEARCH MONOGRAPH SERIES
Series Editors
C. C. LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY, Harvard University
DAVID PILBEAM, Harvard UniversityOFER BAR-YOSEF, Harvard University
Editorial Board
STEVEN L. KUHN, University of Arizona, Tucson
DANIEL E. LIEBERMAN, Harvard University
RICHARD H. MEADOW, Harvard University
MARY M. VOIGT, The College of William and Mary
HENRY T. WRIGHT, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Publications Coordinator
WREN FOURNIER, Harvard University
The American School of Prehistoric Research (ASPR) Monographs in Archaeology and
Paleoanthropology present a series of documents covering a variety of subjects in the archaeology of the
Old World (Eurasia, Africa, Australia, and Oceania). This series encompasses a broad range of subjects
from the early prehistory to the Neolithic Revolution in the Old World, and beyond including: hunter-
gatherers to complex societies; the rise of agriculture; the emergence of urban societies; human physi-
cal morphology, evolution and adaptation, as well as; various technologies such as metallurgy, pottery
production, tool making, and shelter construction. Additionally, the subjects of symbolism, religion, and
art will be presented within the context of archaeological studies including mortuary practices and rock
art. Volumes may be authored by one investigator, a team of investigators, or may be an edited collec-
tion of shorter articles by a number of different specialists working on related topics.
American School of Prehistoric Research, Peabody Museum, Harvard University,
11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
3/26
Transitions in PrehistoryEssays in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef
Edited by
John J. Shea and Daniel E. Lieberman
www.oxbowbooks.com
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
4/26
Published by Oxbow Books on behalf of the American School of Prehistoric Research.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Oxbow Books and the individual contributors 2009
ISBN 978-1-84217-340-4
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Shea, John J., 1960
Lieberman, Daniel E., 1964
Transitions in prehistory : essays in honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef / edited by John J. Shea and Daniel E.
Lieberman.
p. cm. -- (American School of Prehistoric Research monograph series)
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-1-84217-340-4
1. Paleolithic period. 2. Anthropology, Prehistoric. 3. Antiquities, Prehistoric. 4. Bar-Yosef, Ofer. I.
Shea, John J. II. Lieberman, Daniel, 1964- III. Bar-Yosef, Ofer.
GN771.T76 2009
930.1'2--dc22
2009002081
TYPESET AND PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
5/26
15
THE NEOLITHICCHALCOLITHICTRANSITION IN THE SOUTHERN
LEVANT: LATE SIXTHFIFTH MILLENNIUM CULTURE HISTORYIsaac Gilead
Introduction
Transitions in prehistory have occupied Ofer Bar-
Yosef for quite a long time now. He focuses most-
ly upon two transitions: between the Middle and
Upper Paleolithic periods, which he labels the
Middle to Upper Paleolithic Revolution, and
between the Epipaleolithic and the Neolithicperiods, which he calls the Agricultural
Revolution or the Neolithic Revolution. In his
1998 paper in Cambridge Archaeological Journal,
he made an interesting attempt to use the rela-
tively more abundant data on the Neolithic
Revolution as an analogy to the study of the less
known Middle to Upper Paleolithic Revolution
(Bar-Yosef 1998). Below, I will apply some ele-
ments of this approach to my analysis of another
transition, between the Neolithic and
Chalcolithic periods in the southern Levant.
Before turning to the problems of the
Neolithic to Chalcolithic transition, I would like
to discuss three issues of more general nature.
The first one is the transitionrevolution dichoto-
my. It is abundantly clear from Bar-Yosef s writ-
ings that revolution is a form of transition, i.e., a
transition may be either revolutionary or non-
revolutionary. For example, when discussing the
differences between the Middle and Upper
Paleolithic periods across Europe and WesternAsia, he states that this transition can be defined
as a revolution (Bar-Yosef 1995:115), implying
that there are transitions that are not revolutions.
Thus, when studying transitions, including the
NeolithicChalcolithic transition in the southern
Levant, it is important to define whether the tran-
sition is of a revolutionary nature. The archaeo-
logical correlates that can be used to establish the
revolutionary nature of a transition are not agreed
upon since scholars disagree on the number of
recognizable major cultural changes that meritthe label revolution (Bar-Yosef 1998:141).
The second issue concerns gradual versus
sudden change. As Bar-Yosef (1998:142) notes,
for gradualists there are practically no revolu-
tions since they see even dramatic change as a
slow process. Bar-Yosef takes the opposite posi-
tion and regards rapid change as revolution. I
endorse this approach, and I even suggest that
the Natufian Culture of the Levant was not just a
last stage in a long series of Epipaleolithic enti-
ties but rather a drastic shift that warrants the
label the Natufian Revolution (Gilead
1988:180 181). Furthermore, even if a transi-
tion was not of dramatic magnitude and cannot
be categorized as a revolution, it still could be a
sudden event and not necessarily a gradual one.
The third issue concerns culture history:
defining and classifying archaeological entities
and examining their relation in time and space. I
agree with Bar-Yosef (2003:273) that these are
bare necessities. It is argued below that under-standing the Neolithic Chalcolithic transition is
either biased or impossible without recognition
of cultural entities, or the culture history of the
Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods (Gilead
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
6/26
336 Transitions in Prehistory
1985). Thus, any generalization or reconstruction
concerning transitions should be related to spe-
cific cultural entities defined in time and space.
The methodology used below for definingarchaeological entities in time and space and
establishing the culture history of the late
sixthfifth millennia is based on comparative
typo-technological observations combined with14C dates. In general terms, a culture consists
of a polythetic set of artifact types that consis-
tently recurs in assemblages within a limited
geographical zone (Clarke 1978). A culture is
equivalent to what Banning (1998:190191),
following Henry (1989:82118), calls either
industry or facies in his overview of theLevantine Neolithic. The taxon Natufian
Culture, used extensively since its introduction
by Garrod (1932), is a good example of a most
useful term that is essential for interpretations.
Usually, the phrase the Natufian site of Eynan
is used, rather than the Late Epipaleolithic site
of Eynan. The same should apply to sixthfifth
millennia entities. To set sites and cultural enti-
ties in time, 14C dates are grouped into statisti-
cally similar clusters that are averaged (com-
bined). The OxCal calibration software, version
3.10 (Bronk Ramsey 2001), is used for calibra-
tion (based on the 2004 data), for testing the
similarity of the dates and for combining them
when possible.
Late NeolithicChalcolithic Entities
Wadi Rabah Culture and Its Variants
Assemblages unearthed in the late 1950s by
Kaplan (1958) in the Tel Aviv area, especially at
the site of Wadi Rabah (Figure 15.1), weredefined as Wadi Rabah Phase. The stratigraphy
at the site of Wadi Rabah consists of an upper
layer (A) labeled Ghassulian and two layers under-
neath it (B and C) labeled Pre-Ghassulian/
Wadi Rabah (Kaplan 1958:151). After new
sites yielded Wadi Rabah assemblages, espe-
cially the site of Ein el Jarba in the Plain of
Esdraelon (Figure 15.1) (Kaplan 1969), WadiRabah Culture became an established entity
(e.g., Banning 1998; Gopher and Gophna 1993).
In terms of artifact types (Kaplan 1969:7, 23,
27), the hallmarks of the Wadi Rabah pottery
assemblages are the black and red burnished
ware, carinated bowls, and bow-rim jars. The
absence or rarity of arrowheads and the abun-
dance of finely denticulated and bi-truncated
sickle blades characterize the flint assemblage.
Gopher and Gophna (1993:336339)
examined many assemblages and suggest thatthe taxon Wadi Rabah has two meanings:
Wadi Rabah sensu stricto and Wadi Rabah
sensu lato. The first, normative Wadi Rabah,
consists of sites that feature the attributes as
defined by Kaplan and are located in the central
and northern parts of the southern Levant. The
second, Wadi Rabah Variants, consists of con-
temporary sites that do not meet the strict defi-
nition and, in addition, are also located in the
eastern and southern provinces. Adopting
Clarkes approach, Gopher and Gophna define
Wadi Rabah as a culture, and its variants as
regional subcultures. They assume the proba-
ble existence of subcultures such as the Huleh
Culture in the Huleh Valley, the Tsaf Culture
in the Jordan Valley, and the Newe Yam
Culture in the Carmel coast. As to the
Qatifian in the south, they regard it as a cul-
ture rather than a subculture.
Two main problems obstruct attempts to
subdivide the taxon Wadi Rabah into temporaland regional constituents. The first is the prob-
lem of establishing accepted criteria for defining
attributes to be used as cultural and subcultural
markers. To illustrate this, one can compare
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
7/26
The Neoli thicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant 337
Figure 15.1. Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites mentioned in the text.
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
8/26
338 Transitions in Prehistory
Gopher and Gophnas (1993:Figure 15) and
Garfinkels (1999:108) lists of Wadi Rabah sites.
While Garfinkel considers Jericho, Newe Yam
(Figure 15.1), Lod, Nahal Betzet I, Assawir, andHagoshrim to be Wadi Rabah assemblages,
Gopher and Gophna consider them as variants.
Garfinkel regards the Qatifian and the Tsafian
as belonging to a different period and excludes
them from his list of Wadi Rabah assemblages.
In more general terms, Garfinkel (1999:152)
considers Wadi Rabah to be a highly uniform
cultural phenomenon, while Gopher and
Gophna (1993:340341) consider it a relatively
diversified phenomenon.
The Transjordanian sites, only cursorilymentioned by Gopher and Gophna (1993) and
Garfinkel (1999), further complicate the issue.
This has been recently demonstrated by
Banning (2002:Table 1), who lists the disagree-
ments regarding Wadi Rabah or Wadi Rabah
like sites in Jordan. The controversy between
Banning (2002) and Bourke and Lov ell (2004)
regarding the cultural attribution of sites such as
Tabaqat al-Bma and the lower layers of Abu
Hamid and Teleilat Ghassul (Figure 15.1) illus-
trates well the problem.
The second problem is that the radiometric
chronology of Wadi Rabah Culture is poorly
known. This is due mostly to the low number of
dates available compared, for example, with the
Chalcolithic Ghassulian Culture (Burton and
Levy 2001; Gilead 1994; Joffe and Dessel
1995). The only dates from the sites excavated
by Kaplan and defined by him as Wadi Rabah
(Table 15.1, dates 12) derived from the lower-
most layer at Ein el Jarba, and it is agreed thatthey are too late. Thus, there are practically no
dated normative Wadi Rabah sites.
The Lebanese site of Ard Tlaili, with a pro-
nounced Wadi Rabah component (Garfinkel
1999:151), is a Wadi Rabah variant in the opin-
ion Gopher and Gophna (1993:Figure 15). The
combined date of four measurements from the
site is ca. 58505600 BC cal. (Table 15.1, dates36). The combined three dates from Newe
Yam demonstrate that a later phase of Wadi
Rabah existed at about 55005300 BC cal.
(Table 15.1, dates 79). The dates from the
Wadi Rabahlike levels at Tabaqat al-Bma
(Banning et al. 1994) range between ca. 5600
and 5100 BC cal. (Table 15.1, dates 1016). It
seems therefore that the Wadi Rabah Culture
sensu lato existed between ca. 5800/5700 and
5200/5100 BC cal.
In the areas to the east and south of the coreMediterranean vegetation zone, mainly in the
northern Negev and the lower Jordan Valley,
there are practically no Wadi Rabah sites.
However, the highest numbers of Ghassulian
and Pre-Ghassulian sites have been discovered in
these parts of the southern Levant, some of them
known since the late 1920s. We will therefore
devote more attention to these parts of the coun-
try in the next sections.
The Qatifian Culture
Epstein (1984) started excavating the site of
Qatif (Figure 15.1) in 1973, and I sounded it for
an additional three short season in 1979, 1980,
and 1983. There is a single 14C date from Qatif,
604080 BP (Table 15.1, date 17). The sound-
ings at Qatif and Besor site P14 were the basis
for defining these and similar assemblages as
The Qatifian Culture (Gilead 1990; Gilead
and Alon 1988).
The pottery of Qatif is coarse and crudelyfashioned, with little variety of shapes, and many
vessels are made of straw-tempered ware
(Epstein 1984:212). It is similar to the pottery of
sites D1 in Nahal Besor (Figure 15.1), known
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
9/26
The Neoli thicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant 339
since the late 1920s (Macdonald 1932). The
common shape is a wide-mouthed jar with
thrust-through broad and flat loop handles low
on the body. Garfinkel (1999:189199) attrib-utes the pottery of Qatif and sites in the Besor
area and beyond to the Qatifian Ware and
dates it to his Middle Chalcolithic.
It has been suggested that the geographical
distribution of the Qatifian includes sites in the
Feinan area, Teleilat Ghassul, and Teluliyot
Batashi (Figure 15.1) (Garfinkel 1999; Gilead
1990; Goren 1990). The pottery from the
Feinan area and from Teluliyot Batashi seems to
be Qatifian, but the attribution of Feidan 4
(Gilead 1990:6061) to the Qatifian has provento be unjustified, since it became clear that
Feidan 4 is an Early Bronze Age I site (Adams
and Genz 1995). The suggestion that phase I of
Teleilat Ghassul is Qatifian (Goren 1990:105*
106*) is not substantiated by the new evidence
(Lovell 2001).
Another Qatifian site is Ain Waida on the
east side of the Dead Sea (Figure 15.1) (Kuijt
and Chesson 2002). Most diagnostic are loop
handles and the group of straw-tempered ware.
The radiocarbon date from the site, 617055
BP (Table 15.1, date 18), falls well within the
range of the date from Qatif. Kuijt and Chesson
(2002:Table 1) list nine radiocarbon dates as a
temporal framework for the Qatifian: one from
Qatif and the rest from Jordan. The most proba-
ble 2 averaged calibrated range for Qatif and
Ain Waida is 52104840 BC cal. Garfinkel
(1999:189) mentions 28 Qatifian sherds from
the Pottery Neolithic levels of Tell Wadi Feinan
(Figure 15.1) (Najjar et al. 1990). One of thedates from this site is within the range of the
Qatif-Ain Waida dates (Table 15.1, date 19), but
two dates from profile B are more than 200
years earlier (Table 15.1, dates 2021).
The four early 14C dates from Abu Hamid
(Table 15.1, dates 2225) are clearly within the
Qatif-Ain Waida range (52604990 BC cal.).
The pottery assemblages of basal Abu Hamid,however, are not Qatifian, neither technological-
ly nor typologically. Vessel shapes and the rela-
tively high frequency of painted decoration and
red/black burnish at basal Abu Hamid are remi-
niscent of Wadi Rabah ware and of other sites,
for example, Beth Shean and Tel Tsaf (Figure
15.1) (Lovell et al. 1997:366, 399). Sites in
northern Israel such as Megadim and Newe Yam
yielded radiometric dates in the range of the
Qatifian, but they are considered as Wadi Rabah
(Gopher and Gophna 1993:Table I, Figure 15)and are clearly non-Qatifian in their ceramic
technology and typology. The combined proba-
ble ranges of Qatif and Tell Wadi Feinan suggest
that the Qatifian began at about 5400 BC cal. or
somewhat later and terminated at about
50004900 BC cal.
Our knowledge of the Qatifian is scanty. It
is currently being studied by Yael Abadi-Reiss in
the framework of her Ph.D. dissertation, and
more data will hopefully be available soon. Some
of the Qatifian attributes are shared by assem-
blages with pottery dubbed as Beth Shean
Ware by Garfinkel (1999:153188), and espe-
cially worth noting are the loop handles that are
50 times more frequent in assemblages of Beth
Shean Ware than in Wadi Rabah Ware
(Garfinkel 1999:198).
The Besorian
The Besorian Culture is a precursor of the
northern Negev Ghassulian (Gilead 1990;Gilead and Alon 1988). The original definition,
Besor Phase, is based on the results of a limit-
ed sounding we carried out at Macdonalds site
D (Gilead and Alon 1988) and a reevaluation of
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
10/26
340 Transitions in Prehistory
Table 15.1 14C dates mentioned in the text
DateNo. Provenance Lab number Years BP S.D. Source
1 Ein el-Jarba Gx-786 4920 240 Kaplan 1969:272 Ein el-Jarba Gx-787 5690 140 ibid..3 Ard Tlaili K-1431 6660 130 Gopher and Gophna 1993:Table 1
4 Ard Tlaili K-1434 6790 130 ibid..5 Ard Tlaili K-1433 6850 130 ibid.6 Ard Tlaili K-1432 6870 130 ibid.
7 Newe Yam Hv-4256 6310 395 Burton and Levy 2001:12408 Newe Yam RT-1723 6390 70 ibid.9 Newe Yam RT-1724 6565 70 ibid.10 Tabaqat al-Bma TO-3408 6190 70 Banning et al. 1994:Table 1
11 Tabaqat al-Bma TO-3410 6350 70 ibid.12 Tabaqat al-Bma TO-3412 6380 70 ibid.13 Tabaqat al-Bma TO-4277 6490 70 ibid.
14 Tabaqat al-Bma TO-2114 6590 70 ibid.
15 Tabaqat al-Bma TO-2115 6630 80 ibid.16 Tabaqat al-Bma TO-3411 6670 60 ibid.
17 Qatif Pta-2968 6040 80 Gilead 1988:Table 1.18 'Ain Waida' B AA-29771 6170 55 Kuijt and Chesson 2002:Table 119 Tell Wadi Feinan Coll.Sec. HD-12388 6110 75 Adams 1997:Table 120 Tell Wadi Feinan Profile B HD-10567 6410 115 ibid.
21 Tell Wadi Feinan Profile B HD-12335 6360 45 ibid.22 Abu Hamid A1/A2 Ly-6174 6200 80 Lovell et al. 1997:Table 123 Abu Hamid AG2 Ly-6254 6190 55 ibid.
24 Abu Hamid A1/A2 Ly-6255 6160 70 ibid.25 Abu Hamid A3 Ly-6259 6135 80 ibid..26 Ramot Nof ETH-8828 5715 75 Nahshoni et al. 2002:3*27 Gilat RT-2058 4530 85 Levy and Burton 2006:Appendix 2
28 Gilat RT-860B 4800 135 ibid.
29 Gilat RT-860A 5440 180 ibid.30 Gilat OxA-4011 5540 70 ibid.
31 Gilat Beta-131729 5560 50 ibid.32 Gilat OxA-3555 5700 100 ibid.33 Gilat Beta-131730 5730 40 ibid.
34 Gilat OxA-3566 5790 105 ibid.35 Ghassul H-I OZD024 5791 86 Bourke et al. 2001:Table 336 Ghassul H-I OZD025 5902 71 ibid.37 Ghassul H-I OZD026 5851 117 ibid.
38 Ghassul E-G OZD028 5581 67 ibid.39 Ghassul A-D OZD029 5524 88 ibid.40 Ghassul A-D OZD030 5552 163 ibid.
41 Ghassul E-G OZD031 5605 80 ibid.42 Ghassul E-G OZD032 5577 71 ibid.43 Ghassul A-D OZD033 5454 58 ibid.
44 Ghassul A-D OZD034 5342 71 ibid.45 Ghassul Phase A OZG251 5100 50 Bourke et al. 2004:Table 3
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
11/26
The Neoli thicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant 341
Table 15.1 continued
DateNo. Provenance Lab number Years BP S.D. Source
46 Ghassul Phase A OZG252 5320 60 ibid..47 Ghassul Phase A OZF423 5370 40 ibid..48 Ghassul Phase A OZF420 5400 40 ibid..49 Ghassul Phase B-C OZG250 5440 40 ibid..
50 Ghassul Phase A OZF417 5450 40 ibid..51 Ghassul Phase A OZF419 5490 40 ibid..52 Ghassul Phase B-C OZG249 5490 50 ibid..
53 Ghassul Phase D OZF422 5500 40 ibid..54 Ghassul Phase D OZG248 5520 40 ibid..55 Ghassul Phase B-C OZF418 5750 40 ibid..
56 Ghassul Phase F-G OZF421 5870 40 ibid..57 Tel Ali Ib OxA 7802 5770 45 Garfinkel 1999:Table 2658 Tel Ali Ib OxA 7801 5815 45 ibid.59 Tel Ali Ib OxA 7804 5930 45 ibid.
60 Tel Ali Ib OxA 7800 5950 45 ibid.61 Safadi, low phase M-864A 5420 350 Gilead 1994:Table 162 Safadi, upper phase M-864C 5120 350 ibid.
63 Safadi, middle phase M-864B 5270 300 ibid.64 Safadi, locus 309 LY-3906 5190 100 ibid.65 Safadi, locus 528 LY-3905 5190 100 ibid.
66 Safadi, locus 721 LY-3904 5170 110 ibid.67 Safadi, locus 144 Pta-3655 5420 70 Cohen 1999:3668 Safadi, sub locus 144 RT-862C 5220 105 ibid.69 Abu Matar, basket 1335 RT-1610 5250 55 Sugar 2000:Table 3.02
70 Abu Matar, basket 1339 RT-1613 5275 55 ibid.71 Abu Matar, basket 1310 PR-1 5340 80 ibid.72 Abu Matar, basket 1313 PR-2 5470 80 ibid.
73 Abu Matar, basket 1332 PR-3 5230 80 ibid.74 Abu Matar, basket 1332 PR-4 5270 80 ibid.75 Abu Matar, basket 1334 PR-5 5260 90 ibid.76 Beter III W-254 5280 150 Rosen and Eldar 1993:24
77 Beter, loc. 37 Pta-4312 5100 130 ibid.78 Beter, loc 30 Pta-4212 5180 70 ibid.79 Tel Sheva 36 RTT-4795 5196 41 Yael Abadi-Reiss pers. comm.
80 Tel Sheva 36 RTT-4796 5314 41 ibid.81 Tel Sheva 36 RT-4797 5153 65 ibid.82 Rasm Harbush RT-1866 4810 90 Carmi and Segal 1998:Tables 12
83 Rasm Harbush RT-1862 4945 65 ibid.84 Rasm Harbush RT-1863 5130 70 ibid.85 Rasm Harbush RT-525 5270 140 ibid.86 Silo Site RT-718 5540 110 ibid.
87 Daliyyot RT-1864 5565 60 ibid.
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
12/26
342 Transitions in Prehistory
the assemblages from other Besor sites such as
A, B, D, and M (Figure 15.1) (Macdonald 1932;
Roshwalb 1981). After the taxon Besorian
Phase had been introduced, a number of schol-ars found it difficult to accept the independent
status of this cultural entity (e.g., Garfinkel
1999:198199). New sites and radiocarbon
dates obtained since the early 1990s support
the suggestion that the Besorian is indeed an
independent entity, Post-Qatifian and Pre-
Ghassulian. The Besorian has been discussed at
some length in a number of recent papers
(Gilead in press; Gilead and Fabian in press),
and it is not our intention to examine the details
here. Besorian sites differ from Ghassulian sitesin major aspects, and there is stratigraphic and
radiometric evidence to support the argument
that the Besorian is the precursor of the
Ghassulian.
The sites of Ramot Nof and Ramot 3 in Beer
Sheva are located ca. 4 km north of Nahal Beer
Sheva (Figure 15.1). Ramot Nof was discovered
and excavated in 1991 by Nahshoni et al. (2002).
Ramot 3, located several hundreds of meters
north of Ramot Nof, was excavated in late
1997early 1998 by Fabian et al. (2004). The
nature of these sites, their artifact assemblages,
and the radiometric date of Ramot Nof demon-
strate that they are significantly different from
the group of Ghassulian sites along Nahal Beer
Sheva: Abu Matar, Safadi, Horvat Beter, and Tel
Sheva (Figure 15.1).
The pottery assemblages of the two groups
of sites illustrate both the typological and the
petrographic differences. Neither churns nor
typical V-shaped bowls, so common in theGhassulian sites, has been discovered at the
Ramot sites. The extensive use of red pigment
for decorating numerous vessels in the
Ghassulian sites is almost completely missing
from the Ramot sites. The typical and dominant
vessels of the Ramot sites, jars and holemouth
jars with large loop handles the Beth Pelet
jars (Gilead and Alon 1988:127*) are absent atthe sites along the Nahal. Moreover, Gorens pet-
rographic study shows that an important com-
ponent of the Ramot pottery is made of Motza
marl or clay with crushed calcite, a petrograph-
ic profile that is extremely rare in the Beer Sheva
Ghassulian assemblages (Nahshoni et al.
2002:9*12*).
Beyond the pottery assemblages, the Ramot
sites differ from the other group of Beer Sheva
sites in the absence of many attributes that are
hallmarks of the latter. The Ramot sites aremuch smaller than the sites near the Nahal, and
while the former seem to be isolated hamlets,
the latter are actually villages. Another obvious
difference is the absence at the Ramot sites of
underground structures, another hallmark of
the Beer Sheva Ghassulian.
All the sites along the Nahal produced evi-
dence of metallurgical activities such as copper
ores, slag, crucibles, and copper implements. At
the Ramot sites, there is no evidence of any met-
allurgical activities or use of copper artifacts.
Ivory carving, another feature of the Beer Sheva
Ghassulian, is also entirely missing from the
Ramot sites. The nature of the Ramot sites and
the broad spectrum of pottery and flint artifact
types negate the option that they are specialized
activity loci of people coming for specific tasks
from the large Ghassulian sites of Beer Sheva.
There are 21 radiocarbon determinations
from the Beer Sheva Ghassulian sites (Table 15.1,
dates 6181), and since they are generally similar,their combined average was calculated. Their 2
combined date is ca. 42004000 BC cal. This
tight cluster of dates, derived from sites of a
homogenic nature, clearly differs from the date of
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
13/26
The Neoli thicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant 343
Ramot Nof (571575 BP) with a 2 calibrated
range of 47304440 BC cal. (Table 15.1, date
26). Its probable date is ca. 45504600 BC cal.,
hundreds of years earlier than the Ghassuliansites along the Nahal. Although there is only one
date from the Ramot sites, the new radiocarbon
dates from Teleilat Ghassul and Gilat (see
below) further support the suggestion that the
Ramot sites represent an entity that is centuries
earlier than the other sites.
Since the Ramot sites are different and earli-
er than the nearby Ghassulian sites, similar
assemblages should be sought somewhere else.
The most diagnostic vessels at Ramot, the Beth
Pelet jars and holemouth jars with large loophandles, are known from the Besor sites A, B, D,
and M (Macdonald 1932; Roshwalb 1981). The
Ramot sites are thus most similar to the Besor
sites defined as Besorian (Fabian et al. 2004;
Gilead in press; Gilead and Fabian in press;
Nahshoni et al. 2002). The petrographic study of
pottery from site DII, a segment of Macdonalds
site D (Goren 1988:Appendix 2) revealed that
the Motza marl or clay, an attribute of the ceram-
ic industry at Ramot, was used in these sites, too.
The small size of the Ramot and western Negev
sites, as well as their meager architectural
remains (pits and mudbrick features), further
substantiate the claim that they are Besorian.
Sometimes Ghassulian and Besorian or
Besorian-like assemblages are found in the same
sites. Now that the Gilat excavation report has
been published (Levy 2006), it seems that Gilat
is one of these cases (Figure 15.1). It is clear that
there is a Ghassulian component at Gilat, best
represented by the figurine of a woman carryinga churn. Goren (2006), however, notes the simi-
larity of vessel types from Gilat to the Besorian
types, for example, the Beth Pelet jars. Also
similar is the use of crushed calcite for pottery
manufacturing. On this basis, Goren suggests
that the Besorian is an important element at
Gilat, a suggestion that can be supported by
radiocarbon dates.The eight 14C dates from Gilat (Levy and
Burton 2006) cover a very long time span, from
the first half of the fifth millennium to the end of
the fourth millennium BC cal. (Table 15.1, dates
2734). The third set of dates is earlier, and the
most probable (95.4 percent) 2averaged range
is 46904490 BC cal. The range of these dates
in the late first half of the fifth millennium
accords with the previously proposed date for
the Besorian (Gilead 1994).
The publication of the Teleilat Ghassulstratigraphy and pottery assemblages (Lovell
2001) is an important contribution towards a
better understanding of Ghassulian and Pre-
Ghassulian entities (Gilead 2003). The pottery
of the earliest phases at Teleilat Ghassul is
defined by Lovell (2001:49) as Late Neolithic.
The layers of these phases are best preserved in
section AXI, where a complex depositional his-
tory of the Late Neolithic phases JH can be
observed. Lovell (2001:49) concludes that [t]he
lowest levels of Teleilat Ghassul . . . might be
associated, in part, with the Besorian.
Teleilat Ghassul also furnished a set of
dates relevant to the Besorian. At present, after
the problematic too-early dates (SUA 732739)
have been declared as erroneous (Bourke et al.
2001:1219) and there are new dates for the
deepest levels of the site, its chronology can be
better reconstructed. The three dates from the
earliest phases (H, J) are similar, and their most
probable (95.4 percent) 2
calibrated range is48404580 BC cal. (Table 15.1, dates 3537).
These dates accord well with the date of the
Besorian site Ramot Nof and the dates of Gilat
discussed above.
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
14/26
344 Transitions in Prehistory
To conclude, it is clear that Besorian assem-
blages immediately predate the Ghassulian. The
Besorian is known from parts of northeastern
Sinai, the Nahal Besor, Gilat, Qiryat Gat (P.Nahshoni and E. Aladjem, personal communica-
tion), Beer Sheva, and Teleilat Ghassul. These are
parts of the southern Levant, where the most typ-
ical and developed manifestations of the
Ghassulian were subsequently established.
The formal status of the Besorian, in terms
of Clarkes hierarchy of entities, is not easily
determined. Currently, with more assemblages
and a better chronological control, it seems that
the possibility of the Besorian being a culture
cannot be excluded. Continuity between theBesorian and the Ghassulian can be seen in the
flint assemblages as well as in a few types of pot-
tery. However, the richness in shapes and types
of decoration in the Ghassulian pottery assem-
blages gives the impression of a profound tech-
nological, typological, and aesthetic change that
occurred after the Besorian. The small size of
the Besorian sites, the less intensive construc-
tion activities, and the limited repertoire of
industries, raw materials, and ritual manifesta-
tions set it further apart from the Ghassulian
and support the division of these entities into
independent cultures.
Other Pre-Ghassulian Entities
The possible geographical distribution of the
Besorian north to the BesorGhassul line is
unclear. However, the work carried out since the
1990s in northern Israel suggests that Post-Wadi
Rabah and Pre-Ghassulian entities were present
there, too. The site of Natzur 4 (Figure 15.1)excavated by Yannay (forthcoming) represents
most probably a cultural entity in the northern
half of Israel that is contemporaneous with the
Besorian. Yannay suggests that the assemblages
at the site form a cultural entity he terms Natzur
4 Culture. The pottery, flint, and stone vessels
suggest to Yannay that the Natzur 4 Culture is
Post-Wadi Rabah and Pre-Ghassulian.Typologically and chronologically, it is regarded
by him as a northern counterpart of the
Besorian. At the site of Horvat Uza in western
Galilee (Figure 15.1), excavated by Getzov (forth-
coming), a sequence of Pre-Ghassulian layers has
been uncovered between layer 20 (Wadi Rabah)
and layer 15 (Ghassulian). It is probable that
layer 16 is contemporaneous with Natzur 4.
Unfortunately, there are no radiometric dates for
these sites; therefore, their exact chronological
position cannot be ascertained.The Besorian covers the second quarter of
the fifth millennium cal., in the later part of the
period referred to by Garfinkel (1999:309310)
as Middle Chalcolithic, which started, in his
opinion, at about 5300 BC cal. Layer Ib at Tel Ali
(Figure 15.1) yielded four radiocarbon dates that
cover the second quarter of the fifth millennium
BC cal. (Table 15.1, dates 5760). It is therefore
contemporary with the Besorian, although no cul-
tural attribution is mentioned beyond the fact
that the ware common in the pottery assemblage
is the Beth Shean ware. With more sites and
radiometric dates, cultural attribution of sites
such as Tel Ali 1b will hopefully become possible.
Tel Tsaf in the Jordan Valley (Figure 15.1)
was first excavated by Gophna and Sadeh
(1989). The site yielded a pottery assemblage
that includes numerous fragments decorated in a
style known as Tel Tsaf: painting of black or red
geometric patterns on white wash. Garfinkels
renewed excavations at the site (20042006)yielded an exotic fragment, probably from north-
ern Syria, with a Late Ubaid decoration style.
New radiocarbon dates from Tel Tsaf suggest that
the Tsafian assemblages, here and at a number of
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
15/26
The Neoli thicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant 345
adjacent sites, are to be dated to the second quar-
ter of the fifth millennium BC cal., about one
thousand years later than the previous 14C date
suggested (Garfinkel, personal communication).The unique Tel Tsaf decoration is limited to sev-
eral sites in the central Jordan Valley (Garfinkel
1999:186188). It represents, therefore, an enti-
ty that is contemporary with the adjacent Tel Ali
Ib and the distant Besorian sites in the south, but
it is clearly distinct culturally.
The Ghassulian Culture
The Ghassulian Culture, the most prominent
entity of the Chalcolithic period, consists of
assemblages broadly similar to those uncoveredin the upper levels of Teleilat Ghassul (North
1959). Temporal boundaries of the Ghassulian
are relatively well established on the basis of14C
dates (ca. 45003900 BC cal.) and it is distrib-
uted in the northern Negev, the Dead Sea basin,
the southern and central coastal plain, the
Shephella, and the Jordan valley. One can attrib-
ute to the Ghassulian Culture assemblages that
yielded all or many characteristic artifact types
such as V-shaped bowls, churns, cornets, vessels
with lug handles and/or red painted bands, nar-
row-backed sickle blades, microliths, clay
ossuaries, basalt bowls, copper artifacts, broad
room architecture, and primary burials in habi-
tation sites and secondary burials in off-settle-
ment community cemeteries.
The Ghassulian is a homogeneous entity in
terms of artifact types, but variations are appar-
ent and they probably signify geographic subcul-
tures, to use Clarkes (1978:249261) terminolo-
gy. The existence of two different subcultures ismost apparent in the northern Negev, where the
Beer Sheva cluster and the Besor-Grar (Figure
15.1) cluster have already been described
(Gilead 1989:390392; 1995:473476). The
chronological relation between the two subcul-
tures is a complex issue, but recent dates from
Gilat and Teleilat Ghassul suggest that the Besor-
Grar cluster is earlier (Gilead in press). It seemstherefore that the Ghassulian of Teleilat Ghassul-
Besor-Grar is about 44004300 BC cal. (Table
15.1, dates 2931, 3854), a century or two ear-
lier than the Ghassulian of the Beer Sheva area
(Gilead in press). However, it is probable that
Teleilat Ghassul was also occupied later, during
the centuries when the Beer Sheva sites were set-
tled. The set of dates from Shiqmim, the most-
dated Ghassulian site (Burton and Levy
2001:12341237), is not discussed here since
the pottery assemblages of the different phaseshave not yet been published in detail.
Non-Ghassulian Chalcolithic Entities
The Chalcolithic sites of the Golan Heights
(Epstein 1998) lack many of the Ghassulian arti-
fact types, have a markedly different ceramic
repertoire, and feature distinct architecture and
settlement pattern. Ceramic difference between
the Ghassulian and the Golan sites are well illus-
trated by Garfinkel (1999:276290), who distin-
guishes between Ghassulian ware and Golan
ware. Epstein (1998:334) is very explicit about
the unique nature of the Golan sites and consis-
tently labels them as the Golan Chalcolithic.
She separates the Golan Chalcolithic, or The
Golanian Culture (Gilead 2006), from Ghassul-
Beer Sheba, a taxon she regards as too extensive-
ly used and not appropriate in conjunction with
the Golan assemblages. The Golanian 14C dates,
most of them from Rasm Harbush (Figure 15.1),
fall within the second half of the fifth millennium,and it is therefore contemporary with the
Ghassulian (Table 15.1, dates 8287). Two of the
six available dates fall in the second quarter of the
fourth millennium (Table 15.1, dates 8283), but
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
16/26
346 Transitions in Prehistory
since the validity of one of them is questioned
(Carmi and Segal 1998:343), the likelihood of
such late dates is minimal.
Another geographically distinctive culturalentity is the Timnian Culture, located mainly
in the southern Negev, the Aravah, and the east-
ern Sinai (Henry 1995). The 14C dates indicate
that it is broadly contemporary not only with the
Ghassulian but also with the Besorian, and it
lasts until the Early Bronze Age. While it is pos-
sible to outline cultural transformations in the
Beer Sheva area and northward, the Timnian
seems to represent a relatively stable cultural
system, in terms of both the artifact types and
the nature of its sites, which is very differentfrom both the Besorian and the Ghassulian.
The NeolithicChalcolithic Transition
Kaplan (1958, 1969) regards the Wadi Rabah
Culture as an Early Chalcolithic entity, a precur-
sor of the Ghassulian. Since the late 1960s, the
consensus has been, contrary to Kaplans peri-
odization, that the Wadi Rabah Culture is an
archaeological entity of the Late Neolithic
(Pottery Neolithic) period. Garfinkels
(1999:Table 1) survey of the literature shows
that between 1969 and 1993, all ten main pro-
posals (his term) for the periodization of the
Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods treated Wadi
Rabah Culture as a Late Neolithic entity.
Garfinkel, contrary to this consensus, returns to
Kaplans periodization and regards now the
Wadi Rabah Culture as the earliest manifesta-
tion of the Chalcolithic period.
In general, Garfinkel (1999:6) sees a grad-
ual change over 5,000 years, from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A to the Ghassulian Late
Chalcolithic in his terminology. He therefore
states that placing Wadi Rabah in either Late
Neolithic or Chalcolithic is largely a question of
semantics. However, since he thinks that the
Wadi Rabah ware resembles more what he
regards as subsequent Chalcolithic ware, he
attributes it to his Early Chalcolithic period.In the terminology of Bar-Yosef (2003:265)
mentioned in the introduction above, Garfinkel
seems to belongs to gradualists who would
interpret the most dramatic cultural and socio-
economic changes as slow incremental process-
es lasting hundreds or even thousands of years.
For supporters of this approach, drawing divid-
ing lines between periods when the incremental
processes was slow is an arbitrary decision that
amounts to nothing more than a question of
semantics.I think that periodization has a major role in
the study of transitions, and it is not merely a
question of semantics. The beginning of a period,
be it Upper Paleolithic or Chalcolithic, must sig-
nify a noticeable change, revolutionary or not,
rapid or slow. In cases of revolutionary transi-
tions, it is easier to determine the beginning of a
new period. In cases of gradual cumulative
changes, it is practically impossible to trace the
starting point. However, even in such cases,
changes become apparent in the cultural assem-
blages at a certain stage. The least we can say is
that when such changes become archaeological-
ly visible, we witness a new period, although it
could start at an earlier point in time.
To illustrate this approach, the Natufian
Culture will be used again as an example. It is
abundantly clear that the entire array of Natufian
artifact assemblages, and not just the lithic
industry, is dramatically different from that of the
earlier cultural entities such as the GeometricKebaran or Ramonian. The Natufian signifies the
beginning of a new era in the prehistory of the
Near East and the world in general. The question
is, When did this change start? At this point,
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
17/26
The Neoli thicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant 347
scholars should begin to negotiate period bound-
aries. If the change was rapid and took a century
or two, then the new period corresponds to the
earliest Natufian, as I see it. If the process ofchange started a millennium or more earlier, in
the Geometric Kebaran, Ramonian, or even ear-
lier, as gradualists may see it, the lower boundary
of the period is to be pushed back accordingly.
Most syntheses dealing with the beginning
of agriculture start with the Natufian, notably
those of Bar-Yosef (e.g., 1998:146147). He
encapsulates one of the far-reaching events in
human history in the heading From sedentary
foragers [Natufian] to farming communities
(Bar-Yosef 1998:146). The Natufian Culture sig-nifies for him a major shift in subsistence and
social behavior, probably a reaction to an abrupt
environmental change. The current consensus,
however, is that the Natufian is an entity of the
Epipaleolithic period, the last in a long chain of
entities that started about 10,000 years earlier.
The major shift and the beginning of a new era
are not reflected in discussions of period bound-
aries, and to most authorities, the Natufian signi-
fies the beginning of the Late Epipaleolithic.
Moving from the Late Pleistocene back to
the mid-Holocene, the questions are, When did
the Chalcolithic period start? and What is the
nature of the NeolithicChalcolithic transition? It
is accepted that the three major and distinctive
cultural entities that existed between the begin-
ning of the Late Neolithic and the Bronze Age are
the Yarmukian Culture, the Wadi Rabah Culture,
and the Ghassulian Culture. In addition, it is
unanimously agreed that the Yarmukian is a
Neolithic entity and the Ghassulian isChalcolithic. The status of the Wadi Rabah
Culture is disputed since, as indicated above,
some scholars regard it as Neolithic and others as
Chalcolithic.
In his introductory book to the archaeology
of the land of the Bible, Mazar writes: In the his-
tory of archaeological research in Palestine, vari-
ous cultures have been named Chalcolithic,confusing its designation. In this book, we shall
not use ambiguous terms such as Early
Chalcolithic or Late Chalcolithic. The main
culture of the Chalcolithic period is the
Ghassulian Culture; this latter term will be used
here in its most comprehensive framework
including regional variants (Mazar 1990:59).
This statement epitomizes the essence of
the Chalcolithic period by practically equating
the period with its most typical cultural entity.
Although this is a sweeping textbook generaliza-tion (but see also Banning 1998:188), the core of
the statement is adequate: excluding relatively
few sites that are different due to either geo-
graphical or temporal circumstances, almost
everything Chalcolithic is Ghassulian. Not less
important, the Ghassulian is Chalcolithic in pro-
ducing and using copper artifacts along with an
elaborate flint industry, attributes fully compati-
ble with the copperflint dichotomy embedded
in the name of the period. Beyond the artifacts,
the distribution of sites in the landscape and
aspects of inter- and intrasite variability, such as
off-settlement community cemeteries, are also
essential attributes of the Ghassulian, and thus,
of the Chalcolithic period as a whole. Comparing
other cultures to the Ghassulian cannot be based
solely on a number of ceramic attributes but
should include the entire array of artifact assem-
blages, petrography, 14C dates, settlement pat-
terns, and so forth.
Following the example of the Natufian, it isobvious that the appearance of the Ghassulian
Culture signifies the fact that the transition was
over and the Chalcolithic period had already
started. Now we have to negotiate the period
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
18/26
348 Transitions in Prehistory
boundary, or in other words, determine which
sites predate the Ghassulian, and define artifact
assemblages and settlement patterns that feature
changes that might have led to the Ghassulian.Fortunately, there are relatively numerous radio-
carbon dates relevant for the study of
NeolithicChalcolithic transition, although most
of them derive from sites located to the south
and east of the southern Levant core area.
The site that fits best in terms of negotiat-
ing the boundary of the Chalcolithic period is
Teleilat Ghassul. This is the only site with a
recently published, long stratigraphic sequence,
with rich pottery assemblages that span the
entire sequence, and a fair number of radiocar-bon dates (Bourke et al. 2001; Bourke et al.
2004; Gilead 2003; Lovell 2001). The earliest
Ghassulian appears in either phase G or phase
F, hence it seems to have started at about 4500
BC cal. or shortly after. Most of the dates cluster
in the third quarter of the fifth millennium, sug-
gesting that this is the major phase of occupa-
tion at the site. The phases below the
Ghassulian, mainly the Besorian-like phases
HJ, are dated to the second quarter of the fifth
millennium and should therefore be Pre-
Ghassulian (but see Bourke 1997:405 408).
The mere fact that the site was preferred by a
group of people who settled it and were fol-
lowed by the Ghassulians suggests that the for-
mer were the people who started the change.
Their Besorian-like pottery assemblages further
support this assumption.
A similar phenomenon is observed in the
Beer Sheva area. Numerous Ghassulian sites
along Nahal Beer Sheva are mostly dated to thelast quarter of the fifth millennium. However,
the Besorian assemblages of Ramot, dated to the
second quarter of the fifth millennium, are sim-
ilar both chronologically and culturally to the
Pre-Ghassulian assemblages of Teleilat Ghassul.
It has also been demonstrated above that at
Gilat and at other sites in the Nahal Besor area,
there is a Besorian phase of occupation, prior tothe Ghassulian. Thus, the changes that led to the
Ghassulian are not restricted to the pottery and
flint assemblages but are also apparent in the
settlement patterns discussed above.
The Ghassulian Culture started at about
4500 BC cal. or shortly later and signifies the
inception of the Chalcolithic period. The
changes that led from the Neolithic to the
Chalcolithic period started about two centuries
earlier, and the time span of ca. 47004500 BC
cal. should be regarded as the phase of theNeolithicChalcolithic transition. All the assem-
blages that predate the Besorian, at least in
southern Israel and Jordan, are, in fact, Neolithic.
Some of the assemblages referred to by Garfinkel
as the Beth Shean ware and Middle Chalco-
lithic probably also belong to the Neolithic
Chalcolithic transitional phase (Table 15.2). If
the start and the end of the Chalcolithic period
are defined in accordance with its principal cul-
tural entity, terms such as Early, Middle, or
Late become redundant in the case of the
Chalcolithic period. Early or Late are terms
to refer to phases of the Ghassulian, or other con-
temporary cultures such as the Timnian. This
accords well with our example above, the
Natufian: the terms Early and Late Natufian
are in use and not Early Late Epipaleolithic and
Late Late Epipaleolithic.
The transition to the Ghassulian lasted
most probably one or two centuries. Do a couple
of centuries signify a sudden event or a revo-lution? No one currently suggests that the
inception of the Ghassulian is a revolutionary
event, and it seems to be a justified attitude.
However, in the terminology of Sherratt (1981,
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
19/26
The Neoli thicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant 349
1983), the Chalcolithic period in the Near East
witnessed what he calls The Secondary
Products Revolution. This revolution, if the
term is at all applicable, is a process that lastedfor thousands of years, starting before the south-
ern Levant Chalcolithic began and continuing
after it had terminated.
Conclusions
Albright (1932:12) in his initial definition of the
Chalcolithic period, wrote that [t]hanks to this
rich new body of material for comparison, we
can now attack the problem of the chronology of
the Ghassulian culture with confidence. Now,
75 years later, it is obvious that his statement wassomewhat exaggerated. However, a rich new
body of material was added during the decades
that elapsed since, and the coming decades will
undoubtedly add even more. Nevertheless, it
seems that controversies surrounding the
NeolithicChalcolithic transition are not going to
fade away with additional data. This is due to the
fact that different opinions are not just based on
data but also reflect scholars intellectual tenden-
cies and especially the way they estimate the
nature and pace of culture change.
The proper way to attack problems of transi-
tion is to define cultural entities and incorporate
them into archaeological periods after both enti-
ties and periods have been clearly defined.
These definitions depend on successful dating of
cultural assemblages, either stratigraphic or,
preferably, radiometric. The geographic distribu-
tion of cultural entities is also a major element in
the study of prehistoric transitions, because it is
possible for different cultural entities to coexistin different geographic zones, even in relatively
small areas such as the southern Levant.
It is suggested that the Chalcolithic period,
in accordance with the meaning of its name, is
to be strongly related to the Ghassulian Culture,
a culture featuring copper metallurgy as one of
its attributes. The most recent radiometric dat-
ing, especially from the type site of TeleilatGhassul, indicates that the Ghassulian started at
about 4500 BC cal. or slightly later. The more
intensive occupation at that site is relatively
early, at about 44004300 BC cal., and signifies
the early phase of the Ghassulian. Gilat and
other sites in the northwestern Negev were also
settled during this early phase. The later phase
of the Ghassulian, ca. 42004000 BC cal, is best
manifested in the sites around the city of Beer
Sheva, on the banks of the local Nahal. Cultural
assemblages of the Golan Heights and theUpper Galilee represent a different entity, the
Golanian Culture of the Chalcolithic period.
The transition between the Neolithic and
the Chalcolithic took place during one or two
centuries before the Ghassulian started (Table
15.2). This is best evinced by the lower layers of
Teleilat Ghassul, below the Ghassulian layers
and supported by the earlier radiocarbon dates
from these layers. A similar phenomenon is rep-
resented in the northern Negev by the Besorian
sites, as indicated by the dates from Gilat and
Ramot Nof. This phase, from about 4750 to
4500 BC cal., should be formally regarded as
the NeolithicChalcolithic transition or Pre-
Ghassulian.
Achnowledgments
Patrice Kaminski prepared the map. I have bene-
fited immensely from discussing aspects of the
issues raised above with Peter Fabian, Steve Rosen,
Yuval Goren, Hamoudi Khalaily Jaimie Lovell,Yael Abadi-Reiss, and Koby Vardi. Angela
Davidzon critically read the drafts of the paper,
and her comments were invaluable. I thank them
all; the remaining mistakes are my responsibility.
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
20/26
350 Transitions in Prehistory
Table 15.2 The Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic of the southern Levant:
Periodization and cultural entities
Southern Levant cultural entities
Years BC (cal.) Period North and center South and east4000/3900
Late Ghassulian Late Ghassulian
Golanian**
4250 CHALCOLITHIC
Early Ghassulian Early Ghassulian
4500
NEOLITHIC Natzur 4 Besorian
4700 CHALCOLITHIC Beth Sean Teleilat Ghassul G/HJTRANSITION Tsafian
5000 Qatifian
Timnian*
Wadi Rabah
LATE NEOLITHIC
(POTTERY NEOLITHIC)
5600
Lodian Lodian
Yarmukian
* The Timnian of the southern Negev and Aravah and Eastern Sinai yielded 14C dates that cover the
Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age periods.
** The Golanian yielded 14C dates that cover the second half of the fifth millennium and early fourth
millennium
Pre-Gh
assulian
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
21/26
The Neoli thicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant 351
References
Adams, R.
1997 On early copper metallurgy in the Levant: A response to claims of Neolithic metallurgy. In The
Prehistory of Jordan, II. Perspectives from 1997, edited by H. G. K. Gebel, Z. Kafafi, and G. O. Rollefson,pp. 651656. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Envirnoment 4. Ex oriente,
Berlin.
Adams, R., and H. Genz
1995 Excavations at Wadi Fidan 4: A Chalcolithic village complex in the copper ore district of Feinan,
southern Jordan.Palestine Exploration Quarterly 127:820.
Albright, W. F.
1932 The Chalcolithic Age in Palestine.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 48:1013.
Banning, E. B.
1998 The Neolithic period: Triumphs of architecture, agriculture and art.Near Eastern Archaeology
61:188237.
2002 Consensus and debate on Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic of the southern Levant.Palorient28:148155.
Banning, E. B., D. Rahimi, and J. Siggers
1994 The Late Neolithic of the southern Levant: Hiatus, settlement shift or obsereved bias? The perspec-
tives from Wadi Ziqlab. Palorient20:151164.
Bar-Yosef, O.
1995 The origins of modern humans. In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, edited by T. E. Levy, pp.
110123. Leicester University Press, London.
1998 On the nature of transitions: The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8:141163.
2003 Reflections on selected issues of the Upper Palaeolithic. In More Than Meets the Eye, Studies on Upper
Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East, edited by A. Goring-Morris and A. Belfer-Cohen, pp. 265273.
Oxbow Books, Exeter.
Bourke, S. J.
1997 The Pre-Ghassulian sequence at Teleilat Ghassul: Sydney University excavations 19751995. In
The Prehistory of Jordan, II. Perspectives from 1997, edited by H. G. K. Gebel, Z. Kafafi, and G. O.
Rollefson, pp. 395417. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 4.
Ex oriente, Berlin.
Bourke, S. J., and J. L. Lovell
2004 Ghassul, chronology and cultural sequencing.Palorient30:179182.
Bourke, S., E. Lawson, J. L. Lovell, Q. Hua, U. Zoppi, and M. Barbetti
2001 The chronology of the Ghassulian period in the Southern Levant: New14
C determinations fromTeleilat Ghassul, Jordan.Radiocarbon 43:12171222.
Bourke, S., U. Zoppi, J. Meadows, Q. Hua, and S. Gibbins
2004 The end of the Chalcolithic period in the south Jordan Valley: New14C determinations from Teleilat
Ghassul, Jordan.Radiocarbon 46:315323.
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
22/26
352 Transitions in Prehistory
Bronk Ramsey, C.
2001 Development of the radiocarbon program OxCal.Radiocarbon 43:355363.
Burton, M., and T. E. Levy
2001 The Chalcolithic radiocarbon record and its use in the southern Levantine archaeology.Radiocarbon43:12231246.
Carmi, I., and D. Segal
1998 14C dates from the Chalcolithic sites in the Golan. In The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan,by C.
Epstein, p. 343. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 4. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.
Clarke, D. L.
1978Analytical Archaeology, 2d ed. Methuen & Co. Ltd., London.
Cohen, R.
1999Ancient Settlements of the Central Negev.Vol. 1, The Chalcolithic Period, The Early Bronze Age and Middle
Bronze Age I. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 6. The Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem
(Hebrew).
Epstein, C.
1984 A Pottery Neolithic site near Tel Qatif. Israel Exploration Journal 34:209219.
1998 The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 4. Israel Antiquity Authority,
Jerusalem.
Fabian, P., S. Hermon, and Y. Goren
2004 Ramot 3: A Pre-Ghassulian open-air site in the northern Beer-Sheva basin. AtiqotXLVII:5780.
Garfinkel, Y.
1999Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant. Qedem 39. The Institute of Archaeology,
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.
Garrod, D. A. E.
1932 A new Mesolithic industry: The Natufian of Palestine.The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
of Great Breatin and Ireland 62:257269.
Getzov, N.
forthcoming.Hurvat Uza 1991. Final Report of the 1991 Excavations. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports.
Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.
Gilead, I.
1985 Chalcolithic and accompanying terms: On the need for definition of terms in archaeological
research. InBeer Sheva,Vol. 2, edited by M. Cogan, pp. 6574. The Magness Press, Jerusalem
(Hebrew).
1988 The Upper Palaeolithic to Epi-Palaeolithic transition in the Levant.Palorient14:177182.
1989 Grar: A Chalcolithic site in Nahal Grar, northern Negev, Israel.Journal of Field Archaeology
16:377394.1990 The Neolithic-Chalcolithic transition and the Qatifian of the northern Negev and Sinai.Levant
22:4763.
1994 The history of the Chalcolithic settlement in the Nahal Beer Sheva area: The radiocarbon aspect.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 296:113.
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
23/26
The Neoli thicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant 353
1995 Grar, A Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev. Beer-Sheva VII. Ben-Gurion University Press, Beer Sheva.
2003 Review ofThe Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods in the Southern Levant by J. L. Lovell. Mitekufat
Haeven Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 33:218223.
2006 Fifth millennium culture history: Ghassulian and other Chalcolithic entities in the Southern Levant.Paper presented at the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East,
Madrid.
in press The Besorian: A Pre-Ghassulian cultural entity.Palorient.
Gilead, I., and D. Alon
1988 Excavations at proto-historic sites in the Nahal Besor and the Late Neolithic of the Northern Negev.
Mitekufat Haeven Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 21:109*130*.
Gilead, I., and P. Fabian
in press Pre-Ghassulian sites in the Ramot Neighborhood, Beer Sheva: Chronological and cultural
perspectives. In Or Le-Mayer, edited by Y. Shamir and D. Sivan. Ben-Gurion University Press,
Beer Sheva.
Gopher, A., and R. Gophna1993 Cultures of the eight and seventh millennia B.P. in the Southern Levant: A review for the 1990s.
Journal of World Prehistory 7:297352.
Gophna, R., and S. Sadeh
1989 Excavations at tel Tsaf: Aan Early Chalcolithic site in the Jordan Valley. Tel Aviv 1516:336.
Goren, Y.
1988 A petrographic analysis of pottery from sites P14 and DII.Mitekufat Haeven Journal of the Israel
Prehistoric Society 21:131*137*.
1990 The Qatifian Culture in southern Israel and Transjordan: Additional aspects for its definition.
Mitekufat Haeven Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 23:100*112*.
2006 The technology of the Gilat pottery assemblage. InArchaeology, Anthropology and Cult, The Sanctuary
at Gilat, Israel, edited by T. E. Levy, pp. 369393. Equinox, London.
Henry, D. O.
1989From Foraging to Agriculture: The Levant at the End of the Ice Age. University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia.
1995Prehistoric Cultural Ecology and Evolution: Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. Plenum Press,
New York.
Joffe, A. H., and J. P. Dessel
1995 Redefining chronology and terminology for the Chalcolithic of the southern Levant.Current
Anthropology 36:507518.
Kaplan, J.
1958 Excavations at Wadi Raba. Israel Exploration Journal 8:149160.1969 Ein El Jarba Chalcolithic remains in the Plain of Esdraelon.Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 194:239.
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
24/26
354 Transitions in Prehistory
Kuijt, I., and M. S. Chesson
2002 Excavations at Ain Waida, Jordan: New insights into Pottery Neolithic lifeways in the southern
Levant.Palorient28:109122.
Levy, T. E. (editor)2006Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel. Equinox, London.
Levy, T. E., and M. Burton
2006 Radiocarbon dating of Gilat. In Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary at Gilat, Israel, edited
by T. E. Levy, pp. 863866. Equinox, London.
Lovell, J. L.
2001 The Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods in the Southern Levant: New Data from the Site of Teleilat
Ghassul, Jordan. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 974, Oxford.
Lovell, J. L., Z. Kafafi, and G. Dollfus
1997 A preliminary note on the ceramic from the basal levels of Abu Hamid. In The Prehistory of Jordan, II.
Perspectives from 1997, edited by Gebel, H. G. K., Z. Kafafi and G. O. Rollefson, pp. 361370. Studies
in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 4. Ex oriente, Berlin.Macdonald, E.
1932Prehistoric Fara, Beth Pelet II. The British School of Archaeology in Egypt, London.
Mazar, A.
1990Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000586 B.C.E.The Anchor Bible Reference Library.
Doubleday, New York.
Nahshoni, P., Y. Goren, O. Marder, and N. A. Goring-Morris
2002 A Chalcolithic site at Ramot Nof, Beer-Sheva. Atiqot43:1*24* (Hebrew).
Najjar, M., A. Abu Dayya, E. Suleiman, G. Weisgerber, and A. Hauptmann
1990 Tell Wadi Feinan the first Pottery Neolithic tell in the south of Jordan.Annual of the Department of
Antiquit ies of Jordan 34:2756.
North, R. S. J.
1959 Ghassulian in Palestine chronological nomenclature.Biblica 40:541555.
Rosen, S. A., and I. Eldar
1993 Horvat Beter revisited: The 1982 salvage excavations. 'Atiqot22:1327.
Roshwalb, A. F.
1981 Protohistory in the Wadi Ghazzeh: A typological study based on the Macdonald excavations. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of London.
Sherratt, A. G.
1981 Plough and pastoralism: Aspects of the secondary products revolution. InPatterns of the Past: Studies
in Honour of David Clarke, edited by I. Hodder, G. Isaac, and N. Hammond, pp. 261305. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.1983 The secondary exploitation of animals in the Old World. World Archaeology 5:90104.
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
25/26
The Neoli thicChalcolithic Transition in the Southern Levant 355
Sugar, A. N.
2000 Archaeometallurgical investigation of the Chalcolithic site of Abu Matar, Israel: A reassessment of
technology and its implications for the Ghassulian culture. Ph.D. Dissertation, University College,
London.Yannay, E.
forthcomingNazur An Early Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Coastal Plain Israel. Israel Antiquities
Authority Reports. Jerusalem.
7/31/2019 Gilead I (2009) Neolithic Chalcolithic Transition
26/26