early bronze i occupation at al-basatîn, in wadi ziqlab, northern jordan

1

introduction

xcavations at al-Basatîn (WZ 135) in WadiZiqlab have uncovered artifacts and featuresdating to the Late Neolithic, Early Bronze,

and Classical periods (Banning et al. 2005; Banning,Gibbs, and Kadowaki 2005). While most of our effortsto date have focused on explaining the Late Neolithicmaterial (Kadowaki et al. 2008), the site also pro-vides some interesting insights into the early EarlyBronze of northern Jordan. Although a number of re-cent studies have discussed the origin and develop-ment of Early Bronze cultures in the southern Levant(e.g., Braun 2004; Esse 1991; Hanbury-Tenison 1986;Joffe 1993; Philip and Baird 2000), few have focusedspecifically on the highlands of northern Jordan, and

the region remains somewhat poorly understood.Our analysis of the architecture, artifacts, and faunalremains suggests that the Early Bronze occupation atal-Basatîn consisted of a small farmstead that wasengaged in a range of domestic activities. Radiocar-bon assays and a preliminary analysis of the potteryindicate that the Early Bronze occupation at the sitewas confined to a single phase of the early EB I.

the site and

excavations at al-basatîn

Archaeological survey led to the discovery of al-Basatîn during the summer of 2000 (Maher and Ban-ning 2001), and excavations at the site in 2002, 2004,and 2006 uncovered features and artifacts from the

Early Bronze I Occupation at Al-Basatîn, in Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan

Kevin Gibbs Seiji Kadowaki

Archaeology. School of Arts, Histories, and Cultures The University MuseumThe University of Manchester The University of Tokyo

Mansfield Cooper Building 7-3-1 Hongo, BunkyoManchester M13 9PL Tokyo 113-0033

United Kingdom [email protected] [email protected]

Adam Allentuck E. B. Banning

Department of Anthropology Department of Anthropology19 Russell St. 19 Russell St.

University of Toronto University of TorontoToronto M5S 2S2 Toronto M5S 2S2

Canada [email protected] [email protected]

Excavations at al-Basatîn in Wadi Ziqlab, northern Jordan, have recovered evidencefor an EB I occupation at the site, in addition to strata dating to the Late Neolithic andClassical periods. Artifacts and a series of radiocarbon assays indicate this occupationdates to the early EB I. Analyses of the pottery, stone tools, and faunal remains suggestthe site was a small, perhaps somewhat isolated, farmstead that was engaged in a varietyof domestic activities. Architecture at the site includes at least one substantial structurethat may have been a round, sausage-shaped, or apsidal house. Few contemporary sitesfrom the hilly areas east of the Jordan Valley have been reported, so the excavations atal-Basatîn give important insights into local EB I traditions as well as contacts with otherparts of the southern Levant. The location of the site may be related to Early Bronzesettlement expansion into areas suitable for arboriculture.

E

2 GIBBS, KADOWAKI, ALLENTUCK, AND BANNING BASOR 354

Late Neolithic, Early Bronze Age, and Classical pe-riods (Banning, Gibbs, and Kadowaki 2005; Gibbs,Kadowaki, and Banning 2006; Kadowaki et al. 2008).

The site occupies a sloping terrace, around 25 masl, on the south bank of Wadi Ziqlab, immediatelyopposite the Classical site of Tell Abu Fokhkhar(fig. 1). Al-Basatîn is about 1 km downstream fromthe sites of Tell Rakan I (WZ 120), a village sitewith evidence of occupation in the Late Pre-PotteryNeolithic B (PPNB), Yarmoukian, Chalcolithic, andEarly Bronze Age, and Tell Rakan II (WZ 130), anEarly Bronze Age industrial installation (Banning andNajjar 1999; Banning, Harun, and Klassen 2008).Because of the numerous springs in this part of thewadi, the stream of Wadi Ziqlab is perennial here,and the intensive modern land use includes pome-granate groves near the wadi channel and olive groveson and around the site.

The site is spread over two terraces. Our initialexcavations concentrated on the lower terrace (WZ140), but the realization that much of the materialhere was likely redeposited from upslope shifted ourfocus to the higher terrace (WZ 135), of which ca.100 m

2

has so far been excavated (fig. 2). Excava-

tions employed a nominal 3

x

3 m grid and selectedareas of excavation in an attempt to define the extentof the site and to expose architecture. Early BronzeAge deposits are concentrated in Areas N34, P33–37,Q28–31, and Q33–38. In Areas P33–37 and Q33–38,Early Bronze Age deposits overlie a Late Neolithicstratum that extends farther north (downslope). Ex-cavations have not yet determined if Late Neolithicdeposits occur at the southern end of the site, underthe Early Bronze Age deposits in Areas Q28–31.

During excavation, provenience of artifacts wasassigned to “bag,” a subdivision of “locus” based onthe lithological characteristics of deposits and spa-tial extent within each unit. We used record forms todocument the lithological characteristics of sedi-ments, excavation methods employed for each “bag,”levels, stratigraphic and spatial relationships, andother relevant information. We screened all archaeo-logical deposits, with the exception of the uppermostsediment (i.e., plow zone), usually through a meshwith apertures approximately 3.5 mm. In order toreach the Late Neolithic levels more quickly, in thecentral part of the site, screening of Early BronzeAge fill deposits was sometimes less than 100%.

Fig. 1.

Map of Wadi Ziqlab showing the location of al-Basatîn. Note that although Glueck (1951: 194) reports EB I–IIpottery from Tell Abu Fokhkhar, more recent visits to the site by members of the Wadi Ziqlab Project have not been ableto substantiate this claim.

Ed: Spell?

2009 EARLY BRONZE I OCCUPATION AT AL-BASATÎN 3

Fig. 2.

Map of al-Basatîn showing the location of excavated areas.


Stratigraphy and Radiocarbon Chronology

Stratigraphic analysis, examination of finds, anda suite of radiocarbon dates indicate that there arethree main stratigraphic levels at the site, dating tothe Late Neolithic (sixth millennium cal

b.c.

), EarlyBronze I (fourth millennium cal

b.c.

), and Classicalperiod (at least first century

b.c.

). Residual and sur-face remains indicate that there was some Epipalae-olithic and PPNB activity on or near the site as well.

Radiocarbon assays are consistent with the stratig-raphy of the material culture (table 1) and contributesubstantially to the growing evidence for the chronol-ogy of EB I (Philip 2001: 169–70). Those correspond-ing to the Early Bronze Age cluster around 4700–4600

b.p.

, with one a bit later at 4400

b.p.

Taken together,these suggest an Early Bronze occupation ca. 3700–3300 cal

b.c.

One outlier from Early Bronze deposits(TO-12025) and two outliers from Late Neolithicdeposits (TO-13123 and TO-12124) suggest activitydating to the Chalcolithic period (5500–5300

b.p.

),but this has not been substantiated by analyses of thestratigraphy or artifacts, despite earlier speculation(Banning et al. 2005: 532). It should be noted thatmany of the deposits contain artifacts from morethan one phase as residuals from earlier deposits oras the result of disturbance by bioturbation or recentactivities on the site. Notably, deposits radiocarbondated to the first century

b.c.

, especially in AreasQ41 and R41, contain substantial numbers of LateNeolithic artifacts, indicating that residual artifactsand possibly disturbance by bioturbation or recentactivities have had a substantial impact on artifactdistributions.

Architectural Features

The best evidence for Early Bronze Age architec-ture comes from Areas Q29–30, where excavationsrevealed what appears to be the fairly well-preserved,curvilinear end of a building (fig. 3). This is a double-leaf stone wall that is preserved in some places to threecourses. A small stone installation was built againstthe inside of the south wall on a surface that appearsto be associated with the bottom of the wall. Sincewe only uncovered a portion of this structure, we can-not be certain whether it is a round building or an“apsidal” or “sausage-shaped” one, although the walldoes seem to straighten out a bit in the eastern partof Q29.

In Areas N34 and P33, we discovered a singlecourse of stones that was likely the foundation of anEarly Bronze structure (fig. 4). Like the curvilinearbuilding, this is a double-leaf wall, but the stonesthat comprise it are smaller. The wall was associatedwith abundant Early Bronze Age pottery. However,Early Bronze pottery was also encountered under thewall, suggesting it is from a later part of the EarlyBronze occupation.

In Area P35 we found what appears to be a claysilo (fig. 5). It was found at a level immediately abovea Late Neolithic cobble floor, leading us to expect itto date to the Neolithic (Banning, Gibbs, and Kad-owaki 2005: 232). Yet radiocarbon determinations oncharcoal, tree bark, and olive pits found both in thesilo and its clay walls clearly date it to Early BronzeI: 4790 ± 50, 4720 ± 70, 4550 ± 40, and 4400 ± 60

b.p.

Taken as a group, these indicate a date for thesilo’s construction and use beginning on the order

Note: For calibration, sample TO-12025 was given an estimated prior probability of 40% of being an outlier. Omitting this stepyielded an earlier calibrated date of 4485–3960

b.c

., 3831–3819

b.c

. at 68% confidence.

Table

1. Radiocarbon Assays from EB I Contexts at al-Basatîn

Context Material Lab No. Date BP Calibrated 68% confidence

N34 Locus 003 Olive pit TO-12024 4630 ± 60 3507–3425

bc

, 3383–3351

bc

P35 Locus 010 Charcoal Beta-208233 4550 ± 40 3368–3311

bc

, 3217–3187

bc

P35 Locus 010 Tree bark TO-12422 4720 ± 70 3535–3494

bc

, 3467–3373

bc

P35 Locus 010 Olive pits TO-11995 4400 ± 60 3349–3218

bc

, 3093–3082

bc

P35 Locus 010 Olive pit Beta-208234 4790 ± 50 3590–3520

bc

, 3397–3383

bc

P36 Locus 013 Charcoal TO-12025 5510 ± 130 3742–3631

bc

, 3605–3494

bc

, 3472–3365

bc

Q29 Locus 008 Olive pit TO-12027 4660 ± 60 3499–3487

bc

, 3473–3425

bc

, 3414–3398

bc

, 3386–3367

bc


bc

, 3380–3320

bc

, 3212–3186

bc


bc

, 3380–3284

bc

, 3276–3265

bc

, 3209–3197

bc

Ed: Addperiods toB.C.?


of 3890–3528 cal

b.c.

(at 68% confidence) and end-ing about 3250–2770 cal

b.c.

, although the lack ofconstraining dates before and after the silo leads tolarge tails in the probability distribution.

1

In addi-tion, the spread of dates may indicate the presenceof old wood and residual olive pits, so that the upperend of this range may be more realistic, perhapsaround 3300 cal

b.c.

Pottery

Analysis of the Early Bronze pottery from al-Basatîn is ongoing, but some preliminary results

are provided here. We have identified 553 sherdsas “diagnostic” Early Bronze pottery. These includerims, handles, bases, decorated body sherds (includ-ing slip), and a single pierced disk that may have beenused as a spindle whorl. As noted above, some con-texts contain a mixture of material from both EarlyBronze and Late Neolithic phases. In these cases weare often able to attribute the diagnostic sherds to thecorrect phase. The nondiagnostic sherds (i.e., undeco-rated body sherds) are more difficult to classify con-fidently, so we have not yet been able to calculate thetotal number of Early Bronze sherds from the site. Afew diagnostic sherds, including some red-slippedbody sherds and small rim sherds, are similarly prob-lematic, and we cannot be sure if they should be at-tributed to the Early Bronze or Late Neolithic. Onesthat were recovered from contexts identified as EarlyBronze on the basis of additional evidence (e.g.,radiocarbon assays) are included in this summary,even though there is a chance that a small numberof these are residual Late Neolithic sherds. We alsoinclude all sherds identified as Early Bronze on thebasis of preliminary analysis of form and fabric, re-gardless of their locus of discovery. We recovered a

1

Radiocarbon determinations were calibrated and analyzedusing the 2004 calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2004) and BCal on-line software at Sheffield University (Buck, Litton, and Smith1992; Buck et al. 1994).

Fig. 3.

Curvilinear Early Bronze wall from areas Q29–30.This could be part of a round, apsidal, or “sausage-shaped” structure.

Fig. 4.

Rectilinear Early Bronze wall from areas N34 and P33.


substantial number of clearly residual Early Bronzesherds in Classical deposits. No complete vessels havebeen recovered from the site.

Formal types have not yet been finalized. Vesselshape is very generally described as inverted, everted,or necked (table 2). Inverted sherds are predomi-nantly holemouth jars, although some of them couldbe large inverted pithoi (fig. 6). These usually havesimple rounded or squared rims, sometimes thickenedon either the interior or exterior surfaces. Everted

shapes include vessels with flaring (concave) profiles,rounded (convex) profiles, and V-shaped (straight)profiles, as well as vessels with roughly vertical pro-files (fig. 7). Some of these everted vessels are cer-tainly bowls, while others may represent the rims ofnecked jars that have been broken above the junctionof neck and body. Two bowls with flared rims arealso carinated, in one case with a small lug handleon the carination (fig. 7:1–2). More obvious neckedvessels have everted rims or slightly inverted ones

Fig. 5.

Early Bronze clay silo from area P35 (outline is emphasized).


(fig. 8). The latter sometimes have necks that areslightly thickened, giving a somewhat swollen ap-pearance (fig. 8:4–5). A single sherd has been drawnas a platter, although the small size of the sherd makesthis reconstruction somewhat tenuous (fig. 7:9).

Handles are strap or loop handles, ledges, or smalllugs (fig. 9). Some of the former are quite small andlikely derive from juglets or amphoriskoi, althoughothers are much larger. Ledges and lugs are generallysimple, sometimes covered with a red slip. One smallledge is red-slipped and decorated with a series ofshort incisions (fig. 9:11). Another has three shallowthumb-impressions and is pierced (fig. 9:12). Basesare generally thin and flat or disks (fig. 9). Some-times the vessel wall, just above its junction with thebase, is prominently thickened.

Decoration and surface treatment are fairly lim-ited (table 3). Red slip is the most common surfacetreatment (n = 243), occurring on both the exteriorand interior surfaces of vessels, although it is some-times restricted to the lip. It is often thin and pale,especially on thicker sherds, although it can some-times be of a higher quality. Red slip is rarely bur-nished. Holemouth jars, and more rarely bowls andeverted-necked jars, are often decorated with a bandof oblique impressions or short incisions on the exte-

rior surface near the opening of the vessel (figs. 6:11–18; 7:8, 13; 8:2). More rarely, a band of circular im-pressions (fig. 6:4–9) or short vertical incisions occurs(fig. 6:19). The former can occur on an exterior thick-ening of the rim. Rope appliqué also occurs in a bandaround the rim of holemouth jars (fig. 6:10). We iden-tified one example of an impressed “pie-crust” rimand a single body sherd with “grain-wash” surfacetreatment (neither illustrated here)

Pottery fabric tends to be quite coarse, with large,angular inclusions of chert, calcite, and limestone be-ing common. Fabric colors vary, with light gray, buff,and pale yellow being most common. Other colorsinclude dark gray, brown, and pink. Some sherds,especially thicker ones, have a dark gray core, dem-onstrating incomplete oxidization during firing. Al-though the Early Bronze pottery is generally muchbetter fired than the Late Neolithic material from thesite, some pieces are quite soft and may crumblewhen immersed in water.

Lithics

More than 9,000 chipped stones were recoveredfrom Early Bronze Age deposits (table 4). In addi-tion to Early Bonze Age lithics, these lithic samples

Note: Indented entries are included in the main entry. As a single sherd may represent more than onesegment (e.g., rim and handle), the total of the main entries is greater than the total number of diagnos-tic sherds.

Table

2. Inventory of Diagnostic Early Bronze Sherds

n % of Diagnostic Sherds

Rim 225 40.7

-inverted (holemouth jars) 70 12.7

-everted (flared rim bowls and/or necked jars) 25 4.5

-everted (rounded bowls) 13 2.4

-everted (straight bowls and/or necked jars) 13 2.4

-vertical (deep bowls and/or necked jars) 14 2.5

-unknown 78 14.1

Handles 47 8.5

-lug 3 0.5

-strap 25 4.5

-ledge 10 1.8

-unknown 9 1.6

Bases 79 14.3

Body 196 35.4

-jar necks? 6 1.1

Platter? 1 0.2

Pierced disk 1 0.2

Unknown 8 1.4


Fig. 6.

Holemouth jars. 1–7: plain; 4–6: impressed; 7–9: impressed on thickened rim; 10: rope decoration; 11–19: shortincisions or “slashes.” Cross-hatching indicates red slip.


Fig. 7.

Everted vessels. Most are probably bowls although some could be jar necks. 1: knob handle on carination; 8 and13: short incisions. Cross-hatching indicates red slip.

include residual Neolithic and Epipalaeolithic artifactsthat were removed from underlying layers by post-depositional site-formation processes. The admixtureof the Epipalaeolithic tools is very small (ca. 1%),while that of Late Neolithic materials is difficultto assess because undiagnostic informal tools (suchas retouched flakes and scrapers) and flake debitagecould be either Early Bronze or Late Neolithic inage. The co-occurrence of sickle-element types indi-cates a substantial degree of mixture, however. Thetypes that characteristically occur in Late Neolithic

contexts (i.e., Gopher’s Type D and Type C sickleelements with denticulated cutting edges; Gopher1989) comprise more than half the sickle elementsrecovered from Early Bronze Age deposits (30 piecesin total). Other sickle elements are made on regular,long blades with fine or no denticulation on theircutting edges (fig. 10:1–2). These types (Gopher’sType E or F) are in accord with the Early Bronze dateindicated by pottery and radiocarbon determinations.Other retouched tools from Early Bronze contexts in-clude scrapers of various forms. Some of them are


made on cortical flakes and abruptly retouched (fig.10:3–4). One bifacially flaked ax/adze (fig. 10:5)could be residual from the Late Neolithic, given thevirtual absence of this tool type at Early Bronze Agesites in the southern Levant (Rosen 1997: 98).

A small group of groundstone artifacts (fewer than20 pieces) from Early Bronze Age contexts includeshandstones, one pestle, and fragments of stone vessels(fig. 11). All of these, except for one handstone, aremade of basalt, which would have been imported tothe site, probably from the area east of Tell ash-ShunahNorth. Other minor tool types, such as worked cob-bles and pounders, are often made of either limestoneor flint that is locally available. Some of the ground-stones were recovered from secure Early Bronze Agecontexts. For example, a basalt pestle (fig. 11:2) fromArea Q28 was found in a locus (004) with a clusterof artifacts that includes Early Bronze Age potterysherds and a long sickle blade with a nibbled edge

(Gopher’s Type E). In addition, two handstones, madeof basalt and limestone respectively (fig. 11:1), wererecovered immediately below a building floor asso-ciated with the curvilinear wall in Area Q29.

Fauna

Early Bronze I deposits from the 2004 and 2006excavation seasons at al-Basatîn contributed 531 bonespecimens. The bulk of this assemblage is highly frag-mentary. In order to assess the synchronic distribu-tion of bone fragmentation, the size of the fragmentrelative to the size of the intact element was recordedon an ordinal scale ranging from 1 (complete) to 6(less than one-eighth) for every specimen from the2006 sample and from a 20% subset of the 2004sample. The results indicate that 82% of the faunalspecimens in the EB I assemblage fall into the size6 category. All other size categories are evenly butonly marginally represented. Other taphonomic fea-tures ubiquitously observed in this assemblage arecalcium carbonate encrustation and various degreesof weathering, both of which mask subtle character-istics that would aid identification.

This taphonomic circumstance is the primary rea-son why only 68 specimens were identified to a skele-tal element and, of these, only 31 identified at leastto a taxonomic family. The majority of faunal spec-imens were classified to taxonomic class (Aves orMammalia) and, in the case of Mammalia, bone re-mains were further divided into one of four live ani-mal categories (very small, small, medium, and large)on the basis of cortical bone thickness (table 5).

The relative proportions of the major taxa arestrikingly similar to those of the Late Neolithic as-semblage (Kadowaki et al. 2008: table 5). Given thatthese two periods are not successive, this comparisondoes not demonstrate continuity over time, but thepattern fits our expectation that, in both periods, sheep,goats, or both were the primary economic foci of thepastoral economy, distantly followed by pigs. How-ever, it is also likely that at least some of the faunalremains in the EB I deposits, just as with pottery andlithics, are residual from the Late Neolithic levels,which would tend to blur the differences. Conse-quently, those differences that persist are what ismost interesting.

In the EB I deposits,

Bos taurus

is known fromonly one specimen, a maxillary second premolar.This single find does not qualify domestic cattle asone of the most abundant EB I animals but, consid-

Fig. 8.

Necked jars. 2: short incisions. Cross-hatching in-dicates red slip.


ering the small sample size and the prominence ofcattle in other Early Bronze contexts in the JordanValley (Grigson 1995: table 1; Horwitz and Tcher-nov 1989: 287), it is probable that cattle played amore important role than our sample suggests.

Sus scrofa

account for about 14% (n = 4) of theidentifiable EB I assemblage. These remains includeone maxillary tooth row, one mandibular third molar,

one incisor, and one scapula. This prevalence of teethmay be attributed to a combination of small samplesize, the resilience of enamel to diagenesis, and thedistinctiveness of even highly fragmented pig teeth,which facilitates species-level identifications.

Ovis/Capra

predominate in the EB I deposits, asthey represent about 66% (n = 19) of the identifiedassemblage. Distinction between sheep and goat was

Fig. 9.

Bases and handles from Early Bronze vessels. 3: with knob handle; 11: short incisions; 12: pierced and im-pressed. Cross-hatching indicates red slip.


Note: As a single sherd may represent more than one surface treatment (e.g., impression andred slip), the total number of entries is greater than the total number of diagnostic sherds.

Table

3. Surface Treatment/Decoration on Early Bronze Pottery

n % of Sherds with Surface Treatment

Red slip 243 77.6

Slip and burnish 3 1.0

Grain-wash 1 0.3

Impressions/short incisions 49 15.7

Rope appliqué 15 4.8

Other appliqué 7 2.2

Table

4. Inventory of Chipped Stones from Early Bronze Contexts al-Basatîn

n %

Retouched tools Sickle elements 30 12.3 % of tool total

Unfinished sickles 1 0.4 % of tool total

Burins 1 0.4 % of tool total

Borers 12 4.9 % of tool total

Denticulates 15 6.2 % of tool total

Notches 12 4.9 % of tool total

Scrapers 38 15.6 % of tool total

Truncations 5 2.1 % of tool total

Ret. blades 7 2.9 % of tool total

Ret. flakes 113 46.5 % of tool total

Axes, adzes, chisels 1 0.4 % of tool total

Bifacial knives 0 0.0 % of tool total

Cortical scrapers 3 1.2 % of tool total

Tool fragments 5 2.1 % of tool total

Retouched tool total 243 2.7 % of Early Bronze total

Debitage Blades 46 0.5 % of debitage total

Flakes 5,271 60.0 % of debitage total

Chips 1,832 20.8 % of debitage total

Chunks 1,573 17.9 % of debitage total

Core-trimming elements 2 0.0 % of debitage total

Cores 64 0.7 % of debitage total

Debitage total 8,788 97.3 % of Early Bronze total

Early Bronze total 9,031 98.8 % of total

Residual Epipalaeolithic pieces 109 1.2 % of total

TOTAL 9,140

not possible for any of these remains. In keepingwith the other major taxa, teeth are the most preva-lent body parts, representing 13 of the 19 specimens.Estimation of age at death was only possible in threecases. Two unfused bones suggest immaturity, and amoderately worn third mandibular molar was froman adult.

Other taxa from the EB I deposits include the firstphalanx of a dog or wolf, the fifth phalanx (anterior)and the first phalanx of a fox, and the fourth metac-arpal of a small cat. Domestic cat remains are quiterare before the second millennium

b.c.

, especiallyoutside of Egypt. However, a cat burial from aNeolithic context in Cyprus demonstrates the possi-


bility of domestic cats in other places and earliertimes (Vigne et al. 2004). Perhaps more provocativeis a recently published study of the global geneticstatus of cats, which indicates that the wild cat,

Felissilvestris

lybica, was initially domesticated in theNear East over 9,000 years ago (Driscoll et al. 2007).However, as there are no diagnostic features that canhelp distinguish the post-cranial elements of small

wild and domestic cats, the status of domestication ofthe cat metacarpal from al-Basatîn remains unknown.

The very small size of the EB I faunal sampleprecludes drawing any significant conclusions re-garding human–animal interactions. However, thesimilarity between the proportions of taxa in theLate Neolithic and EB I assemblages that was previ-ously noted is one that Köhler-Rollefson (2001: 212)

Fig. 10.

Chipped stones from Early Bronze Age contexts at al-Basatîn. 1 and 2: sickle elements; 3 and 4: cortical scrap-ers; 5: flaked ax.


also found in her study of the Late Neolithic andEB I fauna from another site in Jordan, Jebel AbuThawwab. An interesting difference between thesetwo sites is that equid and gazelle are represented atJebel Abu Thawwab, but not at al- Basatîn. Likewise,pigs are represented at al-Basatîn but are absent fromJebel Abu-Thawwab. Although the small samplesfrom both sites likely underrepresent some taxa andomit others, these differences are intriguing if theyare even partly based on divergent cultural practices.

Small Finds

Among the more interesting finds from the curvi-linear EB I building are a shell pendant (fig. 12:1) andnumerous tubular objects, the latter consisting bothof the truncated shafts of bird bones and natural plantcasts from local travertine deposits (fig. 12:3). Theconcentration of about 15 of these over a relativelysmall area within the building fill suggests that thesewere originally used together as beads, perhaps as a

necklace or sewn onto clothing, and were scatteredonly slightly by postdepositional site-formation pro-cesses. A previous article (Banning, Gibbs, and Ka-dowaki 2005: fig. 10) attributed some of these findsto the Classical period (Stratum III), but more recentanalysis of the site’s stratigraphy and associated cul-tural material indicates these are actually Early Bronzeartifacts. A sawn cowry shell from Area P33 (fig. 12:2)probably comes from decorated clothing. AlthoughBanning, Gibbs, and Kadowaki (2005: fig. 10) attri-buted this artifact to the Early Bronze Age (Stra-tum II), more recent analysis indicates that it wasfound in a context with mixed Early Bronze andClassical material, so we cannot be certain of itsdate.

discussion and conclusions

The evidence from the EB I occupation at al-Basatîn is consistent with the site being a small,largely self-sufficient farmstead. The architecture is

Fig. 11.

Groundstones from Early Bronze Age contexts at al-Basatîn. 1: bifacial rectilinear handstone (limestone); 2: uni-polar cylindrical pestle (basalt); 3: basalt vessel.


Table

5. Inventory of Faunal Remains from Early Bronze Contexts at al-Basatîn

Scientific Name Common Name NISP %

Bos taurus

Cattle 1 0.2

Ovis/Capra

Sheep/goat 19 3.6

Ovis/Capra/Gazella

Sheep/goat/gazelle 3 0.6

Sus scrofa

Pig 4 0.8

Canis sp.

Dog or wolf 1 0.2

Felis sp.

Cat 1 0.2

Vulpes sp.

Fox 2 0.4

Artiodactyla, medium Medium artiodactyl 10 1.9

Mammalia, large Large mammal 19 3.6

Mammalia, medium Medium mammal 150 28.2

Mammalia, small Small mammal 12 2.3

Mammalia, very small Very small mammal 4 0.8

Mammalia Mammal 304 57.3

Aves Bird 1 0.2

Total NISP 531 100.0

Fig. 12.

Small finds from Early Bronze contexts or possible Early Bronze contexts.


not extensive and is likely domestic in nature, per-haps consisting of a single house and at least one lesssubstantial building, although a few other structuresmay remain undiscovered. Lithics include sickle ele-ments and groundstones that point to the processingof grain, while the dominance of

Ovis/Capra

remainsin the faunal assemblage suggests sheep or goat herd-ing. We recovered a number of olive pits, some ofwhich were directly dated to the EB I, which indi-cates the exploitation of this resource, although wehave not determined if these derive from wild ordomesticated olives. The pottery assemblage includeslarge, fairly coarse jars as well as smaller bowls,both of which are consistent with use in a domesticenvironment, for storage, cooking, and serving. Theclay silo could provide more substantial storage. Asingle Early Bronze pierced disk, recycled from abody sherd, could have been a spindle whorl andhints at textile production.

The fairly tight clustering of the radiocarbon as-says, the generally homogeneous ceramic assemblage,and the lack of obvious stratigraphic changes withinthe Early Bronze deposits suggest that this EarlyBronze occupation should be confined to a singlephase of the Early Bronze Age. The radiocarbon evi-dence is consistent with an occupation in the “early”part of EB I, as described by Stager (1992: 28–30)and Philip (2008: 167–68).

The ceramic evidence also supports this date.Parallels for the impressed and incised holemouthjars at al-Basatîn can be found at a number of EB Isites, including Tell Umm Hammad (Helms 1992: figs.143–50), Jawa (Betts 1991: figs. 112–15), Kataretas-Samra (Leonard 1983: figs. 9:2, 9:4), and Tellash-Shunah North (Gustavson-Gaube 1985: figs.10:29–30, 11:36–37, 12:43; 1986: fig. 12:38). Stager(1992: 30) attributes this “Impressed-Slashed Ware”(ISW) to the earliest phase of EB I, contemporarywith other early EB I pottery traditions. The signifi-cance of impressed and incised pottery in relation toother wares, such as de Miroschedji’s (1971: 38, fig.14) “Proto-Urban D,” “Jawa-Type Pottery” (Hanbury-Tenison 1986: 123–25), and “Umm Hammad Shar-qiyya ware” (Glueck 1951: 318–29; Helms 1992: 107)is not straightforward (Philip 2001: 206). It is worthnoting, however, that the pushed-up lug handles thatare sometimes found near the rim of holemouthjars at Tell Umm Hammad, Jawa, and sites in theZarqa basin (e.g., Douglas and Kafafi 2000: fig. 6:3)do not appear at al-Basatîn. This may be the result ofthe east–west regionalism identified by Philip (2008:

200), with al-Basatîn falling to the north of the zoneof pushed-up lug handles.

The absence of Gray-Burnished Ware (GBW;Proto-Urban C) at al-Basatîn may also be the resultof regional variation. GBW often occurs on earlyEB I sites in the northern part of the southern Levantbut, as Joffe (1993: 39) points out, it tends to be morecommon west of the Jordan River. It should be notedthat the two carinated EB I bowls from al-Basatînare similar in form to some GBW vessels—for ex-ample, from Yiftah’el (Braun 1997: figs. 9:3:1, 9:4:3),Tell ash-Shunah (Baird and Philip 1994: fig. 12:4;Leonard 1992: pl. 8:1), the deep cut at Khirbet al-Kerak (Greenberg and Paz 2004: fig. 7:4; Greenberget al. 2006: fig. 3:35), and Tel Te’o (Eisenberg 2001:fig. 7), although they lack any special surface treat-ment. Perhaps they represent local imitations of GBWor, as Philip (2008: 119) suggests, perhaps the methodof finishing GBW bowls is not as significant as thesize and shape of the vessels, which may be relatedto changing attitudes toward food consumption.

The lack of Grain-wash (Band-slip) pottery at al-Basatîn, aside from a single sherd, likely does havechronological rather than regional significance, againplacing the site in the early part of the EB I. At thenearby industrial installation at Tell Rakan II, grain-wash is the dominant surface treatment on storagevessels from the upper levels, and this, in conjunctionwith other evidence, places this phase of the site inthe late EB I (Banning, Harun, and Klassen 2008: 3).

Parallels in architecture can also be found at otherEB I sites. Since we have not excavated it completely,the curvilinear structure at al-Basatîn may turn out tobe round, oval, or “sausage-shaped,” or even apsidal.Round structures occur at Jebel Abu Thawwab (Ka-fafi 2001: 74, 89), Hesi (O’Connell and Rose 1980:75), Khirbet al-Karak (Braun 1989: 11), Tell ash-Shunah North (Phillip 2001: 178), and Lod (Kaplan1977: 58). True apsidal structures—rectangular build-ings with an apse at one end—appear to be rare or ab-sent in the EB I of the southern Levant (Braun 1989:15; Sebag 2005: 223). However, oval and “sausage-shaped” structures with apses at both ends occur at anumber of early EB I sites, including ºEn Shadud(Braun 1979; 1985: 68), Yiftahel (Braun 1989: 4;1997: figs. 6:11, 15, 25), Sidon-Dakerman (Saidah1979: fig. 2), Kabri (Kempinski 2002: 22–25), andJebel Mutawwaq (Velasco 2001: fig. 4; Hanbury-Tenison 1986: 187, fig. 18). Further excavation willperhaps allow us to determine the overall shape ofthe al-Basatîn structure.

Ed: lc?


Our reconstruction of al-Basatîn as a small farm-stead dating to the early EB I fits Joffe’s (1993: 46)description of the period as a time of settlement thatfavored small sites. It is likely that many of thesesites were largely self-sufficient agricultural villagesor farmsteads that were engaged in a range of domes-tic activities (e.g., Braun 1985: 103).

Although al-Basatîn sits at an elevation near sealevel, it is on the western margin of the highlandsand can therefore contribute to discussions of EB Isubsistence and settlement expansion into parts ofnorthwestern Jordan that were only sparsely occupiedprior to the Late Chalcolithic. One possibility is thatthis expansion was related to movement into areaswith potential for olive production or other forms ofarboriculture (cf. Finkelstein and Gophna 1993: 12–14). Colonization of areas with good potential forolive groves appears to have begun in the Chalcolithic(Banning, Blackham, and Lasby 1998: 155; Dollfusand Kafafi 2001: 167; Hanbury-Tenison 1986: 87;Lovell 2002: 93; Mabry and Palumbo 1988: 289;1992: 68–69), and the importance of olives likelyincreased in the EB I (Philip 2008: 181). At al-Basatîn,we have not encountered evidence of features thatare obviously related to the production of olive oil,although these could have been located off-site (Genz2003: 67). However, the presence at al-Basatîn ofstorage jars and a small number of olive pits, someof which have been directly dated to the EB I, sup-port this suggestion. At present, the generally poorpreservation of botanical remains (S. Monckton, per-sonal communication) and the possibility that oliveprocessing may have taken place off-site prevent usfrom quantifying the importance of olives relative toother aspects of the economy. However, the frequentoccurrence of sickle elements and the character ofthe faunal remains both indicate that olive produc-tion was only one aspect of the EB I economy at al-

Basatîn. The use of Tell Rakan II (WZ 130), probablyas an olive oil factory (Banning, Harun, and Klassen2008: 1), suggests a greater importance of olive inWadi Ziqlab somewhat later in the EB I. Whether theexploitation of olives in the early EB I of northernJordan was related to the development of local elitesor was for household consumption has yet to bedetermined (cf. Genz 2003: 71; Joffe 1993: 59–60;Philip 2003: 107–8; Stager 1985: 179–81).

We hope that future work in the highlands of north-ern Jordan will further define the early EB I of thearea and its development from or replacement of ear-lier Late Chalcolithic traditions (Blackham 2002:100–101; Finkelstein and Gophna 1993; Hanbury-Tenison 1986; Joffe 1993). The EB I seems to be aperiod of marked regionalization in the southernLevant (Philip 2008: 167), so it is important that theearly EB I in northern Jordan is defined in its ownterms, rather than relying on information derived fromwork carried out in adjacent areas. Excavations atal-Basatîn demonstrate that the site had some simi-larities with other early EB I sites in the Jordan Val-ley and to the south, including some elements of thepottery assemblage and architecture, but it also exhib-its some differences. We also hope that further workwill be able to determine how new economic oppor-tunities, some of which enhanced the importance ofarboriculture, affected settlement in the area (Lovell2007).

Although the early EB I strata at al-Basatîn arepreceded and followed by occupational gaps, a num-ber of other sites in Wadi Ziqlab have Late Chal-colithic or later EB I material, or both, notablyincluding nearby Tell Rakan I (WZ 120). Futurework in Wadi Ziqlab and surrounding areas will al-low us to incorporate the early EB I occupation at al-Basatîn into its local and regional contexts morefully.

Baird, D., and Philip, G.1994 Preliminary Report on the Third (1993) Season

of Excavations at Tell esh-Shuna North.

Levant

26: 111–33.Banning, E. B.; Blackham, M.; and Lasby, D.

1998 Excavations at WZ 121, a Chalcolithic Site atTubna, in Wadi Ziqlab.

Annual of the Depart-ment of Antiquities of Jordan

42: 141–59.

Banning, E. B.; Gibbs, K.; Gregg, M.; Kadowaki, S.; andMaher, L.

2005 Al-Basatîn, Wadi Ziqlab. Pp. 530–33 in “Ar-chaeology in Jordan,” eds. S. Savage, K. A.Zamora, and D. R. Keller.

American Journal ofArchaeology

109: 527–55.

references


Banning, E. B.; Gibbs, K.; and Kadowaki, S.2005 Excavations at Late Neolithic al-Basatîn, in

Wadi Ziqlab, Northern Jordan.

Annual of the De-partment of Antiquities of Jordan

49: 229–43.Banning, E. B.; Harun, J.; and Klassen, S.

2008 Multiple-Spouted Jars of the Early Bronze I inNorthern Jordan.

Bulletin of the AmericanSchools of Oriental Research

349: 1–12.Banning, E. B., and Najjar, M.

1999 Excavations at Tell Rakân I, a Neolithic Site inWadi Ziqlab, Jordan.

Neo-Lithics

2/99: 1–3.Betts, A. V. G., ed.

1991

Excavations at Jawa 1972–1986: Excavationsand Explorations in the Hashemite Kingdom ofJordan: Stratigraphy, Pottery and Other Finds

.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.

Blackham, M.2002

Modeling Time and Transition in Prehistory:The Jordan Valley Chalcolithic (5500–3500

bc

).

BAR International Series 1027. Oxford:B.A.R.

Braun, E.1979 ºEn Shadud.

Israel Exploration Journal

29:234–35.

1985

En Shadud: Salvage Excavations at a FarmingCommunity in the Jezreel Valley, Israel.

BARInternational Series 249. Oxford: B.A.R.

1989 The Problem of the Apsidal House: New As-pects of Early Bronze I Domestic Architecturein Israel, Jordan and Lebanon.

Palestine Explo-ration Quarterly

121: 1–43.1997

Yifta

˙

ªel: Salvage and Rescue Excavations at aPrehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel.

IAA Reports 2. Jerusalem: Israel AntiquitiesAuthority.

2004

Early Beth Shan (Strata XIX–XIII): G. M.FitzGerald’s Deep Cut on the Tell.

UniversityMuseum Monograph 121. Philadelphia: Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeol-ogy and Anthropology.

Buck, C. E.; Litton, C. D.; and Smith, A. F. M.1992 Calibration of Radiocarbon Results Pertaining

to Related Archaeological Events.

Journal ofArchaeological Science

19: 497–512.Buck, C. E.; Christen, J. A.; Kenworth, J. B.; and Litton,

C. D.1994 Estimating the Duration of Archaeological

Activity Using

14

C Determinations.

OxfordJournal of Archaeology 133: 229–40.

de Miroschedji, P. R.1971 L’Époque Pré-Urbaine en Palestine. Paris:

Gabalda.

Dollfus, G., and Kafafi, Z.2001 Jordan in the Fourth Millennium. Pp. 163–72 in

Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jor-dan, Vol. 7. Amman: Department of Antiquities.

Douglas, K., and Kafafi, Z.2000 The Main Aspects of the Early Bronze I Pottery

from Jebel Abu Thawwab, North Jordan. Pp.101–11 in Ceramics and Change in the EarlyBronze Age of the Southern Levant. eds. G.Philip and D. Baird. Levantine Archaeology 2.Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.

Driscoll, C. A.; Menotti-Raymond, M.; Roca, A. L.;Hupe, K.; Johnson, W. E.; Geffen, E.; Harley,E. H.; Delibes, M.; Pontier, D.; Kitchener,A. C.; Yamaguchi, N.; O’Brien, S. J.; andMacdonald, D. W.

2007 The Near Eastern Origin of Cat Domestication.Science 317: 519–23.

Eisenberg, E.2001 Pottery of Strata V–IV, the Early Bronze Age 1.

Pp. 117–31 in Tel Teªo: A Neolithic, Chalco-lithic, and Early Bronze Age Site in the ÓulaValley, by E. Eisenberg, A. Gopher, and R.Greenberg. IAA Reports 13. Jerusalem: IsraelAntiquities Authority.

Esse, D. L.1991 Subsistence, Trade, and Social Organization in

Early Bronze Age Palestine. Studies in AncientOriental Civilization 50. Chicago: Oriental In-stitute of the University of Chicago.

Finkelsten, I., and Gophna, R.1993 Settlement, Demographic, and Economic Pat-

terns in the Highlands of Palestine in the Chal-colithic and Early Bronze Periods and theBeginning of Urbanism. Bulletin of the Ameri-can Schools of Oriental Research 289: 1–22.

Genz, H.2003 Cash Crop Production and Storage in the Early

Bronze Age Southern Levant. Journal of Med-iterranean Archaeology 16: 59–78.

Gibbs, K.; Kadowaki, S.; and Banning, E. B.2006 The Late Neolithic at al-Basatîn in Wadi Ziqlab,

Northern Jordan. Antiquity 80: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/gibbs/index.html.

Glueck, N.1951 Explorations in Eastern Palestine, IV. 2 vols.

Annual of the American Schools of OrientalResearch 25–28. New Haven: AmericanSchools of Oriental Research.

Gopher, A.1989 The Flint Assemblages of Munhata (Israel): Fi-

nal Report. Cahiers du Centre de RechercheFrançais de Jérusalem 4. Paris: AssociationPaléorient.


Greenberg, R.; Eisenberg, E.; Paz, S.; and Paz, Y.2006 Bet Yerah: The Early Bronze Age Mound, Vol. 1:

Excavation Reports 1933–1986. IAA Reports30. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority

Greenberg, R., and Paz, S.2004 An EB IA–EB III Stratigraphic Sequence from

the 1946 Excavations at Tel Beth Yerah. IsraelExploration Journal 54: 1–23.

Grigson, C.1995 Plough and Pasture in the Early Economy of the

Southern Levant. Pp. 245–68 in The Archaeol-ogy of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. E. Levy.New York: Facts on File.

Gustavson-Gaube, C.1985 Tell esh-Shuna North 1984: A Preliminary Re-

port. Annual of the Department of Antiquities ofJordan 29: 43–87.

1986 Tell esh-Shuna North 1985: A Preliminary Re-port. Annual of the Department of Antiquities ofJordan 30: 69–113.

Hanbury-Tenison, J. W.1986 The Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age

Transition in Palestine and Transjordan. BARInternational Series 311. Oxford: B.A.R.

Helms, S. W.1992 The Pottery Typology. Pp. 39–121 in Excava-

tions at Tell Um Hammad, 1982–1984: TheEarly Assemblages (EB I–II), ed. A. V. G. Betts.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.

Horwitz, L. K., and Tchernov, E.1989 Animal Exploitation in the Early Bronze Age of

the Southern Levant: An Overview. Pp. 279–96in L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge duBronze ancien. ed. P. de Miroscedji. Interna-tional Series 527. Oxford: B.A.R.

Joffe, A. H.1993 Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze Age

I and II, Southern Levant: Complementarityand Contradiction in a Small-Scale ComplexSociety. Monographs in Mediterranean Archae-ology 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.

Kadowaki, S.; Gibbs, K.; Allentuck, A.; and Banning, E. B.2008 Late Neolithic Settlement in Wadi Ziqlab, Jor-

dan: Al-Basatîn. Paléorient 34/1: 105–29.Kafafi, Z. A.

2001 Jebel Abu Thawwab (Er-Rumman), CentralJordan: The Late Neolithic and Early BronzeAge I Occupations. Monographs of the Instituteof Archaeology (Yarmouk University) 3. Ber-lin: ex oriente.

Kaplan, J.1977 Neolithic and Chalcolithic Remains at Lod.

Eretz-Israel 13 (Moshé Stekelis Memorial Vol-ume): 57–75 ( Hebrew), 291*–92* (Englishsummary).

Kempinski, A.2002 Tel Kabri: The 1986–1993 Excavation Seasons.

Monograph Series 20. Tel Aviv: Emery andClaire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Insti-tute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

Köhler-Rollefson, I.2001 The Animal Bones. Pp. 211–13 in Jebel Abu

Thawwab (Er-Rumman), Central Jordan. ed. Z.Kafafi. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeol-ogy (Yarmouk University) 3. Berlin: ex oriente.

Leonard A., Jr.,1983 The Proto-Urban/Early Bronze I Utilization of

the Kataret es-Samra Plateau. Bulletin of theAmerican Schools of Oriental Research 251:37–60.

1992 The Jordan Valley Survey, 1953: Some Unpub-lished Soundings Conducted by James Mellaart.Annual of the American Schools of OrientalResearch 50. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Lovell, J. L.2002 Shifting Subsistence Patterns: Some Ideas

about the End of the Chalcolithic in the South-ern Levant. Paléorient 28.1: 89–102.

2007 The Wadi Rayyan Archaeological Project(WRAP): Investigating the Chalcolithic–EarlyBronze Age Transition. Pp. 457–66 in Studiesin the History and Archaeology of Jordan, Vol.9. Amman: Department of Antiquities.

Mabry, J., and Palumbo, G.1988 The 1987 Wadi el-Yabis Survey. Annual of the

Department of Antiquities of Jordan 32: 275–305.

1992 Environmental, Economic and Political Con-straints on Ancient Settlement Patterns in theWadi al-Yabis Region. Pp. 67–72 in Studies inthe History and Archaeology of Jordan, Vol. 4.Amman: Department of Antiquities.

Maher, L., and Banning, E. B.2001 Geoarchaeological Survey in Wadi Ziqlab, Jor-

dan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities ofJordan 45: 61–70.

O’Connell, K. G., and Rose, D. G.1980 Tell el-Hesi, 1979. Palestine Exploration Quar-

terly 112: 73–91.Philip, G.

2001 The Early Bronze I–III Ages. Pp. 163–232 inThe Archaeology of Jordan, eds. B. MacDonald,R. Adams, and P. Bienkowski. Levantine Ar-chaeology 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.

2003 The Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant:A Landscape Approach. Journal of Mediterra-nean Archaeology 16: 103–32.

2008 The Early Bronze Age I–III. Pp. 161–226 inJordan: An Archaeological Reader, ed. R. B.Adams. London: Equinox.


Philip, G., and Baird, D., eds.2000 Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age

of the Southern Levant. Levantine Archaeology2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.

Reimer, P. J.; Baillie, M. G. L.; Bard, E.; Bayliss, A.;Beck, J. W.; Bertrand, C. J. H.; Blackwell, P. G.;Buck, C. E.; Burr, G. S.; Cutler, K. B.; Damon,P. E.; Edwards, R. L.; Fairbanks, R. G.;Friedrich, M.; Guilderson, T. P.; Hogg, A. G.;Hughen, K. A.; Kromer, B.; McCormac, G.;Manning, S.; Ramsey, C. B.; Reimer, R. W.;Remmele, S.; Southon, J. R.; Stuiver, M.;Talamo, S.; Taylor, F. W.; van der Plicht, J.;and Weyhenmeyer, C. E.

2004 IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibra-tion, 0-26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46: 1029–58.

Rosen, S. A.1997 Lithics after the Stone Age: A Handbook of

Stone Tools from the Levant. Walnut Creek, CA:AltaMira.

Saidah, R.1979 Fouilles de Sidon-Dakerman, l’agglomération

Chalcolithique. Berytus 27: 29–56.

Sebag, D.2005 The Early Bronze Age Dwellings in the South-

ern Levant. Bulletin du Centre de recherchefrançais de Jérusalem 16: 222–35.

Stager, L. E.1985 The First Fruits of Civilization. Pp. 172–88 in

Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papersin Honour of Olga Tufnell, ed. J. N. Tubb.Occasional Publication 11. London: Institute ofArchaeology,

1992 The Periodization of Palestine from Neolithicthrough Early Bronze Times. Pp. 22–41 inChronologies in Old World Archaeology, Vol.1, ed. R. W. Ehrich. 3rd ed. Chicago: Universityof Chicago.

Velasco Fernández-Tresguerres, J. A.2001 Jabal al-Mutawwaq at the End of the Fourth

Millennium bc. Pp. 173–78 in Studies in theHistory and Archaeology of Jordan, Vol. 7.Amman: Department of Antiquities.

Vigne, J. D.; Guilaine, J.; Debue, K.; Have, L.; and Ger-ard, P.

2004 Early Taming of the Cat in Cyprus. Science 304:259.

early bronze i occupation at al-basatîn, in wadi ziqlab, northern jordan

Documents