the yarmukian site at tel mitzpe zevulun north (naḥal zippori 3), lower galilee, israel

From Sha‘ar Hagolan to ShaaraimEssays in Honor of Prof. Yosef Garfĳinkel

EditorsSaar Ganor, Igor Kreimerman,

Katharina Streit, Madeleine Mumcuoglu

Israel Exploration SocietyJerusalem 2016

ISBN 978-965-221-111-8COPY EDITOR (ENGLISH) Susan Gorodetskycover design Oz GanorENGLISH COVER photo Khirbet Qeiyafa at the end of the 2012 Season (Sky View)HEBREW COVER photo Sha’ar Hagolan (Yosef Garfĳinkel)Typesetting Raphaël Freeman, Renana Typesetting

Printed at Printiv, Jerusalem, Israel

© All rights reserved to Israel Exploration Society, 2016

From Sha‘ar Hagolan to ShaaraimEssays in Honor of Prof. Yosef Garfĳinkel

משער הגולן לשערייםמחקרים לכבוד פרופ' יוסף גרפינקל

vii

Contents

Acknowledgments v

Preface xi

List of English Publications of Prof. Yosef Garfĳinkel xiii

Abbreviations xxiv

English Section

The Story of the Ceramic Industry in the Southern Levant 1Judith Ben-Michael

The Yarmukian Site at Tel Mitzpe Zevulun North (Naḥal Zippori 3), Lower Galilee, Israel 19

Omry Barzilai, Edwin C. M. van den Brink, Jacob Vardi, Roy Liran

The Miniature Chalices from Sha‘ar Hagolan: A New Interpretation 41Michael Freikman

Pavements, Pits and Burials: The Case of Pit 183 at the Early Pottery Neolithic Site of Beisamoun, Northern Israel 47

Danny Rosenberg

Yarmukian-Type Architecture without Yarmukian-Type Pottery at the Site of Khirbet ‘Asafna (East) in the Jezreel Valley, Israel: A Dilemma? 63

Edwin C. M. van den Brink, Dan Kirzner, Michal Birkenfeld, Alla Yaroshevich, Nimrod Marom

A Newly Uncovered Cowrie-Eye Female Clay Figurine Fragment from Bet Ḥilqiya, Northern Negev, Israel 93

Edwin C. M. van den Brink, Yitzhak Marmelstein, Roy Liran

‘Yarmukian’ Figurines of the Neolithic Period at Lod 101Eli Yannai

Early Wadi Rabah and Chalcolithic Occupations at Tel Dover: Environmental and Chronlogical Insights 109

Hamoudi Khalaily, Ianir Milevski, Liora Kolska Horwitz, Ofer Marder

viii Contents

The ‘Ein el-Jarba Holemouth Jar: A Local Vessel with Parallels in the Near East and Southeast Europe 155

Ianir Milevski, Zinovi Matskevich, Anat Cohen-Weinberger, Nimrod Getzov

Protohistoric Infant Jar Burials of the Southern Levant in Context: Tracing Cultural Influences in the Late Sixth and Fifth Millennia BCE 171

Katharina Streit

A Fourth-Millennium BCE Seal from Hazor 187Amnon Ben-Tor

The Archaeology of Destruction: Methodological Desiderata 205Michael G. Hasel

Siege Warfare, Conflict and Destruction: How are They Related? 229Igor Kreimerman

Pottery Production in the Iron Age Shephelah: An Evaluation According to Recent Petrographic Research 247

David Ben-Shlomo

Four Egyptian Seals from Khirbet Qeiyafa 265Martin G. Klingbeil

Four Notes on Tel Lachish Level V 283Hoo-Goo Kang

Solomon’s Golden Shields in the Context of the First Millennium BCE 295

Madeleine Mumcuoglu

Sealed with a Dance: An Iron Age IIA Seal from Tel Abel Beth Maacah 307

Nava Panitz-Cohen and Robert A. Mullins

Reassessing the Character of the Judahite Kingdom: Archaeological Evidence for Non-Centralized, Kinship-Based Components 323

Aren M. Maeir and Itzhaq Shai

The Samarian Syncretic Yahwism and the Religious Center of Kuntillet ᶜAjrud 341

Gwanghyun Choi

ixContents

Revisiting Vaughn and Dobler’s Provenance Study of Hebrew Seals and Seal Impressions 371

Mitka R. Golub

The Assyrian Empire and Judah: Royal Assyrian Archives and Other Historical Documents 383

Peter Zilberg

Ekron: The Ceramic Assemblage of an Iron Age IIC Philistine Type Site 407

Seymour Gitin

The Meaning of the Boat Scene on the Phoenician-Cypriote Scapula from Tel Dor 435

Silvia Schroer

Hebrew section

Religious Practices and Cult Objects at Tel Reḥov during the 10th–9th Centuries BCE *1

Amihai Mazar

The Iron Age IIa Judahite Weight System at Khirbet Qeiyafa *33Haggai Cohen Klonymus

Tel Ḥalif as a Case Study: Targeted Excavations in a Cave as a Means of Assessing Stratigraphy at the Tell *61

Amir Ganor, Gidon Goldenberg, Guy Fitoussi

Fortresses, Forts and Towers in the Jerusalem Region during the Iron Age IIb–c Period *81

Saar Ganor

A Late Iron Age II Administrative Building Excavated in the City of David *103

Doron Ben-Ami and Haggai Misgav

The Lachish Inscriptions from Yohanan Aharoni's Excavations Reread *111

Anat Mendel-Geberovich, Eran Arie, Michael Maggen

19

The Yarmukian Site at Tel Mitzpe Zevulun North

(Naḥal Zippori 3), Lower Galilee, Israel

Omry Barzilai, Edwin C. M. van den Brink, Jacob Vardi, Roy Liran

Israel Antiquities Authority

AbstractThe Yarmukian culture of the central Jordan Valley in northern Israel is well known owing to the extensive excavations carried out by Yossi Garfĳinkel at Sha‘ar Hagolan, which have provided many insights into the Neolithic way of life.

In the last decade, several new Yarmukian settlements have been discovered and excavated by the Israel Antiquities Authority due to construction plans. One of these is the site of Naḥal Zippori in the Lower Galilee. The settlement was established within allu-vial lands close to the Naḥal Zippori stream, and hence its name. Its architectural remains include a rectangular structure that faced a courtyard with a rounded silo, cooking pits and other installations. The pottery assemblage, including decorated vessels with her-ringbone patterns and line-painted designs, is characteristic of the Yarmukian and Jericho IX aspects of the Pottery Neolithic period; so too is the lithic assemblage with its distinctive denticulated sickle blades. The most remarkable fĳinds that link this site with Sha‘ar Hagolan are fragments of around three dozen anthropomor-phic clay fĳigurines, both female and male, and a few zoomorphic clay fĳigurines, all characteristic of the Yarmukian culture.

The discovery of this settlement site at Naḥal Zippori extends the Yarmukian territory to the west of the country. Its rich mate-rial culture, including a well-built architectural complex and clay fĳigurines, possibly indicates that it was a central settlement in the Lower Galilee region.

IntroductionThe Yarmukian is the earliest cultural entity evidencing substantial pottery pro-duction in the Levant (Garfĳinkel 1993; Gopher and Gophna 1993). Geographically

20 Omry Barzilai et al.

its territory is confĳined to northern Israel and northwestern Jordan, with its “homeland” being situated in the central Jordan Valley. This region includes several settlement sites, including Munḥata and Sha‘ar Hagolan (Fig. 1). The latter, extensively excavated and researched by Y. Garfĳinkel, is the key site for comprehending the daily life of early farming communities (e.g., Garfĳinkel 1992, 1993; 2004; Garfĳinkel and Miller 2002; Matskevich 2005; Marom and Bar-Oz 2013; Rosenberg and Garfĳinkel 2015).

The Yarmukians were the fĳirst to employ large-scale production of pottery vessels for various uses (Garfĳinkel 1992). At the Yarmukian site of Sha‘ar Hago-lan, community planning is evident in the positioning of building complexes so as to create streets, alleys and open areas (Garfĳinkel et al. 2012). Moreover, a stone-lined water well that required engineering planning was located in the center of the village (Garfĳinkel, Vered and Bar-Yosef 2006). Another Yarmukian accomplishment recognized at Sha‘ar Hagolan was the full domestication of herds and possibly the use of cattle for plowing (Garfĳinkel et al. 2012; Marom 2012: 93).

While the Yarmukian of the central Jordan Valley is well known today, it is less well understood in other regions of the assumed Yarmukian territory. Yarmukian sites were previously noted at Megiddo in the Jezreel Valley and in Habashan Street in Tel Aviv, next to the Yarkon River (Gopher and Gophna 1993). The limited size of the excavated areas at these sites, however, prevented

Fig. 1 Location of Naḥal Zippori 3 and other sites mentioned in the text.

21The Yarmukian Site at Tel Mitzpe Zevulun North

Fig. 2 The core of the Pottery Neolithic settlement at the center of the excavation area in Naḥal Zippori 3.


a straightforward comparison with the more extensively excavated Yarmukian settlements in the central Jordan Valley.

Following the discoveries at ‘Ain Ghazal, Jebel Abu Thawwab and Wadi Shu‘eib (Kafafĳi 2001; Rollefson et al. 1992; Simmons et al. 2000), the Yarmukian territory was expanded in the 1980s to the Jordanian highlands. In the Menashe Hills the sites of Naḥal Zehora were excavated and their recent publication has added important information on the character of Yarmukian settlements in this region (Gopher 2012).

In the last decade previously unknown Yarmukian sites were discovered in the Jezreel Valley, the Akko Plain and the Naḥal Zippori valley during salvage excavations carried by the Israel Antiquities Authority (Barzilai and Getzov 2008; Getzov et al. 2009; Barzilai et al. 2013; van den Brink et al. this volume). These discoveries provide an opportunity to compare the “peripheral” regions of Yarmukian settlement with that of the central Jordan Valley and to reappraise the overall Yarmukian settlement pattern in northern Israel.

This paper presents the recently discovered Yarmukian settlement remains at Tel Mitzpe Zevulun North (aka Naḥal Zippori 3) in the Naḥal Zippori basin (Fig. 1). The site was discovered during a survey conducted by Marder and Khalaily in 2009 (S-93/09). It was named Naḥal Zippori 3 due to its location in the alluvial lands of the Naḥal Zippori stream at the foot of Tel Mitzpe Zevulun. In 2011 a salvage excavation was initiated by the authors at the site prior to the laying of a water pipeline between the Eshkol and Somekh reservoirs (Barzilai et al. 2013).

A total of 750 m2 was excavated, exposing four layers with material cultural remains that were locally partially superimposed: Layer 1 – Early Bronze Age IB, Layer 2 – Chalcolithic, Layer 3 – Pottery Neolithic (PN), Layer 4 – Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB). The PN remains of Layer 3, ascribed to the Yarmukian culture, were identifĳied mainly in the center of the excavation area (Fig. 2, previous page).

Architecture (R. L.)The Yarmukian architectural remains are few and incomplete but provide important information on construction techniques and house planning. Three architectural units were excavated and analyzed. Each represents a diffferent function (Fig. 3:1).

Structure 20 is composed of two walls that are separated by a drainage channel (Figs. 2; 3:1). Both walls have straight corners. Wall 208 is 3.25 m long and 60–70 cm wide. It consists of a single-tiered east-to-west foundation, made of roughly hewn fĳieldstones. The stones are quite similar in size, 15–20 cm in diameter. They were set like floor tiles (one next to the other), with no evident


arrangement of rows. This flat wall was probably used as a foundation for a mudbrick superstructure, which was not preserved. Remains of limestone paneling, placed vertically along the foundation wall, were found in the inner part of the structure.

Wall 210 is nearly 7 m long and is an extension of Wall 208. In fact, together they form a single wall 10.5 m long comprising the northern boundary of Struc-ture 20. This combined wall is cut by what can only be described as a very well built double-tiered sloping drainage channel.

The eastern end of Wall 208 joins with Wall 208/a, a smaller stub 1 m long running uphill to the south. The corner is straight on the outside but curved on the inside. The western end of Wall 210 joins with Wall 210/a, a foundation at least 2 m long running uphill to the south. This corner too is straight on the outside and very clearly curved on the inside.

A living surface made of a loose assortment of small stones was identifĳied inside the structure, level with the top of the foundation walls. The surface contained flints and potsherds, as well as several hammerstones. Outside, to the north of the building and some 10–15 cm below the bottom of its foundations, a wide utilitarian exterior space (part of a courtyard?) rich in PN ceramics, clay fĳigurine fragments, flints, tabun remains, stone artifacts and grindstones was discovered.

It is tempting to brand Structure 20 as a building and to reconstruct it as a closed roofed space surrounded by a wide utilitarian open space, certainly to the north. However, there are several elements contradicting this view. The

Fig. 3 Architectural remains from the Pottery Neolithic layer at Naḥal Zippori 3.


drain that passed through its long northern wall and the implicit evidence of water flow signifĳies the (at least) periodic existence of water within the structure. The paneling placed on the ground against the wall is a telltale indication of the need to protect mud bricks from water. Although the interior of Structure 20 was excavated thoroughly, no pillar bases of any known shape or kind were found. The interior surface resembles that of an outdoor space rather than that of a covered one. Thus it is proposed that Structure 20 in fact encloses an unroofed area, functioning as a courtyard of a building that is still unexcavated. This is in line with other PN sites where there are “shades of gray” concerning interiors/exteriors.

Structure 21 has a rounded, sunken feature probably used for storage (Figs. 2, 3:1). Wall 225 is a double-tiered oval foundation, 5 m long and 50 cm wide, made of roughly hewn fĳieldstones. The stones are similar in size, 20–15 cm in diameter. This round structure seems to be within the confĳines of the complex of Structure 20.

Structure 22 has very few structural remains, no more than three meager walls, and it is some distance from the better-preserved Structure 20 (Fig. 3:1). Walls 212 and 218 are both 1.75 m long and orientated north-south. Both are built with very rough fĳieldstones laid in two rows with smaller stones and earth fĳilling the gap between them. Wall 212 is 50 cm wide, while Wall 218 is 65 cm wide. Wall 214 is made of two rows of round, undressed stones, larger than those of the other two walls. It encloses a circular space by approaching Wall 218 from the west and curving toward the south. It seems to cut Wall 212, but the gap between them is too wide to be sure. All in all, it seems that Wall 218 may have served as a wider perimeter wall, with the two other walls serving obscure functions within.

Associated Pottery and Clay Figurines (E. C. M. v.d. B.)The assemblage of diagnostic PN potsherds retrieved from Naḥal Zippori 3 is relatively small (n=469), but it is well-defĳined. With petrographic analyses of selected pottery items still underway, the focus here is on the typological aspect of the collected PN ceramic materials, with brief morphological synopses of the pottery vessels and clay fĳigurines retrieved at Naḥal Zippori 3. These are followed by a discussion of the relevance of both assemblages vis-à-vis the Yarmukian–Jericho IX dichotomy.

Pottery

The pottery assemblage includes a variety of small, medium-sized and large bowls, chalices, holemouth jars, amphoriskoi and necked jars (Table 1). Slightly less than half of all diagnostic sherds (44.6% or 209 pottery items) show either


pre-fĳiring incised (n=169) or burnished, line-painted (n=40) designs (Figs. 4:1–3 and 4:4–6 respectively) applied to the exteriors of both open and closed vessel

Vessel shape NSmall, medium-sized and large plain bowls 21Very large, plain, thick-walled bowls 5Small bowls/cups invariably with red-painted, horizontally (n=9) or vertically pierced (n=3) lug handles outside, sometimes also with red-painted on the inside of the rim; 1 small, plain cup with non-pierced knob

12

Jericho IX red line-painted, burnished bowls 12Jericho IX red line-painted, burnished jars 25Jericho IX red line-painted, burnished bowls or jars (sherds are too small or indistinct for proper vessel attribution)

3

Yarmukian pre-fĳiring incised herringbone-fĳilled frames and chevrons bowls 13Yarmukian pre-fĳiring incised herringbone-fĳilled frames and chevrons jars; only in one instance are the frame/chevrons left plain, i.e., not incised internally

35

Yarmukian incised herringbone fĳilled frames and chevrons bowls or jars (sherds are too small or indistinct for proper vessel attribution)

42

Yarmukian “Byblos-style” pre-fĳiring incised bowls 3Yarmukian “Byblos-style” pre-fĳiring incised jars 23Yarmukian “Byblos-style” pre-fĳiring incised bowls or jars (sherds are too small or indistinct for vessel attribution)

53

Chalices 6Plain holemouth jars 7Tall-necked, plain, handled and handleless (?) jars 10Internal ledges 7External, single or multiple knob handles (Garfĳinkel’s [non-pierced] lug handles) close to the rim

69

Wall and base fragments of (mainly open?) vessels (wall thickness varying between 0.8 and 2 cm) with rounded “honeycomb-style” impressions in the coating (3–7 mm thick) of the exterior surface

95

Various bases 22Varia 6Total 469

Table 1 Overview of numerical distribution of Pottery Neolithic diagnostic potsherds by vessel shape and decoration mode.


shapes. In the literature these two decoration modes are often explicitly asso-ciated respectively with the Yarmukian and Jericho IX cultural aspects of the Pottery Neolithic period. Plain knobs, sometimes appearing in double or triple horizontal rows, are often applied to the exterior of the larger vessels (n=69; Fig. 4:7). Red-painted, pierced lugs are sometimes applied to small bowls/cups (n=12; Fig. 4:8). Rounded, fĳinger or small pebble indentations (“honeycomb-style”) are

Fig. 4 Selection of Pottery Neolithic potsherds.


not uncommon in the coating (3–7 mm thick) of lower wall and base fragments of the exterior surface of (mainly open?) vessels with a wall thickness varying between 0.8 and 2 cm (n=95; Fig. 4:9). The application of both continuous and discontinuous internal ledges is rare, and includes two Jericho IX exemplars (Fig. 4:6). Unparalleled so far are two instances of discontinuous ledges applied to the insides of jar necks (not illustrated).

All the characteristics of the Naḥal Zippori 3 pottery assemblage briefly described above can easily be tied in with the various other published PN pottery assemblages, conveniently summarized by Y. Garfĳinkel (1999: 16–103). Typolog-ically, the basic vessel forms found at Naḥal Zippori 3 fĳit both the Yarmukian and Jericho IX aspects of the PN. Distinction between the two is found foremost in the style of decoration: pre-fĳiring incised frame and herringbone pattern in the Yarmukian culture on the one hand, and red-painted lines and burnish in the Jericho IX entity on the other (Garfĳinkel 1993).

Taking a closer look at the pre-fĳiring incised sherds presented above (n=169), 90 of these are “typical Yarmukian” exemplars (19.1% of all diagnostics), showing parallel lines forming pattern-incised or (less common) plain frames and/or incised herringbone designs (Fig. 4:1–3). Notably, however, the remaining 79

1 B6 175 1882 Rounded rim/wall fragment of thick-walled, open bowl

Horizontal, incised frame ca. 1 cm below rim’s exterior, fi lled with herringbone pattern; areas bordering both sides of the frame red-painted and burnished; both fragments also red-painted, burnished inside; slab technique clearly visible in break.

2 B6 175 1320 Rounded rim/wall fragment of thick-walled, open bowl

Incised, narrow horizontal frame fi lled with herringbone design below rim’s exterior; elsewhere uniformly red-painted and burnished in/out

3 B6 282 2056 Neck/shoulder fragment of small jar Incised, plain, horizontal frame around base of neck and plain double-framed chevrons bordering the horizontal frame; neck itself left plain (i.e., not red-painted), while the empty spaces between the chevrons and between the border line creating the double chevron are red-painted; well fi red; light orange surface.

4 B2 130 1089 Neck/shoulder/ handle fragment of medium-sized jar/amphoriskos

Red-painted, burnished diagonal sets of parallel lines forming triangles (“Byblos”-style) on plain, light orange, non-burnished surface; no visible grits

5–6 B9 109 1043 Rim/wall fragment of restricted bowl Inner ledge; red-painted, burnished design outside on plain background; creamy-white surface

7 B11 196 1951 Flat rim (slightly overhanging) and wall fragment of large, thick-walled vessel with three knobs in a horizontal row ca. 2 cm below rim

Plain surface; gray core, with light-brown oxidation zones; almost no white grits

8 B10 105 1053 Small, complete (in section), fl at-based cup with horizontally pierced lug handle just below tapered rim

Traces of red paint outside; gray and few white grits

9 B5 200 1534. Body sherd with two clear rows of rounded impressions on outside

The ca. 0.5 cm impressed “coating” layer contains the same large amounts of small white grits as does the sherd itself

10 B3 202 1564 Clearly pronounced neck/shoulder fragment of jar

Shoulder incised with parallel lines fi lling in standing/pending triangles ( “Byblos-style”); no traces of red paint visible; light brown surface; white and gray grits


sherds (16.8% of all diagnostics) show pre-fĳiring incised parallel lines inside triangles (Fig. 4:10), apparently “a northern motif which penetrated the southern Levant from Byblos”, according to Garfĳinkel (1999: 62). The latter sub-mode of incised decoration has been noted at Sha‘ar Hagolan, Munḥata and Megiddo as well (Garfĳinkel 1999: 62), albeit in signifĳicantly lesser amounts than at Naḥal Zippori 3. The westerly position of the latter site, relative to the location of the former three sites, might explain the higher percentage of sherds demonstrat-ing a perhaps more northern, “Byblos-style” motif at Naḥal Zippori 3, and thus might be construed as a corroboration of Garfĳinkel’s observation cited above.

Yarmukian clay fĳigurines

Thirty-six fragments of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic clay fĳigurines were uncovered at Naḥal Zippori 3. Unfortunately several of them were stolen from the excavation before they could be properly recorded.

The rather fragmentary collection includes two out of the four known Yar-mukian anthropomorphic clay fĳigurine types as defĳined by Garfĳinkel et al. (2010: 217, Table 6), namely (in the great majority) female cowrie-eyed clay fĳigurines (n=18; Fig. 5:1–3) and the more diminutive, cylindrical male fĳigurines (n=4; Fig. 6:1–2). Eleven minute fragments of human clay fĳigurines are not identifĳiable. The collection further includes three fragments of zoomorphic fĳigurines (Fig. 7:1–2), another component of Pottery Neolithic fĳigurative expression (cf. Freikman 2010). Some of the better-preserved specimens are described catalogue-style in the Appendix given at the end of this paper.

Thanks to the ample attention paid by Garfĳinkel and colleagues (Garfĳinkel 1995; 2004; Garfĳinkel et al. 2010) to the Yarmukian anthropomorphic and zoo-morphic fĳigurines, the clay fĳigurines briefly commented upon above efffortlessly fĳit in with other, explicitly “Yarmukian” Pottery Neolithic fĳigurine assemblages as components of Pottery Neolithic fĳigurative expression.

The Lithic Assemblage (J. V.)A sample of the PN (Yarmukian) lithic assemblage was analyzed for the present report. Some of the lithics found in Structure 20 (Fig. 3) were subjected to a typo-logical-technological analysis. The lithic assemblage consists of 1,138 artifacts, of which 94 (8.3%) are tools. Most of the lithics are knapped waste artifacts.

The primary type of raw material used for the fabrication of the Yarmukian lithics is the local HaSolelim flint (for its defĳinition, see Barzilai and Goring-Mor-ris 2010: 10–11). This type of flint appears in shades of beige or light gray, occa-sionally with orange or purple stripes. Its texture is medium- to fĳine-grained. This flint type is rather homogenous without cracks or inclusions.


Fig. 5 Cowrie-eyed clay fĳigurine fragments. 1: head; 2–3: torso.


Fig. 6 Elliptical and cylindrical male clay fĳigurine fragments.


Fig. 7 Zoomorphic clay fĳigurine fragments.


Technologically, the PN assemblage is mostly flake-based, although blades and a few unipolar blade cores (n=6) and bipolar cores (n=4) were retrieved from some PN loci (the bipolar blade core could be an intrusion from the PPNB occupation of the site). Most of them seem to have been fabricated by a non-standardized, flake reduction sequence. Irregular flakes and other debitage artifacts form the majority in the debitage. Flake cores are dominant in the core group: for every blade core there are 10.5 flake cores. The blade to flake ratio is 1:13.6. In short, it seems that blades were rarely produced in the assemblage. It is possible that part of the blade assemblage is actually the byproduct of flake reduction sequences. However, the utilization of the blade blanks for the fab-rication of tools shows that they were important, since at least a quarter of the tools were fashioned on blades or bladelets.

Tools

The tool assemblage includes mostly unstandardized tool types such as scrapers (Fig. 8:4–5), retouched flakes, notches and denticulates, simple retouched blades and borers (awls and drills).

It is noteworthy that among the sampled loci studied so far, all projectiles found belong to the PPNB tradition, i.e., large arrowheads, mostly of the Jeri-cho and Byblos types, and a few Amuq arrowheads. Since there is a large PPNB occupation at the site (Layer 4), it is likely that most of the projectiles originate from that phase and do not belong to the PN tool kit.

Bifacial tools, which are frequent in the formal tool kits of the early PN, do appear in the lithic assemblage of Naḥal Zippori 3 (Fig. 8:6).

The sickle blades are coarsely denticulated and are equivalent to Type A in the typological list of Munḥata (Gopher 1989). The working edge denticulation varies from coarse to fĳine (Fig. 8:1–3). Our preliminary observation after the excavation identifĳied raw materials of two types used for the fabrication of the sickle blades. One is the dark brown HaSolelim flint, while the second is a medium- to fĳine-grained, dark gray flint. The latter raw material is not well represented in the lithics of the Naḥal Zippori 3 PN phase and was possibly imported to the site. The working edges were fashioned by flat pressure retouch. However, unlike the early Yarmukian specimens, only a single working edge was made, while the other edge was not altered. Backing appears on some of the sickle blades. The overall impression given by the PN sickle blades is that they do not closely resemble the earliest Yarmukian saw-like sickle inserts (Matskevich 2005; Dag 2008).

All in all, the lithic assemblage of Naḥal Zippori 3 is composed of typical ad hoc and formal tools: pressure retouched tools, mainly sickle blades, as well


as bifacial tools (axes and adzes). The fabrication of the sickle blades hints at a late phase of the Yarmukian because of the absence of narrow, bilaterally denticulated sickle blades.

Fig. 8 Yarmukian flint tools from Naḥal Zippori 3. 1–3: sickle blades; 4–5: endscrapers; 6: axe.


Currently there is no explanation for the notable absence of small arrow-heads in the lithics of the sampled loci. The only projectiles found belong to the PPNB tradition. However, it is possible that some of the Amuq projectiles do in fact belong to the PN assemblage. It should be noted that less than 1% of the PN flint assemblage has been analyzed so far. The lithic tools (sickle blades and celts) testify to an agricultural component of the site’s subsistence economy, in addition to other diverse activities such as domestic tasks, for instance drilling and piercing (borer tools) and scraping and engraving (burins). The retrieval of these tools from within the dwellings means that the lithics were indeed used for domestic tasks. The fact that the debitage was found in a fresh state within the structure also hints that some of the knapping was conducted in the settlement, and perhaps within some of the architectural units.

SummaryThe excavation at Naḥal Zippori 3 has clearly exposed a segment of a Yarmukian village. Its architecture includes a complex building with an open space that included a round silo, cooking pits and other installations. Such architecture corresponds with the courtyard houses known from Sha‘ar Hagolan, and the two sites show similarities in this respect.

The pottery assemblage is characteristic of the Yarmukian culture, including decorated vessels with pre-fĳiring incised herringbone designs. The perception that “the diffferences between Yarmukian and Jericho IX pottery assemblages are the reflection of regionalism, not chronology” (Garfĳinkel 1993) seems to be confĳirmed by the new pottery data from Naḥal Zippori 3, modest in scale as these may be, in the sense that potsherds decorated in two distinct modes – pre-fĳiring incised and painted-burnished (considered to be characteristic of the Yarmukian and Jericho IX aspects of the Pottery Neolithic culture respectively) – are found side by side in most of the relevant excavation units (i.e., at the level of the daily excavation baskets).

The lithic assemblage with denticulated sickle blades is clearly Yarmukian. However, the density of artifacts is lower than at Sha‘ar Hagolan.

The most remarkable fĳinds that link this site with Sha‘ar Hagolan are the three dozen clay fĳigurine fragments characteristic of the Yarmukian culture. These include several fragmentary female clay fĳigurines of the type also known as “mother goddess”, but also male and zoomorphic fĳigurines.

The discovery of this site at Naḥal Zippori 3 seems to expand the territory of the Yarmukian homeland to the west of the country. Its rich material culture, including evidence for complex architecture, decorated pottery and a varied clay


fĳigurine assemblage, strongly links the Lower Galilee region with the central Jordan Valley via the Jezreel Valley.

Acknowledgments The excavation at Naḥal Zippori 3 (permit number A-6215) was carried by the authors on the behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority. We wish to thank the following for their contribution: Michal Birkenfeld (preparing the map in Fig. 1), Sky View Company (the aerial photograph in Fig. 2), Ianir Milevski (preparing Figs. 4–7), Marina Shuisky (the illustrations in Figs. 5–7), Clara Amit (the pho-tographs in Figs. 4–7) and Michael Smilansky (the illustrations in Fig. 8).


AppendixCatalogue raisonnée of selected anthropomorphic and zoomorphic clay fĳigurines from Naḥal Zippori 3

Cowrie-eyed clay fĳigurines

1. Head fragment (Sq. B3, L187, B1493; Fig. 5:1)

The elongated, cone-like upper part of the head, the (diagonally set, cow-rie-shaped) eyes and most of the ears are missing. The facial features preserved include a prominent nose, cheeks and mouth. Cheeks and mouth are repre-sented by three small bulbs of clay. While these are not always explicitly repre-sented, the rendition of cheeks is particularly rare in relevant Neolithic fĳigurative art (Garfĳinkel, Ben-Shlomo and Korn 2010: 45, sub B23). The lower extremity of the face is well indicated. Because this item was stolen before it could be properly recorded, no information about the back of the head is available.

The head fragment was found together with a female clay torso (see below, No. 3); it does not, however, belong to it.

Not measured (artifact stolen).

2. Torso of clothed, female clay fĳigurine (Sq. B3, L187, B1493; Fig. 5:2)

Two applied breast are surrounded by the frontal, upper part of a garment, that is further expanded by a clay ribbon (a scarf?) applied between the right upper arm and right breast. The bent left arm, its hand slightly damaged, supports the breasts. Only the upper part of the right arm has been preserved. Visible in the break below the waist are the actual core around which the torso was sculpted, as well as a clear incision in the back, indicating the separation of the garment’s lower extremities at the backside of the torso. Since this fragment too was stolen before proper recording could take place, no further information about the back of the torso is available.

The similarity to the female clay torso B41 excavated at Sha‘ar Hagolan (Gar-fĳinkel, Ben-Shlomo and Korn 2010: 48, 94–95) is striking and underlines once more what Garfĳinkel, Ben-Shlomo and Korn (2010) called the “canonization” of this type of female clay fĳigurines. Even the three actual zones of breakage, viz., at the joint with the missing head/neck, just below the waist at the “seam” of the missing hips/buttocks, and at the (originally slightly) bent right elbow, conform with the Sha‘ar Hagolan exemplar. In contrast with the latter, the navel is not indicated in the Naḥal Zippori torso.


Not measured (artifact stolen).Temper of small white grits clearly visible on the plain, light orange surface

3. Torso of clothed female clay fĳigurine (Sq. B8, L231, B1707; Fig. 5:3)

Most of the external surface of the central frontal area of the torso (which would originally have contained such features as applied breasts, stomach and arms) is missing, thus exposing its inner core around which the corporal elements had once been sculpted, over its full preserved length. Still present are segments of the frontal garment covering the shoulders and both upper arms until just above the (originally bent) elbows. At the back segments of the two separated (indicated by a vertical incision) scarf ribbons are preserved.

Measurements: 56 × 52 × 33 mm.Levigated clay, well-fĳired; plain, light orange surface.

Elliptical and cylindrical male clay fĳigurines4. Torso and hips of small, elliptical male clay fĳigurine (Sq. B7, L132, B1178; Fig. 6:1).

The upper extremity of this fragment is broken at the point where the now missing neck/head would have joined, conforming (coincidentally or not) most of the known torsos of cowrie-eyed female clay fĳigurines (see, e.g., Nos. 2–3 above). The lower extremity is broken just below the pelvis-buttocks, at the very upper part of the thighs. Nevertheless an incision separating the now missing legs can still be seen. The strongly flexed and rather elongated right arm crosses the stomach, its hand extending to the upper left chest, a posture closely paralleled by a similar male clay fĳigurine fragment uncovered at Munḥata (cf. Garfĳinkel, Ben-Shlomo and Korn 2010: 225, Fig. 5.3:1). This is in notable contrast to the cowrie-eyed female clay fĳigurines, which flex their left arm extending to the upper right chest, just below the breasts. The left arm, only slightly flexed, and its damaged hand rest just above the likely, but now missing, sexual organs. The application of these parts to this type of fĳigurines is shown in two similar, fragmentary male fĳigurines from Munḥata (Garfĳinkel, Ben-Shlomo and Korn 2010: 224, Fig. 5.3:1–2). There is no indication of a navel. The pinched buttocks are protrude backward in exaggerated fashion. The position of the now mostly missing legs relative to the torso creates a slight angle

Measurements: 35 × 16 × (12 × 6) mm; diameter of upper leg 6 × 5 mm.Plain, light orange surface; many small white grits.

5. Lower part of torso/pelvis-buttocks/upper left leg fragment of a near-cylin-drical male clay fĳigurine (Sq. B2, L130, B1089; Fig. 6:2)


The fragment is broken in three places: near the waist, in the upper part of the right leg and just above the left knee. The flattened surface on the inner side of the left thigh shows that both thighs were originally joined, while the lower legs were separated. Examination of the erogenous zone is inconclusive as to whether the sexual organs are missing or were never applied to the fĳigurine in the fĳirst place. The pronounced, pinched buttocks protrude backward in exag-gerated fashion, as is the case with fragment No. 4 (above). The position of the now mostly missing legs relative to the torso creates a slight angle

Measurements: 29 × 16 × (11 × 18) mm; diameter of left upper leg: 12 × 6 mm.Plain, light orange surface.

Zoomorphic clay fĳigurines6. Frontal part of horned (?) animal clay fĳigurine (Sq. B3, L202, B1552; Fig. 7:1)

The separated front legs are broken offf and the hind legs and withers are missing. The right horn (?) is also broken offf. The fragment was stolen during the excava-tion before proper recording could take place; the only record now existing is the snapshot photograph shown here and the ink drawing based on this snapshot.

Not measured (artifact stolen).

7. Fragment of small animal clay fĳigurine (Sq. B3, L151, B1251; Fig. 7:2)

The fragment shows three fractures. It is broken at the area of the neck joint and the head is now missing. It is also broken at the joint of the separated front and hind legs, and all four legs are missing. The fĳinal break is at the back of the fĳigurine, with just enough left to that show it originally had a tail.

Measurements: 44 × 26 × 13 mm.Well-fĳired; light brown surface; soot stains cover the lower extremity of the

fragment over its full length and width.

ReferencesBarzilai, O. and Getzov, N. 2008 Mishmar Ha‘emeq: A Neolithic Site in the Jezreel Valley, Neo-Lithics 08/2:

12–17

Barzilai, O. and Goring-Morris, A. N. 2010 Bidirectional Blade Production at the PPNB Site of Kfar HaHoresh: The

Techno-Typological Analysis of a Workshop Dump, Paléorient 36/2: 5–24


Barzilai, O., Vardi, J., Liran, R., Yegorov, D., Covello-Paran, K., van den Brink, E. C. M., Yaroshevich, A. and Berger, U. 2013 The Naḥal Zippori Excavation Project, Excavations and Surveys in Israel

125: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=2305Dag, D. 2008 The Flint Tools, in Y. Garfĳinkel and D. Dag (eds.), Neolithic Ashkelon

(Qedem 47), Jerusalem: 117–172Freikman, M.2010 The Zoomorphic Figurines, in Garfĳinkel, Y., Ben-Shlomo, D. and Korn, N.

(eds.) 2010: 257–269Garfĳinkel, Y. 1992 The Material Culture in the Central Jordan Valley in the Pottery Neolithic

and Early Chalcolithic Periods (unpublished Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Univer-sity of Jerusalem), Jerusalem (Hebrew)

1993 The Yarmukian Culture in Israel, Paléorient 19/1: 115–1341995 Human and Animal Figurines of Munhata, Israel, Paris 2004 The Goddess of Sha‘ar Hagolan: Excavations at a Neolithic Site in Israel,

JerusalemGarfĳinkel, Y. and Miller, M. 2002 (eds.), Sha‘ar Hagolan: Neolithic Art in Context, OxfordGarfĳinkel, Y., Ben-Shlomo, D. and Korn, N.2010 Sha‘ar Hagolan Vol. 3. Symbolic Dimensions of the Yarmukian Culture:

Canonization in Neolithic Art, JerusalemGarfĳinkel, Y., Ben-Shlomo D. and Marom, N.2012 Sha‘ar Hagolan: A Major Pottery Neolithic Settlement and Artistic Center

in The Jordan Valley, Eurasian Prehistory 8: 97–143Garfĳinkel, Y., Vered, A. and Bar-Yosef, O. 2006 The Domestication of Water: The Neolithic Well at Sha‘ar Hagolan, Jordan

Valley, Israel, Antiquity 80: 686–696Getzov, N., Barzilai, O., Le Dosseur, G., Eirikh-Rose, A., Katlav, I., Marder, O., Marom, N. and Milevski, I. 2009 Nahal Bezet II and Ard el Samra: Two Late Prehistoric Sites and Settle-

ment Patterns in the Akko Plain, Mitekufat Haeven: Journal of the Israel

Prehistoric Society 39: 81–158Gopher, A. 1989 The Flint Assemblages of Munhata, Israel (Cahiers du Centre de Recherche

Français de Jérusalem 4), Paris2012 Village Communities of the Pottery Neolithic Period in the Menashe Hills,

Israel (Tel Aviv University Monograph Series 29), Tel Aviv


Gopher, A. and Gophna, R. 1993 Cultures of the Eighth and Seventh Millennia BP in the Southern Levant:

A Review for the 1990s, Journal of World Prehistory 7/3: 297–353Kafafĳi, Z. A. 2001 Jebel Abu Thawwab (Er-Rumman), Central Jordan. The Late Neolithic and

Early Bronze Age I Occupations, BerlinMarom, N. 2012 Animals and Society in the Neolithic Settlement at Sha‘ar Hagolan (unpub-

lished Ph.D. diss., University of Haifa), Haifa Marom, N. and Bar-Oz, G. 2013 The Prey Pathway: A Regional History of Cattle (Bos taurus) and Pig (Sus

scrofa) Domestication in the Northern Jordan Valley, Israel, PLoS ONE 8/2: e55958. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055958

Matskevich, Z. 2005 The Flint Assemblage of Sha‘ar Hagolan. The Typo-Technological and the

Chrono-Cultural Aspects (unpublished M. A. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Jerusalem

Rollefson, G. O., Simmons, A. H. and Kafafĳi, Z. 1992 Neolithic Cultures at ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan, Journal of Field Archaeology

19: 443–470Rosenberg, D. and Garfĳinkel, Y. 2015 Sha‘ar Hagolan Vol. 4: The Ground-Stone Industry: Stone Working at the

Dawn of Pottery Production in the Southern Levant, JerusalemSimmons, A. H., Rollefson, G. O., Kafafĳi, Z., Mandel, R. D., Al-Nahar, M., Cooper, J., Köhler-Rollefson, I. and Durand, K. R. 2000 Wadi Shu‘eib. A Large Neolithic Community in Central Jordan: Final

Report of Test Investigations, BASOR 321: 1–39