The Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I Transition ...

Paléorient

The Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I Transition in the Southern Levant: Determining Continuity and Discontinuity or “Mind the Gap” Eliot Braun, Valentine Roux

Résumé La question de la transition entre le Chalcolithique final et le Bronze ancien I dans le sud Levant fait l’objet de nombreux débats depuis maintenant plusieurs décennies. Le volume qui lui est consacré ici est destiné à faire état de nouvelles données archéologiques qui permettent d’en renouveler les réponses. On rappellera au préalable les principales étapes de la recherche sur le sujet. Ces étapes ont été déterminées par l’état des connaissances et la qualité des datations ; elles témoignent aussi de l’évolution de notre regard sur une transition, longtemps oblitérée, témoignant de la transformation des sociétés au cours de la première moitié du IVe millénaire avant notre ère selon des scénarios différents selon les régions.

Citer ce document / Cite this document : Braun Eliot, Roux Valentine. The Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I Transition in the Southern Levant: Determining Continuity and Discontinuity or “Mind the Gap”. In: Paléorient, 2013, vol. 39, n°1. The Transition Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant. pp. 15-22; doi : 10.3406/paleo.2013.5484 http://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_2013_num_39_1_5484 Document généré le 26/01/2017

THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC TO EARLY BRONZE AGE I TRANSITION IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT: DETERMINING CONTINUITY AND DISCONTINUITY OR “MIND THE GAP”* E. BRAUN and V. ROUX

La question de la transition entre le Chalcolithique final et le Bronze ancien I dans le sud Levant fait l’objet de nombreux débats depuis maintenant plusieurs décennies. Le volume qui lui est consacré ici est destiné à faire état de nouvelles données archéologiques qui permettent d’en renouveler les réponses. On rappellera au préalable les principales étapes de la recherche sur le sujet. Ces étapes ont été déterminées par l’état des connaissances et la qualité des datations ; elles témoignent aussi de l’évolution de notre regard sur une transition, longtemps oblitérée, témoignant de la transformation des sociétés au cours de la première moitié du IVe millénaire avant notre ère selon des scénarios différents selon les régions.

AN INTRODUCTION TO A PROBLEMATIC HISTORY OF DISCOVERY, RESEARCH AND INTERPRETATION Nearly nine decades separate us from the earliest discoveries of what has come to be recognized as the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I (henceforth EB I) cultural horizons of the Southern Levant. Although a wealth of data from numerous excavations and extensive research has illuminated many aspects of these chrono-cultural periods, the transition from the earlier Chalcolithic period to EB I remains obscure. That has prompted the authors of the studies in this volume to offer their latest research on the subject. In order to put these scholars’ contributions into context, a brief summary of the history of research and interpretation on this little known aspect of the archaeological record of the Southern Levant is offered below.

DISCOVERY AND DEFINITION Since the fi rst discoveries at Teleilat Ghassul, with its highly distinctive ceramic, lithic and groundstone industries, archaeologists have recognized a “Ghassulian” chrono-cultural horizon within the late prehistoric sequence of the Southern Levant. Mallon (1932: 337), the primary excavator of Teleilat Ghassul, originally thought the occupation there represented a transition from Neolithic to the Bronze Age. However, not long thereafter,1 Albright (1932 and 1935), basing his interpretation on results of excavations at Beth Shan (Fitzgerald, 1933 and 1934) and Jericho (Droop, 1935), introduced the convention “Chalcolithic” to * We are grateful to J. Lovell for suggesting another meaning for this “London Transit System warning”. 1. Dunand (1949-1950), apparently following Mallon and a line of reasoning based on his own comparanda from the Levant, Egypt and Syria, placed Teleilat Ghassul between the Énéolithique (i.e., Chalcolithic) and Bronze I (i.e., EB I) periods, thus suggesting it as transitional between the two periods.

Paléorient, vol. 39.1, p. 15-22 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2013

paleorient-39.1_001-224.indb 15

06/06/13 11:13

16

describe the stage of development Teleilat Ghassul was purported to represent. The term was also, erroneously,2 applied to pottery from the East Slope of Megiddo (now understood to represent relatively advanced phases of EB I) by Engberg and Shipton (1934: 49) and Vincent (1934), who, following Mallon’s early work, suggested dating the latest occupation at Teleilat Ghassul to the Middle Bronze period (sic!). Chalcolithic is a term that has come to be nearly universally accepted, but it is no longer applied to the entire occupation sequence at Teleilat Ghassul as the earliest levels are thought to be Neolithic (Hennessy, 1969). Although more recently renewed excavations at that site have yielded evidence of a sequence of cultural phases suggesting development from Late Neolithic (LN) through Late Chalcolithic (LC) (Hennessy, 1969 and 1982; Bourke, 1997) with intermediate Chalcolithic phases, the material culture of the latest phases at Teleilat Ghassul (Mallon et al., 1934; Koeppel, 1940; Bourke et al., 1995 and 2007; Lovell, 2001), identified as LC, have come to be synonymous for that chrono-cultural period in the Southern Levant (e.g., Rowan and Golden, 2009; Gilead, 2011). Oftimes the period is also identified with the material culture of several LC sites in the Beersheva Basin, leading some scholars (e.g., Amiran, 1969; HanburyTenison, 1986: 108; Mellaart, 1966: 23-37) to use the terms “Ghassul-Beersheva or Ghassulian-Beershevan” to indicate the south Levantine LC of the fertile zones.3

EARLY DEFINITIONS OF LATE CHALCOLITHIC G.H. Wright (1937), in his seminal PhD Thesis on the early pottery cultures of the Southern Levant, divined an additional element in LC material culture, not present at Teleilat Ghassul, a specialized class of ceramic bowls, now commonly known as Gray Burnished Ware (henceforth GBW; Braun, 2012: 6-11), which he attributed to LC. Bowls of Type 1 of that ware, with their distinctive shapes and finishes, were found in Strata XVII-XV at Beth Shan (Braun, 2004: 2. Engberg and Shipton (1934: 51) suggested that Teleilat Ghassul and some of the stages they purported to discern at Megiddo overlapped in time. They understood these two sites to have been in different cultural “provinces” or “cultural domains”, with Megiddo, in one where the ledge handle was its hallmark. It has been obvious for decades that the pottery labeled Chalcolithic by these scholars should all be dated to EB I; most of it to advanced phases (Braun, 1985 and in press). 3. Some scholars are critical of that term (e.g., Rowan and Golden, 2009: 11 with references).

E. BRAUN and V. ROUX

Pl. III, 1-5) and, more importantly, at excavations at Affula (Sukenik, 1936 and 1948), where they appeared together with LC style pot types similar to some found at Teleilat Ghassul,4 Wright’s ascription of GBW to LC gained wide acceptance (e.g., de Vaux and Steve, 1947) and for decades was an established convention.

THE SEARCH FOR A LC TO EB I TRANSITION – A GRAND DETOUR Wright (1958), who understood that his original ceramic paradigm for Chalcolithic developed when data were few, not very reliable, and based mostly on tomb assemblages, latterly came to understand that GBW was actually associated solely with the EB I horizon and should not be defi ned as LC. Unfortunately, his earlier paradigm had been accepted and enhanced upon, with a number of scholars such as Dothan (1957; 1959 and 1971), de Contenson (1961), Mellaart (1966: 29, 35, 66), de Vaux5 (1970: 531-536), Perrot (1972: 439) and Elliott (1978: 50-51 with citations) arguing for a LC association for GBW. That identification, because of that dual association, effectively stifled the search for evidence of a transition between those cultural horizons. That perception was purportedly bolstered by information from Affula and Meser (Dothan, 1957 and 1959), sites touted as having yielded evidence of LC to EB I continuity. However, excavations at both sites were severely limited in scope and were published only cursorily, with no real data that might confi rm the validity of interpretations derived from them. Thus, arguments based on those excavations effectively clouded the issue of the transition, especially as, in retrospect, there is reason to believe those sites were neither excavated with the care necessary for obtaining such information, nor were interpretations placed on evidence from them ever subjected to rigorous scrutiny. Another, more recent study of a ceramic assemblage of dubious chrono-cultural discretion, similarly purports to document the LC to EB I transition (Kaptijn and de Vreeze, 2008), but it is unconvincing as it relies on petrographic investigation of a sample of a mere 18 sherds of a surface collection from a site not yet excavated, and supposed comparanda for LC at the earlier Chalcolithic

4. Such types are notably absent at Beth Shan, where there appears to have been a hiatus in occupation during LC (Braun, 2004). 5. De Vaux (1970: 530) was somewhat of an exception as he defined GBW as LC, but rejected any claim of its association with Ghassulian Chalcolithic.



06/06/13 11:13

The Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I Transition in the Southern Levant: Determining Continuity and Discontinuity or “Mind the Gap”

site of Gilat; a site that does not appear to have any clear evidence of LC (Gilead and Fabian, 2010: *96-*97).

BACK ON TRACK SEARCHING FOR THE LC TO EB I TRANSITION For decades the archaeological record as revealed was also virtually “silent” on the LC to EB I transition. Extensively excavated LC sites, such as those in the Beer Sheva cluster that produced more abundant and better data (e.g., Perrot, 1955a, b and c; Dothan, 1959b; CommengePellerin, 1987 and 1990) were devoid of Early EB I occupations, while significant early EB I deposits unearthed were located directly above LN or Early Chalcolithic (EC) occupations at major sites (e.g., Beth Shan XVI6 and Yiftah’el II; Braun, 2004 and 1997 respectively). In short, there was a clearly perceived gap in the archaeological record between what scholars traditionally defi ned as LC and a succeeding phase, Early EB I (sometimes cited as EB Ia/EB IA) associated with GBW. Eventually, excavations at Yiftah’el (Braun, 1997), which yielded large quantities of Type 1 (i.e., the earliest) GBW, and no evidence of LC pottery whatsoever, finally proved the veracity of Wright’s later interpretation of the archaeological record. GBW was definitively relegated to EB I; its purported LC association negated. That information effectively put an end to several decades of confusion and discussion concerning the overlapping of LC and early EB I by allowing the search for evidence of the LC to EB I transition to get back on track. Once the Meser and Affula assemblages were understood to be non-discrete (i.e., derived from more than one discrete cultural horizon), LC came to be associated by most scholars with the material culture of the latest phases of Teleilat Ghassul (often cited as Stratum IV or Phases D-A) and those of the Beersheva cluster of sites (Gilead, 2011: 13), including Abu Matar, Horvat Beter, Bir Safadi and Shiqmim (Levy, 1987). What seems abundantly clear today is that Wright (1937), early on, correctly discerned that the LC and EB I periods are associated with significantly different material culture assemblages, and thus deserving of separate identifications. Especially after Wright’s (1958) later revision of his ceramic sequence, that division was emphasized by Amiran’s (1969) seminal study of early pottery, long considered a bible for 6. This is contrary to Hanbury-Tenison’s (1986: 115) claim of an LC layer at the site.

17

researchers. Her two sequential horizons were treated as completely separate entities. Unfortunately, her work offered no information on phases or development within the Chalcolithic and EB I periods, thus effectively failing to tender help in understanding the LC to EB I transition. Amiran’s approach, which ran counter to many scholars’ defi nitions of LC (see above), did, however, leave the question of the transition open and ripe for research. That research, in lieu of direct evidence for transition from LC to EB I in the archaeological record, attempted to define the relationship between these two sequential chrono-cultural phases by traditional interpretations of comparisons of artifacts based on typology, morphology (e.g., Amiran, 1977; Braun, 1997: 105-106) and attempts at recreating relative chronology through examination of “horizontal stratigraphy” at sites in different regions (e.g., Amiran, 1985; Hanbury-Tenison, 1986: 107-123; Braun, 1989; Ben-Tor, 1992; Braun, 2000; Blackham, 2002). Results of such studies, albeit far from conclusive and of questionable value (e.g., Bourke and Lovell, 2004: 180-181), did suggest the break in cultural traditions between LC and EB I was not as thoroughgoing as some suggested (e.g., de Vaux, 1970: 531; Gonen, 1992). Nevertheless, certain aspects of material culture indicate major differences, especially in chipped stone production as indicated by Vardi and Gilead (this volume). Those studies also positioned the transition rightly between the extremes of latest LC (i.e., the latest Ghassulian and Beershevan type sites) and earliest EB I. However, that did little to address the problem of defining the manner in which, and time when, the Southern Levant witnessed the end of the Chalcolithic period and a transition to EB I. That is because definitions of what constitutes latest LC and earliest EB I, less than precise several decades ago (Braun, 1989: 8-9 and 2011), remain equally obscure today (Rowan and Golden, 2009: 10-12). For the Chalcolithic period certain facies were considered to be LC, but late radiocarbon determinations suggest rather significant chronological variabilities in scholars’ identifications of them (e.g., Aardsma, 2001). Owing to a lack of superimposed LC to EB I sequences, the identification of the earliest EB I phase has been difficult to discern as there are virtually no reliable radiocarbon data for dating (Braun et al., this volume). In addition regional differences between north and south further complicate the picture. Braun (2011) has suggested a “lost horizon” between LC and the earliest appearance of GBW in the north, and an “initial EB I” with Chalcolithic associations, particularly in potting traditions in the south (Braun and Gophna, 2004).



06/06/13 11:13

18

The date, and indeed the very nature of this very earliest EB I are disputed, with Golani (2004 and this volume) suggesting it began ca 3800 BC and was typified by the presence of both LC and EB I artifact types. By contrast, Braun and Gophna (2004) and E. Braun (forthcoming)7 favor a date closer to 3500 BC for the onset of EB I. Braun further questions the discretion of those Ashqelon material culture assemblages that Golani and colleagues (Golani and Nagar, 2011; Rosenberg and Golani, 2012) claim to be the earliest EB I, and suggests the overall evidence of the site indicates a substantial Chalcolithic occupation on the Ashqelon Littoral. Van den Brink (this volume) offers a more substantial view of the transition at Modi’in, a site that has a superimposed sequence, where changes in architecture and ceramic traditions (Roux et al., this volume) over time can be placed within an absolute chronological framework (Braun et al., this volume).


radiocarbon data, it would appear that within certain limitations, the data have somewhat ameliorated the search for the LC to EB I transition by focusing it on a relatively limited chronological interval, although perhaps it is not as certain as Philip (2011: 187) 8 has suggested.

DEFINING THE LC TO EB I TRANSITION

While one would have expected that with the addition of radiocarbon data for dating, the problem of determining real dates for LC and EB I and the transition between them would be ameliorated, or perhaps even eliminated, no such breakthrough in understanding has occurred. For reasons discussed elsewhere (Braun et al., this volume), those new data seemed only to complicate and confuse the issue, as may be understood from a spate of publications (e.g., Levy, 1992; Joffe and Dessel, 1995; Gilead, 1994; Bourke et al., 2001 and 2004; Burton and Levy, 2001; Braun and Gophna, 2004: 219-225; Golani, 2004: 46-47; Segal and Carmi, 2004; Klimscha, 2009; Shugar and Gohm, 2011; Regev et al., 2012) offering a multitude of data from sites generally perceived to represent LC and early EB I occupations. The dates cited for LC, some fi rst published in this volume (Braun et al., this volume), are a confusing array, which seems to place the transition anywhere from the last quarter of the 5th millennium BC through the mid 4th millennium BC. A validity check for those data (Braun et al., this volume) seems, however, to suggest the chronological limits for the transition more likely to fall within the first half of the 4th millennium. Thus, despite some confusion in the available

The greatly enriched archaeological record presently available, and a growing body of literature on the transition (e.g., Hourani, 2010; Braun, 2011; Golani and Nagar, 2011), has prompted the editors of this issue to invite scholars to weigh in with their latest thoughts on the subject. They have done so by presenting new and reinterpreting older data. As a way to introduce these articles, we propose to emphasize several points while studying the transition between LC and EB I in the Southern Levant. A primary point is that the north and the south of the Southern Levant have not necessarily evolved according to the same historical dynamics. Therefore it is important to distinguish between both areas and not expect northern sites to exhibit the same sequences as those observed in the south. In this issue, the LC to EB I transition is mainly examined on the basis of sites located in the southern region. It means that results obtained refer to this region only and do not necessarily apply to the northern region. A second consideration is that dates are meant to provide the chronological framework of archaeological assemblages. However, in no case can they ascribe archaeological assemblages to cultural horizons whose characterization are necessarily based on qualitative observations (e.g., Golani, this volume). In other words, they cannot elucidate questions of the dynamics of cultural history at stake during the transitional period separating LC and EB I, even though they should help in chronologically synchronising regional-based human occupations. The chronological framework for 4th millennium sites is analyzed in Braun et al.’s paper, which provides a general synthesis of most relevant radiocarbon dates from LC/EB I sites. Two additional dates from Barnea are found in Golani’s paper, which seem to narrow the gap between LC and EB I. The dates indicate that Ghassulian LC sites ceased to exist by ca 3800 BC, and that they were followed by a transitional

7. The Case for a Chalcolithic Occupation on the Ashqelon Littoral: A Reconsideration of available Archaeological Evidence and its Implications for Understanding the Late Chalcolithic to EB I Transition.

8. Philip suggested the availability of “good dates”, but did not address the question of the absolute associations of them to archaeological deposits they were purported to date.

RADIOCARBON DATA – AMELIORATION OR CONFUSION?



06/06/13 11:13


phase which lasted ca 200 years, before the onset of a wellestablished, definitively recognizable EB I, whose duration was between ca 3600 and ca 3100 BC. A third consideration involves understanding transitional assemblages such as those found in the Southern Levant. However, any such attempt raises additional difficulties, which are inherent in identifying any transitional period. In those cases archaeological assemblages are most often characterized by features of the earlier and later periods, which make them difficult to ascribe them to a one or the other cultural horizon. When such assemblages are encountered in the archaeological record, difficult questions need to be asked. Are they functions of discrete and not necessarily related (i.e., mixed) chrono-cultural assemblages, or are they hybrid merges of once distinct cultural entities or perhaps entities that underwent endogeneous and/or exogeneous changes? When archaeological data are derived from well identified, superimposed, successive and discrete deposits, they may be used to understand changes in terms of population or social transformations. That allows data to be examined in terms of transmission as proposed by evolutionary theory (e.g., Shennan, 2009). A complete replacement of the material culture indicates a cessation of transmission and therefore replacement of population. When change affects traits demonstrated to be inherited from previous assemblages, that indicates modifications during transmission and therefore changes within the same social entity. But it is also possible that cultural material includes both renewed and inherited traits. This situation can occur when transmission units disappear or appear within a population. Those units may correspond to social and/or institutional components. Their emergence or disappearance plays fundamental roles in the general evolution of cultural traits. They signal social discontinuity, while inherited modified traits indicate continuity in population. One of the main results highlighted in this issue is the recognition in the Shephela (i.e., the western foothills at the base of the Judea/Samaria incline) of a distinct transitional horizon characterized by both inherited LC traits, disappearance of typical LC traits and appearance of new traits, followed by an horizon where progressively a new dynamic is engaged, the outcome of which is the EB I as acknowledged in the region (van den Brink, Paz and Nativ, Golani, Roux et al., Vardi and Gilead, this volume). Among the authors, some call this horizon LC2 (van den Brink), some do not really acknowledge it but do include it in either the LC (Vardi and Gilead, this volume) or the EB I (Golani, this volume). Whatever the label, archaeological assemblages do point to the existence of a transitional horizon dated between ca 3800 BC and ca 3600

19

BC. This horizon witnesses both a relocation of an LC population northwards and new social conditions that derive from both inherited LC traits, the disappearance of LC traits related to ceremonial/ritual/symbolic spheres and the progressive appearance of new traits in their relationship with northern contacts (Golani, Paz and Nativ, Roux et al., Vardi and Gilead: all this volume). Modi’in is a site that, par excellence, provides evidence of successive phases witnessing the progressive transition from LC to EBI (van den Brink, this volume). It further provides reference data for assessing regional synchronies with the sites of Barnea (Golani, this volume) and Yesodot (Paz and Nativ, this volume). The consequences of the redeployement of LC sedentary populations on a macro-regional scale are difficult to assess since in arid zones, correlating the chrono-cultural identifications of sites there is almost impossible because of their dissimilarities with normative LC and EB I material cultures. In most instances radiocarbon dates, provided they are valid, are the only way to relate them to sites in more fertile regions (Abu Azizeh, Davidovich, Rosen, this volume). However, social and cultural changes among nomadic populations in the 4th millennium BC in the desert regions can be approached through their material culture, strategies of subsistence and interactions with sedentary communities. The latter connect clearly nomadic and sedentary populations through desert exchange networks all throughout the 4th millennium BC, albeit often with minimal data. Davidovich (this volume), in his investigations in the Judean Desert shows one hypothesis, that of a Chalcolithic refugee population retreating from more fertile areas no longer seems viable. By corollary, he indicates sporadic activity in caves in the region during EB I, suggesting intermittent activity in these and other arid zones. Hartung’s paper (this volume) offers further evidence of trade between Egypt and the Southern Levant, especially during the LC to EB I transition, through the evidence of the settlement at Maadi and its foreign relations, quite possibly via trade with desert dwellers. They in turn provide a somewhat tenuous link with the Naqada Culture of Upper Egypt from Naqada I to the end of Maadi in late Naqada IIB which, according to radiocarbon dates from that site, correspond to the LC to EB I transition. Milevski (this volume) takes a very different approach to the question of the transition, one that, by dissecting economic strategies, sees some important divisions between LC and EB I, but which also acknowledges a degree of continuity. The major change in social paradigms, according to Milevski, comes some time later in developed EB I, which begins a trajectory towards urbanized communities in EB II and EB III.



06/06/13 11:13

20


The sum of these papers is a series of scholarly views, a heterogenic collection of the varied and sundry ways the archaeological record can be examined. The reader will find in these papers many data and their interpretations, which throw light on a rather obscure span of time in the late prehistory of the Southern Levant. While she or he may come away from this without having formed a definitive opinion on one or any of these aspects, these works will surely provoke serious cogitation on the subject, which will, in the fullness of time, bear fruit in our quest for a better understanding of history.

20 st of October 2010 at the Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem (CRFJ). We warmly thank the CRFJ, its director, Olivier Tourny, and its team for their hospitality and their help in making it possible. We would like also to thank Paléorient for giving us the opportunity to air these issues, and to the individual authors of these papers for their contributions.

Eliot BRAUN Sr. Fellow WF Albright Institute of Archaeological Research Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem Jérusalem – ISRAEL [email protected]

Valentine ROUX CNRS, UMR 7055 Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie 21 allée de l’université, 92023 Nanterre cedex – FRANCE [email protected]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Several of these papers published in this issue were first presented at a workshop which took place between the 18th and the

BIBLIOGRAPHY A ARDSMA G.E.

BOURKE S.J., SEATON P.L., SPARKS R.T., LOVELL J.L. and MAIRS L.D.

2001

1995

New Radiocarbon Dates for the Reed Mat from the Cave of the Treasure, Israel. Radiocarbon 43,3: 1247-1254.

ALBRIGHT W.F. 1932 1935

The Chalcolithic Age in Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 48: 10-13. Presidential Address: Palestine in the Earliest Historical Period. The Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society XV: 193-234.

1985

Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Massada. Pottery from the Chalcolithic Site near Tell Delhamiya and Some Notes on the Character of the Chalcolithic-Early Bronze I Transition. Eretz–Israel 13: 48-56 (in Hebrew with English summary). The Transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age. In: AMITAI J. (ed.), Biblical Archaeology Today: 108-147. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society.

BEN-TOR A. 1989

BOURKE S.J., ZOPPI U., MEADOWS J., HUA Q. and GIBBINS S. 2004

The Early Bronze Age (Unit 4). In: BEN-TOR A. (ed.), The Archaeology of Ancient Israel in the Biblical Period: 6-72. Tel Aviv: The Open University of Israel (in Hebrew).

2001

Modeling Time and Transition in Prehistory: The Jordan Valley Chalcolithic (5500-3500 BC). Oxford (BAR Int.Ser. 1027).

BOURKE S.J. 1997

The “Pre-Ghassulian” Sequence at Teleilat Ghassul: Sydney University Excavations 1975-1995. In: GEBEL H.G.K., K AFAFI Z. and ROLLEFSON G.O. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan, II: Perspectives from 1997: 395-417. Berlin: ex oriente (SENEPSE 4).

The Chronology of the Ghassulian Chalcolithic Period in the Southern Levant: New 14C Determination from Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan. Radiocarbon 43,3: 1204-1217.

BOURKE S.J., LOVELL J., SEATON P., SPARKS R., MAIRS L. and MEADOWS J. 2007

A Fourth Season of Renewed Excavations at Tulaylat al-Ghassul (1999). Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 51: 35-77.

BRAUN E. 1989

BLACKHAM M. 2002

The end of the Chalcolithic Period in the south Jordan Valley: New 14C Determinations from Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan. Radiocarbon 46,1: 315-323.

BOURKE S.J., LAWSON E., LOVELL J., HUA Q., ZOPPI U. and BARBETTI M.

A MIRAN R. 1969 1977

A First Season of Renewed Excavation by the University of Sydney at Tulaylat al-Ghassul. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 39: 31-63.

1997

2000

The Transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age in Northern Israel and Transjordan: Is there a Missing Link? In: DE MIROSCHEDJI P. (ed.), L’Urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien: bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles. Actes du Colloque d’Emmaüs, 20-24 octobre 1986: 7-28. Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 527). Yiftah’el: Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA Reports 2). Area G at Afridar, Palmahim Quarry 3 and the Earliest Pottery of Early Bronze I: Part of the Missing Link. In: PHILIP G. and BAIRD D. (eds.), Breaking with the Past: Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant: 113-128.



06/06/13 11:13


2004

2012 In Press

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press (Levantine Archaeology 2). Early Beth Shan (Strata XIX-XIII): G. M. Fitzgerald’s Deep Cut on the Tell. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (University Museum Monograph 121). On Some South Levantine Early Bronze Age Ceramic “Wares” and Styles. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 144,1: 5-32. Early Megiddo on the East Slope (The “Megiddo Stages”). A Report on the Early Occupation of the East Slope of Megiddo. Results of the Oriental Institute’s Excavations, 1925-1933. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

lithic Entities in the Southern Levant. In: LOVELL J.L. and ROWAN Y.M. (eds.): 12-24. GILEAD I. and FABIAN P. 2010

Excavations at Ashqelon, Afridar—Area G. ‘Atiqot 45: 185-242.

BURTON M. and LEVY T.E. 2001

Pre-Ghassulian Sites in the Ramot Neighborhood, Beer Sheva: Chronological and Cultural Perspectives. In: YONA S. (ed.), Or Le-Mayer: Studies in Bible, Semitic Languages, Rabbinic Literature and Ancient Civilizations Presented to Mayer Gruber on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday: *89-*107. Beersheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev Press.

GOLANI A. 2004

BRAUN E. and GOPHNA R. 2004

Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Ashqelon, Afridar—Area E. ‘Atiqot 45: 9-62.

GOLANI A. and NAGAR Y. 2011

The Chalcolithic Radiocarbon Record and Its Use in Southern Levantine Archaeology. Radiocarbon 43,3: 1223-1246.

Newly Discovered Burials of the Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age I in Southern Canaan – Evidence of Cultural Continuity In: LOVELL J.L. and ROWAN Y.M. (eds.): 84-96.

DE CONTENSON H.

GONEN R.

1961

Remarques sur le Chalcolithique récent de Tell esh-Shuneh. Revue Biblique 48 : 546-556.

1992

Excavations at Meser 1956: Preliminary Report on the First Season. Israel Exploration Journal 7: 217-228. Excavations at Meser 1957: Preliminary Report on the Second Season. Israel Exploration Journal 9: 13-29. The Late Chalcolithic Period in Palestine--Chronology and Foreign Contacts. Eretz–Israel 10: 126-131, xii-xiii (in Hebrew, with English summary).

H ANBURY-T ENISON J.W.

DOTHAN M. 1957 1959 1971

DROOP J.P. 1935

Pottery of the Chalcolithic and Neolithic Levels, 1935. [In: GARSTANG J., DROOP J.P. and CROWFOOT J., Jericho: City and Necropolis: Fifth Report.] Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 22: 169-173 and Plates XXXVIII, XL-XLII, XLIV-XLVI and XL

1986

Rapport préliminaire sur les fouilles de Byblos en 1948. Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth IX : 53-64.

ELLIOTT C. 1978

The Ghassulian Culture in Palestine: Origins, Influences and Abandonment. Levant 10: 37-54.

ENGBERG R.M. and SHIPTON G.M. 1934

Notes on the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Pottery of Megiddo. Chicago: Chicago University Press The Oriental Institute (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 10).

FITZGERALD G. 1934 1935

Excavations at Beth-Shan in 1933. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 1934: 123-134. Beth Shan: Earliest Pottery. The Museum Journal (The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia) XXIV: 5-22.

1969 1982

1994

2011

The History of the Chalcolithic Settlement in the Nahal Beer Sheva Area: The Radiocarbon Aspect. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 296: 1-14. Chalcolithic Culture History: Ghassulian and Other Chalco-

The Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze I Transition in Palestine and Transjordan. Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 311). Preliminary Report on a First Season of Excavations at Teleilat Ghassul. Levant I: 1-24. Teleilat Ghassul: Its Place in the Archaeology of Jordan. In: HADIDI A. (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan I: 55-58. Amman: The Department of Antiquites.

HOURANI F. 2010

Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I Transition Settlements in the Middle Jordan Valley: Investigating Alluvial Sequences as a Chronostratigraphical framework, and Cycles as a Social Organising Component. Paléorient 36,1: 123-139.

JOFFE A.H. and DESSE J.P. 1995

Redefining Chronology and Terminology for the Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant. Current Anthropology 36: 507-518.

KAPTIJN E. and DE VREEZE M. 2008

Different Communities or Changing Pottery Techniques? The Transition from the Late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age Discovered at Qatar Damiyeh (Jordan Valley). Leiden Journal of Pottery Studies 24: 75-94.

K LIMSCHA F. 2009

Radiocarbon Dates from Prehistoric ‘Aqaba and Other Related sites from the Chalcolithic Period. In: K HALIL L. and SCHMIDT K. (eds.), Prehistoric ‘Aqaba I: 363-419. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf (Orient-Archäologie 23).

KOEPPEL R. 1940

GILEAD I.

The Chalcolithic Period. In: BEN-TOR A. (ed.), The Archaeology of Ancient Israel (translated by R. Greenberg): 40-80. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

HENNESSY J.B.

DUNAND M. 1949-1950

21

Teleilat Ghassul II. Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical.

LEVY T.E. 1987

Shiqmim I. Studies concerning Chalcolithic societies in the northern Negev desert, Israel (1982-1984). Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 356).



06/06/13 11:13

22

1992


Radiocarbon Chronology of the Beersheva Culture and Predynastic Egypt. In: VAN DEN BRINK E.C.M. (ed.), The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th. – 3rd. Millennium B.C.: 345-356. Tel Aviv: E.C.M. van den Brink; Israel Exploration Society.

LOVELL J.L. 2001 The Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods in the Southern Levant. New Data from the Site of Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan. Oxford (Monographs of the Sydney University Teleilat Ghassul Project 1; BAR Int. Ser. 974). LOVELL J.L. and ROWAN Y.M. (eds.) 2011 Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic. Theory and Transition. Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow Books (CBRL; Levant Supplementary Series 9). MALLON A. 1932 La civilisation du IIIe millénaire dans la Vallée du Jourdain : les fouilles de Teleilat Ghassul. Syria 13 : 333-344. MALLON A., KOEPPEL S.J. and NEUVILLE R. 1934 Teleilat Ghassul I. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. MELLAART J. 1966 The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East and Anatolia. Beirut: Khayata. PHILIP G. 2011

The Later Prehistory of the Southern Levant: Issues of Practice and Context. In: LOVELL J.L. and ROWAN Y.M. (eds.): 178-191.

REGEV J., DE MIROSCHEDJI P., GREENBERG R., BRAUN E., GREENHUT Z. and BOARETTO E. 2012 Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the South Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology. Radiocarbon 54,3-4: 525-566. ROSENBERG D. and GOLANI A. 2012 Groundstone Tools of a Bronze Smiths’ Community – Understanding Stone-Related Aspects of the Early Bronze Age Site of Ashqelon Barnea. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 25,1: 27-51. ROWAN Y.M. and GOLDEN J. 2009 The Chalcolithic Period of the Southern Levant: A Synthetic Review. Journal of World Prehistory 22: 1-92.

SEGAL D. and CARMI I. 2004

Determination of Age using the 14C Method on Archaeobotanical Samples from Ashqelon, Afridar—Area E. ‘Atiqot 45: 119-120.

SHENNAN S.J. (ed.) 2009 Pattern and process in cultural evolution. Berkeley: University of California. SHUGAR A.N. and GOHM C.J. 2011 Developmental Trends in Chalcolithic Copper Metallurgy: a Radiometric Perspective. In: LOVELL J.L. and ROWAN Y.M. (eds.): 133-148. SUKENIK E.L. 1936 Late Chalcolithic Pottery from ‘Affuleh. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement: 150-154. 1948 Archaeological Investigations at ‘Affula. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 21: 1-7. DE VAUX R. 1970 Palestine during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods. In: EDWARDS I.E.S., GADD C.J. and HAMMOND N.G.L. (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History, Third Edition, Vol. 1, part 1: 498535. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1971 Palestine in the Early Bronze Age. In: EDWARDS I.E.S., GADD C.J. and HAMMOND N.G.L. (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History. Third Edition, Vol. 1, part 2: 208-237. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DE VAUX R. et STEVE A.M.

1947

La première campagne de fouilles à Tell el-Far’ah, près Naplouse. Revue Biblique 54 : 394-433, 573-589.

VINCENT H. 1934 Chronique : vers l’aube de l’histoire en Palestine d’après les dernières découvertes de Megiddo. Revue Biblique 43 : 403-431. WRIGHT G.E. 1937 The Pottery of Palestine From the Earliest Times to the End of the Early Bronze Age. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1958 The Problem of the Transition Between the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages. Eretz–Israel 5: 37*-45*.



06/06/13 11:13