fAA Reports, No.

19

THE NEOLITHIC SITE OF ABU GHOSH

THE 1995 EXCAVATIONS

HAMOUDI KHALAILY AND OFER MARDER

With contributions by
Rina Y. Bankirer, Daniella E. Bar-YosefMayer, Eldad Barzilay, Israel Carmi, Pierre Ducos,
Charles Greenblatt, Liora K. Horwitz, Sonya Itkis, Gila Kahila Bar-Gal, Zinovi Matskevich,
Ianir Milevski, Dror Segal, Deborah A. Sklar-Parnes, Patricia Smith, Shoh Yamada

ISRAEL ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY

JERUSALEM 2003
 74 DANIELLA E. BAR-YOSEF MAYER
Discussion
The assemblage consists of six gastropods and 90
bivalves. In addition there were 24 landsnails (not
described above) belonging to the genera of Levantina,
Monacha, Euchondrus, Calaxis, and Helix, and one
bead apparently made of limestone.
Of the total marine shell assemblage, about half are
small fragments (where less than half the shell or valve
is present). This fragmentation is probably related
to preservation conditions at the site. No pattern
pertaining to spatial distribution was detectable.
Most marine shells originated in the Mediterranean
Sea; only one (N sanguinolenta) is from the Red Sea.
Comparison of this assemblage with those previously
described by Mienis (1978; 1987) reveals no new
REFERENCES
Bar-Yosef D.E. and Heller J. 1987. Mollusca from Yiftahel,
Lower Galilee, Israel. P aleorient 13:131-135.
Bar-YosefMayerD. E. 1997. Neolithic Shell Bead Production
in Sinai. Journal ofArchaeological Science 24:97-111.
Bar-Yosef Mayer D.E. 1999. The Role of Shells in the
Reconstruction of Socio-Economic Aspects of Neolithic
through Early Bronze Age Societies in Southern Sinai.
Ph.D. diss. Hebrew University. Jerusalem.
Biggs H.E.J. 1963. On Mollusca Collected during
the Excavations at Jericho, 1952-1958, and Their
Archaeological Significance. Man August 1963: 125-128.
Lechevallier M. 1978. Abu Gosh et Beisamoun, deux
gisements du VIle millenaire avant I'ere chretienne en
STONE IMAGERY ITEMS
Zinovi Matskevich and Ianir Milevski
The renewed excavations at Abu Ghosh produced
two stone objects that must be considered as related
to imagery objects (as defined by Gopher and Orelle
1995). One, a zoomorphic head, was found in a Pottery
Neolithic context, while the second, a bell-shaped
object, was retrieved from the excavation dump.
Zoomorphic Head (Fig. 8.1)
Provenance: L130, B1216.
Raw Material: Hard, gray limestone, probably a
cobble.
z
species. A further comparison of all the Abu Ghosh
assemblages with other PPNB assemblages from
the Mediterranean zone also places it comfortably
within the known range of species (Bar-Yosef and
Heller 1987; Bar-Yosef Mayer 1999, and see further
references therein). However, thus far a comprehensive
study of shells that will satisfactorily explain the
reasons for the collection of these particular species
has not yet been conducted, although some attempts
have been made (Biggs 1963; Bar-YosefMayer 1997).
Suffice it to say that in addition to the limestone bead
there were only six worked shells that may have served
as beads: a Nerita, a Cypraea fragment, a Murex, a
Nassarius, and two Glycymeris. Whether Glycymeris
and Cerastoderma (the most common species) had
other uses (as amulets?) is impossible to determine.
Israel (Memoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches
Prehistoriques Francais de Jerusalem 2). Paris.
Marder 0., Khalaily H., Barzilay E., and Peterson-Solimany
M. 1996. Recent Excavations at Abu Ghosh. Neo-Lithics
1/96:3-4.
Mienis H.K. 1978. Molluscs from Abou Gosh and
Beisamoun. In M. Lechevallier. Abu Gosh et Beisamoun,
deux gisements du VIle millenaire avant I'ere chretienne
en Israel (Memoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches
Prehistoriques Francais de Jerusalem 2). Paris. Pp.
269-272.
Mienis H.K. 1987. A Second Collection of Shells from
Neolithic Abou Gosh. Levantina 66:695-702.
Preservation: Broken at the neck; only the forefront is
preserved.
Dimensions: Preserved length, 80 mm; max. width,
47 mm; max. height, 59 mm.
This item represents a homed animal, probably an
Ovis. The details- of the animal's anatomy are modeled
by incising, polishing, and possibly pecking and
chiseling. They include one whorled hom on the right
side of the head. Incisions on the tip of the muzzle
probably indicate the nose. Two additional parallel
incisions schematically shaped the frontal part of the
head. The surface of the item is perfectly smoothed;
it is unclear whether the smoothing is the result of the
finishing of the object or the weathering of the cobble.
 CHAPTER 8: THE SMALL FINDS 75
)
One object from the excavations of the French
mission at Abu Ghosh (Lechevallier 1978: Fig. 35:2)
is iconographically similar to this item but was
attributed by the excavators to PPNB.l It is made of
clay and much smaller in dimensions. Although it was
identified by theexcavator (Lechevallier 1978:82) as a
Bos, we suggest on the base of a direct observation of
the object that the features identified as ears actually
represent whorled horns.
Two stone ram figurines from Kabri (Amiran 1976:
PI. 29:B, C) are the closest parallels to our head in both
technical and iconographic details. Although surface
finds, they are generally regarded as associated with a
late phase of the Pottery Neolithic.
It is of interest to note that no domesticated sheep
were present in the PPNB assemblage of Abu Ghosh
(Horwitz, Chapter 10; Ducos and Horwitz, Chapter 11).
This fact may be regarded as an additional argument
Fig. 8.1. Zoomorphic head.
in favor of a dating of our head within the Pottery
Neolithic period.

Bell-Shaped Object (Fig. 8.2)

Provenance: B1202.
Raw Material: Hard,pink limestone.
Dimensions: Height, 44 mm; max. diameter, 39 mm.

The object is completely modeled in the round; the

form of the initial blank cannot be identified. ~ wide,
engraved groove (the 'neck') divides the 'cylinder' into o
I

two parts-body and head; the 'head' was then reduced
in size. The body was hollowed with a drill. Afterthe
object had been shaped, two holes were drilled from
both sides of the 'neck' although they do not meet. The
perforation was then completed by breaking through
the lateral part of the hole. The surface finish was
accomplished by pecking and smoothing.
The closest parallel to this object comes from the
previous excavations at the site (Lechevallier ·1978:82,
Fig. 35:7). It is made of the same kind of limestone but
is smaller, and the body is globular. In general it also
strongly resembles a bell.
The function of the object under discussion is
obscure. Two possibilities exist: (a) the object was
decorative (as defined by Lechevallier 1978:82); or
(b) it was practical. The fact that the objects from both
excavations were perforated suggests they were hung
or pendent. A possible practical use as a bell, however,
presents some difficulties in the absence of any
Fig. 8.2. Bell-shaped object.
indication for the clapper. Also, there is no evidence
of the use of bells before the introduction of metals.
It is suggested here that the similarity in the shape of
these objects with bells does not necessarily suggest a
similar function, but may simply be casual. Therefore
the definition of these objects as pendants seems to be
more plausible.
Conclusions
Dating of the objects under discussion is somewhat
problematic. The context of the zoomorphic head, as
well as the parallel with the figurines from Kabri and
the absence of domesticated sheep bones from the
PPNB layers of the site, indicates its possible dating to
the Pottery Neolithic. On the other hand, the clay ram
76 ZINOVI MATSKEVICH AND IANIR MILEVSKI
figurine, apparently from the PPNB layer of the French
excavation of the site, implies that the early date of the
head cannot be automatically excluded. In this case the
figurines probably portray a wild species.
NOTE
1 However, since a Pottery Neolithic component could be
identified in the lithic assemblage of the French expedition
REFERENCES
Amiran R. 1976. More about the Chalcolithic Culture of
Palestine and Tepe Yahya. IEJ26:157-162
Gopher A. 1994. Arrowheads ofthe Neolithic Levant (ASOR
Dissertation Series 10). Winona Lake.
Gopher A. and Orrelle E. 1995. The Ground Stone
Assemblages of Munhata, a Neolithic Site in the Jordan
The bell-shaped object cannot be dated on the basis
of its context, but the close parallel with the previously
excavated PPNB object from Abu Ghosh could indicate
the same date for our item.
(Gopher 1994:51-56), it appears that the later date of the
object is also possible.
Valley, Israel. A Report (Les Cahiers des Missions
Archeologiques Francaises en Israel 7). Paris.
Lechevallier M. 1978. Abu Gosh et Beisamoun, deux
gisements du VIle millenaire avant I'ere chretienne en
Israel (Memoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches
Prehistoriques Francais de Jerusalem 2). Paris.