Moza Bocquentin

Between Two Worlds: The PPNB–PPNC Transition in the
Central Levant as Seen Through Discoveries at Beisamoun

Fanny Bocquentin, Hamoudi Khalaily, Elisabetta Boaretto, Laure Dubreuil,
Heeli C. Schechter, Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, Harris Greenberg,
Francesco Berna, Marie Anton, Ferran Borrell, François-Xavier Le
Bourdonnec, Laurent Davin, Camille Noûs, Nicolas Samuelian, Julien
Vieugué and Liora K. Horwitz
Introduction: Beisamoun in Its Research Context
By the end of the 8th millennium, all the stages in the Neolithization process had
been accomplished in the northern Levant (sedentary lifestyle, establishment of an
agro-pastoral economy, invention of pottery), and this new way of life was ready
for dispersion into Europe. The southern Levant, which until this point had been in
synchronicity with the cultural evolution of the northern Levant, now followed a
different trajectory. Firstly, the collapse of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) in
the Mediterranean zone is believed to have caused a major cultural crisis involving
the abandonment of most of the villages established in the previous period (see, e.g.,
synthesis in Rollefson 2019). Secondly, the adoption of pottery came only belatedly,
during the last third of the 7th millennium, with the establishment of new, Yarmukian
hamlets. The occupation of the region during the transition period between the
PPNB and the Pottery Neolithic (PN), initially defined some time ago by Rollefson
(1989; Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson 1993) and named the Pre-Pottery Neolithic
C (PPNC) or final PPNB (FPPNB),1 is still not well documented. If, on the Jordanian
side, a few major sites are known from this period (Rollefson 2019), west of the
Jordan River, remains are rare. Atlit Yam, Beisamoun and recently also Motza, are
the best-documented sites. They complement data that come from other sites with
layers that predate the Early PN (EPN) but which, rightly or wrongly, are often seen
as mixed (Garfinkel 1994; Eisenberg, Gopher and Greenberg 2001; Garfinkel and
Dag 2008a; Garfinkel and Ben-Shlomo 2009; Nadel and Nadler-Uziel 2011; Borrell
et al. 2019). This is a major difficulty that commonly arises when a cultural horizon
is still poorly identified.
The PPNC and EPN were defined on the basis of a few sites, but as more discoveries
are made, inter-site and inter-regional diversity are becoming increasingly
problematic, and the multiplication of 14C dates suggests that the PPNC and EPN
Moza-Bocquentin.indd 163 20/10/2020 14:20:47

164 Between Two Worlds: The PPNB–PPNC Transition at Beisamoun
could be two partially contemporaneous entities (Gopher 2012). In addition, there

is an environmental dimension of primary importance, as the climatic event of 8200
cal BP occurs around the PPNC–EPN transition (Daley et al. 2011; Bar-Yosef 2019).
This period of climatic instability should be reflected in the southern Levant by long
periods of drought interrupted by intense rainfall. For some researchers, this event is
considered responsible for the collapse of the PPNC and the transition to the EPN,
although the chronological timing is not perfectly synchronized and mechanisms
of collapse and resilience still need to be investigated (Maher, Banning and Chazan
2011). The beginning of the PPNC is no less confusing in that the preceding Late
PPNB (LPPNB) is not yet well characterized in the southern Levant either, and
the abandonment of the majority of sites at the end of this phase, at least in the
Mediterranean zone, is not precisely dated.
The excavation at Beisamoun in the Upper Jordan Valley, Israel, proved to be
providential in the context of this debate, as it provides an uninterrupted occupational
sequence covering this transitional period. We have favored high-resolution
excavation adapted to the understanding of the succession of events, in order to follow,
generation after generation, the process of transition from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic
to the Early Pottery Neolithic. The site of Beisamoun is located in the wetlands of the
Ḥula Basin, within the flood-plain of the historical Ḥula Lake, a location occupied
by fishponds from the 1950s until the 1980s, when it was turned into agricultural
fields. Its geographic location in the central Levant, between north and south, lends an
even greater resonance to our discoveries. This location enables us to characterize the
evolutionary mechanisms at one site and to provide information on the stages and the
possible causes of the apparent rupture that took place between the northern and the
southern Levant at the time of the PPNB–PPNC transition.
The Renewed Excavation Project

From 2007 to 2016, the Franco–Israeli mission of Beisamoun was supervised by Fanny
Bocquentin and Hamoudi Khalaily. Summer after summer, the site was explored over
an area of ca. 300 sq m divided into two sectors, E and F, to a depth of 0.50 and 1.70
m respectively. In addition, seven trenches were excavated at some distance from the
two sectors to investigate the extent of the ancient remains. We purposely retained the
small scale of the excavation in order to fulfill our aim of high-resolution recording,
as offered by comprehensive long-term projects.2
Our initial objective was to explore one of the major Neolithic villages of the
southern Levant occupied in the 8th millennium, which was known only through
surface surveying and a one-month rescue excavation carried out in 1972 by

Mega Project at Motza (Moẓa): The Neolithic and Later Occupations up to the 20th Century 165
Monique Lechevallier (1978). However, against all expectations, our excavation

revealed a more recent occupation characterized by a lithic assemblage described
as transitional between the Late PPNB and the Pottery Neolithic (Bocquentin et al.
2007; Samuelian, Bocquentin and Khalaily 2010).
In parallel with the field operations, a re-evaluation by Omry Barzilai of the lithic
material from the 1972 excavation, which was recontextualized thanks to consultation
and analyses of the field archives, allowed our team to attribute House 150, previously
excavated by Lechevallier, to the Middle PPNB (MPPNB; Bocquentin et al. 2011).
Thus, the village of Beisamoun, which was thought to have been occupied over a
very short period of only one or two centuries, revealed a chronological sequence
of over a millennium, amounting to several dozen generations, from the MPPNB to
the end of the FPPNB/PPNC. Its extent probably fluctuated over time. The building
remains identified by Lechevallier’s prospecting over more than 10 hectares can
probably be attributed to the LPPNB, a period corresponding to the development of
megasites of comparable size in Jordan (Rollefson, this volume; see also Rollefson
2019). It is likely that the MPPNB village at Beisamoun would have been smaller.
The full extent of the FPPNB/PPNC village is unknown and the repeated destruction
of the site prior to its protection by the Israel Antiquities Authority, leaves little hope
for an exhaustive documentation of these upper layers that were the most exposed.
On the surface, the presence of numerous sherds of Wadi Rabah-type ceramics
testifies to a later reoccupation and then complete destruction of the site. However,
another settlement discovered 800 m to the west, Beisamoun West, is attributed to
the Early and Late Pottery Neolithic (Rosenberg 2010; Khalaily et al. 2015).
The seven trenches opened by our team in 2011 revealed that a large area
corresponding to the northwestern quarter of the PPN village was preserved. Here
we documented a continuous succession of archaeological layers to a depth of 1.5
m, below which were undated archaeological levels covered by a thick level of
alluvium. The trenches closest to our excavation revealed a matrix of collapsed
mudbrick that bears witness to the extension of the village. The furthest trench, on
the other hand, revealed the remains of a knapping workshop located outside the
village (Bocquentin et al. 2014).
Sectors E and F were located within modern fishpond No. 11, which is dry today
(see Bocquentin et al. 2014). The two sectors, only ca. 22 m apart, provided us with
different sequences and spatial organization.
Sector F
This is the northern part of the excavation. The oldest known features in this sector
are graves. In 2014, three burials were excavated (one double and two singles),

all showing the practice of cranial removal. These graves were dug into a sterile
paleosol, Layer C, representing sloping wetland soil (Greenberg 2016). The overlying
layers revealed a succession of structures representing alternating occupations in
circumscribed indoor spaces (houses) and activities in open, outdoor spaces (termed
open areas). In the latter case, the associated structures (basins, kilns, burials, various
pits) were always deep, sometimes of considerable size (e.g., a lime kiln). These
structures not only overlay the previous occupations, but also penetrated into them
(Fig. 1). Thus, only fragmentary structures and walls were identifiable and the plans
of the buildings were impossible to fully reconstruct. However, the remains attest to
a lack of continuity in spatial organization, and the walls had varying orientations
showing no reconstruction or continuation of previous buildings. Interrupted for
some time, the burial deposits resumed in the topmost layer. However, this layer
had been leveled during the construction of the fishponds, and we do not know if
Fig. 1. Plan of Sector F, all layers (credit: F. Bocquentin)

the burials mark the abandonment of the sector or whether occupation continued.
In the topmost layer, cremation practices were also attested, and a radiocarbon date
of 8060 ± 30 BP (7084–7004 cal BCE; Beta 519952) was recovered from one of
the cremated skeletons (L211). This is the only 14C date retrieved from Sector F,
as neither collagen nor charcoal were preserved in this area. It corresponds to the
supposed beginning of the PPNC, and we tentatively attribute these upper layers
in Sector F to an ‘early phase’ of the PPNC. Consequently, the lower layers of the
same sector are attributed to a ‘transitional phase’ between the LPPNB and our early
phase of the PPNC (Table 1). In fact, this unique date supports micromorphological
and archaeological observations from the beginning of the dig, which led us to
suspect that Sector F corresponds to the lower part of the stratigraphic sequence
in Sector E. The abundant material finds from Sector F are similar in typological
and technical characteristics to those in Sector E, and the lithic assemblages do not
change dramatically; however, differences do exist and will be discussed below.
Therefore, this hypothesis remains to be corroborated by additional radiocarbon
dates. Calcinated bones have proven to be very promising for dating, and hopefully
they will yield further results in the near future.
Sector E
In contrast to Sector F, Sector E is characterized by remarkable continuity in spatial
organization that persists throughout the stratigraphic sequence (Table 1; Fig. 2). The
continuous occupation began with an intensive period of building and rebuilding
of large rectangular houses (Layer Ic), although evidence uncovered in the final
2016 season supports the existence of still earlier occupations below Layer Ic. A 14C
sample from a piece of charcoal in a hearth at the base of Layer Ic (Fig. 3A) was
dated to 8180 ± 30 BP (7203–7075 cal BCE; Beta 514783). This date corresponds
to the transition between the LPPNB and the FPPNB/PPNC according to available
Table 1. Tentative cultural attribution and time span of stratigraphic

sequences in Sectors E and F
Tentative Cultural Tentative Chronological Time Layers in Layers in
Attribution at Beisamoun Span (Cal BCE) (see Fig. 5) Sector E Sector F
Late PPNC 6500–6200? I, 0a, 0*

Early PPNC 7100/7000–6600/6500 Ib Upper
(A, D, 01)
Transitional PPNB–PPNC 7300/7200–7100/7000 Ic Lower
(B, B1, C)

Fig. 2. Plan of Sector E by layers, with cumulative schematic highlighting of the major structures
(credit: F. Bocquentin)

Fig. 3. A: View from north of the basal structure excavated in Layer Ic (2016). The 14C date 8180 ±30
BP (7203–7075 cal BCE; Beta 514783) was obtained from a piece of charcoal found in the hearth of
the earliest occupation level. B: Succession of walls 315 (stone base wall) and 389 (superstructure of
unfired bricks) in Layer Ic, reused for 362 (stone wall) in Layer 0a (credits: Beisamoun Project)

published 14C dates (reviewed in Maher, Banning and Chazan 2011). Observation
in the field of a precise superimposition of walls indicates that some stone-built
wall foundations supported several generations of adobe constructions (Fig. 3B),
the most massive being reused for several centuries (see Bocquentin et al. 2014:
Fig. 19). The mudbricks were made of local silty clay loam mixed with ash, dung
and plant matter (Greenberg 2016). The major deposits of Sector E, Layers Ic and
Ib, were derived predominantly from the degradation of these unfired bricks. Each
partly preserved brick level was usually laid upon the previous one. There were also
phases of intermediate repairs, in which only one section of a wall was rebuilt or
reinforced. Between construction and repair or reconstruction, phases of collapse
were also documented. Thus, a refined stratigraphic reading of this sector was
achieved, allowing us to follow, uninterruptedly, the evolution of the construction
techniques and material over generations.
After several building sequences in Layer Ic, Layer Ib marks a certain respite in
construction during which vegetation took over, animals came to nest in the ruins, and
collapsed walls accumulated (Greenberg 2016). The area was also used for funerary
deposits laid out along the earlier walls. New features were then erected to the east of
this abandoned core area, among them a feature composed of two horns and a mandible
of an aurochs or domestic bull associated with a stone vessel (Fig. 4). Similar features
are known from other PPN sites in the ancient Near East (see, e.g., Twiss and Russel
2009). The radiocarbon samples date this layer to 7000–6600 cal BCE (Borrell et al.
2019), although one sample seems to be out of range (RTK-6420) and corresponds
better with the following phase (Fig. 5).
Layer I represents a new level of construction that still followed some of the
previous wall orientations from Layer Ic; thus, some mudbrick walls must have
still been standing. However, the architectural techniques are quite different, with
light-weight walls constructed of organic material and houses with several rooms
(Bocquentin et al. 2014). Radiocarbon dates Layer I to 6500–6200 cal BCE.
Layer 0a is a layer of massive stone-built walls (no mudbricks are attested) that are
oriented differently from preceding constructions, which were probably no longer
visible at that time. This reinforces the geoarchaeological and micromorphological
observations of a new sediment input between Layers I and 0a. Unlike all the
previous layers that comprised a local silty matrix (Ic, Ib, I), the overlying Layer
0a is mainly composed of terra rosa typical of the Galilee today (Greenberg 2016).
This could be an indirect indication of erosion of the hills to the west of the site,
perhaps linked to deforestation and/or overgrazing (Kohler-Rollefson, Quintero and
Rollefson 1993). The correspondence between this possible event and the climatic
deterioration of the ‘8200 cal BP climatic event’ must be better investigated. So far,

Fig. 4. Feature 438, Layer Ib: left and right horn cores on either side of a mandible of an aurochs/
primitive domestic bull, and part of a container made of soft limestone or marl
(credit: Beisamoun Project)
no 14C dates have been obtained for this layer. If a connection is confirmed, it would
indicate that climatic deterioration did not lead to the abandonment of the site.
Above Layer 0a, Layer 0*––identified only in the southern part of the excavation
(the rest was truncated by the fishpond in the 1950s)––is not an archaeological
layer but a paleosol (Greenberg 2016). This paleosol seals Layer 0a and marks the

Fig. 5. Ten radiocarbon dates obtained from Beisamoun (Sector E and F) by E. Boaretto on charcoal,
and by Beta Analytic on calcined human bones and charcoal. The BCE/CE (BC/AD) results were
calibrated with ChronoModel 2.0 (Lanos and Dufresne 2019a, 2019b) using the IntCal13 calibration
curve (Reimer et al. 2013)

definitive abandonment of the site. Thus, the site was indeed abandoned prior to the
mass production of ceramics (EPN), and the absence of an EPN occupation is not
due to erosion. Rapid flooding of the site due to the extension of the Ḥula swamp
is unlikely as a cause of the abandonment according to the micromorphological
analysis. However, this does not exclude possible seasonal submergence due to a
rise in the water table.
While there was no settlement here during the EPN, pottery was not totally
absent, and several sherds were found in a priori reliable contexts in Layers I and
0a. Although weak evidence, this assemblage may be testimony that a few vessels
reached Beisamoun before the widespread adoption of pottery in the southern
Levant. This issue will be further investigated following the technological study of
the pottery, in particular the petrographic analysis, that may enable us to determine
the provenance of the few vessels discovered at the site.
Material Culture and Daily Life
Lithic Assemblage
The lithic analyses, still ongoing, confirm that the phases excavated at Beisamoun
belong to the transition between the Pre-Pottery and the Pottery Neolithic. As the
results were recently published (Borrell and Khalaily 2016; Borrell et al. 2019), we
provide here only a short summary. The assemblage from Beisamoun contributes
to defining this transition period in the Ḥula Basin. The most characteristic features
of the PPNB lithic assemblages are present (i.e., bidirectional blade technology,
bifacial tool production, predominance of projectiles and sickle blades, etc.), along
with new technologies such as the production of bladelets (see Bocquentin et al.
2014: 54-59). This co-existence of ‘old’ and ‘new’ methods of knapping seems to
be the most remarkable difference between the ‘classic’ PPNB assemblages, as
seen at Yiftaḥel, Kfar Haḥoresh, etc. (see, e.g., Barzilai 2010) and FPPNB/PPNC
assemblages, as, for instance, at ‘Ain Ghazal and Sha‘ar Hagolan (Quintero 2010;
Shatil 2006). Furthermore, we have identified at Beisamoun a series of tool types
(e.g., Amuq points with denticulated flat retouch on the dorsal face and deeply
denticulated sickle blades) that are considered characteristic of the subsequent
Pottery Neolithic period, attesting to an earlier appearance of these tool types.
Finally, the existence of at least four different chaînes opératoires (blades, bladelets,
flakes and flakelets; Borrell et al. 2019:6) and the patterned use of raw materials
for each technology, goes against the idea that lithic industries during the FPPNB/
PPNC were expeditious, produced ad hoc, and that flake production was dominant.

Thus, the lithic assemblage at Beisamoun demonstrates a gradual transition from

classic M–LPPNB to Pottery Neolithic assemblages. It is the above-mentioned
variability and co-existence of different and patterned reduction sequences and
certain tool types (Byblos and Amuq projectiles; non-denticulated, serrated and
deeply denticulated sickle blades) that define the PPNC in the Ḥula Basin, and
provide clear criteria for differentiating between the M–LPPNB, the FPPNB/PPNC
and the PN assemblages in the region.
Although no major disruptions were observed in the lithics during the long
occupational sequence, small differences did exist between sectors and layers.
While blades were dominant in Sector E, bladelets were more numerous in Sector
F. Evolutionary trends seem to be involved, as bladelets were more numerous in
the lower layers in both sectors. Denticulated sickles and Amuq points are the most
common tool types in all layers, but diminish gradually over the sequence (Borrell
et al. 2019). A decline in standardization of lithic production is also observed.
The sample analyzed here represents the largest studied collection of the PPN–
PN transition period in the region. During this period, all the obsidian that reached
Beisamoun originated exclusively from Cappadocian sites. Obsidian from Göllü
Dağ predominated in both sectors and in all layers, although obsidian from other
sources in the same region, such as Nenezi Dağ and Acıgöl, also circulated to
Beisamoun. The consistent use of Cappadocian obsidian, the preponderance of
material from Göllü Dağ, along with the presence of obsidian from other nearby
sources, are all in concordance with the results from the PPNC site of Ashqelon
on the Mediterranean coast (Garfinkel and Dag 2008b: 203). In conclusion,
obsidian provenance analyses have provided striking evidence for long-distance
circulation of obsidian from Cappadocian sources to the central Levant. It is
also significant that obsidian from eastern Anatolian sources did not reach the
region during the PPNB or the FPPNB/PPNC, attesting to a strong continuity
in the particular flow of obsidian to the central and southern Levant during the
entire PPN period. This also corresponds with the observation that during the
Pottery Neolithic there was a shift to obsidian sources in eastern Anatolian (see,
e.g., Perlman and Yellin 1980; Carter et al. 2017). In this sense, Beisamoun
contributes to the determination of a terminus post quem for the beginning of the
shift toward eastern Anatolian sources.
In summary, the lithic analyses leave no doubt about the complexity of lithic
production and organization at FPPNB/PPNC Beisamoun (a wide range of raw
materials are exploited and at least four different chaînes opératoires have been
identified), a complexity similar to or even higher than that identified during the
Middle–Late PPNB, supporting the idea that Beisamoun was an important center

during the first half of the 7th millennium BCE, connected to complex supra-
regional exchange networks operating in the Levant.
Groundstone Assemblage
The database currently encompasses 462 stone artifacts with clear evidence of use,
modification and/or manufacture. The three most represented categories comprise
debitage (29.2%; Wright 1992), ad-hoc implements (19.3%) and indeterminate
tools (16.9%).
As emphasized previously (Bocquentin et al. 2014), this assemblage appears to
be highly fragmented, a trait that is common in groundstone assemblages of the
southern Levant from at least the Natufian period onward (Dubreuil et al. 2019).
In the present assemblage, the various categories were not fragmented to the same
extent. This suggests that tool management, such as use/maintenance/storage, as
well as possible intentional breakage, scavenging, and the history of occupation of
the site may have played a role in the fragmentation process. This hypothesis will
be explored in future research.
Among the 462 artifacts in the assemblage, 395 (85.5%) can be associated with
one of the three main chronological phases of occupation identified in the renewed
excavation at the site (Fig. 6).
A chi-square test was performed on a modified data-set (Table 2) in which 0
values were excluded and some categories were merged. The results indicate that
the differences in tool distribution between the various phases are statistically
significant (p = .0155). Overall, however, the range of production techniques and
the investment in production reveals a high degree of continuity throughout the
sequence. For example, the remarkable surface treatment of vessels in the form
of red ‘painting’ is found on fragments attributed to the transitional PPNB–PPNC
phase and the early PPNC (Fig. 7); white-ware vessel fragments were present
from the early PPNC into the late PPNC; and while thick walls and open shapes
dominated the groundstone vessels dating to the transitional phase, more diversified
assemblages characterized the early and late phases of the PPNC.
The distribution of grinding and pounding implements by phases is presented in
Table 3. As the absolute numbers of this category are generally low, comparison
is problematic. If we look closer at the variation in tool morphology among the
handstones, which is the most represented category in each phase, the data indicates
a possible change at the end of the sequence. In general, the assemblage consists
of small, rounded and plano/convex handstones that can be operated with one
hand, and longer, probably two-handed, plano-convex handstones with a marked
convexity at both ends of the long axis of their flat surface. This latter type seems

Fig. 6. Relative frequencies of the groundstone tools according to phases
Table 2. Distribution of groundstone categories by phases; data used for chi-square test,
note the merging of several categories (7 expected values below 5, 26% of the values)
Categories Transitional Early Late Total
PPNB–PPNC PPNC PPNC
Debitage and heavy-duty 60 32 23 115
Ad-hoc 42 19 16 77
Indeterminate 26 27 19 72
Vessel 14 14 11 39
Grinding, pounding, cup mark 15 7 11 33
Disc and perforated 4 13 11 28
Notched 11 1 2 14
Spheroid-cube 5 5 1 11
Varia 3 2 1 6
Total 180 120 95 395

Fig. 7. Limestone vessel fragment (X26ad-5302) with red coloration on the external surface (credits:
L. Dubreuil)
Table 3. Distribution of grinding and pounding implements by phases

Categories Transitional Early Late Total
PPNB–PPNC PPNC PPNC
Grinding slab 2 1 3
Handstone 10 6 8 24
Mortar 2 1 3
Pestle 1 1
Cup mark 1 1 2
Total 15 7 11 33

to develop in the PPNB and can be related to the two-handed handstones used with
trough querns (Bocquentin et al. 2014; Dubreuil and Goring-Morris, in press).
This diversity of handstone types at Beisamoun indicates the existence of different
‘grinding habitus’, referring here to kinematics, pairing of tools, arrangement
of grinding workspaces and systems to retrieve the ground matter, among other
aspects. While all types of handstones are represented in the transitional PPNB–
PPNC and early PPNC phases, the long, two-handed, curved type is not found in
the late PPNC assemblage. These tools are larger and show modification of their
entire volume, requiring a higher investment in manufacture than the other types
of handstones. Interestingly, handstones tend to be more crudely made in the late
PPNC, perhaps reflecting less investment in their production in this phase. Pestles
and cup marks, also found in the late PPNC phase, were made on large pebbles
with minimal modification.
In conclusion, the vessels and the grinding and pounding implements of each
phase demonstrate clear continuity in production techniques and shapes, but also
reveal changes that will be investigated in the future by comparison with other
collections.
Fauna
The faunal remains from Beisamoun are relatively well preserved, but are covered
with a hard carbonate concretion. In addition, it has been demonstrated that they lack
collagen (the splitting factor of over 40 bones from both Sectors E and F was tested
by E. Boaretto), evidence that they had undergone extensive diagenetic changes
(see, e.g., Nielsen-Marsh 2000a, 2000b; Weiner 2012). Undoubtedly, water was the
major contributing factor, given the location of the site on the paleo-shore of Lake
Ḥula, a marshy environment that probably underwent seasonal inundation.
To date, close to 2500 bones have been identified to species and skeletal element,
and the main results of the preliminary analysis are presented here. The faunal
assemblage is dominated by remains of cattle, probably primitive domesticates
(Bos taurus) given the extremely large and robust nature of the bones and teeth.
Pig remains are almost as common, probably representing both domestic pigs and
wild boar (Sus scrofa), although as most of the pig remains derive from immature
animals (unfused epiphyses and/or deciduous teeth), it is difficult to definitively
assess the domestic status of all the remains.
Surprisingly, remains of domestic sheep and goat (Ovis aries/Capra hircus)
are relatively rare at Beisamoun. They are, however, the most common taxa at
other LPPNB–PPNC sites in the region, such as the neighboring Tel Ro’im West
(Agha, Nadel and Bar-Oz 2019) and ‘Ain Ghazal and Wadi Shu’eib in Jordan

(Köhler-Rollefson, Quintero and Rollefson 1993; Makarewicz 2016), although

even at these sites, cattle and pig frequencies reach higher proportions than in the
preceding PPNB periods. It is notable that the PPNC sites of Ashqelon (Garfinkel
et al. 2005; Hesse and Rookis 2008) and Atlit Yam (Galili et al. 1993) also have
extremely high cattle frequencies, as at Beisamoun. This is indicative not only of
the earliest domestic cattle in the region (Horwitz and Ducos 2005), but also the
existence at this time of significant inter-site variation and probably specialized
local economic strategies, which would have influenced lifestyle, diet and health
status. The presence of domestic pigs in the PPNC (attested, for example, at Wadi
Shu’eib and Tel Ro’im West), places their management in the southern Levant
earlier than previously thought (i.e., earlier than the Pottery Neolithic period;
Haber and Dayan 2004).
Only a few remains of wild species are present in the assemblage (e.g., fallow deer,
gazelle, hare, hedgehog, tortoise, birds), attesting to a decrease in hunting, which is
also seen at other sites in the region. Several species that are present at other PPN
habitation sites in the region, but are missing at Beisamoun, include equids, red
deer, roe deer and dogs. Also missing are numerous species of wild carnivores, fish
and birds that were ubiquitous in the Ḥula Lake area. The few fish remains were of
recent origin, representing individuals from the modern fish ponds (Omry Lernau,
pers. comm.). Remains of rodents, birds, amphibians and reptiles are extremely
rare in the assemblage (Rebecca Biton, pers. comm.). It is possible that an as-yet
undetermined taphonomic agent, such as water winnowing, may be responsible
for this patterning, although the presence of small bones of larger mammalian taxa
suggests that this hiatus may equally be explained as dietary-related or associated
with specialized activities at the site.
Based on ethnographic parallels of land use in historical periods in the Ḥula Basin,
and the paucity of caprines and high frequency of pig, it is suggested that in the upper
occupation levels of Sector E (Layer 0a and maybe Layer I), Beisamoun served as a
seasonal camp site for hunting wild boar and pasturing of animals, especially cattle.
This would have taken place in the summer months, when pasture and water were
plentiful in the Ḥula Basin but sparse in the Golan Heights, which would have been
occupied by the Beisamoun herders in the winter.
There are some indications of specialized deposits of animals, including a complete
boar skull in a human burial in Sector F (L230–L234), a partial boar skeleton in
Sector E (Fig. 8), and a cattle/aurochs horn deposit noted above, recalling other
examples from PPNB and PPNC sites such as ‘Ain Ghazal and Kfar Haḥoresh
(Rollefson 1998: 118; Horwitz and Goring-Morris 2004). These examples place
Beismoun within this shared symbolic world.

Fig. 8. Pit 445 containing a partial boar skeleton, found articulated. The boar rests on its right side,
legs bent at right angles. An axe was placed in front of its knees. The rest of the skeleton most likely
lies below the 2-m-deep section (credit: Beisamoun Project)
Shells
The environmental and geographic setting of the site influenced the malacological
assemblage––first and foremost the presence of freshwater molluscs. These
freshwater shells, including Melanopsis costata, M. buccinoidea, M. “saulcyi”,
Theodoxus jordani, T. michonii, Unio mactus and especially Unio terminalis,
may have arrived at the site naturally, as part of the local sedimentary fill, through
pre- or post-depositional processes. Some may also have been brought to the site
intentionally by the Neolithic inhabitants. For instance, microscopic analysis
supported by experiments enabled us to conclude that Unio shells were perforated
from the outside-in and used as some form of composite tool, possibly as light hoes
or fishing weights.
Marine shells found at the site were brought from afar. During the 2007–2016
excavation seasons, 50 (NISP) marine shells were recovered at Beisamoun (Table
4). Most originated in the Mediterranean Sea, at a distance of ca. 36 km to the west
(as the crow flies). Two cowrie shells and one Polinices mammilla shell found at the
site originated in the Red Sea, ca. 400 km to the south. The shells were presumably
transported via local or regional trade and exchange networks (Bar-Yosef Mayer
1989, 1997). Marine-shell assemblages from Neolithic sites in the Mediterranean
climatic zone of the southern Levant tend to be heavily dominated by Mediterranean

Table 4. The marine-shell assemblage

Origin Class Family Genus Species No. %
Red Sea Gastropoda Cypraeidae Naria turdus 1 2%
Red Sea Gastropoda Cypraeidae Purpuradusta gracilis 1 2%
Red Sea Gastropoda Naticidae Polinices mammilla 1 2%
Mediterranean Gastropoda Cassidae Semicassis granulata 2 4%
Mediterranean Gastropoda Columbellidae Columbella rustica 4 8%
Mediterranean Gastropoda Nassariidae Tritia gibbosula 3 6%
Mediterranean Gastropoda Muricidae Hexaplex trunculus 5 10%
Mediterranean Gastropoda Muricidae Stramonita haemastoma 2 4%
Mediterranean Gastropoda Conidae Conus ventricosus 2 4%
? Gastropoda Conidae Conus sp. 2 4%
? Gastropoda ? Unidentifiable ? 1 2%
Mediterranean Bivalvia Arcidae Arca noae 1 2%
Mediterranean Bivalvia Glycymerididae Glycymeris nummaria 6 12%
Mediterranean Bivalvia Cardiidae Acanthocardia tuberculata 1 2%
Mediterranean Bivalvia Cardiidae Cerastoderma glaucum 18 36%
Total 50 100%
bivalves (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2005; Schechter, Goring-Morris and Bar-Yosef Mayer,

in press: Table 2). However, at Beisamoun our analysis as well as previous studies of
the marine shells (Bocquentin et al. 2014), show that bivalves account for just over
half of the assemblage, with a notably high frequency of gastropods. Quantitatively,
marine shells seem to be evenly distributed between the three stratigraphic phases
defined at the site (transitional PPNB–PPNC, early PPNC, late PPNC), as well as
between the two sectors (E and F; Table 5). Additional considerations, such as the
excavated volume of each phase and sector, will be further examined in the future.
Several clearly worked marine shells were found at the site, including Conus disc-
beads (Bocquentin et al. 2014) and a ‘cassid-lip’ pendant (Le Dosseur 2008) (Fig.
9:a–c). These types of shell beads and pendants are well known from other Neolithic
sites (Reese 1989; Bar-Yosef Mayer 2005; Schechter, Goring-Morris and Bar-
Yosef Mayer, in press). Additional perforated marine shells appear to be naturally
perforated, caused by natural wear or impact damage on the beach (Fig. 9:d–g).
These shells, together with additional shells showing shiny, polished, flattened or
scratched spots, are currently being microscopically examined by one of the authors
(H.C. Schechter) for technological production or use-wear marks.

A number of shells may be considered as intentional depositions in graves: three

complete Unio terminalis shells, one burnt and two artificially perforated, a possible
Unio bead, a Cerastoderma glaucum and a Glycymeris nummaria. The unperforated
burnt Unio derives from a concentration of scattered bones of an infant (L357).
Table 5. The marine-shell assemblage according to stratigraphic phase and sector

Phase Sector Sea* Class Genus Species No Sector as Phase as
% of Phase % of Total
Med. Gastropoda Tritia gibbosula 1
Med. Gastropoda Hexaplex trunculus 1

E Med. Gastropoda Conus ventricosus 1
? Gastropoda Unidentifiable 1
Med. Bivalve Glycymeris nummaria 2
Med. Bivalve Cerastoderma glaucum 1
PPNB– Sector 7 44%
PPNC total
Red Gastropoda Polinices mammilla 1
Med. Gastropoda Columbella rustica 1
F Med. Gastropoda Stramonita haemastoma 1
Sector 9 56%
total
Phase 16 100% 32%
total
E Med. Bivalve Glycymeris nummaria 2
Med. Bivalve Acanthocardia tuberculata 1
Early Sector 10 59%

PPNC total
Med. Gastropoda Semicassis granulata 1
Med. Gastropoda Conus Ventricosus 3
F
sp.
Sector 7 41%
total
Phase 17 100% 34%
total

Table 5 (cont.)
Phase Sector Sea* Class Genus Species No Sector as Phase as
% of Phase % of Total
Red Gastropoda Naria turdus 1
Red Gastropoda Purpuradusta gracilis 1
Med. Gastropoda Semicassis granulata 1
Late
E Med. Gastropoda Tritia gibbosula 2
PPNC
Med. Bivalve Arca noae 1
Med. Bivalve Glycymeris nummaria 2
Phase Sector 16 100% 32%
total total
Surface Med. Gastropoda Stramonita haemastoma 1
find
Total 50 100%
*Med = Mediterranean Sea, Red = Red Sea
Fig. 9. Worked marine shells: (a) Conus sp. #1808; (b) Conus sp. #1741; (c) Semicassis granulata
‘cassid-lip’ #1597.1; perforated marine shells––natural or artificial perforation: (d) Polinices
mammilia #1788; (e) Glycymeris nummaria #3179.3; (f) Naria turdus #3177.5; (g) Tritia gibbosula
#3908 (credits: H. Schechter)

A small, elegantly perforated Unio shell was found in a double primary burial of
an adult and a child 2.5–4 years old (L269). The Cerastoderma glaucum shell was
retrieved under the left coxal bone of a 6 year old child (L231: Bocquentin et al.
2014). The Glycymeris nummaria shell, from a burial of an infant less than one
month old (L443), was moderately burnt, as is evident from slight discoloration
and micro-cracking seen on the shell-face; the protruding umbo of the shell was
broken, even smashed, creating a perforation with ragged edges and cracks. It thus
seems that at Beisamoun, funerary shell depositions were mostly related to infants
or children. A similar relationship between burial depositions of shells and juveniles
or babies was seen at the central Anatolian site of Çatalhöyük (Bar-Yosef Mayer
2013). At the nearby sites of Kfar Haḥoresh and Yiftaḥel, shells were uncommon in
burials of infants and children, and when they do appear, they are of special or rare
taxa (Schechter, Goring-Morris and Bar-Yosef Mayer, in press).
In conclusion, the taxa chosen by the inhabitants of Beisamoun reflect the general
Neolithic preferences of the region, with a specific local emphasis on gastropod
selection. Shells of freshwater molluscs accumulated naturally in the sediment of
the site, while some were intentionally selected for further processing, probably
gathered from the immediate vicinity. Both marine and freshwater shells were used
for adornment, and possibly for tools. Their incorporation in the ritual world is
expressed by their deposition in burials, with an emphasis on young individuals.
Shells seem to have been collected and used in a similar manner throughout the
chronological and spatial occupation of the site, representing a constant, stable
element of the material culture of the site. They constituted a symbolic aspect in
the lives of the Neolithic inhabitants of Beisamoun, both connecting them to the
surrounding Neolithic world and setting them apart with unique local habits and
traditions.
The Dead and the Living

During the renewed excavation at Beisamoun, a total of 30 graves were excavated,
containing 34 individuals (13 in Sector F and 21 in Sector E). While the numbers
of adult and immature individuals are equal, the high proportion of infants under
one year of age is noteworthy (Table 6). Although not common at Neolithic sites,
this age distribution at death is actually close to the expected mortality profile in an
ancient population predating the development of vaccinations and health care (e.g.,
Ledermann 1969). Generally speaking, the PPNC population of Beisamoun shows a
high frequency of stress markers (Linear Enamel Hypoplasia) and this corresponds
with a high level of dental pathologies (caries, periodontal disease) affecting
adults and children, which is quite unusual when compared with previous PPNB

Table 6. Age distribution of the skeletons

Age MNI
<0 12
1–4 1
5–9 2
10–14 1
15–19 1
Adults 17
Total 34
populations (Bocquentin, Chamel and Anton, in press). Further investigations are

necessary in order to understand if this poor health was linked to food pressure and/
or infectious disease.
Of the 30 graves excavated between 2007 and 2016 (Table 7), 27 were single,
two were double and one was triple. A clear preference for bodies oriented
northeast–southwest can be noted. Infants were usually lying on their back, while
older children and adults were laid on their side in the majority of cases. With the
exception of the pig skull and shell deposits mentioned above, only one occurrence
of intentional items placed in a grave was observed––a limestone cylinder found in
close association with cremated remains (Bocquentin et al. 2014: Fig. 25). Except
for one grave of a young child (6–8 years old), dating to the late PPNC, all belong
to either the transitional PPNB–PPNC (18), or the early PPNC (15). This probably
indicates that by the mid-7th millennium, the dead were no longer interred in the
village as before, representing a major evolutionary shift within the PPNC period.
Another major shift can be observed: the transitional PPNB–PPNC period yielded
four acephalous skeletons (Loci 269-A and 269-B, 270, 276) and two plastered
crania (L377-A and L377-B), apparently the latest attestation of the practice of skull
removal and plastering inherited from earlier PPN periods.
On the other hand, a constant factor over time is the more diverse burials of adults
than children, for whom primary single graves predominated. Secondary deposits, as
well as cremations, were relatively common for adults. While secondary burials are
known since at least the Natufian period, corpse cremation is a totally new practice
and represents a major innovative step in mortuary practices. The practice was
identified in several secondary deposits and one primary deposit of in-situ cremains
in a pyre. These cremations have been described in detail elsewhere (Bocquentin
et al. 2014; 2020). Although two cremated skeletons were firmly dated to the early
PPNC, it is worth noting that some burnt deposits were also identified in the earlier

transitional layers, and corpse cremation could be considered as one of the key criteria
to define the beginning of the PPNC, at least in the Ḥula Basin. Contemporaneous
cremated remains were found to the southeast at Kharaysin (Iriarte et al. 2020)
and could constitute a regional practice in the central Levant. Cremation pits at
Tell el Kherk in northwestern Syria (Tsuneki 2011), resembling Beisamoun’s pyre,
could be a northern, but later, extension of the mid-7th millennium phenomenon.
It is most relevant to note that amongst the over one hundred contemporaneous
graves unearthed at Motza, none has shown cremation treatment, and the same is
true for the numerous graves at Atlit Yam and ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson and Köhler-
Rollefson 1989; Rollefson, Simmons and Kafafi 1992; Galili et al. 2005). However,
the presence of plastered skulls at Beisamoun links the site to a larger ‘central-east’
Levant cultural sphere (comprising the Damascus Basin, Jordan Valley and eastern
Jordanian plateau) during the PPNB, where a corpus of 59 (MNI) plastered skulls
have been discovered so far. It should be noted that two other plastered skulls were
found at Beisamoun in the early 1970s and attributed to the MPPNB (Lechevallier
1978; Bocquentin 2009; Bocquentin et al. 2011).
As noted above, in the 2016 season, L377 in Sector E yielded a pair of plastered
crania (without mandibles) placed next to each other, cheek to cheek. Individual A
was a mature adult, Individual B an adolescent (a rare case for a plastered skull). They
were incomplete: the faces were partly missing and the upper parts of the vault were
eroded. Both crania yielded complete maxillae but not a single tooth. Signs of ante-
mortem and post-mortem tooth loss, and alveolar injuries were present, which adds
grist to the mill of an exciting debate begun long ago on the intentional or accidental
loss of these teeth (see discussion in Bonogofsky 2002). The archaeological context
of these skulls was apparently an outdoor living surface (not a pit), next to a circular
structure (L451) ca. 20 cm in height (Fig. 10). Their poor preservation could be
linked to a long period of exposure and weathering before being naturally buried.
In addition, large roots damaged them recently and a sand rat (Psammomys obesus)
was using Cranium B as a nest. However, traces of plaster were found on several
spots of the cranial vault, base and face, and a complete modelled ear was preserved.
Restoration and analyses are ongoing.3

Table 7. Inventory of graves and skeletons from 2007–2016 excavations
14
Locus- Sector Square Layer Period C Date Age Age at Deposit* Body Face Position
Moza-Bocquentin.indd 187
Individual cal BCE Category Death Orientation Towards
(bone) (in
years)
210 F V26a Upper EPPNC Adult 20-39 In Sec Single
211 F U26a-c Upper EPPNC 7084- Adult >20 Cr Sec Single
7004
214 F T27a-c Lower Transitional Infant 0-1 In Prim Single NE-SW Back (left side)
PPNB-
PPNC
230-234 F T24a-d Upper EPPNC Adult >50 In Sec Single
231 F V24b / Upper EPPNC Child 6.1-6.6 In Prim Single W-E N Back (right side)
W24c
232 F W25c Upper EPPNC Adult Adult In Sec Single NW
233 F W25a Upper EPPNC Adult >30 In Prim Single NE-SW Back
246 F U25d - Lower Transitional Adult >18 Cr Sec Single
T25a PPNB-
PPNC
268 F X25-26 Lower Transitional Adult Adult In Prim Single Eroded
PPNB-
PPNC
269-A F V-U29 Lower Transitional Child 2.5-3.8 In Prim Double S-N S Disturbed
PPNB-
PPNC
269-B F U-V29 Lower Transitional Adult 14-22 In Prim Double SE-NW N Right side
PPNB-
PPNC
270 F U-V29 Lower Transitional Adult >35 In Prim Single SE-NW N Right side (back)
PPNB-
PPNC
20/10/2020 14:20:58
188
Table 7 (cont.)
14
(bone) (in
years)
276 F X25-26 Lower Transitional Adult >35 In Prim Single N-S Left side
PPNB-
PPNC
321 E S11a I LPPNC Child 6.5-7.2 In Prim Single NE-SW N Right side and
chest
331 E U9b Ib EPPNC Infant 38-40 In Prim Single NE-SW Right side
fetal
weeks
337 E S10c Ib EPPNC Infant 0-1 In Prim Single Sitting
month
338 E R10 b-c, Ib EPPNC 7031- Adult 19-28 Cr Prim Single S-N S Sitting
R11 6700
341-A E V10d Ib EPPNC Adult >19 In Prim Multiple W-E Left side
341-B E V10d Ib EPPNC Infant 0-1 In Prim Multiple NE-SW Chest
month
341-C E V10d Ib EPPNC Infant >1 In Indet Multiple
month
343 E R10c Ib EPPNC Infant 0-1 In Prim Single NE-SW NE Back
month
347 E T10a Ib EPPNC Adult >19 Cr Sec Single
Between Two Worlds: The PPNB–PPNC Transition at Beisamoun
357 E U10a Ib EPPNC Infant 38 fetal In Indet Single

weeks
377-A E Q10 Ic Transitional Adult Adult In Sec Double NE
PPNB-
PPNC
20/10/2020 14:20:58
Table 7 (cont.)
14
(bone) (in
years)
377-B E Q10 Ic Transitional Adolescent < 11-13 In Sec Double E
PPNB-
PPNC
383 E Q11d Ib EPPNC Infant 0-1 In Prim Single NE-SW Back
390 E X9b Ic Transitional Adult > 50 In Prim Single W-E SE Left side
PPNB-
PPNC
413 E P8c-d Ib EPPNC Infant 1-3 In Prim Single N-S SE Back
421 E P9a-P8b Ib EPPNC Infant <1 In Sec Single
435 E S8a Ic Transitional Adult Adult Cr Sec Single
PPNB-
PPNC
436 E S8a Ic Transitional Infant 40 fetal In Prim Single Disturbed
PPNB- weeks
PPNC
437 E T10a Ic Transitional Adult Adult Is Is Is
PPNB-
PPNC
443 E V9a-b Ic Transitional Infant 0-1 In Prim Single SE-NW Chest
PPNB- month
PPNC
460 E Q10a Ic Transitional Adult Adult Cr Sec Single
PPNB-
PPNC
*In = inhumation, Cr = cremation, Sec = Secondary, Prim = primary, Indet = indeterminate, Is = isolated
20/10/2020 14:20:58
Fig. 10. The two damaged plastered skulls discovered in the 2016 season (L377) in their
archaeological context next to Structure 451 and plastered Floor 453 (credit: Beisamoun Project)
Conclusions
The site of Beisamoun has provided us with a rich array of information about the
FPPNB/PPNC period. The beginning of the PPNC remains difficult to date as no
clear break with the preceding LPPNB can be identified, other than in funerary
practices with the disappearance of skull removal and the appearance of cremation in
approximately the same period. The remainder of the cultural features: architecture
and spatial organization, lithics and grinding stones, show overall continuity with
only small modifications in a generally stable pattern. Similarly, the subsistence
base does not reveal any major shifts over time. Only in the uppermost layers, which
we consider late PPNC, are changes evident: architectural units became smaller
and more compartmentalized, built of lighter, organic materials, the dead were
no longer interred within the site, lithics were less standardized, grinding-stone
kits were slightly different and the faunal assemblage appears to have been more

species selective. In addition, ceramic sherds occurred in very small quantities in

the material culture. Thus, the mid-7th millennium can be viewed as a turning point
in some ways, although the site was not abandoned. There is little doubt that the
site was still inhabited by the same population, as they rebuilt structures upon the
ruins of the previous generations and produced, more or less, the same material
culture. The occupation may have changed modality and purpose, and may even
have become less permanent, as suggested by the faunal assemblage (see discussion
in Bocquentin et al. 2014); perhaps nomadic pastoralism developed, as in other
regions (Rollefson 2001, 2019; Rosen 2017). The site was finally abandoned several
generations later, sometime prior to the Early Pottery Neolithic, at which time the
Beisamoun inhabitants may have shifted their occupation southwest, to the site of
Beisamoun West (Rosenberg 2010).
The Ḥula Valley, covering some 177 sq km (25 × 6–8 km), is both a corridor and
a refuge area with a very unique ecosystem (Dimentman, Bromley and Por 1992;
Horowitz 2001; Ashkenazy 2013), characteristics that had a great influence on the
occupation of this territory over time. During the 7th millennium BCE, the village
at Beisamoun seems to have maintained contact with other communities located
in the northern Levant, as observed in the funerary behaviors (possible spreading
cremation practices northward; see Bocquentin, Chamel and Anton, in press), the
presence of white ware, and in obsidian procurement, thus demonstrating continuity
at Beisamoun of contacts within the by-now vanished ‘PPNB interaction sphere’ (as
defined by Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989; Bar-Yosef 2019). By contrast, pottery
did not diffuse southward to the central or southern Levant during the PPNC, and
lithic production followed a diverging evolution from the northern Levant, showing
similarities only with the central Syrian desert assemblages (Borrell and Khalaily
2016). The Mediterranean coast, the Jordan Valley and the Jordanian plateau
were also part of this trend of cultural dynamism that is evident at Beisamoun, as
represented, for instance, by bladelet production, shell procurement, plastered skulls
and cremation practices. The terms ‘hiatus’ or ‘collapse’, which were used to define
this cultural phase in the past, reflected the paucity of available archaeological
data. Indeed, demography may have dropped significantly, and health status
decreased in comparison with the PPNB (Smith and Horwitz 2012; Rollefson 2019;
Bocquentin, Chamel and Anton, in press), but Beisamoun, together with the few
other sites excavated from this period, provide testimony of a stable occupation in
certain places where ancestral knowledge was adapted and transformed, resulting
in the production of material cultural assemblages that can no longer be viewed as
‘transitional’ or ‘ad hoc’. The PPNC is definitely a period of innovation, embedded
in a new inter-regional framework.

The two transitional phases that frame the PPNC, at its beginning and its end,
are actually major issues that future research will hopefully investigate further.
Efforts should be directed toward extensive 14C dating and fine-tuned stratigraphic
excavation programs, which will complement the massive amount of data obtained
by the impressive salvage excavations conducted to date in Israel at sites such as
Motza. Moreover, variability amongst sites and regions should be anticipated and
taken into consideration in material comparisons aimed at solving the chronological
issues and those relating to the nature and extent of inter-regional connections.
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our gratitude to the editors for their kind invitation
to contribute this paper. This work has been made possible thanks to the strong
support of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS UMR 7041
and 7206), the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MAEDI), the Israel Antiquities
Authority (IAA), the Irene Levi-Sala Care Archaeological Foundation and the
French Research Centre at Jerusalem (CRFJ). The budget for five of the radiocarbon
dates published here was provided by the Laboratory Eco-Anthropologie et
Ethnologie, CNRS, UMR 7206, program “ATM blanche du MNHN2018”. The
project also received financial support from MCIU/AEI/FEDER,UE (Refs.
PGC2018-096634-B-I00 and RYC-2016-21108), and the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Endnotes
1
Final PPNB and PPNC are used as synonyms in the current article.
2
The total accumulated time spent on the site was about 5 months, with a total budget of
160,000 euros (mainly devoted to housing, food, transport, mechanical shovel), salaries
excluded. On average, the excavation team was composed of 15 to 20 participants,
including volunteers (mostly MA and PhD students in archaeology) and members of the
scientific team.

3
In collaboration with Prof. Patricia Smith of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Dr.
Chen Nadler of the Hadassah School of Dental Medicine.
Bibliography
Agha, Nadel and Bar-Oz 2019
N. Agha, D. Nadel and G. Bar-Oz, “New Insights into Livestock Management and
Domestication at Tel Ro’im West, A Multi-layer Neolithic Site in the Upper Jordan
Valley, Israel,” Journal of Archaeological Science Reports 27 (2019) no. 101991 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.101991
Ashkenazy 2013
S. Ashkenazy, “Reconstruction of the Habitats in the Ecosystem of the Final Natufian
Site of Ain Mallaha (Eynan),” in: O. Bar-Yosef and F.R. Valla (eds.), Natufian Foragers
in the Levant. Terminal Pleistocene Social Changes in Western Asia, Ann Arbor 2013,
pp. 312–318
Bar-Yosef 2019
O. Bar-Yosef, “The 8200 cal BP Cold Event in the Levant,” in: A. Marciniak (ed.),
Concluding the Neolithic: The Near East in the Second Half of the Seventh Millennium
BCE, Atlanta 2019, pp. 17–40
Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989
O. Bar-Yosef and A. Belfer-Cohen, “The Levantine PPNB Interaction Sphere,” in: I.
Hershkovitz (ed.), People and Culture in Change, Oxford 1989, pp. 59–72
Bar-Yosef Mayer 1989
D.E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, “Late Paleolithic and Neolithic Marine Shells in the Southern
Levant as Cultural Markers,” in: C.F. Hayes, L. Ceci and C.C. Bonder (eds.), Proceedings
of the 1986 Shell Bead Conference, New York 1989, pp. 169–174
D.E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, “Neolithic Shell Bead Production in Sinai,” Journal of
Archaeological Science 24 (1997), pp. 97–111
D.E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, “The Exploitation of Shells as Beads in the Palaeolithic and
Neolithic of the Levant,” Paléorient 31 (2005), pp. 176–185
D.E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, “Chapter 16: Mollusc Exploitation at Çatalhöyük,” in: I. Hodder
(ed.), Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons,
Los Angeles 2013, pp. 329–338
Barzilai 2010
O. Barzilai, Social Complexity in the Southern Levantine PPNB as Reflected through
Lithic Studies, Oxford 2010

Bocquentin 2009
F. Bocquentin, “Les crânes surmodelés de Beisamoun (Néolithique précéramique,
Israël),” Cahier des Thèmes Transversaux ArScAn 9 (2009), pp.161–169
Bocquentin et al. 2007
F. Bocquentin, H. Khalaily, N. Samuelian, O. Barzilai, G. Le Dosseur, L.K. Horwitz and
A. Emery-Barbier, “Renewed Excavation on the PPNB Site of Beisamoun, Hula Basin,”
Neo-Lithics. The Newsletter of Southwest Asian Neolithic Research (2007), pp. 17–21
F. Bocquentin, O. Barzilai, H. Khalaily and L.K. Horwitz, “The PPNB Site of Beisamoun
(Hula Basin): Present and Past Research,” in: E. Healey, S. Campbell and O. Maeda,
The State of the Stone: Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern Lithics
(Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 13), Berlin
2011, pp. 197–211
F. Bocquentin, H. Khalaily, D.E. Bar-Yosef- Mayer, F. Berna, R. Biton, D. Boness, L.
Dubreuil, A.H. Emery-Barbier, H. Greenberg, Y. Goren, L.K. Horwitz, G. Le Dosseur, O.
Lernau, H. Mienis, B. Valentin and N. Samuelian, “Renewed Excavations at Beisamoun:
Investigating the 7th Millennium cal. BC of the Southern Levant,” Mitekufat Haeven-
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 44 (2014), pp. 5–100
Bocquentin, Chamel and Anton, in press
F. Bocquentin, B. Chamel and M. Anton, “Subsistence and Food Ways Transition during
Neolithization Process: Glimpses from a Contextualized Dental Perspective”, Food and
History (in press)
F. Bocquentin, M. Anton, F. Berna, A. Rosen, H. Khalaily, H. Greenberg, T.C. Hart,
O. Lernau and L.K. Horwitz, “Emergence of Corpse Cremation during the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic of the Southern Levant: A Multidisciplinary Study of a Pyre-Pit Burial,” PLOS
ONE (2020), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235386
Bonogofsky 2002
M. Bonogofsky, “Reassessing “Dental Evulsion” in Neolithic Plastered Skulls from
the Levant Through the Use of Computed Tomography, Direct Observation, and
Photographs,” Journal of Archaeological Science 29 (2002), pp. 959–964
Borrell and Khalaily 2016
F. Borrell and H. Khalaily, “Reconstructing the Last Stages of Bidirectional Blade
Technology in the Levant: North and South (Dis)connections,” Paléorient 42 (2016),
pp. 73–95
Borrell et al. 2019
F. Borrell, F. Bocquentin, J. Gibaja and H. Khalaily, “Defining the Final PPNB/PPNC
in the Southern Levant: Insights from the Chipped Stone Industries of Beisamoun,”
in: L. Astruc, C. McCartney, F. Briois and V. Kassianidou (eds.), Near Eastern Lithic
Technologies on the Move: Interactions and Contexts in Neolithic Traditions : 8th
International Conference on PPN Chipped and Ground Stone Industries of the Near
East, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, Nicosia (2019), pp. 381–400

Carter et al. 2017

T. Carter, Z. Batist, K. Campeau, Y. Garfinkel and K. Streit, “Investigating Pottery
Neolithic Socio-economic “Regression” in the Southern Levant: Characterising
Obsidian Consumption at Sha’ar Hagolan (N. Israel),” Journal of Archaeological
Science 15 (2017), pp. 305–317
Daley et al. 2011
T.J. Daley, L. Thomas Holmes, J.A. Street-Perrott, M.R. Chapman, J.C. Tindal, P.J.
Valdes, N.J. Loader, J.D. Marshall, E.W. Wolff, E. Hopley, P.J. Atkinson, T. Barber, E.H.
Fisher, I. Robertson, P.D.M. Hughs and C.N. Roberts, “The 8200 yr BP Cold Event in
Stable Isotope Records from the North Atlantic Region,” Global and Planetary Change
79 (2011), pp. 288–302
Dimentman, Bromley and Por 1992
C. Dimentman, H.J. Bromley and F.D. Por, “Lake Hula: Reconstruction of the Fauna
and Hydrobiology of a Lost Lake”, The Israel Academy of Science and Humanities,
Jerusalem 1992
Dubreuil et al. 2019
L. Dubreuil, A. Ovadia, R. Shahack-Gross and L. Grosman, “Evidence of Ritual
Breakage of a Ground Stone Tool at the Late Natufian Site of Hilazon Tachtit Cave
(12,000 Years Ago)”, PLOS ONE 14 (2019), e0223370.
Dubreuil and Goring-Morris, in press
L. Dubreuil and N.A. Goring-Morris, “Exploring Food Practices among the First Agro-
Pastoral Communities of the Southern Levant. The Ground Stone Tool Perspective,”
Food and History (in press)
Eisenberg, Gopher and Greenberg 2001
E. Eisenberg, A. Gopher and R. Greenberg, Tel Teo: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic and
Bronze Age Village in the Ḥula Basin (IAA Reports 13), Jerusalem 2001
Galili et al. 1993
U. Galili, M. Weinstein-Evron, I. Hershkovitz, A. Gopher, M. Kislev, O. Lernau and
L.K. Horwitz, “Atlit-Yam: A Prehistoric Site on the Sea Floor of the Israeli Coast,”
Journal of Field Archaeology 20 (1993), pp.133–157
Galili et al. 2005
E. Galili, A. Gopher, V. Eshed, I. Hershkovitz, “Burial Practices at the Submerged
Pre-Pottery Neolithic C Site of Atlit-Yam, Northern Coast of Israel,” Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 339 (2005), pp. 1–19
Garkinkel 1994
Y. Garfinkel, “The PPNC Flint Assemblage from Tel’Ali,” in: H.G. Gebel and S.K.
Kozłowski (eds), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, Proceedings
of the 1st Workshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries (Studies in Early Near Eastern
Production, Subsistence, and Environment 1), Berlin 1994, pp. 543–562
Garfinkel et al. 2005
Y. Garfinkel, D. Dag, B. Hesse, P. Wapnish, D. Rookis, G. Hartman, D.E. Bar-Yosef
and O. Lernau, “Neolithic Ashkelon: Meat Processing and Early Pastoralism on the
Mediterranean Coast,” Eurasian Prehistory 3 (2005), pp. 43–72.

Garfinkel and Dag 2008a

Y. Garfinkel and D. Dag, “Ashkelon. The Neolithic Site in the Afridar Neighbourhood,”
in: E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy
Land 5, Jerusalem 2008, pp. 1777–1778
Garfinkel and Dag 2008b
Y. Garfinkel and D. Dag, Neolithic Ashkelon (Qedem 47), Jerusalem 2008
Garfinkel and Ben-Shlomo 2009
Y. Garfinkel and D. Ben-Shlomo, Sha‘ar Hagolan Vol. 2: The Rise of Urban Concepts
in the Ancient Near East (Qedem Reports 9), Jerusalem 2009
Gopher 2012
A. Gopher, “The Pottery Neolithic in the Southern Levant – A Second Neolithic
Revolution,” in: A. Gopher (ed.), Village Communities of the Pottery Neolithic Period
in the Menashe Hills, Israel. Archaeological Investigations at the Sites of Nahal Zehora,
Vol. III (Tel Aviv Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 29), Tel Aviv 2012,
pp.1521–1611
Greenberg 2016
H. Greenberg, A Micro Morphological Analysis of Continuity and Discontinuity at
PPNC Beisamoun Pond 11, Israel, Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, Boston 2016
Haber and Dayan 2004
A. Haber, and T. Dayan, “Analyzing the Process of Domestication: Hagoshrim as a Case
Study,” Journal of Archaeological Science 31 (2004), pp. 1587–1601
Hesse and Rookis 2008
B.Hesse and D. Rookis, “The Mammal Bones,” in: Y. Garfinkel and D. Dag, Neolithic
Ashkelon (Qedem 47), Jerusalem 2008, pp. 251–254
Horowitz 2001
A. Horowitz, The Jordan Rift Valley, Amsterdam 2001
Horwitz and Ducos 2005
L.K. Horwitz and P. Ducos, “Counting Cattle. Trends in Neolithic Bos Frequencies from
the Southern Levant,” Revue de Paléobiologie, Genève 10 (2005), pp. 209–224
Horwitz and Goring-Morris 2004
L.K. Horwitz and A.N. Goring Morris, “Animals and Ritual during the Levantine
PPNB. A Case Study from the Site of Kfar Hahoresh, Israel”, Anthropozoologica 39
(2004), pp. 165–178
Iriarte et al. 2020
E. Iriarte, J. García-Tojal, J. Santana, S.E. Jorge-Villar, L. Teira, J. Muñiz and J.J.
Ibañez, “Geochemical and Spectroscopic Approach to the Characterization of Earliest
Cremated Human Bones from the Levant (PPNB of Kharaysin, Jordan),” Journal of
Archaeological Science: Reports 30 (2020), no. 102211, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jasrep.2020.102211
Khalaily et al. 2015
H. Khalaily, T. Kuperman, N. Marom, I. Milevski and D. Yegorov, “Beisamun. An Early
Pottery Neolithic Site in the Ḥula Basin”, ‘Atiqot 82 (2015), pp.1–61
Köhler-Rollefson, Quintero and Rollefson 1993
I. Köhler-Rollefson, L. Quintero and G.O. Rollefson, “A Brief Note on the Fauna from
Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal”, Paléorient 19 (1993), pp. 95–97

Lanos and Dufresne 2019a

Ph. Lanos and Ph. Dufresne, Chronomodel Version 2.0: Software for Chronological
Modelling of Archaeological Data Using Bayesian Statistics, http://www.chronomodel.
com (2019)
Lanos and Dufresne 2019b
Ph. Lanos and Ph. Dufresne, Chronomodel Version 2.0: User Manual, http://www.
chronomodel.com (2019)
Lechevallier 1978
M. Lechevallier, Abou Gosh et Beisamoun. Deux Gisements du VIIe Millénaire Avant
l’ère Chrétienne en Israël (Mémoires et Travaux du CRFJ 2), Paris 1978
Ledermann 1969
S. Ledermann, Nouvelles Tables-types de Mortalité (I.N.E.D, Travaux et Documents
53), Paris 1969
Le Dosseur 2008
G. Le Dosseur, “Deux nouvelles lèvres de Cassidae au PPNB. Les découvertes de
Beisamoun et Yiftahel,” Bulletin du Centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem 19
(2008), pp.1–7
Maher, Banning and Chazan 2011
L.A. Maher, E.B. Banning and M. Chazan, “Oasis or Mirage? Assessing the Role
of Abrupt Climate Change in the Prehistory of the Southern Levant,” Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 21 (2011), pp.1–30
Makarewicz 2016
C.A. Makarewicz, “Caprine Husbandry and Initial Pig Management East of the Jordan
Valley: Animal Exploitation at Neolithic Wadi Shu’eib, Jordan,” Paléorient 42 (2016),
pp. 151–168
Nadel and Nadler-Uziel 2011
D. Nadel and M. Nadler-Uziel, “Is the PPNC Really Different? The Flint Assemblages
from Three Layers at Tel Roim West, Hula Basin”, in: E. Healey, S. Campbell and
O. Maeda (eds.), The State of the Stone Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in
Near Eastern Lithics (Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and
Environment 13), Berlin 2011, pp. 243–255
Nielsen-Marsh 2000a
C.M. Nielsen-Marsh, “Patterns of Diagenesis in Bone I: The Effects of Site
Environments,” Journal of Archaeological Science 27 (2000), pp. 1139–1150
Nielsen-Marsh 2000b
C.M. Nielsen-Marsh, “Patterns of Diagenesis in Bone II: Effects of Acetic Acid
Treatment and the Removal of Diagenetic CO3,” Journal of Archaeological Science 27
(2000), pp.1151–1159
Perlman and Yellin 1980
I. Perlman and J. Yellin, “The Provenience of Obsidian from Neolithic Sites in Israel,”
Israel Exploration Journal 30 (1980), pp. 83–88
Quintero 2010
L.A. Quintero, Evolution of Lithic Economies in the Levantine Neolithic. Development
and Demise of Naviform Core Technology as Seen at ‘Ain Ghazal (‘Ain Ghazal

Excavation Reports Vol. 2), Berlin 2010

Reese 1989
D.S. Reese, “On Cassid Lips and Helmet Shells,” Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 275 (1989), pp. 33–39
Reimer et al. 2013
P.J. Reimer, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J.W. Beck, P.G. Blackwell, C. Bronk Ramsey, C.E.
Buck, H. Cheng, R.L. Edwards, M. Friedrich, P.M. Grootes, T.P. Guilderson, H.
Haflidason, I. Hajdas, C. Hatté, T.J. Heaton, D.L. Hoffmann, A.G. Hogg, K.A. Hughen,
K.F. Kaiser, B. Kromer, S.W. Manning, M. Niu, R.W. Reimer, D.A. Richards, E.M.
Scott, J.R. Southon, R.A. Staff, C.S.M. Turney and J. van der Plicht, “IntCal13 and
Marine 13 Radiocarbonage Calibration Curves 0–50,000 Years cal. BP,” Radiocarbon
55 (2013), pp.18–69
Rollefson 1989
G.O. Rollefson, “The Late Aceramic Neolithic of the Levant. A Synthesis,” Paléorient
15 (1989), pp.168–173
Rollefson 1998
G.O. Rollefson, “The Aceramic Neolithic of Jordan”, in: D.O. Henry (ed.), The
Prehistoric Archaeology of Jordan (BAR International Series 705), Oxford 1998,
pp.102–126
Rollefson 2001
G.O. Rollefson, “The Neolithic Period”, in: B. MacDonald, R. Adams and P. Bienkowski
(eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan (Levantine Archaeology 1), Sheffield 2001, pp. 67–
105
Rollefson 2019
G.O. Rollefson, “Tumultuous Times in the Eighth and Seventh Millennia BC in the
Southern Levant”, in: A. Marciniak (ed.), Concluding the Neolithic: The Near East in
the Second Half of the Seventh Millennium BCE, Atlanta 2019, pp. 41–60
Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson 1989
G.O. Rollefson and I. Köhler-Rollefson, “The Collapse of Early Neolithic Settlements
in the Southern Levant,” in: I. Hershkovitz (ed.), People and Culture in Change (BAR
International Series 508), Oxford 1989, pp. 73–89
Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson 1993
G.O. Rollefson, and I. Köhler-Rollefson, “PPNC Adaptations in the First Half of the 6th
Millennium BC,” Paléorient 19 (1993), pp. 33–42
Rollefson, Simmons and Kafafi 1992
G.O. Rollefson, A.H. Simmons and Z. Kafafi, “Neolithic Cultures at ‘Ain Ghazal,
Jordan,” Journal of Field Archaeology 19 (1992), pp. 443–470
Rosen 2017
S.A. Rosen, Revolutions in the Desert: The Rise of Mobile Pastoralism in the Negev and
the Arid Zones of the Southern Levant, New York 2017
Rosenberg 2010
D. Rosenberg, An Early Pottery Neolithic Occurrence at Beisamoun, The Hula Valley,
Northern Israel (BAR International Series 2095), Oxford 2010

Samuelian, Bocquentin and Khalaily 2010

N. Samuelian, F. Bocquentin and H. Khalaily, “La mission Beisamoun : sur les traces
des premiers paysans de la vallée du Jourdain,” Archéopages: Archéologie and Société
2 (2010), pp. 135–141
Schechter, Goring-Morris and Bar-Yosef Mayer, in press
H.C. Schechter, A.N. Goring-Morris and D. Bar-Yosef Mayer, “Shells at Death–Marine
Shells from Burials at PPNB Kfar HaHoresh,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
(in press)
Shatil 2006
A. Shatil, The PPNC Flint Assemblage from Sha’ar Hagolan. A Typo-technological
Examination of the Assemblage, unpublished B.A. seminar paper, Department of
Prehistory, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 2006
Smith and Horwitz 2012
P. Smith and L.K. Horwitz, “Ancestors and Inheritors: A Bio-Cultural Perspective of the
Transition to Agro-Pastoralism in the Southern Levant”, in: M.N. Cohen and G.M.M.
Crane-Kramer (eds.), Ancient Health: Skeletal Indicators of Agricultural and Economic
Intensification, Gainesville 2012, pp. 207–222
Tsuneki 2011
A. Tsuneki, “A Glimpse of Human Life from the Neolithic Cemetery at Tell el-Kerkh,
Northwest Syria”, Documenta praehistorica 38 (2011), pp. 38–83
Twiss and Russel 2009
K.C. Twiss and N. Russell, “Taking the Bull by the Horns: Ideology, Masculinity, and
Cattle Horns at Çatalhöyük (Turkey),” Paléorient 35 (2009), pp.19–32
Weiner 2012
S. Weiner, Microarchaeology: Beyond the Visible Archaeological Record, Cambridge
2012
Wright 1992
K. Wright, Ground Stone Assemblages Variation and Subsistence Strategies in the
Levant, 22000–5 500 BP, Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, New Haven 1992


Moza Bocquentin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moza Bocquentin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Between Two Worlds: The PPNB–PPNC Transition in the

Central Levant as Seen Through Discoveries at Beisamoun

Introduction: Beisamoun in Its Research Context

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 163 20/10/2020 14:20:47

could be two partially contemporaneous entities (Gopher 2012). In addition, there

The Renewed Excavation Project

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 164 20/10/2020 14:20:47

Monique Lechevallier (1978). However, against all expectations, our excavation

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 165 20/10/2020 14:20:47

Fig. 1. Plan of Sector F, all layers (credit: F. Bocquentin)

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 166 20/10/2020 14:20:47

Table 1. Tentative cultural attribution and time span of stratigraphic

Late PPNC 6500–6200? I, 0a, 0*

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 167 20/10/2020 14:20:47

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 168 20/10/2020 14:20:49

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 169 20/10/2020 14:20:51

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 170 20/10/2020 14:20:51

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 171 20/10/2020 14:20:52

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 172 20/10/2020 14:20:56

Material Culture and Daily Life

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 173 20/10/2020 14:20:56

Thus, the lithic assemblage at Beisamoun demonstrates a gradual transition from

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 174 20/10/2020 14:20:56

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 175 20/10/2020 14:20:56

Fig. 6. Relative frequencies of the groundstone tools according to phases

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 176 20/10/2020 14:20:56

Table 3. Distribution of grinding and pounding implements by phases

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 177 20/10/2020 14:20:57

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 178 20/10/2020 14:20:57

(Köhler-Rollefson, Quintero and Rollefson 1993; Makarewicz 2016), although

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 179 20/10/2020 14:20:57

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 180 20/10/2020 14:20:57

Table 4. The marine-shell assemblage

bivalves (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2005; Schechter, Goring-Morris and Bar-Yosef Mayer,

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 181 20/10/2020 14:20:57

A number of shells may be considered as intentional depositions in graves: three

Table 5. The marine-shell assemblage according to stratigraphic phase and sector

Med. Gastropoda Hexaplex trunculus 1

Early Sector 10 59%

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 182 20/10/2020 14:20:57

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 183 20/10/2020 14:20:58

The Dead and the Living

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 184 20/10/2020 14:20:58

Table 6. Age distribution of the skeletons

populations (Bocquentin, Chamel and Anton, in press). Further investigations are

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 185 20/10/2020 14:20:58

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 186 20/10/2020 14:20:58

357 E U10a Ib EPPNC Infant 38 fetal In Indet Single

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 190 20/10/2020 14:20:58

species selective. In addition, ceramic sherds occurred in very small quantities in

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 191 20/10/2020 14:20:59

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 192 20/10/2020 14:20:59

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 193 20/10/2020 14:20:59

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 194 20/10/2020 14:20:59

Carter et al. 2017

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 195 20/10/2020 14:20:59

Garfinkel and Dag 2008a

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 196 20/10/2020 14:20:59

Lanos and Dufresne 2019a

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 197 20/10/2020 14:20:59

Excavation Reports Vol. 2), Berlin 2010

Moza-Bocquentin.indd 198 20/10/2020 14:20:59

Samuelian, Bocquentin and Khalaily 2010