• 1 I find it useful for clarifying the views presented in this paper, injecting them with historical d (...)

1Crossing over from the Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB), one observes not only remarkable cultural changes but also a peculiar shift in our conceptual apparatus. While the PPNA boasts several well-defined cultural entities (e.g., the Khiamian, the Sultanian, the Mureybetian, and the Nemrikian), each representing human groups that occupied a particular region for a specifiable stretch of time, the PPNB does not. Unlike its predecessor, research of the PPNB failed to establish well-­defined cultural entities. As a result, the chrono-stratigraphic term “PPNB” is the only concept at work with significant traction, rendering it difficult to appreciate the cultural and evolutionary complexities involved. In this paper, I seek to contribute to the definition of cultural entities in the Early PPNB (EPPNB), specifically the Aswadian culture of the southern Levant. But before we delve into the matter, a brief (personal) history of research is in order.1

• 2 Until this time, the sites and assemblages I familiarized with in the field, through a Neolithic pr (...)

2I first encountered the EPPNB in the late 1970s in the prehistory laboratory at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In the early 1980s, my interest in the period deepened through an intersection of three “events.” The first was a visit to Nahal Lavan (NL) 109 (with E. Friedmann) and subsequent viewing of its collections, upon which I was struck by the numerous (over a thousand) arrowheads (mainly Helwan points) in its lithic assemblage (see Burian et al. 1976, 1999; Burian and Friedman 1988, 1989).2 The second event was A. N. Goring-Morris’s and my excavation at the Harifian (Late Epipaleolithic) site of Abu Salem in the Negev Highlands (1980–1981), where we unexpectedly uncovered an EPPNB occupation with round stone-built architecture and an arrowhead assemblage dominated by Helwan points (Gopher and Goring-Morris 1998). Finally, after long discussion in the lab my teacher and mentor, Ofer Bar-Yosef, published the first definitive argument for the existence of a south Levantine EPPNB (Bar-Yosef 1981).

• 3 I also used the term “Aswadian” for the EPPNB site of Mujahiya (Gopher 1990). Interestingly, and wo (...)

4Among the various sites and assemblages analyzed in my Ph.D., the arrowhead assemblages of the early layer of Tell Aswad in the Damascus Basin, Syria, are particularly notable. The excavator, H. de Contenson (1981, 1989, 1995), assigned these assemblages to the PPNA. However, drawing on my seriation analyses and on conversations with M.-C. Cauvin, who studied and published the site’s lithics (Cauvin 1974, 1995), I suggested that early Tell Aswad (Layer IA) is better assigned to the PPNB (i.e., the EPPNB). I suggested labeling it “Aswadian” to underscore this entity’s cultural distinctiveness (Gopher 1985: 341, 1994: 260).3 Having been in contact with H. de Contenson and sharing my results with him in the second half of the 1980s, I was quite surprised by Contenson’s (1989) suggestion to use the term “Aswadian” for the same cultural assemblage but assign it to the PPNA period instead of the PPNB.

• 4 Relevant sites and excavations, in some of which I was personally involved, include Mujahiya and Ho (...)

5Notwithstanding these observations and the ongoing accumulation of data,4 the scholarly community remained unconvinced that the southern Levant had an EPPNB at all. The main impediments pertained to the relative scarcity of data and ¹⁴C dates. Ultimately, in the 1990s, two views crystallized. One asserted that the EPPNB’s distribution is restricted to the northern Levant and is altogether missing in the south, while the other held that it could be found in the southern Levant too and traced across a growing number of sites (for a disagreement between coauthors, see Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002: 382; cf. Kuijt 2001, 2003). As for myself, I wondered “What happened to the EPPNB?” in the southern Levant (Gopher 1996), and why would anybody start the PPNB with a chrono-stratigraphic unit called “Middle PPNB.” Why not call the earliest PPNB of the region (whatever it may be) “Early”? Was it a wild guess, an expectation, or a gesture to northern Levantine research?

• 5 In 2021, I had listened to two lectures on Kharaysin by J. J. Ibáñez, who provided updates on the s (...)

6Since the turn of the century, the issue of the EPPNB’s standing in the southern Levant gradually cleared as more fieldwork was carried out and new series of ¹⁴C dates were produced. Notable among these projects are the renewed excavation at Tell Aswad (Stordeur 2003a, 2003b; Stordeur et al. 2010) and the excavation at Tell Qarassa (Ibáñez et al. 2010, 2014a; Santana et al. 2012, 2015), both in the Damascus area. Further to the south, relevant fieldwork included the excavation at Motza near Jerusalem (Khalaily et al. 2007), the intensive excavations at Kfar HaḤoresh in the Lower Galilee (Goring-Morris 2005; Birkenfeld 2018), Aḥihud in the Upper Galilee (Paz and Vardi 2014; Caracuta et al. 2015, 2016, 2017), Nesher Ramla in the Shephelah (Ullman et al. 2021), and the ongoing excavations at Kharaysin, Jordan (Ibáñez et al. 2015, 2019; Monik et al. 2018; Borrell et al. 2019).5

• 6 Kuijt (2017) rejects the notion of a distinct EPPNB in the south and instead speaks of a combined E (...)
• 7 The authors of this paper present a late, local (south Jordanian) PPNA that incorporates lithic tec (...)

7Although some implicitly continue to doubt it (e.g., Finlayson et al. 2014; Kuijt 2017;6 Smith et al. 2019;7 and see discussion in Sampson 2020), most scholars today consider the EPPNB part and parcel of the south Levantine PPNB sequence. Having put some of the chrono-stratigraphic issues to rest, research has begun to veer towards matters of cultural and economic characteristics. However, old problems tend to resurface. New excavations in Jordan, including Harrat al-Juhayra 202 at the Jafr Basin (Fujii et al. 2019; Fujii 2022, this volume, and references therein) and Wadi Mushash 163 in the Badia (Rokitta-Krumnow 2019, and references therein), produced a combination of features that called our understanding of PPNA–PPNB chrono-stratigraphy back into question (see also Rollefson 2019). On the one hand, these sites presented lithic assemblages compatible with the EPPNB (which was largely unknown east of the Rift Valley) comprising bidirectional blade production and a considerable percentage of Helwan points (as well as El Khiam points) within the arrowheads. However, on the other hand, they produced remarkably early ¹⁴C dates that start at ca. 11,000/10,900 cal. BP, almost half a millennium before the onset of the EPPNB west of the Rift Valley.

• 8 These features are bound with coevolutionary models and attitudes, presuming the Neolithic agent wa (...)

8Against the confusion and disagreements over the nature, position, and origins of the south Levantine EPPNB and the newly emerging complexities of time-space systematics, this paper will summarize selected aspects of the available data and strive to pour cultural content into the chrono-­stratigraphic (spatiotemporal) unit of the EPPNB. Specifically, I will draw on its material culture to define the prevalent sociocultural entity I label “Aswadian.” This definition will be achieved by articulating how the Aswadian culture differs from its PPNA (Sultanian) predecessor, its north Levantine counterpart, and the very recently defined Badia culture of Jordan. In the process, special attention will be devoted to the advance of plant and animal domestication. Finally, I will use this opportunity to comment on two issues. One pertains to matters of analytical resolution, mainly the tendency to lump and generalize at the expense of detail. Specifically, I suggest that the higher our resolution and the finer the units we discern, the more likely we are to attain an accurate appreciation of the history of Neolithic cultures and socio-economic developments. The second issue pertains to the noticeable interpretive favor of Levantine Neolithic archaeology for autonomous (non-centered), polycentric, protracted, processes8 (e.g., plant domestication, see discussion in Gopher et al. 2021: chapters 3–4) and fluid behavioral spectra of “situations” (e.g., sedentism/mobility patterns, see below).

• 9 Notably, cultural names for the PPNB were suggested in early Neolithic research, but these were pre (...)

10Of these, Kenyon’s PPNA and PPNB designations are the most prevalent. She coined them in the 1950s, based on the stratigraphy, chronology, and material culture found in her excavations at Jericho. This terminology had the marked advantage of being simple, straightforward, and well-grounded.9 However, it also harbored internal tension. On the one hand, it is conducive and widely presumed to signify a continuous sequence of developments along chrono-stratigraphic periodic lines. On the other hand, in keeping with Kenyon’s training and background in G. Childe’s school of culture history, it was devised to underscore the cultural differences between the earlier PPNA (gap) and the later PPNB. Thus, from the very beginning, Keyon’s nomenclature pulled in the somewhat incompatible directions of linear chrono-stratigraphy and culture history. In many respects, the debate outlined above over the EPPNB’s constitution and definition is an instance and consequence of this tension.

• 10 Stratigraphy and typology of material culture elements are the two major protagonists in this play (...)
• 11 These elements encompass typologically defined (entities) morphological types, assemblages of a spe (...)

11Of course, the definitions of archaeological cultures and chrono-stratigraphic units (periods) are closely linked, a quality perhaps best manifested through the procedures of seriation.10 Seriation is the principal means of relative dating based on typological features of cultural entities. The simplest mode of seriation is the fossile directeur approach that notes the presence and absence of diagnostic elements. While highly useful, anyone who studied archaeological assemblages would be quick to observe that the insights it provides are crude and coarse-grained (too low a resolution). For better and finer results, one must resort to quantitative measures. These measures, in turn, presuppose that the popularity of archaeological material culture elements11 follows normal, unimodal frequency distributions along the temporal axis. That is, they are presumed to represent ontogenetic patterns (per entity, type) consisting of an emergence (“birth”), a rise, a (modal) peak (the modal, high or low), a decline, and finally, a disappearance (“death”). Such normal distributions mean that low sub-modal frequencies of any such element pertain to a history of use and either indicate (1) a phase of modest (relatively inconspicuous), “ahead of its time” beginning as an innovation (somewhat earlier than their modal), or (2) a diminishing presence (“tail”) that lingers after an element’s “maturity” (peak, modal).

• 12 The constitution and reliance on transitional periods, units, and cultures to explain cultural deve (...)

12Acknowledging and adopting the principles of frequency seriation (well exemplified by the classical “battleship curve” pattern) render debates over periodic demarcations according to the presence or absence of specific elements crude and inadequate. They put too much emphasis on instances of elements’ emergence and disappearance to note the relative autonomy of their “careers”(life histories). Thus, the expectation that the EPPNB be perfectly correlated with the emergence of bidirectional blade technology, certain types of arrowheads, sickle blades, and rectangular architecture is ungainly. Given that sharp shifts of this sort are the exception rather than the rule, it is understandable how anticipations like these (emphasizing the pre-modal appearance of archaeological elements) invite “transitional” periods or cultures as if any archaeological unit is not already transitional and on the move from “pre-” to “post-”.12

• 13 I base my discussion of the northern Levant on well-known EPPNB layers from sites such as Çayönü, M (...)

14As illustrated in the brief history of research above, the agreement on the existence of the south Levantine EPPNB does not entail acknowledging the existence of corresponding cultural entities. Therefore, in this section, I seek to fill this gap and trace the main distinguishing features of the Aswadian culture. I will do so by reviewing various aspects of the southern Levant EPPNB and making brief comments on its northern manifestations that will subsequently serve as grounds for comparison (see below).13 When suitable, I also set them up against the preceding PPNA cultures. The review will begin with the spatial and temporal framework and proceed to discuss settlement patterns. Next, I briefly consider various categories of material culture and the broader cultural features of the economy, burial customs, and symbolism.

• 14 While some attribute this area to the northern sphere of the Levant (see below and footnote 55), I (...)
• 15 As will be discussed below, Jordanian sites that Fujii assigns to the EPPNB Badia culture pre-date (...)
• 16 By all means, this is a large territory. For comparison, the Middle Euphrates EPPNB (looked at stri (...)

15The Aswadian culture occupies the southern Levant. Specifically, the region spans the Damascus Basin14 in the north and the northern Negev in the south,15 and it extends from the Rift Valley (corridor) and the northwestern parts of Jordan to the east, until the Mediterranean coast, to the west. Altogether, it covers an area of ca. 40,000–50,000 km² (fig. 2).16

• 17 In Abu Salem, the Aswadian superimposed Harifian layers.

16Stratigraphically, the Aswadian and north Levantine EPPNB occupy a similar position, located above PPNA layers and below Middle and Late PPNB deposits. Thus, in the southern Levant, sites like Nahal Oren, Kharaysin, and Abu Salem17 featured EPPNB layers above PPNA (Sultanian) deposits, whereas, in sites like Tell Aswad, Kfar HaḤoresh, Kharaysin, and Motza, they were encountered below MPPNB, LPPNB, or PPNC layers. Similarly, in the northern Levant, EPPNB layers were observed above PPNA Mureybetian occupations in Mureybet, Dja’de, Sheikh Hassan, Göbekli Tepe, and Çayönü, and below later PPNB layers in Çayönü or Mureybet. There is no case in which this stratigraphic order does not hold true.

• 18 As I elaborate below, earlier ¹⁴C dates, produced for the sites of Harrat al-Juhayra 202 and Wadi M (...)

17Facilitating the Aswadian’s chronological placement, new sets of ¹⁴C dates have been generated over the last twenty years. According to these dates, it had begun around 10,500 cal. BP or somewhat later. This estimation is also based on dates generated for PPNA sites like Zahrat adh-Dhra’ (ZAD) 2, Jericho PPNA, Wadi Faynan (WF) 16, and el Hemmeh, providing a terminus post quem determination for the EPPNB (Edwards et al. 2004; Edwards 2016 and references therein).18 By the same token, dates generated for MPPNB sites in the region—e.g., Ain Ghazal, Kfar HaḤoresh, Motza, Tell Aswad, and Kharaysin—provided a terminus ante quem determination that places the Aswadian’s end at ca. 10,200/10,100 cal. BP, maybe even somewhat later. Notably, ¹⁴C dates of EPPNB Aswadian sites (Tell Aswad, Motza, Kfar HaḤoresh, Qarassa, Kharaysin, Aḥihud, Nesher Ramla) fell comfortably between the two. On these grounds, we may presume 10,500–10,100 cal. BP was the time of the Aswadian culture in the southern Levant.

• 19 The dates of Çayönü are difficult to interpret (see Erim-Özdoğan 2011; Haklay and Gopher 2019), and (...)

18The north Levantine EPPNB seems to have begun earlier, ca. 10,800/10,700 cal. BP. This is suggested collectively by dates produced for PPNA sites of the Middle Euphrates (Mureybetian) at Jerf el Ahmar, Mureybet (III), and Tell Abr 3, as well as Qaramel and Göbekli Tepe (III) and the Tigris region (Gusir Höyük, Hasankyef Höyük, and Çayönü) all of which predate 10,800/10,700 cal. BP (see Edwards 2016, and references therein). Drawing on early dates produced for the MPPNB, the EPPNB of the northern Levant is estimated to have reached its conclusion at around 10,200/10,100 cal. BP (e.g., Evin and Sordeur 2008 and references therein), perhaps a little earlier than in the south. Reinforcing these chronological anchors, ¹⁴C dates of north Levantine EPPNB sites [e.g., Dja’de (Dj 2, Dj 3), Mureybet (IVA), Nevalı Çori, Cafer Höyük, and Göbekli Tepe (II)] fall within the late three quarters of the 11^th millennium cal. BP.19 Thus, the chronological range for the northern EPPNB is between 10,800/700 and 10,200/100 cal. BP.

• 20 For Mujahiya, site size may reach 5 ha but it is estimated and not immediately evident from the sma (...)

20South Levantine EPPNB Aswadian sites are usually small in marginal zones and in the desert regions, spanning several 100 m² (e.g., Abu Salem), while, in the Mediterranean zone, they are larger and commonly range between 0.50 ha (e.g., Horvat Galil) and as much as 3 ha (e.g., Mujahiya) and even more (Kharaysin).20 So-called “mega sites,” bigger than 10 ha, are absent from the Aswadian cultural landscape and appear only later in the MPPNB, LPPNB, and PPNC. In the northern Levant, EPPNB sites may reach 2–4 ha in size (e.g., Mureybet, Çayönü, Göbekli Tepe), but smaller sites of 0.40–0.50 ha (e.g., Nevalı Çori, Cafer Höyük) have been noted, too.

• 21 The relationship between settlement and mobility patterns, on the one hand, and the emerging farmin (...)

23The issues of mobility patterns, sedentism, and the beginning of agriculture are inextricably entwined with settlement patterns and the economy (see below). While I do not discuss the matter in detail here, I offer a footnote with a relevant example of the tendency mentioned throughout the text to reconstruct (low-resolution) fluid spectra of “situations”.21

• 22 Notwithstanding, the circular/amorphous (semi sunken) structures at Tell Aswad (Stordeur et al. 201 (...)

24In the southern Levant, EPPNB sites of the Aswadian culture often consist of free-standing, rectangular, lime-­plastered architecture, supplanting the circular, half-sunken buildings typical of the PPNA Sultanian. These sites include Qarassa (Balbo et al. 2012), Ḥorvat Galil (Gopher 1997), Motza (Khalaily et al. 2007), Kharaysin (Ibáñez et al. 2015; Monik et al. 2018), and maybe Aḥihud (Paz and Vardi 2014).22 Interpreted as a designated burial site, Kfar HaḤoresh occupies a special place in the architectural landscape of the EPPNB, and it is also characterized by rectangular construction and intensive use of lime plaster. Notably, however, in sites of the arid zone to the south (e.g., Abu Salem), the Aswadian retained the round stone-built architecture.

• 23 During the PPNB, lime plaster was also used to produce mobile articles, including small vessels, im (...)

27Throughout the Levant, the PPNB as a whole is characterized by extensive use of lime plaster for architectural and funerary purposes. In the EPPNB, it was used to coat floors and wall bases and to seal graves (Goring-Morris 2000, 2005); sometimes, lime plaster was found in the grave pits themselves (e.g., Hershkovitz and Gopher 1988; Khalaily et al. 2007). The roots of lime pyro-technology can be traced to the late Natufian of the southern Levant (Valla et al. 2007; Friesem et al. 2019), and it is found in PPNA sites too (e.g., Netiv Hadgud, Kharaysin and more) but it was not until the PPNB that it became a significant cultural feature.23

• 24 As stated recently by Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen (2019: 429): “We follow the culture history pa (...)

29Notwithstanding the significance of numerous other categories of material culture, knapped lithics are perhaps the most basic of all. By virtue of their ubiquity, quantity, and diversity, they have come to play a paramount role in distinguishing both diachronic (chronological) trends and synchronic (geographical) entities and should not be played down for other elements that seem to carry more impressive baggage.24

• 25 “The knapping sequence was oriented to producing highly standardized large, generally robust, strai (...)
• 26 . – It is interesting to observe that this technology embodies an attitude to lithic production tha (...)

30The Aswadian sites of the southern Levant manifest marked changes in their lithic industries compared to their PPNA predecessors. Most notably, they pertain to raw material selection and procurement, knapping technology, and tool typology. Of particular interest is the emergence of bidirectional core technology for the production of long, non-twisted, non-curved straight (including central “naturally pointed” blades), and standardized flint blades.25 Notably, while it is widely agreed that these blades were highly standardized (Borrell 2017) and serially produced (Barzilai 2010; Barzilai and Goring-Morris 2013), whether they constituted a specialized mode of production is a matter of debate (see Borrell and Khalaily 2016; Maeda et al. 2016; Gopher 2020).26

• 27 However, as I discuss below, the desert sites of Mushash 163 and Harrat al-Juhayra 202 raise the po (...)
• 28 Both in the north and the south, these blades come onto the scene somewhat before the first clear e (...)

31Thus, in the southern Levant, this technology is strictly an EPPNB Aswadian new element (e.g., Qarassa, Tell Aswad, Horvat Galil, Motza, Aḥihud, Kharaysin)27—it did not exist in the PPNA. The blades produced were primarily used to produce sickle blades, reaping knives, or both. The sickle blades are long, have a finely denticulated working edge, and afford several inserting or hafting methods (for an illustration, see Gopher 1989c: 50, fig. 18). When they fell out of use as sickle blades, they were often recycled and made into arrowheads, burins, or other tools. By all odds, the emergence of sickle blades made on the newly introduced bidirectional blades entwined with the crystallizing domesticates-based economy (e.g., for the north, see Stordeur and Abbès 2002).28 In this vein, the occurrence of caches of blades throughout the PPNB, the Aswadian included (e.g., Barzilai and Goring-Morris 2007; Khalaily et al. 2007), suggests a change in attitude toward harvesting tools, especially given their primary function as sickle blades (see also, Asouti and Fuller 2013: 322).

• 29 Depending on how one reads the chronology of House 47 at Mureybet, for example (see Haklay and Goph (...)

32In the northern Levant, the emergence of naviform bidirectional technology on selected, high-quality raw materials had already occurred in the late PPNA, ca. 11,000 cal. BP, considerably earlier than in the south [e.g., Mureybet (III),29 Jerf el Ahmar, Dja’de]. Otherwise, however, the patterns are similar to those observed in the south. Here, too, this technology primarily served the manufacture of finely denticulated sickle blades, which were sometimes cached. Blade production was also linked to the production of arrowheads (e.g., Borrell and Khlaily 2016 and references therein).

• 30 Notably, the morpho-typology of the Helwan point has shown more variability in the northern Levant, (...)

33Another major field of lithic Aswadian innovation pertains to new arrowhead types, often produced on bidirectional blades. Most notable among these is the Helwan point—a double-notched, small-tanged projectile—that occurs alongside the El Khiam point. Importantly, the frequencies of El Khiam points (including the Jordan Valley and Salibiya points) decrease throughout EPPNB. It was characteristic of the preceding PPNA period and was gradually supplanted during the EPPNB, eventually disappearing before the advent of the MPPNB (see table 1). Other newly introduced arrowhead types are the Byblos and Jericho points. With the exception of the Jericho point, which is principally a south Levantine Aswadian innovation, the northern Levant demonstrates similar patterns. Nevertheless, Helwan points demonstrate notable regional variations. Thus, in the southern Levant, most of these points are short and produced on small blades (or even flakes), although long specimens made on bidirectional blades have also been recorded (e.g., Nesher Ramla [Ullman et al. 2021: fig. 6.6], Horvat Galil [Gopher 1997: fig. 14.3], Tell Aswad [Cauvin 1974: fig. 1.1–1.2, 1.4]—bidirectional blade technology is present in all these sites). Interestingly, EPPNB Helwan points in the south are sometimes shaped on obsidian, clearly a material of northern origin (fig. 3). In the north, conversely, the use of elongated blades is common place, and the points are often long and slender (often dubbed Aswad point; Tsuneki et al. 2006; Edwards 2016).30

• 31 Tranchet axes are unknown in the north Levantine PPNA. On the other hand, the north Levantine PPNA (...)
• 32 Tree felling would be a significant element in disturbing the pristine pre-agricultural environment (...)

34Turning to bifacial tools, in the southern Levant, the EPPNB marks the displacement of PPNA tranchet flint axes31 by flint axes, chisels, and (later) adzes. At first, these bifacials were rarely polished, a modification that became more common in the subsequent MPPNB. In the northern Levant, bifacials were made of various stone types, and polish was widespread throughout the PPNA and EPPNB. Given that polish has been shown to improve the efficiency of woodworking tools (Yerkes and Barkai 2013),32 its differential temporal and spatial distributions are likely to have been correlated to farming and the large-scale construction operations of the PPNB as a whole.

• 33 Some argue for pre-domestication cultivation since the Natufian (Ibáñez et al. 2014b, 2016a) and ev (...)

36The southern Levant Aswadian maintained a hunting and gathering subsistence economy, and no discernable evidence of domestication was recorded in its archaeobotanical or faunal remains. Evidence of such developments does not occur before the MPPNB. Notwithstanding, the question of the faba beans found at Aḥihud (late Aswadian, ca. 10,200 cal. BP) is of note, especially following the statements made by the investigators vis-à-vis cultivation and domestication (Paz and Vardi 2014; Caracuta et al. 2015, 2017). Ultimately, arguments for the cultivation of wild plants in the southern Levant during the PPNA (Weiss et al. 2006; Fuller et al. 2011; Willcox 2012b; Riehl et al. 2013; Edwards 2016; Ibáñez et al. 2016a, 2018)33 and the EPPNB (for Jilat 7; Colledge 2001; Fuller et al. 2011a; see also Fujii this volume) are not well supported by the data (for a detailed discussion, see Gopher et al. 2021: chapter 2). I suspect that the arguments for pre-domestication cultivation in plant domestication research are a consequence of the prevailing tendency for coevolutionary, mutualistic models that speak for “fluid” protracted processes and unconscious domestication (automatic selection; Abbo and Gopher 2020; Gopher et al. 2021: chapter 2).

• 34 This proposition is currently accepted by most of the archaeobotantical and archaeozoological resea (...)

37The north Levantine EPPNB, on the other hand, presents the earliest economy incorporating domesticated plants and animals (e.g., Gopher et al. 2017; Vigne et al. 2017).34 The incipience of farming definitely would have called for extensive communal reorganization in terms of annual scheduling, social order, and specialized activities.

• 35 Skull treatment is unknown in the northern Levant PPN, and the fact that it appears at Tell Aswad i (...)

38Throughout the Levant, the EPPNB shows changes in funerary practices marked by a growing number of collective burials in designated locations. In the northern Levant, this is best demonstrated by the “house of the dead” at Dja’de (Middle Euphrates) and the “skull building” at Çayönü (the Tigris region). In the southern Levant, Kfar HaḤoresh (phase IV) in the Lower Galilee is a striking example. It is interpreted as a designated funerary site consisting of burial structures with low stone walls and burials under lime-plaster surfaces (Goring-Morris 2000, 2005; Birkenfeld 2018). Designated burial areas and skull caching were also reported from Qarassa and Tell Aswad in the Damascus Basin and Kharaysin in northwestern Jordan. Common burials in Aswadian occupation sites such as Horvat Galil (Gopher 1997), Motza (Khalaily et al. 2007) or Tell Aswad (Stordeur et al. 2010) include intra- and extramural burials (primary or secondary, single or multiple), separating the skull is common, and association with plastered floors is common too. Notably, lime plaster was found in “common” burial pits at Aswadian Horvat Galil and Motza. Coupled with the shift to collective (group) burials in designated built spaces, especially the cached (skull) burials require special attention as they may have been harbingers of the later south Levantine PPNB practice of skull plastering and caching.35 A clear difference between north and south vis-à-vis skull removal is noted in the MPPNB and LPPNB (Bocquentin et al. 2016)—a rise in the south (associated with the appearance of skull treatment/plastering), and a decline in the north. Although the case for the EPPNB is not clear, the northern Levant shows “secondary collective handling including skull displacement […] already present in the EPPNB” (Boquentin et al. 2016: 40)

• 36 Imagery items (such as figurines) were vital and active participants in shaping Neolithic ideologie (...)

39In the southern Levant, the imagery of the EPPNB and PPNB more broadly demonstrates an increased emphasis on the human figure, usually manifested in stone or clay figurines (e.g., Khalaily et al. 2007), and, in one instance, on an engraved bone (e.g., Ibáñez et al. 2014a). However, this pattern was already apparent in the PPNA of the south, boasting more human than animal figures (in stone and clay, e.g., Hershman and Belfer-Cohen 2010) and indicating the Aswadian culture proceeded down a preexisting path.

• 37 Human clay figurines were uncommon in the north Levantine PPNA.
• 38 In the north, the shift of figurative emphasis to human form might have been because it was a prima (...)

40The same leaning towards anthropomorphic imagery is also observed in the northern Levant, including stone sculptures, clay figurines, and the generic human T-shaped pillars. However, unlike the southern Levant, here, the EPPNB marked a significant and clear shift. Northern PPNA imagery was dominated by wild animals, represented in various media and techniques,37 and, insofar as the human figure was portrayed, it was in generic (schematic) forms, like the T-shaped pillars at Göbekli Tepe. At the onset of the EPPNB, north Levantine imagery veered away from animals toward humans, supposedly manifesting a shift from hunter-gatherer to farmer symbolism (Hauptmann 2011: 106).38 Moreover, the T-shaped human figures continue to appear in the EPPNB at northern sites like Göbekli Tepe and Nevalı Çori, but they undergo a reduction in scale, lose their animal engravings, and often acquire human hands. The growing role of clay in the imagery assemblages (e.g., Nevalı Çori, see Morsch 2002) is also noteworthy, reflecting the gradually shifting balance between reductive and additive techniques, which reflects the changing relationship between people and the world they inhabit—a hallmark of the Neolithic world as a whole.

• 39 However, hunting and gathering continues throughout the PPN and into the PN.
• 40 The southern and northern Levant embody different symbolic histories. Why has anthropomorphic image (...)

42Compared to the preceding PPNA, the most distinctive features of the Aswadian culture definitely place it within the broader framework of the Levantine EPPNB: the shifts in settlement patterns and distributions, the introduction of rectangular architecture, the increased use of lime plaster and pyro-technology more broadly, the establishment of formal locations of collective burials, and the promotion of significant lithic technological developments, most notably bidirectional blade technology. Within the EPPNB, the Aswadian culture is distinguished from its northern counterpart mainly regarding its economy and symbolism dynamics. Whereas the north Levantine EPPNB introduced domesticated plants and animals into its economy39 and underwent a significant symbolic change, the south Levantine Aswadian culture continued to maintain a hunter-gatherer economy and generally carried on with the already established PPNA symbolic regime.40 Thus, the Aswadian amounts to a distinct cultural phenomenon within the EPPNB koine that did not adopt the newly establishing economic order unfolding to its north, where the life of Neolithic communities was revolutionized. Notably, following Cauvin (2000, 2001; and see Abbo and Gopher 2020; Gopher 2020), the cultural shift in the PPNB of the north and the magnitude of all its innovations must have been preceded and accompanied by perceptual, ideological, and social change. These features took a different route in the southern Levant, probably accompanied by a different discourse and different choices.

• 41 Interestingly, similar phenomena were argued for Europe, where some of the hunter-gatherers confron (...)

43One might wish to attribute the difference between the Aswadian and the northern EPPNB to the retardation effect (Gopher 1989a, 1989b, 1994) that presumes a two-to-three centuries delay in the diffusion of cultural innovations from north to south. However, while it might account for the late onset of the EPPNB in the south, it is insufficient to explain the lack of domesticates in the Aswadian. It is unlikely that the EPPNB interaction sphere of the Levant failed to transmit the information on the new economic practices southwards. Rather, it implies that while the Aswadians were happy to adopt technological innovations (e.g., bidirectional blade production), remodel their houses, and engage with specific ideological threads (e.g., funerary customs), they were reluctant to change their hunter-gatherer mode of existence for a domesticate-based economy. It seems the Aswadian culture is an embodiment of communities’ purposeful and knowledgeable decision-making to reject the new economic options and their far-reaching (social) effects, probably following negotiation (a struggle?) within Aswadian communities between conservatives and innovation supporters.41

• 42 In addition to Harrat al-Juhayra 202 and Wadi Mushash 163, Fujii (2022: fig. 1, this volume) includ (...)

44In an as-yet-unpublished paper on the PPNA-PPNB to the east of the Rift Valley (for the Tokyo Neo Lithics 9) and in his contribution to the present volume, Prof. S. Fujii “complicates” the relatively neat chrono-cultural scheme outlined above. Drawing on recent systematic excavations at the small sites of Harrat al-Juhayra 202 and Wadi Mushash 163 in Jordan, he underscores an apparent discrepancy. On the one hand, these sites’ material culture consists of round stone-built architecture, bidirectional blade technology, and Helwan points. However, on the other hand, their ¹⁴C dates are surprisingly early, spanning 11,000/10,900–10,600/500 cal. BP at Harrat al-Juhayra 202 and 10,800–10,500 cal. BP at Wadi Mushash 163 (see Rollefson 2019; Fujii et al. 2019; Fujii 2022, this volume). On these grounds, augmented by an argument on settlement patterns (site type, site location), Fujii (pers. comm. 2021, 2022, this volume) suggests assigning these and other related sites to “the Jordanian Badia EPPNB” (Edwards’s “East Jordanian EPPNB”),42 which I propose referring to as the Badia culture (see distribution in fig. 2).

• 43 In their 2019 paper, Fujii et al. still maintained that these lithic elements are of northern origi (...)
• 44 They claim an increasing focus on blade production and “some evidence for the development of bidire (...)

45It seems, therefore, that these Jordanian sites predated the south Levantine Aswadian but were contemporary with, and even somewhat earlier than, the north Levantine EPPNB. As such, they challenge the presumed northern origin of the Aswadian and the EPPNB as a whole. In this vein, Fujii (2022, this volume) proposed that the bidirectional “flat core” technology of Harrat al-Juhayra 202, Jebel Queisa 24, and other Badia sites be considered a precursor of (the later) bidirectional (naviform) blade technology (see below and footnote 27). Following a technological analysis, he shows that this mode of blade production sought to produce blanks for Helwan points. Later, Fujii (pers. comm. 2021, 2022, this volume) took a step further. Drawing on additional research of its lithic industries, he suggested that this very early Jordanian PPNB be considered a locally developed cultural entity.43 Likewise, and notwithstanding some misgivings about the radiocarbon plateau in the calibration curve, Rokitta-Krumnow (2019) also endorsed a model of local development of the south Levantine EPPNB. She did so following her excavations at Mushah 163 that produced evidence for bidirectional blade technology, arrowhead assemblages of El Khiam and Helwan points, and four dates “obtained from the on-floor deposits (i.e., the lowermost 5 cm of fills) within the structures” that suggest a “Late PPNA–Early PPNB occupation” (Rokitta-Krumnow 2019: 175). Smith et al. (2019) made a similar claim for the late PPNA WF16.44

• 45 To illustrate this point, they use the different arrowhead typologies—the Aswad point in the north (...)

46The debate over the origins of the southern EPPNB is not new and arguments claiming (independent) autonomous (local) developments of the EPPNB are by no means new either, nor have they depended on the Badia culture for support. Thus, while drawing on their work at Tell ‘Ain el-Kerkh, Tsuneki et al. (2006) supported an autonomous (non-centered) model of EPPNB emergence although they made a case for a general, intercommunicating EPPNB koine.45 For the south Levantine EPPNB, they claimed that it has emerged rapidly via diffusion from a northern center, possibly mitigated by migration (for support they quote [Tsuneki et al. 2006: footnote 120] Edwards et al. [2004] that talk about a rapid cultural change using insights from modern immigration and the creation of a “diaspora” sense of identity for the newcomers). Simmons (2007: 124–126) proposed (if even implicitly) a non-centered, local development for the PPNB in the south, and so did the excavators of Motza (Khalaily et al. 2007). Notably, while they acknowledged the northern derivation of some of the EPPNB traits, they asserted a local line of development for others. This is also the case with Edwards (2016, pers. comm. 2021), who is generally a supporter of northern origin for the PPNB of the south. However, he suggests that the Levantine PPNB cultural complex as a whole (the EPPNB included) “should best be considered as a polythetic cluster of material culture traits and behavioural practices, some of which are autochthonous to the various regions north and south, and some of which are ultimately derived from north Syria [the middle Euphrates, my addition]” (Edwards 2016: 54) in “a series of pulses”. Gebel (2004), Ibáñez et al. (2018), and Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen (2016, 2020) may also be included in the list of scholars supporting hypotheses of autonomous developments, including the independent emergence of the south Levantine PPNB. This does not mean, however, that they completely reject the possibility of diffusion of cultural elements from the north to the south. Nevertheless, let us recall that there is a substantial number of scholars that support a northern origin for the southern EPPNB and, therefore, implicitly accept a centered (core-area) model. Notable among them are J. Cauvin (1979, 1989, 1990, 2000: 81), M.-C. Cauvin (1974, 1995), Evin and Stordeur (2008), Borrell (2017), Borrell and Khalaily (2016), Abbès (1994), Stordeur and Abbès (2002), Kozlowski and Aurenche (2005), and see also Vigne et al. (2017, 2019). I, too, support a northern origin for bidirectional technology and Helwan points, as I do for domesticated plants and animals (Gopher 1985, 1989a, 1989b, 1994, 2020 and references therein).

• 46 Although desert sites are usually irrelevant for statements on bifacial tools and sickle blades, it (...)

48One possibility is to consider the Badia culture an innovative late PPNA with bidirectional technology, Helwan points, and a declining presence of El Khiam points—a local (desert) development of the PPNA Sultanian. According to this proposition, it coexisted with the comparatively conservative Sultanian PPNA that persisted on both sides of the Rift Valley and retained established features: unidirectional blade production, bladelet production, El Khiam points, tranchet axes, Hagdud truncations, Beit Ta’amir knives, and more (see Fujii 2022: table 1).46 Although not inevitable, this line of reasoning tends to support theories of local development for the Badia culture and the south Levantine EPPNB.

• 47 Chronologically, this is possible since bidirectional blade technology and Helwan points are known (...)

49Another response is to assign the Jordanian Badia culture sites to the EPPNB by virtue of their innovative blade production and arrowhead types. This view fits better with arguments for a northern origin of these innovations and the southern EPPNB in general,47 but it also has the peculiar consequence of conjuring a northern early EPPNB enclave (Edwards pers. comm.) in an otherwise PPNA-dominated south. By this token, the Jordanian Badia culture sites manifest a wave of innovation that passed through the eastern flanks of the southern Levant but did not affect the contemporary PPNA communities to the west. Edwards (pers. comm.) believes that this peculiarity can be partially explained by the greater mobility of desert communities, a feature that renders them more adaptive and responsive than the settled (conservative?) communities to the west, which would accord with Fujii et al. 2019, but not with Fujii’s more recent arguments and conclusions (this volume).

• 48 Maybe as a result of incidental meeting (see footnote 43) or maybe as part of exchange network (of (...)
• 49 The flat core bidirectional blade technology as seen in the Badia culture assemblages differs from (...)
• 50 The southern, mostly squat types are made on short (unipolar) blades and sometimes even on a flake (...)

50As for myself, I endorse Fujii’s view that the Badia culture was an EPPNB entity of the marginal and desert zones east of the Rift Valley by virtue of its lithics. However, I am doubtful about the claims for its local (PPNA) origin and am much more inclined to consider it to be of northern derivation despite the uncertainty about the mechanisms at play.48 Chronologically, this fits well with bidirectional technology’s and Helwan points’ earlier appearance in the north (ca. 11,000 cal. BP) and their absence from the south any time earlier than that. On these grounds, both elements can be viewed as southern variants of northern techno-typological innovations. Thus, the Badia flat-core, bidirectional blade technology may be considered a southern adaptation of bidirectional blade production to local (desert) interests, needs, and traditions (e.g., being geared toward arrowhead production).49 A similar claim can be made for the Helwan point as well. It, too, may have been a shorter, wider local variation of an arrowhead that emerged further to the north.50

• 51 Badia sites listed by Fujii (this volume) go further, to the south and southeast, deeper into the d (...)

51Notwithstanding the Badia culture’s assignment to the EPPNB, I see no simple explanation for the fact that the Badia culture adopted northern lithic innovations (sometime after 11,000 cal. BP) while its late PPNA Sultanian neighbors (kin?) continued unaffected for nearly half a millennium. The Sultanian was a well-established PPNA culture (mostly unknown in the desert). Perhaps the Badia culture’s occupation of arid, marginal areas (rendering it a somewhat isolated entity (Sultanian subculture?) may provide a partial explanation.51 Either way, the relatively late appearance of the Aswadian (ca. 10,500 cal. BP), embodying a more comprehensive northern input (e.g., the classical and full-fledged naviform blade production package as well as rectangular architecture, with intensive use of lime plastered floors), is best explained as a second “wave” of northern innovations (see Edwards 2016).

• 52 Note the site of Kharaysin with an EPPNB layer dated to the second half of the 11^th millennium cal. (...)

52Before bringing this section to a close, I find it necessary to note that there is a “void” east of the Rift in the second half of the 11^th millennium cal. BP (i.e., post-Badia and contemporary with the Aswadian culture), and it is not clear what happened there.52 Was this region occupied by a late Badia subculture, for which we have no evidence? Was it an Aswadian subculture that occupied marginal zones and deserts? Notably, we have little information about the late PPNA (pre-Aswadian) first half of the 11th millennium cal. BP (especially its later centuries) west of the Rift too.

• 53 This kind of architecture persists in the desert areas throughout the PPNB.
• 54 NL 109 has bifacial tools but it is a workshop site, from which bifacials were exported to the Medi (...)

55The features of the Aswadian of the marginal and desert zones include small sites 0.01–0.10 ha in size, rounded and oval, stone-built, free-standing buildings,53 no use of lime plaster, bidirectional blade production (techno-stylistically different from the Mediterranean zone Aswadian [and from the northern EPPNB]), no reaping knives or sickle blades, a substantial component of Helwan points, very small numbers of El Khiam points if at all, emergence and rise of Jericho and Byblos points, no bifacial tools,54 sometimes a considerable amount of obsidian (e.g., NL 109), no (known) burials, relatively scarce imagery (mostly anthropomorphic). Here too, the observed cultural features occur against the backdrop of a hunting and gathering economy.

• 55 While some would consider Tell Aswad part of the north or the south (see footnote 14), Fujii (this (...)

56Thus, these two regional entities are sufficiently similar to belong to the same polythetic Aswadian cluster (of the EPPNB koine) and sufficiently different to justify their constitution as distinct subcultures. Pursuing this line of reasoning further, one may parcel out additional regional Aswadian subcultures. These may include the Damascus Basin and the Golan Heights (Tell Aswad, Qarassa north, Mujahiya),55 the Galilee (Kfar HaḤoresh, Horvat Galil, Aḥihud), the Carmel and northern coastal plain (Nahal Oren, Sefunim, Michrmoret 26, 26a), the Judean Hills (Motza), and the northern Negev and Negev Highlands (Abu Salem). Notably, regional cultures or subcultures can and have been suggested for the northern Levant EPPNB as well: the “Euphratian” or “Moyen-Euphrate” (Cauvin and Cauvin 1993; Kozłowski 1999; Kozłowski and Aurenche 2005: 75–76; Borrell and Molist 2014), the upper Tigris Basin (Kozlowski and Aurenche 2005: 75–76), and more.

• 56 As a rule, these reconstructions are accompanied by comparative data (correlations, or “synchronism (...)
• 57 Albeit with an obviously different perspective and attitude.

59The foregoing discussion of the Levantine EPPNB, in general, and the Aswadian culture, in particular, adheres to the premises of culture history. This paradigm maintains a normative view of culture, underscoring the transmission of behavioral norms from one generation to the next. As such, it is inclined to produce particularistic and local historical reconstructions,56 accounting for cultural change as a reaction to external developments (e.g., diffusion, migration). Archaeologically, the normative view of culture presupposes a correlation with its material manifestations. Following Childe,57 Clarke’s definition of archaeological cultures articulates this well: “Culture consists of a polythetic set of artefact types that consistently recurs in assemblages within a limited geographical zone” (Clarke 1978: 247, 298–299) and represents a shared information system (high information content) and a specific socio-cultural system.

• 58 Notably, attempts to apply contextual archaeology to the Neolithic Levant were not always successfu (...)
• 59 Childe’s (1929: pp. v–vi) definition of culture left place for “the folk” (“a people”)—the (ethnic) (...)

60This approach has been under heavy criticism since the 1960s, launched by “new,” “processual” archaeology. Drawing on neo-evolutionary theory, this school of archaeological thought maintains an ahistorical conceptualization of culture conceived as an extra somatic means of adaptation. In the 1980s, “post-processual” or “contextual archaeology” “revived” the historical element that was in so many ways characteristic of culture history.58 However, it did so while promoting a different view on human culture and agency. Rooted in postmodernism, it promoted a relativistic view, stressing the researcher’s biases and criticizing culture history on political grounds as laden with colonialist or Eurocentric leanings. Culture history was and is considered anachronistic in many circles (e.g., for Levantine Neolithic, see Kuijt 1996, 2000, 2003, 2017; Asouti 2006; Watkins 2013). Presently, the accepted approach tends to avoid the notion of culture altogether. Thus, Watkins (2013: 149) stated that culture-historical concepts and the concept of culture are “outdated and unhelpful”, and that they constitute “obstacles to the formation of a general understanding of the complex processes in which we are interested”. Instead, Watkins argues for “a simple, continuous chronological sequence whose blocks of time are numbered”, a periodization based on ordered ranges of calendrical years (i.e., Period 1, Period 2, etc.; see Aurenche et al. 1987). Significantly, however, this seemingly “neutral” technically numbered periodization holds, at least in my view, implicit meanings and promotes the production of certain types of historical accounts: namely, long-term, evolutionary, continuous processes (or spectra of situations) that depreciate human agency and distinction.59

• 60 Consider the following quote, for instance: “A bottom-up social network-based mode of investigating (...)

61Moreover, the dismissal of culture history as formulated by G. Childe and the analytical hierarchy of archaeological entities and cultures articulated by D. Clarke (and their use of cultural terms for describing active groups of living people) in favor of a technical, numbered sequence of entities has led scholars to speak of communities and social networks at various scales instead. However, the mobilization of these concepts ultimately comes remarkably close to the rebuked notion of culture.60 Indeed, Childe explicitly referred to these scales of social operations, and so did Clarke, viewing cultures as entities “of high sociocultural information content”. Therefore, Watkins’s (2013) appeal to differential scales of social networking appears to evoke features similar to those he dismisses for culture history. Indeed, culture history accounts for much of this networking through normative cultural mechanisms and engages networks of larger scales via correlations (or “synchronisms”), albeit with different motivations.

• 61 Culture history “assumes the existence of specific social groupings, each sharing a common past and (...)

62On these grounds, I see no compelling reason to avoid cultural designations. On the contrary, past groups deserve to be distinguished and named by virtue of their substance and historical uniqueness. Designating a past culture “Natufian” or “Aswadian” and its people “Natufians” or “Aswadians” allows for a degree of familiarity, much like when speaking of “Italians,” “Germans,” or “Swedish.” On the other hand, labelling them “people (or communities) of period 1 (or 2)” cultivates detachment and maintains a distance between them and ourselves, here and now. Concerning the Neolithic, this boils down to whether we believe best scholarly conduct calls for divorcing it from ourselves, often at the cost of estrangement, or for attaining the most profound understanding possible, perhaps at the risk of historical bias. I lean towards the latter;61 I suspect that preference for a detached approach is driven by political correctness, which is probably Neolithically incorrect (see Gopher 2020: 55–56). Archaeologically, this is best applied in a splitter’s spirit, proceeding in a manner that strives to produce the most detailed regional mosaic possible that can then be used for cultural analysis and interpretation. Those who want to macro-generalize can then lump these entities in any way they find suitable without giving up the splitting beforehand. The inclination, in some quarters of PPN research, to merge the PPNA and the EPPNB periods (e.g., Stordeur and Willcox 2009; Stordeur 2010; Willcox and Stordeur 2012; Asouti and Fuller 2013) illustrates the problems with the lumping approach. Indeed, the differences between the two periods, which together span almost one and a half millennia, and the distinctiveness of the EPPNB are acknowledged even by the lumpers themselves. It seems that the lumping analytical procedure risks sacrificing glaring cultural distinctions and introducing historical biases in order to capture convenient narratives of cultural fluidity and continuity. Conversely, analytical procedures that strive toward higher resolution and careful differentiation across periods, cultures, and subcultures are much better equipped to facilitate a precise and nuanced account and understanding of past societies and developments (for a more detailed discussion see Gopher 2020).

• 62 There are no claims for any cultural contacts between the Levant and Mesoamerica or Amazonia, or fo (...)

65Moreover, it is difficult to reconcile such polycentric accounts with the closely interconnected nature of the Levantine Neolithic koine, in which people, ideas, and substances constantly circulated. Indeed, non-centered models of cultural innovation and spread have recently been challenged by ancient DNA research that lent considerable support to diffusion- and migration-based models of cultural evolution. Consequently, the mechanism of diffusion that has been reproached as an old-fashioned and myopic explanatory device has been made legitimate once more. Concerning the Agricultural Revolution or, more specifically, plant and animal domestication, this invites a favorable reconsideration of a centered, core-area model (Gopher et al. 2021: chapters 4–5). So, while the existence of several culturally independent centers of domestication seems highly probable on a global scale (i.e., a case of convergent evolution),62 this is much less likely on smaller scales. At a narrower regional scope, a scenario of a centered, core-area domestication followed by spatial expansion—a “ripples-wave of advance pattern” (Abbo et al. 2006)—accords best (see also Abbo and Gopher 2017: fig. 1; Gopher et al. 2021: 82, fig. 3.1). This observation is convincingly reinforced by the demonstrated spread of Levantine domesticates throughout the Levant, across to Cyprus, the Balkans, and into Europe, on the one side (e.g., Olalde et al. 2019; Brace 2020), and to the Caucasus and farther east to the Indus Valley, on the other.

• 63 In this case, Fujii’s early claim (Fujii et al. 2019) for a possible incidental/occasional technolo (...)
• 64 Lime plaster has a long history in the southern Levant, and this intensification may have been a lo (...)
• 65 Notably, the bidirectional blade technology of the Aswadian is very similar to the northern blade t (...)

66The Levantine EPPNB suggests diffusion from north to south that proceeded element by element. Indeed, the south Levantine sequence outlined above suggests at least three “waves”, progressively implicating more profound and more fundamental social-behavioral structures, presenting increasingly onerous challenges to the preexisting cultural order. Thus, the first “wave” entailed a techno-typological lithic change, embodied by the Jordanian Badia culture’s adoption of bidirectional blade technology63 and the Helwan point sometime after 11,000 cal. BP. The second “wave” occurred ca. 10,500 cal. BP and entailed a shift from round to rectangular architecture and an intensification of lime plaster use in both domestic and funerary contexts.64 Whereas innovations in the lithic industry are likely to have affected flint craftsmanship and attendant economic activities (e.g., reaping and archery), the second wave amounted to the reorganization of social space, affecting all aspects of daily communal practice and ongoing socialization processes.65 The third “wave” took place immediately after the Aswadian, at the onset of the MPPNB. This wave carried the agricultural package of domesticates that revolutionized the subsistence economy and called for a wholesale ideological, behavioral, and organizational rearrangement; indeed, the very place of these people in the world had to be redefined.

• 66 Fujii’s “southern Levant corridor EPPNB” and Edwards’ “Levantine corridor EPPNB”

70Pulling together the observations made on the EPPNB throughout the paper, table 1 compares the three principal cultural entities discussed: the north Levantine EPPNB, the Aswadian culture of the southern Levant, mostly west of the Rift Valley66 and the Badia culture of the southern Levant, east of the Rift Valley. It portrays the polythetic EPPNB cluster, constituted by a range of innovative elements in the north, a large selection of them in the Aswadian, and only a few, mainly lithic traits, in the Badia culture. At the same time, it demonstrates that the main difference between north and south pertained to their economy. While the northern EPPNB (at least post 10,500 cal. BP) maintains domesticates, the two southern EPPNB cultural entities subsisted on hunting and gathering alone.

• 67 While the MPPNB of the southern Mediterranean zones adopts farming of domesticates, the marginal an (...)

72Presently, our chrono-stratigraphic understanding of the EPPNB in the south can be summarized as follows. The Badia culture of the first half of the 11^th millennium cal. BP occupied the Jordanian desert areas east of the Rift Valley and existed alongside the late PPNA (Sultanian) that persisted both west and east of the valley. Whether the Badia culture ought to be considered EPPNB by virtue of its bidirectional blade production and Helwan points or a late PPNA (Sultanian subculture?) is, for the time being, an open question, although I prefer the former. In the second half of the 11^th millennium cal. BP, the Aswadian culture replaced the late PPNA and possibly the Badia culture too, carrying new features of northern origin. It was in this vein of high-resolution, detailed cultural accounts that I suggested splitting the Aswadian culture into subcultures. Such splitting may unfold along various lines: geographical, occupational (e.g., the workshop of NL 109), “ethnic” (e.g., kinship-based units or migrant “others” and natives), social, economic,67 and so forth. Applying such detailed articulation of intra-cultural variability to our case is expected to set the ground for a comprehensive understanding of the Aswadian’s socio-cultural makeup.