Introduction

1For decades, there has been a general agreement among researchers that the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) in the Near East should be conceived and understood as a kind of peak point or zenith (or even a point-of-no-return) of the process initially termed the “Neolithic Revolution” (Childe 1928). It was during this almost 2000 years-long period (9th-8th millennium cal. BC and subdivided into Early, Middle and Late PPNB), that the culmination of several key transformations, the roots of which can be tracked back to the final Epipaleolithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) (e.g. Bar-Yosef and Valla 1990, 2013; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 2020), took place. These transformations include the transition to habitual/fully fledged plant cultivation and animal husbandry, the shift from circular to quadrilateral architecture, increased sedentism and the emergence of large-scale villages (in some cases “mega-sites”), a major change in the production of chipped stone tools (e.g. emergence and spread of the bidirectional blade technology and of certain projectile types), the intensification of long-distance exchange networks and appearance of distinct ritual and symbolic systems. All these large-scale transformations, evident throughout the Levant, evoked the idea of the emergence of a certain cultural uniformity throughout a broad cultural interaction zone (termed PPNB Interaction Sphere or Koine, sensu Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989; Cauvin 1994) extending over most of the Levant. This initial conception of what constituted “the PPNB in the Levant” was soon honed through the identification of both cultural, economic and chronological regional variations, not only between the northern and southern Levant, but also within those regions (defining “provinces” such as done, for example, by Aurenche and Kozłowski 1999 and see also Asouti 2007; Watkins 2008). Continued research in the region and a plethora of new data and studies has gradually supported a perception of heterogeneous homogeneity (or homogeneous heterogeneity) of the PPNB, supported by a fragile equilibrium between pan-Levantine and regionally and/or temporally focused features/processes. This has enlightened a concept of “mosaic developments” (e.g. Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2020), generally understood within the framework of the PPNB Koine or Interaction Sphere model.

2Under the umbrella of this paradigm, broadly accepted by most (if not all) academics working in the region, most discussions fundamentally turned around the major question of focus, pace and chronology of the above-mentioned innovations that traditionally defined and identified the PPNB. This means, among other things, assessing the very nature and chronology of the PPNA to PPNB transition in the Levant and the debate between the “core-area one-event” (e.g. Abbo et al. 2011; Cauvin 1990; Edwards 2016; Gopher et al. 2013; Kuijt 2003; Lev-Yadun et al. 2000) vs the “polycentric-diffused-protracted” (e.g. Finlayson et al. 2014; Gebel 2002; Khalaily et al. 2007) models, which we briefly summarized in the introductory paper we published in the first volume of this special issue (Birkenfeld et al. 2023).

3In light of the increasing number of major Early PPNB sites discovered in the southern Levant dating to the mid-9th millennium cal. BC (e.g. Motza, Ahihud, Kfar HaHoresh, Qarassa and Kharaysin) and due to the discovery of the challenging sites of Mushash 163 and Harrat Juhayra in the Jordanian Badia, with occupations (exhibiting characteristic EPPNB lithics) dating back to the first quarter of the 9th millennium, we considered it was time to make an effort to put all the data on the table and retake the debate about the origins of the Early PPNB in the southern Levant. That, additionally, meant addressing the question of the southern Levantine transition from PPNA to the PPNB, contributing to the more general “core area” vs “polycentric” debate and, accordingly, the origins of the Neolithisation process (or processes) in the entire Levant. This was our main objective when we invited a series of colleagues to participate in the publication of this thematic issue, which found a fitting home at Paléorient journal. We consider that the papers published in this two-volume thematic issue will be crucial for further studies, clarifying some key aspects, while at the same time implying and raising new questions. However, we also consider that the interpretation of the major advances presented here can be partly hindered by the often completely different understanding of what the Early PPNB is (or is defined by), either explicit or implicit in the studies presented. In the following section, we will summarize and discuss the impact of the new results (i.e. the “light”), but also bringing out the “shadows” that still dwell in the current state of research of the Early PPNB in the southern Levant.

New Data, New Advances… Old Problems

4The works published in this special issue represent, each from its own perspective and singularity, an important contribution for the better understanding of the PPNA to PPNB transition in the southern Levant and even beyond (e.g. providing some hints about the neighboring Arabian Peninsula). In addition, we consider it very positive that the bulk of the articles present new data and interpretations (some even preliminary) about sites located in very different regions and ecosystems of the southern Levant, from its northern limit, with Qarassa North in southern Syria, through Kharaysin in the Zarqa Valley (Jordan), Amqa and Ahihud in the Galilee (Israel) and Motza in the Judean Hills (Israel) and, finally, the desert areas of the eastern and southern borders with Nahal Zahal in the Negev desert (Israel) and ’Ainab 1, Mushash 163 and Harrat Juhayra 202 in the Jordanian Badia. Accordingly, a good sample of the wide diversity (in terms of landscape, climate, ecosystems) of regions that comprise the southern Levant are represented in this work, which we consider crucial for a comprehensive viewpoint of the processes at hand. These site-oriented presentations are complemented by three papers that have a different, wider scope, each with its specific approach and aims. In any case, all contributions have significant implications on the general and main topic of this special issue. The following is a brief summary of what we perceive as the meaning of the new data and results obtained, paying attention not only to what is explicitly said, but also what is also implicitly assumed.

5To this day, the sites of Motza, Ahihud, Qarassa and Kharaysin, together with a few others excavated several years ago (e.g. Kfar HaHoresh, Horvat Galil, Tel ’Ali or Jericho), constitute a very robust and comprehensive corpus of data that leaves no doubt as to the existence of middle-sized permanent agricultural communities on both sides of the Rift Valley from around the mid-9th millennium cal. BC. At these sites, which have been extensively excavated and display deep and significant stratigraphic sequences (in some cases with architectural superposition), most, if not all, “traditional” Early PPNB material culture elements are unequivocally identified (i.e. rectangular architecture, standardized bidirectional technology, predominance of tanged Helwan and Jericho points, etc.). In the case of Ahihud, even the consolidated cultivation of domestic legumes has been reported. Chronologically, the earliest of these occupations can be dated to around 8600-8500 cal. BC (Qarassa North), 8500-8400 cal. BC (Motza), 8400-8300 cal. BC (Kharaysin) and around 8300 cal. BC (Ahihud). Another remarkable aspect is that some of these sites show occupational continuity during the rest of the second half of the 9th millennium cal. BC. In light of this evidence, it can be concluded that the 8600-8400 cal. BC can be defined as the chronological framework for the initial but rapidly consolidating Early PPNB of the southern Levant, on both sides of the Rift Valley.

6This scenario, despite constituting a significant novelty, does not necessarily dictate a radical change in the current paradigm regarding the northern origins of the Early PPNB, as a certain chronological “delay” is still evident, in comparison to the earliest evidence in the northern Levant (e.g. Mureybet [IVa], Dja’de and Jerf el Ahmar), dating to approximately 8900-8800 cal. BC (e.g. Coqueugniot 1994; Stordeur and Abbès 2002; Courty and Coqueugniot 2013). However, we should not forget about the promising Level 2 from Kharaysin (PPNA-PPNB transitional occupations, excavation ongoing), which logically should chronologically fall somewhere during the first half of the 9th millennium cal. BC, later than the Late PPNA occupation (Level 1), dated to the end of the 10th millennium, and earlier than the consolidated Early PPNB occupation (Level 3), presented in this volume and dated to 8400-8300 cal. BC. In this respect, the chronology and the main features of Level 2 might bring some new data about the still poorly understood nature of the PPNA-PPNB transition in the region (at an intra-site scale in this case).

7Data and general interpretations coming from the study of these middle-sized permanent villages located in the Mediterranean zone on both sides of the Jordan Valley are well complemented with evidence coming from smaller occupations and/or limited short-time excavations in different regions and ecosystems such as Amqa in the Galilee, Nahal Zahal in the Negev desert and ’Ainab 1 in the southeastern Badia of Jordan. It is in sites such as these where it becomes evident that the chronological assignment of sites to the Early PPNB sites may at times rely solely on the existence of certain lithic techno-typological attributes (e.g. Helwan points), even when minimal and/or not “typical” (especially in the absence of 14C dates). Obviously, this might make further or refined interpretations more problematic. However, interestingly, both data and interpretations of these sites fit very well and complement the rest of the data, or at least does not pose a major challenge to it, unlike the sites of Mushash 163 and Harrat Juhayra 202, as we will see.

8The site of Amqa, a midden layer in a bedrock depression, is a nice addition to the growing body of evidence coming from a wide range of sites and contexts that are not permanent villages. Despite their obvious limitations, data from Amqa and from the small ephemeral/seasonal/hunting camps (e.g. Michmoret 26 and 26A [Birkenfeld 2018]), special activity sites (e.g. Nesher-Ramla, [Ullman et al. 2021]) and occupations in caves (e.g. el-Wad, Sefunim or Kebara [Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 2007]), provide a better and more comprehensive picture of settlement patterns during these early stages of Early PPNB in the Mediterranean corridor. In the case of Amqa, where no 14C dates are available, the combination of locally produced PPNA lithics with finished and well-developed PPNB lithics is interpreted as possibly indicating an early phase within the Early PPNB. Another possibility, not considered by the authors, is a PPNA site, well connected to nearby coetaneous Early PPNB site, from which the bidirectional blade component could derive. In any case, the nature of the context and the lack of radiocarbon dates do not allow a more refined interpretation of the chronology of the site.

9Regarding Nahal Zahal, a camp site in the Negev dated to the second half of the 9th millennium cal. BC, results allow placing the adoption of bidirectional technology and the production of Helwan points by groups of hunter gatherers inhabiting the southern arid fringes of the southern Levant as early as 8400-8300 cal. BC. In this case, the bidirectional blade component is not predominant at the site and clearly lacks the degree of standardization and expertise that characterize bidirectional blade technology at the contemporary Early PPNB permanent villages in the Mediterranean zone, which might be interpreted as evidence of these being the early stages of the adoption of this technology in the Negev.

10The site of ’Ainab 1 is located in the flat-arid region of southeastern Badia of Jordan, very close to the Saudi Arabian border. It consists of a group of large structures, which were partly visible on the surface, built with large upright tabular ashlars, forming round and curvilinear rooms that appear to merge. No 14C dates are available and interpretation of both the nature of the site and its chronology mainly relies on the techno-typological analysis of the abundant chipped assemblage. Lithic production at ’Ainab 1 was mainly oriented to producing large standardized and rectilinear bidirectional blades, mainly using the predetermined-upsilon variant of bidirectional technology. The abundance of Helwan points is notable, while other diagnostic tools such as Hagdud truncations are present but in limited numbers. All in all, the authors interpret the site as an Early PPNB seasonal hunting camp, thus providing significant insights into the diffusion of some innovations of the Early PPNB culture (in this case, bidirectional blade technology) from the Levant towards eastern Jordan and beyond (Arabia). No specific chronological attribution is given to the site except Early PPNB, but the presence of a well-developed and standardized bidirectional technology at the site leads the authors to interpret it as diffused from the Mediterranean zone during the second half of the 9th millennium, in concordance with the chronology of the Early PPNB in that region.

11The most novel and challenging data and subsequent interpretations come from two open-air sites also located in the flat arid steppes of the Jordanian Badia - Mushash 163 and Harrat Juhayra 202 (HJH-202). Both sites are quite small (less than 0.5 Ha) and have been only partially excavated. Excavation at both sites exposed oval architecture: small (between 2 m inner diameter) oval semisubterranean dwellings at Mushash 163 and a relatively large (5 m inner diameter) structure in the case of HJH-202. The lithic chipped stones are abundant at both sites and their techno-typological analyses, together with a series of 14C dates, have been key to the interpretation and cultural affiliation of the sites.

13The case of Mushash 163 is in some respects very similar to HJH-202, the major difference being that Mushash 163 was apparently inhabited for 3000 years. Through the combination of data from the techno-typological study of the chipped lithic assemblage (with the remarkable presence of Khiam, Helwan, Jericho, Byblos and Amuq projectile types and of a well-developed bidirectional blade technology and naviform cores) and the series of 14C dates obtained, the authors differentiate between four occupational phases (the first three associated with the architecture of the site). These are Phase 1= late PPNA/early EPPNB (ca. 9000/8900-8500 cal. BC), Phase 2= EPPNB (8500-8300/8200 cal. BC), Phase 3= MPPNB (8200-7500 cal. BC) and Phase 4= LPPNB/PPNB final-PPNC (7500-6400 cal. BC). The excavators concluded that the main occupation of the site took place between 8900-7900 cal. BC, though it couldn’t be concluded whether the site represented a permanent or only temporary/seasonal occupation. The site is thus interpreted, similarly to HJH-202, as another evidence of the earliest Early PPNB in the southern Levant, again predating the Early PPNB in the Mediterranean zone and equal or even earlier to the chronology established in the northern Levant.

14In summary, in the light of the new data from Mushash 163 and HJH-202, and through the chronological reinterpretation of a series of non-dated sites in the region with Helwan points and bidirectional technology (e.g. Abu Hudhud, Jilat 7, and even ’Ainab 1), the authors propose a novel and challenging hypothesis about the origin of the Early PPNB, proposing the existence of a local PPNA/PPNB transition in the flat arid steppes of the Jordanian Badia. In this respect, Mushash 163, HJH-202 (and the rest of the above-mentioned reinterpreted sites) constitute a distinct new Early PPNB cultural entity, whose earliest evidence can be tracked back to the 9100-8900 cal. BC., i.e. in parallel if not earlier to the Early PPNB in the northern Levant and predating by some centuries the Early PPNB in the Mediterranean zone. This autochthonous Early PPNB (that did not diffuse to the neighbouring regions for almost 500 years) influenced, together with the influxes from the northern Levant, the later development of the Early PPNB in the Mediterranean zone starting around the mid-9th millennium cal. BC. This is obviously a major and novel contribution to the debate on the origins, meaning and developments of the socio-economic and cultural innovations that are associated with the neolithization process/ess not only of the southern Levant but also of the Near East. However, this interpretation isn’t, obviously, devoid of controversy and can be perceived as fragile: What the authors are implicitly doing, is to de facto restrict the definition of Early PPNB to the identification of two lithic features (bidirectional blade technology and Helwan points). Moreover, their postulation is based on data from a few small open-air sites in the desert Badia of Jordan. On the contrary, the archaeological record of the Early EPPNB of the northern Levant derives from large, major and well-stratified sites, which, at least regarding the origins of bidirectional blade technology, shows coherent local development and does not support the polycentric origins of this major Early PPNB innovation. Thus, while the debate regarding Early PPNB origins has now become more intricate, it is in no way resolved.

15The rest of the contributions to the special issue are three articles that are more theoretical in nature, due to their much broader scope and wider regional or supra-regional points of view. In an interesting way, each article does so from a very different perspective, obviously reaching equally diverse conclusions.

16Having previously approached the topic of Early PPNB chronology and dispersals by examining specific site data, Edwards in his current contribution offers a broader reflection on the state of research, in light of the more recent evidence available. He pays special attention to the results of what he considers four key sites: Kharaysin, Mushash 163, HJH-202 and, surprisingly, Shubayqa 6. He reflects on several aspects, starting from a more theoretical discussion on the meaning of the term PPNB as an equivocal category, and the common use of the traditional archaeological “culture” concept, as defined by Kossinna (Kossinna 1896; Veit 1989). He discusses the validity of the concepts of Polythetic Cultural Change through time and of “culturogenesis” as a valid context for the study of the emergence of the earliest PPNB sites in the southern Levant and the dispersal of the PPNB Culture. Edwards later turns to more specific aspects and topics such as the means of the diffusion of the PPNB innovations (whether migration of people or knowledge transfer) or the increasingly pointless discussions about the introduction of specific items, such as Helwan points, as a guide to understanding the advent of the PPNB farming village, as this type “travels” further east and south. He proposes breaking up the EPPNB into Sub-Regions (e.g. EPPNB—Jordan Valley, EPPNB—Jafr Basin), or “provinces” as Aurenche or Kozłowski did in the past (Kozłowski 1999; Kozłowski and Aurenche 2005) or Gopher in this volume, because a unitary “EPPNB” taxon can no longer be usefully employed on a pan Levantine scale due to the marked diversity of manifestations in various regions.

17All in all, Edwards remains an advocate for the primacy of the northern Levantine Early PPNB. He suggests a potential initial penetration of EPPNB cultural traits, carried or exchanged by hunter-gatherers moving through the eastern flank of the southern Levant around 8600 cal. BC, to very Late PPNA sites such as Mushash 163 and Shubayqa 6. These sites, in turn, should be understood as a patchwork of advances by both settled agrarian farming villagers and mobile hunter-gatherers. He concludes that the data is still limited to be conclusive. He stresses that given the complexity of the topic and the relatively short time in which substantial changes took place, the careful study, quantification and publication of material culture elements, especially lithic types, are more necessary than ever, as is the publication of the stratigraphic sequences and the specific contexts 14C dates and key artefacts were recovered from.

18The challenging discovery and interpretation of the new Badia sites and the consequent increasing complexity of the PPNA to PPNB transition in the southern Levant is also at the core of Finlayson et al. contribution. According to the authors, this complexity results mainly from the apparent coexistence of two distinct (yet contemporaneous) material culture traditions (as representing ethnic groups) in different parts of central and southern Jordan between 8900 and 8200 cal. BC (it is not fully clear if both are considered fully indigenous [independent local developments] or not). Following their appearance, a long-term process of hybridization took place, covering the better part of the 9th millennium BC, ultimately leading to the emergence of a distinctly local expression of the Middle PPNB. This coexistence and gradual process/ess of cultural hybridization would explain why every site in this transitionary early Neolithic period appears somewhat different, blurring the distinction between Late PPNA and Early PPNB traits, which are often found fluidly mixed. Within this context of cultural hybridization, the quest for a “fully-fledged”, archetypal, pure form of Early PPNB culture, preceded by a distinct PPNA culture and in turn heralding a distinct Middle PPNB is pointless, as is the use of Helwan points as a cultural or even chronological marker. This new approach, which constitutes the maximum expression (explicitly done) of the deconstruction process of the definition (of the cultural traits) of the Early PPNB, opens the doors to more fluid and, in the authors’ words, ambiguous interpretations of the archaeological record of the early Neolithic in this part of SW Asia, which at the same time fluidly intertwines with a multicentric or uncentred concept of the Neolithic world and its innovations.

19Finally, to make things more diverse, interesting, and complex, Gopher in his paper advocates for culture history as the valid conceptual and analytical framework of archaeological analysis. Gopher sees Neolithic cultures (and in this particular case, those of the Early PPNB) as representatives of specific, past sociocultural entities. In his approach, through the evaluation of a series of cultural aspects (lithics, architecture, settlement patterns, subsistence practices, burial customs, as well as imagery and symbolism), he outlines the Aswadian culture (and subcultures) in the southern Levant, extending from the Damascus Basin to the northern parts of the Negev and from the Mediterranean coast to the eastern side of the Rift Valley, and positions it in the broader context of the Levantine EPPNB. Regarding the contextualization of the Aswadian, Gopher states that the EPPNB cultural complex in the Levant, which constitutes a large-scale Levantine koine, should be divided into two cultural groups: northern and southern, which can again be subdivided into subcultures or “provinces” (a term used by other colleagues in the northern Levant [Aurenche and Kozłowski 1999; Kozłowski and Aurenche 2005]). For the south, Gopher proposes a distinction between the early Badia culture in the marginal and desert zones to the east (coeval to the late PPNA Sultanian), originating from an early, limited influx/contact with its northern Levantine counterparts, and a later Aswadian culture, which appears mainly in the Mediterranean zone. The latter would be a more recognizable Early PPNB culture in terms of the elements analysed, and similar to the northern Early PPNB, but with the main difference of subsistence still based on hunting and gathering. In addition, he makes clear that he sees the Aswadian culture as crystallized through mechanisms of diffusion with concepts originating in the north rather than evolving autochthonously from the preceding Badia culture or the PPNA Sultanian. He also makes clear that he views domesticates (plants and animals) and a whole series of Early PPNB innovations as emerging in the north and spreading south over several centuries, tracing the Neolithic wave of advance across the Levant and generating, in the process, a multitude of local diverse and dynamic developments. In his eyes, the possibility of convergent evolution at several culturally independent centres of domestication/innovation is possible only on a large (planetary) scale, and is less likely in smaller scales (i.e. the Near East), thus making real independent polycentric accounts highly improbable.

So, in conclusion, what does the Early PPNB really mean?

20In our viewpoint, the works published in the two volumes of Paléorient, comprising the thematic issue dedicated to the Early PPNB of the southern Levant, perfectly reflect the state-of-the-art of archaeological research regarding the origin of the Neolithic in the Near East, but also, in part, certain archaeological realities. As we have seen, archaeological research in the southern Levant is as abundant, not to say frenetic, as it is in the northern Levant. With the only exception of Syria, where the armed conflict that has lasted thirteen years has left vast areas of its territory with hardly any research, it can be said that there are archaeological projects in all regions, both in the most populated and in the most inhospitable. Thus, the data generated are diverse and the advances are very significant. A good example of this is that today it is difficult to argue against the existence of an Early PPNB stage in the southern Levant. It is evident and clear and can be well dated to ca. 8500-8300 cal. BC. However, this significant advancement has not though led to any consensus, quite the contrary, on its chronology, nature or origins. Not only that, but it has given rise to a situation of total diversity on what is understood as Early PPNB and its material culture definition. The secondary effect of this is that it prevents progress on that crucial question that hovers above every work published here and in fact over all research on the Neolithic in the Near East: Did the observed innovations (i.e. PPNB economic, technological and social developments) have a single origin? Or, did it develop in parallel with several independent locations? Moreover, perhaps each innovation could have had different evolution processes, originating in different locations?

21In the articles published in these thematic issues, some authors already highlight the key factor that has triggered what is in fact nothing more than a process of deconstruction of what Early PPNB means or is defined as: The expansion of research on the early stages of the Neolithic (the PPNA-PPNB transition) to the entire geography of the Levant and beyond (e.g. Cappadocia, Zagros, Cyprus, Egypt) has exposed greater variability of the material record than perhaps expected. This has stressed that the processes and the material culture elements traditionally considered part of the classic Early PPNB only appear in their entirety at very few sites. In many other sites and regions, only a few of the “Early PPNB characteristics” can be identified, which casts a shadow of doubt regarding the validity of many of the traditional diagnostic elements as chronological or cultural markers. This situation of greater variability and the determination to continue using the term Early PPNB over an increasingly larger area and where most of those elements initially considered diagnostic are no longer identified, has, indirectly, forced a gradual deconstruction of the term (and the associated materiality) of “the Early PPNB”, in a process very similar to which has occurred with the “Neolithic package” and the spread of the Neolithic throughout Europe (e.g. Perlès 2020; Borrell et al. 2022). In view of the recent contributions and ongoing research, it is clear that the defining elements that are currently used to attribute a site to the Early PPNB, leaving aside the 14C dates (when available), are diverse and changing, with the presence of bidirectional blade knapping and/or Helwan points being recurrently considered as the most convincing element (without both features necessarily having to appear together [i.e. Helwan points made on bidirectional blades, or not], and see below). The rest of the elements (architecture, burial practices, subsistence, and all those that in one way or another make up the economic and social context of a community) may not be decisive and indirectly come to be implicitly considered as secondary. In the same way, the geographical and environmental context (landscape, climate, etc.) in which the site/community is located is not considered decisive either. So, at the end, as Edwards points out in his work, we put the same label on and compare things as disparate as a small hunter-gatherer station in the arid reaches of South Jordan with a large agrarian village in the Mediterranean west or even in the middle Euphrates Valley. This is not a minor issue because what it actually means is that the Early PPNB is no longer understood as a highly dynamic socio-economic period characterized by the practice of incipient (intensive?) agriculture and livestock farming prior to the appearance and generalization of morphologically domesticated plants and animals (during the Middle PPNB), all this in the context of socio-economic innovations (the result of changes and new needs) that are very relevant in terms of architecture, lithic tools, etc. What has not changed is the general paradigm of study, since whether it is identified from one or more elements, the approach of analysis is quite similar and it is based on the reconstruction of cultural/archaeological cultures of the past (e.g. Early PPNB Badia, Early PPNB Aswadian, Early PPNB Mediterranean Corridor) through some aspects of their material culture.

23In relation to bidirectional blade technology, its presence is much wider and more widespread and clearly constitutes a marked change in local lithic traditions and a shift in projectile technology, rapidly evolving from previous microlitization to a standardized production of large, straight, and pointed blades from opposed-platform cores. Consequently, bidirectional blade technology is considered the most common and diagnostic formal component of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) material culture in the Levant. In this sense, its potential as a chronological and cultural marker does not seem to have diminished over time, quite the opposite, since as a result of the deconstruction of the “Early PPNB package” it has emerged as the last “surviving” element that allows seamless identification throughout the Levant of the Early PPNB culture or the different cultural subgroups that comprise it. The new challenge in relation to bidirectional blade technology has nothing to do with its chronological and cultural value, but with its origin and diffusion. Until the publication of the Mushash 163 and HJH 202 articles, there was a clear consensus that bidirectional blade technology originated at ca. 9000-8800 cal. BC in the middle Euphrates Valley (Abbès 2003, Barzilai 2010, Borrell and Khalaily 2016; Borrell 2017), rapidly expanding throughout varied socioeconomic contexts and ecosystems. By the end of the 9th millennium cal. BC (Middle PPNB) it had become the dominant method for blade production at almost all sites from Cappadocia to the Sinai Peninsula. Recent discoveries in the Jordanian Badia has led to the proposal that it originated independently and at the same time in both regions. This hypothesis fits perfectly into the current inclination of considering that most, if not all, of the innovations linked to the neolithization process could have had polycentric origins (multiple and independent). This is something that future research will help to clarify. However, pending new available data, it is possible to reflect on some aspects of such an innovative hypothesis regarding the origin of bidirectional blade technology, basically considering the economic, social (and ecological) context in which this new technology is proposed to originate.

24Firstly, there is no doubt that bidirectional blade technology constituted a very significant change in relation to previous lithic industries, and in the middle Euphrates Valley its appearance occurs within communities that are immersed in a series of novel socio-economic changes, culminating in the appearance of the first groups whose subsistence relied on fully fledged agriculture. Accordingly, within this dynamic and general context of transformation and growth, bidirectional blade technology can be understood as a response to new needs (e.g. the need for new tools such as large sickles). Likewise, the ecological context of the Euphrates Valley is decisive since it allows the development of these first agricultural societies, which gives us a very clear idea of how embedded this technology seems to have been with the development of agriculture in the region. In the case of the Jordanian Badia, the answer is not so clear, since its origin is proposed in a context of small groups of hunter-gatherers from an arid area. Secondly, in the middle Euphrates valley, all the previous stages necessary for the development of the bidirectional blade technology are documented, such as the production of larger unidirectional blades, the knapping of two opposing platforms that are not completely complementary, and finally developing into the bidirectional knapping in its most standardized and classical form (e.g. Abbès 2003, 2007, 2008). This seriation, to this day, still does not seem clear in the Jordanian Badia. Lastly, in the middle Euphrates Valley, this innovation rapidly expanded in multiple directions (e.g. Urfa region, the upper Euphrates and Tigris valleys, Cappadocia, Orontes, Balikh and Khabour valleys, Cyprus, etc.). In stark contrast, in the Jordanian Badia, bidirectional blade technology doesn’t seem to spread for several centuries, which is also a phenomenon that remains to be explained.

25To conclude, we think it is important to comment on the different responses or “solutions” that are currently being proposed at the level of approach and interpretation in the face of the current panorama of greater variability and deconstruction of the Early PPNB, as clearly expressed in some of the articles published in this thematic issue. On the one hand, some support a more classical approach through the identification of the great cultures but also subcultures (regional variants), which will obviously show certain differences in their material aspects. Others propose that the current variability should be seen as the result of the existence of cultural hybridization processes and of several innovation centers, which would give rise to a kind of cultural patchwork that is difficult to categorize. All approaches have their pros and cons and we all have a huge task ahead of us, because it is not enough to say that there is hybridization or that everything could be invented everywhere, it is necessary to study and explain each innovation, each hybridization independently and give it a chronological and spatial context, in the same way that it will have to be done for the identification of all the various subcultures and regional variants of the Early PPNB, as has been done with the Aswadian.