Navigation – Plan du site
Articles

Migrations and Intercultural Relations in the Levant during PPNB

Les migrations et les relations interculturelles dans le Levant au Néolithique précéramique B (PPNB)
Gaëlle Le Dosseur
Traduction(s) :
Les migrations et les relations interculturelles dans le Levant au Néolithique précéramique B (PPNB)

Texte intégral

1Before tackling the question of migrations and intercultural relations in the Levant during PPNB, we must discuss the concept of culture and explain why archaeologists prefer the term “material culture” which better fits the kind of reconstructions they are able to make.

  • 1  Identifying cultures thus cannot lead to their being reified (Izard, 1991).

2In anthropology, “culture” refers to any ethnographic group which presents significant differences with other groups (in its values, its behavior, its knowledge, whose limits coincide approximately)(Lévi-Strauss, 1958). The identified cultures are therefore not data but results of investigations and comparisons.1 Now the terms of comparisons never vary all at the same time from one culture to another, and the ones that vary in a concomitant way don’t always vary with the same intensity (Izard, 1991, p. 191). We must therefore be cautious in our use of the term “cultures” and remain aware that the limits of these cultures are all relative.

3This being said, can we identify cultures in archaeology? If defining culture is difficult for anthropologists who study all aspects of living societies, it is all the more so for archaeologists who deal with dead people. Indeed, archaeologists only have at their disposal material traces of a small part of technical, social, and symbolic activities. Thus, they limit themselves to identifying “material cultures,” which can be defined as coherent associations of characteristics whose traces are material. Archaeologists know that these “material cultures” don’t necessarily correspond to anthropological realities (Leclerc and Tarrête, 1995).  

4This article will deal with populations of the Levant (fig. 1) who produced different material cultures and whose relations intensified at one specific moment of the Neolithic: the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. These relations will be investigated through one activity little studied in this perspective until now: the exploitation of bone materials. My goal is to determine whether the intensified contacts between the different populations had an influence on bone working. Furthermore, I will see if it is possible to clarify the kind of relations between the various  populations of the Levant according to the data collected in bone industry.

5The prehistoric context and the state of the debate about the relations in the Levant will first be presented. I will then explain the method of work and the results gathered from my study of the bone industry before concluding.

Fig. 1: Map of the PPNB sites, studied and cited

Fig. 1: Map of the PPNB sites, studied and cited

The context

6In the Levant, the Neolithic age extends from 13,000 to 5,000 cal BC. It is characterized by the transition from a nomadic way of life based on hunting and gathering to a sedentary way of life based on breeding and agriculture. Five major periods have been identified in the whole Neolithic era in the Levant. During the Natufian period (13,000-9,600 cal BC), nomadism declines. The first agricultural experiments take place during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA: 9,600-8,700 cal BC). The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB: 8,700-6,900 cal BC) sees the beginning of livestock farming, an activity that increases during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic C (PPNC: 6,900-6,500 cal BC). Finally, in the Pottery Neolithic (PN: 6,500-5,000 cal BC), people use the ceramic technique for the first time in the south while they develop it in the north.

7Different material cultures were identified in the Levant over all the Neolithic period. In PPNB, the period this article deals with, the populations of the north (Middle-Euphrates) and of the south (Palestine, Jordan) develop specific characteristics on a shared basis.

8As for the shared characteristics, people from both the Northern and the Southern Levant domesticate and raise caprids then aurochs while they strengthen agriculture. They develop villages, in which they commonly build quadrangular houses. They place storage structures in private houses rather than in common spaces (Lebreton, 2003; Byrd, 2000). In the flint production, the very sophisticated naviforme debitage technique is favored and the resulting blanks are used to produce typical big points. Their production is increasingly standardized. Finally, in iconography and symbolism, more and more importance is given to the human being, to male attributes, and to the image of the bull… (Cauvin, 1997).

9Beside those shared characteristics, some others can only be found in the south, and part of them is found in Damascene as well. These southern characteristics include the statues made of plaster, the plastered skulls, the stone masks, the fan-shaped cutting tools made out of stone or bone, the points of Jericho, the use of naviform debitage on big blocks of stone, the two types of basketwork called “vanneries cordées” and “à nappes superposées” (Stordeur, 1989), the persisting circular constructions and livestock farming – goat farming, for the most part.

10Painted walls, funeral groupings in special constructions (Coqueugniot, 2000), the type of basketwork called “nattes,” and polished axes and adzes, as for them, are only found in the north.

  • 2  Obsidian from Anatolia is found in small quantity in the south as soon as final Natufian (Valla et (...)

11The populations behind these two different material cultures were in contact. The presence in the south of obsidian coming from Anatolia is one of the best evidence of this (Cauvin, 1997). The relations between the north and the south, which started in fact as soon as final Natufian,2 reached a particularly high intensity during PPNB. During that period, many characteristics that apparently appeared in one of the two regions spread all over the Levant. For a long time, archaeologists thought that most of these characteristics had been passed on from the north to the south (Cauvin, 1997). These characteristics include the quadrangular architecture, the naviforme debitage technique, sheep farming, engrain growing, the representation of bulls…

12Several hypotheses on the kind of relations between the Northern and the Southern Levant have then been put forward.

13According to J. Cauvin (1997) and P. Edwards (Edwards et al., 2005), only migrations of populations from the north to the south and their settlement in the PPNB could explain the sudden and durable introduction of northern characteristics in the south. J. Cauvin (1997) calls upon anthropological arguments; according to him, “slender Mediterranean [people]” coming from the north were found in Jericho next to the typically southern “robust Mediterranean [people].”

14According to another hypothesis, characteristics did not get passed on from one region to another because people migrated; rather, they were passed on because people borrowed objects and ideas within the framework of intensified contacts and exchanges. A. Gopher (1989, 1994) calls upon the frequency of flint points in space and time: such frequency reveals that the flint points were not suddenly introduced in the south by a new population but rather gradually spread through contacts and transfers of ideas. One must note, however, that Gopher’s spatiotemporal study uses data from Aswad in Damascene and that the dates for this site have recently been corrected (Stordeur, 2003). Supporting Gopher’s point of view, the anthropologists G. Kurth and O. Röhrer-Ertl (1981), who worked on Jericho skeletons, didn’t notice any change between the populations of PPNA and PPNB, therefore contradicting Cauvin’s argument (cf. supra).

15At the end of the 90s, those were the two main ways of understanding the populations’ relations in the Levant during PPNB. Today, new excavations in the south (Khalaily et al., 2007) and in Damascene (Stordeur, 2003) have renewed the debate.

16The main discussion focuses on the northern origin of some characteristics that spread in the Levant in PPNB, as well as on their being passed on in a unidirectional way from the north to the south. Recent excavations in Aswad in Damascene revealed that some of these characteristics may have actually been passed on from Damascene to other regions. This is the case of a very sophisticated kind of naviform debitage, which was previously thought to have appeared in the north (Abbès and Stordeur, personal communication).

17It is too early to suggest a new model for the populations’ relations in the Levant. But we will most probably have to tend towards a model of multidirectional transmissions more complex but also more realistic than the one that has been suggested until now. Common characteristics found all over the Levant may have gradually emerged from innovations and evolutions which took place in various regions and which then spread thanks to intensified contacts and exchanges during PPNB.

18I will now present the information gathered from my analysis of the bone industry.

Bone industry: the method

19I will first explain the method I used to study bone industries.

20My research on past societies is based on my understanding how they worked and used bone materials. For each studied collection, the produced forms are described and the “chaînes opératoires” are reconstructed, from the acquisition of raw materials to the use of objects, both from a technical and from an economical point of view. The reconstructions are done with the help of mental refitting, a refitting method adapted to the properties of bone materials (Averbouh, 2000).

Bone industry: the results

21The following results are based on the direct study of five PPNB sites in the Southern Levant (fig. 1) and on the published literature about sites in the north. Considering the small amount of sites investigated here, the inequality between the studies undertaken in the north and in the south, and the lack of published data on the renewed excavations in Damascene so far, the work presented here must be considered preliminary.

Fig. 2: PPNB objects found both in the Northern and in the Southern Levant

Fig. 2: PPNB objects found both in the Northern and in the Southern Levant

a and b: awls from ‘Ain Ghazal (LPPNB) (Pictures G. Le Dosseur. All right reserved - Yarmouk University);
c: flat knives from Motza (EPPNB/MPPNB) (Picture G. Le Dosseur. All right reserved - Israel Antiquities Authority);
d: awl from Motza (EPPNB/MPPNB) (Picture G. Le Dosseur. All right reserved - Israel Antiquities Authority);
e and f: tubular beads from Motza (EPPNB/MPPNB) (Pictures G. Le Dosseur. All right reserved - Israel Antiquities Authority);
g: flat knife from Nahal Hemar (MPPNB/LPPNB) (Picture G. Le Dosseur. Courtesy O. Bar Yosef).

22In PPNB, a large amount of bone objects and of technical practices is spread all over the Levant. Everywhere, equipments include numerous awls (fig. 2: a, b, d), flat knives (fig. 2: c, g), cutting tools, needles, tubular beads (fig. 2: e, f)…. More exceptional productions like big hooks (fig. 3: a, b, c) or hafts made out of antler (fig. 3: d, e) are found in the north and in the south as well during PPNB.

23All the basic techniques and methods of bone working (shaving, abrasion, grooving, sawing, chopping, percussion, bipartition...) are mastered in the whole Levant. More particular processes, like perforating by longitudinal grooving, are found both in the north and in the south during  PPNB (fig. 4).  

24In the case of ordinary objects (awls, flat knives), at the basis of equipments since the Natufian period, these similarities obviously result from very old diffusion processes or from convergence. In the north and in the south, similar simple tools are used for similar basic activities (skin working, basketry...).

Fig. 3: PPNB objects found both in the Northern and in the Southern Levant

Fig. 3: PPNB objects found both in the Northern and in the Southern Levant

a: big hook from Nahal Hemar (MPPNB/LPPNB) (Bar Yosef and Alon, 1988, fig. 13, p .18, Courtesy of the IAA);
b: big hook from Abu Hureyra (LPPNB) (Sidéra, 1998, fig. 10:6, p .230);
c: big hook from çafer Höyük (EPPNB/MPPNB) (Stordeur, 1988b, fig. 3: 6, p .213);
d: haft made out of antler from Abu Gosh (MPPNB) (drawing G. Le Dosseur. All right reserved - Israel Antiquities Anthority);e: haft made out of antler from çafer Höyük (EPPNB/MPPNB) (Stordeur, 1988b, fig. 2: 4a, p. 212).

25The same phenomena explain the wide use of basic techniques and methods (shaving, abrading, bipartition…), which are part of the technical “repertoire” at least since the Natufian.

  • 3  Hafts and perforation by longitudinal grooving can be found in the north as soon as PPNA. Big hook (...)

26In the case of more exceptional objects like the big hooks, like the hafts made out of antler, or in the case of new and original processes like perforating by longitudinal grooving, one wonders whether their appearance all over the Levant in PPNB resulted from contacts between populations at this time rather than from convergence. According to current data, these characters first appeared in the north.3

27Most of the time, the northern object or technique was modified in its new southern environment. The shape of the object, the way it was made, or its function changed; or the new technique originally from the north was used differently once it was introduced in the south. The “foreign” object or technique was thus adapted to a new environment, to a new system.

28Such was the case of a haft made out of cervid antler, found in Abu Gosh (fig. 3: d). While in the north, hafts have the very regular shape of small cups (fig. 3: e), the haft from Abu Gosh has a peduncle (fig. 3: d), which means that in the south, hafts didn’t have the exact same function or functioning as the hafts in the north.

Fig. 4: The process of perforating by longitudinal grooving

Fig. 4: The process of perforating by longitudinal grooving

a: the process of perforating by longitudinal grooving, from two sides;
b: the process used to make “needles of Mureybet” in the Northern Levant in çafer Höyük, EPPNB/MPPNB (Stordeur, 1988b, fig. 2.1a, p. 212);
c: the process used to make flat pointed and cutting tools in Nahal Hemar MPPNB/LPPNB (drawings and pictures G. Le Dosseur. Courtesy O. Bar Yosef).

29It is also the case of the process of perforating by longitudinal grooving. In the north, this process is systematically and almost only used to produce a specific kind of needle called « needles of Mureybet » (fig. 4: b) (Stordeur and Christidou, 2008; Stordeur, 1988b). In the south, the same process is used in a very different context of production: it is used to perforate flat pointed tools or flat knives (Motza, Nahal Hemar) (fig. 4: c). The process was thus taken out of its initial technical system in order to be adapted to a new technical system. This process has been identified on a small number of sites so far; it was used for the production of a very small variety of objects; and it seems to have been used in a closed system (Roux, 2007). It mustn’t have been widely spread.

Two working hypotheses are put forward to explain the modification in the south of these northern elements

30According to the first hypothesis, people from the north settled down in the south and adapted their equipment and their technical system to the new context (to a new “milieu extérieur” and “intérieur”; Leroi-Gourhan, 1945, 1973).

Fig. 5: Objects found in one region only

Fig. 5: Objects found in one region only

a: sectioned bone used as a cutting tool from çafer Höyük, EPPNB/MPPNB (Stordeur, 1988b, fig. 1, p. 211);
b: ring from ‘Ain Ghazal LPPNB (Picture G. Le Dosseur. All right reserved - Yarmouk University);
c: fan-shaped cutting tools from Motza EPPNB/MPPNB (Picture G. Le Dosseur. All right reserved - Israel Antiquities Authority);
d and e: flat pointed tools from Motza EPPNB/MPPNB (Pictures G. Le Dosseur. All right reserved - Israel Antiquities Authority).

  • 4  Heavy cutting fan-shaped tools and flat pointed tools found in these industries from PPNB are very (...)
  • 5  Some of the northern characteristics that were found in the south during PPNB existed in the north (...)

31The industries in which the adapted northern elements were found show certain similarities with more ancient southern traditions.4 We could think, therefore, that populations from the north came to the south before the time during which the adapted northern elements appear, in the very beginning of PPNB or even in PPNA5. Since their arrival, the new populations would have had the time to modify their initial material culture and to integrate the one that preexisted in the south by mixing with local populations. So far, however, no site in which northern elements would have first been introduced without any change have been found. According to the data at hand, therefore, the following second hypothesis should be favored.  

32According to this second hypothesis, populations from the south were in contact with people from the north during PPNB and the former adopted some of the latter’s objects and techniques. By doing so, the southerners adapted these objects and techniques to a new context. Why did southerners borrow from northerners? What is the advantage of the process of perforating by longitudinal grooving, compared to the pre-existing processes? Is it easier to get a chisel or any cutting flake and groove a hole than to get a borer and make a hole by rotation? Is it technically safer to perforate by longitudinal grooving than by rotation? In the south, longitudinal grooving is almost always used on blanks coming from flat bones. Experiments could help demonstrate if, in this case, grooving is indeed better suited than rotation. Finally, if the adoption of northern processes couldn’t be explained by material advantages, could it be understood as a mean of social distinction?

33The hypothesis that populations from the south borrowed objects and techniques from northerners without the latter’s necessarily settling in the south during PPNB could be supported by the fact that in the south, new technical habits appeared gradually rather than abruptly. For example, during the Natufian, people from the south primarily used proximal ends of metapodials to make awls; they then tended to use distal ends of metapodials and finally used the latter almost exclusively during PPNB (fig. 6).

34Besides the similarities in the bone industries found in the Northern and in the Southern Levant, differences also exist. Despite the intensification of contacts within the Levant, some objects and technical processes did not reach the south (sectioned bones used as cutting tools, (fig. 5: a); needles of Mureybet, (fig. 4: b)) while others were not used in the north (fan-shaped cutting tools (fig. 5: c); flat pointed tools, (fig. 5: d, e); rings, (fig. 5: b)). Either migrant populations didn’t want or didn’t need to reproduce all their equipment in a new environment, either populations in contact with foreign elements were not able to adopt them or didn’t need to do so for economical, technical, social, symbolical reasons….

Fig. 6: In the Southern Levant, the new choice of using distal ends of metapodials to make awls appears gradually

Fig. 6: In the Southern Levant, the new choice of using distal ends of metapodials to make awls appears gradually

Conclusion

35The study of bone industries in the Levant sheds light on exchanges of objects and techniques from one region to another during PPNB. These bone industries – like many others – illustrate the relations developed and sustained between the populations at this time in this area. Bone industries, however, are very inconspicuous: related to everyday life and to the domestic sphere, the bone industry is not one of those rare and prestigious productions that usually spread in a visible way during intensified exchanges. However, thanks to the few identified exchanges from the north to the south, was it possible to clarify the kind of relations between people in the Levant during PPNB?  

36Northern elements introduced in the south were usually modified in the new environment. In addition, these elements appeared in a general context often strongly connected to past traditions from the south. It can’t be excluded that northern people settled in the south, binging new elements with them and mixing with southern people, some time before modifications became noticeable. However, unless we find the sites where northern people settled before modification and mixing took place, another hypothesis should be favored. According to this second hypothesis, the populations that had long lived in the south adopted and adapted northern characteristics which probably spread thanks to intensified contacts and exchanges during PPNB.

I want to thank the two organizers of the Seminar, Caroline Rozenholc and Sylvain Bauvais, for giving me the opportunity to communicate these results on intercultural relations during PPNB. I also thank very much H. Khalaily, O. Bar Yosef, G. Rollefson, Z. Kafafi and D. Stordeur for allowing me to study the bone collections. I wish to thank P. de Miroschedji for his advice during the writing process and M. Barazani for publication. I also thank J. Grumbach for translating this article into French. Finally, I am grateful to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs for their financial support this year (Lavoisier).

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Averbough, A.
2000   Technologie de la matière osseuse travaillée et implications palethnologiques : l’exemple des chaînes d’exploitation du bois de cervidé chez les Magdaléniens des Pyrénées. PhD thesis, Université de Paris I, 2 vol.

Bar Yosef, O. and Alon, D.
1988   Nahal Hemar Cave. Atiqot, 18.

Byrd, B.
2000   Households in transition: neolithic social organization within Southwest Asia. In Kuijt I. ed., Life in neolithic farming communities, Social organization identity and differentiation, Kluwer Academic, Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 63-102.

Cauvin, J.
1997   Naissance des divinités, naissance de l’agriculture. Éditions du CNRS, Paris.

Coqueugniot, E.
2000   Dja’de (Syrie), un village à la veille de la domestication (seconde moitié du IXe mill. av J.C.). In Guilaine, J. ed., Premiers paysans du monde, Naissance des agricultures, Séminaire du Collège de France, Éditions Errance, Paris, pp. 61-80.

Edwards, P.C., Meadows, J., Sayej, G. et Westaway, M.
2005   From the PPNA to the PPNB: New views from the Southern Levant after excavations at Zahrat adh Dhra’ 2 in Jordan. Paléorient, 30: 2, pp. 21-60.

Gopher, A.
1989   Diffusion process in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Levant: The case of the Helwan point. In Hershkovitz I. ed., People and culture in change, BAR. I.S., 508, Oxford, pp. 91-105.
1994   Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant. ASOR. Dissertation Series, 10, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns.

Izard, M.
1991   Article Culture. In Bonte, P. and Izard, M. ed., Dictionnaire de l’Ethnologie et de l’Anthropologie, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, pp. 190-192.

Khalaily, H et al.
2007   Preliminary report on an early Pre-Pottery Neolithic site, west of Jerusalem. Paléorient, 33: 2, pp. 5-37.

Kurth, G. et Röhrer-Ertl, O.
1981   On the anthropology of the Mesolithic to Chalcolithic human remains from the Tell es-Sultan in Jericho, Jordan. In Kenyon K.M. ed., Excavations at Jericho, Jerusalem, pp. 407-499.

Leclerc, J. et Tarrette, J.
1995   Article Culture. In Leroi Gourhan, A. ed. Dictionnaire de la Préhistoire, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, pp. 280.

Lebreton, M.
2003   Le récipient et les premiers arts du feu au Proche Orient durant le Néolithique précéramique (10e–7e millénaire av. J.-C. cal.). PhD thesis, Université de Paris I, 2 vol.

Le Dosseur, G.
2003   La Néolithisation au Levant Sud à travers l’exploitation des matières osseuses. Étude techno-économique de onze séries d’industries osseuses du Natoufien au PPNB récent. PhD thesis, Université de Paris I, 3 vol.

Leroi-Gourhan, A.
1945-1973   Milieu et Technique, Éditions Albin Michel, Paris.

Levi-Strauss, C.
1958   Anthropologie structurale, Plon, Paris.  

Roux, V.
2007   Non emprunt du façonnage au tour dans le Levant Sud entre le Ve et le IIe millénaire av. J.-C. : des régularités pour des scénarios historiques particuliers. In Rouillard, P. ed., Mobilités, Immobilismes, l’emprunt et son refus, Colloques de la Maison René-Ginouvès, 3, Éditions de Boccard, Paris, pp.  201-213.

Sidéra, I.
1998   Nouveaux éléments d’origine proche-orientale dans le Néolithique ancien balkanique. Analyse de l’industrie osseuse. In Otte, M. ed., Genèse de deux mondes, Actes du Colloque International Préhistoire d’Anatolie, ERAUL, 85, Liège, pp.  215-239.

Stordeur, D.
1988a   Outils et armes en os de Mallaha. Mémoires et Travaux du CRFJ., 6, Association Paléorient, Paris.
1988b   L’industrie osseuse de Çafer dans son contexte anatolien et proche oriental. Note préliminaire. Anatolica, XV, pp.  203-213.
1989   Vannerie et tissage au Proche Orient néolithique : IX-Ve millénaire. In Fiches, J.L. and Stordeur, D. eds., Tissage, corderie, vannerie, IXe Rencontres Internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire, Antibes, octobre 1988, Éditions APDCA, Juan les Pins, pp. 19-39.
1992   Change and cultural inertia: from the analysis of data to the creation of a model. In Gardin, J.C. et Peebles, C.S. eds., Representations in archaeology, Indian University Press, Bloomington, pp. 205-222.
1994   L’industrie osseuse. In Lechevallier, M. and Ronen, A. eds., Le gisement de Hatoula en Judée occidentale, Israël, Mémoires et Travaux du CRFJ, 8, Association Paléorient, Paris, pp. 193-210.
2003   Tell Aswad : résultats préliminaires des campagnes 2001 et 2002. Neo-lithics, 1/3, pp. 7-15.
2010   Domestication of plants and animals, domestication of symbols? In Bolger (D.) and MaguireL.C. (eds.) Development of pre-state communities in the Ancient Near East, Oxbow books, p. 123-130.

Stordeur, D. et Christidou, R.
2008   L’industrie de l’os. In Ibanez, J.J. ed., Hommage à J. Cauvin, Le site néolithique de Tell Mureybet, Syrie du Nord, BAR. I.S., Oxford.

Valla, F. et al.
1998   Le Natoufien final et les nouvelles fouilles à Mallaha (Eynan), Israël 1996-1997. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society, 28, pp. 105-176.

Haut de page

Notes

1  Identifying cultures thus cannot lead to their being reified (Izard, 1991).

2  Obsidian from Anatolia is found in small quantity in the south as soon as final Natufian (Valla et al., 1998).

3  Hafts and perforation by longitudinal grooving can be found in the north as soon as PPNA. Big hooks can be found as early as Early/Middle PPNB.

4  Heavy cutting fan-shaped tools and flat pointed tools found in these industries from PPNB are very similar to objects found in the south during PPNA and even during the Natufian (Stordeur, 1988a, 1992, and 1994; Le Dosseur, 2006). Flint choppers, basketry works and persisting round houses found on some PPNB sites (Jericho, Beidha…) are also typical of what was done in the south during PPNA (Cauvin, 1997).

5  Some of the northern characteristics that were found in the south during PPNB existed in the north as early as PPNA.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1: Map of the PPNB sites, studied and cited
URL http://bcrfj.revues.org/docannexe/image/6391/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 112k
Titre Fig. 2: PPNB objects found both in the Northern and in the Southern Levant
Légende a and b: awls from ‘Ain Ghazal (LPPNB) (Pictures G. Le Dosseur. All right reserved - Yarmouk University);c: flat knives from Motza (EPPNB/MPPNB) (Picture G. Le Dosseur. All right reserved - Israel Antiquities Authority);d: awl from Motza (EPPNB/MPPNB) (Picture G. Le Dosseur. All right reserved - Israel Antiquities Authority);e and f: tubular beads from Motza (EPPNB/MPPNB) (Pictures G. Le Dosseur. All right reserved - Israel Antiquities Authority);g: flat knife from Nahal Hemar (MPPNB/LPPNB) (Picture G. Le Dosseur. Courtesy O. Bar Yosef).
URL http://bcrfj.revues.org/docannexe/image/6391/img-2.png
Fichier image/png, 45k
Titre Fig. 3: PPNB objects found both in the Northern and in the Southern Levant
Légende a: big hook from Nahal Hemar (MPPNB/LPPNB) (Bar Yosef and Alon, 1988, fig. 13, p .18, Courtesy of the IAA);b: big hook from Abu Hureyra (LPPNB) (Sidéra, 1998, fig. 10:6, p .230);c: big hook from çafer Höyük (EPPNB/MPPNB) (Stordeur, 1988b, fig. 3: 6, p .213);d: haft made out of antler from Abu Gosh (MPPNB) (drawing G. Le Dosseur. All right reserved - Israel Antiquities Anthority);e: haft made out of antler from çafer Höyük (EPPNB/MPPNB) (Stordeur, 1988b, fig. 2: 4a, p. 212).
URL http://bcrfj.revues.org/docannexe/image/6391/img-3.png
Fichier image/png, 68k
Titre Fig. 4: The process of perforating by longitudinal grooving
Légende a: the process of perforating by longitudinal grooving, from two sides;b: the process used to make “needles of Mureybet” in the Northern Levant in çafer Höyük, EPPNB/MPPNB (Stordeur, 1988b, fig. 2.1a, p. 212);c: the process used to make flat pointed and cutting tools in Nahal Hemar MPPNB/LPPNB (drawings and pictures G. Le Dosseur. Courtesy O. Bar Yosef).
URL http://bcrfj.revues.org/docannexe/image/6391/img-4.png
Fichier image/png, 69k
Titre Fig. 5: Objects found in one region only
Légende a: sectioned bone used as a cutting tool from çafer Höyük, EPPNB/MPPNB (Stordeur, 1988b, fig. 1, p. 211);b: ring from ‘Ain Ghazal LPPNB (Picture G. Le Dosseur. All right reserved - Yarmouk University);c: fan-shaped cutting tools from Motza EPPNB/MPPNB (Picture G. Le Dosseur. All right reserved - Israel Antiquities Authority);d and e: flat pointed tools from Motza EPPNB/MPPNB (Pictures G. Le Dosseur. All right reserved - Israel Antiquities Authority).
URL http://bcrfj.revues.org/docannexe/image/6391/img-5.png
Fichier image/png, 81k
Titre Fig. 6: In the Southern Levant, the new choice of using distal ends of metapodials to make awls appears gradually
URL http://bcrfj.revues.org/docannexe/image/6391/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 260k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Gaëlle Le Dosseur, « Migrations and Intercultural Relations in the Levant during PPNB », Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem [En ligne], 21 | 2010, mis en ligne le 01 mars 2011, Consulté le 17 novembre 2017. URL : http://bcrfj.revues.org/6391

Haut de page

Auteur

Gaëlle Le Dosseur

Gaëlle Le Dosseur holds a PhD in archaeology (Prehistory) and is affiliated to the CNRS (UMR 7041) for her post-doctorate. Her research deals with the economy, the technology and the mentalities of prehistoric societies who lived in the Levant during the Natufian and the Neolithic periods, at local and regional levels. To study these aspects, she uses the analysis of specific objects made by these people: tools, weapons, and jewels made out of bone materials. After becoming a doctor in Prehistory and Ethnology in 2006, Gaëlle Le Dosseur started post-doctoral research thanks to two grants (Bourse Lavoisier, Ministère des Affaires Etrangères; Bourse Fleishmann, Société d’Ethnologie). She takes part in several research programs; two of them are run by teams affiliated to the CRFJ: « Trajectoires évolutives des techniques au Levant Sud : innovation, diffusion, évolution, disparition » directed by V. Roux (CNRS, UMR 7055) and S. Rosen (UBG, Institut Weizmann), and « Des chasseur-cueilleurs aux premiers agriculteurs éleveurs au Levant Sud » directed by F. Valla (CNRS, UMR 7041), H. Khalaily (IAA), and F. Bocquentin (CNRS, UMR 7041).
gledosseur@hotmail.com

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

© Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem

Haut de page