1992 Excavations at Tabaqat al-Buma, Wadi Ziqlab

The text of the preliminary report on these excavations follows.

The 1992 Season of Excavations in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan
E. B. Banning, D. Rahimi, J. Siggers and H. Taani

From May to July 1992 The Wadi Ziqlab Project undertook excavations of Kebaran and Late Neolithic deposits at two sites in the central basin of Wadi Ziqlab as well as continuing subsurface survey and geological survey of the wadi. The excavations have revealed that there were more Neolithic structures at Tabaqat al-Bûma (WZ 200) than expected, and have helped to clarify the chronology and distribution of the lithics and ceramics of the Late Neolithic at Tabaqat al-Bûma and WZ 310. Toward the end of the Late Neolithic these two sites, along with two other sites the project recorded in 1992, may have formed part of a dispersed community stretched along the wadi.


The fifth field season of the Wadi Ziqlab Project took place from early May to early July of 1992. Following on a brief season of surface survey in 1981, small test excavations of selected sites in 1986 and 1987, subsurface survey of wadi terraces from 1986 to 1990, and, in 1990, more substantial excavations of a Late Neolithic site that the subsurface survey discovered in 1987 (Banning and Fawcett 1983; Banning, Dods et al. 1989; Banning, Dods et al. 1992), the 1992 fieldwork again concentrated on site WZ 200, Tabaqat al-Bûma. In addition, we continued the subsurface survey of wadi terraces and carried out more substantial excavation at locality WZ 310, which had been the target of two test probes in 1990, to enlarge our sample of pottery and lithics and to try to identify architecture there.

Excavations at WZ 200, Tabaqat al-Bûma

While removing backfill from most of the excavation areas of 1990, we opened a number of new excavation areas to enlarge our exposure of the Late Neolithic deposits on the site and began intensive excavation of underlying deposits in areas E34 and F34, where we hoped to find primary deposits of Kebaran material (figure 1). Previously most of our sample of Kebaran artifacts came from later Neolithic deposits or from small, deep probes in Areas B and E34. These indicated that the most likely area of concentration for the Kebaran material lay in or near Area F34. New excavation areas at WZ 200 included D31, D32, E32, E33, F33, G33, H33, G35, and H35, as well as small test pits C, D and 2R. Excavation continued in areas E34, F34, G34, and H34, and there were minor excavation activities in areas E35, E36 and J33 (formerly Area A) in attempts to clarify stratigraphic issues remaining from the 1990 season.

The major occupational episodes on the site belong to the Epipalaeolithic, Late Neolithic, Late Roman-Early Byzantine, and Recent periods.

The Epipalaeolithic deposits

A team of three people spent almost seven weeks excavating in Areas E34 and F34, below the backfill of the 1990 season, to try and expose undisturbed deposits of Kebaran age and map the distribution of artifacts in detail.

After removing and recording some remaining Neolithic deposits in Area F34, they began to remove the extremely compact, cemented deposits that lay below in 5-cm spits in an attempt to understand the depositional processes of this very hard colluvium and to identify any stratification. They encountered Kebaran artifacts in low densities throughout, but with random orientations and distributions that suggested that they were not in their original discard locations, but had been transported from another part of the site along with the colluvium that formed their matrix. Morever, sporadic late Neolithic artifacts were found together with the Kebaran lithics in the colluvial deposits. The presence of these Neolithic artifacts would further suggest that the deposists were mixed. Data from the analysis of the soil from a profile failed to yield any concrete information regarding the nature and number of episodes which the colluvial deposits represent.
While removing compact soil bearing Kebaran artifacts in the eastern portion of Area F34, however, immediately south of Neolithic wall F34.027, they encountered a large feature constructed of stone slabs and dating to the Neolithic period. This feature, locus F34.026, will be described in the next section.

The Late Neolithic stratigraphy and architecture

Our work on the Late Neolithic components of site WZ 200 had four main goals. We wanted to enlarge our exposure of the site to see if we had already detected all of the structures that had existed on the site during the Late Neolithic. Our 1990 work suggested that the site was a small farmstead, and that the total occupation area was not much larger than the area we had exposed. We wanted to clarify the stratigraphic phasing of our materials, to clarify the stratigraphic relationships of the three structures found in 1990, and to learn more about underlying structures only slightly exposed. We also wanted to clarify the histories of the structures themselves, some of which appeared to incorporate several phases of rebuilding or renovation. Finally, we wanted to improve our meagre sample of botanical and faunal evidence from the site, and to look for spatial patterning in the distribution of microdebitage, pottery and bone chips, and plant remains on surfaces and floors.

One of the important accomplishments of the 1992 season was discovery of a large structure in Areas E33 and F33 in clear stratigraphic superposition above the structures that the 1990 excavations had uncovered in whole or in part in Areas D35, E35, E36, and G34. When combined with the indications for the still earlier Late Neolithic walls constructed of massive limestone blocks and underlying those two structures, we have at least three Late Neolithic strata on the site.

The structure in Areas E33 and F33 consists of a long, rectangular room (plate I) with double-leaf stone walls. It had a cobbled floor (locus E33.006) in its latest phase of use. Near the centre of the room was a large, irregularly shaped stone mortar (locus E33.007, plate II) that was probably used for pounding an as yet unidentified material. Given the large size of this mortar, it is likely that the pestle was a large wooden shaft.

Beneath the cobble flooring at the southern end of this room, we detected part of a white plaster floor (locus E33.016) and a flat, U-shaped plaster feature (locus E33.015). The straight edge along the southeast side of the plaster is consistent with this floor having been associated with an earlier wall that was demolished prior to construction of the double-leaf wall running the length of Areas E33 and F33, and it is likely that the feature is a raised hearth. The curving south wall of this room is founded at a much higher level than the east wall, and represents a rebuild. It is also interesting to note that the inner leaf of the east wall is founded to a much greater depth than the outer one, indicating that this part of the room, at least, was semi-subterranean.

Addition of excavation Area E32 to the west of E33 to uncover the rest of the terminal Neolithic room surprised us by revealing, immediately beneath the surface, the corner of yet another structure lying upslope and to the west of the bulk of the site (Plate II). Stratigraphically it is later than the E33-F33 building, but the finds suggest that both were used in about the same period. We excavated small adjoining portions of Areas D32, D31 and E31 (recorded as part of D31) to uncover the rest of this room. It turned out to have a stone bin or platform in its northeast corner, another in its southwest corner, a possible blocked niche in its west wall, and a very interesting paved feature in the northwest corner that incorporated a basalt grinding slab. Like the somewhat lower structure in adjoining Areas E33 and F33, its pottery belongs to a very late phase of the Neolithic, and some of it is harder and better made than in most of the more easterly structures on the site. The room's shallow fill also contained two pierced ceramic disks and some sickle blades.

The 1990 excavation of Area G34 and a portion of H34 had revealed only a portion of a large, well preserved Neolithic structure, and we were only approaching the floor within the structure when excavation was terminated. This season we revealed the rest of the structure by broadening excavation to neighbouring Areas G35 and H35 and gridded and excavated the whole floor of the structure rather than only its southwest corner.

Clearing backfill from G34 and cleaning the underlying deposit very quickly revealed the outlines of a large, circular, plastered feature (locus G34.016) that appeared to be the central hearth of the structure. We delayed excavation of this feature until after Area G35 could be brought down to the same surface. The feature turned out to have a flat, smoothly plastered bottom and a rim raised about 5 cm that contained ash deposits. Ash and charcoal fragments from this hearth yielded a radiocarbon determination of 6380 ± 70 bp (or cal 5413-5239 BC, Table 1).

Area G35, where the eastern wall of the G34 room lay, turned out to be much more complex than we had anticipated. There was also a parallel wall (locus G35.008) farther east built of massive limestone boulders in two leaves. Both walls had been robbed out over much of their lengths and later walls partially incorporated them. The ruins of the G34 room were also later used as a burial site. A cist-burial (locus G35.003) of a child about five years of age occupied a place near the middle of the area where boulders had probably been removed from the massive wall G35.008. The poorly preserved remains included little more than a tibia, femur, first permanent maxillary molar, and a few skull fragments. The 1990 excavations had similarly uncovered an intrusive burial (locus G34.009) in the southwest corner of this room, although without a stone cist. This season we discovered yet another burial in the southeast corner (locus G35.018). Like the one in the southwest corner in 1990, the burial appeared to lie directly on clay accumulated on the most recent surface within the room, and was covered with cobbles, probably robbed out of the adjoining walls after the building fell out of use. This one, however, contained two individuals curled up together, one at least 15 years of age and the other about 13 years, and both in a flexed position facing the east wall of the room with their heads to the south. One had its skull resting on its hands as though in sleep. Although there were no associated remains to help us date these burials, it is likely that they are associated with the final Neolithic occupation of the site in the structure in Areas E33 and F33. Radiocarbon determinations on bone collagen will help us test this hypothesis. To the east of wall G35.008, which is more than a metre thick, were two superimposed cobbled floors which may be associated with a rebuilding of a robbed out portion of wall G35.008. Finally, portions of earlier walls were incorporated into the curving wall G35.005 that is founded on sediments that overlie the cobbled surface (locus G35.024).

Renewed excavations in Areas F34 and F35 helped to clarify fragments of structures in Area F35 that had been cut by later construction activity on the site and also revealed a large cist-grave, similar to the one excavated in Area A (J33) in 1987. A low terrace wall that lay immediately south of the south wall of the G34 structure turned out to be built over, at its eastern end, the remnant of a rectangular structure some 3.5 m in width and apparently roughly contemporary with the corner of a building that underlies the D35-E35 building to the southeast. This structure, like the last-mentioned one, apparently was semi-subterranean at least on its southern (upslope) end. The foundation for this southern wall cut into a hard-packed, pottery-free deposit extending into Area F34 that at first seemed to date to the Kebaran period on the basis of the lithics it contained. Removal of the deposit, however, revealed a slab-covered feature of similar size and design to the cist-grave in Area A. Removal of the slabs and excavation of the soft, loamy soil beneath confirmed that the feature was the grave for two individuals, one aged about 16 years and the other, wearing a dentalium-shell necklace, about 6 months. It is tempting to speculate that the skeletons are the remains of a mother and her child. Pathology of the sub-adult's tibiae and fibulae, which showed enlargement and deformation, is currently under investigation. It appears that when the pit for the cist-grave was dug, the soil removed contained Kebaran artifacts exclusively. After the grave's construction and closing by the slabs, the same bladelet-bearing soil was mounded on top and packed down to create a low tumulus. While we as yet have no date for this double-burial, on the basis of construction technique it seems likely that it, like the 1987 cist-grave, is Late Neolithic, but stratigraphically it can be shown that it would have to be among the earliest Neolithic features on the site.

The Late Neolithic pottery and lithics


Our sample of pottery from Tabaqat al-Bûma was increased by some 10,000 sherds in 1992, including more than 600 that were diagnostic in some way. As in the previous season, most of the sherds in almost all deposits on the site that post-date the Kebaran are very coarse, soft, poorly fired and friable, with mainly chert inclusions 1-3 mm in size and calcite particles less than 0.5 mm. The wares are predominantly salmon-pink or pale yellow, and some of them show signs of an unusual construction technique that may partially account for the poor preservation of most of the sherds. Distinct layering in cross section indicates that some of the vessel walls, and sometimes bases too, were thickened by addition of more paste, almost with the character of a very thick slip, and this left to dry in place before addition of the final, generally red, slip that is the almost exclusive surface treatment on the earlier vessels on the site. This added layer has a tendency to crack and spall off, often robbing us of information about the original surface appearance of a vessel, while vessel fragments that do retain this layer generally require immediate attention from our conservator. Most of the sherds for which the exterior surface is preserved, however, are plain wares; the remainder often show a red slip over all or a portion of the vessel.

Our excavations during 1992 uncovered a much better sample of pottery from the terminal Neolithic phases of the site than we had in 1990, and in much clearer stratigraphic contexts. These contexts, especially inside and outside the structure in Areas E33 and F33, contain much finer, harder, thoroughly fired wares in small proportions, most of the assemblage continuing to consist of the friable plain wares. Often these are bowls with a black or grey burnished surface or, more rarely, burnished red grading into black. There are also well fired holemouth jars with a squared or bevelled rim in a yellowish ware, sometimes with blackened interior surface, and usually with chert inclusions very similar to those in the more poorly fired, early wares. Both these classes of material can be paralleled by almost exactly the same sherds at nearby site WZ 310.

Other differences between these two phases of the Late Neolithic appear in the decoration of the pottery. Decoration is extremely rare in the earlier contexts. Rarely there is a band of red-brown paint or slip along the rim or, even more exceptionally, zones of diagonal painted lines extending from this band (e.g., G35.54.3). In the uppermost Neolithic phase of the site we have combed and incised decoration both on hard black and on somewhat softer buff wares. Usually this consists of short strokes of the comb with alternating diagonal orientations, the same as many we found in Areas I33 and I34 during the 1990 season. We have one example with a more complicated combination of combing and wavy incision in zones (F34.77.1). One largely restorable vessel (G35.67.24) is a squat jar with almost no neck and 'thumbnail' impression over most of the upper two-thirds of its exterior surface. One sherd (F33.5.3) has some form of applied rounded bands that may have "Wadi Rabah" parallels, and a single sherd (F34.76.4) found not far from the top of the slab-covered grave in Area F34 appears to be a fragment of "pie-crust" applied and indented decoration.


Almost 10,000 lithics from the 1992 season of excavations of the Neolithic levels at Tabaqat al-Bûma add greatly to our understanding of the predominantly 'expedient' lithic technology there. These tools are simple flakes produced by a hard-hammer percussor and have no or only minimal retouch. 'Expedient' tools are made to undertake a wide variety of tasks, and are made immediately prior to their use. Results from our on-going use-wear analysis indicate that these tools are usually associated with with single use-incidents. The flake tool components of Levantine Late Neolithic assemblages, even though they represent a fundamental shift in the perception and application of technology (Gero 1991), have received minimal attention. The late Neolithic tools from WZ 200 are presently being used to investigate the adaptive rationale behind predominantly destandardised flake assemblages, which marks not only the the Levantine Late Neolithic, but also many other Holocene sedentary populations. Factors whose interaction can prompt the adoption of basic flake technology include subsistence economy, sedentism, social interaction and, most importantly, the implications of the potential failure of tool design (Torrence 1989; Siggers 1992). Our approach places emphasis on the interaction of tools as a technological system. Investigation of the nature of this system proceeds by contrasting the design features of formed tools with the lesser degree of design in utilised flake tools. Levels of design investment are then compared with tool use data to investigate the interaction of tool design, and the nature and degree of behavior-related risk which the task for which these tools were intended entails. In brief, the greater the degree of risk which a task involves, the more elements of design are built into the tool undertake it.

The formed tools are limited to very few classes, of which sickle blades predominate. There is considerable variability in the sickle blades, of which there are more than 150 in our 1992 sample. The majority of the sickle blades have a denticulated working edge with either abrupt or semi-abrupt backing. Approximately 90% of the sickle blades recovered exhibit sickle polish. The sickle blade portion of the assemblage is similar to that from the site of Jebel Abu Thawwab, while parallels among individual sickle blades in the published portions of other Late Neolithic sites suggests that their assemblages may also be similar.

Other formed tools include three adzes, one of which had a polished working edge (figure 6), awls, borers, burins, scrapers and retouched and unretouched blades (figure 5). Retouched blade forms include endscrapers, burins and backed pieces. Unfortunately no complete temporally diagnostic projectile points have, as yet, been found. In fact, it is odd that our large sample from two major seasons of excavation contains only a single identifiable, broken point (figure 5). The majority of the formed tools were made on chert of high to medium quality, whereas the expedient flakes were made on material of medium to poor quality. Poor and medium grades of chert are available in the immediate vicinity of the site. Higher grades of lithic raw material can be collected 500 m west of the site, where we now have some evidence for prehistoric use of this source.

Most of the lithic assemblages of the Late Neolithic on the site, of both the earlier and the later phases, indicate an 'expedient' flake tool technology. The earlier phase, however, has a significant blade tool component and, to a lesser degree, a bladelet component. Further technological and use-wear analysis of the lithic assemblage will provide information to help delineate the two tool traditions and associate the various technological lithic components with the tasks in which they may have been used during the Late Neolithic.

Ground Stone

The ground-stone repertoire from the 1992 excavations is fairly small. In 1990 we had some large querns, handstones and small mortars. In 1992 we added some small mortar fragments, one very large limestone mortar or pounder, some basalt pestle fragments and a complete small pestle, several incomplete handstones, and a single pecked basalt adze (G35.74.10). One of the project paleoethnobotanists is sampling the surfaces of some of these ground stone artifacts in the hope of recovering phytoliths from plants that may have been processed with them. We also have small limestone objects that are likely capstones for bow-drills (E33.19.9 and G33.8.1).

Bone Tools

The repertoire of bone tools recovered from the site is very small. In addition to several polished bone fragments that have been recognized to date, there are large parts of several bone awls.

Evidence for the economy of Late Neolithic Tabaqat al-Bûma

In addition to evidence from the lithics, pottery and ground stone, animal bones and plant remains from the site will contribute to our understanding of its inhabitants' economy. To date analysis of these materials from the 1992 season is not complete, but we hope that preservation of plant remains from our 1992 soil samples will be better than it was in 1990. The animal bones we have analysed from the 1990 season indicate that sheep or goats, cattle and domesticated pigs were important contributors to subsistence, but there were also significant contributions by red and fallow deer, wild boar and possibly wild cattle (Bos primegenius). These suggest, not only that hunting may still have been an important aspect of the economy, but also, in conjunction with fragments of conifer (including pine) charcoal at the site, that some of the area not far from the site was forested. Interestingly, we have not identified very many of the tools at the site as weapons. There is a single broken projectile point and it is conceivable that some of the small blade fragments we have may be portions of others. In addition to the more direct evidence from the bones, a number of bone tools, probable stone weights and pierced ceramic disks that could be small weights or spindle whorls may well be part of the tool kit for spinning wool and weaving on looms.

Post-Neolithic occupation of Tabaqat al-Bûma

Site WZ 200 appears to have been abandonned almost completely from about 5000 BC (6000 bp) through to the third century AD. From that time onward, we have some evidence for two periods of occupation on the site. Pottery, glass and crude arrangements of stones pulled from the Late Neolithic rubble appear to be associated with camping activity, probably by pastoral nomads, on the site sometime between the late third and early fifth centuries AD. A single radiocarbon date of 1680 ± 60 bp on charcoal from a context bearing Late Roman pottery from our 1990 excavations unfortunately has more than one likely solution when calibrated, but still fits rather tightly within this period: cal 254-299 AD and cal 322-421 AD (68.3% confidence intervals). In addition, there is abundant evidence for recent occupation of the site by tent-dwellers, although we as yet cannot say when this first began. One of the more distinctive features of the recent occupation is the superposition of several thin but distinct layers of packed dung and ash that cap most of the site's deposits. In addition, like the late Classical occupants of the site, its recent inhabitants have made liberal use of large cobbles that probably were once parts of Neolithic walls in order to construct low terraces or to border their tents. In some cases these are constructed on the tops of ruined Neolithic walls which in effect served as foundations. There is also a recent robber pit centred on the baulk between Areas F33 and G33 that probably was dug in August of 1987 after our excavations were terminated on the site that year.

One of the more interesting features we uncovered during the 1992 excavations that pertains to one of these periods is a mud-plastered, pebble-filled hearth that was probably used as a bread-oven or tabûn (locus F33.007). If we are correct in our interpretation of this feature, its users would have heated the pebbles with a dung fire, dusted off the ash once the pebbles were hot, then thrown bread dough onto the pebbles to bake it, much as people still do in some parts of Jordan today. The feature is associated with Late Roman-Early Byzantine pottery and it is sealed by dung-floor layers of recent occupation on the site, and for the present we can only say that it is no earlier than the fourth century and could be modern. We plan to obtain a more precise date by radiocarbon assay of associated charcoal fragments.

Geological and botanical work in Wadi Ziqlab

The project geologist, John Field (University of Arizona), spent a good deal of his research time this season studying the landslides that occurred in connection with the previous winter's unusually large snowfall and rainfall, and interviewing local residents about earlier landslides in Wadi Ziqlab's catchment. More than 150 major landslides, excluding ones that may have been triggered by human activity, had occurred in the central part of the basin during this bad winter, one of which was large enough to dam Wadi Ziqlab's stream. The magnitude of earth movement during wet winters has important implications for the visibility and spatial integrity of archaeological sites in some stretches of the valley bottom, as we have seen in the case of Area 2R at site WZ 200. A full report on this aspect of our work appears elsewhere.

In addition, the geological work included describing and explaining soils and other deposits within the excavation areas.


Our research in Wâdî Ziqlâb has been funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada in 1986, 1987, 1990 and 1992. Computer equipment for the field came from the research grant portion of a Canada Research Fellowship. The University of Toronto provided computers for post-excavation analysis. The Royal Ontario Museum, through the agency of its director, Dr. John McNeill, provided support for Dan Rahimi's participation in the field season.

We owe a number of people our special appreciation for the assistance they gave us this year. We would like to thank Dr. Safwan Tell, Director-General of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, for his support of our research. We would also like to thank Dr. Zeidan Kafafi for allowing us to view collections at Yarmouk University. We also appreciate the kindesses of Dr. Pierre and Patricia Bikai at ACOR. Our thanks go to Taylor Dabney for the photography, to Julia Pfaff for all of the illustrations of pottery, objects and lithics, and to Morag Kersel for final maps and plans. Natalie Rogers kindly carried out analysis of a portion of the faunal remains from the 1992 excavations. Susan Maltby was the project conservator, John Field was the project geologist, Sandra Low and Stephen Monckton did flotation, Rula Shafiq did the field osteology, Anita Buehrle processed phytolith samples, and Julie Acheson was our cook. And, finally, many thanks to crew members Anita Buehrle, Margaret Darmanin, Adam Ford, Claire Loader, Sandra Low, Stephen Monckton, Sally Randell and Rula Shafiq, to Abd al-Karim Yusef, and to our work crew from Tubna, Dayr Abu Sa`id, Jenin as-Safa and Zimal for their efforts.

List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of the southern Levant, showing Wadi Ziqlab in northern Jordan and the locations of some other sites with deposits of PPNB or Late Neolithic date (E. Banning).
Figure 2. Map of Tabaqat al-Bûma (WZ 200) showing architecture from all Neolithic phases that had been exposed by 1992 (M. Campbell and M. Kersel).
Figure 3. A selection of pottery from the 1992 excavations at Tabaqat al-Bûma, Wadi Ziqlab (J. Pfaff). In the order shown, it includes incised/combed body sherds G35.67.22, F34.46.18, F34.77.1 and G35.67.27; finger-indented rim F34.76.4; applied decoration on F34.76.4 and F33.24.6; jar rims F33.5.3; E33.10.13, F33.4.4, E33.3.42, E33.32.1, E33.9.10, E33.4.6, F33.12.46, F34.33.15, E33.22.8, F33.4.1; small bowls and cups E33.8.2, G35.74.8, E34.66.3 + E33.11.17, F33.6.1, F33.12.5, F34.34.2, F34.34.1, F33.6.4, F34.32.4, F34.36.16, F34.17.2, E33.31.4, F34.17.5, G35.54.3, F33.12.1; and the squat jar with 'thumnail' impression, G35.67.24. Diagonal hatching represents red slip except for F34.31.16, E33.31.4 and G35.67.24 (all burnished black slip). It should be noted that F34.34.1 and F34.34.2 could be two parts of the same vessel if the vessel was oval in plan.
Figure 4. Examples of some typical flake and blade technology from Tabaqat al-Bûma, Wadi Ziqlab (J. Pfaff). Unifacially retouched flakes (nos. 1, 2, 6, 9, 10), bifacially retouched flake (no. 4), endscrapers (nos. 2, 5), partially retouched blade (no. 8), unretouched, used flake (no. 7), and flake cores (nos. 11 and 12).
Figure 5. A selection of formed tools from excavations at Tabaqat al-Bûma, Wadi Ziqlab, including awls/borers (nos. 1-6), burins (nos. 7-11), a single projectile point (no. 13), and a sample of sickle blades to illustrate the variety present on the site: backed and denticulated (nos. 14-18), denticulated (nos. 19 and 20), and backed and partially retouched (no. 21). Stippling on the sickle blades indicates the extent of sheen (J. Pfaff).
Figure 6. A selection of larger formed tools from Tabaqat al-Bûma, Wadi Ziqlab (J. Pfaff). No. 1: pick (E33.8.20), 2: adze (G34.12.7), 3: partially polished adze (E33.15.56), 4-5: unifacial adzes (F34.30.32 and E36.17.83), 6: tabular scraper (G34.10.3), 7: ground stone implement, possibly a hoe (G33.74.10), and 8: unifacial scraper (G35.48.43).
List of Plates
Plate I. View of part of the elongated structure in Areas E33 and F33 at site WZ 200. Note the large mortar left of the metre-stick and U-shaped plastered feature, probably a hearth belonging to an earlier building at this location that had been demolished (photo: T. Dabney).
Plate II. Overview of the structure occupying Areas D31, D32 and E32, immediately west of the E33-F33 structure. Note the features in the corners (photo: T. Dabney).
Plate III. Excavation of a small cist-burial (G35.003) in Area G35 in progress (photo: T. Dabney).
Plate IV. View of the plastered hearth (locus 016) in Area G34 (photo: T. Dabney).
List of Tables
Table 1 Table 1. Radiocarbon dates from Tabaqat al-Bûma, Wadi Ziqlab. The calibrated date ranges are the 68.3% confidence intervals, some with multiple solutions. The lower four dates are associated with Kebaran artifacts deep in the site. Determinations were by the Isotrace laboratory, University of Toronto.

Area Locus Sample Material Uncalibrated Date bp Calibrated Date BC (AD)
G34 002 TO-2117 Charcoal 1680 ± 60 (254-299)
A 005 TO-1086 Bone 5740 ± 110 4775-4467
E33 009 TO-3408 Charcoal 6190 ± 70 5236-5193
E33 014 TO-3410 Charcoal 6350 ± 70 5356-5235
G34 018 TO-3412 Ash, charcoal 6380 ± 70 5413-5239
D35 016 TO-2114 Charcoal 6590 ± 70 5562-5475
E34 009 TO-2115 Charcoal 6630 ± 80 5628-5480
F34 017 TO-3411 Charcoal 6670 ± 60 5634-5490
E33 009 TO-3409 Charcoal 6900 ± 70 5831-5649
A 005 TO-1407 Bone 7800 ± 70 6689-6558
B 007 TO-987 Bone 11,170 ± 100
E34 015 TO-2116 Bone 12,660 ± 430
B 007 TO-989 Bone 13,110 ± 130
B 007 TO-991 Bone 14,850 ± 160

Table 1. Radiocarbon dates from Tabaqat al-Bûma, Wadi Ziqlab. The calibrated date ranges are the 68.3% confidence intervals, some with multiple solutions. The lower four dates are associated with Kebaran artifacts deep in the site. Determinations were by the Isotrace laboratory, University of Toronto.


Banning, E. B., R. R. Dods, et al.
1992 Tabaqat al-Bûma: 1990 excavations at a Kebaran and Late Neolithic site in Wâdî Ziqlâb. ADAJ 36: 43-69.

Banning, E. B., R. R. Dods, et al.
1989 Wadi Ziqlab Project 1987: a preliminary report. ADAJ 33: 43-58.

Banning, E. B. and C. Fawcett
1983 Man-land relationships in the ancient Wadi Ziqlab: report of the 1981 survey. ADAJ 27: 291-309.

Gero, J. M.
1991 Genderlithics: Womens Roles in Stone Tool Production. Pp. 92-105 in J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey (ed.), Engendering Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, J.
1955 Tuleil Batashi in the Sorek Valley. IEJ 5: 273-74.

Kaplan, J.
1958 Excavations at Teluliot Batashi in the Vale of Sorek. Eretz-Israel 5: 9-24, 83*-84* (Hebrew with English summary).

Kaplan, J.
1958 Excavations at Wadi Rabah. IEJ 8: 149-60.

Kaplan, J.
1972 The Wadi Rabah culture - twenty years after. Haaretz Museum Bulletin 14: 23-30.

Kenyon, K. and T. Holland
1983 Excavations at Jericho V. London.

Perrot, J.
1964 Les deux premières campagnes de fouilles à Munhatta (1962-3), premiers résultats. Syria 41: 323-45.

Siggers, J.
1992 The Lithic Assembalge from Wadi Ziqlab: A late Neolithic Site in Northern Jordan. Paper presented at the Canadian Archaeological Association, London, Ontario.

Torrence, R.
1989 Retooling: Towards a Behavioral Theory of Stone Tools. Pp. 57-65 in R. Torrence (ed.), Time, Energy and Stone Tools. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.