'Isaac went out to the field': Studies in Archaeology and Ancient Cultures in Honor of Isaac Gilead

Cover
Title Page Hebrew
Title Page
Contents Page
List of Figures
About the Editors and Contributors
Preface and Acknowledgments
Isaac Gilead: An Appreciation
Shamir Yona on behalf of the editors
Nissim Amzallag
The Religious Dimension of Copper Metallurgy in the Southern Levant
Neolithic Cult Sites in the Southern Negev, Israel
U. Avner et al.: Neolithic Cult Sites in the Southern Negev, Israel
	Figure 1. Eastern ‘Uvda Valley, remains of an elongated cell with an in-situ triad of perforated maṣṣeboth, up to 32 cm high.
	Figure 2. Map of Naḥal Roded area with the recorded Rodedian sites, in relation to lithology.
	Figure 3. Map of currently recorded Rodedian sites in the Negev, with regions’ names mentioned in the text.
	Figure 4. Har Assa, a typical pair of installations, the elongated cell points to the circle (pavement was covered by 1-3 cm of dust and arkose).
	Figure 5. Har Argaman, plan of a typical pair of installations.
	Figure 6. ‘Uvda Valley, a large elongated cell with maṣṣebah, pointing to a barely preserved circle.
	Figure 8. Naḥal Roded, a pair of limestone maṣṣeboth, found tumbled and broken.
	Figure 11. Naḥal Roded, perforated and naturally holed limestones, found scattered in and around the installations (recorded first as found).
	Figure 9. Naḥal Roded, a triad of maṣṣeboth in a circular cell, as found (left) and after re-setting the central one.
	Figure 12. Naḥal Roded, three examples of anthropomorphic stones: 1. Unshaped 2. With a hammered neck 3. Entirely hammered.
	Figure 13. Unique stone images: 1. Eastern ‘Uvda Valley, a natural broad ‘female’-look cobble. 2. Nahal Paran, a broad ‘female’-look cobble partially shaped. 3. Eastern ‘Uvda Valley, basalt figurine entirely hammered.
	Figure 15. Naḥal Roded, three examples of stones with elongated perforation, the middle one bears an engraving of meander or a snake.
	Figure 16. Examples of stone bowls: 1. Naḥal Roded, natural bowl. 2. Naḥal Roded, a complete small bowl and fragments of large one. 3. Naḥal Botem, a well shaped bowl.
	Figure 17. Naḥal Roded, a ‘vase-shaped’ installation, as found and after cleaning.
	Figure 18. Naḥal Roded, a ‘vase-shaped’ installation with a head-down stone image: left- As found, middle- after cleaning, right- with minor restoration.
	Figure 20. Naḥal Demama, two miniature houses built on the end of an elongated cell.
	Figure 21. Naḥal Roded, perforated maṣṣeboth set with the perforation down, originally set into the ground to the level of the light/dark line.
	Figure 22. Naḥal Roded, regular and perforated buried maṣṣeboth: 1. As found. 2. As originally set before being covered.
	Figure 23. Naḥal Roded, a perforated buried maṣṣebah: 1. As found. 2. As originally set, before being covered.
	Figure 24. Naḥal Roded, a natural, anthropomorphic copper nodule (two views).
	Figure 25. Naḥal Roded, flint blades typical for the PPNB, an ‘Amuq arrow-head (center), on the and a Byblos arrow-head from a site on Har ‘Eshet (central ‘Araba, on the right).
	Figure 26. Naḥal Roded, ad-hoc tools, typical for desert sites of the 6th-3rd millennia BC.
	Figure 27. Naḥal Roded Site 110, radiocarbon dates from an ash spot. By L. Cummings, the PaleoResearch Institute, Golden Colorado. Calibrated with OxCal 4.2 (Ramsey 2013). Mean dates (red lines) are only approximate, based on the dominant peak in the cu
	Figure 28. Jebel Ḥashem alTaref, eastern Sinai, a perforated maṣṣebah among a group of animal ‘stone-drawings’.
	Figure 29. Naḥal Roded, a vertical view of installation with a stone alignment, 6.5 m long, connecting to a circle, and a limestone image on the right (enlarged on the lower right corner).
Uzi Avner, Moti Shem-Tov, Lior Enmar, Gideon Ragolski, Rachamim Shem-Tov, and Omry Barzilai
A Basket-Handled Teapot from Fazael 2
S. Bar: A Basket-Handled Teapot from Fazael 2
	Figure 1. The location of the crushed basket-handled teapot near an entrance to a room (S. Bar).
	Figure 2. The Fazael 2 basket-handled teapot.
Shay Bar
O. Bar-Yosef and F. Valla: The Contributions of Early French Scholars to Levantine Prehistory
	Figure 1. Father Germer-Durand.
	Figure 2. Father A. Mallon.
	Figure 3a. R. Neuville when incorporated as a diplomat.
	Figure 3b. R. Neuville in Jerusalem as the French Consul in Israel.
Ofer Bar-Yosef and François Valla
The Contributions of Early French Scholars to Levantine Prehistory
A. Belfer-Cohen and A. N. Goring-Morris: The Riddle of the ‘Aurignacian’ in the Negev
	Figure 1. Map of the central Negev, with Nahal Neqarot south of Maktesh Ramon marked.
	Figure 2. Nahal Neqarot rockshelter from the southeast. The Ramonian occupation layer underlies the massive fallen blocks.
	Figure 4. Close-up of the two excavation areas and drawn section of grid squares Q/R along the 9 line. Note that the occupation layer is located directly on bedrock and is overlain by the massive roof collapse.
	Figure 5. Radiocarbon dates from Nahal Neqarot.
	Figure 6. Pestle and other groundstone tools from Nahal Neqarot. Both scales in cm.
	Figure 7. Core types and raw materials at Nahal Neqarot.
	Figure 11. Microburin indices at Nahal Neqarot.
	Figure 8. Core types and raw materials by level at Nahal Neqarot.
	Figure 9. Debitage counts at Nahal Neqarot.
	Figure 12. Observations on microburins by level at Nahal Neqarot.
	Figure 13. Scans of Microburins.
	Figure 14. Types of notch on microburins by level at Nahal Neqarot.
	Figure 15. Distal shapes of microburins by level at Nahal Neqarot.
	Figure 16. Scans of Ramon points at Nahal Neqarot.
	Figure 17. Typological counts by level at Nahal Neqarot (Type list after Goring-Morris 1987).
	Figure 18. Scans of endscrapers on thick blades at Nahal Neqarot – note ‘Aurignacian-type’ retouch.
	Figure 19. Thick endscrapers with ‘Aurignacian-type’ retouch at Nahal Neqarot.
	Figure 20. Tools from Nahal Neqarot – burin and scrapers.
	Figure 21. Tools from Nahal Neqarot – Ramon points, denticulates and chisel/retoucher.
	Figure 22. Mean metric attributes of Ramon points by level at Nahal Neqarot (length, width and thickness in mm).
	Figure 23. Retouch/backing types on Ramon points by level at Nahal Neqarot (frequencies in parentheses).
	Figure 24. Shape of backed edge of Ramon points at Nahal Neqarot (frequencies in parentheses).
	Figure 25. Location of Ramon point tips, retouch related to tip, evidence for presence of microburin scar (in parentheses) at Nahal Neqarot.
	Figure 26. Correlation between between Ramon point and microburin alignments attributes at Nahal Neqarot.
Anna Belfer-Cohen and A. Nigel Goring-Morris
The Riddle of the ‘Aurignacian’ in the Negev: The Lithic Assemblage from Nahal Neqarot in the Central Negev, Israel
E. Braun: Forging A link: Evidence for a ‘Lost Horizon’
	Figure 1. Map of southern Levant with principal LC to EB 1 transition deposits.
	Figure 2. Radiocarbon dates from the Ashqelon Cluster of sites.
	Figure 3. A plan of the excavation locales at Barnea, based on Golani and Nagar 2011, Fig. 7.1.
	Figure 4. Aerial view of sand dune covering a portion of the Afridar neighborhood ca. 1960. Photo courtesy of Professor Ram Gophna’s personal archive.
	Figure 5. Inspector for the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums, Dov Meiron, stands well below the modern surface in a bulldozer trench cut into a kurkar ridge in the Afridar neighborhood of Ashqelon, 1968. Note the modern ground level next to t
	Figure 6. Afridar, Area G during excavation. Note the modern bulldozed surface (‘ground zero’) and low-lying excavated trenches in which early EB 1 remains were found at the base of a truncated kurkar prominence. Photo courtesy of the Israel Antiquities
	Figure 7. View facing south from the excavation area of Barnea of the newly flattened littoral. The high-rise buildings in the distance are at the border of the Afridar neighborhood. Numbers 1-3 indicate three locales excavated at the Barnea site. Note r
	Figure 10. A partial view of the Barnea locale during excavation, facing south-southwest. Note remains of a kurkar prominence above ‘ground zero’ (Fig. 6) in the center background. The buildings of Afridar are visible in the left background below the shad
	Figure 8. A view of the bulldozed littoral from the Barnea locale during excavation, facing north. Note hills in the background, remains of the natural topography of the region.
	Figure 9. Remains of a kurkar prominence at the northwest extent of ‘ground zero’, Barnea. Beyond it is the sea. The numbers in the foreground mark different excavation locales. Details of archaeological deposits in it are documented in Figs. 12-14.
	Figure 11. View of a bulldozer sectioned segment of a kurkar ridge that parallels the beach at the western border of the Barnea excavation locale (see also Fig. 4), It is covered by grass growing in a layer of sand, below which is a thick layer of soil (t
	Figure 12. View of a segment of a bulldozer section at the western edge of the excavation area in Barnea (see Fig. 12). The arrow points to what was apparently a complete pot, in situ, sectioned by the bulldozer.
	Figure 13. Closeup view of an in situ pot sheared off by a bulldozer in an archaeological deposit ca. 1.5 m above ‘ground zero’ in Barnea.
	Figure 15 Pottery and a limestone vessel (n) from tumuli superimposed on ladder-like cist burials at Adeimeh, Jordan. New renderings after Stekelis 1935: Fig. 19.
	Figure 16. An early Chalcolithic vessel in the Amman Jordan Citadel Museum, probably from the Adeimeh Cemetery (photo by the author; no scale but approximately 15 cm high).
	Figure 17. A jar burial in Barnea with remains of a wall of kurkar stone just below the modern bulldozed surface; photo by the author, courtesy of A. Golani, Israel Antiquities Authority.
	Figure 18. Select Pottery from the Ashqelon Cluster and Chalcolithic Sites: 1. Straight-sided bowl (so-called ‘v-shaped’) from Afridar, Area J, after Baumgarten 2004: Fig. 10:1. 2. Straight-sided bowl (so-called ‘v-shaped’) from Afridar, Area J, after Bau
	Figure 19. Select Pottery from the Ashqelon Cluster and Chalcolithic Sites: 1. Jar rim from Afridar Area J, after Baumgarten 2004: Fig. 16:3. 2. Jar rim from Afridar Area J, after Baumgarten 2004: Fig. 10:7. 3. Incised, decorated jar neck from Afridar, Ar
	Figure 20. Chalcolithic ground stone vessel fragments from the Ashqelon Cluster and Grar: 1. From Afridar Area E, after Rowan 2004: Fig. 4:3. 2. From Grar, after Gilead 1995: Fig. 7.2:9. 3. From Afridar Area E, after Rowan 2004: Fig. 4:2. 4. From Grar, af
	Figure 21. Select Pottery Types from Jebel Mutawwaq: 1. After PAJM photo posted 2014: 7/4/14. 2. After Álvarez et al. 2014: Fig. 11. 3. After PAJM photo posted 2014: 10/3/14. 4. After Álvarez et al. 2014: Fig. 12. 5. After Álvarez et al. 2014: Fig. 11. 6.
Eliot Braun
Forging A link: Evidence for a ‘Lost Horizon’ – The Late Chalcolithic to EB 1 Transition in the Southern Levant
A. Gopher: Unresolved Pottery Neolithic Chrono-Stratigraphic and Crhrono-Cultural issues
	Figure 1. Schematic timeline and geography of PN cultures.
Avi Gopher
Unresolved Pottery Neolithic Chrono-Stratigraphic and Crhrono-Cultural issues: comments on the beginning and the end of the Pottery Neolithic period
Going through customs: changing rituals of the Ghassulian culture of the Southern Levant, ca. 4500-3900 BC
M. Gošić: Going through customs: changing rituals of the Ghassulian culture of the Southern Levant
	Figure 1. 14C dates from Gilat and Teleilat Ghassul (Bourke et al. 2001; Bourke et al. 2004; Levy and Burton 2006; Weinstein 1984). Calibrated by OxCal v4.2.4 (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2013, Reimer et al. 2013) and shown here with 2σ probability range.
	Figure 2. Plan of the temple in Area E at Teleilat Ghassul, classic courtyard phase. Courtesy of Peta Seaton (reproduced from Seaton 2008, Plate 8).
	Figure 3. 14C dates from Horvat Beter, Bir es-Safadi, Shiqmim and Giv’at ha-Oranim (Burton and Levy 2011, 179; Gilead 1994, 2)(Carmi and Boaretto 2004). Calibrated by OxCal v4.2.4 (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2013, Reimer et al. 2013) and shown here with 2σ proba
	Figure 4. 14C dates from Horvat Qarqar South, Nahal Qanah, Shoham (North) and Peqi’in (Carmi 1998, Carmi and Segal 2005; Segal et al. 1998; Shalem, Gal and Smithline 2013, 413-415). Calibrated by OxCal v4.2.4 (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2013, Reimer et al. 2013)
	Figure 5. Selected ossuaries from Peqi’in: A. female B. male C. zoomorphic. Courtesy of Israel Antiquates Authority and Dina Shalem, Zvi Gal and Howard Smithline.
	Figure 6. 14C dates from Nahal Mishmar cave of the Treasure (Bar-Adon 1980, 199; Davidovich 2008, Table 3). Calibrated by OxCal v4.2.4 (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2013, Reimer et al. 2013) and shown here with 2σ probability range.
	Figure 7. Selected Ghassulian copper artifacts: A. anthropomorphic standard (redrawn after Bar-Adon 1980: 49, no. 21), B. ‘crown’ featuring architectural and zoomorphic motifs (redrawn after Bar-Adon 1980: 28, no. 7), C. standard featuring ibexes and moti
Milena Gošić
Animal offerings from the Nawamis fields and Coeval Habitation Sites in Southern Sinai
L. Kolska Horwitz: Animal offerings from the Nawamis fields and Coeval Habitation Sites
	Figure 2. Photograph showing a section of the nawamis field at Ein Huderah (Photograph: Uzi Avner).
	Figure 3. Map showing location of the nine nawamis in southern Sinai excavated by Israeli teams (based on Bar-Yosef Mayer 2002: Fig. 1).
	Figure 4. Collapsed nawamis photographed ca. 1990-1920 by G. Eric and Edith Matson. Open access print, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Photograph Collection – Reproduction number: LC-DIG-matpc-01976.
	Table 2. Faunal remains from the nawamis tombs (given as NISP counts).
	Table 3. Identifications of faunal species from the nawamis habitation sites.
	Table 4. Species list for the EBII Southern Sinai faunal assemblages.
Liora Kolska Horwitz
An Early Pottery Neolithic (Jericho IX) site east of Tel Nagila
H. Khalaily et al.: An Early Pottery Neolithic (Jericho IX) site east of Tel Nagila
	Figure 1. Location map.
	Figure 3. Main section showing the main archaeological deposits.
	Figure 4. Archaeological layer overlaid the sterile loess.
	Figure 5. Plan of the excavation squares and the main loci.
	Figure 6. Pit 101 in Sq. X-3.
	Figure 7. Photo of pit 102 with molded mud-bricks.
	Figure 8. Plan of Sq. Y-9 including L 206.
	Figure 9. Two phases of Living surfaces in Area B.
	Figure 10.  Walls 2007 and 208 in Sq. X-6, 7.
	Figure 11. Cores. 1-4 single platform cores.
	Figure 12. Cores. 1 Amorphous core; 2-3 two platform cores.
	Figure 13. Tools. 1-2 Arrowheads; 3-4 Sickle blades; 5-6 fan-scrapers.
	Figure 14. Tools. 1, 4 Awls; 2 denticulation; 3 massive borer; 4 bifacial in preparation.
	Figure 15. Bowls.
	Figure 16. Jars.
	Figure 17. Handles and Bases.
	Figure 18. Photomicrograph of sample 3001.
	Figure 19. 1-2 Grinding slab; 3-4 Mobil cup-mark.
	Figure 20. 1-2 Grooved stones.
	Figure 21. Limestone artifacts. 1-2 abraders; 3-4 cores.
	Figure 22. Limestone artifacts. 1-3 massive scrapers.
	Figure 23. Limestone artifacts. 1-2 side-scrapers; 3 awls; 4 denticulated artifacts.
	Table 7. Frequencies of knapped limestone tools.
	Table 8. Dimensions of several limestone categories.
Hamoudi Khalaily, Anastasia Shapiro and Ofer Marder
Clothes Maketh Man: Textile Production in the Southern Levant in the Chalcolithic Period
J. Levy: Clothes Maketh Man: Textile Production in the Southern Levant in the Chalcolithic Period
	Figure 1. Map of main sites mentioned in the chapter, courtesy of Isaac Gilead.
	Figure 2. Harvesting flax, author’s garden, near the Beersheva Valley, March 2013.
	Figure 3. Flax stem anatomy A=cuticle, B=epidermis, C=cortex, D=fibre bundles, E=woody core, F=pith, G=lumen after Baines 1989 Fig. 2, courtesy of Yuval Shach.
	Figure 4. Supported on the thigh spinning, Navajo, from Wilson 1896 PL.22.
	Figure 5. Drop spinning, high whorl spindle, Iran after Hochberg 1980, 63 courtesy of Yuval Shach.
	Figure 6. Horizontal ground loom on ceramic bowl Badari, Egypt from Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928 PL. XLVIII/70k.
	Figure 7. Representative spinning whorls from the Southern Levant (1) photography by author.
	Figure 8. Representative spinning whorls from the Southern Levant (2) photography by author.
	Figure 9. Spinning bowl, Neve Ur from Perrot, Zori and Reich 1967, photography by Alter Fogel.
	Figure 10. Schematic of linen shroud, Cave of the Warrior, after Schick 1998 Fig. 3.2, courtesy of Yuval Shach.
	Figure 11. Schematic of weft fringe, shroud, Cave of the Warrior, after Schick 1998 Fig. 3.26 courtesy of Natanel Levy.
	Figure 13. Sash, detail of countered weft twining and warp tassels, Cave of the Warrior, from Schick 1998 PL. 3.9, courtesy of Orit Shamir and the Israel Antiquities Authority, photography by Clara Amit.
	Figure 15. Fresco, The Procession, Teleilat Ghassul after Cameron 1981, frontispiece, courtesy of Yuval Shach.
	Figure 16. Leather sandals, Cave of the Warrior, from Schick 2003, 16 courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority, photography by Olga Negnevitsky.
	Figure 17. Fresco, The Notables, Teleilat Ghassul from Mallon et al. 1934 PL. 66.
	Figure 18. Fresco, The Notables, Teleilat Ghassul, detail of footwear, from Mallon et al. 1934 PL. 56.
Janet Levy
Atar Livneh
Stylistic Devices and Exegetical Techniques in ‘Rewritten Bible’ Compositions
Conus ornaments from Tel Bareqet in an Early Bronze Age Near East context
D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer et al.: Conus ornaments from Tel Bareqet in an Early Bronze Age Near East context
	Figure 1: The Conus apex beads from Bareqet. Each bead is viewed from two sides. Photography and layout: Oz Rittner.
Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, Sarit Paz and Yitzhak Paz
D. Nadel et al.: Flint knapping in a brush hut
	Figure 1. a) Location map.
	Figure 1. b) plan of the Ohalo II site.
	Figure 2. The distribution map of the flint assemblage (debitage and tools) on the floor of Brush Hut 2 (N=4,536). Note the two distinct clusters and the many low-density units around the wall.
	Figure 3. The distribution maps of a) blade/lets (N=2,410) and cores; b) primary elements (N=463) and cores; c) core trimming elements (N=182) and cores.
	Figure 4. The distribution maps of a) tools (N=132) and b) microliths (N=60).
	Figure 5. The distribution map of the minute remains (N=2,943).
	Figure 6. Spatially explicit regression results for pairs of flint products. a) primary elements – core trimming elements; b) blade/lets – core trimming elements; c) blade/lets – primary elements; d) blade/lets – flakes; e) tools – blade/lets; f) tools
	Figure 7. The spatial distribution of the raw material 2 refits: a) Set #2 with the fragments composing a flake, Set #2a and four sets of fragments; b) sets *2b-*2d are refitted fragments.
	Figure 8. The spatial distribution of the raw material 3 refits: Set #3 with four specimens and three additional flakes / primary elements composed of refitted fragments.
	Figure 9. The refitted set of raw material 4. 1) primary element; 2-5) first series of blade/lets; 6) core tablet; 7-11) second series of blade/lets; 12) core. Scale bar 2 cm, photo is enlarged for details.
	Figure 10. The spatial distribution of the raw material 4 refits: Set #4 with 12 specimens and three flakes / primary elements composed of fragments. Two possible spatial reconstructions are presented, (a) as found and (b) with the core moved to its postu
	Figure 11. The spatial distribution of the raw material 10 refits: Set #10b and four sets of fragments.
	Figure 12. The spatial distribution of the raw material 14 refits: Set #14 with three specimens and two smaller sets.
	Figure 13. The locations of the major knapping events on the floor of Brush Hut 2 reconstructed according to the spatial distribution of the flint assemblage. The dashed contours mark the two main flint clusters.
	Table 5. Contingency table comparing the northern and southern knapping areas with macroliths and microliths considered separately. Significant adjusted residuals (AR) are shown in bold.
	Table 6. Contingency table comparing macroliths and microliths between the northern and southern knapping areas. Significant adjusted residuals (AR) are shown in bold.
Dani Nadel, Daniel Kaufman, Udi Grinburg and Dan Malkinson
Flint knapping in a brush hut: a case study from Ohalo II, a 23000 year-old camp in the Sea of Galilee
A. Ronen: Middle Palaeolithic Humans in the Levant
	Figure 1. Tentative site distribution by Middle Palaeolithic populations in the Galilee and northern Levant (area removed shown in Fig. 2).
	Figure 2. Tentative site distribution by Middle Palaeolithic populations in Mount Carmel.
Avraham Ronen
Middle Palaeolithic Humans in the Levant: An Archaeological Perspective
S. A. Rosen: The Time-Space Discontinuum
	Figure 1. Basic culture-chronological framework for the Negev. Absolute chronologies are approximate and the dating of some periods (e.g., Iron Age IIa, Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age I transition) is debated (e.g., Regev et al. 2012).
	Figure 2. Map of the Negev in the Near East. Modern borders are indicated by a dashed line. Vegetation zones are as follows: 1. Mediterranean vegetation, 2. Irano-Turanian steppe vegetation, 3. Sudano-Deccanian tropical vegetation (in patches in the ind
	Figure 3. Site frequency graph from the Makhtesh Ramon, Map 204 (Rosen 1994) with periods and chronology. Note that the x-axis is actually nominal, and not to a linear scale due to the non-linea nature of periodization. Arrows indicate stratigraphic bre
	Figure 4. Negev settlement frequency graphs by period from selected monographs of the Archaeological Survey of Israel. Survey numbers refer to the Israel Grid and to the official map publication number. Data from Gazit 1996, Govrin 1981, and Haiman 1981
	Figure 5. Location of published Negev Survey blocks, in special references to Figures 4 and 5. Each square is 10 x 10 km.
	Figure 6. East section of the Ramon I Rockshelter with calibrated radiocarbon dates.
Steven A. Rosen
The Time-Space Discontinuum: Scale in the Geography and Chronology of Negev Archaeology
D. Rosenberg: The incised flint assemblage from Neolithic Beisamoun and its significance
	Figure 1. Map of Beisamoun and other Pre-Pottery Neolithic and Early Pottery Neolithic Yarmukian sites.
	Figure 2. Beisamoun past excavations and the 2007 salvage excavation (enlarged area). The area enclosed in a broken line at the top of the drawing marks the dispersal of finds as noted by the French delegation. Hatched squares mark other excavations in th
	Figure 3. Cores bearing incised pattern and grooves.
	Figure 4. Various grooved and incised items – 1-9: Flakes, 10: over-shot, 11-12: End-scrapers.
	Figure 5. Characteristics of the assemblage: metrics and weights. * Broken.
	Figure 6. Characteristics of grooves: Metrics. * Broken.
	Figure 7. Characteristics of the incised flint assemblage * Broken.
Danny Rosenberg
The incised flint assemblage from Neolithic Beisamoun and its significance
Ceramic Connections and Regional Entities: The Petrography of Late Chalcolithic Pottery from Sites in the Galilee (Israel)
D. Shalem et al.: Ceramic Connections and Regional Entities
	Figure 1. Location map of sites mentioned in the text. For the sites of the Golan see Figure 5.
	Figure 2. Pottery examples presented in the text. 1. Golan Ware, Tel Te’o (Eisenberg et al. 2001: Fig. 6.4:8); 2. Golan Ware, Beer Tzunam (Shalem 2003: Fig. 28:4); 3. Ḥula Ware, Tel Te’o (Eisenberg et al. 2001: Fig. 6.1:7); 4. Ḥula Ware, Beer Tzunam (Shal
	Figure 3. Photomicrographs of Golanite pottery? 1: Peqi’in, Table 1:4. Fine-grained basalt fragment imbedded in ferruginous silty matrix. The basalt has a pilotaxitic and partly fludial microtexture of the groundmass and microlites of olivine and ore mine
	Figure 4. Photomicrographs of pottery of several sites? 1. Assawir (Table 2:9), Morzovella sp. PPL; 2. Assawir (Table 2: 7), Acarinina sp. PPL; 3. Beer Tzunam (Table 2:13). Chiloguembelina. PPL; 4. Kaukab (Table 2:16). Globotruncana sp. PPL.
	Figure 5. Map of volcanic units in the Galilee and the Golan after Weinstein and Garfunkel (2014) and the sites of the sampled Golanite vessels. Sites: 1. Beer Tzunam 2. Peqi’in 3. Asherat 5. Kaukab Springs 7. Agam Dalton. 8 Horbat Duvshan. 9. Tel Turmus
	Table 1. Inventory and results of the petrographically analyzed Golanian jars.
	Table 2. The inventory of the petrographicaly analyzed Painted Ware and Ḥula Ware vessels and cornets.
Dina Shalem, Anat Cohen-Weinberger, Bernardo Gandulla and Ianir Milevski
Communal Bison Hunting in Western North America: Current Understandings and Unresolved Issues
J. D. Speth: Communal Bison Hunting in Western North America
	Figure 1. American bison (Bison bison). Photo by Jack Dykinga, released in the public domain by the Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture (Image ID K5680-1). Available on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Americ
	Figure 2. Map of the extermination of the American bison to 1889. Intermediate gray, original range; dark gray, range 1870; black, range 1889; black numbers, estimated number of bison in 1889; white numbers, date of local extermination. Adapted from a dra
	Figure 3. Pile of bison skulls awaiting processing into fertilizer and bone char used for refining sugar and bone black, Michigan Carbon Works, Detroit, Michigan, late 19th-century. Image (ID DPA4901600jpg) courtesy of the Burton Historical Collection, De
John D. Speth
Job 40:30-31 and the first whalers1
O. Tammuz: Job 40:30-31 and the first whalers
	Figure 1. A Vertebra of a sperm whale with a bronze tip. Museo  Whitaker di Mozia (Marsala).
Oded Tammuz
F. R. Valla: More on Early Natufian building 131 at Eynan (Ain Mallaha)
	Figure 1. Row of fallen stones in the lower fill of wall 51 (squares O-N-6-7-8). (1973 season, Photo F. Valla).
	Figure 2. Map of the ashy floor at the base of wall 51. Note hearths 128 and 130. The floor is cut by the negative of wall 62 (removed at the time of this drawing). In squares O/4-5 and P/7: windows open in earlier deposits. In squares Q-R-S/6-7-8 ‘soundi
	Figure 3. Map of floor 131a (1975 season. Drawing A. Dagand and M. Barazani).
	Figure 4. Floor 131a: curves indicating the movement of floor 131a in its densely packed area (1975 season. Drawing A. Dagand and M. Barazani).
	Figure 5. Floor 131a: Map and section of posthole 141 (1975 season, drawing M. Barazani).
	Figure 6. Floor 131a: Map and section of posthole 140 (1975 season, drawing M. Barazani).
	Figure 7. Floor 131a: Map and section of posthole 139 (1975 season, drawing M. Barazani).
	Figure 8. Floor 131a: Map and section of posthole 145 (1975 season, drawing M. Barazani).
	Figure 9. Floor 131a: Map and section of posthole 144 (1975 season, drawing M. Barazani).
	Figure 10. Floor 131a: Map and section of posthole 143 (1975 season, drawing M. Barazani).
	Figure 11. Floor 131a: Map and section of post-hole 142 (1975 season, drawing M. Barazani).
	Figure 12. Floor 131a: relationship of the floor with walls 131 and 51 (behind) in squares N/6-7. (1975 season. Photo F. Valla).
	Figure 13. Floor 131a: fragment of a soft limestone sculpture in square P/5. (1975 season, photo J. Perrot).
	Figure 14. Floor 131a: Worked roe deer horn found broken into pieces in hearth 147 (1975 season, photo. M. Barazani).
	Figure 15. Attributed to floor 131a: Calcite figurine (square P/9). (1975 season, photo L. Davin).
	Figure 16. Attributed to floor 131a: Calcite figurine (square P/9). (1975 season, drawing F. Valla and M. Barazani).
	Figure 17. Floor 131b: fragment of Iron ore, probably hematite (square O/6). (1976 season, photo M. Barazani).
	Figure 18. Grave Homo 104: an old woman buried with a puppy dog. (1976 season, photo A. Dagan and F. Valla).
François R. Valla
More on Early Natufian building 131 at Eynan (Ain Mallaha), Israel
Hatrurim Quarry – A Newly Discovered Quarry and Production of Larnite Bifacial Tools
J. Vardi: Hatrurim Quarry – A Newly Discovered Quarry and Production of Larnite Bifacial Tools
	Figure 1. The Hatrurim Basin. The largest quarries are marked in the map: HJQ (Hatrurim Junction Quarry), and HP (Har Parsa).
	Figure 3. Larnite nodules from the Hatrurim quarry.
	Figure 4. A fused lump of knapped Larnite bearing rock debitage.
	Figure 6. A knapping area.
	Figure 7. The excavation area (view to the east).
	Figure 9. The excavated area, note the bedrock Larnite nodules and the layer of waste at the section (horizontal scale 50 cm).
	Figure 10. The Waste and tools frequencies from the excavation at the Hatrurim quarry.
	Figure 11. The flakes metric attributes in mm.
	Figure 12. A flake.
	Figure 13. A large flake.
	Figure 14. Length vs. width dimensions of the flakes from the Hatrurim quarry.
	Figure 15. Roughout of an axe.
	Figure 16. Roughout (of an adze?).
	Figure 17. An unfinished adze.
	Figure 18. An unfinished adze.
	Figure 19. An unfinished adze.
	Figure 20. A bi-convex roughout.
	Figure 22. Metric and weight attributes of the roughouts from the Hatrurim quarry (excluding initially prepared).
	Figure 23. A list of the roughouts of the bifacial tools from the Hatrurim quarry site.
Jacob Vardi
A. Witztum et al.: The Origin of the Hebrew Word ṣîṣit ‘Fringe’
	Figure 1. The source: Alan Gardiner. 1957. Egyptian Grammar, Oxford, Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, p. 507. Reproduced with permission of the Griffith Institute at Oxford University.
	Figure 1. Cactus hedges at Tel Erani. A look from the High terrace north, towards the acropolis (Courtesy: Marcin Czarnowicz).
Allan Witztum, Avi Gold and Mayer I. Gruber
The Origin of the Hebrew Word ṣîṣit ‘Fringe’1
Tel Erani – Reassessing old published records
Yuval Yekutieli
Figure 2. Cactus hedges and parcellation at Tel Erani. A. Cadastral outlines projected on 2006 aerial photograph of Tel Erani. B. Zalman Lifshitz’s cadastral map of ‘Iraq el-Manshiye. (The figure is compiled by the author on the basis of: A. Kiryat-Gat
Figure 3. Tel Erani – Settlement size in ancient periods and location of excavation areas (Basic map layer adapted from Kempinski and Gilead 1991).
Figure 4. Area D, location of excavation areas.
Figure 6. Area D, Deep probes (in grey shades) – Yeivin’s strata VII-XIII, Kempinski and Gilead’s layers C2, D and E.
Figure 7. Yeivin’s stratum VI, Kempinski and Gilead’s layer C1.
Figure 8. Yeivin’s stratum V.
Figure 10. Yeivin’s stratum IV superimposed on stratum V (shaded).
Figure 9. Yeivin’s stratum IV.
Figure 12. Yeivin’s stratum III superimposed on stratum IV (shaded).
Figure 13. Yeivin’s stratum IIc.
Figure 14. Yeivin’s stratum IIb superimposed on IIc (shaded).
Figure 15. Yeivin’s stratum IIa superimposed on IIb and IIc (shaded).
Figure 16. Mudbricks exposed on top of Yeivin’s stratum II, interpreted as remains of a city-wall by Brandl (1989: 383). Note the orientation of the brick-lines.
Elad Filler
‘Isaac went out to meditate in the field’ (Genesis 24:63) in the Exegesis of Philo of Alexandria and Naphtali Zvi Yehuda Berlin
N. Getzov: The Nahal Zippori Horizon, between the Lodian and Wadi Rabah Cultures
	Figure 1.
	Figure 2.
	Figure 3.
	Figure 4.
	Figure 5.
	Figure 6.
Nimrod Getzov, Ianir Milevski and Hamoudi Khalaily
The Nahal Zippori Horizon, between the Lodian and Wadi Rabah Cultures
Eran Viezel
‘In Green Pastures’ [bi-ne’ot deshshe]: Psalm 23 and Song of Songs 5 in the Poetry of Agi Mishol
Shamir Yona and Rafael Furman
The Varieties of Vengeance in the Book of Jeremiah