The basics: history of research, terminology, and chronology
The Near Eastern Neolithic was first documented during archaeology's formative development and some of the considerable diversity in terminology is a result of the academic and national backgrounds of the variety of scholars involved in these early studies.
Here, I have retained the traditional Neolithic phraseology, realizing that it is not always used in every region of the Near East. This begins with the Natufian, an important pre-Neolithic period in which much of the framework for subsequent developments occurred. The Natufian is divided into early and late phases. It is followed by two broad periods, the PrePottery Neolithic (PPN), and the Pottery Neolithic (PN). The PPN, which in many ways represents the florescence of the Near Eastern Neolithic, is commonly divided into the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, B, and C (PPNA, PPNB, PPNC). Many subdivide the PPNA into the Khiamian and Sultanian,[388] although there is debate as to whether or not the Khiamian is a distinct entity.[389] For the PPNB, it is typical to use subphases that include early, middle, and late PPNB. The PPNC is relatively recent, having been defined during excavations at the Jordanian mega-site of 'Ain Ghazal.[390] The PN is usually divided into PNA and PNB, although there is regional variability. These terms were popularized by Kathleen Kenyon's research at Jericho, and remain enduring.The first discoveries of Neolithic materials were made prior to World War I by colourful early archaeologists such as T. E. Lawrence and Sir Leonard Woolley. While these initial discoveries demonstrated that there was an intermediate stage between the Palaeolithic and the great urban cultures of the Near East, little else was known.[391] More serious Neolithic studies began in the 1920s, especially in the southern Levant, and certainly the most significant milestone was at the biblical site ofJericho where in the 1930s John Garstang established a stratified Neolithic sequence.
Kenyon's subsequent excavations in the 1950s documented a large, elaborate, and long-lived Neolithic community that provided a still widely used base for defining the Neolithic.[392] A consequence of the early studies at Jericho, however, was that it came to be identified as the type site for the Neolithic, an unfortunate occurrence since Jericho is quite distinct from most other Neolithic sites.To the north, Robert Braidwood and other scholars were also documenting Neolithic sites. After World War II, research accelerated, and of particular importance was Braidwood's pioneering interdisciplinary work at Jarmo and other Iraqi sites. Indeed, Braidwood and Kenyon were frequently involved in colourful exchanges about whose Neolithic sites were ‘more important'. Also significant was the research of Mellaart and others in Turkey, especially at important sites such as Qatalhoyuk, Suberde, and Qayonu. These studies greatly expanded our knowledge of the Neolithic outside of what had become a perceived Levantine Neolithic core. Unfortunately, political considerations, especially in Iran and Iraq, have hampered a continuation of research into these very important areas.
Table 8.ι Chronology for the Near Eastern Neolithic.
| Phase | Conventional (uncalibrated) b p | Calibrated b p |
| Natufian | c. 12,800-10,200 | c. 15,000-12,000 |
| PPNA | c. 10,500-9,200 | c. 11,700-10,500 |
| PPNB | c. 9,500-7,900 | c. 10,500-8,700 |
| PPNC | c. 7,900-7,500 | c. 8,600-8,250 |
| PN | c. 8,000-6,100 | c. 9,000-6,900 |
Note some potential overlap between PPNC and PN; in the Levant, a beginning of around 7,500 bp is often used for the PN.
Likewise, but for other reasons, it is only recently that the elaborate and expansive Turkish Neolithic has come into clearer focus.[393] Research in the Levant has also greatly expanded, documenting numerous Neolithic communities more modest than Jericho, providing a more balanced perspective. Despite the ever-changing political climate in the Near East, contemporary research is both refining and, in some cases, rewriting our comprehension of the Neolithic, especially with discoveries from Jordan, Turkey, and Cyprus.
The chronology of the Near Eastern Neolithic is supported by numerous radiocarbon determinations. While there is regional variation and overlap, Table 8.1 lists the general chronological framework. The following thematic discussion incorporates, as appropriate, data from each phase.