The Late Pottery Neolithic: an open boundary

Why the boundary remains open

This page focuses on late Pottery Neolithic assemblages, especially classification of the Wadi Rabah culture. Studies do not always use the same label: one places it in the Pottery Neolithic while another calls it Early Chalcolithic. Rather than forcing agreement, readers should retain that difference when comparing evidence. Sources: R12, R11.

The displayed range refers approximately to the Wadi Rabah discussion in R12: 7600/7500-6800 calibrated years before 1950. Its BCE conversion is approximate arithmetic. It is neither a consensus range for all late pottery cultures nor a new measurement. The parent page supplies a broader regional framework; this page explains where its boundary becomes less precise.

A cultural label is not an identity document

Naming an assemblage lets researchers compare form, material, treatment and context. It does not independently show that its users spoke the same language or understood themselves as one community. Use the term by first listing its defining attributes and separating frequent features from rare ones.

Imagine two settlements with similar bowls. That is a research starting point, not a conclusion. A proposed connection needs testing: does similarity concern the rim alone, or also clay preparation, forming technique and chronology? If one assemblage predates the other, the possible model differs from exchange between contemporary neighbours. This is a conceptual example, not a claim about a particular site.

Beyond pottery: obsidian and slingstones

R12 proposes a social model for obsidian exchange. Material from a distant source and the relationships through which it travelled must be distinguished. Composition can be analysed; a partnership based on kinship is an explanation to compare with alternatives.

The library's slingstone article offers another route into that problem. Similar objects raise questions about learning a craft, choosing material and organising work. Resemblance does not necessarily indicate a centrally imposed standard. It might also reflect similar practical demands or a shared working tradition. Measurements and contexts are needed to assess the possibilities.

A reader's working method

For each report, separately record the period label, excavated unit and dating method. Then compare terminology in a second study. Different names alongside overlapping sample dates need not imply disagreement about an object's age: classification may be the issue. Moving between the overlapping period pages preserves that distinction instead of hiding it behind a visually neat timeline.

Source

Sources and further reading

The research and references behind this page. Rights to external content remain with their owners.

1. R12 A Kin-based Trade Partnership Model for Obsidian in the Halafian Interaction Sphere: A View from the Southern Levant Wadi Rabah Culture

   Doron Yacobi, Avi Gopher · 2023

2. R11 The Beginning of Metallurgy in the Southern Levant: A Late 6th Millennium CalBC Copper Awl from Tel Tsaf, Israel

   Yosef Garfinkel, Florian Klimscha, Sariel Shalev, Danny Rosenberg · 2014