seen & unseen spaces

seen & unseen spaces

edited by Matthew Dalton, Georgie Peters & Ana Tavares

ANNO • DOM

M•D•CCCC•III

Contents Introduction: Seen and unseen spaces Matthew Dalton, Georgie Peters and Ana Tavares

1

'Out of sight': The role of Kfar HaHoresh within the PPNB landscape of the Lower Galilee, Israel Michal Birkenfeld and A. Nigel Goring-Morris

7

Site and scene: Evaluating visibility in monument placement during the Bronze Age of West Penwith, Cornwall, United Kingdom Chelsee Arbour

17

(In)visible cities: The abandoned Early Bronze Age tells in the landscape of the Intermediate Bronze Age southern Levant Sarit Paz

28

‘All that we see or seem’: Space, memory and Greek akropoleis Robin Rönnlund

37

Becoming visible: The formation of urban boundaries in the oppidum of Manching (Bavaria) Thimo Jacob Brestel

44

Mutable spaces and unseen places: A study of access, communication and spatial control in households at Early Iron Age (EIA) Zagora on Andros Kristen Mann

52

Privacy and production: Sensory aspects of household industry in Classical and Hellenistic Greece Katherine Harrington

63

Some thoughts on the habits of graffiti-writing: Visual aspects of scratched inscriptions within Pompeian houses Polly Lohmann

70

Visibility, private religion and the urban landscape of Amarna Anna Stevens

77

In the eyes of the other: The mythological wall reliefs in the Southwest Palace at Nineveh Kiersten A. Neumann

85

Ziggurats: A viewer’s guide Mary Shepperson

94

Modelling household identity in a multi-ethnic society Miriam Müller

102

From vision to cosmovision: Memory and the senses in the creation of Maya ritual space Lisa M. Johnson, James M. Crandall and Lucas R. Martindale Johnson

113

Visualising personhood: Race, space and materiality in the historic mortuary landscapes of eastern Long Island Emily Button Kambic

123

Segregation of mortuary spaces within the context of double funerals: An ethnoarchaeological approach applied to Neolithic Pouilly (France) Jennifer Kerner

134

Creating visual boundaries between the ‘sacred’ and ‘secular’ in New Kingdom Egypt Nicola Harrington

143

Life after death: Shrouded burials in later Anglo-Saxon England Siân Mui

150

Book Reviews Edited by Matthew Dalton Archaeology and the Senses: Human Experience, Memory, and Affect By Yannis Hamilakis Reviewed by Lucy Shipley

157

An Archaeology of the Troubles: The Dark Heritage of Long Kesh/Maze Prison By Laura McAtackney Reviewed by Calum Gavin Robertson

159

Animals as Neighbors. The Past and Present of Commensal Species By Terry O'Connor Reviewed by William C. McGrew

160

Forthcoming issues and subscription information

162

Available back issues

163

April 2015 | Seen and Unseen Spaces

'Out of sight': The role of Kfar HaHoresh within the PPNB landscape of the Lower Galilee, Israel Michal Birkenfeld and A. Nigel Goring-Morris Institute of Archaeology The Hebrew University of Jerusalem [email protected] [email protected]

The Neolithic of the Levant (ca 9750–5500 cal BC) represents a pivotal point in human history. It is during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) period, ca 8500–7000 cal BC, that the transformation from mobile, hunter-gatherer life-ways to more complex, sedentary agricultural societies first occurs within the Mediterranean zone (Banning 1998; Bar-Yosef 2001; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2014; Goring-Morris et al. 2009; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002). This is accompanied by evidence for increased settlement density when significantly larger sites (mega-sites of up to 10ha) emerge within the Mediterranean zone in and east of the Jordan Rift Valley. In the Lower Galilee to the west settlements are more modest (less than 5ha), but cluster in certain settings, especially adjacent to alluvial valleys (such as Yiftah’el; Garfinkel et al. 2012) and plains (such as Mishmar HaEmeq; Barzilai and Getzov 2008). During the PPNB a shift towards domesticated plants and animals is documented, probably in a mosaic process, although foraging remained important (College et al. 2004; Horwitz et al. 2000; Lev-Yadun et al. 2000; Zeder 2011; Zohary et al. 2012). This study represents part of a research programme focusing on PPNB settlement systems within the Lower Galilee, which operates at both intra- and inter-site levels, and explores the territories exploited by local PPNB communities (Birkenfeld 2008, 2012, in preparation; Birkenfeld and Goring-Morris 2011, 2012, 2014). By investigating site location choices and intra-site organization, this research programme aims to shed light on how the regional settlement system functioned and was structured. Here, the results of a viewshed analysis are presented, discussing issues of visibility and intervisibility of and between PPNB sites within the Lower Galilee. While most sites are interpreted as representing small, incipient farming communities, a few seemingly fulfilled other functions. Particular attention focuses upon the site of Kfar HaHoresh (KHH), which is

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 30.1

hypothesized to represent a regional cult and mortuary locality (Goring-Morris 2000, 2005, 2008; Goring-Morris et al. 1998). How is its unique character mirrored in the visual qualities of its location relative to other contemporary settlements? Viewshed analysis in archaeology Rooted in the field of landscape archaeology, interest in questions of visibility has long preceded technological advances of Geographic Information System (GIS) applications. Earlier studies, prior to the advent of GIS, were mainly based on field observations (Roese 1980). Although few early studies were supported by statistical analyses, pioneering quantitative approaches set the stage with more rigorous methods (Fraser 1983, 1988; and see Lake and Woodman 2003). Subsequently, viewshed analysis was applied to tackle questions of site location choices such as defensibility or social interactions (Jones 2006; Lock and Harris 1996; Garcia-Moreno 2013). Since the introduction of GIS applications to archaeology, a great number of visibility analyses have been published, reflecting the ease of analytical processes at the technical level. Methodologically, GIS-based viewshed analysis is similar to the viewshed calculation methodologies in the 1970s, which mainly consisted of the measurement and analysis of ‘line-of-sight’ and ‘field-of-view’ (Wheatley and Gillings 2000: 2). GIS use a DEM (Digital Elevation Model) to determine lines-of-sight (or inter-visibility) between each raster grid cell and one or more observer points. This enables determination of the degree to which a certain location in the landscape is visible, facilitating calculation of the extent of the area visible from a given point in the landscape. From its inception, several problems have been voiced regarding viewshed analysis. Some of these critiques have been addressed through GIS-based analysis, such as taking taking into account the earth’s curvature, or the influence of

Michal Birkenfeld & A. Nigel Goring-Morris | 8

Figure 1. The lower Galilee, showing the locations of the PPNB sites used in the study (map drawn by Michal Birkenfeld).

light refraction, though others remain unsolved (Ruggles and Medyckyj-Scott 1996; Wheatley and Gillings 2000). Some issues are more technical; the quality of analysis, for example, is completely determined by the quality of the DEM. Even ignoring cognitive or perceptual issues influencing how people see things, other mundane concerns relate to technicalities of human vision. Sight is affected by the loss of visual clarity with distance, and other factors that also affect visibility, such as vegetation. In the Near East phytogeographic variability is significant, since the Mediterranean zone features more or less dense forest/woodland cover, while semi-arid steppe and arid zones have sparse, if any tree cover (Baruch 1986; Danin 1988; Zohary 1962). Another issue is the effect of atmospheric conditions on visibility. In the Levant seasonality is significant, since heat haze during summer months significantly diminishes visibility, while it is enhanced on clear winter days.1 Furthermore, diurnal changes affect visibility; in the morning or evening visibility is usually less than half of that at midday, and it is reduced greatly in rainy or misty conditions, and when humidity increases (Higuchi 1983:17). Microclimatological conditions are influential and visibility between regions can be quite variable. 1 For example, one can see the snow covered summit of Mt Hermon (2840m asl), some 85km to the north-east, from the summit of the Nazareth hills on clear winter days.

Although it might be impossible to recreate exactly what was visible from a specific location at a given time, and in spite of difficulties and criticisms regarding the reconstruction of viewsheds, GIS-based viewshed analysis nevertheless enables quantification of the obscure notion of sight, or the visual perception of the landscape. It may be that such analyses provide over-optimistic estimations—snapshots of ‘idealized’ situations—in which topography is the only influential factor. Still, while caution should be exercised, this method is valuable for evaluating and comparing sites relative to one another in terms of visual attributes, revealing similarities and differences in site location on a regional level. PPNB in the Lower Galilee Located in northern Israel, the Lower Galilee is a well-defined geographic unit (fig.1); to the east, it is bordered by the Jordan Rift Valley and the Sea of Galilee. To the west, it is limited by the Mediterranean coast and the Zebulon and Acre plains. To the north and south it is demarcated by large valleys—the Bet Ha-Qerem valley and the foothills of the high western Galilee hills to the north and the plains of the Jezre’el and the Bet She’an valleys to the south. Geologically, the area is characterized primarily by sedimentary rocks with numerous springs. Two subsidiary fault systems perpendicular to the rift valley combine to create the landscape of eastwest trending wide valleys and hill ranges up to 600m above


9 | 'Out of sight': Kfar HaHoresh

sea level (asl) (Ben-Yosef 2001; Efrat 1996). The interplay of several factors, including average annual precipitation of 600–800mm and terra rossa soils, creates favourable agricultural environments in the past as in the present, especially in the alluvial plains and valleys (Baruch 1986; Baruch and Bottema 1999; Kadosh et al. 2004; Langgut et al. 2011). The Early Holocene climax vegetation in Galilee is reconstructed as a mixed Tabor oak (Quercus ithaburensis) ‘park forest’ association (Baruch 1986; Orni and Efrat 1980; Zohary 1962). Such surroundings would clearly affect visibility and inter-visibility, since many sites were probably surrounded by thickets of trees, if not actual forests. Most PPNB settlements in the Lower Galilee are located in ecotones2 between rolling hills and alluvial valley plains, such as Yiftah’el, at the exit of the Beit Netofa valley and Mishmar Haemeq at foot of the Ramat Menashe hills overlooking the Jezre’el valley (fig. 1) (Barzilai and Getzov 2008; Garfinkel et al. 2012; Khalaily et al. 2008; Marder et al. 2011). Some, however, display different patterns. For example, special purpose localities, such as flint and basalt procurement sites for stone tools occur near raw-material outcrops, such as Site Q1, Giv’at Rabi and Givat Kipod (Barzilai and Milevski 2010; Oshri et al. 1999; Rosenberg et al. 2008). Of note is the small (0.75ha) secluded site of Kfar HaHoresh (KHH) in the uppermost reaches of a minor wadi on the western flanks of the Nazareth hills. Unlike contemporary settlements, KHH was not located adjacent to significant tracts of arable land or water sources (Birkenfeld and Goring-Morris 2012; Goring-Morris 2008; Tsatskin and Gendler 2002; Tsatskin et al. 1998). Investigations at KHH revealed an occupation sequence spanning Early to Late PPNB (ca 10,500-9250 cal BP). Based on its location, size and nature of occupation, including the presence of a monumental lime-plastered platform, numerous burials (Eshed et al. 2008; Simmons et al. 2007) including plastered skulls (Goren et al. 2001), various contextual associations of material culture remains and evidence for feasting (Goring-Morris and Horwitz 2007), it is interpreted as a cult and mortuary centre (for publications relating to the site see Goring-Morris 2000, 2005, 2008). It likely served communities from surrounding settlements, perhaps intermittently—whether seasonally or periodically. Methodology The data used here derive from 10 PPNB sites excavated in the Lower Galilee. They include: Einot Zippori (Barzilai et al. 2013a; Milevski pers. com.), Einot Nissanit (Tepper 2013, pers. com.), Hanaton (Nativ et al. 2014), Kfar HaHoresh, Khirbet ‘Asafna (east) (van den Brink pers. comm.), Horvat ‘Uza (Getzov 2008; Getzov et al. 2009), Mishmar HaEmeq (Barzilai and Getzov 2008), Nahal Zippori 3 (Barzilai et al. 2013b), Tell Jenin (Sayej 1997) 2 An ecotone is a transition area between two biomes.


and Yiftah’el (Garfinkel et al. 2012; Marder et al. 2011; fig. 1). Except for KHH all sites were excavated as salvage projects. The extents of excavation areas vary; most are limited, though Yiftah’el and Mishmar HaEmeq are unusual in this respect. All sites have been interpreted as settlements, except for KHH. Ritual areas were identified at Yiftah’el and Mishmar HaEmeq (Barzilai et al. 2011; Khalaily et al. 2008). PPNB sites in the Galilee are typically situated on flat or gentle north-facing slopes (less than seven degrees) at the interfaces between rolling hills and alluvial valleys. Such ecotonal settings provide access to the plains below as well as the wooded hills above. Estimates of settlement sizes vary, although they all likely extend over at least 1-2ha. Sites are located near springs and seasonal or perennial streams; at Einot Nissanit a deep well was documented (Tepper 2013). Expanses of arable land are also immediately available in the environs of all sites save KHH (Birkenfeld in preparation; Birkenfeld and Goring-Morris 2012). Viewshed analysis was conducted on all ten sites.3 Taking into account the criticisms outlined above, the question of distance and how it affects one’s vision will be addressed. The appearance of any object, be it a mountain, human being or animal, changes with respect to its distance from the viewer. With increasing distance objects undergo a continuous diminution in size, sharpness and hue. Eventually, as distance increases, this gradual and diminishing change in the appearance of the object becomes qualitative as well as quantitative. Accordingly, Higuchi (1983) divided the landscape into three units of visual reference: short-distance views, middle-distance views, and long-distance views. Higuchi used trees as the standard for classifying distances and how they affect the appearance of what we see. ◆ Short-distance view: the trees are near enough to be sensed as individual objects. ◆ Middle-distance view: the outline of treetops is visible but not the details of individual trees. ◆ Long-distance view: the contours of treetops cannot be perceived and the eye can observe only major topographical features such as valleys, crests or clusters of vegetation. Higuchi concluded that the maximum distance for a short-distance view is about 60 times the size of the object viewed—for a 6m tall tree, the distance would be 360m—and for the middle-distance view about 1100 times the size of the object, which is 6.6km for a 6m tall tree. Wheatley and Gillings (2000) modified a methodology of viewshed analysis taking into account Higuchi’s short, middle and long-view ranges. This enables decomposition of the viewshed into different perception scales, distinguishing 3 Using ESRI ArcGIS 10.1 and the Viewshed tool set. The DEM used has a 25m cell size, and was created based on 5m contour lines elevation map. The earth's curvature was taken into account, with the default 0.13 refraction value.


Figure 3. Viewshed of Kfar HaHoresh (map drawn by Michal Birkenfeld).

Following their work, a Higuchi viewshed was created for each site. The boundaries of the short and middle-distance views were calculated following his method, that is 360m and 6600m respectively. The boundary of the long-distance view was calculated based on the optimal ‘distance to the horizon’ from each location separately. This distance is calculated based on the absolute elevation above sea level of each site, that is the observer’s elevation in the landscape, disregarding all other factors.4 This distance is hypothetical, reflecting the potentially visible distance on a sphere, rather than a realistic portrayal of actual topography; it is used as a heuristic device to truncate the long-distance view. A cumulative viewshed map was also created, combining all of the different site-based viewsheds into a single map. This map enables investigation of the Galilean landscape as a single entity, highlighting areas seen from several observer points. But (and no less importantly) it also emphasizes those areas in the landscape that are hidden from sight. Results

Figure 2. Results of the viewshed analyses; a) extensive viewsheds of Einot Nissanit and Tell Jenin; b) Horvat Uza, showing short-distance, medium-distance and long-distance views; c) Constricted viewsheds of Khirbet ‘Asafna (east), Nahal Zippori 3 and Yiftah’el (maps drawn by Michal Birkenfeld).

the immediate vicinity of everyday activities (short-distance view) from the broader contexts that, though significant, are not necessarily distinctly identifiable as individual entities (middle and long-distance views). The ‘Higuchi viewshed’ also facilitates examination of the viewshed in quantitative terms providing characterization of its nature: whether ‘restricted’, spotlighting the short-distance view, or ‘expansive’, focusing on middle and long-distance views.

The analyses demonstrate that, while settlements in the Lower Galilee usually share similar topographic locations (and see above), they differ from one another significantly with respect to their visibility and intervisibility characteristics (table 1). Several sites, not necessarily those located at the highest elevations, including Einot Nissanit, Mishmar HaEmeq and Tell Jenin have extensive viewsheds encompassing 100–300km², all focused to the northwest, north and northeast (fig. 2a). Situated along the edge of the broad Jezre’el valley, they create a cumulative viewshed that overlaps and encompasses the valley. 4 It follows the formula: (R + h)2= R2 + OG2, R being the earth's radius, h the observer’s elevation asl, and OG the apparent horizon tangent to the earth's surface. While an average observer height of 1.7m is sometimes accounted for in viewshed analyses, due to the geographical scale of the current analysis and the quality of the DEM used, this was not taken into account here.


11 | 'Out of sight': Kfar HaHoresh Short view

Middle view

Long View

Total

Site

Area (km2)

%

Area (km2)

%

Area (km2)

%

Area (km2)

%

Einot Zippori Kh. 'Asafna (east) Hanaton Tell Jenin Kfar HaHoresh Mishmar HaEmeq Nissanit Nahal Zippori 3 H. Uza Yiftah'el

0.24 0.27 0.27 0.17 0.15 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.30 0.22

4.3 4.3 10.2 0.1 5.9 0.1 0.0 10.2 0.6 4.4

4.56 5.52 1.36 20.45 0.77 28.10 31.73 1.59 29.47 1.80

82.5 86.7 51.0 13.9 29.7 20.9 10.5 89.8 56.4 36.5

0.73 0.58 1.03 126.34 1.68 106.22 270.60 0.00 22.48 2.92

13.3 9.1 38.8 86.0 64.4 79.0 89.5 0.0 43.0 59.1

5.53 6.36 2.66 146.97 2.61 134.42 302.47 1.78 52.25 4.94

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 1. Analyzed sites, the area of visible land of the three distance categories (Higuchi distances) and as percentages of the total areas visible from each site (in km²).

Figure 4. Viewsheds of individual PPNB sites in the three visibility categories (short, medium and long-distance views) expressed as percentages of the areas potentially visible in each distance band (chart drawn by Michal Birkenfeld).

Horvat ‘Uza, at the northern edge of the Zebulon coastal plain, is somewhat unusual in displaying intermediate values encompassing 50km², facing to the northwest, south and southeast (fig. 2b). All other sites including Einot Zippori , Khirbet ‘Asafna (east), Kfar HaHoresh, Nahal Zippori 3 and Yiftah’el display much more constricted views, not exceeding 7km² (fig. 2c). Since they are located in relatively narrow valleys, the viewsheds focus along adjacent wadi courses. This is also apparent when examining the viewsheds with respect to Higuchi’s distances. More than 80 percent of the viewsheds of Nissanit, Tell Jenin and Mishmar HaEmeq are concentrated on extensive long-distance views. Sites with constricted viewsheds display the opposite pattern, with 80 percent and more of their viewsheds concentrated in the middle-distance view. Kfar HaHoresh provides a skewed result as 64 percent of the visible area supposedly falls in the long-distance category; superficially, it appears that attention is focused westwards to the Mt Carmel ridge (fig. 3). However, personal observations conclusively demonstrate that, even removing all present vegetation cover, it is simply impossible to view Mt Carmel


from any given point within KHH; indeed none of the areas in the long-distance category can be seen from the site. This likely reflects problems concerning the local characteristics of the DEM, probably arising from the limitations of the DEM resolution available (Fisher 1994, 1995). It is especially relevant where topography is variable over short distances, as is the case around KHH in contrast to all the other sites discussed; a slight rise immediately west of KHH obscures views down the length of the wadi. As Wheatley and Gillings (2000: 10) observe: “small variations in topography near to the viewer are far more likely to have large effects than similar variations further away.” Few Galilean settlements had direct lines-of-sight with their contemporaries. This is valid for sites with both extensive and more constricted views. Two pairs of sites are exceptions: the sites of Yiftah’el and Hanaton, and the sites of Tell Jenin and Nissanit, situated 2km and 18km from one another, respectively. Still, such situations occur under ‘ideal’ circumstances that may be more apparent than real, since the viewsheds discount the presence of wooded vegetation cover, an unlikely scenario. Indeed, while Einot Zippori, Hanaton, Yiftah’el and Nahal Zippori 3 are all located in close proximity


along the same drainage system, only ca 2-5km apart, none of the others are in direct line-of-sight of one another. Still, it is likely that smoke emanating from fires within settlements would be visible at least in the middle-distance range. Examining the results from the perspective of the percentages of potentially visible areas relative to the different distance categories for each site (fig. 4), it is obviously always the short-distance view that predominates, with values ranging from 25–75 percent. But it is in the medium-distance views that interesting patterns emerge: four settlements, Nissanit, Tell Jenin, Mishmar HaEmeq and H. Uza, all located adjacent to extensive plains have 15–23 percent in this category. By contrast, all the other sites, located in or adjacent to wadis encompass 4 percent or less of potential views. For the long-distance potential views only Nisanit exceeds 2 percent. KHH displays the lowest frequencies for all categories save the short-distance view and even then is relatively constricted. Although intervisibility between sites does not appear to have been significant in site location choices (in contrast to other variables), the cumulative viewshed map raises an interesting issue. When combining the individual viewsheds into a single map, three focal points can be identified in the the Lower Galilean landscape and surrounding areas. These include: 1. Keren-Hakarmel (474m asl) atop the Mt Carmel range;5 2. The Har Baharan-Har Tzameret and Nabi Sa’in ridge (438-476m asl) on the western summit of the Nazareth hills (fig. 5); 3. A locale near Harduf (235m asl), northeast and northwest of the others, respectively.6 Except for Mt Carmel, where large swathes of the north-facing slope of the range are visible, the other two locales are extremely limited, encompassing less than one hectare each of visibility. The fact that the Har Baharan-Har Tzameret and Nabi Sa’in ridge forms such a prominent focal location in the landscape of the Lower Galilee, seen from almost all settlements, is of special interest. No prehistoric sites have been reported from this locale, which has undergone erosion and modern development. Views from atop the ridge are expansive in all directions except the east. Kfar HaHoresh, at 375m asl, cannot be seen directly from any other PPNB site in the Galilee, but it is located directly below the Har Baharan ridge, a mere 600m away, that is about 1.5 times the limit of Higuchi’s short-distance view (see below). 5 Also known as Deir el-Muhraqa (“place of burning”) this is the highest, most prominent summit of the Mt Carmel range. Early records describe a megalithic monument, since destroyed. Local traditions indicate this was the location of the battle between the prophet Elijah and the Ba'al prophets. It was a Muslim pilgrimage centre since the twelfth century AD, but today has a nineteenth century Carmelite monastery. 6 No prehistoric sites are known in the immediate vicinity.

Figure 5. Prominent visible locations atop the Har Baharan—Har Tzameret and Nabi Sa’in ridge, visible from most sites in the lower Galilee, in relation to the site of Kfar HaHoresh (map drawn by Michal Birkenfeld).

Discussion and conclusions Viewshed analysis has a relatively long—though turbulent— history in archaeology. GIS applications ease the analytical process of calculating and quantifying the seen and unseen. However, the issues raised regarding the validity of such analyses are still relevant, regardless of the technology applied. Other concerns, relevant not only to this particular study, remain valid. First is the issue of defining observer points. That archaeological excavations provide partial and arbitrary glimpses into the use of a certain locale is a truism. Viewshed analysis minimizes this ‘window of reference’ further when a specific coordinate is chosen as the observation point on which to base analysis. This could be the highest point of the site, the centroid of the site or an excavation area point that now represents the ‘settlement’. This significantly influences analysis, and overlooks the possibility of the use of look-out points, manmade or natural, adjacent to settlements. Furthermore, Higuchi’s short-distance view (360m) falls largely within the bounds of many settlements. Indeed, the outer limits of the short-distance and inner parts of the middle-distance views partially encompass the immediate surroundings of many early farming settlements, including fields. Taken in conjunction with other caveats mentioned above, such as seasonal and diurnal variability in visibility, this raises questions as to the validity of rigid and discrete distance boundaries. It may be that an approach that will take into account measures of uncertainty and visual decay, e.g. the fuzzy logic approach, may be more realistic (Fisher 1994; Rášová 2014). Indeed, although the standard 6m Higuchi scale was retained for the analyses presented, it is pertinent that Tabor oaks commonly reach heights of 10m and more. Interestingly, using his formula under these circumstances (60x10m = 600m) for computation of the boundary between short and middle-distance views would correspond exactly to the distance between KHH and Har Bahran.


13 | 'Out of sight': Kfar HaHoresh

Figure 6. (a) View to the north from Mishmar HaEmeq across the Jezre’el valley to the Nazareth hills (photograph by A. Nigel Goring-Morris), and (b) Arial balloon view to the east from Nahal Zippori 3 towards the Nazareth hills (photograph courtesy of O. Barzilai).

Figure 7. View to the south from Har Baharan and Har Tzameret showing the secluded location of Kfar HaHoresh as well the Carmel ridge and the Jezre’el valley in the background (photograph by A. Nigel Goring-Morris).

Another topic is the incomplete nature of our data. This paper presents analyses on ten excavated settlements, although another 30 PPN sites and findspots are known but have not been systematically investigated. Even accounting for these, only a partial dataset of the original PPNB settlement system is available, since significant geomorphological processes of erosion and accumulation (as well as modern and historical development) affect what is available for research. Accordingly it is necessary to temper interpretations of such viewshed analyses. Still, viewshed analysis is useful when exploring settlement systems at regional scales, providing an additional line of inquiry for comparisons between the contents and contexts of sites, and in in exploring possible site functions.


Topographically prominent locations are often used as landmarks, and serve as anchors in the landscape around them (Llobera 2001: 1007). Such prominent places are often associated with visual and physical control, contributing to their symbolic significance. As Tilley (1996) has noted, such local landmarks, having distinctive silhouettes on the skyline visible from afar, provide natural vantage points and indispensable means for human orientation and navigation. Indeed, he has described such landmarks as “non-domesticated ‘megaliths’ or monuments imbued with cultural significance” (Tilley 1996: 165). Still, while the Nazareth hills are prominent in the Lower Galilean landscape, there is no specific prominent landmark. In addition, it may be that physical movement through


spaces that constrain perception may be relevant (Blakely 2011:1). The juxtaposition of Kfar HaHoresh, literally ‘tucked away’ out of sight but immediately adjacent to one of the most visible topographical features in the Lower Galilee, does not appear to have been fortuitous; rather it appears likely to have been a guiding principle in the choice of this specific location as a funerary and cult site. If trees did not obscure the view during the period of occupation, the monumental white plastered and burnished podium (measuring 22x10m) at KHH would have stood out prominently from the local green and brown background hues to observers atop Har Baharan (fig. 6 and 7).7 It is also interesting that the 0.75 km uppermost reaches of the wadi at KHH, immediately below Har Baharan, has a steep-sided, bowlshaped, arena-like configuration, which also may have been relevant to practices conducted in and around Kfar HaHoresh.8 Furthermore, the upper slopes of the Nazareth hills, lacking arable land, may have represented ‘neutral’ terrain within the Galilean landscape, imbued with cosmological, liminal and/or ceremonial perceptions. The concealed setting of KHH, together with the unusual demographic profile of those interred there (Eshed et al. 2008) could indicate that access was restricted to certain members or sectors of the Galilean PPNB population. The setting of KHH bears superficial comparisons with the prominent location of Late PPNA/EPPNB Göbekli Tepe atop a range of low hills on a major watershed in the northern Levant (Schmidt 2005, 2012). Göbekli may have functioned as a focal ceremonial locality, perhaps analogous to a classical Greek amphictyony (Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 2005). However, in contrast to the modest scope and secluded location of KHH, the prominence, size, and scale of numerous monumental structures at Göbekli Tepe may indicate that ceremonial and other activities were competitive and inclusive in nature for multiple communities. It is also interesting that the specific location of Kfar HaHoresh also contrasts with a recent viewshed study of off-site Chalcolithic burial sites in Israel (Winter-Livneh et al. 2012). That research demonstrated that the areas observed from Chalcolithic cemeteries were significantly larger than those observed from habitation sites. In this paper we attempted to address the issue of distance, and how it affects sight as well as perception—the seen and unseen. This dichotomy of the secluded specific location of Kfar HaHoresh below a visually prominent landmark might symbolize a relationship between the man-made locale and the natural one, establishing a relationship between PPNB ritual practices and the broader Galilean landscape. 7 Many medieval and earlier revered figures’ tombs in Galilee are found in prominent locations, the white-washed domed roofs shining brightly from afar (see Goren and Goring-Morris 2008: 796). 8 The configuration and direction of the wadi results from tectonic processes (Greenberg 1963): the location where it issues from the Nazareth hills, some 3km downstream from KHH into the Jezre’el valley is topographically quite unremarkable.

Acknowledgements Investigations at Kfar HaHoresh have been funded by generous grants (to ANG-M) from the Irene Levi-Sala CARE Foundation, the MAFCAF foundation, the National Geographic Society (Grant #8625/09) and the Israel Science Foundation (Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities Grants #840/01, #558/04, #755/07 and #1161/10). We are especially grateful to O. Barzilai, N. Getzov, H. Khalaily, O. Marder, I. Milevski, A. Nativ, Y. Tepper, and E. van den Brink for kindly providing information about sites that are still only partially published. A. Bin-Nun provided valuable technical help and advice with the analyses. Naturally, any errors or omissions are ours. References Banning, E. B. 1998. The Neolithic Period. Triumphs of architecture, agriculture, and art. Near Eastern Archaeology 61(4): 188–237. Baruch, U. 1986. The Late Holocene vegetational history of Lake Kinneret (Sea of Galilee), Israel. Paléorient 12(2): 37–47. Baruch, U., and Bottema, S. 1999. A new pollen diagram from Lake Hula: Vegetational, climatic, and anthropogenic implications. In Kawanabe, H., Coulter, G.W. and Rossevelt, A.C. (eds), Ancient Lakes: Their Cultural and Biological Diversity, edited by. Belgium: Kenobi Productions, 75–86. Bar-Yosef, O. 2001. From sedentary foragers to village hierarchies: the emergence of social institutions. In Runciman, G. (ed.), The Origin of Human Social Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–38. Barzilai, O. and Getzov, N. 2008. Mishmar Ha’emeq: A Neolithic site in the Jezreel Valley. Neo-Lithics 2/08: 12–17. Barzilai, O., Getzov, N., Givol-Barzilai, Y., Marom, N. and Marder, O. 2011. Lithics in a ritual context at the PPNB site of Mishmar Ha‘emeq: Do they display special characteristics? In Healey, E., Campbell, S. and Maeda, O. (eds), The State of the Stone: Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern Neolithic Lithics. Berlin: ex oriente, 305–316. Barzilai, O. and Milevski, I. 2010. Giv‘at Rabi (East). Middle Palaeolithic and Neolithic workshop sites. Hadashot Arkheologiot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 122. Barzilai, O., Getzov, N., Gubenko, N., Maron, N., Milevski, I. and Vered, A. 2013a. The proto-historic site of Ein Zippori. Mitekufat Haeven – Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43: 22–78. Barzilai, O., Vardi, J., Liran, R., Yegorov, D., Covello-Paran, K., van den Brink, E. C. M., Yaroshevich, A. and Berger U. 2013b. The Nahal Zippori excavation project. Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 125. Belfer-Cohen, A. and Goring-Morris, A.N. 2005. Which way to look? Conceptual frameworks for understanding Neolithic processes. Neo-Lithics 2/05: 22–24. Ben-Yosef, S. 2001. The New Israel Guide (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Keter Publishing. Birkenfeld, M. 2008. Aspects of time and space at the Early Neolithic site of Kfar HaHoresh – A GIS based stratigraphical and spatial analysis. Unpublished MA dissertation submitted to The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Birkenfeld, M. 2012. The PPNB of the Lower Galilee, Israel. A multi-scale approach. Paper presented at Broadening Horizons Conference, Torino. Birkenfeld, M. in preparation. Changing systems: Pre-Pottery Neolithic B settlement patterns in Lower Galilee, Israel. PhD dissertation to be submitted to The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.


15 | 'Out of sight': Kfar HaHoresh Birkenfeld, M. and Goring-Morris, A.N. 2011. A methodological approach, using GIS applications, to stratigraphy and spatial analysis at PPNB Kfar HaHoresh. In Healey, E., Campbell S. and Maeda, O. (eds), The State of the Stone: Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern Neolithic Lithics (SENEPSE 13). Berlin: ex oriente, 277–290. Birkenfeld, M. and Goring-Morris, A.N. 2012. A Question of Territory: a multi-scale approach to Pre-Pottery Neolithic settlement systems in the Lower Galilee, Israel. Paper presented at Environmental Archaeologies of Neolithization, Association for Environmental Archaeology, Reading. Birkenfeld, M. and Goring-Morris, A.N. 2014. Stratigraphy and spatial analysis at Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Kfar HaHoresh, Israel: Using GIS applications in inter-site analyses. In Garcia, A., Garcia, J., Maximiano, A. and Ríos-Garaizar, J. (eds), Debating Spatial Archaeology. Santander: Universidad de Cantabria, Servicio de Publicaciones, 65–79. Blakely, S. 2011. Toward an archaeology of secrecy: Power, paradox, and the Great Gods of Samothrace. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 21(1): 49–71. Colledge, S., Conolly, J. and Shennan, S. 2004. Archaeobotanical evidence for the spread of farming in the Eastern Mediterranean. Current Anthropology 45: 35–47. Danin, A. 1988. Flora and vegetation of Israel and adjacent areas. In Yom-Tov, Y. and Tchernov, E. (eds), The Zoogeography of Israel. Dordrecht: Dr. Junk, 129–157. Efrat, A. 1996. Eretz Israel: Physical, Settlement and Regional Geography (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv: AhiAsaf Ltd. Eshed, V., Hershkovitz, I. and Goring-Morris, A.N. 2008. A reevaluation of burial customs in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B in light of paleodemographic analysis of the human remains from Kfar HaHoresh, Israel. Paléorient 34(1): 91–103. Fisher, P.F., 1994. Probable and fuzzy models of the viewshed operation. In Worboys, M. F. (ed.), Innovations in GIS: Selected Papers from the First National Conference on GIS Research UK. London: Taylor & Francis, 161–175. Fisher, P.F. 1995. An exploration of probable viewsheds in landscape planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 22: 527–546. Fraser D., 1983. Land and Society in Neolithic Orkney (British Series 117). Oxford: British Archaeological reports. Fraser D., 1988. The orientation of visibility from the chambered cairns of Eday, Orkney. In Ruggles, C.L.N. (ed.), Records in Stone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 325–337. Garcia-Moreno, A. 2013. To see or to be seen. Is that the question? An evaluation of Paleolithic sites’ visual presence and their role in social organization. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32(4): 647–658. Garfinkel, Y., Dag, D., Khalaily, H., Marder, O., Milevski, I. and Ronen A. (eds). 2012. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Village of Yiftahel. The 1980s and 1990s Excavations. Berlin: ex oriente. Getzov, N. 2008. Uza, Hurvat. In Stern, E. (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Revised Edition). Jerusalem and Washington, D.C.: Israel Exploration Society and Biblical Archaeology Society, 2065–2066. Goren, Y. and Goring-Morris, A.N. 2008. Early Pyrotechnology in the Near East: Experimental lime-plaster production at the PPNB site of Kfar HaHoresh, Israel. Geoarchaeology 23(6): 779–798. Goren, Y., Goring-Morris, A.N. and Segal, I. 2001. Skull modeling in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B: Regional variability, the relationship of technology and iconography and their archaeological implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 28(7): 671–690. Goring-Morris, A.N. 2000. The quick and the dead: The social context of Aceramic Neolithic mortuary practices as seen from Kfar HaHoresh. In Kuijt, I. (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 103–135. Goring-Morris, A.N. 2005. Life, death and the emergence of differential status in the Near Eastern Neolithic: Evidence from Kfar


HaHoresh, Lower Galilee, Israel. In Clark, J. (ed.), Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Oxford: CBRL & Oxbow Books, 89–105. Goring-Morris, A.N. 2008. Kefar Ha-Horesh. In Stern, E. (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (vol. 5. Supplementary Volume). Jerusalem and Washington, DC: Israel Exploration Society and Biblical Archaeology Society, 1907–1909. Goring-Morris, A.N. and Belfer-Cohen, A. 2014. The southern Levant (Cisjordan) during the Neolithic period. In Steiner, M. and Killebrew, A. E. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant (ca. 8000 – 332 BCE). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 147–169. Goring-Morris, A.N., Burns, R., Davidzon, A., Eshed, V., Goren, Y., Hershkovitz, I., Kangas, S. and Kelecevic, J. 1998. The 1997 season of excavations at the mortuary site of Kfar HaHoresh, Galilee, Israel. Neo-Lithics 3/1998: 1–4. Goring-Morris, A.N. and Horwitz, L. K. 2007. Funerals and feasts in the Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. Antiquity 81: 902–919. Goring-Morris, A.N., Hovers, E. and Belfer-Cohen, A. 2009. The dynamics of Pleistocene settlement patterns and human adaptations in the Levant – an overview. In: Shey, J.J. and D. E. Lieberman (eds), Transitions in Prehistory: Essays in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef. Cambridge: Oxbow Books, 185–252. Greenberg, Y. 1963. The Eocene of Kefar Hahoresh-Illut region and its correlation with the Eocene of northern Israel. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 12: 147–158. Higuchi, T. 1983. Visual and Spatial Structure of landscapes. Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press. Horwitz, L.K., Tchernov, E., Ducos, P., Becker, C., von den Driesch, A., Martin, L. and Garrard, A. 2000. Animal domestication in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 25(2): 63–80. Jones, E.E. 2006. Using viewshed analysis to explore settlement choice: A case study of the Onondaga Iroquois. American Antiquity 71(3): 523–538. Kadosh, D., D. Sivan, H. Kutiel, and Weinstein-Evron, M. 2004. A late Quaternary paleoenvironmental sequence from Dor, Carmel coastal plain, Israel. Palynology 28 (1): 143–157. Khalaily, H., Milevski, I., Getzov, N., Hershkovitz, I., Barzilai, O., Yaroshevich, A., Shlomi, V., Najjar, A., Zidan, O., Smithline, H. and Liran, L. 2008. Recent excavations at the Neolithic site of Yiftahel (Khallet Khalladyiah), Lower Galilee. Neo-Lithics 2/08: 3–11. Kuijt, I. and Goring-Morris, A.N. 2002. Foraging, farming and social complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the South-Central Levant: A review and synthesis, Journal of World Prehistory 16(4): 361–440. Lake, W.M., and Woodman, P.E. 2003. Visibility studies in archaeology: A review and case study. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30: 689–707. Langgut, D., Almogi-Labin, A., Bar-Matthews, M. and WeinsteinEvron, M. 2011. Vegetation and climate changes in the south eastern Mediterranean during the last glacial-interglacial cycle (86Â ka): New marine pollen record. Quaternary Science Reviews 30: 3960–3972. Lev-Yadun, S., Gopher, A. and Abbo, S. 2000. The cradle of agriculture. Science 288 (5741): 1602–1603. Llobera, M. 2001. Building past landscape perception with GIS: Understanding topographic prominence. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 1005–1014. Lock, G.R. and Harris, T.M. 1996. Danebury revisited: An English Iron Age hillfort in a digital landscape. In Aldenderfer, M. and Maschner, H. D. G. (eds), Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems. New York: Oxford University Press, 214–240. Marder, O., Khalaily, H. and Milevski, I. 2011. Parallel lives: Abu Ghosh and Yiftahel, economic strategies of two PPNB sites in the southern Levant. In Healey, E., Campbell, S. and Maeda, O. (eds), The State of the Stone: Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern Neolithic Lithics (SENEPSE 13). Berlin: ex oriente, 421–428.

Michal Birkenfeld & A. Nigel Goring-Morris | 16 Nativ, A., Shimelmitz, R., Agha, N., Ktalav I. and Rosenberg, D. 2014. Hanaton: Interim report on a Neolithic-Chalcolithic settlement in the Lower Galilee. Mitekufat Haeven (Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society) 44:119–149. Orni, E. and Efrat, E. 1980. Geography of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Universities Press. Oshri, A., Khalaily, H., Milevski, I. and Marder, O.1999. Yiftah’el (Northeast; Triangulation Point Q-1). Hadashot Archeologiot Excavations and Surveys in Israel 110: 89. Rášová, A. 2014. Fuzzy viewshed, probable viewshed, and their use in the analysis of prehistoric monuments placement in Western Slovakia. in: Huerta, J., Schade, S., Granell, C. (eds), Connecting a Digital Europe through Location and Place. Proceedings of the AGILE’2014 International Conference on Geographic Information Science, Castellón, June, 3-6, 2014. Website: http:// www.agileonline.org/ConferencePaper/cds/agile_2014/ agile2014_114.pdf/, accessed on 11 September 2014. Roese H., 1980. Some aspects of topographical location of Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments in Wales, 1: Menhirs. Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 28: 645–655. Rosenberg, D., Shimelmitz, R. and Nativ, A. 2008. Basalt bifacial tool production in the southern Levant: A glance at the quarry and workshop site of Givat Kipod, Israel. Antiquity 82: 276–367. Ruggles, C.L.N., and Medyckyj-Scott, D.J. 1996. Site location, landscape visibility and symbolic astronomy: A Scottish case study in new methods, old problems: Geographical Information Systems in modern archaeological research. In Maschner, H.D.G. (ed.), New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archaeological Research. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 127–146. Sayej, G. 1997. The Neolithic strata of Tell Jenin, North-West Bank, Palestine. Neo-lithics 1/97: 3–5. Schmidt, K. 2005. “Ritual centers” and the Neolithisation of Upper Mesopotamia. Neo-Lithics 2/05: 13–21. Schmidt, K. 2012. Göbekli Tepe. A Stone Age sanctuary in SouthEastern Anatolia. Berlin: ex oriente. Simmons, T., Horowitz, L. K. and Goring-Morris, A.N. 2007. “What ceremony else?” Taphonomy and the ritual treatment of the dead in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B mortuary complex at Kfar HaHoresh, Israel. In Faerman, M., Horwitz, L.K., Kahana, T. and Zilberman, U. (eds), Faces from the Past: Diachronic Patterns in the Biology and Health Status of Human Populations from the Eastern Mediterranean (BAR International Series 1603). Oxford: Archaeopress, 100–126. Tepper. Y. 2013. Megiddo-Yokne’am-Megiddo Junctions, Survey (Road 66). Final Report. Hadashot Arkheologiot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 125. Website: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/ Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=4371&mag_id=120, accessed on 11 September 2014. Tilley, C. 1996. The power of rocks: Landscape and topography on Bodmin Moor. World Archaeology 28: 161–176. Tsatskin, A. and Gendler, T.S. 2002. Further notes on terra rosa and related soils near Kfar HaHoresh archaeological site, Israel. In Zdruli, P., Steduto P. and Kapur, S. (eds), Options Mediterrannes. 7th International Meeting on Soils with Mediterranean Type of Climate, Serie A. Bari: CIHEAM-IAMB, 109–120. Tsatskin, A., Goring-Morris, A.N. and Itkis, S. 1998. Anthropogenic soils in Mediterranean maquis around the Early Neolithic site at Kfar HaHoresh (Israel). In Bech, J. (ed.), 6th International Meeting on Soils with Mediterranean Type of Climate, (Extended abstracts). Barcelona: Barcelona University, 596–598. Wheatley, D. and Gillings, M.2000. Vision, perception and GIS: Some notes on the development of enriched approaches to the study of archaeological visibility. In Lock, G. R. (ed.), Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 1–27. Winter-Livneh, R., Svoray, T. and Gilead, I. 2012. Secondary burial cemeteries, visibility and land tenure: A view from the southern Levant Chalcolithic period. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

31(4): 423–438. Zeder, M. A. 2011. Plant and animal domestication in the Near East. Current Anthropology 52(S4): S221–S235. Zohary, M. 1962. Plant Life of Palestine. New York: Ronald Press. Zohary, D., Hopf, M. and Weiss, E.2012. Domestication of Plants in the Old World. The Origins and Spread of Domesticated Plants in Southwest Asia, Europe and the Mediterranean Basin(Fourth Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zviely, D., Sivan, D., Ecker, A., Bakler, N., Rohrlich, V., Galili, E., Boaretto, E., Klein, M. and Kit, E. 2006. Holocene evolution of the Haifa Bay area, Israel, and its influence on ancient tell settlements. The Holocene 16(6): 849–861.
