See	discussions,	stats,	and	author	profiles	for	this	publication	at:	https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257155134
Shape	Reproducibility	and	architectural
symmetry	during	the	Chalcolithic	period	in	the
southern	Levant
ARTICLE		in		JOURNAL	OF	ARCHAEOLOGICAL	SCIENCE	·	FEBRUARY	2013
Impact	Factor:	2.2	·	DOI:	10.1016/j.jas.2012.10.007
CITATIONS
3
READS
92
3	AUTHORS,	INCLUDING:
Tal	Svoray
Ben-Gurion	University	of	the	Negev
88	PUBLICATIONS			732	CITATIONS			
SEE	PROFILE
Isaac	Gilead
Ben-Gurion	University	of	the	Negev
38	PUBLICATIONS			369	CITATIONS			
SEE	PROFILE
All	in-text	references	underlined	in	blue	are	linked	to	publications	on	ResearchGate,
letting	you	access	and	read	them	immediately.
Available	from:	Tal	Svoray
Retrieved	on:	15	March	2016
Shape Reproducibility and architectural symmetry during the Chalcolithic period
in the southern Levant
Rona Winter-Livneh a,*, Tal Svoray b
, Isaac Gilead a
a
Dept. of Bible, Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
b
Dept. of Geography and Environmental Development, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 5 July 2012
Received in revised form
6 October 2012
Accepted 8 October 2012
Keywords:
Chalcolithic
Architecture
Shape Reproducibility
Symmetry
GIS
Southern Levant
a b s t r a c t
Architecture reflects social aspects of past communities. Structure attributes such as shape, size, building
material and decoration, provide valuable information beyond their immediate structural function.
However, while attributes such as size can be measured and therefore objectively compared between
structures, the comparison of shape between structures is based on subjective observations. In the
current study we use two quantification methods for analyzing prehistoric shape-based architectural
data: (1) we developed a new method, Shape Reproducibility (SR), based on objective computerized
procedure for analyzing the similarity and difference between shapes of ancient buildings; and (2) we
use Continuous Symmetry Measure (CSM), a method which was originally developed for analyzing flint
artifacts and ceramic vessels to objectively compare between shape symmetry. Applying these methods
to settlement data of the Chalcolithic period enables quantification of the level of architectural similarity
within and between different sites and their comparison to architectural data of later periods, such as the
Early Bronze Age II urban center at Arad. Our CSM results suggest that the symmetry of architecture does
not increase through time. Our SR findings demonstrate that in the main cultural Chalcolithic entity, the
Ghassulian, the architecture of different sites could not be distinguished from one site to the other.
In addition, we demonstrate that the architecture of the Chalcolithic sites in the Golan Heights is
homogeneous and significantly differs from other Chalcolithic sites, while Ghassulian intra-site variability
is higher. In comparison with Arad, however, this variability is relatively low and limited. These
results suggest that status differentiation or hierarchical social organization cannot be indicated from
Ghassulian architecture.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Building is among the prime activities carried out by humans
since earliest times (Bar-Yosef, 1992: 31). Architecture is a visible
cultural manifestation that influences social behavior and provides
the framework for social interaction and community organization
(Byrd, 1994: 643; Ingold, 2000: 175e178; Wilson, 1988: 21). It is
also evident that dwellings are subject to spatio-temporal changes
(e.g. Flannery, 1972; Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2008;
Kempinski and Reich, 1992). Different attributes of structure such
as shape, size, building material and decoration have significance
beyond their immediate function. They provide invaluable information
about the social aspects of past societies, as well as evidence
concerning modes of adaptation to environments, changes in
population size, technology and subsistence economy (e.g. Allison,
2002; Banning, 2010, Banning and Byrd, 1987; Binford, 1990;
Carsten and Hugh-Jones, 1995; Flannery, 1972; Hillier and Hanson,
1984; Hodder, 1994; Lévi-Strauss, 1963; Rapoport, 1969, 1982;
Wilson, 1988).
The first structures in the southern Levant were made of
perishable materials leaving practically no traces, and their existence
is inferred on the basis of the spatial distribution of other
finds, such as in the case of the Early Epipalaeolithic site of Ohalo II
(ca. 21,500e20,500 B.C.) (Bar-Yosef, 1992: 31; Goring-Morris and
Belfer-Cohen, 2008: 249e250; Nadel and Werker, 1999). Later on,
during Natufian cultural phase (ca. 13,000e9600 B.C.), the existence
of post-holes indicates some sort of roofing, as at Ein Gev
I and III (Arensburg and Bar-Yosef, 1973; Martin and Bar-Yosef,
1979). In other sites architectural remains consist of several walls
made of undressed stones that probably supported wooden poles,
or a few freestanding walls, oval or rounded in shape (Valla, 1988).
Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (ca. 9600e8500 B.C.) architecture consists
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ972 8 9491932.
E-mail address: winterr@post.bgu.ac.il (R. Winter-Livneh).
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Archaeological Science
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas
0305-4403/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.10.007
Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1340e1353
of oval and subcircular structures that were either freestanding or
semi-subterranean (Finlayson et al., 2011a, 2011b; Kuijt and
Finlayson, 2009; Kuijt and Goring-Morris, 2002: 373). These
structures were made of a stone foundation with mud brick
superstructure. Worth mentioning is the large Neolithic tower of
Jericho. This unique tower is 8.25 m in height and 8 m in diameter
made of undressed stone with a staircase built inside (Kenyon,
1957; Kenyon and Holland, 1981). During the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic B period (ca. 8500e6400 B.C.) the transition from oval/
rounded to rectangular structures is evident. Constructions during
this period were mainly of mudbrick on stone foundations
(Banning and Byrd, 1988; Bar-Yosef, 1992; Goring-Morris and
Belfer-Cohen, 2003, 2008; Kuijt and Goring-Morris, 2002; Kuijt
et al., 2011; Moore, 1985; Rollefson, 1997). Stone and mudbrick
rectangular architecture continued well into the Pottery Neolithic
(ca. 6400e4500 B.C.) and Chalcolithic (4500e3900 B.C.) periods
(Ben-Shlomo and Garfinkel, 2009; Garfinkel and Ben-Shlomo,
2002; Garfinkel et al., 2009; Porath, 1987, 1992). In addition to
the rectangular above ground structures, subterranean structures
were uncovered in Chalcolithic sites of the northern Negev such as
Abu Matar, Bir es-Safadi (Perrot, 1984), and Horvat Beter (Dothan,
1959; Rosen and Eldar, 1993). Preservation of mudbrick walls is
poor and in many Chalcolithic sites preserved were only fragments
of walls, in many cases without side or parallel walls. Bricks were
made by hand, of local silts (Porath, 1992: 44), and after their
collapse they disintegrated and could not be distinguished from the
natural sediment. Along with other destructive processes, walls are
under-represented in comparison to pits and other installations
(Gilead, 1995: 30).
Architectural studies are usually based on the analysis of
structures at different sites in order to explain the similarity or
variability of the shape patterns. In many cases the researchers
define a ‘typical’, frequent or ‘average’ house shape that characterizes
specific cultures/periods/regions. Such as the Four Room
House or the Israelite house during the Iron age (Faust and
Bunimovitz, 2003), or later examples such as the Arab-Islamic
House (Ron, 1998) or the Black Tent (Manderscheid, 2001). Analyses
of architectural shapes are commonly based on the
researcher’s skill, intuition, and subjective evaluation which result
in biased and sometimes inaccurate conclusions and may lead to
equivocal results. Although there are few exceptions (e.g. Dickens,
1977; Fletcher, 1977) most studies of past architectural shapes
lacks formal quantitative methods. Below we introduce two
methods for objective and accurate quantification for characterizing
and comparing between shapes applied here to prehistoric
architectural data.
Quantitative analyses of artifact shapes have been carried out for
more than half a century (Clarke, 1968: 525e534), and they have
increased significantly during recent years (e.g. Durham et al.,1995;
Gero and Mazzullo, 1984; Gilboa et al., 2004; Grosman et al., 2011,
2008; Karasik, 2010, Karasik and Smilansky, 2008; 2011; Leese and
Main, 1983; Liming et al., 1989; Saragusti et al., 2005, 1998). Such
studies are also based on advance computing along with a variety of
technologies such as 3D and laser scanning. These studies, however,
focus mostly on pottery vessels and lithics, while architectural
remains are left behind. These studies have introduced a number of
important mathematical methods for quantifying shape attributes
such as symmetry, roughness and deformation.
Continuous Symmetry Measure (CSM) is a versatile method
which was originally developed to distinguish molecules from each
other by their degree of shape chirality (dissymmetry) (Zabrodsky
and Avnir, 1995). This tool was first used in archaeology for
measuring the degree of symmetry of Lower Paleolithic handaxes
(Saragusti et al., 1998). It has been demonstrated that symmetry of
handaxes and pottery vessels increases with time (Saragusti et al.,
2005, 1998). It should be noted that though there are many
aspects of symmetry such as symmetry of rotation, treatable
symmetry, etc., the archaeological study of symmetry is usually
limited to bilateral symmetry, meaning that the shape does not
change upon undergoing a reflection. Bilateral symmetry or
reflection symmetry in archaeological studies is referred to simply
as “symmetry”.
Symmetry appears in the form of artifacts, buildings and built
environments all over the world (Wynn, 2002: 390). Many studies
regard the degree and nature of symmetry as cultural attributes or
as manifestations of cultural progress (e.g. Bridgeman, 2002; Lycett,
2008; Oakley, 1972; Shennan, 2006; Simao, 2002; Wynn, 1985).
Others argue that symmetry is related to the evolution of human
cognition (Stout and Chaminade, 2007; Toth,1990; Wynn, 2002), or
link it to functional effectiveness (Jones, 1980; Machin et al., 2007;
Mitchell, 1996), to sexual display (Kohn and Mithen, 1999), or to
aesthetics (Hodgson, 2011; Schick and Toth, 2001: 282). There are,
however, studies that show that symmetry could result from
coincidental factors such as type of raw material, resharpening
(McPherron, 2000; Nowell, 2000, 2002), or post depositional
processes which involve environmental disturbances that damage
stone tools (Grosman et al., 2011).
Indeed, symmetrical attribute signaling safer, more effective, and
more predictable artifacts or buildings than asymmetrical
ones (Liu and Kersten, 2003; van der Helm, 2002; Vetter et al.,
1994; Wagemans, 1995). However, unlike earlier periods, when
manufacturing of Acheulean handaxes was associated with different
hominins, and with butchering effectiveness, during later periods
the intentional concern for symmetry seems to be detached from
the evolution of cognitive, adaptive or functional factors. Thus, it is
reasonable to study architectural symmetrically of later periods e
the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age periods in our case e which
are much too short for evolutionary change, as a manifestation of
culture change and variability (Bridgeman, 2002: 403, Hodgson,
2011: 38). Symmetry is a key element in architecture which
signals balance, since pressure on a structure or building is distributed
equally if there is symmetry. In the study of symmetry of
prehistoric flint tools, such as Acheulean handaxes for example, the
difference between early, less symmetrical artifacts and later, more
symmetrical artifacts, is well established and regarded as an indication
of more elaborated production techniques and increased skill
(Saragusti et al., 2005, 1998; Wynn, 1985). Studies have shown that
manufacturing technique involve social dynamics, and the technical
knowledge is directly related to social knowledge (e.g. Dobres, 2010;
Dobres and Hoffman,1994,1999; Schiffer and Skibo,1987; Torrence,
1989; van der Leeuw, 1993; Wright, 1993). This is necessarily
mediated by culture (Dobres, 2010: 106). In addition a progress in
technology is driven by cultural accumulation of knowledge
(Bridgeman, 2002; Ingold, 1990, e.g. Schiffer and Skibo, 1987). In
studying the symmetry of prehistoric architecture we, therefore,
expect that difference between less symmetrical structures and
more symmetrical structure might reveal aspects concerning the
technology and skills which characterize the societies and their
cultural contexts.
Beside the degree of symmetry, studies have shown that the
shape itself of a house is determined by social or economic factors
(Allison, 2002; Carsten and Hugh-Jones, 1995; Donley, 1982; Hillier
and Hanson, 1984; Ingold,1995, 2000; Kent,1990b; King,1980; Lau,
2010; Rapoport, 1969, 1982; Wilson, 1988). Nevertheless, there are
others who argue that the main factors are environmental or
physical. These factors include: climate (e.g. Correa, 1982; Fitch and
Branch, 1960; Givoni, 1969; Herzog, 1980; Mauss and Beauchat,
1979; Sozen and Gedik, 2007); topography or land scarcity (e.g.
Alexander, 1964; Sopher, 1964); technology and building materials
(e.g. Aalen, 1966; Agorsah, 1985; Laksmi, 2006; Rumana, 2007).
R. Winter-Livneh et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1340e1353 1341
A good archaeological example for the examination of house shape
and its possible implication on past societies’ social and economic
organization can be found in the transition from circular huts to
rectangular houses. Flannery (1972) argued that this transition
reflects population growth and intensification of production during
Pre-Pottery Neolithic times, and the development of privatized
storage, which is more effective in rectangular houses (Flannery,
1972: 38e46, 2002: 418e422). Following Wills (1992: 169), who
suggests that reduced sharing, more restricted land tenure, and
growing privatization of storage greatly increased the economic
options of early farmers, Flannery now stresses that archaeologists
should expect to find “a lot more variation in house size, house
shape, storage facilities.and other features.” (Flannery, 2002:
423). On the other hand Saidel (1993) argues that the change from
round to rectilinear dwellings indicates social change which results
from the “combined effect of anticipated mobility, agriculture and
small craft production resulted in an increased mode of production
and a change in social organization.” (Saidel, 1993: 96). HunterAnderson
(1977) study sought a functional interpretation to
round and rectilinear houses. Accordingly, within round dwellings
few of the activities were shared by the group or recognized as
a person’s identity, meaning there was low level of social or taskrole
differentiation within such society. While, within rectilinear
building the architectural differentiation of internal space have
helped coping with the spatial and social problems inherent when
multiple contemporary activities needed to be carried out within
a single building. The segmentation of internal space and the
making of rooms prevented interference and disturbances between
contemporary activities (Hunter-Anderson, 1977: 305).
Here, by using CSM, we examine change in symmetry through
time. We ask whether symmetry increases in later periods,
whether similar levels of symmetry can quantified in different sites
of the same cultural entity, in trying to evaluate whether architecture
building and planning techniques have been the product of
accumulated knowledge over time. By using SR our aim is to
examine the variability of architectural shapes within and between
settlements in order to illuminate, social, cultural and economic
aspects of late prehistoric communities in the southern Levant.
More specifically we attempt to determine the socio-economic
correlates of the dwellings forms, whether they can be traced in
different sites or cultures, and of the degree shape variation within
a single cultural entity.
2. Architecture of the Chalcolithic period in the southern
Levant
Several cultural entities existed in the southern Levant during
the Chalcolithic period, of which the Ghassulian culture (ca. 4500e
3900 B.C.) was the most prominent (Gilead, 2011; Lovell, 2001;
Rowan and Golden, 2009). The Ghassulian culture features
assemblages broadly similar to those found at the upper levels of
Teleilat Ghassul, the Ghassulian type-site (North,1961). This culture
extends from the Northern Negev and the Dead Sea basin, to the
Shephela, the coastal plain, and the Jordan valley and the Galilee.
Other Chalcolithic cultural entities are the Besorian, the Timnian
and the Golanian (Epstein, 1998; Gilead, 2011; Rosen, 2011). Since
the Timnian architecture is poor and it is geographically limited to
the arid zones of the Southern and Central Negev, the Aravah,
southern Jordan and Eastern and Southern Sinai (Rosen, 2011), it is
not included in our analysis. Also excluded is the Besorian since it
predates the Ghassulian (Gilead, 2007) and its architectural
remains are meager. The Golanian sites are located in the Golan
Heights, and are contemporary with the Ghassulian, but feature
a remarkably different and locally manufactured ceramic assemblage
(Epstein, 1998). The following analysis will concentrate on
Ghassulian (Teleilat Ghassul, Shiqmim, Abu Hamid) and Golanian
(Rasam Harbush) architecture (Fig. 1), because they provide relatively
well defined architectural remains, that have been frequently
studied during recent decades.
The Chalcolithic architectural unit is usually composed of
a single room, located on the narrow side of a rectangular or
trapezoidal walled courtyard (e.g., Teleilat Ghassul, Fasa’el, Meser,
Golan sites). These rooms are rectilinear in shape and often termed
“broad-room” or “broad house” (e.g. Gilead, 1988:416, Porath,
1992:41; Rowan and Golden, 2009: 29) indicating that the
entrance to these structures was located in one of the long walls.
Installations such as hearths and silos are usually located in front of
these structures, sometimes enclosed by courtyard walls. The small
structures were probably used for sleeping and storage while other
daily activities were carried out in the courtyards or adjacent to the
dwelling unit. Although structures are variable, neither size
differentiation nor size hierarchies are apparent (Gilead, 1988:
417e418). Structures in a site may be organized in different ways
(Banning, 2010). In the Chalcolithic, there are sites where the
architectural units are clustered, such as in Teleilat Ghassul and
Shiqmim. In other sites, such as Gilat (Levy, 2006) or Grar (Gilead,
1995), the units are less clustered. In the Golan sites the structures
are arranged in lines, or as labeled by Epstein “house
chains”(1998: 6e8).
One of the great challenges of Chalcolithic period research has
been to interpret the architectural remains in terms of social and
economic organization. Levy (1986a), for one, suggests that “the
layout of Shiqmim, for example, may indicate the presence of
a single decision maker.” and that “.a similar pattern can be
observed at Teleilat Ghassul in the Jordan Valley.” (Levy, 1986b: 11).
Thus, the ”Chalcolithic settlements.are characterized by planned
villages” (Levy,1995: 229), that indicate “.the presence of a central
authority” (Levy, 1986a: 88) and “the emergence of a new social
organization, the first ‘chiefdoms’ in Palestine” (Levy, 1995: 238). In
addition he suggests that Shiqmim’s architecture “preview many of
the architectural features that are fully developed at the northern
Negev urban site at Arad in the following Early Bronze Age.” (Levy
and Alon, 1985: 78). Gilead (1988), on the other hand, suggests that
“.structures and settlement.were unplanned and there is no
clearly observed structural hierarchy” (Gilead, 1988: 418). Epstein
(1998: 7), on the basis of her excavations in the Golan, writes that
“.none of the [mostly structural] evidence can be interpreted as
indicating status differentiation“ and that their standardized
dwellings indicate that “the community was egalitarian”. She also
suggests that “the Golan structures resemble those of Teleilat
Ghassul” (Epstein, 1977: 58). Porath also notes the similarity
between the Chalcolithic domestic architecture at different sites,
and states that “their basic plan was similar” (1992: 40). Bourke
(2001), based on a close examination of Mallon’s Tulayl 1 settlement
plan, argues that “there is considerable variation in the size,
shape and elaboration of construction in individual dwellings.”
(Bourke, 2001: 120) and that the proposition that it may “reflect the
development of elite residential complexes.is not unreasonable.”
(Bourke, 2002: 22). Banning (2010) use space syntax analysis on
late NeolithiceChalcolithic settlements to find “variation in the
built environment over this period” which he suggests indicate
“political and economic inequalities beyond those determined by
gender, age, talent, or ability”. “a degree of socio-economic
ranking” (Banning, 2010: 79). Thus there is little agreement on
the meaning of structural patterning in this period, at least partially
because there is no objective means of analysis and comparison.
The characterization of patterns of settlement layouts, and
conclusions concerning their implications, should be treated with
reserve mainly due to the fact that most settlement layouts are
fragmentary and come only from a small section of the site. This is
R. Winter-Livneh et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1340e13531342
due mainly to the poor preservation of mudbrick. The probability
that smaller and ephemeral sites are underrepresented while large
sites may be exceptional rather than typical cannot be excluded.
Even when a larger part of sites had been excavated and the
architecture is relatively well-preserved (e.g. Teleilat Ghassul e
Tulayel 1 and 3 which were excavated between 1929 and 1938),
stratigraphic uncertainties and errors are common, and we cannot
be sure that all the building attributed to a phase or stratum were
contemporary (Banning, 2010: 53e54).
Nevertheless, structures at Teleilat Ghassul are according to
Epstein, on the one hand, similar to those of the Golan sites, and
thus reflect a society that is undifferentiated in terms of status.
According to Levy, on the other hand, Teleilat Ghassul is similar to
Shiqmim, and both represent a chiefdom society. Finally, according
to Bourke, Teleilat Ghassul demonstrates significant variability
which implies a hierarchical society, although not a chiefdom. Here,
we present a detailed analysis of the architectural remains which
provides additional important information that may illuminate
further some of these social and cultural issues.
3. Methodology
The methods used here comprise four elements: (i) data
acquisition and digitization of architectural ground-plans from site
reports; (ii) application of the Continuous Symmetry Measure
method (CSM) to evaluate structures symmetry; (iii) application of
Shape Reproducibility (SR) for quantifying the similarly between
structure shapes; and (iv) evaluating the results in terms of Chalcolithic
period social organization. We use Matlab and Geographic
Information System (GIS) platform for these analyses (for previous
GIS based analysis on Chalcolithic period dataset see: Fletcher,
2008; Fletcher and Winter, 2008; Fletcher et al., 2008; Pierce,
2006; Winter-Livneh et al., 2010, 2012).
3.1. Dataset
The analysis presented here is based on a sample of 99 structural
units, retrieved from four Chalcolithic sites (Teleilat Ghassul, Abu
Hamid, Shiqmim, and Rasam Harbush) and one Early Bronze Age
Fig. 1. Map of the southern Levant showing the locations of the studied sites and other Chalcolithic sites.
R. Winter-Livneh et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1340e1353 1343
site (Arad) which is used here as a comparative dataset (Fig. 1;
Table 1). Teleilat Ghassul (Fig. 2a) is located in the southern Jordan
Valley, some three kilometers north-east to the Dead Sea and
consists of several differentiated hillocks (Tulayl) which cover an
area of approximately 25 ha. Each hillock contains a cluster of
dwellings which includes a small structured unit located on the
narrow side of a walled courtyard. Excavations started in the late
1920s (Mallon et al., 1934), and it has been intensively researched
since (see Bourke, 2001: 107e111, 2002: 2e5; Lovell, 2001).
Abu Hamid (Fig. 2b) is located in the central Jordan Valley,
0.5 km east of the Jordan River. The excavations of the site started in
1986 by Dollfus and Kafafi (Dollfus and Kafafi, 1986; Lovell et al.,
2007: 51) and three main levels of occupation were unearthed.
Phase II is a subject of dispute between Garfinkel (1999: 158) who
defines it as Ghassulian, and Lovell et al. (Lovell et al., 2007: 63, 74)
who suggest it is pre-Ghassulian. Thus, we limit our analysis to the
remains of phase III, the undisputed Ghassulian phase at Abu
Hamid. The settlement includes rectangular houses, often unicellular,
built either completely in mud bricks or in some cases on
a stone foundation. The dwellings are separated from each other by
large spaces, sometimes delimited by long, stone walls (Lovell et al.,
2007: 57).
The northern Negev site of Shiqmim (Fig. 2c), about 18 km
south-west of Beer-Sheva, is one of the largest Chalcolithic sites in
the area. Seven seasons of excavations directed by Levy and
Alon during 1979e1993 uncovered a Chalcolithic village with
subterranean structures and a nearby cemetery. The settlement
consists of above ground rectangular dwellings structures as
well as underground structures in the northern part of the site. The
above structures can be divided into two main sizes: small
(ca. 2.5 Â 5.5 m) and large (5.5 Â 10 m). They are built of mud bricks
with stone foundation, associated with rectangular courtyards.
Small finds within these structures indicate the domestic nature of
food preparation and consumption and other activities. Some of the
buildings are associated with copper working (Levy, 1987; Levy and
Alon, 1982, 1985).
Rasam Harbush, in the Golan Heights, is the largest of a number
of Golanian sites (Fig. 2d). The site was excavated by Epstein (1977,
1998) and it consists of rectangular dwellings, built of local stone,
attached to rectangular courtyards. The site dwellings are positioned
one next to the other from east to west forming together
several parallel lines of dwellings which are referred by Epstein as
‘house chains’ (1998: 6e8).
The Early Bronze Age town of Arad (ca. 3000e2650 B.C.) is
located in the northern Negev, about 30 km east of Beer-Sheva
(Fig. 3). Arad is a large fortified urban settlement that consists of
residential units separated by streets and alleys. Dwellings are of
many sizes, the smallest ca. 50 sq m and the largest 150 sq m. There
are also public structures in Arad, including a water system and
a temple complex (Amiran and Ilan, 1996; Ben-Tor, 1973; Herzog,
1980).
The areas covered by the plans do not represent the extension of
the entire sites but rather the parts subjected to our analyses.
Repeated excavations at Teleilat Ghassul have been largely confined
to the hillock known as Tulayl 1 of which some 3,500 m2
with rich
artifactual assemblages and mudbrick architecture were unearthed.
In Tulayl 3, two phases of occupation with architectural remains
were excavated (Koeppel et al., 1940: Plan I and II). The PBI excavations
are of considerable importance and they are a cornerstone
in the research of Chalcolithic architecture. However, we excluded
Tulayl 3 from our analysis since the stratigraphy of each architectural
phase is very problematic, and later expeditions found it
difficult to define the stratigraphic horizons clearly (Bourke, 2002:
2e3, 2007). In addition, we excluded architectural elements that
are too fragmentary. Only structures that more than 80% of their
contours were preserved are included in the dataset.
The digitization process is based on the manually drawn
ground-plans published by the excavators. Each ground-plan was
scanned (Fig. 5a.i) and transformed into a GIS platform as layers for
further modifications. The procedure consists of defining the layout
of each illustrated unit (i.e. room). This was done by identifying the
corners of the structure with each shape’s points (vertices)
(Fig. 5a.ii), and initiating straight line segments between them that
form a closed polygonal surface, an accurate presentation of the
architectural shape (Fig. 5a.iii). To enable comparisons between the
shapes and to avoid size effects, we normalized the original
structures sizes into the same equivalent absolute size (Fig. 5b).
This was done by dividing each edge length by the square root of
the shape’s area.
3.2. Continuous Symmetry Measure (CSM)
CSM was first introduced to archaeological research by Saragusti
et al. (1998) and is described in detail by Zabrodsky and Avnir
(1995). In our study we use this method to measure the distance
between locations of points in the original architectural shape and
their locations as designated by the nearest mirror-symmetrical
shape (bilateral symmetry). These points are the boundary points
or vertices that provide and design the shapes’ general boundary
line. The number of points is determined according to the nature of
the architectural shape providing a small number of vertices which
represent the cornerstone locations. Next, we find the reflection
line that will cause the minimal move of points to create the nearest
mirror symmetrical shape. The line is determined from the averaged
sum of each pair of coordinate points. According to this
reflection line, each subset of points is duplicated. Redrawing the
outlines according to these points, results in a polygon of a mirrorsymmetrical
shape (Fig. 4). This “foldingeunfolding” method
(explained in detail by Zabrodsky and Avnir [1995]; and see also
Saragusti et al., 1998: Appendix 1) is repeated for each set of two
points. The polygon of the mirror-symmetrical shape closest to the
original shape is chosen for comparison with the original shape.
Symmetry measurement (Saragusti et al., 1998: 819) is defined in
Equation (1):
SðGÞ ¼
Xn
i



Pi À P
ˇ
i



 (1)
Where Pi is the location of the n vertices of the original shape
configuration, and P
ˇ
i are the corresponding points in the
symmetric configuration. Note that the size is normalized in order
Table 1
The dataset table includes four Chalcolithic sites and one Early Bronze Age II site.
Site Excavated area size (m2
) Number of structures Culture Date Period Reference
Teleilat Ghassul (Tulayl 1) 3500 21 Ghassulian 4500e3900 B.C. Chalcolithic Mallon et al., 1934: Fig. 12
Shiqmim 4500 15 Ghassulian 4500e3900 B.C. Chalcolithic Levy, 1987: Fig. 6.2
Abu Hamid (phase III) 1350 7 Ghassulian 4500e3900 B.C. Chalcolithic Lovell et al., 2007: Fig. 2
Rasam Harbush (Golan site 12) 4500 18 Golanian 4500e3900 B.C. Chalcolithic Epstein, 1998: Plan 1a
Arad (strata II-I) 5500 38 Early Bronze II 3000e2650 B.C. Early Bronze II Amiran and Ilan, 1996: Plate 70
R. Winter-Livneh et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1340e13531344
Fig. 2. Sites ground-plans: (a) Teleilat Ghassul (after Mallon et al., 1934: Fig. 12); (b) Abu Hamid (after Lovell et al., 2007: Fig. 2); (c) Shiqmim (after Levy, 1987: Fig. 6.2); (d) Rasam
Harbush (Epstein, 1998: Plan 1a).
R. Winter-Livneh et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1340e1353 1345
to avoid size difference influencing our results. The resulting S(G)
value equals zero if the shape has the desired absolute symmetry,
i.e., represents the highest symmetrical quality. The symmetry
value, S(G), increases as the shape departs from its nearest
symmetric configuration, i.e., is more asymmetrical or indicates
a low symmetrical quality.
3.3. Shape Reproducibility (SR)
To illuminate aspects such as continuity, repetition or reproducibility,
and standardization of building activity, we developed
the Shape Reducibility measure (SR) which measures the similarity
of architectural shapes within and between different sites. SR
measures how much each structure’s shape is similar to another
shape. The result for each architectural shape is always relative to
the shape (structure) it is compared to. A simple way to explain the
idea of SR is to describe it as a process in which the original groundplans
of two different structures are normalized and placed one
above the other. Then, by rotating one of them, we seek to find the
optimal orientation which will provide the largest overlapping area
resulting in the smallest residual area. Thus, we can measure these
residuals and compare them to residuals of other structures
measured in the same technique. The smaller the residual is, the
similar the structures are. The important aspect of SR is the ability
to measure exactly how much a given shape is similar to another
shape rather than describing it in subjective terms. Below we
describe each step of the SR methodological process (Fig. 5).
3.3.1. Normalized area
The first stage of the process is to normalize the area of all
shapes to an equal arbitrary one (Fig. 5b). This stage is critical
because it allows direct comparison of structure’s shapes with
different areas size.
3.3.2. Central point
Next, we calculate the central point for each shape. This allows
us to position each pair of structures one on top of the other
according to their shape centers. This is done while the original
orientations of the structures are left unchanged (Fig. 5c).
3.3.3. Rotation matrix
Next, one of the shapes is rotated by 5 at a time and the residual
area between the two shapes is calculated for all possible orientation
from 0 to 360 (Fig. 5d). The turning of the shape by an angle
about a fixed point is defined after Arfken (1985: 195) by the
rotation matrix in Equation (2):
Rq ¼

cos q sin q
Àsin q cos q

(2)
Where R is the matrix that rotates around a given vector coordinates
system by a counter clockwise angle of Àq relative to a fixed
set of axes. When the orientation in which the residual area
between the two shapes is the smallest, it is selected to represent
the SR value. We repeated this process for all possible pairs of
structures units (n ¼ 99).
3.3.4. Similarity matrix
After collecting SR values for all possible pairs of structures, data
were arranged into a similarity matrix (i.e., table) and the values of
structures from the same site were clustered together. Similarity
matrix is illustrated in Fig. 5e where 0 or blue indicate maximum
similarity and 1 or red indicate minimum similarity. This arrangement
simplifies the calculation of three different measurements
that were used: (i) intra-site similarity e the mean of the similarity
Fig. 3. Arad ground plan (Amiran and Ilan, 1996: Plate 70).
Fig. 4. Continuous Symmetry Measure e “foldingeunfolding” of the shapes: (a) The
original outline of the shape. (b) Through the center of each pair of points a reflection
line (dashed) is positioned and the shape is divided accordingly (yellow). (c) The
mirror-symmetrical shape (yellow) produced by redrawing the outline according to
the shape’s points (blue) and the reflection line. (d) Measuring the distance (yellow)
between the original shape vertex coordinates (red) and the mirror-symmetrical
shape’s vertex coordinates (blue). (For interpretation of the references to color in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
R. Winter-Livneh et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1340e13531346
indices at the site identity diagonal; (ii) inter-site similarity e the
means of the similarity indices that lay outside the site identity
diagonal; and (iii) intra-site deviation e to measure whether the
intra-site level for each site is lower than the inter-site levels the
mean of the intra-site similarity index the intra-site mean of this
site was subtracted from its corresponding inter-site mean values.
In addition, we classify the structure shapes of the Chalcolithic
period in order to locate the most typical or prototype architectural
shape among them. This is achieved by calculating the mean of
each column of the similarity matrix, which equals the mean
similarity of each individual structure with the rest of the structures
included in the study. Next, we sort structures by their mean
from the one which provided the lowest SR mean value (the most
typical structure) to the one which provided the highest SR mean
value (the least typical structure). In summary, this new method
provides a quantitative and automatic approach that enables this
present study, and future research, to objectively and systematically
evaluate the similarity of prehistoric architectural shapes
within and between sites.
4. Results
CSM mean values of all the studied sites indicate a significant
difference between Teleilat Ghassul and the Ghassulian sites of
Shiqmim and Abu Hamid (student t-test p < 0.03) (Fig. 6). Namely,
the higher value of CSM of Teleilat Ghassul indicates greater levels
of asymmetry than in the other two Ghassulian sites. Similar CSM
values have been found between the Golanian site Rasam Harbush
and the Ghassulian sites of Shiqmim and Abu Hamid (student t-test
p > 0.05), which indicate similar symmetrical levels to the architecture
of sites of different cultural entities. In addition, the results
indicate a significant difference between Chalcolithic symmetry
values and that of Early Bronze Age Arad (student t-test p < 0.001),
suggesting that the degree of asymmetry in Arad is significantly
higher than that of the Chalcolithic sites.
Our intra-site analysis indicate a significant difference between
the Ghassulian sites (Teleilat Ghassul, Shiqmim, Abu Hamid) and
the Golanian site Rasam Harbush (student t-test p < 0.01) (Fig. 7).
This suggests that the homogeneity of architectural shapes at the
Golanian site of Rasam Harbush is significantly higher than that of
the Ghassulian sites. Additional significant difference was found
between Arad and all Chalcolithic sites (student t-test p < 0.00005).
Even after excluding Rasam Harbush, a significant difference
between Arad and the Ghassulian sites was found (student t-test
p < 0.003). This suggests that Ghassulian sites are more homogenous
architecturally compared to that of the Early Bronze Age.
Next, we explore the architectural uniqueness of the sites by
normalizing their intra-site SR value (discussed above) and
comparing it with their inter-site SR values (as described in Fig. 5d).
In Fig. 8 the SR mean value of each site is converted to zero
(a dashed orange line), while the mean values of its inter-site
Fig. 5. Shape Reproducibility method summery: (a) Data acquisition process (Teleilat
Ghassul on top Rasam Harbush on bottom): (i) scanned illustration of the original
published architecture (ii) vertexes (blue) represent the structure shape’s corners
(iii) closed polygonal surface of the architecture shape based initiating straight line
segments between the vertexes; (b) Normalizing of the areas: (i) the structure’s shapes
polygons in their original size (ii) the polygonal surface after normalizing its size;
(c) Center point: (i) calculating the center point for each polygon (ii) placing each pair
of structures one on top of the other according to their center points. (d) Rotation
process: (i) a pair of structures one (blue) on top of the other (red) according to their
center (ii) rotating one of the shapes (red) 5 at a time until completing a full turn (iii)
finding the structure orientation (yellow) which provides the smallest remnant areas
(¼SR value) comparing to all possible orientation. (e) Similarity matrix: the illustration
shows the similarity index between all structures at three different sites (AeC). Notice
that the values at the diagonal are zero (maximum similarity or similarity between
a structure and itself) and that the squares along the diagonal of the similarity within
same-site structure are lower than the similarity found in other areas of the matrix,
which are between different sites. (i) Calculation of intra-site similarity, based on the
mean of the similarity indices at the site identity diagonal; (ii) inter-site similarity,
based on the mean of the squares outside the site identity diagonal, and can be used to
compare the similarity among multiple sites; (iii) to test whether intra-site similarity is
lower than inter-site similarity, the intra-site similarity mean (at the figure mark for
site ‘B’) is subtracted from the corresponding column (the second column at the
illustration). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
R. Winter-Livneh et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1340e1353 1347
similarity to the remaining sites vary between 0.15 and À0.05
(below or above the site’s mean value). Accordingly, sites which are
located above the zero line indicate dissimilarity to the specific site
while sites located below the zero line indicate similarity to the site.
These results display a similar pattern of both higher and lower
inter-site SR means for all Ghassulian site. These results indicate
that the architectural shapes within these sites cannot be distinguished
from one another. But comparing them to Rasam Harbush
or Arad indicates they could be distinguished from them.
Rasam Harbush on the other hand displays a different pattern
since it consists only of higher inter-site normalized mean values.
This indicates that it is different from the other sites, suggesting the
architecture here is unique. Comparing Arad with the SR mean
values of the Ghassulian sites demonstrates a pattern that is not
distinguishable from these sites, excluding Rasam Harbush. That is,
if we were to mix the architecture shapes of each Ghassulian site
with those of Arad it is highly unlikely that we could distinguish
between them, but if we were to mix the Rasam Harbush architectural
shapes with those of Arad we could, in high probability,
distinguish them.
Fig. 9 illustrates the similarities between the Chalcolithic sites
by calculating the mean similarity indices between each pair of
sites. The smaller the SR value is, the more it resembles the paired
site. These results demonstrate exactly how much the Ghassulian
sites Shiqmim, Teleilat Ghassul and Abu Hamid are similar to one
another and differ from Rasam Harbush and Arad.
In Fig. 10 the Chalcolithic period architectural shapes are displayed
and classified in decreasing order according to their level of
similarity with all the rest of the Chalcolithic period structures
within our database. The data sample (n ¼ 61) includes four Chalcolithic
sites. According to this analysis the most typical dwelling
shape is found at Teleilat Ghassul: structure 23 depicted in Fig.12 of
Mallon et al. (1934), with a width:length ratio of 1:2.2 (Fig. 10: top
left corner). The least typical structure shape, a very narrow rectangle,
on the other hand, is found in Rasam Harbush (Epstein 1998:
plan 1a, structure 7) with a ratio of 1:4.5 (Fig. 10: rightmost on
bottom row).
5. Discussion
We have presented here a new method, Shape Reproducibility,
to examine and identify intra- and inter-site similarities of structures
on the basis of prehistoric architectural ground-plans. We
found that Ghassulian communities built relatively similar structures
which could not be distinguished from one site to another.
The Golanian community shaped their structures differently, thus
producing unique structure shapes which are significantly different
from those of the Ghassulian. In addition, we found that the intrasite
variability of the architectural shapes of the Ghassulian culture
is significantly higher than the intra-site variability level of Golanian
culture. However, in comparison with Early Bronze Age Arad,
Ghassulian intra-site variability is significantly lower, demonstrating
that Chalcolithic architecture is more homogenous than
that of the Early Bronze Age. Furthermore, we found that the degree
of symmetry in Chalcolithic architecture is higher than in the
architecture of the Early Bronze Age.
The CSM results indicate that the symmetry of structures
correlates negatively with time (Fig. 6). It seems that the change
from Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age did not necessarily lead to
more symmetrical structures. This may be interpreted in different
ways. First, the low levels of symmetrical quality observed in Teleilat
Ghassul and Arad are not indicative of architectural incompetence
or limitations, but that there was probably no particular
technological or physical need for higher symmetry when building
these structures. Another possibility is that building materials and
local environmental variables have influenced the architectural
symmetry. The possibility that corralling played a role in a number
of the sites (Epstein, 1998: 16e17) cannot be excluded. However, it
seems that this role was limited since the remains of human
habitations predominate the archaeological record. CSM analysis of
architectural remains could be perhaps more effective when
applied to longer chronological time spans or to larger geographical
areas in order to detect increase in the symmetry. In previous
studies, the symmetry of flint artifacts such as Acheulean handaxes,
a tool type that was produced during hundreds of thousands of
years was examined. It is possible that several hundreds of years are
a too short time period to identify a gradual change or increase in
the symmetry of prehistoric architecture.
Our SR results demonstrate that the intra-site similarity of the
Golanian site of Rasam Harbush is higher than that of the Ghassulian
sites (Fig. 7). This finding is in line with previous studies
suggesting a high homogeneity level and architectural standardization
of the Golanian architecture (Epstein, 1977, 1998). Furthermore,
we demonstrate that Golanian architecture consists of
unique rectangular proportions which differ from those at the
Fig. 7. Shape Reproducibility intra-site results: shown are the mean Æ s.e.m. of the SR
values within each of the sites (* is for p < 0.03 and *** is for p < 0.00005).
Fig. 6. Continuous Symmetry Measure results: shown are the mean Æ s.e.m. of the
CSM value of each site (* is for p < 0.03, and ** is for p < 0.001).
R. Winter-Livneh et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1340e13531348
Fig. 8. Shape Reproducibility inter-site results: shown are the normalized mean Æ s.e.m. SR values of the intra-site similarity of each site (¼0, and marked with dashed orange line)
in comparison with its inter-site normalized mean Æ s.e.m. SR values. Inter-site mean that is lower than 0 indicate similarity to the site (undistinguished), while a higher than
0 result indicate difference (unique). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 9. Shape Reproducibility inter-site results: shown are the normalized mean SR values of each site. The lower the SR value is the more the site resemble to the comparative site.
R. Winter-Livneh et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1340e1353 1349
other sites (Figs. 8 and 9). Although this was recognized previously
and supports the claim that the Golanian differs from the Ghassulian
(Epstein, 1998: 334, Gilead, 2011: 15e16), it contradicts the
statements that Rasam Harbush dwellings are similar to those
found in Teleilat Ghassul (Epstein, 1977; Porath, 1992). Even though
Teleilat Ghassul displays a relatively high level of intra-site variability,
the SR results indicate that Rasam Harbush architecture is
significantly different (student t-test p < 0.03). The architectural
uniqueness of Rasam Harbush might reflect its distinctive and
different cultural and socio-economic character.
The Ghassulian sites demonstrate a certain degree of architectural
intra-site variation. In addition, inter-site comparisons indicate
that Ghassulian architecture, and its intra-site variability
levels, are similar in the three sites we studied (Figs. 8 and 9). This
intra-site variability level, however, is significantly lower in
comparison with the Early Bronze Age site of Arad. These results
contradict previous assumptions that Ghassulian architecture
consist of considerable variation in shape (Bourke, 2001, 2002;
Levy, 1986a, 1995; Levy and Alon, 1985). Nonetheless, the relatively
low degree of variability in shapes during the Chalcolithic period
implies a similarity that should be explained. One possibility is that
this level of similarity could be the outcome of physical or environmental
factors such as topography or building material. This,
however, is unlikely since the studied settlements here are located
within different environments which consist of different topographical
conditions and different available local materials. Moreover,
based on anthropological studies, although the physical
environment could exerts great constraints over the builders and
the options they had, it appears that these environmental factors
are secondary to the socio-economic ones (Allison, 2002; Ingold,
1995, 2000; King, 1980; Rapoport, 1982). Accordingly, house form
is considered a “.direct expression of changing values, images,
perception and the ways of life.” (Rapoport, 1969: 12), and is
“governed by a society’s ideas, its forms of economic and social
organization, its distribution of resources and authority, its activities
and the beliefs and values which prevail at any one period of
time.” (King, 1980: 1). The explanation of the similarity level should
be, therefore, sought within the social and economic aspects of
Chalcolithic communities.
One of the primary interests of the current research in the study
of Chalcolithic period is in the organization level of the society.
There are researchers who view the archaeological evidence as
reflecting social hierarchy (Gal et al., 2011; Golden, 2009; Levy,
1986a, 1995). Bourke (2002) suggests that Chalcolithic site structure
reflects variability which can imply the existence of residential
elite. Levy (1986a: 88) suggests that Chalcolithic architectural
variability implies central authority and a single decision maker.
Based on Service (1962) and Fried (1967) anthropological models,
he argues that Chalcolithic architecture signifies the appearance of
“hereditary chiefdom society” (Levy, 1995: 235). However, the
results of our study do not support the idea of hierarchically
stratified communities.
Our results indicate that in the case of Early Bronze Age Arad the
level of intra-site variability is high and may signify a stratified
society. This variability results from the different types of structures,
including residential structures and public structures, such as
the probable temple complex. Architectural variability of Arad is
significantly higher than that of the Ghassulian sites and might
suggests that the level of organization in the latter is less complex
than currently suggested. There is no significant difference
between structure forms which can represent habitations of
community members of a distinct social status. In addition, Epstein
(1998: 7) suggests that the very standardized Golanian architecture
indicate that the structures were built by an egalitarian community.
Fig. 10. Classification of the Chalcolithic period structures units according to the similarity of each structure with the rest of the structures. The shapes are organized in a decreasing
order starting at the top left with the most typical structure (low SR mean) ending at the bottom right with the least typical structure (high SR mean). The dataset includes
structures from Teleilat Ghassul (TG), Shiqmim (SH), Abu Hamid (AH), and Rasam Harbush (RH) (n ¼ 61).
R. Winter-Livneh et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1340e13531350
According to our findings this assertion cannot be excluded. The
Golanian site of Rasam Harbush lacks any visible presentation of
social differentiation, neither in the architecture nor in other
aspects of the material culture. It even suggests that the local
community was less differentiated socially than were the other
Ghassulian communities.
Architectural variability may imply an increase in socioeconomic
options (e.g. Flannery, 1972, 2002; Kent, 1990a, 1990b;
Rapoport,1969,1982; Wilk and Rathje,1982). Previous studies have
emphasized that the Ghassulian subsistence economy witnessed
an intensification of agricultural production, greater investment
in craft production (in ceramics, flint artifacts, basalt working,
and ivory carving) and technological innovations, notably metallurgy
(e.g. Gilead, 1988; Golden, 2009; Levy, 1986a; Rowan and
Golden, 2009). Moreover, Ghassulian economy is also linked to an
increase in storage (Bourke, 2002; Golden, 2009; Levy, 2003), that
may have been combined with the appearance of semisubterranean
features (Gilead, 1988), and a land tenure system
(Winter-Livneh et al., 2012). These features may suggest a connection
between the economic structure of Ghassulian society and the
levels of intra-site variability, levels which are significantly higher
than the level of the Golanian site of Rasam Harbush and significantly
lower than the level found in Early Bronze Age Arad.
6. Conclusions
Ghassulian architecture exhibits a certain degree of variability,
high in relation to that of Rasam Harbush and low in relation to that
of Early Bronze Age Arad. The available evidence suggests that
social hierarchy is not apparent architecturally in Ghassulian
society. Nonetheless the relatively higher level of architectural
differentiation within Ghassulian settlement than the Golanian
settlement might reflect socio-economic intensification. In addition,
Ghassulian architectural shapes cannot be distinguished from
one site to the other, while those of the Golanian site Rasam Harbush
are unique and therefore distinguishable from all the other
sites we examined. This may support the contention that the
Golanian is a cultural entity which differs from the Ghassulian. We
suggest that the differences between Ghassulian and Golanian
architecture probably results from the different nature of the social
and economic characteristics of each of these two cultural entities.
The SR method helps in distinguishing different architectural
patterns that probably reflect socio-economic features of the past
communities we studied. The Golan site of Rasam Harbush is characterized
by an intra-site structural homogeneity. The shape of
structures here was deliberately or undeliberately restricted to
basically one shape and the resulted is a particular settlement type.
Thus, Rasam Harbush lacks any indication of socio-economic
differentiation. Partial heterogeneity was revealed in Ghassulian
sites such as Shiqmim and Teleital Ghassul and suggests a certain
level of differentiation between the dwellings within each of the
settlements. This low-level heterogeneity may signify variability in
a number of socio-economic aspects, such as intensity of production,
craft specialization and technological innovation, different activities
or different production intensities resulted in structures with for
example, different storage requirements, and thus of different
shapes. A relatively high level of heterogeneity was observed among
the structures at Arad. This suggests a significant visible dissimilarity
which is a result of structures having different function. Public
structures (such as the temple complex) and dwellings were
designed differently to express socio-economic distinction.
Changes in symmetry levels of prehistoric architecture over
time do not support the idea that accumulation of knowledge over
time results always in technological progress. On the one hand, it is
plausible that the symmetry of prehistoric structures fails to reflect
social changes. On the other hand, it may, at least in some cases,
indicate that architectural techniques and traditions are diverse
and do not develop unilinearily.
To conclude, Building activity patterns in prehistory are part of
an expressive and complex system of social and economical
meaning. Future studies should reveal further micro and macro
scale social aspects of the builders and dwellers in the southern
Levant prehistory. In addition studies should address related
important issues such as how the house forms within different
settlements are organized spatially. Moreover, there is a need to
objectively measure and compare the similarity not only between
individual structures, but also between ways clusters of structures
are spatially distributed within each settlement. Future studies
should also aim at finding whether different building material may
have influenced the symmetrical properties of architecture.
Answering these questions can help us to better understand past
social and economic realities.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Pratt Foundation PhD Fellowship
Program at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. We thank Steve
Rosen and two anonymous readers who read previous drafts
and made important comments that improved the paper considerably.
We thank the members of the GI-Lab at Ben-Gurion
University of the Negev for providing useful information concerning
GIS procedure.
References
Aalen, F.H.A., 1966. The evolution of the traditional house in western Ireland. The
Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 96, 47e58.
Agorsah, K., 1985. Archaeological implications of traditional house construction
among the Nchumuru of northern Ghana. Current Anthropology 26, 103e115.
Alexander, C., 1964. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Harvard University Press,
London.
Allison, P. (Ed.), 2002. The Archaeology of Household Activities. Routledge, London
and New York.
Amiran, R., Ilan, O., 1996. Early Arad II. The Israel Museum and The Israel Exploration
Society, Jerusalem.
Arensburg, B., Bar-Yosef, O., 1973. Human remains from Ein Gev I, Jordan Valley,
Israel. Paléorient 1, 201e206.
Arfken, B.G., 1985. Mathematical Methods for Physicists, third ed. Academic Press,
Boston.
Banning, E.B., 2010. Houses, households, and changing society in the Late Neolithic
and Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant. Paléorient 36, 49e87.
Banning, E.B., Byrd, F.B., 1987. Houses and the changing residential unit: domestic
architecture at PPNB ’Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
53, 309e325.
Banning, E.B., Byrd, F.B., 1988. Southern Levantine pier houses: intersite architectural
patterning during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. Paléorient 14, 65e72.
Bar-Yosef, O., 1992. Building activities in the prehistoric periods until the end of the
Neolithic period. In: Kempinski, A., Reich, R. (Eds.), The Architecture of Ancient
Israel. Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, pp. 31e39.
Ben-Shlomo, D., Garfinkel, Y., 2009. Sha’ar Hagolan and new insights on Near
Eastern proto-historic urban concepts. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28,
189e209.
Ben-Tor, A., 1973. Plans of dwellings and temples in Early Bronze Age Palestine. EI
11, 92e98.
Binford, L., 1990. Mobility, housing and environment: a comparative study. Journal
of Anthropological Research 46, 119e152.
Bourke, J.S., 2001. The Chalcolithic period. In: Macdonald, B., Adams, R.,
Bienkowski, P. (Eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan. Sheffield Academic Press,
Sheffield, pp. 107e163.
Bourke, J.S., 2002. The origins of social complexity in the southern Levant:
new evidence from Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan. Palestine Exploration Quarterly
134, 2e27.
Bourke, J.S., 2007. The Late Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic transition at Teleilat Ghassul:
context, chronology and culture. Paléorient 33, 15e32.
Bridgeman, B., 2002. Artifacts and cognition: evolution or cultural progress?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25, 403.
Byrd, F.B., 1994. Public and private, domestic and corporate: the emergence of the
southwest Asian village. American Antiquity 59, 639e666.
Carsten, J., Hugh-Jones, S., 1995. About the House: Levy-Strauss and Beyond.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
R. Winter-Livneh et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1340e1353 1351
Clarke, D.L., 1968. Analytical Archaeology, first ed. Methuen & Co Ltd., London.
Correa, C., 1982. Architecture in a warm climate. Architecture in Development,
31e35.
Dickens, P., 1977. An analysis of historical house-plans: a study at the structural
level (micro). In: Clarke, D.L. (Ed.), Spatial Archaeology. Academic Press, London,
pp. 33e45.
Dobres, M.-A., 2010. Archaeologies of technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics
34, 103e114.
Dobres, M.-A., Hoffman, R.C., 1994. Social agency and the dynamics of prehistoric
technology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1, 211e258.
Dobres, M.-A., Hoffman, R.C., 1999. The Social Dynamics of Technology: Practice,
Politics, and World Views. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, DC.
Dollfus, G., Kafafi, Z., 1986. Abu Hamid, Jordanie. Premiers resultats. Paleoriént 12,
91e100.
Donley, L.W., 1982. House power: Swahili space and symbolic markers. In:
Hodder, I. (Ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 63e73.
Dothan, M., 1959. Excavations at Horvat Beter (Beersheba). ’Atiqot 2, 1e71.
Durham, P., Lewis, S., Shennan, S., 1995. Artefact matching and retrieval using the
Generalised Hough Transform. In: Wilcock, J., Lockyear, K. (Eds.), Computer
Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1993. BAR International
Series 598, pp. 25e30.
Epstein, C., 1977. The Chalcolithic culture of the Golan. Biblical Archaeologist 40,
56e62.
Epstein, C., 1998. The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan. IAA Reports No. 4. Jerusalem.
Faust, A., Bunimovitz, S., 2003. The four room house: embodying Iron age Israelite
society. Near Eastern Archaeology 66, 22e31.
Finlayson, B., Kuijt, I., Mithen, S., Smith, S., 2011a. New evidence from southern
Jordan: rethinking the role of architecture in changing societies at the beginning
of the Neolithic process. Paléorient 37, 123e135.
Finlayson, B., Mithen, J.S., Najjar, M., Smith, S., Maricevic, D., Pankhurst, N.,
Yeomans, L., 2011b. Architecture, sedentism, and social complexity at PrePottery
Neolithic A WF16, Southern Jordan. PNAS 108, 8183e8188.
Fitch, J.M., Branch, D.P., 1960. Primitive architecture and climate. Scientific American
203, 134e144.
Flannery, K.V., 1972. The origins of the village as a settlement type in Mesoamerica
and the Near East: a comparative study. In: Ucko, P.J., Tringham, R.,
Dimbleby, G.W. (Eds.), Man, Settlement and Urbanism. Duckwort, London,
pp. 23e53.
Flannery, K.V., 2002. The origins of the village revisited: from nuclear to extended
households. American Antiquity 67, 417e433.
Fletcher, R., 1977. Settlement studies (micro and semi-micro). In: Clarke, D.L. (Ed.),
Spatial Archaeology. Academic Press, London, pp. 47e162.
Fletcher, R., 2008. Some spatial analyses of Chalcolithic settlement in Southern
Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2048e2058.
Fletcher, R., Winter, R., 2008. Prospects and problems in GIS applications in
studying Chalcolithic archaeology in Southern Israel. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 352, 1e28.
Fletcher, R., Winter, R., Gilead, I., 2008. Patterning human behaviour in Chalcolithic
southern Palestine: differing scales of analysis. In: Posluschny, A., Lambers, K.,
Herzog, I. (Eds.), Layers of Perception: Proceedings of the 35th International
Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology
(CAA) Berlin, Germany, April 2e6, 2007. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn,
pp. 257e265.
Fried, M.H., 1967. The Evolution of Political Society. Random House, New York.
Gal, Z., Shalem, D., Smithline, H., 2011. The Peqi’in cave: a Chalcolithic cemetery in
Upper Galilee, Israel. Near Eastern Archaeology 74, 196e206.
Garfinkel, Y., 1999. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant.
Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University (Qedem 39), Jerusalem.
Garfinkel, Y., Ben-Shlomo, D., 2002. Sha’ar Hagolan architecture in its Near Eastern
context. In: Garfinkel, Y., Miller, A.M. (Eds.), Sha’ar Hagolan 1: Neolithic Art in
Context. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 71e84.
Garfinkel, Y., Ben-Shlomo, D., Kupermaan, T., 2009. Large-scale storage of grain
surplus in the sixth millennium BC: the silos of Tel Tsaf. Antiquity 83, 309e325.
Gero, J., Mazzullo, J., 1984. Analysis of artifact shape using Fourier series in closed
form. Journal of Field Archaeology 11, 315e322.
Gilboa, A., Larasik, A., Sharon, I., Smilansky, U., 2004. Towards computerized
typology and classification of ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 31,
681e694.
Gilead, I., 1988. The Chalcolithic period in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 2,
397e443.
Gilead, I., 1995. Grar: a Chalcolithic Site in the Northern Negev, Beer-Sheva. BenGurion
University Press, Beer Sheva.
Gilead, I., 2007. The Besorian: a Pre-Ghassulian cultural entity. Paleoriént 33, 33e49.
Gilead, I., 2011. Chalcolithic culture history: Ghassulian and other entities in the
southern Levant. In: Lovell, J.L., Rowan, M.Y. (Eds.), Culture, Chronology and the
Chalcolithic: Theory and Transition. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 12e24.
Givoni, B., 1969. Man, Climate and Architecture. Elseveir Publishing Company
Limited, Amsterdam.
Golden, J., 2009. Dawn of the Metal Age. Technology and Society during the
Levantine Chalcolithic. Equinox, London.
Goring-Morris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2003. Structures and dwellings in the Upper
and Epipalaeolithic (ca. 42e10 K BP) Levant: profane and symbolic uses. In:
Soffer, O., Vasl’ev, S., Kozlowski, J. (Eds.), Perceived Landscapes and Built Environments,
vol. 1122. BAR International Series, Oxford, pp. 65e81.
Goring-Morris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2008. A roof over one’s head: developments
in Near Eastern architecture across the EpipalaeolithiceNeolithic transition. In:
Bocquet-Appel, J., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Neolithic Demographic Transition
and Its Consequences. Springer, Berlin, pp. 239e286.
Grosman, L., Sharon, G., Goldman-Newuman, T., Smikt, O., Smilansky, U., 2011.
Studying post depositional damage on Acheulian bifaces using 3-D scanning.
Journal of Human Evolution 60, 398e406.
Grosman, L., Smikt, O., Smilansky, U., 2008. On the application of 3-D scanning
technology for the documentation and typology of lithic artifacts. Journal of
Archaeological Science 35, 3101e3110.
Herzog, Z., 1980. Functional interpretation of the broadroom and longroom house
types. Tel Aviv 7, 82e89.
Hillier, B., Hanson, J., 1984. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Hodder, I., 1994. Architecture and meaning: the example of Neolithic houses and
tombs. In: Pearson, M.P., Richards, C. (Eds.), Architecture and Ordered
Approaches to Social Space. Routledge, London, pp. 73e86.
Hodgson, D., 2011. The first appearance of symmetry in the human lineage: where
perception meets art. Symmetry 3, 37e53.
Hunter-Anderson, R., 1977. A theoretical approach to the study of house form. In:
Binford, L. (Ed.), For Theory Building in Archaeology. Academic Press, New York,
pp. 287e316.
Ingold, T., 1990. Society, nature and the concept of technology. Archaeological
Review from Cambridge 9, 5e17.
Ingold, T., 1995. Building, dwelling, living: how animals and people make themselves
at home in the world. In: Strathern, M. (Ed.), Shifting Contexts: Transformations
in Anthropological Knowledge. Routledge, London, pp. 57e80.
Ingold, T., 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling
and Skill. Routledge, London.
Jones, P.R., 1980. Experimental butchery with modern stone tools and its relevance
for Paleolithic archaeology. World Archaeology 12, 153e165.
Karasik, A., 2010. A complete, automatic procedure for pottery documentation and
analysis. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW),
2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on, 2010, pp. 29e34.
Karasik, A., Smilansky, U., 2008. Scanning technology as a standard archaeological
tool for pottery analysis: practice and theory. Journal of Archaeological Science
35, 1148e1168.
Karasik, A., Smilansky, U., 2011. Computerized morphological classification of
ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 2644e2657.
Kempinski, A., Reich, R. (Eds.), 1992. The Architecture of Ancient Israel. Israel
Exploration Society, Jerusalem.
Kent,S.,1990a. Across-cultural studyofsegmentation, architecture,and theuseofspace.
In: Kent, S. (Ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: an Interdisciplinary
Cross-Cultural Study. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 127e152.
Kent, S. (Ed.), 1990b. Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: an Interdisciplinary
Cross-Cultural Study. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kenyon, K.M., 1957. Digging Up Jericho. Ernest Benn, London.
Kenyon, K.M., Holland, T.A., 1981. Excavation at Jericho. In: The Architecture and
Stratigraphy of the Tel, vol. 3. British School of Archaeology at Jerusalem, London.
King, A.D. (Ed.), 1980. Building and Society: Essays on the Social Development of the
Built Environment. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., London.
Koeppel, R., Mallon, R., Neuville, R., 1940. Teleilat Ghassul II. Pontifical Biblical
Institute, Rome.
Kohn, M., Mithen, S., 1999. Handaxes: products of sexual selection? Antiquity 73,
518e526.
Kuijt, I., Finlayson, B., 2009. Evidence for food storage and predomestication
granaries 11,000 years ago in the Jordan Valley. PNAS 106, 10966e10970.
Kuijt, I., Goring-Morris, N., 2002. Foraging, farming, and social complexity in the
Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: a review and synthesis. Journal of
World Prehistory 16, 361e440.
Kuijt, I., Guerrero, E., Molist, M., Anfruns, J., 2011. The changing Neolithic household:
household autonomy and social segmentation, Tell Halula, Syria. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 30, 502e522.
Laksmi, G.S., 2006. Local material which influence the traditional house’s form
against the tropical climate, Toraja traditional house, Indonesia. In: iNTA
Conference 2006 e Harmony in Culture and Nature.
Lau, F.G., 2010. House form and Recuay culture: residential compounds at Yayno
(Ancash, Peru), a fortified hilltop town, AD 400e800. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 29, 327e351.
Leese, M.N., Main, P.L., 1983. An approach to the assessment of artefact dimension
as descriptors of shape. In: Haigh, J.G.B. (Ed.), Computer Applications in
Archaeological Sciences. University of Bradford, Bradford, pp. 171e180.
Lévi-Strauss, C., 1963. Structural Anthropology. Basic Books, New York.
Levy, T.E., 1986a. The Chalcolithic period. Biblical Archaeologist 49, 82e108.
Levy, T.E., 1986b. Social archaeology and the Chalcolithic period: explaining social
organizational change during the 4th millennium in Israel. Michmanim 3, 5e20.
Levy, T.E. (Ed.), 1987. Shiqmim I, Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the
Northern Negev Desert, Israel. BAR International Series 356. Oxford.
Levy, T.E., 1995. Cult, metallurgy and rank societies e Chalcolithic period (ca. 4500e
3500 BCE). In: Levy, T.E. (Ed.), Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. Facts on
File, New York, pp. 226e243.
Levy, T.E., 2003. The Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant. In: Richard, S. (Ed.), Near
Eastern Archaeology: a Reader. Winona Lake Ind, Eisenbrauns, pp. 257e267.
Levy, T.E. (Ed.), 2006. Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: the Sanctuary at Gilat,
Israel. Equinox Publishing, London.
R. Winter-Livneh et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1340e13531352
Levy, T.E., Alon, D., 1982. The Chalcolithic mortuary site near Metzad Aluf, northern
Negev desert: a preliminary study. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 248, 37e59.
Levy, T.E., Alon, D., 1985. Shiqmim: a Chalcolithic village and mortuary center in the
northern Negev. Paleoriént 11, 71e83.
Liming, G., Hongjie, L., Wilcock, J., 1989. The analysis of ancient Chinese pottery and
porcelain shapes: a study of classical profiles from the Yangshao culture to the
Qing dynasty using computerized profile data reduction, cluster analysis and
fuzzy boundary discrimination. Computer Applications and Quantitative
Methods in Archaeology, 363e374.
Liu, Z., Kersten, D., 2003. Three-dimensional symmetric shapes are discriminated
more efficiently than asymmetric ones. Journal of Optical Society of America 20,
1331e1340.
Lovell, J., 2001. The Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods in the Southern Levant:
New Data from the Site of Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan. In: BAR International Series
974. Oxford.
Lovell, J.L., Dollfus, G., Kafafi, Z., 2007. The ceramics of the Late Neolithic and
Chalcolithic: Abu Hamid and the burnished tradition. Paléorient 33, 51e76.
Lycett, J.S., 2008. Acheulean variation and selection: does handaxe symmetry fit
neutral expectations? Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2640e2648.
Machin, A.J., Hosfield, R.T., Mithen, S., 2007. Why are some handaxes symmetrical?
Testing the influence of handaxe morphology on butchery effectiveness. Journal
of Archaeological Science 34, 883e893.
Mallon, A., Koeppel, R., Neuville, R., 1934. Teleilat Ghassul I. Institute Biblique
Pontifical, Roma.
Manderscheid, A., 2001. The Black Tent in its easternmost distribution: the case of
the Tibetan Plateau. Mountain Research and Development 21, 154e160.
Martin, G., Bar-Yosef, O., 1979. Ein Gev III, Israel, 1978. Paléorient 5, 219e220.
Mauss, M., Beauchat, H., 1979. Seasonal Variations of the Eskimo. Routledge & Kegan
Paul, London.
McPherron, S.P., 2000. Handaxes as a measure of the mental capabilities of early
hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 655e663.
Mitchell, J.C., 1996. Studying biface utilisation at Boxgrove: Roe deer butchery with
replica handaxes. Lithics 16, 64e69.
Moore, A.M.T., 1985. The development of Neolithic societies in the Near East.
Advances in World Archaeology 4, 1e69.
Nadel, D., Werker, E., 1999. The oldest ever brush hut plant remains from Ohalo II,
Jordan Valley, Israel (19,000 BP). Antiquity 73, 755e764.
North, R., 1961. Ghassul 1960: Excavation Report. Pontificium Institutum Biblicum,
Roma.
Nowell, A., 2000. The Archaeology of Mind: Standardization and Symmetry in
Lithics and Their Implications for the Study of the Evolution of the Human
Mind, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Nowell, A., 2002. Coincidental factors of handaxe morphology. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences 25, 413e414.
Oakley, K., 1972. Skill as a human possession. In: Washburn, S.L., Dolhinow, P. (Eds.),
Perspectives on Human Evolution. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York,
pp. 14e50.
Perrot, J., 1984. Structures d’habitat, mode de la vie et envirnment: Les villages
souterrains des pasteurs de Be’ersheva dans le Sud d’Israel, au IV millénaires
avant l’ère chrétienne. Paleoriént 10, 75e92.
Pierce, G., 2006. GIS and the Chalcolithic of the Northern Negev. In: Paper delivered
at the Innovations in the Research of the Chalcolithic Beer Sheva Culture
conference, 2006.
Porath, Y., 1987. Dwellings in the Chalcolithic period. In: Katzenstein, H., Netzer, E.,
Kempinski, A., Reich, R. (Eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel. Israel Exploration
Society, Jerusalem, pp. 37e44.
Porath, Y., 1992. Domestic architecture of the Chalcolithic period. In: Kempinski, A.,
Reich, R. (Eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel. Israel Exploration Society,
Jerusalem, pp. 40e48.
Rapoport, A., 1969. House Form and Culture. In: Foundations of Cultural Geography
Series. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Rapoport, A., 1982. The Meaning of the Built Environment: a Non-verbal Communication
Approach. SAGE, Beverly Hills.
Rollefson, G.O., 1997. Changes in architecture and social organization at Neolithic
’Ain ghazal. In: Gebel, H.G.K., Kafafi, Z., Rollefson, G.O. (Eds.), The Prehistory of
Jordan II. Perspective from 1997. Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 287e308.
Ron, F., 1998. The Palestinian Arab House and the Islamic “Primitive Hut”. Muqarnas
15, 157e177.
Rosen, S.A., 2011. Desert chronologies and periodization systems. In: Lovell, J.L.,
Rowan, M.Y. (Eds.), Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic: Theory and
Transition. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 71e83.
Rosen, S.A., Eldar, I., 1993. Horvat Beter revisited: the 1982 salvage excavations.
’Atiqot 22, 13e27.
Rowan, M.Y., Golden, J., 2009. The Chalcolithic period of the southern Levant:
a synthetic review. Journal of World Prehistory 22, 1e92.
Rumana, R., 2007. Traditional house of Bangladesh: typology of house according to
material and location. In: Virtual Conference on Sustainable Architectural
Design and Urban Planning, Asia Sustainability Net.upc.edu., 15the24th,
September, 2007.
Saidel, B.A., 1993. Round house or square? Architectural form and socio-economic
organization in the PPNB. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 6, 65e108.
Saragusti, I., Karasik, A., Sharon, I., Smilansky, U., 2005. Quantitative analysis of
shape attributes based on contours and section profiles in artifact analysis.
Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 841e853.
Saragusti, I., Sharon, I., Katzenelson, O., Avnir, D., 1998. Quantitative analysis of the
symmetry of artefacts: Lower Paleolithic handaxes. Journal of Archaeological
Science 25, 817e825.
Schick, K.D., Toth, N., 2001. Making Silent Stones Speak: Human Evolution and the
Dawn of Human Technology. Weidwnfeld and Nicolson, London.
Schiffer, M.B., Skibo, M., 1987. Theory and experiment in the study of technological
change. Current Anthropology 28, 595e622.
Service, E.R., 1962. Primitive Social Organization. Random House, New York.
Shennan, S., 2006. From cultural history to cultural evolution: an archaeological
perspective on social information transmission. In: Wells, J.C.K., Strickland, S.,
Laland, K. (Eds.), Social Information Transmission and Human Biology. Taylor &
Francis, New York, pp. 173e189.
Simao, J., 2002. Tools evolve: the artificial selection and evolution of Paleolithic
tools. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25, 419.
Sopher, D., 1964. Landscape and seasons-man and nature in India. Landscape XIII,
14e19.
Sozen, M.S., Gedik, G.Z., 2007. Evaluation of traditional architecture in terms
of building physics: old Diyarbakir houses. Building and Environment 42,
1810e1816.
Stout, D., Chaminade, T., 2007. The evolutionary of neuroscience of toolmaking.
Neuropsychologia 45, 1091e1100.
Torrence, R., 1989. Time, Energy and Stone Tools. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Toth, N., 1990. The prehistoric roots of a human concept of symmetry. Symmetry:
Culture and Science 1.
Valla, F.R., 1988. Aspects du sol de l’abri 131 de Mallaha (Eynan). Paléorient 14,
283e296.
van der Helm, P.A., 2002. Natural selection of visual symmetries. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences 25, 422e423.
van der Leeuw, S.E., 1993. Giving the potter a choice: conceptual aspects of
pottery technique. In: Lemonnier, P. (Ed.), Technological Choices: Transformations
in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic. Routledge, London,
pp. 238e288.
Vetter, T., Poggio, T., Bültoff, H.H., 1994. The importance of symmetry and virtual
views in three-dimensional object recognition. Current Biology 4, 18e23.
Wagemans, J., 1995. Detection of visual symmetries. Spatial Vision 9, 9e32.
Wilk, R.R., Rathje, L.W., 1982. Household archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist
25, 617e639.
Wills, W.H., 1992. Plant cultivation and the evolution of risk-prone economies in the
prehistoric American Southwest. In: Gebauer, A.B., Price, T.D. (Eds.), Transitions
to Agriculture in Prehistory. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 4. Prehistory
Press, Madison, pp. 153e176.
Wilson, P.J., 1988. The Domestication of the Human Species. Yale University Press,
New Haven and London.
Winter-Livneh, R., Svoray, T., Gilead, I., 2010. Settlement patterns, social complexity
and agricultural strategies during the Chalcolithic period in the Northern
Negev, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 284e294.
Winter-Livneh, R., Svoray, T., Gilead, I. , 2012. Secondary burial cemeteries, visibility
and land tenure: a view from the southern Levant Chalcolithic period. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 31, 423e438.
Wright, R., 1993. Technological styles: transforming a natural material into
a cultural object. In: Kingery, W.D., Luber, S. (Eds.), History from Things: Essays
on Material Culture. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Wynn, T., 1985. Piaget, stone tools and the evolution of human intelligence. World
Archaeology 17, 32e43.
Wynn, T., 2002. Archaeology and cognitive evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences
25, 389e438.
Zabrodsky, H., Avnir, D., 1995. Continuous symmetry measures. Journal of American
Chemical Society 117, 462e473.
R. Winter-Livneh et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1340e1353 1353