PEQ JANUARY-JUNE 1989

THE PROBLEM OF THE APSIDAL HOUSE: NEW ASPECTS

OF EARLY BRONZE I DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE IN
ISRAEL,jORDAN, AND LEBANON
ELIOT BRAUN

INTRODUCTION
After more than fifty years of scientific excavation beginning with the Beth Shean and Megiddo
expeditions of the 1930s, the architecture of the Early Bronze l' is still little known and even less
understood. The impetus provided by recent major architectural discoveries at En Shadud
(Braun 1984a; 1985a) and Yiftahel (Braun 1984b; 1985b) in Israel, and Dakerman-Sidon in
Lebanon (Saidah 1979), has prompted a long and critical examination of the information
available from previously excavated sites. The results, it is felt, justifY a radical reappraisal of
the architectural traditions of this cultural horizon to exclude the apsidal house from any, place
of importance and subs titute it with a truly and wholly curvilinear style of domestic architec-
ture. The object of this paper is to review briefly prevailing conceptions of this aspect of the EB I
cultures in the area under discussion, to analyse the evidence site by site, to summarize it, and
then to offer new insights and interpretations.
As late as 1978, one of the most popular and respected general introductions to the
archaeology of the region under discussion could describe the Proto-Urban period' as a time
when new peoples entered the area known today as Israel and Jordan and could further claim:
'Of their way oflife we know very little, for mos t of the evidence about them has been recovered
from tombs' (Kenyon 1979, 81) . Even when written' this statement was somewhat inaccurate,
but its author, the prominent archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon, could hardly be blamed for her
observation considering the paucity of the sources available for study. Now, however, the
situation has changed dramatically, with each new excavating season bringing exciting and
important discoveries of the EB I period.
Despite the lamentable state of available information, or perhaps because of it, there has
been a marked tendency by scholars to impose rigid classification systems, often with a casual
disregard of obvious facts, on the architectural remains of the EB I Horizon. This tendency has
led researchers to claim that the apsidal 4 house-plan played an integral and even occasionally
the principal part in the architectural traditions of this period. The term apsidal has been
applied, at times indiscriminately, to all manner of fragmentary and irregularly shaped or
curvilinear structures. A curious result of this application has been to confirm, with little or no
justification, apsidal construction as a hallmark of this cultural horizon .
A brief survey of some of the more prominent views on the architectural tradions of the EB I
is instructive as to the extent to which the apsidal house was deemed important by researchers
and how belief in this importance effectively biased the study of the EB I Cultural Horizon.
• Indeed Albright ( 1960,70) recognized this type of building at several sites but noted important
disparities in plans and dates 5 Based on Albright's somewhat tentative acceptance of the
apsidal plan as a recurring type, the existence of this specific style of building came to be widely
accepted. Mellaart ( 1966, 4S-46). Hennessy ( 1967, 37, 44)' Ben-Tor ( 1968, 2S), Dothan ( 1971 ,
129), de Miroschedji (1971 , 43-44)' Aharoni ( 1982, SI), and Helms ( 1986, 31) all considered, to
 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY
a greater or lesser extent, the existence ofapsidal houses, in the EB I period , to be a confirmed
phenomenon. Acceptance of the apsidal house as a type, so coloured scholars interpretations of
architectural remains, that the number of examples of apsidal structures was expanded to
include many with dubious bonafides. Thus the appearance of the apsidal house, considered to be
a widespread phenomenon, assumed the proportions of an architectural tradition of no little
importance. This tradition then became the basis for understanding much of the foreign
relations of the EB I culture, or for tracing some of its origins. Especially parallels with cultures
to the north of the Levant" were indicated (Yassine 1977-8; Best 1978), while it was even
suggested (Thompson 1969) 7 that these houses were part of a larger and venerable tradition
ranging from the Aegean World to India.
The bulk of information available on the architecture of the EB I is derived from limited
exposures often inadequately recorded . Results, if published at all, tend to have appeared
haphazardly in reports which are incomplete and non-specific. In order to attempt to overcome,
insofar as possible, these limitations, reliance was placed in this investigation on the most
primary of data : photographs and plans when available, straightforward descriptions next and
interpretations last. Finally, armed with new and important information, it was found possible
to re-evaluate much of this early data with the benefit of hindsight. The results alter radically
our understanding of the architectural traditions of the EB I period.
Earlier comparative studies of architecture from EB I occupations have brought about an
awareness of inter-site affinities and the recognition of some typical house plans. Ben-Tor (1973,
92 ) has, however, rightly pointed out inherent difficulties in comparing examples of domestic
architecture which are often affected by many variables. 8 Thus there was a need to develop a
classification system for house plans which could be equally applied to all structures, but be
neither too rigid so as to disallow these variables, nor so lax as to merely include the most basic
common characteristics of structures. The classification system adopted here, while attempting
to avoid the twin pitfalls of rigidity and laxity, is , nevertheless, biased towards a more strict
definition of plan types. Insufficient evidence in some instances did not allow for classification
and at other times it suggested new interpretations and reconstructions . It is for the reader to
judge the value of the speculative interpretations offered helow.
Sites chosen for this discussion meet broad criteria by which they may be said to conform to
the general pattern of this cultural horizon.9 Thus the inclusion of one or another site will not
meet with universal agreement, particularly as scholarly opinion is so divided on questions of
terminology and relative dating. 'o An attempt is made here to deal with as many of the sites
belonging to this broad cu ltural horizon as possible, provided they are pertinent to the
discussion , even to the inclusion of some perhaps not strictly falling within its limits. This
leeway, while reflecting the inexactitude of definitions of cultural horizons, has the advantage of
permitting the examination of broad lines of architectural traditions and development.
In analysing the domestic architecture of the EB I Horizon in Israel,Jordan, and Lebanon,
two distinct generalized traditions have been identified: rectilinear and curvilinear. A third, not
inconsiderable group of structures, does not appear to have been built according to set rules ,
shows no uniformity and so cannot be classified. The custom of constructing rectilinear and
more specifically, rectangular buildings, common to many cultures, is one encountered at
numerous EB I sites where it appears to represent the continuation of a generalized architec-
tural tradition with a long and documented history extending back to the Neolithic (Perrot
1984, 89). In the Chalcolithic period there is evidence, at a number of sites, ofa preference for a
more specialized style of house, the broad room. 11 The appearance, then, ofa second, radically
contrasting tradition of curvilinear architecture in the EB I represents something of a departure
from the preceding period. 12 This category of oval, sausage-shaped, or round buildings is not to
THE APSlDAL HOUSE 3
be confused with a general group of vaguely curvilinear (non-rectilinear) structures which defy
classification. The evidence for a true curvilinear building tradition in the EB I period comes
from a large number of complete house plans found at several sites.
The peculiar shape of an apsidal structure, a kind of hybrid, a compromise between
a curvilinear and a rectangular plan , implies purposeful planning and skilful execution.
The repetition of such a distinctive shape at a number of contemporary sites would indi-
cate the existence of a true architectural tradition. However, the obvious lack of uniformity
in the very few exemplars of this type, as well as important stratigraphic and structural
considerations, do little to support the existence of an apsidal tradition of architecture in the
EB I period.

THE SITES

Megiddo
The large mound ofMegiddo is the site of one of the more extensively exposed EB I occupations.
Of particular interest to this discussion are Stages IV and V and possibly some features of
Stratum XX on the tell. The architecture of Stratum XIX, dated perhaps late in the EB I, is
represented by the remains of two rectangular temples with a forecourt enclosed by a tern enos
wall. The plans of these temples were not completely recovered but they appear to have been
broadrooms. 13 All the extant walls of these structures, excepting the tern enos wall, are
rectilinear with sharply defined corners (Loud 1948, Text, Fig. '390, upper). The correlation
between this EB I level and Stages VII-IV is unsure but Stratum XIX is certainly later than
Stratum XX, which may, in part, be dated to the EB I horizon.
A number of round or curvilinear structures, attributed to Stratum XX on the tell, have
been referred to as dating to the EB I Horizon (Dunand 1973, 224) but this ascription is
uncertain. The pottery published from this stratum includes Neolithic, Chalcolithic and EB I
forms, and the excavation report does not allow for an accurate reconstruction of the
stratigraphy, nor for the precise provenance of specific vessels within these buildings. Thus we
remain with the possibility that some of these curvilinear structures may belong to the EB I
occupation of the site.
Although the architecture of the Megiddo Stages has generated much discussion, it has not
been adequately reported. The sole documentation published is in an aerial photograph
(Engberg and Shipton 1934, Fig 2; Fig. 3; PI. I) 14 which is unfortunately not accompanied by
ground plan and lacks a description. The most prominent structure, in Stage IV (Fig. 2a) , has a
basically apsidal plan, but only one external corner was constructed. ls It is this building which
was the prototype (rom which other struCtures, supposedly apsidal in plan, were identified. In
the aerial photograph there is a strong suggestion that one or several of the structures visible,
including the apsidal house, may have been builtin successive phases. 16 Figure 2 represents an
attempt to decipher construction phases solely on the visual evidence. If the interpretation it
offers is correct then the curvilinear wall of the apse may well have originally belonged to a
different building,I7 perhaps one analogous to those curvilinear structu res of Stratum XX. To
the right 'S of this house are two wall fragments of curvilinear aspect (indicated by large, widely
spaced dots), which may have been part of a single circular structure. In Figure 2e an additional
curvilinear wall was built abutting the bedrock,l' and yet another wall fragment (Fig. 2b ) was
interpreted, by the excavators, as part of the rectilinear building attached to the smaller
outcropping of bedrock.'o However, their interpretation does not seem acceptable , because
4 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY
there is the sugges tion in the photo, of several distinct building phases characterized by both
rectilinear and curvilinear architectural features. 21
To th e right of this building is a rather small rectangular structure (Fig. 3d) built with
sharply defined corners. Joined to it on its long sides are what seem to be two stone fences,
possibly later constructions .
A small rectangular structure (Fig. 2C) is clearly visible on the Stage V terrace." It is
noteworthy for the construction of its corners ; rounded outside and sharply angled within.
Within its walls are lines of stone constructions, perhaps benches, internal partitions or
remnants of an earlier structure, all distinctly rectangular.
With no clear understanding of the stratigraphy of this excavation, it is impossible to draw
any firm concl usions as to the sequence of the appearance of the different structures nor can one
understand which of them may have been contemporary. What does seem clear is that there is a
somewhat complicated history of construction within these two stages.
The obvious differences in the types of structures which have been excavated at Megiddo of
the EB I Horizon suggests the existence of at least two styles of building. A rectangular tradition
is evident in the temples of Stratum XIX and in the house of Stage V, as well as in portions of the
buildings of Stage IV. Curvilinear wall segments, in Stage IV and perhaps in Stratum XX ,
some appearing in plan to be portions of geometrically true shapes , suggest the influences of a
second architectural tradition . The apsidal building of Stage IV is the often cited prototype of
this style of architecture. If, as is suggested here (see Fig. 223 ) , the house was constructed by
joining remnants of one type of structure with a unit of another type, then the most important
example of apsidal construction may be understood as somewhat fortuitous, significantly
weakening the argument for a tradition of true apsidal construction.
Yiflahel
Level II at Yiftahel is an early, perhaps one of the earliest, manifestations of the EB I (Braun,
forthcoming) , in northern Israel. 24 More than twenty-four complete or partially preserved
curvilinear structures, a sizeable portion ofa village, in an area covering more than 2400 sq. m .,
have been uncovered to date. Virtually no straight walls were found, suggesting a determined
avoidance of rectangular building techniques and shapes and indicating the total domination of
a curvilinear tradition of architecture.
Three distinctive house plans have been observed at Yiftahel (Figs. 3, 4, Plates 2,3). A
circular dwelling, slightly irregular in plan is, at Yiftahel, so far a unique find,lS but it is
paralleled at sites in the Lebanon as well as other sites within the region (see below). Oval plans
were generally reserved for smaller houses measuring up to eight m. in length and there appear
to be numerous fragments of such dwellings; all are remarkable for their geometrically regular
shapes. 26 A third type of plan is best described as sausage-shaped, with two parallel walls joined
to form apses at either end . The sausage-shaped form was reserved for larger houses , two of
which exceed 16 m. in overall outside length. 27
At Yiftahel the open spaces of the flat floor of the valley seem to have permitted the careful
planning of the shapes of the dwellings and encouraged, at least in some instances, the
construction of large buildings. 2s The evenly laid, double row stone foundations, and the
symmetry of these houses, attest to a strong and well-developed tradition of curvilinear
architecture.
Floors of these structures were generally earthen but in several instances curved ends of
houses were paved with flattish stones. Internal dividing walls were found in some of the larger
structures and , interestingly enough, when preserved beyond the length of a few stones, they
were noti ceably curvilinear.
THE APSIOAL HOUSE
5
Up to four occupational phases have been observed at Yiftahel but because of the very
compressed stratigraphy of the site it is not possible to determine whether any particular house
plan may reflect stratigraphical divisions or whether the different types of houses were
contemporary. What is certain is that there exists at this site abundant evidence for a wholly
curvilinear style of building which, so far as may be understood to date, is exclusive.

Beth Shean
A house claimed to be of 'apsidal fonn ' (Fig. 5) was discovered in Level XVI in the deep
sounding of the tell of Beth Shean. There is a somewhat detailed description of this completely
mud-brick structure of'fairly straight' walls (Fitzgerald 1934, 126-27, PI. III, Fig. I; Fitzgerald
1934,5-13) . Its plan was not included in the original publication but appeared, more recently in
a doctoral dissertation (Bonn 1976, 102) . Although defined as apsidal, the exterior aspect of its
peripheral wall does not meet any of the criteria for that type. In fact the house is somewhat
irregular in plan with an outer wall of varying thickness. There are no external corners but the
ends are, externally, markedly curvilinear. The three internal corners of the larger room give it a
rectangular aspect but the fourth 'corner' is far too rounded to be labelled as such. The smaller
room , identified as the apse of the house, is rounded not only in its end but on one side. One of
the corners of this room is slightly acute but sharply defined; another is quite rounded .
Because of the irregular aspect of this building it is impossible to classify its plan. If the
criterion for any classification is the external face of the peripheral wall (Fig. 6A, 6c), then it may
be considered to be more closely akin to sausage-shaped structures found at other sites.'" If,
however, the internal shape of the peripheral wall determines the classification, then the
building, with only one true corner, is unique.
It is contended here that the mere juxtaposition of true corners and a curvilinear wall ,
unless in the configuration of a ' partial' rectangle with a rounded end, does not constitute an
apsidal plan. Thus the Level XVI house of Beth Shean cannot be categorized as apsidal nor for
that matter can it be precisely defined. It is, in short, one ofa class of buildings of miscellaneous
sbapes which probably owe more to their external environments (available space and building
density) than to architectural traditions. The location of this structure, on the edge of the tell,
probably in a built-up area where space must have been at a premium, seems to enhance the
likelihood of this interpretation.
Attributed to this same level at Beth Shean are a variety of structures described thus by
their excavator: 'Other curved walls and a stone foundation similar in plan appeared just to the
north of the house; further north were two straight walls running parallel about 3.30 m. apart'
(Fitzgerald 1934, 127)]0
Additional levels of the tell which may be attributed to the EB I Horizon, show some
evidence, often very fragmentary, of generalized architectural traditions .3 ! In Level XVIII
there are rectilinear walls; in Level XVII curvilinear walls appear along with fragmentary
structures (not described by the excavators); in Levels XV and XIV the buildings are
predominantly rectangular with a few curved walls; and in Level XIII" three well-built
rectangular rooms form part of a large structure of composite plan.
The buildings of the early levels of Beth Shean seem to show the same sort of bifurcation in
architectural traditions as that known from Megiddo, with evidence of both rectangular and
curvilinear styles. The sequence seems to be quite clear, with rectangular structures appearing
in the earliest level, followed by curvilinear constructions in the succeeding periods. By Level
XIII, the end of the EB I or the EB II, the vogue for building curvilinear structures, appears to
have run its course at Beth Shean.
6 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY
l\1eser
The earliest occupation at Meser, Stratum III , is represented by a rectangular house (Dothan
1957,2 I, Fig. 2), reconstructed by the excavator as a two chambered broad room. This stratum
is assigned to the Ghassulian-Chalcolithic Horizon on the basis of ceramic parallels but also
includes bowls of Grey Burnished Ware ."
In Stratum II, probably dated to the EB I Horizon , there are partial remains of three
dwellings of curvilinear aspect (Fig. 6). Their plans have all been assumed , by the excavator,
to be apsidal (Dothan 195 7; 1959a). However, in the light of the rece nt discoveries of
wholly curvilinear buildings, the suggested apsidal reconstructions , appear to be untenable.
Indeed the only evidence for any possible corner in all three buildings is a line of three
smallish stones in house B I, which could be reconstructed equally as a portion of an internal
divider.
Several features of these houses which suggest great affinities with the dwellings at Yiftahel
include the stubby, almost curvilinear cross walls in houses BI and B14,34 and a stone pavement
in house B 14 (Dothan 1959a, 17). If the suggested restoration of these houses as curvilinear is
co rrect then another stone pavement, a 'courtyard' between these houses, can be better
understood as a possible floor of house B I. Thus it seems that the architecture of Meser II is
more likely to be curvilinear than apsidal.
The succeeding occupation of Level I is also dated to the EB I period. 3s The architectural
remains consist of a broad room and an additional chamber with sharply defined corners.
Obviously this house, clearly constructed above the remains of curvilinear house B I, represents
a change in the concept of domicile construction and harks back to a tradition with roots in the
Chalcolithic period.

Jericho
The most recent excavations at the tell of Jericho, conducted by K . Kenyon , have produced
evidence of occupation in the EB I (PU ) in Squares E III-IV, phases P, Q, 0 and N (Fig. 7) . In
phase Q, the earliest, an irregularly shaped mud-brick structure with rounded end and single
extant rounded corner at its opposite end was found . Described as ' massive' (Hennessy 1967,
44; Ken yon 1981, 322), and often cited as evidence for a tradition of apsidal construction, this
building is neither of unusual proportions nor apsidal in plan.
The exact original shape of this house is not totally clear from its extant remains, and so its
reconstruction is open to some degree of interpretation. The shape of its rounded wall is crucial
to its classification. I t (Wall ZB ) is curvilinear but not semi-circular, and the suggestion is made
here that its form was deliberately distorted asymmetrically so as to veer away from an adjacent
terrace wall (ZA), in order to create a corridor wide enough to permit the passage ofa person .36
It is further contended here that the shape of this house plan is not apsidal, but more nearly
rectangular with rounded comers. Reinforcing this observation is the stub of a wall (unlabelled)
under Wall ZG, a continuation of Wall ZB, which abuts thejuncture of walls ZC and ZB on the
north. It indicates the overall rectangular form of the building, which is emphasized by the
shape of the true corner it forms of what must have been a second room.
In later phases, 0 and N (Kenyon 1981,323-25, Plate 314) Ihe rounded end and long sides
of the 'apsidal' structure were re-used (Walls ZB and ZC), and a new wall, ZN, replaced the
earlier end wall (ZD), thus creating a small and more regularly shaped rectangular room, with
its north-west and north-east Corners rounded, tbe south-east 'corner' curvilinear and tbe
south-west corner incomplete. In phase 0 other walls are rectilinear and form either sharp or
curving comers. Of note is the tiny room formed by walls ZL, ZE and ZN with its curved wall.
THE APSIDAL HOUSE 7
In phase N, the latest of the EB I sequence, another partially excavated rectangular structure,
with trul y massi ve walls and rounded corners, appears.
Garstang ( 1935, 152-53) dated Level V (Fig. 8) of his excavations at] ericho to the EB Age,
identifying this stratum as that preceding the construction of the first fortification wall. Recently
P. Bienkowski ( 1986,3) has suggested that portions of Level VII also should be dated to the PU
period , especially the structures with curved or rounded walls (Garstang 1935, Plate XXV).
The structures of Level VII are quite fragmentary ; those of Level V, better preserved, are
described as .. . 'a system of round and rounded buildings' (Garstang 1935, (53).
Structure 175 is formed by an irregular parabola abutting a composite rec tilinear
structure. Its irregular shape and small size suggest its function as a storeroom rather than
dwelling. A similar structure was discovered by Ken yon ( 1981 , Plate 314b, formed by Walls ZL ,
ZE, and ZN).
Clearly visible in Garstang's plan are several small circular stru ctures , designated as
granaries (Gars tang 1948, Plate XI, 193, Plate Xlb ). The larger has enough ground space to be
a small dwelling and is paralleled at a number of sites. In the succeeding levels all the
constructions are rectilinear (Garstang 1935, Plate XXIV a) .
In summarizing the evidence for architectural traditions at]ericho in the EB I Horizon ,
limitations of available space and a lengthy and co ntinuous occupation appear to be major
factors in planning. New structures were made to utilize the remaining port ions of abandoned or
of partially destroyed buildings , or to conform to the available space between existing houses. 37
There is evidence of curvilinear structures, but whether the largest are domiciles or storage
facilities is uncertain. Other houses, perhaps contemporary, conform to generalized rectilinear
traditions but suggest no standardization.

Sidon- Dakennan
] ust south of the Lebanese port of Sidon, some 2,500 sq . m. of a late fourth millennium B.C.
occupation were revealed at Dakerman (Saidah (979). In this considerable exposure twenty-
three separate, curvilinear structures were distinguished , twelve of which had complete or
wholly res torable ground plans (Figs. 3,9). While many of these houses may have been
contemporary (de Contenson 1982,83), the intersecting lines of several fragmentary structures,
when restored , indicate the existence of at least two building phases (Saidah 1979, Fig. 2). As at
Yiftahel there are no rectilinear walls in those parts of the site excavated, and the evidence
suggests that this style of architecture was an important, or even dominant, element of this
culture.
Two types of dwellings, curvilinear and sausage-shaped, were found at Dakerman. Floors
were commonly earthen; exceptions were stone pavements in the curved ends of house number
two. The excellent state of preservation of the inward sloping walls of several buildings at
Dakerman (especially numbers [ , 5,6, and 7) show them to be remains of well-constructed,
roofed, permanent habitations .

Byblos
The largest continuous horizontal exposure of any site, in the region und er discussion , is [hat at
Byblos. The occupation of the Eneolithique Recent (Dunand [973)38 is found in four to seven
successive layers representing a lenghthy time span,39 which, at least in its later phases , was
partly contemporary with the Chalcolithic and EB [ofIsrael and]ordan. 4o Dunand recognized
within these layers several house plans. Although square, rectangular and oblong'! were
considered the common types; circular and apsidal structures were also observed to have
8 PALESТINE EXPLORAТION QUARTERLY
ТЛВLЕ. 1 CURVILINEAR ARCНITECТURE, ВУ SITE

Leve! [denrifiabte Types [denrifiabte Features

Stage
SrTE Stratum Cuгved Stone
[nsta! . Round Оуаl Sausage Fragmentary Dividers Раvеmепt

Megiddo ХХ +
Megiddo Stage[У +
Yi!'tahe! н + + + + + +
Beth Shean ХУН
, +
Beth Shean ХУ[ + +
Beth Shean ХУ +
Beth Shean Х[У +
Meser Н + + +
Jericho V +
Sidon-Dakerman [ + + + +
Bybtos Еаг!у ER + + + ?
Bybtos Late ER + + + +
Rosh Hanniqra [[ +
Те! Тео V + + + +
Те! Тео ТУ +
Khorvat Ауос 5 -f
Beth Ha-emeq +
Beth Yerah ХУ +
Beth Yerah Bahat Ехс +
Pithat ha- Yarmuk +
Еп Shadud [ +
Sarid Reservoir +
Те! Qishyon +
Jenin +
Munhata [ +
Tell Um Hammad [/ , +
Tell Esh-Shuneh Ш +
МааЬагос Lower +
J еЬе! Mutawwaq +
Lod +
Azor с + +
Pa!mahim Quarгy [ +
Serabit е! Khadim +
Ghassu! Sq .A-[ +
appeared 'тоге rarely'. Dunand (197З,217) considered that there тау Ьауе Ьееп some [огт о[
evo!ution оС house types within this lengthy period, Ьш Ье confessed to being ипаЫе to
document it in the stratigraphy.
What is clear Сгот the stratigraphy is that the earlies! occupation and ргоЬаЫу the ffiOS!
comple!e sequence оС the ER, is found in 5ta!ions 14, 15, and 46 (Dunand 1973,215-16,227,
321). In the early levels ofthe ER in these stations the dominant architectural Согт is rectilinear
(most often rectangular), with corners in тапу instances deliberately rounded outside, and
occasionally also rounded within (Fig. 10) . Curvilinear architecture is also in evidence in а
питЬег оС wall fragments (see ТаЫе 2), as well as in а completely preserved elliptical house
plan (Dunand 1973,229; maison 46-18; Pl.], а). This structure is remarkable Сог its 'j?;ravel'
ТНЕ APS!DAL HO U SE 9
TABLE 2 FREQUE~CY OF CURVILINEAR T YP ES , ВУ Srт E

Level
St.ge
Stratum
SITE Inst.l. Absolute· Likely Possi ble T OTAL

Megiddo ХХ '2 ОГ т о г е 2
Megiddo St.ge IV
Yift.hel II 7 10 3 20
Beth She.n ХУII 2
Beth She.n ХУ!
, '2
'2
О Г т о ге

О Т т оге 2
Beth Shean ХУ I ОГ тоге

Beth Shean X IV 1 О Т тоге

Meser 11 3 3
Jericho V 2
Sidon- Dakerman ER (II) 11 12 23
Byblos Early ER 2 5 16 23
Byblns Late ER 10 19 22 51
Rosh H anniqra 11 3 3
Те! Теп V 2 3
Те! Тео IV '2 от тоге 2
Khorvat A vot 5
Beth H a-emeq 2 2
Beth Yerah ХУ
Beth Yerah Bahat Ехс 2
Pithat ha- Y. rmuk 3 3
Еп Shadud 1
Sarid Reservoir '2 о т т о ге 2
Т е!Qishyon
Jenin
Munhata I
ТеН Um H ammad 1/2 2 3 5
ТеН Esh-Shuneh III
Maabarot Lower 1 О Т тоге

Jebel Mutaw waq 300-400** 300-400

Lod
Azor С
Palmahim Quarry I 1
Serabit е! Khadim 2
Ghassul Sq.A-I

TOTAL 35 58 74 167 "'· ·

• Beca use much ofthe data is incomp lete, it is пос always possibIe [О determine the comp lete plan оС each house. The
thret: categories rep resent the state ofp r eseгvatio n ofindividual s Cru ctu res. Included in rhe likely ca tegory а ге those
buildings which а г е weJl preseгved eno ugh [ О suggest а reconstruction ofthe entire ground plan. Those structures
[00 frag mcnta ry Го г this ca tcgory а ге includ cd in the possibIc ca tcgory .
•• D ry built in thc тап пег со тт о п {о arid zones.
*** Not including arid zone construction .
[0 PALEST[NE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY
('gravier') floors and what appear to be curvilinear wall fragments , within' 2 which may have
been internal dividers .
The later phases of ER occupation (when the settlement spread beyond the original
nucleus ) do not seem to be marked by any substantial change in the architectural traditions .
Both rectilinear and curvilinear types of building are in evidence (Fig. I I ), although circular
house plans seem to be a later innovation (Dunand 1973, PlansJ, b, c, d, houses 14-37, 14-38,
14-41, 13-4, 18-1,4-1 ). A structure of 'apsidal' plan (Fig. 12), from which Dunand ( 1973, Fig.
146) apparently extrapolated in order to suggest the reco nstruction of additional curvilinear
wall fragments as apsidal (Dunand 1973,213, 216,220), is found in Station 14. As an example of
true apsidal architecture, this one, almost completely preserved, building is not very convinc-
ing. 43 It was, in fact , originally a rectangular room to which a curvilinear wall was appended
(Fig. 12) . Thus even if this apsidal designation is correct, it seems obvious that the shape of this
structure is not the result of any conscious planning effort but rather that it is due to the
juxtaposition of two structures , built according to different traditions , which appear to have
existed side by side.
Indeed two distinct contemporary and long-lived architectural traditions, rectilinear and
curvilinear, are associated with Byblos in the ER Horizon . The rectilinear tradition is little more
than a very generalized type of co nstruction , apparently with its roots in the Neolithic period
(Dunand 1973, Ch. I-V) , while the curvilinear tradition of house building," seemingly an
innovation of the early phases of the ER Horizon, appears to be associated with a more specific
style of house construction.
Rosh-Hanniqra
Evidence of an EB I occupation at the tell ofRosh-Hanniqra was uncovered in a limited probe
into Stratum II (Tadmor and Prausnitz 1959, 79, Fig. 4). Despite a claim by the excavators that
the buildings of this level are apsidal, it is obvious from the plan that their interpretation, based
on some curvilinear wall fragments in confusingjuxtaposition, is highly questionable. Figure 13
is an attempt to make some sense of the lines of stones which are apparently wall foundations .
Tel Teo
A very recent discovery in the Huleh Valley at Tel Teo (Eisenberg, forthcoming a; forth-
coming b) uncovered an EB I occupation, with evidence of two separate construction phases.
The latter, very poorly preserved, was represented by only a fragmentary wall of curvilinear
aspect. However, the preceding occupation was better represented, with evidence of three
separate dwelling units for two of which ground plans could be reconstructed (Fig. 14). The
most complete house had a sausage-shaped plan, curvilinear internal dividing walls and was
paved on one rounded end; the other two were apparently fragments of houses similar in plan.
Nowhere was there any indication of rectilinear structures within the EB I levels. The date of
these levels, based on pottery parallels with Yiftahel II , including bowls of Wright's ([958)
Type [, Grey Burnished Ware, is some time early in the EB I Horizon.
Khorvat A vot
N ear the modern village of Avivim in Upper Galilee a small section of curvilinear wall (Fig. (5)
was found in the earliest level of occupation, on the western terrace of Khorvat Avot (Braun
198[ , (07)45 On the evidence of some few fragments of Grey Burnished bowls and other
ceramic parallels, this occupation appears to be contemporary to that at Tel Teo.
Beth Ha-Emeq
Near Kibbutz Beth Ha-emeq, on the eastern edge of the Plain of Acre, A. Kempinski and
R. Frankel, of the University of Tel Aviv, uncovered an occupation dated to the transitional
THE APSlDAL HOUSE I I

EB I-EB II period . Building II (Fig. 16), the better preserved , is actually a series of wall
fragments , several of which are not connected, but which are so arranged as to suggest that they
may, at some time, have formed a coherent structure . Kempinski (forthcoming ) has designated
the plan formed by these walls as apsidal. An alternate interpretation (Fig. I6b) suggests that
these wall fragments are portions of buildings originating in different occupational phases 46 A
second structure, 20, represented by a curvilinear wall segment ending on one side in a thicker,
straight section of wall, seems to also be two fragmentary buildings joined together.
The existence of curvilinear wall fragments , possibly as independent of the rectilinear
structures , suggests that this type of architecture may have, at some time in the EB I , been a
significant building style at Beth Ha-emeq, although the evidence is too fragmentary to confirm
this . In a later occupational phase a rectilinear structure was erected. What is eminently clear is
that the apsidal house shape was not the result of deliberate planning but rather it was the
juxtaposition ofa later building with an earlier architectural feature.

Beth Yerah
At Tell Beth Yerah a number of excavations have unearthed evidence of a series of EB I
occupations, some of which have been published in abbreviated form (Hestrin 1975).
Mr Pesah Bar-Adon , on behalf of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums ,
excavated in the south and south-east parts of the mound . In the latter area, in a sounding in
which sixteen strata were revealed, virgin soil was reached in Level XVI (Bar-Adon , undated).
Level XV, the earliest with architectural remains , was dated by the presence of Grey Burnished
Ware, to the EB I period. In this level a partially preserved mud-brick wall, somewhat more
than one half of a slightly irregular parabola, was uncovered. 47 Several parallel cross walls,
more or less perpendicular to the parabolic wall, indicate the structure was divided internally .
Only one end of this building was excavated, and so its complete shape, apsidal, oval or even
irregular, is unknown.
In another area of the tell Mr D. Bahat ( 1977; personal communication) of the Israel
Department of Antiquities and Museums, uncovered a number of EB I occupational levels in
compressed and often disturbed stratigraphy. Several partial structures were discerned which
include two curvilinear, well-built, stone wall foundations (Fig. 17), one of which is of a
semi-circular structure almost four metres in diameter, and which has an entrance-way marked
by a door socket. The function of these buildings is open to interpretation; they may be small
houses or a lternately large storage chambers. No Grey Burnished Ware was associated with this
level.
Excavations by the Oriental Institute at Beth Yerah uncovered a small silo or storage bin
built of mud-brick (Esse 1984, 326-27) 2.5 m. in diameter. It was dated by pottery, including
Grey Burnished Ware, to the EB I period. A similar construction, as well as a contemporary
rectilinear architectural fragment, were found in more recent excavations by Amiran and
Cohen ( 1977) in an EB I Stratum (IX), the second earliest of this horizon uncovered.
In summarizing the evidence from this site it would appear that the curvilinear structure of
Bar-Adon's excavation and the silo from the Oriental Institute's, on the basis of the ceramic
evidence, are more or less contemporary and represent an early and probably sparse occupation
of the site in the EB I. Evidence for actual curvilinear house construction is limited to the
parabolic structure of Bar-Adon's excavation and, perhaps, the larger circular building
unearthed by Bahat. Other information suggests that buildings were, at least in the later stages
of the EB I, rectilinear (Eisenberg, personal communication). Silos of circular plan appear to be
found throughout the period.
12 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY
Pi/hal Ha- Yarmuk
On the north bank of the Yarmuk River Gorge soundings were made at a large site dated to the
EB I Period (Epstein Ig85). A number of building levels were isolated by the excavators,
G . Epstein and E. Eisenberg, in the compressed stratigraphy. No complete plans of houses were
recovered but two kinds of construction, rectilinear and curvilinear, are indicated on the plan.
Segments of curvilinear walls appear to be portions of oval or sausage-shaped houses, and
circular silos are also known (Fig. [8). The rectangular structures have sharply defined corners.
The stratigraphy in one sector of the site suggests that the rectilinear buildings preceded
the curvilinear dwellings . The date of the occupational layers at the site is somewhat
problematical although the presence of Grey Burnished 'Ware makes it certain that it was, at
least in part, contemporary with the early EB I.

Tel Qasis
The earliest architectural features found at this site in the wes[ernJezreel Valley date to the EB I
and are apparently contemporary with En Shadud (Bernick & Greenberg Ig87 , 2 1,23, Fig. [5).
They include one sharply angled corner, a rectangular end of a construction with two corners
rounded without and angled within, and a curvilinear wall fragment, all of which are
contemporary. Other walls, perhaps rectilinear but too fragmentary for positive identification ,
belong to a second construction phase within this period.

EnShadud
Excavations at En Shadud in theJezreel Valley (Braun [g85a, 67-76) uncovered, in a limited
area, two strata of the EB I period, both demonstrably later than Yiftahel II. Level II, the
earlier, is characterized by rectangular architecture with elements of construction typical of this
period. Level I was, in part, grafted onto surviving portions of the earlier, rectangular buildings.
In one instance a large, either elliptical or sausage-shaped, structure was erected (Fig. Ig). Its
well defined entrance, pillar bases and possible bench made it a kind of variant broadroom,
perhaps the amalgamation of two architectural traditions, curvilinear, and rectangular-
broadroom .

Sarid Reservoir
Some 300m. to the west of the En Shadud excavations, A. Raban, of Haifa University, briefly
excavated at the site of Kibbutz Sarid reservoir (Raban 1977). In very badly bulldozer-
disturbed occupation levels fragmentary walls of curvilinear and rectilinear aspect were
observed . Pottery recovered from the site included EB I and EB II types.

Tel Qishyon
Near the western slopes of Mt. Tabor at Tel Qishyon (Arnon Ig82) a free-standing, circular
building, some 4.0 m. in diameter, was discovered in association with a number of rectilinear
houses . Another smaller, circular foundation, 2.60 m. in diameter (presumably the remains ofa
silo) was found within one of these latter structures. The occupation is dated, on the evidence of
red and Grey Burnished wares, to the EB I period.

Jenin
In the Jezreel Valley city of Jenin a limited sounding on the western portions of the tell
uncovered evidence of an Early Bronze I occupation (Glock Ig77; personal communication),
THE APSIDAL HOUSE
roughly contemporary with En Shadud (Braun 1985a, 100-01) . Originally assumed to have
been a portion of an apsidal structure (Glock (977 ) is a small section of a well-built, stone
foundation of a curvilinear wall. There is no sign of a corner and hence it is possible to
reconstruct the house as sausage-shaped, similar to that at En Shadud (Braun 1985a, Fig. 45) .
Grey burnished Ware is associated with this occupation.

Munhala
Level I at the Jordan Valley site of Munhata , assigned to the EB I on the basis of associated
Grey Burnished Ware, was only poorly preserved . Wall fragments, rectilinear and curvilinear,
of double rows offield stones, suggested to the excavators (Perrot 1963,563; Perrot and Zori
1977, 874) the possibility of oval house plans.
Tell Umm Hammad Esh-Sharqiya
On the eastern side oftheJordan Valley Rift, S. Helms ( 1984; (986) sounded the substantial site
of Tell Umm Hammad Esh-Sharqiya 48 The results of the 1982 season indicate three major
occupational stages, with a greater number of construction phases. The oldest architecture"
[Stage IhJ is dated by the presence of an early type of Grey Burnished Ware to the EB I, and
may well be closely contemporary with Yiftahel (Braun, forthcoming ). No complete house
plans were recovered because of the severely restricted limits of the sounding, but in Stage I a
number of curvilinear walls are visible (Helms 1984, Fig. 8, 41 ), along with other architectural
fragments which are too limited to be categorized (Fig. 20).

Tell Esh-Shuneh
In a small sounding at theJordan Valley site of Tell Esh-Shuneh, two strata of the EB I Horizon
were uncovered by H . de Contenson (1961, Fig. (8) . In Level II, the earlier, Grey Burnished
Bowls were found in association with a wall fragment of rectilinear aspect, but which is too
incomplete to be categorized. In the succeeding level a noticeable curvilinear wall was
uncovered. Although much of the pottery of these two occupations is similar, Grey Burnished
Ware was absent from the later level. More recently, Gustavson Gaube ( 1985) has sounded
some 75 sq. m . of the site. The results of one season show a very incomplete pottery assemblage
of the EB I,so and a number of obviously rectilinear walls.

Maabarol [Na~al Alexander}

Along the banks of the Alexander River (Nal;1al) S. Dar surveyed and excavated the remains ofa
site from the EB I and Middle Bronze I periods in the fish ponds of Kibbutz Maabarot (Porath
el al. 1985, 205; Fig. 63). Extensive construction was noted, but the very compressed stratigra-
phy did not allow for the dating of most of the architectural remains. Curvilinear wall fragments
were attributed to the EB 1. Of the pottery recovered, which included bowls of Grey Burnished
Ware, 70% could be dated to the earlier horizon.

Jebel Mulawwaq
Surveying and excavations at the site ofJebel Mutawwaq on the Wadi Zerqa inJordan suggests
the existence ofa walled town containing some 300 to 400 oval houses (Hanbury-Tenison (985 ),
and dated to the horizon ofEB J awa. Sl Construction is oflarge slabs and field stones, lacking the
precision and evidence of packing between stones which is typical of foundations of solid walls
(Fig. 21 ). There is a suggestion atJebel Mutawwaq that the stones may have formed enclosures
 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY
used to support rather flimsy superstructures , a type of construction often associated with arid
zones. Structural features found in these houses suggest, as in the elliptical structure of En
Shadud I, affinities with rectangular broad rooms .

Jawa
At Jawa in the Black Desert of Eastern Jordan, in occupational deposits which are contem-
porary with the middle phases ofUmm Hammad , Stage 1/ 2 (Helms 1986, 35), the excavator
posits an urban-like center in which a number of dwelling units have been identified (Helms
1981, Ch . 14). They are all amorphously curvilinear in plan and appear to owe little to any
architectural tradition, although, taken as a group, they do appear to have derived from some
common inspiration. Construction techniques and household appurtenances attest to some
probable sharing of ideas with the more westerly contemporary sites. Regular features are stone
pillar bases, door sockets, internal benches and sunken floor levels.
Lad
In a limited sounding at Lod, Y. Kaplan found evidence of two occupational levels dated to the
EB I period (Kaplan 1977,58). In the lower level a mud-brick wall associated with an earthen
floor was reported 52 In the upper level a curvilinear wall of stones , described as 'half of a circle'
was revealed. No plan of this building has been published, but it is clearly visible in a photo
(Kaplan 1977, Hebrew Plate Vb) as a geometrically accurate, slightly less than semi-circular
stone foundation. Its size can not be accurately judged from only the photographic evidence, but
it seems as ifit may be large enough to have been a dwelling rather than a storage facility .
Ai [EI Tell}
The earliest Phases (I and II ) of occupation at Ai have been dated, by Callaway ( 1972 , 30-33;
1980, 55-57 ) to the EB Ib while the first walled town is dated by him to an EB Ie period. 53
Callaway ( 1980, 81 ) has identified one house of Phase III (Mn in site G) as ' rounded ' or
'elliptical', relating it to the half round towers abutting the city wall. He has then described these
buildings as part of a larger phenomenon of'apsidal architectural styles in the EB Age'. 54 House
Mn (Fig. 22 ) is , in fact, a clearly rectangular building with two corners which are angular within
and rounded externally.

Tel Apheq
Stone foundations of a large rectangular building with sharply angular internal corners,
gracefully rounded without, have been unearthed on the south-west slope of Tel Apheq
(Kokhavi and Beck 1985). Dated to the EB I-II transitional period , this outsized, possibly
public structure, may be one of the last remnants of a tradition of curvilinear construction.
Contemporary dwellings at the site are rectilinear broadrooms.

Azor
At Azor, a southern suburb of Tel Aviv, there is evidence for an EB I occupation (Gophna 1974,
115-19). M. Dothan ( 1958, 272 ) reported an apsidal construction of this period but nothing
more of this find is published. In an adjacent area, Installation C, D. Ussishkin (in Perrot 1961 ,
19-20) uncovered a slightly sunken circular structure.

Palmahim Quarry
In a sounding at a quarry site at Palmahim, south of Tel Aviv, evidence of two EB I strata was
unearthed (Gophna 1974, 47-48). The earlier, Stratum II, was represented only by pits. In
THE APSIDAL HOUSE 15
Stratum I two contemporary fragmentary structures, one curvilinear, the other rectilinear were
found (Fig. 23 ).
Tel Halif
A number of excavations at Tel Halif, in the vicinity of Kibbutz Lahav have uncovered remains
of the EB I period. D Alon ( 1974; Tel Halif 1977), 55 in a small sounding, encountered evidence
of two strata. The earlier is described as having curvilinear architecture; the later level is
characterized by rectilinear forms . In another sounding to the east of the kibbutz a rectangular
structure with curved corners was partially unearthed (D . Alon, personal communication).

Serobit el Khadim
Near Serabit el Khadim in the Sinai Peninsula, two curvilinear structures, one an almost
complete oval (Fig. 24), were uncovered at a site of either Chalcolithic or EB I date.5 6 Although
technically beyond the limits of the region under discussion , it seems, on the basis of pottery
parallels, that the settlement may well have been occupied by Canaanites.

SUMMARY

Apsidal Architecture
A review of the architectural evidence from sites of the Late Cha1colithic-EB I Horizon in
Lebanon, Israel , and Jordan will show evidence of only two truly apsidal houses, with a third
possible candidate for this category incomplete in plan. Of the former, the best preserved
structure is that of Stage IV at Megiddo. In its final aspect it was virtually apsidal but it seems
that it may well have been built piecemeal from curvilinear and rectilinear fragments. The
second example, the apsidal house at Byblos, assuredly was constructed in this manner, with its
curved wall an addition to a rectangular structure. The third candidate, building I I at Beth
Ha-Emeq , may latterly have been apsidal in plan but was also an aggregate of rectilinear and
curvilinear walls. Given the lack of a body of corroborative evidence for apsidal construction,
and in the face of so many contra-indications for the interpretation of incomplete structures as of
this type, it is no longer possible to postulate the existence of the apsidal house as a traditional
style of construction and a hallmark of the EB I. Indeed, now brought into serious question are
all those theories which advocate, in this period, foreign connections based on the supposed
existence of this tradition of house construction.
Curvilinear House Construction of the EB I-A Tradition
Wholly curvilinear buildings , found at Byblos, Dakerman, Tel Teo, Yiftahel, Tel Qishyon and
Jericho indicate a coherent pattern of house construction associated with specific chronological
and regional parameters which truly deserve the appellation ' tradition'. Emphasis is placed on
this new building style as a tradition not only because of the repetition of these distinctively
shaped buildings at a number of related sites, but also because of their apposition to the
well-documented tradition of rectangular construction of the Cha1colithic period and the late
EB I (see below). Although the ultimate origins of these curvilinear buildings remain unknown,
their earliest appearance in this region, at Byblos, is coincidental with the beginning of the
Eneolithique Recent, and curvilinear structures may be traced there throughout the entire
period. Later this building style seems to have spread southward, sometime late in the period
(contemporary to the early EB I ). The ultimate extent of this tradition of construction is
unknown but it seems likely that it was a somewhat widespread phenomenon also associated
16 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY
with the northern EB I culture orIsrael and Transjordan (Braun, forthcoming) . Tables I and 2
illustrate the dispersion and frequency of these house types by site. 57 Of interest is what appears
to be a secondary influence, a ripple effect, which this tradition may have exerted on
construction of domestic buildings in the later EB l. This is seen in the appearance of rounded
corners on buildings at a number of sites in both the north and south .58
Another particu larly probl ematic aspect of this tradition is the apparent exclusivity of this
style of architecture at Dakerman, Yiftahel , and perhaps also at Tel Teo, Tel Qishyon, and
Meser (where excavated areas are severely limited) . It would appear to be quite appropriate to
conclude that this very strong building tradition is evidence of the arrival of some distinct ethnic
group ," not closely associated with the indigenous populations of Lebanon , Israel , andJordan ,
in the Chalcolithic period. There are, however, a number of anomalies which need explaining
before such an equation may be advanced.
The appearance of curvilinear buildings at Byblos , sometime early in the ER (= Chalcoli-
thic) period, apparently as a full-blown style of house construction, alongside more traditional
rectangular structures is well documented .60 The excavation reports do not, however, inform us
of any other distinctive fea tures of material culture associated exclusively with these buildings,
nor is there evide nce to corroborate the idea of associating this new tradition of architecture with
any distinct group of newcomers settling at Byb los . Nor is there any indication from whence
came such radically different type building conceptions at the beginning of the ER.
Even more puzzling is the appearance of this style of architecture, to the exclusion of
rectilinear forms , at sites to the south dating perhaps considerably later (see note 40). Certainly
the links between Byblos and Dakerman are evident,61 but the connections with sites further to
the south are less well understood. Given the architectural traditions of the Lebanese Littoral in
the ER period the existence of pockets of occupation, in which curvilinear architecture was the
dominant form, in contemporary Northern Israel and Transjordan , could hardly be fortuitous.
There is no real evidence for the origins of this tradition there nor do these type buildings belong
to the indigenous cultural traditions of the region in the period immediately preceding the EB I
(see note 12 ). Thus the existence of curvilinear buildings in contemporary contexts in Northern
Israel and Transjordan must somehow be linked to what happens immediately to the north.
The differences between the material cultures of these two regions (the Lebanese Littoral and
Northern Israel , and Transjordan) are, indeed, remarkable, especially in pottery traditions 62
and burial customs (Braun, forthcoming ). The nature of the links between these cultural
spheres is something of an enigma, given their proximity and the lack of serious physical
barriers between them. Certain factors were obviously conducive to cultural exchange, yet it
seems as if this was, to a great extent, a highly selective process in this period.
At EB I sites in Northern Israel and Transjordan there is a notably high correlation
between the appearance of curvilinear architecture and Esdraelon Ware (Table 3)' It would
seem to be an appropriate assumption that these two distinctive attributes of material culture
are somehow related, perhaps to an incursion of a new ethnic group into the region. 63 There are,
however, some very important exceptions to this correlation. they are the lack of Grey
Burnished Ware on sites of the Lebanese Littoral'" and at Jericho - gaps which virtually
preclude these aspects from being very closely related . On the basis of our present knowledge it
seems then that the coincidental appearance of Grey Burnished Pottery and Curvilinear
Architecture are both indicative of the early EB I culture in Northern Israel and Transjordan
but that they should be understood as two separate , and perhaps only loosely related, aspects of
a larger phenomenon which brought about major cultural changes. These changes are those
which led archaeologists to distinguish the new EB I culture from that of the preceding
Chalcolithic Horizon.
ТНЕ APSIDAL HOUSE 17
ТЛВLЕ з ТНЕ ASSOCIATION OF СВ WЛRЕ ВУ ТУРЕ· AND ARC НITECТURAL STYLE

Level
Stage GB ware Types 1-4
Stratum U nspecified + Curvilin ear + Rectilinear +
SПЕ Instal. Not Found (о) Fragmentary (.) Fragmentary (. )

Megiddo XIX 3 +
Megiddo Stage IУ 3 + +
Yiftahel II + (. )
Beth Shean XVII 3 (. ) ?

Beth Shean XV I 3 +
Beth Shean XV + (. ) +
Beth Shean XIV о (. ) +
M esser II (. )
j ericho V о + +
Sidon-Dakerman II о +
BybIos Early ER о + +
BybIos Late ER о + +
Rosh Hanniqra II + (. )
Те l Тео V +
Теl Тео IV (.)
Khorvat Avot 5 3 (.)
Beth Ha-emeq + (. ) +
Beth Yerah XV + (' )
Beth Yerah Bahat Ехс ? (.)
Pithat ha-Yarmuk + (. ) +
En Shadud 3 + +
Теl Qishyon + + +
j enin + (' )
Munhata 1 + (О)
ТеlUm Hammad 1/2 (.) (О)
ТеН Esh-Shuneh III о ( О) (.)
Maabarot Lower + (О ) ( О)

j ebel Mutawwaq
Azor
Palmahim Quarry
Serabit еl Khadim
• Wrighr '958, *4'
о +
С о +
1 (О ) ?
о +

The Loсаlilу ofthe Curvilinear Architecture Tradition

Тгие curvilinear architecture appears (о Ье concentrated а! sites in the north of Israel and
]ordan, and the Lebanese Littoral, forming а large and con tinuous territory. Its northernmost
border, [ог the present, is Byblos, (о the east, perhaps the]ordan Уаllеу sites, and (о the south а
line drawn between the Azor/ Palmahim агеа and ]ericho. Ап additional extension , into the
semi-arid and arid zones of this singu lar style of architecture, та у also Ье ind icated in this
period but, [ог the present, it is best (о reserve judgement оп the matter until information оп
sites other than]ebel Mutawwaq is available.
18 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY
Chronology and Curvilinear Architecture
Recent work at Yiftahel (Braun forthcoming ) has made it possible to verilY Wright's obser-
vation that his T ype 165, Grey Burnished Ware bowl is a good chronological indicator for an
early EB I date (Wright 1958, *42-45). Thus according to this chronological indicator , when
precise information is available, there is the suggestion, based on the presence of these type 1
bowls, that most of the truly curvilinear buildings may be associated only with the earlier phases
of this period (Table 3). What seems evident is that the major impetus for curvilinear
architecture came with the beginning of the EB I Horizon, that the style enjoyed what was
probably a brief period of popularity and then seems to have rapidly gone out offashion. There
are, later in the period , what appear to be indications of some probable holdovers or influence
from curvilinear styles, but it is of interest to note that at En Shadud (dated somewhat later than
Yiftahel ) the predominant building style was rectangular and that building traditions of the late
EB I are, without doubt, rectilinear. At Byblos a similar abandonment of curvilinear building
principles is notable in the structures of the Pre-urbain Installation (approximately equated
with the end of the EB I ). Thus it seems as if curvilinear building traditions made no lasting
impression on the cultures of the EB I in Israel and Transjordan ; at Byblos they may have been
mu ch longer lived .
Rectilinear Architectural Traditions
Recent research on the architectural traditions of the Chalcolithic period has shown that the
prevai ling style of building was rectilinear, with the broadroom taking pride of place (Porath
Ig8S ; Eisenberg, forthcoming b). Such building traditions can be traced back into the Neolithic
period and indicate long and well established patterns of behaviour within the region under
discussion . I t is then not totally surprising that late in the EB I (in the post-Yiftahel phase) there
is mu ch well-documented evidence for the continuation of rectilinear forms and in particular for
the broad room (Braun rg85a, 76). Although there is little doubt that the continued preference
for the broadroom house style in the late EB I is somehow the result of the transference of
architectural traditions from the Chalcolithic period , what is unclear is just how such a
transfere nce was accomplished. Perhaps the answer may be found at those sites where
curvilinear and rectilinear architectural styles are known in con temporary contexts, or it may be
that the process occurred in the southern region.
New Directions
The existence of an architectural tradition, hitherto virtually unrecognized, and at odds with
accepted conceptualizations of the EB I Horizon, is , it is felt, now sufficiently documented for
researchers to apply themselves to its considerable implications. Such a revelation, far from
answering our questions and solving problems in the understanding of this late prehistoric
period , brings with it a multitude of new ones. It is hoped that, in the wake of this work, new
directions will present themselves to researchers and bring about an improvement of our
understanding of this very problematical period.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This article represents the fruits of research conducted for my work at the Israel Department of Antiquities
and Museums ( lOAM ). The conclusions offered here are entirely my own, but [hey could not have been
reached , nor cou ld this work have been carried out, without the help of numerous colleagues who have
alTered encouragement, advice, and criticism - all warmly welcome. To those who have made available
THE APSIDAL HOUSE 19
unpublished material special thanks are due for their generosity. They are: Mr D. Alan (lOAM ) for
information on Tel Halif; Mr D. Bahat (Regional Archaeologist for Jerusalem, lOAM) for information on
his work at Tel Beth Yerah and for providing a plan for publication; Mr E. Eisenberg (Senior Excavating
Archaeologist, lOAM) for information on Tell Teo and for providing a plan for publica-tion; Dr C. Epstein
(lOAM) for making available information on Pithat ha-Yarmuk in advance of publication; Professor A.
Glock (Bir Zeit University) for making available information on Tell Jenin; Dr J . Hanbury-Tenison
(formerly of Magdalen College, Oxford) for allowing me to review a report onJebei Mutawwaq in advance
of its publication; and Dr A. Kempinski (Tel Aviv University) for allowing me to review the report on Beth
Ha-emeq prior to its publication and to reproduce the plan of the structures here.
The following people have contributed to this paper: Ms T. Mazzola (Architect and Artist, lOAM)
drew or fe-drew all the plans presented here and offered invaluable information on building techniques;
Ms E. Salomon (Volunteer, lOAM) helped to prepare the bibliography; Ms L. Taylor (Librarian and
Editor) formerly of IDAlVI) was a patient reader and corrected early versions of the manuscript; Mr A.
Eytan (former Director IDAM) . provided expertise and valuable comments concerning the unpublished
Megiddo Stages material and graciously gave his permission to publish the Yiftahel plans and pho{Qs; Mr
j. Larson (Museum Archivist, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago) was instrumental in procuring
the photo of the Megiddo Stages for re-publication; Dr Ann Bonn (Research Assistant, Beth Shan Project,
the University :M useum, University of Pennsylvania) brought her doctorate to my attention; Mr D. Bahat
(Regional Arhaeologist for Jerusalem, lOAM) and the family of the late Mr P. Bar-Adon gave permission
to review the notes from the Beth Yerah excavations; Professor M. Kochavi (Tel Aviv University) read an
earlier version of the manuscript and offered comments; Mr Baruch Brandl (Senior Researcher, IDAM)
offered incisive comments on portions of the manuscript; tvlr M. Louhivuori (Hebrew University)
provided helpful comments and criticisms; Dr D. Esse (The Oriental Institute, University of Chicago)
helped with the proof-reading and offered valid criticisms; an unknown reader of an earlier and different
version helped with proof-reading and provided several incisive comments; and Ms C. Greenberg (former
Assistant to the Director, lOAM) helpd with the typing of the manscript in its early stages. Most of all I
wish to express gratitude to David Braun (Decatur Ga.) for his excellent editing abilities and his
encouragement in this work.

NOTES

1 Henceforth EB I. 8 These may include: available space, personal needs,

2 Henceforth PU . The term Early Bronze I is not uni-
versally accepted. Other names used to designate this
same cu ltural horizon are: Early Canaanite (EC) , Pre-
urbain (P-u ), Late Chalcolithic (LC) , Chalcolithic
Superieur (CS), Eneolithique Superieur (ES ) and Eneo-
lithique Recent (ER).
J This work, published posthumously in 1979, was
revised , by Kenyon not long before her death.
"' The term 'apsidal' is used to describe a shape with two
ri~ht angles opposite a halfround end.
I t appears that Albright was not entirely convinced by
the evidence and so noted these disparities.
6 A notable excepdon to the tendency of scholars to link
the sites orehe Levant with Anaeolia is found in:In article
by Warner (1979, 147). Her detailed study orthe apsidal
house style in Anaeolia scrupulously avoids any mention
of the Levant, and in what appears to be an indirect
reference to the subject, she dissociates the kind of social
organization, implied by the presence of apsidal build·
in~s , with that typical of Middle Eastern communities.
Indeed Thompson (1969, 86) was not entirely con-
vinced of the connection with the Levant. His reservations
afe expressed by an inability to find evidence to link the
EB I Culture of the Levant with that of Troy la, the site
nearest in time and place, associated with the apsidal
tradition of building.
economic considerations, availability of mace rials , build·
ing skills, topographical peculiarities, climatic conditions,
and sociopolitical organizations of a settlement.
9 In the opinion of the present writer the EB I cultural
horizon is distinct from that of the preceding Chalcolithic
(Braun, forthcoming) and differs from the succeeding
urbanized societies of the EB I I.
10 The problem of relative dating is one of which few
advances have been made since the early days ofthe study
of the EB I. Recent work at Yiftahel and En Shadud
(Braun, forthcoming) suggests that the former site is to be
dated earlier on a relative scale, but beyond chat little may
be said. The absence of a published, well excavated,
continuous occupational sequence from the Chalcolithic
co che EB I severely hampers all effons at developing a
reliable chronology for these periods.
11 Examples of this style of house are found at Shiqmim
(Levy [g86, 8g), Ein Gedi (Uss ishkin [g80, 5-[4, Fig. 3)
Fazael (Porath 1985, 14-19, Fig. 2), Tel Teo (Eisenberg,
forthcoming, a; forthcoming, b); sites of the Golan Hights
(Epstein [978, Fig. [).
12 While the curvilinear tradition can be traced from
Chalcolithic times in ehe Lebanese Littoral there are only
some very few recorded instances of curvilinear structures
in the Chalcolithic orIs rae! andJordan, although there is
evidence of an earlier, discontinued tradition there (Bar
20 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY
Yoser tt ai., Ig80), This does not, however, seem to have
any connection with the later tradition ofche EB I. At H.
Beter, Dothan ( 195gb, Fig. 3) uncovered a partial rounda~
tion of what appears to have been a circular building
among a number of rectilinear houses. Round mortuary
struCtures have been reported by Levy ( 1982) at another
site of the Beersheva Horizon , but they are in contrast [Q
the recangular domiciles of the nearby Shiqrnim village
(Levy Ig86, 89) and to other Chalcolithic sites on the
Wady Beersheva, with their subterranean dwellings or
rectilinear above-ground architecture (Perrot 1984,
80--87). Circular tombs, the Nawamis of Sinai (Bar Yaser
tl at., 1983 , 52-53), dated [0 the Late fourth millennium
B.C. (Late Chalcolithic/EB I) , may be similar to the
Mezad Aluf stone circles (foundations of circular houses
of mud-brick?), but again seem not to have any connec-
tion with the houses of the early EB I found in the north.
Related structures may be two tombs from Bab edh Dhra
(Ortner 1982; Rast and Schaub Ig78, 22-23). At Ghassul,
Hennessy ( lg6g. 7. Plate 4b ) reported the existence of an
apsidal house , but neither a published plan (Zanotti 1981,
Fig. g) nor the photograph support that restoration.
There is , however, some possiblity thac the building may
actually have been sausage-shaped, perhaps the earliest of
its kind found south of Byblos. Even if this latter recon-
struction is correct, it remains a unique structure at a site
where rectilinear tarms dominate.
13 The south wall , which was excavated only in part.
(Dunayevsky and Kempinski 1973, 167-68) may have
had an entrance, although this does not seem likely.
14 There is neither a plan nor any written description
accompanying the photo, which has an inked notation
.indicating the upper terrace as Stage IV, and the lower
terrace (down the slope but not necessarily stratigra-
phically earlier) as Stage V.
15 The house was built onto an Outcropping of bedrock
which forms the opposite corner.
16 Mr Avi Eytan , who is familiar with the original notes of
this excavation suggests the likelihood of different con-
struction phases, but is of the opinion that this structure
was originally apsidal in plan.
17 It seems virtu all v certain that the house was con-
structed piecemeal. the stretch of wall connected to the
apse is visibly narrower than the straight wall to which
it is joined, and the curve it forms is decidedly
non-symmetrical precisely at that point. This is the
kind of bonding which one might expect to connect a
structure with an extant wall fragment as is suggested in
Figure 2.
18 There is, unfortunately, no indication of directions in
the photo.
19 It appears to partially encompass a cave entrace cut
into the bedrock.
20 This is expressed in the doctoring of the photo. Clearly
the inked-in line suggests the existence ofa second apsidal
dwelling .
21 More specifically, the excavator's conclusions seem
questionable for a number of reasons: (I) The curved wall
segment is not actually physically connected with the wall
segment extending from the bedrock; both appear to be
built along a line apparently quarried in the bedrock. (2)
The rectilinear wall segment is misaligned with the rec-
tangular portions of the building perpendicular to it and
so they do nm rorm a bonded corner. (3) The rectilinear
walls of this building are hardly appropriate internal
dividers , rather they form a coherem unit of massive
proportions which suggest that [hey are probably external
walls ofa rectilinear structure.
22 The designation ofSrage V as earlier than Stage IV is
not certain. I t is merely on a lower terrace, downslope and
may as easily be contemporary or even later.
23 This is, of course, speculative. Possible sources of error
in perception, attributable to the angle of the photo,
shadows, and mher optical distortions are acknowledged.
2" Thesire was extensi vely excavated as a lengthy salvage
project, and during several additional short seasons. A
number of preliminary communications have been
published dealing with the Late Neolithic and Early
Bronze I occupations: Braun Ig84b; Ig8Sb; forthcoming.
zs Circular silos of diameters less than 2 m. are well
attested at Yiftahcl, Beth Yerah (Amiran and Cohen
'977) . Jericho (Ga rstang '935. PI. XXIV: lower) and
other sites. The diameter of this structure (c. 3.5 m.)
suggests that it may ha·.. e functioned as a house although
it would be one of the smallest at the site. Parallels for
structures of this approximate size are found at Beth
Yerah in excavations by D. Bahat (see above), Tel
Qishon, and at Jericho (Garstang 1935, PI. XXIV:
lower ).
26 An aerial view ofYiftahei (Plate 2; Fig. 3) taken arter
the first season's excavations, emphasi.zes the regular
shapes of these buildings.
27 The choice by builders between an oval or sausage-
shaped plan appears to be a function of size. An oval,
enlarged proportionatel y beyond eight m. in length,
attains a width too great to be spanned easily by a single
length of timber from the more readily available tree
types. without the aid of supporting pillars. Only in one
house is there possible evidence of stone pillar bases along
its longitudinal axis .
28 This is in marked contrast to sites oflimited space and
a high density of construction where houses tend to be
small and often of no particular plan.
29 An interesting feature orthis house is the existence ofa
stone pavement in one ofrhe smaller rooms adjacent to the
end "o·all. It is reminiscent of similar pavements found in
curvilinear houses at Dakerman, Yiftahel, Tel Teo, and
Meser II.
30 It is uncertain , from the context of this description ,
whether Fitzgerald is rererring here to a stOne wall similar
in shape to the plan of the house, or alternately to the
curved walls. If the latter, then why was it not simply
designated as curved? A reference by Albright (1960,70),
perhaps intentionaHy, refers, in the plural, to apsidal
buildings . This wall fragment might then belong to a
second, partially preserved, curvilinear dwelling.
31 The lower levels of this tell are not so adequately
published as to allow for a critique of the proposed dating.
The pottery, ascribed to occupational levels (Fitzgerald
1934. Plate 111:2 , Ig3S, Plates I-V), indicates the appear-
ance ofES I types from below Level XVIII through Level
XIII (see also Braun 1985a, Table no. 3) . Grey Burnished
\Vare, one of the hallmarks of the period, is found in
Levels XVII through XIV.
32 The date or Level XI I I is very problematic. There are
cieJ.riy late EB I as well as EB II pottery types ascribed to
this stratum . The succeeding occupation is dated, by the
presence ofKhirbet Kerak ",,'are , to the EB III period .
33 The problem of the chronology or~(eser I, II, and III
is a thorny one. From the present writer's experience at En
Shadud (198 ja) and Yirtahel, that of Eisenberg (personal
communication) in the contemporary levels at Tel Teo,
THE APSlDAL HOUSE
a nd of Helms (1 984; Ig86) and Gustavso n·Gaube ( lg85)
at Te ll t's h·Shun a, Crey Burnished ponery is not assoc-
iated with Chalcolichic pottery rypes. O n th e basis ofrhis
extensive ex perience it is sugges ted th a t Dot han 's cu ltural
ascriptions of G rey Burnished ware to St rata I I [, I I, and r
is highl y questionab le. The stratigraphy at Mes er appears
to be very co mpressed , suggest ing the likelihood ofimru-
sive materia ls in all strata. This wou ld aCCOunt for the
presence of co rnets a nd other Chalcolithic poncry types
throughout the occ upa tion of {he site. VOIil such time as
the :'vlese r excava lions are treated in detai l, it wi ll be
imposs ible [0 eva luate t he resu lls and it is suggested tha t
evidence from tha t site should be trea ted with extreme
cau[!on.
34 Doth an ( 1959a, PI. 2) assigned several structural fea-
tures (poss ibl y imernal dividers ) within house BI, and
two ochers wit hin house 814, to Strat um III (the earlier
occupation ). It is not clear rrom the plan what the elev-
ations or these struCtu res are , but even if thev were not
prese rved to the: sam(': height as the house wa lls' there is no
co mpelli ng reason to assign them [0 a dirreren[ stratum.
Certainly their pos it ions, pe rpendicul a r to the house walls
(a nd in one case equidistant from the en d of the building )
could hardl y be fo rtuitous.
35 Thercdoes not seem to be an y later material at the site.
36 The co rrid or is 50 ems. wide at its narrowes t. Access to
the space to the north-east of the curved wall would be
necessary only in the earl ier phase of occupa ti on when the
origi nal building was constructed. Th e addition of the
house formed by walls ZF , ZC and ZH , bui lt over the
stubby con tin uation ZB (und er Wa ll ZG ), is obviously of
a la ter phase which closes off the open space to the
north-east of the curved wall (2B ) a nd whi ch makes the
need far a passage superfluous.
31 Garsta ng ( 1935, 153 ), in considering th e a rchitecture
ofJeri cho, co mment ed on this phen ome non where build-
ings appear co have been planted haphazardly and where
their irregu lar shapes reflect an obvious lack of freedom in
the plan ning of individual structures.
38 Earlier Dunand ( 1950 ) offered a di rre'rent scheme in
which he proposed V I ' installations ' of which lhe ER ca n
be roughly eq ua ted with II (the earlie r) and III. No table
differences are the ind usion , in the 1976 publication, of
neolirhique ancien and neolirhique recent ( = Installation
I) and proto~u rb a in as terms for cultural phases. One of
the most important differences, as regards thi s discussion ,
is the recog nition of the latter phase of Installation III
(Dunand 1950, Fig. 4) as culturally different (i.e. proto-
urbain ).
39 This is es timated by the excavator (Dunand 1973, 21 3,
215 ) to have lasted from the thirty-sevemh through che
thirty-third cemuries B.C.
40 To a certai n exten t the synchronism of th e ER Levels of
Bvb los with the C ha lcolirh ic and EB r of Israel and
Transj ord an must be taken on faith. These connections
are based, for the most part, on mat erial from the eneo-
lithique ce meteries which have been demonstratively cor-
related neith er with specific occupational levels nor with
indi vid ua l structures. While Prag's ( t986, 66-73) recent
work has demo nstra ted Giblite connections with Egypt in
the fourth mi llennium B.C. there are, as she suggests,
remarkably few similarities betwee n the Byblas ER pot-
tery and th e Chalcolithi c of Israel a nd Transjordan .
Beyond the much tou ted 'churn ' (Du nand 1973, Fig. '70
upper) from Tomb 1735, there is a vague resembla nce
becween th e fenestrated , pedestalled vessels of Byblos
'2 [
(Dun an d 1973, Fig. 16 1) a nd (hose of the Chalcolit hic and
EB I orI srael a nd T ransjord a n, but in truth these groups
are sty li sticall y quite different, as are the pottery oss uari es
of th e Chalcalith ic from the pithoi used for burials at
Byb las in th e ER Period . Para llel s between EB I pottery of
Israel a nd Transjord an a re often cited, but similarly the
resemblance with th e ceramics of Bvblos and that from
sites sou th of the Lebanese Littoral are, for the most part)
not close. Indeed they are re markably less so than a re the
archi tect ural parallels.
41 Dunand ( 1973, 217) describes these shapes as ' ...
oblong parfois avec les angles fonement inegaux d ' un
di agona le a " autre .. .'.
4 2 Dunand ( 1973. 217) is a t pains to in sis t that , ' tous les
logis de ce ut'.: installation so nt monocellulaires. La d i v~
ision de quelques -uns par un mur de refend ne fai t pas un e
exception a cette regie, ca r ce ue division n 'es t q'un
a menagement interieur et n'apparait que tard '. Thi s
statement is nor easily challenged becaus e of lack of
sections and de tailed plans with el eva tions in the publ i-
catio ns, but it seems (hat a t leas t, there a re exceptions to
the rule .
43 In the upper levels of Sta ti on 4-5 thele is another
building which is so me times rererred to as 'a psidal '
(Dunand (973.23 (. Pl.] . b. ' - 3/7-8). On the plan part of
the curved wall and one long wall are clearly visible, but
the recangular end of this building appears to be id entica l
to a portion of rectangular house number 31.
44 The ex tent to which the curvilinear stvle of a rchitec-
lure may have effected cha nges in bu ildi~g styles at th e
si te is not certain but rhe appea rance of curvilin ea r cor-
ners, in the beginni ng of the ER , may nor be wholl y
fo rtu itous. Corner co ns truction in i'i eolithic Byblos was,
vi nuall y without exception, sha rpl y angular: The one
notable exception is th e onl y trul y a psida l house at Byb los
(Dunand 1973, Fig. 9) which is dated to the Neolithique
Ancien period and which apparently has nothing to do
with the architectural traditions of rhe ER.
4S The excava tion was part af an exploratory projec t
conducted far the Israd Department of Antiquities a nd
y(useums directed by {he a uthor. T he total area of
excava tion was very limited , a nd over most of il rem a ins of
the Persian and I ron 1 periods obscured any ea rli er
occupations.
46 A curved wall , opposi te one end of the rectangular
building (which if it also belongs to the same stru cture
would give the whole an apsidal plan), is neither well
a ligned with the side walls nor ph ys ically connected to
them. There is some evidence to suggest that the cur·
vi linear and rectilin ea r walls were built at different times.
Th e unpublished section ind icates that at least part of the
rec ta ngular structure was built on top of fi ll which la y
above the earlier floor with which [he curvilinear wall is
cl ea rl y associa ted. Another portion of the rectilinear
SlruCt ure , a cross wall , sitS directly on this floor. Thus
clearly th e rect ilinear portions of [his building are la ter
additions.
41 Its opposite side was re covered in the negative, by the
line of the Roor whi ch dea rl y showed (he co nrinuation of
the curve formed by the second side of the parabola.
48 This sire was previously know n fro m its idenrificatio n
wilh a disrinctive, coarse, unpa inted pottery , somerimes
ca ll ed Pr~ - u rbain D (de Contenson 1960; 1961 ; de
Miroschedji 197 1).
~91n a late r co mmun ica tion H el ms (1986) a lludes to an
ea rlier, Cha lcolirhic occupa tion, calling it Stage I (Arabic
22 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY
number ), which is not [0 be confused with Stage I (Roman
number ) of the earlier report (Helms (984 ). Thus in the
later publication the earlier Stage I (EB I ) becomes Stage
'Z (Arabic number) .
so Gustavson.Gaube has claimed a continuity in occupa-
cion from the Chalcolithic through CO the EB I, but no
good diagnostic Chalcolithic pottery is found in the
published material. Thus it appears as if the entire
sequence at Tell esh Shuneh s hould be placed within the
EB I (Braun, forthcoming, note r I) .
51 Helms (1 986, Table ~ ) places the EB I occupation of
Jawa about midway in Stage 2 of Tell Umm Hammad.
52 No plan of this wall has been published, nor have its
linear dimensions been described.
53 Esse ( 1984. 323 ) co meses [he existen ce of chis period ,
arguing for an EB I I date for chis occupational phase.
S4 Classifying semi-circular fortification rowers as
apsidal buildings is , while perhaps technically correct
rerarding their shape , a novel concept.
S This was a salvage project for rhe Israel Department of
Antiquities and Museums undertaken within the founda-
tion pit ofa modern house .
S6 The excavator , Beit Arieh ( 1980) dates the site ro the
Chalcolithic period , bur the evidence of very fragmentary
pottery could as easily suppon an EB I date. Additional
suppor[ fo r the later datr.: co mes from an Egyptian vessel of
the first Dynasty found at thr.: site, although Beit Ari eh
( ljJBo , 32) prefers to see it as intrusive.
S The catr.:gories of probable and possible are, of course,
quite subjective but, it is felt, neverthelr.:ss, that such
subjectivity is legitimatr.: given thr.: state of the data.
Fragmentary structures were categorizr.:d according to the
proportion of extant remains , the existence of complete
curvilinear buildings at the same site, and on the evidence
of details of construction such as curvilinear dividing
walls and s tone paved extremities which are often assoc-
iated with buildings of this tradition .
58 In the Israel-Transjordan cultural sphere these build-
ings are associated with the post-Yiftahel phase. Thus it is
possible to understand che buildings at En Shadud,
Megiddo (Stage V), Ai , and Tel Apheq as a kind of
hy brid , a melding of the cun:ilinear and rectilinear tradi-
tions which seems to have developed through contempo-
raneousness , as may be seen at a number of sites. This
s tyl e seems also to have spread beyond the boundaries of
the region in which true curvilinear buildings gained
popularity, appearing further to the south at Lahav and
perhaps even at Wady Ghazzeh (Macdonald 1932, PI.
IX). Interestingly enough the earliest appearance of simi-
lar features at Byblos seems [Q be roughly concurrent with
that of the first appearance of curvilinear construction, in
the early phases of the ER. The exact nature of the
relationship is difficult to understand but it seems likely
that there is indeed a connection between the two.
Comers of buildings ofche preceding EneolithiqueAncien
occupation were decidedl y angular, with no evidence of
even a tendency to rounding.
59 The importance ofchese curvilinear structures may by
judged in light of what we known of indigenous building
traditions in the regions under discussion . It is taken as
axiomati c that the sudden change in an accepted way of
constructing a domicile (especiall y when it breaks with a
tradition with roots in several millennia of accepted prac-
tice) represents a significant cultural change which is
indicati ve of population ch a nges or accretions of sizeable
magnitude.
60 The first of these distinctive structures may be seen in
the early level s of the ER (Stations 14, I5, 46), and they
continue on inw (he later phases of the ER (Byblos III ,
lower; Dunand 1950, Fig. 4) but cease to be built in the
Proto-urbain period (Byblos III , upper; Dunand '950,
Fig. 4).
61 Their pottery traditions are quite similar (de Con-
tenson 1982 , 80 ), as are the burial cutoms of the inhab-
itants, indicating that these two sites belong to a single
cultural sphere.
62 While one can speak of generalized similarities in
pottery sty les in this period there is a wide divergence
between the po ttery types o f late ER Byblos and those
contemporary EB I Northern sites (Braun, forthcoming ;
Eisenberg , forthcoming ).
63 It is generally accepted that Esdraelon Ware, a hall-
mark of the EB I northern culture, does not have its
origins in the indigenous cultures preceding the EB I
period. The distinctive shapes, color and burnishing of
this pottery make it easily recognizable, but have not been
of help in identifying its foreign source , if indeed there is
one. Its appearance, as a new aspect of material culture,
along with a different building tradition , make an obvious
candidate for possible evidence of some form of incursion
ofa different ethnic group.
64 Although much has been made of a number ofsherds
of Grey Burnished Ware recovered from the cliffs at
Byblos by Sir Leonard Wooley in the Ig20'S (Engberg and
Shipton 1934, 62; Hennessy 1967, 35), it seems to be
otherwise unknown at the site and is apparemly unknown
at Dakerman. The limits of its northern distribution seem,
for the present, to be Rosh Hanniqra, Khirbet Avot and
Tel Teo. A single exception (which appears to be me only
truly documented example of a T ype I bowl of this ware
from lebanon). was recovered from Stratum XIII at
Kamid e1-Loz in the southern Beq'a Valley (Hochmann
1986, 71-76, Tafel 14:3) . Whatevr.:r its ultimate origin or
inspiration, this pottery appears to b e alien to the material
culture ofehe Lebanon.
65 This eype I is a bowl with a sinuous projecting line on
the ridge of carination.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aharoni , Y. , 1982. The Archaeology ofthe Land efIsrael (London) .

Albright , W . F., Ig60 . Tilt A.rchaeology ofPalestine (Harmondswonh, .Middlesex: Penguin Books ).
Alon, D., [974. Exeat'alien Report No. 448 (Lahau/ Tel Halif) (Archives of the Israel Department of Antiquities and
Museums: Unpublished \.
Amiran , R. , 1970. 'The Beginnings of Urbanization in Canaan, ' inJ. A. Sanders (ed .), Near Eastern Archaeology in tlu 20th
Century: Essays in Honor ofNelson Glueck (Garden City, New York ), 83-100.
- - 1978, Early Arad (jeru salem : Israel Exploration Society).
Amiran, R and Cohen , C., '977. ' Excavations at Tel Beth Yerah ', The israel Museum News 12, 61--62 .
Arnon , C., 1982 . 'Tel Qishyon' , Hadashot Archaeoiogiyot 78-79, 18.
THE APSlDAL HOUSE
Bahat, D., '977. Excavation Report No. 632 (Beth YeTall) (Archives of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums:
Unpub lished ).
Bar-Adon, P. Excavation Report: Beth Yeran (Archives of the Israel Department of Antiquities and !vluseums: Unpub-
lished and undated ).
Bar Yaser, 0. , Hershkovitz,J., Arbel , G., and Goren, A. , 1983. 'The Orientation ofNawamis Entrances in Southern
Sinai: Expressions of Religious Beliefand Seasonality?', TeL Aviv 10, 52-59.
Beir Arieh , Y., 1980. 'A Chalco lithic Site Near Serabit el Khadim', Ttl Aviv 7, 45-64.
Ben-Tor, A. , 1968. Problems in tht Early Bronz.e Age II-Ill in Palestine (Doctoral Thesis Submitted CO the Senate ofche
Hebrew University ofJerusalem ).
- - 1973. 'Plans of Dwellings and Temples in Early Bronze Age Palestine', Eretz Israel It , 91-97 [Hebrew English
summary] (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society).
Bernick, H. and Greenberg, R. 1987. 'Tel Qasis, 1984-lg85 Seasons; Tel Qasis, 1987 Season,' Hadashot Archaeoiogiyot go,
21 -24 [Hebrew]'
Best, J. G. P., 1978. 'The Foreign Relations of the Apsis House Culture in Palestine', in: Puipudeva: Semaines
Phiiippopoiitaines de {'histoire et de la culture Thrace 2, 205-09.
Bienkowski, P. , Ig86. jericho in the Late Bronze Age (Warminster, Wiltshire).
Bonn, A. , [9 76. The Domestic A-rchilecture of EarLy Bronze Age Palestine, Ph.D. Thesis, Bryn Mawr College (An n Arbor:
University Microfilms International ).
Braun, E. , Ig81. 'KhorvatAvot,' IEj31, 107-08.
- - Ig84a. 'En Shadud: An Early Bronze I Farming Community in theJezreel Valley,' BASOR 253, 29-40.
- - 1984b. ' Yiftahe! ,' IEJ34. 191-g4·
- - Ig85a. En Shadud: Salvage Excavations at a Farming Community in thejezretl Valley, Israel (Oxfo rd : British Archaeologi-
cal Reports , International Series, 249) .
- - 1985b. ' Yiftahel', IEJ35 , 58-59·
- - Forthcoming. 'The Transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age in Northern Israel and Transjordan:
Is there a Missing Link?', in: Actes du CoUoque d'Emmaus: 'L 'urbanisation de la Palestine Ii {'age du Bronze ancien: Bilan et
pl!7speetives des recherches actuelles' (Emmmaus, Ie 22 oetobre 1986).
Callaway,j. A., 1972 . The Early Bronze Age Sanctuary at Ai: (et TeLl}, No. I (London).
- - 1980. The Early Bronze Age Citadel and Lower City at Ai [et Tell] (Cambridge Mass.: American Schools of Oriental
Research) .
Ciasca, A. 1962. 'Tell Ga~', Oriens Antiquus 1/ 1, 23- 3g.
de Contenson, H. 1960. 'Three Soundings in thejordan Valley,' ADAT 4-5, 12-g8.
- - 1961. ' Remarques sur Ie Chalco lithique Recent de Tell Esh Shuna', RB 68, 546--56.
- - 1982. 'A propos du niveau chalcolithique de Dakerman' , in: Archioiogieau Levant, Recueil R. Saidah (Lyon: Maison de
l'Orient Mediterranee), 7g--86.
Dothan, M, 1957a. ' Excavations at Meser 1956: Preliminary Report on the First Season ', IEj 7,217-228.
- - 1957b. 'Afu la', ALon (Bu lletin of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums ) 5, 22-23 [Hebrew].
- - 1958. 'Azor', IEJ8 , 272.
- - 1959a. ' Excavations at Meser Ig57: Preliminary Report on the Second Season', IEj g, 13-29.
- - 1959b. ' Excavations at Horvat Beter (Beersheba)', Aligot I I, 1-42.
- - 1971. 'The Late Chalcolithic Period in Palestine - Chronology and Foreign Contacts', Erelz Israel I I, I 26-..J 1
[Hebrew, English sum mary] (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society).
Dunand, M. 1950. 'Chronologie des plus anciennes installations de Byblos', RB 47, 583-603.
- - 1973. Fouilles de ByMos V (Texte et Planches) (Paris).
Dunayevsky, I and Kempinski, A., 1973. 'The Megiddo Temples', ZDPV89, 161-87.
Eisenberg, E., Forthcoming, a. 'Tel Teo', IE).
- - Forthcoming, b. 'The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I Occuparions at Tel Teo', in: Actes du CoUoque d'Emmaus:
'L 'urbanisation de la Palestine a Cage du Bron<.e ancien: Bi/an et perspectives des recherches actueUes' (Emmmaus,le 22 oclobre
1986).
Elliott, C. , 1978. 'The Ghassulian Culture in Palestine: Origins, Influences, and Abandonment', Levant 10, 37-54.
Engberg, R. and Shipton, G. 1934. Notes on the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery of Megiddo: Studies in Ancient Oriental
Civilizations 10 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago).
Epstein , C., 1978. 'A New Aspect of the Chalcolithic Culture', BASOR 229, [44-63.
- - 1985. ' Pithat ha-Yarmuk', IEJ35, 5&-57·
Esse, D., 1982. Beyond Suhsistence: Beth Yerah and Northern Palestine in the Early Bronze Age (Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Chicago, Department of Near Eastern European Languages & Civilizations).
- - 1984. 'A Chronological Mirage: Reflections on Early Bronze I C in Palestine',jNES 43,317-30.
Fitzgerald, E. , 1934. 'The Excavations at Beth-Shan in 1933', PEQStatemmt 67, 123-34.
- - 1935. ' Beth Shan: Earliest Pottery' , The ,-\1useumjournal (The University Museum , Univers ity of Penn., Phila.) 24,
5- 22 .
Garstang,j., Ig35. 'j ericho: City and Necropolis' , Annals of Archaeology and Anthropoiogy 22, 143-68.
- - 1948. ThdtoryofJ,richo (London ).
Glock, A. , Ig77. 'Excavations inj enin', Biblical Archaeologist 40, 99.
Gophna, R. , 1974. The Settlement ofthe Coastal Plain ofEret<.Israei During the Early Bronze Age (DoclOral Thesis Submitted to
the Senate of Tel Aviv University: Unpublished (Hebrew]).
Gustavson-Gaube, C., Ig8.'). 'Tel es-Shuna North 1984: A Preliminary Report', ADAJ 29,43- 87.
 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY
Hachma nn , R.! Ig86. Kamid tl-Lo{ 1977-81 , Saarbrucker Beilrage zur Aherumskunde 36 ( Bonn),
Hanbury-Tenison,J . 1985. 'Jebel Mut3wwaq '. Liher Annuus 35, 410-12.
- - Ig86. The LAte Glla/colilhie to Early Bron{t I Transition in Palestine and Transjordan (Oxford: British Archaeological
Reports. In ternational Series, 311 ).
Helms, S. Ig8l.Jawa: Lost City of the Black Destrt (London).
- - ' 984-, 'Excavations at Tell Umm Hammad Esh-Sharqiya in theJordan Valley. 1982', Levant 16, 35-58.
- - 1986. ' Excavations at Tell Umm Ham mad '984', u vant 18, 29-50.
Hennessy,J . B., '96 7. The Foreign RtlationsoJPalestint During the Early BrofL{.t Age (London: Colt Archaeological Institute
Publica tions ).
- - 1969. 'Preliminary Report on a First Season of Excavations at Teleilat Ghassul', Levant I , 1-~4.
Hesc rin, R. , 1975. 'Beth Yerah', Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land Vol. I (Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society), ~53-62.
Kaplan,J. . 1977 . 'Neolithic and Chalcolithic Remains at Lod', Eretz /sraeI13, 57-75 (Jerusalem: Israe l Exploration
Society [Hebrew] ).
Kenyo n, K., 1979. Archaeology in the Holy Land, +th edition (London ).
- - Ig81 . Excavation.r at jtricho, Vol. III (Text and Plates ) (London : British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem ).
Kochavi. ~ and Beck, P. 1985. 'Tel AF.heq-Anripalris - Ig85', Hadashot Archaeologiyot, 87,~5.
Koeppel, R., 1940. Teleilat Ghassul, Vo . 11 (Rome: Insti tor Biblique Portifical ).
Lapp, p" 1970, ' Palestine in the Early Bronze Age' , in]. A. Sanders (cd.), Near Eastern Archatology in tht 20th Century:
Essays in Honoro/Nelson Glutck. (Garden City; New York), 101-3 1.
Levy, T ., 1986. 'The Chalcolithic Period', Biblican Archaeologist 49, 82-108.
Levy, T ., and Alon, D., 1982, 'The Chalcolithic Mortuary Site Near Mezad Aluf, Northern Negev Desert ', BASOR 248,
37-5g·
- - lg83· 'Shiqmim Ig8, ', IEJ33 , 132-34.
Loud, G., Ig48. M'giddo, Vol. II (Chicago).
:\Ilacdonald, E., ' 93~. Beth Peltt, Vol, 11: Prehistoric Fara (Lo ndon: The British School of Archaeology in Egypt) .
:\IIazar, A. and de :\IIiroschedji, P. , in press. 'Har Tuv', Hadashot Archaeologiyot, 87 .
~lazar, B., Avi-Yonah , :\IL, and Stekc:lis, M., 195~ . 'The Excaval ions at Beth Yerah [Khirbet c:I Kerak] 1944-tg46', fEj
'2, 165-73,218-29' .
~lellaart , J" 1966. The Chalcoljthic and Early Bronze .4g.u in the Ntar East (Beirut) .
de Miroschedji, p" 197 L L'ipoque prt-urbain en Paltsline, Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 13 (Paris).
- - 1976 . Contribution al'itude de l'urbanisation en Palestine du Bron~e Ancien (These presente aI 'U niversite de Paris I en vue
du docto rat de 3e cycle [specialite: archeologie orientale1 : Unpublished ).
Orncer, D.] ., Ig82 , 'The Skeletal Biology oran Early Bronze I B Charnel House at Bab edh Dhra,Jordan', in A. Hadidi
(ed .), Studits in the History and Archaeology o/ Jordan I (Jordan: Department of Antiquities ), 93-96.
Perrot,). , 196, . ' Une Tombe a occuaires du IVe millenaire a Azor , pres Tel Aviv', Atiqot 3, 1-83.
- - Ig63. ' Munhatta', RB 70, 56<>-6, .
- - 'g84' 'Struct ures d 'habitat, mode de vie et environnement. Les vi llages souterrains des pasteurs de Beersheva,
dans Ie sud d ' Israel, au IVe millenaire avant I'ere Chretienne', Palion'rot JO , 756--g6.
Perrot, ]. and Zori, N., '977. ' Minha, Khorvat' , Encycloptdia of Archaeological Excavations in tltt Hoi.J Land, Vol III
(Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society), 871-74.
Porath, Y., ' 986. 'A Chalcolithic Building at Fasa'el', Atqot 17, I-'g.
Pora th, Y., Dar, S., and Applebaum, S. 1985. The Hisloryand Archaeology ofEmtk. Hefir (Tel Aviv) .
Prag, K., 1986. ' Byblos and Egypt in the Fourth Millennium B. C,,, u vant r8, 5~74 .
Raban , A, 1977. ' Ancient Remains Under Sa rid Reservoir', B'Ernek. (Newsiener ofche District Council orJezreel and
Kishon, Israd ) 3, '~36 [Hebrew].
Rast, W., and Schaub, T. , 1978. ' Preliminary Report of the '98t Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan', BASOR
'54, 35-60·
Rosen, S. ' g8g, 'The Canaanean Blade and the Early Bronze Age', I Ej 33. [5-29.
Saidah, R., Ig79. ' Fouilles de Sidon-Dakerman: I'agglomeration chalcolithique', Berytus ~7 , ~g--55·
Shiloh, Y .. t g86. 'The Beginnings ofU rbanization in the Early Bronze Age.' in: Twelflh Archaoeological Canftrtnct in fsratl
(Tel Aviv: Israel Exploration Society, Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums, Tel Aviv University
[Hebrew]), '3-'4.
Sukenik, E. L., 1948. 'Archaeological Investigations at Affula', journal oftht Paltstint Oriental Society 21 , 1-78,
Tadmor, M , and Prausnitz, M., 1959, ' Excavations at Rosh Hanniqra', Atiqot 2, 7~--88.
Tel Halif, Ig77- 'Tel Halif 1977', Hadashot Archa,olog()'ot63-64, 55-56. No aUlhorial attribution (Hebrew] .
Thempson, H. 0 ., Ig69. 'Apsidal Construction in the Ancient Near East ' , PEQ 101 , 6g--86.
Ussishkin , D., 1980. 'The Ghassulian Shrine ac Ein-gedi'. Tel Aviv 7,1-44.
de Vaux , R. M., Ig55. ' La cinquieme campagne de fouilles a Tell El-Far'ah, pres Naplouse ' , RB 6~, 541--8g,
- - 'g61. ' La 7e, Be, ge campagne, pres Naplouse', RB 68, 557--<J2.
- - Ig62. ' Les rouilles de Tell EI-Far' ah: Rapport preliminairesur les 7e, 8e, ge campagnes, 1958-'960 [suite]', RB6g,
21 ~-53 .
de Vaux , R. M ., a.nd Steve, A. M. , '948, 'La seconde campagne de fouilles a Tell EI-Far' ah. pres Naplouse', RB 55.
544-80.
Warner, J. 1979· 'The :Vlegaron and Apsidal House in Early Bronze Age Western Anatolia: New Evidence From
Karatus' , A mtrican journal 0/Archaeology 83, 8~- 14 7.
THE APSIDAL HOUSE
Yakar,J ., '984. 'Tel Kinro,', IEJ34, '91>-91.
Yassine, K., '977-78. ' Prc-Second Millenn ium Dwellings in Palestine', ADA} '1.'2, '4-19-
Yci vin, S., 196t. First Puliminary Report on the ExctJ uations at Ttt (Gat' [Ttl ShiH 'Ahmed el- 3Artyny): Seasons 1956-1958
(J erusalem: Tel Gat Expedi tions),
- - ' 975. ' EI-'A rein i, Tell', Encyclopedia oj Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. I (Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society), 8~7 -
Zanotti, D. G ., Ig81. 'The Effects of Kurgan Wave Two on (he Eas tern Mediterranean [3200-3°00 8.C.]', J ournal of
Indo -European Studits 9, '273-302 .
26 PALESТINE EXPLORAТION QUARTERLY

1. Megiddo
2. YiCtahel
3. Beth Sbean
-4. Meser
5. jericho
6. Sidon-Dakerman
... .vt 7. 8уЫоз
8. Ro,h Hanniqra
9. Теl Тео
10. Kh.orvat Avot
11 . Beth Ha-Emeq
12. Beth УегаЬ
13. Pitbat Ha-Yarmuk
14. Еп Shadud/Sarld
15. Теl Qishyon
16. Jenin
17. Мuпhаtа
18. Те1l Umm Hammad
19. Те1l Esb-Shuneh
~O 20. Maabarot
21 . Jebel Muta\VWaq
22. Jawa
23. Lod
24. Ai
25. Apheq
26. Azor
27. Palmahim
28 . Те! Halif
14 29. Serabit еl Khadim
4 1• •
• ~6
30. Т. Ghassul

о 15km.
t::::::.ooj

Fig. 1. ЕВ 1 sites with curvilinear architecture iп Israel,

Transjordan, and Lebanon
ТНЕ APSIDAL HOUSE 27

Fig.2. Megiddo, Stages V and IV:

Suggested reconstruction ofthe building
/ phases visible in ап aerial photograph
I (Pl. !). The difТerent shadings represent
the postulating ofseparate construction
phases. (2а) The 'apsidal' house, Stage
Fig.2d IV; (2Ь) А curvilinear wall segment; (2С)
ТЬе rectangu lar house with rounded
CQrners and internal structures (earlier
constructions?) ofStage У; (2d) А
rectangular structure ofStage IV; (2е) А
curvilinear wall abutting ап outcrop оС
"-,-,-,-,,,,/1 bedrock
bedrock
11
'=-
Щ = ;: ;:.
I
'У

'У ~
 PALESТINE EXPLORAТION QUARTERLY
YIFTAHEL

::

" .,.. .

о 10т
,

SIDON-DAKERMAN

........ ... .. ,.

о 10т
,====---'

Fig. З . (А) The Early Bronze 1 village ас Yiftahel. After an aerial photo,
IDAM. (В) The Late Chalcolithic village а! Sidon-Dakerman. After Saidah
'979, Figure 2
ТНЕ APS!DAL HOUSE

\i
,~.....-
--- с

O'===_.....3m
Fig. 4. Houses fTOffi Yiftahel П. (л) Sausage-shaped;
(В ) Circular; (с) Оуа!

n
U
I

о
с
о 4m
I

Fig.5. The ' apsidal' house ofBeth Shan XVI. After Вопп 1976,
102. ( л ) The earlier phase; ( В ) The later phase; ( с ) The exterior line
ofthe peripheral wall; (D) The interior line ofthe peripheral waJl
 PALESТINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY
3°

о 3т
=~_
,=1 ..
Fig. б . Plans ofthe house ofMesser Н . (л) The do"ed line is the excavator's
suggested reconstruction. The lightly shaded агеа is а suggested reconstruc tion .
The dark shaded areas are assigned, Ьу the excavator, [Q Strашm HI . After Dothan
' 959, Figure 2. (В) Part оСа curvilinear house. After Dothan ' 959, Figure 4

в а с

о
!
2т
:

Fig. 7. The 'apsidal' house оГКепуоп ' . Proto- Urbain levels atJ ericho. After Кепуоп '98" Plates З' зЬ
з '4. ( л ) ТЬе earliest phase; ( В ) ТЬе later phases Р and Q; (с) ТЬе la tes t phase, N
THE APS I DAL HOUSE

Fig. 8. Jericho, Stratum V. After

Garstang '935, Pl. XXIV

+ +

o 4m

o ~
0 Cl
o~o
o a 0
at}
0
oJ) D Q

fj 6
00
Ood'
o 0

o 3.5m
'=====--
o 2m
!

Fig. 9. Curvilinear buildings at Sidon-Dakerman of the 'Agglomeration

Chalcolithiq ue' . (A) Maison I. AfterSaidah '979, Figure 3; (B) Maison 2. After
Saidah ' 979, F igure 4
32 PALESТIKE EXPLORAТIO N QUA R T ER LY
B Y BL OS Fig. 10 The earl y ER levels оС
51 . 46 а! BybIos . Afler Dunand
1 97З. PI.j ,a

fi;=:
1" ,

.
В С D Е Fig. 1 [ . Curvilinear houses ofthe

'8,') О-
А
ER аl BybIos. M ler Dunand 1973·
' , ,\
, ,: ~ ,
( А ) PI .j ,b., 51. 14, по. з 8

О
,~ >
" \' ", ', _... . 11
11
1\ ,
1\
( В ) PI.] ,b., 51. 14, по. 41
\~ : :~. \ ..... \ ~' ( с ) PI.] ,c., SI. 13, по. 4
--' (D) PI.],d., SI. 18, по . 1
( Е ) PI.],d., SI. 4, по. 1
F G Н J К (F) PI.],a., SI. 14, square 9/ 16
( с ) PI.],b. , SI. 14, по . з6
" ( Н ) PI. j,c., SI . 12 , по. 4

~)
') 1 ( "
,)
(1) PI.j,b., 51. 15, square 10/9
(J) PI.],b., SI. 15, square 7/ 10
( К) PI.] ,b., 51. 15, square 10/8

о 6m
ТНЕ APS!DAL HOUSE 33

~ :: ==Jl'- -=- -=- - ----.~.

---~;.,
.'
Fig. 12. The 'apsidal ' house of the
ER period at BybIos . After Dunand
I I "
'973, Figure '46

.,
.. :....... .. : ..... : : :. ..

о 3m
'==-

Fig. 1 3. Rosh Hanniqra, Stratum II .

After Tadmor and Prausnitz 1959,
Figure 4. The shaded areas аге attempts
а' defining the lines of possibIe
curvilinear walls. Note the possibiliry of
stone pavements

о 2m
'=,=~-,
 PALESТINE EXPLORAТION QUARTERLY
34

Fig. 14. The curvilinear houses of

Те! Тео У. After Eisenberg,
forthcoming, Ь

/ ---------\1:
...... - - - - - - - - -

{
\

'--- ---~'
о
I I

4т .

Fig_ 15- The curvilinear wall fragment

from the ЕВ 1 occupation at Khirbet
Avot

о 2m
0,'===~ __ ~.
ТНЕ APSIDAL HOUSE 35

"-
"- "-
"- "- .....
.....
.....
+. . . ..... .....
"-
2Q +~
14ffi ~.~
, I D '50 ,\
"-
"- I \
--
\ \
\ \ 11
+I \
\ \
\ \

+ + ~ --- ---
("
\
,---
190

,-
7
I I
_ ..::1-- - )

О 2.5 т

+
+~11
.....

I \
\
.....

+
,3
в
\\ --~
\ , 1-
7

Fig. 16. The ЕВ 1 structures at Beth Ha-emeq. (л) The plan ofthe buildings
as understood Ьу the excavator; (В) А suggested interpretation ofthe phases of
construction (the shaded areas)
( Re produced here Ьу kind permission oC the excavator, А . Kempinski .)
36 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY

Fig, 17, The curvilinear

structures of the Bahat
excavation at Beth Yerah
(Reproduced here by kind permission of
the excavator)

o 2m
,=I=~_'

Fig, 18, Plans of the houses at

Pithat ha- Yarmuk, After
Epstein 1985, Figure I

ol===-.....1m
THE APSlDAL HOUSE 37

I
/'
...- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -" Fig. 19. The elliptical house
of En Shadud I. Af1er Mazzola
I
...- - - - - - - - - - - - '\ in Braun Ig85a, Figure 28b
I
/ I
I I
I
\
I
\
o o
\ \
\ '\
'\

o 2m
!

Fig. 00. Stage I/o at Teli

Umm Hammad esh-Sharqiya.
After Helms 1980, Figure 8
з8 PALESТINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY

Fig. 21. Ап 'oval' house fromJebel

Mutawwaq . After НапЬuгу-Тепisоп
Ig8б , Figure r8, lowest register

Cfl_ _fl
O,=~~2m

Fig. 22. House MN а! Ai . After Callaway

1980, Figure 49

о 3m
'= =---"
ТНЕ APSIDAL HO U SE 39

I ~,, !!!ЩЩ!!)!\I!!\ ! !\!!,\!)!!!!!!! I, !! Щ !.!I..UJл Fig. 23. Stratum 1 at

~ 1! 1 !!' I !!'!lj!!,IJ'!\!!'!' !'!'r1L I Pa!mahim Quarry. After
I \. / / , Gophna 1974, Figure 11
,\. ~ !

~ ,

'_ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . ...i

Fig. 24 . An ova! house ( В )

from Serabit е ! Khadim. After
Beit Arieh 1980, Figure 4

\
I
I
I
/

-- --------- --
о 2m
40 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY

Plate I. Aerial photo of the ylegiddo Stages

(Reproduced here by kind permission ofche Oriental Ins titute orche Univers ity of Chicago )
THE APSIDAL HOUSE

Plate 2. Aerial photo ofYiftahel. The majority of the curvilinear walls belong to the EB I levels; others
as well as the rectilinear structures visible either belong to a post yearly EB I occupation or to Neolithic
levels
(Reproduced here by kind permission oCthe brad Department of Antiquities and Museums )
PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY

Plate 3. Yifta hel [I. (A) Oval

houses of the EB I. The
rectilinear constructioll within
the small house in the
foreground belongs to a house
of 'he Neolithic Period . Note
the pavement in the house in
'he background; (8) A large
house of 'he EB I with internal
curvilinear divider walls
THE APSIDAL HOUSE 43

Plate 4. Yiftahel II. The end

of a curvilinear house. Note the
double dividing walls and the
stone pavement