Lost for words: an extraordinary structure at the early Neolithic settlement of WF16

The paper examines how archaeologists use and should define the term ‘extraordinary,’ proposing that objects are perceived as extraordinary when they challenge existing mental categories (concepts). Using Structure O75 from the early Neolithic site WF16 (southern Jordan, ca. 11,200 BP) as a case study, the author asks whether this structure should be considered extraordinary by archaeologists and by Neolithic communities themselves. The study situates the question within theories of categorisation, concepts, and language, arguing that such exceptional finds can drive cognitive and cultural change. The purpose is to refine archaeological usage of ‘extraordinary’ and assess its implications for interpreting the Neolithic transition.

The article draws on cognitive science and linguistic theories of categorisation and concepts (e.g., Mervis and Rosch 1981; Lakoff 1987; Malt et al. 2010) to frame how categories are formed, have prototypes, and possess fuzzy boundaries, and how words both reflect and shape concepts. It reviews archaeological cases where discoveries disrupted existing categories: Neanderthal fossils challenged hominid taxonomies; Göbekli Tepe redefined expectations for early Neolithic ritual architecture; the Ness of Brodgar expanded conceptions of Neolithic Britain. The emic/etic distinction (Heider 1967; Harris 1976; Hayden 1984) is highlighted to show how archaeologists’ categories may diverge from those of past communities. Regional Neolithic literature is summarized: PPNA developments in the Levant, the Jericho tower (Kenyon), northern Levant sites with monumental/communal structures (Jerf el Ahmar, Göbekli Tepe, Dja'de, Nevalı Çori, Tell ‘Abr), and southern Levant PPNA sites on both sides of the Jordan Valley (e.g., Dhrā', ZAD 2, el-Hemmeh), including structures interpreted as granaries and mortuary buildings. This historical trajectory set archaeologists’ expectations and categories against which WF16’s Structure O75 is assessed.

This is a conceptual and interpretive study grounded in a detailed archaeological case study. The author: (1) applies theoretical frameworks from categorisation and language to archaeological classification; (2) synthesizes regional Neolithic literature to establish prevailing categories for PPNA structures; (3) draws on the excavation results from WF16 (2008–2010) and their published report (Mithen et al., 2018), including architectural recording, micro-stratigraphic analysis of plaster floors, identification of posts/stake-holes, measurement of architectural elements, and radiocarbon dating. The description of Structure O75 includes plan, dimensions, features (benches, trough, raised gullies, cup-hole mortars), evidence for roofing from post-pipes and stake-holes, phases of repair/remodelling, and an activity sequence inferred from stratigraphy and feature fills. Comparative analysis situates O75 within southern and northern Levantine PPNA architectural traditions to evaluate categorisation as domestic, communal, or monumental.

• Structure O75 at WF16 is unique in the southern Levantine PPNA: a semi-subterranean building approximately 20 × 18 m with an amphitheater-like arrangement of benches (over 1 m deep, up to 0.5 m high), including a second tier in places, and probable platform at the NW apex. The lower bench on the southern side bears a wave-pattern decoration.
• The interior is bilaterally symmetrical around a central, vertical-sided mud-plastered trough (~0.75 m wide, ~1.2 m deep), with three pairs of raised gullies radiating toward it in a herringbone pattern. Two embedded cup-hole mortars sit on raised floor platforms.
• Numerous post- and stake-holes indicate at least partial roofing; multiple scenarios for complex roof construction are proposed due to the span and load-bearing constraints.
• Micro-stratigraphy shows repeated plastering, repairs, and remodelling: alterations to perimeter walls; plastering-over of basins/post-holes near the trough; removal/plastering over channels in raised gullies; creation of internal bands/berms; subsequent laying of a new plaster floor; later construction of Structure O100 within O75 after its primary use ceased.
• Chronology: initial construction estimated at 11,320–11,240 cal BP, with activity resulting in fills of internal features lasting up to ~800 years.
• Use/function: features could support communal plant processing (cup-hole mortars), pigment grinding, and performance/ceremonial activities suggested by amphitheater-like design. Faunal evidence includes cut marks on large raptor bird bones implying skin/feather use as regalia; abundant stone and shell beads indicate high personal adornment.
• Comparative context: O75 is far larger and more complex than other semi-subterranean PPNA structures in the southern Levant and does not fit comfortably within established categories of domestic architecture. In a broader regional frame, it aligns partially with ‘communal’ or ‘monumental’ structures (e.g., Jerf el Ahmar’s large buildings, Jericho tower, Göbekli Tepe enclosures), yet its scale and design keep it difficult to categorise precisely.
• Conceptual implication: O75 exemplifies an ‘extraordinary’ object that challenges existing archaeological categories, illustrating how such finds can stimulate re-categorisation and contribute to understanding cognitive and linguistic change during the Neolithic transition.

The study’s framing of ‘extraordinary’ as a category-challenging property is applied to Structure O75. Within WF16 and the southern Levant, O75 is extraordinary given its unprecedented size, complex internal architecture, symmetry, and possible performance-oriented design. The building likely required large-scale cooperative labor and served as a focus of communal activity, possibly attracting aggregations from beyond the settlement. This supports interpretations of PPNA societies as experiencing pulses of rapid cultural change with diverse architectural expressions at community and regional scales. In broader perspective, O75 invites reconsideration of categories such as ‘domestic,’ ‘communal,’ and ‘monumental’ structures, whose boundaries appear fuzzy in the early Neolithic. The difficulty in naming and categorising O75 underscores the reciprocal relationship between words and concepts: lacking precise terms (e.g., ‘communal building’ being too vague) reflects conceptual flux. The paper argues that extraordinary structures not only challenge archaeologists’ etic categories but likely also challenged emic conceptual schemes of PPNA peoples, thereby acting as agents in cognitive and linguistic change associated with the transition from foraging to farming.

The paper cautions against casual use of ‘extraordinary’ and proposes a conceptual criterion: objects that do not comfortably fit existing categories. Structure O75 at WF16 meets this criterion in the southern Levantine PPNA, prompting reconsideration of architectural categories and functions beyond the domestic sphere. When viewed alongside the Jericho tower and Göbekli Tepe enclosures, O75 could be part of a new or refined category of central communal/ritual or monumental locations, though terminology remains unsatisfactory and boundaries fuzzy. The study suggests that such rare, regionally dispersed constructions were likely extraordinarily significant to contemporary communities and contributed to shifts in concepts and language during the Neolithic transition. Future research should expand discovery and documentation of comparable structures, refine terminology for early Neolithic communal/monumental architecture, and integrate emic-etic considerations to better interpret function and social roles.

• Functional interpretation remains uncertain; features (e.g., cup-hole mortars, raised gullies) admit multiple readings (plant processing, pigment grinding, space division, performance).
• O75 and many WF16 structures are only partially excavated; preservation and incomplete exposure constrain interpretation (e.g., roof reconstructions are hypothetical).
• Regional comparanda are limited; similar structures may exist undiscovered, so assessments of extraordinariness are provisional.
• Emic perspectives are inaccessible in prehistory; archaeological categories may not correspond to past conceptual schemes, potentially biasing interpretations.
• Some site data are synthesized from prior reports; the present article does not present new excavation methods/data in detail, relying on published analyses (e.g., micro-stratigraphy, radiocarbon).