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

The paper begins by defining "extraordinary" objects in archaeology as those that challenge our existing mental categories or concepts. The author uses Structure O75 at WF16, a large structure dating to c. 11,200 BP, as an example to explore this definition. The paper examines the role of categorization and concepts in human thought and action, drawing on research in cognitive science. It argues that encountering extraordinary objects forces us to reconsider our concepts and often leads to the development of new terminology to accommodate them. The introduction emphasizes the close relationship between words and concepts, highlighting how shared language facilitates shared concepts and cultural practices. The author notes that what is considered extraordinary can vary across cultures, emphasizing the importance of both etic (outsider) and emic (insider) perspectives in archaeological interpretation. The paper sets the stage for analyzing Structure O75 within its broader cultural and historical context, ultimately examining whether its 'extraordinariness' is a product of archaeological biases or reflects the genuinely unique nature of the structure and the cultural changes it represents.

The paper reviews the history of Neolithic research in the Levant, highlighting how existing categories and concepts have been shaped by past discoveries. It discusses the impact of significant finds like Göbekli Tepe and the Ness of Brodgar, which initially challenged established notions of Neolithic capabilities and lifestyles but have since been incorporated into revised understandings. The review also explores the relationship between language and concepts, demonstrating how the creation of new words (like "dinosaur") can help to establish and disseminate new concepts. The paper also touches upon the difficulties in understanding and interpreting ambiguous terms, using "Brexit" and the Christian Trinity as examples. Finally, the review discusses the challenges of interpreting prehistoric artifacts and structures, particularly the potential mismatch between etic (archaeological) and emic (the inhabitants') categorization systems. This review sets the stage for the analysis of Structure O75 by illustrating the influence of historical biases and the dynamic nature of archaeological understanding.

The methodology primarily involves analyzing the archaeological data from Structure O75 at WF16, drawing on previous excavation reports (Mithen et al., 2018). The analysis focuses on the structure's size, design, materials, and internal features to understand its potential function and significance. The author compares Structure O75 to other known Neolithic structures in the Levant, both in the southern and northern regions, to assess its uniqueness. This comparative analysis utilizes existing archaeological classifications and typologies, while also acknowledging their limitations and potential biases. The interpretation of the structure's function considers various possibilities, including communal plant processing, pigment grinding, and ritual or ceremonial activities. Evidence for the structure's construction, including post-holes and stake-holes, is analyzed to propose possible roof structures. Micro-stratigraphic analysis of the floor helps to understand the structure's use-life and any remodeling or repairs that took place. The author also considers the distribution and types of artifacts found within the structure to contextualize its use. The methodology highlights the iterative and interpretative nature of archaeological analysis, balancing detailed observation of the structure itself with broader comparative and contextual information.

Structure O75 at WF16 is a large (20m x 18m), semi-subterranean structure with a complex internal design. It features two tiers of benches, a central trough, and radiating gullies. The structure shows evidence of multiple phases of construction and remodeling. Artifacts found within the structure suggest communal activities, including potential plant processing and the creation of personal adornments. The size and design of the structure, especially its symmetrical layout and possible roof, suggest a significant communal effort in construction and usage. Analysis of the bone tools implies the use of bird feathers for regalia. The structure's size dwarfs other similar structures in the Southern Levant, making it unique within that regional context. Compared to structures in the wider Levant, such as the enclosures at Göbekli Tepe and the tower at Jericho, O75 shares characteristics suggesting a role in communal or ritual activities. However, it differs in form, suggesting a spectrum of designs for large-scale communal structures within the PPNA period. The extensive remodeling over time suggests prolonged use and significance to the community. The paper concludes that Structure O75 does not fit comfortably into existing categories of Neolithic structures. Its scale and complexity challenge preconceived notions about the capabilities and social organization of early Neolithic communities in the southern Levant, highlighting the fuzzy boundaries of current Neolithic categorizations and the need for new terminology to reflect the diversity of early Neolithic structures.

The findings challenge the existing categorization of early Neolithic structures in the Levant. Structure O75’s size and complexity suggest more sophisticated social organization and communal efforts than previously assumed for the region during the PPNA period. The uniqueness of Structure O75 highlights the limitations of current typologies and the need for a more nuanced understanding of the variability within early Neolithic societies. Its extraordinary features are likely to have been equally extraordinary for the people who built and used it, suggesting a period of rapid cultural and cognitive change. The discovery pushes for a reevaluation of the prevailing notions of the Neolithic transition, underscoring the dynamism and heterogeneity of early Neolithic settlements. The lack of suitable words to describe structures like O75 emphasizes the need for new conceptual frameworks in Neolithic archaeology to reflect this diversity and avoid oversimplifying the complexity of the past.

Structure O75 at WF16 is an extraordinary find, challenging our existing categories and concepts of early Neolithic structures. Its unique characteristics suggest a level of social organization and communal activity beyond what was previously recognized for the region. The paper emphasizes the need for new terminology and conceptual frameworks to capture the diversity of early Neolithic structures and avoid the pitfalls of imposing our current categories on the past. Future research should focus on identifying similar structures to refine our understanding of the distribution and function of such monumental architecture and the cognitive and linguistic changes associated with the Neolithic transition.

The analysis is limited by the incomplete excavation of the site and some uncertainties in interpreting the structure’s function. The scarcity of comparable structures limits the potential for robust comparative analysis. The emic perspective of the early Neolithic inhabitants remains inaccessible, leaving some aspects of the structure's meaning open to interpretation. Future excavations and interdisciplinary studies could help refine the interpretations and overcome these limitations.