The study investigates the transition from hunter-gatherer to agricultural societies in the Southern Levant during the Neolithization process. The authors argue that by focusing on initially rare occurrences of phenomena that later become common, we can gain insights into the gradual nature of cultural innovation. They posit that studying these "extraordinary" features provides a unique lens to understanding the transition. The research centers on a specific archaeological feature, a round plastered installation (Feature 6) discovered at the Late Natufian site of Nahal Ein Gev II (NEG II). This feature, while seemingly mundane in later Neolithic contexts, is exceptional in the Late Natufian period. The introduction highlights the importance of studying seemingly ordinary remains to understand past human behavior and worldviews. The authors acknowledge that the definition of "extraordinary" is multifaceted and propose that rarity in relation to later periods serves as a useful criterion. This approach complements the usual focus on common artifacts in defining cultural units, offering a dynamic perspective on cultural change and the adoption of new technologies and practices. The Neolithization of the Southern Levant, with its rapid cultural shifts, is presented as an ideal case study for observing the emergence and spread of such 'extraordinary' then 'mundane' features. The Late Natufian period, characterized by increased sedentism, complex architecture, and innovative technologies, acts as a crucial backdrop against which the 'extraordinary' feature is analyzed. The Natufian culture shows signs of increased complexity in daily life including the appearance of more permanent architectural features and the use of sickles which indicate a shift towards plant food harvesting. The introduction concludes by introducing Feature 6 as the focal point of the study and its importance in illuminating the process of cultural change leading up to the Neolithic period. This feature is presented as a “hole in the ground” which will be shown to have significance.

The paper reviews existing literature on Neolithization in the Southern Levant, emphasizing the long-term socio-cultural evolution and the multifaceted changes involved beyond simply a shift in subsistence. The authors discuss previous research on identifying the functions of plastered installations, highlighting the use of pyrogenic alteration as a key indicator in distinguishing between hearths, kilns, and storage installations. They reference studies on the use of lime plaster in the Near East and its increasing prevalence in the Neolithic period, contrasting its rarity in the Epipaleolithic. This literature review establishes the theoretical and methodological frameworks for the study, particularly the challenges in interpreting the functions of ancient structures and the importance of contextual analysis. The authors also discuss the debate regarding the timing of the development of surplus and storage in relation to the transition to agriculture, mentioning different theoretical perspectives on this relationship. The review highlights the limitations of archaeological records in capturing the complete picture of past societies, particularly the ‘silent’ phases of gradual cultural change, leading to a need for refined analytical techniques and a nuanced understanding of the transitions between foraging and farming. The review also highlights the shift in understanding of the hunter-gatherer/agriculturalist dichotomy, acknowledging the complexities and variations in societal organization during this transitional period. The Competitive Feasting Theory is mentioned as an example of alternative perspectives on the dynamics of this transitional period.

The study employed a micro-geoarchaeological approach to investigate Feature 6 at NEG II. This involved a combination of Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy and micromorphology. FTIR spectroscopy was used to analyze samples from the feature’s walls and interior fill to detect any signs of pyrogenic alteration indicative of high-temperature use, such as cooking or kiln activity. Samples were also compared to experimentally heated control samples to establish a baseline for identifying heat-induced changes. This method is based on observations of changes in absorption bands related to hydroxyl groups and shifts in silicate absorption bands in clay materials at elevated temperatures. The analysis specifically aimed to detect evidence of heating above 500°C which is characteristic of cooking or kiln installations. Micromorphology involved the preparation and analysis of a thin section from an undisturbed sediment block taken from the center of the installation. This allowed for a detailed examination of the sediment’s composition, structure, and the arrangement of organic and inorganic components including identifying the presence of any activity residues that may indicate the original function of Feature 6. The micromorphological analysis used the terminology of Stoops (2003) for describing the sedimentary fabric. Control samples were also taken from a nearby terrace to compare the natural soil composition with the archaeological samples and to aid in interpreting the results of the experimental heating. The methodology section clearly outlines the procedures undertaken to investigate Feature 6. The selection of FTIR and micromorphology as the primary analytical methods is justified in relation to the research question, ensuring the identification of potential high-temperature use and detailed characterization of the sediment fill. The methodological rigor and detail greatly enhance the credibility of the study's findings.

FTIR analysis revealed no signs of pyrogenic alteration in the samples from Feature 6's walls and interior fill, indicating that the feature was not subjected to temperatures above 500°C. This ruled out its use as a kiln or for cooking. Micromorphological analysis of the sediment infilling the installation revealed a chaotic microstructure, indicative of mixed archaeological deposits including flint, bone fragments, fire residues, and the local unburnt sediment. The chaotic arrangement of these materials suggests a secondary context, consistent with the feature being used as a refuse pit after its initial purpose. The micromorphology also revealed the presence of mud plaster and lime plaster in the installation. The FTIR analysis also confirmed the presence of lime plaster in the walls. While some aggregates showed signs of pyrogenic alteration, these are interpreted as fragments of lime plaster deposited after the wall collapsed. The analysis concluded that the installation’s walls were not exposed to elevated temperatures ruling out its function as a kiln or for cooking by fire. The study also provided a reconstruction of Feature 6's structure, suggesting a dome-like shape to protect the interior. The alternating layers of mud and lime plaster may have been part of a pre-planned design or a result of repeated plastering for maintenance. The unique construction technology combining lime and earth-based plaster is highlighted as unusual for the Late Natufian context, suggesting a level of investment uncommon for other architectural features at NEG II. The analysis indicates that the fill represents a chaotic mixture of waste products from various activities and does not contain evidence for organized activities such as storage. The key findings section provides a concise summary of the results from the FTIR and micromorphological analyses, which are crucial in interpreting the function of Feature 6. The absence of high-temperature alteration supports the conclusion that it wasn’t used for cooking or as a kiln. The characterization of the sediment fill as a secondary deposit adds further weight to this conclusion. The detailed description of the installation's structure and construction provides valuable insights into its design and the technologies employed.

The findings suggest that Feature 6, while unusual for its time, is remarkably similar to later Neolithic storage installations. The absence of evidence for high-temperature activity combined with its structural characteristics, points towards a probable function as a storage facility, although the lack of direct evidence (such as preserved plant remains) prevents definitive confirmation. The study contributes to a broader understanding of the gradual nature of cultural innovation during the Neolithization process. The authors argue that Feature 6 represents an early example of a storage installation, anticipating the widespread use of such structures in the Neolithic period. The discussion relates the findings back to the research questions, highlighting the significance of Feature 6 as an early example of a structure that later becomes common. The unique characteristics of the feature, notably the use of lime and clay plaster, are discussed in relation to technological innovation and the growing importance of storage during the transition to agriculture. The limitations of interpreting function based solely on preservation are acknowledged, emphasizing the need for future research to potentially discover direct evidence for its use. The study provides further evidence for the continuous and gradual nature of the transition from foraging to farming in the Southern Levant. The relative rarity of this type of installation in the Late Natufian suggests that the transition towards storage practices likely began earlier than previously thought and potentially involved a gradual adoption of new technologies and practices.

This study demonstrates the value of analyzing seemingly mundane archaeological features to understand the process of cultural change. Feature 6 at NEG II, a round plastered installation, is shown to be an 'extraordinary' example of a storage structure which foreshadows the common storage installations of later Neolithic periods. This research highlights the gradual and continuous nature of the transition to agriculture in the Southern Levant and supports the idea that characteristic features of the Neolithic were forming earlier than previously recognized. Future research should focus on further excavation at NEG II and similar sites to find additional evidence for storage and other practices that might support the interpretations presented in this study.

The main limitation of this study is the lack of direct evidence to confirm the original function of Feature 6. While the analysis strongly suggests that it was used for storage, the absence of preserved plant or other material remains prevents definitive conclusions. The secondary infilling of the feature has obscured primary evidence that might indicate more about its initial use. Future research might uncover further evidence to help clarify the exact purpose of this installation and further detail its role in the transition to agriculture. The study also focuses on a single case study; further investigation of similar features across the region is needed to strengthen the interpretations and conclusions drawn.