Search

The Deep Past as a Social Asset in the Levant (DEEPSAL) project, conducted in 2015–16 by the Council for British Research in the Levant, examined two communities in southern Jordan, Beidha and Basta, who live near significant Neolithic archaeological sites. The project collected information on the communities' current socioeconomic conditions, their relationship with local cultural heritage and how that cultural heritage currently benefits or hinders them. The information was used to inform nascent strategies to utilize the sites sustainably as development assets and suggest alternative strategies as necessary. The results showed that a tourism-based strategy is suitable for Beidha but there was a need to focus on basic business skills. For Basta a tourism-based strategy is currently unsuitable, and efforts should rather focus on supporting educational activities. The results of the project are presented here within the context of archaeology's increasing interest to use archaeological resource to benefit local communities, and outlines lessons for that effort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding Neolithic sites in southwest Asia is often difficult because of the lack of preservation of organic remains and the effects of various taphonomic processes that alter the original record. Here, we use an ethnographic approach to test the potential of using plant phytoliths and geochemistry to aid our interpretation of southwest Asian Neolithic sites. Our study of a recently abandoned stone and mud constructed village in Jordan, shows that for certain activity types, phytoliths and geochemistry can help distinguish different construction methods and functions, particularly for burnt areas, animal use areas and where there has been the addition of a specific construction material. For features constructed from the same source materials distinctions are more problematic. Geochemical and phytolith proxies were individually effective in distinguishing activity areas and construction materials, but signals were diminished when the statistical analysis was run on both forms of evidence combined. It is therefore recommended that the data from plant phytolith and geochemical analyses are subject to separate statistical tests and that the two sets of results are used in combination to interpret archaeological sites and their uses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]