 |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Contents
7.2.1 The Emergence of the Pre Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA 8300 - 7300 bc) 7.2.1.1 The Levant The Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Levant emerges quite abruptly from the Final Natufian at around 10,300-10,000bp. Radiocarbon dates suggest that it began in the central Levant. The PPNA is marked by both artefactual and settlement distribution, size and form changes, as well as some major economic changes focused around the deliberate cultivation of cereals and legumes, and the late domestication of certain animal species. Some long established Natufian villages were abandoned while other Final Natufian villages became much larger. The main differences between the Natufian and the PPNA are summarized as follows:
In addition, Nadel (2003) points to shifting densities of animal bones and flint implements as a key feature of change over time from the Epipalaeolithic to the PPNA, dropping from many hundreds to several tens, although the proportions tend to be consistent. 7.2.1.2 The Zagros Region The topography in the mountainous Zagros area is very different from that of the Levantine corridor, and each appears to have been impacted in distinct ways at the end of the Pleistocene and during the early Holocene. These topographical and environmental differences are matched by differences in the archaeological data which argues for distinct processes in each area: “In contrast with the southern Levant, where there is a seamless transition from Natufian to Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and PPNB, a completely satisfactory transition has not been established from the Epipalaeolithic Zarzian to the oldest villages of the Zagros” (Hole 1996, p. 267). Following the still poorly defined Zarzian, the next evidence consists of a series of pre-ceramic Neolithic cave and open sites, the oldest of which dates to the Younger Dryas, even though the Middle Euphrates area was occupied during this time. There may have been a hiatus in occupation between the Epipalaeolithic and the Neolithic. If this is the case, the origins of the earliest farming in Zagros needs to be understood in the context of direct relationships with the Levantine zone. It may be that this temporal gap could be accounted for by climatic deterioration and the need to relocate to lower zones where conditions were not so severe. Reoccupation following the period of abandonment took place at around the time of the Younger Dryas. Round houses characterize sites like Karim Shahir, Zawi Chemi, Shanidar B1, M’fleet and Gird Chai (Hole 1996, p.271). Artefacts include grinding and pounding tools, celts, and clay figurines. Faunal remains consist largely of wild sheep and goat. Intensive use of caprines appears in the Zagros before it appears elsewhere in southwest Asia, so it appears to have been established independently from plant cultivation. 7.2.2 PPNA Settlement Distribution There is a clear change of settlement distribution from previous periods when hunter-gatherer groups chose campsites based on optimal hunting and gathering areas. The Jordan Valley and riverbanks were now more intensively occupied – areas suitable for cereal cultivation. The growth of populations throughout the PPNA is made explicit by the number of PPNB sites, and the success of the adaptation is shown by the spread of agriculture into neighbouring areas. There are very few sites belonging to the PPNA from marginal areas like eastern Jordan or the southern Levant - as Garrard (1998) points out, this is odd because the Younger Dryas had ended and conditions were now moister which might have encouraged occupation of these areas. Sites dating to this period are present and in northern Syria include Mureybet, Jerf el Ahmar and Abu Hureyra. Those sites known in the Zagros, including M’lefaat, Zawi Cheni, Asiab and Ganj Dereh level E are not well understood but appear not to be directly related to the PPNA. During the PPNA Anatolian sites appear to have had an economy very like that of the Natufian, evolving during the PPNB. Neighbouring regions were still hunter-gatherer communities at this time – including Egypt, Europe and Mesopotamia. 7.2.3 PPNA Settlement Structures Throughout the PPNA the smallest sites were around 100-150 sq m. in area, medium sites were between 2000 and 3000 sq m., and larger sites, the first true villages, were between 2.5 and 3.0 hectares. By the late 9th millennium bc some settlements in the Levant were up to six times larger than those in the Natufian. Compared to the Natufian, dwellings and storage systems were more elaborate, and plant processing equipment increased. The earliest settlement structures dating to the PPNA include layers at Jericho and Nahal Oren in the southern Levant and at Nevit Hagdud in the Lower Jordan Valley. The earliest of the PPNA structures are all round or oval, although towards the end of the period at Jericho there are sub-rectangular structures. Stone was the most common building material for the lower superstructure, but mud-brick was also employed, and as at the much earlier Ohalo II, perishable materials were probably used for the upper level of the structure. Interior organization varies even on an intra-settlement basis, with inner partitions rare but present at Netiv Hagdud, and size of structure varying between 5 to 32m2. Installations included occasional hearths, piles of fire-cracked stones, common occurrences of limestone slaps with cup-marks set into the floor so that the surface was level with the floor, and some implement caches (Nadel 2003, p.42). Large quantities of flint, bone and other debris is indicative of domestic activities within dwellings. In the larger sites, which can be described as villages, houses may consist of one or two rooms with small features like hearths and storage bins. Individual structures are usually subterranean. They are usually mud-brick built, sometimes on stone foundations. Rooves are unknown. According to the analysis of plant and animal remains they appear to have been occupied on a year-round basis. Storage silos were found at Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Gigal and Mureybet. Villages on this scale were possibly supplemented by seasonal occupation (Bar Yosef and Meadow 1995). Rare public structures feature. At Jerf el Ahmar, one of the northern Syrian sites, (c.9600-8500BC) a possibly communal circular structure was surrounded by both circular and rectangular buildings. There were many architectural, industrial, burial and other components, including female figurines, which placed it within the PPNA, but at some of the Zagros sites there were also affinities with the Zarzian of Iran, perhaps indicating that this was a complex area in terms of both ethnicity and affinities. At most sites it is impossible to distinguish floor levels, and deposit thickness can exceed 50cm, although at Jericho it is clear that there were successive deposits of floors and buildings. Apart from the absence of U-shaped structures there are considerable similarities with the preceding Natufian – the round and oval shapes, semi-subterranean floors, the combined use of stone and perishables for the sides of structures, and the interior design based on one room and one entrance, apart from rare PPNA examples where internal partitioning was very occasionally used. The PPNA industry differs from that of the Natufian in a number of key ways:
Rosen (1997) describes the PPNA form of Sultanian sickle, a diagnostic tool through to the Iron Age, as a backed blade which is usually characterized by luster but has little retouch. They are longer than the Natufian sickle blades, but they show similar retouch. Rosen suggests that they show no particular signs of specialization. The PPNA appears to represent a fundamentally important new way of doing things, but is much disputed. Most authorities today are agreed on a number of points about the diachronic order of adoption of agriculture, as follows:
Most other data are either disputed, or are impacted by the character of the data available. For example, it is still unclear if cultivation occurred simultaneously in different Near Eastern regions, or originated in one centre from which all other Near Eastern practices derived. 7.2.5.1 Plant Cultivation and Domestication Some claims have been made for early plant domesticated forms at Tel Aswad, Jericho, Gilgal and Netiv Hagdud, in the form of 2-row barley and possibly wheat. At Tel Aswad emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum) is well represented, and no wild forms have been found in the early phase. Wild cereals were distributed throughout the Levant, but restricted to certain areas:
As described in section 6.0, there are numerous models for how the transition to agriculture occurred, frequently debated, but no single solution has so far emerged as a more convincing than those of its competitors. Some writers see the transition as a slow change and emphasize a gradual process with considerable continuity in adoption and expansion of plant agriculture. Others see a model similar to Stephen Jay Gould’s “pulse” theory of evolution – a rapid transition throughout the Levant from the Palaeolithic to the Natufian, and then another rapid transition from the Late Natufian to the Neolithic. Whatever the model, each of these transitional phases was probably impacted to some extent by environmental changes after the last glaciation. New ways of organizing subsistence and, in turn, changes in technology, in social organization and in decision making certainly occurred. The spread of cultivation during the PPNA has also been much discussed. Bar-Yosef and Meadow (1995, p.90) believe “that there is now ample evidence to demonstrate that cultivation began first in the southern Levant and spread from there quite rapidly”, although others see the central Levant as a more plausible source. Hayden (1995) describes a number of “core recurring traits” that make up “a cluster of interrelated variables”, and which were present immediately prior to plant domestication, with particular reference to the Near East (p.277), the main features of which are:
Other factors potentially include:
Garrard et al (1996 p.207-208; 1999) provide an overview of a number of key diachronic developments in the use of cereals in the Near East, based on several studies, as follows:
Similarly, Garrard (1999) offers the following developments in pulse and other plant exploitation:
Flax was also domesticated during this period – it was not used for food, but its seeds were probably used for oil (linseed oil) and its fibres were widely used for textile manufacture. It was found at Iraq ed-Dubb, northern Jordan and Mureybet. Fruit and nut was represented over the entire region, with pistachios in every area, with fig, almond and caper common. Acorn was found at Netiv Hagdud. 7.2.5.2 Animal Exploitation PPNA sites have produced little in the way of faunal remains. Where found, PPNA faunal assemblages are dominated by wild species, particularly gazelle in the Levant and equids in marginal areas and at sites like Mureybet. Cattle, boar, goat and some deer were also exploited. During the PPNA there is absolutely no evidence of animal husbandry. Exchange is reflected to some extent by some of the more distinctive lithics common to most PPNA sites include the Khiam Point (from Abu-Madi in Sinai to Iraq), Tahurian axes and the raw material Anatolian obsidian. Gopher’s (1989) study on the Helwan Point has also suggested a north to south diffusion of cultural components and ideas already in existence during the Natufian and PPNA, demonstrating a potential for increasing complexity of communications by the PPNB. Although Gopher does not suggest that trade was involved in this diffusion of raw materials (possibly together with ideas), he does highlight that different levels of contact were present: “If the existence of these different levels of contact can be shown in the PPN Levant, then we may suggest the existence of an overall socioeconomic framework, including subsystems that maintained complicated inter-relationships. Diverse local adaptations to available resources are to be expected, as well as cultural/stylistic preferences” (1989, p.93). Increasing complexity in the PPNB might be demonstrated by the appearance of domesticated sheep in a number of areas in a similar time-span. The probable acquisition of domesticated sheep in the southern Levant and eastern Jordan via Anatolia suggests that routes established earlier were maintained, perhaps for communication, exchange, or other reasons. In short, there are clear signs of communication of some description between the northern and southern areas of the Levant (perhaps even as far as Egypt in the case of the Helwan Point), from the Natufian onwards. Burials occur at some PPNA sites. Removal of skulls from adults was common. At Nemrik 9, in the Zagros mountains, projectile points were found embedded within human burials, perhaps indicating that the above-mentioned mixture of affinities with both the Zarzian of Iran and the PPNA of the Levant may have been a sign of less than peaceful mingling of elements and perhaps peoples (Bellwood 2005, p.60). Unlike the Natufian, few art objects are found in connection with the PPNA. However, there are a significant number of female figurines. 7.2.9 PPNA Social Organization Nadel (2003) says that “numerous ethnographic examples and various studies provide a model in which there is direct correlation between social structure and complexities of architectural dwellings” (p.42) which is measured by the number of rooms, and the use of passage ways to connect public and private areas, and the distinction between outer and innermost rooms. He goes on “if the model is correct, and the basic unit of dwelling reflects social structure, then the basic social unit did not change much from the days of Ohalo II until the end of the PPNA (p.42). However, he later warns on the basis of technological and economic changes that “one cannot always use architectural characteristics as a direct correlation of the general social structure” (2003, p.44). During the PPNA the Levant saw the rise of a variety of small points of highly distinctive forms. The El Khiam point is usually interpreted as an arrowhead and sites associated with them are usually described as hunting camps. However, a project at Reading University looking at use-wear on these tools from Dhra’ and Wadi Fayan 16 suggest instead that they were used as drill bits and perforators – which significantly impacts an understanding of these sites associated with them. There were differences in the manufacturing techniques between the two sites which indicate variation between the people who made them (Smith, thesis). The Sultanian was located in the Jordan Valley and neighbouring ranges of hills. Sites where the Sultanian has been identified in the Jordan Valley include Jericho, Gilgal, Netiv Hagdud, Iraq ed-Dubb and Nahal Oren. In the northern Levant sites similar to the Sultanian but distinct from it include Mureybet, Jerf el Ahmar (Syria) and Cayonu (Turkey). The Sultanian is largely defined by the lithic industry. It is characterized by an industry featuring single platform blade cores. Tools include retouched pieces, El Khiam points, sickle blades, a vast number of bladelets (mostly burins and perforators), lunates, retouched bladelets, Netiv-Hagdud truncations, tranchet axe/adzes, Tahunian axes and polished celts of limestone or basalt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Copyright (text and images) Andie Byrnes 2005, unless otherwise stated
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
