 |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Contents:
7.4 Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (7300 - 5900bc) 5.4.1 Establishment of the PPNB The origins of the PPNB in the southern and central Levant are somewhat obscure (Tchernov in Horwitz 1999). Unlike the PPNA, which is thought from radiocarbon dates to have begun in the central Levant, the PPNB may have started in the northern Levant, specifically northern Syria, and southeast Turkey, and diffused to the south and west into Anatolia. It has been suggested, on the basis of technology, that the PPNB began in the northern areas of the Levant and diffused south (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1991). Evidence that they cite includes einkorn wheat, which was apparently only domesticated once and in Anatolia (Zvelbil 1996), chickpeas (which were certainly derived first from the northern Levant or Anatolia) Anatolian obsidian, and domesticated sheep and goat. Bar-Yosef and Meadow (1995) also cite lithic reduction strategies. However, some writers describe the core of the PPNB as the Levant, because of some of the more socially evolved components like the clay-covered skulls and the figurines that appear in the southern Levant. Proponents of a southern Levantine core area are not disputing that PPNB features certainly occur in other areas, although with distinctive regional differences. The most dramatic changes in the prehistory of the Near East occur with the PPNB, when rectangular structures were introduced, with partitioning, plaster was used as a decorative device and 2-floor buildings occurred for the first time. New types of lithic reduction strategy were also introduced at this time. The main changes are summarized as follows:
Gopher (1989) explicitly warns about the dangers of misinterpreting the implications of PPNB innovations by seeing the southern Levant out of the broader context of the rest of the region. He suggests that studies of the southern Levant in isolation have lead to a view that the introduction of new forms like the naviform cores and rectilinear structures was sudden and drastic, but that in fact the new forms were innovated first in the north and spread south. He sees the new elements as simply “part of the regular ‘standard’ processes operating within the Levantine PPN system” (1989, p.102). He argues, therefore, that the separation between the PPNA and the PPNB are exaggerated and that the PPN should be seen as a homogenous unit. Horwitz et al (1999) say that “During the PPNB, the southern Levant would have experienced substantial summer rainfall (in addition to rain in winter, followed by a trend of warming and aridification in the post-PPNB characterized by rainy winters and dry, hot summers” (1999, p.64). The southern Levant is the only Near Eastern area which provides a well dated Neolithic sequence, which has led to a concentration of archaeological work in this area, and as a result perhaps a biased view of its importance. However, initial domestication maybe north of here. The PPNB is divided into four phases: Early (7500-7200bc), Middle (7200-6500bc), Late (c.6500-6000bc) and Final, each around 500 years in duration. The PPNB in the Levant shares the same chronological space as the PPNC at Ain Ghazal. 5.4.2 PPNB Settlement Distribution By 8000BC PPNB affinities appear at sites outside the Levant, including Ganj Dareh, Tepe Guran and Ali Kosh. There is no evidence of the spread of agriculture into Zagros before this time. Farming communities had expanded, increasing both population numbers and the amount of land under cultivation. Most of the larger sites are in the Levantine corridor or in south-central Anatolia, in valleys and basins. How this process of agricultural expansion happened is unclear. Existing hunter-gatherer communities may have adopted the new techniques from neighbours, or agricultural communities may themselves have spread into new areas as populations began to expand: “Farmers . . . with their knowledge of how to grow crops, can pioneer new arable land, but only if it is available in an area where they are allowed to settle or where they can enforce their will to cultivate” (Bar-Yosef and Meadow 1995, p.82). Anatolia became increasingly important at this time, with the establishment of major sites like Cayonu and Catal Huyuk. It is not known how agriculture was established in Anatolia during the PPNB – whether it was colonized or whether Anatolian inhabitants adopted the Levantine economic practices for themselves: “the debate concerning wither most of the first southeast Anatolian PPNB farmers were of Levantine descent is still open” (Bar-Yosef and Meadow 1995, p.81). This is discussed further in section 7.0. Although marginal settlement was rare in the early PPNB, smaller sites occur on each side of the Levantine Corridor, particularly in the desert, coastal and steppe areas. Most of these smaller sites continued to be bases for hunter-gathering groups, some foraging camps, some peripheral to the main settlement sites. Semi-arid areas occupied include El-Kom basin, the Black Desert, the Azraq Basin, south Jordan, Negev, Sinai. In the southern Sinai, for example, seasonal hunting and gathering activities were carried out in the winter and summer. Grinding stones and storage pits were found, indicating that plant foods were used and that occupations were not necessarily very short-term. Marine shells were also found. Sites in Azraq, Sinai and the Negev were apparently all seasonally occupied with small-scale and simple curved stone-walled dwellings. In geographical terms, all of the Late PPNA and early PPNB sites associated with early cultivation were located near water resources of some sort (springs, lakes, rivers). Examples of sites include Jericho, Tell Aswad, Netiv Hagdud and Mureybet. Land that was appropriate for cultivation and had water nearby was not common, and Bellwood (2005, p.57) suggests that this may well have accounted for the degree of individual site growth which is visible in the PPNB. This type of nucleation may also have had other impacts later on. 5.4.3 PPNB Settlement Organization Hayden (1995) has estimated that the PPNB had a population that was 16 times greater than that of the Natufian, distributed in both the large and small sites that characterize the PPNB. Bar-Yosef and Meadow (1995) define large sites as those which exceed 10 hectares in area, which could have housed between 1000 and 2000 people, and included central places which probably performed community or religious roles. Bellwood (2005, p.61) describes them as “virtually towns”. The very first rectangular buildings occur in the PPNB, the first break in architectural design to appear in the Near East, some of which were partitioned. Although small oval and circular structures were still the preferred form in the desert and other marginal zones. Many had plaster floors, and usually had foundations of stone with superstructures of wattle and daub. Smaller sites include Tell Magzaliyah in northern Iraq Considerable regional variation can be observed at this time in terms of house plan. Ba’ja and Ain Ghazal both featured two-storey structures, and at Ba’ja stone walls of over 4m survive. In the southeast Taurus a grill plan was followed, for example at Cayonu, but was later replaced by rectangular division into cells – as at Cayonu, Basta and Nevat Cori. Single-roomed dwellings feature at Ramad. At Beidha and Basta in Jordan, Bouqras in Syria and Nevali Cori in Anatolia, late PPNB structures of single-room structures appear to have been accessed by the roof. The first occurrences of community structures, all slightly different, appear at this time. A rectangular mudbrick shrine from Jericho, a circular structure from Ain Ghazal and a rectangular stone-walled building at Nevali Cori all date to this period. These changes in design from houses in the preceding Natufian and PPNA periods suggest to Bar-Yosef and Meadow that there were significant changes in social organization, particularly at the bigger sites (1995, p.77). 5.4.4 PPNB Agriculture and Subsistence An economy based on crop growing and hunting evolved into one based on both plant and animal domesticates. Climatic conditions were favourable to agriculture: “During the PPNB, the southern Levant would have experienced substantial summer rainfall, in addition to rain in winter, followed by a trend of warming and aridification in the post-PPNB, characterized by rainy winters and dry, hot summers” (Horwitz et al 1999). Bellwood (2005, p.64, 65) summarizes the situation in the PPNB after 8000BC as follows:
5.4.4.1 The Core Areas Over 18 sites contain plant remains in the Near East (Garrard 1999) including western Turkey and southwestern Iran. The following summarizes the distribution of the main cereal crops over time:
In addition, rye was native to western Turkey and Abu Hureyra in the northern Euphrates but not elsewhere. Lentils were ubiquitous. Pea had a wider distribution than before, from Jericho to Ganj Dareh. Bitter vetch and chickpea were restricted to the Levant and Turkey. Broad bean is known only from one site in northern Israel. Flax was widespread, probably first domesticated at Jericho. It was well preserved in the form of woven linen at Nahal Hemar Cave in southern Jordan, 6,900-6,500bc. Of the available fruit and nuts, pistachios were most common followed by fig, almond, capers and grapes. The PPNB appears to be the earliest time that communities domesticated animals. The earliest evidence comes from the southern Levant, although this is no data to suggest that domestication first took place there: “Though it is probable that the southern Levant was not the location where food animals were first domesticated, it is the sole region where all the significant steps in the process can be illustrated” (Ducas in Horwitz 1999, p66). The process of animal domestication, unlike plant cultivation, appears to have taken place in the north. Herding before cultivation does not appear anywhere in the Near East. It appears to date to between 10,000 and 7,500bp with sheep first, and then goats, but the evidence is fragmented. In the northern Levant in the early PPNB agricultural resources were supplemented by hunting, very similar to the activities visible in the PPNA. In the Mid PPNB differences emerged – goat, almost certainly wild, increased in proportion to gazelle. The chronology of domestication of wild animal forms is difficult to assess. The first evidence for ungulate domestication occurs in the the first half of the seventh millennium bc in southeast Turkey and northern Syria (Garrard 1999). True herding (i.e. ownership of herds) was preceded by other activities. For example it is entirely possible that early experiments were focused not on sheep/goat/other, but on gazelle and other more familiar species. However, there is no evidence for this, as Clutton-Brock observes: “because they are mountain animals, wild goats and sheep are particularly well suited for domestication. Mountain animals are gregarious, live in mixed hers and are not territorial, and their survival depends more on finding enough to eat than on escape from predators. So they are relatively slow to take fright, and are not terribly swift runners. Plains-living gazelles are very different. Outside the mating season, the sexes split into separate herds, the males are strongly territorial and the animals take fright easily” (Clutton-Brock 1992, p.41). (Ducas in Horwitz 1999). It is not certain if goat was introduced from the north, like sheep, or if it represents an autochthonous domestication of local wild population. In the Levant wild goat began to replace gazelle in human contexts by the middle PPNB, with sheep not found at these sites but appearing later in the southern Levant from about 6500bc (5500BC) at the sites of Ghoraife, probably introduced from the north into the south. It is by no means certain if goat was introduced from the north, like sheep, or if it represents an autochthonous domestication of the local wild population. Although goat replaced gazelle as food before the appearance of sheep, it seems that sheep was the most dominant animal in herds, at least in the southern Levant, which would be consistent with the character of each specie (sheep are easier to herd). Cattle appear in Mureybet in earlier periods. At Cayonu in southeast Turkey the early Phase 1 was dominated by pig, cattle, deer, some sheep and particularly goat. Late Phase 1 was overwhelmingly dominated by goats and sheep in the Late PPNB. Bar-Yosef and Meadow (1995, p.90) offer the following model: Goat domestication took place during the late 10th and early 9th millennia bp, followed by sheep in the first quarter of the 9th millennium bp followed by cattle at the end of the PPNB after 7500bp and pig at some stage in the late PPNB. However, although they believe that sheep was probably domesticated in the Zagros-Taurus regions, they see no clear area of domestication for goats, which makes any attempt to establish a chronology for domestication somewhat open. Garrard et al (1996, p.208-210) suggest the following summary based on previous studies:
Garrard et al point out (1996, p. 210) that “By the late seventh or early seventh millennium bc, when mixed herds of sheep and goat were being kept in parts of Southwest Asia, it is clear that sheep were commonly the dominant species in the flocks”. This was perhaps to provide insurance against climatic variability – sheep and goat have different ecological preferences and tolerances. Goats are also more destructive than sheep in terms of their impact on the immediate environment, and this may have been a reason why sheep were dominant in mixed herds. Horwitz (1999) states that an increased number of species were exploited over time between the PPNA and the mid PPNB, with a reduction in the PPNC. Ungulate importance over time, with a high frequency of gazelle and very little goat is characteristic of the PPNA, whereas by the mid to late PPNB there was relatively little gazelle and a high frequency of goat. There are less large-sized animals over time and less relative importance of reptiles, birds, small mammals and an increase in the importance of small carnivores, especially red fox. Horwitz (1999) says that it is unknown if domesticated goats were an import, or whether they were an autochthonous development in one or several areas in the Southern Levant. Garrard (1999) suggests that goat may have been domesticated in several different locations at more or less that same time within the Levantine area, and that sheep came later, probably being domesticated first within the Fertile Crescent: “there is clear evidence of domestic sheep into the central and southern Levant in the middle and late seventh millennium bc” (p.77-78). Martin and Garrard propose that domesticated sheep are an import into the Levant from the north, complementing existing cultivation strategies and the domestication of the goat: “All researchers agree that sheep were introduced into the southern Levant from the north, with earliest domesticated sheep found 6500 uncalibrated bc (5500 calibrated BC) in the Damascus Basin” (p.76). Sheep was probably introduced from Anatolia via the Levantine corridor (the Jordan-Beqa’ah Valley), which connects northern and southern Levant. There is no general agreement as to whether goats, cattle and pigs were domesticated locally, or imported, although Martin and Garrard do point out that once domesticated goat and sheep were established, it would be logical to expect autochthonous domestication of other species to follow (1999, p.76). It is unclear where and when cattle and pig were first domesticated. 5.4.4.2 Marginal Areas Excavations in eastern Jordan, including those in the Azraq area (Garrard et al 1996) and the Betts in basalt steppe (Betts 1993) have provided new insights into the full portfolio of early agricultural activities in the Levant. Whilst previous studies have focused on the more fertile and environmentally friendly areas of the Near East, Garrard and his colleagues have been looking at early agricultural adaptations in more marginal areas where species were not native. Although it would be useful to compare these areas with occupations in the Sinai and the Negev, there is a dearth of Neolithic studies completed in these areas (Garrard et al 1996 p.211). Similarly, studies in the Negev and Sinai, by Bar-Yosef, Gopher and others, explore other areas of marginal occupation. Eastern Jordan The environment during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene in the Azraq area was steppic, with some marshland and a number of springs. The Neolithic corresponds to a period of climatic amelioration, and botanical assemblages indicate that at least some components of the Irano-Turanian flora extended into these areas. Nothing is known of the PPNA in this area, the Negev and Sinai (c. 8,300-7,500bc). However, an increasing number of sites appear first during the Early and Middle PPNB, continuing into the Late PPNB and then during the early Late Neolithic – settlement sites are smaller and structures more ephemeral, sharing their general character with those in the Negev and Sinai, increasing in size in the early Late Neolithic. During the Early and Middle PPNB the sites of Jilat 7 and Jilat 32 in the limestone steppe have demonstrated a change of subsistence strategy from the earlier Epipalaeolithic. Equids are lacking and remains of hare (Lepus sp.) are considerably increased in volume – probably in direct response to the lack of availability of equids. A number of proposals have been put forward for the lack of equids, including changing environmental conditions, human pressure on land formerly used by equids, the first planting of wild cereals and changes in hunting strategies. Jilat 7 produced Early PPNB domesticated einkorn and barley which was apparently cultivated and processed locally. In the Middle PPNB Jilat 7 again produced a number of domesticate cultivars including einkorn, emmer, barley and pulses. During the Late PPNB no sites were found in the limestone steppe, where Jilat 7 and Jilat 32 were located, but Azraq 31 and Dhuweila (on the basalt steppe) have both produced faunal assemblages. From Azraq 31 “The two assemblages closely resemble the collection from the nearby Natufian site of Azraq 18. The main differences relate to the increased importance of hare and the presence of a few caprine bones (3.5%)” (Garrard et al 1996, p.217). Even though domestic sheep and goat are known from the central areas, it is entirely likely that these remains still represent wild species. From Dhuweila the faunal assemblage consists almost exclusively of gazelle. The appearance of both sheep and goat in both Jilat and Azraq at around 8,000bp (Garrard 1998) is probably to be accounted for by import by steppe-resident groups. 85% of sheep were slaughtered before the age of 3.5 years and it is suggested that it is kept for meat rather than dairy. Unlike the Levantine corridor, hunting and trapping continued to be important, with a reliance on gazelle, hare and fox, plus some other species. This is echoed in other marginal areas, as well as in the early Neolithic of Egypt at the Faiyum Neolithic sites. Hunting may have taken place for food purposes, but it may also have been practiced to acquire products for exchange purposes. Hunting and trapping of wild fauna continued into the PPNB. The transition from gazelle to goat exploitation is most marked in the steppic Irano-Taurian and central Mediterranean zones. The Negev and Sinai The only well excavated and published excavations are at Wadi Tbeik and Ujrat el-Mehed, dating respectively to the Middle and Late PPNB, both located in southern Sinai. Ibex are dominant, in both instances. There is no evidence for domesticates before the Early Bronze Age. However, “a ‘package’ of domesticates had reached the Nile Valley from the Levant by 5000bc and these must have crossed the western Negev and northern Sinai. It is therefore likely that caprine herding and perhaps localized crop cultivation were being practiced along this corridor in the sixth millennium bc” (Garrard et al 1996, p.219). The Egyptian sites in question, both dating to around 5500bc are the Faiyum Neolithic sites and Merimde Beni Salama, just northwest of Cairo. Others may lie under Deltaic silts. 5.4.4.3 Ecological Impacts The growth of settlement sizes during the PPNB, a very much changed human use of the landscape, will inevitably have had an inevitable impact upon the physical and environmental landscape. Bellwood draws particular attention to this (2005, p.61): “The southwest Asian environment is a fragile one, particularly when assaulted by human populations intent on population growth, woodland clearance, soil tillage, animal pasturing and many other activities which can, in combination, lead toward land degradation, vegetation loss, salinization, soil erosion, and general resource decline”. He points to both environmental decline, probably caused by increased aridity, as well as human intervention at the end of the PPNB: “Common sense and history dictate that such episodes would always have given an impetus for a human population to seek new land” (2005, p.61). 5.4.4.4 Agriculture and Economy - Summary There were regional differences between sheep and goat exploitation in different areas, as well as diachronic changes, with different exploitation strategies exploited in different geographic zones, particularly during the middle to late PPNB. They are described by Horwitz (1999) as follows:
There was a 20% increase in aurochs in the faunal sample at PPNB sites, most of which appear to have been adult, but there is insufficient data to assess the situation regarding the domestication of wild boar. Caprine domestication in the southern Levant corresponded to changes of fauna exploited by Neolithic populations and new technologies and procurement strategies. Other domesticates came later, with sheep being introduced both into the southern Levant and marginal areas during the PPNB. Regarding the marginal areas of the Negev and Sinai, and Eastern Jordan, Garrard et al conclude (1996, p.220) “there is no evidence from Jordan or elsewhere in the Levant to support models that propose that plant and animal domestication first developed in the Marginal Zone”. In fact, there appears to have been a chronological gap between establishment of agricultural methods in the core area and its appearance in the marginal areas. As described above, Bellwood (2005, p.59) suggests that the situation in the PPNB could ultimately have lead to the need for change management : “we have, in the PPNB, in particular, a manifestly unstable combination of powerfully developing human economies in fragile environments. There were consequences at that remote time”. The idea that later changes notable in the Pottery Neolithic phases grew out of the exploitation strategies of the PPNB will be discussed later. 5.4.5.1 Stone Technology There are two basic forms of core, which represent two different techniques for tool production. Bipolar (naviform) core reduction was employed all over the Levant and in the areas of the Taurus foothills. Tools manufactured include blades to make arrowheads (including Byblos points), sickle blades, borers and perforators. Regional variations are represented by items like Tahurian axes in the southern Levant and Jericho points in the central Levant. In the Zagros mountains, and northern Iran, the most conspicuous type of lithic was made by pressure-flaking on a blade core. These “seem to correlate with the division between the earlier Levantine PPNA culture and those of the Zagros region, suggesting that that regionality observed for the PPNA time span was still continuing into the PPNB” (Bellwood 2005, p.62). Flaked tools in the Azraq area probably date from the early PPNB, and “in common with other areas of the Levant, there appear to have been changes in the form of tool blank desired through the Neolithic sequence” (Garrard 1998, p.143). Blades and bladelets in particular were in demand in the early PPNB and blades were of increasing importance during the middle and late PPNB, made of local raw materials. Burins appear to have been important during the middle PPNB, particularly in the steppe. Techniques differed from the central Levantine area. Pressure flaking was a second important technique, and this used to make blade tools in areas where obsidian was readily available. Tools made include microliths (triangles and lunates), sickle blades, endscrapers, borers and some burins. Ground stone tools include more shaft-straighteners than in the Levantine corridors, and fewer grinding slabs, mortars, pestles and hammerstones. The straighteners may represent bow-making which would indicate a still-important component of hunting. Most of the plants processing ground tools were made from basalt, the nearest source of which was some 45km away. PPNB sickles are made on long prismatic blades from bipolar naviform cores. They are often heat-treated. They are not backed but they are often truncated, and they often feature gloss. They were hafted in a line. Unlike previous periods, “greater variability in naviform blade core frequencies at different sites suggests the beginning of specialization or expertise” (Rosen 1997, p.138). As discussed earlier, Gopher (1989) explicitly warns about the dangers of misinterpreting the implications of ‘new’ PPNB technologies. He believes that studies of the southern Levant in isolation have lead to the view of new forms like the naviform cores and rectilinear structures as sudden and drastic, but that in fact the new forms were innovated first in the north and spread south. He argues, therefore, that the separation between the PPNA and the PPNB are exaggerated and that the PPN should be seen as a homogenous unit. 5.4.5.2 Vessels Vessels made from ash and plaster appear in the Mid-Final PPNB in the north Levantine Corridor, in the Damascus Basin and through to Zagros. The earliest clay pottery was found at Ganj Daren in the Zagros mountains. 5.4.6 PPNB Interaction, Trade and Exchange The spread of both cultivars and plant growing and processing techniques over a wide area in a fairly short period of time is in itself a good indicator for extensive communication networks: “the rapid spread of cultivars during the late eighth and early seventh millennia bc supports that notion that there were extensive exchange and information networks across southwest Asia during the PPNB” (Garrard 1999, p.82). The presence of basalt in Azraq, given that the nearest source is 45km away, is one of many examples of possible networks. Increasing communication links are also indicated by the presence of Mediterranean and Red Sea shells, particularly Dentalium, Anatolian obsidian (from east and west Anatolia) and asphalt, the latter used as a form of glue for hafting stone tools. Increasing communication is also indicated by the uniformity of domestic forms, particularly represented by Helwan, Byblos and Amuq points. At the same time, regional alliances may be reflected in restricted distribution of some items – for example, Jericho points are unique to central and southern areas of the Levant and Sinai. There are some signs of trade or exchange between farming and hunter-gathering communities, which may indicate reciprocity during times of stress, or simply mutual taking advantage of the skills and products produced by each type of lifestyle. Anatolian and Syrian sites seem to have had a connection, marked by incised stone pebbles, which they share in common. Plastered skulls, which were characteristic of the PPNA occurred in Anatolia as far west as Hacilar. Gopher and Gophna (1993, p.303) describe the PPNB as one of high interaction in the Levant: “Networks of trade, information exchange, and most probably, gene exchange operated efficiently throughout the Levant”. Bellwood (2005, p.64) summarizes: “we might argue for ever about how many ethnic groups constituted the PPNB, but one thing is clear – they communicated efficiently”. Some very specific and formal traditions were established at this time, and represent a significant change from previous traditions. Burials were common, particularly at the bigger sites like Catal Huyuk. In many cases the head had been removed, particularly in the Levantine PPNB. In some cases skulls had been modeled in plaster, sometimes with shells replacing the eyes – represented at sites like Jericho, Ain Ghazal, Basta, Kafar Hahoresh, Beisamoun, Nahal Hamer, and Tell Ramad. This may represent an ancestor cult. Skulls are found in various contexts which are not funerary, ceremonial or religious – house, floors, pits etc. A recent review of the Levantine and Anatolian Neolithic skulls (Bonogofsky, M. 2004) has offered improved understanding of their nature and variability. 72 skulls have now been found, with or without mandibles, modified by the application of plaster, clay, collagen and the application of shells and paint to decorate the heads. Where mandibles are missing they are often built up in clay to replace the missing jaw. It was originally thought that only senior adult skulls were used, for a variety of reasons connected to both ancestor cults and age-veneration. However, it is now clear that young men, females and children are also represented. It was also thought that teeth were always deliberately removed, but teeth are clearly present in some examples. They were deposited wither individually or in groups of up to 15 individuals, in various contexts (under floors, in houses, in pits, caves etc), and were associated with human and faunal remains and artefacts, including fragments of statues and clay balls. Communal burials are another feature which becomes conspicuous in the PPNB. At Cayonu 400 individuals were represented by mixed remains in stone cists, covered by slabs, at the end of a building. At Ba’ja in Jordan secondary burials were found in a chamber which had been plastered and then painted. At Kfar HaHoresh, near the Sea of Galilee, wild cattle burials were made in pits sealed with plaster. This period is particularly known for painted plaster statues – usually either female or genderless. Small animal and human figurines were also made in clay and occasionally limestone or bone. Female figurines are most frequent, unlike the animal art of the Natufian. An important cache of the statuettes and small statues were found at ‘Ain Ghazal in central Jordan during the 1983 excavation on the northeastern outskirts of Amman, and has been analyzed by UCL’s “’Ain Ghazal Statue Project” (currently located at www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/research/profiles/ktubb/tubb.htm). The site of ‘Ain Ghazal was established in 7250BC in the mid PPNB, and was abandoned at around 5000BC. The cache was found in a pit in a cluster of buildings, and the statuettes fall into two types: small versions c.35cm and larger ones c.90cm, labeled respectively “Dumpies” and “Figures”. The statuettes were made by modeling plaster formed of lime, quartz and crushed calcerous filler, sculpted around a frame made of reed, strengthened using spun twine. The Dumpie cores were much simpler than those of the larger Figures. Evidence from the pit in which they were found suggests that the reeds extended through the feet of the statues, perhaps so that they could have been inserted into the ground so that figures were held upright. Some statues were decorated with pigments made from ochres, carbon and white lime. An eyeliner was made of a bitumen substance and sometimes elaborated with green dioptose. 5.4.9 PPNB Social Organization Bellwood discusses the meaning of skull detachment and treatment (2005), and extrapolates from the specifics of the actual meaning of this activity to more general comments about what this may indicated about social organization during the PPNB. He suggests that skull veneration “certainly indicates an increasing interest in ‘ancestors’, as does communal burial. The ethnographic record leaves no doubt that ancestors often correlate with the existence of lineages. In turn, lineages often correlated with concepts of ownership of defined pieces of food producing land” (Bellwood 2005, p.55). He brings into the discussion questions of rights of access. It is possible that in the event of any emphasis at this time on the concept of land ownership, there could well have been tensions between cultivators and hunters, the latter possibly finding themselves denied access to lands which had formed part of their seasonal routine for many generations. The increasing size of settlements at this time, equating perhaps to small towns, would have given the inhabitants the opportunity to seek partners from the settlement population, becoming for the very first time “settlement-endogamous” (Bellwood 2005, p.61). This sort of change in social arrangements would have marked a very different attitude to life – encouraging internalization, increasing identification of individuals and families with specific settlements and the land that they worked, building up extended families in relatively closely defined areas. The growth of settlements in the PPNB could have had very considerable impacts on the individuals living in them and both their beliefs and their interactions with those they were close to and distant from. Flannery (1972, p.42) suggests that the change from circular to rectilinear structures as a change of some social significance, reflecting a move from a “compound” to a “village” mentality, and this may in turn reflect, he suggests, a move towards social organization in terms of the so-called nucleated family. Consistent with this type of nucleation is the evidence for defensive features, like fortifications, at both large and small sites (e.g. Tell Magzaliyah in northern Iraq) during the PPNB. Prior to the Final PPNB or PPNC, the main phase of the PPNB comes to a decided close. Many settlements were abandoned, although there are exceptions, including Ain Ghazal. Why there was a change between this and the subsequent phases has been a matter for some debate, but one of the main current arguments is that there was a major climatic change at this time, forcing some people to abandon areas which were increasingly inhabitable.
5.5.1 The Establishment of the Final PPNB / PPNC /ELN The “PPNC” is not a universally agreed-upon term and is not applicable to the entire of the Near Eastern Pre Pottery Neolithic. Where in use, the term PPNC is usually applied to the Jordanian highlands. The term Early Late Neolithic (ELN) has been coined by Martin and Garrard (1999) for the eastern Jordan tradition, which is quite different. Increasing amounts of data indicate increasing spatial, temporal and cultural distinctions. 5.5.2 Settlement Distribution and Form Again, settlement patterns are divided into two broad categories – core areas and marginal areas, an over-simplification which, however, is useful for summarizing the data. The best known site is Ain Ghazal in Jordan. Other sites that may date to this time are Atlit Yam and Tel Ramad. Marginal areas are represented by Sinai, Negev and eastern Jordan where the environment was, for the most part, steppic or desert, apart from the central oasis of the Azraq Basin. In these more marginal zones “Prehistoric human settlement is believed to have been temporary and seasonal, distinct from that in the lusher Levantine highlands or Jordan Valley, where large, permanently occupied early Neolithic sites are found” (Martin and Garrard 1999, p.74). Ba’ja, in the Petra mountains, was only inhabited in the Late PPNB. By this time goat, sheep and pig had been domesticated elsewhere in the Levant. Results in the semi-desert environment of the southern Levant are consistent with what would be expected in a marginal zone at this time (Horwitz 1999):
The best known PPNC site from the core area is Ain Ghazal in Jordan, where a distinctive level was found beneath a layer containing the Pottery Neolithic Yarmukian industry and above a PPNB layer. It covered 13 hectares at around 6750BC. Large shaped clay tablets were used, hinting at an administration system which was simply unprecedented for this time period. There are some signs that the settlement survived general local collapse by changing its subsistence strategy. A number of sites in the area were abandoned at this time, and infant mortality at Ain Ghazal rose. Volumes of domesticated goat and legumes increase. The excavators see this phase as representing a response to increasing stresses in the environment caused by a combination of climatic change and human over-exploitation of the environment. The growth of the site against this background is suggested to be due to successful changes in the subsistence strategy which involved increasing the pastoral component of the economy at the expense of cereal exploitation (summarized in Gopher and Gophna 1993, p.307). Gopher and Gophna suggest that Atlit Yam and similar layers at Tel Ramad may also represent local adaptations to new conditions. At Atlit Yam, for example, a heavy reliance on marine resources is clear, supplementing both cultivation and hunting. Very few large sites survived into the Pottery Neolithic. Bellwood (2005) suggests that Beidha shows similar stress – it was occupied into the PPNC and then abandoned. Abu Hureyra halved in size. There was less abandonment of settled areas in the northern Levant than elsewhere. 5.5.3.1 Northern Levant Plants Plant remains are found at over 15 sites. Cereal was widespread over the early 7th millennium bc. Barley and emmer were the most widespread. Einkorn has a less widespread distribution but always occurs with emmer. Free-threshing wheat was the next most common, followed by naked 6-row barley. Of the pulses available, lentils were widespread and were probably domesticated at around 6400bc at Tall Ramad and Tell Bourqras. Pea was common in Syria, Turkey, and Iraq and was probably domesticated at Tell Bourqras. Bitter vetch was scarcer, and chickpea was now very rare. There are no broad beans recorded. Fruits and nuts resemble earlier assemblages – pistachio was favoured, followed by fig, almond and caper. Flax was widespread. In the southern Levant there appears to have been a more restricted range of species due to the comparatively dry conditions. Fauna Horwitz describes animal domestication as follows (1999). Overall, faunal remains are very different from those in the PPNB in terms of species, During the late 7th millennium, mixed herds of sheep and goat dominate across most sites in southwest Asia, making up to 45% of the faunal assemblage at Yiftahel. Domesticated sheep was probably only introduced in the Late PPNB. By 6000bc there is evidence for cattle and pig from Turkey and northern Syria and at some sites cattle dominates with goat secondary – for example at Atlit Yam, Hagoshim and Ashqelon. Pig has been found at Atlit Yam (wild and domesticated), Hagoshim, Haber and Daynan (domesticated). Hunting of wild species took place, but is a much less rich and varied component. Wild species included gazelle, fallow deer, carnivores, hare, rodents, birds and reptiles. “It is clear that by the PPNC, significant changes in the entire complex of animal resource procurement had occurred in the southern Levant, with domesticated cattle as well as pigs, well established elements in the local economy” (Horwitz 1999, p.70). It is not clear from the available data whether domestic types of cattle and pig were imports or autochthonous developments. Specific breeds of different species are not known until the Chalcolithic. ‘Ain Ghazal, in the core area, has produced evidence of animal domesticates. Horwitz (1999) traces its development over time, specie by specie: Wild goat, Capra aegagrus
Domesticated Sheep
Cattle (Bos)
Pig (Sus)
Becker (1999) also takes a PPNB site as a case study: the Late PPNB permanent settlement of Basta. Basta is one of the largest Late PPNB sites at 10-14 hectares. It was occupied between 400 and 500 years, and has been carbon 14 dated to 7550/7050-7290/7032BC. Over 100,000 bones were found, of which a high percentage were published. It is estimated that there would not have been enough cultivation to sustain the inhabitants, so animal produce were important. It is suggested that such a large and complex village might have had a “magnetic pull” (p.72) on other villages – a useful consideration for understanding mechanisms of transfer and the speed with which domestic animal usage spread throughout the PPNB. As at ‘Ain Ghazal the faunal assemblage can be broken down specie by specie:
Of the domesticated species, discussions about cattle have been particularly controversial in recent years, due to genetic studies that have attempted to determine their origins. It is generally agreed that cattle were very important – they could be used not only for meat, hides and dairy products, but also for ploughing, traction and transportation. Studies into cattle genetics of different areas have suggested three possible origins of domestication: Africa, the Near East (possibly Mesopotamia), and southwest Turkey. The controversial element of the discussions comes from the use of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). However, in Africa, at least, a local origin is partially supported by the finds of cattle in the southeastern Western Desert, where it is thought that cattle were herded before plant cultivation was established. 5.5.3.2 Marginal Areas The earliest herded sheep and goat in the eastern Jordan area are dated to the ELN at around 6830BC at Wadi el-Jilat 13 and Wadi el-Jilat 25 on the limestone steppe, and at Azraq 31 in the Azraq Oasis area. Nothing is found in the third topographic zone in this area, the basalt desert (Martin and Garrard 1999). Martin and Garrard conclude (1999) in a study of these three zones, that the first herded caprines appear in the ELN in the limestone steppe areas of eastern Jordan, at the same time as they appear in the PPNC further to the west. No herded livestock dates from the middle or late PPNB. They appear quite suddenly in large numbers, suggesting that they may have been deliberately herded into the area from outside – it is very unlikely given the number of native species that local domestication took place (Martin and Garrard 1999, p.75). This fits in well with the picture from more fertile areas in the southern Levant where the morphologically wild goats were brought under human control during the middle PPNB, and ready-domesticated sheep were introduced during the Late PPNB. There are two models to explain the introduction of domesticates into the eastern Jordan area: they could either have been introduced by pastoralists attached to large PPNC sites, or they could have been brought in by local hunter-gatherer groups. A complete burial of a female bovid which was heavily pregnant with a calf suggests that ritual activities were connected to the worship of cattle. However, there is little other data available at present.
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Copyright (text and images) Andie Byrnes 2005, unless otherwise stated
|
|||||||||||||||||
