Analysis of Levantine Plastered Skulls in Pre-Pottery Neolithic B

Off with Their Heads! An Analysis of the Levantine Plastered Skulls during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in Anthropology. 2017 ________________________ ii Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................... v List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ vi Preface..................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter One: The Spatial and Temporal Evidence for the “Skull Cult” from the Levant ............................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 7 Spatial and Temporal Evidence of Plastered Skulls from PPNB Sites in Southern Levant ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Jericho ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 ‘Ain Ghazal ...................................................................................................................................................11 Yiftahel ..........................................................................................................................................................17 Kfar Hahoresh ............................................................................................................................................21 Tell Aswad ...................................................................................................................................................24 Tell Ramad ..................................................................................................................................................28 Beisamoun ...................................................................................................................................................30 Tell Abu Suwwan ......................................................................................................................................31 Nahal Hemar...............................................................................................................................................32 Stone Masks ................................................................................................................................. 34 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 36 Chapter Two: Interpretations and Modern Ethnographies ................................40 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 40 Interpretations of Plastered Skulls ..................................................................................... 42 Ancestor Cult ..............................................................................................................................................42 Social Hierarchy ........................................................................................................................................45 Egalitarian Society ...................................................................................................................................48 Social Memory ...........................................................................................................................................50 Fertility .........................................................................................................................................................51 Headhunters/ Enemy Trophy ............................................................................................................53 Apotropaic ...................................................................................................................................................53 Art ...................................................................................................................................................................54 Ethnographic Parallels............................................................................................................. 54 Melanesia .....................................................................................................................................................55 Polynesia ......................................................................................................................................................57 Pakistan ........................................................................................................................................................58 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 59 Chapter Three: Geographical, Social, Economic, and Ritual Elements ............61 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 61 Main Ecological Zones and the Paleoenvironmental Changes ................................... 62 Geographical Restriction of Plastered Skulls During the MPPNB and LPPNB ...... 64 Social and Economic Elements of the MPPNB .................................................................. 65 LPPNB Megasites ........................................................................................................................ 69 iii Population Dislocation and Violence .................................................................................. 71 Ritual, Ideology, and Identity................................................................................................. 73 Scalar Stress ................................................................................................................................. 80 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 87 Chapter Four: Discussion and Conclusion .................................................................88 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 88 Sites and Plastered Skulls Overview ................................................................................... 88 Age and Sex .................................................................................................................................. 90 Skeletal Elements....................................................................................................................... 91 Archaeological Context ............................................................................................................ 92 Examining Interpretations ..................................................................................................... 93 Plastered Skulls beyond the PPNB ....................................................................................... 96 Çatalhöyük ..................................................................................................................................................97 Kö şk Hö yü k .................................................................................................................................................98 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 98 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 100 iv Abstract This thesis examines the unique mortuary practice of plastering skulls in the early farming communities of the Prehistoric Near East and the interpretations that have arisen to explain it. Over 73 skulls have been found throughout the Levant and they are confined both spatially and temporally to the Levant from the Middle to Late PrePottery Neolithic B (8,600-7,500 cal BC). They have given rise to a multitude of interpretations, including ancestor veneration, “skull cult,” apotropaic objects, and many more. To understand the motivations behind plastering skulls I critique the previous work interpreting the ideological and ritualistic reasons behind them and give a comprehensive overview of the relevant geographical, economical, and archaeological and theoretical work that has been done on the sites where plastered skulls have been found. v List of Figures Figure 1: Map of southern Levant showing the PPNB sites with plastered skulls ......... 8 Figure 2: Two plastered skulls from Jericho .................................................................. 9 Figure 3: Skull 88-1 from 'Ain Ghazal ......................................................................... 13 Figure 4: The three plastered masks from 'Ain Ghazal ................................................ 15 Figure 5: The three plastered skulls from Yiftahel ....................................................... 18 Figure 6: The plastered skull (Homo I-KH) from Kfar Hahoresh ................................ 22 Figure 7: A plastered skull from Tell Aswad ............................................................... 24 Figure 8: Plastered skulls from Tell Aswad.................................................................. 27 Figure 9: A plastered skull from Tell Ramad with a “neck” ........................................ 28 Figure 10: A plastered skulls from Beisamoun ............................................................ 30 Figure 11: A modeled skull from Nahal Hemar ........................................................... 33 Figure 12: Three masks from the Judean Hills or southern Judean foothills ............... 34 Figure 13: This limestone mask from Nahal Hemar..................................................... 35 Figure 14: Pillars at the temple of Göbekli Tepe .......................................................... 77 Figure 15: Map of central Anatolia showing the Neolithic sites with plastered skulls 97 List of Tables Table 1: Chronological Periods of Southern Levant....................................................... 6 Table 2: Levantine Ritual Overview ............................................................................. 89 Table 3: Variation in Plaster Skulls of PPNB Sites ...................................................... 90 Table 4: Age and Sex of Neolithic Plastered Skulls ..................................................... 91 Table 5: Archaeological Context of Plastered Skulls ................................................... 92 Table 6: Possible Contexts and Functions of Plastered Skulls ..................................... 93 vi Preface Archaeologists have always been fascinated by past cultures and ritualistic behaviors. Culture is unique to humans; it sets us apart from each other and from other living things. But rituals are specifically an important and essential part of prehistoric archaeology; a window into the past ideologies, social structure, life, and culture of prehistoric societies. Culture involves symbolic behavior – the use of arbitrary symbols that are given meaning. Many of these symbols can be seen in material culture, which includes tangible items like tools, artwork, and other objects that we make. When we find new items, or see material culture evolving, it can represent abstract culture, the set of the rules and standards, including beauty, honor, and love, which operate less visibly than cultural rules and standards. Ritual and ideology, including treatment of the dead, and specifically the material objects that may or may not be included in the burial, are reflections of abstract culture. Archaeologists use artifacts, the material culture left behind, and the presence/absence of certain artifacts to attempt to recreate the abstract culture of a past society. Since the early 20th century, the Near East has revealed a rich archaeological record, expressly the abundance of mortuary practice, evident in hundreds of burials found dating to the Natufian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN). PPN sites in the Levant1 have revealed one of the most intriguing mortuary practices of the Near East: plastering skulls. Skull removal in the Levant first appeared during the Late Natufian period (11,800 cal BC to 10,000 cal BC), and represented the beginning of a possible ancestor 1 Levant is an area which includes Syria and Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt (Kuijt 2008: 172). veneration. Skull removal then became progressively more specialized in the PrePottery Neolithic A (PPNA, from 10,000 cal BC to 9,000 cal BC), and was practiced until the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period (PPNB) 6,300 cal BC (Bonogofsky 2001; Kuijt 1997; Pilloud et. al. 2016; Rollefson 2008). Field research at numerous Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites, including Jericho, ‘Ain Ghazal, Yiftahel, Kfar Hahoresh, Tell Aswad, Tell Ramad, Beisamoun, Tell Abu Suwwan, and Nahal Hemar, provide elaborate details about mortuary practices on skull removal and plastering, as well as information on architecture, lithic technology, domestication of plants and animals, and more (Bonogofsky 2001, 2006b; Kuijt 2008; Rollefson n.d.; Slon et al. 2014). During this time – the Neolithic Period – symbols of wild animals nearly disappeared and were replaced by a wide variety of human images in the form of figures, statues, decorated skulls, and the rare stone masks. The Neolithic Revolution was one of the greatest “economic, cultural, and religious revolutions in human history,” that transformed “small groups of huntergatherers into large complex societies of farmers and shepherds, the founders of villages and chiefdoms” (Hershman et al. 2014: 31). The revolution gave rise to the development of new customs and behavior patterns in Neolithic societies: Since the agricultural technology of food production relies on the size of the social unit and its social organization enabling the community to utilize its subsistence area, the importance of the ties to family, group, and territory grew, and special means of increasing cohesiveness and group identity developed. These found expression in collective symbols that provided large groups of people living together in a complex framework with the incentive to cooperate with one another (Hershman et al. 2014: 31-32). During the Natufian and PPNA periods, skulls were removed from burials, but did not receive any decoration, such as paint or plaster. Plastering skulls began in the 2 PPNB, and was a secondary mortuary practice. The process included burying the body and at a later date removing the skull (or more often the cranium without the mandible), de-fleshing it, and then plastering it. Different settlements used plaster, clay, or both to reproduce facial features such as noses, ears, chins, eyes, and mouths (Bonogofsky 2001; Croucher 2010; Kuijt 2008). The practice lasted almost 1,000 years, and was mainly confined to southern Levant. The practice of plastering skulls was widespread and prevailed until the end of the Middle PPNB (MPPNB, 7,500 cal BC) in Jordan and Israel, and continued until 7,000 cal BC in the Damascus area of Syria. The immense increase in population to the south ended the practice due to new social stresses and limited resources. One of the ways in which we can understand the relationship between human group size and features of past material culture and organization is through the theory of scalar stress, which correlates size and complexity in terms of communication strains. It is based on the idea that daily interactions in human groups are founded on communication among members of that group. As groups get larger, institutions and practices must emerge – are produced and subsequently reproduced – to manage internal conflict (Alberti 2014: 1-2). One of the methods Johnson (1982) discusses to alleviate scalar stress is by increasing the frequency and scale of group ritual. This restricts the amount of information flow to a narrow range of prescribed actions and relationships. Another way to handle scalar stress is to increase social hierarchy. This allows for a smaller group or an individual to take on leadership role(s), and decreases the amount of pressure and dissension (Johnson 1982). 3 Evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar connected Johnson's concept of faceto-face information flow to the limits of human brain capacity to manage social networks of increasing size. Dunbar's findings on the cognitive constraints of human group size reveal that there is an average size of groups at which cohesion can be maintained with relatively lax rules and regulation, but when populations reach “Dunbar’s number” of 100 to 150, we begin to see scalar stress. While many human groups far exceed Dunbar's number, his model recognizes that this possibility is contingent on the group’s ability to develop a system that negates the alienating forces that increase with a growing population size – as Johnson has pointed out (Alberti 2014: 3-4). Although the scalar stress theory has been criticized for disregarding agency in the process of social organization (and because indicators of scalar stress can be archaeologically obscured), it is a useful theoretical framework for interpreting aspects of the life and material culture of ancient societies, including: “social organization, stylistic display, communal food consumption, architecture and settlement layout” (Alberti 2014:1-2). To fully understand early plastered skulls and their role in Neolithic agricultural societies, one must look at all of the archaeological data. As Verhoeven (2002: 246) states, “ritual regulates social behavior and sanctifies the social structure.” For example, if we were to only see older male skulls being plastered, we could propose a form of social hierarchy in that village based on gender and age. Though the veneration of male ancestors has been proposed as an explanation for the plastered skulls of the Neolithic Near East, this particular theory has been disproven. Therefore, to understand the social structure and egalitarian vs. hierarchical roles within these 4 communities, one must look at ritual practices to help understand social relationships and the structures in which they are rooted. To understand the motivations behind plastering skulls and their position in PPN society I will consult primary and secondary published research of archaeological evidence of plastered skulls. Information will mainly be taken from the sites in which plastered skull have been discovered; however, comprehensive information about southern Levant will be used at times. In order to gain insight into cultural facets such as mortuary practices, modern ethnographic studies will be presented to help establish potential analogies to interpret prehistoric cultures. Many modern ethnographic studies have demonstrated that ritual objects and behavior represent and regulate social organization and beliefs (Kuijt 1997; Verhoeven 2002). One way in which ritual objects have been used to represent social beliefs includes mortuary objects that articulate cultural beliefs about death. Archaeologists use modern ethnographic parallels, predominantly from Oceania, to gain insights into the ritual and ideology behind plastered skulls. The Neolithic mortuary practice of plastering skulls illustrates an intimate relationship between the dead and the living. Ritual behaviors (such as skull plastering) provide insight into the minds of people. Through material culture, we can see how different societies had different approaches to the practices that ensure and regulate social organization. In my thesis, I will ask: how does the mortuary practice of plastered skulls correlate with the social structure of the Neolithic in the Levant? To help answer this, I will discuss correlations between the mortuary practice of plastered skulls and the changing social structure of the Neolithic in the Levant. Plastered skulls 5 are archaeological evidence of ritual that provide a window into Levantine social groups of the Near East during the Neolithic. This treatment of skulls is a rare practice in human history and prehistory, and it is unique in its confinement in both time and space. Variations in plastering methods and decoration among different societies in the Near East give us insight into to the differing social norms between villages and areas. To understand plastered skulls and the facets of death and ritual behavior in the Near East, it is important to understand all aspects of life in early agricultural settlements of the Levant. In my thesis, I will provide spatial and temporal evidence of plastered skulls, past and present interpretations, ethnographic parallels, and an overview of life in the Neolithic. Lastly, I will discuss the importance of the archaeological evidence I have presented and the plausibility of previous interpretations, along with my own theory on how plastered skulls indicate a common hierarchical social structure and a shared ideology throughout southern Levant. Period: Late Natufian PPNA Early PPNB Middle PPNB Late PPNB PPNC Pottery Neolithic Chronological Periods of Southern Levant Range cal BP: Range cal BC: 13,800-12,000 11,800-10,000 12,000-11,000 10,000-9,000 11,000-10,500 9,000-8,500 10,500-9,500 8,500-7,500 9,500-8,900 7,500-6,900 8,900-8,300 6,900-6,300 8,300-6,800 6,300-4,800 Table 1: Chronological periods of southern Levant (Rollefson 2008:71, 2013: 3; Gebel 2010: 58). 6 Chapter One: The Spatial and Temporal Evidence for the “Skull Cult” from the Levant Introduction There have been more than 90 plastered skulls excavated from the Neolithic Near East, and 76+ plastered skulls dating to the PPNB (See Table 1 and Table 4). Plastered skulls have been found in Jericho, ‘Ain Ghazal, Tel Aswad, Kfar Hahoresh, Tel Ramad, Beisamoun, Yiftahel, Nahal Hemar, and most recently, Tell Abu Suwwan (Aufderheide 2009; Bonogofsky 2001,2006b; Croucher 2012; Slon et al. 2014; Stordeur 2003; Stordeur and Khawam 2007; Rollefson, personal communication, 2017). In this chapter, I will discuss the plastered skulls found at these sites and the stone masks found at Nahal Hemar and the surrounding area in southern Levant. The modeled skulls and stone masks from Nahal Hemar are included in this discussion due to their significance as uniquely ritual objects that share similar traits with the plastered skulls, such as the emphasis on the head and eyes, along with their appearance in the same space and time as plastered skulls. Since they were first excavated, detached skulls – plastered or plain – have enticed researchers from around the world (Benz 2010). A wide range of research has been done on the modelling and painting of these skulls, including x-rays, scientific analyses of plaster and other materials, and more. These methods of examination allow us to better understand the regional differences in the visage of the skulls, such as regional variations in the production of plasters or origins of shells used for the eyes (Benz 2010; Slon et al. 2014). Even with scientific analysis there are still uncertainties. 7 For instance, plastered skulls have always been found away from their unidentified post-cranial skeletons. This has caused speculation on the reliability of archaeologists' estimations of age and sex, because they must base their examination on only the skull – with some archaeologists only using the parts of the skull not covered with plaster (Bonogofsky 2003, 2006; Slon et al. 2014). That said, archaeologists’ best supported hypotheses have demonstrated that plastered skulls have come from both males and females, and belong to both adults and children. Some places have more male skulls, while at other sites, female skulls have been more frequently found. They have found skulls both in caches and individually. The varying locations where plastered skulls have been found include: buried under deserted houses, beneath plastered floors in homes, or with a connection to plastered surfaces (Bonogofsky 2003, 2006b; Fletcher et al. 2008). Figure 1: Map of southern Levant with the sites where plastered skulls have been found marked with black dots (Slon et al. 2014: 2). 8 Spatial and Temporal Evidence of Plastered Skulls from PPNB Sites in Southern Levant Jericho Figure 2: On the right, a plastered skull with a modeled chin was one of the plastered skulls found by Kenyon in 1950 and is on display at the Jordan Archaeological Museum. On the Left, a plastered skull from Jericho (Rollefson, personal communication, 2017). Jericho was the first site where plastered skulls were found. Kathleen Kenyon discovered a cache of seven plastered skulls, the first Early Neolithic plastered skulls, below the floor of a house in 1953. Carbon dating has placed these plastered skulls around 7,600 cal BC (Bonogofsky 2001; Rollefson, personal communication, 2017). The seven skulls were found in a pile, and were ringed by stones and hardened earth. Two additional plastered skulls were found in 1956 ten feet away from the first cache of skulls and below the same house. A tenth plastered skull was discovered on the floor of a burned-down dwelling overlaid with brick and burned timber in 1958, and may have been found with two undecorated skulls but there is no longer any record of these two skulls. The first ten plastered skulls all had eyes depicted by shells. Two additional 9 plastered skulls, aging from juvenile to adult, “were reported decades later by physical anthropologists (E 20-E 21; Kurth – Röhrer-Ertl 1981: 436) who did not discuss their archaeological contexts or provide photographs of the remains. These latter two specimens apparently no longer exist” (Bonogofsky 2006b: 47). A possible total of twelve plastered skulls have been found, including five plastered skulls that were painted with red ochre, five plastered skulls that weren’t painted, and two additional skulls (Bonogofsky 2006b; Croucher 2012). With one exception, all of the plastered skulls from Jericho were found without their mandibles. Interestingly, two of the skulls still maintained normal facial proportions due to the construction of chins built out of plaster. This allowed the placement of facial features to be relatively anatomically correct (Griffin et al. 1998). The plastered skulls had multiple layers of plaster that varied in composition (Grissom and Griffin 2013). Of the twelve, five had some kind of paint applied to them using three different techniques: painted lines running laterally across the cranial vault, radial lines running below the nose, and a uniform color of pink or red applied to the entire face (Croucher 2012). Kenyon (19792) believed that plastered skulls were the portraits of venerated ancestors, illustrated the common facial features of the men of the period, and included “expressions of individuality in traces of painted eyebrows and eyelashes, [and] facial hair” (Bonogofsky 2006b: 47). All but one of the existing plastered skulls, Jericho D112, had shells to portray the eyes (Kuijt 2008). The majority of eyes were represented using bivalve shells that represented open eyes (Grissom and Griffin 2013). Many of the bivalve shells had been deliberately broken before being inserted to 2 Cited by Bonogofsky (2006b: 47). 10 create a vertical line down the center of the eye, similar to an iris (Schmandt-Besserat 2013). While many of the plastered skulls at Jericho were damaged or missing plaster around the area of the mouth, the skulls that were well-preserved were portrayed with “softly” modeled lips, contrasting the practice common across the Levant of making an incision to represent the mouth. Additionally, the top and back of the cranium is left unplastered on all of the skulls, perhaps due to limited resources or to make space for wigs or other decorations on top of the cranium. The plastered skulls found at Jericho were quite different from each other in terms of materials and style. This difference is likely due to different people manufacturing them, or possibly a change in style over time (Bonogofsky 2006b; Strouhal 1973). Both the sexes and ages of four of the skulls, and a cast of a fifth, were identified as all adult males 20-60 years of age by Strouhal (1973) two decades after they were first published. Other physical anthropologists identified the sex and ages of 10 plastered skulls based on “post-restoration photographs” and identified seven of the skulls were female, while only three were male. All were estimated to be aged within the range of 14-39 years (Bonogofsky 2006b: 48). Bonogofsky’s (2001, 2006b) study of the ten surviving plastered skulls identified that six were males between 20-50+ years of age. Three were indeterminate in sex, but aged within the range of 20-49 years. The tenth was a juvenile skull and therefore could not be sexed. ‘Ain Ghazal The site of ‘Ain Ghazal was continually inhabited for more than 2,000 years, and the settlement underwent four significant periods of development, including: the MPPNB, the LPPNB, the PPNC, and the Pottery Neolithic (Rollefson 2000: 166). 11 Aside from the very significant and interesting find of two large caches of lime plaster anthropomorphic sculptures, up to eleven plastered skulls have been found, three of which are referred to as “masks” due their missing crania (Bonogofsky 2001; Croucher 2012; Schmandt-Besserat 2002; Griffin et al. 1998). The first cache of plastered skulls was found in 1983, and contained two plastered skulls and two unmodeled skulls, and are discussed in further detail below (Schmandt-Besserat 2002; Bonogofsky 2006b). A third plastered cranium was also found in 1983, on the floor of a dwelling that had burned down. The outer bone had been heavily scraped with a sharp tool that is thought to have removed soft tissue, muscle, or possibly plaster. The remains of a juvenile skull were found in 1984 under the plaster floor of a house. A modelling substance, such as collagen or bitumen, was found on the fragments of the cranial vault. These are similar to the modelling substances found on the modeled skulls of Nahal Hemar (see Nahal Hemar below). Additionally, three crania were found in 1984 and are thought to belong to two adult males and one juvenile. The crania were excavated from below a house floor, and coarse plaster was found in both the auditory meatus (ear canal) and dental alveoli (tooth sockets) that is consistent with the report of loose plaster that was found in the cavities of Homo 1-KH from Kfar Hahoresh (see Kfar Hahoresh below) (Bonogofsky 2006b: 51). A final plastered skull was found in 1988 beneath the plaster floor of a dwelling, along with the cache of plaster masks, which is discussed in greater detail below (Schmandt-Besserat 2002; Bonogofsky 2006b). 12 Figure 3: The well-preserved plastered skull, Skull 88-1, from 'Ain Ghazal (Rollefson, personal communication, 2017). The first cache of plastered skulls found in 1983 included four adult male crania (without their mandibles), labeled as Skulls A-D. They were aligned facing towards the southwest, and arranged in a rough cross shape in a pit dug into a courtyard. Two of the skulls, A and B, had no evidence of plastering. The third skull, C, had sparse evidence of plastering, and the fourth skull, D, had substantial remains of plastering. Skulls D's upper teeth had been ground to the jaw bone, which is unusual compared the more common teeth removal or the teeth being left in place. The face of Skull D is covered in a pink plaster that extends to the forehead, but the top and back of the cranium is left untreated (Schmandt-Besserat 2002: 108). The pink plaster is molded around the natural defleshed contours of the skull without changing any of its features. The nasal and orbital cavities are filled with a white plaster, and there is no evidence that the chin, mouth, or cheeks were modeled. The only modeled feature were the eyes and nose. The right eye had a smooth, round ball of plaster placed inside the orbital cavity 13 that stuck out enough to portray an eye ball. The modeled left eye shows that the plaster had been pinched to resemble a closed eyelid; it is presumed that the right eyelid was lost due to decay over time. The surface above the pinched plaster was smooth and had a narrow bitumen strip, ca. 3 mm wide, to accentuate the closed eye. Though the nose had been broken, there was substantial plaster in the nasal cavity to be evident that the nose had been formed from plaster and extended out from the nasal aperture (Schmandt-Besserat 2002). An additional two “shapeless smoothed lumps of plaster,” one of which was pitted, were found inside the skull (Schmandt-Besserat 2002: 110). The third plastered skull found in 1983, Skull 88-1 (Figure 3), which is a particularly impressive skull evident of a high-level of artistry (Croucher 2012; Schmandt-Besserat 2002). Skull 88-1 was found alone in a small pit dug below a building of the MPPNB B-3 period, dated 7,000-6,700 uncal BC. It was buried with an assortment of human bones, which is speculated to be the result of the pit encroaching on an earlier burial. The cranium was found without its mandible and positioned face up (Schmandt-Besserat 2002: 97). On the skull, a yellowish plaster was used to model the facial features. Small balls of plaster had been placed in the orbital and nasal cavities. The remodeled facial features included eyebrows, eyes, nose, cheekbones, and ears. It is possible that the lips and chin may have been replicated, but they were not preserved. The features are for the most part modeled naturally, though the ears and nostrils are slightly stylized. The nostrils are sketched into plaster with a pointed tool, and the single ear is represented by a wide crescent shape. The eyes are the most notable characteristic. The left eye, though partially damaged, depicts a small, almond 14 shaped layer of plaster placed to create the eye. The cornea is clearly defined by a small crisp pinch of plaster. Additionally, “the eye corner is well indicated” (Schmandt-Besserat 2002: 100). The third and last cache was one of the two large caches of lime plaster anthropomorphic sculptures. The smaller cache was originally thought to include one to four heads that were similar to the anthropomorphic statues. It was blocklifted and moved to a conservation laboratory at the Smithsonian Institution for cautious excavation, examination, analysis, and treatment. There, it was discovered that what were originally thought to be statuary heads were actually three plaster faces – or “masks” – that had originally adorned plastered skulls (Figure 4). A carbon-14 analysis done on charcoal from a later stratum has dated the faces to older than 8041 ± 65 cal BC (Griffin et al. 1998). 3 Figure 4: The three plastered masks from 'Ain Ghazal (Rollefson, personal communication, 2017). The plaster faces were found lying face down in a line without their original skulls and were made with an outer layer of pink-colored plaster. The three plaster 3 So far, this is the oldest evidence for plastering skulls in the MPPNB (Rollefson, personal communication, 2016). 15 faces are unusual because the plaster had been removed from the skull and the plaster fragments had then been “ritually buried in a fragmentary state” (Griffin et al. 1998: 60). This is gathered from the fact that the burial had not been disturbed prior to discovery. No bones were discovered, and about 40% of the original plaster was absent from the burial. However, the damaged plaster, even though it was no longer physically connected with any bones, received attention equal to the attention paid to human remains. The plaster faces had a layer of fine clay overlying them. The fine clay had pieces of chalk, rock, and floor plaster within it. Since well-preserved bones have previously been found at the site, and none were found in the pit, it is likely that bones were not present during the burial of the plaster faces. As a result of how the plaster was applied, it was necessary for the Neolithic handlers to break the plaster in order to remove it from the skulls. Therefore, after removal the masks were no longer complete artifacts. Additionally, during the excavation of the plaster faces, the contents of the pit were disturbed by an unknown visitor the night before the blocklifting. As a consequence, pieces were broken and scattered. In spite of this, all fragments shown in photographs taken before the disturbance were found and no material was lost. The plaster fragments and other contents of the pit were taken in 1986 to the Smithsonian Institution's Conservation Analytical Laboratory (CAL). Here, treatment of the plaster included cleaning and then light consolidation of plaster for reinforcement. Almost all of the pieces could be put together, but because of missing plaster from pre-excavation, the faces continued to be only partially complete. Already by the end of the 9th millennium BC, the people of ‘Ain Ghazal had the ability to create a plaster of considerable strength; therefore, no 16 additional materials were needed for modeling skulls. Even ten-thousand years later, the impressions on the plaster on the inside of the faces could be observed for further study (Griffin et al. 1998). The impressions on the interior surface of the plaster show that all three faces were fashioned on human skulls whose mandibles had been removed. The faces are horizontally broad and shortened vertically as a result of the absent mandible (Griffin et al. 1998). The lack of bone structure is also represented in the modeling. This is in contrast with most plastered skulls around the Levant, which had high cheekbones and sunken-in cheeks (Croucher 2012). Additionally, the faces were similarly formed in a schematic fashion, using smooth, subtle curves. The mouths and eyes were represented by horizontal slits in the middle of slightly raised plaster mounds. The eyes, which are depicted as closed, have been decorated with bitumen. The noses are made of triangular plaster chunks with two vertical slits to represent the nostrils. The ears protrude somewhat from the face, and they are slightly too high and too far back to be considered anatomically correct (Griffin et al. 1998: 60). Due to the evidence of plaster removal, in the cases of the residue of plaster on Skull C and the removal of plaster that resulted in the three plastered masks, it is believed that these are the products of ceremonial re-deposition of damaged plastered skulls for reasons that are unknown. Yiftahel Yiftahel plastered skulls are dated to the Mid-Late PPNB (8,300-7,000 cal BC), corresponding with the main occupational period at Yiftahel. In 2008, a cache of three plastered skulls were found in a pit. The three skulls, labeled Homo 1, Homo 2, and 17 Homo 3 (Figure 5), were arranged in a row and were all facing the same direction (west), and all were adult individuals. Homo 1 and 3 have similar plaster modeling but Homo 2 is starkly different, displaying more attention to detail and decoration. The three skulls all have substantial damage, primarily to the calvaria and faces (Milevski et al. 2008; Slon et al. 2014). Figure 5: The three plastered skulls found in 2008 following reconstruction and preservation processes. From left to right: Homo 1 – left; Homo 2 – center; Homo 3 – right (Slon et al. 2014: 3). The middle skull, Homo 2, has a more skillfully remodeled face, similar to aspects of the plastered skulls found in Kfar Hahoresh (see below). Based on the finding of Slon et al. (2014: 4), “the skull belonged to an adult individual, probably within the middle age category (35–49 years), albeit a greater age (50+ years) could not be dismissed.” The plaster covers the entire facial part of the Homo 2, and extends above the supraorbital arches and laterally and down toward the zygomatic arch (Milevski et al. 2008: 40). Although all three plastered skulls from Yiftahel are missing their mandibles, CT scans of Homo 2 revealed that a thick layer of plaster had been 18 positioned where the mandible would have been, creating an artificial chin similar to those found on the skulls with artificial chins discovered at Jericho (Slon et al. 2014). Significant attention was given to Homo 2’s main facial features: the nose, eyes, and mouth. The nose was constructed from a limestone pebble and was placed in the center of the face, and was secured in place by a thin layer of plaster. To represent the eyes, each eye socket held a single white shell (probably Donax sp., a small marine clam), which was split into two equal halves; this represented the bulbous feature of the eye ball. These shells are not naturally occurring near Yiftahel, and are likely evidence of trade between villages. The interior parts of the shells had been pressed into the plaster, “their margins covered by a rounded elongated plaster role [sic] to create the impression of an eyelid” (Milevski et al. 2008: 40). To finish each eye, a small conical shell was situated between the two halves of the white shell, depicting an iris. In the left eye, an erect spiral shell was positioned between the two shell pieces. Although the spiral is absent from the right eye, there is a small empty space between the two white shells, possibly indicating a spiral shell or another object had been there before (Slon et al. 2014). The mouth was created by a small rounded hollow located 2 cm under the nose (Milevski et al. 2008). There are two vertical and stretched out gashes on the right half of Homo 2. The first gash is fragmented and located underneath the presumed cheekbone. The second is below the first, near the mouth. It is unknown whether the gashes are due to the damage of time, or if they are deliberate characteristics, possibly the replication of scars (Slon et al. 2014: 4). The amount of detail in the eyes, which appear to be looking forward, make them the most notable feature of the skull. Remarkably, they parallel the eyes on the plastered skulls at Jericho, which is about 55 19 miles southeast of Yiftahel, and may be reflective of ideas being exchanged between sites, not just commodities. Overall, the face of Homo 2 is smooth with rounded curves and very pronounced and high cheeks (Milevski et al. 2008). Homo 1 and Homo 3 differ from Homo 2 due to their lack of detail compared to the skillful artistry displayed on Homo 2. Both Homo 1 and Homo 3 have decorated eyes, but lack any other distinct features. For Homo 1, Slon et al.’s (2014: 3) research suggests that “although the glabella is quite smooth, the thickness of the supra-orbital margin and the large size of the mastoid processes (visible only in CT scans) suggest that Homo 1 may be a male.” Both orbitals were filled and rounded in shape with a fragment of a white shell placed on the plaster, possibly to represent the sclera. In the upper-right part of the eyes, a small black piece of flint is positioned medially to the shell of the right eye, probably to represent the irises or pupils. Instead of flint, a plaster bead extends out from the left shell. The eyes give the impression that the skull is looking diagonally up to its right (Slon et al. 2014; Milevski et al. 2008). Additionally, to the right of the maxilla, surrounded by sediment, there is a narrow, elongated animal bone (Slon et al. 2014). Though Slon et al. (2014) do not mention the context of the animal bone, it could be due to a subsequent interruption of an animal den, left over from a feast, or some sort of grave good. Homo 3 has a thin supra-orbital margin, a smooth glabella, and a small mastoid process that suggest that the skull belonged to a female. “Only the anterior lateral suture could be used to evaluate age. Its minimal closure is more likely to be found in young (20–34 years) to middle adults (35–49 years)” (Slon et al. 2014: 5). Homo 3 has the most damage out of the three and the skull is lacking many parts, including large 20 parts of the frontal and parietal bones. Only the superior orbital rim of the left eye and a sliver of the nasal bone survived on the left side. On the right, the orbital cavity was plugged with a plaster filling in the shape of an eye. The rounded filling was formed by two semi-lunar pieces that had been laid one on top of the other, resembling thick eyelids (Slon et al. 2014; Milevski et al. 2008). “On the lateral areas of the gap between them, two pieces of white shells, similar to the ones in the mask of Homo 1, possibly represent the sclera” (Slon et al. 2014: 5). A plaster bead projects out of the middle of the gap, likely represents the iris or pupil. The skull seems to be looking downward, though this may be a result of the tilting of the entire skull in the direction of Homo 2 (Slon et al. 2014; Milevski et al. 2008). The skulls at Yiftahel are valuable examples of the trade routes connecting different sites in southern Levant. The aesthetics of the skulls and the use of shells for the eyes represent the trade of both ideas and commodities. Additionally, the skill and ornamentation of Homo 2 compared to Homo 1 and Homo 3 could indicate a hierarchical community where Homo 1 and Homo 3 are placed to guard over Homo 2. Kfar Hahoresh Kfar Hahoresh is a PPNB site a short distance from the western edge of Nazareth that dates from the MPPNB through to the LPPNB (8,000-6,800 cal BC) (Goring-Morris and Horwitz 2007; Bonogofsky 2006b). No residential dwellings have been found at Kfar Hahoresh, and it is thought that the site may reflect a place reserved for or dedicated to spiritual or cult practices and celebrations such as feasting and burials, both of which archaeological evidence has been found to substantiate (Twiss 2008; Goring-Morris and Horwitz 2007). As many as six plastered skulls have been 21 found at Kfar Hahoresh, and all date to the MPPNB period (Goring-Morris and Horwitz 2007; Bonogofsky 2006b; Rollefson, personal communication, 2016). In 1991, a complete and well-preserved plastered skull was found. Three years later, a second plastered skull was discovered badly fragmented. In 1997 a third plastered skull fragment was found that is speculated to have been painted (Bonogofsky 2006b; Goring-Morris and Horwitz 2007). Subsequently, two other plastered skulls have been found: one complete and one fragmentary – “making a total of five plastered skulls, with the possibility of a sixth” (Bonogofsky 2006b: 52; Goring-Morris and Horwitz 2007). Only the first plastered skull that was found has been well published (Figure 6); very little information is available on the other five skulls. At Kfar Hahoresh, the plastered skulls were smaller than in real life due to the absence of the mandible, as is the case for almost all plastered skulls from southern Levant. The facial features were replicated higher than the corresponding cranial features, and were broader and more exaggerated than the plastered faces found at ‘Ain Ghazal (Griffin et al. 1998). Figure 6: The plastered skull (Homo I-KH) from Kfar Hahoresh, Israel (Rollefson, personal communication 2017). 22 Homo 1-KH4, the complete plastered skull from 1991, was discovered in a pit below a plastered floor. By using computed tomography (CT) and micro-focus radiography (MFR), it was discovered that the skull belonged to a male aged 20-25 (Hershkovitz et al. 1995; Bonogofsky 2006b). Directly next to the plastered skull was a Byblos point that was most likely a grave good. In the same pit, another 15-20 cm below the plastered skull, were the remains of a headless mountain gazelle (GoringMorris and Horwitz 2007). The faunal-human collective was “intentionally placed within a plaster-lined pit that was then filled and sealed by a sandwich of plaster cappings. It is also likely that the precise location of this feature was marked on the surface by the single post-hole set in the basin-shaped feature” (Goring-Morris and Horwitz 2007: 906). While the plastered face of the complete skull was well preserved, the vault of the skull was fractured and had undergone some deformation by the pressure of the sediment above. Similar to most of the plastered skulls found in the southern Levant (see Beisamoun), plaster covered the upper and mid-face and went out to the cranial base and the nuchal plane of the occipital bone, but the calvarium was left unplastered. This could be due to degradation of plaster on top of the skull or it may have been intentionally left bare. In nearly all of the plastered skulls, plaster covers the face, sides, and base of the head, but not the cranial vault. It has been suggested that some skulls had wigs or head coverings or this may have been due to resource limitation and high production cost of plaster (Fletcher et al. 2008; Slon et al. 2014). No shells or other decorations were found on this skull, unlike many of the other plastered skulls from the 4 Referred to as Homo 1 in Hershkovitz et al. (1995), but will refer to it as Homo 1-KH to differentiate from the plastered skulls found at Yiftahel. 23 region. Additionally, the mouth was formed by protruding plaster in the shape of pursed lips. By contrast, both the nose and eyelids were subsequently attached to the frontal bone and consisted of a more multifarious substance than the mouth. Red pigment covered the entirety of the exterior plaster (Hershkovitz et al. 1995). Hershkovitz et al. (1995) originally thought that the red pigment was red ochre, a ferruginous clay (containing iron oxide) that was commonly used by prehistoric people. Instead, it was later found that the red pigment was cinnabar, a mercury sulfide mineral only found in Turkey (Rollefson 2010: 10). Tell Aswad Figure 7: Plastered skull from Tell Aswad (Stordeur and Khawam 2007). The site of Tell Aswad is less than 20 miles from Syria’s capital city of Damascus and was occupied beginning in 9,000 cal BC. The site's occupation dates 24 from the beginning of the PPNA and goes until well into the LPPNB. Two caches of plastered skulls have been found there with a total of nine plastered skulls dating from both the MPPNB and LPPNB. The Tell Aswad plastered skulls are speculated to be some of the best preserved plastered skulls and demonstrate the meticulous attention and skill that went into creating plastered skulls (Figures 7 and 8), evidenced by such intricate details as the depiction of eyelashes drawn with charcoal on closed eyelids and generally anatomically correct proportions and features (Croucher 2012). In general, the plastered skulls found at Tell Aswad had their eye orbitals, ear cavities, and nasal cavities filled with plaster. The plaster extended to the brow bone and around to create the shape of an ear. Additionally, their eyes are typically depicted as closed, and the nose, ears, and chin are usually plastered (Kuijt 2008). Both Kuijt (2008) and Ibáñez (et al. 2014) have also stated that the mandible was included5, and that this gave the skulls a slightly elongated look. Ibáñez (et al. 2014: 89) reported that the plastered skulls were commonly placed in “highly valued contexts, such as at the centre of a cemetery where the burials were arranged in a circle around them.” In 2003, the first cache of plastered skulls was found consisting of four plastered skulls (Skulls 11, 14, 15, and 18) that dated to 8,521-8,323 uncal BP (6,5216,323 uncal BC) (Stordeur 2003; Ibáñez et al. 2014). This cache was part of a larger outside burial area that was associated with a round-walled house made of mudbrick that was had been considerably damaged. The outside funerary area was constructed with low walls made with a mixture of mud and small blocks of basalt. The funeral deposit included five groups, successively deposited, and consisted of both isolated 5 Kuijt (2008) describes that the first cache of plastered skulls all included mandibles, while Ibáñez (et al. 2014) does not indicate whether this is inclusive of both caches or not. 25 skulls and whole skeletons. Group one was more carefully arranged than the other burials and included five skulls, four of which were plastered. The area where the plastered skulls were found had been dug in the shape of a shallow, circular bowl, and was encircled by a low wall. The deposit had then been covered by a low dome of earth. Another five individuals were “piled” on top. We can speculate that they were placed there either at the same time or in a very short time period after due to the fact that the sequences are in direct contact with each other. The five skulls of group one were placed along the curve of the wall and aligned so that two plastered skulls were on either side of the unplastered skull (Stordeur 2003). In total, the burial area had more than 50 burials, “including primary and secondary, collective, and individual burials” (Croucher 2012: 102). Preliminary synthesis from Stordeur (2003) reports that coating of the four skulls does not seem to follow a strict rule, and can be made of earth, plaster, or lime. A fine red color had been applied to all of the skulls. All of the skulls had 2-4 layers of material, and their plaster reached up to the lower part of the forehead and around to form the ears. Skull 11 and Skull 15 are both complete, but lack the more elaborate features of Skull 14 and Skull 18. Skull 14 includes well marked eyebrows and closed eyes that have been enhanced with a black line of coal (Stordeur 2003: 110). Skull 18 is smaller than the others with very “delicate” features (Stordeur 2003: 112). A horizontal slit divides the eyes in two, and marks that the skulls’ eyes are closed, with a “serene” appearance. There are two small lateral dimples, and the mouth has been carefully created with the lower lip slightly advancing out more than the upper lip. The mouth includes the teeth, which have been recreated with small, rectangular pieces of plaster (Stordeur 2003: 112). 26 Figure 8: Plastered skulls from Tell Aswad (Stordeur and Khawam 2007). In the younger cache, the first deposit was of an unplastered skull of a child, around which four plastered skulls were situated. The nose on one of the four skulls had been previously damaged but showed signs of later repair. The same skull had a flat base and was placed in a vertical position. Signs of wear on the plaster and the broken nose suggest that it had been displayed before it had been buried. Another of the skulls also had had a flat base where the neck would have started, but it was placed horizontally and not vertically on the base. This skull had an incised mouth rather than the modeled lips possessed by the other three skulls. A fifth plastered skull was introduced at a later date and was placed slightly above the child’s skull, but was then removed again, as evidenced by the fragments of red and white plaster left behind on the child’s skull (Croucher 2012). 27 Tell Ramad The site of Tell Ramad is found about 12 miles south of Damascus and less than 3 miles from Tell Aswad. Tell Ramad was excavated from 1963 to 1970, and twenty-seven plastered skulls of males, females, and children were excavated during those seven years (Bonogofsky 2006b; Croucher 2012). The site’s earliest occupation can be dated to 6,200 uncal BC, or 7,225 cal BC, and thus is dated to the LPPNB (Aufderheide 2009; Rollefson, personal communication, 2017). The skulls were found in three different caches, and include both male and female examples (Croucher 2012). Figure 9: A plastered skull from Tell Ramad with a “neck” (Rollefson, personal communication, 2017). The first cache of four plastered skulls was found in 1965. Three were able to be aged and sexed, while one was too badly damaged; two of the skulls were adult 28 females, while the third skull was a male between 30-40 years old (Aufderheide 2009; Bonogofsky 2006b). Plaster covered the entire front of the skulls, and the loss of plaster on one of the skulls showed that the teeth may have been forcibly removed. The eyes were formed by filling the orbital cavity with some kind of white material, and red ochre had also been used to stain the forehead and the crania (Aufderheide 2009). The second cache, found in the same year, was dated to 6,500 uncal BC (7,534 cal BC) (Aufderheide 2009; Rollefson, personal communication, 2017). The skulls were aged and sexed by Bonogofsky (2006b: 49), who reported that the skulls belonged to three adult females, three adult males, and nine juveniles. All of the skulls were colored with red ochre on their crania (Bonogofsky 2001; Aufderheide 2009). Fragments of two possible statues or dolls were included among the plastered skulls. A third cache was found in 1966 a short distance away that included another eight plastered skulls. The age and sex of the plastered skulls were described as belonging to one juvenile, five adult females, and two adult males (Aufderheide 2009; Bonogofsky 2001; Bonogofsky 2006b). Bonogofsky (2006b: 29) reported that two of the female skulls (R 66-2 and R 66-3), had “necks,” or “body stands,” that were roughly recreated (Figure 9). This was done by plastering around a solid plaster core with no evidence of a bone foundation. One of the bases of the plastered skull’s necks, R 66-2, had been flattened and painted red. Additionally, a plaster figurine found with the skulls was believed to have held up the skull, but this is unlikely since the top of the figurine (or “statuette”) is narrow and rounded, whereas the plaster neck is broad and flat. 29 In reports of the Tell Ramad plastered skulls, both De Contenson (1971) and Bonogofsky (2006) state that the tops of the crania were smothered with red ochre, and Fletcher et al. (2008) reports that the mandibles were not included; yet none of the authors explain whether this was consistent among all of the plastered skulls found at Tell Ramad, or a general description of them. Beisamoun Figure 10: One of the two plastered skulls from Beisamoun, the entire skull is plastered and dates to the 7th millennium cal BC (Harris 2005). The site of Beisamoun is located in the Jordan Valley a little over one mile northwest of the Sea of Galilee and dates to the MPPNB. Two plastered skulls were discovered in 1972. The skulls were found in the doorway of a dwelling facing east (Croucher 2012; Aufderheide 2009). Both skulls belonged to adults: one was a female who was more than 65 years old, and though the other skull was clearly an adult, it is 30 too badly damaged to determine a sex (Bonogofsky 2006b; Croucher 2012). On the female skull, the mandible was included and plaster had been applied to the entire face and sides, including a thin plaster layer that covered the frontal bone. The teeth were absent, due to either loss or intentional removal. The orbital cavities had been filled and modeled into a concave shape, and facial features had been modeled onto the face. The nose was narrow, but had nostrils hollowed into it (Aufderheide 2009). The ears were “mere, nonanatomic protuberances” (Aufderheide 2009: 187). There was also an isolated tibia, and round plastered faces (smaller than the plastered skulls, or the masks found at ‘Ain Ghazal), which depicted sleepy eyes, were found along with the skulls (Croucher 2012; Aufderheide 2009). Fletcher et al. (2008) reported that there was full cranial plastering at Beisamoun (Figure 10). The Beisamoun plastered skulls are the only plastered skulls found with plaster covering the entire crania. Tell Abu Suwwan This past summer, 2016, several plastered skulls were discovered at Tell Abu Suwwan, a medium-sized PPNB and Pottery Neolithic village on the southern edge of the Roman city of Jerash in northern Jordan (Rollefson, personal communication, 2016). While no information has yet been published, at least eight skulls detached from their skeletons have been recovered from a concentrated area of about 9-10 m2, but cleaning of the skulls from the excavated matrix is still ongoing, so it is not certain how many were plastered. The orbits of at least one of them was filled with plaster and had tiny lozenge-shaped blades of obsidian to represent the iris (Rollefson, personal communication, 2017). 31 Nahal Hemar6 Nahal Hemar Cave is a well-documented 9,000-year-old MPPNB to LPPNB cave site located in the southern Judean Desert, about 12 miles west of the southern basin of the Dead Sea. The cave measures 8 x 4 meters, and was excavated by Ofer Bar-Yosef. It is reported to have stored thousands of ritual objects (Bonogofsky 2006b; William 2014). Six modeled crania were found here, but they differ in two major ways from the plastered skulls found in the other PPNB sites. First, the crania’s vaults, not faces, were modeled using animal collagen (Figure 11), not plaster or clay; and second, there has been no evidence of residence.7 No sedentary architecture, foraging residence, or other residential evidence was discovered in the cave (Bonogofsky 2006b; Rollefson, personal communication, 2017). Nevertheless, as Fletcher et al. (2008: 312) state, “skulls recovered from Nahal Hemar demonstrate a related phenomenon [to plastered skulls]; net-like patterns on the cranial vault are thought to represent braided hair or a woven headdress and stone masks, found at the site, were perhaps added to form the face.” The differences in the skulls may reflect the kind of site Nahal Hemar represents: a small cave in the hyperarid desert that was devoted to cult practices, not a farming village that typifies the location of plastered skulls (Noy 1988: 109). The six crania were recovered from a disturbed context that has a carbon-date of 6,860 uncal BC. Additionally, all six have been sexed and aged as adult males, 25-50+ years old, 6 It is worth noting that while plastered skulls were not found in Nahal Hemar Cave, it has been included because the skulls from this site have been modeled and correspond to the spatial and temporal confinements of the plastered skulls. 7 Nahal Hemar and Kfar Hahoresh are the only two sites with plastered or decorated skulls where no residential dwellings have been found. 32 but without their skeletal remains there is a certain degree of doubt (Bonogofsky 2006b: 50). Figure 11: Modeled skull from Nahal Hemar (Rollefson, personal communication, 2017). Along with the modeled skulls, Nahal Hemar has produced one of the most remarkably well-preserved assemblages of the PPNB, including wooden artifacts, remnants of baskets, woven linen, twine, and more. These kinds of material culture are an extremely rare phenomenon in Levantine prehistoric sites due to the rapid deterioration of organic material like wood. The high level of preservation seen in these artifacts at Nahal Hemar is exceptional among prehistoric sites. The assemblage at Nahal Hemar is not homogenous in nature, and has been interpreted as items that are associated with a variety of functions, of which ritual plays the biggest role (Goren et al. 1993: 120). Nahal Hemar is fascinating due to its exceptional preservation of so many artifacts and its seemingly sole purpose as a ceremonial or ritual site. 33 Stone Masks The oldest masks to have endured the destruction of weather and time date to the Neolithic period. These masks were carved from limestone and originated in southern Levant – the Judean Hills and the Judean Desert and its fringes (Figure 12). One complete mask and a fragment of another were recovered from Nahal Hemar (Figure 13), mentioned above (Verhoeven 2002; Hershman et al. 2014: 31). Another fragmentary stone mask was recovered from the LPPNB megasite of Basta in the Petra area of southern Jordan and is very similar to the masks from Nahal Hemar (Nissen et al. 1987: 109). The stone masks from Nahal Hemar and elsewhere are very different from the faces of plastered skulls but share some striking similarities, namely the accentuated eyes. Figure 12: Three masks from the Judean Hills or southern Judean foothills that are not dated (William 2014). The Nahal Hemar stone masks display a pattern of radial decoration, similar to patterns on plaster statues found at Jericho and ‘Ain Ghazal. This exact pattern has not been found in the PPNB, possibly because it decorated organic material or other material that has not survived time. However, the radial pattern does appear later in the 34 Pottery Neolithic on stamp seals and in the Chalcolithic (Noy 1988). Noy (1988: 110) states that the origin of this pattern should be looked for in nature – images of the sun or stars, shape of plants, etc. She cautiously speculates that the rigorous pattern comes from astronomical objects rather than the flora and fauna: “it can be conjectured that this pattern had a meaning in cult and religion of the time and was limited to those few items with a specific role in the cult” (Noy 1988: 111). Figure 13: This limestone mask was reassembled from 12 fragments that archaeologists discovered in the Nahal Hemar cave dating to the PPNB (William 2014). Recently, the stone masks from Nahal Hemar were used as a “control group” by the Department of Prehistoric Cultures at the Israel Museum as a basis for comparison to other masks, including two stone masks held in public institutions, the Musée Biblique and the collections of the Palestine Exploration Fund, as well as nine additional masks from private collections.8 The group of masks reportedly originated 8 There is no provenience information on the masks in the private collections, so there is little useful information beyond specific stylistic aspects. 35 from numerous sites around the Middle East, including: Nahal Hemar, Er-Ram, and around the surrounding areas of the Dead Sea, Judean Desert, Judean Hills, and the Judean Foothills (Hershman et al. 2014). The Neolithic masks were identified using a symbolic code that was formulated by studying “the masks’ iconographic attributes, … a series of attribute analysis, … and its technique of manufacture and design” (Hershman et al. 2014: 33). The stone masks all indicate identical technical characteristics; the masks are all formed from stone and carved, drilled, filed, and engraved. Additionally, a similar paint made from organic pigment was found on three of the masks, and most of the masks have anthropomorphic features that include oval faces, foreheads, open eye sockets, small noses, mouths, teeth, chins, and different expressions (Hershman et al. 2014: 36). Almost all of the stone masks that have been found have no providence, as a consequence we do not know the dates of all of these masks. Thus, they may not be pertinent to the ritual of skull plastering or the motivation behind it. Summary Plastering skulls was pervasive throughout the southern Levant. The archaeological evidence strongly suggests that this was a common ritual practice with distinctive methodological uniqueness, artistic skill, burial patterns, and more. These shared practices and techniques may have been the result of trade routes that not only allowed for the exchange of commodities, but also for the exchange of ideas and beliefs. The general method for plastering skulls was the same across the southern Levant, though important differences in facial features, such as the variety of decorations used to depict eyes, individuate the plastered skulls in different locations. 36 Most often it was only the face of the skull or cranium that was plastered, making the term ‘plastered skulls’ somewhat deceptive; additionally, the use of the word ‘skull’ infers the presence of the mandible, which was not commonly incorporated (Croucher 2012: 94). The lack of mandible is likely due to a functional problem of holding it in place once the tissue attaching the mandible to the cranium had deteriorated or been removed, although an imitation mandible was sometimes incorporated (Slon et al. 2014).9 This meant that the anatomical position of the mouth, nose, and eyes were not accurate. However, in Tel Aswad, Tel Ramad, and Beisamoun, there are examples where the mandibles were still connected, allowing the artist to reflect more realistic proportions. In other locations where the mandible was not used, artists had to compact the facial features into a smaller area, possibly indicating that the artists were not concerned with replicating anatomically correct facial features; rather, it seems as though they were more focused on replicating certain facial features – namely the eyes, nose, cheeks, and mouth. Stylistically, many have argued that there is a common ‘aesthetic’ among the plastered skulls: many skulls had ‘eyeliner’ outlining their eyes, prominent cheekbones with shallow cheeks, slender and straight noses, and soft mouths (Croucher 2012: 95; Kuijt 2008; Goring-Morris 2002; Bonogofsky 2006a). The emphasis on the eyes and other similar features are also seen in the plastered statues recovered from ‘Ain Ghazal (see Rollefson 2000); additionally, the stone masks from the Judean Hills and the Judean Desert drew attention to the eyes, making them the most noticeable feature (Croucher 2012: 95). Some skulls were covered in a colored wash or painted. While it 9 A modeled chin was sometimes incorporated, and allowed for more anatomically accurate facial features. See figure 2, a plastered skull found at Jericho with a modeled chin. 37 is possible that the skulls may have had hair, headdresses or wigs, the organic material is not preserved in archaeological record (Croucher 2012). While there are common stylistic trends, there are also notable variations in the modeling and features that set certain plastered skulls apart from others. For example, there are distinctive components of the eyes that distinguish one site from another: at Jericho, for example, shells were used, while at ‘Ain Ghazal, bitumen was used instead (Kuijt 2008; Aufderheide 2009). Some of the plastered skulls show meticulous detail; skulls from Tell Aswad, for instance, have detailed eyelashes drawn on by charcoal (Croucher 2012). Tell Ramad is the only place in the southern Levant where a neck is created by plaster. No other sites include this addition, and it may have been done to allow the skull to stay upright for display or to be held during rituals. Hershkovitz et al. (1995) stated that there were at least four different types of plaster used to form a plastered skull from Kfar Hahoresh. While this analysis has not been done across the plastered skulls from all of the sites, it indicates that the plastered skulls must have been part of a craft specialization, despite some skulls showing a higher level of artistic skill than others. The craft specialist would have to know that correct proportions of calcium carbonate to other substances, particularly silica, along with the distinct steps to maximize the stability and durability of the plaster skulls (Hershkovitz et al. 1995). The data from Jericho, ‘Ain Ghazal, Yiftahel, Kfar Hahoresh, Tell Aswad, Tell Ramad, Beisamoun, Tell Abu Suwwan, Nahal Hemar, and the surrounding Judean Hills and the Judean Desert, regarding the secondary mortuary practice of plastering skulls and the creation of stone masks allows us to observe clear evidence of the universality of this practice throughout the region, and at the same time allows us to 38 see the significance of inter-site variations in methods and techniques. As Kuijt (2008: 172) points out, the variation in the methods and technique are indicative of “the development of local, community-level traditions in the context of shared general practice and belief systems” that included both men and women regardless of their age. 39 Chapter Two: Interpretations and Modern Ethnographies Introduction As Chapter One showed, there is no doubt that plastered skulls illustrate a common ritual ideology; however, there are many diverging interpretations as to what ideology and culture produced plastered skulls (Benz 2010: 251; Bonogofsky 2006b; Kuijt 2008). While it is evident there is variation between the plastered skulls found at different sites, and even within sites, the high level of similarity among the methods and techniques of the skulls and other ritual practices across southern Levant allows us to make general interpretations of plastered skulls that also acknowledge the variations found at different sites (Bonogofsky 2001, 2006b; Kuijt 2008; Verhoeven 2002). As more archaeological evidence and re-analysis about the skulls surface (i.e. sexing), new channels of interpretation uncover more than just their conventional roles in interpretation regarding hierarchy and social complexity. Whether plastered skulls were the result of an ancestor cult, or were regarded as competition between egalitarian societies, their meaning continues to be a topic of debate. Primary and secondary mortuary practices are connected and are often understood by their performers as elements of a broader ideology. For instance, secondary mortuary practice could involve the removal or the cranium to be placed in another location. On the other hand, multistage secondary mortuary practices are generally organized far in advance and can be “intergenerational, involve multiple households, and require extraordinary community involvement” (Kuijt 2008: 175). Not uncommonly, secondary mortuary rituals are constituents of ceremonies, and can 40 therefore be seen as spiritual and symbolic performances that have social, political, and personal meanings (Benz 2010: 251; Kuijt 2008: 175). However, multistage secondary mortuary rituals can often be related to households or kinship groups, and act as a way to establish lineage ties. Regardless, secondary mortuary practices are not merely a simple act but are part of a network of meanings and associations, which can be helpfully elucidated with ethnographic studies. Many interpretations have been based on ethnographic parallels that have been utilized to “prove” one interpretation or another. While we can compare mortuary rituals and objects of modern societies and infer plausible meanings behind plastered masks, comparing modern societies to prehistoric ones is a task that must be tentatively embarked on, and one must be wary of convergent parallels of unrelated symbolic meaning. A number of the modern ethnographies that have been used as a comparison and support for interpretations of Near Eastern plastered skulls have come from parts of Oceania, which is composed of three regions: Melanesia, Polynesia, and Micronesia. A number of villages and tribes throughout Melanesia and Polynesia kept the skulls of the deceased as a means to acquire the mental and spiritual powers collected in the head. “Skull worship, head-hunting, and trophy skulls10 were a means of spiritual empowerment for the individual or community” (Bonogofsky 2001: 25). Clay was commonly used to replicate facial features onto skulls, and then paint, tattoos, shells, and hair were used to decorate them. Occasionally when the skulls were not modeled and decorated, they were included into wooden ancestor figures. Skull collection and 10 Terms not defined in the ethnographic research (Bonogofsky 2001: 25). 41 modeling across Oceania appear as interrelated themes throughout the differing ethnographic accounts; these include themes of beauty, youth, fertility, physical skills, divination, and fear of sorcery (Bonogofsky 2001: 24-25). In this chapter, I will organize the different interpretations thematically, and attempt to order them chronologically within those thematic groups so that the creation of new hypotheses and their evolution is revealed as archaeologists build on each other's work and incorporate new evidence. Following that, I will thematically group the ethnographic accounts by geography: Melanesia, Polynesia, and Pakistan. Interpretations of Plastered Skulls Ancestor Cult The first plastered skulls were found in Jericho in 1953 by Kathleen Kenyon, yet it was another 20 years until they were analyzed and published by a physical anthropologist – Strouhal (1973). Kenyon discovered the first plastered skull of an older male on top of its mandible below the floor of a dwelling at Jericho; this helped set the stage for the interpretation of the later finds of plastered skulls as exclusively male ancestors. Kenyon’s first reaction to the plastered skull was: Either he was an enemy whom it was desired to keep under control or a venerated member of the community whose wisdom it was hoped to perpetuate in the house (Kenyon and Tushingham 1953: 87011). Kenyon's primary theory was that the plastered skulls represented a mortuary ritual that venerated elderly male ancestors – an ancestor cult. The focus on elderly males was in part due to the removal of teeth which created an appearance of old age 11 Cited by Bonogofsky (2001: 13). 42 (Bonogofsky 2002; Croucher 2012). Kenyon also described the plastered skulls as “the earliest known portraits in the direct line of ancestry of modern art” (Bienert 1991: 1112). Furthermore, others argued that the men of the PPNB preserved the skulls of their predecessors so that they could keep and protect the experience and knowledge of their ancestors. This suggested that the people of Jericho were developing an association between the head and knowledge and experience (Bartlett 1983). Strouhal's (1973) interpretation of plastered skulls was based on five of the plastered skulls from Jericho that were all male and ranged in age from 20 to 60 years. Strouhal (1973: 243) did not want to refer to them as “portrait heads,” as he believed that the skulls lacked realistic facial features. However, he admitted that the colored wash on the plaster looked very similar to flesh and demonstrated a technical skill of the artist, but that generally deficient artistic skill was demonstrated through the poor reconstruction of facial features. This implied that the main purpose was to reconstruct the skull and to pay their respects to the deceased person, not to accurately recreate the deceased's portrait. Additionally, Strouhal (1973) argued that the practice was controlled by the men, representing the social importance of males in Jericho. The paucity of examination between 1953 and 1973 was problematic in that the bias of the first excavator, Kenyon, contributed to the interpretation that plastered skulls were of male elders and leaders (Bonogofsky 2006b). Furthermore, as more plastered skulls were found in surrounding MPPNB sites such as ‘Ain Ghazal, Kenyon’s primary interpretation of venerated male ancestors was perpetuated by other researchers, such as Strouhal (1973) and Rollefson and Bienert (1994: 2013). Ancestor 12 13 Cited by Moorey (2003). Cited by Bonogofsky (2001: 2). 43 veneration was further supported by the plaster statues that were found at PPNB where modeled skulls were also found (Jericho, ‘Ain Ghazal, and Nahal Hemar), which were interpreted as “family or clan ancestors (Kuijt 1995; Gunter 1996), as well as founding fathers (Bar-Yosef and Alon 1988; Rollefson and Bienert 1994: 20), or heroic male leaders (Rollefson 1984)” (Bonogofsky 2001: 2). There was no clear archaeological evidence for the theories behind founding fathers and heroic male leaders, and it seems as though these interpretations simply stemmed from the original assumption of Kenyon, whose theory went unquestioned (Bonogofsky 2005; Fletcher et al. 2008). Bar-Yosef and Alon (198814) believed that the modeled skulls from Nahal Hemar were “indubitable cult objects” that expressed the “image of mature or elderly male figure” as honored “founding fathers.” Along with other researchers, they believed that the plastered skulls were the result of a male “gerontocracy.” This interpretation was in part based on the modeled skulls found at Nahal Hemar and the plastered skulls found elsewhere, but also along with the stone masks from Nahal Hemar and the statues from ‘Ain Ghazal (Bonogofsky 2001: 40). The stone masks were used as support because they were reported to have a mustache and beard (William 2014). The theory of the venerated male ancestor cult was overturned when Bonogofsky (2001, 2004, 2006b) analyzed the sex and age of 42 plastered skulls from several sites (Table 4) and revealed that they belonged to males and females of all ages. However, the theory of venerated ancestors still prevails today. Interpretations surrounding ancestors are problematic due to Kenyon’s first assumptions of an elderly 14 Cited by Bonogofsky (2001: 40). 44 male cult, and the conventional view that ancestors are defined as old and wise. Nevertheless, the ancestor interpretation is still pertinent to the discussion of plastered skulls because it can be relevant to whether a particular lineage or person may have been recognized as an ancestor, a role that was possibly determined during life rather than after death. If this were the case, ancestor status would not be contingent on the age or reproductive ability of an individual. If so, the category of veneration or ancestor may not have been exclusively associated with fertility, age, or gender, as it is commonly assumed (Croucher 2012: 112). Social Hierarchy Plastered skulls have also commonly been understood as having a central role in social hierarchies. Hershkovitz et al. (1995) theorize that plastered skulls show social bonding through a shared belief, meaning that common cultural traits linked the early agricultural societies together. This is seen in the consistent modeling techniques of plastered skulls within a community. Additionally, this shows the consolidation of corporate identity and collective solidarity in the rapidly growing farming communities. Hershkovitz et al. (1995) claimed that the complexity of creating a skull indicates the movement towards community cohesion through a common ideology and ritual practice.15 However, the skull that they found was unusual because it resembled “a death mask” (Figure 6), which clashed with the usual lively appearance of other skulls; additionally, there were no shells or other decorations that have been found on many of the other plastered skulls from the region. They concluded that the amount of time and effort expended into the plastered skulls portray the high value of these skulls, 15 Based on their study of Homo 1-KH from Kfar Hahoresh. 45 and that along with the increasing complexity of ritual practices in southern Levant, the skulls demonstrate the emerging elites and their efforts to reinforce political order in the transitioning agricultural society (Hershkovitz et al. 1995). Rollefson et al. (1998) argue that plastered skulls represent a “Levantine Skull Cult.” They calculated that skulls were plastered once every generation or two, leading them to hypothesize that only someone of importance received secondary burial treatment. A majority of people were buried away from the village, indicating that it was special to be buried under the house and even more important to have your skull separated and plastered. Rollefson et al. (1998) also note that this practice was not solely for males, as it was not unusual for women to receive secondary burials as well, and that age was not a factor, since skulls ranging from children to the elderly have been found. They conclude that plastered skulls show the importance of ranking social groups not only in community situations, but that family hierarchy existed as well (Rollefson et al. 1998). The association of ritual action and hierarchy was also argued by Rollefson (2000: 183), who states that the ritual behavior at ‘Ain Ghazal is evident of a three-, or possibly four-, tiered hierarchy, and, to a certain extent, that these levels indicate the structure of social behavior on a day-to-day basis. At the first level, there was the production of clay animals and human figurines, which “requires little talent” – the number of figurines in houses and trash dumps indicates that figurines were accessible to everyone. The role of these figurines may have been for personal protection or prosperity, and therefore are the “lowest level” in a hierarchy of ritual activity. The next level included human burials; certain family members were “entitled to subfloor 46 or courtyard burial, and complete with ritual decapitation” (Rollefson 2000: 184). The next level, which could be connected to the household level, was the further selection of eligible skulls for specialized treatment, marking a higher level of intricacy. Rollefson (2000: 184) built off of Kenyon’s interpretation of a revered ancestor, stating that “the elaboration afforded those individuals with a remodeling of facial features in plaster suggests a higher plateau of respect (and responsibility) – revered ancestors as Kenyon (1973: 54) described them, … but perhaps at the level of lineage or even clan leadership.” At the highest level of hierarchy are the plaster statues and busts. Rollefson (2000: 185) argues that the smaller busts may serve to stand for mythological lineage or clan founders, while the larger and more impressive statues that tower above them all could be representative of “gods” or the mythical founders of the community of tribes (i.e. “the people”). Özbek (2009) does not put forth her own argument for a social hierarchy, but she is confident in, and supports the theory that this mortuary practice is a clear example of social status differences. Furthermore, she does not believe that there is archaeological evidence to support the idea that plastering skulls was done to venerate ancestors since there has been nothing done to determine whether skulls were grouped by kinship or randomly placed in houses. Additionally, since the practice of plastering skulls coincided with agricultural community development in the Neolithic population, she claims that this suggests that the plastering of skulls is a shared ritual practice, meaning that ideas moved between different villages, evidenced by the similarities in methods and features between different sites. However, Özbek’s (2009) research included plastered skulls found in Turkey 2,000 years after the PPNB plastered skulls. 47 These skulls are separated across considerable time and space, and therefore may be incorrectly and inaccurately grouped together with the PPNB skulls and forced to fit into her argument. The assumption that skulls are linked to people of importance and further connected to concepts of leadership and power is problematic as evidenced by juvenile skulls that were selected for specialized treatment. This calls into question whether hierarchy can be considered a dominant criterion for skull selection due to the number of plastered juvenile skulls; at least 14 have been found (Table 4). However, Rollefson (personal communication, 2017) points out that the relatively rare plastering of juvenile skulls does not mean that juveniles could not be considered hierarchically important; for example, the eldest son/daughter born to a household might be considered hierarchically important, regardless of age at death. Egalitarian Society In contrast to Rollefson et al. (1998), Hershkovitz et al. (1995), Rollefson (2000), and Özbek (2009), Kuijt and Goring-Morris (2002) argue that the lack of evidence of obvious material differentiation among individual burials in the MPPNB suggests an overall egalitarian social organization, while still incorporating competitive differences between individuals and households. The lack of clear material differentiation16 could be associated with a deliberate homogenization of community members after they are deceased, “and, by extension, the existence of social and ritual mechanisms designed to minimize real and perceived differences within and between households and communities” (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002: 419). Kuijt (2001: 94) 16 However, organic material on the skin (i.e. tattoos) or organic material included with the skeleton would not have survived through time and may have been used to differentiate individuals or household. 48 suggests that the skulls that were chosen for plastering were ritual specialists during their lifetimes. Kuijt (2008: 189) has more recently stated that since less than 5% of people were selected to have their skulls plastered, the people chosen were “probably powerful community members and individuals in positions of leadership, but they included males and females and ranged from old to relatively young.” The link between young children and the ancestors was explained as part of a cycle of life and death, which would be why special treatment include juvenile skulls and was not exclusive to elderly adults. Kuijt (2000a: 155, 15917) has also argued that competition probably occurred at a household level, “with some households asserting individual authority, although whilst we see competing and cooperating households, the rise of an elite is prevented.” This interpretation decreases the power and influence that most archaeologists place on plastered skulls. Plastered skulls may have been apotropaic devices (discussed below) not representing a form of hierarchy. Rather, they would be created whenever needed for ceremonial or ritual usage. Ultimately, the perspective that assumes egalitarian communities would need to account for the logical presumption that inequality coincides with broad egalitarian social organization. Kuijt (2000b: 31418) argues that by recognizing the concurrence of hierarchy and egalitarianism,19 we can “move away from the labelling of societies and look at ‘the development of realistic and comprehensive models of cultural dynamics, including the possible pathways to power and authority in Neolithic communities.’” 17 Cited by Croucher (2012: 114-115). Cited in Croucher (2012: 114-115). 19 This allows for heterarchy within household, lineages, and clans, but not for hierarchy in the community as a whole. 18 49 Social Memory Kuijt (2001, 2008) argued that plastered skulls should be considered as one of several thematically interrelated features of an ideology focused on strengthening community cohesion, as opposed to kin cohesion. By looking at the patterns of plastered skulls between different sites, he concluded that the skulls represented a network that included “ritual knowledge, imagery, mortuary practices and the creation of intergenerational memory and structures of authority” (Kuijt 2008: 171). Some memories are linked to physical manifestations, in which the power of the memory comes from how it is formed, maintained, and reshaped within and between households. The material record of these memories can transcend generations and may survive in archaeological record. Since memory is constructed in reference to people and events, it is the memory of that individual or event that validates them or it over time. Among the living there is an emotional and direct memory of the dead, forming a series of tangible connections between personhood in life, death, and memory. At least originally, memory and recognition are experiential, but that changes over time because “memory is based on reference to the deceased, and being deceased is characterized as being remote and anonymous” (Kuijt 2008: 175). Social memory and oral tradition, images, and location are commonly interconnected, though the extent varies. Memory and tradition are not the only aspects that retain an object’s or person’s identity. The integration of an object into rituals helps to produce the significance of that object. Kuijt (2008) postulates that plastered skulls represent a shared practice where life and death is a cycle, and each community had its own variations on the rituals related to the ideology. In general, the shared 50 practice was a mortuary system that included the physical imagery of someone in the form of the plastered skull, representing knowledge and memory; since most people were not physically part of this practice, it also illustrated the hierarchy of the villages (Kuijt 2008). In the Milevski et al. (2008) article concerning the plastered skulls found in Yiftahel, the authors state that the practice of plastered skulls is a type of ritual practice that represents a link between life and death – also incorporating the memory of the departed – similar to the view of Kuijt (2008). In Yiftahel, they found a cache of three plastered skulls under a plastered floor that had been arranged in a row and were all facing the same direction (west). Additionally, the individual skulls had different characteristics: the plastering and decoration of the skulls at both ends of the row were relatively simple, but the middle skull was starkly different with more attention to detail and decoration. Milevski et al. (2008) suggests that this middle skull was the most significant of the three, and the two skulls on either side of it were placed as guards. This arrangement and pattern could symbolize a complex social organization in the PPNB society, and suggests that there was set social ranking at the time. However, Milevski et al. (2008) speculate to whether this represents a social hierarchy, yet they more strongly assert that the practice of plastering skulls across the Levant is a form of social memory that allows the living to incorporate the memory of the deceased in their lives. Fertility Fertility has also been a common theme among researchers (Bonogofsky 2005; Slon et al. 2014; Verhoeven 2002). Verhoeven (2002) proposed four basic organizing 51 principles in PPNB ritual and ideology, one of which is vitality. Vitality included the belief of fecundity. He believed that both plastered and unplastered skulls are not solely correlated to ancestor veneration, but rather, owing to the fact that many cultures around the world view human skulls as important symbolic and ritual objects which refer to life-force, fecundity, and similar notions. He argues that though ancestors were likely revered, plastered and unplastered skulls were venerated because they were the center for the life-force, which could be exercised to assure fecundity “of the fields, domesticated animals and women” (Verhoeven 2002: 251). The use of female figurines that had their breasts, buttocks, and vulvas emphasized during the PPNB was thought to be evidence of a concern with vitality (fecundity and sexuality). Furthermore, the deliberate decapitation of humans and likely intentional decapitation of the figurines could be in relation to the ritual beheading that allows for the release of the life-force (see modern ethnography of the Naga) (Verhoeven 2002: 251). Verhoeven (2002) also argues that plastered skulls are a household ritual, and that in plastering skulls and other private rituals concerning death, the concepts of vitality, dominant symbolism, and human–animal linkage are significant. Wright (198820) argued that skull removal was a renewal rite that released the dead from the old life to gain new life. He supported this with a “lengthy” history of skull removal, citing both literary sources and ethnographic rituals. He suggested the skulls found at Jericho could have been consulted as “oracular vehicles,” but were probably “fertility charms.” Wright (1988) argued that, given similarities in ethnographic practices from around the world, the skulls from Jericho could have 20 Cited by Bonogofsky (2001: 37). 52 functioned as objects of fertility for young females ready to marry. Some of these fertility customs involved rites studied in the Far East where detached heads were required to ensure prosperity when a new household was erected (Bonogofsky 2001: 37). Bonogofsky (2005: 133) believed that the plastering of facial features and various appliance of red and black paint indicated that the individual’s identity stayed with the skulls of the deceased, and that the diverse handling and numerous function for the skulls would include their use in fertility rituals. Additionally, Slon et al. (2014) mentioned that plastered skulls may have been used in a variety of ceremonies that could have been connected to fertility. Headhunters/ Enemy Trophy Kenyon (195721) considered the possibility that plastered skulls were war trophies. Additionally, Adams (2005) and Testart (2008) also argued that plastered skulls were a result of violent headhunting practices. While these interpretations have drawn comparisons with the specialized treatment of enemy heads as objects of protection in other societies, including some in the Near East, these theories have been widely rejected due to the scarcity of any evidence for either warfare or violent behavior during the MPPNB (Croucher 2012; Parkinson and Duffy 2007). Apotropaic Bonogofsky (2006a) and Slon et al. (2014) mention that plastered skulls and other human remains could have served as apotropaic objects – objects that protected the household, person, or area from evil or bad luck. Jorku (195322) drew on Near 21 22 Cited by Schmandt-Besserat (2013: 231). Cited by Bonogofsky (2001: 43-44). 53 Eastern literary sources and Biblical passages to support his interpretation that the plastered skull found in Jericho were filled with soil to protect against the spirits of the dead from demons who occupied empty vessels. Yakar and Hershkovitz (198823) also suggested that the skulls could have been protected for their spiritual powers based on ethnographic data and “primitive art” forms – i.e. decorated skulls from Melanesia. Benz (2010: 251) also mentioned that plastered skulls may have been regarded as apotropaic, “with an energy and force of their own.” Art Some interpretations of plastered skulls have not only defined them as archaeological objects, but also as works of art. Tubb (199024) focused on the artistic value of the plastered skulls without regard to their purpose in an ancestor cult or other interpretation. Kenyon also considered the plastered skulls of Jericho as the “earliest developments in a naturalistic portraiture” (Bonogofsky 2001: 45). Slon et al. (2014: 8) mentions that the skulls may have been “remodeled in the framework of what we designate as artistic expressions.” Furthermore, they argue that the aesthetical appearance, whether intentionally artistic or the secondary result of a ritualistic motivation, cannot be rejected (Slon et al. 2014). Ethnographic Parallels By using ethnographic studies, archaeologists can gain insight into how identity, ideology, and ritual manifest into material culture and built environment. 23 24 Cited by Bonogofsky (2001: 36). Cited by Bonogofsky (2001: 45). 54 While ethnographic analogy is a useful tool, one must be aware that current records of behavior need not represent actual behavior in the past. Melanesia Bonogofsky (2001) and Verhoeven (2002) both describe the ritual of plastering skulls of the Iatmul People of the Sepik River in Papua New Guinea.25 The Iatmul model faces out of clay on the skulls of deceased relatives as well as on skulls previously collected in war, though Bonogofsky (2001: 17) states that it is not known whether or not these were kept as trophies of war. Skulls were sometimes chosen for display based purely on good looks, regardless of whether they are male or female (Verhoeven 2002; Bonogofsky 2001). There is no disparity in the construction of the skulls from either relative or adversary in the middle Sepik River area; both were realistically recreated with clay and adorned with paint, feathers, shells, etc. (Bonogofsky 2001: 32). The painting on both plain and modeled skulls was similar to the facial painting done during ritual events; facial painting was done by both men and women as a means of identifying oneself with ancestors or mythical beings; additionally, the motifs seemed to represent personal characteristics. Personal characteristics were also seen on the skulls in the form of the deceased’s hair secured onto the top of the skull or the eyes indicated by shells (Verhoeven 2002). Both plastered and painted skulls were displayed on shelves made of bamboo and sago leaves, placed in niches, strung from suspension hooks, and even placed on figures, which were often statues or organic material shaped into a realistic or vague shapes 25 While both Bonogofsky (2001) and Verhoeven (2002) position plastered skulls in the present, Bonogofksy’s work was done based on past photos and ethnographies, and it seems as though Verhoeven’s was as well. Therefore, I will not describe the rituals and plastered skulls as a current practice. 55 resembling the human body (Verhoeven 2002; Bonogofsky 2001). Bonogofsky (2001: 19) mentions an instance in which a modeled skull of the laua (“a kinship term denoting clan relatives such as a sister’s male child or a sister’s husband’s father”) was placed on a figure. The modeled skull and figure were then positioned on a platform that was then hung from the roof of the house to demonstrate the spirit’s journey down the Sepik River to the land of the dead (Bonogofsky 2001). Headhunting had been made illegal by the 1930’s, yet Bateson (193626) described that the practice was still continuing and that both male and female ““homicide” victims were decapitated using special “beheading knives”” (Bonogofsky 2001: 19). The heads were then defleshed and decorated. Bateson (1936) recorded that the hunting was not exclusive to enemies, but that headhunting included strangers and kin, and occasionally even guests. People who were captured could also be killed. These skulls were considered enemy skulls, and were therefore not supposed to be touched and had to be held with tongs when they were defleshed and cleaned. Foreigners (i.e. members of other tribes) could be killed when seeking vengeance against another tribe, despite the presence of marital ties if there were some. Guests were occasionally invited to the village so that other members could kill them (Bonogofsky 2001: 19). In other places in Melanesia, like the Trobriand Islands, everyone was decapitated after death, except for two groups of people. The first were suspected sorcerers whose bodies would be placed face down when they were buried to prevent the spirit from coming back to the village. The villagers thought that if the body was 26 Cited by Bonogofsky (2001:19). 56 buried face up or the skull was removed, the treacherous magic forces found in the body would be released and endanger the villagers. The second, perhaps more encompassing group of people, were the elderly. The reasoning behind why they were not decapitated after death was not explained, but may be connected to the loss of beauty and fertility that is otherwise found in younger individuals (Bonogofsky 2001: 26). Across Melanesia, the skulls played an important part in various rituals, particularly death rituals and fertility rituals. These rituals involved the veneration of ancestors, where skulls were the protective figures and symbolic representations of ancestors. Slain adversaries were also sometimes considered ancestors, perhaps because they were believed to symbolically contribute to the proliferation and strength of the village. It is also noted that skulls symbolized the transfer of fertility from one generation to the next (Bonogofsky 2001). The ethnographic material from Melanesia demonstrates strong connections between the skulls of males and females, elders and children, and ideologies of beauty, youth, fertility, and age at an individual and community level (Bonogofsky 2001: 33). Polynesia Throughout Polynesia it has been documented that the skull of the chief was sacred. The chief’s skull was commonly kept after his death and was able to be appropriated as a war trophy. After the chief was buried, the skull was unearthed and removed from the body; it was then positioned on a human figure in a specific building called the “house of chiefs” (Bonogofsky 2001: 21). Furthermore, adversary skulls were as important as the skulls of family members. Both the skulls of adversaries and 57 relatives were held as permanent memorials to the deceased. “Trophy skulls” of adversaries were kept to propitiate and honor the ghosts of the dead. The skulls of relatives were also kept to appease and commemorate the deceased. The skulls were thought to represent the entire individual, and were carefully preserved (Bonogofsky 2001). Pakistan The Naga are a group of people living in the mountains of northeastern Pakistan. While they do not plaster skulls, their ideology reveres the head. It is important to include them even though they lack the same physical manifestations as the groups from Oceania, it is possible that the ideology of the Levantine skull cult could have had similar beliefs, just different physical manifestations. The Naga have faith in a number of invisible beings that are either good or bad. The beings can act upon the living and so must be kept satisfied by various offerings. The Naga believe that a powerful life-force is predominantly located in the head. An individual’s lifeforce can be transmitted in different ways, both in life and after death, and this transmission can be beneficial to the individual along with the village as a whole. The life-force ensures welfare and fecundity. Fecundity, specifically, is central to the Naga: The belief in a manipulatable life-force, together with the Naga concern with fertility, is the foundation upon which several practices common to most Naga rest. Headhunting, certain death ceremonies, the Feasts of Merit, and the erection of memorials of stone and wood are all directly related to this belief. The life-force is particularly valued for its fertility-granting powers, which are operative during a person’s lifetime and can also be utilized after his death. ‘Fertility’, to the Naga, has very broad connotations, which include the general well-being and prosperity of the community and not only the actual fertility of the fields, domestic animals, and human inhabitants of the village (Simmons 1968: 11027). 27 Cited by Verhoeven (2002: 249-250). 58 In numerous rituals of the Naga, life-force and fecundity are expressly connected to human heads. One example is headhunting where an adversary’s head is taken back to the village to increase the “store of fertility.” In the Feasts of Merit, because the source of fertilizing power flows from the heads of humans, various rituals are used to transfer the power to the symbols used in the feasts. The Feasts of Merit and other death rituals are connected to harvest or sowing, demonstrating the link between the head to the power of fecundity and death (Verhoeven 2002: 250). Summary As Kuijt (1997) pointed out, one focus of particular interest for archeologists is the motivations behind mortuary practices, including how both the living and dead are physically and symbolically connected in material culture. While there are many compelling and attractive interpretations of plastered skulls, some interpretations are more plausible than others. As plastered skulls continue to be discovered, and more research and analyses are published, some interpretations become better supported while others are discredited. Interpretations such as the veneration of elderly male ancestors and headhunting have become widely refuted due to studies that have noted the sexes and ages of plastered skulls; the interpretation of headhunting and enemy trophies has also been widely disproven due to the absence of archaeological evidence of warfare and violence (discussed in greater detail in Chapter Three). To understand the motivations behind mortuary practices, archaeologists turn to ethnographic studies in order to establish potential analogies and support their interpretations of prehistoric cultures. Ethnographic studies are a useful framework for 59 examining secondary mortuary practices that incorporate modeled skulls, and rituals and ideologies that concentrate on the head. Archaeologists studying the Neolithic Near East commonly look at ethnographic models of pre-industrialized communities that have a similar level of economic development to better understand ritual and ideological expressions, social organization, and to gain more tenable interpretations. 60 Chapter Three: Geographical, Social, Economic, and Ritual Elements Introduction Secondary burials have been extensively studied by anthropologists and archaeologists, and have been the focus of research interested in several broad areas of theoretical interest, such as “the development of religion, rites of passage, theories about universal reaction to death, and rituals as media of social control” (Grindell 1998: 68). As mentioned in the preface, the transition from foraging to sustenanceproducing economies from the Late Natufian to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) symbolizes a profound transformation in subsistence practices, economic systems, and belief systems, and was a critical event in human prehistory (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002; Hershman et al. 2014). During this time of significant change, people of small subsistence communities began to aggregate into large settlements that were inhabited year-around, and there was a significant increase in population sizes and reorganization of the systems and structures by which human social interactions were mediated. While secondary burial practices and ancestor worship are related to both Natufian and PPN burials, plastered skulls are temporally situated in the MPPNB and the LPPNB. In this chapter I will discuss the paleoclimatic changes around the PPNB and explore the nature of human response (both social and economic), ideological and ritual changes, and scalar stress during the MPPNB and LPPNB to understand the rise and fall of plastered skulls. 61 Main Ecological Zones and the Paleoenvironmental Changes There are a number of distinct ecological zones in southern Levant; an enclosed area that is comprised of modern day southern Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian Autonomous Authority, Jordan, and the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt (Kuijt and GoringMorris 2002: 361-362). Southern Levant includes six main ecological zones which includes: the northern extent of the Syro-African Rift valley, which divides the land from west to east; the coastal plain that broadens toward the south; the Rift Valley, with many areas lying almost completely below sea level; the central mountainous zone that lies between the coastal plains and the Rift Valley, and has elevations as high as 1,000 meters; the Transjordanian cliffs and mountains, which lie east of the Rift Valley and often have elevations significantly higher than west of the Rift; and finally, the gradually east-sloping plateau that lies to the east, extends into Saudi Arabia, and encompasses a number of closed, seasonally-flooded basins such as the Damascus basin. Nearly all of the valleys and major wadi systems, except the Jordan River, run toward the east or the west (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002). The typical rainfall gradient occurs from north to south and west to east, and ranges from 1000-mm to below 50-mm of annual precipitation. These factors create four major phytogeographic regions, often in close proximity to each other. These regions include: “the Mediterranean forests and maquis, the Irano-Turanian steppes, and the dispersed and contracted desertic Saharo-Arabian zone, with Sudanian vegetation protruding into the lower Jordan Valley” (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002: 364). 62 It is important to recognize correlations between climatic and culture changes because they allow us to recognize possible connections between migrations, and changes in human social, economic, and technological behavior. While it is complex to do this for the Neolithic period due to different interpretations and contested climatic and cultural boundaries, it is significant for interpreting the context of Neolithic social development. It is important not only to document the timing and extent of environmental changes, but also to record their tempo and intensity, particularly in semi-arid regions, because human societies can adapt to gradual changes with smooth transitions, while abrupt events require more radical reactions. The density and dispersal of settlements help to elucidate these various human adaptations, and allow us to observe the speed and severity of changes in the physical environment (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002). The Holocene began around 10,000 cal BC, and during the first four millennia, temperatures reached an average of 14.5°–19.0°C (58.1°–66.2°F) in southern Levant, and had an average precipitation of 675– 950 mm (nearly double the average precipitation today). This could be evidence of steady, year-round rainstorms. During this time, and throughout the Holocene, there was extensive erosion of hillsides and alluviation in low-lying areas of the Mediterranean zone. This deposition of alluvium – such as clay, silt, sand, etc. – by the rivers was crucial because it helped restore nutrients and minerals to the soils. Then, during the Natufian, the globe experienced a short period of cold and dry conditions called the Younger Dryas, which lasted for 1,300 years beginning at 11,000 cal BC. High isotopic values in southern Levant indicate that this may have continued until the beginning of the PPNA. At the end of 63 the Early Natufian, 11,700 BC, the sea level was 75 m below what it is today, and by 6,700 BC it was 20 m below today’s current level (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002). Later, around 6,200 BC, there was rapid global cooling, which is now called the “8.2 kya event” (Rollefson n.d.). However, there may have been earlier “events” just as dramatic, that contributed to “the widespread abandonment of farming villages in the Jordan Valley and in Palestine near the end of the MPPNB period and the consequent relocation of populations into highland Jordan… [that] resulted in the formation of LPPNB megasites” (Rollefson n.d.: 5). Geographical Restriction of Plastered Skulls During the MPPNB and LPPNB It appears that plastered skulls are confined in both time and space. Prior to the 1950’s, the term Neolithic was synonymous with the term pottery, but during Kathleen Kenyon’s excavations at Jericho, Kenyon identified two major periods of a farming economy during which pottery had not yet been invented (Kenyon 1960). While a few Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (EPPNB, 9,000-8,600 ca. BC) sites have been found in Jordan, the excavations have been restricted, and until this past summer of 2016, no evidence for skull treatment has been found (Rollefson, personal communication, 2017; Khalaily et al. 2007; Garrard et al. 1994). In Azraq Basin, the EPPNB site is dated based on the presence of “time-sensitive arrowhead types” (Garrard 1994: 85). At the site of Harrat Juhayra 202-1, excavated by Sumio Fujii in southern Jordan, C-14 dates, architecture, and arrowhead types date the site to EPPNB (Rollefson, personal communication, 2017). The site of Motza in Israel also dates to the EPPNB and has provided “various architectural remains, human burials, clay and 64 stone figurines, and rich flint and obsidian assemblages,” that give us a glimpse into the EPPNB (Khalaily et al. 2007: 5). The examples from Tell Abu Suwwan are the only plastered skulls to have been found in the EPPNB. The geographical restriction of skulls in the MPPNB and LPPNB in the early Neolithic is within a 175-kilometer band stretching north-south. (Rollefson, personal communication, 2017) The southern part of this band – Jericho, ‘Ain Ghazal, Beisamoun, Kfar Hahoresh, Yiftahel – witnessed the abandonment of plastered skulls at the end of the MPPNB. But only in the north of southern Levant, near Damascus, do we witness maintenance of plastering of skulls until the LPPNB. This abandonment of the skull cult and formation of megasites is talked about in greater detail below. The rest of this chapter will be spent examining the archeological evidence of the MPPNB and LPPNB, along with a theoretical discussion surrounding the ritual, ideology, and scalar stress relevant to these two time periods, to help provide insight into the possible reasons behind the rise and fall of plastered skulls. Social and Economic Elements of the MPPNB The MPPNB period of the southern Levant gave rise to the mortuary practice of plastering skulls. It is likely that plastered skulls were the result of an increase in social complexity and economic expansion that began in the late Natufian and stopped at the end of the LPPNB. Since plastered skulls originated in and are confined to the MPPNB, with exception of Tell Ramad and Tell Aswad, I will focus on a more indepth discussion of the social and economic factors of the MPPNB, and provide a brief overview of the LPPNB and the formation of the megasites. 65 The MPPNB is distinguished by complex mortuary practices, established sedentary villages, and definite evidence of domesticated plants and animals. There are two major phytogeographic zones within southern Levant: the Mediterranean zone and the desert zone. The Mediterranean zone is made up of the larger MPPNB settlements, most of which are located along the Jordan Valley and nearby highland areas. The MPPNB settlements, including ‘Ain Ghazal and Jericho, range in size from less than 1 to more than 5 hectares. The amount of cultural deposits and the density of residential housing suggest that the larger settlements were “medium-sized agricultural communities” (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002: 388). Settlements in the western area of the zone were around 1-1.5 hectares, such as Yiftahel, and are considered smaller agricultural communities. Settlements along the transitional environmental borders of the zone were smaller agricultural communities that were often less than 1 hectare. The dispersal and size of settlements in the Mediterranean zone support the likelihood of “the existence of regional economic, ritual, and social centers in MPPNB” (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002: 388). In general, MPPNB settlement practices were centered on the Mediterranean zone. The desertic zone did not have the same large agricultural villages that were found in the Mediterranean zone. Generally, the settlements are rare and very small; sites seldom extended more than 250 m2 in area, and when architecture was present, it was made up of compact, circular dwellings arranged in the shape of a honeycomb. It is thought that these were likely small seasonal hunting camps of mobile foragers. However, they could also represent “logistical hunting forays” of hunting bands coming from the edge of the Mediterranean zone. Some desertic sites included only a 66 hearth with no residential buildings, indicating a site only used as a hunting camp. Unlike the Mediterranean settlements, the walls and floors of desertic buildings were not plastered; rather, they were made out of intricately placed stone (Kuijt and GoringMorris 2002). Non-residential structures in the MPPNB have been found at sites like Shkarat Msaied,28 Kfar Hahoresh, Nahal Hemar, and others. These MPPNB communities constructed space for nonresidential or collective purposes, and were built both within and outside settlement confines. The placement and contents of these edifices, such as upright stone slab basins and raised stone-slab platforms, indicate they were built for community ritual practices, and were separate from residential structures (Rollefson 2008: 82; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002: 394; Hershman et al. 2014). Clear evidence for domesticated flora and fauna first appear in the MPPNB. During the MPPNB, there was extensive domestication of plants to such a great magnitude that they became a major food source. At ‘Ain Ghazal, the MPPNB inhabitants ate a diverse diet that included “wheat, barley, peas, lentils, and chickpeas, along with other resources, such as figs, almonds, and pistachios” (Kuijt and GoringMorris 2002: 399; Rollefson et al. 1992; Rollefson n.d.). Additionally, there was evidence of domestication of fauna, but hunting for gazelle, ibex, and other animals was common. In many PPNA sites, the main prey for hunters was gazelle. But during the PPNB in the Jordan Valley and in the Jordanian highlands, there was a striking move towards a focus on animal husbandry, specifically goats, though the genesis of this practice is unclear. The popularity of goats, as indicated by the abundance of their 28 Shkarat Msaied had small but dense clusters of residential, unlike Kfar Hahoresh and Nahal Hemar where no residential structures have been found. 67 remains, demonstrated that a new tactic for obtaining meat was effective by the MPPNB. In these communities, “hunting had been supplemented by herding the animals, effectively isolating them from the wild caprine environment and securing them as a living, breathing meat locker” (Rollefson 2008: 79). It has been argued that this is “cultural control,” and that this manipulation of a species meets all of the requirements of domestication, except without evidence of genetic change. The domestication of fauna was gradual and not complete, while the domestication of the flora was more rapid. The domestication of fauna was gradual and not widely popular, while the domestication of the flora was more rapid. A result of the rapid domestication of plants can be seen in the increase of stone tools relating to agriculture, such as sickles, compared to the amount of stone tools used for butchering, such as certain blades, which we do not see a significant increase of until the LPPNB (Rollefson 2008). The MPPNB lithics show a focus on grinding equipment, indicated by the assortment of grinding slabs, pounding/ grinding handstones, bowls, saddle and trough querns, etc. – these artifacts also show a connection between morphology and raw material (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002; Rollefson 2008). Furthermore, the production of lime plaster exhibits the technical development of the MPPNB. The production requires a substantial amount of labor and material, and shows up in virtually all MPPNB structures. Trade and exchange is another example of the economic developments of the MPPNB. There was long-distance trade and production, and it included stone, beads, and possibly the exchange of subsistence resources (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002). The end of MPPNB is marked by the widespread abandonment 68 of sites in Israel and the Jordan Valley, such as Jericho, and migration of people to both new and pre-established sites, such as ‘Ain Ghazal, resulting in the formation of megasites. This only happened in southern Levant, and the northern part of southern Levant was unaffected by these migrations. The end to plastered skulls in southern Levant is marked by this transition. LPPNB Megasites The early Neolithic period in Levant benefited from advantageous climatic conditions that were more favorable than today. But, within a brief period of time during the middle of the eighth millennium cal BC, a dramatic shift took place within southern Levant: the extensive abandonment of farming villages in the Jordan Valley and in Palestine and the subsequent relocation of populations into highland Jordan, which resulted in the formation of the LPPNB megasites29 (Rollefson n.d.: 5). In addition to the sudden desertion and explosion of sites in southern Levant, this disruption is evident in the dramatic change of burial practices, ritual material culture, and architecture (Rollefson n.d.). During this event, both the population and area of ‘Ain Ghazal doubled (possibly within only a couple generations), and a corresponding event happened at Wadi Shu'eib – both sites eventually reaching 14-15 hectares in area. At the same time, other new settlements of comparable size were being founded for the first time as megasites, including Basta, as-Sifiya, Basit, and ‘Ain Jammam (Rollefson n.d.: 6). This was the first time so many people had lived in such close proximity, 29 Megasites were settlements of eight or more hectares (more than 20 acres); the sites of ‘Ain Ghazal, Wadi Shu’eib, and Basta reached more than 35 acres (Rollefson, personal communication, 2017). 69 crowded into two-story buildings,30 and experienced such extreme pressures on physical resources and to the social fabric of the communities. An estimate of up to 3,000-4,000 people lived within the boundaries of the megasites (Rollefson n.d.). This clearly surpasses “Dunbar’s number” and Alberti’s (2014) critical scalar stress point, and major reorganization was needed if the new megasites were to preserve their cohesion. The economic elements of the LPPNB had to adjust to the new population and social organization of the megasites. This included a diversifying of inter- and intra-site economic methods, increase of food production, and an expansion of craft and subsistence specialization (Kuijt and Goring Morris 2002; Twiss 2008). Additionally, mortuary practices of the LPPNB indicate a progressing social intricacy; “expanding mortuary differentiation is accompanied by the introduction of grave goods into some burials, and despite apparently higher population levels than in the MPPNB, the number of LPPNB burials found is even lower” (Twiss 2008: 432). The architectural, economic, and ritual data from the LPPNB indicate that social complexity continued to advance from the MPPNB. When the megasites were created, there were twice as many people in competition for the same resources, and as a consequence, different corporate groups clashed. Although this type of confrontation is usually avoided, one likely force behind the clash of social corporate groups is the scarcity of permanent water, which would have drawn different communities together to form megasites. As seen in the arid and semi-arid parts of Jordan today, occupation is synonymous with water – without water there is no possibility of permanent farming settlements. However, there are different water sources: fluvial and lacustrine are both 30 More than one story buildings are new in the LPPNB, though compound walls did exist at Jericho in the MPPNB (Bienert et al. 2004; Rollefson n.d.). 70 subject to seasonality and drought, and therefore groundwater-based springs are the ideal water source and offer a buffer (both short- and long-term) to aridity (Macumber 2008: 7). Over time, the continual presence of humans and animals is frequently connected to major spring or other water systems. Since permanent springs of sufficient flow for populations of a hundred or more people are rare, immigration into the highlands resulted in joining populations that had already claimed such a resource in addition to the surrounding land that included farming acreage, forest resources, and pasturage (Macumber 2008; Rollefson, personal communication, 2017). The LPPNB was the end of the advancement of social complexity, the ensuing PPNC is distinguished by the dramatic dispersal of people into smaller communities and the simplification of material culture (Twiss 2008). Population Dislocation and Violence There is strong evidence for many different patterns of social and economic change from the Natufian to the PPN, including changes in architecture, settlement organization, domestication of plants and animals, population growth, and mortuary practice, yet there is little evidence of fortification around sites during these periods (Parkinson and Duffy 2007; Rollefson 2010). The absence of fortification around settlements is particularly noticeable considering that during the PPNB there was a propensity towards rapid population growth and nucleation of settlements – factors that would normally encourage raiding and warfare (Parkinson and Duffy 2007). Nucleation of settlements can be a form of fortification, insofar as it deters attack, but burial, architectural, and other material culture in the Levant indicate that the nature of interactions between farmers and nomadic hunter-gatherers was primarily peaceful 71 throughout the PPN. Interactions were usually in the form of trade, exchange, and ritual gatherings, not violence. Archaeological evidence shows that fortifications and enclosures were not customarily associated with sedentary farming settlements through the PPNA and PPNB and that the weaponry of the time consisted of mostly projectile points and sling stones, which were most likely used for hunting.31 It seems as though special sites (i.e. Nahal Hemar, or sites of trade) brought disparate groups together for ritual and trade and there is little evidence of inter group warfare (Parkinson and Duffy 2007; Rollefson 2010). During Rollefson’s (1986, 2000, 2008) study of ritual at ‘Ain Ghazal, he has identified the following types of ritual objects: ritual buildings (also referred to as ritual structures, temples, special buildings, or shrines), burials, skull treatment, human and animal figurines, and lime plaster human statuary. While there is not enough space to discuss these in great detail, I will outline the various burial practices, as they are interconnected with plastered skulls – namely headless burials. As mentioned before, skull removal began in the Natufian but became more complex throughout the PPNA and into the PPNB. While plastered skulls are arguably the most specialized and complex burial of the PPNB, there are other common mortuary treatments present throughout the period. The variety of different burial practices that are typical of PPNB sites include: • • Primary burials of infants in single graves (frequently without skull removal). Primary burials with no skull removal or “trash” burials.32 31 Though there are some exceptions to this, and some weaponry for close combat has been found (maces, axes, and daggers), the deaths from these seem to be skimpy in number (Rollefson 2010: 62). 32 Courtyard burials were comparatively common and often resemble MPPNB “trash burials,” indicating that the burial pit was filled with detritus in addition to the body, and the skull is present. This supports 72 • Secondary and primary burial of disordered or partially articulated groups of adults.33 • Primary burial with secondary skull removal. • Secondary cranial modification – applications of paint and/ or plaster. • Secondary caching of plain and plastered skull(s). (Fletcher et al. 2008: 311; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002: 394; Rollefson 2008: 80, 86) Yet, as the title of an article accurately asked, “Where are the Dead?” (Bienert et al. 2004). Bienert et al. (2004: 157) and Rollefson (2008: 80) state that the number of MPPNB burials (of the types enumerated in the list above) are not consistent with population estimates of the PPNB sites. During the PPN in the Mediterranean and Levant, human burials within settlements are sparse, particularly in comparison to the size and duration of many of the settlements. Thus, it is probable that an off-site cemetery or another type of post-mortem disposal was the norm, and that these are beyond excavated areas, possibly in a specified mortuary site positioned some distance away (Goring-Morris 2002; Rollefson 2008). Ritual, Ideology, and Identity Before I begin my discussion on ritual, ideology, and identity, it is crucial to emphasize that social and individual identities are often founded on ascribed, frequently highly situational and variable, attributes. Thus, they differ depending on the perspective and the relationship of the observer and actor. Additionally, the significance of different criteria for the corporate identity, which I will talk more in the notion that not everyone who died in the community was afforded a ritual at their disposal (Rollefson 2008). 33 The occurrence of skeletal burials that are not sub floor, except for trash burials and infant interment, are confined to Tell Ramad and Tell Aswad in the northern part of southern Levant. Secondary and primary burials of groups where only found in the LPPNB around the Damascus region in the north of southern Levant, i.e. Tell Aswad and Tell Ramad (Rollefson, personal communication, 2017). 73 depth about in this section, is subjective and variable. For that reason, one cannot presume that a ritual had the same importance and meaning for every person or part of society (Benz 2010: 250). While archaeologists can infer ritual, ideology, and identity of prehistoric cultures, the reality may have been very different. As Benz (2010: 251) stated, “‘prehistoric cultures’ [that] archaeologists create are nothing more than a heuristic device.” Therefore, identifying the influence of rituals and belief systems on daily life must be done carefully and cautiously accepted. Identity, be that of the community, family group, or individual, is actively negotiated in mortuary ceremonies and is connected to the space in which it is performed. Using ethnographic studies and archaeological data, archaeologists can gain insight on how the nature of identity, either on the individual or collective scale, is manifested through physical objects and events, such as “public displays of emotion, material culture associated with ritual, and built environment within which mortuary rituals are situated” (Kuijt 2001: 81). These provide new revelations about the social structure of pre-historic communities. Many researchers have argued for the significance of ideological considerations in analyzing prehistoric mortuary practices, though it is impossible to clearly define ideology. Here, I will use ideology in reference to an organized system of thought that is related to the formation of myths, worldviews, the supernatural, and the reality that lies beyond immediate control of humans (Harrison-Buck and Peshkova 2013: 1). Grindell (1998: 66) outlined the three ways in which ideology functions: 1) represent the interests of the dominant sections of society, 2) deny or transform contradictions in society, and, 3) naturalize the present, that is, represent the social constructs as the natural order of things. 74 Attempting to give an authoritative definition of ritual is unfeasible. In reality, there are a multitude of ways in which anthropology approaches and gives meaning to ritual. Each approach has its own definition and focuses on one of the many plausible dimensions of ritual, “i.e. intellectualism, emotionalism, functionalism, symbolism, structuralism, cognitive approaches, marxist approaches, relational approaches, performance approaches and practice theory” (Verhoeven 2002: 234). Thus, it is paramount to review different interpretations of ritual and ideology in the PPNB. Verhoeven (2002: 233) suggests that there are four primary structuring principles in PPNP ritual and ideology that aim to delineate the PPNB ritual system: “communality, dominant symbolism, vitality (including the notions of domestication, fecundity and life-force), and human–animal linkage.” The standardized nature of ritual practices within and between PPNB sites demonstrates a social cohesion and collective identity of the PPN (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002: 421). The standardization of symbols in rituals or mortuary practices, such as the focus on specific placement in a cardinal direction or a specific number of objects and their meaning, is fundamental to their intended significance and can be utilized to strengthen broader ideologies and community ethos within and between families (Kuijt 2001). Through ritual, the social organization of a community is legitimized, and group solidarity and identity can be cultivated – expressly, ritual manages social behavior and sanctifies social structure (Verhoeven 2002: 245). It is very probable that one MPPNB development was the establishment of a corporate identity, which can be defined by different features such as territorial criteria, material culture (such as architecture, jewelry, or other distinct cultural objects), kin 75 relationships, or common ideology or religion (Benz 2010). 34 The development of corporate identity in the Levant can be seen through material culture, specifically in monuments. The first evidence of huge monuments by communal efforts, such as the tower and wall of Jericho in southern Levant, show up in the PPNA. This was not the first time that sacred or communal central places had existed, but it was the first time we see a human fingerprint on them (e.g. not caves, or other natural forming features) and therefore indicate human, likely collective, “ownership” (Benz 2010: 267). By altering the natural features of these sites into an environment clearly adapted by humans, “such monuments became territorial markers asserting and strengthening a corporate identity” (Benz 2010: 267). Additionally, the collective identity would likely have been strengthened by the collective labor that was required for building such monuments. The externalization and arrangement of symbols, like the stone pillars of Göbekli Tepe (Figure 14), add a collective repertoire of symbols to the corporate identity; along with the monumentality of “sacred places,” these stress the supratemporality of corporate identity which unified generations (Benz 2010). Though no monumental structures can be accredited to the MPPNB, the entangled relations and themes “of birth and renewal, death and burial, post-mortem treatment, and various paraphernalia,” are exceptional in the Levantine Neolithic period, as suggested by Rollefson (2008: 81). 34 One major feature in the formation of a corporate identity is language, however it is a medium that continues to be invisible in prehistory – no matter its importance (Benz 2010). 76 Figure 14: The images of vultures, scorpions, and other creatures carved on the T-shaped pillars at Göbekli Tepe would have needed to been created by skilled artisans, and are evidence that huntergathers were transitioning to a complex social structure (Musi 2011). Others have also argued for a corporate identity through kinship. Rollefson (n.d.) proposed that one method to alleviate the tension and prevent possible conflict that could arise over commodified resources of the environment was the formation of corporate kinship groups.35 This may have assigned exclusive access of family members to specific plots of land (Rollefson n.d.: 1). A certain degree of control over resources, such as land, labor, productions, etc., is necessary for coordination and regulation of their utilization (Johnson 1982). The expression of corporate identities, “signs that distinguished one corporate group from all others,” developed at the same time (Rollefson n.d.: 1). Additionally, “abiotic resources were also claimed 35 A “corporate group” encompasses individuals who have exclusive rights over certain commodities for the benefit of their group. This can include agricultural land, water right, names, etc. Membership in these groups are subject to strict rule, for unilineal corporate groups it is determined by parentage (Rollefson n.d.: 2). 77 exclusively, such as names, symbols, and myths” (Rollefson n.d.: 1). Corporate kinship groups help to construct a sense of social security for their members (Rollefson n.d.). Corporate kinship group identity can manifest into materials observable by archaeologists. For example, symbols of identity can be preserved on durable material (stone, plaster, bone, etc.) as media for group identity (Rollefson n.d.). It is possible that the plastered skulls in Levant represent specific personages of kinship groups, delineating sets of families as different from others and thereby establishing separate identities, but the only way to be certain if kinship influenced the selection of skull removal and treatment is further molecular genetic or epigenetic analyses (Rollefson n.d.; Benz 2010). Ancestor cult and mortuary rituals are intertwined, and any alteration to one has an effect on the other. Morris (1991: 150) states: “in any group where social and economic power is transferred through claims of lineal descent from the dead, the placing of their physical remains can hardly fail to be significant, but the actions which produce burial evidence are only part of the larger discourse of death.” The purpose and role of positioning the deceased in the Levant was highly variable and cannot be “retrodicted” from cross-cultural generalizations (Morris 1991). Plastered skulls could have been utilized in emphasizing descent, and therefore providing a less ambiguous group identity which suggests that there was a unilineal descent. Unilineal descent groups are most effective for maintaining social order in times of possible warfare and competition for resources. Furthermore, unilineal descent has less ambiguity than other kinship organizing systems, such as ambilineal descent, and therefore greater security. Kuijt (1997, 2001, 2008) has also argued that the ritual of skull removal and secondary treatment, specifically the elaborate preparation of plastered skulls as ritual 78 furniture, is an additional means of forming a collective identity. Death is a powerful and visible event. It is a culturally critical existential challenge that forces individuals and communities to define and mediate social relationships. In some contexts, mortuary practices impart a complex and highly visible scene in which the living manage issues of mortality and reconstruct the existing, or negotiate a new, social order. For instance, mortuary rituals can serve as an important centralizing role within a community, and maintain or expand harmony by giving prominence to real or perceived relationships within and between individuals, family, and communities (Kuijt 2001: 81). Through the approach of codification, images and ritual furniture in mortuary practices, rituals manifest significances and symbolism that traverse generations, yet remain identifiable by community members (Kuijt 2001: 82). Images in mortuary ritual and social memory are intimately intertwined and closely connected to human actions in space. Relationships (both kin and social), memory, and identification of space are intentionally and unintentionally depicted and defined on a routine basis. Family groups and communities produce and reproduce actions that describe and demonstrate “their own sense of place and, by extension, who they are” (Kuijt 2001: 82). The power and emotional control of mortuary events are, to a certain extent, concentrated on a confined area within the community – “a perception of space in which the past, present, and future are interwoven” (Kuijt 2001: 82). During the Natufian, solitary skulls were buried, but around the end of the Late Natufian, in conjunction with the end of the use of communal monuments, the earliest group burials of skulls emerged in southern 79 Levant, possibly because a communal identity was beginning to be expressed by individuals through age and class mortuary rituals (Kuijt 2001; Benz 2010). The transition from the PPNA into the PPNB period witnessed the development and prosperity of ritual, ideology, identity, and symbol. These developments coincide with increased settlement sizes, new mortuary practices, social systems, and many other notable transformations of the PPNB (Verhoeven 2002). Archaeological research on the Neolithic of the Near East allows us to interpret how civic and ritual governance may have been structured at household and community levels. Mortuary rituals, though dependent on cultural and temporal context, serve as a powerful mechanism of social regulation and as a way to centralize political, economic, and social power among certain individuals within a group, and during the transition from foraging to farming as a possible method of advancement enabling the breakdown of the previous belief system. Scalar Stress In archaeology, we are specifically looking for how communities coped with scalar stress. During the transition from foraging to farming, communities in the Near East handled scalar stress with the institution of the skull cult. In the Levant, ritual institution (possibly in the form of ancestor veneration or others, see Chapter Two) manifested in the form of skull removal, which first appeared during the Late Natufian. This ritual institution appears to have been very effective for at least 3,000 years – from the Natufian through the end of LPPNB (Bonogofsky 2001; Fletcher et al. 2008; Rollefson, personal communication, 2017). At the beginning of the MPPNB, skull removal evolved into the practice of plastering skulls. The plastered skulls found 80 throughout Levant had a certain degree of standardization across the different sites. While artistic ability and technicality of methods differ, it is clear the plastered skulls reflect a ritual institution across communities. It is evident that as social and economic elements in these early farming settlements grew and became more complex, so did the rituals and ideology. The increase in complexity and creation of new rituals demonstrate that there was a new need to mitigate new scalar stresses. As mentioned in the preface, after a population exceeds 150, social stresses appear due to mistrust of group members and the rise of anxiety over the allocation of resources needed for health and well-being (Rollefson n.d.: 2). Alberti (2014: 1) combined both Johnson's model of scalar stress, which is founded on conditions of decision-making, and Dunbar’s model of the cognitive limits to human network size, which focuses mainly on qualifications of population size, to form a “predictive model of critical level of scalar stress on the basis of community size.” This model is important for archaeologists because it provides a theoretical framework that supports their understanding and interpretations of the different aspects of material culture of past communities including social organization, ritual objects, and architecture. Furthermore, Johnson's and Dunbar’s model allows for the identification of a groups’ decision-making units based on sheer population size not just on material culture. Alberti (2014) tested his combined model across a sample of archaeological and ethnographic cases, and confirmed that there is a meaningful correlation between critical scalar stress and group size. He found that a community reaches a critical scalar stress threshold at a population size of 127. At this point, the community organization must change. Several human responses are tangible, “such as splitting, decision- 81 making reshaping, cohesion-building practices (e.g., food consumption, stylistic display), use of integrative facilities, or even leadership development, which are all contingent and context-specific” (Alberti 2014: 13). The ritual institution of skull removal, and later the plastering of detached skulls, is material culture response to scalar stress. One of the ways in which Johnson (1982) discusses alleviating scalar stress is by increasing the frequency and scale of group ritual. This restricts the amount of information flow to a narrow range of prescribed actions and relationships. The second way to handle scalar stress is to increase social hierarchy. This allows for a smaller group or individuals to take on leadership roles, and decreases the amount of pressure and dissension. Skull removal alleviates scalar stress by allowing a community to unite under a single belief and ritual. This ritual practice reduces the tension between group members who do not recognize each other socially or physically and the mistrust that develops as populations increase. As Johnson (1982: 405) stated: “Participation in ceremony that prescribes patterns of behavior and interaction may reduce required integrative decision making, and ceremony may provide a social context for organizations that have nonceremonial integrative functions.” If community members can predict and understand other group members’ behaviors and know how to interact in social settings, it assists in the elimination of mistrust and dispels the fear and discomfort that goes along with these situations. Additionally, the practice of plastering skulls specifically shows both the increase in social hierarchy and the evolution of ritual as populations increase. Rollefson (n.d.) explains that the degree of standardization seen in plastered skulls and 82 the limitations to whose skull is plastered (as compared to trash burials, skull removal, or secondary painting) reflects “specified personages of kinship groups … [that] segregate[s] sets of families” (Rollefson n.d.: 4). While rituals can help maintain relatively cohesive large population numbers, ritualistic measures need to be adapted and changed to accommodate larger sources of stress. The progression from skull removal to plastering skulls could represent the need to modify a previously instituted ritual (skull removal) as population size increased. Nevertheless, ritual institutions will only work as long as natural resources, such as water, agriculture, etc., don’t become critically rare or over used, and as long as current ritual institutions can be modified to fit the fluctuation of population size. The competition for resources only intensified during the transition from MPPNB to the LPPNB. As mentioned previously, the scarcity of permanent water probably drew different communities together to form megasites, and the unavailability of water would prevent them from dispersing – resulting in clashes of social identity and the resulting need to alter social organization. The formation of megasites in southern Levant, with populations of several thousand, clearly exceeded “Dunbar’s number” and Alberti’s (2014) critical scalar stress point. As a result, the megasites required considerable ritual, economical, and social reorganization to preserve their cohesion. New ritual practices needed to be adopted to encourage greater social cohesion in order to mitigate the additional scalar stress. The megasites did not suddenly stop all previous rituals, but they did alter them and develop new ones. Megasites ultimately abandoned the ritual behavior of plastering skulls as it didn’t pertain to the larger group identity needed for megasites. Social organization of the 83 megasites included redefining social relationships, including suppressing corporate kinship in favor of integrative rituals, such as sodalities, preparing seasonal feasts and constructing new public buildings for the whole community, rather than specific kin groups (Rollefson 2010). During the PPNA and PPNB, evidence of feasting increases as food production grew in size and importance and the scale of society expanded. Feasting and other ceremonial organization, is another method that alleviates scalar stress and allows the maintenance of large-group sizes (Goring-Morris and Horwitz 2007; Twiss 2008). The community-wide sharing of food is a “socially sanctioned, celebratory, single-episode, public event during which food and drink (economic capital) are transformed into symbolic capital” (Goring-Morris and Horwitz 2007: 911; Bourdieu quoted in Dietler 1996: 90). Feasts serve to alleviate stress in many different ways, such as personal aggrandizement, establishing connections between individuals, communities, honoring or celebrating deities or ancestors, and more. Additionally, they establish and conserve social, ideological, and political relations within a group and between others, therefore maintaining social solidarity. In the context of southern Levant, ceremonial organization like feasts would serve to maintain social solidarity and lessen the effects of scalar stress (Goring-Morris and Horwitz 2007). While evidence of feasting is found in the PPNA and MPPNB, it was more developed in the LPPNB, demonstrating its increase in significance as domestication became common and ceremonial organization was more essential to maintain the larger population sizes (Rollefson n.d.; Twiss 2008). Reorganization to handle scalar stress can also be “seen in the domestic structure of the settlement at ‘Ain Ghazal: where MPPNB housing was principally 84 oriented towards nuclear family housing, the LPPNB witnessed the construction of two-story multifamily structures” (Rollefson n.d.: 6). These larger households were concentrated in the megasites. Such tightly packed centralization of distinct and increasingly economically diverse units would have needed substantial organization – especially if economic diversity was affiliated with developing socioeconomic hierarchization (Twiss 2008: 426). One explanation for the two-story dwellings that contained 14 rooms or more found at ‘Ain Ghazal and Basta could be that these buildings were extended family compounds. During the MPPNB, nuclear family households relied on a subsistence economy (based on the capacity of residential buildings) as their central form of production and consumption. However, due to the new population stress on farm productivity, there would have been a need for a cooperative extended family approach to exploit unused land that had previously been regarded as too unproductive (Rollefson n.d.: 6). The increasing economic diversification and differentiation between households and resulting socially divisive stresses may have ended the relevance of plastered skulls because it would have been more essential for megasites to integrate their progressively independent households into operative social components. In southern Levant, plastering skulls lasted almost 1,000 years and was very successful. But at the end of the MPPNB, there was a sudden end to plastered skulls, and the LPPNB saw a decline in skull removal (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002; Rollefson n.d.). In contrast, in the Damascus region in the northern part of southern Levant, which includes the sites of Tell Aswad and Tell Ramad, the practice of plastering skulls continued for several hundred years into the LPPNB. The sudden 85 disappearance of this practice in southern Levant at the end of the MPPNP36 could be indicative of imminent turmoil or the result of major demographic changes – mainly, migrations that led to formation of megasites that were not shared in the Damascus region (Rollefson n.d.). Indeed, skull removal and plastering skulls seem to have benefited from “continued and vigorous celebration in the northern Levant at sites such as Tell Ramad and Tell Aswad” (Rollefson and Kafafi 2013: 16). The settlements in the Damascus region and farther north did not go through the dramatic enlargement of the southern sites, and as a result, never experienced the huge scalar stress affiliated with the megasites. This may be why the treatment of skulls was maintained for much longer. Tell Aswad and Tell Ramad are outliers because they did not gain immigrants from the south or any new scalar stress, and therefore they could continue to use the same rituals to manage their scalar stress. In order to handle scalar stress in megasites, it was necessary to deemphasize ancestor veneration37 to incorporate a larger number of people, who came from different villages and areas, into a single social group.38 This is because the people who came together did not have connection to each other or their other ancestors and so therefore there was a need to deemphasize the veneration of ancestors. Other events like feasting became important, and changes in organization and rituals developed to replace the focus on ancestor veneration. 36 Except for two sites, Tell Aswad and Tell Ramad. This divide in the “territoriality” of the practice suggests that the turmoil affecting southern Levant did not have as significant an impact in the Damascus Basin (Rollefson n.d.). 37 If this was the prominent ideology. 38 Though it is possible that there was intermarriage between ‘Ain Ghazal and Jericho, and there may have been real kinship ties that drew these refugees to ‘Ain Ghazal when Jericho was abandoned, but in other places these megasites are completely new with no evidence of habitation during the MPPNB (Rollefson, personal communication, 2017). 86 Summary It is clear that a deeply rooted ritual practice of postmortem skull removal, lasting 3,000 years, was a prominent part of the culture and people of the Near East during the PPN. The PPNB was an eventful time period, evident in the significant increase in population densities, the move towards sedentary agriculture, the continual increase of scalar stress, and the strategies used to alleviate stress from fundamental social and economic changes leading to the formation of new social identities. Extended trade networks developed and allowed for the exchange of both information and material things. The emergence of new social hierarchies and ritual ideologies helped give rise to plastered skulls, but also led to their disappearance in the megasites of southern Levant. 87 Chapter Four: Discussion and Conclusion Introduction In this thesis, I have presented the archaeological data related to the practice of plastered skulls, the interpretations of them, some of the ethnographies that have been used in those interpretations, a general background on the geography, environment, social and economic elements, and the ritual and ideological elements of the PPNB. In this chapter I will summarize and review what I believe are the most important aspects surrounding plastered skulls, and present my argument on why some interpretations are better supported than others. Sites and Plastered Skulls Overview Postmortem skull removal was a mortuary practice throughout the Near East from the Natufian to the Pottery Neolithic, lasting over 3,000 years, and the development of plastered skulls in the Levant is especially striking. The plastering of skulls required a new and highly technical skill, and regardless of whether they were made for ritual or artistic reasons, the technical skill needed to produce the different types of plaster, along with the time and skill, highlights the complexity of the practice. To illustrate the differences and similarities of the ritual practices and plastered skulls of the sites I have reviewed in my thesis, I have created two tables: Table 2, Levantine Ritual Overview, and Table 3, Variation in Plastered Skulls of PPNB sites. Table 2, highlights the commonalities of the general ritual practices of the sites that I will use to support my argument of a shared ritual practice. Table 3, along with the figures of 88 plastered skulls in Chapter One (Figures 1-10), demonstrates the high level of similarities among the plastered skulls between and within sites. Levantine Ritual Overview Plastered Skulls Skulls Single and Individual and groups group Single and Individuals groups and group Site Headless Burials Jericho Present ‘Ain Ghazal Present Yiftahel Present Present Group Plain Present Single and group Present Present Individual and group Individual and group Plain? and cinnabar Plain? and ochre Present Present Group Ochre Present Present Present Group Plaster Absent Present Present Present Unknown Absent Present Present Modeled skulls Animal collagen Fragments Kfar Hahoresh Tell Aswad Tell Ramad Beisamoun Tell Abu Suwwan Nahal Hemar Vault Plain and ochre Plain and bitumen Statues and Busts Present Present Absent Present? Absent Table 2: Ritual evidence found at PPNB sites with plastered skulls, question marks (?) indicate uncertain archaeological evidence (Benz 2010; Bonogofsky 2005, 2006a; Croucher; De Contenson 1971; Fletcher et al. 2008; Goring-Morris 2002; Stordeur 2003; Verhoeven 2002). 89 Variation in Plaster Skulls of PPNB Sites Site Mandible Jericho Both (11/12 absent) ‘Ain Ghazal Absent Yiftahel Absent Kfar Hahoresh Absent Tell Aswad Present Eye Treatment Ears Present and absent Present and absent Teeth Painting Absent and remodeled Yes Absent and remodeled Yes Present Absent No Plaster, closed Absent Absent and remodeled Yes Plaster, closed Present Present Yes Tell Ramad Absent Plaster, open and closed Present/ unclear? Beisamoun Present Plaster, closed Present Absent and remodeled Absent and remodeled Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Absent None Absent No Tell Abu Suwwan Nahal Hemar Open; shells Open and closed; plaster and bitumen? Open; shells, flint, and plaster. Absent No Yes Table 3: Variation in Plaster Skulls of the PPNB (Bonogofsky 2002; De Contenson 1971; Fletcher et al. 2008; Goring-Morris 2002; Kuijt 2008; Stordeur 2003; Verhoeven 2002). Age and Sex Plastered skulls found in the Levant have come from humans of all ages and both sexes. Across the Levant, 19 males (25 if we include the six modeled skulls from Nahal Hemar), 12 females, 13 juveniles, 6 adults of unknown sex, and at least 20 remaining of unknown sex and age, due to damage or because they no longer exist, along with the unpublished finds from Tell Abu Suwwan account for over 76 plastered skulls dating to the PPNB in Levant. This is evidence that neither sex nor age was a chief criterion for skull removal or secondary modifications. It is important to point out that Nahal Hemar is the only site where solely adult male skulls are found. However, 90 these skulls were also not modeled with plaster and therefore does not seem to be general agreement regarding their classification as plastered skulls or not. Site Jericho ‘Ain Ghazal Yiftahel Kfar Hahoresh Tell Aswad Tell Ramad Beisamoun Tell Abu Suwwan Nahal Hemar Çatalhöyük* Köşk Höyük* Total Age and Sex of Neolithic Plastered Skulls Adult Adult Adult Juvenile Unknown Male Female 6 3 1 2 5 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 5 9 6 10 10 1 1 1 + 6 1 4 5 3 1 30 11 15 14 20+ Total 12 11 3 6 9 27 2 N/A 6 1 13 90+ Table 4: Age and sex of Neolithic plastered skulls by site. Starred sites are sites from the Pottery Neolithic, which is talked about later on in this chapter (Bonogofsky 2006b: 57; Özbek 2009; Pilloud 2016; Rollefson, personal communication, 2017; Slon et al. 2014). Skeletal Elements The most visually prominent skeletal element of plastered skulls is the inclusion or removal of the mandible. Mandibles are not always present as only half the sites included the mandibles; yet some include chins or layering up the plaster resulting in more realistic facial proportions. In Bonogofsky’s (2006b) study of 72 skulls from Jericho, ‘Ain Ghazal, Kfar Hahoresh, Tell Ramad, Beisamoun, Nahal Hemar, and Köşk Höyük (discussed below), she estimated that half were solely crania modeled to portray skulls, and that the other half were complete skulls incorporating the mandible. The absence of teeth (Table 3), particularly the possible post-mortem removal of teeth, in some of the plastered skulls continues to be controversial even after Kenyon proposed that the teeth were removed to achieve a more elderly look more than half a century ago. Post-mortem dental evulsion has been contested due to the possibility of 91 tooth lost from natural causes, damage to the skull over time, and the presence of teeth or remodeled teeth in several plastered skulls (Bonogofsky 2002, 2005; Slon et al. 2014). However, a study of the plastered skulls from Yiftahel suggests that the since the dental cavities are empty of either bone or plaster, this is indicative of post-mortem tooth loss, and that the partial dental roots of several teeth “may indicate an only partially successful attempt to forcefully remove the teeth post-mortem, resulting in breakage of the crowns and the remaining of the roots within the dental sockets” (Slon et al. 2014: 7). Since plastered skulls have never been found with their corresponding skeletons, skeletal analysis has been limited to just the skulls. Archaeological Context Plastered skulls have been found in a variety of archaeological contexts in the Levant –males, females, adults, and children have all been excavated from various burial contexts, including both individual and group burials, and contexts that include human and faunal remains, as well as brick, burnt timber, plaster, stone, etc. Burials of plastered skulls have also included a wide number of other items like figurines, statues, and bone, which may represent ritual deposition of damaged ritual objects or grave goods. An overview of the archaeological contexts in which plastered skulls have been found and possible functions are shown Table 5 and Table 6. Archaeological Context of Plastered Skulls Found Locations Under and in houses Antechambers Individually Pits Groups of 2-8 Floors Groups of 6 and more Plastered surfaces Cave Table 5: Archaeological contexts of plastered skulls found in the Levant (Bonogofsky 2006a: 25). 92 Possible Contexts and Functions of Plastered Skulls Possible Contexts Possible Functions Males, females and children Mementos of the deceased Individuals or groups Apotropaic devices Displayed or hidden Foundation figures Funerary offerings or none Fertility objects Genetic relatedness (possibly) Grave goods Table 6: Skulls of individuals originating from all ages in the Levant were discovered in a variety of contexts with many possible functions (Bonogofsky 2006a: 25). Examining Interpretations As archaeologists have gained more archaeological and analytical data, theories have been rejected, built upon, and created. As outlined in Chapter Two, plastered skulls have inspired numerous interpretations, some being more plausible than others. Many of these theories consider the social function of the ritual and stress the collective aspect of the ritual as a form to alleviate scalar stress to maintain community cohesion. Interpretations such as the headhunting and enemy trophy skulls or the skulls belonging to the socially deviant, use ethnographic parallels to support their work, but they have little or no archaeological evidence to support them. Interpretations regarding headhunting and enemy trophies are very unlikely due to the lack of archaeological record of fortification around settlements and the few skeletal remains reflecting violence (Chapter Three). It is important to note that the insufficient data of human conflict, specifically in the PPNB, could be a consequence of the lack of burials we have found dating to the PPNB. The undiscovered and theorized off-site cemeteries or other community post-mortem disposal sites could contain more evidence to support or 93 refute this. These sites would give us more information of paleopathology39 (Chapter Three). Ethnographic parallels of societies that have plaster skulls or have rituals and ideologies that emphasize the head, i.e. Melanesia, Polynesia, and Pakistan (Chapter Two), help provide insight into mortuary practices; and while it is okay to make parallels and analogies, we must be careful not to make claims because there is no way to be certain about the ideas and motivation behind plastered skulls of the Neolithic. The calvarium was left unplastered at all of the sites except Beisamoun, though some sites had painted or stained the vault (Table 2). It seems as though the artisans were more concerned with replicating certain facial features, as opposed to accuracy or recreation of the deceased. In observation of the ideology of the Naga in Chapter Two, the calvarium may have been left unplastered due to an ideology that connected knowledge or life-force with the head, and that if they plastered the entire crania, they would trap the knowledge or life-force within the skull. Additionally, there have been many hypotheses that suggest the top of the cranium may have been covered in hair, textile, or other organic material, but again, there is no archaeological evidence to support the possibility. Exclusively modeling the facial features also could be interpreted in different ways. One possible interpretation could be that it was only necessary to remodel the facial features as some sort of vessel to convey or transfer knowledge; perhaps by plastering the face the individual or ritual specialist could talk to the spirits or gods. In view of the fact that some sites did not have modeled mouths, this may underscore that 39 Paleopathology is the study of ancient diseases. 94 humans did not need mouths to speak with the gods as the spirits or gods could perceive people’s unspoken desires and would respond with actions (i.e. bringing rain for the fields). Additionally, the face is the expressive part of a person’s personality. For example, when we want to know if someone is telling the truth we ask them to look us in the eyes. This is because the face, and especially the eyes, are the most expressive and telling part of the body. The reconstruction of the face with a focus on the eyes, could represent the artists goal of preserving that person and their personality. The scientific analysis of Homo 1-KH, the plastered skull from Kfar Hahoresh, helped reveal evidence behind the importance of plastered skulls. The surface of Homo 1-KH suggests homogeneity of the plaster matrix, yet variation in CT numbers (density) indicated the existence of at least four structurally distinct materials. Hershkovitz et al. (1995: 787) conducted a scientific analysis of a “trans-endocranial biopsy” and discovered that the variations in CT reflected “variation in both the degree of calcination of the burnt lime component (CaCO3) and the proportion of calcium carbonate to other substances, particularly silica (SiO2).” Considering that the stability and hardness of lime plaster is mainly dependent on the nature and amount of extraneous materials mixed with burnt lime, it is evident the variable compounds were intentionally blended and carefully applied in separate times in order to enhance stability and durability of the finished product (Hershkovitz et al. 1995). The time, skill, and effort of the preparation of plaster along with its application and modeling on skulls attests to the significance plastered skulls had for early farmers during the PPNB. Furthermore, I believe that the energy and resources plastered skulls required support claims of a social hierarchy; seeing that only a few members of society had 95 their skulls plastered, making it likely that these were people who had the resources, whether it be economical or political, to afford such treatment. Plastered Skulls beyond the PPNB Plastered skulls were originally thought to only have existed in the southern Levant and restricted to the MPPNB and LPPNB, but excavations of plastered skulls at Çatalhöyük and Köşk Höyük were dated to the 7th-millennium and 6th-millennium respectively, and both sites are located in Anatolia40 (Bonogofsky 2001; Croucher 2012). The excavations at Çatalhöyük and Köşk Höyük are very curious in that their methods of plastering skulls are much the same as the plastered skulls found in the PPNB sites in the Levant, but were performed a thousand years or more later. Archaeologists are still debating when and why the mortuary practice disappeared after the PPN in Levant, and why it reappeared exclusively in Anatolia. Unlike other ritual practices presented in this thesis, due to their appearance nearly a millennium after the practice of plastering skulls stopped in southern Levant, it is likely that the plastered skulls found in Anatolia are “convergent cultural evolution,” as opposed to a continuation of the Levantine practice of plastering skulls (Rollefson n.d.). 40 Anatolia is located between the Black and the Mediterranean seas and is situated in modern day Turkey (Figure 15) 96 Figure 15: Map showing locations of the Pottery Neolithic sites with plastered skulls in Central Anatolia (Özbek 2009: 380). Çatalhöyük This site is located in central Anatolia and is the earliest site in Anatolia in which a plastered skull has been found (Croucher 2012). Radiocarbon dates have place the occupation of the site from 7,100-5,950 cal BC, and the skull comes from the latter half of the occupation, thus the Pottery Neolithic (Pilloud 2016). The plastered skull was accompanying the burial of an adult female; her body was in a supine position around an adult male plastered skull – which she was clutching so that the face of the skull was directed towards her chest (Aufderheide 2009; Croucher 2012; Pilloud 2016). The only plastered skull found at this site was of an adult male. It was completely plastered and covered in a red pigment – most likely red ochre. Due to deterioration of the skull prior to its burial, it is thought that the skull was displayed or used in ritual ceremonies. The skull had multiple layers of plaster, and cinnabar41 had been painted on some of it (Croucher 2012). 41 Similar to the skull found at Kfar Hahoresh. 97 Köşk Höyük A total of thirteen plastered skulls have been discovered at the Pottery Neolithic site in central Anatolia. Plastered skulls were found in the architectural levels II and III; radio-carbon dating has produced a date of 5211 ± 84 cal BC, which places the site in the Late Pottery Neolithic. From 1985-2000, ten adult plastered skulls and one juvenile plastered skull were found. In 2006, two more plastered skulls were found: Kşk No. 1 and Kşk No. 5. The thirteen plastered from Köşk Höyük have all been sculpted to emphasize the features of the face. The noses are linear and elegant; nostrils are clearly formed; the eyes are represented as either open or closed, and the mouths are created from an incision in the clay. The ears, nose, eyes, and mouth are generally created in their anatomically correct positions and tend to be realistically depicted. All of the skulls are plastered and then treated with red ochre, and a select few had flat bases that allowed them to stand upright, similar to the “plaster necks” of the Tell Ramad skulls in Syria (Özbek 2009). Conclusion Plastered skulls are emotive; they affect and evoke emotion. They are evidence of an intimate connection between the living and the dead, blurring the boundary between object and person, regardless of the interpretation. Furthermore, the development of plastered skulls in the Levant shows a shared ritual practice among communities, a conclusion based on the shared burial practices found at most or all of the sites, i.e. headless burials, removed skulls, plastered skulls, etc. (Table 2). The similarities among all the skulls would not all have arisen on their own, and the slight 98 variations between sites is most likely due to site specific interpretations or variations of the same ritual. Some variations, like the material used for eyes, are more influenced by geographic location than interpretation. This is a snapshot in time of a particular kind of ceremonial performance, and in view of all of the arguments and evidence, it most likely represents some form of ancestor veneration that could well involve the rebirth of ancestors and apotropaic uses in the household. The restricted distribution of plastered skulls during the PPNB reflects the cultural diversity of the greater PPNB arena that extends from the Red Sea to Turkey. There is some indication that stresses involved with rapid population growth, such as the formation of the megasites in southern Levant at the start of the LPPNB, and the intensification of pressure on local environmental resources, affected the southern area of the distribution of plastered skulls but not the northern area of the Levant where population wasn’t affected by large scale migration. Along with Johnson and Dunbar, this could have been resolved through cultural accommodation that involved changing the religious sphere. Ultimately, while we can speculate about the many meanings and motivations behind the Levantine plastered skulls, due to limitations such as the lack of written language, we will never know their importance and role in PPNB society. Nevertheless, they have provided archaeologists with a path into the pre-historic societies of the Levant. 99 Bibliography Adams, R.L. 2005. “Ethnoarchaeology in Indonesia Illuminating the Ancient Past at Çatalhöyük?” American Antiquity 70(1): 181-188. Alberti, Gianmarco. 2014. “Modeling group size and scalar stress by logistic regression from an archaeological perspective.” PloS One 9(3): e91510. Aufderheide, Arthur C. 2009. Overmodeled Skulls. Duluth, MN: Heide Press. Bartlett, John. 1983. Jericho. Grand Rapids, MI.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Benz, Marion. 2010. “Beyond death – the construction of social identities at the transition from foraging to farming.” In The Principle of Sharing. Segregation and construction of social identities at the transition from foraging to farming. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 14, edited by M. Benz, 249-276. Berlin: Ex Oriente. Bienert, H.D., Bonogofsky, M.A., Gebel, H.G.K., Kuijt, I. and Rollefson, G.O., 2004. “Where are the dead?” In Central Settlements in Neolithic Jordan, edited by H.D. Bienert, H.G.K Gebel, and R. Neef, 157-175. Berlin: Ex Oriente. Bonogofsky, Michelle A. 2001. “An Osteo-archaeological Examination of the Ancestor Cult during the Pre-pottery Neolithic B Period in the Levant.” PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Bonogofsky, Michelle A. 2002. “Reassessing “dental evulsion” in Neolithic plastered skulls from the Levant through the use of computed tomography, direct observation, and photographs.” Journal of Archaeological Science, 29(9): 959964. 100 Bonogofsky, Michelle A. 2003. “Neolithic Plastered Skulls and Railroading Epistemologies.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 331: 110. Bonogofsky, Michelle A. 2004. “Including women and children: Neolithic modeled skulls from Jordan, Israel, Syria and Turkey.” Near Eastern Archaeology, 67(2): 118-119. Bonogofsky, Michelle A. 2005. “A bioarchaeological study of plastered skulls from Anatolia: new discoveries and interpretations.” International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 15(2): 124-135. Bonogofsky, Michelle A. 2006a. “Complexity in Context: Plain, Painted and Modeled Skulls from the Neolithic Middle East.” In Skull Collection, Modification and Decoration, edited by M. Bonogofsky. (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1539) Oxford: BAR, 15–28. Bonogofsky, Michelle A. 2006b. “Cultural and ritual evidence in the archaeological record: modeled skulls from the ancient Near East.” In The archaeology of cult and death, edited by M. Georgiadis and Ch. Gallou, 45-69. Budapest: Archaeolingua. Croucher, Karina. 2012. Death and Dying in the Neolithic Near East. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Contenson, Henri. 1971. “Tell Ramad, a Village of Syria of the 7th and 6th Millennia B.C.” Archaeology. 24 (3): 278-285. Dietler, Michael. 1996. “Feasts and commensal politics in the political economy: food, 101 power, and the status in prehistoric Europe.” In Food and the Status Quest: an Interdisciplinary Perspective, edited by Wiessner, P.W. and Schiefenhövel, W., 87-125. Providence, RI: Berghahn Books. http://www.academia.edu/272138/Feasts_and_ Commensal_ Politics_ In_the_Political_Economy_Food_Power_and_Status_In_Prehistoric_Europe. Fletcher, A., Pearson, J. and Ambers, J., 2008. “The manipulation of social and physical identity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 18(3): 309-325. Garrard A., Baird D., Colledge S., Martin L. and Wright K. 1994. “Prehistoric Environment and Settlement in the Azraq Basin: An Interim Report on the 1987 and 1988 Excavation Seasons.” Levant 26: 73-109. Gebel, Hans Georg K. 2010 “Commodification and the formation of early Neolithic social identity. The issues as seen from the southern Jordanian Highlands.” In The Principle of Sharing. Segregation and construction of social identities at the transition from foraging to farming. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 14, edited by M. Benz, 25-80. Berlin: Ex Oriente. Goren, Yuval, Irena Segal, and Ofer Bar-Yosef. 1993. “Plaster artifacts and the interpretation of the Nahal Hemar Cave.” Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 25: 120-131. Goring-Morris, Nigel. 2002. “The Quick and the Dead: The Social Context of Aceramic Neolithic Mortuary Practices as Seen from Kfar HaHoresh.” In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity and 102 Differentiation, edited by I. Kuijt, 103–136. New York: Kluwer AcademicPlenum. Goring-Morris, N. and Horwitz, L.K. 2007. “Funerals and feasts during the PrePottery Neolithic B of the Near East.” Antiquity, 81(314): 902-919. Griffin, P.S., Grissom, C.A. and Rollefson, G.O., 1998. “Three Late Eighth Millennium Plastered Faces from 'Aln Ghazal, Jordan.” Paléorient, 24(1): 5970. http://www.jstor.org/stable /41492754. Grindell, Beth. 1998. “Unmasked Equalities: an examination of mortuary practices and social complexity in the Levantine Natufian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic.” PhD dissertation, University of Arizona. Grissom, Carol A. and Griffin, Patricia S. 2013. “Three Plaster Faces” In Symbols at ʻAin Ghazal, edited by Denise Schmandt-Besserat, 183-214. Berlin: Ex Oriente. Harrison-Buck, E. and Peshkova, S. 2013. “Ideology, Ritual Practice, and Cultural Heritage: An Introduction.” Spectrum (3): 1-3. https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/studentjournals/SPECTRUM_3_2013_Intro.pdf Hershkovitz I., Zohar I., Segal I., Speirs M.S., Meirav O., Sherter U., Feldman H., Goring- Morris N. 1995. “Remedy for an 8500 year-old Plastered Human Skull from Kfar Hahoresh, Israel.” Journal of Archaeological Science 22(6): 779788. Hershman, Debby, Yuval Goren, Leore Grosman, Alexander Bogdanovsky, and Ahiad Ovadia. 2014. Face to Face: The Oldest Masks in the World. Translated by Nancy Benovitz. Jerusalem: The Israel Museum. 103 Johnson, Gregory A. 1982. “Organizational Structure and Scalar Stress.” In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by C. Renfrew, M. J. Rowlands, and B. A. Seagraves, 389–412. New York: Academic. Kenyon, Kathleen M. 1960. Excavations at Jericho… The Tombs excavated in 1952-1954. Jerusalem: British School of Archaeólogy in Jerusalem. Khalaily, H., O. Bar-Yosef, O. Barzilai, E. Boaretto, F. Bocquentin, A. Eirikh-Rose, Z. Greenhut, A. N. Goring-Morris, G. L. Dosseur, O. Marder, L. Sapir-Hen, and M. Yizhaq. 2007. “Excavations at Moza in the Judean Hills and the Early PrePottery Neolithic B in the Southern Levant.” Paléorient 33(2): 5-37. Kuijt, Ian. 1997. “Meaningful Masks, Death, Social Memory, and Levantine Neolithic Community Identity.” Presented at 96th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC. Kuijt, Ian. 2000a. “Keeping the Peace: Ritual, Skull Caching, and Community Integration in the Levantine Neolithic,” In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity and Differentiation, edited by I. Kuijt, 137-164. New York: Kluwer Academic Plenum. Kuijt, Ian. 2000b. “Near Eastern Neolithic Research: Directions and Trends” In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity and Differentiation, edited by I. Kuijt, 311-322. New York: Kluwer Academic Kuijt, Ian. 2001. “Place, death, and the transmission of social memory in early agricultural of the Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic.” In Social Memory, Identity, and Death: Anthropological Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals, edited 104 by M. S. Chesson, 80–99. Washington: Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association vol. 10. Kuijt, Ian. 2008. “The Regeneration of Life: Neolithic Structures of Symbolic Remembering and Forgetting.” Current Anthropology 49(2): 171-97. Kuijt, Ian, and Goring-Morris, Nigel. 2002. “Foraging, farming, and social complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the southern Levant: a review and synthesis.” Journal of World Prehistory 16(4): 361-440. Ibánez, J.J., González-Urquijo, J.E. and Braemer, F. 2014. “The Human Face and the Origins of the Neolithic: The Carved Bone Wand from Tell Qarassa North, Syria.” Antiquity 88(339): 81-94. Macumber, Phillip. 2008. “Evolving landscape and environment in Jordan” In Jordan: An Archaeological Reader, edited by Russell B. Adams, 7-34. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd. ProQuest Ebook Central. Milevski I., Khalaily H., Getzov N., Hershkovitz I. 2010. “The plastered skulls and other PPNB finds from Yiftahel, lower Galilee (Israel).” Paléorient 34(2): 3746. Moorey, Peter R.S. 2003. Idols of the people: Miniature images of clay in the ancient Near East. Oxford: Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press. Morris, Ian. 1991. “The archaeology of ancestors: the Saxe/Goldstein hypothesis revisited.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1(2): 147-169. Musi, Vincent J. 2011. Photo Collection: The Birth of Religion, National Geographic. 105 June 2011. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/musiphotography. Noy, Tamar. 1988. “A Radial Decoration on Human Face Images from the PPNB Period.” Israel Museum Journal 7: 109-12. Nissen, H.J., Muheisen, M., and Gebel, H.G. 1987. “Report on the first two seasons of excavations at Basta (1986-1987).” Annuals of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 31: 79-118. Özbek, Metin. 2009. “Remodeled human skulls in Köşk Höyük (Neolithic age, Anatolia): a new appraisal in view of recent discoveries.” Journal of Archaeological Science 36(2):379-386. Parkinson, W. A. and P. R. Duffy. 2007. “Fortifications and Enclosures in European Prehistory: A Cross-Cultural Perspective.” Journal of Archaeological Research 15(2): 97-141. Pilloud, M.A., Haddow, S.D., Knüsel, C.J., and Larsen, C.S. 2016. “A bioarchaeological and forensic re-assessment of vulture defleshing and mortuary practices at Neolithic Çatalhöyük.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 10: 735-743. Rollefson, G.O. 1986. “Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal (Jordan): ritual and ceremony, II.” Paléorient 21(1): 45–52. Rollefson, G.O. 2000. “Ritual and social structure at Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal.” In Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity and Differentiation, edited by I. Kuijt, 163–188. New York: Kluwer Academic Plenum. 106 Rollefson, G. O. 2008. “The Neolithic Period.” In Jordan: An Archaeological Reader, edited by Russell B. Adams, 71-108. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd. ProQuest Ebook Central Rollefson, G. O. 2010. “Blood loss: Realignments in community social structures during the LPPNB of Highland Jordan.” In The Principle of Sharing. Segregation and construction of social identities at the transition from foraging to farming. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 14, edited by M. Benz, 183-202. Berlin: Ex Oriente. Rollefson, G.O. n.d. ““I am We”: The Display of Socioeconomic Politics of Neolithic Commodification.” In The Construction of Neolithic Corporate Identities edited by M. Benz, T. Watkins, and H.G.K. Gebel. Berlin: Ex Oriente (in press). Rollefson, G.O. 2016. Personal communications. Email. Rollefson, G.O. 2017. Personal communications. Email and discussion. Rollefson, G.O., Schmandt-Besserat, D., and Rose, J.C. 1998. “A Decorated Skull From MPPNB ‘Ain Ghazal.” Paléorient 24(2): 99-104. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41492716. Rollefson, G.O., Simmons, A.H., and Kafafi, Z. 1992. “Neolithic Cultures at ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan.” Journal of Field Archaeology 19(4): 443-470. doi:10.2307/530427. Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. 2002. “From behind the mask plastered skulls from ‘Ain Ghazal.” Origini (24): 95–140. Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. 2013. Symbols at ʻAin Ghazal. Berlin: Ex Oriente. 107 Slon, V., Sarig, R., Hershkovitz, I., Khalaily, H. and Milevski, I. 2014. The Plastered Skulls from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Site of Yiftahel (Israel) – A Computed Tomography-Based Analysis.” Plos One 9(2): e89242. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0089242 Stordeur, Danielle. 2003. “Des crânes surmodelés à Tell Aswad de Damascène (PPNBSyrie).” Paléorient 29(2): 109-115. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41432184. Stordeur, Danielle, and Rima Khawam. 2007. “Les crânes surmodelés de Tell Aswad (PPNB, Syrie). Premier regard sur l'ensemble, premières réflexions.” Syria 84: 5-32. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20723412. Strouhal, Eugen. 1973. “Five Plastered Skulls From Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Jericho.” Paléorient 1(2): 231-247, 17. Testart, Alain. 2008. “Des Crânes Et Des Vautours Ou La Guerre Oubliée.” Paléorient 34(1): 33-58. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41496830. Twiss, Katheryn C. 2008. “Transformations in an Early Agricultural Society: Feasting in the Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27(4): 418-42. Verhoeven, M. 2002. “Ritual and Ideology in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Levant and Southeast Anatolia.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12: 233–258. Williams, Ann R. 2014. “World's Oldest Masks Modeled on Early Farmers' Ancestors.” National Geographic, June 10. http://news.nationalgeographic.com /news/2014/06/140610-oldest-masks-israel-museum-exhibit-archaeologyscience/. 108