NEO-LITHICS 1/10 - ex oriente eV

Editorial Introduction Clare and Gebel Introduction:ConflictandWarfareKeynote Bar-Yosef WarfareinLevantineEarlyNeolithic.AHypothesis Comments and Contributions Bernbeck AScholasticFallacy Clare PastoralClashes:ConflictRiskandMitigation Gebel ConflictandConflictMitigation Grosman PrehistoricWarfare–CauseandVisibility Guilaine NeolithicWarfare:Comments LeBlanc BroaderImplications Müller-Neuhof Comment Özdoğan WarfareDuetoSocialStressorStateofSecurityThrough

SocialWelfare Otterbein EarlyWarfare Roksandic Commentary Rollefson ViolenceinEden:Comments Roscoe War,Community,andEnvironment Warburton MethodologicalConsiderations Reply Bar-Yosef WarfareinLevantineEarlyNeolithic.ResponseOferBar-YosefOther Contributions Köksal-Schmidt and Schmidt GöbekliTepe„TotemPole“ Arimura, Badalyan, Gasparan, and Chataigner CurrentNeolithicResearchinArmenia Neeley TBAS102:ALateNatufianSiteinWest-CentralJordan Bartl Shir,WestSyriaNew Theses

NEO-LITHICS1/10The Newsletter of Southwest Asian Neolithic ResearchSpecial Topic on Conflict and Warfare in the Near Eastern Neolithic

2Neo-Lithics1/10

Content

Editorial 3

Introduction Lee Clare and Hans Georg K. Gebel Introduction: ConflictandWarfareintheNearEasternNeolithic 3Keynote Ofer Bar-Yosef WarfareinLevantineEarlyNeolithic.AHypothesistobeConsidered 6

Comments and Contributions Reinhard Bernbeck PrehistoricWars,AScholasticFallacy 11 Lee Clare PastoralClashes:ConflictRiskandMitigationatthePotteryNeolithicTransition intheSouthernLevant 13 Hans Georg K. Gebel ConflictandConflictMitigationinEarlyNearEasternSedentism 32 Leore Grosman PrehistoricWarfare–CauseandVisibility 36 Jean Guilaine NeolithicWarfare:Comments 38 Steven A. LeBlanc EarlyNeolithicWarfareintheNearEastanditsBroaderImplications 40 Bernd Müller-Neuhof CommenttoOferBarYosef‘sKeynote:WarfareinLevantineEarlyNeolithic. AHypothesistobeConsidered 50 Mehmet Özdoğan TheNeolithicMedium:WarfareDuetoSocialStressorStateofSecurity

ThroughSocialWelfare 54 Keith F. Otterbein EarlyWarfareintheNearEast 56 Mirjana Roksandic Commentaryon“WarfareinLevantineEarlyNeolithic.AHypothesistobeConsidered” 59 Gary O. Rollefson ViolenceinEden:CommentsonBar-Yosef’sNeolithicWarfareHypothesis 62 Paul Roscoe War,Community,andEnvironmentintheLevantineNeolithic 66 David A. Warburton WarfareintheNeolithic?MethodologicalConsiderations 68

Reply Ofer Bar-Yosef WarfareinLevantineEarlyNeolithic.ResponseOferBar-Yosef 71

Other Contributions Çiğdem Köksal-Schmidt and Klaus Schmidt TheGöbekliTepe“TotemPole“.AFirstDiscussionofanAutumn2010Discovery (PPN,SoutheasternTurkey) 74

Makoto Arimura, Ruben Badalyan, Boris Gasparyan, and Christine Chataigner CurrentNeolithicResearchinArmenia 77 Michael P. Neeley TBAS102:ALateNatufianSiteinWest-CentralJordan 86 Karin Bartl Shir,WestSyria 92

Theses 94New Publications 97Masthead 99

Editorial

Introduction

Neo-Lithics1/103

SpecialTopic:WarfareinLevantineEarlyNeolithic

Weextendourmostsincere thanks toOferBar-Yosef forhiskeynotecontributiononWarfare in theLevantineNeolithic, the special topic of thisNeo-Lithics issue,which has attracted the intellectual company of somanycolleagues.Theresultisaverysubstantialandinmanypartsnewdiscussion,andthethickestissueofNeo-Lithicspublishedtodate.Thekeynotetriggeredsomecontroversy,asweexpected,andthisappearstocomelessfromthedifferentperceptionsofthewarfareissueperseandmorefromthedifferentareasinwhichsuchperceptionsaregained.Indeed,itisessentialthatwedifferentiatebetweenthesetwoaspects.Forexample,inarecentdiscussionatafishmezzetowhichoneofus(H.G.K.G.)wasinvitedbyMehmetÖzdoğan,IlearnedthatNeolithicwarfareshouldnotbeneglectedjustbecauseone’sownsightsaredominatedbyevidencefrommoreextensiveNeolithichabitats.Alsopersonalmoralandpoliticalviewscanconsiderablyinfluencemanyofthesightsandapproachestothetopic.Weextendoursincerethankstoallcontributorsforpreparingthesubstratumofabroaderdiscussionuponwhichwecanbuildinthefuture;thediversityofargumentsandapproacheswhichourdiscoursehasstartedshowsthatweareattheverybeginningofaddressingtheissueofconflictandwarfare.

Itwasapleasuretocooperatewithourguesteditor,LeeClare.Wenotonlywontheperfectcolleagueforthisspecialtopic,buthealsobroughtinthepatienceandcareforthecontributionswhichwerecollectedinjustafewmonths.Whilewefinalizeworksonthisissue,webecomeconfidentthatitisonlyamatteroftimeuntilweareconfrontedwithdirectevidenceforwarfareorcoalitionalaggressionfromoneofthecurrentexcavations.Thisissueaimstoraiseawarenessaboutsuchfindings…

HansGeorgK.GebelGaryO.Rollefson

Introduction: Conflict and Warfare in the Near Eastern Neolithic

Lee Clare UniversityofCologne [email protected] Georg K. Gebel FreeUniversityofBerlin [email protected]

This edition of Neo-Lithics is dedicated to a topicthat to present has received relatively little attentionfromscholarsworkinginthefieldoftheNearEasternNeolithic.Conflictandwarfareintraditionalsocietiescan range significantly in scale from minor intra-familialclashesatthelevelofsmallresidencegroupstolargescaleinter-communityhostilitiescharacterisedby alliance formation and the annexation of foreignterritories.Granted,warfarecaninsomeinstancesbeagent, institutionalised, and serve significant socio-economic and ritual functions, but in others, wherean increase in hostilities, particularly at the regionaland supra-regional level, has an external catalyst,bellicose enterprises can culminate in thebreakdownof afflicted communities, migration, adjustment ofvertical differentiation within social networks, andmaterial culture change. As such, this absence ofscholarly interestwith respect to theNeolithic in theNear East, with a few notable exceptions, is all themore incomprehensible. This edition of Neo-Lithicsseeks not to remedy directly this deficit of scholarlyactivity,buttoprovideaplatformforinitialdiscussionsanddeliberationsinthehopethatmoredetailedstudieswilldulyfollow.

OurvolumeisopenedbyakeynotepaperbyOferBar-Yosef to which comments and contributions

were invited from esteemed scholars from the fieldsofwarfare and conflict studies andNearEastern andEuropean prehistory. Unfortunately, some academicdisciplines are still missing in our collection ofcomments, for examplewe are lacking contributionsfrom the spheres of physical anthropology, humanethology, evolutionary psychology, neurobiology,cognitive neurosciences and others; these areas willundoubtedlyplayasigificantroleinthefuture,i.e.inthesecondstageofourdiscourseonconflictandwarfare.Topics addressed by contributors in this issue rangefromtheoreticalissues,concernedwiththeoriginsandgenesisofNeolithicconflict,tomorepracticalaspectssuchastheidentificationofmarkersforhostilitiesinthearchaeological record. Indeed, this latter pointwouldappeartoconstituteoneofthemostpressingconcernsamongprehistorians,atleastjudgingbythefrequencyby which this topic has been broached in recentpublications,andalsowithinthispresentvolume.Here,theobservationthatalackofevidenceisnotnecessarilytantamounttoarealabsenceofwarfareiscertainlynotinsignificant,andsomerelevantlinesofdocumentationare simply misunderstood (LeBlanc). On the otherhand, as demonstrated byBernbeck with respect tosite abandonment and Grosman with reference toskeletalpathologies,therealwaysremainsadegreeof

Introduction

Neo-Lithics1/104


ambiguityconcerningthecorrectinterpretation,evenofthoselinesofevidencefrequentlycitedasbeingamongthemost reliable.Again,GuilaineandClarediscussthe significance of the ratio of arrowheads in lithicassemblagesasanindicatorofviolenceonCyprusandin the southernLevant respectively. If however cleararchaeological evidence for violence is unearthed,howcanwe ascertain the extent of bellicosity in therespectiveculture;could itnotbe thatwearemerelywitnessingasingle(otherwiseinfrequent)outbreakofviolence (Roksandic)? Indeed, Bernbeck goes onestep further and criticises the pursuit of evidence ofprehistoricconflict(forconflict’ssake)inaregionandperiod to have hitherto provided comparatively littleindicationofitsoccurrence.

Returning to theoretical considerations, since theEnlightenment discussion to focus upon the originsof war has been dominated by the ‘nature-nurturecontroversy’. On the one hand, there are those,predominantlybiologistsandbiologicalanthropologists,whoregardviolenceasanintrinsicelementofhumannature,whilston theother thereare scholars,mainlyculturalandsocialanthropologists,whoarguethatwarisculturallybequeathed,i.e.nurtured.Theseparadigmsaresynonymouswithtwoprominentphilosophersfromthe early modern era, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)andJean-JacquesRousseau(1712-1778),alsoreferredto as the ‘philosopher of war’ and the ‘philosopherofpeace’ respectively (cf.Dawson1996).Discussionsurrounding the nature vs. nurture debate has neverabatedandstillaboundstoday.Indeed,itsinfluencecanstill be felt in practically all papers and publicationsto broach the topic (cf.Thorpe 2005).Consequently,whilstadherentsofthenatureparadigmexpresswhatare referred to as neo-Hobbesian views, those toadvocateculturalexplanationsaredeemedadherentsofneo-Rousseauism.Especiallyinthetwentiethcentury,itisthelatteroftheseparadigmswhichprovedprevalent,mostpredominantly in the frameof cultural ecology,due not least to the inmany respects still prevailingintellectualdispositionfavouringthedogmaofculturaldeterminism. In this volume, for instance,Grosmancitestheapparentcorrelationbetweenviolentconflictand the inception of sedentary lifeways, a clearlyneo-Rousseauan approach to the origins of warfareaccording to which conflict only emerged followingthe inception of agriculture, associated demographicgrowth,andtheriseofmorecomplexformsofsocialorganisation,andWarburton,inasimilarvein,positsthat the origins of warfare lie not in the EuropeanPalaeolithicbut in theLevantineNeolithic, as itwasherethatthedemographicbasisforsustainedconflictfirstappeared.

Althoughneo-evolutionaryviewsandidealsofselfpreservation (survival of the fittest), as suggested inworksbymodernsociobiologists,arenotencounteredin this volume, elsewhere adherents to this paradigmhave referred to conflict and violence as an inherentcharacteristic of human life, an urge that demandsmanipulationofourgenetic imperatives tocontrol it,

akintoresistingtemptationsofcalorie-richfoodsandcasual sex (Smith 2009: 27)! This is most certainlyan extreme view, but as pointed out byGebel, whosucceeds in combining the two grand paradigms,humanaggression,althoughbiologicallyanchored, isnevertheless dominated by cooperation and empathy.Further, and most intriguingly, he goes on to assertclearlyneo-RousseauanvaluespositingthatNeolithicconflict is intrinsically linked to sedentary lifewaysand is dictated by the failure of relatedmechanismsofaggregation,commodificationandinnovation.Thisstance is echoed in the contributions by ÖzdoğanandOtterbein. For the period of the formation anddisseminationoftheaceramicNeolithicintheLevantandAnatoliaÖzdoğanconcludesthatthiswouldonlyhavebeenpossiblethroughthesharingofknowledge,whichinitselfimplieshighlevelsofinter-communitycooperation in the respective regionsand landscapes.The onset of conflict and violence only becamereality upon the collapse of the aceramic system, anobservation which would appear to be enforced byRollefson’scommentsthatviolenceinthePre-PotteryNeolithicwas likely limited in scale to interpersonalvendettas and intragroup strife. Otterbein alsostresses the significance of the absence of violencefor thedispersal ofNeolithic lifeways;he too comestothesameconclusionas Özdoğan,i.e.thatanystepstowardsdomesticationwouldhavebeenimpossiblehadcontemporarysocietiesbeenrackedbyviolentconflict.On the other hand, Roscoe takes a quite differentapproach. Focusing on the characteristic aggregationof populations in the early Neolithic he concludes(on the basis of ethnographic parallels) that thespatialoccurrenceofresourcesalonedoesnotexplainsufficientlythisphenomenon;intriguingly,heseesthedevelopmentofincreasinglymoresubstantialvillagesintheLevantinthecourseoftheearlyNeolithiclinkedtothegrowingriskandthreatofattack.

Afurtherimportanttheoreticalapproach,andonetofeatureperhapsmostprominentlyinthekeynotebyBar-Yosefbutwithaclearlyvisibleresonanceinnumerousother contributions, is the Malthusian paradigm.Accordingly,inadditiontodiseaseandfamine,warfareis considered one of the standard consequences ofoverpopulation andoverstretched carrying capacities.Nevertheless, inherent deficits of the Malthusianapproacharepickedoutasacentral themebyClareandMüller-Neuhof. These authors propose that thepotentialofprehistoricsocietiestoactuallyengageinarmedconflictshouldfirstbeassessedonthebasisofprevailing socio-economic factors. Consequently, intheir respective contributions it is demonstrated thattheMalthusianmodelisonlyconditionallyapplicativeand that alternative solutions and coping strategiesare equally capable of resolving crisis situations. Bethis as itmay,and in supportof someof thenotionsput forward by Bar-Yosef, environmental scarcityis without doubt a widely acknowledged cause ofviolence.Contentionstoarisefromanthropogenicandclimateinducedenvironmentaldegradationcanoccur

Introduction

Neo-Lithics1/105


onvarious scalesandcomprise forexampleconflictsincitedbycompetitionoverresourceaccess,includingthe effects of scarcity upon economic productivityand livelihoods, as well as migrations of afflictedcommunities and their infringement upon foreignterritories.Thus,inmanyrespects,sourcesofconflictcannotbeunderstoodwithoutincludingenvironmentalscarcityaspartofitscausalstory(Homer-Dixon1999).

Ifweweretoapproachourtopicfromthestandpointof recent discussions and considerations from thedisciplinesofethnologyandevolutionarypsychology,wemightbettergrasptherangeofquestionsweoughttoconsiderwhenundertakingarchaeologicalresearchofwarfareandconflict.Unfortunately,JoachimBauerandWulfSchiefenhövelwereunable tocontribute tothisdiscussionowingtotimeconstraints.Theirworksillustratetowhatextentourdiscussionisdependentuponinterdisciplinaryeffortsandthesupportofdisciplinesspecialised in human conflict behaviour. In additionto introducinginto thediscussionan interdisciplinaryestablishedterminologyandaframeworkofdefinitionsforNeolithictypesofwarfare,conflictandaggression,wemustalsodifferentiatebetweenthevariousregionalecological,social,andeconomicconditionsofconflictin the Levant throughout the Neolithic Evolution.Whyis it thatourdiscussionsomehowimagines thatconsultation of the many disciplines undertakingaggression research (cognitive neurosciences andneurobiology; human ethology; social biology;behavioral ecology; environmental, evolutionary, andreligion psychologies; ethnology and others) is notnecessary? Why is it that these disciplines did notreceive our information when in desperate need ofarchaeological data for their study of the evolutionof aggression? And, why is it that our research ishardly aware of “typical” conflict constellations, e.g.by “simply” reconstructing size and productivity ofhabitats as related to settlement sizes and pattern?Finally, regarding primary empiric bases: Don’t weneed a systematic search for traumata through thephysical anthropological records (cf. for example theBastahomicide,Röhrer-Ertletal.1988)?

Prehistorywillnotsucceedinunderstandingwarfareandconflictinthearchaeologicalrecordifitdoesnotopenuptothehumanethologyofwarfareandconflict(asthisistruealsoforalltheotherfindingsemergingfrom Neolithic cognitive systems). Two positionsshouldbementionedheretooutlinepossibledirections:WulfSchiefenhöfelcriticises(pers.comm.)thatinthehumanitiestheideastillprevailsthatthehomosapiensis basically a harmonious and peaceful being whichonly became aggressive through sedentism. “As ourcolleagueOferBar-Yosefcorrectlyexplains,primatesalsoshowaggressive,evenwar-typebehaviour,asthisis known from other mammals, too.” Schiefenhövelsuggeststhatinadditiontotheevolutionaryperspectiveourdiscussionneedstoconsultethnographicalfindings.(cf.e.g.Schiefenhövel2001).JoachimBauerarguesinseveral of his publications (e.g. Bauer 2008) against“neo-darwinistic” biologists who follow Sigmund

Freud and Konrad Lorenz by postulating a humandriveforaggression.Neurobiology,however,doesnotunderstandthehumanbeingasgoodorbad,aggressiveor not, but as a being which is oriented primarilytowardssocialacceptanceandcooperation(cf.datainBauer2006).

Asalreadymentioned,weare at thebeginningofthe debate for theNearEasternNeolithic.We are inthefortunatepositionthatwearestillabletostructurediscussionanddatainadvanceoftheinterdisciplinarycontacts that we must soon seek. We hope that thecollectionofpapersinthisissuecanserveasastartingpointforthisendeavour,fromwhichthediscussionofcollectiveviolence in theNearEasternNeolithic canunfoldandprogress.

References

BauerJ.2006 PrinzipMenschlichkeit.WarumwirvonNaturaus kooperieren.Hamburg:HoffmannundCampe.2008 DaskooperativeGen:AbschiedvomDarvinismus. Hamburg:HoffmannundCampe.

DawsonD.1996 TheOriginsofWar:BiologicalandAnthropological Theories.HistoryandTheory35:1-28.

Homer-DixonT.F.1999 Environment,scarcity,andviolence.Princetonand Oxford:PrincetonUniversityPress.

SchiefenhövelW.2001 Kampf,KriegundVersöhnungbeidenEipoim BerglandvonWest-Neuguinea.ZurEvolutionsbiologie undKulturanthropologieaggressivenVerhaltens. InW.Fikentscher(ed.),BegegnungundKonflikt- einekulturanthropologischeBestandsaufnahme. BayerischeAkademiederWissenschaften, Philosophisch-HistorischeKlasse,Abhandlungen, NeueFolge120:169-186.München:C.H.Beck.

Röhrer-ErtlO.,FreyK.W.andNeweselyH. PreliminaryNoteontheEarlyNeolithicHuman RemainsfromBastaandSabra1.InA.N.Garrardand H.G.Gebel(eds.),ThePrehistoryofJordan.TheState ofResearchin1986.BritishArchaeologicalReports– Intern.Series396.1:135-136.Oxford,B.A.R.

SmithD.L.2009. TheMostDangerousAnimal:HumanNature andtheOriginsofWar.NewYork:St.Martin’sGriffin.

ThorpeI.J.N.2005 Theancientoriginsofwarfareandviolence.InM.P. PearsonandI.J.N.Thorpe(eds.),Warfare,Violenceand SlaveryinPrehistory.BritishArchaeologicalReports– Intern.Series1374:1-18.Oxford:Archaeopress.

Keynote

Neo-Lithics1/106


Personal conflicts are not a newmode of interactionbetween humans; even primates do the same. Inprimateandhumanevolutionasmalltaskgroupkillingan individual has the same history; this pattern ofbehaviorexemplifiesinter-groupphysicaland/orritualconflicts.The archaeological evidence already showsthat during the closing millennia of the PleistoceneandearlyHolocene,massgravescanbeinterpretedasresulting fromhumanviolence (Gulaine andZammit2001; Martin and Frayer 1997 and papers therein;Ferguson and Whitehead 1992 and papers therein). Mass burials have been interpreted as the results oftribalwars such as the case ofOfnetCave, dated tothe EuropeanMesolithic (Frayer 1997). Similar Epi-Paleolithcburialswithdirector indirectevidence forkillingareknownfromcemeteriesinEgyptianNubia(Anderson1968)andNorthAfricainthecavesitesofAfalouBouRhummel,Mechtael ‘Arbi, andTaforalt(Roper1969),Hence“warbeforecivilization”(Keeley1996)iscertainlynoexaggeration.

Considering the wealth of information from theLevant and Anatolia, we should consider whetherLevantine Early Neolithic contexts provide evidencefor acts ofwarfarewhich, asmost authorities agree,emanatefromincreasingpopulationdensitiesandsteepinter-group competition (Keeley1996).For example,we should ask ourselves whether Early Neolithicvillagesweresimplyabandonedeveryfewcenturiesduetopeacefulreasons,suchasover-exploitationofsoils,depletion of soil fertility owing to lack of fertilizers,theeffectsofsalinization,abruptclimaticchangeswithdroughts, harvest failures and famines, and diseases,orwhethertheseabandonmentsactuallyresultedfromphysical conflicts between neighboring populationswhichcouldhaveemergedfromacombinationoftheabovementioneddifficulties(e.g.Clareetal.2008).Inorder to identify the increasingfrequencyofphysicalconflicts that I believe are correlatedwith increasingdemographic pressures, I begin the story with theimpactofthedemographiceffectscausedbytheLateGlacialMaximumandproceed to theearlyNeolithicperiod.

As far as we know today, this harsh cold anddry period (also known as MOSI2, ca. 24/23-18 kacalBP) resulted in a discernible reduction of humanpopulations(agenetic“bottleneck”)inmanyregionsof the OldWorld. But, after ca. 18/17 ka calBP, astemperatures increased steadily and the distributionof rainfall watered larger areas than before, humansrecoveredfromthedifficulttimesandtheunfavorableenvironments conditions of the LGM. The post-LGM climatic amelioration facilitated reproductivelysuccessful hunter-gatherer societies to occupy almost

every ecologicalhabitat of theworld and todisperseinto theAmericas. If we examine the Levant duringthisperiod,weobservetheexpansionofthemicrolithicGeometricKebaranexploitingeveryecologicalnichefrom the northern Levant to the southern mountainsand theSinaipeninsulaataround16,500 -14,500calBP.We therefore encounter these hunter-gatherers inevery vegetation belt, including the Mediterranean,Irano-Turanian, and Saharo-Arabian area. Withinthe Mediterranean vegetation belt semi-sedentaryGeometricKebaransiteswereestablished.

Therealsoexistedmoreorlesscontemporarygroupswhichcompetedandco-existedwith theseLevantineforagers.IntheSouththeseweretheMushabiansandRamonians which, according to one interpretation,originated in North Africa (Bar-Yosef and Phillips1997), a proposal supported by the analysis of theE-M35Ychromosome(Lancaster2009online).It isalso conceivable that other groups of hunter-gatherswere attracted by the improving environmentalconditionsofthepreviouslysemi-aridbelt,andmovedinto theLevantinearea fromtheSyro-Arabiandesertand/ortheTaurusfoothills(Goring-Morris1995).

Whatismostintriguingandyetuncleariswhethera short climatic spell (known inEuropeas theOlderDryas)causedatemporaryretractionofthesteppicbelttriggeringcertaingroupstoestablishtheEarlyNatufianhamlets(e.g.,Bar-YosefandBelfer-Cohen1989;Bar-Yosef2002).Withoutdiscussingtheavailableevidence,thecriticalpointisthatthisinitialformationofhumanagglomerations, combining a few families or evensub-clans, resulted from the decision to live togetherforreasonsofsecurity,defendingtheirterritory,eitherbyforceorbysymbolicacts(seeRoscoe2008,2009and references therein). We once referred to thissocietalmajorchangeasa“pointofnoreturn”(Bar-YosefandBelfer-Cohen1989;Belfer-CohenandBar-Yosef2000),orwhatwewouldcalltodaythe“tippingpoint”. I suggest that we should also refer to theformationoftheEarlyNatufianhamletsastheonsetof‘history’.Undoubtedly, as the archaeological recordsdemonstrate, the socio-economic processes from theLateNatufianinthenorthernLevant,andinspiteoftheensuingsocio-economicupsanddowns,led–withoutforwardvisionbythefirstcultivatorsandherders–totheinventionofwritingsystemsfromwhichthehistoryofthepeopleintheAncientNearEastistold.Needlessto say, the evolution and elaboration of cosmologiesinthisregion,expressedinartisticimageries(whetherpainted, sculptured, or symbolized by treated humanand animal remains), gained important momentum(Cauvin2000).

The small hamlets of the Natufian (ca.14,500

Warfare in Levantine Early Neolithic. A Hypothesis to be Considered

Ofer Bar-Yosef HarvardUniversity [email protected]

Neo-Lithics1/10

Keynote

7SpecialTopic:WarfareinLevantineEarlyNeolithic

-11,700/500 calBP) were constructed from a seriesof brush huts built above circular stone foundations,and contain the evidence for territorial ownership,a conclusion derived from the on-site presence ofcemeteries.AdoptingthesubdivisionoftheNatufiantothreeschematicphases(Valla1984)theFinalNatufianwasatumultuoustimeduetotheeffectsoftheYoungerDryas (ca. 13,000/800-11,700/500 calBP). Underthesecircumstancesofecologicalstresstheoptionsofhumangroupsweredeterminedbytheirsocio-culturalconcepts (e.g., Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1991;Miller-Rosen2007)asfollows:

(1)IncreasedmobilityascharacterizedbytheLate/Final Natufian that resulted in particular ecologicaladaptationsknownforexampleastheHarifiancultureintheNegevandSinaiwheretheHarifpoint–atypicalarrowhead–wasinvented(Goring-Morris1991).

(2) Increased sedentism demonstrated in theestablishment of the villages of Hallan Çemi in atributary of the Tigris River, the Late Natufian inMureybet andAbuHureyra (RosenbergandRedding2000;Mooreetal.2000).

(3)Intensifiedhuntingandgatheringandparttimecultivation (that may indicate increased sedentism)commencedinthefoothillsoftheTaurusandalongthemiddleEuphratesRiverValley(Willcoxetal.2009).

The effects of the general decrease in resources isclearly shownby thenatureof the latestoccupationsof Eynan in the Hula Valley (Valla et al. 2007), anarea that was the most suitable ecological niche forsedentarycommunitiesandwashardlyeveraffectedinamajorwaybyabruptclimaticchanges.

Early Neolithic communities, which we stilllabel using the term PPNA instead of the affiliatedcultural entities such as Khiamian,Mureybetian andSultanian (ca.11,700/500–10,700/500calBP), aregenerally villages eight times (or more) larger thantheirancestorhamlets,areflectionofrapidpopulationgrowth.LevantinePPNApeople,consideredthedirectdescendantsoftheNatufians,spentmoreenergythantheirforefathersinconstructingtheirhouses.Circularandovalstonefoundationscontinuedtobethestandardshape of the domestic unit, but their use of quarriedclay and hand-molded plano-convex bricks for thewalls, as well as flat roofs that required supportingposts,representincreasedinvestmentintheformationofhumanspace. Inaddition, therewereconsiderablechanges in the ground stone tools, which probablysignifieddifferenttechniquesoffoodpreparation.The‘sudden’ population growth from30-50 (rarely up to100)peopleat aNatufiansite to250-400at anearlyNeolithic villagewithin a relatively short time (two-three centuries) requires explanation. Inmy opinion,without the benefits of systematic cereal cultivation,whichcommencedintheclosingonetotwocenturiesof the Final Natufian, there is no way of explaining

this rapid population growth across the Levant.PPNAvillagesintheMediterraneanandsteppicbelts,however, do not show the same crowded clusteringthat became the marker among later several PPNBsites, including those labeled as “mega sites” alongtheJordanianplateau.Thisissueisworthexploringinthe future.AMScalibrated radiocarbonchronologies,mostlyofshort-livedsamplessuchasseedsandbones,indicatethattheabandonmentofalmosteveryvillage,except in rare cases such as Jerf etAhmar (StordeurandAbbés2002),occurredeverywhereintheLevant.Eventhosesituatedadjacenttoacopioussprings(likeJericho) or on the bank of a river (like Mureybet)survived only for a few centuries. Not surprisingly,a similar settlement history was recorded for thefollowingPPNBperiod(ca.10,700/500-8,200calBP)inspiteofthefastaccumulatingevidencethatindicatesbetterclimaticconditions(e.g.Weningeretal.2009).

Thequestionthatweneedtoaskistowhatextentintra-group and inter-group human conflicts causedthe interrupted sequences as recorded inmanyEarlyNeolithic sites.Themost parsimonious interpretationwouldbethatbothintra-groupfissioningandindividualconflicts played a major role during the PPNA andPPNB. I draw this interpretation by formulating amodel based on ethnographic and historical records,but to my best knowledge we never employ thesesources to formulate ‘a one to one analogy’. Underthe premise that intra-group conflicts causedwhat isknownas“scalarstress”, thismayhave triggered thesplitting of villages (e.g. Roscoe 2008,2009; Belfer-CohenandGoring-Morris2002;Kuijt2000;Goring-MorrisandBelfer-Cohen2008).The‘breakingup’ofvillagecommunitiescouldexplain, forexample,whyGilgalandNetivHagdudaresituatedonly1.5kmapart.Their calibrated radiocarbon chronology indicatesthatthefirstwasfoundedearlier,buttherewasatimewhenthetwovillageswereapparentlycontemporary.AnotheroptionisthatJerichowasfoundedearlier,andeitherGilgal orNetivHagdud represents a budding-offPPNAcommunity,i.e.whenalargegroupmovedfrom the original large site of Jericho.Alternatively,perhaps Jerichowas founded later thanGilgaland/orNetivHagdud.Thus,itisnotsurprisingthatMureybetand Abu Hureyra, which both accommodated Late/FinalNatufiancommunities,hadasimilarrelationship;theyareonlyseparatedbyadistanceofsome20km.Whilewehavenoinformationaboutothersites,whichare now inundated by the water of the Tabqa Dam,a possible interpretation that we should entertain isthat themakersof theLateNatufianofAbuHureyrajoined those ofMureybet to establish this importantPPNA site. For clarity I include the Khiamian withtheMureybetian in thedefinitionof thePPNAin thenorthernLevant,similartothesouthernLevantwherethe Khiamian and the Sultanian are incorporated inwhatwelabelasPPNA.

In addition to the abandonment of sites,we needto examine other aspects of social expressions thatindicate ‘fear and security’ in the way that villages,

Keynote

Neo-Lithics1/108


small or large, were constructed in a given area.Ba‘ja is located inaclosedvalleywithanarrowanddifficult access passage through Wadi Musa, whichbearsthesameideaaslaterBronzeAgesitecitygates.While theAnatolian examples of house clustering atÇatalhöyükandAşıklıHöyükarewellknown,similartightagglomerationswereexposedinBouqras(wherethe site is also situated on top of a hill), and othersites in northern Mesopotamia, such as Magzalia,YarimTepe,orinBeidhainthesouthernLevant.Oneoptionalreadyknownfromthe literatureasasignofwarfareare townor citywalls.Thiswas theoriginalinterpretationgiven to thewall and tower in Jericho.Myalternative interpretationwaspublished long agoand I stillhold thisposition that either fullorpartialearlyperimeterwallswereerectedinordertoprotectthe site from floods (Bar-Yosef 1986). Additionalexamples arewalls inBeidha, ‘AinGhazal,Mezra’aTleilat, etc. I expectother sites, and inparticular theso-called“mega-sites”inTransjordanthatweretargetsfor only partial excavations, except for ‘Ain Ghazal(e.g. Rollefson 2004), to conceal similar walls. Weshould also remember that houses built along theperimeterof thevillageprovideprotectionwith theirrearwalls,andasenseofsecurity.However,thistypeofdefensewasconstructedinordertodetertheenemyfrom conquering the site.We should also rememberthatprotrudingtowers,builtalongtheoutersurfaceofthewall,wereintendedtoshootpeoplewhoattemptedtobreak inbyclimbingon thewall.This iswhy thefamoustowerinJerichocouldnothaveservedthesamepurposeasitwasbuiltinsidethevillageandwithinthewall intended to protect the tower. Therefore, in theevolutionofhumanwarfareweshouldprobablylookforothersignsofviolenceduringtheearlyNeolithic.

Another reason for site abandonment recordedamong PPNB sites could have been the impact of aclimatic change.Those that lasted till ca.8,600/400-8200 calBP were supposedly deserted during the“8200coldevent” (e.g.Bar-Yosef2001;Weningeretal. 2006;Berger andGuilaine 2008;Weninger et al.2009).During these several centuries a drier climateprevailedintheEasternMediterranean.Droughtswereprobablyarecurrentphenomenon.Villagersabandonedtheirsettlements,diedofhungerand/ormovedtootherplacesbyforcingtheirwayorinagreementwithlocals.These are the times that the archaeological evidenceforviolenceshouldincreaseandbecomevisibleintheexcavations.

Finally, apoint about the lithics shouldbe raised.Arrowheadsastooltypesweretheprojectilesusedforhunting,butingeneraltheirreportednumbersinmostPPNAsitesinthe‘sownland’arerelativelysmall(e.g.,M.CCauvin2008).However,whatS.KozlowskihastermedtheBigArrowheadIndustrydemonstratesthatinmanyfarmingcommunitiesthefrequenciesarehighifoneconsiderstheMNIofhuntedspeciesinrelationtotheabundanceofarrowheads.Inaddition,manysteppicandsemi-aridsitesofforagers,suchasinthesouthernSinai or the margins of the Transjordanian plateau,

produced staggering amounts of PPNB projectiles(e.g., Gopher 1994). One potential explanation forthesefrequenciesisthatthegroupsthatemployedthefamous“desertkites”,mostofwhichareconcentratedalongthewesternmarginsoftheSyro-Arabiandesert,huntedandsuppliedanimaltissuesandhidestoPPNBcommunities (probably the “mega-sites”), as part ofmutual interactions (e.g. Bar-Yosef 1986, 2001). Inaddition,withthedevelopmentoffarmingandherding,establishedfarmersneededtheskillsofmobileartisans.In the absence of skilled knappers an “arms race”couldhavereplacedlocalproductionofarrowheadsbyexchangeor trade.Similar toother commodities thatweretransmittedoverlargegeographicdistancessuchastheobsidianandmarineshells,itisconceivablethatthearrowheadsproducedbyforagersweresuppliedtorivalfarmingcommunities.

Clearly,totestthehypothesisregardingtheevolutionofwarfareamongNeolithicsocietiesofsouthwesternAsia, as was shown among the Neolithic groups inWestern Europe (Guilaine and Zammit 2005), weneed tofindskeletalevidenceofvictimsofviolence,burned houses, portions of these skeletons buried intherubble,andsoon.Torefutethehypothesisweneedto look for evidence thatwill demonstrate that othercauseswere responsible for the site abandonment. Itisalsopossiblethatbothphenomenaexisted,andthatsitesweredesertedfordifferentcircumstantialreasonsincludingpersistenceofdroughts,conflictsandsuddenepidemicoutbreaks.Whileweoftenoperateunderthepremiseofthe‘noblesavage,’weshouldbefullyawarethatsearchingfor theevidenceofwarfareamong theancient farming communities of Southwestern Asiawouldbebeneficialforunderstandingthehistoryoftheensuingmillenniainthisregion.

References

Bar-YosefO.1986 TheWallsofJericho:AnAlternativeExplanation. CurrentAnthropology27:157-162.2001 FromSedentaryForagerstoVillageHierarchies:The EmergenceofSocialInstitutions.InG.Runciman(ed.), TheOriginofHumanSocialInstitutions:1-38. ProceedingsoftheBritishAcademy110.Oxford, OxfordUniversityPress.2002 Natufian:AComplexSocietyofForagers.InB.Fitzhugh andJ.Habu(eds.),BeyondForagingandCollecting: 91-149.NewYork,KluwerAcademic/Plenum Publishers.

Bar-YosefO.andBelfer-CohenA.1989 TheOriginsofSedentismandFarmingCommunities intheLevant.JournalofWorldPrehistory3:447-498.

Bar-YosefO.andPhillipsJ.L.(eds.)1977 PrehistoricInvestigationsinJebelMeghara,Northern Sinai.Qedem7.MonographsoftheInstituteof Archaeology,HebrewUniversity,Jerusalem

Neo-Lithics1/10

Keynote

9SpecialTopic:WarfareinLevantineEarlyNeolithic

Belfer-CohenA.andGoring-MorrisN.2002 RecentDevelopmentsinNearEasternNeolithic Research.Paléorient28/2:143-156.

BergerJ.F.andGuilaineJ.2009 The8200calBPAbruptEnvironmentalChangeandthe NeolithicTransition:AMediterraneanPerspective. QuaternaryInternational200:31-49.

CauvinJ.2000 TheBirthoftheGodsandtheOriginsofAgriculture. TranslatedbyT.Watkins.Cambridge,Cambridge UniversityPress.

ClareL.,RohlingE.J.,WeningerB.andHilpertJ.2008 WarfareinLateNeolithic/EarlyChalcolithicPoisidia, SouthwesternTurkey.ClimateInducedSocialUnrestin theLate7thMillenniumcalBC.Documenta Praehistorica35:65-92.

FergusonR.B.andWhiteheadN.L.(eds.)1992 WarintheTribalZone.SantaFe,SchoolofAmerican ResearchPress.

FrayerD.W.1997 Ofnet:EvidenceforaMesolithicMassacre.InD.L. MartinandD.W.Frayer(eds.),TroubledTimes:Violence andWarfareinthePast:181-216.WarandSociety. Amsterdam,GordonandBreachPublishers.

GopherA.1994 ArrowheadsoftheNeolithicLevant.AmericanSchools ofOrientalResearchDissertationSeries10.Winona Lake,Indiana,Eisenbrauns.

Goring-MorrisA.N.1991 TheHarifianoftheSouthernLevant.InO.Bar-Yosef andF.R.Valla(eds.),TheNatufianCultureintheLevant: 173-216.AnnArbor,InternationalMonographsin Prehistory.1995 ComplexHunter-GatherersattheEndofthePalaeolithic (20,000-10,000B.P.).InT.E.Levy(ed.),TheArchaeology ofSocietyintheHolyLand:141-168.Leicester UniversityPress:London.

Goring-MorrisA.N.andBelfer-CohenA.2008 ARoofOverOne’sHead:DevelopmentsinNear EasternResidentialArchitectureAcrossthe EpiPalaeolithic-NeolithicTransition.InJ.P.Boquet- AppelandO.Bar-Yosef(eds.),TheNeolithic DemographicTransitionandItsConsequences:239- 286.NewYork,Springer.

GuilaineJ.andZammitJ.2005 TheOriginsofWar:ViolenceinPrehistory.Oxford, Blackwell.

KeeleyL.K.1996 WarBeforeCivilization.OxfordUniversityPress,New York.

LancasterA.Online Lancaster/satterthwaite/MacLeanDNAProjects.

MartinD.L.andFrayerD.W.(eds.)1997 TroubledTimes:ViolenceandWarfareinthePast. Amsterdam,GordonandBreachPublishers.

MooreA.M.T.,HillmanG.C.andLeggeA.J.(eds.)2000 VillageontheEuphrates:FromForagingtoFarmingat AbuHureyra.Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress.

Miller-RosenA.2007 CivilizingClimate:SocialResponsetoClimateChange intheAncientNearEast.NewYork,AltamiraPress.

OtterbeinK.1997 TheOriginsofWar.CriticalReviewII(2):251-277.

RollefsonG.O.2004 TheCharacterofLPPNBSocialOrganization.InH.- D.Bienert,H.G.K.GebelandR.Neef(eds.),Central SettlementsinNeolithicJordan.StudiesinEarlyNear EasternProduction,Subsistence,andEnvironment5, 1998:145-156.Berlin,exoriente.

RoscoeP.B.2008 SettlementFortificationinVillageand‘Tribal’ Society:EvidencefromContact-EraNewGuinea. JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology27(4):507-519.2009 SocialSignalingandtheOrganizationofSmall-Scale Society:TheCaseofContact-EraNewGuinea.Journal ofArchaeologicalMethodandTheory16:69-116.

RoperM.K.1969 ASurveyoftheEvidenceforIntrahumanKillinginthe Pleistocene.CurrentAnthropology10(4):427459.

RosenbergM.andReddingR.W.2000 HallanÇemiandEarlyVillageOrganizationinEastern Anatolia.InI.Kuijt(ed.),LifeinNeolithicFarming Communities:SocialOrganization,Identity,and Differentiation:39-61.NewYorkPlenumPress.

StordeurD.andAbbésF.2002 DuPPNAauPPNB:miseenlumièred’unephase detransitionàJerfelAhmar(Syrie).Bulletindela SociétéPréhistoriqueFrançaise99(3):563-595.

Valla,F.R.,KhalailyH.,ValladasH.,KaltneckerE.,BocquentinF.,CabellosT.,MayerD.A.B.-Y.,LeDosseurG.,RegevL.,ChuV.,WeinerS.,BoarettoE.,SamuelianN.,ValentinB.,DelerueS.,PoupeauG., BridaultA., RabinovichR., SimmonsT., Zohar I.,AshkenaziS.,HuertasA.D.,SpiroB.,MienisH.K.,RosenA.M.,PoratN.andBelfer-CohenA.2007 Lesfouillesde‘AinMallaha(Eynan)de2003à2005: Quatrièmerapportpréliminaire.JournaloftheIsrael PrehistoricSociety37:135-383.

Keynote

Neo-Lithics1/1010


WeningerB.,Alram-SternE.,BauerE.,ClareL.,DanzeglockeU.,JörisO.,KubatzkiC.,Rollefson,G.,TodorovaH.andvanAndelT.2006 ClimateforcingDuetothe8200calyrBPEvent ObservedatEarlyNeolithicsitesintheEastern Mediterranean.QuaternaryResearch66:401-420.

Weninger B., Clare L., Rohling E.J., Bar-Yosef O., Böhner U.,BudjaM.,BundschuhM.,FeurdeanA.,GebelH.G.K., JörisO.,Linstädter J., Mayewski P., Mühlenbruch T., Reingruber A.,RollefsonG.,SchyleD.,ThissenL.,TodorovaH.C.andZielhoferC.2009 TheImpactofRapidClimateChangeonPrehistoric SocietiesDuringtheHoloceneintheEastern Mediterranean.DocumentaPraehistorica36:551-583.

WillcoxG.,BuxoR.andHerveuxL.2009 LatePleistoceneandEarlyHoloceneClimateandthe BeginningsofCultivationinNorthernSyria.The Holocene19(1):151-158.

CommentsandContributions

Neo-Lithics1/1011


OferBar-Yosef‘sstatementonearlyNeolithicLevantinewarfareisaninterestingcalltosearchforevidenceofviolenceinthepast.OneoftheproblemsIseewiththisproposal,however, is that itusesamodernist,and tomymindinappropriatelanguage(„war“,„armsrace“),one that is derived from violent conflicts betweenpoliticalentitiesthatarecentrallyorganized.Sincewehavenoindicationofsuchpoliticalunitsforanyofthetimeperiodsdiscussed,Idonot thinkthatweshouldbetalkingof„war.“Bar-Yosef‘sthesisattemptstofindaphenomenonheconsidershistoricallyimportantbuthithertolackingofevidence.Therefore,headmonisheshiscolleaguesthat„weshouldprobablylookforothersigns of violence during the early Neolithic [thandefense walls, R.B.]“, „we need to examine otheraspects of social expressions that indicate ‚fear andsecurity‘“,„weneedtofindskeletalevidenceofvictimsofviolence,burnthouses,portionsof theseskeletonsburiedintherubble,andsoon.“

Bar-Yosef makes it explicit that he is excavatingan ancient conceptual conflict, that betweenHobbes’“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” life in non-state societies, and the “noble savage” romanticismthat came tobeassociatedwithRousseau.Bar-Yosefpromotes a Hobbesian ideology by searching forviolenceinaregionandtimewhereithashithertonotbeen identified.On this very general level, I hesitateto agreewith the ideologicalbackgroundof the text:it de-historicizes our current condition of permanentsmall scale wars by suggesting that characteristicsof mass violence are timeless. More concretely, thelineofargumentBar-Yosefpursuesconstructscause-effect relations across different kinds of historicalscales. Violence and war belong to the scale of ahistoireévénementielle.Theyfigureaseffectsofotherhistoricalprocesses,amongwhichhelistsdemographyand climate change.While demography functions onthe scale of Braudelian conjunctures, that is, a mid-leveltemporalscale,climatechangeisamatterofthelonguedurée.Linkinghistoricalprocessesacrosssuchvastlydifferentscalesisinmyviewamajorproblem.ThisleadstowhatBourdieu(1997)called“scholasticfallacy”, an approach that refrains from includingpast peoples’ experiences and aspirations: Bar-Yoseftakes a purely objectivist stance, one that isa prioriso distanced and withdrawn from the world of realNeolithic groups’motivations to act that (subjective)reasonsforpastviolencearenotandcannotbetakenintoconsideration.However,theyaremostlikelyoneofthemajorfactorsintheexplanationofanyoccurrenceofsocialviolence,andparticularlyso forviolence insmall-scale,non-statesocieties.Knauft’s(1987,1990)workonthistopicisofimmediaterelevancehere.And

such internal views cannot be reduced to the sort ofprehistoricdominantideologyBar-Yosefhintsatwithhis “cosmologies in this region, expressed in artisticimageries.”

The combination of an objectivist stance andobfuscation of scales is also at the root of morepracticalproblemswiththisaccountofearlyNeolithicviolence. I mention only the two core evidentiaryelementsfromhistext,siteabandonmentandvariouselements of defensive settlement arrangements. ForBar-Yosef, site abandonment is a process that is perdefinitionem pressed upon a community. One doesnot move from one site to the next without beingdrivenout.Otherprocessualarchaeologists, imputinginstrumental thinking to people in the past, havemobilized similar arguments and explained suchmovesastheresultofgroupsizeandassociatedscalarstress (Johnson 1982; Bandy 2004) or, in the caseof climate, drought and hunger. This reasoning hasits roots in what I have called elsewhere (Bernbeck2008)“sedentarocentrism”,namelytheideathatapartfromgenuinely“mobile”peoplesuchasforagersandnomads,allothershavea“natural”tendencytostayputwhere theyare.However,whyshould therenothavebeenpeoplewho,especiallyinthemillenniaofaveryslow,multi-trajectorytransitionfromforaging,mobilelifetomoresedentaryurbanlife,tookonadiversityofsemi-sedentaryways of living?Why should periodicmovesofwholecommunitiesinarhythmofdecades,generations, even centuries not have been part ofthe unquestioned lifeworld of past peoples? Currentresearch on the Late Neolithic Halaf period has ledto some agreement that mobility on a non-seasonaltemporal scalemust have been an important facet oflate7th toearly6thmillenniumlife (AkkermansandDuistermaat1997;Bernbeck,Pollocketal.2003). Inaculturaluniverse that includesapatternofperiodicmoves of whole communities, logically constructedcause-effectlinksareinappropriatewhentheybecomethe sole mode of interpretation: we rather need tothinkofsucheventsasunderdetermined,triggeredbyoccurrences that canvaryhighly.Therefore, frequentsiteabandonmentcannotinitselfserveasanindicatorofconflicts.Violence isatbestasufficient,butnotanecessaryconditionforsuchabandonments.

Bar-Yosefalsoarguesthatweneedtointerpretsitestructures as signs of “fear and security”, especiallythe dense packing of houses.Again, a direct cause-effect link is constructed: where there are signs offear, theremustbeaspecifiablereasonfor them,andthatisacommunity’sother,its“enemies”.Butagain,the archaeological correlates of defensiveness maynot be matched in a one-to-one fashion by external

Prehistoric Wars: A Scholastic Fallacy

Reinhard Bernbeck FreieUniversitätBerlin/BinghamtonUniversity [email protected]


Neo-Lithics1/1012


conditions. Sigmund Freud made the very usefuldistinctionbetween “angst” as a kindof anxiety thathasnospecificsource,andfear,whosesourceisclearlydefined.VillageplanssuchasthoseofBouqrasorÇatalHöyüklikelythrivedonunspecifiedanxieties:thelackof evidence for frequent collective violence supportssuch an interpretation, which again emphasizesthe often under-determined character of historicalprocesses. Wouldn’t an investigation of the socialmechanismsofproducingpeaceintheearlyNeolithicbearesearchgoalatleastasworthwhileastheoneBar-Yosefproposes?Peaceisconstantlynegotiated,notahistoricalgiven.

References

AkkermansP.M.M.G.andDuistermaatK.1997 OfStorageandNomads–theSealingsfromLate NeolithicSabiAbyad,Syria.Paléorient22.2:17-44.

BandyM.S.2004 Fissioning,Scalarstress,andSocialEvolutioninEarly VillageSocieties.AmericanAnthropologist106 (2):322-333.

BernbeckR.2008 AnArchaeologyofMulti-SitedCommunities.InH. BarnardandW.Wendrich(eds.),TheArchaeology ofMobility.OldWorldandNewWorldNomadism:43- 77.LosAngeles:CotsenInstituteofArchaeology, UCLA.

BernbeckR.,PollockS.,AllenS.,CastroGessnerA.G.,KieltCostelloS.,CostelloR.,ForeeM.,GlebaM.Y.,GoodwinM.,LepinskiS.,NakamuraC.,andNiebuhrS.2003 TheBiographyofanEarlyHalafVillage:FıstıklıHöyük 1999-2000.IstanbulerMitteilungen53:977.

BourdieuP.1997 PascalianMeditations.Stanford:StanfordUniversity Press.

JohnsonG.A.1982 OrganizationalStructureandScalarStress.In C.Renfrew,M.RowlandsandB.A.Zeagraves(eds.), TheoryandExplanationinArchaeology:389-422. NewYork:AcademicPress.

KnauftB.M.1987 ReconsideringViolenceinSimpleHumanSocieties: HomicideamongtheGebusiofNewGuinea.Current Anthropology28:457-500.1990 ViolenceamongNewlySedentaryForagers. AmericanAnthropologist92.4:1013-1015.


Neo-Lithics1/1013


ThePotteryNeolithic (PN) transition in the southernLevantmarksa turningpoint in theprehistoryof theregion:The“mega-sites”intheTransjordanianHigh-landswereeclipsing,communitieswerebecomingevermore reliant on a different form of subsistence (pas-toralism),peopleweremoremobile,wereestablishingnewsettlementsintheMediterraneanplaintothewest,and their socio-economic systems were changing inaccordance.At thesame time, theirenvironmentwassubjecttoabruptandsevereclimaticoscillationsasso-ciatedwith theonsetofan intervalofRapidClimateChange (RCC), characterised by severe winters andarid conditions, bringing the increased likelihood offamineandepidemics.Inthispa-per,thesefactorsareconsideredinmore detail and the resulting ca-pacityforconflictamongPNtran-sitionalandearlyPNpopulationsisassessed.Itgoeswithoutsayingthat this capacity is high, thougharchaeological evidence for figh-tingislow.Doesthisreflectarealabsence of warfare or are theseearlypastoral clashes simply in-visibletousinthearchaeologicalrecord?Inthispapertheformerisposited,andinsodoingIhopetooust the illusion that prehistoriccommunitieswhenfacedwithin-surmountableresourcefailuresin-evitablylapsedintoaviolentstatewithfranticraidingandpillaging.

PN Transition

The PN transition as understoodinthispapercomprisesthePPNC(Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson1993) and the subsequent sou-thern Levantine PN (cf. Garfin-kel1999).Inthepastthelatterofthese two phases, encompassingtheYarmoukian, Jericho IX, andNizzanim cultures, has been de-scribed as turbulent andmarkingan era of material and culturaldecline following the affluenceof the late aceramic Neolithic(PPNB).Mostsignificantly,how-ever,itisaperiodassociatedwiththemovementofsubstantialparts

of the southern Levantine population away from socalled“mega-sites”intheTransjordanianHighlandstosmaller settlements in the lower lyingMediterraneanplain to thewest (e.g.Gebel 2002), a processwhichwenthandinhandwithanabruptdecreaseinpopula-tiondensity:Comparedtotheapprox.900inhabitantsestimated foraLPPNB“mega-site”,aPNsettlementwouldhaveaccommodatednomore than200 to300individuals (perhaps up to 450 people in the case ofSha‘arHagolan;seebelow)(Kuijt2008).Further,thePNwasalsoattendedbystarkregionalisationproces-ses (viz.Yarmoukian, Jericho IX,Nizzanim cultures)andmarkedbyaweakeningoflong-distancenetworks.

Pastoral Clashes: Conflict Risk and Mitigation at the Pottery Neolithic Transition in the Southern Levant

Lee Clare UniversityofCologne [email protected]

Fig. 1 PN-Transitional sites mentioned in the text: 1. Abu Thawwab; 2. ‘Ain Ghazal; 3. ‘Ain Rahub; 4. Ashkelon; 5. Atlit-Yam; 6. Basta; 7. Hagoshrim; 8. Munhata; 9. Nahal Qanah Cave; 10. Nahal Zehora II; 11. Nizzanim; 12. Sha‘ar Hagolan; 13. Tel Ali; 14. Wadi Shu‘eib.


Neo-Lithics1/1014


Thisweakeningisillustrated,forexample,byadeclineintheoccurrenceofobsidianfromAnatolia,asnotedforexampleatYarmoukianculturesites(GarfinkelandMiller 2002b: 4).Notwithstanding, perhaps themostimportantdevelopmentofthePN-transitionisrelatedto subsistence practices; both the PPNC and PN aretraditionallyacknowledgedastheperiodinwhichpas-torallifewaysfirstbecamewidespreadintheregion.

Early Pastoralists

In the course of the last decade the significance ofpastoralism for PN transitional societies has been il-lustratedbystudiesoffaunalremainsfromnumeroussites:Sha‘arHagolan(Hesse2002),Hagoshrim(HaberandDayan2004),‘AinRahub(al-Shiyab1997),‘AinGhazal(Köhler-Rollefsonetal.1988;vondenDrieschandWodtke 1997;Wasse 1997), andAbu Thawwab(Köhler-Rollefson 2001). These (agro-)pastoral so-cietiesreliedmainlyonanimalhusbandrywithdome-sticated ruminants, primarily sheep, smaller numbersofcattle,andpossiblypig.Horticultureplayeda lesssignificantrole.Remarkableinthiscontext is thedo-cumented(abrupt?)risetodominanceofthesheepinthePPNC,asdemonstratedfor‘AinGhazalbyWasse(1997).Indeed,thisevidence,togetherwithrelatedob-servations,hasledtodiscussionsconcerningtheappea-ranceof(nomadic)pastoralisminthesouthernLevantinthelatePPN,anditsroleinalleviatingresourcecon-flictsandworseningeconomicconditionsinthecentralsettlements (“mega-sites”) in the Jordanianhighlandsatthistime(e.g.RollefsonandKöhler-Rollefson1993;Quinteroetal.2004).Interestingly,thisinterpretationechoesearlierclaimsthattheriseofnomadiclifeways,inwhateverform,isprimarilyinfluencedbythedete-rioration of regional environmental conditions or byhuman induced factors such aswarfare, overhunting,overgrazing,andtheoverdevelopmentofhumansett-lement (Berque 1954: 482).Ergo, not only times ofsurplusbutalsoperiodsofintensescarcitycanleadtofundamentaltechnologicaldevelopments(cf.“innova-tionthesis”afterGebel2002;Gebelinpress).

ItfollowsthatbythePN,pastoralpracticesinvol-ving secondary products (milk, wool and hair har-vesting) had become common place in the southernLevant. Significantly, the arrival of pastoralismwenthandinhandwithamarkeddecrease inhunting.Forexample, at ‘AinGhazal the ratio of quarry, particu-larly thepreviouslyubiquitousgazelle, drops abrupt-ly in theYarmoukian,with a similarly low ratio (3.6%)ofthisanimalrecordedinthefaunalassemblageofthe(newlyfounded?)YarmoukiansettlementatSha‘arHagolan (albeit that thismay reflect locationandha-bitat). Accordingly, at PPNC and Yarmoukian ‘AinGhazallessthan10%ofmeatwassecuredbyhunting(RollefsonandKöhler-Rollefson1993:35).Inadditiontothistrend,whichsignalsthecollapseofbroadspec-trumandintensehunting,achangeinthespectrumofhuntedanimals at the site canalsobenoted; compa-

redtoearlierphasesincreasednumbersofsolidungu-latesoccur inYarmoukianlevels, thus indicativeofashifttoquarrythatwasbetteradaptedtohigheraridity(Köhler-Rollefsonetal. 1988; for the significanceofthis observation see below).Supplementary evidenceforthediminishingsignificanceofhuntingisfound,forexample,inadecreaseintheratioofarrowheadsinPNlithictoolassemblages(Gopher1994b;seebelow)andbyanaccompanyingdeclineinnumbersofzoomorphicfigurinesatcontemporarysites(FreikmanandGarfin-kel2009).

In spite of the aforementioned data, it would bewrong toportrayPPNCcommunities, andparticular-lyPN(Yarmoukian)groups,purelyasnomadicpasto-ralists lacking substantial andpermanent settlements.Inrecentyears,nositehasdonemoretodiscreditthisassumptionthanSha‘arHagolan(GarfinkelandMiller2002).Excavationsatthissitehavecompletelytrans-formedpreviousperceptionsofPN-lifeways.Coveringanareaofsome20ha,featuringmonumentalbuildingcomplexes with large courtyard houses separated bywell-planned streets, Sha‘ar Hagolan is the epitomeofavastandsedentaryYarmoukianvillage.AsimilarpictureofsettlementisalsoattestedforthePPNCoc-cupationphaseat‘AinGhazal(RollefsonandKöhler-Rollefson1993).Theexistenceofsuch largevillageshas significant implications for the reconstruction ofprevailingsocialandhierarchicalsystems,themselvesofconsiderableimportancewhenassessingthevulne-rability of contemporary communities to hazard andassociatedconflictrisk(seebelow).Especially,itgivescause to question the relationship between sedentarypopulations on the onehand andnomadic groups ontheother.Arewedealingwithmembersof the samecommunities,i.e.doesthearchaeologicalevidenceat-test to a system of transhumance, orwere these twogroups,with their contrasting lifeways, distinct fromoneanother,perhapstotheextentthatterritorialdispu-tesmighthaveoccurred?

Bethisas itmay,all theaforementioneddevelop-ments (reduced rangeofwild species, increased reli-anceondomesticates, rise toeminenceofsheep,andthe appearance of pastoralist subsistence techniques)are innovations that are often mistakenly associatedsolelywiththeonsetofthePotteryNeolithic.Notwith-standing,and it shouldbe stressed, these innovationshadalreadybecomeestablishedintheprecedingPPNCandcontinuedtoflourishinthesubsequentperiod.Thisrealisationisespeciallysignificantsince14Cagesindi-cateatemporaloverlapbetweenPPNCandanintervalofRapidClimateChange(RCC)commencingat8.600calBP(cf.Weningeretal.2009),thussuggestiveofacausal relationship between climate and subsistencechange.Further,absoluteradiocarbonagesforthePNshowthat thisperiod iscontemporarywith theentireRCC, including the last two to three centuriesof theninthmillennium calBPwhenRCC reached its apexunder the added impact of the Hudson Bay outflow(Fig.2andbelow).


Neo-Lithics1/1015


Environmental Hazards (RCC)

On the basis of data from a range of palaeoclimateproxies fromboth theEasternMediterraneanand theNorthAtlanticithasbeendemonstratedthatRCCin-tervals (originally defined byMayewski et al. 2004)haveoccurredonnofewerthanfiveseparateoccasionsduringtheHolocene:10.2kacalBP,8.6-8.0kacalBP,6.5-5.8kacalBP,3.5-2.8kacalBP,andtherecent“Litt-le IceAge”(LIA;c.1500-1900calAD)(Weningeretal.2009).RCCintervalsareassociatedwithavarietyofmeteorologicalimpacts,rangingfromincreasedfre-quenciesandseveritiesofdrought,sporadicallyinter-ruptedbytheoccurrenceofintenseprecipitationevents(downpours), to the enhancedlikelihood of harsh winters andlatewinteryoutbreakswithseverefrosts.Theseimpactsarecausallyrelated(interalia)tothefrequentrecurrence of intense high pres-sure over Siberia in the wintermonths.Naturally,thisisahighlysimplifiednarrativeofRCCanditisstressedthataplethoraofdiffe-rent(e.g.physiographicalandme-teorological) factors would havedeterminedRCCconditionsatthelocalandmicro-regionallevel.

Consequently, any attempt toreconstruct the rate and intensityof RCC in a given landscape isdifficult, not least due to an acu-tedeficiencyof local, adequatelyhigh resolution and chronologi-cally secure palaeoclimate pro-xies. Notwithstanding, especiallyfor the southern Levantine inte-rior, the water line of the DeadSearepresentsasignificantgaugeforprehistoricariditylevels(Fig.2). Remarkably, the onset of the8.6-8.0kacalBPRCC interval ismarkedbyanunprecedenteddropinthewaterleveloftheDeadSea.ForthefirsttimeintheHolocenethewater level laybelow the sillseparating the northern from thesouthernDeadSeabasin(Migow-skietal.2006).Independentcon-firmationfortheprevalenceofaridconditions in thisperiodisfoundintheaforementionedappearanceinPPNClevelsat‘AinGhazalofdesertspeciessuchaswildonagerand DesertMonitor lizard (Köh-ler-Rollefson et al. 1988: 429)coupledwithonlyscarceremainsofwater-reliant (wild)pig at thissite(vondenDrieschandWodtke1997:528)andatAbuThawwab

(Köhler-Rollefson2001:212).Ontheotherhand,thelittoralplainsoftheEastern

Mediterranean(e.g.Thessaly,Cilicia,Gaza)mayhavebeenmorefrequentlysubjectedtoincreasedlevelsofprecipitation.Analogous conditions are recorded, forexample, in historical documentation relating to theLIA (Xoplaki et al. 2001; Tabak 2008) and atAtlit-Yam archaeobotanical analyses have recently shownthatconditionswerecolderandmorehumidduringthePPNC (Kislevetal. 2004). In this respect, particularnote shouldbemadeof a further proxy, fromSoreq,akarsticcaveonthewesternflankoftheJudeanHillswhere δ13C concentrations in speleothems are (cau-tiously) interpretedasaproxyforflash-flood intensi-

Fig. 2 Radiocarbon data from LPPNB, PPNC, PN, and Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic (LN/Ch) occupations in the southern Levant compared to palaeoclimate proxy data (cf. Tables 1-3). Top: Greenland GRIP (GICC05-age model) ice core stable oxygen isotopes δ18O (Grootes et al. 1993) and Greenland GISP2 ice core NSS [K+] chemical ions as marker for (Siberian high pressure) Rapid Climate Change (RCC). Bottom: Dead Sea levels as proxy for Holocene precipitation (Migowski et al. 2006) and Soreq Cave δ13C for flash flood intensity (Bar-Matthews et al. 2003). Grey columns denote Rapid Climate Change (RCC) intervals after Weninger et al. (2009). Whereas the 8.6- 8.0 ka calBP RCC correlates with the ‘PN-transition’, the latter 6.0 ka calBP RCC corresponds to the ‘Late Chalcolithic (Ghassulian) collapse’ prior to the Early Bronze Age.


Neo-Lithics1/1016


ty (Bar-Matthewsetal.2000;Weningeretal.2009).Thesedata show thatwhereas the initial centuriesofthe RCC intervalwere characterised by high values,i.e.highflash-floodfrequencyandintensity,ataround8.200calBPthereoccursasharpreversal,perhapscau-sally related tomore arid conditions associatedwiththe8.2kacalBP(HudsonBayoutflow)event(RohlingandPälike2005).Significantly,theseflash-floodshavebeen linked to thegenesisofYarmoukianrubble lay-ersobservedcoveringnumerous lateaceramic(PPN)sitesinthesouthernLevant(seecontributionsinNeo-Lithics1/09).Theserubbleinundationeventsrepresentyet a furtherpotentialhazard towhichcontemporarypopulations were exposed; for example, PN transiti-onal architecture at Basta has been found embeddedwithinrubblelayers(Gebel2009).Thus,thequestionremains,wasRCCcontributory,orinanywaycatalyst,tothefinalabandonmentof“mega-sites”attheendoftheLPPNB?

RCC and Innovation: Absolute Dating Evidence1

Returningtotheabsolutedatingevidencepresentedinfigure 2, this requires further elaboration, particular-lywithregardtospecificaspectsofthethreeculturaltransitionslocatedwithinoradjacenttothe8.6-8.0kacalBP(RCC)timeframe.Thesetransitionsare:LPPNBtoPPNC,PPNCtoPN,andPNtoLateNeolithic/Chal-colithic.Allradiocarbondatatofeatureinfigure2arefiltered:Only data from securely established culturalcontextswithstandarddeviationsoflessthan100BP(±1σ) havebeen considered, and all extremeoutliershavebeenomitted.Evenso,theremaining27014Cagescannotbetakenatfacevalue.Aswithallradiocarbondata,thecontextofeachsingle14Cagemustbecareful-lyscrutinizedanddueconsiderationmustalsobegiventodistortioncausedbysuchfactorsas“oldwood”.

The most problematic data to feature in figure 2stem from the PPNC.These data are from six sites:‘AinGhazal,Ashkelon,Atlit-Yam,Hagoshrim,TelAliandTelRamad(Table2).Someofthemostprecariousdataare14Cagesfrom‘AinGhazal,thoughthisisnotunexpected.PPNCaccumulationsatthissitearenotedtohavebeenparticularlyaffectedby“stratigraphicin-terference”,i.e.admixtureofolder(LPPNB)materialthrough ancient (PPNC) cutting (Rollefson andKöh-ler-Rollefson 1993: 34).This is particularly apparentinthreeages(AA-5201,AA-5202,AA-5203)thatareclearlytooold;allarefromthesamesample,probablyapieceofoldwood(RollefsonandKöhler-Rollefson1993:footnote9).Other14CagesforPPNCoccupati-onat‘AinGhazalare,however,substantiatedbydatafromAtlit-Yam,aswellasbyahandfulofagesfromAshkelon,Hagoshrim,TelAliandTelRamad.Thesesuggest that the transition fromLPPNB to PPNCbegenerouslydatedtoaround8900-8600calBP,i.e.pri-ortotheonsetofRCC.Notwithstanding,consideringthatallthesesites(withtheexceptionofAshkelonandAtlit-Yam)alsofeatureunderlyingPPNBlevels, thus

withtheincreasedriskofadmixtureofoldermaterials,thistransitioncouldyetproveyounger.Thisissuppor-tedbytheobservationthatmost14Cagesaremadeonsamplesofwood,charcoalandash(“oldwood”),withonlyveryfewmeasurementsonshort-livedmaterials,e.g. seeds, grain and twigs.Additional substantiationforayoungerdatefortheLPPNBtoPPNCtransitionisprovidedbythedispersalof14CagesfromtheLPPNB(Table1)whichischaracterisedbyanabruptbreakataround8600calBP.

Similarissuesalsoapplytothesubsequentculturaltransition(PPNCtoPN).Ofthe22available14CagesforthePNonlytwoaremeasurementsmadeonshort-livedsamples(OxA-9417andHV-8509)andtheseareagainamongtheyoungestinthisdataset(cf.Table2).The contemporaneousness of the southern LevantinePNandthedurationofRCCisparticularlyremarkab-le, and gives reason to suppose that cultural, social,andeconomicdevelopmentsofthisperiodmayreflectadaptation to fluctuating climatic and environmentalconditions. In this respect it is especially fascinatingtonotethelimitedtemporaldurationoftheSha‘arHa-golansettlement.AlthoughoccupationofthissitemayreachbacktoPPNCtimes,14Cagesmadeonmaterials,primarily from the upper (latest) occupation level ofthesite,indicatethatabandonmentwaslikelycontem-porarywith the terminationofRCC.Sha‘arHagolanwasprobablyabandonedaround8000calBP.

Theearliest reliable 14Cagesfor theLN/Chalcoli-thic transitiondate thisprocess to theearlycenturiesoftheeighthmillenniumcalBP.Itseemslikely,how-ever,thatthetwooldest14Cages(TO-1407,RT-1360)areoutliers, and the thirdoldestage (Pta-3652) fromMegadim,whichstemsfromclaybelowthesite,doesnotdateculturaldepositsbutservessolelyasterminuspost-quemforoccupationatthissite(Table3).Adisre-gardofthesemeasurements,althoughperhapsnotsug-gestiveofahiatusinoccupationbetweenthePNandLN/Ch, does allure to a period of ‘non-intense’ sett-lementactivityatthistime.Interestingly,andperhapsnotinsignificantly,thistimeframealsocorrelateswiththelowestobservedwaterlevelsintheDeadSeaintheentireEarlyHolocene,i.e.itmarksatimeofextremedroughtand/orhighevaporationlevels.

Insummary,14CagesfromthesouthernLevantin-dicate that theonsetofRCCat8600calBPwascon-temporary with the collapse of the LPPNB. Further,there isapositive temporalcorrelationbetweenRCCandthegenesisandtemporalextentofthePNinthere-gion.However,thetransitionfromLPPNBtoPN(viathePPNC) remainsoneof themosturgent issues fa-cingpresentNeolithicresearchinthesouthernLevant(Gebel2002:41);particularlytheageanddurationofthePPNCisstillprovingdifficulttopindown.Finally,thecloseofthePNshowsahightemporalcoincidencewiththeendofRCCataround8000calBP.Therelativepaucityof14CagesforthePNtoLN/Chtransitionmaybeindicativeofatemporalhiatusordecreaseinoccu-pationactivity.Consequently,onthebasisofabsolutedatingevidence,itcanbeassumedthatthereisindeed


Neo-Lithics1/1017


apositive relationshipbetweenclimate,cultural tran-sition,andsocietalandtechnologicalinnovationinthesouthernLevant in the ninthmillennium calBP.Thisisfurthersubstantiatedbyaparallelobservationwhichseesthepositivetemporalcorrelationbetweentheon-setofarenewedintervalofRCCat6.0kacalBPandthecollapseofLateChalcolithic(Ghassulian)systems.

Assessing Conflict Risk

Numerous recent contributions have highlighted cor-relationsbetweenepisodesofclimatechangeandtheoccurrenceofarmedconflict (e.g.Zhangetal.2007;Burkeetal.2009andcitationstherein).Amongthesestudies,analysesundertakenbyZhangetal.(2007)forthe“LittleIceAge”(LIA)areparticularlyenlightening.AdheringtoaMalthusianapproach,wherebyadecli-ne in land-carrying capacity is linked to temperaturefluctuations,theseinturneffectingadecreaseinfoodsuppliesandpromotingmigrations,faminesandarmedconflicts,Zhangetal.presentsoundempiricalevidencethat climate change andwarfare frequency are signi-ficantlycorrelated.Thiscorrelation isproven toexistin all landscapes, irrelevant of geographical location.Significantly, however, highest correlations are notedforaridregions,i.e.NorthAfrica,theLevant,Anatolia,andcentralpartsofAsia(Zhangetal.2007:19216).

In accepting the evidence presented by Zhang etal.,apositivecorrelationbetweenclimate, failingre-sourcesandanescalationofviolenceisacknowledged.Although a rational inference, and empirically subs-tantiatedelsewhere(e.g.EmberandEmber1992),thisapproachdoeslittletohighlighttheprecisebackgroundofconflictandgivesnocredittotheadaptiveandme-diating capacities of human systems and individuals.Indeed, a straight forwardDarwinian “natural selec-tion”scenarioisimplied(cf.Bauer2009).Incontrast,it should be stressed thatwarfare is not born simplyof a scarcityof victuals, though this canbe a conse-quentialaddition,butthatitcanconstituteanintrinsicelement of prevailing economic and social systems.Especiallyintraditionalsocietieswarfarecanservedi-stinctlysymbolicsocialfunctions,irrelevantofprevai-lingresourceaffluenceordearth(e.g.Fadiman1982).Additionally, there exist numerous other alternativestowarfarewhichcanbeimplementedtocopewithre-sourceshortages(migration,trade,reciprocityetc.)andtherearecertainlysocialmechanismsandcircumstan-ceswhichmakearmedconflictanundesirableoption.

Therefore, in order to more accurately assess thelevelofconflictriskamongPN-transitionalcommuni-tiesafirmunderstandingoftheirsocialandeconomicsystemsandparticularlytheircapacitytocounterRCCimpacts is required.Usingmethods developed in themodernscientificdisciplineof riskmanagement (e.g.Blaikieetal.1994)the“vulnerability”ofsocietiestonaturalhazards, suchasprolongeddrought, recurrentseverewinters,stormsetc.,canbeanalysed.Thisthenprovides a fundamental insight into the levelof con-

flictpotentialandthelikelihoodofinter-groupviolenceduringRCC. In otherwords, capacity for conflict inPN-transitional systemswouldhavebeendeterminednotonlybythenatureoftheafflictinghazardbutalsoby thecharacteristicsofprevailingsocietal structurestobeaffected.Accordingly,assessmentofconflictca-pacitymusttakeintoaccountnotonlythescale,seve-rity,frequencyandlongevityofthenaturalhazardandthesusceptibilityofanimals,cropsandotherresourcesthereto(“biophysicalvulnerability”)butalsotheeffici-encyofavailablebufferingstrategies,prevailinglevelsofsocietalstabilityandhierarchicalsystems,andlocaltraditionsgoverningresourceaccess(“socialvulnera-bility”). Hence, “social vulnerability” is particularlyinformativewhenattemptingtoidentifycharacteristicsofsocialsystemsthatmighthavefavouredsuddenout-burstsofinter-groupconflictinlieuofother(lessvio-lent)strategies.Foramoreindepthdiscussionof“vul-nerability”,inparticularinrelationtoRCC,seeClareandWeninger (in press). Finally, one last aspect thatshouldnotbeoverlookedistheincreasedvulnerabilityexperiencedbysocietiesinculturaltransition.Wewillreturntoadiscussionofthesepointsfurtherbelow.

Archaeological Evidence for Warfare at the PN-Transition

ArchaeologicalevidenceforwarfareatthePN-transiti-onisslightand,ifreal,illustratesquitesuccinctlywhyanyhypothesis toposit theexistenceofanover-sim-plified autogeneticmechanism linking environmentalstressandwarfareiswrong.Ontheotherhand,andasrightlyindicatedinmanyotherstudies,alackofevi-dence cannot be inexorably equatedwith an absenceofintergroupfighting.Onewaytoprogress,therefore,istoconsiderinmoredetailthepotentialcharacterofcombatasmightbeexpectedforthelateninthmillen-niumcalBP.

Concerning tactics, ambush and surprise attacksare by far themost frequent form ofwarfare amongnon-centralisedcommunities,theycausingthehighestproportionofwarrelatedcasualties(Otterbein2009).Further, in areas with low population densities, aswouldhavebeen thecase in thesouthernLevantdu-ringthePN-transition,head-huntingandotherformsofconspicuouscrueltycanbeinstrumentalinterrorisingandexpellinganenemyfromanarea(Helbling2006).Inthecaseofthelatterofthesetactics,itisnotlikelythatheadhuntingwouldhaveleftanygreatimpressionin the archaeological record.Only the preoccupationwiththehumancraniumintheantecedentPPNBmightindirectlyalludetosuchpractices(cf.Guilaine,thisvo-lume).Ambush,ontheotherhand,hasthepotentialtoleavebehindmoresubstantialmaterialevidence.Inthisrespect,morespecifictopastoralsocietiesofthePN-transitionmighthavebeentherustlingandrobbingofsheepandgoatsratherthanthesackingofsettlements,whichmighthave leftbehindburned layers insettle-ments,forwhichthereisincidentallynoevidence.Sur-


Neo-Lithics1/1018


priseattackscanbelaunchedbothfromadistance,usinglong-rangeweapons,aswellasatclosequar-ters.The latter isbyfar themostdangerous option and culminatesinthemostcasualties.Onthebasisoftheseinsightsarangeofobjectsandfeaturesmightbeexpectedtooccur in thematerialofbellicosePN-transitionalsites.Theseinclu-de slingmissiles and arrowheads(long-range weapons); axes, ad-zes,maceheadsanddaggers(forfighting at close quarters); bodyarmourandshields;aswellas,butperhaps toa lesserextent, fortifi-cationstructuressurroundingsett-lements.Naturally, this list is bynomeansexhaustiveandmustbesupplemented by countless otherlines of evidence to be gleanedfromthearchaeologicalrecord(cf.LeBlanc, this volume). Further,notallthesefeaturesneedbepre-sent forwarfare to haveoccurred. In the following Iprovideabriefoutlineofthemostaccessiblearchaeo-logical evidence (fortifications, short-rangeand long-rangeweapons). It goeswithout saying thatmore indepthstudiesarenecessary.Nevertheless,Ibelievethefollowingtoberepresentative.

Fortifications

Defensive structures erected around settlements areone clear line of evidence for inter-group conflict intheprehistoricrecord.ConcerningtheNeolithicinthesouthernLevantthePPNAtowerandwallsatJerichoarecertainlyamongthemostprominentofsuchstruc-tures;whereastheirfunctionasafortificationwasfor-merlyquestionedbyBar-Yosef (1986),LeBlanc(thisvolume)hascommendablyreopenedthisdiscussion.InthesubsequentPPNBtheagglomerated(Pueblo)buil-dingstyleobservedattheTransjordanian“mega-sites”couldalsobediscussedwithrespecttoitsadvantagesasameansoffortification.However,forthePN-tran-sition,thefocusofthispaper,noobviousfortificationstructures are known, and structureswhichmight bediscussed in this context are, to say the least, ambi-guous.Possiblythemostcuriousoftheseisthe“GreatWall”at‘AinGhazal(Rollefsonetal.1991:108-109;RollefsonandKöhler-Rollefson1993).Thisstructurewaspreservedtoaheightofc.60cm,was1.40mwideanduncoveredalongalengthofsome11metres(Fig.3).Althoughnotexcavatedin itsentirety– itssouth-eastern end was destroyed by bulldozers and in thenorth-west it continued into unexcavated sediments– its dimensions are certainly impressive. Indeed, itsmagnitude is all themoreastoundinggiven the scaleofformaldomesticarchitectureandtheflimsynature

ofsomeofcertainstructureserectedintheYarmouki-an.ThewallitselfwasprobablyerectedintheLPPNBbutwasmaintainedthroughoutthePPNCandintotheYarmoukianperiod.Atonetime(LPPNB/PPNC)therealsoappears tohavebeenanarrowgateway (c.1,00macross)whichwasfilled induring theYarmoukian(pers.comm.G.Rollefson,June2010).Curiously,onbothsidesofthewallthegroundsurfaceswerecoveredwithacoatingofersatzplaster(“huwwar”,amixtureofground-upchalkandmud).“Huwwar”ischaracte-

Fig. 3 The “Great Wall” at ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson 1993: fig. 3).

Fig. 4 Sha‘ar Hagolan. Building complex 1, Area E (adapted from Garfinkel 2002b: fig. 19.3). Living quarters of three nuclear families (N.f.1, N.f. 2, N.f. 3) in a courtyard setting, with Rooms A and B serving members of the extended family (Garfinkel 2002b). In this paper an alternative interpretation of Room B is posited; both its proximity to the narrow courtyard entrance and its roughly circular ground plan convey a more defensive function.


Neo-Lithics1/1019


ristic of the PPNC andYarmoukian.Remarkably, nocrosswallsor cornerswereobserved, and thismightspeakinfavourofthisstructurehavingbeingerectedasafortificationelement.Strangely,thewallwasfoundtoseparateanumberoffamilycourtyards,orpossiblyonepartofthesettlementfromanother(RollefsonandKöhler-Rollefson1993:38),butthisiscertainlynotafunctionwhichsufficientlyexplainsitsoverwhelmingscale.

AtSha‘arHagolanfortificationwallshavenotbeendiscovered,thoughthismaybeduetoexcavationsha-vingbeenlimitedtocentralareasofthesite.Thelackofattentionpaidtositeperipheriesisafrequentlyno-ted factorwhendebatingarchaeological evidence forwarfare(orrathertheabsencethereof).Evenso,alackofobviousphysicaldefencessuchassettlementwallsandtowersshouldnotbeconsideredsynonymouswiththe non-occurrence of inter-group conflict with sett-lement raiding (cf. Roscoe 2008 and this volume).However,atSha‘arHagolandomesticarchitectureits-elfmightbeconsideredinthecontextoffortification.Atthissettlementit isremarkablethateachdomesticunit(courtyardhouse)isenclosedwithinasubstantialstone-basedwall.Thiswallfeaturesnotonlyanarrow,easily obstructed and defendable gateway but, in thecaseof themostcompletelyexcavatedunit, therearealsoobservedthefoundationsofatower-likestructureindirectproximitytotheentrance(Fig.4).Forasettle-mentcomprising‘fortified’domesticunitsanexternalwallsurroundingthesettlementmightevenhavebeensuperfluous.Warningoftrespassersandadditionalpro-tectionagainstintrudersmightalsohavebeenprovidedbyguarddogs(cf.LeBlanc,thisvolume).

Short-Range Weapons

Axes, adzes, andkniveswerenotonly important ac-cessoriesoftheNeolithictoolkitbutwereundoubtedlythe foremostweapons for close-quarters combat.Re-markably,thisdual-functionalityappliestopracticallyallconceivableformsofNeolithicweapons,includingthebow,and toa lesserextent thesling (seebelow).Accordingly,theseobjectshaverecentlybeenreferredtoas“tool-weapons”(Chapman2004).Significantly,atAbuThawwabknivesconstitute13.6%oftools(inas-semblagesfrom1984/1985excavations)makingthemthe thirdmostnumerous tool typeafter sicklebladesand retouchedflakes (Wada2001:119-120,Table2).Alsofromthissiteisthefragmentofasmallbasaltaxe(Wada2001:fig.12.2)andanadze (Wada2001:fig.10.3).Slightlyfurthernorth,atSha‘arHagolan,exca-vationsbyStekelisalsoprovidedanumberofobjectsof interest in the context of close-quarters fighting.Theseincludefragmentsofpressureretouchedbladesandknives(Stekelis1972:20-21,plate24)aswellassignificantnumbersofaxes,adzesandpicks(Stekelis1972: 12).At ‘AinGhazal, however, there is a trendwhichseesareductionintheratioofknivesobservedinNeolithic assemblages from the PPNB (16.9%) to

thePPNC(9.4%)andYarmoukian(7.7%)(Rollefsonetal.1991:table4).Ifrepresentative,thisdevelopmentisanaloguetotheaforementioneddecreaseintheratioofarrowheadsatPN-transitionalsiteswhichhasbeencor-relatedwiththereducedemphasisplacedonhunting.Significantly,theparallelreductioninarrowheadsandknivesmightevensuggestthatwearealsowitnessingadeclineininter-groupviolence.

Movingon,aselectnumberofobjectsfailtofulfilthecriteriaof“tool-weapons”insteadwarrantinganin-terpretation as “prestige-weapons”.Themost notableoftheseisthemacebutmightalsoextendtotheafo-rementionedpressureretouchedknives(daggers)fromSha‘arHagolan.Inthisrespect,discussionisrequiredastowhether“prestige-weapons”(still)actuallyfunc-tionedasweapons.AspointedoutbyLeBlanc(thisvo-lume)theBritishmonarchalsocarriesamace,thoughenemies and adversaries of theCrown are no longerbludgeoned.However,duetoitsearlierbellicosefunc-tionthemaceissymbolicallycharged;itisasignofpo-wer,impartingfearandintimidatingantagonists,albeitthatitisnolongerretainsitsformerviolentfunction.Three possible mace heads were discovered at AbuThawwab; thefirst is onlypartly preserved,madeofbasaltandwithareconstructeddiameterofabout6cm,whilstthesecondisanunfinishedexamplemadefromamarble-likematerial(Wada2001:178,fig.10.2,fig.10.5).AtSha‘arHagolanobjectsinterpretedas“drilledweights” are particularly common (Garfinkel 2002a)andonewonderswhetherornotatleastsomeofthesepieceswerealsomaces.

Finally, considering preservation it is certain thatnotallNeolithicweaponshaveremainedpreservedinthe archaeological record.Thiswould have been thecase had early pastoralists carried the typical short-rangeweaponofPalestinianshepherdsasreported inhistorical accounts by early Twentieth Century eye-witnesses:“theyallcarry[...]massiveclubs[...]ofoak,formidableweaponswhichgrowintoalumpofknottedwoodattheextremity”(Rendall1909:899).

Long-Range Weapons

InspiteofthefrequentlystatedreductionintheratioofarrowheadsinthePPNCandPNtheseartefactsarestillapersistentfeatureoflithicassemblagesatmostPN-transitional sites.At ‘AinGhazal, forexample, ratiosofarrowheadsremainrelativelystableinalloccupationphases,rangingfrom6%to7%inM/LPPNBtoaround5%inthePN-transitionalperiod(RollefsonandKöh-ler-Rollefson1993:35).Thisconsistencyisinterpretedasreflectingasurplusproductionforusebyherdersre-sidinginthesteppeanddesertwheregazelleandotheraridspecieswouldhavebeenhuntedinpreferencetoslaughteringgoatsandsheepfromherds.Alternatively,however,thisproductioncouldequallybeattributedtotheprotectionofherdsfromassailantsbentonrustlinganimalsorassertingcontroloverpasturesandgrazingrights.InPPNClevelsatTelAliarrowheadsconstitute


Neo-Lithics1/1020


5.5% (N=24) of tools (Garfinkel 1994: table 6, 555)andatAbuThawwabtheyarethefifthmostcommontoolclass(7.6%;N=9)(Kafafi1993).Whereastheratioof points fromWadiShu‘eibdecreases fromLPPNB(5.6%;N=8)toPPNC(3.3%;N=56),inthesubsequentYarmoukianthereisamarkedincrease,theybecomingthefourthmostfrequenttooltype(7.4%;N=28)(Sim-monsetal.2001:table2).

Among the characteristic arrowhead types in thefinalcenturiesof theninthmillenniumcalBPareHa-Parsa,NizzanimandHerzliyapoints(Gopher1994a).These are made by bifacial pressure flaking of bothsurfaces.Althoughmorphologically similar to earliertypes they differ in their relatively small dimensions(usually less than 4 cm in length) and in the qualityofpreparationandfinish.ArrowheadsfromthePNarealsocharacterisedbyevidentchangesinotherattribu-tes,mainlytheshapingoftangsandbarbs,aswellasretouchamountandlocation.Thesechangeshavebeenattributedtovariationsinhuntingmethodsandequip-ment (Gopher 1994a: 564), thus possibly even mar-kingartefact adaptation to/fromwarfare.ArrowheadsdisappearinWadiRabahassemblagesalmostentirely(Gopher1994a:564),adevelopmentthatmaybeasso-ciatedwiththediffusionoftheslingfromAnatoliaandthenorthernLevantatthistime.

Incentralandsouth-westernAnatoliathemid-ninthmillenniumcalBPisassociatedwiththeascentoftheslingasthemostwidespreadlongrangeweapon(Clareetal.2008).Infact,bi-conicalclayslingprojectilesbe-comesuchacommonfeatureatthistimethattheyaremeanwhileregardedasafundamentalnewadditiontotheNeolithicpackagethatwasacquiredinthecourseof its westward diffusion from the northern Levantthrough the Anatolian peninsula (Çilingiroğlu 2005;Özdoğan 2008). Remarkably, the increased frequen-cyofclay(andoccasionallystone)slingprojectilesinAnatolianassemblages runsparallel toa reduction inthenumberofarrowheads.ThisdevelopmentmirrorstheaforementionedtrendinthesouthernLevant,albeitthatPPNCandPNassemblages register no influxofslingprojectiles.Thisisbynomeansarecentobserva-tionbutwasalreadydiscernibleinKorfmann’sseminalstudyfromnearlyfourdecadesago(Korfmann1972).Indeed,itisnotuntiltheWadiRabahculture(LN/ECh)thatslingprojectilesappearinanysignificantnumberin the southernLevant, andeven thennotat all sites(Rosenberginpress:fig.1).EarlierfindsfromPPNandPNcontextsintheregionarefewandfarbetween,e.g.isolated examples are known from Beidha (PPNB),and,ofparticularrelevancetothispaper,fromaPPNClocusatHagoshrimandinaLodian/JerichoIXcontextatNahalZehoraII(Rosenberginpress).Significantly,however,evenintheWadiRabahculturenumbersarestillexceedinglylowandprojectilesarefashionedso-lelyfromstone,primarilylimestone,andnotclayasinthenorth(Rosenberginpress).Ironically,thepaucityofevidencefortheslinginagro-pastoralcommunitiesinthesouthernLevantcouldlendsupporttoitsinter-pretationprimarilyasaweaponofaggressionfurther

northinSyriaandAnatolia.Hadtheslingbeenamere“shepherd’simplement“(e.g.Perlès2001:229-231)itwould surely have been of equal use to herdsmen inboth regions, unless of course therewas a consciousdecision against this “tool-weapon” (Chapman2004)intheSouth.Incombinationwiththereductionofar-rowheadsandtheambiguousevidenceforfortificationstructures, harmonious times for the southernLevantmightevenbesuggested,at leastduring thePN,andthisisindeedthepicturethatisbeginningtoemerge.

Discussion

InlinewiththeMalthusian-Darwinianapproach(‘sur-vival of the fittest’), an absence ofwarfaremight beinterpretedasindicativeoftheabsenceofanyseriousdeficienciesinprevailingcarryingcapacitiesduringthePNtransitioninthesouthernLevant.However,thereisample archaeological, geomorphological, archaeobo-tanical, archaeozoological and archaeoentomologicalevidencethatcontemporarycommunitiesmustcertain-lywereaffectedbybothRCC-relatedmeteorologicalimpacts and anthropogenic induced environmentaldegradation.These lines of evidence include, for ex-ample,severeeffectsofanthropogenicactivitiesuponlandscapes surrounding ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson andKöhler-Rollefson1989),thenumerousdocumentedac-countsofinundationof(partsof)latePPNsettlementsby “Yarmoukian rubble slides”, and the earliest evi-denceofpestbeetle(S.granarius)instoredgrainduetocolderandmorehumidconditions(Kislevetal.2004).Notonlythis,butthetransitiontopastoralregimesisalsowidelyconsideredtobeaclearindicatorforadap-tationtoharsherenvironmentalconditionsandincrea-singly limitedcarryingcapacities.Ontheotherhand,specialisationonsheepratherthanthehardiergoat,asfor example at ‘AinGhazal (see above),wouldhaverendered communitiesmorevulnerable to impacts ofdrought(increased“biophysicalvulnerability).Indeed,there is archaeological evidence that evengoatherdsmayhavedwindledduringRCC.At‘AinGhazalasizeincreaseingoatsduringthePPNChasbeenattributedtoareturntothehuntingofwildgoats,orthecapturethereof,inordertoreplenishdiminisheddomesticatedstocksfollowingthe“generalcrisis”tohaveaffectedthesiteduringthisperiod(vondenDrieschandWodt-ke1997:519).Finally,althoughnotadirectsourceofevidence, the aforementioned absolute chronologicaldataindicatemajorculturalshiftsinthesecondhalfoftheninthmillenniumcalBP,markingnotonlytheendoftheLPPNB,butalsothepeakandsubsequenttermi-nationofthePotteryNeolithic(Fig.2)whichcouldat-testtoadaptationtoclimateandenvironmentalchange.

Throughtheabsenceofevidenceforarmedconflictit is impliedthatresourceshortfalls,or indeedcrises,were successfullymanagedbybufferingmechanismsand coping strategies other than violence.This reali-sationmusthave implications forourcomprehensionand reconstruction of PN-transitional social systems.


Neo-Lithics1/1021


Previously,comparativelylittleattentionhasbeenpaidtothisarea,thoughSimmons(2000:223)hasnoted,asIhavedoneinthispaper,thehighpotentialforinter-groupstressduringthePPNCduetoincreasinglydif-ficultfarmingandherdingconditions.This,hestates,wouldhave led to the increased risk of violence, forwhichhealsoaccentuates theacute lackofdata.Ac-cordingly,thisabsenceisattributedbyhimtoprocessesofsocialfragmentationandareturntotribalsociety.Inthesesituationsemphasiswouldhavelainincreasinglyonnuclearfamilies(cf.Gebel2002).Pastoralismwasorientedtowardsmallergroupsizes,meaningthattheelaborate social controlsof theLPPNBwereno lon-gerrequired.Further,therisetodominanceofanimalhusbandry, a traditionalmaleactivity,mighthaveef-fectedareductionintheroleofwomen,andaparallelascensioninthestatusofmen,asmightbereflectedinan increase in the frequency ofmale figurines (Sim-mons2000:224-225);foraconverseview,positinganat least partial return to gender egalitarianismduringperiodsofhighermobility,seeGebel(inpress).

“Big Men” at the PN-Transition?

Considering that PN-transitional polities might havebeen composed of an array of semi-mobile and se-dentarytribalgroupsheadedbycompeting“BigMen”(Sahlins1963),theapparentlackofmaterialevidencefor warfare and associated paraphernalia proves allthemoreconfounding.Althoughthepresenceof“BigMen” at the PN-transition cannot be confirmed, thiscouldbeduetothegeneralabsenceofburialsfromPN(Yarmoukian)contexts.Notwithstanding,forthePPNCacomparativelylargenumberofburialsareknown,al-beitfromjusttwosites.Particularlyoutstandingarethe27PPNCintermentsexcavatedat‘AinGhazal,wherea“distinctionamongpeople”ispositedonthegroundsoftwodifferentburialtraditions(“primary/courtyard”and “secondary/structure” burials) (Rollefson andKöhler-Rollefson 1993: 38-39), and atAtlit-Yam ontheCarmelCoast,where a total of 46 PPNCburials(61individuals)wererecentlyuncovered(Galilietal.2005).Commonfortheburialsatboththesesitesarethedominanceofprimary interments, theoccurrenceofmultipleburials,andthedeclineinthetraditionofskullremoval,alltraitsthatdivergefromformerPPNBburial customs.AtAtlit-Yam grave goods (flint arte-facts, bone tools etc.) were found deposited mainlyinprimaryburialsofbothmalesandfemales,withnoclearspatialpatterninthedispersalofthesegift–bea-ringgravesonthesite.Flintaxes,however,wereonlyobservedinassociationwiththeskeletonsofmalesandchildren;might this be indicative ofmale dominatedsocietalsystemswithabentforobjectsofstatus?

ForthesubsequentYarmoukian,however,onlyveryfewburialsareknown,oneisnotedfrom‘AinGhazal(Banning 2009) and at Sha‘ar Hagolan two inhuma-tions from this culture have been documented (Gar-finkel2002b:261).Unfortunately,intheselattercases

thereisnoclearmaterialindicationfortheexistenceofsocialhierarchies.Therefore,inspiteofthetwo-tierhi-erarchicalsystemimpliedbythePPNCevidencefrom‘AinGhazal and theminor gender relateddeviationsatAtlit-Yam,wearestilla farcryawayfromconfir-mationofthe“BigMen”-scenario.Turninginsteadtoethnographicandhistoricaldata,wearewellinformedastothevarioustypesofsocialsystemsthatcanoccurinpastoralsocieties,rangingfromautonomouskinshipgroupstohighlycentralisedpolities(e.g.theMongolsofthethirteenthcenturycalAD).Plainly,itisthefor-merofthese,i.e.autonomouskinshipgroups,thatsu-relybestreflectsouthernLevantinesystemsinthemid-tolateninthmillenniumcalBP.

Nuclear Families

Autonomous kinship groupswould have been by farthebestadaptedtodealwiththeenvironmentalandso-cietal stress at the PN-transition. Indeed, theywouldhavebeenbyfarthebestsuitedtocopewiththeafo-rementioned processes of societal fragmentation fol-lowing the LPPNB, processes which placed greateremphasisparticularlyontheroleofthenuclearfamily.Significantly,socialsystemsinwhichnuclearfamiliesarefundamentalconstituentsaremorecommoninsitu-ationswithanincreasedemphasisonsharedcommu-nalresourceswherecontrolisnotessentialandwhererightstograzeandwaterarecommonlyheldbylocalkingroups(Fratkin2003:8;andbelow).Further,smallhouseholdsaremoreeffectiveatpassinganyhereditaryresourcesfromgenerationtogeneration,i.e.withanin-herentlylowerconflictrisk.Finally,smallhouseholdsarealsothebestsuitedtosystemswithahighdegreeofmobilityorwherethereislinearschedulingofspa-tiallyrestrictedresources(Byrd2000:90andcitationstherein).Inthiscontext,storageisalsoakeyfactorandwarrantsdueconsideration.Ifcentrallyorganisedsto-rageiscorrelatedwithconflictrisk,itisnotinsignifi-cantthatlessphysicalspacewithinPNsettlementswasdedicatedtostoragepurposes(Kuijt2008:308).Yet,areductioninthescaleandnatureofstorageatthistimemaynot surprise,especiallygiven that largeportionsofsubsistenceassetswereprobablykeptonthehoof.

“Resource Corporate Groups”

Theadvantagesofnuclear familiesat timesofextre-meenvironmentalstressbecomemoreapparentwhencompared to difficulties experienced by “residentialcorporate groups” (Hayden andCannon 1982). “Re-sidential corporate groups” are collectives of twoormorenuclearfamilieswhichexhibitarecognisablede-gree of residential coherency. “Residential corporategroups”areclosedunitswhosegenesisisintrinsicallylinkedtoconditionsofmildeconomicorenvironmen-talpressures.Theyexert apervasive influenceonallaspectsofindividuals’lives,includingmarriage,post-


Neo-Lithics1/1022


marital residence, economic production, as well asfeastingandcelebrations.Mostremarkably,“residentalcorporategroups”havebeenfoundtobenon-adaptivebothunderconditionsofextremeresourceabundanceandscarcity.Therefore,althoughshowntoemergeattimesofmoderateshortage,duringwhichthesegroups(or lineages) can exert control over given resources,situationswith abundance and scarcity are consistentwithlossofcontrol,thusforcinggroupstodisbandintotheircomponentnuclearfamilies(HaydenandCannon1982:149-152andcitationstherein).Significantly,thesocial systemposited for the largerYarmoukian cen-tre at Sha‘ar Hagolan is one of “resident corporategroups”:Onthegroundsofarchitectureandlayoutofthis settlement,Garfinkel (2002b)hasproposedaso-cietalmodelcentredonextendedfamiliescomprisingthreeormorenuclearfamiliesresidinginclosedcour-tyarddwellingstructures(Fig.4).Interestingly,the14Cages available for this settlement suggest that itwasabandonedatthecloseofthePNperiod.Thereasonforthisabandonmentmightthenbesoughtintheshortco-mingsof“residentcorporategroups”whichdisbandedwhenoverwhelmedbysituationsofextremeresourcepressuresorsurplus.SuchscenariosmighthavebeeneitherconnectedwithaperiodofpronouncedscarcityinducedbythecombinationofRCCandimpactsofthe8.2kacalBPHudsonBayevent(seeabove)orlinkedtoanincreaseinreliablepastureandfarmlandfollowingtheabatementofRCCintheearlyeighthmillenniumcalBP. Whereas acute resource scarcity would haveled to increasedcompetitionforagricultural landandpastures, resource affluencewould have provided in-creased access to land and grazing, thus neutralisinganyadvantagesheld.Althoughwarfaremightthenbeexpectedattimesofgroupdisbandment,anyreturntosocial structures centring on nuclear families wouldhaverapidlymitigatedconflictrisk.

Reconstruction of PN-Transitional Society

Social structures of uncentralised societies determinenotonlytheextent towhichviolenceoccursbutalsoagainstwhom it isdirected,whether atotherswithinthe same society, at outsiders, or in both directions.Factors such as the organisation of interest groups,exogamous marriage, and the state of cross-cuttingtiesamonglocalcommunitiesofthesamesocietyareallimportantinshapingviolence(Ross1986).Onthebasis of these observations and the lack of evidencefor armed conflict a tentative reconstruction of PN-transitionalsocialsystemscanbemade.Accordingly,perhapswiththeexceptionoflargePNcentressuchasSha‘arHagolan,PN-transitional societieswere basedonsmallunits(nuclearfamilies)andcharacterisedbylow cross-cutting ties, i.e. limited links between dif-ferentmembersof thesamecommunityanddifferentcommunities in the same society; conversely, strongcross-cuttingtiesresultinanincreaseinexternalwar-fareinuncentralisedsocieties.Ontheotherhand,itis

notablethatlowcross-cuttingtiesarealsosynonymouswithhigherfrequenciesofinternalfighting.PN-transi-tionalsocietieswouldmostlikelynothaveknownen-dogamy,stronglocalmarriage,whichisalsoassociatedwithhigher ratesofexternalwarfare inuncentralisedsocieties;intercommunitymarriagewouldhavepavedthewayforstrongerlinksbetweencommunitiesandatthesametimereducedtheriskofinter-groupconflict(Ross1986:453-454).

Finally,PN-transitionalsocietieswouldhaveemplo-yedstrategiesotherthanraiding,rustling,murderandmassacretoovercomeenvironmentalstressandresour-ceshortages.Thesestrategieswouldhaveincluded,forexample,resourcedistribution,reciprocity,trade,mo-bilityandmigration,aswellaseconomicchangeandsubsistenceinnovation.Therefore,itispositedthattheabsenceofconflictandwarfareinthesouthernLevantat this timemust lie in the nature of PN-transitionalcommunitiesthemselvesand,mostsignificantly,inthecommitmentofpastoralists to their livestock.Indeed,thisisacomplexrelationshipwhichdictatesmuchofthecharacterofpastoralsociety.Pastoralistsmustor-ganise household production to suit the needs of theanimals,andthesemustbeherdedoverwideareastoensure adequate pasture.This alone requires a socialorganisation that not only emphasises household au-tonomy,mutualcooperationanddefence,butalsothemaintenance of good social ties over awide geogra-phic area (Fratkin2003).These are all factorswhichmust have prevailed among southern Levantine PN-transitionalagro-pastoralpopulationsandwhichwereinstrumentalinthemitigationofconflictbetweenthesecommunities. Consequently, Bar-Yosef’s assumption(thisvolume)thatarchaeologicalevidenceforviolenceshouldincreaseduringthe8.2kacalBPeventcannotbesubstantiated,atleastforthesouthernLevant.

Conclusions

Ifwefollowthestillwidelypropagatedhypothesisthatwarfarefirstbecameendemicupontheonsetofseden-tarylifeways(concerning“pacificationofthepast”seeLeBlanc,thisvolume),itshouldfollowthatanyreturntosemi-sedentary,moremobileandnomadictraditions,asatthePNtransition,mustalsomarkarestorationofmore peaceful and harmonious times. However, thisgeneral assumption (sedentary lifeways → warfare)hasfoundconsiderablecriticisminrecentyears,withnumerousauthorsprovidinganthropological,historicalandarchaeologicalevidenceforthewidespreadoccur-renceoffightingintraditional,mobileandsemi-mobilehunter-gatherer communities (cf.LeBlanc, this volu-me).Notwithstanding,thecurrentdebateonprehisto-ricwarfareisstilldominatedbytheMalthusparadigmandtheassumptionthatacombinationofareductionincarryingcapacityandresourceshortagesgeneratesan auto-catalytic process: armed conflict. Perhaps onaccountof this, thephilosophical trendcanbeobser-vedtohaveswayedinanother,moredisturbing,indeed


Neo-Lithics1/1023


Table 1 List of 14C ages from southern Levantine LPPNB sites (cf. fig. 2 and text). Sources: 1. Böhner and Schyle 2009; 2. Galili et al. 2002; 3. Haber and Dayan 2004; 4. Garfinkel et al. 2006; 5. Garfinkel and Miller 2002c; 6. Galili et al. 1997; 7. Burton and Levy 2001; 8. Kuijt and Chesson 2002.

dangerous,direction,adirectionwhichregardsorgani-sedviolenceasaninherentconstituentofhumannaturethatcanbetracedbacktoouruncivilizedprimatepast,thus providing the ultimate justification for any rallyto arms, be it in prehistory, history, thepresent or inthefuture,i.e.muchakintotheDarwinianscenariosof“naturalselection”and“survivalofthefittest”.

Instead, in this paper I hope to have adequatelystressedthatwarfareisnotadirectconsequenceofre-sourceshortagesbut is justone inawholerepertoireof possible bufferingmechanisms employed in timesof environmental stress.More generally,warfare canserve distinctly symbolic economic and social func-tions, irrelevantofprevailing resourceaffluence.Ne-vertheless, PN-transitional communities were visiblyvulnerable,bothbiophysicallyandsocially,totheim-pactsof climate change and the consequencesof en-vironmentaldegradationat theirownhands (or thoseoftheirforebears).Adaptationprocessesleadingtotheformationofagro-pastorallifewaysinthecourseofthePPNCandPNwerelikelytantamounttotheirsurvival,aswereinter-groupcooperationandcollaboration.Onthegroundsofavailableabsolutedatingevidence,theendoftheLPPNBcanbedatedtoapproximately8600calBP,i.e.theonsetofRapidClimateChange(RCC).AlthoughtheexacttimingfortheinitialPPNCisdif-ficulttoidentify,duetosuchfactorsas“oldwood”,itseemsfairtospeculatethatRCCimpacts,ifnotcausal,werecertainlycatalystintheriseofagro-pastoralismasthedominantsubsistenceforminthesouthernLevant.Finally,itwasthegenesisofthelatter,andtheriseofadaptedsocio-economicsystems,thatjustmighthaveresulted ina lessbellicosecharacterofcontemporarycommunities.Nevertheless, conflict andviolence cancertainlynotberuledout,albeitthatthemotivationforsuchactionsshouldnotbesoughtsolelyinthesphereofresourceshortfalls.Acknowledgements:IwouldliketoexpressmysinceregratitudetoHansGeorgK.Gebel(Berlin)forinvitingmetocontributetothisvolume,aswellasforguidanceanddiscussion,andtoBernhardWeninger(Cologne),ever sagacious, for allmannerofdiscourse,hisunri-valledenthusiasmandgenerosity.IamalsoindebtedtoEelcoJ.Rohling(Southampton)forcontinuouscouncilinpalaeoclimateissues,andGaryO.Rollefson(Wal-laWalla) for information and advice.Thanks also toDannyRosenberg(Haifa)foraccesstoanunpublishedmanuscript.

Notes

1Archaeologicalchronologiesdiscussedinthispaperarebasedontree-ringcalibrated14C-agesmeasuredonterrestrialsamples.Numericalagesaregiveninthecalendrictimescaleusing[calBP]unitswiththeyearAD1950=0calBPasreference.Conventional14C-ages(Tab.1-3)aregivenonthe14C-scalewithunits[14C-BP].Alltree-ringcalibrated14C-ageswereobtainedusingCalPalsoft-ware (www.calpal.de)basedonmethodsdescribedbyWeninger(1997).

Lab-Nr. 14C-Age (BP)

Material Culture Site Source

KN-4880 7726 ± 73 seeds LPPNB ‘Ain Ghazal 1



AA-25427 7910 ± 60 charcoal LPPNB ‘Ain Ghazal 1


KN-4885 7939 ± 87 charcoal LPPNB ‘Ain Ghazal 1


AA-25429 7980 ± 55 seeds LPPNB ‘Ain Ghazal 1

AA-5206 7990 ± 80 organic material

LPPNB ‘Ain Ghazal 1





GrN-12972 8165 ± 50 charcoal LPPNB ‘Ain Ghazal 1







GrN-12971 8460 ± 90 charcoal LPPNB ‘Ain Ghazal 1

OxA-2412 8275 ± 80 charcoal LPPNB Azraq 31 1

Bln-5035 7887 ± 43 charcoal LPPNB Ba‘ja 1

Bln-5036 7910 ± 44 charcoal LPPNB Ba‘ja 1

Bln-5123 8100 ± 33 n.d. LPPNB Ba‘ja 1

BM-2349 8190 ± 60 charcoal LPPNB Dhuweila 1

GrN-26146 8120 ± 60 charcoal LPPNB Khirbet Hammam 1

GrN-26147 8370 ± 40 charcoal LPPNB Khirbet Hammam 1


Neo-Lithics1/1024


Lab-Nr. 14C-Age (BP) Material Culture Site Source

GrN-17494 7825 ± 65 charcoal PPNC ‘Ain Ghazal 1, 10

AA-5205 7895 ± 95 charcoal PPNC ‘Ain Ghazal 10

GrN-17495 7915 ± 95 charcoal PPNC ‘Ain Ghazal 1, 10

AA-5198 7960 ± 75 charcoal PPNC ‘Ain Ghazal 1, 10

AA-5203 8200 ± 75 wood PPNC ‘Ain Ghazal 1



OxA-7881 7630 ± 65 ash PPNC Ashkelon 1, 10




RT-3043 7250 ± 45 waterlogged wood PPNC Atlit-Yam 2

RT-2479 7460 ± 55 waterlogged branch PPNC Atlit-Yam 2

RT-2475 7465 ± 50 waterlogged branch PPNC Atlit-Yam 2

PITT-0622 7550 ± 80 charred seed PPNC Atlit-Yam 2, 10

RT-2477, 2478 7605 ± 55 waterlogged branch PPNC Atlit-Yam 2

RT-944C 7610 ± 90 charred branches PPNC Atlit-Yam 2, 10

RT-944A 7670 ± 85 Hordeum PPNC Atlit-Yam 2, 10



RT-3038 8000 ± 45 human burial PPNC Atlit-Yam 2

Pta-3950 8000 ± 90 charred branch PPNC Atlit-Yam 2, 10

RT-2496, 2497 8170 ± 55 waterlogged plants PPNC Atlit-Yam 2

? 7562 ± 85 n.s. PPNC Hagoshrim 3

? 7735 ± 55 n.s. PPNC Hagoshrim 3

OxA-7921 7940 ± 50 charcoal PPNC Tel Ali 1, 10

OxA-7886 7975 ± 70 charcoal PPNC Tel Ali 1, 10

GrN-4823 7880 ± 55 charcoal PPNC Tel Ramad II 10



GrN-14539 7480 ± 90 charcoal PN ‘Ain Rahub 1, 5, 10

GrN-1544 7360 ± 80 charcoal PN Byblos 5, 10

Ly-4927 7330 ± 70 charcoal PN Munhata 1, 5, 10

RT-1395 7400 ± 60 charcoal PN Nahal Betzet 1

RT-1544 7054 ± 78 charcoal PN Nahal Qanah Cave 1, 5, 10

OxA-13414 7135 ± 65 n.s. PN Sha‘ar Hagolan 4

OxA-7920 7245 ± 50 charcoal PN Sha‘ar Hagolan 1, 5, 10


OxA-9417 7285 ± 45 emmer seed PN Sha‘ar Hagolan 5



OxA-13293 7423 ± 38 n.s. (fill from well shaft) PN Sha‘ar Hagolan 4



OxA-13292 7488 ± 36 n.s. (well foundation pit) PN Sha‘ar Hagolan 4







HV-8509 6740 ± 90 bone PN Nizzanim 1

Table 2 List of 14C ages from southern Levantine PPNC and PN sites (cf. fig. 2 and text). Sources: see Table 1.


Neo-Lithics1/1025



RT-1853 5200 ± 70 n.s Chalcolithic Abu Halil 7

Ly-6258 5205 ± 95 n.s Chalcolithic Abu Hamid 7

GrN-17496 5651 ± 40 charcoal Late Chalcolithic Abu Hamid 7, 10




Ly-6259 6135 ± 80 n.s Chalcolithic Abu Hamid 7, 8




RT-1610 5250 ± 55 charcoal Late Chalcolithic Abu Matar 7, 10

RT-1613 5275 ± 55 charcoal Late Chalcolithic Abu Matar 7, 10

AA-29771 6170 ± 55 n.s LN / ECh ‚Ain Waida‘ 8

RT-2178 5125 ± 60 n.s Chalcolithic Cave of the Sandal 7

RT-1943 4700 ± 75 n.s Chalcolithic Cave of the Warrior 7



AA-13442 4995 ± 45 n.s Chalcolithic Cave of the Warrior 7







RT-1556 4658 ± 55 n.s Chalcolithic Dimona 7

RT-1210 5710 ± 75 n.s Chalcolithic Eilat IV 7

RT-926A 6340 ± 60 n.s Chalcolithic Eilat IV 7

RT-989 6470 ± 60 n.s Chalcolithic Eilat IV 7

RT-1213 5490 ± 60 n.s Chalcolithic Eilat V 7




RT-1851 5130 ± 55 n.s Chalcolithic Ein Um Ahmad 7






RT-2058 4530 ± 85 n.s Chalcolithic Gilat 7

OxA-4011 5540 ± 70 n.s Chalcolithic Gilat 7

Beta-131729 5560 ± 50 n.s Chalcolithic Gilat 7

Beta-131730 5730 ± 40 n.s Chalcolithic Gilat 7

RT-1866 4810 ± 90 charcoal Late Chalcolithic Golan Site 12 (Rasm Harbush) 7, 10



RT-1864 5565 ± 60 charcoal Late Chalcolithic Golan Site 21 7, 10

Pta-4212a 5180 ± 70 charcoal Late Chalcolithic Horvat Beter 7, 10

RT-1750 6890 ± 50 wood Chalcolithic Kefar Galim 10

RT-1929A 5630 ± 55 olive stones LN / ECh Kfar Samir 6, 10

RT-1929 5630 ± 55 olive stones LN / ECh Kfar Samir 6

RT-1752 5750 ± 60 wood LN / ECh Kfar Samir 10

RT-1898 5790 ± 55 olive stones LN / ECh Kfar Samir 6, 10

RT-1930 5870 ± 70 olive stones LN / ECh Kfar Samir 6, 10


BETA-82845 6080 ± 70 olive stones LN / ECh Kfar Samir 6



Neo-Lithics1/1026




BETA-82848 6230 ± 80 tree branch LN / ECh Kfar Samir 6




BETA-82715 6500 ± 70 olive pulp LN / ECh Kfar Samir 6

Pta-3820 6830 ± 80 tree branch LN / ECh Kfar Samir 6

Pta-3821 6830 ± 60 wood LN / ECh Kfar Samir 10


RT-1360 7260 ± 80 wooden bowl LN / ECh Kfar Samir 6

RT-1947 6580 ± 70 n.s Chalcolithic Khashim et-Tarif 7

Pta-3374 5269 ± 60 n.s Chalcolithic Kvish Harif 7

OxA-1928 5310 ± 80 n.s Chalcolithic Lower Wadi Makukh 7

Pta-4339 6270 ± 70 bone Chalcolithic Megadim 7

Pta-3648 6310 ± 70 bone Chalcolithic Megadim 7, 10

Pta-3652 7060 ± 70 clay below site Chalcolithic Megadim 7, 10

RT-1948 5470 ± 70 n.s Chalcolithic Moon Valley 7

RT-1855 5355 ± 60 n.s Chalcolithic Moyat Daba‘iya 7

RT-1965 5350 ± 60 n.s Chalcolithic N. Sinai Site A-173 7

RT-1962 5010 ± 55 n.s Chalcolithic N. Sinai Sites B50/51 7

RT-2129 5045 ± 55 n.s Chalcolithic N. Sinai Sites B50/51 7

RT-2132 4980 ± 45 n.s Chalcolithic N. Sinai Sites R45 7

RT-1518 4990 ± 50 n.s Chalcolithic Nahal Issaron (Uvda 14) 7






Pta-3486 6130 ± 70 n.s Chalcolithic Nahal Issaron (Uvda 14) 7


Pta-2999 6460 ± 80 n.s Chalcolithic Nahal Issaron (Uvda 14) 7

RT-1407 4990 ± 70 n.s Chalcolithic Nahal Mishmar Cave 1 7

RT-1409 5355 ± 55 n.s Chalcolithic Nahal Mishmar Cave 1 7

RT-1408 5575 ± 90 mat Late Chalcolithic Nahal Mishmar Cave 1 10

RT-1645 5535 ± 75 mat Late Chalcolithic Nahal Mishmar Cave 3 7, 10

RT-1543 5090 ± 75 charcoal Late Chalcolithic Nahal Qanah Cave 7, 10

RT-1545 5340 ± 57 charcoal Late Chalcolithic Nahal Qanah Cave 7, 10

RT-1723 6390 ± 70 seeds Chalcolithic Newe-Yam 7, 10

RT-1724 6565 ± 70 seeds Chalcolithic Newe-Yam 7, 10

RT-2387 5410 ± 50 n.s Chalcolithic Peqi‘in Cave 7



















Neo-Lithics1/1027







OxA-3435 5270 ± 75 n.s Chalcolithic Sataf 7

RT-1809 5230 ± 55 n.s Chalcolithic Serabit el-Khadim 7



Hv-5296 4710 ± 50 n.s Chalcolithic Sheikh Muhsen 7

RT-1329 4260 ± 80 charcoal Late Chalcolithic Shiqmim 7, 10







RT-1335 5370 ± 65 charcoal Late C halcolithic Shiqmim 7, 10







SMU-790 5523 ± 69 n.s Chalcolithic Site 332 7



SMU-649 5210 ± 51 n.s Chalcolithic Site 649 EX 7





TO-3408 6190 ± 70 wood Middle Chalcolithic Tabaqat al-Buma (WZ200) 1, 10


TO-3412 6380 ± 70 charcoal Middle Chalcolithic Tabaqat al-Buma (WZ200) 1, 10






TO-1407 7800 ± 70 bone Middle Chalcolithic Tabaqat al-Buma (WZ200) 1, 10

OxA-7805 5680 ± 45 charcoal Late Chalcolithic Tel Ali Ia 10

OxA-7802 5770 ± 45 charcoal Middle Chalcolithic Tel Ali Ib 10




GrN-15196 5110 ± 90 dung Late Chalcolithic Teileilat Ghassul 7

GrN-15194 5330 ± 25 wood Late Chalcolithic Teileilat Ghassul 7

OZD034 5342 ± 71 n.s Late Chalcolithic Teileilat Ghassul 9



OZD032 5577 ± 71 n.s Early Chalcolithic Teileilat Ghassul 9





Pta-3460 6310 ± 70 charcoal Chalcolithic Tel Hreiz 7

RT-1749 5985 ± 55 wood Chalcolithic Tel Kones 10


Neo-Lithics1/1028



RT-1748 5985 ± 70 wood Chalcolithic Tel Kones 10

Pta-2968 6040 ± 80 burnt bone Middle Chalcolithic Tel Qatif Y-3 1, 8, 10

HD-12336 5375 ± 30 charcoal Late Chalcolithic Tel Wadi Fidan 2 7, 10

HD-12337 5740 ± 35 charcoal Late Chalcolithic Tel Wadi Fidan 2 7, 10

HD-12338 6110 ± 75 charcoal Middle Chalcolithic Tel Wadi Fidan 3 8, 10

HD-12335 6360 ± 45 charcoal Middle Chalcolithic Tel Wadi Fidan 3 8, 10

RT-648B 5670 ± 85 n.s Chalcolithic Uvda 151 7

RT-640A 4800 ± 70 n.s Chalcolithic Uvda 16 7

RT-1739 6390 ± 70 n.s Chalcolithic Uvda 6 7

Pta-3621 6400 ± 60 n.s Chalcolithic Uvda 6 7

RT-628A 6560 ± 90 n.s Chalcolithic Uvda 6 7

Pta-3646 6969 ± 70 n.s Chalcolithic Uvda 9 7

RT-2186 6045 ± 65 n.s Chalcolithic Wadi Daba‘iya 7

Beta-118580 6260 ± 40 n.s Chalcolithic Wadi Fidan 51 7

RT-1845 5240 ± 55 n.s Chalcolithic Wadi Watir VIII 7

RT-648A 5440 ± 80 n.s Chalcolithic Wadi Zalaka 7

Pta-3633 5590 ± 70 n.s Chalcolithic Wadi Zalaka 7

Pta-3655 5690 ± 50 n.s Chalcolithic Wadi Zalaka 7

RT-1546 4650 ± 75 n.s Chalcolithic Yotvata Hill 7



Table 3 List of 14C ages from southern Levantine Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites (cf. fig. 2 and text). Sources: see Table 1.

References

al-ShiyabA.H.1997 AnimalRemainsfrom‘AinRahub.InH.G.K.Gebel, Z.Kafafi,andG.O.Rollefson(eds.),ThePrehistoryof JordanII.Perspectivesfrom1997.StudiesinEarlyNear EasternProduction,Subsistence,andEnvironment 4:593-599.Berlin,exoriente.

BanningE.B.2009 FromoutofLeftField.ExcavationsintheSouthField, ‘AinGhazal.InH.G.K.Gebel,Z.Kafafi,andO.al- Ghul(eds.),ModestyandPatience.Archaeological StudiesandMemoriesinHonourofNabilQadi„Abu Salim“:18-23.Irbid,YarmoukUniversity&Berlin,ex oriente.

Bar-MatthewsM.,AyalonA.,andKaufmanA.2000 TimingandhydrologicalconditionsofSapropelevents intheEasternMediterranean,asevidentfrom speleothems,SoreqCave,Israel.ChemicalGeology 169:145-156.

Bar-YosefO.1986 ThewallsofJericho:analternativeinterpretation. CurrentAnthropology27:157-162.

BauerJ.2009 PrinzipMenschlichkeit.WarumwirvonNaturaus kooperieren.Thirdedition(1stedition2006).Heyne.Munich.

BöhnerU.andSchyleD.2009 RadiocarbonCONTEXTdatabase2002-2006 http://context-database.uni-koeln.de/ [doi:10.1594/GFZ.CONTEXT.Ed1]

BurkeM.B.,MiguelE., Satyanath S.,Dykema J.A., andLobellD.B.2009 WarmingincreasestheriskofcivilwarinAfrica. ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences106, 49:20670-20674.

BurtonM.andLevyT.E.2001 TheChalcolithicRadiocarbonRecordanditsusein SouthernLevantineArchaeology.Radiocarbon43, 3:1223-1246.

BerqueJ.1954 NomadsandNomadismintheAridZone.International SocialScienceJournal11,4(specialissue).

BlaikieP.,CannonT.,DavisI.,andWisnerB.1994 AtRisk.NaturalHazards,People’sVulnerability,and Disasters.London/NewYork,Routledge.

ByrdB.F.2000 HouseholdsinTransition.NeolithicSocialOrganization withinSouthwestAsia.InI.Kuijt(ed.),LifeinNeolithic FarmingCommunities.SocialOrganization,Identity, andDifferentiation:63-98.NewYork,Kluwer Academic/Plenum.


Neo-Lithics1/1029


ChapmanJ.2004 TheOriginsofWarfareinthePrehistoryofCentral andEasternEurope.InJ.CarmanandA.Harding (eds.),AncientWarfare:101-142.Archaeological Perspectives.Sparkford,SuttonPublishing.

ÇilingiroğluÇ.2005 Theconceptof“NeolithicPackage”:consideringits meaningandapplicability.DocumentaPraehistorica 32:1-13.

ClareL.andWeningerB.inpress SocialandBiophysicalVulnerabilityofPrehistoric SocietiestoRapidClimateChange.Documenta Praehistorica37.

ClareL.,RohlingE.J.,WeningerB.,andHilpertJ.2008 WarfareinLateNeolithic/EarlyChalcolithicPisidia, SouthwesternTurkey.ClimateInducedSocialUnrestin theLate7thMillenniumcalBC.Documenta Praehistorica35:65-92.

ClareL.,JörisO.andWeningerB.inpress DerÜbergangvomSpätneolithikumzurFrühen KupferzeitinWestasienum8200calBP–eine ethnoarchäologischeBetrachtung.DieNeolithisierung Mitteleuropas.RGZMTagungsband.

EmberC.R.andEmberM.1992 Resourceunpredictability,mistrust,andwar:across- culturalstudy.JournalofConflictResolution36, 2:242–62.

FadimanJ.A.1982 AnOralhistoryofTribalWarfare:TheMeruofMt. Kenya.Athens/Ohio,OhioUniversityPress.

FratkinE.M.2003 AriaalPastoralistsofKenya.StudyingPastoralism, Drought,andDevelopmentinAfrica’sAridLands. SecondEdition.AllynandBacon.

FreikmanM.andGarfinkelY.2009 TheZoomorphicFigurinesfromSha‘arHagolan: HuntingMagicPracticesintheNeolithicNearEast. Levant41,1:5-17.

GaliliE,StanleyD.J.,SharvitJ.,andWeinstein-EvronM.1997 EvidenceforEarliestOlive-OilProductionin submergedSettlementsofftheCarmelCoast,Israel. JournalofArchaeologicalScience24:1141-1150.

GaliliE.,GopherA.,EshedV.,andHershkovitzI.2005 BurialPracticesattheSubmergedPre-PotteryNeolithic CSiteofAtlit-Yam,NorthernCoastofIsrael.Bulletinof theAmericanSchoolsofOrientalResearch339:1-19

GaliliE.,RosenB.,GopherA.,andKolska-HorwitzL.2002 TheEmergenceandDispersionoftheEastern MediterraneanFishingVillage:Evidencefrom SubmergedNeolithicSettlementsofftheCarmelCoast, Israel.JournalofMediterraneanArchaeology15,2: 167-198.

GarfinkelY.1994 The‘PPNC’FlintAssemblagefromTel‘Ali.InH.G. Gebel,S.K.Kozłowski(eds.),NeolithicChippedStone IndustriesoftheFertileCrescent:543-562.Berlin,ex oriente.1999 NeolithicandChalcolithicPotteryoftheSouthern Levant.Qedem39.Jerusalem,InstituteofArchaeology, TheHebrewUniversity.2002a TheStoneTools.InY.Garfinkel,M.A.Miller(etal.), Sha‘arHagolan1.NeolithicArtinContext:182-186. Oxford,OxbowBooks.2002b Conclusions:TheEffectofPopulationSizeonthe HumanOrganizationatSh’arHagolan.InY.Garfinkel, M.A.Miller(etal.),Sha‘arHagolan1:257-262. NeolithicArtinContext.OxbowBooks.Oxford.

GarfinkelY.andMillerM.A.2002a (eds.),Sha‘arHagolan1.NeolithicArtinContext. OxbowBooks.Oxford.2002b Introduction.InY.GarfinkelandM.A.Miller,Sha‘ar Hagolan1.NeolithicArtinContext:1-7.Oxford,Oxbow Books.2002c TheArchaeologyofSha‘arHagolan.InY.Garfinkeland M.A.Miller,Sha‘arHagolan1.NeolithicArtinContext: 10-34.Oxford,OxbowBooks.

GarfinkelY.,VeredA.,andBar-YosefO.2006 Thedomesticationofwater:theNeolithicwellatSha‘ar Hagolan,JordanValley,Israel.Antiquity80:686-696.

GebelH.G.K.2002 Subsistenzformen,SiedlungsweisenundProzesse dessozialenWandelsvomakeramischenbiszum keramischenNeolithikum,II:Grundzügesozialen WandelsimNeolithikumdersüdlichenLevante. http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/466. Freiburg,Universiätsbibliothek.2009 TheIntricacyofNeolithicRubbleLayers.TheBa‘ja, Basta,and‘AinRahubEvidence.Neo-Lithics1/09:33-48.inpress TerritorialityinEarlyNearEasternSedentism.In ProceedingsoftheInternationalWorkshopon Sedentism:WorldwideResearchPerspectivesforthe ShiftofHumanSocietiesfromMobiletoSettledWays ofLife.GermanArchaeologicalInstitute,Berlin (Forschungscluster1),23rd-24thOctober,2008.

GopherA.1994a ArrowheadsoftheNeolithicLevant.DissertationSeries 10.AmericanSchoolsofOrientalResearch. Eisenbrauns.


Neo-Lithics1/1030


GopherA.1994b PotteryNeolithic/6th-5thmillenniaB.C.industriesof theSouthernLevantseenthroughPPNglasses.In H.G.GebelandS.K.Kozłowski(eds.),Neolithic ChippedStoneIndustriesoftheFertileCrescent.Berlin, exoriente:563-566.

GrootesP.M.,StuiverM.,WhiteJ.W.C.,JohnsenS.,andJouzel,J.1993 ComparisonofOxygenIsotopeRecordsfromtheGISP2 andGRIPGreenlandIceCore.Nature366:552-554.

HaberA.andDayanT.2004 Analyzingtheprocessofdomestication:Hagoshrimasa casestudy.JournalofArchaeologicalScience31,11: 1587-1601.

HaydenB.andCanonA.1982 TheCorporateGroupasanArchaeologicalUnit. JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology1:132-158.

HelblingJ.2006 WarandPeaceinSocietieswithoutCentralPower: TheoriesandPerspectives.InT.Otto,H.Thrane,and H.Vandkilde(eds.),WarfareandSociety. ArchaeologicalandSocialAnthropological Perspectives:113-139.Aarhus,AarhusUniversityPress.

HesseB.2002 Betweentherevolutions:animaluseatSha‘arHagolan duringtheYarmukian.InY.GarfinkelandA.M.Miller (eds.),Sha‘arHagolan1.NeolithicArtinContext:247- 255.Oxford,OxbowBooks.

KafafiZ.1993 TheYarmoukianinJordan.Paléorient19,1:101-114.

KislevM.E.,HartmannA.,andGaliliE.2004 Archaeobotanicalandarchaeoentomologicalevidence fromawellatAtlit-Yamindicatescolder,morehumid climateontheIsraelicoastduringthePPNCperiod. JournalofArchaeologicalScience31:1301-1310.

Köhler-RollefsonI.2001 TheAnimalBones.InKafafi,Z.A.,JebelAbu Thawwab(Er-Rumman),CentralJordan.TheLate NeolithicandEarlyBronzeAgeIOccupations. bibliothecaneolithicaAsiaemeridionalisetoccidentalis &YarmoukUniversity,MonographoftheInstituteof ArchaeologyandAntropology3:211-213.Berlin,ex oriente.

Köhler-RollefsonI.,GillespieW.,andMetzgerM.1988 ThefaunafromNeolithic‘AinGhazal.InA.N.Garrard andH.G.Gebel(eds.),ThePrehistoryofJordan.The StateofResearchin1986.BritishArchaeological Reports-Intern.Series396.2:423-430.B.A.R.Oxford.

KorfmannH.1972 SchleuderundBogeninSüdwestasien.Vonden frühestenBelegenbiszumBeginnderHistorischen Stadtstaaten.Bonn,RudolfHabelt.

KuijtI.2008 DemographyandstoragesystemsduringtheSouthern LevantineNeolithicDemographicTransition.InJ.P. Bocquet-AppelandO.Bar-Yosef(eds.),TheNeolithic DemographicTransitionanditsConsequences:287- 313.Springer.

KuijtI.andChessonM.S.2002 Excavationsat‘AinWaida‘,Jordan:NewInsightsinto PotteryNeolithicLifewaysintheSouthernLevant. Paléorient22,2:109-122.

MayewskiP.A.,RohlingE.J.,StagerJ.C.,KarlénW..Maasch,K.A.,MeekerL.D.,MeyersonE.A.,GasseF.,vanKreveldS.,HolmgrenK.,Lee-ThorpJ.,RosqvistG.,RackF.,StaubwasserM.,SchneiderR.R.,andSteigE.J.2004 Holoceneclimatevariability.QuaternaryResearch62: 243-255.

MigowskiC.,SteinM.,PrasadS.,NegendankJ.F.W.,andAgnonA.2006 Holoceneclimatevariabilityandculturalevolutionin theNearEastfromtheDeadSeasedimentaryrecord. QuaternaryResearch66:421-431.

ÖzdoğanM.2008 AnalternativeApproachinTracingChangesin DemographicComposition.TheWestwardExpansion oftheNeolithicWayofLife.InJ.P.Bocquet-Appeland O.Bar-Yosef(eds.),TheNeolithicDemographic TransitionanditsConsequences:39-178.Springer.

OtterbeinK.F.2009 TheAnthropologyofWar.WavelandPress,Inc.Long Grove,Illinois.

PerlèsC.2001 TheEarlyNeolithicinGreece:TheFirstFarming CommunitiesinEurope.Cambridge,Cambridge UniverstiyPress.

QuinteroL.A.,RollefsonG.O.,andWilkeP.J.2004 HighlandTownsandDesertSettlements:Originsof NomadicPastoralismintheJordanianNeolithic.In H.-D.Bienert,H.G.K.Gebel,R.Neef(eds.),Central SettlementsinNeolithicJordan.StudiesinEarlyNear EasternProduction,Subsistence,andEnvironment5: 201-213.Berlin,exoriente.

RendallM.J.1909 PalestineShepherds.CountryLife.25thDec.:899-902.

RohlingE.J.andPälikeH.2005 Centennial-scaleclimatecoolingwithasuddencold eventaround8,200yearsago.Nature434:975-979.


Neo-Lithics1/1031


RollefsonG.O.1993 TheOriginsoftheYarmoukianat‘AinGhazal. Paléorient19.1:91-100.

RollefsonG.O.andKöhler-RollefsonI.1989 TheCollapseofEarlyNeolithicSettlementsinthe SouthernLevant.InI.Hershkovitz(ed.),Peopleand CultureinChange.ProceedingsoftheSecond SymposiumonUpperPalaeolithic,Mesolithicand NeolithicPopulationsofEuropeandtheMediterranean Basin.BritishArchaeologicalReports–Intern.Series 508(i):73-89.Oxford,B.A.R.1993 PPNCadaptationsinthefirsthalfofthe6thmillennium B.C.Paléorient19,1:33-42.

RollefsonG.O.,KafafiZ.A.,andSimmonsA.H.1991 TheNeolithicVillageof‘AinGhazal,Jordan: PreliminaryReportonthe1988Season.Bulletinofthe AmericanSchoolsofOrientalResearch.Supplementary Studies27:95-116.

RoscoeP.2008 SettlementFortificationinVillageand‘Tribal’ Society:EvidencefromContact-eraNewGuinea. JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology27:507-519.

RosenbergD.inpress FlyingStones–TheSlingstonesoftheWadiRabah CultureoftheSouthernLevant.Paléorient35,2.

RossM.H.1986 ACross-CulturalTheoryofPoliticalConflictand Violence.PoliticalPsychology7,3:427-469.

SahlinsM.1963 PoorMan,Richman,BigMan,Chief:PoliticalTypes inMelanesiaandPolynesia.ComparativeStudiesin SocietyandHistory5:285-303.

SimmonsA.H.2000 VillagesontheEdge.RegionalSettlementChangeand theEndoftheLevantinePre-PotteryNeolithic.In I.Kuijt(ed.),LifeinNeolithicFarmingCommunities. SocialOrganization,Identity,andDifferentiation:211- 230.NewYork,KluwerAcademic/PlenumPublishers.

SimmonsA.H.,RollefsonG.O.,KafafiZ.,MandelR.D.,al-NaharM.,CooperJ.,Köhler-RollefsonI.,andDurandK.R.2001 WadiShu‘eib,ALargeNeolithicCommunityinCentral Jordan:FinalReportofTestExcavations.Bulletinofthe AmericanSchoolsofOrientalResearch321:1-39.

StekelisM.1972 TheYarmukianCultureoftheNeolithicPeriod. Jerusalem,TheMagnesPress.

TabakF.2008 TheWaningoftheMediterranean,1550-1870: AGeohistoricalApproach.JohnHopkinsUniversity Press.Baltimore,Maryland.

vondenDrieschA.andWodtkeU.1997 TheFaunaof‘AinGhazal,aMajorPPNandEarlyPN SettlementinCentralJordan.InH.G.K.Gebel,Z.Kafafi, G.O.Rollefson(eds.),ThePrehistoryofJordanII. Perspectivesfrom1997.StudiesinEarlyNearEastern Production,Subsistence,andEnvironment4:511-556. Berlin,exoriente.

WadaH.2001 TheChippedStoneTools.InKafafi,Z.A.,JebelAbu Thawwab(Er-Rumman),CentralJordan.TheLate NeolithicandEarlyBronzeAgeIOccupations. bibliothecaneolithicaAsiaemeridionalisetoccidentalis &YarmoukUniversity,MonographoftheInstituteof ArchaeologyandAntropology3:117-154.Berlin,ex oriente.

WasseA.1997 PreliminaryResultsofanAnalysisoftheSheepand GoatBonesfrom‘AinGhazal,Jordan.InH.G.K.Gebel, Z.Kafafi,G.O.Rollefson(eds.),ThePrehistoryof JordanII.Perspectivesfrom1997.StudiesinEarlyNear EasternProduction,Subsistence,andEnvironment 4:575-599.Berlin,exoriente.

WeningerB.1997 StudienzurdendrochronologischenKalibration vonarchäologischen14C-Daten.Dr.RudolfHabelt Verlag.Frankfurt/M.

WeningerB.,ClareL.,RohlingE.J.,Bar-YosefO.,BöhnerU.,BudjaM.,BundschuhM.,FeurdeanA.,GebelH.G.K.,JörisO.,LinstädterJ.,MayewskiP.,MühlenbruchT.,ReingruberA.,RollefsonG.,SchyleD.,ThissenL.,TodorovaH.,andZielhoferC.2009 TheImpactofRapidClimateChangeonPrehistoric SocietiesDuringtheHoloceneintheEastern Mediterranean.DocumentaPraehistorica36:7-59.

XoplakiE.,MaherasP.,andLuterbacherJ.2001 VariabilityofclimateinmeridionalBalkansduringthe periods1675-1715and1780-1830anditsimpacton humanlife.ClimaticChange48:581-615.

ZhangD.D.,BreckeP.,LeeH.F.,HeY.Q.,andZhangJ.2007 Globalclimatechange,war,andpopulationdeclinein recenthumanhistory.PNAS104,49:19214-19219.


Neo-Lithics1/1032


In his keynote contribution Ofer Bar-Yosef makes ageneralstatementrelatingtothecombineddemographic/environmentalreasonsfortheoccurrenceofwarfareintheEarlyNeolithicoftheLevant.AlthoughwemustbegratefultoOferBar-Yosefforre-addressingthiscentralissueofLevantineNeolithisation,andthenewcausesandrolesofcoalitionalaggressionundertheconditionsofsettledlife(anditsenvironmentalbackground)alongwithmost of the author’s ideas shouldbe supported,therearestillsomeimportantpointsthatappeartobemissinginhiskeynotewhichmustbeaddressed.Thesepoints relate to the innovative social and economicmitigation mechanisms and structures that regulateconflict in sedentary environments, including theconflict to arise through the amalgamation sedentarylanduseandnature.Inmyview,thereexistsaspecialprimacy of environmental factors influencing humanconflict behaviour (and vice versa) under sedentaryconditions,andtheseareembeddedinthegeneralethosofhumanaggressionundersuchconditions.Thus,IseeitasimperativetodiscussNeolithicwarfarealwaysinconjunctionwithearlyNeolithicconflictmanagementand related social and commodification systems.Indeed, it is only through consideration of thesefactors, combined with insights from the spheres ofhumanethologyandrelatedfields,thatwemightbetterunderstand how and why aggression, violence andwarfare emerged in the earlyNeolithic.Accordingly,theearlyNeolithicsedentaryethos–orthesomehowprovocative Homo neolithicus var. orientalis -perceptioninGebeln.d.a,b–wouldbeasubstratumfromwhichour topiccouldbeapproached inamorescientificway.Bethisasitmay,thehithertoessayisticnature by which the subject of warfare is treated ischaracteristic for our discipline, and the followingreflectionsandcommentsarecertainlynoexception.

Neolithic Ethos and Warfare. On Understandings and Terminology

Aside from the general problem already addressedin the introduction to this Neo-Lithics issue (thelimitedconsultationornon-involvementofdisciplinesspecialized in human conflict in the archaeologicalconflictdiscussion)ourdiscourseofthesubjectsuffersfrom a misrepresentative terminology and impliedpersonalperceptionsofthescholars,includingmodernmoral attitudes. Especially the latter require somedegree of illumination if an author’s particular andpersonalapproachistobeunderstoodsuccessfullybyhis/herreaders.

I fully share the understanding of JoachimBauer(2008) that human aggression is rather a reactiveprogrammethanahumandriveorneed:Biologicallyanchoredlikefear,aggressiondevelopedduringhumanevolution to help in situations of danger. Group-minded socialbehaviourandempathydominateoveraggressive behaviour; aggression, violence, warfareand the like represent rather the ultima ratio in therange of choices of human reactions. The complexrelationships between kinds of conflict and kindsof violence, including their ritualised features, aredeterminedby the lifemode, and certainly sedentarylifeprovideddifferentframeworksthanforagingones.Aggressionwascertainlysetfreeatdifferentlocationsand situations in confined territories than was thecase inopen territories.Furthermore, aggressionwasrelatedtocommunityorganisation,andmusthavebeeninfluenced by a complex system of risk weighting.Warfare, understood here as a coalitional and non-spontaneous (prepared and organized by a strategy)aggressionofgroups/communitiesagainsteachother,aimingtoreachabalanceoveraconflict/subjectivelydisadvantageousmatter, is just one form of violenceandstressrelease.Environmentalstressmayhavebeencounteredbyothersortsofviolence,too,rangingfromintra-community measures to spontaneous massacresagainsthumanandfaunalcompetitorsinthelandscape.

Thereappearstoexistaneurobiologicallyverifiable(J.Bauer,pers.comm.)needtopunishunfairbehaviourby others, aside from the general causes of humanaggression: fear of physical and psychological pain,death; deprivation from / unbalanced distribution ofresourcesorwealth;unbalancedsocialrelations,socialmarginalisation, physical and cognitive confinementetc. While I see a basically shifted human ethosby Neolithisation (general territoriality becomes aconfinedterritoriality;aggregationinsocial,economicand cognitive territories supported by a productivecommodification, including ritual regimes/religions;general reciprocity becomes confined reciprocity; cf.Gebeln.d.a,b)whichbecamethebasisofourmodernethos, Joachim Bauer claims (pers. comm.) that theNeolithic ethos is neurobiologically rooted and hasnotshiftedtoanysignificantdegreeinthelast20.000to 30.000 years. However, I wonder if the culturalmanipulationandcontrolof thehumanethoshasnotreached a new dimension through the sedentary lifemodeswhich established in the course of five to sixmillenniaduringtheNearEasternNeolithicEvolution.

In this contribution I use the neutral termconflictinordertoforcedefinitionforeachconcretepieceofevidence for Neolithic strife. The overall use of the

Conflict and Conflict Mitigation in Early Near Eastern Sedentism. Reflections

Hans Georg K. Gebel FreeUniversityofBerlin [email protected]


Neo-Lithics1/1033


termsaggression,violence,warfare,raids,andthelikeisat leastmeaningless ifnotevaluatedanddescribedforthesubsystemsinwhichtheyoccurandarerelevant,i.e. local environment (biotic and abiotic resources);regionalandlong-distancebioticandabioticresources;technological and innovation frameworks; socialstructure;economicsystem;aswellasideologicalandcognitive regimes.While the task of identifying anddescribingthenatureofconflictshouldbesubjectofaninterdisciplinaryapproach,atooltoprovideaninitialcharacterisationofthetypeofconflictcouldbesimpleif threedifferent levels are involved: the ethological,the societal, and the political level. Accordingly,aggressionremainsamatterofethos,conflictisfirmlysituated in societal contexts, andwarfare receives itspoliticaldimension.

Significantly,mostconflictsrelatetodisturbedandshiftingintegritiesoftangibleandintangibleterritories.Thustheterritorialityapproach(seebelow)isessentialif we are to work on Neolithic conflict and conflictmitigation;atthesametime,thisisalsoanintegrativetool for the various disciplines to be involved inresearch, e.g. behavioural ecology; psychologies ofthe environment, evolution and religion; cognitiveneuroscience;neurobiologyandsocialbiologyetc.).

A thorough analysis of disturbed territories isessential, as are studieswhichmight informus as tohow imbalances in one territorymight affect relatedterritories (for an example, see below). Normally,a territory is considered optimal and flourishing ifit provides stability through its size and balancedadvantages to all, and if the costs of defending theterritoryare low in relation to theefforts involved inexploitation, acquisition, production, integration etc.Furnishedwiththesetools,wemightnotonlybeabletoidentifyNeolithicconflictlevelsandcases,butalsoreconstruct theorganisationalnatureofanaggressiveact. In this case, questions as to whether Neolithicwarfareinvolvedeitherfightinginorganizedformationsorintheformofraidsasknownfrommodernprimitivesocietiesmightevenbecomeobsolete.

Space Commodification and Properties. On Early Neolithic Territoriality

Territoriality inphysical environmentsand intangiblespheresdevelopswhensocialunits settledown inanarea by claiming resources and establishing regimesthrough use, including the overworldly territories ofbelief systems, using ingredients of nature etc. Thegrowthofgroupsandtheavailabilityoftheresourcesina region render territories subject toconflictwhenneighbouringclaimsstart tooverlap.At thatmomentterritoriality becomes a matter of the exclusion ofcompetitive beings and elements, and the formationof a stronger group identity among the beneficiaries(cohesivegroupswithcoordinatedactivities).Themaincriteriaofcollectiveterritorialbehaviourarecertainlythe existenceof stable social frameworks that enable

claims and allowdefence and territorial concessions.What differentiates the forager territoriality fromsedentary territoriality lies in its productive milieuthrough which it operates and exists. “Political”territoriality however only develops when physicalterritories become important for the organisation ofgroups.

Three sorts of Neolithic territories might haveexisted (modified after Altman 1975 for the NearEasternEarlyNeolithic):

1.PrimaryPhysicalTerritories(intra-siteandexternal):permanently, or nearly permanently, occupied;recognised by neighbours as a relatively permanentownership; closely identified with the group throughuseofspace;occupantsinfullcontrolofuse;intrusionsbyothersunderstoodasencroachments.

2.CorporatePhysicalTerritories(intra-siteandexternal):occupationrepeatedbutnotcontinuous;notsubjecttoindividual but to corporate ownership; use bound bycertainconditionsandfunctions;surveillanceofusebyrepresentativesofsocialunits.

3.ObtainablePhysicalTerritories(intra-siteandexternal):largenumberofindividualsandgroupsinterestedintheuse of the territory; rights to it disputed among theseindividualandgroups,withahighpotentialforconflict;controlofterritoryissubjecttomutualagreementandcorporatedefence;usesofterritoryrestrictedorlimited;its transfer intopermanentownership requiresmutualacceptanceorforcedacquiescence.

A major cause of Neolithic territorial aggressionwas probably territorial crowding. Indeed, since theearly Neolithic this factor must have been a majoragent influencing all socio-economic and cognitivedevelopments, including our post-Neolithic history:Increasing sedentism produced more confinedterritoriesinwhichaggregation,commodification,andinnovationprocessesweretheonlyfactorscapableofregulating pressures.When these processes failed toprovide the necessary balance within the increasingnumber of confined territories, systems began tocollapse. Such collapses could have been peacefulimplosions (the vanishing of cultures, the adaptationofnew lifemodes),butmusthavebeen–dependingon the pressure system involved– also induced byaccompanying aggressive acts. On the local andregionalscale,raidsandevenorganisedwarfaremighthavebecomeoneoptionof regulation.Asmentionedpreviously, such options occurred only if mitigationinitiatives throughaggregation,commodification,andinnovation measures became exhausted; this notionhas to include the understanding that aggregation,commodificationandinnovationwouldhaveultimatelybrought about growth themselves and thus triggeredthe very conditions which they primarily set out toavoid. Territorial aggression may have disappearedtemporarily from larger regions, e.g. when the vast


Neo-Lithics1/1034


alluvial lands and steppes of Mesopotamia or thesemi-arid fringes of the Levant became subject tonew subsistencemodes (early hydraulic and pastoralsocio-economies) in the later Neolithic. Unlike localterritorial infringements, territorial crowding has thetendencyforsupra-communal,supra-local,andsupra-regionaloverthrows.Territorialcrowdingincludessuchphenomena as over-populated villages, insufficientpasturelands for the increaseofflocks, thedisruptionof social hierarchies through the inflation of prestigecommodities, competition in social managementsolutions, and the like, and results in environmental,social, economic, and ideological stress and conflictswhich increasewith densities.Density in one spherecan easily provoke a hyperthrophic milieu. A goodexample of such a stress system is the recently-debated Mega-Site Phenomenon in the Jordanianmountainranges(Gebel2004).Here,thedurationandintensity of combined aggregation, commodificationandinnovationseemstohavedamagedthesocialandeconomic behaviour and values of individuals andgroups;itimplodedmostlikelybecausesocialanswerswere not found rapidly enough ahead of prosperingsocio-economicdevelopments.Consequently,levelsofintra-andinter-groupaggressionmusthaveincreased.

The confined reciprocities in Neolithic timesimplied existential strategies for the joint survivalof a sedentary community supported by concessionordersandregulatedbyconflictregimesand–wherewemight agreewithOferBar-Yosef –warfare uponresident occupations. Neolithic human aggressionwas prompted by additional and different types ofmotivation (as compared with foraging structures),and conflicts must have reached much larger scalesbothintermsofquantity, i.e. thenumberofinvolvedbelligerents, and quality, i.e. weapons technology aswell as offensive and defensive strategies. But thehumanethosofaggressionmustnothaveincreasedpersethroughsedentarism:Sedentismdevelopedanumberof hitherto unknown or unneeded pacifying devicesmeant to cope with the enhanced conflict potentialscreatedbythenewaggregatedtangibleandintangibleterritorialdensities.

Segregation Regimes and Aggregated Life Modes. On Mitigative Commodification

Our excavations do provide material evidence thatreflectsconflictmitigationaimedtosupportsolidarity,integrative processes, interest balance etc. Conflictmitigation appears to be an ingredient of earlyNearEasternNeolithiccultures:Itisexpressedbythenewproductivecommodificationregimeswhichsupportednewly emerging corporate structures via all sortsof segregation processes, such as labour division,site specialization, ancestral locations, possiblygenderfication, supra-group feasts(?), new socialhierarchies,boostingpersonal“prestige”goodsectors,defensive structures(?), possibly even “commodity

coupons”(Gebeln.d.b)etc.Allthiswassupportedbytheestablishmentofsedentarymoralandbeliefsystems,nowservingalsoasthecognitiveagentsofmitigationandsurvivalofgroupintegrity.Intheeconomicsector,surplusproductionandstorageappeartobethemajoragentsofmitigation.Probably“markets”and“wealth”in the modern sense became regional elements oftemporalmitigationandsecuritybeforetheirtendencytobecomeelementsofconflictemerged.

In spite of the general problem of identifyingaggression, conflict or warfare in the archaeologicalrecords,Iwoulddaretostatethatwearegenerallyabletoidentifymorefeaturesofmitigativethanaggressivebehaviour.Thisofcoursehasmuchtodowiththelensesthroughwhichwebeholdourevidence,andthenatureof such evidence. Mitigative behaviour is expressedrather in processes and by repetitious features insidesettlementsandcultures,whilstwarfareisarestrictedevent that does not necessarily take place withinsettlements.Iamhoweverstillfarfromthesomewhatodd conception of a peaceful Neolithic society –homicide,skulltraumata,slingballs,projectilepointsetc. do exist –, but it is (more) striking to see whathas been subject to mitigative commodification inLevantineEarlyNeolithic societies in order to avoidconflicts.Thisrangesfromthe“deadinstorage”underhouse floors to the creation of flexible groundplans(shiftingfloorlevelsandwallopeningsallowingnewroomassociations)adaptingtomicro-changesinsocialrelations; thediversificationofgoodsandservicesorcrafts;hierarchiesinsocialandproductionspheres;andmostlikelyalsotoritualandsymbolicregimeswhichconnectedcommunitiesbeyondtheregionallevel.

Initially,mostproductivecommodificationappearsto have mitigative and regulating purposes, even ifcharacterised by a segregative function. Conflictsappearwhen the (re)sourcesof commodification (i.e.productive value systems) become depleted and losetheir basis or if competing commodification regimesbecome established. (Neolithic commodification isunderstoodastheprolificmilieusinwhichcommodities– new technologies, objects, product standards andinnovative substrata, services, exchange standards,ideas, belief systems etc. – were constantly created,altered and ex-commodified; commodities are morethangoods,theyarethesocialmilieusoftangibleandintangiblethings,cf.Gebeln.d.b.

Since mitigative conflict behaviour is reflectedby commodification acts and processes, the study ofcommodification is an essential element of conflictstudy.

Large and Small Habitats. On Early Neolithic Levantine Warfare and Environments

Residentterritorialitycreatedphilopatrialcompetitionandmentalitiesthatcausedgroupsandgroupmembersnotonly todefineandpersonalize territorialpropertybutalso todefendandcontrol it.Asalready implied,


Neo-Lithics1/1035


such territoriesarenotnecessarilyphysical, theycanjustaseasilybeideological;inmostcasesconflictsoverterritoriesareconcernedwithphysicalandideologicalterritories, where one is used to support the (initial)claim of the other. Conflict potentials were likelymultiplied by permanent residency, and principles ofresidentterritorialitymusthavedominatedallspheresofNeolithiclife.Apartfromthephysicalspaces(includingnatural resources such as springs, lakes, pathways,arableland,water/soildams,minerals,huntinggroundsetc.,aswellasbuiltspacessuchassettlements,houses,rooms,graves,wellsetc.) intangible territoritiesweredomesticated (commodified), mostly to support thestructures of physical territories. Indeed, it is highlylikelythatNeolithicpopulationsdistinguishedphysicalandmetaphysicalspaceinquitedifferentwaystohowwemodernsdo.

Theconflict/warfarediscussionhardlydistinguishesbetween conflict conditions in extensive and morerestricted spheres or spaces. Translating this toenvironmentalspaceandtheLevant,onemaysaythatourdiscussionshoulddistinguishbetweenthedifferentconditionsforterritorialconflictinthemorevastnorthandcentralLevantinehabitatsandthemoresensitiveandconfinedonesinthesouthernLevant.EveninthesouthernLevantandonasupra-regionallevel,onecandistinguish between environmental conflict potentialswithin the Mediterranean zones and regions withaccesstothevaststeppeswiththeirmigratingunglatesinthesemi-arideast.

It is one of my basic theses that the Mega-SitePhenomenon of the LPPNB Jordanian Highlandsis a non-violent transgression of a socio-economicparadigm becoming successful while migratingfrom north to south and exploiting the rich animalprotein resources and pastures to the east (Gebel2004). The rapid establishment and decline of themega-site culture appears accompanied rather bythe emergence and implosion of commodificationsystemsthanbyviolence.Butwhataboutthesituationprior to theLPPNBmega-sites in themore confinedMediterraneanenvironmentswestof theRiftValley?Here,wecanexpect territorialconflictsoverhabitatswhich reached the dimensions of organized warfarebetweenneighbouringcommunities,andinitiatedwhatbecame later themega-site socio-economy. I am notsurehow“peaceful”themega-sitesocio-economywasreceived by the MPPNB communities in the nichesoftheJordanianHighlands;asofyet,itlookslikeanabsorption of the indigeneous MPPNB by the moreprolific LPPNB. Concerning the end of the LPNNBmega-site socio-economy we may assume restrictedlocal conflicts over resources, but most likely thesewereminorthroughtherapidadaptationofanewlifemodeanditseconomy,thepastoralismwhichalreadydevelopedduringthemega-sitetimes.

If we consider all of the Levant, I would agreewith Ofer Bar-Yosef that areas with limited habitatsare potential areas of territorial clashes and warfareoriginating in environmental causes. Such restricted

habitats develop either by overexploitation as aconsequenceofdemographicstressand/orcataclysmicland use, or even by minor climatic and otherimpacts (flash floods, droughts, earthquakes etc.) ora combination of the two. The southern Levant hasmany such regions in which territiorial clashes andwarfarecouldemergefromsuchabackground.Whengoing further north, the Levantine habitats becomelarger and the network of geographical corridors ismoreextensiveandcomplex.Here,forexampleinthealluvialplainsandthesteppes,territorialinfringementandwarfareasaconsequenceoflimitedhabitatsmaynothaveplayedamajor role, especiallynot in timesof unfavourable climatic oscillations, and only thegeneralsortsof territorialviolationmayhaveexisted(vandalism,thefts,contaminationetc.).EspeciallythevastgrasslandhabitatsofthenorthernLevantmaynothavewitnessedwarfareforenvironmentalreasonsuntiltheemergenceoftheearlycitystates.

References

AltmanI.1975 TheEnvironmentandSocialBehavior:Privacy, PersonalSpace,Territory,andCrowding.Monterey: Brooks/ColePublishingCompany.

BauerJ.2008 DaskooperativeGen.AbschiedvomDarwinismus. Hamburg:HoffmannundCampe.

GebelH.G.K.2004 CentraltoWhat?RemarksontheSettlementPatternsof theLPPNBMega-SitesinJordan.In:H.D.Bienert, H.G.K.GebelandR.Neef(eds.),CentralSettlements inNeolithicJordan.StudiesinEarlyNearEastern Production,Subsistence,andEnvironment5:1-20. Berlin:exoriente.n.d.a TerritorialityinEarlyNearEasternSedentism.In M.Reindeletal.(eds.),Sedentism:WorldwideResearch PerspectivesfortheShiftofHumanSocietiesfrom MobiletoSettledWaysofLife.Proceedingsofthe ResearchCluster1Workshop,23rd-24thOctober,2008. Berlin,GermanArchaeologicalInstitute.(forthcoming)n.d.b CommodificationandtheFormationofEarlyNeolithic SocialIdentity.TheIssuesSeenFromBa‘ja/Basta. InM.Benz(ed.),ThePrincipleofSharing.Segregation andConstructionofSocialIdentitiesattheTransition fromForagingtoFarming.StudiesinEarlyNear EasternProduction,Subsistence,andEnvironment14. Berlin,exoriente.(forthcoming)


Neo-Lithics1/1036


The keynote by Bar-Yosef presents a hypothesisregarding“WarfareinLevantineEarlyNeolithic”.Theauthor is touchingononeof the interesting issuesofhuman behavior, a significant area of current studyin archaeology (Guilaine and Zammit 2005,Maccall2009). His goal was to consider whether LevantineEarly Neolithic contexts present indications for actsof warfare emanating from increasing populationdensitiesandsevereinter-groupcompetition.Assuch,thekeynotetriggeredoffseveralthoughtsonthecausesofwarfareandthearchaeologicalvisibility:

Causes for Warfare

The Neolithic time frame correlates to one of theimportant periods of change in human history: theturnoverinsubsistencestrategyfromhunting-gatheringto food production. It was accompanied by majorchanges in human existence, probably having majoreffectsontherelationshipbetweencommunities.Iagreethat the concept of “war” precedes the appearance of“civilizations”.Indeed,thechangeinhumanworldviewsduringtheNeolithicandmaybeevenearlier,couldhavebroughtaboutachangeingroupandindividualbehaviorpatterns towards neighboring communities, and theimplicationsoftheterms‘us’vs.‘them’hadtochange.Thorpe (2003) loosely defined warfare as organizedaggression between autonomous political units. Wecan suggest that already during the Natufian (whichprecedestheNeolithiccultures)theLevantinelandscapewas divided into autonomous units.Communities haduniquemarkerstodistinguishthemfromtheirneighbors(Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2010). Yet can wedetect organized aggression or the underlying cause/sforit?Throughoutthecourseofhistoryuntilthepresentday,wecanfindvariation inwarfaredynamicswithinthecontextoftheideological,economic,environmentalanddemographicrelationshipsofmodernsocieties.Bar-Yosefhighlightsenvironmentalcauses,namelyclimaticdynamicsasthemaincausefortheNeolithicaggression.Mostly, climatic conditions enabled Neolithic highpopulationdensitieswhichweretheimmediatetriggersof warfare. It seems that he adopts a materialisticperspective suggesting that warfare is apparent whenthereisfoodshortage(resultingfromaclimaticcrisis)ornoterritoriallivingroom(overpopulationinagivenarea).ThisisinaccordancetotheMalthusianapproachassumingthatwarisoneofthecommonconsequencesofoverpopulation,alongwithdiseaseandfamine.Thislineofreasoningisalsoadoptedinthe“warfaretheory”forstateformationlateroninhumanhistory(Carneiro1986,Carneiro19970,JohnsonandEarle2000).Butcan

we explain warfare stemming from another, differentmechanismactingatthistimeframe?

Indeedclimaticeventsduringthistimeframehadaneffectonthedensityandcrowdingofpopulations,buttoalimitedextent.Theclimatictrendshowsgradualshiftsinclimaticregimes.Theregionalclimatictrendobservedin theCentral Southern Levant, preceding and duringtheNeolithicperiod,isdifferentfromtheglobalclimatictrendasrecordedintheice-cores,withregardsthepaceandvolumeofthechanges.Inaddition,itseemsthattheinfluenceof the“YoungerDryas”was lessextreme inthisparticularregion,especiallyincomparisonwiththeeffectsofthe“OldDryas”onthelocalclimatictrendintheGeometricKebarantimes(Grosman2005).

The earlyNeolithicwas the continuation ofmajorsocialchangeswhichstartedoffintheNatufian,andhadapronouncedeffectonpopulationdynamics.Previousstudies (e.g.Rosenberg1998,Gat2000)demonstratedthat warfare among hunters-and-gatherers correlatesstronglywithsedentism,suggestingthatwarfarecouldhavebeeninitiatedbeforetheNeolithic,duringtheEarlyNatufian where there is clear evidence for incipientsedentary lifestyle.Largergroupswere settling inoneplace and individuals were communicating with non-kinmembers.Theincreasingsocialcomplexity(Kosse1994)during theNatufian suggests the formulationofcomplexmeans to dealwith growing group-sizes andscalar stress besides actual warfare, introducing anintermediate community larger that the simplehunter-gatherer group but smaller than those of agriculturalsocieties.Onecan speculate that rather thanbeing thecauseofwarfare,populationdensity canbe rather theresultofwarfareactivities(Harrison1993).Indeed,oneofthepossiblecasesofsiteabandonmentpresentedbyBar-Yosef pre-dates theNeolithic, as he discusses theLate Natufian levels at Mureybet andAbu Hurreyra.Thus, theoretically there are grounds to search forwarfareactivitiesduringtheNatufian,thefirstsedentarysocietieslivinginsmallhamletsatthetimeofthe“onsetof‘history’”(Bar-Yosef).

The Archaeological Record

Whatever the cause for warfare maybe, it is verydifficult to demonstrate through archaeologicalevidence itsexistenceorabsence.Primarily therearetwodirecttypesofarchaeologicalevidence:

-skeletalpathologiesresultingfromviolence;-fortifications;

Ontheotherhand,identifyinganabsenceofwarfareis

Prehistoric Warfare – Cause and Visibility

Leore Grosman TheHebrewUniversityofJerusalem [email protected]


Neo-Lithics1/1037


evenmoredifficult,aseveryskeletalassemblagemayproducesignsofskeletaltraumaderivedfromeverydayactivities. Fortifications can be interpreted also asportrayingspiritualbeliefsoraremeansofprotectionfromthevagariesofnaturalelements.

Bar-YosefpointsoutvariousindicationsforwarfareduringtheEarlyNeolithic,whichlastsca.3,000years:abandonmentofvillages;secludedandnaturallywellprotectedsitelocations;intensivebuildinginconfinedspaces, fortifications, and relative high frequenciesof arrow heads. All of these are rather indirectindicationsandassuchareofaspeculativenature.Todate, the early Neolithic archaeological data providerather poor or low visibility of warfare activities onskeletal remains, though one of the new and uniquecharacteristicsoftheNatufiancultureistheappearanceofdefinedcemeteries.ThesamplesizesareevenlargerintheNeolithic.Indeed,withapopulationofca.450individualstherearereportsofviolenceintheNatufian(Bocquentin 2003, Bocquentin and Bar-Yosef 2004,Eshedetal.inpress).

Final Point

Weshouldbearinmindthatwhetherornotpopulationdensities were the cause of warfare - warfare has anegative effect on population dynamics. Populationdecreasesasa resultofwarfareactivities, as theseactto lower population sizes.This dynamic suggests thatduring the Natufian/early Neolithic the evidence ofwarfarewill have ‘silent’ phases.We can assume thatthere were fluctuations between situations of warfareand its absence. Checking archaeological evidence islike thumbing throughaphotoalbum,observingfinitedifferencesbetweenthepictures,withoutbeingabletoobserve the flow of changes that had occurred in theinterveningtime-span.Soperhapstheabandonmentofsitesmaysuggestevidenceofwarfareyet thematerialaccumulation on site averages both times of war andthoseofpeaceduringthesettlementexistence.Althoughweneed to applynewmethods and “find evidenceofvictims of violence, burned houses…” (Bar-Yosef) itdoesnotseemthatviolenceinitsmostobviousformwaspartoftheNatufianorevenearlyNeolithiceverydaylife.

References

BocquentinF.2003 PratiquesFunéraires,ParamètresBiologiques etIdentitésCulturellesauNatoufien:UneAnalyse Archeo-Anthropologique.Bordeaux,L’Université Bordeaux1:Thesis.

BocquentinF.andBar-YosefO.2004 EarlyNatufianremains:evidenceforphysicalconflict fromMt.Carmel,Israel.JournalofHumanEvolution 47:19-23.

CarneiroR.L.1986 FurtherReflectionsofResourcesConcentrationandIts RoleintheRiseoftheState.InL.Manzanilla (ed.),StudiesintheNeolithicandUrbanRevolutions. BritishArchaeologicalReports:245-260.Oxford,B.A.R.

1997 ATheoryoftheOriginoftheState-Traditionaltheories ofstateoriginsareconsideredandrejectedinfavorofa newecologicalhypothesis.Science169:733-738.

EshedV.,A.Gopher,PinhasiR.,andHershkovitzI.inpress PaleopathologyandtheOriginofAgricultureinthe Levant.AmericanJournalofPhysicalAnthropology.

GatA.2000 TheCausesandOriginsof“PrimitiveWarfare”:Reply toFerguson.AnthropologicalQuarterly73:165-168.

Goring-Morris,N.andBelfer-CohenA.2010 Differentwaysofbeing,differentwaysofseeing: changingworldviewsintheNearEast.InB.Finlayson andG.Warren(eds.),Landscapesintransition: understandinghunter-gathererandfarminglandscapes intheEarlyHoloceneofEuropeandtheLevant:9-22. London,CBRL.

GrosmanL.2005 ComputerSimulationofVariablesinModelsofthe OriginsofAgricultureintheLevant.TheHebrew University.

GuilaineJ.andZammitJ.2005 TheOriginsofWar:ViolenceinPrehistory.Oxford, Blackwell.

HarrisonS.1993 TheMaskofWar.Manchester,ManchesterUniversityPress.

JohnsonA.W.andEarleT.2000 TheEvolutionofHumanSocieties:FromForaging GrouptoAgrarianState(2ndedition).Stanford, StanfordUniversityPress.

KosseK.1994 TheEvolutionofLarge,ComplexGroups:AHypothesis. JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology13:35-50.

MaccallG.S.2009 ExploringtheOriginofHumanWarfarethrough Cross-CulturalResearchonModernandPrehistoric Foragers.InternationalJournalofContemporary Sociology46:163-183.

RosenbergM.1998 CheatingatMusicalChairs.TerritorialityandSedentism inanEvolutionaryContext.CurrentAnthropology39:653-681.

ThorpeI.J.N.2003 Anthropology,Archaeology,andtheOriginofWarfare. WorldArchaeology35:145-165.


Neo-Lithics1/1038


Warfarehasbeenabsentfortoolongfromthetheoriesonthe«NeolithicRevolution».Itshouldbeassumed,however, that the latter, though emerging during along duration process, is thought to have generatedenvyofterritoriesrichinwater,arablelandorpasturesfavourable for the herds. Forced displacement ofpopulations,frictionsbetweencommunities, thirstforindividual or collective power, are some casus belli.Thereincorporationofwarfareintosocialrelationshipsthuscompensatesforascientificblindnessmaintainedfor a long time and based on the idea that this steptowards agriculture occurred in a kind of generalconsensuswithinapacifiedsocialcontext.ThequestionwasraisedinEuropebeforetheNearEast,observingthatthelasthunter-gatherersofthiscontinentmayhaveknownviolentconfrontationsalready,as it isattestedby the skeletal remains of several Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic cemeteries (Voloshkoe, Vasilyevka I andIII, ScheilaCladovei, etc.Vencl 1991;most recentlyRoksandiced.2004).Certainindividualsseemtohavebeenkilledbyblowstotheneckasitisshownbythetrophy skulls at Ofnet in Bavaria (Orschiedt 2005).Morerecently,theanalysisofoneofthemostfamousburialsoftheTévieccemeteryinBrittany,withabove-groundstructuresmadefromantlers,hasrevealedthattwoindividualshadbeenkilledbyblowstothehead(unpublished,observationsmadebyJ.Braga).

These tensions were not fewer during the EarlyEuropean Neolithic as it has been demonstrated bythe«massacres»withintheLinearPotteryCultureatTalheim (Germany) (likely involving the kidnappingof women, Bentley 2007) and of Asparn-Schletz(Austria) (Wahl and Koenig 1987). Hunter-gatherersand subsequent farmers thus were able to kill eachother and various reasons can be evoked to explainthese confrontations: “territoralization” followingsedentarization, frontier conflicts, raids, withoutconsidering more “psychological” motifs such asbreaking-off of alliances, insults, etc. O. Bar Yosefhas themerit to raise the question ofwarfare duringthe incipient Neolithic in the Near East. While L.Keeley considered the Natufians to be a pacifisticpopulation(Keeley1996:120),recentrevisionof theanthropological record of this culture stresses thattracesofviolencearenottobeexcluded(Bocquentin2003).Nearlyatthesametimeperiod,site117(JebelSahaba)inSudanshowstheexistenceofapopulationthat was eliminated in the course of one (or two?)war(s)(Wendorf1968).

Can we argue that an increase in the number ofarrowheads implies insecurity or even warfare? It isindeeddifficulttodistinguishhunting,warfareorsocialparade exhibiting weapons. In Europe, the number

of arrowheads considerably increases during thefinal Neolithic/Chalcolithic while archaeozoologicaldeterminations indicate ameat diet essentially basedon husbandry (Guilaine and Zammit, 2001). Theprojectile points are likely to have been used in thesocial“sphere”ratherthanintheeconomicfield.Isitlikethateverywhere?ThecaseofCyprusisinteresting.Here, recent evidence from hunter-gatherer sitesdated toabout–9000BC(contemporaryof thefinalstages of thePPNA) –AgiaVarvara-Asprokremmos,AgiosTychonas-Klimonas– shows theabundanceofprojectilepointsinthesecontexts(McCartneyetal.inpress).At this time, neither agriculture is attested (itappears later, from 8500BC on atMylouthkia, well116,andShillourokambos(Willcox2003)andneitherisherding.Huntingofpigsthenplaysanimportantroleandthearrowheadscanbeassociatedwiththisactivity.But this does not mean that other motifs should beexcluded. This period, between 9500 and 8500 BCrepresents themain stage of settlement on the islandbymobilegroupsthoughlivingwithoutdoubtalreadyexclusivelyonCyprus(andnotastemporarymainland« visitors »). This colonization may have beencombinedwithatypeofcompetitionforthefoundationof territories, various groups opposing each other inconcurrence for the appropriation of certain space.Strangely,atsitesof thefollowingstage(earlyphaseAofShillourokambos: - 8500/-8000), contemporarywith theEarlyPPNBof theLevant,projectilepointsarelessnumerous(territoriesgloballystabilizedfromnow on?). Later, during the 8th and 7th millennium,however,thelargersettlementsareprotectedbywalls:Tenta (Todd 1987), Khirokitia with two successiveenclosures(LeBrun1994).

Inalargersense,theterritorialfixationofthefirstsedentary communities in the Near East could haveexacerbatedthevenerationof«ancestors»,consideredtobethefoundersofeachsettlement,tobethosewhofirstappropriatedaspace,thusprovidinglegitimacytothesubsequentgenerationsastotheirpresenceintheseplaces.Thisapproachwhichconsiderstheancestorsas«beneficially»deceased(ofwhichthememoryiskeptalivebyritesandiconographicrepresentations)seemsmore likely tome than theonecallingfor thenotionof « divinity », a concept I believe to emerge later.Recently, A. Testart has proposed interpreting someof the removed and plastered skulls stemming fromthePPNBor theCeramicNeolithic in theNearEasttobewarfaretrophiesratherthanrepresentativesofan«ancestorcult»(Testart,inpress).

Obviously, the reasons which caused theabandonment of certain sites cannot invariably beassignedtoconfrontations.Duringthe8200BPevent,

Neolithic Warfare: Comments

Jean Guilaine CollègedeFrance,Paris [email protected]


Neo-Lithics1/1039


aridificationprocessesdryingupthewatertablesmayhave been responsible (Berger and Guilaine 2009).OnCyprus, thedeclineor even thedisappearanceofKhirokitiansitesisperhapsrelatedtothisphenomenon,asdestructionofcertainsettlementscausedbywarfarewould in return have resulted in the foundation ofnew settlements.As a matter of fact, during the 6thmillennium, there are hardly any sites known on theisland:nosubstitutionsettlementsbutratherakindofstrongdepopulation.

The last point is more hypothetical. If conflictsbetween the first farming communities have beenfrequent, what happened to the defeated?Were theykilled?Weretheyintegrated?Weretheykeptbutwithaninferiorstatus?Concerningthislasthypothesis,maywesupposeaNeolithicoriginforslavery?

References

BentleyA.2007 Mobility,specialisationandcommunitydiversityinthe Linearbandkeramik:isotopicevidencefromthe skeletons.InA.WhittleandV.Cummings(eds.),Going Over.TheMesolithic-NeolithicTransitioninNorth- WestEurope:117-140.Oxford,TheBritishAcademy OxfordUniversityPress.

BergerJ.F.andGuilaineJ.2009 The8200calBPabruptenvironmentalchangeandthe Neolithictransition:aMediterraneanperspective. QuaternaryInternational200:31-49.

BocquentinF.2003 Pratiquesfunéraires,paramètresbiologiques etidentitésculturellesauNatoufien:uneanalyse archéo-anthropologique.Bordeaux,Université BordeauxI:Thesis.

GuilaineJ.andZammitJ.2001 LeSentierdelaguerre.Visagesdelaviolence préhistorique.Paris,Seuil.

KeeleyL.1996 WarBeforeCivilization.New-York/Oxford,Oxford UniversityPress.

LeBrunA.1994 FouillesrécentesàKhirokitia(Chypre)1988-1991. Paris,EditionsRecherchesurlesCivilisations.

McCartneyC.inpress ThelithicassemblageofAyiaVarvaraAsprokremmos: anewperspectiveontheEarlyNeolithicofCyprus. InE.Hildebrand,S.Campbell,andO.Maeda(eds.), StudiesinTechnology,Environment,Productionand Society.Proceedingsofthe6thConferenceonPPN ChippedandGroundStoneIndustriesoftheFertile Crescent.Berlin,exoriente.

OrschiedtJ.2005 TheheadburialsfromOfnetcave:anexampleof warlikeconflictintheMesolithic.InM.Parker PearsonandJ.N.Thorpe(eds.),Warfare,violenceand slaveryinPrehistory.BritishArchaeologicalReports– Intern.Series1374:67-74.Oxford,B.A.R.

RoksandicM.(ed.)2004 ViolentInteractionsintheMesolithic.Evidenceand Meaning.BritishArchaeologicalReports–Intern. Series1937.Oxford,B.A.R.

TestartA.inpress LaDéesseetlegrain.Paris,Errance.

ToddI.1987 VasilikosValleyProject6.ExcavationsatKalavasos- TentaI.StudiesinMediterraneanArchaeology71,6. Göteborg,Aströms.

VenclS.1991 Interprétationdesblessurescauséesparlesarmesau Mésolithique.L’Anthropologie95:219-228.

WahlJ.andKönigH.G.1987 Anthropologisch-traumatologischeUntersuchungder menschlichenSkelettresteausdembankeramischen MassengrabbeiTalheim,KreisHeilbronn.Fundberichte ausBaden-Württemberg12:65-193.

WendorfF.1968 PrehistoryofNubia.Dallas,SouthernMethodist UniversityPress.

WillcoxG.2003 TheOriginsofCypriotfarming.InJ.Guilaineand A.LeBrun(eds.),LeNéolithiquedeChypre.Bulletin deCorrespondanceHellénique,Supplément43:231-238. EcoleFrançaised’Athènes.


Neo-Lithics1/1040


Evidence for the existence of, and the nature of,warfare in the prehistoric past has importance forour understanding of nature and reasons for warfareingeneral.Ourbestchanceofeliminatingwarfare isto understandwhy it takes place.To limit our studyto only a few recent centuries and a relatively smallnumber of societies reduces the chances of findingdeepunderstandingofthereasons.Thus,archaeologyhas something to contribute to furthering such anunderstanding.Highlyrelevanttopicsthatarchaeologycanprovideinformationonarethechangesinwarfarebetweentypesofsocialorganization;and,changesinwarfareastheyrelatetochangesincarryingcapacity.Suchinformationiscentraltothequestionsofwhetherpeople fight over scarce resources and whether thenature of the social system is linked to why peoplefight,ratherthanjusthowtheyfight.

The Relevance of the Early Neolithic for Understanding Warfare

In the context of understanding warfare, we canusefully thinkof theNeolithic in termsofcoreareaswheredomesticationoriginatedandthoseareasthatitspreadinto.Whetherornotoneagreeswithwhatcanbe termed the Bellwood-Renfrew model of farmerspreads(Bellwood2005),itisclearthatdomesticationoriginated in only a few localities regardless of howit eventually spread. Whether or not the spread ofagriculture was accompanied by warfare is onequestion, one which I will return to later. Anotherquestion, that ofwhether the adoption of agricultureinthecoreareasresultedinanincreaseordecreaseinwarfareisof theoretical interest,andthereareonlyahandful of places to investigate this worldwide. Forseveralcoreareasofdomestication,eitherthedataaresosparse,ortheactualareaswheredomesticationtookplace is sopoorlyworkedoutat thispoint, that littleuseful can be said. In fact, it is really only theNearEastwherethereisenoughinformationtoevenattemptat addressing thequestionof the intensityofwarfarewhendomesticationtookplace.

Onecanbuildtwoscenariosforcoreareawarfarethatareratherdifferentfromeachother.Onescenariois thatwarfare among non-stratified societies is verysensitive to carrying capacity stress (see LeBlanc2003), and domestication increased the carryingcapacity and we should expect warfare to decline.Conversely, it canbeargued thatwhile it is true thatdomestication would increase the carrying capacity,the process of domestication was so slow comparedwith potential population growth that, any gains in

increasedcarryingcapacitywouldhavebeenquicklyusedupbypopulationgrowth.Instead,competitionforthebestfarmlandwouldhaveincreasedthepotentialforwarfare.Thiscompetitioncouldhavebeenbetweenfarming communities, and/or between farmers andforagerswhowouldhaveexistedinthegeneralareaofthefarmersinterritorythatwasnotoptimallysuitedtofarming.Thislandwouldhavebeendesirableoncethefarmerpopulationsbegantogrowleadingtoconflict.Thuswemightexpectbothfarmer-farmerandfarmer-forager conflict, even in thoseareaswhere the initialshift to farming took place.These two scenarios arequitedifferent,anditwouldbegoodtoknowwhichisright.However,itisnotclearthereispresentlyenoughinformation to determine this. Some of these issuesaretoucheduponbyRosenberg(1998).Healsonicelyclarifies the relationship between population growthand population pressure, and notes that “populationpressureissimplythepersistentlatenttendencytowardrecurring imbalance inpopulation-resource ratios….”Thisideaisimplicitinthefollowingdiscussion.

Oneproblemwefaceinthestudyofancientwarfarehasbeenthepacificationofthepast.Therehasbeenatendencytoignoreorminimizetheevidenceforwarfareintheprehistoricrecord.Thisisaworldwideproblem,andinfactresearchersintheNearEasthavebeenabitmorewillingtoacknowledgeevidenceforwarfarethaninotherpartsoftheworld.MarilynKeyesRoper,whoprovided the first attempt at synthesizing early NearEast warfare, andwho said thatmost societiesmostofthetimehadwarfareandwhocorrectlyunderstoodthe relevanceofwarfare in thepast tounderstandingpresentwarfare, neverthelessbeganher classicpaperwith

Recent reading of Jane van Lawick-Goodall’s In theShadowofManandarticles in thenewlydiscoveredpeacefulTasadaysinthePhilippines….(Roper1975)

Of course,wenowknow thatChimpanzees are veryviolent and have the equivalent of warfare, and the“peaceful”TasadayswereafraudInfact,therearenoknownexamplesofforagersinalandofforagerslivinginpeace.Roperwasnotaloneinminimizingthebasallevelofwarfareweshouldexpecttofindinthedeeppast,For example, Bar-Yosef (1986) suggested there wasnomeaningfulsocialaggressionin theLevantbeforetheendofthe6thmillennium,whichisclearlywrong.Thatis,eventhosewhowereopentotheexistenceofwarfareinthepasthavehadanunrealisticideaofjusthowmuchandforhowlongwarfarehasexisted.ItwasnotuntiltheseminalworkofLawrenceKeeley’sWarBefore Civilization (1996) that archaeologists have

Early Neolithic Warfare in the Near East and its Broader Implications

Steven A. LeBlanc PeabodyMuseum,HarvardUniversity [email protected]


Neo-Lithics1/1041


beenmorewillingtoseeevidenceforwarfareforwhatitisandtobegintogobeyondjustnotingtheexistenceofwarfare evidence.We see this both in books suchas the Archaeology of Warfare (Arkush and Allen2006), and non-archaeologists competently usingarchaeological data in their broader syntheses (Gat2006).Ofparticularrelevanceisthatpeoplebelieved,andmanystilldo,thatforagerswerepeaceful.Thus,thepresumption, although quite incorrect (Keeley 1996,LeBlanc 2003, Gat 2006), was that the deep humanpastwaspeacefulandatsomepointwarfarestartedup.Withthatparadigmitiseasytoseemajorfortificationsandmassivedestructionlevelsastheinitialevidenceofashiftfrompeacetowar.Yet,ifforagershadasmuchwarfareasanyoneelse,thenweshouldexpectevidenceforwarfare tobepresentbutsubtle longbefore largetownsandgreatwalls.

Turning to the Natufian and PPNA time periods,unfortunately, it ishard topredictwhat the signatureof early sedentary population conflict would havelookedlike.Weknowfromethnographicevidencethatforagers did not build fortifications, but did use thenaturallandscapeforcommunitydefense.Theywouldlocatecampstobeprotectedbyvegetation,andwouldevenplantvegetationtoprovidedefenses.Theywouldalso locatesettlementson landformssuchashilltops,orelevated landforms thatcanonlybeaccessedovernarrow constrictions, etc. Some, but not all, of theselocations can be discerned today as defensive.Mostforagers did not use cemeteries, unlike sedentarysocieties,sotheskeletalrecordcanbeverysparseandskewed. Foragers did regularly use body armor andspecialized weapons, but many of these were madefrom wood or other perishable materials, such asshields, clubs,andbarkorfiberarmor.And,asoftennoted,manyotherweaponscouldbedualpurposeforeither hunting or fighting, such as bows and arrows.It shouldbepossible todeterminewhethersuchdualpurposeweaponswereusedforwarfare,inthatarrowpointswereprobablydesigneddifferentlyforhuntingorfighting.Forexample,wewouldpredictmuchlargerquantities of these tools for warfare (stockpiling),etc. However, almost no research has been done onidentifyingthesedifferences,sothisisnotpossibleatthepresenttime.Thus,thesitesofparticularinterest,those that are transitional between foragers and fullysedentaryfarmersarepredictablysomeofthehardesttointerpretintermsofwarfare,andtheyareparticularlyhardtocomparewithlater,largerfarmingvillages.

Looking for Warfare in Prehistory

Oneoftheproblemswefaceintryingtostudyancientwarfare is simply being able to recognize it. Wecan produce lists of types of evidence, but wemustrealizethatwewouldneverexpecttofindthemallinone site or even one region. Some lines of evidencerequire very good survey data. Some require beingabletotellwhichsitesareactuallycontemporaneous.

Some requires large, well preserved skeletal series,which need to be studied by peoplewho are trainedtorecognizeevidenceofwarfare,andsoon.Astheseconditionsarenotoftenmet,theabsenceofevidencedoesnotmeantheabsenceofwarfare.ThiscanbeseenintherecentevaluationofevidenceforwarfareintheGreekNeolithic (Runnelsetal.2009).Somelinesofevidence had been considered before, but others hadnot.Somepotentiallinesofevidencewerealmostnon-existent,yetbylookingatallthelinesofevidenceatonce,amuchclearerpictureemerged.

Aratherinterestingexample,notphysicallyclosetotheNearEast,butsimilarinotherways,isfoundintheAmerican Southwest. Here, between AD1200-1400,theevidenceforintensewarfareisoverwhelming,andalmostallscholarsacceptitsexistence,althoughthereisnotconsensusastoitscauses(LeBlanc1999).Yet,there is surprising little skeletal evidence for trauma,andverylittleevidenceforspecializedweapons.Thereis,conversely,ampleevidenceintheformofsettlementpatters, settlement layouts, and site burning. On theother hand, in nearby prehistoric California there isincredible skeletal evidence for traumatic deaths, butalmost no settlement related evidence for warfare. IconsiderthelessonsonecanlearnfromtheSouthwestbelow.

Inspiteof thiswarning,onecan try list the typesofevidence thatcanbe found.Settlementbaseddatais particularly useful. Defensive walls and housesthat form defensive barriers are good evidence ofwarfare or its threat.Gates designed to be defensiveand bastions are particularly good evidence, but weknowfromethnographythatmostegalitarianfarmingcommunities would not have had bastions nor gatesthatwerebuilttobedefended.(Wewouldexpectmanygateways would have been barricaded by perishablematerialswhenconflictthreatened).Moreover,locatingvillagesortownsonhighgroundmayhavesufficedfordefense. In theAmerican Southwest, some sites thatareclearlydefensivewereonhighgroundbuthadnootherdefensivefeatures.Moreover,wefindsites thatwereonslightlyhighgroundwereoccupiedforonlyagenerationandthenwerereplacedwithsitesthathaddefensiblewalls.Ifonehadfoundonlythehighgroundsites one might offer other explanations for theirlocations, but once one sees the temporal sequence,itisclearthataninitialattemptathavingadefensiveposture was quickly realized to be inadequate anda better solutionwas adopted.There are two lessonsfrom this. First, people do not always get it right.Somedefensesdon’tworkandverypoordefensesdonotmeantherewasnowarfare,butmaysimplymeandefensivetechnologywasinflux.Secondly,trendsareimportant.Seeingasequenceofevermoredefensivestructures is significant,even if someof themdonotappearverydefensive.OneproblemintheNearEastis the practice of buildingon the same location overtime.Thismakesithardtoexcavatelargeareasoftheearliestoccupationsandsowalls,gatesandothersuchdefensivefeaturescanbemissed.Sometimesonemust


Neo-Lithics1/1042


relyonindirectevidence.Whenhousesthatappeartobecontemporaryarepackedtightlytogether,thismaysignalthepresenceofadefensivewallthatforcespeopletopacktightlyinsideit.IbelievethetightpackingofhousesatSitagroi (aNeolithicsite in theBalkans) isan example of this, and the excavations simply didnotextendfarenoughouttolocateanypotentialwalls(Renfrewetal.1986).AsimilarargumentcanbemadeforPolyanista,inBulgaria(ParkinsonandDuffy2007).

Asecondaspecttositesettingsistheirdistribution.We know that people often form defensive alliancesand leave buffer zones between competing polities(LeBlanc 1999, 2006). They also locate villages ortowns so that they can visually communicate witheachothertoobtainassistancefromalliancemembers(e.g.HaasandCreamer1993).Findingthesepatternsrequiresverygoodsurveydata.Whensomesitesaredestroyed or covered by later occupations, it can behard to discern such patterns. However, even withmore limited data, we should sometimes be able tospot evidence for alliances. There is great benefit tovillagesbeingspacedfarenoughapartsothattheyhavea catchment that gives efficient access to farm land,firewood,wildplants,etc.Theclosercommunitiesgettoeachother,themorerestrictedsuchaccess,thelessefficiency,andthegreaterchanceofcompetingclaimstoresources.IntheAmericanSouthwest,forexample,villages, evenwhen theybelonged to alliances,wereapparently located at least 5 km apart wheneverpossible, andusuallymuch further.Wefindsiteveryclose together only in times of maximal warfare, sosuchtightpackingalmostsurelyindicatesevidenceofpropinquityfordefense.

Interpreting skeletal evidence also presents somedifficulties.Onecanfinddirectevidenceoftrauma,frombluntforcetraumatotheskull,toparryfacturestotheulna,orprojectilepointsimbeddedinbone.However,skullsinpoorconditionmightnotpreservebluntforcetrauma.Aprojectilethatwasburiedinthebodycavitybutdidnotgetimbeddedinbonemightbeperceivedasagraveoffering.Apoint thatwas removedbeforethe individual was buried will be missed altogether.GeorgeMilner (2005) has shown that about 2/3s ofall individualswith arrowwoundswould have thesewoundsgoundetectedinthearchaeologicalrecord.

More indirect evidence of warfare can be foundin skewed sex differences in burial populations.Theidea being thatmenmay die in battle and be buriedaway from the settlement reducing the proportion ofwarrior aged men. Conversely, successful raidingmay result in female capture, reducing the numberofwomen in the burial population.Thus, although auseful idea, interpreting such data is difficult. Moreeasily considered are mass burials. In low densitysocietieslikethosewemightexpecttofindintheearlyNeolithic,therewouldhavebeenfew,ifany,epidemicsthat would have resulted in deaths so close in timethat the individualswouldhavebeenburied together.Ofcourse,accidentsthatkilledmultiplepeoplecouldhaveoccurred,buttheywouldbeexpectedtoberare,

aswouldhavesomeothersocialreasonsformultipleburials. Individuals killed in a raid, etc. would thenseemtobe likelycandidatesformostof themultipleburialswefind.Suchburialsarequitecommoninthearchaeological record, but they are rarely consideredorrecognizedaslikelyevidenceforwarfare.Itisquitedifficulttoevenfindtabulationsoftheirpresence.

Prehistoric weapons present a different set ofinterpretive problems. A serious limitation is theperishable nature of many of these types of items.Shields, prior to metallurgy, would be very unlikelytoeverpreserve.Muchethnographicallyknownbodyarmor is made from fiber, bark or other perishablematerials; and that made from bone (such as forEskimos)maynotberecognizedasarmoriffoundinfragmentary condition. What hinders some of thesediscussions is a bit of interpretive confusion. Theunwillingness to accept slingmissiles asweapons ofwar is such an example. In theNear East they havebeen foundas stockpiles, andeven stockpiledon theinsideofdefensivewalls(Akkermans1993),andinallknown ethnographic exampleswhere they are storedin quantity and/or carefully produced, they are forwarfare.Theideathatanybutasmallfractionofthemwould have been used for herding sheep or huntingisjustsilly.Also,slingmissilescanbenaturalstonesselected for shape andweight asGhezzi (2006), hasdemonstrated for a defensive site in Peru. Similarly,maceheadsordaggersthatareconsideredceremonialandnotevidenceforwarfareisanothermisconception.Assuming they were just for ceremonial or displaypurposes,becauseutilitarianversionswerenotfound,islikearguingthattrophieswithmetalfootballswereproducedinareaswherefootballwasunknown.Daggersareweaponsofwar,notofthehunt,asaremaces,andexcept in the rarest of circumstances so are clubs. Itdoes not matter whether we find only ceremonialversionsoftheseweaponsornot,theexistenceoftheformdemonstrates thatwarfarewas either present atthetimeoftheirproductionornottodistantinthepast.(TheEnglishmonarchstillcarriesaceremonialmace).Similarly, but slightly more equivocal are stockpilesof arrows andheavy spears.While both canbe usedforhunting,hunterswouldnothavestockpiledarrows.Spearsusedforhuntingandneverusedforwarfareareethnographicallyrare(harpoonsareanexception,buttheyaredistinctive).Ihavemadenoefforttoexhaustivelistthelinesofevidenceofwarfarehere,buthavejusttriedtoshowhowmanylinesofevidencethereareandhowmanyareoftenpoorlyunderstood.

Some Relevant Comparisons with the American Southwest

As has been touched upon above, the AmericanSouthwest has a wealth of relevant information thatcanhelpinterpretandframetheinformationfromtheNear East. I briefly review some of this informationtohelpprovideaframeworkforinterpretingevidence


Neo-Lithics1/1043


for early farmer warfare. Besides being one of thebetterunderstoodareasoftheworld,theSouthwesternenvironmentissimilarenoughtotheNearEastinthatthesametypesofconstructionandevidenceappearsinbothareas.Also,forthemostpartthesocialorganizationoftheSouthwestissimilartowhatwewouldexpecttofindduringtheearlyNeolithic.

Some of the earliest farming communities in theSouthwest that were a result of farmer spreads havesignificant, but at the same time spotty, evidence forwarfare. In themore southerly areas, defensive sitesareabout theonlygoodevidencewehave,but thesearemassivelyfortifiedhilltopsites.Thesefortificationssometimestooktheformofbuildingterraceswhilenothavinghighdefensivewalls. Interestingly,over time,hilltops continue to be used, but they become lessfortified, not more fortified (Hard and Roney 2004,Diehl andLeBlanc 2001). In the northern reaches, afew sites are located on defensive land forms,whilemany are cave sites. Cave sites are more defensiblethanmanyrecognize(HaasandCreamer1993).Also,the taking and curating of human trophy parts andeven rock art provide levels of evidence forwarfarenot usually found or expected (Howard and Janetski1992,Cole1984).Inaddition,atthesametimeandthesamegeneralareas thatwefinddefensivesites, therearealsoundefendedsites.Thesesitesmaynotbefullycontemporary,ortheundefendedsitesmayhavebeenlocatednearrefugesitesthatweredefensive.Thelessonis,withinthesameoverallarea,ratherdifferentlinesofevidence are found in different places and therewasamixofdefensive andnon-defensive sites.And, thedefensivenatureofsiteswasratherminor.Apparently,even when the threat of warfare was quite real, theeffortputintodefenseswasratherminimal,andcouldvaryconsiderably.Weshouldthinkofearlysedentarypeople’sdefensesincomparisontothatofforagers,notin contrast to BronzeAge cities.Another interestingobservation, as mentioned, is the paucity of skeletalevidenceandspecializedweaponsthatdemarkwarfareintheSouthwest.Evenwhenwarfareintensifies,suchevidenceishardtofind.Thatis,settlementlayouts,andlocations dramatically shiftwhenwarfare intensifies,butotherlinesofevidenceshowonlyslightobservablechanges.Again,thelessonis:Onecannotrelyononelineofevidencealoneandcomparisonsbetweenperiodscanbedifficultifthetypesofevidenceavailablealsochangesbetweenperiods.

A relevant story comes from a Hopi legend(Lomatuway’ma et al. 1993). A community, builtmuch like Çatal Hüyük and some other Near Eastsites,wassuccessfullyattacked.Theattackersbroughtflammables to burn the village, but once inside thetown theybegan to loot and lost their cohesion.Thedefendersralliedanddrovetheattackersfromthetownandputoutthefires.Theresultwouldhavebeenonlyspottyevidenceoffireanddamage.Notallbattlesendincompletedestruction.

Of particular interest is a sequence of events thattook place over a century or so over much of the

Southwest (LeBlanc 1999). There appears to be anintervalduringtheMedievalWarmperiodwheretherewas littlewarfare, probablydue to thegood climaticconditions. However, when the climate changedwarfare began to increase.At first, people just livedabitmorenucleated.Houseswerelocatedtoprovidesomebarriers, but therewerenogates or continuouscircuit walls. Some communities did locate to highlandforms,butoftenonlyapartofthecommunitywasinthesespots.Aswarfarecontinued,sitesweremademoreandmoredefensive,eventuallyresultinginsiteswith high, multistoried exterior walls formed fromcontiguousrooms,whileothershadfreestandingwallsandtowers,etc.Siteswerenolongeronhighground,butwerenearsecurewatersupplies.Itwasthenthatthefamouscliffdwellingswerebuilt,astilldifferentformofdefense.Thelessonisthattheresponsetowarfarewasgradualandhesitant.Itappearsthatpeopledidnotwant to expend the energy needed, or did not reallybelieve the threatwas real. It is quite likely that theearliestfarmersintheNearEastwouldhaverespondedthesameway.Thefirstevidencefordefensivefeaturesshouldbelimited,inadequate,orpoorlyconceived,etc.However,evenminoreffortsatdefensecanbeuseful;forsomeenemies,evenslightdefensivefeaturesmaybequiteuseful,andweshouldseesuchminoreffortsforwhattheywere–evidenceforthethreatofwarfare.

Warfare Evidence in the Neolithic

My purpose here is to review some of the morecommonlyaccepted typesof evidence forwarfare aswellassomeofthelessoftenconsideredintheNearEasternNeolithic. I staywithin theNeolithic but donot care much about where in that interval. This isnot to argue for warfare in any particular region ortimeinterval,but instead toshowhowcommonsuchevidenceis.Evidenceofburningcanbeseeninsuchplaces as Level I at Mureybet which was destroyedbyfireandLevelsXVIandXVIIhadburnedhouses.Large sections of Çatal Hüyük were destroyed byfire (Mellaart 1967). The Hacilar IIa settlement waspartiallyburnt,andwasonlypartiallyrebuilt.Beidhahad massive burning then a change in architecturalform and layout,which is of special interest asBar-Yosef(1986)argues,probablycorrectly,thatthewallsatBeidhawerenotdefensive,butthisignorestheotherevidence for warfare at the site.What is of interestis that it is quite hard to burn stone or mud walledbuildingseveniftheyhavewoodandotherflammablesin their roofs.Accidental fires that spread beyond asingleroomareextremelyunlikely(Icoveetal.2006).Asnotedabove,suchstructuresaresohardtoburnthatin the Southwest attackers would bring flammablestohelpgetfiresstarted,iftheyplannedtoburntownstheyattacked.Tryingtoexplainwidespreadburningasaccidentalissimplycontinuingtopacifythepast.

Architectural evidence for defense includes ÇatalHüyükwiththeroomswallsformingadefensivebarrier


Neo-Lithics1/1044


combinedwithroof topentry.RoofenteredroomsinmassiveroomblocksarealsoknownforCanHasanIII(French1998)andothersitessuchasUmmDabaghiyahLevel II and IIIwhichhad a defensive configuration(Kirkbride1982),aswellasroomsenteredfromroof,butitmaybetoolatetoberelevant.Similar,butwithfreestandingwallsisHacilarIIa(Mellaart1975)withamassivedefensivewallwithdifficultofaccessentranceways.DefensivewallsatearlierstagesatHacilararemoreequivocal.MaghzaliyahinPeriod2hadmassivedefensivewalls,andtherewasanewwallinPeriod3(YoffeeandClark1993).PossibledefensivewallswerefoundatRasShamra.OthersiteswithwellconstructeddefensivewallsincludeAşikli(EsinandHarmankaya1999),Musular(Ozbaşaran1999),Kurucay,whichalsohadbastions,butmaybetoolatetoberelevant(Duru1999) to name some of themore obvious examples.Even lowwalls or terraces, and roof top entries canbeusefuldefenses.Thereareasignificantnumberofsitesthathavesomeevidenceofwallsthatarenotsoobviouslydefensive.Whileafewwallsmayhaveotherfunctions,inalllikelihood,mostwerefordefense.

InsouthwesternAnatolia,LeeClareandcolleaguesundertookoneofthefewstudiestolookatsettlementpatternsforthistimeperiod.Theyfindgoodevidenceforsiteclustersandemptyzones,whichindependentlyconfirms other evidence for warfare for this region(Clareetal.2008).Similarly,thesitedistributionmapofsocalledmega-sitespresentedbySimmons(2007),suggests both site spacing and clustering that mightrepresent buffer zones between these large sites andsomecloseclusteringofothersformutualdefense.Thesizeof these sites is also suspicious.Againbasedonanalogy,communitysizeisagoodformofdefense.Onereasonwhysiteswouldgrowsolargeatthistimecouldbeforthedefensetheyprovidedthatwouldoffsetthehighcostsoflivinginthem.Overall,itwouldappearthat settlement pattern data has barely been searchedforevidenceofconflict.

Atanextremelevel,theevidenceofculturaldivisionswithin the fertile crescent and theirdevelopment andpersistence over time so painstakingly derived byKozlowski andAurenche 2005) provides a testableproposition. While warfare can exist within culturalregions,wewouldexpectittobemoreintensebetweensuch zones. So, one would expect there to be moreevidence ofwarfare, especially site defenses, amongsitesoneach sideof suchboundariescomparedwiththose in the centers of each of these cultural zones.Again, the zones are most well delineated for laterperiods,butdiscoveryofsuchapatternwouldstillbeofinterest.

Weaponsofwar areprobablymore common thanrecognized.JamesMellaart(1975)notedthatMureybethad an obsidian dagger andMace headswere foundat Jarmo.Theywere also found atHallanCemi in averyearlycontext(Rosenberg1999)andZawiChemiShanidar (Solecki 1981).At Çatal Hüyük, therewasa “ceremonial” flint dagger and a cache of obsidianspearheadswhicharemore likelyun-hafteddaggers

and possible mace heads were also recovered. TellSottohadapossiblemacehead.Findsthatmaybetoolateintimetoberelevantincludemaceheads(Yoffeeand Clark 1993), and at least 1000 baked clay slingmissilesinoneroomatUmmDabaghiyahLevelIIandIII.YarimTepe I had slingmissiles. Evenwhereweknowwarfarewas intense, clubs,maces anddaggerstendtoberare.Thenumbersofarrowpointsfoundatsomeofthesesitesareverylargewhencomparedwithotherpartsoftheworld,andofspecialinterestarelargecachessuchas the100+arrowpointsatBeidha.Thepresenceofsignificantnumbersofarrowpointshasagoodchanceofbeingevidenceforwarfare.Noknownethnographic societies had bows for hunting and notalsoforwarfare,andmanyhadbowsonlyforwarfare,butthatisaratherweaklineofreasoning.Instead,onecansuggest thathuntersdonotneedmanyarrowsatonetime,whilewarriorsdo.Moreover,theshiftfrommicro blade points in the Natufian to larger pointsthatrequiredmoreeffortandthechangesinsize(firstgettinglarger,thensmaller)overtime,wouldseemtoberesponsestochangesinthefunctionofarrowheadsorhowarrowsorbowsweremadeandused.Yettheredoesnotseemtobemuchchangeinthespecieshuntedandthereisageneraldeclineintheamountofhunting,none of which would seem to invoke such changes.Conversely, changes in armor or shields, changes inbowdesign,orarrows(suchas theuseofforeshafts)wouldbelikelyreasonsfortheobservedchangesinthearrowheads.Itappears thatarrowpointsarecommonenough and change enough such that their role inwarfareshouldbemoreseriouslyconsidered.

Skeletalremainsaremoreproblematicevidence,Ibelieve inpartdue to the lackoffocuson them.TheNatufianskeletonsarerelevant.FannyBocquentinandOferBar-Yosef(2004)foundanembeddedarrowheadinaskeletonthathadbeenexcavatedmanyyearsagoandthepointhadneverbeennoticedbefore.Similarly,Vered Eshed and colleagues (in press) found quitea high incidence of violent skull trauma in a largeNatufiansample (although thestudywasnot focusedon warfare evidence and a full assessment of thepotentialevidencewasnotmade,soamoremeaningfulinterpretationcannotbederivedfromthestudy).Andto the east the broadly contemporary Shanidar Caveskeletonsalso showsignificant evidence forviolence(Agelarakis1993).Thesefindingsdonotfitwith theearlier opinion of Belfer-Cohen (1995) that there isa paucity of such evidence from theNatufian.Thereseems to have been even less systematic search forevidenceforwarfareamongNeolithicskeletalremainsthan among the earlier Natufian sample. Here againacomparisonisuseful.Therewaslittlediscussionofevidenceforwarfareintheprehistoricskeletalremainsfrom the California cultural area until PhilipWalkerand Patricia Lambert began a systematic search forevidenceinSouthernCalifornia(Walker1989,Lambert1997).SeveraladditionalstudiesfromotherpartsofthestatefollowedanditisnowrecognizedthatprehistoricCaliforniahadoneofthehighestincidencesofwarfare


Neo-Lithics1/1045


traumaknown.Onesuspectsthisismoreaconsequentofcarefulstudythanculturalreality,andonesuspectsthelowincidencesintheNatufianandNeolithicoftheNearEastmayalsobearesultofthelackofsystematicresearchratherthanculturalreality.

Thisdoesnotimplythereisnosuchevidence.Fromvarious sites throughout the relevant time periodwefindTellAbuHureyrahadpitswithbonesandskulls,one with 16 bodies and only three skulls (Moore etal. 2000). Tell Sotto had a dismembered body andanotheronestuffedinaholeinsteadofaproperburial.RopernotedsuspiciousfindsatNahelOren,Chukba,El-Wad, Erq el amar, and Eynan.Yarim Tepe I hadat least two dismembered bodies (Yoffee and Clark1993), and Hajji Firuz Tepe had an extremely highincidenceofviolentdeaths(Voight1983).TherewereafewtraumaticinjuriesatJerichoandBastahadhealedskullfractures,alsoaviolentdeathat‘AinGhazalandGhwairI,buttheseexamplestendtobeevidencenotedbytheexcavators,nottheresultsofsystematicstudy.Similarly,Icanfindnogoodstudiesofmultipleburials.As noted above, multiple bodies buried at the sametime should be extremely rare except as a result ofwarfaredeaths.Whileotherexplanationsarepossible,warfareisalikelycauseforatleastsome,ifnotmost,of thesefinds,and theysuggest that systematicworkwith Neolithic skeletons would find more examplesand enablemeaningful statistics to be generated thatcouldbecomparedwithotherplacesandtimes.

Thus,virtuallyalltypesofevidenceforwhichdatahasbeencollectedshowevidenceofwarfare.Thereisaconsiderablerangeoftypesofevidenceintheabovebrieftabulation,nonemaybeconvincingalone,butinsum the evidence is substantial. Given the nature oftheremainsandthesocialstructuresinvolved,thereisquiteabitofwarfareevidenceifoneiswillingtoseeitforwhatitis,andmorefocusedstudiessuchasthatbyClareandcolleaguesareverylikelytogeneratemuchmoreevidence.

Interpreting Evidence for Early Neolithic Warfare in the Core Area of Domestication

Mypurpose here is to consider how to use evidenceof warfare to try and characterize what was takingplace.Wewouldexpecttheearliestvillagesthatwerepresumablyoccupiedallyearbyatleastameaningfulpart of their population to have little in the way offortifications. Methods for constructing fortificationswould have been in their infancy. Enemies wouldhave existed in small groups.Theywouldhaveuseddawnraidsasapreferredtactic,andlargescaleattackswouldhavebeenunlikely.Wemightexpectwarfaretobemore like thatwefind for foragers than for long-settledfarmers.Ethnographically,suchforagersdefendthemselves by havingwatch dogs, being prepared tofight on amoment’s notice, and placing their housesso it was hard to sneak into the village and be ableto get away safely once the alarm has been raised.

Most warfare deaths would have happened awayfrom communities. As time passed and settlementsizes and therefore the sizeof attack forcesgrewweshouldexpectfortificationsifwarfareoritsthreatwascommon.However,wemightexpectsuchfortificationsto be poorly designed and frequently modified untilthesetechniqueswereinventedandrefined.

This is my problem with interpreting possibledefensivefeaturesatJericho(Bar-Yosef1986).Whilenotintendingtoarguefororagainstwarfareatthesite,wemightusefullyconsideraframeworkforinterpretingthefeaturesinquestion.Towersarerarelydesignedasfightingplatformsunlesstheyareactuallybastions.AnexamplefromtheAmericanSouthwest is illustrative.WeknowthatwarfareintensifiedduringtheAD1200s.Weknowthatstonetowersbegantobeconstructedinlargenumbersat this time in thenorthernpartof thearea.Carefulstudyshowsthatmanyweredefensivelydesignedandlocated.Theytookconsiderableefforttoconstructandisolatedtowersweresometimeslocatedon isolated land forms enhancing their defensivepotential.Yet,atthesiteofSandCanyonPueblo,wherethereisclearevidenceforwarfare,thereisadefensivewall, and there are a number of towers (Lipe 1992).Noneof the towers is articulatedwith thewall; theyareall inside, theyarenotbastions.Sometowersarelocatedtoprotectareaswereagoodwallcouldnothavebeenbuiltbecauseoftopography,butothersaresimplyinterspersed among the habitation rooms well insidetheouterwall.Weknowfromanumberof sites thattowersservedasrefuges, likethekeepofamedievalcastle. There were even secret tunnels leading fromnearbyroomsthatledintothetowers.Itiseasytoseehowincaseofanattackonecouldcrawlfromroomsintothetowertosafetyastheheightofthetowermadethemessentiallyimpregnable.Associetiesofthistypedonothavethelogisticalabilitytolaysiege,thetowerswouldhaveworkedjustfinefortheneededprotection.Somefewtowersmayalsohaveservedasobservationand/orsignalingtowerstospotattackersorsignalalliesforhelp.Thatis,wehaveatSandCanyonPuebloclearevidencethattowerswerepartofadefensiveposture,butwerenotpartofthewalldefenses.ThefamoustoweratJerichoisalsoapparentlynotpartof thedefensivewallsystem,butthatdoesnotmeanitdidnotservethedefensivefunctionsIhavejustdescribed.Similarly,thewallatJerichoishardtointerpretforseveralreasons.Walls are sometimes built formore than one reason.Deflectingonrushingwateranddefensemaybothhavebeenreasonsforconstructingone.Evenwallsthatdonotfullysurroundcommunitiesmaybedefensive(theJerichowallisequivocalinthisregard),assometimessome sectors are defended by vegetation, swampyareas,orthelackofcoverforattack,etc.AsRoscoeaswonderfullydocumented(Roscoe2008),wallscanbeveryusefulnotasplatformstofightontopoforbehind,butservetoslowattackersdownormakeescapeiftheyget insidesettlements far too risky.Whatwecansayisthatpeopleatpeacerarelyhaveperimeterwallsandtowersintheircommunitiesatthesametime,andthere


Neo-Lithics1/1046


isnothingabouttheconstructionorplacementofthesefeatures at Jericho that preclude these features frombeingdefensive.

InthecaseofJerichoalternativeexplanationsalsohave interpretive problems.The earliestwall did nothaveaditch,andthelaterditchwasnotwelldesignedfordefense.SeeKeeleyetal. 2007 for thenatureofdefensive ditches.Why dig a ditch into hard groundwiththeintentofkeepingsiltfromaccumulatingashasbeenproposed,whenitwouldhavebeenmucheasiertosimplyclearthesiltfromtimetotime?Whywouldanyonelocateacommunitywhereitwassosubjecttofloodingthatitwouldtakeawall1.8meterswideand3.6metershightoprotect?Itisfareasiertoarguethatthedefenseswerenotparticularlywelldesignedthantoarguethattheditchwasarationalresponsetosiltingorthelocationofthecommunitywasextremelybadlychosen.Therealpointofthisdiscussionisthatevidencefor warfare is both contextual and cumulative; therewillalwaysbealternativeexplanationswhichrequirejustasrigorousevaluationasevidenceforwarfare.

Anotherconsiderationistheoftenvoicedargumentagainst features being for defense that there was noneed for defenses because therewas no one to fightwith.This is a poor argument. Everyone always hadneighbors. Even low density foragers could combineandhavesurprisinglylargeattackforces,andsmallersettlements could do the same against larger ones.Farmerswentover100kmtoattackotherfarmers inthe American Southwest. The Andaman Islanders,veryun-complexforagers,wereabletomusteralmost200mentoattacktheinitialBritishsettlement.Givensuch possibilities and distances, any of the PPNAcommunities under consideration would have beenvulnerabletoattackbyforagersorfarmers.

Returning to the general topic of early Neolithicwarfare,thequestioniswhatwouldyouexpecttofind?Assoonastherearesubstantialcommunities,evidenceforwarfareseemstobeaboutascommonasitisinotherpartsoftheworldwherewarfareisacceptedasbeingpresent.ItisreallyonlytheNatufianwhereevidenceisnotsoobvious.ButtheNatufiansitesaremuchmorelikeforagersitesthantheyarethelatervillages.Foragerwarfareisextremelyhardtofindarchaeologically.Wewould expect any Natufian warfare to be somewhateasier to find than for foragers, but notmuch easier.Onlyverycarefulinvestigationandinterpretationwillrevealwarfareevidenceifitwaspresentatthiscriticalmomentintime.

The Spread of Neolithic Warfare from the Near East

Examining warfare in the deep past is a relativequestion. We will never be able to show that therewas absolutely no warfare even if there was none.Conversely,wewouldnotexpecttheretobeconstantwarfareinanygivenareaatallsites.Thus,inspiteofhowwemightformulatevariousscenarios,wearereallydiscussingtherelativeamountofwarfareinaparticular

region and time interval.One important question, asmentionedabove,iswhetherthespreadoffarmingwasaccompaniedbywarfare.Butwhatwereallymeanis:Whatwas the relative intensityofwarfareassociatedwiththespreadofwarfareincomparisonwiththepriorstateofwarfareintheareasbeingexpandedinto?And,asecondquestion:Whatwas the relative intensityofwarfareincomparisonwiththeintensityofwarfareinthezonewherefarmingbegan?Thus,anunderstandingof warfare in core areas is relevant to the nature ofwarfareintheexpansionzones.Unfortunately,itwouldappearwehavemuchbetterdatainforwhattookplacein theexpansionzones thatwedofor thecoreareas.Thisisnotsurprisingastheseepisodestookplacemorerecentlyintime,withlargerpopulations,overgreaterareas, all ofwhichwewould expect to lead tomoreinformation.

Ifwetakeatlookatjustonepathoffarmerspread,that from the core Levant area, into Anatolia andthence to Greece and the Balkans and finally intonorthernEurope,wecangetasenseofthisdifferencein information. (Of course, there are many otherinterestingpaths;thisisjustapaththatisperhapsbetterunderstoodthananyother).Evenamostcasualperusalof the literature finds ample evidence of warfare intheexpansionzone.Mypurposehereisnottotryandanswer the above questions, but to simply show thetype of evidence and howmuch there is that can bebroughttobearonthem.

The evidence for warfare in western Anatoliais quite strong, and much of it has been mentionedabove. Once one enters Europe evidence is equallysubstantial.Theevidenceforearly farmers inGreecehasbeenrecentlysummarizedandneednotberepeated(Runnelsetal.2009),andHocaÇeşmejustbarelyinEurope had a substantive enclosure wall (Ozdogan1999). There is ample evidence for warfare furtherintoEurope(e.g.Keeley,andCahen1989,BurnezandLouboutin 2002, Chapman 1999, Christensen 2004,Dixon1988,KokkinidouandNikolaidou1999,Saville2002)inspiteoftheprotestationsofsome(e.g.Coudart1991).

The conclusion one can reach is that the spreadof farming along this path was accompanied byconsiderablewarfare.Giventhesizeofthesites, it ishardtoseehowthethreatcouldhaveonlybeenfromforagersthatwerebeingdisplaced.(Thisappearstobethecaseinsomeinstance,justnotallofthem).ThisisespeciallytrueforplaceslikeGreecethatseemtohavehadaverylowMesolithicpopulation.Thus,wemustconcludethatthespreadoffarmingwasaccompaniedbyconflictbetweenfarmingcommunities.Suchwarfareiscertainlyfarmorevisiblethananypossiblewarfareamong the non-farmers in the area of early farmers.It also appears to bemore visible than evidence forwarfareatthedawnofagriculture.


Neo-Lithics1/1047


Conclusion

It would appear that the evidence for warfare is notparticularlystrongatthetimeoftheearliestsedentismand domestication in the Near East. Evidence doesexist, it is just not particularly strong. However, theevidenceisverystrongthatwarfareaccompaniedtheexpansionoffarmersintotheformerzoneofforagers.Themost likelyexplanation for theseobservations isthatwarfareintheearliestperiodswastypicalforthatfound among foragers, and it increased in intensitylater in the Neolithic and the Neolithic expansion.Alternatively, warfare may have declined during thetimesoftheearliestfarmersandtherelativepaucityofevidenceforwarfareatthistimeisreal.Unfortunately,I see noway of resolving thiswithout amuchmorefocusedstudyofthequestion.Thisistoobadbecauseitisthisonesliceoftimeandplacethatissouniqueandthe theoretical interest so relevant.Whatwemustdoforsureisnotsimplycasuallyassumethattherelativescarcityofevidencedefinitelymeansthatthetransitiontofarmingwasquitepeaceful.Wemustrecognizeandregularlyreiteratethatitisatpresentanopenquestion.It is important to know we don’t know, rather thanassumewedo.Thestudyofwarfareistooimportantatopictonottryandgetitright.

References

AgelarakisA.1993 TheShanidarCaveProto-NeolithicHumanPopulation, AspectsofDemographyandPaleopathology.Human Evolution8:235-253.

AkkermansP.M.M.G.1993 VillagesintheSteppe:LateNeolithicSettlementand SubsistenceintheBalikhValley,NorthernSyria.Ann Arbor/Michigan:InternationalMonographsin Prehistory.

ArkushE.andAllenM.W.(eds.)2006 TheArchaeologyofWarfare:PrehistoriesofRaiding andConquest.Gainsville,TheUniversityofFlorida Press.

Bar-YosefO.1986 WallsofJericho:analternativeinterpretation.Current Anthropology27(2):157-162.

Belfer-CohenA.1995 RethinkingsocialstratificationintheNatufianculture: Theevidencefromburials.InS.CampbellandA.Green (eds.),TheArchaeologyofDeathintheAncientNear East.OxbowMonograph51.Oxford,OxbowBooks.

BellwoodP.2005 FirstFarmers:TheOriginsofAgriculturalSocieties. Oxford,BlackwellPublishers.

BocquentinF.andBar-YosefO.2004 EarlyNatufianremains:evidenceforphysicalconflict fromMt.Carmel,Israel.JournalofHumanEvolution 47(1):19-23.

BurnezC.andLouboutinC.2002 ThecausewayedenclosuresofWestern-CentralFrance fromthebeginningofthefourthtotheendofthe thirdmillennium:11-27.InG.VarndellandP.Topping (eds.),EnclosuresinNeolithicEurope:11-27.Oxford, OxbowBooks.

ChapmanJ.1999 TheoriginsofwarfareintheprehistoryofCentraland EasternEurope.InJ.CarmanandA.Harding(eds.), AncientWarfare:101-142.SuttonPublishingLtd.

ChristensenJ.2004 WarfareintheEuropeanNeolithic.ActaArchaeologica 75:129-156.

ClareL.,RohlingE.J.,WeningerB.,andHilpertJ.2008 WarfareinLateNeolithic/EarlyChalcolithicPisidia, southwesternTurkey.Climateinducedsocialunrestin thelate7thmillenniumcalBC.DocumentaPraehistorica 35:65-92.

ColeS.J.1984 AnalysisofaSanJuan(Basketmaker)StylePainted MaskinGrandGulch,Utah.SouthwesternLore50(1): 1-6.

CoudartA.1991 SocialStructureandRelationshipsinPrehistoricSmall- ScaleSedentarySocieties:TheBandkeramikGroups inNeolithicEurope.InS.Gregg(ed.),BetweenLands andState:InteractioninSmall-ScaleSocieties: 395-420.SouthernIllinoisPress.

DiehlM.W.andLeBlancS.A.2001 EarlyPithouseVillagesoftheMimbresValleyand Beyond:TheMcAnallyandThompsonSitesintheir CulturalandEcologicalContexts.PapersofthePeabody MuseumofArchaeologyandEthnology83.Cambridge, PeabodyMuseumofArchaeologyandEthnology.

DixonP.1988 TheNeolithicSettlementsonCrickleyHill.InP. Burgess,P.Topping,C.Mordant,andM.Maddison (eds.),EnclosuresandDefensesintheNeolithicof WesternEurope.BritishArchaeologicalReports– Intern.Series403(I):75-87.Oxford,B.A.R.

DuruR.1999 TheNeolithicoftheLakeDistrict.InM.Özdoğanand N.Başgelen(eds.),NeolithicinTurkey:TheCradleof Civilization/NewDiscoveries.AncientAnatolian CivilizationsSeries3:165-192.Istanbul,Arkeolojive SanatYayınları.


Neo-Lithics1/1048


EshedV.,GopherA.,PinhasiR.,andHershkovitzI.inpress Paleopathologyandtheoriginofagricultureinthe Levant.AmericanJournalofPhysicalAnthropology.

EsinU.andHarmankayaS.1999 Aşikli.InM.ÖzdoğanandN.Başgelen(eds.),Neolithic inTurkey:TheCradleofCivilization/NewDiscoveries. AncientAnatolianCivilizationsSeries3:115-132. Istanbul,ArkeolojiveSanatYayınları.

FrenchD.H.1998 CanhasanSites1.CanhasanI:Stratigraphyand Structures.BritishInstituteofArchaeologyatAnkara Monograph23.London,BritishInstituteofArchaeology atAnkara.

GatA.2006 WarinHumanCivilization.Oxford,OxfordUniversity Press.

GhezziI.2006 ReligiousWarfareatChankillo.InW.H.IsbellandH. Silverman(eds.),AndeanArchaeologyIII:Northand South:67-84.NewYork,Springer.

HaasJ.andCreamerW.1993 StressandWarfareAmongtheKayentaAnasaziofthe 13thCenturyA.D.Fieldiana,Anthropology.

HardR.J.andRoneyJ.R.2004 Latearchaicperiodhilltopsettlementsinnorthwestern Chihuahua,Mexico.InB.J.Mills(ed.),Identity, Feasting,andtheArchaeologyoftheGreaterSouthwest: 276-294.Boulder/Colorado,UniversityofColorado Press.

HowardJ.andJanetskiJ.C.1992 HumanScalpsformEasternUtah.UtahArchaeology 5(1):125-132.

IcoveD.J,WelbornH.E.,VonarxA.J.,AdamsE.C.,LallyJ.R.,andHuffT.G.2006 TheScientificInvestigationandModelingofFiresat ChevlonPubelo.InK.Kennedy(ed.),FeaturedPapers oftheMeetingfortheInternationalSocietyforFire Investigation,Cincinnati2006:247-261.Sarasota, NarionalAssociationforFireInvestigation.

KeeleyL.H.1996 WarBeforeCivilization.NewYork/Oxford,Oxford UniversityPress.

KeeleyL.H.andCahenD.1989 EarlyNeolithicfortsandvillagesinnortheastern Belgium:Apreliminaryreport.JournalofField Archaeology16:157-176.

KeeleyL.H.,FontanaM.,andR.Quick2007 BafflesandBastions:TheUniversalFeaturesof Fortifications.JournalofArchaeologicalResearch 15(1):55-95.

KirkbrideD.1982 UmmDabaghiyah.InJ.Curtis(ed.),FiftyYearsof MesopotamianDiscovery:11-21.London,TheBritish SchoolofArchaeologyinIraq.

KokkinidouD.andNikolaidouM.1999 NeolithicenclosuresinGreekMacedonia:violentand non-violentaspectsofterritorialdemarcation.InJ. CarmanandA.Harding(eds.),AncientWarfare:89-100. SuttonPublishingLtd.

KozlowskiS.K.andAurencheO.2005 TerrioriesboundariesandculturesintheNeolithic NearEast.BritishArchaeologicalReports–Intern. Series1362.Oxford,TheBasingstokePress.

LambertP.M.1997 PatternsofViolenceinPrehistoricHunter-gatherer SocietiesofCoastalSouthernCalifornia.InD.L.Martin andD.W.Frayer(eds.),TroubledTimes:Violenceand WarfareinthePast:77-110.Amsterdam,Gordonand Breach.

LeBlancS.A.1999 PrehistoricWarfareintheAmericanSouthwest.Salt LakeCity,UniversityofUtahPress.2003 ConstantBattles.NewYork,St.Martin’sPress.2006 WarfareandtheDevelopmentofSocialComplexity: SomeDemographicandEnvironmentalFactors.InE. ArkushandM.W.Allen(eds.),TheArchaeology ofWarfare:PrehistoriesofRaidingandConquest:437- 468.Gainsville,UniversityPressofFlorida.LipeW.D.(ed.)1992 TheSandCanyonArchaeologicalProject:AProgress Report.Cortez,CrowCanyonArchaeologicalCenter.

Lomatuway’maM.,Lomatuway’maL.,andNaminghaJr.S.1993 HopiRuinLegends.Lincoln,UniversityofNebraska Press.

MellaartJ.1967 ÇatalHüyük:ANeolithicTowninAnatolia.London, ThamesandHudson.1975 TheNeolithicoftheNearEast.NewYork,Charles Scribner’sSons.

MilnerG.R.2005 Nineteenth-centuryarrowwoundsandperceptionsof prehistoricwarfare.AmericanAntiquity70:144-156.

MooreA.M.T.,HillmanG.C.,andLeggeA.J.2000 VillageontheEuphrates:FromForagingtoFarmingat AbuHureyra.Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress.


Neo-Lithics1/1049


ÖzbaşaranM.1999 Musular:AGeneralAssessmentonaNewNeolithic Site.InM.ÖzdoğanandN.Başgelen(eds.),Neolithic inTurkey:TheCradleofCivilization/NewDiscoveries. AncientAnatolianCivilizationsSeries3:147-156. Istanbul,ArkeolojiveSanatYayınları.

ÖzdoğanM.1999 NorthwesternTurkey:NeolithicCulturesinBetween theBalkansandAnatolia.InM.ÖzdoğanandN. Başgelen(eds.),NeolithicinTurkey:TheCradleof Civilization/NewDiscoveries.AncientAnatolian CivilizationsSeries3:203-224.Istanbul,Arkeolojive SanatYayınları.

ParkinsonW.A.andDuffyP.R.2007 FortificationsandenclosuresinEuropeanprehistory:A cross-culturalperspective.JournalofArchaeological Research15:97-141.

RenfrewC.,GimbutasM.,andElsterE.S.1986 ExcavationsatSitagroi:APrehistoricVillagein NortheasternGreece1.MonumentaArchaeologica13. InstituteofArchaeology,UniversityofCalifornia,Los Angeles.

RoperM.1975 EvidenceforwarfareintheNearEastfrom10,000to 4,000B.C.InM.A.Nettleship,R.D.Givens,andA. Nettleship(eds.),War.ItsCausesandCorrelates:299- 344.TheHague,Mouton.

RoscoeP.B.2008 Settlementfortificationinvillageand‘tribal’ society:Evidencefromcontact-eraNewGuinea. JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology27:507–519.

RosenbergM.1998 Cheatingatmusicalchairs:Territorialityandsedentism inanevolutionarycontext.CurrentAnthropology 39(5):653-681.1999 HallanCemi.InM.ÖzdoğanandN.Başgelen(eds.), NeolithicinTurkey:TheCradleofCivilization/New Discoveries.AncientAnatolianCivilizationsSeries 3:25-34.Istanbul,ArkeolojiveSanatYayınları.

Runnels C.N., Payne C., Rifkind N., White C., Wolff N., andLeBlancS.A.2009 WarfareinNeolithicThessaly:ACaseStudy.Hesperia 78(2):165-194.

SavilleA.2002 LithicartefactsfromNeolithiccausewayedenclosures: Characterandmeaning.InG.VarndellandP.Topping (eds.),EnclosuresinNeolithicEurope:91-105.Oxford, OxbowBooks.

SimmonsA.H.2007 TheNeolithicRevolutionintheNearEast:Transforming theHumanLandscape.Tucson,TheUniversityof ArizonaPress.

SoleckiR.1981 AnEarlyVillageSiteatZawiChemiShanidar.Mailbu, Undena.

VoigtM.M.1983 HajjiFiruzTepe:TheNeolithicSettlement.Hasanlu ExcavationReportsI:70-94.UniversityMuseum Monographs50.Philadelphia,Universityof Pennsylvania.

WalkerP.L.1989 Cranialinjuriesasevidenceofviolenceinprehistoric SouthernCalifornia.AmericanJournalofPhysical Anthropology80:313-323.

YoffeeN.andClarkJ.J.(eds.)1993 EarlyStagesintheEvolutionofMesopotamian Civilization:SovietExcavationsintheSinjarPlain, NorthernIraq.Tucson,UniversityofArizonaPress.


Neo-Lithics1/1050


In acknowledging the existence of violent conflictsin the Near Eastern Neolithic in his keynote paper,Bar-Yosef also notes the common categories ofpotential evidence for violence and warfare in thearchaeological record.Hecorrectlycalls for renewedexcavation strategies to better identify such featuresas defencewalls around settlements, human remainsbearingtracesofviolence(e.g.embeddedarrowheads,lesions), and destruction levels with burned housesetc. Additionally, he discusses possible causes ofviolence and warfare in the Near Eastern Neolithic.Here,emphasis isplaceduponoverexploitationand /or episodesof climatechange.Thesewere factors, itissuggested,whichcauseddisruptions tosubsistenceandledtotheconsequentabandonmentofvillagesandpopulationmovements, culminating in conflicts overlandandresources.

First of all I would like to stress that I highlywelcome the interest in issues of warfare andviolencebyspecialistsfortheNearEasternNeolithic,particularly as this period was probably the mostcrucial in theculturalevolutionof theOldWorld. InlightoftheresearchalreadyundertakenonwarfareandviolenceinprehistoricEuropeandtheAmericas,wheresuchstudieshavebeenontheagendaofarchaeologicalresearch for in excess of 20 years, it is certainlyhigh time that the geographical focus should shift tothe Near Eastern Neolithic. Indeed, warfare in theNeolithicoftheNearEasthashithertobeenpracticallyignoredandonlyaddressedquitegenerallybyaverysmallnumberofauthors(seeChilde1941;Roper1975;Müller-Neuhof20051).InthefollowingIwouldliketofocusmy comments on some particular pointsmadebyBar-Yosefinhiskeynotepaper.Assuch,Iwilldealwitha)possiblereasonsforconflicts;b)theroleplayedbyconflictsinvillageabandonment,aswellasc)withsomemethodologicalissues.

Bar-Yosef hypothesises that the agglomeration ofgroups in settlements, starting in the EarlyNatufian,resultedfromthedecisiontolivetogetherforreasonsof security. This is partly not convincing, primarilydue to the fact that mobile populations commandoveramuchhighernumberofconflictpreventionandcopingstrategiesthandosedentarypopulations.Thesestrategies range from retraction to the formation oftemporalallianceswithothergroupsforactivedefencemeasures (assaults). Instead, itwouldappear that theNatufian,andevenPPNA,agglomerationofgroupsinsettlementswasmainlylinkedtoecologicalconditions,which made it possible to reside within a specificterritory for longer periodsduring theyear, or in thecaseofthePPNAallyearround.Inadditiontospecific

plant resources, advantageous ecological conditionsresultinginincreasedsedentaryoccupationespeciallyconstituted proximity to abundantly available game.Theexistenceoflargenumbersofbonesofmigratingmammals (gazelles) in the archaeological record ofNatufian and also PPN(A) sites (e.g. Cope 1991;Tchernov1991:330,1993:14)showsthathuntingtheseanimalswasoneoftheimportanttasksofsubsistenceacquisition.Astheseanimalswerenotavailableallyearround,suchataskcouldonlyhavebeenundertakenbygroupsofpeople.

Therefore,itissuggestedthattheindividuallocationofsettlementswasdictatedbytheproximitytoannualmigrationroutesofanimalsontheonehand,andontheotherby the existenceof topographical features suchascliffs,fords,canyons,etc.,whichwereusedastrapswhenhuntingquarryinlargenumbersintheshorttimewindowwhentheypassedby.Suchhunts,whichwouldhave been characterised by chasing the herds in thedirectionofthesetopographicalfeaturesandbykillingtrappedandinjuredgameinlargenumbers2,wereonlyrealisableifahighnumberofindividualsparticipatednot only in the hunt itself but also in the processingand storingof animalproducts.This in turn requiredasedentary lifestyle, forcinggroups to live together,moreorlesspermanently,inlargersettlements.

Hence,itwasprimarilyduetoeconomicfactorsthatlarge groups of people agglomerated in settlements,especially in the PPNA, though conflict relatedissueswouldcertainlyhavebeenofconcern,too.Forexample, the stores that would have accumulated inthese settlements would have been targets of raids,and the territorieswith theirplant resources, lyingastheydidalonganimalmigrationroutesandwiththeirimportant topographical features, would needed tohave been defended from rival groups, too. Thus, itis evident that largergroupsofpeople living in suchsettlements facilitated a successful defence of bothvillagesandtheirassociatedterritories.

NextIwouldliketorefertoBar-Yosef’shypothesisregarding the “breaking up” of village communities,whichinhisopinionwascausedbyscalarstressrelatedto overpopulation.Certainly, the existence of “scalarstress” in these communities can be assumed, but awide range of internal conflict prevention strategieswould also have been employed by these societies.These strategies served tominimize scalar stress andto reinforce communal solidarity. Indeed, the latter(communal solidarity) was of utmost importancefor the survival of the community with respect toboth the economy as well as regarding matters ofdefence(seeabove).Suchstrategiesarevisibleinthe

Comment to Ofer Bar Yosef‘s Keynote: “Warfare in Levantine Early Neolithic. A Hypothesis to be Considered”

Bernd Müller-Neuhof GermanArchaeologicalInstitute,Berlin [email protected]


Neo-Lithics1/1051


archaeologicalrecord,forexample,inspecialbuildingsand installations which reflect communal (religious)thinkingandacting.

A community split and the foundation of an“offshoot” community could have occurred due toverydifferentreasons.Inthe(unlikely)caseof“scalarstress”(internalconflicts)itcanbeassumedthatsuchasplitwouldprobablynothavetranspiredpeacefully.Thefoundationofsuchanoffshootcommunityintherange of the territory of the old one is therefore notvery likely, as is suggested byBar-Yosef in the caseof the two sitesGilgal andNetivHagdud,whicharelocatedatadistanceofonly1.5kmfromeachother.Moreconceivableisthattheestablishmentofoffshoot-communitiesoccurredinotherregions,locatedfurtherawayfromtheoriginalsettlement.Ontheotherhand,itislikelythatthemainreasonforthefoundationofanoffshootcommunitywasastrategyaimedatobtainingbetter control, and simultaneously better means ofdefence, over an existing territory. Further, it mightevenhaveservedtheenlargementofexistingterritorieswithbioticandabioticresources.

Finally, Bar-Yosef rightly requests intensifiedfieldwork to focus on the identification of evidencefor violence and warfare. This is absolutely correctbut should be further differentiated. For instance, itisnotsufficient just toextend theareasofsettlementexcavations beyond the fringes of the sites in ordertodetectpossibleperimeterwalls,servingasdefencefeatures,or todiscovermoreburials inorder tohavemore skeletal evidence for violence. In nearly allfieldworkprojectstohavebeenconductedatNeolithicsites in the Near East, there is already plenty ofevidenceforviolenceandwarfareinthearchaeologicalrecord, albeit that the detection of this evidencewasnotontheagendaofresearchstrategies.Theproblemis that this evidence has rarely been acknowledgedevenbytheexcavatorsthemselves.Duetothemissinggeneral focus on conflict, the direct indications forviolence and warfare are not acknowledged, andindirect evidence, labelled by Sl. Vencl as “thearchaeologyofthingsunfound”(Vencl1983:122),hasnot at all been considered. Therefore, when startingwith archaeological conflict research it is first of allnecessarytoacknowledgethecrucialissueofconflictpotential.Thisalso implies thatmanyconflictsneverdevelopedintoviolentinteractions.

Thus, prior to looking for signs of violence andwarfare,weshouldfirstconsiderconflictpotential.Bar-Yosefisrighttoidentifytherelativelyrapidincreaseinpopulationdensityandresultingcompetitionoverlandandotherresources.Indeed,theseresourceswouldhavebeen shortened by overexploitation, environmentaldestructionandclimatechange,allofwhichrepresentpossible causes for conflict. However, on the otherhand, thesefactorsdonotalways lead toconflict.Asamatterof fact thereareanumberofotherpotentialcausesforconflictwhichshouldbeconsidered.Assuch,itisessentialthatthepotentialforconflictisidentifiedfor each region and also for each archaeological site

inwhichresearchiscarriedout.Suchanalysisshouldcomprise, to name just a few points, informationrelating to the environment, subsistence strategies inconjunctionwiththeenvironmentandtopography,andthe participationof the respective society in regionalandinterregionalnetworks.

Referring to the probable causes for conflictsand the manners in which they were carried out,ethnographic and ethno-historical data of more orless comparable societies and subsistence economiesshould be consulted too. In this way, prevailingmanners of subsistence strategy and the assumptivecharacterofsocialstratificationcanalsobeaddressed.Naturally,theseexamplescanneverbeunderstoodasonetooneanalogies,asBarYosefrightlyargues,butasexplanatorymodelsandmethodstolimitthenumberofpossiblecausesandcharacterofconflicts.Withsuchananalysisitispossibletocharacteriseconflictpotentialandconflictmitigationstrategies.Insomeregions,andevenatindividualsites,thesestrategiesareexpressedforinstanceindefensivemeasures.

Anidentificationofthepotentialforconflictmakesthe identification of evidence in the archaeologicalrecord easier, not least because we know what weare looking for. Nevertheless, we also have to takeinto account that someevidencemay indicate ahighpotential for conflicts which never actually turnedinto violent acts but were justmirroring a defensiveanswertowardthreat.Ontheotherhand,othertypesofevidence,e.g.skeletalremainsshowingspecificlesionscaused by violent acts, can be interpreted as directevidenceforviolence.Thefactthatlesionsinskeletalmaterial are very rare leads to an underestimationoftheamountofviolentactsvisibleintheburialcontextofarchaeologicalsites.Thisisduetothefactthatothertypesofevidenceforviolenceintheburialcontextaremostly overlooked. I want to illustrate this problemwith twoexamplesfroma long listofarchaeologicalfeatureswehavetolookforandtointerpretcorrectly,butwhich do not directly document the existence ofconflicts and violence in the archaeological record:1. Evidence for soft tissue injuries especially in theabdominalregionofabodycausedbyprojectilepointsarefrequentlyoverlooked.Thereforeitisimportanttoknow that ethnomedical observations in Papua NewGuinea in the1970s and1980shave shown that justc.10%ofprojectilepointinjuriesareinjuriescausingbonelesions.Instead90%ofprojectilepointinjuriesaresofttissueinjuries,mostoftheseintheabdominalregion of the victim (Van Gurp; Hutchinson andAlto 1990) lacking any contactwith bones. Such anobservationishardlyacknowledgedbyarchaeologists3who interpret the location of projectile points in thecontextofaburial.Aslongasthepointisnotembeddedin a bone it is interpreted either as an offering or asintrusive.2.Flakesorbladelets inburialcontextsarehardly identified as possible projectile points. Thisis largely due to the fact that in the mind of manyarchaeologists they do not resemblemorphologically“typical” projectile points. Although ethnographic


Neo-Lithics1/1052


observations show that in combat bows and arrowsand atlal spearswereused, combatantswerefightingat short tomedial distances,mostly at nomore than50metresapart(seeforinstanceGardenerandHeider1986:140f;Meggitt1977:56).Forsuchbattleshighlysophisticated aero dynamical arrowheads were notnecessary, it was sufficient to use simple flakes andbladelets; items,having theadvantageofbeing rapidand abundantly available. In addition theseweapons,compared to an aero dynamical shaped point, causemoreseverelesions4duetotheirlargeimpactzone.ItishighlyquestionablethereforetoidentifyarrowheadsinthearchaeologicalrecordofNearEasternNeolithicsites foremost as weapons of warfare5. A correctinterpretationofarchaeologicalfeaturesrefersalsotothe interpretationofpossible causes for conflicts andviolencestandingbehindspecificdevelopmentswhichcanbeobservedinthearchaeologicalrecord.

It is high time to discuss the conflict andwarfareissue in the research of the Neolithic in the NearEast.Hypotheses relating to the potential causes andconsequencesofconflictandwarfareintheseNeolithicsocieties are an importantpartof thediscussion.Butprior to commencing with further theories on thecausesandconsequencesofviolenceandwarfare,firstitismoreimportanttodevelopamutualunderstandingof the lines of evidencewhich actually refer to theirexistenceinthearchaeologicalrecordoftheNeolithicNearEast.Thiswouldprovideuswithamuchlargernumber of data and criteriawhich, on the one hand,would ease future fieldwork incorporating conflictissuesintheresearchstrategyand,ontheother,yieldalargeramountofdataforfurthertheoryconstruction.

Notes

1Ph.D.thesis(FreieUniversitätBerlin)iscurrentlyonlypublishedonmicrofiche.A short summary of its contents is published inNeo-Lithics1/06.

2ThealmostentireabsenceofevidenceforembeddedprojectilepointsinanimalbonesdiscoveredinNatufianandPPNsitesmightimplytheapplicationofthistypeofhuntingstrategy.

3ArareexceptionareAnderson(1968)andWendorf(1968).

4Thisisalsothecasefortransversearrowheads.

5 But also the hunting function can be questioned due to thefact that we rarely have evidence for embedded arrowheads inanimalbones.Onlyoneexampleofanembeddedprojectilepointis known tome fromLateNeolithic Tell SabiAbyad (Cavallo,AkkermannsandKoens2000).ThenumberofembeddedbonesinhumanskeletonsofNearEasternNeolithicsitesismuchlarger(see Müller-Neuhof 2005: 131, Footnotes 243ff., 174: Footnote367).

References

AndersonJ.E.1968 LatePalaeolithicskeletalremainsfromNubia.InF. Wendorf(ed.),ThePrehistoryofNubiaII:996-1040. Dallas,FortBergwinResearchCenterandSouthern MethodistUniversityPress.

CavalloC.,AkkermansP.M.M.G.,andKoensH.2000 HuntingwithbowandarrowatTellSabiAbyad.In M.Maskour,A.M.Choyke,H.Buitenhuis,and F.Poplin(eds.),ArchaeozoologyoftheNearEast IVB.Proceedingsofthe4thInternationalSymposium ontheArchaeozoologyofSouthwesternAsiaand AdjacentAreas:5-11.Groningen.

ChildeV.G.1941 WarinPrehistoricSocieties.SociologicalReview33: 126-138.

CopeC.1991 GazelleHuntingStrategiesintheSouthernLevant.In O.Bar-YosefandF.Valla(ed.),TheNatufianCulturein theLevant:341-358.InternationalMonographsin Prehistory.

GardenerR.andHeiderK.G.1986 GardensofWar:LifeandDeathintheNewGuinea StoneAge.London,AndreDeutsch.

MegittM.1977 BloodisTheirArgument.WarfareAmongtheMaeEnga TribesmenoftheNewGuineaHighlands.PaloAlto, MayfieldPublishingCompany.

Müller-NeuhofB.2005 ZumAussagepotenztialarchäologischerQuellenin derKonfliktforschung:EineUntersuchungzuKonflikten imvorderasiatischenNeolithikum.Berlin,Freie UniversitätBerlin,FachbereichGeschichts-und Kulturwissenschaften:MicrofichepublicationofPhD thesis.

Noe-NygaardN.1974 MesolithicHuntinginDenmarkIllustratedbyBone InjuriesCausedbyHumanWeapons.Journalof ArchaeologicalScience1:217-248.

RoperM.K.1975 EvidenceofwarfareintheNearEastfrom10,000,4,300 B.C.InM.A.Nettleship,R.D.Givens.andA.Nettleship (eds.),War.It’sCausesandCorrelates:299-340.Paris.

TchernovE.1991 BiologicalEvidenceforHumanSedentisminSouthwest AsiaduringtheNatufian.InBar-YosefO.andF.Valla (ed.),TheNatufianCultureintheLevant:315-340. InternationalMonographsinPrehistory.


Neo-Lithics1/1053


TchernovE.1993 TheImpactofSedentismonAnimalExploitation intheSouthernLevant.InH.Buitenhuis,A.T.and Clason(eds.),ArchaeozoologyoftheNearEast. Proceedingsofthe1stInternationalSymposiumonthe ArchaeozoologyofSouthwesternAsiaandAdjacent Areas:10-26.Leiden.

VanGurpG.,HutchinsonT.J.andAltoW.A.1990 ArrowwoundmanagementinPapuaNewGuinea.The JournalofTrauma30.2:183-188.

VenclS.1999 StoneAgeWarfare.InJ.CarmanandA.Harding(eds.), AncientWarfare.ArchaeologicalPerspectives:57-73. PhoenixMill,SuttonPublishingLtd.

WendorfF.1968 Site117:ANubianFinalPalaeolithicgraveyardnear JebelSahaba,Sudan.InF.Wendorf(ed.),ThePrehistory ofNubiaII:954-995.Dallas,FortBergwinResearch CenterandSouthernMethodistUniversityPress.


Neo-Lithics1/1054


TheemergenceofanewwayoflifeintheNearEastbasedonthecultivationofcertaincerealshasalwaysbeenconsideredadevianthappeninginthemultifarioushistory of civilization. It is for this reasons that, inlookingattheNeolithicformation,thequestion“why”such a change took place has occasionally surpassedconcernsinanswering“how”and“when”ithappened.In the quest to find a reasonable explanation to thequestionwhy, some sort of “stress” has always beenconsidered as themain agent triggering changes thattookplace in thewayof living. In this respect, sincePumpellyformulatedtheoasishypothesis,deterioratingenvironmental conditions were taken as the sourceofthestressthatledtotheformationoftheNeolithicwayof life.Later, theimpactofenvironmentalstresswas extended to rationalize the development and theexpansionofNeolithiccultures.ThekeynotepaperofBar-Yosefpresentsathoroughconspectusofchangingviewsontheemergence,developmentanddispersaloftheNeolithicwayoflife,clearlyrevealinghowsomesortof“stress”,eitherenvironmental,demographicordietary,hasalwaysbeenattachedtothetermNeolithic.How these assumptions have been substantialized asmoreevidencebecameavailableintime–givingwaytonewpostulations–hasalsobeenclearlypresentedintheintroductorypaperbyBar-Yosef.

During the last decade or so, among the agenciescausing environmental stress, rapid increase inpopulationhasalsobeenconsideredascomplimentaryto fluctuations in climatic conditions. It has beenpostulated that therewas a demographic shift duringtheNeolithicperiod,Neolithiccommunitiesbecomingcrowdedandconsequentlyover-exploitingtheirhabitat.Thus, almost all assumptions contemplating eitherthe emergence or the development of Near EasternNeolithiccultureshasconsideredsomesortofstressasthetriggeringagent.Once“stress”duetoenvironmentalrestrictionsisconcededasthemainmotiveindefiningevolutionary stages of the Neolithic culture, it thusseems evident to surmise that there will be greaterstressoncommunities,intimeleadingtoconflictsandeventuallytowarfareamonggroupssharingthesameterritory;theproblemis,ofcourse,howtoverifysuchan event. Bar-Yosef has, very successfully displayedwhattolookforinarchaeologicalrecordsoastoseeif therewere any armed conflicts, listing issues suchas abandonment of sites, defense systems, skeletalevidence,etc.Thus,weshallnotgointoanyoftheseissues,butinsteadintroduceacomplementarycriterion.

However, concerning over exploitation of thehabitat, there is an issue that requires elaboration. In

considering the environmental setting of Neolithiccommunities, it is almost customary to look to theLevant as a model where the topographical featuresareveryparticularanddifferentfromallotherpartsoftheNearEast.IntheLevant,ecologicalnichesareallalignedparallel to theMediterraneancoastasnarrowbands,thusvulnerable,boththeclimaticchangesortohumanexploitation.However,furthernorthinAnatolia,thesenarrowbands,notonlyspreadouttocoverlargeterritories, but also change orientation. This has twoimplications; firstly, climatic conditions pertaining totheLevantdonotnecessarily apply either toCentralAnatolianplateauortoSoutheasternTurkey.Secondly,considering the wide extent of ecological zones inSoutheasternTurkey, it is extremely difficult for anypre-industrial community to use up all resources tothelevelofexhaustion.Moreover,until theadvancedstages of the Pottery Neolithic period, the densityof sites does not allow us to consider demographicpressure in any part ofAnatolia.Accordingly, unlessthereareextremelyunfavourableconditions,stressduetoenvironmentshouldbeconsideredwithgreatcautionfortheAnatolianpeninsula.

Generally speaking, theNeolithic communities oftheNearEastaresoparticularthatnothingcomparablecan be found in the historic nor in the ethnographicrecord;thisisparticularlytrueforthesocialstructureofearlyNeolithiccommunities.Whatismoststrikingis the wide spread dissemination of knowledge,technologies and commodities that lasted during theentire span of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period. ThePre-PotteryNeolithicperiodisthetimeofinnovativedevelopments,fromthesimplesttoolssuchasgrindingslabstocomplextechnologieslikeburningoflime,fromthestructuraldesignsofarchitecturetoburialcustoms,from the procurement of cereals to the methods offoodprocessing,everythingisnew;evidently,allhaveinitiated in different areas, but then, rather rapidly,propagated to the entire extent of theNeolithic corearea. It also seems evident that in the spreadof newtechnologiesorofthecommodities,mobile/wanderingcraftsmanplayedasignificantrole.Withjustification,“sharing of knowledge” can be considered as theesteemedvalueofthePre-Potteryperiod;moreover,itshouldbeconsideredthatthisenduredinaconsiderablylarge area for several millennia with no apparentinterruption. If there had been any stress or rivalryamongvariouscommunities,asitisalmostalwaysthecaseinlatercommunities,neitherwanderingcraftsmannorfreesharingoftechnologiesandideascouldhavetakenplaceatsuchscaleandoversuchalengthoftime.

The Neolithic Medium: Warfare Due to Social Stress or State of Security Through Social Welfare

Mehmet Özdoğan İstanbulÜniversitesi,PrehistoryaAnabilimDalı [email protected]


Neo-Lithics1/1055


Patterns of obsidian trade also support this view;since the incipient stages of the Neolithic period,from the 11th millennium onwards, obsidian fromtheAnatolian highlandswas being passed on in vastamountsanddistances.Inthearchaeologicalrecordsofar,thereisnoindicationofanyinterruptioninthistradenetworkuptothe7thmillennium.Inourknowledge,thereisnoothertradeinhistoricperiodsthatprevailedfor such a long time. Moreover, none of the sourceareasseemstohavetakenanyinitiativetomonopolizethis trade; almost from every source, from those intheCaucasus,Bingöl,Vanor fromall of the sourcesin CentralAnatolia, material, either as semi-finishedproducts or as finished tools, were being circulated.Considering that obsidian is a valued commodity ofthatperiod, if therehadhavebeena “profit-making”system, evidently therewould have been disruptionsto the system. Accordingly, in viewing the socialstructuringofthePre-Potteryperiod,itisnecessarytoavoidconstraintsorbiasesthatareapplicabletolaterperiods.Nevertheless,thisdoesnotimplythattherewasnoviolenceduringthePre-Potteryperiod;italsoseemsevidentthattherearesomeskeletalmaterialrevealingcut-marks, fractures etc. It is also clear that humanssacrificedinceremonies,althoughthosesacrificeddonotnecessarilyhave tohavebeen fromaliengroups;moreover, through the extensive presence of humanskeletal material of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, bonesthatrevealanysortofviolenceareextremelyrare.

To conclude, themedia of the Pre-Pottery periodseemstobedevoidofanystress;onthecontraryitseemsto be the time of exceptional security, at least in theareasnorthoftheLevantineregion.Insuchadynamicperiod, when numerous innovative developmentswere taking place, this could only havematerializedif social “values”were based on sharing and on thedisseminationofknowledge,andthisrequiresasocialenvironmentdevoidof tension. It isalsoevident thatthis is a fragile system; once the concept of value isimplanted tocommodities themselves, it isno longerpossible to sustain this system, conflicts and stressthen take over. It seems evident that this cognitivechangeovertookplaceeitherbythefinalstagesofthePre-PotteryNeolithicorbythebeginningofthePotteryNeolithicperiod.BythetransitionalstagefromthePre-Pottery to the PotteryNeolithic, indications of somesortof turmoilareapparent inmostof thecoreareasof the Neolithic, seemingly except CentralAnatolia.Duringthisstage,whethercalledFinalPPNB,PPNCorTransitionalperiod,settlementsiteshaveeitherbeenabandoned,orshrankinsize,theorderlyplannedset-up of Pre-Pottery settlements are no longer upheld,special buildings or temples, sophisticated crafts,monumental statues all disappear. The distributionsystem of obsidian also changes notably during thisera; for the first time there is evidence that certaintrade routeshavebeendominatedby someof sourceareasand thecirculation is focusedmoreonfinishedproductsthencores.

It is also of significance to note that by the later

stagesofthisera,thenumberofsettlementsinCentralAnatolia increases notably. A number of featuressuchasplasteredskulls, certainboneandstone toolsthatpreviouslyconfinedeither to theLevantineor toSoutheastern Turkey/Northern Syro-Mesopotamiabegan appearing in the Early Pottery assemblagesof CentralAnatolia, implying that there has been anendemicmigrationfromthesouth,firstlyintoCentralAnatolia, bringing in new elements and mergingwith the local cultures. Soon after, there is a moremassivemovement of groups towards the previouslyuninhabited parts of Anatolian plateau. Thus, it ispossibletosurmisethattherewassomesortofsocialturbulence,communitiessegregatingandconsequentlymigratingtootherregions.Whatcausedthisturmoilisnotclear,anumberofdifferentassumptionshavebeensuggestedforthecollapseofthePPNculture,rangingfromchangesintheclimaticconditions,toexploitationofcertain regionsor tosocialunrest triggeredby thefull-scaleestablishmentofanimalhusbandry.Itseemshighlyprobablethatdifferentagenciesplayedaroleindifferentpartsoftheregion.Nevertheless,itisevidentthat whatever occurred, it stimulated in the localcommunities a momentum migrate; to discern howpeacefulthiseventwasrequiresfurtherdata,andtheseshould be testedwith the parameters defined inBar-Yosef’spaper.


Neo-Lithics1/1056


Professor Bar-Yosef offers a pair of hypotheses toexplain site abandonment in the Levantine EarlyNeolithic.Onehypothesissuggestswarfareasthecause,theotherhypothesis,climatechangeandenvironmentaldegradation. However, Professor Bar-Yosef in hisconclusion seems to favor a combination of both.ProfessorBar-Yosef’sKeynoteoffersadescriptionofsettlementactivityintheLevantandbeyondfromtheMesolithic through the Natufian, PPNA, PPNB, andlater.ButtheKeynote,whileofferingdataonclimatechange,doesnotpresenta“history”ofwarfareforthisregion. I use the term “history” since ProfessorBar-Yosef “refer[s] to the formation of Early Natufian,hamletsastheonsetof‘history’”.Singlequotemarksinoriginal.InmyanalysisIamgoingtocoveragreaterarea,theentireMiddleEast,andagreatertimedepth.Iwillconsiderclimatechange,huntingandgatheringpractices, the domestication of plants, social andpoliticaldevelopment,andthelocationswherewarfareoccurredanddidnotoccur.

Thescientificmethodisusuallymultivariate,withmorethanonevariableorconditionusedtoexplainorpredictanothervariableorevent.ProfessorBar-Yosef’stwinhypothesesnameconditions that arepresent forexplainingsiteabandonment.Butthescientificmethodcanalso focuson theabsenceof conditions.Warfareis a common occurrence or condition, its absence isuncommon.Ratherthantreatingwarfareasapredictorcondition,theabsenceofwarfarecanbethepredictor.ProfessorBar-Yosef’s hypothesis thatwarfare causessiteabandonmentordestructioncanbereplacedwiththehypothesisthatifthereisnowar,thesitewillnotbeabandoned.Isupposeitmaybemorecorrecttosaythathereisahypothesisthathastwosidesorversions.

This treatment of the scientific method leads totwo propositions or postulates of great relevance forthe studyofwarfare in theAncientNearEast.First,domestication of plants can occur only if warfare(raids, ambushes, and line battles) is absent from aregion.Absenceofwarfarejoinsotherconditionsthatlead to the domestication of plants. Permanent long-term settlement leads to the domestication of plants.If theconditionsare suitable,wildplants that canbedomesticated,andclimate,soil,andwaterpermitplantgrowth(Otterbein2010[inpress]).Second,theoriginofaprimaryorpristinestatecanoccuronlyifwarfareis absent from a region.A pre-state society, such asatribeorchiefdom,doesnothaveagovernmentthatcan conquer, incorporate, and control a neighboringsettlement.A politymust, however small, be a stateinorder tobecapableofcarryingoutconquests.Thenotion that states arise from chiefdoms through wardoesnotmakelogicalsense.

Two Paths to War

In an article on the origin of war (1997) I arguedthat warfare increased over time in the area we areconsidering.IsharedthepublishedarticlewithProfessorBar-Yosefandheprovidedmewithadetailedcritique(October26,1998;Otterbein2004:254).ButIwasnotsatisfiedwithmyanalysis,forIrealizedthatwhenandwherewarfareoccurreddidnotfollowauniformpath.Rather, it occurred at different times and places. ToexplainthedistributionIcreatedatwo-pathapproachtowar,thefirstpathbeingderiveddeductivelyandthesecondpathinductively.Thefirstpathisahypothesis,andthesecondpathanexplanationderivedfromdatasuchassiteinformation(Otterbein2004:14;Otterbein2006;Otterbein2009:ii).

The Hunter/Gatherer Path to War

ThefirstpathbeginsinthePaleolithicwhenallHomosapiens were hunter/gatherers, subsisting in mostregions upon large game animals. This was true forboththeOldWorldandtheNewWorld.Theproductionofexcellenthuntingweapons,boththethrustingspearandtheatlatlordartthrownbyaspearthrower,madesuch subsistence possible. Hunting weapons can killnotonlyanimals,butalsoHomosapiens.Encountersbetweenhunter/gathererbandsorhuntingparties canturn violent, projectiles can be fired at rival groupscontesting hunting tracts or fallen animals. Projectilepointsinboneaswellassomerockpictographssupportthis interpretation. Fighting between Homo sapienspresumably increased over time, until the supply oflarge game animals decreased. With the decrease,hunter/gathererbands reduced their rangeandplacedless emphasis upon producing excellent huntingweapons,twoconditionsthatwouldleadtolessinter-groupfighting(Otterbein2004:63-90).

It has become a well-known story, and I believewidely accepted theory, that climate change andoverhuntingbyanincreasingHomosapienspopulationled to thedemiseandextinctionofmany largegameanimals.Thenewformofsubsistencetechnologycametobeknownasthe“broadspectrumrevolution.”Theemphasis,bynecessity,felluponsmallgamehuntingandgathering.Thenomadicorsemi-nomadichunter/gatherersbecamesedentary,huntedwithinarestrictedareaandbuiltpermanentcircularhutsandstorageareas(e.g.JerichoandAbuHuyrea).

The sedentary hunter/gatherers were not warlike,andprobablyononlyrareoccasionsengagedinwarfare,usually for defense. This is true for those societies

Early Warfare in the Near East

Keith F. Otterbein StateUniversityofNewYork/UniversityofBuffalo [email protected]


Neo-Lithics1/1057


describedethnographically in thepast200yearswhoare known as Foragers or Simple Hunter/Gatherers(Fry2006:104).Otherearly typesofhunter/gathererswho were not Foragers retained their bellicosity:Macrobands of Big Game Hunters;Australians; andSettled Fishermen or Complex Hunter/Gatherers.Macrobandswereabletoputintothefieldlargepartiesofhunterswhocouldbecomewarriorsifaprovocationwith another party arose. Australians for tens ofthousandsofyearsappear tohavehuntedkangaroos,and developed polygyny and virilocal residence.Biggamehunting,virilocalresidence,andpolygynyformwhatIhavecalledthe“eternaltriangle,”acombinationof traits that leads to raiding andwarfare (Otterbein2004:62). Settled Fishermen or Complex Hunter/Gatherers in recent centuries resided on the NorthWest Coast of North America. They defended theirsettlements, which were often located near salmonrivers,andraidedtheirneighbors.TheirequivalentintheUpperPaleolithicwouldbelargesettlementsalongrivers or along lakes that utilized marine life. JebelSahabaneartheNileRiverengagedinwarfarenearly14,000 years ago (12,000B.C.E.) as evidenced by acemeteryinwhichthereisevidencethatabout40%ofthe interredhadbeenkilledbystone-tippedweapons(Otterbein2004:74).Thesewerealso locationsworthdefending.(Thesearethefourtypesofhunter/gathererswhich I have identified as existing in the UpperPaleolithic. For Recent Times I have identified fourmore types of hunter/gatherers [Otterbein 2009:68-74].)

The Primary State Path to War

Thesecondpathtowarbeginswiththesettledhunter/gathererswhodidnotengageinwarfare.Theabsenceofwarfaresetsthestagefortheoriginsanddevelopmentof agriculture, the first proposition described earlier.The settled hunter/gatherers lived along the FertileCrescentoccupyingenvironmentalzonesreferredtoastheHillyFlanksandthePiedmontSteppe.Wildplants,suchasbarleyandwheat,growingontheHillyFlankswerecarriedfromthiszonewhereJermowas locatedto the Piedmont SteppewhereAliKoshwas located.Gatherersbecameagentsofplantselectionabout9,000years ago (7,000 B.C.E.). These domesticated plantswere carried furtheronto theAlluvialDessert. In thiszone far up the Euphrates River is Abu Hureyra, asettlementthatwasoccupiedbyhunter/gatherersabout9,500yearsago.Athousandyears later itwasa largefarmingcommunity.Thissettlementwasoccupiedformorethan4,500years(7,500B.C.E.–3,000B.C.E.).Whatissosignificantaboutthissiteisthatthereisnoevidenceforwarfare.LikewisefurthertothewestandsouthisJericho,reputedlytheoldesttownintheworldat nearly 11,000 years ago (8,500 B.C.E.). The firstwallsareregardedasfloodprotectionbyProfessorBar-Yosef.About9,000yearsago(7,000B.C.E.)thesecondwallwasdestroyed,providingevidenceofwarfare.

Mappingof siteswherewaroccurredanddidnotoccur reveals a geographic pattern. What has beenreferred to as Lower Mesopotamia (I include AbuHureyra)containssiteswheredomesticationtookpace,agricultureflourished, andwarwas absent. From theNileRivernorththroughtheLevantandintoAnatoliawarfare occurred.With time domesticated seeds andlivestock diffused—carried by individuals or spreadfromvillagetovillage—toregionswestandnorthoftheFertileCrescent.Warringsettlements,thus,cametobeagriculturalvillageswiththediffusionofdomesticatedplantsandanimals.IncludedamongthesesettlementswereHacilar,Çatalhöyük, andMersin. I believe thatwarfare was intensified by attempts to control traderoutes from a volcanic area in east-central Anatoliawhere there were sources of obsidian used in themanufactureofweapons.

Thesecondpropositiondescribedearlierarguesthatwarfare not only has to be absent for domestication,but it has to remain absent while the socio-politicalorder evolves. As settlements fission they becometwo-tier settlement hierarchies known as chiefdoms.If chiefdoms war they remain chiefdoms. They donot have the political organization that would allowconquestandincorporationintoathree-tiersettlementhierarchy. Internal developments may lead to thegreaterpowerofleaders.Thisusuallyoccursthroughinternalconflict,wherebyoneleaderkillshisrivalsorsubordinatesthemtohiswill.Thelosersformalowerclasswithinthepolity.Three-tierpolitiesarise,whichwarwitheachother.Atthisstagewarsofconquestcanoccur.

ForLowerMesopotamiathesitedatashowclearlythat this occurs. Villages in the Eridu stage becameminimal chiefdoms, then typical chiefdoms in theEarlyandLateUbiadstages.Thereisnoevidenceofwarandmilitaryorganizations.Atthebeginningofthefollowing Uruk stage, evidence of internal violenceis found (maces and pictographs of subjugation) andthree-tierpolitiesarise,knownasmaximalchiefdomsor inchoateearly states.Warandconquestoccur andfour-tierpolitiesemerge,knownastypicalearlystates(Otterbein2004:142-158).

Archaeologists differ as to whether states arethree-orfour-tier.IsubscribetotheformersinceIseethe political organization of the three-tier polity ascoercive. The population is controlled, conscriptioncanoccur,lowerclassescanbecoercedintoproducinga surplusof agriculturalproduceandmaterialgoods,evenstandardizedweaponsforaconscriptarmy.Ifanarchaeologist subscribes to the notion that states arefour-tier,he/shemayconcludethatthree-tierchiefdomsmaywarandconquereachother,givingrisetothestate.Frommypointofviewthereweremanyareasoftheworldwherewarringchiefdomsdidnotbecomestates.Thefour-tiergrouparguefortheConquestTheoryoftheState.Idonot.IsubscribetoanInternalConflictTheory(Otterbein2004:96-110).

For many years the Conquest Theory (HerbertSpencer)wasviewedasadated19thcenturytheory.In


Neo-Lithics1/1058


the1960s,when Iwasagraduate studentandyoungprofessor, a Confederacy Theory (Fred Gearing), aConsensus Theory (Elman Service), and an InternalConflict Theory (Morton Fried) competed with eachotheras theexplanationfor theoriginof thePrimaryState.Bythemiddleofthe1970stheConquestTheoryhad reemerged (Robert Carneiro). Some secondarystatescanbeexplainedbyconquest.

Conclusion

Professor Bar-Yosef focuses upon two hypothesesthat could be considered rivals for explaining siteabandonment: environmental factors and warfare.He also believes they can operate together. In mypresentation I did not test the hypotheses, but rathertriedtoexplain“whathappenedinhistory.”Iconsideredmany factors, perhaps the most important being thedestructive effects of warfare. I argue that warfare,if present,will prevent any preliminary steps towardplantdomestication.Warfaredestroysgrowingplantsandstoresofseeds,killsthegatherers,andforcessiteabandonment. Domestication of plants occurred onthe Hilly Flanks and Piedmont Steppe of the FertileCrescent where warfare was not occurring. In theAlluvialDesert southof theFertileCrescentwarfarewas also not occurring. Here mature agriculturalvillages flourished. The farmers had a ready watersupplyfromtheEuphratesandTigrisRivers.Throughvillagefissioningchiefdomsarose.Still therewasnowarfaretohaltthedevelopmentofthree-tierstates.Ifchiefdoms had begun to destroy each other, the firstpristinestatesintheworldwouldnothavedeveloped.OtherareasoftheOldandNewWorldswentthroughsimilar stages with warfare absent in north China,highland South America, and Central America.Primary states arose in those three regions.Warfareis not a causal factor inmy interpretation of history.Whileitcanbeusedtoexplaindestructionandlackofdevelopment,itsabsenceaspartofalargeschemecanexplainboth theoriginofdomesticationandprimarystates.Theabsenceofwarfaremayexplainmanyotherthings.

References

Bar-JosefO.1998 PersonalCorrespondence,October26.

FryD.P.2006 TheHumanPotentialforPeace:AnAnthropological ChallengetoAssumptionsaboutWarandViolence. NewYork,OxfordUniversityPress.

OtterbeinK.F.1997 TheOriginsofWar.CriticalReview11:251-277.

OtterbeinK.F.2004 HowWarBegan.CollegeStation,TexasAandM UniversityPress.2006 HowWarBegan:TheDerivationofTwoPathstoWar. PosterPresentation.SocietyforAmericanArchaeology meetings,SanJuan,PuertoRico.April27.2009 TheAnthropologyofWar.LongGrove/IL,Waveland Press..2010 WarfareanditsRelationshiptotheOriginsof Agriculture.CurrentAnthropology,forthcoming.


Neo-Lithics1/1059


From Violence to Warfare

Warfare has always figured prominently as anexplanatory model for certain aspects of thearchaeological record, and has been invoked in theinterpretationsofstructures,tools,evidenceofvillageburning, and evidence of multiple deaths. Violencecertainlyrepresentsoneofthecommonlyencounteredoptionsintherepertoireofhumanbehaviour,regardlessofthetypeofsubsistenceorthelevelofsocialcomplexityofanyindividualsociety(Keeley1996;Keeley1997;Kelly2000).Buthowdoweproceedfromtheevidenceofanindividual’sviolentinteractionsanddeath,totheinterpretationoforganizedviolence,and,furthermore,fromevidenceoforganizedviolencetowarfare?OferBar-Yosef’spaperaddressessomeoftheseissuesinthebestandmaybe theonlypossibleway:by lookingatthe specific regional development and its ecological,historicalanddemographicconcomitants,asrevealedbythearchaeologicalandbioarchaeologicalevidence.In addition to its unique geographic position, thewealth of research, excellent excavation techniques,environmental reconstructions and a number of siteswithlongculturalsequencescertainlymaketheLevantanexcellentplacetoattempttounderstandthegenesisandmeaningofviolence inprehistoric societies, andthepotentialcausesoforganizedviolenceandwarfare.What I would like to address in this commentary isrelatedlesstothecritiqueoftheevidencepresentedfortheNearEast,butactsmoregenerallyasacautionarynote against applying this well-rounded scenarioproposedfortheLevanttootherpartsoftheworldortosedentaryhunter-gatherersingeneral.

Inmanyotherareasoftheworld,eventhosewitha long archaeological research tradition such as theBalkanPeninsula,wearestilldealingwithindividualsitesandcaseswhereevidenceisbeinginterpretedasanexampleofviolent interactionsagainstotherpossibleinterpretations.IntheBalkans,butalsoinmanyotherareasoftheworld,understandingtherolethatsedentismplayedasacausativeagentofwarfare is impededbyincomplete evidence of the archaeological sequencespredatingagriculture, insufficientpaleoenvironmentalresearch, and a paucity of skeletal material. Whilesedentism and its associated higher populationdensities are generally considered as conducive toviolent interactions among humans competing forlimitedresources,violenceneeds tobeunderstood initsculturalandhistoricalcontext,whichisnotalwaysavailable to regionalarchaeologies.Whilepopulationpressure–prominent sinceThomasMalthus’ famous

EssayonthePrinciplesofPopulation(1798)-isoftenevokedasamajorpredictorof the frequencyofwar,thisisnotsupportedbycross-culturalstudies(Keeley1996:118). Furthermore, Kang (2000) demonstratedthatundercertainhistoricalcircumstances,warfarecanresultfromunderpopulationcausedbyenvironmentalstressratherthanoverpopulation.

Endemic Violence in the Mesolithic or Preservation Bias?

I find it unfortunate that the Mesolithic has beensingledoutasaperiodwhentheevidenceforviolencebecomesfarmorecommonthanintheearlierperiodsofhumanhistory(Frayer1997;Thorpe2000;Torres-Rouff and Costa Junqueira 2006; Vencl 1999). Is itreally so? What unequivocal evidence do we haveto claim that the Mesolithic was more violent thanprevious periods?And if that indeed was true, whatexplanationscanbeoffered?Istheviolencerelatedtosedentism,accumulation,prestige,orotherelementsofthesocietalstructure(Pospisil1994);ormightitnotbeasamplingerrorstemmingfromthefactthatwehavefar more skeletal remains from the Mesolithic thanfromtheearlierperiods?Ifindeedwecandemonstratehigher levels of conflict in the Mesolithic than inprevious periods, what happens later: more conflict,less conflict?Does violence – andmore specifically,organized violence – play an evolutionary role increating large-scale aggregations with a centralizedpower structure (Carneiro 1994), is it the by-productof thecentralizationofpower(Kang2000)orshouldwarandsocietyberegardedasco-evolving,asKelly(2000)proposes?

The Necessity of an Historical Context for the Interpretation of Warfare

The evidence gathered from present-day indigenouspeople practicing traditional ways of life, as well ashistoric accounts of these people, still provides themost immediate insight into the diversity of humanresponses.Whiledirectethnographicanalogyisoftenmisleading as it takes evidence out of its historicalcontext, insights provided by these groups must beparamount. The recognition that these groups havetheir own history has to be the basic premise of alltheory-building and explanatory attempts (Ferguson1992;MarshallThomas1994)“Warsareoftenfoughtlocally,evenWorldWars:theyareconjecturalevents”

Commentary on “Warfare in Levantine Early Neolithic. A Hypothesis to be Considered”

Mirjana Roksandic DepartmentofAnthropology,UniversityofWinnipeg [email protected]


Neo-Lithics1/1060


(Simons1999:92).Thislocalandhistoricalcharacterhas to be kept inmind in all attempts to understandwar and its background. Keeley (1996) showed thatwarfareispresentinthearchaeologicalrecordofnon-statesocietiesanddemonstratedthatpre-statesocietywarfarecannotbe regardedasdifferent inextentandlethality from wars between states. Nevertheless,Haas questions Keeley’s contention that, as a given,warfareisuniversalandnotesthatKeeley“forcesustoexamine thecriticalquestionofwhywarfareappearsand disappears at different times and places” (Haas1999:13).Whetheranalyzingcausesofwarinhumansociety in general, or searching for similar patternsandcausesonaregionallevel,itiscrucialtotakeanhistoricalapproachtowarfarefromitsemergencetoitsresolution.Thatanhistoricalapproachiscrucialisalsostressedbyethnographicresearch(EmberandEmber1997;Ferguson1992).

Furthermore, war is “not related to violence assimplymoreofthesame”(Kelly2000:21).Ifwedecidethatviolencedoes,butwarfaredoesnotappearbeforea certain level of socio-political complexity, such asthestate, is reached(Reyna1994),andconceptualizewar as restricted to centralizedpolities (Reyna1994:xiv), the question of warfare in the Mesolithic andNeolithicdoesnotevenarise.However,sincenoformof social organization ormode of production can becausallylinkedwithwarorpeace(EmberandEmber1997;Otterbein1997;Otterbein2000;Walker2001),allsocietieswilleventuallyindulgeinwar.Therefore,I favour the definition of warfare offered by Kelly,applicable to all levels of political centralization,whichoffersagoodworkingdefinitionforexaminingprehistoric warfare. Kelly (2000: 21) considers war(includingfeuds)tobegrounded“inapplicationoftheprincipleofsocialsubstitutability”:“theprinciplethatonegroupmemberissubstitutableforanotherinthesecontextsunderwritestheinterrelatedconceptsofinjurytothegroup,groupresponsibilityfor theinflictionofinjuryandgroup liabilitywith respect to retribution”(Kelly2000:5).Unsegmentedhunter-gatherershavealow frequencyofwarfare as they lackorganizationalfeatures associated with social substitutability thatareconductivetothedevelopmentofgroupconcepts.On theotherhand, segmented foragers showamuchgreaterfrequencyofwarfare:16outof17examinedbyKelly(2000).Wecouldclaimthatrecognitionofgroupidentityprovides thebestexplanatorymechanismforthe emergence of warfare. It is important to stress,however,thatsocialstructureinitselfdoesnotresultinfeudingorwar.Certainexternalconditionswillneedtobeimposedinordertogeneratewarfare.Accordingly,Kellystatesthat“warfareisnotanendemicconditionofhumanexistencebutanepisodicfeatureofhumanhistory (and prehistory) observed at certain timesand places but not others” (2000:75). All societieswillknowperiodsofpeaceandstability,andIwouldnot necessarily agree that peaceable societies are asuncommon as they seem to be: the lack of diversityin responses offered bymodern societies to stressors

resulting inwarfare could be obscuring a number ofpossibleresponsesinthepast.

Understanding Archaeological Evidence

ThatlocalhistoryhastobeacomponentinunderstandingwarfareisnolesstruefortheMesolithicandNeolithicgroups that archaeologists study. Illustrative of thequalityofevidencewearedealingwithisthefactthatweconsiderthesamplesizeof100individualsfromasinglesiteofthisperiodassubstantial,andoftenmakeinferences based on less than 20 individuals. Thatthe problems become aggravated by excavation andcuratorialpractices is,alascommonknowledgeforallofus,andweoftenhaveto“makedo”withwhatlittleevidence we have (Roksandic 2004; Roksandic et al.2006).Givenconcernsaboutpreservationbias,inabilitytodetectsofttissuewoundsascausesof(violent)death,and the near impossibility of distinguishing betweenviolence and accident,we are leftwith an evenmoredifficultquestion.Ifwecanindeedrecognizetheevidenceforviolence,howcanweinterpretit:arewedealingwithshortepisodesofunresolvedconflictwithhighmortalityrates,oraconstantbutlowrateof“endemic”warfare?Andfurthermore,ifwecanascertainacaseofintertribalwarfare, canweconsider thegroup (oras is currentlydone for thewholeMesolithic) aswarlike?Couldnotthesporadicepisodesof–evenorganized–violence,bejustwhattheyseemtobe:episodesofstressresolvedthrough conflictwithout further impact on the societyand its long-term history? As Jackes (2004) pointsout,since thereare inevitablepoliticaland judgmentalovertonesadditionaltoosteologicalinterpretationsintheexaminationofviolenceinanygivensociety,wemustbeextremelycarefulandstrictlyneutralwhenmakingbroadstatementsregardingviolenceinanysociety.

Thehistoricityofwarfarerequirestheunderstandingand interpretation of organized violence througha culture-specific lens. While there is no doubt thatevery human being is capable of violent behaviors,socializationandlearninghelpdirectandchannelthistypeof behavior as certain instanceswill bepraised,others shunned in any given group.Every individualin a given group has to find the modality that willfulfill both individual needs and social expectationsin a particular situation, including violence, andaccordingly, societies differ both in the amountand direction of violent behavior that is consideredpermissibleorappropriate.Thevalueassociatedwithviolence,properlychanneledwithinaculturalsystem,oftenfindssomereflectioninthesymbolicbehaviourofthegroup.Theculturalspecificsofagroup–atanygiven timewithin its history – need to be examinedagainst the backdrop of the available environmental,demographic and symbolic information to allow forbuildingastrongandwellconstructedframeworkforunderstandingwarfareinregional(pre)histories.


Neo-Lithics1/1061


References

CarneiroR.L.1994 WarandPeace:AlternatingRealitiesinHumanHistory. InS.P.ReynaandR.E.Downs(eds.),StudyingWar AnthropologicalPerspectives:3-28.Amsterdam, GordonandBreachPublishers.

EmberM.andEmberC.R.1997 ViolenceintheEthnographicRecord:ResultsofCross- CulturalResearchonWarandAgression.InD.L.Martin andD.W.Frayer(eds.),TroubledTimes:Violence andWarfareinthePast:1-20.Amsterdam,Gordonand BreachPublishers.

FergusonR.B.1992 ASavageEncounter:WesternContactandYanomami WarComplex.InR.B.FergusonandN.L.Whitehead (eds.),WarintheTribalZone:ExpandingStatesand IndigenousWarfare:199-228.SantaFe,NewMexico, SchoolofAmericanResearchPress.

FrayerD.1997 Ofnet:EvidenceforaMesolithicMassacre.InD.L. MartinandD.W.Frayer(eds.),TroubledTimes:Violence andWarfareinthePast:181-216.AmsterdamGordon andBreachPublishers.

HaasJ.1999 TheoriginsofWarandEthnicViolence.InJ.Carman andA.Harding(eds.),AncientWarfare.Archaological Perspectives:11-24.PhoenixMill,SuttonPublishing Ltd.

JackesM.2004 OsteologicalevidenceforMesolithicandNeolithic violence:ProblemsofInterpretation.InM.Roksandic (ed.),ViolentinteractionsintheMesolithic:Evidence andMeaning:23-39.Oxford,OxbowBooks.

KangB.W.2000 AReconiderationofPopulationPressureandWarfare: ACprotohistoricKoreanCase.CurrentAnthroplogy 41(5):873-881.

KeeleyL.H.1996 Warbeforecivilization.NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press.1997 FrontierWarfareintheEarlyNeolithic.InD.L.Martin andD.W.Frayer(eds.),TroubledTimes:Violenceand WarfareinthePast:303-320.Amsterdam,Gordonand BreachPublishers.

KellyR.C.2000 WarlessSocietiesandtheOriginofWar.AnnArbor, TheUniversityfoMichiganPress.

MarshallThomasE.1994 ManagementofViolenceamongtheJu/wasiofNyae Nyae:TheOldWayandtheNewWay.InS.P.Reynaand R.E.Downs(eds.),StudyingWarAnthropological Perspectives:69-84.Amsterdam,GordonandBreach Publishers.

OtterbeinK.F.1997 TheOriginsofWar.CriticalReview11(2):251-277.2000 AHistoryofResearchonWarfareinAnthropology.AA 101(4):794-805.

PospisilL.1994 IamVerySorryIcannotKillYouAnymore:Warand PeaceamongtheKapauku.InS.P.ReynaandR.E. Downs(eds.),StudyingWarAnthropological Perspectives:113-126.Amsterdam,GordonandBreach Publishers.

ReynaS.P.1994 StudyingWar,andUnifinishedProjectofthe Enlightenment.InS.P.ReynaandR.E.Downs(eds.), StudyingWarAnthropologicalPerspectives:i-xvi. Amsterdam,GordonandBreachPublishers.

RoksandicM.2004 ContextualizingtheEvidenceofViolentDeathinthe Mesolithic:BurialsAssociatedwithVictimsof ViolenceintheIronGatesGorge.InM.Roksandic(eds.), ViolentInteractionsintheMesolithic:Evidenceand Meaning:53-74.Oxford,Archeopress.

RoksandicM,DjurićM,RakočevićZ,andSeguinK.2006 InterpersonalViolenceatLepenskiVirMesolithic/ NeolithicComplexoftheIronGatesGorge(Serbia- Romania).AmJPhysAnthropol129(3):339-348.

SimonsA.1999 War:BacktotheFuture.AnnualReviewofAnthropology 28:73-108.

ThorpeN.2000 OriginsofWar.MesolithicConflictinEurope.British Archaeology(April):9-12.

Torres-RouffC.andCostaJunqueiraMA.2006 InterpersonalviolenceinprehistoricSanPedrode Atacama,Chile:Behavioralimplicationsof environmentalstress.AmericanJournalofPhysical Anthropology130(1):60-70.

VenclS.1999 StoneAgeWarfare.InJ.CarmanandA.Harding(eds.), AncientWarfare.ArchaeologicalPerspectives:57-73. PhoenixMill,SuttonPublishingLtd.

WalkerP.L.2001 ABioarcheologicalPerspectiveontheHistoryof Violence.AnnualReviewofAnthropology30:573-596.


Neo-Lithics1/1062


WhenIfirst readBar-Yosef’sproposalonwarfare intheLevantImustadmitIwasskeptical.WerecoveredaconsiderablenumberofPPNburialsfrom‘AinGhazal(n=121)fromtheMPPNB,LPPNBandPPNClayers),andonlyoneofthesedisplayedanyindicationsofha-vingcometoaviolentend(seebelow).Inthebackofmymind,perhaps,wasthefeelingthattheexpansionoffarmingpopulationswasanessentiallypeacefulpro-cesswithlittletoupsettheidyllictransformationoftheLevant beyond the occasional interpersonal strike ofremorsefulangerthatunfortunatelyhadledtothedeathofafellowresidentofanagriculturalsettlement.ButnowthatIhavehadsometimetolookthroughsomeof thebackgroundmaterial fromseveralof theexca-vation reports andother sourcesof information,withsomeincubationoftheimplicationsofthefielddata,Ihavecometoconfrontmydoubtsofascenariowherebloodshedmayhavebeenamorecommonoccurrence.Nevertheless,Ithinkthereisstillsomeroomfordebateonwhatthenatureof“warfare”intheEarlyNeolithicentailed.

ThereareseveralpointsintheNeolithicprehistoryof the Levantwhen conditionsmay have beenmoreconducivetoviolentconflictthanothers.OneofthesewouldhavecomeduringthelaterpartofthePPNA,andtheclustersofburialsfromJericho,forexample,mightreflectincreasedstressesneartheendofthe10thmil-lenniumBC.AnothertriggermayhavebeensetattheendoftheMPPNB,whenconsiderableupheavaltookplaceinthesouthernLevant(e.g.,Rollefson2004;Ge-bel2004),andwhensettlementsgrewtounprecedentedsizesanddemandsonlocalresourceswereunmatchedcompared toearlier times.Thenonceagain,after sixorsevencenturies,another tumultuousshift insettle-mentpatternstookplaceattheendofthe8thmillen-niumBC,whenmega-sitesalongthehighlandspineofJordanwereseverelydepopulatedorwereabandonedaltogether.Inallthesecases,itisverylikelythat“title”wasclaimedtoresources,especiallyarablefarmland,water,andotherabioticmaterials(Gebeln.d.),andthattrespassingonsuchholdingscouldeasilyresultinma-jorintergroupviolence.Butoverall,theexpressionofsuchperiodicpotentialsofintergroupassaultshasnotappearedwithanyimpactinthearchaeologicalrecord.

ThefertilemortuarydatafromJericho,wherenear-ly500bodieswererecoveredfromprehistoriccontexts(KurthandRöhrer-Ertl1980:32),areambiguouswhenit comes to evaluating the impact of violence on thelocalpopulation.Therearesomesuspiciousclustersofburialsthatindicatethatlargenumbersofpeoplediedsimultaneously,whichcertainlywouldhavebeenex-traordinary circumstances of death.One of themorenoteworthy cases involves the 12 skeletons inserted

throughawallof thePPNAtower(Kuijt1996:324),whichwaspossiblyrelated“tosomedisaster,inwhichbuildingswere destroyed ... [andperhaps] associatedwith the great fire in the area to the south” (Kenyon1981:33).

In another case, Kenyon mentions the cluster ofmorethan30individualsendingupinajumbledclus-ter(Kenyon1981:78),possiblyduetoanearthquakeduring thePPNBStageXVIII inSquaresD1andF1(1981:12).Cornwalldescribedthismassburialasre-presentingdeathspossiblyduetoaplague,“fornotoneofthebonesboresignsofviolencesuchasmighthavebeenexpectedas theresultofamassacre”(Cornwall1981: 401). Bar-Yosef mentioned the likelihood thatthePPNAwallandtowercomplexatJerichowasnotrelated todefense against enemiesbut as ameans toprotectthecommunityfromflashfloods,andthiscer-tainlyhasreceivedachorusofagreement.Afterall,ifthePPNApopulationatJerichowasaround500peop-le,say,almosthalfofthemwereprobablyhuntersandadept at the use of bow-and-arrow aswell as spearsandpossiblypropelleddarts.Whatkindofcommunitycouldraiseenoughpeopletoassaultsuchaconcentra-tionofarcherswell-versedinaccuracy?Furthermore,where are they coming from in numbers sufficient-ly large to threatenthe livesof theJerichoresidents?ButoneaspectofthearchitectureofJerichohasbeenoverlooked,perhaps.InSq.M1KenyonrecordedtheconstructionofaPPNBStageXIIwall“incorporatingmassiveorthostatslabs”(1981:221)thatappeartobesturdierthanonewouldexpectforflashfloodprotec-tion(forwhich,itappears,thereisalsonoevidenceinthePPNAditch).InthesucceedingStageXIIIKenyondescribedapossiblegatewaytoatownwallinthesamearea(1981:222),and“thisnewwallisadefensivewallaswellasbeingaterracewall,andthisisthefirsttownwall of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period” (Kenyon1981:79).

Asfor indicationsofviolentconflict, thecasesarerelativelyskimpyinnumber.Müller-Neuhofidentifiescircumstantial evidence for conflict, including settle-mentlocationandstructure,fortifications,avarietyofburial information (including demographic statistics),weaponsofcloseanddistantcombat,andiconography(Müller-Neuhof2005:425-430.Amongtheweaponry,hecitesthewidespreadpresenceofprojectilepointsandsling stones; both kinds ofweapons could have beenprincipallyusedforhunting,buttherearesomeexcep-tionalinstances(seebelow).Asforclosecombat,we-aponssuchasmaces,axes,anddaggersare relativelywidespreadthroughouttheregionduringthePPNandPNperiods(Müller-Neuhof2005:430).

Directevidenceofviolentconflictismuchrarer.Du-

Violence in Eden: Comments on Bar-Yosef’s Neolithic Warfare Hypothesis

Gary Rollefson WhitmanCollege,WallaWalla [email protected]


Neo-Lithics1/1063


ringtheLPPNBat‘AinGhazal,one“trashburial”(rareduringthisperiod)boreaclearindicationofthecauseofdeath.Manyofbonesofthelowerpartoftheskele-tonweremissing,butsomeoftheuppertorsowasinarticulation,inaverticalpositionwiththeskullslippeddownovertheuppermostvertebrae.Themoststrikingaspectwasthepresenceofathinflintbladesnappedatbothendsembeddedintheleftsideoftheskull,whichhadpenetratedwithsufficientforcetodriveac.3cmdiameterpieceoftheinnersurfaceoftheboneintothebrain(Figs.1and2)(RollefsonandKafafi1996:22;cf.Grindell1998:377).

Nemrik 9 providesa coupleof casesofvi-olent death. One burialwas of a male whoseskull contained two pe-dunculated projecti-le points, and anotherskeleton included a pe-dunculated point in thepelvicarea;abrokenel-Khiam pointwas foundnexttothebrokenarmofathirdburial(Kozlows-ki 2002: 40).The rarityof these projectile pointtypesintheNemriksitehasbeentakenasanin-dication that violencewasnotrestrictedtoim-mediate neighbors, butto attacks by groups ofpeoplewhohadtraveledgreat distances (Müller-Neuhof2005:260).

Other instances ofviolencehavealsocomefromsouthernJordan.AtBas-ta,thecraniumofaboy8-9yearsofagerevealedtwosevereblows:onewasinflictedbyasharp-edgedtoolthatpenetratedtheleftfrontalarea,butthiswasnotthecauseofdeath.Thesecondblowwasfatal:itcausedawebof fractures that reached from the occipital areatotherightfrontalbone(Röhrer-Ertletal.1988:136).OthercranialinjurieshavebeenreportedfromBastaaswell.Ofasampleof29skulls,fiveexhibited“healedfracturesoftheskullvault”(Schultzetal.2004:260).Altogether,then,traumaaffectedonefifthoftheexami-nedcraniafromBasta,includingtheyoungboydescri-

bed by Röhrer-Ertl etal.,andthisstatisticrai-ses questions about thenature of the violenceassociated with the in-juries. Müller-Neuhofalso noted that the de-mographic data fromÇatalhöyük indicated adisproportionately lowrepresentation of ma-les in themortuary po-pulation, especially inLayer VI compared totheearlierlayers(2005:428),reflectingperhapsthe situation where themen had been killedelsewhere and buried.Mortuary statistics areoftencitedtoreflecttheconditionsofthegreaterpopulations they were

Fig. 1 Exterior of LPPNB male skull fragment with embedded flint blade, from ‘Ain Ghazal. The blade segment is outlined in white. (Photo: H.-D. Bienert).

Fig. 2 Interior view of Fig. 1. The blown-away interior bone is indicated by a dotted line. (Photo: H.-D. Bienert).


Neo-Lithics1/1064


once part of, but in the case of the southernLevant,thisglimpseofpathologiesmustberegardedwithex-tremecaution.KurtandRöhrer-Ertl longagowarnedthatthemortuarydatafromPPNA+BJerichowasnotrepresentativeandshouldnotberegarded“evenasparsprototo(1981:430;cf.460).Theyconcludedthat“[i]ntheJerichoPPNA+Bonlyveryfewofthedeadwereplaced inside the settlement under the contemporarysurface”(1981:432).ThismightpartlybethereasonthatsolittleindicationsofviolencearepresentinthelargesampleatJericho.

This situation of under-representation of humanskeletalremainswasdiscussedinarecentarticlethatasked“WherearetheDead?”(Bienertetal.2004).Itwassuggested thatperhaps80%ormoreof thedeadwereburiedoff-site,and thatcertaincriteria (suchasprimogeniture)wereusedtoselectfamilymembersforburialbeneathhousefloors(Rollefson2004:170-171).AsBar-Yosefhasremarkedinthisissue,violencewaswidespread if not particularly frequent. The culturalphenomenonsurroundingthesubfloorburialpatternsocharacteristicoftheM+LPPNBinthesouthernLevantmightbethereasonthatthe“smokinggun”(suchasthegruesomecaseforTalheimduringtheLBKNeolithicofCentralEurope;WahlandKönig1987)formoreex-tensiveconflictshasnotbeenfoundyet.Therecentdis-coveryofacemeterynearaLateNeolithicsettlementontheMediterraneancoast(Galilietal.2009)providessomepromise thatearlierPPNcemeteriesmightalsobediscoveredtoshedsomelightonthesociopoliticalconditionsoftheEarlyNeolithic.

Bar-Yosefsuggeststhattherewasakindof“weaponsindustry” that may have circulated projectile points by“mobileartisans”whopresumablywentfromsettlementtosettlementtoexchangetheirinstrumentsofdeathasawayofearningaliving.Whilethiscan’tberefutedabsolutely,the“armstrade”neednothavebeenpromulgatedbyrovingflintknappers.Quintero’sresearchhasshownthatwhilena-viformbladeproductionat‘AinGhazalwastheworkofspecialists(Quintero1998:227-228),thelociofnaviformproductionusinglocalpurple-pinkflintindicatesthatthesespecialistsweremembersofthelocalcommunity.

Looking for correlations of collapsed buildings,burned buildings, and associated bodies that mightreflectattacksonsettlements fromoutsidegroups,asadvocatedbyBar-Yosef,mightbeafruitlessendeavor.First,IamunawareofanyIronAgestyledestructionlayersinEarlyNeolithicsites.InoursmallsampleofexcavatedhousesfromMPPNB‘AinGhazal,onlytwowerefoundtohavesufferedsignificantlyfromfireda-mage (one utterly destroyed, one renovated), but thevastmajoritydidnotincludeanyindicationsofinten-tional destruction; for theLPPNB,onlyonebuildingburned,butagaintherewasnodirecttiewithintenti-onal conflagration. In these rare instances from ‘AinGhazal,itisimportanttorecallthattherewasalotofexposedwoodinthestructuresinmostofthebuildings(andatother sitesaswell), andaccidentalfires fromsparksrisingfromtheinteriorhearthstothedryrafterswasprobablyanoccasional calamity.Werebodies to

be found in the interior of collapsed buildings, theremusthavebeentimeswhenthisseismicallyactiveareasuffereditsshareofNeolithicdestruction.ThisappearstobethecaseatLPPNBBa‘ja,forexample(GebelandKinzel2007:32),andthereareafewindicationsthat‘AinGhazal also experiencedanearth tremorduringtheLPPNB;seismicdamagecouldverylikelybeac-companiedbyfiresthatstartedasaconsequence.

Whilenoneofuswouldbesurprisedtofindmoreindicationsofviolentdeath in theLevant, itmustbeaskedhowmuchoftheviolencewasinterpersonalorintragroupratherthanintergroup(thelatterfittingmorecomfortablyintomycognitiveunderstandingof“war-fare”).Thefewexamplesofreportedviolencedonotnecessarilyimplyanythingbeyondpersonalvendettasorperhapssomeformofinternalbloodfeud(althoughthesituationatNemrik9doesseemtoarguefor“stran-gersintheland”).Inanyevent,untilwefindaTalheim(WahlandKönig1987)example,wewillnotbeabletoconcludethatthescaleofconflictreachedthelevelofintergroupraidingorwarfare.

References

BienertH.D.,BonogofskyM.,GebelH.G.K.,KuijtI.,andRollef-sonG.O.2004 „WherearetheDead?“.AnswersandComments.In H.D.-Bienert,H.G.K.GebelandR.Neef(eds.),Central SettlementsinNeolithicJordan.StudiesinEarlyNear EasternProduction,Subsistence,andEnvironment5: 169-171.exoriente.Berlin.

CornwallI.W.1981 AppendixA.ThePre-PotteryNeolithicBurials.In T.Holland(ed.),ExcavationsatJerichoIII.The ArchitectureandStratigraphyoftheTell.BritishSchool ofArchaeologyinJerusalem:395-406.London.

GaliliE.,EshedV.,RosenB.,KislevM.E.,SimchoniO.,Hershko-vitzI.,andGopherA.2009 EvidenceforaSeparateBurialGroundattheSubmerged PotteryNeolithicSiteofNeveYam,Israel.Paléorient 35/1:31-46.

GebelH.G.K.2004 CentraltoWhat?TheCentralityIssueoftheLPPNB Mega-SitePhenomenoninJordan.InH.D.Bienert, H.G.K.Gebel,andR.Neef(eds.),CentralSettlements inNeolithicJordan.StudiesinEarlyNearEastern Production,Subsistence,andEnvironment5:1-20. Berlin,exoriente.

GebelH.G.K.n.d. TerritorialityinEarlyNearEasternSedentism. InSedentism:WorldwideResearchfortheShiftof HumanSocietiesfromMobiletoSettledWaysof Life.ProceedingsofanInternationalWorkshop, GermanArchaeologicalInstitute,Berlin2008. (forthcoming).


Neo-Lithics1/1065


GebelH.G.K.andKinzelM.2007 Ba‘ja2007:CrawlSpaces,RichRoomDumps,andHigh Energy Events. Results of the 7th Season of Excava-tions. Neo-Lithics1/07:24-33.

GrindellB.1998 UnmaskedEquality:AnExaminationofMortuary PracticesandSocialComplexityintheLevantine NatufianandPre-PotteryNeolithic.AnnArbor,UMI/ UniversityofArizona,DepartmentofAnthropology: Doctoraldissertation.

KenyonK.1981 ExcavationsatJerichoIII.TheArchitectureand StratigraphyoftheTell.London,BritishSchoolof ArchaeologyinJerusalem.

KozlowskiS.K.2002 Nemrik.AnAceramicVillageinNorthernIraq.Warsaw, InstituteofArchaeology,WarsawUniversity.

KuijtI.1996 NegotiatingEqualitythroughRitual:AConsideration ofLateNatufianandPrepotteryNeolithicAPeriod Mortuary1996Practices.JournalofAnthropological Archaeology15:313-336.

KurthG.andRöhrer-ErtlO.1980 BeiträgezurAnthropologieundPopulationsbiologiedes NahenOstenausderZeitvomNeolithikumzum Chalkolithikum.BonnerHeftezurVorgeschichte 21:31-203.1981 AppendixB.OntheAnthropologyoftheMesolithic toChalcolithicHumanRemainsfromtheTelles-Sultan inJericho,Jordan.InT.Holland(ed.),Excavationsat JerichoIII.TheArchitectureandStratigraphyof theTell:407-499.London,BritishSchoolof ArchaeologyinJerusalem.

Müller-NeuhofB.2005 ZumAussagepotenzialarchäologischerQuellenin derKonfliktforschung.EineUntersuchungzu KonfliktenimvorderasiatischenNeolithikum.Berlin, FreieUniversitätBerlin,FachbereichGeschichts-und Kulturwissenschaften:MicroficheofPhDthesis.

Röhrer-ErtlO.,FreyK.W.andNeweselyH.1988 PreliminaryNoteonEarlyNeolithicHumanRemains fromBastaandSabra.InA.N.GarrardandH.G.Gebel (eds.),ThePrehistoryofJordan.TheStateofResearch in1986:135-136.BritishArchaeologicalReports– Intern.Series396.Oxford,B.A.R.

RollefsonG.2004 “WhereAretheDead?”SomePointstoConsider. InH.D.Bienert,M.Bonogofsky,H.G.K.Gebel,I.Kuijt andG.Rollefson,WhereAretheDead?Answersand Comments.InH.D.Bienert,H.G.K.Gebel,andR.Neef (eds.),CentralSettlementsinNeolithicJordan.Studies

inEarlyNearEasternProduction,Subsistence,and Environment5:169-171.Berlin,exoriente.

RollefsonG.andKafafiZ.1996 The1995Seasonat‘AynGhazal:PreliminaryReport. AnnualoftheDepartmentofAntiquitiesofJordan 40:11-28.

QuinteroL.A.1998 EvolutionofLithicEconomiesintheLevantine Neolithic:DevelopmentandDemiseofNaviformCore Technology.AnnArbor,UMI/UniversityofCalifornia, Riverside,DepartmentofAnthropology:Doctoral dissertation.

SchultzM.,BernerM.,andSchmidt-SchultzT.H.2004 PreliminaryResultsonMorbidityandMortalityin theLatePPNBPopulationfromBasta,Jordan.InH.D. Bienert,H.G.K.Gebel,andR.Neef(eds.),Central SettlementsinNeolithicJordan.StudiesinEarlyNear EasternProduction,Subsistence,andEnvironment 5:259-269.Berlin,exoriente.

WahlJ.andKönigH.G.1987 Anthropologisch-traumatologischeUntersuchungder menschlichenSkelettresteausdembandkeramischen MassengrabbeiTalheim,KreisHeilbronn. FundberichteausBaden-Württemberg12:65-193.


Neo-Lithics1/1066


Inthekeynotepaper,Bar-YosefproprosesthatwidespreadabandonmentofEarlyNeolithicvillagesintheLevantwas caused by warfare more than by environmentaldegradationorrapidclimatechange.Asaspecialist inNewGuineaethnography,Iaminnopositiontojudgethisproposalonitsarchaeologicalmerits.Ifanalogybeallowed,however,theNewGuineaevidencedoessupportitsprimafacieplausibility.Atcontact,NewGuineawashometothousandsofNeolithiccommunitiesrangingindensity from0.3people/sqkmtoover100/sqkmandinsizefromabout20to2,000ormorepeople.Asbestcanbejudged,everyoneofthesecommunitieswasatwarwithoneormoreofitsneighboursonanepisodicor permanent basis, and in several regions massacresandlarge-scalepopulationdisplacementwerecommonresults.

Drawing on the New Guinea evidence, I wantto make two, more specific points, one concerningevidence for warfare in the Levantine Neolithic, theotherthespecificconditionsunderwhichwarfareresultsin settlement abandonment. In attempting to detectwarfareinprehistoriccontexts,littleattentionhasbeengiventooneofitsmoreobvioussignatures–communityscale.Simplyput,itisdifficulttoexplaintheformationandmaintenanceoflarge,nucleatedcommunitiesexceptintermsofwarfare.Biologicalandsocialreproductionrequiresagroupnolargerthanthenuclearorextendedfamily. Under Neolithic subsistence regimes, efficientprocurement and stabilizationof subsistence resourcesseldomrequiresthecooperationofmorethanabout25people, 50 at the outside (Winterhalder 1986; Roscoe2009:79). The Natufian hamlet settlement pattern of30-50 (rarely 100) people (Bar-Yosef, keynote paper)might just about be explicable, therefore, in terms ofsubsistence optimization. But how are we to explainthe early Neolithic villages of “250-400” people thatreplacedthemwithinjustafewcenturies?

Anthropologyhasonlyrecentlybeguntoproblematizethis question of large-group cooperation (Boyd andRicherson1988).Earlier,“group-living”waseithertakenasaprimordialgiven,whichisnoexplanationatall,oritwasattributedtothelocalizationofkeyresources–forexample,richpatchesofsubsistenceresourcesorareasparticularly suited to defense or breeding (Alexander1979:60;Smith1981).Theproblemwiththisargumentis that resource localizationmay account for physicalaggregation,butitdoesnotexplainsocialorganization–why clustered individuals should also form a socialgroup.Thetenantsofanapartmentblockarephysicallyaggregatedbuttheyarenottherebyanorganizedsocialgroup. Theymight become one if, for example, theirlandlord proved delinquent in repairing facilities, butthey do so in response to a challenge extraneous to

the factors that produced their proximity. In the earlyNeolithicLevant,aresourcelocalizationargumentmightexplaintheemergenceofsettlements,butitisasufficientexplanationonlyifweassumethattheresidentsdidnotconstituteasocialgroup–ahighlyunusualcircumstancegivenwhatweknowethnographicallyaboutNeolithicsociety. (Wemight add that resource localizationonlyproduces nucleated settlements if a resource patch isdistributeduniformlyaroundacentralpoint.Ifitdeviatesfrom this form – if, for example, important resourcesarelinearlydistributedalongawatercourse,coast,cliff,or lakebank– then residenceswill be strungout, notnucleated.)

At present, the only plausible explanation wehave for the formation and maintenance of nucleatedNeolithic communities on a scale larger that requiredforreproductionorsubsistenceoptimizationisdefenseagainst attack (Alexander 1979:221-240; Roscoe2009:80-85).Byorganizingcollectiveactioninmutualdefense,suchacommunityadvancesthecommoninterestofitsmembersinsurvival.Itislargebecausedefensivestrength scales in direct proportion to numerical size.And it is nucleatedbecause the efficiencywithwhichmemberscanrallytooneanother’saidintheeventofanattackistherebyoptimized(Roscoe2009).Theveryfactthatvillagesontheorderof250to400peopleexistedintheearlyLevantineNeolithic,insum,istestimonytothepresenceofasignificantthreatofwar.

Assuming, then, that warfare was present in theLevantineNeolithic, the further question iswhether itcanaccountforthewidespreadabandonmentofvillagesbetween 11,700 and 8,200 BP. The answer is not asstraightforward as it might seem. In New Guinea, itwas a common occurrence in some areas, but a rareevent in others. One of the key explanatory factorswas theextentanddensityof landscapevegetation. InNeolithicwarfare,extensive tractsofdensevegetationactasakindof ‘natural’defenseagainst theoffensiveapplication of large-scale military force. In movingacrosssuchalandscape,warriorscannotadvanceonanorganized front butmustmove in file alongwhateverpathstraverseit.Inconsequence,theiradvancecanbeeasilythwartedbyanenemyforce,evenavastlyinferiorone–theHoratio-at-the-bridgeeffect.Furthermore,theyarevulnerable tocounter-attack.If their intentionis tolaunchasurpriseattackandtheirtargetisforewarned–acommonoccurrenceinregionsofNewGuineawheresettlementsarelargeandthepotentialforleaksthereforehigh–theyarevulnerabletoentrapmentbyanenemywaitingincoveralongeithersideoftheirpath.Iftheyareattemptingtochasedownanenemyroutedfromabattlefield, they are similarly vulnerable if the enemymanagestorallyhisforcesorifhehasfakedhisretreat

War, Community, and Environment in the Levantine Neolithic

Paul Roscoe UniversityofMaine [email protected]


Neo-Lithics1/1067


–againacommonoccurrenceinNewGuinea.Indensecover, moreover, lines of retreat are also vulnerable.Thus,anattackcansucceedbutretreatprovecatastrophicifanenemythathasgreaterfamiliaritywiththeterraincandispatchaforcetodelayorhalttheretreat(Roscoe1996:653). Finally, the losses that can be inflicted ineventhemostsuccessfulattackarebluntedbecausethesurrounding vegetation provides a ready and effectiverefugeinwhichdefenderscanescapethepredationsofanattacker.

In New Guinea, the southern foothills of the EastandWestSepikcoastalmountainsfurnishanexemplar,a region of large villages set in dense primary orsecondaryrainforest.Here,thedominantmodeofattackagainst a settlement was the small-scale hit-and-runambush,anassaultthatmightsucceedinkillingafewinhabitantsandburningahouseortwoontheoutskirtsofavillagebutwasincapableofdislodgingorinflictingseriousharmonatargetthattypicallyhousedafarlargerwarriorforce(Roscoe1996:651-653).Inthisentirebeltof settlement, some300kms long andhome tomanyhundredsofvillages,Iknowofonlyone20thCenturyinstance inwhichawholevillagevanishedasa resultofmilitaryforce:thedestructionoftheUratvillageofWundai by a coalition of seven neighbouring villages(Allen1976:54).

Where large-scale massacre and displacement ofvillagers did take place inNewGuineawas in broad,open grasslands such as those that characterized thevalleys of the highlands, particularly the EasternHighlands.Theseenvironmentsimposedfewrestraintsonhowalargewarriorforcechosetoadvanceorretreat;therewaslittlecoverfromwhichcounter-attackscouldbelaunched;andifastrikeorbattlewassuccessful,therewaslimitedrefugeinwhichthevanquishedcouldescapeannihilation.Theirmainoptionforsurvival,infact,wasto flee to kin or allies in other districts. Under theseconditions, surprise attacks commonly took the formof large-scale raids;openbattles,when theyoccurred,were not infrequently decisive in their outcomes; andboth commonly resulted in themassacre andflight ofonesideatthehandsoftheother.AmongtheKamanoof the Eastern Highlands, for instance, Fortune (citedinMandeville1979:112)discovered that everyvillageexceptoneinthevicinityofRaipinkahadbeenrouted“within living memory”; Mandeville (ibid.:112,122)estimated that Kamano villages were displaced fromtheirlandsinwareverysixtyyearsifnotmorefrequently.Watson’sdata(1970:112)fortheTairoraoftheEasternHighlands indicate that major displacements occurredevery25to50years.

Reconstructions of paleo-vegetation in the Levant(Hillman1996:164-165,190)showvastareasofsteppe,desert-steppe, and woodland/forest-steppe duringthe period under consideration, precisely the kind ofopen environments that fostered massacre and flightin New Guinea. On this evidence, therefore, Bar-Yosef’shypothesisthatwarfarewasresponsiblefortheabandonment of many Levantine villages is plausibleon its face. I shall leave to others a discussion of the

archaeological signatures of war and displacementthatweshouldexpecttofindintheLevantinerecord.Isuggest, though, thatcloserattention isalsowarrantedtohowwellpatternsofvillageabandonmentmapontothe physiognomy of Levantine paleo-vegetation. Inparticular,iftheNewGuineaevidenceistobecredited,it would be useful to compare the fates of villageslocated in steppe regions to those in woodland andforestareassuchasthosethatblanketedregionsoftheMediterraneancoast.

References

AlexanderR.D.1979 DarwinismandHumanAffairs.SeattleandLondon, UniversityofWashingtonPress.

AllenB.J.1976 InformationFlowandInnovationDiffusionintheEast SepikDistrict,PapuaNewGuinea.Canberra,Australian NationalUniversity:PhDdissertation.

BoydR.andRicherson,P.J.1988 TheEvolutionofReciprocityinSizeableGroups. JournalofTheoreticalBiology132:337-356.

HillmanG.1996 LatePleistoceneChangesinWildPlant-Foods AvailabletoHunter-GatherersoftheNorthernFertile Crescent.InD.R.Harris(ed.),TheOriginsandSpread ofAgricultureandPastoralisminEurasia:159-203. WashingtonD.C.,SmithsonianInstitutionPress.

MandevilleE.1979 Agnation,AffinityandMigrationamongtheKamanoof theNewGuineaHighlands.ManN.S.14:105123.

RoscoeP.B.1996 WarandSocietyinSepikNewGuinea.Journalofthe RoyalAnthropologicalInstituteN.S.2:645666.2009 SocialSignalingandtheOrganizationofSmall-Scale Society:TheCaseofContact-EraNewGuinea.Journal ofArchaeologicalMethodandTheory16:69-116.

SmithE.A.1981 TheApplicationofOptimalForagingTheorytothe AnalysisofHunter-GathererGroupSize.InB. WinterhalderandE.A.Smith(eds.),Hunter-Gatherer ForagingStrategies:36–65.Chicago,Universityof ChicagoPress.

WatsonJ.B.1970 SocietyasOrganizedFlow:TheTairoraCase. SouthwesternJournalofAnthropology26:107124.

WinterhalderB.1986 DietChoice,RiskandFoodSharinginaStochastic Environment.JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology 5:369–392


Neo-Lithics1/1068


The documentation of the Middle East stretchescontinuouslyfromtheLowerPalaeolithicintomoderntimes,meaningthattheevidenceissolidandabundantfrom the first region in the world where humanitycrossed the threshold of history, as defined by beinglinked to written records. In this contribution, Bar-Yosef has made an admirable attempt to interpretthe evidence of the LevantineNeolithic in a fashioncompatiblewith the origins ofwarfare.The paper isparticularlyimportantbecausethePrehistoricevidencefrom the Near East is the most comprehensive,providing sequences, demographic and settlementpatterns,tools,andburials–andtheNeolithicmustbeapivotalpointinthehistoryofwarfare.

In general, however, because of the details,Neolithicwarfare is a fraught theme.Firstly becausediscussions about violence and warfare inAntiquityand Prehistory have documented violence, but thereis littleagreementaboutwarfareevenfor theBronzeAge, and the nature of Neolithic warfare remainsobscure.Secondlybecausemostdefinitionsofwarfareinsistonapoliticalrole,andourfailuretounderstandthe politics of the Neolithic necessarily underminesourcapacitytojudgethenatureofwarfare.Icontendthat warfare is not mere intra-communal violence,but specifically includes the use of violentmeans bystates to achieve the aimof subduing thewill of theenemyandoccupyterritory;thisisclearlyvisiblefromtheBronzeAgeonwards(Warburton2001;2006a).ItcouldbereasonabletoproposethatwhateverconflicttookplacebetweencommunitiesinthePPNAledtothephenomenonof something resemblingwarfare in thePPNB,andthatthisledtosomethingmorelikewarfarefromtheUrukonwards.OnemightargueforconflictandterritoryintheHalafandUbaid–anditmusthavestartedsomewhere.Theissueis:whenandwhere?Bar-Yosefhasputthisontheagenda.Itishighlysignificantthat Bar-Yosef links the threshold for human groupsnumbering250andmoretotheearlyNeolithic.Groupsofthissizesimplycannotbedocumentedearlier,andprovide the demographic basis for sustained conflict.Therecanlikewisebelittledoubtthattheimportanceof arrow-heads in the PPNB should be related toviolenceresultinginfatalities.Thesetwoaspectsalonesuffice to satisfy the minimum definition of warfare(based on one proposed by the political scientist C.Cioffi-Revilla).Theactualevidencethusallowsustorejecthypotheticalscenariosproposingthattheoriginsofwarfarelie,e.g.,intheEuropeanPalaeolithic,andtosituatetheoriginsofwarfareasweunderstanditintheLevantineNeolithic(Warburton2004/2008).

Thus, while fundamentally in agreement, as iscustomaryIstresspointsofdisagreement–inthehope

thatthediscussioncontributestothedevelopmentofaresearchagenda.

Development, Communities, Economics, Elites and War

Inmyview,Bar-YosefhascomplicatedtheargumentbysuggestingthattheNatufianrepresentsthebeginningsof ‘history’ and ‘territorial ownership’. In principle,this should allow a scheme for following politicaldevelopments interpreted in terms of warfare.Yet itisimpossibletospeakof‘history’aswehaveneither‘events’nor‘individuals’whichcanbeunderstoodasreflecting human purposes. In fact, we do not evenhave therealsequences;weonlyhavehintsatsocialphenomena. It is likewise impossible to understandwhat ‘territorial ownership’ might have meant forNatufiancommunities;evenforthePPNB,discussionsofelitesandownershiphavefailedtodemonstratetheexistenceofthephenomenonofprivatelandownership(as opposed to assuming it, and assuming that theevidenceiscompatiblewiththatinterpretation)–andcertainly one cannot extrapolate ‘territory’ from theexistingevidence.

More significantly, it is difficult to extrapolatefromPPNAtoolassemblagestoculturalcommunitiesengagedinwarfare:eventhosecommunitiesforwhichwe really can argue social conflict (those associatedwith the PPNB mega-site phenomenon, based onsecluded positions, etc.) frequently used the sametools.AnditisalmostimpossibletodemonstratethatthePPNAsiteswereactuallyoccupiedsimultaneously(whichwouldbetheconditionforconflict).Itfollowsthat (based on demographic units and evidence)there isnocompellingbasis to argue forNatufianorPPNAconflicton thesamescaleas thatwhichcouldpotentiallybearguedforthePPNB.

I would argue that these changes are necessarilylinkedtoassumptionsabouteconomicgrowth,wherearchaeologists usually end up in circular logic withinternal contradictions. One fundamental problem isthat themodels from the 1950s and 1960s proposedthatwarfareandstateinstitutionsemergedinacontextwhere productive capacities and ownership led totheemergenceofvillagesandelites in a commercialcontext.ThesemodelswerethensomehowmixedwithPolanyi’s schemewherebymarketswere relegated tothebackgroundinthehistoricalperiodbeginningwiththe BronzeAge (e.g., Renger in Leick 2007) – andthemodelshavesomehowsurvivedthepublicationofevidencepublishedsince(cf.Yoffee2005;Warburton2006b,2009).

Warfare in the Neolithic? Methodological Considerations

David A. Warburton UniversitätBern,InstitutfürArchäologischeWissenschaften [email protected]


Neo-Lithics1/1069


However, the archaeological material clearlydemonstrates that sites such as Göbekli emergedlong before any change in productive capacities.Furthermore, the archaeological and philologicalmaterial documenting exchange and markets revealsthat these were far more important from the end ofthethirdmillenniumonwards–andthattheincipientorigins lie in the lateNeolithic at the earliest (whensmallquantitiesoflapislazuli,goldandsilverappearin the Levant). In the third millennium, large landownersandpalacesarepurchasingland;inthesecondmillennium–whenlargequantitiesoflapislazuliandsilveraredocumented–landsalesvirtuallydisappear(cf.Godderris in Leick 2007). Thus, access to landonlybecameanissueinthesecondmillennium,aftertheemergenceofcommoditypricesandmarkets.Itisthus anachronistic to project a developmentwherebyBronzeAgeinstitutionseclipsedNeolithicmarketsandlargelandholdings.

Yet the Bronze Age elites did link ideology,commercialwealth,land-holdingsandterritorialgainsto political and military activities. The challenge islinkingtheultimatedevelopmentstotheoriginswithoutbeing teleological. The emergence of somethingresemblingwarfareinthePPNBcanhardlybedisputed–butanyexplanationshouldrecognizethattheoriginsandthefinalformsneednotberelated.

Climate and War

InBar-Yosef’s contribution, the economic and socialdifficultiesarecompoundedbytheusualarchaeologicalassumptionthatclimaticchangeisthemotorpushingdemographic growth and thus political history. Bar-Yosef does allow that the climatic changemay havetriggered the demographic movements, and has thusslightlymodified the format – but still assigns this akeyrole.

However, theonecasewherearchaeologicalworkin the historical period has attempted to demonstratesystemic collapse related to climatic change is thatadvocated by HarveyWeiss for the end of the thirdmillennium.Yet aside from the fictive nature of theoriginal ‘Habur Hiatus’, misleading chronologicallinksprovidetheimageofacollapsewhichisnotreal(Warburton2007).Thus,archaeologistsshouldactuallywithdraw from assigning too much significanceto climatic change as such – let alone assume thatdemographicchangesshouldbeattributedtoclimaticcauses.

TherearetwoweaknessesinthecaseofBar-Yosef’smorenuancedargument.Thefirstisnecessarilythatifthe climatic change had actually merely served as atriggertosocialconflictresemblingwarfare,thenonewouldfindsomevictorsat theendof thePPNAandPPNBrespectively.Itisratheroddthatallofthesitesare abandoned in both cases. Obviously, somethingchanged so fundamentally that the entire systemwasabandoned.Ifoneweretoassociatethiswithwarfare,

itwould implya scheme resembling thedestructionsof the Peoples of the Sea at the end of the BronzeAge. The Egyptians may have survived and viewedtheir defensive measures as ‘warfare’, but from thestandpointof thePeoplesof theSea it canhardlybeviewed aswarfare in the traditional sense, as it leadnowhere. Thus, one has the impression of senselesssocial violencewhichdidnot lead to a newpoliticalconfiguration,butmerelydestroyedtheprecedingone.

In Bar-Yosef’s argument, the second weakness isthathefailstotakeaccountoftherealitiesofhistoricalwarfare.ItishardlyoriginaltosuggestthattheArab-Israeli conflict whichmarked the second half of thetwentiethcenturyADwasnotcausedbyeitherclimaticchange or demographic growth. It is true that thecreationofthestateofIsraelasapoliticalactopenedthe way to mass emigration and an unsustainableexploitation of the environment. Yet neither theIsraelisnorthePalestiniansseemtobedeterredfromclaiming land threatened by a perpetually fallingwater table. Nor were the earlier conflicts betweenthe British and the Germans in Palestine and NorthAfrica caused by demographic or environmentalchange.Furthermore,noonewouldmaintain that theCrusades,theArabconquests,theRomanEmpire,theambitionofAlexander,ortheconquestsofthePersians,Babylonians,Assyrians,andEgyptianswerepushedbydemographicorenvironmentalproblems.

In occasional historically documented incidentsfrom ancient history, foreigners were deported fromtheir homelands to work in the land which startedthewar (in the case of theEgyptians,Assyrians andBabylonians). Thus, this would have exacerbateddemographicproblemsathome–hadtherebeenany.Otherwise, warfare was accompanied by the fellingof economically important trees (as at Megiddo inPalestinewhere, for the siege,Thutmosis IIImade apalisadefromorchards)andthedestructionofharvests(as in thewarsbetween theHittites,Mitanniand theAssyrians in northern Syria). Thus in the Bronzeand Iron Ages, warfare contributed to demographicproblems and environmental chaos – but did notcauseit.Foreignlabourmayhavecontributedtolocalunemploymentinthevictoriouscountries,butthisisnotdiscussedasbeingrelatedtowarfare.Andseemingly,intheIronAgePalestinewasproducingmoreoliveoilthanever,sotheresultswerenotlonglasting.

On the contrary, it is frequently argued that theRussiancampaignsofbothHitlerandNapoleonweredefeatedbytheclimate–buthistoriansdonotarguethattheywerecausedbytheclimate.Thusinthehistoricalperiodforwhichwarfare isdocumented–andwhichprovidesthedefinitionsofwarfare–,demographicandenvironmentalcausesareirrelevant.Yetarchaeologistsareforeverassumingthatsystemicenvironmentalanddemographic change accounts forwarfare –whereastheveryreverseisthecase.


Neo-Lithics1/1070


Summary

InfactthehistoryoftheAncientNearEastisacatalogueofwarsofterritorialconquestwherethestrongertriedto subdue the weaker – and a victor emerged untilreplaced by another. Warfare has political originsand purposes rather than social causes. Thus, in myview, Bar-Yosef has identified the time and place oftheoriginsofwarfare.Hisapproachsuffers from theusualfailuresofconventionalarchaeologicalthought,of(a)assumingthatwarfarehasa“cause”ratherthana“purpose”,(b)thatclimaticanddemographicexplaineconomicandpoliticalchange,and(c)thatthedetailsofthehistoricaldevelopmentofmarketsandstatescanbedisregarded.

ModelsfortheemergenceanddevelopmentoftheNeolithicmustbecompatiblewithGöbekliwherewehaveamassivecommunityeffortpriortoaproductionor ownership economy. Göbekli would have beenimpossible without elite guidance, yet the economicmarkersareirrelevant.Themodelsmustbecompletelyrevised,startingwith theknownsandeliminating thespeculation. The approach of the post-processualistsmust be adapted to include ideology pushing socialhistoryfrombeforetheNeolithic;marketsandownershipshouldonlybeallowedtopushdevelopmentsfromtheBronzeAgeonwards.Theemergenceofstatesmustbeunderstoodinpoliticalterms,andtheroleofstatesinpushingmarket forcesmustbeplaced inperspective.Theroleofthevictorsintermsofterritorialexpansionmustovershadowconceptsofownership,violenceanddestructionwhensearchingforwarfare.

References

LeickG.(ed.).2007 TheBabylonianWorld.London,Routledge.

WarburtonD.A.2001 EgyptandtheNearEast:PoliticsintheBronzeAge. Neuchatel,CivilisationsduProche-Orient.SérieIV. Histoire-Essais1.2004/2008PsychoanalyzingPrehistory:Strugglingwiththe UnrecordedPast.InP.Antesetal.(eds.),New ApproachestotheStudyofReligionII:419-455.Berlin, deGruyter.2006a AspectsofWarandWarfareinWesternPhilosophy andHistory.InT.Ottoetal.(eds.),WarfareandSociety: 37-55.Aarhus,AarhusUniversityPress.2006b TheInstitutionalizationofSocialEvolution.Akkadica 127:13-39.2007 WhatHappenedintheNearEastca2000BC?InE.H. Seland(ed.),TheIndianOceanintheAncientPeriod. BritishArchaeologicalReports.InternationalSeries 1593:9-22.2009 Economics,AnthropologicalModelsandtheAncient NearEast.AnthropologyoftheMiddleEast4:65-90.

YoffeeN.2005 MythsoftheArchaicState.CambridgeUniversityPress. Cambridge.

Reply

Neo-Lithics1/1071


Iamindebtedtoallmycolleagueswhorespondedbysubmittingtheirthoughtfulcommentstomyproposalto consider ‘warfare’ or ‘inter-group violence’ asan additional hypothesis to be considered (togetherwith natural and social calamities such as successivedroughts, diseases, and more) when we discuss theabandonment of Early Neolithic sites in the Levant.Thecommentariesareveryrichininformation,ideas,and interpretations, and thus there is no way that Ican respond to or arguewith every commentator. Inaddition,Irefrainedfromfullyreferencingmycurrentstatements and thus avoiding the need to repeat thesamereferencesalreadycited.OnlyinafewcasesdoImakeoneortworeferences.Iwillthereforerespondfirstbydiscussingissuesof‘terminology’,moveontothearchaeologicalevidenceandthelimitationimposedonitsinterpretations,andwillendwithafewcommentsongeneralstatementsmadebythereviewers.

Terminology is often a source for variabledefinitions.Letustaketheterm“feasting”thatisusedintheanthropologicalinterpretationofparticularfaunalremains to record an event that bears the reversedsense to ‘warfare’, perhaps themeans to avoid it orto reconcile in its aftermath. Feasting can take placewithin a large tribal annualmeeting, for example, asknownfromyearlygatheringsofBedouininSinainexttothetombsofSheikhs(e.g.Marx1977).Feastingorpotlatch among Northwest Coast Native Americanswas conducted when a leader hosted guests in hisfamily‘shouseandheldafeastforhisguests.Sociallythemainpurposeofpotlatchwasthere-distributionofwealthandasanactofreciprocity.However,weusetheterm‘feasting’whenparticularcontextsarerecognizedarchaeologically,eveninthecontextofasmallgroup(e.g. Munro and Grosman 2010; Goring-Morris andHorovitz-Kolska2007;Twiss2008).

InasimilarapproachM.Özdoğaninhiscommentarycorrectly refers to the obsidian exchange as a “profitmaking”system,andonemayadd that it is rare thatreferenceismadeto“merchants”ortohowimportedcommodities were paid for. Nevertheless, even arural networkwith a low level economic systemcanbedescribedbyusing the same terminologyusedbyeconomists.Oncetheself-supplyingclosedsystemofhunter-gatherers,enhancedbygiftgiving,gavewaytothenewNeolithicsociety,theincreasingratiobetweendemandandsupplywithintheNearEasterninteractionspheresgaverisetolongdistanceconnectionsbeyondtheboundariesoflocaltribes.

Correspondingly the term ‘warfare’ in my shortpaper was intentionally employed but did not carrythe meaning of modern national warfare, or evenwar among city-states, as assumed by R. Bernbeck

(thisissue).Iusedthistermintentionallyinmyshortessay in order to initiate among us, scholars of theEarlyNeolithicperiod in theNearEast, adiscussionconcerning inter-group violence during the EarlyNeolithic.ThisIdidbecauseIwasundertheimpressionthatwestilladoptedtheview,perhapsunconsciously,that Neolithic past societies were peopled by ‘noblesavages’.The“pacificationofthepast”(LeBlanc,thisissue)hadtobetackled,aviewalsosharedbyMüller-Neuhof(thisissue).Forthisreason,Ifeltthatashortnotein“Neo-Lithics’wouldbetheappropriateforum.Thedecisionoftheeditorsof‘Neo-Lithics’toopenupthistopictowiderdiscussionbrought,notsurprisingly,a large number of commentaries, and I thank all thecontributorsfromwhomIlearnedsomuchmoreaboutthissubject.

One of the repeated issues in archaeology is thequestionwhichweaskourselvesoverandoverwhenwe give our interpretations of the archaeologicalremains uncovered in the field and/or analyzed invariouslaboratories:Howdoweknowwhatweknow?

Several statements that we make (including myown)arenoteasilydemonstrableinarchaeology.Itmaysuffice to mention the example of sedentism, whichprobablyplayedanimportantroleintheevolutionofLevantineNeolithicsocieties.Itisnotjustonthebasisofexcavatedhousesandstoragefacilitiesthatwecanclaimmost or all-year round sedentism, butwe alsoneed to provide biological and botanical indicators,suchas thepresenceofcommensals,plantscollectedthroughmanymonths,aswellas theaforementionedarchaeological markers (houses, storage facilities,etc.),andstilldoubtcansometimesremain.Therefore,the proposal to see villages temporarily (seasonally)abandoned by most inhabitants is a valid model. ArecentethnographicexamplewouldbethestonebuiltArab villages located along the edges of the hillsbordering the southern Levantine coastal plain thatduring the 19th century, and probably before, weremostlydesertedduringthesummerseasoninfavorofmid-coastalplainagriculturalactivitiesandaseriesofshedsoradobebuildings.

Sedentism,isacyclicalphenomenon,andisrelatedto a set of factors such as subsistence strategy, areasof exploitable resources, need for group security,relative increase in population, control over territory,and presence of neighbors (Roksandic, Gebel, thisissue).Theemergenceofmoreorlessfullysedentarycommunities in the Near East occurred at a timewhencultivationasthebasicsubsistencestrategywasimplemented.Hence,whileweseetheearlyexpressionsof sedentism among Early Natufian communities, amajor site such as Eynan (‘AinMallaha) documents

Warfare in the Levant: Response Ofer Bar-Yosef

Ofer Bar-Yosef HarvardUniversity [email protected]

Reply

Neo-Lithics1/1072


severallongtermabandonmentsthatcausedthenaturalfill of the houses by runoff moving alluvium andcolluvium (unless theywerefilled intentionally), andthenecessityofdiggingagaininordertoconstructnewpit-houses. Thus, the Early Neolithic (PPNA) sites,even if theywereoccupied for nomore than severalcenturies, are the first archaeological expression offullsedentism.Inaddition,thesevillagesdocumentanincreaseinenergyexpenditureinthecourseofbuildingsemi-pithouseswithmudbrickwallsandroofs.

Indeed, as several of the comments indicate,recording the regional population history, whichincludes territorial expansion and retraction (Gebel,Roscoe, Müller-Neuhof, Roksandic, LeBlanc, thisissue), is of crucial importance. The increase inpopulationwas biologically enhanced through a newdietbasedoncerealsandthefullsedentismoffemales.Onemightaskwhethertheselargercommunitieswerethe first to have more frequent intra-group violencethan the Natufian, as suggested by Rollefson onthe basis of recorded cases from several sites. I say,yes probably.Again, the reasonmight have been theterritorial “packing” or “crowding” as discussed indetailbyGebel(thisissue).Heisrighttosuggestthattheeconomicdevelopmentof“marginalareas”duringthe PPNB alleviated temporarily (in the historicalsense) the need for raids. The Mesopotamian plainsopenedupavast space for agricultural systembasedon irrigation,and the semi-arid fringesof theLevantaccommodatedthenewlyexpandingpastoralsocieties(Gebel,thisissue).Inadditionweshouldalsotakeintoaccount the development of similar socio-economicsystemsintheZagroshillyflanksandtheintermontanevalleys.Nevertheless,inter-groupviolencecouldhaveco-occurred, albeit that the skeletal evidence is stilllacking. Ifwarsbetween twogroupsonly tookplaceintheopensteppiclandscape,assuggestedbyRoscoe(this issue),and thecorpseswere left in thefield,noevidencewilleverbefoundinexcavationsunlesselitememberswere‘brought-in’forburial.

The archaeology of the Early Neolithic indicatesthat the abandonment of villages did occur, and thequestionweshouldaskineverycaseis‘why’?TheNewGuineanevidence,aspresentedbrieflybyRoscoe,tellsusthatduetowarfarevillageswererebuilteveryfewgenerations.Tobeclearonthispoint,IdonotproposetoadopttheNewGuineananalogy,butratherthatweshouldlearnthat‘warfare’(inter-groupviolence)isanoptional explanation. It took place within the socialrealm, and one may suggest that it is not triggeredbysoildepletionorclimaticcalamity,but justdue torivalry over political control, that inmy view of theworldistriggeredbyeconomicfactors.

Storage facilities in Neolithic villages couldhave been one of several reasons for raiding andlooting (Müller-Neuhof, this issue).The lackof suchinstallationsortheirpaucityinNatufiansiteseliminatesoneofthemainreasonsforraids,resultinginapeacefulworldwhere only personal rivalries ended in violentdeath(Grosman,thisissue;BouquentinandBar-Yosef

2004). Therefore, it was only when social structurebecame more complex than the Natufian level thatchanges insocietalbehaviorareexpected(Rollefson,this issue). Evidence for increasing complexity andthe changing relationships between Neolithic tribescouldhaveledtothepresenceofcaptiveswhobecameslaves of a richer, stronger community (Guilaine,this issue; Bar-Yosef, in press; Rollefson, personalcommunication).

Thereisnodoubt,asindicatedbyseveralcomments,thatdeathcouldbecausedbywoundstothesofttissueandthusnotrecognizedinthestudyofskeletalremains(LeBlanc,Roksandic,thisissueandreferencestherein).Thisonlymeansthatwehavetolookforothersignsofinjuries,causesofdeath,andthelike.WhatIconsideratemporarylackofevidenceissometimesfilledbynewdatathatoriginatesfromanovelscientificendeavor.

ThegeneralcommentofK.Otterbein(thisissueandreferencestherein),whoiswellknownforhiswritingonthissubject,providesacomprehensiveoverviewonthesubject.Wearegenerallyinagreementthatwarfareas agroupactivity commencedonlyafter cultivationand eventual domestication of cereals. Successfulharvestsbyonegroup,ifnotrelatedtotheirneighbors,maytriggerthepoorercommunitytoraidthefoodofothers. Thus, we are also in agreement that the actsof warfare augmented with the emergence of statesocieties.

Finally, severalcomments related toothergeneralissuesthanthepracticalaspectsthatIwishedtostress.D.WarburtontookpositionwithrespecttotheimpactofclimateonhumansocietiesintheLevantbycitingthesupposed“HaburHiatus”.Whilethisisnotinmyfieldofexpertise,Idofeelthatthefactthatthe8200calBPColdEventisreceivingincreasedattentionbyarchaeologists(suchasatthemeetingattheUniversityofLeiden,March2010)showsthatmorescholarsinourfield and related ones are finding that archaeologicalevidencealsorecordstheimpactsofthisevent(seealsoWeningeretal.2009).I

In addition readers may enjoy the survey of theNeolithicmillenniathatfollowedthe“8200calBPcoldevent”byL.Clare.Inthiswell-informedoverviewboththeendofthePPNC,thedemiseoftheTrans-Jordanian“mega-sites” and the cultural changes during theensuingmillennia raise thequestionofpossible linksto the impacts of several intervals of environmentalcrisis(RCC).Hissurveyconfirmshowsignificantthegeographicdistributionandfrequenciesofprecipitationare for the southern Levant, this region being morepronetosuccessivedroughtsthanthenorthernLevant.Therefore,itmayhavebeenenvironmentalchangeinthesouthernLevantthatledtothecollapseofthemega-sites(Gebel,thisissue),aprocesswhichwaspossiblyaccompanied by intra-group violence. On the otherhand,thenorthernLevantbenefitsfromtheadvantagesof theEuphrates, theTigris and their tributaries.Thedifferent rivers provided safe sources of water fordrinking and irrigation. It is for this reason that theculturalhistoryof thenorthernLevant, and its larger

Reply

Neo-Lithics1/1073


area,playedsuchamajorroleintheculturalhistoryoftheentireAncientNearEast.

In a few additional comments, D. Warburtonsuggeststhatweasarchaeologistsassumethatwarfarehas a ‘cause’ rather than a ‘purpose’. I am afraid Ifailtoseethedifference.Ifyourownharvestweretofail, and someone inaneighboringvillagehada fullgranary, and these neighborswere not your relativesandrefusedtosharetheirfood,youmightindeedhavegood‘cause‘topillagetheirstores,thisthenbeingthe‘purpose’ofviolence.Next,inhisviewwearewrongtoregardclimatechanges(e.g.aconsecutiveseriesofdroughts) as causal toeconomicchange,which itselfmay lead to political upheaval. I assume that a largenumberofcasestudiesfrommorerecenthistorycouldbecitedtodemonstratethatenvironmentalchangescanplayamajorrole.However,IdoagreewithhimthatGöbekli Tepe would not have been possible withoutelite guidance, but there is noway of supporting anelite without a large population. That this change inthe overall demography of the region is a plausiblescenario can probably be demonstrated if furthersupportisfoundtoconfirmtheobservationthatearlycultivationofcerealsledtothecreationoftherequiredsurplusasearlyas12,000calBP,asindicatedbyplantremainsanddatesfromPPNATelQaramel(Willcoxetal.2009).

In sum, my proposal was not to see violence orwarfareasthesolecausefortheabandonmentofEarlyNeolithicvillages.Iviewitasonecauseamongmany.Intra-groupviolenceandsocialdisagreementsamongrivalclansfromthesamesedentaryvillagecanbejustasmuchcausalas,forexample,endemicdiseaseetc.Isimplykeepaskingthequestion‘howdoweknowthatourinterpretationistherightone?’Withoutdiscussingall the various potential explanations I would liketo repeat the request that I have made on severaloccasions.Canwefindinthearchaeologicalexcavateddeposits of our sites the evidence for the impact ofclimaticchangesthatweknowfromothersourcessuchas the speleothems? Indeed, the same can be askedwith regard to other posited interpretations, such asthe nature of the relationships between communitiesduringtheearlyHoloceneorevenearlier,priortotheappearanceofwritingsystems.

References

Bar-YosefO.inpress TheCollapseofthePPNBCivilizationandits Aftermath.In:I.Burdukiewicz(ed.),Festschriftin honourofS.Kozlowski.Poznan.

BocquentinF.andBar-YosefO.2004 EarlyNatufianremains:evidenceforphysicalconflict fromMt.Carmel,Israel.JournalofHumanEvolution 47:19-23.

Goring-MorrisN.andKolskaHorwitzL.2007 FuneralsandfeastsduringthePre-PotteryNeolithicB oftheNearEast.Antiquity81:902-919.

MarxE.1977 Communalandindividualpilgrimage:Theregionof saints‘tombsinSouthSinai.InR.P.Werbner(ed.), RegionalCults:29-51.Mouton,TheHague.

MunroN.D.andGrosmanL.2010 Earlyevidence(ca.12,000B.P.)forfeastingataburial caveinIsrael.PNAS107(35):15362-15366.

TwissK.C.2008 Transformationsinanearlyagriculturalsociety: FeastingintheSouthernLevantinePre-Pottery Neolithic.JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology 27(4):418-442.

Weninger B., Clare L., Rohling E.J., Bar-Yosef B., Böhner U.,BudjaM.,BundschuhM.,FeurdeanA.,GebelH.G.K., JörisO.,LinstädterM.P.,MühlenbruchT.,ReingruberA.,RollefsonG.O.,SchyleD.,ThissenL.,TodorovaH.C.,andZielhoferC.2009 TheImpactofRapidClimateChangeonprehistoric societiesduringtheHoloceneintheEastern Mediterranean.DocumentaPrehistorica36:551-583.

WillcoxG.,BuxoR.,andHerveuxL.2009 LatePleistoceneandearlyHoloceneclimateandthe beginningsofcultivationinnorthernSyria. TheHolocene19(1):151-158.

OtherContributions

Neo-Lithics1/1074

During the 2009 excavation season, the head of ananimalsculpturemadeoflimestonewasidentifiedonthesurfaceofthesouthernslopeofthesouth-easternhillockofGöbekliTepe (Schmidt, forthcoming).All attemptsmadetoremovethissculpturefromthesurfacesoilfailed.Subsequently,asmallsoundingwasexcavatedinorderto remove thehead and to document its context.Thissoundingrevealedthat,inactualfact,weweredealingwithwhatappearedtobetheheadofalargesculpturethatwassetinastonewall.In2010alargerpartofthesamearea(L9-46),measuring5.00x6.00metres,wasexcavatedinordertobetterunderstandandtodocumentthearchitecturalcontextofthisfind.Onlynowhavewerealizedthatthisrelativelylargesculptureisreminiscentofthe“totempoles”knownfromthenorthwestcoastofNorthAmerica.Ithadbeensetinthenorth-easternwallofarectangularroomandwasnotvisibleoriginallyduetothewallcompletelycoveringthepole.

Followingthedocumentationofthepositionandthecontextofthefind,whichbelongstoLayerII(EPPNB),itwas removed from thewall in accordancewith therulesoftheGeneralDirectorateofAntiquitiesofTurkey.Ithastheremarkablelengthof1.92metres(Fig.1a-c)withanaveragediameterof30cm.Itsweight,whichasyetcouldbenotdeterminedexactly,mustlieinexcessof 500 kilograms, as even 10 workmen had seriousproblemsliftingandcarryingit.

The pole features three main motives, one aboveanother. The uppermost motive depicts a predator,probablyabearoralargefelid–alionoraleopard–duetotwopreservedfeaturesofthehead:theearsandtheeyes.Thefrontalpartoftheheadhadbeenobliteratedinantiquity;thesurfaceofthebreakiscoveredwithathin limestone coating.Below the head, a short neck,armsandhandsarevisible.Theirhuman likeshape isremarkable.Althoughwemightpostulatethatthisdepictsa “Mischwesen”, such as the “Löwenmensch” fromtheAurignaciansiteofHohlesteinStadelinSouthwestGermany,westill cannoteliminate thepossibility thatthesefeatureswereintendedtodepictanimalarmsandlegsandnothumanlimbs.

Thearms(orlegs)areholdinganotherhead,whichagainlostitsfaceinantiquity.Significantly,themotiveof awild beast holding a human head iswell knownfromseveralsculptures fromNevalıÇoriandGöbekliTepe (Schmidt in press). For this reason it is veryprobable that the lost face of the head being held bythe “Löwenmensch” (or bear/ lion/ leopard) was thatofahuman.Thissuggestionisfurtherstrengthenedbythefact thathumanarmsaredepictedbelowthehead.

Thehandsareplacedoppositeoneanotherandon thestomach of the individual. This is amannerwhich isclearlyreminiscentoftheT-shapedpillars.

Belowthearmsandhandsasecondpersonisvisible.Fortunately, the face of this individual is completelypreserved. In comparison to thefirst human, the headofthesecondpersonisrelativelysmall.Alsodepictedistheupperpartofthebody,includingthearmsandhands.Belowthehandsthereisanunidentifiedobject.Itseemslikelythatthepersonisdepictedgivingbirth,albeitthataverydifferentexplanationisalsoconceivable,e.g.thepersoncouldbepresentinghisphallus.

Belowthearmsofthepredator(or“Löwenmensch”)atbothsidesofthepole,largesnakesarevisible.Theirlarge heads (one is partly damaged) are situated justabovetheheadofthesmallindividual.Belowtheheadsof the snakes, structures are visible which might beinterpretedasthelegsoftheuppermosthuman.

Itseemsobviousthatsuchapiecemadeofstonemustalso have had parallels inwoodwhich have failed tosurvivethemillennia.However,itshouldbenotedthatfragmentsofaquitesimilartotempole-likeobjectmadeoflimestonewerealreadydiscoveredsome20yearsagoinNevalıÇori (Fig. 2; comp.Hauptmann 1991/1992,1993; Hauptmann and Schmidt 2007 Kat. Nr. 101;Schmidt,inpress,Fig.16and17).ThisobjectwasfoundintheTerrazzoBuildinginanEPPNBcontext;thepolewas broken in several pieces and buried in the north-eastern bench of the building. Consequently, the poleitselfcouldbeofmucholderdate,infactitcouldevendatetothePPNAperiod.ThesamemaybetruefortherecentfindfromGöbekliTepe,whichhadbeeninvisiblebehind a wall. A detailed study of these remarkableobjectsandtheircontextswillbepublishedelsewhere.

Acknowledgements: We would like to express ourgratidutetotheMinistryofCultureandTourismoftheRepublicofTurkeyforthekindpermissiontoexcavatetheimportantsiteofGöbekliTepe.Weareverygratefulto the representatives of the general directorate ofAntiquitiesin2010,GülsümYaprak,NedimDervişoğluandAynurTalaakar,fortheirsupportoftheproject,andtoDr.ÇihatKürkçüoğlufortheclosecontactwithtothegeneraldirectoratebesidehisscientificwork.Wearealsoindebted to all other teammembers and theworkmenoftheseasonfortheirefforts.Theproject-directedbytheGermanArchaeologicalInstitute-isfundedbytheGermanResearchFoundation(DFG)andsupportedbyArchaeNovae.V.

The Göbekli Tepe “Totem Pole“. A First Discussion of an Autumn 2010 Discovery (PPN, Southeastern Turkey)

Çiğdem Köksal-Schmidt &Klaus Schmidt GermanArchaeologicalInstitute,Berlin [email protected]

OtherContributions

Neo-Lithics1/1076

Referenes

HauptmannH.1991/92 NevalıÇori.EineSiedlungdesakeramischen NeolithikumsammittlerenEuphrat.NürnbergerBlätter zurArchäologie8:15-33.1993 EinKultgebäudeinNevalıÇori.In:Frangipaneetal. (ed.),BetweentheRiversandovertheMountains. ArchaeologicaAnatolicaetMesopotamicaAlba PalmieriDedicata:37–69.Rome.

HauptmannH.andSchmidtK.2007 DieSkulpturendesFrühneolithikums.In:Badisches LandesmuseumKarlsruhe(ed.),Vor12000Jahrenin Anatolien.DieältestenMonumentederMenschheit. BegleitbandzurGroßenLandesausstellungBaden- WürttembergimBadischenLandesmuseum 2007:67-82.Stuttgart.

SchmidtK.inpress GöbekliTepe–SanctuariesoftheStoneAge.New resultsoftheongoingexcavationswithaspecialfocus onthesculpturesandhighreliefs.In:Ritualsand ReligionsinEurasianEarlyPrehistory.16thNeolithic SeminarBodies.DocumentaPraehistorica.

forthc. GöbekliTepekazısı2009yılıraporu.In:Kazısonuçları toplantısı.Istanbul2010.KültürveTurizmBakanlığı. KültürVarlıklarıveMüzelerGenelMüdürlüğü,Ankara.

Fig. 2 The “totem pole” from Nevalı Çori (reconstruction and drawing: K. Schmidt)

OtherContributions

Neo-Lithics1/1077

IftheculturesthatdevelopedinthecentreoftheSou-thernCaucasus,ofwhichArmeniaispart,arecompa-redtothoseofthenorthernNearEastortheneighbou-ringregionsborderingtheBlackSeaandtheCaspianSea,itisclearthatthereisalargegapinourknowledgeofthebeginningsofNeolithisation.Indeed,inthebasinof theKura, inGeorgia andAzerbaijan, it is only atthebeginningofthe6thmillenniumcalBCthatacul-ture appeared (theShulaveri-Shomutepe culture) thatpossessed an advancedmastery of the domesticationofplantsandanimals (Kush-nareva 1997; Kiguradze andMenadbe 2004), whereas inthebasinoftheAraxthecul-tureofKültepeofNakhiche-van developed from the 2ndhalfofthe6thmillenniumcal.BC (Munchaev 1982; Nari-manov1987)(Fig.1).

InArmenia,wheretenye-ars ago the Neolithic periodremainedverypoorlyknown,the collaboration betweenthe Institute of Archaeologyof Yerevan and the French“Caucasus” mission enabledthe discovery of two diffe-rent cultures: a Mesolithic/EarlyNeolithiccultureontheeastern flank of the Aragatsmountains(Kmlo-2rockshel-ter)andalocalvariantoftheShulaveri-Shomutepe cultureintheAraratplain(AratashenandAknashen-Khatunarkh)1.

The Mesolithic / Early Neo-lithic of Kmlo-2

TheKmlo-2rockshelter(Arimuraetal.2010),cutintothebasalticflowsof theAragatsmountaincarvedbytheKasakhRiver(Fig.2),wasoccupiedduringthepre-historicperiodbysmallhumangroupsthathuntedibex,mouflons and deer. Remains of Caprinae have beenfoundintheupperhorizonsoftheprehistoriclayer,but

thewild or domestic status of the highly fragmentedbonesisdifficulttodetermine.Onlywildplantremainswerefoundinthislayer.ThedatingofKmlo-2isadif-ficult issue(Arimuraetal.2010),but excavationsin2009andadditional14Cdatingindicatethatthesitewasoccupiedinthreedifferentphases,11th-10thmillennia,9th-8thmillenniaand6th-5thmillenniacalBC.

The inhabitants of Kmlo-2 produced their toolsfrom obsidian pebbles washed down by the KasakhRiver from outcrops situated near its source (Tsagh-

kunyats range), as well as from larger blocks whichtheybroughtfromdepositsthatwereonetothreedaysdistant by foot (Gutansar, Hatis, Arteni, Geghasar)(Fig.3).Thenumerousdebitageproducts,whichrepre-sent90%of the lithics,provideevidence formakingtoolsonthespot.Thereisalargenumberofmicroliths(30%),includinggeometricpiecessuchaslunatesand

Current Neolithic Research in Armenia

Makoto Arimura NationalResearchInstituteforCulturalProperties,Tokyo [email protected] Badalyan InstituteofArchaeologyandEthnography,Yerevan [email protected] Gasparyan InstituteofArchaeologyandEthnography,Yerevan [email protected] Chataigner Maisondel‘OrientetdelaMéditerranée,Lyon [email protected]

Fig. 1 Main Neolitic sites mentioned in the text.

OtherContributions

Neo-Lithics1/1078

trapeze-rectanglesthatprobablyservedasbarbsforar-rows.

Themost interestingobjects for thestudyof rela-tionswiththeneighbouringregionsareobsidiantoolswithcontinuousandparallelretouchononeorbothla-teraledges,clearlyexecutedbypressureflakingtech-nique.Theseartefacts,originalforArmeniaandcalled“Kmlo tools”, are similar to obsidian tools found onsites of the 8th-7th millennia calBC in southeasternAnatolia and northern Mesopotamia (Çayönü, CaferHöyük,Shimshara,etc)andcalled“Çayönütools”or“Çayönü rods” or “Beaked blades” (Redman 1982;Fuji1988;Canevaetal.1994;Mortensen1970)(Fig.4).

A use-wear analysis, car-ried out by L. Astruc (Ari-mura et al. 2006) on “Çayö-nü tools” and “Kmlo tools”,shows some differences bet-ween the twogroupsofarte-facts. Although the retouchseemstobesimilar,theblanksonwhich they aremade, theretouching technique, thewear traces,and themethodsof rejuvenation are different.According to the use-wearanalysis, no direct relation-ship can be established bet-ween“Kmlotools”and“Çay-önü tools”. Moreover, thegeochemical analysis of 20“Kmlo tools” has confirmedthatallweremadelocallyonobsidian from Armenian de-posits (Tsaghkunyats,Arteni,Gutansar, Hatis, Geghasar)and that therewasno importof artefacts or raw materialfromthenorthernNearEast.

In Georgia, similar tools,called“hookedtools”,charac-terise a culture attributed tothe earlyNeolithic, thePalu-ri-Nagutnyj culture, that de-veloped on the southwesternslopes of the Greater Cau-casus (Grigolija 1977). Si-milar toolsarealso foundonthehighplateausof southernGeorgia (“Paravani group”),where the large obsidian de-positofChikianiwasexploi-ted (Kiguradze andMenadbe2004:353-357).MostoftheseGeorgianEarlyNeolithicsitesare found at altitude, severalarerockshelters,andallhaveproducedonlyonelevelofoc-cupation; unfortunately, none

hasyetbeendatedby14C.The chronological attribution of the “Kmlo cul-

ture”,characterizedbythepresenceof“Kmlotools”,hasbeenrecentlyclarifiedby14Cdating.Thehorizoninwhichthe“Kmlotools”appearhasbeendatedtothefirsthalfofthe9thmillenniumcalBC;theseartefactsarenumerousintheoverlyinghorizonsdatedtotheendofthe9thandtothe8thmillenniumcalBC.Theyseemtohavecontinuedintheupperstrataofthe6th-5thmil-lenniacalBC.Thislatedatefortheuseof“Kmlotools”is confirmed by the discovery of similar artefacts onothersitesoftheregion,includingthehunter’scampat

Fig. 2 Kmlo-2 rock shelter in the canyon of the Kasakh river.

OtherContributions

Neo-Lithics1/1079

Fig. 3 Obsidian procurement of the Kmlo-2 inhabitants

Fig. 4 Tools with an abrupt, regular, sub-parallel retouch.

OtherContributions

Neo-Lithics1/1080

Tsaghkahovitestablishedon thenorthernflankof theAragats in the2ndhalfof the5thmillenniumcalBC(Arimuraetal.n.d.).

The“Kmlotools”thusappeartobeoneofthein-dicatorsofacultureestablishedinthe9thmillenniumcalBCon thehighplateausofwesternArmenia. It ispossiblethatthisculturedevelopedlocallyandconti-nuedatleastuntilthe6th-5thmillenniacalBC.Atthistime, a quite different culture appeared in theAraratplain.

The Late Neolithic of the Ararat Plain

TheLateNeolithic sitesofAratashenandAknashen-KhatunarkharelocatedinthelowervalleyoftheKa-sakhRiver,whichmeanders in theAraratplainbefo-reflowing into theAraxRiver.Aratashen,whichhasbeenexcavatedfrom1999to2004,isasmallellipticalelevationofabout60mindiameterconsistingoftwoNeolithiclevelslyingonthesandyvirginsoil.Attheperiphery of the elevation, unstratified material hasbeen found; this material, which consists mainly ofChalcolithicpotteryandobsidianartifacts,comespro-bablyfromtheupperpartofthemound,destroyedbyerosionovermillenniaandbymodernlevellingworks(Badalyanetal.2004a;2007).As thestratigraphyofAratashen revealed a gap between theNeolithic andChalcolithiclevels,itwasdecidedtoexcavateanothersite,inordertofillthisgap.

The site of Aknashen-Khatunarkh, located 6 kmsoutheastofAratashen,waspartlyexcavatedbyR.To-rosyan in the1970sand1980s;but the resultsofhiswork,carriedoutinthewestsectorofthehill,werenotpublished.ThenewexcavationsbytheArmeno-Frenchmissionbeganin2004andarestillinprogress(Bada-lyanetal.n.d.).ThesiteofAknashen-Khatunarkhisa

moundcircularinplan(about100mindiameter),withaflattoprising3.5mabovethesurroundingplain.SofarthemostcompletestratigraphicsequencehasbeenfoundintrenchA.There,theculturallayerismorethan4mthickandcontinuesfartherdown,butthehighle-velofthewatertabledidnotpermitfurtherexcavation.The preliminary typological analysis of thematerial,mainlypottery,hasenabledattributionofthelowerho-rizons(V-II)totheLateNeolithicandtheupperhori-zon (I) to theEarlyChalcolithic. It seems that at thepresent stage of investigations there is no significanthiatusinthisstratigraphicsequence.

Thecorpusof14Cdatesshowsoverallconcordancebetween Aknashen-Khatunarkh and Aratashen: theearliestlevels(loweststrataofhorizonVatAknashen-KhatunarkhandhorizonIIdatAratashen)belongtotheverybeginningofthe6thmillenniumcalBC.AtAkna-shen-Khatunarkh,theupperNeolithiclevel(horizonII)coversthelastcenturiesofthe6thmillenniumcalBC;therefore theChalcolithic level (horizon I), disturbedbymedieval andmodern intrusions,wouldbelong tothefirsthalfofthe5thmillenniumcalBC.

The inhabitants of these settlements were farmers(naked wheat, emmer, six-row barley, and lentil) andherders (sheep, goats, cattle and rare pigs). Construc-tions,circularinplanwithdiametersfrom3to5m,werebuilt inpiséor,morerarely, inmudbricks.There isahighconcentrationofsmallstructureswithinoroutsidetheconstructions;theyweregenerallyusedassilos(tostockgrainorsometimestools)orasovens(Fig.5).

Theobsidiantoolsarequitedifferentfrom thoseofKmlo-2; theyaremainlyonblades,producedbyindirectpercus-sion or by pressure flaking techniquewithcrutchaswellaswithlevers(Cha-bot andPelegrinn.d.), a technique thatappeared in the northern Near East atabouttheendofthe8thmillenniumcal.BC(Çayönü,latePre-PotteryNeolithic)(Altinbeleketal.n.d.).

The lowerNeolithic levelsatArata-shen and Aknashen-Khatunarkh haveproducedanabundanceofobjectsmadeofbone,hornanddeerantler.Themaintypes consist of awls, spatulas, “hoes”,arrowheads, spoons, wide palettes andtubular casings. In the upper levels, asharpdecline in thequantityandvarie-tyoftheboneindustrycanbeobserved:morethan80%oftheboneartifactsareawls.

Some bone arrowheads have beenfoundclose to stoneswhichpresenton

theirroundedupperpart1to3widetransversegroovesinaU-shapesection.GroovedstonesareknownintheNear East from the 11th millennium calBC onward,andtworegionalvariantscanbedistinguished:intheLevantandwesternMesopotamia,thegroovefollowsgenerallythelongitudinalaxisofthetool,whereasinnortheasternMesopotamiaandtheZagros(ZawiChe-

Fig. 5 Architecture of the lowest levels of Aratashen.

OtherContributions

Neo-Lithics1/1081

mi,KarimShahir,Jarmo,etc.),theyfol-lowmoreoftenthetransverseaxis(So-lecki 1981; Howe 1983;Moholy-Nagy1983). The grooved stones ofArmeniacouldbecomparedto this lattervariant(Fig.6).

Pottery is totally missing from thelowest levelsofbothsites;atpresent itisclear that theearliest sedentarycom-munities in theAraratplaindidnotusepottery.Later,coarsewareswithmineralormixedtemperappear;chaff-temperedwaredevelopsthen,butremainsrareinthe Neolithic horizons. These potteriesshowreddish-browntogray-blackcolor;in some cases, they are decoratedwithappliedelementssuchassimpleknobs.There are in addition some rare sherdsoffinepaintedware,probablyimportedfromnorthernMesopotamia.Sherds si-milartoSamarranorEarlyHalafwareswere foundatAknashen-Khatunarkh inhorizonV(Badalyanetal.n.d.),otherswithmotifscharacteristicofMiddle/LateHalafpotterywerefoundatAratasheninhorizonIIb(Palumbi2007).

AtAknashen-Khatunarkh,intheChalcolithichori-zon,chaff-temperedwaremakesupthebulkofthepot-teryandischaracterizedbyacombedtreatmentofthesurface(ahaphazardlyexecutedseriesofincisedlinesover thebodyof thevessel)andbynewdecorations:ahorizontalrowofperforationsbelowtherim,undu-lated rim,andnotcheson the rim.These featuresarecharacteristicofthepotteryoftheEarlySioniculture,whichdevelopedintheKuraBasinafterthedisappea-ranceof theShulaveri-Shomutepeculture(KiguradzeandSagona2003).

The Late Neolithic culture represented on thesetwo sites in the plain ofArarat is closely related tothe Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture that developed inthesameperiod(6thmillenniumcalBC)farthernorthintheKuraBasin.Bothcultureshavemanypointsincommon:inarchitecture,inlithicandboneindustries,andinpottery.

AtthesiteofAknashen-Khatunarkh,whichpresentsastratigraphicsequencecoveringthephasesoftheLateNeolithicandtheEarlyChalcolithic,twofactorsstandout:a)changeiscompletelyprogressive;b)thereareimportant differences between the earliest and latestlevels,indicatinganevolutioninthewayoflife.Thefirstphase,witharchitectureinpiséandobjectscharac-teristicoftheShulaveri-Shomutepeculture,indicatesasedentaryeconomy.Thelastphaseischaracterizedbyabandonmentofconstructedarchitecture,therarityofgroundstone tools, and thedeclineofboneand lithicindustries.All thesefeatures,whicharecharacteristicoftheSionicultureinGeorgia,suggestachangeintheeconomytowardsmoremobility.

Discussion

InordertobetterunderstandtheNeolithisationprocessinArmenia,twotopicsarediscussedhere:a)thehypo-thesisthatthesearchforobsidian,whichisabundantinthiscountry,ledtotheestablishmentoftradenetworksbetween this regionandMesopotamia;b) the roleofthesouthernCaucasusintheemergenceofhexaploidwheatcultureintheNearEast.

Obsidian Procurement

Morethan20sourcesofobsidianarescatteredacrossthesouthernCaucasus,mainlyinArmenia,butalsoinsouthern Georgia and southwestern Azerbaijan. Thesystematic characterization of the Caucasian sourceswas achieved through geochemical analyses and fis-sion-trackdatingand thisgeologicaldataservedasabasefordeterminingtheoriginsofanimportantcorpusofartefactsfromsitesdatingtobetweenthe6thtothe1stmillenniacalBC(Blackmanetal.1998;Badalyanetal.2001,2004b).TheseresultswerecomparedwiththedatabaseforobsidianintheNearEast.

Theseanalyseshaveshown(Fig.7)thattheobsidi-anfromthesouthernCaucasuswaswidelyusedinthebasinsoftheKuraandtheAraxRivers,uptotheshoresof theBlack Sea and theCaspian Sea.But it hardlycirculatedbeyondthemountainrangesthatborderthisregioninthenorth(GreaterCaucasus)andinthesouth(Anti-Taurus).Onlyagroupofsourceslocatedintheupper basin of theVorotanRiver (Satanakar, Sevkar,Bazenk)wasexploitedbeginninginthe6thmillenni-umcalBCbypopulationssettledinthebasinofLakeUrmiah(northwesternIran).

On the other hand, theAnti-Taurus possesses se-veraldepositsofobsidian thatwere largelyexploited

Fig. 6 Distribution of sites yielding grooved stones with longitudinal and transversal grooves.

OtherContributions

Neo-Lithics1/1082

during theNeolithic andChalcolithic periods: a) theBingölandNemrutDagsources,whichspreadwidelythroughouttheFertileCrescent,butnottothenorth;b)theMeydanDagdepositnorthofLakeVan,whichhadabroaddiffusioninNorthernMesopotamiaandisre-presentedinthesouthernCaucasusonlyoccasionally;c) the Erzurum region, whose populations exploitedonly the local obsidian. In fact, the obsidian sourceslocatedintheLakeVanandErzurumregionsrepresentless than 1% of the provenances of all the southernCaucasianarchaeologicalsamplesanalysed(Badalyanetal.2004b).Thenear-absenceofdiffusionofobsidianfromthenorthernNearEasttowardsthesouthernCau-casusandfromthisregiontowardsthesouthisnotice-ableandsuggeststhattheobsidianexchangenetworkselaborated by theMesopotamian populations did notplayanimportantroleintheprocessofNeolithisationofthesouthernCaucasus.

Emergence of Exaploid Wheats

Theassortmentof cereals foundon theArmenian si-tesofthe6thmillenniumcalBC(AratashenandAkna-shen-Khatunarkh)ischaracterizedbytheabundanceofnakedwheat, whose species, Triticum turgidum (tet-raploid)orTriticumaestivum(hexaploid), isdifficultto determine (Badalyan et al. 2007; Hovsepyan andWillcox2008;Badalyanetal.n.d.).Suchapredomi-nanceofnakedwheatisattestedintheKurabasininthe Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture, where spelt wheat(Tr.spelta),ahulledhexaploidspecies,isalsopresent(Lisitsyna and Priscepenko 1977; Janushevich 1984;Wasylikovaetal.1991;ZoharyandHopf2004).Thefirsthexaploidwheatswerehulledproducts(Tr.spel-

ta),butthenakedderivatives(Tr.aestivum)couldhaveappearedshortlyafter theformationofspelt,becausethe shift between hulled and naked hexaploid wheatwasapparentlyproducedbyonly twomutations(Zo-haryandHopf2004).

IntheregionssituatednorthwestoftheBlackSea,in theBug-Dniestr culture, the spread of spelt is da-tedtotheendofthe7thandthebeginningofthe6thmillenniumcalBC(Janushevich1984;Kotova2009).However, genetic analyses show that the speltwheatofEurope (Moldavia, northernBlack Sea) and thoseofAsia(Caucasus,Iran,Afghanistan)donothavethesameorigin:Europeanspeltwheatoriginatedfromhy-bridizationbetween cultivated emmer (Tr. dicoccum)andclubwheat(Tr.compactum),whereasAsianspeltwheatoriginatedfromhybridisationoftetraploidwheat(Tr.turgidum)withthediploidwildgrassAegilopstau-schii(=squarrosa)(Dvoraketal.1998;Yanetal.2003;

Dedkovaetal.2004).In particular, molecular

studies have revealed that po-pulations ofAegilops tauschiinativetoArmeniaandthesou-thwestern part of the CaspianSeabeltareclosesttogenomeDfoundinthehexaploidwheat(Dvorak et al. 1998). Thus, ahypothesisdefinedinthenine-ties(NesbittandSamuel1996;Zohary and Hopf 2004) waslargely confirmed by geneticstudies (Lelley et al. 2000;GilesandBrown2006;Kilian2009): the most likely originof the hexaploid bread wheatis the southwestern corner oftheCaspianbelt and theadja-cent southern Caucasus. Thehybridisationisgenerallycon-sideredtohavetakenplacebet-ween6000and5000BC;how-ever,astherecentexcavations

atAknashen-Khatunarkh have shown that hexaploidnaked wheat was already present as main cultivatedcropattheverybeginningofthe6thmillenniumcalBC(Badalyanetal.n.d.),wemustconsidernowthatthehybridisationmayhavetakenplaceearlier, inthe7thoreventhe8thmillenniumcalBC.

Thisdomesticationmustbedistinguishedfromtheappearance of hexaploid naked wheat in theMiddlePPNB(firsthalfofthe8thmillenniumcalBC)insou-theasternAnatolia and northern Syria (Abu Hureyra2B,CaferHöyük,Halula,etc.)(Nesbitt2002).Arecentgeneticanalysissuggests that, in theNearEast, therewere at least twoAegilops tauschii sources that con-tributedgermplasmtotheDgenomeofTriticumaesti-vum(Gilesetal.2006),onegivingrisetothelineagepossessingtheTAE1alleleanditsderivatives,andtheothergivingrisetothelineagewithTAE2allele.Thefirsthybridisationprobablyoccurredat thebeginning

Fig. 7 Obsidian procurement in the northern Near East and the southern Caucasus.

OtherContributions

Neo-Lithics1/1083

of the 8thmillennium calBC in southeasternTurkeyandnorthernSyria,wherelocalAegilopstauschiihasahighfrequencyinTAE2allele;thesecond,morere-cent,hybridisationoccurredinthesouthernCaucasusandinthesouthwestcorneroftheCaspianbelt,whereTAE1iscommon(Gilesetal.2006).

This second domestication could have occurredamong small population groups that came from theeasternNearEastatapointintimewhenpotterywasstillunknown(untilthebeginningofthe7thmillenni-umcalBC),whichwouldexplaintheabsenceofpotteryin theearliestphaseof theShulaveri-Shomutepecul-ture.Thenthesegroupscouldhaveevolvedlocallyorbecomemixedwithlocalpopulations.Sucha“culturaldiffusionmodel”wouldexplaintoothespreadofagri-cultureinEuropeduringtheNeolithicperiod(Morellietal.2010).

Conclusion

CurrentNeolithicresearchinArmeniahasbroughttolighttwodifferentcultures:a)aMesolithic/EarlyNeo-lithicculturewithamicrolithicindustry(Kmlo-2rockshelter)onthehighplateausofwesternArmenia;thiscultureevolvedlocallyuntilthe5thmillenniumcalBC(persistenceof the“Kmlo tools” in this region);b) aLateNeolithicculture(AratashenandAknashen-Kha-tunarkh) in theAraratplain,whichconstitutesa sou-thernvariantoftheShulaveri-Shomutepeculture,wi-despreadintheKurabasinduringthe6thmillenniumcalBC.

From several cultural elements (farming, herding,debitagebypressureflakingwithlever,importedMe-sopotamianpottery,etc.),wecan infer linksbetweentheShulaveri-ShomutepecultureandtheNearEasternNeolithic cultures. However, other elements of theShulaveri-Shomutepe culture (circular architecture,absenceofpottery in the lowest levels,abundanceofnaked wheat, etc.) indicate its originality. Therefore,theoriginofthisculturecouldbeduetocontactsbet-weenNearEasternfarmersandlocalpopulationsinthesouthwesternareaoftheCaspianSeaattheendofthe8thorbeginningofthe7thmillenniacalBC.

Whateverthetheoryontheadventofagricultureinthe southernCaucasus, the sitesof this regionwherecerealcropssuchasspeltandbreadwheatdeveloped,remaintobediscovered.ThusresearchmustcontinueinordertodiscoversitespriortoAratashenandAkna-shen-Khatunarkhandtobetterunderstandthepopulati-onsofArmeniaintheearlyHolocene.

Notes

1TheexcavationsatKmlo(resp.M.Arimura)andatAratashenandAknashen-Khatunarkh (resp.R.Badalyan)were funded bytheFrenchMinistry ofForeignAffairs, theNationalCenter forScientificResearch(C.N.R.S.)andtheNationalAcademyofSci-encesofArmenia.

References

ArimuraM.,AstrucL.andToméC.2006 L‘abrideKmlo-2.InC.Chataigner(ed.),Rapport2006 delamissionarchéologique“Caucase”duMAE:41-52. Lyon.

ArimuraM.,ChataignerC.,andGasparyanB.2010 Kmlo2.AnEarlyHoloceneSiteinArmenia.Neo- Lithics2/09:17-19.

AtinbelekÇ.,AstrucL.,BinderD.,andPellegrinJ.n.d. Débitageparpressionaulevier.Premièreidentification dansleNéolithiqueprécéramiqueduProche-Orient (HautesValléesduTigreetdel‘Euphrate,Haute Djézireh).In:UISPPXVèmecongress,Lisbon, September2006,SymposiumPressureFlintknapping: Experiment,contextofemergenceanddevelopment, PapersinhonourofJacquesTixierandMarie-Louise Inizan(inpress).

BadalianR.,BigazziG.,CauvinM.-C.,ChataignerC.,JrbashyanR.,KarapetyanS.G.,M.OddoneM.,andPoidevinJ.-L.2001 AninternationalresearchprojectonArmenian archaeologicalsites:fission-trackdatingofobsidians. RadiationMeasurements34:373–378.

BadalyanR.,LombardP.,ChataignerC.,andAvetisyanP.2004a TheNeolithicandChalcolithicphasesintheArarat Plain(Armenia):TheviewfromAratashen.In A.Sagona(ed.),AViewfromtheHighlands- ArchaeologicalStudiesinHonourofCharlesBurney– AncientNearEasternStudies12:399-420.Leuwen, PeteersPress.

BadalyanR.,ChataignerC.,andKohlP.2004b Trans-Caucasianobsidian:Theexploitationofthe sourcesandtheirdistribution.InA.Sagona(ed.),A ViewfromtheHighlands-ArchaeologicalStudiesin HonourofCharlesBurney–AncientNearEastern Studies12:437–465.Leuwen,PeteersPress.

BadalyanR.,LombardP.,AvestisyanP.,ChataignerC.,ChabotJ.,VilaE.,HovsepyanR.,WillcoxG.,andPessinH.2007 NewDataontheLatePrehistoryoftheSouthern Caucasus.TheExcavationsatAratashen(Armenia): PreliminaryReport.InB.Lyonnet(ed.),Lesculturesde Caucase(VIe-IIIemillénairesavantnotreère).Leur relationsavecleProche-Orient:37-61.Paris,CNRS Éditions.

BadalyanR.,HarutyunyanA.A.,ChataignerC.,LeMortF.,Cha-botJ.,BrochierJ.-E.,BalasescuA.,RaduV.,andHovsepyanR.n.d. TheSettlementofAknashen-Khatunarkh,aNeolithic SiteintheAraratPlain(Armenia)(ExcavationResults 2004-2009).Tüba-A(inpress).

OtherContributions

Neo-Lithics1/1084

BlackmanJ.,BadalianR.,KikodzeZ.,andKohlP.1998 ChemicalcharacterizationofCaucasianobsidian: geologicalsources.In:CauvinM.-C.,GourgaudA., GratuzeB.,ArnaudN.,PoupeauG.,PoidevinJ.-L., ChataignerC.(eds.),L’obsidienneauProcheetMoyen Orient:duvolcanàl’outil.BARInternationalSeries 738:205–231.Oxford,ArchaeoPress.

CanevaI.,ContiA.M.,LemoriniC.,andZampettiD.1994 TheLithicProductionatÇayönü:aPreliminary OverviewoftheAceramicSequence.InH.G.Gebeland S.K.Kozlowski(eds.),NeolithicChippedStone IndustriesoftheFertileCrescent:253-266.SENEPSE1. Berlin,Exoriente.

ChabotJ.andPelegrinJ.n.d. LongbladesfromSouthernCaucasusandNorthern Mesopotamia,twoexamplesofleverpressuredebitage industry.InP.M.DesrosiersandN.Ramani(eds.), TheEmergenceofPressureKnapping:FromOriginto ModernExperimentation.New-York,Springer(inpress).

FujiiS.1988 TypologicalReassessmentandSomeDiscussionson “BeakedBlades”.BulletinoftheOkayamaOrient Museum7:1-16.

GilesR.andBrownT.2006 GluDyallelevariationsinAegilopstauschiiand Triticumaestivum:implicationsfortheoriginsof hexaploidwheats.TheoreticalandAppliedGenetics 112:1563-1572.

GogitidzeS.1978 Samkhret-AgmosavletShavizghvispiretisNeolituri Kultura[NeolithicCultureoftheSouth-EastBlackSea Shore].Tbilisi,Metsniereba[inGeorgian].

GrigolijaG.1977 CentraluriKolkhetisNeolitiPaluri[NeolithicofCentral Kolkhida:Paluri].Tbilisi,Metsniereba[inGeorgian].

HovsepyanR.andWillcoxG.2008 TheearliestfindsofcultivatedplantsinArmenia: evidencefromcharredremainsandcropprocessing residuesinpiséfromtheNeolithicsettlementsof AratashenandAknashen.VegetationHistoryand Archaeobotany17/1:63-71.

HoweB.1983 KarimShahir.InL.S.Braidwood,R.J.Braidwood,B. Howe,C.A.ReedandP.J.Watson(eds),Prehistoric ArchaeologyalongtheZagrosFlanks.OIP105:23-154. Chicago,UniversityofChicago.

JanushevichZ.V.1984 Thespecificcompositionofwheatfindsfromancient agriculturalcentresintheUSSR.InW.VanZeistand W.A.Casparie(eds),Plantsandancientman:267-276. Rotterdam,Balkema.

KiguradzeT.andMenabdeM.2004 TheNeolithicofGeorgia.InA.Sagona(ed.),AView fromtheHighlands.ArchaeologicalStudiesinHonour ofCharlesBurney:345-398.Belgium,Peeters.

KiguradzeT.andSagonaA.2003 OntheOriginsoftheKura-AraxesCulturalComplex. InA.SmithandK.Rubinson(eds),Archaeologyin theBorderlands–InvestigationsinCaucasiaand Beyond:38-94.LosAngeles,TheCotsenInstituteof Archaeology,UniversityofCalifornia.

KilianB.,ÖzkanH.,PozziC.,andSalaminiF.2009 DomesticationoftheTriticeaeintheFertileCrescent. InC.FeuilletandG.J.Muehlbauer(eds),Geneticsand GenomicsoftheTriticeae.PlantGeneticsandGenomics: CropsandModels,vol.7:81-119.Springer.

KotovaN.2009 TheNeolithizationofNorthernBlackSeaareainthe contextofclimatechanges.DocumentaPraehistorica XXXVI:159-174.

KushnarevaK.Kh.1997 TheSouthernCaucasusinPrehistory.Stagesofcultu-ral andsocioeconomicdevelopmentfromtheeighttothe secondmillenniumB.C.Philadelphia,theUniversity Museum,UniversityofPennsylvania.

LelleyT.,StachelM.,GrausgruberH.,andVollmannJ.2000 AnalysisofrelationshipsbetweenAegilopstauschiiand theDgenomeofwheatutilizingmicrosatellites. Genome43:661-668.

LisitsynaG.N.1984 TheCaucasus—acentreofancientfarminginEurasia. In:W.VanZeistandW.A.Casparie(eds),Plantsand ancientman:285–292.Rotterdam,Balkema.

LisitsynaG.N.andPrischepenkoL.V.1977 Paleo-etnobotanicheskienakhodkiKavkazaiBlizhnego Vostoka[Palaeo-ethnobotanicalfindsoftheCaucasus andtheNearEast].Moscow,Nauka(inRussian).

Moholy-NagyH.1983 JarmoArtifactsofPeckedandGroundStoneandof Shell.InL.S.Braidwood,R.J.Braidwood,B.Howe, C.A.ReedandP.J.Watson(eds), PrehistoricArchaeologyalongtheZagrosFlanks.OIP 105:298-324.Chicago,UniversityofChicago.

MorelliL.,ContuD.,SantoniF.,WhalenM.B.,FrancalacciP.,andCuccaF.2010 AcomparisonofY-chromosomevariationinSardinia andAnatoliaismoreconsistentwithculturalratherthan demicdiffusionofagriculture.PLoSONE5(4):1-10.

OtherContributions

Neo-Lithics1/1085

MortensenP.1970 TellShimshara:theHassunaperiod.Kobenhavn, Munksgaard.

MunchaevR.1982 EneolitKavkaza[ChalcolithicofCaucasus].InV.M. MassonandN.I.Merpert(eds),EneolitSSSR [ChalcolithicoftheUSSR].Coll.ArkheologiyaSSSR: 93-164.Moscow,Nauka(inRussian).

NarimanovI.G.1987 Kul’turaDrevneyshegoZemledel’chesko- SkotovocheskogoNaseleniyaAzerbaydzhana,Epokha EneolitaVI-IVtys.don.e.[Thecultureoftheearliest farmersandherdersinAzerbaijan,Chalcolithicperiod 6th-4thmillenniaBC].Baku,Elm(inRussian).

NesbittM.2002 Whenandwherediddomesticatedcerealsfirstoccur insouthwestAsia?InR.T.J.CappersandS.Bottema (eds),TheDawnofFarmingintheNearEast, SENEPSE6,1999.113-132.Berlin,Exoriente.

PalumbiG.2007 APreliminaryAnalysisonthePrehistoricPottery fromAratashen(Armenia).InB.Lyonnet(ed.),Les culturesdeCaucase(VIe-IIIemillénairesavantnotre ère).LeurrelationsavecleProche-Orient:63-76.Paris, CNRSÉditions.

RedmanC.L.1982 TheÇayönüChippedStoneIndustry(1968-70).In L.S.BraidwoodandR.J.Braidwood(eds),Prehistoric VillageArchaeologyinSouth-EasternTurkey.17-72. Oxford,BARInternationalSeries138.

SoleckiR.1981 AnearlyvillagesiteatZawiChemiShanidar. BibliothecaMesopotamica13.Malibu,Undena Publications.

Wasylikowa K., Carciumaru M., Hajnalova E., Hartyani B.P.,PashkevichG.A.,andYanushevichZ.V.1991 East-centralEurope.InW.VanZeist,K.Wasylikova andK.E.Behre(eds),ProgressinOldWorld palaeoethnobotany:207-239.Rotterdam,Balkema.

ZoharyD.andHopfM.2004 DomesticationofPlantsintheOldWorld-Theorigin andspreadofcultivatedplantsinWestAsia,Europe, andtheNileValley.ThirdEditionreprinted.NewYork, OxfordUniversityPress.

OtherContributions

Neo-Lithics1/1086

Introduction

Testexcavationswerecarriedin2006atTBAS102,aLateNatufiansitealong theWadial-Qusayr inwest-centralJordan.Thisfieldworkrepresentstheinitialin-vestigationofthissiteandwascarriedoutfromMay21toJune1.Theexcavationwaspartofalargerprojectdesigned to examine the transition from foraging tofarming in theWadial-Hasacatchmentsystem(Nee-leyandPeterson2007).ThisincludedtestingatbothNatufianandPre-PotteryNeolithicsites in theregion(e.g.,Peterson2007).The2006excavationsasTBAS102yieldedseveralinterestingandsignificantfindings.First, TBAS 102 represents the first radiometricallydatedLateNatufianoccupationinwest-centralJordan.Second,thesiteisassociatedwithmarsh/wetlandenvi-ronmentsthathavebeenkeyattractorsforLatePleisto-cenesettlementelsewhereinwest-centralJordan.Andthird,thepresenceofaLateNatufianoccupationmightfacilitate a fuller understanding of the impact of theYoungerDryas in the steppic regionsofwest-centralJordan.

Site Location and Context

TBAS102issituatedin thearidsteppe/desertregionofwest-central Jordan, approximately 7 km south ofthemoderntownofJurfed-Dara-wish(Fig.1).Thesiteislocatedalong the south side of theWadial-Qusayr, a minor drainage justnorth of the Wadi al-Juhayra,whichflowsnorthtotheWadial-Jurf.Thelastwadicontinuesnor-thward before emptying into theeastern end of theWadi al-Hasa,thelargesteast-westflowingdrai-nage system in the region. TheWadial-Qusayrisshallowinpro-filesuggestingsporadic,lowener-gywaterflows.ThenorthsideoftheWadial-Qusayrisboundedbythe basalt flow originating fromTellJuhayratothewest.

TBAS 102 is one of ten LateEpipaleolithic/Natufian sites re-corded along a short stretch oftheWadi al-Qusayrduringa sur-veyin1999-2000(MacDonaldetal.2004). Thesiteareaissmall,measuring15x20m,andslopesgently from south to north. The

northernboundaryofthesiteisdefinedbya17mlongirregularalignmentofstones.Thesitewasselectedforexcavationbasedonahighdensityofsurfacemateri-alscontaininglunatesandbladeletcores.Inaddition,potentiallyintrusiveelements(e.g.,ceramics)wereab-sentfromthesurface.

TheclusterofsitesintheWadial-Qusayrprovidesaninterestingpointofcomparisonwiththemuchlar-gerWadial-Hasa,whereonlythreeNatufiansiteshavebeenidentifiedfromthemorethan1600sitesrecordedthere.ThescarcityofNatufiansitesintheWadial-Ha-samightbeduetogeomorphicactivitiesthatlimitsitepreservationorbeareflectionofprehistoricbehavioralpatternsinwhichtheWadial-Hasawassparselysettledduringthisperiod.Incontrast,thepreservationofthisclusterofNatufianremainsintheWadial-Qusayrsug-gestsrepeatedifnotintensiveoccupationofthisareaattheendofthePleistocene.

Anincreasinglykeyelementinthepatternofsettle-mentforwest-centralJordanappearstobethepresenceof marl deposits. Marl deposits are found from theWadi al-Qusayrnorth to Jurf ed-Darawishand in as-sociationwiththemarlsarenumerousPaleolithicsites(MacDonaldetal.2004;Moumanietal.2003).Thesemarldepositswereprobablytheresultofshallowbo-diesofwatermoreamenabletomarshorwetlandenvi-ronmentsratherthanlakes.Assuch,theyservedasanattractionforhumansandanimalsalike.Akeyques-

TBAS 102: A Late Natufian Site in West-Central Jordan

Michael P. Neeley MontanaStateUniversity [email protected]

Fig. 1 Location of TBAS 102 in west-central Jordan

OtherContributions

Neo-Lithics1/1087

tionregardingthesewetlandsiswhendidtheydisap-pear?ItisgenerallyrecognizedthatclimaticchangesassociatedwiththeYoungerDryas(12,900-11,600calBP)hadamajorimpactonNatufianresourceavailabi-lity.WasthisimpactuniformoverthesouthernLevantormightsomeareashavebeenonlyminimallyaffectedbythischange?ThepresenceofaLateNatufianoccu-pationintheWadial-Qusayris intriguingasitmightindicatethatthismarsh/wetlandenvironmentcontinu-ed to be productive for LateNatufian populations intheregion.

Excavation

During the2006field season,20m2of the siteweresurfacecollected.Thesurfacedensityofmaterialswasusedtoselecttwoofthefour1x1mexcavationunits(Fig. 2). Units 1 and 2 bisected the irregular stonealignmentonthenorthsideofthesite.Theseunitswereselectedwith the goal of defining and understandingthefunctionofthealignmentanditsrelationshiptotheNatufianoccupation. Also,with the stone alignmentrunningperpendiculartotheslope,thisraisedtheques-tionofwhethersedimentdepositionwassignificantlygreaterontheupslopesidethanthedownslopeside.ThedepthofarchaeologicalmaterialsandsedimentsinUnits1and2wasrelativelyshallow(25-30cm)com-paredtotheotherareasofthesite.Mostoftheculturalmaterialscouldbefoundintheupperlevelofeachunitalongwith a high density of fist-sized cobbles. Thestone alignment appears to consist of two courses ofunevenly spaced stoneswith the larger stoneson topnearerthesurface(Fig.3).Therewasnoevidenceofwall segments joining the surface alignment to formsmallerdivisionsofspace,nordidthealignmentcurve

or come together as an enclosure. In terms of sedi-mentdeposition,therewaslittledifferencebetweentheupslopeanddownslopesidesofthealignment,sugges-tingsurfaceerosionwasminimal. Thebestguessastoitsfunctionisthatofawindbreak,assomeorganic

materialscouldhavebeenplacedbetweenthestones,buteventhatisproblematicsincethealignmentisdown slope relative to the restof the site andwould provide li-mited protection from the wind.Alternatively, it is possible thatthestonealignmentpost-datestheNatufian occupation. Althoughceramicsareabsent,potentialsup-port for this interpretation comesfromthedifferencesinrawmate-rialuseinUnits1and2relativetothecentralarea.

Units 3 and 4 were excava-ted in thecenterof the sitewhe-resomeof thehighestdensityofsurfaceremainsoccurred.Inbothof these units cultural materialswere recovered toadepthof35-40cmbelow thegroundsurface.The upper levels tended to havethehighestartifactdensitiesalongwith greater frequencies of fist-

Fig. 2 Topographic map of TBAS 102 (prepared by Brett Hill)

Fig. 3 Stone alignment feature in Units 1 and 2. View to the north

OtherContributions

Neo-Lithics1/1088

sized(andsmaller)limestonerocks.Thelattermightrepresent thedeflationof theancient surface thathasresultedinthestabilizationofthecurrentsurface.Thefrequencyofthecobblesdecreasedsignificantlyinthelowerlevelsof theexcavation. Althoughformalfea-tureswere absent fromUnits 3 and 4 and sedimentstended tobeveryhomogeneous(10YR6/4 lightyel-lowishbrown),therewasasmalldepressioninthenor-thwestcornerofUnit4thatcontainedlesscompactedmaterials along with ashy sediment associated withbone (burned and unburned) and charcoal inclusions(10YR5/3brown).

Chronology

TheinitialsurveyofthesiteindicatedaLateEpipaleo-lithiccomponent,buttherewasinsufficientinformati-onfromthesurfaceremainstodeterminewhetherthisrepresentedanEarlyorLateNatufiancomponent.The2006excavationsindicatethatTBAS102wasaLateNatufian site based on two lines of evidence. First,tworadiocarbondatesplacethesiteintheearlyportionof theLateNatufian(11,500-10,800BPuncalibrated;13,500-12,700calBP)(Tab.1). Thisisalsoclosetotheaccepted time range for theonsetof theYounger

Dryasthatresultedincooleranddryerconditions. ItisgenerallyassumedthattheYoungerDryashadasi-gnificanteffectonNatufiansettlementandsubsistencestrategies.ThesecondlineofevidencefavoringaLateNatufian occupation at TBAS 102 comes from thestoneartifacts.Lunates,thestandardtemporalmarker

oftheNatufian,areallcharacterizedbyabruptorsteepretouchrather thantheridge-backed,bifacialHelwanretouchthatischaracteristicoftheEarlyNatufian(Bel-fer-Cohen1991).

Thepresenceofadated,LateNatufianoccupationinwest-central Jordan is important as the previouslyrecordedorexcavatedNatufiansitesfromtheWadial-HasahavebeenassignedtotheEarlyNatufian. Thishaspotentialramificationsforourunderstandingofthelong-termviabilityofpaleoenvironmentsinwest-cen-tralJordanandthepatternsofmobilityandsettlementatthebeginningoftheYoungerDryas.

Lithics

ExcavationsatTBAS102yielded9,870piecesofchip-pedstone(Tab.2).Allaspectsofthereductionsequenceappeartooccuronsitebasedontherangeofproductsre-covered.Thissuggeststhatrawmaterialswereacquiredlocally,giventhelargenumberofcoresandthequantityofmaterialgeneratedfromreductionactivities.Althoughthesourcehasnotbeenidentified,onepossiblelocationoflithicrawmaterialscouldbethechertformationsfoundontheJabalUmmRijamtotheeast.Interestingly,therawmaterialsusedatTBAS102appeartodifferinsizeandtexturefromrawmaterialsusedatearlierPaleolithicsitesalongtheWadial-Qusayr.Thisindicatesthepreferentialselectionofthisrawmaterialoverrawmaterialsthatpresu-mablywerewidelyavailableinthepast.

Reductionactivitiesresultedinthegreaterproduc-tion of flakes (58%of the debitage) over blades/bla-delets(only27%of thedebitage). Thisemphasisonflakeproductionisalsoapparentamongthediscardedcoreswhere 53%of the complete cores areflake ty-pes.However,ifcoretypesaresortedbyrawmaterial(classifiedintofineandcoarse-grainedcategories),theflakecoresonlyconstitute39%ofthefine-grainedcoretypesversus82%ofthecoarse-grainedmaterials.Thisindicatesthatthetypeofrawmaterialhasaneffectonthetypeofcorereductionactivity(flakeorblade/bla-deletbased).

Context Material Lab No. Conventional Date BP

2 Sigma Calibrated Date BP

Unit 4 Level 2

organic Beta-229411

11 040 ± 60 BP 13100-12860 Cal BP

Unit 3 Level 3

charcoal Beta-221179

11 170 ± 70 BP 13410-12980 Cal BP and 12940-12910 Cal BP

Table 1 AMS Radiocarbon dates from TBAS 102.

Debitage type Unit 1 &2 % Unit 3 % Unit 4 % All %1 %2

Cores 35 1.7 24 0.7 53 1.3 112 1.1 1.8

C.T.E. 16 0.8 25 0.7 25 0.6 66 0.7 1.0

Blades (complete) 37 1.8 109 3.0 178 4.2 324 3.3 5.1

Blade fragments 187 9.3 609 16.7 625 14.8 1421 14.4 22.6

Flakes (complete) 189 9.4 322 8.8 490 11.6 1001 10.1 15.9

Flake fragments 534 26.6 985 27.1 1187 28.1 2706 27.4 42.9

Tools 97 4.8 122 3.4 230 5.4 449 4.5 7.1

Microburins 27 1.3 104 2.9 93 2.2 224 2.3 3.5

Spalls 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 0.2 9 0.1 0.1

Chips (< 10 mm) 515 25.7 720 19.8 619 14.6 1854 18.8 -

Chunks 371 18.5 614 16.9 719 17.0 1704 17.3 -

Total 2008 3634 4228 9870 6312

1 percentages for all debitage categories, 2 percentages excluding chips and chunks, C.T.E. = “core trimming elements”

Table 2 Debitage Counts and Percentages from TBAS 102.

OtherContributions

Neo-Lithics1/1089

These differences in raw material also appear tohaveaspatialelementatTBAS102.Acomparisonofthecoresanddebitage fromUnits1and2 (bisectingtheirregularstonealignment)andUnits3and4(inthecenter of the site) bear out these differences. In thelatter twounits,fine-grainedrawmaterialsarenume-ricallydominantoverthecoarse-grainedrawmaterialsforboththecoresandthedebitagewithaminimalratioof4:1(Tab.3).Incontrast,thefine-grainedvs.coarse-grainedratiosinUnits1and2rangefrom2:1among

thecorestoalmost1:1forthedebitage.Thisdifferencein rawmaterialusemightbeattributed to the spatial

Units 1 & 2 Units 3 & 4

Debitage type Fine Coarse Fine

n % n % n %

Complete flakes & blades 108 52.4 98 47.3 577 86.6

Cores 23 65.7 12 34.3 62 80.5

Table 3 Debitage and Core Frequencies by Raw Material Type.

Retouched artifact U 1&2 % U 3 % U 4 % All %

Burins 0 0.0 3 2.5 2 0.9 5 1.1

Notches 9 9.3 10 8.2 22 9.6 41 9.1

Scrapers 1 1.0 7 5.7 4 1.7 12 2.7

Endscrapers 7 7.2 3 2.5 12 5.2 22 4.9

Retouched Flakes 37 38.1 18 14.8 55 23.9 110 24.5

Retouched Blades 14 14.4 16 13.1 53 23.0 83 18.5

Perforators 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.4 1 0.2

Backed Blades 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.3 3 0.7

Backed Bladelets 15 15.5 19 15.6 31 13.5 65 14.5

Truncations 4 4.1 6 4.9 14 6.1 24 5.3

Backed and Truncated 1 1.0 1 0.8 0 0.0 2 0.4

Lunates 9 9.3 39 32.0 33 14.3 81 18.0

Total 97 122 230 449

Table 4 Retouched artifact frequencies from TBAS 102

2 cm

a b c d e f

g

h

i j k

l m

Fig. 4 Lithic artifacts from TBAS 102. a-f: lunates; g: partially complete lunate; h: endscraper; i: denticulate; j-k: microburins; l-m: bladelet cores.

OtherContributions

Neo-Lithics1/1090

organizationofactivitiesacrossthesiteorthepresenceofanon-Natufiancomponentat thesite,possiblyas-sociatedwiththestonealignmentonthenorthernedgeofthesite.

Atotalof449retouchedtoolswererecoveredfromTBAS102 (Tab.4). Themostnumerousof the tooltypeswere the retouched flakes and blades constitu-ting43%ofthetools.Amongthelargertools,notches(9%) and endscrapers (5%) were well-represented.Theremaininglargetoolclassesweregenerallypoorlyrepresentedwithlessthan2%ofthetoolassemblage.Within themicrolithic tools, lunates and lunate frag-mentswerebest represented (18%) (Fig.4). Backedbladeletsarealsowell-represented(14%)intheassem-blage. Finally, there are a few truncations (5%),butthecombinationofbackedandtruncatedpiecesisveryrare.

Shell/Ornaments

A total of 451 pieces of shell were recovered fromTBAS102. Themarineshell,comprisedofDentali-umandNassariusgibbosulus, represents2.4%of thesample(Tab.5).TheseareindicativeofaMediterrane-anandpossibleRedSeaorigin,suggestingacquisitionthroughtradefromsourcestothewestandpossiblythe

south. Allofthesemarineshellshavebeenmodifiedthroughperforationorshapingandlikelyfunctionedaspersonal adornments. The bulk of the shellmaterial(97.5%)isoffreshwaterorigin(primarilyMelanoidestuberculata andMelanopsisbuccinoidea). These arenotculturallymodifiedlikethemarinespecimens,butare important indicatorsofpastenvironmentsas theyliveinfreshwatercontexts(e.g.,springsandstreams).TheirpresenceatTBAS102supportsourreconstruc-tion of the local paleoenvironment characterized bywetlandspotentiallyfedbyspringdeposits.

Faunal Remains

ThefaunalassemblagefromTBAS102wasveryfrag-mented anddifficult to assign to taxon, thus limitingtheinterpretivevalueofthisdata.Evidenceofcultu-ralactivitywas identified in the formofburningandcutmarksonsomeoftheremains.Only23ofthe867

faunalfragmentsatTBAS102couldbeidentifiedbytaxon,representing14.2%oftheboneweight.Fortho-seidentifiablefragments,themajority(69.6%)wereat-tributedtogazellewithminorrepresentationsofcattle,equid,andcaprine(Tab.6). Thegreatestnumbersofidentifiable remains (82%)were recovered inUnit4.TheremainingidentifiableelementscamefromUnit3

whileUnits1and2didnotyieldanyfaunaassignabletotaxon.Interestingly,sixidentifiablefragmentswererecovered from the potential feature (pit-like depres-sion)inUnit4(levels3and4).Theseincludedthreegazellespecimens,twoequid,andonecaprine.Othermaterial from the feature includedunidentifiablesca-pulafragmentsthatwereequid-sizedandprobablypartoftheidentifiedequidremainsinthefeature.Thepro-ximityof theseskeletalparts tooneanothersuggeststhatthematerialismoreorlessinsituandnottheresultofpost-depositionalactivities.

Overall,thefaunalremainsfromTBAS102arecon-sistentwithanopen,steppicenvironment,althoughthepresenceofcattle/aurochwouldrequireregularaccesstowaterresources.Thisagainsuggeststhepresenceoflocalizedspringsormarshes.

Conclusions

Given thesmall sizeof the site,TBAS102probablyrepresentsashort-term,seasonalcampalongtheWadial-Qusayr. A long-termencampmentmightexhibit agreaterspreadofmaterialsthanfoundhere.However,thedensityofmaterials(9000+artifactsfrom4m2)sug-gestsoccupationintensitybeyondthatofaspecializedtasksite(e.g.,theNatufianoccupationatYutilal-Hasa[Olszewskiet al. 1994]). It is also possibly that thesitewasreoccupiedperiodically,especiallyifthestonealignmentwerepartof theNatufianoccupation. Thelaborinvestmentinthissortoffeaturemightserveasalandmarkforsubsequentoccupation.

TheexcavationsatTBAS102representthefirstda-tedLateNatufian site inwest-central Jordan and theaddition of sites from this time frame enhances ourunderstanding of prehistoric land-use practices. Thelocationof thesite inawetlandsetting indicates thattheresourcebaseoftheseregionswasbothdiverseandstableenoughtosupporthunter-gathereruseduringthelatePleistocene.Furthermore,TBAS102(andpossib-lyotherNatufiansitesintheWadial-Qusayr)provides

Species Origin TBAS 102 %

Melanoides tuberculata Freshwater 424 94.0

Melanopsis buccinoidea Freshwater 13 2.9

Bulinus truncatus Freshwater 1 0.2

Xerocrassa sp. Land 2 0.4

Nassarius gibbosulus Mediterranean Sea 2 0.4

Dentalium shells Mediterranean and Red Sea 9 2.0

Total 451 99.9

Table 5 Shell species and frequencies from TBAS 102.

Taxon Unit 3 Unit 4 N %

Gazelle 4 12 16 69.6

Cattle 0 3 3 13.0

Equus 0 2 2 8.7

Caprine 0 2 2 8.7

Total 4 19 23 100.0

Table 6 TBAS 102: Number of identified animal bone fragments by excavation unit.

OtherContributions

Neo-Lithics1/1091

an opportunity to examine the effect of theYoungerDryasonland-usepractices.Inparticular,dotheseen-vironmentspersistinthefaceofregion-widedecliningconditionsorarethesesmallwetlandsinwest-centralJordanstableenoughtoenableNatufianpopulationstosucceedinthemarginalzonesoftheLevant?

Acknowledgements.Fundingforthisresearchwaspro-videdbyMontanaStateUniversity,MarquetteUniver-sity,andtheUniversityofMinnesota,Duluth.Thefieldcrew consisted of Jane Peterson, Brett Hill, JenniferJones,andJordanKnudsen.Theirhardworkisgrea-tlyappreciated.AspecialthankstoAldonaKurzawska(shell)andAlexWasse(fauna)fortheiranalyticalex-pertise. Iwouldalso like to thanktheJordanianDe-partment ofAntiquities and its Director-General Dr.Fawwaz Khraysheh for their support of this project.Mr.Abdullahal-RawashdehoftheTafilaofficeoftheDepartmentofAntiquitiesservedasourgenialrepre-sentative.Finally,IwouldliketothankBarbaraPorterandthestaffatACORinAmman.

References

Belfer-CohenA.1991 TheNatufianintheLevant.AnnualReviewof Anthropology20:167-186.

MacDonaldB.,HerrL.G.,NeeleyM.P.,GagosT.,MoumaniK.,andRockmanM.2004 TheTafila-BusayraArchaeologicalSurvey1999-2001, West-CentralJordan.AmericanSchoolsofOriental ResearchArchaeologicalReportNo.9.Boston: AmericanSchoolsofOrientalResearch.

MoumaniK.,AlexanderJ.,andBatemanM.D.2003 SedimentologyoftheLateQuaternaryWadiHasaMarl FormationofCentralJordan.ARecordofClimate Variability.Palaeogeography,Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology191:221-242.

NeeleyM.P.andPetersonJ.D.2007 CrossingtheBoundarytoDomesticationEconomies: ACaseStudyfromWest-centralJordan.InT.E.Levy, P.M.M.Daviau,R.W.Younker,andM.Shaer(eds.), CrossingJordan:NorthAmericanContributionstothe ArchaeologyofJordan:203-210.London,Equinox PublishingLtd.

Olszewski D.I., StevensM., GlassM., Beck R., Cooper, J. andClarkG.A.1994 The1993ExcavationsatYutilal-Hasa(WHS784),an Upper/EpipaleolithicSiteinWest-CentralJordan. Paléorient20:129-141.

PetersonJ.2007 KhirbetHammam2006:PreliminaryReportof ContinuedTestExcavations.Neo-Lithics2/07:3-6.

OtherContributions

Neo-Lithics1/1092

The site of Shir inWest Syria was founded around7000BCandinhabitedthroughoutthe7thmillennium.Thefinalstageofoccupationcanprobablybedatedtobetween6300and6100BC-however,thesedatesstillrequire confirmation from 14C dating.Thus, it seemsthatthesitewasabandonedtowardstheendofthe7thmillenniumBC;atleastnotracesofyoungeroccupationwerefound.ItisstillunclearwhetherthereisadirectcausalconnectionbetweentheabandonmentofthesiteandaperiodofRapidClimateChange(RCC)(8.6-8.0kacalBP).Indicationsofso-calledrubbleslideswerenotfoundatthesiteofShir(cf.NeoLithics1/09).

TheLateNeolithicsiteofShir is locatednear theprovincial capitalHama (Fig. 1) andwas discoveredin 2005 during a regional survey. Since 2006 it hasbeen the subject of a joint project by the GermanArchaeological Institute atDamascus and the SyrianAntiquitiesDepartment.

Thesettlementissituatedatopalimestoneplateau,about 30m above theflood plain of theNahrSarut,a tributary of theOronteswhich is today retained ina small reservoir during the spring (Fig. 2). Climateand vegetation in the region are still markedlyMediterranean: the annual precipitation averagesapproximately 400-500 mm, permitting for rain-fedagriculture.Thepresentdaylandscapeischaracterizedbyintensecropcultivationwithnoremainingoriginalvegetation. However, palaeobotanical investigationshave shown that an open oak forest existed in thevicinity.Inaddition,adensefloodplainforestwiththecorresponding wildlife can be assumed in the Sarutrivervalley.

Withanareaof4hectares,thesiteofShirinoneofthe medium-sized Neolithic settlements. Geophysicalinvestigations have shown that the site was built ina semicircle arrangement around an open space inthe east. According to previous studies the site wasoccupied solely during the 7th millennium BC andprobablyabandonedby the endof the7thmillenniumBC.All levelsof thesitecontainpottery;evidenceofa post-Neolithic settlement was not found. In the 3rdmillenniumBCanewsettlementwasestablishedinthevicinityoftheNeolithicsite-todaycalledTallash-Shir.

UntilnowexcavationsinShirhavefocusedonthreeareasofwhichtwoareofspecificinterest.ThewesternpartofareaK-M7-8wasexcavateddowntobedrockinasmallsounding.Heretheentiresequencecomprises6mofdepositswithsixbuildinglevels,mostofwhichcontain rectangular buildings with thick lime plasterfloors.One calibrated 14C-date from the lowest levelpointstoandageofbetween7080and7030BC.TheuppermostLevelsIVtoVIcanbedatedtotheperiodaround6650to6450calBC.

The second excavation areaL-O 20-21 is locatedin the northeastern part of the settlement. Here abuildingcomplexofca.28minlengthand5to6mwidewasuncovered;itappearsmainlytohavefulfilledastoragefunction.According to thepottery typologythecomplexcanbedated toabout6300-6100BC. Itprobably represents the last phase of the settlementbefore itwasabandoned.However, 14Cdatesarestillrequiredtosubstantiatethisage.

Shir, West Syria

Karin Bartl GermanArchaeologicalInstitute,Damascus [email protected]

OtherContributions

Neo-Lithics1/1093

Fig. 1 Location of Shir

Fig. 2 View of of Shir located on the limestone plateau near the Nahr Sarut

NewTheses

Neo-Lithics1/1094

Shirai, Noriyuki

2010 TheArchaeologyoftheFirstFarmer-Herders inEgypt:NewInsightsintotheFayum EpipalaeolithicandNeolithic

PhDThesis,LeidenUniversity LeidenUniversityPress

(ISBN9789087280796)

Abstract

This thesis explores how andwhy crop farming andanimal herding started in a particular time period ina particular region of Egypt. The earliest Neolithicfarming in combination with herding in Egypt isknown in the Fayum, which is a large oasis with apermanent lake in theEgyptianWesternDesert.Thisis owing to the arrival of Levantine domesticates inthe 6th millennium cal.BC. Neolithic farmer-herdersin the Fayum relied heavily on hunting and fishing,whichhadbeenthemajorsubsistenceactivitiessincethe preceding Epipalaeolithic period. There are noremainsofsubstantialdwellingstoindicatethatthesefarmer-herderslivedasedentarywayoflife.Previousresearchershave thusasserted that theFayumpeoplewerenomadicandmovedseasonally.Amajorresearchquestioniswhethersuchanassertionisreallysupportedby other archaeological data. Considering the harshdesert environment, it seems unrealistic that all thepeoplemovedfarawayfromdrinkingwaterandrichwildfoodresourcesatapermanentwatersource,eventemporarily.

Research on lithic artefacts used by theEpipalaeolithic hunter-fishers and Neolithic farmer-herdersintheFayumrevealswherelithicrawmaterialwasexploitedandwhereandhowtoolsweremade.ThisgivesaclueastothemobilityandresidentialstrategyoftheFayumpeople.FayumNeolithicfarmer-herderspreferentiallyprocuredlargerlithicrawmaterialfrommore distant sources than Epipalaeolithic hunter-fishersdid.Inaddition,theNeolithicpeopleinventedmuchlargerandmoreelaboratehuntingweaponsthantheirEpipalaeolithic predecessors byusing large rawmaterial. Questions are why Neolithic people tooksuchlongerdistancetrips,andwhytheyinvestedmoretimeand labour inmaking suchweaponsdespite thearrivalofdomesticatedanimals.Furthermore,althoughthedataarescarce, thenumberofhippopotamusandcrocodile seem to have increased in the Neolithicfaunalassemblagecomparedwith theEpipalaeolithicone.AquestioniswhysuchanincreaseoccurredintheNeolithic.

These changes in the Neolithic indicate people’sadaptationtonewsubsistenceactivities.Itisplausiblethat the Neolithic people had to take the herd ofdomesticated animals for grazing, particularly whencrops were growing in farming plots which wouldhave been located around lakeshores. Collectinglithic raw material would have been embedded in

the pastoral grazing trips. The appearance of newhunting weapons and the increase in the number ofhippopotamusandcrocodileintheNeolithicwouldbeduetoanewpredator-preyrelationshipintheFayumecological systemcausedby the arrival ofLevantinedomesticates. Farming and herding in the Fayumlakeshoreenvironmentwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithout the protection of farming plots and herdsfromhippopotamusandcrocodileby thepeoplewhoinhabited lakeshores. On the other hand, increasingdependence on these new subsistence activities wasnot possiblewithout a constant supply of larger rawmaterialfortoolmaking,whichwasprobablyenabledby an increase of logistical moves of individualmembersfromaresidentialgroup.

Despite the lack of substantial dwellings, othercircumstantialevidencesuggeststhattheFayumpeoplewerenotnomadicbutweretetheredtolakeshores.Theintroduction of farming and herdingwould not havetakenplaceintheFayumwithoutalakeshore-tetheredifnotfullysedentarylifeway.However,thesuccessofafarming-herdinglifewayintheFayumwouldnothavebeen possiblewithout the reorganisation ofmobility,whichledtodecreasedmovesofresidentialbasesandincreasedlogisticalmovesofindividuals.Asimplisticdichotomybetweeneithersedentaryornomadicdoesnot precisely describe the situation of the FayumNeolithicfarmer-herders.

The last question is why Levantine domesticateswereintroducedintheFayum,eventhoughwildfoodresourcesseemtohavebeenconstantlyavailableandmoreefficientlyexploitedthandomesticates.Iffarmingand herding had turned out to be unsuitable in theFayumenvironmentafteraninitialattempt,theywouldhavedroppedoutoftheFayumsubsistence.However,FayumNeolithicpeoplemadeunprecedentedtimeandlabourinvestmentsinlithicrawmaterialprocurementandtoolmakingfornewactivities.Itisobviousthatthepeoplekeptmakingspecialeffortstomaximisetheyieldoffarmingandherding.Itisassumedthatdomesticateswere added to the diet of Fayum Neolithic peoplewhen some essential wild food resources becametemporarily or perpetually unavailable. This couldhavebeencausedbyeitherunusualweatherconditionsandenvironmentaldisturbances,orthelossofaccesstotheessentialresourcesduetopopulationincreaseandovercrowdinginacircumscribedarealiketheFayum.Therefore,itisimportanttoconsiderthesocialcontextofthebeginningoffarmingandherdingintheFayuminawidergeographicalandchronologicalframework.

In the Fayum Neolithic, the number and densityof sites are larger and higher than those in theEpipalaeolithic, and population increase in theNeolithic is evident. General population increase intheEgyptianWesternDesertsincethe8thmillenniumcal.BC is attested by thewide distribution of humanoccupationlociandthefastspreadofsimilarmaterialcultures.Therecurrenceofdepopulationinaridregionsandpopulationaggregationinwell-wateredregionsoftheWesternDesertisalsowelldocumented.Itislikely

NewTheses

Neo-Lithics1/1095

that such a demographic trend in theWesternDesertaffectedtheFayum.TheFayumwasrichinwildfoodresources,andthebalancebetweenhumanpopulationsize and available food resource amountwould havebeenmaintainedwell below the carrying capacity ofthe Fayum in a natural state.However, the influx ofmigrantsfromoutsidetheFayummusthavesoonerorlaterupsetthisbalance,andFayumpeoplewouldhavehadtoincreasethecarryingcapacityoftheirhabitatbymeans of food production.Thiswould be the reasonwhy the Fayum people did not give up farming andherdingdespitethesupposeddifficultiesintakingcareofdomesticatesinthisspecificenvironment.

Contact:

Noriyuki Shirai,[email protected]

Gregg, Michael W.

2009 OrganicResidueAnalysisandtheEarliest UsesofPotteryintheAncientMiddleEast

Ph.D.thesis,DepartmentofAnthropology, UniversityofToronto

Supervisor:Dr.HeatherM.-L.Miller

Abstract

In this dissertation, I discuss the role of organicresidueanalysisinidentifyingeconomicactivitiesandsubsistencepractices associatedwith thefirstusesofpotteryintheMiddleEast,andpresenttheresultsofmyanalysesof280potsherdsrecoveredfrom22NeolithicandearlyChalcolithicsettlementsdatingbetween7300and4300calBC.Theadoptionofpotteryvesselsintheearly agricultural villages and pastoral encampmentsof theMiddle East was not a uniform phenomenon,with thisnew technologynot immediatelyofbenefit,apparently,toallhumangroups.

Results of my analyses have demonstratedthat ‘conventional’ solvent extraction and alkalinehydrolysis techniques have limited utility in therecovery of diagnostic organic compounds frompotteryfromearlyceramichorizonsintheMiddleEast(Gregg et al. 2007), and that increasedyields canbeachievedthroughtheuseofamicrowave-assistedliquidchromatography protocol (Gregg et al. 2009; GreggandSlater2010).Myresearchhasalsoestablishedthatthereisgreaterdiversityinthefractionationofstablecarbon isotopesassociatedwith thesynthesisof fattyacidsindomesticatedanimalsthanhaspreviouslybeenreported. In many instances, the ranges of modernisotopic values that have been used to categorizeanimal fats in archaeological potsherds in northernEurope cannot distinguishbetween the δ13C ratios ofancientdairyresiduesandcarcassfatsofruminantand

non-ruminantspeciesincentralEuropeortheMiddleEast(Greggetal.2009;GreggandSlater2010).

In light of these results, I evaluate the diagnosticpotential and limitations of different methodologicalapproaches in the recovery and characterization oforganic residues, and I propose a series ofmeasuresthat will allow more confident categorization of thesubstances in early pottery vessels from the MiddleEast. I alsomake a number of recommendations forarchaeologists considering the use of organic residueanalysis, andsuggest somepractical ideasonhow todevelop thedegreeof confidencenecessary to assessthe methods used in acquisition of molecular andisotopicdata,andultimately,toevaluatetheadequacyof the analytical criteria used to address specificarchaeologicalresearchquestions.

A PDF of my thesis is available through theUniversityofTorontoResearchRepositoryat:https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/19039.Apublishedvolume (Gregg2010a) isavailable fromOxbowBooks.

References

GreggM.W.2010 Organicresidueanalysisandthefirstusesofpotteryin theancientMiddleEast.BritishArchaeologicalReports InternationalSeries2065.Oxford,JohnandErica HedgesLimited.

GreggM.W.,BanningE.B.,GibbsK.,andSlaterG.F.2009 SubsistencePracticesandPotteryUseinNeolithic Jordan:MolecularandIsotopicEvidence.Journalof ArchaeologicalScience36:937-946.

GreggM.W.andSlaterG.F.2010 ANewMethodfortheIsolation,Concentration,and TransesterificationofFreeFattyAcidsinArchaeological Ceramics.Archaeometrydoi:10.1111/j.1475- 4754.2010.00518.x

GreggM.W.,SternB.andBrettellR.2007 BitumeninNeolithicIran:BiomolecularandIsotopic Evidence.ArchaeologicalChemistry:Analytical MethodsandInterpretation,AmericanChemical Society,OxfordUniversityPress,137-151.

Contact:

Michael W. Gregg, [email protected]

http://michaelwgregg.com/index.html

NewTheses

Neo-Lithics1/1096

Rokitta-Krumnow, Dörte

2010 Lithikfundedes7.Jahrtausendsv.Chr.in dernördlichenLevante.Die EntwicklungderSteingeräteindustrieder spätneolithischenSiedlungShir/Syrien

PhDThesis,FreeUniversityBerlin Supervisors:Prof.DominikBonatz,

PDDr.KarinBartl

Abstract

TheLateNeolithicsiteofShirwasdiscoveredin2005duringasurveyoftheMiddleOrontesbytheGermanArchaeological Institute (Oriental Department)directedbyKarinBartl(2003-2005).Itissituatedca.12kmnorthwestoftheprovincialcapitalofHamaonaplateauca.30mabovethevalleyoftheNahras-Sarut,atributaryoftheOrontes.Thefloodplainoccupiedbyopenforest,aswellastheexistenceofpermanentwatersuppliesincludingrivers,wadisandkarsticspringsanditsfertilesoilsandmildclimate,makethisregionverysuitable for agriculture.These factors enabled a longandcontinuousprehistoricoccupationofthesettlementcoveringthewholeofthePotteryNeolithic(ca.7.000–6.200/6.100BC).

This study is mainly concerned with the lithicassemblages obtained through excavation in areasK7andL7from2005to2007.Morethan35,600flintandobsidianartefactswereanalysed.Theanalysisofprimary and secondary production led to questionsconcerning the procurement of raw materials, rawmaterial economy, the process of production (inparticular,methodsofcorereduction),choiceofblanks,toolkitcomposition,andgenerallytheorganisationoflithicproduction.

Shirwaswell suppliedwith rawmaterial, asflintof high quality was available from directly beneaththe settlement.Other types of high-qualityflintwerealso available in close proximity, thus flint was thelithicrawmaterialmostcommonlyused.Besidesflint,obsidianfromtheCappadociansourcesofGöllüDağandNeneziDağıwasusedinsmalleramounts(<2%).

Thekindsandnumberofcoresanddebitagefromcorepreparationprovethatflintwasworkedwithinthesettlement.Waste from all stages of the sequence oflithicproductionwas foundatShir.Flakeproductionwas predominant, but uni- and bi-directional bladeproduction was practiced as well. It is not clear atthisstagewhetherobsidianwasalsobeingprocessedatShir.Theabsenceofcoresanddebitage fromcorereductionfromtherecordmakesitmoreprobablethatblanksortoolswereimported.

Tool production focused mainly on blades,especially sickles, burins, borers, projectiles andscrapers. Furthermore, retouched blades were morecommonthanretouchedflakes.Thistrendisdiscernibleinallbuilding levels: toolsderivedfrombladeswerenearlytwiceasfrequentasthosederivedfromflakes.

Typologically, thelithic industryofShir issimilarto that of contemporary settlements in northwestSyria. The tool kit was mostly made up from non-formaltoolsthatcouldhaveservedmultiplefunctions.Besides those, scrapers and sickles were common.Sickles decreased in frequency over time,which canbe explained with a more effective organisation ofworkorachangeinmountingtechniques.Borersandburinswere infrequent inallbuilding levels, aswereprojectilesanddaggers.Spearheads,projectiles,aswellasslingstonesandbolas,formedpartsofaspectrumofweapons, providing evidence fordifferent huntingtechniques. During the period of settlement at Shir,standardisedtoolsdecreasedinfrequency.Noteworthyis the occurrence of long bi-directional blades andnaviformcoresintheyoungerbuildinglevels.

Production on the household level can bedifferentiatedfromspecialisedproductionbyanalysingthekindofcorereduction(naviformcoretechnology,flaketechnology,unidirectionalbladetechnology,etc.).Theexistenceofspecialisationinlithiccraftsmanshipcanbeprovenindirectlybythefindofdepotsoflongblades,theobsidianindustry,andbeadproduction.Thedeposition of long blades in particular link Shir to aPPNBtradition,asthesewereratherinfrequentinPNsettlements.

Supra-regional comparisons can demonstrate thatthelocalsourceofflintofhighqualityledtoasurvivalof PPNB artefacts until the PotteryNeolithic. PPNBtechnologyretentionsinShircanprobablybeexplainedby this fact, although a preceramic phase of thesettlementhasnotbeenfoundyet.ChangesinthelithicindustryofShirwereinducedbytradition,functionalaspects,organisationofcraftsmanship(specialisedvs.non-specialised) and changes in subsistence strategy(hunting,domesticationetc.).

Contact:

Dörte Rokitta-Krumnow,[email protected]

NewPublications

Neo-Lithics1/1097

an ex oriente publication appearing soon:

ThePrincipleofSharing.SegregationandConstructionofSocialIdentitiesattheTransitionfromForagingtoFarming,editedbyMarionBenz.

StudiesinEarlyNearEasternProduction,Subsistence,andEnvironment14.

Berlin,exoriente(2010)

Contents

Editor’snotesSymposiumacknowledgementsMarionBenz:Theprincipleofsharing–anintroduction.

Theoretical discussionBillFinlayson:Archaeology,evidenceandanthropology:circularargumentsinthetransitionfromforagingtofarming.Hans-GeorgK.Gebel:CommodificationandtheformationofearlyNeolithicsocialidentity.TheissuesseenfromthesouthernJordanianHighlands.LisbethBredholtChristensen:From“spirituality”to“religion”–waysofsharingknowledgeofthe“OtherWorld”. ThomasWidlok:Sharingasaculturalinnovation.MathiasGuenther:SharingamongtheSan,today,yesterdayandinthepast.ChrischonaSchmidt:Demandsharingunderstress-creatingmeaningunderthepressureofthe‘softknife’ofpoliciesinIndigenousAustralia.JaninaDuerr:Balancedreciprocityinsharingwithmythicalandhuman“OwnersoftheAnimals”.RenateEbersbach:Myfarmland–ourlivestock.Formsofsubsistencefarmingandformsofsharinginpeasantcommunities.

Archaeological perspectivesGaryO.Rollefson:Bloodloss:realignmentsincommunitysocialstructuresduringtheLPPNBofhighlandJordan.EstherJohn:Thefixedversustheflexible–orhowspaceforritualsiscreated.AvrahamRonen:ThesymbolicuseofbasaltintheLevantineEpipalaeolithicandtheemergenceofsocioeconomicleadership.NabilAli:Style,societyandlithicproductionduringthelateNatufianandearlyNeolithicperiodsinthesouthernLevant.MarionBenz:Beyonddeath-theconstructionofsocialidentitiesatthetransitionfromforagingtofarming.KarinaCroucher:Tactileengagements:theworldofthedeadinthelivesoftheliving...or‘sharingthedead’.ZeidanA.Kafafi:Clans,godsandtemplesattheLPPNB‘AynGhazal.AmyBogaard,MichaelCharlesandKatherynC.Twiss:FoodstorageandsharingatÇatalhöyük:thebotanicalandfaunalevidence.

NewPublications

Neo-Lithics1/1098

an ex oriente publication appearing soon:

Basta IV.3

TheBoneIndustry.Typology,Technology,Osteology

byCorneliaBeckerandWajeehKarasneh

TheGroundStoneandStoneVesselIndustries,byNabilQadi(deceased)

TheVariousSmallStoneObjects,byHansGeorgK.Gebel

bibliotheca neolithica Asiae meridionalis et occidentalis

&

Yarmouk University, Monograph of the Faculty of Archaeology and Anthropology, Volume 6.3

ex oriente, Berlin (2010)

The Basta Final Publication Series is edited by

Hans J. Nissen, Mujahed Muheisen (deceased), and Hans Georg K. Gebel

This issue of Neo-Lithics can be downloaded from the website of ex oriente, Berlin: www.exoriente.org

Book orders: [email protected], [email protected], www. exoriente.org, Fax 0049 30 98311246

Masthead

Neo-Lithics1/1099

EditorialBoard AdvisoryBoard

Co-EditorsGaryO.Rollefson,WhitmanCollege,WallaWallaHansGeorgK.Gebel,FreeUniversityofBerlin

ManagingEditorsDörteRokitta-KrumnowandJanKrumnow,BerlinChristophPurschwitz,FreeUniversityofBerlin

OferBar-Yosef,HarvardUniversityDidierBinder,C.N.R.S.,ValbonneFrankHole,YaleUniversityPederMortensen,CopenhagenUniv.HansJ.Nissen,FreieUniversitätBerlinMehmetÖzdoğan,UniversityofIstanbulDanielleStordeur,Archéorient,CNRS,Jalès

Submissions NEO-LITHICS,Prof.Dr.GaryO.Rollefson,DepartmentofAnthropology,WhitmanCollege, WallaWalla,WA99362,USA,Email:[email protected].

NEO-LITHICS,Dr.des.DörteRokitta-Krumnow/JanKrumnow/ChristophPurschwitz/Dr.HansGeorgK.Gebel, exoriente,c/oFreeUniversityofBerlin,Hüttenweg7,14195Berlin,Germany, Emails:[email protected]·[email protected]·[email protected], Fax00493098311246.

Orders pleasesendto:exorientee.V.,c/oFreeUniversityofBerlin,Hüttenweg7,14195Berlin,Germany, www.exoriente.org·[email protected]·Fax00493098311246.

Subscription Minimumofthreeyearssubscriptionrequested=6issues,c.40-50pageseach,66Euro for6issues/minimumsubscriptionperiod(postageincluded);backissuesavailable;membersof exorientereceiveNeo-Lithicsfreeofcharge(includedintheannualmembershipfee:40Eurofor employedmembers,15Euroforstudents/unemployedmembers).

Deadlines twiceayear:15thofMayand15thofNovember

SubmissionGuidelinesText formats: inWordwithout formatting; for thegeneral styleof text,bibliography, andcaptionsconsult thisor a recentissueofNeo-Lithics-Illustrationformats:individualEPS,TIFF-filesorJPEGinhighresolutions;illustrationsshouldnotbeembeddedintheWordfile.Please,sentahardcopyofthemanuscriptincaseofcomplexcontributions;keepbibliographicreferencestotheutmostminimum.

SubscriptionInformationIntheupperrightpartoftheaddressfield(envelope)youwillfindtheissuementioneduntilwhich(included)youpaidyoursubscription.Ifyoufindaninvoicewiththisissue,arenewalofsubscriptionisnecessaryforthenextthreeyears/6issues.Ifaninvoiceisnotpaidaftertwomonthsitisunderstoodthataprolongationofthesubscriptionisnotdesired,andnofurtherissueswillbesend.

NoteAuthors of Neo-Lithics receive a pdf file of their individual contribution upon publication. Please, understand that yourcontributionissubjecttothecopyrightsofexorientePublishers.However,youarelicensedtocirculatethepdffileofyourcontributionprivately,butbeyondthisweaskyounottopublishit(orpartsofit)intheWorldWideWeb,orinanyotherformwithoutourpriorpermission.

Neo-Lithicsispublishedanddistributedbyexoriente,Berlin.PrintingHouse:dbusiness,Berlin©exorientee.V.,Berlin-ISSN1434-6990

NEO-LITHICS 1/10 - ex oriente eV

Documents

Transcript of NEO-LITHICS 1/10 - ex oriente eV