jtfourplace
jtf_toc



Table of Contents


Sie verfügen nicht über ausreichende Berechtigungen zur Betrachtung und Nutzung dieses Inhaltes.
Please login with your authorisation to get access to the content of the JTF-Database.

What is Neolithisation?

Towards the end of the last ice age (from ca. 12.000 calBC) a process began in the Near East which was to prove decisive for the history of mankind. Previously referred to by V.G. Childe as the Neolithic Revolution, this development witnessed the transition from mobile hunter-gatherers to first sedentary communities, a process that would eventually culminate in the appearance of crop cultivation and animal husbandry. As we now know this transition was not abrupt – as perhaps implied by the Childean term – rather it was a gradual process which unfolded over some five millennia, and for which the term Neolithic Evolution is nowadays regarded as a more appropriate label. Undoubtedly, the changes which occurred in this period laid the foundations for what is now our common notion of a productive mode of economy, the predominant way of life in modern villages, towns and cities. One might even argue that the impact of these innovations on the economies and lifeways of our early Neolithic forebears is on a par with the discovery of fire by Lower Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers. Certainly, it is a development which is frequently compared with other far-reaching transitions in human history, such as the Mesopotamian Urban Revolution from around the 4th millennium calBC, and the more recent Industrial Revolution.
In the course of the last century it became increasingly apparent to archaeologists that the roots of Neolithisation should not be sought in the alluvial plains and wetlands of Mesopotamia, but instead along its peripheries, i.e. the hilly flanks in the so-called Fertile Crescent. Forming an arc – comprising the Jordan Valley in the west, Mount Lebanon and the Nur Mountains in its centre, and the hilly flanks of the eastern Taurus and the Zagros Mountains in the east – the Fertile Crescent forms a natural border around the alluvial plain of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. Nevertheless, we should also be aware that Neolithisation processes may also have emerged and developed outside of this area. The preconditions for the genesis of Neolithic subsistence strategies (i.e. the domestication of plants and animals) is equally feasible in all regions where the wild progenitors of domesticated species occur; for example, in the case of wheat and barley, and sheep and goat this region extends from the “traditional” core zone of Neolithic development (Upper Mesopotamia, Southeast Anatolia) into central parts of the Anatolian subcontinent (Konya plain). In the latter region, current excavations for example at Boncuklu should shed light on this matter in the near future.

Fig. 1: Map of late Epi-Palaeolithic and
PPNA-sites in the Near East.
In these regions with their different biotopes, human groups would have had access to a rich spectrum of wild animals (e.g. gazelle, aurochs, wild sheep and goat, and wild boar), wild crops (first and foremost wheat and barley), and an array of wild fruits, thus promoting sedentarisation, while at the same time retaining traditional foraging subsistence strategies (for example, cf. Braidwood / Howe 1960 oder Braidwood et al. 1983). This period (Late Epipaleolithic) is especially well documented for the Southern Levant where it corresponds to the so-called Natufian, after the eponymous cave site Wadi Natuf (cf. Bar-Yosef / Valla 1991). In addition to remains from caves and their adjacent terraces, the early Natufian is marked by the first appearance of long-term domestic stations with characteristic round architecture, e.g. at Nahal ‘Oren, ‘Ain Mallaha and Beidha. Although less common in Upper Mesopotamia, contem-poraneous occupations are attested at a small number of sites, including Mureybet in the Euphrates Valley (Syria), and at the caves of Shanidar and Zarzi in the Zagros region (Iraq) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 2: Map of PPNB/C-Sites
in the Near East.
The Natufian is followed by the Pre-Pottery Neolithic or PPN (10th–7th millennium calBC). First defined by K. Kenyon based on excavations at Tell es-Sultan (Jericho) and divided into an earlier PPNA and a later PPNB phase (Kenyon 1957), this division remains valid and is one that is repeated at sites throughout the Near East and in neighbouring regions. Important PPN sites in Upper Mesopotamia include Çayönü Tepesi, Hallan Çemi, Körtik Tepe, Göbekli Tepe, Nevalı Çori, Tell Qaramel, Dja’de al-Mughara, Jerf el-Ahmar, Tell Halula, Mureybet, Qermez Dere and Nemrik (cf. Cauvin 1994; Aurenche / Kozłowski 1999; see also Özdoğan / Başgelen / Kuniholm 2011 und 2012; Mazurowski / Kanjou 2012) (Figs. 1 and 2).

In Cyprus, recent research has demonstrated that earliest human occupation can now be dated to the Pre-Neolithic period (Late Epipalaeolithic) at sites such as Akrotiri Aetokremnos. However, at present it is unclear whether the transition from Epipalaeolithic to Neolithic was a continuous process or whether there was a hiatus in occupation. Whatever the case, earliest Neolithic groups are attested from the late 10th millennium calBC, contemporaneous with the late PPNA on the mainland (e.g. Agia Varvara Asprokremnos and Ayios Tychonas Klimonas). Most numerous aceramic Neolithic settlement remains stem however from the Cypro-PPNB (e.g. at Parekklisha Shillourokambos, Ais Giorkis, Akanthou / Tatlisu, and Kissonerga Mylouthkia ). Domesticated plants and animals were introduced to the island by these early Neolithic colonists, the progenitor species not occurring naturally on Cyprus, thus ruling out an autochtonous Neolithisation (cf. contributions in Peltenburg and Wasse 2004).

The PPN goes hand in hand with a number of important socio-economic developments, each with their own regional and chronological variants. In addition to an ever increasing reliance on domesticated plants and animals, it was marked, for example, by parallel changes in social structures, away from traditional egalitarian to more complex hierarchical systems; it saw a shift in architectural traditions, with round-plan structures giving way to rectangular buildings; and it witnessed a pronounced diffusion of artistic expression.

Fig. 3: Jerf el-Ahmar.

Special function buildings are a common feature at many PPNA sites. Often referred to by the more neutral term public buildings, these structures would have served various functions (communal and/or ritual). Examples come from all parts of the PPNA koine (cf. Rollefson 2005 and Schmidt 2005): in Upper Mesopotamia, e.g. Shrines 1 and 2 at Tell Qaramel (Mazurowski / Kanjou 2012), Building B2 at Tell el-Abr 3 (Yartah 2004),Maison 47 at Mureybet, and several public buildings at Jerf el-Ahmar, such as Building EA 53 (Stordeur et al. 2000) (Fig. 3); n Southeast Anatolia Buildings A and B at Hallan Çemi (Rosenberg 2011); in the lower Jordan Valley the tower of Jericho (Fig. 4) (Kenyon / Holland 1981; cf. Naveh 2003); and in southern Jordan Building O75 at Wadi Faynan 16 (Finlayson et al. 2011a/b). Notably, some striking parallels in the structure and decoration of Building O75 at Wadi Faynan 16 and Building EA 53 at Jerf el-Ahmar (Fig. 3) testify to common concepts over a very wide region. Turning briefly to Jericho, the function of the tower and adjacent wall at this site has long been debated, particularly concerning their defensive properties (Kenyon / Holland 1981: 6-8; cf. recent discussion by LeBlanc 2010); alternatively, it has been suggested that the wall might have served to protect the settlement from mud flows and flash floods (Bar-Yosef 1986), or that the construction of wall and tower could have been an expression of newly emerging local and regional power structures (Naveh 2003). Finally, a differentiation between domestic and ritual architecture must not always be expected; profane and religious elements frequently occur in one and the same building, as might be the case, e.g. at Qermez Dere, Nemrik, and M’lefaat (cf. Aurenche / Kozłowski 1999: Pls. 7-1 and 7-2).

Fig. 4: Jericho: The wall and
tower at Jericho.

The PPNA is also the period which saw the erection of monumental stone enclosures at Göbekli Tepe (layer III) in the Germus mountain range, just a few kilometres northeast of the city of Şanlıurfa. The most prominent feature of these enclosures are monolithic T-shaped pillars, some of which reach heights of 5 metres and are adorned with a vast array of sculptures and reliefs; these enclosures comprise two central pillars surrounded by several and up to twelve smaller T-shaped pillars which were incorporated into circular walls with stone benches (cf. Figs. 5-6; cf. Dietrich 2011: Fig. 1 on p. 14 or Schmidt 2012: Fig. 76 on p. 160). Göbekli Tepe is interpreted as both meeting place and ritual centre of late hunter-gatherer groups living in the area in the mid-10th millennium calBC (cf. Schmidt 2005; Schmidt 2011; Schmidt 2012; Dietrich et al. 2012; see also Peters / Schmidt 2004, Schmidt 2007 and Hauptmann / Schmidt 2007).

Fig. 5: Göbekli Tepe:
Pillar 2

Later examples of special function buildings come from the subsequent PPNB. One prominent example is the so-called Skull Building from Çayönü Tepesi (Fig. 7), one of three special function buildings identified at this site (Erim-Özdoğan 2011: 200-202, 207-210, Fig. 21). In this structure, which shows signs of several phases of renewal, were found the bones of several hundred individuals which had been carefully arranged in three crypts at its northern end. A PPNB ritual building was also discovered at Nevalı Çori (Fig. 8). Equivalents of this rectangular structure, which features central pillars with clearly anthropomorphic elements in relief, have since been discovered at Göbekli Tepe (Level II). In the eastern bench of the Nevalı Çori ritual building were also found three parts of a smashed composite sculpture, which although only partly preserved can be interpreted as a totem-like object comprising a raptor sitting atop two human figures (Fig. 9) (cf. Hauptmann 1993; Hauptmann 2011: Fig. 24a/b). Similar objects are also known from Göbekli Tepe (Schmidt 2012: Fig. 30) and at Jerf el-Ahmar raptors, especially vultures, are a frequent motif in pictorial representations (cf. Stordeur et al. 2000: Fig. 11). The combination of humans and vultures is often interpreted in the context of funeral rites (cf. Peters / Schmidt 2004: 213), e.g. at Çatalhöyük in the Konya plain where wall-paintings dating to the Pottery Neolithic (PN – Levels VII and VIII; ca. 6800/6700 calBC) have been associated with excarnation of human corpses (Mellaart 1967: 166-168, Figs. 14-15 and 47, Pls. 45-49; cf. Hodder 2006: 137-138 Fig. 57).

Fig. 6: Göbekli Tepe:
Pillar 43
Intriguingly, at the same site the wing of a crane was found together in context with remains of cattle and dog; this combination of animals is also observed on Pillar 2 at Göbekli Tepe (Level III), perhaps suggestive of their enduring mythical association. Both at Göbekli Tepe (Fig. 5) and at Çatalhöyük it has been suggested that human individuals may have dressed as birds for the performance of ritual dances. In this context it is tempting to imagine a vulture dance of death, and a crane dance of life or rebirth. The parallels between cranes and humans could be indicative of a belief that cranes were reincarnations of the ancestors. This might explain why cranes are popular totems and clan symbols, as are other powerful animals (e.g. aurochs, raptors, foxes, etc.) (cf. Russell / McGowan 2002: 450, 452-453; Schmidt 2012: 116-119, 172 f.).
Fig. 7: Çayönü Tepesi
A geographically widely attested group of PPN finds comprise so-called shaft straighteners and plaquettes. These artefacts made of stone are frequently embellished with a rich repertoire of geometric motifs and figural representations. While the function of the decorated plaquettes is still unknown, the shaft straighteners may have been used for the ritualised production of arrowshafts; a process which may have served to
Fig. 8: Nevalı Çori
endow these implements with magical properties, perhaps believed to render them more lethal. Whereas shaft straighteners from the Southern Levant are mainly adorned with geometrical decoration, pieces from Upper Mesopotamia feature a higher frequency of figural representations (Figs. 10-12). These representations usually comprise selected wild animals from different habitats, e.g. snakes, foxes, and birds, often in combinations; as such, they are reminiscent of reliefs found embellishing the aforementioned T-pillars at Göbekli Tepe (cf. Stordeur et al. 1996: Fig. 2; Aurenche / Kozłowski 1999: Pls. 2-7; 2-12 and 2-13; Köksal-Schmidt / Schmidt 2007, 103-109; Morenz / Schmidt 2009: 22 ff.; Morenz 2013).

Fig. 9: Nevalı Çori

An interesting category among early Neolithic sculptures are the stone scepters of Nemrik type discovered at a handful of sites in Upper Mesopotamia (Göbekli Tepe, Hallan Çemi, Körtik Tepe, Nemrik). These pieces, also referred to as pestles, take the form of carefully worked batons adorned with the heads of assorted animals and humans, and also bodily extremities. In the case of Nemrik, these figurines were found in two main contexts. While fragmentary pieces are associated mainly with burials, complete figurines were discovered in domestic structures (Kozłowski 2002: 77-80 Pls . CXXXVIII-CXLII; cf. Schmidt 2005: 15) (Fig. 13).

Fig. 10: Göbekli Tepe

A further group of characteristic finds, especially in the Southern Levant, are plastered skulls (Fig. 14) attested for example at Jericho, Tell Ramad, Tell Aswad, Beisamoun, Nahal Hemar, Kfar Ha’Horesh and ‘Ain Ghazal (cf. Goren et al. 2001; Stordeur / Khawam 2007). Additionally, the same region has also produced finds of modelled sculptures and busts from Jericho and most notably from ‘Ain Ghazal (Fig. 15) (cf. Schmandt-Besserat 1998; Aurenche / Kozłowski 1999, Pl. 6-10; Schmandt-Besserat 2013: 245-334). In both cases, these objects (plastered skulls and sculptures/busts) have frequently been associated with a PPNB ancestor cult. At this point, particular note should be made of Kfar Ha’Horesh, which in contrast to the other mentioned sites lacks an evident domestic function. Inhumations and installations discovered here have been interpreted as elements of a possible burial/ritual centre (Goring-Morris 2000).

Fig. 11: Jerf el-Ahmar

onsidering the selected examples presented above, we can conclude that the early Neolithic was a period rich in imagery, commanding over a manifold repertoire of signs, symbols and metaphors of a hitherto unknown quality. These may have been essential for early Neolithic people who were still grappling and coming to terms with both themselves and their environments (cf. Cauvin 1994; Watkins 2004; Coqueugniot / Aurenche 2011). Admittedly, our attempts to decipher and understand the intellectual world of the early Neolithic are still at the very beginning, albeit that they have already led in some intensive scientific discussions.

Fig. 12: Tell Qaramel

While PPNA societies lived mainly as specialised hunter-gatherers, in the course of the PPNB (from ca. 8700 calBC) subsistence strategies underwent a gradual transition from predominant foraging to a production-based economy with cultivation and animal husbandry. At this point we should note that initial sedentarisation – which can in fact be traced back to the end of the last ice age – marked the beginnings of an irreversible process, frequently attributed to demographic pressure and over-hunting, which eventually culminated in the emergence of fully Neolithic lifeways. Nevertheless, clear chronological and regional differences in the archaeological record indicate that there was no single (geographical) centre of Neolithic development; rather, the new subsistence strategies evolved in different parts of the Near East at different times and followed different courses (cf. Helmer 1992; Zohary / Hopf 1993; Sanlaville 1997; Peters et al. 1999).

Fig. 13: Nemrik

The pinnacle of PPN lifeways was reached in the late PPNB and is most evident in the emergence of large scale settlements, which in the southern Levant have been referred to as megasites. These settlements are characterised by the agglomeration of human groups in villages, extending over several hectares, and with an estimated several hundred to several thousand inhabitants (cf. Hole 2000). The gradual abandonment of megasites in the first centuries of the seventh millennium calBC has been linked to a combination of factors,including environmental degradation, climate change, and the transition to more mobile lifeways, e.g. due to the emergence of nomadic pastoralism as an important new mode of subsistence (cf. Köhler-Rollefson 1992; Rollefson / Köhler-Rollefson 1993). Further north, in south-eastern Anatolia, the end of the late Pre-Pottery Neolithic has been associated with a break with earlier traditions, apparent in the abandonment and/or decrease in size of settlements, as well as for example the disappearance of monumental statuary (cf. Özdoğan 2010).

Fig. 14: Tell Aswad
Fig. 15: ‘Ain Ghazal

Until relatively recently the end of the PPNB in the Southern Levant (ca. 6900 calBC) was believed to have marked the beginning of a Neolithic Dark Age which brought cultural and economic decline. Often referred to as the hiatus palestinien (cf. Gopher and Gophna 1993: 303-304; Rollefson 1998: 115), this gap in the prehistoric sequence, lasting until the onset of the Pottery Neolithic, has become gradually filled in the last decades, a process which began in the 1980s at the Jordanian site of ‘Ain Ghazal, where post-PPNB occupation levels were termed Pre-Pottery Neolithic C (PPNC) (cf. Rollefson and Simmons 1986: 160-161). Meanwhile, PPNC occupations are known from numerous sites in the Northern Transjordanian Highlands, as well as in northern Israel/Palestine.


Figure Legends

Fig. 1: Map of late Epi-Palaeolithic and PPNA-sites in the Near East. Data: Our Place: Our Place in the World Database

Fig. 2: Map of PPNB/C-sites in the Near East. Data: Our Place: Our Place in the World Database

Fig. 3: Jerf el-Ahmar: View of the stone benches decorated with geometric motifs and the pillar with a snake in the Communal Building EA53 (after: Stordeur et al. 2000: Fig. 8:2, 9)

Fig. 4: Jericho: The wall and tower at Jericho are unique to this settlement, similar edifices being unknown from contemporaneous sites. The tower, built of undressed stones and covered by mud plaster, is 8.2 metres high and 9.0 metres in diameter. An internal 20-step staircase leads from its ground level entrance to the roof. Erected in Stage III, in Jericho Stage VIA twelve individuals were buried in the passage way between the entrance and the staircase, after which the tower was sealed (after: Kenyon / Holland 1981: Pl. 5)

Fig. 5: Göbekli Tepe: Pillar 2 from Enclosure A showing reliefs – from top to bottom – of bull, fox and crane (Photo: Christoph Gerber, copyright German Archaeological Institute, Orient-Department)

Fig. 6: Göbekli Tepe: Pillar 43 from Enclosure D with numerous images, including a sequence with birds, four-legged animals and snakes, a scorpion, an ithyphallic headless man, as well as several unidentified objects (Photo: Klaus Schmidt, copyright German Archaeological Institute, Orient-Department)

Fig. 7: Çayönü Tepesi: Skull Building (after: Erim-Özdoğan 2011: Fig. 21)

Fig. 8: Nevalı Çori: Cult Building III (“House 13“) (after: Hauptmann 2011: Fig. 9)

Fig. 9: Nevalı Çori: Composite figure from Cult Building III (“House 13”) (after: Hauptmann 2011: Fig. 24a/b)

Fig. 10: Göbekli Tepe: Decorated shaft straightener (a) and plaques (b-c) (Photos: Nico Becker [left, right], Irmgard Wagner [middle], copyright German Archaeological Institute, Orient-Department)

Fig. 11: Jerf el-Ahmar: Decorated shaft straighteners (a-b) and plaques (c-d) (a-d after: Stordeur et al. 1996: Fig. 2)

Fig. 12: Tell Qaramel: Decorated shaft straighteners (a-c, e, g-h) and decorated plaques (d and f) (a-h after: Mazurowski / Kanjou 2012: Pls. 68:2.4; 69:3.5; 70:3; 71:3; 73:6; 74:7; 75:1)

Fig. 13: Nemrik: Stone scepter of Hallan Çemi type (a-e after: Kozłowski 2002: Pls. CXXXVIII:2Af and 6f; CXXXIX:5fill and PT; CXL: top left)

Fig. 14: Plastered skulls from Tell Aswad (after: Stordeur / Khawam 2007: Fig. 5-1). The group of plastered skulls from Tell Aswad were deposited in a pit dug into an older, abandoned house structure

Fig. 15: ‘Ain Ghazal: Plastered figurines. Left: The statue “Zeina” after restoration, H. 93 cm, W. 30, D. 17,4 cm. Right: Large bust with two heads after restoration in Washington, H. 88 cm. Both objects ‘Amman, Jordan Archaeological Museum (after: Salje et al. 2004: Abb. 2.4 and 2.6)


Acknowledgements:

We thank the following colleagues for the kind permission to publish their figures: Danielle Stordeur (figs. 3, 11, 14); Bill Finlayson, respectively the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem and the Council for British Research in the Levant (fig. 4); Aslı Erim-Özdoğan (fig. 7), Harald Hauptmann (fig. 8-9); Ryszard Feliks Mazurowski (fig. 12); Stefan Karol Kozłowski (fig. 13); and Gary Rollefson (fig. 15).



References

Aurenche, O. / Kozłowski, S.K. 1999: La naissance du Néolithique au Proche Orient ou le paradis perdu. Paris.
Bar-Yosef, O. 1986: The Walls of Jericho: an alternative interpretation. Current Anthropology 27, 157-162.
Bar-Yosef, O. / Valla, F. (eds.) 1991: The Natufian Culture in the Levant. International Monographs in Archaeology, Archaeological Series 1. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Braidwood, L. / Braidwood, R. / Howe, B. / Reed, C. / Watson, P.J. (eds.) 1983: Prehistoric Archaeology along the Zagros Flanks. Oriental Institute Publications 105. Chicago.
Braidwood, R. / Howe, B. (ed.) 1960: Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations N° 31 (with Contributions by H. Helbae / F.R. Matson, C.A. Reed / H.E. Whright jr.). Chicago.
Cauvin, J. 1994: Naissance de divinités, naissance de l’agriculture. La révolution des symboles au Néolithique. Paris.
Coqueugniot, E. / Aurenche, O. 2011: Néolithisations: nouvelles données, nouvelles interpretations: À propos du modèle théorique de Jacques Cauvin. Paléorient 37/1 (Thematic Issue).
Dietrich. O. 2011: Radiocarbon Dating the First Temples of Mankind. Comments on 14C-Dates from Göbekli Tepe. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 4, 12-25.
Dietrich, O. / Heun, M. / Notroff, J. / Schmidt, K. / Zarnkow, M. 2012: The Role of Cult and Feasting in the Emergence of Neolithic Communities. New Evidence from Göbekli Tepe, Southeastern Turkey. Antiquity 86, N° 333, 674-695.
Erim-Özdoğan, A. 2011: Çayönü, in: Özdoğan, M. / Başgelen, N. / Kuniholm, P. (eds.) 2011, 185-269.
Finlayson, B. / Kujit, I. / Mithen, S. / Smith, S. 2011a: New Evidence from Southern Jordan: Rethinking the Role of Architecture in Changing Societies at the Beginning of the Neolithic Process. Paléorient 37/1, 123-135.
Finlayson, B. / Mithen, S. / Najjar, M. / Smith, S. / Maričevič, D. / Pankhurst, N. / Yeoman, L. 2011b: Architecture, Sedentism and Social Complexity of Pre-Pottery Neolithic A WF16, Southern Jourdan. PNAS 108,20, 8181-8188.
Gopher, A. / Gophna, R. 1993: Cultures of the Eights and Seventh Millennia BP in the Southern Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 7/3, 297-353.
Goren, Y. / Goring-Morris, A.N. / Segal, I. 2001: The Technology of Skull Modelling in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB): Regional Variability, the Relation of Technology and Iconography and their Archaeological Implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 671-690.
Goring-Morris, N. 2000: The Quick and the Dead: The Social Context of Aceramic Neolithic Mortuary Practices as Seen from Kfar HaHoresh, in: I. Kujit (ed.) 2000, 103-136.
Hauptmann, H. 1993: Ein Kultgebäude in Nevalı Çori, in: M. Frangipane / H. Hauptmann / M. Liverani / P. Matthiae / M. Mellink (eds.) Between the Rivers and over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata. Rom, 37-69.
Hauptmann, H. 2011: The Urfa Region, in: Özdoğan, M. / Başgelen, N. / Kuniholm, P. (eds.) 2011, 87-138.
Hauptmann, H. / Schmidt, K. 2007: Anatolien vor 12000 Jahren: die Skulpturen des Frühneolithikums, in: Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe (ed.) Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit, Begleitbuch zur großen Landesausstellung Baden Württemberg 2007, Stuttgart, 67-82.
Helmer, D. 1992: La domestication des animaux par le hommes préhistoriques. Paris.
Hodder, I. 2006: Çatalhöyük: The Leopard’s Tale. Revealing the Mysteries of Turkey’s Ancient ‘Town’. London.
Hole, F. 2000: Is Size Important? Function and Hierarchy in Neolithic Settlements, in: I. Kujit (ed.) 2000, 191-209.
Köhler-Rollefson, I. 1992: A Model for the Development of Nomadic Pastoralism on the Transjordanian Plateau, in: O. Bar-Yosef / A. Khazanov (eds.) Pastoralism in the Levant. Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives. Monographs in the World Archaeology 10, Madison/Wisconsin, 11-18.
Köksal-Schmidt, Ç. / Schmidt, K. 2007: Perlen, Steingefäße, Zeichentäfelchen. Handwerkliche Spezialisierung und steinzeitliches Symbolsystem, in: Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe (ed.) Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit, Begleitbuch zur großen Landesausstellung Baden Württemberg 2007, Stuttgart, 97-109.
Kenyon, K.M. 1957: Digging up Jericho. The Results of the Jericho Excavations, 1952–1956. New York.
Kenyon, K.M. / Holland, T.A. (eds.) 1981: Excavations at Jericho III. The Architecture and Stratigraphie of the Tell. London.
Kozłowski, S.K. 2002: Nemrik. An Aceramic Village in Northern Iraq (with Preface by O. Aurenche). SWIATOWIT Suppl. Series P, Vol. VIII. Warsaw.
Kujit, I. (ed.) 2000: Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. Fundamental Issues in Archaeology. New York et al.
LeBlanc, S.A. 2010: Early Neolithic Warfare in the Near East and its Broader Implications. Neo-Lithics 1/10, 40-49.
Mazurowski, R.F. / Kanjou, Y. (eds.) 2012: Tell Qaramel 1999–2007: Proto-Neolithic and Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic Settlement in Northern Syria. Preliminary Results of Syrian-Polish Archaeological Excavations 1999–2007. Polish Center of Mediterranean Archaeology Excavation Series 2. Warsaw.
Mellaart 1967: Çatalhöyük. A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. New Aspects of Antiquity. London.
Morenz, L. 2013: Hybride Schlangen. Mythologische Bilder aus dem frühen Neolithikum. Das Altertum 58, 1-8.
Morenz, L. / Schmidt, K. 2009: Große Reliefpfeiler und kleine Zeichentäfelchen. Ein frühneolithisces Zeichensystem in Obermesopotamien, in: P. Andrássy / J. Budka / F. Kammerzell (eds.) Non-Textual Marking Systems, Writing and Pseudo Script from Prehistory to Modern Times, Lingua Aegyptia – Studia monographica 8, Göttingen, 13-31.
Naveh, D. 2003: PPNA Jericho: a Sociopolitical Perspective. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13/1, 83-96.
Peltenburg, E. / Wasse, A. (eds.) 2004: Neolithic Revolution. New Perspectives on Southwest Asia in Light of Recent Discovery on Cyprus. Levant Supplement Series, Vol. 1. Oxford.
Peters, J. / Helmer, D. / von den Driesch, A. / Saña Segui, M. 1999: Early Animal Husbandry in the Northern Levant. Paléorient 25/2, 27-47.
Peters, J. / Schmidt, K. 2004: Animals in the Symbolic World of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, South-eastern Turkey: A Preliminary Assessment. Anthropozoologica 39 (1), 179-218.
Özdoğan, M. / Başgelen, N. / Kuniholm, P. (eds.) 2011–2012: The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations & New Research. Vol. 1: The Tigris Basin, Vol. 2: The Euphrates Basin, Vol. 3: Central Turkey, Vol. 4: Western Turkey. Istanbul.
Özdoğan, M. 2010: The Neolithic Medium: Warfare due to Social Stress or State of Security through Social Welfare. Neo-Lithics 1/10, 54-55.
Rollefson, G.O. 1998: The Aceramic Neolithic in Jordan, in: D.O. Henry (eds.) Prehistoric Archaeology of Jordan, BAR International Series 705, Oxford, 102-126.
Rollefson, G.O. 2005: Early Neolithic Ritual Centers in the Southern Levant. Neo-Lithics 2/05, 3-13.
Rollefson, G.O. / Simmons, A.H. 1986: The Neolithic Village of ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan: Preliminary Report of the 1984-7. BASOR Suppl. Studies 24, 145-164.
Rollefson, G.O. / Köhler-Rollefson, I. 1993: PPNC Adaptations in the First Half of the Sixth Millennium BC. Paléorient 19/1, 33-42.
Rosenberg, M. 2011: Hallan Çemi, in: Özdoğan, M. / Başgelen, N. / Kuniholm, P. (eds.) 2012, 61-78.
Russell, N. / McGowan, K.J. 2002: Dance of the Cranes: Crane Symbolism at Çatalhöyük and Beyond. Antiquity 77, N° 297, 445-455.
Salje, B. / Riedl, N. / Schauerte, G. / Wartke, R.-B. (eds.) 2004: Gesichter des Orients. 10 000 Jahre Kunst und Kultur aus Jordanien, (Exhibition in Berlin and Bonn), Mainz.
Sanlaville, P. (ed.) 1997: Paléoenvironment et sociétés humaines au Moyen-Orient de 20 000 BP à 6 000 BP. Paléorient 23/2, 7-270.
Schmandt-Besserat, D. 1998: ‘Ain Ghazal “Monumental” Figures. BASOR 310, 1-17.
Schmandt-Besserat, D. (ed.) 2013: Symbols at ‘Ain Ghazal. ‘Ain Ghazal Excavation Reports, Volume 3. Bibliotheca neolithica Asiae meridionalis et occidentalis & Monograph of the Faculty of Archaeology and Anthropology (Yarmouk University), ex oriente, Berlin.
Schmidt, K. 2005: “Ritual Centers” and the Neolithisation of Upper Mesopotamia. Neo-Lithics 2/05, 13-21.
Schmidt, K. 2007: Die Steinkreise und die Reliefs des Göbekli Tepe, in: Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe (ed.) Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit, Begleitbuch zur großen Landesausstellung Baden Würtemberg 2007, Stuttgart, 83-96.
Schmidt, K. 2011: Göbekli Tepe, in: Özdoğan, M. / Başgelen, N. / Kuniholm, P. (eds.) 2011, 41-83.
Schmidt, K. 2012: Göbekli Tepe. A Stone Age Sanctuary in South-Eastern Anatolia. Berlin, ex oriente. e.V.
Stordeur, D. / Khawam, R. 2007: Les crânes surmodelés de Tell Aswad (PPNB, Syrie). Premier regard sur l’ensemble, premières réflexions. Syria 84, 5-32.
Stordeur, D. / Brenet, M. / Der Aprahamian, G. / Roux, J.-C. 2000: Les bâtiments communautaires de Jerf el Ahmar et Mureybet horizon PPNA (Syrie). Paléorient 26/1, 29-44.
Stordeur, D. / Jammous, B. / Helmer, D. / Willcox, G. 1996: Jerf el-Ahmar: a New Mureybetian Site (PPNA) on the Middle Euphrates. Neo-Lithics 2/96, 1-2.
Watkins, T. 2004: Building Houses, Framing Concepts, Constructing Worlds. Paléorient 30/1, 5-23.
Yartah, T. 2004: Tell ‘Abr 3, un village du néolithique précéramique (PPNA) sur le Moyen Euphrate. Première approche. Paléorient 30/2, 141-158.
Zohary, D. / Hopf, M. 1993: Domestication of Plants in the Old World. Oxford.




A new Approach

A new approach to Early Neolithic society and symbolism


Certainly, any explanation which seeks to assign the wide variety of reciprocal links and diverse interactions contributing to Neolithisation to changed ecological conditions is far too simple. Indeed, as early as the 1960s, Robert J. Braidwood asked why the Neolithic Revolution only began at the close of the last ice age and not at the onset of an earlier interstadial. This point was later picked up on by J. Cauvin, who for the first time sought an explanation for Neolithisation as a psycho-cultural phenomenon, though at this time he was still unable to answer Braidwood’s question concerning the timing of this development (cf. Watkins 2010: 621-622).

Since the 1990s (so-called decade of the brain) an increased number of studies in neuroscience, cognitive, developmental and evolutionary psychology, and philosophy of consciousness have focused on the development of the human mind and psyche. It is these studies which may yet provide an explanation for the timing of Neolithisation. Accordingly, it is posited that at least until the end of the Palaeolithic, human cognitive skills were not adequately evolved and that they also lacked the essential intellectual foundation for coping with Neolithisation processes (cf. Donald 1991; Mithen 1996; Boyer 2001; Dunbar / Gamble / Gowlett 2010; see also Watkins 2004, 2008a/b, 2010).

It is in the context of this broad intellectual discussion that Klaus Schmidt (German Archaeological Institute, Berlin) and Trevor Watkins (University of Edinburgh) initiated a three-year research project “Our Place: Our Place in the World”, financed by the John Templeton Foundation. Focus of this multi-disciplinary research project was the investigation of how first large, permanently co-residential communities functioned, and how and why they networked. It is held that a better understanding of Early Neolithic worldviews is one way that this goal may be achieved. For this reason, Our Place: Our Place in the World brought together selected scientists from several different disciplines, including psychologists, philosophers, and cultural historians, in addition to archaeologists.


Initial Workshop

(held in October 2012 in Istanbul and Şanlıurfa)


Workshop participants at Göbekli Tepe, 2nd October 2012
(photo: Jens Notroff)

An initial workshop for invited members of the Our Place: Our Place in the World group was held in Istanbul and Şanlıurfa between 1st and 5th October 2012 (for a complete list of participants, see Watkins and Schmidt 2012). The workshop brought together three groups of specialists from different disciplines, all of whom had agreed to contribute to the research project. The workshop allowed them to encounter the spectacular and impressive architecture and imagery of Göbekli Tepe face to face. In the original plan, we intended to spend one or two days in north Syria, so that the participants in the research project could also see something of the settlement sites that are under investigation there. Obviously, that part of the programme had to be dropped. In the event, even a one-day excursion to visit sites nearby in southeast Turkey was abandoned in view of the uncertainty of the security situation when cross-border artillery shelling occurred very close to Urfa.

During the first two days of this initial meeting archaeologists presented their results about their work at most important sites like Göbekli Tepe, Jerf el Ahmar, Dja’de, Tell el-‘Abr, Tell Qaramel, Tell Halula, and Aşıklı Höyük, which were discussed and commented by colleagues. The following two days were given to intense discussion, in which the non-archaeologists took the lead, introducing their own research interests and expertise, and explaining their interest in applying their disciplines to our multi-disciplinary research project. In the last session, the workshop focused on mapping the outline of the interdisciplinary research programme, seeking to articulate the essential questions in the right way.


References


Boyer, P. 2001: Religion Explained. The Human Instincts that Fashion Gods, Spirits and Ancestors. London.
Donald, M. 1991: Origins of the Human Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition. Cambrigde, MA.
Dunbar, R.I.M. / Gamble, C. / Gowlett, J.A.J. (eds.) 2010: Social Brain, Distributed Mind. Oxford.
Mithen, S. 1996: The Prehistory of Mind. A Search for the Origins of Art, Religion and Science. London.
Watkins, T. 2004: Building Houses, Framing Concepts, Constructing Worlds. Paléorient 30/1, 5-23.
Watkins, T. 2008a: Natural Environment versus Cultural Environment: The Implications of Creating a Built En-vironment, in: J. Córdoba / M. Molist / C. Pérez / I. Rubio / S. Martínez (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid 3–8 April 2006, Madrid, 427-437.
Watkins; T. 2008b: Ordering Time and Space: Creating a Cultural World, in: J. Córdoba / M. Molist / C. Pérez / I. Rubio / S. Martínez (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid 3–8 April 2006, Madrid, 647-659.
Watkins, T. 2010: New Light on Neolithic Revolution in South-West Asia. Antiquity 84, N° 325, 621-634.
Watkins, T. / Schmidt, K. 2012: Our Place: Our Place in the World: Workshop at Urfa Initiates a Three-Year Research Project on Göbekli Tepe and Contemporary Settlements in the Region. Neo-Lithics 1/12, 43-46.
Licensed under Creative Commons
Imprint |  Privacy  |  Report bugs to idai.objects@dainst.de
v1.0.3 (build #425)