Artefact Selection

One of the thematic questions presented earlier relates to the context of symbolically elaborated material, addressing the range and level of use within communities. In particular, how symbols were employed in different contexts within and between sites, specifically a comparison between private (enclosed domestic settings) and public (both large communal buildings as well as more general open spaces which are more domestic in nature) contexts. Therefore, I used a range of materials, either portable or not, which are related to different spheres of activity – personal, household, and communal. As such, a range of materials needed to be included. These items are:

Architectural Installations Decorative Installations Reliefs - Engraved Decorated Grooved Stones (often called

shaft straighteners)

Figurines Reliefs - High

Jewellery (not beads) Reliefs - Low

Decorated Handheld Tools Masks Reliefs - Sunken

Decorated Portable Items (often called plaquettes or pallets)

Paintings Sculptures

Plain Grooved Stones Vessels

These items were then subdivided into two stages: fragmentary and complete. A ‘complete’ item was defined as an object whose whole dimensions are either preserved or can be deduced with 100% certainty regardless of minor surface damage. Such fragmentation, and potential reuse after fragmentation, is an important element when considering the use life of an item.

SELECTION QUERIES

THE INCLUSION OF PLAIN GROOVED STONES WITHIN THE DATABASE

This thesis is an extension of my master’s research (Schepens 2007), which examined much of the same themes, but was limited to the use and function of grooved stones (both decorated and undecorated) and their decorated plaque counterparts. For this reason, I include plain grooved stones in this study as part of a research aspect I wanted to expand and update. Few items of clear utilitarian function are decorated to the same extent as these grooved stones. Normally associated with hunter-gatherers, their continued use throughout the Neolithic is interesting.

THE EXCLUSION OF CERAMIC VESSELS

The reasoning behind the exclusion of ceramic vessels in the present study are as follows: firstly, the main period under examination is the Pre-Pottery Neolithic and the introduction of pottery, which coincides with later social developments, represents a different set of social changes. A great deal of research has been devoted to the symbols deployed on Neolithic pottery, which need not be repeated here (for example Biton, Goren & Goring-Morris 2014; Campbell 1992; Fletcher 2008; Irving 2001). Whilst symbolic development from Pre-Pottery Neolithic artefacts across onto pottery

7

would be an interesting avenue, it is simply beyond the scope of this study. Stone vessels, however, have been included. This is because, unlike pottery, these artefacts are of ground stone, rather than the fundamentally different manufacture and use of later pottery technology. Pottery no doubt evolved from the use of basketry etc. for food storage and cooking, which is made in bulk and easily disposed of. Making stone vessels, on the other hand, are more labour intensive and seem to have served a different utilitarian and social function.

THE EXCLUSION OF SEALS AND SEALINGS

Stamp seals, though present in the Neolithic period, are not included in this study. The earliest evidence of stamp seals dates to the late PPNB, from several sites in Syria, where impressions of the stamps are preserved in plaster. One of these early impressions, from Bouqras, shows a solitary quadruped, probably a caprine. Other motifs on seals and impressions from the PPNB are zigzags and chevrons, which are reminiscent of the abstract motifs are seen on PPNA decorated portable items (Costello 2011:252). It should be emphasised that there is no evidence that palettes were used as seals. Indeed, my research shows that these decorated portable items did not fall out of use and simply evolve into stamp seals. On the contrary, these two artefact types existed to serve separate functions found in tandem.

Schmandt-Besserat is of the opinion that the recent identification of ‘Neolithic hieroglyphs’ repeatedly found in a ritual contexts at different sites, suggests that Neolithic cultures created at least two major symbolic systems (Schmandt-Besserat 2005:39):

1. The first to be studied was the token system, which from the 8th millennium BC served to count and record concrete transactions.

2. The second, a parallel system which existed to express the intangible.

A study of the first system, tokens used in administration in the context of the Neolithic, has been undertaken by Lucy Bennison-Chapman (2014). Interestingly, while it is clear that seals and sealings did have a clear administrative function, there is no direct evolution between tokens of the Neolithic and administrative tokens used in conjunction with seals and sealings in later prehistoric periods. The reason for the exclusion of these stamp seals stems from a similar concern when looking at pottery. These items have a specific economic connotation, part of a complex social system which dominates later urban prehistoric cultures. Whilst there is no doubt that stamp seals form part of an interesting set of behaviours, especially in the development of symbolism, including these items would have been outside the scope of this study. For the same reason, sealings and bullae were not examined, and by extension, neither were clay objects nor tokens.

8

THE EXCLUSION OF BEADS

Until recently, it has been accepted that the earliest undisputed evidence for personal ornaments are 13 ostrich eggshell beads from Enkapune Ya Muto in Kenya at 40,000 BP, and in similar periods in Bacho Kiro in Europe and Ksar Akil and Uçagizli in Western Asia (Henshilwood et al. 2004:404). However, evidence now shows that marine shells were used as beads in the Near East, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa at least 35 thousand years earlier. Five sites—Qafzeh and Skhul in Israel, Oued Djebbana in Algeria, Taforalt in Morocco, and Blombos Cave in South Africa—have yielded evidence of an even earlier use of personal ornaments (d'Errico et al. 2009:16052).

Research in Neolithic South-West Asia suggests that the appearance of early farming and herding communities coincided with a large expansion in stone bead production. This indicates a new social role for personal ornamentation (Wright & Garrard 2003:267). Personal adornments, and, therefore, the implications regarding individual and group identities, are relevant to themes and patterns I am investigating. Indeed, I concur with the criticisms of other researchers where personal adornments have been ignored as part of the studies of art. Many researchers restrict themselves to graphic depiction despite dozens of demonstrations in modern social anthropology that personal adornment is one of the most powerful and pervasive forms in which humans construct and represent beliefs, values, social identity, and as an information technology capable of broadcasting complex messages (White 1992:539). However, the premise of this thesis is focused on patterns of iconography, as compared to social and subsistence developments, and with such a wide scope and large dataset there would be no easy way to integrate personal adornment, with its own vast repertoire. Further study, incorporating personal adornment, would be highly valuable, but was outside the scope of this thesis.

THE EXCLUSION OF BUCRANIA

The use of bucrania, and other bone artefacts, and their incorporation into household architecture, is an element of symbolic deployment which fits neatly into the theme of this research. Their exclusion was based partly on the limitations on the scope of this thesis, as well as the ambiguity in the spectrum of installations (from prominent bucrania to hidden bones in small pockets) and where to draw the distinction in terms of visual iconography. As such, all bucrania installations were excluded. An exception to this rule is the incorporation of bones or bucrania into specific reliefs, where a bulls head, for example, has been moulded and painted. In this form, the relief is the main symbolic component examined while the bones and bucrania are merely a secondary aspect.

THE EXCLUSION OF PLASTERED SKULLS

I have not included plastered skulls in the study because they are a form of mortuary ritual which would no doubt have its own separate social rules. Though clearly part of the same system of

9

individual/household/community identity and integration, mortuary rituals serve a different purpose within society, often used to mask or enhance social stratification, divisions, and differences (Kuijt 1996:313). Including them would involve delineating plastered skulls from unplastered (but curated) skulls and then again from unplastered (removed but uncirculated) skulls and the systems which do or do not differentiate between these treatments. Masks, however, where present, are included as they are not necessarily part of a mortuary practice but equally potentially part of performance.

OCHRE

In the present study, the mere presence or absence of ochre is not considered as a separate artefact, even when considering its laden symbolic usage and potential for body decoration. My reasoning is that potential symbolic deposits could equally be interpreted as the curation of ochre as a raw material used for adhesive (Wadley 2005:597); as an antibacterial agent; as well as ideal for tanning, softening, and colouring leather (Wadley, Williamson & Lombard 2004:662). In the scope of the study, it was only noted when clearly stated in relation to objects (staining, residue, etc.) and more directly, the use of ochre in paint, including painted walls and floors.

THE ISSUE OF ORGANIC PERISHABLE MATERIALS

A clear deficiency in this analysis is the absence of organic perishable artefacts which have not survived in the archaeological record, and which may well have been significant and symbolically elaborated. Apart from special circumstances, the survival of organic material is limited to specific environmental conditions: arid, frozen, or waterlogged conditions.

Evidence for these perishable materials in exceptional contexts highlight their likely prevalence in the Neolithic South-West Asia. In the Levant organic artefacts have been discovered in cave sites located in extremely dry regions such Nahal Hever, Nahal Mishmar, and Nahal Hemar (Galili & Schick 1990:142). Objects made of organic materials were also discovered in submerged sites along the Israeli coast at Kefar Samir, Kefar Galim Norther, Kefar Galim, Tel Hariz, Megadim, and Neve Yam (Galili & Schick 1990:142).

Examples of this material includes basket evidence from Kefar Samir (Galili & Schick 1990:144), which validates finds of basket and matt impression found on the bases of pottery vessels from the Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites of Jericho, Megiddo, Tel Qatif, Fara South, and Teleilat Ghassul (Galili & Schick 1990:146). Wooden artefact examples include eight objects found at the submerged Upper Palaeolithic site of Ohalo II. One such object is identical in size and incision pattern to a gazelle bone implement (Figure 4.6) found in a grave (Nadel et al. 2006:644). Preserved artefacts are also found in carbonised form. Çatalhöyük is exceptional in that it provides the first evidence for the preservation of domestic wooden artefacts and woodworking debris in carbonised form (Asouti 2013b:153).

10

The variety of textiles, wooden artefacts, and basketry (amongst others) which have been lost directly affects the patterns that this study might reveal. Whilst little can be done to compensate for this, it is important to remember and highlight this deficiency.

Figure 4.6 Ohallo II, object III and the incised bone found in the grave, behind the skull of H2