274 habitantes, cuando lo establecido por el Ministerio de Salud es dos (2) médicos

The most substantial body of evidence from the Epipalaeolithic and the Neolithic periods comes from the Levant, and most of the models concerning the origins of agriculture therefore draw on this evidence. Many features of Neolithic communities are said to have developed from the preceding Late Epipalaeolithic period, i.e. the Natufian (c 13,000-10,000 cal BC). During the earlier part of the Epipalaeolithic sites were small and occupied for shorter periods of time during the year, with its occupants subsisting on wild plant and animal resources (Byrd 2005a: 253-254). The subsequent Natufian period is characterised by longer duration of residency at sites and subsistence strategies with a more extensive reliance on wild grasses, legumes and nuts, and a more diverse set of game, birds and aquatic resources (Bar-Yosef 1989; Byrd 2005a: 255-257). Other characteristics of the Natufian are the occurrence of possible storage pits and an increase in ground stone implements throughout the period, as well as a wider variety of types of ground stones with a particular focus on pounding (Bar-Yosef 1989; Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef 2000: 21; Wright 1991: 28-31, 2000: 92-98). It is believed that these were especially suitable for the preparation of nuts, legumes, and de-husking of wild cereals (Byrd 2005a: 262-263). In the Late Natufian (c 11,000-10,000 cal BC) and subsequent PPNA (c 9,700-8,500 cal BC) there was a change in ground stone technology with a new focus on grinding implements more suited for cereal preparation (but see Wright 1991: 31-33; 1994: 240-241 on possible multi- functionality of ground stones). This shift accompanies a greater reliance on cereals, as well as the earliest evidence for cultivation of plants (Byrd 2005a: 262-263). It is possible that the shift from implements for pounding to grinding tools could be a result of changes in food preparation rather than just an increased reliance on cereals (Wright 1991, 1994). PPNA settlements were larger and appear to have been occupied for longer than the Natufian sites, and many were situated in locations where sizeable portions of land could be cleared for cultivation and the water table allowed for more reliable harvests (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002: 371-372). The faunal assemblages from PPNA sites indicate that humans maintained a diverse diet with an increase in the consumption of smaller animals such as birds, water fowls, tortoises and lizards (Byrd 2005a: 262-263).

The subsequent PPNB (c 8,500-6,900 cal BC) was characterised by larger permanent settlements with more elaborate architecture (Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2008: 260- 265; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002: 382-413). It was also the period from which the earliest evidence for domesticated animals (e.g. Horwitz et al 1999; Peters et al 1999; Zeder 2009) and plants (e.g. Garrard 1999; Zeder 2009) comes. Gazelle was the main game animal hunted during the Early Neolithic in the Levant. Other large game, e.g. deer, aurochs, wild goat, wild boar, equids and antelopes, made up a relatively small portion of the diet, whereas smaller game, birds and smaller vertebrates increased in importance from the Natufian onwards (Horwitz et al 1999: 65). During the MPPNB goat replaced gazelle as the main animal consumed at many sites, including Tell Aswad, Tell Ramad, Abu Gosh, and Munhatta

15 (Horwitz et al 1999: 66; Legge 1996: 253). However, it is not until the LPPNB that domestic goats appear in the archaeological record in the area (Horwitz et al 1999: 69). Sheep appear to be rare in the zooarchaeological record of the southern Levant until the appearance of domestic sheep in the PPNB levels at Tell Aswad and Ghoraife in the Damascus Basin and later at other sites further to the south (Horwitz et al 1999: 66; Legge 1996: 252-255). This has been taken to suggest that sheep were domesticated in the northern part of the Fertile Crescent and brought to the south as domestic stock (Legge 1996: 259). The probable location for their domestication is southeast Anatolia; sheep with demographic profiles suggesting herding have been found at the EPPNB site of Nevalı Çori, southeast Anatolia, and later at MPPNB sites in the Middle Euphrates Basin (Peters et al 1999: 39-40).

Another species probably domesticated in southeast Anatolia is pig (Zeder 2009: 37). Rosenberg et al (1998) have presented a claim for the early occurrence of pig husbandry at Hallan Çemi (10th millennium cal BC), based, in parts, on the reduction of tooth size and the kill-off pattern observed in the bone assemblage. This claim has, however, been disputed as the size of the molars fall within a range also observed in wild specimens, and kill-off patterns similar to that observed at Hallan Çemi have been attested in earlier assemblages of wild boar and in ethnographic accounts of the hunting strategy of certain hunter-gatherer groups (Peters et al 1999: 40-41), namely nest robbing. Redding (2005) maintains that the assemblage indicates that human behaviour and use of pigs at Hallan Çemi change from the early to the late phase of occupation. He (2005: 43-47) argues that he is not so much concerned with whether the pigs are being domesticated in the sense of morphological changes brought on by a consistent practice of management, but rather that the form of pig husbandry at Hallan Çemi constituted one of a multitude of subsistence strategies undertaken during this period – one that ultimately did not last. His main point is that archaeologists need to consider the possibility that the various human subsistence behaviours during the Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic may not necessarily all have led to domestication; domestication should be considered a nonlinear process involving much experimentation, trial and error (Redding 2005: 46-47). The earliest morphological evidence for domesticated pigs comes from the LPPNB levels at Hayaz Höyük and Gürcütepe, southeast Anatolia, and Tell Halula, northern Syria (Peters et al 1999: 41). Domestic pigs are not found in the southern Levant until the LPPNB-FPPNB levels at ‘Ain Ghazal and Atlit Yam (Horowitz et al 1999: 70-71, 77). The last of the four species to be domesticated during the Neolithic was cattle. It is believed that the process of domestication had started by the MPPNB in the Euphrates Valley (Zeder 2009: 37), although domestic cattle is not attested until the LPPNB at sites such as Gürcütepe, Hayaz Tepe, Bouqras, and Ras Shamra (Peters et al 1999: 40).

The earliest occurrence of wild cereals and pulses in the archaeobotanical record of the Levant comes from Middle and Late Palaeolithic cave sites in Northern Israel (60,000-30,000 uncal bc); the earliest assemblage containing multiple species – including wild barley,

16 emmer wheat, lentils, nuts and fruits – was found at the Early Epipalaeolithic site of Ohalo II (c 21,000 cal BC) (Garrard 1999: 72-73; Weiss et al 2004). The steady expansion of oak forest and park-steppe woodland during the Early Natufian would have increased the availability of edible plants such as legumes, cereals and nuts (Hillman 1996: 181-192). However, the later part of the Natufian, which coincided with the onset of the Younger Dryas, brought cooler, drier conditions leading to a retraction of the park-steppe woodland belt and the natural habitat of cereals and legumes. It has been argued that this encouraged human cultivation of plants (e.g. Bar-Yosef 2001a: 7; Hillman 1996; Hillman et al 2001: 390; McCorriston and Hole 1991: 48-49). As previously mentioned, Hillman et al (2001) argued for the cultivation of rye and wheat at Abu Hureyra during this period, and the earliest evidence for domestic type rye have been directly dated to the later Epipalaeolithic occupation at the site (Hillman et al 2001: 389-91). Interestingly, rye never appears to have become an important part of cereal cultivation in the Near East during this time; the only other identified domestic type rye comes from Can Hasan III in central Anatolia some 2,000 years later (Garrard 1999: 78; Zeder 2009: 29-30).

The archaeobotanical evidence from the PPNA indicate that two-row barley was exploited throughout the region, whereas the distribution of emmer wheat is concentrated in the southern and central parts of the Levant, einkorn wheat in southern Levant and along the Euphrates, and rye in northern Iraq and Syria (Garrard 1999: 74-76). Most of these species are believed to have been cultivated, although there is no evidence for domesticated cereals during this period (Tanno and Wilcox 2012). There is no evidence for domesticated pulses during the PPNA either, although they have been found in significant quantities at some sites, such as Çayönü (Kislev and Bar-Yosef 1988: 177-178). Lentils are the most common, occurring at sites throughout the region, whereas bitter vetch and pea have been found at sites in the northern part of the Fertile Crescent (Garrard 1999: 76; van Zeist and Bakker- Heeres 1982: 207-209). Other wild plants consumed include pistachio (occurring at sites throughout the region), fig, almond and caper. It should also be noted that the earliest occurrences of wild flax have been recorded at Mureybet and ‘Iraq ed-Dubb (Garrard 1999: 76).

By the PPNB domestic forms of two-row barley, emmer wheat and einkorn wheat are found throughout the Fertile Crescent, including at sites in Turkey and western Iran. Naked six-row barley appear slightly later in Syria, Turkey and Iran, and free-threshing wheat in the Levant and Turkey (Garrard 1999: 77-78). This distribution pattern of domestic cereals continued throughout the Neolithic with the exception of naked six-row barley, which does not appear in any assemblages in the Zagros (Garrard 1999: 81). Pulses are also widely distributed with lentils occurring at every site, pea has a wider distribution than before (it is found at a range of sites from Jericho in the Levant to Ganj Dareh in the Zagros), whereas chickpea and bitter vetch appear only in the Levant and Turkey, and broad bean only in the southern Levant (Garrard 1999: 77, 79; Kislev and Bar-Yosef 1988: 177-178). Even though pulses are

17 thought to have been widely cultivated during the PPNB, the evidence for domestication is limited; potentially domesticated pea has been found at Çayönü, broad bean at Yiftahel, and chickpea at Jericho (Garrard 1999: 79; Hopf 1983: 585). Later Neolithic evidence for domestic pulses include lentils at Tell Ramad and Bouqras; pea at Bouqras and other sites in Syria, Turkey and Iraq; bitter vetch at sites in Turkey; and chickpea at Tell Ramad (Garrard 1999: 81; van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1982: 207-209). Flax becomes more widely distributed during the PPNB (Garrard 1999: 81), with the possibility of domestic type flax at Jericho (Hopf 1983: 586-587) and later at Tell Ramad (van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1982: 206-207). A wide range of nuts and fruits continued to contribute to the diet throughout the Neolithic, including pistachio, fig, almond, caper and grape (Garrard 1999: 77-81).

2.3.2: The Zagros

There are no Epipalaeolithic cultural assemblages in the Zagros paralleling the Natufian in the Levant. Archaeological evidence for human occupation in the area during the Palaeolithic is mainly found in caves and rock shelters, and most of the information available concerns lithics. The Zarzian period has only been documented in any detail at Zarzi cave and Warwasi rock shelter, although Zarzian material has been recorded in surveys (Azarnoush and Helwing 2005; Rosenberg 2003) and other excavations, e.g. at Palegawra and Shanidar Cave B2 (Olszewski 1993: 213, 1994: 83-84). Most of the known Zarzian sites are located in the central Zagros, but lithics described as belonging to the Zarzian tradition have also been reported in the southern Zagros (Rosenberg 2003; Tsuneki, Zeidi and Ohnuma 2007) and the Central Iranian Plateau (Azarnoush and Helwing 2005).

As is the case with the preceding Upper Palaeolithic period in the Zagros, the Baradostian, the Zarzian primarily refers to a lithic tradition first described by Garrod following her excavation at Zarzi cave. It has never been clearly defined by archaeologists – perhaps in part due to the intermittent evidence – and most of our knowledge of this period concerns the lithic industry, in particular the assemblage from Warwasi (Roustaei et al 2004: 692). The Zarzian industry is dominated by blades and bladelets characterised by mainly non- geometric (mostly pointed types), but also geometric microliths (especially scalene triangles, but also quadrilaterals and lunates); notched and denticulated blades and flakes; backed blades and bladelets; burins and microburins; end scrapers, thumbnail scrapers and side scrapers; drills or perforators; and occasional single-shouldered points (Olszewski 1993: 208-209; Rosenberg 2003: 100-101; Smith 1986: 28; Wahida 1981). Additional observations have been made regarding changes in the lithic assemblage from the Zarzian deposits at Warwasi, including scrapers becoming more common than burins, which contrasts the situation in the Baradostian; most of the microliths are non-geometric; geometric microliths, microburins and borers are absent in the earliest Zarzian deposits; and lunates only appear in the latest Zarzian deposits (Olszewski 1993: 210-212, 1994: 86). It is often assumed that

18 the presence of microliths indicate use of composite tools (Tsuneki, Zeidi and Ohnuma 2007: 7), although there is no direct evidence for this from Zarzian sites (Smith 1986: 28). Most of the Zarzian lithics are made from local flint and chert, although small quantities of obsidian have been found at Zarzi, Palegawra and Shanidar in central Zagros (Smith 1986: 28) and, more recently, at TB75, a Late Epipalaeolithic/Early Neolithic site in southern Zagros (Tsuneki, Zeidi and Ohnuma 2007: 7). The presence of obsidian in addition to the occasional shell beads (e.g. Dentalium shells at Pa Sangar; Hole 1970: 291; Hole and Flannery 1967: 160) in Zarzian and Late Epipalaeolithic deposits indicate movement of material in the region during this period, although it is not clear what the nature of this movement was.

It is also unclear if the Zarzian industry developed directly out of the preceding Baradostian lithic tradition or not (Hole 1970; Hole and Flannery 1967: 151-160; Olszewski 1993; Smith 1986: 28-29). Nor is there consensus regarding either the beginning, or the duration of this period (Henry and Servello 1974: 23-24; Rosenberg 2003: 100-101), partly due to the lack of firm radiocarbon dates from this region for the period between 25,000 and 13,000 uncal bc. The available dates from the Baradostian deposits in Shanidar and Yafteh caves range between approximately 38,000 to 19,000 uncal bc, although none of the dates after about 25,000 uncal bc is considered to be reliable, and the dates from the Zarzian deposits at Shanidar (c 12,000-10,000 cal BC; Aurenche et al 2001) and Palegawra caves range between 13,000 and 10,000 uncal bc (Smith 1986: 27-28). Hole (1970) argued that the Zarzian developed directly out of the Baradostian lithic tradition at about 20,000 BC based on the continuity of certain lithic forms and basic manufacturing technology between the late Baradostian and the Zarzian levels at the site of Pa Sangar in Luristan province, western Iran (Hole and Flannery 1967: 159-160). Through her study of the Warwasi lithics Olszewski (1993: 211) appears to agree with Hole’s assessment. However, the inherent problems associated with the entire Palaeolithic sequence in the Zagros due to lack of reliable dates and a less than satisfactory understanding of the development of the lithic traditions (Rosenberg 2003: 100-101) renders this assumption problematic. Another point that remains unclear is whether the gap in occupation observed in most of the Zagros between the Late Baradostian and the Early Zarzian were in fact a reality, or whether it is due to sites not having been found (Smith 1986: 28). Most appear to assume that the colder conditions at the time would have made human occupation, in particular at higher elevations, unfeasible, and that Zarzian sites may be found in the lowland rather than the highland zone (Smith 1986: 28-29). However, recent survey work has apparently established the presence of Zarzian materials on the Central Iranian Plateau (Azarnoush and Helwing 2005: 193) indicating that more work on the Epipalaeolithic is needed.

Studies of the lithic and animal bone assemblages at Zarzian sites are limited, but seem to indicate short-term occupation in caves and rock shelters for hunting purposes, e.g. at Warwasi (Hole and Flannery 1967: 162-165; Olszewski 1993: 214-215). The animal bone assemblages that have been studied seem to suggest that hunting was focused on one or

19 two principal species, e.g. onager at Warwasi (Turnbull 1975) and Palegawra (Turnbull and Reed 1974), and caprines at Shanidar and Zarzi (Smith 1986: 29). Another feature is the appearance of a variety of birds and certain freshwater species, such as clams, crabs and fish (Smith 1986: 29; see also Payne 1981). Also worth noting is the possibility of domestic dog at Palegawra, indicated by a canid jaw with domestic traits (Turnbull and Reed 1974). There is no archaeobotanical evidence for plant foods from the Zarzian, although, based on the presence of rubbing and grinding stones and the possible ‘storage pit’ at Shanidar, it is assumed that certain species, such as pistachio and possibly cereals, were being consumed (Smith 1986: 29-30).

The transition from the Zarzian to the Neolithic also remains somewhat unclear as archaeological evidence pertaining to this period is limited. Only a handful of sites dating to the earliest phase of the Aceramic Neolithic have been excavated, including Zawi Chemi, Karim Shahir, Shanidar B1, and M’lefaat (in the Zagros foothills). The recent work at TB75 and TB130 in the Bolaghi Valley in Fars, southern Zagros (e.g. Tsuneki, Zeidi and Ohnuma 2007), and the series of rock shelters in Vare Zard in Luristan, central Zagros (Roustaei et al 2004: 705), may help shed further light on this transitional period. One of the few sites that has yielded evidence from the earliest Aceramic Neolithic is the early 10th millennium cal BC site of Zawi Chemi in the Shanidar Valley, northern Iraq. The excavators found a roughly circular stone structure, measuring about 2.20 m in diameter, which had been rebuilt three times. None of these structures had any internal features, but ground stones, hearths and pits were found in the outdoor areas to the south and east of the buildings (Solecki 1981: 53). One unusual external feature was the concentration of animal remains, including at least fifteen goat or sheep skulls and the bones of a minimum of seventeen birds of prey, which have been interpreted as signifying some sort of ritual activity (Solecki 1981: 53-54). Studies of the general faunal assemblage indicate a primary reliance on red deer, sheep and goats, with sheep increasing in importance throughout the occupation at the site. Other species included wild boar, fallow and roe deer, wolf, fox, marten, freshwater clam, fish, and birds (Perkins 1964). Perkins (1964) claimed that the sheep at Zawi Chemi had been domesticated based on the large number of sheep compared to goats in an environment he considers more suited to goats, and the high percentage of immature sheep metapodials in the assemblage. This claim has, however, not been universally accepted. Some researchers have criticised the statistic validity of Perkins’ conclusions as the sample size is very small, whereas others have pointed out that the Zawi Chemi occupants may have hunted on the flatlands closer to the river where more sheep and deer would have been available (Reed 1983: 521-524: Zeder 1999: 12-13).

An alternative to Perkin’s claim for domesticated sheep at Zawi Chemi is that the emphasis on young males between two and three years of age – which is apparently younger than that expected for a hunted population, but older than that of a managed herd – is indicative of a hunting strategy aimed at preserving the female breeding stock in the wild population during

20 a time of increasing pressure on local wild herds (Redding 2005: 44; Zeder 2008: 11598, 2009: 37-38). It is also possible that this age profile is representative of the hunting of bachelor herds (Reed 1983: 515-516), especially if seasonal hunting episodes are involved (Legge 1996: 241). At the site of Karim Shahir, thought to be roughly contemporary with Zawi Chemi (no firm dates have been obtained from the site), the preliminary analysis of the animal bones indicate a reliance on a similar range of wild species as at Zawi Chemi and Shanidar B1, including wild sheep and goat, wild boar, deer, gazelle, wolf, marten, fox, birds, and tortoise (Braidwood and Howe 1960: 53). The exact nature of the occupation at Karim Shahir remains unclear as no discernible structural remains were found at the site; the single phase of activity consisted of a wide scatter of river pebbles of varying density and a few pits containing rocks and traces of burning (Howe 1983).

Caprines continue to play an important role in the diet at later Aceramic Neolithic sites in the