DESARROLLO HUMANODESARROLLO HUMANODESARROLLO HUMANO
6. Una nueva mirada sobre la realidad: bosquejando nuevos mapas posibles
OVERVIEW
The Near East (also commonly referred to as South West Asia) is a vast region, with a varied climate, environment and landforms. Located in between three land masses: Europe, Asia and Africa, today as in the in past, the zone has highly variable temperatures, rainfall, plant and animal resources (Bar-Yosef & Meadow 1995: 42). An understanding of the environment of the study area is vital to the research questions of this thesis, as climate and environment have a significant impact on the way people live, in the past as today. Any archaeological study therefore needs to take these factors into account, and for a study based at the time when many were transitioning to agriculture; environment, landscape and climate is even more important, impacting on the type of species present. The environment also dictates the abundance or scarcity of natural plant and animal resources, as well as the ability to farm, and techniques suitable. All of these factors had a significant effect on nature of the resultant communities.
3.2(a) GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES
The Near East displays a number of geographic features, ranging from plateaus, coastal plains, inland alluvial plains and mountains. In the north-west of the zone is the Anatolian Plateau, this large alluvial fan is bounded by mountain ranges; the Pontic Mountains in the north, and the Taurus Mountains to the south. Mesopotamia itself is defined as the land between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers (Bar-Yosef & Meadow
Page | 124
1995: 43; Watson 1995: 27-30). The Levant is often seen as a special zone in the Near East. This relatively small region runs from the Taurus Mountains in the north to the Sinai Peninsula in the south, and from the Mediterranean coast in the west, to the Middle Euphrates Valley, the Gebel ed-Druz and the Palmyra, Azraq and El Jafr Basins (Bar-Yosef & Meadow 1995: 43, Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen 1991: 21). The inland mountain ranges are cut by many wadis and the Orontes-Jordan Rift Valley (Bar-Yosef & Meadow 1995: 43; Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen 1991: 21;, Garfinkel & Dag 2006: 4). The divergent geographic features outlined above already suggest a range of pathways and settlement types, with distinct subsistence strategies must have existed within the assortment of physical environments created by these geographical features (see below).
3.2(b) NATURAL RESOURCES
Evidence relating to past vegetation of the Near East comes from a variety of sources, yet the diverse nature of the regions makes palaeo-environmental reconstruction difficult; evidence from one source cannot necessarily be inferred as representative of the climate or changes in the climate of another zone. Therefore the study of a combination of local and regional evidence (sea water temperatures/deep sea cores, palynological sequences of inland lakes and geomorphological evidence) is necessary in order to reconstruct past physical environment and associated climate. Three main different vegetational areas are found within the large Mediterranean Zone; containing an abundance of plant and meat sources. The Mediterranean Levant is most rich in edible fruits, seeds and leaves (Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen 1991: 23). The number of species represented, along with density of coverage decline eastward within the Mediterranean Zone, corresponding to an increase in temperature and decrease in water (Hovers 1997: 4). Fauna is most dense in the Mediterranean core also, with its open parklands abundant in animals, and the thick oak forests more sparse in animals (Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen 1991: 23). Within Anatolia, the west is characterised by broad leafed and needle leafed trees along with cold resistant shrubs. The Anatolian Plateau along with the arching belt north of the Taurus and Zagros Mountain Zone is covered in dwarf shrub land and steppic vegetation whilst the Eastern Mountains and the Zagros zone of Anatolia exhibit deciduous, broad leafed, cold adapted woodland. In the drier, southern areas of the Near East, those with less than 300-400mm annual precipitation, open dwarf shrub land and desert plains typify the environment (Bar- Yosef & Meadow 1995: 43, Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen 1991: 21).
[Chapter 3]
Page | 125 3.2(c) CLIMATE
The Near East is presently dominated by two seasons: cold, rainy winters and hot, dry summers. It is generally warmer on the coast and colder inland and in areas of high elevation, yet within the Near East, there are great variations in precipitation and temperature, as well as large annual fluctuations in rainfall (Bar-Yosef & Meadow 1995: 43; Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen 1991: 21). Precipitation depends on proximity to the sea, and elevation, with rainfall decreasing in the Levant the further south you travel, yet the driest areas are the Arabian Peninsula, and the Anatolia and Iranian Plateaus (Bar- Yosef & Meadow 1995: 43; Hovers 1997: 3)-(figure 3.1b). Non-irrigation agriculture is impossible for many sites without abundant water supplies from streams and rivers. The most accurate evidence of past climate comes from the comparison of a range of sources (Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen 1991: 22-23; Bar-Yosef & Meadow 1995: 44;; Garfinkel & Dag 2006: 6-7; Hovers 1997: 6-8), including Upper Pleistocene levels of Lake Lisan alongside deep sea cores (Bar-Yosef & Meadow 1995: 44). However, there is no space here to discuss the varied theories and lines of evidence along with the debates surrounding past climate, the disagreements regarding the validity of these sources, and climatic changes of the Near East. Instead, the basic, current consensus
(provided by Akkermans et al. 2010; Banning et al. 2011; Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen
1991; Bar-Yosef & Meadow 1995; Byrd 2005a; Clare et al. 2008; Maher, Moore &
Hillman 1992; Weiss & Bradley 2001; Weninger et al. 2006 and Wright 1993) on
conditions and temporal changes are outlined, with correlates to the cultural phases of the Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic.
The climate of the entire Near East region during the Late Glacial Maximum c. 24,000- 16,000/14,000 BP (equivalent to the Kebaran period of the Early Epipalaeolithic) was cold and dry, with low sea levels and reduced woodland, cereal and legume
distributions (Bar-Matthews et al., 1997; Byrd 2005a: 242; Wright 1993: 466).
However the Mediterranean coastal hills were still covered in forest, benefitting from winter rains. Sea levels were low but lakes were much larger than present. The Late Epipalaeolithic corresponds with the Natufian period (c. 12,500-10,500 BP), which saw climate change in the form of increased temperatures and precipitation, beginning 14,000 BP and peaking at 11,500 BP (the Early Natufian) the Bølling-Allerød or GI 1 (Byrd 2005a: 242; Moore & Hillman 1992: 483; Perrot 2002: 8). This period shows raised pollen counts, suggesting an increase in cereals and woodland c. 13,500-11,000 BP. This end of this phase then witnessed the start of the Younger Dryas (c.
Page | 126
11,000/10,800 to 10,300/10,000 BP; coinciding with the Late Natufian period), a short, sharp, cold and arid spell, resulting in a contraction of woodland. The Younger Dryas was a global phenomenon (Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen 1991: 22; Bar-Yosef & Meadow 1995: 44; Byrd 2005a: 244; Maher, Banning et al. 2011: 8; Moore & Hillman 1992: 483; Perrot 2002: 8).
The Younger Dryas was followed by the onset of the Holocene c. 10,000 BP/9,700- 9,500 cal. BC (equivalent to the start of the Pre Pottery Neolithic A, see below), which exhibited rapid climate changes in a few decades (Byrd 2005a: 242). All proxies suggest an increase in temperature, precipitation and humidity, resulting in an expansion of the distribution of woodland, cereals and pulses (Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen 1991: 22, 33; Bar-Yosef & Meadow 1995: 44; Byrd 2005a: 244; Garfinkel & Dag 2006: 7). However rainfall did not return to pre-Younger Dryas levels, except for in Anatolia and the Zagros, where rainfall was now higher (yet it is likely pluvial conditions fluctuated during the Holocene). It is at the start of the Neolithic, in the Pre Pottery Neolithic A (henceforth PPNA), that as a result of the conditions of the Holocene, the first cultivars (wheat, barley and pulses) appear on woodland fringes. At c. 8,200 BP/6,225 BC, near the end of the Neolithic, an abrupt cold event peaked, as observed in ice cores, marine
sediment cores, lacustrine and terrestrial records (Akkermans et al. 2010, Clare et al.
2008: 66-67). Climatic deterioration is commonly used to support evidence of social collapse across many time periods (for example Weiss & Bradley 2001, Weninger et al. 2006), however Akkermans et al. (2010) feel this explanation is an over simplification, as humans have strategies to manage and adapt at times of stress. Though the scale and possible effects of the Late Neolithic 6,200 cal. BC event are under investigation, it may be no coincidence that the timing of the event coincides with clear and sometimes dramatic changes in the nature of settlement at a number of long-lived Neolithic sites such as Tell Sabi Abyad, and marks the end of the Neolithic in some regions (see section 3.3(d) below). As seen in Chapter 2, clay objects do continue to be produced in post- Neolithic times, however perhaps their role changed, with their use in the Neolithic being unique to one of, or a combination of characteristic features of the Neolithic period.
At present, the limitations of the climate evidence make it difficult for people to agree on the precise nature of climate change, and human adaptations to it. However it is clear that the past climate of the Near East differed to that of today, and was diverse within the region. Many episodes of fluctuations in rainfall and temperature occurred,
[Chapter 3]
Page | 127
having a direct and sometimes significant impact on the plant and animal resources available for exploitation. These fluctuations in climate would have most definitely impacted on subsistence strategies of both mobile and sedentary Neolithic peoples, and those economies based on hunting and gathering; likewise, the needs of early agriculturalists (as well as perhaps, those groups that resisted farming, or remained mobile) in terms of decision making, storage and resource management, resource procurement and exchange. In addition, the need to count, record and account for resources gathered, produced, stored, distributed and exchanged; or possibly the counting and/or recording of the number of workers, days, agricultural cycles or related factors are likely to have been impacted by these fluctuations, and in ways as diverse as the environments of the Neolithic Near East.
3.3-CHRONOLOGY & PERIODISATION
OVERVIEW
The Neolithic or “New Stone Age” is distinguished in name from the preceding
Epipalaeolithic by the introduction of a wider range of new stone tool types. The first settled villages and the development of plant and animal domestication are the hallmarks of the Neolithic, and by the end of the period, the transition to agriculture and a settled way of life is complete (Gerard 2002: 108; Kuijt 2000b: 6; Thissen 2002: 19). Although covering a large geographical area, and displaying regional variations in terms of the nature and timing of specific developments, features and characteristics, in general, the entire Near Eastern zone shares many characteristic features, which define
and unite the Near East under the term “Neolithic” (most notably the adoption of
farming and a settled lifestyle).
Differences of opinion lie in the interpretation of the degree of homogeneity within the entire Neolithic zone of the Near East, and the degree of difference found within it. The chronology established by Dame Kathleen Kenyon (1983, 1982, 1981a, 1981b, 1965, 1960), as a result of her 1950’s research at the south Levantine site of Jericho, divides the Neolithic period into two: “pre” and “post” pottery stages. The first, the pre-pottery phase is further divided into A and B. There is a lack of consensus of the exact calendar dates that define each period with different dates being proposed for northern and southern regions in some phases of the Neolithic. Table 3.1 is provided as a guide only, and regional specific chronologies should also be consulted (Akkermans & Schwartz 2003: figs 3. 2 & 4. 2; Garfinkel & Ben-Shlomo 2002: 71; Gerard 2002: 108; Gopher &
Page | 128
Gophna 1993: 306; Kuijt 2000b: 5, 6, 8, fig. 3 p. 9; Kuijt & Goring-Morris 2002: table 1; Özdoğan & Basgelen 2007: insert; Rollefson et al. 1992: 447).
In Anatolia, discussions have been undertaken regarding the proposed creation of a
chronological scheme more suited to the region (Thissen 2002; Özdoğan & Basgelen
2007). Traditionally, within Anatolia, the same (or an adapted) Levantine system (Pre Pottery Neolithic A, PPNB etc.) has been applied. Alternatively three simple divisions are made, the “Late Epi-Palaeolithic” (corresponding to the Natufian of the Levant), the “Aceramic Neolithic” and “Ceramic Neolithic” (the latter two of which may be further
divided into Early and Late) (Marciniak & Czerniak 2007: fig 1a p. 116; Özbaşaran &
Buitenhuis 2002: especially table 2 p. 69). Alternative Anatolian specific chronological systems have been proposed, which cover the entire period from the end of the
Pleistocene to the mid-Chalcolithic as the “Early Central Anatolian I-V” (as proposed by
Özbaşaran & Buitenhuis 2002: table 2 p. 69. Similarly by Matthews in Özbaşaran & Buitenhuis 2002: table 1 p. 68). This perceived need for a separate Anatolian chronology is due to the large amount of new data from excavations in the region from the 1990’s ongoing. The new data, when considered together, highlight differences in the presence, development and timing of some characteristic Neolithic developments, making the conventional chronological terminology, developed initial for the Levantine zone, insufficient for the Central Anatolian Neolithic (Gerard & Thissen 2002: 2; Özbaşaran & Buitenhuis 2002: 67).
There are a number of regional specific phases within the Neolithic period which display subtle yet important differences in their sequences (Kuijt 2000b: 8, fig 3 p. 9), an example being the Pre-Pottery Neolithic C, which is only found in the southern Levant (Gopher & Gophna 1993: 306; Kuijt 2000b: 5, 6; Nissen 1993; Perrot 1993; Rollefson et al. 1992: 446; Rollefson & Köhler-Rollefson 1989; Rollefson & Köhler- Rollefson 1993; Simmons 2000: 212). A detailed discussion of the features of the Neolithic follow later in this chapter, presented below is a generalised summary of the conventional sub-periods of the Neolithic.
3.3(a) NEOLITHIC BEGINNINGS The PPNA & PPNB
The Neolithic period begins with the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, which emerged around 11,500 years ago (see table 3.1). Characterised by fully sedentary villages, PPNA settlements are typified by sites which display permanent, year round occupation in
[Chapter 3]
Page | 129
curvilinear houses, and a mixed subsistence strategy which relied largely on the gathering and cultivation of morphologically wild plants, as well as the hunting of wild animals (Akkermans & Schwartz 2003: 45; Garfinkel & Ben-Shlomo 2002: 71; Kuijt
2000b: 6, 8; Kuijt & Goring-Morris 2002: table 1; Özdoğan & Basgelen 2007: insert).
This stage is followed by the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period (henceforth PPNB) which evidences the development of larger, more densely packed agricultural villages, and an intensification of plant and animal management strategies with the beginnings of domestication (see below) and is characterised by settlements with largely rectilinear architecture. This long period spanning approximately 8,550 to 7,650 cal. BC is subdivided into the Early, Middle and Late PPNB in the Levant (table 3.1. Akkermans &
Schwartz 2003: figs. 3. 2 & 4. 2; Kuijt 2000b: 6, 8; Özdoğan & Basgelen 2007: insert;
Rollefson et al. 1992: 447). Regional Variants & Issues
Within the PPNA are some regional specific cultural variants, such as the Mureybetian in the Upper Euphrates, yet these entities are very similar to that of the PPNA of the Levant. Within the southern part of the Levant, some scholars sub-divide the PPNA time-frame into two periods based on lithic assemblages. The Early PPNA of the southern Levant can be referred to as the “Khiamian” Phase and the Later PPNA as the “Sultanian” Phase (e.g. Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen 1991: 33-34; Bar-Yosef, Gopher & Goring-Morris 1980; Cauvin 2000; Crowfoot-Payne 1976 Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 1997: table 1 p. 75; ). It has been claimed the Khiamian was not the start of the PPNA
proper, but marks a transitional phase seeing the “disintegration of a Final Natufian
way of life” (Finlayson, Mithen & Smith 2011: 127). Some argue that the Khiamian sees settlement dislocation and the brief return to a hunter-gather lifestyle, before “the ‘real’ beginning of the Neolithic and village life” (Finlayson, Mithen & Smith 2011: 127). In this opinion, the “real” Neolithic is marked by the onset of the Sultanian Period of the later PPNA (argued by Byrd 2005a; Cauvin 2000; Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 1997). Though supported by many academics, this internal South Levant PPNA divide is increasingly being disregarded on the basis of unclear distinctions between the two
phases, and the overlap of c14 dates across the two sub-phases (i.e. Edwards et al.
2004; Garfinkel 1996, Edwards et al. 2004; Nadel 1990).
Though less extensively investigated archaeologically, the Aceramic of the North Mesopotamian plains and the Iranian Zagros Mountains, spanning the same time PPNA
Page | 130
millennium cal. BC) evidences sites which though exhibiting distinct regional developments, also share many similarities to the PPNA of the Levant. This includes
sites such as PPNA equivalent Zawi Chemi Shanidar, M’Lefaat and Qermez Dere and
PPNB comparable Nemrik, Jarmo and Maghzaliyeh (Betts, Baird & Watkins 1989; Dittemore 1983; Perkins 1964; Solecki 1981; Solecki & Solecki 1970; Watkins 1990 Watkins et al. 1991; Watkins, Dobney & Nesbitt 1995).
3.3(b) SOUTHERN LEVANT: THE PPNC & EARLY CERAMIC NEOLITHIC PPNC
The introduction and widespread utilisation of pottery appears at differing times across the Near East; its presence characterises the latter stage of the Neolithic, from
the 7th millennium cal. BC. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic C spans approximately c. 7,000-
6,500/6,300 cal. BC in the southern Levant, and includes the so-called “Mega-Sites” of
the West Jordan Valley such as ‘Ain Ghazal and Wadi Shuʿeib (Garfinkel 2004; Galili et
al. 1993; Rollefson & Köhler-Rollefson 1993). South Levantine mega-sites generally
show a long and unbroken occupational sequence from the Middle-PPNB (MPPNB), right through into the ceramic period of the Neolithic (see table 3.1 for chronology). They are characterised by being over 10 hectares in size, displaying clear differences to the preceding Late-PPNB (LPPNB) in almost all aspects, architecture, mortuary practices and artefacts for example. Mega-sites are generally viewed as the Near East’s first experiments in “large-scale communal living” (Gopher & Gophna 1993: 306; Rollefson, Simmons & Kafafi 1992: 447; Simmons 2000: 214-15, 223-224; Simmons et al. 2001). However the “mega” element of many of these so-called sites is debatable. By the end of the 8th/the start of 7th millennium BC, ‘Ain Ghazal (on the outskirts of modern Amman, Jordan) is estimated to have reached up to 10 to 12 hectares. This is large in the context of the Neolithic, yet whether this figure represents the simultaneous occupation of the entire site is unclear. It is more likely that different parts of ‘Ain Ghazal were occupied separately, at different points in time during the
Neolithic (Rollefson et al. 1992: 446). Therefore the maximum size of occupation, of
each mega-site at any given point time, would in fact be only a fraction of the estimated total maximum site size published, removing their “mega” status.
Additionally, by
comparison, Abu Hureyra in North Mesopotamia reaches its maximum size at 20 hectares during the Neolithic. .[Chapter 3]
Page | 131
The “Yarmukian” & Ceramic Neolithic in the Southern Levant
By the late 7th Millennium cal. BC, pottery is widespread and it is within this Pottery or
Ceramic Neolithic phase (henceforth PN/CN) of the southern Levant Neolithic that the Yarmukian, often interpreted as a distinct, regional sub-culture of the PN, emerges. Discovered and coined by Stekelis (1972) during his excavations at Sha’ar Hagolan, the “culture” is largely restricted to sites in the west Jordan Valley (i.e. Tell Abu es-Suwwan, Wadi Shuʿeib and ‘Ain Ghazal. See: Garfinkel 1999, Garfinkel & Miller 2002a, Gopher & Gophna 1993, al-Nahar pers. com., Rollefson & Kafafi 1985, Simmons et al. 2001). The
7th millennium BC in the southern Levant is often described as a declining period, a
“turbulent time”, which witnessed major changes in many aspects of culture (see for