UNA PROPUESTA DE ABORDAJE PARA PENSAR LA EDUCACIÓN POPULAR:

Depositions outside of structures shift from the majority not having been elaborated to having been elaborated. While this could be explained by following the trend of objects in

PPNA Anthropomorphic decoration PPNB Anthropomorphic decoration Single Pillar In/on floor floor Cache Not a pillar Wall, other Bench

174

the earlier period being less likely to have been elaborated, let us take a closer look. Only 3/21 deposits external to structures contemporary with the PPNA and earlier had been elaborated; the coloured floor layers from M’lefaat, the incised stele from Çayönü and the pestle from Hatoula. None of these materials were bone, while the 18 deposits that had not been elaborated were made from bone. Looking now to the period contemporary with the PPNB, 11/21 external depositions had been elaborated. These included a coloured human cranium from Abu Hureyra, showing that bone is beginning to be treated differently.

Looking again to deposits placed outside of structures during the PPNA, only 2 of the 16 were even remotely related to structures. (There are an additional 4 deposits from Hatoula that are marked as “unclear” as they were found “on a concentration of pebbles.” The location of the pebbles is unknown, so these depositions have been removed from analysis of broad location). 11 deposits (from Hallan Çemi, M’lefaat, Çayönü and Demirkoy) were placed in non-bounded open areas, while 2 were placed in a courtyard (Nemrik 9; Jerf el-Ahmar). There is one example of a midden deposition (WF 16) and 1 from a cemetery (Nemrik 9). There are domestic structures from each of these sites9, so the ritual deposition of objects or clusters outside structures cannot be attributed to excavation methods focusing only on central areas. Looking towards regional trends, a huge majority (90%) of the Batman depositions are in a central activity area, while only 5/13 deposits from the Zagros area are outside of structures. Both deposits from Zawi Chemi Shanidar are within a few metres of a structure, 1/9 from Nemrik is in an activity area, as is 1/4 from Çayönü. It seems then, that working areas, often in the centre of sites, were a focus of ritual activity. In contrast, of the 22 depositions known from the Euphrates area during the PPNA and earlier, only 1 is associated with an activity area. Similarly, only 1/7 from the Levant was placed in a central activity area, so it may be that further to the south, the central activity areas were less commonly a focus of ritual activity. The central areas of the Levantine and Euphrates sites have been excavated to some extent, especially at Hatoula. At Jerf el-Ahmar no main central activity area was found, but there were plenty of activity areas between houses that were excavated.

Looking to depositions contemporary with the PPNB outside of structures, we see the majority of these are related to or in close proximity to structures. The 6 vessels in a pit from Cafer höyük were in a courtyard near a house; 2 human crania from Abu Hureyra were placed next to or between house walls; 2 pits from Boncuklu were dug next to domestic structures; and several clusters of bone and plaster from Pınarbaşı were placed near walls of Building 4. Both bone and stone were external to structures, and both were placed in

relation to structures, in contrast to the external stone deposits from the earlier period which were entirely separate from structures.

The materiality of these external depositions contemporary with the PPNB also deserves a closer look. During this period we see the beginnings of clusters of disparate objects. At Pınarbaşı, there is a rib, long bone and jaw placed in the fill of an irregular pit

9 _{None have been recovered from the highly-eroded site of Demirköy, but the extant evidence is consistent}

175

along with cobbles, charcoal and a few clay flakes. It appears that plaster had been poured into or on top of this conglomeration. The interpretation of the site as a hunting camp (Baird 2011) is consistent with the description of these pits as hunting shrines “tied not to the individual hunter but to a collective community” (Russell 2012: 61). The inclusion of distinctive elements such as the jaw, as well as meat-bearing elements like the rib serves to identify the animal and its importance. The charcoal and clay may represent the processing of the carcass, and the plaster can be interpreted as either the “flesh” of the animal, or as an attempt to “fix,” or make permanent, the location of the deposit. In either case, elements of the hunted animal are returned to the area from whence they came. Other, similar clusters in shallow or irregular pits show that this was not an infrequent occurrence at Pınarbaşı.

A very complex cluster of objects from Cafer höyük was found in a cylindrical pit dug into a courtyard just outside of a building including: a red marble stemmed cup, a large limestone basin, a marble brazier, obsidian blades, as well as ceramic and clay balls. This focus on combining many different types of materials into one ritual deposit is seen

elsewhere at Cafer höyük (see pg. 177), and foreshadows the massive and complex clusters of objects at Çatalhöyük. The types of objects brought together for the Cafer höyük deposit are very different from those from the Pınarbaşı hunting shrines. The Cafer objects have had a great deal of care taken in their creation, and refer to more domestic activities: heavy stone vessels are not easily transported, while clay balls are often interpreted as pot-boilers.

The other external, stone deposits contemporary with the PPNB - 2 rows of standing stones from Çayönü and a limestone figurine from ‘Ain Ghazal are interesting as they are both associated with pathways. The standing stones from Çayönü would have lined the walkway leading to the Terazzo Building, and the headless female figurine made of pink limestone from ‘Ain Ghazal was placed at the end of a path consisting of about 15 closely- placed stone slabs. This may indicate a shift from ritual as a static action, closely tied to a single location to one associated with the motion of a journey.

All of these considerations: relation to structures or activity areas; elaboration and materiality of deposits; and the static or dynamic attributes of a deposition inform the interpretation of external space as a locus of ritual activity. External spaces can be activity areas related to specific structures (as at PPNB Cafer höyük) or centralized (as at PPNA Hallan Çemi). They can be cemeteries (as at PPNA Nemrik 9) or away from settlement areas (as at PPNB ‘Ain Ghazal). The evidence points to a majority of external ritual events as a result of community activities during the time contemporary with and earlier than the PPNA; but related to individual, specific houses during the PPNB. While there is still

evidence for communal, external ritual during the time contemporary with the PPNB (as the hunting shrine clusters as Pınarbaşı), it seems likely that these events were for sections of the community (e.g. those that went on hunting parties), rather than for the entire

community. Although there is a shift from static ritual depositional events during the PPNA towards ritual deposits emphasizing motion, this phenomenon is not total; apotropaic, foundation and abandonment events continue in external locations through the PPNB. The

176

expansion of materiality and the narrowing of paths leading to ritual deposits may indicate the partitioning of ritual activity to specific groups.