Mortuary practice functions as a reflection of formalised social structure. Depending upon the cultural and temporal context, mortuary ritual can serve as a device of powerful social regulation and a consolidator (Kuijt 2001:81). Analysing the mortuary evidence can help clarify how ritual practice masked social differentiation. New ritual behaviours, especially those associated with burial activities, could have played an important role in reinforcing shifting ideologies associated with the adoption of new economic strategies (Munro & Grosman 2010:15365). Mortuary rituals, specifically
64
secondary mortuary practices with the socially sanctioned removal of all or some parts of the deceased, are powerful means of social integration during periods of social, economic, or environmental change (Kuijt 1996:313). Equally, in later periods, changes in practices could have enabled and reinforced household autonomy and social segmentation, mirroring the architectural evidence already discussed (Kuijt et al. 2011:502). Mortuary practice acts as a cross-reference for the interpretations within this thesis. It cannot directly inform upon changes in social organisation, due to potential intentional masking, but changes in mortuary practice certainly do mirror social change on some level and, therefore, act to highlight such significant shifts.
2.8.1
EPIPALAEOLITHIC
The rarity of human remains from Upper Palaeolithic and Early Epipalaeolithic contexts has, to date, prevented a fuller examination and discussion of human burial practices (Richter et al. 2010:321). It has been argued that this absence may relate to taphonomic and preservational factors which may, in turn, be related to the burial practices themselves. For example, exposure of corpses to the elements is a relatively common ethnographically and archaeologically documented practice amongst many societies around the world (Richter et al. 2010:329).
Many significant changes in mortuary behaviour apparently correspond to the later part of the Epipalaeolithic, specifically Late Natufian in the Southern Levant, with the appearance of formalised cemeteries in areas clearly designated as burial grounds. This has been interpreted as reflecting the increasing individual sense of “belonging” to specific localities and communities (Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 2011:S200). These burials document a wide variety of mortuary practices, with treatments of the dead including stone and organic burial containers and installations, worked stone and bone grave goods and, notably, animal inclusions such as early domesticated dog (Maher et al. 2011:1). In addition to these cemeteries, two different, yet potentially interrelated, mortuary practices also appear secondary burial of entire skeletons and secondary skull removal from primary burials (Kuijt 1996:327). However, the reasons for and timing of the first appearance of secondary mortuary practices continue to be a subject of debate and such practices are more prevalent in the PPNA.
2.8.2
PPNA
PPNA mortuary practice is represented by more systematic burial, and this standardisation in mortuary practices is echoed through the standardisation of residential architecture with very little variation in shape, size, or organisation of structures. This seems to be related to increased social control within communities (Kuijt 1996:328). The development of unelaborated group graves in the PPNA has often been interpreted as the result of a shift of social relations after the Epipalaeolithic, and a coalescing of large populations resulting in standardisation of ritual to mask social tension
65
(Pearson et al. 2013:181; Verhoeven 2002a:245). Grave goods, such as dentalium, bone beads, pendants, or fox teeth, occur relatively frequently among Early Natufian burials, but very rarely (if ever) in Late Natufian and PPNA period occupation horizons. Kuijt interpreted the development of social prohibitions for the burial of goods with the dead as an intentional attempt to deemphasize social differences and identity (Kuijt 1996:326).
Secondary burial practices, however, continue. Indeed, the formalised removal of crania as part of a secondary mortuary ritual can be seen throughout the region, such as at Jericho and Netiv Hagdud for example (Rollefson, Schmandt-Besserat & Rose 1998:101). Initially, the dead were buried beneath plaster house floors. After the body decomposed, the skull, or, at least, the cranium without the mandible, was removed. Interestingly, many of these skulls and crania have been found archaeologically grouped together, and these caches contained skulls and crania that had been painted and/or plastered (Bonogofsky 2003:1). This custom developed to become one of the features of the PPNB (Kanjou 2010:33; Price & Bar-Yosef 2010:154).
2.8.3
PPNB
Elaborate mortuary practice is common in the PPNB, however, there is neither scope for discussing PPNB mortuary practice in detail, nor presenting the vast range of evidence and variation (for a few examples of summary and discussion see Croucher 2012; Goring-Morris & Belfer-Cohen 2014; Kuijt 2001). Instead, I offer only a few remarkable examples of elaborate mortuary ritual prevalent at the time so as to set the scene for the discussions below.
In the southern Levant, PPNB ritual practices involved post-mortem cranial removal, skull caching, baked clay human figurines, animal figurines, modified human skulls, stone masks, and plaster anthropomorphic statues. In the Northern Levant and South-Eastern Anatolia, sites also show evidence of complex funerary practices focused on skulls and symbolic statuary (Fletcher, Pearson & Ambers 2008:310). An example is Kfar HaHoresh, which appears to be the first PPNB cemetery in the southern Levant (Horwitz & Goring-Morris 2004:165). In several instances, the excavators have interpreted human bones to have been arranged to form specific patterns or images (see Figure 2.24). Another unique and highly interesting burial was recently uncovered at Çatalhöyük, which is well known for its elaborate animal symbolism. Sheep are the most abundant animal in the faunal assemblage at the site, but they are virtually absent in the decorated material and architecture. Thus, it is striking that the first and so far only animal burial found at Çatalhöyük is a lamb (see Figure 2.23). Not only was this lamb alongside a human, in a similar style (in a pit dug through a house floor), in a sharp departure from usual human burial practice at the site (Russell & Düring 2006:73).
66
At some settlements, both individual and collective burials were made in buildings built exclusively as a place for the dead. One example is the “skull building” at Çayönü, where 394 skeletons and some isolated skulls were found (Guerrero et al. 2009:382). One of the most remarkable practices was the spectacular remodelling of facial features on the removed skulls and examples have been reported from several sites such as Tel Ramad and Tel Aswad in Syria; Jericho, Nahal Hemar, Kfar HaHoresh, Beisamoun in Israel; and Ain Ghazal in Jordan. Recent similar discoveries during the excavations in Çatalhöyük and Köşk Höyük allow us to infer that skull plastering extended beyond the Levant and into Anatolia (Gopher & Hershkovitz 1988:123; Goren, Goring-Morris & Segal 2001:672; Özbek 2009:379; Rollefson, Schmandt-Besserat & Rose 1998:102). Information derived from the plastered skulls does not support claims that age or sex were consistent factors in the selection of skulls for special treatment. The skulls of both young and old males are included among the plastered skulls, but so too are the skulls of females and children (Bonogofsky 2003:8; Marchand 2011). Aspects of these multistage secondary mortuary practices would have been planned in advance, likely held in conjunction by multiple households as part of a community festivities and as such require extraordinary levels of involvement (Marchand 2011).
There are two possible explanations for this practice – both with far reaching implications. Either, the dead and authority of the ancestors served as tools and mechanisms for accumulating power in the hands of those controlling ritual (Orrelle & Gopher 2002:305), or they were used in social integration, for the creation of social memories and assertion of group identities played an important role in the formation of these early agricultural communities (Chesson 2001:3). Collectively these patterns represent a complex web of interaction involving ritual knowledge, imagery, mortuary practices, and the creation of intergenerational memory and structures of authority (Kuijt 2008b:171)
Figure 2.23 Çatalhöyük: a) Reconstruction of the lamb burial at Çatalhöyük (Russell & Düring 2006:79); b) Modelled skull from Jericho (Goren, Goring-Morris & Segal 2001:676); c) Modelled skull from Beisamoun
(Goren, Goring-Morris & Segal 2001:676)
67
Figure 2.24 Kfar HaHoresh: a) Drawing of the animal depiction from Locus 1155; b) Photograph of the face and forelimb of the depiction (Horwitz & Goring-Morris 2004:169)
2.8.4
PN
The picture for the PN mortuary ritual is totally different from the preceding periods. Indeed, dramatic indications for ritual such as found in the PPNB, and to a lesser extent in the PPNA, are almost absent. The custom of skull removal almost disappeared in the PN, along with the custom of skull treatment (e.g., modelling, deformation), as did burials under lime-plaster surfaces (Galili et al. 2005:16). By contrast, group burials in PN are mainly primary and limited to three individuals at the most. Burial becomes personal, and less about social integration. The family becomes the key unit, a theme which is mirrored in the discussion above in relation to the development of domestic architecture in this period.