Housing Neolithic Farmers Author(S): E

Home , Neolithic architecture

Housing Neolithic Farmers Author(s): E. B. Banning Source: Near Eastern Archaeology, Vol. 66, No. 1/2, House and Home in the Southern Levant (Mar. - Jun., 2003), pp. 4-21 Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210928 Accessed: 05-02-2018 15:28 UTC

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210928?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Near Eastern Archaeology

This content downloaded from 128.148.254.57 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:28:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms By E. B. Banning

S outhwest Asia was one of the Housing first places in the world where people settled down to build substantial architecture. By the Neolithic Neolithic period, most people in South- west Asia lived in villages, clusters of small houses. After decades of research

on these early villages, however, many Farmers questions remain about why this trans- formation occurred and

what impact it had on householders' social

W -IE ~relationships, activities :.. _"r or worldviews.

* t. ' \ An early twentieth-century farmhouse in Wadi Ziqlab, northern Jordan, gives an impression of what some Neolithic houses might have looked like. Photo courtesy of T. Dabney.

v.: i View of ruined Pre-Pottery :- , Neolithic B houses at Basta, in southern Jordan. Photo ,.- * ', . t . courtesy of E. Banning.

4 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 66:1-2 (2003)

This content downloaded from 128.148.254.57 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:28:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms w W o~~~~~~~~ v w t d- .t -- _ 11:C? 3.-. -. "_' !Vr.- - k-

Wadi Rabah Late Neolithic 7000 Yarmoukian II PPNC 8000 Late PPNB Middle PPNB Early PPNB

9000 I U Sultanian Khiamian

Final Natufian

' ''' ' concealment and display of food, wealth and status (Blanton 1994), quite unlike the openness and sharing of hunter- -r ^' + x gatherer bands. Yet these opportunities also led to new or ^ J\. ';.. ... enhanced concepts of privacy, secrecy, envy and suspicion, ultimately allowing the replacement of egalitarian ethic by jtfttR ^^^ competition between neighbors for wealth and status. Envy and suspicion led to accusations of witchcraft, while competition led Excavation of Late PPNB domestic architecture at 'Ain Jammam, in to the rise of "Big Men," leaders whose status depended on southern Jordan. Photo courtesy of I. Kuijt. their persuasiveness, charisma, and generosity, an early step toward economic and political inequality. Thus, the origins of Domesticating Humans houses could actually have kicked off processes that ultimately Peter Wilson notes that settling down in houses mustled to have the rise of chiefs, kings, and Bronze Age empires. involved sweeping changes in the way people viewed Much each like Wilson, Trevor Watkins sees the Neolithic as a other and their world. He refers to "domesticated time people," when living in houses made important changes in the way "who live (and mostly work) in houses grouped together people in perceived their world, and houses became not merely hamlets, villages and small towns as distinct from people shelters, of the but homes, "the center of the family and the focus for past and present who use only temporary dwellings the representationor no of appropriate values" (Watkins 1990: 337). dwellings at all" (Wilson 1988: 4). The domestication Ian Hodder,of furthermore, associates these changes with a new people in this way, he says, fundamentally changed theirideology social that contrasted domestic with wild, inside with outside, organizations and probably their psychological paradigms. culture with nature, domus with agrios. He observes that the Living in clusters of houses, rather than camping inrelatively bands, permanent house provides a "locus for the reproduction created opportunities for new social relationships. of the House individual" as the roles of household members continue residents now had neighbors, a relationship evenbased when on individual members die (Hodder 1990: 40). propinquity rather than on kinship or food sharing. TheBecause process of settling into houses appears to have begun houses are more permanent than campsites, this relationship during the Epipalaeolithic, when hunter-gatherers, by the was also less fluid than in bands, where people can move Natufian in or (ca. 12,500-10,000 cal BCE)2 if not earlier, lived at out or shift their positions in response to shifting interpersonal least part of the year in clusters of elliptical or subrectangular attitudes (Woodbum 1972; Rodman 1985). The enclosing buildings. walls Already some 20,000 years ago, there were small of houses provided new opportunities for the accumulation, huts at Ohalo II on the shores of Lake Kinneret. By the early

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 66:1-2 (2003) 5

This content downloaded from 128.148.254.57 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:28:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms l

I ) "I Hilck Se,ea] Neolithic, however, clear villages with substantial housing 'Caspianl were widespread, even though agriculture and stock- =C, breeding were still not. By the Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB), around 7500 cal BCE, villages in the southern Levant had dozens, or even hundreds, of well-constructed houses arranged on terraces and streets, while those in the northern Levant had begun to show large, complex houses and public buildings.

-27 History of Research ? Choga Mami Neolithic houses have fascinated archaeologists ever since fieldworkers of the mid-twentieth century discovered that they were not always the simple huts and pit-houses that their simplistic evolutionary models led them to expect. Certainly some sites had crudely constructed shelters, but others had large, even monumental buildings. And even though few Neolithic sites had been investigated, these sites differed substantially in the form and organization of their houses. 0 500 km Tell Hassuna provided evidence for the development of a .~/ Pottery Neolithic campsite into a small settlement with rectangular, multi-room houses. It appeared to fit quite well archaeologists' expectations of a primitive Neolithic hamlet:

Map of Southwest Asia, showing the locations of sites mentioned in the text. simple mudbrick buildings with small storage rooms, storage bins, hearths and ovens (Lloyd and Safar 1945). So too Jarmo's houses were small, multi-roomed structures that already had many of the features that we associate with Near Eastern village life, such as bread ovens and storage facilities (Braidwood and Howe 1960). A "representative" house there was about thirty square meters in area and had four or five rectangular rooms plus (4 a small, walled courtyard. Jericho, however, had surprises, with quite different architecture in its two major Pre-Pottery Neolithic strata (PPNA and PPNB) and Pottery Neolithic stratum. The PPNA houses were fairly simple and curvilinear, mudbrick huts, but this belies considerable architectural ability, as evidenced in a huge stone tower and substantial peripheral walls that excavator Kathleen Kenyon considered fortifications. The later PPNB houses were rectangular, with a standardized "megaron" plan: a porch or small entrance chamber controlled access to a square living room with a central hearth. Houses were crowded, but usually had at least narrow alleys between them (Kenyon 1957). 0 5m (atal Hiiyik on the Konya Plain of central Anatolia had quite different Neolithic buildings. Houses were mainly fairly square, tightly agglomerated, and had roof access rather than ground-level doorways, making the village appear much like a pueblo in the American Southwest. Inside were raised platforms, rather than partition walls. The most spectacular aspect of these houses was the common practice of decorating walls with paintings and Plan of domestic architecture skulls. This from led Hassuna James lb. Mellaart The simple to interpret mudbrick many of these buildings seemed to fitbuildings early archaeologists' as shrines, rather expectations than ordinary of a houses. primitive Neolithic hamlet. Diana The Kirkbride's hatched walls excavations are reconstructions. at Beidha in southern After Lloyd and Safar Jordan (1945: fig. revealed 28). dozens of small, PPNB "corridor houses,"

6 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 66:1-2 (2003)

This content downloaded from 128.148.254.57 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:28:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms A Semi-subterranean, PPNB "pit-house" at Beidha, showing the slots where wooden posts formerly supported the superstructure. Over these houses were built "corridor" houses, providing clear evidence for a shift from curvilinear to rectangular architecture in the early Neolithic. Photo courtesy of E. Banning.

with three tiny chambers on either side of a narrow hall, tightly agglomerated in almost the same way as (atal Hiiyuik's buildings (1966). Below these were clusters of semi-subterranean, circular houses, also PPNB in date, at the time providing the clearest example of the shift from curvilinear to rectangular architecture in the early Neolithic. Although Neolithic houses were known from several other sites, it was in the 1980s and 1990s that our knowledge of Neolithic domestic architecture really exploded. Excavations in Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Syria C a and Turkey uncovered hundreds of houses of both the Pre-Pottery and Pottery b Neolithic periods. Some of these also boast spectacular preservation.

Neolithic House Types Although archaeologists as early as the 1950s noticed that Neolithic houses had standardized plans, the first systematic and comprehensive classification of Neolithic d e f house forms was by Olivier Aurenche (1981). He depended heavily on attributes of plan shape and room number for this typology. Major classes included unicellular round buildings, round buildings with internal partitions, unicellular rectangular and multicellular rectangular structures. Within these major classes, we can detect many subtypes that reflect local construction traditions, building materials, roofing h arrangements, functional differentiation of I space or social arrangements, climatic g conditions and ideologies (Rapoport 1968). One house type that was common in the PPNB was the "megaron" or "pier house," after the masonry "piers" that project from interior walls. In northern Mesopotamia and southern Turkey, meanwhile, we find "grill plan" and "cell plan" buildings at sites

Plans of megaron houses or "pier houses" from several PPNB sites in the southern Levant: 0* * 0 10m d - d Beidha Level II (a-b), Beisamoun (c), CAin Ghazal (d-e), Jericho (f-h), and Yiftahel (i).

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 66:1-2 (2003) 7

This content downloaded from 128.148.254.57 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:28:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms b c da d~~~~~~~~ 4.

j 5m f g

While megaron houses were common in the southern Levant, cell-plans and other complex structures dominated in Anatolia and Mesopotamia. The examples shown here come from al-Kowm (a), Abu Hureyra (b), 4;ayonu (c-d), Jarmo (e), Bouqras (f-g), Umm Dabaghiyah (h) and Nevali qori (j), with reconstructed walls hatched.

Plans of "T-houses" from Level Ilia at Tell as-Sawwan (top), and "tripartite" buildings from the earlier Tell as-Sawwan Level I (bottom). 04

like Qayonii, while, in the Samarran of Iraq, we find, especially at Tell as-Sawwan, tripartite buildings and "T- 0 10m houses" dominate. At Abu Hureyra, the houses have a U-_ t-, standard plan based on r- i pairings of long rectangles. Such consistency of plan I within some sites required no architects, as adherence to - standard plans is quite typical of "primitive" architecture, which the inhabitants build themselves, and "vernacular" L F 1~~~~~~1 architecture, whose inhabitants, along with specialists and neighbors, participate in

8 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 66:1-2 (2003)

This content downloaded from 128.148.254.57 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:28:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 0 ,

BH-- i %---,fm~ ' '^: . ,_ ~ C I VP= ,# I o =_M^O 7a

4 ^'?' ? ~ .?q- '" a ' ... /.~.

Stages in the construction of a MPPNB house at 'Ain Ghazal. First, the floor had to be dug out and leveled (1). Then stone or mudbrick walls were constructed (2). Wooden posts were used to construct a frame (3), which was then filled in with stone and mud. Finally, the roof was laid and the walls I .....plastered (4). Drawings by J. Mabry. building design and There construction was some variation over time due to the availability(Rapoport of 1969: 4-5). Much as with North American raw materials. barn-raisings in the nineteenth century, cultural Theagreement earliest Neolithic houses, like thoseabout of the what a building was supposed to be like Epipalaeolithic, made were ittypically easier oval huts or pit-houses for (huts neighbors to help each other with the construction with their floors dug into the tasks, ground). Their constructionand each house exhibited only small variations involved on digging aa pit, basic sometimes inserting local narrow postsdesign. at A thing to keep in small mind intervals against about the sides of the pithouse and then infilling typologies the is that they impose a kind of spacesstatic between them orderwith stones and mud.on In other what cases, must have been a dynamic process of mud house brick, rather than construction, stone, was used to build walls. At addition, renovation, and demolition. In someQermez Dere, builderscases, covered thewe pit sides have with clay andgood evidence for these changes and can see plaster, that and it is notdifferent obvious how walls were constructed, house or if "types" are sometimes different stages in the the houses life were fully cycle subterranean (Watkinsof the1990: 339). sameRoof house type. arrangements are uncertain, but most early huts and pit-houses Building a Neolithic probably employed post-and-beam House construction. Vertical posts, Although house construction not the walls, supported horizontal roofvaried, beams, creating and the sequence of construction is not always easy to determine, house essentially a skeleton for the house. These in turn probably construction involved digging out or leveling a house floor, supported a flat roof of sticks and closely spaced reeds, covered felling and trimming trees, collecting stone or making bricks, with earth and mud, although some sites may have had roofs of constructing a frame, filling in the walls and laying a roof. thatch or other material.

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 66:1-2 (2003) 9

This content downloaded from 128.148.254.57 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:28:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms a b

_5 1_

0 C

0 10m

Pit-houses and other predominantly ovoid structures were the earliest form of house. Their construction involved digging a pit, sometimes inserting narrow posts at small intervals against the sides of the pit and then infilling the spaces between them with stones and mud. The examples shown here are from Nahal Oren (a), Netiv Hagdud (b), Jerf al-Ahmar (c), and Gilgal (d).

Ovoid and sub-rectangular pit-houses with internal posts or piers at early Neolithic Nemrik 9. Similar structures occurred at Qermez Dere. After Kozlowski (2002: fig. 15).

We have more details about the construction of rectangular Middle PPNB houses. At CAin Ghazal, for example, house construction began by leveling the ground, although not always very much, sometimes with terraces. Delineating the outline of the house may have involved rituals. Once the site was ready, the builders dug postholes and placed posts to support the roof, another example of post-and-beam 0 5m construction. They laid double-leaf

10 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 66:1-2 (2003)

This content downloaded from 128.148.254.57 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:28:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms weatherproof cover. Where building stone and timber were scarce, both walls and roof supports were of mudbrick, but other aspects of construction were similar. In some sites, multicellular plans with many small rooms made it possible to span them with short roof beams, and without need for posts. Probably these grid-like plans also provided a strong, honeycomb-like basis for an upper story, as we have good evidence, in southern Jordan at least, that such buildings were two-storied. One of the final construction processes was often plastering. Lime plaster required burning limestone at 750 to 850?C, mixing the resulting lime with water, slaking it, and tempering it with sand or small stones. Neolithic people used it to create hard, easily cleaned floors. In some regions, they used Overview of a multi-cellular building with a small, central courtyard at LPPNB Basta. gypsum plaster on walls or features. Coping This floor plan may have provided sufficient strength to allow for an upper story. the floors up the walls facilitated sweeping or Courtesy of H. G. Gebel. -- . --j -- .- mopping. Plaster was also used to mold a hearth in the house's main room. Finishing the floors involved burnishing them with Plastering with lime or gypsum was done in the final phases of the construction process and resulted in hard, easily cleaned floors. Plastered walls and floors could small, hard pebbles, and often painting them then be painted. Dots or flecks of red paint are visible in this part of a MPPNB ahouse deep red, either completely, along the floor at "Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Courtesy of G. O. Rollefson. borders of rooms, or in designs. Plaster also sometimes surfaced walls and served at sites like Qatal Hiiyiik to decorate them. Construction of Later Neolithic houses involved tasks and techniques that differed little from those of the early Neolithic, except that the use of plaster declined, and cobblestone and dirt floors became more common.

,^. 1Families, Households and Neighbors Realizing that the form of and arrangement of rooms in houses was, at least in part, related to the social arrangements of the people who used them, some archaeologists have attempted to infer what social units inhabited the houses, controlled domestic production, and redistributed economic goods in the Neolithic. Flannery, for example, suggests that nuclear-family households became, for stone walls (with two rows of stones in each course) to enclose the first time, the elementary economic units of the rectangular house area, leaving an opening on one of thecommunities during the early Neolithic (1972; 2002). short ends, or even omitting that wall entirely, to provide Archaeologists an face real difficulties in trying to recognize entrance or porch. Typically "piers" extending from these wallssocial units in archaeological traces, including architectural separated the front porch area from the main room andones. Families are units based on ties of kinship, and are provided additional support for roof beams. The roof consisted thus difficult to identify except where we are lucky enough of poles laid across the beams, reeds or mats laid across the to find genetic anomalies or well- preserved DNA from poles, and earth and mud packed onto the reeds to make skeletons a that help us, even if only tentatively, to identify

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 66:1-2 (2003) 11

This content downloaded from 128.148.254.57 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:28:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Well-preserved walls of a highly compartmentalized LPPNB structure at Wadi Shu'eib, Jordan. This trend toward extreme subdivision of the houses may have been a result of social F;4 - stresses brought on by increasing settlement _. l size. Photo courtesy of Alan Simmons. closely related individuals. Consequently, archaeologists tend instead to focus on . households or co-residential groups. The " latter are groups of people who live under the same roof but, even in studies of modern people, they are not always easy -. ? . to define. For example, people may live _ together much of the year, but separately for significant periods, as when a " household member travels to engage in trade or to pasture herds. Households are groups of people, often, but not always, co-residents, who share (not necessarily equally) in economic production, distribution and the consumption of food, who reproduce themselves, and who i, transmit property from one generation to the next (Wilk XJL and Rathje 1982). Classic examples of households whose members are not always kin or co-residents are the medieval mercantile household and the Roman slave-holding . household. By "extended-family household," archaeologists ;= usually mean one in which married off-spring and their children continue to live with either the wives' or the husbands' parents or uncle. A problem in these studies is the need to estimate the size of co-resident groups. For example, is Flannery right that either a man or a woman and her children normally occupied Natufian and PPNA huts, and it was only later that nuclear families lived in the same building (1972; 32-39)? Much of the confusion over this question is due to the way people have estimated the number of people who occupied prehistoric- - _ structures, and to their choice of boundary for the co-resident group. Many authors use Narroll's (1962) formula of ten square meters per person while failing to acknowledge that

A reconstruction of a circular structure in the , PPNB level at Munhata, Israel. This house stands ' out in a period when rectangular buildings were almost universal. . - Gray indicates that the reconstruction is conjectural; black indicates preserved Note the well-preserved walls of this LPPNB house at 'Ain Jammam, walls and postholes. in southern Jordan. Houses like this one mark the beginnings of the

After Perrot (1964: 326). o 10mv typical Near Eastern courtyard house. Photo courtesy of Ian Kuijt.

12 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 66:1-2 (2003)

This content downloaded from 128.148.254.57 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:28:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms this relationship both has large statistical errors and is based Middle PPNB settlements sometimes continued the on the total roofed area of settlements, including all the tradition of circular huts but the typical MPPNB settlement storage rooms, livestock stalls and so on. To use the formula in the southern Levant was a large agglomeration of on individual rooms or structures or on only the rooms used rectangular structures, each typically with sixteen to thirty for living and sleeping was not at all what Narroll intended, square meters of roofed area and probably housing nuclear and probably underestimates their number of occupants. families. Some houses had interior bins that were probably Furthermore, even if some rooms, buildings, or huts were only capable of storing up to two cubic meters of grain. At Jericho, large enough to house an individual, we are usually uncertain some very small structures between the houses are too small whether the household or co-resident group occupied one to have been habitations and, like the smallest huts in PPNA building, groups of buildings arranged around a courtyard, or sites, are probably storage rooms. If so, that they are outside buildings scattered in different places. Small buildings do not houses suggests that there was little worry over security. As neatly correspond with small households any more than they automatically belong to large compounds. We need to be cautious about how we interpret "house" size by making careful attempts to figure out which rooms or huts appear spatially well connected and by checking for functional redundancy between rooms. Even then, we cannot be absolutely certain that we have correctly delineated co-resident groups. PPNA settlements from the southern Levant to northern Mesopotamia appear similar in many ways to Late Natufian 0 5m ones. The huts were small or medium-

sized and arranged linearly, in small Plan of a portion of a LPPNB clusters, or in larger scatters. Apart from courtyard house from Basta the smallest structures of only about (above) contrasted with a house three square meters, probably for compound at the Yarmoukian storage, huts ranged from nine to site of Sha'ar Hagolan, Israel twenty-five square meters in area, large (right). After Nissen et al. (1991: 16) enough to shelter nuclear families. and Garfinkel and Miller (2002: 58). Although Flannery contended that these were elements in compounds occupied by large, polygamous social groups (1972: 32-33), the spatial arrangement of huts in our excavated sample do not especially support this. There is no strong evidence for grouping of huts around courtyards- the pattern found in recent polygamous compounds-nor for each adult having his or her own hut. Even where there was an open area, as at Hallan Qemi, the hut doors face outward, rather than inward (Rosenberg and Redding 2000: 48). The largest huts are no smaller than many of the later rectangular houses, while the smallest huts may be no different than small rooms in the later rectangular habitations. Although these huts would seem to us to be rather cramped, most household activities probably took place outside houses, in full sight of all the neighbors. View of the Yarmoukian house compound at Sha'ar Hagolan, Israel. Courtesy of Y. Garfinkel.

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 66:1-2 (2003) 13

This content downloaded from 128.148.254.57 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:28:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Examples of Late Neolithic houses from a b Wadi Rabah (a), Tabaqat al-BOma (b-c) and Byblos (d).

before, it appears that MPPNB mg communities consisted of nuclear- family households and that, although they controlled their own storage facilities, there was little apparent competition between them. The houses all look much C d -`- -- k1 the same in size and other characteristics, and the only w- PWW unusually large buildings (as at Beidha) were probably communal structures of some kind. There 4 was some differentiation of space, I I but many domestic activities appear to have taken place 0 5m outdoors or on the roof.

A Late Neolithic house at Tabaqat al-Buma, in Wadi Ziqlab, northern Jordan, with a clay-lined silo built into the east wall (top). Later the silo was used for the burial of a teenager. Photo courtesy of T Dabney.

14 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 66:1-2 (2003)

This content downloaded from 128.148.254.57 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:28:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Halafian and related sites renewed circular plans, with "tholos" houses alongside rectangular architecture as seen in these plans of Halaf- related buildings in Level 6 at Tell Sabi Abyad (a), and Level 3 at Yarim Tepe III (b). Reconstructed walls are hatched.

By Late PPNB, and even earlier at some sites, the southern 30-32). If we follow that analogy, we might speculate that they Levant shows a trend toward extreme subdivision of houses, with could have housed a social unit larger than a nuclear family, stone piers increasingly replacing posts and the spaces between them conceivably even a polygamous one. In modem ethnographies, evolving into tiny chambers. Kuijt argues that increased compart- polygamy does tend to be associated with agricultural mentalization of space indicates social stresses that resulted from communities in which women's work is extremely important large increases in average settlement size (2000a: 87-94). and large families are necessary to complete agricultural tasks In southern Jordan, such sites as Basta, Ba'ja and CAin al- (van den Burghe 1979: 65-67). In a recent update, Flannery Jammam exhibit well-preserved multicellular buildings with argues that Late Neolithic architecture, like that at Hassuna, walls sometimes standing higher than two meters, and may have been associated with extended-family households, windows and doors with lintels still in place. Sometimes although he assumes, in contrast to the definition of household many small rooms surrounded a central larger room or provided above, that each nuclear family in such a household courtyard, as at Basta. Many of these buildings appear to "ground its own grain and cooked its own gruel or bread" have been two-story houses, with small rooms on the ground (Flannery 2002: 427). floor for storage and livestock and, most likely, living space In Syria and northern Mesopotamia, houses from the Late upstairs. They mark the beginnings of the typical Near PPNB and early Ceramic Neolithic became both highly Eastern courtyard house. compartmentalized and quite large. At Bouqras near the Although rectangular buildings were almost universal by the confluence of the Khabur and Euphrates, for example, Late PPNB in the southern Levant, one large structure in complex, multi-roomed houses had ground floors up to one Munhata's Level 3 was circular and seems to have had several hundred square meters in size (Akkermans et al. 1983) and rooms surrounding a central courtyard. This recalls a clay model narrow "rooms" that are likely stairs leading to an upper floor. of a building from Jericho that shows a rectangular room enclosed It is tempting to view these large and complex buildings as by a circular wall to which it is attached by "spoke" walls. the houses of extended-family households. What do these possible courtyard houses, whether round or The most extreme examples of this trend are sites in the rectangular, tell us about changes in families and households? Jebel Sinjar region with enormous buildings made up of Keeping in mind the difficulties associated with delineating rows of tiny chambers arranged along narrow hallways. prehistoric households, these larger, highly differentiated These may not be houses, especially since, at Umm buildings with rooms arranged around courtyards actually do Dabaghiya, they accompany tiny houses with a few simple seem organized somewhat like the African compounds that rooms (Kirkbride 1975). If they were storage complexes, Flannery originally compared with Epipalaeolithic huts (1972: their interspersal with what are more clearly houses at

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 66:1-2 (2003) 15

This content downloaded from 128.148.254.57 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:28:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms A plastered hearth in a Wadi Rabah-period house at Tabaqat al-BQma, northern Jordan. Such features attest to one of the most important of household activities, food production. Photo courtesy of T. Dabney.

Yarim Tepe suggests that they were at least sometimes under household control. In the southern Levant, Yarmoukian houses were less standardized than earlier ones, ranging from simple pit-houses to rectilinear houses with one or two spacious rooms and sometimes smaller storage chambers. At Sha'ar Hagolan, sets of rooms are arranged around courtyards and streets and alleys separate the house compounds from one another. Again, these compounds are candidates for having housed larger social units, such as extended families. Byblos provides considerable evidence for Late Neolithic domestic architecture and settlement layout. During Neolithique Ancien (roughly contem- Fr --. porary with the Yarmoukian industry), rectangular, semi-subterranean, one-room houses, often with rounded corners, had plastered floors and a raised hearth against ?, S ' ;_ one of the end walls. Dunand suggests that the walls did not extend above ground level ' "' ^ <- and reconstructs a tent-like superstructure (1973: 14-15), much like the nomad houses that Cribb finds in modern Turkey (1991: 84-112). Later levels at Byblos include multi- roomed, rectangular structures that seem to ^J^^^^H be arranged around large courtyards (Durand S^32B 1973: 129). Unfortunately, we almost never know where the doorways were located in these buildings, so it is difficult even to speculate on whether these configurations represent large households or conglom- erations of several separate ones. View of a small, Late Neolithic house with several internal features at Tab laqat al-Buma, Hassunan and related sites in Syria and northern Jordan. Two pierced disks, possibly spindle whorls for textile m anufacture, were northern Iraq show multi-room, rectangular found on the floor. Photo courtesy of T. Dabney. houses, sometimes grouped around courtyards. At Tell Hassuna, the earliest Neolithic "M. ? settlement (Level Ia) consisted of a campsite with outdoor hearths and abandoned pots (Lloyd and Safar 1945: 271). ,; However, a grouping of rectangular adobe buildings, each with tannur ovens and substantial, round grain silos, quickly replaced the campsite. Samarran houses at Tell as-Sawwan were large, multicellular buildings with very standardized designs. (Abu es-Soof 1968: 4-5, 12; 1971: 4). The uppermost strata have houses with T-shaped plans incorporating courtyards, living rooms, small storage rooms, and probable stairways. Lower strata have large, "tripartite"

A large limestone mortar in a Late Neolithic house at Tabaqat al-BQma. The horseshoe-shaped, plaster hearth to the right of the mortar belongs to an earlier phase of the house. Photo courtesy of T. Dabney.

16 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 66:1-2 (2003)

This content downloaded from 128.148.254.57 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:28:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms buildings with many of the same elements as the T-shaped practices, the close connection between houses and certain ones, but arranged on either side of a large, central courtyard. deceased individuals suggests it was linked to the The near-symmetry of these large buildings and their transmission of roles and to claims on property. Similarly, Watkins notes that the inhabitants of Qermez Dere duplication of some domestic features on both sides of the courtyard make it tempting to conjecture that they could have periodically demolished pit-houses, filled them in with housed either extended families or bigamous ones. clean, packed earth and then dug the pit for a new house in Halafian and related sites renewed circular plans, with almost exactly the same spot (1990). It seems likely that "tholos" houses alongside rectangular architecture. Verhoeven this, too, involved a ritual marking the transmission of the suggests that the contrast between round, beehive-shaped role of household head to an heir. In this case, the physical tholoi and rectangular structures may have symbolized a house, like the deceased, was transitory, and its rebuilding distinction between households and communities (1999: 214). was a metaphor for the rebirth of the household. The tholoi were houses and private storage buildings; the larger Household Activities rectangular structures were for communal storage and activities. Sites of the Wadi Rabah industry typically show long, Houses were not only reflections of social relations, they rectangular houses, most of them like the "broad room" type were foci of activities. The increased sedentism and increasing found more widely during the Chalcolithic of the southern reliance on cereals associated with "domesticated" life appears Levant. With only one or two rooms, and roofed areas of about to have involved increasingly demanding physical tasks twelve to twenty-five square meters, these could have housed around the house. As reliance on hunting decreased, both nuclear families. At Tabaqat al-Buma in northern Jordan, sexes may have participated in such tedious tasks as grinding however, the site consists of a very small grouping of such grain (Peterson 2002: 111-12). Cooking features, such as structures and could represent an extended-family homestead hearths and ovens in houses or their courtyards, attest to the or a nuclear-family farm with some non-residential buildings. final stages of food preparation, while the beginnings of pottery technology seem to be involved largely in the sphere Households and the Domestic Cycle of food distribution, consumption, and entertainment. As noted above, house form is dynamic. Goody describes Although some of the larger vessels are apparently storage their development in response to changes in household containers, it is noteworthy that large proportions of the composition as the "developmental cycle" (1962). For example, earliest pottery assemblages consist of cups and bowls, and of where there are nuclear-family households, one pattern is for a decorated pottery, strongly suggesting display in the context of young married couple to build or buy a house. Later they have hospitality or feasting. This is interesting in light of hypotheses children, who eventually grow up and move out, perhaps when that posit a relationship between feasting and the rise of they marry. Eventually, the original couple may be alone in the agriculture and "big men." house until infirmity or death takes them away. Patterns in the Houses were also the locus of child rearing. Until recently, renovation, dismantling and construction of houses can scholars posited fairly universal relationships between child sometimes provide clues to the stages in each house's life cycle, rearing and sexual division of tasks. For example, Brown sees which we may plausibly associate with stages of the child care as restricting women's labor to non-hazardous tasks developmental cycle. At CAin Ghazal, the frequent floor in and around the house that demand less concentration or can replasterings that preserve evidence for the addition and tolerate frequent interruption (1970). Feminist critiques of this removal of walls allow us to make inferences about changes in paper have emphasized evidence that in most pre-industrial household composition over the course of a couple of societies families do not rely only on biological mothers to care generations (Banning and Byrd 1987; 1989). In some sites, for children and childcare does not prevent women from evidence of door blockings and apparent opening of new doors participating in agriculture. A shift of men's labor from hunting can similarly suggest such changes, or, as later in Old to agricultural tasks and probably a share of domestic food Babylonian houses, patterns in the inheritance or sale of processing would have permitted women and some men to keep houses and their rooms (Stone 1987). an eye on children (Peterson 2002: 140-45). It is also important Among households' functions is the transmission of to recognize not only that children could soon participate in property and roles at the point in the cycle when the agriculture, herding and domestic tasks themselves, but also household head dies. Hodder reminds us that this involves that increasing need for agricultural labor could encourage the relationship between the transient bodies of individuals households to raise more children. Having said that, we have and the more permanent roles that they temporarily occupy, little or no direct evidence for the lives of Neolithic children, including the role of household head (1990: 40). We might unless some of the figurines are actually toys. What we do expect ritual to accompany such a transition, and indeed know, thanks to osteological evidence, is that some children the earlier Neolithic shows a tendency to bury some had a hard life, and child mortality was high. deceased individuals below house floors and to curate their Houses were also the focus of craft production. For example, skulls. Although some authors emphasize the possible clay or stone spindle whorls, or pierced ceramic disks that may community-level and integrative aspects of Neolithic burial have functioned as whorls, commonly occur on house floors

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 66:1-2 (2003) 17

This content downloaded from 128.148.254.57 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:28:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms and provide evidence for spinning thread and yarn. Bone "spatulas," needles, and awls, meanwhile, probably attest to later stages of textile, clothing and bedding production. In other cases, as at PPNB Beidha and Ba'ja, household crafts included production of stone beads and bracelets. House maintenance and cleaning were also typical domestic activities. Some houses preserve evidence for routine maintenance. McGuire and Schiffer note the tradeoff between initial investments in reliable, low-maintenance architecture and the long-term maintenance requirements of "cheaper" architecture (1983). The frequent use of mud as a building material and common lack of proper foundations made frequent maintenance necessary in Neolithic houses. Many of them, and especially those with plaster floors, show remarkable cleanliness. Miller suggests that the design of Neolithic plaster floors was to facilitate sweeping and mopping (1982), important tasks to reduce the incidence of disease as populations became more concentrated in villages. Watkins remarks on the consistent cleanliness of

Two clay bull figurines pierced with flints, found intentionally interred below a house floors at Qermez Dere and considers it an flagstone feature in a Middle PPNB house at 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan. These ritually aspect of the inhabitants' "constant attention to "killed" figures must have been symbolic in some way. Photo courtesy of C. Blair. details of maintenance" (1990: 342; cf. Hodder and Cessford 2004: 23-24). The demands of domestic tasks may , . j * ' k.^ :,6? N. kZS ,', --.,^.y also be related to the previously noted . AI .' ^" ' - trend toward differentiation of space. .-^L. Hunter-Anderson suggests that both

I . :,p 4 ?Jr.~ rectilinear shape and complex _x'. I ' U subdivision of buildings, much as in .- :-- ' --" "- toolboxes, tend to be associated with li,t,- increases in the heterogeneity of roles SP^A ~ ~and activities in households (1977). 0 10 D 5^II Where we find simultaneous, complex I I2 jW ~tasks, highly differentiated, rectilinear ' Ij houses prevent the tasks from ... '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 s I : . f v interfering with one another. Such .% i_, ?'- 4' tj tasks can also lead to larger households because they sometimes have greater j '~~~~~~~ r\-~ demands for simultaneous labor. As ', ;1 agriculture became more important, .; r.5 t p for example, a larger labor pool would Z n. '* aallow some households to weather -0 w+ -,u ,^ agricultural risks more easily and afford -~~~~o,04 ':'\\ better opportunity to acquire wealth. It is tempting to associate these benefits with the rise of large, complex ' * buildings at such Late Neolithic sites PPNC "corridor house," at 'Ain Ghazal, near Amman, Jordan. A human skull was four nd sealed as Bouqras and Tell as-Sawwan, into the small chamber left of the central corridor. Such deposition of human remains is among although it is interesting that it rarely the strongest evidence for ritual in houses, connecting the living households in some way to the seems to have encouraged large

deceased individuals. A paved alley borders the house on the left. Photo courtesy of r 9'. Qadi. households - in the southern Levant.

18 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 66:1-2 (2003)

This content downloaded from 128.148.254.57 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:28:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms aurochs horns were found in a circular building, where they may Symbol, Cosmology and Ritual have fallen from the walls (Stordeur 2000). Many rooms at One thing that students of the Neolithic sometimes overlook is the possibility that the separation of religious and Qatal Hiiyiik had aurochs skulls and vulture beaks projecting from walls and features. It even seems that human skulls were secular space that words like "shrine" and "temple" suggest sometimes on display, as at Mureybet IV, and not always buried may have made no sense to a Neolithic person. Even in many modern societies, virtually every aspect of houses has symbolic in caches (Cauvin 2000: 247). Most of the excavators of such phenomena have concluded significance, and ritual is a fundamentally domestic activity. Archaeologists have quipped that Neolithic Qatal Hiiyuk was that the buildings in which they were found were shrines or a site in which "every third room's a shrine" (Lekson 1989: public buildings; in most cases, however, there is no reason to 161), but this is not as ridiculous as they suggest. We should assume that they were anything but houses. At Qatal Hiiyiik, seriously consider the possibility that Neolithic houses were for example, the "shrines" show plenty of evidence of domestic sacred spaces. Wall paintings, masks, statues, plastered skulls, activities (Hodder and Cessford 2004: 30). and possibly carved posts may have been more common than In addition, many Neolithic sites show fairly high densities our biased sample of preserved examples would suggest. We of figurines and intriguing decorated objects that are probably should probably expect Neolithic houses to preserve evidence symbolic in some way, whether or not they were involved in for cosmological beliefs and to have served as shelters, not cult, shamanism or ritual. These include sculpted pestles and only for the living, but also for the dead. notched "batons" (Kozlowski 2002; Rosenberg and Redding House compounds of the Batammaliba, a people of Togo and the 2000: 52-54), ritually "killed" animal figurines (Rollefson Benin Republic, provide an example of just how symbolically rich a 2000: 167-68), and large numbers of human figurines. The house can be (Blier 1987). Construction of these houses begins and unusual frequency with which human figurines were ends with sacrifices and other decapitated, even when the neck was not the weakest part rituals. Second, the house layout is a metaphor for both the (Kuijt 2000b: 150), suggests human body and the cosmos, intentional "killing" and recalls Wilson's association various rooms being named after between domestication and body parts. Third, rituals routinely take place within the witchcraft (1988: 135-39). houses, some, for example, Meanwhile, the unbroken involving wall painting. Fourth, state of some fragile figurines the house is so closely associated "indicates disposal without with the household head that it much handling, perhaps soon after manufacture .... is ritually demolished upon his death and heirs build their Disposal in inaccessible houses in a different spot. places and in large groups Given the high degree of standardization in Neolithic house indicate[s] use as vehicles of magic" (Voigt 2002: 277). Their plans at many sites, some cosmological principle could have fairly widespread distribution among buildings suggests that guided their layout. Extreme symmetry and structuring principles figurines were in common use in houses. At Sha(ar Hagolan, in Ubaid houses, for example, most likely have precursors forin example, nine figurines were found in the rooms and Samarran and even earlier houses. It is premature to attach courtyard of house compound I, while forty-eight figurines meanings to the bilateral symmetries often found in Neolithic were found in the larger compound II (Ben-Shlomo and house plans, yet tempting to see metaphors for human body parts Garfinkel 2002: 211). in the axial and appendicular arrangements of rooms. Perhaps Among the strongest evidence for ritual in houses, human future research will associate non-architectural symbolic objects remains beneath house floors or embedded in house features with these spaces in ways that will help us decipher them. made very strong associations between living households and To date, Near Eastern prehistorians have invested more deceased individuals. It is not clear who these individuals were. thought in ritual than in cosmology. Some Neolithic houses There are not enough such burials to account for a very large show signs of probable foundation deposits, such as tool caches, fraction of the populations of Neolithic sites. Nor is it likely that suggesting that Neolithic house-builders, like their Batammaliba they are all household heads or, in the obvious sense, ancestors, counterparts, began house construction with ritual. Many as those of the PPNB, for example, appear to have included Neolithic sites show at least some evidence for the decoration both of sexes and both adults and children, while those of the Late houses with skulls and horns. At Hallan (emi, for example, oneNeolithic are almost exclusively children. There is some house appears to have had an aurochs skull on the north wall, evidence for MPPNB skulls to be grouped in sets of three or facing the entrance, while sheep skulls and deer antlers found itson multiples (Kuijt 2000b: 151-54). The only symbolism of another house's floors could have had a similar purpose which we can be fairly certain, however, is some connection (Rosenberg and Redding 2000: 45-46). At Jerf al-Ahmar, many between these individuals and the household or house with

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 66:1-2 (2003) 19

This content downloaded from 128.148.254.57 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:28:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms which they shared space. Perhaps funerary rites associated with Blier, S. P houses emphasized the permanence of household roles in the 1987 The Anatomy of Architecture: Ontology and Metaphor in face of individual transience; perhaps they were simply a part of Batammaliba Architectural Expression. Cambridge: Cambridge the bereavement process. Or, as Hodder suggests, "the placing University. of the dead below a house floor ... created a drama in which Braidwood, R. J., and Howe, B. 1960 Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan. Studies in Ancient dark fears were linked to basic loves. The home protected one Oriental Civilization. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the from the wild and even death" (1990: 39). University of Chicago. Still the best example for the ritual use of domestic space is Brown, J. K. wall decoration at Qatal Hiiytik. As we have seen, one aspect of 1970 A Note on the Division of Labor by Sex. American such decoration incorporated skulls, but wall painting appears to Anthropologist 72: 1073-78. have been even more prominent. Matthews has demonstrated Cauvin, J. that replastering of walls there occurred frequently, and makes a 2000 The Symbolic Foundations of the Neolithic Revolution in the strong argument that the wall paintings were only visible for Near East. Pp. 235-51 in Life in Neolithic Farming short periods before the next replastering covered them (2002). Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, This is consistent with the view that wall painting was an edited by I. Kuijt. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. activity associated with periodic rituals, such as rites of passage. Cribb, R. It seems likely that Neolithic houses were not merely 1991 Nomads in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Dunand, M. shelters from the elements or the setting for food preparation, 1973 Fouilles de Byblos V L'Architecture, ses tombes, le materiel childrearing, and other domestic activities, but mysterious domestique, des origines a l'avinement urbain. Paris: Adrien places rich with symbolism and even magic. Maisonneuve. Notes Flannery, K. V 1972 The Origins of the Village as a Settlement Type in 1. I would like to thank Peter Akkermans, Yosef Garfinkel, Ian Kuijt, Gary Mesoamerica and the Near East: a Comparative Study. Pp. Rollefson, Alan Simmons, and Marc Verhoeven for permission to use 23-53 in Man, Settlement and Urbanism, edited by P Ucko, et some of the illustrations in this article. For others I am indebted to the al. London: Duckworth. photographic eye of Taylor Dabney. 2002 The Origins of the Village Revisited: From Nuclear to 2. Radiocarbon dates that have been corrected by reference to tree-ring Extended Households. American Antiquity 67: 417-33. chronology are expressed in calendar years, "cal BCE." Garfinkel, Y, and Ben-Shlomo, D. References 2002 Architecture and Village Planning in Area E. Pp. 55-70 in Sha'ar Hagolan, Volume 1, Neolithic Art in Context, edited by Y. Abu es-Soof, B. Garfinkel and M. A. Miller. Oxford: Oxbow. 1968 Tell es-Sawwan. Excavations of the Fourth Season (Spring 1967). Sumer 24: 3-15. Garfinkel, Y., and Miller, M. A., eds. 1971 Tell es-Sawwan. Fifth Season's Excavations (Winter 1967). 2002 Sha(ar Hagolan I: Neolithic Art in Context. Oxford: Oxbow. Sumer 27: 3-7. Goody, J. Akkermans, P, et al. 1962 The Developmental Cycle in Domestic Groups. Cambridge 1983 Bouqras Revisited: Preliminary Report on a Project in Eastern Papers in Social Anthropology 1. Cambridge: Cambridge Syria. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49: 335-72. University. Aurenche, O. Hodder, I. 1981 La maison orientale. Larchitecture du Proche-Orient ancien des 1990 The Domestication of Europe. Structure and Contingency in origines au milieu du quatrieme millenaire. Paris: Maison de Neolithic Societies. Oxford: Blackwell. l'Orient. Hodder, I., and Cessford, C. Banning, E. B., and Byrd, B. E 2004 Daily Practice and Social Memory at Qatalhioyuk. American 1987 Houses and the Changing Residential Unit: Domestic Antiquity 69: 17-40. Architecture at PPNB "Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Proceedings of the Hunter-Anderson, R. Prehistoric Society 53: 209-25. 1977 A Theoretical Approach to the Study of House Form. Pp. 1989 Renovations and the Changing Residential Unit at aAin 287-324 in For Theory Building in Archaeology, edited by L. R. Ghazal, Jordan. Pp. 525-33 in Households and Communities, Binford. New York: Academic. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Chacmool Conference, edited by Kenyon, K. M. S. MacEachern, D. Archer and R. Garvin. Calgary: 1957 Digging Up Jericho. London: Ernest Benn. Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. Kirkbride, D. Ben-Shlomo, D., and Y. Garfinkel 1966 Five Seasons at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Village of Beidha in 2002 The Spatial Distribution of the Anthropomorphic Figurines Jordan. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 98: 5-61. in Area E. Pp. 209-13 in Sha'ar Hagolan 1, Neolithic Art in 1975 Umm Dabaghiyah 1974, a Fourth Preliminary Report. Iraq Context, edited by Y. Garfinkel and M. A. Miller. Oxford: 37: 3-10. Oxbow. Kozlowski, S. K. Blanton, R. E. 1994 Houses and Households: A Comparative Study. New York: 2002 Nemrik, An Aceramic Village in Northern Iraq. Warsaw: Plenum. Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University.

20 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 66:1-2 (2003)

This content downloaded from 128.148.254.57 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:28:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Kuijt, I. Nissen, H. J.; Muheisen, M.; and Gebel, H. G. 2000a People and Space in Early Agricultural Villages: Exploring 1991 Report on the excavations at Basta 1988. Annual of the Daily Lives, Community Size, and Architecture in the Late Department of Antiquities ofJordan 35: 13-40. Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology Perrot, J. 19: 75-102. 1964 Les deux premieres campagnes de fouilles a Munhatta 2000b Keeping the Peace: Ritual, Skull Caching, and (1962-3), premiers resultats. Syria 41: 323-45. Communitylintegration in the Levantine Neolithic. Pp. Peterson, J. 137-64 in Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social 2002 Sexual Revolutions: Gender and Labor at the Dawn of Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, edited by I. Kuijt. Agriculture. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Rapoport, A. Lekson, S. H. 1968 House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 1989 Kivas? Pp. 161-67 in The Architecture of Social Integration in Rodman, M. Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by W. D. Lipe and M. Hegmon. 1985 Moving Houses: Residential Mobility and the Mobility of Cortez, CO: Crow Canyon Archaeological Center. residences in Longana, Vanuatu. American Anthropologist 87: Lloyd, S., and Safar, E 56-72. 1945 Tell Hassuna: Excavations by the Iraqi Government Rollefson, G. O. Directorate General of Antiquities in 1943 and 1944. Journal 2000 Ritual and Social structure at Neolithic (Ain Ghazal. Pp. of Near Eastern Studies 4: 255-89. 165-90 in Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Matthews, W. Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, edited by I. Kuijt. 2002 Microstratigraphv and Micromorohologv: Contributions to New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Interpretation of the Neolithic Settlement and Landscape at Rosenberg, M., and Redding, R. W. Qatalhyuiik, Turkey. Paper presented at the Third 2000 Hallan Qemi and Early Village Organization in Eastern International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Anatolia. Pp. 39-61 in Life in Neolithic Farming Communities, Near East, Paris, April, 2002. edited by I. Kuijt. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Mellaart, J. Stone, E. C. 1967 Qatal Hiiyiik: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. London: Thames 1987 Nippur Neighborhoods. Studies in Ancient Oriental and Hudson. Civilization 44. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the Miller, R. University of Chicago. 1982 Water Supply and Public Health in Neolithic Times. Society of Stordeur, D. the Friends of the Museum, American University in 2000 New Discoveries in Architecture and Symbolism at Jerf el Beirut,Newsletter 2(2): 4-6. Ahmar (Syria), 1997-1999. Neo-Lithics 1/00: 1-4. Narroll, R. van den Burghe, T 1962 Floor Area and Settlement Population. American Antiquity 1979 Human Family Systems: An Evolutionary View. New York: 27: 587-89. Elsevier. Verhoeven, M. 1999 An Archaeological Ethnography of a Neolithic Community. Space, Place and Social Relations in the Burnt Village at Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria. Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut ABOUT THE AUTHOR te Instanbul. Voigt, M. 2002 Qatal Hiiyiik in Context: Ritual at Early Neolithic sites in Ted Banning is a Professor in the y:, -. Central and Eastern Turkey. Pp. 253-93 in Life in Neolithic Department of Anthropology at the '' ' , ' University of Toronto, where he has - Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, edited by I. Kuijt. New York: Kluwer taught since 1988. His fieldwork Academic/Plenum. has mainly been in Jordan, where Watkins, T he participated in survey in Wadi 1990 The Origins of House and Home? World Archaeology 21: al-Hasa, excavation at 'Ain 336-47. Ghazal, and ethnoarchaeology in Wilk, R., and Rathje, W. Beidha, and has directed surveys 1982 Archaeology of the Household: Building a Prehistory of and excavations in Wadi Ziqlab, Domestic Llife. American Behavioral Scientist 25: 617-40. near Irbid. His research emphasizes Ted Banning Wilson, P. J. the Neolithic, the social and spatial 1988 The Domestication of the Human Species. New Haven: Yale University. organization of built environments, and theoretical aspects of Woodburn, J. archaeological survey. His recent work includes the books, 1972 Ecology, Nomadic Movement and the Composition of the The Archaeologist's Laboratory (2000) and Local Group among Hunters and Gatherers: An East African Archaeological Survey (2002), both published by Kluwer Example and Its Implications. Pp. 193-206 in Man, Settlement Academic/Plenum Publishers. and Urbanism, edited by P. J. Ucko; R. Tringham; and G. W. Dimbleby. London: Duckworth.

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 66:1-2 (2003) 21

This content downloaded from 128.148.254.57 on Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:28:57 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms