Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Institute of Archaeology and Museology

Department of Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East

Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

2013 Barbora Kubíková

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Institute of Archaeology and Museology

Department of Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East

Barbora Kubíková

Re-assessment of Objects Referred to as Sling Missiles in the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East

Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Dr. Phil. Maximilian Wilding

Brno 2013

DECLARATION

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. I agree with storing this work in the library of the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East at the Masaryk University in Brno and making it accessible for study purposes.

Brno 24th of January 2013 ......

Signature

ABSTRACT

Title: Re-assessment of Objects Referred to as Sling Missiles in the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East Author: Barbora Kubíková Department / Institute: Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Institute of Archaeology and Museology, Department of Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East Supervisor of the bachelor thesis: Dr. phil. Maximilian Wilding

Abstract: The main aim of this study is to re-assess the objects referred to as sling missiles in the archaeology of the Near East by drawing together and evaluating published sources concerning these controversial artifacts. The focus lies on the description and archaeological context in order to define a possible framework of shapes to improve the identification of the specimen and to guarantee their proper designation amongst other rounded handy-sized clay objects. Various approaches and interpretations of function and production of these objects are presented and subsequently checked on their plausibility using inductive elements coming from the ethnography, contemporary studies and surrounding fields. The intention of this work was most importantly to draft a roadmap for further substantial research into the sling missiles the ancient Near East.

Keywords: sling missiles, clay balls, sling stones, ancient weapons, interpretations of objects referred as sling missiles on function and production, ethnographic inductive elements, Near Eastern Neolithic.

ANOTACE

Název práce: Přehodnocení artefaktů klasifikovaných jako prakové kuličky v Pravěké archeologii Předního východu. Autor: Barbora Kubíková Katedra / Ústav: Masarykova univerzita, Filozofická fakulta, Ústav archeologie a muzeologie, Pravěká archeologie Předního Východu Vedoucí bakalářské práce: Dr. phil. Maximilian Wilding

Abstrakt: Hlavním cílem této práce je přehodnotit objekty, které jsou označovány v archeologii Předního Východu jako prakové kuličky za pomoci spojení a vyhodnocování publikovaných zdrojů zabývajících se těmito kontroverzními artefakty. Je zaměřena na popis a archeologický kontext za účelem definování možného rámce tvarů, aby se vylepšila identifikace druhů a zaručila jejich správná klasifikace mezi ostatními malými hliněnými objekty. Různé přístupy a interpretace funkce a produkce těchto objektů jsou presentovány a následně je ověřována jejich pravděpodobnost za použití induktivních prvků pocházejících z etnografie, současných studií a ostatních oborů. Nejdůležitějším úmyslem této práce bylo navržení plánu pro další důkladné zkoumání prakových kuliček na starověkém Předním Východu.

Klíčová slova: praková munice, hliněné artefakty, prakové kameny, starověké zbraně, interpretace prakových kuliček s ohledem na funkci, a produkci, etnografické induktivní elementy, Neolit Předního Východu.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Phil. Maximilian Wilding for his guidance, help and his inspiring ideas throughout the creation of this thesis. The most I appreciate is that he made it possible for me to visit the library of the Institut für Vorderasiatische Archäologie der Freie Universität in Berlin, where I have found most of the literature I needed to do this work. I am also greatly indebted to Mgr. Inna Mateiciucová, Ph.D. for her personal and material support in every situation concerning my studies. Of course I would like to pass on my thanks to whole team of Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East for their help in many ways. My thanks for consultations, discussions, expertise, pieces of advice, literature, unpublished information, copies and contacts with specialists go to Prof. emeritus Frank Hole, Ph.D (New Haven), Prof. Dr. Susan Pollock (Berlin), Assoc. Prof. Dr. Halil Tekin (Ankara), Dr. Olivier Nieuwenhuyse (Leiden), Dr. Alain Gaulon (France), Dr. Jörg Becker (Wittenberg), Dr. Hans Georg K. Gebel (Berlin), Dr. Walter Cruells (Barcelona), Maria Bianca D’Anna (Berlin), Kateřina Jenáčková, DiS. (Brno) and Ingmar Franz M.A (Freiburg im Breisgau). Further thanks I owe to Prof. Dr. Dominik Bonatz of the Institut für Vorderasiatische Archäologie der Freie Universität Berlin for the kind reception at the institution. Last but not least I have my family and close friends especially Lucia Miškolciová and Daniela Kleinová to thank for their love and support which also made my studies possible. All the other people who have helped and supported me and which I might unconsciously have forgotten to write down, I like to thank as well.

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ------9 1. METHODOLOGY ------12 2. HISTORY OF RESEARCH ------14 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE ROUNDED HANDY- SIZED OBJECTS OF CLAY OR STONE (RHO)------17

3.1 Shape ...... 17 3.2 Material, production method and surface treatment ...... 24 3.3 Size and weight ...... 27

4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT ------28

4.1 Ba'ja ...... 29 4.2 Tell Kurdu and Tepe Zagheh ...... 30 4.3 Tell Sabi Abyad ...... 31 4.4 Yarim Tepe III and Umm Dabaghiyah ...... 34 4.5 Çatalhöyük ...... 35 4.6 Tell es-Sweyhat ...... 38 4.7 Tell Hamoukar ...... 38

5. A GROUPING OF EXISTING INTERPRETATIONS ON RHO AND THEIR CRITIQUE ------42

5.1 Spectrum of interpretations on production and use of RHO ...... 42

5.1.1 Hunting slings ...... 43 5.1.2 Cooking stones ...... 47 5.1.3 Counters and tokens ...... 47 5.1.4 Gaming pieces ...... 48 5.1.5 Fighting weapons ...... 48 5.1.6 Interstage in production ...... 51

5.2 Discussions of the existing interpretations on RHO ...... 52

6. SPECIFICS AS A FIND CATEGORY AND TENTATIVE RESEARCH STRATEGIES ------61

CONCLUSION ------66 REFERENCES ------68 LIST OF FIGURES ------76 APPENDIX ------79

INTRODUCTION

The subject of this study are small more or less rounded plain objects. They are widely found at many excavations in the Near East. They are often being interpreted as projectiles for slinging, so-called sling missiles. I have decided to tackle the issue of sling missiles which are the only evidence left in the prehistoric archaeological remains. The most prominent piece telling us about slinging is a story about David versus Goliath. The biblical tale by itself suggests; the sling was more a pastoralists' instrument than a weapon for a warrior. However beside what is often thought, in the sublines of narrative there is an admiration of achieving a direct hit exactly in the most vulnerable place of the enemy. It was not expected to strike the warrior; everybody thinks that the sling is not reliable. The whole story is not a proof of precision, rather an extraordinary instance of miracle of man killing the fearful enemy with something which is not considered as a weapon at the first sight. Remarks relating to the topic of precision of shot will be discussed later. When taking part in the field expedition of archaeological research project of the Masaryk University at The Late Neolithic site Tell Arbid Abyad in Syria, located in the Upper Khabur Basin, eastern part of Syria, I have become introduced to these plain looking objects that were thought to be used as ammunition not just for hunting animals and for herding one's own. If there is a flock of wild animals, flock of birds or crowd of enemies the sling might be used as something like a hunting weapon just enough to drive out the flock of wild animals as well as flock of enemies. An instrument with ammunition easily to make from clay or found among stone pebbles used on a group of something you want to get rid of. So I have become intrigued by the sling missiles because they do not belong among the prominent and prolific find categories on Neolithic sites as pottery, animal bones or lithics. At the beginning a spark of interest was ignited by some of the residents of Tell Arbid and surrounding villages who have been able to produce the sling and able to handle it, shoot and hit. My original intention was to embark in this bachelor's work to the description of Tell Arbid Abyad sling missiles. However when starting to gather scientific evidence from literature in the library of the Institut für Vorderasiatische Archäologie der Freie

Universität in Berlin as a preparatory stage it seems to have appeared aloofness towards the term sling missiles, especially specimen made of unburnt clay is met with some reservation lately1. In order to start an actual treatment of real finds and searching for probable sling missiles on sites, it is firstly necessary to take the position in existing debate. This is an obvious precondition for correct naming and following proper approaching research for example for the specimen found at Tell Arbid Abyad. Therefore for the focus of study there were processed mostly other published sources and their analyses. Furthermore instead of pursuing one single hypothesis if sling missiles of Tell Arbid Abyad are used for hunting, the focus of study is principally on the artifacts themselves and range of interpretations connected to ball-like objects of clay and stone. Knowing how to identify possible sling missiles among other ball-like objects helps one to decide whether it belongs or not to the category of sling missiles. Only if the identification of the object is secured one can think of treating issues of provenance, origin and archaeological periodization. This theoretical question is out of the range of this bachelor' work. To achieve aforementioned goals the thesis is organized into 8 chapters. After the Introduction, the chapter 1. Methodology serves to highlight specific circumstances met when taking written sources related to the sling missiles and a type of approach that is chosen to tackle the resulting problem including the use of operational term for the find category only for the purpose of this study. Next section about the history of research outlines the prime comments in historic succession on small ball-like objects of clay and stone. Under the chapter Description I tried to seize these controversial plain objects by focusing on outer characteristics: shape, size, weight and surface with intend to give a framework that allows recognizing potential sling missiles. After presenting outer description of material which contains limited information because of actual simplicity of these artifacts, a reader is invited in chapter 4. Archaeological context to observe these objects in their environment, in over all archaeological situations. That was meant to be prepared as a ground for scrutiny of interpretations of function and production in chapter 5. It has an influence on name-giving practice, on the way how they are understood and studied. In the following chapter Specifics, I will pay more attention to the part of ball-like

1 It is possibly an interpretative crisis because there appears a latent disbelief of soft balls of unbaked clay to be ballistic bodies notoriously known as sling missiles used as ammunition for a serious weapon.

objects, especially the focus will be on the find category of objects referred as sling missiles. The problems of research situation are once more mentioned and after the criticism, it is proposed what should be changed and how, towards the objects referred as sling missiles in a very practical sense. The aim is to show how to simply improve a chance to identify potential sling missiles, how proper identification and measurements, treatment and preservation of these objects increase the information and how to solve the problem of inter-site comparison by suggesting online open-source database where all the excavator could upload data dealing with this find category. At the end I will conclude and speak out for this overseen, inconspicuous, humble and underestimated category of finds with a view to emancipate this find category.

1. METHODOLOGY

As a consequence of what I have found in literature is the dissolution of objects referred as sling missiles to the clay or stone balls which affects the whole bachelor's work in relation to the scope of time, space and terminology. Talking about unspecified clay balls opens up the door to the multitude of interpretations of functions. In order to seek an answer to what can be designated under the term clay balls in the archaeological reports, I had to take into consideration wider range of contexts. Therefore it led to broadening of the geographical scope. That is why this study contains examples mostly from Jordan, Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq. My processing of sources of materials has depended on availability, quantity of published sources and pre-existing information density. In pursuit of the idea that the objects referred as sling missiles are not obligated by cultural traditions, I have searched in literature within a broad span of time from the Neolithic Era up to the Bronze Age. Exceptionally high functional constraints of which objects may supposedly serve as ballistic bodies were taken as justification to do this. In order to offer abundant comparisons and possible connection linking of the specimen in some respect, there are included, beside the sites from the Neolithic period, sites from the Bronze Age as well. In the issue of terminology I have noticed certain reluctance to the use of term sling missiles presently because this labeling predetermines the function which seems to be avoided in this case. That is why it induced me to divert from the original object, coerced me to broaden my subject of my study, to change my search pattern in dealing with literature and to seek for alternative expressions for this kind of finds. A problem of vague broad terms such as clay balls, which is too indistinctive, has arisen. Even though they were accompanied by attributive such as egg-shaped, these circumstantial denominations can result in losing sight of the objects potentially being sling missiles. In practice a researcher have to face confusing range of terms in dealing with probable sling missiles or small rounded objects of clay. The approach towards these objects is then made no easier after the dispensation of former label because the substitute names have started to vary and have no coherence. The choice of expressions seems to be influenced by the local context and to suit particular conditions.

To cover all the existing forms as ovoid, biconical, elliptical, spherical egg-shaped and other shapes, as the lowest common denominator will be used a term rounded handy- sized objects of clay or stone2 for the present study only. The method is based on the gathered written sources processed by using the comparative approach and subsuming many visual sources of representations of RHOs (see Appendix). In the course of this comparative approach, the interpretations found in the literature are being grouped and checked on their plausibility in the face of surrounding facts from the ethnography, experimental archaeology etc. Attention is paid on the consistency of argumentative chains to show that purely conjectural approach may have led to short-sighted assumptions on the objects referred as sling missiles. A proposal is to recommend inductive elements which should be integrated in the archaeological discussion to resolve certain problems, for example from the study of ethnographic practice of slinging, direct experimentations with the specimen or consultations with ballistic experts. The scope of investigation of this work cannot claim full representativeness but it might show certain avenues to be followed further and the main trends in the discussion can be characterized.

2 However this is also too long phrase and hence for the practical reasons it will be abbreviated into RHO/s where it is preferable in the text.

2. HISTORY OF RESEARCH

This chapter covers the last 50 years of excavation in the Near East. It provides various conclusions referring to the identity of RHO reached by the archaeologists who have dealt with the ball-like artifacts from time to time. When the excavations at Çatalhöyük (Turkey) started J. Mellaart has used the term „sling ammunition“ for the clay balls which he had found there and then proposed a function for hunting of birds (Mellaart 1967). In another contribution he has presented the idea of clay balls wrapped in skins or bags and used as kind of a „mace head“ (Mellaart 1966, 188). M. Korfmann early in 70's published a hypothesis about the relative importance of two prehistoric implements: a sling and a bow. He postulated that the evidence for the existence and usage of bow are the arrowheads and for the use of the sling, the occurrence of stone and clay pellets. Korfmann stressed the sling was as an established weapon used for a long time in warfare in the ancient times. Korfmann assumes that regarding the long tradition, especially in the area of Near East, the sling, at least as a hunting tool could have been already known from the Mesolithic Period (Korfmann 1972, 277-278; 1973, 42). Similarly J. Mortensen has also suggested that along the bow, arrow, sling pellets of clay at Umm Dabaghiyah (Iraq, Hassuna) could have been used for hunting (Mortensen 1983, 214). S. M. Shahmirzadi thought that the egg-shaped clay objects which he found at Tepe Zagheh (Iran), dated to Halaf culture, were just ready-made clay material worked by the hands, waiting for further working and treatment (Shahmirzadi 1977, 362). In Iraq at Yarim Tepe III, a similar assemblage of egg-shaped clay artifacts also dated to Halaf, R. M. Munchaev, N. YA Merpert and N. O. Boader did not believe the specimen to be bullets for a sling (Munchaev et al. 1984, 40). C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky and T. W. Beale excavating at Tepe Yahya in Iran, categorized all the balls, pellets and lenticular-shaped objects or sling missiles from Tepe Yahya Periods VII – V made from clay under the designation of possible counting devices. Except one specimen designated as lenticular-shaped object or sling missile with a function unclear, the spherical objects have been interpreted by D. Schmandt-Besserat to be counting devices (Beale 1986, 191-194).

In the long tradition of excavations at Tell Sabi Abyad (Syria) under P. M. M. G. Akkermans' supervision, all the sun-dried clay ball artifacts of varying shapes and one stone piece from Levels 9 to 3A, dated to Halaf, were labeled as sling missiles. Their rich number and the context of pits lead to suggest „some sort of communal storage of weaponry in an arsenal“ (Spoor and Collet 1996, 450). The Japanese excavator A. Tsuneki of Umm Qseir (Syria, Halaf) is not the first one who expressed his doubts about the material used for objects referred as sling missiles. He compared the sun-dried clay with baked one, stones and plaster and concluded that the first mentioned material is too brittle for making missiles (Tsuneki 1998, 111-112).3 C. Perlès in the Early Neolithic in Greece rejects all the theories of function as the ammunition either used for hunting or warfare and likewise does not agree with the association with hearths as cooking or boiling stones. It seems more likely, she states that sling bullets were used as a „shepherd's implement“ used instead of sheep dogs to keep the herd together (Perlès 2001, 229). S. Atalay who has analyzed the fired clay balls excavated at Çatalhöyük (Turkey) since 1995, from the excavation contexts of ovens, the proximity to hearths and pits and the balls surface infers a usage during cooking and food preparation, most likely as pot stands, probably potboilers or as „heating stones“ for boiling water in baskets or leather bags (Atalay 2005, 139, 158). Another excavator at Çatalhöyük I. Franz interprets the unfired the clay balls and lumps as stored raw material for production of other clay artifacts (Franz 2010, 79). At Tell Hamoukar (Syria) hundreds of clay bullets with the all kinds of damage have been designated as the sling bullets potentially used in a conflict (Reichel 2006, 2009). L. Clare (2010, 19-20), S. A. LeBlanc (2010, 42) in Neo-lithics 1/10 contributed on Special topic Conflict and Warfare in the Near Eastern Neolithic and included the sling missiles among the usable weapons in addition to the arrowheads in the prehistory. In the looking at the research history, one can observe three main phases. 1. At the beginning the definition of the rounded handy-sized objects as the sling missiles or bullets made for the sling, hunters' tool or a weapon, prevailed in the interpretations. Leading and

3 According to Alain Gaulon (personal communication) „I have done lots of researches on all possible types of weapons used for gaining food. I must admit that I find it difficult to believe that modelled clay balls were used as hunting sling balls, as hunting does not seem to have be used on Halaf sites, except for the sites located on the dry sides (Yarim Tepe, Umm Qseir, etc.) where agriculture and breeding were far more difficult“.

influential figures such as Mellaart and Korfmann noticed these artifacts and subsequently established the category and function in the archaeological record. 2. In a later period however an increasing number of excavators started to record these objects and it seemed that the prevailing interpretation did not fit all the finding contexts (Shahmirzadi, Munchaev et al, Lamberg-Karlovsky and Beale). Therefore they commenced to question this function and hesitated to agree with this concept. Either they proposed other explanations or they simply disqualified and suspected the clay material for the slinging purpose (Tsuneki). 3. Nowadays it seems there is a boom of various interpretations (Atalay, Franz). The mistrust in the sun-dried clay as a material for projectiles still remains. More and more they are abandoning the term sling missiles in the archaeological reports. The rounded handy-sized objects are often being included among other clay or stone finds and either without comments on the probable function or being addressed in a different way.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE ROUNDED HANDY- SIZED OBJECTS OF CLAY OR STONE (RHO)

3.1 Shape

This section mainly pays the attention to the basic description of rounded handy- sized objects made of clay. It happened due to the deficit of typologies of stone specimen.4 Till today in literature there has been recorded a wide range of forms of the clay balls. They have been characterized by the abstract terms as spheroidal, spherical, subspherical, globular, rounded, biconical, conical, ovoid or elliptical. The scale of descriptive expressions has been supplemented by concrete and more tangible phrases, for example Shahmirzadi's expression „in the shape of 'egg'“ (Shahmirzadi 1977, 361). The expression „egg-shaped“ was reused several times later at Yarim Tepe III (Munchaev et al. 1984, 40), at Hamoukar (Reichel 2006, 72) and „eiförmigen Schleudergeschosse“ for projectiles from sun-dried clay at Tell Tawila (Becker 2012, 208). Other figurative phrases are „sausage-like objects“ at Kilise Tepe site (Postgate and Thomas 2007, 466) or „in shape of a rugby ball“ as from Telul eth-Thalathat (Fukai et al. 1974, 55) which may serve better for visualization of the object itself but after all it is useless in the terms of comparison in typological context with the aim of standardization. The major problem is that every excavation in the taxonomic vacuum sets up its own descriptive system. They are often site-specific. The following dynamics is well known for experienced excavators in order to describe exceptional items. At the initial stage of excavation with little knowledge it is common to use rather random provisional terms, which are ideal for a quick labeling and intra-team communication. Later on it is adhered to the introduced expressions in order to keep the labeling consistent throughout the whole period of the excavation, not seldom the whole series campaigns. Imperceptibly mainly because of their practicality, they became established terms, albeit only for the particular site. As ideal as they sometimes are for a particular field team, as obstructive

4 This may be caused by the character of production of stone balls, which does not bring forth as many shapes as it can be noticed in the case of hand-made clay balls. Likewise my orientation and my current insights may explain this fact.

they become when it is about inter-site comparison. Nevertheless there is strongly needed a convention in the terminology for the scientific comparisons across the sites. For the purposes of illustrating the site-specific-operational description of shapes, there were selected these three sites which factually covers a time span from the Neolithic period up to the Bronze Age.5 The first case is the Late Neolithic site of Tell Sabi Abyad typology which combines morphological aspects with suggestions of how the artifacts could have been created (see Spoor and Collet 1996, 448). 1. Ovoid or biconical – squeezing a lump of clay in one hand, the most common type (see Appendix Fig. 1.1) 2. Flattened cylinder – squeezing a lump of clay, flattening both ends (Fig. 1.2) 3. Long-drawn, cylindrical – rolling of clay between both hands or on a flat surface (Fig. 1.3) 4. Spheroidal – kneaded with both hands out of a lump of clay (Fig. 1.4) Typical inconsistency, which can be fuelled by the pragmatic of excavation, can be found in the classification from the Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük in connection with the typology (see Atalay 2005, 140-145) which is based on different considerations – material, size and shape. This classification automatically does not lend itself for scientific site- comparison at the root of standardization. 1. Clay balls – spherically or near-spherically-shaped (material) (see Appendix Fig. 2, 3) 2. Mini balls – noticeably smaller diameter than the clay balls (size) 3. Geometric clay objects – were included because of the joint context with clay balls (form), subdivided into: 3.1 Rectangular 3.2 Cubical 3.3 Conical 3.4 Cylindrical 3.5 Flat-based rounded shapes 3.6 Convex-based rounded shapes

5 Besides the flaws this selection offers the advantage of being the most prolific one in the literature.

At the Early Bronze Age site Tell es-Sweyhat many sling bullets were found from which seven types were derived (see Holland 2006, 236) and 5 of these 7 types were earlier described by Stout (1977, 63-65), labeling them as follows. 1. Point-ended ellipsoid – small and slender (see Appendix, Fig. 4.1) 2. Flat-ended ellipsoid – fat and heavy (Fig. 4.2) 3. Biconical – length and diameter approximately equal (Fig. 4.3) 4. Round – smoothly rounded but not spherical (Fig. 4.4) 5. Elongated biconical – length nearly twice the diameter (Fig. 4.5) 6. Flat on one or both sides 7. Round Another case of the nomenclatorial practice is the use of nicknames by the excavators and a labeling often kept throughout the reports. This is referred to as „Hershey's Kisses“ by Hamoukar (see chapter 5.1.5, Fig. 33, b), firstly named like that due to the „lack of a good interpretation“ (Reichel 73, 2006). Those are clay objects, which on the first sight, look like being squashed against something. They have a round base and the elongated section varies from conical to onion shaped. Characteristic features of all of them are cracks along the perimeter of the base of the object (Reichel 73, 2006). As we can see these classifications lack the taxonomic rigor, especially from the point of view of inter-site comparison. The field excavators tend to use often descriptive rather than explicatory phrases, since it is one of the specifics of Near eastern archaeology that there is scarcely any time for on-site interpretations and analyses which could alter the labeling practice by their feedback. Even more problematic is if we only meet verbal descriptions because in fact the same morphological shape could have been named or described using other words in the different texts. For this reason I decided to make a simple morphological table (Fig. 5) of the basic desired forms/shapes from the literature listed below which should facilitate visualization. These site-specific-operational designations are needed but as they are not mutually comparable afterwards. The illustration below is in fact the full array of shapes which can be found in scientific literature on rounded handy-sized objects referred as sling missiles. Of course these are ideal types/forms. In practice many of these items are fragmented6.

6 Therefore the complete forms may be called 'primary morphological types', and the broken ones 'secondary morphological types'. 19

Fig. 5. Morphological table of basic primary shapes of rounded handy-sized objects of clay referred as sling missiles.7

In the literature studied it is common to designate to these shapes such terms as the following:8 In order to show the full scale of descriptions and approaches appearing in literature, the following other nomenclatures are mentioned according to their archaeological age. Korfmann ascertained three shapes of what he considered to be sling missiles, drawings he only furnished for only 2 of them (see Appendix, Fig. 6).

7 Shapes are from: Fig. 5.1 and 5.4 Tell es-Sweyhat 5.2 Chogha Bonut 5.3 Tell Hamoukar 5.5 and 5.6 Tell Sabi Abyad 5.7 Korfmann 1973, 40

8 Fig. 5.1. „Round“ (Stout 1977, 64) / „Spheroidal“ (Spoor and Collet 1996, 448) / „Balloid“ (Atalay 2005, 140). 5.2. „Oval“ (Alizadeh 2003, 87; Reichel 2006, 73) / „Ovoid“ (Spoor and Collet 1996, 448; Tsuneki 1998, 110; Stout 1977, 64; Korfmann 1973, 40) / „Point-ended ellipsoid“ (Stout 1977, 64). 5.3. „Egg-shaped“ and „One pointed end“ (Reichel 2006, 73) / „Flat-ended ellipsoid“ (Stout 1977, 64). 5.4. „Elongated biconical“ (Stout 1977, 64). 5.5. „Flattened cylinder“ and 5.6. „Long-drawn, cylindrical“ (Spoor and Collet 1996, 448). 5.7 „Biconical“ (Spoor and Collet 1996, 448; Stout 1977, 64; Korfmann 1973, 40).

One is spherical, the next one a biconical type (Fig. 6, c) and the last one has ovoid form (Fig. 6 d, e) (Korfmann 1973, 40). At Halafian Umm Qseir in Syria all the clay balls which were almost pointed on either side were categorized as of ovoid type (see Appendix, Fig. 7). Also clay lumps of irregular shapes are located among the clay ovoid balls (Tsuneki 1998, 110). At the 4th millennium BC site of Tell Hamoukar in Syria, a distinction has been made between the sling bullets described as egg-shaped with a carefully pointed top on the smaller side and larger clay balls of diameters 6-10 cm with a damage on one side (see chapter 5.1.5, Fig. 34, 35 and Appendix Fig. 47) (Reichel 73, 2006). At another Bronze Age site Kilise Tepe in Turkey, 40 objects have been found called „clay ovoids“ (Postgate and Thomas 2007, 466). To quote the researchers: „They are sausage-like objects and have blunt or roughly shaped ends, but some have carefully rounded ends and a few have pointed ends and are fusiform“ (Postgate and Thomas 2007, 466).9 Finally, under the title of possible counting devices at Tepe Yahya in Iran we can find a wide range of clay objects (see Appendix, Fig. 8) such as 'balls, pellets, cones, pyramids, pegs or cylinders and lenticular-shaped10 or „sling missiles“ (Beale 1986, 191). This chapter should have made evident the practice of site-specific labeling. Quite obviously the avenue to standardization leads through illustrations and not through verbal expressions (see Fig. 9) better having reached to a typological table (Fig. 5) as a basic means of reference (shapes), we turn to the other descriptors now.

In Fig. 9, below actual shapes of rounded handy-sized objects are being depicted with the labeling and site connected to them. The dashed sketches are drawn only according to the verbal expressions in the used literature.

9 According to this description they might parallel the category 5.3. „Long-drawn, cylindrical“ of the Tell Sabi Abyad nomenclature.

10 According to this descriptive term these objects might parallel the category 5.1. „Point-ended ellipsoid“ or 5.5. „Elongated biconical“ of the Tell es-Sweyhat nomenclature.

A) B) ` C)

D) E)

Fig. 9. Shapes taken from the literature listed in the references (arranged by the names used).

3.2 Material, production method and surface treatment

The information on material parameters very much depends on the research agenda and the excavation circumstances. The RHO referred as sling missiles are to be found mainly made of two materials; clay or stone. Sometimes they appear also to be made from plaster11 like 29 items found at the Halafian site of Girikihaciyan in Turkey (Watson and LeBlanc 1990, 94). Interesting are also other materials used for making stone balls possibly used for slinging of „basalt, sandstone and limestone“ at Kechi Beg and Damb Sadaat I, Site Q14 in Pakistan (Fairservis 1956, 238) (see Appendix, Fig. 12). During the times of Roman Empire they were made from lead casted in moulds as proper ammunition for weapons (Korfmann 1973, 39). In the question of the use of the respective materials clay or stone the question of raw material substitution comes into the play. Korfmann thinks that the use of clay as a material for the production of sling missiles instead of stone, was not because of the absence of suitable stone pebbles, but some of the prehistoric people realized certain advantages of clay for this purpose (Korfmann 1973, 39). Apart from the statement above there are the sites where the scarcity of one material resulted in abundance of usage of another. As an example we may mention Çatalhöyük where clay was vastly used from the architectural features down to smaller artifacts, mainly because of „the scarcity of sizable stones at the site“ (Doherty 2006, 298), in „an aeolian plain that is abundant with clay“ (Atalay 2005, 157). The situation related to the use of stone material for RHO referred as sling missiles is somewhat different. Stones naturally suitable for sling ammunition may have not been always recognized in the archaeological find material. As Korfmann puts it: „It is clear that when they are nothing more than water-worn pebbles, the archaeologist cannot easily identify them as missiles“ (Korfmann 1973, 38). Korfmann points to the fact that only when they are found in a cluster in one place they will not be mistaken for something else (Korfmann 1973, 38). Further the discussion on material presently does not reach. However, some statements have been focusing on the lack/presence of temper in RHO referred as sling missiles.

11 No specifics of the material composition of that plaster are given in Watson and LeBlanc (1990).

Korfmann concludes that the clay is not tempered and consequently not baked in a fire because they would have cracked then (Korfmann 1973, 39). In Telul eth-Thalathat, Tell V (Iraq) baked clay balls were found which were largely tempered with a straw (Fukai et al. 1974, 55). On the contrary in Tepe Zagheh (Iran) they were made of pure clay, containing no tempering agents and just sun-dried (Shahmirzadi 1977, 362). Tempering occurs also at Çatalhöyük but in this case it is mineral one. Clay balls are tempered more abundantly than so-called mini balls. The mineral inclusions visible in mini balls are much smaller and scanty (Atalay 2005, 143). Summing up the considerations concerning potential sling missiles of clay, the evidence points in the direction that- in order to weight ration- they often went without temper, a fact which may explain why they were presumably sun-dried only. Material and treatment of these objects seems to be related to the way they were being produced and used. Now we turn to the remarks concerning the surface treatment in the case of RHO of clay. The basic difference is whether they are sun-dried or baked. The use of clay for this sort of archaeological objects causes the question whether they are tempered or not and fired or not. Specimen described as „baked“ are to be found, for example, at sites like conswquently Çatalhöyük (Turkey), Hamoukar (Syria), Telul eth-Thalathat (Iraq) and Tepe Yahya (Iran). Specimen described as „sun-dried“ have been recorded for instance from Tell Sabi Abyad (Syria), Tell Umm Qseir (Syria), Tell es-Sweyhat (Syria) and Tepe Zagheh (Iran) and those labeled as „unbaked“ occurred at Kilise Tepe (Turkey), Tell Tawila (Syria) and Yarim Tepe III (Iraq). This one thing is sure about the technology of making of objects designated as sling missiles: they are shaped by the human hand which leaves numerous fingerprints on the surface, as documented for example at Tell Hamoukar (Reichel 2006, 72). Then we are speaking about the impressions left on the surface of clay balls: at Çatalhöyük it is possible to recognize both the accidental and the intentional marks left such as […] „incised lines, holes, circles, and fingernail designs. There are also numerous basket and matting impressions, cordage impressions, plant or seed impressions, palm/handprints, fingerprints and finger-impressed areas“ (Atalay 2005, 142). Another

peculiarity about Çatalhöyük clay balls is „fire clouding in large or small areas “12 on the surfaces (Atalay 2005, 142) (see Appendix, Fig. 10). At Tell Hamoukar some of the clay bullets were found with „traces of a fibrous material which very likely were impressed by the sling's pouch“ (Reichel 82, 2009) (see Appendix, Fig. 11). Sometimes it is stated that surface treatment has produced advantages for usage13. Now I turn to the examples of the surface treatment of stone RHO referred as sling missiles in Pakistan at Damb Sadaat site. Some of stone balls (see Appendix, Fig. 12) as they are called there, turned out to be distinct because of some polish on their surface. They lack rubbing and grinding traces but some looked like battered (Fairservis 1956, 238). Three stone pebbles excavated at Bronze Age Kilisi Tepe site in Turkey were designated as sling-shots. The reason for their attribution as sling-shots was their near spherical shape of RHO. In this context Postage and Thomas (2007, 563) make the following statement on their surface. „Although smooth, they are somewhat abrasive“. Possible other ways of the treatment on stones is for example pecking pebbles as Moore observed it on his visit to village site of Hallan Çemi (Moore et al. 2000, 172). In order to answer certain questions, for example if the choice to bake or to sun-dry the RHO affects the possible function of these objects, one has to admit that not many analyses of materials of these objects have been done yet14. Many aspects related to the function, material, size, production processes of RHO depend on more systematic application of methods of natural analyses and experimental archaeology. Some of the information related to the production processes of supposed sling missiles is inseparable linked to the interpretations of function so it will be addressed later in chapter 5.

12 Fire clouds are results of firing. Some of the balls have been oxidized completely through to the core (Atalay 2005, 142).

13 „The careful smoothening of the missiles enlarges the velocity, range and the accuracy of the projectiles“ (Verhoeven 1999, 241).

14 Çatalhöyük can be taken to some extent due to the investigation of interior fabric by using 10x hand lens (Atalay 2005, 143).

3.3 Size and weight

In order to give an impression of the size of clay or stone balls used for slinging, we may use Korfmann's reference to the dimensions as „of a small egg“ (Korfmann 1973, 38). In some publications we can find a table showing the measurements of diameter, length and weight for each specimen, as for instance at Tell Umm Qseir (Tsuneki 1998, 111), but sometimes only the average value is given, with specific measurements lacking, leaving us only with approximate figures as for example at Telul eth-Thalathat, Tell II (Iraq). For example the specimen of 5 from Layer XVb is accompanied only with „average length: 3.7 cm and average diameter: 2.3 cm“ (Fukai et al. 1970, 56). Very likely this reduction in the information density, of course also the fragmentariness complicates reliable giving extrapolation or estimation of the size/weight of RHO referred as sling missiles. Extracted from the overview table of sites (see Appendix Fig. 48) the weight of clay specimen possibly suitable as sling missiles roughly varies from 25 to 58 g and the weight of stone samples possibly suitable for sling missiles differs from about 28 to 60 g15.

15 Close to Roman military camp „Porta Praetoria 14 sling bullets of biconical, spherical and egg-shaped“ were found. The weight of the fully intact or slightly damaged pieces varies between „33 g and 63 g“ (Gschwind 1999, 163-164).

4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

Simply the shape, material, size, weight and surface treatment might not be leading alone to the clarification of function without the last determinant which ought to be carefully examined: the find context. In former times it has occurred more often to infer the meaning of objects by their form or the used material. In accordance with general trends in the archaeological science, the recent publications focus on the context more profoundly, in order to explain the purpose of RHO referred as sling missiles,16 still these are not many. This circumstanced explains the choice of Near eastern sites mentioned in this chapter (Fig. 13). These contexts are widespread in the sense of the time and space and cultural traditions. Contributions to RHO referred as sling missiles come forward only sporadically. At first place it was intended to focus only on RHOs referred as sling missiles from the Late Neolithic period in Khabur region in Syria but because of limited information density, scarceness of information published and a seek for alternative interpretations, it coerced me to expand my study to younger periods and different locations. The sites are being arranged according to their archaeological age. Nearly all of the cases of in naming of illustrations, original wording of the source has been kept. The following archaeological contexts of RHO referred as sling missiles can be observed:

16 E.g Atalay (2005, 149) „The most informed understanding of the clay balls must include consideration of the contexts in which the materials were found.“

Name of site Location Datation of RHO found Source Late PPNB, 2nd half of the 8th Ba'ja Southern Jordan mil. BC. Gebel 2010 Southeastern Turkey, Halaf-Related Amuq C Phase, Tell Kurdu Amuq Valley 6th millenium BC. Özbal 2010 Tepe Central Iran, the Qazvin Shahmirzadi Zagheh Plain Halaf, Level II. 1977 Tell Sabi Northern Syria, Balikh Late Neolithic, Halaf, Levels 9 to Akkermans Abyad Valley 3A 1996 Yarim Tepe Northern Iraq, Sinjar Munchaev et III Valley Halaf al. 1984 Umm Mortensen Dabaghiyah Northern Iraq Hassuna 1983 7400-6000 cal. BC, PPN and PN Southern Anatolia, 6000-5500 cal. BC, Early Atalay 2005, Çatalhöyük Turkey Chalcolithic in Central Anatolia Franz 2011 Tell es- Early Bronze Age, Phase 1, Sweyhat Northern Syria Phase 2B, Phase 3 Holland 2006 Tell Hamoukar Northeastern Syria 4th millenium BC., Bronze Age Reichel 2007

Fig. 13. Synoptic table of sites mentioned in chapter 4.3 Context.

4.1 Ba'ja

One of the first appearances of supposed sling balls in Near Eastern archaeological contexts we can find at the Late Pre-Pottery site of Ba'ja in southern Jordan. They comprise 6 small assemblages of flint (as well as limestone, sandstone and quartz), balls of similar weights (30-45 g) and shapes (spherical, subspherical) in subsequent loci of room fills „representing preserved secondary contexts“, intermingled with „stone rubble, grinding tool fragments and pestles, numerous but isolated mother-of-peal objects, worked bone, shell ornaments, various classes of personal objects (paillettes, pendants), a few grooved stones, a 'statueshaped' pestle, and odd-shaped natural stones“ (Gebel and Kinzel 2009, 28; Gebel, pers. comm.). The balls were intentionally deposited in the room fills with the other items, a process interpreted by H. G. K. Gebel as an act of ex-commodification (Gebel 2010, 64) (see Appendix, Fig. 13). This first context is giving indications on quantities which lead to suggestion that this type of RHO have been an integral part of domestic implements ranking the same as grinding tools or pendants, since they were socially treated the same.

4.2 Tell Kurdu and Tepe Zagheh

Finding the clay balls in association within a cluster of various objects of material culture seems to be common. At Halafian Tell Kurdu in Turkey on the floor of room R05 (Fig. 15, 16) in „a private residential compound“ which was „a kitchen or food preparation area“ (Özbal 2010, 48), the sling pellets17 as they are called, were surrounded by „several more grinding stones and a complete large jar, several bone tools, tokens as well as two pot discs“ (see Appendix, Fig. 17) (Özbal 2010, 48).

Fig. 15. Room R05 (after Özbal 2010, 59).

17 No specifics of the positions of RHO within room R05 are given in Özbal (2010, 49).

Fig. 16. Plan of Area A – private residential compound and room R05 (after Özbal 2010, 59).

In Iran at the 6th millennium site Tepe Zagheh in Iran all the objects, referred to as „sling balls“, were unearthed from Level II in a state that they were „broken and pieces were missing“ (Shahmirzadi 1977, 361). In association „with structural remains“ not „ in the deposits which covered the alleys“ like other small artifacts (Shahmirzadi 1977, 362), so this seems to point to a domestic contexts of these items too.

4.3 Tell Sabi Abyad

In a category of „other small finds“, the excavators of Tell Sabi Abyad18 in Syria placed over one thousand unbaked clay sling missiles, yielded by Halafian levels 9 to 3A

18 The Treatment of RHO referred as sling missiles at Tell Arbid Abyad corresponds to the way they are being handled at Tell Sabi Abyad (nomenclature and interpretative approach). The number of clay sling missiles found at Tell Arbid Abyad is not negligible. Judging from the amount of according finds, burning seemed to have occurred only accidentally. Quite a number of handy-sized rounded objects of stone were found as well. The contexts await future descriptions.

(Spoor and Collet 1996, 448). In level 3B sling missiles were „stored in circular or oval pits varying in diameter between 0.65 and 1.50 m, with a depth ranging from 0.26 to 0.74 m“ (Spoor and Collet 1996, 450). The majority of pits was discovered „in the open area between building I (Fig. 18) and building V, mainly along the wall of building V“ (Spoor and Collet 1996, 450). Other containers were „sunk into the floor of the room of building V or situated to the north of the same building“ (Spoor and Collet 1996, 450).

Fig. 18. Level 3 architecture on the southeastern mound of Tell Sabi Abyad, late phase (after Akkermans 1993, 65). Building I is visible, Building V is not indicated.

The area of Burnt Village or Level 6 in Tell Sabi Abyad (Fig. 19) „represents 5 rectangular multiroomed (building I-V) structures and four circular ones (the so-called tholoi, the buildings VI-IX)“ (Akkermans and Verhoeven 1995, 9). In the building I in area 3 (Akkermans and Verhoeven 1995, 12) there was built an oven. In proximity to it sling

missiles were found alongside „ceramics, stone mortars and pestles, bone awls“ (Akkermans and Verhoeven 1995, 12) which once more seems to indicate that sling missiles were a common part of the domestic objects at that time. Numerous sun-dried clay objects among them sling missiles, were uncovered as well in rooms 6 and 7 of the building V (Akkermans and Verhoeven 1995, 15). A lot of objects were found „in the dark ashes and other room fill high above the floor“ (Akkermans and Verhoeven 1995, 15). So it is assumed the various objects in room 6 „had originally been placed on shelves or the like along the walls and had subsequently fallen“ (Akkermans and Verhoeven 1995, 15). Sling missiles that which were found inside rooms, may support the notion that they were a usual part of domestic equipment. Tell Sabi Abyad context could be an example of an outside context of RHO, in the sense of an inter-structural or inter-building emplacement.

Fig. 19. Plan of the Burnt Village at Tell Sabi Abyad (after Akkermans and Verhoeven 1995, 9).

4.4 Yarim Tepe III and Umm Dabaghiyah

An example of the tholoi context is the excavation of Halafian layers at Yarim Tepe III in Iraq. Around thousand egg-shaped clay artifacts were discovered „in the filling of tholos 137“ (Fig. 20) and dispersed over the site (Munchaev et al. 1984, 40). In the same tholos and context there were uncovered as well „rather massive balls of unburnt clay up to 9.2 cm in diameter“ (Munchaev et al. 1984, 40).

Fig. 20. Tholos 137 (after Munchaev et al. 1984, 33).

At Umm Dabaghiyah (Hassuna) in Iraq the clay sling missiles and large clay balls were concentrated in large quantities in some of the rooms and cells in the buildings built along the courtyard which repeated through Levels IV-I, interpreted as „storage rooms“ (Kirkbride 1982, 20; Mortensen 1983, 214). In one chamber there was found „2400 baked- clay sling missiles and about 100 large baked-clay balls“ and excavator Ch. L. Redman assumes that it was for hunting the onagers which predominate the site's faunal assemblage (Redman 1983, 195). The distribution density points to a house-internal context.

Fig. 21. The arsenal containing over 1,000 clay sling missiles according to Kirkbride (1982, 21).

4.5 Çatalhöyük

The RHO of clay at Çatalhöyük provide us with different contexts for study and the specimen as well might be considered as out of range of potential sling missiles because of the size, weight and the context (Fig. 22). However it will not be excluded for certain reasons explained in the chapter 5.2 Discussions of the interpretations with special reference to the question of objects referred as sling missiles. At Catalhöyük two different types of clay balls were found: fired clay balls and unfired clay balls. According to I. Franz, the fired ones are mostly found on the East Mound (7400-6000 cal. BC, Pre-Pottery Neolithic and Pottery Neolithic) and unfired clay balls on the West Mound (6000-5500 cal. BC, so-called "Early Chalcolithic" in Central Anatolia, which is indeed still Neolithic and comparable/contemporary with the Halaf- Period in Mesopotamia) (personal communication). The first placement where we can find several complete fired clay balls, geometric types and numerous fragments of clay ball are bins and pits in close proximity to ovens or fire installations. Some of these aggregates are covered with a „mix of faunal material and several bone tools“ (Atalay 2005, 145, 150). Especially some units were covered nearly entirely with „calcareous ashy deposits“ (Atalay 2005, 145, 150). Atalay stated that according to „the difference in firing patterns19, […] and the excavators' notes, these materials were not burned, heated, or fired in situ“ (Atalay 2005, 145, 150). These are primary use contexts. All the clay balls and geometric

19 This firing has happened intentionally.

objects were found in large concentrations and „were not removed before new features constructed, or building infilling took place“ (Atalay 2005, 145, 149), which is not common within buildings of Çatalhöyük. The second placement found at Çatalhöyük is within the oven bases, as Atalay (2005, 151) „In several cases, broken clay ball and geometric object pieces were used in oven construction, either directly as the base of the oven, or as an insulation layer in oven floor construction“. Clearly these are re-use contexts20.

Fig. 22. Clay balls and objects in the South Area at Çatalhöyük (after Atalay 2005, 150). A) - clay ball and stone oven base B) - clay-ball bin fill C) - clay balls stored at head of oven [sic.] D) - clay-ball pit

20 Atalay's conclusions of the contexts are given in Chapter 5.1.2 below, for the discussion of function.

Fig. 23. Çatalhöyük example of context. Pile of hundreds of clay balls in the eastern corner of Space 449 (after Franz 2010, 80)21.

Fig. 24. Under the exposed floor a second clay ball cache was found in Space 449 (after Biehl et al. 2012, 82).

21 For conclusions referring to this context see Chapter 5.1.6.

4.6 Tell es-Sweyhat

From the earliest levels of the Bronze Age site Tell es-Sweyhat one small stone sling bullet was recovered inside a large cooking pot mixed with burnt wood, charcoal, bone and covered by ashy-sooty soil (Holland 2006, 29). In the next Phase 3 of Early Bronze Age, the excavating context is changed into the floor of Room 2 which was inside the burnt town wall. By the presence of a large package of clay sling bullets (complete and fragmentary) on the floor, it is suggested this indicates a town that was under an attack (Holland 1977; 2006, 57-58). Emplacement in a room also appeared in Phase 2B. Four stone sling bullets are to be found together with a frog-shaped metal amulet, two bronze pins and a concentration of twenty pottery vessels indicating that this has been a storage room (Holland 2006, 71). Finally eleven complete examples and numerous fragments of clay sling bullets (also Phase 2B ) were excavated in the roof-debris within Room 1 by the town wall (Holland 1977, 63; 2006, 236). This context implies a diversified use of RHO referred as sling missiles.

4.7 Tell Hamoukar

At the fourth millennium site in northern Syria, Tell Hamoukar, in 2006 season ovoid clay lumps were discovered in a row lined up against the edge of a basin (Fig. 25). This „shallow depression“ (Reichel 2007, 59) was sunk into the floor and identified as a „recycling bin“22 (Reichel 2007, 59) because of a small jar embedded there with a rim which „was level with the bottom of the basin“ (Reichel 2007, 59).

22 Reichel explains this like a 'paper shredder' where clay sealings were discarded but the sling bullets changed the image to the ''last stand'' an effort to make weapons which never were used because the roof fell upon them (Reichel 2007, 59-60).

Fig. 25. Basin in floor of room, containing sealing clay and row of sling bullets (after Reichel 2007, 59) sic.

Beside this particular context, over one thousand sling bullets mixed with „the destruction debris and wall tumble“ (Reichel 2006, 72) were detected in the buildings (Fig. 26) in which thousands of clay sealings and stamps were found as well. All the objects were well preserved because a vast conflagration happened around 3500 BC (Reichel 2009, 78)23. It seems that the sheer mass of sling missiles found at Tell Hamoukar implies some sort of communal function (weaponry?) of this kind of objects that markedly differs from their possibly domestic function in earlier archaeological periods (see Ba'ja, Tell Kurdu, Tepe Zagheh).

23 According to Reichel a comparable and similar arrangement is to be found in Mersin in Turkey where the sling bullets were uncovered not only in piles within rooms along the fortification walls but even in destruction debris of a fortified gate (Reichel 2006, 73).

At present the contexts rather depict the way, RHO referred as sling missiles are being encountered in excavations than what they were actually used for and how they were made. This in part has to do with the special (volatile) nature of ballistic bodies. Of whose '' context'', is where they are really used: out in the open. This is sort of a vector in these objects that is directed away from the settlement cores.

Fig. 26. Burnt City, Area B, administrative buildings (after Reichel 2007, 61).

From this dissimilar parade of contexts, it might be concluded that the use of RHO referred as sling missiles altered with time. It cannot be deducted much about the function from the secondary-use contexts, where the clay balls were mostly found in fillings or on the floors, randomly spread within the architectural remains, in association with diverse objects or used as a building material within ovens. Therefore more attention should be paid to the primary-use contexts. In the earlier times the context seems to suggest a kind of domestic or household use of these objects. Later there appeared a slight change in the conception to an emplacement in huge numbers into storage rooms or in pits outside the buildings, referred in literature as „arsenals“ without specifying their use. The last noticeable change is to find these objects in collapsed, destructed levels, in authentic debris which possibly indicates violence. As a matter of fact those are the site-specific arrangements and distributions of

clay balls; overall explanations are difficult to obtain in order to decide on the problem of function.

5. A GROUPING OF EXISTING INTERPRETATIONS ON RHO AND THEIR CRITIQUE

5.1 Spectrum of interpretations on production and use of RHO

After we have tried to tighten the grip on this type of objects in chapter 3. And 4. We move forward to the issue of interpretations on function. When interpreting contexts Atalay says „More common or familiar groups of material culture (lithics, pottery etc.) have a history of knowledge and assumptions relating to their use“ (Atalay 2005, 149). However our perceived clay or stone balls „are different from the above mentioned categories of material culture because, in addition to understand the meanings and symbolism“ (Atalay 2005, 149) we struggle to „understand their functional role(s)“ (Atalay 2005, 149) in the first place. In order to achieve a grouping that is able to accommodate the full range of interpretations connected with the category of indistinct clay or stone balls, an ideal starting point appears to be the exhaustive list of 10 possible functions in Atalay (2005, 155). It will be used as framework basis to structure the interpretations, with one category added. It is an example how broad the functional diversity of ball-shaped objects can be. The contributions from the publications in this study will be accommodated by the first 5 points of this frame:

1. Hunting slings 2. Cooking stones 3. Counters or tokens 4. Gaming pieces 5. Weapons 6. Stone boilers 7. Standardized weights 8. Digestive devices 9. Grinders 10. Mace heads

5.1.1 Hunting slings

The first archaeologists who came across these rounded handy-sized objects such as J. Mellaart, M. Korfmann proposed, favored and spread the connection between these RHOs and the implement called a sling. In the 1970s M. Korfmann wrote a fundamental work concerning two long-range weapons in South-West Asia that is the bow and the sling and plotted their distribution across this area. He was convinced that the sling (see Appendix, Fig. 27) as an underestimated implement and that it could serve as a weapon (Korfmann 1972, 277). Verhoeven (1999, 71) says that hunting is well-represented at Tell Sabi Abyad, in the Burnt Village, because of the large number of sling missiles which as individual objects were used once or for a short period of time only. It means that the 'lifetime' of a sling missile was relatively small for the owner. In the Late Neolithic layers of Tell Sabi Abyad hunting was still obviously practiced. The large collection of unbaked clay sling bullets is used to explain the absence of arrowheads. They also uphold the idea of other perishable materials like bone or wood serving as the arrowheads or that hunting became a specialized activity for only few members of community (Akkermans 1993, 80, 233)24. A shift in the assumed function of RHO referred as sling missiles but still in the frame of slinging has come with the proposition of F. Hole related to 3rd millennium BC sites, where the hunting games quite disappeared from the diet and were replaced by agriculture and herding. On the basis of the quantities of sling missiles recorded he concluded that the predators had stayed in steppes endangering flocks, forcing the shepherds used the slings to ward them off (Hole 1999, 276-277). The same referring was implied by Munchaev stating that „egg-shaped clay artifacts which are usually denoted as 'sling bullets' are very common for the early agrarian settlements of Mesopotamia“ (Munchaev et al. 1984).

24 In the earlier excavations, Akkermans firstly did not unearth any clay sling objects but nevertheless he proposed the idea of sling missiles being used for hunting, since the arrowheads were missing in the archaeological record (Akkermans 1987, 31).

In a different setting, the same function is described by C. Perlès, dealing with the Early Neolithic in Greece. She is discussing the concept of the use of sling missiles for fighting and hunting but she is not convinced of that because of their „light, unfired or poorly baked clay“ (Perlès 2001, 229). She refuses also the function as cooking or boiling stones25 because despite their associations with hearths, again the raw material prohibits this kind of use (see Appendix Fig. 28.). The function as narrow looms is also repelled by the actual shape in this case (Perlès 2001, 229). She finds the most plausible the idea of the use of unbaked clay missiles as a „shepherd's tool“. The rate of loss not collecting these objects from stone after throwing required the daily manufacturing of such made from clay, and they were left around hearths and ovens to dry out quickly (Perlès 2001, 231). Drawing together many interpretations she finds the context misleading and according to the contemporary use of sling in Morocco and Syria for protecting herds or crops, she considers this idea as the most satisfactory one (Perlès 2001, 229). Another argument encountered on the function of RHO suggests that: „their owners may have been reluctant to risk losing them in such an activity“, which is hunting with sling stone bullets (Moore et al. 2000, 173). However, in fact a Kurdish workman was able to create a sling stone from a river pebble in less than hour as reported by Moore (Moore et al. 2000, 172-173). Turning now to the counterarguments, what are the objections to the interpretation of function as sling missiles for specimen made from clay. As Tsuneki expressed in comparison with other materials „the sun-dried clay is too weak as material for sling missiles“ (Tsuneki 1998, 111). Secondly it is the size or weight of the balls. The only argument which is offered by Atalay, Russel, McGowan in Reports from the 1995-1999 seasons in Çatalhöyük, against the suggestion that the clay objects were used for hunting is the problem with „the weight of the balls and the difficulty a hunter would have carrying these any significant distance for off-site hunting“ (Atalay 2005, 158) based on the use of mineral temper which gives that significant weight. One possible but for them unlikely variant is „the use of skin or bag filled with heavy balls off site to hunt and locate, retrieve, and transport the broken fragments home for midden disposal or reuse in other contexts“ (Atalay 2005, 158).

25 The term refers to function than material.

If the weight in relation to the size comes to a consideration excavators of Yarim Tepe III in 1980 thought as well that massive balls of unburnt clay up to 9.2 cm in diameter and egg-shaped clay objects were not used as sling missiles (Munchaev et al. 1984, 40).

Fig. 29. Arts and crafts of the Cook Islands. A) Slings and sling stones, Rarotonga; C) Sling stone carriers, Rarotonga B) and D) Net food carriers, Aitu (Retrieved from: http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/etexts/BucArts/BucArtsP012a.jpg).

The third counter-argument is the shape. The rejection of oval shaped clay objects has occurred with the excavation of Chogha Bonut in Iran. This conclusion is based on the personal experiments with some replicas and the observation that two points prevent the projectile from going in a straight direction (Alizadeh 2003, 88). The same observation was made during a small experiment in a village nearby Tell es-Sweyhat carried by a young skilled slinger. Biconical (see Appendix, Fig. 4.3) and flat-ended type (see Appendix, Fig. 4.2) of bullets went to the left (Stout 1977, 64-65).

At Tell es-Sweyhat different types of sun-dried clay bullets inspired the excavators to conduct an experiment and find out the reason behind this variety. The need for the best slinger was fulfilled by a young boy who used his own sling very often to protect his flocks. He was able to cast missiles well over 200 meters. The examination was limited by the number of prepared pieces. The researchers tested 4 types (see Appendix, Fig. 4.1, 2, 3, 5). According to Stout (1977, 64-65) the results are the following: 1. Biconical - average distance 90.5 m. (goes to left), average weight 35 grams 2. Elongated biconical - 120 m. (goes very straight), 57 grams 3. Point-ended ellipsoid - l03 m. (goes reasonably straight), 28 grams 4. Flat-ended ellipsoid - 94.5 m. (goes to left), 43 grams This experiment also showed that clay sling balls do not have to always break after hitting something. Target was a plastered mud-brick wall at a distance of 50 m. Clay sling missiles that hit stones cracked completely, however „ninety per cent of those thrown on the range were recovered intact or slightly damaged„ (Stout 1977, 65)26.

Fig. 30. A mi'dan boy makes balls of mud dried in the sun for his sling at al-Hiba in Iraq. (Retrieved from: http://www.laputanlogic.com/articles/2004/04/14-0001.html).

26 Precisely this kind of situation can be seen at Tell Hamoukar (see chapter 5.1.5).

5.1.2 Cooking stones

A whole new association of clay balls is the one with cooking and heating activities. This recent result of interpretative analysis stands in opposition to the conventional theory of the use of clay balls as ammunition. In order to explain the site-specific context and conditions of fired clay balls in Çatalhöyük, Atalay has come to the conclusion that „balls and objects were used primarily to transfer heat to food and possibly rooms“ (Atalay 2005, 167). To follow up a multiple- use approach they could also have served „for boiling in pits or baskets“ (Atalay 2005, 167). The key notion are „the heat-retaining properties“ (Atalay 2005, 157) of fired clay balls. That is why they are regarded as the heating stones. These clay balls are claimed to be a case of a material substitution for various tasks of food preparation and cooking, and also of heating rooms. In favor of this hypothesis are the primary contexts within houses and their close associations to ovens and hearths. Secondly the balls were „fired to different degrees and in different firing environments“ (Atalay 2005, 157) to disprove the idea that the context is such of a production, not one of the use. Finally Atalay strengthens his hypothesis by pointing out that the mineral temper used in the fired clay balls supposedly allowed better heat-transferring (Atalay 2005, 158). Another example of a similar treatment of the archaeological situation but later in time is found in the Early Israelite, 12th – 16th century BC strata of Tell Qasile and Ein Gedi. There were found partly baked clay balls. Initially they had been regarded as warp loom weights but the location near or inside ovens lead to the final explanation that they were used to keep up the heat of oven during the food preparing (Avitsur 1975, 233).

5.1.3 Counters and tokens

Denise Schmandt-Besserat in 1992 wrote a huge work summing up the plain sphere types of clay found at sites throughout the Near East and came to the conclusion that they were counting devices (tokens). Many pieces in her study resemble the Çatalhöyük mini balls (Atalay 2005, 158, 162). In fact Atalay admits the possibility that mini balls from Çatalhöyük could be counting balls. Their average diameter is 1.5 cm and the clay material

is only sun-dried and markedly less mineral tempered than the clay balls (Atalay 2005, 143). In a subsequent statement he links the mini balls with „memory devices used for remembering people or events and counting food items or animals“ (Atalay 2005, 168). At the site Chogha Bonut (Middle Susiana Period) 3 RHO27 were found. Pieces were slightly baked and of fine clay (see Appendix, Fig. 31). Consequently the RHO found at Chogha Bonut were labeled and treated as tokens. Even though the author knows that these objects are found across the entire Near East, he is not prepared to call them sling missiles or ammunition, because after his own personal experiments, which showed that especially two point-ended specimen could not follow the straight trajectory, he assumes their shape is not suitable for a projectile (Alizadeh 2003, 88, cf. Stout 1977, 64-65).

5.1.4 Gaming pieces

Considering the shape, size and weight of the rounded handy-sized objects this interpretation may be found as the most unlikely. R. Regan, one of the excavators at Çatalhöyük, linked mini clay balls (of evidently smaller sizes as other clay balls) with the simple idea of children playing and immediately loosing these pieces in an open area because also the figurines and figurine fragments were uncovered in large number on the upper edges of midden deposits (Regan 2011, 21). In the pursuit to explain the function of mini balls Atalay addresses them also as toys or gaming balls used by children or items for adult entertainment. His assumption is grounded on the contexts of feature which held 800 mini balls and another cluster of 13 mini balls (Atalay 2005, 161).

5.1.5 Fighting weapons

As late as the beginning of Early Bronze Age we are not used to come across the huge concentrated piles of clay balls and supposed sling balls close architectural remains

27 As I noticed the form of Chogha Bonut clay objects quite resembles the shape of the Late Chalcolithic sling bullets found at Tell Hamoukar, especially the one side pointed specimen (see Appendix, Fig. 32.).

or debris of walls exhibiting signs of intentional destruction, interpreted as fortifications, towers. A combination of both would lead to the conclusion that these items are ammunition for some kind of fighting activity. M. Korfmann tries to demonstrate in his publication that a sling was a fighting weapon and he is using all ancient sources to prove this conclusion. Slinging has fatal consequences. The biblical episode David vs. Goliath has served as an argument encouraging statements about taking the sling among repeatedly used weapons (Korfmann 1973, 35, Gaulon 2008, 80). According to the excavation context at the site Tell Hamoukar in Syria, the clay egg-shaped objects mixed with destruction debris and wall tumble (Reichel 2006, 72) were designated as sling bullets without a hesitation because the type found in Tell Hamoukar is attested also on other 4th millennium BC sites (Reichel 2006, 73). The context of sling bullets in a combination of destruction material were used as an indicator to the question what caused the fire destruction of buildings. It cannot be yet proven but strong evidence leads to the interpretation as a conflict. It is not very usual to find these objects with such clear traces of usage as the manifestation reported from Tell Hamoukar (Fig. 33). At this site 3 types of specimen could be indentified (Fig. 34): The first type represents larger clay balls with obvious damages on one side as a result of impact. The second one is even more interesting. Those objects are of specific form which was not made by hands but by hitting a wall at high velocity. This action is inferred from the cracks along the perimeter, damaged shape and traces of wall plaster on the bottom (Reichel 2006, 73) (Fig. 35). Key idea is the association with a hostile attack on the city and consequent warfare, as indicated by the big number of objects presented as sling bullets, the context of burnt buildings and destruction debris and also the shape which seems like frozen in medias res. They suggested that the clay should have been wet during the firing that is why it took that significant form after hitting walls. Reichel explains this as an urgency of commenced attack. They tried to refill quickly decreasing ammunition. Simply said those objects did not have time to dry out because it can take up to 24 hours (Reichel 2009, 81-82). Experience and comprehensive study of Oliver Mack from Tell Hamoukar large assemblage of sling bullets proposes a theory that the clay had to be still wet to some extent when firing process took place therefore hitting a wall itself did not destroy completely a sling bullet of any shape but just deformed according to the impact. They 49

found a range of deformations among the squashed bullets, from dimply at one side to totally flattened (Reichel 2009, 82).

Fig. 33. Simulation of the effects of a sling bullet made of wet clay hitting a wall at high velocity (after Reichel 2006, 74).

Fig. 34. Hamoukar 4th millennium BC missiles (after Reichel 2006, 73), described as a) „Sling bullet with one pointed top b) Sling bullet deformed by impact („Hershey's Kiss“) c) Clay ball showing damage due to impact.“

Fig. 35. Hamoukar typology of shapes (after Reichel 2009, 82), described as „ (a-b) squashed sling bullet (bottom side) showing minor deformation at thicker end; (c-d) squashed sling bullet (top, side) flattened upon impact; date: ca. 3500 BC. “

5.1.6 Interstage in production

This kind of interpretation was added to extend the interpretation variety and because it is considered as an interesting new approach. As early as 1977 Shahmirzadi used a traditional term „sling balls“ just as a label for the Tepe Zagheh specimen. They are presented here rather as „ready-made levigated clay for making spindle whorls or other objects which need prepared clay“ (Shahmirzadi 1977, 362). In a connection with 21 „egg“ shaped, sun-dried objects of pure clay, formed by hand but most of them broken, Shahmirzadi rejects „the established function pattern“ (Shahmirzadi 1977, 361) of sling missiles within this term. He takes the example from contemporary villages where storing of prepared clay dried lumps is meant for the repair of bread-making ovens („tannur“) (Shahmirzadi 1977, 362). This deduction is shared also by Ingmar Franz on the unfired clay ball assemblage of Çatalhöyük. „The clay balls could represent stored raw material for the production of clay artefacts“ (Franz 2010, 49). The evidence to support this conclusion is the cache of sun-dried clay balls which resembled in material the one used for unfired pottery (Franz

2010, 79). According to Franz similar situation is found at Ulucak Höyük where „different sized clay balls and bigger lumps of clay were discovered“ (Franz 2010, 79).

5.2 Discussions of the existing interpretations on RHO

After showing various types of interpretations and approaches to the question of function it is now tried to give comments, evaluate the pros and cons of statements made by researchers, to check the plausibility of their arguments and add inductive elements from ethnography or contemporary studies. Turning to alternative interpretations first, the emergence of other categories as counting devices, tokens, cooking stones or gaming pieces, objects referred as sling missiles reemerged in the row of other clay objects from the smallest dimensions up to big ones. That is why an excavator has to face an array of clay objects which are more or less rounded and differs from each other in slight differences. Every increasing class of indistinctive clay balls differing in shapes, size and weight, the categories became less occurring and apparent. Alternative interpretations quasi naturally have been dispelling notion of sling missiles. Token is the well established find category. They are „about 1 or 2 cm across, modeled in clay in different shapes, among them cones, spheres, cylinders, disks, tetrahedrons and ovoids“ (Morley and Renfrew 2010, 27; Fig. 39). These are called plain tokens, and the first occured at „Mureybet Level III about 8000 BC“ (Schmandt-Besserat 1992, 36). D. Schmandt-Besserat in 1960's focused her research on the origin of writing and counting and started to look for an answer what those small pieces of fired clay occurring at nearly every Middle Eastern archeological site could have been used for. Nobody was able to explain these finds, and they were neglected or simply considered as gaming pieces (Schmandt-Besserat 1992, 35). Schmandt-Besserat, however, believed to have found implications that were used for the earliest record keeping. It is worth of considering idea of sling missile sized clay objects brought to the specimen designated as tokens but with the precautions that the weight and size will be an indicator of designations towards sling missiles or tokens.

Fig. 39. Ovoid tokens standing for jars of oil, from Girsu, Iraq, ca. 3300 BC. (after Morley and Renfrew 2010, 29).

Cooking stones might be considered as a new interpretative approach when interpreting the function of bigger-sized fired clay balls. However this is identification much interrelated with the specific find context. Hence, this interpretation might give an extra interpretation instead of entirely dismissing the idea of the use of certain clay balls as sling missiles. At Çatalhöyük the recent analyses do not mention any connection and do not point to the function of sling missiles. The fired clay balls there have diameters ranging from 4 cm to about 9 cm (Atalay 2005, 141). At the site of Yarim Tepe III in the joint context with the tholos 137, egg-shaped unburnt clay artifacts were found in combination with unburnt clay balls of a diameter of up to 9.2 cm. This clear association, and the assumption that bigger balls could not be used as missiles, caused the interpretation that the egg-shaped specimen were not used as sling ammunition either (Munchaev et al. 1984, 40). Too site- specific cases like Çatalhöyük have little argumentative power to challenge the sling missiles hypothesis, because the context significantly differs. However the consideration of the weight of some of RHO can rule out the possibility of them being ballistic bodies for slinging. Many of the assumptions stated in 5.1.1 could be addressed or rejected by the ethnographic practice involving local contemporary population as well, selected observations (experiments), the approach of the experimental archaeology and surrounding facts. Among the few of sites at which the term sling missiles is used as fixed label and the assumed function correspond to the label is Tell Sabi Abyad in Syria. On the basis of the Tell Sabi Abyad evidence it can be concluded that this implement (sling) must have been quite significant in order to counter-act the scarcity of available arrowheads. The prehistoric dwellers at Sabi Abyad must have relied on the sling as an efficient enough hunting weapon to sustain the part of the subsistence economy. This should be seen in

connection with the fact that many of the sling missiles recovered from the site consisted of clay. Although the economy had changed to an agrarian type, the sling must have maintained its important function, for example for the shepherds. Clay sling missiles obviously have been efficient and precise enough to determent predators. To keep them at distance it must have been compact enough in order to fulfill this task. Simply by using it by shepherds one can infer that it has been an efficient weapon. Against these obvious and simple conclusions the objections have been raised that mainly originate from preconceptions and unfamiliarity. Much that has been stated against sling missiles of clay is rooted in the notorious instability of this material if it is encountered in the unburnt state in the archaeological situation that is an archaeological view of them when excavating. Using a typical phrase for example an excavator of Umm Qseir has remarked that „the sun-dried clay is too weak“ (Tsuneki 1998, 111) without giving further remarks or observations. This remark simply reflects the fragility of clay material that has not been hardened by burning. However it is a question if archaeologists' attitude of reluctance is not the present state of these artifacts. The core of this negative attitude is possibly the present state projected upon the state of these projectiles during their actual period of use after thousands of years of disposal28. Considered from the lived context clay missiles do not have to be burnt in order to be sufficiently firm. The unburnt, blunt clay object would on a sudden effect still hit hard enough with considerable damage to any prehistoric target simply because of its speed. From the user's perspective the material is not too weak. Clearly if clay has not been suitable material as some excavators have thought, also their wide occurrence throughout different places and periods would be difficult to understand. The loose and brittle state of unburnt clay ball artifacts is thus not the reality of the context of production but one of the final deposition. The same which has to do with the state they are found in can be said about the conventional counter-argument of low weight. Perlès in her publication about the Early Neolithic in Greece also asks „why would weapons be made from light, unfired or poorly baked clay?“ (Perlès 2001, 229). The label

28 For obvious reasons the present state colors the attitudes of archaeologists towards what they found. This is connected to clay in different conditions more that to skeletal remains or organic traces. Durability, capability and condition of certain artifacts to withstand devastating time shape archaeologists' attitude.

light is not correct because in time of their use they contained significantly high proportion of water and some may have been mineral or plant tempered. The expressions unfired or poorly baked in this context may be a preconception of the late archaeologists. This may have not corresponded to the view of the original user who might have figured that clay balls were dry enough as they were. Rather as mentioned above badly burnt may primarily refer to the agenda of the excavators that by the idea of durability seek qualities in sling missiles that are demanded thousands years later but they are not relevant to the life- expectancy of these objects during their immediate use. Less obvious causes that might lie behind the current interpretational crisis is another perceived; the incapability of sling missiles to make targeted shots. Since a targeted shot is not possible there has been concluded that the sling is a useless weapon for hunt or fight. Straightforward as these arguments seem from the experimental observations, it is meant the inability of certain shapes to fly a straight direction; it is still a biased view. It can be easily dismissed by any kind of sport that involves shooting an object, for example a golf which is for many people a very precision sport (Fig. 36, 37). „After the ball leaves the club face, it acts no differently than other free missile, whether it be a javelin, the pebble from a sling shot, or the bullet from a gun“ (Seltzer 2008, 103). All the spinning objects follow a smooth curve and deflect to one (predictable) side. If you realize that golfers or footballers are able to cope with this deviation successfully, we should no less assume that ancient Near East slingers were able to compensate for an elongated clay sling missile spin29.

29 For example, The Chamorro people of the Mariana Islands put much effort to make just biconical shape – elongated pointed spinning type (Fig. 38).

Fig. 36. Possible golf ball flight paths. (Retrieved from: http://www.lifeintherough.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/flightpaths.png).

Fig. 37. A skilled golfer can make the golf ball do many things. (Retrieved from: http://img.ehowcdn.com/article-new/ehow/images/a04/l1/2v/hit-draw-800x800.jpg).

Fig. 38. A sling stone - pointed specimen produced by Chamorro people from the Mariana Islands, dated to the Late Period (1000-250 BP) (Retrieved from: http://beachcomberonsaipan.blogspot.cz/2010/02/acho-atupat-koru.html). 56

When looking at the counter-arguments one cannot help but observe the following: The assumed lack of compactness of the sling missile mainly seen from the point of view of the inability of the blunt objects to pierce through the target, the obvious deviation from a straight trajectory and the impossibility to aim the target, as we are used to in a connection to a bow and arrows. These three characteristics point to the shadow imagine lingering in the mind of western researchers, to the type of weapon technology of what he is familiar. That is an iconic precise shot-gun, either known from personal (sport) practice or more often from an immense stream of images, movies or literature30. Weapons legally and on daily basis are only allowed to be carried by the guardians or the army. All industrialized countries are restricted to shooting from firearms in sports or hunt. „In the European Union, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms, firearms disguised as other objects, and armor-piercing, incendiary and expanding ammunition“ (European Council 1991, Article 6). The use of blunt rounded projectiles in combat however is surely beyond the comprehension of most western people31. Another use of blunt rounded projectiles is applied when the piercing is not the main aim because a prey is more precious intact or might also be rendered immobile or killed by the vehemence of blunt projectile impact. The ethnographic evidence can be found, for example at Pacific Eskimos who use blunt arrows (Fig. 38) for birds (Leach 2003, 15).

30 This playful context of archery is in a big contrast for example to the circumstances of Tell Arbid Abyad in Syria where the excavator M. Wilding has encountered and observed a serious man performing a serious practice- slinging.

31 The dogma of pointed weapons did not prevail in the ethnographic cultures where throwing stones was a practiced efficient fighting strategy. As reported by various travelers and sailors, for example famous Captain James Cook's company was attacked by a hail of hurled stones when for the second time visiting the Hawaiians (Gilbert 1926, 12).

Fig. 38. Ancient Eskimo fossil walrus ivory bird blunt arrowhead, found on St. Lawrence Island, Alaska by Native Yupik. These were used to stun birds and capture them without damaging their feathers.(Retrieved from: http://www.etsy.com/listing/66566741/ancient- eskimo-fossil-walrus-ivory-bird).

Taken altogether the fundamental barrier to see sling missiles in a correct light is a resistance of western excavators to accept rounded objects as weapons. Excavators' latent underestimation expressed in light, blunt, brittle clay projectiles prejudice is further nourished by the fact of proverbial motionless aiming so typical for western precision shots by guns, bows, firearms which is not possible in slinging and hence targeting on the individual. Therefore the perceived imprecision shot is not relevant if the sling shot is directed towards an extended target, for example flock of birds, unfortified settlement, crowd of attackers. In this case it is just a matter of statistics of approximate shots that will eventually hit when repeated in a high frequency. This is a real advantage of slinging; in a stony area the projectiles are ready there and cheap. When stone is not available, clay is at least also ubiquitous, easy to work. Those clay missiles demand prefabrication and extra carrying. Suitability of the sling as a weapon is connected to the ability to release relatively heavy bodies with remarkable force and to send them far flying into a mass of moving targets in a relatively high rapid succession without the fear of wasting ammunition. It is a simple reliable long-range weapon suited to disrupt raiding enemies in advance by especially many slingers firing resulting in avoiding close combat. In an inter-tribal warfare a large group of people is engaged in the open that makes the target vulnerable and sometimes it includes a special array of fighting equipments and sometime they carry 58

everyday hunting implements or other basic tools. At this case one would not have to target on the individuals with a precision shot but it would suffice for a group to throw a hail of objects towards the enemies. In this type of combat famous precision weapons such as bows and arrows were also used for statistical shooting without a precision, intentionally to the sky, for instance at the battle of Hastings in England in 1066. The tactics of great number of archers was chosen and it significantly helped to win because it produced „a devastating hail of arrows against man and horse“ (Bradbury 1985, 90). The word hail has been used to describe a random impact of imprecision shots. If the sling missiles are capable to keep away the wild predators, they are also suitable to keep away the attackers that do not wear any kind of special protection gear. In great numbers forcefully launched the clay missiles may have had a discoursing effect on enemies, to scare them off to either seek a shelter or abandon a fight. We might have observed the traces of damaging impact, much energy involved, on the specimen from the site of Tell Hamoukar in Syria. Precise targeting might have not been important and expensive arrows not needed when protecting armor is lacking in a localized spontaneous outburst of violence, in small-scaled inter-village conflicts that one could expect in the Late Neolithic context where in fact the clay missiles may still lead to bodily harm. Even nowadays in the sudden upheavals, rioting groups in the streets or civil wars the groups resorting to break a monopoly of government, the civilians produce or use the projectiles in hands of every material on spot, suitable for throwing to create a chaotic hail of blunt objects to harm. This can be answered by the rubber bullets which are not piercing used by the police. One more example of imprecise street fights could be throwing rocks and hurling stones in the slings and slingshots against Israeli police, often with devastating effects in the First Intifada in Palestine in the late 1980s as reported by various global media (Fig. 40).

Fig. 40. Palestinian slinging a rock in ca. 1988, Nablus, West Bank. (Retrieved from: http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/the-first-intifada-in-pictures- intifada1).

This section should show that the evidence is abundant to show that the sun-dried clay sling missiles and that the imprecise projectile could have served in fact in the hunt or in spontaneous fight. Once the excavators abandon their prejudice which is understandable considering the state of unburnt objects after thousands years of disposal. My proposition is again re-approach and re-address the function less by applying the conjectures and strict logic but following the inductive approach from wide field of knowledge from ethno-archaeology, comparative ethnography, experimental archaeology, natural sciences, criminalist studies, forensic medicine, ballistics and inputting interesting data beyond the excavation. This logic reasoning partly has led to the assumptions which really stand in way in understanding of these inconspicuous ball-like artifacts. The discussion has shown firstly some of the best known arguments used to rule out a certain class of unburnt clay objects are in truth failing. Secondly clay balls appearing at archaeological excavations, although resembling each other, may in fact represent separate but complementary forms of use. The multi-nature of simple rounded objects of clay and normal standard archaeological procedure and administration may have caused that they have been treated as one homogeneous archaeological class or have ended up in the same bag. 60

6. SPECIFICS AS A FIND CATEGORY AND TENTATIVE RESEARCH STRATEGIES

In this section it will be analyzed what might be the causes for turning a blind eye on part of RHO in the archaeological reports and various proposals how to improve a situation in favor of these objects. The identification was and still is the primary cause of the relatively poor state of research on these objects. As archaeological methods has been evolving with each excavation, we have to take into account that these clay or stone balls of several shapes were neglected and not recorded for long time even though particular scholars like J. Mellaart in 1960's and M. Korfmann in 1970's started with this issue. „These artifacts are not always easy to perceive. Even when they have been recognized, they have often only led archaeologists to wonder what purpose such odd "clay eggs" may have served“ (Korfmann 1973, 38). Items referred as sling missiles can be characterized by their plain appearance, simple form, the limited variety of possible shapes, easy and quick production, they are made out of cheap and omnipresent material; commonly no special surface treatment is involved and geographical diffusiveness. The material is either pure clay or it is tempered by the vegetable/mineral inclusions. The provenances of clay have never been determined, it seems, because it is mostly presumed that it is of the closest proximity. Stones are usually classified as nearby river pebbles. They are not distinguished by any precious or either semi-precious stones or other aesthetic material. If these stone objects are not situated in an aggregation, it is very likely that they will be omitted. Inauspicious and humble as they are, they are not objects that would trigger the interest of archaeologists very much. A feature which plays a big role in scientific disregard is the shape. It is neither regular, nor rectangular. RHO are not cast in moulds or shaped according to any template, just hand-made with all individual variations. They do not have one author. They could have been made by children or adults at the same time. They do not follow any standardization but behind this unsteady form, there is still some kind of reason, a purpose to have that range of forms from spherical to ovoid. Due to the structural weaknesses especially of sun-dried specimen, they are often found fragmented and broken in archaeological contexts. However their fate of

disintegration continues even in the treatment by archaeologists while excavating, transporting with them out of the excavation area and washing them and cleaning them with brushes. The appearance of RHO is connected also to the beforehand preparation and the briefing of the field excavators with regard to they might expect to find and how to treat it, because if someone does not precisely know, RHO might be left ignored, or end up in a bag with various other unidentified clay objects, discarded or might be mistakenly designated. It is easy to break them with a trowel. It is easy to mistake them for the adjacent clay material or for ordinary stones naturally occurring in the region. Sun-dried RHO will suffer massively if put into a bag with other finds, sherds for example. We cannot break small pieces of them in order to look inside and find out their true composition. RHO of clay may dry up completely and crumble afterwards when accidentally exposed to the sunlight in the Near Eastern conditions for a while. Their fate is doomed once they are submitted to washing them together with other find objects. They will definitely disintegrate and disappear without a trace. One single wrong decision at any of these levels of treatment will lead to the loss of unbaked RHO. This is problem of all non-burnt small objects of clay. RHO do not bear any of the specific cultural markers. They are not in fact very datable samples for relative or absolute chronology. Hence normally RHOs do not become such a priority during an excavation as for instance pottery, lithics and other small finds. As ''relative'' items they are rarely found in the stratified layers or in primary contexts. Concerning the current state of research: RHO do not relate to one specific period or archaeological culture and a unifying taxonomy has never been attempted before. As Perlès mentions, this is a typical case of a category of artifacts with a wide distribution, bearing little stylistic investment, and this is not helping in solving the question of origin (Perlès 2003, 107). According to Schmandt-Besserat (1977, 139) four characteristics define this enigmatic object: a) wide distribution in time b) wide distribution in space c) found in great number d) usually not mentioned in site reports To this issue we would add another factor. As ballistic bodies, highly mobile and portable, what is the proper context of sling missile? They do not have a fixed place in the

settlement core because in fact they are ''meant to be thrown away''. So a part of the proper use is not reflected and identified in the context in which we find them. If we take the chaîne opératoire of these objects, their flight is the last step, so strictly speaking nothing should be found in a settlement. They are by their very nature potentially erratic and enigmatic objects if they act according to their true destination and primary function. Another problem which can be observable from my position is the very nature of the object. Even nowadays archaeology must reflect the needs of general public so there is little room for ambiguity. As a longstanding fact in archaeology the visual aspect dominates, than humble, monotonous RHO made of clay, that provocatively seem to reject any offer of bearing cultural signs, despite being made from the same material to whome we owe impressive vessels or figurines. One way out of this vicious circle is proposing a roadmap for substantial further researches. The first proposition would be some kind of promoting hand-outs of proper identification where a descriptive framework could separate objects suitable for slinging from other RHO with a functional figure which would show size and weight ranges. A definition of certain weight range will lead to proper designations of rounded handy-sized objects to various functional categories. It can also help to sort out RHOs which were already found and reported. Then the special treatment must be taken seriously. Clay sling missiles should not be exposed to sunlight and water. They should be treated with great care and to the find bag a tag should be attached that indicates that this material is unburnt and all excavation team members or workers should be fully instructed. It would be profitable to have on-site the hand-outs of proper treatment and preservation, how to avoid excavation and post- excavation damaging of these objects. Another attempt is to get to the site independent data by promoting a distinctive data sheet/form to get site independent data. It is proposed to elaborate a find form which can fill the gaps and rule out terminological inconsistencies if applied systematically. Any concise study will depend on standardized find form. Thanks to Sonya Atalay (2009, 111) these criteria might be used in creating the find form: 1. Size – length, diameter 2. Weight 3. Material – stone, clay 4. Color 63

5. Firing – baked, sun dried 6. Surface texture 7. Type of inclusions 8. Elaboration 9. Level of wear 10. Pitting 11. Percentage and type of residue 12. Context 13. Fragmentation

Now it will be described what was observed in literature as insufficient and causing the obstacles towards this study. When working with the archaeological reports and trying to extract data from texts and arranged them in a synoptic chart, I have noticed a recurrent pattern of missing data. The gaps concentrate seemingly in a section of basic data information which every excavator writing a report should record and provide in the first place. When filling the table I felt the lack of information about weight. In order to do comparisons of the specimen, it is strongly suggested to start with refinement and readjustment of the existent documentations and typologies of clay or stone balls. Why are not RHO weighted on a regular basis? The record of mass seems less complicated then measuring dimensions such as a length and diameter in the case where the shape is less easy to determine. One of the factors is definitely the fragmentary nature of most of the unburnt objects that are unearthed32. Fragmentariness is a universal problem in archaeology; this can badly serve as an excuse. Even with RHO intentionally damaged one should be able to extrapolate and estimate the mass of the missing part with 21st century science and computing facilities. Another inconsistency witnessed is the recording of size. Optimal case is when all the finds are measured one by one and listed in the report. However some of the publications just mention an average value without mentioning specific measurements or

32 Encountering many fragmented specimen may also be explained by the fact that malfunctioning pieces probably would not be preferred to be taken in action (ballistic properties flawed?).

giving other details. This negligence in the treatment of RHO leaves others without a clue how to implement methods of comparison and analysis. The scarceness of context-descriptions in the literature is an indication that significant contributions still have to be made in order to allow a correct and secure assignment of RHO and a proper functional interpretation. For an intensive study of RHO referred as sling missiles plans that show the distribution of RHO in relation to the architectural remains should be published as well. Methods of material of spatial analysis have to be applied as well. In future the observations, the context should be more devoted to the detail and should be considering the question of the functionality or rival interpretations of RHO. The last proposition in order to resolve the inter-site comparisons would be an implementation of online open-source database. It could be a pilot project where every archaeologist could upload his own data about RHO possible for slinging and others could see for themselves similarities and differences and mutually compare and exchange the ideas. To sum up, minimal dimensions in comparison for instance to the architecture in terms of the archaeological material, undemanding preparation, simple forming, only slightly differing shapes and surface treatments, paranatural appearance, not unified contexts and instability of the retrieved parts are causing a huge gap in knowledge. On the other hand they lead to the emergence of a wildly flourishing set of conjectural hypothesis. There should be an urgent need to emancipate this category of plain objects which do not attract a first sight. Their plainness should not be an excuse for incuriousness. On the contrary, its simplicity should provoke a whole new range of investigation methods. Its value may not lie in precious material or decoration but in its high-performance functional design. RHO might have been easily expendable but on the other hand their existence must have been beneficial and useful for the ancient communities where they were an integral part of the material culture. They must have been a significant item in the life of prehistoric people, they were used, they meant something for them, as some things remarkably efficient in its cheapness ''democratic'', and still one of means of ''remote control''. From every object we find at excavation area we can learn something about the life which we cannot quite imagine and reconstruct nowadays, may well be that there is some hidden potential in these overly modest round handy sized objects referred as sling missiles.

CONCLUSION

This study above highlights low information density on sling missiles in the Near Eastern archaeology currently. Certain characteristics of find category also have been addressed. Those foster a trend of step-motherly treatment in literature. Main reasons are monotonous form of highly functional in combination with radical abstinence of decoration and cultural markers and delicate state of preservation after thousands years of disposal which can cause that unburnt clay does not even make it to the researcher's table. As iconic decorated vessels they are not, the hesitation of researchers to consider sling missiles as weapon for hunting and fighting, notions spreading criticism were mentioned. It is shown however the preference of nearly descriptive instead of sling missiles term leads to the terminological problems. It has far reaching negative conclusions and implications which end in the dissolution of whole find category. This possible resistance was caused not by sling missiles themselves but hidden reasons of general negative unburnt (crumbly) reputation of clay. Cultural sound concept of weaponry that projectiles have to be pointed to pierce and must fly a straight direction to aim on individual targets are not the properties of sun- dried clay sling missiles. In the chapter comparing functions, the question of serious weapon was approached and alternative interpretations have been introduced for small ball-like objects. The result has been that there is no good argument why one should deviate at present from the notion of sling missiles. On contrary, one has reasons to assume that the sling missiles are very effective and crucial items in the Late Neolithic hunting as well as conflicts. Rival interpretations of ball-like artifacts currently are flourishing but they prove no real alternatives because they are highly individualistic and site-specific. However in vivid picture of daily life of ancient Near East, one is aware that the balls found in the same category share multitude of uses. Finally it has been an ambition of current work to sink in the inductive elements from various sources to show that not all ways were tried to come to the right conclusions. It seems they seek their definite position in standard archaeological reports. They deserve more elaborate analyses and studies as well.

I agree with Alizadeh, it is too much coincidence that for several millennia Near Eastern prehistoric people of different archaeological cultures would adhere to the same shape and size unless there is behind a unifying idea of common usage of the clay or stone objects (Alizadeh 2003, 88). I would like to end with the title of article of Robert E. Dohrenwend. Sling is a forgotten firepower of Antiquity and I believe to some extent also of the Prehistory.

REFERENCES

Akkermans, P. M. M. G. (1987) A Late Neolithic and Early Halaf Village at Sabi Abyad, Northern Syria. Paléorient 13, 23-40.

Akkermans, P. M. M. G. (1993) Villages in the steppe: Later Neolithic settlement and subsistence in the Balikh Valley, northern Syria. Michigan, Ann Arbor, International Monographs in Prehistory.

Akkermans, P. M. M. G. and Mière, M. Le (1992) The 1988 Excavations at Tell Sabi Abyad, a Later Neolithic Village in Northern Syria. American Journal of Archaeology 96, 1-22.

Akkermans, P. M. M. G. and Verhoeven, M. (1995) An Image of Complexity: The Burnt Village at Late Neolithic Sabi Abyad, Syria. American Journal of Archaeology 99, 5-32.

Alizadeh, A. (2003) Excavations at the prehistoric mound of Chogha Bonut, Khuzestan, Iran: seasons 1976/77, 1977/78, and 1996. Oriental Institute Publications 120. Chicago, University of Chicago.

Atalay, S. (2005) Domesticating Clay: the Role of Clay Balls, Mini Balls, and Geometric Objects in Daily Life at Çatalhöyük. In I. Hodder (ed.) Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995-99 seasons, 139-168. Çatalhöyük Project Volume 5. McDonald Institute Monographs/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.

Atalay, S. (2009) Clay Balls and Fire Installations In Çatalhöyük 2009 Archive Report, 111. Published online: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2009.pdf

Avitsur, S. (1975) The Way to Bread: The Example of the Land of Israel. In Tools and Tilage 2, 228-241.

Beale, T. W. (1986) The Small Finds. In C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky and T. W. Beale (ed.) Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran: The Early Periods, American School of Prehistoric

Reasearch Bulletin 38, 167-206. Cambridge, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.

Becker, J. (2012) Ḥalaf- und „Obēd-Zeit in Nordost-Syrien am Beispiel von Tell Ṭawīla, Tell Ḥalaf und Wādī Ḥamar Regionale Entwicklungen, Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede, unpublished habilitation. Mörfelden-Walldorf.

Biehl, P. F., Rogasch, J., and Rosenstock, E. (2012) 5. West Mound Trench 5 Excavations 2012, 76-102. Published online: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2012.pdf.

Bradbury, J. (1985) The Medieval Archer. Boydell & Brewer.

Campbell, S. et al.(1999) Emerging Complexity on the Kahramanmaraş Plain, Turkey: The Domuztepe Project, 1995-1997. American Journal of Archaeology 103, 395-418.

Clare L. (2010) Pastoral Clashes: Conflict Risk and Mitigation at the Pottery Neolithic Transition in the Southern Levant. In H G. K. Gebel and G. O. Rollefson (eds) Neo-Lithics 1/10, 13-31. Published online: http://www.exoriente.org/docs/Neo-Lithics_1_2010.pdf.

Cooper, A. (2006) Early Urbanism on the Syrian Euphrates. New York, Routledge.

Elmer, P.R. (1952) Target Archery. London, Hutchinson’s Library of Sports and Pastimes.

Doherty, Ch. (2006) The use of clay at Çatalhöyük. In Çatalhöyük 2006 Archive Report, 298-314. Published online: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2006.pdf.

Deniker, J. (2012) The Races of Man: an outline of anthropology and ethnography. Contemporary science series. Mittal Publications.

European Council (1991) Article 6. Council Directive of 18 June 1991 on Control of the Acquisition and Possession of Weapons (91/477/EEC) [current to 2008 amendments]; Chapter 2. Brussels: Council of the European Communities. 18 June.

European Council (1991) Article 7. Council Directive of 18 June 1991 on Control of the Acquisition and Possession of Weapons (91/477/EEC) [current to 2008 amendments]; Chapter 2. Brussels: Council of the European Communities. 18 June.

Fairservis, W. A. (1956) Excavations in the Quetta Valley, West Pakistan. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Volume 45, Part 2, 169-402. New York.

Franz I. (2010) Pottery Report Trench 5-7. In Çatalhöyük 2010 Archive Report, 77-90. Published online: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2010.pdf

Fukai, S., Horiuchi, K. and Matsutani, T. (eds) (1970) Telul Eth-Thalathat II. The Excavation of the third season (1964). (Tokyo University Iraq-Iran archaeological expedition, report 11). Tokyo, Yamakawa Publishing.

Fukai, S., Horiuchi, K. and Matsutani, T. (eds) (1974) Telul Eth-Thalathat: The excavation of Tell V, the fourth season 1965 ,volume III. (Tokyo University Iraq-Iran archaeological expedition, Report 15).Tokyo, Institute of Oriental Culture, The University of Tokyo.

Fukai, S. and Matsutani, T. (1981) Telul Eth-Thalathat: The excavation of Tell II, the fifth season (1976), volume IV. (Tokyo University Iraq-Iran archaeological expedition, Report 17). Tokyo, Institute of Oriental Culture, The University of Tokyo.

Gaulon, A. (2008) Human Activities and Environment in Halaf Communities as Revealed by Hunting Practices, In H. Kühne, R.M. Czichon, F.J. Kreppner (eds) Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 29 March – 3 April 2004, Freie Universität Berlin, Volume 1, 77–99. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag.

Gaulon, A. (in press) Modelled Clay Balls and Socio-Economic Changes in the late Neolithic: A Preliminary Analysis Of Modelled Clay Balls In Halaf Communities, In Nieuwenhuyse, O.P., Bernbeck, R., Rogasch, J. and Akkermans, P.M.M.G., 62 editors, in press. Interpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia. Turnhout, Brepols (PALMA Series).

Gebel, H. G. K. (2010) Commodification and the formation of Early Neolithic social identity. The issues as seen from the southern Jordanian Highlands. In M. Benz (ed.) The Principle of Sharing. Segregation and Construction of Social Identities at the Transition from Foraging to Farming. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 14, 35-80. Berlin, ex oriente.

Gebel, H. G. K. and Kinzel, M. (2009) Ba‘ja 2007: Crawl Spaces, Rich Room Dumps, and High Energy Events. Results of the 7th Season of Excavations. Neo-Lithics 1/07, 24-33. Published online: http://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/3009/1/Haidar- Boustani%20NL%201-07.pdf.

Gilbert, G. (1926) The Death of Captain James Cook. Paradise of the Pacific Press, Honolulu.

Gschwind, M. (1999) Reflexbogenversteifungen und Schleudergeschosse aus Iciniacum/Theilenhofen, Gunzenhausen, Mediana/Gnotzheim und Ruffenhofen: zur Bewaffnung raetischer Auxiliareinheiten in der mittleren Kaiserzeit. Band 5, Verlag Dr. Faustus, Büchenbach, 157-171.

Hole, F. (1999) Economic Implications of Possible Storage Structures at Tell Ziyadeh, NE Syria. Journal of Field Archaeology 3, Vol. 26, 267-283.

Holland, T. A. (2006) Excavations at Tell es-Sweyhat, Syria. Archaeology of the Bronze Age, Hellenistic, and Roman remains at an ancient town on the Euphrates River, Volume 2. Oriental Institute Publication 125. Chicago, University of Chicago.

Kirkbride, D. (1975) Umm Dabaghiyah 1974, a Fourth Preliminary Report. Iraq 37, 3-10. 71

Kirkbride, D. (1982) Umm Dabaghiyah. In J.E. Curtis (ed.) Fifty Years of Mesopotamian Discovery, 11-21. London, British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

Korfmann, M. (1972) Schleuder und Bogen in Südwestasien: von den frühesten Belegen bis zum Beginn der historischen Stadtstaaten. Bonn, Habelt, 282. Antiquitas. Reihe 3, Abhandlungen zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, zur klassischen und provinzial - römischen Archäologie und zur Geschichte des Altertums; Band 13.

Korfmann, M. (1973) The Sling as a Weapon. Scientific American 229 (4), 35-42.

Leach, W. N. (2003) Alaskan Eskimo and Polynesian Island Population Skeletal Anatomy: The “Pacific Paradox” Revisited through Surface Area to Body Mass Comparisons. MA thesis. The University of Montana, Missoula.

LeBlanc S. A. (2010) Early Neolithic Warfare in the Near East and its Broader Implications. In H G. K. Gebel and G. O. Rollefson (eds) Neo-Lithics 1/10, 40-49. Published online: http://www.exoriente.org/docs/Neo-Lithics_1_2010.pdf.

Luik, H. (2006) For Hunting or for Warfare? Bone Arrowheads from the Late Bronze Age Fortified Settlements in Eastern Baltic, 132-149. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 10, Volume 2.

McEwen, E. (1974) Persian archery texts: chapter eleven of Fakhr-i Mudabbir's Ádáb al- harb (early thirteenth century). Islamic Quarterly 18, 76-99. (References ?)

Mellaart, J. (1966) Excavations at Çatalhöyük, fourth preliminary Report 1965. Anatolian Studies 16, 15-191.

Mellaart, J. (1967) Çatal Höyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. London and New York, Thames & Hudson.

Moore, A. M. T., Hillman, G. C. and Legge, A. J. (2000) Village on the Euphrates: From Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureyra. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Morley, I. and Renfrew, C. (eds) (2010) The Archaeology of Measurement: Comprehending Heaven, Earth and Time in Ancient Societies. Cambridge University Press.

Mortensen, P (1983) Patterns of Interaction between Seasonal Settlements and Early Villages in Mesopotamia. In T. C. Young Jr. et al. (eds) The Hilly Flanks and Beyond – Essays on Prehistory of Southwestern Asia presented to Robert J. Braidwood, 207-230. Chicago, the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Munchaev, R. M., Merpert, N. Y. and Bader, N. O. (1984) Archaeological studies in the Sinjar Valley 1980. Sumer 43, 32 - 53.

Özbal, R. (2010) A Comparative Look at Halaf and Ubaid Period Social Complexity and the Tell Kurdu Case. Tüba-Ar 13, 39-59. Ankara.

Perlès, C. (2003) An Alternate (and old-fashioned) view of Neolithisation in Greece. Documenta Praehistorica 30, 99-113.

Perlès, C (2001) The Early Neolithic in Greece: The First Farming Communities in Europe. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Postgate, J. N. and Thomas, D. C. (2007) (eds) Excavations at Kilise Tepe, 1994-1998: From Bronze Age to Byzantine in Western Cilicia, Volume 1, 620. McDonald Institute/ British Institute at Ankara.

Redman, Ch. L. (1983) Regularity and Change in the Architecture of an Early Village, 189-206. In T. C. Young Jr. et al. (eds) The Hilly Flanks and Beyond – Essays on Prehistory of Southwestern Asia presented to Robert J. Braidwood, 207-230. Chicago, the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Regan, R. (2011) Spaces Sp. 369, Sp. 459, Sp. 474, Sp. 471, Sp. 472, Sp. 473 & B. 100. In Çatalhöyük 2011 Archive Report, 18-21. Published online: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_Report_2011.pdf

Reichel, D. C. (2006) Hamoukar. In G.J. Stein (ed.) The Oriental Institute 2005-2006 Annual Report, 65-76. Chicago, University of Chicago.

Reichel, D. C. (2007) Hamoukar. In G.J. Stein (ed.) The Oriental Institute 2006-2007 Annual Report, 59-68. Chicago, University of Chicago.

Reichel, D. C. (2009) Hamoukar. In G.J. Stein (ed.) The Oriental Institute 2008-2009 Annual Report, 77-87. Chicago, University of Chicago.

Savage, C. (1990) The Sling for Sport & Survival. Breakout Productions Inc.

Seltzer, L. Z. (2008) Golf: The Science & the Art. Tate Publishing.

Shahmirzadi, S. M. (1977) Tepe Zagheh: A Sixth Millenium B.C. Village in the Qazoin Plain of the Central Iranian Plateau. Ph.D. Dissertation. London, Univ. Microfilms Int.

Schmandt-Besserat, D. (1977) The Beginnings of the Use of Clay in Turkey. Anatolian Studies 27, 133-150.

Schmandt-Besserat, D. (1992) Before Writing, From Counting to Cuneiform, Vol. 1. Houston, University of Texas Press.

Spoor, R.H. and Collet, P. (1996) The Other Small Finds. In P.M.M.G. Akkermans (ed.) Tell Sabi Abyad – The Late Neolithic Settlement: Report on the Excavations of the University of Amsterdam (1988) and the National Museum of Antiquities Leiden (1991- 1993) in Syria, 439 - 473. Istanbul and Leiden, Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Instituut.

Stout, M. E. (1977) Clay Sling-Bullets from Tell Sweyhat In T. A. Holland (ed.) Preliminary Report on Excavations at Tell es-Sweyhat, Syria 1975, 36-65. Levant 9, 63-65.

Tsuneki, A. (1998) Other objects. In A. Tsuneki and Y. Miake (eds) Excavations at Tell Umm Qseir in Middle Khabur Valley, North Syria: Report of the 1996 Season, 108-122. Al-Shark 1. University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki.

Verhoeven, M. (1999) An Archaeological Ethnography of a Neolithic Community. Space, Place and Social Relations in the Burnt Village at Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria. Istanbul and Leiden, Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Instituut.

LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1. Shapes of clay sling missiles from Tell Sabi Abyad (after Spoor and Collet 1996, 470). Fig. 2. The range of clay-object shapes at Çatalhöyük (by John Swogger) (after Atalay 2005, 143). Fig. 3. Balls, mini balls and geometric objects from Çatalhöyük (after Atalay 2005, 140, 141). Fig. 4. Tell es-Sweyhat typology of shapes (after Stout 1977, 64). Fig. 5. Morphological table of basic primary shapes of rounded handy-sized objects of clay referred as sling missiles. Fig. 6. Illustration of shapes (after Korfmann 1973, 40). Fig. 7. Sample of ovoid type of sun dried clay balls and clay lumps at Umm Qseir (after Tsuneki 1998, 110). Fig. 8. Balls, pellets, peg/cylinder, cones, pyramid from Tepe Yahya (after Beale 1986, 192). Fig. 9. . Shapes taken from the literature listed in the references (arranged by the names used). Drawings copied from Tell Sabi Abyad (after Spoor and Collet 1996, 470). Drawigs copied from Tell es-Sweyhat (after Stout 1977, 64). Drawings copied from Chogha Bonut (after Alizadeh 2003, 87). Drawings copied from Tell Umm Qseir (after Tsuneki 1998, 110). Drawing copied from Hamoukar (after Reichel 2006, 73). Drawing copied from Çatalhöyük (after Atalay 2005, 140). Drawings copied after Korfmann (1973, 40). Drawings copied after Savage (1999, 58). Dashed drawing visualized from Kilise Tepe (after Postgate and Thomas 2007, 466). Dashed drawings visualized from Tepe Yahya (after Beale 1986, 190). Fig. 10. Stone balls a) Site Q14, Damb Sadaat I. b) Site Q8, Damb Sadaat III. c) Site Q8, surface (after Fairservis 1956, 238). Fig. 11. Examples of residues and fire clouding on whole balls at Çatalhöyük (after Atalay 2005, 142). Fig. 12. Two sling bullets showing impressions of braided material at Tell Hamoukar; date: ca. 3500 BC. (after Reichel 2009, 82). 76

Fig. 13. Synoptic table of sites mentioned in chapter 4. Archaeological Context. Fig. 14. Ex-commodified sling balls dumped in the fills of an ex-commodified house in the Late PPNB settlement of Ba‘ja (Area B-North) (after Gebel 2010, 56). Fig. 15. Room R05 at Tell Kurdu (after Özbal 2010, 59). Fig. 16. Plan of Area A – private residential compound and room R05 at Tell Kurdu (after Özbal 2010, 59). Fig. 17. The artifacts found in situ on the floor from room R05 at Tell Kurdu (after Özbal 2010, 59). Fig. 18. Level 3 architecture on the southeastern mound of Tell Sabi Abyad (late phase) (after Akkermans 1993, 65). Fig. 19. Plan of the Burnt Village at Tell Sabi Abyad (after Akkermans and Verhoeven 1995, 9). Fig. 20. Tholos 137 at Yarim Tepe III (after Munchaev et al. 1984, 33). Fig. 21. The arsenal containing over 1,000 clay sling missiles at Umm Dabaghiyah (after Kirkbride 1982, 21). Fig. 22. Clay balls and objects in the South Area at Çatalhöyük (after Atalay 2005, 150). Fig. 23. Çatalhöyük photo example of context. Pile of hundreds of clay balls in the eastern corner of Space 449 (after Franz 2010, 80). Fig. 24. Under the exposed floor a second clay ball cache was found in Space 449 (after Biehl et al. 2012, 82). Fig. 25. Basin in floor of room, containing sealing clay and row of sling bullets (after Reichel 2007, 59) sic. Fig. 26. Burnt City, Area B, administrative buildings (after Reichel 2007, 61). Fig. 27. A man using a sling (after Watson and LeBlanc 1990, 95). Fig. 28. Clay sling bullets from Sesklo and Elateia and their location near the hearth on a floor at 2.8/2.9 m deep in trench 3 from Elateia (after Weinberg 1962 and Teocharis 1973) (after Perlès 2001, 230). Fig. 29. Arts and crafts of the Cook Islands. A) Slings and sling stones, Rarotonga; C) Sling stone carriers, Rarotonga B) and D) Net food carriers, Aitu (Retrieved from: http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/etexts/BucArts/BucArtsP012a.jpg). Fig. 30. A mi'dan boy makes balls of mud dried in the sun for his sling at al-Hiba in Iraq. (Retrieved from: http://www.laputanlogic.com/articles/2004/04/14-0001.html).

Fig. 31. Illustrated sample of the clay oval-shaped objects from Chogha Bonut, Khuzestan, Iran (after Alizadeh 2003, 87). Fig. 32. Demonstration of comparison between 2 specimens from Chogha Bonut and Tell Hamoukar. Fig. 33. Simulation of the effects of a sling bullet made of wet clay hitting a wall at high velocity (after Reichel 2006, 74). Fig. 34. Hamoukar 4th millennium BC missiles (after Reichel 2006, 73). Fig. 35. Hamoukar typology of shapes (after Reichel 2009, 82). Fig. 36. Ovoid tokens standing for jars of oil, from Girsu, Iraq, ca. 3300 BC. (after Morley and Renfrew 2010, 29). Fig. 37. Possible golf ball flight paths. (Retrieved from: http://www.lifeintherough.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/flightpaths.png). Fig. 38. An example of golf ball following a curve. (Retrieved from: http://img.ehowcdn.com/article-new/ehow/images/a04/l1/2v/hit-draw-800x800.jpg). Fig. 39. A pointed specimen produced by Chamorro people from the Mariana Islands, dated to the Late Period (1000-250 BP) (Retrieved from: http://beachcomberonsaipan.blogspot.cz/2010/02/acho-atupat-koru.html). Fig. 40. Ancient Eskimo fossil walrus ivory bird blunt arrowhead, found on St. Lawrence Island, Alaska by Native Yupik (Retrieved from: http://www.etsy.com/listing/66566741/ancient-eskimo-fossil-walrus-ivory-bird). Fig. 41. Palestinian slinging a rock in ca. 1988, Nablus, West Bank. (Retrieved from: http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/the-first-intifada-in-pictures- intifada1). Fig. 42. Illustration of shapes (after Savage 1999, 58). Fig. 43. Sling balls and clay object (on the right) from Telul eth-Thalathat (after Fukai and Matsutani 1981, Pl. 24, 25). Fig. 44. Sling missiles from Girikihaciyan (after Watson and LeBlanc 1990, 95). Fig. 45. Clay objects from Halaf level at Yarim Tepe III (after Munchaev et al. 1984, 40). Fig. 46. Stone balls from Abu Hureyra (after Moore et al. 2000, 172). Fig. 47. Larger clay balls of diameters 6-10 cm with a damage on one side at Tell Hamoukar (Retrieved from: 16.12.2005 The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/12/16/international/16battle.2.ready.html). Fig. 48. Overview of sites with descriptions of RHOs found there. 78

APPENDIX

Fig. 1. Shapes of clay sling missiles from Tell Sabi Abyad (after Spoor and Collet 1996, 470).

Fig. 2. The range of clay-object shapes at Çatalhöyük (by John Swogger) (after Atalay 2005, 143)

Fig. 3. Balls, mini balls and geometric objects from Çatalhöyük (after Atalay 2005, 140, 141).

Fig. 4. Tell es-Sweyhat typology of shapes (after Stout 1977, 64).

Fig. 6. Illustration of shapes (after Korfmann 1973, 40). c) biconical, sun-dried clay d, e) ovoid, stone

Fig. 7. Sample of ovoid type of sun dried clay balls and clay lumps at Umm Qseir (after Tsuneki 1998, 110).

Fig. 8. Balls, pellets, peg/cylinder, cones, pyramid from Tepe Yahya (after Beale 1986, 192).

Fig. 10. Stone balls a) Site Q14, Damb Sadaat I. b) Site Q8, Damb Sadaat III. c) Site Q8, surface (after Fairservis 1956, 238).

Fig. 11. Examples of residues and fire clouding on whole balls at Çatalhöyük (after Atalay 2005, 142).

Fig. 12. Two sling bullets from Tell Hamoukar showing impressions of braided material; date: ca. 3500 BC (after Reichel 2009, 82).

Fig. 14. Ex-commodified sling balls dumped in the fills of an ex-commodified house in the Late PPNB settlement of Ba‘ja (Area B-North) (after Gebel 2010, 56).

Fig. 17. The artifacts found in situ on the floor from room R05 at Tell Kurdu, the sling pellets are circled (after Özbal 2010, 59).

Fig. 27. A man using a sling (after Watson and LeBlanc 1990, 95).

Fig. 28. Clay sling bullets from Sesklo and Elateia and their location near the hearth on a floor at 2.8/2.9 m deep in trench 3 from Elateia (after Weinberg 1962 and Teocharis 1973) (after Perlès 2001, 230).

Fig. 31. Illustrated sample of the clay oval-shaped objects from Chogha Bonut, Khuzestan, Iran (after Alizadeh 2003, 87).

Fig. 32. Demonstration of comparison between 2 specimens from Chogha Bonut and Tell Hamoukar.

Fig.42 . Illustration of shapes (after Savage 1999, 58). 3) Biconical clay missile 4) Ovoid projectile chipped from stone

Fig. 43. Sling balls (a, b, c) and clay object (d) from Telul eth-Thalathat (after Fukai and Matsutani 1981, Pl. 24, 25).

Fig. 44. Sling missiles from Girikihaciyan (after Watson and LeBlanc 1990, 95).

Fig. 45. Clay objects from Halaf level at Yarim Tepe III (after Munchaev et al. 1984, 40).

Fig. 46. Stone balls from Abu Hureyra (after Moore et al. 2000, 172).

Fig. 47. Larger clay balls of diameters 6-10 cm with a damage on one side at Tell Hamoukar (Retrieved from: 16.12.2005 The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/12/16/international/16battle.2.ready.html).

Name of site Location Datation Designation Çatal Höyük, Turkey Neolithic clay balls (Atalay 2005) Girikihaciyan, (Watson and Turkey Halaf sling missiles LeBlanc 1990) Kilise Tepe (2), (Postgate and Turkey Bronze Age clay ovoids Thomas 2007)

Kilise Tepe, (Postgate and Turkey Bronze Age sling-shots Thomas 2007) Domuztepe 5th millenium (Campbell et al. Turkey BC, Post Halaf sling balls 1999) A

Tell es- Early Bronze Sweyhat(3) Syria Age sling bullets (Holland 1977, Phase 2B 2006) Arjoune (Parr middle of 6th Syria sling stones 2003) mill. BC Bronze Age Hamoukar (2) Hershey's Syria 4th (Reichel 2006) Kisses millennium BC

Bronze Age Hamoukar (3) larger clay Syria 4th (Reichel 2006) balls millennium BC

Bronze Age Hamoukar Syria 4th sling bullets (Reichel 2006) millennium BC

Abu Hureyra I, (Moore et al. Syria Neolithic stone balls 2000) Tell es- Early Bronze Sweyhat(2) Syria Age sling bullets (Holland 1977, Phase 3 2006) Tell es- Early Bronze Sweyhat(4) Syria Age sling bullets (Holland 1977, Phase 2B 2006) Tell Sabi Abyad, (Akkermans, Syria Late Neolithic sling missiles P.M.M.G 1996)

Tell Tawila, (Becker, J. in Syria Halaf sling bullets prep.) Tell Umm Qseir, (Tsuneki and Syria Halaf clay balls Miyake 1998)

Tell es-Sweyhat Early Bronze (Holland 1977, Syria Age sling bullets 2006) Phase 1

Damb Sadaat I., II., Kechi Beg, Pakistan 2380 B.C. stone balls (Fairservis 1956)

Telul eth- Thalathat, Tell Iraq Level XV, XVI sling balls II, (Fukai et al. 1970) Telul eth- Thalathat, Tell Iraq sling ball V, (Fukai et al. 1974) Yarim Tepe III, (Munchaev et Iraq Halaf sling bullets al. 1984) lenticular Tepe Yahya, Early shaped (Lamberg- Iran Chalcolithic, objects or Karlovsky and Yahya VII- V ''sling Beale 1986) missiles'' Tepe Zagheh, (Shahmirzadi, Iran Halaf, Level II sling balls 1977) Name of site Material Surface Number Context Shape Size Weight

Çatal Höyük, burnt houses, roofs, spherical, flattened surface, 1-2 cm clay 3406 58-614 g (Atalay 2005) well-smoothed rubbish dump geometrical 6-8 cm

Girikihaciyan, 4.9 cm length, (Watson and plaster, clay 39 pile, jar ovoids 3.2 cm 50 g LeBlanc 1990) diameter

Kilise Tepe (2), clay, vegetable- smoothed or roughly sausage-like, blunt or roughly (Postgate and tempered, squashed to shape, hole in 40 fill of pit shaped or pointed ends, Thomas 2007) unbaked the middle of fabric fusiform

Kilise Tepe, Di. 3.3-4.0 60.8 (Postgate and stone pebbles smooth, abrasive 3 near spherical Di. 2.8-3.6 36.9 Thomas 2007) Di. 2.5-3.0 28.2

Domuztepe trench with (Campbell et al. clay 13 architectural remains 1999) and other finds

Tell es- Sweyhat(3) stone 4 storage room small (Holland 1977, 2006) Arjoune (Parr stone 2 2003)

burnt, impressions of wall Hamoukar (2) debris, among round base, conical to onion clay plaster, cracks along 200 (Reichel 2006) bullets shape perimeter

Hamoukar (3) 6-10 cm clay damage on one side 130 same area 255-520 g (Reichel 2006) diameter

Hamoukar burnt finger destruction debris of egg-shaped, pointed top on average 3.6 x average clay 1200 (Reichel 2006) impressions buildings smaller side 2.4 cm 25.4 g

Abu Hureyra I, stone, river quite smooth, regular 4 cm or less (Moore et al. 2 large shell near spherical 40-101 g pebbles finish diameter 2000)

Tell es- 36 complete Sweyhat(2) clay 60 large floor of burnt room (Holland 1977, fragments 2006)

Tell es- point-ended ellipsoid, flat- Sweyhat(4) ended ellipsoid, biconical, clay 11 debris of town wall (Holland 1977, elongated biconical, flat on 2006) one or both sides, round

4 types- 3.8 - 4.8 cm Tell Sabi Abyad, 1. Ovoid or biconal circular, oval pits length (Akkermans, clay, stone sun-dried 1756 + 1 2. Flattened cylinder 3. sunk in floor 2.5 - 2.7 cm P.M.M.G 1996) Long-draw,cylindrical 4. diameter Spheroidal

Tell Tawila, 4.3 cm length, (Becker, J. in clay unbaked 9 egg-shaped, ovoid 2.5 cm 25 g prep.) diameter

Tell Umm Qseir, average: 4.4 sun-dried, baked by average (Tsuneki and clay 34 pits ovoid, pointed at both ends cm length, 3.0 accident 33 g Miyake 1998) cm wide

Tell es-Sweyhat inside large cooking (Holland 1977, stone 1 pot 2006)

Damb Sadaat I., basalt, some polish, II., Kechi Beg, sandstone, 4 -7.5 cm battered condition (Fairservis 1956) limestone

average length: Telul eth- 3.1-4.6 cm, Thalathat, Tell II, blackish-hard surface, fine clay, grains 20 average (Fukai et al. smooth diameter: 1.9- 1970) 2.7 cm Telul eth- Thalathat, Tell V, amply straw- outside granary, 4 - 5.3 cm baked 4 rugby ball (Fukai et al. tempered clay surface stratum length 1974) Yarim Tepe III, (Munchaev et al. clay unburnt cca 1000 filling of tholos egg-shaped 1984) Tepe Yahya, 3.3 cm length, (Lamberg- clay lightly fired 1 ashy fill lenticular 2.8 cm Karlovsky and diameter Beale 1986) 3.8-5.5 cm Tepe Zagheh, clay, deposits of Levels, diameter, (Shahmirzadi, no tempering sun-dried, formed by hand 21 egg-shaped structural remains 2.2-3.4 cm 1977) agents diameter