Clans, Gods and Temples at the LPPNB ‘Ayn Ghazal1

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 (2010) 301-312. Berlin, ex oriente. Clans, gods and temples at the LPPNB ‘Ayn Ghazal1 Zeidan A. Kafafi "The Canaanites known to the writers of the biblical texts can be seen to be the same people who settled in farming villages in the eighth millennium BC." (Tubb 1998:13-14). Abstract: The archaeological excavations conducted at the site of ‘Ayn Ghazal revealed several types of architecture identified as ritual buildings (including "temples") dated back to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. The excavators noted that those built in the western part of the site were curvilinear in plan while those constructed in the eastern part were rectangular. From these facts arise three questions: . Why did the prehistoric inhabitants of ‘Ayn Ghazal build several ritual constructions? . Why were these constructions built so near to each other? . Did these ritual buildings belong to several distinct social groups that lived side by side at ‘Ayn Ghazal? These questions are considered in the context of a parallel study of the Canaanite pantheon and of the construction, methods, and plans of the identified LPPNB ritual buildings at ‘Ayn Ghazal. This approach may help us understand the social and economic structure at the site during the LPPNB. Zusammenfassung: Bei den Ausgrabungen von ‘Ayn Ghazal kamen verschiedene Bautypen zu tage, die als rituelle Gebäude (inclusive “Tempel”) interpretiert wurden und ins Pre- Pottery Neolithic B datieren. Die Ausgräber konnten beobachten, dass die Gebäude im westlichen Bereich der Siedlung einen runden Grundriss hatten, während diejenigen im östlichen Teil einen rechteckigen Grundriss besaßen. Mehrere Fragen drängen sich daher auf: . Warum erbauten die prähistorischen Bewohner von ‘Ayn Ghazal mehrere rituelle Gebäude? . Warum wurden diese in so geringem Abstand zueinander erbaut? . Gehörten diese Ritualgebäude zu mehreren unterschiedlichen sozialen Gruppen, die Seite an Seite in ‘Ayn Ghazal lebten? Um diese Fragen zu diskutieren, werden in einem Vergleich das kanaanitische Pantheon sowie die Konstruktionsmethoden und Pläne der spät PPNB-zeitlichen Ritualgebäude von ‘Ayn Ghazal vorgestellt. Eine derartige Untersuchung könnte helfen, die sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Strukturen dieses Fundortes während des späten PPNB zu verstehen. Introduction Neolithic culture represents a grand advance not only in economy and social structure, but also in the minds of men. However, it still was a world very different from that of modern times: though there is no doubt that people then did many of the same things we do today – they were born, they labored, they worshipped, and they died and their bodies became the focus of ritual attention – they did them in a different manner. 1 The ‘Ayn Ghazal Excavations is a joint project co-directed by Gary Rollefson of Willamate University, USA, and Zeidan Kafafi of Yarmouk University, Jordan. Alan Simmons served as a co-director for the project from 1983 to 1989. 301 Clans, gods and temples Kafafi During the Neolithic period agriculture and animal husbandry were the main means of livelihood. But the process of dry cultivation is not only connected with human activities, it is dependent upon nature. This means that if the crops receive abundant rain, then the harvest will be abundant. Thus during the Neolithic period, people were necessarily closer to nature. Moreover, at the beginning of the Neolithic Period of Southwest Asia significant changes occurred in architecture. T. Watkins (2006:15) wrote that "significant cognitive and cultural developments enabled people to develop new frameworks of symbolic representation that were worked out in concrete terms in buildings, their fittings, their use, and the planning of settlements". At the beginning of the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, the highland of Jordan experienced a sudden population explosion that prompted drastic social changes in the organization of the communities. During this period the villages became the dwelling places for different groups of people and a sociopolitical realignment developed rapidly (Kafafi 2004; Rollefson, Kafafi 2007:216). It has been postulated by scholars that the LPPNB witnessed the appearance of extended family structures. This inference is based upon the change of the dominant house plan from one single room during the earlier periods to a house of several rooms during the LPPNB. This may indicate the establishment of lineages or clans. As a result, though family-oriented rituals continued, a shift towards community celebrations practiced in special buildings began. For this purpose, non- domestic buildings were constructed which have been called temples by their excavators (Kafafi, Rollefson 1994; Rollefson 1997, 2005). The archaeological excavations conducted at the Neolithic site of ‘Ayn Ghazal revealed several types of architecture which have been identified as ritual buildings, including "temples". Those built on the western side of the site were curvilinear in plan, while those constructed on the eastern part were rectangular. This fact prompts several questions: . Why did the prehistoric inhabitants of ‘Ayn Ghazal build several ritual constructions? . Why were these constructions built so near to each other? . Did these ritual buildings belong to several distinct social groups that lived side by side at ‘Ayn Ghazal? In this paper we engage in a discussion begun by G. Rollefson (1983, 1986, 1998, 2000), and continued most recently by D. Schmandt-Bessarat (forthcoming) and G. Avni (2007). We present new ideas about this problem, bearing in mind that answers to the above three questions will not be simple and straightforward. However, we wish to point out that the complex and interlinked social pacts that all Neolithic farming societies must have had, were formed by specific processes. Although we do have some indications of what these social processes were, the interpretation of the Neolithic mind, and of Neolithic religion and cults, remains a difficult task for archaeologists. For a better understanding of the religious concepts of the people living at ‘Ayn Ghazal, we would like to suggest a comparison with the historical Canaanites. With the development of writing during the second half of the fourth millennium BC in Mesopotamia and Egypt, a large amount of detailed information was recorded that is available to modern-day scholars who wish to reconstruct and interpret the practices and beliefs of early religion. Moreover, the tablets of Ugarit, dated to the 14th century BC, provide us with information concerning the Ugaritic religion, mainly its myths and rituals. We assume that a study of the Canaanite pantheon might help us in interpreting and understanding what was going on in the mind of the inhabitants of ‘Ayn Ghazal during the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. This method is in a way different from that which has been used before, which interprets the archaeological data within an anthropological model of ritual. The anthropological approach finds connections between human behaviors and ritual practices or actions (Kuijt 2002), whereas our approach tries to explain the different styles of the LPPNB temples by studying the religions and ritual 302 Kafafi Clans, gods and temples practices of the historical periods. This approach has also been used by other scholars (Schmandt-Bessarat 1998, 2002). The terms ritual and religion Previous archaeological approaches to religion have often been branded as remarkably naïve, and such studies are frequently thought of as a relatively simplistic area of investigation (Insoll 2004:1). Thus the archaeology of religion, especially that of the prehistoric periods, has been neglected compared to the large number of studies discussing the social and economic aspects of this era. It has only been during the past two decades that several studies examining rituals and religion during the Neolithic Period have been published (Cauvin 1997; Kuijt 2000; Gebel et al. 2002). In the present study we do not intend to repeat what has already been published concerning the theories and methodologies of studying ritual in prehistoric archaeology (Verhoeven 2002), but will only investigate why the Neolithic inhabitants of the site ‘Ayn Ghazal built different types of ritual structures that were possibly "temples". First, rituals should be described as acts which are an element of a religion (Cauvin 1997). For example, in Ancient Mesopotamia religious rituals often involved the performance of songs or music accompanied by a number of symbolic acts (Garfinkel 2003). The written sources inform us that offerings to the gods were a means of purifying people from their sins. Two reliefs of Tukulti-Ninurta I found at Ashur and shown on the fronts of so-called symbol pedestals illustrate a worshipper in front of the symbol of god, a standing stone (Moortgat 1969:Fig. 246). Was this the same case during the LPPNB at ‘Ayn Ghazal? At Ugarit several tablets describe brief rituals, mostly concerning the king and listing sacrifices (Quaegerbeur 1993; Fleming 1997). The term "religion" has a very broad range of meaning, but centers on the belief in one or more superpowers known as "gods" who are entitled to obedience and worship (Bienkowski, Millard 2000:240; Christensen this volume). Nevertheless, it is out of the scope of this paper to discuss different definitions of religion. The

Load more