∗ eevd oebr20;Acpe:3 eebr20;Rvsd 1Fbur 2010 February 11 Revised: 2009; December 31 Accepted: 2009; November 2 Received: eoetebgnigo giutr.Ti e omo oillf mle httecognitive the that implies see life social we of of ago, form faculties new cultural years This and communities settlement agriculture. 000 co-residential of their permanently beginning transform a 23 large, the to was before develop begin about not and It Asia from different: strategies south-west change. subsistence of is Already of and parts imperative in cognitive. agent hunter-gatherers the and pivotal of Today groups the cultural scholars. hunting as many but from cultivation switch by economic to the followed gathering saw subsequently revolution from model and a herding of to notion famous Childe’s Gordon Introduction Watkins Trevor Asia in south-west revolution Neolithic on light New hneadevrnetldscain oetBadodakd‘h hn h not Why then? ‘Why asked Braidwood Robert desiccation, environmental social and of change instrument essential an monumentality, or storage, complexity. symbolic external through ouetlt,agriculture monumentality, Keywords: ANTIQUITY aigrjce hlesmdlo amn sa dpainncsiae yclimate by necessitated adaptation an as farming of model Childe’s rejected Having dnug H L,U Eal [email protected]) (Email: UK 1LT, EH1 Edinburgh colo itr,Casc n rhelg,Uiest fEibrh h l ihSho,Ifimr Street, Infirmary School, High Old The Edinburgh, of University Archaeology, and Classics , of School 4(00:6164http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/084/ant0840621.htm 621–634 (2010): 84 ot-etAi,Noihcrvlto,Gro hle spirituality, Childe, Gordon revolution, Neolithic Asia, south-west ∗ oosapiens a eoecpbeo aaigclua systems cultural managing of capable become had 621 ob e yfarming. by fed needed be to later only form which settlements to old: extensive communities, the the permanent in of large, together first reversal a came a to people is vision It modern audience. summarised wide the lectures, announced These ideas here, Childe’s today’s. Neolithic bringing comparing the with and 2009, about thoughts revolution, for his a Lectures together gave Rhind from author of the the Edinburgh, Department retirement at the Archaeology in his career distinguished after Shortly

Research New light on in south-west Asia

Table 1. Periods as referred to in the text, with approximate dates. Periods Approximate dates in absolute years ago Cultural labels in the Levant

Upper Palaeolithic 45 000–25 000 BC Early Epipalaeolithic 23 000–15 000 BC Kerbaran Middle Epipalaeolithic 15 000–13 000 BC Geometric Kebaran Late Epipalaeolithic 13 000–10 200 BC Natufian Early aceramic Neolithic 10 200–8800 BC PPNA (= Pre- Neolithic A) Late aceramic Neolithic 8800–6900 BC Early, Middle, Late & Final PPNB earlier?’ That question has mostly been overlooked, but it applies to the emergence of new, permanent communities as much as to the adoption of farming practices. Braidwood’s prescient hunch was that perhaps culture was not ready (Braidwood & Willey 1962: 332). The answer I propose is: (1) only at a certain point in human cognitive evolution did it become possible for Homo sapiens to transcend certain biological limitations of the human brain by cultural means; and (2) this increased mental facility was made necessary by the reliance on larger and more cohesive social groups, itself a product of hominin evolution. This long story, covering the 16 millennia of the Epipalaeolithic and early Neolithic periods in south-west Asia (23 000–7000 BC; see Table 1) can be told briefly in three parts. The first concerns the transformation in subsistence strategies as small-scale, mobile, hunter-gatherer bands became large, permanently co-resident communities. The second part focuses on those large, permanent communities, their extraordinary architecture and the associated symbolic representations and practices. The third part sets those processes in the wider context of long-term population growth and the cognitive, cultural and social evolution of Homo sapiens.

Hunting, harvesting and The early Epipalaeolithic site of Ohalo II (Figure 1) is remarkable for its early date (around 25 000 BP, in the heart of the ) and the conditions of organic preservation (Nadel & Hershkovitz 1991; Weiss et al. 2004). Many of the characteristics that have generally been thought to be typical of the late Epipalaeolithic of the southern Levant are present from the very start of the period, more than ten millennia earlier. Ohalo II was a structured settlement that extended over at least 2300m2 area. It consists of a cluster of brush whose interiors show signs of repeated cleaning out and renewal. Refuse and waste were dumped to the east of the huts; as well as a small, central in each , there were extensive open-hearth areas, perhaps for communal . One burial has been found among the huts, that of an adult male. The subsequent submergence of the site led to extraordinary preservation of organic remains. To date, 142 botanical taxa have been registered, and more than 19 000 grass seeds, including wild wheat and , have been identified. Heavy equipment is found at the site, and traces of starch were found on the working surface of one stone that was examined; it was found carefully set into the floor of Hut 1 (Weiss et al. 2008). The

622 n fteEiaaoihcpro,pol eemc oefcsdo h eel and cereals the on focused more other much the At were cereals. people some as period, well Epipalaeolithic as the grasses, small-seeded of of end range surprising a gathered II much are predation. they human quickly; of reproduce they face but the catch, in small to resilient and effort more Birds density. and predator skill human more of require barometer mammals sensitive a constitute they thus catch; hrl;a otie eoesalradrrr id n ml aml,priual fox decline particularly mammals, size small their and birds, and (Stiner birds Upper rarer, of increase tortoise the and numbers hare, of smaller From and compensation, become numbers 2005). in tortoises the (Davis and, as Epipalaeolithic sharply sharply; – increased the gazelle amphibians through the immature and were Palaeolithic for Davis gazelle fish and Simon the of Neolithic, mammals, hunters more early and small for more the news spectra; of faunal bad beginning the in – the shift and rapid more Epipalaeolithic gazelle. a the on noted Epipalaeolithic concentration of the increasing end and in ungulates the followed remaining Palaeolithic, At the Upper of the reduction in steady charted the species have by ungulate Archaeozoologists strategy. large subsistence of loss in the changes required also the that but tortoise. are factors deer, some other remains fallow and faunal and fish of The gazelle lots out. of birds, year plenty round, of in species year – many year all strategy hare, residence site broad-spectrum fox, in the the been using of have were profile not people months. classic several that may for show they summer data if early faunal even from and there floral certainly combined were The people that imply seeds stored text. the in mentioned places the showing Map 1. Figure ntrso ln od,a h einn fteEiaaoihctehretr tOhalo at harvesters the Epipalaeolithic the of beginning the at foods, plant of terms In htvrtecagsaotdi osqec famv osoe avss hr were there harvests, stored to move a of consequence in adopted changes the Whatever tal et 00.Trossaebt lwt erdc n ayto easy and reproduce to slow both are Tortoises 2000). . rvrWatkins Trevor 623

Research New light on Neolithic revolution in south-west Asia large-seeded pulses such as lentils. The view of botanists seems to have swung away from the idea of a rapid process of of cereals, towards a long period of ‘pre- domestication agriculture’, that is, cultivation before the recognisable traits of the domesticated species were manifested. George Willcox and his colleagues have shown us the process towards domestication in progress over about 1500 years from the late Epipalaeolithic (Willcox et al. 2008). Another recent study proposes that cultivation may have begun as early as the middle Epipalaeolithic (Allaby et al. 2008). The earliest morphologically domesticated crops are found around the boundary between the early and later aceramic Neolithic (Colledge 2002; Willcox et al. 2008). The first evidence of domesticated flocks of sheep and goat, and cattle and pig have been found at sites across north Syria and south-east Turkey, only shortly after the first fully domesticated cereals appeared. Settlement strategies changed as reliance on the storage of harvested crops increased. Groups tended towards sedentism, and, as permanent settlements developed, community size grew. There are three points to note. First, the steady changes in settlement strategy and faunal spectra through the Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic periods as outlined above are unrelated to the switchback of climatic change from the start of the Upper Palaeolithic, through the Last Glacial Maximum, the oscillations of the recovery, the sudden Younger Dryas and the early climatic optimum. Second, in an eco-systems approach, the pressures on available hunted prey-species might have been expected to encourage a stabilisation, or even a reduction, in human population. However, what we see is population growth overall, an increase in community size and permanence of residence. We may conclude that the ‘normal’ forces that should have ensured that human population density stayed within limits were no longer operating. It seems that social and cultural imperatives over-rode the simple economic cost argument: people placed a higher value on living together, and bore the costs. Simple population growth strained available resources, especially large herd ungulates, and required adaptations that involved greater investment of labour and for hunting, trapping, fishing, harvesting and food processing. Large, permanently co-resident communities, dependent on the resources immediately accessible from their settlements, only magnified those requirements for adaptation and increased investment. Third, once the suite of fully domesticated crops and herded animals had come into use, some of the basic parameters of the story changed. Although a greater investment of labour was required, and there was greater risk in dependence on a narrow spectrum of crops and herds, the productivity of the land around the settlement was increased, and even children could contribute to the economy. In the late aceramic Neolithic and beyond, we see further acceleration in population growth, rapidly expanding community sizes, and, soon, the colonisation of new territories by farming communities. The more productive economy allowed the exploitation of extensive new territories, and it was portable: farming complemented rather than prompted the advent of permanent communities.

Settlements and the building of social space It is generally thought that communities became larger and more sedentary than the typical mobile hunter-gatherer band only in the final Epipalaeolithic Natufian. But there are

624 ucsino he pca ups ulig,o hc h otsetclri h so-called the is spectacular most the which of buildings, purpose special three of succession ucin na pnae ttecnr ftestlmn fC of in settlement domestic the not of centre were the and community, at area the open to an central In were function. that buildings is, that buildings, sometimes plaster, 1988). Banning lime & thick (Byrd similarly with burnished were re-faced and Levant expensively, red, southern coloured and repeatedly, the were of and pier-houses stylised, so-called The 1990). (Schirmer Turkey ossto nsyie n vnmnmna om o xml,a C at example, for form, monumental even and stylised on in took settlement houses Epipalaeolithic late a Epipalaeolithic 27, 2004). late Hammeh debris Edwards of Wadi at & kinds (Hardy-Smith at many Jordan as of parts) deposition symbolism, body careful the human elaborate in or (including with 2008), (Valla Finlayson surrounded northern (Bill in be Jordan Mallaha could southern and in settlement 1990), site (Watkins a settlement Iraq Neolithic Mithen northern Steven aceramic in and early Dere an Qermez WF16, Neolithic at aceramic early farming II, late mixed Ohalo from the come before have sites, years 20 settlement standard. last Neolithic became the aceramic economy of of aside Some early discoveries set 1960). and surprising to (Braidwood Epipalaeolithic autonomous and effort introduced of spectacular deliberate Braidwood clusters a most Robert make the small that to simply tag need not ‘village-farming’ we the were households; thousands, farming cases or hunter-harvester some in and early of hundreds, the size with increasing settlements. contrast population, of in increasing occupation sites permanent of increasingly Neolithic evidence and aceramic have units, we later population sum, of same In number the Neolithic. and greater Epipalaeolithic; aceramic sites the earlier known the for of for number true than the greater is much that is observe Epipalaeolithic compartmentalisation also later and may the We scale of the increasing 2000b). of charted the density (Kuijt and the buildings has in 8), domestic increase Kuijt of the of factor Ian 10), a of data) (by factor a sufficient them (by within is sites buildings settlement there of size where average Asia the in south-west increase of part are only occupations (the camp small, late and the settlements, regions. open semi-arid especially stratified marginal, Levant, some are in except know the that uncommon, we in almost thinking that period, period sites Neolithic for aceramic Epipalaeolithic the case early all the the good In of settlements. a permanent sites were is Epipalaeolithic, open There large, cemeteries. these veritable of forming occasion burials, on intramural accommodated also settlements some structures; semi-subterranean built, that culture burials. structures, material intramural stone-built some Epipalaeolithic have rich have the activities, or of have of range full middle depth, the the and stratigraphic residence to long-term significant date indicates that a extent) accumulated in that 2.3ha to period, (up sites large of examples tsvrlstlmnsi ot-atTre n ot yi,teeeitdcommunal existed there Syria, north and Turkey south-east in settlements several At nsm at fsuhws sai h ae crmcNoihcpro 80–50BC), (8500–6500 period Neolithic aceramic later the in Asia south-west of parts some In Epipalaeolithic early at as layout, communal structured, a demonstrate may Settlements many numbered have must inhabitants whose settlements, these that recognise should We Levant southern the of Neolithic aceramic the through Epipalaeolithic the of end the From stone- substantial, of consisting settlements long-lived some were there Natufian, the In es comm pers. ) h ein uligadmitnneo osswithin houses of maintenance and building design, The .). rvrWatkins Trevor 625 ¸ay on ¨ ,teecvtr on a found excavators the u, ¨ ¸ay on ¨ nsouth-east in u ¨

Research New light on Neolithic revolution in south-west Asia

Figure 2. Jerf el Ahmar, an early aceramic Neolithic settlement in north Syria. The earliest of three successive, subterranean ‘community buildings’, which the excavator suggests was used both as a and for ceremonies. At the end of its use-life, a headless corpse was placed in the centre of the floor, the posts and roof were burnt, and the cavity was filled in.

skull building (Ozdo¨ gan˘ 1999). At Jerf el Ahmar, an early aceramic Neolithic settlement on the Euphrates in north Syria, there was a succession of circular, subterranean buildings that were monumental in scale, up to 9m in diameter and 3m deep (Figure 2; Stordeur et al. 2000). At Dja’de, a settlement dating to the middle of the aceramic Neolithic period a little further down the Euphrates, another circular, subterranean structure with massive internal buttresses is emerging (Figure 3; Coqueugniot 2000). There are two sites, Gobekli¨ Tepe (Schmidt 2006), near Urfa in south-east Turkey, and Kfar HaHoresh in Israel (Goring-Morris 2000), which might appear to be settlements, but on investigation seem to be otherwise. Gobekli¨ Tepe is an artificially mounded site on a bare limestone ridge with extraordinary, panoramic views. It is several hundred metres in diameter and the stratigraphy is many metres thick. It appears that people piled up thousands of tons of debris, consisting of stone chips, soil and occupation debris including carbonised plant remains, animal bone and chipped stone tools and ,´ in order that they could then create huge cavities 10–30m in diameter and at least 3m deep. The sides of the subterranean structures were retained by stone walls; around the foot of the walls a stone-slabbed bench was built, interrupted at regular intervals by radially set T-shaped slabs. In the centre of each circle stand a pair of larger monoliths (Figures 4 & 5; also see frontispiece to this issue). All are T-shaped slabs with creatures carved in raised relief – wild bulls, boars, foxes, cranes, snakes, spiders and scorpions. In the largest structure so far investigated, the central monoliths stand 5.5m tall. What is particularly striking is the

626 eih,i h 90,itoue st h eoiino eahdsul,epcal those especially skulls, detached of deposition the to the us introduced as 1950s, much the as in , ceremonies for the selected were for few important a deceased. were the why for dead know were not ceremonies the do perhaps We unceremoniously burial; 2000). bodies found (Rollefson intramural excavators pits the rubbish burials, Jordan, into intramural in half thrown Ghazal ceremonial ‘Ain a the At about 2006). as only (Hodder that well burial estimate as of intramural excavators accorded number the was greatest, the population is is the houses site of to no burials At of C ratio at floors. the even the living population; under where adult the houses, the below for the account substructure to among the sufficient burials in burials or human houses, of of incorporation floors the is too) Epipalaeolithic, where place n esigdbi,wr eoie ncmlctdsqecso cin Grn-ors& (Goring-Morris remains, actions animal of and sequences Goring-Morris human complicated 2007; which in Horwitz in deposited were hollows were there and debris, that pits sure feasting cap are and excavators floors the plastered but The wall, houses. low no of lengths and surfaces floor-like plaster alongside. another creating and filling monoliths, structure of old reworking one and in moving structures, abstract circular the polychrome of painted refashioning continual a with covered is plaster circular mud subterranean, The a on buttresses. progress internal in Excavation large Syria. design. three north (probably) in settlement with BC building, eighth-millennium early Dja’de, 3. Figure ahenKno’ xaain ntepepteyNoihcsrt tTl sSla,ancient es-Sultan, Tell at strata Neolithic pre-pottery the in excavations Kenyon’s Kathleen the of some (and Neolithic early the of settlements most to common A tKa aoeh hr spet focpto ers n hr r etnua lime- rectangular are there and debris, occupation of plenty is there HaHoresh, Kfar At teda aeteronsettlement’. own their have dead ‘the tal et 08.NglGrn-orshsdsrbdtest sa as site the described has Goring-Morris Nigel 2008). . rvrWatkins Trevor 627 atalh ¸ oy ¨ ki eta Anatolia, central in uk ¨

Research New light on Neolithic revolution in south-west Asia

Figure 4. Gobekli¨ Tepe, near Urfa, south-east Turkey, showing one of the large, circular, subterranean structures (Structure D) under excavation. A series of monoliths is set in a paved bench whose surface has just been reached. The pair of central monoliths stand 5m tall. with modelled facial features. As well as the positive evidence of the recovered and curated skulls, there were the bodies that had been buried in shallow pits among the houses, and from which the skulls were absent. There is now a list of sites in the Levant that have produced modelled skulls (reviewed recently in Stordeur & Khawam 2007). Variants of the practice of recovering, curating, modelling and caching or redepositing skulls have been evidenced across south-east Turkey and northern Iraq, and at later Neolithic settlements in central Anatolia. Ian Kuijt has drawn attention to the cycles of ceremony that lie behind the burials and skulls found in settlements in the southern Levant (Kuijt 2000a, 2008). The first cycle took place over the hours or days following a death. A second cycle followed months or years later, when a grave was opened in order to retrieve the skull. After a period of accumulation and curation, in a third cycle, groups of skulls were finally committed to the ground, often beneath the floors of the living settlement. Archaeologists have tried to group these practices of burial, with the later retrieval and curation of the skull, in a straitjacket concept called ‘skull cult’. Recent excavations have forcefully demonstrated that each community followed some very general principles that seem to be common over a wide area, but interpreted them and put them into practice using their own way of doing things. Usually, bodies are found buried in a contracted position in a shallow oval pit, but at Tell Halula, uniquely, bodies were buried in narrow cylindrical pits, having been wrapped in cloth bindings seated with knees drawn up; the burials were

628 aho h uilaeswsiiitdwt h eoiino ltho ua kls otof most skulls, human of clutch a of deposition the burials. with for initiated designated was were areas settlement burial the the earthen of of edge Each small practices the centuries, under at several hollows concealed after wide But or and 2009). abruptly, houses, Khawam changed & of (Stordeur walls floor house outside the on the mounds against and inside both level iue5 G 5. Figure lsee nte‘rn’pr ftelvn om ls otedowy n hi locations their and doorway, the to (Guerrero close floors room, plaster the living in the ‘plugs’ by of marked part were ‘front’ the in clustered AtTellAswad,nearDamascus,bodieswerenotplacedinpits,butwerelaidatground bkiTp,Pla 2.Teflytredmninlcrigo h nmli ofruiu ttesite. the at unique far so is animal the of carving three-dimensional fully The P27. Pillar Tepe, obekli ¨ rvrWatkins Trevor 629 tal. et 2009).

Research New light on Neolithic revolution in south-west Asia

Figure 6. Tell Aswad, late eighth-millennium BC settlement in southern Syria. A large hollow has been ‘dedicated’ for use as a burial place by the deposition of a cluster of human skulls. The facial features are modelled in clay and coloured; some have a black line (eye-lashes) across the closed eyelids. them with delicately modelled facial features (Figure 6; Stordeur & Khawam 2006, 2007). Following the inauguration of the mortuary area, a variety of burials took place, some primary, others secondary, some single, others multiple. What we are seeing, I believe, is an example of what Richard Wilk has called ‘common difference’. Wilk was referring to a practice or an idea that has been shared, but which is worked out differently within the cultural context and circumstances of particular communities (Wilk 2004, with thanks to Ian Kuijt (2008) for bringing the idea to my notice).

Building super-networks What I have pointed to are some of the great efforts of labour and imagination that were required to build (literally) and maintain these earliest large, permanently co-resident communities. It is easy for us, who were born and brought up in modern communities, to underestimate how we formed our sense of community and belonging (though it is becoming a matter for confused and tortured debate, at least within Britain). The anthropologist Anthony Cohen has given us a slim and elegant text on the symbolic construction of community (Cohen 1985). This is a bottom-up view of how individuals use all sorts of abstract ideas, practices and things of symbolic value in the recognition of their community

630 w ude niiul.Fra es afo t existence its of half or least one at around For numbered individuals. still hundred networks of those two maintenance But the 1999). in 1998, exchanges (Gamble long-distance networks in extended flint high-quality and shells marine as such h yblcchso ftenw ag,praetyc-eietcommunities. co-resident permanently large, new, cannot the that of mind cohesion individual symbolic the the in states attained’ up be set otherwise they function: that engineering example, or cognitive for language important us, written tells of Donald terms in culture. symbolic whether material ‘external 2001), symbolic with of 1991, (Donald systems Along persuasive of correlates. entirely description Donald’s is material storage’ Merlin symbolic that believe need I they marriage, (1998), or But Renfrew money 1995). as social such (Searle and the abstracts, facts’ neighbourhood these as called ‘institutional household, shared has of be Searle concepts John to abstract philosopher needed The the memory. practices of and signs artefacts visible symbolising and outward of kinds various persons, of communities. co-resident maintenance and cultural permanently formation new large, the importance, entirely of these and an originality see constituting its can in scale, matches we in that Neolithic, expanding phenomenon aceramic and intensity early in the growing through networks Epipalaeolithic later the the 1986), among from (Renfrew networks time, spheres with interaction polity (within framed are peer local was of principles intramural notion which networks, Renfrew’s The to as nested supra-regional. similar of ways such and some regional evidence behaviour, in communities), are symbolic local These and among curation. symbols communities, and of retrieval and sharing skull malachite the burial, understood basalt, be with black should levels association greenstone, supra-regional and in shells, regional local, marine at communities (, among more) materials Asia and south-west goods of of parts in Neolithic the of 2006). beginning 2005, 2004, and Watkins Epipalaeolithic (cf. architecture the systems monumental of around whole and only end begins form above, of the described major settlement as construction ceremonies, a of accommodating and represents The form images Palaeolithic with faculty. the marked Upper in cultural the representation, and of symbolic art skill of The cognitive ago. with in years carving 000 development and 100 painting before and shells ochre marine red symbolic pierced of wearing systems other were and Humans language representation. modern full evolving symbols, sharing signs, making uoei ifrn rmteMdl Palaeolithic: Middle the from have different humans is modern that clear is limit. that it circumvent individuals; to ways the 120–150 found that around conclude to relations They individuals social 1998). of among 1997, complexity Dunbar and scale 1993; of the Dunbar brain to & primates (Aiello among hominins brain among the as of such cortex categories and size by organisation social of analysis chiefdom. top-down or tribe a band, than rather others, with nodrt ul n uti omnte fmn udeso vnsvrlthousands several even or hundreds many of communities sustain and build to order In exchange the that 2008) (Watkins argued recently have I further. go should we But lv abeue oilntokaayi oepoehwteUprPlelti in Palaeolithic Upper the how explore to analysis network social used Gamble Clive group between relationship the from extrapolated have Dunbar Robin and Aiello Lesley oosapiens Homo Dnl 98 5.Teewr h e aaiista aepossible made that capacities new the were These 15). 1998: (Donald hoeial iisoraiiyt epmna oto fterelations the of control mental keep to ability our limits theoretically rvrWatkins Trevor 631 ltsi erysaemdls nmn.Over mind. in modules’ state ‘early in elites ´ oosapiens Homo oosapiens Homo Teeeaoaedvcssrean serve devices elaborate ‘These a eu ouematerials use to begun had a eneggdin engaged been has

Research New light on Neolithic revolution in south-west Asia

With these new cognitive and cultural faculties, people began to construct and inhabit dramatic built environments. Within these rich cultural environments, they could maintain social memory through ‘commemorative ceremonies’ and ‘bodily acts’ (Connerton 1989), in domestic rituals, in community buildings, in ceremonies with the bodies and heads of the dead, affirming a communal identity of place. These were the first ‘imagined communities’, but, unlike modern nations, they could be formed and maintained without social hierarchies of power.

Conclusion Braidwood’s hunch that the revolution could not have happened earlier because ‘culture was not ready’ was right. When it came, cognitive and cultural revolution made possible the symbolic construction of the first, large, permanent communities; this unleashed population growth that led in turn to the adoption of farming practices. From that alliance came the rapid spread of the new imagined societies, fed by mixed farming economies; and following that came the emergence of ascribed status, social hierarchies and inequalities of power. But those are other stories.

References CONNERTON, P. 1989. How societies remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. AIELLO,L.&R.DUNBAR. 1993. Neocortex size, group COQUEUGNIOT, E. 2000. Dja’de, Syrie: un village ala` size and the evolution of language. Current e Anthropology 36: 184–93. veille de la domestication (seconde moitieduIX´ millenaire´ av. J.-C.), in J. Guilaine (ed.) Premiers ALLABY, R.G., D.Q. FULLER & T.A. BROWN. 2008. The paysans du monde: naissances des agricultures: 63–79. genetic expectations of a protracted model for the Paris: Errance. origins of domesticated crops. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of DAVIS, S.J.M. 2005. Why domesticate food animals? America 105(37): 13982–6. Some zoo-archaeological evidence from the Levant. Journal of Archaeological Science 32(9): 1408–16. BRAIDWOOD, R.J. 1960. The agricultural revolution. Scientific American 203: 130–41. DONALD, M. 1991. Origins of the modern mind: three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. BRAIDWOOD,R.J.&G.R.WILLEY. 1962. Conclusions Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. and afterthoughts, in G.R. Willey & R.J. Braidwood (ed.) Courses towards urban life: – 1998. Hominid enculturation and cognitive archaeological considerations of some cultural evolution, in C. Renfrew & C. Scarre (ed.) alternatives: 330–59. Chicago (IL): Aldine. Cognition and material culture: the archaeology of symbolic storage: 7–17. Cambridge: McDonald BYRD, B.F. & E.B. BANNING. 1988. Southern Levant Institute for Archaeological Research. pier-houses: intersite architectural patterning during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. Pal´eorient – 2001. A mind so rare: the evolution of human 14(1): 65–72. consciousness.NewYork:Norton. DUNBAR, R.I.M. 1997. Grooming, gossip and the COHEN, A.P. 1985. The symbolic construction of community. London: Routledge. evolution of language. London: Faber. – 1998. The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary COLLEDGE, S. 2002. Identifying pre-domestication cultivation in the archaeobotanical record using Anthropology 6(3): 178–90. multivariate analysis: presenting the case for GAMBLE, C. 1998. Palaeolithic society and the release quantification, in R.T.J. Cappers & S. Bottema from proximity: a network approach to intimate (ed.) The dawn of farming in the : 141–52. relations. World Archaeology 29(3): 426–49. Berlin: Ex Oriente. – 1999. The Palaeolithic societies of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

632 G O G N of structures Neolithic life: of regeneration The –2008. villages: agricultural early in space and People –2000b. G R G H H K ¨ ENFREW UIJT UERRERO ORING ORING ORING ADEL ZDO ODDER ARDY 631–5. earliest Epipalaeolithic. the Levantine from remains human and data –8 abig:CmrdeUiest Press. University Cambridge Cambridge: 1–18. J.F. & Renfrew (ed.) C. Cherry in change, social and interaction acse 0Arl2010). April 20 (accessed www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/goringmorris318.htm xaainsaosa r-otr elti Kfar Israel. B HaHoresh, Neolithic Pre-Pottery at seasons excavation Anthropology forgetting. and remembering symbolic Archaeology Anthropological practices. A mortuary Neolithic period Pre-Pottery late the in and architecture size community lives, daily exploring Academic/Plenum. differentiation and identity, organization, social communities: (ed.) Kuijt I. in Levantine Neolithic, the in integration community and e ok lwrAcademic/Plenum. Kluwer York: New differentiation and identity, organization, Kuijt I. in HaHoresh’, (ed.) Kfar from seen mortuary as Neolithic practices aceramic of context social the relj eSntYayınları. Sanat ve Arkeoloji discoveries new civilization, Bas n essdrn h r-otr elti fthe of B East. Neolithic Near pre-pottery the during feasts and B Archaeology refuse household strategies. of disposal origins the Wadi and of 27 site Harnmeh Natufian Early the at discard patterns artefact : in Crisis Garbage 379–91. Syria. TellHalula, from variability mortuary Near Neolithic into Eastern insights new memory: Seated 2009. odn hms&Hudson. & Thames ‘town’London: Turkey’s ancient of mysteries the revealing .O M. IRKENFELD .20a epn h ec:rta,sulcaching skull ritual, peace: the Keeping 2000a. I. , GAN ˘ gln(ed.) ¸gelen .&I H I. & D. , -S -M -M -M .2006. I. , MITH iei elti amn omnte:social communities: farming Neolithic in Life .18.Itouto:pe polity peer Introduction: 1986. C. , RON .19.C 1999. A. , ,E.,M.M ORRIS ORRIS ORRIS ,T.&P.C.E &J.W Antiquity 33:253–89. 23(3): ,V.E erplt neato n oilchange social and interaction polity Peer ,N.,H.A ,N.&L.K.H dead: the and quick The 2000. N. , 92:171–97. 49(2): 3–2 e ok Kluwer York: New 137–62. : urn Anthropology Current ERSHKOVITZ elti nTre.Tecal of cradle The Turkey. in Neolithic C ¸atalh OLIST ¸ay SHED ILLIAMS Antiquity ora fAnthropological of Journal 1 902–19. 81: on ¨ oy ¨ ,Y.G ,I.K DWARDS SHKENAZI k h eprstale: leopards the uk: ¨ uinM. ¨ 08 h 2007–8 The 2008. . 56.Istanbul: 35–63. : iei elti farming Neolithic in Life 91 e subsistence New 1991. . urn Anthropology Current ora of Journal 91:75–102. 19(1): ORWITZ 2 vial t http:// at: Available 82. UIJT OREN 04 The 2004. . Ozdo ¨ &J.A ,O.B ,L.K.H 07 Funerals 2007. . 50(3): a N. & gan ˘ Current ARZILAI NFRUNS 103–64. : ORWITZ . rvrWatkins Trevor ,M. . 32: , : 633 S W R and archaeology cognitive matter: and Mind –1998. S S V 20.Acietr n h yblccntuto of construction symbolic the and Architecture –2006. the in Memory’ of ‘Theatres and Architecture –2005. constructing concepts, framing houses, Building –2004. 20.Uepaepu e ot aslsmiosde maisons les dans morts les pour place Une –2009. 20.Lscr Les –2007. S S S EARLE CHMIDT CHIRMER TORDEUR TORDEUR TINER OLLEFSON ALLA ATKINS Tepesi. asndrn aPr la durant maison coadIsiuefrAcaooia Research. Archaeological for Institute McDonald storage symbolic of archaeology C. & (ed.) Renfrew Scarre C. in storage, symbolic external ol Archaeology World h aeai elti’stlmn tC at settlement Neolithic’ ‘aceramic the lwrAcademic/Plenum. Kluwer differentiation and identity, organization, social communities: (ed.) farming Kuijt Neolithic I. in Ghazal, ’Ain Neolithic r elAwd(PPNB). Aswad Tell r odn Penguin. London: eJr lAmre uebt oio PPNA horizon Mureybet, (Syrie). et Ahmar el Jerf de demography. the and use, revolution, small-game broad-spectrum hare: the and tortoise The eln xOriente. East Ex Near Berlin: prehistoric late the in cosmology and (ed.) community, Chazan construction, M. space: & Domesticating Banning E.B. in worlds, new Research. Archaeological of Institute world McDonald material Cambridge: the 97–106. with mind of engagement the (ed.) Renfrew C. C. DeMarrais, & E. Gosden in Asia, west south Neolithic worlds. PBMyn,i .C J. in Moyen), et PPNB Ancien PPNB (Horizon (Syrie). Aswad Tell .Rbo&S Mart S. & Rubio I. premi l’ensemble, sur regard premier Syrie): Aut East the Near of Ancient Archaeology the on Congress International Beck. .C R J.-C. eflexions. tehfeHiitmdrSteinzeitj der Heiligtum atselhafte ´ ¨ .2008. F. , .1995. J. , .. ..M N.D. M.C., , nm eMadrid. de onoma ´ .19.Teoiiso os n home? and house of origins The 1990. T. , .2006. K. , .19.Sm set ftebidn in building the of aspects Some 1990. W. , ,D.,M.B ,D.&R.K OUX ..20.Rta n oilsrcueat structure social and Ritual 2000. G.O. , ol Archaeology World Pal Pal nssurmodel anes ˆ Syria ´ eorient ´ eorient 00 e b Les 2000. . onto n aeilclue the culture: material and Cognition ’om tlhbtt ’neto ela de l’invention l’habitat: et L’homme h osrcino oilreality social of construction The urn Anthropology Current i atndeese epl Das Tempel. ersten die bauten Sie 4 5–32. 84: RENET 6–0 Universidad Madrid: 561–90. : 61:29–44. 26(1): 01:5–24. 30(1): 13:336–47. 21(3): HAWAM ´ ´ ehistoire nz(ed.) ınez UNRO Syria roa .Mls,C P C. Molist, M. ordoba, ´ ,G.D sd elAwd(PPNB, Aswad Tell de es ´ tmnscommunautaires atiments ˆ ..S T.A. & 06 ’iefun L’aire 2006. . 13:363–87. 21(3): 6–0 e York: New 165–90. : 3 39–62. 83: ai:CNRS. Paris: . ehnigmateriality: Rethinking –.Cambridge: 1–6. : rcdnso h 5th the of Procedings ER A ager ¨ PRAHAMIAN UROVELL 11:39–73. 41(1): .Munich: ¸ay iein Life 15–24. : on ¨ riede eraire ´ 2000. . . eres ` u ¨ : & erez, ´

Research New light on Neolithic revolution in south-west Asia

–2008. Supra-regional networks in the Neolithic of WILK, R. 2004. Miss Universe, the Olmec and the southwest Asia. Journal of World Prehistory 21(1): Valley of Oaxaca. Journal of Social Archaeology 4(1): 139–71. 81–98. WEISS,E.,W.WETTERSTROM,D.NADEL &O. WILLCOX,G.,S.FORNITE &L.HERVEUX. 2008. Early BAR-YOSEF. 2004. The broad spectrum revisited: Holocene cultivation before domestication in evidence from plant remains. Proceedings of the northern Syria. Vegetation History and National Academy of Sciences of the United States of Archaeobotany 17(3): 313–25. America 101(26): 9551–5. WEISS,E.,M.E.KISLEV,O.SIMCHONI,D.NADEL &H. TSCHAUNER, 2008. Plant-food preparation area on an brush hut floor at Ohalo II, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(8): 2400-14.

634