UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Mobility, Cooperation, and Emergent Social Complexity in the Late Neolithic Near East A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the Requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Archaeology by Hannah Kwai-Yung Lau 2016 © Copyright by Hannah Kwai-Yung Lau 2016 ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Mobility, Cooperation, and Emergent Social Complexity in the Late Neolithic Near East by Hannah Kwai-Yung Lau Doctor of Philosophy in Archaeology University of California, Los Angeles, 2016 Professor Elizabeth F. Carter, Chair This dissertation elucidates cooperative socioeconomic behavior among agropastoralists at the Late Neolithic Halaf site of Domuztepe (ca. 6000-5450 cal. BCE) in southeastern Turkey. Using zooarchaeological and biogeochemical analyses of faunal refuse, I examine cooperation and its bearing on emergent social complexity in agropastoral production in day-to-day consumption and at instances of collective action— large feasting events. Data from this dissertation provide strong evidence for cooperation among people at several scales: among members within households and among households at Domuztepe and other sites, and at a sub- regional level within the Halaf cultural sphere, at a regional scale throughout the Halaf cultural sphere, and, more rarely, supra-regional interaction. ii Evidence from large communal feasting events at Domuztepe indicates cooperation exceeding the household level. Faunal refuse, ceramic data, and food preparation facilities indicate these events were communal and comprised a large number of participants. Analyses and comparisons of zooarchaeological assemblages from daily consumption and three feasting assemblages from Domuztepe show changes in the scale of feasting events over time. At later events participants chose to slaughter animals that were more costly in their resource inputs, potential to produce secondary products, and impact on herd security. Biogeochemical data suggest that animals slaughtered in all contexts came from the same herding system. At these later events choices were made primarily for social rather than economic reasons. Biogeochemical studies of livestock, human, and dog teeth from daily consumption and feasting deposits at Domuztepe also indicate cooperation within the community. Different households made individual decisions to keep some stock — cattle, pigs, and some caprines — close to the site. These data also show that Halaf people practiced caprine husbandry encompassing greater geographic range and likely necessitating that some portion of the population be away from the site to care for these animals for some period of the year. This type of pastoral specialization, even if only temporary, would require a different type of cooperation. These data are correlated with artifactual data from Halaf sites throughout the cultural sphere, providing evidence for sub- regional exchange and cooperation among communities within sub-regions of the Halaf cultural sphere. Taken together these data elucidate emerging social complexity in the region. iii This dissertation of Hannah Kwai-Yung Lau is approved. Gregson T. Schachner Monica L. Smith Thomas Wake Robert Keith Englund Elizabeth F. Carter, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2016 iv To my father, Herbert Gartow Lau, for nurturing my intellectual curiosity, and for pushing me to reach the Castle in the Air. To my mother, Carol Shapiro Lau, for keeping me grounded, and for being my Sweet Rhyme and Pure Reason. v Table of Contents List of Figures…………………………………………………………………….………...………xii List of Tables.…………………………………………………………………….……………......xiv Acknowledgements……...………………………………………………………….…………..……xvi Vita…………………..……………………………………………………………...……….........xx 1.0 Chapter One: Introduction..…………………..…………………………....……… 1 1.1 Present Views of Social Complexity and Agropastoral Production in the Late Neolithic Halaf Period..…………………………………………………....……..........… 1 1.2 Cooperation and Collective Action in Archaeology………….….......................…...…… 4 What is Cooperation? …….……………………………….…………………….…………..……5 What is Collective Action? ……………………….……….…………………………..……….… 7 Cooperation and Collective Action in Archaeology……………………………………….…… 10 1.3 Cooperation, Inequality, and Social Complexity ……………………………..……..… 13 Cooperation, Social Complexity and the Halaf Period ……………………………………...… 15 1.4 Cooperation and Collective Action in Agropastoral Production and Consumption and its Implications for Social Complexity……………………………… 16 Cooperation in Agropastoral Production………………….………………………………....… 16 Agropastoral Cooperation in Late Neolithic Northern Mesopotamia…….………………....… 17 Collective Action in Agropastoral Production: Communal Rituals and Feasts……………....… 20 Feasting and Its Implications for Political Economy……....…………………………………… 21 Feasts are a Mechanism for Promoting Cooperation..…….………………………………....… 24 1.5 Methods of Analysis and Summary of Dissertation…………………………………..… 26 2.0 Chapter Two: Regional and Temporal Overview of the Halaf and Introduction to Domuztepe………………………………………………..……... 31 2.1 Cooperation At Varying Scales of Social Interaction..……………………………….… 31 2.2 Geography and Environment..……………………………………………………….… 33 2.3 Halaf Material Culture..…………………………………………...…………………… 36 Pottery..………………………………………………………………………………….……… 36 Architecture…..………………………………………………………………………………… 38 Lithics...……………………………………………………………………………………….… 40 vi Other Ubiquitous Small Finds…….………………………………………………………….… 41 Imagery….…………………………………………………………………………………....… 42 2.4 Innovations in Accounting Technology………………………...…………………….… 43 Seals…..………………………………………………………………………………………… 43 Tokens………..……………………………………………………………………………….… 44 Implications..………………………………………………………………………………….… 45 2.5 Subsistence Practices.…………………………...…………………………………….… 45 Agropastoralism: Domesticated Plant Resources.…………………………………………....… 46 Agropastoralism: Faunal Resources………………………………………………………….… 47 Sheep and Goat……………………………………………………………………....… 48 Pigs………………………………………………...………………………………….… 50 Cattle………………………………………………………………………………….… 53 Hunting and Gathering……………………………………………………………………....… 55 Wild Resources: Gathered Plants.…………………………………………………....… 55 Wild Resources: Hunted Fauna...………………………………………………...…..… 56 Comparing Animal Economies at Halaf Sites…….……………………………………...…..… 58 2.6 Diversity among Halaf Assemblages………………………………………………….… 63 Variability in Ceramic Assemblages.…………………………………………………………… 64 Variability in Mortuary Practices….…………………………………………………………… 66 2.7 Views of Halaf Sociopolitical Complexity.……...……………………………………… 68 2.8 Halaf Domuztepe……………………….…………………………………………….… 72 Subsistence Practices at Domuztepe…………....…………………………………………….… 78 Feasting Practices at Domuztepe…………..…....……………………………………………… 79 The Death Pit……………………………………...………………………………....… 79 Operation III Feasting Deposit……….…………...………………………………….… 80 The Ditch…..……………………………………...………………………………….… 81 3.0 Chapter Three: Zooarchaeological Study……………………………………..…83 3.1 Cooperation in Agropastoral Production……….…………...….……………………… 83 3.2 Summary of Ditch Fauna……….………..……………………...….………………..… 84 Species Frequency……………………………....…………………………………………….… 84 vii Taphonomy…….……………………………....…………………..………………………..… 87 Recovery Index………………....…………………………………………………….… 88 Effects of Rodent and Carnivore Gnawing..…………………………..……………..… 89 Evidence of Exposure……....………………………...………………………...……..… 90 Conclusions on Taphonomy.……………………………………………...……….....… 90 Sheep and Goats in the Ditch..………………....…………………………………………….… 91 Caprine Age and Sex Distributions......…………………………………………..…..… 91 Body Part Distribution…………….....……………………...………………………..… 95 Evidence of Anthropogenic Taphonomic Processes…………………...……………..… 96 Pigs in the Ditch..………………....………………………………………………...….……..… 96 Pig Age and Sex Distributions......……………………………………………………… 97 Body Part Distribution…………….....………………………………………………..…99 Evidence of Anthropogenic Taphonomic Processes………………………………......... 99 Cattle in the Ditch..…….………....……………………………………………….…………......99 Cattle Age and Sex Distributions......…………………………………………………100 Body Part Distribution…………….....………………………………………...…….... 101 Evidence of Anthropogenic Taphonomic Processes………………………………...… 101 Wild Fauna……..………………....……………………………………………….………..… 102 The Ditch Over Time..………....……………………………………………….….……..…... 102 3.3 The Ditch Assemblage Compared to Other Assemblages at Domuztepe……..…….... 104 The Ditch Compared to Quotidian Assemblages...……………………………….………..… 107 Differences between the Ditch and the Quotidian Deposits………………….……..… 108 The Ditch Compared to the Death Pit…………...……………………………….………...… 111 Differences between the Ditch and the Death Pit…….……………………………..… 112 The Ditch Compared to Op. III Feasting Assemblage……………………...…….………..… 114 Differences between the Ditch and Op. III………………………..………………..… 115 3.4 Comparing the Death Pit, Op. III and Quotidian Deposits to One Another…….…... 116 Comparing Quotidian Contexts and the Death Pit…………………………….…….……..… 116 Comparing Quotidian Contexts and the Op. III Assemblage…………………….………..… 116 Comparing the Death Pit and the Op. III Assemblage……………………….…..….……..… 117 3.5 Conclusions…………...…………………………..……………………….….……..… 117 viii 4.0 Chapter Four: Biogeochemical Study Results…………………………………120 4.1 Cooperation in Herding Practices…………………………………….…………......…120 4.2 Strontium………………………..…………………………………….…………......…120 Sources of Strontium and Incorporation into Skeleton…..……………………….……........…120 Domuztepe and its Environs: Biologically-Available Strontium…….…………….………..… 123 Results………………………………………………...………………………..….………...…