he Life Cycle of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Plastered Skulls from the Southern Levant Yosef Garfinkel he treatment of human skulls in the late prehistory of the Near East is documented from as early as the Natufian culture of the Epi-Palaeolithic period, c. 12,500–9500 BC. he plastered crania of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (8th millennium BC) represent the zenith of skull treatment. he Neolithic plastered skulls are examined through their ‘life cycle’, enabling a better understanding of this phenomenon. he main questions addressed are why skulls were chosen as cultic paraphernalia in this region and in these periods, and why their treatment became more elaborate over time. Introduction: he Life Cycle of Artifacts Artifacts, like living plants and creatures, have a life cycle. hey are manufactured (born) in a specific location and time. Like newborn babies, at first people treat them more carefully. Later, after constant use, they become old, covered with scratches, use marks and dirt, but may receive a ‘face-lift’ through renovation or repair. Eventually, they ‘die’ and are no longer used, being discarded or even physically buried in refuse dumps or pits. However, unlike living creatures, artifacts can be recycled and come back to life. Following the life cycle of artifacts which, for this study, concerns plastered human skulls, is an effective analytical tool that requires holistic investigation of every aspect, from manufacture to final deposition. his process directs us towards issues that need to be examined, confronts us with the limitations of our knowledge, defines missing aspects, and thus facilitates further research. In his essay on ‘the cultural biography of things’, which was formulated for the investigation of recent ethnographic observations rather than archaeological finds, Kopytoff (1986, 66–67) raised a sequence of questions: In doing the biography of a thing, one would ask questions similar to those one asked about people: What, sociologically, are the biographical possibilities inherent in its ‘status’ and in the period and culture, and how are these possibilities realized? Where does the thing come from and who made it? What has been its career so far, and what do people consider to be an ideal career for such things? What are the recognized ‘ages’ or periods in the thing’s ‘life’, and what are the cultural markers for them? How does the thing’s use change with its age, and what happens to it when it reaches the end of its usefulness? 145 In the this presentation I will reconstruct the life cycle of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) plastered skulls of male and female adults and children, in an attempt to elucidate their function and meaning. I presented this concept in an earlier publication, but without detailed consideration of the data and its implications (Garfinkel 1994). It was soon adopted, with some variations, by Kuijt (1996, 2000, 2001, 2008). His understanding of the life cycle of a Neolithic plastered skull differs from mine in several aspects, as will be discussed below. In his book Artifacts and Ideas, Trigger (2003) concludes: ‘It is also impossible from an evolutionary perspective to treat the cognitive realm as autonomous from the material world.’ Indeed, to gain a better understanding of the plastered skulls we should first decipher as many stages as possible in their life cycle. At present, some discussions of the plastered skulls jump to conclusions that are not supported by the material data. As we shall see below, some even create fictitious data or put words into other peoples’ mouths. Skulls in the Late Prehistory of the Near East he treatment of human skulls in the late Prehistory of the Near East is documented as early as the Natufian culture of the Epi-Palaeolithic period, c. 12,500–9500 BC (Perrot and Ladiray 1988, 56; Belfer-Cohen 1988, 305). At this time, skulls were occasionally removed from graves after the soft tissue had decayed. he sites of this period are rather small, 0.1–0.2 hectares in size. In the next chronological stage, the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (c. 9500–8800 BC), concentrations of human skulls are known from a number of sites, varying in size between 0.1 and 2.5 hectares. At Jericho the anthropological report mentioned six groups totaling 33 PPNA unplastered skulls (Kurth and Röhrer-Ertl 1981, 436). Photographs of two of 146 Settlement, Survey, and Stone Figure 1. Jericho: a concentration of PPNA skulls on a floor (Kenyon excavations, courtesy of S. Laidlaw, Institute of Archaeology, University College London) Figure 2. Jericho: a concentration of PPNA skulls on a floor (Kenyon excavations, courtesy of S. Laidlaw, Institute of Archaeology, University College London) these concentrations are presented here (Figures 1–2). At the nearby PPNA site of Netiv Hagdud, the skulls were missing in 17 of 22 primary or secondary burials (Belfer-Cohen and Arensburg 1997). At PPNA Qermez Dere in northern Iraq, six crania were found in one building (Watkins et al. 1989, 21). All of the skulls of this period had been removed from the primary burial and were kept together in groups, but they did not receive further treatment such as painting or plastering. When the Jericho skulls went out of use they were simply left on the floors of deserted houses, rather than being reburied (Garfinkel 1994). In the PPNB period (c. 8800–7000 BC), the treatment of human skulls takes on a greater significance. he number of treated skulls, the number of sites and the geographical distribution all increase dramatically. Plastered skulls have been found in agricultural villages of all sizes, from c. 0.5 hectare at Kfar Hahoresh to c. 14 hectares at ‘Ain Ghazal. It seems likely that all PPNB villages will yield plastered skulls if large enough an area is excavated. Treated skulls were also found at Nahal Hemar Cave in the Judean Desert, an area still occupied in the PPNB by hunter-gatherer communities. It thus seems probable that this custom had become an integral part of the Neolithic lifestyle, crossing boundaries between geographical regions and communities with different economic bases. hese artifacts encapsulate abundant data on the social organization, world perspective, cult, and cognitive traits of early Neolithic communities. Since the discovery of the first human plastered skull by the Kenyon expedition to Jericho in 1953, the plastered skulls of the PPNB have been a focus of interest. Many suggestions have been made about their function and symbolic value (see, for example, Kenyon 1953; Arensburg and Hershkovitz 1989; Bienert 1991; Bonogofsky 2006; Kuijt 2008). On occasion these interpretations seem to have nothing in common with the past, but rather they create modern myths. In this short contribution I will summarize the data available on the life cycle of a plastered skull. his may enhance our understanding of how Neolithic people treated the skulls and elucidate the function and meaning of the plastered skulls in the process. he Plastered Skulls from the Southern Levant PPNB plastered or painted skulls have been reported from eight sites in the southern Levant. In addition, concentrations of plain, painted or plastered skulls were found at a number of sites in the northern Levant and Anatolia: Nevali Çori (five plain skulls, Backofen 1987, 192), Abu Hureyra (painted skull, Molleson et al. 1992), Köşk Höyük (six plain and 13 plastered skulls, Silistreli 1989; Öztan 2002, Figs 5–8; Özbek 2009) and Çatal Höyük (numerous plain and one plastered skull, Mellart 1966; Hodder 2006, 23). hese examples clearly indicate that the collection and decoration of skulls was not limited to the southern Levant. Here, however, I shall limit the discussion to the southern Levant, as in this area the phenomenon is much more widespread. his is probably due to the intensity of archaeological research in Israel, Jordan and the Damascus basin in southern Syria. he relevant data are presented in geographical order, from north to south (Figure 3). 1. Tell Aswad Two concentrations of plastered skulls were found in adjacent pits. Four plastered skulls, together with a plain skull, were unearthed in 2003, while four more plastered skulls were found in 2006, together with a plaster ‘face’ left after the skull had been removed (Stordeur 2003; Stordeur et al. 2006; Stordeur and Khawam 2007). In these items all of the facial features were modeled in a rather realistic manner and large parts were painted red. hey are among the best examples ever uncovered in terms of artistic quality and state of preservation. he skull pits were found in a burial ground with more Garfinkel: Life Cycle of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Plastered Skulls from the Southern Levant 147 Figure 3. Map of the southern Levant with the location of plastered skulls than 50 skeletons in different types of graves: individual, collective, primary, secondary, and a combination of these. he first pit represents the earliest activity in this area (Phase B-0). his earliest deposit of plastered skulls seems to mark the beginning of burial in the area, which persisted for several generations. he plastered skulls were not buried and forgotten; on the contrary their memory was preserved for decades. hese skulls appear to represent the founding generation of the village or an extended family, and their descendants continued to bury their dead nearby. he second pit represents a more advanced stage in the use of this burial ground (Phase B-5). 2. Tell Ramad Concentrations of skulls, some of them plastered or painted, were found in two pits. he mandible was usually included, and in two adult female skulls a neck was reconstructed from plaster as well (de Contenson 2000). In recent anthropological studies it was reported that out of 56 skulls uncovered at Tell Ramad, 27 (48.2 %), were painted or plastered. hese included skulls of both males and females (Anfrans 2006). 3. Beisamoun During excavation, one building comprising two rooms, one long and narrow and the other squarish, were completely uncovered. Below the floor of the narrow room, nine individuals and two plastered skulls were found (Figure 4) (Lechevallier 1978, 147–151). Two additional individuals were found under the floor of the second room. Figure 4. Beisamoun: two plastered skulls as found during the excavations (courtesy of the CRFJ) 148 Settlement, Survey, and Stone Figure 5. Beisamoun: plastered skull (courtesy of the CRFJ) Figure 7. Yiftahel: two plastered skulls, out of three found together (courtesy H. Khalaily, photograph by C. Amit) Figure 6. Beisamoun: plastered skull with empty eyes, creating a mask-like image (courtesy of A. Asaf, photograph by V. Naikhin) One of the skulls is completely covered with plaster and the facial features include closed eyes (Figure 5). he other skull has empty eyes, like a mask, however, this skull was heavily damaged, with the face destroyed, and so the reconstruction may not be exact. (Figure 6). 4. Yiftahel Several excavations have taken place at this PPNB village since 1982. In 2008, during large-scale salvage excavations, three plastered skulls were uncovered in a pit located in an open area north of a building (Figure 7) (Khalaily et al. 2008, 8; Milevski et al. 2008). he skulls were found in a single row, all facing west. he central skull was plastered on the entire face, including the nose, mouth, chin, cheeks, and eyes. he plastering of the other two skulls concentrated on the orbits. he eyes of all three skulls were made from shell inlays and sometimes small flint flakes. he varied forms of burial at the site include primary burial without the skull in flexed position under plastered floors, single secondary burial with the skull in a ruined building, and collective burial in flexed position with the skulls intact (Hershkovitz et al. 1986; Khalaily et al. 2008). 5. Kfar Hahoresh One plastered skull in an excellent state of preservation was found, as well as fragments of a further five. he betterpreserved item was found buried in a plastered pit under a plastered floor, with a single posthole located above the skull. It is covered with red pigment made of cinnabar, a mineral exported from Anatolia (Figure 8) (Goring-Morris 2000, 109–110; Hershkovitz et al. 1995). Figure 8. Kfar Hahoresh: plastered skull painted red (courtesy of N. Goring-Morris, photograph by M. Barasani, CRFJ) 6. ‘Ain Ghazal A relatively large area has been excavated at this site, located near Amman in Jordan. A total of 81 human burials were unearthed in Middle PPNB layers, some buried under floors of houses or courtyards without the skulls and others buried in courtyards with the skulls. Twelve skulls of this period include a cache of three plain crania, a single cranium with a thick coat of a black substance, fragments of a redpainted cranium, a cache of four crania with traces of plaster and bitumen on two of them, and an isolated plastered skull without its mandible (Rollefson 2000:169–171; see also detailed reports: Butler 1989; Simmons et al. 1990; Rollefson et al. 1999). Garfinkel: Life Cycle of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Plastered Skulls from the Southern Levant 149 Figure 9. ‘Ain Ghazal: three plastered faces left after their skulls had been removed. hey were found buried in a pit (courtesy of G. Rollefson) Figure 10. ‘Ain Ghazal: one of the three plastered faces, now on display at the archaeological museum in Amman, Jordan Figure 12. Jericho: plastered skulls as found (Kenyon excavations, courtesy of S. Laidlaw, Institute of Archaeology, University College London) Figure 11. ‘Ain Ghazal: one of the three plastered faces, now on display at the archaeological museum in Amman, Jordan On another occasion three plaster faces detached from their skulls were buried in a pit (Figures 9–11) (Griffin et al. 1998; Bonogofsky 2001; Schmandt-Besserat 2013). hese remarkable discoveries indicate that skulls were renovated from time to time. his means that they were used for long periods and cannot be considered ad-hoc artifacts created and disposed of within days. 7. Jericho he first PPNB plastered skulls were found in 1953 and 1956 at Jericho, intentionally buried together in pits (Figures 12–17) (Kenyon 1953; 1956; 1981: Pls. 52–59; Strouhal 1973). he anthropological report lists six groups totaling 19 skulls. Of these, 12 had been remodeled plastically, with sea-shells and shell inlay as eyes, and five were also painted. he two remaining skulls were undecorated (Kurth and Figure 13. A plastered skull from Jericho, now on display at the archaeological museum in Amman, Jordan (Skull D112, Kenyon 1981, Pl. 52) Röhrer-Ertl 1981: 436). Only one of the plastered skulls included the mandible (Kenyon 1981: Pl. 52). After the discovery of the first concentration of plastered skulls, Kenyon proposed two different interpretations of the meaning and function of this phenomenon: he only real parallels to such heads are modern anthropological ones. In the New Guinea area, features are similarly modelled on skulls, in some areas those of ancestors whom it was desired to preserve in honour, in others those of enemies presented as trophies. Similar ideas must be the motive in the probably similar primitive society of Neolithic Jericho. he impression that the Jericho heads give of being 150 Settlement, Survey, and Stone Figure 14. A plastered skull from Jericho, now on display at the archaeological museum in Amman, Jordan (Skull D114, Kenyon 1981, Pl. 56) Figure 16. A plastered skull from Jericho, now on display at the archaeological museum in Amman, Jordan Figure 15. A plastered skull from Jericho, now on display at the archaeological museum in Amman, Jordan (Skull D110, Kenyon 1981, Pl. 53:b) Figure 17. Jericho: plastered skulls with inlaid cowrie shells as eyes (courtesy of Y. Goren, Skull D111, Kenyon 1981, Pl. 57c) portraits, from the careful attention to detail given in the modelling, would suggest that the heads were those of venerated ancestors rather than trophies, but this can only be a guess (Kenyon 1953, 86–87). his idea has since been explored in detail by Bonogofsky (1999). 8. Nahal Hemar Cave his small cave, located in the arid region of the Judean Desert, produced a rich assemblage of PPNB cultic objects, such as human skulls, figurines, and stone masks, as well as various organic objects of wood, straw, and textiles. Among the finds are fragments of six modeled skulls with stripes of asphalt on the back of the crania, while the facial area Garfinkel: Life Cycle of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Plastered Skulls from the Southern Levant Figure 18. Nahal Hemar cave: a cranium decorated on its posterior vault was not treated at all (Figure 18) (Bar-Yosef and Alon 1988; Arensburg and Hershkovitz 1989). A Variety of Skull Treatments he plastered and modeled skulls uncovered in these sites present a rich variety of treatments, including which portions of the skull were removed from the grave and the recreating of specific features thereon: 1 he parts selected for treatment: In general the cranium was chosen, without the mandible. However, in a few cases (a number of plastered skulls from Tell Ramad and one plastered skull from Jericho) the mandible was integrated. ۲ he plastered area: he area covered with plaster varies from the entire skull to a limited area on the eyes. he plaster emphasizes the face and is thus sometimes termed a ‘mask’. Two plastered adult female skulls from Tell Ramad have reconstructed necks made of plaster. At Nahal Hemar Cave the treatment is concentrated on the back of the cranium, leaving the face unreconstructed. 3 he eyes: he eyes were usually modeled with clay. However, for some of the plastered skulls from Jericho and Yiftahel sea-shells inlays were used to represent the eyes, and at Yiftahel small flint flakes were used with the sea shells to represent the iris. In one plastered skull from Beisamoun the eyes were left empty, creating a mask-like appearance (Figure 6). 4 he teeth: In the early days of research it was assumed that the teeth were intentionally removed. However, close examination via CT scan and personal observation shows that this is usually not the case (Bonogofsky 2002). 5 Other facial features: On occasion the ears, nose, and mouth were portrayed as well. Since it was usually only the cranium that was plastered, there was the technical problem of executing the mouth and chin without the 151 mandible. As has become clear from examination using sophisticated radiation technologies, in some cases the front of the skull was manipulated and the eyes, nose and other facial features were portrayed out of their original anatomical position (Hershkovitz et al. 1995; Slon et al. 2014). 6 Paint: he plastered skull from Kfar Hahoresh and some of the Tell Aswad plastered skulls were painted in red over the entire object. Chemical analysis of the paint on the Kfar Hahoresh skull indicates that the pigment was cinnabar, a mineral that had to be imported from Anatolia. At Jericho one plastered skull was painted with broad black bands on the upper cranium (Figure 15; Kenyon 1981: Pl. 56:a–c) and another with thin black lines on the face, interpreted as a moustache (Kenyon 1981: Pl. 58b). Since many of the pigments used in antiquity were made of organic materials (Sorek and Ayalon 1993), it is quite likely that many of the plain and unpainted plastered skulls were originally painted. 7 Head cover: While the superior posterior cranial vault was usually left untreated, at Nahal Hemar Cave the backs of the crania were covered by a net pattern (Figure 18). Many textiles were found in the same cave, one of them similar to the decoration on the skulls and thus interpreted as a head cover (Schick 1988). It is possible that upper cranial vault was decorated with some kind of head cover, made of hair, fabric, leather, or fur. he Life Cycle of a Plastered Skull Eleven stages in the life cycle of a plastered skull can be reconstructed from the accumulated data, although not all of the skulls underwent all of these stages. Stage 1: Primary burial of the entire body. he common PPNB burial is found in village sites, between houses or below the floors of houses (Figure 19). he bodies are laid in a flexed position, in many cases lacking their skulls when discovered archaeologically. As we have a large number of skeletons without skulls and many skulls without skeletons, with no evidence of forceful severing of the head, we can safely conclude that the treated skulls in the Neolithic villages were taken from the local population. here are no grounds for the assumption that these skulls represent decapitated enemies. Stage 2: Removal of the skull from the skeleton. When the soft tissue had completely disintegrated, the grave was opened and the skull was removed. Usually only the cranium was taken out, while the lower jaw was left with the skeleton (Figure 19). An interesting question here is how much time passed between the primary burial and the removal of the skull. here are two basic approaches to this issue. I have suggested that the skull was removed 152 Settlement, Survey, and Stone Figure 19. ‘Ain Ghazal: typical PPNB burial in flexed position without the cranium. Note the mandible in its original anatomical position (courtesy of G. Rollefson) individually in each case (Garfinkel 1994). As time passes the impact of a dead person gradually diminishes, until the individual is completely forgotten. hus, the opening of the grave and the plastering of the skull were done as soon as the soft tissue had decayed and as close as possible to the time of burial, probably after a year or so. In earlier publications Kuijt presented another scenario, in which once in a number of years new burials were opened and skulls were removed, plastered, and buried together in a ceremony that took ‘days’ (1996, Fig. 1; 2000, Fig. 1). he timing was dictated not by physiological or calendrical reasoning but an (unexplained) interval of 5–10 years. It has been suggested that the location of the skull was marked after the primary burial so that it would be easier to find later: ‘At ‘Ain Ghazal the location of the cranium beneath the floor was often marked with red paint on the white plaster floor’ (Kuijt 2008). However, the ‘Ain Ghazal reports present no such data. he excavator clarified to me this point: ‘I vaguely recall a patch of red paint indicating where a subfloor burial existed, but not necessarily crania’ (Rollefson, e-mail dated 27th March, 2009). Indeed, there is a catch here, as any marking of a skull’s location would be completely destroyed when the floor was opened. In the absence of any evidence for marking the location of the cranium, the family members who had buried the deceased would presumably be able to remember, after a year or so, the exact position of the body and remove the skull without damaging the rest of the skeleton. his would be particularly applicable, as they were living in close proximity and basically on top of the deceased. Stage 3: Storage with other unplastered skulls. he removed skulls were kept with the skulls of other members of the community. As early as the PPNA period concentrations of skulls were found on the floors of houses (Figures 1–2). In the PPNB, the concentrations are usually of plastered skulls (see below, Phase 9). However, concentrations of plain skulls are found as well, as reported from Jericho, ‘Ain Ghazal and Tell Aswad. Stage 4: Selection for plastering. Some skulls were chosen for additional treatment, which varies from paint, through partly plastered to completely plastered. Which skulls were chosen for additional treatment? If these were exclusively the skulls of elderly people, we could talk about an ancestor cult. However, skulls of children and younger women were also chosen for plastering. A close examination of 61 plastered skulls by Bonogofsky defined the age and sex of 36 of them. Her conclusions were that ‘the skulls and crania of males, females, and children were included, without a significant bias toward any one age or sex’ (2003, 6). Some have suggested that only skulls with specific morphological emphasis on low and wide proportions were chosen, in order to give the plastered skull Garfinkel: Life Cycle of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Plastered Skulls from the Southern Levant a geriatric appearance (Arensburg and Hershkovitz 1989). However, some plastered skulls have clearly elongated proportions (Kenyon 1981, Pl. 52). Anyone could open his ancestor’s grave, remove the cranium and plaster it. However, only a minority of the skulls are plastered and there seems to be no rule regarding age or sex as to how skulls were chosen. hus it was probably a social decision, taken by the individual family or by the community. he plastered skulls may belong to members of a select social class, thus reflecting social hierarchy or group membership in the Neolithic community. Stage 5: Decoration: he skull was decorated in a variety of ways: 1 Painting the plastered skull, usually with red pigment. 2 Plastering only the area of the eyes and leaving the entire cranium exposed. 3 Plastering the entire face and base and leaving the back of the cranium exposed. 4 Plastering parts of the cranium but leaving the eyes open, like a mask. here is one such example from the site of Beisamoun (Figure 6). Since this cranium was so severely damaged, the reconstruction may not be completely accurate. 5 Plastering the entire cranium so that the bone is not visible at all. 6 In some cases the plastered skull includes both the cranium and the lower jaw. 7 Reshaping the facial features so that they are not in their anatomical position on the plastered skull. 8 At the desert site of Nahal Hemar Cave the treatment is different in two respects: the material used is animal collagen rather than plaster and the location is not the face but the back of the cranium (Bower 1997, Fig. 14). At this stage we should mention the theory that skulls underwent deliberate removal of the teeth (Arensburg and Hershkovitz 1989). his even fits nicely with the much later Ugaritic myth (Margalit 1983). However, this was roundly refuted by Bonogofsky (2002) who found no evidence for intentional dental evulsion. Stage 6: Use of the plastered skull. he clearest evidence for the use of the plastered skulls is the fact that they were usually found individually or in relatively small groups. heir numbers vary from single plastered skulls found at Jericho, Kfar Hahoresh and ‘Ain Ghazal, to two skulls found together at Beisamoun and Jericho, three at Yiftael, four at Tell Aswad, to seven found together skulls at Jericho. Only at Tell Ramad were they found a larger group. Since people usually do not die in groups, the plastered skulls were collected and assembled, presumably over a long time. his leads to two conclusions: 1) veneration of the skulls took place at the level of the 153 community, not the individual household; 2) the skulls were used as cult objects for several generations. An alternative approach is based on Kuijt, who suggested that once skulls were plastered they were buried within ‘days’ (1996; 2000). his approach sees the plastered skulls as ad-hoc objects. However, the involvement of exotic items imported over large distances, like sea shells and cinnabar, indicates heavy investment in the plastering process. Such efforts are not typical of ad-hoc activities but attest to longterm commitment. he investment in the skull’s decoration is a clear indication that it was made to last for a long period of use. he clearest indication for the long-term use of these objects as ‘recycled’ skulls comes from ‘Ain Ghazal and Tell Aswad (see Stage 8). Kuijt has more recently adopted the diametrically opposite interpretation, that the skulls were used even after their original identity was forgotten (2008, Fig. 4). A person is usually known to members of the two successive generations, and afterwards his identity is forgotten. For the original identity of a plastered skull to be forgotten, it needs to last 3–5 generations after the person’s death, or 50–100 years. Nevertheless, the time between plastering and reburial is estimated by Kuijt as ‘days to years’ (2008, Fig. 2). During a long period the skulls probably functioned as cultic objects, relics from the past. It is tempting to suggest that the skulls represent an ancestor cult (Kenyon 1953; Arensburg and Hershkovitz 1989; Bienert 1991; Hayden 2004). However, male and female, young and old, were chosen to be plastered and there is no preference for older male skulls. his does not support the hypothesis of an ancestor cult, or at least not one in which only the elder members of the community were revered. Associating the skulls with a ‘fertility cult’ (Bienert 1991) is problematic and not supported by any specific data. It has recently been suggested that the skulls reflect a ‘regeneration of life’ (Kuijt 2008). Regeneration cults are well known in the ancient Near East and other areas. hey are usually associated with gods or goddesses who are responsible for the fields and agriculture; they are alive for half the year and dead and buried during the other half. Human burials in silos are probably the best evidence that we can muster for this belief, and in the late prehistoric Levant we have such examples from the late 6th millennium BC Tel Tsaf (Garfinkel et al. 2009) and from 5th millennium BC Late Chalcolithic burial caves (Bar-Yosef and Ayalon 2001). In addition, some Late Chalcolithic jar burials are decorated with paintings of tree branches, which in many societies are a symbol of the regeneration of life (Nativ 2008). However, none of these customs are known from the PPNB. Stage 7: Deterioration. he plastered skull is a composite artifact, made of bones, clay, animal collagen, sea shells, and pigments. his is a 154 Settlement, Survey, and Stone combination of organic and inorganic materials, put together on a relatively fragile cranium. his made them extremely sensitive to changes in humidity and temperature, and thus vulnerable to rapid deterioration. After a few years the clay, plaster, and inlays would start to crumble and fall apart and the original colors fade away, or at least loose their freshness. When a new skull was added to the collection, a clear contrast was likely created between the old and new skulls. Kuijt argues that this is not the case and that there is ‘no convincing evidence to suggest that all painted and plastered skulls were worn out in ritual use before burial’ (2000, 148). However, deterioration is a natural process and plastered skulls cannot resist it. If a plastered skull seems to be in a good state of preservation today, this is the result of lengthy restoration in a conservation laboratory. Stage 8: ‘Recycling’. Plastered skulls were sometimes remodeled or redecorated. In one pit at ‘Ain Ghazal, three ‘masks’ were found. hese are plaster faces that had been detached from crania (Figures 9–11) (Griffin et al. 1998). In addition, a cranium with overlooked plaster modeling bore evidence of sanding, either to roughen the surface enough to serve as an anchor for additional plaster, or to remove plaster previously applied, or both. At Tel Aswad a similar plaster face without the skull was found in a pit. his is clear evidence that plastered skulls were renovated from time to time. As fragments of plaster were detached or the color faded over time, a skull underwent ‘face-lifting’. he old plaster was carefully removed and the cranium was re-plastered. his process is a clear indication that skulls were exposed and used in the Neolithic village for a long period of time. Stage 9: Oblivion. he skull, by its very nature, represents a person from the past. his person is remembered by his close family and other members of the community. But what is a dead person? A memory of the activities and ideas of a person during his lifetime. he skulls are thus a way to preserve private and social memory in a non-literate society. A person looking at a plastered skull would recall events associated with the specific deceased. As long as someone remembered a dead person, his skull would be kept in the skull collection. However, after one or two generations there would be no-one to remember the person behind the skull, while new skulls of recently dead people constantly accumulated. Skulls with forgotten identities were taken out of the community collection and buried in pits (see Stage 10). Different concentrations of skulls in a village thus represent different generations. If skulls were kept even after their original owner had been forgotten (Kuijt 2008, Fig. 5), there would be no need to take them out of circulation and archaeologists would find a large number of them in each pit, rather than just a few. Stage 10: Reburial. In the PPNA concentrations of skulls were found in groups on the floors of houses. his indicates that when houses were abandoned skulls were simply discarded as a valueless artifact. he fact that PPNB skulls were plastered and then buried indicates that they were more greatly valued in this period. heir importance is further indicated by the investment of sea shells and imported pigments. he burial of cultic objects in this period is not limited to plastered skulls, and was practiced for other artifacts as well (Garfinkel 1994). he context of burial seems to vary from site to site. At Beisamoun, two plastered skulls were buried under the floor of a common dwelling structure, while at Tell Aswad the skulls were buried in a communal burial ground. hese examples present two diametrically opposite locations: beneath a private roofed dwelling and beneath a public open area. Just as we see no standardization in the selection of skulls or in the way they were plastered, there is no specific pattern for their final disposal, beside the fact that they were often buried in pits. Stage 11: Excavation by modern archaeologists. After 9000 years the plastered skull is exposed by a modern archaeologist. It is reconstructed, curated and put on display in the most reputable museums and once again becomes a venerated object. As we have seen, a plastered skull has a rather long and intensive life cycle. Based on three arguments, I suggest that these artifacts were used for at least one or two generations, or 25–50 years: 1 he great effort put into the modeling, including exotic sea shells and pigments, characterizes items intended for display over long periods. 2 In the PPNA skulls were not buried, but left on the floors of deserted houses. he burial of the skulls in pits during the PPNB clearly indicates that they were venerated items (Garfinkel 1994). 3 One case from Tell Aswad and four from ‘Ain Ghazal apparently display ‘recycling’ of plastered skulls. In these cases old plaster has been removed and new plaster was probably put on the skull. It is noteworthy that even the removed plaster faces were buried. Discussion Why plaster a skull? In the Natufian and PPNA periods, skulls were separated from skeletons, collected, kept together but not plastered. It is only from the subsequent PPNB that skulls are found decorated. Why did the treatment became more elaborate in the PPNB? his elaboration, however, did not mean standardization, as each skull was treated somewhat differently from the next. Untreated skulls look rather similar, and when kept in groups it would not be possible after a few years to distinguish between them. Garfinkel: Life Cycle of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Plastered Skulls from the Southern Levant he great variety of treated skulls enabled them to be differentiated and thus functioned as a technique of marking in a non-literate society. he aim was not to reconstruct an appropriate individual portrait, as is sometimes suggested, but rather to create a skull that was sufficiently different to be distinguishable from the other skulls in the same group. Why were skulls not plastered in the PPNA? As these were still rather small communities, with sites 1–2.5 hectares in size, the social framework was more cohesive and intimate. In the PPNB, villages increased dramatically in size, reaching 5–14 hectares. As part of the challenge of dealing with a much larger population dwelling together in the same village, there was a need to handle a larger number of skulls and to mark the skulls as an external memory aid. In addition, community rituals performed in a large community require larger cult objects that are used as the focal point for hundreds of people, or even more than a thousand. It was necessary to create larger and more prominent cultic objects, like anthropomorphic statues and plastered skulls, which are more attractive than simple untreated skulls (Rollefson 1983). Adding exotic elements, like sea shells or red paint, transformed a simple skull into an eye-catching object. We know how labor and materials are combined to produce durables that cannot be further exchanged, a phenomenon defined by Davenport as ‘sacred commodities’ (1986, 95). Exotic commodities like sea shells and cinnabar red pigment were thus put out of daily circulation. his is clearly an extravagant consumption of rare resources, an indication of the important role of the plastered skulls in the community. he three basic interpretations of the PPNB Near Eastern plastered skulls that have been raised are ancestor cult, fertility cult and regeneration. Does the evidence presented above support any of these suggestions? An explanation like ‘community integration’ (Kuijt 2000) is too general, as ritual behavior maintains social cohesion in any human society, most of which do not keep the skulls of previous generations. herefore I would argue that a much more fruitful field for analysis is the question of whether and why plastered human skulls were chosen as cultic paraphernalia in this specific period and in this specific geographical area. Why were other objects not chosen, such as plastered dog or cattle crania? What was the benefit bestowed by the human skulls; so great a benefit that communities kept collecting them for nearly 5000 years? Why were skulls not plastered in the PPNA but plastered in the PPNB? Why were skulls left in deserted houses in the PPNA but buried in the PPNB? If the skulls were associated with memory, why was it so important to safeguard this memory in the Natufian, PPNA and PPNB periods and not in any earlier or later prehistoric society? hese are questions that have generally not been asked in previous discussions on the Neolithic plastered skulls. 155 he skulls may have functioned as a medium of intergenerational contact. Probably no other cultic objects, such as figurines, buildings, statues, or masks, make such a direct connection between past and present generations. Why did this connection have such a strong meaning between 12,000 and 7000 BC in the Levant? One of the main processes that took place in these late prehistoric societies was the transition from a nomadic way of life to sedentary communities living in permanent villages (BarYosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989). Consequently, lands that previously were not personal possessions now became the private property of villages and families. In a prehistoric society lacking documentation, skulls would be a clear sign of residency in a place for generations. he skulls supply an indication of inherited land rights in the settlements, the fields around them and even larger territories. In this respect they functioned like later Mesopotamian written clay tablets that verify rights to land and property. Another major process that took place in the late prehistoric period was social stratification. Unlike the naïve assumption that these were egalitarian tribal societies (Redman 1978, 205), we now have clear indications that the early Neolithic communities were stratified (see, for example, Garfinkel 1987; Garfinkel and Dag 2006). How the social structure of a Neolithic village was composed is still a matter that needs large horizontal exposures and spatial analysis of the data. At any rate, these early villages, which varied in size from 0.5 to14 hectares, were probably initially established as small villages that grew over time by both population increase within the site and immigration of Figure 20. he function of skulls at the beginning of sedentary life 156 Settlement, Survey, and Stone newcomers. he keeping of skulls would have immediately differentiated between families dwelling in the village for generations and having the skulls of previous generations and these newcomers who had no skulls to present. In this way the skulls would have served as a weapon in social competition within the village (Figure 20). Conclusion he suggestion that the Near Eastern PPNB plastered skulls represent an ancestor cult, a fertility cult or regeneration is not an explanation, as we are left with the same basic question: why were human skulls rather than other items chosen to be manipulated as cultic objects? In a non-literate prehistoric society the skulls of the first settlers could serve as verification of rights to lands and territories in both competition within the community and conflict with other communities. he plastered skulls thus reflect the beginnings of the concept of private property and the accumulation of wealth in the early Neolithic communities of the ancient Near East. References Anfrans, J. (2006) Un nouveau regard sur les restes anthropologiques du site néolithique de Tell Ramad (Syria). Syria 83, 115–124. Arensburg, B. and Hershkovitz, I. (1989) Artificial skull ‘treatment’ in the PPNB period: Nahal Hemar. In I. Hershkovitz (ed.), People and Culture in Change: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Upper Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic Populations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, pp. 115–133. BAR International Series 508, Oxford: Archeopress. Backofen, U. W. (1987) Anthropological study of the skeletal material from Lidar. Arastirma Sonuçlari Toplantisi 5, 191–202. Bar-Yosef, O. and Alon, D. (1988) Excavations at Nahal Hemar Cave. ‘Atiqot 18, 1–30. Bar-Yosef, O. and Ayalon, E. (2001) Chalcolithic ossuaries – what do they imitate and why? Qadmoniot 34, 34–43 (Hebrew). Bar-Yosef, O. and Belfer-Cohen, A. (1989) he origin of sedentism and farming communities in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 3, 447–498. Bienert, H. D. (1991) Skull cult in the prehistoric Near East. Journal of Prehistoric Religion 5, 9–23. Belfer-Cohen, A. (1988) he Natufian graveyard in Hayonim Cave. Paléorient 14, 297–308. Belfer-Cohen, A. and Arensburg, B. (1997) he human remains from Netiv Hagdud. In O. Bar-Yosef, and A. Gopher (eds), An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part I: he Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud, pp. 201– 208. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 43. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Bonogofsky, M. (1999) he osteo-archaeology of Early Neolithic burial practices in the Levant. Journal of the Association of Graduates in Near Eastern Studies 8, 32– 35. — (2001) Cranial modeling and Neolithic bone modification at ‘Ain Ghazal: New interpretations. Paléorient 27, 141– 146. — (2002) Reassessing ‘dental evulsion’ in Neolithic plastered skulls from the Levant through the use of computer tomography, direct observation, and photography. Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 959–964. — (2003) Neolithic plastered skulls and railroading epistemologies. BASOR 331, 1–10. Bonogofsky, M. (ed.) (2006) Skull Collection, Modification and Decoration. BAR International Series 1539. Oxford: Archeopress. Bower, B. (1997) Ancient adhesive surfaces in Israeli cave. Science News 152, 279. Butler, C. R. (1989) he plastered skulls of ‘Ain Ghazal: Preliminary findings. In I. Hershkovitz (ed.), People and Culture in Change: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Upper Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic Populations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, pp. 141–145. BAR International Series 508, Oxford: Archeopress. Contenson, H. de (2000) Ramad: site néolithique en Damascène (Syrie) aux VIII–VII millénaires avant l’ère chrétienne. Beyrouth: Institut Français d’Archéologie du Proche-Orient. Davenport, W. H. (1986) Two kinds of value in the eastern Solomon Islands. In A. Appadurai (ed.), he Social Life of hings, pp. 110–138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Garfinkel, Y. (1987) Burnt lime products and social implications in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B villages of the Near East. Paléorient 13, 68–75. — (1994) Ritual burial of cultic objects: he earliest evidence. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4, 159–188. Garfinkel, Y., Ben-Shlomo, D. and Kuperman, T. (2009) Large-scale storage of grain surplus in the 6th millennium BC: he silos of Tel Tsaf. Antiquity 83, 309–325. Garfinkel, Y. and Dag, D. (2006) Early Neolithic hierarchy patterns. In Y. Garfinkel and D. Dag (eds), Gesher: A Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Site in the Central Jordan Valley, Israel. A Final Report, pp. 197–202. Berlin: ex oriente. Goring-Morris, N. (2000) he quick and the dead: he social context of aceramic Neolithic mortuary practices as seen from Kfar HaHoresh. In I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, pp. 103–136. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Garfinkel: Life Cycle of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Plastered Skulls from the Southern Levant Griffin, P. S., Grissom, C. A. and Rollefson, G. O. (1998) hree late eighth millennium plastered faces from ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Paléorient 24, 59–70. Hayden, B. (2004) A Prehistory of Religion: Shamans, Sorcerers and Saints. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Books. Hershkovitz, I., Garfinkel, Y. and Arensburg, B. (1986) Neolithic skeletal remains at Yiftahel, Area C (Israel). Paléorient 12, 73–81. Hershkovitz, I., Zohar, M., Speirs, M. S., Segal, I., Meirav, O., Sherter, U., Feldman, H. and Goring-Morris, A. N. (1995) Remedy for an 8,500-year-old plastered human skull from Kfar HaHoresh, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 22, 779–788. Hodder, H. (2006) he Leopard’s Tale. London: hames & Hudson. Kenyon, K. M. (1953) Excavations at Jericho 1953. PEQ 85, 81–95. — (1956) Excavations at Jericho 1956. PEQ 88, 67–82. — (1981) Excavations at Jericho, Vol. 3. London: he British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Khalaily, H., Milevski, I., Getzov, N., Hershkovitz, I., Barzilai, O., Yarosevich, A., Shlomi, V., Najjar, A., Zidan, O., Smithline, H. and Liran, R. (2008) Recent excavations at the Neolithic site of Yiftahel (Khalet Khalladyiah), Lower Galilee. Neo-Lithics 2/08, 3–11. Kopytoff, I. (1986) he cultural biography of things: Commoditation as process. In A. Appadurai (ed.), he Social Life of hings, pp. 64–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kuijt, I. (1996) Negotiating equality through ritual: A consideration of Late Natufian and Prepottery Neolithic A period mortuary practices. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15, 313–336. — (2000) Keeping the peace. Ritual, skull catching and community integration in the Levantine Neolithic. In I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. Social Organization, Identity and Differentiation, pp. 137–164. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. — (2001) Meaningful masks: Place, death, and the transmission of social memory in early agricultural communities of the Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic. In M. S. Chesson (ed.), Social Memory, Identity and Death: Intradisciplinary Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals, pp. 80–99. Washington D.C.: American Anthropological Association. — (2008) he regeneration of life. Neolithic structures of symbolic remembering and forgetting. Current Anthropology 49, 171–197. Kurth, G. and Röhrer-Ertl, O. (1981) On the anthropology of Mesolithic to Chalcolithic human remains from Tell es-Sultan in Jericho, Jordan. In K. M. Kenyon (ed.), Excavations at Jericho, Vol. 3, pp. 407–499. London: he British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. 157 Lechevallier, M. (1978) Abou Gosh et Beisamoun. Deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël. Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Français de Jérusalem No. 2. Paris: Association Paléorient. Margalit, B. (1983) he ‘Neolithic connection’ of the Ugarit poem of Aqht. Paléorient 9, 93–98. Mellart, J. (1966) Excavations at Çatal Höyük, 1965. Anatolian Studies 16, 167–191. Milevski, I., Khalaily, H., Getzov, N. and Hershkovitz, I. (2008) he plastered skulls and other PPNB finds from Yiftahel, Lower Galilee (Israel). Paléorient 34/2, 37–46. Molleson, T., Comerford, G. and Moore, A. (1992) A Neolithic painted skull from Tell Abu Hureyra, northern Syria. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2, 230–235. Nativ, A. (2008) A note on Chalcolithic ossuary jars: A metaphor for metamorphosis. Tel Aviv 35, 209–214. Özbek, M. (2009) Remodeled human skulls in Köşk Höyük (Neolithic Age, Anatolia): A new appraisal in view of recent discoveries. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 379–386. Öztan, A. (2002) Köşk Höyük: New contributions to Anatolian archaeology. Tüba-Ar 5, 55–69. Perrot, J. and Ladiray, D. (1988) Les Hommes de Mallaha (Eynan) Israël. Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Français de Jérusalem No. 7. Paris: Association Paléorient. Redman, C. L. (1978) he Rise of Civilization: From Early Farmers to Urban Society in the Ancient Near East. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Rollefson, G. O. (1983) Ritual and ceremony at Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal (Jordan). Paléorient 9, 29–38. — (2000) Ritual and social structure at Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal. ,In I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. Social Organization, Identity and Differentiation, pp. 165–190. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Rollefson, G. O., Schmandt-Besserat, D. and Rose, J. C. (1999) A decorated skull from MPPNB ‘Ain Ghazal. Paléorient 24, 99–104. Schick, T. (1988) A Neolithic cult headdress from the Nahal Hemar Cave. he Israel Museum Journal 7, 25–33. Schmandt-Besserat, D. (ed.) (2013) Symbols at ‘Ain Ghazal. ‘Ain Ghazal Excavation Reports Vol. 3. Berlin: ex oriente. Silistreli, U. (1989) Köşk Höyük figurin ve heykelcikleri. Türk tarih kurumu belleten 207–8, 497–504. Simmons, A. H., Boulton, A., Butler, C. R., Kafafi, Z. and Rollefson, G. O. (1990) Plastered human skull from Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Journal of Field Archaeology 17, 107–110. Slon, V., Sarig, R., Hershkovitz, I., Khalaily, H. and Milevski, I. (2014). he plastered skulls from the Pre- 158 Settlement, Survey, and Stone Pottery Neolithic B site of Yiftahel (Israel) – A computed tomography-based analysis. PLOS ONE 9/2: e89242. Sorek, C. and Ayalon, E. (1993) Colors from Nature. Natural Colors in Ancient Times. Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum. Stordeur, D. (2003) Des crânes surmodelés à Tell Aswad de Damascène (PPNB, Syrie). Paléorient 29, 109–116. Stordeur, D., Jammous, B. and Morero, E. (2006) L’aire funéraire de Tell Aswad (PPNB). Syria 83, 39–62. Stordeur, D. and Khawam, R. (2007) Les crânes surmodelés de Tell Aswad (PPNB, Syria). Premier regard sur l’ensemble, premières réflexions. Syria 84, 3–32. Strouhal, E. (1973) Five plastered skulls from Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Jericho: Anthropological study. Paléorient 1, 230–247. Trigger, B. G. (2003) Artifacts and Ideas, Essays in Archaeology. New Brunswick: Transaction. Watkins, T., Baird, D. and Betts, A. (1989) Qermez Dere and the early aceramic Neolithic of northern Iraq. Paléorient 15, 19–24.