CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
Headless but still eloquent!
Acephalous skeletons as witnesses
of Pre-Pottery Neolithic NorthSouth Levant connections
and disconnections
F. Bocquentin, E. Kodas and A. Ortiz
Abstract: This paper discusses the practice of skull removal in the Late Epipalaeolithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic in the Northern
and Southern Levant, a feature which may serve as a basis for comparison of funerary customs between regions. Even though the topic
of skull removal has been widely debated, factual data remain incomplete and funerary treatment is complex and highly variable.
We have undertaken a preliminary synthesis based on 65 sites (MNI: 3001 individuals) distributed across the Southern and Northern
Levant, the Upper Tigris and Central Anatolia from the Early Natuian period (13000 cal. BC) through to the irst half of the 7th
millennium BC. All burial categories were taken into account but the focus of the article is on acephalous skeletons. They represent
6.1% of the corpus but interestingly this proportion changes over time and space. An increase in skull removals is noticed at the
beginning of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic but a clear break between the Southern and Northern Levant took place in the MPPNB.
Removal then appears to be very selective in the North while it affects more than a third of the dead in the South. In the Southern
Levant, removal mostly affects only the cranium and seems to be later in time. Nevertheless, out of this standard interpretative
framework, a forgotten grave in Jericho calls into question the probability of pre-burial retrieval and encouraged to be vigilant in
digging and interpreting Pre-Pottery Neolithic graves.
Résumé : L’objectif de cette contribution est de proposer un il conducteur pour une comparaison entre le Nord et le Sud Levant
du point de vue des pratiques funéraires (Épipaléolithique inal et Néolithique précéramique). Les obstacles à une telle approche
sont nombreux à cause notamment du manque de données disponibles et de traitements funéraires complexes et variés. Bien que le
prélèvement du crâne soit un sujet largement débattu, les données factuelles demeurent incomplètes et dissociées. Nous avons entrepris
une synthèse préliminaire basée sur 65 sites (NMI : 3 001 individus) attribués à la période qui va du Natouien ancien (13000 cal.
BC) à la première moitié du 7e millénaire (cal. BC) et situés au Levant nord et sud, dans la haute vallée du Tigre et en Anatolie
centrale. Toutes les catégories d’inhumation ont été inventoriées et les squelettes acéphales ont fait l’objet d’une attention spéciique.
Ceux-ci représentent 6,1 % du corpus, mais cette proportion varie en fonction des zones géographiques et au il du temps. Au début
du Néolithique Précéramique, la pratique du prélèvement se développe conjointement de part et d’autre du Levant. Mais le PPNB
moyen marque une rupture claire alors que le prélèvement devient très sélectif au nord mais concerne, au contraire, plus d’un tiers
des défunts au sud. Les données qualitatives apportent également quelques éléments de discussion sur le processus de prélèvement
et sur les chaînes opératoires liées au traitement funéraire. Au sud, le prélèvement concerne en majorité le seul bloc crânio-facial et
semble intervenir plus tardivement qu’au nord. Toutefois, hors de ce cadre interprétatif standard, une sépulture oubliée de Jéricho
témoigne d’un prélèvement antérieur à l’inhumation du cadavre, nous encourageant à davantage de prudence lors de la fouille et de
l’interprétation des sépultures du Néolithique précéramique levantin.
Keywords: Skull removal; Cranium removal; Quantitative bioarchaeological data; Funerary chaîne opératoire; Corpse
dismemberment.
Mots-clés : Prélèvement du crâne ; Prélèvement du bloc crânio-facial ; Données anthropologiques quantitatives ; Chaîne
opératoire funéraire ; Démembrement du cadavre.
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 33-52 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
Manuscrit reçu le 19 janvier 2016, accepté le 14 juin 2016
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
34
INTRODuCTION
Burial customs are a valuable ield of research in which to
undertake inter-regional comparisons. The different aspects of
the treatment of the dead can help in the detection of group
identity and differences in social behaviours. Pre-burial treatment, position and orientation of the corpse, grave structures,
containers, associated items, secondary handling, etc., are best
compared for the Neolithic of the Near East on a site by site
basis and region by region, in order to reconstruct cultural and
symbolic links that may have existed in parallel to technical or
economic trade and exchanges (e.g., Rollefson 1983; Verhoeven
2002; Kuijt 2008a and b). Despite interesting reviews of the
period (e.g., Goring-Morris 2000; Croucher 2012; Goring
Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2014), it nevertheless has to be said
that few attempts have been made to create a comprehensive
interregional dataset on some aspects of burial customs for the
Near East (e.g., Bonogofsky 2006; Koutsadelis 2007; Benz
2010; Kanjou et al. 2015). Indeed, despite several thousand
Neolithic graves having been unearthed in the Levant, it is
today dificult to make a clear synthesis of funerary behavior
based on clear quantitative data.
Several reasons for that have been suggested (e.g., Kuijt
2008a). Besides the common dificulties inherent to all comparative and synthetic studies (for instance, missing data and
uncertainty as to the contemporaneity of sites), burial custom
analyses for the Neolithic in the Levant face speciic obstacles
that we have classiied into ive categories:
1) Data are too often partially published and emphasis is
made on some graves while others remain undescribed.
In the end, the exact number of graves per site and the
proportion of the different customs observed cannot be
measured. For about 2/3 of the Neolithic corpus studied
here, individual descriptions are not available and thus
it is not possible to crosscheck data and look for relations between the different parameters, like biological
identity, position, location of the grave, etc.;
2) We also suffer from a lack of common vocabulary and
methods. What is a primary/secondary/reduction
burial? How to recognize a plural successive interment
from a simultaneous deposit? The same is true for sex,
age determination or counts of Minimum Numbers of
Individuals (MNI). As protocols have changed over
time and are still today quite heterogeneous, comparison site by site implies some bias;
3) Contextualization is also problematic because numerous graves were found long ago and/or during salvage
F. Bocquentin, E. Kodas and A. Ortiz
excavations, resulting in incomplete and uneven
records;1 furthermore as very few anthropologists are
present in the ield, archaeothanatological aspects are
not usually taken into account;
4) The periods under discussion are dealing with very
dense site occupations with partial destruction of previous layers: this leads to the fragmentary nature of a
great number of burials and to the presence of many
scattered bones on-site, which are often counted as
graves. In addition, preservation of the skeletons is usually poor;
5) The complexity of Neolithic burial treatment (including
various positions of deposit, secondary handling, huge
collective graves, funerary building, etc.) makes its
reconstruction challenging; all the more so because we
are dealing with great intra and inter-site variability.
Despite this, source of optimism is found in recent doctoral
researches that have attempted to bring together several strands
of data on which to base interpretation (e.g., Yilmaz 2010;
Ortiz 2014; Kodas 2014; Chamel 2014; Khawam 2014).
Additionally, discoveries and recent analyses of exceptional
sites with numerous well-preserved graves (e.g., Karul 2011;
Erdal 2015) are another reason for optimism.
SKuLL REMOVAL: PROVIDING uS
WITH ARIADNE’S THREAD?
In order to avoid the dificulties listed above, this paper will
focus on one speciic aspect of Neolithic burial customs that is
well documented: the practice of skull removal. Acephalous
skeletons and isolated skulls are found in sites all over the Levant
and are considered to be one testimony, amongst others, of close
connections between North and South. Moreover this remarkable custom was described as early as the 1950s and is still a
focus of attention, which warrants a better set of data for intersite and inter-regional comparison. Therefore, skull removal
appears to be an effective and reliable criterion with which to
discuss North-South similarities and differences.
Skulls may have been removed from the grave or just displaced, painted or even plastered, exhibited and/or reburied.
Observed in the site of Jericho by K. Kenyon, this “careful
preservation of actual human skulls” was irst described as a
1. See for instance an historical background in Bocquentin 2003 or Chamel
2014.
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 33-52 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
Headless but still eloquent! Acephalous skeletons as witnesses of Pre-Pottery Neolithic North-South Levant connections and disconnections
“Cult of Skulls” (Kenyon 1957: 60-63). If Kenyon briely mentioned the hypothesis that isolated skulls could be the outcome
of heads decapitated by enemies, she rapidly endorsed the idea
that skull removal was part of a speciic burial custom linked
to a “Cult of venerated Ancestors” (Ibid.). This interpretation
was supported by the remarkable ieldwork performed by
I.W. Cornwall, a zooarchaeologist (and physical anthropologist) ahead of his time (Bocquentin and Wagemaker 2014).
Digging acephalous skeletons from multiple graves at Jericho,
he deduced on the basis of the scrupulous observation of anatomical dislocations that the crania were taken from corpses in
an advanced state of decomposition on occasions of successive
burials (Cornwall 1956). Further discoveries led the scientiic
community to the agreement that skull removal was one of the
key features of Pre-Pottery Neolithic funerary treatment. In
parallel, the ‘ancestor cult’ has become speciied, contextualised, theorised and generally accepted, mainly supported by
the plastered skulls found in the Southern Levant. The veneration of ancestors has been linked to the need to consolidate
identity and collective solidarity in a climate of increased
social stratiication. It has been proposed that through time,
personal identity is deleted and dead people became a new collective lineage (e.g., Wright 1988; Goring-Morris 2000;
Stordeur et Khawam 2007; Kuijt 2008b; Milevski et al. 2008;
Benz 2010; Bonogofsky 2011). Others consider that skull treatment needs to be understood within a wider context of social
competition and conlict and that part of the corpus might be
the consequence of trophies or hostile treatment rather than
funerary (positive) treatment (e.g., Schmandt-Besserat 2002;
Testart 2008; Santana et al. 2012).
This debate reminds us that archaeological distinction
between an ‘ancestor cult’ and the more wide-spread practice
of ‘trophy heads’ is not straightforward insofar as the processing of the skulls may be comparable, and these two categories
are often porous over time (see also Croucher 2006; Bonogofsky
and Graham 2011; Valentin and Rolland 2011; Schulting 2015);
even often complementary and inseparable (Lemonnier 2009).
Moreover, the mode of procurement of skulls has been little
debated from an anthropological point of view (Santana et al.
2012; Bocquentin 2013; Kanjou et al. 2015; Pilloud et al. 2016).
Instead, plastered skulls, the most spectacular product of this
complex treatment, are the main focus of discussions. This
practice of remodelling is, however, known only in two regions
geographically distant from each other: the Southern Levant
and Anatolia. While it appears only in the Late Pottery
Neolithic in Anatolia (6300-5000 cal. BC), it is speciic to the
Middle and Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (8200-7200 cal. BC)
in the Southern Levant. The eyes, eyebrows, nose, lips, cheeks,
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 33-52 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
35
chin and ears are modelled in a more or less explicit and realistic fashion. At the time of the transformation process, the
skulls were dry, or at least perfectly clean: the oriices, including the smallest, and all of the cavities, are empty and receive
an artiicial ill (e.g., Kenyon 1957; Strouhal 1973; Rollefson
1983; Hershkovitz et al. 1995; Goren et al. 2001; Stordeur et
Khawam 2007; Fletcher et al. 2008; Kodas 2014; Slon et al.
2014); there is thus a preliminary deleshing process, whether
of a passive or active nature. With about 70 specimens known
so far, plastering is likely to have been a marginal option of
skull treatment. A few painted skulls, which are mostly plain
skulls, have been found in larger quantities usually grouped
together in clusters or in caches all over the Near East. Detached
skulls are found in all chrono-cultural contexts but show variations in terms of quantity, spatial organization and selection of
the dead (for a recent synthesis: Benz 2010). The proportion of
skull-less versus complete skeletons or isolated skulls is
unknown. Precise quantitative data on the topic are missing
although they are of major importance in the reconstruction of
burial customs and the evaluation of the place of skull treatment within the Neolithic funerary system and beyond
(Santana et al. 2012). Re-examining the primary contexts is an
urgent necessity: skeletons, either with or without their skulls,
have certainly not said their last word yet. Our goal in this
paper is not to ill the mentioned gap but to propose some
guidelines for future debate.
FROM DESCRIPTION TO INTERPRETATION:
ADVOCACY FOR BETTER COMMuNICATION
An incomplete skeleton can be the testimony of many different deliberate or accidental actions, this is why a precise
description of the burial can contribute to a reliable interpretation. The treatment of the head in past populations raises speciic issues which can be properly discuss with a clear
terminology and a precise ield record (e.g., Boulestin et HenryGambier 2012a; Knüsel 2014; Boulestin 2015). In anatomical
terminology ‘skull’ refers to the complete cephalic extremity;
this is to say the cranium together with the mandible. ‘Skull
removal’ is thus inappropriately used when only the cranium
has been removed. However, it is today understood as a generic
term and it is probably better to maintain it together with a clear
description of the bones actually removed or missing, though
unfortunately these are rarely itemized in the literature available to date. The presence or absence of the irst cervical vertebrae, and the hyoid bone is also important, together with their
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
36
F. Bocquentin, E. Kodas and A. Ortiz
Fig. 1 – Acephalous skeleton from the PPNC occupation
of Beisamoun (Locus 276) and close up on the two irst
cervical vertebrae partly overlapped by the mandible.
This adult was lying on his left side tightly lexed. His
cranium was removed at a late stage in the decay process. On this occasion the mandible and the hyoid bones
(#1) were reversed. The atlas appeared on its superior
face (#2) while the axis (#3) was, in contrast, near its
hypothetical initial position lying on its left side. The
rest of the cervical column was not present, probably
not preserved, like most of the thoracic level (© F. Bocquentin and H. Khalaily).
state of connection or dislocation if present. Moreover bones
should be thoroughly observed in order to look for potential
modiication marks (cutting, scraping, breakage, etc.).
Altogether, these data will permit a discussion of the time and
modality of the removal (e.g., Boulestin et Duday 2012).
‘Removal’ from the grave as a secondary step in the funerary treatment, as suggested irst by I.W. Cornwall, will be recognized easily if the process implies disturbance of already
decayed joints (ig. 1). Indeed the observation of dislocation/
displacement of cervical vertebrae and/or the mandible (and
sometimes the thorax and the shoulders as well), points to
intentional removal of the cranium in the course of the decomposition process. The presence of isolated upper teeth is also
clear testimony of in situ decay of the cranium as single rooted
teeth sometimes fall from their alveolar process when the ligaments decay. The irst and possibly also the second cervical
vertebrae (C1 and C2, also named atlas and axis respectively:
ig. 2), whose connections are more enduring, may still be
attached to the occipital region and either removed from the
grave together with the cranium or separated by torsion or even
with a knife (e.g., Andrews et al. 2005). If removal takes place
after the decay process is complete and with special care, it
might not involve any disturbance and the cervical column
will be found in perfect anatomical connection (ig. 3). In both
cases, during or after decay, the removal of the mandible is
likely to relect a deliberate choice as the temporo-mandibular
joint is labile and a priori dislocates early in the course of the
decay process (e.g., Duday 2009).
Fig. 2 – Anatomical features mentioned in the text are illustrated in
situ in an X-Ray of a generic human head and neck (lateral view).
‘Decapitation’ refers to severing of the head of a living person (who is put to death), or to the active separation of the head
from the neck on a fresh corpse.2 The latter may be performed
2. In French, these two situations are sometimes named differently: “decapitation” for execution; “decollation” for post-mortem dismembering (Thiol
2000) but the nuance, admittedly dificult to make in some archaeological
cases, does not exist in English (Boulestin et Henry-Gambier 2012b).
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 33-52 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
Headless but still eloquent! Acephalous skeletons as witnesses of Pre-Pottery Neolithic North-South Levant connections and disconnections
37
eton, if not disturbed later, should not display any joint
dislocation.
To conclude, correct anatomical words and precise archaeological contexts are extremely important for interpretation. If
joint dislocation is a speciic marker of skull removal in a skeletonized body, the absence of such disturbances cannot be
considered deinitive evidence for pre-burial removal, neither
can the presence of cutmarks. An array of data must be taken
into account, including bone inventory, joint dislocation or
connection, and burial position, in order to evaluate the likelihood of the different possible scenarios.
CRANIuM OR SKuLL REMOVAL:
SOME MEASuRABLE GuIDELINES
Fig. 3 – Acephalous skeleton from the site of Çatalhöyük (EPN
occupation, grave F492, skeleton 4593). The deceased was lying
on its back, the axial part of the body, including neck, protected
by a wooden plank (removed before picture). The cervical column
is found in strict anatomical connection. However, in this particular case, the atlas displays some cutmarks. This points towards an
early removal of the skull. Post-depositional retrieval is more likely
although a pre-burial dismemberment cannot be ruled out deinitively (after Andrews et al. 2005).
either for head hunting or in the framework of complex funerary
behaviour and a priori both involve comparable modiications.
Cutmarks will be found on the cervical vertebrae—preferentially between C2 and C3—the weakest anatomical area of the
neck (Thiol 2000, but great variations are documented, e.g.
Pereira et al. 2012). They might be abundant and various and
present on different sides of the bones (anterior, posterior and
lateral). In contrast, in the case of a lethal wound, the expected
cutmarks are sharp and unidirectional (e.g., Montgomery et al.
2011). Sometimes cutmarks can also be found on the hyoid bone
or on the ascending ramus of the mandible, and on the mastoid
processes of the cranium with cuts located at a higher level than
the neck (Montgomery et al. 2011; Boulestin et Duday 2012). It
should be noted that a separation of the cranium from the irst
cervical vertebrae is very dificult to perform on a fresh corpse
(e.g., Thiol 2000; Andrews et al. 2005). Consequently, in most of
the cases, a decapitated body should also lack, at least, the irst
or two irst vertebrae in addition to its skull. Moreover the skel-
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 33-52 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
In order to provide preliminary quantitative data on skull
removal, we have built a database for Near Eastern sites, which
includes most of the currently available data published in articles or ield reports spanning the Epipaleolithic to the mid-7th
millennium (including PPNC/FPPNB or EPN according to
regional chrono-cultural identities). Sixty-ive sites have been
selected and attributed to four geographical areas following
four major geo-cultural regions commonly deined based on
various elements of the material culture (e.g. Kozłowski and
Aurenche 2005): the Southern Levant, the Northern Levant
(which encompasses in this current article the upper Euphrates
Valley), the upper Tigris valley and Central Anatolia (table 1;
ig. 4). If the number of sites per area is unequal, the Minimum
Number of Individuals registered in the database is better balanced due essentially to the fact that the site of Çatalhöyük has
provided a large number of skeletons. The MNI shown in
Table 1 was obtained by summing the MNI counts for each
site. This MNI by site is the result of a nearly comprehensive
collection of data, grave by grave. The number obtained is as
close as possible to the real minimum number as the graves
from a single architectural complex or an identical level have
been considered as potentially complementary. Furthermore,
we have estimated independently the MNI from cranial
Table 1 – Number of sites (attributed from the Early Natuian to the
irst half of the 7th millennium) and Minimal Number of Individuals
involved in this study according to the four regions selected.
Central
Anatolia
Northern
Levant
Upper
Tigris
Southern
Levant
Total
No. of sites
6
14
11
34
65
MNI
721
699
593
988
3001
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
38
F. Bocquentin, E. Kodas and A. Ortiz
Fig. 4 – Map of the studied geographical region divided into four areas, and major Epipaleolithic and Neolithic sites with human graves.
White diamonds: sites taken into account in our data base. Black diamonds: other sites (© base map: M. Sauvage).
remains and from infra-cranial remains and have used the
greatest number. Finally the database comprises 3001 individuals3 for whom a minimum of data concerning the context of
3. For some sites, we collected data from selected well-published structures
(for instance, we took into account only the skull building at Çayönü
(Yilmaz 2010) or only the graves unearthed up to 2007 at Kfar HaHoresh
(Simmons et al. 2007). We could not take into account articles where only
general data are published instead of individual information for each skeleton unearthed. Concerning Jericho, the data were collected from Kenyon
and Holland (1981) and Cornwall (1981), as the MNI given by Kurth and
Röhrer-Ertl (1981) are totally aberrant compared to the ield description.
discovery could be noted. The number of individuals available
for investigation reduces as criteria of analyses (age, chronological attribution, precise funerary context, bone representation etc…) increases. This is why the MNI will be different in
each of the tables or graphs presented here.
We have clustered the human deposits according to 12 categories (table 2) in order to clarify the contexts of discovery and
to select the most relevant data available for inter-site comparisons and for investigation of basic quantitative data on common
or distinctive treatment of cranial and infra-cranial remains.
If we consider clear primary burials (H+I+J), it appears
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 33-52 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
Headless but still eloquent! Acephalous skeletons as witnesses of Pre-Pottery Neolithic North-South Levant connections and disconnections
39
Fig. 5 – Percentage of cephalic extremity removal
from well identiied primary burial contexts (see
contexts H, I, J in table 2) from the Early Natuian
to the Early Pottery Neolithic in the three regions
studied.
Table 2 – Context of discovery of the human remains and Minimum
Number of Individuals discovered in each of them. This table does
not take into account the fact that the deposits are single or multiple;
the term “isolated” must be understood from an anatomical point of
view. Context F is a kind of pot-pourri of numerous Neolithic graves
for which it is unclear if they are secondary deposits or successive
burials or contemporaneous burials with secondary handling.
Code
Archeo-anatomical contexts of discovery
MNI
A
Plastered crania isolated from infracranial
21
B
Crania isolated from infracranial
157
C
Plastered skulls isolated from infracranial
35
D
Skulls isolated from infracranial
42
E
Mandible isolated from cranium and infracranial
27
F
Dislocated skull together with infracranial
(secondary/primary successive/secondary handling)
377
G
Dislocated infracranial without cranium or skull
(secondary deposit/secondary handling with removal)
77
H
Primary with cranium removal
77
I
Primary with skull removal
J
Primary complete
58
2096
K
Cremation/burnt remains (skull present in great majority)
63
L
Skeleton eroded or truncated (data on skull not availaible)
121
that 6.1% of them have been subject to skull/cranium removal
(H+I) (table 2). This number increases to 9.2% if we also take
into account secondary deposit or secondary handling (for
instance, reduction of corpses) where infra-cranial remains
remained intact (G). In those more complex contexts, removal
(or differential selection of bones from primary deposits)
occurred at some point but when exactly in the chaîne opératoire of funerary handling is unknown. This is why in this
paper, we focus on well-understood primary contexts (H, I, J).
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 33-52 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
Removal in Space and Time
For a diachronic approach we have grouped together several cultural phases, following some consensual clusters, in
order to solve quantitative issues and avoid problematic chronological attribution (ig. 5). Skull removal is not yet known in
Geometric Kebaran contexts but may already appear at
Pinarbaşi (Middle Epipaleolithic) on the Anatolian plateau
(Baird et al. 2013). In the Levant, it seems to develop at the
very beginning of the Natuian. During the Early Natuian, no
clear illustration of this treatment is available with the exception of a dearth of crania and mandibles from Grave VI in
Hayonim Cave which may testify to this treatment for adults
and children (Belfer-Cohen 1988; Bocquentin 2003: 212). In
the Natuian site Azraq 18, where two skulls were covered by
red pigment in the collective grave, removal and reburial is
highly probable (Bocquentin and Garrard 2016). Additionally,
isolated skulls have been found in several Early Natuian sites
(e.g., Perrot et Ladiray 1988; Neuville 1951). Altogether, it
seems that skulls or crania might be incidentally removed
within the process of managing and reorganizing successive
burials within the same grave.
During the later Epipaleolithic (Late/Final Natuian) and
very beginning of the Neolithic (Khiamian), skull removal
increases and is found in most of the sites from the Southern
Levant (except Mallaha: Perrot et Ladiray 1988; Bocquentin
2007). For the irst time, removal is completed from single or
multiple primary graves (ig. 6). This means that these graves
were reopened specially in order to remove the cephalic extremity. It is not an opportunistic treatment but would have been
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
40
F. Bocquentin, E. Kodas and A. Ortiz
planned as early as the primary burial. Indeed the position of
the skull is perfectly known, maybe marked, and minor disturbances are made to the skeleton even though most of the individuals concerned were buried directly in earth4 (Bocquentin
2003: 319). From the Late Natuian, skull removal becomes a
planned, selective and cautious treatment mostly practiced in
single graves in the Southern Levant. With certain nuances this
will become the foundation of Neolithic removal practices.
At the beginning of Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPNA and
Early PPNB) the database contains a large corpus of graves in
all of the areas except Central Anatolia. Skull/cranium
removal is well attested in the Northern Levant (11.6%) and
increases signiicantly (p-value = 0.047)5 in the Southern
Levant (21.4%) (ig. 5). In all sites where graves exceed a
dozen in number, skull removal is usually attested. In the
upper Tigris, the site of Körtik Tepe yielded 413 complete
skeletons. In these exceptionally well-preserved graves, very
complex funerary practices are observed but skull removal is
absent (Erdal 2015 and Erdal personal comm., 2014). However,
in the nearby site of Demirköy, skull removal is attested
(Rosenberg 2011) and isolated crania were found at Qermez
Dere (Watkins et al. 1991).
The Middle/Late PPNB period marks a clear break in the
Levant. The Northern and Southern Levant seem to follow
opposite directions. Skull removal in primary simple graves
becomes uncommon in the North (2.3%). This is the only
period during which the difference North-South reaches statistical signiicance (p-value < 0.001). Sites with numerous
graves, such as Tell Halula totally abandon this custom (e.g.,
Ortiz 2014). However, this does not mean that manipulations of
skulls cease to occur. On the contrary, secondary collective
handling including skull displacement (Cluster F and G in our
data base), already present in the EPPNB, continues. In the
Southern Levant, skull removal rises to 36.4% of the primary
burials and is present in most of the sites. This increase is contemporaneous with the appearance of the custom of skull
remodeling. In Central Anatolia despite the discovery of a
large number of graves in different sites (N=94), skull removal
is not attested to. No data are available for the upper Tigris.
During the 7th millennium, no drastic change is observed in
the North, where skull removal continues to be sporadic (6.3%).
In Central Anatolia, represented only by the site of Çatalhöyük
(Boz and Hager 2014; Pilloud et al. 20166), skull removal is
present in a very small proportion (1.2%), this is true as well
for the upper Tigris corpus (2.4%). The most signiicant shift
concerns the Southern Levant which shows a drastic decline in
skull removal (p-value < 0.001). This is not due to the fact that
Middle and Late PPNB were grouped together. Indeed, if we
separate the graves with robust attributions to either the Middle
or to the Late PPNB, we observe a slight increase from the
MPPNB (33%) to the Late PPNB (37.5%) in skull removal.
Thus, the beginning of the 7th millennium marks a clear break
4. Based on archaeothanatological analysis it is possible to say that no perishable funerary container (open space burial) which would have facilitate the
reopening of the grave was present.
5. χ² or Fisher’s exact (small size samples) were used for all statistical tests.
6. This article was published after our manuscript was reviewed and we could
not take into account the new data provided therein.
Fig. 6 – Acephalous skeleton from the Late Natuian cave of Raqefet.
Homo 28 is an adolescent deposited on his back, lower limbs lexed
towards his left side. The mandible fell into the thorax area during
the decay process due to an initial upright position of the neck and
shoulders. The right half of the irst cervical vertebrae was found
still in connection and cemented to the axis by calcrete. The upper
left central incisor was also found nearby. These elements point
towards a late and cautious removal of the cranium, after the end
of the decay process at the time when calcrete starts to develop. The
left part of the atlas, possibly cemented to the occipital condyle, has
followed the cranium (© D. Nadel).
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 33-52 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
Headless but still eloquent! Acephalous skeletons as witnesses of Pre-Pottery Neolithic North-South Levant connections and disconnections
in this practice for the Southern Levant, in parallel with the
disappearance of skull/cranium plastering.
To conclude, in the Southern Levant, skull/cranium
removal was taking its irst hesitant step during the Early
Natuian but can be considered part of the funerary protocol,
planned in advance and standardized, from the Late Natuian
onwards. With time, it progresses towards the Northern Levant
quite linearly up to the EPPNB although some sites in the
Northern Levant seem to have ignored this custom. From the
Middle PPNB this practice becomes rare in the Northern
Levant while it continues a remarkably constant progression in
the South until it involves more than one third of the dead by
the end of the LPPNB. By the 7th millennium, skull removal
does still exist but only to a very minor extent everywhere in
the Levant. While data for Central Anatolia are less robust, it
seems that skull removal appears early in this area as well, but
occurs in a low frequency. In the Upper Tigris removal is
attested in only a few sites and seems to be a marginal practice
throughout the Neolithization process.
cRania VERSUS acepHaloUS SKeleTonS mni
A general overview, that encompasses all areas together,
based on MNI counts of isolated skull/cranium (A+B+C+D) on
the one hand and on infra-cranial remains on the other (G+H+I)
suggests that a shift may have occurred in the way of handling
human remains (ig. 7). During the Natuian, skeletons without
the cephalic extremity are more numerous than isolated crania/skulls but the trend is reversed from the beginning of the
PPN.7 The ‘missing’ Natuian crania may not have been reburied or may have been buried a certain distance away from the
dwelling area and burial grounds. The ‘surplus’ of Neolithic
crania, identically observed in the four areas, requires more
attention. It may attest to better preservation of this anatomical
part due to a different context of reburial compared with the
rest of the skeletons (for instance, long-term protected zones or
caches); or the reburial may have taken place in areas more
systematically surveyed by excavators (concentrated closer to
buildings than the majority of the primary burials, which can
be more dispersed). Alternately, it may relect that skull
removal is not the sole source of crania and that part of the
corpus is the result of exchanges, decapitation or dismemberment, which may induce totally disconnected patterns of handling cranial and infra-cranial remains of the same individual,
7. Early Natuian: no statistical signiicance; Late Natuian: p <0.01; PPNA/
PPNB: p <0.05; PPNC/EPN: no statistical signiicance.
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 33-52 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
41
Fig. 7 – Comparison of MNI based on isolated crania/skulls versus
MNI based on isolated infracranial remains (acephalous skeletons/
secondary deposit of infracranial remains) over time.
the latter eventually not buried. One cannot avoid thinking of
the funerary cycle described by P. Lemonnier (2009), in the
Asmat community (south coast of New Guinea) where skull
removal of a member of the community is possible once decapitation of an outsider is accomplished. A thoughtful comparison of the context of discovery of isolated skulls versus other
kinds of funerary deposits, which is beyond the scope of this
paper, may provide some clues towards an interpretation. A
comparison of biological parameters and isotopic signatures
between skulls found in situ in complete burials and isolated
skulls would also be of great interest. Meanwhile, one should
keep in mind that there is a general tendency for the over representation of isolated crania/skulls versus acephalous skeletons during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic.
QUaliTaTive gUidelineS baSed
on acepHaloUS SKeleTonS
Data collected on 128 of the best documented acephalous
skeletons in the available corpus (table 3) allows us to parse the
removal process itself. Of the individuals 57% were subject to
cranium removal only; the mandible in this case was found in
the primary grave together with the infra-cranial skeleton.
However this percentage is quite heterogeneous in the different
geographic areas considered. In the Northern Levant, Central
Anatolia and Upper Tigris,8 the complete skull is more
8. Too few cases in these two late areas to be fully signiicant.
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
F. Bocquentin, E. Kodas and A. Ortiz
42
Table 3 – List of the 128 acephalous skeletons included in the analyses of the current paper.
Site
Area
Abu Gosh
South
Abu Hureyra
South
Beisamoun
South
Cafer Höyük
North
Period
MPPNB
No.
4
Selected References
Lechevallier 1978; Khalaily and Marder 2003
MPPNB
4
Moore 2000
PPNC/EPN
4
Bocquentin and Khalaily personal obs.
MPPNB
1
Lechevallier 1978
EPPNB
2
Cauvin et al. 1999
Çatalhöyük
Central Anatolia
PPNC/EPN
8
Andrews et al. 2005; Boz and Hager 2014
Çayönü
North
MPPNB
1
Yilmaz 2010
Demirköy
Upper Tigris
PPNA
1
Rosenberg 2011
D’jade
North
EPPNB
1
Chamel 2014
El Wad Terrace
South
L Natufian
4
Weinstein Evron 2009
Hatoula
South
PPNA
1
Le Mort 1994
Hayonim Cave
South
L Natufian
4
Belfer Cohen 1988
Hayonim Terrace
South
L Natufian
2
Valla 2012
Jerf el Ahmar
North
PPNA
1
Stordeur 2015
M/LPPNB
21
Kenyon and Holland 1981
Jericho
South
Kfar Hahorech
South
Motza
South
EPPNB
3
Khalaily et al. 2007
Nahal Oren
South
M/LPPNB
L/F Natufian
3
Noy et al. 1973
3
Noy 1989; Bocquentin 2003
Netiv Hagdud
South
PPNA
9
Belfer-Cohen and Arensburg 1997
PPNA
8
Ibid.
M/LPPNB
5
Simmons et al. 2007
Nevali Çori
North
EPPNB
2
Hauptmann 2011
Pinarbaşi
Central Anatolia
Epipalaeolithic
1
Baird et al. 2013
Raqefet
South
L Natufian
1
Nadel et al. 2012
Tell Ain el-Kerkh
North
PPNC/EPN
7
Tsuneki et al. 2011; Chamel 2014
MPPNB
1
Khawam 2014
Tell Aswad
South
LPPNB
7
Khawam 2014
EPPNB
1
Khawam 2014
Tell Hassuna
Upper Tigris
PPNC/EPN
2
Lloyd and Safar 1945
Tell Mureybet
North
Khiamian
1
Chamel 2014
Tell Qaramel
North
PPNA
2
Kanjou 2009; Chamel 2014
Tell Ramad
South
M/LPPNB
1
Contenson 2000
Wadi Shueib
South
LPPNB
5
Simmons et al. 2001
Yiftahel
South
MPPNB
7
Garfinkel et al. 2012; Khalaily et al. 2008;
Milevski, personal comm.
frequently removed (ig. 8).9 In the Southern Levant, where
skull removal was more frequent than cranium removal during
the Natuian (63%), the majority of the removals performed
during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic involved only crania (72%).
Are these proportions relected within the corpus of isolated
cranial remains? Interestingly for this parameter, the situation
is different again in the South and North. In the South, the
proportion of isolated crania versus skulls is roughly identical
to the one observed in the primary partial graves. In the North,
the proportion is the inverse of the expected one: isolated crania are much more numerous than isolated skulls. This sug9. The differences between areas do not reach statistical signiicance yet
(p = 0.06) but should be considered as an interesting trend.
Fig. 8 – Percentage of cranium versus skull removal within primary
graves from the four regions, all periods together.
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 33-52 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
Headless but still eloquent! Acephalous skeletons as witnesses of Pre-Pottery Neolithic North-South Levant connections and disconnections
43
Fig. 9 – Percentage of removal practice according to age-at-death
in the four areas, all periods together (N=128).
Fig. 10 – Burial position of the corpus of skull/cranium-less
skeletons. All periods and areas together (N=128).
gests that the fate of cranium and mandible once removed from
primary graves was not necessarily the same. Indeed mandibles found in isolation are more numerous in the Northern
Levant than in the South.
adolescents). It is enough to say that a process of selection
based on age criteria is attested to with a larger proportion of
adults having been subject to skull removal (ig. 9).11 However,
adolescents but also young children (5-6 years old) and, more
exceptionally, infants do ‘beneit’ sometimes from this treatment. The more common the removal process, the larger the
proportion of immature individuals involved in this practice
(p-value <0.01). In the case of adults, it is worth noting that
young adults (<30 years old) are most numerous amongst
the headless individuals (see references in table 3). Interestingly, the same overrepresentation12 of young adults is true for
plastered skulls/crania (e.g., Bonogovsky 2006; Croucher
2006) or plain skulls (Goring-Morris 2000; Benz 2010;
Santana et al. 2012). A speciic recruitment favoring young
adults is also observed in the ritual PPNB site of Kfar HaHoresh
(Eshed et al. 2008), or in the Early Natuian at Hayonim Cave
(Bocquentin 2003) and amongst ornamented dead in all
Natuian sites (Byrd and Monahan 1995; Belfer-Cohen 1995;
Bocquentin 2003) raising the question of the status of the
young adults amongst the living or the acquired speciic status
in the case of an early death.
No speciic pattern can be isolated from the position or orientation of the skull-less skeletons. A great majority were lying
on their side, left or right (ig. 10), which seems also to be the
a SelecTive pRacTice wiTHin
a STandaRdized fRamewoRK
Skull removal concerns a small portion of the dead, so it is
clear that selection must have taken place. Criteria for selection
may have been multiple, including those linked to biological
identity. The process of selection has been largely debated concerning the speciic case of the plastered skulls although no
deinitive answer has yet been provided (e.g., Ferembach 1970;
Strouhal 1973; Kurth and Röhrer-Ertl 1981; Arensburg and
Hershkovitz 1989; Bonogovsky 2006; Croucher 2006; Flechter
et al. 2008). A comparison of age-at-death, sex, kinship, disease, stress markers etc., of skull-less skeletons versus complete skeletons and isolated skulls of the complete Neolithic
corpus available would certainly result in an immense improvement in our understanding of the phenomenon. Unfortunately,
available individual data on biological identity are today scarce
and unsuitable for comparisons. If sex and age determinations
are infrequently accessible in published documents, then methodological issues remain a great handicap for a global
approach.10 As a result, we have to settle for large categories of
age-at-death: adults or immature individuals (from infants to
10. The methods used are different, the pelvis is usually poorly preserved,
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 33-52 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
and sexing skulls is very problematic: >20% of mistakes at least (e.g.,
Meindl et al. 1985; Bruzek 1996).
11. The differences of treatment according to age reach high statistical signiicance in the North and South Levant (p <0.001 in both cases).
12. Compared to what is expected in case of a natural mortality proile
(Ledermann 1969; Wood et al. 2002).
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
F. Bocquentin, E. Kodas and A. Ortiz
44
Fig. 11 – Elements for the discussion of the removal process (N=128): Presence/absence
of atlas and axis, of disturbances and cutmarks (unspeciied considered as absence for the last graph).
case of the rest of the Neolithic population (with the exception of
the numerous seated burials at Tell Halula (Ortiz et al. 2013;
Ortiz 2014) or the few discovered at El Hemmeh: (Makarewicz
and Rose 2011), although the exact proportions are unknown.
Orientation is highly variable. Single or multiple burial does not
seem to be a criterion that affected the removal pattern either. In
sum, acephalous individuals, whatever their age at death or geographic area, follow the funerary norms in most of the cases.
That being said, a few acephalous skeletons attest to a particular
treatment (context of deposit and position), which may indicate
speciic social/death status (e.g., Jerf-el-Ahmar: Stordeur 2015;
Çatalhöyük, sk. 1959313). The presence of the atlas in the case at
13. Hodder I. (ed.), Çatalhöyük 2012 Archive Report. unpublished pre-
Jerf-el-Ahmar points towards a late removal of the skull although
the cervical column is perfectly articulated.
Concerning the method of removal, well-documented cases
are unfortunately rare14 (ig. 11). Among those, the irst cervical vertebra (atlas) is removed together with the cranium in
about 25% of instances; the second cervical vertebra (axis) follows the removal in 20% of the cases. Again, no relevant differences are noticeable between the Northern and Southern
Levant. Disturbances have been noted in 79% of the reopened
burials. These are usually limited to the mandible, which can
liminary ield report [http://www.catalhoyuk.com/downloads/Archive_
Report_2012.pdf].
14. For this reason percentages given here should be considered as rough indicators.
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 33-52 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
Headless but still eloquent! Acephalous skeletons as witnesses of Pre-Pottery Neolithic North-South Levant connections and disconnections
be reversed or displaced and/or to the irst cervical vertebrae
being slightly displaced. Exceptionally, disturbances also
affected the clavicles, irst ribs and the hand bones when they
were originally placed next to the chin or under the head.
non-STandaRd beHavioRS: SHoUld we
ReconSideR oUR inTeRpReTaTive ScHeme?
In 21% of cases examined here, the removal process did not
involve any bone displacement. Are these cases testimony of
very cautious secondary removal or should we consider them
as pre-burial decapitation previous to the decay process? The
irst hypothesis is supported, at least, by several cases in the
Southern Levant (Raqefet, Hayonim, Nahal Oren, Motza,
Beisamoun) for which we were able to cross-check archaeothanatological data (bone displacement) and direct biological
observations and conirm the absence of cut marked bones.
Early removal is nevertheless suspected in a few cases in
the Northern Levant where cutmarks have been found. In these
cases, cut-marked vertebrae are found in primary context still
articulated to the rest of the vertebral column while anatomical
segments above it (cranium, mandible and sometimes atlas) are
absent in the grave. The best documented cases show the complexity in interpreting the exact handling process. In the skullless skeletons 1466 and 4593 at Çatalhöyük, cutmarks are
present but seem too light to be the result of the decapitation of
fresh corpses and retrieval from the partly decomposed body is
hypothesized (Andrews et al. 2005). An open space burial and
a speciic initial upright position of the head would have
allowed early removal without disturbing the rest of the body.
An acephalous skeleton with cutmarks was also identiied at
the PPNA site of Tell Qaramel. Individual T5-07-9, buried
seated, displays clear cutmarks on the odontoid process and
the superior articular facet of the second cervical vertebra
(Kanjou et al. 2015). Although the state of dislocation/connection of the skeleton is not described, the cutmarks are considered, as in Çatalhöyük, to attest the active retrieval of the skull
using stone tools on a partially decomposed body (Ibidem).15
Cutmarks were also reported from secondary contexts (e.g.,
Tell Qaramel: Kanjou et al. 2015; Çayönü: Yilmaz 2010;
Mureybet: Chamel 2014; Atlit Yam: Hershkovitz and Galili
1990; Kfar HaHoresh: Simmons et al. 2007; Basta: Shultz et al.
2007; Tell Qarassa: Santana et al. 2012) including on plastered
15. It should be noted that in these two publications the authors used the term
“decapitation” but conclude that early post-depositional removal took
place.
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 33-52 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
45
skulls (‘Ain Ghazal: Schmandt-Besserat 2002; Jericho: Bocquentin 2013). These cutmarks are usually interpreted as part of
deleshing activities in order to complete the ongoing natural
decay process. Disarticulating and cleaning seems to be the targeted action within a funerary sequence linked to skull removal
and processing, as cranium and mandible are by far the most
frequently represented cut-marked bones. At Körtik Tepe, cutmarks are found on complete and articulated skeletons, on cranium and infra-cranial bones. Deleshing fresh corpses or during
early stages of decay is proposed (Erdal 2015), opening future
research towards yet unknown funerary chaînes opératoires.
At Çatalhöyük, notwithstanding the absence of cutmarks,
active dismemberment of a partly decomposed body (probably
exposed on the surface within a fenced and protected area)
prior to burial was clearly demonstrated (Andrews et al. 2005;
Boz and Hager 2014). It reminds us that more complex funerary gestures involving a length of time, several stages of intervention, and active deleshing/dismembering, although rare,
should be kept in mind when analyzing unclear Neolithic burials. Not only fresh corpses were handled by the community,
but also putreied and skeletonized bodies were manipulated,
as well as dry bones. Moreover, phenomenon of natural desiccation may also have produced all kinds of states of preservation and completeness of the manipulated body. Yet too often,
potential complex cases are classiied as ‘secondary burial’ or
‘primary disturbed’ without any further considerations.16
In the Southern Levant, pre-burial treatment, such as exposure, has been addressed (Simmons et al. 2007) but seems
exceptional. The poor preservation of the skeletons compared
to those found further North might be an impediment to such
identiication. However, a forgotten grave at Jericho sheds
some light on possible complex pre-burial treatment in the
Southern Levant. Grave FI 6 (XVIIa, 31; PPNB) is described
as a multiple, primary disturbed deposit (probably when
searching for crania, which are absent: Cornwall 1956 and
1981: 398-401). Two areas were distinguished (and yet it is not
clear if it is part of the same grave or two graves lying next to
each other): Burial 6A with only one individual lying in ana16. Although not interpreted as such by the authors (Mazurowski 2005;
Chamel 2014: 121), active dismemberment might well be considered at
Tell Qaramel, where one skeleton was found without a skull and upper
limbs (PPNA: Locus 30), and at Dja’de, where fully articulated segments of skeletons were no longer in anatomical coherence. Grave 283-C,
EPPNB: the right lower leg and foot are lying over the right thigh and ossa
coxae and the left leg and foot are placed under the right thigh. Both legs
appear in antero-superior view, this is to say inverse of their expected anatomical position (Chamel 2014: Figs. 67 and 69). Grave 245: ield documents are less explicit but the description of the fully articulated skull
lying between the lower limbs is also highly questionable (Ibid.: Fig. 73).
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
F. Bocquentin, E. Kodas and A. Ortiz
46
A
Fig. 12 – Grave 6A at Jericho: This photograph illustrates the
upper level of the excavation (see ig. 13). Note the anatomical side
inversions of the lower limbs in relation to the thorax and the left
leg turned end-to-end. The pre-burial dismemberment treatment
together with the position of the mandible and of the left foot in relation with the cervical vertebrae, point towards a dismemberment of
the cranium with the three irst vertebrae before burial (after Kenyon
and Holland 1981: Pl. 62a. Reproduced by permission of the University of Cambridge Museum of Archaeology & Anthropology).
tomical position, and Burial 6B comprising comingled partial
anatomical segments and dislocated bones from several individuals. We will focus on individual 6A, an acephalous skeleton, lying on its back, and apparently tightly lexed (ig. 12-13).
Most of the joints, enduring as labile, are in strict anatomical
connection, which conirms a primary deposit. However, the
skeleton is incomplete. The cranium, the irst three cervical
vertebrae, the two coxae, the left forearm and hand are missing. Additionally, some anatomical inconsistencies were noted:
“the right leg and foot had been disarticulated at the knee and
turned end-for-end before their replacement after disturbance
of the burial” (Cornwall 1981: 399).
Other major inconsistencies exist to which I.W. Cornwall
did not pay attention. First, if the individual was placed on the
back with knees tightly lexed on the thorax as described, the
femurs should appear in posterior view and the lower leg bones
in anterior view—which is not the case. Last but not least: not
only had the left lower leg been rotated by 180° so that its foot
was at knee level, but the entire left and right limbs had also
been inverted. Consequently, we must consider the existence of
pre-burial treatment involving the active dismemberment of
the body into anatomically separate blocks, before the beginning of the decay process. The body may have been fresh and
cut into several parts and buried immediately, or been exposed
for a while, desiccated (naturally?) and the lower limbs pulled
apart before burial. Cutmarks, which could have helped us in
B
C
Fig. 13 – Grave 6A at Jericho: Drawing of the irst (B) and second
levels (C) of the excavation shown separately and superposed (A)
(after Cornwall 1981: Fig. 16. Reproduced by permission of the University of Cambridge Museum of Archaeology & Anthropology).
the interpretation were not noted and probably not sought by
Cornwall. What remains certain is that the gravedigger
attempted to reconstruct a coherent body from the separate
pieces, but, fortunately for us, failed.
In this context, we can legitimately wonder whether the
skull was not removed before inhumation. Indeed, the mandible appears quite isolated, far from the cervical vertebrae
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 33-52 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
Headless but still eloquent! Acephalous skeletons as witnesses of Pre-Pottery Neolithic North-South Levant connections and disconnections
according to the drawing (no photograph is available for the
lower level of the grave). It is likely that the mandible was an
isolated piece when buried. Moreover a later removal of the
cranium together with the irst three cervical vertebrae would
have certainly disturbed the bones of the left foot placed on the
residual cervical column. Active dismemberment of the neck
before burial is consequently most probable. The fate of the left
forearm and hand, and of the two coxae, remains undetermined: buried and later disturbed (by Grave 6B for instance)?
or dislocated from the corpse and buried/used/exposed elsewhere? Grave 6A at Jericho echoes the complex funerary treatments described in Çatalhöyük in a later period or in other
contemporaneous cultural contexts (e.g., Li et al. 2013; Aoudia
et al. 2014). It seriously questions the idea that skull removal is
part of a single common chaîne opératoire during the PPN in
the Levant and adjacent regions.
CONCLUSION
The aim of this paper was to evaluate the connections
between the Northern and Southern Levant in order to advance
one step further in the study of the important topic of skull
removal. We have chosen to develop this topic by focusing on
the general evidence for acephalous skeletons, which has been
little studied to date.
Skull removal irst developed during the Natuian period.
The earliest cases are probably opportunistic but by the Late
Natuian a clear planned and standardized custom is in place. If
not already present, this practice spread to the Northern Levant
at the beginning of the PPNA. Skull removal appears to have
been a selective practice, applied to a limited number of adults
(mainly young adults) and only few children. However, these
selected individuals receive a standard inhumation comparable
in all ways to the rest of the population. Generally speaking,
cranium/skull retrieval happened as a secondary process when
the decay process had ended. This act usually involved slight
displacements of the uppermost part of the skeleton. However,
sometimes removal did not entail any displacement owing to
very careful removal and/or position at burial or of the grave
structure, which protected the rest of the body, and/or an early
removal at the start of the decay process. At the beginning of the
Pre-Pottery Neolithic, the Northern and Southern Levant display a comparable increase in this custom (while Central
Anatolia and the Upper Tigris exhibit a very low percentage during the whole Pre-Pottery Neolithic). Available data indicate that
a geographic divergence occurred at the beginning of the Middle
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 33-52 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
47
PPNB. While skull removal continued to develop in the Southern
Levant until it involved over a third of the dead, it became very
selective in the North. This coincides with the appearance in the
Southern Levant of the new custom of remodelling crania (and
later complete skulls), and the increasing number of skulls buried together in caches (Benz 2010: Fig. 7): a real break between
North and South appears at that point.
Interestingly this break corresponds in time to the expansion of more standardized lithic production in the whole Levant
(e.g., Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989; Cauvin 1994) suggesting more intensive contact and exchange between North and
South. Should we interpret our data as a reaction against this
and a bid to maintain identity or due to territorial fear in the
face of supra-regional cultural pressure? Further traits of mortuary practices should be taken into account as well as other
aspects of material culture to discuss this matter in greater
depth. During the 7th millennium cal. BC, skull/cranium
removal still persists but in a low proportion, in the Northern
as well as in the Southern Levant where a sudden decrease is
noticed between the LPPNB to the PPNC. Within this general
framework, it is worth noting that some well-documented sites
with long occupations, and which have yielded over a hundred
skeletons, were resistant to the prevalent custom of skull
removal (e.g., Eynan-Mallaha, Tell Halula, Körtik Tepe). The
Zagros area also shows a certain imperviousness to this speciic treatment.
In addition to the divergent development over time, the custom of skull removal in the North and in the South differs in
another aspect. Removal generally involves the whole skull in
the Northern areas whereas usually only the cranium is
removed in the South. This may be due to a matter of preference, the mandible may have been considered as signiicant an
element as the cranium in the North. However, the fact that, in
the North again, most reburials only involve the crania shows
that the mandibles had been discarded at some point. Another
explanation might be related to the time of removal, earlier in
the decay process in the North than in the South, the mandible
in this case necessarily following the cranium. Cutmarks have
been found on specimens in the North and Anatolia, this
despite the fact that 75% of acephalous skeletons occur in the
South. These might be further evidence of earlier removal
practiced in the North. This earlier removal need not necessarily be in terms of absolute time and mourning period, but at
least as regards the decay process (which might take longer in
a drier environment or in speciic containers). This assumption
could probably be established more irmly if we had more
information about the presence and absence of cervical vertebrae and hyoid bones in the graves. The current data (35% of
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
F. Bocquentin, E. Kodas and A. Ortiz
48
known cases only) do not show differences on this issue
between the North and South.
This discrepancy, early versus late removal, is not as supericial as it may appear. Indeed, it implies different gestures for
retrieval and different ways of handling the removed cephalic
extremity, which might be an isolated cranium, an isolated
skull or a skull with part of the cervical column. It would have
technical repercussions: on cleaning (deleshing, disarticulating, possible need of tongue ablation, tooth avulsion?) and on
display (surface, cache, pedestal, pole, etc.: e.g., Stordeur et
Khawam 2007). It may also lead to a differential perception of
the remains, which might be considered either evocative of one
speciic dead individual or representative de facto of a collective ancestor, beyond personal identity. We are touching here on
the frontier between funerary treatment and wider symbolic
attitudes and rituals. In fact, a seemingly small detail can have
a powerful impact on the understanding of past practices.
Neolithic Levantine burial practices were especially variable
and complex. The case of Jericho analyzed above points towards
dismemberment before burial, most probably associated with
cranium retrieval before burial. It echoes pre-burial treatment
as discovered in a later phase of the Neolithic in Central
Anatolia and suggests that graves data in the Northern Levant
should also be re-examined. Certainly these cases are not part
of the funerary norms: post-burial removal is without doubt the
most frequent case in the Neolithic Levantine context.
Nevertheless, other possible ways of acquisition should not be
excluded de facto. The systematic over-representation of isolated crania versus acephalous skeletons is another reason for
vigilance. More generally speaking, we must admit that, despite
an effort made from a theoretical point of view (e.g., Kuijt 2000
and 2008a and b), anthropological studies of Neolithic skull
treatment (dominated by plastered skull analyses), are rarely
integrated in a chaînes opératoires approach (but see Croucher
2006; Fletcher et al. 2008; Santana et al. 2012; Kodas 2014).
Skulls have been the object of studies in themselves.
Sequential steps of handling, duration, symbolic and technical gestures, as more dynamic data, are often ignored. While
often relegated to additional arguments, the complete skeletons
and the acephalous skeletons are major elements in the under-
standing of the treatment of skulls in this period. Comparing the
inventories and the biological identities of these two different
corpuses, re-evaluating the archaeological and funerary contexts, and ensuring that we do not obscure the potential stages
preceding the ultimate burial: all of these are indicators that may
enable us to understand how the process was organized in time.
In the ield, speciic attention to the neck area with documentation of the presence/absence of mandible, hyoid bone, cervical
vertebrae and isolated teeth, and observed disturbances (accompanied by pictures), are indispensable. Listing all graves in preliminary reports will enable signiicant progress in site and
regional comparisons and better deine the components of a
funerary system that currently appears disjointed. understanding
the variability in the treatment of the deceased and the evolution
of the status of their remains before they were ultimately interred
is of major importance. The complexity of Pre-Pottery Neolithic
burial customs is indeed testimony to the leading role given to
the dead and, consequently to ancestors, in supporting the
Neolithization process and societal transformation.
acKnowledgmenTS
We are grateful to Phillip Edwards, Christopher Knüsel and the
three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments which
have signiicantly contributed to improving this article. We are especially indebted to Liora Kolska Horwitz for her substantive comments and comprehensive inal English editing.
Fanny BOCQUENTIN
Ergul KODAS
CNRS, UMR 7041
Maison Archéologie et Ethnologie
René Ginouvès – 21 Allée de l’Université
92023 Nanterre Cedex – FRANCE
fanny.bocquentin@cnrs.fr
ergulkodas@gmail.com
Anabel ORTIZ
SGR SAPPO. Prehistory Department
Facultat de Filosoia i Lletres – Ediici B
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona – SPAIN
inhija@hotmail.com
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andrews P., Molleson T. and Boz B.
2005
The human burials at Çatalhöyük. In: Hodder I. (ed.), Inhabiting
Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995-99 seasons: 261-278.
Cambridge: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara
(McDonald Institute Monographs).
Aoudia L., Bocquentin F., Lubell D. and Jackes M.
2014
Dislocated anatomical blocks: a complex funerary treatment
from Capsian context. In: T illier A.-m. (ed.), Anthropologie
(Brno) 52,3 (Special Issue Methodological approaches in
Funerary Archaeology and corpse taphonomy): 319-328.
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 33-52 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
Headless but still eloquent! Acephalous skeletons as witnesses of Pre-Pottery Neolithic North-South Levant connections and disconnections
A rensburg B. and Hershkovitz I.
Bonogofsky M.
1989
2006
Artificial skull “treatment” in the PPNB period: Nahal Hemar.
In: Hershkovitz I. (ed.), People and Culture in Change: 115131. Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 508).
Baird D., Asouti E., Astruc L., Baysal A., Baysal E.,
Carruthers D., Fairbairn A., K abukcu C., Jenkins E.,
Lorentz K., Middleton C., Pearson J. and Pirie A.
2013
Juniper smoke, skulls and wolves’ tails. The Epipalaeolithic of
the Anatolian plateau in its South-west Asian context; insights
from Pınarbaşı. Levant 45: 175-209.
Bar-Yosef O. and Belfer-Cohen A.
1989
The Levantine ‘‘PPNB’’ interaction sphere. In: Hershkovitz
I. (ed.), People and Culture in Change: 59-72. Oxford (BAR Int.
Ser. 508).
Belfer-Cohen A.
1988
1995
The Natufian Graveyard in Hayonim Cave. Paléorient 14,2: 297308.
Rethinking Social Stratification in the Natufian Culture: the
Evidence from Burials. In: Campbell S. and Green A. (eds.),
The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East: 9-16.
Oxford: Oxbow Books (Oxbow Monograph 51).
2011
The human remains from Netiv Hagdud. In: Bar-Yosef O. and
G opher A. (eds.), An early Neolithic village in the Jordan
Valley. Part 1: The archaeology of Netiv Hagdud: 201-208.
Cambridge (American School of Prehistoric Research 43).
Beyond death - the construction of social identities at the transition from foraging to farming. In: Benz M. (ed.), The Principle
of Sharing. Segregation and Construction of Social Identities at
the Transition from Foraging to Farming: 249-276. Berlin: ex
Oriente (SENEPSE 14).
Bocquentin F.
2003
2007
2013
Pratiques funéraires, paramètres biologiques et identités culturelles au Natoufien: une analyse archéo-anthropologique.
Thèse de Doctorat en Anthropologie Biologique non publiée.
université Bordeaux 1.
A Final Natufian Population: Health and Burial Status at EynanMallaha. In: Faerman M. et al. (eds.): 66-81.
Après la mort, avant l’oubli: les crânes surmodelés du Levant sud
(état des lieux et perspectives critiques). In : Pereira G. (éd.),
Une archéologie des temps funéraires ? Nouvelles de l’Archéologie 132 (Dossier thématique en hommage à Jean Leclerc) :
54-59.
Bocquentin F. and Garrard A.
2016
Natufian collective burial practice and skull pigmentation: A
reconstruction from Azraq 18 (Jordan). Journal of Archaeological
Science: Reports (2016) [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jasrep.2016.05.030].
Bocquentin F. and Wagemakers B.
2014
I.W. Cornwall at Tell es-Sultan: Pioneer in archaeothanatology.
In: Wagemakers B. (ed.), Archaeology in the ‘Land of Tells and
Ruins’: A History of Excavations in the Holy Land Inspired by
the Photographs and Accounts of Leo Boer: 131-142. Oxford:
Oxbow Books.
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 33-52 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
The Bioarchaeology of the Human Head: Decapitation,
Decoration, and Deformation. Gainesville: university Press of
Florida.
Bonogofsky M. and Graham J.
2011
Melanesian modeled skulls, mortuary ritual, and dental X-rays:
ancestors, enemies, women, and children. In: Bonogofsky M.
(ed.): 67-96.
Boulestin B.
2015
Conservation du crâne et terminologie : pour en finir avec
quelques mots de tête ! Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris 27 : 16-25.
Boulestin B. et Duday H.
2012
Acquisition, préparation et autres traitements de la tête chez les
Gaulois : Aspects anthropobiologiques. In : Boulestin B et
Henry-Gambier D. (éd.) : 139-157.
Boulestin B. et Henry-Gambier D. (éd.)
2012a
Benz M.
2010
Complexity in Context: Plain, Painted and Modeled Skulls from
the Neolithic Middle East. In: Bonogofsky M. (ed.), Skull
Collection, Modification, and Decoration: 15-28. Oxford (BAR
Int. Ser. 1539).
Contextualizing the Human Head: An introduction. In:
Bonogofsky M. (ed.): 1-47.
Bonogofsky M. (ed.)
2011
Belfer-Cohen A. and A rensburg B.
1997
49
2012b
Crânes trophées, crânes d’ancêtres et autres pratiques autour
de la tête : problèmes d’interprétation en archéologie. Actes de
la table ronde pluridisciplinaire, musée national de Préhistoire,
Les Eyzies-de-Tayac (Dordogne, France), 14-16 octobre 2010.
Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 2415).
Décapitation/décollation : une distinction justifiée ? In :
Boulestin B. et Henry-Gambier D. (éd.) : 17-19.
Boz B. and Hager L.D.
2014
Making Sense of Social Behavior from Disturbed and
Commingled Skeletons: A Case Study from Çatalhöyük, Turkey.
In: Osterholtz A., Baustian K.M. and Martin D. (eds.),
Commingled and Disarticulated Human Remains. Working
Toward Improved Theory, Method, and Data: 17-33. New York:
Springer Science + Business Media.
Bruzek J.
1996
Interprétation biologique de séries archéologiques : impact d’une
diagnose sexuelle erronée à partir de la simulation dans un
échantillon de sexe connu. In : Buchet L. (éd.), L’identité des
populations archéologiques, Actes des XVIe Rencontres
Internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes : 415-425.
Sophia Antipolis : APDCA.
Byrd B.F. and Monahan C.M.
1995
Death, Mortuary Ritual and Natufian Social Structure. Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology 14: 251-287.
Cauvin J.
1994
Naissance des divinités, naissance de l’agriculture. Paris :
CNRS Éditions.
Cauvin J., Aurenche O., Cauvin M.-C. and Balkan-Atlı N.
1999
The pre-Pottery Site of Cafer Höyük. In: Özdoğan M. and
Başgelen N. (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of
Civilization: 87-103. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinları.
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
50
Chamel B.
2014
Bioanthropologie et pratiques funéraires des populations néolithiques du Proche-Orient : l’impact de la Néolithisation. Étude
de sept sites syriens 9820-6000 cal. BC. Thèse de doctorat non
publiée. université Lumière Lyon 2.
Contenson H. (de)
2000
Ramad. Site néolithique en Damascène (Syrie) aux VIIIe et VIIe
millénaires avant l’ère chrétienne. Beyrouth : IFAPO.
Cornwall I.W.
1956
The Pre-Pottery Neolithic Burials, Jericho. Palestine Exploration
Quarterly 88: 110-124.
1981
Appendix. The pre-pottery Neolithic burials. In: K enyon K.M.
and Holland T.A. (eds.), Excavations at Jericho, Vol. 3: The
Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell: 395-406. London:
British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.
Croucher K.
2006
Getting Ahead: exploring meanings of skulls in the Neolithic
Near East. In: Bonogofsky M. (ed.), Skull Collection,
Modification and Decoration: 29-44. Oxford.
2012
Death and Dying in the Neolithic Near East. Oxford: Oxford
university Press.
Duday H.
2009
The Archaeology of the dead. Lectures in Archaeothanatology.
Oxford: Oxbow Books (Studies in funerary archaeology 3)
[Transl. by A.M. Cipriani and J. Pearce].
Erdal Y.S.
2015
Bone or Flesh: Defleshing and Post-Depositional Treatments at
Körtik Tepe (Southeastern Anatolia, PPNA Period). Journal of
European Archaeology 18,1: 4-32.
Eshed V., Hershkovitz I. and Goring-Morris A.M.
2008
A Re-Evaluation of Burial Customs in the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic B in light of Paleodemographic Analysis of the Human
Remains from Kfar HaHoresh, Israel. Paléorient 34,1: 91-103.
Faerman M., Horvitz L.K., K ahana T. and Zilberman u. (eds.)
2007
Faces from the Past. Diachronic Patterns in the Biology of
Human Populations from the Eastern Mediterranean. In honour
of Patricia Smith. Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 1603).
Ferembach D.
1970
Étude anthropologique des ossements humains néolithiques de
Tell Ramad, Syrie (campagnes 1963-1966). L’Anthropologie 74 :
247-253.
F letcher A., Pearson J.A. and A mbers J.
2008
The manipulation of social and physical identity in the PrePottery Neolithic: radiographic evidence for cranial deformation
at Jericho and its implications for the plastering of
skulls. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18: 309-325.
Garfinkel Y., Dag D., K halaily H., Marder O., Milevski I. and
Ronen A. (eds.)
2012
The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Village of Yiftahel: The 1980s and
1990s excavations. Berlin: ex Oriente.
G oren Y., Goring-Morris A.N. and Segal I.
2001
Skull modeling in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B: regional variability, the relationship of technology and iconography and their
archaeological implications. Journal of Archaeological Science
28: 671-690.
F. Bocquentin, E. Kodas and A. Ortiz
Goring-Morris A.N.
2000
The Quick and the Dead: The Social Context of Aceramic
Neolithic Mortuary Practices as Seen from Kfar HaHoresh. In:
Kuijit I. (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. Social
Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum.
Goring-Morris A.N. and Belfer-Cohen A.
2014
Different strokes for different folks: Near Eastern Neolithic mortuary practices in perspective. In: Hodder I. (ed.), Religion at
Work in a Neolithic Society. Vital Matters. Cambridge:
Cambridge university Press.
Hauptmann H.
2011
The urfa Region. In: Özdo ğan M., Başgelen N. and
Kuniholm P. (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New excavations
and new research. Vol. 2 – The Euphrates Basin: 85-138.
Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications.
Hershkovitz I. and Galili E.
1990
8,000-Year-Old Human Remains on the Sea Floor near Atlit,
Israel. Human Evolution 5: 319-358.
Hershkovitz I., Zohar M., Speirs M.S., Segal I., Meirav O.,
Sherter u., Eldman H. and Goring-Morris A.N.
1995
Remedy for an 8,500 years Old Plastered Skull from Kfar
HaHoresh, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 779788.
K anjou Y.
2009
Study of Neolithic human graves from Tell Qaramel in North
Syria. International Journal of Modern Anthropology 2: 25-37.
K anjou Y., Kuijt I., Erdal Y.S. and Kondo O.
2015
Early Human Decapitation, 11,700–10,700 cal BP, within the
Pre-Pottery Neolithic Village of Tell Qaramel, North Syria.
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 25,5: 743-752.
K arul N.
2011
Gusir Höyük. In: Özdo ğan M., Ba ş gelen N. and
Kuniholm P. (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New excavations
and new research. Vol. 1 – Tigris Basin: 1-17. Istanbul:
Archaeology and Art Publications.
K enyon K.M.
1957
Digging up Jericho. London: Praeger.
K enyon K.M. and Holland T.A. (eds.)
1981
Excavations at Jericho, Vol. 3: The Architecture and Stratigraphy
of the Tell. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.
K halaily H. and Marder O.
2003
The Neolithic Site of Abu-Gosh: Final Report of the 1995
Excavations. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA
Reports 19).
K halaily 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.
K halaily H., Bar-Yosef O., Barzilay O., Boaretto E.,
Bocquentin F., Eirikh-Rose A., Greenhut Z., Goring-Morris N.,
Le Dosseur G., Marder O., Sapir-Hen L. and Yizhaq M.
2007
Excavations at Motza in the Judean Hills and the Early PrePottery Neolithic B in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 33,2:
5-37.
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 33-52 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
Headless but still eloquent! Acephalous skeletons as witnesses of Pre-Pottery Neolithic North-South Levant connections and disconnections
K hawam R.
2014
Lloyd S. and Safar F.
L’homme et la mort au PPNB en Syrie : l’exemple de Tell Aswad.
Thèse de doctorat non publiée. université Lumière Lyon 2.
K nüsel C.J.
2014
Crouching in fear: Terms of engagement for funerary remains.
Journal of Social Archaeology 14,1: 26-58.
Kodas E.
2014
Le culte du crâne, dans son contexte stratigraphique architectural, au Néolithique au Proche-Orient. Thèse de doctorat non
publiée. Paris I - Panthéon Sorbonne.
1945
Tell Hassuna: Excavations by the Iraq Government Directorate
of Antiquities in 1943–1944. Journal of Near Eastern Studies
4,4: 255-330.
Makarewicz C. A. and Rose K.
2011
Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic settlement at el-Hemmeh: A survey
of the architecture. Neo-Lithics 1,11: 23-29.
Mazurowski R.F.
2005
Tell Qaramel excavations, 2004. Polish Archaeology in the
Mediterranean 16: 497-510.
Koutsadelis C.
Meindl R.S., Lovejoy C.O., Mensford R.S. and Don Carlos L.
2007
1985
Mortuary Practices in the Process of Levantine Neolithisation.
Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 1685).
Kozłowski S.K. and Aurenche O.
2005
Territories, Boundaries and Cultures in the Neolithic Near East.
Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 1362).
Kuijt I.
2000
2008a
2008b
Keeping the peace: Ritual, skull caching and community integration in the Levantine Neolithic. In: Kuijt I. (ed.), Life in
Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity,
and Differentiation: 137-163. New York: Kluwer Academic/
Plenum.
What mean these bones? Considering scale and Neolithic mortuary variability. In: Córdoba J.M., Molist M., Pérez M.C.,
Rubio I. and M artínez S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th
International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near
East, Vol. III: 591-602. Madrid: Centro Superior de Estudios
sobre el Oriente Próximo y Egipto.
The regeneration of life. Neolithic Structures of Symbolic
Remembering and Forgetting. Current Anthropology 49,2: 171-197.
Appendix B. On the Anthropology of the Mesolithic to
Chalcolithic Human Remains from the Tell es-Sultan in Jericho,
Jordan. In: K enyon K .M. and Holland T.A. (eds.),
Excavations at Jericho, Volume: 3-499. London: British School
of Archaeology in Jerusalem.
Lechevallier M.
1978
Abou Gosh et Beisamoun. Deux gisements du VIIe millénaire
avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël. Paris : Association Paléorient
(Mémoires et Travaux du CRFJ 2).
Ledermann S.
1969
Nouvelles tables-types de mortalité. Paris : PuF, INED (Travaux
et documents 53).
Lemonnier P.
2009
2008
1994
The Plastered Skulls and Other PPNB Finds from Yiftahel,
Lower Galilee (Israel). Paléorient 34,2: 37-46.
Montgomery J.M., K nüsel C.J. and Tucker K.E.
2011
Identifying the origins of decapitated male skeletons from 3
Driffield Terrace, York, through isotope analysis: reflections of
the cosmopolitan nature of Roman York in the time of Caracalla.
In: Bonogofsky M. (ed.): 141-178.
Moore A.M.T., Hillman G.C. and Legge A.J. (eds.)
2000
Village on the Euphrates. From Foraging to Farming at Abu
Hureyra. Oxford: Oxford university Press.
Nadel D., Lambert A., Bosset G., Bocquentin F., Rosenberg D.,
Yeshurum R., Weissbrod L., Tsatskin A., Bachrach N., Barmatthews M., Ayalon A., Zaidner Y. and Be’eri R.
2012
The 2010 and 2011 seasons of excavation at Raqefet Cave.
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 42: 35-73.
Neuville R.
1951
Le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique du désert de Judée. Paris :
Masson (Archives de l’Institut de Paléontologie Humaine 24).
Noy T.
1989
Some Aspects of Natufian Mortuary Behaviour at Nahal Oren.
In: Hershkovitz I. (ed.), People and Culture in Change: 53-57.
Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 508).
Noy T., Legge A.J. and Higgs A.
1973
Recent excavations at Nahal Oren, Israel. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 39: 75-100.
Ortiz A.
2014
Chasse aux têtes, funérailles, fertilité et distinction ? Paléorient
35,1 : 129-131.
Le Mort F.
Accuracy and direction of error in the sexing of the skeleton:
implication for paleodemography. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 68: 79-85.
Milevski I., K halaily H., Getzov N. and Hershkovitz I.
Kurth G. and Röhrer-Ertl O.
1981
51
Estudio arqueo-anthropologico de las sepulturas del PPNB
medio reciente del Yacimiento de Tell Halula (Valle medio del
Eufrates, Syria). unpublished PhD Thesis. universitat Autònoma
de Barcelona.
Ortiz A., Chambon P. and Molist M.
Les sépultures. In : Lechevallier M. et Ronen A. (éd.), Le
gisement de Hatoula en Judée occidentale, Israël : 39-57. Paris :
Association Paléorient (Mémoires et Travaux du CRFJ 8).
2013
“Funerary bundles” in the PPNB at the archaeological site of Tell
Halula (middle Euphrates valley, Syria): analysis of the taphonomic dynamics of seated bodies. Journal of Archaeological
Science 40,12: 4150-4161.
Li F-J., Wang M-H., F u X-G., Dobney K., Li Z., Bo-yu Chen B-Y. and
Yu C.
Pereira G., Sugiyama S. et Spence M.
2013
2012
Dismembered Neolithic burials at the Ding Si Shan site in
Guangxi, southern China. Antiquity 87: 337.
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 33-52 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016
Regroupement des morts, monumentalité et sacrifice : l’exemple
de Teotihuacan. In : Castex D., Courtaud P., Duday H.,
CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART • CNRS ÉDITIONS - TIRÉS À PART
F. Bocquentin, E. Kodas and A. Ortiz
52
Le Mort F. et Tillier A.-m. (éd.), Le regroupement des morts :
genèse et diversité archéologique : 249-280. Bordeaux : Maison
des Sciences de l’Homme.
Perrot J. et Ladiray D.
1988
Les sépultures. In : Perrot J., Ladiray D. et SolivérèsMasséi O., Les hommes de Mallaha, (Eynan) Israël : 1-106.
Paris : Association Paléorient (Mémoires et Travaux du CRFJ 7).
Pilloud M.A., Haddow A.D., K nusel C. and Clark Spencer L.
2016
A bioarchaeological and forensic re-assessment of vulture defleshing and mortuary practices at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Journal
of Archaeological Science: Reports [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jasrep.2016.05.029].
Rollefson G.O.
1983
Ritual and Ceremony at Neolithic Ain Ghazal (Jordan).
Paléorient 9,2: 29-38.
Rosenberg M.
2011
‘Demirköy’. In: Özdoğan M., Başgelen N. and Kuniholm P.
(eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavation and New
Research. Vol. 1 – Tigris Basin: 79-87. Istanbul: Archaeology
and Art Publications.
Santana J., Velasco J., Ibañez J.J. and Braemer F.
2012
Crania with mutilated facial skeletons: A new ritual treatment in
an early Pre-pottery Neolithic B cranial cache at Tell Qarassa
North (South Syria). American Journal of Physical Anthropology
149,2: 205-216.
Schmandt-Besserat D.
2002
From behind the mask: plastered skulls from ‘Ain Ghazal.
Origini 24: 95-140.
Schulting R.
2015
Mesolithic ‘skull cults’? In: von Hackwitz K. and Peyroteo
Stjerna R. (eds.), Ancient Death Ways: 19-46. uppsala:
Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, uppsala
university.
Schultz M., Schmidt-Schultz T., Gresky J., K reutz K. and
Berner M.
2007
Morbidity and mortality in the late PPNB populations from Basta
and Ba’ja (Jordan). In: Faerman M. et al. (eds.): 82-99.
Simmons A. H., Rollefson G. K afafi Z., Mandel R.D., alNahar M., Cooper J., Köhler-Rollefson I. and Durand K.R.
2001
Wadi Shu‘eib, A Large Neolithic Community in Central Jordan:
Final Report of Test Investigations. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 321: 1-39.
Simmons T., Goring-Morris N. and Horwitz L.K.
2007
What Ceremony Else? Taphonomy and the Ritual Treatment of
the Dead in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Mortuary Complex at
Kfar HaHoresh, Israel. In: Faerman M. et al. (eds.): 100-126.
Slon V., Sarig R., Hershkovitz I., K halaily H., Milevski I.
2014
The Plastered Skulls from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Site of
Yiftahel (Israel) – A Computed Tomography-Based Analysis.
PloS ONE 9,2: 1-9.
Stordeur D.
2015
Le village de Jerf el Ahmar (Syrie, 9500-8700 av. J.-C.).
L’architecture, miroir d’une société néolithique complexe.
Paris : CNRS Éditions.
Stordeur D. et K hawam R.
2007
Les crânes surmodelés de Tell Aswad (PPNB, Syrie). Premier
regard sur l’ensemble, premières réflexions. Syria 84 : 5-32.
Strouhal E.
1973
Five plastered skulls from pre-pottery Neolithic B Jericho.
Anthropological Study. Paléorient 1,2: 231-247.
Testart A.
2008
Des crânes et des vautours ou la guerre oubliée. Paléorient 34,1 :
33-58.
Thiol S.
2000
Analyse anthropologique d’une « tête coupée » à l’époque
romaine. Le cas de la forêt d’Halatte (commune d’Ognon, Oise).
Revue Archéologique de Picardie 18 : 281-283.
Tsuneki A., Hydar J., Dougherty S., Hasegawa H., Hironag N.,
Masumori K.D., Tatsumi Y., Itahashi Y., Iizuka M.,
Matsushima Y., Miyauchi Y., Makino M. and Sha’abaan H.
2011
Life and Death in the Kerkh Neolithic Cemetery. Tsukuba:
university of Tsukuba.
Valentin F. and Rolland N.
2011
Marquesan Trophy Skulls: Description, Osteological Analyses,
and Changing Motivations in the South Pacific. In:
Bonogofsky M. (ed.): 97-121.
Valla F. R. (éd.)
2012
Les fouilles de la Terrasse d’Hayonim (Israël), 1980-1981 et
1985-1989. Paris : De Boccard (Mémoires et Travaux du CRFJ
10).
Verhoeven M.
2002
Transformations of Society: The changing role of ritual and symbolism in the PPNB and the PN in the Levant, Syria and SouthEast Anatolia. Paléorient 28,1: 5-14.
Watkins T., Betts A., Dobney K. and Nesbitt M.
1991
Qermez Dere, Tel(l) Afar, Interim Report 2, 1989. Edinburgh:
university of Edinburgh, Department of Archaeology (Project
Paper 13).
Weintsein-Evron M.
2009
Archaeology in the Archives. Unveiling the Natufian Culture of
Mount Carmel. Boston, Leiden: Brill.
Wood J.W., Holman D.J., O’Connor K.A. and F errell R.J.
2002
Mortality models for paleodemography. In: Hoppa R.D. and
Vaupel J.W. (eds.), Paleodemography. Age distribution from
skeletal samples: 129-169. Cambridge: Cambridge university
Press.
Wright G.R.H.
1988
The severed head in Earliest Neolithic Times. Journal of
Prehistoric Religion (Göteborg) 2: 51-56.
Yilmaz Y.
2010
Neolitik Dönem’de Anadolu’da Ölü Gömme Uygulamaları:
Çayönü Örneği. / Les pratiques funéraires de populations néolithiques d’Anatolie : le cas de Çayönü. İ.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü, Prehistorya Bilimdalı/ unpublished PhD Thesis.
Istanbul and Bordeaux 1 universities.
Paléorient, vol. 42.2, p. 33-52 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2016