Different Strokes for Different Folks: Near Eastern
Neolithic Mortuary Practices in Perspective
Nigel Gorinfl-Morvisand Anna Belfev-Cohen
Introduction
How can one begin to address the questions pertinent to the ongoing discussion on religion, property, and power at early Neolithic Catalhoyiilz?
It seems that a productive avenue is to stand back and consider how
Catalhijyiik integrates within the broader perspective of Southwest Asian
(Near Eastern) Neolithization processes. Nevertheless, such an effort
with regard to every aspect of human existence is a mighty endeavor, and
certainly well beyond the scope of a single article, not to mention ;he
humble competence of its authors. Given the special nature and prominence of burials at Catalhoyuk, we have chosen to focus specifically on
that aspect of community behavior. We shall provide a background based
on data from earlier periods within the broader region of Southwest Asia
(the Near East), and most especially the southern Levant.
Burial practices are generally considered to reflect aspects of the
symbolic/spiritual worldview of the populations involved. It has often
been suggested that with the advent of sedentism and the beginnings
of agricultural production (plant and animal domestication) there were
significant changes in social organization and cohesion. Yet from the
very beginning of our essay, we can state that the description of burial
practices from the Late Epipaleolithic Natufian (as well as the scarce
earlier evidence) through the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) (and
even Pre-Pottery Neolithic B [PPNB] and later) in the southern Levant
indicates "business as usual," in the sense that we can observe the same
marked variability (of the same components more or less) continuing
unchanged all through the period considered as revolutionary, encompassing changing paradigmatic worldviews. We shall attempt to relate
Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen
to this issue of variability in the discussion fbllowing the presentation
of the data.
Burial Practices in the Southern Levant (Terminal Pleistocene/
Early Holocene)
T H E EPIPALEOLITHIC
Following virtually nonexistent evidence for burial practices during the
Upper Paleolithic (Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris in 2013a), the
number of documented burials increased during the Early and Middle
Epipaleolithic (starting at ca. 22,000 up to ca. 15,000 years cal BP). These
were mostly single, primary burials, in shallow pits; However, as data
accrue it is becoming increasingly clear that there is some degree of variability, foreshadowing that observed in the following Late Epipaleolithic
(ca. 15,000 up to 11,500 years cal BP), Natufian entity. At Ein Gev I the
inhumation is located below the floor of a fond de cabane, while at Ohalo
I1 the burial is located away from the huts (Arensburg and Bar-Yosef
1973; Hershlzowitz et al. 1995). Though most of the burials are single
and extended (e.g., Ohalo 11, Wadi Mataha - Hershltowitz et al. 1995;
Stoclz et al. 2005), there are also other positions, for example, the sitting
burial from Early Epipaleolithic Ain Qassiya (Richter et al. 2010) and
the flexed burial, among the extended ones, at the Middle Epipaleolithic
cemetery at 'Uyyun al-Hammam (Wadi Ziqlab 148) (Maher et al. 2011).
From the Middle Epipaleolithic there is some evidence for marlung of
the grave by the placement of stone mortars/bo\vls on top of the burials, as at Neve David (Bocquentin et al. 2011) and Wadi Mataha (Stoclz
et al. 2005; and see later discussion). At the 'Uyyun al-Hammam (Wadi
Ziqlab 148) cemetery most graves were of single individuals with no
grave goods, but at least one grave contained the remains of two individuals, and a couple of burials included intentionally deposited animal
remains, most spectacularly, those of a fox - until recently considered a
uniquely Natufian characteristic, and see later discussion (Maher et al.
201 1).A polished pebble is reported from the single burial at Moghr alAwal in the Lebanese mountains (Garrard and Yazbeclz 2003). Ofinterest
are the Early Epipaleolithic burned human remains from ICebara Cave;
deriving from Turville-Petre's (1932) excavation in the 1920's, these
were long thought to be Natufian, yet both detailed osteological studies (Smith 1972) as well as 14C dates obtained much later on the bones
Different Strokes for Different Folks
themselves indicate that these burned skeletons ( N = 23) more likely
relate to the earlier, Kebaran Epipaleolithic levels (Bar-Yosef and Sillen
1993). Unfortunately, no data are available as regards the interment
details there, that is, posit~on,single or multiple, and so on. Whatever
the case, cremation has not been documented elsewhere in the Levant
during the Epipaleolithic and Neolithic (but see Wadi Hammeh 27 during the early Natufian) (Webb and Edwards 2002).
The shift to the Late Epipaleolithic Natufian complex coincides
with evidence for larger, more permanent settlements, especially in
the Mediterranean zone (Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 2013b).
Recently, with advances in radiometric calibration, the duration of the
Natufian has been extended significantly (at least thirty-five hundred
vears), and differentiation between the Early and Late phases relates also
to the nature and patterning of the burials. A significant increase in the
numbers of burials as cornpared to the preceding period is indicated by
the approximately four hundred fifty Natufian individuals identified to
date. This actually reflects the fact that burials become an integral part
of the Natufian social identity (and see discussion later). Burials become
incorporated within settlements, both inside and outside structures (residential or other), for example, at Hayonim Cave (Belfer-Cohen 1988),
as well as in areas specifically designated as burial grounds or cemeteries, such as at Nahal Oren (Stekelis and Yizraeli 1963), or even more
obviously at Hilazon Cave (Grosman, Munro, and Belfer-Cohen 2008).
In certain cases the burials were marked, whether by breached basalt
mortars incorporated in the grave as at Nahal Oren (Stekelis and Yizraeli
1963), or with cup-marlzed slabs, or with both, as at Hayonim Cave and
Raqefet Cave (Belfer-Cohen 1988; Nadel et al. 2008,2009).
Natufian graves comprise interments in every imaginable combination, including single and multiple burials (of various ages and genders), primary and secondary, sometimes together, and in a wide array
of burial positions (Belfer-Cohen 1988, 1995; Bocquentin 2003; Webb
and Edwards 2002; Garrod 1936-1937; Garrod and Bate 1937; Lengyel
and Bocquentin 2005; Perrot and Ladiray 1988 and references therein).
Graves with primary burials were sometimes reopened, and certain skeletal parts, mostly the slzull and limbs, were removed to be interred elsewhere; such practices clearly reflect considerable manipulation of the
human remains, as illustrated by some primary burials missing parts&
the slzeleton (and not simply as a consequence of taphonomic factors),
A
Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen
accompanied by secondary burials, comprising but limbs (sometimes
still articulated), and sltulls. Through the course of the period both
extended and flexed burials are documented, with a greater emphasis
upon extended burials during the Early Natufian. It is of interest to note
that tightly flexed, contracted burials are more common in the Late/
Final Natufian. These are commonly considered to represent burials that
were moved from some distance away to be interred in sacks or bundles, at "sanctioned" sites, such as A n el-Saratan (Azraq 18) and Eynan
(Garrard 1991; Perrot and Ladiray 1988). Some of the burials at various sites were "pinned down" (literally and figuratively) by large stones,
sometimes crushing the skeleton. On other occasions stones were placed
on both sides of the head to hold it in place, for example, H15 at Eynan
and H 2 at Raqefet (Lengyel and Bocquentin 2005; Nadel et al. 2008;
Perrot and Ladiray 1988). Approximately 10 percent of the burials - all,
but with rare, and often controversial exceptions, being assigned to the
Early Natufian phase - are decorated (Belfer-Cohen 1995). The decorated specimens are of different ages (from children to adults), and of all
sexes. There are also significant contrasts in the intensity of decoration,
ranging from single beads up to lavish adornments.
Although there is some evidence for local mortuary patterns in the
nature and form of the decorative elements represented - that is, the
beads and pendants, mostly shaped of bone, teeth, and shells - they
differ from one site to the other; for instance, dentalia decorated caps
and headbands are reported only from el-Wad (Garrod 1936-1937).
Yet these local, sometimes site-specific patterns are never exclusive; for
instance, beads of a variety dominant at one site are found in only single numbers in another, such as Eynan versus Hajronim (Belfer-Cohen
and Goring-Morris 20 13b). Other "grave-goods" sometimes comprise
unique bone and stone tools, whether an elongated spatula/"bone dagger" or large flint bifaces, such as Graves XII, XIII, XVII at Hayonim
Cave (Belfer-Cohen 1988, pers. obs.).' Notable is the use of ochre
daubed on skull bones at Ain el-Saratan and Wadi Hammeh 27, and
flowers on burials at Raqefet (Webb and Edwards 2002; Garrard 1991;
Nadel et al. 2013). In addition and, most interestingly, there are also
parts of animals, such as the tortoise carapaces, as well as the human/
dog burials at el-Wad, Eynan, and Hayonim terrace (Davis and Valla
l
Without going into a discourse of what is meant or considered as "gravc-goods."
Different Strokes for Different Folks
1978; Garrod and Rate 1937; Perrot and Ladiray 1988; Tchernov and
Valla 1997). Here, we should also recall the "shaman" burial of an old
woman at Hilazon Cave, where we have an outstanding example of pars
pro toto - whether through parts of animals or a fragment of a basalt
mortar (Grosman, Munro, and Belfer-Cohen 2008). Another instance
of animal parts incorporated in a grave are two pairs of gazelle horns,
one pair adorning the sliull of H25, the upper burial, and the other,
found admixed with the disturbed burial of H27 beneath the former in
Locus 10, Eynan (Perrot and Ladiray 1988). It should also be stressed
that there are instances of isolated human remains outside obvious grave
contexts, such as a calvaria "chalice" on the floor of Locus 131 at Eynan,
together with half a mandible of a fox (Perrot and Ladiray 1988), or scattered slzull fragments, some with evidence of burning at Wadi Hammeh
27 (Webb and Edwards 2002). Such remains indicate most clearly rituals
that were lilzely part of the mortuary practices taking place on-site. At
Raqefet the possible presence of a "perishable" cushion to support the
head of H I 7 (Nadel et al. 2009: 45) may presage more common "pillowing" during the PPNA (see later discussion).
Last, but by no means least, in terms of Natufian mormary practices
is the tradition of postmortem slzull r e m o ~ a lThis
. ~ long-lasting tradition,
which was never ubiquitous, was already sporadically documented during
the Early Natufian. The sliulls appear both as single items, such as H37,
as opposed to the cache of eight sliulls in Tomb 9 at Eynan (Perrot and
Ladiray 1988). In addition there is considerable evidence for slzulls being
modified, for example, H102 on the floor of Locus 131 at Eynan (perhaps
used as a chalice?) (Perrot and Ladiray 1988) and/or burned, as at Wadi
Hammeh 27 (Webb and Edwards 2002). At some Late/Final Nahlfian
sites, though, all burials retain their skulls, as at Raqefet Cave (Nadel et al.
2009). However, recent claims (Valla et al. 2010) for a complete absence
of slzull removal in the Final Natufian phase at Eynan are problematic, in
light of both Perrot's previous observations (Perrot and Ladray 1988), as
well as Valla et al.'s descriptions of the human remains they recovered.
Within and associated with graves there is evidence for feasting. The
most detailed account available to date derives from the Late/Final
Natufian cemetery site of Tachtit, where species representation and
Here it is important to differentiate between the terms "decapitation" and "postmortem sk~illremoval."
.
Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen
contextual associations are interpreted as indications for feasting on both
aurochs and tortoise (Grosman and Munro 2007; Munro and Grosman
2010). Ofinterest to note is the interpretation given to the "stone pipes"
(breached mortars) incorporated within graves at the Late Natufian cemetery of Nahal Oren as ways to channel libations to the dead (Stekelis and
Yizraeli 1963). Yet, in general, the direct evidence for feasting during the
Natufian is rather meager (Hayden 2011); it is mostly based on concentrations of bones within confined localities, such as the bird bones from
the two constructed hearths within Locus 131 at Eynan (Valla 1988), or
in the shear amount of bones within the occupatiollal level in general as
well as the presence of large hearths, as at Nahal Oren (Goring-Morris
and Belfer-Cohen 201 1).
THE PPNA
.
Relatively few PPNA (ca. 11,500-10, 500 years cal BP) sites provide reliable data about mortuary practices; this stems to a large degree from issues
associated with the history of research. Thus, at Jericho, the site with by far
the greatest number of burials, little attention appears to have been paid to
differentiating between PPNA and PPNB burials (and see Cornwall 1981;
IZenyon 1957; IZurth and Rohrer-Ertl 1981; IZuijt 1995, 1996, 1997).
Generally during the PPNA, the vast majority of burials appear to
have been single, primary, and articulated. However, there are indications that secondary burials may have been present at Jericho as well as
at Netiv Hagdud (Belfer-Cohen et al. 1990; Kenyon 1981). Graves seem
to have been concentrated in the area of the tower at Jericho (perhaps
a sacred precinct), yet elsewhere there is little in the way of evidence for
separate cemetery areas within habitation sites, or as dedicated mortuary
sites. There is also little evidence for grave goods, apart from single finds
reported from various sites (and see later discussion).
At Hatoula, where there are both Khiamian and Sultanian PPNA burials (Le Mort 1994; Le Mort, Hershkovitz, and Spiers 1994), most burials are complete -with but one instance (H04) just a single slzull -tightly
flexed or contracted on the stomach or back (but rarely on the side),
and often with stones placed on the joints, for example, Sultanian H08,
comparable to Natufian practices (Le Mort, Hershlzovitz, and Spiers
1994). "Pillowed" heads have been observed in five (out of nine) burials at Hatoula (Le Mort 1994) (as m7ell as at Wadi Faynan 16; see later
discussion), again a feature observed first in the Natufian. Grave goods
Different Strokes for Different Folks
sometimes comprise single stone beads (in two cases at Hatoula - H 0 7
md H04 - both adult males). There is also an aurochs slzull associated
n-ith an old female, H09 (Le Mort 1994).
A very different pattern is reflected by the human remains at Netiv
Hagdud, notwithstanding the great affinity of various material culture
realms to those at Hatoula. Thus at Netiv Hagdud fifteen of twentyseven individuals have the slzull missing, but usually the mandible present;
fo~irof the individuals are represented only by the slzull and mandible.
There are a number of instances of cached slzulls, sometimes in pairs.
Skull removal was applied to male and female adults and young children (Belfer-Cohen et al. 1990). Furthermore, where the position of the
burial could be ascertained, they were contracted on one side (for the
others it was not possible to determine'the orientation or they are disturbed/secondary burials).
Only preliminary reports are currently available for the PPNA occupa.ion at el-Hemmeh in Transjordan (Makarewicz and Rose 2011). There
is evidence for the use of carefully built grave cists/pits in one structure
Structure 6) for primary as well as secondary burials; interestingly, the
arms, legs, and torso of a young adult placed in a sitting position in one
cist (Feature 14) had been covered with lime or gypsum plaster; a similar
position and treatment were afforded to a young child in an adjacent pit
Feature 15).
At Wadi Faynan 1 6 the total skeletal remains reported to date appear
to represent three immature individuals and three adults (Roberts, in
Finlayson and Mithen 2007). Detailed examination of the report reveals
*at only some of them can be treated as burials, while others are represented by single bones or teeth. One grave (Pit 247) is interpreted as a
disturbed foundation deposit and included a "mixture of partially articulated, disarticulated and arranged bones" (Finlayson and Mithen, 2007,
fig. 6.47), mostly of an adult, but also including the fragmented skull
of a seven- to eight-year-old juvenile. The slcull of the adult was resting
on a stone "pillow." Another burial, undisturbed, is of an articulated
and flexed adult, with his slzull resting, once again, on a stone "pillow"
Context 332, Finlayson and Mithen, 2007, figs. 6.61,6.62).
In some sites burials seem to have been rare, and only sporadic remains
have been described; such is the case at Abu Madi I, Bir el-Malzsur, Nahal
Oren, Gilgal, Iraq ed-Dubb, Dhra, and Zahrat ad-Dhra 2 (Edwards e.t aL
3004; ICuijt 2004; Malinsly-Buller, Aldjem, and Yeshurun 2009; pers.
a
.
Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen
obs.; Stelzelis and Yizraeli 1 9 6 3 ) . " ~ ii~asmuchas they do appear, they
accord.with the patterns observed in other PPNA sites throughout the
southern Levant.
THE PPNB
The PPNB (ca. 10,500 to 8,400 years cal BP) represents the floruit of
social developments, including burial practices. The period is of rather
a long duration and is subdivided into at least four subperiods, each
with its own distinct characteristics. As the numbers of burials and the
variety of ways to treat the dead diversified, it is not possible to provide
a detailed inventory and description here without vastly exceeding the
framework of the current paper. Accordingly, we shall present only a
general overview, while emphasizing those points we want to discuss as
regards the role of the dead in the world of the living.
Though both PPNB settlements and burial grounds/cemeteries grew
in size, it is widely accepted that there are insufficient burials relative
to the assumed numbers of inhabitants within villages, the settlement
sizes, and the relative areas excavated, such as 'An Ghazal and Beidha
(Rollefson 2000; IGrlibride 1966). There is, however, some debate as to
the nature and locations of supposedly normative PPNB burial practices.
Burials do occur within walls and beneath the floors of residential structures (Kuijt 200 1; Stordeur and IChawam 2007,2008), although significant numbers occurred as "trash burials" in pits within open areas (and
see Rollefson 2000). There were also obviously special, designated areas
at the edges of villages for cultic and/or funerary practices, as at Aswad,
Atlit Yam, and Jericho (Galili et al. 2005; IZenyon 1981; Stordeur and
Khawam 2008). Additionally, the specific location of some sites as well as
contextual evidence indicate that they were designated primarily for ceremonial-cum-burial purposes,such as Nahal Hemar and IGar HaHoresh
(Bar-Yosef and Alon 1988; Goring-Morris 2000,2005).
Many graves comprise single articulated burials, although multiple
primary, as well as multiple secondary, burials are found, including combinations of primary and secondary interments within the same grave.
Some of this variability appears to reflect geographical and/or chronological trends; for example, "cist" burials appear to be the l ~ o r min
At Gilgal a couple of burials (both adult, pri~nary,articulated, with skulls) were recovered in an open area, although these were not reported in the final report (Bar-Yosef,
Goring-Morris and Gopher 20 10; pers. obs.).
Different Strokes for Different Folks
southern Transjordan, as at Shaqaret Msiad and Baja (continuing a tradition first noted at PPNA el-Hemmeh), and southern Sinai, at Ujrat
el-Mehed (Gebel, Hermansen, and IGnzel 2006; Hermannsen et al.
2006; Hershltovitz, Bar-Yosef and Are~lsberg1998; Znzel et al. 201 1).
Indeed, Building F at Shaqaret Msiad is a large (circa seven meters in
diameter) circular structure, centrally placed within the settlement, and,
although only partially excavated, yielded in excess of fifty-five individuals in stone-lined cists (IGnzel et al. 201 1). The structure thus appears to
have served as a dedicated charnel house in its later phase - perhaps a h n
to the memory houses of Catal (and see discussioii later).
Postmortem slzull removal continued to be practiced selectively,
whether on males, females, adults, or immature individuals. In some
instances these slzulls were embellished by sophisticated modeling of the
facial features or heads, as in 'Ain Ghazal, Aswad, Jericho, Beisamoun,
IGar HaHoresh, Nahal Hemar, and Yiftahel (Goren, Goring-Morris,
and Segal2001; Khalaily et al. 2008; ICuijt 2008; Stordeur and IUlawam
2007). After their secondary "death," skulls, modeled or not, were disposed of, sometimes as caches. Although long claimed to be absent, grave
goods are present on occasion, whether in the form of beads, enda ants,
flint artifacts, animal bones, marine molluscs, or other items (GoringiMorris 2000, 2005).
There is continuity from the Natufian in the presence of human/
animal associations during the PPNB; sometimes this appears to be in
the form of certain specific faunal elements being included within or
placed adjacent to graves, as at Iaar HaHoresh, Shaqaret Msiad, and
Basta (Beclzer 2002; Goring-Morris 2005; Goring-Morris et al. 1998;
Hermansen et al. 2006; Hornlitz and Goring-Morris 2004). I n other
instances, there are indications that this reflects actual feasting activities
(Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2011; Goring-Morris and Horwitz
2007; Twiss 2008).
Contemporaneous Burials in the Northern Levant
Without providing detailed descriptions of each site, one can state that
the mortuary patterns observed in the areas to the south of the TaurusZagros (corresponding t o the very end ofthe Natufian, the PPNA, and the
PPNR in the south) are broadly similar to those observed and described
for the Southern Levant, even though most reports are preliminary and
Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen
fragmentary. There is considerable variability in the numbers of individuals in different sites, mirroring the situation farther south. Suffice
it to note that at Cayonii more than four hundred fifty individuals were
counted (Ozbeck 1982,1988; Croucher 2006a, b, 2010,2012). Indeed,
Cayonu is quite unique in that many of the burials are primarily associated
with the "slzull building," a long-lasting (PPNA-PPNB) special function
architectural complex, associated with animal remains including aurochs
bucrania. At PPNB Dja'de a charnel house was exposed (Coqueugniot
2008). Furthermore, the human remains in many northern sites comprise burials of both complete skeletons, as well as separate slzulls and
postcrania, such as the six human crania placed in the northwest half of a
"house" at PPNA Qermez Dere (Watluns, Baird and Betts 1989); while
at Mureybet in Structure 2 1 of Level IIIB one may note a skull and long
bones burial, together with, a little distance to the east, another burial
comprising only th'e spine, pelvis, chest, and articulated hands and feet
(Ibanez 2008).
The reports of all sites with human remains detail variations in the positions of interments: contracted to loosely flexed, on the back, stomach,
and side, as at PPNA Nemrilz (IZozlowslu 2002) and Qaramel (Kanjou
-2009). The situation at PPNB Tell Halula is locally unique in the systematic placement of the deceased seated in pits beneath the floors at the
front of residential structures (Guerrero et al. 2009; Ortiz, Chambon and
Molist 2013). However, the striking similarities in burial practices to those
at PPNA el-Hemmeh in Edom, Transjordan, are intriguing (see earlier).
Generally there are few grave goods in most sites, but at PPNA Kortilz
Tepe on the Tigris. the situation is quite different and the majority of
burials were interred with numerous grave goods comprising jewelry,
decorated and undecorated bone objects, stone figurines, as well as stone
vessels, pestles, mace heads, and axes (Ozlzaya 2009; Ozlzaya and Co~lzun
2009). Additionally, quite a number of burials are covered by fragments
of broken stone vessels, which may have been intentionally broken as
part of the funerary practices (a variation of an old tradition, and see discussion later).
Furthermore, in the northern areas there are phenomena that have
not, to date, been recognized (or only rarely) in the south. These include
violence, sometimes on an individual level, as at PPNA Jerf el-Ahmar
(Stordeur and Abbts 2002), but sometimes seemingly on a more systematic scale, as at Nemrik (though here it is difficult to distinguish between
Different Strokes for Different Folks
PPNA and PPNB and see Kozlowslu 2002) and, especially, at Shanidar
Cave. In the latter, the "Proto-Neolithic" occupation represents a cemetery site with the remains of twenty-nine individuals (Solech, Soleclii,
and Agelaralus 2004). Of interest here is the high number of individuals
with evidence of traumatic injuries to the slzull, perhaps from mace heads
(quite common among the material culture remains).
Another pattern in the north appears to be the ceremonial closure
of structures using human burials. This may be the case of the headless
slzeleton of a circa fifteen- to eighteen-year-old female, sprawled on the
floor of the burned communal structure EA 30 at PPNA Jerf el Ahmar
(Stordeur and Abbts 2002): speculatively, the young woman had apparently been lulled immediately before the structure was intentionally
burned, and her head subsequently rem'oved after the roof had collapsed.
A similar situation may be indicated by a tightly contracted burial used
for the "closure" of the lowermost "luva-type structure" in the PPNA
levels of Dja'de (Coqueugniot 2008,2013).
Gypsum plaster was smeared on many of the slzeletons at PPNA
Kortilz Tepe (Ozkaya 2009; Ozlzaya and Co~lzun2009) - this practice
occurs later, during the PPNB at Tell abu Hureyra (Moore, Hillman,
and Legge 2000), and perhaps presages the practices at Tell Sabi Abyad
(Alkrmans 1996; and see discussion for comparisons with the southern
Levant). Several slzulls at IZortilz Tepe display parallel bands of red and
blacli pigments. Such color traces are also seen on grave goods; this is
interpreted by the excavator as evidence for several stages of treatment
of the dead, as first they were interred; later, after defleshing (natural or
intentional), covered with plaster; and then painted (Ozlzaya 2009). Red
coloring is implied also in Cay6nii in the form of red ochre pieces scattered over and besides the burials (Croucher 2006a, b).
Discussion
In appraising the nature of burial practices in the Levant during
Neolithization processes as briefly described previously, it should be quite
obvious that there are few, if any, definite and/or enduring patterns, spatially and/or chronologically. For example, "grave goods" do occur from
the Natufian onward, but they are rarely numerous, and there is often
difficulty in distinguishing between genuine grave goods and persond
jewelry and adornments on clothing of the dead, not to mention simple
-
Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen
background "noise" of grave fill. Indeed grave goods are oftentimes difficult to identify as such; for example, how should we consider the incorporation of animal bones within graves - a sporadic occurrence from the
Middle Epipaleolithic all through the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, whether as
complete animal carcasses, or as single bones. These may be interpreted
as purely emblesnatic, representing a symbolic system (parsper toto) that
we have yet to decipher or simply as evidence for ceremonial feasting as
part of the burial rites (and see earlier examples). Should the burial of a
fox together with human remains at the Middle Epipaleolithic site of the
'Uy~wnal-Hammam (Wadi Ziqlab 148) cemetery be considered as a precursor of the (rare) Natufian canid burials? And what should we make of
the ground-stone utensils found in association with burials? Such associations are documented since at least the Middle Epipaleolithic, through
to the Natufian, and even to the PPNB in the southern Levant. D o these
"presage" the burials at IGrtilt Tepe on the Upper Tigris, which were
lavishly covered by the intentionally broken shards of stone utensils (and
see earlier discussion)? Is this simply a matter of independent evolution
and convergence? Or, do such practices reflect ties of some sort, which
are otherwise undetected?
Some traditions were more spectacular than others, most especially that
of postmortem skull removal. This custom, which was never ubiquitous,
was first documented during the Natufian, continuing in the PPNA and
PPNB, lasting through to at least the Pottery Neolithic in the southern
Levant. Subsequent modification and embellishment, as in the form of
plastering, are associated only with the Middle and Late PPNB, four thousand years after the Natufian. Skulls were curated or reburied after their
"secondary" death. They appear both as single items as well as in caches.
Indeed, it seems that sltulls have been of special importance from the proverbial "beginning" (i.e., Epipaleolithic) since there is evidence of special
treatment - decapitation, modification, and burning ( ? ) of skulls, with
sltulls being cached, stored, or reburied after their "secondary" deaths.
The unique treatment of the skull overrules the caution one normally has
to exercise when excavating a prehistoric occurrence talung into consideration problems of taphonomy; in other words, when does a missing sltull
actually reflect skull removal, and when does it represent poor preserati ion?^ Last, but not least, we d o find material evidence for long-&stance
And, tongue in cheek, wc should not forget "Moshe," the headless Mousterian
Neanderthal from Kebara cave (Bar-Yoscfet al. 1988).
Different Strokes for Different Folks
connections between the southern Levant and central Anatolia in the
form of one of the plastered slzulls from IGar HaHoresh in Lower Galilee,
the pigment on which proved to be cinnabar deriving from sources in the
Taurus region of central A n a t ~ l i aFurthermore,
.~
various aspects of the
mortuary practices at PPNB Shillo~~rolzambos
in Cyprus (Guilaine, Briois,
and Vigne 2011) also closely mirror similar practices at IGar HaHoresh.
_bother convergence(?) is the practice of smearing gypsum/lime plaster
on many of the slzeletons at PPNA IGrtilz Tepe (Ozkaya 2009; Ozkaya
and Cogkun 2009) - this practice also occurs later, during the M/LPPNB
at Tell abu Hureyra (Moore, Hillman, and Legge 2000), and perhaps
presages the practices at Late Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad (Alzlzermans
1996), all sites located in the northern Levant. Recently it has also been
documented at PPNA el Hemmeh, in the southern Levant (Malzarewicz
and Rose 2011)! So, one may ask, which area has precedence?
Another interesting and hardly commented upon practice concerns
the use of "pillows" placed to raise the head of the deceased above the
rest of the body. Sometimes this seemingly involved "perishable" cushions (e.g., Late Natufian Raqefet); or, and more commonly, stone "pillows," as at PPNA Hatoula and Wadi Faynan 1 6 (Le Mort, Hershkqvitz,
and Spiers 1994; Nadel et al. 2008; Finlayson and Mithen 2007).
So, ultimately, how can we explain the observed variability in burial
practices as regards the community behaviors that they reflect through
this long period? And how do those burial practices relate to the broader
picture of the socioeconomic transformations. occurring concurrently?
Burials as a constant phenomenon start to appear during the Early
Natufian, crossing the "Rubicon" of domestication processes, that is,
the shift from small foraging bands to large sedentary communities. All
in all, it seems to us that the changes in burial practices were gradual
rather than abrupt - apparently these aspects pertain to the core of society's fabric, relevant to the very identity of the specific human group.
Accordingly, each of the cultural entities during the terminal Pleistocene
and Early Holocene displays evidence for continuity in some aspects of
the burial practices, in tandem with considerable variability in others.
The variation observed is indeed amazing, and it is already very obvious during the Natufian, when a plethora of burials and wide range of
burial types are documented through the length of the long Natufian
Interestingly, cinnabar is m e n t i o n e d as o n e of t h e pigments associated w i t h skulls at
Catal ( B o z and Hager 2013; Nakamura and Meskell, 2013).
Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen
chro~lologicalsequence. We cannot resist yet another illustrative example: Tomb 23 at Eynan has one individual in articulation associated with
grave goods (a small basalt bowl, a biface, and a few bones of a "large"
animal [aurochs?]). The burial also has a "tombstone" and other large
stones embedded in the grave to "pin down" the deceased and demarcate the grave's perimeter. And above this grave is yet another grave, this
time represented only by a single mandible (Perrot and Ladiray 1988:
51, fig. 29). This seems to be another instance of extended memory
and pars p e y toto, at the same time reflecting the inherent variability of
Natufian fi~nerarypractices.
Obviously we have to take into coilsideration those changes induced
through time, as well as the particular, evolving histories of each settlement/area/region within Southwest Asia (i.e., the Near East). Such a
statement is clearly valid for every period in human history. However,
what is specific to the Neolithic in the region is that the changes involved
in Neolithization processes were unprecedented occurrences in human
history - aggregation, sedentism, cultivation, domestication, and
so on, all for the first time (Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 2009).
Aggregation, for example, meant that the traditional separation into
small hunter-gatherer bands brolce down as various such groups, because
of the new circumstances involving economic and spiritual shifts, began
to live together, as evidenced through the archaeological data. These
were indeed first-time phenomena and individual groups were grappling
with unfamiliar "territory," in the sense that there was still no real canonization of social mutuality, even if the basics of social behaviors and
ritual practices derived from a general, shared sociocultural milieu. All of
these were constantly changing, while individuals and communities tried
to adhere to what was familiar and had been accepted practice/agency
for many millennia.
Undoubtedly, the pronounced chronological and regional variability
observed, occurring during these "troubling" times of profound changes
in the fabric of human existence, can accommodate the uniqueness of the
findings from Catalhoyulz. Catalhoyiilc is geographically located at the
very northwestern edge of Neolithization processes and was founded relatively late within PPN developments. Yet, we may assume that the initial
founding and development of Catalhiipik lilzely reflect Neolithization
processes somewhat alun to those encountered earlier within the Levant,
namely, that Catalhoyuk represents the amalgamation of disparate groups
Different Strokes for Different Folks
from within the general region - and see Bonfuldu (Baird 2006,2010)
The contexts of the human remains recently described and summarized
for the Catal sequence (Boz and Hager 2013; Nalzamura and Mesltell
2013) incorporate almost all the mortuary elements described for the
Levant from the Natufian onward. The detailed studies revealed some
local patterns, such as the emphasis on primary burials, on grave goods
being mostly associated with infants and children, and, to a lesser degree,
with older women; differing proportions (through time) between burials
outside and inside houses; but none of these is really unique or exceptional relative to the variability in the mortuary repertoire elsewhere in
the Near East. Rather, we can observe differences on the basis of individual burials (e.g., Pattoil and Hager, this volume). Each internment
and its context tell a story that incorporates both personal and societal
aspects, reflecting the private history of the deceased in tandem with the
customs and beliefs of the community at large. Indeed, the rather opaque
diachronic and synchronic trends and tendencies displayed at Catalhiiyiilz
broadly parallel those in the Levant. Accordingly, it is against the backdrop of the developments detailed earlier that the burials in Catalhoyiik
and their chronospatial contexts represent yet another uniq-ue social
experiment that developed, flourished, and gradually transformed into
something else during the course of its circa-fifteea-hundred-year history. As such it parallels other distinctive and unique experiments during
Neolithic transformations elsewhere in Southwest Asia.
Neolithization processes entailed profound changes in all spheres of
human existence, prominent among which was the manner that the living
accommodated -heir dead. In examining the inventory of mortuary practices detailed, it is quite clear that we are facing processes iilfluenced by
changes taking place in other realms; the most obvious is the aggregation
of people into sedentary settlements, sharing space (in life as in death)
with strangers ("nonlun"). The diachronic differences observed among
subregions throughout the Near East reflect innovations that developed
in sib1 or that were acquired through contacts with "outside" groups.
The Neolithic as a whole was a period of flux and comniunities were constantly pushed into contacts with the outside (through trade, exchange,
craft specialization, migration, etc.), at the same time trying to retain
and define their own identities. Treatment of and attitudes toward the
dead were undoubtedly influenced by this duality. Thus we can observe
the adoption of traditions, originating in one particular place, difhsing
Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen
all over the Near East in no time at all, or at least at a pace that archaeology today can hardly measure (e.g., skull removal, plastered slzulls, the
inclusion of animal remains). Mortuary practices played an important
role in defining community identity. Even if one aclaowledges the problematic~of imposing present-day as well as recent and subrecent ethnographic values on prehistoric mortuary behavior, it is obvious that there
was a continuous "discourse" between the living and the dead, with the
former trying to continue and impose their Weltanschauztwjon the latter;
the changes and variability reflecting the turbulent nature of Neolithic
times and the "for the first time" circumstances of groups and individuals merging to create a "brave new world." With all the intricacies and
difficulties involved in identifying the complex patterning of mortuary
practices observed at Catalhoyulz, this simply reflects the situation elsewhere within the Near East through most of the Neolithic sequence.
Indeed the similarities in the treatment of the dead can be considered as
one of the reasons that the concept of "the PPNB IZoine" came about;
concurrently it is obvious that each community was feeling its own way
in order to promote cohesion and solidify group identity, drawing from
the realms of both the living and the dead.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akkermans, P. M. M. G., eds. 1996. Tell SabiAbyad: The Late Neolithic Settlement.
Leiden/Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut.
Arensburg, B., and Bar-Yosef, 0. 1973. Human Remains from Ein Gev I, Jordan
Valley, Israel. Pale'orient 1:201-206.
Baird, D. 2006. The Boncuklu Project: The Origins of Sedentism, Cultivation
and Herding in Central Anatolia. Anatolian Avchaeology 12:13-16.
2010. Was Catalhoyiik a centre: The implications of a late Aceramic Neolithic
assemblage from the neighbourhood of Catalhoyiik. In The Development of
Pre-State Comm~nitiesin the Ancient Near East, eds. D. Bolger and L. C.
Maguire. Oxford: Oxbow Boolzs.
Bar-Yosef, O., and Alon, D. 1988. Nahal Hemar Cave. 'Atiqot 18. Jerusalem:
Israel Department of Antiquities.
Bar-Yosef, O., Goring-Morris, A. N., and Gopher, A,, eds. 2010. Gzhal:
Excavations at Early Neolithic Sites in the Lowev Jordan Valley. The
Excavations of Tamav Noy. Oal<ville,CT: ASPR Monograph Series & David
Brown/Osbow.
Bar-Yosef, O., Laville, H., Meigen, L., Tillier, A,-M., Vandermeersch, B.,
Arensberg, B., Belfer-Cohen, A., Goldberg, P., Rak, Y., and Tchernov, E.
Different Strokes for Different Folks
1988. La Stpulture neandertalitnne de ICebara (unite XII). In La Pense, ed.,
M . Otte. Litge: ERAUL, 17-24.
3~-Yosef,O., and Sillen, A. 1993. Implications of the New Acclerator Date
of the Charred Skeletons from ICebara Cave (Mt. Carmel). Pale'orient
19:205-208.
Secker, C. 2002. Nothing to do with indigenous domestication? Cattle from Late
PPNB Basta. In Archaeozoology of the Near East, eds., H . Buitenhuis, A. M.
Choyke, M. Mashkour and A. H. Al-Shiyab. Groningen: ARC, 112-137.
Selfer-Cohen, A. 1988. The Natufian Graveyard in Hayonim Cave. Pale'orient
4(2), 297-308.
1995. Rethinking social stratification in the natufian culture: The evidence
1-i-omburials. In The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, eds.
S. Campbell and A. Green. Edinburgh: Oxbow Monographs, 9-16.
3elfer-Cohen, A,, Arensburg, B., Bar-Yosef, O., and Gopher, A. 1990. The
Human Remains from the PPNA Site of Nbtiv Hagdud, Jordan Valley, Israel.
Mitekufat Haeven -Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 23:79-85.
Belfer-Cohen, A,, and Goring-Morris, A. N. 2009. For the First Time.
Comments on Papers in "Conversation on the Origins of Agriculture".
Current Anthropology 50(5), 669-672.
2013a. The Upper Palaeolithic and earlier Epi-Palaeolithic of Western Asia
(ca. 50-14.5 lc calBP). In The Cambridge World Prehistory, Volume 3, eds.
A. C. Renfrew and R. G. Bahn. Cambridge: Cambridge Uniyersity Press,
1381-1407.
2013b. Brealung the mold: Phases and facies in the Natufian of the
Mediterranean Zone. In The NatuJian Culture i n the Levant II, eds. 0 .
Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla. Ann Arbor, MI: Monographs in Prehistory,
543-561.
Bocquentin, F. 2003. Pratiques funeraires, parametres biologiques et identitts
culturelles au Natoufien: une analyse archto-anthropologique. Thi-se de
Doctorat en Anthropologie Biologique, Universitt Bordeaux 1.
Bocquentin, F., Crevecoeur, I., Arensburg, B., Kaufman, D., and Ronen, A.
2011. Les hommes du Ktbarien gtomttrique de Neve David, Mont
Carmel (Israel). Bulletins et Me'moires de la Socie'te'd'anthropologie de Paris
23(1-2):38-51.
Boz, B., and Hager, L. 2013. Intramural burial practices at Catalhoyiik. In
Humans and Landscapes of (3atalhoyuk:Reportsfrom the 2000-2008 Seasons,
ed. I . Hodder. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute.
Coqueugniot, E. 2008. Diversified funerary practices: the case of Dja'de
(Syria, Euphrates valley, 9th millenium cal. BC, late PPNA and EPPNB).
In Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeolog?, of the
Ancient Near East, eds., J . M. Cordoba, M. Molist, M. Ptrez, I. Rubio
and S. Martinez. Madrid: Centro Superior de Estudios-sobke el Oriente
Proximo y Egipto.
Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen
Coqueugniot, E. 2013. Dja'de (Syria) and the 9th millenium cal. BC symbolic
representations. In Tra~zsitio~zs
en Mediterrante on Comment des Chasseurs
~ e v i n 4 n t Ag~iculteu7~(Epipaliolithigne, Misolithiqt~e, Niolithique
Ancien), eds. J . Guilaine, C. Manen, and T. Perrin. Le Museum d'Histoire
Naturelle de Toulouse, le Centre de Recherche sur la Prkhistoire et la
Protohistoire de la Mediterranke (EHESS/UMK Traces du CNRS).
Toulouse.
Cornwall, I. W. 1981. The pre-pottery Neolithic burials. In ExcavationsatJerzcho.
Vol. 3: The A7*chitccture and Stratig,uphy of the Tell, ed. T. A. Holland.
London: The British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, 3 9 5 4 0 6 .
Croucher, K. 2006a. Death, display and performance: A discussion of the mortuary remains at Cayonii Tepesi, Southeast Turkey. In The Archaeology of
Cult and Death, eds. M. Georgiadis and C. Gallou, pp. 1 1 4 4 . Budapest:
Archaeolingua.
2006b. Getting ahead: Exploring meanings of slculls in the Neolithic Near
East. In Skull collection, modification and decoration, ed. M. Bonogofsky.
Oxford: Archaeopress, 2 9 4 4 .
2010. Tactile engagements: the world of the dead in the lives of the living
... or 'sharing the dead'. I n The Principle of Sharincq - Sem~~emation
and
Constrnction of Social Identities at the T7*ansitionfrom Forajinm to Farming,
ed. M. Benz. Berlin: SENEPSE 14, ex oriente, 277-300.
2012. Death and Dyinm in the Neolithic Neal, East. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Davis, S. J. M., and Valla, F. R. 1978. Evidence for Domestication of the Dog
12,000 Years Ago in the Natufian of Israel. Nature 276:608-610.
Edwards, P. C., Meadows, J., Sayej, G., and Westaway, M. 2004. From the
PPNA to the PPNB: New views from the southern Levant after excavations
at Zahrat adh-Dhra' 2 in Jordan. Pa1tovl;ent 30(2), 21-60.
Finlayson, B., and Mithen, S., eds. 2007. The Early Prehistory .yf Wadi Eaynan,
Southern Jordan. Oxford: Oxbow Books & CBRL.
Galili, E., Eshed, V., Gopher, A., and Hershkovitz, I., 2005. Burial practices at
the submerged Pre-Potterv Neolithic site of Atlit-Yam, northern coast of
Israel. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 339:l-19.
Garrard, A. N. 1991 Natufian settlement in the Azraq Basin, Eastern Jordan. In
The Natzdfian Culture ilz the Levant, eds. 0.Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla. Ann
Arbor, MI: International Monographs in Prehistory, 235-244.
Garrard, A. N., and Yazbeck, C. 2003. Qadisha Valley Prehistory Project
(Northern Lebanon): Summary of First Two Seasons Investigations. Baal
7:7-14.
Garrod, D. 1936-1937. Notes on Some Decorated Skeletons from the Mesolithic
of Palestine. A n n ~ a of
l the British School in Athens 37:123-127.
Garrod, D. A. E., and Rate, D. M. A. 1937. The Stone Age of Mount Ca?pmel.
Excavations a t the Wadi-Muohara, vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Different Strokes for Different Folks
Gebel, H . G., Hermansen, B. D., and Itinzel, M. 2006. Ba'ja 2005: A TwoStoried Building and Collective Burials. Results of the 6th Season of
Excavation. Neo-Lithics 1/06:12-19.
Goren, Y., Goring-Morris, A. N., and Scgal, I. 2001. Slzull Modeling in the PrePottery Neolithic B: Regional Variability, the Relationship of Technology
and Iconography and Their Archaeological Implications. Journal of
A~,chaeologicalScience 28(7), 671-690.
Goring-Morris, A. N. 2000. The quick and the dead: The social context of
Aceramic Neolithic mortuary practices as seen from IGar HaHoresh. In
Life in Neolithic Farmin8 Communities. Social O~.ganization,Identity,
and Differentiation, ed. I . IZuijt. New York: IUuwer Academic/Plenum,
103-135.
2005. Life, death and the emergence of differential status in the Near
Eastern Neolithic: Evidence from IGar HaHoresh, Lower Galilee, Israel.
In Avchaeolo&cal Perspectives on the ~vansmission and Tmn~firmation
of Culture in the Eastern Medite~ranean,ed. J . Clark. Oxford: CBRL &
Oxbow Boolzs, 89-105.
Goring-Morris, A. N., and Belfer-Cohen, A. 201 1. Evolving human/animal
iilteractioils in the Near Eastern Neolithic: Feasting as a case study. In Guess
Who's Coming t o Dinner: Feasting Rituals in the Prehistolflic Societies of
Europe and neafrEast, eds. G. Aranda, S. Monton and M. Sanchez. Oxford:
Oxbow Books, 64-72.
Goring-Morris, A. N., Burns, R., Davidzon, A., Eshed, V., Goren, Y.,
Hershlzovitz, I., Kangas, S., and I<elecevic, J. 1998. The 1997 Season of
Excavatioils at the Mortuary Site of IGar HaHoresh, Galilee, Israel. NeoLithics 3 / 9 8 : 1 4 .
Goring-Morris, A. N., and Horwitz, L. K. 2007. Funerals and Feasts in the Near
Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. Antigaity 81:902-919.
Grosman, L., and Munro, N. 2007. The Sacred and the Mundane: Domestic
Activities .at a Late Natufian Burial Site in the Levant. Before Farminj: Tbe
Archaeology and Anthropolodjl of Hunter-Gatheren 4:1-14.
Grosman, L., Munro, N. D., and Belfer-Cohen, A. 2008. A 12,000-year-old
Shaman burial from the southern Levant (Israel). Proceedingsof the National
Academy of Sciences 105(46), 17665-1 7669.
Guerrero, E., Molist, M., Kuijt, I., and Anfruns, J. 2009. Seated Memory: New
Insights into Near Eastern Neolithic Mortuary Variability from Tell Halula,
Syria. Current Anthvopology 50:379-391.
Guilaine, J., Briois, F., and Vigne, J. D., eds. 2011. Shillourokambos. Un ee'tablissement ne'olithigueprL-ceramigue d Chypre. Lesfouilles du secteur 1. Paris:
Editions Errance/Ecole Franqaise d'Athenes.
Hayden, B. 2011. Feasting and social dynamics in the Epipaleolithic of the
Fertile Crescent: an interpretive excercise. In Guess Who's Comz'ng t o Dinner:
Feastinj Rituals in the P~,ehistoric Societies of Europe and the near East,
Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen
eds. G. Aranda Jimenez, S. Monton-Subias and M. Sanchez Romero.
Oxford: Oxbow Books, 30-63.
Hermansen, B: D., Thuesen, I., Jensen, C. H., IGnzel, M., Petersen, M. B.,
Jorkov, M. L., and Lynerrup, N. 2006. Shlzarat Msaied: The 2005 Season of
Excavations. A Short Preliminary Report. Neo-Lithics 1/06:3-7.
Hershlzovitz, I., BBr-Yosef, O., and Arensburg, B. 1994. The Pre-Pottery
Neolithic Populations of South Sinai and Their Relations to Other CircumMediterranean Groups: An Anthropological Study. Pale'orient 20(2);
59--84.
Hershkovitz, I., Spiers, M. S., Frayer, D., Nadel, D., Wish-Baratz, S., and
Arensberg, B. 1995. Ohalo I1 - a 19,000 Years Old Skeleton from a WaterLogged Site at the Sea of Galilee. Amc~ican
Journal of Physical Anthropology
96(3), 215-234.
Horwitz Kolska, L., and Goring-Morris, A. N. 2004. Animals and,Ritual during
the Levantine PPNB: A Case Study from the Site of Iaar Hahoresh, Israel.
Anthropozoologica 39( 1), 165-178.
Ibafiez, J. J., ed. 2008. Le Site Nbolithique de Tell Mureybet (Syrie du Nord). En
hommage u Jacques Cawin. Oxford: BAR International Series 1843 (1-11).
Kanjou, Y. 2009. Study of Neolithic Human Graves from Tell Qaramel in North
Syria. International Jonmal of Modern Anthropology 2:25-37.
Icenyon, I<. M. 1957. D i m z n , UpJevicho. London: Benn.
1981. The A.~chitectuveand Stratigaphy of the Tell: Excavations at Jericho III.
London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.
Khalaily, H., Milevski, I., Getzov, N., Hershkovitz, I., Barzilai, O., Yaroshevich,
A,, Shlomi, V., Najjar, A,, Zidan, O., Smithline, H., and Liran, R. 2008.
Recent Excavations at the Neolithic Site of Yiftahel (Khallet Khalladyiah),
Lower Galilee. Neo-Lithics 2/08:3-11.
Kinzel, M., Abu-Laban, A,, Hoffman Jensen, C., Thuesen, I., and Jorkov, M.-L.
201 1. Insights into PPNB Architectural Transformation, Human Burials,
and Initial Conservation Works: Summary on the 2010 Excavation Season
at Shlcarat Msaied. Neo-Lithics 1/11 : 4 4 4 9 .
IZirkbride, D. 1966. Five Seasoils at the Prepottery Neolithic Village of Beidha
in Jordan. Palestine Explomtion QuarterJy98 3-72,
IZozlo~vslu,S. I<. 2002. NevwiL: A n Aceramic Village in Northern Iraq. Warsaw:
Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University.
IZuijt, I. 1995. New Perspectives on Old Territories: Ritual Practices and the
Emergence of Social Complexity in the Levantine Neolithic. Unpublished
Ph .D. Dissertation, Harvard University.
1996. Negotiating Equality through Ritual: A Consideration of Late Natufian
and Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Period Mortuary Practices. Jouvnal of
Anthropological Archaeolo~y1 5:3 13-3 36.
1997. Jericho. In The Oxford Companion to Archaeolo~y,eds. C . Beck, G.
Michaels, C. Scarre and N. A. Silberman. New Yorlz: Oxford University
Press, 363-364.
Different Strokes for Different Folks
2001. Place, death, and the tra~lsmissionof social memory in early agricultural
of the Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic. In Social Memory) Identity, and
Death: Anthropological Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals, ed. M. S. Chesson.
Washington, DC: Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological
Association: 80-99.
2004. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and Late Natufian Occupatioils at 'Iraq
ed-Dubb, Jordan. Journal of Fzeld Archaeology 29:291-308.
2008. The Regeneration ofLife: Neolithic Structures ofsymbolic Remembering
and Forgetting. Current Anth~opologj~
49(2):171-197.
Kurth, G., and Rohrer-Ertl, 0 . 1981. On the anthropology of the Mesolithic to
Chalcolithic human remains from the Tell es-Sultan in Jericho, Jordan. In
Excavations at Jericho, vol. 3, ed. T. A. Holland. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 4 0 9 4 9 9 .
Le Mort, F. 1994. Les sepultures. In Le Gisement de Hatoula enJude'e Occidentale,
Israel, eds. M. Lechevallier and A. Ronen. Paris: Association Paltorient,
MCmoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherche Franqais de JCrusalem,
39-57.
Le Mort, F., Hershkovitz, I., and Spiers, M. 1994. Les restes huinains. In Le
Giscment de Hatoula en JudLe Occidentale, Israel, eds. M . Lechevallier and
A. Ronen. Paris: Association Palkorient, Mtmoires et Travaux du Centre de
Recherche Fransais de Jtrusalem, 59-72.
Lengyel, G., and Bocquentin, F. 2005. Burials of Raqefet Cave in he Context of
the Late Natufian. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 35:271-284.
AIaher, L. A., Stock, J. T., Finney, S., Heywood, J. J. N., Miracle, P. T., and
Banning, E. B. 2011. A Unique Human-Fox Burial from a Pre-Natufian
Cemetery in the Levant (Jordan). PLoS ONE 6(1).
Slakarewicz, C. A,, and Rose, I<. 2011. Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic settlement at
el-Hemmeh: A survey of the architectare. Neo-Lithics 1/11:23-29.
Slalinsky-Buller, A,, Aldjem, E., and Yeshurun, R. 2009. Bir el-Maksur. A New
Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Site in Lower Galilee. Neo-Lithics 2/09: 13-17.
A'loore,A. M. T., Hillman, G. C., and Legge, A. J. 2000. Villa& on theEupphrates.
From Ebragin~to Farmivg at Abu Hurcym. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
r/Iunro, N. D., and Grosman, L. 2010. Early Evidence (ca. 12,000 BP) for
Feasting at a Burial Cave in Israel. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science 107(35):15362-15366.
Nadel, D., Danin, A., Power, K. C., Rosen, A. M., Bocquentin, F., Tsatslun, A.,
Rosenberg, D., Yeshur~~n,
R., Weissbrod, L., Rebollo, N.R., Barzilai O.,
and Boaretto, E. 2013. Earliest floral grave lining from 13,700-11,700-yold Natufian burials at Raqefet cave, Mt. Carmel, Israel. Proceedin8 of the
National Academy of Science (PNAS).
Nadel, D., Lengyel, G., Bocquentin, F., Tsatslun A,, Rosenberg, D., Yeshurun,
R., Bar-Oz, G., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D., Beeri, R., Conyers, L., Filinf~':;
Hershkovitz I., Ihrzawska, A,, and Weissbrod, L. 2008. The Late Natufian
.A.
Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen
at Raqefet Cave: The 2006 Excavation Season. Journal of the IsraelPrehistoric
Society 38:59-131.
Nadel, D., Lerigyel, G., Cabellos, T., Bocquentin, F., Rosenberg, D., Yeshuruii,
R., Brown-Goodman, R., Tsatslun A., Bar-Oz, G., and Filin, S. 2009. The
Raqefet cave 2008 excavation season. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society
,
39:21-61.
Nakamura, C., and Meslzell, L. 2013. Figurines. In Substantive Technologies at
Catalhoyiilz:Reportsflorn the 2000-2008 Seasons, ed. I. Hodder. Los Angeles:
Cotsen Institute.
Ortiz, A., Chambon, P., aiid Molist, M. 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
A~chaeologicalScience.
Ozbek, M. 1988. Cults des crines hu~naiilsB Caponu. Anatolica 15:127-135.
1992. The Human Remains at Cayonu. American Joz~malof Archaeology
96374.
Ozlcaya, V. 2009. Excavations at IZortik Tepe: A New Pre-Pottery Neolithic A
Site in Southeastern Anatolia. Neo-Lithics 2/09:3-8.
Ozkaya, V., and Coglzun, A. 2009. IZortik Tepe, a New Pre-Pottery Neolithic A
Site in South-eastern Anatolia. Antiquity 83(320).
Perrot, J., and Ladiray, D. 1988. Les Hommes dc Mallaha (Ej~nan),Israel.
Mkmoires,et Travaux du Centre de Recherche Franqaise de Jkrusalem, No.
7. Paris: Association Palkorient.
Richter, T., Stoclz, J. T., Maher, L., and Hebron, C. 2010. An EarlvEpipalaeolithic
Sitting Burial from the Azraq Oasis, Jordan. Antiquity 84:321-334.
Rollefson, G. 0 . 2000. Ritual and social structure at Neolithic 'Ain Ghazal.
In Life in Neolithic Farmin, Communities. Social Oyganization, Identi%
and Differentiation, ed. I. Kuijt. New York: IUuwer Academic/Plenum,
163-190.
Smith, P. 1972. Diet and Attrition iii the Natufians. American Journal of Physical
Anthropolo~j~
37:233-238.
Solecki, R. S., Soleclu, R. L., and Agelaralus, A. P. 2004. The P~roto-Neolithic
Cemetery in Shanidar Cave. College Station: Texas A&M.
Stekelis, M., and Yizraeli, T. 1963. Excavations at Nahal Oren - Preliminary
Report. Israel Exploration Journal 13:l-12.
Stoclz, J. T., Pfeiffer, S. K., Chazan, M., and Janetslu, J. 2005. F-81 Skeleton
from Wadi Mataha, Jordan, and Its Bearing on Human Variability in the
Epipaleolithic of the Levant. American Journal of Physical Anthropolo~y
128(2):453465.
Stordeur, D., and Abbts, F. 2002. Du PPNA au PPNB: ~niseen lumitre d'une
phase de transition B Jerf el-Alimar (Syrie). Bulletin de la Socikti Prihistorique
Fran~aise99(3):563-595.
Different Strokes for Different Folks
Stordeur, D., and Iaawam, R. 2007. Les crines surmodelts de Tell Aswad
(PPNB, Sprie). Premier regard sur l'ensemble, premitres rtflexions. Syria
84:5-32.
2008. Une place pour les morts dans les maisons de Tell Aswad (Syrie).(Horizon
PPNB ancien et PPNB mopen). In P?/oceedinjsof the 5th International
Congress an the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, eds., J . M. Cordoba,
M. Molist, M. Ptrez, I. Rubio and S. Martinez. Madrid: Centro Superior de
Estudios sobre el Oriente Proximo y Egipto, 561-590.
Tchernov, E., and Valla, F. R. 1997. Two New Dogs, and Other Natufian Dogs,
from the Southern Levant. Jouvnal of Archaeological Science 24(1):65-95.
Turville-Petre, F. 1932. Excavations at the Mugharet El-Icebarah. Journal of the
Royal Anthropolo@cal Institute 62:270-276.
Twiss, I<. C. 2008. Transformations in an Early Agricultural Society: Feasting in
the Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological
Arehauolojy 27:418442.
Valla, F. R. 1988. Aspects du sol de l'abri 131 de Mallaha (Eynan). Pale'orient
14:283-296.
Valla, F. R., Khalaily, H., Samuelian, N., and Bocquentin, F. 2010. What
Happened in the Final Natufian? Journal of the Israel P~*ehistovlicSociety
40: 1 31-148.
Watkins, T., Baird, D., and Betts, A. 1989. Qermez Dere and the Early Aceramic
Neolithic in Northern Iraq. Pale'orient 1S(1):19-24.
Webb, S. G. and Edwards, P. C. 2002. The Natufian Human Skeletal Remains
from Wadi Hammeh 27 (Jordan). Pale'orient, 28(1), 103-123.