For the last week or so I have been very quite as far as posts go. This is largely because of my end of semester work load, which is at present quite heavy. Today, I finished a paper for my Neolithic in the Near East class on the PPNB site of Kfar HaHoresh.
N. Goring-Morris, the principle excavator, has indicated that this may have been a regional ritual and mortuary site. Y. Garfinkel has raised various objections to this theory based on the material remains.
You’ll find my paper, which goes into the site report and explores the various interpretations of the site after the fold:
The Pre-Pottery Neolthic B site of Kfar HaHoresh offers what, at first, appears to be a unique material assemblage.(Goring-Morris 2005; Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002). This has lead to the interpretation that the site was itself unique, serving not in a residential role, but as a regional funerary cult center. Such ritual only sites have been rare in the Neolithic of the Near East, concretely represented only by Nahal Hemar cave.(Bar-Yosef and Alon 1988; Bonogofsky 2003; Garfinkel 1994) While Kfar HaHoresh has obvious evidence of feasting, long distance trade, and ritually elaborated skulls, the most noticeable point of interest are what may be a series of relatively large mortuary structures made of stone and plaster. This interpretation has, however, been challenged by those who find little evidence for the non-residential status accorded the site, leading to the interpretation of a more standard model of PPNB lifeways.(Garfinkel 2006; Verhoeven 2002) This is not to say that excavations at the site are any less important, either from the standpoint of archaeology or preservation, as many of the finds at Kfar HaHoresh have been rare and at times quite impressive.
Location, Environment, and Date
The site of Kfar HaHoresh is located on the western face of a hill in the Lower Galilee near the PPNB site of Yiftahel. Kfar HaHoresh is about 375 meters above sea level. The hills form a valley on either side of the Nahal Zvi, with the site located on the left bank.(Goring-Morris 1991, 2005) Other than the western side, the valley is sharp and rather narrow. Additional water supplies would have been available from the Beer Horesh spring about two hundred meters away WNW in at the bottom of a wadi. This position would have limited the agricultural land directly adjacent with the site. (Goring-Morris 2000) This makes the location stand out somewhat from other sites in the region, which are often located near potential agricultural land.(Goring-Morris 2000, 2005)
The estimated size of the site has varied over the course of publications from 1991 to present. (Garfinkel 2006) In recent publication, Goring-Morris presents a site size between 0.75 and 1.0 hectares, though Kuijt utilizes a site size of 0.50 hectares. (Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007; Kuijt 2000) Within the PPNB, these size estimates equate to one of the smaller sites in the region. Never the less, these numbers, especially those offered by Goring-Morris, fit within the known variation of residential sites.(Goring-Morris 2005; Kuijt 2000)
Dating has been provided through both radiocarbon testing and comparison to other sites. Dating based on lithics and other technology of other Neolithic sites, especially nearby Yiftahel, lead to an initial assessment of MPPNB. This was later expanded to include a possible continued use during the LPPNB.(Goring-Morris 1991, 1994, 2005; Goring-Morris et al. 1995) Charcoal found in the 2000 excavation season was sufficient to offer the first carbon dating for the site at 8650 ± 50 BP calibrated.(Goring-Morris, Boaretto and Weiner 2001) This date was not able to be tied to any specific layer of the site, but was likely located in the early to middle levels. More recent publication presents a broader range of dates, 8000 to 6800 BCE calibrated, spanning from the EPPNB to the LPPNB, based on both a series of radiocarbon dates and “finds from the complex stratigraphic sequence.”(Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007: 904)
Excavation History
Excavation at Kfar HaHoresh has been ongoing from 1991 to the present. During this period, excavation has take place over ca. 425 m2 of the sites expanse, or between 4% and 9% of the entire area. (Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007) The “Main Excavation Area” has focused on the northern, uphill portion of the site, revealing a number of walls and plaster floors with associated material remains. (Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007; Goring-Morris et al. 1998 ) A second area of excavation resulted in a smaller exposure in the “Upper Area”, which is to the south and downhill from the “Main Excavation Area”. While this portion of the excavation does contain a structure and some original deposition, much of the remains in the “Upper Area” are likely secondary deposits from uphill wash. (Goring-Morris 1994) Finally, a small pit of knapping debris was excavated to the west of the site in Locus 1007.(Goring-Morris 1994)
The current methodologies of sampling and interpretation have been critiqued by Yosef Garfinkel as problematic. While the majority of his critique will be addressed later, it is appropriate to discuss the possibility of sampling problems in the process of exploring Kfar HaHoresh’s excavation history. The initial excavation in 1991 was preceded by a disturbance of the site by plows which created trenches through the site.(Goring-Morris 1991; Goring-Morris et al. 1995) These trenches revealed locations of burials and other “rich” areas of material remains which became the focuses of later excavation.(Garfinkel 2006: 110) As a result, in the interpretation of the site, it is important to remember that the overall sampling may be skewed toward burials and similar locations, instead of being randomized in a standard fashion.
Layout and Architecture
In recent publications, Goring-Morris and Horwitz present Kfar HaHoresh as being divided into four specific zones based on material remains and subsequent assessment of use during occupation. The south east portion of the site is marked by kilns and other necessities for lime plaster as well as evidence for flint knapping, and has been titled the “production area”. To the south west is a portion recognized as “midden deposits” based on the presence of burnt bones and other charred material remains. The western and north western portions of the site contain plaster and stone-lined hearths and what Goring-Morris has called “monoliths” or “stele”, essentially large stones of varying shapes standing up to 1.2 meters high.(Goring-Morris 2005; Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007; Goring-Morris et al. 1998 :1) Some of these pieces have been incorporated into the walls, while others appear to be located around the edge of the site. At times, they are marked with plaster, though more frequently with stone “base-plates” (Goring-Morris 2005: 94) Due to these remains, the area has been labeled a “cult area”. Finally, the “funerary area” is described as an arc from the center of the site to its western portion, defined by plastered surfaces under which are numerous burials.(Goring-Morris 2005; Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007: 904-905)
At present, it is unclear how accurately this division is mirrored over the other 90% to 96% of the site which has not yet been exposed. Additionally, the definitions of areas of the site appear to differ in the two publications that highlight a four section model.(Goring-Morris 2005; Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007) The earlier publication places the mix of hearths and roasting pits in the midden area, while the latest publication places these in the cultic portion. Additionally, the earlier of the two has some of the lime plaster installations, discussed bellow, within the cultic area. The 2007 publication instead presents this architecture as being relegated to the funerary portion of Kfar HaHoresh. These discrepancies may arise from a secondary and undefined classification in the “cultic area”, which was missing from the first publication to define a classification system of site sections.(Goring-Morris et al. 1998 )
The architecture of Kfar HaHoresh has frequently been presented as a defining portion of the material assemblage, clearly marking it as a non-domestic site.(Garfinkel 2006; Goring-Morris 2000, 2005; Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007) The extent of architecture is described by Goring-Morris as, “ca 5-25 m2, quadrilateral, lime-plaster surfaced structures, terrace or compound walls, and open areas with numerous pits and instillations.”(Goring-Morris 2000: 109) The slabs vary in thickness between two and twelve centimeters. The walls tend to be up to two courses high and located on the upslope sides of the plaster slabs. Goring-Morris notes that “at least 17,” of these arrangements have been identified.(Goring-Morris 2005: 94) Such architecture stands out in the PPNB, which is often typified more by rectangular buildings of a semi-regular nature, at least within the non-desertic zones of habitation(Flannery 1972, 2002) However, the interpretation of solely non-domestic architecture has been challenged by some scholars.
When discussing Kfar HaHoresh, Verhoven writes, “Obvious domestic buildings have note been encountered, but the presence of plaster floors, fragments of stone walls, hearths, and pits and domestic artifacts (ground-stone tools) in fact appear to indicate at least some domestic activity.”(Verhoeven 2002: 237) Though Verhoven sees the walls and floors as potential evidence of domestic presence, though not necessarily domestic buildings, Yosef Garfinkel goes a step further, presenting the theory that these floor and wall remains are direct evidence of standard PPNB rectangular housing.(Garfinkel 2006) This interpretation is based on a theory that recognizes the effect of erosion on the walls, which may have lead to a higher amount of uphill structures surviving. With the additional possibility of human reuse of ball components, this explanation seems to fit well with the existing epistemology of PPNB architecture.
One of the major concerns of archaeologists studying Neolithic architecture is the presence or absence of communal architecture. Depending on which of the two understandings of the Kfar HaHoresh plaster slabs one takes, it is possible to see all of the site’s architecture as communal. If, however, one wished to be more conservative in assessing the situation at the site, adopting Garfinkel’s model, the only architecture that is very likely to be those found outside of the potential houses. This leads to the possibility of communal hearths found in the “cult area” or “midden deposit.” (Goring-Morris 2005; Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007) Goring-Morris has posited that these may have been used in the preparation of ritual feasts.(Goring-Morris et al. 1998 : 3) Without maps indicating the exact locations of these stone and plaster lined hearths, it remains impossible to say if this is the only interpretation available, or if the hearths may have been related to private areas. As Wright has indicated, PPNB hearths were at times located outside of residential structures, but clearly associated with them.(Wright 2000) In such a situation, these structures would have been open to the public view, but would be more parsimoniously considered private architecture.
While the small scale hearths of Kfar HaHoresh do not seem to necessitate the title of communal architecture, the same cannot be said of the lime plaster “kilns” found in the “production area”(Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007: 904) These pits appear to have been used for the production of lime plaster, an activity that likely was not carried out on a daily or frequent schedule by most individual PPNB households (Goring-Morris et al. 1998 ) Additionally, the apparent segregation of the pits to a single portion of the site speaks to a lack of association with any individual structure, and instead a use by the site as a whole. This interpretation also seems a necessity if one follows Goring-Morris’s interpretation of the site, where the plaster slabs where communal ritual objects.
As a whole, the site of Kfar HaHoresh presents a collection of relatively simple architecture. The excavation to date has revealed a number of production and consumption based structures in the form of hearths and kilns, as well as a number of enigmatic plaster floors and walls. The portions of the site that have as yet been exposed have not provided and obvious housing structures, nor have they revealed any obvious cultic architecture, instead showing a number of debatable plaster floors and stone walls.
Lithics
The lithic industry at Kfar HaHoresh is varied, but in many ways similar to other sites in the area, such as Yiftahel. A large amount of flint has been found on the site, numbering over 120,000 pieces, though much of this is debitage found in a single eighty by thirty centimeter pit(Goring-Morris 2005: 99) The flint industry is marked by two major types of a material, a local beige flint and a finer dark brown flint, which also appears in pink to purple heat treated coloration, small amounts of obsidian have also been found.(Goring-Morris 1994, 2005) There appears to be a division in the use of these materials, with the non-local flints being favored for standardized forms such as projectile points and sickles, as well as larger blades.(Goring-Morris 1994) This finer flint is also lacking in debitage and completely absent as cores, likely because it was originally worked offsite in the process of collection or trade.
The majority of lithic items are irregular flakes, especially within the discarded remains. The industry is notably lacking in naviform components, except for the discard pit in Locus 1007, which is primarily made up of such pieces. An assemblage of 536 tools has been analyzed from the site, presenting a variety of common tool times. The projectile points are commonly Amuq and Byblos, and make up roughly 15% of the tool assemblage at the site.(Goring-Morris 1994: 432) The bodies of these tools rarely display any major retouch. Sickles appear even more frequently than projectile points, at about 20% of the tool assemblage. Somewhat less common, but still common are burins, which appear to have been carefully constructed. The most common aspect of the lithic assemblage appears to have been awls and borers, which comprise the only portion of the tool assemblage to appear in an amount quite different than at other Mediterranean PPNB sites. Goring-Morris posits that this may be an illusion based on the methods of artifact identification differing between sites.(Goring-Morris 1994:432) Finally, bifacial pieces are rare in the site, making up only a small amount, in the form of axes and a single “dagger/knife.”(Goring-Morris 1994: 432) The total chipped stone assemblage is overall very similar to that of other local sites, and does not appear to be evident of any specifically different lifeways. (Garfinkel 2006; Goring-Morris 1994, 2000; Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007) However the apparent set of two different knapping modes of production utilizing different raw materials may represent some as yet unknown cultural division of production or use.(Goring-Morris 1994)
While Locus 1007 appears to have been a knapping discard area, the “production area” of the site may have been part of an active chipping area. This is inferred from the high quantity of debris found in the area, and may point to either a favored activity area or some form of specialization. Of further note is that some of the knapping in this area was of a distinct limestone material. Produced from this material were circular-scrapers and flake corse, all of varying skill. A large number of hammerstones, raw materials, and bifacials, relative to the remainder of the site, were also found in this area, potentially speaking further to its nature as the manufacturing portion of the site.(Goring-Morris 1994, 2005; Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007; Goring-Morris et al. 1998 :3)
The groundstone assemblage has been recovered from the site, in the form of limestone and basalt, “querns, bowls, mortars and platters as well as pestles, mullers, shaft-straighteners and whetsones.” (Goring-Morris 2005: 99) Interestingly, many of these tools can be directly tied to the manufacture of lime-plaster. Within the production area both a quern and a bowl fragment were found containing the substance, as were the pores in some of the mullers in the area.(Goring-Morris et al. 1998 ) Alternatively, some pieces, such as large chalk platters, were associated with funerary contexts.(Goring-Morris 2005) At present, the groundstone industry at Kfar HaHoresh seems to lack ties to the consumption of grains, which it so often has at other sites, instead being utilized in site construction and ritual practices.
There are a number of other mineral resources and finds which deserve to be noted. Some of these materials are indicative of long distance trade, including small amounts of obsidian and cinnabar, malachite, and non-local asphalt.(Goring-Morris 2000; Goring-Morris et al. 1998 ) Some of the non-local stones come in the form of small polished pebbles that were associated with burials. These are usually smaller than 1.5 centimeters, and are made of both local and non-local stone.(Goring-Morris et al. 1998 ) Additionally, three limestone pieces have been found with incised and drilled designs, similar to “game boards” found in other Neolithic sites, though Goring-Morris sees these as having a “more complex function.”(Goring-Morris et al. 1998 :3) A final note can be made of the only figurine found at the site to date, an unidentified chalk carving, though a few possibly phallic representations have been found, which were potentially natural in origin.(Goring-Morris 2005)
In a PPNB context, the lithic assemblage of Kfar HaHoresh is relatively unremarkable. It shows the common tool forms and technologies in amounts one would expect from residential sites of the period. Many aspects of the assemblage, including sickle blades and projectile points, indicate the possibility of residential use of the site. Goring-Morris has stated that this may simply indicate the use of “everyday” materials as sacred objects or as part of preparation for ritual feasts.(Goring-Morris 2000:114). While this is a possibility, at present, the evidence appears lacking, leading to an interpretation of actual everyday activities. While there is evidence of long distance trade in the form of various materials, this too is found throughout the PPNB in the southern Levant. The amounts at Kfar HaHoresh do not speak of a large amount of trade or preferential access to these materials, and subsequently to a high status for the site. In the end, there appears to be no outstanding aspect of the lithic assemblage at Kfar HaHoresh, above and beyond the other sites of the Southern Levant.
Faunal Remains and Consumption
Perhaps more than any other aspects of the assemblage, the faunal remains cause Kfar HaHoresh to stand out among other PPNB sites. This is certainly not because of the species present, Gazelle, goat, probably wild bezoar, fallow deer, boar, aurochs, red fox, hare, rodents, birds, tortoise and other reptiles, and some fish, as these are present throughout PPNB sites.(Goring-Morris 2005; Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007) Analysis of the faunal samples has not shown any evidence of domestication, though the relatively high ratio of goats may be because of “incipient domestication”.(Goring-Morris 2005; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002: 99) What causes the faunal assemblage of Kfar HaHoresh to be the focus of interest is the possible symbolic and ritual use of animal remains that it indicates.
While PPNB grave goods are often seen as a rare occurrence, Kfar HaHoresh has a good number of examples, some of which show a clear association between human and animal remains.(Goring-Morris 2000, 2005; Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007; Kuijt 2000; Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002) The inclusion of animal remains at Kfar HaHoresh is spread through the ages of buried individuals. Childrens’ graves have been found with fox mandibles and articulated fox remains, and fox mandibles have also been found in association with adult burials. Of note may be the presence of a possible fox in the figurine collection from ‘Ain Ghazal, which had a number of fox remains in the faunal assemblage.(Rollefson 1983) Additionally an artiodactyls horn core was found near a skull cache, potentially linked to it.(Goring-Morris 2005) Goring-Morris also highlights a specific burial of a single modeled skull with the headless remains of a gazelle in a plaster pit under another layer of plaster.(Goring-Morris 2005; Goring-Morris et al. 1998 )
Perhaps the most outstanding arrangement of faunal remains from Kfar HaHoresh is the so called “Bos Pit”. This pit is a 1.5 meter in diameter at top and 0.5 meters deep. Interred in the pit was a collection of semi-articulated aurochs, MNI of eight individuals. On top of the remains were placed a limestone slab and a collection of smaller stones, possibly to serve as a cap. A young adult male was then placed on top of the slab and buried in a flexed position. In order to close the top, a layer of plaster and chalk was scattered over the top, followed by a lime-plaster cap. Seven of the aurochs were adults, at least one of which was a bull, and all were lacking crania. The only other objects included in the pit were a single fox and a single goat bone, both potentially accidental inclusions, there were no other remains.(Goring-Morris 2000, 2005; Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007) This assemblage has been interpreted as the remains of a funerary feast. The size and number of the individuals certainly allows for sufficient food for a feast, and much more than a single household was likely to eat.(Twiss 2007) Goring-Morris compares the removal of crania in these Bos to the practice of crania removal seen in Anatolian Bucrania, which have also been linked to the possibility of feasting.(Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007; Hole 2000; Twiss 2007) Additionally, he has noted the potential importance of Bos in the overall ritual and symbolic system of the PPNB and the broader Neolithic of the Near East.(During 2005) It is difficult to say how much of these theories is accurate, but the amount of planning and work in procuring this number of aurochs and the amount of meat they would produce is a strong indication that this was not a common event, and that a number of individuals would have been involved in procuring, preparing, and utilizing the animals.
In interpreting these burials of both humans and animals, Goring-Morris points to the PPNB’s place as the transition between hunting and farming. This position is informed by the location of an intact projectile point in one of the animal and human mixed burials.(Goring-Morris 2000:121) It is unclear what role child burials with animal bones play in the PPNB understanding in the shift between hunting and farming, or the how this change would have effected a village with no signs of animal domestication.
A final comment concerning the faunal assemblage must be made concerning an aspect, which Garfinkel calls” an outstanding artistic expression,” the image of an animal made up a mix of human and animal bones(Garfinkel 2006: 113) Goring-Morris states that, “it seems most parsimonious that the ‘depiction’ in the uppermost part of the grave complex is not simply a fortuitous arrangement of disturbed burials.”(Goring-Morris 2005;95) However, Garfinkel’s summation of the importance of this find is undercut by his further assessment, “I do not have the methodology to judge whether this bone arrangement was made intentionally or is an accidental distribution that happens to resemble an animal. In any case, such a display could have lasted a very short time, as exposed bones are quite fragile and would have been destroyed quickly by dogs, human trampling and the sun.”(Garfinkel 2006:113) This assessment makes it clear that if this arrangement had been made, it would not have been an effective method of public display or ritual. Garfinkel is not the only scholar who has questioned the actuality of the image, and it may not be as clear an animal as Goring-Morris has makes it out to be.(Goring-Morris 2005; Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007; Goring-Morris et al. 1998 ) Because of these various concerns, it is not appropriate to hinge any larger interpretation of the site on this find.
Beyond the faunal remains, there is little evidence of consumption practices as they were at PPNB Kfar HaHoresh. Presently, there is no evidence of storage within the site. It is difficult to say if this is because there was no storage, or if storage was eroded or otherwise destroyed by natural processes. Many PPNB sites are known to have permanent storage, and such has been tied to issues of social differentiation and a desire for equality, necessities of delayed returns, and privatization of land.(Twiss et al. In Submission; Wright 2000) It seems unlikely that the site would have been exempt from these pressures, unless it was actually a non-residential site. Similarly, there have, as of yet, been no finds of botanical remains pointing to any form of plant harvesting, domestic or otherwise. However, the presence of a large number of sickle blades may represent the harvest of plants, though this may have been non-food plants such as reeds.(Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007: 113) There is some evidence, in the form of minor amounts of fish bones and shells from the Mediterranean and Red Seas, for consumption of aquatic foods. However, like many other sites in the region, this is minimal, and was likely not an important part of the daily diet at Kfar HaHoresh.(Goring-Morris 2000)
Excavations at Kfar HaHoresh have revealed a complex funerary use of faunal remains, but little about the actual food and consumption practices that took place in the site. The site has yet to provide evidence of domestication, either of plants or animals. It appears that any meals at the site were likely based on hunting and an unknown makeup of plant foods. It has provided one of the largest and clearest indications of Neolithic feasting, in the form of the “Bos pit”. By its association with a burial, it has also shown a potential occasion for such feasting in the burial of individuals.
Human Burials
Kfar HaHoresh is notable for the number of burials that have been brought to light during the excavations. Since 1991, over sixty sets of human remains have been excavated with an addition of more than twelve skull burials and various smaller skull fragments.(Goring-Morris 2005; Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007) If one follows Kuijt’s estimates on site population of 45 to 147 individuals at one time, even if doubled to match the upper limits of Kfar HaHoresh’s area, the number of burials that have been unearthed is high for PPNB sites relative to population estimates(Garfinkel 2006; Kuijt 2000) Many of the graves found in the site were located underneath the plaster “caps” located across the site, thought there are also a sampling of burials in cists and within walls.(Goring-Morris 2005:94)
Within the site, it is difficult to determine the difference between primary and secondary burials, but it based on those that can be clearly interpreted, such as a package of infant long bones, those who used Kfar HaHoresh performed both types of burial.(Goring-Morris 2005:95) Across the site, all burials, both primary and secondary, have been had their skulls removed after a period of interment.(Goring-Morris 2000: 124) This practice is well attested in the PPNB, but usually not applied to all of the buried individuals. This has often been interpreted as an indication of status of the dead whose crania were removed.(Goring-Morris 2000; Kuijt 2001) This raises the question of a potential and systematic burial preference at Kfar HaHoresh of only high ranking individuals. It also leads to a question of why children were buried at Kfar HaHoresh without skulls, if such practice indicates a special social status. It is unclear how such young individuals would have attained status, unless it was handed down from some older authority.
Along with the practice of skull removal is the burial of isolated skulls, sometimes in caches. Kfar HaHoresh offers a mixture of both, with more than a dozen crania unassociated with burials. In two cases, these skulls have been found in caches. On cache of four skulls, found in the “production area”, had four crania near a horncore. A nearby stone may have served as a marker of the location. The other cache, located in the “funerary area”, contained three skulls, at least one of which was modeled with plaster. It appears that this skull was buried a second time, possibly after it was too damaged for continued ritual use, though Goring-Morris has presented the possibility that it was simply in storage during an extended period of site inactivity.(Garfinkel 1994; Goring-Morris 1991, 2005; Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007; Kuijt 2001) Kfar HaHoresh has produced a number of other plastered skulls in addition to the one found in a skull cache. One was found in a clay lined “bin”, a second was found under a plaster floor with other postcranial remains, and a number of fragments of other such skulls.(Goring-Morris 2005; Hershkovitz and Zohar 1995) Two of the plastered skulls have been studied closely and both sexed as and aged as young males, an interpretation which has been expanded to the third whole skull.(Bonogofsky 2003; Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007) Beyond preparations with plaster, at least one of these skulls was imaged with ochre and cinnabar, with the closest in central Anatolia.(Goring-Morris 2005) Plastered skulls like this have been found at a number of PPNB sites; Jericho, Tell Ramad, Beisamoun, ‘Ain Ghazal, and a bitumen modeled skull at Nahal Hemar.(Bonogofsky 2003)
Interpretation of modeled skulls has been an important part of the study of the PPNB in the Near East. Most interpretations note the rarity of this preparation, and interpret it as evidence of ascribed status for the individuals whose skulls it had been applied to. Kuijt has theorized that the individuals who had this process applied to their skulls were ritual leaders, whose skulls would be turned into powerful ritual items.(Kuijt 2001) Others have noted the apparent applied look of age to these skulls as evidence of respect. However, the use of tooth removal in order to create this appearance has not been supported across all sites, nor has the assumption of all the skulls being male. In the case of Kfar HaHoresh, while all the skulls are likely male, at least one had teeth intact.(Bonogofsky 2003; Hershkovitz and Zohar 1995) Recent studies have shown that it may have simply been a favored skull shape which lead to selection, not a system of status.(Bonogofsky 2003; Garfinkel 1994) This would mean that the plaster skulls found at Kfar HaHoresh were in fact indicators of luck, not social hierarchy or ritual specialization.
Note has already been made of the use of animal remains as grave goods at Kfar HaHoresh. A number of burials have also been found with non-faunal grave goods. These included chipped stone tools, a “large mother of pearl pendant”, sea shells, an inscribed basalt slab, and some instances of stone beads.(Goring-Morris 2005: 97) In addition some areas close to graves have offered up flat polished pebbles, some of which were of rare minerals and red or orange flint nodules.(Goring-Morris 1994, 2005; Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007) Such goods were not present at all of the graves in the site, and may have some indication of importance of the individuals who merited the additional treatment.
The earlier mention of a potential occurrence of skeletal art in the form of an animal silhouette, has been debated by various scholars, and remains a questionable find. This is not to say that skeletal arrangements have not been found at Kfar HaHoresh. In one instance, a group of human long bones was found in an oval around a group of mandibles and two articulated burials. The total grouping provided and MNI of fifteen individuals.(Goring-Morris and Horwitz 2007) This speaks to a possible importance for the individuals interred in the middle, and a lack of importance for the bones of individuals used as a medium. This is a highly hypothetical interpretation, which would certainly benefit from additional finds.
At least two of the sub-plaster burials at Kfar HaHoresh may have been market so that they could be found later. In one case, a slab was found above a collection of mandibles, and in another a posthole was above a modeled skull. Similar postholes were found at some of the burials in Jericho by Dame Kenyon.(Goring-Morris 2000) At ‘Ain Ghazal, it appears that some mark was used to allow for identification of graves to allow for access after defleshing.(Kuijt 2001) This is not likely the reason that such indicators were used at Kfar HaHoresh, since the burials did not need to be exposed for skull collection. Based on the chronological evidence, it appears that, at least at Kfar HaHoresh, a significant number of these burials occurred before the creation of the plaster surface.(Goring-Morris 2000) Thus, marking may have been used to indicate specific individuals whose remains were of interest, but were later placed under plaster caps.
Discussion
The nature of Kfar HaHoresh’s use during the PPNB has been a point of both discussion and contention since the original excavation in 1991. Initially, Goring-Morris presented it as a small residential site.(Goring-Morris 1991, 1994; Goring-Morris et al. 1995; Kuijt 2000) Since that time, continued excavation has lead him to the interpretation of the site as a regional funerary and ritual location connected to nearby sites like Yiftahel.(Goring-Morris 2005; Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007) The primary evidence offered is a lack of residential units, which is bolstered by the number and types of burials present at the site.
This interpretation has not gone unchallenged, as Garfinkel has made clear.(Garfinkel 2006) At present, only one site from the region can be accurately identified as purely ritual, Nehal Hamar cave.(Bar-Yosef and Alon 1988; Bonogofsky 2003; Garfinkel 1994, 2006). While some of the uniqueness of the assembly found in the cave may be explained by a relation to desert groups, aspects such as the faunal assembly, lithics, the Nahal Hemar knives for example, and the presence of objects likely ritual in nature support this conclusion. Considering Kfar HaHoresh, Garfinkel writes, “The material culture at Kfar HaHoresh is, however, basically similar to contemporaneous settlements.”(Garfinkel 2006:113). Additionally, with the possible exception of modeled skulls, no evidence of ritual material remains have been unearthed yet.(Garfinkel 1994, 2006; Kuijt 2001) It is perhaps because of this lack of ritual goods, that the “ritual area” of the site has been difficult to define in Goring-Morris’s publications.(Goring-Morris 2005; Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007; Goring-Morris et al. 1998 ).
In attempting to better define ritual items and locations, Verhoeven has presented a system of “framing” as the first step in moving beyond ritual as a “trash-bin category.”(Verhoeven 2002: 234). Of the eleven points addressed, only “functionality” appears to be an issue at Kfar HaHoresh as a whole; “The building, object or deposit cannot be interpreted in direct functional, domestic, terms.”(Verhoeven 2002: Table 1) As addressed above, this may be because of erosion or other destructive influences on the architecture of the site.(Garfinkel 2006; Verhoeven 2002) Additionally, the large number of burials does appear as a difference between Kfar HaHoresh and other PPNB sites, which often have burials, but not such a high density.(Goring-Morris 2005) Garfinkel raises two objections to the utilization of this fact as evidence of a purely funerary nature to the site. First, as noted above, a potential sampling bias may have resulted in a sampling technique that highlighted burials at a higher than representative number. Secondly, excavation methods at Kfar HaHoresh dug deeper bellow plaster surfaces than usual, and that such practices at other sites might result in similar numbers of burials.(Garfinkel 2006)
In response to the presence of material remains that might be evidence of domestic activities, such as projectile points, sickles, and faunal remains from common animals, Goring-Morris has offered two potential interpretations that preserve his explanation of Kfar HaHoresh as a regional funerary and ritual site. First, he writes, “it is also quite likely that many such ‘everyday’ items may also have been accorded symbolic and ritual significance.”(Goring-Morris 2000: 114). While this is certainly true, there is no evidence to support this hypothesis within the site. By utilizing Verhoveven’s “framing” as an initial step, this interpretation appears less likely than a simple explanation of the presence of everyday activities.(Verhoeven 2002) An alternative explanation, offered by Goring-Morris is that the site may have been home to a limited occupation of “guardians”, who protected the sites or visiting kin of the deceased.(Goring-Morris 2000, 2005) It remains to be seen if the continuation of the unexcavated site will reveal such a limited occupancy or a full PPNB settlement.
If Kfar HaHoresh does turn out to be a regional funerary site, it speaks to a new understanding of the level of connectivity between sites in the PPNB. At present, cultural, symbolic, and trade evidence has shown a level of connection between sites in this period.(Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989; Colledge, Conolly and Shennan 2004) Often, this has been seen as a somewhat minimum level of connection, though a complex network of sites has been proposed based on differences in site size and amounts of rare materials. If the Southern Levant were home to a shared regional mortuary site, this would speak to a direct and constant link between the sites surrounding Kfar HaHoresh. There have been two major interpretations of burials in the PPNB which can influence the nature of such possible links.
The similarities of burials found in sites as well as the potential rituals are seen as attempts to bring sites together through shared ritual and events.(Goring-Morris and Horwiz 2007; Kuijt 2000, 2001) The frequent absence of grave goods and similar treatment of the dead may have been a method limiting visible social differentiation. Similar conclusions have been drawn considering the use of feasting, a behavior clearly seen in the “Bos pit”. If this is true, Kfar HaHoresh may be evidence of a desire to unite separate sites and limit the social differentiation between individuals across these sites. Though, the higher level of burial inclusions at Kfar HaHoresh may speak to either a generally higher level of social status for those buried in the site or less concern for limiting social differentiation. This may mean that only those with high status were buried at Kfar HaHoresh, perhaps the ritual elite of the region. This would lead to an explanation as to why certain individuals would be buried at the regional site as oppose to their point of residence.
Burial in the PPNB has also been tied to family, with the transportation of secondary burials as a possible method of celebration and uniting separated family groups.(During 2005; Goring-Morris 2000; Kuijt 2001) For this function to be applied to Kfar HaHoresh as a regional mortuary site, kin would have to be spread between sites and seek these periodic rituals of interment to create remembrance and unity. Goring-Morris sees this as a clear possibility, and sees kin continuously visiting the site between rituals to commune with their ancestors. He uses this to explain some of the everyday remains at the site, as visitors would need to support themselves, and the need mark some of the graves for later identification.(Goring-Morris 2000)
A final note should be made of Goring Morris’s presentation of the site. In his interpretation of Kfar HaHoresh as a regional feasting, mortuary, and ritual site, he fails to explain the reason that the site would have necessarily been a regional site. At present, the PPNB evidence does not show clear evidence of inter-site interaction on the level of shared ritual, kin, or burials. If Kfar HaHoresh does prove to be a uniquely mortuary and funerary site, there seems to be little evidence to show that it was not used by only one of the many sites within ten kilometers. This issue may, in the end, be moot, as evidence seems to be indicating a strong possibility that Kfar HaHoresh was actually a common PPNB site, quite similar to Yiftahel or any of its other immediate neighbors, differing only slightly in material remains and the amount of site erosion. If this interpretation is true, it shows evidence of a high level of differentiation in burials, grave goods, and symbolic arrangements within the larger system of similarities between sites. Such examples of outstanding individual finds are not uncommon in Neolithic sites, such as the Jericho wall or the Çayönü skull building, and thus are not indicative of a non-residential nature for Kfar HaHoresh. Hopefully, further excavation at Kfar HaHoresh will assist in determining its use and offer a better understanding of the material remains.
Selected Bibliography
Bar-Yosef, Ofer, and David Alon. “Nahal Hemar Cave the Excavations.” ‘Atiqot. Vol. 18. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society., 1988.
Bar-Yosef, Ofer, and A. Belfer-Cohen. “The Levantine ‘PPNB’ Interaction Sphere.” People and Culture in Change : Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic Populations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin. Ed. Israel Hershkovitz. Oxford, England: B.A.R., 1989. 59-72.
Bonogofsky, Michelle. “Neolithic Plastered Skulls and Railroading Epistemologis.” Bulelting of the American Schools of Oriental Research 331.August (2003): 1-10.
Colledge, S., J. Conolly, and S Shennan. “Archaeobotanical Evidence for the Spread of Farming in the Eastern Mediterranean.” Current Anthropology 45.Supplement (2004): 35-58.
During, Bleda S. “Building Continuity in the Central Anatolian Neolithic: Exploring the Meaning of Buildings at Asikli Hoyuk and Catalhoyuk.” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 18.1 (2005): 3-29.
Flannery, Kent. “The Origins of the Village as a Settlement Type in Mesoamerica and the near East: A Comparative Study.” Man, Settlement and Urbanism. Eds. P.J. Ucko, R. Tringham and G.W. Dimbleby. London: Duckworth, 1972. 23-53.
_____. “The Origins of the Village Revisited: From Nuclear to Extended Households.” American Antiquity 67.3 (2002): 417-433.
Garfinkel. “Ritual Burial of Cultic Objects: The Earliest Evidence.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4.2 (1994): 159-188.
_____. “The Burials of Kfar-Hahoresh – a Regional or Local Phenomenon?” Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 36.109-116 (2006).
Goring-Morris. “A PPNB Settlement at Kfar Hahoresh in Lower Galilee: A Prliminary Report of the 1991 Season.” Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 24 (1991): 77-101.
_____. “Aspects of the PPNB Lithtic Industry at Kfar Hahoresh, near Nazareth, Israel.” Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent : Proceedings of the First Workshop on Ppn Chipped Lithic Industries, Seminar FüR Vorderasiatrische Altertumskunde, Free University of Berlin, 29th March-2nd April, 1993. Eds. Hans Georg Gebel and Stefan Karol Kozlowski. Berlin: Ex Oriente, 1994. 427-444.
_____. “The Quick and the Dead the Social Context of Aceramic Neolithic Mortuary Practices as Seen from Kfar Hahoresh.” Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. Ed. Ian Kuijt. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2000. 103-136.
_____. “Life, Death, and the Emergence of Differential Status in the near Eastern Neolithic: Evidence from Kfar Hahoresh, Lower Galilee, Israel. .” Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Ed. J. Clarke. Vol. 2. Levant Supplementary Series. Oakville, CT: Council for British Research in the Levant and Oxbow, 2005. 89-105.
Goring-Morris, and Horwiz. “Funerals and Feasts During the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the near East.” Antiquity 18.December (2007): 902-919.
Goring-Morris, Boaretto, and Weiner. “Radiometric Dating of the PPNB Mortuary Site of Kfar Hahoresh, Lower Galilee, Israel: Problems and Preliminary Results.” Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 31 (2001): 213-217.
Goring-Morris, Goren, Kolska, Horwitz, Daniella Bar-Yosef, and Hershkovitz. “Investigations at an Early Neolithic Settlement in the Lower Galilee: Results of the 1991 Season at Kefar Hahoresh.” ‘Atiqot 27 (1995): 37- 62.
Goring-Morris, Burns, Davidzon, Eshed, Goren, Hershkovitz, Kangas, and Kelecevic. “The 1997 Season of Excavations at the Mortuary Site of Kfar Hahoresh, Galilee, Israel.” Neo-Lithics 3 (1998 ): 1-4.
Hershkovitz, and Zohar. “Remedy for an 8500 Year-Old Plastered Human Skull from Kfar Hahoresh, Israel.” Journal of Archaeological Science 22 (1995): 779-788.
Hole, Frank. “Is Size Important? Function and Hierarchy in Neolithic Settlements.” Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. Ed. Ian Kuijt. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2000. 191-209.
Kuijt, Ian. “People and Space in Early Agricultural Villages: Exploring Daily Lives, Community Size and Architecture in the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic.” Journal of Anthropoligcal Archaeology 19 (2000): 75-102.
_____. “Place, Death, and the Transmission of Social Memory in Early Agricultural Communities of the near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic.” Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 10.1 (2001): 80-99.
Kuijt, Ian, and Goring-Morris. “Foraging, Farming, and Social Complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: A Review and Synthesis.” Journal of World Prehistory 16.4 (2002): 361-440.
Rollefson, G.O. “Ritual and Ceremony at Neolithic Ain Ghazal (Jordan).” Paleorient 9 (1983): 29-38.
Twiss, K., A. Bogaard, M. P. Charles, J. Henecke, L. Martin, N. Russell, and G. Jones. “Plants and Animals Together: Interpreting Organic Remains from Building 52 at Çatalhöyük.” Current Anthropology (In Submission).
Twiss, Katheryn C. “We Are What We Eat.” Archaeology of Food and Identity. Ed. Katheryn C. Twiss: Southern Illinois University Press, 2007.
Verhoeven, Marc. “Ritual and Ideology in the Pre-Pottery Neolthic B of the Levant and Southeast Anatolia.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12.2 (2002): 233-258.
Wright, Katherine I. “The Social Origins of Cooking and Dining in Early Villages of Western Asia.” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66 (2000): 89-121.
<!–[if supportFields]><![endif]–>
Filed under: Archaeology | Tagged: Kfar HaHoresh, Mortuary, Neolithic, PPNB, Ritual
