Paige Lynch
Research Paper
Dr. Killebrew
12/16/2013
Plastered Skulls of the Neolithic Period
During the Neolithic Period, plastered skulls were an important aspect to everyday cultic
life and religious practices (Figure 1). It is a practice that has been found prevalent to sites all
over the Levant and Anatolia. Each site has some variation to one another when looking at
specifics, but there seems to be an over arching generalization of the practice of plastering skulls
throughout the region. Some of the variation includes only plastering specific sexes, age groups,
and races. The question is why would the Neolithic people plaster skulls? I will discuss what
sites focus primarily on human skulls where animal are common in the context as well.
In cases where sites had both animal and human skulls
plastered, it has been interpreted as having ritual significance. Sites like
Çayönü, Kfar HaHoresh, Nevalı Çori, and Göbekli Tepe all share strong
evidence suggesting a relationship or linkage between the plastered
skulls of both the faunal and human remains, many times being buried
together or used in large feasts. On the other hand, there are
Figure 1: Neolithic
plastered skull from
Jericho. (Melissa
2008)
interpretations from sites like ‘Ain Ghazal and Jericho that suggest that
plaster on skulls was a way to establish social stratification among the
people in the society, being displayed by the amount of plaster, type of plaster, and the specific
age and sex of the individual. Plastering skulls has also been interpreted as being a way that the
people of the Neolithic buried their dead. The practice was thought to be due to there being an
2 Lynch
ancestral cult where the Neolithic people were worshipping their ancestors. This theory has been
popular throughout many sites like Kosk Höyük, Çatalhöyük, Çayönü, ‘Ain Ghazal, Kfar
HaHoresh, Nevalı Çori, and in recent times with tribes like the Naga.
When looking at all the sites and interpreting the reasons as to why the skulls were
plastered, you have to look at the different sites at which they were all found. The context also
can be compared between sites, possibly establishing that there was contact between the sites.
The question whether the Near East had an overarching practice of plastering skulls or was site
specific practice will be established with help of the context given from the individual burial
sites.
When looking at the evidence of plastered skulls during the Neolithic, there is only going
to be archaeological evidence found due to writing not having been invented yet. As for the
reasoning behind plastering skulls, there are several theories, each having ample amounts of
evidence to support them. The first one to discuss is the theory that skulls that were plastered
carried ritual meanings, especially when
found with animal bones. There are several
sites, mostly in the Anatolia region to support
this idea; Çayönü, Kfar HaHoresh, Nevalı
Çori, and Göbekli Tepe (see Figure 2).
Çayönü is a site on the plain above
Diyarbakir, in Ergan (see Figure 3). It is flat
oval mound that dates from 8,000-6,900 BCE
(Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). There were several
buildings found on the eastern mound known
Figure 2: Map of the Neolithic Near East with the sites of
Çayönü, Kfar HaHoresh, Nevalı Çori, and Göbekli Tepe
in the northern Anatolia regions. (Scarre 2010).
3 Lynch
as Flagstone Building, Skull Building, Terrazzo Building, Bench Building, and the Earth Plaza
(Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). Inside each building there are finds that will later be connected and
relatable to other Neolithic sites containing similar cultic objects. In the Flagstone Building
there were two large upright stone slabs and two buttresses on the northern wall and another
stone slab in the northeastern corner (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). In front of the stone slab in the
northeast corner there was a stone bench and the floor was made from flat flagstones
(Bonogofsky, 2005: 239).
In the Skull Building there is evidence of being
rebuilt many times where the original floor had human
skulls deposited (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). There were
two pits in the same floor that contained human
skeletons alongside auroch skulls and horns
Figure 3: The site of Çayönü in Anatolia.
(Mathilda 2008)
(Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). By looking at the bones of
the animals found, they seem to not have been
domesticated animals (Bonogofsky, 2005: 236). During a later occupation time, there was small
cellars found that had skulls and other human bones mixed in it (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). There
were a total of 49 burnt human skulls that appeared to have fallen from a shelf that was once
there (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). Only some of the skulls appeared to have been removed after
being buried before, making it a secondary burial (Cauvin, 2001: 110). All the skulls found were
a mix of both adult males and females (Cauvin, 2001: 110). More cattle horns were also found
in other floor pits along with a large stone table (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). On the large stone
table, there were traces of human, auroch, and sheep blood found on it. On a flint knife there
was human and auroch blood found as well (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239).
4 Lynch
In the Terrazzo Building there also were internal buttresses, a terrazzo floor, and circular
basin in the northwestern corner (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). On the rim of the basin, there were
trace amounts of human blood and along the flat stone slab that is outside besides the building
(Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). The Bench building is the smallest building, but it does contain
massive stone benches along the walls (Bonogofsky, 2005: 240). The Earth Plaza is an open air
structure in the southeastern settlement that lies above the Middle PPNP Pebbled Plaza
(Bonogofsky, 2005: 240). It is marked by two rows of uncarved steale and two large grooved
limestone slabs (Bonogofsky, 2005: 240). The burials that were found in the Plaza were primary
of either single or multiple persons, all lying in the flexed position (Bonogofsky, 2005: 240). In
one of the cases, there was a boar’s skull placed over two of the human burials (Bonogofsky,
2005: 240). In the domestication areas of the site, like houses, clay figurines of animals were
found (Bonogofsky, 2005: 240).
Kfar HaHoresh is another site that supports the theory for the relationship between
plastered human skulls and animals in cultic practices. This is a small site that is located in the
lower Galilee, in the Nazareth Hills (Bonogofsky, 2005: 237). There were no domestic buildings
found but there were plastered floors, fragments of stone walls, hearths, pits, and some domestic
artifacts like ground stone tools (Bonogofsky, 2005: 237). Archaeologists have found isolated Lshaped walls that are associated with humans being interred with lime plaster (Morris, 2007:
904).
At this site there were both primary and secondary interments (Morris, 2007: 904). They
had over 60 individuals discovered there, having both male and females of all ages (Morris,
2007: 904). Some of the burials seemed to have had a purposeful arrangement. Some were
arranged so that the long bones made an oval around the edge of a pit with numerous mandibles
5 Lynch
piled on top of two articulated burials (Morris, 2007: 904). Another one was arranged so that the
human limbs and cranial elements depicted an animal’s profile (Morris, 2007: 904). There were
about 15 individuals with post depositional head removal and five main locations where these
caches were found (Morris, 2007: 904). At two of the locations there was just skull caches of
about having at a max four individuals combined (Morris, 2007: 904). At the other three
locations there was plastered skulls discovered (Morris, 2007: 904).
There were many specific examples from the site of human/animal interactions in the
burial process. Underneath the floors of some the one rectangular structure was found a very
well preserved human plastered skull and right above the
skull was a complete, but headless gazelle bones laid out in
an arrangement so that the animal species would be known
(Bonogofsky, 2005: 238). In another pit at the site, it was
filled with ash and disarticulated human and gazelle bones
(Bonogofsky, 2005: 238). These bones were also arranged
Figure 4: A plaster skull from the
Neolithic that is featured in the
British Museum.. (Collon 1995)
in a manner that depicted possibly wild boars, aurochs, or
lions (Bonogofsky, 2005: 238). Among the animal bones,
there were a total of four different human individuals (Bonogofsky, 2005: 238). There was a
head, foreleg, spinal column, and tail bone found each from one of the individuals (Bonogofsky,
2005: 238). Another find includes the head of an infant, with it was the pelvis of a bovid
(Bonogofsky, 2005: 237). South of the main excavation there was a small stone lined
installation in the quad that had a plastered surface as well as a single post hole, which would
have been the grave marker as well (Morris, 2007: 905). In the post hole, there was a lime
plastered skull of an adult male, aging from around 20 to 25 years old, and placed adjacent to the
6 Lynch
back of his skull was a Byblos points as a grave good (see Figure 4) (Morris, 2007: 905).
Directly underneath the skull was a headless but fully articulated mountain gazelle (Morris,
2007: 905).
There have been similar finds at other sites in the region. The intentional skull removal
of animals has been seen at several other sites like Hallan Çemi, Jerf el-Ahmar, Mureybit
(Morris, 2007: 914). Finding Bos bones, particularly the skulls, has been found at other sites like
Tel Halula and Dja’de where the bones were found under benches in close proximity to a
combined number of 59 human skeletons (Morris, 2007: 914).
The third major site to look at for seeing an animal and
human skull relationship for is Nevalı Çori. This site is located
in the foothills of southeast Diyarbakir in the southeast region
of Anatolia that dates from about 8,400-8,100 BCE
(Bonogofsky, 2005: 238). There were many ritual building
found as well as burials, skulls caches, large stone sculptures of
people and animals, small figurines (Bonogofsky, 2005: 238).
Figure 5: An example of
Neolithic Period Terrazzo
flooring. (Breuil 2009)
A temple was discovered in the northwest terrace having
several building being associated with it (Bonogofsky, 2005:
239). Building number two and three were marked by the Terrazzo floors, the internal benches,
niches, and large anthropomorphic T-shaped stelas (see Figure 5) (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). In
the back of building three there was a large limestone head with a snake on top (Bonogofsky,
2005: 239). All the large stone sculpture in both buildings depicts a mix of humans, birds, and
the linkage of the two (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). The only exception is the one pillar fragment
with a male head with a bird in building three and a limestone bowl with two human figures
7 Lynch
being surrounding by a tortoise (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). The smaller stone figurines that were
found are representations of the larger ones; this including human heads and miniature pillar
motifs that repeat on the larger stones (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). A lot of the animals being
represented are lions, bears, vultures, etc (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). There is a small amount of
animal figurines found, if any they were of bovids, but there was some human figurines found as
well (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). There was one of a woman who was seated either with a child or
pregnant but more commonly found were the male figurines (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239).
The human remains found at the site include burials and skulls caches that were only
found in the foundations of the house’s floors (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). There was up to 12
burials found in the one house alone (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). There were one or more skulls
together with long bones and some skeletons, with and without skulls, all in contradicted
positions (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239).
Göbekli Tepe is the fourth main site that supports the theory of there being a relationship
between human plastered skulls and animals. Göbekli Tepe is located in the Harran Plain that is
east of Urfa, located on a limestone ridge, across several mounds (Bonogofsky, 2005: 240). This
is in an unexpected location due to the lack of water sources and farmland. It dates from about
9100-8500 BCE, making it during the time of the hunter gathered societies (Bonogofsky, 2005:
240). There were several stone buildings at the site having a lot of the same features that were
found at the other sites. There was a Terrazzo floor, large decorated T-shaped pillars, large stone
sculptures with various human/animal depictions (see Figure 6) (Bonogofsky, 2005: 240). Since
this site would have had a hard time getting a steady water supply and growing plants, there was
no sign of domestication of animals or plants found here (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). There also
8 Lynch
was a lack of burials, most likely due to that this
was not a un-habitated site for long durations of
time (Bonogofsky, 2005: 241).
There was a total of six building that have
been excavated at the site so far: Bedrock structure,
Snake Pillar Building, Lion Pillar Building, Double
Pillar Building, Structure B, and Structure C
(Bonogofsky, 2005: 241). In the Bedrock Building
there was bench and bases for pillars and in
Structure B there was a limestone slab with
Figure 6: A lion carved into one of the pillars at
Göbekli Tepe. (Steinhilber n.d.)
channels leading to the floors, possibly being for
liquid offerings (Bonogofsky, 2005: 241). The fill
from other buildings led to the discovery of large limestone sculptures and incised figurines of
animals and humans (Bonogofsky, 2005: 241). Some examples of these are an ithyphallic
person, seated person, animals with human heads, birds on human heads, animals on human
heads, and a variety of animals including
wolves, reptiles, boars, dogs, headless lions,
turtles, giant phallus, incised snakes, human
body and arms, and fingers (Bonogofsky,
2005: 241).
Those four sites have a large amount of
evidence supporting the theory of there being
an animal and plastered skull relationship.
Figure 7: A map of the Neolithic Near East with the
sites in the Levant region of Jericho and ‘Ain Ghazal.
(Scarre 2010)
9 Lynch
Some of the other interpretations of why there were plastered skulls come from sites in the
Levant region. This includes Jericho and ‘Ain Ghazal which give evidence to support the theory
of plastered skulls being used as a method of social stratification the in villages (see Figure 7).
Jericho is a site in the southern Levant region that is several miles north of the Dead Sea. At this
site archaeologists found only four elder male skulls and leaders that were decapitated and
plastered as seen in Figure 8(Bonogofsky, 2013: 2). These
skulls were buried in groups in the plastered floors or
plastered surfaces in houses (Bonogofsky, 2013: 2). These
were believed to have tried to preserve that personality of
the people who’s skull were plastered due to the amount of
facial features added (Bonogofsky, 2013: 3).
‘Ain Ghazal is another site that supports this there
Figure 8: A plaster skull from
Jericho found in 1957. (Kenyon
1957)
of social stratification in many ways as well. This site is
located in the eastern part of the Ammon region in Jordan
on the two hills bordering the Wadi Zarga (Bonogofsky, 2005: 236). The site dates back to
8200-6500 BCE (Bonogofsky, 2005: 236). There were several excavations done at this site on
the south, north, east, and central fields (Bonogofsky, 2005: 236). Archaeologists have found
lime plastered statues and busts, burials, skulls caches, plastered human skulls, and human and
animal figurines (Bonogofsky, 2005: 236). There was also ritual building based of the finds of
interior furniture like plastered hearths, altars, basins, subfloor channels, and paintings
(Bonogofsky, 2005: 236). There were two caches of ritual objects discovered; one being 26
large anthropomorphic statues having two heads and busts and then seven statues of pure lime
plaster (Bonogofsky, 2005: 237). Both of them are dating from the Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic
10 Lynch
Period and found under floors of houses that were abandoned before the statues were buried
(Bonogofsky, 2005: 237).
There seemed to be a slight animal influence at ‘Ain Ghazal as well. There were five
pairs of gazelle horns found in the second story of domestic buildings that could possibly be
religious (Bonogofsky, 2005: 236). Also found was over a 150 animal figurines and 40 human
figurines (Bonogofsky, 2005: 237). Most of the human figurines were of women, where the
animal figurines were 90% cattle with some sheep, goat, equids, and two bovids with flint blade
lets in the pit with the figurines (Bonogofsky, 2005: 237). For the female figurines, almost all of
them were headless which could have been because they were decapitated or due to the neck
being the weakness point of a figurine shaped as a human (Bonogofsky, 2005: 237). The
figurines were found in deposits outside the house or in the fill of abandoned houses
(Bonogofsky, 2005: 237). Bonogofksy seems to believe that the figurines had a function of
being either ritual, teaching method, or toys due to having a specific distribution throughout the
site, not being random (Bonogofsky, 2005: 237).
As for the human remains found at ‘Ain Ghazal, there was a lot (see Figure 9). There
were a total of 120 interments found so far all being in the subfloor of the courtyard, decapitated,
and in the flexed positions (Bonogofsky, 2005: 237). Twelve of
the skulls were isolated being a mix of children and adults all
from one house floor (Bonogofsky, 2005: 237). Three of the
twelve skulls were plastered (Bonogofsky, 2005: 237).
Archaeologists also have found a male burial; bring aged around
30 years old, having distinct occipital cut marks on the skulls
(Simmons, 1990: 108). Finding those cut highlights the idea that
Figure 9: Plastered skulls from ‘Ain Ghazal.
(Manansala 2004)
11 Lynch
the individual was de-fleshed meaning they had to have held some status for the people to go
through extra trouble of preparing the skull. Across the southern Levant region, some
archaeologists, like Kuijt and Gartinkel, also support this theory. The social inequality was
based largely of the treatment of the dead (Clarke, 2012: 178). At most of the sites, Kuijt was
finding that it wasn’t just young men and elders’ having their skulls plastered but anyone was
able (Clarke, 2012: 178). The defining feature that would have cause the social stratification
would have been the amount of plaster used and the type (Clarke, 2012: 178). There were two
main types: pure lime plaster and a gypsum or crushed lime stone mixture (Clarke, 2012: 179).
There are other features that lead archaeologists to believe that plaster could contribute to having
a social stratification. Not only was there many plastered skulls of the Neolithic but other object
were plastered too like floors, walls, hearths, etc. (Clarke, 2012: 179).
Another example from the Neolithic times is of the Natufian culture where there was
evidence of fired lime plaster in small quantities an ‘Ain Mallaha (Clarke, 2012: 177). The
evidence shows that the plaster was used mostly for domestic, mortuary, and ritual purposes
(Clarke, 2012: 177). What makes this similar to the other sites in the Levant is the use of plaster
on the floors, coating walls, covering hearth, bins, platforms, and skulls (Clarke, 2012: 177). At
this site, there is evidence that everything was plastered once, and was continuously replastered
to keep it in good condition (Clarke, 2012: 177). The floors are good example of this because
there is evidence that the skeletons were added to the floors as a secondary burial, removing the
skulls, and using them for in the sanctuary or as ornamentation, while then replastering over the
floors (Clarke, 2012: 177).
At ‘Ain Ghazal there was a pattern described as the hierarchy of plaster where the more
plastered used, the more important or significant the object is (Clarke, 2012: 180). There was
12 Lynch
some plaster used on the floors, then more was found on items in the sanctuaries, and the most
was discovered on all the plastered skulls, inferring that they had a lot of significance in the
society (Clarke, 2012: 180). In order for these skulls to be plastered it wasn’t difficult but it did
require some skill (Clarke, 2012: 179). With that said, in order to have a more specialized
person perform that skill, there had to be a social hierarchy not only for the craftsman but the
people paying for the skull to be plastered. At ‘Ain Ghazal there was a lime kiln found
supporting the idea that there was a specialist there to operate the kiln (Clarke, 2012: 180).
So what does all this evidence mean? There are three major interpretations that have the
most evidence to support the theories as to why skulls were plastered in the Neolithic Period.
The first is that there was or believed to be an animal to human relationship made through
plastering the skulls, being mostly dominant in the Anatolia region. The evidence to support this
is the large amount of cultic items and plastered skulls that were associated with animals being
found at the four major sites looked at. The cultic objects that seem to repeat throughout the site
include benches, used for laying offering out or sacrifices for someone or something being
worshipped. Benches were found at Çayönü, Nevalı Çori, and Göbekli Tepe (Bonogofky, 2005:
239). There was also Terrazzo floors and T-shaped stelas found at Nevalı Çori and Göbekli
Tepe (Bonogofky, 2005: 239). At all four sites of Çayönü, Nevalı Çori, Kfar HaHoresh, and
Göbekli Tepe there were depictions of animals and at most sites, animals being found directly in
connection with the plastered skulls.
At Kfar Hahoresh, there was a well preserved plastered skull with directly above it a
complete but headless gazelle skeleton (Bonogofsky, 2005: 238). There also was a large shallow
pit with disarticulated human and gazelle bones that was then filled with ash (Bonogofsky, 2005:
238). Finding the animals bones buried with the plastered skulls and other human remains
13 Lynch
suggests there was a strong connection between the death of human and animal for them to be
taken care of in the same manner. At Çayönü, there is a similar situation but in this case the
human skulls were again deposited in pits in the floor but had Auroch horns and skeleton with it
(Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). Also at this site was found the boar’s jaw being placed over two
human burials in floor as well (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). Looking at this as a whole, the sites
must have had contact with each other, sharing the idea of burying human skulls and animals
bones together, not just anywhere though, only in pits of floors.
In some case the animals were repeated throughout the sites like seeing boars in the
reliefs at Göbekli Tepe, a boar’s jaw being placed of two burials at Çayönü, and having human
bones being arranged to depicit an animal, one interpretation being a wild boar from Kfar
HaHoresh (Bonogofky, 2005: 238, 240, 241). At Nevalı Çori there is a piece of limestone with a
snake carved into it, similar to what is seen at Göbekli Tepe with the limestone sculpture of a
snake (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239,241). Aurochs were another animal that was found at two sites,
one being at Çayönü where there were cattle bones found in a pit, but also Auroch bones in the
pit along with humans skulls and on a slab, most likely used as an altar, there was trace evidence
of Auroch and human blood, possibly for sacrificing (Bonogofsky, 2005: 239). At Kfar
HaHoresh, another interpretation of the human remains being arranged is that it is in the shape of
an Auroch (Bonogofsky, 2005: 238). Having all of these connections between these sites
suggests that they were in contact with each other. They were sharing ideas and worshipping
similar animals and plaster skulls, both having a cultic significance in their way of life.
The second major interpretation as to why people were plastering skulls is due to them
having some influence on social stratification in a society, most of the evidence for this theory is
found in the Levant regions at the sites of Jericho and ‘Ain Ghazal. At both sites there is a
14 Lynch
similarity of cultic objects being found such as plastered floors and plastered statues
(Bonogofsky, 2005: 236 and Finlayson, 2013: 129). At both of these sites, evidence for males
being having their skulls plastered is evident. For example, at Jericho there is only evidence for
elder males and leaders having the decapitations and then being plastered suggesting that men,
specifically older men, were higher up in society, possibly holding more power (Bonogofsky,
2013: 2). At ‘Ain Ghazal, there was male skull found, aging to about 30 years old having very
distinct cut marks, suggesting the skull was defleshed before being plastered (Simmons, 1990:
108). Looking at that as a whole, there seems to have been a preference to plastering male skulls
in the Levant region, supporting the idea that there was social stratification in their culture.
The amount and type of plaster used continues to support the theory as well. Not only
was there plaster used on the skulls but also on architectural features at the sites, especially on
the floors, hearths, bins, and walls (Clarke, 2012: 177). What supports the idea of social
stratification here is that the more plaster used, the more important the object is and the more
resources that individual has in order to get the job done. With that said, when you have people
with more resources then others in a society, there becomes a sense of social stratification.
The third interpretation for why the skulls of the Neolithic were plastered was due to
there being an ancestral cult. Among the sites that have already been mentioned, there are
several other sites that support this theory as well: Çatalhöyük and Kosk Höyük (Bonogofsky,
2005: 244). Some of the cultic objects that are common between the sites include flint typology,
having rectangular architecture, and finding burnt lime on the walls and floors Bonogofsky,
2005: 244). The evidence and the context of the skulls from these sites support the ancestral cult
theory.
15 Lynch
At Kosk Höyük, there were ten plastered skulls found (Bonogofsky, 2005: 125). During
two different excavations, evidence came out of the skulls having paint on them (Bonogofsky,
2005: 126). In 1985, there was a child’s skull that was plastered and covered in a red paint and
in 1987, there was a woman found on a mud brick bench that looked very life like due to the
remaining modeled eye, ear, and cheek having a black line to distinguish the features
(Bonogofsky, 2005: 126). This has been interpretated as that culture’s way of keeping the
personality alive of the person who has passed (Bonogofsky, 2005: 126).
At Çatalhöyük, there also is evidence to support the ancestral cult worship. There were
two skulls that had been interred with their bodies and later had then been removed due to the cut
marks left on the bone (Cauvin, 2001: 111). The removal of the skull is done in an artistic and
careful manner showing the importance of the person, being either an important elder or ritual
leader (Cauvin, 2001: 111). The idea that the bodies were already interred then re-dug to retrieve
the skulls suggests there was an emphasis on the ancestors, which they needed to be seen and
continued to be worshipped in the culture (Cauvin, 2001: 111).
Bonogofsky has determined a few explanations as to why these cultures would practice
ancestor worship on plastered skulls. She notes that there is a general observation of vitality or a
life notion that all vital power resides in the head (Bonogofsky, 2005: 249). The ancestors were
being honored because they were now were the head of the life force, ensuring fecundity among
many aspects of life such as the fields, domestication of animals, child bearing, and overall well
being (Bonogofsky, 2005: 251). A modern day example of this type of ancestral worship is of
the Naga, a tribal group in the mountains of northeast Pakistan (Bonogofsky, 2005: 250). They
believe there are a large number of invisible beings, beings of good and evil, which affect the
living (Bonogofsky, 2005: 250). They also believe in the head being the life force so when they
16 Lynch
‘bring back’ the enemy’s head, they can either worship their ancestor or keep an eye on their
enemy’s (Bonogofsky, 2005: 250).
Overall, all the interpretations have a lot of evidence to support each and show evidence
that within the regions like Anatolia and the Levant; they were in contact with each other.
Looking at the Anatolia and the Levant together, there are also some similarities between the
regions as well. There is this overarching idea that almost all of the skulls were found in floors
of domestic buildings, plastered floors, and in pits. The use of gazelle bones is also found in
sites in both regions such as ‘Ain Ghazal and Kfar HaHoresh (Bonogofsky, 2005: 237). Also
there were anthropomorphic statues found at two of the sites as well being ‘Ain Ghazal and
Nevalı Çori (Bonogofsky, 2005: 237, 239). Having these similarities, suggests that there may
have been contact between the regions, maybe even once sharing the idea of plastering skulls,
but then modeling that idea into the regions own specific uses.
In conclusion, I believe that there was some connection between the Anatolian region and
the Levant because of finding numerous plastered skulls found in both regions, the overarching
find of skulls in the floors or pits of domestic building, seeing similar animals appear such as
gazelles, and the use of anthropomorphic statues. At the very least, there was minimal contact
between the regions. I also believe though that the two regions had very different purposes for
the use of plastered skulls. In the Anatolia region, plastered skulls had a connection with animals
due to the fact that they were buried with them at numerous sites and because animals were
found on motifs, reliefs, or as figurines at all the sites in which plastered skulls were located.
Along this theory, I believe that the plastered skulls of Anatolia were also used in an ancestral
cult because due to the practice of interring the skeleton then retrieving only the skull later and
17 Lynch
setting out for display/worship. As for the Levant region, I believe that the use of plaster skulls
was for social stratification due to the large amount of elder male skulls being plastered, the
amount of plaster, and the skill requirement needed in order to have the skull plaster.
Bibliography
Breuil, Jean-Yves. In the heart of ancient Nîmes. Inrap.
Bonogofsky, M. 2005. A Bioarchaeological Study of Plastered Skulls from Anatolia: New
Discoveries and Interpretations. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 15: 124-135.
18 Lynch
Bonogofsky, M. 2013. Neolithic Plastered Skulls and Railroading Epistemologies. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 331: 1-10.
Cauvin, J., Hodder, I., Rollefson, G. O., Bar-Yosef, O., Watkins, T. (2001). The Birth of the
Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 11: 105-121
(French).
Clarke, J. 2012. Decorating the Neolithic: an Evaluation of the Use of Plaster in the
Enhancement of Daily Life in the Middle Pre-pottery Neolithic B of the Southern Levant.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 22 (02): 177-186.
Collon, D. The British Museum.
Finlayson, B. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of The Archaeology of the Levant c. 8000-332 BCE.
Steiner, M. L., Killebrew, A. E. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goring-Morris, N., Horwitz, L. K. 2007. Funerals and feasts during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B
of the Near East. Antiquity 81 (314): 902-919.
Kenyon, Kathleen. Plastered Skull From Jericho. Jericho.
Manansala, Paul. Plastered skulls from 'Ain Ghazal. 'Ain Ghazal.
Mathilda. Grill’ pattern of the foundations.
Melissa. Neolithic Plastered Skull. Jericho.
Scarre, Chris. Map of Tell Qarassa in the context of the Natufian and PPN sites of the Near East.
Antiquity.
Simmons, A. H., Boulton, A., Butler, C. R., Kafafi,' Z., Rollefson, G. O. 1990. News and Short
Contributions: A Plastered Human Skull from Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Journal of
Field Archaeology 17 (1): 107-121.
19 Lynch
Steinhilber, Berthold. Gobekli Tepe. Germany.
Verhoeven, M. 2002. Ritual and Ideology in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Levant and
Southeast Anatolia. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12 (02): 233-258.