“…These dates are very consistent and resolve previous ambiguity and disagreement between the dates obtained using bulk radiocarbon dating by Howe (1983) and dating of animal bone collagen by Zeder (2008). The new dates suggest that the occupation at Asiab falls at the very beginning of the Early Neolithic in the central Zagros, partially overlapping with, but not quite as early as, the dates obtained by Matthews et al (2013) from Trench 1 at Sheikh-e Abad where the occupation spans 10,100–9140 cal bc (95.4% confidence). Figure 4.OxCal plot of the new and previous radiocarbon AMS dates from Asiab.…”
Section: Recovery Contextsupporting
confidence: 73%
“…Sites in the eastern Fertile Crescent with more solid evidence of feasts include Zawi Chemi and Hallam Çemi (Solecki 1977; 1981; Zeder & Spitzer 2016), but an absence of evidence in the easternmost part of the Fertile Crescent has been noted (Bernbeck 2004). Matthews et al (2013) have questioned whether this lack of elaborate cultic or ritual activities is a valid conclusion, or merely reflects bias in the frequency of research. In comparison to the intense research efforts that have been devoted to investigating Late Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic sites in the Levant and Anatolia, the eastern wing of the Fertile Crescent, specifically the Zagros Mountains in modern-day Iran, has been less frequently and thoroughly investigated.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In comparison to the intense research efforts that have been devoted to investigating Late Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic sites in the Levant and Anatolia, the eastern wing of the Fertile Crescent, specifically the Zagros Mountains in modern-day Iran, has been less frequently and thoroughly investigated. This has started to change in recent years due to the efforts of Iranian archaeologists (Darabi et al 2011; 2013; Moradi et al 2016) and some joint projects between Iranian and foreign archaeological teams (Matthews et al 2013; Riehl 2013), but we still know little about the environmental, social and economic conditions of Late Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic societies in this region. Were feasts and ceremonial events centred on food consumption features that also characterized the changing societal customs in the eastern part of the Fertile Crescent?…”
The contents of a pit located in the centre of a large communal structure at Asiab in the central Zagros mountains provides rare evidence for ritual food practices during the Early Neolithic (~9660–9300 cal.bc). This pit contained the skulls of at least 19 wild boars carefully placed inside and subsequently sealed. Antler from red deer and the skull of a brown bear were also concealed within the pit. The boars included both male and female animals varying in age and some of the larger canines were deliberately removed. Such a unique collection of remains is unlikely to be the result of day-to-day activities; instead, this represents a group of ritually interred bones. This new evidence strengthens views that activities reinforcing social cohesion were important as human society was approaching a juncture leading towards agricultural subsistence strategies.
“…These dates are very consistent and resolve previous ambiguity and disagreement between the dates obtained using bulk radiocarbon dating by Howe (1983) and dating of animal bone collagen by Zeder (2008). The new dates suggest that the occupation at Asiab falls at the very beginning of the Early Neolithic in the central Zagros, partially overlapping with, but not quite as early as, the dates obtained by Matthews et al (2013) from Trench 1 at Sheikh-e Abad where the occupation spans 10,100–9140 cal bc (95.4% confidence). Figure 4.OxCal plot of the new and previous radiocarbon AMS dates from Asiab.…”
Section: Recovery Contextsupporting
confidence: 73%
“…Sites in the eastern Fertile Crescent with more solid evidence of feasts include Zawi Chemi and Hallam Çemi (Solecki 1977; 1981; Zeder & Spitzer 2016), but an absence of evidence in the easternmost part of the Fertile Crescent has been noted (Bernbeck 2004). Matthews et al (2013) have questioned whether this lack of elaborate cultic or ritual activities is a valid conclusion, or merely reflects bias in the frequency of research. In comparison to the intense research efforts that have been devoted to investigating Late Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic sites in the Levant and Anatolia, the eastern wing of the Fertile Crescent, specifically the Zagros Mountains in modern-day Iran, has been less frequently and thoroughly investigated.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In comparison to the intense research efforts that have been devoted to investigating Late Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic sites in the Levant and Anatolia, the eastern wing of the Fertile Crescent, specifically the Zagros Mountains in modern-day Iran, has been less frequently and thoroughly investigated. This has started to change in recent years due to the efforts of Iranian archaeologists (Darabi et al 2011; 2013; Moradi et al 2016) and some joint projects between Iranian and foreign archaeological teams (Matthews et al 2013; Riehl 2013), but we still know little about the environmental, social and economic conditions of Late Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic societies in this region. Were feasts and ceremonial events centred on food consumption features that also characterized the changing societal customs in the eastern part of the Fertile Crescent?…”
The contents of a pit located in the centre of a large communal structure at Asiab in the central Zagros mountains provides rare evidence for ritual food practices during the Early Neolithic (~9660–9300 cal.bc). This pit contained the skulls of at least 19 wild boars carefully placed inside and subsequently sealed. Antler from red deer and the skull of a brown bear were also concealed within the pit. The boars included both male and female animals varying in age and some of the larger canines were deliberately removed. Such a unique collection of remains is unlikely to be the result of day-to-day activities; instead, this represents a group of ritually interred bones. This new evidence strengthens views that activities reinforcing social cohesion were important as human society was approaching a juncture leading towards agricultural subsistence strategies.
“…1; Broman Morales 1990; Kenyon & Holland 1983, 356, 815, fig. 367.6; Matthews et al 2013, 140, 141, 142, table 11.5). By the Late Neolithic ( c. seventh and sixth millennium bc ), clay objects are present in abundance at a large number of sites, yet still remain absent at others.…”
The origin of record keeping is a key question in the development of social complexity and specialized economies, representing the first step towards the emergence of written communication. Yet the precursors of the world's earliest writing and its initial stages of development remain little understood. Small, geometric clay objects ('tokens') appear in the tenth millennium cal. BC, the start of the Neolithic in West Asia, prevailing into the first millennium. It is largely assumed that from their inception clay objects played a crucial role in record keeping, directly evolving into the world's earliest known writing. Utilizing new and previously unpublished Neolithic data comprising almost individually studied 3000 objects, accompanied by information from 56 further Neolithic sites, this article investigates the meaning of Neolithic 'tokens'. Analysis proves the basis of their predominant interpretation to be incorrect; clay objects appear earlier than previously recognized and are not a necessary component of Neolithic agro-pastoral villages. 'Tokens' were multi-functional artefacts; even within a single site clay objects performed multiple roles. Though likely used in simple counting activities, this was not limited to the accounting of agricultural produce. Nor was counting the sole function of clay objects in the Neolithic. Clay objects were not created to administer agricultural produce and there is no evidence to suggest that in the Neolithic they formed part of a unified symbolic system. ). Though concerns were raised at the time of publication (such as Pollock 1999, 166; Zimansky 1993), Schmandt-Besserat's work remains mainstream, despite evidence to support her claims, especially the reasons for the initial appearance and use of 'tokens' in the Neolithic period being far from secure.This article investigates evidence for the predominant interpretation of the earliest 'tokens', those from the Neolithic period. To date no convincing evidence supporting Denise Schmandt-Besserat's interpretation of the function of pre-historic 'tokens' has been published. This paper utilizes new and previously unpublished Neolithic data comprising almost 3000 individually published objects, in addition to data from a total of 79 sites (Table 1). Importantly, the research specifically incorporates information regarding the immediate and wider context of clay objects in the Neolithic. Analysis proves that, far from being the unequivocal precursors of cuneiform script and part of Schmandt-Besserat's proposed symbolic administrative 'token' system, clay objects were basic, multi-functional tools with a range of meanings, functions and uses.The abundance of clay objects found across an expansive temporal and geographic zone (Fig. 2), spanning the entire West Asian region across many millennia, implies an important role for these artefacts, a role which may relate to one of the many economic, cultural, symbolic and lifestyle changes seen at the start of the Neolithic, the period in which they initially occur. 'Tokens' are char...
“…Matthews et al . 2013; Riehl et al . 2013), are, however, once again raising the profile of the eastern flank of the Fertile Crescent (Zagros Mountains) in the search for the beginnings of Neolithic life.…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
