People and Space in Early Agricultural Villages: Exploring ...tuvalu.santafe.edu/~bowles/PeopleSpace.pdf · People and Space in Early Agricultural Villages: Exploring Daily Lives,

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19, 75–102 (2000)doi:10.1006/jaar.1999.0352, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

People and Space in Early Agricultural Villages: Exploring Daily Lives,Community Size, and Architecture in the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Ian Kuijt

Department of Geography, University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1K 3M4

Received July 2, 1998; revision received December 20, 1998; accepted July 13, 1999

Population growth, or, more specifically, pressure, is often viewed as being critical to thedevelopment of food production in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Near East. It is surprising,therefore, to recognize how little detailed archaeological research has explored the rates ofpopulation growth and how they might be related to social crowding in early village socialenvironments. Combining archaeological and ethnographic perspectives, this article exploresthe possible links between demographic change, possible social crowding, and reasons for the“collapse” of large aggregate villages occupied between approximately 8500 to 8000 years beforepresent. Reflection upon the timing, estimated magnitude, and rate of demographic changeprompts the researcher to reconsider the perceived links between sedentism, food production,and the emergence of social inequality in the context of early agricultural villages of thesouth-central Levant. © 2000 Academic Press

Understanding the interrelationshipsbetween broader long-term evolutionarysocial developments and the short-termsocial context of everyday life is critical tothe archaeological and anthropological re-construction and interpretation of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Near East. Whileit is widely recognized that the Neolithicwas a social process, to a degree previousarchaeological attempts at reconstructionhave failed to noticeably advance our un-derstanding of the relationships betweeneveryday living conditions and long-termsocial change, two interpretive dimen-sions that are complementary. The devel-opment of systems of food production be-fore and during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic,for example, can be explored both fromthe perspective of a critical long-term evo-lutionary event as well as a short-termevent in which community members en-acted social strategies to deal withchanges in daily living conditions. Thisstudy examines some of the possible rela-tionships between the physical and social

75

conditions of life in early agricultural vil-lages with that of broader long-termchanges. Out of necessity I only considersome of the interrelationships betweenlong-term population growth and howthese might have resulted in gradual, yetimportant, changes in the living condi-tions within early agricultural communi-ties. By extension, I want to consider howhuman communities might have re-sponded to such changes, reflecting uponselect aspects of daily life, such as livingconditions, reduction in privacy, and thecontrol of subsistence resources.

In focusing on these topics, I want toaddress several very important interre-lated questions of life in early villages ingeneral and those of the south-central Le-vantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic in specific.First, what archaeological data can be em-ployed to generate estimates of changes inthe size and density of human communi-ties through different periods of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic? Second, how mightthese demographic conditions have influ-

0278-4165/00 $35.00Copyright © 2000 by Academic PressAll rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

ttta1BdplnfuogsgfFUegsis

76 IAN KUIJT

enced social relations and living condi-tions within Pre-Pottery Neolithic com-munities and be connected to theabandonment of these villages about 8000years ago? Finally, I want to address howthis awareness alters our understandingof the possible ways in which demo-graphic change, food production, andemerging social inequality might havebeen interlinked in the context of earlyagricultural villages of the south-centralLevant. In this context, I explore how theemergence of, and changing arrange-ments within, social systems may havebeen linked both physically and psycho-logically to regional population growthand increased population aggregation atindividual settlements.

ANTHROPOLOGICAL INSIGHTSINTO POPULATION AGGREGATION

AND CROWDING STRESS

Understanding the relationships be-ween demographic change, food produc-ion, and emerging social inequality con-inues to be a central focus in archaeologynd anthropology. Between the 1960s and980s a number of anthropologists (e.g.,inford 1968; Boserup 1965; Cohen 1977)irected new attention to the concept thatopulation growth is an important stimu-

us to economic and social change. Whileot always explicitly articulated as some

orm of prime mover by researchers, pop-lation growth is often envisioned as onef, if not the, major catalyst in the emer-ence of food production, more complexocial and economic systems, and on aeneral level, the appearance of social dif-erentiation (Carneiro 1967; Cohen 1977;lannery 1973; Wright 1971; Young 1972).nder this framework, researchers have

xamined the connections between demo-raphics and social organization at severalcales of analysis, including understand-ng past population levels at an individualite (e.g., Longacre 1976; Plog et al. 1978)

or, more often, modeling of continental orglobal demographic changes (e.g., Adams1978; Binford 1968; Carneiro 1967; Johnsonand Earle 1987). In light of the assumedimportance of demographic shifts as anunderlying foundation for broader eco-nomic and social changes, little researchhas systematically explored the nature ofarchaeological evidence for demographicchange in key geographical and temporalcontexts, such as that of the Pre-PotteryNeolithic of the Near East, approximately10,000 to 8,000 years ago. Previous studieshave approached Neolithic demographicchanges and the establishment of foodproduction from one of two directions: (a)intuitively arguing that population in-creases, often viewed as the result of in-creased sedentism, led to population pres-sures and, eventually, food production;and/or that (b) the Pre-Pottery Neolithicwas characterized by sudden populationgrowth, and researchers often, but not al-ways, do not differentiate between differ-ent phases of the Pre-Pottery Neolithicperiod (e.g., Binford 1968; Bar-Yosef andMeadow 1995; Hershkovitz and Gopher1990). Given the important role these po-sitions play in modeling social and eco-nomic change in the Neolithic of the NearEast, it is surprising to note how limitedour understanding is of the overall patternand timing of demographic change andhow households and communities mighthave dealt with such shifts.

In a different, but not unrelated trend inNear Eastern prehistoric archaeology, it isimportant to recognize that it is only re-cently that archaeologists have started toexplore the nature of, and social/economicprocesses behind, the emergence andabandonment of village systems in thePre-Pottery Neolithic period. With a fewexceptions, general treatments of the Le-vantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic oftenpresent it as an economic and evolution-ary threshold, one in which there is a rel-ative sudden and total adoption of agri-

77NEOLITHIC DEMOGRAPHY AND SOCIAL CHANGE

culture and the appearance of largevillages (e.g., Mellaart 1975; Moore 1985).This perception is, in many ways, out ofstep with recent field research conductedat a number of individual sites that hasoutlined that the size of settlements, andpresumably those of the human commu-nities that existed in the past, increased atdifferent rates in the Pre-Pottery Neolithicand that these lifeways were abandonedat around 8000 years ago (Kohler-Rollefson and Rollefson 1990; Kuijt 1998;Rollefson 1996; Rollefson and Kohler-Rollefson 1989). This general perception ofthe Neolithic, as usually expressed in gen-eral introductory textbooks, also fails torecognize a number of important studiesof social process in the Neolithic (e.g., Au-renche and Cauvin 1989; Byrd 1994; Cau-vin 1995; Hodder 1990; Thomas 1991;Watson 1990), as well as the importantconcurrent trends in Neolithic research ofthe Euphrates and Anatolia (e.g., Hodder1996; Kozlowski and Kempisty 1990; LeBrun 1981; Rosenberg and Davis 1992;Watkins 1990).

From an anthropological level, re-searchers have approached the emer-gence of social relations within early agri-cultural village communities with theassumption that population pressure is akey explanatory factor, given that (1)changing social arrangements reflect a re-action to problems of organizing subsis-tence practices and maintaining economichomeostasis; (2) these changes are linkedto pressures associated with reduced mo-bility and more temporally and spatiallylimited food resources; (3) increased socialsegmentation and differentiation is usu-ally a by-product of economically basedcompetition between individuals orgroups for control of power and authoritywithin communities; and (4) hierarchicalsocial systems, at least those in whichthere are entrenched dimensions of socialdifferentiation, often emerge from withinthe social context of population aggrega-

tion. In this context researchers portraypopulation pressure as linked to subsis-tence resource and economic factors, spe-cifically the relationship between popula-tion density and the quantity, location,and availability of subsistence resources.For example, Cohen (1985: 104–105) statesthat “. . . a number of other specific as-pects of social complexity have been, orcan be, described as solving problems inthe logistics of access to resources . . ..” Inthis light social differentiation emerges asa by-product of population pressurecaused/elicited by the competition forscarce resources or development of newmeans for the economic control and redis-tribution of them.

At times such discussions also illustrateone of the more problematic aspects ofstudies of population dynamics and socialand economic relations: the conflation ofthe distinctive variables of populationgrowth, population density, and popula-tion “pressure” on resources (see Hassan1982, Wood 1998 for more detailed discus-sion). As noted by Wood in his skillfultreatment of the topic, researchers oftenconfuse the three concepts, frequentlypresenting them as synonymous. Popula-tion growth can be defined as the changein population size through the birth anddeath of individuals within a communityand migration of people between commu-nities. The rate of this growth, as well asthe overall population size, is clearlylinked to available food resources on alocal and regional level. In light of certainenvironmental potentials and a specificregime of food procurement and technol-ogy, the theoretical maximum number ofpeople who can be supported at one timein a single region is represented as thecarrying capacity of the region. Populationdensity refers to the relationship betweenoverall population level and a unit ofspace, such as that of a valley or residen-tial community. Population pressure, asdefined strictly in subsistence terms, is

78 IAN KUIJT

when overall population levels have out-stripped the ability of humans to produceor procure enough food for their needs ona short- or long-term basis, thus overex-ploiting the carrying capacity of a region.As Hassan (1982) demonstrates, however,one of the major weaknesses of the pop-ulation pressure concept as applied byoriginal researchers lies in confusing pop-ulation increase with population pressure.

These are clearly very different con-cepts, as an increase in population sizedoes not necessarily imply that resourceshave been depleted or that the survival ofhuman communities is at risk. The adop-tion of agricultural systems by a commu-nity, for example, may well have permit-ted an increase in population size, but, atthe same time, would not have resulted inany increased population pressure. Inmost cases (e.g., Binford 1968; Boserup1965) researchers construct demographicmodels by focusing on population pres-sure, with inequities between food re-sources and population growth, and as-sume that this condition emerges fromincreases in population growth or density.Needless to say, as pointed out by Wood(1998: 101), in some situations populationgrowth may provide a useful measure ofpopulation pressure, but this is a ques-tionable relationship at times, and onethat, if nothing else, is frustratingly diffi-cult to quantify.

There are, however, alternative ways toexplore the importance of demographicpressure in the context of cultural change:that of population growth and aggrega-tion as a social, rather than subsistence,concern. As noted earlier, researchershave traditionally explored how demo-graphic change and population pressuremight be linked to the overall health ofindividuals, the links between food avail-ability and population size, and their pos-sible relationships with human labor. Ap-proaching the possible impact ofdemographic change from a different di-

rection, researchers have started to ex-plore how increases in the scale and den-sity of communities required changes inthe organization of labor, how changes incommunity size might have been ex-pressed through the built environment,and how people actually tried to deal withchanging social and environmental condi-tions. On a very broad level Johnson(1982) and Cohen (1985), for example, linkthe appearance of hierarchical or heterar-chical social organizations to populationpressure. As changes in social scale in vil-lages require adjustments at the individ-ual, household, and community scale,these changing structures reduce the abil-ity of individuals to process informationand deal with kin-members and non-kinof the community. Within many hunter-gatherer and horticultural communities,social arrangements are organized tocross-cut kin and household lines, therebyreducing interpersonal tensions and con-flicts over authority (Johnson 1982). Thereorganization of these social relation-ships and authority, therefore, can serveas a situational response to short- andlong-term population-related problems.

A second very important dimension ofdemographic change is that populationgrowth influences other less observabledimensions of household and communityrelationships, particularly increases in in-terpersonal tensions and social crowding.Social crowding, as defined by Cohen(1985) and applied here, refers to tensionsthat occur when hunter-gatherers, horti-culturists, or agriculturists remain in largeaggregates for a long time. Cohen (1985:106; cf. Altman 1977) argues that underconditions of population aggregation, an-imals and humans respond negatively to anumber of features in their environment:congestion, loss of control, loss of privacy,and information load. Members of earlyagricultural communities may have expe-rienced the by-products of social crowd-ing expressed in physical congestion in

plsoiolsmbWtctmmt

hahoml1p1BK1


housing, resource procurement, or inscheduling conflicts. Similarly, loss of con-trol, or the perception that individualshave lost the ability to achieve some de-sired end through their own action anddecision-making (Altman 1977), may alsohave been a characteristic of growingcommunities. Cohen (1985: 106) notes“. . . perceived control may be the most im-

ortant quality for an organism’s psycho-ogical and social well-being and the mostalient quality affecting its decisions.” Inrder to ensure privacy, or the ability of

ndividuals to retain control over access tother people and resources, or, more

ikely, restrict access, people may con-truct physical boundaries to impedeovement and access and develop social

arriers in interpersonal interaction.hile subject to some of the same limita-

ions (when is physical crowding suffi-ient to result in “pressure”?), both ofhese approaches may represent comple-

entary perspectives to explore how de-ographic change is linked to social sys-

ems.

PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHICDEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE

Examining the important dimension ofuman subsistence resource imbalances,number of researchers have examined

ow increased sedentism and the devel-pment of new forms of food productionay have been linked to increased popu-

ation growth in the Natufian (c. 12,500–c.0, 500/300 B.P.) and Pre-Pottery Neolithiceriods of the south-central Levant (c.0,500/300–c. 8,000 B.P.) (Bar-Yosef andelfer-Cohen 1989, 1991; Bar-Yosef andislev 1989; Cohen 1977; Smith et al.984).1 The development of food produc-

1 The Pre-Pottery Neolithic period of this region, anarea encompassing the modern political states of Jor-dan, Israel, southern Lebanon and Syria, and the Sinaidesert of Egypt, was originally subdivided by Bar-Yo-sef (1981) into the Early, Middle, and Late Pre-Pottery

tion based on several wild and domesticplant species in the Late Natufian andPPNA resulted in several important socialchanges. Archaeological evidence demon-strates that the appearance of food pro-duction corresponds with three criticalpatterns in the archaeological record: (1) aradical improvement of the predictabilityand scheduling of plant availability, (2) anincreased capacity for food storage, and(3) a growth in the potential maximumsize of individual communities in the en-tire region. The first of these points is im-portant in that increased knowledge andmanipulation of the predictability andscheduling of plants ultimately leads toimproved control of certain food re-sources, thereby reducing the susceptibil-ity of communities to environmental fluc-tuations. In a related fashion, thedevelopment of food storage not onlyserves as a short-term buffer for foodstress, but also enhances the managementof subsistence resources over the longterm. Finally, the development of foodproduction, as exemplified by horticultureand agriculture, increases the potentialmaximum community size as well as in-fluences a variety of interlinked factors(for example, new weaning foods, de-

Neolithic B periods (EPPNB, MPPNB, and LPPNB), abroad scheme that continues to be employed by ar-chaeologists. Although not defined in Bar-Yosef’s orig-inal study, it is generally held that Early Pre-PotteryNeolithic B lasted from approximately 9600 to 9300 B.P.,followed by the Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (9300–8500 B.P.) and the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (8500–8000 B.P.). Reconsideration of the archaeological evi-dence for a distinct transitional stage between thePPNA and MPPNB question if there is sufficient evi-dence to support arguments for an EPPNB phase, al-ternatively noting that the PPNA may lead directly intowhat has been termed the MPPNB. In this article Iadopt this more conservative scheme, but at the sametime continue to employ the original terms MiddlePre-Pottery Neolithic B, lasting from 9300 to 8500 B.P.,and the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B lasting from 8500to 8000 B.P. to maintain standardization with previousliterature.

cw

80 IAN KUIJT

creased birth spacing, and stable resourceeconomies) (Smith et al. 1984).

In addressing the nature of the possibleconnections between population growthand changing social arrangements insouthern Levantine villages, it is impor-tant to address two scales of analysis: ex-tracommunity- (regional) and communi-ty- (site) level changes through time.Needless to say, developing accurate esti-mates for these is highly complex andcomplicated by issues of changing archae-ological visibility of settlements throughdifferent periods (such as the PPNA withmud architecture and the PPNB withstone architecture and painted plasterfloors) as well as by variations in the loca-tion, architectural remains, and size of set-tlements within an individual cultural–historical period in different environ-mental regions (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Co-hen 1991; Kuijt 1994). Smaller seasonalPPNB encampments are, for example,more likely to have been totally destroyedand are less likely to be recorded in fieldsurveys than large PPNB villages. If oneaccepts this proposition, then this resultsin a classic bad news/good news situation:archaeologists are unlikely to be able toreconstruct the nature of total settlementvariability for a single period with anydegree of confidence, but have a betterchance of understanding the overallchange in the size of the largest settle-ments through time, as they are mostlikely to be recorded. Thus, drawing uponsite size data from a single environmentalzone, such as the Mediterranean zone ofthe south-central Levant, probably pro-vides our best means of understandingregional- and site-level demographicchanges through time.

Working on the assumption that thelargest settlements provide a relative ideaof changing demographic patternsthrough time, it is informative to comparehow the size of the five largest settlementschanged through time. Viewed collec-

tively, we witness a pattern of consider-able expansion in communities from theperiod of 11,000 to c. 8,000 B.P., and mosttotably in the LPPNB (Table 1, Figs. 1 and2). For example, while the five largestknown Late Natufian settlements are eachapproximately 2,000 m2, this figure in-reased dramatically in the PPNA period,ith settlements averaging over 10,000 m2.

The largest known MPPNB period settle-ments range in area from 45,000 to 50,000m2, and later post-8,500-B.P. LPPNB set-tlements such as Basta and ‘Ain Ghazal,cover nearly 140,000 m2 (Fig. 3). The dis-tribution of Early Neolithic sites by sizeillustrates a trajectory of a steady increasein the size of largest settlements throughtime, while remembering that this patternis not necessarily representative of the to-tal variability in settlement practices. Evenif smaller sites were underrepresented inthe archaeological record, which is likelyto be the case, this does not eliminate theneed to explain the emergence of large(between 10 and 14 ha) LPPNB mega vil-lages/towns situated along the Jordanianhighlands.

This pattern of expansion provides uswith a coarse means of developing a pre-liminary understanding of the overallcomparative magnitude of change in thesize of individual Neolithic communities,within different physiographic regions,and sets the stage for exploring how peo-ple in these communities coped withshifts in settlement and lifeways duringthe Neolithic. Although clearly limiteddue to several methodological issues, eth-nographic observations on the relation-ship between the physical size of agricul-tural settlements, the number and size ofresidential structures, and the number ofpeople who live in them provides us witha useful, albeit coarse grained, means ofestimating the relative numbers of peopleliving in prehistoric agricultural settle-ments (Tables 1 and 2). Making any pop-ulation estimate based on settlement size

TABLE 1

P

M

L

P

y


relies on several critical assumptions: (1)the type and density of structures in exca-vated areas are representative of the siteas a whole, (2) the horizontal extent ofcultural materials for each site is repre-sentative of the actual extent of the site

Estimated Site Area and Possible Correlated CPPNC Periods in the

Period Site

Approxdeptcultudepo

Late Natufian(11,000–10,300 B.P.) ’Ain Mallaha (Ic/b) ,1

Nahal Oren ,1Hatoula (4a,b,5) ,1Saaıde II ,1Shukbah ,1

PNA(10,300–9,300 B.P.) Jericho 8

Netiv Hagdud 3Gilgal I 3Dhra’ 2.5Nahal Oren 2

PPNB(c. 9,300–8,500 B.P.) ’Ain Ghazal 3

Tell Aswad ?Jericho 4Yiftahel 1.5Kfar Hahoresh 2

PPNB(c. 8,500–8,000 B.P.) Basta 4

’Ain Ghazal 1.5Wadi Shu’eib (?) 4Beisamoun 2Es-Sifiya 3’Ain Jammam 3Ramad I ?

PNC/Final PPNB(c. 8,000–7,500 B.P.) ’Ain Ghazal 1

Basta (?) ?Ramad II (?) ?

a Based on Byrd (1989); Belfer-Cohen (1991); Kuijtb Kramer (1982: 162) and Watson (1979: 35–47) esti

people living in a 1000-m2 village ranges from 83ear-round in a 1-ha settlement, figures rounded up

c Based on research on Tell Marib, a modern site iof 286–302 people per hectare. For the purposes of scommunity population levels with results rounded u

d Mean population based on the largest five comm

while occupied and the occupation den-sity is constant in all areas of the site, and(3) the social and economic systems forsites from different periods are similarenough to 20th-century ethnographicstudies to permit comparisons. There is no

munity Levels for the Late Natufian throughuth-Central Levanta

atef Site

area(ha)

Estimatedpopulation

levelb

Estimatedpopulation

levelc

Meanpopulation

leveld

0.2 18 59 590.2 18 590.2 18 590.2 18 590.2 18 59

2.5 225 735 3321.5 135 4411.0 90 2940.45 41 1320.2 18 59

4.5 405 1323 7644 360 11762.5 225 7351.5 135 4410.5 45 147

14 1260 4116 329310 900 294010 900 294010 900 294010 900 2940

6–8 (7) 630 2058? ? ?

12 1080 3528 382214 (?) 1260 (?) 41162 (?) ? ?

95) and references therein.te that among agriculturists the average number of97. This calculation assumes that 90 people lived

emen, van Beek (1982: 64–65) provides an estimatelicity a mean of 294 has been employed to calculate

ities, based on van Beek (1982) estimates.

omSo

imh oralsits

mmmmm

mmmmm

m

mmm

mmmmmm

m

(19mato.n Y

impp.un

82 IAN KUIJT


question that some of these assumptionsare tenuous, and, therefore, it is best toemploy the resulting data as comparableestimates rather than as straightforwardreferents for past populations (see Ed-wards 1989; Fletcher 1986; Hassan 1982;

FIG. 1. Population shifts from the Late Pre-Pperiods. (A) Expansion of existing Middle Pre-Poof large Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period villareduction in size or total abandonment of largeestablishement of new small Pre-Pottery NeolJericho IX) villages and hamlets (c. 8000–7000 B

FIG. 2. Increase of total area of the five largeLPPNB settlements compared to mean compart

Hershkovitz and Gopher 1990 for furtherdiscussion). Research in western Iran byKramer (1982: 162), for example, indicatesthat, on average, 97 adults, children, andinfants live within a 1-ha agriculturalcommunity. Similar research by Watson

ry Neolithic B period to the Pottery Neolithicry Neolithic B period settlements and foundingin southern Levant (c. 8500/8300–8000 B.P.); (B)te Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period villages andc C period/Pottery Neolithic (Yarmukian and.

south-central Levantine Late Natufian throughntalization for the same periods.

ottette

gesLa

ithi.P.)

stme

FIG

.3.

Ch

angi

ng

dim

ensi

ons

ofso

uth

-cen

tral

Lev

anti

ne

Nat

ufi

anan

dN

eolit

hic

mor

tuar

yp

ract

ices

,foo

dp

rod

uct

ion

,an

dd

emog

rap

hic

chan

ge.

84 IAN KUIJT

TABLE 2


(1982: 35) in Hasanabad provides a meanof 83 people for the same area. Researchby van Beek (1982) at Tell Marib, inYemen, provides considerably higherpopulation estimates with around 294 in-dividuals living within the same 1-ha area.This variability indicates that it is neitherpractical nor wise to employ such datawith the purpose of determining defini-tive population levels for individual com-munities; however, I believe that these es-timates facilitate comparative studies ofdemographic shifts for the Neolithic inspecific geographical contexts.

While also limited, examination of theamount of roofed-floor area provides asecond means of estimating populationchange within Neolithic communities.Ethnographic studies of roofed-floor area,numbers of structures, and household sizesuggest that each adult person in a seden-tary agricultural and horticultural contextgenerally requires between 9 and 10 m2 offloor space (Kramer 1982; Leblanc 1971;Naroll 1962; Watson 1982). If we assumethat these behavioral observations offerreasonable correlates for the Late Natu-fian and Early Neolithic, these estimatespredict a pattern of a phenomenal in-crease in the size of LPPNB aggregate vil-lage communities in comparison to the

Estimated Increases in Site Size, Population Levels,PPNC Period Settlements in the Medite

Period

Estimatedmean sitesize (ha)

Estimateincreas

site si

Late Natufian(11,000–10,300 B.P.)

0.2 —

PPNA(10,300–9,300 B.P.)

1.0 500%

MPPNB(9,300–8,500 B.P.)

3.0 1500%

LPPNB(8,500–8,000 B.P.)

10.0 5000%

PPNC(c.8,000–7,750 B.P.)

12.0 (?) 6000%

previous period (Figs. 2 and 4). Althoughpopulation estimates differ dependingupon which ethnographic source one fa-vors, the overall reconstructions that re-sult from these analyses are very similar.Based on these reconstructions the largestLate Natufian communities consisted offewer than 50 people, while the largestPPNA communities contained severalhundred people, living in residentialstructures over an area of 0.5 to 1.5 ha,such as at Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Dhra‘,and Gilgal I. MPPNB settlements ex-panded to approximately 2–4 ha, with acorresponding increase in the density ofresidential structures within the settle-ment, and were occupied by as many asseveral hundred to over a thousand peo-ple. At about 8500 B.P. the size of thesealready large communities increased dra-matically and may well have numberedupward of several thousands of people,living in high-density housing such as thatseen at Basta, ‘Ain Ghazal, and Es-Sifiya,and covering an area of at least 10 ha(Mahasneh 1995; Nissen et al. 1987; Rollef-son et al. 1992). These data illustrate anincrease of nearly 5000% in the size ofsettlements over the 2000-year transitionfrom the Late Natufian to the LPPNB pe-riod.

d Compartmentalization for Late Natufian throughnean Zone of the South-Central Levant

Estimated meanpopulation (van

Beek 1982)

Estimated meancompartmentalization(mean from Table 3)

59 1.6 compartments/100 m2




3822 (?) unclear

anrra

d %e inze

(?)

86 IAN KUIJT

The extent to which this increase in thesize of settlements reflects regional popu-lation growth or population aggregationat individual sites remains unclear. Thisreconstruction of regional Neolithic de-mographics is probably a conflation of twointerrelated processes: (1) gradual andsteady regional population growththrough the Neolithic period; and (2) pop-ulation aggregation in large and impor-tant settlements, like Basta and ‘AinGhazal, for ritual, political, and economic

FIG. 4. Changes in south-central Levantinerelation to Neolithic mortuary practices and foogate LPPNB villages postdates the domesticatio2000 years.

reasons (Rollefson 1987). Based on figuresfor the total settlement area for the periodof c. 11,000 to 8,000 B.P., it can be arguedthat population levels increased graduallyup to, and probably including, the PPNA.In the LPPNB, and perhaps more specifi-cally for the period between c. 8,300 and8,000 B.P., human communities increasedat a much greater rate during and imme-diately after the widespread introductionof domesticated plants and animals in thesouth-central Levant (Figs. 3 and 4). With-

Natufian through LPPNB settlements size inroduction. Note that the appearance of aggre-most plants and animals by between 1000 and

Lated p

n of


out future field research on the distribu-tion of different-sized settlements andchanges in the density of residential hous-ing through time it is not possible to esti-mate the extent to which increased settle-ment area is due to regional populationgrowth rather than to population aggrega-tion. At the same time, based on thesecomparative estimates it is clear that thedemographic changes must have influ-enced social structures in these communi-ties.

LPPNB COMMUNITIES: SOCIALCROWDING AND RELATIONS

While questions remain as to the degreeto which regional population levels in-creased through the PPNB, current evi-dence indicates that individual communi-ties increased significantly and leads us toexamine some of the short-term aspects tothis transition: what kinds of strategiesdid people employ to deal with thesechanges, and how did these changes alterdaily life and living conditions of peoplein these communities? Specifically, whatevidence do we have for how people mayhave coped with increased populationpressure, aggregation, and social crowd-ing in daily life, and how might this berelated to the eventual abandonment ofagricultural villages at around 8000 B.P. atthe end of the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic Bperiod of the south-central Levant? In theLPPNB of the south-central Levant thereappears to have been considerable vari-ability in economic orientation, subsis-tence systems, and the size and per-manence of settlements in different envi-ronmental areas (see Bar-Yosef andMeadow 1995; Byrd 1992; Garrard et al.1994). In desertic areas, for example, wefind settlements comprised of round oroval stone structures covering a relativelysmall area, inhabited by people combin-ing the hunting of wild game and agricul-ture as a subsistence strategy. In other

areas, such as in or to the west of theJordan Valley, LPPNB communities wereconsiderably larger (covering c. 2.5 ha),with rectangular architecture and foodproduction based on domesticated plantsand animals (Bar-Yosef and Meadow1995). Along the eastern side of the JordanValley, we find a very different settlementtype, including the emergence of large LP-PNB communities of several thousandpeople living in tightly packed residentialstructures covering an area between 10and 14 ha (Fig. 1). These LPPNB commu-nities, including the settlements of Basta,‘Ain al-Jammam, ‘Ain Ghazal, and Es-Si-fiya, were situated along the ecological ec-otones of the Jordanian highlands, an areathat receives considerable rainfall even to-day (see Bisheh et al. 1993; Nissen et al.1987; Rollefson et al. 1992). Although theenvironmental, demographic, and socialreasons for the emergence and eventualcollapse of these villages is still poorlyunderstood, these large LPPNB communi-ties can be envisioned as aggregate vil-lages, resulting from regional populationincreases as well as the aggregation ofmembers from earlier MPPNB communi-ties. While it is not entirely clear howthese large LPPNB communities werelinked to each other, or for that matterwith other smaller LPPNB communitiessituated in desertic environments orwithin the Mediterranean zone, recentfield research illustrates that the relativescale of these communities embodied adistinctly different lifestyle from othertypes of earlier, contemporaneous, andlater settlements.

LPPNB Compartmentalization and Two-Story Architectural Systems

Two of the more visible strategies thatLPPNB community members adopted inresponse to increased population levelsand control of food resources involved thedevelopment of two-story architecture

TABLE 3

88 IAN KUIJT

and the compartmentalization of build-ings. Drawing on architectural data from‘Ain Ghazal and Beidha, Banning andByrd (1987, 1989), among others, note thatthe later phases of the PPNB period arecharacterized by a greater subdivision ofstructures. Placing these observations in abroader regional and more detailed tem-poral framework, examination of themean number of compartments in a100-m2 area illustrates a significant in-crease in compartmentalization of resi-dential structures from the Late Natufian

Estimated Compartmentalization for Lin the South

Period Site/areaS

size

Late Natufian(11,000–10,300 B.P.)

’Ain MallahaNieveu I

Jericho cSQ E I,II,VPhase Ii

PPNA(10,300–9,300 B.P.) Netiv Hagdud Upper area

JerichoSq E I,II,III Phase IV xvi

JerichoSq M I Phase VIII xxxix

JerichoSq M I Phase L

Nahal OrenMPPNB

(9,300–8,500 B.P.)’Ain Ghazal

(Central field)Jericho

Sq M I Phase XV lxxviiiJericho

Tr III Phase IX xxiJericho

Tr I Phase XVIa xxviiiJericho

Sq E I, II, III Phase Xxlii

JerichoTr I Phase XXI

LPPNB(8,500–8,000 B.P.) Basta (Area A) 1

Basta (Area B) 1

through to the LPPNB aggregate villages(Table 3, Fig. 2). In the Late Natufian, forexample, available data indicate that therewere approximately 1.6 compartments per100 m2, and by the PPNA this figure in-creased marginally to 2.4. By the MPPNB,however, we see a substantial increase incompartmentalization, with an average of6.3 compartments per 100 m2. This trendcontinued into the LPPNB. Recent excava-tions at several settlements, includingBasta, ‘Ain al-Jammam, and Es-Sifiya,document a dramatic increase in this pat-

Natufian through LPPNB Settlementsntral Levant

a)

Totalexc.area(m2)

No. ofstructures/

compts.

Estimatedmean compts./

100m2Estimated

mean compts.

240 c.4/4 1.7 LNat 5 1.665 1/1 1.5

500 10/11 2.2 PPNA 5 2.475 2/2 2.6

90 2/2 2.2

90 2/2 2.2

500 13/13 2.6

200 5/c.15 7.5 MPPNB 5 6.495 2/5 5.3

92 3/5 5.4

80 2/5 6.3

70 3/5 7.1

112 3/7 6.3

240 Unknown/32 13.3 LPPNB 5 14.5108 Unknown/22 15.7

ate-Ce

ite(h

0.2.0.2

1.52.5

2.5

2.5

0.5

4.02.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

4.04.0


tern, with an average of 14.5 compart-ments per 100 m2 (Fig. 5) and with re-duced space between buildings as well(Fig. 6). This suggests that as the size ofthe community grew, PPNB peoples con-tinually subdivided the space in theirdwellings: perhaps this compartmental-ization reflects the increased stress of so-cial crowding and desire to delineatespace for privacy, or growing emphasis onpersonal goods and ownership, or, mostlikely, a combination of these and otherfactors.

FIG. 5. Plan view of exposed LPPNB (c. 8200floor central room, 1 3 1.5-m storage rooms alcentral room and storage rooms. Profile of exca(after Nissen et al. 1987: Fig. 7).

Significantly, this LPPNB trend towardincreasing segmentation of space was ac-companied by another important devel-opment: the development of two-storybuildings. One of the most obvious differ-ences between LPPNB aggregate villagesand contemporary smaller settlements indesertic areas, as well as earlier MPPNBcommunities, was the development of ar-chitectural systems that employed two-story structures. Two-story architecture,combined with the high overall density ofbuildings within LPPNB communities,

.) building at Area B, Basta, Jordan. Note firstouter edges, and access openings connecting

d interior walls (section A–A9) is seen in Fig. 7

B.Pongvate

FIG

.6.

Est

imat

edch

ange

sin

com

mu

nit

ysi

zeto

den

sity

ofh

ousi

ng

for

open

air

Lat

eN

atu

fian

thro

ugh

Pot

tery

Neo

lith

icse

ttle

men

tslo

cate

din

the

Med

iter

ran

ean

vege

tati

vezo

ne

ofth

eso

uth

-cen

tral

Lev

ant.

90 IAN KUIJT

FIG

.7.

Pro

file

ofex

pos

edst

and

ing

wal

lof

two-

stor

yL

PP

NB

(c.8

200

B.P

.)bu

ildin

gin

Are

aB

,Bas

ta,J

ord

an(s

ecti

onA

–A9)

.Vie

wfr

omfi

rst-

floo

rce

ntr

alro

omlo

okin

gn

orth

east

,of

open

entr

ance

sto

stor

age

room

s(a

fter

Nis

sen

etal

.198

7:Fi

g.8b

).


92 IAN KUIJT


subdivision of buildings, and the huge in-crease in the total area of LPPNB settle-ments, is likely to be linked to the exis-tence of social crowding in thesecommunities or the development of stor-age areas inside of residences. As notedearlier, excavations at MPPNB Beidha un-covered evidence for a lower buildingfoundation upon which the main residen-tial area was constructed (Byrd 1994; Byrdand Banning 1988). This lower level wasemployed for storage or perhaps even ascramped work areas. This pattern clearlychanges with the LPPNB, with the con-struction of two-story buildings at selectlarge settlements, such as Basta, Es-Sifiya,‘Ain al-Jammam, and possibly Ghwair I(Najjar 1994). At Basta, for example, thereis evidence for past existence of two-storybuildings, with the first floor being orga-nized so as to surround an enclosed cen-tral room, probably accessed from above,with small (between 1 3 1 and 1.5 3 1.5 m)storage areas (Figs. 7 and 8). In contrast,the second floor probably served as themajor residential area and was supportedby a large wooden beam placed on large1.5- to 2.0-m-high pillars of fitted rectan-gular fieldstones.

The construction of multiple buildinglevels holds immense implications for ex-ploration of demography, social crowdingand population pressure, for this clearlyreflects a strategy to deal with changingsocial conditions within these communi-ties. First, the archaeological evidencesuggests that LPPNB community mem-bers expanded space vertically to facilitatethe creation of specialized activity areas,such as food storage downstairs and/orupstairs residential areas, as well as toincrease control of access to select areas.Second, a community’s expansion of us-

FIG. 8. Architectural reconstruction of two-stoJordan, based on excavated architectural remcentral room and the open second floor area, w

able space upward would have resulted inan increased density of residential hous-ing, a higher capacity for housing people,and a reduction in sanitation conditions.Finally, it is possible that household mem-bers recognized the functional need forthe creation of shaded, cool storage areasin settlements located along the desertmargins. Whatever the ultimate reason(s),the existence of multiple levels of rooms atlarge LPPNB settlements raises the clearpossibility that a greater number of peo-ple lived within these communities than isreflected by mean site areas and, just asimportantly, that the density is evengreater than previously recognized. It isalso clear that widespread adoption oftwo-story buildings indicates a broad cul-tural choice, one that apparently reflectsboth how people coped with increased so-cial crowding in communities and the de-velopment of dedicated storage areas sit-uated inside of buildings.

Admittedly, it is very difficult to substan-tiate through material means the scale andinfluence of social crowding, let alone socialcrowding within communities, whether inthe past or the present. While the challengefor all archaeologists is to develop inventivemeans of interpreting past societies throughmaterial culture, the built environment, andthe residue of behaviors, we are commonlyforced to rely upon qualitative and relativ-istic data sources rather than quantitativematerials. For example, it is clear that thegeneral increase in depth of cultural depos-its at PPNA, MPPNB, and LPPNB agricul-tural villages occurs simultaneously with anincrease in settlement area. The volume ofsediment produced by cultural activities atLPPNB Basta, probably occupied for around200 years, is staggeringly different from the10001 years of Early and Late Natufian oc-

LPPNB (c. 8200 B.P.) building at Area B, Basta,. Note storage rooms surrounding first-floorh likely served as the residential area.

ryainshic

c

nities in the south-central Levant were

94 IAN KUIJT

cupation at ‘Ain Mallaha. ‘Ain Mallaha,which is among the largest known Levan-tine Natufian open-air sites with architec-ture, resulted in approximately 3,000 m3 ofultural deposits (2,000-m2 area and 1.5-m

deep deposits). Conversely, the LPPNB oc-cupation at Basta resulted in approximately420,000 m3 of cultural deposits (140,000-m2

area and approximately 3-m deep deposits)over a much shorter period of time. Even ifwe assume that later Neolithic occupationscreated more archaeological debris per cap-ita due to different architectural techniquesor that this pattern is the result of differentsettlement processes and use of materialsfor architecture, this trend reflects an in-crease in human activities that is both intu-itively impressive and, at the same time,frustratingly difficult to quantify. Returningback to our case study once again, one canintuitively argue that increased volume ofcultural materials in LPPNB settlements re-flects an even greater population increasethan that presented by settlement areaalone. It is, needless to say, very difficult toquantitatively assess the magnitude of thisrelationship and, more importantly, for ar-chaeologists to understand the causes andimplications of such human behavior. Re-gardless of these difficulties, considerationof the nature of long-term changes in com-munity size, the built environment, andsome of the possible strategies that villagersenacted to deal with reduced privacy, in-creased crowding, and changes in access toresources help us to understand how mate-rial culture and cultural practices were em-ployed in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic to offsetchanging living conditions.

NEOLITHIC DEMOGRAPHICCHANGES, SOCIAL RELATIONS,AND THE “ABANDONMENT” OF

LPPNB COMMUNITIES

It is important to note that many, if notmost, of the large LPPNB village commu-

abandoned at some point between 8000and 7750 B.P., with new, and usuallysmaller, hamlets founded at the beginningof the Pottery Neolithic. In a few rarecases, such as Sha’ar ha Golan, communi-ties may have covered upward of 1.5 ha,albeit with only limited density of archi-tecture. The regional pattern of sharplyreduced size of communities in the Pot-tery Neolithic compared to the Pre-Pot-tery Neolithic has been noted across thesouth-central Levant and has led manyresearchers to explore how aspects of en-vironmental change and ecological degra-dation might be interrelated (see Bar-Yo-sef and Belfer-Cohen 1991; Kohler-Rollefson and Rollefson 1990; Rollefson1996 for further discussion). I believe that,in combination with these factors, it is im-portant for us to examine some of theways in which the abandonment of thesevillages was linked to other social condi-tions. Specifically, in this section I explorehow long-term demographic changes andshort-term, daily, social relations withincommunities were interrelated, and ulti-mately how these might be linked to theabandonment of large regional communi-ties. In addressing the first of these issues,let us return to the question of what forcesmight have initially brought people to-gether in these village communities. Inbrief, I believe that the significant increasein the scale of certain LPPNB communitiesreflects several interrelated processes, in-cluding the development and mainte-nance of elaborate public mortuary ritualsenacted by members of larger communi-ties, which attracted members of house-holds living in adjacent settlements; thesimultaneous reinforcement of the au-thority of select ritual practitioners whoorganized and enacted these rituals; andthe emergence of powerful lineages andHouses within larger communities (Kuijt1995). Following Rollefson (1987) andRollefson and Kohler-Rollefson (1989), I


suggest that in the south-central Levan-tine Pre-Pottery Neolithic periods we findcompelling evidence for regional socialand economic centers in the Near East. Asoutlined elsewhere (Kuijt 1995, 1996), thepublic nature of PPNB household andcommunity mortuary and ritual practiceswithin these large settlements may wellhave increasingly encouraged lineages tomerge with other residential groups withwhom they shared some preexisting so-cial, economic, or ritual bonds (such askinship). It is important to note, however,that the emergence of more powerful lin-eages through alliance did not result inthe expression of social differentiation in-dicative of positions of leadership otherthan perhaps that of representative lead-ership from multiple households. The ac-tual and figurative consolidation of re-lated, although previously separatelineages, would have also created newstressful conditions at the community andlineage level. Increased social crowdingwithin buildings and conflicts between in-dividual lineages over rights and obliga-tions and possibly even with competingritual organizations may have playedcompeting roles in shaping social ar-rangements within PPNB Neolithic com-munities. With this perspective we mustrecognize that people in Neolithic vil-lages, at the household, lineage, and com-munity levels, dynamically crafted socialrelationships in certain ways to respond tospecific demographic dimensions.

In this light the relinquishing of LPPNBlifeways, particularly the abandonment ofthese large aggregate villages between8000 and 7750 B.P., may well have beenrelated to changes within a broader set ofritualistic and social beliefs, in combina-tion with regional environmental changesand local environmental degradation. Inparticular, I would emphasize four possi-ble interrelated social processes ofchange, including (1) the inherent limita-tions of LPPNB social organization to cope

with increasing population aggregation,conditions of social crowding, and scalarstress (Johnson 1982); (2) the influence ofscalar stress in diminishing the ability ofHouse, ritual, and economic leaders to ef-fectively manage and organize all seg-ments of the community; (3) the emer-gence of politically, economically, andsocially more powerful Houses or lineagescharacterized by greater access and con-trol of some resources and privileges; and(4) the overall effect of the complex inter-play between these factors in challengingthe fundamental rationale for the exis-tence of this ritual system and the groupof people who controlled it.

Potentially, the increases in the scaleand density of these LPPNB communitieswould have also challenged existing socialstructures for organizing labor at certainperiods of the year, as well as created agreater need for competing and cooperat-ing hierarchical structures for sharing in-formation and materials. As outlined ear-lier, available architectural and settlementdata illustrate a progressive growth incrowding stress within LPPNB NeolithicHouses, lineages, and communities, creat-ing social congestion, perceived loss ofcontrol over one’s immediate environ-ment, and an overall reduction in privacy,all of which encourage people to segmenttheir physical space (Altman 1977; Rap-poport 1975). If architectural segmentationwere only partially linked to food storageand the construction of two-story build-ings, then it is clearly possible that LPPNBcompartmentalization may have alsoserved as a strategy to control/limit accessto certain areas. People would have con-structed physical barriers to physicallyand socially further define stages alongthe continuum of more public to moreprivate space. The LPPNB compartmen-talization seen at Basta, for example, re-flects on some level the decision by com-munity or House members to createadditional residential space, more physi-

96 IAN KUIJT

cal and social barriers, and a greater ca-pacity for storage. As such, people’s andcommunity’s conceptualizations of pri-vacy and access may have been funda-mentally redefined and, by extension, thechanges in the built environment influ-enced and reshaped the creation of social,economic, and political relationshipswithin and between Houses, lineages, andMPPNB and LPPNB communities. If weassume, like Banning and Byrd (1987,1989), that the segmentation of MPPNBand LPPNB architecture reflects socialforces, such as crowding and attempts forgreater privacy and to control access tospace within Houses, then it must also berecognized that ultimately this strategywas inherently limited as a long-term so-lution. Specifically, there are clear physi-cal limitations as to how close buildingscan be constructed and still maintainstreet access and the degree to whichcompartmentalization can occur withinresidences. Archaeological evidence indi-cates that population growth in the LP-PNB expanded beyond this threshold,when it was no longer possible for com-munity members to continue segmentingspace in structures (Fig. 5).

Shifting patterns of mortuary activityand ritual in the LPPNB may also reflectthese fundamental changes in socialstructures. I believe that the emergence ofmore powerful lineages, as well as in-creased social stresses related to crowdingand information exchange, limited thepractical ability for the community to par-ticipate in communal rituals. For instancethose rituals that were practiced wouldhave had a reduced effect on the commu-nity due to increases in scale and/or resis-tance to increasing social segmentation.When ritual and mortuary ceremonies areconducted less frequently and less effec-tively, the entire foundation for social co-hesion may be weakened. Not only is therationale for community practices weak-ened, or even worse dismantled, but so is

the physical means of reiterating theseideological and moral messages on a reg-ular basis.

Furthermore, if one accepts that someform of ritual/economic elite oversawLPPNB ritual and mortuary practiceswhile also adjudicating interfamily dis-putes, organizing communal labor, andserving as the main community source forthe distribution of information (see Kuijt1996), then it follows that the erosion ofritual and mortuary practices were tied toa decrease of support for this ritual elite,the very reasons for population aggrega-tion, and the attractiveness of living inlarge ritual centers. In short, the socialcohesive force holding LPPNB communi-ties together would have dissolved, aswould the motivations for individualmembers, Houses, and lineages to volun-tarily relinquish their various rights andprivileges. With the weakening or re-moval of the overall ideological structureupon which this culture of village life wasbased, ritual systems no longer were ableto maintain group solidarity as seen in theMPPNB. Moreover, the promotion or rec-ognition of some individuals or familiesover others, thereby providing them withgreater access to resources and privileges,would have undermined the entire systemof egalitarian/communal values and be-liefs seen as early as the MPPNB. Withoutvoluntary participation and belief in theritual systems and worldview by all com-munity members, and in the face of re-gional environmental changes and degra-dation of conditions around settlements,there would have been few, if any, factorsto attract individuals or families to largeagricultural centers and little in the way ofsocial, economic, or ritual reasons to keepdisgruntled community members fromleaving the settlement for other areas.

In this light, the “collapse” of the LP-PNB lifeways can be visualized as a dis-persal of people from a number of largepopulation aggregation centers, such as


‘Ain Ghazal or Basta, to an increasingnumber of small hamlets or villages scat-tered across the south-central Levant. Im-portant dimensions in this settlement shiftprobably included degrading environ-mental conditions and the overexploita-tion of local resources (Rollefson 1996;Rollefson and Kohler-Rollefson 1989). Ul-timately, however, the argument I offersuggests that the cessation of LPPNB mor-tuary and ritual practices at around 8000B.P. proved to be an equally importantfactor: the system of social beliefs that cre-ated these communities in the MPPNB/LPPNB was unable to deal with the newrealities of village life requiring greatersocial segmentation and people living inincreasingly compressed physical condi-tions. In many ways, therefore, the emer-gence of economic and social elites, andeventual consolidation of power in thehands of a few individuals by the end ofthe LPPNB, may have been major ele-ments in the process of fragmentation ofthese large aggregate LPPNB communi-ties.

REFLECTIONS ON DEMOGRAPHICCHANGE, THE EMERGENCE OF

SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATION, ANDFOOD PRODUCTION

A number of recent studies by archae-ologists and anthropologists devote in-creased attention to the social dimensionsof the emergence of food production inparticular and the Neolithic in general(Bar-Yosef and Meadow 1995; Byrd 1994;Hayden 1995; Watson 1995). These worksillustrate that only limited attention hasbeen afforded to anthropological issues ofchanging social complexity, the organiza-tion of labor in these communities, thestrategies employed by community mem-bers in the face of drastically changingeconomic conditions, and shifts in thecontrol of resources and the built environ-ment. Ultimately it is through a consider-

ation of how these issues, as well as betterunderstood topics, are interwoven in pastsocial contexts that anthropologists andarchaeologists are able to reflect upon thehuman dimensions of the Neolithic, iden-tifying household and community con-cerns, and how these might be linked tohow people coped with profoundly signif-icant economic, environmental, and socialchanges.

As noted earlier, one conclusion thatcan be drawn from examination ofchanges in the largest Natufian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic settlements is that PPNBcommunities reflect both regional popula-tion growth as well as community levelpopulation aggregation for ritual and eco-nomic reasons. Often anthropologists andarchaeologists have envisioned popula-tion aggregation/growth/pressure as lead-ing to the development of new social ar-rangements along hierarchical lines,largely for economic reasons (e.g., Earle1987; Johnson and Earle 1982). From thisperspective we would anticipate that thesouth-central Levantine LPPNB, with evi-dence for a dramatic increase in the size ofindividual settlements, centralization incertain large regional settlements, and in-creased crowding stress, would providematerial evidence for enormous increasesin social segmentation, perhaps throughthe development of a clear, and firmlyentrenched, hierarchical division of au-thority and power. On the basis of analo-gies from other cultures, representative ofdifferent periods of time and geographicalareas, one can argue that the combinationof dramatic economic changes associatedwith food production and population ag-gregation in regional centers in the LP-PNB would have created a social contextin which certain individuals consolidatedpower and authority within the Neolithiccommunities and perhaps even in the de-velopment of hereditary authority. Para-doxically, the material evidence suggests avery different story. If anything, available

98 IAN KUIJT

archaeological data for approximately 500years of the MPPNB and LPPNB indicatethat in the face of increased populationexpansion and social stress at the lineageand community level, Neolithic commu-nity members (1) continued to limit dis-plays of social differentiation in mortuarypractices and residential architecture (seeKuijt 1996) and (2) abandoned their largesettlements at c. 8000 B.P., disrupting thesocial and economic foundation of the LP-PNB social structure and the lifeways tomove to small hamlets, which exhibit verylittle evidence supporting social differen-tiation or hierarchical structures.

This paradox between expectations ofanthropological models and archaeolog-ical data leaves us with several thornyquestions. Most importantly, if theselarge LPPNB villages emerged throughpopulation aggregation due to the needfor increased centralization of labor,the development of powerful Housesthrough kin and economic units, and thedevelopment of regional economic andritual centers, then why do we not seethe emergence of some form of central-ized leadership? This is a difficult ques-tion, the answer to which probably re-flects how power and authority mayhave been shared in LPPNB communi-ties. Specifically, if LPPNB aggregate vil-lage communities were organized alonglineage lines, then any system of sharedpower and authority between Houseswould have been highly competitive andprohibited the consolidation of authorityby a single lineage, let alone individuals.Thus, it may well be that the social rulesfor limiting the authority and power ofindividuals and Houses in these LPPNBaggregate villages were stronger, appar-ently much stronger, than the ability ofindividuals and Houses to consolidatepower and authority in the hands of thefew over the many. Simply put, it ap-pears that communities at the end of thePre-Pottery Neolithic period were un-

able to develop new means of organizingpositions of leadership in the face ofrapid changes in economic systems, en-vironmental conditions, and the almost-exponential aggregation of people intoLPPNB communities. From this perspec-tive, then, the abandonment of LPPNBaggregate village communities along theJordanian Highlands can be seen as afailed experiment in balancing anti-quated systems of shared social powerwith the need for developing new meansof organizing and directing increasinglylarge urban communities with compet-ing House leaders.

Viewed from a broader perspective, thisreconstruction of the nature and timing ofdemographic change in the south-centralLevantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic provides uswith some important insights into severalcurrent anthropological/archaeological de-bates. First, data on changing settlementsize as well as the overall pattern of com-munity growth indicates that regional pop-ulation growth and aggregation in selectcommunities occurs at least 500 years afterthe domestication of many, if not most,plants and animals (see Bar-Yosef andMeadow 1995). While this is hardly unex-pected, it does suggest that archaeologistsshould reexamine the degree to which thedevelopment of food production and thedomestication of plants and animals shouldbe viewed as causally linked to populationgrowth within the context of early agricul-tural village life. Second, this and otherstudies indicate that while new community-shared forms of leadership and social dif-ferentiation developed in the MPPNB andLPPNB (probably House based and focusedon the maintenance and administration ofritual practices and community labor), earlyforms of food production and populationgrowth facilitated the emergence of individ-ual powerful rulers who continued to ac-crue power and authority over others. Asnoted elsewhere (Kuijt 1995, 1996), consid-erable archaeological evidence suggests

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


that PPNB communities intentionally lim-ited the accumulation of differential author-ity by individuals through the prohibition ofthe inclusion of grave goods or the use ofdifferential residential architecture, both ofwhich can reflect mechanisms to expressdifferences in status through material cul-ture. It appears that while some differentialpower and authority was accumulated byritual or economic elites within MPPNBcommunities, available mortuary and archi-tectural evidence indicates that it is only inthe late LPPNB (c. 8300–8000 B.P.), some 500years after almost all domesticated plantsappeared, that we see extensive mortuarygoods and differential treatment of thedead. Just as importantly, the abandonmentof PPNB lifeways around 8000 B.P. and thetransition to small Pottery Neolithic hamletscontaining fewer than a hundred people,reflects a process of decentralization andsocial fragmentation rather than successfulcentralization of power and authority by in-dividuals. Thus, when powerful individualleaders did emerge in the LPPNB they wereunable to consolidate authority within thesecommunities and perhaps were instrumen-tal in the social fragmentation that occurredwithin prehistory’s earliest known agricul-tural villages. This suggests that, at least inthe case of the Near Eastern Pre-PotteryNeolithic, communities dealt with the newchallenges of emerging systems of food pro-duction, food surpluses, labor needs, andincreased social crowding and populationaggregation by continuing existing, and de-veloping new, social mechanisms for main-taining communities through the reiterationof social-leveling mechanisms. Collectivelyunderstanding how communities, Houses,and individuals, both intentionally and un-intentionally, reacted to changing demo-graphic conditions provides new insightsinto the Neolithic and helps anthropologistsand archaeologists better understand thesocial side to this critical social, evolution-ary, and subsistence transition.

This study has been directly and indirectly sup-ported by a host of individuals at, as well as fundingfrom, the Social Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncil of Canada (Grants No. 753-91-0218 and No.756-95-0073); the National Science Foundation(Grant No. 91-12725); the Department of Anthropol-ogy, Harvard University; the Peabody Museum, Har-vard University; the Mellon Foundation; the Depart-ment of Anthropology, University of California atBerkeley; lots of friendly folks at the ArchaeologicalResearch Facility at UCB; the American Schools ofOriental Research; the British Institute in Amman forArchaeology and History; a Frederick Sheldon Fel-lowship from Harvard University; and most recentlythe Department of Anthropology, Brandeis Univer-sity, and the Department of Anthropology and Soci-ology, Tufts University; the Department of Geogra-phy at the University of Lethbridge. This articledraws heavily upon data and ideas presented in mydoctoral research. I thank Ofer Bar-Yosef, RosemaryJoyce, Bob Preucel, and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky fortheir comments on this original work, as well asthose of Gil Stein, Gary Rollefson, Glenn Schwartz,John O’Shea, several anonymous reviewers, and es-pecially Meredith Chesson for comments on ver-sions of this work. While not agreeing with all of theopinions expressed in this work, their commentshave been very helpful in crafting the tone, content,and direction of the arguments presented here, al-though they should not be held accountable in anyway for the resulting article. This article is dedicatedto my father, Job Kuijt. As a highly motivated bota-nist, backpacker, historian, and researcher, Job hasalternatively served as a professional role model,academic and social foil, and friend over many years.He has had a lasting impact upon all of his offspring,“parasites” as he likes to call us, in ways that some ofus are only now starting to recognize.

REFERENCES

Adams, R. M.1978 Strategies of maximization, stability, and re-

silience: Mesopotamian Society, Settlement,and Agriculture. Proceedings of the AmericanPhilosophical Society 122(5):329–335.

Altman, I.1977 Privacy regulation: Culturally universal or

culturally specific? Journal of Social Issues33(3):66–84.

Aurenche, O., and J. Cauvin (eds.)1989 Neolithisation: Proche et Moyen-Orient, Medit-

eranee Oriental, Nord de L’Afrique, Europe me-

ridionale, Chine, Amerique du sud. British Ar- Survey of the Ras An-Naqab-Aqaba High-

100 IAN KUIJT

chaeology Review, Oxford.

Banning, E. B., and B. F. Byrd1987 Houses and changing residential unit: Do-

mestic architecture at PPNB ‘Ain Ghazal.Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53:309–325.

1989 Renovations and the changing residentialunit at ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan. In Householdsand Communities: Proceedings of the TwentyFirst Annual Conference, edited by S.MacEachern, D. Archer., and R. D. Garvin,pp. 525–533. University of Calgary, Calgary.

Bar-Yosef, O.1981 The “Pre-Pottery Neolithic” period in the

Southern Levant. In Prehistoire du Levant, ed-ited by J. Cauvin and P. Sanlaville, pp. 551–570. CNRS, Paris.

Bar-Yosef, O., and A. Belfer-Cohen1989 The Levantine “PPNB” Interaction Sphere.

In People and Culture in Change: Proceedings ofthe Second Symposium of Upper Paleolithic,Mesolithic, and Neolithic Populations of Europeand the Mediterranean Basin, edited by I. Her-shkovitz, pp. 59–72. British Archaeology Re-view, Oxford.

1991 From sedentary hunter-gatherers to territo-rial farmers in the Levant. In Between Bandsand States, edited by S. A. Gregg, pp. 181–202. Center for Archaeological Investiga-tions: Carbondale.

Bar-Yosef, O., and M. Kislev1989 Early farming communities in the Jordan

Valley. In Foraging and Farming: The Evolutionof Plant Exploitation, edited by D. R. Harrisand G. C. Hillman, pp. 632–640. Hyman andUnwin, London.

Bar-Yosef, O., and R. H. Meadow1995 The origins of agriculture in the Near East.

In Last Hunters-First Farmers: New Perspectiveson the Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture, ed-ited by T. D. Price and A. B. Gebauer, pp.39–94. School of American Research Press,Santa Fe.

Belfer-Cohen, A.1991 The Natufian in the Levant. Annual Review of

Anthropology 20:167–186.

Binford, L. R.1968 Post-Pleistocene adaptations. In New Per-

spectives in Archaeology edited by S. Binfordand L. R. Binford, pp. 313–341. Aldine, Chi-cago.

Bisheh, G., S. Farajat, G. Palumbo, and M. Waheeb1993 The Cultural Resources Management

Project in Jordan Archaeological Rescue

way Alignment, 1992. Annual of the Depart-ment of Antiquities of Jordan 37:119–131.

Boserup, E.1965 The Condtions for Agricultural Growth: The

Economics of Agrarian Change under Popula-tion Pressure. Aldine, Chicago.

Byrd, B. F.1992 The dispersal of food production across the

Levant. In Transitions to Agriculture in Prehis-tory, edited by A. B. Gebauer and T. D. Price,pp. 49–61. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wis-consin.

1994 Public and private, domestic and corporate:The emergence of the southwest Asian vil-lage. American Antiquity 59(4):639–666.

Byrd, B. F., and E. B. Banning1988 Southern Levantine pier houses: Intersite

architectural patterning during the Pre-Pot-tery Neolithic B. Paleorient 14:65–72.

Carneiro, R.1967 On the relationship between size of popula-

tion and complexity of social organization.Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 22:234–243.

Cauvin, J.1994 Naissance des Divinites, Naissance de

l’agriculture. CNRS, Paris.

Cohen, M. N.1977 Population pressure and the origins of agri-

culture: An archaeological example from thecoast of Peru. In Origins of Agriculture, editedby C. A. Reed, pp. 135–178. Mouton, TheHague.

1985 Prehistoric hunter-gatherers: The meaningof social complexity. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: Emergence of Cultural Complexity,edited by T. D. Price and J. A. Brown, pp.99–119. Academic Press, New York.

Earle, T. K.1987 Chiefdoms in archaeological and ethnohis-

toric perspective. Annual Review of Anthro-pology 16:279–308.

Edwards, P. C.1989 Problems of recognizing earliest sedentism:

The Natufian example. Journal of Mediterra-nean Archaeology 2(1):5–48.

Flannery, K. V.1973 The origins of agriculture. Annual Review of

Anthropology 2:271–310.

Fletcher, R. J.1986 Settlement archaeology: World-wide com-

parisions. World Archaeology 18:59–83.

Garrard, A., D. Baird, and B. F. Byrd Man’s Role in Shaping of the Eastern Mediter-


1994 The chronological basis and significance ofthe late paleolithic and neolithic sequencein the Azraq Basin, Jordan. In Late Quater-nary Chronology and Paleoclimates of the East-ern Mediterranean, edited by O. Bar-Yosefand R. S. Kra, pp. 177–199. Radiocarbon,Tucson.

Garrard, A., D. Baird, S. Colledge, L. Martin, and K. I.Wright

1994 Prehistoric environment and settlement inthe Azraq Basin: An interim report on the1987 and 1988 excavation season. Levant 26:73–109.

Hassan, F. A.1982 Demographic Archaeology. Academic Press,

New York.Hayden, B.

1995 A new overview of domestication. In LastHunters—First Farmers: New Perspectives onthe Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture, editedby T. D. Price and A. B. Gebauer, pp. 273–299. School of American Research Press,Santa Fe.

Hershkovitz, I., and A. Gopher1990 Paleodemography, burial customs, and

food-producing economy at the beginningof the Holocene: A perspective from theSouthern Levant. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal ofthe Israel Prehistoric Society 23:9–48.

Hodder, I.1990 The Domestication of Europe: Structure and

Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Basil Black-well, Oxford.

Hodder, I. (Ed.)1996 On the Surface: Catalhoyuk 1993–1995. Mc-

Donald Institute of Archaeological Researchand the British Institute of Archaeology atAnkara, Cambridge.

Johnson, A. W., and T. Earle1987 The Evolution of Human Societies: From Forag-

ing Group to Agrarian State. Stanford Univ.Press, Stanford.

Johnson, G. A.1982 Organizational structure and scalar stress.

In Theory and Explanation in Archaeology, ed-ited by A. C. Renfrew, M. J. Rowlands, andB. A. Segraves, pp. 389–421. AcademicPress, London.

Kozlowski, S. K., and A. Kempisty1990 Architecture of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic

settlements in Nemrik, Iraq. World Archae-ology 21(3):348–362.

Kohler-Rollefson, I., and G. Rollefson1990 The impact of Neolithic Man on the envi-

ronment: The case of ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan. In

ranean Landscape, edited by S. Bottema, G.Entjes-Nieborg, and W. Van Zeist, pp. 3–14.A Balkema, Rotterdam.

Kramer, C.1982 Village Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press,

New York.

Kuijt, I.1994 Pre-Pottery Neolithic A settlement variabil-

ity: Evidence for sociopolitical develop-ments in the Southern Levant. Journal ofMediterranean Archaeology 7(2):41–68.

1995 New Perspectives on Old Territories: RitualPractices and the Emergence of Social Complex-ity in the Levantine Neolithic. UnpublishedPh.D. Dissertation, Harvard University.

1996 Negotiating equality through ritual: A con-sideration of Late Natufian and Pre-PotteryNeolithic A Period mortuary practices. Jour-nal of Anthropological Archaeology 15(4):313–336.

1998 When the walls came down: Social organi-zation, ideology and the end of the Ace-ramic Neolithic. In Proceedings of the Sympo-sium on Central Settlements in Neolithic Jordan:Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Sub-sistence, and Environment, edited by H. G.Gebel and H. D. Bienert, Vol. 5. Ex oriente,Berlin.

Leblanc, S.1971 An addition to Naroll’s suggested floor area

and settlment population relationship.American Antiquity 36:210–211.

Le Brun, A.1981 Un Site Neolithique preceramique en Chypre:

Cap Andreas-Kastros. Recherche sur lesGrandes Civilizations, memoire no. 5. Edi-tions A.D.P.F., Paris.

Longacre, W. A.1976 Population dynamics at the Grasshopper

Pueblo, Arizona. In Demographic Anthropol-ogy, edited by E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 169–184.Univ. of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Mahasneh, H.1995 Es-Sifyia, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic Site in Wadi

Mujib, Jordan. Paper presented at the SixthInternational Conference on the History andArchaeology of Jordan, June 5–10, Turin, It-aly.

Mellaart, J.1975 The Neolithic of the Near East. Thames and

Hudson, London.

Moore, A.1985 The development in Neolithic societies in

the Near East. In Advances in World Archae-

ology, edited by F. Wendorf and A. E. Close,

N

P

R

R

Rosenberg, M., and M. Davis

102 IAN KUIJT

Vol. 4, pp. 1–70. Academic Press, New York.Najjar, M.

1994 Ghwair I, a Neolithic site in Wadi Feinan. InThe Near East in Antiquity, edited by S.Kerner, pp. 75–85. Al Kutba, Amman.

Naroll, R.1962 Floor area and settlement population. Amer-

ican Antiquity 27:95–118.issen, H. J., M. Muheisen, and H. G. Gebel1987 Report on the first two seasons of excavation

at Basta. Annual of the Department of Antiqui-ties of Jordan 31:79–119.

log, S., F. Plog, and W. Wait1978 Decision-making in modern surveys. In Ad-

vances in Archaeological Method and Theory,edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 383–421. Aca-demic Press, New York.

apoport, A.1975 Towards a redefinition of density. Environ-

ment and Behavior 7(2):133–157.ollefson, G. O.1987 Local and regional relations in the Levan-

tine PPN Period: ‘Ain Ghazal as a regionalcenter. In Studies in the History and Archaeol-ogy of Jordan, edited by A. Hadidi, pp. 2–32.Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Am-man.

1989 The Late Aceramic Neolithic of the Levant:A synthesis. Paleorient 15(1):168–173.

1996 The Neolithic devolution: Ecological impactand cultural compensation at ‘Ain Ghazal,Jordan. In Retrieving the Past: Essays on Ar-chaeological Research and Methodology inHonor of Gus. W. Van Beek, edited by J. S.Seger, pp. 219–229. Eisenbrauns, WinonaLake, Indiana.

Rollefson, G. O., and I. Kohler-Rollefson1989 The collapse of the Early Neolithic settle-

ments in the Southern Levant. In People andCulture in Change, edited by I. Hershkovitz,pp. 73–89. British Archaeology Review, Ox-ford.

Rollefson, G. O., A. H. Simmons, and Z. Kafafi1992 Neolithic cultures at ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan.

Journal of Field Archaeology 19:443–470.

1992 Hallan Cemi Tepesi, an Early AceramicNeolithic Site in Eastern Anatolia: Somepreliminary observations concerning mate-rial culture. Anatolica 18:1–18.

Smith, P., O. Bar-Yosef, and A. Sillen1984 Archaeological and skeletal evidence for di-

etary change during the late Pleistocene. InAt the Origins of Agriculture, edited by M.Cohen and G. Armelagos, pp. 101–136. Ac-ademic Press, New York.

Thomas, J.1991 Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge Univ.

Press, Cambridge, UK.

Van Beek, G.1982 A population estimate for Marib: A contem-

porary Tell village in North Yeman. Bulletinof the American School of Orential Research248:61–67.

Watkins, T.1990 The origins of house and home? World Ar-

chaeology 21:336–347.

Watson, P. J.1982 Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology: Ar-

chaeological Ethnography in Western Iran, Vol.57. Wenner–Gren Foundation for Anthropo-logical Research, Tucson.

1995 Explaining the transition to agriculture. InLast Hunters–First Farmers: New Perspectiveson the Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture, ed-ited by T. D. Price and A. B. Gebauer, pp.21–37. School of American Research Press,Santa Fe.

Wood, J. W.1998 A theory of preindustrial population dy-

namics. Current Anthropology 39(1):99–121.

Wright, G. A.1971 Origins of food production in Southwestern

Asia: A survey of ideas. Current Anthropolgy12(4):447–476.

Young, C. T.1972 Population densities and early Mesopota-

mian Urbanism. In Man, Settlement, and Ur-banism, edited by P. J. Ucko and G. W.Dimbleby, pp. 47–66. Aldine, Chicago.

Documents

People and Space in Early Agricultural Villages: Exploring ...tuvalu.santafe.edu/~bowles/PeopleSpace.pdf · People and Space in Early Agricultural Villages: Exploring Daily Lives,