The limits ofthe body 33

ies. The boat pulled

ofheat spread through their bod
its middle was removed
wave

ashore and the cloth that covered

ng woman and the child
to reveal the body of the you
give life to the other, just
3 who had died, as one tried to
been at sea in the boat for
a few days before. They had
tomary.
three days and nights, as was cus
As the bodies were carr ied to the grave, the dan-
sound contrasting with the
The limits of the body cing intensified; the rhythmic
bodies were lowered into
c silence elsewhere. Finally the
Harris, Preston Mir rtct an’s head resting on one
Didan Bone, Oliver J. T. the ground, the young wom
the other, separated from
ndJohn Rob/I set of beads, her pelvis on
h and the wooden panels.
the ground by both the clot
n’s wing. The two paddlers
The child was laid on the swa
nt and the woman’s head
scattered ochre over the infa
ard to connect themselves
and waist. Others stepped forw
placed a flat stone under
rjtl the deceased. One person
and more ochre was placed
ic De nm ark ’ each of the woman’s ankles,
Death and the landscape in Me sol ith raised. Another placed a
beside her calves, now slightly
head, a token both of
enm ark , a gro up ham mer stone by the woman’s
About 7,000 years ago on the
coast ofD sisters) and of the
d (Pla te I). By thei r sha red connection (they were
oftheir dea ms flint from one form
ofpeople gathered to bury two e where way that a hammer stone transfor
the sea , this was a plac mer stone would help ease
an inlet running in from dug a to another. Hopefully the ham
ame sky . Her e they in the grave. Finally, the
the land became sea and sea bec pre par ed the transformation of the body
es bef ore , and ped up and selec
grave as they had done many tim The n old wom an who had told the stories step
1. Am Ghazal, 2. Aiterhofen, 3. Altamira, 4. Arene Candide, 5. Asparn-Schletz, 5• Bolkilde 7. rno, Dolni Véstonice, Pavlov,
Pedmosti, 8. Bylany, Milovice, 9. catalhoyuk, 10. Cayönü, 11. Chauvet, 12. Crickley Hill, 13. Franchthi, 14. Gobekll, 15.
wing was laid in the gra ve.
es she carried around her
it for use. First a swan’s ted one of the six flint blad Hamangia, 16. Hetxheim, Taiheim, Vaihingen, 17. Hohle Fels, Hohienstein Stadel, 18. Kostenki, 9. Cascaux, 20. Cepenski
t to it, covered
a small wooden structur e was plac ed nex of the infant she stepped Vlr Viasac 21. Mezhirich, 22. Montespan, Trois Frères, 23. Nitra, 24. Papasidero 25. Passo di Corvo, Scaloria, 26. Paviland,
end ; in the clot h’s waist. Placing it on the body 27. Porto Badisco, 28. 5. Germain La Riviere, 29. Sigersdal, Vedbaek, 30. Skateholm, 31. Star Carr, 32. Sungir, 33. Vina, 34.
with a folded cloth decorated
at one mony. The grave was
from sna il she lls, bac k, signalling the end of the cere Wilczvce, 35. Willendorf

middle, they deposited pendan

ts mad e to disperse. Now
bea ds mad e of qui ckly filled in and the mourners began Figure 8. Sites mentioned in chapter 3.
red deer and wild boar teeth, and
attache d transform them-
men t aro und it was tim e for the bodies ofthe dead to
red ochre pig birds, to spread them-
seal and elk parts. They spread , whi ch selves into stones, animals and
ur refl ecte d the sun the same time burying
the swan’s wing; the red colo selves around the landscape. At ofthe former periods display cultural variation and we do The Upper Palaeolithjc: New forms
to the wes t. ied before, marked
was beginning
to set over the land here, where others had been bur
more peo ple, incl udi ng them not Want to treat all hunters and gatherers as homogen of embodjnient
As the grave was prepared, something else: this was their
land. eons, timeless beings,5 at the scale ofthjs synthesis there
a cou ple of old er adu lts, walked up ve have been embel The ‘origins of cognition ‘ and modern humans
several children and
sea . One of the Although aspects of this narrati are features that broadly characterize the entire span.6
from the small huts stan din g clos er to the facts are supported by
s ente ring the lished, the basic archaeological Such a sense ofscale does not invalidate an approach In the global story ofhumanity, the first cognitively mod-
elders, a woman, pointed to eac h oft he item thic cemetery of Ved
She emp has ized evidence from the Danish Mesoli that centres on the body but instead mtes it more valu em hui-nai-is evolved in Africa around 200,000 years ago.
grave, telling the children about
them . burials discovered
cou ld wal k, swi m bae k-Bogebakken.2 The Mesolithic able, allowing us to link together apparently diverse his- After an extended period colonizing Africa and then other
the importance of the swan, a bird
that of the body,
real ms. She her e rev eal a concern with the boundaries tories d seqtlences to gain an understandiig of big continents, Homo sapiens sapiens appeared in Europe
nd the three and its relations with the
and fly, a bird that could transce anim al with its capabilities, its limits chaiges Huians were caught up in vo of the great around 40,000 years ago, at the beginning ofthe period
the thre e
pointed to the parts ofboar, dee r and elk, these Mesolithic people
spa ces wit h thei r world around it. The bodies of tlaflsltlQflS ofhjstoi-r
Be’een the Middle and the Upper ‘(flOwn archaeologicalli as the Upper Palaeolithjc Here
tho se relational]y
tribes that lived in land and shared vere not firm
ly hounded but were instead Palaeolithjc Europe was occupied by anatomically mod- they replaced or hybridized with indigenous Neanderthal
e stor ies man y and things
people. The children had heard thes
times.

sea and link ed, tied to other people, places, animals rn. huinais
Producing the first European art and syrn populations At about the same time or relatively shortly
, the seals in the , feeding, sharing, hunt-
They knew that swans in the sky who through histories of occupation Ol1 and the
first widespread use of burial. This is aftenvards, a suite of new things appear for the first time
peo ple
deer in the woods were peo ple like them , half of this chapter, we
they died , ing and exchange In the first suall, described as a ‘cognitive
revolution’, but it 15 in Europe:
n thic bodies came to
.

per hap s whe

they might become one day,
.

reafl ne
mine how Palaeolithic and Mesoli
i .

old peo ple did exa rise of a iie’ form of embodied human exist-
the
.

or when they donned their skins as be constituted through these

different relations. ence i
the body world of the earliest mod-
others VVnat Vas . New stone tool industries, which not only produce
.

r. As thes e stor ies and rk, cover er hu ilans

at certain times of the yea we work in the broadest framewo
. .

to the To do so, nke? Our second key nansitioi is betveei

.

of tools using new techniques but which

n turned both
began to draw to an end, their attentio
new forms
more. In this chapter, we discuss fleMe 5)’1 . .

ing 30,000 years or

Ii
dled tijc and the Neolithic, or from hunting and also show clear regional and chronological style (such
chin g. Tw o peo ple pad onw ard s,3 gati eriiig
inlet, where a boat was approa the Upper Palaeolithic from 40,
000 years ago •

to farming. This too reveals diflring forms of

hig hly as the Aurignacian, Gravettian, Sohttrea;- and Mag
—

, eac h wea ring a een the

it with intricately carved paddles and the Mesolithic, which marks the
period betw
Vlflt ras the body world of Europe’s first
al skin s patc hed the star of
t fare1t. dalenian) for the first time.
decorated cloak made of different anim end of the Ice Age (around 10,000 BC) and
on sho re beg an $)4 Although botl
. The first commoi- use ofbone tools.
together. As the boat neared, the people the Neo lith ic in Europe (cf. Figure
the gro win g
to move rhythmically, to dance and to feel

32
 and Jolin Robh The limits of the body
Duan Bone, Oliver J. T. Harris, Preston Miracle 35
34
fails
mOve scientists1 1 have shown that such a perspecti\’e them’’ (ci. Chapter 2 ). Upper Palaeolithic and ?\leso in created hounded settlements. Burial Cft)es flOt seem
. New 1tnting techniques. engagement lithic Europeans iia’ have been ‘anatomically modern’
tO ne\\ to capture the embodied nature of peoples to ha\’e been used to create obvious, visible and lasting
. The extension of humaflitys terfltOflal Faflgc through the body, not outside in comparison with Neanderthals, hut their bodies were
with the world. We think links between particular groups and territories. Ritual was
Cfl\11OflflCfltS, piiflC1P1Y flOrthWaUdS tO Vast S\\atlle
of it (see Chapter 1 and Chapter 2). in fact, a purely developed through their experience of landscape. Corn- certainly a part of life, hut there are virtually no labour-
of fl()fthCt1 Eurasia. in reality pared \\‘itlI their Neolithic successors, they were tall with
Neanderthals cognitive view separates the body from histoi intensive ritual sites (the possible exceptions are French
. 1’he first widespread burials; although and if an average height coiiiparahle to historic Europeans, an
hctrial is more CO1fl the body is formed by social/material relations,’2 and Spanish painted caves, and even these vere probably
sOffletiIfles buried their dead,’ Palaeolithic adaptation costly in calories hut useful for both traveling
elaborated in the we were to raise a modern newborn iflfaflt in used spotadicallv by small groups rather than conti,uiallv
fllOfl, less ambiguous afld more from us cognitively and aii huntiiig. They suffered from fractures fiiirly corn-
sociefl, she would not OfllY differ and intensively). To the extent that space corresponds to
Upper PalaCOIitIic. JIR)i1IV, probably fioin both conflict and accidents such as
froii culturally hut also in her vei’ body.’3 social reflexes, the traditional anthropological picture of
. The hrst pet-sonal ornaments, known principally ‘revolu tilIs. Yet they w’ere relatively free from infections, typic-
shell and stone heads Thus, we suggest that the Upper Palaeolithic people living in fluid, open social networks is probably
burials in the form of
such tiOO’ WaS fundamentally about a form of cognitiOli all’ a malady of sedentism and population aggregatk)n, accurate. \Ve get the impression of a society with little
The first art’, principall in small handheld forms
not
.
new
StOflC artefacts, separated from the body, hut it was instead about their teeth were longer-lasting than farmers thanks to rel concern for rigid boundaries, formalized structures and
as incised designs on hone, ivory aOd ways of engaging with ati\’elv low’ cart,ohyclrate consumption, there is little sign
forms of embodied thinking, new fixed places, in ylicl most important things happen out
hut also including three- di mensional caiiflg5 such
as
I() of malnutritiOn cr childhood stress amongst them, and
figurines’ and paintings such as the world through new social and material relations. ck)ors in locales which are found rather than constructed,
the famOUs ‘Venus the
Lascaux, (Thauvet Altamira impose at least some boundaries on the scope of overall they seem to have lived longer than their farming w’ith the landscape as a participant in human action rather
the famous examples from
book, we refrain fiom comi1enting upon Neanderthal descendants.’5 than a backdrop to it.
and other caves in France and Spain. hotly The landscape produced embodied experiences as w’ell
body worlds, not least because of the different and Secondly, when people did place iconography in the
regard.’1 What as physical bodies. Upper Palaeolithic people lived in cul
these contested nature of the evidence in this landscape, the major focus vas 1ll)t humans per se but
For many \‘cars. archaeologists ha\’e read Mesolithic tural places, ilOt in abstract, ecologically functional space.
as evidence for new is certain is that the Upper Palaeolithic and animals. The French and Spanish painted caves, with their
changes as a cognitive revolutiofl, idea of \Vhereas Neanderthals (and indeed earlier hominids and
whether developed arc the first periods in which we can get a clear amazing art of animals, are the 1TR)st obvious example,
capacities for thinking symbolically, Etiropeans inhahited.1 ‘e now’ flofl human primates) had habitually frequented spaces,
the body worlds ancient bt.it other fbrms such as small carvings and engravings
ind1eflOUsh or introduced by new ‘anatomically niod through which this perhaps with a stable sense of ‘home’, something new’ is
Upper turn to several key forms of action of animals found over a broader area than painted
em’ peoples expanding from the Near East. The
—

going 011 spatially u-i the Upper Palaeolithic. For example, caves, and often found on habitation sites would have
happened in the mind, not in hodx world was created.
Palaeolithic ‘revolutiOR
—

Neanderthals do not seem to have cached tools w’ith the loomed much largerin eveniclavexperience. In fact, anirn
a special role in
the body Art in particular has played iPtefltlOfl of returning to the same place: ‘the tempor als were referenced in many other \x’ays. For example, at
.

Venus figur Bodies and places

these arguments. Early Upper Palaeohthic
have Archaeologists have traditionally understood Palaeolithic alit of action changes as places for future action are Milovice in the Czech Republic,21 Kostenld in Russia,22
ines such as the Venus of Willendorf ( Figure 1 2 ) crc.itct1’.’t It is only after about 40,000 ($ that people
ofhumanitys new engagemeflt peoples through w\’() master discourses the closely inter and s4ezhirich in the Ukraine,23 people actually lived in
long stood as the svmhol tools
t\ViOed topics of subsistence and mobility and stone
iii l1rf)pe began to create architecturally elaborate home htits built of unaminotli hones sometimes decorated with
vith the world. RepresentatiO1al and abstract art such
as ,

Both in\’Oh’e embodiment. We begin here with subsist bases. burial sites and places of ritual. It is certain that red paint a \vay ofunderlining the symbolic importance
Chauvet Cave
the famous horse images from Lascaux or
—

this fle\\’h’ emerged cultural landscape had embodied

ence and mohihtV. of the mamnn)th and its relation to humans and their
cannot (it has been argtted) have been produced without dimi iis. Fundaiental to an’ cultural taskscape are
to reach All Palaeolithic and lvlesolithic people xvere lmnter landscape.
the frill trappings of the human mind, an ability ovel Connect i( )fl5 between places, times, work and food; and
physical setting and talk about gatherers they lived in small groups spread thinly
beyond the immediate rounds the laiilscape of early Europeans, like that of many eth
other anim the landscape imwing in sophisticated seasonal Embodied knowledge and identity
abstract concepts, things and places. Unlike
,

different resources hecam I, 0,i dj icallv k;iown hunter- gatherers, would have been
tO hUtit, gather and fish as The other master discourse of Palaeohthic and Meso
‘
things
als, oUt species could now talk to each other of stron l\ structured by seasonal changes fhis seasonal
available. Rightly or wrongly, we normally understan lithic archaeology is stone tools, niostl\’ because these
beyond the day-to-day, of gods and 1TOn5tef5, of hopes
.

needs, regi n . )uld also have been a sensory, culinary and work
might this landscape mohih as motivated by ecological comprise the vast majoritY of archaeological finds from
and dreams, of future and past. The human body thit regiti
incarflat1O1 5 hut and it was such an effective w’av of maldng a living this period rather than because of any dominant role
oiil be subtly different from prevll)Us than the entire history of 0! r it i’ cjiJfcijlt without ethnographic pas
it lasted many times longer they had in social life. As archaeologists have traditionally
‘
to
new world say iwore

the mind it housed was of a different order, a

.

hunter-gathe rer landscap s i ic summer disiaersal

of snall fäinily groups to
trming world up to now. But t,cl- recognized, the Upper Palaeolithic saw the emergence
could he created. tb y t
are not equivalent to highly dispersed supermarkets gatli est products,
the long dark evenings of story- of regional and chronok)gical styles of stone -working 24
anc ,i. long
winter aggregation in grup hunting camps
are symbolic landscapes as well, rich in animal and tellinu
±\ithottgh it is now’ clear that there are variations and
legends. 1( nd without over-generalisation across such
Embodied toragers traY spirits, memories, and myths and Perh,t1) changes within I1iddle Palaeolithic ‘Mousterian’ stone-
1ti-J-;,rie5
This w’a\, of life, so different from ours, was ne’ hroaö long spans of time and varied environ- w’orlung, these remain small in scale for 250,000 years. In
This widely held point of view is problematic. The idea IncuR
theless as embodied as that of the modern citv-dwe’
hut \\‘e can make flvo further observations
about comparison, the Upper Palaeolithic is a mosaic of differ-
that cognition exists free ofthe body is based upon philo it r UPper l’,teJitlic and Mesolithie landscapes which hold
growing plump and near-sighted at his colTipUter ent traditions, particularly after 33,000 \‘ears ago.2 This
sophical assumptions originating in Plato and other Clas tr tic
ti tor
ll except a few late deveh)pments at the yen’
minal, merging seamlessly with her car a1)ngst suggests a new’, comm unity- based rd ationship between
sical philosophers and codified in the Enlightenment. hetweel’
nd ot tJl !tter
Descartes’ tamous maxim, ‘I think thereftre I am’, p05- or crammed in on the suhwav, and ftow’ing ‘ period. First, in contrast With the land- people and learned technological traditions.
beer and ‘()flstructed by later Europeans, they seem very
tastes ofcoffee and concentratio1 at w’ork, lo’. Although archaeologists have regularly tlmglit about
its a disembodied intellect; the cognitive revolutiOi’ at ktcflhted \\‘ithin sites, architecture tends to he
view transplants this view of intelligence into our Upper vivialifl at the pub, and champagne and celehrati° re! ativ( l\ stone tools in terns of abstract cognition, they often thr
l’ d rrnaJ and generalized, with little attempt
Palaeolithic ancestors. The’ are defined by a new ahil New Year’s. The most direct evidence of this is the t 0 cr
at ix etiti\’ely
•
get that every’ stone too] w’as produced by eves seeing,
ies of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europeans thems ‘ fbriyialized space.2° 1’here is little
.

by people learning fron others and by the subtle and

ity to think, a consciousness floating free from the world. ‘flV5tt., . It
jj-, large
Bodies do OOt precede social relations hut develop structures, in cieating fixed places or
\\
decisive mO\efl1eOt of human l1ands.2’ In fact, at several
Critiques from philosophers, nhooo° and cog-
 n Robb The limits of the body 37
ris, Preston Miracle and Joh
1)uan Bori, Oliver J. T. Har
36 I
were not simply about new’
I I ,
,

New technologies, therefore, ‘ ‘

ut new traditions o)fshap

Tr
,T1TT
co)gninve abilities; they were abo s
1?,
—,
to) use it in new specific \vay
A p ,

\l\
\\‘

lug the bO)dV aiwi o)tlearning \Ili

,,_ ,

-1
ifference to) emerge.
that allowed new kinds ofd , ‘

Ornamenting the self per

body turns up in ian\’ L’p
,

,,‘

Bevo)nd food ai1 to)o)ls, the iest

Jew’ellen’ dates to) the earl
Palaeolithic inno)vatio)ns.
,

)hthic, the Aurignacian. Typ

ic- -

perio)d o)tthe l..’pper Palaeo

1-

n)an)n )o)t h ivo)f y, but orn a S

ally peo)ple iade heads from

S

animal teeth and she lls.3 2 1b

nients w’ere also carved from reg ular ly
- V

ds begin appearing
After 33,t)OO years ago), bea l-
I’
ng sites, and henceforth bur
—‘

in graves as well as at livi

‘V

als arc the co)n)mo)nest find

-spot far o)rnan)ents.33 For
example, a voting \vo)man
who) lived about 19,000 wears
‘I/f
rc near Bo)rdcaux in France
ago) at Saint-Cermain-la-Rivië
Her burial, recently reana
[ I
/%
w’as buried in a mdc shelter.
I,
O
rrico,34 was accompanied by “N

leaf point lysed by Vanhaeren and d’E e

Figiire 9. Ostentatious skill
and size: Soltitrean laurel se’entv-flve o)f which wer
C ‘I’rustees of the Briti sh IViu seum I. at least eighty-six objects, hin g. -‘N’
ti-ni-n France ç 1eneth 2$ .2cm ) ( o no)w’-van ishe d clot
ornan)ents probabh’ sewn ont
ne xve re red deer canine teeth with
of these, scvcnn’-o) //
; the o)thers incitided three
holes drilled thro)ugh them
France, careful excavation steatite bead. Fascinatinglv
sites in L\iagdalenian pCrJOd s perforated shells aiwl a single
learned lcnapping tcchnicie ie fro)nl n)o)re than 30t
) Figure 1 1. Red deer skull cjr\’ecj into a mask, Star Carr, York-
has revealed how children the deer alfllO)st certainly can
•1 / ‘,,,,,fl,fl, C(h,

uiring emt)d1ed skills.27

,,,,,

Spa in.3 5 shire, Lfljai)d ( (( (aiiihi-ide Museoiti of ArcIiaeolo’ and

fiom thcif elders, gradually acq ss the Pvrcnees in
kilo)metres to) the 50)0th acro
—

An th ropo1u’).
es ot StOfle tools ienrioned Wfl in aln)o)st all regions
The histoiicaflv \an’in styl of social Ornaments arc sin)ilarlv kno) Fiti I 0. The famous triple burial tro)nl the Giavettian site of
‘ere nOt consciotts badges ic burials are luow’n, fii
1)fe\iOUsl\ probably vherc niai’ l.’pper Palacolith DOJN Sloflice, Czech Republic (after Gamble 1 999 hg 7.19;
\‘ar\’in local traditions of burials in Liguria. In ano)the
identity, but resulted fioi flint- instance anongst Crawettian
iedi . “i , h\’ Vicki Herring).

lfl)W to) carr OUt the hab

itual gestures involved in ia, one burial found at Brr
u
burial-rich region, i\Io)rav
ned by inculcated practice 600 I)cntrrtiitnz she lls.3 places far away frO)n) where she was buried Wild) we do)
knappine traditions determi was accompanied by morc than
int or the necessities ofknap
—

lnI \‘esto)nice a triple hur

i howv the
lle\’i ‘nd tills, the o)rnanlel)t evidence suggests no)t asstlJ))e that peo)ple were alienated fro)m their mater-
rather than by the nature offl In the same region, at 1)o
e the long flint blades found adolescent males on either
side of a hO)d i as di\’idecj in parts and hounded The location o)f lal w’orjds such O)hjects maw not he clearly separated from
ping. People learning to mak
.

ds of bone included tWO)

burials in Italy,25 or new kin the anjj])als they come from, the places they were acquii-ed
bab ly femal heae headgear at I)olnI \“CStO)flice, O)r the ivory arm
il-i some Gravettian , though pro
s, person 0)1 indeterminate sex
r bodies in particular way The bodies on the o)utside xver
e accon and 1e iings in Liguriaii burials, suggest that people were and the perso)n wilt) flow’ \\‘ears them Thus, thro)ugh
and antler tools, shaped thei
.

rial in a man ner that was ( Figure 1 flOt dei ‘fJling the hod)’ at rando)nl; they were signalling the yo)ung wo)man’s body was not lImited
learning tO) work with the iate IVO)1V and canine pen
dants. Shell ornamen O)rllamentatio]),
panied
kin ds of bodily practices could likely SCW1) onto) caps
anl att1 wards particulai- parts O)f it. Moreo\’er, O)rna to) the skin, but extended acro)ss time and space and linked
culturally specific. Siiilar in vere also) included, mo)st ment ))(j clothing create a ‘second skin’, hlul]•i1)g the
erent materials, particularly w’ith a particular animal. In fret, the use O)fdress and O)rna
also) be applied tbro)ugh diff ts
35
d habitual bo)dilv mo)vemen hooJJ)Li)i.les hetw’een the ho)dy and the world they give melit to) him- categories is even clearer with antler front-
the Aurignacian, sc repeate \Vhat do acts ofdecoratio)n tell
us? Whilst the eviderc
tl bchj\’ surflce
e and 1\on’ fbr cxaiplc, this regard is growing,
t linking it to) the world aro)ttfld it, by lets, fhuf)d ill north-w’estei.l) Euro)pe tho)usands O)t ‘ears
could be applied to bo)th ston , for Neanderthal behaviour in gi\1fl
in the pro)ductio)n o)f var
ious kinds o)f beads.29 Indeed pared to) whathappens afte
r tie qualities such as co)lo)ur afld texture, and rekr later in the earlier MesO)lithjc44 These are po)rtions of deer
Fig - remains small in scale com Cflces t , terials, qualities and places.41 Upper Palaeo)
utrean spear points ( )’ hum skulls shaped SO) that humans could wear them as iiiasks.
making exquisite-flaked Sol . XVere ‘lTlo )der) :

e arrival O)f EloiflO SaJ)iL’flS sapicns hithi pet

ngth, patience and intricat rthal predecessows? In
ic paid attentio)I) to) the cjualities and pro)perties The n)o)st famo)us examples are fro)m Star Cart, England
ure 9 ), which took skill, stre simply \‘ainer than thei r Nea nde t the malei.iajs they
formative way o)f enacting flo)W nore regularly a sc ic \\‘ilted with, drawing O)ut the shine ( Figure 11 hut O)thers are know’ji tro)m German)’. Ihey
),
planning. i-nay have been a per sense, yes. Fhe bo)dv w’as i) 1\’or\
ut eatite and hone thl-o)ugh P0)llShing.42 Mar- may have served to) ritually transfo)rm the body into) so)me
nts were made ab
,

the valued qualities of ma1eness.3 fo)r display, a place where stateme 1fle Shells slid) as
fhese new techno)logics hin
t at the w’avs in which w’o)re and liow yO)U wor.
it um, ddentali iniporte fiw inland, “o)uJd thing xvhich x’as neither deer nor human, drawing 0)1)
identity through what von 12\e cai
bodies in culturally con- erence; they were voi COi)1)o)tatio)1)s O)f fiw-away places, travels or ideas o)t multinatolj-aljsjl) discussed in Chapter The
people learned to) shape their Ornaments created bodily diff ex1)21)
ng technology had always tive items ar e rare en
ith distant neiJ7ho)o[ls use of ornaments in the Upper Palaeo)lithic and Meso
stitutcd manners. Sto)nc-wo)rki varying ways, and these decora Orli
lieleaii ai1 Levallo)is not everyone was we
iC)IS and clo)thing iiade from animal materials lithic hints at a w’o)rld in syhich the project O)f the body
been an elYibO)died act; the earlier Ac that they certainly suggest that SUcl) as r ca1Ii)e teeth \vo)uld have held siniflcai)ce in
strength, appreciation of lies distinctions o)f p
Vet \vas flOW actively w’orlced upon, adjusted, decorated and
techno)logies rejuired dexterity, them. XVhether or no)t this imp
tOl.J))5
planning. Itt the as ve have done in all
11k and human relatio)ns displayed, and in which the body vas not clearly asso)ci
Svn)metry aiwl aesthetics, and fo)rw’ard
t1’- )fJes ()fhtiiits, places
s\’It)I
and statots,4 people now ils. ‘he deer teeth at
—

)ductio)n through canS I

did iiot invo)lve the kinds of identity pl-o loy the body as a n ated vith a single place or a single species, nor necessai.ihr
the technologies of
sequent pelio)ds sought to) emp
—
fl1cJ) I a iJ))(. fiO1]] Spain connect the yO)ung W’o)I))an to) [30)01 nded at the skin.
embodied diffirence that emerged in O)t social distinction aiwl
co)Ininunicatlo)n.
hone tools.1
the Upper Palaeolithic. The same is true for
 The limits of the body 39
ton Miracle and John Robb
Dugan Bone, Oliver J. T. Harris, Pres
38
particular life his- t0)ufld aiid which left little archaeological trace.5 Body
in ochre. fhe choice C)t PefSi)S vith
Burying the body that these burials parts were SO)metil-fles kept as disti•ibuted relics acco)Jfl
flCW attention to to)ries, the use ofbeads and ochre, hints
Fhe new project of the body in’oIved ‘ere in)po)rtant or perhaps special.52
All the rest of the panying groups as they mo’ed, and were used on o)cea
for Upper Palaeo)lithic 510)1) fO)r personal O)rflamentatio)J).°’° fliis pattern contin
bcii.ying the dead. Our e\ideflce rema ins which may
‘burials’ at these sites are scattered
-

burial (as tot almost everythin

g else in this peflO)d ) is to) beco)nle dis ties in the MesO)liti)ic with tile exeeprio)n ofa few nO)tahle
co)n)e tiOfl) burials which were
allowed
areas of space and time.
patcl-iy and spread wer huge tiii-bed. in fact, the vast majority ofthe dead
in the Upper cases.” When \VhO)le burials are discovered in tile ‘1eso)-
derthal burial is clear. lithic, such as t]le ‘shajiiaii’ burial at Bad Durrenberg
Nevertheless, a chanoe from Nean buried in a single
d their dead only occa Palaeolithic and the P\lesolithic were not
Neanderthals seem to have burie place.b3 instead. their hones are found scattered in
caves, (iefll)alw, it is clear these are particular peop]e marked
caching the body in caves
siona1Jv when they did simply r grav es. The dead out ill particular ways.62 Maintaining the body’s Otnity in
Upper PaIaeo)lithlc in the fills O)f pits, and as part of othe
w’ithout recognizable grave gO)O)dS.46 weie tragnented, n)ixed and scatt
ered; SO)1T IC bO)fle S were death required special and went against the
measures,
istetlv and in more
people buried their deaci mo)re cons 110011 O)t dispersing tile hO)d\’ O)Ut i1)to) the iaiidscape.
rtant to) note that this retained amongst the living.
elaborate \Tars, though it is impo gh n)o)st burl- The iiieniorv o)t particular illdj\’id]jals was probably rel _j

Similar patterns occur elsewhere, thou

--

the arrival O)f modern

is flflt something that begins with r than O)Cfl air sites. 10) ativeiv SilO)rt-lived, as 0)pposed to) a mre diffttse asso)ci
rathe r several tJ)otsand als ar e known from caves rathe
llun)ans o)flto) the continent, but cave in Italy corn- atiO)Il beflveeil generalized gio)up ancestry and a broad
29,000 years ago.4 take a famous example, Arene Candide (a) (b)
years after their arrival from around er Palaeolithic,54 landscape. The conlparativelv few’ co)mplete burials we
n burials at 1)olnI tains burials spanning n)o)st o)f the Upp
The classic examples are the Gravettia Upper Palaeo have excavated reflect a rare event, for unusual indjvjdoi
including a cemetery at the very end ofthc
\estonice, Pavlov and Brno in 1\4o
Europe. for instance, at Paviland
also) a substantial group oflate Vppcr
ravia, and elsewhere in
Cave in Wales.48 There is
Palaeo)hthic burials
lithic where twenty individuals were
dating to) 24,000 years ago) is
burie
of a youn
d.55
g man
One burial

with hundreds of perfoi

laid on
ais or Ill special circunlstances. Even SO), the treatuleilt
0)1 the hod’ w,e fiuid in this sllO)w’s hO)w it was composed
throtigll citatio)ns to) their qualities, places and especially
‘-‘41
at sites such as Arene Candide in Ligu
ria and Papasidero a bed 0)f oehre wearing a cap
d
I
hed, mammoth iVO)fl allill)ais.
tion o)f burial con- ated red deer teeth and shells attac
Cave in Calabria, and the general tradi ns made O)f elk
1eSO)lithiC cemeteries pendants, perforated and decorated bato
tinues UflbrO)kefl right to) the few bIad e.50 But such An and bodies human, animal and in between
antler and a 23-centimetre long flint
—

kno\vn such as Vedbaek (see earli

er discussion). These ‘Ai t is often cited as tile ultimate trump card pro)ving
wealth ofa ‘prince’
ps of single bun treatn)ent certainly does not reflect the
burial sites generally iflVO)l\’e sn)all gro)u istically and misleadiugh thai Upper Palaeoiithic Europeans had the same ability to)
their back, some- (as this individual has anachro)n
als, mostly co)n)nlonlv laid o)ut prone 0fl s us rather an unusualh tIllilk villholicaiiv as w’e do today, unlike their Neander
7ing. red ochre. heel) named ). Instead, it shov
titHes with ornaments ( aHd no doubt clotl h the body is fraieo thaI edecesso)rs. Boit what does this tell us about human
‘ r

elaborate ritual no)nent, one in whic

‘

tO)O)lS and ritual parapheriulia.

Occasional burials were bodes? Whether or not art indicates new’ co)gnitive cap-
ngh additiO)HS am
ir in Russia vhere and related to) the world arornnd it thror
extremely elaborate, fr instance at Sung ho)’ the decorateS abilities and ho)tll sides have been argued63 ), it suggests
a vet\’ unusual citations. \Ve have already discussed
tWo chilclien vere bcitied head to head in ess o)f dividing th a ilew Coiiceiji Witll tile body. Neanderthals made no sur
’ beads, pro)b cap in other burials begins the proc
burial, accompanied b’ tho)usands of ivon co)nnect it wii I VlVl1) ‘‘presentatio)l)s 0)fthejr 0)W’fl O)J O)ther bodies; after
rs o)f strai ghte ned n)am bO)dy into) parts, bO)W the red deer teeth
ably 5CW1) 0)1) tO) clothing, spea as w’e suggested speck
40,Oti hoinlans in Europe left us numerous depic
iade frO)fl) ivo)r\’, o)ther anln)als and places, and how’, (c)
iiioth tusk, anin)al carvings and pins led life, deaih
tl0)J),
latively in the vignette, o)chre ma have recal
bracelets and pierced antler ro)ds.49 further con ‘J H0 which tO)regrootllds
)IlC gente o)f Paiaeolithic art Figure 1 2. vC1lOtS’ hgUlilles. A. WiJIetidorf Austria ( r Naturilis
hic and i\Ieso) and blood. Here to)o) the elk antler suggests
fhere is niuch no)re to l1pper Palaeolit the pend ants 0)1 iiiaii’
tIle ij i 11)y
bOd clear and emphatically is ‘Venus’ fig-
ly torisehes Museum Wien, photo: Alice Scllunlachej-) B. KO)Stellki,
inhumations; in nectioHs \itl) other anin)als, as do) Russia ( photo courtesy ot Ii]a Janilc). C. Late Magdalcnian tclllale
lithic dealings with the dead than Sin)ple s had histo ries an I uriii0 ‘ hich are found acro)ss Europe from France to)

iber 0)1 burials known mO)th l\’O)rV. Such niaterials and thing Roisi
plaqotettes froill Witczvce, PO)tand (Pledo)rczul( et al. 2007, fig. 3;
tact, the relatively sial1 total nuiy ulated people
I ‘oire 12
). TCJ)0i figurines (tile naille is ana of Arcllaeo)h)gy and Ethnology, Polisll Acade1ll’ of
were technologies O)f n)emo)rv, they stim
(( IllStittjte
disp osed of in other,
suggests that nlo)st of the dead were
cilrQ and wildly inappropriate, hut we seem to)
rate the do 1 draw’in by Ewa Gumiiska). See Plate VIh for
I
Scieiiccs, allO)tiler
take the i\io)ra\ian recall particular past events.57 But w’lw deco
archaeologicalh’ in\’isible ways. 10) the project of w t)’ be sti. viii) it) are small Stone o)r ivor figures O)f exatllple.
more than thirty joist as well as the living? Clearly
o)pen-air sites as an example, parts of ‘bio)lo)g’ II’ \VOJllej LI tiilg particuiarly frO)m the Gravettian peno)cI.
I \ëStOnice, with ing on the bO)d\’ did not co)n)e to) an end with Iiie 11W, 1
bo)dies have been recovered from 1)oln ng the ol Cl o)f tile Venuses is co)ntro)versial Altho)ugh
Pavlov. At these death; the’ continued into the future. By placi
another three from the nearby site of
ily J
Candide a Cl claimed to) represent fertility, Women at with breasts. A third canon, found across the no)rthern
clo)se to) hearths, in significant locales, like the ca’es at Arene
sites, peo)ple vere boned within huts,
al.1O)015
I \‘CStOfll -C eso f their li\es6 and self-portraits of preg Luro)pean plain tro)m Belgium to) Poland, sho’s a iluman
Saint-Germain-la-Riviëre 0)f the hoits at Doln
‘
the nearby site
placing the dead close to the iiving. At retur ned to) repe ateCl in
1ilt (Jiejl,’ ilclle O)fthese is ftilly co)lwincing, particu
figure with breasts and prominent buttocks in side view’;
le xvere discovered in places which hunter-gatherers il’ 101- ili
O)f Pedt;osti, up to) twenty peop peo) ple ho all Russian aild ukiaiIia1l figurines. There is flO) these were Illade in ivory, hone, and remarkably, chipped
)Ver, O)nh six the cornrse oftheir seasonal peregnllatlo)Hs —

1Cas017 \Vi)v 1lle,

double burials and a mass grave.° Mo)reo ed bO)diC S tO 1)101st have a single interpretation. What flint.67 Iii all cano)ns, any attellpt to) depict iildividttal
I Vèstonice are to) bind the fluid social relatio)ns that creat Ill0j. l(Va1lt
o)f the burials’ froin Pavlov and 1)oln ilere is the body is depicted, rather
hoii’ ity (fbr instance, via detailed ficial features or dress) is
e were quite particular kinds of places. ti1l \vii -
complete mhun)atio)ns; all are adults. Thes al’ has ittlC . IS depicted flle \7enuses flI ilitO) distinct s’l extremely rare, and entire 1.egiolls O)f the body hands,
The point is that Upper Palaeolithic ‘buri
—

o)nice single ‘Stic cafl),1. .

unusual, therefore. All three O)ftlle 1)olnI \7est as a “ a as LeroI-(,o)olrllall (( showed iong ago). West- feet, even arills and legs are minimal o)r absent.
to do) with burial as we often understand it,5
—

en1
s, each
burials appear to) have been quite particular persn
-

tile il)o iral LurO)pean exalllples eiliphasize a ro)und Httlllans turn tip ill O)ther forl)s Palaeo)lithic port-
reco)gnizing individual stattis o)r preserving
o)f

dle body full b°1

with healed cranial traunia. Sin)ilarly the fl)id 111 linent breasts and hutto)c]cs. Russian able O)f “mo)hilialy” art in different w’ays. In the extens
a of individual dead. MO)St peo)ple
were probably dh ‘ afld k111111111 P10)1l — —

and
of the triple burial had a deft)rn)ed right tèiiir

r rites which dissoi\e

i lie
at•ic
ples exam are o)ftefl much 1))O)r schem we groups o)fsmail hone aild stO)fle carvings from France,
in the tripl e O)f through expostire 0)r o)the ,
-
-
no)tahte curvature o)f the spiie. Each skull annttai 1b
iig T lOst abstract comsisting O)f a rod-lute body Spain and Italy, about 200 illiages have been identified as
al perso n, x’as covered dead into) the broad landscape of the
burial, aiwl the groin of the centr

j
 n Robb The limits of the body
ris Preston Miracle and Joh
Duan Bori, Oliver J. T. Har
40
ago, at to) their bodies differently, in ways typical O)t humans
art dates to 1 $,00t) and 1 O,t)OO years
between
out stan ding since. For the first time, there is clear and widespread
the height of the ice Ages,
hut there are
evidence O)f peo)ple customizing their bodies to) partic
(e.g. Chauvet Cave ) and
examples from both earlier ular social ro)les and identities thro)ugh dress and o)rna
around Palermo, Sicily).
later (e.g. the late examples from /i flleI)ts; teaching them group-specific, histO)ricaljy co)ntex
as made for quite varying
Palaeohthic cave art certamly tualized skills; nianipulating the bodies O)f the dead to
ges, particularly
but it is dominated by animal ima dissol\e peo)ple iflto) their landscapes and to) co)I1)n)emo)r
ials including bears, deer,
naturalistic depictions of anin figure 4. ( j’c art hybrids t1C)fll Les irois Frrc5 ( flist and third) ate unustiaJ people; and abstracting varied qualities from
m oths.
bison an n)chs, rh inos and mam
,
.ind Lascaux Jiiddlc), Fi-ance (redrawn by \TicJ(j Herring) them as relevant to) dit}èrent situations
t in painted caves in two
Yet the human body is presen XVe would iiot speak o)ta revo)lut1o)fl’ in emhodimcj)t;
interactio)ns with the
art.
ways. One is through luiman human histo)r\’ tends to) show co)ntinuit\r and change
ic cO)Yltelfl than rigid.77 Similarly, son)e millennia later, in the Meso
s of images for aesthet
These were hot gallerie inseparably (Chapter 9). \Vith emerging evidence fir
‘art’; tliey were flickering lithic, hunter-gather. at Lepenslcj rir 0)1) the banks
plation in the mo)dern sense o)f Neandert])al buriajs8° and o)Inaments,5t it may he an
ote places frequented rim- O)t the I)anuhe in Serbia’5 caned boulders to) represent
presences u-i special, dark, rem O)\’erstatej])el)t to) claim there was a llIstO)fIcal rupture
sometimes adding hybrid human-fish beings (see Figure 1 7). The boulders
ally, peo)ple interacted with
,

40,000 years ago). BLIt it is clear that the changes that

(such as the Montespan at Lcpenski XTir connected in part to) funerary rituals,
to) them or even stabbing them did take place were not o)nly in how’ people thought; they
tralian or African rock appear to) capture another ft)rn) O)t bo)diJy nletan)o)rpll
horse71 ) and like animals in Aus were in llo)w they tho)ught thro)ugh, or vith, their bodies.
ered living O)f spirit beings. osi, one in which hunlai)s heco)me fish, perhaps in the
art they may have been co)nsid
art is that it taught young of dying.79
One intcrpretatio)n o)f animal
act
k game eftèctively pro) V’e WO)uld draw several cO)flcljsio)J-s from this rapid fhe hod)’ W’OrJd of early human tO)fagers
hunters hO)W’ to) o)bserve and trac
jecting them into) an imagm
ary scene of an embodied rc ie O)f Palaelitl)jc and Mesolithic art.
ded to) be A body \‘O)Ild is a set of assumptio)l)s about vhat kind o)f
tiybr id acti vity fo)r which their eves and hand nee , ( )ntrary to) srereo)7pes, human
do not infre
bodies thing the hod3’ is, co)mbifled with discotirses and prac
blade tiwgient ) shosving manic theory, that animals
Figure 1 3. Engraved s1)rIIder
il case, France ( Is1usée trained.2 Another is the sha iently appear in Palaeolithic art, and not O)nly in tices which make the hod’ a generator O)fsocial meanings
which humans could enter
male figur e, thm \1as d’Az
1tman/animaI
e, Paris , drawn by \‘ickj 1-lerring ). forned part 0)1 a spirit world Venus figurines. They are directly represei)ted in 5ev- and relatjo)ns (Chapter 2). We looking stable,
cheo logie Nati onal
ions during altered states
are no)t at a
d’Ar
thro)ugh shamanic transformat eral ways, signified h handprints, implied in scenes defined and esscntialized o)hject hut at a set of ‘cultural
of co)nsciousness.7 If so,
humans may he present iii thc.
etc1 line dra win gs, nor - ar li1\Ol\’jflg animals and as hybrid hun)an-ai)i1))als reperto)iles’ or reflexes 0)1) which people could draw’.82
1iians. fhcse are typically s1c animals 0)1) cave walls.
fhe most direct reminder ofhum
or who le bod ies fion i the side, a er cav es. The s . I ever, whereas animals tend to) be represej)ted
.‘ Can we talk abo)ut an Upper Palaeo)litl)icMeso)litl)ic body
n-ially depicting hea ds uvet and oth
fro i the niii ch mo re presence is handprints at Clia ( )b Ously and O)fteii quite naturalisticaIl, huilai)s are WO)rld? Aithotigi) the evidence is inevitably mo)re frag
der ive pain t aw
mode of Vision vhich na’ ering the hand in
vere produced either by cov represei)ted co)nringejitfi to) a particular situatio)1), as
)HS anim al rep rese ntat ion s. StOfle plaques fiom l, or more usually by stencillin
lflefltai-y than one W’O)Uld like, we can perhaps outline
O1iITICR
anii a1s aiki gCO iip rinting it O)fltO) the vaf tielpants but not necessarily the SO)le o)r rigidly sonic general features which appear mo)stly by contrast
e portray the hand, perhaps by blowin
g.
Gerian\’ and l\4oravia likewis around the O)Utsidc of
\vit h a few line dra \vin s of inimans in fou nd. Fla ndp rini dti )ed pro)tago)nists in the Sto)rjes narrated by art; w’ith later periods.
metrical desins Tubular finger niarks in clay are
also)
hard to classify. mixing liunian th hunt animals and they transt)rf)) into animals, 10) start with everyday practices and routines, little
profile included. Some are sen t by abs trac ting a single gesture as
s (Fig ure 1 3). Sin i1ar 1v, make the body pre aii e en the predo)mjj)al)t visual style fbr line draw- energy seems to) have been spent co)nstructing formal-
and animal features and posture a fixed sign O)f the whole bod
y’s presence.
\Vestern Lurope depict
anim iIig 1presefltatIJ) in profile rather than fro)fltally) is ized spaces substantial ho)uses and ritual sites, hounded
nted directly but ambig
—

from
Humans may also be represe
small ivors’ car vii s
few nix human and to CSSf ally geared to) representing aflimals. O)r fortified Settlements, internally differentiated architec
als almost cxc 1us ive1 \’ tho ugh a
O)Usly. As mentio)ned earl
ier. a number ofimages seem . Aji I) )o1h the human body is present in art, it Is
, suc h as the so-c al]e d Lio n L’vlan im ac, ture. Thjs prO)bahly does not simply reflect the needs
animal characteristics show human-animal hybrids. fhe
most fan ous
y ( Plate Via). An ivory l).Ilhljcl in highly varied ways according to) the sitti 0)1 a JflO)hjlC lifestyle hut a sense of sO)cia] space as well.
Hoh iens tein Sta del, Ger man s Frè res cav e, has been critici d
from
dvs plas ic facia ’ fea the ‘sorcerer’ fiom Iroi ati } With Venus figurines, there ai-e several Stereo)typicallv, hunter-gatl;ei.ers have loose, flexible
OH1CC wit h aeologists, but anot 1.
figurine from 1)olnf \CSt as heavily reconstructed by arch \\a s f dividil)g the body and o)t schel))atizi;)g O)r
to portray one oft he md i i b group Structures with O)pen territories; the spatial cor
tures may have been intended lod ima ge frO)n1 the same cav
e shonvs a hybrid being ‘
Cl)t)Iiy
are the ama zing exp particular parts. SO)metimes the body is relate WO)uld he a landscape characterized by shifting set-
viduals buried there. JThen there ent, and a scene fir fl
Izing

1]e nts of day figu rine s what may be a musical instrum ii el l Iresent, hut in O)ther situations it is implied tlements, a lack of boundaries and rigidly fixed points.
log figurines: t1)usands of frag aded man ( Figure 14
\TCS tOfl1 CC I and Pa\’I Ov I Lascaux may shO)W a bird-he J ‘fl by its iCtlo)l)s O)r
signified by a single part as in hand- The syrn ho)lic attentlo)]) which mo)re sedentary peo)ples
have been found at Dolní rines such as the
k has sliown that these portable art, line drawings, figu Prints. fl)etimes it merges with the animal WO)rld O)ftefl lavish upon co)nstructed sites — histories, myths,
eri men tal wor the Lii afl
bxtraoi-di nar ily, exp
en 1’vla n’ and statuettes from cave sites O)fl t otl)Cl times
broken hut xver e int eristics he it is clearly distinct from it. Abstract- legends instead invested in the landscape itself Iden
figurines were not accidentally bine human and animal charact
_
is

ies of the Riv iera ’5 com lflg

dlHci-eit, SO)]fletij])es contradictorx. dimensions O)f tity tend to) he relatio)nally defined as gro)ups reconfigui.e
s
lAke the bod bc to)
tionallv exploded when heated.9 ten den c in rece nt archaeological tho)ught has l)e h
ted through disartic resulting from sI
jm different 5]tuatio)l)s is rpical O)f l)ti))ai) themseJves and identity is produced through ‘sharing
dead then, that were often fragmen und erstand such hybrid images as lflt
ld he sep arat ed, par ted IlY )
O)f hod’ wO)rlds ( Chapter 1). o)f food, residence compani, and men1o)ry’.8 Experien
ulation, the body of figurines coti no)t they derive sped
)ent,

anic practices.70 Whether or

I

a tially, a sense ofpathways and mo)vemeflt may have been

and divided. frO)fl) shamanic rite
s of altered consciousness —
lhflbod,
use s, oiie of the ster eoty pes of mo n u1LIflaflity iTh)1e ifl)pO)ftaflt thai) ideas o)fho)tlI)ded territo)ries84 It is a
Other than the Ven l they see ni
which has proved co)ntro)versia
— So, w’h1
ut animals, with few ed hetweeji the Middle and Upper Palaeo) converse O)fthe sinlatjo)l1 typical o)fmo)derl) states in vhich
ill
Palaeolithic art is that it is all abo erallv to) evidence a theo ry o)f bein g ( an onto)lo)gv Btl)ic j
aeolithïc art is fotind in
J(
pe? Whether or not httl))aJ)s had new’ the hounded territory and fixed, ho)unded perso)nl)o)o)d
hum ans in it. The iflOs t tani ous Pal
Own, where the bou
nda ries between humar Par
nce and nor ther n Spa in, o)ur bet I hjl)k 5J))ho)ljcall’ they certainly related coincide.8
the painted caves otsouthern Fra e anim al may have been underst
o)o)d as permeable
1i in Italy. l\Iu ch cav
vith a frw other painted caves i()u
 P.

The limits of the body 43

acle and John Robb
T. Harris, Preston Mir
-

Duan Bone, Oliver J.

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

42
-

possihil
efs which included the
iieets of the existence of beli state to
cha11enge every SoCiety , of changing from one
1)eath is an existential In corn- ite, for selected beings -hu man
y ian character to a non
it.
tO make sense ofthe
changes that accompan the next, tn)rn a fully hti
ple. Palaeolith and ic n and animal
iSO fl wit h iiO st latcr Lurt)peafl peo One’.)° These cap
ture iTloments of inima
I)ar
W little concern
with trying to halt and of nixtures of gen
ders,
Mesolithic pe)p1e ShO linkages, of transformation,
the intcgiitv
ofc hange by maintaining
or cha nne l the flow
nori bodies and 5Pec1es. ager
ing its ncnorv in visible ier we can reconstruct a for
otthe bod y oi- per pet uat
the Iii 501111, tO) the extent
large cemeteries at the
very end of
archaeologicafly, the
evidence so ggests that )j,
/

als. Aside ti-oi-n a few e to rep res bod y vor ld

contex
i’VleSOlithiC, the relatl
\’eh few burials we hav
iria l the huian hod’ ‘as not
clearly hounded hut a
rather
c
)
rv ver e [lO t noi and ma ter ial s (or
swath ofprehisto amalgamation of relations
ent this 35,000-year mo ry, as our tual Re lat ions
status or preserving me ial relations) temporari
ly joined togeth er.
ways of displaying t, often loca l, tra ma ter
could he bri dge d
Cfl arc, t)1it rather unusua ans, animals and landscape
OWfl burials Oft

ditions Of CSOflSCS
to clearly anomalous cir
cumsta nce s.
in
bet we en
in life, death, art
hum
and hunting. The Lepen
sid Vir scu ip \\ .

lh’ flui d ont olo gy rr ma sks and the Figure 1 6. Itapezoida! hut from Lepenslol Vir, Serbia (after Botj
hin an essentia the Star Ca
The dead x’ere seen wit es ttires, for example, like s 201 1 ,
g. 14; drawn by joj Swogger)
red res idu
s hlttrring the boundarie
I
ormed into sca tte
rljcIi people becaiie transf older Palaeolithic image
i)
allo we d to mu ch cep t tha t
e,s. 1’heir bodies x’e re underlying con
and, perhaps, other bein ces , of lni ma i and animal, reveal an (as
ng deposited in multiple
pla given it
break up, ending up bei not he seen as a stable
h a bro ade r lan d- the ituman bod\’ need eth ing capable they transcei1ded the multiple categoj-je5 against which
connectio ns wit d as som
creating and enhancing is in our hOd\ world ) but instea 92 the graves vere situated. IThese assemblages of hoimal)s
ar defined cemeteries. or metamorphosis
scape rather than singul e of transformation and anjl))als connected and created relatjns together,
liman body itse lfm a\’ hav return briefly to the
\Vithin this landscape, the n fixe d By va ’ of conclusion, we can and it was these relatioiis that prodoiced l)ul))al) bodies.
t and relational, more
tha the ivlesolithic
been seen as continien site wit h wh ich we started the chapter, heads
£7)
ns ani rn )ilar Swedish .;io FOOlh Bodies were thus in part produced at these sites through
of evidence here concer ek, 1)eniiark, and two sin
and bounded. One line erstood cem ete ry at Ve dba
sites Siia;l slid Is relations with animals Ihey prodLiced the food people
how landscapes are und These Erteholle ctilture
als. Animals are central to int erw ove n site s, Skatehoim I and II Y res ent tho
0 I Ianmel-StOI)e
ate, the clo)thes they \vOre and the jew’ellery that decoi-
are so den)nstra hlv 4t)OO nc, and rep F;-. Ilint blade
t-y people whose lives ica l pre d dat e to) between 5600 iw and lith i ated thejii Relational person hood as prod need thro)otgl)
e is IR)t silTlplv ecolog ents oftlie Pal aeo o; 1fl wiiio hones
.

with them. Htiian lintin st elaborate developm

‘

con - fina l and mo ()

these intersections, the wax they hound up the hiograpli
1Tieflt in the unfolding
of
the body. These cem
eteries con ( )ehre
ation, but involves ‘a flft) en the hci nte r and I\Iesolithic logic of Vedhaci les ofpeople and animals together. I 01
ip bet we ent een at
tiinhing even lifelong relationsh
—

est tamed accumulations of

graves sev —
FigurL I 5 Gras e 8 at Vedhack, I)cnmai-jo (hretjsei) and Brincli
—

y of ian v for at Sk atehol

In the cosmolog ateholm I ai1 sixty-tour pcte1-sl1 I ro, i 0; redrj n by Vick HerriJ)g).
and the aniiaJ kind’.8 tWefltV-tW() at Sk
.

ego r , Coda: The Mesoljtfjc body in the time of farmers

not he divided into cle ar cat in man\’ of the burials
dwellers the world can ima ]’.8 7 u.9 4 Gra ve goods are included At the end of the Mesolithic, not all Furopeal) societies
‘an
ies of ‘nature’ and ‘cu
ltcire’, or ‘human’ and m II and Vedbaek.
WT hen lni nt particularly at Skatehol gi’ This i rticularly evidejit with dogs. I)ogs were some- embraced £wl])il)g hut fbragers w’ho turned their hack on
Instead, relationships cro
ss such tK) und arie s. ing this chapter, we ima
ste d bet we en In the vignette beginn Ve dba k. tlfl)es j Ii ided in people ‘s graves ( Ofl Occasions as sac- farming did flOt stand outside history as timeless hold-
Ingold’s term,58 exi ment of bur ial at
ing. relations oftrust, in ma ls ‘pr ese nt ativ e]v reconstructed a mo we li. e ricjjl o)tleIiJ)gs). On other occasions, they were hurled OVers. Some of the 1Th)st florid exemplificati05 of the
as deer, so that ani ng this reconstruction
are several points
humans and animals such rds the y Un der lyi by tl)1 J\ es, sometimes with grave goods. Sti-iiii, fhrager body world come from the very end ofthe Meso
in other wo ce, whereas later cem
etc S
to hunters to he killed, dis cussing. For instan the id e burial at Skateholni 11 is of a dog, who) was
ttjemscii’cs’5
e loc ale s, bee n lithic, from an ever more circumsci-ihed wrar of life. It is
tahly, return to the sam
r1)a
the body in a single nO
‘

continue to 1flt)\’C piedic ued wil lin gne ss almost always position pos itio l ‘.d accojj ‘(d by a red deer antler laid along its Spine, three worth hriey visiting one of the most famous late Meso
that indicate their con tin ies were car efu lly
and act in spe ct wo ttid he way , at these cemeteries bod the ir s CS fiul)t bl5ij 11) the hip regiol) and a decorated antler ham- lithic groups firagers of the l)anuhe Gorges or Iron
lninan beings. Re ks, on
—

to be killed and eaten by ill a great variefl

’ of ways on their hac
—

flier 1) Its chest98 Clearly these dogs were not human,

tur n wo uld t lie Gates.
al, and people in 95 In positioning the bO)
dV,
accorded in icilling the atim and and in sitting positions, tl)0\ Jfl have been persons, constituted 9)l)) rela On the border of Serbia and Romanja the l)anuhe
ani ma l cou ld off er, parts in the fuor
made to piav different
d the :t
he rewarded with the foo y, in dea d cou ld be I) \Ji o
sscd througfi material connectii1s. flows through dramatic canyon-like gorges, the Iron
d material remains. ‘Ve ma ch the proceedings or
to
the power in its associate ls and peo ple arv ritual, to) actively vat bur ni as Tlw lij ial at Vedhaek depicted in Plate I and drawl) in Gates. Foragers inhabited its banks througho01 the
nk 1)t of ani ma suggests that eac h
this context, choose to thi iety Figi i
.

awa y fl-o f)) it the var

nts s J21 1fl)ous burial of a VO]1aji with a newhol-l) Moh02 subsisting largely U01) regotlarly migrat
human people as co-occupa ulTistances. Similarly,
hitt of animal people and con tingent upon its own circ d)’ld. i’ Coastal
people had lived on land and sea, in ing large fish such as sturgeon,10 a rich and stable fod
es as the same. re Somo
of the world, and sometim relations c-lid not
end at death; graves we get
C 0Se
lflterIctlJ) xitJi people and animals fiorn both. fhe
t for und ers tan din g rela Lik e other for . -
Source, which might have permitted an unusual degree
Such a view gives us a contex and reuse honcs.9°’ dead \e I ..

ope ned to) rem owe

of vear-roiii2d sedei)tisl)) Around 6200 nc at Lepensl(i
.

s such )oIried by the shore, a llfl)lflal place where dlt

auliiYlal bodies. Ornament have been one that wa e
tions hen\’een iniman aiI
dea d bod y in har riers, it seems death may lereflt I S
1 1° s Ipe and anln)als met. Here these vo people Vir, Vlasac and Padina, these fbragers built the most sub-
living and
as deer canines composed the pern)eahle than sec
ure. “C]- b UI ith deer tooth pendants and heads made stantjal settlerne])ts knowj) fbi- i\Iesolirfiic LUlOpe. The
ion s to pla ces and the powers ofthe animals the dead, animals and lan
dscapc 1]()fl
ter ms ofc itat At the se site s,
with the intal)t laid upon a Swan’s
carv ed in por tab le and cave ed we ari ng s
ifiC .
Ct ‘laterjals
largest sert]emeflt was at Lepenski Vir, with more than
h)Und in them. The animals bro tig ht tog eth er. People were hon “iflo- I Otj
IIC Choice of the
hs of the scenery hut act- th, pine fl
tc11
ti e 5\ai is not arhjtj-arr nor is fifty trapezoidal huts with stone fbundatiol)s and heartfis
art vere not neutral photograp creatures red deer tee
.

. par ts of dif fer ent —

ne grave close to) the sea Swans are birds

g and dangerous \vorld
()
and prepared lime-plaster floors (Figui-e 1 6). J’h l)ancihe
,

ter birds.°7 Sonic tI at

lye co-occupants of an interestin hea ds, the hills and feet of wa Ufl On water, fly and also walk on land like
have been im por tan t in Sic- 1) fllfl5 Gorges sites reveal an elaborate ritual life. At Lepellsl(i \71r,
Practices such as cave art may in fact, one grave at
ns of rec ipr ocity. included deer antlers; hod t C)l
t ) (lisa
and leappeai-ed annually, and as we have seen, statues carved from boulders and placed
ue rela tiO hum an
Convincing aniiials to contin ns 11 hel d thr ee deer antlers hut no
vide ‘clear indicatio
I I oman -animal h\’brid inages pro
 1 The body
ris, Preston Miracle and John Rob
limits ofthe
Duan Bone, Oliver I. T. Har ---
---
---
44 ---
hut not associ plants, pOtter’, polished stone axes and tools thr grinding
ft)rehead. Boulders placed around sites
depict beiigs that have n spirits present ft)r other grains; and rituals involving gunines (in some areas) and
between hOUSeS or with burials ated with the dead ma\’ have hce
ures (Figure 17). Burial on linking the nvo fc)rlws of fllegaiiths (In others).
both human-like and fish-like feat reasons. Ihus, one interpretati
highly varied. iViost hurl- ilv ietamorphosis hetveen I)eflnjtjons lute tliee are tile simple hit. In fict, ever’
of the dead ‘as COIflfl10fl and transftrmation is that of hod
ions, hut individual human man\’ w7avs, this teiill in this description has been challenged by archacolo
als are single, supine inlimat humans and fish through death.
ied hones \‘ere deposited on ger hod’ world outlined gists of different persuasi,1s I’here is a huge and often
hoiies 0i groups Of scraflih is a logical extension of the tbra
leS hurnt at Vlasac,14 and deeply divided literature on questi,1s of how to define
occasions; hones were S()flletilT Pre\i°1slY.
)ved froi burials and singled particularly fascinat ‘tile Neolithic’, lllanv perhaps most — Neolithic societ
skulls were soietines ren The Danuhe Gorges sitttatiOn is
—

and deposition. s.
ahout historical proces ies furnish exceptions to a tidy ‘Neolithic package’, and
OUt for special treatment ing hecause of what it suggests
gers who occupied the s, at \7lasac and Lepensiti
The body world of the fora ch From at least 8000 i: onward
the vei’ process by which fw1lliilg spread from tile Near
1)anuhe Gorges wasclosely tied to the landscape in whi h’ settled down hv the East across Europe and into places like Britain remains
\Tir, ftragers became increasing
a crucial role in hringing I 14
they lived. The river played hanks of the river, with experim
ents in increasingly elah controversial Hei•e although we lope to give a seilse
deceased close to its hanics, ic, Neolithic settlements of the great varie’ of uropea1l Neolithic societies, we
life, and the hurial of the orate hunal. By ahout 6300
do\vnstream, cannot he ounding the rocky and —
often with the head oriented hegan to appear in regions surr
sidestep these traditional issues. Instead, we fhcus simply
loS Jii hoth life and death some indiviclu
coincidental. uhe Gorges; in the ensuing UO1l tile qUC$tiOll of what Itind of world Neolithic x’il
for frmers inhospitahie Dan
with carp reeth* As with
—

als wore cloaks decorated hahlv populated hoth 1w lagers lilbahited and ilow’ tileir ttJldersta1ldills of tile
centuries, these villages w’cre pro
meet later in this chapter, foragers who had decided human body differed fhn1 that of their hUfltergatlle,.
the Neolithjc iirOupS we will incoming farmers and hv local figtire 1 7. 1 111111,111- Sll caned boUlder trolll LepCilSki Vii’, Serbia
an increased svmholic judge from the presence
sedentism ‘as accompanied hv to adopt firming. In fact, to I BOrIC 2005j: hg. 5, photo CoLlrtes’ c)f l)uall Boni). ancestors
mitment signalled by place-
coflimitniCflt tO places, a com of pottery at Lepenslu Vir throtighout this period, for We do however have to confront tile quesnofl of’how’
s \Vith landscape and its 12 It is pre
nent of the dead. Association agers were in contact with
nearhy farmers. eco nom y, society and culture relate. In most of Eui’ope,
atled through the htirial new practices emerged Iiiis leaves us with the questiOfl of reinsertijig
aninial inhahitants w’ere also sign ciseh during this period that
the Neolithic \vas an economic trailsition from a mobile
of aurochs skulls and red dee
r antlers with the corpse. ials associated with th Lcpcitski \T1. into l()flg-terfll history In the latest phase fbraging lifestyle to sedentary fwming. ‘he trailsi non
ing and svmhohc Almost certainly, all of the hur
The landscape provided the sett phase of trapezoidal huildiiigs (
Phase I-Il) at Lepensl at the site (Phase LVIII) a clear, full Neolithic entei’s to fu-llling has often been considered the second great
, a lcev theme of the hodv at and 5900 ic. It is dif With IlC\’ material things, house f1-1lls and burial rites, Il oman 1’e’Ol HtiOfl h)1l0W111 g the advent of anatoill i cally
resources for transformation Vir date to hetween 6200 ic
‘ ‘ ,

sformation vas through

1epenski Vii-. One ftri of tran cult to escape the conclusion
that Lepenslci Vir repre as well as an econolll\’ based upon terrestrial animals and and cognitiveJ fliodern huillans in the I1aiaeoiithic. I I 5
w’as partly structured hv apsulated amongst farn
treatment of the dead. Burial ents foragers increasingly enc
doni1 icated plants. The traditional way oflife ‘as clearly Since Cllllde’s won a series of Proillineilt theorists
age and gender; for instanc
e, the numerous infant hurl- Neolithic, using e .1- hitoii ally tenable it had served people weil ft)r several have regarded the Neolithic as a radical economic dis
and vet hot succumhing to the
—

gs and never hurled with and hurial to emphasi e centlir](’s already, and there are many historic examples of
als were located witliin huildin fliOre floridly developed ritual
jUllcture Wilicilchanged not only ilOw hu Illans made their
y played a Icey role in the
houlders,’ and age certainl their difference while at the same tiiie adapting
sonic nimistic, sedeIlta;-’ tnillers or fishers In native cultures living hut also how they organized landscapes, i’eiated to
h different hurials, espe
n/pc of houlders associated \vit elenents of the Neolithic hod\’
decoration. i\4uc h of tIlt- .‘\nenjcas Yet tile body is filildamental to historic each other and conceptualized the world symbolically. ‘ I 7

daIly in relation to the dep

iction of eves and other wor ld rev olv ed around Ways of and it iiiy he that a lccv Illoinent In giv We are only in partial agreemeilt with tills view. Con-
ntained the mteg this w’a’ of understanding the
Burial practices not only mai animaJ-tI-aIlsf)nJllitjJl View of the body
lll ip i he fluid,
details. trary to the ‘I’eVOi U tions ‘ \‘iew, becoming Neolithic was
hodics.
mented other hodies and st striking fact is h \v th
rip; ofsome hctrials it also frag which
Was of’ domesticated animals a step
l()l)t1()Jl often gradual and varied rather than sudden and unifbrm,
In this light, perhaps the mo
living sites and perhaps ki Vir parallel Neoli liic
lfllplje c )r cujred redrawing categorizatii1s of humans
distrihuted them hoth around much developments at Lepens
an elastica[lr hounded envelope of’possi hilities rather than
h selective treatment resist them. I kc and ailiii,1J5 see follovi;lg section).
around the larger landscape. Suc innovations at the same time as they
a single pathway, alld there is Illuch evidence fr continu
t kinds and dying in differ- uhe Gorges fbr ciS
channelled people of differen many Neolithic groups, the Dan
‘
ities het\\’eeil hwmers and their tc)raging predecessors But
t forms ofnew’ heings and such a sweeping, ifgradual, tranSft)rfllatill Ofhufllan uk
cut circumstances into differen developed the fbrmalization of
space through arch ‘ ‘

09
The other form of transformation na1 Settiijg hodies down? The Neolithic body
collective memories .

tore, the intensified village

ritual and the use of i’ could IlOt he confilled to the economy alone. As Ingold
als. As mentioned earlier, een p plc
was heiaveen humans and anim ing historical associations hetw
tO estahlish last
‘lO,
ence of botilder statuary r )3lC )lllilic is tile period dUriilg
Lepenski Vir offers unusual evid and particular places (as oppose
d to dispersing Th
begai1
which Eurpea1ls
apparenti y sh owing hun an -fish
hvhri d, suggesting fluid -

ly). The y developed these

tO f rl ,
‘f]ll about 6500 ut; onwards, people in
tile doillaill 111 Vhicll IluflIan persons are illvOived as
into landscapes gen eral social beings
ple and animals, partic li)cal tii’Qpc ( )ilt ai Iled tVitil one allother cailnot he rigidly set apart
it)’ her\veen the categories of peo tices independenth’. Unlike
farmers elsewhere, thu Carl N1
domesticated plants and anlillals from
ularly those who sustained them
. Relations hetween the suhstantial
ageS .
fknlllers and began to settle dowyl and
fi)ill the dOJllaill t)ftheir lilvoiveillent Vitil tIOIl-hLtllla]l

ticularly interesting. Starcev() fiwmers had neither such ad a farnliilg conlpollellts of tile envirolllllellt Hence, any qualitat
two forms of transfbrmation are par nor such elahorated hunials.
In many ways, the 1). Oj
llléstyle (see I’ahles S and 4 in Chapter 4
lpted iconographic— brait.r CIll)Jlig\J in relation to social chailges). lye transft)r1llatill Ill Cfl\’il’Oflfllejltai relatiolls is likely
Altl)ugh irianv hocilders were not scu
till’
Goniies may give us a gliiT
Ipse into an alternati’ c
ner to suggest that all i i (.1
tO Te
Neoiitj11 aild tile tJ’ansitioi1 fro,11 hunting and gath to he Illanifested similarly both in tile relationships that
ally em)ugh \\‘ere shaped in this man
,
verse iii \vhich the organizatio
nal changes rel
CillIg
humans extend towards anlillals and in those that obtain
the houlders represent hum an-animal hcings. Aithotigh core beliefs ahout r
lO11 a , Ici It Ill-c
pfl)ed a major watershed in hUfllall
sedentism arc decoupled from
nOt all hf)ulders conienorated
individual dead, enoctgh a society U
•‘ i
(th)gically, Neolithic groups difir fiom anlollg theillseiyes in society.
between humans and other hein
gs —

n understood
did So to suggest that the dead may have hee
1ti1’P edecessors in a llufllher ofkey lOStItUtiOflS
n a belief in the
,,
Social change usually did not iilvoive abrupt
tionally Neolithic hut hascd upo
‘
afld lflat1.,, Ill prehistorv

as transforming mt() animals. For exa

mple, adult male moment in W 1 j11gL ct,l1 tire, particL,lai’l\.- tile so-called ‘Neolithic leVOiUtlons, hut rather the slow revelation of Ilew firms
ind the hearth. of human bodies, the temporaJ’ Pacic.,,
‘c ‘1lta-’ villages ceilleteries and
Burial 7/I was interred in House 2 1 heh t of a lifelong often coY- of identity produced through material metaphors — that
s skul l and a redepos human fbrm was enmeshed as par OtLl.fub
Ui’l,t ,
-ie was accompanied hv an auroch again. reliance on doillesticated aillillals and is, ]low’ people come to 1tllderstalld the world around
was placed on his fl-onl fish to hunlan and hacic
ited human skull, and a painted houlder
 The limits of the body
Preston Miracle and John Robb
Duan Boric, Oliver J. T. Harris,
46
T
tlic c’fl1 East
1able 2. Ti]: bütli iii the aijiicitltnrnl tiflJl.cltit)1l ill A.

I’hc 1)ead Representations •

Food
Space \;

Period
Ccmetercs of ,\nimal qualities iniportant
\‘ariable, but sonic
in ‘grave goods’ figurincs
-

Hunting mOStI\ single burials

Natuhan substantial scdcntat\
particularly) aze1Ies,
with ornaiiients and of animals made, but univ
t 12tOO—1 000t) lU) ‘il1aics ot round
inteliSi\C USC otwild a fc hybrid in1azcs’ -4
houses ritual rO()dS H
erains Shift to niostiv htinian,
-

Growth ofsome \CrV Single burials in and H

Pre-Pottcr
Flunting, intensive
ai-ound iiouses often female figurines; iid
large \iiiagcs nh •
usc and incipient aniniais stili inportant
‘
.‘:

NCf)iithic A
puhiic’ architecture retrieval c)fsicuiis ft)r .
0() BC ) donesticatlc)n ofwiid (Gobekii 1 cpe
( I t)000 —85
(Jericho) skuii cciii
grains Figurines COniflC)fl,
Viliages of square Single bciriais in and
Prc-Pottcr i)oniesticated piants
arc)ttnc.1 hotises; particuiariv fèniaics; iaies
and animais houses \ith in other ftwms
/1
Neoiithi B retrevai ofsicuiis t)r represented 0a MIrtj kuI{s
increasinh
art, aninai
( X5OO—67F() B( ) of
ft)rInaiiSCd interiors
skuii en it
representations ft)CttS ttpon
7 : 1or)jI,

‘iid animais; a tinx hvbi-ids 1 A uric w ir l)OI)C

__7 — I, gulcH ),ft 01)1

Figure 19. Neolithic piastet-ed skctii from Teil Aswad, Syria (punt0
‘L L . II iki C) taiJ c0Urtcs’ of l)anieiie Stofticur)

ce, Natufian people

0 _l
• Foiitii 1 01 (II

e aii use, the places At the beginning of the sequen

them through the things they mak w’ere not tarmers at all, but
semi-sedentary hunter-
Neolithic as people Figure 1$. Natufjan hui-iai at Hiiazçii Iachtit, Israel ( after (ji()S and benches in liOuses.128 The most spcctaculai- evid
the’ live and so on.1° \\ith the gatherers Who sonietimes relied
extensivef’ on collecting \IUtlr() and Beitir-()hel 2008, fh. 4; rcdra\\n by Vickj
manent villages and to
!•nJJl,
the recently excaiated late
began to settle down, to build per Particularly in ence, however, comes troiii
nt.
and storing wild grains in the Leva FL-! 1i.

f:Er1-fl, and to bury thei

r dead in new ways, new relation- cs lived in large villagec Pre -Po tter i Neo lith ic A (PPNA) to Pre-Pottery Neo
the body emerged. XVe the Early Natuflan, they s()nletlm lithic B (PPNB) ritual site ofCiohekli Tepe in Turkey,’29
ships and ne tinderstandings of of semi-subterranean round or oval
huts and used non
have discussed 110W Pafacolithic
and Pvlesolithic hunter- grinding stones. Lik a lii lug continued more or less unchanged, although where large stone circles contained massive anthropo
andings oftheir bodies portable technologies such as large me point grains and legunies vere ckn-ìesticatej morphic pillars carved with male snakes, tcirtles, lions,
e,atherers constructed their underst via, Portugal an at s
to animals, landscapes, semi sedentary foragers in Scandina pnh lv a gradual and unconscious murualistic response vultures and boars (Figure 2 1). Even as figurines and
in part through liow they related
‘ -

thei dead in cemete

r
hips to these things the Balkans, the Nanifians buried to SICCt1Ji pressures exerted in harvesting wild ver burials iiicreasiiiuly represejited the hotijided djstinctl’
places and histories. Ne\V relations ies close to their settlements, perhaps
grouped by ldnshij
understandings of the SiOfls. People continued to live in villages ofround huts, human body, wild animals continued to he a source of
cleveloped hand in hand with new’ JThev also built structures in areas
that were already ass •

le burials were iii t but s )flie, such as Jericho, grew much larger, bringing symbolic potency, and the conihinati()i otanhl7ial images
hod v. ciated ivith funerarx activities.122 Sing togeilier more people than ever before.’2’ As far as the emerging from schematised human firnis may continue
e were lots ofvanatio 5
common, hut (as at Vedbaek) ther boox e )(5 the real changes occur in burial and art. From the belief in the potential metamorphosis of the human
redeposited burials.
The Near Eastern backdrop to such as burial in small gnups and the laic Natufian onwards, single burials around hotises 13()
wristbands arid otiT
Luropcan agriculture The dead were adorned with heads, and sites CcI7ie the floffli the dead The PPNB is the first true ‘ Neolithic period, xvi th
orted niarine shells but also ori1aiiieited ‘

ornaments, lTlOSth of imp

an Neolithic, it is import- less ji as underlining their individuality, but it became domesticated plants, sheep and goats, and ( ffl)fli late in
Before plunging into the Europe bone and carnivore teeth.
An extraordinary burial fi ni
r Eastern roots of the incft dli I
ant to have a quick glance at the Nea Hilazon Tachtit gives a sense of
Natufian concern U comniJi tO retrieve the skull and
the Near East provide 1C(j5( rites, Sometimes adding a gen
Neolithic ( fable 2 ) Not only does death (Figure 1 8 ). Here, an old
er woman with physical
happens in Lurope; the
.

eric {)1 ‘(-Cd tice Onto it (Figure 19).127

the essential backdrop for ‘hat inipairments in \vallung was buried
with a staggering a
ern sequence pR)Vides In eti, he dead body becomes construe-
detailed and well-studied Near East of goods, including a human foo
t, more than fifty c m
of the body can te less ()ugli its reJatjoiis to settings and
a fascinating insight into how ideas plete tortoise shells, nvo
stone niarten heads, a gol
ieIl
be1n5
settled farming life. h as animals) and 1ii1e through
change through the transition to a boar fore arm , a le lI >

eagle wing-tip, an aurochs tail, a

.

The transition to agriculture in the

clearly under way by armnd 1 0,000
670t) ic all the stereotypical technol
Near East was
iv:, and by about
ogies and institutions
pelvis, a gazelle horn core, a basalt
shells, a painted bone tool and a ston
bowl fragmen
e-worlcmg pebblu.
t,

l of a ritual sp
1 iCC
111
its
the hunvii
tOXlaJs tl
It ielatiii to the ancestral history of

I’liis shift in symbolic ft)cus

humaii glT)up becomes evident
/
H
But in human This has been interpreted as the buria aS i guiJ
of early farming societies were present. ently feared as “ Jl as well; although Sonic animal
several millennia ist, perhaps a shaman, who was evid her
terms, we can scarcely call something
‘ ‘flue to he
stones holdi a made, httman figures ...

tion. Although respected ( to judge from the ten large b ecOfl( dt

long a ‘transition’, and still less a revolu how her outst minant (Figure 20). Man)1 of these
ire such as pot- body down). What is interesting is a1e ul
ale, although Sonic are ambigu
0 S
farming, herding, tOwns and material ccila erst ood through rek I
has sup ported niost attributes were evidently und l ii
Oti I
td and may represelit generic or CC1itiilleEzes
terv form a stable complex, which , something not nuns
onset surely tOanimals and their qualities fluid h1
luimans since the Neolithic, such a gradual
i5 Animals an Figure 20. PPNA gurincs considered to he ima]e, trc)m Iurcvhet, Nottie
12 continue to play -
tight func Natuflan burials. Iniport ICant (left) and Netjv IIadtid Sotithern levant (right) (after Bar-Thsef 199$,
CXph)des any determinist idea that these ftrni a A pen ib() ljc role in other \i’ays; for
each other ]‘Iie succeeding Pre-Potten Neolithic ilist
l1 hull sicujis \VCf fig I 3; redrawn by Vinci I Jefring).
tional package in vhich all elenients reqttire
1jjL
1lie way peopl built iflt() walls
both continuities and changes.
to be viable.
 n Robb Tlie limits of tile body 4
ris, Preston Miracle and Joh
Duan Bone, Oliver J. I. Har
4$
of body world with distinct adult stature dropped by 5—1 0 ciii with the adeit of
emergence of a new’ kind farming.
both within landscapes and TIlls may reflect a seasonally poorer diet and
characteristics. 1\4ovcment ( I essened meehai lea] demands upon the skeleton w’ith
ingly fixed and channelled
\vithin houses) became increas sedentisi InfeetioCis disease begins to appear, perhaps
ms aii constructed spaces
by villages, Walls, plazas, roo
ine relationships, rights because pern1anei t Sedeiltal-7 living sites became con
‘ith particttlar uses. As spaces def
-

r an increasing formaliz taminated with parasites, and perhaos hecartse increased

and comportment, we may infe contact with domestic animals fei1itated Zoonotic dis
bcliaviour. For exaipIe,
ation of t)dil\7 niovenient ai1
ame more fixed and rep- eases such as tuberculosis (the earliest evidence for which
kinship relations probably bec comes fi-om Neolithic Israel and Italy). 142 wit1 a diet
ugh burial ill large vii-
resented architecturally and thro based ipoi sticky, earhoh\rdi.aterie1 grains, dental dis
ame a \‘ehicle ft)r enact-
lagcs. 1’he body in death bec u
y and identity. It is partic ease affected ]Th)re people eanliei- in their lives. The data
lug the community’s ancestr tentatively srttgest a demographic shift as ve1l. Neo
iarly Interesting how human-
animai relations shifted Ill .

was increasingly common to lithic people had ilore ehildrei per person than their
media such as figurines, it
larly \‘omen’s bodies, as ft)raging predecessj-5 hut also died youngei-; we have
define the human body, particu h tO imagine IllOfe than half of Neolithic people being
all object otinterest on its
own, independent oflinks wit Figure 22. JhC’ gctres horn ‘Am Ghazal, Jordan ( photo COctrtCs’
interest in wild children. 143
1’-sh aped statu es troni Göbekli Tepe, Turkey,
with
anim als or the world around it. Yet the Ot(OrV Roltefs0 and the l)eparrtiejr OtAntiqctities, Jordan).
Figu re 21 .
Klaus Schiiidt and Decitsehe
s persisted, and relations Coneeptual])i, hew ecOIlflic practices Were en
aninia) reliet ( photos Cf)UrteS\’ of animals and their qualities always
-

als became realigned; in meshed in categorizati;5 of an imals Althougl daii’

Arch.iotoeisches Institut ). between humans and wild anim
.

associated with maleness and Scandinavia Neolitilic groups departed from their ptodticts s\ei-e used in Sonic areas th)I the early Neo
some places wild animality was Alest )lithic traditions in other ways, particu1aj•l’ Ill creat lithic Onwiards, Neolithic people pR)hahli kept relatively
ces (as at Goheldi
wn tio i and wit h locales distant froii living spa
The period is best lcno
’ have been associated with ing Judseapes Ofmonuments (scicli as megalithic tombs). silal] numbers of animals and the f)eris w’as upon eat
the PPNB ) cattle Tepe ), in other places it ma\
-
.

Tur key .’32 v\That is archi XVt returii to questions of historical process and van- lug them; Specialized herding to exploit milk and wool
CXCaVatIOHS at çata1h()VU k in ).19
k is the ft)r1a1, a1iiost death as well (as at çatalho\’ük atif )I later in this chapter and in Chapter 4; this dis 5eei7S to he a later developneit Isotopic evidence sug
llv 1)ta h1c abo ut cata 1h( )VU
tectura
h repeated, well-defined cuss’1 )fl focuses pnincipai1’ upon periods het)re about gests that Neolithic people ate varying amounts of meat
standardized layout OtiR)Uscs wit
hearths, entrances, burl- The body ill Neolithic Eur
ope 400() ii( (see 1’ahle 4, Chapter 4). Here we briefly and iiiik, vith some groups consist ent carnivores and
features such as storage rooms, ed,
e was a highly stru ctur rCiew evidence flr ideas of the human body, as the others almost vegeraniaj. ‘ }ft)\ve\er, domestic animals
als and ritual platfbrms ther s in Europe appear aun
PPN A, the dea d wer e 1’hc earliest frrming village Net )JIlhjc involved reconceptUalisiig the human body may have been used pantieu]ai-l\’ fr feasting. Concep
in the ad west and north fror
shared experience ofspace. As 11flO fl 6500 BC in Greece and spre
ses, and it was Ct)fl Neolithic mm’L in mazi ways, both in practical activity and 1l ritual tuallv, there is lTht iiefi eelehratloi of domestic anim
nOstl\’ tiried in and around hou al use , ther e. Moving in fits and starts, the
and remove their sku lls fbr ritu I and art als in and little evidence ftr human -animal hybrids.
tO return to 1x)dles from (reece and the Bal
kans westward along the I’vIe CUt,

vit h idea lize d face s;13 3 OflC y; cro ssi ng t he Although the use of hucrania in Baikazi architecture and
occasft)nallv replasterin 4 them acr oss Hun gar
par ts from terranean and northwards Peopi ‘VOrk, food and animals
avo nu coii tain ed ker an k Occasionally in grave goods suggests the Prestige associ
building at the PPNB site ofC the liv- Carpathians about 5500 itc, in
the Linearh and
t to reco nsti tute rap iil\’ Altli archaeologists often eqttate tile Neolithic w’ith ated with cattle consuJptii they were flOt co-species
450 bodies, a remarkable attemp 5000 ic it had spread ver’’
4 As in the PPNA. ( LBK) period, and by agl1( I ‘re, J1O\7 much Neolithic people actually relied in a sVOfld of m1ilti-naflhi-alisj (as we saw’ in the Pa]ae()
amo ngs t the dea d.13 the Neolithic lid
lug cOmlYiUnitV rds to Belgium. I 4000 Bc.,
-

mad e, wes twa

e to be com mo nly
ndinavia, transh)rm’I 2,
Upflfl t 1g and herding has been
controversial; all lithe and Mesolithic) 145 Instead, they xere property that
clay female figurines continu ce to reac hed Britain, Ireland and Sca NeOji) l1 groups gathered wild fiuits and plants, and
(such as in art) refe ren required care and attention and which could he domin
thOIUZh in certain contexts ope. unlike the Near F i,
The lim e plas ter fig- life across the continent. In Lur SOflC- U ‘iiiied to hunt qtiite a hit. As a broad gen
e cated locally; \vh it, ated and used for gain and pefhaps as a source of w’ealth
hunting male figures dominat ts and animals vere not domesti
.

real h stat ues rath er plan Craliia i()fl however, except fr the Baltic and Atlantic
22 ) are goats and pigs in Iui and prestige. i() the extent that taste in Neolithic cuisine
ui_es fhm ‘Alfl Ghazal ( Figure barley, pulses, cattle, sheep,
d them selv es, were buried flifloC i C’re wws a clear economic shjfr Analysis of reflects social interactiofl grains were probably tile taste
than figurines, and , like the dea estors. Archaeologists
36 Animals are came from Near Eastern anc Plant aiil aijiaJ remaiis Show’s that, tlWOugJltJt flOSt of
aba ndo ned hou se in Europe have been s
lit Ofhousehoid Solidarity, i7eat the taste of mter-houselR)id
beneath the floor of an cussing tile ‘origins offarming’
.

ing ly incl ude dom esti cate d se wh’ h10)111

eoljtllic groups relied suhstantiall\r upon curly sociality. 146
often represented and increas in an increasingly ster
ile division between tho ated
hou gh lwb rid hum an- anin aJ representatiolls from the Near Eas
CI I! tis, and
very rapidly shifted froi eating hunted Ar the same time, the role ofhunting changed. Except
beasts. Alt rating farmers radiating out
‘

res at çata lho )’uk mig l ga iig sheep, goats, pigs and cattle. In the north-
yed figu pting farming indigf in a few’ mountaill ecologies, ilttflting became a small
are relatively rare,1 SOniC spla those \Vh() see local foragers ado 1.fl anj
.13 8 Art gen eral ly por (‘Stern maritime Worlds and in highland Zones eomponeit of the eeom)mv, contnihu ring supplementary
may represent bear-hu man hyb rids tures the truth of a coi’
anim als, w’ith ouslv. Neither position cap 5uch as tifl- Ups
the ecOnofljc cOfl5eqielces ofthe Nec
nt the argument is bL foods such as small mammals, raw materials such as antler,
ans and idC
trays close linkages betw’cen hum
aiis in \vat l pain t- situation,14 and to some exte it 1c WC’ti
‘fl(We varied, and £wmiii economies grad uall’ fur, feathers, and shell, and probably drama and exeite
s lium
vultures accompanying headles the point here. CQllSf)i .

and bull heads and I •

ings, people wearing leOl)ard skins ut, Neolithic Ii1 or evei millennia.
Ci over ceurtli-jes 17-lent as well. Economic changes redrew’ the hounctiii.jes
Regardless of how it came abo
-

in the roons in cf11 )I11IC change

ing fIom the wal ls adest division is bC “ affected the body directly thiouh between different kinds ofanimais see diseussjoii later in
vulture beaks protrud a great variety offorms. The bro clll (, i ,

ic groups 1Y )rlc regiJes nutfltlOll and tastes and indir this chapter) This does not imph that doI1estic animals
which people lived. iiuc h oflo wla nd Europe, where Neolith ceth. i v .
ws how’ gradua l )iigii ideas ofspace and through redefinitjll of whilst wild animals \\‘ei-e 5ymho1jcjj,
P1w Near Eastern sequence sho y, and the \
.

c atC(). were simply eaten

rup ture clea r at had a farming-based village econom iiihic S)el as ‘ailililals’ H\ did changes in daily
change was, with continuity rather than the Nc importan t; instead, domestic afli mais were regarded as
able hum an and Sca ndinavian worlds, which entered i.out in. I
all points; every phase was a stable, inhabit h sedentai viila this )l’k affect the hodv The best evidence fr social capital to he accumulated, used in impoJ-tajt trans
of tran sitio n. \et later and where evidence for bot .
Co1
1Om slceletaj analysis
world rather than an uns tabl e fl1O Jflcf lt
less clear. Instead, Europe, actions and feasted up n1
the end , we see the reliance upon agriculture is
ii we coflipare the beginn ing \\ith
 e and John Robb The limits of the body.
Duan Bork, Oliver J. T. Harris, Preston Miracl — .

51
50
has tried to
embodied and nuterialized. As anybody who spend the year fln’in amongst widely separated places
Bodies and (and as) objects are not cereb
thiflgS pCOp!C macic, make Neolithic things knows, such skills \vith \licl it was looseJ associated; it w’ould spend a
The Neolithic saw an explosion Ot , in the prac ticed hands that
gy fir more material ral; they reside in the bod’ lifetime in a riuch nal-rower world \vhOse people and
used, kept and deposited as archaeolo regu larly or strike a
\Thcreas know’ how: to ti-ui-i a vessel wall places it knew intimate1\-
objects than their inohile ancestors had doHe. lusio n is that
idered the general flint strongly yet precisely. The logical conc hxactjy hmv people settled down took many fbrms;
theoretical archaeologists have cons ithic material
consider its implications there was a close relation between Neol there are several great traditions of Neolithic settlement.
social effects of this fet,1 we the raisons d’ctre k \- ;;

are diffuse and infer- things and the body, and that one of In mUch of the lOw’Jand Balkans and northei-i Greece,
for the body. These consequences thing s was to provide
in for the explosion of Neolithic Villagers lived in dense clusters of wattle and daub huts.
ential, but as significant as the more obvious changes skills tied to
arenas for the externalization of bodily In the generatiolls, the accumulated
5Ofle places, Over
imagery and burial. debris from such houses built rip settlement mounds,
tO understand identity. F
New ft)I-I-ns of teeh1)logv allow’
US
things.
kahle that in both Finally, the body \vas completed through or ‘tells’, As landscape made through litiman occupa
OLtf bodies in fleW ways. It is rejar viTliethei. they represent real or imagined painting, tat- tion, tells anchored the world in terms of fixed human
clay \vas used
Palaeolithic Europe and the Near East ines show the body
ry. In Neo t005 or clothing, man Balkan figur histoi-jes Whether a tell site or fiat site, architectrire
for figurines before it was used for potte and geo
both . Ther e are more decorated with a wild range of swirls, spirals provided a structure f)r lOutinizeci, perma]]eit intei-ac
lithic Europe, clay was used for us Vinéa figures,
niorphie vessels metric designs. A few, such as the faiiio tions; J]t15es were often rebuilt directly ttpOfl earlier OfldS
direct links as well . Sporadic atithropo ure 23 and Plate
htiman figures appear to be masked as ifftr rituals (Fig Figure 23. \‘i Hgui-ine, Vina, Serbia (photo: Roh1) Cooking and majlv other activities were done in open-air
arc known fi-oi-n maiw Neolithic contexts, we can extrapol
ral Europe VIe). Interestingly, to the extent that areas between houses where people from different house-
are sometimes sketched on pots in both Cent involves figuring
an faces are occasion- ate an aesthetic reflex from these, it holds interacted Houses provided Zones Ofpnvate inter-
and the Ivlediterranean, and hum as Neolithic FinalE’, this is probably the context to tinderstaid the
tcrra nean Neolithic the surface with ornate, fine detail, mtich action and WeIe identified with their occupants to
the
alE’ modelled 00 the rims of ‘iedi of difference intentional iYIOd1jhcatji- of the body. Removing highly
ests a laten t iso- pottery decoration does . fhis proliferation extent that they were often intentionally hLirnt at
the end
vessels. fhe placement ofsuch faces sugg heterarchical cyal visible front teeth in Neolithic Italian women may have
decorati on creates a surface that allows multiple, of the household’s social lifespan. 160 This conceri with
iorphisni between pots and h uian 1K)dieS ; . 52 Head- hen part of creating adult females.
ests that bodi es may have uations rather than a smgle, simple evaluation There may have houndedness and rights of access probably dXtendIc to
011 SOITIC Balkan figurines sugg heci other expdl-iments in body l1]odificatifl The first
tatto oing or clothi rig) dresses and costumes are also shown in Levantine rock other dlemejits of th e landscape; ethnog1.aplicall)J soci
been decorated ( th rough painti ng, archacolo
art. Llse\vhdrc in Europe, dress is manifested
iflsaJ1cc of dental sul-gdl’ lOOWfl is in a I)anish Neo eties similar to European Neolithic groups tend not to
receive its most
d
similarly to pots. Such an isomorphism men ts, whic h arc found lithic slciill Whose tooth w’as drilled with a flint blade
from A4aee gicalh’ principally in durable orna have ahsolrttc property Ownership httt to consider that
dramatic expression in anthropomorphic pots
-

expe rime nted with dui-i ‘g life;’ there is no suggestion of dental caries,
the eqcta tion as symbo lically in some quantity everywhere. Metals —

individuals and families ‘ow-ia ‘ places such as gardens to

doria wliieh add houses into becoming vidc \Vh)r ii is commofl in Neolithic skulls and this was
es Plate Vid ). I4) Much from aiound 6000 nc in the Balkans and riot a the extent that they are actively investing labour upon
equivalent to clay vessels and bodi ( in the Balkan ariLt al therapy f)r it in any case. The most widespread
spread through the fifth niillcnnium ilnproviiig them
flOiii
as the machine in the eighteenth centu
ry, ela’ teehno
and iV1idd1
Central iViecliterranean Neolithic (the Early
lTh)dI1icjtioi- was trcpanatjofl,
the practice of cutting a
rstanding the Ti-ic situation in the Central and Weste,-i Mediter
logy gave people a new’ metaphor for rtnde were probably of interest principall
fi hoJ in the slwll during life. Neolithic trepanatiis are
plasticity Neolithic)’53 ranean is similar. Well-dcHnecl, often ditched
body, one which emphasized its substance, its Neolithic
—

teeth cite kn\\ ii jJ)fl7 many areas of Europe, particuJaj-I\’ Italy,

s, and its links to houses their colour and shining appearance. Carnivore villages are kno\’1 from much ofitaly and parts of Iberia;
and ability to take different fhrm ed mini Fra’e and I)enmailt More than halfwcrc
the qualities of foxes, dogs and wolves. Pierc healed, indic In other places, people apparently lived in small hamlets of
and places.’° ts from variscic that the trepaflec sunjyed the Operation158 hut
brings ature axes in Italy and Malta and ornamen a few house5. Yet throughoUt, people tverc probably iden
The body was also a medium ofacnon, and this cosm olog ical qualitius itatin
\ have been a dangerous and infrequeit inter-
dance of mii-ies in Catalonia may cite the tified principally by their resident grortps, and there was
us to the paradox of Neolithic skill. Ihe abun htiis sh II Veni I t i Irepan ations prc hably were n cith er ‘medical’
necess ary; axes and of greenstonc 01 specific trade histories .5pont often considerable Investment in defining the horde;-s of
Neolithic things is not turictic)Halh’ have pubi i lv flQ m ical’
(an Oft-inyolceci dichotomy W’ljc] reveals
a sede ntary fiwmer ornaments found in Central Europe ma the comlnu,ty through ditches or palisades around vi]-
pots were useful, but one could be muc h as shell valu ables from dis il1O about our
categories than about the Neolithic)
and dab attested tdflOWfl ili trade lages. Nested within the community, the life ofthe house
WithOUt them, and there is greater variety nesia . IViorc over, •Th A1tl) uJ they lna\r have been
functional taut sources did in ethnohistoric Mela pR)mpted in Some cases was probably identified with the lives ofthe people living
oration of both than xvarranted Iy a porch’ from persu b md1ica1 Svnptfls (for instance fbllowing Sevci-c era-
im objects such as polished stone rings passed within it, to judge the Intentional probably ritual
•

\-iew. PvIanv Neolithic things ‘ere made with onst

fl-On]
broken to dis na! ti1 which may have
ratel y and burn - person, they ma\’ have been intentionally had effects upoi the brain), destruction in any houses . 61
i-nate skill. Pots were decorated elabo people or to i
in rn
dJSdS there is indicatioi of this, and tre
precise ly from tribute their powers amongst different Village life remains the theme in Central Europe,
ished meticulously; flint blades were struck Some arm rings were often
)O panatifl5 ()uld have ,

been carried out publicly within

gloss their social biographies. thotigh tells are flot ft)und north ofthe Hungarian plain.
an expertly prepared Core; axes xverc polished to a probably for’ cd
anat;\ e tii]dcrstandiig
In fact, small to have been taken on and off and Ofpci-son and mental state per- Instead, people often lived in clusters of longhouses,
far beyond what their physical uses required.
—

hecoi rig ps_ st )i wthing

like a cel-emOfly’ of donii;g a potent
because a continuotisly worn cxtensR)n ofthe oy55 massive 60 meters lorig1’2 which prob
—

süme forms ofpotterv may ha\e been attem pted dt ris] structures rip to
ithic Eu’ ask to flea] a dangerously spiritual or
truly inalienable property. Ihroughout Neol physical ably lioused multiple fami]ics living under one roof
.

ropo logis ts have

of their ostentatious difficulty. Yet anth our conv entio nal sen -
flal ad\
seen as ornaments were not wealth in Again, lOllghoLlsc settlements represent a formalizatji
rarely contemplated skill per se.1 It has been been any atle’ flpt
instance, there does not seem to have of space, with many people coming together to erect
a response to economiC specialization, political hierarchy seem to ha’c bee’
if
Space
the tO restrict production, and they an overbuilt, indeed nlonumentaJ structure which ftJ
01• frinctional need. None of these is the case for ‘CoJ I
rcltl
of skill culated rather than accumulated. Bodies were diti 1ti)i )d()pJd
. settled down; rather than PUlSLling a lowed a widely shared formal layout that divided Internal
Neolithic. XVc are thus left vith the parach )X Sei15()f,
dl f
•

ated Hot to make them outstanding in term

s of ‘ lging found Over a broad landscape they lived space iflt() regularized sections probably associated with
exercised for its OWTI sake, simply to enhance the sense
fl_lost ii
diffe renc e of ‘ a I ‘1 the \ear a particular mucfi iioie limited
of the maker as skilful or as possessing specific c]ual hut rather simply to create social Piac j
\ . -
. c1it}i-ent family groups, animals, and special social func
fldfltiall\, this fldalt that the body \\‘Ould riot
ities such as patience, judgment or strength. Skill was kinds. tioris. LBKlorighouses Were often abandoned long hetre
 and John Rob b The limits of the body
Duan Bone, Oliver J. T. Harris, Preston Miracle
52 a sense of conimuniy that was written on and through
suggesting again a close their bodies, and tied in the bodies ofthe dead alongside
the end of their useful use-lives, ideas of ancestry I 76 Markedly, a significant proportio,i
living spaces and those of ;
tie benveen the social lives of 163
.4.
. ..; . , ,. . . .

. Central and Western .

i
S of bodies buried in such Neolithic monuments in Bri
the groups living within them or J tam may have been selected because of the fact they died
s were also often ditched
‘

European Neolithic village lith ic Wh ethe r •.A

violently.’77 It may have been people who died in partic
the Mi ddle Neo
palisaded, particularly in
.

to warfare (and this is deb ated ). ular ways who were selected to represent the co1ninuni
or not this is a response ce and in these constructiois, their bodies potentially both the
h bounding areas of spa
it shows a concern wit . Italy: cut marks on a child’s coll oto:
arbone
Source ofanxietyr and power.’78
categories ofpeople within them Figure 24. Scaloria Cave,
movement and defining us- rites of defteshing bod ies (ph
numents ( see foll owi ng disc made with a stone tool attest There are two points here about the body. First,
Moreover, as with mo Robb).
bui lt projects were themselves tan- Neolithic burial was not a final, one-way disposal pro-
sion), such collectively was gramme intended to distance the living from the dead.
munity whose membership
gible reminders of a com such Instead, varied burial programmes created ongoing con-
together and participating in LBK, cemeteries such as
largely defined by living ies near settlements; for the tact with the dead, who were present in daily life and
n’7° can include iriore than
projects.
warfare. There has been Nitra,’69 Bylanv and Aiterhofe who therefore may have had powers for good or ill.’79
Space and identin created , even when people buried
a hundred burials. Moreover
ing the Neolithic as a pacific nt was far more varied. In
For example, keeping skulls and occasionally deposit-
a long tradition of regard their dead, ftmerary treatme
absence of obvious weapon burials were common, but
ing them under houses may indicate a belief in their
time, in part because of the Southern Italy, for instance,
But in any Neolithic skeletal including disturbed burl- inherent power; similarly, in areas where villages were
symbolism (see Chapter 4). we also see other processes,
number of injuries (such as al killings, ritual deposition
ringed by ditches, the dead were often buried in the
collection there are a fair als around sites, possible ritu
bably resulted from viol- earlier burials and skull ditches, implying perhaps a desire to interpose the dead
cranial fractures) which pro of skulls, removal of skulls from
have tried to quantifr the site, Scaloria Cave, people between the village and the potentially hostile outside
ence. When archaeologists caches within villages. At one
as any time in prehistory, the faces, skulls and bodies
\Tofld Secondly, burial was not ustially about repres
rate of injun’, it is as high at stripped remaining flesh from
and there are clearly doc164 umented Neolithic assaults es before depositing them
enting individual status or hierarchy. Instead, it was a
at Tai heir n of the dead to clean the bon way for people to reformulate the commuiii of the liv-
Crickley Hill ( England )
and massacres K villages such as Vaihin
1 66 Neolithic (Figure 24). Similarly, in LB — Stone tools ing after death and to identii the histoiy of the group
arn -Schletz (Austria ) to burials in cemeteries, it
( Germany ) and Asp
63
gen (Germany), in addition
.

and children v167 Spondylus shell ornaments with its specific landscape and territory of the village. It
violence afficted men, women rticularly of children), par-
is common to find burials (pa
injuries such as healed trau in pits and ditches around Figure 25. Aiterhofen, Gerrnan’: LBK burial (origim] image cour marked a new linkage between the history of the body,
It includes many sub-lethal tial bodies and stray bones
clubs, suggesting that attacks y, perhaps most, people tesy ofSylvja CodreanuWindauer Bayerisches Landesarnt ftir Den- the histoi’ of the group, and places.18° This gives us a
mas probably inflicted with villages. This suggests that man kmalpflege, redrawn by Vicki Herring).
not necessarily systematic amongst the houses. Dis context for interpreting a kind of burial found consist-
were common but the goal was were actually buried around and
of endemic low-level raid- fe, with body parts perhaps
ently in small numbers throughout Neolithic Europe
killing. One gets the picture
—

turhing the dead was part ofli

ups, occasionally culminat afterwards. Unusual ritual deviant burials, the victims ofviolence. Whereas in Neo
ing and conflict between gro being kept and manipulated
such as at Asparn-Schletz seen at Herxheim, Germany,
grave goods, however, rarely fit such a model. They lithic Britain the violently killed were often selected for
lug in a dramatic mass attack processing ofdead bodies is
e massacred with clubs in d were brought from dis SOfleti1nes define social categories especially gender and burial in monuments, elsewhere violent deaths seem to
where sixty-seven people wer
—

where large numbers of the dea age or refer to idiosyncratj ritual statuses or circum
y, it suggests that a more losure, intentionally broken have led to quite different treatments ofthe deceased. For
theirvillage.’68 Anthropologicall
—

taut places to a ditched enc

pe created the potential for ll to a specific form of skull-c
ap) Sta;-ces Moreover, they often give a sense of being placed example, several individuals have been found strangled
rigidly divided social landsca ( often to reduce the sku with the dead to redefine the body and its relations with
more closed, territorial and and deposited in Danish bogs at Sigersdai on Zealand
increased conflict, with much and deposited.’7’
than was the case in earlier ing what it meant to
People, to recreate a relatioial personhood via the social and at Boflcjlde on Als)81 Similarly, at Passo di Corvo
frequently hostile social groups At this point, it is worth ask netvQrl(s constitutiig the 174
dead. For some parts
of Thus, in Scandinavian in Italy, a young woman was deposited perhaps not
—

periods. deposit grave goods with the mo n; how - tombs, pots may relate to the ways in which the body was buried face down in a well. If burial rites provided
are very uncom
Neolithic Europe, grave goods
—

sou th- Stistaifled through feeding, the axes to exchanges made the plan of action merging collective identity with the
in areas such as in
The dead
new ways. For ever, they do occur repeatedly with others and amber beads to the ways in which people
the dea d in the latter case, lneinoW ofplaces, such flagrantly different burials were a
Neolithic people rela ted to
to a eas t Eur ope and amongst the LBK’72 In could assemble decoratire items that tied them into other
sent amongst them
such as red ochre, potterY means of excising the people involved presumably for
one thing, the dead were pre
—

ead hod - burials included grave goods Places and times. On a more abstract level, like ritually political or ritual reasons from history, a form of social
much greater degree. The larg
e-sc ale bur ial ofd ornaments such as brace-
flint and bone tools, axes, and
—

and mo re ll depos,tyig artefacts in bogs, placing grave goods within forgetting I 82

ies takes offin this period, on
a leve l far gre ater orted spondvlus she
and pendants made from imp
.

usly Par ticu larl y in lets adu lt moflulneI] ts 7as onepart of the broader acts of assembly
widespread than had been seen
previo lly with
Axes were deposited preferentia
.

hur l- ( Fig ure 2 5 ) afte t that gather

Europe (Ne olit hic .
period tog ethe r dead bodies, living bodies, stones Representafions
the earlier Neolithic ofrnainland ns, are mal es. To loo k a little forward in time, to the “°od and earth in the acts ofbuildiig provolting memor
alithic traditio ian Neolithic groups, peO
P As in the Near East, Neolithic people in Europe made
als after 4000 Bc, particularly meg ch on 4000 BC amongst Scandinav ls and
e1not1o15175 As we will see in more detail in the
tho ugh we do tou flat graV CS clay figurines. Figurines are common in Greece and the
mainly discussed in Chapter 4, were buried with axes, pots and
ornaments in flCt .

apter, the kinds of megalitlic tombs that came to

ally buried in
-

Balkans; moderate numbers are known in adjace;it areas

.

cha pter ), the dea d wer e usu clos ed dolmen megaliths’ . .

them in this ces lon g harrows and in some dS

uOj-,,1 , .
.

t in urope in the late fifth and especiallr in the

and around settlements within hou
ses, in ope n spa ood grave gOO of Central Europe such as Hungary and Austria, and in
hae olo gists have traditionally underst
—

around vill age s. In Arc lifleS :.t li rnil len,ia BQ provided a focus for socia1iia place Italy and Malta. Figurines are usually found discarded
between houses or in pits and ditches and status, along the
Eur ope and the Cen tral in terms of personal wealth Ne1ltj1C re People
could come together and work to construct and brolceii amid ‘domestic’ refuse. This suggests that
some areas, particularly Cen tral wit h the most things wins’.
of ‘wh oev cr dies
formal cemeter
Mediterranean, such burials evolved into
 r
The limits of the body 55
John Robb
Harris, Preston Miracle and
Duan Bone, Oliver J. I.
54

, ..
‘.

S%

N
I
.4
...-

*.
I— - .

I?/

•
I..
...•

T, _

.
A ‘

‘.S
; I’
‘
.,
. ,,

S
i ..,-
;.SS

(b) ,..
-

t
. ••

(a)
•
• 5’

(a) (b)
;
ci Fire 27. Neolithic cave art: Porto Badisco, Italy, males in llunng scene (Graziosi 1974, fig. 157);
(a)

( b) Levantine art, Spain, hunting scene (drawn by Vicld Herring).

y::
?

:._::-..‘
J1 “
.t
houses and bodies (Plate VId). Secondly, figurines vary
imiriensely From Greece to Hungary, there is no single
The Neolithic also sees the rise of rock art, some-
thing which will increase in subsequent periods. Although

I
6 - template for representing tile body. At some sites, tile
lower torso is emphasized, the upper body shrunken to a
dating is a major headache for most bodies of prehis
tonic rock art (and we discuss megalithic art in Chapter
Lt
.

simple rod; at others the torso is detailed and the limbs 4 as it dates principally to later in the Neolithic), it is
and head lyiefe nubs; there are three-dimensionaj ‘nattir worth mentioning several art traditioils here. At Porto

‘,,/ (d)
(e)
alistic’ bodies and flattened plaque-like bodies, there are
stiffly rigid bodies and freely gesturing bodies, there are
Badisco in south-easternulost Italy (Figure 27a),19° males
are shown hunting deer, whereas women identified by a
(C) hollow vessel-like bodies and bodies constructed in seg dot between their legs are depicted in a cllaractenistic
ece (Indiana University
dite rran ean Neo lith ic figu rines. A. Franchthi Cave, Gre illents specifically designed to be broken neatly apart. The pose, perhaps dancing. CPrayi,lg figures with upraised
reproduced with fund permis
sion
Figure 26. Balkan and Me nania (Bailey 2005, fig. 3.2,
14) . B. Har nan gia, Ror
lve, Ror nan ia (Ba iley 200 5, act ofabstnactioi1 and schematjsnll$6 needed to go from arms are lUlown in Neolithic tombs on Sardinia, as are ox-
Archives, P00315 Mason). C. Cucuteni/Tripo
glas s Bail ey, figu re drawn by Howard How ard Ma son ) . D Rendina, the body as people saw and experienced it to the body heads. In Iberia, ‘macro-schematic’ cave art also includes
of Dou ley, drawn by
.

d permission of Douglass Bai

fig. S 1 1 reproduced with kin
,

Cat ign ano . Ital y (Ro bh 2007, fig. 6). as represented was governed by local tradition and by anthropomorpl1ic ‘praying’ figures. The most remark-
Italy (Robb 2007, fig. 5). E.
.

Southern the ileeds of the particular context; the result was Utter able and justly famous Neolithic art is Levantine cave art
constru ction of gender)85
not of gists know about the varied ithic heterogenejr Obvious as tills sounds, it needs saying, from Eastern Spain (Figure 2 7b) .
191
Images ofmen hunt-
particular purposes but upon a doctrinal, monol
they were important for s, Such a view is also based because it stands in strong contrast to the uniform way mg deer with bows are prominent; as at Porto Badisco,
y may have been used as toy n-
re reminiscent of Christia
particularly high value. The view of religion inuch mo in thich the body was represe,lted a few millennia later in a 5ociey whose subsistence was based mostly upon
agreements, or in rituals.’83 etlinographically in the tn
as tokens of relationships or ity than of anything luiown and it reveals a particular Neolithic understanding of the farming and herding, hunting is shown as an import-
ans, and the great major- s make two important
points
Most figurines depict hum bal world. Balkan figurine body ant male pursuit. Groups ofprobabie women are shown
show females, to judge from thic bodies (Figure 26a—c).
First,
ity of these are intended to for understanding Neoli In the Central and Westenil Mediterfallean the body dancing together. Levantine art also includes scenes of
as breasts and pubic areas. illustration of a theme
which
anatomical references such they provide an excellent appears in vo forms ofprehjstonic art.187 First, figurines yarfare between groups armed with bows and of herd-
males are also depicted.184 edly the interpla y of tec hno
In some areas, animals and y we will encounter repeat
—
are agaifl lUlOwn
throughout Italy, Sicily, Sardinia and ing and other varied activities; some figures wear dab
ly answered why primaril ecially Chapter 4 on
met als
It has never been satisfactori - logy and the body (see esp e Malta thOugh they are found in far fewer numbers than orate costumes such as feathered headdresses and in
e archaeologists and pop hnologies arise, they
pro vid
women should he shown. Som of a Ne o and Chapter 8). As new tec mef l the Balkans (altogethei. about 100 are iulowii in the one scene, a probable woman is shown collecting honey
s as evidence ding the body. Here, as we
ular writers have seen figurine new ways of understan CfltiiJ
Mediterl.alleail), they resemble the figurines dis while bees buzz around her. The body world shown
ciated with the fertility of ology between pots,
hod
lithic ‘Mother Goddess’ asso tioned earlier, we see a hom
c:usSed
eal•ijer. small, clay, female, found around do1llesc which gender is clearly
btful; there is no inherent tech in Levantine cave art is one in
erlain by a shared clay
the earth. This is extremely dou ies, and houses that is und With
1tes, and
evtl.efllel)T heterogeneous in form (Figure 26d enacted through specific activities , particularly hunting
uld have associated crop t in things such as pots
reason why Neolithic people sho nology and made eviden
and e .

Lake the Balkan figurines, they probably reflect for males and probably ritual dancing for women but in
and there is no other h as faces added to the
nil1,
fertility particularly with females anthropomorphic details suc Uni t5
both ‘a
pafcul context, practice or usage and how an which people participate in a wide range ofpursujts which
ver, this is based upon ls that of the social
evidence for such a cult. Moreo houses whose lifespan paralle rgh l
ext fernel
local com,uni ofpractice read tile body’89 cannot simply be reduced to gender or prestige value
t of what it means lptures me
a universalizing, essentialist concep inhabiting them, and even
pottery scu
h what anthropolo
to be a woman entirely at odds wit
 r

The limits of the body

ston Miracle and John Robb
Dugan Bone, Oliver J. T. Harris, Pre
56
memory of mdi- and transformed through assembling things such as orna as has occasionally been suggested; but they do suggest
es from differentiated Neolithic burial was not preserving the ments, clothing, and bodily decoratjonsl9o J cases such that, in veiy particular contexts, such definitions became
has a performative aspect and deriv viduals; through varied practices colle
—
ctive burial, cas
recovery and reuse as habitually worn shell rings and permanent modifica fluid, permeable or objects of play.
activities. ual disturbance of graves in villages,
lved in the living area tions to the body, much as for our wedding rings, haircuts Likewise, many distinctions were marked on the
of body parts the dead were disso and dental implants today, it is impossible to draw a clear body appearances, qualities, abilities, ritual statuses,
—

Humans and difference senced in the form

to give substance to history, and pre
—

The Neolithic body world: boundary between ‘the body’ and its ‘things’.’97 Instead, relations but these distinctions do not seem to have been
of generic, collective ancestral bodies.
—

are ways ofu nde rstanding the body through ic representations we have bodies created through the assembly of dispar organized around specific, recurrent dimensions of social
Bod y wor lds
we not ed prev ious hr, Humians tind ttnimals. Neolith ate elements, each originating in different social relations,
diverse practices (see Chapter 2). As human body. With a difference there was no single costume of power, for
emphasize the humanness of the
—

crea te coh eren t textures of bearing its ovn qualities and stories and making its own example. Material culture is rife with demonstratiois of
although thes e bod y wor lds e are very few human-
t tho ugh t of as rep- few exceptional examples,’94 ther contribution to the whole person. As an ensemble, Neo
experience, they are pro bab ly bes ead, there are far more remarkable skill, yet this effort was not harnessed to some
cou ld dra w, rath er than a animal hybrids in Neolithic art. Inst lithic material culture illustrates well the interdependence rational economy ofinyestment sOme calculus ofpolitical
ertoires upon which peo ple ally speaking, than in
way of und erst and ing the human representations, proportion of things and the bodies using and created by them; the
systematic and homogeneo us themselves are far less advantage; these products were prized, but they were also
lith ic bodies reviewed Palaeolithic art, and animal images social creation of the body was invested in things to a
The evid ence for Neo a fixed category con- created, used and disposed ofby ordinary people in ordin
important. Presenting immans as
—

world.’92
tion lacks reso lution, and greater degree than ever before. ary moments, not accul-nulated as social capital, or dis
summarily in an earli er sec not entirely new (as
ceptually distanced from animals was
—

and chr ono log ical var iati on; the The bOdyspotentiatfor difference The symbolic con- played as trophies. The point seems to have been simply
there is much reg ion al w), but it becomes by
est whe n con tras ted bro adly the Palaeolithic Venus figurines sho text for the human body shifted decisively in the Neo to create the qualities they display and the kinds ofperson
Neolithic picture looks clear far the dominant imagery in the
Neolithic. Burial evid
h Pal aeo lith ic and late r pre hist oric (Chapter 4) ways of al flui dity (as in the Danish lithic, from landscape and animals to the bounded body, with the skills needed to create them. Likewise, although
wit ence ofpotential human-anim
we can rud ime ntarily outline bounded spaces and social networks, and material things. food had an important social role (food linked people
doing thin gs. Nev erth eles s, er) is also generally
of Neo lith ic Eur ope an body Mesolithic examples discussed earli This is a huge transition in human embodimey-t. in these
some very broad elem ents to new economic prac and animals were social valuables), people could have
absent. This shift probably relates qualities, the Neolithic set the tone for all later periods.
agement’ Among produced far more than they actually did; there is little
yorlds. tices which carried new ‘ml es of eng
.

lith ic intr odu ced new rela It is important, however, to consider how the Neoljtl-,jc evidence for centralized storage accumulation, intensi
Bodies in spacc. The Neo often thought of as
hunter-gatherers, wild animals are
, -

s betw een bod ies and place s. If we were to plot rs sentient beings or was unique too. The overriding impression one gets of fication or redistribution, or for the harnessing of subsist-
tionship independent beings potentially pee
,

i es mo vin g thro ugh space, ,

the Neolithic body is that what was crucial was its poten
Palaeolithic and Neo lith ic bod scape together with ence resources to any greater ambitioi. This suggests that
g dra mat ical ly mo re lim ited spirits, as co-Species occupying a land tial for difference We see many’ ways in which bodies the food producing economy was not strongly linked to
the latter would mov e alon cated animals may be
On the scale of land sca pes , humans. Among herders, domesti were differentiated but (in contrast to later periods, see
and more formalized grooves. ly regarded a political economy which might have encouraged over-
hin mu ch nar row er che rish ed and cared for, but they are normal
people were situated experientially wit animals with which Chapter 4) these were not subordinated to an overriding production There was warfare, often lethally, but there
s, rou tes and uses. Within as property. In the Neolithic, the social plan.
vistas, wit h mo re fixed place ects of intimate care, was no systematic pOliticizatioi of warfare (for instance,
bee n div erg ent male and people engaged most became obj For example, gender is a baseline principle, clearly sig
these, there may well have property which mcdi- through explici t depictions ofviolence or dorninan cc ccl
control and exchange a form of
, -

tasks cape s base d aro und pot en —

nified by a range of varied references: physiological ref ebration ofmartiali in grave goods, the development of
female, senior and junior which created new, less
like catt le herding, ritual, and ated relations between people and erences in figurines, gendered activities in rock art, and
gen der spec ific tasks ions between people specialized weaponry distinct from tools or hunting gear,
tially
raw mate rials . Agg regation into egalitarian and less bridgeable divis burial positions, and no doubt many gendered practices
the gatherin g ofd iffe ren t or a strategic choice of victims as opposed to indiscrim
es hounded villages’93 and animals. now Inaccessible to us too. Gender, however, appears
sometimes substantial and sometim er Wild animals remained important
in the Neolithic — mate raiding). Burial, likewise, shows little attention to
t of firm , stabl e insi der -ou tsid not to have been particularly highly politicized. For individual status through grave goods or tomb architec
suggests the developmen providing an alternative mode for und
erstanding anim -

inct ion s base d upo n co- resi den ce. Intergroup raid- ly for non-nutritional example, although weaponi-r and warfare were probably ture, which instead draw attention to ritual circumstances,
dist ality and humanity but gen eral
h groups was not
—

ges ts that hos tilit y betw een suc mat erials such as male things evei-vfiere we see no attempt in art, burial commuifrj5 and places.
ing sug
niti es par tici pati on in col reasons: they were a resource for raw goods or material culture to suggest that to be a success-
infrequent. Wit hin com mu -

tion of colours and What we get out ofthis discussion is mostly a texture
antler, fur and feathers, and for cita
,

ge ditc hes and mo num ents hil meinbe,- of society in other contexts, a male had to
lective projects such as villa Hence hunting is ofp ract ice, a set ofsocial reflexes. Juxtaposing all of these
ily wor k; yet con stru cted qua lities such as wifdness or danger .

excel as a warrior. Similarly, there are isolated but parallel

defined identity through bod ity even in s
variou realms of bodily discourse does not reveal a sim
hin hou ses, hea rths and rep rese nted in art as a prestigious male activ examples ofwomen dancli-ig in rock art in southern Italy,
spaces such as houses, zones wit societies which rarely ate game and
, in a Palaeolithic sur plifying set of recurrent themes, an attempt to organize
nes ted set of dist inct ions within the and Spain, but this was no developed into a
wrork areas also crea ted a h continue to be used social value around a few central roles sucl-i as hierarchies
ss, mo vem ent and know- vival, wolf, fox and dog canine teet Wldespj.ead regional symbolism and there is no evident
village groups base d upo n acce Instead, they were context-specific leading to an overall
lter, sharing food widely as ornaments. attempt to indicate the gender of isolated ‘prayiig’ fig-
ledge: working together, sharing she People and things. During the Neo
lithic, people crc- i1npressjoi- ofheterogenejy and fluidity. We see many dif
l add ed a tim e dirn en fes. So gender was present and salient in all groups, but
and sharing rituals. Finally, buria ated and used an unprecedented
amount of material
It as
ferent activities carried out with great skill and attention,
ger s tend ed to dispose
sion to this y. Wh erea s fora ns and environmentS viewed as relevant to inaily contexts. Gender is but they occur in separate spheres; none are generaliz
things. The sea of material extensio
fixit
them into land sca pes, occasionally represe,itcd am biguously. The in ost striking
of the dead in ways that disso lved w larger, richer and to provide a central, dominant political identiy’99 It is
ly used buria l to crea te rela through which the body swam gre exaJpl5 ofthese are figurines from both the Balkans and
Neolithic people incr eas ing particularly clay, heterarchical, in that it defies reduction to a single simple
n (as in Gree ce and mo re structured. New teclinologies, Italy, Whicl (seen one way)
tions with specific places. Even whe anding and repres depict an erect phallus atop axis ofcomparison.200 The Neolithic body, as it is presen
disp osed of offsite in provided new metaphors for underst tW0 testicles
Bri tain ) mo st Neo lith ic dea d were gs provided new and (seen another way) depict an extremely ted to us through these activities does not convey a single
ible to us, such rites pre sum enting the body. New genres of thin schematic female torso with large buttocks and a shaft-
ways archaeo log ical ly invis ily skill and defin dominant plan or model; instead we see a contextspecific
mo re circ um scri bed hom e arenas for cultivating and displaying bod 1ce torsol9$
Such occasional but undeniable examples of
ably took place within a mu ch an opportunitY body, an assemblage of citations suited for the purpose
rep rese ntat ive frac tion of ing people in terms of skilled bodies —

gend
ambigui do not imply that Neolithic people did
territory than previously and a iously s1d1f’’1 at hand. It is the body’s potential for difference which is
exploited in the plethora of ostentat
.

ritu al use or to crc- clear ly flotfi a e .

the dead’s remains were retained for body was created stabl ewidely acknowledged gender definitions, socially productive.
nt of Neolithic things. Moreover, the social
ate highly visible monuments. Moreover, the poi
 r

ton Miracle and John Robb The limits of the body 59

Duan Bone, Oliver J. T. Harris, Pres
58
ieval period is great. First, although we have emphasized the disjuncture Finally, the temptation in narrativeS like this is see
ds: Constant, Age and particularly with the med
Multimodality in Neolithic body worl Without a bodily logic centred around
a few central val between the Palaeolithjc and Mesolithic and the Neo ‘hard’ factors such as technology and economy driv
unremarkable difference seem to take the lithic, historically, most European farmers were descen lug cultural change. This is all the more SO for change
ept of multimodal ties, multimodal contradictions do not
In Chapter 2, we introduced the conc form of towering clashes of symbolis
m or moral wars. ded directly from local foragers, and there are many cul between periods that have been defined basically by their
worlds are lived
ity, an important theme in how body Rather than a hierarchy of perspectiv
es as we see in the tural continuities Palaeoljthjc antecedeits for Neolithic
—
economies disciplinary narrative traditions urge us irres
term captu res the way
through and understood. This medieval period, for example, we are
better off thinking practices and Neolithic persistences of Palaeollthic tradi istibly to make up Stories in which ‘farming caused the
unifi ed conc ept of the
in which there is never a single, ofthese differing perspectives as bein
g in themselves het tions. For examples, ochre and ornaments are used simil Neolithic body’. We should resist this tendency. Theoret
have multiple modes of
body in play; instead, all societies erarchical: locked into parallel ways of
understanding the any throughout both periods, there were probably con- ically, this reifies ‘technology’ and ‘economy’ as standing
if you will, that emerge
being, inultiple kinds of bodies body.203 Thus these different bodi ly logic s are a constant, tinuities in gender and, in cases such as Scandinavia the outside social life and prior to it. But technology and eco
have not discussed this
in different kinds of context. We omnipresent low-level feature of life
a featu re of a body transition between them was long and gradual, without fbi-ny are social, and because the body is the medium of
For this period, the
—

much in our Palaeolithic examples. world centred around the body’s pote
ntial for difference. any clear point of inflection. In fact, the rnultimodaj_ social life, technology and economy cannot be logically
of the evidence which
data is limited by the patchiness In Chapter 9, we return to the impo
rtant issue of why it)’ of culture means that wild animals remained syrn prior to the body. Instead, technology is embodied (see
and idlometres; it is
is spread over thousands of years the nature ofmultirnodaliw itselfchanges
in the different bolically important in many Neolitl-ijc groups long after also Chapters 2 and 8). The transition to the Neolithic
rences really existed
hard to tell whether apparent diffe time periods we encounter.
hunting lost its economic centrality and most hurnai affords a concrete example ofthis. Ifwe ascribe changes in
within groups or are because of historical difference animal relations were redefined in completely different beliefs about the body to sedentisn or farming, we then
occasional hints
between groups. However, there are al process ways. have to answer the question: why did foragers decide
obvious example is Conclusion: The body in historic
of multirnodal contrast. The most Secondly, this chapter provides a classic example of to become sedentary farmers? It is hard, however to
y human figures
the polarity henveen the unambiguousl twO of the classic scale effects (see Chapter 2) a picture ofchge which ansTef this question Witliotit involving em bodied logics
li-i this chapter, we have considered
—

e a stylized, nor-
of the Venus figurines that emphasiz Upper Palaeolithic looks clear and distinct when seen at the largest scale and landscapes of action.
nsional humans ‘revolutions’ ofhurnan prehistorv: the
mallv faceless corporeality, the nvo dime
-

ins ofcognition’) and the looks blurry and patchy when we look close up at mdi We can demonstrate this using both modes of look-
sketched upon bones and stones that emp
hasize the head ( sometimes heralded as the ‘orig ing life. Both have vidual pixels. For example, there are always discrepancies ing at causality proposed in the preceding chapter. In a
it’v between Neolithic beginning of sedentary farm
and face in profile, and the fluid perrneabil but they both between a homogenized picture drawn across Europe and ‘contingent causation’ view, the world is seen as a net-
other images and rightly been critiqued as origin myths,204
humans and animals suggested in ngst both for- a particular case: foragers may be sedentary or use pottery, work of relations, each ofwhich contributes to structur
capture important social transitions. Amo or farmers may remain largely mobile or persist in creat
practices. were not given ing the others at each point in time. Hence the future
human body agers and farmers, the limits of the body
Different modes of understanding the gh practice and ing human/anji-aJ hybrids. Is this a problem? Ifwe view results from the ensemble of felations in the present
Neolithic; here hut were defined and sustained throu
—

are more clearh’ detectable during the rise ofnew forms of history as a Newtoniai clockwork mechanism with a frmnc an array of relations to which the body is ftmndarnentai
Neolithic body ritual. We argue that both involve the
the evidence becomes more concentrated. Upper Palaeolithic tional or deterministic logic, such slippages benveen scales For example in asking how economic changes related to
We have already men- embodiment. It is not at all clear that
worlds abound in contradictions. to use language or mean we have either drawn our generalizatio;5 wrong or understandings ofthe human body, we have black-boxed
an-a nima l relations foragers were the first hominids able
tioned the dual forms which hum gical record really collected our data incorrectly. But history is not a clock- ‘economy’ and ‘the body’ as bounded, distinct known
social valuables to think symbolically; what the archaeolo
took; whereas domestic animals were actin g systemically in work mechanjsn- turning out rigid stereotypes. To a more quantities; we assume that ‘the body’ is constant in all
d, wild animals shows us is humans thinldng and
be controlled, circulated and consume es, burying bod thoughtful reading, the play between large-scale patterns ways except those which are proposed as potential effects
and symbolic an embodied way ornamenting bodi
were principally sources of raw materials
—

es, relating bodies and such ‘discrepancies’ are actually informative about of change and we assume that these potential effects of
anim als could ies, categorizing and representing bodi
resources. At the same time, domestic time This was a how historical processes unfold They tell us, for instance, change do not simultaneously feed back reciprocally into
to animals and landscapes for the first
.

s of their human
also be understood as the corollarie
—

ed to animals as that although we can define general historical tendencies, the proposed causes of change. But this assumption is
201
ther in burials world offluid and mobile bodies that relat
counterparts , their bodies mixed toge to transform into what happens in a given situation reflects local contin probably false. Many aspects ofeconomic practice would
hip.202 Human co-species and had tlie potential at times
or used as metaphors for human ldns eolithic art but in gencjes rather non-determiitistjcalJ Moreover the rela have changed the body and how it was understood. The
com munities within them, a potential found not only in Pala
bodies belonged to bounded local Vir, the statues of tionships underlying these general tendencies are not ‘Neolithic demographic transition’ is an obvious example;
but they were the fish/human boulders of Lepenski
which their social identity was defined, wing at Vedbaek. tight functional determinism5 but elective affinities. For though archaeologists and demographers tend to regard
boundaries and Göbekli Tepe, and the baby on a swan’s
ornamented witl traded objects crossing viours is evid example, in both Neolithic groups and foragers such as such things as abstract population models, we are talking
People killed each An even broader range of embodied beha
incorporating the lure of the exotic. rent approach Natufians and in the Danube Gorges, sedentisn often about women’s and men’s reproductive biographies, life
violence within ent in the Neolithic, which reveals a diffe
other in warfare, raiding and probably le understood seems to lauj-ch a decisive change in how the body in risks, and potential breadth and depth of social relations
glorified in mater- to understanding the body. Neolithic peop deatfi j used to relate people to places. Yet this is not a
groups, but fighting per se was not the social rela through children and marriage partners 205 New forms
a fact which gives rise to their bodies in less fluid ways, through
.

ial culture, burial or art . It was more often Unlllersal either/or relationship not all sedentamy farm- of gendered labour (such as herding or making pottery)
tions they had with their communities
—
—

about the ‘peace er used burial in this way,

mistaken archaeological stereowpes r peop that was
le and mobile peoples Some- and new gendered spaces would have been another, rede
contexts in a relationship with place or with othe times used burial to establish Similar
ful Neolithic’. In other words, there were meanings. Simil fining how often and in what roles people encountered
be hurt mattered, seen as constituting a body’s edges. any in Europe, the
which the body’s capacity to hurt and ly distinct adoption of domesticated animals others. Redefining group identity based upon a shared
it did not. Art at Port Badisco
o Having split history into two structural OI111cles neatly with the replacement of human animal
and others in it impossible to commitment to living in the same place, and symbolising
ing was a ideal types a classic way of rendering
-

and the Spanish Levant suggests that hunt Ybryd images by human images, yet this shift in imagery
—

back together it tlirough manipulation of the dead would have been

heral to villages explain we must now briefly stitch them
source of male power, but it was perip n to this theme in the Near East Several millennia before the first
—

another, with more fixed and salient insideroutsider dis

s of ritual in some sort ofhistorical process. We retur
where figurines suggest female-oriented form up a couple of O11CSt)cited sheep or goat. It is histor’ not runniig in tinctions and with deeper, more relevant group histories.
in Chapter 9, but it is important to flag alr, groov5
value. unter simila but unfolding in elastic, ftizzy envelopes And once such changes were in motion, they became part
rent than points here if only because we will enco
But the texture of rnultimodahni j diffe °1possjhmlj
—

of the landscape of action structuring friture pathways 206

the Bronze patterns at every point in this book.
that seen in later periods; the contrast with
 Rohb The limits of the body 61
ris, Preston Miracle and John
DuaIl Borié Oliver J. I’. Har
60
b ) tot differing pC)sltlons Baiiey Whittle and ( ullhlihIngs 19. GaIllhJe 1999, 356.
nlcnt oi the farming world
cven as they were incrcas
t 2005 ), Flnia\soll and XVarren 2t) 1 0 ); Price t 2000 ); and
F)1 instance, SOmC g1OU)S flIl
have adopted sedentism ergoing parallel changes to
20. Galllhte 1999.
, triggerii a demo- ingiv circunlscribed and und \hittie alld Cummings 2t)t)7 ), otter edited volumes with 21. Svohoda lozek, and Vieck 1 996, 2 18.
and domesticates for social reasons hunlans ai1 fish could trans
it. \Vhereas at Lepenski Vir 1110cc detailed studies For tile Near East, see Hodder 22. l)elsoll et al 20()0.
graphic shift which then mad
e use of such new resources stelae at Gobeldi and the
- forni into one another, the I 2 t)06 ), ( 2007 ) and other papers in Finlayson
SlllhLlhotls 23. Softer et al 1997.
se of CrWdIfl2 in the land t tile relationship between
t)b1ieatOr\. Siii1arIy, a sen nurais at catalhovuk contras aild Warren ( 20 1 0 ). Ilie archaeoiog of tile body ill 24. Galllhie 1999, 370.
n based upon gardening. ftr
‘-

scape would 1Ot have bee have embodied sinlilar tile Neolithic Near Fast has recently been reallalyseCi by Gamble 1999, 28$.
hunlans and aninlals, which nlav 25.
avai1able but upon probably demonstrably dit}rent things.
In
which plentiful land \vas Liualities but ‘erc now
( fl)uCller (20 1 2 ) For the Iron Gates, see Bori ( 2002; 26. lerol-GorIrillIl 1993.
of action such as pastora
hsm and play . und er-
nale-oriented forms forces ar e at 2005a; 2005b; 201 1 ). Ihe best single authored o’eniew 27. Grinllll 2000 Roux Dcii, aIld l)ietrich 1995.
both cases, e\’eIl as other causal
iflOdels of Neolit1iic eXpailsion ntial condition of how
minting; hence ccononic standings of the body torn l an esse ()ftlle LUR)pean Neolithic is undouhtedJ Whittle ( I 996); 2$. isltissi 200() 361.
se of space wottid ha\’e had a oncai hut see also Whittle (2003 ). Finaily, tile most theoretically 29. GaIhlhle 1999, 334. Ill all excellent account of
which are based upon a sen y change Unfolds. Fhe body is
a generator of 1iist nlatet-ials

. Likewise, redefining the bod i111)\’Ocative ‘‘ork en tile body in all tile periods covered aIld illeir properties Ill tile Upper Palacoiitilic, Cliantal
gender dilfleflslOfl as well ups process.
tie it to local landsca pes and gn) by tills chapter is Galllbie (2007). Conneiler (201 1 , 45 ) points out tilat Aurigilaciall heads
il-i such a vav as to
Jllanv inlportant Neolithic 2. Aibrethsei1 and Brincli Petersen 1 976; Nil55011 Stutz lllade fronl stone and ivory s\ere produced in tile Sallle
fornled the precondition ibr
s. As such 2003. Illanner even \Vilen this llleallt that tile Illaterials became
g-distance trade netxvork
iflStitutft)flS such as lon NOTES
the body’ show, it is ditti 3. For a more detai]ed take on tile chronology ofthjs period Illuch ilarder to \“Ork. It would llave been simpler to
nintencIed consccuences of 1 At tile start otcach ofour case
-study chapters, we include see l)eh1x)eks et al 2000). Illake tile heads ditirelltiy Out of i\’ory hut people act-
ses affectl1lz tile body, as give the reader a sense of
.

cult to distinguish external cau a short bibliographic footnote to 4. Bailey 2008; Bailey and Spikins 2008 ively chose Ilot to do SO tilere were set bodily fllovemellts
h which such causes act are material co\’ered in tills
the forum of action thR)Ug the key literature on the ficid. The :l. cf Gallihie 2007. WllCll it cane to tile lllaking Ofparticular kinds of heads.
er safe to black-box tile tctres, which reflect tile
themselves embodied . It is nev chapter fails between several iitera h. ( )f course, tilere are real differences hens-cell tile leso 3t). Sillciair 1995
. I’he study ofthc body
body! conceptual partitioning c)fthe field ililhie aild tile Palaelitilic ( Jot least Ill tile environnle]hts 31. I)ohres 2000.
Ilie other xa’ to approach cau
sality is to devise tra ill archaeolog’ has beco
iiie increasingh’ popular in the last I Iley explOJed aJld exploited ), and authors such as Zvelehii 32. White 1993.
ratives which ascribe cau
sation
tWo decades, enlerging
out of a conlbinatlon of interests 2009 ) have argued powerfui1’ for a consideratloil of tile 33. It is worth noting tilat tllcre are no lcm)wn huriais tllat
ditional explanatory nar
rather than diffusing it gen
erally ); Nordbladil and Yates
tO particular flctors in P°51 -structuraiisiii ( I—c)wier 200t \ lesolithie Oil Its O\Vll tefllls. At tile scale at which we are date to tile earliest part of tile Upper Palaeolitllic prior to
ence of Foucanit par
thR)ughout a network otcircuinst
ances — lit to do SC) tree I 990; Ibonlas 2002 with the influ ‘5 orking, however, tllere are clear cc)ntilluities between tile tllis point (Pettitt 2011).
nisn l Giichrist 1 999
social life must be struc ticuiariv notable, gender and fbnli W() pellods, lilcltiding cOnl]lhoflaJities of 34. Vanllaelen and dErnc() 2005; see also Calllhle 20t)7,
from preconceptions about ht)\\
t
f)rager iifeways
994 , iliie v 2t)t) Ihonas
opean Neolithic, hunlan and phenonlenoiogv (Tiiiev I Ild Clllderstalldillgs of huillan bodies. 144—150
tured. F)f example, Ill tile Eur ored the bod both as a
ion tend to be replaced by 2002 ). These studies have expl cttitt 2t) 1 1. 35. Galllhle 2007, 146.
animal hybrids in representat lay and expression an
bounded hunlan bodx’ at s\fli[)OliC Iliedlun) for social disp ‘ e.g. Meliars and Stringer 1 989; Mithell 1996. 36. (Talllhle 1999, 405; Oiiva 2000.
inlages hrnllv toregrounding a via nore experiential accounts ofe nlb odi nlen t ( Boric aii 0 Ileidegger 1962; Merieau-pc)Ihty 1962. 37. Galllhle 1999 IIllla I 98$; Svohoda, Lozek, and \1eck
start herding domest
about the same time as people 1)bb 2t)t)$; Hanlhiakis, Pluc ienn ik, and fario w 2002
1‘ .L. lllgold 2t)00, chapter 2 1. 1996.
ward to regard tills as a and Josc
icated animals. It is straightfor FIC)UStO1l, Stuart, and Tauh
e 200 6; IIesk eii
11 Clark 1997. 3$. Gallible 2007, 197.
n aninlals becanie property e acro ss case 5tUtJ
functional conlpatibiiltv: whe 2t)t)3, Petrv and Joyce 2t)01 ). They rang 12 2006. 39. e.g. Peresani et al. 201 1.
ls
of ininlans, they ceased
being potential peers and trai les fJ01ll tile old \VOrid and the new, bridg ing topic s suc
13 LOld 2000. 40. e.g. \‘anhaeren and d’Errico 2005
tormations. But in the hist
ory of the Neolithic transition as the Classic is1a’a aii
Anci ent Egyp t, Neol ithic LUrC )t
I IllfX)rtailt as x’ell tO ilote tilat eveil Wilere evidence is 41 . We ‘ill see ilOw Illetais too [lecallle incorporated in sur
compatltlhiities tend to be e 20t)5 ) prov ides a reid
as a whole, such functional and Bronze Age roclc art. Joyc ( I!lg for tile lcillds Of hod’ W’C)Iid we see Ill tile Upper lacing ti’e hod)’ ill Chapter 4.
tically, and the tct that they ively recent and useful sun]nlarv.
i\Iost of these acou 42. Connelier 201 1 ; Ingold 2007; VJhite I 997, 95.
assembled gradually and elas ,iet)iitilic and IC5OJitllic tills does not lhecessariiy inlpiy
and interpretation
1

not necessarily tell us how they tend to deal with the descripti on hsellce of tilese killdS of Cllgageilleilt (ct \IcBrearty 43. Fo\\7Jer 2004a.
exist at one point does ld telir
begin to sec a symbolic of a body \vorld, as ve wou 44. Witlhoclt \\ islhhllg to suppress tile differences betweell
1articCIllr aspect
arose Iii earlier periods. Thus ve that body worl d canie to b
body in Natttfian figur and rarely engaged in ho nyc Gaulble (2t)07) lla so ciearl’ denlollstrated, tills Palaeolitllic and McSOilthic, as discclssed in an earlier dId
locus ilpon the bounded human cog niti ve evol ution ’ and
ore the first sheep or goa
t x’as lot the debate on .
isit 1011 CJJ1 he seen 110t as a revolutioll htlt as part of a Ilote, we do agrie tilere 15 enough silllilarity to draw 011
nies and burials, long bef jer Palaeolithic transition
in Lun)t
al less on lVIiddle to t cr111
directiona] change in how ilunlans Ltllderstf)od sllared concepts aroulld tile Ilulllan hod’, as revealed Ill
r Fast. Ifthere is any caus re
domesticated in tile Nea 989 and the niore
see I\Iei)ars and Stringer ),
C 1 orld and tileit bodies. His account takes all even
that redefining the symbolic
‘
tills exaniple
tO be Iearned it has to be i1eilars et ai. ( 2t)07 ), ?\1it hen ( I 996 ) and Zili lio (20(’
tClllpoiaJ perspective than ours, alId “here we clif 45 .Conneller (2004 ) draw’s inspiration tronl ulhdersralldillgs
( t
animal bodies formed a
boundaries between human and hic art, the best gei ti
1—or French and Spanish Paiaeolit ft Ierpretati11 111 places we have heell illspired by his of perspectivislll conlllloll ill North and South Allierica
on of aninlais, not tile nfeld ( 1967 ), aithoi h
precondition fbr tile domesticati handbook renlalns Lckc ) and Rose hli1Ilgillg and Stilllulating account tlhat we touched 011 111 tIle last cllapter (See lilgoid 2000;
lbolisnl trigger tl7e Nco at Chacive
reverse. So did shifts iii body svn this piedates the spectaccilar discoven’ C
1 6 1; ,j 997 Illgoid 2000; Myers I 986. Vl\eiros de Castl-o 199$ ). Ratller tllan hold tilat tile phys
narrative, hO\VeVer, is ps and Hiiia ire ( 1996 i\ii 17
lithic? Perhaps. The elasticity ofthis Chauvet, Brunel 1)esc hanl ical hod’ is Sxed \Vllilst culture is Illalleable, Mesolitihic
.

becairie all increasing mat

- fbr a popu lar, if disputed. n 18 (
clear: vhiist tiie hunlan body Lewis\Viiiiams 2002 ) lIld Arlllelagos I 984. III discussing tile silape of people Illigllt Ilave understood cuiture as fixed \\‘llilst
the burial has re
tt’r (?jCOflCc’r;l2’ through
tile Natctfi an, the PPN A and
pretation. Iiìc evidence for Paiaeoiithic I j1 11 tills cilapter and tile next, hut lOt ill later ones, Ilature itselfssas challgeable. Illis ill fllrll allows the body
For tile general ai
‘

PPNB, so the rela tion s betw een hunlan and aninlal bod been svnthesised by Pettitt t 20 1 1 ). C
‘\
hot lllcafl to iIllplv a categorical difference hets-veen to tra1lsf)rlll itself to reveal its inner deer-tless by wearing
( 1 999 ); and f
hekii fepe and oiogy of the PaiaeOiithiC, see Galilbie
t

ies came under scrutiny Oil the pillars of(o bodies, nor between bodies of JIarticrllar kllldS of nlaslcs.
IC5 alid their tile
8 and tw’
\lesoiithic, see BaiIe’ and Spikens (2t)0 )
I
cnski Vir illustrates ii ilcI)ds and tllose of Prelhistoric f)Iles. Illstead 46. Pettirt 2011.
tile \valis of çata1hovülc. Perhaps Lep son et ai . 200 3 ; 1\Ic( a I
collectlc)ns of pape (rs I,ars
a conipicmentary scenario, that
of foragers Vh() (like the ICIL llt lclllds of evidence 110111 I1Icilistoly Illean ‘e 47. Pettitt2t)1l, 3$.
al 2t)t)9 ). Ibere is a huge
literature on tile i\fes II
hj5 all the 4$. Aldll()rIse-(reell aild Pettitt I 99$; Oliva 2000 Pettitt
ike the Natufians) 011 Strallds Otevidence available to us
Natulians ) became sedentary, hut ( unl
IlL
Neolithic transition in hur ope . For general models \i
20 1 1 ; Svohoda, lozek, alld \Tleck I 996
transformable isidcring tue tlody.
held firmly to a forager ‘iew’ C)i a fluidly 1 and Rohb l
‘‘

encroach- arguments b’ RO\’le\-(()tlW’\ ( 201 )

living worid and in consequence resisted the
 r
The limits of the body 63
and John Robb
.

Duan Bone, Oliver J. T. Harris, Preston Miracle

62 139. cf Hodder and Meskefl 2011. 175. Harris 2009; Mcfadven 2007.
$8. Ingold 2000, Chapter 4. 140. Cummings and Harris 201 1; Robb and Miracle 2007; 176. Fowler 2004c; 2010; Whittle, Healy, and Bayliss 2011.
va 200 4. emphasis.
49. Formicola and Buz hilo $9. Ingold 2000, 71, original TholTias 2007; Whittle and Cummings 2007. 177. Fowler 2010; Schulting and Wysocld 2005.
and Vle ck 199 6; Svo boda et al. 2000.
50. Svoboda, Lozek, 90. Ingold 2000, 112 . 141. Angel 1984; Meildejohn et al. 1984; Murnmei•t et a]. 17$. Fowler 2010.
disabilities
51. Gamble 1999, 409;
IKlIrna 198$, $34. Such Mussi, Cinq-Mars, and Bol
duc 2000, 110—1 12.
179. Whittle 2003.
le bod ies may not 91.
be 2011; Robb 1994.
ied as who 5a; 2007.
in persons who were bur 92. cf Conneller 2004; Bori 200 142. Cancj, Minozzi, and Tar]i 1996; Hershkovjtz et al. 200$; 180. Bone, in press.
also app lied to the bur ial at Brno II in Moravia Bri nch Pet erse n 1976; Brinch Petersen
unusual it —

s. 93. Alhrethsen and Mummert et al. 2011. 181. Whittle 1996, 243.
ofthe Ital ian site n 1989.
(Oliva 2000) and some and Meikeljohn 2003; Larsso 143. Bocquet-Appel 2002; 2009; Bocquet-Appe] and Bar- 182. Bone 2010; Forty and KUchier 1999; Harris in press;
1, 211— 214. 3.
52. Pettitt 201 94. Nilsson Stutz 200 Yosef200$ Bocquet-Appel and Dubouloz 2004. Rowlands 1999.
s 200$.
53. Gamble 1999; Spikin 95. Nilsson Stutz 2003, 173
.
144. e.g. Hedges, Saville, and O’Connell 2008; Jackes, Lubell, 183. Bailey 2005; Beihl 2006; Chapman and Gavdarska 2006;
0. 200 3, 310 .
54. Mussi 200 96. Nilsson Stutz and Pvleiklejohn 1997; Lightfoot et a!. 2011; Richards Talalay 1993.
Con wv 200 1, 51. 4a.
55. Rowlev- 97. Fowler 200 2000. 1 84. Male figurines dominate at some exceptional sites, as in
56. Pettitt et al. 2003. n 1993.
9$. Fowler 2004a; Larsso 145. Different Neolithic groups may also have modelled their the recent exca\ratiois at PavlovacCukar in Serbia by one
200 9; Jon es 200 7. a.
57. Harris 99. Fowler2004 understal-idings of kinship on those that existed between ofus (DB)
5$. Pettitt 2011, 14. Petersen 1976, 8—9.
100. Albrethsen and Brinch their cattle herds (e.g. Ray and Thomas 2003), and on 185. Meskell 1995; Tringham and Conkey 199$.
59. Gamble 2007. 101. Fowler 2004a, 144. occasions created contexts in which cattle and humans 186. Bailey 2005
60. Pet titt 201 1. 102. Bonsai] 200$, 23$. became equivalent (see Harris 2011 for a discussion of 187. Rohb in press a.
Con nell er (20 05) for discussion of the British evid
61. See 103. Bone 2005a. one such moment) 188. fugazzola Delpino and Tine 2003; Holmes and White-
le. fanovié 2009.
enc e for exa mp
taiw ske leto n of a 104. Bone, Raievié, and Ste 146. Robb 2007. house 1998; Robb 2007.
of the fi-ag men
62. This burial is made up ual 105. Radovanovié 1997. 147. Marcinjak 2005; Robb 2007; Russell 199$. 189. Wenger 1998.
com plet e adu lt female. This latter individ 2.
chil d and a 106. Cristiani and Bone 201 148. Gamble 2007; Hodder 2006; Renfrew 2007. 190. Graziosi 1974; 1980.
ologies, including ones that
suffered from various path 107. Bone and Ste fan ovi 200 4.
149. Bori 200$, 121. 191. Fairén-Jiménez, in press.
her behaviour in life (Porr
would have potentially affected ary 10$. Bori20 05a . 150. It is an interesting aside (although one we do not have 192. Bourdjeu 1977; Thomas 1996.
goods are quite extraordin
and Alt 2006). The grave h, a pol 109. Borié 2010. the space to explore here), whether those areas where 193. Or, in other parts of Europe, the constructioi of enclos
e from animal teet
and include fifty pendants mad 110. Bone 2005a, 59. clay was used solely for pottery and not for figurines (e.g. ures where such gatherings could happen at particular
bone ofa crane used as a case
ished stone axe and the long 111. Bori 2005a. Mesoljthjc Ertebølle groups in Scandinavia and Neolithic times.
toliths (Porr and Alt 2006, gham 2000; cf. Bonsall 200
8.
for thirty-one well-made mic 112. Bone 2002; 2005b; Trin groups in Britain) had different conceptions of the body 194. Hof}nanr and Whittle 200$; and further recent discover-
396). 113. Bone 2011. as a result. ies by one ofus (DB) at the Serbian site ofPavlovacCukar
7;
nge r 198 9; Zilhão 2007. 201 1 ; Robb and Miracle 200
63. Me llar s and Stri 1 14. Cummings and Harris 151. With obvious exceptions, e.g. Ingold 2000. 195. Ingold 2000, 75.
64. Rice 1981. Rowley-Conwv 2004; 2011. 152. Robb 2007, chapter 5. 196. This in itselfwas not entirely new, ofcourse, but was built
65. McDermott 1996. 115. Gamble 2007. 153. Boric 2009 on and expanded a range of existing practices that had
66. Leroi-Gourhan 196$. 116. e.g. Chiide 1942. 154. Chapman 2000; Chapman and Gaydarska 2006. existed in the Palaeolithjc and Mesolithic as we emphasize
67. Fiedorczuk et al. 2007. 1990; 2006; Renfrew 2007.
9. 1 17. Cauvin 2000; Hodder 155. Hofmajn and Whittle 200$. later u-i the chapter.
Van div er et a!. 198
6$. Soffirr Ct al. 1993; 11$. Ingold 2000, 61. 156. Robb 1997. 197. cf. Webmoor and Witmore 2008.
69. Sofferetal. 1993. 119. Boyd 2002. 157. Bejiiilce 1985. 198. Bailey 2005; Holmes and Whitehouse 1998.
Pettitt and Balm 2003.
70. Clottes 2000; but see also 120. Gamble 2007, 267; Till
ey 1999.
158. Mallegni and Fornaciari 1980. 199. In this respect, it was probably similar to the “Great
71. Sieveldng 1979. ley-Conwy 2001.
121. Boyd 2005; 2006; Row 159. Bone 200$; Halstead 1999; Souvatzj 200$. Man “ societies described ethnographicayr in some areas
72. Mithen 1990. . 122. Boyd 2006, 173. 160. Stevanovic 1997. of Melanesia (Godelier 1986). In such societies, people
see the following discussion
73. Lewis-Williams 2002 and 123. Byrd and Monahan 199
5. 161. Robb 2007. can gain prestige fi-om a widc range ofactivities garden-
—

74. Morley 2007. n, Mu nro , and Beifer-Cohen 200$.

124 . Gro sma 162. Tli5 represents the upper limit ofthe size ofthese houses. ing, hunting, warfare, oratory, ritual, exchange but such
—

Bolduc 2000. 174.

75. Mussi, Cinq-Mars, and 125. Boyd 2002; Boyd 2006, Even an average longliouse would still have been a sub- forms of prestige are structurally separate and not con-
and Clo ttes 199 $.
76. Lewis-Williams y 126. Bar-Yosef 199$. stanrj] 20 meters in length, howevel-. vertible into each other or into some generalised sense of
mple ofConneller’s (2004) stud
77. Bone 2007. Like the exa e 127. Kuijt 1996. 163 Biclcje 2009; Bradley 2002; Whittle 2003. leadership; being a prominent orator or trader does not
s we touched on earlier, thes
ofthe Star Carr deer frontlet 12$. Cauvin 2000. 164. Dixon 198$. imply or require outstanding leadership in war ritual, and
ced by perspectivism. der and Meskell 2011; Sch
midt
studies too have been influen 129. cf. Croucher 2011; Hod 165 Wljttl 2003. so on.
5a.
7$. Srejovié 1972; Bone 200 2003; 2004; 2006. 166. Sonjer 2001. 200. Crumley, Ehrenreich, and Levy 1995.
79. Bone 2005a. 130 Miracle and BoriC 200$.
. 167 Sclultiig and Fibiger 2011. 201 . For examples in post LBK groups in Central Europe see
$0. Pettitt 2011. witz 2007.
1 31 Goring-Morris and Hor sfbrd
16$ Sommef 2001 Hofmann and Whittle (2008); for the Neolithic Balkans
2006; Hodden and Ces
.

$1. Zilhão et al. 201 0. der

132. Cessford 2005; Hod 169 Pavulc 1972. see Bori (in press); for interesting human and animal
2011.
$2. Thomas 1996. 2004; Hodder and Meskell 170 ofma;n and
Whitde 200$. combinatioi-s at one site in Britain see Harris (2011).
83. Ingold 199 9, 406 . 171 OrsChjedt
133. Kuijt 200$. .

and Haidle 2006. A recent alternative interpret- 202. Ray and Thomas 2003.
$4. cf. Barrett 1994. Venhoeven 2002.
systems collided as 134. Croucher 2010; 2011; atlon views Herxheim as an episode of mass cannibalism 203. Harris and Robb 2012.
risi ngl ’, whe n the two ll 201 1.
85. Not surp 135. Hodden and Meske (‘oulestin et a]. 2009). 204. Gamble 2007.
ans beg an to colo nize the globe, colonial govern- 6; 199 $. 17 2. Br1
Europe
foragers by making 136. Rollefson 1983; 198 fnoti1 in press; Hothann and Whittle 2008. 205. Collard et al. 2010; Bocquet-Appel and Bar-Yosef 2008.
merits typ ical ly trie d to con trol mo bile ven 200 2, 338 for two examples 173
fixed iden tiw . 137. Though see Venhoe Midgley 2008. 206. Robb in press b.
le,
them settle down and adopt a sing Nevali Con.
174
POWler 2004a. 207. sensu Latour 2005.
$6. ing old 200 0, 71.
13$ . Rodden 2006; cf. BoriC 2007.
old 200 0, 423 ; Vil aca 200 5; Viv eiros de Castro 1998.
$7. Ing