Changing Medialities - Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities

Full text

Studies in Early Near Eastern
Production, Subsistence, and Environment 20
__________________________________________
Neolithic Corporate Identities
edited by
Marion Benz,
Hans Georg K. Gebel
&
Trevor Watkins
Berlin, ex oriente (2017)

Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment (SENEPSE)
Editors-in-Chief: Hans Georg K. Gebel and Reinder Neef
The Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment are a refereed series.
This volume is published with the assistance of the following board of peer reviewers: Douglas Baird,
Reinhard Bernbeck, Katleen Deckers, Renate Ebersbach, Alexander Gramsch, Bo Dahl Hermansen,
Juan José Ibáñez, Ianir Milevski, Ludwig D. Morenz.
Managing editorial works: the co-editors and Dörte Rokitta-Krumnow
Final layout of this volume: Dörte Rokitta-Krumnow
Financial support for editorial and layout works and printing: ex oriente e.V., Berlin, and
Dr. Wolfgang Kapp, Grenzach-Wyhlen.
Book orders :
www.exoriente.org or
ex oriente e.V., c/o Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Vorderasiatische Altertumskunde,
Fabeckstr. 23-25 7, 14195 Berlin, Germany, Fax 0049 30 98311246, Email ex-oriente@gmx.net
A list of publications ex oriente can be found at the end of this volume.
© ex oriente e.V. Produktion, Subsistenz und Umwelt im frühen Vorderasien, Berlin (2017)
Alle Rechte vorbehalten. All rights reserved.
Printed in Germany dbusiness, Berlin.
ISBN 978-3-944178-11-0
ISSN 0947-0549

dedicated to Klaus Schmidt
who pioneered the change in understanding the Neolithic

Contents
The construction of Neolithic corporate identities. Introduction,
by Marion Benz, Hans Georg K. Gebel and Trevor Watkins 1
Evolution
Neolithic corporate identities in evolutionary context, by Trevor Watkins 13
Human palaeoecology in Southwest Asia during the Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic
(c. 9700-8500 cal BC): the plant story, by Eleni Asouti 21
Society and Economy
Neolithic corporate identities in the Near East, by Hans Georg K. Gebel 57
“Moving around” and the evolution of corporate identities in the late Epipalaeolithic
Natuan of the Levant, by Anna Belfer-Cohen and Nigel Goring-Morris 81
The construction of community in the Early Neolithic of Southern Jordan,
by Bill Finlayson and Cheryl Makarewicz 91
“I am We”: The display of socioeconomic politics of Neolithic commodication,
by Gary O. Rollefson 107
Neolithic “cooperatives”: Assessing supra-household cooperation in crop production at
Çatalhöyük and beyond, by Amy Bogaard 117
Symbols and Media
Changing medialities. Symbols of Neolithic corporate identities, by Marion Benz 135
Cultural memory: Symbols, monuments and rituals sustaining group identity,
by Christa Sütterlin 157
Religion and materialism – Key issues of the construction of Neolithic corporate identities,
by Lisbeth Bredholt Christensen 175
Dress code, hairstyles and body art markers of corporate identities in T-shaped-pillar
sites of Upper Mesopotamia? by Michael G.F. Morsch 187
Hunter into prey. Trying to make sense of the “Media Revolution” at Göbekli Tepe,
by Erhard Schüttpelz 201

135
M. Benz, H.G.K. Gebel und T. Watkins (eds.), Neolithic Corporate Identities
Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 20 (2017): 135-156. Berlin, ex oriente
Changing Medialities.
Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities
Marion Benz1
Abstract: Sedentism not only challenged the economic system of hunter-gatherers, but above all the
social and ideological framework of their lives. Larger groups, increasing social dierentiation and
the potential for accumulating material possessions may have led to a decrease in trust and an increase
in alienation, fear and of aggression. Both processes can be counteracted by adjusting ideological and
ethical concepts. One option of a society adapting to such stress is to strengthen corporate identities by
an increased demonstration and standardization of symbolic praxis, including (communal) architecture
as symbols in space, rituals as symbols in action, and systems of recurring signs, with an implied shared
symbolic meaning.
The aim of this introductory contribution to the ideological and intangible ideas of corporate iden-
tities is to discuss if and how we can track shifts in ideological frameworks from the Epipaleolithic to the
Early Neolithic in the Near East. It is suggested that an integrative approach combining anthropological,
archaeological and neurobiological research with studies of mediality may be capable of reconstructing
the social impact of symbolic systems. Instead of creating a uniform picture of a monolithic symbolic
system, we focus on tensions and contradictions of symbolic actions and representations with daily
praxis. The observed shift in mediality probably aimed at creating strong social networks with present
and bygone generations to counteract ssional tendencies in ever lager communities. However, the
increased display of corporate identities seems to be a transitional phenomenon. When living in perma-
nent settlements had become customary, monumental and ubiquitous symbolic representations almost
vanished.
Keywords: Symbols, rituals, Northern Mesopotamia, Early Holocene, corporate identities, emotions
Introduction
For many years, the importance of symbolic material culture has been emphasized as a constitutive
means for the establishment and promotion of larger permanent societies and for religion (Berger and
Luckman 2016 [1969]; Cohen 1985; Sütterlin 2000; Christensen 2010; Wightman 2015). The transfor-
mation to permanent living in circumscribed groups and territories and the beginning of farming, and
enhanced exploitation of natural resources might prove to be the decisive period for the evolution of
the symbolic display of group identities (e.g. Hodder 1990; Cauvin 1997; Watkins 2004; Stordeur 2010;
Benz and Bauer 2013). The earliest Holocene cultures in the Near East saw an unprecedented increase in
symbolic activities, materialised in huge communal buildings, elaborate primary and secondary burials
often connected tightly to daily life, highly standardized art and an enhanced impersonal transmission of
information and traditions (e.g. Köksal-Schmidt and Schmidt 2007; Stordeur 2015). In northern Meso-
potamia symbolic systems were so ubiquitous and standardized that H.G.K. Gebel suggested emerging
1 Department of Near Eastern Archaeology, University of Freiburg. <marion.benz@orient.uni-freiburg.de>

Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities Benz
136
doctrinal structures and the commodication of “symbolic territories” (“ideocracy” sensu Gebel 2013:
41; see also Gebel 2010 and this volume). The increasing material manifestation of concepts intensied
the sensibility and awareness of interpersonal and intergroup dierences, demonstrating, enhancing and
possibly creating boundaries where none had existed before.
Although it is during the Epipaleolithic that the exchange of rare and exotic raw materials emerged, their
importance amplied considerably during the early Holocene (Cauvin 1998; Carter et al. 2013; Alarashi
2015), when settlements increased signicantly in size and permanence.
This does not mean that symbols and symbolic activities, such as communal rituals in specic
places or body decoration to signal identities, had not existed during the Palaeolithic (Ronen 2010; Jöris
publ. communication 2015; see also Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris this volume). The change observ-
able during the early Holocene was rather a change in quality and scale, but not just in the capacity for
symbolic thought or its externalization (Henshilwood and d’Errico 2011: 50). The increase in gurative
depictions in Northern Mesopotamia, above all the change in mediality (see below), and the possibility
to transmit these symbols over generations and over wide spaces was probably experienced as an enor-
mous change, perhaps similar to the changes of communication by digital media (Sauerländer 2012).
In the longue durée this change was not linear, e.g. monumental communal buildings in stone,
which were so prominent during the early Pre-Pottery Neolithic diminished if not vanished completely
during the Pottery Neolithic. Çatalhöyük with its rich imagery and sculptures still appears to be an ex-
ceptional site (Hodder 2006, 2012; Özbașaran 2012). The increased display of symbols and symbolic
activities might thus be considered a temporal shift from rather intangible incorporated symbolism to
more intensively represented social identities.
In the rst section of this contribution, some theoretical and methodological ideas will be present-
ed which might help when approaching intangible corporate identities from the perspective of material
remains. In the second section, examples of encoded and enacted ideas of early Neolithic communities
according to the presented methodology will be discussed. The rst part of the second section investi-
gates encoded ideas in the sense of symbolic depictions, in the second part I will explore enacted ideas,
concentrating above all on communal buildings. The separation of both categories of symbols is of
course only an analytical device, since both aspects are strongly interdependent. Symbols which are
not represented or communicated at all will lose their power in the same way as symbols which are not
incorporated and re-enacted. As will be shown below, the symbolic meaning of an object can change
according to its enactment or re-enactment on dierent occasions.
On the Myth of Monolithic Identities
Identity has become a key-word of archaeological research, often used in order to add a social concept
to typological clustering of tangible and intangible things. For our understanding of identities, it is es-
sential to review some anthropological aspects. From the beginning it must be emphasised that imagina-
tion and environments merge in the human self (Fig. 1). Although imagination can exist beyond factual
experiences, and although environments do have a reality without humans, both spheres are closely
interrelated and form personal and social identities of individuals and human groups (Merleau-Ponty
1964). In human bodies, perception and memorizing are considered subjective practices inuenced by
personal abilities and know-how, but also by social experiences and memories (Bauer 2015). Although
the creation of personal and group identities are thus subjective constructions, they are also always
social relational processes: “Every recollection, however personal it may be […], exists in relationship
with a whole ensemble of notions which many others possess: with persons, places, dates, words, forms
of language, that is to say with the whole material and moral life of the societies of which we are part
or of which we have been part”. Paraphrasing Maurice Halbwachs Connerton continues: “no collective
memory can exist without reference to a socially specic spatial framework” (Connerton 1989: 36-37).
Beside objects and places, which may function as symbols of collective memory, Trevor Watkins has un-
derlined the importance of “shared acts of remembering that are imagistic and aecting” for the creation
of community identity (Watkins 2012: 35; see also Sütterlin 2006). Moreover, humans tend to assimilate
personal memories to communally transmitted and recalled memories thus creating overlapping experi-
ences and communality (Haun et al. 2014).
In our approach, the individual is neither considered as an unwilling victim of its genes nor of so-
ciety, but as an active subject establishing dialectical relations with its social and natural environments.
Infants are forced to accept these environments as given. They accept entering “their world” as it is and
they are thus considerably inuenced in their cognitive and bodily capacities by these environments.

Benz Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities
137
New-borns realize and form their self in a dialectical process of mirroring emotions and actions (Bauer
2015: 61-71). With increasing cognitive capacities they are enabled to reect about these relationships
and can either accept, doubt about or reject them (Tomasello 2000: 62-89). By this constant dialectical
process of accepting, creating or shaping and being inuenced by such relationships and borders – or
to speak with Donald Norman (1998: 82, cited in Knappett 2005: 52) of aordances and constraints –,
identities emerge. Identication is considered a continuous process of assimilation with certain ideas
and groups, implying – vice versa – distancing oneself from other ideas. Identities, especially group
identities, are therefore multi-layered, contextual and relational, but never coherent or static (Knappett
2005; cf. Berger and Luckmann 2016 [1969]: 362). Corporate identities can be considered a “melt-
ing-pot” of dierent overlapping ideas, sharing common basics but with possibly very dierent individ-
ual and cultural expressions and dierent forms for incorporation (“internalisation”) of these ideas. The
“borders”, which are represented in Fig. 1 between the individual and environments, therefore, should
be considered as permeable and fuzzy.
The intensity of the impact of corporate identities on daily practices and ethics depends on the
degree to which corporate identities are incorporated by group members. Social conditions, qualities of
the symbols themselves, and individual characteristics and choices inuence the level of incorporation.
Pressure and fear, but also positive attraction, both, can enhance social commitment. If power is exerted,
or stigma and fears of the unknown other are evoked, assimilation with the group’s ideals will possibly
be stronger. Power does not only enhance the fear of punishment in case of misbehaviour. It is a well-
known eect that anxious people are more vulnerable to religious and political manipulation, since they
fear stigmatisation and seek a “strong hand” for support. They abide more willingly to rules and are
generally more loyal (Krohne 2010: 366). In contrast, positive attraction might lead to longer lasting
and enhanced commitment.
Similar to group identities, individual identities are also never monolithic. Everybody incorpo-
rates dierent identities. These can either be contradicting or reinforce themselves in positive feedback
loops. If economic, social or ideological relationships create largely overlapping synchronous networks,
the chance that these ideas inuence people’s decisions and behaviours is stronger than in contradicting
identities (Fig. 2) – we will come back to this point in the next paragraph. Consequently, daily prac-
tices might thus reect ideas about social and ideological relationships, but they might also contradict
communal ideas displayed in ocial symbolism. This holds true, above all, in times of fundamental
transitions, when new ethics face long lasting habits and traditions that cannot – and possibly will not
– be changed from one day to the next. These contradicting identities represent one of the most dicult
challenges for the interpretation of prehistoric symbolism. Accepting and facing the multivocality of
symbols requires new methods which can circumvent the lack of written or communicated meanings of
symbols, i.e. of symbolic actions and objects.
2 The theoretical background presented in this article is in many respects in line with the idea of symbols by Berger and Luck-
mann (2016 [1969]). However, it is in contrast to their concept of a coherent reality, legitimated and enhanced by a symbolic
system. Although they discuss the existence of “antagonisms” or “contradicting subrealities” (“Sinnprovinzen”) (Berger and
Luckmann 2016 [1969]: 24, 90-91, 106-107), we consider collective identities never to be a coherent totality, but full of ambi-
guities, compromises and contradictions.
Fig. 1 Interdependence of incorpo-
rated, enacted, and encoded symbolic
systems for the creation of personal
identities. Almost all areas are linked
by dialectical relationships inuenc-
ing people in a more or less stronger
manner. The incorporation of enacted
and encoded ideas does not only
depend on external inuences, but
also on personal dispositions of body
and mind.

Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities Benz
138
The task of a holistic archaeology is therefore to develop integrative approaches comparing
dierent layers of identities. In the theoretical – idealized – model, represented in Fig. 2, the white-
dot group (every dot may represent an individual, household or subgroup) identities in several elds
overlap strongly, enhancing ties between entities A-E. All entities seem to form a circumscribed group
with only entity A holding relations to “outsiders”. This means, ideological/religious, familial, social,
and economic demands are fairly similar and do not require a constant switching between contradicting
realities. Without neglecting duties of one network, it is possible to participate in other networks and
full various tasks. In contrast, in the example of the grey-dot group entity H has familial ties with G
and economic and familial ties with I, but its social and ideological relations are with others, whereas
G, I and F are closely related by ideological ties. In that case contradictions may occur and it becomes
more dicult to create commitment and loyalty of group members. Such a comparison between vari-
ous elds of social identities, daily practices and intangible ideas of being-in-the-world, might not only
assist in gaining a deep understanding of the transition to sedentary farming communities, but might
also help to elaborate on the importance of the imaginative for the constitution of Neolithic corporate
identities.
The Incorporation of Ideas – an Anthropological Perspective
If we want to understand, how intangible concepts inuenced human corporate identities, it is essential
to understand biological human characteristics and how social and natural environments shape human
developments. Environments inuence humans via their body. Body, brain and mind form thus one
entity and can only be separated analytically (Wulf 2005: 99-100). The neurobiological capacities of
humans and the importance of emotions for the understanding of symbolism have been outlined else-
where (Bauer and Benz 2013) so a short summary will suce here. Symbolic communication, empathy,
targeted cooperation, teaching and sharing, including sharing of knowledge (“cultural transmission”),
seem to be the most successful characteristics and strategies which humans developed to perfection
(Bauer 2008; Tomasello 2009; see also Watkins this volume). In what has become known as “social
brain hypotheses”, Robin Dunbar and others even argued that increasing social demands were the rea-
son for the exponential increase in human brain size (Dunbar 1992, 2013). As mentioned above, due to
Fig. 2 Mutual reinforcing networks of dierent domains creating a strong corporate identity in case of the white-
dot group (A-E), or contradicting networks as a possible source of tensions and conicts within the grey-dot group
(F-I). Group identities are never monolithic or coherent, but multi-layered.

Benz Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities
139
the immature brain at birth, infants depend on others for the development of their cognitive capacities.
Interpersonal relationships and pregured spaces in which infants act thus play a crucial role in wiring
social brains (Gehlen 1978: 223; Wulf 2005: 98-100; Bauer 2015). Social encounters not only inuence
our minds, but the functioning of our genes depends considerably on external inuences and social ex-
periences (Bauer 2007; Skinner 2015). Social signals are thus transformed into biological processes in
the human body. Moreover, experiences are stored – even if unconsciously – in the brain and body, being
reactivated if similar situations are experienced (Bauer 2015). Especially during times when neuronal
networks are forged most intensively, during earliest infancy and puberty, children are most vulnerable
to manipulation of their ideas about society.
Basic emotions are stored in evolutionary, much older parts of the brain shared by all humans,
even though reactions might be culturally controlled by top down processes of the brain. Fear/surprise,
anger/disgust, happiness, and sadness can be classed as such basic emotions (Jack et al. 2014). Un-
ambiguous gestures and depictions, such as screaming or laughing gures, will thus probably evoke
respective emotions in most humans, despite highly interpersonal, subjective and culturally ascribed
meanings of symbols and irrespective of individual exceptions (Bauer 2005; Rizzolatti and Sinigaglia
2008; Wightman 2015: 22). Therefore, people can be intentionally inuenced in their bodily reactions
by external stimuli – the so called priming (e.g. Kay et al. 2004; Elger 2012; cf. Doyen et al. 2012). The
extraordinary strength of the impact of pictures on emotions is due to our evolutionary dispositions.
More than half of the information transmission and perception is based on the visual system. “This
very old system is linked to emotions in a much stronger way than verbal communication. That’s why
pictures aect us more immediately and more intensively than words“ (Sütterlin 2017, translation MB).
Since the iconic-turn, art theory has continuously emphasised this genuine capacity of pictures and ad-
vocated for methods, which go beyond applications borrowed from structuralism and semiotic analyses
(Boehm 1994, 2010; Gell 1998).
Moreover, neurobiological studies of the last 30 years have shown that emotions inuence our
perception and behaviours much more than research since the Enlightenment has wanted us to believe
(Salvatore and Venuelo 2010: 59-74; for a summary see Franks and Smith 1999 with further bibliog-
raphy). Synchronisation of emotions, rhythms and motion enhance the impact on long-term memory
considerably (Wightman 2015: 27-30).
The human capacity to reect about oneself and others (so called Theory of mind) fosters the pro-
jection of ideas on objects, often conveying anthropomorphic characteristics, intentionality and agency
to them. The decisive advantages of symbolic communication via objects transcending time, persons
and space have been discussed by many authors (e.g. Berger and Luckmann 2016 [1969]; Donald 2001;
Renfrew 2005). Whether material culture – in our special case symbols – can be interpreted as evidence
for external storage devices or “a part of the extended phenotype of the individual agents that comprises
it“ (Dunbar et al. 2010: 12; see also Watkins 2012), is a matter of perspective. A profound discussion
about this question lies beyond this paper’s scope. For the moment, it suces to recall that material
objects and locations can become symbols of actual identities, but also of a past act or persons, i.e. the
presence of the object recalls past experiences and all associated thinking and emotions during these
situations. Many religious memories are based on such objects (Halbwachs 1967: 157).
Integrating this anthropological perspective, dierent processes for the emergence of a corporate
identity can be envisioned: First of all, top-down processes can intentionally prescribe norms, ethics and
symbols by the intentional creation of a coherent symbolic system. This function for symbols is implicit
in many functionalistic explanations of symbols (e.g. Luckmann and Berger 2016 [1969]: 102-103; for a
summary see Brosius et al. 2013). However, corporate identities can also emerge by bottom-up process-
es of contagion and imitation, the wish of the individual to synchronize style and behaviour with others
in order to gain social acceptance (for an anthropological basis of these processes see Bauer 2011; Bauer
and Benz 2013; Haun et al. 2014). In practice, both processes merge. Thousands of people copy – con-
sciously or not – the style of their idols, hoping by outward resemblance, some of the skills and strength
were transferred too. The production of objects and commodication enhance – or may even become
responsible – for such processes of popularization. At rst sight, this might seem rather anachronistic
for Neolithic corporate identities, but as the examples show, which we will elaborate below, it should
not be excluded categorically.
To conclude, conditioning sub-adult brains by cultural ideas, built spaces, objects, material val-
ues, or by enacted symbols in rituals are thus most eective means to incorporate ideas and forge people
to group identities and social commitment (Halbwachs 1967; Connerton 1989; Assmann 1999; Wulf
2005). Inuencing their mood by displaying certain emotionally laden symbols can strongly aect their
social behaviour.

Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities Benz
140
This outlined anthropological perspective is a precondition for our methodology and fundamental
to the understanding of the following paragraphs about encoded and enacted ideas. The focus of our
investigations is on the social and ritual meaning of symbolic objects, without daring to speculate about
their content. Before presenting some archaeological examples of encoded and enacted symbols of the
early Neolithic, a brief summary of the methodological aspects for the interpretation of symbols is given.
Methodological Aspects
The interpretation of symbols has long been focused on the content of representations. Given the in-
ter-subjectivity of most symbolic meanings (Gillespie 2010) and the fact that the meaning of symbols is
culturally ascribed3, it is almost impossible to decipher the precise meaning, without knowing the emic
view or without any texts.4 The interpretation of prehistoric gurative signs is thus highly dependent on
deep knowledge of cultural contexts, if it is not bound to fail completely.
Nevertheless, we surmise, that it is possible to understand the impact of symbols and the recurrent
patterns of their use. Changing the perspective in this way means focusing on the common anthropologi-
cal parameters outlined above on one hand, while concentrating on the specic qualities of the mediality
of symbols, including their possible use on the other (Benz and Bauer 2013).
In media studies, the term mediality expresses more than the mere material qualities of the image
medium. Mediality includes the choice of raw materials and their specic qualities, as well as ways of
procurement and the possibility to interact with the medium, the so-called reexivity – not only by the
creator but above all by the spectators, participants of rituals or audience (Simon 2011). Moreover the
ubiquity and standardization of symbols are decisive for their perception, incorporation and memoriza-
tion. Irrespective of any precise meaning of symbols, the material, scale, ubiquity and standardization
of symbols can be studied in material remains and give important clues to their possible impact on the
community and indirectly to social and ideological ideas.
The aim of the following two sections will be to compare encoded and enacted ideas of corporate
identities with daily practices of the early Neolithic; thereby breaking up the idea of unilineal develop-
ments and of a monolithic Neolithic identity, but to highlight tensions and contradictions at the transition
to sedentary Neolithic communities.
Encoded Ideas
Encoded ideas can represent philosophical or ethical ideals, scientic explanations, or transcendental
concepts of religion/spirituality (Fig. 1). Segregating the four dierent perspectives would probably
be an anachronistic view for the Neolithic. If we apply the more restrictive denition of religion in the
sense of Christensen (2007) and Bloch (2008), it is even questionable, whether the term religion should
be adopted for early Holocene communities at all.
Although the dissemination of a corporate symbolic identity might aim at binding contemporary
communities, their symbolic value always also implies diachronic aspects. If symbols should be under-
stood by participating parties, their meaning should be more or less agreed upon by consent or traditions.
The recurrent occurrence of symbolic devices and patterned combination of objects and contexts, make
it possible to detect such formalized ideas which transcend personal identities and might represent en-
coded corporate identities.
Encoded ideas can be expressed in imagery, texts and in knowledge. In the case of the early Holo-
cene in Upper Mesopotamia, hunter-gatherers increasingly depicted gurative scenes on various objects
in stone and bone. Clothes and body art might have played a similar important role, but they are hardly
preserved.
For the studying of encoded ideas the site of Körtik Tepe may serve as a starting point (Özkaya and
Coșkun 2011). Körtik Tepe is one of the earliest permanent settlements in Southeastern Turkey (Benz et al.
2012, 2015). Its inhabitants were a hunter-sher-gatherer community, who used a wide spectrum of wild
3 For an illustrative discussion on the problems of interpretation of symbols in archaeology see Gallay (1983: 183-200).
4 In line with observations made by Harvey Whitehouse (2000), it may even be doubted that an “objective” meaning exists,
internalized by all individuals, without written consent on an ocial dogma.

Benz Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities
141
animals and plants (Arbuckle and Özkaya 2006; Özkaya et al. 2011; Rössner et al. 2017). They buried their
dead beneath house oors. There is a great variety of burial rituals, but this dierentiation is neither reected
in the diet nor in the architecture or in the distribution of objects (Benz et al. 2016). Some of the chlorite
vessels they produced were very elaborate and standardized (Coșkun et al. 2010: Fig. 2). As the context
and use of these vessels shows, they were esteemed objects, but their ubiquitous repartition over the whole
site shows that their use was not restricted to a special group or place. Within the settlement, obviously
Fig. 3 Possible local adaptations of the Körtik Tepe belly shaped vessel type/decoration (Coșkun et al. 2010:
Fig. 2): 1- Göbekli Tepe (Schmidt 2011: Fig. 4); 2- Tell ‘Abr 3 (Yartah 2013: Fig. 173).
Fig. 4 Examples of possibly kept and reused chlorite sherds with a decoration similar to the belly shaped
standardized vessel from Körtik Tepe (Coșkun et al. 2010: Fig. 2): 1- Tell Qaramel (by courtesy R.F. Mazurowski);
2- Tell ‘Abr 3 (Yartah 2013: Fig. 34), both in northern Syria.
Fig. 5 Import or copy? Chlorite vessels from 1- Jerf el Ahmar (Stordeur 2015: Fig. 3.1) and 2- Tell ‘Abr 3 (Yartah
2013: Fig. 157). A very similar item was found at Körtik Tepe (Özkaya and Coșkun 2007: p. 145).

Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities Benz
142
everybody had access to these objects.
Some of the vessels were even re-
paired, indicating their use in daily
life (Özkaya et al. 2013). Despite this
high esteem they were deliberately de-
stroyed during burial rituals, removing
them denitely from daily use or in-
heritance (Benz et al. in press).
The material, chlorite, corre-
sponds with a general trend of an en-
hanced use of stone during the early
Holocene compared to the Younger
Dryas, not only in building traditions
(e.g. Watkins 2004; Karul 2011;
Rosenberg 2011; Miyake et al. 2012,
Miyake 2013; Schreiber et al. 2014;
Stordeur 2015), but also in jewellery
(Alarashi 2015) and art (Hauptmann
2011; Özkaya and Coșkun 2011;
Schmidt 2011). In contrast to perish-
able materials, the use of stone and
its decoration, both relief and incised,
imply a metaphor of permanence,
i.e. the reexivity, the possibility of
interaction with the object and built
space, is reduced and demands spe-
cial eorts. Klaus Schmidt was able
to show that some of the decorations
on the pillars of Göbekli Tepe were
erased, but these are rather rare ex-
ceptions (Schmidt 2006: 186). The
complete destruction of monuments
built in stone (Özdoğan and Özdoğan
1998; Stordeur 2015) or of the stone
vessels from Körtik Tepe (s. below)
required an act of force and probably
implied highly arousing, noisy rituals
(Whitehouse 2000).
The craftsmanship that the
decorated vessels demonstrate is very
high (Özkaya and Coșkun 2011: 95-
96). Some of the shapes and decora-
tions are so standardized that a strong
transmission of cultural traditions is
evidenced. However, in none of the
other contemporary sites similarly well elaborated stone vessels have been discovered, but instead vari-
ations, local adaptations of the motives (Schmidt 2011: Fig. 4; Yartah 2013: Fig. 34; Stordeur 2015: Fig.
3.1) and isolated sherds of the Körtik Tepe model have been recorded (Figs. 3-5, Benz et al. 2016: Fig. 3).
Irrespective of their meaning, it is striking that combinations of similar motives were encountered
on several contemporary sites from the Upper Tigris Region to the middle Euphrates and on various
media (Özkaya and Coșkun 2011; Mazurowski and Kanjou 2012; Benz and Bauer 2013; Yartah 2013;
Stordeur 2015). For example, scorpions were incised on bone objects (Özakya and Coșkun 2011: Fig.
37), stone pebbles (Özkaya 2005: Fig. 48.9; Karul 2011: Fig. 21) and in a monumental scale at Göbekli
Tepe on pillar 43 (Schmidt 2011: Fig. 29) (Fig. 6). Representations of snakes, birds and concentric circles
(sometimes in an almond-like shape) are so ubiquitous that they can be considered the standard repertoire
of early Holocene cultures of Northern Mesopotamia (for more such examples see Benz and Bauer 2013).
Before concluding this section, some observations concerning human representations are impor-
tant for further interpretations: During the early Holocene, the representation of humans is generally
Fig. 6 The ubiquity of motifs was very high. For example, scorpi-
ons were represented in various media at dierent scales: on bone
plates, chlorite vessels, stone platelets or in monumental scale on
a stone pillar at Göbekli Tepe: 1- Jerf el Ahmar (Stordeur 2010: Fig.
15.13); 2- Gusir Tepe (by courtesy N. Karul); 3- Göbekli Tepe (sec-
tion of a photo by K. Schmidt); 4- Hasankeyf Höyük (Miyake 2013:
45, Fig. 3). Similar bone objects, a stone plate with a complete
scorpion and chlorite vessels with scorpions were found at Körtik
Tepe (Özkaya 2005: Fig. 9; Özkaya and Coșkun 2007: Fig. 145
section; Özkaya et al. 2013: 68 section).

Benz Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities
143
rare. Humans are represented as isolated gures, i.e. they are not in a group of other humans, but sur-
rounded by animals and abstract signs (Schmidt 2011: Figs. 15, 29; Mazurowski and Kanjou 2012: Pl.
68.2; Yartah 2013: Figs. 134, 182.3, 185.3; Benz and Bauer 2015) (e.g. Fig. 6.3).5 In contrast, during the
Pre-Pottery Neolithic B and the Pottery Neolithic, humans occur in groups (Hodder 2006: Figs. 13, 38;
Hauptmann 2011: Fig. 22). The site of Göbekli Tepe is therefore of great interest here (Schmidt 2011):
although the stone pillars are denitely anthropomorphic, and thus may represent an assembly (the pil-
lars in the walls), built around a central pair of super-humans (the central two pillars), not a single face
is depicted on the pillars’ head. The most important part for recognizing personal identities, the face, is
deliberately kept anonymous, whereas most of their gurative decorations are animals.
Fragmentation and deposition of destroyed sculpture parts is a recurrent practice during the early
Holocene (Morsch 2002, in this volume; Hauptmann 2011). Isolated heads of up-to-life-size human
sculptures were found in the backll of the enclosures at Göbekli Tepe, but their faces are rather abstract
(Notro et al. 2015: 74).
To summarize these observations: The reexivity with the material was reduced due to the per-
manence of incisions and relief decorations in stone. The alteration of the buildings and objects either
demanded some eort or their complete destruction or backlling, possibly as an impressive event.
Craftsmanship at Körtik Tepe created very strong local traditions which were adopted at other sites,
but it seems that there was no direct teaching or exchange of artists because local adaptions dier in
technique, style and motive combination. Access to the most elaborate “original” objects seems to have
been restricted to Körtik Tepe (Coșkun et al. 2010: Fig. 2). Yet, the high symbolic value of these vessels
is demonstrated by the presence of isolated sherds at other sites and not lastly by the local imitations.
The high ubiquity and wide distribution of the symbolic repertoire shows that it was known with-
in a huge communication network, ranging at least from northern Syria to southeast Anatolia, and that
the symbols recalled ideas or narratives on various occasions and places.
Practices of fragmentation and deposition of decorated stone vessels in graves and below bench-
es (Özkaya and Coșkun 2011; Yartah 2013; Notro et al. 2015) stand in strong contrast to concepts of
accumulation and inheritance of goods to enhance personal identities by the possession of objects. This
practice might point to possible tensions between ethics of equality, characteristic of small-scale com-
munities (e.g. Widlok and Tadesse 2007; Borgerho Mulder et al. 2009; Guenther 2010; Widlok 2013a,
b), and daily life in early Neolithic communities, when – due to increasing sedentism – the accumulation
of objects had become possible (Benz et al. 2016).
The relationship to the natural environment represented in the decoration of these vessels, clearly
shows, that humans conceived themselves as individuals within the world of animals. At least in their
world-view, they did not dominate the animals, but were clearly integrated within their world, irre-
spective of the fact that they were hunters and shers killing a wide spectrum of animals for daily food
(though rarely those represented) (Arbuckle and Özkaya 2006; Özkaya et al. 2011). As Schmidt (2006;
see also Schüttpelz this volume) has convincingly argued, these people were still deeply rooted in a
hunter-gatherer way of life. Recent ethnoarchaeological studies of the represented relationship of ani-
mals with humans support this idea (Benz and Bauer 2015). With the monumental buildings at Göbekli
Tepe this conceived relationship to nature and to human groups starts to change. During the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic B humans are more often depicted in the context of group activities and in monumental indi-
vidual sculptures, partly surpassing animal depictions in scale.
The psychological eects of the specic choice of represented animals (above all snakes, scorpi-
ons, birds, foxes, panther/lions, aurochs, boars), of their gestures and of the threatening parts of some of
these animals (claws, bare teeth, horns, beaks) remains a pending question for future research. However,
the ubiquity of the symbols in dierent contexts and on dierent media shows that these symbolic iden-
tities were not restricted to special occasions but their frequent presence probably had a strong impact
on the mind and memory in daily life. The reduced reexibility with these objects enhanced this impact,
above all on the brains of sub-adults, who grew up in pregured spaces and the omnipresence of spe-
cic symbols. So far, the importance of encoded symbols has been shown for the creation of local and
regional identities, but the rituals in which these objects were used and created, demonstrate that they
were also constitutive for the enhanced relations with the past. The monumentality and the intensied
use of stone contributed to the transmission of traditions over generations. Although many of the huge
5 Whether the human gures without heads on the front of a limestone bench at Jerf el Ahmar really represent humans is a
matter of debate (Stordeur 2015: Figs. 110, 111.4; cf. Yartah 2013: Fig. 102.2b).

Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities Benz
144
communal buildings at contemporary sites were rebuilt several times and burnt and backlled deliber-
ately after some while (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1998; Stordeur 2015, see below), new radiocarbon data
from Göbekli Tepe suggest that they were used for generations (Clare pers. communication).
In a similar vein, the ritual of deliberate fragmentation of chlorite vessels points to relationships
with the past. This ritual is discussed in detail elsewhere (Benz et al. in press), but it has to be mentioned
that some shards were obviously kept, reshaped and decorated functioning as “triggers” to re-present
past events (Wightman 2015), i.e. the burial of a special person. Given that these “memory stones” were
– at Körtik Tepe – found almost exclusively in graves raises the question, whether they contributed only
to personal identities or whether they were part of a communal act of ritual commemoration and thus
formalization. In other words, did the past become normative for the whole group or were the symbol-
ic objects just used to retain personal relationships beyond death? More research about the context of
these platelets is necessary in order to nd answers to such questions. However, there is good reason to
suggest that the symbolic networks of northern Mesopotamia not only functioned by enhancing territo-
rial identities of contemporary local groups. Through the use of monumental communal architecture of
stone and decorated chlorite vessels in high-arousal burial rituals, the keeping of some sherds, includ-
ing their reworking, past events were constantly recalled, thus possibly inuencing present behaviours
and identities. The same may hold true for the decorated stone platelets of the Levant (Benz and Bauer
2013). An in-depth study of these items might evidence similar observations, although their exclusively
geometric design restricts them from some of the above mentioned conclusions about the represented
self-image of humans. This example illustrates the dialectical interdepence of encoded and enacted
ideas. The deliberate destruction of the elaborate stone vessels during burial rituals transformed these
objects into constitutive part of the ritual. Moreover, it can be surmised that through the enactment the
reworked or kept sherds were symbolically laden and served as memory tokens connecting past and
present, identifying the owner as a part of the (ritual) community.
Enacted Ideas
The enactment of ideas is essential for their transmission and permanence. Without at least some com-
pliance of the actors in daily or ritual practices, ideological concepts will lose their relevance and will
get lost in the long run (Connerton 1989; Wulf 2005; Watkins 2012). Inuential ideas are those which
are not limited to one area of life, but which aect several areas and thus have signicant impacts on
decisions and behaviours. Enacted ideas can be manifested in daily routines such as foodways (Twiss
2012), social structures or traditions of craftsmanship of all sorts. As it has been suggested above, inte-
grative studies may help to detect such enacted ideas (e.g. Müller et al. 2008; Alt et al. 2013; Benz et
al. 2016). Various forms of patterned behaviour, what Bourdieu (2009) called “habitus” or Connerton’s
“habit-memory” (1989: 34), manifest themselves in the archaeological record in favourable conditions.
The eld of anthropological research oers a wide spectrum for the reconstruction of such enacted ide-
as: from a-DNA analyses for the reconstruction of familial relationships to analyses of epigenetic mark-
ers and stable isotopes. For example, Bonsall and his colleagues demonstrated that whereas Mesolithic
people of Lepenski Vir ate a lot of sh, the Neolithic immigrants did not (Bonsall et al. 2004). Similar
observations have been made earlier on early Neolithic farmers in Britain (Richards et al. 2003). A high
consumption of sh did not seem appropriate for early Neolithic farmers. Reconstructing palaeodiets
might thus give important clues for social identities (Bickle and Whittle 2013). Comparing several elds
of evidence might even lead to further conclusions: Alt et al. (2013) found convincing evidence that the
early Neolithic inhabitants of Basta, in southern Jordan, segregated themselves from other local groups
by rather strict mating patterns akin to endogamy. However, many other objects and imported raw ma-
terials clearly show that these people were not geographically isolated. The specic epigenetic traits
aected not just a specic task group but a third of all investigated individuals (which is a very high rate,
compared to 1-2% in modern populations), irrespective of age or sex (Alt et al. 2013). Therefore, the
observed mating patterns cannot be traced back to geographic isolation or segregation of a specic task
group or elite, but should probably be interpreted as an enhanced commitment to the local community
and thereby a strengthening of corporate identities (Gebel 2004: 9).
Beside daily routines, the most obvious evidence for enacted ideas is rituals. Ritual activities
are not only a mirror of social relationships, they are constitutive and essential for the introduction,
functioning and permanence of social and religious systems (e.g. Connerton 1989; Rappaport 1999).
Through several eects, such as the synchronisation of activities, segregation from daily life, extraor-
dinary spaces and emotionally aective activities, in rituals, the top-down control of the neo-cortex

Benz Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities
145
is often limited and the brain tends to be reset to basic desires such as social acceptance, cooperation,
trust and harmony (Wightman 2015: 28). The given order in rituals promotes automatism and reduces
reexivity of the participants. Impressive modern examples of such eects are concerts or football
matches. Irrespective of the profane framing of these modern rituals, fans envision their hero as a su-
per-human (not at least visible in the enormous sums payed for him/her). The nals of championships
and the receiving of the trophies are choreographed like religious rituals, either by communal drinking
from the “holy grail” or by presenting the trophies like holy paraphernalia. Reective thinking suc-
cumbs to highly emotional reactions – in a positive way for one team, and in a negative way for the
adversary team. Emotions, either positive or negative, enhance the memorization of events, i.e. highly
arousing rituals (s. Whitehouse 2000) will leave a long lasting impression and might even induce life-
long bodily reactions (Bauer 2015).
Nevertheless, caution must be exercised, since rituals are never a clear mirror but a distorting one.
Rituals create ambiguous situations, they may display equality but by various diacritical means dier-
entiation and possible hierarchies may be conrmed (Benz and Gramsch 2006; Dietler 2006; Hayden
2014); Van Gennep (1909) highlighted the liminal status passage rites create, in order to reintegrate, in
the end, participants into the community at a new level. One of the central feelings created by rituals is
awe and devotion (Bloch 2010). Although rituals strengthen communal commitment, they always create
situations fraught with tensions. Who is allowed to participate, who is damned to watch and who feels
excluded? Who are the “masters of the show”? How strong is the framing of the ritual and how much
reexivity is allowed? Can a dogma be distinguished from subconscious synchronisation of behaviour?
Can a group dance in which everybody follows the same steps and rhythms be considered a dogma
or is it a natural process of synchronization? Are the tracks through the landscape, used day by day, a
preconception of a symbolic space or just habitus (Wightman 2015)? These questions give a glimpse of
the diculties archaeology has to face when patterned behaviours are studied in archaeological records.
It goes without saying that there are no strict borders between habitus and ritual, between profane and
sacred, between representations of humans, super-humans, or gods in material remains.
With these ambivalences in mind, we will analyse with the same integrative, socio-anthropolog-
ical method outlined above what is one of the most outstanding developments during the early Hol-
ocene: the emergence of particular communal buildings with Göbekli Tepe denitely being the most
impressive example (Schmidt 2006, 2011; cf. Banning 2011; see also Schüttpelz this volume). The basic
constructional aspects of these special buildings have been published on many occasions (e.g. Kenyon
1981; Schirmer 1990; Hauptmann 1993; Yartah 2005; Schmidt 2006, 2011; Stordeur and Ibáñez 2008;
Finalyson et al. 2011; Abbès 2014; Piesker 2014; Kurapkat 2015; Stordeur 2015); in the following we
will only elaborate on the questions we are concerned with: mediality and possible emotional impact.
1. In strong contrast to hunter-gatherer meeting places, which are often at unusual natural locations,
such as hill tops, special rock formations or caves, the constructions of the communal buildings are
highly standardized (Fig. 7). They were so standardized, that on the middle Euphrates, about 200 km
southwest of Göbekli Tepe, where obviously huge limestones were missing, wooden posts were plas-
tered and decorated to give them the appearance of stone pillars (Stordeur 2015).
2. The elaboration and scale of the communal buildings is extraordinary. For group members, awe, ad-
miration and perhaps also pride of being part of this community were evoked facing the monumentality,
the logistic performance and the extraordinary craftsmanship. To outsiders these monuments probably
demonstrated strength and power, marking territorial claims.
3. Communal buildings were – with one possible exception (Finlayson et al. 2011) – at the edge of the
sites, but not in their centre. For the rst time, communal ritual space was segregated from profane ac-
tivity zones. It was delimited to a particular space and to special constructions. The preconceived space
guided movements and directed attention and gazes (John 2010).
4. It was possible to control and limit access to these buildings.
5. Depending on the kind of roof cover, specic moods might have been evoked (Benz and Bauer 2013;
Notro et al. 2015). With a dark room, poorly lighted by ickering res, in which the animals in relief
on the pillars seemed to start to move, feelings of discomfort, awe or possibly of fear were promoted.
These eects were probably attenuated when there was no roof cover (Stordeur 2015) and when people
became used to the “extraordinary” environments.6
6 The process of popularization as it can be suggested for the PPNB concerning multiplication of T-shaped buildings may have
contributed to habituation and decreasing emotional aection.

Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities Benz
146
Fig. 7 Types of communal buildings: I. Round with small rooms, II. Round to oval without room division a) with
wooden pillars, b) with stone/clay pillars, III. Rectangular with pillars. PPNA-Middle PPNB. I 2-IIa 2 and IIb 2 are
reproduced at the same scale as I.1. Whenever possible orientation has been standardized to the north. For
gures without a north-ash, no orientation was given in the original publication.
I 1- Mureybet, M 47; 2-3- Jerf el-Ahmar, EA 7, EA 30 (modied after Stordeur and Ibáñez 2008: Fig. 26
and Stordeur et al. 2000: Fig. 5); 4- Wadi Tumbaq, EA-6, niveau 4 (Abbès 2014: Fig. 8.2);
IIa 1- Jerf el Ahmar, EA 53 (modied after Stordeur et al. 2000: Fig. 9), 2- ʻAbr 3 (Yartah 2005: Fig. 8.2);
IIb 1- Göbekli Tepe, Turkey (modied after Schmidt 2006: Fig. 76); 2- Çayönü, BM1 (modied after
Schirmer 1990: Fig. 11); 3 Nevalı Çori (after Hauptmann 2011: Fig. 10);
III 1- Nevalı Çori (after Hauptmann 2011: Fig. 10); 2- Göbekli Tepe, Lion-Pillar-Building (modied after
Schmidt 2006: Fig. 76); 3- Çayönü, Flagstone Building (modied after Schirmer 1990: Fig. 11).

Benz Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities
147
6. Most of the buildings show several renovation phases and rebuilding in the similar style and often
on the same spot. Permanence of space was enhanced considerably and strong building traditions were
created by repetitive imitation of the same style.
7. Despite the enormous eorts invested in building, almost all communal buildings were destroyed,
burnt and backlled deliberately after some time (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 1998; Stordeur 2015).
Although we do not know the special nature of the rituals enacted in the communal buildings,
several aspects of their mediality give important clues on the social and ideological changes in early
Holocene communities. The standardization of the communal buildings made it possible that people
who were socialized in one area could easily move to other regions without losing their ability to “be-
have appropriately” in communal contexts. Movements were preconceived by the repetitive similar
structuring of space. As Rappaport has pointed out, “social groups forge cooperative links […] through
rituals characterized by the exchange of simple, clear signals and focused on messages that highlight
the few commonalities rather than the many dierences between groups” (Wightman 2015: 31). Similar
spatial structure thus oered security in a foreign place and meant a rearmation of common identities
ignoring possible local peculiarities.
The joint synchronous actions to build these monumental constructions enhanced the corporate
identity of the builders but also their commitment and loyalty to the group. Moreover various task
groups merged in one team, including those who provided food, the workers, the organizing team, and
the observers as well as possible ritual specialists. Complex interpersonal cooperation emerged and was
sustained by the repeated rebuilding of these constructions.
Imitation probably played an important role in the building process since constructions were quite
conservative based on a fairly xed repertoire of constructional details, best evidenced by the recon-
struction of communal buildings at Jerf el Ahmar (Stordeur 2015).
Irrespective of the nature of enacted rituals, the communal experience of being excluded in a spe-
cial place from daily activities meant particular lasting moments. If adolescents or even children partici-
pated in special rituals within these buildings, e.g. initiation rituals, the social seclusion was enhanced
by the symbolic spatial segregation.
The reduced possibility to interact with the media due to the building in stone further enhanced
the impression of being part of a preconceived order, hardly possible to change. This feeling is in strong
contrast to the very exible nature of mobile small scale communities (Vitebsky 2001; Wightman 2015).
Last but not least, the closing rituals probably were further high-arousal communal rituals. See-
ing the communal buildings being burnt down deliberately was a long lasting memory, especially since
hearths inside domestic houses were a constant threat for Neolithic communities where everything could
be lost. The deliberate burning thus meant a masterpiece of communal control and “domestication” of
one of the major threats of natural disasters.
Discussion
Comparing the enhanced institutionalization and segregation of structured ritual space with the encoded
ideas outlined in the rst part of the empirical section, several contradictions and tensions occur: on the
one hand humans were not represented in communal activities at Körtik Tepe, but they were at Göbekli
Tepe, where the layout of the buildings clearly mirrors a communal act of anonymous super-humans.
Interestingly, individual identities were not represented. The “faces” of the T-pillars remain anonymous,
but the specic attributes of clothes and animals characterizes them as persons with special social roles.
Similarly, the human gures on the stone vessels from Körtik and Hasankeyf Höyük represent a spe-
cic type with a standardized head gear, dress and body movement (Benz and Bauer 2015). They are
often surrounded by animals which are represented in a symbolically enhanced scale. So there is no
domination above nature. This is in strong contrast to the architecture of Göbekli Tepe, where the rep-
resentations of the anonymous “super-humans” are also surrounded by a specic repertoire of animals,
but clearly surpass the animals in scale.
It seems that with the creation of specic communal buildings, segregated from domestic activity
zones, a communal identity is publicly displayed at a level unknown before. The high ubiquity shows
that it was obviously necessary to display the communal identity everywhere and in various materials in
order to incorporate it in the mind of the group members and to demonstrate it to others. The enhanced
use of stone symbolizes the intention for permanence over generations. As the example of Körtik Tepe
has shown, chlorite sherds from deliberately destroyed vessels were kept and reworked with individual
gures suggesting that these objects contributed to personal identities by relating them to past events.

Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities Benz
148
Moreover, isolated sherds from these vessels discovered in other contemporary sites of northern Syria,
might indicate that these objects had a symbolic value beyond individual souvenirs, but for a larger
“ideological” community.
The standardization of symbols and building traditions and possibly also of communal rituals al-
lowed a large communication network and created familiarity despite local peculiarities. It also allowed
the impersonal transmission of information, so that members of this communication network at least had
an idea what a specic symbol or a combination of symbols meant. The display of the recurrent reper-
toire possibly recalled the whole narrative, symbolized and activated memories of communal events.
The social advantage of a unied symbolic system, acted out in specic communal rituals, seems
obvious and was possibly one of the main factors in creating condence and in mitigating conicts in
larger communities. However, the standardization also had a signicant disadvantage: the preguration
of communal space and of symbols had a strong inuence on the socialization of children. Movements
were preconceived and could easily be imitated due to the structured space. Individual exibility and
reexibility was thus reduced and synchronized activities increased. The display of threatening parts of
the animals, of threatening scenes and the monumentality contributed to evoking feelings of awe and
possibly fear. With the above mentioned characteristics of fearful people in mind, it can be suggested
that this specic emotional mode was provoked deliberately: On one hand it created pride being part
of this powerful culture; on the other, in more vulnerable people, such as children, it might have also
called for the need to be protected, thus being more willing to behave in a loyal way. Last but not least,
monumental markers such as Göbekli Tepe were a sign of power for approaching strangers (Sütterlin
and Eibl-Eibesfeldt 2013). Although some of these aspects, such as the preconceived plan of cult-build-
ings, the monumentality and standardization, might point to top-down creation of a symbolic system,
other aspects, such as imitation, miniaturization, and the deep rooting of motives in a hunter-gatherer
worldview, rather point to bottom-up processes. However, given the lack of detailed contextual studies
on symbolic objects it seems premature to reach a conclusive idea on these processes (see also Gebel
this volume).
The evidence outlined above indicates in many respects a community transitioning towards fun-
damentally new forms of living together with emerging institutionalization and increasing social dif-
ferentiation. New forms of social interaction with the environment become especially prominent in the
emerging dominance of humans and their display in communal activities at Göbekli Tepe and at later
sites (Garnkel 2003; Hauptmann 2011: Fig. 22) in contrast to the isolated depictions as they have been
prevalent at Körtik Tepe, Hasankeyf Höyük, and Tell ‘Abr 3.
New Perspectives Instead of a Conclusion
The aim of this introduction on the role of “intangible” concepts for the creation of Neolithic corporate
identities was to present an integrative anthropological approach in order to nd patterned behaviours
providing clues to enacted and encoded ideas. The examples given have demonstrated the essential role
of material culture in emerging standardization and institutionalization. The permanence and presence
of symbols created pregured (ideological) spaces which inuenced socialization and human coopera-
tion. Objects therefore not only promoted dogma and authority but were constitutive elements of their
enactment and encoding.
We have suggested that by integrative approaches including anthropological, neurobiological,
and archaeological perspectives it is possible to detect tensions, contradictions or positive feedback
loops between ideologies – in the widest sense – and daily practices. The above mentioned examples let
us surmise that the people of the early Holocene lived in times where the exible ideas and social struc-
tures of hunter-gatherers faced increasing circumscription of group identities and the possible emer-
gence of the institutionalization of social roles. Commitment to the group was enhanced by a symbolic
system displaying powerful, poisonous and even lethal animals, probably evoking ambiguous emotions
of awe if not fear in weak members and possibly admiration, pride and power in those who identied
themselves with the masters of architecture, art and rituals. The monumental scale of cult buildings and
highly arousing rituals enhanced these emotions and memories. The increasing importance of the past
and of late group members for the corporate identity of Neolithic groups is evident, even though it is not
so prominent as in the central Levant where ritual plastering of skulls can be observed (e.g. Kuijt 1996,
2008; Stordeur and Khawam 2007; Benz 2012; Khawam 2014).
It has been suggested that studies of mediality can assist in understanding the impact of sym-
bolic systems on political, social and emotional conditions within (proto-) Neolithic communities. The

Benz Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities
149
analyses of medial aspects of encoded and enacted ideas have shown that with the advent of sedentism
the formalization, standardization, permanence and demonstration of corporate identities increased
until living together was established at a new scale during the Pottery Neolithic. Past events and re-
lationships to the dead, buried beneath house oors, gained in importance not only for individual but
probably also for communal identities. The emerging orthodoxy of the early Holocene stands in strong
contrast to the exible, situative, individual and spontaneous social and ritual concepts of small-scale
mobile communities. Studies focussing more intensively on the praxis in which symbolic objects were
used, will provide further important evidence for the interpretation of their social meaning.
Acknowledgements
I am thankful to Joachim Bauer for sharing his knowledge with me and for many inspiring discussions.
Sincere thanks are also to due to Hans Georg K. Gebel and Trevor Watkins for their invaluable support
with the workshop and publication. Special thanks are due to Frédéric Abbès, Danielle Stordeur, Ryzard
F. Mazurowski, Yutaka Miyake, Necmi Karul and Thaer Yartah for their permission to publish photos
or drawings of their discoveries and to Andrew Laurence for his thoughtful language editing. Sincere
thanks are also due to the anonymous reviewer for his important suggestions.
References
Abbès F.
2014 Le Bal’as, un autre scénario de la néolithisation. In: C. Manen, T. Perrin and J. Guilaine (eds.), Transition en
Méditerranée ou comment des chasseurs devinrent agriculteurs: 13-27. Arles: Errance.
Alarashi H.
2015 The Epipaleolithic and Neolithic personal adornments from Syria (12th-7th millenium BC): techniques and uses,
exchanges and identities. Abstract. Neo-Lithics 1/15: 46-47.
Alt K.W., Benz M., Müller W., Berner M.E., Schultz M., Schmidt-Schultz T.H., Knipper C., Gebel H.G.K., Nissen H.J., and
Vach W.
2013 Earliest evidence for social endogamy in the 9,000-year-old-population of Basta, Jordan. PLoS ONE
8 (6):e65649. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065649 PMID: 23776517.
Arbuckle B. and Özkaya V.
2006 Animal exploitation at Körtik Tepe: An early Aceramic Neolithic site in Southeastern Turkey. Paléorient 32 (2):
113-136.
Assmann J.
19994 Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. Munich: C.H. Beck.
Banning E.B.
2011 So fair a house. Göbekli Tepe and the identication of temples in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Near East.
Current Anthropology 52 (5): 619-660.
Bauer J.
2005 Warum ich fühle, was du fühlst – Intuitive Kommunikation und das Geheimnis der Spiegelneurone. Hamburg:
Homann und Campe.
2007 Unser exibles Erbe. Gehirn und Geist 9: 58-65.
2008 Prinzip Menschlichkeit. Warum wir von Natur aus kooperieren. Munich: Heyne.
2011 Schmerzgrenze. Vom Ursprung alltäglicher und globaler Gewalt. Munich: Blessing.
20156 Das Gedächtnis des Körpers. Wie Beziehungen und Lebensstile unsere Gene steuern. Munich: Piper.
Bauer J. and Benz M.
2013 Epilogue. Archaeology meets neurobiology. The social challenges of the Neolithic process. Neo-Lithics 2/13: 65-69.
Benz M.
2012 ‘Little poor babies’ – creation of history through death at the transition from foraging to farming. In: T.L. Kienlin
and A. Zimmermann (eds.), Beyond Elites. Alternatives to Hierarchical Systems in Modelling Social Formations.
Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 215: 169-182. Bonn: Habelt.
Benz M. and Bauer J.
2013 Symbols of power – symbols of crisis? A psycho-social approach to Early Neolithic symbol system. Neo-Lithics
2/13: 11-24.
2015 On scorpions, birds and snakes – evidence for shamanism in Northern Mesopotamia during the Early Holocene.
Journal of Ritual Studies 2: 1-24.
Benz M. and Gramsch A.
2006 Zur soziopolitischen Bedeutung von Festen. Eine Einführung anhand von Beispielen aus dem Alten Orient und
Europa. Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 47 (4): 417-437.

Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities Benz
150
Benz M., Alt K.W., Erdal Y.S., Şahin F.S., and Özkaya V.
in press Re-presenting the past. Evidence from daily practices and rituals at Körtik Tepe. In: I. Hodder (ed.), Religion,
History and Place in the Origin of Settled Life. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado, Utah State University Press.
Benz M., Coşkun A., Hajdas I., Deckers K., Riehl S., Alt K.W., Weninger B., and Özkaya V.
2012 Methodological implications of new radiocarbon dates from the Early Holocene site of Körtik Tepe, Southeast
Anatolia. Radiocarbon 54 (3-4): 291-304.
Benz M., Deckers K., Rössner C., Alexandrovskiy A., Pustovoytov K., Scheeres M., Fecher M., Coşkun A., Riehl S., Alt
K.W., and Özkaya V.
2015 Prelude to village life. Environmental data and building traditions of the Epipalaeolithic settlement at Körtik Tepe,
Southeastern Turkey. Paléorient 41 (2): 9-30.
Benz M., Erdal Y.S., Şahin F.S., Özkaya V., and Alt K.W.
2016 The equality of inequality. Social dierentiation among the hunter-sher-gatherer community of Körtik Tepe,
Southeastern Turkey. In: H. Mellart, H.P. Hahn, R. Jung and R. Risch (eds.), Rich and Poor – Competing for
Resources in Prehistory. 8th Archaeological Conference of Central Germany, October 22-24, 2015 in Halle (Saale).
Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 13: 147-164. Halle: Landesamt für Denkmalpege und
Archäologie Sachsen Anhalt, Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle (Saale).
Berger P.L. and Luckman T.
201626 Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Frankfurt a.M.: Fischer. [First edition 1969].
Bickle P. and Whittle A. (eds.)
2013 The First Farmers of Central Europe. Diversity in LBK Lifeways. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Bloch M.
2008 Why religion is nothing special but is central. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363: 2055-2061.
2010 Is there religion at Çatalhöyük … or are there just houses? In: I. Hodder (ed.), Religion in the Emergence of
Civilization: 146-162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boehm G.
1994 Die Bilderfrage. In: G. Boehm (ed.), Was ist ein Bild: 325-343. Munich: Fink.
2010³ Wie Bilder Sinn erzeugen. Die Macht des Zeigens. Berlin: University Press.
Bonsall C., Cook G.T., Hedges R.E.M., Higham T.F.G., Pickard C., and Radovanović I.
2004 Rardiocarbon and stable isotope evidence of dietary change from the Mesolithic to the Middlge Ages in the Iron
Gates: new results from Lepensiki Vir. Radiocarbon 46 (1): 293-300.
Borgerho Mulder M., Bowles S., Hertz T., Bell A., Beise J., Clark G., Fazzio I., Gurven M., Hill K., Hooper P.L., Irons W.,
Kaplan H., Leonetti D., Low B., Marlowe F., McElreath R., Naidu S., Nolin D., Piraino P., Quinlan R., Schniter E., Sear R.,
Shenk M., Alden Smith E., von Rueden C., and Wiessner P.
2009 Intergenerational wealth transmission and the dynamics of inequality in small-scale Societies. Science 326: 682-688.
Bourdieu P.
20092 Entwurf einer Theorie der Praxis. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Brosius C., Michaels A., and Schrode P.
2013 Ritualforschung heute – ein Überblick. In: C. Brosius, A. Michaels and P. Schrode (eds.), Ritual und Ritual-
dynamik: 9-24. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Carter T., Grant S., Kartal M., Coşkun A., and Özkaya V.
2013 Networks and neolithisation: sourcing obsidian from Körtik Tepe (SE Anatolia). Journal of Archaeological Science
40: 556-569.
Cauvin J.
1997 Naissance des divinités. Naissance de l’agriculture. Paris: CNRS Éditions.
Cauvin M.C. (ed.)
1998 L’obsidienne au Proche et Moyen Orient: du volcan à l’outil. British Archaeological Reports. International Series
738. Maison de l’Orient méditerranéen. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Christensen L.B.
2007 “Spirituality” and “religion” meaning and origin. In: E. Anati and J.-P. Mohen (eds.), Les expressions intellectuelles
et spirituelles des peuples sans écriture. Actes du Colloque USIPP-CISENP: 23-31. Capo di Ponte: Edizioni del Centro.
2010 From ‘spirituality’ to ‘religion’ – ways of sharing knowledge of the ‘Other World’. In: M. Benz (ed.), The Principle
of Sharing. Segregation and Construction of Social Identities at the Transition from Foraging to Farming. Studies
in Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 14: 81-90. Berlin: ex oriente.
Cohen A.P.
1985 The Symbolic Construction of Community. Chichester: Ellis Horwood.
Connerton P.
1989 How Societies Remember. Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press.
Coşkun A., Benz M., Erdal Y.S., Koruyucu M.M., Deckers K., Riehl S., Siebert A., Alt K.W., and Özkaya V.
2010 Living by the water – boon and bane for the people of Körtik Tepe. Neo-Lithics 2/10: 59-70.

Benz Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities
151
Dietler M.
2006 Feasting und kommensale Politik in der Eisenzeit Europas. Theoretische Reexionen und empirische Fallstudien.
Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 47 (4): 541-568.
Donald M.
2001 A mind so rare. The evolution of human consciousness. New York, London: Norton.
Doyen S., Klein O., Pichon C.-L., and Cleeremans A.
2012 Behavioral priming: it’s all in the mind, but whose mind? PLoS ONE 7 (1): e29081. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0029081
Dunbar R.I.M.
1992 Coevolution of neocortex size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16: 681-735.
2013 What makes the Neolithic so special. Neo-Lithics 2/13: 25-29.
Dunbar R.I.M., Gamble C., and Gowlett J.
2010 The social brain and the distributed mind. Proceedings of the British Academy 158: 3-15.
Elger C.
2012 About Priming, Sex, and Empathy. Public communication given at the DLD Women Conference. 27.7.12 https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZFS5lK-l80. Accessed. 21.3.2017.
Finlayson B., Mithen S.J., al Najjar M., Smith S., Maričević D., Pankhurst N., and Yeomans L.
2011 Architecture, sedentism, and social complexity at Pre-Pottery Neolithic A WF16, Southern Jordan. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences108 (20): 8183-8188, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1017642108.
Franks D.D. and Smith T.S. (eds.)
1999 Mind, Brain, and Society: Toward a Neurosociology of Emotion. Social Perspectives on Emotion 5. Stanford: JAI
Press.
Gallay A.
1983 L’archéologie demain. Paris: Pierre Belfond.
Garnkel Y.
2003 Dancing at the Dawn of Farming. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Gebel H.G.K.
2004 Central to what? The centrality issue of the LPPNB Mega-site Phenomenon in Jordan. In: H.-D. Bienert,
H.G.K. Gebel and R. Neef (eds.), Central Settlements in Neolithic Jordan. Studies in Early Near Eastern
Production, Subsistence, and Environment 5: 1-19. Berlin: ex oriente.
2010 Commodication and the formation of Early Neolithic social identity. The issues seen from the Southern Jordanian
Highlands. In: M. Benz (ed.), The Principle of Sharing. Segregation and Construction of Social Identities at the
Transition from Foraging to Farming. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment
14: 31-80. Berlin: ex oriente.
2013 The territoriality of Early Neolithic symbols and ideocracy. Neo-Lithics 2/13: 39-41.
Gehlen A.
197812 Der Mensch. Seine Natur und seine Stellung in der Welt. Wiesbaden: Akademische Verlagsanstalt Athenaion.
Gell A.
1998 Art and Agency. An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gillespie A.
2010 The intersubjective nature of symbols. In: Wagoner B. (ed.), Symbolic Transformation. The Mind in Movement
Through Culture and Society: 24-37. London, New York: Routledge.
Guenther M.
2010 Sharing among the San, today, yesterday and in the past. In: M. Benz (ed.), The Principle of Sharing: Segregation
and Construction of Social Identities at the Transition from Foraging to Farming. Studies in Early Near Eastern
Production, Subsistence, and Environment 14: 105-136. Berlin: ex oriente.
Halbwachs M.
1967 Das kollektive Gedächtnis. Stuttgart: Enke [Original franz. La mémoire collective: 1950].
Haun D.B.M, Rekers M., and Tomasello M.
2014 Children confrom to the behaviour of peers; other great apes stick with what they know. Psychological Science
25 (12): 2160-2167.
Hauptmann H.
1993 Ein Kultgebäude in Nevalı Çori. In: M. Frangipane, H. Hauptmann, M. Liverani, P. Matthiae and M. Mellnick
(eds.), Between the Rivers and over the Mountains, Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri
Dedicata: 37-69. Rom: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Anthropologiche dell’Antichita,
Universita di Roma « La Sapienza ».
2011 The Urfa Region. In: M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Euphrates Basin. The Neolithic in
Turkey. New Excavations and New Research 2: 85-138. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications.
Hayden B.
2014 The Power of Feasts. From Prehistory to the Present. Cambridge: University Press.

Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities Benz
152
Henshilwood C. and d’Errico F. (eds.)
2011 Homo Symbolicus: The Dawn of Language, Imagination and Spirituality. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hodder I.
1990 The Domestication of Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.
2006 The Leopard’s Tale. Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalhöyük. New York: Thames and Hudson.
2012 Renewed work at Çatalhöyük. In: M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.), Central Turkey. The Neolithic
in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research 3: 245-277. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications.
Jack R.E., Garrod O.G.B., and Schyns P.G.
2014 Dynamic facial expressions of emotion transmit an evolving hierarchy of signals over time. Current Biolology
24 (2): 187-192.
John E.
2010 The xed versus the exible – or how space for rituals is created. In: M. Benz (ed.), The Principle of Sharing.
Segregation and Construction of Social Identities at the Transition from Foraging to Farming. Studies in Early
Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 14. 203-212. Berlin: ex oriente.
Karul N.
2011 Gusir Höyük. In: M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Tigris Basin. The Neolithic in Turkey. New
Excavations and New Research 1: 1-17. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications.
2013 Gusir Höyük/Siirt. Yerleşik Avcılar. Arkeo Atlas 1: 22-29.
Kay A.C., Wheeler C.S, Bargh J.A., and Ross L.
2004 Material priming: The inuence of mundane physical objects on situational construal and competitive behavioral
choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 95 (1): 83-96.
Kenyon K.
1981 The architecture and stratigraphy of the tell. In: T.A. Holland (ed.), Excavations at Jericho 3 (1): 1-393. London:
British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, The British Academy.
Khawam R.
2014 L’homme et la mort au Néolithique précéramique B: l’example de Tell Aswad. Unpub. PhD Thesis. Lyon:
University of Lyon.
Knappett C.
2005 Thinking Through Material Culture. An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Köksal-Schmidt Ç. and Schmidt K.
2007 Perlen, Steingefäße, Zeichentäfelchen – handwerkliche Spezialisierung und steinzeitliches Symbolsystem. In:
Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe (ed.), Vor 12,000 Jahren in Anatolien – Die ältesten Monumente der
Menschheit: 97-109. Stuttgart: Theiss.
Krohne H.W.
2010 Psychologie der Angst. Ein Lehrbuch. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Kuijt I.
1996 New Perspectives on Old Territories: Ritual Practices and the Emergence of Social Complexity in the Levantine
Neolithic. UMI Microform.
2008 The regeneration of life. Neolithic structures of symbolic remembering and forgetting. Current Anthropology
49 (2): 171-197.
Kurapkat D.
2015 Frühneolithische Sondergebäude auf dem Göbekli Tepe in Obermesopotamien und vergleichbare Bauten in
Vorderasien. PhD Thesis. Berlin: Technical University Berlin.
Mazurowski R.F. and Kanjou Y. (eds.)
2012 Tell Qaramel 1999-2007. Protoneolithic and Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic Settlement in Northern Syria. Polish
Center of Mediterranean Archaeology Excavation Series 2. Warsaw: University of Warsaw.
Merleau-Ponty M.
1964 Le visible et l’invisible. Paris: Gallimard.
Miyake Y.
2013 Hasankeyf Höyük/Batman. Dicle’nin Ilk Köyü. ArkeoAtlas 1: 40-37.
Miyake Y., Maeda O., Tanno K., Hongo H., and Gündem C.Y.
2012 New excavations at Hasankeyf Höyük: A 10th millennium cal. BC site on the Upper Tigris, Southeast Anatolia.
Neo-Lithics 1/12: 3-7.
Morsch M.G.F.
2002 Magic gurines? Some remarks about the clay objects of Nevalı Çori. In: H.G.K. Gebel, B.D. Hermansen, and
C. Homan Jensen (eds.), Magic Practices and Rituals in the Near Eastern Neolithic. Studies in Early Near Eastern
Production, Subsistence, and Environment 8: 145-173. Berlin: ex oriente.
Müller F., Jud P., and Alt K.W.
2008 Artefacts, skulls and written sources: the social ranking of a Celtic family buried at Münsingen-Rain. Antiquity
82: 462-469.

Benz Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities
153
Notro J., Dietrich O., and Schmidt K.
2015 Gathering of the dead? The Early Neolithic sanctuaries of Göbekli Tepe, Southeastern Turkey. In: C. Renfrew,
M.J. Boyd and I. Morley (eds.), Death Rituals, Social Order and the Archaeology of Immortality in the Ancient
World. “Death Shall Have no Dominion”: 65-81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Özbaşaran M.
2012 Aşıklı. In: M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.), Central Turkey. The Neolithic in Turkey. New
Excavations and New Research 3: 135-158. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications.
Özdoğan M. and Özdoğan A.
1998 Buildings of cult and the cult of buildings. In: G. Arsebük, M. Mellink and W. Schirmer (eds.), Light on Top of the
Black Hill. Studies Presented to Halet Çambel: 581-593. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.
Özkaya V.
2005 Körtik Tepe 2005 yılı kazısı. Kazı Sonuçuları Toplantısı 28 (1): 29-50.
2013 Köritik Tepe / Diyarbakır. Yerleşik yaşamın başlangıcı. ArkeoAtlas 1: 30-39.
Özkaya V. and Coşkun A.
2007 Körtik Tepe. In: N. Başgelen (ed.), 12.000 Yıl Önce. Uygarlığın Anadolu’dan Avrupa’ya Yolculuğunun Başlangıcı.
Neolithic Dönem: 68-88, 143-156. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
2011 Körtik Tepe. In: M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Tigris Basin. The Neolithic in Turkey. New
Excavations and New Research 1: 89-127. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications.
Özkaya V., Coşkun A., Benz M., Erdal Y.S., Atıcı L., and Şahin F.S.
2011 Körtik Tepe 2010. Yılı kazısı. Kazı Sonuçuları Toplantısı 33 (1): 315-338.
Özkaya V., Coşkun A., and Soyukaya N.
2013 Körtik Tepe: The First Traces of Civilization in Diyarbakır (Istanbul), <http://www.diyarbakirkulturturizm.org/
yayinlar/19/> , last access 20.9.2015.
Piesker K.
2014 Göbekli Tepe – Bauforschung in den Anlagen C und E in den Jahren 2010-2012. Zeitschrift für Orient Archäologie
7: 14-54.
Rappaport R.A.
1999 Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Renfrew C.
2005 Mind and matter: cognitive archaeology and external symbolic storage. In: C. Renfrew and C. Scarre (eds.), Cognition
and Material Culture: The Archaeology of Symbolic Storage: 1-6. Oxford: Oxbow Books, McDonald Institute
Monographs.
Richards M.P., Schulting R.J., and Hedges R.E.M.
2003 Sharp shift in diet at onset of Neolithic. Nature 425: 366.
Rizzolatti G. and Sinigaglia C.
2008 Empathie und Spiegelneurone: Die biologische Basis des Mitgefühls. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Rössner C., Deckers K., Benz M., Özkaya V., and Riehl S.
2017 Subsistence strategies and vegetation development at Aceramic Neolithic Körtik Tepe, Southeastern Anatolia.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, doi.org/10.1007/s00334-017-0641-z.
Ronen A.
2010 The symbolic use of basalt in the Levantine Epipalaeolithic and the emergence of socioeconomic leadership. In:
M. Benz (ed.), The Principle of Sharing. Segregation and Construction of Social Identities at the Transition from
Foraging to Farming. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 14: 213-222.
Berlin: ex oriente.
Rosenberg M.
2011 Hallan Çemi. In: M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Tigris Basin. The Neolithic in Turkey. New
Excavations and New Research 1: 61-78. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications.
Salvatore S. and Venuelo C.
2010 The unconscious as symbol generator – a psychodynamic-semiotic approach to meaning-making. In: Wagoner B.
(ed.), Symbolic Transformation. The Mind in Movement Through Culture and Society: 59-74. London, New York:
Routledge.
Sauerländer W.
2012 Iconic turn? Eine Bitte um Ikonoklasmus. Iconic Turn. Felix Burda Memorial Lectures. 23.8.2012. https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=WDQofLtY_2k. last access: 22.7.2015.
Schirmer W.
1990 Some aspects of building at the “Aceramic-Neolithic” settlement of Çayönü Tepesi. World Archaeology 21 (3):
363-386.
Schmidt K.
2006 Sie bauten die ersten Tempel. Munich: C.H. Beck.

Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities Benz
154
2011 Göbekli Tepe. In: M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Eurphrates Basin. The Neolithic in
Turkey. New Excavations and New Research 2: 41-83. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications.
Schreiber F., Coşkun A., Benz M., Alt K.W., and Özkaya V., with contributions from Reifarth N. and Völling E.
2014 Multilayer oors in the Early Holocene houses at Körtik Tepe, Turkey – an example from House Y98. Neo-Lithics
2/14: 13-22.
Simon U.
2011 Reexivity and discourse on ritual. Introductory reexions. In: A. Michaels (ed.), Ritual Dynamics and the Science
of Ritual IV. Reexivity, Media, and Visuality: 3-23. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Skinner M.K.
2015 Vererbung der anderen Art. Spektrum der Wissenschaft 7: 18-25.
Stordeur D.
2010 Domestication of plants and animals, domestication of symbols? In: D. Bolgar and L.C. Maguire (eds.), The
Development of Pre-state Communities in the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honour of Edgar Peltenburg: 123-130.
Oxford: Oxbow Books.
2015 Le village de Jerf el Ahmar (Syrie, 9500-8700 av. J.-C.). L’architecture, miroir d’une société néolithique complexe.
Paris: CNRS Éditions.
Stordeur D. and Ibáñez J.J.
2008 Stratigraphie et répartition des architectures à Mureybet. In: J.J. Ibáñez (ed.), Le site néolithique de Tell Mureybet
(Syrie du Nord) I. British Archaeological Reports. International Series 1843 (2): 33-95. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Stordeur D. and Khawam R.
2007 Les crânes surmodelés de Tell Aswad (PPNB, Syrie). Première regard sur l’ensemble, permières réexions. Syria
84: 5-32.
Stordeur D., Brenet M., Der Aprahamian G., and Roux J.-C.
2000 Les bâtiments communautaires de Jerf el Ahmar et Mureybet. Horizon PPNA. Syrie. Paléorient 26 (1): 29-44.
Sütterlin C.
2000 Symbole und Rituale im Dienste der Herstellung und Erhaltung von Gruppenidentität. In: P. Michel (ed.), Symbole
im Dienste der Darstellung von Identität. Schriften zur Symbolforschung 12: 1-15. Bern: P. Lang.
2006 Denkmäler als Orte kultureller Erinnerung im öentlichen Raum. In: H. Heller (ed.), Raum – Heimat – fremde und
vertraute Welt. Matreier Gespräche zur Kulturethologie. Schriftenreihe der Otto-Koenig-Gesellschaft Wien. Wien:
Lit Verlag. <http://matrei.ruso.at/dokumente/05_raum_suetterlin.pdf> last access: 21.9.15.
2017 Götter, Ahnen und Heroen. Archäologie, Geschichte, Kultur. Spektrum der Wissenschaft Spezial 17 (2): 6-9.
Sütterlin C. and Eibl-Eibesfeldt I.
2013 Human cultural defense: means and monuments of ensuring collective territory. Neo-Lithics 2/13: 42-48.
Tomasello M.
2000 The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2009 Why We Cooperate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Twiss K.
2012 The archaeology of food and social diversity. Journal of Archaeological Research 20 (4): 357-395.
Van Gennep A.
1909 Les rites de passage. Etude systématique des rites de la perte et du seuil ; de l’hospitalité ; de l’adoption…. Paris:
Émile Nourry.
Vitebsky P.
2001 Shamansim. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, Duncan Baird.
Watkins T.
2004 Architecture and ‘theatres of memory’ in the Neolithic South West Asia. In: E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden and C.
Renfrew (eds.), Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material World: 97-106. Cambridge:
McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research.
2012 Household, community, and social landscape: maintaining social memory in the Early Neolithic of Southwest Asia.
In: M. Furholt, M. Hinz and D. Mischka (eds.), ‘As time goes by?’— Monumentality, Landscapes and the Temporal
Perspective. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 206: 23-44. Bonn: Habelt.
Whitehouse H.
2000 Arguments and Icons. Divergent Modes of Religiosity. Oxford: University Press.
Widlok T.
2013a Ritualökonomie. In: C. Brosius, A. Michaels and P. Schrode (eds.), Ritual und Ritualdynamik: 171-179. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
2013b Sharing – allowing others to take what is valued. Journal of Ethnographic Theory 3 (2): 11-31.

Benz Symbols of Neolithic Corporate Identities
155
Widlok T. and Tadesse W.G. (eds.)
2007 Property and Equality 1 and 2. New York, Oxford: Berghan Books.
Wightman G.J.
2015 The Origins of Religion in the Paleolithic. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littleeld.
Wulf C.
2005 Zur Genese des Sozialen. Mimesis, Performativität, Ritual. Bielefeld: Transcript.
Yartah T.
2005 Les bâtiments communautaires de Tell ‘Abr 3 (PPNA, Syrie). Neo-Lithics 1/05: 3-9.
2013 Vie quotidienne, vie communautaire et symbolique à Tell ‘Abr 3 – Syrie du Nord. Données nouvelles et nouvelles
réexions sur l‘horizon PPNA au nord du Levant 10 000-9 000 BP. PhD Thesis. Lyon: University of Lyon.