Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 20 Neolithic Corporate Identities edited by

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

1
M. Benz, H.G.K. Gebel and T. Watkins (eds.), Neolithic Corporate Identities
Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 20 (2017): 1-9. Berlin, ex oriente
The Construction of Neolithic Corporate Identities.
Introduction
Marion Benz1, Hans Georg K. Gebel2
and Trevor Watkins3
After more than a million years of living in small, mobile foraging bands, over a mere fteen millennia,
between beginning of the Epipalaeolithic and the end of the Neolithic, human societies in some areas
of southwest Asia were completely transformed: people began to live in large, settled communities that
increasingly relied on agriculture and herding. Against the background of earlier hominin evolution,
this was an extraordinary development, both for its relatively rapid process, and because it required
fundamentally new forms of social, economic and cultural life. It goes without saying that these tran-
sitions to new ways of life and to new concepts of relationships with social and natural environments
were incremental, requiring and creating new cognitive regimes (Sterelny and Watkins 2015; Watkins
2016). Those who initiated them could not have perceived them as fundamental changes; the processes
to which they contributed were not calculated towards a programme of progress or a particular end. The
mobile forager bands who began to change the ancestral hunter-gatherer way of life, initiating the trend
towards sedentism in the earlier Epipalaeolithic of the southern Levant, could not have perceived that
they were at the opening stages of a process that millennia later would lead to the emergence of large-
scale, permanent settlements. Yet, the new forms of territorial, social and cognitive commitment initiat-
ed processes that in the long run made it impossible to turn back. Let us say here, at the very beginning
of the introduction, that the workshop from which this publication derives was focused on the Neolithic
period, to the almost complete exclusion of discussion of the earlier stages in the transformation that
brought the Neolithic communities into being.
Mastering living in ever larger groups was – and still is – one of the most dicult challenges for
humans: it not only requires eective strategies to resolve complex conicts of interest between dier-
ent factions (individuals, sub- and supra-groups and their shifting alliances), but it also involves two
fundamentally opposed tendencies in the development of human identity formation: assimilation and
dierentiation.
According to socio-psychological theory (e.g. Morris 1973 [1934]; Bewer 2012 [1991]; Blumer
2013: 35-41; for a condensed summary see Davidovic 2006: 40-47) the formation of identity is consid-
ered a constant process of perception of/and sensitivity to social and natural environments, reection,
incorporation, and – through the interactions of humans – the shaping of those environments. Infants de-
velop an increasingly dierentiated awareness of themselves only through perception of and interaction
with their environments (e.g. Rochat 2003; Tomasello and Rakoczy 2003). At least during the early stag-
es of socialization infants thus depend on others, and the social groups (most often parents and families)
in which children grow up exert decisive inuences on the development of body and mind4, creating
memories and perspectives that prime us lifelong (e.g. Morris 1973 [1934]; Triandis 1989; Brewer 2012
[1991]; Bauer 2015) and via epigenetic inheritance possibly over generations (Skinner 2015).
1 Department of Near Eastern Archaeology, University of Freiburg. <marion.benz@orient.uni-freiburg.de>
2 Institute of Near Eastern Archaeology, ex oriente, Free University of Berlin. <hggebel@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
3 School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh. <twatkins@exseed.ed.ac.uk>
4 The strong interdependence of body and mind has been impressively summarized by J. Bauer (2015).

Introduction M. Benz, H.G.K. Gebel and T. Watkins
2
This does not mean that group identities are blindly adopted by individuals but – as mentioned
above – based on constant acts of (re-)interpretation and on active processes of incorporation of group
identities. Individual identities are therefore always relational to the social, cultural and natural environ-
ments; but, at the same time, individuals shape communal identities. Human identities are multidimen-
sional and subject to a dialectical process between individuals and communities (Benz this volume).
Moreover, groups oer protection, orientation and downplay dierences within the group thus
suggesting familiarity with the “stranger”. Briey, “…belonging has an evolutionary advantage” (Horn-
sey and Jetten 2012: 108, see also Over 2016; Watkins this volume). Being stigmatized induces the same
reactions in the brain as being physically injured (Bauer 2011: 58-60). Humans have developed several
capacities which make them perfectly t to achieve commitment and cooperation within groups. Above
all, their capacity for empathy is outstanding. Reading the mind of others (theory of mind), anticipating
their intentions and emotions has been called the “hallmark of human social behavior” (Rule et al. 2013:
6; for the neurobiological basis of this capacity see Bauer and Benz 2013). It lays the ground for com-
munication even between foreign cultural groups and for successful cooperation (Bauer 2008; Eibl-Ei-
besfeldt and Sütterlin 2012: 86; Tomasello et al. 2012). It also makes humans the most ecient imitators
and apprentices (Wulf 2005; Sterelny 2011). Yet humans go beyond social learning (either by imitation
or information transmission); they tend to assimilate (sometimes even consciously and intentionally)
their behaviour, opinions and memories to the majority (for reviews and empirical evidence with further
literature see Lakin et al. 2008; Edelson et al. 2011; Haun et al. 2013, 2014; van Leeuwen et al. 2015).
Social learning and assimilation foster culturally stable traditions and cognitive niches (see Wat-
kins this volume). They create in-group conformity and homogeneity and enhance corporate identi-
ties, which are manifested to others by diacritical objects, behaviours or concepts. Imitation, and in its
strongest form assimilation, (unconsciously) generates sympathy (Florack and Genschow 2014). “Peo-
ple often favor their own group, even when the basis for categorization seems trivial and meaningless”
(Hornsey and Jetten 2012: 108).
However, the price for in-group conformity seems rather high. It implies creating borders to other
groups (for the concept of alterity see Davidovic 2006: 45). Empirical evidence from modern groups
demonstrates that in-group conformity correlates negatively with inter-group tolerance and openness
(e.g. Triandis 1972; Choi and Bowles 2007). As outlined above social exclusion feels like pain and can
cause aggression, i.e. creating borders accepts the risk of enhancing conicts. Despite this inherent en-
dangering of security, the social strategy to achieve commitment and mitigate conicts within a group by
emphasizing dierences to other groups seems the most simple and possibly, therefore, the most often
practiced strategy (Schiefenhövel 2001: 184; see also Fehr et al. 2008). Detecting such seemingly ho-
Fig. 1 The audience of the workshop’s rst day at Basel University. (photo: H.G.K. Gebel)

M. Benz, H.G.K. Gebel and T. Watkins Introduction
3
mogenous groups in the archaeological record has been the standard aim when dening “archeological
cultures”.5
However, this strategy is not the only one and it may not prove successful in the long run in
very large and heterogeneous groups. Social scientists have pointed out several other strategies (for a
review see Hornsey and Jetten 2012). For example, loyalty can be enhanced by taking over task-specic
roles within heterogeneous acephalic network structures. The risk of depersonalization, which has been
claimed to be one of the major problems of large and conformist groups (e.g. Brewer 2012 [1991]: 39-
43), can be circumvented by this strategy.
In daily life, depersonalization remains a basic problem of creating rm group identities, since it
is strongly opposed to personal identity. In certain situations, being identical to someone or even only
wearing the same dress can cause profound irritation or aversion. Even in situations where a strong dis-
play of a corporate identity – above all in rituals or competitions – is required and considered positively,
small accessories or tiny, but signicant changes of conformal appearance or behaviour might be used
to indicate individual traits.
It has to be emphasized that the desire to be unique, is not a matter of individualistic or collective
cultural priming, but rather seems universal (Hornsey and Jetten 2012: 128).6 Individuality also should
not be confused with a lack of social commitment. Being similar but not the same condenses the two
opposing tendencies – of assimilation and dierentiation – well. The larger and the more heterogeneous
the group, the more dicult it will become to nd a good balance between both processes. The ideal,
perhaps, is what has been called “identity fusion”, the oneness of the personal and the social self (Swann
et al. 2012; Whitehouse and Lanman 2014).
These socio-neurobiological observations should be kept in mind, when it comes to the question
of how early Neolithic communities created corporate identities, and how these might have been struc-
tured and changed with increasing sedentism and commodication (Gebel 2010). However, Gebel’s
contribution (this volume) implicitly demands, through his concept of the Neolithic dividual, that the
characteristics of the socio-neurological dispositions of Homo neolithicus have to be a eld of study in
its own right; and that beyond the multidimensional and constant negotiation of identities between (in-)
dividuals and groups (Benz this volume) a Neolithic “dividuation” might have preceded or dominated
individuation phenomena, ruling all relational and identities formation.
Sociologists, anthropologists and social psychologists tell us that in larger social groups the indi-
vidual cannot experience personal, face-to-face relationships with every other member of the commu-
nity; trust based on personal knowledge, which sustained the economic and social networks of mobile
small-scale groups, was no longer sucient. Thus people of the Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic had to nd
new ways to create a sense of identity that was shared with people that they hardly knew, or had never
seen (Watkins 2012). In large-scale societies, there is also a greater risk of cheats and free-riders, who
can erode and undermine social trust and cooperation. It became all the more necessary to be able to im-
agine a larger community beyond those one knew, and larger than those with whom one shared everyday
experience – to think of an extended “we”. As sedentism began to become the norm, when co-resident
groups grew larger and territorial permanence did not allow quitting the group or breaking up groups
easily (Benz and Bauer 2013), it became crucial to nd new ways to achieve commitment to communal
needs, projects and cognitive domains in these fundamentally new socio-economic and environmental
situations. After a long evolution of rather exible social structures and open-access territorial concepts
characteristic of small-scale mobile groups (e.g. Guenther 2010; Widlok 2017; for a summary see also
Benz 2010), new ways to negotiate social identities had to be found. If concepts of being-in-the-world
run the risk to be in fundamental contradiction to daily practices, they probably became meaningless in
the long run. In his contribution to this volume, Hans Georg K. Gebel suggests that conning territories
(spatial, social as well as conceptual) was one of the main strategies that eectively created Neolithic
corporate identities (see also Gebel 2010, 2014). Media that encoded information in things in order to
share information despite physical absence and personal ignorance became essential in order to support
familiarity and understanding and to decrease fear of the unknown.
If new norms of behaviour that could enforce social commitment were not found in time, resulting
social division and alienation could lead to material and social deprivation, suspicion or fears that could
5 Such analyses are often based on one or two material categories such as ceramics, lithic tools or similar items, thereby ne-
glecting the multidimensionality of identities (e.g. Spiong 2006; cf. Brather and Wotzka 2006)
6 The highly situative nature of the adoption of social identities has been summarized by Davidovic (2006: 45-46).

Introduction M. Benz, H.G.K. Gebel and T. Watkins
4
divide “us” from “them”, and create the potential of aggression and conict. Although there is some
evidence for inter-personal violence in early Neolithic communities in southwest Asia, it is relatively
uncommon, and there is little or none of the evidence for inter-communal violence that has been found
in Neolithic contexts elsewhere. We must ask ourselves how Neolithic people managed to mediate so-
cial conicts despite an increased population density, conned territories and reduced opportunities for
personal condence and personal social control.
There are questions, therefore, of both why and how populations adopted their corporate identi-
ties. Working from the archaeological record, we should think how to relate that material record to what
anthropologists and psychologists tell us about how people create and share corporate identity. We still
know little about the nature of the societies that emerged through the Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic.
There is now a mass of archaeological evidence of the intensity and elaboration of symbolic representa-
tion in a variety of forms in these far-from-simple networked communities.
What was the adaptive advantage of living together in large numbers that outweighed the many
disadvantages? How were social groups structured? If, for example, we nd strong familial ties in the
anthropological record, is this paralleled by a strong segregation in other domains such as raw material
procurement, technology or nutrition? What do dierences in nutrition, stress or activity markers mean?
Were traditions strongly canonized or highly exible, ubiquitous or concentrated in one domain? And
is it possible to discern social and emotional (and thus, cognitive and perhaps ideological) concepts
emerging in the new symbolism of this great transformation?
The chapters that follow mostly derive from papers that were presented and discussed at a work-
shop on anthropological record, “The Construction of Neolithic Corporate Identities”, held under the
auspices of the 9th ICAANE congress in Basle in 2014; in addition, the editors invited three colleagues
not present at the workshop to contribute their important views to the publication.
The workshop was structured in three closely related sections each of which approached the sub-
ject from a dierent direction:
1. Neolithic Corporate Identities in Evolutionary Context
2. Neolithic Corporate Identities and the Socio-Economy
3. Neolithic Corporate Identities and Ideologies
The rst section sets the theoretical and evolutionary framework for tackling basic questions of
the relationships between humans, things, and environments at the transition to large-scale sedentism.
The second and third sessions intended to focus on specic domains of these relationships and asked
how these had been used to create or sustain corporate identities.
The central focus of the workshop, therefore, was on the dierent forms of corporate identities
that emerged in the Epipalaeolithic and the Neolithic, and the means by which those identities were cre-
ated, expressed, maintained and transformed. It was meant to promote and to discuss new approaches
(of theories and methods) on how to interpret archaeological data in light of the above suggested theo-
retical questions.
Piecing together the evidence from these dierent domains and approaches does not mean that we
seek a coherent Neolithic corporate identity. On the contrary, it implies that we accept and discuss the
great variability of dierent processes which led to permanent living in large groups, adopting dierent
and shifting corporate identities that are represented by a wide range of cultural materials and observa-
tions made from the archaeological record.
Specialists from various elds of research – from a more general approach of human ethology and
media studies to specic archaeological case studies – contributed important aspects.
In line with an anthropological perspective, Christa Sütterlin sets the stage by outlining the impor-
tance of rituals, monuments and collective memory for the creation of group identities in various tradi-
tional communities. From a perspective of media studies, Erhard Schüttpelz argues for the deep rooting
of the Göbekli Tepe imagery in a hunter-gatherer community comparing it to recent hunter-gatherer
communities which face super-abundance.
Both archaeobotanists, Amy Bogaard and Eleni Asouti, recalled the importance of climate, ecol-
ogy and availability of resources, aspects, which have been neglected in recent approaches that have
focused on social or cognitive changes. Amy Bogaard emphasizes that “understanding of early farming
communities and the sociality of agricultural practice requires a better grasp of the ways in which house-
holds cooperated in agricultural production […].”
Case studies of dierent regions and periods of the Fertile Crescent (Belfer-Cohen and Gor-
ing-Morris, Finalyson and Makarewicz, Morsch, Rollefson) provide valuable primary data to that dis-
cussion. Anna Belfer-Cohen and Nigel Goring-Morris emphasise that the display of group identities
and territorial boundaries had already started during the Natuan, i.e. with the beginning of sedentism.

M. Benz, H.G.K. Gebel and T. Watkins Introduction
5
They underline the importance of jewellery, burial sites and rituals for the enhancement of corporate
identities. However, their examples plainly show that similarities in one domain do not necessarily im-
ply common traditions in other areas. Studies of corporate identities thus require a multilevel approach.
Such a case study is given Bill Finlayson and Cheryl Makarewicz. With a focus on settlement structures,
they describe the dierent local developments and networks of Neolithic group identities in southern
Jordan. These archaeological examples from the beginnings of sedentism among Epipalaeolithic and
early Neolithic groups illustrate well the dilemma mentioned above, between assimilation and dieren-
tiation within groups. Despite increasing supra-regional networks, it seems that the display of local iden-
tities became increasingly important (see also Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 2013; Alarashi 2016).
In contrast to these rather local identities, Michael Morsch’s analysis of corporate identity on the
Upper Euphrates, indicates that there were standardized rules on a regional scale, represented in building
traditions, organization of settlements as well as in rituals and body design. People obviously had a xed
idea of how men and women should be represented and should represent themselves. Moreover, there
were not only standards in design, but also in production techniques and in the function of gurines. As
much as they expressed a corporate identity they also created it. The centripetal forces of common sym-
bols and rituals are also exemplied by the development of symbols at ‘Ain Ghazal. Beyond that Gary
Rollefson also draws attention to a very important aspect. Citing Annette Weiner, he mentions: “The
object acts as a vehicle for bringing past time into the present, so that the histories of ancestors, titles,
or mythological events become an intimate part of a person’s present identity. To lose this claim to the
past is to lose part of who one is in the present. In its inalienability, the object must be seen as more than
an economic resource and more than an armation of social relations (Weiner 1985: 210).” Things can
thus become essential parts of an individual’s or a community’s biography and identity.
The importance of material objects for the creation of corporate identities and for religion is also
underlined by Lisbeth Christensen. She concludes her analysis with a thought-provoking and far-reach-
ing hypothesis: if religion is closely related to symbolic objects, then similar to the diminishing impor-
tance attributed to objects – a trend she claims for modern city communities – “religion may be a passing
phenomenon in the history of humanity”.
In his contribution Gebel approaches the basic human need for identity, explaining how Neolith-
ic corporate identities developed at the transition from “generalised” to “conned” identities, when it
became imperative to socially cope and manage the increasing diversication and specialization in all
spheres of social, economic, ritual, and cognitive productivity. By presenting denitions for – and elab-
orating on – Neolithic identity, the Neolithic corporate and the Neolithic relational self, he explains how
conned territoriality, commodication and ideological/ habitus regimes became the cogwheels of the
Neolithic Corporate Identity Aggregate that he presents. He stresses that Neolithic identities will remain
constructs, supra-empirical and ultimately demonstrated by material evidence.
It will remain a subject for future research to investigate the dierent social strategies which were
employed to enhance personal commitment and loyalty to group identities. Analyses of intra- or inter-
group homogeneity vs. heterogeneity might give important evidence on that matter. The archaeological
records – from stone tools to human remains – oer a diversied archive to study the degree of conformity
within/or between communities. Comparing displayed conformity in symbols and rituals with conformity
in habitus of daily life (e.g. diets, role dierentiation, gender dimorphism, economy, domestic architec-
ture etc.; see Benz this volume) seems a promising eld of future research to specify the dierent forms
of Neolithic corporate identities and critically reect the idea of monolithic “archaeological cultures”.
It is obvious, that our workshop could not be more than a kick-o meeting to introduce a new
perspective and concept. Investigations on the precise nature of corporate identities during the Epipal-
aeolithic and early Neolithic need both more empirical studies and the reviewing of material excavated
a long time ago with this new focus in mind. In that respect, and to be frank, we hardly know anything
about an essential issue related to corporate identities: the familial structures and relationships in the var-
ious Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic communities. Whether we deal with core or extended family types,
exible or endogamous communities, is still almost a matter of speculation with reference to architec-
tural, household or burial evidence, or by analogy with modern concepts. This lack is not only due to the
bad preservation of a-DNA and collagen in hot climates, but also to a long neglected interest in human
skeletons. With few exceptions, systematic analyses of mobility patterns and diet are still rare although
a huge amount of skeletons has been excavated. Integrating such analyses in investigations on social
and ideological concepts of Neolithic communities would oer important new evidence for the recon-
struction of corporate identities (see e.g. Molleson 2000; Alt et al. 2013, 2015; Bickle and Whittle 2013).
The discussions during the workshop made clear that on the one hand single sites cannot be stud-
ied in isolation but must be considered within their local and regional networks. Communities engaged

Introduction M. Benz, H.G.K. Gebel and T. Watkins
6
vigorously in extensive networks of exchange and sharing (Watkins 2008). What was the function of
these extensive networks of sharing and exchange, how were these exchanges managed and how did
they assist the formation of identities in Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic communities?
Furthermore, as mentioned above, multilevel analyses of several domains will be indispensable
if we accept sensu Gebel (2004) the polycentric development of Neolithic communities and the inter-
subjective meaning of symbols. Unveiling contradictions and tensions instead of compressing Neolithic
communities into a smart picture of coherent communities seems to be one of the most demanding tasks.
All these questions demonstrate the close interrelationship of all three sessions, their separation
being a means to invite participants to think about the theme, and a practical arrangement for the work-
shop itself.
It may be objected that the notion of corporate identity is a modern concept or feature: the editors
acknowledge that it is a modern term, but it ts the social behaviour of humans throughout the ages to
structure and organize their social, ritual and cognitive lives by forming shared identities in these spheres.
The specic character of novel Neolithic identities was relational and corporate, inherited from the hunt-
er-gatherer substratum, before identities became structural, or hierarchic, by the following developments.
At this stage of research on Neolithic corporate identity, we editors felt it impossible to extract
shared understanding or views of authors from the contributions in this volume; it is also the reason why
we avoided to become more specic in this introduction, beyond the remarks made on socio-neurobio-
logical and evolutionary aspects of the corporate identity topic. Finding out more about the dialectical
relationships of the dierent aspects of Neolithic corporate identities will be one of the most exciting
and challenging issues of future Neolithic research, especially when it comes to the relational structures
of Neolithic things and humans. Once researchers focus on the corporate in identity formation, the ma-
terial records will start to reveal new clues on the fundamentally new forms of social and ideological
relationships between humans and their various tangible and intangible environments, and their shifting
cognitive spheres.
Acknowledgments
The editors sincerely acknowledge the organizers of the 9th ICAANE, namely Oskar Kaelin, for the per-
fect organization of the conference and for accepting our workshop to be part of it. Many thanks are due
to the volunteer reviewers and to the authors for sharing their knowledge with us and for their inspiring
comments to the discussion. We are very grateful to Dörte Rokitta-Krumnow for managing the layout
of the volume with a lot of patience and endurance. The publication of the volume was facilitated by the
nancial support of Dr. Wolfgang Kapp “Abu Beden”, to whom we oer our deep and sincere thanks.
Fig. 2 The plastered skulls of the Middle/Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B from Aswad, Syria, were one of
the most enigmatic means to represent individual and Neolithic corporate identities. (by courtesy Mission
El Kowm-Mureybet du Ministère des Aaires étrangères France. Photo: L. Dugué)

M. Benz, H.G.K. Gebel and T. Watkins Introduction
7
References
Alarashi H.
2016 PPNA stone grooved pendants from the middle Euphrates valley: markers of cultural identity? Neo-Lithics 2/16:
20-28.
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.
Alt K.W., Benz M., Vach W., Simmons T.L., and Goring-Morris A.N.
2015 Insights into the social structure of the PPNB site of Kfar haHoresh, Israel, based on dental remains. PLoS ONE
10 (9):e0134528. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134528
Bauer J.
2008 Das kooperative Gen. Abschied vom Darwinismus. Hamburg: Homann und Campe.
2011 Schmerzgrenze. Vom Ursprung alltäglicher und globaler Gewalt. Munich: Heyne.
2015 Das Gedächtnis des Körpers. Wie Beziehungen und Lebensstile unsere Gene steuern. Munich: Piper.
Bauer J. and Benz M.
2013 Neurobiology meets archaeology: the social challenges of the Neolithic processes. Neo-Lithics 2/13: 65-69.
Belfer-Cohen A. and Goring-Morris A.N.
2013 Breaking the mold: phases and facies in the Natuan of the Mediterranean zone. In: O. Bar-Yosef and F.R. Valla
(eds.), Natuan Foragers in the Levant. Terminal Pleistocene Social Changes in Western Asia. Archaeological
Series 19: 544-561. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory.
Benz M.
2010 The principle of sharing – an introduction. 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: 1-18. Berlin: ex oriente.
Benz M. and Bauer J.
2013 Symbols of power – symbols of crisis? A psycho-social approach to early Neolithic symbol systems. Neo-Lithics
2/13: 11-24.
Bickle P. and Whittle A. (eds.)
2013 The First Farmers of Central Europe. Diversity in LBK Lifeways. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Blumer H.
2013 Symbolischer Interaktionismus. Aufsätze zu einer Wissenschaft der Interpretation. Edited by H. Bude and
M. Dellwing. Berlin: Suhrkamp.
Brather S. and Wotzka H.-P.
2006 Alemannen und Franken? Bestattungsmodi, ethnische Identitäten und wirtschaftliche Verhältnisse zur Mero-
wingerzeit. In: S. Burmeister and N. Müller-Scheeßel (eds.), Soziale Gruppen – kulturelle Grenzen. Die Interpreta-
tion sozialer Identitäten in der Prähistorischen Archäologie. Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher 5: 139-224.
Münster: Waxmann.
Brewer M.B.
2012 [1991] The social self: on being the same and dierent at the same time. In: K.D. Vohs and R.F. Baumeister
(eds.), Self and Identity 3: 33-47. Los Angeles: Sage. [Originally published in: Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 17 (5): 475-482]
Choi J.K. and Bowles S.
2007 The coevolution of parochial altruism and war. Science 318 (5850): 636-640.
Davidovic A.
2006 Identität – ein unscharfer Begri. Identitätsdiskurse in den gegenwartsbezogenen Humanwissenschaften. In: S.
Burmeister and N. Müller-Scheeßel (eds.), Soziale Gruppen – kulturelle Grenzen. Die Interpretation sozialer
Identitäten in der Prähistorischen Archäologie. Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher 5: 39-58. Münster:
Waxmann.
Edelson M., Sharot T., Dolan R.J., and Dudai Y.
2011 Following the crowd: brain substrates of long-term memory conformity. Science 333 (6038): 108-111.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt I. and Sütterlin C.
2012 Die Evolution von Familialität und Solidarität. In: J. Forster, W. Schiefenhövel and C. Sütterlin (eds.), Im Spiegel
der Anderen. Forschungen zum gemeinsamen Erbe der Menschen: 86-89. Ingolstadt: Stadtmuseum Ingolstadt.
Fehr E., Bernhard H., and Rockenbach B.
2008 Egalitarianism in young children. Nature 454: 1079-1083.
Florack A. and Genschow O.
2014 Soziale Chamäleons. Gehirn und Geist Highlights 2: 48-53.

Introduction M. Benz, H.G.K. Gebel and T. Watkins
8
Gebel H.G.K.
2004 Central to what? Remarks on the settlement patterns of the LPPNB mega-sites 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, Sub-
sistence, and Environment 5: 1-20. Berlin: ex oriente.
2010 Commodication and the formation of Early Neolithic social identity. The issues as 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 Environ-
ment 14: 35-80. Berlin: ex oriente.
2014 Territoriality in early Near Eastern sedentism. Neo-Lithics 2/14: 14-44.
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.
Haun D.B.M., Rekers Y., and Tomasello M.
2014 Children conform to the behaviour of peers; other great apes stick with what they know. Psychological Science
25 (12): 2160-2167.
Haun D.B.M., van Leeuwen E.J.C., and Edelson M.
2013 Majority inuence in children and other animals. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience 3: 61-71.
Hornsey M.J. and Jetten J.
2012 [2004] The individual within the group: balancing the need to belong with the need to be dierent. In: K.D. Vohs
and R.F. Baumeister (eds.), Self and Identity 3: 105-136. Los Angeles: Sage. [Originally published in: Personality
and Social Psychology Review 8 (3): 248-264]
Lakin J.L., Chartrand T.L., and Arkin R.M.
2008 I am too just like you: nonconscious mimicry as an automatic behavioural response to social exclusion. Psychological
Science 19: 816-822.
Molleson T.I.
2000 Appendix 5: the human remains. In: A.M.T. Moore, G.C. Hillman and J.A. Legge (eds.), Village on the Euphrates:
From Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureyra: 533-544. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morris C.W.
1973[1934] Einleitung. George H. Mead als Sozialpsychologe und Sozialphilosoph. In: G.H. Mead, Geist, Identität
und Gesellschaft: 13-38. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. [Original title: Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press].
Over H.
2016 The origins of belonging: social motivation in infants and young children. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B 371: 20150072. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0072
Rochat P.
2003 Five levels of self-awareness as they unfold early in life. Consciousness and Cognition 12: 717-731.
Rule N.O., Freeman J.B., and Ambady N.
2013 Culture in social neuroscience: a review. Social Neuroscience 8 (1): 3-10.
Schiefenhövel W.
2001 Kampf, Krieg und Versöhnung bei den Eipo im Bergland von West-Neuguinea – Zur Evolutionsbiologie und
Kulturanthropologie aggressiven Verhaltens. In: W. Fikentscher (ed.), Begegnung und Konikt – eine kulturanthro-
pologische Bestandsaufnahme. Bayrische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Neue
Folge 120: 169-186. Munich: Bayrische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Skinner M.K.
2015 Epigenetik. Vererbung der anderen Art. Spektrum der Wissenschaft 7: 19-25.
Spiong S.
2006 Auf der Suche nach Identität: Fibeln und Gewandnadeln als Indikatoren. In: S. Burmeister and N. Müller-Scheeßel
(eds.), Soziale Gruppen – kulturelle Grenzen. Die Interpretation sozialer Identitäten in der Prähistorischen Archäo-
logie. Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher 5: 257-286. Münster: Waxmann.
Sterelny K.
2011 The Evolved Apprentice: How Evolution Made Humans Unique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sterelny K. and Watkins T.
2015 Neolithization in southwest Asia in a context of niche construction theory. Cambridge Archaeological Journal
25 (3): 673-691.
Swann W.B., Jetten J., Gómez A., Whitehouse H., and Bastian B.
2012 When group membership gets personal: a theory of identity fusion. Psychological Review 119 (3): 441-456.
Tomasello M. and Rakoczy H.
2003 What makes human cognition unique? From individual to shared to collective intentionality. Mind and Language
18 (2): 121-147.

M. Benz, H.G.K. Gebel and T. Watkins Introduction
9
Tomasello M., Melis A.P., Tennie C., Wyman E., and Herrmann E.
2012 Two key steps in the evolution of human cooperation. The interdependence hypothesis. Current Anthropology
53 (6): 673-687.
Triandis H.C.
1972 The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley.
1989 The self and social behavior in diering cultural contexts. Psychological Review 96 (3): 506-520.
Van Leeuwen E.J.C., Kendal R.L., Tennie C., and Haun D.B.M.
2015 Conformity and its look-a-likes. Animal Behaviour 110: e1-e4.
Watkins T.
2008 Supra-regional networks in the Neolithic of southwest Asia. Journal of World Prehistory 21 (2): 139-171.
2012 Household, community and social landscape: building and maintaining social memory in the early Neolithic of
southwest Asia. In: M. Furholt, M. Hinz and D. Mischka (eds.), “As Time Goes By?” Monuments, Landscapes and
the Temporal Perspective. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 206: 23-44. Bonn: Habelt.
2016 The cultural dimension of cognition. Quaternary International 405 (Part A): 91-97.
Whitehouse H. and Lanman J.A.
2014 The ties that bind us: ritual, fusion, and identication. Current Anthropology 55 (6): 674-695.
Widlok T.
2017 Anthropology and the Economy of Sharing. London, New York: Routledge.
Wulf C.
2005 Zur Genese des Sozialen. Mimesis, Performativität, Ritual. Bielefeld: Transcript.