The "Agriculture Revolution": The anthropological perspective from the Levant

Scientific background: Bones record the life history of their occupants in various ways. In our anthropological research, an attempt is made to extract the life histories of the Natufian and Neolithic people from their bones. Together with cultural, economical and ecological data, it should be possible to reconstruct ways of life as they were in Southern Levant at the end of the Pleistocene and the beginning of the Holocene (10,500-5,500 BC). Understanding the linkage between biological and cultural processes is essential in addressing the impact of food production in the Levant.
A large portion of anthropological publications in the past (usually appearing as appendices to archaeological reports) have been in the form of lists of uninterpreted measurements, and therefore are of little use to archaeologists whose efforts concentrate on reconstructing human life in the period under discussion (Kuijt and Goring-Morris, 2002). As a result, the existing archaeological descriptions of human societies during this important period (transition from hunting-gathering to farming) lack the human (biological) dimension (e.g. see Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1989; Belfer-Cohen, 1991; Bar-Yosef, 1992, 2001; Rollefson 2001). In our research, we depart from the traditional ‘lists of measurements’ format to an osteobiographical approach (Saul and Saul, 1989). By the term 'osteobiography' we mean “life history as recorded by bones”. Within an osteobiographic context, we will try to reconstruct the ways of life as they were at the beginning of one of the most dramatic times in human history, i.e., the transition from foraging to farming.
 

Who was there? The question “Who was there?” has biological, ritual and cultural implications, all three of which can be looked at in terms of sex and age distribution along with the number of individuals per site. Combining demographic data (e.g. age at death pyramid, sex ratio, life table) with cultural information (e.g. burial cult, skull treatment) may help to confirm (or negate) many interesting new and old hypotheses and give answers to numerous questions related to the behaviour and culture of these people, such as: “Did the Natufians practice selective infanticide?”; "Did the Natufians practice dental mutilation for aesthetic reasons? As a means for cure? Ethnic identification? Testing the individual to endure pain? Creating for the soul a means of bodily exit and re-entry during sleep?" Or simply "to prevent females from eating meat?" (all are possible options based on ethnographic data); “Are there ritual burial sites in the pre-Pottery Neolithic?”; “Are plastered skulls in the PPNB part of an ancestral cult?"; " Were modeled skulls mainly of elderly males?”; "Are burials of multiple individuals in a single grave evidence of infectious diseases (e.g., smallpox, rubella) which affected entire families, or was there some sort of ritual practice (sacrifice)?"; "How and why are isolated human bones found scattered in the water-well at Atlit-Yam?"; "Why were only specific bones found inside the water-well?" and "What do the signs of burning on the bones tell us?"
Many studies in the past have tried to address some of these questions (e.g., Garrod, 1957; Kenyon, 1957; Wright, 1978; Rollefson, 1983; Arensburg and Hershkovitz, 1988; Bienert, 1991; Bar-Yosef, 1992; Goring-Morris et al., 1994; Hershkovitz et al., 1995; Cauvin, 2000; Bonogofsky, 2002). The data presented in these, however, are mostly technical in nature, often restricted to a single site and their interpretation is rather speculative. For example, although we have gained quite a clear picture on the plastering technique of modeled skulls
(Hershkovitz et al., 1995; Goren et al., 2001), we still do not know how significant this cult was. The first thing we need to do in order to start answering this question is to find out how common this practice was (currently there are ca. 20 known plastered skulls from the Southern Levant, all dating to the PPNB period).
 

Why did they disappear? Towards the end of the 7th century BC, the great pre-Pottery Neolithic culture disappeared (Rollefson, 1989; Rollefson and Kohler-Rollefson, 1993). Was it a gradual decline through time or an abrupt event? Was it a disease that put an end to the Neolithic existence? Although most infectious diseases usually kill before leaving a record in the skeleton, their tracks can sometimes be seen indirectly, i.e, in the sex and age distribution of their victims, the total number of individuals buried at a given site at one episode and by the way people were buried. Was the nutritional environment in the late Neolithic period more stressful than that in the early Neolithic? Changes in the demographic structure of the population (e.g., adult/child ratio) and the appearance of or increase in certain diseases (e.g. dental hypoplasia, circular caries, anemia, infectious disease) may furnish insight into these underlying processes.
 

What can be said about their way of life? Due to the extensive ongoing excavations of Natufian and Neolithic sites in the last decades, much is known about the culture, economy and ecology of these people (e.g. Weinstein-Evron, 1998; Lev-Yadun et al., 2000; Zohar et al., 2001; Bar Oz and Dayan, 2002; Kuijt and Goring-Morris, 2002). Our knowledge of their daily life, however, remains extremely limited. Until recently, the absence of large, well-studied, skeletal samples has hampered researchers' ability to reconstruct people's lives from their bones. This situation has ameliorated in recent years owing to the excavation of two large PPN sites (Kfar Hahoresh and Atlit-Yam) which have yielded a considerable number of skeletons (Hershkovitz and Galili, 1990; Goring-Morris et al., 1994). The Natufian skeletal sample has also increased significantly in the last decade in the wake of excavations of new sites and renewed excavations at Hatula, Hilazon cave, Hayonim cave and terrace and Eynan (e.g. Bocquentin et al., 2001). The following are the major aspects of human life in the Natufian-Neolithic periods that may benefit greatly from the study of skeletal remains (as explained below).
Aesthetics: The many ornaments and ochre remains (Weinstein-Evron, 1998) used by the Natufian and (to a much lesser extent by) Neolithic people to decorate their bodies testify to an aesthetic consciousness. Much can be learned from the skeleton about the way people portrayed themselves and the ideal image they strove to adopt. For example, “head shaping” (more commonly known as “deformation”) was practiced in the PPNB period (Kfar Hahoresh, Jericho, Abu Gosh) (Arensburg and Hershkovitz 1988). To date, this aspect of Neolithic human behaviour has not been thoroughly investigated and we still do not have answers to any of the following posers: When did this practice begin? How common was it? What was the desired 'look'? and Why? What was the technique employed to achieve the desired head shape? What were the shaping devices used? On whom was it practiced, whether males, females, or both? On adults or on the young? Another custom possibly reflecting on the aesthetics of this prehistoric people is dental avulsion (Bonogofsky, 2002). There is evidence that the Natufians practiced this (Smith, 1989), but not the Neolithic people. Was it a common practice in the Natufian period? By whom? On whom? (males/females; young/old)? And why tackle only upper central incisors? Did the Neolithic people avoid this 'surgical' behaviour because of dietary changes and alterations in food preparation techniques or simply because the fashion changed? In what way, if at all, did these aesthetic behaviours reflect social stratification and social order? All of the above remain moot questions.
Nutrition: Abundant archaeological, botanical and zoological evidence testify to a shift in economical strategies and subsistence, from intensive hunting and gathering in the Natufian to cultivation of land and domestication in the Neolithic period. The cultivation of land, together with the domestication of animals such as sheep, goat, pigs and cattle (Kohler-Rollefson et al., 1988; Bar-Yosef and Meadow, 1995; Horwitz et al., 1999), and plants such as wheat, barley, peas, lentils and chickpeas (Rollefson et al., 1992; Hillman et al., 2001) have reshaped not only the face of human culture but also its biology. In what way? This question has yet to be answered. For example: Adequate nutrition for children is crucial to the survival of any population. Were the Natufian and Neolithic children well nourished? Studying the radiographs of children's long bones (Harris lines), enamel defects (dental hypoplasia) and various pathologies (e.g., iron deficiency anemia and scurvy) may supply at least a partial answer. Bones and teeth can tell us about the type of food consumed (including quantity and quality), as well as something about the preparation techniques involved. Dental attrition (mainly via microwear analysis and wear pattern) may tell us about the way the Neolithic people processed cereal. Grinding seeds between two stones introduces additional 'grit' into the diet. The crystals retained in the food leave typical scratches on the enamel and produce an identifiable wear pattern. Preparation of grain in a saddle stone quern may cause specific pathological changes in bones of the lower extremities (Molleson, 1994). Pounding grain in a mortar with a heavy pestle, as was common in the Natufian period, may leave specific muscle markings on the upper limb bones.
Health: Since not all diseases leave marks on the skeleton, and when they do, the 'mark' may be ambiguous (i.e., found in more than one disease) rather than pathognomonic or specific, health reconstruction from bones may be a difficult task. However, pathological bones give us information not just about the diseases encountered in the populations, but also on the medical know-how of the people and their attitude towards sick people in general. The healing process of fractures, for example, may, in some instances, provide information on ancient medical intervention practices. In this regard, it appears that the art of reducing a fracture and immobilizing the affected bone was well known to the Natufians. Many of the fractures had healed without marked angulation or significant reduction in length. Fracture rate may also be studied in relation to settlement patterns and means of subsistence. For example: decreased frequency of fractures with time (number of fractures/number of individuals) due to a change from a more migratory hunting-gathering mode of life to a more sedentary agricultural existence is to be expected in our study. Dental mutilation can also be deemed the Natufian manner of curing diarrhea and fever in children, or tetanus (by creating an aperture through which food could be passed in the event of 'lockjaw'), as demonstrated by many present-day tribal societies (Nanji, 1998). Illness among children can be studied not only via the disease encountered in the child, but also in relation to timing, i.e., at what age were children more prone to stress (external and internal)? Location of arrest lines on the tooth crown (enamel hypoplasia) can serve as a clue to the onset of the disturbance, due to factors such as a malady or the rigors of weaning. And finally, is there any evidence for zoonoses? The notion that humans were first infected by TB in the Eastern Mediterranean region during the PPN period has long been a popular one (e.g. Manchester, 1983). However, is the scanty evidence from Ain Ghazal (El-Najjar et al., 1997) supportive of this hypothesis? (Hershkovitz and Gopher, 1999).
Dental health: In humans, the interrelationship between host and associated resident microbiota plays a critical role in health and disease. The complexity of such interactions is most evident in the human mouth, which can play host to as many as 500 different adherent microbial species. Whereas in some cases the resident oral microbiota play a protective role (e.g., in preventing colonization and proliferation of Candida species), oral bacteria are also involved in two of the most prevalent current diseases of mankind, i.e., dental caries and periodontal disease. As these two diseases became widespread only in post-Pleistocene populations (Hershkovitz, 1998), it is natural to wonder whether the agricultural revolution (new diet) triggered the change, to wit: was the food in the Neolithic more cariogenic? The notion that the spread of dental disease is associated with the origins of agriculture is very popular in the anthropological literature (Smith et al., 1984; Smith, 1989). Yet, it is based on circumstantial evidence only. The proposed study will look for hard evidence. A preliminary investigation of ours seems to indicate that some dental pathologies became widespread long after agriculture was initially introduced to the region (Hershkovitz, 1998). What caused this delay?
Welfare: Welfare is a subject which hitherto has not been discussed in relation to prehistoric populations, perhaps because we perceive welfare as a modern phenomenon. Yet, this is an important aspect of human life and behaviour and tells us a lot about the solidarity within the group, the level of social organization and the economic level of a community. Bones can provide indirect evidence in this respect. For example, to what extent did a fracture of a given leg bone disable an individual? Did his disability render it difficult or impossible for him to engage in normal activities? If a male's activities involved hunting as the sole means of providing food for his family, then the effects of a disabling fracture could be catastrophic for the person actually affected, as well as for his family and even his group. What do the many healed fractures among the Natufians tell us about their attitude toward members of the group with temporary physical impairment? Welfare may also be expressed indirectly, through the reaction of a population to congenital defects. One way to gauge this interesting aspect of life is via differential burial (was it a proper burial? within the community?) and age at death of the individual (did he/she survive to adulthood?).
Hostile encounters: Opinions as to what type of culture, hunter-gatherers or farmers, will produce more violent activity are divided among anthropologists (Walker, 1989; 1997; Lambert, 1997; Martin, 1997). Were Natufian hunter-gatherer groups hostile to one another, each protecting its hunting territory? Or was it in the Neolithic where strong social cohesion and collective identity (solidarity endorsed through ritual practices) acted to mitigate intra-group violence while, at the same time, economical and inter-social competition (more typical to agricultural society) promoted intercommunity aggression? Is the emergence of social inequality in the PPN (a possible derivate of the development of food production) (Hayden, 2001), a trigger to augment intra-social violence? Has the fact that power and authority were differently practiced in the two populations (Kuijt and Goring-Morris, 2002) had any bearing on the different rate of violent activity observed? Did population growth in the Neolithic increase competition for food resources and thereby contribute to inter-group conflicts? What types of weapon were used? No answers are yet available to these questions, partially because many scholars believe that violence was rare among the two groups (Kuijt and Goring-Morris, 2002) . Yet, no extensive study was ever carried out to elucidate this issue. Warlike-inflicted injuries are not always easy to differentiate from accidental trauma. Furthermore, in many cases it is difficult to determine whether or not a fracture to the skull is due to interpersonal violence or inter-social conflict. Despite the methodological problems, there are certain clues that might help determine the nature of a visible trauma, namely, differences in type and frequency of trauma among the sexes, age distribution of the afflicted individuals, location of the trauma (right or left side of the skull), etc.
Social structure, Consanguineous marriage and Polygamy: In the absence of intensive geographical barriers in the Levant, regular traffic or communication between neighboring populations within the Near East was once easy, hence the many cultural similarities among the ancient communities (Bar-Yosef and Belfer Cohen, 1989; Cauvin, 2000). Yet, were those ancient communities biologically related? Did they intermarry? Where there are no geographical or cultural boundaries, occasionally strong social boundaries (or rules) exist. The Bedouin tribes of the Sinai are a good example, with their coefficient of inbreeding (F) being one of the highest among human populations (Hershkovitz et al., 1993). As for our Natufian and Neolithic populations, there are some cultural features in both which suggest the possibility of consanguineous marriages. For example, much of the ritual cult in the Neolithic (e.g. plastered skulls) is aimed toward promoting intragroup solidarity (Kuijt and Goring-Morris, 2002), something that can be attained via inbreeding. The possibility of consanguinity among the Natufian has already been raised three decades ago (Smith, 1973), based on the absence of M3. Subsequently, however, other researchers have failed to demonstrate the phenomenon in the same populations as well as in others (Belfer-Cohen et al., 1991). Hence, the question has remained moot. Looking for congenital malformation in dried bones (as spina bifida, sacralization, absence of M3) may be one way to address this issue. Such defects, however, are rare and unless we are fortunate enough to find them, they will probably be of little help. Epigenetic traits (both in bones and teeth) and coefficients of variation (for highly heritable metric traits) can better furnish us with information on the social structure of these groups. There is an abundance of archaeological evidence for commercial contacts between prehistoric populations in the Near East (e.g. Weinstein-Evron, 1998). Whether these groups were organized in some sort of social supra-structure social or rather in an endogamous tribal framework (or kin groups) remains an open question. As migration played an important role in the spread of farming in the Near East (Kuijt and Goring-Morris, 2002), comparison of the Neolithic skeletal material from Israel with that from Cyprus, for example, could prove one of the most promising ways to reconstruct population movements in the Neolithic. Another aspect of human life which is of interest is family structure and although bones cannot supply direct evidence for practices such as polygamy, changes in adult sex ratio, or especially increase in the number of children (per adult), they may indirectly reveal that polygamy might have been practiced. The primary advantage of polygamy is that it enables the male to produce a large number of offspring thus enhancing the 'physical' strength of the family.
Child growth and development: Studies on the physical development of children can assist in the assessment of the environmental conditions affecting child growth (Kobyliansky and Hershkovitz, 1997). Although many skeletons of Natufian and Neolithic children are available, such a study has never been undertaken. As age can be accurately determined in skeletal material of young children (mainly from tooth eruption), a growth curve (stature being estimated from long bones) can be reconstructed and compared with modern charts. The comparison of height increments in modern and prehistoric children will not only tell us whether the Natufian and Neolithic children manifested pubertal growth spurts similar to those of modern children, but also something about the economic status of these children, their surrounding environment and even about the groups' mating pattern (Bogin, 1988; Kobyliansky and Hershkovitz, 1997; Henneberg and Louw, 1998).
Occupation: To deduce from bones the occupations of people in the past and their diverse activities is rather complicated. Activity markers leave us clues on the bones, which unfortunately can be interpreted in disparate ways. Studying muscle markings, handedness, cross-sectional geometry (second moment of insertion), and pathology (especially of the joints) may help us confirm or refute many preconceived notions. For example, one would expect to find a high rate of spondylolysis (due to extension of the back while sitting in or paddling Kayaks) and over-developed muscle markings (especially along the attachment of the triceps and pectoralis major muscles) among Neolithic Atlit-Yam people who were engaged in seafaring. Similarly, a large humeral mid-cortical area with clear proclivity for the right side and overdeveloped muscle markings on the upper limb bones may tell us about the preferred hunting methods (spears/atlatls) of the Natufians (Peterson, 1994). Archaeology is of little help, however, when questions arise as to "How labor was organized in Natufian and Neolithic communities?" (Goring-Morris, 2000; Kuijt, 2001) and whether people specialized in certain activities. Study of activity-related pathology and enthesopathies might provide some answers.
Habitation and settlement organization: Although there are abundant archaeological reports on Natufian-Neolithic sites, nothing is known regarding how well the houses/huts really suited their main function of providing shelter. At first glance, it may seem odd that bones can tell us anything about a people's habitations, site organization and location, but in fact, they can. For example: specific osseous changes in the endocranium (SES) and long bones (HOA) are clear indications of intra-thoracic inflammation (Hershkovitz et al., 2002). The relative frequencies of these and other pathologies (e.g., otitis media) may tell us whether people were living in open or closed areas, that is, in simple shrub huts or in well-built structures, thus exposed to or protected from the cold winter winds.
 

Research objectives & expected significance
In the proposed research we will use information derived from the life histories of individuals to make projections onto the life history of the population. We will carefully examine all available osseous material in search of clues that may assist us to 'put the people back on their bones'. After successful reconstruction of individuals, we shall attempt to unravel the collective story of the people who inhabited the Land of Israel 13 to 7 millennia ago. Through this study, we hope to shed light on many aspects of these people's daily life, how they lived and how they died, what diseases they suffered from and how they cured them, what they ate and was the food adequate, how large were their families and in what way were they related to other members of the group, how stressful was their work and did they specialize in specific crafts. We shall explore how food production affected human life (from all aspects), and how the new social order changed these people's behaviour. It seems to us that the archaeological study of the Natufian-Neolithic population has reached a point where extensive and new anthropological data are called for. Beside its significance as a bioarchaeological document, the intended study also has relevance to present-day life. Many modern-day health problems have their roots in 'ancient' civilizations. The proposed research will stimulate interest in the fascinating problem of human disease viewed through time. It will draw attention to the presence of characteristic signs of disease far back in time and will demonstrate that pathological processes, such as are familiar to us today, had made their initial appearance long ago. Introducing the temporal dimension into medical thinking should help us to better comprehend the factors underlying the incipience of modern diseases and the tempo of their change (e.g., Roberts and Manchester, 1997; Hershkovitz et al., 1999). This, in turn, may add a new dimension to our understanding of modern-day diseases and assist us in predicting their future course. This study will hopefully encourage future ventures in the fields of bioarchaeology, evolutionary medicine and paleopathology; it will also promote cooperation and collaboration between scholars from different disciplines: archaeology, medicine, anthropology, zoology, botany, geology and paleoecology. Many Near Eastern populations share the same prehistoric cultural heritage. Although today it seems remote or unrealistic, our intended study can possibly create a bridge between scientists of neighboring countries and encourage joint research. The key to understanding social and cultural processes within present-day Near Eastern populations resides in issues that have their roots in the Neolithic, i.e., pastoralism vs. sedentary settlement; urbanization vs. agriculture; tribal vs. stratified complex society, exogamous vs. endogamous marriages, old subsistence economy vs. new economies, change vs. stability, etc.
During the past 20 years, owing to political pressures, thousands of archaeological skeletons have been buried in Israel without being studied. Among these was the osseous collection of the Israel Antiquity Authority (which once held thousands of skeletons from early prehistoric times to the present). Two other collections which are still available (at the Medical schools of Tel Aviv University and the Hebrew University) have shrunk dramatically in the last few years and are under continuous threat of being buried. The proposed, large-scale research project will ensure that the invaluable data coded in these bones will be deciphered in time, and be available not just for the present study but for future research as well. Finally, this study is the first part of a two-stage study focusing on the ancient inhabitants of the Land of Israel. The present proposal, stage I ( first four years), will be devoted to the study of the prehistoric populations of the region (mainly from the Natufian and Neolithic periods). Stage II will then address the historic populations of the region (Chalcolithic to present time).