Paléorient

A question of identity: Is the earliest Neolithic burial from Tell Abu

Hureyra, Syria, possibly a foundation burial?
Theya Molleson, T. Arnold-Forster

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Molleson Theya, Arnold-Forster T. A question of identity: Is the earliest Neolithic burial from Tell Abu Hureyra, Syria,
possibly a foundation burial?. In: Paléorient, 2015, vol. 41, n°1. pp. 117-125;

doi : 10.3406/paleo.2015.5658

http://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_2015_num_41_1_5658

Document généré le 19/01/2018

Abstract
The stratigraphic context and dental morphology of burial Tr. E72.501, Abu Hureyra, is examined
in an attempt to ascertain whether it should be attributed to the late Epipalaeolithic (Mesolithic/
Natufian) or Early Neolithic. A secondary burial was the only one recovered from the deep
excavation that reached the abandoned Epipalaeolithic settlement in trench E. Tooth crown size
did not distinguish 72.501 from other Abu Hureyra trench E teeth ; molar root form and dental
health associate it with Neolithic dentitions. Thus, it could be the first Neolithic inhumation, and the
possibility that it was a foundation burial for the new settlement is proposed.

Résumé
Le contexte stratigraphique et la morphologie dentaire de l’inhumation Tr. E72.501, à Abu
Hureyra, sont examinés afin de déterminer si la sépulture doit être attribuée à la fin de
l’Épipaléolithique (Mésolithique/ Natoufien) ou au Néolithique. Une ensevelissement secondaire a
été observé lors de la fouille en profondeur de la tranchée E, qui a atteint le niveau
épipaléolithique qui avait été abandonné. Les dimensions des couronnes dentaires ne se
distinguaient pas des autres dents de la tranchée E ; la forme des racines des molaires et la santé
dentaire peuvent être associées à des dentitions néolithiques. Il pourrait s’agir alors de la première
inhumation néolithique et il est suggéré que c’était une sépulture de fondation pour l’installation du
nouvel habitat.
 A question of identity:
Is the earliest Neolithic burial
from Tell Abu Hureyra, Syria,
possibly a foundation burial?

T. Molleson and T. Arnold-Forster

Abstract: The stratigraphic context and dental morphology of burial Tr.E72.501, Abu Hureyra, is examined in an attempt to
ascertain whether it should be attributed to the late Epipalaeolithic (Mesolithic/Natufian) or Early Neolithic. A secondary burial
was the only one recovered from the deep excavation that reached the abandoned Epipalaeolithic settlement in trench E. Tooth
crown size did not distinguish 72.501 from other Abu Hureyra trench E teeth; molar root form and dental health associate it with
Neolithic dentitions. Thus, it could be the first Neolithic inhumation, and the possibility that it was a foundation burial for the new
settlement is proposed.

Résumé : Le contexte stratigraphique et la morphologie dentaire de l’inhumation Tr.E72.501, à Abu Hureyra, sont examinés afin de
déterminer si la sépulture doit être attribuée à la fin de l’Épipaléolithique (Mésolithique/Natoufien) ou au Néolithique. Une ensevelis-
sement secondaire a été observé lors de la fouille en profondeur de la tranchée E, qui a atteint le niveau épipaléolithique qui avait été
abandonné. Les dimensions des couronnes dentaires ne se distinguaient pas des autres dents de la tranchée E ; la forme des racines
des molaires et la santé dentaire peuvent être associées à des dentitions néolithiques. Il pourrait s’agir alors de la première inhumation
néolithique et il est suggéré que c’était une sépulture de fondation pour l’installation du nouvel habitat.

Keywords: Neolithic; PPNA; Dental morphology; Burial.

Mots-clés : Néolithique ; PPNA ; Morphologie dentaire ; Sépulture.

Introduction During excavation of trench E in 1972 two s­uccessive

Tell Abu Hureyra was a settlement site in the Euphrates
valley, Northern Syria, inhabited from about 13,400 to 7500
years ago. In 1972 and 1973, Andrew Moore undertook a res-
cue excavation in advance of the building of the Tabqa Dam.
Seven trenches (A-G) were excavated in different parts of
the tell (Moore et al. 2000). The archaeological sequence
extends from Epipalaeolithic (Mesolithic/Natufian) through
Pre-Pottery Neolithic to the introduction of pottery and
beyond to the Modern (Historic) period. The human remains
that come from the Neolithic levels range in time from about
10,600 to 7500 BP (Moore et al. 2000: 257-258).
settlements were recognised. Abu Hureyra 2 (AH2), a
Neolithic settlement of rectangular mud-brick buildings, had
been constructed directly over the round houses of an earlier
Epipalaeolithic settlement, Abu Hureyra 1 (AH1). In trench E,
the AH1 settlement had been abandoned. Four dates (9,860 ±
260 BP to 8700 ± 240 BP) from phases 2 and 3 of this AH1
settlement span the intervening period between AH1 and the
large scale development around trench E in AH2 times (Moore
et al. 2000: 255). The new inhabitants of AH2 removed the sur-
face of the AH1 settlement and any subsequent deposits to pro-
vide level ground on which to build directly on a 1 metre thick
deposit of grey-brown occupation soil (Moore et al. 2000: 221-

Paléorient, vol. 41.1, p. 117-125 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2015 Manuscrit reçu le 17 mars 2014, accepté le 12 décembre 2014

BAT_Paleorient-41-1.indb 117 05/06/15 11:02

 118 T. Molleson and T. Arnold-Forster
222). The first AH2 houses constructed in the area of trench
E set the plans for all later houses built there. The deep trench
in 1972 had broken through the plaster floor of only one room
of the first AH2 house (room 3, phase 4) and similarly only
one room (room 5) of the overlying phase 5 house (Moore et
al. 2000: Fig. 8.52). The main episode of Neolithic occupation
around trench E began sometime before 8300 BP; Phase 4 is
dated 8270 ± 100 BP (Moore et al. 2000: 255-259).
The onset of the Neolithic was affected by dry cold cli-
matic conditions (Luz 1982) reducing the availability of
gazelles, which migrated to find new pasture available in suc-
cessive seasons (Legge and Rowley-Conwy 1987; Moore et
al. 2000: 12-13). Population movements had begun in the late
Epipalaeolithic, after 11,500 BC. Some regions were abandoned
with the deterioration of local climate conditions and new settle-
ments, including Abu Hureyra I, Dja’de el Mughara, Mureybet,
and Jerf el Ahmar, were founded along the middle Euphrates
(Akkermans and Schwartz 2003: 28-29). Abu Hureyra I is the
earliest of these sites (Asouti and Fuller 2013: Fig. 7). Tool kits
and exploited fauna differ between the sites (Olszewski 2000:
149-150). The primary animal at AH1 was the gazelle and there
was not much cutting of plants to judge from low levels of gloss
on tools (Olszewski 2000: 148; Asouti and Fuller 2013: 316).
AH1 was essentially a hunter and gatherer community, although
some cereal grains have been identified; and there is evidence
for plant domestication in the earliest levels of AH2 (Moore et
al. 2000). Tr.E72.501, a secondary burial, was recovered from
within room 3 of the first Neolithic house.
BURIAL TR.E72.501
A human cranium, femur fragment and rib fragments,
Tr.E72.501, recovered from level 53, deep in trench E, had
apparently been deliberately buried. It represents the deep-
est and probably the oldest of the human remains from
Abu Hureyra. Moore records that: the burial was deep in
Epipalaeolithic deposits and appeared to be well stratified,
although it is possible that this unique find was intrusive from
the overlying settlement of Abu Hureyra 2 (Moore et al. 2000:
277). Elsewhere it is stated that “no burials in Abu Hureyra 1
are recorded although the settlement was relatively large with
dense clustering of activities” (Moore et al. 2000: 127). In his
opinion the skull is almost certainly Neolithic and probably
dug from above. It is put in phase 4 because it is probably an
intrusive burial, although unusually deep, and the similarity of
the burial rite to that of other Neolithic burials; see Tr.E73.3273
from an adjacent level (A. Moore, personal comm.).
BAT_Paleorient-41-1.indb 118
The remains of Tr.E72.501 comprise part of a skull without
lower jaw, eight teeth, two rib fragments, distal lateral condyle
of right femur of a young to mature adult. This selection of
bones is a feature of secondary burials. The cranium, which
is small, has obliterated sagittal suture but open occipital
suture indicative of a mature adult. The frontal sinuses did not
extend above the orbits. There is cribra orbitalis of the orbit.
The burial was recovered in 1972 before trench E had been
extended in 1973 and therefore excavated from the deep trench
exposed in 1972. Burial 72.501 could be in situ and therefore
Epipalaeolithic; or it could be a reburial of an AH1 skeleton
disturbed during levelling prior to building of the AH2 house
and therefore Epipalaeolithic; or it could be intrusive from a
deep intramural inhumation from room 3 of the earliest AH2
house and therefore Neolithic; or even derived from room 5 of
the subsequent house. Isolated small human bones and teeth
were also recovered from the AH1 levels of the deep trench;
some could be from AH1 or intrusive from AH2.
Culturally settlements AH1 and AH2 were very differ-
ent and several hundred years separate them. It is likely that
the two were occupied by different people. Tr.E72.501, if
derived from AH2, should show affinities with some of the
Neolithic population, affinities that might be seen in tooth
size and variants of the dentitions of AH2 burials. Only the
presence of unique traits would differentiate 72.501 from the
later assemblage. The same variants might have been preva-
lent on the dentitions of the AH1 Epipalaeolithic population
for which we do not have a comparative sample from the site;
but we did attempt comparisons with material from nearby
sites Mureybet, Cheikh Hassan, Dja’de el Mughara and Jerf
el Ahmar (Özbek 1979; Stordeur et Abbès 2002; Alrousan
2009). See E. Asouti and D. Fuller (2013: Fig. 7) for calibrated
radiocarbon timespans for the sites discussed in this paper.
MATERIAL
Only the teeth of Tr.E72.501 were considered suitable for
study, given the fragmented condition of the bones.
Upper dentition of burial Tr.E72.501
Right _/ 17 16 15 r 13 (12) 11? | / / / / 25 r 27 np Left
Tooth notation: FDI; /: tooth missing post mortem; np: not
present; r: roots only; lateral incisor (12) sampled.
Paléorient, vol. 41.1, p. 117-125 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2015
05/06/15 11:02
 A question of identity: Is the earliest Neolithic burial from Tell Abu Hureyra, Syria, possibly a foundation burial? 119

Both first premolars (14 and 24) though not recovered
appear to have been single rooted; the first and second molars
(16 and 17) have convergent roots; both second molars (17 and
27) have reduced mesiodistal (hypocone) cusp; and there was
agenesis of the left third molar (28). The teeth show strongly
developed tooth to tooth occlusal and interproximal facets.
The second premolar (25) is chipped on the buccal side. Five
teeth have large deposits of a brown calculus (tartar) on the
buccal side, the shape of which suggests it was supra-gingival.
Pitting of the alveolar ridge between the second premolar (15)
and first molar (16) is probably a sign of periodontal reaction
to calculus. There is slight to moderate torus palatinus where
the palate is thickened in the midline (fig. 1). It is probable that
an upper right central incisor (11) level 52 should be associated
with 72.501, as shown in Figure 1.
METHOD
The mesiodistal diameter of each tooth was taken as the
distance between the mesial and distal contact facets on the
crown; however, if a tooth were without a contact facet on the
distal surface, such as a second molar in the absence of a third,
then the diameter would be taken as the distance between the
mid-point of the distal surface and the contact on the mesial
surface. The maximum buccolingual length was taken as the
greatest distance between two points on the buccal and pal-
atal surfaces of the tooth crown (Wheeler 1968: 22-26). All
teeth were measured three times and the median value chosen.
Upper dentitions from burials in trench E were measured and
included for comparison (table 1).

Fig. 1 – Maxilla and dentition of Tr.E72.501 from level 53, trench E, Tell Abu Hureyra.

Paléorient, vol. 41.1, p. 117-125 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2015

BAT_Paleorient-41-1.indb 119 05/06/15 11:02

 120 T. Molleson and T. Arnold-Forster

Table 1a – Upper dentitions from burials in trench E RESULTS

measured for comparison with 72.501.
Burial No. Phase Sex Age Teeth
Mixed dentition: shovelled I2, Different callipers compared well; but see table 3 for val-
73.3273# 4(Neo) ? 6-7years M1(16), hypocone,
fused roots
ues in brackets kindly provided by Bérénice Chamel. Archive
Incisor (22) shovelling; measurements from the original anthropological study
72.495A# 5(Neo) F? MA
canine (33) 2 rooted ­compiled by Dawn Hodgson also compared well (Molleson in
M3 (48) np; canine task
73.2951# 5(Neo) F MA
related wear.
Moore et al. 2000: Appendix 1). Measurements made in 1989-
Canine (33) 2-rooted, 90 using different callipers and diameters at right angles had
73.3067# 5(Neo) F MA
M3 (28) np, chipped a greater than 10% difference so no direct comparisons could
73.3437 5(Neo) ? YA
be made between data sets, although trends and asymmetries
M3 (18, 28) reduced
72.520# 6(Neo) M? YA
­hypocone between left and right side enantiomers could be compared.
73.2271# 6(Neo) F MA M3 (38) np, chipped Asymmetry between left and right sides was marked for the
73.2396# 6(Neo) F YA
PM2 single rooted, M2, PM2 and M2. The left M2 being the larger (table 2).
M3 fused roots, M2>M3
73.2398 6(Neo) M YA M3 (18) reduced hypocone
73.1316 7(Neo) F A I2 (12) shovelled Table 2a – Mesiodistal lengths of teeth from trench E (FDI notation).
73.842A 8(Neo) indet YA I2 tubercle
73.543 8(Neo) indet YA I1 shovelled Tr.E72.501 Trench E
73.3438A 9(Mod) Tooth Mean St.Dev. Range N
73. 300 9(Mod) M2 (17) 8.1 9.2 0.86 7.55-10.65 12
M1 (16) 9.8 9.79 0.72 8.1-10.6 9
# mandible used in Molleson and Rosas (2012).
P2 (15) 6.25 6.38 0.62 5.0-7.4 11
C (13) 7.3 7.27 0.38 6.3-7.7 10
P2 (25) 6.05 6.36 0.69 5.25-7.5 9
Table 1b – Additional partial dentitions from trench E. M2 (27) 9 9.42 0.72 8.26-10.5 10

Burial No. Phase Sex Age Teeth

73.1930 5 F? YA M3 (18) np Table 2b – Buccolingual widths of teeth from trench E (FDI notation).
73.2655 5 F MA Attrition (TRW), chipped fractured
8 teeth, M3 (18) fused roots; Tr.E72.501 Trench E
73.2952# 5 M MA
attrition, chipped Tooth Mean St.Dev. Range N
73.2202B 6 F MA Attrition, fractured M2 (17) 11.4 11.6 1.06 10.1-13.7 12
73.2747 6 F A 8 teeth mandible M1 (16) 11.9 12.1 0.47 11.1-12.55 9
73.B115 6 indet A TRW P2 (15) 7.9 9.2 0.76 7.9-10.35 11
73.B215b 6 F A 22 shovelled C (13) 8.35 8.07 0.51 7.2-9.1 10
73.B286 6 indet YA PM2, M3 cusp anomaly P2 (25) 7.65 9.04 0.83 8.0-10.25 9
73.B114 7 M A M2 (27) 11.4 11.98 0.08 10.35-13.2 9
M2 hypocone red, Carabelli’s,
73.810 8 indet I
enamel pearl
72.495 F A A
Mesiodistal lengths of 72.501 teeth are near or less than
trench E average (fig. 2a; table 2a); buccolingual widths of all
teeth except the canine are less than trench E average (fig. 2b;
table 2b). 72.501 had the thinnest (BL) second premolars of
any in trench E and second molars with reduced distal cusp
(hypocone) and convergent roots. Several other trench E den-
titions (e.g. 73.2271, 73.B46) have very short (MD length)
premolars or molars. Both 72.501 and 73.2271 have thin (BL)
premolars or molars.

Paléorient, vol. 41.1, p. 117-125 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2015

BAT_Paleorient-41-1.indb 120 05/06/15 11:02

 A question of identity: Is the earliest Neolithic burial from Tell Abu Hureyra, Syria, possibly a foundation burial? 121
Fig. 2a – Mesiodistal lengths of canine (13), second premolar (15), first
and second molars (16, 17) of Tr.E72.501 compared to teeth from trench
E, Abu Hureyra. Squares: Tr.E72.501; diamonds: Trench E means;
whiskers: + St.Dev.
13
12
Buccolingual width (mm)
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
11 13 15 17
Tooth (FDI notation)
Fig. 2b – Buccolingual widths of right canine (13), second premolar (15)
and first and second molars (16, 17) of Tr.E72.501 compared to mean
values for teeth from trench E, Abu Hureyra. Squares: Tr.E72.501; dia-
monds: Trench E means; whiskers: + 1 st.Dev.
DISCUSSION
It was important to resolve as far as possible the context
of the secondary burial Tr.E72.501 since it could either be the
only Epipalaeolithic burial recovered from the excavations at
Abu Hureyra or a deeply intrusive burial from a Neolithic level.
Inhumation burials of humans can be particularly difficult to locate
chronologically since they are by definition intrusive into older lev-
els. Earlier attempts to obtain radiocarbon dates of human bone
from Abu Hureyra were unsuccessful. Fortunately, morphological
differences between human remains from different groups can be
a means of establishing the presence of different populations in an
assemblage (Molleson, Rosas 2012).
Significant differences of tooth size and morphology between
pre and post Neolithic dentitions in the Near East were originally
described in a comprehensive study by Pat Smith (Smith et al.
Paléorient, vol. 41.1, p. 117-125 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2015
BAT_Paleorient-41-1.indb 121
1986; Smith 1991). Natufian teeth were defined as being smaller
than those of Middle Palaeolithic hunters and foragers from the
Levant but still larger than those of the Neolithic and later popula-
tions (Smith 1991: 425). Natufian teeth are moderate in size but
thick buccolingually, with the lateral incisors and premolars espe-
cially short mesiodistally, relative to other teeth in a jaw (Smith
1991: 428).
Transitional Epipalaeolithic Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN)
sites on the Euphrates close to Abu Hureyra include Mureybet,
Cheikh Hassan, Jerf el Ahmar, Halula and Dja’de el Mughara
(Anfruns 1993; Stordeur et al. 2001; Akkermans and Schwartz
2003: Fig. 3.1; Asouti and Fuller 2013: Fig. 7). Sample sizes for
upper teeth from these sites are very small. Excepting the indi-
vidual from Jerf el Ahmar, where the teeth are larger especially
mesiodistally, sizes of upper teeth from these sites do not differ
significantly from those of 72.501 or the trench E sample. The
teeth from Mureybet phase IIIB, which B. Chamel has studied are
dated from the end of the Mureybetian period, the transition from
PPNA to PPNB. Unfortunately, only one of the individuals of this
phase has teeth (table 3).
Mohammad Alrousan in his comparison of dentitions from
Jerf el Ahmar with transitional and later sites in Mesopotamia has
demonstrated that between site heterogeneity is greater than that
for chronology or culture. Upper premolars and molars showed
no significant differences between sites that included the Natufian
sites Shukbah, El Wad and Kebara from the Levant. Neolithic
first molars tend to be smaller than Natufian (Alrousan 2009:
133, 138). He concluded that the teeth from Jerf el Ahmar are
like Neolithic teeth from the other sites studied and no consis-
tent trend in tooth size can be described between Natufian and
PPN d­ entitions. His data show Jerf teeth in both mesiodistal and
buccolingual dimensions are larger than PPNA-PPNB teeth from
Abu Hureyra, including 72.501, Cheikh Hassan or Mureybet
(table 3). Anfruns in comparing size of upper first molars from
Dja’de el Mughara also found no difference from other Pre-
Pottery Neolithic (PPN) upper first molars (MD: 10.4-10.68;
BL: 11.14-11.96, n=25) and argued for homogeneity through the
Near East region (Anfruns 1993: 154). Taken together the teeth
of Tr.E72.501, Jerf el Ahmar, Cheikh Hassan and Mureybet seem
to show a mix of Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic characters, the
nature of which cannot be resolved from this one partial denti-
tion but there does seem to be a case at present for viewing the
north Syrian populations, here referred to as Epipalaeolithic,
apart from those in the Levant (referred to the Natufian). The
sites were likely to have been founded at different times and by
different lineages, hence the dental differences, enhanced by
a founder effect resulting from small initial population sizes.
The teeth identify the lineages that engendered them.
05/06/15 11:02
 122 T. Molleson and T. Arnold-Forster

Table 3 – Mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) dimensions of teeth

from Tr.E 72.501, Cheikh Hassan, Mureybet and Jerf el Ahmar.
TR.E72.5011 Cheikh Hassan2 Mureybet IIIB2 Mureybet IVB Jerf el Ahmar3
PPNA-PPNB Mureyetian (Özbek) PPNA-PPNB
Tooth (FDI) MD length MD length MD length MD length MD length
M2 (17) 8.1 (8.5) 9, 9.3, 9 8.4 8.6 12.32
M2 (27) 9 9, 9.5 8.5
M1 (16) 9.8 (9.9) 10.3 9 10.4 11.86
M1 (26) 10.7 8.4 10.5
P2 (15) 6.25 (6.6) 6.5, 6.7 6.5 8.01
P2 (25) 6.05 (6.3) 4.9, 6.9 6.5
C (13) 7.3 (7.6) 7.8, 5,6.9 8.2
C (23) 7.6, 5.5, 7.9 8.2
BL width BL width BL width BL width BL width
M2 (17) 11.4 (11.3) 11.4, 12.5, 12 12.5 9.7 13.37
M2 (27) 11.4 11.6, 12.4 9.6
M1 (16) 11.9 (11.4) 11.7 11 11.2 13.68
M1 (26) 11.6, 13 11.5
P2 (15) 7.9 (8.0) 9.1, 10.4, 10 9.4 10.82
P2 (25) 7.65 (7.8) 9.3, 9.3 8.8 9.1
C (13) 8.35 (8.7) 7.6, 9.2, 8.8 7.7
C (23) 7.4, 9.1, 8.8 7.8
1.  Numbers in brackets for Tr.E72.501 supplied by B. Chamel for comparison.
2.  Data for teeth attributed to the PPNA-PPNB transition kindly provided by B. Chamel.
Cheikh Hassan T2 sector LO2, square 0201: ind.1 young adult.
Cheikh Hassan T3 sector LB, square K151, layer B1d: adult, sex indet.
Cheikh Hassan T7 sector LB, square K147; adult sex indet.
Mureybet skeleton 1 square R32, interior house 21, under hearth: adult, sex indet. The skeletons from Mureybet phase IIIB are
dated from the end of the Mureybetian period, PPNA-PPNB transition. Compare Özbek (1976) phase III, Özbek (1979) phase IVB.
3.  Data for Jerf el Ahmar are average values for two or three teeth kindly provided by A. Perez-Perez (M. Alrousan 2009 unpublished
thesis).

It has long been realized that Natufian groups in the
Levant although closely related biologically display consider-
able regional variations in tooth size (Ferembach 1977; Smith
1991: 430). From the few so far studied in the Mesopotamian
region the reduction in tooth size of both crown and root
mass that is supposed to have taken place between the
Epipalaeolithic/Natufian and Neolithic periods may not have
been as abrupt as has been claimed. Smaller tooth crowns
with long roots that have already formed by the time they
enter functional occlusion have relatively greater root sur-
face areas for tooth support despite overall reduced tooth
size (Organ et al. 2011; Dean and Cole 2013). Reduction
in tooth crown size is usually taken to be associated with
reduction of chewing forces. At Abu Hureyra, it is noted that
the prevalence of chipped, fractured, and even tilted teeth in
the Early Neolithic rather suggests that adult chewing forces
were greater than the strength of the small crowns, many
teeth apparently only surviving thanks to the supporting long
roots. The shape and surface area of the roots are the main
variables governing the direction and force per unit area of
forces transmitted from the tooth to the bone.
Root size in living populations shows considerable inter- and
intra-population variation and only a low correlation with jaw and
crown size (Smith et al. 1986). Tooth size is influenced by quality
of nutrition at the time of germ formation, which is early in devel-
opment (Suzuki 1993; Kamegai et al. 2005: 56). Inoue noted that
recent Japanese after adopting a higher meat protein diet have
larger teeth than their immediate ancestors (Inoue 1993).
The sizes of the surviving upper teeth of 72.501 are within
two standard deviations determined for the sample from trench
E and therefore this individual cannot be distinguished from
them metrically. The roots of the second premolars are thin
which suggests a Neolithic morphology but in the absence of
Epipalaeolithic data is only indicative. Pat Smith and colleagues
noted that the distance between root apices of the second molar
roots was significantly less in Neolithic than in Natufian teeth
(Smith et al. 1986). Thus the convergent roots of the second
molars of 72.501 also support a Neolithic age for the individual
(fig. 1). In sum, on the basis of dental morphology 72.501 is most
probably Neolithic not Epipalaeolithic.
Acquired traits of 72.501, the evidence from fractured teeth
and high levels of calculus, are also seen in other dentitions from

Paléorient, vol. 41.1, p. 117-125 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2015

BAT_Paleorient-41-1.indb 122 05/06/15 11:02

 A question of identity: Is the earliest Neolithic burial from Tell Abu Hureyra, Syria, possibly a foundation burial? 123
trench E (table 1). Oral health generally, including fractured
teeth and ante-mortem loss, is similar in Natufian and Neolithic
populations; whereas the rate of calculus can be significantly
higher in Neolithic than in Natufian populations (50.2%, 14.3%)
for both upper and lower dentitions (Eshed et al. 2006: 149).
Burials in the Natufian are of every possible variety, pri-
mary and secondary, interred in pits; and in the later Natufian
the custom appeared of skull removal and separate burial
apart from the skeleton (Belfer-Cohen 1991: 171). There is
continuity between Natufian mortuary practices and those of
the Neolithic. The transition is very diverse everywhere and
the trajectories of hunter-gatherer to farmer vary between
sites (Matthews et al. 2013). Probably neither the secondary
nature of the burial of 72.501 in a pit nor the selection of skull
and femur can be diagnostic indicators of Neolithic context;
whereas if Neolithic 72.501 would have been an especially
deep intramural burial from Phase 4 room 3 and unique since
no other intramural burials were recorded from this level. This
is perhaps not surprising since there are likely to have been
few deaths in the first years of the new settlement but the posi-
tion in the room and the incompleteness of the remains is sur-
prising, suggesting perhaps a foundation burial that claims or
dedicates the new settlement for the group—a declaration of
attachment to place that is inferred at many sites at this time
(Matthews et al. 2013).
The secondary burial of selected bones interred deep in the
foundations of the house, together with the similarity of the teeth
metrically and morphologically to the AH2 people, is compatible
with this possibility. Against the outside wall of the house there
was a pit that contained a more complete burial, Tr.E73.3273,
of a juvenile from level 373, parallel to level 53 (Moore et al.
2000: 223). This was clearly above the grey weathered layer
shown in Moore et al. figures 8.47 and 8.49 (2000: 229, 231).
Burial 72.501 would be slightly earlier than this burial. Burials
situated in and around the houses also emphasize identity and
memory (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003: 46).
Foundation burials have been suggested for inhumations at
some of the transition sites along the Euphrates but the reporting
has become confused with closure burials and needs clarifica-
tion. At Tell Aswad, two consecutive funeral areas, dating from
the end of the Middle PPNB or the beginning of the Late PPNB
are situated on the periphery of the constructed zone. Each area
was founded by a deposit of plastered skulls buried in a hole in
the ground. The context of those deposits is therefore concealed
and collective (Stordeur et Khawam 2007). At Jerf el Ahmar, in
Building EA30, “a foundation deposit consisting of two human
skulls occurred at the base of a hole into which one of the roof
pillars had been sunk” (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003: 54; see
Paléorient, vol. 41.1, p. 117-125 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2015
BAT_Paleorient-41-1.indb 123
also Croucher 2012; Asouti and Fuller 2013: 317, 322). At Jerf
el Ahmar, in a burnt round building the closure burial of a head-
less female contrasts with a foundation deposit of four modelled
(plastered) skulls from a funerary area outside any building
at Tell Aswad (Stordeur et al. 2001; Stordeur et Abbès 2002;
Stordeur 2003). At Mureybet possible foundation burials are
noted in a similar building, house 21 (Stordeur et Ibáñez 2008).
Stordeur (2003) postulated that the plastered skulls at Tell
Aswad could signal a new attitude when man put himself at
the centre of his world; and followed up with an in-depth study
of over modelled (plastered) skulls in the Levant (Stordeur et
Khawam 2007). Despite considerable variety of practice, sub-
jects and contexts there are a number of characteristics that are
consistent; and 72.501 conforms with some of them. Although
earlier in date, it is neither plastered nor bears any evidence for
exposition, it was buried into ancient deposits; it was hidden
because interred; and it is a secondary inhumation as are, of
necessity, the over modelled skulls.
Foundation burials may signal a change in focus from
the closure deposits of abandoned buildings, which look
back to the lineage and a commitment to the future. Perhaps,
with 72.501 they are the intellectual witnesses for the Neolithic.
CONCLUSIONS
Tr.72.501, level 53, was found in 1972 before trench E was
extended in 1973 and therefore was recovered from the area
of the 1972 deep sounding. It cannot be differentiated from
the Neolithic population by tooth dimensions; whilst the con-
vergent roots of the second molars and M3 agenesis could
support a Neolithic attribution. Further the severe attrition
together with chipping and fracture of chewing teeth, as well
as considerable calculus deposits, are all characteristic of the
Early Neolithic levels. It is less likely to be a reburial of an
Epipalaeolithic skeleton disturbed during levelling prior to
building of the AH2 house.
In conclusion, the similarity of the teeth of 72.501 to the
rest of the teeth from trench E identifies this individual with
the Neolithic and later burials from that trench, independently
of the characteristics of any earlier, Epipalaeolithic occupants
of the site. As a secondary burial it must have been intention-
ally transported from elsewhere to become the first deposit in
the Neolithic settlement—a foundation burial.
05/06/15 11:02
 124 T. Molleson and T. Arnold-Forster
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are most grateful to Bérénice Chamel for drawing our atten-
tion to the ambiguous context of Tr.E72.501 and for generously
providing dental measurements for Mureybet IIIB and Cheikh Has-
san; to Alejandro Perez-Perez and Mohammad Alrousan for kindly
sharing their data for Jerf el Ahmar; to Andrew Moore for access to
the material; and to Helen Liversidge for guidance and discussion.
­Photographs of 72.501 were taken by Harry Taylor, Photo Studio,
Natural History Museum, London.
Bibliography
A kkermans P.M.M.G. and Schwartz G.M.
2003 The Archaeology of Syria. From Complex Hunter-Gatherers
to Early Urban Societies (ca. 16,000–300 BC). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press (Cambridge World Archaeology
Series).
Alrousan M.F.
2009 The Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in the Near East: Biological
implications of the shift in subsistence strategies through the ana-
lysis of dental morphology and dietary habits of human popula-
tions in the Mediterranean area 12,000-5,000 BP. Unpublished
PhD Thesis. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona.
Anfruns Davi J.
1993 Étude anthropologique et odontologique préliminaire de deux
crânes néolithiques de Dja’de el Mughara (Syrie). Cahiers de
l’Euphrate 7 : 151-157.
Asouti E. and Fuller D.Q.
2013 A Contextual Approach to the Emergence of Agriculture in
Southwest Asia: Reconstructing Early Neolithic Plant-Food
Production. Current Anthropology 54,3: 299-345.
Belfer-Cohen A.
1991 The Natufian in the Levant. Annual Review of Anthropology 20:
167-186.
Croucher K.
2012 Death and Dying in the Neolithic Near East. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Dean M.C. and Cole T.J.
2013 Human Life History Evolution Explains Dissociation between
the Timing of Tooth Eruption and Peak Rates of Root Growth.
PLoS ONE 8,1. [e54534. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054534]
Eshed V., Gopher A. and Hershkovitz I.
2006 Tooth Wear and Dental Pathology at the Advent of Agriculture:
New Evidence From the Levant. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 130,2: 145-159.
Ferembach D.
1977 Les Natoufiens de Palestine. Eretz Israel 13 : 241-252.
Inoue N.
1993 Collapse of dentition in Japan. In: Inoue N. (ed.), Culture
of food and oral health in Maori: 67-77. Tokyo: Therapeia
publishing Co.
BAT_Paleorient-41-1.indb 124
Theya Molleson
Department of Earth Sciences
Natural History Museum
London SW7 5BD – United K ingdom
T.Molleson@nhm.ac.uk
Theo Arnold -Forster
Magdalene College
University of Cambridge
Cambridge CB3 0AG – United K ingdom
theoaf@icloud.com
Kamegai T., Tatsuki T., Nagano H., Mitsuhashi H., Kumeta J.,
­Tatsuki Y., Kamegai T. and Inaba D.
2005 A determination of bite force in northern Japanese children.
European Journal of Orthodontics 27: 53-57.
Legge A.L. and Rowley-Conwy P.A.
1987 Gazelle Killing in Stone Age Syria. Scientific American 257,2:
88-95.
Luz B.
1982 Palaeoclimatic interpretation of the last 20,000 yr record of
deep-sea cores around the Middle East. In: Bintliff J.L. and
van Z eist W. (eds.), Palaeoclimates, Palaeoenvironments and
Human Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region in
Later Prehistory: 41-61. Oxford (BAR Int. Ser. 133,1).
Matthews R., Matthews W. and Mohammadifar Y. (eds.)
2013 The Earliest Neolithic of Iran: 2008 Excavations at Sheikh-E
Abad and Jani. Oxford: British Institute of Persian Studies and
Oxbow Books (CZAP Report 1).
Molleson T., Rosas A.
2012 Origins of the Neolithic people of Abu Hureyra, northern Syria:
An attempt to address an archaeological question through a study
of the mandibles. Bioarchaeology of the Near East 6: 3-20.
Moore A.M.T., Hillman G.C. and Legge A.L. (eds.)
2000 Village on the Euphrates: From foraging to farming. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Olszewski D.I.
2000 The Chipped Stone. In: Moore A.M.T. et al. (eds.): 133-153.
Organ C., Nunn C.L., Machanda Z. and Wrangham R.W.
2011 Phylogenetic shifts in feeding time during the evolution of
Homo. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA
108,35: 14555-14559.
Özbek M.
1976 Étude anthropologique d’ossements humains néolithiques
du VIIIe millénaire av. J.-C. provenant de Mureybet. Annales
Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 26 : 161-180.
1979 Étude odontologique des habitants préhistoriques du village de
Mureybet (Syrie). Cahiers de l’Euphrate 2 : 120-128.
Smith P.
1991 The Dental Evidence for Nutritional Status in the Natufians. In:
Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F. R. (eds.), The Natufian Culture in
Paléorient, vol. 41.1, p. 117-125 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2015
05/06/15 11:02
 A question of identity: Is the earliest Neolithic burial from Tell Abu Hureyra, Syria, possibly a foundation burial? 125
the Levant: 425-432. Ann Arbor (International Monographs in
Prehistory, Archaeological Ser. I).
Smith P., Wax Y., Adler F., Silberman U. and Heinic G.
1986 Post-Pleistocene Changes in Tooth Root and Jaw Relationships.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 70: 339-348.
Stordeur D.
2003 Des crânes surmodelés à Tell Aswad de Damascène (PPNB –
Syrie). Paléorient 29,2 : 109-115.
Stordeur D. et Abbès F.
2002 Du PPNA au PPNB : mise en lumière d’une phase de transition à
Jerf el Ahmar (Syrie). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique fran-
çaise 99,3 : 563-595.
Stordeur D. et I báñez J.J.
2008 Stratigraphie et répartition des architectures de Mureybet. In :
I báñez J.J (éd.), Le site néolithique de Tell Mureybet (Syrie du
Nord). En hommage à Jacques Cauvin, vol. I : 33-94. Oxford,
Lyon (BAR Int. Ser. 1843).
Paléorient, vol. 41.1, p. 117-125 © CNRS ÉDITIONS 2015
BAT_Paleorient-41-1.indb 125
Stordeur D. et K hawam R.
2007 Les crânes surmodelés de Tell Aswad (PPNB, Syrie). Premier
regard sur l’ensemble, premières réflexions. Syria 84 : 5-32.
[Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20723412]
Stordeur D., Brenet M., Der Aprahamian G. et Roux J.-C.
2001 Les bâtiments communautaires de Jerf el Ahmar et Mureybet
horizon PPNA (Syrie). Paléorient 26,1 : 29-44.
Suzuki N.
1993 Generational differences in size and morphology of tooth crowns
in the young modern Japanese. Journal of the Anthropological
Society of Nippon 101: 405-429.
W heeler R.C.
1968 A textbook of dental anatomy and physiology (4th edition).
Philadelphia, London: W.B. Saunders Co.
05/06/15 11:02