283
Documenta Praehistorica XLIII (2016)
A social perspective
on the Neolithic in western Iran
Hojjat Darabi
Department of Archaeology, Razi University, Kermanshah, IR
h.darabi@razi.ac.ir
Introduction
Since the time when Gordon V. Childe (1936) re-
ferred to the transition from the late Pleistocene to
the early Holocene as the ‘Neolithic revolution’, this
issue has primarily received attention in the light
of changes in subsistence, i.e. foraging to farming.
In the 1960–70s, processualist archaeologists fo-
cused on the interaction of humans with the envi-
ronment which moved forward the economic di-
mension of the most crucial revolution in human
history, as Ofer Bar-Yosef (2001) puts it. The Neo-
lithic revolution, however, was not only a change
in subsistence from foraging to farming; it also af-
fected the social structure of those people who
took the first steps into a new world that had ne-
ver been experienced before. In archaeological the-
ory, the central importance of the social emerged
mainly over recent decades (Hodder 2007). Social
archaeology is the archaeology of society, and so en-
compasses a very wide range of topics (Dark 1995.
88). Basic questions posed by the social archaeolo-
gist concern social order, reproduction and social
change (Shanks 2005.179). It could be expected
that alongside subsistence, social structure was
changed by the onset of the Holocene, when new
ways of life emerged; nevertheless, the economic
results have been acknowledged much more than
other dimensions of the Neolithic revolution. How-
ever, some investigations have recently begun to
explore the nature of changes in social organisation
in this period. Therefore, archaeologists are now
directing new attention to the social context of Neo-
lithic life at the household, community, and region-
al scales (see Pollock et al. 2010; Byrd 1994; 2000;
2005; Flannery 1972; Voigt 2000; Kuijt 2000; Kuijt,
ABSTRACT – While the Neolithic revolution caused gradual basic changes in different dimensions of
human life, including social structure, western Iran has so far mostly received attention in terms of
the emergence of domestication and sedentarisation. Generally speaking, some evidence, such as
architectural elements, burial goods, clay tokens, and scarce artefacts such as obsidian pieces and
marble objects not only determine an inter-regional interaction, but also suggest craft specialisation.
It is believed that sedentary life and private food storage paved the way for property ownership and
that a gradual change from egalitarian to non-egalitarian societies can be seen in the Neolithic of
western Iran.
IZVLE∞EK – Medtem ko je neolitska revolucija povzro≠ila postopne osnovne spremembe v razli≠nih
dimenzijah ≠love∏kega ∫ivljenja, tudi v dru∫beni strukturi, je obmo≠je zahodnega Irana dele∫no po-
zornosti predvsem zaradi pojava domestikacije in sedentarizacije. Posplo∏eno, nekateri podatki, npr.
arhitekturni elementi, grobni pridatki, glineni ∫etoni in redki artefakti iz obsidiana in marmorja,
ne dolo≠ajo le med-regionalne interakcije ampak tudi specializirane obrti. Verjamemo, da sedentar-
ni na≠in ∫ivljenja in privatno shranjevanje hrane predstavljata osnovo za privatno lastni∏tvo, in da
lahko v ≠asu neolitika na obmo≠ju zahodnega Irana opazujemo postopen prehod med egalitarno in
neegalitarno dru∫bo.
KEY WORDS – Neolithic; social structure; initial complexity; western Iran
DOI> 10.4312\dp.43.14 
Hojjat Darabi
284
Goring-Morris 2002; Goring-Morris 2000; Bar-Yo-
sef, Belfer-Cohen 1991; Cauvin 2000). Collectively,
these investigations offer an alternative perspective
on the Neolithic transition by shifting the point of
debate from questions of how and when plant and
animal domestication occurred to what the nature
of Neolithic social organisation was throughout this
period, and how might these social frameworks have
been linked with new systems of food production
(Kuijt 2000.311–312). On the one hand, the exami-
nation of the social structure of early Neolithic soci-
eties is restricted mainly to the Levant (see Flannary
1972; Byrd 1994; 2000; Kuijt 2000; Kuijt, Goring-
Morris 2002; Ali 2010) and Anatolia (Rosenberg,
Redding 2000; Bleda, Marciniak 2006; Pearson et
al. 2013; Wright 2014), since the data set for the re-
gion is the strongest across the Near East. On the
other hand, some other areas, like western Iran,
have been very poorly targeted in this regard, al-
though new evidence sheds new light on the Neoli-
thisation process in the region (see Darabi 2012;
2015; Matthews et al. 2013a; 2013b; Riehl et al.
2012; 2013; 2015). In western Iran, however, pre-
vious investigations mainly focused on the subsis-
tence issue and, thus, the social consequences of the
Neolithisation process are largely overlooked. This
resulted from the fact that the region was initially
targeted by researchers who concentrated primarily
on early domestication (see Braidwood 1960; 1961;
Braidwood et al. 1961; Hole et al. 1969; Mortensen
1974; 2014; McDonald 1979; Smith 1972; 1976;
Pullar 1990), while it should be seen as a geogra-
phic-cultural zone wherein early socio-cultural deve-
lopments were established as
an inter-connected ‘whole’ in
the early Neolithic.
Therefore, this article should
be regarded as an introduc-
tion to the social consequen-
ces of Neolithisation and the
social indications of Neolithic
societies in western Iran. This
is dealt with on a general re-
gional scale, so the elucida-
tion of the social daily life of
any particular Neolithic site –
as already applied to Toll-e
Bashi, Fars (see Pollock et
al. 2010) – is not attempted
here. In fact, a social inter-
pretation of some archaeolo-
gical finds from Neolithic con-
texts is discussed in order to
investigate the social structure of Neolithic commu-
nities in western Iran. Chronologically, the period
under discussion coincided with the Transitional
Neolithic through the late Neolithic, c. 9500– 5500
BC. As taking a regional social perspective is diffi-
cult, the targeted archaeological finds might seem
to be limited. However, I attempt to present those
archaeological data that are interpretable in investi-
gating social structure at the regional level.
Archaeological evidence
As archaeologists, we are concerned with how social
structure extends into material culture, what types
of materials are usually targeted, and to what extent.
In this regard, many types of data and different atti-
tudes have been employed to try to reconstruct so-
cial structure: burial, settlements, artefacts, and hu-
man remains (Dark 1995.88). However, within a
regional context, different materials could be taken
into account. Moreover, each archaeological period
may require a particular artefact assemblage. There-
fore, settlement patterns, human burials, architec-
tural remains, and artefacts such as tokens, figuri-
nes, stone tools, and marble objects are briefly dis-
cussed here. In addition, subsistence will also be
partly addressed. It is believed that all these, and
possibly more, evidence should be investigated as
an ‘inter-woven whole’ to gain insights into the so-
cial structures of societies living in the early Holo-
cene era (Fig. 1). To better understand the diachro-
nic change and continuity of social structure, one
might prefer to place the issue within chronological
Fig.1. Map showing the location of the main Neolithic sites in western Iran.
A social perspective on the Neolithic in western Iran
285
(sub)periods. However, it should be noted that Neoli-
thic archaeology of the region explicitly suffers from
limited archaeological evidence, especially in terms
of the social dimension. This obliges us to discuss the
issue in details from the Transitional Neolithic (c.
9500–8000 BC) through the Neolithic period (8000–
5500 BC). However, some archaeological evidence
concerning these periods is presented below.
Although any examination of the transitional peri-
od requires attention to the preceding Late-Epipaleo-
lithic time, our information is mostly restricted to
the lithic tradition which limits our understanding
of social structure. In general, we may assume the
hunter-gatherer groups were ‘small bands’ mostly
occupied with economic concerns (see Bender 1978).
The evidence associated with the Transitional Neo-
lithic period is limited in western Iran. The time
span that we are concerned with involves a gradual
change from a migratory to semi-sedentary lifestyle
from the mid-10th millennium BC onward, when the
climate improved at the end of the Younger Dryas
(Darabi 2012; 2015). The scarcity of evidence might
be the result of the seasonality of occupations, which
left shallow deposits, or they were buried by later
sediment or occupations. However, it seems that
some sites, such as Sheikh-e Abad and Chogha Go-
lan, were seasonally inhabited in the mid-10th mil-
lennium BC. By the early 9th millennium BC, some
new occupations, including Asiab, East Chia Sabz,
and possibly Sarab-e Qareh Daneh, came about. In
addition, Ganj Dareh E and basal Jani might have
been given attention. This may indicate some kind
of population increase. Although insufficient data re-
mains the main obstacle to debating the social struc-
ture of the period, some evidence may be helpful.
From the mid-10th millennium BC, settlements
changed from circulating annual movement to cir-
culating semi-permanent (Mortensen 1972; 2014;
Darabi 2012; 2015; Weeks 2013). Archaeological
data indicate a sort of ‘food resource management’
in the Transitional Neolithic period (Darabi 2012;
2015). Some particular plant species, including two-
row barley, emmer wheat and lentil were cultivated
during the 9th millennium BC (Riehl et al. 2012;
2013; 2015). At the same time, goats were also herd-
ed (Zeder 2008; 2011). Although a gradual change
in subsistence is estimated, data on social structure
are still hidden. However, we presume that changes
in settlement and subsistence patterns must have
occurred alongside changes in social structure.
As a result of changing from seasonal occupation to
semi-sedentism, an increase in population must have
occurred in the early 9th millennium BC. Therefore,
the environmental resources were not sufficient to
feed the whole population in the small valleys or
intermountain plains such as Konjan Cham or Kur-
tavij, where Chogha Golan and Sheikh-e Abad were
respectively established. This resulted in the diver-
sification of people across western Iran in a way that
led to an increase in the number of sites. However,
later pressures on resources paved the way for an
alternative solution, i.e. food management and, sub-
sequently, the beginning of the Neolithic period.
However, the area of the sites is not determined. At
Asiab, the surface finds suggested that the site might
have extended over an area of approx. 2ha (Howe
1983). As Asiab seems to have also been reoccupied
during a later period, perhaps the late 8th millenni-
um BC, the precise area of the Transitional Neolithic
occupation is unclear. In addition, the site might
have been horizontally extended through time. Ex-
cavations at Asiab, however, revealed different finds,
such as bone objects, stone tools, stone implements,
obsidian tools, marble objects and human burials.
Some of these might date to a later phase; however,
recent excavation at the site can be helpful in this
respect.
One of the most important signatures characteristic
of the Transitional Neolithic period are pits, usually
dug into virgin soil at the basal levels of sites such
as Asiab (Howe 1983.115) and Ganj Dareh E (Smith
1972b.193; 1976.12). Other sites have not yet been
excavated sufficiently. At Asiab, a large oval expres-
sion found in the lowest layers is regarded as a re-
fuse pit and also a possible semi-subterranean struc-
ture. However, the pits seem to have been used for
storing food supplies or even parching grain1. This
arrangement allowed people to remain in one place
for a longer period, resulting in population growth.
No evidence of privacy or property is seen during
the transitional period, although the numerous pits
might indicate that each family had separate stor-
age facilities. The first presence of grindstones shows
an increasing emphasis on plants. People lived in
huts built from perishable materials such as wood
and reeds. Therefore, no solid trace of architecture
has been found adjacent to the pits. This prevents
an estimate of the possible mean population at both
home and site levels and how densely populated
each site was. If pits indicate an initial property, they
probably paved the way for private property or
ownership, which is seen in the succeeding early
1 In some areas of the region, such pits were even used until some decades ago, mainly by nomadic people for storing grain.
Hojjat Darabi
286
Neolithic period, during which several changes seem
to have occurred in western Iran: the emergence of
morphologically domestic species; the emergence
of true villages with solid rectilinear architecture;
standardisation of stone tools; development of places
for rituals; production of some new objects, such as
clay tokens; and the introduction of obsidian tools
and marble objects. These innovations can be use-
ful for an investigation of social structure.
In the Neolithic period, ecotones were still the en-
vironmental priorities for occupation; especially pla-
ces close to fresh water or with fertile cultivable soil.
It seems that most houses were built of different
available materials, including mud (pisé), mud-brick
and stone. Buildings are rectilinear in plan, with a
small area. They might be seen as the earliest archi-
tectural remains; although recent excavation at Ta-
peh Asiab seems to tell us something different on
the circular pise walls, the Neolithic architectural re-
mains must have mostly been preceded by the appli-
cation of perishable materials. Excavations at upper
Sheikh-e Abad and Ganj Dareh D revealed cellular
rooms which were linked together to form a complex
building. No evidence of foundations is mentioned
until the second half of the 7th millennium BC, when
some walls were founded on stone in the Deh Luran
Plain (Hole et al. 1969; Hole 1977). Two-storey hou-
ses have also been attributed to Gnaj Dareh D (Smith
1990). The emergence of public or ritual buildings
alongside residential sites is of interest. At upper
Sheikh-e Abad, two kinds of architectural traces were
found, known as Buildings 1 and 2 (Matthews et al.
2013a). Building 1 comprises an irregular agglome-
ration of several rooms made of clay. The rooms are
generally rectilinear and oriented south-west/ north-
east. The dimensions of rooms are small, ranging
from approx. 1.8 to 2.5m. Outside the buildings,
some features were also excavated which have been
considered as activity areas or sometimes animal
pens. Building 2 comprises a single major room built
from shaped mud-bricks, as well as occasional indi-
stinct lumps of pisé. The walls, at approx. 80cm, are
thicker than the walls of building 1, which are gen-
erally 30 to 36cm thick. The interior area has a T-
shaped plan with, similar to building 1, with no re-
mains of an entrance. The most important material
in the building included skulls, horn-cores, and the
maxillae of five wild herbivores (four goats and one
sheep) arranged in two pairs with a single sheep
skull placed behind the eastern pair (Fig. 2). Traces
of red ochre were clearly evident on the maxilla and
cheek of a skull positioned in the eastern front part
of the assemblage, and as spots on the surface of
the floor under the skulls. The distinctive architec-
ture and internal features such as in situ skulls sug-
gest a ritual area at the site (Matthews et al. 2013a).
A ritual site was also discovered at Ganj Dareh D
(Fig. 3). Here, a pair of wild sheep skulls had been
carefully fixed inside one of the portholes. The ar-
chitectural features of Ganj Dareh D are so promi-
nent that they have been regarded as ‘a futureless
innovation’ (Smith 1990). Although the evidence
that explicitly indicates ritual/non-domestic build-
ings is confined to these two sites, as recently seen
from Tapeh Asiab, more is expected across the re-
gion. Some architectural remains indicate an intra-
site difference between the houses that have been
excavated so far. At Genil, walls were built of large
mud-slabs and plastered with mud or white lime,
also sometimes used for floors. A large domed struc-
ture filled with stones was also discovered (Smith,
Mortensen 1980). In one case at Abdul Hosein (Pul-
lar 1990.9–10), a floor had been re-plastered seven
times, sometimes with red ochre. However, more pro-
minent evidence comes from Tapeh Guran, where
excavations have shown that almost all the floors in
levels K, J, and H consisted of a mixture of clay and
lime with a large number of white pebbles. These
floors were made in a kind of ‘terrazzo-technique’
with large pieces of chalk-spar carefully laid in a solid
mortar of ochre-coloured clay (Mortensen 2014.28).
Based on the radiocarbon dating and pottery styles,
these levels could be dated to around 6000 BC. In
the lowlands, some mud-brick platforms were un-
Fig. 2. A ritual building recovered from upper
Sheikh-e Abad (adapted from Bendrey et al. 2013.
153, Fig.12.2).
A social perspective on the Neolithic in western Iran
287
covered at Chogha Sefid which mea-
sure approx. 7×10m in size, standing
about 1.8m high, founded on large
stones; they were built of standard
mud-brick, 60×30×10cm in size (Hole
1977).
In addition to the architectural remains,
other artefacts such as obsidian tools
and marble objects may provide us with
informative data. The emergence of ob-
sidian pieces in the region is archaeo-
logically remarkable. Across the Near
East, obsidian pieces are entirely attri-
buted to sources in Turkey and the Cau-
casus (Renfrew 1969; Renfrew, Dixon
1977; Abdi 2004). It seems that the late
8th millennium BC witnessed the first
appearance of chipped obsidian tools
in western Iran (Darabi, Glascock
2013). This phenomenon might have
been associated with the transhumant
communities which were moving across
the region and perhaps transported the
obsidian blanks. This indicates that ob-
sidian was indirectly transported in
western Iran. However, the emergence
of obsidian, along with marble objects,
could indicate an indirect inter-regional
contact.
Although the most regularly used ap-
proach to reconstructing social structure is perhaps
the use of burial evidence (Dark 1995.90), this type
of evidence is quite rare in western Iran. In general,
burial traditions show continuity through time, with
flexed or crouched positions being predominant. In
this regard, some samples are accompanied by bur-
ial goods. Unlike in the Levant or Turkey, however,
individuals were buried entire under floors, and no
signs of ‘skull removal’ or ‘skull cache’ have been
found. As a result of excavations at Asiab, two buri-
als were found, one in a crouched and another in an
extended position. Ochre seems to have been applied
in association with the latter (Howe 1983.115). At
upper Sheikh-e Abad, six burials were found under
floors. They had no distinct grave cuts and were ac-
companied by no obvious grave goods; however, two
skeletons seem to have ochre stains. In addition, the
remains of a reed mat are also believed to be con-
nected with one find (Cole 2013). In two cases, the
burial cut through the walls. This may date the bu-
rials to a period later than the architectural remains,
including the so-called ‘ritual building’. Excavations
at Ganj Dareh revealed a notable number of human
burials in two crouched and extended positions.
They are associated with ages varying from infant
to adult. In one case, a multiple burial consisting of
three individuals in a clay coffin was discovered
from level D (Smith 1972.193; 1976.17). One burial
was accompanied by many stone and shell beads.
Also, the remains of a reed mat were discovered with
one skeleton. Of the two burials found during the
first season of rescue excavation at East Chia Sabz,
one was accompanied by goods, including a stone
bead and a necklace made from perforated land snail
shells (Darabi et al. 2011; 2013). A combination of
crouched and extended burial customs is also seen
at Abdul Hosein, where a stone vessel was found
adjacent to a single burial. Moreover, four skeletons
were found which, in Judith Pullar’s view, might
have been buried as the result of a roof collapse
(Pullar 1990.10). At Genil, two bodies were buried
under the floor in a tightly flexed position and one
with possible signs of cranial deformation (Morten-
sen, Smith 1977; 2014; Smith, Mortensen 1980.511–
Fig. 3. Rectangular cellular buildings from Ganj Dareh (after
Smith 1990.327, Fig. 1).
Hojjat Darabi
288
512). Cranial deformation has also
been reported from Ganj Dareh and
Ali Kosh. In the Ali Kosh phase, some
burials were wrapped in a reed mat
(Hole et al. 1969.248). In addition,
one burial was entirely coated with
red ochre. From the succeeding Mo-
hammad Jaffar phase (zone A1), se-
veral burials were found, sometimes
accompanied by shell and turquoise
jewellery, stone beads, and labrets
(Hole et al. 1969.47). No evidence
of mat-wrapping was detected in this phase. How-
ever, one of the burials had been given more atten-
tion, with the most elaborate grave goods, including
turquoise beads, a labret of turquoise, a bracelet of
white shell beads, strings, and a bell-shaped stone
pendant. In addition, the body was completely coat-
ed with red ochre (Hole et al. 1969.254). The use
of red ochre and reed mats is also seen in the later
phase, at the site at Chogha Sefid (Hole 1977). At
Guran, a heap of human bones was found in the low-
est level. Furthermore, beads have also been re-
ported as burial goods at the site (Mortensen 2014),
and two tokens seem to have been used as grave
goods (Schmandt-Besserat 1992). Clay tokens have
been discovered, but not as grave goods, from other
Neolithic sites, such as Ganj Dareh, upper Sheikh-e
Abad, upper Asiab, Ali Kosh, Chogh Bonut, Chogha
Sefid, Tulai, Sarab, and Abdul Hosein (Fig. 4). They
appear from the early 8th millennium BC, when the
true Neolithic period began in the region. This peri-
od roughly coincided with the development of clay
animal and human figurines,
as seen from the above-men-
tioned sites.
All these innovations occurr-
ed along with the emergence
of new chipped stone types.
As the most numerous Neoli-
thic artefacts, stone tools dis-
play some standardisation
and even craft specialisation.
Although the chipped stone
industry seems to have de-
rived from the preceding Zar-
zian tradition (Kozłowski
1994; 1999; Olszewski 1994;
1996), the most prominent
change was the beginning of
the M’lefatian industry in the
Early Neolithic, during which
a combination of retouched,
backed, and truncated pieces, including bladelets,
blades, and sometimes flakes, along with blade/let
cores, are prevalent. However, this industry more or
less continued through the Neolithic period (Fig. 5),
in which flint-knapping became ‘domestic’. In fact,
‘the domestication of flint’ is an idea suggesting that,
unlike in the Paleolithic, the preparation of tools, like
a number of other daily activities, was entirely an on-
site task inside or outside houses (cf. Mortensen
1988.199; 2014.123). This might be evidence for a
specialised task, as seen by standardisation in stone
tool production.
Discussion
In order to assess social structure, a theorisation of
material culture is required. Although the social typo-
logy of band, tribe, chiefdom, and state has had a tre-
mendous influence on social archaeology (Sahlins
1968; Service 1964), this paper does not attempt to
place the Neolithic societies of western Iran in any
Fig. 4. Clay tokens, which first
emerged in western Iran in the
8th millennium BC.
Fig. 5. M’lefatian industry and stan-
dardisation of chipped stone tools in
Neolithic western Iran (after Darabi
2015.89, Fig.7.10).
A social perspective on the Neolithic in western Iran
289
of these individual evolutionary models. Instead,
the discussion is based on the archaeological evi-
dence that may offer hints of social structure. Archi-
tectural structures and settlement patterns form an
important source for considering social structure.
The architecture of buildings has been seen as rep-
resenting functions related to specific social divi-
sions, or symbolising social position or relationships
(Dark 1995.97). Prior to the emergence of the ear-
liest solid buildings that may indicate sedentary life,
societies appear to have used perishable materials
periodically. Therefore, the layers of ash which usu-
ally form the lowest layers of Neolithic sites could be
the result of using perishable materials. This type of
housing mostly indicates a transition to the Neolithic
period, during which some kind of primary food
storage might have been in use. If so, each commu-
nity attempted to own the surrounding resources to
feed its members. But as food resources were deplet-
ed, camps were separated locally, and resources were
hidden from other members of the camp. Therefore,
initial storage practices must have been the result of
attempting to find alternative food supplies, i.e. pre-
domestic cultivation and animal husbandry. In fact,
food storage is known as a means of risk manage-
ment (see Kuijt 2009). As Marion Benz (2004.28)
pointed out, population growth and thus reinforced
social differences may have led to territorial commit-
ment in the Transitional Neolithic period.
In western Iran, population increases can only be
estimated according to an increase in settlement
numbers until further research. Although the basic
steps, food resource management in particular, were
taken during this long period spanning from c.
9500 to 8000 BC, the social structure will not be
known until further evidence is discovered. But it
is during the succeeding Early Neolithic that some
changes are seen; in particular, architecture, burials,
clay tokens, stone tools, and the introduction of
some materials made of obsidian and marble are of
interest.
The earliest known architectural remains include
cellular rooms with a rectilinear plan. Rectilinear
buildings with subdivisions offered less communali-
ty than circular rooms into which access is direct.
This may strengthen privacy. It has been suggested
that the appearance of these buildings coincided
with the appearance of private or individual storages
(Flannary 2002). This could be taken as an indica-
tor of private ownership or property, which might
have paved the way for an initial hierarchy in the
Neolithic period.
Kent Flannery (1972) identified two site types in the
archaeological literature – circular hut compounds
and rectilinear house villages – and examined the
ethnographic literature for insights into the social
structure of these settlement types. Based on his
considerations, early clusters or compounds of cir-
cular buildings during the Natufian and Pre-Pottery
Neolithic A (PPNA) were hypothesised as representa-
tive of patrilineal, polygamous families. Each build-
ing was typically occupied not by a family, but by
one or sometimes two people (typically a man or one
of his wives). In later Neolithic villages, in contrast,
“rectilinear buildings are designed to accommo-
date families, rather than individuals”. These buil-
dings of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) were
hypothesised as being occupied by families of three
or four people. Thus, the transition from circular to
rectilinear buildings coincided with a shift in resi-
dential units from polygamous to monogamous hou-
seholds. Nuclear households or simple households
generally comprise spouses and their children, while
extended families or complex households include
two or more co-resident married siblings or additio-
nal adult members (Byrd 2000.66). However, the
remains of circular houses are not seen in Neolithic
western Iran and, as mentioned, the earliest solid
houses seem to have been rectilinear in plan, which
may suggest a kind of monogamous extended house-
hold in the early Neolithic period.
In general, two types of building have been defined
at Neolithic sites in western Iran: residential and rit-
ual. The former is distinguished by the nature of the
internal features, the presence of in situ artefacts
for food processing and preparation, and the pro-
duction and maintenance of tools and other domestic
equipment. It was also facilitated by storage. The
two ritual buildings which have so far been discov-
ered in the region are clearly indicated by the style
of building – usually different from domestic build-
ings – the associated features and objects, such as
animal skulls, and also the energy expended in their
construction (for the criteria of Neolithic ritual build-
ings see Byrd 1994). These criteria have been em-
ployed by archaeologists to infer the proper ritual
or symbolic function of the buildings (Smith 1990;
Matthews et al. 2013a).
Gary O. Rollefson (1998; 2005) has divided ritual
buildings into ‘shrines’ and ‘temples’. In his view,
shrines were smaller, because they might have been
used by smaller groups (lineages), while temples
were larger and more complex and might have
served the entire community. The ritual buildings
Hojjat Darabi
290
found in western Iran, however, indicate a tendency
for sacred places to have been used by a single com-
munity or even by several settlements located close
together across a geographically separated valley or
plain.
The latter issue might remind us of a sort of ‘ritual
centrality’, perhaps similar to Göbekli Tepe in south-
eastern Turkey (Schmidt 2005; 2011). Ritual build-
ings do not automatically signify inequality, but raise
questions about corporate authority (Wright 2014.
7). A ritual area was not necessarily located inside
the settlement. A particular sacred area close to the
village might have been targeted to enact rituals. If
so, it is almost undetectable archaeologically. It
should also be kept in mind that a few locations,
such as Ganj Dareh and Sheikh-e Abad, might have
been ritually central to the surrounding settlements.
Such centrality probably offered a higher status ac-
ross the region.
Perhaps ritual centrality in the Neolithic period could
be compared somewhat with contemporary reli-
gious centres or sacred places; each is primarily re-
vered by particular groups of people. In western
Iran, some Neolithic settlements included buildings
that seem to have been more elaborate than the
rest. The most costly buildings would have been the
most important. According to the rank-size rule, the
bigger a building, the higher was its rank. If so, rit-
ual areas at Sheikh-e Abad and Ganj Dareh, and
some other notable buildings such as those found
at Guran and Chogha Sefid, may hint at rank or dif-
ferentiation within the social structure of some com-
munities. The size and height of the platforms dis-
covered at Chogha Sefid and their standard mud-
bricks (see Hole 1977) could indicate a non-residen-
tial or public function.
Across the Near East, public buildings have been dis-
covered at different Neolithic sites, such as Jerf el-
Ahmar (Stordeur 2000), Mureybet (Cauvin 1977),
Hallan Çemi (Rosenberg 1999; 2011), Çayönü (M.
Özdogan 1999; A. Özdogan 2011), Göbekli Tepe
(Schmidt 2005; 2011), Jericho (Kenyon 1953), Bei-
dha (Byrd 1994), Ain Ghazal (Rollefson, Kafafi
1997), and Wadi Faynan 16 (Mithen et al. 2005).
Although we are not sure about the ritual function
of some of these buildings, ritual behaviours func-
tioned to reduce tension in times of environmental
stress within farming societies (Rollefson 1998; Ver-
hoeven 2002). In addition, Ian Kuijt (2002) believes
that ritual behaviours were a means of gaining au-
thority in farming societies. Therefore, the role of
ritual areas and those who were responsible for rit-
ual matters might have been of importance in organ-
ising societies. This comes to the fore when we con-
sider the co-emergence of public buildings and clay
tokens, which may indicate the economic role of rit-
ual areas. However, an intra-site spatial analysis can
yield valuable information on the function of archi-
tectural remains, and one should examine the arran-
gement of space within building interiors, focusing
on the location and function of internal structural
features, and the nature and spatial distribution of
the associated artefacts (Byrd 2000.66).
In the so-called open area at Sheikh-e Abad (Mat-
thews et al. 2013a), close to the ritual building, a
large amount of animal bone was found, presum-
ably a hint of consumption beyond household needs.
This area could also indicate a site of activity where
various objects such as stone tool and bone objects
were made. However, Bar-Yosef (2002.119) believes
that common buildings indicate an increase in the
level of social structure.
In addition, the application of lime or gypsum in
architecture is also regarded as a mark of initial
specialisation and social complexity (Kingery et al.
1988). As a result of her ethno-archaeological inves-
tigation, Carol Kramer (1979.148) stated that vari-
ation in the frequency and quality of floors suggests
differential access to source materials and perhaps
socio-economic status. However, if multi-roomed rec-
tilinear structures indicate extended families consist-
ing of various members, for example, grandparents,
uncles, aunts etc. (Flannery 1972; Byrd 2000), they
might indicate that economic activities were shared
by genetically related households. These households
had a tribal kinship system (see Bender 1978); al-
though they would have shared storage facilities,
situated either within only one building or as small-
er adjacent storage structures (Byrd 2000.87), indi-
vidual storage was emerging. Kin affiliation, howev-
er, was highly important in Neolithic villages that
consisted of relatives. In the case of Sheikh-e Abad,
where very small grindstones were discovered, a
kind of shared area for food producing or process-
ing may have been identified, although this may
also indicate an abandonment which was not the
result of a sudden event. It should be noted that re-
constructing the function of prehistoric buildings is
extremely difficult. The function of buildings may
change over time, and the archaeological evidence
may imply only the ultimate use of a building or in-
clude a compilation of signatures from a sequence of
functions (Byrd 2000.67).
A social perspective on the Neolithic in western Iran
291
It seems that household size did not radically change
during the entire Neolithic period (c. 8000–5500 BC).
However, a trend toward the greater use of internal
space for domestic activities, storage, production,
and the increased size of settlement populations is
assumed. This could result in the building of some
larger spaces through time; buildings of various sizes
are seen in Neolithic western Iran. Perhaps smaller
structures indicated smaller population numbers, sea-
sonal use, and less reliance on domesticated plants
and, hence, less need for storage and processing lo-
cations.
Beyond the intra-site level, spatial analysis could also
be informative regionally. In the region, no settle-
ment layouts have been found that are comparable
in size to the mega-sites known from other areas of
the Near East. It seems that variation in size result-
ed from the carrying capacity of the environmental
resources around the sites across western Iran. Com-
pared with a maximum of 0.5 to 1ha as the average
size in the region, however, some sites like Chogha
Golan must have reached approx. 3ha in the 8th mil-
lennium BC. As noted above, this variation in settle-
ment size seems to correlate with resource abun-
dance (see Hole 2000) and the ensuing population
growth at the some sites, while some other settle-
ments maintained their small area based on the
available resources. This shows an adaptation to the
surrounding environmental resources to support
enough people in one place. However, this fact does
not mean ‘centrality’, as proposed for the Levantine
PPNB, with sites exceeding 10ha in area (see Rollef-
son 1998; Simmons 2007). Generally speaking, fun-
damental cultural changes have been attributed to
the onset of the PPNB period, c. 8500–7000 BC,
while the preceding PPNA period, c. 9500–8500 BC,
witnessed a transition in multiple aspects of social
life.
Apart from buildings and settlement layout, some
artefacts could give hints on social structure. The
simplest way in which artefacts are used by archaeo-
logists to form the basis of their conclusions about
social structure is by ordering them according to
their value or significance as perceived by the archa-
eologists concerned. Artefacts may be ranked on the
grounds of their materials, their scarcity, or the
amount of effort required to produce them (Dark
1995.95). An artefact type may have had special
value: (1) if it is made of material imported from a
considerable distance; (2) if there were difficulties
associated with importing; and (3) if manufacture
was unusually labour intensive (Wright 2014.12).
In this regard, some objects made of obsidian and
marble deserve attention. These two groups of ma-
terial seem to have contemporaneously emerged
around the late 8th millennium BC in western Iran.
It seems that obsidian was not equally valued in all
places – some sites indicate higher usage than oth-
ers. In the light of natural obstacles, including the
mountains and deep valleys in the region, villages
appear to have been unable to import obsidian di-
rectly from the sources. Therefore, some kind of in-
termediary trading must have been established
which resulted in obsidian distribution across the
region. Unlike in western Zagros, high amounts of
obsidian tools were not used in the Neolithic occu-
pations. Therefore, an indirect relationship could be
assumed between south-eastern Turkey and western
Iran. Here, the most probable route to import the ob-
sidian must have been through western Zagros (Da-
rabi, Glascock 2013). Stefan Karol Kozłowski (1999.
63) believes that a highly specialised obsidian mining
and processing system (mines and workshops) ap-
peared in another region, perhaps in Turkey. Regard-
ing the presence of clay tokens and public or elabo-
rated buildings at some sites, an administrative or-
ganisation might be inferred.
Inter-regional relationships are not reflected only in
obsidian trading, but also in marble, which was used
to produce various objects such as ornaments and
vessels. Marble objects have been found at different
Neolithic sites, such as East Chia Sabz, Asiab, Genil,
Guran, Ali Kosh, etc. These materials became impor-
tant inter-regionally and used from c. 7200 BC on-
ward across the Near East (Kozłowski, Aurenche
2005). Furthermore, it seems likely that finely-walled
stone vessels were also produced at the same time.
However, the mechanism of production and ex-
change organisation is unknown. Perhaps these
scarce objects were used as prestige goods in Neoli-
thic society. If so, they may reflect social differenti-
ation, which is also detectable in some burials.
The pioneering work of Arthur Saxe (1970) and Le-
wis Binford (1971) opened up the analysis of mor-
tuary practices as a primary means of investigating
past social systems. Archaeologists have recently de-
voted considerable attention to mortuary and ritual
practices as a way to reconstruct broader Neolithic
social organisation and the existence of some degree
of social differentiation (Kuijt 2000. 317). In west-
ern Iran, burials could help us find clues to the so-
cial structure of Neolithic people. Did the varying
mortuary practices signal particular social units in
society? Collective burials could indicate a collective
Hojjat Darabi
292
identity for the society. However, finds of such buri-
als have so far been limited to a few cases recovered
from lower Guran, Abdul Hosein, and Ganj Dareh D.
In addition, plastered skulls or skull removal, which
is reported from sites in the Levant and Turkey, is
not seen in Neolithic western Iran, where burials are
mostly found underneath floors in a tightly flexed
position.
As mentioned above, however, some individuals
were treated differently. Perhaps some burials that
were accompanied by grave goods, or wrapped in a
reed mat or coated with red ochre indicate initial so-
cial ranking. In this regard, the richest example, from
the Mohammad Jaffar phase, is of interest. However,
diachronic changes are not clear through time, and
burial traditions indicate a kind of more or less re-
gional homogenisation of community members at
the time of death.
In addition to ritual buildings and burial customs,
rank is also indicated by the presence of clay tokens.
Neolithic clay tokens have been widely analysed by
Denise Schmandt-Besserat (1982; 1992; 1996), who
attributed their emergence to around 8000 BC, de-
scribing them as the precursor of a writing system.
She believes that Neolithic tokens were associated
with an agricultural economy to record goods, func-
tioning as symbols for them. In western Iran, the
earliest known examples, from Ganj Dareh and
Asiab, are dated to around 8000 BC (Schmandt-Bes-
serat 1992). Although the later part of the Neolithic
period yields more clay tokens, their emergence in
the Early Neolithic could indicate a sort of counting
system contemporaneous with the beginning of se-
dentary life and ritual buildings. These innovations
perhaps suggest a kind of initial administrative sys-
tem and political power which relied upon control-
ling real goods. However, there seems to have been
an inter/intra-site counting system, which outlines a
regional and interregional bureaucratic relationship.
Schmandt-Besserat (1992.198) determined two sta-
ges of clay systems: plain and complex. In her view,
these stages correspond to two phases in the evolu-
tion of social structure. The plain tokens seen in the
Neolithic period imply a ranked society, and count-
ing was an indicator of privilege. Perhaps rituals
areas functioned as places for the administration of
economic activities in agricultural societies. If so, the
‘temple-based economy’ dates back to the beginning
of the Neolithic period.
In addition to tokens, clay was also used to produce
figurines (see Schmandt-Besserat 1974). It seems
that the emergence of figurines should be given at-
tention in relation to a new economic strategy based
on agriculture. As more individuals could create a
bigger food supply and provide better security for
themselves, a higher population would become a
preference. This signals the importance of higher
birth rates and, therefore, females found higher so-
cial positions in society. The fact that female figu-
rines were mostly show protrusions could mean
they were fertility symbols, and an emphasis on pro-
ducing more children (Voigt 2000). In addition, per-
haps some particular figurines, such as seated fe-
males, were status symbols of some kind (Fig. 6).
Therefore, specific symbols might have correspond-
ed to specific ranks. In his discussion on the ritual
and social structure of Ain Ghazal, Rollefson (2000.
184) believes that certainly some of the PPNB ani-
mal figurines belong in a ‘toy’ or analogous category,
but others (particularly human and cattle figurines)
appear in contexts that indicate controlled ritual
usage (and perhaps production by certain shamans
or other ritual practitioners). Regardless of the pos-
sible function of figurines in the Neolithic context,
their spatial and temporal distribution should be
considered in association with inter-related aspects
of the society, including subsistence, rituality and
social organisation.
While some artefacts, such as those made of marble
and obsidian, may indicate inter-regional contact,
some others, such as chipped stone tools, suggest
local standardisation and craft specialisation. During
the transitional Neolithic, a combination of Zarzian,
along with the earliest signs of M’lefatian tradition,
which is here referred to as ‘Pre-M’lefatian tradition’,
is seen (see Kozłowski 1994; 1996; 1999; Olszewski
1994; 1996). By the beginning of the Neolithic peri-
od, however, the M’lefatian tradition became preva-
lent. Although very gradual change can be traced in
the Neolithic chipped industry in western Iran, stan-
Fig. 6. A seated female
figurine with protru-
sions from Tapeh Sarab
(after Vahdati Nasab, Ka-
zazi 2011.4, Fig. 2).
A social perspective on the Neolithic in western Iran
293
dard tools such as blades and bladelets at some sites
such as upper Sheikh-e Abad (Vahdati Nasab et al.
2013) could indicate some kind of domestic specia-
lisation. Kozłowski (1999) argued that a high-value
black flint might have been traded across the region
as a desirable raw material. This, alongside the stan-
dardisation of stone tools, might hint at craft specia-
lisation, although this issue requires further inves-
tigation.
Concluding remarks
Although population numbers are difficult to recon-
struct and verify, we may assume that population in-
crease caused an increase in site numbers in west-
ern Iran. As a result, people were confronted with
food shortages and, therefore, they had to manage
food resources in the 9th millennium BC. Perhaps
storage pits were used in this regard in the transi-
tional period. In addition, this might have resulted
in restricted access to resources and, therefore, terri-
toriality (for the role of territoriality, see Gebel 2014).
Archaeologically, territoriality is perhaps shown by
different styles of artefacts, although some were
shared at a regional or inter-regional level. For exam-
ple, we may observe the presence of particular ob-
jects such as some distinct pottery styles in many
areas, while others were restricted to a specific area.
These ideas address both local ‘micro-packages’, each
formed by a combination of local natural, social, and
cognitive environments, and regionally-shared ‘ma-
cro packages’ in Neolithic western Iran. In the Neo-
lithic period, however, the long-term storage of grain
paved the way for private property and a reduction
in reciprocity. In other words, some degree of pro-
perty implies a departure from the generalised reci-
procal sharing typical of mobile hunter-gatherer so-
cieties. Therefore, seasonal surpluses, when cou-
pled with private storage and increasing agriculture,
laid the foundation for the earliest steps toward so-
cial complexity. Generally speaking, the transition to
agriculture probably coincided with a transition from
common property to the earliest signs of private
property.
At a regional level, archaeological evidence shows
the emergence of fully domesticated species around
8000 BC, when the true Neolithic period began. This
period witnessed the first signs of sedentism, with
solid architecture, ritual or common buildings, clay
tokens, and inter-regional contacts. It should be
noted that at least some minimal level of social com-
plexity is present in virtually any sedentary society
(Rosenberg, Redding 2000.39). Increasing empha-
sis on agriculture was consistent with the increased
use of grindstones (Wright 1994). If grindstones are
found within domestic spaces, they may indicate
self-sufficient food production and a kind of private
property. On the other hand, if they are found in a
non-domestic or common area, we may take them as
indicators of their communal use or even collective
food production. Although clusters of milling tools
have been regarded as indicators of mass food pre-
paration (Asouti, Fuller 2013; Hayden, 2009; Wil-
lcox, Stordeur 2012), we are not sure this happened
at some particular sites such as Chogha Golan, which
have yielded amounts of grinding stones.
Private storage and food production signal owner-
ship in the Early Neolithic. However, the possible
role of ritual places should not be overlooked. Con-
sideration of Neolithic architecture, mortuary prac-
tices and ritual actions collectively brings resear-
chers to the point where we can start to reflect on
how ritual and civic leadership might have been or-
ganised in different Neolithic communities (Kuijt
2000.317). Ritual buildings seem to have appeared
in the early Neolithic at the same time as clay tokens.
The authority of ritual practitioners should be eco-
nomically and ritually placed within an intra/inter-
site framework. If these ritual centres, along with
clay tokens, indicate an initial administrative sys-
tem, they may be regarded as a sort of preliminary
to institutionalisation. Perhaps the presence of clay
tokens at some settlements shows an inter/intra-site
redistributive system organised by ritual practitio-
ners. Therefore, the two-fold role of ritual places
might indicate a kind of ‘temple economy’. Ritual
activities were structured at three levels inside a
community: individual, household, and intra-commu-
nity (Verhoeven 2002). In addition, an inter-site le-
vel was also possible. A few sites contain evidence
indicating ritual areas in western Iran. This may sug-
gest a ‘regional centrality’ in the way that each cen-
tre, such as Sheikh-e Abad, was regarded at an inter-
site level. Besides ritual buildings, some other elabo-
rate architecture, such as at Guran or Chogha Sefid,
could be evidence of social differentiation. General-
ly, social differentiation may be identified by two
processes: one related to trade, exchange and socie-
tal interaction, and another to the intensification and
specialisation of production of agriculture and crafts
and subsequently their management and control.
The emergence of some scarce artefacts, including
obsidian pieces and marble objects, indicate inter-re-
gional interaction since the late 8th millennium BC
onward. We are not in a position to say whether
these objects were used by individuals in specific
Hojjat Darabi
294
areas or times or used as common material. The re-
gional circulation of prestige goods is not clear. If
the materials found within buildings are similar,
they may mean the community was self-sufficient; if
not, it would indicate cooperation and sharing, or
inequality of access (Wright 2014.16). Intra or inter-
site inequality of access to resources affects the so-
cial status.
In the Levantine PPNB period, stable isotope data
from burials revealed possible differential food con-
sumption patterns and may indicate social complex-
ity (Pearson et al. 2013). Different access to food
resources could pave the way for social conflict. So-
cial conflicts have not yet been inferred, although it
has been supposed that Ganj Dareh D might have
been burnt as the result of such an event (Smith
1976; Bar-Yosef 2009.206). In this regard, Frank
Hole (1987.33) stated that some hunters maintained
their ways of life alongside the early villagers for a
considerable time in some areas and they must have
been mutually influential, some cooperatively, some
antagonistically; in the latter case by poaching herds
or stealing crops stored in the villages. This may
have stimulated the nucleation of settlements and
eventually the construction of defensive structures.
If this was the case, the thick clay wall discovered at
Sheikh-e Abad may be meaningful, hinting at a kind
of fortified occupation in the 8th millennium BC. It
should be noted that fortified Neolithic villages have
already been found across the Central Plateau of
Iran (see Malek Shahmirzadi 2006) and Northern
Mespotamia (Matthews 2000). This suggestion, how-
ever, could open a new window into further invalu-
able information on the social structure of Neolithic
societies in western Iran.
Social, economic, political and religious territories
might have been established within Neolithic soci-
eties, although they have always been intertwined.
In fact, through artefacts people recreate their ma-
terial world and their social relations. Material cul-
ture is known as a principal means of identification
and distinction from ‘the others’ (Balossi Restelli
2006). For instance, to discuss the pottery found from
the Neolithic site of Toll-e Bashi, Southern Zagros,
Bernbeck et alii (2003.78) believe that the strong
focus on one motif may have served a social func-
tion, unifying members of the community and set-
ting them apart from neighbouring ones. However,
people tended to perceive themselves as individuals
differently from adjacent regions across the Near
East. It seems that Neolithic people attempted to
manifest their particular identity through making
the particular artefacts seen in different archaeolo-
gical sites in western Iran. At the same time, they
shared some common artefacts or ideas which might
have been produced by each group separately or,
but with the same popular tradition, traded through-
out the region. Small variations in burial customs,
therefore, may show religious differences between
those buried, or those burying them, or differences
between local customs across the region. Moreover,
some burials may be expressions of social status.
This discussion explicitly concerns the two kinds of
synchronous micro/macro-packages in Neolithic west-
ern Iran mentioned above.
Finally, it should be emphasised that, despite the
fact that some archaeological evidence such as build-
ings, burials, and other artefacts hint at the social
structure of Neolithic western Iran, our information
is obviously limited. This prevents us from taking
steps in more detail in this area of research until fur-
ther information becomes available.
I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. P. Mor-
tensen and Dr. T. Richter for their insightful com-
ments on the earlier draft of the article. Also, Dr. S.
Alibaigi, Dr. A. Javanmardzadeh and Prof. R. Mat-
thews made some helpful points.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A social perspective on the Neolithic in western Iran
295
Abdi K. 2004. Obsidian in Iran from the Epipaleolithic Pe-
riod to the Bronze Age. In T. Stollner, R. Slotta and A. R.
Vatandost (eds.), Splendor of Iran. Bochum: 148–153.
Ali N. 2010. The Restructuring of Socio-Economic Rela-
tions during the LPPNB in the Southern Levant and the
Role of Ritual Buildings. Jordanian Journal of History
and Archaeology 4(1): 159–188.
Asouti E., Fuller D. 2013. A Contextual Approach to the
Emergence of Agriculture in Southwest Asia. Current An-
thropology 54(3): 299–345.
Balossi Restelli F. 2006. The Development of ‘Cultural
Regions’ in the Neolithic of the Near East, The Dark
Faced Burnished Ware Horizon. British Archaeological
Reports IS 1482. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Bar-Yosef O. 2001. From Sedentary Foragers to Village
Hierarchies: the Emergence of Social Institutions. In G.
Runciman (ed.), The Origin of Human Social Institu-
tions. Royal Society and British Academy. London: 1–38.
2002. The Natufian Culture and the Early Neolithic: So-
cial and Economic Trends in Southwestern Asia. In P.
Bellwood, C. Renfrew (eds.), Examining the Farming/
Language Dispersal Hypothesis. McDonald Institute
Monographs. University of Cambridge. Cambridge: 113–
126.
2009. Social Changes Triggered by the Younger Dryas
and the Early Holocene Climatic Fluctuation in the Near
East. In C. T. Fisher, J. B. Hill and G. M. Feinman (eds.),
The Archaeology of Environmental Change. The Uni-
versity of Arizona Press. Tucson: 193–208.
Bar-Yosef O., Belfer-Cohen A. 1991. From Sedentary Hun-
ter-Gatherers to Territorial Farmers in the Levant. In S. A.
Gregg (ed.), Between Bands and States. Center for Archa-
eological Investigations. Carbondale: 181–202.
Bender B. 1978. Gatherer-Hunter to Farmer: A Social Per-
spective. World Archaeology 10(2): 204–222.
Bendrey R., Cole G. and Tvetmarken C. L. 2013. Zooar-
chaeology: Preliminary Assessment of the Animal Bones.
In R. Matthews, W. Matthews and Y. Mohammadifar
(eds.), The Earliest Neolithic of Iran: 2008 Excavations
at Sheikh-e Abad and Jani: Central Zagros Archaeologi-
cal Project. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 147–158.
Benz M. 2004. The Emic View: Social Questions of the Neo-
lithisation of the Near East. Neo-Lithics 1(4): 27–28.
Bernbeck R., Pollock S. and Abdi K. 2003. Reconsidering
the Neolithic at Toll-e Bashi (Iran). Near Eastern Archaeo-
logy 66(1/2): 76–78.
Binford L.R. 1971. Mortuary Practices: their Study and
their Potential. In J. A. Brown (ed.), Approaches to the So-
cial Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. American Anthro-
pological Association. Washington: 58–67.
Bleda S. D., Marciniak A. 2006. Households and Commu-
nities in the Central Anatolian Neolithic. Archaeological
Dialogues 12(2): 165–187.
Braidwood R. J. 1960. Preliminary Investigations Con-
cerning the Origins of Food Production in Iranian Kurdi-
stan. British Association, Advancement of Science 17:
214–218.
1961. The Iranian Prehistoric Project. Iranica Anti-
qua 1: 3–7.
Braidwood R. J., Howe B. and Reed C. 1961. The Iranian
Prehistoric Project. Science 133: 2008–2010.
Byrd B. F. 1994. Public and Private, Domestic and Corpo-
rate: the Emergence of the Southwestern Asian Village.
American Antiquity 59: 639–666.
2000. Households in Transition Neolithic Social Organi-
zation within Southwest Asia. In I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in
Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization,
Identity, and Differentiation. Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers. New York: 63–98.
2005. Reassessing the Emergence of Village Life in the
Near East. Journal of Archaeological Research 13(3):
231–290.
Cauvin J. 1977. Les Fouilles de Mureybet (1971–1974) et
Leur Signification pour les Origines de la Sedentarisation
au Proche-Orient. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 44: 19–48.
2000. The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agri-
culture. Translated into English by T. Watkins. Cam-
bridge University Press. Cambridge.
Childe G. V. 1936. Man Makes Himself. Mentor. New
York.
Cole G. 2013. Human Burials. In R. Matthews, W. Mat-
thews and Y. Mohammadifar (eds.), The Earliest Neoli-
thic of Iran: 2008 Excavations at Sheikh-e Abad and Ja-
ni: Central Zagros Archaeological Project. Oxbow Books.
Oxford: 163–174.
Darabi H. 2012. Towards Reassessing the Neolithisation
Process in Western Iran. Documenta Praehistorica 38:
103–110.
References
Hojjat Darabi
296
2015. An Introduction to the Neolithic Revolution in
the Central Zagros. British Archaeological Reports IS
2746. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Darabi H., Fazeli H., Naseri R., Riehl S. and Young R. 2013.
The Neolithisation Process in the Seimareh Valley: Exca-
vations at East Chia Sabz, Central Zagros. In R. Matthews,
H. Fazeli Nashli (eds.), The Neolithisation of Iran, The
Formation of New Societies. Oxbow Books, Oxford: 55–
75.
Darabi H., Glascock M. 2013. The Source of Obsidian Ar-
tefacts Found at East Chia Sabz, Western Iran. Journal of
Archaeological Science 40: 3804–3809.
Darabi H., Naseri R., Young R. and Fazeli H. 2011. Abso-
lute Chronology of East Chia Sabz: A Pre-Pottery Neoli-
thic site in Western Iran. Documenta Praehistorica 39:
255–265.
Dark K. R. 1995. Theoretical Archaeology. Cornell Uni-
versity Press. New York.
Flannery K. V. 1972. The Origin of the Village as a Set-
tlement Type in Mesoamerica and the Near East. In P. J.
Ucko, R. Tringham and G. W. Dimbleby (eds.), Man, Set-
tlement and Urbanism. Duckworth. London: 23–53.
2002. The Origins of the Village Revisited: From Nuclear
to Extended Households. American Antiquity 67(3):
417–433.
Gebel H. G. K. 2014. Territoriality in Early Near Eastern
Sedentism. Neo-Lithics 2(14): 23–44.
Goring-Morris A. N. 2000. The Quick and the Dead: The
Social Context of Aceramic Neolithic Mortuary Practices
as Seen from Kfar HaHoresh. In I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neo-
lithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Iden-
tity, and Differentiation. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Pub-
lishers. New York: 103–136.
Hayden B. 2009. The Proof is in the Pudding: Feasting and
the Origins of Domestication. Current Anthropology 50(5):
597–601.
Hodder I. 2007. The “Social” Archaeological Theory: An
Historical and Contemporary Perspective. In L. Meskell,
R. W. Preucel (eds.), A Companion to Social Archaeo-
logy. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Makden, Oxford, Carlton:
23–42.
Hole F. 1977. Studies in the archaeological history of
the Deh Luran Plain: The Excavation of Chogha Sefid.
Ann Arbor. Michigan.
1987. The Archaeology of Western Iran. Smithsonian
series in Archaeological Inquiry. Smithsonian Institu-
tion Press. Washington.
2000. Is Size Important? Function and Hierarchy in
Neolithic Settlements. In I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic
Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity,
and Differentiation. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publi-
shers. New York: 191–209.
Hole F., Flannery K. V. and Neely J. A. 1969. Prehistory
and Human Ecology on the Deh Luran Plain. Memoirs
of the Museum of Anthropology 1. The University of Mi-
chigan Press. Ann Arbor.
Howe B. 1983. Karim Shahir. In L. S. Braidwood, R. J.
Braidwood, B. How, C. A. Reed and P. J. Watson (eds.),
Prehistoric archaeology along the Zagros flanks. The
Oriental institute of the University of Chicago 105. Uni-
versity of Chicago. Chicago: 23–154.
Kenyon K. M. 1953. Excavations at Jericho, 1953. Pale-
stine Exploration Quarterly 85: 81–95.
Kingery W. D., Vandiver P. B. and Prickett M. 1988. The
Beginning of Pyro-technology, Part II: Production and Use
of Lime and Gypsum Plaster in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic
Near East. Journal of Field Archaeology 15: 219–244.
Kozłowski S. K. 1994. Chipped Neolithic industries at
eastern wing of the Fertile Crescent (Synthesis Contribu-
tion). In H. G. Gebel, S. K. Kozłowski (eds.), Neolithic
Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent. Studies
in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Envi-
ronment 1. ex Oriente. Berlin: 143–171.
1996. From Zawi Chemi to M’lefaat. In S. K. Kozłow-
ski, H. G. Gebel (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Indu-
stries of the Fertile Crescent and their Contempora-
ries in Adjacent Regions. Studies in Early Near Eastern
Production, Subsistence, and Environment 3. ex Orien-
te. Berlin: 175–182.
1999. The Eastern Wing of the Fertile Crescent: Late
Prehistory of Greater Mesopotamian Lithic Industries.
British Archaeological Reports IS 760. Archaeopress.
Oxford.
Kozłowski S. K., Aurenche O. 2005. Territories, Boun-
daries and Cultures in the Neolithic Near East. British
Archaeological Reports IS 1362. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Kramer C. 1979. Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Eth-
nography for Archaeology. Columbia University Press.
New York.
Kuijt I. 2000. Near Eastern Neolithic Research, Directions
and Trends. In I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming
Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Diffe-
rentiation. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. New
York: 312–322.
A social perspective on the Neolithic in western Iran
297
2002. Reflections on Ritual and the Transmission of
Authority in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Southern
Levant. In H. Gebel, B. Hemansen and H. Jensen (eds.),
Magic, Practices and Ritual in the Near Eastern Neo-
lithic: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the 2nd In-
ternational Congress on the Archaeology of the An-
cient Near East (ICAANE), Copenhagen University,
May 2000. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production,
Subsistence and Environment 8. ex Oriente. Berlin:
81–90.
2009. What Do We Really Know about Food Storage,
Surplus, and Feasting in Preagricultural Communities?
Current Anthropology 50(5): 641–644.
Kuijt I., Goring-Morris N. 2002. Foraging, Farming, and So-
cial Complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the South-
ern Levant: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of World
Prehistory 16(4): 361–440.
Malek Shahmirzadi S. 2006. Sialk, the Oldest Fortified
Village of Iran. Iranian Center for Archaeological Re-
search. Tehran.
Matthews R. 2000. Early Prehistory of Mesopotamia, ca.
500,000 to 4,500 BC. Subartu V, Brepols. Turnhout.
Matthews R., Matthews W. and Mohammadifar Y. 2013a.
The Earliest Neolithic of Iran: 2008 Excavations at Tap-
peh Sheikh-e Abad and TappehJani: Central Zagros Ar-
chaeological Project. Oxbow Books. Oxford.
Matthews R., Mohammadifar Y., Matthews W. and Motar-
jem A. 2013b. Investigating the Neolithisation of Society
in the Central Zagros of Western Iran. In R. Matthews, H.
Fazeli Nashli (eds.), The Neolithisation of Iran, The For-
mation of New Societies. Oxbow Books. Oxford: 14–34.
McDonald M. M. A. 1979. An examination of mid-Holo-
cene settlement patterns in the Central Zagros region of
western Iran. Unpublished PhD thesis. Department of An-
thropology. University of Toronto. Toronto.
Mithen S. J., Finlayson B. and Shaffrey R. 2005. Sexual
Symbolism in the Early Neolithic of the Southern Levant:
Pestles and Mortars from WF16. Documenta Praehistori-
ca 32: 103–110.
Mortensen P. 1972. Seasonal Camps and Early Villages in
the Zagros. In P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham and G. W. Dimbleby
(eds.), Man, Settlement and Urbanism. Gerald Duckworth
& Co Ltd. London: 293–297.
1974. A Survey of the Prehistoric Settlements in North-
ern Luristan. Acta Archaeologica 45: 1–47.
1988. A Note on a Small Box with Flint Blades and Ar-
rowheads from Beidha, and its Implications. In A. N.
Garrad, H. G. Gebel (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan,
The State of Research in 1986. British Archaeological
Reports IS 396. Archaeopress. Oxford: 199–207.
2014. Excavations at Tepe Guran: the Neolithic Pe-
riod. Acta Iranica 55. Peeters. Leuven.
Mortensen P., Smith P. E. L. 1977. A Survey of Prehistoric
Sites in the Harsin Region, 1977. In F. Bagherzadeh (ed.),
Proceedings of the VIth Annual Symposium on Archaeo-
logical Research in Iran. Unpublished. Tehran: 1–23.
2014. A Survey of Prehistoric Sites in the Harsin Region,
1977. Modares Archaeological Research 5/6 (10/11):
1–10.
Olszewski D. I. 1994. The Late Epipaleolithic Chipped
Stone “Heritage” in early Aceramic Neolithic Assemblages
in the Northern Fertile Crescent. In H. G. Gebel, S. K. Ko-
złowski (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the
Fertile Crescent. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production,
Subsistence, and Environment 1. ex Oriente. Berlin: 83–90.
1996. The Lithic Transition to the Early Neolithic in the
Zagros Region: Zarzian and M'lefatian Industries. In S.
K. Kozłowski, H. G. Gebel (eds.), Neolithic Chipped
Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent and their Con-
temporaries in Adjacent Regions. Studies in Early Near
Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 3.
ex Oriente. Berlin: 183–92.
Özdogan A. E. 2011. Cayönü. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen
and P. Kuniholm (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey, The Tigris
Basin. Archaeology and Art Publications. Istanbul: 185–
269.
Özdogan M. 1999. Cayönü. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen
(eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: Cradle of Civilization, New
Discoveries. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari. Istanbul: 35–63.
Pearson J. A., Grove M., Özbek M. and Hongo H. 2013.
Food and Social Complexity at Çayönü Tepesi, Southeast-
ern Anatolia: Stable Isotope Evidence of Differentiation
in Diet According to Burial Practice and Sex in the Early
Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32:
190–211.
Pollock S., Bernbeck R. and Abdi K. 2010. Excavations at
Tol-e Bashi, Fars, Iran (2003). Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
Mainz.
Pullar J. 1990. Tepe Abdul Hosein, A Neolithic Site in
Western Iran, Excavations 1978. British Archaeological
Reports IS 563. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Renfrew C. L. 1969. The Sources and Supply of the Deh
Luran Obsidian. In F. Hole, K. V. Flannery and J. A. Neely
(eds.), Prehistory and Human Ecology on the Deh Luran
Plain. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology 1. The
University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor: 429–434.
Hojjat Darabi
298
Renfrew C. L., Dixon J. E. 1977. Obsidian in Western Asia:
A Review. In G. de G. Sieveking, I. H. Longworth and K.
E. Wilson (eds.), Problems in Economic and Social Ar-
chaeology. Westview Press. Boulder: 137–150.
Riehl S., Asouti E., Karakaya D., Starkovich B. M., Zeidi M.
and Conard N. J. 2015. Resilience at the Transition to
Agriculture: The Long-Term Landscape and Resource De-
velopment at the Aceramic Neolithic Tell Site of Chogha
Golan (Iran). BioMed Research International 2015: 1–22.
Riehl S., Benz M., Conard N., Darabi H., Deckers K., Faze-
li H. and Zeidi M. 2012. Plant use in three Pre-Pottery
Neolithic Sites of the Northern and Eastern Fertile Cres-
cent: A Preliminary Report. Vegetation History and Ar-
chaeobotany 21(2): 95–106.
Riehl S., Zeidi M. and Conard N. 2013. Emergence of Agri-
culture in the Foothills of the Zagros Mountains of Iran.
Science 341: 65–67.
Rollefson G. 1998. Ain Ghazal (Jordan): Ritual and Cere-
mony III. Paléorient 24(1): 43–58.
2000. Ritual and Social Structure at Neolithic Ain Gha-
zal. In I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Commu-
nities: Social Organization, Identity and Differentia-
tion. Kluwer Academic/Plenum. New York, London:
163–190.
2005. Early Neolithic Ritual Centers in the Southern
Levant. Neo-Lithics 2(5): 3–13.
Rollefson G., Kafafi Z. 1997. The 1996 Season at ‘Ayn
Ghazal: Preliminary Report. Annual of the Department
of Antiquities of Jordan 41: 27–49.
Rosenberg M. 2011. Hallan Çemi. In M. Özdogan, N. Bas-
gelen and P. Kuniholm (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey, The
Tigris Basin. Archaeology and Art Publications. Istanbul:
61–78.
Rosenberg M. 1999. Hallan Çemi. In M. Özdogan, N. Bas-
gelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: Cradle of Civilization,
New Discoveries. Arkeoloji ve SanatYayinlari. Istanbul:
25–33.
Rosenberg M., Redding R. W. 2000. Hallan Çemi and Early
Village Organization in Eastern Anatolia. In I. Kuijt (ed.),
Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organi-
zation, Identity And Differentiation. Plenum Press. New
York: 39–61.
Sahlins M. 1968. Notes on the Original Affluent Society. In
R. B. Lee, I. DeVore (eds.), Man the Hunter. Aldine. Chi-
cago: 85–89.
Saxe A. 1970. Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices.
Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Schmandt-Besserat D. 1974. The Use of Clay before Pot-
tery in the Zagros. Expedition 18(2): 11–17.
1982. The Emergence of Recording. American Anthro-
pologist 84(4): 871–878.
1992. Before Writing. University of Texas Press. Austin.
1996. How Writing Came About. University of Texas
Press. Austin.
Schmidt K. 2005. “Ritual Centers” and the Neolithisation
of Upper Mesopotamia. Neo-Lithics 2(5): 13–21.
2011. Göbekli Tepe. In M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen and P.
Kuniholm (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey, The Euphrates
Basin. Archaeology and Art Publications. Istanbul: 41–
83.
Service E. 1964. Primitive Social Organization: An Evo-
lutionary Perspective. Random House. New York.
Shanks M. 2005. Social Archaeology. In C. Renfrew, P.
Bahn (eds.), Archaeology: The Key Concepts. Routledge.
London, New York: 179–181.
Simmons A. H. 2007. The Neolithic Revolution in the
Near East: Transforming the Human Landscape. The
University of Arizona Press. Tucson.
Smith P. E. L. 1972. Ganj DarehTepe. Iran 10: 165–168.
1990. Architectural Innovation and Experimentation at
Ganj Dareh, Iran. World Archaeology 21(3): 323–335.
1976. Reflection on Four Seasons of Excavations at Tap-
peh Ganj Dareh. In F. Bagherzadeh (ed.), Proceeding
of the 4th Annual Symposium on Archaeological Re-
search in Iran. Tehran: 11–22.
Smith P. E. L., Mortensen P. 1980. Three New Early Neo-
lithic Sites in Western Iran. Current Anthropology 21(4):
511–512.
Stordeur D.2000. New discoveries in Architecture and
Symbolism at Jerf el-Ahmar (Syria), 1997–1999. Neo-Li-
thics 1(0): 1–4.
Vahdati Nasab H., Kazzazi M. 2011. Metric Analysis of a
Female Figurine from Tepe Sarab. Iran 49: 1–10.
Vahdati Nasab H., Jayez M., Qorbani H. R., Darabi H. and
Taylor H. 2013. Preliminary Techno-typological Analysis
of Chipped Stone Materials from Sheikh-e Abad. In R.
Matthews, W. Matthews and Y. Mohammadifar (eds.), The
Earliest Neolithic of Iran: 2008 Excavations at Sheikh-e
Abad and Jani: Central Zagros Archaeological Project.
Oxbow Books. Oxford: 117–130.
A social perspective on the Neolithic in western Iran
299
Verhoeven M. 2002. Transformation of Society: the
Changing Role of Ritual and Symbolism in the PPNB and
PN in the Levant, Syria and South-east Anatolia. Paléo-
rient 28(1): 5–14.
Voigt M. M. 2000. Çatal Höyük in Context: Ritual at Early
Neolithic Sites in Central and Eastern Turkey. In I. Kuijt
(ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Or-
ganization, Identity, and Differentiation. Kluwer Acade-
mic/ Plenum Press. New York: 253–294.
Weeks L. 2013. The Development and Expansion of a
Neolithic way of Life. In D. T. Potts (ed.), Oxford Hand-
book of Ancient Iran. Oxford University Press. Oxford:
49–75.
Willcox G., Stordeur D. 2012. Large-scale Cereal Proces-
sing before Domestication during the Tenth Millennium
cal BC in Northern Syria. Antiquity 86: 99–114.
Wright K. 2014. Domestication and Inequality? House-
holds, Corporate Groups and Food Processing Tools at
Neolithic Çatalhöyük. Journal of Anthropological Ar-
chaeology 33: 1–33.
Zeder M. A. 2008. Animal Domestication in the Zagros:
An Update and Directions for Future Research. In E. Vila,
L. Goucherin, A. Choyke and H. Buitenhuis (eds.), Archa-
eozoology of the Near East VIII. Travaux de la Maison
de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée (TMO). Lyon: 243–278.
2011. The Origins of Agriculture in the Near East. Cur-
rent Anthropology 52 (Supplement 4): 221–236.
.