The ‘skull cult’: A grand narrative or not?: Comparing plastered skulls from PPNB Levantine and (A)ceramic Anatolian sites in West Asia

The aim of this paper is to critically examine the use and validity of the term ‘skull cult’ in academic literature. Since the discovery of the first plastered skull in 1953 by Kenyon, more plastered skulls have been dug up from sites across West-Asia. Due to temptation ideas were opted for a shared tradition, which resulted in a grand narrative called the ‘skull cult’. As a consequence detailed information was overlooked, and local variation ignored. Due to the limited scope of this paper, twelve sites were selected for analysis, including: Jericho, Yiftahel, Kfar Hahoresh, Beisamoun, ‘Ain Ghazal, Nahal Hemar, Tell Ramad, Tell Aswad (Southern Levant), Abu Hureyra, Çayönü, (Northern Levant/ South-east Anatolia), Köşk Höyük, and Çatalhöyük (South-central Anatolia). The sites were first examined individually to provide a clear overview of each settlement. They were structured according to several variables associated with plastered skulls and skull retrieval, which are the following:...Show moreThe aim of this paper is to critically examine the use and validity of the term ‘skull cult’ in academic literature. Since the discovery of the first plastered skull in 1953 by Kenyon, more plastered skulls have been dug up from sites across West-Asia. Due to temptation ideas were opted for a shared tradition, which resulted in a grand narrative called the ‘skull cult’. As a consequence detailed information was overlooked, and local variation ignored. Due to the limited scope of this paper, twelve sites were selected for analysis, including: Jericho, Yiftahel, Kfar Hahoresh, Beisamoun, ‘Ain Ghazal, Nahal Hemar, Tell Ramad, Tell Aswad (Southern Levant), Abu Hureyra, Çayönü, (Northern Levant/ South-east Anatolia), Köşk Höyük, and Çatalhöyük (South-central Anatolia). The sites were first examined individually to provide a clear overview of each settlement. They were structured according to several variables associated with plastered skulls and skull retrieval, which are the following: gender, age, individual and/or group burials, findspot, headless and/or intact burials, skulls or cranium, and other skull manipulations (i.e., plain, paint, artificial modification) and decorations applied to the skull. Next, the sites were compared to each other to find potential similarities and differences. Gender, age, and intact burials did not provide sufficient data, and therefore, no speculations have been proposed. Headless burials did produce incomplete data as well, but the presence at most sites supports the act of skull retrieval practices at the site. Overall, the data showed the existence of analogies between sites, but these are outweighed by local diversities. In addition, the significant distance in time and space with regard to a few sites does also contradict the idea of one shared mortuary practice. Skull retrieval might have originated from the late Natufian period onwards, but over time local variations evolved to which people from each site attached their own unique symbolic meanings.Show less

Leiden University Student Repository

Documents

In Collections

The ‘skull cult’: A grand narrative or not? Comparing plastered skulls from PPNB Levantine and (A)ceramic Anatolian sites in West Asia