Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
Materials and Methods
Analysis of the Engravings, and Photogrammetry
References
All Topics
Anthropology
Archaeology

The oldest plans to scale of humanmade mega-structures

Profile image of Remy CrassardRemy Crassard

2023, PLOS ONE

https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0277927
visibility

…

description

31 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Data on how Stone Age communities conceived domestic and utilitarian structures are limited to a few examples of schematic and non-accurate representations of various-sized built spaces. Here, we report the exceptional discovery of the up-to-now oldest realistic plans that have been engraved on stones. These engravings from Jordan and Saudi Arabia depict 'desert kites', humanmade archaeological mega-traps that are dated to at least 9,000 years ago for the oldest. The extreme precision of these engravings is remarkable, representing gigantic neighboring Neolithic stone structures, the whole design of which is impossible to grasp without seeing it from the air or without being their architect (or user, or builder). They reveal a widely underestimated mental mastery of space perception, hitherto never observed at this level of accuracy in such an early context. These representations shed new light on the evolution of human discernment of space, communication, and communal activities in ancient times.

Figures (10)
Fig 2. Location of fieldwork in Jordan. Location of the eight desert kites in the Jibal al-Khashabiyeh region in south-eastern Jordan (left), and detailed plans of these kites (right), with mentions (St.n) of excavated pit-traps. The red dot in the general map (left) shows the location of the engraving, found at the JKSH F15 site. The green dots in the kite plans indicate the excavated pit-traps and their numbering.
Fig 2. Location of fieldwork in Jordan. Location of the eight desert kites in the Jibal al-Khashabiyeh region in south-eastern Jordan (left), and detailed plans of these kites (right), with mentions (St.n) of excavated pit-traps. The red dot in the general map (left) shows the location of the engraving, found at the JKSH F15 site. The green dots in the kite plans indicate the excavated pit-traps and their numbering.
Fig 3. Location of the fieldwork in Saudi Arabia. Location of the four desert kites in the Jebel Az-Zilliyat region in northern Saudi Arabia (top), and detailed plans (bottom) of the two pairs of kites. The red dot in the general map (top) shows the location of the engraving, in the bed of Wadi az-Zilliyat. The green dots in the kite plans indicate the excavated pit-traps and their numbering.
Fig 3. Location of the fieldwork in Saudi Arabia. Location of the four desert kites in the Jebel Az-Zilliyat region in northern Saudi Arabia (top), and detailed plans (bottom) of the two pairs of kites. The red dot in the general map (top) shows the location of the engraving, in the bed of Wadi az-Zilliyat. The green dots in the kite plans indicate the excavated pit-traps and their numbering.
Fig 4. Discovery of the engraved stone in Jibal al-Khashabiyeh, Jordan. (A) Orthomosaic view of JKSH F15 site where the kite’s engraving was found on a monolith (in red is the location of the rescue excavation in the looter’s spoil). (B) Photograph of the engraved stone at the time of discovery at the JKSH F15 site (the monolith was found lying down and was set vertically for the photograph). (C) Photogrammetric 3D model of the engraved monolith showing the different faces, including the engraved upper face (top), while the hill-shaded model (bottom) shows the interpretative drawing of the engraved plan on the stone. (D) Drawing of a projected view of the kite representation engraved on the monolith from the JKSH F15 site.
Fig 4. Discovery of the engraved stone in Jibal al-Khashabiyeh, Jordan. (A) Orthomosaic view of JKSH F15 site where the kite’s engraving was found on a monolith (in red is the location of the rescue excavation in the looter’s spoil). (B) Photograph of the engraved stone at the time of discovery at the JKSH F15 site (the monolith was found lying down and was set vertically for the photograph). (C) Photogrammetric 3D model of the engraved monolith showing the different faces, including the engraved upper face (top), while the hill-shaded model (bottom) shows the interpretative drawing of the engraved plan on the stone. (D) Drawing of a projected view of the kite representation engraved on the monolith from the JKSH F15 site.
Fig 5. Detailed photographs of the engraved stone surface from Jibal al-Khashabiyeh, Jordan. The detailed views emphasize the various techniques used for the kite engraving found at the JKSH F15 site. The detailed photographs on the left are lettered, indicating their position on the engraved monolith, as shown on the right.
Fig 5. Detailed photographs of the engraved stone surface from Jibal al-Khashabiyeh, Jordan. The detailed views emphasize the various techniques used for the kite engraving found at the JKSH F15 site. The detailed photographs on the left are lettered, indicating their position on the engraved monolith, as shown on the right.
Fig 6. Location of the engraved rock in Wadi az-Zilliyat, Saudi Arabia. (A) General view of Wadi az-Zilliyat, from the northeast, the location of the engraved boulder is shown by the white circle. (B) General view of the collapsed boulders from the southeast, the white circle indicates the position of the engraving. (C) General view of the engraved rock (white circle) location among the collapsed boulders, from the east. (D) The engraved boulder as discovered during rock art survey, view from the north.
Fig 6. Location of the engraved rock in Wadi az-Zilliyat, Saudi Arabia. (A) General view of Wadi az-Zilliyat, from the northeast, the location of the engraved boulder is shown by the white circle. (B) General view of the collapsed boulders from the southeast, the white circle indicates the position of the engraving. (C) General view of the engraved rock (white circle) location among the collapsed boulders, from the east. (D) The engraved boulder as discovered during rock art survey, view from the north.
Fig 7. The engraved boulder from Jebel az-Zilliyat, Saudi Arabia. (A) Drawing of a projected view of the kites’ representation showing picking tool traces, engraved and weathered zones. (B) Drawing of a projected view of the kites’ representation showing legible and unclear engravings, with a colored restitution of the microtopography of the boulder surface.
Fig 7. The engraved boulder from Jebel az-Zilliyat, Saudi Arabia. (A) Drawing of a projected view of the kites’ representation showing picking tool traces, engraved and weathered zones. (B) Drawing of a projected view of the kites’ representation showing legible and unclear engravings, with a colored restitution of the microtopography of the boulder surface.
Fig 8. Detailed photographs and hill-shaded surface models of the engraved stone surface from Jebel az-Zilliyat, Saudi Arabia. The detailed views emphasize the various techniques used for the kite engraving. The detailed photographs and hill-shaded surface models on the left are lettered, indicating their position on the engraved boulder, as shown on the right. A and B are showing examples from the eastern depiction of a kite, C and D from the western one. Hill-shaded surface models are used to better render the legibility of the engravings, otherwise less visible from th photographs made on site.
Fig 8. Detailed photographs and hill-shaded surface models of the engraved stone surface from Jebel az-Zilliyat, Saudi Arabia. The detailed views emphasize the various techniques used for the kite engraving. The detailed photographs and hill-shaded surface models on the left are lettered, indicating their position on the engraved boulder, as shown on the right. A and B are showing examples from the eastern depiction of a kite, C and D from the western one. Hill-shaded surface models are used to better render the legibility of the engravings, otherwise less visible from th photographs made on site.
Fig 9. Comparison of the kite layouts depicted on the engravings with the top-view plans of neighboring desert kites in Jibal al-Khashabiyeh, Jordan and Jebel az-Zilliyat, Saudi Arabia. (A) Comparison of the kite layout depicted on the engraved monolith (left) with the top-view plans of the four better preserved kites identified in Jibal al- Khashabiyeh (right). The red dotted line is the shape of the kite engraving, used for superimposition on the desert kite maps. (B) Comparison of the kite engraving found at Jebel az-Zilliyat (left) with top-view plans of the four neighboring desert kites (right). Gray zones are destroyed or reused areas, after the period of kite use.
Fig 9. Comparison of the kite layouts depicted on the engravings with the top-view plans of neighboring desert kites in Jibal al-Khashabiyeh, Jordan and Jebel az-Zilliyat, Saudi Arabia. (A) Comparison of the kite layout depicted on the engraved monolith (left) with the top-view plans of the four better preserved kites identified in Jibal al- Khashabiyeh (right). The red dotted line is the shape of the kite engraving, used for superimposition on the desert kite maps. (B) Comparison of the kite engraving found at Jebel az-Zilliyat (left) with top-view plans of the four neighboring desert kites (right). Gray zones are destroyed or reused areas, after the period of kite use.
Fig 10. Computer-based verification using geometric graphs. (A) Desert kite satellite photo. (B) The kite extracted from the satellite photo. (C) The geometric graph extracted from the kite. (D) Polygon representation of the enclosure shape. (E) External angles between the driving lines and the enclosure. equation:
Fig 10. Computer-based verification using geometric graphs. (A) Desert kite satellite photo. (B) The kite extracted from the satellite photo. (C) The geometric graph extracted from the kite. (D) Polygon representation of the enclosure shape. (E) External angles between the driving lines and the enclosure. equation:

Related papers

THE DOMESTICATION OF SPACE: THE GEOMETRY OF DWELLING VS. NATURE’S CHAOS (AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH TO CHALCOLITHIC PLANNING)
Dragoş Gheorghiu
View PDFchevron_right
Revisiting Prehistoric Archeological Sites: Envisioning First Built Environments to Repossess Geographically Specific Approaches in Architecture
Maged Youssef

2021

Since Prehistoric times, architecture had been a human response to an occurring natural setting. Starting from places of dwelling to buildings that no longer only serve physical requirements for survival. Architectural languages were approached initially as an expression of culture, evolution, and growth of a community within a natural setting. This response resulted in the creation of built environments, humanity’s decision to become sedentary. This decision took place in the Late Stone age, a key phase in our timeline. First built environments were born in a time known as the Neolithic revolution, which shown itself as humans transitioned from hunter-gatherer societies to agrarian based ones. Once Nature shaped man, now man shapes nature. We observe the dynamic created between man the hosting setting. While observing this two sided complex operating system through revisiting prehistoric archeological sites, we can notice how various geographic zones birthed a diversity of built en...

View PDFchevron_right
Deciphering the Beliefs Embedded in the Design of Megalithic Constructions
Pierre Maigne

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research), 2023

View PDFchevron_right
From circle to rectangle. Evolution of the architectural plan in the early Neolithic in the Near East
Marcin Białowarczuk

Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean

Transformation of the plan seems to be one of the most fundamental characteristics of architectural evolution during the PPNA stage. It starts with simple round monocellular structures and ends with the invention of modular subrectangular ones, divided into many rooms. However, the evolution of some types of buildings in different regions of the Fertile Crescent was varied in pace. A major question are the main factors causing such regional differences. This paper presents a basic typology of early Neolithic structures and their regional diversification, which could result from individual dynamics of the development of original types stimulated by regionally invented practical and technical solutions. Two variants of the process were distinguished. The first is the evolution from a primitive shelter to open, free-standing durable forms of round houses. The other variant was the development from shelters to large round subterranean houses. Different regions of the Near East adopted o...

View PDFchevron_right
The Paleolithic Birth of Geometric Thinking
Ralph Abraham

Following a visit in the Winter of 2007 to the Alhambra — a Moorish palace built around 1300 CE in the South of Spain — I have been digging up the roots of the Alhambra Theorem, which says that Moorish craftsmen in the Middle Ages knew that there were exactly 17 crystallographic groups. This fundamental result of modern group theory emerged into the mathematical literature only in 1891. Digging back from the Alhambra, we found an Ur source for the motifs of the Alhambra in the earliest Turkish carpets of Catal Hüyük, around 10 KYA (thousand years ago). Digging deeper led to the cave paintings of Upper Paleolithic Europe, beginning around 35 KYA. In this article we tell the story of the earliest geometric motifs we have found. This reveals the birth of geometric thinking in the ambiance of psychedelic shamanism -- religion, art, and mathematics were born together in the youth of our species.

View PDFchevron_right
Winter, I. J. (1991). Reading Concepts of Space from Ancient Mesopotamian Monuments. Concepts of Space: Ancient and Modern. K. Vatsyayan (ed.). New Delhi, Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts: 57-73.
Irene Winter

N o th eoreti cal text s are prese rved fro m anci ent Meso pot ami a, compar able to th e sdstra s in In d ia, no r revealing sac red tex ts like th e Rgueda or th e Upanisads, th at would permit us to recon struct eithe r th e conceptual b ases for th e arts in general , or th e very con cept of sp ace in particular. As Ca rl N yland er has written in his lovely, lyrical bo ok , The Deep We ll, what we find in th e N ear Eas t is " no t th e mu sic, but th e flute . .. not the grief, but th e grave ." 1This does not mean , o f co urse, th at we can never find th e mu sic, or th e grief, or even th e underlying concept, such as space or tim e. But , since we are so ofte n dep endent solely on th e archaeological record , we are fo rce d to wo rk backwa rds fro m th e monuments themsel ves, in orde r to extrapolate th e Meso potami an ideat ional syste m.

View PDFchevron_right
Engineered 'landmarks' associated with Late Paleolithic engraved shelters
Medard THIRY, Anthony R Milnes

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2024

Although more than 2000 shelters with non-figurative carvings ascribed to a Mesolithic style are known within the quartzitic sandstone megaclast lag deposits in the southern Paris area, only three shelters with figurative representations of Late Paleolithic style have been recognized. Upright megaclasts are rare in the regional lag deposits but two upright quartzitic sandstone megaclasts occur close to two of these Late Paleolithic shelters. Detailed morphological surveys of these megaclasts allow us to suggest that they were erected by humans. The fortuitous conjunction of finding an upright megaclast close to two Late Paleolithic shelters is infinitesimally small in term of probabilistic considerations. Thus, the Late Paleolithic engraved shelterupright megaclast pairs are not likely to be independent but are probably linked by culture, and so the megaclasts are expected to date from the Late Paleolithic. We suggest that they were 'engineered landmarks' erected to mark places that had cultural significance for Late Paleolithic hunter-gatherer people. The energy dedicated to erect the megaliths is an indication that shelter-megalith pairs probably had important spiritual and symbolic significance. We suggest that both contributed to locate and anchor stories to landscape features. Indeed, these shelter-megalith pairs were in the hinterland of the large open-air camps settled on fords on game migratory routes crossing the Seine River. These specific markers could have encompassed a storyline about landscapes as the support for learning routes through them. One possibility is that they had a timed relationship with herd migration.

View PDFchevron_right
Purpose, Permanence, and Perception of 14,000-Year-Old Architecture
Guy Bar-Oz

Current Anthropology, 2014

View PDFchevron_right
Upright Stones and Building Narratives: Formation of a Shared Architectural Practice In the Ancient Near East
Ömür Harmansah

Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context. Studies in Honor …, 2007

"The architectural practice of using orthostats—sculpted wall slabs in stone—in monumental buildings is usually understood as an idiosyncratic phenomenon in the Upper Mesopotamian cities of the Iron Age. Late Assyrian and Syro-Hittite rulers of this period are known for sponsoring building projects that incorporated carved orthostats into their architectural corpus, lining the monumental walls of ceremonial and public spaces. These orthostat programs were commemorative in nature and often took the form of pictorial narratives that structured and animated the ceremonial spaces of the Iron Age cities. Irene J. Winter was among the very first to address critically the problems of representation in the narrative relief programs of Late Assyrian palaces, while breaking new ground in developing a contextual approach to study Syro-Hittite monuments within the artisanal networks of the early first millennium BC. In a number of articles, she eloquently demonstrated that architectural technologies and material styles offer exceptional opportunities to study cultural interaction between the Assyrian empire and the Syro-Hittite polities. As the following discussion was sparked in part by Irene Winter’s work on networks of cultural interaction, it seems appropriate on this occasion to present this paper on the architectural significance of the orthostats."

View PDFchevron_right
Azzara, V.M. (2020) Modelling the Built Environment: Spatial Patterns, Siting Techniques and Layout Works of non-monumental Architecture in Early Bronze Age Eastern Arabia.
Valentina Azzarà

Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy , 2020

The interest in the built environment of Early Bronze Age Eastern Arabia is rapidly increasing with the emergence of new field data from the excavation of settlement sites. However, little is known about architectural planning and spatial patterns in the region. This article explores non-monumental architecture throughout the 3rd millennium BCE. A series of methods (Pythagorean triples, modular grids, interception of circles) were used to assess the geometric and metric characteristics of buildings, and to stress regularities and variation in the long term. The results of these analyses suggest the application of specific techniques in layout and construction works: the intersection of circles during the Hafit occupations, and more sophisticated techniques, combining the properties of circles and triangles, during the Umm an-Nar period. The diachronic approach allowed by the temporal span of the occupations highlights a firm progression of architectural paradigms and building crafts throughout the EBA. The evidence hints at the existence of specialized work force since the dawn of the Bronze Age, and reveals a sharp increase of technicity and standardization towards the end of the 3rd millennium.

View PDFchevron_right

References (74)

  1. Robinson A. Early Thematic Mapping in the History of Cartography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1982.
  2. Carter R, Crawford H. Maritime Interactions in the Arabian Neolithic-Evidence from H3, As-Sabiyah, an Ubaid-Related Site in Kuwait. American School of Prehistoric Research Monographs Series 8. Leiden: Brill; 2010.
  3. Lazăr C, Ignat T, Stan S, Moldoveanu K, Rădulescu F. Beyond the archaeological imagination. Obser- vations about Kodjadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI architecture based on a study of experimental archaeology. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry. 2012; 12(2): 55-79.
  4. Mellaart J, Wheeler M. C ¸atal Hu ¨yu ¨k: a Neolithic Town in Anatolia. London: Thames and Hudson; 1967.
  5. Garcı ´a-Diez M, Vaquero M. Looking at the camp: Paleolithic depiction of a hunter-gatherer campsite. PLoS One. 2015; 10(12): e0143002. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143002 PMID: 26629824
  6. Crassard R, Barge O, Bichot CE, Brochier JE ´, Chahoud J, Chambrade ML, et al. Addressing the desert kites phenomenon and its global range through a multi-proxy approach. J. Archaeol. Method Theory. 2015; 22(4): 1093-1121.
  7. Crassard R, Abu-Azizeh W, Barge O, Brochier JE ´, Chahoud J, Re ´gagnon E. The use of desert kites as hunting mega-traps: functional evidence and potential impacts on socioeconomic and ecological spheres. J. of World Prehist. 2022; 35(1): 1-44.
  8. Abu-Azizeh W, Tarawneh M, Crassard R, Sa ´nchez Priego JA. Discovery and excavation of desert kites in the southeastern badia of Jordan. In: Betts A, van Pelt P, editors. The Gazelle's Dream. Game Drives of the Old and New Worlds. Sydney: University of Sydney Press; 2021.
  9. Brochier JE ´, Barge O, Karakhanyan A, Kalantarian I, Chambrade ML, Magnin F. Kites on the margins: the Aragats kites in Armenia. Pale ´orient. 2014; 40(1): 25-53.
  10. Betts A. The Harra and the Hamad: Excavations and Surveys in Eastern Jordan. Sheffield: Continuum International Publishing Group; 1998.
  11. Holzer A, Avner U, Porat N, Horwitz K. Desert kites in the Negev Desert and Northeast Sinai: their func- tion, chronology and ecology. J. Arid Environ. 2010; 74: 806-817.
  12. Abu-Azizeh W, Tarawneh MB. Out of the harra: desert kites in south-eastern Jordan. New results from the South Eastern Badia Archaeological Project. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy. 2015; 26: 95- 119.
  13. Barge O, Brochier JE ´, Crassard R. Morphological diversity and regionalization of kites in the Middle East and Central Asia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy. 2015; 26(2): 162-176.
  14. Barge O, Brochier JE ´, Re ´gagnon E, Chambrade ML, Crassard R. Unity and diversity of the kite phe- nomenon: a comparative study between Jordan, Armenia and Kazakhstan. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy. 2015; 26(2): 144-161.
  15. Barge O, Brochier JE ´, Karakhanyan A. Northernmost kites? Quat. Int. 2016; 395: 104-112.
  16. Barge O, Brochier JE ´, Deom JM, Sala R, Karakhanyan A, Avagyan A, et al. The "desert kites" of the Ustyurt plateau. Quat. Int. 2016; 395: 113-132.
  17. Barge O, Abu-Azizeh W, Brochier JE ´, Crassard R, Re ´gagnon E, Nou ˆs C. Desert-kites et constructions apparente ´es: de ´couvertes re ´centes et e ´volution de l'aire d'extension ge ´ographique. Pale ´orient. 2020; 46(1-2): 179-200.
  18. van Loon M. The Oriental Institute excavations at Mureybit, Syria: Preliminary report on the 1965 cam- paign: Part I: Architecture and general finds. J. Near East. Stud. 1968; 27(4): 265-282.
  19. Brenet M, Sa ´nchez Priego JA, Ibañez Estevez JJ. Les pierres de construction taille ´es en calcaire et les herminettes en silex du PPNA de Jerf al Ahmar (Syrie), analyses technologique et expe ´rimentale. In: Bourguignon L, Ortega I, Frère-Sautot M, editors. Pre ´histoire et approche expe ´rimentale. Montagnac: Editions M. Mergoil; 2002. pp. 121-164.
  20. Berge C. The theory of graphs. Dover books on mathematics series. New York: Dover Publications; 2013.
  21. Madi K, Seba H, Kheddouci H, Bichot CE, Barge O, Chataigner C, et al. Kite recognition by means of graph matching. In: Cheng-Lin L, Bin L, Kropatsch WG, Cheng J, editors. Graph-Based Representa- tions in Pattern Recognition-10th International Workshop, GbRPR 2015, Beijing, China, May 13-15, 2015, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9069. New York: Springer; 2015. pp.118-127.
  22. Madi K, Seba H, Kheddouci H, Barge O. Graph-based approach for Kite recognition. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 2017; 87(1): 186-194.
  23. Brun L, Foggia P, Vento M. Trends in graph-based representations for pattern recognition. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 2020; 134: 3-9.
  24. Marshack A. Upper palaeolithic symbol systems of the Russian plain. Cognitive and comparative analy- sis. Curr. Anthropol. 1979; 20(2): 271-305.
  25. Kozlowski J. L'art de la pre ´histoire en Europe orientale. Paris: CNRS Editions; 1992.
  26. Zu ¨chner C. The scaliform sign of Altamira and the origin of maps in prehistoric Europe. In: Moure A, edi- tor. El Hombre Fo ´sil 80 años despue ´s. Santander: Universidad de Cantabria; 1996. pp. 325-343.
  27. Svoboda J. Symbolisme gravettien en Moravie. Espace, temps et formes. Bulletin de la Socie ´te ´Pre ´his- torique de L'Ariège-Pyre ´ne ´es. 1997; 52: 87-104.
  28. Svoboda J. On landscapes, maps and Upper Paleolithic lifestyles in the central European corridor: the images of Pavlov and Předmostı ´. Velei. 2017; 34: 67-74.
  29. Utrilla P, Mazo C, Sopena MC, Martı ´nez-Bea M, Domingo R. A Palaeolithic map from 13,660 cal BP: engraved stone blocks from the Late Magdalenian in Abauntz Cave (Navarra, Spain). J. Hum. Evol. 2009; 57: 99-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.05.005 PMID: 19625071
  30. Brocard M. Les gravures rupestres à parcellaire. E ´tudes Rurales. 2005; 175: 9-28.
  31. Arcà A. The topographic engravings of Alpine rock-art: fields, settlements and agricultural landscapes. In: Chippindale C, Nash G, editors. Pictures in place: the figured landscapes of rock-art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004. pp. 318-349.
  32. Arcà A. Maps in alpine rock-art: cultivations and cultures, land plots and societies from Neolithic to Iron Age. Bollettino del Centro camuno di Studi preistorici. 2016; 41: 7-32.
  33. Casti E. Bedolina: map or tridimensional model? Cartographica: the international Journal for geographic Information and Geovisualization. 2018; 53(1): 15-35.
  34. Nicolas C, Pailler Y, Ste ´phan P, Pierson J, Aubry L, Le Gall B, et al. La carte et le territoire: la dalle grave ´e du Bronze ancien de Saint-Be ´lec (Leuhan, Finistère). Bulletin de la Socie ´te ´Pre ´historique Fran- c ¸aise. 2021; 118: 99-146.
  35. Bar-Yosef O. Prehistory of the Levant. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1980; 9: 101-133.
  36. Cauvin J., The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
  37. Mellaart J. Excavations at C ¸atal Hu ¨yu ¨k, 1963, third preliminary report. Anatolian Studies. 1964; 14: 39- 193.
  38. Hodder I. C ¸atalho ¨yu ¨k in the context of the Middle Eastern Neolithic. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007; 36: 105-120.
  39. Schmitt AK, Danis ˇı ´k M, Aydar E, Şen E, Ulusoy İ, Lovera OM. Identifying the volcanic eruption depicted in a Neolithic painting at C ¸atalho ¨yu ¨k, Central Anatolia, Turkey. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9(1): e84711.
  40. Meek TJ. Excavations at Nuzi, volume III, old Akkadian, Sumerian, and Cappadocian texts from Nuzi. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1935.
  41. Millard AR. Cartography in the Ancient Near East. In: Woodward D, Lewis GM, editors. The history of cartography: volume 2, book 3, Cartography in the traditional African, American, Arctic, Australian, and Pacific societies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1987. pp. 107-116.
  42. Harding GL. The cairn of Hani. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. 1953; 2: 8-56.
  43. Betts AVG, Helms S. Rock art in eastern Jordan: kite carvings? Pale ´orient. 1986; 12(1): 67-72.
  44. Hershkovitz I, Ben-David Y, Arensburg B, Goren A, Pinchasov A. Rock engravings in southern Sinai. In: Gvirtzman G, Shmueli A, Gardos Y, Beit-Arieh I, Harel M, editors. Sinai Part 2, Human Geography. Givatayim: Eretz Ha-Tzvi; 1987. pp. 605-616.
  45. MacDonald MC. Of Rock-art, 'Desert Kites' and Mesayid. In: Naumkina VV, Sedov AV, Smulyanskaya IM, editors. Arabia Vitalis: Arabskij Vostok, Islam, drevnyaya, Araviya: Sbornik Naychnykh statej, pos- vyashchennyj 60-letiyu. Moscow: Rossijskaya Akademiya Nauk; 2005. pp. 332-345.
  46. Rollefson GO, Wasse A, Rowan Y. Images of the environment: Rock art and the Exploitation of the Jor- danian Badiah. Journal of Epigraphy and Rock Drawings. 2008; 2: 17-51.
  47. Hill AC, Rowan YM, Wasse A, Rollefson GO. Inscribed landscapes in the Black Desert: Petroglyphs and kites at Wisad Pools, Jordan. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy. 2020; 31(2): 245-262.
  48. Van Berg PL, Vander Linden M, Lemaitre S, Cauwe N, Picalause V. Desert-kites of the Hemma plateau (Hassake, Syria). Pale ´orient. 2004; 30(1): 89-99.
  49. Betts AVG, Yagodin V. Hunting traps on the Ustiurt plateau, Uzbekistan. In: Christian D, Benjamin C, editors. in Realms of the Silk Roads: Ancient and Modern Silk Road Studies, 4. Brepols: Turnhout; 2000. pp. 29-45.
  50. Lemke A. Literal niche construction: Built environments of hunter-gatherers and hunting architecture. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 2021; 62(82): 101276.
  51. Harvey PDA. The History of Topographical Maps: Symbols, Pictures and Surveys. London: Thames and Hudson; 1980.
  52. Talbert RJA, Unger RW. Cartography in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Fresh Perspectives, New Meth- ods. Leiden: Brill; 2008.
  53. Bagrow L. History of Cartography. London: C.A. Watts and Co; 1964.
  54. Pickles J. A History of Spaces. Cartographic Reason, Mapping and the Geo-coded World. London: Routledge; 2003.
  55. Shcheglov DA. Eratosthenes' contribution to Ptolemy's map of the world. Imago Mundi. 2017; 69(2): 159-175.
  56. Meece S. A bird's eye view-of a leopard's spots. The Cataho ¨yu ¨k 'map' and the development of carto- graphic representation in prehistory. Anatolian Studies. 2006; 56, 1-16.
  57. Gartner WG. Mapmaking in the central Andes. In: Woodward D, Lewis GM, editors. The history of car- tography: volume 2, book 3, Cartography in the traditional African, American, Arctic, Australian, and Pacific societies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1998. pp. 257-297.
  58. Hsu ML. The Qin maps: A clue to later Chinese cartographic development. Imago Mundi. 1993; 45(1): 90-100 (1993).
  59. Delano Smith C. Cartography in the Prehistoric Period in the Old World: Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. In: Harley JB, Woodward D, editors. The history of cartography, volume 1, cartography in prehistoric, ancient, and medieval Europe and the Mediterranean. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1987. pp. 54-101.
  60. Wood D. The fine line between mapping and map making. Cartographica. 1993; 30; 50-60.
  61. McDonald J, Veth P. Rock art in arid landscapes: Pilbara and Western Desert petroglyphs. Australian Archaeology. 2013; 77: 66-81.
  62. Flood J. Linkage between rock-art and landscape in Aboriginal Australia. In: Chippindale C, Nash G, editors. The figured landscape of rock-art: looking at pictures in place. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press; 2004. pp. 182-200.
  63. Sutton P. Icons of country: topographic representations in classical aboriginal traditions. In: Woodward D, Lewis GM, editors. The history of cartography: volume 2, book 3, Cartography in the traditional Afri- can, American, Arctic, Australian, and Pacific societies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1998. pp. 353-386.
  64. Bassett T. Indigenous mapmaking in intertropical Africa. In: Woodward D, Lewis GM, editors. The his- tory of cartography: volume 2, book 3, Cartography in the traditional African, American, Arctic, Austra- lian, and Pacific societies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1998. pp. 24-48.
  65. Lewis GM. Maps, mapmaking and map use by Native North Americans. In: Woodward D, Lewis GM, editors. The history of cartography: volume 2, book 3, Cartography in the traditional African, American, Arctic, Australian, and Pacific societies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1998. pp. 51-172.
  66. d'Errico F. L'Art Grave ´Azilien. De la Technique à la Signification. Paris: CNRS; 1994.
  67. Fritz C. La Gravure dans l'Art Mobilier Magdale ´nien. Du Geste à la Repre ´sentation. Paris: Maison des Sciences de l'Homme; 1999.
  68. Cassen S, Robin G. Recording art on Neolithic stelae and passage tombs from digital photographs. J. Archaeol. Method Theory. 2010; 17: 1-14.
  69. Lanos P, Dufresne P. ChronoModel version 2.0: Software for Chronological Modelling of Archaeological Data using Bayesian Statistics. https://chronomodel.com; 2019.
  70. Reimer PJ, Austin WEN, Bard E, Bayliss A, Blackwell PG, Bronk Ramsey C, et al. The IntCal20 North- ern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0-55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon. 2020; 62(4): 725- 757.
  71. Murray AS, Wintle AG. Luminescence dating of quartz using an improved single-aliquot regenerative- dose protocol. Radiat. Meas. 2000; 32: 57-73.
  72. Galbraith RF, Roberts RG. Statistical aspects of equivalent dose and error calculation and display in OSL dating: An overview and some recommendations. Quat. Geochronol. 2012; 11: 1-27.
  73. Preusser F, Kasper HU. Comparison of dose rate determination using high-resolution gamma spec- trometry and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry. Anc. TL. 2001; 19: 19-23.
  74. Degering D, Degering A. Change is the only constant-time-dependent dose rates in luminescence dat- ing. Quat. Geochronol. 2020; 58: 101074.

Related papers

The figure of the world. An insight into the development of geometry during the Neolithic
Olivier Keller

In a previous paper, 1 we argued that mankind began to do geometry as soon as the first species of human emerged 2.5 million years ago, and that this geometry underwent considerable developments until the end of the Upper Palaeolithic, which, in Europe, was around 12,000 years ago. It was geometry in the sense that it involved thoughtful work applied to a space (a pebble, the wall of cave, the surface of an object carved from bone or ivory) in order to obtain a preconceived figure (a sharp-edged flake, carved pebble or rock, handaxe, Levallois flake, retouched blade, microlith, painting, engraving, drawing or stencil), through a process of structuring space (two perpendicular symmetrical planes for the handaxe, the system of Levalloisian debitage, the interior/exterior of a representation, friezes, etc.). We have shown that this "thoughtful work" led to the production of genuine signs of lines, when the representation was limited to a recognizable outline, and to genuine signs of points, when the outline was dotted. Finally, we have argued that this period saw the creation of veritable rectangles. These were the first fundamental creations and inventions of a clearly geometric nature, despite their insertion into a practical or ritualistic context, and despite the fact that they were neither named 2 nor explicitly connected to one another within a theoretical system.

View PDFchevron_right
Geometry, a measurement unit and rectangular architecture at Early Neolithic Jerf el-Ahmar, Syria
Avi Gopher

Paléorient, 2020

Architectural formal analysis of Structure EA53 and Structure EA30 dated to the first half of the 11 th millennium cal. BP at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site of Jerf el-Ahmar (Syria) led to the identification of geometric regularities, implying, inter alia, the use of a measurement unit. This new insight into ancient architecture suggests a top-down process in which spatial notions and notions of architectural planning (such as concepts of the architectural floor plan and distance measuring) played a crucial role in the appearance of the earliest rectangular architecture recorded in the Levant and worldwide. Most importantly, the use of the discerned architectural planning techniques illustrates the reflective attitude and awareness that characterised the latest hunter-gatherers of the region. The carefully planned architecture that left no room for improvisation attests to a mind-set aimed at maximising one's control of its own environment. Résumé. L'analyse formelle architecturale des bâtiments EA30 et EA53 du site de Jerf el-Ahmar (Syrie) au Néolithique précéramique (vers 11600-10600 cal. BP) a permis d'identifier des régularités géométriques, impliquant notamment l'utilisation d'une unité de mesure. Ces caractéristiques nouvelles pour une architecture si ancienne suggèrent un processus dans lequel les notions d'espace et de planification architecturale (telles que les concepts de plan architectural et de mesure des distances) ont joué un rôle crucial dans l'apparition de la plus ancienne architecture rectangulaire attestée au Levant et dans le monde. De plus, l'utilisation de techniques de planification architecturale illustre le haut degré de réflexion cognitive dont pouvaient faire preuve les derniers chasseurs-cueilleurs de la région. Cette architecture soigneusement planifiée, qui ne laisse aucune place à l'improvisation, témoigne d'un état d'esprit visant à maximiser la maîtrise de l'homme sur son environnement.

View PDFchevron_right
Davide Nadali, 2013, Invented space: Discovering Near Eastern Architecture Through Imaginary Representations and Constructions
Davide Nadali
View PDFchevron_right
Stone Circles and Megalithic Geometry: An Experiment to test Alternative Design Practices
Peter Herring

Journal of Archaeological Science, 1986

This paper describes an experiment which investigates the possibility that stone circles were laid out by eye rather than being geometrically planned. Over 100 simulated stone circles were built and hence a data set of known layout method was generated for comparison with stone circles. The results illustrate that no distinction can be made between the hypotheses. Examination of other architectural traits and geographical distributions suggest, however, that simple laying out procedures, as opposed to the more complex geometries proposed by Thom are more appropriate for stone circles in Britain. Key words; BRITAIN. NEOLITHIC/'BRONZE AGE. STONE CIRCLES, DESIGN. GEOMETRY, PERCEPTION OF CIRCULARITY.

View PDFchevron_right
Geometry of the Early Neolithic
Ralph Abraham

Following a visit in the Winter of 2007 to the Alhambra — a Moorish palace built around 1350 CE in southern Spain — I have been digging up the roots of the Alhambra Theorem, which says that Moorish craftsmen in the Middle Ages knew that there were exactly 17 crystallographic groups in two dimensions. This fundamental result of modern group theory emerged into the mathematical literature only in 1891. Digging back from the Alhambra, we found an Ur source for the motifs of the Alhambra in the earliest wall-paintings of Çatal Hüyük, around 10 KYA (thousand years ago). Digging deeper led to the cave paintings of Upper Paleolithic Europe, beginning around 35 KYA. There appears to be a straight line of development from the Upper Paleolithic caves to the Neolithic villages of Anatolia, and on to the Alhambra. In this article we tell the story of the geometric patterns found in the Neolithic village of Çatal Hüyük.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Cartography
  • Archaeology
  • Near Eastern Archaeology
  • Prehistoric Archaeology
  • Archaeological Method & Theory
  • History of Cartography
  • Archaeological GIS
  • Neolithic Archaeology
  • Mental Maps
  • OSL dating
  • History of architecture
  • Evolution of Human Cognition
  • Arabian Peninsula in Antiquity
  • Radiocarbon Dating (Archaeology)
  • Archaeology of Jordan
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved