The Central/Western Anatolian Farming Frontier: Proceedings of the Neolithic Workshop Held at 10th Icaane in Vienna, April 2016 (Orea) 9783700184157, 3700184158

Citation preview

Maxime Brami – Barbara Horejs (Eds.) The Central/Western Anatolian Farming Frontier

Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-historische Klasse

Oriental and European Archaeology Volume 12

Series Editor: Barbara Horejs

Publications Coordinator: Ulrike Schuh

Maxime Brami – Barbara Horejs (Eds.)

The Central/Western Anatolian Farming Frontier Proceedings of the Neolithic Workshop held at 10th ICAANE in Vienna, April 2016

Accepted by the Publication Committee of the Division of Humanities and the Social Sciences of the Austrian Academy of Sciences: Michael Alram, Bert G. Fragner, Andre Gingrich, Hermann Hunger, Sigrid Jalkotzy-Deger, Renate Pillinger, Franz Rainer, Oliver Jens Schmitt, Danuta Shanzer, Peter Wiesinger, Waldemar Zacharasiewicz

Picture on the opposite page: Neolithic pendant excavated at Çukuriçi Höyük (photo: N. Gail/ÖAI)

This publication was subject to international and anonymous peer review. Peer review is an essential part of the Austrian Academy of Sciences Press evaluation process. Before any book can be accepted for publication, it is assessed by international specialists and ultimately must be approved by the Austrian Academy of Sciences Publication Committee.

The paper used in this publication is DIN EN ISO 9706 certified and meets the requirements for permanent archiving of written cultural property.

English language editing: Carolyn Aslan Graphics and layout: Angela Schwab Coverdesign: Mario Börner, Angela Schwab

All rights reserved. ISBN: 978-3-7001-8415-7 Copyright © Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna 2019 Printing: Prime Rate, Budapest https://epub.oeaw.ac.at/8415-7 https://verlag.oeaw.ac.at Made in Europe

ORIENTAL AND EUROPEAN ARCHAEOLOGY

Vol. 1

B. Horejs – M. Mehofer (eds.), Western Anatolia before Troy. Proto-Urbanisation in the 4th Millenium BC? Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21–24 November, 2012 (Vienna 2014).

Vol. 2

B. Eder – R. Pruzsinszky (eds.), Policies of Exchange. Political Systems and Modes of Interaction in the Aegean and the Near East in the 2nd Millennium B.C.E. Proceedings of the International Symposium at the University of Freiburg, Institute for Archaeological Studies, 30th May–2nd June, 2012 (Vienna 2015).

Vol. 3

M. Bartelheim – B. Horejs – R. Krauß (eds.), Von Baden bis Troia. Ressourcennutzung, Metallurgie und Wissenstransfer. Eine Jubiläumsschrift für Ernst Pernicka (Rahden/Westf. 2016).

Vol. 4

M. Luciani (ed.), The Archaeology of North Arabia. Oases and Landscapes. Proceedings of the International Congress held at the University of Vienna, 5–8 December, 2013 (Vienna 2016).

Vol. 5

B. Horejs, Çukuriçi Höyük 1. Anatolia and the Aegean from the 7th to the 3rd Millennium BC. With contributions by Ch. Britsch, St. Grasböck, B. Milić, L. Peloschek, M. Röcklinger and Ch. Schwall (Vienna 2017).

Vol. 6

M. Mödlinger, Protecting the Body in War and Combat. Metal Body Armour in Bronze Age Europe (Vienna 2017).

Vol. 7

Ch. Schwall, Çukuriçi Höyük 2. Das 5. und 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr. in Westanatolien und der Ostägäis. Mit einem Beitrag von B. Horejs (Vienna 2018).

Vol. 8

W. Anderson – K. Hopper – A. Robinson (eds.), Landscape Archaeology in Southern Caucasia. Finding Common Ground in Diverse Environments. Proceedings of the Workshop held at 10th ICAANE in Vienna, April 2016 (Vienna 2018).

Vol. 9

St. Gimatzidis – M. Pieniążek – S. Mangaloğlu-Votruba (eds.), Archaeology Across Frontiers and Borderlands. Fragmentation and Connectivity in the North Aegean and the Central Balkans from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age (Vienna 2018).

Vol. 10

E. Alram-Stern – B. Horejs (eds.), Pottery Technologies and Sociocultural Connections Between the Aegean and Anatolia During the 3rd Millennium BC (Vienna 2018).

Vol. 11

J. Becker – C. Beuger – B. Müller-Neuhof (eds.), Human Iconography and Symbolic Meaning in Near Eastern Prehistory. Proceedings of the Workshop held at 10th ICAANE in Vienna, April 2016 (Vienna 2019).

Preface by the Series Editor

7

Contents Preface by the Series Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Stephen Shennan Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

Maxime Brami Anatolia: From the Origins of Agriculture … to the Spread of Neolithic Economies . . . . .

17

Ofer Bar-Yosef When and Why Holocene Levantine Farmers Moved Westward? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

Douglas Baird A Phantom Frontier and the Wild West? A View from the Neolithic of Central Anatolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69

Tristan Carter The Significance of an Insular Aegean Mesolithic to Processes of Neolithisation . . . . . . . .

85

Eva Rosenstock Dot by Dot: Phase-mapping the Central/Western Anatolian Farming Threshold . . . . . . . . .

103

Arkadiusz Marciniak Çatalhöyük and the Emergence of the Late Neolithic Network in the Western Part of the Anatolian Peninsula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

127

Mehmet Özdoğan An Alternative Look at the Neolithisation Process of Western Anatolia: From an Old Periphery to a New Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

143

Barbara Horejs Migrating and Creating Social Memories: On the Arrival and Adaptation of the Neolithic in Aegean Anatolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

159

Rana Özbal – Fokke Gerritsen Farmer-Forager Interactions in the Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia: Reassessing the Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

181

Çiler Çilingiroğlu Circular, Oval and Rectilinear: A Note on Building Plan Variability at Neolithic Sites in Central-West Anatolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

211

Kostas Kotsakis Neolithic Goes West: Concepts and Models on the Neolithisation of the Aegean . . . . . . . .

223

Jean Guilaine The Neolithisation of Europe: An Arrhythmic Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

241

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

251

Preface by the Series Editor

The 12th volume of the Oriental and European Archaeology publication series presents the outcome of a workshop about ‘The Central/Western Anatolian Farming Frontier’ organised by Maxime Brami in collaboration with the series editor on 26th of April 2016 at the 10th ICAANE conference in Vienna. This 10th anniversary conference of the International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East took place from 25th to 29th of April in Vienna and was hosted and organised by the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Altogether 800 participants from 38 different countries found their way to Vienna to celebrate the 10th anniversary of ICAANE with 8 scientific sections, 28 workshops, round tables, a huge poster exhibition and a special section about ‘Cultural Heritage under Threat’. While the general proceedings of the sections were published with the Harrassowitz Publishing House in 2018, the additional workshops are being published within the OREA series. The initiative and concept of the Farming Frontier workshop is strongly related to Maxime Brami’s postdoctoral project, funded by the Luxembourg National Research Fund, at the OREA institute of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. In total 13 contributions bring together current scientific results, data and different thoughts about the spread of early farming populations. Our distinct geographical focus aims to shed new light on the potential frontier between one of the core zones of the agricultural economies in central Anatolia and the chronologically much later emergence of farming communities in western Anatolia and the Aegean. The integration of these vast areas into one volume should offer a critical re-evaluation of old models for the Neolithic dispersal by bringing together experts and excavators of both regions with highly respected Neolithic researchers of Europe and southwest Asia. The fruitful debates which followed the regional experts’ presentations during the workshop and the final panel discussion have been incorporated into the publication, to which all workshop participants very kindly contributed. Stephen Shennan’s foreword sets the scene by highlighting some key questions and the role of the area in a broader view. In his introduction, Maxime Brami provides an overview of the issues, challenges and prospects covered and explains the organisation of the volume. Ofer BarYosef then shares new thoughts and open questions about the spread of Neolithic economies from Anatolian and Levantine perspectives. Douglas Baird offers his long-term field experience of the Konya Plain to critically question the evidence for an ‘artificial frontier’ in Anatolia. Eva Rosenstock contrasts that view with her site- and map-based analyses leading to her definition of a ‘Central Anatolian Farming Threshold’. Arkadiusz Marciniak integrates the developments of Çatalhöyük during the Late Neolithic period into a broader picture of newly emerging networks. Tristan Carter adds another component to the debate by highlighting the impact of the Aegean Mesolithic indigenous population on the Neolithisation process. Mehmet Özdoğan lays the groundwork for the following part of the volume by providing an overview and an alternative look at western Anatolia by addressing essential unsolved issues for future research. The series editor discusses the arrival and adaptation of the Neolithic in Aegean Anatolia by integrating social memories and practices from Mesolithic seafarers as well as from maritime colonisers of potential PPN origin. Rana Özbal and Fokke Gerritsen present a new sixstage model for farmer-forager interaction in a longue durée perspective for the Marmara region. Çiler Çilingiroğlu critically re-evaluates particular architecture in the Izmir region and emphasises local needs, choices and practices embedded in a regional setting. Kostas Kotsakis argues for untangling the complexity of the Neolithisation by integrating philosophical phenomenology as a supportive tool for analysing the sociocultural process beyond the mainstream westward movement model. The volume concludes with Jean Guilaine’s macro-analyses in his arrhythmic

10

Preface by the Series Editor

model ranging from central Anatolia and northeast Africa to northern Europe discussing potential frontiers, discontinuities and contrasted tempos during the Neolithic dispersal. The conclusion of the volume makes it clear that the complex trajectories of Neolithic intensification and the transformation of hunter-gatherer-fisher populations into farming societies between one of the cores and its neighbouring areas is a long way from being clarified or simply being summarised. The critical and state-of-the-art contributions present a diverse and mosaiclike scenario of the Neolithic dispersal and transformation process. These results after several decades of Neolithic research in our focus regions nevertheless at least produce some optimism. Several micro-regions in Anatolia and the Aegean provide a new density and quality of archaeological and scientific data regarding our topic. It appears to be the right time to start evaluating the archaeological evidence of the last three decades on a local, regional and superregional level. Integrating all kinds of data, including the new bioarchaeological evidence, will ensure that the regions in our focus remain an exciting area for ground-breaking research in the future. Thanks to the intensive excavations and surveys that have already been conducted, the data thus provided allow both kinds of scientific approach in the future: the modelling of local histories of the Neolithic adaptation and intensification process on a micro-level as well as the integration of the area into a broader scenario of one of the essential transformations in human history. My sincere thanks go to the authors for sharing their expertise and perspectives about ‘The Central/Western Anatolian Farming Frontier’ and to Maxime Brami for his effort in realising the 12th OREA volume. The international review procedure supervised by the Academy’s publication committee guarantees the quality assessment of our series. Although this procedure sometimes requires patience from the authors and editors, I am grateful for the anonymous reviewers’ helpful suggestions. I would like to thank Carolyn Aslan for the English editing and Mario Börner for creating the introductory maps. My sincere thanks go to Ulrike Schuh for her editorial work and to Angela Schwab for doing the layout of this volume. Financial support for the conference has been provided by several Austrian and international institutions which are the following: The Austrian Federal Ministry of Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs, the University of Vienna, the City of Vienna, the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF), the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP), the Austrian Orient Society Hammer-Purgstall and the Austrian Academy of Sciences. The workshop was additionally funded by the European Research Council (ERC project Prehistoric Anatolia no. 263339). Finally, I would like to thank the Austrian Academy of Sciences Press for supporting the publications of the 10th ICAANE workshops in the OREA series. Barbara Horejs Director of the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology Vienna, 3 July 2019

Preface by the Series Editor

11

Introduction Stephen Shennan 1 This ground-breaking volume, arising from a session of the ICAANE conference in 2016, addresses the archaeology of the earliest farming communities of western Anatolia and the areas adjacent to it, to east and west. In doing so it brings together contributions from many of the individuals, foremost among whom is Mehmet Özdoğan, who have transformed our knowledge of it over the last 25 years. Until then western Anatolia in particular was effectively a blank on the map of the assumed spread of farming from its Southwest-Asian origins into Europe. But the blank also corresponded to a disciplinary divide. The interests and knowledge of European Neolithic specialists went no further east than the Balkans. Specialists interested in the origins of farming focussed on the Northern and Southern Levant and the Zagros region. The excavations at Çatalhöyük, and to a lesser extent Hacılar, made Neolithic Central Anatolia an isolated point of reference from the 1960s but Western Anatolia was only of interest to Bronze Age scholars, thanks to the existence of Troy. Unsurprisingly, the chronological interests of the different groups of specialists were reflected in the resources devoted to fieldwork and publication in the different regions. To the east we now have an increasingly good understanding of the local origins of plant cultivation and domestication and of animal husbandry in the Fertile Crescent, including southeast Turkey, from the Younger Dryas through the PPNA and B, laid out here by Ofer Bar Yosef. To the west, from the Balkans through Central Europe and from the Adriatic to Iberia along the north coast of the Mediterranean, recent whole genome ancient DNA studies have shown that cereal agriculture and the keeping of domestic animals were introduced through a process of rapid demographic expansion of groups who had their origin in the Anatolia-Aegean region, and not by the adoption of domesticates by local hunter-gatherer groups. The work presented in this volume, however, together with recent ancient DNA studies to which several of the papers refer, is beginning to show that the Anatolia-Aegean region neatly fits neither of these models but covers everything in between. Douglas Baird’s work at Boncuklu described here reveals that local foragers adopted already domesticated emmer wheat as a small component of a system of a broad-spectrum exploitation of a range of plant and animal resources. This took place in the context of rising sedentism, seen in an increasing investment in domestic structures and associated ritual practices. The community may also have practised active control of caprines, which is seen at Aşıklı Höyük to the northeast at the same time, in both cases probably as a result of contact with the northern Fertile Crescent. What is not currently clear is how far west such systems extended and how far blanks in site distribution patterns are real or the result of geomorphological changes that have buried many sites, combined with field survey methods not attuned to finding the small low-visibility sites that may actually be present. Different authors in this volume take different views on this and on the evidence for continuity or otherwise from Mesolithic sites and traditions to Neolithic ones. Indeed, the usefulness of this contrast is rightly questioned in the light of the evidence for low-level food production.

1



Institute of Archaeology, University College London, United Kingdom, [email protected].

12

Stephen Shennan

These differences go to the heart of the main focus of the book, the now well-established apparent stasis in the westward spread of farming from the Fertile Crescent in Central Anatolia, the first stop in Guilaine’s process of ‘arrhythmic spread’. The initial indications of plant cultivation date to c. 8500 BC at Boncuklu in the Konya Basin, but there are currently no definite farming sites west of the basin until 6700 BC, as shown in detail by Eva Rosenstock, who also explains the confusing typochronological schemes in use for non-specialists. As Baird suggests, however, the idea that low-level food production of the kind seen at Boncuklu might be much more widespread across Anatolia than assumed is not necessarily incompatible with the idea of a threshold. In the 1500 years from 8500 BC agriculture and its social context developed considerably, as Arkadiusz Marciniak discusses for Çatalhöyük. It was this much more developed and integrated cereal agriculture and animal husbandry system that provided the subsistence basis for such West Anatolian sites as Barcın Höyük, Çukuriçi and Ulucak, and many more after 6500 BC. In fact, it seems likely that it was these developments, whether in Central Anatolia, the adjacent southern coastal zone or more widely in the Fertile Crescent that provided the foundation for the demographic expansion into Europe. However, this does not mean that there was any cultural uniformity in these expansion processes. On the contrary, there was enormous diversity. Unfortunately, there is still insufficient information on crop agriculture practices in the Anatolia-Aegean zone but the specific animals kept are not the same from site to site, and marine resources are extensively used in some places. Architecture is strikingly varied, even within individual settlements, as at Ege Gübre, with both rectangular and round houses, which Çiler Çilingiroğlu sees in terms of local choices. Kostas Kotsakis shows that the domestic structures at the earliest farming sites in northern Greece were pit-dwellings and that rectangular houses, a common feature of the earliest farming sites in western Anatolia, only appear later. What also clearly emerges from the papers in this volume and other recent work is the importance of long-standing maritime interactions linking the Aegean and the southern and western shores of Anatolia. These provided a basis for the spread of farming, including colonisation movements by pioneer communities as discussed by Horejs, as well as the likely involvement of Mesolithic communities in its adoption, as Tristan Carter proposes for Crete and Catherine Perlès and colleagues2 have argued for the Initial Neolithic at Franchthi. In the Marmara area, on the other hand, Barcın, belonging to Stage 3 of Rana Özbal and Fokke Gerritsen’s scheme, is clearly a pioneer farming community but an understanding of the role of sites in the region belonging to their Stages 1 and 2, Mesolithic and Aceramic Neolithic, awaits further fieldwork. In short, it seems that, as far as the main post-7000 BC expansion of farming into western Anatolia and the Aegean is concerned, everybody may be right to some extent, both those emphasising the importance of dispersing pioneer communities coming out of Central and coastal southern Anatolia and those who argue for the role of local adoption by communities that had long been linked by maritime networks evidenced by the distribution of Melos obsidian. If this is the case it raises major questions about how maritime hunter-gatherers could successfully adopt and sustain a by-now complex and integrated mixed agricultural system3 incompatible with their previous way of life.

2

3

C. Perlès – A. Quiles – H. Valladas, Early seventh-millennium AMS dates from domestic seeds in the Initial Neolithic at Franchthi Cave (Argolid, Greece), Antiquity 87, 338, 2013, 1001–1015. doi: 10.1017/S0003598X00049826. A. Bogaard – V. Isaakidou, From megasites to farmsteads. Community size and the nature of early farming in the Near East and Europe, in: B. Finlayson – G. Warren (eds.), Landscapes in Transition. Understanding Hunter-Gatherer and Farming Landscapes in the Early Holocene of Europe and the Levant, Levant Supplementary Series 8 (Oxford 2010) 192–207.

Introduction

13

Nevertheless, the recent study of Aegean and Anatolian genomes by Gülşah Kılınç and colleagues4 fits in with such a view, as the authors point out. The genomes from the sites of Revenia in northern Greece and Barcın in northwest Anatolia, both dating to ~6500–6250 BC, are extremely similar to one another but they are more diverse than both earlier and contemporary genomes from Central Anatolia, indicating that they cannot simply be a result of population expansion from the latter region. One possibility is that they came from a coastal south-central Anatolian population that had connections with the Iranian and Levant gene pools that Revenia and Barcin also evidence. However, the authors prefer an alternative hypothesis. On this view, forager populations that had occupied the Aegean region since the Last Glacial Maximum, when the region may have formed a climatic refugium, would have expanded into what had been the climatically inhospitable Anatolian plateau at the time of the Late Glacial interstadial and formed the gene pool for the Early Holocene populations of Central Anatolia after going through a phase of probable population reduction and emigration from the plateau to the coastal periphery as a result of the severe conditions of the Younger Dryas cold phase. At some point before the arrival of farming those groups that had remained in the north Aegean would have admixed with the Western Hunter-Gatherer, Levantine and Iran-related groups whose contributions are visible in the currently known genomes, though an alternative possibility might be that Central Anatolian populations went through a bottleneck as a result of the Younger Dryas and lost a lot of diversity that had previously been present. Subsequently, with the expansion of farming after 7000 BC, there would have been some gene flow back into the Aegean from Central Anatolia. Only the obtaining of further pre-7000 BC genomes from the Aegean and Anatolia will enable us to throw further light on these complex processes, but the picture outlined is certainly in keeping with the archaeological ideas and data presented in this book. In summary then, this volume brings together for the first time the major recent developments in the Neolithic of western Anatolia and their connections to neighbouring regions, presenting the current state of play in terms of both the evidence and the views of some of the principal protagonists. The study of the Neolithic in Anatolia and the Aegean is now at the exciting point where earlier certainties have evaporated but the available data are such that new patterns have not yet come into focus and key questions remain unresolved. What can be said with some confidence though is that the region fits neither of the existing templates. The next decade of fieldwork and research trying to find answers to the fascinating questions that have now emerged will be at least as exciting and important as the past 25 years.

4

G. M. Kılınç – D. Koptekin – Ç. Atakuman – A. P. Sümer – H. M. Dönertaş – R. Yaka – C. C. Bilgin – A. M. Büyükkarakaya – D. Baird – E. Altınışık – P. Flegontov – A. Götherström – I. Togan – M. Somel, Archaeogenomic analysis of the first steps of neolithization in Anatolia and the Aegean, Proceedings of the Royal Society B 284, 1867, 2017. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2017.2064.

14

Stephen Shennan

Map of sites/places mentioned in this volume. The ‘farming frontier’ is indicated for reference only. Its location and significance are being discussed in the volume: 1. Karanovo; 2. Aşağı Pınar; 3. Hoca Çeşme; 4. Dikili Tash; 5. Sidari; 6. Mavropigi; 7. Paliambela [Kolindros]; 8. Revenia; 9. Theopetra Cave; 10. Argissa [Magoula]; 11. Chalki; 12. Achilleion; 13. Sesklo; 14. Cyclops Cave; 15. Youra; 16. Ouriakos; 17. Uğurlu; 18. Coşkuntepe; 19. Troy; 20. Çalça Mevkii; 21. Musluçeşme; 22. Aktopraklık; 23. Ağaçlı; 24. Gümüşdere-Kilyos; 25. Paşaalanı; 26. Sultançiftliği; 27. Yarımburgaz Cave; 28. Küçükçekmece; 29. Haramidere; 30. Yenikapı; 31. Fikirtepe; 32. Tekmezar; 33. Mürsellibaba; 34. Doğançalı; 35. Domalı-Alaçalı; 36. Pendik; 37. Kefken; 38. Kömürlük Tepe; 39. Göztepe; 40. İbo’nun Rampası; 41. Ilıpınar; 42. Menteşe; 43. Barcın Höyük; 44. Demircihüyük; 45. Kalkanlı; 46. Asarkaya; 47. Keçiçayırı-Cıbırada; 48. Gövem Mevkii; 49. Klisoura; 50. Franchthi Cave; 51. Nea Makri; 52. Kephala; 53. Kythnos; 54. Syros; 55. Agios Sostos/Sostis; 56. Melos; 57. Naxos; 58. Ikaria; 59. Kerame; 60. Giali; 61. Mordoğan; 62. Ege Gübre; 63. Moralı; 64. Yeşilova; 65. Ulucak [Höyük]; 66. Dedecik-Heybelitepe; 67. Çukuriçi [Höyük]; 68. Latmos Malkayası Cave; 69. Latmos-Beşparmak; 70. Çine Tepecik; 71. Peynirçiçeği;

Introduction

15

72. Girmeler; 73. Damnoni; 74. Maroulas; 75. Knossos; 76. Livari; 77. Ekşi Höyük; 78. Hatip Höyük; 79. Baradız; 80. Kuruçay; 81. Hacılar; 82. Kovada Gölü; 83. Höyücek; 84. Bademağacı; 85. Öküzini; 86. Karain; 87. Erbaba; 88. Süberde; 89. Boncuklu; 90. Çatalhöyük; 91. Pınarbaşı; 92. Can Hasan; 93. Alişar; 94. Aşıklı Höyük; 95. Musular; 96. Kömürcü-Kaletepe; 97. Göllü Dağ; 98. Tepecik-Çiftlik; 99. Köşk Höyük; 100. Tarsus-Gözlükule; 101. Yumuktepe (Mersin); 102. Aspros; 103. Aya Varvara; 104. Aetokremno (Akrotiri); 105. Shillourokambos; 106. Klimonas; 107. Khirokitia; 108. Nissi Beach; 109. Domuztepe; 110. Tel Qaramel; 111. Mezraa Teleilat; 112. Akarçay Tepe; 113. Tel ‘Abr; 114. Halula; 115. Jerf el-Ahmar; 116. Dja’de; 117. Mureybet; 118. Abu Hureyra; 119. Nevalı Çori; 120. Göbekli Tepe; 121. Yeni Mahali; 122. Tell Sabi Abyad; 123. Cayönü; 124. Halaf; 125. Bouqras; 126. Hallan Çemi; 127. Sumaki Höyük; 128. Körtik Tepe; 129. Hasankeyf Höyük; 130. Gusir Höyük; 131. Karahan; 132. Gürpınar; 133. Chogha Golan; 134. Ramad; 135. Beisamoun; 136. Kfar HaHoresh; 137. Gilgal; 138. Netiv Hagdud; 139. Jericho; 140. Motza; 141. ‘Ain Ghazal; 142. Wadi Faynan; 143. Beidha (map: M. Börner/OREA)

Anatolia: From the Origins of Agriculture … to the Spread of Neolithic Economies

17

Anatolia: From the Origins of Agriculture … to the Spread of Neolithic Economies Maxime N. Brami 1 Abstract: The spread of farming in Europe is usually thought of as a straightforward case of diffusion from a centre, or centres, of domestication in southwest Asia, to a periphery in which resources were simply not available for agriculture to develop independently. While this narrative still holds true, broadly speaking – for instance, there is a definite gradient in arrival time of agriculture from southeast to northwest Europe – farming expansion appears to be more complex than initially anticipated. Instead of the linear expansion at a pace of 1km per year projected by Albert Ammerman and Luigi Cavalli-Sforza (1971), for example, we are confronted with an alternation of phases in which farming rapidly swept into regions the size of modern European countries, and phases in which farming expansion unexpectedly stopped for hundreds or even thousands of years. In western Anatolia, farming expansion was delayed by up to 2000 calibrated years, when compared with the uptake of farming in central Anatolia. If there was genuinely a spatial segregation between the origins of agriculture and the spread of Neolithic economies, as argued here, it is not clear where one process stopped and where the other one began. Anatolia lies at the juncture of the two, and that is precisely what makes this region crucial for our understanding of farming expansion in western Eurasia. This introduction to the volume on the central/western Anatolian farming frontier addresses three broad issues: (1) When was farming adopted in central Anatolia, western Anatolia, and beyond? (2) How was farming adopted in Anatolia? Piecemeal? As an integrated ‘package’? Or both? and (3) Who spread farming? Keywords: Anatolia, origins of agriculture, Neolithic ‘revolution’, farming frontier, prehistoric migrations

Introduction The uncapitalised adjective ‘neolithic’ has been used since V. Gordon Childe in 1936 to characterise early food-producing economies, i.e. those operating at a domestic level of production, where goods are consumed where they are produced.2 Hence the Neolithic ‘revolution’ is generally thought to be marked not only by a shift from an appropriative economy based on hunting and gathering to a productive economy based on farming and herding, but also by the emergence of simple households – providing the smallest productive unit of society. Features regularly, but not exclusively, associated with Neolithic economies include domestic plants and/or animals, houses, villages, field systems, ground stones, pottery, weaving implements, and complex symbolic activities, particularly relating to houses and their products. Therein lies one of the major issues with the Neolithic concept, which is that it is very hard to define monothetically if not through farming itself and becomes less and less relevant the more ‘unpacked’ the Neolithic is – for instance in the Near East and central Anatolia, where sedentism precedes agriculture, and where food-production can be a small-scale activity within a broader continuum of subsistence practices. The Neolithic or agricultural ‘revolution’ appears to have taken place independently in several parts of the world, where species were available for artificial selection i.e. domestication. In western Eurasia, the main domesticated species for food were wheat, barley, sheep, goat, cattle and pig. The Neolithic ‘revolution’ in this region involved two distinct phenomena or processes segregated spatially: a) long-term adaptation through plant and animal domestication in the Near

1

Palaeogenetics Group, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany, [email protected]. Childe 1936.

2

18

Maxime N. Brami

East; and, b) westward spread of early domesticates across Europe. Anatolia, referring in this context to the Anatolian peninsula or Asia Minor, sits astride these two horizons and appears to encapsulate the differences existing between Near Eastern and European neolithisation processes. This volume explores the hypothesis that the apparent lag in Neolithic occupation between central and western Anatolia reflected an actual frontier where farming expansion was halted. Although a chronological lag between Neolithic sites in central and western Anatolia has featured in a number of pan-regional models and simulations,3 available reconstructions have been based on a lack of data from western Anatolia rather than on actual regional variation. As such, the chronological fault-line under review in this volume has only been addressed in a few publications.4 The recent completion or near-completion of several major archaeological projects in central and western Anatolia provides an excellent opportunity for a synopsis and the production of the first comprehensive synthesis on this subject. To give an overall picture and help the reader situate the contributions of this volume, this article addresses three basic questions – namely, when farming was adopted, how it was adopted, and who spread farming.

When was Farming Adopted in Central Anatolia, Western Anatolia, and Beyond? As several contributions of this volume make clear,5 the uptake of farming in central Anatolia pre-dated its arrival in western Anatolia by several centuries – possibly up to 2000 calibrated years.6 This makes the agricultural frontier between central and western Anatolia potentially one of the longest-held in prehistory, matched only perhaps by that observed in other outer boundaries of the Near East, such as Iran, beyond the central Zagros and the eastern wing of the Fertile Crescent,7 the southern Caucasus,8 the Arabian peninsula9 and northern Egypt.10 The spread of Neolithic economies beyond the Near East is a question in itself.11 Did farming expand in all four directions (to the west, east, north and south of the Near East) at the same time? And, if so, why did the main expansion happen so late (as argued here)? Is there any correlation between farming expansion and the time-span of Rapid Climate Change (thereafter RCC), c. 6600–6000 calBC?12 All these questions are somewhat peripheral to the immediate foci of this volume, but should be borne in mind to appreciate the significance of the central/western Anatolian farming frontier. Before discussing chronology, a word on terminology is needed (Table 1). Precisely because the Neolithic started so very late in the Aegean basin, the Greek Early Neolithic (EN) coincides with the Anatolian Late Neolithic (LN), while the Greek Middle Neolithic (MN) is broadly contemporaneous with the Anatolian Early Chalcolithic (ECh).13 In turn, the Bulgarian EN, which is as much as 500 years younger than its Greek equivalent,14 somewhat overlaps with the Greek MN and the Anatolian ECh.15 Chronologically and culturally, western Anatolia was more attuned with Aegean Greece, at least in the initial phases of Neolithic expansion.16 However, due to research traditions being different in Greece and Turkey, the Anatolian terminology is used in western Ana-

3

5 6 7 8 9 4

10

12 13 14 15 16 11

E.g. Bocquet Appel et al. 2009. Schoop 2005; Düring 2010; Düring 2013; Clare – Weninger 2014; Brami 2015; Brami 2017. Guilaine, this volume; Rosenstock, this volume. Düring 2013; Brami 2015; Brami 2017. Matthews – Fazeli Nashli 2013 and references therein; Riehl et al. 2013; Weeks 2013; Darabi 2015. Chataigner et al. 2014. Drechsler 2009; Crassard – Drechsler 2013. Guilaine, this volume and references therein. Bar Yosef, this volume. Weninger et al. 2014. Cf. Lichter 2005, 7. Krauß et al. 2017. Lichter 2005, 7. Brami – Heyd 2011; Horejs et al. 2015.

Anatolia: From the Origins of Agriculture … to the Spread of Neolithic Economies

Central Turkey

Western Turkey

Greece

Epi-Palaeolithic

Epi-Palaeolithic

Aceramic Neolithic

Mesolithic

Mesolithic

Early Neolithic

?Early Neolithic?

?Initial Neolithic?

Late Neolithic

Late Neolithic

Early Neolithic

?Phase Ia?

Early Chalcolithic

Early Chalcolithic

Middle Neolithic

Early Neolithic

19

Bulgaria

Table 1   How Turkish, Greek and Bulgarian terminologies synchronise (adapted from Özbaşaran – Buitenhuis 2002; Lichter 2005, 7)

tolia, leading to additional confusion. Hence the Neolithic starts there at a relatively late stage, in the Anatolian LN, or, as some of the authors of this volume argue, in an advanced phase of the Anatolian EN, referring in this context to the first half of the 7th millennium calBC.17 A flurry of other terms appears in the literature. In Greece, the term ‘Preceramic’ Neolithic refers to a stage of the Neolithic without pottery, usually thought to precede the EN.18 The absence of pottery in this phase is heavily disputed.19 The term ‘Initial Neolithic’ (IN) is more commonly used today and refers essentially to the pioneering phase before the main expansion of the Neolithic in Greece.20 To be clear, this phase dates to the first half of the 7th millennium calBC and bears little relation to the Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN), which it was initially thought to parallel.21 On the contrary, there are genuine Aceramic Neolithic (AN) levels in central Anatolia, pre-dating the main occupation at Çatalhöyük.22 These are sometimes referred to in the literature as PPN, and indeed the chronological sequence of the central Anatolian AN appears to span much of the Levantine PPNA and PPNB.23 The use of the same labels to refer to vastly different chronological and cultural phenomena is a major issue when addressing the big picture, and it is doubtful that we will ever arrive at a unified terminology for the region under review – at least one that satisfies everyone. An alternative approach is to simply do away with labels and use 14C dates to define horizons of interaction, e.g. pre- and post-6600 calBC.24 This approach is not without problems, as only a few sites and phases are radiocarbon-dated, and published 14C dates are of vastly different quality, some with much larger confidence intervals than others for example.25 Moreover, there is a plateau in the calibration curve, crucially during the 7030–6600 calBC interval, when the expansion of Neolithic economies through Anatolia into Europe is thought to have started.26 Nonetheless, once all the calibrated 14C dates of agricultural sites are displayed side by side in a table, with limited pre-sorting,27 a remarkable picture emerges (Fig. 1). I would advise against reading too much in this diagram in the absence of precise contextual, site-level information.28

17

19 20 21 22 18

23

25 26 27 24

28



Horejs, this volume. Theocharis 1973, 35. Gimbutas et al. 1989; Perlès 2001; Reingruber 2008; Reingruber 2015. Perlès 2003, 103; Carter, this volume. Milojčić 1962; Theocharis 1967. Özbaşaran – Buitenhuis 2002; but Fletcher et al. 2017 claim that there is pottery in 9th–8th millennia calBC levels at Boncuklu. Baird et al. 2018, E3078. Weninger et al. 2014. Brami – Heyd 2011, 173. Reingruber 2015. B. Weninger’s database was used. Since filtering is easily performed with the CalPal software, this database excludes only a small number of obviously wrong dates. The underlying research philosophy is that it is quicker and more efficient to filter the required data per software, than to produce a pre-filtered database (B. Weninger, pers. comm. Dec. 2017). For further discussion of this and other 14C dates, see Rosenstock, this volume. For a breakdown of the dates, see Clare – Weninger 2014.

20

Maxime N. Brami

Fig. 1   Distribution of N = 1097 radiocarbon dates of ‘Neolithic’ or agricultural sites with calibrated ages plotted by the Barcode Method (Weninger et al. 2014). Each small vertical line shows the median value of the corresponding calibrated 14C-age. Created in CalPal (Weninger – Jöris 2008) using the IntCal04 calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2009). 14C data from the CalPal Holocene database (Weninger 2014). Regional distribution after Brami 2015. Additional information and guidance from B. Weninger

Even so, the reader can see that the discrepancy between the dates in central and western Anatolia is such that the advent of agriculture must have been delayed in the latter region by approximately 1500 years,29 or up to 2000 calibrated years if considering the widest possible confidence margin (at two standard deviations or 95.4% probability) instead of the median value. Accordingly, the development of agricultural societies in central Anatolia started c. 8500/8300 calBC. Interestingly, and allowing for the noisiness of the unfiltered data when shown by the barcode method in Fig. 1, agriculture does not appear to have arrived in western Anatolia and the Aegean basin before c. 6700 calBC. Then followed a long delay of around 600 years, after which the Neolithic spread abruptly from the Aegean basin further north into Bulgaria c. 6050 calBC.30 This long delay, and the remarkably rapid expansion of farming following the RCC-interval, has recently been discussed within the context of what may be called a ‘micro-climatic cold-winter refugium model’,31 with theoretical generalisation of the abruptness – namely, the unexpectedly high speed of the neolithisation process based on concepts derived from Stephen Jay Gould’s studies of Punctuated Equilibrium.32 Also open to discussion are the many regional variations, including a range of regional and local micro-advances and delays, perhaps linked to the highly diverse landscapes encountered between the Aegean catchment, Thessaly, the eastern Adriatic, inland Thrace and Macedonia.33 Hence, whether or not the Neolithic started only after c. 6200 calBC in the latter regions is only one of the many open questions. The so-called ‘barcode’ method used to display the dates in this diagram simply highlights which periods are most represented and which are least so. It does not, however, show precise correlations between sites or regions, and one may not assume that sites in Greece are strictly contemporaneous with sites in western Turkey just because their 14C-ages overlap in the diagram. As might be expected from a global collection of 14C ages, regardless of quality, not all fit the overall trend. I do not intend to discuss each date again, as this has been done extensively in the literature.34 Suffice it to say that most of the dates that do not fit the pattern observed in Aegean Greece stem from cave sites (Franchthi Cave, Theopetra Cave, etc.) with both Mesolithic and

29

31 32 33 34 30

See Düring 2013. Krauß et al. 2017. Krauß et al. 2017. Weninger 2017. E.g. Forenbaher – Miracle 2006; Krauß et al. 2017. Perlès 2001; Reingruber – Thissen 2009; Brami – Heyd 2011.

Anatolia: From the Origins of Agriculture … to the Spread of Neolithic Economies

21

Neolithic levels, and a degree of stratigraphic disturbance is possible.35 Likewise, most of the early, pre-6200 calBC dates in Thrace stem from the wider Aegean catchment area (sites of Dikili Tash, Uğurlu, etc.), where the Neolithic is predicted to have started earlier36 – reflecting the way in which sites have been grouped. I have chosen to distinguish four regions that still broadly follow historical boundaries (e.g. ‘Thrace’), but in fact chronologically there may only be three in the Neolithic period: central Anatolia, the Aegean at large (including western Anatolia and coastal Thrace) and the Balkans (Danube-Vardar-Morava corridor). There is a question though as to what exactly we are dating, i.e. the start of the Neolithic or the arrival of agriculture? The Neolithic refers, in this article, to the uptake of food-production, following a definition given by V. Gordon Childe 80 years ago.37 This assumes that Neolithic societies had already reached a tipping point and that they no longer extracted the bulk of their subsistence from hunting and gathering. While this model is certainly relevant for western Anatolia, objections can be raised for central Anatolia, particularly in the 9th and 8th millennia calBC, where sites like Boncuklu Höyük in the Konya Plain show some evidence of domestication, but only low levels of food production.38 Was Boncuklu a Neolithic site, an Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic site, or a transitional site? While morphologically domestic cereals are present at Boncuklu, the overall density of food plant remains is small, suggesting that plants only played a marginal role in the diet of the inhabitants.39 Meanwhile there is evidence for increased animal management at the site, but their wild/domestic status is uncertain on morphometric grounds, and hunting of wild cattle and wild boars appears to have been dominant.40 Is the presence of domesticates enough to characterise the Boncuklu society as Neolithic, or to include its and similar 14C dates from Aşıklı Höyük (Level IV) in our diagram? To make things more complicated still, lithic technologies at Boncuklu are mainly microlithic and include the typical trapezes, lunates etc. found in Epipalaeolithic sites of southwest Asia including Pınarbaşı on the Anatolian plateau.41 We are thus dealing with a mosaic of features, at least in the initial phases of the Neolithic in central Anatolia, which does not bode well with the neat evolutionary scheme devised by our forbears. I return to this problem in the next section of this chapter. Another question that needs mentioning here is how certain are we that we have looked in the right places, and that no 9th–8th millennia agricultural sites will ever be found in western Anatolia? The answer is not so certain. Besides the problems of surface visibility and alluviation raised by M. Özdoğan in his contribution,42 there is also the problem that Neolithic archaeologists are not well trained overall at recognising small aceramic sites in this region (if this is what we are looking for). Once again Boncuklu provides a relevant example, being almost an inconspicuous tell, or settlement mound, 9.5km north of the more famous site of Çatalhöyük, discovered almost by chance on the last day of a systematic survey of the Konya Plain undertaken by Douglas Baird and Trevor Watkins.43 There are regularly sites that come up in the literature as representing a forerunner stage to the Aegean Neolithic, potentially similar to Boncuklu for central Anatolia. This includes Girmeler44 near Fethiye on the southwest Aegean coast of Turkey and Maroulas45 on the island of Kythnos in the Western Cyclades – both open air sites with houses or huts and burials. Of these

35

Facorellis et al. 2001. Reingruber et al. 2017 and references therein. 37 ‘The first revolution that transformed human economy gave man control over his own food supply’ (Childe 1936, 74–75). 38 See below, and Baird, this volume; Baird et al. 2018. 39 Baird et al. 2012, 229. 40 Baird et al. 2012, 232; Baird et al. 2018, E3081. 41 Muller et al. 2018. 42 Özdoğan, this volume. 43 Baird 1996. 44 Takaoğlu et al. 2014; Erdoğu 2016; Erdoğu 2017. 45 Sampson 2006; Sampson 2010. 36

22

Maxime N. Brami

sites we know relatively little beyond the fact that they have produced definite 9th–8th millennia calBC dates and have architecture and other features that may indicate a degree of sedentism.46 Agriculture appears to be absent. Likewise, several prehistoric findspots in western Anatolia, mainly known through surface collection, have produced diagnostic tools (e.g. possible naviform cores) that indicate remote interaction with the Levantine PPN.47 What are we to make of these sites? Should they be considered Neolithic on the basis of technological similarity with the Near Eastern core of neolithisation, or are they somehow indicative of interactions across the central/western Anatolian farming frontier? The most convincing evidence for the existence of a spatial division between farmers in central Anatolia and foragers in the Aegean basin is currently the fact that several Mesolithic sites in Greece appear to continue occupation well into the 7th millennium calBC (e.g. Franchthi Cave, Cyclops Cave),48 thus overlapping with EN/LN sites in central Anatolia (e.g. Çatalhöyük East).49 What sort of interaction may have occurred between these sites during the 9th and 8th millennia calBC is a question that has received almost no attention to date and Tristan Carter should be commended for addressing it explicitly in his contribution.50 It is perhaps too early to conclude that there were two networks, running parallel to each other, characterised by different chipped stone traditions, flake-based in the Mesolithic Aegean, prismatic blade in EN/LN central Anatolia, but the idea is certainly compelling. Pressure-blade technology first appeared in the 9th millennium calBC at Kömürcü-Kaletepe in Cappadocia, presumably spreading from much further east in Eurasia as highlighted by several studies,51 and followed the main expansion of Neolithic economies into western Anatolia and Greece c. 6700/6600 calBC.52 If there was a frontier between farmers and foragers, as argued here, one may envision an ‘availability phase’ similar to the one described in other regions of Europe, preceding and leading up to the formal adoption of agriculture and other Neolithic innovations.53 An interesting question, raised by Eva Rosenstock in her contribution,54 is where exactly was the frontier between central and western Anatolia in the Neolithic? Is the Beyşehir-Suğla region, west of the Konya Plain, the westernmost region with aceramic Neolithic sites? Or should we also include the Lakes Region and presumably Hacılar, which has virtually aceramic levels? While I broadly agree with Rosenstock’s assessment that the Lakes Region had already a distinct tradition and Hacılar was a comparatively late site, there are still features that connect this region with central Anatolia, such as big obsidian and flint arrowheads,55 which are so far absent elsewhere in western Anatolia. The reader can thus see that we are dealing in Anatolia with an incredibly complex picture, made of important contrasts, but also features that blur the line between Mesolithic and Neolithic, central and western Anatolia, core and periphery. The picture is never exclusively black or white, and there are still many uncertainties. I hope that further research will be done, not only to describe the two sides of the Anatolian farming frontier, but also their interaction during the 9th, 8th and subsequent millennia.

46

Carter, this volume. Özdoğan – Gatsov 1998; Efe et al. 2012. 48 Sampson 2008; Sampson 2010; Perlès et al. 2013. 49 Bronk Ramsey et al. 2002; Bronk Ramsey et al. 2009; Bayliss et al. 2015; Marciniak et al. 2015. 50 Carter, this volume. 51 Binder 2007; Desrosiers 2012 and references therein. 52 Milić – Horejs 2017. 53 Zvelebil 1986; Zvelebil 1998; Zvelebil – Lillie 2000; Zvelebil 2001. 54 Rosenstock, this volume. 55 Big flint and obsidian arrowheads occasionally bifacially retouched are found in Neolithic levels at Bademağacı, Hacılar, Höyücek and Kuruçay (Mortensen 1970, fig 166f; Duru 2008, figs. 225–227). 47

Anatolia: From the Origins of Agriculture … to the Spread of Neolithic Economies

23

How was Farming Adopted in Anatolia? Piecemeal? As an Integrated ‘Package’? Or Both? The situation of Anatolia in the context of the European Neolithic is quite unique, because this region sits on the fringe of the great centres of plant and animal domestication in the Near East. Anatolia refers in this contribution to the Asian part of Turkey, including Cilicia, but excluding regions east of the Amanus mountains.56 Anatolia is the peninsula that juts out of southwest Asia and links up this region with the Aegean world. Incidentally, it is the only east-west oriented peninsula of any significant size in the Mediterranean and this configuration has made it throughout history an ideal landbridge for the spread of people and innovations.57 On the other hand, Anatolia consists almost entirely of mountains and high plateaus, and the climate, particularly on the central Anatolian plateau, can be harsh, with dry, hot summers and cold, wet winters. The fertility of soils on the plateau is quite variable, despite a volcanic background. Before James Mellaart discovered Hacılar in the Lakes Region (1956) and Çatalhöyük in the Konya Plain (1958), these regions were widely perceived as inauspicious for the sort of agriculture practiced in the Neolithic.58 Various ethnographic accounts report how as late as the 1950s farmers were still struggling to live off their land in remote parts of Cappadocia, and many died of starvation and malnutrition.59 Not only is Anatolia rich in early farming sites, but the Neolithic there is quite distinct, with the central Anatolian plateau providing a setting for the emergence of Neolithic mega-sites, including Çatalhöyük60 and Aşıklı,61 which have sometimes been described as ‘towns’ – though an urban stage of production is still unlikely at this date.62 Western Anatolia, which is traditionally thought to include the Lakes Region, the eastern Marmara region and the Aegean seaboard, has so far not produced anything comparable, as the sites there rarely exceed 1–2ha (by comparison Çatalhöyük is 13ha).63 This is not to say that there were no interactions between these regions, particularly during the Anatolian LN, as Arkadiusz Marciniak’s contribution makes eminently clear.64 However, it is worth emphasising that the process by which societies arrived at the Neolithic is quite different in central and western Anatolia. There are two trajectories, briefly described here (Fig. 2). The central Anatolian Neolithic appears to be more than a mere offshoot of the Levantine PPN.65 As already mentioned above, the arrival of agriculture in this region happened relatively early in relation to the Aegean Neolithic (2000-year lag). D. Baird’s surveys and excavations in the Konya Plain indicate that a later Epipalaeolithic substratum is present, for instance at Pınarbaşı, with lunates and other materials similar to the Natufian in the Levant.66 Tenth and 9th millennium levels at Pınarbaşı bear witness to a shift in habitation, from a previously seasonal occupation of the rockshelter by mobile foragers to an increasingly intensive use of the open-air promontory by sedentary or semi-sedentary foragers.67 The first ‘houses’ are found in these levels. These were curvilinear, semi-subterranean structures with plastered floors and plastered interior walls, which were regularly re-cut in the same place.68 There was no agriculture at the site. Moving on to 9th–8th millennium Boncuklu, one observes a similar pattern, essentially curvilinear houses repeatedly built in the same place, this time with burials under floors, perhaps indicating a deep-rooted con-

56

58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 57

Mellaart 1964, 3; see also Rosenstock, this volume. Childe 1950, 41. E.g. Lloyd 1956, 53–54; for a discussion, see Özdoğan, this volume. Makal 2010 [1954]; Stirling 1965. Mellaart 1967; Hodder 2006 and references therein. Esin – Harmankaya 1999. Mellaart 1967. Furholt 2016; Brami 2017, appendix A. E.g. Marciniak, this volume. Cauvin 1994. Baird 2012a. Baird 2012b. Baird 2012a, 193–194.

24

Maxime N. Brami

Fig. 2   Comparison chart of the advent of selected components of the Neolithic pattern of existence in central and western Anatolia (modified after Brami 2017, fig. 5). Fired clay vessels have been found in aceramic levels at Boncuklu (Fletcher et al. 2017)

cern for the ancestors and the sacralisation of the ancestral house.69 It is also at Boncuklu, and at the chronologically-overlapping site of Aşıklı in Cappadocia, that we see the first evidence for plant cultivation and domesticated crop plants, including emmer and einkorn wheat, pulses, such as lentils and peas, which are likely to have originated in the Levant.70 At Aşıklı there is evidence for a ‘proto-domestication’ of caprines, based on the large number of perinatal bones, which indicates that animals were kept within short distance of the site.71 While still morphologically wild, these animals show signs of having been held captive and selectively manipulated by humans.72 Unambiguous evidence for morphologically domestic caprines and a more elaborate crop ‘package’ is found later on in the AN, at late 8th millennia sites, such as Suberde and basal Çatalhöyük.73 In other words, sedentism preceded agriculture in central Anatolia, and agriculture arrived piecemeal, consisting of a mix of species, some deliberately brought from the Near East, others possibly domesticated locally, or going back and forth.74 There might have been an initial crop ‘package’, but it was limited in comparison to the one observed later on in the Anatolian sequence,75 and Boncuklu foragers do not appear to have been especially reliant on crops for their subsistence.76 Large game hunting, as depicted on some of the wall paintings at Çatalhöyük,77 remained an important aspect of EN subsistence on the central Anatolian plateau, hence the comparatively late adoption of both cattle and pigs in this region.78 There is, however, one exception to the pattern described here for central Anatolia, and that is Yumuktepe (Mersin), a Mediterranean site on the other side of the Taurus mountains in Cilicia. Yumuktepe occupation started no earlier than the first half of the 7th millennium calBC, and agriculture arrived there fully-formed, with a mixed economy comprising four-tiered animal husbandry (sheep, goat, cattle and pigs) and a fairly complete crop ‘package’.79 Yumuktepe is in many ways similar to EN/LN sites in western Anatolia, which show no evidence of a local shift from mobile foragers to sedentary farmers. What is missing here is a transitional sedentary forager stage, with no or limited agriculture. The significance of Girmeler in southwest Anatolia, if

69

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 70

Baird et al. 2012; Baird et al. 2017. Van Zeist – de Roller 1995; Asouti – Fairbairn 2002; Baird et al. 2012, 230; Baird et al. 2018, table 2. Buitenhuis 1997; Martin et al. 2002; Pearson et al. 2007; Stiner et al. 2014. Baird 2014. Arbuckle 2008, 219; Arbuckle et al. 2009. See Zeder 2017 for a discussion; Baird et al. 2018. Asouti – Fairbairn 2002; Colledge et al. 2004. Baird et al. 2012; Baird et al. 2018, E3082. Hodder 2006. Russell et al. 2005; Arbuckle 2013. Buitenhuis 2004; Colledge et al. 2004; Arbuckle et al. 2014.

Anatolia: From the Origins of Agriculture … to the Spread of Neolithic Economies

25

genuinely indicating ‘sedentarising’ of indigenous hunter-gatherers in the 9th and 8th millennia calBC, has already been mentioned.80 For now, in the absence of a continuous sequence linking this and 7th millennium occupation in western Anatolia, one must assume that the site is a one off, perhaps similar to Maroulas on Kythnos.81 T. Carter in his contribution shows the importance of the insular Aegean Mesolithic to processes of Neolithic expansion.82 While I agree with him that Mesolithic networks are likely to have facilitated the advent of farming in western Anatolia and the Aegean basin by providing early farmers with an advanced knowledge of the sea, of raw material sources (e.g. obsidian of Melos) and of technologies to attain them, I cannot help but think that the impetus for farming expansion must lie elsewhere – otherwise farming would have started much earlier. It is true that the first farmers in the Aegean basin, including those on the western Anatolian coast, made great use of Melian obsidian, preferring it to Cappadocian obsidian from Nenezi Dağ and Göllü Dağ.83 Early Neolithic settlers at Çukuriçi Höyük near Ephesus were also deep-sea fishers and shell collectors.84 They obviously knew the sea and it is not difficult to conclude that this is how they arrived to land on the western Anatolian seaboard sometime in the first half of the 7th millennium calBC. I leave aside the question for now of whether they bypassed central Anatolia, which is addressed by several contributors of this volume.85 Focussing on the economy of the first Neolithic communities in western Anatolia, dated to shortly before 6600 calBC,86 one observes that they show similar patterns overall. Where archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological data are available, agriculture appears to have arrived fully-fledged, with elaborate ‘packages’ of domestic plants and animals present from the beginning.87 With regard to animals, domestic species were dominant from the start of the sequence at EN/LN sites like Çukuriçi, Ulucak, Bademağacı, Aktopraklık, Barcın and Uğurlu.88 This suggests that the first European farmers, who practiced mixed farming, did not need to (or chose not to) rely on wild resources for their subsistence, adapting environments to their needs. Trevor Watkins has referred to this form of the Neolithic as a ‘portable and artificial ecosystem’89 – a definition which appears to fit the evidence in western Anatolia. The Neolithic hence defined may involve not only the diffusion of a ‘package’ or ‘packages’, but also the creation of ecological niches and anthropogenic environments. Notice that few detailed studies regarding plants are published, so the nature of early plant economies in Anatolia remains a bit of a black box.90 Moreover, there is still limited understanding as to how plants and animals fit into regional cooking traditions, as these might have been a major driving force for the spread of specific domesticates or ‘packages’ thereof. Lipid residue analysis in ceramic pots suggests that milk was in use by the 7th millennium calBC in northwest Anatolia.91 Milk processing in the form of cheese and yogurt may have made this commodity

82 83 84 85 86 87 80 81



88

89

91 90

Takaoğlu et al. 2014; Erdoğu 2016. Sampson 2006; Sampson 2010. Carter, this volume. Perlès et al. 2011; Milić 2014; Milić in press. Galik – Horejs 2011; Horejs et al. 2015. Carter, this volume; Horejs, this volume; Özdoğan, this volume. Weninger et al. 2014. Though there are few plant studies published for this region, see Martinoli – Nesbitt 2003; Cappers 2008; Erkal input in Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012. For animal remains more data are available: De Cupere – Duru 2003; Buitenhuis 2008; De Cupere et al. 2008; Galik – Horejs 2011; Çakırlar 2012a; Çakırlar 2012b; Çilingiroğlu – Çakırlar 2013; Arbuckle et al. 2014; Atici et al. 2017. Çakırlar 2012a; Çakırlar 2012b; Çilingiroğlu – Çakırlar 2013; Arbuckle et al. 2014; Horejs et al. 2015; Atici et al. 2017. Watkins in Kabo et al. 1985, 613; see also Watkins 2010, 624. However, see Fairbairn et al. 2005; Bogaard et al. 2017; Baird et al. 2018. Evershed et al. 2008; Thissen et al. 2010.

26

Maxime N. Brami

more readily digestible by adult early farmers, who were very likely lactose-intolerant.92 As already pointed out by Mellaart in the 1960s, the shape and ware of early vessels in western Anatolia (so-called ‘red-slipped burnished ware’) made them ideally suited for holding ‘milk, yogurt, curds, butter, cheese, honey, fat, jam, etc.’93 In The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture, Jacques Cauvin asks us to imagine the impact of domestication on the minds of indigenous hunter-gatherers, who saw animals docilely following their masters as they migrated out of the Near East, and exotic plants growing everywhere on their path.94 Although we cannot be sure, the effect must have been quite overwhelming, especially if there was no previous contact between the two communities. This said, anthropologists are agreed that foragers, who have no use for domesticates, can be resistant to farming, and usually show very little interest in the new mode of production.95 Beyond agriculture, there is a very specific habitus of techniques (e.g. pressure-blade technology)96 and practices (e.g. vertical superimposition of houses),97 which was transferred across communities, perhaps through the agency of migrating farmers. In western Anatolia, we see houses that are mainly rectangular in shape from the start of the Neolithic. It is worth bearing in mind that it took over 2000 years for buildings to become rectangular in the Near East. The shift from circular to rectangular architecture coincides there with the transition from the PPNA to the PPNB.98 So it is fair to assume with Cauvin that the rectangular house form was part of the initial ‘package’ that spread into Europe.99 The fact that one or more ‘packages’ of Neolithic innovations spread into western Anatolia and Europe does not mean that we should expect the same Neolithic everywhere. There was a lot of diversity in western Anatolia. For instance, domestic pigs arrived late in the eastern Marmara region, at Barcın, whereas they were present from the beginning at Çukuriçi, Ulucak and Bademağacı.100 Whether the absence of pigs is enough on its own to warrant interpretation of a landroute across Anatolia connecting the Marmara Sea to the central Anatolian plateau, where pigs were equally absent, remains open to discussion.101 Painted pottery was present in the Lakes Region, but absent elsewhere in western Anatolia.102 Big obsidian and flint arrowheads are only found in the Lakes Region.103 Meanwhile there are no tells in the Antalya Bay region.104 Burials are everywhere at Barcın and Ilıpınar in the eastern Marmara region, whereas there are almost none on the Aegean coast of Anatolia.105 As Çiler Çilingiroğlu shows in her contribution, house-construction techniques and materials are markedly different from one site to another, and some forms, such as the circular tholoi of Ege Gübre are either completely alien or a local invention.106 So there was not just one Neolithic ‘package’ spreading into western Anatolia from southwest Asia.107 And western Anatolia was not just a periphery of the great societies of the Near East. At

92

94 95 96 97 98 99 93

102 103 104 105 106 107 100 101

Itan et al. 2009; Leonardi et al. 2012; Salque et al. 2013. Mellaart 1961, 69. Cauvin 1994. Barnard 2007. Milić – Horejs 2017. Brami et al. 2016; Brami 2017. Kenyon 1956. Cauvin 1994, 171–176. Çakırlar 2012b, 88. Arbuckle et al. 2014. Çilingiroğlu 2012. Mortensen 1970, fig 166f; Duru 2008, figs. 225–227. Harmankaya et al. 1998. Brami 2017 and references therein. Çilingiroğlu, this volume. Özdoğan 2011, S427.

Anatolia: From the Origins of Agriculture … to the Spread of Neolithic Economies

27

one point it was, but as Mehmet Özdoğan explains,108 western Anatolia became a new core and the chain of expansion continued into southeast Europe. More research is needed to understand the nature of early farming economies. This is crucial if we are to approach the lag in Neolithic occupation between central Anatolia and the Aegean basin in terms of an agricultural frontier. What does it mean to be farmers when there are foragers living close-by? And how does the introduction of domesticates impact local forager communities?

Who Spread Farming? So far, early farming expansion has been considered without characterising the demographic process involved. Who spread farming is one of the most heavily debated issues in European prehistory.109 Most scholars today agree that European agriculture originated in southwest Asia where wild progenitors of plant and animal domesticates are found.110 The most extreme indigenist views, which hold that agriculture was arrived at more or less independently in Europe,111 are untenable these days, although hybridisation of domestic species with wild ones in parts of Anatolia and southeast Europe remains a distinct possibility.112 Regarding farming expansion, the debate is essentially between the diffusionists and the migrationists. Culture on the other hand is still widely perceived as something that is invented locally, and differences between sites are often exaggerated to refute ‘grand narratives’ from the Near East to Europe. This in a way reflects the way in which archaeologists work, often at one particular site, which they hold to be idiosyncratic for the archaeology of a region. All the contributions in this volume are at least open to the possibility of some degree of interaction between different farming and foraging communities, and to common origins in southwest Asia. Either people migrated with their domesticates or the domesticates were exchanged across communities, triggering local agricultural transitions. Archaeologists have repeatedly tried to interpret changes in material culture as markers of migration.113 They argue, perhaps rightly, that improved forms of exchanges, such as diffusion of complex techniques and/or practices, require face-to-face interaction with an external agent over a number of years. Hence migration of at least a section of the population is likely, although this is a very weak inference. Biological markers are increasingly brought into the equation. This is where our field has seen the most tremendous advances in recent years.114 Whole-genome ancient DNA (aDNA) research on Holocene hunter-gatherers and early farmers in Eurasia has established that early farmers deriving their ancestry from northwest Anatolia (site of Barcın) and, equally, from northern Greece, were responsible for spreading agriculture into central, southwest, and southeast Europe.115 The Neolithic transition in Europe involved both a significant gene flow from the Aegean-Anatolian region and potentially even central Anatolia, and some admixture along the migration routes to the continent’s heartland.116 Intriguingly, the chain of migrations does not appear to have reached back all the way to the Neolithic core zone in Upper Mesopotamia and the Levant.117 Early Neolithic genomes from the eastern Fertile Crescent (sites of Wezmeh Cave, Tepe Abdul Hosein and Ganj Dareh in Iran) form a distinct genetic cluster on the principal component analysis (PCA) map of genetic diversity

110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 108 109

Özdoğan, this volume. E.g. van Andel – Runnels 1995; Perlès 2001. Zohary 1996; Zohary et al. 2012. E.g. Dennell 1983. Götherström et al. 2005; Ottoni et al. 2013. E.g. Horejs et al. 2015. Shennan 2018. Hofmanová et al. 2016; Mathieson et al. 2018. Hofmanová et al. 2016; Kılınç et al. 2016; Kılınç et al. 2017; Lipson et al. 2017; Mathieson et al. 2018. Broushaki et al. 2016; Lazaridis et al. 2016.

28

Maxime N. Brami

among modern and projected ancient Eurasian populations produced by Lazaridis et al.118 Other palaeogenomic inference methods come to the same conclusion that they appear to be neither ancestral to Anatolian nor to European early farmers, showing affinities instead with Caucasus hunter-gatherers and possibly southeast Asian early farmers, though the comparison is with living populations.119 Pre-Pottery Neolithic populations in the southern Levant (sites of ‘Ain Ghazal and Ba’ja in Jordan, Motza and Kfar HaHoresh in Israel) are equally unlikely to have contributed much genetic ancestry to northwest Anatolian and European early farmers, showing instead affinities with east African populations.120 On the other hand, genomes from northwest and central Anatolia (e.g. sites of Barcın and Boncuklu) sit next to each other on the map of genetic diversity in west Eurasia, suggesting that they share a recent common ancestor somewhere in Anatolia.121 Thus, although cultural affinities might suggest a maritime route from the Levant bypassing much of central Anatolia, biological ones seem to support the idea of an inland flow, or at least significant interactions between early farmers across Anatolia. Given the expected close genetic relatedness between these early farming populations, a demographic inference of the precise relations and migrations between populations involved in this process appears difficult. In addition, new evidence of genetic continuity from the Epipalaeolithic to the Neolithic in central Anatolia (sites of Pınarbaşı, Boncuklu and Tepecik-Çiftlik) confirms what has been suspected before, i.e. that local hunter-gatherers settled in this region and started to grow crops.122 In sum, the picture gradually emerging is that of a heterogeneous core in the Near East occupied by at least three distinct populations that split off thousands of years prior to the start of the Neolithic, remaining mostly unadmixed during the PPN, and subsequently expanding into at least three major directions, Europe, southeast Asia and eastern Africa.123 Many questions remain, particularly regarding the level of interaction between early farmers and hunter-gatherers in southeast Europe. Zuzana Hofmanová et al. report, for example, how two less-well preserved Greek Mesolithic genomes from Theopetra Cave in Thessaly, dated to the 8th–early 7th millennium calBC, have similar mitochondrial DNAs to early farmers in Anatolia.124 While mitochondrial DNA data on their own bear little significance, the question arises as to whether central Anatolia, northwest Anatolia and the Aegean basin in the 9th and 8th millennia calBC all served as a common ancestral gene pool for early farmers expanding into Europe? If so, what are implications for our understanding of processes of Neolithic transition in this region? Another issue is how to conceptualise early farmer mobility. Cauvin captured the apparent paradox at the heart of the Neolithic expansion by referring to a ‘great exodus’ of ‘sedentary peoples’.125 Recent archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological studies suggest that early farming systems in Europe were ‘intensive’, involving long-term investment in fixed plots of land through manuring and middening.126 Where was the incentive for migration when people valued their ancestral land above all else? As highlighted by Amy Bogaard, ‘the spread of farming [must have taken place] despite the intensive nature of crop and animal husbandry’.127 Mega-sites like Çatalhöyük and Aşıklı indicate that there was no limit imposed on the size of early farming communities, at least during the AN and EN periods in central Anatolia. I have argued elsewhere

120 121 122 123 124 125 126

Lazaridis et al. 2016, fig. 1. Broushaki et al. 2016. Lazaridis et al. 2016; Feldman et al. 2019. Kılınç et al. 2016, fig. 2. Kılınç et al. 2017; Feldman et al. 2019. Lazaridis et al. 2016. Hofmanová et al. 2016. Cauvin 1994, 211–213. E.g. Halstead 1987; Halstead 1996a; Halstead 1996b; Bogaard 2004a; Bogaard 2004b; Fairbairn 2005; Sherratt 2007; Halstead – Isaakidou 2013. 127 Bogaard 2004a, 161. 118 119

Anatolia: From the Origins of Agriculture … to the Spread of Neolithic Economies

29

that greater levels of social control and conformity in the LN and ECh in western Anatolia went hand in hand with a reduction in size and scope of a community’s membership, as evidenced by the creation of fixed settlement boundaries, such as ditches at Aktopraklık, Barcın, Çukuriçi and Ilıpınar.128 Presumably fewer and fewer people were able to, or allowed to settle inside later Neolithic villages, and this process of segmentation or budding off of the surplus population may have contributed to entire regions, such as Thessaly in Greece, becoming rapidly filled with sites at the onset of the Neolithic.129 Another element to factor in is the 6200 calBC (8.2ka calBP) event, a global climate anomaly caused by the discharge of massive amounts of meltwater from the Hudson Bay into the North Atlantic, which potentially amplified the atmospheric cooling observed during one of the Holocene rapid climate change intervals, c. 6600–6000 calBC, to create extreme winter conditions.130 These conditions, associated with droughts and seasonal floods, may have negatively impacted agricultural communities across the Near East, causing long-term instability and famines in particularly vulnerable mega-sites like Çatalhöyük.131 Sites after 6000 calBC in central Anatolia and the Lakes Region (e.g. Hacılar) tend to be smaller and more specialised.132 This has led researchers to ask whether migrations were climate-induced. Theoretically they could have been, but we are still unable to reliably measure the impact of climate on Neolithic communities.133 In fact, the same evidence for climate change can be used to support a model in which farmers migrated opportunistically to western Anatolia and the Aegean basin, when these regions became drier and more attuned with the sort of conditions early farmers were accustomed to in southwest Asia.134 We know other historical examples of farmer migration, such as the expansion of the agricultural frontier in the American Far West in the 17th to 19th centuries AD.135 Some farmers then were hoping to acquire new lands, others were searching for precious metals, still others were fleeing religious persecutions or their famine-stricken nations. So there was not just one incentive for migration and it is difficult to know, at least in the absence of texts, what exactly triggered further pushes to the west. The pioneers in America had pack animals and wagons. In contrast, early European farmers were probably on foot and, as seems increasingly likely, on rafts or boats, which they used to cross wider streams and rivers, and the open sea.136 In addition to Cyprus, which shows evidence of having been colonised, with various exogenous plants and animals introduced to the island by the 9th millennium calBC,137 various sites in the Aegean were only accessible by sea, such as Knossos on Crete,138 obsidian sources on Melos and Giali,139 etc. Even larger ungulates such as cattle were transported during sea voyages, making these perilous expeditions. The classic ‘wave of advance’ model proposed by Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza assumes that population growth linked to agricultural expansion and surpluses resulted in ranged migration, at the rate of 1km per year on average, in Holocene Europe.140 This model is only marginally useful for Anatolia and southeast Europe, given as already explained how early farming expanded

128

130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 129

Brami 2017 and references therein. Perlès 2001, 145; Shennan 2018, 78. Weninger et al. 2005; Clare – Weninger 2014; Weninger et al. 2014. Weninger et al. 2014. Brami 2017. Clare 2016. Gauthier 2016. E.g. Fletcher 1951. Broodbank – Strasser 1991; Broodbank 1999; Broodbank 2006. Vigne et al. 2009; Vigne et al. 2011; Vigne et al. 2012. For a discussion see Bar Yosef, this volume. Broodbank – Strasser 1991. Perlès – Vitelli 1999; Carter, this volume. Ammerman – Cavalli-Sforza 1971; Ammerman – Cavalli-Sforza 1984.

30

Maxime N. Brami

in this region, probably ‘arrhythmically’;141 the advent of farming in western Anatolia was initially delayed by up to 2000 calibrated years, and subsequently both sides of the Aegean adopted farming within a relatively short time, c. 6700/6600 calBC.142 In light of this, a pattern in which populations rapidly expanded at the onset of the Neolithic, perhaps due to increased regional carrying capacities and rise in female fertility in agricultural regions,143 is only half the story; initial agriculture ‘booms’ were probably followed by regional population ‘collapses’, accounting for the way in which Neolithic economies spread in Europe, in fits and starts.144 Most demographic studies to date have focussed on northern and central Europe,145 but two recent studies highlighted booms-and-busts in the Neolithic of Greece and the central Balkans.146 In sum, we are much closer today to understanding early farming expansion in Anatolia and southeast Europe, but the challenge will be to move from regional and continental-scale perspectives to fine-scale demographic inference, to understand how in a practical sense early farmers interacted with foragers, and with other farmers, during the initial phases of agricultural spread in Anatolia and southeast Europe. I am more sceptical regarding our ability to answer why farming spread, given that the spread of farming may have been a multifactorial event and that much of our evidence is circumstantial.

Organisation of the Volume This book forms the proceedings of the workshop held on the 26th of April, 2016 in the 10ICAANE Conference in Vienna. One ambition of this workshop and the corresponding publication was to bring together researchers working in central and western Anatolia, where research has traditionally proceeded in isolation. Several major excavation projects are represented, including Barcın (R. Özbal – F. Gerritsen), Boncuklu (D. Baird), Çatalhöyük (A. Marciniak) and Çukuriçi (B. Horejs). The order of the contributions follows logically the spread of Neolithic economies from east to west, and from the oldest Neolithic horizon to the youngest one. This covers a period from approximately 8500 to 5500 calBC in Anatolia. As you will see all contributions make an effort to synthetically integrate results from across Anatolia – thus giving an idea of where we are at regarding the Neolithic in the region. Some address more specifically the central/western Anatolian farming frontier (T. Carter, B. Horejs, A. Marciniak, M. Özdoğan, E. Rosenstock) or provide helpful case studies to conceptualise interactions between these regions (Ç. Çiligiroğlu). Archaeological perspectives dominate in the volume with one exception (T. Carter). We tried initially to have more of a balance between archaeological and specialist perspectives, but as already explained there is still a lot of work to be done to integrate the different categories of material and farming itself. I hope nonetheless that the reader will find this volume useful in drawing together large amounts of data that have only recently been published and contextualising them with the help of a panel of international experts (O. Bar-Yosef, M. Özdoğan, K. Kotsakis, J. Guilaine), who have kindly accepted to offer us their view on the Neolithic expansion in Anatolia and adjacent regions.

141

143 144

Guilaine 2000; Guilaine, this volume. Perlès et al. 2013; Weninger et al. 2014; Brami 2015; Brami – Zanotti 2015. Bocquet-Appel – Bar-Yosef 2008; Bocquet-Appel 2011. Shennan et al. 2013; Shennan 2018. Peaks and troughs in the summed probability distributions of calibrated 14C dates are taken to reflect changes in the intensity of settlement activity over time. The use of dates as data is still regularly called into question, but has been shown to be useful heuristically for broad regional and continental-scale questions, once a number of biases have been accounted for (e.g. sample selection, taphonomic processes, etc.). 145 Shennan et al. 2013; Manning et al. 2014; Timpson et al. 2014; etc. 146 Porčić et al. 2016; Weiberg et al. 2019. 142

Anatolia: From the Origins of Agriculture … to the Spread of Neolithic Economies

31

Acknowledgements: The research for this volume has been made possible by a grant from the Luxembourg National Research Fund [AFR Postdoc grant n° 9198128], hosted by the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology. Additional funding for the ICAANE Workshop on April 26, 2016 and the publication was organised by Barbara Horejs. I thank the Netherlands Institute in Turkey, the British Institute at Ankara and the German Archaeological Institute for hosting my stay in November 2017. I am by now a regular member of the Boncuklu excavation team led by Douglas Baird. I thank him for having me work at his site each summer and for useful feedback. Several colleagues have read and commented on drafts of this paper or contributed useful ideas: Ofer Bar-Yosef, Joachim Burger, Stephanie Emra, Ceren Kabukcu, Bogdana Milić, Antoine Muller, Rana Özbal and Bernhard Weninger. It goes without saying that all faults lie with me alone.

References Ammerman – Cavalli-Sforza 1971 A. J. Ammerman – L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, Measuring the rate of spread of early farming in Europe, Man, New Series 6, 4, 1971, 674–688. Ammerman – Cavalli-Sforza 1984 A. J. Ammerman – L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe (Princeton 1984). Arbuckle 2008 B. S. Arbuckle, Revisiting Neolithic caprine exploitation at Suberde, Turkey, Journal of Field Archaeology 33, 2, 2008, 219–236. Arbuckle 2013 B. S. Arbuckle, The late adoption of cattle and pig husbandry in Neolithic central Turkey, Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 4, 2013, 1805–1815. Arbuckle et al. 2009 B. S. Arbuckle – A. Öztan – S. Gülçur, The evolution of sheep and goat husbandry in central Anatolia, Anthropozoologica 44, 1, 2009, 129–157. Arbuckle et al. 2014 B. S. Arbuckle – S. W. Kansa – E. Kansa – D. Orton – C. Çakırlar – L. Gourichon – L. Atici – A. Galik – A. Marciniak – J. Mulville – H. Buitenhuis – D. Carruthers – B. De Cupere – A. Demirergi – S. Frame – D. Helmer – L. Martin – J. Peters – N. Pöllath – K. Pawłowska – N. Russell – K. Twiss – D. Würtenberger, Data sharing reveals complexity in the westward spread of domestic animals across Neolithic Turkey, PLoS One 9, 6, 2014, e99845. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0099845. Asouti – Fairbairn 2002 E. Asouti – A. S. Fairbairn, Subsistence economy in central Anatolia during the Neolithic. The archaeological evidence, in: F. Gérard – L. Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. Internal Developments and External Relations during the 9th–6th Millennia calBC (Istanbul 2002) 181–192. Atici et al. 2017 L. Atici – S. E. Pilaar Birch – B. Erdoğu, Spread of domestic animals across western Anatolia. New zooarchaeological evidence from Uğurlu Höyük, the island of Gökçeada, Turkey, PLoS One 12, 10, 2017, e186519. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0186519. Baird 1996 D. Baird, The Konya Plain Survey. Aims and methods, in: I. Hodder (ed.), On the Surface. Çatalhöyük 1993–95 (Cambridge 1996) 41–46. Baird 2012a D. Baird, Pınarbaşı. From Epi-Palaeolithic camp-site to sedentarising village in central Anatolia, in: M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 3: Central Turkey (Istanbul 2012) 181–218. Baird 2012b D. Baird, The Late Epipalaeolithic, Neolithic and Chalcolithic of the Anatolian Plateau, 13000–4000 BC calibrated, in: D. T. Potts (ed.), A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (Hoboken 2012) 431–465.

32

Maxime N. Brami

Baird 2014 D. Baird, Origins of caprine herding, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111, 24, 2014, 8702–8703. Baird et al. 2012 D. Baird – A. Fairbairn – L. Martin – C. Middleton, The Boncuklu Project. The origins of sedentism, cultivation and herding in central Anatolia, in: M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 3: Central Turkey (Istanbul 2012) 219–244. Baird et al. 2017 D. Baird – A. Fairbairn – L. Martin, The animate house, the institutionalization of the household in Neolithic Central Anatolia, World Archaeology 49, 5, 2017, 753–776. Baird et al. 2018 D. Baird – A. Fairbairn – E. Jenkins – L. Martin – C. Middleton – J. Pearson – E. Asouti – Y. Edwards – C. Kabukcu – G. Mustafaoğlu – N. Russell – O. Bar-Yosef – G. Jacobsen – X. Wu – A. Baker – S. Elliott, Agricultural origins on the Anatolian plateau, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115, 14, 2018, E3077–E3086. Barnard 2007 A. Barnard, From Mesolithic to Neolithic modes of thought, in: A. W. R. Whittle – V. Cummings (eds.), Going over the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in North-West Europe (Oxford 2007) 5–19. Bayliss et al. 2015 A. Bayliss – F. Brock – S. Farid – I. Hodder – J. Southon – R. E. Taylor, Getting to the bottom of it all. A Bayesian approach to dating the start of Çatalhöyük, Journal of World Prehistory 28, 2015, 1–26. Binder 2007 D. Binder, PPN pressure technology. Views from Anatolia, in: L. Astruc – D. Binder – F. Briois (eds.), Systèmes Techniques et Communautés du Néolithique Précéramique / Technical Systems and Near Eastern PPN Communities (Antibes 2007) 239–246. Bocquet-Appel 2011 J.-P. Bocquet-Appel, The agricultural demographic transition during and after the agriculture inventions, Current Anthropology 52, S4, 2011, S497–S510. Bocquet-Appel – Bar Yosef 2008 J.-P. Bocquet-Appel – O. Bar-Yosef (eds.), The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its Consequences (Dordrecht 2008). Bocquet-Appel et al. 2009 J.-P. Bocquet-Appel – S. Naji – M. Vander Linden – J. K. Kozlowski, Detection of diffusion and contact zones of early farming in Europe from the space-time distribution of 14C dates, Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 2009, 807–820. Bogaard 2004a A. Bogaard, Neolithic Farming in Central Europe. An Archaeobotanical Study of Crop Husbandry Practices (London 2004). Bogaard 2004b A. Bogaard, The nature of early farming in central and southeast Europe, Documenta Praehistorica 31, 2004, 49–58. Bogaard et al. 2017 A. Bogaard – D. Filipović – A. Fairbairn – L. Green – E. Stroud – D. Füller – M. Charles, Agricultural innovation and resilience in a long-lived early farming community. The 1,500-year sequence at Neolithic to early Chalcolithic Çatalhöyük, central Anatolia, Anatolian Studies 67, 2017, 1–28. Brami 2015 M. N. Brami, A graphical simulation of the 2,000-year lag in Neolithic occupation between central Anatolia and the Aegean Basin, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 7, 2015, 319–327. Brami 2017 M. N. Brami, The Diffusion of Neolithic Practices from Anatolia to Europe. A Contextual Study of Residential Construction, 8,500–5,500 BC Cal., BAR International Series 2838 (Oxford 2017).

Anatolia: From the Origins of Agriculture … to the Spread of Neolithic Economies

33

Brami – Heyd 2011 M. N. Brami – V. Heyd, The origins of Europe’s first farmers. The role of Hacılar and western Anatolia, fifty years on, Prähistorische Zeitschrift 86, 2, 2011, 165–206. Brami – Zanotti 2015 M. N. Brami – A. Zanotti, Modelling the initial expansion of the Neolithic out of Anatolia, Documenta Praehistorica 42, 2015, 103–116. Brami et al. 2016 M. N. Brami – B. Horejs – F. Ostmann, The ground beneath their feet. Building continuity at Neolithic Çukuriçi Höyük, Anatolian Studies 66, 2016, 1–16. Bronk Ramsey et al. 2002 C. Bronk Ramsey – T. F. G. Higham – D. C. Owen – W. G. Pike – R. E. M. Hedges, Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system. Archaeometry datelist 31, Archaeometry 44, 3, 2002, 1–149. Bronk Ramsey et al. 2009 C. Bronk Ramsey – T. F. G. Higham – F. Brock – D. Baker – P. Ditchfield, Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system. Archaeometry datelist 33, Archaeometry 51, 2, 2009, 323–349. Broodbank 1999 C. Broodbank, Colonization and configuration in the insular Neolithic of the Aegean, in: P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield 1999) 15–41. Broodbank 2006 C. Broodbank, The Making of the Middle Sea. A History of the Mediterranean from the Beginning to the Emergence of the Classical World (London 2006). Broodbank – Strasser 1991 C. Broodbank – T. F. Strasser, Migrant farmers and the Neolithic colonization of Crete, Antiquity 65, 1991, 233–245. Broushaki et al. 2016 F. Broushaki – M. G. Thomas – V. Link – S. López – L. van Dorp – K. Kirsanow – Z. Hofmanová – Y. Diekmann – L. M. Cassidy – D. Díez-del-Molino – A. Kousathanas – C. Sell – H. K. Robson – R. Martiniano – J. Blöcher – A. Scheu – S. Kreutzer – R. Bollongino – D. Bobo – H. Davudi – O. Munoz – M. Currat – K. Abdi – F. Biglari – O. E. Craig – D. G Bradley – S. J. Shennan – K. R. Veeramah – M. Mashkour – D. Wegmann – G. Hellenthal – J. Burger, Early Neolithic genomes from the eastern Fertile Crescent, Science 353, 2016, 499–503. Buitenhuis 1997 H. Buitenhuis, Aşıklı Höyük. A ‘protodomestication’ site, Anthropozoologica 25–26, 1997, 655–662. Buitenhuis 2004 H. Buitenhuis, Yumuktepe. The importance of Yumuktepe in the origin and spread of animal domestication, in: I. Caneva – V. Sevin (eds.), Mersin-Yumuktepe. A Reappraisal (Lecce 2004) 163–167. Buitenhuis 2008 H. Buitenhuis, Ilıpınar. The faunal remains from the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic levels, in: E. L. Vila – L. Gourichon – A. M. Choyke – H. Buitenhuis (eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East VIII. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas (Lyon 2008) 299–322. Çakırlar 2012a C. Çakırlar, The evolution of animal husbandry in Neolithic central-west Anatolia. The zooarchaeological record from Ulucak Höyük (c. 7040–5660 calBC, Izmir, Turkey), Anatolian Studies 62, 2012, 1–33. Çakırlar 2012b C. Çakırlar, Neolithic dairy technology at the European-Anatolian frontier. Implications of archaeozoological evidence from Ulucak Höyük, Izmir, Turkey, ca. 7000–5700 calBC, Anthropozoologica 47, 2, 2012, 77–98. Cappers 2008 R. T. J. Cappers, Plant remains from the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic levels, in: J. J. Roodenberg – S. Alpaslan Roodenberg (eds.), Life and Death in a Prehistoric Settlement in Northwest Anatolia. The Ilıpınar Excavations III. With Contributions on Hacılartepe and Menteşe (Leiden 2008) 117–148.

34

Maxime N. Brami

Cauvin 1994 J. Cauvin, Naissance des Divinités. Naissance de l’Agriculture. La Révolution des Symboles au Néolithique (Paris 1994). Chataigner et al. 2014 C. Chataigner – R. Badalyan – M. Arimura, The Neolithic of the Caucasus, Oxford Handbooks Online, 2014. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935413.013.13. Childe 1936 V. Gordon Childe, Man Makes Himself (London 1936). Childe 1950 V. Gordon Childe, Prehistoric Migrations in Europe (Oslo 1950). Çilingiroğlu 2012 Ç. Çilingiroğlu, The Neolithic Pottery of Ulucak in Aegean Turkey. Organization of Production, Interregional Comparisons and Relative Chronology, BAR International Series 2426 (Oxford 2012). Çilingiroğlu – Çakırlar 2013 Ç. Çilingiroğlu – C. Çakırlar, Towards configuring the neolithisation of Aegean Turkey, Documenta Praehistorica 40, 2013, 21–29. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012 A. Çilingiroğlu – Ö. Çevik – Ç. Çilingiroğlu, Ulucak Höyük. Towards understanding the early farming communities of middle west Anatolia. The contribution of Ulucak, in: M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 4: Western Turkey (Istanbul 2012) 139–175. Clare 2016 L. Clare, Culture Change and Continuity in the Eastern Mediterranean during Rapid Climate Change. Assessing the Vulnerability of Neolithic Communities to a “Little Ice Age” in the Seventh Millennium calBC (Rahden 2016). Clare – Weninger 2014 L. Clare – B. Weninger, The dispersal of Neolithic lifeways. Absolute chronology and rapid climate change in central and western Anatolia, in: M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 6: 10500–5200 BC. Environment, Settlement, Flora, Fauna, Dating, Symbols of Belief, with Views from North, South, East and West (Istanbul 2014) 1–65. Colledge et al. 2004 S. Colledge – J. Conolly – S. J. Shennan, Archaeobotanical evidence for the spread of farming in the eastern Mediterranean, Current Anthropology 45, 2004, S35–S58. Crassard – Drechsler 2013 R. Crassard – P. Drechsler, Towards new paradigms. Multiple pathways for the Arabian Neolithic, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 24, 1, 2013, 3–8. Darabi 2015 H. Darabi, An Introduction to the Neolithic Revolution of the Central Zagros, Iran, BAR International Series 2746 (Oxford 2015). De Cupere – Duru 2003 B. De Cupere – R. Duru, Faunal remains from Neolithic Höyücek (SW-Turkey) and the presence of early domestic cattle in Anatolia, Paléorient 29, 1, 2003, 107–120. De Cupere et al. 2008 B. De Cupere – R. Duru – G. Umurtak, Animal husbandry at the Early Neolithic to Early Bronze Age site of Bademağacı (Antalya Province, SW Turkey). Evidence from the faunal remains, in: E. L. Vila – L. Gourichon – A. M. Choyke – H. Buitenhuis (eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East VIII. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas (Lyon 2008) 367–405. Dennell 1983 R. Dennell, European Economic Prehistory. A New Approach (London 1983).

Anatolia: From the Origins of Agriculture … to the Spread of Neolithic Economies

35

Desrosiers 2012 P. M. Desrosiers (ed.), The Emergence of Pressure Blade Making. From Origin to Modern Experimentation (Quebec 2012). Drechsler 2009 P. Drechsler, The Dispersal of the Neolithic over the Arabian Peninsula, BAR International Series 1969 (Oxford 2009). Düring 2010 B. Düring, The Prehistory of Asia Minor. From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (Cambridge 2010). Düring 2013 B. S. Düring, Breaking the bond. Investigating the Neolithic expansion in Asia Minor in the seventh millennium BC, Journal of World Prehistory 26, 2, 2013, 75–100. Duru 2008 R. Duru, From 8000 BC to 2000 BC. Six Thousand Years of the Burdur-Antalya Region (Antalya 2008). Efe et al. 2012 T. Efe – I. Gatsov – P. Nedelcheva, Keçiçayırı. A Neolithic settlement near Seyitgazi, Eskişehir, in: M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 4: Western Turkey (Istanbul 2012) 227–236. Erdoğu 2016 B. Erdoğu, Neolithic housing in western Anatolia, in: K. Bacvarov – R. Gleser (eds.), Southeast Europe and Anatolia in Prehistory. Essays in Honor of Vassil Nikolov on his 65th Anniversary (Bonn 2016) 69–77. Erdoğu 2017 B. Erdoğu, Whither the Aegean Neolithic? in: Reingruber et al. 2017, 29–42. Esin – Harmankaya 1999 U. Esin – S. Harmankaya, Aşıklı, in: M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of Civilization. New Discoveries, Ancient Anatolian Civilizations Series 3 (Istanbul 1999) 114–132. Evershed et al. 2008 R. P. Evershed – S. Payne – A. G. Sherratt – M. S. Copley – J. Coolidge – D. Urem-Otsu – K. Kotsakis – M. Özdoğan – A. E. Özdoğan – O. Nieuwenhuyse – P. M. M. G. Akkermans – D. Bailey – R.-R. Andeescu – S. Campbell – S. Farid – I. Hodder – N. Yalman – M. Özbaşaran – E. Bıçakcı – Y. Garfinkel – D. Levy – M. M. Burton, Earliest date for milk use in the Near East and southeastern Europe linked to cattle herding, Nature 455, 2008, 528–531. Facorellis et al. 2001 Y. Facorellis – N. Kyparissi-Apostolika – Y. Maniatis, The cave of Theopetra, Kalambaka. Radiocarbon evidence for 50,000 years of human presence, Radiocarbon 43, 2B, 2001, 1029–1048. Fairbairn 2005 A. Fairbairn, A history of agricultural production at Neolithic Çatalhöyük East, Turkey, World Archaeology 37, 2, 2005, 197–210. Fairbairn et al. 2002 A. Fairbairn – J. Near – D. Martinoli, Macrobotanical investigations of the North, South and KOPAL areas at Çatalhöyük, in. Inhabiting Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons, McDonald Institute Monographs, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 38 (Cambridge 2005) 137–201. Feldman et al. 2019 M. Feldman – E. Fernández-Domínguez – L. Reynolds – D. Baird – J. Pearson – I. Hershkovitz – H. May – N. Goring-Morris – M. Benz – J. Gresky – R. A. Bianco – A. Fairbairn – G. Mustafaoğlu – P. W. Stockhammer – C. Posth – W. Haak – C. Jeong – J. Krause, Late Pleistocene human genomes suggest a local origin for the first farmers of central Anatolia, Nature Communications 10, 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-09209-7. Fletcher 1951 S. W. Fletcher, The expansion of the agricultural frontier, Pennsylvania History 18, 2, 1951, 119–129.

36

Maxime N. Brami

Fletcher et al. 2017 A. Fletcher – D. Baird – M. Spataro – A. Fairbairn, Early ceramics in Anatolia. Implications for the production and use of the earliest pottery. The evidence from Boncuklu Höyük, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27, 2, 2017, 351–369. Forenbaher – Miracle 2006 S. Forenbaher – P. T. Miracle, The spread of farming in the Eastern Adriatic, Documenta Praehistorica 33, 2006, 89–100. Furholt 2016 M. Furholt, Settlement layout and social organisation in the earliest European Neolithic, Antiquity 90, 353, 2016, 1196–1212. Galik – Horejs 2011 A. Galik – B. Horejs, Çukuriçi Höyük – various aspects of its earliest settlement phase, in: R. Krauß (ed.), Beginnings – New Research in the Appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin. Papers of the International Workshop 8th–9th April 2009, Istanbul Organized by Dan Ciobotaru, Barbara Horejs and Raiko Krauß, Menschen – Kulturen – Traditionen 1 (Rahden 2011) 83–94. Gauthier 2016 N. Gauthier, The spatial pattern of climate change during the spread of farming into the Aegean, Journal of Archaeological Science 75, 2016, 1–9. Gimbutas et al. 1989 M. Gimbutas – S. Winn – S. Shimabuku (eds.), Achilleion. A Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400–5600 BC (Los Angeles 1989). Götherström et al. 2005 A. Götherström – C. Anderung – L. Hellborg – R. Elburg – C. Smith – D. G. Bradley – H. Ellegren, Cattle domestication in the Near East was followed by hybridization with aurochs bulls in Europe, Proceedings of the Royal Society 272, 2005, 2345–2350. Guilaine 2000 J. Guilaine, La diffusion de l’agriculture en Europe. Une hypothèse arythmique, Zephyrus 53–54, 2000, 267–272. Halstead 1987 P. Halstead, Traditional and ancient rural economy in Mediterranean Europe. Plus ça change?, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 107, 1987, 77–87. Halstead 1996a P. Halstead, Pastoralism or household herding? Problems of scale and specialization in Early Greek animal husbandry, World Archaeology 28, 1, 1996, 20–42. Halstead 1996b P. Halstead, The development of agriculture and pastoralism in Greece. When, how, who and what?, in: D. R. Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia (London 1996) 296–309. Halstead – Isaakidou 2013 P. Halstead – V. Isaakidou, Early stock-keeping in Greece, in: S. Colledge – J. Conolly – K. Dobney – K. Manning – S. Shennan (eds.), The Origins and Spread of Domestic Animals in Southwest Asia and Europe (Walnut Creek 2013) 129–144. Harmankaya et al. 1998 S. Harmankaya – O. Tanindi – M. Özbaşaran, Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri / The archaeological settlements of Turkey (TAY Project). Neolithic. Online (last accessed 03.08.2018). Hodder 2006 I. Hodder, Çatalhöyük. The Leopard’s Tale. Revealing the Mysteries of Turkey’s Ancient ‘Town’ (London 2006). Hofmanová et al. 2016 Z. Hofmanová – S. Kreutzer – G. Hellenthal – C. Sell – Y. Diekmann – D. Díez-del-Molino – L. van Dorp – S. López – A. Kousathanas – V. Link – K. Kirsanow – L. M. Cassidy – R. Martiniano – M. Strobel – A. Scheu – K. Kotsakis – P. Halstead – S. Triantaphyllou – N. Kyparissi-Apostolika – D. Urem-Kotsou – C. Ziota – F. Adaktylou – S. Gopalanl – D. M. Bobo – L. Winkelbach – J. Blöcher – M. Unterländer – C. Leuenberger – Ç. Çilingiroğlu – B. Horejs –

Anatolia: From the Origins of Agriculture … to the Spread of Neolithic Economies

37

F. A. Gerritsen – S. J. Shennan – D. G. Bradley – M. Currat – K. R. Veeramahl – D. Wegmann – M. G. Thomas – C. Papageorgopoulou – J. Burger, Early farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113, 2016, 6886–6891. Horejs et al. 2015 B. Horejs – B. Milić – F. Ostmann – U. Thanheiser – B. Weninger – A. Galik, The Aegean in the early 7th millennium BC. Maritime networks and colonization, Journal of World Prehistory 28, 2015, 289–330. Itan et al. 2009 Y. Itan – A. Powell – M. A. Beaumont – J. Burger – M. G. Thomas, The origins of lactase persistence in Europe, PLoS Computational Biology 5, 8, 2009, e1000491. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000491. Kabo et al. 1985 V. Kabo – G. Y’Edynak – G. Forni – K. F. Galvin – D. L. Heskel – S. A. Rosen – V. A. Shnirelman – A. B. Smith – T. Watkins, The origins of the food-producing economy [and comments and reply], Current Anthropology 26, 5, 1985, 601–616. Kenyon 1956 K. M. Kenyon, Jericho and its setting in Near Eastern history, Antiquity 30, 120, 1956, 184–197. Kılınç et al. 2016 G. M. Kılınç – A. Omrak – T. Günther – A. M. Büyükkarakaya – E. Bıçakçı – D. Baird – H. M. Dönertaş – A. Ghalichi – R. Yaka – D. Koptekin – S. C. Açan – P. Parvizi – M. Krzewińska – E. A. Daskalaki – E. Yüncü – N. D. Dağtaş – A. Fairbairn – J. Pearson – G. Mustafaoğlu – Y. S. Erdal – Y. G. Çakan – İ. Togan – M. Somel – J. Storå – M. Jakobsson – A. Götherström, The demographic development of the first farmers in Anatolia, Current Biology 26, 19, 2016, 2659–2666. Kılınç et al. 2017 G. M. Kılınç – D. Koptekin – Ç. Atakuman – A. P. Sümer – H. M. Dönertaş – R. Yaka – C. C. Bilgin – A. M. Büyükkarakaya – D. Baird – E. Altınışık – P. Flegontov – A. Götherström – İ. Togan – M. Somel, Archaeogenomic analysis of the first steps of neolithization in Anatolia and the Aegean. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 284, 2017. doi: 10.1098/ rspb.2017.2064. Krauß et al. 2017 R. Krauß – E. Marinova – H. De Brue – B. Weninger, The rapid spread of early farming from the Aegean into the Balkans via the sub-Mediterranean-Aegean vegetation zone, Quaternary International 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2017.01.019. Lazaridis et al. 2016 I. Lazaridis – D. Nadel – G. Rollefson – D. C. Merrett – N. Rohland – S. Mallick – D. Fernandes – M. Novak – B. Gamarra – K. Sirak – S. Connell – K. Stewardson – E. Harney – Q. Fu – G. Gonzalez-Fortes – S. Alpaslan Roodenberg – G. Lengyel – F. Bocquentin – B. Gasparian – J. M. Monge – M. Gregg – V. Eshed – A.-S. Mizrahi – C. Meiklejohn – F. Gerritsen – L. Bejenaru – M. Blüher – A. Campbell – G. Cavalleri – D. Comas – P. Froguel – E. Gilbert – S. M. Kerr – P. Kovacs – J. Krause – D. McGettigan – M. Merrigan – D. A. Merriwether – S. O’Reilly – M. B. Richards – O. Semino – M. Shamoon-Pour – G. Stefanescu – M. Stumvoll – A. Tonjes – A. Torroni – J. F. Wilson – L. Yengo – N. A. Hovhannisyan – N. Patterson – R. Pinhasi – D. Reich, The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers, Nature 536, 2016, 419–424. Leonardi et al. 2012 M. Leonardi – P. Gerbault – M. G. Thomas – J. Burger, The evolution of lactase persistence in Europe. A synthesis of archaeological and genetic evidence, International Dairy Journal 22, 2012, 88–97. Lichter 2005 C. Lichter, Introduction to the workshop, in: C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th Through the First Half of the 6th Millennium calBC, Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005) 1–11. Lipson et al. 2017 M. Lipson – A. Szécsényi-Nagy – S. Mallick – A. Pósa – B. Stégmár – V. Keerl – N. Rohland – K. Stewardson – M. Ferry – M. Michel – J. Oppenheimer – N. Broomandkhoshbacht – E. Harney – S. Nordenfelt – B. Llamas – B. G. Mende – K. Köhler – K. Oross – M. Bondár – T. Marton – A. Osztás – J. Jakucs – T. Paluch – F. Horváth – P. Csengeri – J. Koós – K. Sebők – A. Anders – P. Raczky – J. Regenye – J. P. Barna – S. Fábián – G. Serlegi – Z. Toldi – E. Gyöngyvér Nagy – J. Dani – E. Molnár – G. Pálfi – L. Márk – B. Melegh – Z. Bánfai – L. Domboróczki – J. Fernández-Eraso – J. O. Mujika-Alustiza – C. Alonso Fernández – J. Jiménez Echevarría – R. Bollongino – J. Orschiedt – K. Schierhold –

38

Maxime N. Brami

H. Meller – A. Cooper – J. Burger – E. Bánffy – K. W. Alt – C. Lalueza-Fox – W. Haak – D. Reich, Parallel paleogenomic transects reveal complex genetic history of early European farmers, Nature 551, 2017, 368–372. Lloyd 1956 S. Lloyd, Early Anatolia (Harmondsworth 1956). Makal 2010 [1954] M. Makal, Un Village Anatolien (Paris 2010). Manning et al. 2014 K. Manning – A. Timpson – S. Colledge – E. Crema – K. Edinboroug – T. Kerig – S. Shennan, The chronology of culture. A comparative assessment of European Neolithic dating approaches, Antiquity 88, 2014, 1065–1080. Marciniak et al. 2015 A. Marciniak – M. Z. Barański – A. Bayliss – L. Czerniak – T. Goslar – J. Southon – R. E. Taylor, Fragmenting times. Interpreting a Bayesian chronology for the Late Neolithic occupation of Çatalhöyük East, Turkey, Antiquity 89, 343, 2015, 154–176. Martin et al. 2002 L. Martin – N. Russell – D. Carruthers, Animal remains from the central Anatolian Neolithic, in: F. Gérard – L. Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. Internal Developments and External Relations during the 9th–6th Millennia calBC (Istanbul 2002) 193–204. Martinoli – Nesbitt 2003 D. Martinoli – M. Nesbitt, Plant stores at Pottery Neolithic Höyücek, southwest Turkey, Anatolian Studies 53, 2003, 13–32. Mathews – Fazeli Nashli 2013 R. Matthews – H. Fazeli Nashli (eds.), The Neolithisation of Iran. The Formation of New Societies (Oxford, Oakville 2013). Mathieson et al. 2018 I. Mathieson – S. Alpaslan-Roodenberg – C. Posth – A. Szécsényi-Nagy – N. Rohland – S. Mallick – I. Olalde – N. Broomandkhoshbacht – F. Candilio – O. Cheronet – D. Fernandes – M. Ferry – B. Gamarra – G. González Fortes – W. Haak – E. Harney – E. Jones – D. Keating – B. Krause-Kyora – I. Kucukkalipci – M. Michel – A. Mittnik – K. Nägele – M. Novak – J. Oppenheimer – N. Patterson – S. Pfrengle – K. Sirak – K. Stewardson – S. Vai – S. Alexandrov – K. W. Alt – R. Andreescu – D. Antonović – A. Ash – N. Atanassova – K. Bacvarov – M. Balázs Gusztáv – H. Bocherens – M. Bolus – A. Boroneanţ – Y. Boyadzhiev – A. Budnik – J. Burmaz – S. Chohadzhiev – N. J. Conard – R. Cottiaux – M. Čuka – C. Cupillard – D. G. Drucker – N. Elenski – M. Francken – B. Galabova – G. Ganetsovski – B. Gély – T. Hajdu – V. Handzhyiska – K. Harvati – T. Higham – S. Iliev – I. Janković – I. Karavanić – D. J. Kennett – D. Komšo – A. Kozak – D. Labuda – M. Lari – C. Lazar – M. Leppek – K. Leshtakov – D. Lo Vetro – D. Los – I. Lozanov – M. Malina – F. Martini – K. McSweeney – H. Meller – M. Menđušić – P. Mirea – V. Moiseyev – V. Petrova – T. D. Price – A. Simalcsik – L. Sineo – M. Šlaus – V. Slavchev – P. Stanev – A. Starović – T. Szeniczey – S. Talamo – M. Teschler-Nicola – C. Thevenet – I. Valchev – F. Valentin – S. Vasilyev – F. Veljanovska – S. Venelinova – E. Veselovskaya – B. Viola – C. Virag – J. Zaninović – S. Zäuner – P. W. Stockhammer – G. Catalano – R. Krauß – D. Caramelli – G. Zariņa – B. Gaydarska – M. Lillie – A. G. Nikitin – I. Potekhina – A. Papathanasiou – D. Borić – C. Bonsall – J. Krause – R. Pinhasi – D. Reich, The genomic history of southeastern Europe, Nature 555, 2018, 197–203. doi: 10.1038/nature25778. Mellaart 1961 J. Mellaart, Excavations at Hacilar. Fourth preliminary report, Anatolian Studies 11, 1961, 39–75. Mellaart 1964 J. Mellaart, Anatolia. Before c. 4000 B.C. and c. 2300–1750 B.C. (Cambridge1964). Mellaart 1967 J. Mellaart, Çatal Höyük. A Neolithic Town in Anatolia (New York 1967). Milić 2014 M. Milić, PXRF characterisation of obsidian from central Anatolia, the Aegean and central Europe, Journal of Archaeological Science 41, 285–296.

Anatolia: From the Origins of Agriculture … to the Spread of Neolithic Economies

39

Milić in press B. Milić, An addendum to the PPNB interaction sphere. The lithic package from 7th millennium BC Çukuriçi Höyük in western Anatolia, in: L. Astruc – C. McCartney – F. Briois – V. Kassianidou (eds.), Near Eastern Lithic Technologies on the Move. Interactions and Contexts in Neolithic Traditions. 8th International Conference on PPN Chipped and Ground Stone Industries of the Near East, Nicosia, November 23rd–27th 2016, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology CL (in press). Milić – Horejs 2017 B. Milić – B. Horejs, The onset of pressure blade making in western Anatolia in the 7th millennium BC. A case study from Neolithic Çukuriçi Höyük, in: B. Horejs, Çukuriçi Höyük 1. Anatolia and the Aegean from the 7th to the 3rd Millennium BC, Oriental and European Archaeology 5 (Vienna 2017) 27–52. Milojčić 1962 V. Milojčić, Die präkeramische neolithische Siedlung von Argissa in Thessalien, in: V. Milojčić – J. Boessneck – M. Hopf, Das präkeramische Neolithikum sowie die Tier- und Pflanzenreste, Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa-Magula in Thessalien I, Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 2 (Bonn 1962) 1–25. Mortensen 1970 P. Mortensen, Chipped stone industry, in: J. Mellaart (ed.), Excavations at Hacılar. Vol. I (Edinburgh 1970) 153–156. Muller et al. 2018 A. Muller – C. Clarkson – D. Baird – A. Fairbairn, Reduction intensity of backed blades. Blank consumption, regularity and efficiency at the early Neolithic site of Boncuklu, Turkey, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21, 2018, 721–732. Ottoni et al. 2013 C. Ottoni – L. G. Flink – A. Evin – C. Geörg – B. De Cupere – W. Van Neer – L. Bartosiewicz – A. Linderholm – R. Barnett – J. Peters – R. Decorte – M. Waelkens – N. Vanderheyden – F.-X. Ricaut – C. Çakırlar – Ö. Çevik – A. R. Hoelzel – M. Mashkour – A. F. M. Karimlu – S. S. Seno – J. Daujat – F. Brock – R. Pinhasi – H. Hongo – M. Perez-Enciso – M. Rasmussen – L. Frantz – H.-J. Megens – R. Crooijmans – M. Groenen – B. S. Arbuckle – N. Benecke – U. S. Vidarsdottir – J. Burger – T. Cucchi – K. Dobney – G. Larson, Pig domestication and human-mediated dispersal in western Eurasia revealed through ancient DNA and geometric morphometrics, Molecular Biology and Evolution 30, 4, 2013, 824–832. Özbaşaran – Buitenhuis 2002 M. Özbaşaran – H. Buitenhuis, Proposal for a regional terminology for central Anatolia, in: F. Gérard – L. Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. Internal Developments and External Relations during the 9th–6th Millennia calBC (Istanbul 2002) 67–77. Özdoğan 2011 M. Özdoğan, Archaeological evidence on the westward expansion of farming communities from eastern Anatolia to the Aegean and the Balkans, Current Anthropology 52, S4, 2011, S415–S430. Özdoğan – Gatsov 1998 M. Özdoğan – I. Gatsov, The aceramic Neolithic period in western Turkey and in the Aegean, Anatolica 24, 1998, 209–232. Pearson et al. 2007 J. A. Pearson – H. Buitenhuis – R. E. M. Hedges – L. Martin – N. Russell – K. Twiss, New light on early caprine herding strategies from isotope analysis. A case study from Neolithic Anatolia, Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 2007, 2170–2179. Perlès 2001 C. Perlès, The Early Neolithic in Greece. The First Farming Communities in Europe (Cambridge 2001). Perlès 2003 C. Perlès, An alternate (and old-fashioned) view of neolithization in Greece, Documenta Praehistorica 30, 2003, 99–113. Perlès – Vitelli 1999 C. Perlès – K. D. Vitelli, Craft specialization in the Neolithic of Greece, in: P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield 1999) 96–107.

40

Maxime N. Brami

Perlès et al. 2011 C. Perlès – T. Takaoğlu – B. Gratuze, Melian obsidian in NW Turkey. Evidence for early Neolithic trade, Journal of Field Archaeology 36, 1, 2011, 42–59. Perlès et al. 2013 C. Perlès – A. Quiles – H. Valladas, Early seventh-millennium AMS dates from domestic seeds in the Initial Neolithic at Franchthi Cave (Argolid, Greece), Antiquity 87, 338, 2013, 1001–1015. Porčić et al. 2016 M. Porčić – T. Blagojević – S. Stefanović, Demography of the Early Neolithic population in Central Balkans. Population dynamics reconstruction using summed radiocarbon probability distributions, PLoS One 11, 8, 2016, e0160832. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160832. Reimer et al. 2009 P. J. Reimer – M. G. L. Baillie – E. Bard – A. Bayliss – J. W. Beck – P. G. Blackwell – C. Bronk Ramsey – C. E. Buck – G. S. Burr – R. L. Edwards – M. Friedrich – P. M. Grootes – T. P. Guilderson – I. Hajdas – T. J. Heaton – A. G. Hogg – K. A. Hughen – K. F. Kaiser – B. Kromer – F. G. McCormac – S. W. Manning – R. W. Reimer – D. A. Richards – J. R. Southon – S. Talamo – C. S. M. Turney – J. van der Plicht, IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP, Radiocarbon 51, 4, 2009, 1111–1150. Reingruber 2008 A. Reingruber, Die Argissa-Magula. Das frühe und das beginnende mittlere Neolithikum im Lichte transägäischer Beziehungen, Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa-Magula in Thessalien II, Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 35 (Bonn 2008). Reingruber 2015 A. Reingruber, Preceramic, Aceramic or Early Ceramic? The radiocarbon dated beginning of the Neolithic in the Aegean, Documenta Praehistorica 42, 2015, 147–158. Reingruber – Thissen 2009 A. Reingruber – L. Thissen, Depending on 14C data. Chronological frameworks in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of southeastern Europe, Radiocarbon 51, 2, 2009, 751–770. Reingruber et al. 2017 A. Reingruber – Z. Tsirtsoni – P. Nedelcheva (eds.), Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians. Proceedings of the EAA Conference, Istanbul, 11 September 2014, Themes in Contemporary Archaeology 3 (London 2017). Riehl et al. 2013 S. Riehl – M. Zeidi – N. J. Conard, Emergence of agriculture in the foothills of the Zagros mountains of Iran, Science 341, 6141, 2013, 65–67. Russell et al. 2005 N. Russell – L. Martin – H. Buitenhuis, Cattle domestication at Çatalhöyük revisited, Current Anthropology 46, S5, 2005, S101–S108. Salque et al. 2013 M. Salque – P. I. Bogucki – J. Pyzel – I. Sobkowiak-Tabaka – R. Grygiel – M. Szmyt – R. P. Evershed, Earliest evidence for cheese making in the sixth millennium BC in northern Europe, Nature 493, 2013, 522–525. Sampson 2006 Α. Σάμψων / A. Sampson, Η προϊστορία του Αιγαίου. Παλαιολιθική – Μεσολιθική – Νεολιθική / The Prehistory of the Aegean Basin. Palaeolithic – Mesolithic – Neolithic (Athens 2006). Sampson 2008 A. Sampson, The Cave of the Cyclops. Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece. Vol. I: Intra-site Analysis, Local Industries, and Regional Site Distribution, Prehistory Monographs 21 (Philadelphia 2008). Sampson 2010 Α. Σάμψων / A. Sampson, Μεσολιθική Ελλάδα. 9000–6500 π. Χ. Παλαιοπεριβάλλον – Οικονομία – Τεχνολογία / Mesolithic Greece. 9000 – 6500 BC. Palaeoenvironment – Palaeoeconomy – Technology (Athens 2010).

Anatolia: From the Origins of Agriculture … to the Spread of Neolithic Economies

41

Schoop 2005 U. D. Schoop, The late escape of the Neolithic from the central Anatolian plain, in: C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium calBC. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul 20–22 May 2004, Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005) 41–58. Shennan 2018 S. J. Shennan, The First Farmers of Europe. An Evolutionary Perspective (Cambridge 2018). Shennan et al. 2013 S. J. Shennan – S. S. Downey – A. Timpson – K. Edinborough – S. Colledge – K. Kerig – K. Manning – M. G. Thomas, Regional population collapse followed initial agriculture booms in mid-Holocene Europe, Nature Communications 4, 2013, 2486. doi: 10.1038/ncomms3486. Sherratt 2007 A. Sherratt, Diverse origins. Regional contributions to the genesis of farming, in: S. Colledge – J. Conolly (eds.), The Origins and Spread of Domestic Plants in Southwest Asia and Europe (Walnut Creek 2007) 1–20. Stiner et al. 2014 M. Stiner – H. Buitenhuis – G. Duru – S. L. Kuhn – S. M. Mentzer – N. D. Munro – N. Pöllath – J. Quade – G. Tsartsidou – M. Özbaşaran, A forager-herder trade-off, from broad-spectrum hunting to sheep management at Aşıklı Höyük, Turkey, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111, 23, 2014, 8404–8409. Stirling 1965 P. Stirling, Turkish Village (New York 1965). Takaoğlu et al. 2014 T. Takaoğlu – T. Korkut – B. Erdoğu – G. Işın, Archaeological evidence for 9th and 8th millennia BC at Girmeler Cave near Tlos in SW Turkey, Documenta Praehistorica 41, 2014, 111–118. Theocharis 1967 Δ. Θεοχάρης, Η Αυγή της Θεσσαλικής Προϊστορίας (Volos 1967). Theocharis 1973 D. R. Theocharis (ed.), Neolithic Greece (Athens 1973). Thissen et al. 2010 L. Thissen – H. Özbal – A. Türkekul Bıyık – F. A. Gerritsen – R. Özbal, The land of milk? Approaching dietary preferences of Late Neolithic communities in NW Anatolia, Leiden Journal of Pottery Studies 26, 2010, 157–171. Timpson et al. 2014 A. Timpson – S. Colledge – E. Crema – K. Edinborough – T. Kerig – K. Manning – M. G. Thomas – S. J. Shennan, Reconstructing regional population fluctuations in the European Neolithic using radiocarbon dates. A new case-study using an improved method, Journal of Archaeological Science 52, 2014, 549–557. Van Andel – Runnels 1995 T. van Andel – C. N. Runnels, The earliest farmers in Europe, Antiquity 69, 264, 1995, 481–500. Van Zeist – de Roller 1995 W. van Zeist – G. J. de Roller, Plant remains from Asikli Höyük, a pre-pottery Neolithic site in central Anatolia, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 4, 1995, 179–185. Vigne et al. 2009 J.-D. Vigne – A. Zazzo – J.-F. Saliège – F. Poplin – J. Guilaine – A. Simmons, Pre-Neolithic wild boar management and introduction to Cyprus more than 11,400 years ago, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106, 38, 2009, 16135–16138. Vigne et al. 2011 J.-D. Vigne – I. Carrère – F. Briois – J. Guilaine, The early process of mammal domestication in the Near East. New evidence from the Pre-Neolithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic in Cyprus, Current Anthropology 52, S4, 2011, S255– S271.

42

Maxime N. Brami

Vigne et al. 2012 J.-D. Vigne – F. Briois – A. Zazzo – G. Willcox – T. Cucchi – S. Thiébault – I. Carrère – Y. Franel – R. Touquet – C. Martin – C. Moreau – C. Comby – J. Guilaine, First wave of cultivators spread to Cyprus at least by 10,600 y ago, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109, 22, 2012, 8445–8449. Watkins 2010 T. Watkins, New light on Neolithic revolution in southwest Asia, Antiquity 84, 2010, 621–634. Weeks 2013 L. R. Weeks, The development and expansion of a Neolithic way of life, in: D. T. Potts (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran (Oxford 2013) 49–75. Weiberg et al. 2019 E. Weiberg – A. Bevan – K. Kouli – M. Katsianis – J. Woodbridge – A. Bonnier – M. Engel – M. Finné – R. Fyfe – Y. Maniatis – A. Palmisano – S. Panajiotidis – C. N. Roberts – S. J. Shennan, Long-term trends of land use and demography in Greece. A comparative study, The Holocene 29, 5, 2019, 742–760. Weninger 2014 B. Weninger, CalPal-database. Online (last accessed 03.08.2018). Weninger 2017 B. Weninger, Niche construction and theory of agricultural origins. Case studies in punctuated equilibrium, Documenta Praehistorica 44, 2017, 2–18. Weninger – Jöris 2008 B. Weninger – O. A. Jöris, A 14C age calibration curve for the last 60 ka. The Greenland-Hulu U/Th timescale and its impact on understanding the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in western Eurasia, Journal of Human Evolution 55, 5, 2008, 772–781. Weninger et al. 2005 B. Weninger – E. Alram-Stern – E. Bauer – L. Clare – U. Danzeglocke – O. Jöris – C. Kubatzki – G. Rollefson – H. Todorova, Die Neolithisierung von Südosteuropa als Folge des abrupten Klimawandels um 8200 calBP, in: D. Gronenborn (ed.), Klimaveränderung und Kulturwandel in neolithischen Gesellschaften Mitteleuropas 6700–2200 v. Chr. / Climate Variability and Cultural Change in Neolithic Societies in Central Europe, 6700–2200 calBC, RGZM Tagungen 1 (Mainz 2005) 75–117. Weninger et al. 2014 B. Weninger – L. Clare – F. A. Gerritsen – B. Horejs – R. Krauß – J. Lindstädter – R. Özbal – E. Rohling, Neolithization of the Aegean and southeast Europe during the 6600–6000 calBC period of rapid climate change, Documenta Praehistorica 41, 2014, 1–31. Zeder 2017 M. A. Zeder, Out of the Fertile Crescent. The dispersal of domestic livestock through Europe and Africa, in: N. Boivin – R. Crassard – M. Petraglia (eds.), Human Dispersal and Species Movement. From Prehistory to the Present (Cambridge 2017) 261–303. Zohary 1996 D. Zohary, The mode of domestication of the founder crops of southwest Asian agriculture, in: D. R. Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia (London 1996) 142–158. Zohary et al. 2012 D. Zohary – M. Hopf – E. Weiss, Domestication of Plants in the Old World. The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants in Southwest Asia, Europe and the Mediterranean Basin (Oxford 2012). Zvelebil 1986 M. Zvelebil, Hunters in Transition. Mesolithic Societies of Temperate Eurasia and their Transition to Farming (Cambridge, New York 1986). Zvelebil 1998 M. Zvelebil, Agricultural frontiers, Neolithic origins, and the transition to farming in the Baltic Basin, in: M. Zvelebil – R. Dennell – L. Domańska (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest. The Emergence of Neolithic Societies in the Baltic Region (Sheffield 1998) 9–28.

Anatolia: From the Origins of Agriculture … to the Spread of Neolithic Economies

43

Zvelebil 2001 M. Zvelebil, The agricultural transition and the origins of Neolithic society in Europe, Documenta Praehistorica 28, 2001, 1–26. Zvelebil – Lillie 2000 M. Zvelebil – M. Lillie, Transition to agriculture in eastern Europe, in: T. D. Price (ed.), Europe’s First Farmers (Cambridge 2000) 57–92.

44

Maxime N. Brami

When and Why Holocene Levantine Farmers Moved Westward?

45

When and Why Holocene Levantine Farmers Moved Westward? Ofer Bar-Yosef 1 Abstract: This paper suggests that the ‘core area’ of the northern Levant (southeast Turkey and northern Syria) was the centre of technological, economic and new social organisations that heralded the Neolithic Revolution. Local populations of foragers in the Fertile Crescent, due to mounting pressures on free mobility for securing their subsistence, became historically responsible for laying the foundations of sedentary agro-pastoral societies. This revolution, also known as the transition from hunting and gathering to farming, resulted from long-term experience of cultivation of a suite of wild plants when demands for food in a given territory became drastically limited. Restrictions on seasonal and/or annual movements of bands of foragers resulted from increasing numbers of consumers due to climatic improvements and population growth after the Late Glacial Maximum and during the Terminal Pleistocene. Limited access to alternative patches meant decreased mobility and higher demands for vegetal food, which is the basis of survival in this region. In the course of this process in the northern Levant, the selection of particular cereals and legumes for systematic cultivation resulted in establishing the Domestication Syndrome accompanied by the managing of goat, sheep, cattle and pigs. Given the prime economic and technological position of this ‘core area’, its achievements impacted neighbouring areas. Short or long distance migrations of growing populations who, in addition to their new survival strategies, also carried new ideas about novel social organisations. The process assisted the transfer of knowledge, technology and living products to newly colonised localities. The first to be settled by the farmers was Cyprus and only later central Anatolia. In spite of certain ambiguities produced by the available radiocarbon chronology and the paucity of plant remains in a number of sites, the information from areas beyond the ‘core area’, was recently improved. The bulk of the available dates demonstrates that there are no contemporary centres for the emergence of agriculture within southwestern Asia. Keywords: Fertile Crescent, Levant, domestication, dispersals, Cyprus, central Anatolia

Introduction In order to identify, even tentatively, several of the reasons for the dispersal of agriculture from Anatolia into Europe, we have to examine the source area, where the main achievements of the Neolithic Revolution were first accomplished. A better understanding of the economic processes that resulted in social changes, as well as their symbolic behaviour in the core area of the Levant, will help us to suggest improved interpretations concerning the dispersals through Anatolia, southeast Europe and the circum-Mediterranean lands. Issues involved in the expansion of agricultural systems on land and by sea, causing interactions between migrating farmers and local foragers, and the transfer of knowledge, will be briefly discussed. Observed shifts in the choice of symbols or the formation of new cosmologies among farmers, which influenced populations of hunter-gatherers, became critical elements in this evolutionary puzzle. Different deities representing natural agencies admired by foragers continued to be venerated by the farmers due to the power of local traditions, however, reverence for the fertility of soils, animals and females was added to the old suite of gods. Migration, an aspect discussed in this paper, is a feature embedded in mammalian behaviour. Humans are not different. Migration has characterised human social behaviour during the last two million years since the early days of hominin evolution in Africa. Foragers move daily, seasonally

1

Harvard University, Department of Anthropology, USA, [email protected].

46

Ofer Bar-Yosef

or annually from one locality to another in order to secure their subsistence.2 Other reasons may trigger additional moves such as avoiding or escaping aggression of competing groups. Fissioning due to internal rivalries may cause small range movements of some members of a band or a clan. Climatic fluctuations may increase search time when predictable annual food resources decline and could affect bands and even entire tribes. Bands of one tribe could be threatened by a foreign tribe and are forced to react. Physical conflicts are recorded in the vast literature concerning human violence.3 Farmers move for similar reasons, such as social pressures within the village that may cause certain families to split and establish a new village or return to a foraging mode of subsistence.4 Lingering impacts of soil depletion, consecutive droughts or epidemics could cause the demise of a village population, or the deterioration of the social structure.5 In the last two decades, recent developments in palaeogenetics allow us to partially sort between local economic developments and groups’ relocations leading to population intermixing as the outcome of the Neolithic Revolution within the larger area of southwestern Asia.6 Hence, given the subject of the symposium I will briefly discuss the initial phase of ‘when’ and ‘where’ agriculture emerged as a new subsistence system in the core area of the northern Levant. The resulting behavioural changes were critical either on the individual level – increased labour division by gender – as well as the appearance and disappearance of new social organisations within a larger geographic area. This will be followed by a brief summary of the dispersals of the new subsistence system into neighbouring areas, and although it took different directions I will focus on the transmission of this ‘agricultural package’ to central Anatolia. The process of the colonisation of an area already occupied by foragers was associated with social reorganisation of the colonists, in the course of being impacted by the interactions with the native hunter-gatherers. Similar summaries concerning routes and rates of movements including standstills have already been discussed in the literature.7 In this context, my contribution addresses two issues. First, by summarising the evidence for two phases of economic changes during the Neolithic in the Levant, it suggests a somewhat elaborate view of the Neolithic core area in the Levant presented elsewhere.8 It will include a brief explanation of the formation processes of villages as larger communities than the previously known foragers’ sites. Second, I will speculate on the various impacts of migratory groups and the results of their cultural transmissions into central Anatolia. In building our models, we use the information gathered among hunter-gatherers and farmers that are ethnographically and historically recorded among populations in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and the Americas. Schematically, there are differences between the two socio-economic systems. Foragers have a flexible social structure, use a degree of personal and group cooperation in getting food, are subject to seasonal movements (including strategies of anticipated mobility), demonstrate the occurrence of physical conflicts and have a complex belief system. Farmers need a tighter societal organisation (evolving into hierarchies as population increases), maintenance of social agreements, a stable economy equipped with buffering techniques against famine, geographic proximity of partners for mating and have similar complexity of belief systems.9 Dramatic clashes between local foraging societies and farming communities were most often due to the invasion of the latter and are known from historical records assembled during

2 3

4 5 6 7

8 9



Binford 2001. Gat 2015 and references therein. Oota et al. 2005. Bandy 2004. E.g. Broushaki et al. 2016; Kılınç et al. 2016; Lazaridis et al. 2016. E.g. Ammerman – Cavalli-Sforza 1984; van Andel – Runnels 1995; Guilaine 2000; Özdoğan 2005; Perlès 2010; Özdoğan 2011; Bellwood 2013; Perlès et al. 2013; Brami – Zanotti 2015; Bar-Yosef 2016a; Brami 2017; Özdoğan 2017; Guilaine, this volume. Lev-Yadun et al. 2000; Bar-Yosef 2016a; Abbo – Gopher 2017. E.g. Wiessner 2016.

When and Why Holocene Levantine Farmers Moved Westward?

47

the establishment of European settlements in North America and Australia.10 Undoubtedly, the available ethnographic documents benefit our interpretations, but model building for interpreting the past requires testing. The expansion of farmers into Europe during the Neolithic was and is constantly discussed by archaeologists, who have recently been joined by palaeogeneticists, but the interpretations of the archaeological remains that document this process still raise certain doubts among scholars.11 Before delving into the subject of this paper, it is essential to note that populations of hunter-gatherers in the Old World grew during the Terminal Pleistocene, especially after the biological ‘bottleneck’ caused by the impact of the extremely cold conditions of the Late Glacial Maximum (c. 24–18 ka calBP). Growing populations faced amplified competition for resources leading to physical conflicts.12 The presence of several domesticable plants and animals were a unique combination that created ecological advantages in southwestern Asia facilitating the transition to an agro-pastoral society. Once cultivation and animal tending began, the newly formed economy became successful.13 Similar processes based on fewer resources are archaeologically recorded in other ‘centres of domestication’ including north and south China, Meso-and northern South America.14 Cultivation by foragers in the Levant as well as in other areas was probably tried several times in the past before it became a necessity. This may have happened among semi-sedentary or fully sedentary communities of the Natufian and was continued later by PPNA cultures.15 All built flimsy huts or houses that were round or oval in plan. Such houses characterised the Natufian as well as early Neolithic societies demonstrating that it took hundreds of years of economic and social changes for farmers to shift their plans to square and rectangular buildings. More than the increase in the number of people, it seems that the new house plans were better adapted to the increase of family wealth and for guarding private property. During the process of the regional transition from foraging to farming, some groups (clans?) of hunter-gatherers became cultivators (who continued to gather and hunt), while others remained loyal to old lifeways. The former adopted several or all of the new techniques, as well as plants and animals from their neighbours and became in due course the ‘new farmers’. Other foraging groups, located in ecologically marginal areas continued to hold their traditional lifeways, risked demise and sooner or later several adopted pastoralism.

The Levant: General Comments Geographically, the Levant is defined as the area stretching from the Taurus foothills (southeast Turkey) including the northern Tigris basin, the Euphrates valley, the two sides of the Dead Sea Rift valley as well as the Sinai Peninsula. Terms equating ‘Anatolia’ with modern Turkey, or ‘Upper Mesopotamia’ for the area between the two rivers in southeast Turkey and northern Syria are misleading. The Levantine records, it should be stressed, enjoy an unequal amount of archaeological information, although biased geographically, due to the current geopolitical situation. Field research in Israel and Jordan did not cease during the last 60 years and uncovered numerous Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic sites. Research in Syria and southeast Turkey recovered rare occurrences of Epipalaeolithic sites due to the use of different surveying techniques and a certain amount of local administrative limitations, but discovered a good number of Neolithic villages. The result is that

10

12 13 14 15 11

Gat 2015. E.g. Budja 2013. E.g. Cohen 2011 and references therein; Gat 2015 and references therein. E.g. Childe 1952; Diamond 1997; Diamond 2012. E.g. Piperno – Pearsall 1998; Blake 2016; Bar-Yosef 2016a and references therein. Willcox – Stordeur 2012; Ibáñez et al. 2016.

48

Ofer Bar-Yosef

the number of recorded and tested sites in the southern Levant is larger than in the northern area (Fig.1). However, in many cases the preservation in the northern Neolithic sites was better and the exposed areas larger than in the south. Flotation for the recovery of botanical remains was practiced in the north at more sites than in the south. This is evident from published summaries reporting the occurrences of plant remains.16 Hence, the northern ‘core area’, although not as extensively researched as the southern Levant, provides the needed archaeological evidence for documenting when a suite of plants was first cultivated and domesticated, as well as the domestication process of goat, sheep, cattle and pig.17 Skipping the description of how cereals became domesticated, we should note that their cultivation was undoubtedly feasible since 21000 BC, and so was their consumption, as demonstrated by starch analysis.18 Although we do not have additional evidence, during the Natufian (c. 13000–9700 calBC) microwear analysis19 indicates the harvesting of cereals for food. Growing wild cereals (einkorn, wheat and barley) since the PPNA from c. 9700 through 8800 or 8500 calBC allowed for population growth expressed by site size. From small Natufian hamlets of up to c. 0.2ha, villages grew to reach three times and more than the latter. Among the villages, Mureybet with c. 0.7ha and Jerf el Ahmar of close to 1.4ha are the largest. Göbekli Tepe, as a central ceremonial centre reached c. 0.4ha in size. Among PPNB sites, Abu Hureyra reached 12ha, Akarçay Tepe 5.2ha, Bouqras 5ha, and Halula 8.3ha.20 Harvesting techniques are recorded through the analysis of sickles employed in cutting ripe or still partially green cereals. The gloss formed during the Natufian was the result of harvesting mostly green cereals.21 Intensive exploitation of wild cereals for making flour or porridge is feasible as shown by one experiment.22 The first cultivating communities during the PPNA (10000–8800/500 calBC) were situated on alluvial plains either along the rivers or on the fans of smaller tributaries descending into the main valleys such as the Euphrates and the Jordan valleys. These environments, some of which were close to the original habitats of cereals, were probably cleared from local vegetation to make space for fields, whether tilled, hoed or simply sown without soil preparation. Trees were felled and used for buildings and as firewood as testified by microscopic wear on the working edges of early axes.23 The high frequency of cereals in floated samples from Jerf el-Ahmar demonstrates that cultivation prior to full domestication was sufficient for feeding a larger population than the average Natufian hamlet.24 Subsistence based on cereals was vulnerable to unpredictable hazards, whether harsh winters (e.g. frequent hail), low amount of winter rain, soil depletion, as well as social upheavals among members of the villages and raiding by neighbouring groups (hunter-gatherers?) searching for food, females or booty. However, the increase of regional population is evident already during the PPNA before the time when the Domestication Syndrome was accomplished.25 In my view, therefore, the onset of the PPNA was the start of the Neolithic Revolution and the additional increase, or second step, occurred during the PPNB (from c. 8800/8500 calBC) and from that time on all edible plants were domesticated and the largest sites reached 12ha in size.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17

E.g. Abbo et al. 2012; Asouti – Fuller 2012; Zohary et al. 2012; Asouti – Fuller 2013; Fuller et al. 2012. E.g. Lev-Yadun et al. 2000; Zeder 2012; Martin – Edwards 2013; Arbuckle 2014; Arbuckle et al. 2014; Vigne 2015. Snir et al. 2015. Ibáñez et al. 2016. All estimates are based on the published site maps. Ibáñez et al. 2016 and references therein. Eitam et al. 2015. Yerkes et al. 2003. Willcox – Stordeur 2012; Willcox 2012; contra Bowles 2011. Bocquet-Appel 2011.

When and Why Holocene Levantine Farmers Moved Westward?

49

The Northern Levant Understanding the socio-economic geography of the northern Levant must take into account the presence of two different economic and social regimes documented in the region. They are (a) the Tigris valley and (b) the Euphrates province where during the first millennium of the Holocene (c.12000–10800 calBC) different socio-economic systems characterised by their particular cultural markers were accommodated. The ‘Tigris province’ stretched along the Tigris River valley and its tributaries that descend from the arc of the Taurus-Zagros Mountains. It was a land of sedentary hunter-gatherers. Sites such as Hallan Çemi, Körtik Tepe, Gusir Höyük, Demirköy and Hasankeyf Höyük26 represent a society of complex foragers who built semi-subterranean round houses and subsisted on hunting and intensive exploitation of plants, similarly to other foragers in the Taurus area.27 The excavations of these sites produced minimal evidence for the collection of cereals, but as sedentary hunter-gatherers, perhaps, they either gathered or even cultivated some of the local plants. As an example, the evidence from Hallan Çemi and Demirköy (second half of the 10th millennium BC) demonstrates that dock/knot grass (Rumex/Polygonum), sea club-rush (Bolboschoenus maritimus type), vicia and Lathyrus as well as less then 5% of wild wheat and barley were gathered, according to traditional interpretations. The earliest dates from Körtik Tepe at c. 10000 calBC28 suggest that the incipient occupation was before the end of the Younger Dryas and could have happened earlier by people in the neighbouring areas of the Taurus Mountains due to mounting social pressures caused by environmental hazards. We should note that only in this mound was the earlier layer reached and dated. The second trait of the Tigris mounds is that their depositional sequences reached 5–8m thick while occupying the same surface of up to one hectare. The size of this foraging population was about five times larger than the estimates made for the largest Natufian sites, which generally survived in drier environments. In addition, the abundance of radiocarbon dates of the 10/9th millennia calBC indicates rapid accumulation of organic matter. The rounded, high mounds had the advantage of being topographically elevated above the flat valley. This situation could have been for defensive needs or to avoid being flooded. The lithic assemblages demonstrate the continuity from the microlithic Trialetian/Zarzian Late Palaeolithic tradition, producing triangles and lunates, as well as scrapers, blades and bladelets. The shaped arrowheads are generally known as Nemrik and Gusir points. In addition to the lithic industries, chlorite bowls produced in abundance in Körtik Tepe are found in local sites and more importantly in the farming villages of the # basin such as Göbekli Tepe, Tel ‘Abr 3 and Jerf el-Ahmar29 and as far as Tel Qaramel, which lies some 300–350km away.30 These observations indicate that the Tigris valley sites were contemporary with the early farming communities of the ‘Euphrates territory’ and interacted with them, but differed in their economic base and probably in their social structure. In several cases, such as Nemrik, the ‘complex forager’ society is estimated to have continued and flourished when they adopted cultivation from their neighbours.31 This observation becomes important when we compare the Tigris sites to the Göbekli Tepe culture in the ‘Euphrates province’. The ‘Euphrates province’ stretches from the valley margins in the east and westward towards the Mediterranean Sea. It was mostly occupied by people who subsisted on the cultivation of wild cereals documented in the archaeobotanical assemblages at sites such as Tel ‘Abr 3, Ja’ade,

Karul 2011; Özkaya – Coşkun 2011; Rosenberg 2011a; Rosenberg 2011b; Coşkun et al. 2012; Miyake et al. 2012; Özdoğan 2017. 27 Willcox – Savard 2011; Bar-Yosef 2014a; Bar-Yosef 2014b. 28 Coşkun et al. 2012; Benz et al. 2015. 29 Yartah 2005; Schmidt 2011; Yartah 2013; Stordeur 2015. 30 Mazurowski – Kanjou 2012. 31 Kozłowski 2013. 26

50

Ofer Bar-Yosef

Jerf el Ahmar, Mureybet and Tel Qaramel. Among the common species were wild einkorn, rye, barley in Mureybet, and Jerf el-Ahmar and wheat somewhat later in Dja’de.32 The cultivation of these plants allowed for the emergence of what could have been two tribal areas – one along the Euphrates River and the second inland known as the Göbekli Tepe culture. The emerging social complexity during the first millennium of the Holocene was probably the result of population growth, without abandoning the cosmology of their ancestors. The unique remains of Göbekli Tepe culture are most impressive and informative concerning the veneration of natural agencies.33 Elsewhere, on the basis of a non-linear model of social evolution, I suggested that Göbekli Tepe was the ceremonial centre of a simple chiefdom following the classification proposed by Wright.34 The scale of energy expenditure in quarrying and shaping the massive T-shaped limestone pillars and other sculptures has no parallels in any of the ethnographically documented sources of past hunting-gathering societies.35 Moreover, this kind of major investment in quarrying and carving the T-shape pillars was not repeated in the Fertile Crescent until urban societies became established several millennia later. As noted by Klaus Schmidt,36 for mobilising the required workforce for such a massive operation of digging the semi-underground buildings, quarrying and carving the T-shaped pillars and all the smaller statues, a degree of coercion was needed. People, probably organised as clans, came from a large area recorded by surveys37 estimated as 500km². Across this land are additional sites with similar T-shaped pillars. The westernmost one is Nevalı Çori where a local temple was exposed,38 and the eastern most is Karahan located in the hills separating the Balikh and Khabur valleys. The tradition lasted through the Middle PPNB period and disappeared. The classification of Göbekli Tepe’s economy as a typical subsistence of hunter-gatherers because only bones of hunted, mostly wild animals, were retrieved during the excavations, is a mistake. This is a good lesson for archaeologists. While exposing remains in the course of the excavations they should always wonder ‘what is missing?’ True, the case of Göbekli Tepe is not an easy one. First, as noted previously,39 cult buildings were refilled with the garbage accumulated around them, incorporating many stones, and thus did not provide the needed conditions for plant preservation. Second, game animals characterise bone assemblages of many sites across the Levant dated to the first millennium of the Holocene (c. 10/9.7–10.8 calBC).40 All village inhabitants, as mentioned above, continued hunting like all later farmers. A different view concerning preservation is provided by the excavations in Yeni Mahali, a site of the Göbekli Tepe culture in the city of Şanlıurfa. Unfortunately, most of the site was removed for modern building except for a sidewalk. The excavation of this narrow band produced the remains of einkorn,41 and some were also recovered in the ceremonial buildings of Göbekli Tepe.42 More data will be exposed in the excavations of the domestic quarters of the site where grinding stones were uncovered. The finding of the wild einkorn supports the contention that the impressive T-shaped pillars and sculptures were carved and built by a society of early farmers. It is reasonable to assume that their economy was quite similar to that of Jerf el Ahmar mentioned above. Interpreting the final abandonment of the Göbekli Tepe culture sites, such as Nevalı Çori, is open for speculation. One reason could have been a popular revolt indicated by the main bulk of

32

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 33

E.g. Willcox et al. 2009; Willcox 2012; Willcox – Stordeur 2012. Schmidt 2011. Wright 1984. Bar-Yosef 2014a; Bar-Yosef 2014b. Schmidt 1999. Çelik 2015. Hauptman 2011. Özdoğan – Özdoğan 1998. Arbuckle 2014. Çelik 2011. Willcox – Savard 2011.

When and Why Holocene Levantine Farmers Moved Westward?

51

14

C dates as 7900 to 7600 calBC or a short crisis similar to the one around 8200 calBC, which is considered as having been disastrous to the cultivation of cereals.43 A further option is that soil depletion was caused by insufficient quantities of manure for the fields of fast growing communities although goats, sheep, cattle and pigs were already managed and domesticated. Further information is definitely needed. The centrality of the northern Levant for the origins of the Neolithic Revolution is also expressed in a series of innovations and inventions in different fields as well as the richness of cultural remains. Suffice it to mention a few examples such as the making of new lithic types that spread southward. These include the el-Khiam and Helwan arrowheads and the bidirectional blade detachment characteristic of the Mureybetian, which led to the emergence of the Naviform core technique.44 Carnelian beads made by a pump drill technique were reported from PPNB sites such as Cayönü, Sumaki Höyük, Mezraa Teleilat, Akarçay Tepe, Halula and Abu Hureyra and imported to the southern Levant.45 Extensive imports of Anatolian obsidian and chlorite bowls from the Tigris valley record the relative richness of the Euphrates communities and the easy river transport.46 Obsidian was more common in the northern sites, and reached only a few sites in the southern Levant, and its presence is recorded quantitatively by a relatively small amount of products.47 The sequence of farming societies in the northern Levant is marked, according to a recent study,48 by a collapse c. 10200 calBP of early PPNB age, the time when some of the plant species were domesticated. The event is apparently correlated with a crisis noted in the Levantine palaeoclimatic record.49 If this correlation is correct, it raises several questions such as ‘how long the crisis lasted, and did it take two to three centuries or less?’ Another interpretation would be soil depletion mentioned above. In addition, one may wonder ‘where did the people go if all the listed sites were fully abandoned?’ Before proposing a long period of site abandonment due to a climatic crisis, we should consider the option that it was a short event not recognised by the available radiocarbon dates. The warning message is the case drawn from the excavations of Tell Sabi Abyad. The time of the stratigraphic gap between the early mound (A) and the later mound (B) is possibly related to the so-called ‘8200 calBP Cold Event’. The over 60 radiocarbon dates may indicate that the original mound was deserted temporarily during perhaps 50 years or less before being reinhabited by a population carrying a different set of cultural markers.50 This kind of exemplary detailed 14C sequence is missing from the majority of the Neolithic sites in the Levant, and therefore we should be careful in establishing the length of the abandonment in many sites although in a good number of cases they were not re-inhabited. Droughts could last for several years and their impacts, when using historical analogues, could be variable depending on the area where reduced precipitation occurred. In addition, the size of the affected population and the degree of its social and economic resilience need to be hypothesised.

The Southern Levant In general, the region south of the Damascus Basin, known as the southern Levant, is on the ‘proximate receiving end’ of the technology and new economy that developed earlier in the northern

43

45 46 47 48 49 50 44

Borrell et al. 2015. Gopher 1989; Abbès 2003. Özdoğan-Erim 2011; Groman-Yaroslavaski – Bar-Yosef Mayer 2015. Yartah 2013; Bar-Yosef 2014b; Bar-Yosef 2016a. Garfinkel 2011. Borrell et al. 2015. Weninger et al. 2009; Clare – Weninger 2014. Kuijt – Goring-Morris 2002; van der Plicht et al. 2011; van der Horn et al. 2015.

52

Ofer Bar-Yosef

Levant. This situation is therefore briefly summarised. Elements of the Khiamian culture were the earliest archaeological expression in the southern PPNA, and were replaced by the local Sultanian, originally defined after the Jericho excavations. It was generally contemporary with the northern Mureybetian and contained el-Khiam points, elongated sickle blades and Beit Taamir knives with bifacial retouch along one edge. Axes-adzes differed from the northern types by their bifacial shaping technique with transverse removals creating the cutting edge. Rare polished limestone and basalt axes that are typical to the northern Levant are found in the south and could have been the result of exchange as suggested for the dispersal of arrowheads.51 The technical differences in the shaping of the axe-adzes between the two sub-regions are undoubtedly a cultural marker. Rounded and oval houses were built on semi-subterranean stone foundations, with walls of plano-convex sun dried mudbricks with indications for a central wooden pole supporting flat roofs. Calculating energy investment in these buildings demonstrates higher expenditure than invested in the Natufian houses. The new Neolithic buildings required digging up the clays, making bricks by hand with straw and grits, drying them and then erecting the walls. Roofs required reed mats, some lumber and clay. The evidence described by Kathleen Kenyon52 in her Jericho excavations was recently used for building similar houses with handmade rectangular bricks in Boncuklu.53 Gilgal and Netiv Hagdud in the Jordan valley produced edible plant assemblages including wild barley, wild emmer wheat, oats, various legumes and vegetables as well as fruits such as acorns and figs.54 Given the steppic environment and the location of Netiv Hagdud on an alluvial fan, it could be that the same kind of cultivation took place there as well as in Jericho. During the early PPNB period (8800/8500–8200/8000 calBC) animals were managed and domesticated in the northern communities, while hunting of mainly gazelles continued in the southern villages.55 A good example is the site of Motza, which dates to 8600–8200 calBC56 and where most of the consumed meat was obtained by hunting gazelles.57 The southern Levant demonstrates its special cultural character among others in the shaping of the Jericho point (arrowheads with two wings), the presence of plaster statues (mainly in Jericho and ‘Ain Ghazal), plastered skulls (e.g., Ramad, Beisamoun, Kfar HaHoresh, Jericho, ‘Ain Ghazal) or the stone masks found in the hilly area south of Jerusalem mostly by plundering activities except for the Nahal Hemar Cave.58 In sum, within the Levantine Interaction Sphere there was room for local cultural features and exchanges while economically and technically the north was the dominant area. Imports of obsidian and Red Sea shells, as well as products from the world of mobile hunter-gatherers of the Syro-Arabian and the Sinai deserts enhanced long distance connections and trade lines. Considering the impact of such communications and the transport of domesticated (or managed) goat, sheep, cattle and pig from the northern Levant to the south (as well as in other directions), it will be hard to deny that the ‘core area’ settlements became richer in comparison to all other neighbouring regions. The wealth increase had its implications, including some internal (conflicts, fissioning, ‘budding off’ groups) and other externals such as taking land from close-by foragers.

Gopher 1989; Bar-Yosef – Belfer-Cohen 1989; Kuijt – Goring-Morris 2002; Belfer-Cohen – Goring-Morris 2011; Goring-Morris – Belfer-Cohen 2011; Goring-Morris – Belfer-Cohen 2014. 52 Kenyon 1981. 53 Mustafaoğlu – Bar-Yosef 2016. 54 Kislev 1997; Kislev et al. 2006; Kislev et al. 2010. 55 Martin – Edwards 2013; Arbuckle 2014. 56 Khalaily et al. 2007. 57 Sapir-Hen et al. 2009. 58 Bar-Yosef – Alon 1988; Hershman 2014. 51

When and Why Holocene Levantine Farmers Moved Westward?

53

Diffusion, Migration and Colonisation The three terms as used by archaeologists are loaded with immense and diverse connotations.59 Certain topics were and are being investigated by scholars interested in the diffusion of technologies within and between societies. Similar interests are shown by recent medical and welfare organisations. The term ‘colonisation’ carries the connotations of the founding of new settlements within the same area where other people live, or in geographically remote lands, as well as joining existing communities. Each of these activities whether diffusion, migration or colonisation is justified by those who play the active role in materialising them, but are also interpreted, perhaps not always positively, by those at the receiving end whose lifeways are often affected by the newcomers. Colonisation and diffusion of technology have been discussed in the literature for more than a century because both are directly related to numerous fields of research. For example, investigators study the diffusion of agricultural tools, genetically engineered plants, distributions of medical practices and drugs, and many additional aspects of modern life. Everett Rogers was the first to establish the theoretical basis for the diffusion of technology in his 1962 book.60 He defines ‘diffusion’, as ‘the process in which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. It is a special type of communication, in that the messages are concerned with new ideas (or new techniques, my addition)’. Rogers also discusses communication, a subject well known today in our digital age. He stresses ‘uncertainty’, an aspect relevant to the dispersal of techniques or seeds as ‘the degree to which a number of alternatives are perceived with respect to the occurrence of an event and the relative probability of these alternatives. Uncertainty implies a lack of predictability of structure and of information. Information is a means of reducing uncertainty where a choice exists among a set of alternatives’.61 Hence, as archaeologists we need to define what we mean when we employ each of these terms. In particular it is required for discussing the spread of farming as materials, technology and human genes through Anatolia into Europe and across the Mediterranean lands as well as eastward to Mesopotamia and beyond. Originally the evidence for the spread of farming was identified as a ‘wave of advance’ or the demic diffusion into Europe.62 The study employed the available radiocarbon dates and the early genetic studies and arrived at an average distance achieved annually by advancing people.63 Taking apart the general trend of humans’ invasion into Europe from southwestern Asia, it was later suggested to have been a ‘leapfrog’ advance of farmers taking arable lands, mainly in valleys, from the loose control of hunter-gatherers.64 The combination of the two proposals, now better documented by genetics and archaeology, allow us today to see the dispersal of farmers and their plants and animals as a geographic mosaic of variable socio-economic systems along continental trajectories. In other words, the entire process from c. 9000/8500 through 5000 calBC created a dynamic picture of advancing Neolithic farmers, affected foragers (known as Mesolithic) who adopted farming or became extinct within an ecologically diverse continent incorporating Anatolia, European lands and the Mediterranean islands. The dispersals of plants, animals and humans through the gates of Europe can be discussed today thanks to the increasing wealth of information from Anatolia and southeastern Europe.65 The different interpretations of the available data sets recognise disruptions in cultural transmissions. These are seen as the results of worsening environmental conditions under which locals adhered to traditional strategies of survival or refused to adopt a new technology brought to their

59

61 62 63 64 65 60

Roux – Courty 2013. Reprinted many times; Rogers 2003. Rogers 2003, 32–33. Ammerman – Cavalli-Sforza 1984. Cavalli-Sforza 2002; Fort 2015. Van Andel – Runnels 1995. Özdoğan 2011; Düring 2013; Brami 2017.

54

Ofer Bar-Yosef

attention.66 In other words, in spite of successful adaptation to the new agricultural techniques and products that allowed communities to flourish, cultural ‘breaks’ are documented archaeologically. For example, demographic ‘booms’ and collapses of farming societies during the European Holocene are recorded by the sum probability of radiocarbon dates, thus raising additional research questions that should be answered by archaeologists.67 Advances in palaeogenetic research are more rapidly achieved as gathering archaeological information from excavated sites is definitely more time consuming. Today, the major limitation of the genetic record is its patchy pattern due to the small number of available samples. However, together with the archaeological information we may propose a hypothesis regarding the establishment of agricultural systems across Anatolia. Currently, the genetic information is derived from the Fertile Crescent and Anatolia.68 In the following pages, I will concentrate on the relationships between the Levant and central Anatolia and will refrain from summarising the research in western Anatolia and Europe. An important source of information for recognising the relationships between the two regions is the obsidian trade only because the evidence is well preserved. Whether it was a particular society of foragers or several individuals who realised the market value of obsidian from sources in Cappadocia and the Lake Van area for Levantine groups, the transport of nodules or finished products (such as blades) resulted in relative richness of those who controlled the barter. We should note that although obsidian is present in minute quantities it appears first in a Late Natufian context in Eynan (Ain Mallaha).69 It became a somewhat more common product during the course of the first millennium and a half of the Holocene as small collections in Levantine villages indicate.70 It seems that the arrival of this precious commodity occurred as predicated by the model of ‘down the line’ with major stations in the northern Levant and possibly in central sites in the south.71 To these we should add the transport of managed or domesticated goat, sheep, cattle and pig. Only the palaeogenetics of these four will allow us to figure from where each was brought, and this could have been from more than one site in the north. Long distance communications that facilitated the transfer of social information, plants, animals and commodities are rarely discussed in the literature, except for the obsidian trade. Here we need to stress the antiquity of humans, both foragers and early farmers, in various parts of the world, who used watercrafts for river transport and sea crossings. In this domain the role of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers should be discussed first. Although spring melting of snow in the mountains of eastern Turkey – the main source of water in the region – caused rapid flow and sometimes flooding as well as major alluviation events in the lower Mesopotamian basin, the two rivers and their tributaries served as major highways. Floating and rowing in small boats constructed from reeds covered with hides of hunted or domesticated animals, would not take more than a month or two to reach southern Mesopotamia from the northern Levant. Similarly, a simple wooden raft placed over several floats (hides filled with air) continued to serve for transportation as recorded in the Assyrian period, and was still used during the 19th century.72 Therefore, the use of simple vessels in the rivers allowed for information, technologies, seeds and animals to be moved into the Zagros foothills. Examples can be cited, but one of the geographically distant cases is the archaeobotanical assemblage of Chogha Golan.73 The claims for an independent initiation of wild barley cultivation should be revised as it could have been simply the outcome of information brought by humans from the ‘core area’

68 69 70 71 72 73 66 67

Perlès et al. 2013; Roux – Courty 2013. Shennan et al. 2013. Broushaki et al. 2016; Kılınç et al. 2016; Lazaridis et al. 2016. Valla et al. 2010. E.g. Garfinkel 2011. Dixon et al. 1968. Ashkenazi 1957; McGrail 2001; Bar-Yosef 2016b. Riehl et al. 2012; Riehl et al. 2013.

When and Why Holocene Levantine Farmers Moved Westward?

55

while boating along the Tigris River. Short distances of river transport may explain the cultural connections among sites that demonstrate a cultural unity along the Euphrates River.74

The Arrival of Farmers in Cyprus Archaeology documents sea voyaging in various places around the world more easily than river transport because natural sources like obsidian could be identified on islands and the places to which they were brought. Our knowledge in this domain is limited, but vessels were first invented by foragers. In the case of the Aegean, only part of the Mediterranean Sea, evidence that Melian obsidian was brought during the 11th millennium BC to sites in Greece and later to Turkey means that hunter-gatherers had watercrafts and knew their regional geography.75 Similarly to the case of Melos, we can expect that additional evidence of foragers visiting different islands will be discovered. Currently the earliest evidence from Cyprus consists of Epipalaeolithic flints collected underwater at Aspros and Nissi Beach76 and studied by Małgorzata Kaczanowska and Janusz Kozłowski.77 Another site is the small rock shelter of Aetokremnos, located at the promontory of Akrotiri, which contained Epipalaeolithic lithics, shellfish, fish and bird bones as well as a great abundance of hippopotamus and elephant bones.78 The suggestion that Epipalaeolithic hunters were responsible for the accumulation of this mass of dwarf hippopotamus and elephant bones was met with criticism. Reanalysis of the faunal collection indicated that it was a natural accumulation of extinct animals. In addition, the humans who camped there by c. 9600 calBC probably brought one or two boars from the mainland represented by one incisor and 17 phalanges or metapodials.79 If confirmed, humans were responsible for the introduction to Cyprus of the first pigs, then the cat and later during the 7th millennium calBC the Persian fallow deer first noted by Frederick Zeuner80 and the house mouse.81 With the addition of the domesticated animals and plants, they represent the invasive species that caused a part of the human impact on the environments of the island. By c. 8800–8600 calBC, the establishment of the first colonies of farmers at Klimonas, Aya Varara and Shillourokambos was accomplished.82 Apparently, crossing the relatively short distance of c. 35km of open sea to reach Cyprus from the Anatolian coast required a better vessel than the river craft.83 Transporting domesticated plants and animals was probably arranged by mobile traders, artisans and/or accompanied by the movement of groups of farmers. Relocation for people from the ‘core area’ was feasible. We may consider these groups, based on the artefacts they brought with them as ‘budding-off families or clans’ from over-grown villages or those who decided to avoid physical clashes and found refuge in Cyprus. Historical examples demonstrate that lingering droughts cause outward migrations. Perhaps Cyprus can be seen as the place where groups of people, due to droughts and social conflicts in the Levant, sought and found refuge by establishing, according to current evidence, the first Neolithic villages on the island (Klimonas, Aya Varvara and Shillourokambos).

74

76 77 78 79 80 81 82

Borrell – Molist 2014. Broodbank 2006; Perlès et al. 2011. Ammerman 2014. Kaczanowska – Kozłowski 2014. Simmons 1999. Vigne et al. 2009; Vigne 2015. Zeuner 1963; Vigne 2015. Cucchi et al. 2002. Simmons 2007; Vigne – Cucchi 2005; Manning et al. 2010; Vigne et al. 2011; Vigne et al. 2012; Ammerman 2014; Vigne 2015. 83 Bar-Yosef Mayer et al. 2015. 75

56

Ofer Bar-Yosef

The dates and the kinds of lithics in early Neolithic Cypriot sites means that their relations were with the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean coast, but their source could not have been sites such as Yumuktepe (Mersin) where the dates fall within the range of 7000–6400 calBC. Most probably earlier Neolithic sites of PPNA and early PPNB age in the Levantine sequence located on this coastal plain (around Adana) were the source of the first Cypriot farmers.

Farmers in Central Anatolia Before delving into the issues involved in western dispersals from the core area by land,84 a comment about the geography of eastern Anatolia is in order. The vast area that incorporates the Lesser Caucasus stretches geologically from the higher mountains of eastern Turkey in a southwestern direction. A series of ranges sloping towards the Eastern Mediterranean basin create a large area of mountain ranges, some 150–200km wide, separating the upper Euphrates basin from central Anatolia. Similarly to the Pontic region, the mountains and hilly north of this area did not produce many Neolithic sites and were apparently the lands of hunter-gatherers. Here I stress the limited amount of information concerning the Epipalaeolithic populations of foragers (c. 22/21000–10000 calBC) across the entire Anatolian plateau and its coastal areas. Compared with about 200 hunter-gatherer sites dated to this period in the Levant, a region that is one third the size of Anatolia, reconstructing the prehistoric situation in Anatolia requires the use of ethnographic comparisons and some observations derived from the Levantine information. Current information from a wider perspective demonstrates that before the invasion of Neolithic farmers into Anatolia, hunter-gatherers inhabited the region. The few Epipalaeolithic sites, similar to the so-called Mesolithic in Europe, are recognised by their extensive use of microliths. The Anatolian assemblages include curved points and lunates (e.g., Direkli Cave85). Lunates and other geometrics, several types of backed bladelets as well as scrapers are present in five sites in the Antalya area.86 Scalene triangles are more common in the central plain in Pınarbaşı (early 9th millennium BC), Unit 4 in Aşıklı (middle to late 9th millennium) and Boncuklu during the late 9th and early 8th millennia BC.87 Further west there are published records of about half a dozen Epipalaeolithic sites known from surface collections.88 Support to the notion that the Anatolian forager societies differed from the incoming Neolithic people is provided by the aDNA of the Boncuklu sample (8400–7700 calBC) affirming the presence of a native group of hunter-gatherers.89 However, they had already survived when farmers inhabited Aşıklı Höyük, some 100km eastward, and their subsistence strategy was impacted by the presence of foreigners in the region. Their microlithic industry was made of obsidian brought from Cappadocia, some 150km away with rare flints obtained from some 200km away. The group lived in rounded houses and placed their dead mostly below the floors.90 Like all foragers they stayed on site for some time, moved seasonally or annually, and came back. When the rounded huts deteriorated, new ones were constructed. Hunting of aurochs, bear, deer and caprines supplied meat, tendons and hides and were supplemented by fowling, and fishing. Vegetal diets included various grasses, some wild cereals, nuts and more. Rocks for shaping ground stones were brought from 15–40km away. The Levantine Neolithic economy with domesticated plants and animals and its new social structures of village society arrived in central Anatolia at Aşıklı Höyük c. 8100/8000 calBC.

86 87 88 89 90 84 85

Özdoğan 2011. Erek 2010. Yalçinkaya et al. 2002. Baird et al. 2013. Karul 2017. Kılınç et al. 2016. Fairbairn et al. 2014; Baird et al. 2016.

When and Why Holocene Levantine Farmers Moved Westward?

57

At that time early farmers were already in Cyprus, as mentioned above, so why was eastern Anatolia colonised several hundred years later? Aşıklı Höyük from c. 8000 to 7500 calBC was characterised by densely packed buildings. Similarly the village of Can Hasan III,91 which dates to c. 7500/7300–7100/7000, located not far from Çatalhöyük, had the same pattern of densely constructed houses preceding the latter, which was founded by 7100 calBC and lasted until 6350 calBC when the social regime changed.92 Considering what migrants brought, Catherine Perlès93 has summarised on the basis of the evidence from the 7th millennium BC Anatolian and Greek sites as follows: ‘economy (domesticated plants and animals), architecture (rectangular houses, mudbricks, wattle and daub, buttresses, plastered floors), technique (polished celts, pressure flaking, bone tools methods of production and thermal treatment, sling bullets, spinning and weaving implements, stone vases, etc.), ornaments (ear-plugs) and symbols (same types of female figurines)’. To this list Mehmet Özdoğan94 adds the pottery that made its first appearance by 7400–7100 calBC. These statements represent a large consensus about the Levantine plants, animals and material culture that were brought into Anatolia, although certain voices suggest some domestication occurred locally. An aspect that is hardly discussed and speculated upon in the relevant literature is the nature of the social structure that characterised the changes in the ‘core area’ and influenced or determined the behaviour of the colonists who moved into Anatolia. It is often accepted, as briefly mentioned above, that hunting and gathering societies were economically egalitarian due to the mechanism of sharing, a degree of fissioning and the lack of an accepted, long-term leader with political power. Farmers could have behaved the same, but the evidence for sharing seasonal yields, storage facilities and elements of material culture changed through time.95 The presence in sedentary communities of buildings that differ by their size, building materials and techniques from domestic ones, has been noted in the archaeological record since the Early Natufian.96 The interpretation of their function varies from the place of shamans to the seats of the elders and serving as shrines or temples. I suggest, as have other scholars, that these buildings indicate the presence of power within the community, either political, economic or both. It may herald the appearance of the Big Man and thus symbolise the power held by a local, perhaps a temporary chief. Examples for such buildings as mentioned above include, among others, the ‘kivas’ in Jerf el Ahmar, Mureybet and Wadi Faynan 16 as well as Göbekli Tepe of PPNA age. Special buildings are also known from PPNB sites such as Çayönü, Dja’de, ‘Ain Ghazal, Beidha and others. One may expect that colonists, members of such societies, whether arriving as groups (family clans?) or individuals, will carry their old social system into the new area. Moreover, we can expect them to impose a similar social system on local foragers who were incorporated into the new communities. As known from anthropological studies, most probably local females were generally taken into the newly settled farming communities, thus causing the formation of mixed Neolithic populations as recorded genetically. As documented in the excavations at Aşıklı Höyük, a central building, different from the agglomerated domestic quarters, was discovered in deposits dated to 8100/8000–7500 calBC in layers 3 and 2.97 The domestic quarters are similar to the main occupational units of Çatalhöyük East, with communication over the roofs.98 In both sites, the tight clustering of the domestic rooms is interpreted as reflecting close personal contacts, sharing subsistence activities and rituals. Guarding the tradition of ‘history houses’ is evident by the architectural continuity of the houses built

91

93 94 95 96 97 98 92

French et al. 1972. Marciniak 2015. Perlès 2005, 275. Özdoğan 2011. Hodder 2014a. Valla 1988. Özbaşaran 2012. Düring 2005; Düring 2011; Hodder 2014a.

58

Ofer Bar-Yosef

Northern Levant calBC

Southern Levant calBC

PPNA 10200–8800

PPNA 9600–8500

Early PPNB 8800–8200

Early PPNB 8500–8100

Middle PPNB 8200–7600

Middle PPNB 8100–7500

Late PPNB 7600–6900

Late PPNB 7500–6750

Pottery Neolithic / Final PPNB 6900–6400

Final PPNB / PPNC 6750–6400

Early Pottery Neolithic 6400–5600 Table 1   Approximate chronology of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic in the Levant (modified after Borrell et al. 2015)

directly one on top of the other. The dates in Çatalhöyük indicate that this continuity lasted from 7100–6400/6200 calBC.99 As only limited areas relative to the size of the site were excavated at Çatalhöyük, similar non-domestic buildings were not found.100 However, the social organisation of most of the exposed areas (except for the uppermost TP), indicate a tight social control with houses attached to each other and access through the roofs. One, therefore, may predict that a similar large non-domestic building will be exposed when large scale excavations are renewed. Interestingly, the same densely packed houses of a farming community survived in Can Hasan III (7500–6800 calBC), which is a Neolithic site in the same area.101 The change is demonstrated by the construction of individual rectangular houses in the TP area102 that hint at the presence of a different social organisation. The reason for this change is seen when the society becomes richer and individual households become independent units of production and consumption. The impact of the incoming people, who demonstrate a typical Neolithic genetic diversity similar to the Levantine and the Zagros area, is recorded in Barcın in western Anatolia c. 6500–6200 calBC.103

Conclusions The Fertile Crescent was a centre for the emergence of agro-pastoral societies by populations who originally were farmers and/or foragers. A global survey of mid-latitude hunting and gathering societies demonstrates that plant cultivation is a reaction, whether to temporary or long-term reduction of options for extensive mobility, and is a strategy that characterises all foragers. Imposed limitations on mobility were caused by a combination of yield decreases in natural fields due to climatic fluctuations (e.g., series of droughts) and/or unfriendly attitudes that were expressed by physical conflicts with neighbouring groups who controlled better watered areas. Studies of the late Epipalaeolithic and early Neolithic in the Levant allow current research to trace continuous cultivation of domesticable plants, such as cereals and legumes, before their transformation by the Domestication Syndrome. One of the best examples is the plant assemblage from PPNA Jerf el Ahmar. Systematic harvesting in wild fields led to the realisation by a particular society or a group of people that collecting non-shattering ears is the best source of seeds for planting next season. This realisation by breeders of cereals as demonstrated by Gordon Hillman

99

Hodder 2014a; Hodder 2014b. Hodder 2014a; Hodder 2014b. 101 French et al. 1972. 102 Marciniak 2015. 103 Broushaki et al. 2016; Kılınç et al. 2016; Lazaridis et al. 2016. 100

When and Why Holocene Levantine Farmers Moved Westward?

59

and M. S. Davies,104 which occurred since 8800/8500 calBC at the onset of the Early PPNB period, facilitated the materialisation of the Domestication Syndrome. When considering the reasons for animal domestication, one of the most quoted explanations is over-exploitation of large game beginning by the Natufian (since c. 13000 calBC) in the southern Levant. Most authorities agree that the decrease was balanced temporarily by an increase of small game such as hares, birds and tortoises.105 However, a review of the northern Levant106 does not fully justify this observation. Sedentary and colonising humans began to change the biogeography of southwestern Asia, for example, by bringing not only pigs, but also fallow deer to Cyprus.107 This process was probably involved in a change of economic strategies and behavioural aspects including long-term planning. The results were the domestication of goat, sheep, cattle and pigs, first in the core area of the northern Levant. We should therefore include in our discussion the trade and barter not only of well-preserved substances such as obsidian, beads and axes, but also perishables such as baskets, wooden tools, objects made of flax as well as animals whose bones are better preserved. Adopting this approach will assist us in studying the uncovered fauna in different sites not only as a direct reflection of the available local game similar to Palaeolithic contexts, but as expressions of the revolutionary novel socio-economic systems that mark the Neolithic Revolution. In this context, the short communication distance from the northern to the southern Levant (one to four weeks of walking from the upper Euphrates valley to the Damascus Basin) allowed domesticated animals and plants (perhaps not as a full package) to chronologically appear at almost the same time, as if they were locally domesticated in the southern area. In addition, the dominance of the ‘core area’ was expressed by several differences. First, wild goats in the southern Levant during the Epipalaeolithic were very rare. Second, sheep, a common prey in the northern Levant, arrived much later in the southern Levant as a fully domesticated species.108 Third, new technologies such as naviform cores, drilling hard-rock beads, the use of domesticated flax and others originated in the northern Levant. Farmers from the ‘core area’ dispersed first into Cyprus at 8800–8600 calBC and several hundred years later into Anatolia where farming spread first in the southern part of this peninsula. The maritime connections could have been based on voyaging through the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean Sea by foragers heading east and others who travelled westward. However, it took longer, as mentioned above, for several of the new inventions or the specific knowledge to arrive at Aşıklı Höyük in central Anatolia, a distance of 320–400km from the northern Levant. The impacts of the different trajectories of long distance transmissions in a continental context require further examination.

References Abbès 2003 F. Abbès, Les Outillage Néolithique en Syrie du Nord, BAR International Series 1150 (Oxford 2003). Abbo – Gopher 2017 S. Abbo – A. Gopher, Near Eastern plant domestication. A history of thought, Trends in Plant Science 22, 6, 2017, 491–511. Abbo et al. 2012 S. Abbo – S. Lev-Yadun – A. Gopher, Plant domestication and crop evolution in the Near East. On events and processes, Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 31, 2012, 241–247.

104

106 107 108 105

Hillman – Davies 1990. E.g. Tchernov 1994. E.g. Arbuckle 2014. Vigne et al. 2011. Martin – Edwards 2013.

60

Ofer Bar-Yosef

Ammerman 2014 A. J. Ammerman, Tracing the steps in the study of early sites on Cyprus, Eurasian Prehistory 10, 1–2, 2014, 117–137. Ammerman – Cavalli-Sforza 1984 A. J. Ammerman – L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe (Princeton 1984). Arbuckle 2014 B. S. Arbuckle, Pace and process in the emergence of animal husbandry in Neolithic southwest Asia, Bioarchaeology of the Near East 8, 2014, 53–81. Arbuckle et al. 2014 B. S. Arbuckle – S. W. Kansa – E. Kansa – D. Orton – C. Çakırlar – L. Gourichon – L. Atici – A. Galik – A. Marciniak – J. Mulville – H. Buitenhuis – D. Carruthers – B. De Cupere – A. Demirergi – S. Frame – D. Helmer – L. Martin – J. Peters – N. Pöllath – K. Pawłowska – N. Russell – K. Twiss – D. Würtenberger, Data sharing reveals complexity in the westward spread of domestic animals across Neolithic Turkey, PLoS One 9, 6, 2014. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099845. Ashkenazi 1957 T. Ashkenazi, Native river boats in ‘Irāq, Ethnos 22, 1–2, 1957, 50–56. Asouti – Fuller 2012 E. Asouti – D. Q. Fuller, From foraging to farming in the southern Levant. The development of Epipalaeolithic and Pre-pottery Neolithic plant management strategies, Vegetational History and Archaeobotany 21, 2012, 169–182. Asouti – Fuller 2013 E. Asouti – D. Q. Fuller, A contextual approach to the emergence of agriculture in southwest Asia. Reconstructing Early Neolithic plant-food production, Current Anthropology 54, 3, 2013, 299–345. Baird et al. 2013 D. Baird – E. Asouti – L. Astruc – A. Baysal – E. Baysal – D. Carruthers – A. Fairbairn – C. Kabukcu – E. Jenkins – K. Lorentz – C. Middleton – J. Pearson – A. Pirie, Juniper smoke, skulls and wolves’ tails. The Epipalaeolithic of the Anatolian plateau in its south-west Asian context. Insights from Pınarbaşı, Levant 45, 2, 2013, 175–209. Baird et al. 2016 D. Baird – A. Fairbairn – L. Martin, The animate house, institutionalization of the household in Neolithic central Anatolia, World Archaeology 48, 2016, 1–24. Bandy 2004 M. H. Bandy, Fissioning, scalar stress, and social evolution in early village societies, American Anthropologist 106, 2, 2004, 322–333. Bar-Yosef 2014a O. Bar-Yosef, Southeast Turkish Neolithic. A view from the southern Levant, in: Özdoğan et al. 2014, 293–320. Bar-Yosef 2014b O. Bar-Yosef, Was Göbekli Tepe culture a chiefdom that failed? in: B. Finlayson – C. Makarewicz (eds.), Settlement, Survey, and Stone. Essays on Near Eastern Prehistory in Honour of Gary Rollefson (Berlin 2014) 159–168. Bar-Yosef 2016a O. Bar-Yosef, Multiple origins of agriculture, in: M. Tibayrenc – F. Ayala (eds.), On Human Nature Biology, Psychology, Ethics, Politics, and Religion (London, San Diego, Cambridge, Oxford 2016) 297–331. Bar-Yosef 2016b O. Bar-Yosef, Changes in ‘demand and supply’ for mass killings of gazelles during the Holocene, in: N. Marom – R. Yeshuran – L. Weissbrod – G. Bar-Oz (eds.), Bones and Identity. Zooarchaeological Approaches to Reconstructing Social and Cultural Landscapes in Southwest Asia (Oxford 2016) 113–124. Bar-Yosef – Alon 1988 O. Bar-Yosef – D. Alon, The excavations in Nahal Hemar Cave, ‘Atiqot 18, 1988, 1–30. Bar-Yosef – Belfer-Cohen 1989 O. Bar-Yosef – A. Belfer-Cohen, The Levantine PPNB interaction sphere, in: I. Hershkovitz (ed.), Peoples and Cultures in Change. Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic Populations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, BAR International Series 508 (Oxford 1989) 59–72.

When and Why Holocene Levantine Farmers Moved Westward?

61

Bar-Yosef Mayer et al. 2015 D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer – Y. Kahanov – J. Roskin – H. Gildor, Neolithic voyages to Cyprus. Wind patterns, routes, and mechanisms, The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 10, 3, 2015, 412–435. Belfer-Cohen – Goring-Morris 2011 A. Belfer-Cohen – N. A. Goring-Morris, Becoming farmers. The inside story, Current Anthropology 52, S4, 2011, 209–220. Bellwood 2013 P. Bellwood, First Migrants. Ancient Migrations in Global Perspective (Chichester 2013). Benz et al. 2015 M. Benz – K. Deckers – C. Rössner – A. Alexandrovskiy – K. Pustovoytov – M. Scheeres – M. Fecher – A. Coşkun – S. Riehl – K. W. Alt – V. Özkaya, Prelude to village life. Environmental data and building traditions of the Epipalaeolithic settlement at Körtik Tepe, southeastern Turkey, Paléorient 41, 2, 2015, 9–30. Binford 2001 L. R. Binford, Constructing Frames of Reference. An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building Using Ethnographic and Environmental Data Sets (Berkeley 2001). Blake 2016 M. Blake, Maize for the Gods. Unearthing the 9,000-Year History of Corn (Berkeley 2016). Bocquet-Appel 2011 J.-P. Bocquet-Appel, The agricultural demographic transition during and after the agriculture inventions, Current Anthropology 52, S4, 2011, 497–510. Borrell – Molist 2014 F. Borrell – M. Molist, Social interaction at the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. An inter-site analysis in the Euphrates valley, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 24, 2, 2014, 215–232. Borrell et al. 2015 F. Borrell – A. Junno – J. A. Barceló, Synchronous environmental and cultural change in the emergence of agricultural economies 10,000 years ago in the Levant, PLoS One 10, 8, 2015. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134810. Bowles 2011 S. Bowles, Cultivation of cereals by the first farmers was not more productive than foraging, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108, 12, 2011, 4760–4765. Brami 2017 M. N. Brami, The Diffusion of Neolithic Practices from Anatolia to Europe. A Contextual Study of Residential Construction, 8,500–5,500 BC Cal., BAR International Series 2838 (Oxford 2017). Brami – Zanotti 2015 M. N. Brami – A. Zanotti, Modelling the initial expansion of the Neolithic out of Anatolia, Documenta Praehistorica 42, 2015, 103–116. Broodbank 2006 C. Broodbank, The Making of the Middle Sea. A History of the Mediterranean from the Beginning to the Emergence of the Classical World (London 2006). Broushaki et al. 2016 F. Broushaki – M. G. Thomas – V. Link – S. López – L. van Dorp – K. Kirsanow – Z. Hofmanová – Y. Diekmann – L. M. Cassidy – D. Díez-del-Molino – A. Kousathanas – C. Sell – H. K. Robson – R. Martiniano – J. Blöcher – A. Scheu – S. Kreutzer – R. Bollongino – D. Bobo – H. Davudi – O. Munoz – M. Currat – K. Abdi – F. Biglari – O. E. Craig – D. G. Bradley – S. J. Shennan – K. R. Veeramah – M. Mashkour – D. Wegmann – G. Hellenthal – J. Burger, Early Neolithic genomes from the eastern Fertile Crescent, Science 353, 2016, 499–503. Budja 2013 M. Budja, Neolithic pots and potters in Europe. The end of ‘demic diffusion’ migratory model, Documenta Praehistorica 40, 2013, 39–55. Cavalli-Sforza 2002 L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, Demic diffusion as the basic process of human expansions, in: P. Bellwood – C. Renfrew (eds.), Examining the Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis (Cambridge 2002) 79–88.

62

Ofer Bar-Yosef

Çelik 2011 B. Çelik, Şanlıurfa-Yeni Mahalle, in: Özdoğan et al. 2011b, 139–164. Çelik 2015 B. Çelik, New Neolithic cult centres and domestic settlements in the light of Urfa Region Surveys, Documenta Praehistorica 42, 2015, 353–364. Childe 1952 V. G. Childe, New Light on the Most Ancient Near East (London 1952). Clare – Weninger 2014 L. Clare – B. Weninger, The dispersal of Neolithic lifeways. Absolute chronology and rapid climate change in central and western Anatolia, in: Özdoğan et al. 2014, 1–65. Cohen 2011 D. J. Cohen, The beginnings of agriculture in China. A multiregional view, Current Anthropology 52, S4, 2011, 273–293. Coşkun et al. 2012 A. Coşkun – M. Benz – C. Rössner – K. Deckers – S. Riehl – K. W. Alt – V. Özkaya, New results on the Younger Dryas occupation at Körtik Tepe, Neo-Lithics 1/12, 2012, 25–32. Cucchi et al. 2002 T. Cucchi – J.-D. Vigne – J.-C. Auffray – P. Croft – E. Peltenburg, Passive transport of the house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus) to Cyprus at the Early Preceramic Neolithic (late 9th and 8th millennia cal. BC), Palevol. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences 1, 4, 2002, 235–241. Diamond 1997 J. Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel. The Fates of Human Societies (New York, London, 1997). Diamond 2012 J. Diamond, The local origins of domestication, in: P. Gepts – T. R. Famula – R. L. Bettinger – S. B. Brush – A. B. Damania – P. E. McGuire – C. O. Qualset (eds.), Biodiversity in Agriculture. Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability (Cambridge 2012) 9–18. Dixon et al. 1968 J. E. Dixon – J. R. Cann – C. Renfrew, Obsidian and the origins of trade, Scientific American 218, 3, 1968, 38–46. Düring 2005 B. S. Düring, Building continuity in the central Anatolian Neolithic. Exploring the meaning of buildings at Aşıklı Höyük and Çatalhöyük, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 18, 1, 2005, 3–29. Düring 2011 B. S. Düring, The Prehistory of Asia Minor. From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (Cambridge 2011). Düring 2013 B. S. Düring, Breaking the bond. Investigating the Neolithic expansion in Asia Minor in the seventh millennium BC, Journal of World Prehistory 26, 2, 2013, 75–100. Eitam et al. 2015 D. Eitam – M. Kislev – A. Karty – O. Bar-Yosef, Experimental barley flour production in 12,500-year-old rock-cut mortars in southwestern Asia, PLoS One 10, 7, 2015, e0133306. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133306. Erek 2010 C. M. Erek, A new Epi-Paleolithic site in the northeast Mediterranean region. Direkli Cave (Kahramanmaraş, Turkey), Adalya 13, 2010, 1–17. Fairbairn et al. 2014 A. S. Fairbairn – E. Jenkins – D. Baird – G. Jacobsen, 9th millennium plant subsistence in the central Anatolian highlands. New evidence from Pınarbaşı, Karaman Province, central Anatolia, Journal of Archaeological Science 41, 2014, 801–812.

When and Why Holocene Levantine Farmers Moved Westward?

63

Fort 2015 J. Fort, Demic and cultural diffusion propagated the Neolithic transition across different regions of Europe, Journal of the Royal Society Interface 12, 2015. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2015.0166. French et al. 1972 D. French – G. Hillman – S. Payne – R. J. Payne, Excavations at Can Hasan III, 1969–1970, in: E. S. Higgs (ed.), Papers in Economic Prehistory (Cambridge 1972) 181–190. Fuller et al. 2012 D. Q. Fuller – E. Asouti – M. D. Purugganan, Cultivation as slow evolutionary entanglement. Comparative data on rate and sequence of domestication, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 21, 2, 2012, 131–145. Garfinkel 2011 Y. Garfinkel, Obsidian distribution and cultural contacts in the southern Levant during the 7th millennium cal. BC, in: E. Healy – S. Campbell – O. Maeda (eds.), The State of Stone Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in the Near Eastern Lithics (Berlin 2011) 403–409. Gat 2015 A. Gat, Proving communal warfare among hunter-gatherers. The quasi-Rousseauan error, Evolutionary Anthropology 24, 3, 2015, 111–126. Gopher 1989 A. Gopher, Diffusion processes in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic in the Levant. The case of the Helwan point, in: I. Hershkovitz (ed.), Peoples and Cultures in Change, BAR International Series 489 (Oxford 1989) 91–105. Goring-Morris – Belfer-Cohen 2011 A. N. Goring-Morris – A. Belfer-Cohen, Neolithization processes in the Levant. The outer envelope, Current Anthropology 52, S4, 2011, 195–208. Goring-Morris – Belfer-Cohen 2014 A. N. Goring-Morris – A. Belfer-Cohen, The Neolithic in the southern Levant. Yet another ‘unique’ phenomenon …, in: C. Manen – T. Perrin – J. Guilaine (eds.), La Transition Néolithique en Méditerranée (Toulouse 2014) 59–75. Groman-Yaroslavski – Bar-Yosef Mayer 2015 I. Groman-Yaroslavski – D. E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, Lapidary technology revealed by functional analysis of carnelian beads from the early Neolithic site of Nahal Hemar Cave, southern Levant, Journal of Archaeological Science 58, 2015, 77–88. Guilaine 2000 J. Guilaine, La diffusion de l’agriculture en Europe. Une hypothèse arythmique, Zephyrus 53–54, 2000, 267–272. Hauptmann 2011 H. Hauptmann, The Urfa region, in: Özdoğan et al. 2011b, 85–138. Hershman 2014 D. Hershman, Face to Face. The Oldest Masks in the World (Jerusalem 2014). Hillman – Davies 1990 G. C. Hillman – M. S. Davies, Measured domestication rates in wild wheats and barley under primitive cultivation, and their archaeological implications, Journal of World Prehistory 4, 2, 1990, 157–222. Hodder 2014a I. Hodder, Mosaics and networks. The social geography at Çatalhöyük, in: I. Hodder (ed.), Integrating Çatalhöyük. Themes from the 2000–2008 Seasons (Los Angeles 2014) 149–167. Hodder 2014b I. Hodder, Temporal trends. The shapes and narratives of cultural change at Çatalhöyük, with contribution by C. Doherty, in: I. Hodder (ed.), Integrating Çatalhöyük. Themes from the 2000–2008 Seasons (Los Angeles 2014) 169–183. Ibáñez et al. 2016 J. J. Ibáñez – P. C. Anderson – J. González-Urquijo – J. Gibaja, Cereal cultivation and domestication as shown by microtexture analysis of sickle gloss through confocal microscopy, Journal of Archaeological Science 73, 2016, 62–81.

64

Ofer Bar-Yosef

Kaczanowska – Kozłowski 2014 M. Kaczanowska – J. K. Kozłowski, Underwater finds from Dive Site C at Aspros, in: Contributions to the Archaeology of Early Cyprus (Krakow 2014) 67–106. Karul 2011 N. Karul, Gusir Höyük, in: Özdoğan et al. 2011a, 1–17. Karul 2017 N. Karul, Northwest Anatolia. A border or a bridge between Anatolia and the Balkans during the early Neolithic period?, in: A. Reingruber – Z. Tsirtsoni – P. Nedelcheva (eds.), Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians (Abingdon, New York 2017) 7–18. Kenyon 1981 K. Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho. Vol. 3: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell (London 1981). Khalaily et al. 2007 H. Khalaily – O. Bar-Yosef – O. Barzilai – E. Boaretto – F. Bocquentin – A. Eirikh-Rose – Z. Greenhut – A. N. Goring-Morris – G. Le Dosseur – O. Marder – L. Sapir-Hen – M. Yizhaq, Excavations at Motza in the Judean Hills and the Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B in the southern Levant, Paléorient 33, 2, 2007, 5–37. Kılınç et al. 2016 G. M. Kılınç – A. Omrak – T. Günther – A. M. Büyükkarakaya – E. Bıçakçı – D. Baird – H. M. Dönertaş – A. Ghalichi – R. Yaka – D. Koptekin – S. C. Açan – P. Parvizi – M. Krzewińska – E. A. Daskalaki – E. Yüncü – N. D. Dağtaş – A. Fairbairn – J. Pearson – G. Mustafaoğlu – Y. S. Erdal – Y. G. Çakan – I. Togan – M. Somel – J. Storå – M. Jakobsson – A. Götherström, The demographic development of the first farmers in Anatolia, Current Biology 26, 19, 2016, 2659–2666. Kislev 1997 M. E. Kislev, Early agriculture and paleoecology of Netiv Hagdud, in: O. Bar-Yosef – A. Gopher (eds.), An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part I: The Archaeology of Netiv Hagdud (Cambridge 1997) 209–236. Kislev et al. 2006 M. E. Kislev – A. Hartmann – O. Bar-Yosef, Early domesticated fig in the Jordan Valley, Science 312, 5778, 2006, 1372–1374. Kislev et al. 2010 M. E. Kislev – A. Hartmann – T. Noy, The vegetal subsistence of Gilgal I as reflected in the assemblage of Locus 11, in: O. Bar-Yosef – N. A. Goring-Morris – A. Gopher (eds.), Gilgal. Early Neolithic Occupations in the Lower Jordan Valley. The Excavations of Tamar Noy (Cambridge 2010) 251–258. Kozłowski 2013 S. Kozłowski, The Jeziran Neolithic ‘market’, in: Y. Nishiaki – K. Kashima – M. Verhoeven (eds.), Neolithic Archaeology in the Khabur Valley, Upper Mesopotamia and Beyond (Berlin 2013) 218–236. Kuijt – Goring-Morris 2002 I. Kuijt – A. N. Goring-Morris, Foraging, farming and social complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the southern Levant. A review and synthesis, Journal of World Prehistory 16, 4, 2002, 361–440. Lazaridis et al. 2016 I. Lazaridis – D. Nadel – G. Rollefson – D. C. Merrett – N. Rohland – S. Mallick – D. Fernandes – M. Novak – B. Gamarra – K. Sirak – S. Connell – K. Stewardson – E. Harney – Q. Fu – G. Gonzalez-Fortes – S. Alpaslan Roodenberg – G. Lengyel – F. Bocquentin – B. Gasparian – J. M. Monge – M. Gregg – V. Eshed – A.-S. Mizrahi – C. Meiklejohn – F. Gerritsen – L. Bejenaru – M. Blüher – A. Campbell – G. Cavalleri – D. Comas – P. Froguel – E. Gilbert – S. M. Kerr – P. Kovacs – J. Krause – D. McGettigan – M. Merrigan – D. A. Merriwether – S. O’Reilly – M. B. Richards – O. Semino – M. Shamoon-Pour – G. Stefanescu – M. Stumvoll – A. Tonjes – A. Torroni – J. F. Wilson – L. Yengo – N. A. Hovhannisyan – N. Patterson – R. Pinhasi – D. Reich, The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers, Nature 536, 2016, 419–424. Lev-Yadun et al. 2000 S. Lev-Yadun – A. Gopher – S. Abbo, The cradle of agriculture, Science 288, 5471, 2000, 1602–1603. Lichter 2005 C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th Through the First Half of the 6th Millennium calBC, Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005).

When and Why Holocene Levantine Farmers Moved Westward?

65

Manning et al. 2010 S. W. Manning – C. McCartney – B. Kromer – S. T. Stewart, The earlier Neolithic in Cyprus. Recognition and dating of a Pre-Pottery Neolithic A occupation, Antiquity 84, 325, 2010, 693–706. Marciniak 2015 A. Marciniak, The Neolithic house as a procurement, production and consumption unit. The case of the Late Neolithic at Catalhoyük, in: K. Brink – S. Hydén – K. Jennbert – L. Larsson – D. Olausson (eds.), Neolithic Diversities. Perspectives from a Conference in Lund, Sweden (Lund 2015) 89–97. Martin – Edwards 2013 L. Martin – Y. Edwards, Diverse strategies. Evaluating the appearance and spread of domestic caprines in the southern Levant, in: S. Colledge – J. Conolly – K. Dobney – K. Manning – S. Shennan (eds.), The Origins and Spread of Domestic Animals in Southwest Asia and Europe (Walnut Creek 2013) 49–82. Mazurowski – Kanjou 2012 R. F. Mazurowski – Y. Kanjou (eds.), Tell Qaramel 1999–2007. Protoneolithic and Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic Settlement in Northern Syria (Warsaw 2012). McGrail 2001 S. McGrail, Boats of the World. From the Stone Age to Medieval Times (Oxford 2001). Miyake et al. 2012 Y. Miyake – O. Maeda – K. Tanno – H. Hongo – C. Y. Günden, New excavations at Hasankeyf Höyük. A tenth millennium BC site on the Upper Tigris, Southwest Anatolia, Neo-Lithics 1/12, 2012, 3–7. Mustafaoğlu – Bar-Yosef 2016 G. Mustafaoğlu – O. Bar-Yosef, Building experimental houses at Boncuklu Höyük, Journal of Anatolian Prehistoric Research 2, 2016, 24–55. Oota et al. 2005 H. Oota – B. Pakendorf – A. Weiss – A. von Haeseler – S. Pookajourn – W. Settheetham-Ishida – D. Tiwawech – T. Ishida – M. Stoneking, Recent origin and cultural reversion of a hunter-gatherer group, PLoS Biology 3, 3, 2005. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030071. Özbaşaran 2012 M. Özbaşaran, Aşıklı Höyük, in: M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 3: Central Turkey (Istanbul 2012) 135–158. Özdoğan 2005 M. Özdoğan, The expansion of the Neolithic way of life. What we know and what we do not know, in: Lichter 2005, 13–27. Özdoğan 2011 M. Özdoğan, Archaeological evidence on the westward expansion of farming communities from eastern Anatolia to the Aegean and the Balkans, Current Anthropology 52, S4, 2011, 415–430. Özdoğan 2017 M. Özdoğan, The archaeology of early farming in southeast Turkey, in: Y. Enzel – O. Bar-Yosef (eds.), Quaternary of the Levant. Environments, Climate Change, and Humans (Cambridge 2017) 723–731. Özdoğan – Özdoğan 1998 M. Özdoğan – A. Özdoğan, Buildings of cult and the cult of buildings, in: M. Arsebük – J. Mellink – W. Schirmer (eds.), Light on Top of the Black Hill. Studies Presented to Halet Çambel (Istanbul 1998) 581–601. Özdoğan et al. 2011a M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. I. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 1: The Tigris Basin (Istanbul 2011). Özdoğan et al. 2011b M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. I. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 2: The Euphrates Basin (Istanbul 2011). Özdoğan et al. 2014 M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. I. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 6: 10500–5200 BC. Environment, Settlement, Flora, Fauna, Dating, Symbols of Belief, with Views from North, South, East and West (Istanbul 2014).

66

Ofer Bar-Yosef

Özdoğan-Erim 2011 A. Özdoğan-Erim, Çayönü, in: Özdoğan et al. 2011a, 185–269. Özkaya – Coşkun 2011 V. Özkaya – A. Coşkun, Körtik Tepe, in: Özdoğan et al. 2011a, 89–127. Perlès 2005 C. Perlès, From the Near East to Greece. Let’s reverse the focus. Cultural elements that didn’t transfer, in: Lichter 2005, 275–290. Perlès 2010 C. Perlès, Grèce et Balkans. Deux voies de pénétration distinctes du Néolithique en Europe? in: J.-P. Demoule (ed.), La Révolution Néolithique dans le Monde (Paris 2010) 263–281. Perlès et al. 2011 C. Perlès – T. Takaoğlu – B. Gratuze, Melian obsidian in NW Turkey. Evidence for early Neolithic trade, Journal of Field Archaeology 36, 1, 2011, 42–59. Perlès et al. 2013 C. Perlès – A. Quiles – H. Valladas, Early seventh-millennium AMS dates from domestic seeds in the Initial Neolithic at Franchthi Cave (Argolid, Greece), Antiquity 87, 338, 2013, 1001–1015. Piperno – Pearsall 1998 D. R. Piperno – D. M. Pearsall (eds.), The Origins of Agriculture in the Lowland Neotropics (New York 1998). Riehl et al. 2012 S. Riehl – M. Benz – N. J. Conard – H. Darabi – K. Deckers – H. Fazeli Nashli – M. Zeidi-Kulehparcheh, Plant use in three Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites of the northern and eastern Fertile Crescent. A preliminary report, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 21, 2, 2012, 95–106. Riehl et al. 2013 S. Riehl – M. Zeidi – N. J. Conard, Emergence of agriculture in the foothills of the Zagros mountains of Iran, Science 341, 6141, 2013, 65–67. Rogers 2003 E. M. Rogers, Diffusion and Innovation (New York 2003). Rosenberg 2011a M. Rosenberg, Hallan Çemi, in: Özdoğan et al. 2011a, 61–78. Rosenberg 2011b M. Rosenberg, Demirköy, in: Özdoğan et al. 2011a, 79–87. Roux – Courty 2013 V. Roux – M.-A. Courty, Introduction to discontinuities and continuities. Theories, methods and proxies for a historical and sociological approach to evolution of past societies, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20, 2013, 187–193. Sapir-Hen et al. 2009 L. Sapir-Hen – G. Bar-Oz – H. Khalaily – T. Dayan, Gazelle exploitation in the early Neolithic site of Motza, Israel. The last of the gazelle hunters in the southern Levant, Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 7, 2009, 1538–1546. Schmidt 1999 K. Schmidt, Boars, ducks, and foxes. The Urfa-Project 99, Neo-Lithics 3/99, 1999, 12–15. Schmidt 2011 K. Schmidt, Göbekli Tepe, in: Özdoğan et al. 2011b, 41–83. Shennan et al. 2013 S. J. Shennan – S. S. Downey – A. Timpson – K. Edinborough – S. Colledge – K. Kerig – K. Manning – M. G. Thomas, Regional population collapse followed initial agriculture booms in mid-Holocene Europe, Nature Communications 4, 2013, 2486. doi: 10.1038/ncomms3486. Simmons 1999 A. H. Simmons, Faunal Extinction in an Island Society (New York 1999).

When and Why Holocene Levantine Farmers Moved Westward?

67

Simmons 2007 A. H. Simmons, The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East. Transforming the Human Landscape (Tucson 2007). Snir et al. 2015 A. Snir – D. Nadel – I. Groman-Yaroslavski – Y. Melamed – M. Sternberg – O. Bar-Yosef – E. Weiss, The origins of cultivation and proto-weeds, long before Neolithic farming, PLoS One 10, 7, 2015, e0131422. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0131422. Stordeur 2015 D. Stordeur, Le Village de Jerf el Ahmar (Syrie, 9500–8700 avant J.-C.). L’Architecture, Miroir d’une Société Néolithique Complexe (Paris 2015). Tchernov 1994 E. Tchernov, An Early Neolithic Village in the Jordan Valley. Part II: The Fauna of Netiv Hagdud (Cambridge 1994). Valla 1988 F. R. Valla, Aspects du sol de l’abri 131 de Mallaha (Eynan), Paléorient 14, 2, 1988, 283–296. Valla et al. 2010 F. R. Valla – H. Khalaily – N. Samuelian – F. Bocquentin, What happened in the Final Natufian? Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society. Mitekufat Haeven 40, 2010, 131–148. Van Andel – Runnels 1995 T. van Andel – C. N. Runnels, The earliest farmers in Europe, Antiquity 69, 264, 1995, 481–500. Van der Plicht et al. 2011 J. van der Plicht – P. M. M. G. Akkermans – O. Nieuwenhuyse – A. Kaneda – A. Russell, Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria. Radiocarbon chronology, cultural change and the 8.2 ka event, Radiocarbon 53, 2, 2011, 229–243. Van der Horn et al. 2015 S. A. van der Horn – T. van Kolfschoten – J. van der Plicht – W. Z. Hoek, The effects of the 8.2 ka event on the natural environment of Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria. Implications for ecosystem resilience studies, Quaternary International 378, 2015, 111–118. Vigne 2015 J.-D. Vigne, Early domestication and farming. What should we know or do for a better understanding? Anthropozoologica 50, 2, 2015, 123–150. Vigne – Cucchi 2005 J.-D. Vigne – T. Cucchi, Premières navigations au Proche-Orient. Les informations indirectes de Chypre, Paléorient 31, 1, 2005, 186–194. Vigne et al. 2009 J.-D. Vigne – A. Zazzo – J.-F. Saliège – F. Poplin – J. Guilaine – A. Simmons, Pre-Neolithic wild boar management and introduction to Cyprus more than 11,400 years ago, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106, 38, 2009, 16135–16138. Vigne et al. 2011 J.-D. Vigne – I. Carrère – F. Briois – J. Guilaine, The early process of mammal domestication in the Near East. New evidence from the Pre-Neolithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic in Cyprus, Current Anthropology 52, S4, 2011, 255–271. Vigne et al. 2012 J.-D. Vigne – F. Briois – A. Zazzo – G. Willcox – T. Cucchi – S. Thiébault – I. Carrère – Y. Franel – R. Touquet – C. Martin – C. Moreau – C. Comby – J. Guilaine, First wave of cultivators spread to Cyprus at least by 10,600 y ago, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109, 22, 2012, 8445–8449. Weninger et al. 2009 B. Weninger – L. Clare – E. J. Rohling – O. Bar-Yosef – U. Böhner – M. Budja – M. Bundschuh – A. Feurdean – H.-G. Gebel – O. Jöris – J. Linstädter – P. Mayewski – T. Mühlenbruch – A. Reingruber – G. Rollefson – D. Schyle – L. Thissen – H. C. Todorova – C. Zielhofer, The impact of rapid climate change on prehistoric societies during the Holocene in the Eastern Mediterranean, Documenta Praehistorica 36, 2009, 551–583.

68

Ofer Bar-Yosef

Wiessner 2016 P. Wiessner, The rift between science and humanism. What’s data got to do with it? Current Anthropology 57, S13, 2016, 154–166. Willcox 2012 G. Willcox, Pre-domestic cultivation during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene in the northern Levant, in: P. Gepts – T. R. Famula – D. L. Bettinger – S. B. Brush – A. B. Damania – P. E. McGuire – C. O. Qualset (eds.), Biodiversity in Agriculture. Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability (Cambridge 2012) 92–109. Willcox – Savard 2011 G. Willcox – M. Savard, Botanical evidence for the adoption of cultivation in Southeast Turkey, in: Özdoğan et al. 2011a, 267–280. Willcox – Stordeur 2012 G. Willcox – D. Stordeur, Large-scale cereal processing before domestication during the tenth millennium cal BC in northern Syria, Antiquity 86, 331, 2012, 99–114. Willcox et al. 2009 G. Willcox – R. Buxo – L. Herveux, Late Pleistocene and early Holocene climate and the beginnings of cultivation in northern Syria, The Holocene 19, 1, 2009, 151–158. Wright 1984 H. T. Wright, Prestate political formations, in: T. K. Earle (ed.), On the Evolution of Complex Societies. Essays in Honor of Harry Hoijer (Malibu 1984) 43–77. Yalçinkaya et al. 2002 I. Yalçinkaya – M. Otte – J. Kozłowski – O. Bar-Yosef (eds.), La Grotte d’Öküzini. Évolution du Paléolithique Final du Sud-Ouest de l’Anatolie (Liège 2002). Yartah 2005 T. Yartah, Les bâtiments communautaires de Tell ‘Abr 3 (PPNA, Syrie), Neo-Lithics 1/05, 2005, 3–9. Yartah 2013 T. Yartah, Vie Quotidienne, Vie Communautaire et Symbolique à Tell ‘Abr 3 – Syrie du Nord. Données Nouvelles et Nouvelles Réflexions sur l’Horizon PPNA au Nord du Levant, 10,000–9,000 BP (PhD Diss., Lumière Université Lyon 2, Lyon 2013). Yerkes et al. 2003 R. W. Yerkes – R. Barkai – A. Gopher – O. Bar-Yosef, Microwear analysis of early Neolithic (PPNA) axes and bifacial tools from Netiv Hagdud in the Jordan Valley, Israel, Journal of Archaeological Science 30, 8, 2003, 1051–1066. Zeder 2012 M. Zeder, The domestication of animals, Journal of Anthropological Research 68, 2, 2012, 161–190. Zeuner 1963 F. E. Zeuner, A History of Domesticated Animals (London 1963). Zohary et al. 2012 D. Zohary – M. Hopf – E. Weiss, Domestication of Plants in the Old World. The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants in Southwest Asia, Europe and the Mediterranean Basin (Oxford 2012).

A Phantom Frontier and the Wild West? A View from the Neolithic of Central Anatolia

69

A Phantom Frontier and the Wild West? A View from the Neolithic of Central Anatolia Douglas Baird 1 Abstract: This paper attempts to consider the spread of farming westwards from central Anatolia and the question of Neolithic frontiers in the light of evidence for the nature of the adoption of farming in central Anatolia. It considers the implications of this evidence for the potential mechanisms of the spread of farming westwards, evaluates concepts of farming frontiers and interprets evidence for the nature of early Holocene communities west of the Konya Plain in relation to the question of the spread of farming. It considers conceptual issues of the nature of frontiers and dichotomies between foragers and farmers, it considers methodological issues relating to data acquisition and their limits on our understandings and it considers possible scenarios for the spread of farming in the light of central Anatolian evidence and factors underlying the spread of farming. Keywords: Neolithic, Anatolia, frontiers, spread of farming

Frontiers On a large scale the existence of a frontier in the sense of the contemporary presence of two juxtaposed areas, one of communities, some of which were practising cultivation and one where none were, seems incontestable during the first appearance and spread of farming west and east of the ‘Fertile crescent’. However, more meaningful issues are whether this frontier had any stability, especially long-term stability, reflected significant distinctions between communities on either side of the frontier and formed some sort of check, of greater or lesser strength on interaction, and was something reflected in identities of the prehistoric communities involved. As Maxime Brami outlines in his introduction to this volume, one emerging model that he promulgates and is also supported by Eva Rosenstock in this volume, is of a stable frontier, which had some effect on intercommunity interaction to the extent that cultivation and herding did not spread beyond it for 1500–2000 years and thus presumably did reflect relatively concrete degrees of impermeability. This position is not new, Ulf Schoop2 for example, identified the same lag in the spread of farming, suggesting a key role for ecological differences establishing long-term social practices inhibiting a westward spread of faring from central Anatolia.

The Adoption of Farming in the Konya Plain The Konya Plain survey between 1995 and 2002 directed by Baird,3 the Pınarbaşı excavations 2003–2006 directed by Baird4 and the Boncuklu excavations 2006– directed by Baird, then joined by Fairbairn and Mustafaoğlu5 have provided important data on the adoption of farming and

1



2

4 5 3

Department of Archaeology, Classics, and Egyptology, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom, d. [email protected]. Schoop 2005. Baird 2006. Baird 2012a. Baird et al. 2018.

70

Douglas Baird

emergence of sedentary communities in central Anatolia and have significant implications for the spread of farming westwards. These projects have documented the following scenario in the Konya Plain. We have detected the presence of the only definitively Epipalaeolithic occupation on the central Anatolian plateau in a rock shelter at Pınarbaşı dated 13500–11000 calBC,6 probably starting just before the Levantine Natufian and before the Bølling-Allerød/GI 1. It overlaps with much of the Natufian and may or may not be occupied during the Younger Dryas. The community hunted wild caprines and aurochs, with also likely a significant contribution to the diet from fishing and fowling.7 There is little evidence for plant exploitation, not of the wild ancestors of the first cultivated cereals, nor even of the nuts and fruits present in the environment. Isotope evidence confirms a high focus on meat. This community probably ranged widely on the plateau and onto the south Taurus flanks and was probably part of low-density populations.8 Archaeological links with the Levantine Natufian seem strong suggested by mortuary practices including skull removal, grave goods, tool technologies, microlithic assemblages dominated by lunates, decorated grooved stones, possible spear thrower use and flows of materials between central Anatolia and the Levant and Mediterranean coasts such as obsidian and sea shells.9 Links with Epipaleolithic communities exploiting the south coast of Turkey are also likely but those with the Antalya communities are less strong and less clear cut. There is unlikely to have been any Epipalaeolithic/Late Glacial frontier between Levantine and central Anatolia communities. This archaeological evidence is further supported by aDNA work.10 Analysis of aDNA from one of the Pınarbaşı Epipalaeolithic individuals clearly indicates distinctive central Anatolia populations, showing strong genetic continuity with those on the Konya Plain in the early Holocene at Boncuklu, but who in the Epipalaeolithic shared c. 50% of their genetic make-up with Levantine Natufian populations and support a bidirectional genetic exchange that matches the material evidence.11 At the same time, some bilateral gene flow is indicated with ancestors of SE European populations, albeit at a lower level. The absence of genetic frontiers in the Epipaleolithic across the Anatolian plateau, despite the colder conditions of the Late Glacial, when ecological barriers may have been more notable, provides a context for potential early Holocene population interactions. This is further suggested by three obsidian pieces in the Late Epipalaeolithic (12th–11th millennia calBC) from Öküzini.12 It is unclear if Pınarbaşı is occupied during the Younger Dryas, in which conditions may well have been more challenging on the plateau.13 However, Anatolian obsidian does travel to the Levant then, so it is quite possible.14 However, at the moment it is unclear whether there may have been continuity of use of the Pınarbaşı settlement locale. Nevertheless the locale is certainly occupied from early in the Holocene judging by a 14C date from the earliest phases in Area D on the open settlement site of 9799–9406 calBC, equivalent to the beginnings of the Levantine PPNA.15 Occupation is documented over the period between c. 9600 and 7900 calBC there, probably broadly continuous from c. 9000 calBC,16 equivalent to later Levantine PPNA, if not earlier. In contrast to the Epipalaeolithic occupation there is much more evidence for investment in habitation structures and large food processing tools, certainly from c. 9000 calBC. Structures

6

8 9 7

10

12 13 14 15 16 11

Baird et al. 2013. Baird et al. 2013. Baird et al. 2013. Baird 2012a; Baird et al. 2013. Feldman et al. forthcoming. Feldman et al. forthcoming. Carter et al. 2011, table 3. Baird et al. 2013. Baird 2012a. Baird et al. 2018, SI Appendix Table S2. Baird et al. 2018, SI Appendix Fig. S3 Table S1.

A Phantom Frontier and the Wild West? A View from the Neolithic of Central Anatolia

Pınarbaşı

Winter J

Egg collection Reed leaf gathering Plant collection nuts Animal Age of death Migratory birds

Boncuklu

D

Young birds Migratory birds Animal age of death Plant collection nuts Crop sowing Crop harvest Reed leaf gathering Gathering Bolboschoenous tubers Egg collection

F

M

Spring A M

J

Summer J A

S

71

Autumn O N

Boar, caprine, fox

Boar

minimum period of exploitation of these resources full period of potential exploitation of these resources Fig. 1   Seasonality indicators from Boncuklu and Pınarbaşı (graphics: D. Baird)

are oval and cut down into underlying deposit with wattle and daub superstructures. Floors are plastered several times.17 Burials are found in open areas between buildings.18 These suggest increased sedentary practices, sedentarisation, relative to the preceding Epipalaeolithic,19 borne out by seasonality indicators (Fig. 1) which show indicators (young animals, seasonally present birds, plant remains) from most seasons of the year, with very frequent indicators in late summer, autumn, winter and spring. The community hunted aurochs and equids, with lesser proportions of caprines than in the Epipalaeolithic occupation of the locale. Aurochs and equid meat (43% Number of Identified Specimens - NISP) certainly dominated the meat component of the diet.20 However, fowling and some fishing also contributed. The biggest contrast with the Epipalaeolithic is an increase in plant exploitation for food as suggested by Carbon and Nitrogen stable isotopes,21 in particular fruits/nuts making a significant contribution, especially almond, terebinth and hackberry, whose remains are all abundant.22 An interesting continuation of the pattern from the Epipalaeolithic indicates an absence of wild ancestors of cultivated wheat, barley and legumes. These plants were certainly not cultivated and not collected, probably not present in the environment given their absence from deposits between 13500 and 8300 calBC at Pınarbaşı. The forager community at Pınarbaşı clearly underpinned sedentarising practices with a combination of large wild game hunting, wetland resource exploitation, and tree derived nut/fruit foods.23 This seems a contrast with the model for the Levantine Natufian, where medium mammals and intensive wild grain exploitation seem to have underwritten sedentary practices. This strongly suggests forager communities of the Konya Plain traced their own route to sedentism, albeit partly responding to increasingly dense resources of the early Holocene.

17

19 20 21 22 23 18

Baird 2012a. Baird 2012a. Baird 2012a. Baird et al. 2018, table 4. Baird et al. 2018, table 3. Baird et al. 2018, table 1. Baird 2012b.

72

Douglas Baird

Boncuklu Boncuklu is occupied from at least 8300 calBC, possibly some time before this.24 At Boncuklu there is evidence for even more intensively sedentary practices. Habitations are present echoing the Pınarbaşı examples, sub-oval and set into cuts in underlying deposit. Walls are mudbrick, set into or above the cut for the lower part of the buildings. These buildings show more intensive evidence of use and refurbishment, often plastered with 10–25 plaster floors, perhaps annually, more than the Pınarbaşı examples. In addition, buildings are reconstructed frequently in the same location, probably continuously, suggesting significant longevity for households.25 This constant reconstruction of the house probably symbolised household continuity further outlining habitation longevity at the site. Indeed there is much evidence of intensive symbolic expression and ritual practices at the site. Habitations were divided into clean and dirty areas, initial construction, key moments in the life of buildings and households and demolition of the residences were all marked by ritual practice, objects in postholes, insertion of bucrania and other animal parts in walls and floors and human burials.26 Human burials occurred with moderate frequency under clean areas. But there is an insufficiency of dead in such locations.27 People were also buried in the spaces between buildings, as were disarticulated human remains, especially human skulls and skull elements. Almost all the sub-floor house burials have their heads still present, so they mainly derived from external disarticulation process and display of skulls, probably as part of special ceremonies, but probably of community members. Those buried externally are presumably the missing dead from houses and Carbon and Nitrogen isotopes suggest that they belonged to distinct commensal groups, parts of corporate entities cross-cutting households. Intensive symbolic practices at Boncuklu provide a contrast with earlier Holocene and contemporary Pınarbaşı. Social arrangements and symbolic practices do, therefore, seem to show contrasts with Pınarbaşı which can be seen as a separate community, based also on very specific technological and identity expression. Seasonality indicators do confirm contemporaneity of both communities (Fig. 1) not just in the longer term, 8300–7900 calBC,28 but in terms of seasonality of habitation activity. In particular, Boncuklu shows some parallels in hunting practices, aurochs provided most meat, some equids are hunted, these two species total NISP was 40%, very similar to Pınarbaşı.29 Fowling and fishing were important. But Boncuklu shows much boar hunting (48% NISP) in contrast to Pınarbaşı (6% NISP) and probably significantly more fishing. Amphibians may also have been consumed. Whilst nuts/fruits were consumed, as at Pınarbaşı, they were also possibly supplemented by Bolboschoenus glaucus tubers in winter. Overall foraged resources probably show a great focus on wetland, in contrast to those at Pınarbaşı, which have a stronger hill-derived element, not surprising related to locations of the sites (Fig. 2). However, additionally the Boncuklu community evidences small-scale plant cultivation with emmer and einkorn wheat, peas and lentils directly dated to the site occupation.30 These are present in earliest stratigraphic contexts so far excavated (albeit these are not the earliest on the site). Our dates currently go back to c. 8300 calBC. This clearly indicates farming introduced by 8300 calBC on the Konya Plain. Also caprine stable isotopes and herbivore dung at the site clearly suggested small-scale caprine herding.31 These appeared added to and integrated within the focus on wetland exploitation.

24

26 27 28 29 30 31 25

Baird et al. 2018. Baird et al. 2017. Baird et al. 2018. Baird et al. 2017. Baird et al. 2018. Baird et al. 2018, table 4. Baird et al. 2018. Baird et al. 2018.

A Phantom Frontier and the Wild West? A View from the Neolithic of Central Anatolia

73

Fig. 2   Principal sites of the Konya Plain mentioned in the text (map: D. Baird)

We have made the argument that indigenous Konya Plain foragers, at Boncuklu or their antecedent community, introduced cultivated plants to the Konya Plain, adopting them from communities to the south and/or east.32 These arguments can now be supported on a number of grounds. Continuities between the Boncuklu community and earlier communities are clearly indicated by the high degree of similarity between the Boncuklu and Pınarbaşı chipped stone assemblages, dominated by a virtually identical microlithic industry,33 with obsidian the predominant raw material. Since this assemblage clearly predates Boncuklu in the 10th and early 9th millennium calBC, local continuity from the beginning of the Holocene seems well established. In addition continuities from local Epipalaeolithic communities are indicated by the broader continuation of a microlithic Epipalaeolithic style assemblage into the early Holocene, microlithic assemblages represented at Epipalaeolithic Pınarbaşı from 13500 calBC. This is further supported by high levels of genetic continuity detected by aDNA, of the order of 90%, between the Pınarbaşı Epipalaeolithic and Boncuklu humans.34 Epipalaeolithic and early Holocene occupations at Pınarbaşı show no presence of wild ancestors of cultivars, wheat, barley or peas at least. The hilly area of Karadağ are their most likely habitats in the Konya Basin. Wild emmer is certainly not attested naturally in central Anatolia and must have

32

Baird 2012b; Baird et al. 2018. Baird et al. 2018. 34 Feldman et al. forthcoming. 33

74

Douglas Baird

been introduced. In short, these plants do not appear to be native to the Konya Basin area and if wild einkorn was, it does not appear to have been of interest to local foragers. Caprines were certainly local and seem quite likely to have been subject to local experimentation and management leading to local domestication, perhaps relating to knowledge of practices elsewhere. Thus, the cultivated and domesticated wheats and legumes were probably introduced through exchange networks, which are well attested already in Epipalaeolithic Pınarbaşı,35 with import of many Mediterranean marine shells, probably from the south through the Göksu, as well as sharing of social practices. In addition, genetic exchanges with Epipalaeolithic Levant, paralleling technological sharing and exchange of shells and obsidian, are also indicated by aDNA. Interestingly aDNA36 suggests small-scale exchanges from central Anatolia with and though eastern Anatolia in the 11th–9th millennia calBC. In summary, local foragers represented by the Boncuklu community, whether resident at Boncuklu or at preceding settlements, adopted cultivation from areas to south and/or east and probably experimented with herding local caprines, or perhaps adopting some exogenous caprines alongside cultivated plants or a mix thereof. These practices seem well integrated with traditional wetland exploitation practices and did not result in immediate dramatic economic changes. A contemporary and more long established community at Pınarbaşı, continued their traditional foraging, eschewing interest in cultivated plants and animal herding. This probably related to both the strength of their particular landscape engagements with their ecotone setting and the way that was bound up in their identities and sense of community, successfully underwriting their sedentarising residential practices.

Implications of the Konya Plain Evidence for the Spread of Farming West of the Konya Basin and Across the Anatolian Plateau 1. In the Konya Basin local foragers, probably already with sedentarising residential practices, were involved in the adoption of cultivars from the south and east through pre-existing exchange networks, this was accompanied by the possible local domestication of animals, potentially combined with import of herded animals. This is supported by both material culture continuities and the aDNA continuities. Given this is the only currently demonstrated mechanism in operation for the spread of farming into central Anatolia, and the lake basins and plains to the west shared many similar features to the Konya Plain, it seems plausible that there were sedentarising forager communities west of the Konya Plain. This was at least one mechanism in operation for the spread of farming westwards. 2. Two communities c. 30km apart shared many traditional practices but seem to have established distinct identities. It is difficult to imagine a ‘frontier’ between such communities. The spread of farming was, based on this evidence, plausibly a diffuse, sporadic, highly distributed, inhomogeneous and patchwork affair. This scenario would see some local foragers adopting farming and making local, related innovations, some completely rejecting farming and plausibly components of farming communities, originating in central Anatolia, moving westwards. This would not suggest a frontier type situation but a highly flexible and fluid pattern of sporadic spread, adoption and movement of people, both some smaller and to and fro movements of people and some larger scale and unidirectional shifts of communities or major elements of communities. In these terms a ‘frontier’ would not be a narrow and strong boundary, but a zone in which communities may be engaging with cultivation and herding to different degrees or not at all. In this situation the sense of a firm frontier seems implausible. 3. Further, it makes no sense to consider a low permeability frontier when for 5000 years preceding the adoption of farming there was on-going, material, ideological, technical and ge-

35 36

Baird et al. 2013. Feldman et al. forthcoming.

A Phantom Frontier and the Wild West? A View from the Neolithic of Central Anatolia

75

netic exchanges between populations, reaching over the Taurus mountains, between central Anatolia and the Levant, as genetic evidence now suggests between central and eastern Anatolia. There were, thus, no barriers between forager interactions and indeed forager/farmer interactions between regions. It is likely this situation extended west of the Konya Plain as well as including it. 4. There is some evidence that SE Europeans and west Anatolian populations antecedent to the appearance of the first farmers west of the Konya Basin already shared genetic relationships.37 So a significant degree of genetic similarity between Barcin early farmers and those at Boncuklu could be accounted for in that way. However, strong genetic similarities also allow movement of people and genetic similarities between northwest Anatolian Neolithic populations and those at Tepecik Çiftlik, also suggest Levantine genetic inputs after 8000 calBC may have involved movement of people from central Anatolia after 8000 calBC as well. 5. The Konya Plain situation also demonstrates methodological lessons. Despite the excavation of Çatalhöyük from the beginning of the 1960s, periods of significant survey in which Çatalhöyük and then other Neolithic settlements sites were discovered,38 its fame and focus for archaeological activity, the early Holocene of the Konya Plain only began to be documented in the mid-1990s.39 That is c. 40 years after organised archaeological survey was initiated in the area. It required the suite of methodologies of the Konya Plain survey,40 designed to find small sites, with small lithic artefacts, whether buried under alluvium, cave deposits or later larger settlement mounds, that first revealed early Holocene sites predating Çatalhöyük. These methods included intensive pedestrian survey, use of satellite imagery, walking of canals to discover buried sites, as well as intensive gridded survey of identified sites including scraping and sieving to retrieve small and low-density artefacts from buried occupations.41 Even then it took four seasons of excavation to reveal the Epipalaeolithic under the overlying Late Glacial rock shatter and Late Neolithic rock shelter occupation and six seasons of field survey before Boncuklu was identified. In short, the infrequency of potential sites pre-7000 calBC on the Anatolian plateau west of the Konya Plain exactly mirrors the situation in the Konya Plain before the mid 1990s. The number of surveys adopting the techniques here espoused in western Anatolia is limited. The identification of the earliest Neolithic sites on the west coast in the 1990s, at sites like Ulucak,42 applying an analogous time frame, suggest we could easily wait another decade to identify the evidence of the nature of 10th–8th millennium calBC communities in western Anatolia and the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition there. 6. The methodological limitations for documenting Epipalaeolithic, Mesolithic and earliest Neolithic communities on the Anatolian plateau and its fringes west of the Konya Plain are strongly suggested by the limited evidence for the nature of any type of human populations in this vast area, with the exception of the Antalya bay. It is highly unlikely that these areas were depopulated, lower and coastal areas would have been favoured in the Epipalaeolithic, as in Antalya, and in the earliest Holocene. Indeed the occupation at Girmeler with 9th millennium calBC dates, and survey evidence of Mesolithic or Epipalaeolithic occupation at site 35 on the Karaburun peninsula43 are already supporting evidence for the presence of poorly understood populations. Indeed the Pınarbaşı evidence makes clear the presence of populations on the plateau from at least 13,500 calBC and the genetics suggests interactions westward

37

39 40 41 42 43 38

Kilinç et al. 2016; Feldman et al. forthcoming. Mellaart 1961. Baird 1996. Baird 1996. Baird 1996. Çilingiroğlu – Çilingiroğlu 2007. Çilingiroğlu et al 2018.

76

Douglas Baird

across the plateau area earlier.44 In the relatively wet and warm early Holocene populations of many types would have burgeoned on the plateau, as at Pınarbaşı on the Konya Plain.45 People were clearly in these western areas between 10000 and 7000 calBC, but survey methods have not documented their presence or their settlements for the most part (see below), so we do not know what sort of mosaic might have existed. 7. In addition as the Konya Plain situation indicates,46 where initial adoption is by local foragers traditional chipped stone tool kits may be in use, the same tool kits, as local foragers who do not adopt farming. Even where ‘Mesolithic’ sites, as defined by lithics, might be detected on survey we could not know whether some have adopted element of cultivation or herding, or innovated local animal management. Indeed, even when settlement translocation by colonisation might be involved, when this could have included local foragers with microlithic assemblages (lithic assemblages such as those that might first have left the Konya Plain with early farmers) it would be difficult to tell from survey evidence.

Evidence West of the Konya Plain However, we do have evidence from west of the Konya Plain for the relevant periods, which may hint at some of the processes. Firstly we can consider direct evidence of early farming west of the Konya Plain. As recent analyses of 14C dates indicate farming had reached NW Anatolia by 6700 calBC at Barcin and by the same time at Ulucak.47 At Ulucak however, the sequence is not bottomed and there are at least 5 ‘aceramic’ levels preceding the main dated phases. So it probably reached west Anatolian coast at least a century before 6700 calBC. This seems further likely by the settlement of Crete by aceramic farming communities, almost certainly from/via SW Anatolia by c. 6800 calBC. So what of the period 8300 calBC to 7000 calBC when there might be a putative frontier, or pause in the spread of agriculture west of the Konya Plain. Suberde Whilst Suberde is not very far west of Boncuklu, c. 100km to the SW, it does represent the spread of farming westwards into the intermontane smaller lake basins that characterise much of south central Anatolia west of the Konya Plain and indicates this had probably occurred before c. 7300 calBC and involved both domesticated cereals and caprines.48 Recent bone collagen dates overlap with earlier charcoal dates from Level III at 7400–7000 calBC.49 Suberde chipped stone is a classic Late Aceramic/second half of 8th millennium calBC assemblage also seen on the Konya Plain, with Canhasan/Musular point types alongside Byblos points.50 The shift to these point types across central Anatolia, including at Boncuklu, occurs c. 7600 calBC. Whilst microliths may be present they are not common and there is a coarse infrequent organic tempered pottery (five sherds), as at Boncuklu. So it seems to have been occupied by groups using this Late Aceramic chipped stone technology and rare pottery technology or strongly influenced by it, between 7600–7300 calBC fitting neatly with the 14C dates. It is quite possible, of course, that they were preceded by adoption of farming before Suberde was occupied. It seems likely that spread west of the Suğla area had occurred before 7300 calBC.

44

46 47 48 49 50 45

Feldman et al. forthcoming. Baird et al. 2018. Baird et al. 2018. Clare – Weninger 2014, 25. Arbuckle 2008. Arbuckle 2008. Bordaz 1969; Baird 2010, 213.

A Phantom Frontier and the Wild West? A View from the Neolithic of Central Anatolia

77

Hacılar Hacılar has been a contentious site in regard to the spread of farming. Predating the Ceramic Neolithic levels at Hacılar were seven ‘aceramic’ levels.51 These were characterised by non-microlithic assemblages with larger blades including a possible Byblos type point and pressure flaked dagger or larger point,52 rectangular mudbrick architecture, with plaster floors, some red painted, evidence of mortuary practices, which included skull removal and deposition in open areas.53 Cultivated plants were clearly in evidence including emmer, einkorn, hulled and naked barley.54 Materially these seem similar to the Konya Plain later Aceramic sites like Canhasan III and include features of a tradition such as seen at Boncuklu with red painted plaster floors, mudbrick buildings and skull removal and deposition in open spaces.55 Probably the transition to rectangular architecture in the Konya Plain and larger tools including Byblos points occurs c. 7700–7500 calBC. The latter part of the date range of a 14C date from these levels at Hacılar of c. 8000–7500 calBC would fit well with this scenario. The picture has been clouded by Duru’s work, involving the excavation of a series of trenches around the main mound at Hacılar. These detected earliest deposits on natural in the low site around the mound. Pottery was present from the earliest deposits in these trenches.56 But these trenches are not close to Mellaart’s and not stratigraphically connected to the deeper sequence on the main mound. The fact that a Ceramic/Late Neolithic is present in these areas does not have any real relevance to the presence or otherwise of an Aceramic period occupation at the bottom of Mellaart’s sequence. Indeed it strengthens it, suggesting pottery would have been found if these earliest levels were equivalent to those in the lower lying settlement areas around the main higher mound. Further, given the presence of sporadic pottery at Boncuklu, even an occasional sherd might be expected in the Aceramic, 8th millennium calBC. In short, there is little basis on which to dismiss very solid evidence of a later Aceramic Neolithic period site that shares many features with 8th millennium calBC sites in the Konya Plain and has a 14C date of that period. Given the moderately substantial nature of the area excavated by Mellaart, it seems highly likely this represents a classic late Aceramic farming community in the western part of the south central Anatolia plateau by c. 7500 calBC at the latest, farming probably having arrived earlier.

Probably 10th–8th Millennium Sites Whose Subsistence Record is Unclear Girmeler Girmeler in SW Turkey, SW of the Hacılar area and west of the Antalya caves represents a small mound settlement in front of a cave, in that way rather reminiscent of a setting like the 10th–8th millennium calBC site at Pınarbaşı. Lower parts of this mound include a sequence of hearths and a plastered floor, replastered at least twice. The suggestion from clay lumps is that such structures had a wattle and daub superstructure. Hearths later than the plaster floor have provided three dates, 8200–7900 calBC. There are also contemporary burials close to the cave. These features are highly reminiscent of the settlement at Pınarbaşı, including plaster floors, the occupation at Pınarbaşı interpreted as a sedentarising community.

51

53 54 55 56 52

Mellaart 1970, 3. Mellaart 1970, 447, fig 166f. Mellaart 1970, 6. Helbaek 1970, 198. Baird et al. 2017. Duru 2008, 12.

78

Douglas Baird

Animal exploitation practices include hunting of boar and deer, with no evidence of caprines or aurochs. Plant exploitation practices are unclear, but large grinders and one sickle blade raise the distinct possibility of plant harvesting and processing. Unfortunately this tantalising evidence leaves open the possibility of plant cultivation but is not clear-cut in that regard. It certainly does suggest the presence of sedentarising forager communities, in some ways reminiscent of their contemporaries in central Anatolia, who might well have been in a position to adopt cultivars, in a manner similar to central Anatolia. Two Nassarius shell beads indicate practices similar to the Antalya caves and central Anatolia. The chipped stone industry, largely flake based, but with some blades used for piercing tools and the sickle blade and some blade debitage but no microliths suggest contrasts with central Anatolia. Whilst the flake based character of the flint industry might hint at links with the Aegean Mesolithic,57 the absence of microliths and presence of sickle blades is not convincing. Kömürlük Tepe This site is located in NW Anatolia, near the Black Sea. This is an aceramic site with large blade industry58 and much obsidian including central Anatolian material.59 It seems highly likely that this is a late Aceramic site, predating Barcin but with evidence of links with areas to the east. It thus probably dates c. 7500–7000 calBC. We do not know the nature of plant or animal exploitation strategies, but cultivation is certainly a possibility. Sickle blades may suggest this. If not, given earlier assemblages in this area are microlithic, this provides good evidence for the spread of, at the least, technological practices, alongside materials like obsidian from the east. This may well have involved complex mixes of smaller and large-scale populations, some moving to and fro, given possible evidence for local forager continuities in the early Fikirtepe sites. Pendik provides evidence for microliths and curvilinear sunken structures in some early farming sites c. 6500 calBC.60

Now You See Them Now You Don’t The lower flanks of the southern Taurus would have provided relatively mesic conditions from the Late Glacial Maximum (LGM) through Late Glacial and in the early Holocene, as well as an extended coastal plain. We might expect these areas to have hosted at least moderate forager populations linked with those in the northern Levant. Such a corridor could have provided suitable conditions for a spread of farming. Population presence through LGM and into Bølling-Allerød is well attested in the Antalya caves. The Girmeler site does suggest that early Holocene populations were well established. Whilst less clear cut there is a probability of early Holocene populations using Antalya caves. The use of caves such as at Karain and Öküzini in the early Holocene is less clear because such phases are at the top of those sequences, so subject to disturbances and mixing from slightly later Holocene occupation and probably contained residual Epipalaeolithic material too. Nevertheless four 14C dates, such as four from Öküzini dating to the 10th–8th millennia calBC from levels 1a2– 1b161 and central Anatolian obsidian from the same arbitrarily excavated horizons62 and some elements technologically similar (although not exclusively so) to 10th–8th millennium Konya Plain obsidian63 suggest early Holocene populations there that were connected with the Konya Plain,

59 60 61 62 63 57 58

Takaoğlu et al. 2014, 114. Kartal et al. 2014. Kartal et al. 2015. Bittel 1971; Harmankaya 1983. Goldberg – Bar-Yosef 2002, table 3. Carter et al. 2011. Carter et al 2011, fig. 5.

A Phantom Frontier and the Wild West? A View from the Neolithic of Central Anatolia

79

through which obsidian may have come. However, the degree of residential mobility or sedentism, and plant exploitation practices are unclear. Further east along the southern Taurus flanks early Holocene population is invisible, but was probably present and cultivated plants. These invisible populations are instructive and suggested by the colonisation of Cyprus. Daniela Bar-Yosef Mayer64 has plausibly demonstrated colonisation of Cyprus by sea is most likely from southern Anatolia because of prevailing tides and winds. It is likely it is from here that Sus,65 then caprines and cattle were introduced along with emmer and einkorn.66 Sus was introduced by c. 8700 calBC, other plants (although they may well turn out to be present in the 10th/early 9th millennium calBC settlements) and animals by 8300 calBC in the so-called Cypro-PPNB.67 Obsidian probably travelled from the south coast of Anatolia as well, repeatedly via intermediate populations. As Emma Baysal has also pointed out distinctive modes of drilling Nassarius shell beads at Boncuklu on the Konya Plain and in Cyprus, suggest those north–south links as well. Nevertheless, the south Anatolian populations, presumably farming and managing animals in the lower Göksu and Cilicia remain invisible. The reasons are probably similar to the absence of clear farming sites discussed above, surveys without suitable methodologies, modest sized populations, sediment deposition in key settlement areas. This is instructive for the archaeologists’ creation of an ‘artificial’ frontier between central Anatolia and west Anatolia, just as between southern Anatolian and west Anatolian coasts.

Conclusions Currently the evidence is too poor to construct a major frontier, a long lasting boundary, somewhere not far west of the Konya Plain across which farming did not spread and other interactions were limited. People were probably there, but we do not know what they were doing. It is highly likely that the phantom frontier results from: 1) limited and unsuitable survey methodologies, 2) alluviation, colluviation and site burial, 3) little understanding of the nature of relevant material cultures of early farmers and 4) the non-homogeneous and patchy/dendritic nature of the spread itself, with complex and variable mechanisms in the areas west of the Konya Plain and along the south coast. The evidence we do have strongly suggests that farming probably did spread west of the Konya Plain before 7500 calBC, at least along south central Anatolia, probably echoing a spread along the south coast. Hints of continuities in local forager behaviour, adoption of sedentary practices, spread of technologies and aDNA evidence suggesting significant gene flow, some probably before farming, all these suggest complex processes, with mosaic situations such as those we can actually document in the Konya Plain. Frontiers in the sense of clear and lasting boundaries of only limited porosity seem not to match the probable scenarios. In addition, interactions, movements of smaller and larger groups of people were not necessarily unidirectional, but rather dendritic and not necessarily just east–west, from central Anatolia west and north-west, or along the coastal Taurus flanks, but also north–south and south–north, through passes larger and smaller. Probably in this way this is analogous to the settlement of Cyprus, where tides, currents and winds may have encouraged access from the south coast of Turkey, but return voyages via the north Levant coast and regular interactions through such mechanisms, involving significant coming and going is reflected by movement of obsidian and protracted introduction of various species and technologies to the island.68 We can also rule out some of the putative explanations for a frontier. Ecological boundaries seem unlikely. There are plenty of intermontane basins with lakes and rivers offering conditions

64

66 67 68 65

Bar-Yosef Mayer 2015. Manning et al. 2010; Vigne et al. 2011. Bar-Yosef Mayer 2015. Peltenburg 2004, xiii–xiv. Bar-Yosef Mayer 2015.

80

Douglas Baird

not dissimilar to those on the Konya Plain in south central and western Anatolia and equally areas of plain with hilly fringes providing water and alluvium west of the Konya Basin. Schoop’s69 interpretation of a steppe adapted early cultivation does not fit the early Holocene conditions on the Konya Plain, which was a well watered wetland/steppe mosaic, with moist adapted woodland on the plain and drier adapted woodland on the hill fringes. Westward-draining valleys on the Aegean littoral would have afforded many suitable locales for early farming, definitely exploited only slightly later in prehistory. The concept of an area too wooded for farming habitation70 seems implausible in that woodland was clearly not a blanket phenomenon and plenty of larger areas of open woodland fringing denser forest also existed. These considerations and phenomena also allow us to reflect on explanations for the spread of farming. As the Konya Basin case has demonstrated, farming spread into this area through forager adoption of crops. Explanations for such mechanisms must consider why some foragers might adopt farming, whilst others might reject it. The suggestion in regards to Boncuklu is that adoption of cultivation and herding was small-scale and economically of modest effect.71 Rather desire for new types of foods and other products such as dung may have been attractive for indigenous forager populations and these may be seen additionally, as enhancing distinctive identities within and between adopting communities and neighbouring foragers. Rejection seems plausibly related to identity maintenance.72 Both factors seem likely to have operated beyond the Konya Plain and certainly would not have been constrained by ecological circumstances nor variable density of forager communities. Since population and community relocation westwards may well have been part of the spread of farming westwards, it seems likely that this was an extension and modest scaling up of pre-existing interactions involving human mobility that pre-date spread of farming attested in shared genetic history going back into the Late Glacial.73 In the Konya Plain, for example, during the course of and by the end of the Late Aceramic Neolithic between 7500 and 7000 calBC most communities disappear and only Çatalhöyük continues. Baird74 has suggested this involved some relocation of population to an aggregated settlement at Çatalhöyük. This remains plausible as a foundation underlying its long-term growth. It is also likely that some of these communities/population elements may have relocated to the west of the Konya Plain. It is interesting that this is the period when more westerly communities become visible, definitely at Suberde, plausibly at Hacılar, possibly at Kömürlük tepe. Could westward moving farming groups have built on pre-existing interactions with foragers to their west? What is the evidence for such possible interactions? The evidence for contacts across those areas does exist, how much it involved local early Holocene foragers is difficult to say. As mentioned the gene flows might strongly suggest intimate interactions. Boncuklu flint sources include those up to 200km northwest of the Konya Basin and must have been procured directly or through intermediaries and, in either light, interaction is plausible. Obsidian moved west and south west in the early Holocene too. Obsidian is rare in the Late Glacial record of the Antalya caves, but obsidian blanks and tools found in the disturbed early Holocene layers of Öküzini,75 suggesting east-west interactions over the early Holocene, some plausibly through the Konya Basin area, as well as along the south coast. The nature of adoption and development of cultivation in the Konya Basin can also provide insights into possible aspects of the spread of farming westwards and possible phases of both slower and more rapid spread. Thus Konya Plain forager adoption of imported cultivars and possibly local initiation of caprine management, develop in a context of local long-term sedentarising

69

71 72 73 74 75 70

Schoop 2005. Schoop 2005. Baird et al. 2018. Baird in press. Feldman et al. forthcoming. Baird 2006. Carter et al. 2011.

A Phantom Frontier and the Wild West? A View from the Neolithic of Central Anatolia

81

communities.76 If such communities were less common west of the Konya Plain then the spread through adoption of small-scale cultivation would be both more sporadic and less visible. It would also have been most likely in settings favouring development of sedentary residential practices. In the Konya Basin this occurs in area of small lakes and wetland or wetland/hill ecotones. Thus the smaller lake basins of south central Anatolia might well have provided an avenue for this type of spread. This could correlate with the presence of the earliest sedentary farming sites west of the Konya Plain by the mid-8th millennium calBC in such settings. There is a further possibility, an alternative model, suggested by the development of farming communities in the Konya Plain. It is clear that in the Konya Plain the initial phase of cultivation and herding involved small-scale food production between c. 8300 and c. 7600 calBC.77 It is after 7600 calBC in a Late Aceramic phase78 that more substantial mixed farming seems to emerge, where both crop production and animal herding seem more important at sites like Canhasan III,79 Suberde80 and Late Aceramic Çatalhöyük. It is perhaps only with the adoption of mixed farming as a major part of economic endeavour c. 7600 calBC that farming communities spread more rapidly, homogeneously and visibly. This could have been because of the economic productivity of this combination, or related population increase, or both. It would then be no coincidence that it is c. 7600–7400 calBC that we see significant change in the Konya Plain settlement pattern and the first detectable settlements west of the Konya Basin. Indeed, these two models are not mutually exclusive and could represent two phases of the spread of farming. Systematic intensive survey targeted at detecting Epipalaeolithic and early Holocene populations and intensive multi-site excavation, as in the Konya Plain, will give us more of the answers in different regional situations.

References Arbuckle 2008 B. S. Arbuckle, Revisiting Neolithic caprine exploitation at Suberde, Turkey, Journal of Field Archaeology 33, 2, 2008, 219–236. Baird 1996 D. Baird, The Konya Plain Survey. Aims and methods, in: I. Hodder (ed.), On the Surface. Çatalhöyük 1993–95, Çatalhöyük Research Project 1, McDonald Institute Monographs, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 22 (Cambridge 1996) 41–46. Baird 2006 D. Baird, The history of settlement and social landscapes in the Early Holocene in the Çatalhöyük area, in: I. Hodder  (ed.), Çatalhöyük perspectives. Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons, Çatalhöyük Research Project 6, McDonald Institute Monographs, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 40 (Cambridge 2005) 55–74. Baird 2010 D. Baird, Was Çatalhöyük a centre? The implications of a late Aceramic Neolithic assemblage from the neighbourhood of Çatalhöyük, in: D. Bolger – L.C. Maguire (eds.), The Development of Pre-State Communities in the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honour of Edgar Peltenburg (Oxford 2010) 207–216. Baird 2012a D. Baird, Pınarbaşı. From Epi-Palaeolithic camp-site to sedentarising village in central Anatolia, in: M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 3: Central Turkey (Istanbul 2012) 181–218.

76

78 79 80 77

Baird 2012a. Baird et al. 2018. Baird 2012b. Middleton 2018. Arbuckle 2008.

82

Douglas Baird

Baird 2012b D. Baird, The Late Epipalaeolithic, Neolithic and Chalcolithic of the Anatolian Plateau, 13000–4000 BC calibrated, in: D. T. Potts (ed.), A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (Hoboken 2012) 431–465. Baird in press D. Baird, Connected communities and constructed identities. The Konya plain 15000–6000 cal BC, in: Ç. Maner (ed.), Crossroads – Konya Plain from Prehistory to the Byzantine Period (in press). Baird et al. 2013 D. Baird – E. Asouti – A. Baysal – E. Baysal – D. Carruthers – A. Fairbairn – E. Jenkins – C. Kabukcu – K. Lorentz – C. Midldeton – J. Pearson – A. Pirie, Juniper smoke, skulls and wolves tails. The Epipalaeolithic of the Anatolian plateau in its SW Asian context; insights from Pınarbașı, Levant 45, 2, 2013, 175–209. Baird et al. 2017 D. Baird – A. Fairbairn – L. Martin, The animate house, the institutionalization of the household in Neolithic Central Anatolia, World Archaeology 49, 5, 2017, 753–776. Baird et al. 2018 D. Baird – A. Fairbairn – E. Jenkins – L. Martin – C. Middleton – J. Pearson – E. Asouti – Y. Edwards – C. Kabukcu – G. Mustafaoğlu – N. Russell – O. Bar-Yosef – G. Jacobsen – X. Wu – A. Baker – S. Elliott, Agricultural origins on the Anatolian plateau, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115, 14, 2018, E3077–E3086. Bar-Yosef Mayer et al. 2015 D. Bar-Yosef Mayer – Y. Kahanov – J. Roskin – H. Gildor, Neolithic voyages to Cyprus. Wind patterns, routes, and mechanisms, Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 10, 2015, 412–435. Bittel 1971 K. Bittel, Bemerkungen über die prähistorische Ansiedlung auf dem Fikirtepe bei Kadıköy (Istanbul), Istanbuler Mitteilungen 19/20, 1971, 1–19. Bordaz 1969 J. Bordaz, The Suberde excavations, southwestern Turkey. An interim report, Turk Arkeoloji Dergisi 17, 2, 1969, 43–71. Clare – Weninger 2014 L. Clare – B. Weninger, The dispersal of Neolithic lifeways. Absolute chronology and rapid climate change in central and western Anatolia, in: M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. I. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 6: 10500–5200 BC. Environment, Settlement, Flora, Fauna, Dating, Symbols of Belief, with Views from North, South, East and West (Istanbul 2014) 1–65. Carter et al. 2011 T. Carter – F.-X. Le Bourdonnec – M. Kartal – G. Poupeau – T. Calligaro, Marginal perspectives: sourcing Epi-Palaeolithic to Chalcolithic obsidian from the Öküzini cave (SW Turkey), Paléorient 37, 2, 2011, 123–149. Çilingiroğlu – Çilingiroğlu 2007 A. Çilingiroğlu – Ç Çilingiroğlu, Ulucak, in: M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen (eds.), Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem. Anadolu’da Uygarlığın Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı. Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular (Istanbul 2007) 361–372. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2018 Ç. Çilingiroğlu – B. Dinçer – I. Baykara – A. Uhri – C. Çakırlar, A possible Late Pleistocene forager site from the Karaburun Peninsula, western Turkey, Antiquity 92, 362, 2018, Project Gallery 1–5. doi: 10.15184/aqy.2018.51. Duru 2008 R. Duru, From 8000 BC to 2000 BC. Six Thousand Years of the Burdur–Antalya Region (Antalya 2008). Feldman et al. forthcoming M. Feldman – E. Fernandez – L. Reynolds – D. Baird – J. Pearson – A. Fairbairn – G. Mustafaoğlu – I. Hershkovitz – H. May – N. Goring-Morris – M. Benz – J. Gresky – R. Bianco – P. W. Stockhammer – C. Posth – W. Haak – C. Jeong – J. Krause, Late Pleistocene human genome suggests local adoption of farming in Anatolia (forthcoming). Goldberg – Bar-Yosef 2002 P. Goldberg – O. Bar-Yosef, Micromorphology of selected samples from Öküzini cave, in: I. Yalçınkaya – M. Otte – J. Kozlowski, La grotte d’Öküzini. Évolution du paléolithique final du sud-ouest de l’Anatolie, Études et recherches archéologiques de l’Université de Liège 96 (Liège 2002) 41–47.

A Phantom Frontier and the Wild West? A View from the Neolithic of Central Anatolia

83

Harmankaya 1983 S. Harmankya, Pendik Kazisi 1981, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 4, 1983, 25–30. Helbaek 1970 H. Helbaek, The plant husbandry of Hacilar. A study of cultivation and domestication, in: Mellaart 1970, 189–244. Kartal et al. 2014 M. Kartal – M. Karakoç – E. Erbi̇ l, Sakarya İli Tarih Öncesi Arkeolojisi Yüzey Araştırması (I), 2013, 32 Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 32, 1, 2014, 9–26. Kartal et al. 2015 M. Kartal – E. Erbi̇ l – M. Karakoç, Sakarya İli Tarih Öncesi Arkeolojisi Yüzey Araştırması (II), 2014, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 33, 2, 387–408. Kılınç et al. 2016 G. M. Kılınç – A. Omrak – T. Günther – A. M. Büyükkarakaya – E. Bıçakçı – D. Baird – H. M. Dönertaş – A. Ghalichi – R. Yaka – D. Koptekin – S. C. Açan – P. Parvizi – M. Krzewińska – E. A. Daskalaki – E. Yüncü – N. D. Dağtaş – A. Fairbairn – J. Pearson – G. Mustafaoğlu – Y. S. Erdal – Y. G. Çakan – İ. Togan – M. Somel – J. Storå – M. Jakobsson – A. Götherström, The demographic development of the first farmers in Anatolia, Current Biology 26, 19, 2016, 2659–2666. Manning et al. 2010 S. Manning – C. McCartney – B. Kromer – S. Stewart, The earlier Neolithic in Cyprus. Recognition and dating of a Pre-Pottery Neolithic A occupation, Antiquity 84, 325, 2010, 693–706. Mellaart 1961 J. Mellaart, Early cultures of the south Anatolian plateau, Anatolian Studies 11, 1961, 159–184. Mellaart 1970 J. Mellaart, Excavations at Hacılar (Edinburgh 1970). Takaoğlu et al. 2014 T. Takaoğlu – T. Korkut – B. Erdoğu – G. Işın, Archaeological evidence for 9th and 8th millennia BC at Girmeler Cave near Tlos in SW Turkey, Documenta Praehistorica 41, 2014, 111–118. Middleton 2018 C. Middleton, The beginning of herding and animal management. The early development of caprine herding on the Konya Plain, Central Anatolia, Anatolian Studies 68, 2018, 1–31. Peltenburg 2004 E. J. Peltenburg, Introduction. A revised Cypriot prehistory and some implications for the study of the Neolithic, in: E. J. Peltenburg – A Wasse (eds.), Neolithic Revolution. New Perspectives on Southwest Asia in Light of Recent Discoveries on Cyprus (London 2004) xi–xx. Schoop 2005 U. D. Schoop, The late escape of the Neolithic from the central Anatolian plain, in: C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium calBC. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul 20–22 May 2004, Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005) 41–58. Vigne et al. 2011 J. D. Vigne – F. Briois – A. Zazzo – I. Carrère – J. Daujat – J. Guilaine, A new early Pre-Pottery Neolithic site in Cyprus: Ayios Tychonas – Klimonas (ca. 8700 cal. BC), Neo-Lithics 1/11, 2011, 1–11.

84

Douglas Baird

The Significance of an Insular Aegean Mesolithic to Processes of Neolithisation

85

The Significance of an Insular Aegean Mesolithic to Processes of Neolithisation Tristan Carter 1 Abstract: This paper reviews the evidence for Mesolithic activity amongst the islands of the Aegean, including the new sites of Livari and Damnoni on Crete, and considers these data’s significance concerning long-held views on the processes of neolithisation in the region. It is argued that these new data now suggest that (a) migrant seaborne farmers moving into the Aegean from Anatolia would not have traversed an uninhabited land- and seascape; (b) there is robust evidence for pre-Neolithic, pan-Aegean, interaction networks as attested by the circulation of Melian obsidian and common lithic traditions (from Crete to western Anatolia); (c) knowledge of these maritime routes would have been employed by migrant farmers; they were not navigating unknown waters; (d) the chipped stone assemblage of Initial Neolithic Knossos reflects forager-farmer interaction, indicating that while the earliest agro-pastoral regime was based on the introduction of foreign domesticates, this was not a colonisation of ‘virgin territory’, and the agency and influence of indigenous hunter-gatherers must be taken into consideration when considering the character of earliest Neolithic Crete. Keywords: Mesolithic, neolithisation, Aegean islands, lithic traditions, forager-farmer interaction, maritime networks

Introduction: The Neolithisation of Crete and the Southern Mainland Recent absolute dating projects at Knossos (Crete), and the Franchthi Cave (Argolid, Greek mainland) have detailed how the earliest (Initial Neolithic: IN) farming economies of the western Aegean (modern-day Greece) were established in the first half of the 7th millennium calBC (Fig. 1).2 Given that these communities’ agro-pastoral regimes were based upon foreign cultivates and domesticates, it has long been accepted that farming was introduced to Crete and the mainland of Greece by outsiders.3 The origin of these regions’ Neolithic economies has to lay in the east with farming well-established in Anatolia, Cyprus and the Levant during the 9th–8th millennia calBC.4 Many claim that migrant farmers introduced these plants and animals to the Aegean5 with archaeological and genetic evidence used to model these migrant farmers’ homelands and the routes by which they reached the Aegean.6 With the establishment of farming in northern Greece (Thessaly and Macedonia) post-dating IN Franchthi and Knossos, it seems safe to rule out a terrestrial route of introduction from Anatolia via the Thracian landbridge, leaving a seaborne introduction from across the Aegean.7 With only paddled craft available at this time,8 such a maritime venture would have necessitated these Neolithic seafarers island-hopping to Crete and the Greek mainland.9

1

3 4 5 6 7 8 2



9

Department of Anthropology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, [email protected]. Perlès et al. 2013; Douka et al. 2017. Perlès 1990, 38–42; Broodbank – Strasser 1991; Horwitz 2013; Sarpaki 2013. Colledge et al. 2004; Simmons 2007; Knapp 2010; Conolly et al. 2011. Indeed, Perlès 2001, 45, views demic diffusion as ‘the inescapable hypothesis’. Broodbank – Strasser 1991; Perlès 2001; King et al. 2008; Horejs et al. 2015; inter alia. Perlès et al. 2013; Horejs et al. 2015. Sailing vessels are thought to have been introduced into the Aegean much later, towards the end of the 3rd millennium calBC (Broodbank 2000, 96–97). Broodbank – Strasser 1991.

86

Tristan Carter

Fig. 1 Location of main sites and islands discussed in the text (K. Freund)

Until relatively recently, the intervening islands of the Aegean were not believed to have been colonised until the Late Neolithic (5th millennium calBC),10 whereby these migrant farmers were initially thought to have navigated uninhabited land- and seascapes. Moreover, Crete itself was believed to have been unoccupied at this time, whereby the early farmers of Knossos were theoretically colonising virgin territory.11 The notion of an unimpeded westward movement of ‘Neolithic lifeways’ from Anatolia to Crete and the southern mainland is something that now requires critical reflection given the number of Mesolithic sites discovered in the intervening islands – and Crete itself – since the 1990’s. This paper considers the significance of these data with regard to our understanding of the means by which farming came to be introduced to the region and the processes of neolithisation on Crete in the early centuries of the 7th millennium calBC. Background to Initial Neolithic Knossos Deep stratigraphic excavations at the Kephala tell of Knossos reached the site’s basal levels during 1957–1970 and again in 1997; these sondages revealed evidence for a small campsite of agro-pas-

Cherry 1981; Cherry 1990. Evans 1994, 1–2.

10 11

The Significance of an Insular Aegean Mesolithic to Processes of Neolithisation

87

toralists who lived in mudbrick houses and practiced extra-mural inhumation.12 The inhabitants’ domesticates included small cattle, goats, sheep and dog, while they grew barley, emmer and bread wheat, plus legumes such as lentils; they also collected wild figs and almonds.13 Their material culture has been described as ‘simple’, with flake-based chipped stone tools (detailed below), plus ground stone and bone implements, figurines and a limited range of adornments.14 These artefacts were made primarily of local raw materials, with the exception of the chipped stone tools, which were fashioned mainly from Melian (Cycladic) obsidian.15 The absence of pottery led the earliest stratum at Knossos to be referred to as an ‘Aceramic Neolithic’ occupation, though the term ‘Initial Neolithic’ (IN) is now preferred by many.16 A recent chronological study that melded radiocarbon dates from the 1960’s and 2000’s within a Bayesian modelling framework, suggested that the ‘pioneer site’ of IN Knossos was founded between c. 6800–6600 calBC.17 At the time these excavations of the IN settlement were conducted there was no evidence for any earlier human activity on Crete. Given this purported lack of an indigenous hunter-gatherer population, and the fact that plant and animal domesticates of IN Knossos were all foreign to Crete, the logical conclusion (pre-2008) was that farming had to have been introduced to Crete from the east. The use of bread wheat and mudbrick architecture allegedly provided more specific links to central Anatolia as a potential homeland of these migrant farmers, as represented by the early Neolithic traditions of Aşıklı Höyük, Çatalhöyük and Hacılar (8th–7th millennium calBC sites).18 More recently, studies in molecular biology have claimed that Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups of modern Cretan inhabitants show an affinity between Cretan and central Mediterranean Anatolian populations, with the J2 genetic marker being linked to the spread of farming.19 Mesolithic Crete The idea that Crete had remained unoccupied until the earliest Neolithic received a significant challenge in the first decade of this century20 when Palaeolithic and Mesolithic tools were reported from southwest Crete and the nearby islet of Gavdos.21 Damnoni in the Plakias region has since been excavated,22 while at Livari on the southeast coast, a Mesolithic chipped stone assemblage was recovered in a secondary context during the investigation of a Bronze Age cemetery.23 Both fit Runnels’ Aegean Mesolithic site-location model at the ‘intersection of woodland and aquatic habitats’.24 These coastal wetland plains would have provided a rich array of animals, plants and marine resources for hunter-fisher-gatherer subsistence, a setting directly comparable to the ‘foraging coastscapes’25 enjoyed by the well-documented Mesolithic populations of the southern Argolid. Unfortunately, neither site has generated absolute dates; indeed the sole scientific date for pre-Neolithic activity on Crete comprises an OSL determina-

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 13

Evans 1994, 1–6; Efstratiou 2013. Isaakidou 2008; Horwitz 2013; Sarpaki 2013, 63–73. Conolly 2008. Renfrew et al. 1965, 237–238. Tomkins 2008. Douka et al. 2017. Evans 1994, 5; Love 2012, 140; Sarpaki 2013, 64; see also Cutting 2006. King et al. 2008. Prior claims for Cretan pre-Neolithic activity were unsubstantiated, Broodbank – Strasser 1991, 234–235. Mortensen 2008; Kopaka – Matzanas 2009; Strasser et al. 2010; see also Runnels et al. 2014. Strasser et al. 2015. Carter et al. 2016a. Runnels 2009, 60–62. Broodbank 2006, 211; Runnels 2009.

88

Tristan Carter

Fig. 2 Mesolithic artefacts from Livari. 1. multidirectional flake core/micro chopper with spine; 2. bladelet core/pièce esquillèe; 3. core rejuvenation flake; 4–5. unidirectional retouched bladelets; 6–7. flakes with convergent retouch; 8–11. ‘spines’; 12–16. retouched flakes; 17. Flake; 18–20. geometrics with backed elements; 21–22. short scrapers on flakes (15, 19, 22, 23 are obsidian) (D. Mihailović)

tion of 110–130000 BP (terminus ante quem) for a Pleistocene deposit containing typologically Lower Palaeolithic tools.26 In the light of these new discoveries, we need to critically reflect on prior theories concerning the nature and origin of the earliest farming societies on Crete. In short, what implication does the Cretan Mesolithic have for our understanding of IN Knossos? While it remains that the plants and animals that formed the early farmers’ subsistence bases were exogenous, it can no longer be assumed that the Neolithic migrants settled virgin territory; they may have been confronted by an indigenous Mesolithic population. As such, we need to consider the possibility that certain

26

Strasser et al. 2011.

The Significance of an Insular Aegean Mesolithic to Processes of Neolithisation

89

Fig. 3 Mesolithic artefacts from Livari made of local cherts (D. Aubert)

aspects of IN Knossian cultural practice might attest to interactions between foreign farmers and local hunter-gatherers. The only evidential realm within which we can currently assess this possibility is through reference to the chipped stone assemblages of IN Knossos, Livari and Damnoni; it is to this study we turn to next. The Livari artefacts were comprised primarily of locally available chert (Fig. 3), together with four pieces of obsidian,27 the latter characterised as having come from the Cycladic source of Sta Nychia (Melos), 245km linear distance to the north.28 Chert pebbles were percussion knapped on-site, mainly to make flakes, plus smaller amounts of blades, with cores, cortical debris and end-products all well attested (Fig. 2). While the assemblage is microlithic in character, geometrics were rare, though notably over 40% of the artefacts were retouched, with the most common tool types being ‘spines’ (pointed pieces used as borers, perforators or drills), plus denticulates, notches and thumbnail scrapers. A third of the modified pieces had inverse retouch, which is a notable characteristic of Aegean Mesolithic tool-making habits.29 The Damnoni assemblage was similarly dominated by local raw materials (quartz and chert) worked in a flake-based tradition from pebble cores (with bladelets a minority), with the tools including ‘spines’, denticulates and notched pieces; again, many pieces had inverse retouch (Fig. 4). 30 As at Livari, evidence for the participation in long-distance exchange networks was attested through the presence of ten pieces of Melian obsidian.31 The best-dated comparanda for the Livari and Damnoni assemblages come from the Franchthi Cave on mainland Greece, specifically the Lower–Final Mesolithic assemblages (lithic phases VII–IX) that span 8500–7000 BC,32 assemblages that are similarly microlithic and flake-based, with notches/denticulates and ‘spines’ the dominant tool-types (Fig. 5).33 While strong connections can be made with the Franchthi Cave lithics, we believe that the IN Knossian material is better viewed as forming part of an ‘early Holocene Aegean island lithic tradition’, based on its comparability to excavated Mesolithic material from Ikaria, Kythnos and Youra.34

27

29 30 31

Carter et al. 2016a. Carter 2016. Perlès 1990, Doc. II.11. Strasser et al. 2015, 278, figs. 7–9. Mesolithic chipped stone assemblages have also been reported by Strasser et al. (2010) during the Plakias region survey that discovered Damnoni and at Moni Kapsa by Galanidou (2011, 224) further to the east on the southern coast. 32 Perlès 2001, tab. 2,1. 33 Perlès 1990, 23–93, figs. 5–8, 13–19, 21–22; for full discussion see Carter et al. 2016a. 34 Sampson et al. 2010, 68–69. 28

90

Tristan Carter

Fig. 4 Mesolithic quartz artefacts from Damnoni. 1. multidirectional flake core; 2. pièce esquillée; 3–5. flakes with linear retouch; 9–10. Endscrapers; 11–13. ‘spines’; 14. Notch; 15. pseudo-trapeze; 16. denticulate (D. Mihailović)

The Case for an Indigenous Mesolithic Influence on IN Knossian Practices If one focusses on raw material choice, then the Knossian IN and Mesolithic lithics are quite distinct. Over 70% of the early farmers’ tools were made from Melian (overseas) obsidian, whereas the hunter-gatherers of Livari and Damnoni chose to employ local resources, with obsidian constituting a mere 1.6% and 0.1% of their assemblages.35 Technologically, however, these populations’ tool-making traditions have much in common. Firstly, they are all flake-based assemblages that were produced on-site by a percussion technique. Secondly, a significant proportion of blanks were retouched into tools sensu strictu, with 40% at Knossos and 44% at Livari. The one significant distinction between the IN and Mesolithic data sets is that the Knossos assemblage included a small quantity of ready-made obsidian percussion and pressure blades; such implements – and their associated technical traditions – are unknown from Livari. In the first major study of the Knossian lithics, James Conolly claimed that the assemblage’s closest parallel came from the IN Franchthi Cave (albeit slightly later in date); both were flakebased and contained small proportions of more technically advanced blade products. However, while Catherine Perlès argued that the Franchthi Cave material reflected influences from Meso-

35

Conolly 2008; Strasser et al. 2015; Carter et al. 2016a.

The Significance of an Insular Aegean Mesolithic to Processes of Neolithisation

Kerame 1

Truncations

Truncations

Linear

Linear

Spine

Spine

Notch/Dent

Notch/Dent

n = 302

n = 105

Livari

Composite Scraper

Composite Scraper

Backed

Backed

Geometric

Geometric

Other

Other

0.0

0.1

0.2 Proportions

0.3

0.4

0.0

0.1

Truncations

Truncations

Linear

Linear

Spine

Spine

Notch/Dent

Notch/Dent

Composite Scraper

Geometric

Geometric

Other

Other 0.3

0.4

0.0

Truncations

Truncations

Linear

Linear

Spine

Spine

Notch/Dent

Notch/Dent

Composite Scraper

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.4

Scraper

Backed

Backed Geometric

Other

Other 0.2 Proportions

0.2 Proportions

Composite

Geometric

0.1

0.1

Franchthi (VII−IX)

n = 823

n = 2204

Stelida

0.0

0.4

Scraper Backed

0.2 Proportions

0.3

Composite

Backed

0.1

0.2 Proportions

Cyclops Cave

n = 45

n = 675

Maroulas

0.0

91

0.3

0.4

0.0

0.1

0.2 Proportions

Fig. 5 Composition of lithic assemblages from the main excavated Aegean Mesolithic sites discussed in the text (D. Contreras)

lithic knapping traditions, Connolly rejected such an implication for the Knossian assemblage based on the belief that Crete had no indigenous hunter-gatherer tradition. The similarity of the two IN assemblages was instead explained as the result of the communities’ comparable environments that led to the independent development of functionally comparable tool-kits.36

36

Conolly 2008.

92

Tristan Carter

Conolly’s interpretations were challenged by Malgorzata Kaczanowksa and Janusz Kozlowski37 who downplayed similarities with Franchthi, arguing instead that the Knossian material formed part of their ‘early Holocene Aegean island lithic tradition’. It is my strong belief that it makes more sense to conceptualise the IN Knossos assemblage as culturally hybrid.38 The character of this material has been shown to embody technical and raw material choices derived from both foreign farmer and local hunter-gatherer traditions, the result of exchange and/or inter-marriage between the two groups.39 The flake-based material now has antecedents from the Cretan Mesolithic, while the minority blade component, not least the few pressure blades, clearly indicate links to Neolithic traditions from the east, specifically those of Çatalhöyük in central Anatolia which provides excellent material and conceptual parallels for IN Knossos.40 Sometime before c. 7100 BC it appears that a group of farmers – conceivably from Cappadocia – came to settle in the Konya Plain at Çatalhöyük. These agro-pastoralists brought with them a range of domesticates, cultivates and tool-making traditions whose origins lay in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Levant.41 While a ‘Neolithic’ lifeway is attested clearly from the outset at Çatalhöyük, one can simultaneously note that members of the community were also hunting significant quantities of wild animals and birds, and making geometric microlithic tools, practices that derived from local Epipalaeolithic traditions.42 The earliest Neolithic occupation at Çatalhöyük can thus also be conceptualised in terms of cultural hybridity,43 which is arguably the result of interactions between indigenous hunter-gatherers and non-local farmers, i.e. what we believe occurred at Knossos some 100–200 years later.44 In making a case for farmer-forager interaction at Knossos in the first centuries of the 7th millennium calBC, do we conceptualise Crete as the frontier between these two different lifeways? Alternatively, might migrant Anatolian agro-pastoralists have encountered hunter-gatherer populations in the intervening insular Aegean? Rather than paddling into unknown waters, were these Anatolian seafarers drawing upon maritime knowledge of the local islanders, and taking advantage of pre-existing routes and deep-time interaction networks? It is to this insular (non-Cretan) Mesolithic that we now turn to answer these questions. Mesolithic Activity in the Cyclades, Sporades, Northern Aegean and the Dodecanese Since the early 1990’s, Mesolithic sites have been documented by excavation and survey in the Cyclades (Kythnos and Naxos), Sporades (Youra), the northern Aegean islands (Ikaria) and the Dodecanese (Chalki).45 Mesolithic activity is also attested indirectly on Melos (Cyclades) and Giali (Dodecanese) through the exploitation of their obsidian sources by Aegean hunter-gatherers of the period.46

Kaczanowksa – Kozlowski 2014. Cf. Bhabha 1995. 39 While recent aDNA studies by Kılınç et al. (2016) argue against significant forager-farmer admixture, work by Hofmanová et al. (2016) indicates some genetic continuity between Mesolithic and Neolithic populations at the Theopetra Cave, and that Neolithic communities of the Aegean basin may represent the original gene pool for early European farmers. 40 Carter et al. 2016a, 93–97. 41 Hodder 2006, 82–84; Carter 2011, 11–12; Carter – Milić 2013, 497, fig. 3; Bayliss et al. 2015. 42 Russell – Martin 2005, 44–46, fig. 2.3, tables 2.5–2.7; Carter 2011, 11. 43 Cf. Bhabha 1995. 44 For more of a discussion concerning the evidence for actual links between IN Knossos and central Anatolia see Carter et al. 2016a, 96–97. 45 Sampson 2008; Sampson et al. 2010; Sampson et al.2012; Sampson 2016; Carter et al. 2016b; Sampson et al. 2016; Carter et al. 2017. 46 Carter 2016. 37 38

The Significance of an Insular Aegean Mesolithic to Processes of Neolithisation

93

Fig. 6 Examples of primary types of Mesolithic stone tools from Stelida. 1–3. flake cores; 4–5. Denticulates; 6–10. “spines”; 11. notch; 12. Linear; 13. runcation; 14. backed flake (‘pseudotrapeze’); 15. scraper; 16. burin (3, 10–12 are Melian obsidian) (D. Mihailović)

Excavations at Maroulas on Kythnos revealed a village of part-subterranean round-houses (with intramural burials) whose inhabitants subsisted primarily upon marine resources, supplemented by wild pigs and a range of smaller mammals.47 A series of radiocarbon dates situates

Sampson et al. 2010.

47

94

Tristan Carter

Maroulas within the first half of the 9th millennium calBC, i.e. the Lower Mesolithic occupation.48 The Cyclops Cave on Youra seems to have been occupied seasonally by specialised fisher-hunters who exploited marine resources, land snails, wild animals and birds.49 The site’s – likely intermittent – occupation covered a longer period than that of Maroulas, with 14C dates spanning the 9th–7th millennium calBC, i.e. the Lower – Upper Mesolithic. Work at Kerame 1 on Ikaria revealed neither architectural features nor organics whereby little can be said concerning the nature of the occupation or the inhabitants’ subsistence practices.50 The rich lithic assemblage of chert plus obsidian from Melos and Giali did, however, provide a relative chronology via its techno-typological characteristics, while two dates of c. 11000 BP were generated by the obsidian-hydration technique.51 More recently, work at the chert source of Stelida on Naxos has produced evidence for the quarry’s intermittent exploitation from the Lower Palaeolithic to Mesolithic.52 Products of the ‘early Holocene Aegean island lithic tradition’ (Figs. 5–6) are well-represented on site, though excavations have yet to generate Mesolithic-exclusive strata. A survey has documented another Naxian Mesolithic site at Roos, whose chipped stone assemblage includes large quantities of Melian obsidian alongside what appears to be tools of Stelida chert.53 The final insular site of note is that of Areta, which appears to have been a short-term camp on the small island of Chalki (Dodecanese), whose lithics are dominated by Giali and Melian obsidian.54 The Significance of an Aegean Insular Mesolithic to the Westward Spread of ‘the Neolithic’ So what significance have these Mesolithic insular populations for our understanding of the neolithisation of Crete and the southern Greek mainland? Firstly, while we do not know if these sites represent year-round occupations, or seasonal camps,55 it remains that people were clearly in the islands at this time. Secondly, the circulation of obsidian from Melos and Giali during the Mesolithic further attests to maritime networks linking hunter-gatherers of the southern mainland and Crete with the islands or islanders (Fig. 7).56 What we do not currently have is clear evidence for contemporary western Anatolian hunter-gatherers venturing into these insular worlds, i.e. proof of a truly pan-Aegean Mesolithic maritime network, knowledge of which could have been employed by migrant farmers on their westward journey. Ideally, we would have Aegean obsidian from a later 8th millennium calBC site on the Anatolian coast. Alas at present, the earliest evidence for Melian products being procured by populations of this region dates no earlier than 6700 calBC,57 i.e. post-dating the establishment of both IN Knossos and the Franchthi Cave.58 The absence of earlier obsidian in the region is arguably partly due to the fact that no Mesolithic sites were known from western Anatolia until the recent discovery of a Mesolithic site at Mordoğan near modern Izmir. While the assemblage does not contain obsidian, its flake-based and microlithic character can clearly be linked to the ‘early Holocene Aegean island lithic tradition’.59 The common

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

Sampson 2014, 194. Sampson 2008; Sampson 2014, 192. Sampson et al. 2012. Liritzis – Laskaris 2012. Carter et al. 2014; Carter et al. 2016b; Skarpelis et al. 2017. Sampson 2016; Sampson et al. 2016, 238–241. Sampson et al. 2016, 230–238. What Broodbank (2000, 111) refers to as an ‘extended pre-colonisation phase’ of the insular Aegean. Strasser et al. 2015, 278; Carter 2016. Perlès et al. 2013; Horejs et al. 2015; Douka et al. 2017. The fact that the pioneer farmers of western Anatolia (e.g. Çukuriçi Höyük and Ulucak) were accessing Melian obsidian from the outset suggests strongly a prior knowledge of the Cycladic source and/or the connections with those who had access to the resource. 59 Çilingiroğlu 2016; Çilingiroğlu et al. 2016. 48 49

The Significance of an Insular Aegean Mesolithic to Processes of Neolithisation

95

Fig. 7 Aegean Mesolithic sites with Melian obsidian by proportion of chipped-stone assemblage (K. Freund)

tool-making traditions of western Anatolian and Aegean insular hunter-gatherer populations can be viewed as the result of close interactions between these groups, likely articulated by exchange relations and/or inter-marriage.60 Another important new site is Girmeler in southwest Anatolia whose late 9th/early 8th millennia BC deposits produced another flake-based assemblage with claimed links to not only Mesolithic Aegean traditions, but also broadly contemporary Cypriot Epipalaeolithic material.61 The site’s location is telling, as this is the obvious continental landfall en route from Cyprus, and/or point of departure for anyone paddling to Crete from Anatolia.62 Conclusions The past few years have witnessed the discovery of not only an insular Aegean Mesolithic, but also a pan-Aegean tool-making tradition that linked hunter-gatherer populations from western/ southwestern Anatolia to Crete and the southern Greek mainland. These data, when considered alongside the seaborne circulation of obsidian in the Mesolithic, provide us with robust evidence for well-established maritime routes that could have been used by farmers from Anatolia, Cyprus and/or the Levant when they came to paddle into the Aegean.

Cf. Gosselain 2000; Gosselain – Livingstone Smith 2005, 42–43. Takaoğlu et al. 2014, 112–113, fig. 6. 62 Horejs et al. 2015, fig. 15; Çilingiroğlu 2016. 60 61

96

Tristan Carter

One can thus propose a model where the successful westward spread of Neolithic lifeways was partly based on migrant farmers gaining foreknowledge of the Aegean by interacting with indigenous hunter-gatherers. So to what extent can we prove forager-farmer interaction, where may it have occurred, and when/for how long prior to these pioneer agro-pastoralists paddling onwards to Crete and the Argolid? As to where exactly these farmers commenced their voyage, a central Anatolian homeland via southwestern Anatolia seems not inconceivable. If we view the migration as a rapid event, then we are talking about the earliest centuries of the 7th millennium calBC, i.e. the period during which the hunter-gatherers of the Cyclops Cave are known to have been active amongst the insular Aegean, and the obsidian source of Melos was being exploited by both island and mainland based populations.63 Alternatively, we could be dealing with a longer-term coastal settlement in western/southwestern Anatolia, followed by a ‘lag period’ during which tentative maritime exploration and engagement with neighbouring hunter-gatherer populations could have occurred.64 If this were the case, then the Lower Mesolithic dates from Maroulas and Kerame 1 might then provide us with the chronological framework within which we might view indigenous hunter-gatherers with incoming pioneer farmers.65 For the best context where we can consider farmer-forager interaction, we need to turn to the Argolid, where radiocarbon dates for the Final Mesolithic occupation of the Klisoura 1 Cave are contemporary with early farming (IN) community at nearby Franchthi Cave.66 In conclusion, the discovery of an insular Aegean Mesolithic does force us to rethink processes of neolithisation. Firstly, we are no longer dealing with an uninhabited Aegean or the idea that Crete was ‘virgin territory’ before the arrival of migrant farmers. As such, the anomalous – by Neolithic standards – character of the IN Knossian lithics no longer has to be interpreted with reference to the ‘founder principle’,67 instead, we can view the material as the result of farmer-forager interaction. Secondly, the lithic assemblages from these new sites provide us with a common technical tradition (or ‘community of practice’),68 which is a reflection of pan-Aegean population interaction. This information, alongside the discovery of Melian obsidian in Mesolithic Crete, attests to pre-Neolithic maritime networks linking western Anatolia to Crete and the Argolid via the intermediary islands, knowledge of which was almost certainly then employed by those pioneer farmers as they paddled westwards into the Aegean in the early 7th millennium calBC. Acknowledgements: Thanks to Maxime Brami and Barbara Horejs for hosting this wonderful workshop and inviting me to participate. Thanks also to Danica Mihailović, plus our other collaborators on the Livari, Damnoni and Stelida studies: Yiannis Papadatos, Chrysa Sofianou, Tom Strasser, Eleni Panagopoulou and Daniel Contreras. Our work on the Mesolithic assemblages of Crete and at Stelida on Naxos, is funded by the Institute for the Study of Aegean Prehistory and a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council – Insight Grant (Canada). Feedback and references were kindly provided by Çiler Çilingiroğlu and Dimitra Mylonas, while Kyle Freund made the maps, Deanna Aubert took the photographs, and Tom Strasser kindly allowed the reproduction of the Damnoni illustrations.

Facorellis 2011; Carter 2016; Sampson 2016, 193–194. Analogous to the Neolithic ‘standstill’ we see in central Anatolia (Brami 2017, 7–9). For a discussion of how the sea between western Anatolia and the closest islands may have served as a ‘maritime nursery’ for continental farmers before their seaborne movement into the Aegean, see Broodbank 2000, 111. 65 Liritzis – Laskaris 2012; Sampson 2014, 192–194. 66 Koumouzelis et al. 2003, 117–118; Perlès et al. 2013. 67 Cherry 1985, 26–27. 68 Knappett 2011, 98–123. 63 64

The Significance of an Insular Aegean Mesolithic to Processes of Neolithisation

97

References Bayliss et al. 2015 A. Bayliss – F. Brock – S. Farid – I. Hodder – J. Southon – R. E. Taylor, Getting to the bottom of it all. A Bayesian approach to dating the start of Çatalhöyük, Journal of World Prehistory 28, 2015, 1–26. Bhabha 1995 H. K. Bhabha, Location of Culture (London 1995). Brami 2017 M. N. Brami, The Diffusion of Neolithic Practices from Anatolia to Europe. A Contextual Study of Residential Construction, 8,500–5,500 BC Cal., BAR International Series 2838 (Oxford 2017). Broodbank 2000 C. Broodbank, An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades (Cambridge 2000). Broodbank 2006 C. Broodbank, The origins and early development of Mediterranean maritime activity, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 19, 2, 2006, 199–230. Broodbank – Strasser 1991 C. Broodbank – T. Strasser, Migrant farmers and the Neolithic colonization of Crete, Antiquity 65, 1991, 233–245. Carter 2011 T. Carter, A true gift of mother earth. The use and significance of obsidian at Çatalhöyük, Anatolian Studies 61, 2011, 1–19. Carter 2016 T. Carter, Obsidian consumption in the Late Pleistocene – Early Holocene Aegean. Contextualising new data from Mesolithic Crete, Annual of the British School at Athens 111, 2016, 1–22. Carter – Milić 2013 T. Carter – M. Milić, The consumption of obsidian at Neolithic Çatalhöyük. A long-term perspective, in: F. Borrell – J. J. Ibáñez – M. M. Molist (eds.), Stone Tools in Transition. From Hunter-Gatherers to Farming Societies in the Near East. Proceedings of the 7th PPN Stone Tools Workshop, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Press (Barcelona 2013) 495–508. Carter et al. 2014 T. Carter – D. A. Contreras – S. Doyle – D. D. Mihailović – T. Moutsiou – N. Skarpelis, The Stélida Naxos Archaeological Project. New data on the Mesolithic and Middle Palaeolithic Cyclades, Antiquity 88, 341, Project Gallery. Online (last accessed 13 July 2019). Carter et al. 2016a T. Carter – D. D. Mihailović – Y. Papadatos – C. Sofianou, The Cretan Mesolithic in context. New data from Livari Skiadi (SE Crete), Documenta Praehistorica XLIII, 2016, 87–101. Carter et al. 2016b T. Carter – D. A. Contreras – S. Doyle – D. D. Mihailović – N. Skarpelis, Early Holocene interaction in the Aegean Islands. Mesolithic chert exploitation at Stélida (Naxos, Greece) in context, in: M. Ghilardi (ed.), Géoarchéologie des Îles de Méditerranée, CNRS Editions (Paris 2016) 275–286. Carter et al. 2017 T. Carter – D. A. Contreras – J. Holcomb – D. D. Mihailović – N. Skarpelis – K. Campeau – T. Moutsiou – D. Athanasoulis, The Stélida Naxos Archaeological Project. New studies of an early prehistoric lithic quarry in the Cyclades, in: D. W. Rupp – J. E. Tomlinson (eds.), From Maple to Olive. Proceedings of a Colloquium to Celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the Canadian Institute in Greece. Athens, 10–11 June 2016, Publications of the Canadian Institute in Greece 10 (Athens 2017) 75–103. Cherry 1981 J. F. Cherry, Pattern and process in the earliest colonisation of the Mediterranean islands, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 47, 1981, 41–68.

98

Tristan Carter

Cherry 1985 J. F. Cherry, Islands out of the stream. Isolation and interaction in early East Mediterranean insular prehistory, in: A. B. Knapp – T. Stech (eds.), Prehistoric Production and Exchange, UCLA Institute of Archaeology Monograph 25 (Los Angeles 1985) 12–29. Cherry 1990 J. F. Cherry, The first colonisation of the Mediterranean islands. A review of recent research, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 3, 2, 1990, 145–221. Çilingiroğlu 2016 Ç. Çilingiroğlu, The Aegean before and after 7000 BC dispersal. Defining pattern and variability, Neo-Lithics 1/16, 2016, 32–41. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2016 Ç. Çilingiroğlu – B. Dinçer – A. Uhri – C. Gürbıyık – I. Baykara – C. Çakırlar, New Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites in the eastern Aegean. The Karaburun Archaeological Survey Project, Antiquity 90, 353, Project Gallery. Online (last accessed 29 Apr. 2017). Colledge et al. 2004 S. Colledge – J. Conolly – S. Shennan, Archaeobotanical evidence for the spread of farming in the Eastern Mediterranean, Current Anthropology 45, 2004, 35–58. Conolly 2008 J. Conolly, The knapped stone technology of the first occupants at Knossos, in: V. Isaakidou – P. D. Tomkins (eds.), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8 (Oxford 2008) 73–89. Conolly et al. 2011 J. Conolly – S. Colledge – K. Dobney – J.-D. Vigne – J. Peters – B. Stopp – K. Manning – S. Shennan, Meta-analysis of zooarchaeological data from SW Asia and SE Europe provides insight into the origins and spread of animal husbandry, Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 2011, 538–545. Cutting 2006 M. Cutting, Traditional architecture and social organisation. The agglomerated buildings of Aşıklı Höyük and Çatalhöyük in Neolithic central Anatolia, in: E. B. Banning – M. Chazan (eds.), Domesticating Space. Construction, Community, and Cosmology in the Late Prehistoric Near East, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 6 (Berlin 2006) 91–101. Douka et al. 2017 K. Douka – N. Efstratiou – M. M. Hald – P. S. Henriksen – A. Karetsou, Dating Knossos and the arrival of the earliest Neolithic in the southern Aegean, Antiquity 91, 356, 2017, 304–321. Efstratiou 2013 N. Efstratiou, Knossos and the beginning of the Neolithic in Greece and the Aegean islands, in: Efstratiou et al. 2013, 201–211. Efstratiou et al. 2013 N. Efstratiou – A. Karetsou – M. Ntinou (eds.), The Neolithic Settlement of Knossos in Crete. New Evidence for the Early Occupation of Crete and the Aegean Islands, Prehistory Monographs 42 (Philadelphia 2013). Evans 1994 J. D. Evans, The early millennia. Continuity and change in a farming settlement, in: D. Evely – H. Hughes-Brock – N. Momigliano (eds.), Knossos. A Labyrinth of History. Papers Presented in Honour of Sinclair Hood (London 1994) 1–20. Facorellis 2011 Y. Facorellis, Sequential radiocarbon dating and calculation of the marine reservoir effect, in: A. Sampson (ed.), The Cave of the Cyclops. Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece. Volume II: Bone Tool Industries, Dietary Resources and the Palaeoenvironment, and Archaeometrical Studies, Prehistory Monographs 21 (Philadelphia 2011) 361–372. Galanidou 2011 N. Galanidou, Mesolithic cave use in Greece and the mosaic of human communities, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 24, 2, 2011, 219–242.

The Significance of an Insular Aegean Mesolithic to Processes of Neolithisation

99

Gosselain 2000 O. P. Gosselain, Materializing identities. An African perspective, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7, 3, 2000, 187–217. Gosselain – Livingstone Smith 2005 O. P. Gosselain – A. Livingstone Smith, The source. Clay selection and processing practices in Sub-Saharan Africa, in: A. Livingstone Smith – D. Bosquet – R. Martineau (eds.), Pottery Manufacturing Processes. Reconstruction and Interpretation, BAR International Series 1349 (Oxford 2005) 33–47. Hodder 2006 I. Hodder, Çatalhöyük. The Leopard’s Tale. Revealing the Mysteries of Turkey’s Ancient ‘Town’ (London 2006). Hofmanová et al. 2016 Z. Hofmanová – S. Kreutzer – G. Hellenthal – C. Sell – Y. Diekmann – D. Díez-del-Molino – L. van Dorp – S. López – A. Kousathanas – V. Link – K. Kirsanow – L. M. Cassidy – R. Martiniano – M. Strobel – A. Scheua – K. Kotsakis – P. Halstead – S. Triantaphyllou – N. Kyparissi-Apostolika – D. Urem-Kotsou – C. Ziota – A. Adaktylou – S. Gopalan – D. M. Bobo – L. Winkelbach – J. Blöcher – M. Unterländer – C. Leuenberger – Ç. Çilingiroğlu – B. Horejs – F. A. Gerritsen – S. J. Shennan – D. G. Bradley – M. Currat – K. R. Veeramah – D. Wegmann – M. G. Thomas – C. Papageorgopoulou – J. Burger, Early farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113, 25, 2016, 6886–6891. Horejs et al. 2015 B. Horejs – B. Milić – F. Ostmann – U. Thanheiser – B. Weninger – A. Galik, The Aegean in the early 7th millennium BC. Maritime networks and colonization, Journal of World Prehistory 28, 2015, 289–330. Horwitz 2013 L. K. Horwitz, The earliest settlement on Crete. An archaeozoological perspective, in: Efstratiou et al. 2013, 171–192. Isaakidou 2008 V. Isaakidou, ‘The fauna and economy of Neolithic Knossos’ revisited, in: Isaakidou –Tomkins 2008, 90–114. Isaakidou – Tomkins 2008 V. Isaakidou – P. D. Tomkins (eds.), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context (Oxford 2008). Kaczanowksa – Kozlowski 2014 M. Kaczanowksa – J. K. Kozlowski, The Aegean Mesolithic. Material culture, chronology and networks of contact, Eurasian Prehistory 11, 1–2, 2014, 31–61. Kılınç et al. 2016 G. M. Kılınç – A. Omrak – F. Özer – T. Günther – A. M. Büyükkarakaya – E. Bıçakçı – D. Baird – H. M. Dönertaş – A. Ghalichi – R. Yaka – D. Koptekin – S. C. Açan – P. Parvizi – M. Krzewinska – E. A. Daskalaki – E. Yüncü – N. D. Dağtaş – A. Fairbairn – J. Pearson – G. Mustafaoğlu – Y. S. Erdal – Y. G. Çakan – I. Togan – M. Somel – J. Storá – M. Jakobsson – A. Götherström, The demographic development of the first farmers in Anatolia, Current Biology 26, 2016, 1–8. King et al. 2008 R. King – S. Özcan – T. Carter – E. Kalfoglu – S. Atasoy – K. Triantiphyllidis – A. Kouvatsi – A. Lin – C. Chow – L. Zhivotovsky – M. Tsopanomichalou – P. Underhill, Differential Y-chromosome Anatolian influences on the Greek and Cretan Neolithic, Annals of Human Genetics 72, 2008, 205–214. Knapp 2010 A. B. Knapp, Cyprus’s earliest prehistory. Seafarers, foragers and settlers, Journal of World Prehistory 23, 2, 2010, 79–120. Knappett 2011 C. Knappett, An Archaeology of Interaction. Network Perspectives on Material Culture and Society (Oxford 2011). Kopaka – Matzanas 2009 K. Kopaka – C. Matzanas, Palaeolithic industries from the island of Gavdos, near neighbour to Crete in Greece, Antiquity 83, 321, 2009, Project Gallery. Online (last accessed 29 Apr. 2017). Koumouzelis et al. 2003 M. Koumouzelis – J. K. Kozlowski – B. Ginter, Mesolithic finds from Cave 1 in the Klisoura Gorge, Argolid, in: N. Galanidou – C. Perlès (eds.), The Greek Mesolithic. Problems and Perspectives, British School at Athens Studies 10 (Nottingham 2003) 113–122.

100

Tristan Carter

Liritzis – Laskaris 2012 I. Liritzis – N. Laskaris, Obsidian hydration dating from hydrogen profile using SIMS. Applications to Ikarian specimens, Folia Quaternaria 80, 2012, 45–54. Love 2012 S. Love, The geoarchaeology of mudbricks in architecture. A methodological study from Çatalhöyük, Turkey, Geoarchaeology 27, 2, 2012, 140–156. Mortensen 2008 P. Mortensen, Lower to Middle Palaeolithic artefacts from Loutró on the south coast of Crete, Antiquity 82, 317, 2008, Project Gallery. Online (last accessed 29 Apr. 2017). Perlès 1990 C. Perlès, Les Industries Lithiques Taillées de Franchthi (Argolide, Grèce) II. Les Industries du Mésolithique et du Néolithique Initial. Excavations at the Franchthi Cave, Fascicle 5 (Bloomington 1990). Perlès 2001 C. Perlès, The Early Neolithic in Greece (Cambridge 2001). Perlès et al. 2013 C. Perlès – A. Quiles – H. Valladas, Early seventh-millennium AMS dates from domestic seeds at Franchthi Cave (Argolid, Greece), Antiquity 87, 2013, 1001–1015. Renfrew et al. 1965 C. Renfrew – J. R. Cann – J. E. Dixon, Obsidian in the Aegean, Annual of the British School at Athens 60, 1965, 225–247. Runnels 2009 C. N. Runnels, Mesolithic sites and surveys in Greece. A case study from the southern Argolid, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 22, 1, 2009, 57–73. Runnels et al. 2014 C. Runnels – F. McCoy – R. Bauslaugh – P. Murray, Palaeolithic research at Mochlos, Crete. New evidence for Pleistocene maritime activity in the Aegean, Antiquity 342, 2014, Online Project Gallery (last accessed 29 Apr. 2017). Russell – Martin 2005 N. Russell – L. Martin, The Çatalhöyük mammal remains, in: I. Hodder (ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons, McDonald Institute Monographs, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 38 (Cambridge 2005) 33–98. Sarpaki 2013 A. Sarpaki, The economy of Neolithic Knossos. The archaeobotanical data, in: Efstratiou et al. 2013, 63–94. Sampson 2008 A. Sampson, The Cave of the Cyclops. Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece (Philadelphia 2008). Sampson 2014 A. Sampson, The Mesolithic of the Aegean Basin, in: C. Manen – T. Perrin – J. Guillaine (eds.), The Neolithic transition in the Mediterranean (Paris 2014) 193–212. Sampson 2016 A. Sampson, An extended Mesolithic settlement in Naxos, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 16, 1, 2016, 269–271. Sampson et al. 2010 A. Sampson – K. Kaczanowksa – J. K. Kozlowski, The Prehistory of the Island of Kythnos (Cyclades, Greece) and the Mesolithic Settlement at Maroulas (Krakow 2010). Sampson et al. 2012 A. Sampson – K. Kaczanowksa – J. K. Kozlowski, Mesolithic occupations and environments on the island of Ikaria, Aegean, Greece, Folia Quaternaria 80, 2012, 5–40.

The Significance of an Insular Aegean Mesolithic to Processes of Neolithisation

101

Sampson et al. 2016 A. Sampson – J. K. Kozlowski – K. Kaczanowksa, Lithic industries of the Aegean Upper Mesolithic, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 16, 3, 2016, 229–243. Simmons 2007 A. H. Simmons, The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East. Transforming the Human Landscape (Tucson 2007). Skarpelis et al. 2017 N. Skarpelis – T. Carter – D. A. Contreras – D. D. Mihailović, Petrography and geochemistry of the siliceous rocks at Stélida, a chert source and early prehistoric stone tool manufacturing site on northwest Naxos, Greece, Journal of Archaeological Science. Reports 12, 2017, 819–833. Strasser et al. 2010 T. Strasser – E. Panagopoulou – C. Runnels – P. Murray – N. Thompson – P. Karkanas – F. McCoy – K. Wegmann, Stone Age seafaring in the Mediterranean. Evidence from the Plakias region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic habitation of Crete, Hesperia 79, 2010, 145–190. Strasser et al. 2011 T. F. Strasser – C. Runnels – K. Wegmann - E. Panagopoulou – F. McCoy – C. DiGregorio – P. Karkanas – N. Thompson, Dating Palaeolithic sites in southwestern Crete, Greece, Journal of Quaternary Science 26, 5, 2011, 553–560. Strasser et al. 2015 T. Strasser – E. Panagopoulou – P. Karkanas – C. DiGregorio – M. Clinton – N. Thompson – E. Kapranos – S. Murray, The excavation at Mesolithic Damnoni in the Agios Vassilios region. A new chronological/cultural period on Crete, in: Π. Καραναστάση – Α. Τζιγκουνάκη – Χ. Τσιγωνάκη (eds.), Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Κρήτης 3. Πρακτικά της 3ης Συνάντησης, Ρέθυμνο, 5–8 Δεκεμβρίου 2013 / Archaeological Work in Crete 3, Proceedings of the 3rd Meeting, Rethymnon 5–8 December 2013 (Rethymnon 2015) 271–280. Takaoğlu et al. 2014 T. Takaoğlu – T. Korkut – B. Erdoğu – G. Işın, Archaeological evidence for 9th and 8th millennia BC at Girmeler Cave near Tlos in SW Turkey, Documenta Praehistorica 41, 2014, 111–118. Tomkins 2008 P. D. Tomkins, Time, space and the reinvention of the Cretan Neolithic, in: Isaakidou – Tomkins 2008, 21–48.

102

Tristan Carter

Dot by Dot: Phase-mapping the Central/Western Anatolian Farming Threshold

103

Dot by Dot: Phase-mapping the Central/Western Anatolian Farming Threshold Eva Rosenstock 1 Abstract: Ideas about a standstill within the process of Neolithic expansion between central and western Anatolia in the 7th millennium have been raised for at least a decade, and the first attempts at visualising this phenomenon have been made more recently. Among these, two notions on the location and date of the ‘Central Anatolian Farming Frontier’ or ‘Threshold’ can be distinguished. In recent maps on the spread of farming from the Near East to northern Europe in general, as well as in early maps on Neolithic Turkey in particular, the threshold is located between the Lakes Region and western Anatolia. In more recent maps on Neolithic Turkey, however, the threshold is placed further east, i.e. between the Konya Basin and the Lakes Region. This paper summarises the underlying dating issues that are well-known to the Turkish Neolithic archaeological community, but might be non-transparent for other researchers. Based on this, and as a supplement to the maps published until now, which are so far only based on selected sites or only show shaded areas or lines, a first dot-by-dot phase mapping also including unexcavated sites is presented here. Using a dataset of 157 Neolithic sites from Anatolia dating to the Anatolian Aceramic through Late Neolithic, the maps show a threshold between Lake Beyşehir and the west of the Lakes Region lasting until c. 6800/6700 calBC. Situated right at the watershed between the Konya Endorheic Basin and the Mediterranean, this position is well in line with a sea-bound or coastal expansion in the subsequent transitional phase between the Early and Late Neolithic in recent research. Keywords: Neolithic, Turkey, Primary Neolithisation, Secondary Neolithisation, chronology, comparative stratigraphy

The Central/Western Anatolian Farming Threshold: Where and When? In several articles since 2001,2 Jean Guilaine has been deconstructing what was until then a fundamental belief about the spread of the Neolithic out of its Near Eastern homeland. Rather than a steady movement proposed by the wave-of-advance model by Albert Ammerman and Luigi Cavalli-Sforza,3 Guilaine noted lines of arrest where the spread of the Neolithic way of life stopped for several centuries and called them ‘frontière culturelle’.4 Over the years, with knowledge of Neolithic sites growing steadily, the initial three frontiers – or thresholds, to use a less charged term – in central Anatolia, western Greece and northern southeastern Europe have been partially redated and complemented by two more thresholds, one in northern central Europe and one in the southern Levant.5 The one between central and western Anatolia, however, has remained stable in both date and location (Fig. 1). Dating between c. 7800 to 6800 calBC, Lycia and the Lakes Region are included in the core area of the Anatolian Neolithic, whereas the Aegean coast and the Marmara region appear as outside this core area and the entire north of Anatolia remains undefined. This same location and approximate date of the threshold can already be found in Mehmet Özdoğan’s map of the ‘Anatolian Formation Zone’ of the Neolithic

1

4 5 2 3

Freie Universität Berlin, Institute for Prehistoric Archaeology and Einstein Center Chronoi, Germany, [email protected]. Guilaine 2000/2001; Guilaine 2003; Guilaine 2007. First: Ammerman – Cavalli-Sforza 1971; last: Pinhasi et al. 2005. Guilaine 2000/2001, 269, fig. 1. Guilaine 2000/2001, 269, fig. 1; Guilaine 2007, fig. 1.

104

Eva Rosenstock

Fig. 1   Jean Guilaine’s recent map of the Central Anatolian Farming Threshold (after Guilaine 2007, fig. 1)

up to c. 7600 calBC, published in 1999,6 and can still be found in Wolfram Schier’s 2009 update of Guilaine’s original map.7 A contrary view was first published in 2005, when Ulf Schoop limited what he called the ‘Central Anatolian Model’ to the Konya Basin. Leaving not only the Aegean coast, but also the Lakes Region to a later phase of the Neolithic expansion,8 this view is well in line with Agathe Reingruber’s comments on the neolithisation of western Anatolia9 and Michel Rasse’s map of isolines of 14C dates (Fig. 2).10 Similarly, a 2011 map of the ‘core area of Neolithic formation’ (Fig. 3) by Özdoğan11 and a recent comparison of the distribution of Aceramic and Early Neolithic vs. Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic sites12 attribute the Lakes Region to the expansion area. Although the detailed status of the area east of Lake Beyşehir, namely the sites of Süberde and Erbaba, remains unclear, this alternative position of the ‘Central Anatolian Farming Threshold’ between the Konya Plain and Lakes Region has found its way into Wolfram Schier’s updated map.13 Nevertheless, because of the prominence of Guilaine’s maps, this concept is less known, although it is likely the correct one, as this paper aims to demonstrate by showing the dating strands underlying the various notions of the position of the ‘Central Anatolian Farming Threshold’ in combination with a dot-by dot mapping of all available sites.

8 9 6 7

12 13 10 11

Özdoğan 1999, 197, fig. 1. Schier 2009, 18, fig. 1. Schoop 2005a. Reingruber 2008, 476–477. Rasse 2008, fig. 7; Rasse 2014, fig. 1. Özdoğan 2011, 418, fig. 1. Rosenstock 2014, 231–323, figs. 9–10. Schier in press, fig. 5.

Dot by Dot: Phase-mapping the Central/Western Anatolian Farming Threshold

105

Fig. 2   The Central Anatolian Farming Threshold visible in 14C dates isolines as plotted by Michel Rasse (after Rasse 2014, fig. 1)

Fig. 3   The Central Anatolian Farming Threshold implied in Mehmet Özdoğan’s ‘Core Area of Neolithic Formation’ (after Özdoğan 2011, S418 fig. 1)

Maps and Databases of Neolithic Sites in Anatolia Almost all maps showing the ‘Central Anatolian Farming Threshold’ so far have only used either shaded areas or at best a distribution of excavated or radiocarbon dated sites.14 In fact, comprehensive mapping of known sites is so far not commonly perceived as an important tool in the archae-

See also Brami 2015 – the actual mapping of the results can be found in Brami – Zanotti 2015.

14

106

Eva Rosenstock

ology of (Neolithic) Turkey; up to the latest edition of the ‘Neolithic in Turkey’ collection,15 for decades only selected sites have been mapped.16 This neglect not only hampers interpretation, but is also surprising given that the ‘Archaeological Settlements of Turkey’ or ‘Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri’ (TAY) project has compiled information on hundreds of Neolithic sites including those that were only surveyed,17 and even implemented them into an online GIS tool.18 The underuse of this resource can probably be explained by technical issues, such as the text format that requires time-consuming conversion into standardised formats and the fact that the database is open to amendments, whereby in comparison to the now widely outdated printed version, it lost some of its characteristics as a steady and hence citable source. Until a very much desired second updated print or online pdf edition is produced, mapping projects for Neolithic sites in Turkey have to make do with the original version and individual additions. Consequently, the dataset underlying this study has some history to it. Originally, the printed TAY site descriptions19 were transformed into Excel/Access format and supplemented by additional information from the literature. The resulting dataset on Turkey forms part of a database completed in 2005 and published on a CD some years later.20 In 2014,21 the data within the modern area of Turkey was complemented by information from the first two volumes of the new edition of ‘Neolithic in Turkey’.22 For the present paper, the resulting dataset was reduced to the time of the Aceramic, Early and Late Neolithic. The definition of these periods that are specific to the Anatolian chronological system, originally designed by James Mellaart,23 follows the current conventions used in standard textbooks.24 The first Neolithic period, the Aceramic Neolithic (AN), is actually a misnomer; differing from Mellaart’s initial conception of the period as non-ceramic (see below issue #1), it today denotes pre-ceramic stages and is hence roughly synonymous to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) lasting up to c. 7000 BC. The subsequent period with the first ceramic containers is termed Early Neolithic (EN), nowadays occasionally giving way to the more appropriate term Early Pottery Neolithic.25 The date of the transition between the EN and the subsequent Late (Pottery) Neolithic (LN) somewhere around 6800–6500 BC is so far poorly defined and subject to a lively debate (see below issue #3). The frequent appearance of painted pottery marks the end of the LN and the start of the so-called Early Chalcolithic (EC), another misnomer as in Mellaart’s days cultures with related painted pottery such as Halaf were thought to command extractive copper technology, now known to start much later around 5000 BC.26 While the transition between LN and EC can be captured quite clearly in eastern and central Anatolia, the lack of a painted pottery tradition in western and northwestern Anatolia renders the definition of the EC different in these regions, but 6000 BC is used as a common date for the end of the LN (see also issue #4 below).

Özdoğan et al. 2011a; Özdoğan et al. 2011b; Özdoğan et al. 2012a; Özdoğan et al. 2012b; Özdoğan et al. 2013; Özdoğan et al. 2014. 16 E.g. Balkan-Atlı 1994; Özdoğan – Başgelen 1999; Özdoğan – Başgelen 2007; Schoop 2005a, pl. 1. 17 Harmankaya et al. 1997; Harmankaya et al. 1998. 18 TAY 2004. The GIS tool, however, appeared out of function at the time of writing of this text. 19 Harmankaya et al. 1997; Harmankaya et al. 1998. Online version: TAY 2016. 20 Rosenstock 2009. 21 Rosenstock 2014. 22 Özdoğan et al. 2011a; Özdoğan et al. 2011b; Özdoğan et al. 2012a; Özdoğan et al. 2012b; Özdoğan et al. 2013. 23 Mellaart 1961a. 24 Özdoğan – Başgelen 1999; Gérard – Thissen 2002; Özdoğan – Başgelen 2007; Sagona – Zimansky 2008; Düring 2011; Özdoğan et al. 2011a; Özdoğan et al. 2011b; Steadman – McMahon 2011; Yakar 2011; Özdoğan et al. 2012a; Özdoğan et al. 2012b; Özdoğan et al. 2013; Özdoğan et al. 2014. 25 Özdoğan et al. 2011a; Özdoğan et al. 2011b; Özdoğan et al. 2012a; Özdoğan et al. 2012b; Özdoğan et al. 2013. 26 Rosenstock et al. 2016. 15

Dot by Dot: Phase-mapping the Central/Western Anatolian Farming Threshold

107

Geographically, the present study is limited to the region of Anatolia, defined as the peninsula west of a line between the Bay of Iskenderun and the Black Sea coast near Artvin.27 Information on a number of sites was added selectively from the literature, mainly from the new ‘Neolithic in Turkey’ series,28 using the TAY online version29 as a control. As a result, 157 sites were included in the analysis (Table 1). Only 23 sites yielded radiocarbon determinations,30 while all others are dated by typological comparison of the finds, especially lithic and ceramic assemblages.

Radiocarbon Dates and Relative Dating Strands in Neolithic Anatolia Almost all Neolithic radiocarbon dates before the middle of the 7th millennium are found in Cappadocia and the Konya Basin, where Çatalhöyük East, now dated between c. 7100 and 5900 calBC31 forms the best-represented 14C sequence of the entire Neolithic in Anatolia. It connects the first central Anatolian AN sites with their roots in the 9th millennium – Aşıklı Höyük and Boncuklu – via Canhasan III with the central Anatolian EC as known from Çatalhöyük West, now dated between 6000 and 5600 calBC.32 At Hacılar in the Lakes Region, a date from one of the lowest levels, BM-127, 8700 ± 180 bp, today calibrated to 8282–7468 calBC33 has initially caused an interpretation of its context as a preceramic Neolithic contemporary to the PPNB of the Near East. The associated controversy is outlined below in more detail as issue #1, but the date itself is problematic, since Mellaart’s account of its provenance and amount is inconsistent.34 The date is, therefore, now commonly rejected as unreliable.35 The date from Bademağacı EN I level 8, Hd–22340, falling between c. 7000 and 6800 calBC, however, is generally accepted.36 It is tempting to reject this single date, too, as it is separated from the rest of the 14C sequence of Bademağacı as well as the 14C sequences of Hacılar and Höyücek, all starting around 6400 calBC,37 by several centuries. But other early dates in western Anatolia, i.e. from Ulucak VI and Çukuriçi XIII,38 can give some plausibility to the date from Bademağacı. It has to be noted, though, that all these dates coincide with the plateau in the calibration curve at c. 7950 bp that causes quite wide 1σ ranges between c. 7000 and 6800 calBC after calibration.39 Such dates are often pushed towards their early extremes,40 but do not withstand proper modelling.41 These reservations also apply to the two dates from level XXIII, W-617 and Rome-467, at Mersin-Yumuktepe,42 which is in current interpretations believed to start around 7000 calBC, but might as well date to 6800 calBC. In the northwest of Anatolia, the site of Barcın also yielded an early date, while more sites like Menteşe and Ilıpınar start a bit later in the middle of the 7th millennium. This loose mesh of absolute

Merriam-Webster’s Geographical Dictionary 1997, p. 46 s. v. ‘Anatolia’, a definition that broadly coincides with the watershed between Mesopotamia on the one hand and the Black Sea and the Mediterranean on the other hand. 28 Özdoğan et al. 2011a; Özdoğan et al. 2011b; Özdoğan et al. 2012a; Özdoğan et al. 2012b; Özdoğan et al. 2013. 29 TAY 2016. 30 For overviews see Thissen 2002; Clare – Weninger 2014; Weninger et al. 2014; Brami 2015; Thissen – Reingruber 2016. 31 Bayliss et al. 2015. 32 Orton et al. 2018. 33 Using Intcal 13 with the Oxcal 4.2 program (Bronk Ramsey 2016). 34 While ‘charcoal from hearths in courtyard’ (Mellaart 1970, 93) could be accepted as one piece of a short-lived sample (Brami 2015), ‘charcoal samples collected on the courtyard floor’ (Mellaart 1970, 6) points to several pieces of highly uncertain context and of unknown wood species. 35 Reingruber 2008, 429; Thissen 2010; Clare – Weninger 2014, fig. 10; but cf. Brami 2015. 36 Thissen 2010. 37 Thissen 2010. 38 Caneva 2012, 3; Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012; Horejs et al. 2015, 296–299. 39 Using Intcal 13 with the Oxcal 4.2 program (Bronk Ramsey 2016). 40 E.g. Arbuckle et al. 2014. 41 E.g. Horejs et al. 2015. 42 Thissen 2002, 308; Caneva 2012. 27

108

Eva Rosenstock

chronological anchors suggests that until c. 6800/6700 calBC, Neolithic sites were confined to the Konya Endorheic Basin spanning from Aşıklı Höyük at the Melendiz Çay in western Cappadocia to Süberde in the Çarşamba catchment, and lithic and ceramic typology has to be used to date other excavated and surveyed sites. It is not a coincidence that the unresolved spatial and temporal position of the ‘Central Anatolian Farming Threshold’ is coeval with a gap between several dating spheres in Neolithic Anatolia, each featuring a different frame of reference. First of all, the definition of the Fikirtepe culture by Kurt Bittel in the 1950s43 has shaped an independent sphere of dating around the Sea of Marmara. A dating sphere around Çatalhöyük followed it with the discovery of the site by Mellaart in the early 1960s. This sphere includes sites in Cappadocia and the Konya Basin and has developed into an important general scheme for the whole of Neolithic Turkey because of its long, uninterrupted sequence.44 Following a divide that had been established at the very beginnings of Anatolian prehistoric research when Bronze Age Troy with its relations with the Greek mainland was the guiding stratigraphy in the Aegean region, whereas pre-Bronze Age Alişar, Mersin-Yumuktepe and Tarsus-Gözlükule served as points of reference further inland,45 the Aegean dating sphere is separated from central Anatolia. It overlaps, however, with the Marmara sphere and the Thracian sphere. The Thracian sphere uses the deep stratigraphy of Karanovo in Bulgarian Thrace as its point of reference and, in turn overlaps with the Marmara sphere.46 Hence, the Lakes Region and Lycia as well as the Phrygian highlands around Eskişehir are caught between two dating strands – the Near Eastern/central Anatolian and the Aegean/Marmara/Thrace – respectively. This prompts four chronological misunderstandings or problems relevant to the present discussion. These issues #1 through #4 hamper the chronological discussions and are a main obstacle for a correct spatio-temporal positioning of the ‘Central Anatolian Farming Threshold’. Issue #1 is the wrongful interpretation of Mellaart’s term “aceramic” as “preceramic”, i.e. as a chronological rather than a descriptive term. When James Mellaart identified complexes with no or only sporadic pottery finds in the lowest layers of Hacılar and attributed them to what he called ‘Aceramic Neolithic’, he discussed similarities with the PPN of the Levant as known from Jericho.47 But despite the extremely early 14C date from ‘aceramic Neolithic’ Hacılar (see above), Mellaart in his final publication of the site ten years later clearly stated that these layers in his view are ‘… aceramic (i.e. without pottery), a term I prefer to pre-ceramic, which has chronological implications. Other people in Anatolia did already use pottery!’48 Despite these clear words, the idea that there might be a Preceramic Neolithic to be found in western Anatolia has ever since been present, spurred even more by the interpretation of similarly aceramic layers on the Greek mainland by Vladimir Milojčić, now shown to date to the 7th millennium49 and the origin of issue #2, which is dealt with in more detail below. To ask ‘Were the earliest cultures at Hacılar aceramic?’50 is thus tilting at windmills, as in Mellaart’s view, the earliest layers of Hacılar were at least EN if not LN. Moreover, discovered in Sounding 3 more than 100m away from Mellaart’s trenches, red plastered floors were the only chronological marker Refik Duru used in order to relate his new

Bittel 1960. See the chronological charts in the new ‘Neolithic in Turkey’ volumes: Özdoğan et al. 2011a, 270; Özdoğan et al. 2011b, 281; Özdoğan et al. 2012a, 278; Özdoğan et al. 2012b, 238; Özdoğan et al. 2013, 270. 45 Schoop 2005b, 15. 46 See Thissen – Reingruber 2016, fig. 1 for a visualisation of these spheres in which, however, flat Cilicia around Mersin is attributed to a newly defined sphere rather than including it into the Core Zone of Neolithic formation and central Anatolia (Schoop 2005b; Özdoğan 2011); a ‘Mediterranean Anatolia’ dating sphere is well in line with the results presented in this paper. 47 Mellaart 1961b, 73. 48 Mellaart 1970, 6. 49 Reingruber 2015. 50 Duru 1989. 43 44

Dot by Dot: Phase-mapping the Central/Western Anatolian Farming Threshold

109

Fig. 4   Sherds from Refik Duru’s ‘Sounding 3’ as published with an EN date in 2012 and the respective vessel profiles that were published only in 1989 and show clear affinities with the LN or even EC (after Duru 1989, fig. 3 and Duru 2012, fig. 6)

excavations to the ‘Aceramic Neolithic’ layers dug by Mellaart,51 making for a very weak link.52 Only a few years afterwards, Nur Balkan-Atlı came to the independent conclusion that the lithic finds from Mellaart’s ‘Aceramic Neolithic’ should be in any case later than the ASPRO period 3.53 Hence, at least a late AN date if not an EN or even LN date54 – in full accordance with Mellaart’s own view – is more likely. In very much the same strand of thought, the lowest layers of Ulucak, which yielded no or very few ceramic finds, were initially dated to the Aceramic Neolithic (AN).55 The radiocarbon determinations from Ulucak VI and Çukuriçi XIII56 dating to around 6700 calBC have now made clear that these layers – allowing for some rare pottery – represent something that Mellaart would not have hesitated to call ‘aceramic’. In absolute chronological terms, they are roughly contemporary with Çatalhöyük East levels VIII and VII, dating to c. 6700 to 6600 calBC.57 Given the sparsity of pottery finds also at these levels of Çatalhöyük,58 Mehmet Özdoğan is certainly right in that ‘aceramic’ and ‘ceramic’ Neolithic is a matter of sample size.59 The occurrence of a plastered floor in Ulucak VI forms a first indicator that Mellaart’s aceramic Hacılar and Duru’s Sounding 3 might fall also roughly into that time span. The ceramic spectrum retrieved from Sounding 3 (Fig. 4) corroborates this view with sherds from a necked vessel and a clear carination between base and wall of another vessel pointing to shapes that became common from Çatalhöyük East level VII onwards.60 That Duru, however, dated these sherds as EN61 leads us to problem #3 dealt with below after issue #2. Issue #2 is the assumption that a Neolithic finds spectrum at a site necessarily implies a Neolithic way of life. A number of sites in NW Anatolia, such as Çalca and Musluçeşme,62 were dated

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 51 52

Duru 1989. Thissen 2000, 142. Balkan-Atlı 1994, 123, 129. Schoop 2005b, 179, note 179. Çilingiroglu et al. 2012. Çilingiroglu et al. 2012; Horejs et al. 2015. Hodder 2014, 4, tab. 1. Willett et al. 2016. Pers. comm. 26.4.2016. Schoop 2002. Duru 1989; Duru 2012. Özdoğan – Gatsov 1998.

110

Eva Rosenstock

to the Preceramic Neolithic based on surveys or small excavation soundings, as was the case with the ‘pebbly layer’ of Keçiçayırı, for example.63 The publications so far lack a clear argumentation why these inventories are Preceramic Neolithic beyond the observation that they are dissimilar to the known Epipalaeolithic and Mesolithic inventories on the one hand and Pottery Neolithic inventories on the other.64 Moreover, the presence of Preceramic Neolithic lithics is in the first instance a clue that a site dates to the 8th millennium and not enough of a clue to make a site Neolithic. As domesticated plants and animal remains from Franchthi65 can show, Neolithic material culture can be adopted much earlier into forager-farmer contexts than the Neolithic way of life and points to frequent contacts between late foragers and early farmers.66 Without actual archaeobiological evidence for plant and animal husbandry, however, the sheer amount of remains67 at a site can at best indicate a certain degree of sedentariness, and sedentariness is not an unusual trait of forager groups that are temporally or spatially close to farming, if we look at e.g. the Natufian or the Iron Gates Mesolithic. Issue #3 is the definition of the EN vs. the LN ceramic spectrum of central Anatolia and its relation to the ceramic sequence of the Lakes Region and western/northwestern Anatolia. In 1961, in an article on the ‘Early Cultures of the South Anatolian Plateau’, Mellaart published ceramic finds from Çatalhöyük under the heading ‘Early Neolithic’ (Fig. 5).68 As Mellaart’s periodisation of the Çatalhöyük ceramics has for decades guided the relative dating of newly surveyed and excavated sites, Duru used it when he attributed his earliest Neolithic sites in the Lakes Region to the EN. What Duru found in the Lakes Region had lugs, pierced handles, base-rings and a generally wide array of profiles including open bowls, very much like the characteristics in Mellaart’s EN plates. The early 14 C date from Bademağacı (see above) then made an EN in the Lakes Region even more plausible. Ulf Schoop’s objections69 that Hacılar Sounding 3, Kuruçay 13, Höyücek ESP and Bademağacı I70 are not EN, but in fact LN, however, went widely unheard until the first publications on the ceramics from the new excavations at Çatalhöyük appeared. They made it clear that most of these shapes actually stem from the LN levels VII and later, rather than from the EN layers XII to VIII.71 In addition, the Dark Faced Burnished Ware (DFBW) initially thought to be the first pottery in the Near East and Anatolia, is now known to have appeared in Mersin-Yumuktepe in level XXVI and Çatalhöyük level VIII, i.e. in the middle of the 7th millennium.72 The boundary between the EN and LN ceramic spectra at Çatalhöyük is so far almost undefined,73 and only tentative first steps towards a proper debate of its definition have been made. First publications on the new ceramic sequence show that two major changes in pottery shapes and technologies took place during the sequence of Çatalhöyük East. The simple containers of levels XII to VIII termed the ‘Early Tradition’ by Serap Özdöl-Kutlu give way to more variety in vessel fabrics and shapes including handles and knobs in the ‘Middle Tradition’ of levels VII to IV c. 6700/6600 – 6400/6300 calBC. In the ‘Late Tradition’ of levels III and later, S-profiled jars and bowls become dominant.74 Moreover, level V=P in the new terminology is also the level in which major socioeconomic changes, such as the introduction of domestic cattle and a growing emphasis on individual households, were introduced. Hence, from the perspective of central Anatolia, both the date 6700/6600 and the date 6500/6400 calBC would make for viable candidates for an EN/LN transition, the earlier being predominantly based

65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

Efe et al. 2012. Özdoğan – Gatsov 1998. Perlès 2001, 46–48. Reingruber 2011. Özdoğan – Gatsov 1998. Mellaart 1961a. Schoop 2002; Schoop 2005b, 172–196. Duru 1994; Duru 2012. Özdöl 2012. Schoop 2005b, 289; Caneva 2012, 6. See, for example, the debate between Roger Matthews and Mihriban Özbaşaran and Hilke Buitenhuis on the central Anatolian terminology: Özbaşaran – Buitenhuis 2002. 74 Özdöl 2012. 63 64

Dot by Dot: Phase-mapping the Central/Western Anatolian Farming Threshold

Fig. 5   Ceramic spectrum from Çatalhöyük published as EN and now known to represent mainly the ‘Middle Tradition’ of level VII to IV at the site (after Mellaart 1961a, figs. 2–3)

111

112

Eva Rosenstock

on pottery, the latter based predominantly on socioeconomic criteria. While Arkadiusz Marciniak has recently argued for a socioeconomic definition of the LN from Çatalhöyük level V onwards,75 a pottery-based definition in line with Roger Matthews’ view of 200176 that sees the start of the LN at c. 6700 calBC also appears useful. After all, socioeconomic criteria are harder to assess than pottery, and pottery chronology is necessary to date surveyed sites. The evidence, moreover, that cattle appear to have been introduced at Çatalhöyük not only later than the new pottery shapes, but also later than elsewhere in Anatolia,77 calls for a definition of an EN/LN transitional phase from c. 6700/6600 to 6500/6400 calBC for the purpose of this paper. Issue #4 is the pottery definition of the LN vs. the EC. Rare painted pottery with simple stripe patterns appears in small amounts as early as level VII at Hacılar, but from level V onwards, its quantity and quality increased considerably, which has led Mellaart to put the LN/EC divide here, i.e. at c. 6100 calBC. Likewise, the whole upper sequence of Çatalhöyük East, where rare painted sherds are known from level III onwards, has been attributed to the LN, whereas Çatalhöyük West with ubiquitous painted pottery is EC.78 For unknown reasons, however, Duru attributed levels 12 and 11 of Kuruçay to the EN to LN and Höyücek SP to the LN despite close similarities in pottery between Kuruçay 12 and 11, Höyücek SP and Hacılar V–II,79 as well as 14C dates from Kuruçay supporting this synchronism.80 Beyond the Lakes Region, red-painted pottery is almost entirely absent, including from the well-dated sequence of Ulucak,81 a circumstance that might have biased the dating of actual 6th millennium sites to be dated to the later 7th millennium unless Fikirtepe or Karanovo type material testifies to their later date. Absolute dates as well as these relative dating issues have to be considered when evaluating dating information on sites, especially on surveyed sites, given in the literature. Hence, the following paragraph is to be understood as a comment on the subsequent phase mapping of sites from the AN to the EC.

Phase-mapping Neolithic Sites from the AN through the LN The first Neolithic sites in Anatolia belong to the Preceramic Neolithic or Anatolian AN, and are roughly contemporary with the PPN in Mesopotamia and the Levant. The earliest levels 5 and 4 at Aşıklı Höyük (c. 9000 to 7600 calBC) in Cappadocia and possibly the site of Boncuklu in the Konya Plain, estimated to 8500 to 7500 calBC by yet unpublished radiocarbon82 and artefact data, date back to the 9th millennium. All securely dated AN sites in Anatolia belong to the Konya Endorheic Basin watershed83 and hence form a habitat that is spatially separated from the nearest contemporary sites in the Mesopotamian catchment by several hundred kilometers (Fig. 6). In the middle of the 8th millennium, Musular in Cappadocia as well as Can Hasan III and Süberde at the fringes of the Konya-Karaman Plain appeared as new sites before Çatalhöyük East was founded at c. 7100 calBC close to where Boncuklu had been.84 The so far insecure status of Keçiçayırı, Musluçeşme and Çalca is debated and discussed above with issue #2.

Marciniak – Czerniak 2014. Assuming that in the table illustrating Roger Matthews’ Early Pottery Neolithic and Late Neolithic given by Özbaşaran – Buitenhuis 2002, 68, table 1. 77 Arbuckle et al. 2014. 78 Özdöl-Kutlu et al. 2015; Willett et al. 2016; Anvari et al. 2017; Rosenstock et al. in press. 79 Schoop 2005b, 172–196; Duru 2012. 80 Thissen 2010. 81 Çilingiroğlu 2009. 82 Bayliss et al. 2015, 3. 83 The date of Avla Dağ (ID 82), the only site on a river draining towards the Kızılırmak, is doubtful. TAY 2016, s. v. ‘Avla Dag’. 84 Bayliss et al. 2015. 75 76

Dot by Dot: Phase-mapping the Central/Western Anatolian Farming Threshold

113

Fig. 6   Sites dated to the AN of Anatolia, i.e. c. 8500 – 7000 calBC. For key sites mentioned in the text, see Fig. 10 (conception: E. Rosenstock, cartography: D. Kelm, Leipzig)

Fig. 7   Sites dated to the end of the AN and the EN of Anatolia, i.e. 7000 – 6700 calBC. For key sites mentioned in the text, see Fig. 10 (conception: E. Rosenstock, cartography: D. Kelm, Leipzig)

114

Eva Rosenstock

Fig. 8   Sites dated to the EN/LN Transitional of Anatolia, i.e. 6700 – 6500/6400 calBC. For key sites mentioned in the text, see Fig. 10 (conception: E. Rosenstock, cartography: D. Kelm, Leipzig)

Fig. 9   Sites dated to the LN of Anatolia, i.e. 6500/6400 to c. 6100/6000 calBC (conception: E. Rosenstock, cartography: D. Kelm, Leipzig)

Dot by Dot: Phase-mapping the Central/Western Anatolian Farming Threshold

115

At c. 7000 calBC, Çatalhöyük East entered the EN, and the 14C evidence from western Anatolia not starting before c. 6700 calBC (see above), as well as the change in the ceramic sequence of Çatalhöyük East at the same time (see above), make it advisable to map the beginning of the 7th millennium separately (Fig. 7). 14C dates from Canhasan III and Süberde suggest that these AN sites continued into the beginning of the 7th millennium.85 The early dating of the newly founded EN sites of Tepecik-Çiftlik in Cappadocia, Mersin-Yumuktepe and Domuztepe in flat Cilicia, however, has to remain insecure until further 14C evidence is available to rule out the effects of the 14C plateau on the calibration curve (see above). Likewise, in Cappadocia, the Konya Plain and further west, many surveyed sites initially dated to the EN now have to be re-dated to the middle of the 7th millennium or even later due to issue #3 dealt with above. Further north, Jürgen Seeher related the pottery from levels XII to XI of Çatalhöyük to ware group A stemming from unstratified contexts at Demircihüyük, which, in turn, has been used to date the ‘top of Cıbırada’ contexts at Keçiçayırı by Turan Efe, hence establishing an EN in the the Eskişehir region.86 Efe, however, also mentions parallels to Demircihöyük B ware and DFBW, i.e. wares occurring from Çatalhöyük VIII onwards, as well as to LN Bademağacı II. This supports Schoop’s notion that the entire package of Demircihüyük ware groups, i.e. wares A and B, Fikirtepe ware C, as well as wares D and E, belongs at least to the middle of the 7th millennium if not later.87 By c. 6800/6700 calBC, the last AN sites where 14C dates are known to extend into the 7th millennium have ended and new sites in western Anatolia were established. This suggests – in addition to the ceramic ‘Middle Tradition’ of levels VII to IV at Çatalhöyük East – the onset of a new phase lasting until c. 6500/6400 calBC, which is tentatively mapped here as an EN/LN transitional period of the middle of the 7th millennium (Fig. 8). Çatalhöyük East continued, while new EN sites such as Tepecik-Çiftlik in Cappadocia and Mersin-Yumuktepe and Domuztepe in the Çukurova are now securely attested. More new sites appeared towards the west of the Konya Endorheic Basin, such as Hatip Höyük with its ceramic parallels to Çatalhöyük level VI and Erbaba. Further west, Kovada Gölü was initially compared by Mellaart to the EN of Çatalhöyük East, and was later more specifically related to the lower levels of Erbaba.88 As Erbaba III is radiocarbon dated to c. 6600 to 6400 calBC89 and shows ceramic parallels with the Middle Ceramic tradition at Çatalhöyük,90 Kovada Gölü was victim to dating issue #3 and should now not be dated earlier than c. 6700 calBC. With its position near the Aksu river, it can support the single 14C date of nearby Bademağacı, which, however, has to remain uncertain until more details of the ceramics are published. Belonging to the Mediterranean watershed, these two early sites in western Anatolia match well with Ulucak and Çukuriçi in the Aegean and probably also Barcın Höyük in the Marmara watershed. The remaining period of the 7th millennium, the LN proper (Fig. 9), then witnessed a densification of sites in the regions first settled during the middle of the 7th millennium. Where surveys have been made in the Aegean, dense site distributions like in the Hermos valley beyond Dedecik-Heybelitepe91 are known, and the same is true of the Lakes Region around the key sites of Höyücek and Hacılar. By settling this part of the Lakes Region, the Burdur Endorheic Basin, the sites in the Mediterranean and Aegean watersheds became connected via their hinterlands, while Demircihüyük in the Eskişehir region can perhaps attest to a similar process for the Marmara watershed. Although the picture does not change considerably in the subsequent EC,92 it has to be noted that dating issue #4 (see above), does not allow us to rule out that some of these sites are in fact EC rather than LN and hence might belong to the first half of the 6th millennium.

87 88 89 90 91 92 85 86

Thissen 2002. Seeher 1987; Efe et al. 2012. Schoop 2005b, 275–277, 290; Özdöl 2012, 75. Hours et al. 1994, 213. Thissen 2002. Özdöl-Kutlu et al. 2015. Lichter 2005. Rosenstock 2014, fig. 10.

116

Eva Rosenstock

From Behind the Back: The Beginning and the End of the Central Anatolian Farming Threshold The phase maps of all available sites (Figs. 6–9) confirm the overall impression of a ‘Farming Threshold’ between central and western Anatolia during the 8th millennium as suggested by the 14C evidence. A line running roughly N-S and dividing the two regions, as shown in earlier maps (Figs. 1–3), however, might be too simple a scenario. Rather, the current state of research suggests that during the AN and initial EN, i.e. until c. 6700 calBC, farming sites were confined to the steppic Konya Endorheic Basin. Such a scenario would imply that the ‘Central Anatolian Farming Frontier’ encapsulated central Anatolia, isolating it not only from western and northern Anatolia, but also from Upper Mesopotamia. On the one hand, the large spatial gap between the two regions and continuities between Epipalaeolithic and AN/EN material culture in central Anatolia (such as the sub-oval dwellings at Boncuklu and in the lower levels of Aşıklı Höyük and a considerable foraging component in the subsistence of both sites)93 can be used as evidence that central Anatolia formed an autochthonous and separate region of primary neolithisation. On the other hand, these first Neolithic traits occur a millennium later than in Upper Mesopotamia, opening up a possibility of an early secondary neolithisation of central Anatolia. Neolithic economic traits became more visible at c. 8300 calBC in level 2 of Aşıklı Höyük, when, in addition, the introduction of rectangular mudbrick architecture has been interpreted as contacts with Upper Mesopotamia,94 maybe reflecting an early superposition of a central Anatolian primary neolithisation with an additional secondary neolithisation process95. These questions are, however, only relevant if one wants to assess if the ‘Central Anatolian Farming Threshold’ is the first ‘Farming Threshold’ ever or whether it had a predecessor, and hence would be beyond the scope of this paper. Only at c. 6700 calBC, i.e. during the EN/LN transitional phase coeval with the ‘Middle Tradition’ of Çatalhöyük VIII to VI, settlement started expanding outside of central Anatolia. Early western Anatolian sites like Ulucak, Çukuriçi and maybe even Barcın Höyük have been interpreted as belonging to a ‘Pioneer Phase’ of the Neolithic in western Anatolia by Barbara Horejs.96 The evidence presented here shows that most likely also sites in the western Anatolian Mediterranean watershed like Kovada Gölü and probably Bademağacı can be attributed to this horizon and that sites in the Mediterranean watersheds of eastern Anatolia – Mersin-Yumuktepe and Domuztepe – should probably not be regarded as belonging to the core zone of the Neolithic,97 but to this ‘Pioneer Phase’. This horizon has been plausibly sketched as a sea-borne secondary neolithisation originating in Upper Mesopotamia or the northern Levant,98 calling for a scrutiny of the processes underway in this region and time-period rather than in Central Anatolia.99 Among them, the collapse or transition between the PPNB and the PPNC at c. 6700/6600 calBC100 in the Levant and the development of intensive mixed farming by the late PPNB101 have to be mentioned. A more dispersed settlement pattern rather than the previous mega-sites and fully integrated animal and plant production are both plausible means to sustain a more household-based102 and non-correspondence103 socio-economy. Such a new socio-eco-

95 96 97 98 99 93 94

102 103 100 101

Stiner et al. 2014. Duru 2002. Düring 2013, 76–78. Horejs et al. 2015. Cf. Horejs et al. 2015, 322, fig. 15. Horejs et al. 2015. Düring 2013. Twiss 2007. Bogaard 2005. Marciniak et al. 2015. Furholt 2017.

Dot by Dot: Phase-mapping the Central/Western Anatolian Farming Threshold

117

Fig. 10    The Central Anatolian Farming Threshold c. 8500 – 6700 calBC during the AN and EN and the Pioneer Phase of the EN/LN Transitional of Anatolia 6700 – 6500/6400 calBC as well as key sites mentioned in the text. 1. Aşıklı Höyük; 2. Bademağacı; 3. Barcın Höyük; 4. Boncuklu; 5. Çalca; 6. Canhasan III; 7. Çatalhöyük East; 8. Çukuriçi; 10. Domuztepe; 11. Erbaba; 12. Hatip Höyük; 13. Keçiçayırı; 14. Kovada Gölü; 15. Mersin-Yumuktepe; 16. Musluçeşme; 17. Musular; 18. Süberde; 19. Tepecik-Çiftlik; 20. Ulucak (conception: E. Rosenstock, cartography: D. Kelm, Leipzig)

nomic system can currently best be observed in LN Çatalhöyük in the second half of the 7th millennium,104 i.e. somewhat delayed in comparison to the start of the expansion of farming into western Anatolia. However, assuming that similar developments – sometimes termed the ‘Second Neolithic Revolution’105 were underway already at the beginning of the 7th millennium in Mesopotamia or the northern Levant, they could have been a motor for small groups from further east to take their bags and baggage for a sea-borne expansion along the coasts of the Mediterranean that bypassed central Anatolia. According to the current state of research, inner western Anatolia, i.e. the Burdur Endorheic Basin and the Sakarya watershed draining to the Black Sea, were not settled by farmers between c. 6700 and 6500/6400 calBC until these hinterlands become integrated in the LN of the second half of the 7th millennium. Similar processes are known from central Europe and have been termed Binnen-Neolithisierung or inland neolithisation by Wolfram Schier; while e.g. the LBK and subsequent early 5th millennium cultures concentrated on ecologically favored regions with an environment similar to the LBK homeland in the Hungarian plain, the areas between them, e.g. between the Upper Danube and the Swiss Jura, were settled only after the mid-5th millennium.106 As a result, and as a reconciliation of the two earlier views of its position (see above), the ‘Central Anatolian Farming Threshold’ dissolves into two phases: the first and major phase encapsulates the Konya Endorheic Basin between c. 8500 and 6700 calBC, and the second and

104

Hodder 2014. Düring 2011, 122–125; Gopher 2012. 106 Schier 2009, 19. 105

118

Eva Rosenstock

minor one isolates the Konya Endorheic Basin and the Mediterranean, Aegean and Marmara watersheds from inland western Anatolia between c. 6700 and c. 6500/6400 calBC (Fig. 10). Only in the second half of the 7th millennium, western Anatolia was fully settled by Neolithic communities and the ‘Central Anatolian Farming Threshold’ finally overcome. Acknowledgements: Thanks are due to the organisers of the ICAANE workshop ‘The Central Anatolian Farming Frontier’, Maxime Brami and Barbara Horejs, for their kind invitation and to all participants, especially Mehmet Özdoğan and Arkadiusz Marciniak, for the fruitful discussion. Moreover, I thank Wolfram Schier, Peter F. Biehl, and David Orton for their steady input on issues dealt with in this paper, and especially Jana Anvari, Julia Ebert and Agathe Reingruber for their comments on earlier versions of this text.

ID 4 5 10 22 30 39 42 43 64 78 82 93 95 98 104 107 116 127 162 198 204 206 208 210 216 224 240 254 259 265 277 278 291 294

Name Acıyer Adatepe II, Tepe Ada II Afrodisias-Pekmez, Aphrodisias-Pekmez Ak Höyük Akçay I Höyük Alan Höyük Alibeyli Alıçlı Höyük Arpalı II Aşıklı Höyük, Aşıklıhüyük Avla Dağ, Avla Dağı, Avladag, Asla Dağ Aziziye Bademağacı Höyük, Kızılkaya Baharlar Bakla Tepe, Bulgurca Höyüğü Balıkavı, Balıklıhavı Başkuyu I Bektemür Höyük, Rekdemir Höyük Boz I Çaltıdere Çamur Höyük Can Hasan I, Canasun, Canason, Canhasanhüyük Can Hasan III Çandır Höyük I–II, Çandır I–II Çatal Höyük (Ost), Çatalhüyük, Çatal Hüyük, Çatal Huyuk, Chatahüyük, Çatalhöyük Doğu Çavdır, Çavdir Çem Çem, Cem-Cem Hüyük Çığırtkankaya (Çigirkankaya) Çoban Ali Höyük Çomaklı (Yanagelmez Höyük) Çukurkent, Çükürkent, Cukurkent Çukurköprü, Çükürköprü Değirmenözü, Değirmen Özü Demircihöyük, Demircihüyük

no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

EN/LN Transitional no no no no no insecure no no no no no no insecure insecure no no no no no no no no no no

no insecure yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no yes yes insecure yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

no no no no no no no no no

no no no insecure no no no no insecure

no no no insecure no no no insecure insecure

yes yes insecure insecure insecure yes yes insecure yes

AN

EN

yes no no no no no no no no yes yes no no no no no no no no no no no yes no

LN

Table 1   Sites in Anatolia dated to the AN through LN in Anatolian terminology, i.e. up to c. 6100/6000 calBC. Site numbers up to 7436 correspond to the respective entry in Rosenstock 2009, where more details and all references can be found. Sites 8223 to 8255 were added from information provided in Özdoğan et al. 2011a; Özdoğan et al. 2011b; Özdoğan et al. 2012a; Özdoğan et al. 2012b; Özdoğan et al. 2013. Moreover, all sites were cross-checked with the current online version of the TAY database (TAY 2016). A map showing the location of the sites can be found in Rosenstock 2014, fig.1

119

Dot by Dot: Phase-mapping the Central/Western Anatolian Farming Threshold

ID 300 321 326 332 339 341 344 393 395 402 406 410 440 442 445 446 449 459 460 473 495 502 509 513 521 523 525 526 531 540 548 549 554 560 577 580 594 598 607 614 624 629 648 649 663 684 709 726

Name

AN

Dereköy I no Domuztepe, Domuztepe Haruniye no Düden no Efeoğlu no Elvanlı/Tömükkale no Erbaba, Beyşehir Hüyük, Erbaba Tepe, Unnamed no Beyşehir Site No. 9 Eskiköy Yeri no Gökçealan/Kabıla no Gökhöyük no Gölde no Gölyolu no Gözlükule, Tarsus, Tarse, Gözlü Küle no Hacı Bozan (Hacı Buğdan) no Hacıbeyli yes Hacılar, Hacilar no Hacılar Höyük no Hacımusalar/Beyler no Hamidiye-Nazilli no Hanvakfi Eski II, Hanvaki Eski II no Hatip Höyük no Höyücek no İğdeli Ceşme no Ilıcapınar, Ilicapinar-Cihanbeyli no İlyas I no İncirdere, Incidere no Incirlik no İncirlitepe (İncirli I) no İninönü yes İshaklı/Sultandağı (İsahlı Hissar, İsaklı Hissar) no Kabarsa no Kalkanlı Höyük insecure Kanal Höyük (Üzümlü Höyük, Bağlası Höyük, Höyük no Bağları), Gökhöyük Kanlıtepe, Kanlitepe no Karaaliler, Karaali Ciftliği no Karakurt no Karamusa no Kaşaklı Höyük no Kavaklıkahve no Kayışlar no Keçili, Kecili no Kerhane Höyük no Keyren Höyük no Kızılvıran no Kızlar Höyük IV no Kocahöyük II no Köşk Höyük, Köşk Pınar Bor, Köşkpınar no Küçük Yamanlar no Kumluktepe, Kumtepe, Kumtepe-İncesu, İncesu, Kumno lutepe Table 1 continued

no yes no no no

EN/LN Transitional no yes no no insecure

yes yes yes insecure insecure

no

yes

no

no no no no no no no no no no no no no insecure no insecure insecure no no no no no no no insecure

no no no no no no no no no no no no no yes no insecure no no no no no no no no insecure

insecure no insecure yes insecure yes insecure no yes yes yes insecure yes no yes insecure yes yes yes insecure insecure no yes yes insecure

no

insecure

insecure

no no no no no no no no insecure no no no no no no

no no no no no no insecure no no no no no no insecure no

insecure insecure yes insecure insecure insecure insecure insecure no yes yes yes yes yes yes

insecure

insecure

yes

EN

LN

120

ID 739 743 746 774 797 808 812 817 820 821 833 839 843 857 880 902 935 972 974 987 1007 1021 1043 1051 1067 1075 1077 1081 1082 1113 1116 1118 1126 1137 1140 1169 1197 1199 1222 1223 1226 1241 1247 1256 1694 3041 3577 5095 5096

Eva Rosenstock

Name

EN/LN Transitional no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no insecure insecure no no no no no no no insecure insecure no no no

yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes

no

insecure

insecure

yes

no no yes yes no no no no no no no no no no no yes no no no yes no no no no

no no no yes no no no no no no yes no no no no no no no no no no no no no

no no no no no no no no no no yes insecure no no no no yes no no no no no no no

insecure insecure no no insecure yes yes yes yes insecure yes yes yes yes insecure no yes insecure insecure no yes yes insecure insecure

no

yes

no

yes

no no no no no

no no no no no

no no yes no no

yes yes no yes yes

AN

Kuyucak Kuzköy Lembertepe Maltepe-Mut Menteşe, Yenişehir, Menteşe Höyük Milet Misis Moralı I Musluçeşme Mevkii Musular Mevkii Nemrut Höyüğü Niğde-Tepebağları, Fertek Nuriye Ortakaraviran-Kuzey (Orta Karaviran Kücük Höyük) Pascu Höyük Pinarbasi-Bor Reis Tümeği Şamsın Höyüğü, Şamşın Höyüğü Sapmaz Köy, Yassıören, Yastören, Sapmazköy, Yassiören Sazak Seydiler, Seytiler, Seyitler Sircan Tepe Suberde, Görüklük Tepe, Görüklüktepe Sürmeli Höyük Tarmil Höyük, Termel, Tirmil Tatarlı Höyük Tavşan Adası Tekke, Koca Höyük, Teke Höyük Teknepınar Höyük Tepecik-Çiftlik, Tepecik Çiftlik Tepeköy Tepetarla (Balıkesir) Tılan Höyük, Tilan Tırmıl Tepe Toparın Pınar, Toparin Pinar Ulucak, Ulucak Höyük Yağca Taş Höyük Yakaemir Yellibellen Tepesi Yenice Yeniköy Höyük/Hüyük Yilan Höyük Yörükmezarı, Yörükmezari Yumuktepe, Soğuksu, Mersin, Yümüktepe, Yümük Tepe, Yarmuk Tepe Killiktepe Bucak Kovada Gölü Altıntepe (Izmir) Arapkahve

no no no no no no no no insecure yes no no no no no no no no

Table 1 continued

EN

LN

121

Dot by Dot: Phase-mapping the Central/Western Anatolian Farming Threshold

ID 5097 5098 5099 5100 5101 5102 5103 5104 5105 5106 5107 5108 6179 6569 7436 8223 8224 8225 8226 8227 8240 8245 8247 8253 8254 8255

EN/LN Transitional no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no insecure insecure

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes insecure

no

insecure

insecure

insecure

yes no no no no yes no no no insecure no no

no no no no no no no no no insecure no no

no no yes no no no no no no insecure insecure insecure

no insecure yes yes yes no yes yes yes insecure insecure insecure

Name

AN

Araptepe-Bekirlertepe, Araptepe Bornova Bozköy Çerkeztevfikiye Gavurtepe (Manisa) Kemaliye Killik Mersinli Oğlananası Yenmiş Yuvacalı Saplıadası Keçiçayırı Kayaardı Tepesi, Kışla-Kadarak mevkii, Kayaardi Tepesi Kızılkaya, Gedikpaşa Ege Gübre Çukurici Höyük Dedecik-Heybelitepe Yeșilova Höyük Boncuklu Eyice, Eyice Höyük Ahlatlı Tepecik Selçikler Çalca Yılanlık Höyücek Altı Mevkii, Höyücek

no no no no no no no no no no no no insecure

EN

LN

Table 1 continued

References Ammerman – Cavalli-Sforza 1971 A. J. Ammerman – L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, Measuring the rate of spread of early farming in Europe, Man NS 6, 1971, 674–688. Anvari et al. 2017 J. Anvari – J. Brady – I. Franz – G. Naumov – D. Orton – S. Ostaptchouk – E. Stroud – P. T. Willett – E. Rosenstock – P. F. Biehl, Continuous change. Venturing into the Early Chalcolithic at Çatalhöyük, in: Sh. R. Steadman – G. McMahon (eds.), The Archaeology of Anatolia. Recent Discoveries Volume II (Cambridge MA 2017) 6–39. Arbuckle et al. 2014 B. S. Arbuckle – S. W. Kansa – E. Kansa – D. C. Orton – C. Çakırlar – L. Gourichon – L. Atici – A. Galik – A. Marciniak – J. Mulville – H. Buitenhuis – D. Carruthers – B. De Cupere – A. Demirergi – S. Frame – D. Helmer – L. Martin – J. Peters – N. Pöllath – K. Pawłowska – N. Russell – K. Twiss – D. Würtenberger, Data sharing reveals complexity in the westward spread of domestic animals across Neolithic Turkey, PLoS One 9, 6, 2014, e99845. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099845. Balkan-Atlı 1994 N. Balkan-Atlı, La Néolithisation de l’Anatolie (Paris 1994). Bayliss et al. 2015 A. Bayliss – F. Brock – S. Farid – I. Hodder – J. Southon – R. E. Taylor, Getting to the bottom of it all. A Bayesian approach to dating the start of Çatalhöyük, Journal of World Prehistory 28, 2015, 1–26. Bittel 1960 K. Bittel, Fikirtepe kazısı, in: V. Türk Tarih Kongresi. 12–17 Nisan 1956, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları 9, 5 (Ankara 1960) 29–36.

122

Eva Rosenstock

Bogaard 2005 A. Bogaard, Garden agriculture and the nature of early farming in Europe and the Near East, World Archaeology 37, 2, 177–196. Brami 2015 M. N. Brami, A graphical simulation of the 2,000-year lag in Neolithic occupation between central Anatolia and the Aegean Basin, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 7, 3, 2015, 319–327. doi: 10.1007/s12520-014-0193-4. Brami – Zanotti 2015 M. Brami – A. Zanotti, Modelling the initial expansion of the Neolithic out of Anatolia, Documenta Praehistorica XLII, 2015, 103–116. Bronk Ramsey 2016 C. Bronk Ramsey, Oxcal 4.2 (last updated 14 Sept. 2016). Online (last accessed 30 Sept. 2016). Caneva 2012 I. Caneva, Mersin-Yumuktepe in the seventh millennium BC. An updated view, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012a, 1–29. Çilingiroğlu 2009 Ç. Çilingiroğlu, Central-West Anatolia at the end of 7th and beginning of 6th millennium BCE in the light of pottery from Ulucak (Izmir). (PhD Diss., Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Tübingen 2009). Online (last accessed 22 Aug 2018). Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012 A. Çilingiroğlu – Ö. Çevik – Ç. Çilingiroğlu, Ulucak Höyük. Towards understanding the early Neolithic farming communities of Middle West Anatolia. Contribution of Ulucak, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012b, 139–175. Clare – Weninger 2014 L. Clare – B. Weninger, The dispersal of Neolithic lifeways. Absolute chronology and rapid climate change in central and west Anatolia, in: Özdoğan et al. 2014, 1–65. Düring 2011 B. Düring, The Prehistory of Asia Minor. From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (Cambridge 2011). Düring 2013 B. Düring, Breaking the Bond. Investigating the Neolithic Expansion in Asia Minor in the Seventh Millennium BC, Journal of World Prehistory 26, 2013, 75–100. Duru 1989 R. Duru, Were the earliest cultures at Hacılar really aceramic? in: K. Emre – B. Hrouda – M. Mellink –N. Özgüc (eds.), Anatolia and the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç / Tahsin Özgüç’e Armağan (Ankara 1989) 99–105. Duru 1994 R. Duru (ed.), Kuruçay Höyük I. 1978–1988 Kazılarının Sonuçları. Neolitik ve Erken Kalkolitik Çağ Yerleşmeleri (Ankara 1994). Duru 2002 G. Duru, Some architectural indications for the origins of central Anatolia, in: Gérard – Thissen 2002, 171–180. Duru 2012 R. Duru, The Neolithic of the Lakes Region. Hacılar – Kuruçay Höyük – Höyücek – Bademağacı Höyük, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012b, 1–65. Efe et al. 2012 T. Efe – I. Gatsov – P. Nedelcheva, Keçiçayırı. A Neolithic settlement near Seyitgazi, Eskişehir, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012b, 227–236. Furholt 2017 M. Furholt, Socio-spatial organization and Early Neolithic expansion in western Anatolia and Greece, in: M. Gori – M. Ivanova (eds.), Balkan Dialogues. Negotiating Identity Between Prehistory and the Present (London, New York 2017) 111–130.

Dot by Dot: Phase-mapping the Central/Western Anatolian Farming Threshold

123

Gérard – Thissen 2002 F. Gérard – L. Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia. Internal Developments and External Relations during the 9th–6th Millennia cal BC. Proceedings of the International CANeW Table Ronde, Istanbul, 23–24 November 2001 (Istanbul 2002). Gopher 2012 A. Gopher, The Pottery Neolithic in the southern Levant. A second Neolithic revolution, in: A. Gopher (ed.), Village Communities of the Pottery Neolithic Period in the Menashe Hills, Israel. Archaeological Investigations at the Sites of Nahal Zehora Volume III, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 29 (Tel Aviv 2012) 1525–1579. Guilaine 2000/2001 J. Guilaine, La diffusion de l’agriculture en Europe. Une hypothese arythmique / La difusión de la agricultura en Europa. Una hipótesis aritmética, Zephyrus 53–54, 2000/2001, 267–272. Guilaine 2003 J. Guilaine, De la Vague à la Tombe. La Conquête Néolithique de la Méditerranée (Paris 2003). Guilaine 2007 J. Guilaine, Die Ausbreitung der neolithischen Lebensweise im Mittelmeerraum, in: C. Lichter (ed.)‚ Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die Ältesten Monumente der Menschheit. Begleitbuch zur Großen Landesausstellung Baden-Württemberg 2007 im Badischen Landesmuseum Schloß Karlsruhe (Stuttgart 2007) 166–176. Harmankaya et al. 1997 S. Harmankaya – O. Tanındı – M. Özbașaran, Neolitik, Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleșmeleri 2 (Istanbul 1997). Harmankaya et al. 1998 S. Harmankaya – O. Tanındı – M. Özbașaran, Kalkolitik, Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleșmeleri 3 (Istanbul 1998). Hodder 2014 I. Hodder, Çatalhöyük. The leopard changes its spots. A summary of recent work, Anatolian Studies 64, 2014, 1–22. Horejs et al. 2015 B. Horejs – B. Milić – F. Ostmann – U. Thanheiser – B. Weninger – A. Galik, The Aegean in the Early 7th Millennium BC. Maritime networks and colonization, Journal of World Prehistory 28, 2015, 289–330. doi: 10.1007/s10963-015-9090-8. Hours et al. 1994 F. Hours – O. Aurenche – J. Cauvin – M.-C. Cauvin – L. Copeland – P. Sanlaville – P. Lombard, Atlas des Sites du Proche Orient. 14000–5700 BP, Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen Ancien 24 (Lyon, Paris 1994). Lichter 2005 C. Lichter, Western Anatolia in the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic. The actual state of research, in: C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium BC. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul, 20–22 May 2004, Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005) 59–74. Marciniak – Czerniak 2014 A. Marciniak – L. Czerniak, Çatalhöyük East at the end of the 7th millennium. The demise of the Neolithic mega-site. Paper presented at the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (ICAANE), Basel, 9–13 June 2014. Marciniak et al. 2015 A. Marciniak – E. Asouti – C. Doherty – E. Henton, The nature of household in the upper levels at Çatalhöyük. Smaller, more dispersed, and more independent acquisition, production, and consumption unit, in: I. Hodder – A. Marciniak (eds.), Assembling Çatalhöyük, Themes in Contemporary Archaeology 1 (Leeds 2015) 151–165. Mellaart 1961a J. Mellaart, Early cultures of the South Anatolian Plateau, Anatolian Studies 11, 1961, 159–184. Mellaart 1961b J. Mellaart, Excavations at Hacilar. Fourth preliminary report, 1960, Anatolian Studies 11, 1961, 39–75. Mellaart 1970 J. Mellaart, Excavations at Hacılar (Edinburgh 1970).

124

Eva Rosenstock

Merriam-Webster’s Geographical Dictionary 1997 Merriam-Webster’s Geographical Dictionary, 3rd edition (Springfield, MA 1997). Orton et al. 2018 D. Orton – J. Anvari – C. Gibson – J. Last – A. Bogaard – E. Rosenstock – P. F. Biehl, A tale of two tells. Dating the Çatalhöyük West Mound, Antiquity 92, 363, 2018, 620–639. doi: 10.15184/aqy.2018.91. Özbaşaran – Buitenhuis 2002 M. Özbaşaran – H. Buitenhuis, Proposal for a regional terminology for Central Anatolia, in: Gérard – Thissen 2002, 67–77. Özdoğan 1999 M. Özdoğan, Concluding remarks, in: Özdoğan – Başgelen 1999, 225–236. Özdoğan 2011 M. Özdoğan, Archaeological evidence on the westward expansion of farming communities from Eastern Anatolia to the Aegean and the Balkans, Current Anthropology, 52, S4 The Origins of Agriculture. New Data, New Ideas, 2011, S415–S430. Özdoğan – Başgelen 1999 M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of Civilization. New Discoveries, Ancient Anatolian Civilizations Series 3 (Istanbul 1999). Özdoğan – Başgelen 2007 M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen (eds.), Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem. Anadolu’da Uygarlığın Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı. Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular (Istanbul 2007). Özdoğan – Gatsov 1998 M. Özdoğan – I. Gatsov, The Aceramic Neolithic period in western Turkey and in the Aegean, Anatolica 24, 1998, 209–232. Özdoğan et al. 2011a M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. I. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 1: The Tigris Basin (Istanbul 2011). Özdoğan et al. 2011b M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. I. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 2: The Euphrates Basin (Istanbul 2011). Özdoğan et al. 2012a M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 3: Central Turkey (Istanbul 2012). Özdoğan et al. 2012b M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 4: Western Turkey (Istanbul 2012). Özdoğan et al. 2013 M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. I. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 5: Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul (Istanbul 2013). Özdoğan et al. 2014 M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. I. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 6: 10500–5200 BC. Environment, Settlement, Flora, Fauna, Dating, Symbols of Belief, with Views from North, South, East and West (Istanbul 2014). Özdöl 2012 S. Özdöl, Development and Traditions of Pottery in the Neolithic of the Anatolian Plateau. Evidence from Çatalhöyük, Süberde and Erbaba, BAR International Series 2439 (Oxford 2012). Özdöl-Kutlu et al. 2015 S. Özdöl-Kutlu – T. Carter – L. Czerniak – A. Marciniak, The end of the Neolithic settlement. Çatalhöyük and its Neighbours, in: I. Hodder – A. Marciniak (eds.), Assembling Çatalhöyük, Themes in Contemporary Archaeology 1 (Leeds 2015) 179–195.

Dot by Dot: Phase-mapping the Central/Western Anatolian Farming Threshold

125

Perlès 2001 C. Perlès, The Early Neolithic in Greece (Cambridge 2001). Pinhasi et al. 2005 R. Pinhasi – J. Fort – A. J. Ammerman, Tracing the origin and spread of agriculture in Europe, PLoS Biology 3, 12, 2005, e410. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030410. Rasse 2008 M. Rasse, La diffusion du Néolithique en Europe (7000–5000 av. J.-C.) et sa représentation cartographique, M@ppemonde 90, 2008. Online (last accessed 23 Aug. 2018). Rasse 2014 M. Rasse, Modélisation de la diffusion du Néolithique en Europe, M@ppemonde 115, 2014. Online (last accessed 23 Aug. 2018). Reingruber 2008 A. Reingruber, Die Argissa-Magula. Das frühe und das beginnende mittlere Neolithikum im Lichte transägäischer Beziehungen, Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa-Magula in Thessalien II, Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 35 (Bonn 2008). Reingruber 2011 A. Reingruber, Early Neolithic settlement patterns and exchange networks in the Aegean, Documenta Praehistorica 38, 2011, 291–305. Reingruber 2015 A. Reingruber, Preceramic, Aceramic or Early Ceramic? The radiocarbon dated beginning of the Neolithic in the Aegean, Documenta Praehistorica 42, 2015, 147–158. Rosenstock 2009 E. Rosenstock, Tells in Südwestasien und Südosteuropa. Entstehung, Verbreitung und Definition eines Siedlungsphänomens, Urgeschichtliche Studien 2 (Grunbach 2009). Rosenstock 2014 E. Rosenstock, Like a su böreği. Settlements and site formation processes in Neolithic Turkey, in: Özdoğan et al. 2014, 223–263. Rosenstock et al. 2016 E. Rosenstock – S. Scharl – W. Schier, Ex oriente lux? – Ein Diskussionsbeitrag zur Stellung der frühen Kupfermetallurgie Südosteuropas, in: M. Bartelheim – B. Horejs – R. Krauß (eds.), Von Baden bis Troia. Ressourcennutzung, Metallurgie und Wissenstransfer. Eine Jubiläumsschrift für Ernst Pernicka, Oriental and European Archaeology 3 (Rahden 2016) 59–122. Rosenstock et al. in press E. Rosenstock – J. Anvari – I. Franz – D. Orton – S. Ostaptchouk – E. Stroud – P. F. Biehl, The transition between the east and west mounds at Çatalhöyük around 6000 cal B.C. A view from the west, in: A. Marciniak (ed.), Social and Economic Changes in the Second Half of the 7th Millennium in the Near East (in press). Sagona – Zimansky 2008 A. Sagona – P. Zimansky, Ancient Turkey (London 2008). Schier 2009 W. Schier, Extensiver Brandfeldbau und die Ausbreitung der neolithischen Wirtschaftsweise in Mitteleuropa und Südskandinavien am Ende des 5. Jahrtausends v. Chr., Prähistorische Zeitschrift 84, 2009, 15–43. Schier in press W. Schier, Modes and models of Neolithization in Europe. Comments on an ongoing debate, in: P. F. Biehl – E. Rosenstock (eds.), 6000 BC. Transformation and Change in the Near East and Europe. Proceedings of the International Conference at the Free University Berlin, 24–26 November 2011 (in press). Schoop 2002 U.-D. Schoop, Frühneolithikum im südwestanatolischen Seengebiet? Eine kritische Betrachtung, in: R. Aslan – S. W. Blum – G. Kastl – F. Schweizer – D. Thumm (eds.), Mauerschau. Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann Vol. 1 (Grunbach 2002) 421–436.

126

Eva Rosenstock

Schoop 2005a U.-D. Schoop, The late escape of the Neolithic from the Central Anatolian Plain, in: C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th Through the First Half of the 6th Millennium calBC. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul, 20–22 May 2004, Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005) 41–58. Schoop 2005b U.-D. Schoop, Das anatolische Chalkolithikum, Urgeschichtliche Studien 1 (Grunbach 2005). Seeher 1987 J. Seeher, Demircihüyük III.1. Die Keramik 1. A. Die neolithische und chalkolithische Keramik. B. Die frühbronzezeitliche Keramik der älteren Phasen (bis Phase G) (Mainz 1987). Steadman – McMahon 2011 S. R. Steadman – G. McMahon (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia. 10,000–323 B.C.E. (Oxford, New York 2011). Stiner et al. 2014 M. Stiner – H. Buitenhuis – G. Duru – S. L. Kuhn – S. M. Mentzer – N. D. Munro – N. Pöllath – J. Quade – G. Tsartsidou – M. Özbaşaran, A forager-herder trade-off, from broad-spectrum hunting to sheep management at Aşıklı Höyük, Turkey, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111, 23, 2014, 8404–8409. TAY 2004 The Archaeological Settlements of Turkey Geographic Information System, Dec. 2004. Online (last accessed 26 Oct. 2016). TAY 2016 Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri / The Archaeological Settlements of Turkey. Online (last accessed 20 Sept. 2016). Thissen 2002 L. Thissen, Appendix I. The CANeW 14C Databases. Anatolia, 10 000–5000 cal BC, in: Gérard – Thissen 2002, 299–337. Thissen 2000 L. Thissen, Early Village Communities in Anatolia and the Balkans, 6500–5500 cal BC. Studies in Chronology and Culture Contact (PhD Diss., University of Leiden 2000). Thissen 2010 L. Thissen, The Neolithic–Chalcolithic sequence in the SW Anatolian Lakes Region, Documenta Praehistorica 37, 2010, 269–282. Thissen – Reingruber 2016 L. Thissen – A. Reingruber, 14SEA Project. A 14C database for Southeast Europe and Anatolia (10,000–3000 calBC). Online (last accessed 30 Sept. 2016). Twiss 2007 K. C. Twiss, The Neolithic of the Southern Levant, Evolutionary Anthropology 16, 2007, 24–35. Weninger et al. 2014 B. Weninger – L. Clare – F. Gerritsen – B. Horejs – R. Krauß – J. Linstädter – R. Özbal – E. J. Rohling, Neolithisation of the Aegean and Southeast Europe during the 6600–6000 calBC period of rapid climate change, Documenta Praehistorica 41, 2014, 1–31. Willett et al. 2016 P. T. Willett – I. Franz – C. Kabukcu – D. Orton – J. Rogasch – E. Stroud – E. Rosenstock – P. F. Biehl, The aftermath of the 8.2 Event. Cultural and environmental effects in the Anatolian Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic, in: P. F. Biehl – O. Nieuwenhuyse (eds.), Climate and Cultural Change in Prehistoric Europe and the Near East (Albany 2016) 95–115. Yakar 2011 J. Yakar, Anatolian chronology and terminology, in: Steadman – McMahon 2011, 56–98.

Çatalhöyük and the Emergence of the Late Neolithic Network in the Western Part of the Anatolian Peninsula

127

Çatalhöyük and the Emergence of the Late Neolithic Network in the Western Part of the Anatolian Peninsula Arkadiusz Marciniak 1 Abstract: This chapter discusses the character of significant changes experienced by the inhabitants of the Late Neolithic settlement at Çatalhöyük in the second half of the 7th millennium BC in a broader context of the corresponding developments in western, southwestern and northwestern Anatolia. These will be debated by examining transformations in the settlement layout and architecture as well as new forms of economic practices and social organisation. The multifaceted relations between the Çatalhöyük community and the neighbouring regions will then be scrutinised in order to recognise major facets of the newly emerging network of the Late Neolithic communities in this part of the Anatolian peninsula. The paper will also make an attempt to shed light upon the mechanisms and tempo of evident disruptions in many domains of existence of Çatalhöyük’s inhabitants and the ultimate abandonment of the settlement. Keywords: Neolithic, Anatolia, Çatalhöyük, husbandry, farming, architecture

Introduction The second half of the 7th millennium BC brought about significant changes in major domains of life of Neolithic groups across different regions of the Near East. These included, among others, farming strategies, husbandry practices, modes of procurement of different resources as well manufacture of major goods, particularly pottery and lithics. One of the major consequences of these developments comprised a dispersal of Neolithic communities into hitherto unoccupied and diverse ecological zones and the development of complicated networks of relations among groups of different origins as well as indigenous communities occupying these regions prior to the arrival of farmers.2 In this paper, I intend to discuss two major aspects of the profound change of the Neolithic communities in central Anatolia in this period: (i) transformation of the constituent principles of the central Anatolian Neolithic and (ii) the emergence of a network of Late Neolithic communities in the western part of the Anatolian peninsula. In addressing these broader issues, the paper will focus on the developments at Çatalhöyük East, the largest and by far the most important settlement in the region in the last four hundred years of its existence. In particular, it aims at outlining dominant changes in the settlement layout and architecture as well as presenting major transformations in the economic and social domains of its inhabitants’ existence. These developments are recognisable thanks to the results of work in two distinct excavation zones in the uppermost section of the East mound labelled the TP (Team Poznań) and TPC (Team Poznań Connection) Areas, which was carried out in the years 2001–2017. Furthermore, the paper aims to put the developments in the Late Neolithic at Çatalhöyük in a broader context of advancements in western, southwestern and northwestern Anatolia. In particular, the character of the discussed processes at Çatalhöyük will be systematically scrutinised in relation to the corresponding practices in these neighbouring areas. This should make it possible to outline the nature and tempo of constructing the Late Neolithic network of farming communities of different origins and the trajectories of



1 2

Institute of Archaeology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland, [email protected]. E.g. Özdoğan 2010; Özdoğan 2011.

128

Arkadiusz Marciniak

N

Kopal 1997-1999

Kopal 1996

Dig House Complex North Area

West Mound

North Shelter 4040 Area

East Mound

Mellaart III-0

TP

South Area Summit Area

TPC

IST Area

0

100

200 m Çatalhöyük GIS 2018

Fig. 1 Location of TP and TPC Areas in relation to other excavation areas in the southern part of Çatalhöyük East (C. Mazzucato, revised by G. Cork)

development in the westernmost part of the Near East. Ultimately, the paper attempts to identify a distinct character of the Late Neolithic transition in this region as an informative case of the profound transformation of this Neolithic world into its qualitatively distinct and powerful version of a notable social, cultural and economic potential.

Çatalhöyük in the Late Neolithic The excavations of the Late Neolithic strata at Çatalhöyük were undertaken in two distinct areas – TP and TPC – as an integral part of the Çatalhöyük Research Project (Fig. 1). They are located in the previously unexplored uppermost parts of the southern part of the East mound. The TP Area has dimensions of 10 × 15m. It is placed directly to the east of Mellaart Area A, which was excavated in the first season of the 1960s campaign.3 The fieldwork in the TP Area was executed in the years 2001–2008 by a team from Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland, and the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences (later University of Gdańsk). The work in the TPC Area commenced in 2012, right after a three year long study season following the first round of work. The area is made of four trenches of a total surface of c. 150 m2. It is placed between the TP Area and Mellaart Area A to the north and the South Area to the west. The project was carried out by a team from Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań. A complex stratigraphy of the Late Neolithic sequence in both areas was represented by six levels. They were labelled after the TP Area as TP and capital letters starting from the earliest

3



Mellaart 1962.

Çatalhöyük and the Emergence of the Late Neolithic Network in the Western Part of the Anatolian Peninsula

129

Fig. 2 Çatalhöyük East, TPC Area. Northern and northeastern part of B. 121 with the painted eastern wall (photo: J. Quinlan)

TP-M to the latest TP-R, marking the end of the Neolithic occupation of the settlement. They were originally recognised in the TP Area and then identified in the TPC sequence. The levels correspond to Mellaart’s levels IV–0. They are used to delimit the latest phases of the East mound occupation and comprise a direct continuation of the sequence of levels in the South Area starting from the very bottom of the mound.4 A combined analysis of relative and absolute chronologies in both areas made it possible to distinguish two sub-phases in the Late Neolithic occupation at Çatalhöyük (i) early Late Neolithic (c. 6400–6250 calBC) and (ii) late Late Neolithic (c. 6250– 5950 calBC). Altogether four distinct types of buildings were distinguished in the Late Neolithic strata, in addition to special purpose constructions. These include: (i) large houses with a suite of builtin structures and intramural burials marking the final stage of the classic Çatalhöyük houses;



4

See Hodder 2014.

130

Arkadiusz Marciniak

Fig. 3 Çatalhöyük East, TPC Area. Fragment of B. 110 (photo: J. Quinlan)

(ii) multi-roomed solid houses with standing walls and no distinct floors; (iii) light shelters with large open spaces; and (iv) multi-roomed dwelling structures with courtyards, but without intramural burials and hardly any built-in features. The earliest Late Neolithic architecture was comprised of elaborated late classic houses (TP-M). Five such structures were revealed in both TP and TPC Areas: B.81, B.121, B.122, B.150 and B.166. They have been exposed, documented and partly excavated, but none of them has been completely unearthed to date. They are dated to c. 6400–6300 BC.5 As compared to earlier classic phases, the buildings were bigger and some of them were multi-roomed. The up to 80m² structures had a number of built-in features, including platforms, benches, hearths, ovens and bins (Fig. 2). Some of the platforms also had a bucranium. The walls were decorated in the form of elaborated geometric paintings made of carefully designed and precisely executed geometric figures such as circles, lines and triangles. Human burials were placed underneath some of the platforms. The houses had a complex history of occupation involving numerous reconstructions and rebuilding of their different features. They were most likely deliberately abandoned and their interiors backfilled. Interestingly, shortly after they went out of use the space between the walls was most likely temporarily used, as indicated by the presence of fire spots and different pits of unspecified character. An ultimate abandonment of the late classic buildings was followed by the construction of solid multi-roomed houses with neither distinct floors nor burials underneath them (TP-N). Three buildings of this type (B.74, B.110, B.152) were discovered in both excavation areas. They were in use for a relatively short period of time between c. 6320 and 6250 BC.6 These solidly constructed houses had c. 50–75m² and were made of orange/dark yellow walls carefully bonded with each other (Fig. 3). They were composed of two to four distinct rooms. In all the rooms, except two, neither floors nor any built-in structures have been recognised. This indicates that the houses may have never been properly occupied. This is further corroborated by a very short occupation of B.74 encompassing

5 6



Marciniak 2015a; Marciniak et al. 2015a. Marciniak 2015a; Marciniak et al. 2015a.

Çatalhöyük and the Emergence of the Late Neolithic Network in the Western Part of the Anatolian Peninsula

131

Fig. 4 Çatalhöyük East, TP Area. B. 61 (photo: J. Quinlan)

no more than one generation, as revealed by Bayesian modelling.7 The houses were built either on middens or infill deposits and were deliberately abandoned after their short use. The next phase in the Late Neolithic occupational sequence in TP and TPC Areas was marked by the disappearance of solid architectural structures at the expense of light shelters and open spaces (TP-O and TP-P). This long period began around 6250 BC and continued until 6100 BC. Due to significant post-depositional destruction of the uppermost levels in the TPC Area, the character of occupation in the period is not clearly visible in the TP sequence. The first phase in the TP Area comprised a re-use of the preceding building (B.74) by splitting it into two parts (B.73). The southern section was turned into a hut-type construction with a light roof while the northern served as an open area (courtyard?), most likely delimited by the walls of the earlier house. The latter area was intensively used, as indicated by numerous fire spots. It was later turned into a continuously used midden, as demonstrated by five fire installations and rich occupational debris (B.73). The last phase of the Late Neolithic settlement at Çatalhöyük is marked by multi-roomed dwelling structures with courtyards (TP-Q and TP-R). They are dated to c. 6100–5950 calBC. The abandonment of the last of these buildings marks the end of the Neolithic settlement on the East mound. Altogether, five such buildings were recognised in TP and TPC Areas: B.61, B.62, B.109, B.115 and B.133. The structures of c. 70m² were composed of a centrally placed large room surrounded by a number of corresponding small rooms (Fig. 4). They were occupied between one (B.62) to three generations (B.61).8 The main room had a central hearth and hardly any other built-in structures. The houses had neither platforms nor intramural burials. They underwent numerous reconstructions, as indicated by a complex sequence of floors and partition walls. The abandonment process did not involve the backfilling of the interiors. The walls were either deliberately dismantled, probably to reuse the materials, or the house was left unoccupied, leaving its constructional elements to decay.



7 8

Marciniak et al. 2015a, 169. Marciniak et al. 2015a, 170–171.

132

Arkadiusz Marciniak

Fig. 5 Çatalhöyük East, TP Area. Northern part of Space 327 with numerous human skeletons (photo: J. Quinlan)

A distinct practice of the Late Neolithic occupation at Çatalhöyük involved inserting special purpose rooms into the existing dwelling structures, usually in the final stage of their occupation. The practice took place in two periods: c. 6250–6150 BC and 6000–5950 BC. Altogether, three structures of this type were unearthed: Sp.248, Sp.327 and Sp.493. The first two were elaborated burial chambers. Sp.327 is a room of c. 2.4m² with wall decoration made of incised geometric spiral motifs within a rectangular panel (Fig. 5). Remains of at least nine individuals were interred both in the chamber fill and into the floor. It was in use for approximately two generations.9 Similar in construction, but of different function was Sp.493. It was a c. 3m² storage room made of three distinct clay bins. It was use for storing barley and elongated ‘striate emmeroid’ wheat grains.10

Economic and Social Foundations of the Late Neolithic Community at Çatalhöyük Significant alterations of the settlement layout, organisation of space, burial practices and house arrangements are indicative of deep changes in numerous aspects of existence of Çatalhöyük’s inhabitants. They include, among others, animal husbandry and farming practices, modes of landscape exploitation and social arrangements. These were discussed in some detail elsewhere,11 and hence they will only be briefly summarised here.

Marciniak et al. 2015a, 170. Marciniak 2015a. 11 Marciniak 2015b; Marciniak et al. 2015b; Marciniak 2016. 9



10

Çatalhöyük and the Emergence of the Late Neolithic Network in the Western Part of the Anatolian Peninsula

133

In general terms, the major economic change involved a shift from the community-based mode of economy to much more differentiated and individualised animal husbandry and farming practices. This is well manifested in changes in animal management. Longer-distance herding was no longer pursued in the Late Neolithic. It was replaced by summer herding on the outskirts of the arable fields, on the plains or in nearby river valleys. The caprine herds in particular were kept relatively close to the site and not moved away. An innovative management technique involved intervention into the animal birthing seasonality by moving it to early March. Equally significant was an introduction of deliberate foddering, offering an effective means of dealing with losses arising from breaking natural resource synchrony. Changes in consumption practices clearly affected caprines and cattle. Overrepresentation of adults in sheep/goat mortality profiles may indicate a switch to the use of dairy products. Cattle were no longer used for ceremonial purposes and became consumed in ordinary fashion as a source of meat. The presence of all anatomical segments in cattle faunal assemblages and the dominance of females and subadults are indicative of a genuine shift in the mode of exploitation. These developments resulted in a high degree of arable/pastoral integration and co-dependence.12 Profound changes in the procurement strategies of major resources by the Late Neolithic groups from Çatalhöyük involved a shift from the exploitation of high quality goods from selected parts of the landscape far afield to acquiring diverse locally available resources, most often of poorer quality. This is particularly well manifested in a new regime of the exploitation of wood and timber.13 The catchment of wood extraction activities shrank through time, eventually becoming strictly localised to the riparian habitats that were closest to the site. This is believed to have been an efficient strategy when the settlement population decreased and basic social units became smaller. It was at the expense of the previously dominant exploitation of the surrounding semi-arid uplands c. 25km away from the settlement, in particular juniper and oak. The collection and transportation of timber to the settlement required considerable logistic complexity to organise the long-distance trips, which most probably were communal undertakings involving combined efforts of larger social groups. The Late Neolithic also marks considerable changes in the social arrangements of Çatalhöyük’s inhabitants. It involved a shift from communal to kin-based social organisation and transformation of largely homogenous groups from the preceding period into much diverse heterogeneous groups. The emerging individualised and increasingly autonomous households became the major social units, and they were largely responsible for this significant reshuffling. A shift from a tightly knit society based on sharing through dense networks into a system focussing largely on the self-sufficient household is associated with a rupture and breakdown after 6500 BC. The new form of social organisation at the Late Neolithic Çatalhöyük settlement triggered changes in a range of interrelated practices. Both animals, especially sheep and cattle, and plants, were now more intensively exploited. This in turn required the exploration of new ecological niches and ultimately altered the local environment. In particular, as revealed by anthracological studies, riparian woodlands had been converted into significantly managed, distinctly anthropogenic habitats. A mode of food preparation and consumption was also significantly modified. The processing of plant and animal products became more diverse involving exploitation of meat, milk and bones as well as field watering and manuring. Most likely there was the beginning of craft specialisation, particularly lithics. The effectiveness and flexibility of this new of form of exploitation, production and consumption strategies within household-based integrated units was most likely responsible for the dispersal of not only Çatalhöyük inhabitants, but also other groups across different parts of Anatolia.14

See Marciniak 2015a; Marciniak 2015b; Marciniak et al. 2015b. See Asouti 2013; Marciniak et al. 2015b. 14 E.g. Marciniak – Czerniak 2007; Marciniak – Czerniak 2012; Hodder 2014; Marciniak et al. 2015a; Marciniak et al. 2015b; Özdöl-Kutlu et al. 2015. 12 13

134

Arkadiusz Marciniak

Late Neolithic Çatalhöyük and the Developments in Western, Southwestern and Northwestern Anatolia The second half of the 7th millennium BC is marked by significant demographic and cultural changes in western, southwestern and northwestern parts of Anatolia. These developments established a qualitatively new regional context for the Late Neolithic inhabitants of Çatalhöyük. Their nature and character as well as relations among neighbouring areas remain largely unexplored. However, they have recently been addressed by scholars working in different parts of this large region.15 The emerging network of Late Neolithic communities was formed as a result of complex connections between local foragers and incoming fully-fledged farming groups from other parts of the Near East. The character of relations between Çatalhöyük – the unquestionably leading settlement in the region at the beginning of this process – with the newly materialising groupings is particularly striking. The process of developing new Neolithic communities in western, southwestern and northwestern Anatolia began before 6500 calBC, which was some time before major social and economic changes started at the settlement in Çatalhöyük. Around 6600/6500 calBC, a few sites emerged in the Beyşehir-Suğla Basin, directly west of Çatalhöyük, including Erbaba.16 The Neolithic was also well-established before 6500 calBC in the Lakes District in southwestern Anatolia.17 In western Anatolia, fully developed Neolithic farmers arrived around 6700 calBC from Upper Mesopotamia and/or the southern Levant, as indicated by discoveries from Çukuriçi XIII and Ulucak VI.18 A similar situation was revealed in northwestern Anatolia where the beginnings of the Neolithic are dated back to 6600 calBC.19 After this initial period, a number of new Neolithic settlements emerged across both regions and were undergoing dynamic developments in subsequent centuries. In general, one can distinguish two major phases in this process: (i) c. 6500–6200 calBC, and (ii) 6200–5950 calBC. They largely correspond with the dynamics of change revealed in TP and TPC Areas at Çatalhöyük. The first phase in southwestern and western Anatolia is represented by a number of settlements such as Bademağacı EN I (7–5)–II, Höyücek ESP–ShP, Hacılar IX–VI, Ulucak Ve–b, Yeşilova III 8–6 and Çukuriçi IX.20 Equally intense was the occupation of the northwestern part of Anatolia, as indicated by a number of settlements including Uğurlu V, Pendik, Archaic Fikirtepe, Aktopraklık C, Mentese (Basal, Middle) and Barcın Höyük (VId–c).21 The intensity of occupation of these regions in the second phase of the Late Neolithic accelerated. In western and southwestern Anatolia, it was manifested by Bademağacı EN II–LN?, Hacılar V–III, Höyücek SP, Kuruçay 13–10, Ulucak Va–IVg–k, Yeşilova III 5–3, Çukuriçi VIII and Ege Gübre IV.22 A number of settlements from the previous period in northwestern Anatolia show uninterrupted occupation including Classic Fikirtepe, Pendik, Yenikapı, Aktopraklık B, Ilıpınar X–IX, Mentese (Upper) and Barcın Höyük (VIb–a).23 The dominant forms of architecture in western, southwestern and northwestern Anatolia reveal some striking similarities. These comprise rectangular free-standing buildings, usually made of wattle and daub, with floor-level entrances. In some instances, the houses were built in rows one next to the other. They were most often associated with different forms of empty spaces such as courtyards, storage areas or alleyways. The architecture in western Anatolia was characterised by

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 15 16

E.g. Horejs et al. 2015; Özdöl-Kutlu et al. 2015; Özbal – Gerritsen 2019. Bordaz 1973; Bordaz – Bordaz 1976; Bordaz – Bordaz 1982; Özdöl 2012. Duru 2012. Horejs et al. 2015. Gerritsen et al. 2013. See Özdoğan 2015, fig. 6. Roodenberg et al. 2003; Özdoğan 2012; Karul – Avcı 2013; Erdoğu 2013; Gerritsen et al. 2013. See Özdoğan 2015, fig. 6. Roodenberg et al. 2003; Erdoğu 2013; Gerritsen et al. 2013; Karul – Avcı 2013.

Çatalhöyük and the Emergence of the Late Neolithic Network in the Western Part of the Anatolian Peninsula

135

rectangular-planned houses with stone foundations, either free standing or attached to each other, and arranged around a common courtyard, as revealed at Çukuriçi IX, Yeşilova III or Ege Gübre IV.24 At Ulucak Ve–b, free-standing wattle and daub houses within a quadrangular plan had internal ovens, storage bins and working places.25 At the southwestern Anatolian site of Bademağacı, individual houses had open spaces adjacent to them with numerous hearths. They were accompanied by individual storage silos constructed outside or between houses.26 Similar dwelling structures were also identified at Hacılar (IV and III).27 A largely similar site layout and architecture was revealed at northwestern Anatolian settlements. Free-standing and semi-detached houses of c. 25–30m² were mostly rectangular, but in some instances also oval, in shape. Some of them had horned benches and installations. Houses were placed around courtyards with ovens, storage facilities and remains of everyday activities,28 as revealed at Aktopraklık C, Uğurlu V, Ilıpınar X, Menteşe – Basal Menteşe and Barcın Vid–b.29 The character of settlement layout, organisation of space and architecture, in addition to different forms of artefacts such as lithics and pottery, make it possible to draw some conclusions regarding the character of relationships between the settlement at Çatalhöyük and corresponding developments in western, southwestern and northwestern Anatolia. The relations involved both immediate and direct contacts between groups migrating out of the Konya Plain and local communities of different provenance that happened to be present in different parts of this vast region as well as indirect contacts in the form of exchange of goods and ideas. There are a number of similarities as well as differences in the form of settlements and characteristic features of material culture between Çatalhöyük and western, southwestern and northwestern Anatolia. They form a largely heterogeneous mosaic and are differently structured in each of the two phases of the Late Neolithic. Straightforward references to classic Çatalhöyük existed in northwestern Anatolia, in particular in the first phase of the Late Neolithic (c. 6500–6200 BC). These comprise ceremonial consumption of cattle and deer at Aktopraklık C and burials underneath the floor at Aktopraklık C (burials with grave goods) and Basal Menteşe (female skeleton under the house floor).30 Similarities between Çatalhöyük and southwestern Anatolia and western Anatolia are manifested in a dominance of pressure blade technology,31 reported in particular from Hacılar,32 Höyücek33 and Kuraçay Höyük.34 Irrespective of minor idiosyncrasies, spatial organisation of the Late Neolithic settlements in the discussed areas, including Çatalhöyük, particularly in the second phase, is strikingly homogenous. They had a form of complex dwelling structures made of individual houses with adjacent open spaces along with fire installations and storage facilities of different character. The dead were not interred underneath the house floors (with two exceptions – see above). The transition from burials in houses to extramural cemeteries involved special mortuary architecture and the practice of burying the dead in courtyards. Apart from the similarities, there are a number of significant differences in the character of settlements and material culture between Çatalhöyük and western, southwestern and northwestern Anatolia. Despite the dominance of rectangular houses, dwelling structures in northwestern Anatolia also included round-planned wattle and daub huts with semi-subterranean floors, as seen

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 24 25

Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012; Horejs 2012; Sağlamtimur 2012. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012, fig. 25–26. Duru 2012. Mellaart 1970, 24. Özdoğan 2015, 43. E.g. Roodenberg et al. 2012; Erdoğu 2013; Gerritsen et al. 2013; Karul – Avcı 2013. Özbal – Gerritsen 2019; Karul 2019. See Reingruber 2011, 296. Mortensen 1970. Balkan-Atlı 2005. Baykal-Seeher 1994.

136

Arkadiusz Marciniak

at Aktopraklık, Fikirtepe, Pendik and other coastal settlements in the first phase of the Late Neolithic.35 Circular structures appeared also at Ege Gübre IV.36 Rectangular houses across the regions largely differed in terms of their construction technique, shape, arrangements of individual rooms, the character of open space and its relation to dwelling structures. Mudbrick structures with stone foundations were common in western Anatolia, e.g. at Ulucak (IVg–k), Çukuriçi VIII and Ege Gübre IV.37 The dominant building technique in southwestern Anatolia was kerpiç walls on stone foundations, as reported from EN II Levels of Bademağacı, Höyücek Shrine Phase, Kuruçay 12 and Hacılar IX–VI.38 Wattle and daub houses also dominated in northwestern Anatolia, as seen at Barcın and Menteşe.39 Mudbrick houses at Late Neolithic Çatalhöyük were c. 70m² and were significantly larger than their counterparts in western and northwestern Anatolia reaching c. 30m². The settlement layout also revealed significant differences across different parts of western, southwestern and northwestern Anatolia. Some settlements in western and southwestern Anatolia, such as Kuruçay 11, Hacılar IIA, Ege Gübre III and Yeşilova VIII2–1, appear to have been encircled by walls.40 Settlements from northwestern Anatolia in the second phase of the Late Neolithic developed into well-organised villages constructed within a circular plan serving as public areas, as manifested at Ilıpınar VI–VA and Aktopraklık B.41 Höyücek (SchP) from southwestern Anatolia appeared to have served ceremonial purposes already at the beginning of the Late Neolithic.42 Settlements emerged in different ecological zones; Çatalhöyük was located on the plain, while settlements in other regions were placed in mountainous (Coşkuntepe), island (Uğurlu) and coastal areas (Çukuriçi Höyük and Ege Gübre). While the size of the settlement at Çatalhöyük shrank through time, its counterparts in western and northwestern Anatolia kept increasing. The subsistence basis of local communities in different regions also varied. While inhabitants of Çatalhöyük exploited exclusively terrestrial resources, groups from western and northwestern Anatolia relied both upon terrestrial and sea resources. Major domesticates at Çatalhöyük and northwestern Anatolia included cattle and caprines, while pigs in addition to cattle and caprines were present in western Anatolia.43 Both domesticated and wild cattle were present at Çatalhöyük, while in western and northwestern Anatolia only domesticated forms were exploited. Western Anatolia experienced a high number of wild fauna (red deer, fallow deer, wild boar) and a massive increase of bivalve fauna (shells). Milking and dairying were common in northwestern Anatolia, but their use at Late Neolithic Çatalhöyük is inconclusive.44 Particularly striking was a lack of painted pottery at Çatalhöyük and in the Marmara region, while it was common in southwestern Anatolia.45 Red slipped pottery was only present in western Anatolia. Miniature vessels and rare forms, however, were common at Late Neolithic Çatalhöyük as well as in southwestern and northwestern Anatolia. There are also differences in the lithics tool-kits. Southwestern Anatolian assemblages were dominated by large and distinctive scrapers.46 Projectiles in this region, albeit not very common, were much larger and tended to be made of flint in opposition to small obsidian trapezes and barbed versions from Çatalhöyük.47 Obsidian at Çatalhöyük originated from Göllü Dağ and Bingöl, whereas Melos and Göllü Dağ were the sources of obsidian for northwestern Anatolia and Melos for western Anatolia.

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 35 36

Karul – Avcı 2013. Sağlamtimur 2012, 199. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012, fig. 6; Horejs 2012, fig. 4; Sağlamtimur 2012, 199. Duru 2008, 28–34; Duru 2012, 24. Roodenberg et al. 2003; Gerritsen et al. 2013. Sağlamtimur 2012, fig. 2; Özdoğan 2015, 48. Roodenberg et al. 2003; Karul – Avcı 2013. Duru 2012, 26. Arbuckle et al. 2014. Evershed et al. 2008. Özdoğan 2015. Baykal-Seeher 1994, fig. 239–251; Balkan-Atlı 2005, pl. 184–185. Baykal-Seeher 1994, fig. 238, 7; Balkan-Atlı 2005, pl. 193, 3–4.

Çatalhöyük and the Emergence of the Late Neolithic Network in the Western Part of the Anatolian Peninsula

137

The presented evidence shows complex relations among the inhabitants of Çatalhöyük and neighbouring regions in the second half of the 7th millennium calBC. It was a period of big changes involving a dispersal of Neolithic groups from the hitherto occupied centres into different ecological zones, which ultimately led to the creation of a complicated network of relations between them.48 Different groups may have spread out from the Konya Plain towards Beyşehir-Suğla and then to northwest Anatolia, as indicated by striking similarities between these areas.49 The former area could also be considered as an intermediate region between the Konya Plain and southwestern Anatolia.50 Çatalhöyük was certainly a major trigger for the regional developments in the first phase of the Late Neolithic. Despite many changes at the settlement, this role was retained also in the second phase, albeit became less pronounced and its significance diminished. The relations between the Çatalhöyük settlement and western Anatolia, however, remain largely unknown. As the Neolithic of the latter region was certainly brought in by settlers from far afield, they were actively engaged in setting up relations with other groups from different parts of the region, mostly likely also those of Çatalhöyük. As a result of these developments, individual groups in different parts of this vast region were becoming rapidly differentiated, and emerging local traditions were increasingly more pronounced. As different areas in central, western, southwestern and northwestern Anatolia pursued diverse paths and kept developing at a different pace, they soon became largely distinctive, in spite of existing contacts and relations. In this process, they shared some of the elements, such as dominant forms of spatial organisation, while chose to develop distinct traditions in other domains, such as pottery and lithics.

The Demise of the Late Neolithic Settlement at Çatalhöyük The occupation of the mega-site at Çatalhöyük was gradually coming to an end in the final centuries of the 7th millennium calBC. This process is well attested in changes in site architecture and material culture, which were the outcomes of radical transformations in agricultural economy and social organisation of its inhabitants. While communities in western, southwestern and northwestern Anatolia were booming and their dynamism accelerated, the inhabitants of Çatalhöyük were going through different turbulences, held back and soon lagged behind these dynamically developing regions. This is paradoxical considering the powerful role that the settlement served in the past as an unquestionable reference point for neighbouring groups. The diminishing role of community as a major social grouping, at the expense of increasingly independent and autonomous kin-based arrangements, turned out to be a key development with unprecedented consequences. However, it proved to be unsustainable to the extent that the previously flourishing settlement was rapidly shrinking and unavoidably led to its relatively abrupt and sudden collapse and ultimate abandonment. The only remedy the Late Neolithic community from Çatalhöyük found to mitigate the consequences of change was to remain deeply embedded in the bygone world of the Early Neolithic ancestors and related forms of existence. The settlement did not keep apace with the developments in other neighbouring regions by not adopting new ideas and solutions and choosing to avoid stone architecture, painted pottery or new forms of vessels, but instead continued producing older types and exploiting wild cattle in non-domestic ceremonial settings. While looking from a regional perspective, the Late Neolithic pottery at Çatalhöyük appears to be particularly conservative. Straight-profiled vessels formed the largest proportion of the assemblage, which lacked major developments from the end of the 7th millennium calBC, such as S-profiled jars and bowls, vertical tubular lugs and crescent lugs,

Özdoğan 2010; Özdoğan 2011. E.g. Marciniak 2018. 50 Duru 2012, 27; Özdöl 2012. 48 49

138

Arkadiusz Marciniak

raised and ring bases, and, in particular, increasingly rich decoration including incised, plastic and painted motifs.51 Particularly striking was a lack of painted pottery at Late Neolithic Çatalhöyük, represented only by a couple of sherds. Neither the perforated cylindrical lug tradition nor richly decorated pottery (incisions, plastic decoration and painting) impacted Çatalhöyük, in stark contrast to the whole of the Anatolian Plateau during this period.52 The settlement adopted domestic cattle relatively late in comparison to other regions of Anatolia.53 One can surmise that Çatalhöyük held onto a system in which all social life was entangled with wild animals, albeit in a largely transformed and rudimentary form. Interestingly, despite this increasing conservatism, the settlement remained a continuous point of reference for the migrating groups. Many elements of the distinct Çatalhöyük imagery found themselves on the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic ceramics from Niğde-Aksaray settlements such as Tepecik-Çiftlik and Köşk Höyük.54 These comprise such motifs as bulls, upraised splayed figures, spirals, etc. applied on movable objects, particularly pots. One can interpret this process as a deliberate mobilisation of a range of signifiers originating out of the fundamentally important Çatalhöyük repertoire to serve as markers of supra-individual identities.55 The signifiers, which were originally a part of the house imaginary and probably manifestations of some kind of myth, began appearing in non-house contexts. As they were dissociated from their original context and its referential significance, they were most likely rationalised and were given a deliberately transformed but equally powerful meaning.

Final Remarks The second half of the 7th millennium calBC marks a major threshold in the development of Neolithic communities in the Near East. It was a period of important re-evaluation of the constituent elements of the Neolithic Revolution including procurement strategies, modes of production, subsistence basis, the character of arable economy and husbandry practices and social relations. These developments did not weaken a majority of local communities, but largely strengthened their existential and cultural foundations. Consequently, a renewed version of the Neolithic emerged, which proved to have a huge potential to develop and grow. The favourable conditions it created led the local groups from the few centres of Early Neolithic culture to move into the previously unoccupied oecumene across the Near East and beyond. As major facets of this process, labelled as the second Neolithic transition,56 were of universal character, their local manifestations were diverse and heterogeneous. A significant portion of the lifetime of the settlement at Çatalhöyük falls into this turbulent period. This large urban centre of undisputable pan-regional significance was exposed to these large scale transformations, which not only changed its character, but led to its ultimate demise. This process was accompanied by the emergence of Neolithic communities of varied origin across different parts of southwestern, western and northwestern Anatolia and the building of networks of dependence and dependency. The relations of the Late Neolithic Çatalhöyük community with these dynamically developing groups were complicated and their character changed through time. Considering the significance of the Çatalhöyük settlement and the strategic position of the Konya Plain, the importance of these processes and their outcomes exceeded the realm of the Anatolian Neolithic.

53 54 55 56 51 52

Pyzel in preparation. Özdöl-Kutlu et al. 2015. Arbuckle – Makarewicz 2009. Bıçakçı et al. 2012; Öztan 2012. Meskell 2007, 25. Marciniak 2016.

Çatalhöyük and the Emergence of the Late Neolithic Network in the Western Part of the Anatolian Peninsula

139

On a regional scale, this period brought about the emergence of numerous Neolithic groups in different ecological zones of central, western, southwestern and northwestern Anatolia, including forest and coastal areas, and involved their subsequent differentiation and construction of a complicated network of relations among themselves. The developments in all three regions took strikingly comparable trajectories, as indicated by similarities in settlement layout and architecture, the character of arable economy and husbandry practices as well as the production of different types of material culture. They appear to be indicative of some kind of parallel changes in social organisation, including the emergence of more individualised social units based upon kin-based relations. This seems to indicate region-wide changes in the construction of social identities and the presence of a new social geography dominated by autonomous households inhabiting spatially distinct parts of the settlement. However, the degree of convergence and divergence of these developments across the three regions are yet to be grasped and their details scrutinised. At the beginning of this process in the first half of the 7th millennium BC, Çatalhöyük had a central role. Despite increasing differentiation at the supra-regional level, the major forms of spatial organisation in all the regions were strikingly homogenous and corresponded to the developments at the largest settlement in the Konya Plain. These included a dominance of individual dwelling structures in different forms with adjacent open spaces with fire installations and storage facilities. A significantly mature agricultural economy appeared, in which hunting rituals and symbolism played less of a role, and which were often associated with mobile objects. Individual household units were in a position to retain their economic and social independence, and remained less tied to the complex networks of sharing that characterised the preceding form of village life. However, in subsequent centuries a difference between the developments in the regions and life of Çatalhöyük’s inhabitants became more pronounced. By referring to wild cattle, old forms of pottery vessels, established types of lithic tools and the like, the inhabitants worked to sustain the status quo of a bygone world. Consequently, Çatalhöyük quickly found itself largely outside the regional trajectories and lagging behind contemporary developments. The changes accelerated to the point that the settlement was no longer inhabitable and the last occupants made a decision to leave the mound. Acknowledgements: I am grateful to Barbara Horejs and Maxime Brami for their kind invitation to participate in the workshop ‘Central/Western Anatolian Farming Frontier’ held at the 10th ICAANE in Vienna in April 2016 as well as for their willingness to include my chapter in this volume.

References Arbuckle – Makarewicz 2009 B. S. Arbuckle – C. A. Makarewicz, The early management of cattle (Bos taurus) in Neolithic central Anatolia, Antiquity 83, 321, 2009, 669–686. Arbuckle et al. 2014 B. S. Arbuckle – S. W. Kansa – E. Kansa – D. Orton – C. Çakırlar – L. Gourichon – L. Atici – A. Galik – A. Marciniak – J. Mulville – H. Buitenhuis – D. Carruthers – B. De Cupere – A. Demirergi – S. Frame – D. Helmer – L. Martin – J. Peters – N. Pöllath – K. Pawłowska – N. Russell – K. Twiss – D. Würtenberger, Data sharing reveals complexity in the westward spread of domestic animals across Neolithic Turkey, PLoS One 9, 6, e99845. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0099845. Asouti 2013 E. Asouti, Woodland vegetation, firewood management and woodcrafts at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, in: I. Hodder (ed.), Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons (Los Angeles 2013) 129–162. Balkan-Atli 2005 N. Balkan-Atli, Yontmataş endüstrisi, in: R. Duru – G. Umurtak (eds.), Höyücek. Results of the Excavations 1989– 1992 (Ankara 2005) 130–137.

140

Arkadiusz Marciniak

Baykal-Seeher 1994 A. Baykal-Seeher, Silex und Obsidianindustrie, in: R. Duru (ed.), Kuruçay Höyük I. Results of the Excavations 1978– 1988. The Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic Periods (Ankara 1994) 106–108. Bıçakçı et al. 2012 E. Bıçakçı – M. Godon – Y. G. Çakan, Tepecik Çiftlik, in: M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 3: Central Turkey (Istanbul 2012) 89–134. Bordaz 1973 J. Bordaz, Current research in the Neolithic of south central Turkey. Süberde, Erbaba and their chronological implications, American Journal of Archaeology 77, 1973, 282–288. Bordaz – Bordaz 1976 J. Bordaz – L. Bordaz, Erbaba excavations, 1974, Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 23, 2, 1976, 39–43. Bordaz – Bordaz 1982 J. Bordaz – L. Bordaz, Erbaba. The 1977 and 1978 seasons in perspective, Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 26, 1, 1982, 85–92. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012 A. Çilingiroğlu – Ö. Çevik – Ç. Çilingiroğlu, Towards understanding the early farming communities of central-western Anatolia. Contribution of Ulucak, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012, 139–175. Duru – Umurtak 2008 R. Duru – G. Umurtak, Bademağacı kazıları 2004, 2005 ve 2006 yılları çalışma raporu (50 levha ile birlikte), Belleten 72, 263, 2008, 193–250. Duru 2008 R. Duru, From 8000 BC to 2000 BC. Six Thousand Years of the Burdur-Antalya Region (Antalya 2008). Duru 2012 R. Duru, The Neolithic of the Lakes Region. Hacılar – Kuruçay Höyük – Höyücek – Bademağacı Höyük, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012, 1–65. Erdoğu 2013 B. Erdoğu, Uğurlu, a Neolithic settlement on the Aegean Island of Gökçeada, in: Özdoğan et al. 2013, 1–33. Evershed et al. 2008 R. P. Evershed – S. Payne – A. G. Sherratt – M. S. Copley – J. Coolidge – D. Urem-Kotsu – K. Kotsakis – M. Özdoğan – A. Özdoğan – O. Nieuwenhuyse – P. M. M. G. Akkermans – D. Bailey – R. R. Andeescu – S. Campbell – S. Farid – I. Hodder – N. Yalman – M. Özbaşaran – E. Biçakci – Y. Garkinfel – T. Levy – M. M. Burton, Earliest date for milk use in the Near East and southeastern Europe linked to cattle herding, Nature, 455, 2008, 528–531. Gerritsen et al. 2013 F. A. Gerritsen – R. Özbal – L. Thissen, Barcın Höyük. The beginnings of farming in the Marmara Region, in: Özdoğan et al. 2013, 93–112. Hodder 2014 I. Hodder, Çatalhöyük. The leopard changes its spots. A summary of recent work, Anatolian Studies 64, 2014, 1–22. Hodder – Marciniak 2015 I. Hodder – A. Marciniak (eds.), Assembling Çatalhöyük (Leeds 2015). Horejs 2012 B. Horejs, Çukuriçi Höyük. A Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement in the region of Ephesos, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012, 117–131. Horejs et al. 2015 B. Horejs – B. Milić – F. Ostmann – U. Thanheiser – B. Weninger – A. Galik, The Aegean in the early 7th millennium BC. Martime networks and colonization, Journal of World Prehistory 2015, 289–290. Karul 2019 N. Karul, Early farmers in northwestern Anatolia in the seventh millennium BC, in: A. Marciniak (ed.), Concluding the Neolithic. The Near East in the Second Half of the Seventh Millennium BC (Atlanta 2019) 267–285.

Çatalhöyük and the Emergence of the Late Neolithic Network in the Western Part of the Anatolian Peninsula

141

Karul – Avcı 2013 N. Karul – M. B. Avcı, Aktopraklık, in: Özdoğan et al. 2013, 45–68. Marciniak 2015a A. Marciniak, A new perspective on the central Anatolian Late Neolithic. The TPC Area excavations at Çatalhöyük, in: S. R. Steadman – G. McMahon (eds.), The Archaeology of Anatolia. Recent Discoveries (2011–2014). Volume I (Newcastle upon Tyne 2015) 6–25. Marciniak 2015b A. Marciniak, The Neolithic house as a procurement, production and consumption unit in Çatalhöyük, in: K. Brink – S. Hydén – K. Jennbert – L. Larsson – D. Deborah (eds.), Neolithic Diversities. Perspectives from a Conference in Lund, Sweden (Lund 2015) 89–97. Marciniak 2016 A. Marciniak, The Late Neolithic transition. The case of Çatalhöyük East, in: N. Sanz (ed.), The Origins of Food Production / Los orígenes de la producción de alimentos (Mexico City 2016) 78–89. Marciniak 2018 A. Marciniak, Bridging up Anatolia. Çatalhöyük and northwestern Anatolia in the Late Neolithic, in: P. Valde-Nowak – K. Sobczyk – M. Nowak, J. Źrałka (eds), Multas per gentes et multa per saecula. Amici magistro suo Ioanni Christopho Kozłowski dedicant (Kraków 2018) 281–290. Marciniak – Czerniak 2007 A. Marciniak – L. Czerniak, Social transformations in the Late Neolithic and the Early Chalcolithic periods in central Anatolia, Anatolian Studies 57, 2007, 115–130. Marciniak – Czerniak 2012 A. Marciniak – L. Czerniak, Çatalhöyük unknown. The late sequence on the East mound, in: R, Matthews – J. Curtis (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 12 April – 16 April 2010, the British Museum and UCL, London. Volume 1. Mega-cities & Mega-sites. The Archaeology of Consumption & Disposal. Landscape, Transport & Communication (Wiesbaden 2012) 3–16. Marciniak et al. 2015a A. Marciniak – M. Z. Barański – A. Bayliss – L. Czerniak – T. Goslar – J. Southon – R. E. Taylor, Fragmenting times. Interpreting a Bayesian chronology for the Late Neolithic occupation of Çatalhöyük East, Turkey, Antiquity 89, 343, 2015, 154–176. Marciniak et al. 2015b A. Marciniak – E. Asouti – C. Doherty – E. Henton, The nature of household in the upper levels at Çatalhöyük, in: Hodder –Marciniak 2015, 151–165. Mellaart 1962 J. Mellaart, Excavations at Çatal Hüyük. First preliminary report, 1961, Anatolian Studies 12, 1962, 41–65. Mellaart 1970 J. Mellaart, Excavations at Hacılar I–II (Edinburgh 1970). Meskell 2007 L. Meskell, Archaeologies of identities, in: T. Insoll (ed.), The Archaeology of Identities. A Reader (London 2007) 23–43. Mortensen 1970 P. Mortensen, Chipped stone industry, in: J. Mellaart (ed.), Excavations at Hacılar (Edinburgh 1970) 153–157. Özbal – Gerritsen 2019 R. Özbal – F. Gerritsen, Barcın Höyük in interregional perspective. An initial assessment, in: A. Marciniak (ed.), Concluding the Neolithic. The Near East in the Second Half of the Seventh Millennium BC (Atlanta 2019) 287–306. Özdoğan 2015 E. Özdoğan, Current research and new evidence for the neolithization process in western Turkey, European Journal of Archaeology 18, 1, 2015, 33–59.

142

Arkadiusz Marciniak

Özdoğan 2010 M. Özdoğan, Westward expansion of the Neolithic way of life. Sorting the Neolithic package into distinct packages, in: P. Matthiae – F. Pinnock – L. Nigro – N. Marchetti (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 5 May – 10 May 2009, »Sapienza«, Università di Roma. Vol. 1: Near Eastern Archaeology in the Past, Present and Future. Heritage and Identity. Ethnoarchaeological and Interdisciplinary Approach, Results and Perspectives. Visual Expression and Craft Production in the Definition of Social Relations and Status (Wiesbaden 2010) 883–897. Özdoğan 2011 M. Özdoğan, An Anatolian perspective on the neolithization process in the Balkans. New questions, new prospects, in: R. Krauss (ed.), Beginnings – New Research in the Appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin. Papers of the International Workshop 8th–9th April 2009, Istanbul Organized by Dan Ciobotaru, Barbara Horejs and Raiko Krauß, Menschen – Kulturen – Traditionen 1 (Rahden 2011) 23–33. Özdoğan 2012 M. Özdoğan, Neolithic sites in the Marmara Region. Fikirtepe, Pendik, Yarımburgaz, Toptepe, Hoca Çeşme, and Aşağı Pınar, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012, 167–269. Özdoğan et al. 2012 M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 4: Western Turkey (Istanbul 2012). Özdoğan et al. 2013 M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 5: Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul (Istanbul 2013). Özdöl 2012 S. Özdöl, The Development and Traditions of Pottery in the Neolithic of the Anatolian Plateau (Oxford 2012). Özdöl-Kutlu et al. 2015 S. Özdöl-Kutlu – T. Carter – L. Czerniak – A. Marciniak, The end of the Neolithic settlement. Çatalhöyük and its neighbours, in: Hodder – Marciniak 2015, 179–195. Öztan 2012 A. Öztan, Köşk Höyük. A Neolithic settlement in Niğde-Bor Plateau, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012, 31–70. Pyzel in preparation J. Pyzel, Pottery in the TP Area, in: A. Marciniak – L. Czerniak (eds.), Late Neolithic at Catalhoyuk East. Excavations of the Upper Levels in the Team Poznań Area (in preparation). Reingruber 2011 A. Reingruber, Early Neolithic settlement patterns and exchange networks in the Aegean, Documenta Praehistorica 38, 2011, 291–305. Roodenberg et al. 2003 J. Roodenberg – A. van As – L. Jacobs – M. H. Wijnen, Early settlement in the plain of Yenisehir (NW Anatolia). The basal occupation layers at Menteşe, Anatolica 29, 2003, 17–59. Roodenberg – Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2012 J. Roodenberg – S. Alpaslan-Roodenberg, Ilıpınar and Menteşe. Early farming communities in the eastern Marmara, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012, 69–91. Sağlamtimur 2012 H. Sağlamtimur, The Neolithic settlement of Ege Gübre, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012, 197–225.

An Alternative Look at the Neolithisation Process of Western Anatolia: From an Old Periphery to a New Core

143

An Alternative Look at the Neolithisation Process of Western Anatolia: From an Old Periphery to a New Core Mehmet Özdoğan 1 Abstract: During recent years our knowledge of the Neolithic period in western Anatolia has considerably ameliorated, making it possible to formulate new questions and to discuss some long lasting queries with a new perspective. This paper intends to draw attention to certain issues that are likely to be the centre of future discussions. The problems related to the Mesolithic substratum, the pace and trajectories of Neolithic expansion and maritime connections are among those to be considered with no intention to draw conclusive remarks. The emergence of new formative zones will also be addressed in the context of core-periphery interaction. Keywords: Neolithic dispersal, neolithisation, western Anatolia, maritime connections, core and periphery

Introductory Remarks in Retrospect Western parts of the Anatolian peninsula, as explicitly pictured in the introductory text of this workshop, are critically situated by the western frontier of the primary core of Neolithic formation; thus, in developing a proper understanding of the modalities of Neolithic expansion, the evidence from the western parts of Turkey is of utmost importance. In this respect, along with the conventional questions of when, why and how the Neolithic way of living was transmitted, defining the pace of its dispersal now stands as important. In spite of its importance, until about a few decades ago, our knowledge of the Neolithic of western Anatolia was restricted to a few randomly scattered sites, represented by a handful of inconspicuous sherds recovered during various surface surveys, primarily carried out by David French and Recep Meriç.2 In this respect, it is of interest to note that back then the only salient evidence worth noting was a painted sherd from Moralı, north of Izmir.3 Nevertheless, in spite of a lack of concrete evidence, western Anatolia remained a part of the discussions on defining the modalities of Neolithic expansion, specifically in the quest to place Hacılar into the context of Thessaly. James Mellaart’s work at Hacılar had stirred considerable excitement firstly by the presence of painted pottery and secondly by the claims of an Aceramic sub-stratum. While the former connoted the painted wares of the Balkans, the latter was redolent with the Thessalian Aceramic phase of Vladimir Milojcic.4 During those years, there was still considerable scepticism, even for the presence of Neolithic settlements in western Anatolia, our knowledge on the Neolithic of the Anatolian plateau being mainly dependent on the Çatalhöyük – Hacılar sequence with some complementary evidence from Can Hasan, Erbaba and Süberde. Thus, the eventual question was whether or not the Neolithic way of living ever expanded from its koine in central Anatolia towards the Aegean.

1 2 3 4

Istanbul University, Turkey, [email protected]. French 1969; Meriç 1993. French 1965, fig. 5.4. Milojčić 1960; Milojčić 1973; Tellenbach 1983; it seems evident that in designating an Aceramic horizon in Thessaly, Vladimir Milojčić was inspired by the recoveries at Jarmo and at Jericho in anticipation of parallelisms between the Near East and the Balkans.

144

Mehmet Özdoğan

Through time our knowledge increased, firstly by the extensive excavations carried out by Refik Duru in various parts of the Lakes District, lying at the threshold of central Anatolia to the Aegean. Duru’s work should be acknowledged in consolidating our knowledge of the sequential development of the Neolithic period;5 soon surface surveys and restricted soundings at other sites followed. In this respect, even the first seasons of excavations at Ulucak Höyük,6 besides revealing initial evidence on the sequential development of Neolithic cultures along the Aegean coastal strip, more significantly had been a stimulus triggering other field projects – Ege Gübre and Yeşilova – both specifically oriented to the Neolithic period. The pace of Neolithic research has accelerated through time, along with excavations such as Çukuriçi, Latmos-Beşparmak, Çine Tepecik and Dedecik-Heybelitepe, the numbers of known Neolithic sites have considerably increased by surface surveys.7 Our knowledge of the Pottery Neolithic cultures of the Izmir region in general has now reached to the level of at least enabling scholars to formulate proper questions. Likewise, excavations at Uğurlu and Gürpınar, further to the north, have made it possible to connect the Neolithic of the Izmir region with that of western Marmara. However, looking southwards along the coastal strip towards the Antalya region, in spite of the recently discovered sites such as Germeler and Peynirçiçeği, connecting evidence is still rather vague, and whatever is known from the islands is not much help in this respect. It is not the intention of this paper to present even a conspectus of either the Neolithic assemblages of western Anatolia or of chronological problems; all of these have and are being extensively presented by the excavators. Instead, attention will be drawn to a number of problematic issues that have surfaced with the increase in our knowledge. At the present state of our knowledge, it is still too early to devise conclusive answers to any of these questions, nevertheless, now at least it has become possible to define proper questions.

The Questions or the Prospects of Future Research The Problem of Surface Visibility In understanding the process of neolithisation in the Aegean, the foremost question that needs to be answered is whether the paucity of early sites in the region is due to research biases or is a true reflection of ancient settlement patterns. It is a fact that the number of known Neolithic sites has considerably increased during recent years, however, in spite of the pace of surface surveys, the number of recorded sites that are earlier than the beginning of the Early Bronze Age is still very few. The paucity of sites is much more apparent particularly for cultural stages earlier than the beginning of the Neolithic. Indicators of Late Upper Palaeolithic or of Mesolithic habitation are virtually absent; the evidence that does exist is restricted to a few, conspicuous scatters. In this respect, problems due to changes in environmental conditions, either eustatic or continental, which may hamper the recovery of early sites, have been often raised.8 Availability of Neolithic surfaces in this region is primarily dependent on post-glacial geomorphological processes, not only the rise in the level of the sea or the alluvial deposition, but also on the active neotectonics. The indented coastal topography of the Aegean coastline along the Anatolian peninsula, exemplifying typical features of horst-graben structuring, mountains perpendicular to the coast with wide alluvial valleys in between, extends into the continental shelf, at present viewed as chains of islands. Thus, all early settlements, including those of the Early Neolithic that were founded along or nearby the palaeocoastlines are now submerged. Likewise, those founded along the riverine floodplains

5 6 7

8

Duru 2016. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004; Çilingiroğlu – Abay 2005. Gebel 1984; Akdeniz 1997; Akdeniz 2002; Günel 2003; Günel 2004; Derin 2006; Takaoğlu 2006; Uhri et al. 2010; Stock et al. 2015. Van Andel et al. 1982; Özdoğan 1997; Stock et al. 2015.

An Alternative Look at the Neolithisation Process of Western Anatolia: From an Old Periphery to a New Core

145

are deeply buried under alluvial and/or colluvial deposits, at places over 50 meters thick. Even though there is growing interest and work in defining palaeocoastlines and to restitution of palaeotopographic features, still there is nothing that can be considered as conclusive.9 Accordingly, the possibility of finding early sites during surface surveys is only possible if they were founded at high altitudes such as Latmos-Beşparmak, or exposed due to some disturbance such as a landslide or trenching, or if the habitation continued in the same spot up to the Bronze Age,10 such as Ulucak or Çukuriçi. As the recovery of sites that have been deeply buried under alluvial deposits is an extremely low possibility even by sophisticated prospection methods, underwater surveys for submerged sites seem to be a better option for recovering Neolithic settlement sites.11 The Problem of the Neolithic Substratum and Mesolithic – Neolithic Transition What was in the western parts of Anatolia, in regions beyond the initial core area before the first arrival of the Neolithic package, still remains as an unresolved problem. Late Upper Palaeolithic or Mesolithic sites in the region are so scarce that it is difficult to justify their absence by what we have noted above on the difficulties of recovering early sites. The evidence of Late Upper Palaeolithic or Mesolithic occupation that is scanty in the coastal areas, disappears almost completely further inland, being confined to rather dubious occurrences such as Baradız. Considering the dynamics of coastal geomorphology, recovery of early sites should have been easier at the higher altitude further inland sites, if they ever existed. Nevertheless, even if rather scanty, along the coastal strip and in particular on the islands scattered in the Aegean, such as Youra, Cyclops Cave and Maroulas, there is subtle evidence for the presence of Mesolithic sites, though not devoid of problems. There are considerable issues in arranging the cultural assemblages of these sites in a sequential order and, however they are arranged, there are still apparent gaps indicative of cultural discontinuity; as previously noted by Curtis Runnels, there are significant problems in contextualising Mesolithic sites of the Aegean.12 At present, there seems to be two distinct lithic assemblages, an earlier one, best represented at Ouriakos, defined by retouched microlithic tools along with geometrics, and another as represented at Maroulas, with micro blade and flake industry lacking most of the geometric tools of the former. Ouriakos, located in close proximity to the Anatolian coastal strip on the island of Lemnos, is one of the significant sites in the Aegean; the lithic assemblage, being remarkably different from most other Mesolithic sites,13 with the exception of Agios Sostis,14 has revealed dates around 10200 calBC, almost contemporary with the Öküzini phase on the coastal strip of Antalya. In this respect, taking the evidence of Franchthi, Ouriakos must represent the earlier part of the Mesolithic, covering a limited period of time. On the other hand, the lithic industry recovered at most other sites, such as Youra, Cyclops Cave and in particular Maroulas at Kythnos is notably different from Öküzini’s tradition. Among these sites, Maroulas is the only habitation site that has revealed the remains of dwellings, mainly round huts and human burials.15 The location of the site, almost level with present sea level, thus partially submerged, is also suggestive that several others must have been drowned. Nevertheless, as also clearly noted by Nikos Efstratiou, there must have been an interim phase of more than 2500 years between Ouriakos and other sites such as Maroulas such that ‘their origin cannot be traced back to the preceding Epigravettian period’.16 This long hiatus is intriguing, surfacing

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Vita – Finzi 1969; Erol 1976; van Andel et al. 1982; Stiros et al. 1991; Kayan 1996; Kayan 1999; Kayan 2015; Dalongeville – Fouache 2005; Goodman et al. 2009; Sakellariou et al. 2015. Özdoğan 1997. Özdoğan 2011a. Runnels 2001. Efstratiou et al. 2013; see also Kozłowski 2007. Kaczanowska – Kozłowski 2013, fig. 2, 8. Sampson 2005. Efstratiou 2014, 183.

146

Mehmet Özdoğan

a number of questions such as ‘why?’, which at the present state of our knowledge is difficult to answer. Even if it may be postulated that communities had to shift their locations almost continuously due to the rapid rise in sea level, still it seems evident that there was not dense population. On the other hand, the chronological distance between the Epigravette-Öküzini type of assemblages and those of the Early Neolithic, strengthens our view of the sharp cultural break between the Anatolian Mesolithic and Neolithic, even at sites in the same region such as Antalya.17 Then the next question is whether or not the second group sustained their presence up to the time of the Early Neolithic period; in this respect, with the exception of the Knossos deep sounding on Crete, there is no clearly convincing evidence from any of the sites in and around the Aegean, including the claims for the presence of transitional deposits to the Neolithic at Cyclops Cave. Still considering what has been discussed above on problems related to the recovery of sites, leaving aside the discussion of the presence or absence of Mesolithic occupation, there are two facts that cannot be overlooked. All of the excavated Neolithic sites, including those of the initial stages, have been founded on virgin soil with no indication of earlier habitation, not even of temporary camping activities. The second is the fact that Neolithic assemblages of the region have not inherited any detectable components, neither technologies nor tool types specific to the Mesolithic era. It thus seems to be evident that, even if there would have been autochthonous groups present at the time when Neolithic communities arrived, no detectable interaction took place among them as in the case of the eastern Marmara where there is clear evidence of local Mesolithic communities, the Ağaçlı culture, merging with the immigrant farmers, eventually forming the so-called Fikirtepe culture.18 Here, it is worth reminding that, contrary to the Aegean littoral, there has been a rather dense occurrence of sites yielding Ağaçlı type assemblages all along the eastern Marmara region and particularly along the coastal strip by the Black Sea. Still, no matter how sparse local Mesolithic habitation may have been along the Aegean, it would be expected to have some components of the Mesolithic assemblages among the earliest Neolithic layers. It therefore seems that Mesolithic occupation was extremely thin, occasionally changing place and seemingly receding somewhere before the coming of Neolithic farmers. This does not imply that the Aegean was totally devoid of habitation, as will be further noted below, at least there must have been expert seafaring groups capable of long-range travels. It is possible that sites such as Maroulas represented by unspecified microlithic industries, at the same time revealing round huts with human burials, belonged to these communities. Reserving our concern about whether the subsistence pattern of the autochthon communities of the Mesolithic Aegean had components of domestic animals and of cultivated plants, we totally agree with the following commentary of Sampson, ‘A ‘model’ of an Aegean area inhabited for roughly 2000 years by groups living in a mixed Mesolithic/Neolithic stage, familiar with the sea, navigation and geography, and participating in common networks of exchange of raw materials and sharing common technological types seems to become prevalent. This cultural diffusion is based on the Mesolithic sea routes between the Aegean islands and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic seafaring in the Eastern Mediterranean, especially between Anatolia’.19 As will be further elaborated below, it seems evident that the Neolithic communities spread by sea along the Mediterranean coasts before more intensive colonisation took place through the land. It seems justifiable to assume that Mesolithic seafaring communities must have been the prime agents, both stimulating and contributing to the initial expansion of early farmers who were looking for new prospects beyond their homeland. Concerning the question explicitly noted in the conceptual framework of the workshop, ‘the advent of food production in western Anatolia was delayed by up to 2000 calibrated years – potentially making it the longest standstill in Neolithic history’, has to be answered in the context of what we have been discussing above – the extremely thin distribution of habitation beyond the initial core area of neolithisation. In this respect, what has been noted for the western parts of Anatolia is true for

17 18 19

Özdoğan 2014a, 1511. Özdoğan 2014b. Sampson 2014, 204.

An Alternative Look at the Neolithisation Process of Western Anatolia: From an Old Periphery to a New Core

147

Fig. 1   Schematic map of the formative zones of primary neolithisation (© M. Özdoğan)

Fig. 2   Schematic map of initial expansion of Neolithic cultures (© M. Özdoğan)

regions all around the initial formative zone, which we have denominated as Zones A1–3 (Fig. 1).20 The Neolithic way of living had for almost three thousand years continued its development in the same area where it began, with no indication of expanding, the only exception being Cyprus. It is not easy to discern why it was so stationary; even if multiple explanations such as lack of demographic pressure or rigorous control of the society by the ruling group can be suggested, it is also possible that the ‘exterior’ being devoid of dense habitation, had no attraction. Expansion began by the mid-

20

Özdoğan 2008; Özdoğan 2014c.

148

Mehmet Özdoğan

Fig. 3   Schematic map of more intensive and organised expansion of Neolithic communities (© M. Özdoğan)

dle of the 8th millennium as the system began collapsing21 in Zones A1 and in A2, firstly along the coast and soon after moving into Zone A3, central Anatolia (Fig. 2). It seems plausible to assume that in the initial stage, expansion was extremely sporadic and at random mainly by scouting groups, possibly generated by the conventional seafarers of the Mediterranean, going to and fro, bringing stimulating information that in due course triggered massive movements of farmers, following multiple trajectories, each moving with distinct particulars of the Neolithic package (Fig. 3).22 In areas where there was no dense habitation, the scarcity of local communities seems to have been the main agency enabling easy and rapid expansion of Neolithic farmers. Neolithic Origins In the past, the dispersal of Neolithic culture was considered as a singular, homogenous movement, and detecting origins was easy. As our knowledge on the modalities of Neolithic dispersal increased, it became much more complicated and difficult to detect origins. It is now evident that the dispersal of a Neolithic way of living was a multifarious event, lasting for more than a millennium, following different trajectories, some migrating in groups, others segregated either by land or by sea, occasionally merging with each other on the way, and forming new compositions.23 The picture gets even more complicated in some areas as the expansion of neolithisation was not always due to endemic movements, but as in the case of the western Mediterranean, only commodities and know-how moved either by traders or by cultural interaction. Likewise, the earliest Neolithic culture in the region of Istanbul was the outcome of migrant farmers and local communities merging to form a mixed package.24 Sorting out the Neolithic package to its

21 22 23 24

Özdoğan 2014d. Özdoğan 2010. Özdoğan 2008. Özdoğan 2014b.

An Alternative Look at the Neolithisation Process of Western Anatolia: From an Old Periphery to a New Core

149

specialised components and then tracing them to their place of origin, even if not always, at least in some cases, helps in defining origins.25 In this respect, even a brief look at the Neolithic assemblages of western Anatolia suffices to indicate remarkable heterogeneity among sites that are located relatively close to each other. The distinct compositions of the Neolithic packages that vary not only from region to region, but almost from site to site clearly indicates settlements were founded by communities coming from different parts of the primary core area, possibly arriving through different routes. As noted previously, it is not the intention of this paper to go into the analysis of cultural assemblages; here the discussion is limited to highlighting some of the most apparent diversities. For example, most of the Early Neolithic sites in the Izmir region display characteristic features of Zones A1 and A2, such as the presence of impresso wares, absence of intramural burials and painted pottery. However, red coloured floorings and the relief decorated pottery particularly of Ege Gübre26 and painted sherds of Latmos Malkayası Cave27 are clearly related to central Anatolia, to Zone A3. Accordingly, it seems as if the coastal band around the gulf of Izmir is the place where cultural markers coming along the coast met to merge with those from central Anatolia via the Lakes District. Maritime Connections Gordon Childe, as early as 1935, had suggested that the initial migration of early farmers from the Eastern Mediterranean to Europe was by the sea. Childe, like most of his contemporaries, was almost certain that the Neolithic farmers would not have been able to cope with the harsh climatic conditions of the Anatolian plateau, putting the land route between the Fertile Crescent and Europe through the Anatolian plateau out of the question. Excluding the Anatolian peninsula from the possible trajectory of Neolithic expansion was sustained until the late 1960s, narrated as ‘... the region more correctly described as Anatolia, shows no sign whatever of habitation during the Neolithic period....the extreme cold of the Anatolian winter must indeed be accepted as the most reasonable explanation of the geographic barrier, behind which Neolithic man seems so arbitrarily to have confined himself...’.28 Later, with the recovery of sites including Aşıklı Höyük, Çatalhöyük and Hacılar in central Anatolia, on the potential route to Europe, the maritime expansion model was almost totally put aside, except to be reconsidered as the compulsory solution to the problem of the colonisation of Cyprus.29 Nevertheless, during the last decade or so, Neolithic expansion by way of the sea has been revived, this time not only on a hypothetical basis, but based on solid evidence by tracing contemporaneous Neolithic packages that indicate direct connections with the Eastern Mediterranean, but are missing at Anatolian plateau sites.30 Now, there is a consensus on the significant role of maritime connections in the western expansion of the Neolithic package, still it would be highly informative to compare assemblages on the eastern and western coasts of the Aegean to see what, if any, went directly from the open sea to mainland Greece bypassing Anatolian coasts. The maritime connection also surfaces the questions of how and when Neolithic communities adapted marine sources to their subsistence; in this respect early Hoca Çeşme was highly intriguing in not only consuming various molluscs in large quantities, but by developing a method to conserve them in sealed clay pits (Figs. 4–8).

25 26 27 28 29

30

Özdoğan 2010. Sağlamtimur 2012, fig. 17. Peschlow-Bindokat – Gerber 2012, fig. 46. Lloyd 1956, 53–54. Cyprian Broodbank had been one of the first to put migrant Neolithic farmers in boats (Broodbank – Strasser 1991); since then and in particular after the recovery of Pre-Pottery Neolithic occupation of Cyprus, the role played by maritime connections became much more evident (Nikolov 1987; Nikolov 1989; Nikolov 2002; van Andel 2005; Ammerman 2011; Özdoğan 2011b; Broodbank 2014; Gertwagen 2014; Horejs et al. 2015). In this respect, the first concrete evidence was obtained by Catherine Perlès analyzing Thessalian assemblages to sort out components that are missing in the Anatolian sites (Perlès 2003; Perlès 2005).

150

Mehmet Özdoğan

Fig. 4   Hoca Çeşme III, one of the clay-sealed pits with conserved selected molluscs (© M. Özdoğan)

Fig. 5   Hoca Çeşme IV, clay pit with stored solens (solen marginatus) (© M. Özdoğan)

Fig. 6   Hoca Çeşme III, another clay sealed pit with stored molluscs and pottery vessels (© M. Özdoğan)

Fig. 7   Hoca Çeşme III, half of a red-slipped vessel with tubular lugs found in the pit (© M. Özdoğan)

Fig. 8   Hoca Çeşme, a bone fishhook (© M. Özdoğan)

New Cores – New Peripheries Drawing the boundaries of the central Anatolian core area of primary neolithisation, Zone A3, is still not possible; in earlier years, based on the claims of an Aceramic horizon at Hacılar, the limits of the core area was extended westwards at least to cover the Lakes District. Now that basal Hacılar’s chronological position became clear as more or less contemporary with early Ulucak, both belong to the time when the use of pottery vessels was still random.31 Likewise, the next westernmost site that

31

Özdoğan 2013, 144.

An Alternative Look at the Neolithisation Process of Western Anatolia: From an Old Periphery to a New Core

151

Fig. 9   Schematic map of primary and secondary cores (© M. Özdoğan)

was also claimed to have an Aceramic habitation layer, Süberde,32 is now understood to belong33 also to the horizon of early Çatalhöyük, Ulucak and Keçiçayırı. Thus, at the present state of research the Konya Basin seems to have been the western limit of Pre-Pottery/Aceramic cultures; even there, it was not very densely populated. Accordingly the Lakes District was an area beyond, but adjacent to the formative zone. Even though at present there is no indication of the intrusion of Neolithic communities until about the middle of the 8th millennium, though the possibility of some groups following the mountain passes at earlier dates should not be excluded; nevertheless, after the arrival of the first wave, the region continued to be one of the initial target areas of different groups on the move, as implied by the diversity among the cultural assemblages of Bademağacı, Höyücek, Kuruçay and Erbaba. Evidently the environmental conditions of the Lakes District, incomparably varied and more hospitable than that of the Konya Plain, with several well watered intermountain plains, fertile valleys, several lakes and green cover must have been an attraction making it possible for each group to find a convenient enclave. The intensity of Pottery Neolithic sites34 clearly indicates a high density in occupation, which considering the scarcity of settlements in the central Anatolian basin, needs a demographic pool; it seems highly possible that some of the groups coming from Zones A1 and 2 rather quickly crossed central Anatolia to continue. Actually, rapid movement of migrating groups, particularly jumping over areas previously settled seems to be the general modality in the expansion of Neolithic culture; at the same time making it difficult to trace migratory movements. As the area of neolithisation expanded, cultural boundaries became much more complex and unstable, however, at this early stage the Lakes District seems to have become a new core, even though there was no apparent uniformity within the region (Fig. 9). It is now possible to discern

32 33 34

See especially Singh 1974, 80–84. Arbuckle 2008. Özsait 1991; Duru 2011.

152

Mehmet Özdoğan

two distinct packages developing in the Lakes District, one moving northwards following the valley of the Sakarya River, to stop within the coastal strip of the Sea of Marmara at the boundary of the Mesolithic Ağaçlı culture.35 This group is characterised by dark-coloured, incised, decorated, monochrome pottery with heavy lugs and continuing intramural burial practices as in the case in central Anatolia. The second group seems to have moved westwards towards the Aegean following the flood plains of major rivers. The characteristic pottery of this group is notably different from the other; typical vessels are red or buff coloured with tubular lugs, some with paint, others are relief decorated. Once this group was settled in the western parts of Anatolia, then it became another new core to the groups moving into the Balkans. The Problem of the Painted Pottery In earlier years, considering the interaction between Anatolian and southeast European Neolithic cultures, most of the arguments were based on the comparisons between Hacılar and Karanovo-Sesklo wares comparing stylistic features either for similarities or differences;36 nevertheless, however one considered classifying, similarities were as apparent as dissimilarities. Thus, no consensus was reached after decades of discussions; the contemporary existence of painted decoration more or less displaying similar syntax of patterns in either region remaining as the only concrete, undisputable fact. In this respect the absence of painted pottery from the western parts of Anatolia had been the main cause of unresolved controversies; it is for this reason that Vassil Nikolov had suggested a maritime connection between Hacılar and Sesklo-Karanovo groups taking off from Antalya and reaching Thrace by sea.37 Indeed, the absence of painted Neolithic pottery along the Aegean coast is rather intriguing; at present it has been recorded only at a few sites, firstly at Moralı as a single isolated sherd, later a few others were also recovered at the same site conspicuously together with an incised decorated rectangular vessel much like those of west central Anatolia.38 Likewise, as already noted above a few painted sherds had also been recovered at Latmos. In spite of all the on-going discussions briefly mentioned above, some of the resemblances between Anatolian and Balkan painted wares are too complex to be of coincidence or parallel development. The situation in the Aegean seems to resemble that of the eastern Marmara, Fikirtepe group, which also lacks painted decoration. We should consider that at the time of initial dispersal of Neolithic communities, painted wares did not exist; the pottery was monochrome mainly akin to Dark Faced Burnished Wares. The first wave of migrant farmers had arrived with monochrome pottery both to the Marmara and to the Aegean region; extensive use of painted pottery of the Hacılar style is a later development of the more organised, bigger groups who were moving. With some reservations, we can assume that new groups in search of new lands were jumping over territories that were previously settled by earlier groups, hardly any interaction taking between them. Seemingly the only place where they merge is the Lakes District, a region consisting of pockets of ecological niches, having a longer occupational history than other places. Accordingly, groups moving rapidly seem to have gone into the Balkans, taking with them the painted pottery tradition that had its origins in regions further east of central Anatolia.39 Considering the absence of painted wares in the Aegean and their presence

35 36 37 38 39

See especially Özdoğan 2014b. To mention some controversial ones, Schachermeyr 1976; Nikolov 1989; Schubert 2005. Nikolov 1989, 199, fig. 6. Takaoğlu 2006, 25–28, fig. 3. Özdoğan 2009.

An Alternative Look at the Neolithisation Process of Western Anatolia: From an Old Periphery to a New Core

153

further inland in the region of Eskişehir at Demircihöyük,40 at Uşak-Selçikler41 and Bursa,42 it is possible to assume a route from Denizli towards the southern Marmara; but much more evidence is needed in drawing the trajectory of this movement.

Concluding Remarks The study of the Neolithic period in the Aegean is somewhat like looking for the invisible, where recovery depends more on chance than systematic research. Nevertheless, four major excavations – Ulucak, Yeşilova, Ege Gübre and Çukuriçi – have made it possible to develop an insight into the material assemblages of the region, even if not conclusive, at least sufficient enough to contextualise. It is also of importance that with the thick deposition of Neolithic layers at Ulucak, it became possible to discern sequential development of the local Neolithic culture through a considerable time span, at the same time making it possible to detect what is absent in that region. It is also evident that we are still far from being ‘certain’ on a number of issues, some of them regretfully being of critical importance. Through this paper the intention was to contemplate the modalities of initial stages of neolithisation by bringing forth questions such as what was in the region before the arrival of Neolithic communities? How dense was the habitation? What were the modalities of interaction among the local and incoming groups? Was the coming of the Neolithic package a singular or multifarious event arriving through different trajectories, each with a different set of the Neolithic package? Most of these questions have not been answered in this paper, as there is still not sufficient evidence; however, as it has been repeatedly noted, in view of available information, we tried to formulate questions, even those that need to be further elaborated. In an overview, it is exciting how a region that was beyond the core area of neolithisation gradually developed as a new, distinct core by incorporating and processing various cultural entities into a new definable package. Actually, this is the distinct Neolithic package that moved further into the northern Aegean; where and how it merged with the groups bringing the painted pottery tradition is impossible to discern at present. In this respect, besides the presence or absence of painted pottery, the composition of the lithic assemblages is also highly intriguing. All Neolithic assemblages of the monochrome pottery tradition, such as the Fikirtepe and Izmir groups, have a very rich and varied lithic component with pressure flaking, bullet cores etc. On the other hand, the lithic assemblages of the painted pottery using groups are notably different, featuring big blades, lacking pressure flaking, microlithic tools and notably restricted in type and in quantity. This we have also observed at Hoca Çeşme and at Aşağı Pınar; the only notable tools in both of these sites, as it is the case with Karanovo sites, is the presence of the so-called Karanovo blades. Whether or not this observation is significant in defining the origins of migrating groups, it is too early to say. It is thus apparent that at the present state of our knowledge it is not possible to make any conclusions, and we are relieved to leave this paper on the level of contemplations.

References Akdeniz 1997 E. Akdeniz, 1995 yılı Büyük Menderes ovası ve çevresi yüzey araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 14, 2, 1997, 233–254.

40 41

42

Seeher 1987, pls. 8, 9, IV. The prehistoric mound at Selçikler was excavated by Ufuk Esin in 1967, and had revealed a rich assemblage of painted sherds (personal observation), quite alike those of Demircihöyük. Regretfully, the material has never been published. Though rare, there are some painted sherds at Aktopraklık and at Ilıpınar (Thissen 2001, fig. 72).

154

Mehmet Özdoğan

Akdeniz 2002 E. Akdeniz, Neolitik ve Kalkolitik Çağlarda Büyük Menderes havzası’ndaki kültürel yapılanma ve orta Kalkolitik Çağ problemi, Olba 5, 2002, 59–75. Ammerman 2011 A. J. Ammerman, The Paradox of Early Voyaging in the Mediterranean and the Slowness of the Neolithic Transition between Cyprus and Italy (Athens 2011). Arbuckle 2008 B. S. Arbuckle, Revisiting Neolithic caprine exploitation at Suberde, Turkey, Journal of Field Archaeology 33, 2, 2008, 219–236. Broodbank – Strasser 1991 C. Broodbank – T. F. Strasser, Migrant farmers and the Neolithic colonization of Crete, Antiquity 65, 1991, 233–245. Broodbank 2014 C. Broodbank, Mediterranean prehistory, in: Horden – Kinoshita 2014, 45–58. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004 A. Çilingiroğlu – Z. Derin – E. Abay – H. Sağlamtimur – I. Kayan, Ulucak Höyük. Excavations Conducted between 1995 and 2002 (Louvain, Paris, Dudley 2004). Çilingiroğlu – Abay 2005 A. Çilingiroğlu – E. Abay, Ulucak Höyük excavations. New results, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 5, 3, 2005, 5–21. Dalongeville – Fouache 2005 R. Dalongeville – E. Fouache, Les variations de la ligne de rivage en mer Méditerranée orientale du Pléistocène supérieur et de l’Holocène recent. Réflexions, Paléorient 31, 1, 2005, 27–38. Derin 2006 Z. Derin, İzmir’den iki yeni prehistorik yerleşim yeri. Yassıtepe Höyüğü, Çakallar Tepesi Höyüğü, Arkeoloji Dergisi 7, 2006, 1–15. Duru 2011 G. Duru, Göller bölgesi Neolitik yerleşmeleri üzerine bir deneme, in: H. Şahin – E. Konyar – G. Ergin (eds.), Özsait Armağanı. Mehmet ve Nesrin Özsait Onuruna Sunulan Makaleler (Antalya 2011) 157–176. Duru 2016 R. Duru, ‘Tarım’dan ‘Yazı’ya Burdur Yöresi ve Yakın Çevresi’nin Altıbin Yılı (MÖ 8000–MÖ 2000) (Antalya 2016). Efstratiou 2014 N. Efstratiou, “Microhistories” of transition in the Aegean islands. The cases of Cyprus and Crete, in: C. Manen – T. Perrin – J. Guilaine (eds.), La Transition Néolithique en Méditerranée (Arles 2014) 173–191. Efstratiou et al. 2013 N. Efstratiou – P. Biagi – P. Karkanas – E. Starnini, A Late Palaeolithic site at Ouriakos (Limnos, Greece) in the north-eastern Aegean, Antiquity 87, 335, 2013, Project Gallery. Online (last accessed 28 Aug. 2018). Erol 1976 O. Erol, Quaternary shoreline changes on the Anatolian coasts of the Aegean Sea and related problems, Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France 18, 2, 1976, 459–468. French 1965 D. French, Early pottery sites from western Anatolia, Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 5, 1965, 15–24. French 1969 D. French, Prehistoric sites in northwest Anatolia II. The Balıkesir and Akhisar/Manisa areas, Anatolian Studies 19, 1969, 41–98. Gebel 1984 H. G. Gebel, Notiz zur Obsidianindustrie von Altınkum Plajı bei Didyma, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 34, 1984, 5–25.

An Alternative Look at the Neolithisation Process of Western Anatolia: From an Old Periphery to a New Core

155

Gertwagen 2014 R. Gertwagen, Nautical technology, in: Horden – Kinoshita 2014, 154–169. Goodman et al. 2009 B. N. Goodman – E. G. Reinhardt – H. W. Dey – J. I. Boyce – H. P. Schwarcz – V. Şahoğlu – H. Erkanal – M. Artzy, Multi-proxy geoarchaeological study redefines understanding of the paleocoastlines and ancient harbours of Liman Tepe (Iskele, Turkey), Terra Nova 21, 2, 2009, 97–104. Günel 2003 S. Günel, Batı Anadolu bölgesi tarihöncesi dönemlerine yeni katkılar, Belleten 67, 250, 2003, 719–738. Günel 2004 S. Günel, Yüzey araştırmaları işığında Aydın Yöresi kültürel gelişiminde erken dönemler, Türk Arkeoloji ve Etnografya Dergisi 4, 2004, 1–12. Horden – Kinoshita 2014 P. Horden – S. Kinoshita (eds.), A Companion to Mediterranean History (Chichester 2014). Horejs et al. 2015 B. Horejs – B. Milic – F. Ostmann – U. Thanheiser – B. Weninger – A. Galik, The Aegean in the early 7th millennium BC. Maritime networks and colonization, Journal of World Prehistory 28, 2015, 289–330. Kaczanowska – Kozłowski 2013 M. Kaczanowska – J. Kozłowski, Mesolithic obsidian networks in the Aegean, in: E. Starnini (ed.), Unconformist Archaeology. Papers in Honour of Paolo Biagi, BAR International Series 2528, 2013, 17–26. Kayan 1996 I. Kayan, Holocene coastal development and archaeology in Turkey, Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 102, 1996, 37–59. Kayan 1999 I. Kayan, Holocene stratigraphy and geomorphological evolution of the Aegean coastal plains of Anatolia, Quaternary Science Reviews 18, 1999, 541–548. Kayan 2015 I. Kayan, Küçük Menderes delta ovasında (Selçuk) Derbent Vadisi’nin jeomorfolojik özellikleri ve Çukuriçi Höyüğü, in: C. Şimşek – B. Duman – E. Konakçı (eds.), Mustafa Büyükkolancı’ya Armağan / Essays in Honour of Mustafa Büyükkolancı (Istanbul 2015) 369–380. Kozłowski 2007 J. Kozłowski, Western Anatolia, the Aegean basin and the Balkans in the neolithisation of Europe, in: M. Spataro – P. Biagi (eds.), A Short Walk through the Balkans. The First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions. Proceedings of the Conference held at the Institute of Archaeology UCL on June 20th – 22nd, 2005, Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Guilia Quaderno 12, 2007, 39–52. Lichter 2005 C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium calBC. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul 20–22 May 2004, Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005). Lloyd 1956 S. Lloyd, Early Anatolia. The Archaeology of Asia Minor before the Greeks (Middlesex 1956). Meriç 1993 R. Meriç, Pre-Bronze Age settlements of west-central Anatolia (an extended abstract), in: J. Roodenberg (ed.), Special Issue on Anatolia and the Balkans. Symposium on Pre-Bronze Age relations held in Istanbul, 18–22 November 1991, Anatolica 19, 1993, 143–150. Milojčić 1960 V. Milojčić, Präkeramisches Neolithikum auf der Balkanhalbinsel, Germania 38, 3–4, 1960, 320–340. Milojčić 1973 V. Milojčić, Zur Frage eines präkeramischen Neolithikums in Mitteleuropa, in: G. Novak (ed.), Actes du VIIIe Congrès International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques (Belgrade 1973) 248–252.

156

Mehmet Özdoğan

Nikolov 1987 V. Nikolov, Beiträge zu den Beziehungen zwischen Vorderasien und Südosteuropa aufgrund der frühneolithischen bemalten Keramik aus dem Zentralbalkan, Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 19, 1987, 7–18. Nikolov 1989 V. Nikolov, Das Flußtal der Struma als Teil der Straße von Anatolien nach Mitteleuropa, in: P. Raczky – S. Bökönyi (eds.), Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections, Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 2 (Budapest 1989) 191–199. Nikolov 2002 V. Nikolov, Nochmals über die Kontakte zwischen Anatolien und dem Balkan im 6. Jt. v. Chr, in: R. Aslan – S. Blum – G. Kastl – F. Schweizer – D. Thumm (eds.), Mauerschau. Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann (Remshalden-Grunbach 2002) 673–678. Özdoğan 1997 M. Özdoğan, Anatolia from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Cultural transformations and the impact of the environmental setting, Paléorient 23, 2, 1997, 25–38. Özdoğan 2008 M. Özdoğan, An alternative approach in tracing changes in demographic composition. The westward expansion of the Neolithic way of life, in: J. P. Bocquet-Appel – O. Bar-Yosef (eds.), The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its Consequences (Heidelberg 2008) 139–178. Özdoğan 2009 M. Özdoğan, Earliest use of pottery in Anatolia, in: D. Gheorghiu (ed.), Early Farmers, Late Foragers, and Ceramic Traditions. On the Beginning of Pottery in the Near East and Europe (Cambridge 2009) 22–43. Özdoğan 2010 M. Özdoğan, Westward expansion of the Neolithic way of life. Sorting the Neolithic package into distinct packages, in: P. Matthiae – F. Pinnock – L. Nigro – N. Marchetti (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 5 May – 10 May 2009, »Sapienza«, Università di Roma. Vol. 1: Near Eastern Archaeology in the Past, Present and Future. Heritage and Identity. Ethnoarchaeological and Interdisciplinary Approach, Results and Perspectives. Visual Expression and Craft Production in the Definition of Social Relations and Status (Wiesbaden 2010) 883–897. Özdoğan 2011a M. Özdoğan, Submerged sites and drowned topographies along the Anatolian coasts. An overview, in: J. Benjamin – C. Bonsall – C. Pickard – A. Fischer (eds.), Submerged Prehistory (Oxford 2011) 219–229. Özdoğan 2011b M. Özdoğan, Archaeological evidence on the westward expansion of farming communities from eastern Anatolia to the Aegean and the Balkans, Current Anthropology 52, 2011, 415–430. Özdoğan 2013 M. Özdoğan, Anatolia and the Balkans. Archaeology, in: I. Ness (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Global Human Migration Vol. 1 (Malden, Oxford 2013) 139–145. Özdoğan 2014a M. Özdoğan, Anatolia. From the Pre-Pottery Neolithic to the end of the Early Bronze Age (10,500–2000 BCE), in: C. Renfrew – P. Bahn (eds.), The Cambridge World Prehistory. Vol. 3: West and Central Asia and Europe (Cambridge 2014) 1508–1544. Özdoğan 2014b M. Özdoğan, A new look at the introduction of the Neolithic way of life in southeastern Europe. Changing paradigms of the expansion of the Neolithic way of life, Documenta Praehistorica 41, 2014, 33–49. Özdoğan 2014c M. Özdoğan, The quest for new criteria in defining the emergence and the dispersal of Neolithic way of life, in: C. Manen – T. Perrin – J. Guilaine (eds.), La Transition Néolithique en Méditerranée (Arles 2014) 74–89. Özdoğan 2014d M. Özdoğan, The Neolithic collapse, or the transition from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic to the Pottery Neolithic, in: B. Finlayson – C. Makarewicz (eds.), Settlement, Survey and Stone. Essays on Near Eastern Prehistory in Honour of Gary Rollefson (London 2014) 169–175.

An Alternative Look at the Neolithisation Process of Western Anatolia: From an Old Periphery to a New Core

157

Özdoğan et al. 2012 M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 4: Western Turkey (Istanbul 2012). Özsait 1991 M. Özsait, Nouveaux sites contemporains de Hacılar en Pisidie Occidentale, De Anatolia Antiqua 1, 1991, 59–118. Perlès 2003 C. Perlès 2003, An alternate (and old-fashioned) view of Neolithisation in Greece, Documenta Praehistorica 30, 2003, 99–113. Perlès 2005 C. Perlès, From the Near East to Greece. Let’s reverse the focus – cultural elements that didn’t transfer, in: Lichter 2005, 275–290. Peschlow-Bindokat – Gerber 2012 A. Pesclow-Bindokat – C. Gerber, The Latmos – Beşparmak Mountains. Sites with early rock paintings in western Anatolia, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012, 67–115. Runnels 2001 C. Runnels, The Stone Age of Greece from the Paleolithic to the advent of the Neolithic. Addendum 1995–1999, in: T. Cullen (ed.), Aegean Prehistory. A Review (Boston 2001) 225–254. Sağlamtimur 2012 H. Sağlamtimur, The Neolithic settlement of Ege Gübre, in: M. Özdoğan et al. 2012, 197–225. Sakellariou et al. 2015 D. Sakellariou – N. Galanidou, Pleistocene submerged landscapes and Palaeolithic archaeology in the tectonically active Aegean region, in: J. Harff – G. Bailey – F. Lüth (eds.), Geology and Archaeology: Submerged Landscapes of the Continental Shelf, Geological Society Special Publications 411 (London 2015) 145–178. Sampson 2005 A. Sampson, New evidence from the early productive stages in the Aegean Basin from the 9th to the 7th millennium cal BC, in: Lichter 2005, 131–141. Sampson 2014 A. Sampson, The Mesolithic of the Aegean Basin, in: C. Manen – T. Perrin – J. Guilaine (eds.), La Transition Néolithique en Méditerranée (Arles 2014) 193–211. Schachermeyr 1976 F. Schachermeyr, Die Ägäische Frühzeit. Forschungsbericht über die Ausgrabungen im Letzten Jahrzehnt und über Ihre Ergebnisse für Unser Geschichtsbild 1. Band (Vienna 1976). Schubert 2005 H. Schubert, Everyone’s black box - Where does the European ornamentation come from? in: Lichter 2005, 239–253. Seeher 1987 J. Seeher, Demircihüyük III.1. Die Keramik 1. A. Die neolithische und chalkolithische Keramik. B. Die frühbronzezeitliche Keramik der älteren Phasen (bis Phase G) (Mainz 1987). Singh 1974 P. Singh, Neolithic Cultures of Western Asia (London 1974). Stiros et al. 1991 S. Stiros – S. Papageorgiou, Late Holocene sea level changes in the Aegean, based on archaeological data, Thracia Pontica 4, 1991, 263–276. Stock et al. 2015 F. Stock – C. Ehlers – B. Horejs – M. Knipping – S. Ladstätter – S. Seren – H. Brückner, Neolithic settlement sites in western Turkey. Palaeographic studies at Çukuriçi Höyük and Arvalya Höyük, Journal of Archaeological Science Reports 4, 2015, 565–577.

158

Mehmet Özdoğan

Takaoğlu 2006 T. Takaoğlu, Moralı. A Neolithic Mound in Central-Western Anatolia (Istanbul 2006). Tellenbach 1983 M. Tellenbach, Materialien zum Präkeramischen Neolithikum in Süd-Ost-Europa. Typologisch-stratigraphische Untersuchungen zu lithischen Gerätschaften, Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 64, 1983, 21–137. Thissen 2001 L. C. Thissen, The Pottery of Ilıpınar, Phases X to V A, in: J. J. Roodenberg – L. C. Thissen (eds.), The Ilıpınar Excavations II, Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Osten te Leiden 93 (Leiden 2001) 3–154. Uhri et al. 2010 A. Uhri – A. K. Öz – O. Gülbay, Karaburun/Mimas yarımadası araştırmaları, Arkeoloji Dergisi 15, 2010, 15–26. Van Andel 2005 T. H. van Andel, Coastal migrants in a changing world? An Essay on the Mesolithic in the Eastern Mediterranean, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 35, 2005, 381–396. Van Andel et al. 1982 T. H. van Andel – J. Shackleton, Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic coastlines of Greece and the Aegean, Journal of Field Archaeology 9, 1982, 445–454. Vita-Finzi 1969 C. Vita-Finzi, Late Quarternary continental deposits of central and western Turkey, Man 4, 4, 1969, 605–619.

Migrating and Creating Social Memories: On the Arrival and Adaptation of the Neolithic in Aegean Anatolia

159

Migrating and Creating Social Memories: On the Arrival and Adaptation of the Neolithic in Aegean Anatolia Barbara Horejs 1 Abstract: Recent studies of the earliest known Neolithic settlements on the central coast of Aegean Anatolia (Ulucak, Çukuriçi) have revealed developed Neolithic societies from the founding of the settlements onwards. Multiple pathways into the area have been discussed broadly, and it has been suggested that early 7th millennium BC migrations via terrestrial, coastal and sea routes were most probable. Along with up-to-date innovations, the colonisers came with a package of traditional and well-established Neolithic concepts. Some of them appear to be evident for dozens of centuries in the core zone before their arrival and adaptation in newly occupied regions. They are visible in aspects of materiality and technology, and moreover in a whole set of memories including traditions, beliefs, practices and world-views. So far underestimated in this maritime colonisation model was the role of regional mobile populations, which will be discussed as potential longue durèe impacts for the creation of the new local Neolithic identities. This paper focusses on the Çukuriçi case study in defining and discussing the complex set of memories of Neolithic farmers and Mesolithic seafarers and their roles in the trajectory of Neolithic social development. This includes a well-established maritime related lifestyle, as well as external innovations and technologies that were brought by the newcomers, presumably transferred together with narratives and social strategies. This dynamic process in the first half of the 7th millennium BC led to the establishment of an agricultural community on the central Aegean coast of Anatolia, and which a few generations later was already embedded in a regional network of Neolithic villages. Keywords: social memory, neolithisation, Çukuriçi Höyük, Mesolithic seafarers, migration, identities, western Anatolia

Introduction: The Early and Late Neolithic in Western Anatolia In the context of the ‘farming frontier’ between central Anatolia and regions further west, as discussed in this volume and presented in detail by Jean Guilaine and Maxime Brami in their contributions,2 western Anatolia functions as a potential key zone for our understanding of the postulated complex trajectories of the Neolithic way of life in Europe.3 Thanks to intensive field investigations and analyses of the Neolithic in some regions of western Turkey in the last few decades, our knowledge of early farming communities has increased enormously.4 Especially in the Marmara region, on the central Aegean coast, as well as in the Lakes Region, both old and new archaeological data are available, as summarised by Mehmet Özdoğan and Rana Özbal et al. in this volume.5 Without a doubt, there are still many gaps in our understanding of the western Anatolian Neolithic in terms of ‘empty’ geographical regions and more detailed aspects like chronologies and their synchronisations. In addition, knowledge about material culture, technological as

1

2

4 3



5

OREA – Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria, barbara. [email protected]. Brami, this volume; Guilaine, this volume. Shennan 2018. Selected recent publications: Özdoğan – Başgelen 1999; Lichter 2005; Katsanis et al. 2008; Özdoğan 2010; Galik – Horejs 2011; Özdoğan 2011; Reingruber 2011; Çakırlar 2012; Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012; Duru 2012; Çilingiroğlu – Çakırlar 2013; Gerritsen et al. 2013; Özbek – Erdoğu 2014; Özdoğan 2014; Takaoğlu et al. 2014; Weninger et al. 2014; Horejs et al. 2015; Reingruber 2015; Gerritsen – Özbal 2016; Hofmanová et al. 2016; Horejs 2016; Milić – Horejs 2017; Reingruber et al. 2017. Özdoğan, this volume; Özbal et al., this volume.

160

Barbara Horejs

Fig. 1 Excavated Neolithic sites in the east Aegean and western Anatolia dating to the 7th and 6th millennium BC. The sites of the Anatolian Aegean Coastal Group are marked with triangles (map: M. Börner/OREA 2019)

well as socio-cultural developments and many other elements are still lacking; nevertheless, the approximately 25 excavated sites dating to the 7th and early 6th millennia BC (Fig. 1) offer solid data about farming societies, mostly dating into the Late Neolithic period (6500–6000/5900 BC). During this Late Neolithic phase, it is possible to see the development of regional clusters of sites by means of geographical location as well as regional cultural commonalities.6 Previous analyses of the connectivity in the Izmir region during the Late Neolithic by the author led to the definition of the ‘Anatolian Aegean Coastal Group’, in which currently six Late Neolithic communities are included. This intra-regional connectivity also suggests the rise of a particular regional identity between c. 6500 and 5900 calBC.7

6



7



Overview of the Lakes Region and the Anatolian Aegean Coastal Group in Özdoğan et al. 2012 and the Marmara region in Özdoğan et al. 2013 and in Özbal et al., this volume. Horejs 2016.

Migrating and Creating Social Memories: On the Arrival and Adaptation of the Neolithic in Aegean Anatolia

161

There is no doubt about the fully established agricultural economy and permanent house-based way of life in villages of these Late Neolithic communities in western Anatolia (Fig 1). However, only a few of them date back to the so far earliest phase of the first farmers, as argued already by several scholars.8 Based on the archaeological remains and the radiocarbon data, there are, up to now, about six sites in the entire Aegean and western Anatolian region to be defined as early Neolithic in their economic system and materiality; the sites are Paliambela, Franchthi, Knossos X, Çukuriçi XIII, Ulucak VI, Uğurlu VI and Barcın Höyük VIe (Fig. 2).9 They are radiocarbon dated to the first half of the 7th millennium, mainly between 6700 and 6600 calBC,10 and have been designated as belonging to the ‘initial’ (in Greece) or ‘early’ (in western Anatolia) Neolithic period.11 They appear heterogeneous in aspects of ecological conditions (coastal/inland, cave/open-air site), settlement systems (pit complexes, houses), diet and hunting/herding strategies as well as in their raw material procurement management, and most probably in many more aspects when it comes to detailed comparison of single-site analyses.12 However, they also show some crucial aspects in common, most of all the fact that they represent the first farming and herding communities in the entire region.13 As argued already elsewhere in detail, these early Neolithic pioneers based around the Aegean Sea were closely related to the long established maritime networks of the Mesolithic Aegean, and probably also to the eastern Mediterranean PPN networks.14 Significantly, the absence of evidence for experimental phases in crucial Neolithic economic subsistence strategies (farming and herding) suggests the adoption of external knowledge and practices, coming together with new people seeking new land. This ‘maritime colonisation model’ points to the arrival of new and probably small groups from areas with an established Neolithic economy on the one hand, and on the other it highlights the impact of the longue durée maritime connectivity of Mesolithic seafarers, only indirectly detectable in the archaeological record. The scarcity of archaeological data from inland western Anatolia prevents any consistent hypothesis at the moment, but may add to the complexity of Neolithic trajectories if we consider the potential impact of local hunter-foragers as active players within this transformation process.15 Now let us turn to a discussion of the situation in western Anatolia before agriculture became the main subsistence strategy, in order to address the main issue of this volume: farming frontiers between eastern, central and western Anatolia.

The Early Holocene Frontiers of Western Anatolia During the early Holocene, terrestrial western Anatolia was diverse in terms of its cultural, technological and economic background in comparison to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic zones further east (Fig. 2). Whilst the Mesolithic communities in the Aegean and its coastal zones provide a different set of archaeological data, it is only partially related to inland western Anatolia.16 The lack of any early Holocene data from the southern Balkans – neither from the northern Aegean coast, nor



8 9

10



13 14 15 16 11

12

Horejs et al. 2015; Çevik – Abay 2016; Gerritsen – Özbal 2016; Çilingiroğlu 2017. The site of Mavropigi in western Macedonia might be included in the future due to its potential early dating as well (Maniatis 2014; Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2015). Summarised in Clare – Weninger 2014 and Weninger et al. 2014. New data modelling recently published by Guilbeau et al. 2019, lead to ‘older’ dates, but situated in the same plateau of the Calibration Curve. Krauß 2011, 3; Özdoğan et al. 2012, 237 (chronological table); Perlès et al. 2013; Munro – Stiner 2015. Cf. Kotsakis 2014 and Kotsakis, this volume, who points out the importance of detailed site studies. For the contextualisation in a broader development see Shennan 2018. Vigne et al. 2012; Vigne et al. 2014; Horejs et al. 2015; Douka et al. 2017. Takaoğlu et al. 2014; Çilingiroğlu 2017. The few relations in the lithic sets of both areas have been discussed recently by Bogdana Milić (Milić 2018). For basic studies of the Aegean Mesolithic see: Perlès 1990; Perlès 2003b; Galanidou – Perlès 2003; Trantalidou 2003; Perlès 2005; Séfériadès 2007; Kaczanowska – Kozłowski 2008; Strasser et al. 2010; Sampson 2010; Sampson et al. 2010; Trantalidou 2010; Galanidou 2011; Trantalidou 2011; Carter et al. 2014; Kaczanowska – Kozłowski 2014; Özbek – Erdoğu 2014; Sampson 2014; Carter et al. 2016; Kozłowski 2016.

162

Barbara Horejs

Fig. 2 The Aegean Mesolithic and western Anatolia Pre-Neolithic sites dating between 10000 and 7000 BC and the Neolithic pioneer sites starting around 6700 BC. Pre-Neolithic sites: 1. Ağaclı; 2. Asarkaya; 3. Belbaşı; 4. Beldibi; 5. Çalca; 7. Domalı; 9. Girmeler; 10. Gümüşdere; 11. Kalkanlı; 12. Karain; 13. Keçiçayırı; 20. Musluçeşme, 21. Öküzini; 26. Üçdutlar. Epipaleolithic/Mesolithic sites: 6. Cyclops Cave (Youra); 8. Gavdos; 14. Kerame; 15. Klissoura; 16. Koukou; 17. Livari; 18. Maroulas; 19. Mordoğan; 22. Ouriakos; 23. Plakias; 24. Sidari; 25. Theopetra; 27. Ulbrich; 28. Zaimis (after Horejs et al. 2015 with modification; map: M. Börner/OREA 2019)

further inland – prevents any analyses of potential cultural overlapping zones in that area at the moment.17 Focussing on the region of our study in western Anatolia, about 15 Pre-Neolithic sites have been detected, with a small number that could be dated between 10000 and 6700 BC, mainly clustered in coastal zones (Fig. 2).18 In addition to this, new important data for the early Holocene are coming from the southwest Anatolian littoral and hinterland, which is of special interest for our understanding of the Neolithic dispersal via maritime routes, in which the southern Anatolian coast is expected to play a crucial role with hopefully new dates in the future. So far, the archaeological evidence suggests the presence of hunter-forager communities in the late 9th and 8th millennia BC (Girmeler Cave), with continuous (repetitive? seasonal? permanent?)

For the geographical broader view including the Danube in the early Holocene see for example: Guilaine 2013; Gurova – Bonsall 2014, fig. 2; Krauß – Floss 2016. 18 This spatial distribution of Pre-Neolithic sites in those areas might represent regions of intensive surveys and focussed investigations, for details in the northwestern part see: Karul 2017, fig. 1.1. 17

Migrating and Creating Social Memories: On the Arrival and Adaptation of the Neolithic in Aegean Anatolia

163

domestic activities including dwellings and plastered floors.19 Çiler Çilingiroğlu has pointed to potential forager-farmer contacts between the mobile groups in southwest Anatolia (e.g. Öküzini Cave) and the farming pioneers of the Aegean.20 Relations between the southwest Anatolian hunter-gatherers and Cappadocian PPN groups had also been suggested,21 but this contact does not appear to have led to the adoption of cultivated crops and herding subsistence strategies before the 7th millennium BC, such as in Bademağacı and Höyücek, both of which are located further inland at the Burdur plateau.22 However, the whole region is expected to provide substantial data in the future. From the work of the experts in northwest Anatolia, a chronological or even techno-cultural definition of the lithic assemblages from surface collections seems difficult (e.g. ‘Ağaçlı Group’).23 However, whilst the flake-based lithic industry of Üçdütlar does not appear comparable with the Aegean Mesolithic chipped stone industry based on our current state of knowledge as summarised by the excavators, they do provide new data for potential overlapping zones of maritime and terrestrial mobile groups in Pre-Neolithic times.24 The recent work at the site of Mordoğan on the Karaburun Peninsula suggests strong links with the Aegean Mesolithic in terms of raw material and techno-typology.25 These exciting new data not only provide the first evidence for hunter-foragers in the Izmir region, but additionally offer a local Pre-Neolithic population connected with Aegean mobile groups. The current evidence for the early Holocene in western Anatolia highlights potential contacts between the southwestern local hunter-foragers and PPN zones further east, which on the one hand demonstrate the crucial diversities between central and western Anatolia, but on the other also indicate at least occasional contacts through the ‘farming frontier’. The terrestrial-marine contact zones along the littorals of Anatolia are an important focus for understanding the complex trajectories and transformation processes. Although we are currently lacking any traces of local pathways, adaptation or experimental phases during the neolithisation process of the region in our focus, it is important to consider failed expeditions by Neolithic people or simply not yet detected early farming sites. As such, the spatial patterning of Mesolithic or Pre-Neolithic and early Neolithic pioneers might be coincidental and only represents the present state of research. I have also argued for the alternative view that the micro-regions of the first pioneer sites might have been attractive to the newcomers seeking land specifically because they were ‘empty’ areas. The central Aegean coast of Anatolia may offer future potential to look more closely at this situation with data emerging from the two pioneer sites of Ulucak and Çukuriçi located close to the coast and the Mesolithic site of Mordoğan on the Karaburun peninsula in their neighbourhood. Following the preliminary results from these sites, it is only currently possible to state the differences in lithic technology and raw material procurement between the Mesolithic and early Neolithic communities.26 The broad study of the lithic raw material procurement strategies of the Çukuriçi pioneer community by Michael Brandl and Bogdana Milić has shown that local, regional as well as supra-regional sources were known and used.27 Although scientific analyses of the cherts are awaited for Aegean Mesolithic assemblages and the neighbouring Mordoğan in particular, there are no indicators for the Pre-Neolithic use of the local chert sources in Çukuriçi’s vicinity so far.28

Takaoğlu et al. 2014. Çilingiroğlu 2017. 21 Takaoğlu et al. 2014 based on sequences of plastered floors and plant processing with grinding stones in Girmeler Cave, which are both well-known practices since early PPN in central Anatolia. 22 Duru 2012; Clare – Weninger 2014, 11. 23 Gatsov – Özdoğan 1994; Özdoğan 2008; Özdoğan 2011; Efstratiou et al. 2014; Reingruber 2016; Özbal – Gerritsen, this volume. 24 Özbek – Erdoğu 2014. 25 Çilingiroğlu et al. 2016; Çilingiroğlu 2017. 26 Çilingiroğlu et al. 2016; Milić 2018. 27 Horejs et al. 2015; Milić 2018; Schwall et al. in press. 28 Scientific definition of the chert sources used during the Neolithic at Çukuriçi Höyük is given in Schwall et al. in press; Brandl in preparation. 19 20

164

Barbara Horejs

Category

Archaeological Data

House-based Community Village Life Settlement and Rectangular Buildings Architecture Special Cult Buildings Painted Plaster Plastered Floors Domestic Animals Cultivated Plants Subsistence Fishing, Shell-fishing Obsidian Exotic Shells Imported Malachite Raw Materials Ocr/Hematite Native Copper Celts, Chisels etc. Groundstones Grinding Stones Stone Vessels Stone Status Bracelets, Rings Objects Fine Beads Pressure Technology Flake Industry Lithic Technology Caches of Long Pressure Blades Seafaring Mat, Basketry Special Crafts Textile Pigmenting Leopard Symbols/Bones Animal Figurines Steatopygic Figurines Symbolic “M” Shaped Figures Representations Skull Cult, Modelled Skulls Phallus Symbols Bucrania

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Pioneer Sites Ulucak VI & Çukuriçi XIII 6700 BC x   x   x x x x x x x x x   x x x x x x x

Anatolian Aegean Coastal Group after 6500 BC x x x     x x x x x x       x x x   x x x

 

x

 

x

x                    

x x x x x x x x x x x

x     x              

x x x   x x x        

Aegean Mesolithic/ Pre-Neolithic Western Anatolia 10000–7000 BC           x     x x x       x x x       x

Pre-Pottery Neolithic Core Zones 

Fig. 3 The archaeological evidence of main cultural categories differentiated in Mesolithic Aegean/Pre-Neolithic western Anatolia, PPN Core Zone, Neolithic Pioneers and the Anatolian Aegean Coastal Group (after Özdoğan 2010 with modifications and additions; table by F. Ostmann/OREA)

Fig. 4 Lumps for pigmenting recovered upon the founding horizon floor of the pioneer settlement phase ÇuHö XIII (photo: F. Ostmann/ERC Prehistoric Anatolia 2014, plan: M. Börner/OREA)

Migrating and Creating Social Memories: On the Arrival and Adaptation of the Neolithic in Aegean Anatolia

165

We might hypothesise that the Pre-Neolithic mobile seafarers explored the coastal zones around modern Izmir and were aware of its valleys, small basins, freshwater and raw material sources; however, whilst these environmental conditions were highly attractive for farming communities,29 they probably did not fulfil the needs of Aegean fishermen and seafarers. The evidence we have so far suggests that the arrival of the Neolithic way of life at the Anatolian Aegean central coast appeared abruptly, while the succeeding process of adaptation and transformation into regional Neolithic identities lasted several generations. The following discussion aims to differentiate the archaeological evidence of the ‘Anatolian Aegean Coastal Group’ chronologically to examine the potentially continued, adopted, transformed or transferred aspects of the Mesolithic-Neolithic change. Based on the case study of Çukuriçi Höyük in early and late Neolithic times, the discussion will address the important role of social memories in the complex pathway from a pioneer society into a regionally embedded Neolithic community with its particular local identity.

Continuities, Innovations, Adaptations and Transformations The abrupt arrival of the Neolithic to the central Aegean coast of Turkey is attested at the pioneer sites of Ulucak VI and Çukuriçi XIII around 6700 calBC, and has already been presented in detail elsewhere. This contribution now focusses on the aspects of social strategies and techno-cultural know-how, which came with the newcomers and were transformed and continued or were abandoned during the succeeding centuries. Additionally, this approach aims to consider the evidence for those aspects in the archaeological record that potentially did not come with early farmers, but instead indicate other inputs or influences within a longue durée perspective. To avoid long descriptions of each relevant/non-relevant element, the following table will illustrate the archaeological record within cultural categories as evident in Aegean Mesolithic/Pre-Neolithic western Anatolia, in the PPN core zones, in the pioneer sites of Ulucak VI and Çukuriçi XIII as well as in the succeeding Late Neolithic ‘Anatolian Aegean Coastal Group’ (Fig. 3). Although a simple list of archaeological categories will never be able to integrate the complexity of the neolithisation process, it summarises our current knowledge about the data in a clear manner. The dominant relations between the pioneers and the PPN world have been discussed already and shall not be repeated here.30 Instead this paper will examine aspects that are evident only in the pioneer phases and seem to disappear during the establishment of local and regional Neolithic identities and concepts. Although there is evidence for the early use of red pigment in the plastering of floors (and walls as for example in Ulucak VI), there seems to have been a shift by the Late Neolithic as the practice of plastering continued, but red colours were abandoned. For example, red pigment for architectural features is only known from the founding phase in Çukuriçi XIII (Fig. 4). Significantly, the use of red colours for living spaces disappeared around the same time that red coloured pottery was introduced in the Late Neolithic period, suggesting that the colour may have continued to have cultural significance, but within a different material sphere. It requires more scientific analyses in the future to learn more about the production technologies of these red vessels (oxidising firing procedures, red-slipped as well as red-painted jars), but we can state the importance of red in producing domestic pottery, starting around 6500 BC. A shift between the Early and Late Neolithic can also been seen in personal adornments; the evidence of malachite at Çukuriçi XIII appears as a singular phenomenon (Fig. 5),31 however, not accidentally as one

29

For details of Çukuriçi’s environmental conditions see: Stock et al. 2015; Horejs 2017, 14. Çilingiroğlu – Çakırlar 2013; Arbuckle et al. 2014; Horejs et al. 2015; Douka et al. 2017. 31 Horejs et al. 2015. 30

166

Barbara Horejs

3 cm Fig. 5 Malachite bead from the pioneer settlement phase XIII at Çukuriçi Höyük, coming from a reddish clay layer located in complex 24 (inventory number: 14/2375/3/8) (M 1.5:1) (photo: N. Gail; ERC Prehistoric Anatolia, drawings: M. Röcklinger/OREA)

small mobile bead can be easily transported over long distances and kept or circulated over time.32 The same can be stated for stone bracelets and rings, both evident during the first farming generations, but not continued in the Late Neolithic. Such evidence suggests the selective adoption and abandonment of different elements of Neolithic culture. Whilst the main components of the Neolithic way of life, such as permanent house-based living, four-tier husbandry, farming with cultivated plants and various practices and technologies (storage strategies, pottery production, pressure technique in chipped stone production) came with the newcomers and remained; other practices were not continued and therefore disappeared (stone bracelets, malachite beads) or were transformed within a local context over several generations. Impact from Mesolithic Populations? In addition to particular archaeological material features, relations between the pioneers and early Holocene mobile groups are primarily detected through indirect evidence of learnt practice, via the communication of know-how and the adoption of particular seafaring knowledge.33 The ‘nautical package’ of Mesolithic seafarers included not only the knowledge of routes and raw materials sources (jadeit on Syros,34 obsidian on Melos), but also a maritime affinity visible in marine nutrition and marine ornaments,35 evident in Çukuriçi’s pioneer community. The individual character of ornaments made of seashells suggests a personal connection of the owner to the sea; these few personal items probably reflect the impact of and connection to marine ways of life for this pioneer society, which are symbolised in individual jewellery. The use of shellfish ornaments disappears after the founding phase, which indeed might highlight more direct contact of earlier generations with maritime populations. However, fishing and shell-fishing remained important aspects in the local diet and subsistence strategy. The suggested impact of Mesolithic Aegean foragers and fishermen on subsistence, mobility and even raw material procurement strategies appears to have had a long-term effect on the local Çukuriçi community and suggests longue durée connectivity before and after the establishment of the first farmers on-site.36 It remains an open question of how long the Mesolithic tradition of mobile seafaring groups continued during the 7th and 6th millennia and the following periods as a parallel phenomenon to the farming communities around the coast. Unfortunately, with the absence of skeletal remains and analysis from the sites within our focus area, it will not be possible to fully examine the integration of Mesolithic people into the newly settled communities. As attested in other world regions,37 the process of assimilation and adoption during the neolithisation

Çilingiroğlu recently highlighted the common fragility, small size and mobility of the material culture in the founding phases of the pioneer sites (Çilingiroğlu 2017). 33 Kotsakis 2008; Broodbank 2013. 34 Sörensen et al. 2017. 35 Rose 1995; Galanidou 2011; Stiner – Munro 2011; Horejs et al. 2015, 304, fig. 6. 36 Cf. Galanidou – Perlès 2003; Galanidou 2011; Sampson 2014. 37 Bollongino et al. 2013; Beau et al. 2017; Mathieson et al. 2018. 32

Migrating and Creating Social Memories: On the Arrival and Adaptation of the Neolithic in Aegean Anatolia

167

1

2

3 cm Fig. 6 Two Neolithic pendants excavated at Çukuriçi Höyük (inventory numbers: 1: 14/2365/3/1, 2: 13/5244/3/4) (photos: F. Ostmann/OREA; drawings: M. Röcklinger/OREA)

dispersal might be imagined for the Aegean Mesolithic groups as well, even though the timespan of this transformation after the Neolithic arrival is still not fully understood. Bridging the Farming Frontier? A well understood aspect is the frontier between the PPN phenomenon of monumentalisation, special cult buildings and complex symbolism in the core zones, all of which were not transferred to the contemporaneous early Holocene communities in western Anatolia or the Aegean. However, some aspects of special practices in probable ritual contexts on the Anatolian Aegean coast do seem to have been transferred from east to west, bridging the gap in time and space. The cache of obsidian long-blades deposited inside a Late Neolithic house at Çukuriçi X (c. 6500 calBC) previously published, reflects older PPN practices of long-blade hoarding known from PPNB Upper Mesopotamia, the Levant and Cyprus.38 As published elsewhere,39 the evidence of a ritual deposition of a hunted leopard within the domestic area of the Late Neolithic Çukuriçi village (phase ÇuHö VIII) was most likely related to central Anatolian concepts of taboo animals and hunting rituals in agricultural domestic societies. The leopards’ special social-ritual treatment and depiction, played a role within the ‘Anatolian Aegean Coastal Group’ during the Late Neolithic,40 which might reflect new connectivities of the coastal communities with inner Anatolian ones41 in the last centuries of the 7th millennium BC. This is also suggested through the introduction of Cappadocian obsidian artefacts found at western settlements. In addition to these transferred, adopted and transformed practices, we also see an increase in new symbolic representations after the pioneer phase, including figurines and amulets. Two Çukuriçi pendants shall be presented in more detail to demonstrate the new variety of Neolithic symbolism on the Anatolian Aegean coast (Fig. 6).

Horejs et al. 2015; Milić in press. See our discussion of leopard hunting in Galik et al. 2013. 40 Leopards are not only hunted at Çukuriçi and Ulucak (Çakırlar 2012, 22, tab. 3), but also depicted such as in Yeşilova (Derin 2013). 41 Hodder – Meskell 2010. 38 39

168

Barbara Horejs

Both pendants are made of hard black to black-greyish stone,42 are small in size and light in weight, worked to be viewed from the front with grooved relief, a plain flat underside, and are highly polished on the complete surface.43 Both are pierced in the upper part and most likely were used as pendants, at least secondarily. The meaning of the pendant from Fig. 6.1 remains vague and can be ascribed as probably an anthropomorphic figure with plain trapezoid ‘head’ and straight elongated slightly out-curved corpus without any obvious sexual characteristics. The break at the lower part prevents a definition of its base.44 The preserved part with slightly symmetrical extremities (shoulder with arms or schematic arms and hips?) is reminiscent of other schematic pendants,45 though exact parallels can hardly be expected within this exceptional kind of art and expression. Its scale of abstraction, also known from Anatolian Neolithic statuettes, makes it additionally difficult to definitely assign it as a human, animal or fantastic creature. The concept and shape of its head corresponds to the second, clearly anthropomorphic pendant, but is also known from Neolithic animal stone amulets, especially in Greece and in the Balkans, the latter primarily have a later date.46 The clearly anthropomorphic pendant (Fig. 6.2) represents a female figure with distinct accentuated sexual characteristics, specifically the emphasised pelvis and highlighted pubic triangle. The arms are in relief without visible hands or fingers and are bended underneath the invisible breasts. Short legs in a slightly outward direction end in oval side-facing feet. The short rectangular-shaped head does not show any internal facial grooving and remains plain with a fine polished surface. The figure is 2cm long and of high quality. It displays fine grooves and scratches, and was most likely manufactured using an obsidian blade, with the hardness of the stone material requiring such a tool.47 This astonishing miniature female figure is reminiscent of the well-known female/divine figures from Hacılar and Çatalhöyük, for example, as well as other schematic depictions in Anatolia and the Aegean in the 7th millennium.48 Recently Svend Hansen has argued that the distinct position of the hands under or upon the breasts is not only restricted to Anatolia and Greece, but also incorporates a different meaning than statuettes with other arm positions.49 Comparable concepts are detectable in standing statuettes made of clay recovered in Late Neolithic western Anatolia, such as in Ulucak IV and Barcın Höyük VIa–b.50 Although the interpretation for these kind of figures is a broad field of long-term discussion and not the focus of this contribution, I would suggest that the Çukuriçi pendant represents important aspects for the agricultural society, such as power and fertility, both embedded in a complex symbolic and mythic world.51 Probably related with the broader cultural development of domestic village life, its local production as well as its presumable use as personal ornament suggests a specific world-view linked with local communal, as well as individual beliefs and identities.

Both have been analysed by the geological expert Danilo Wolf with the result that Fig. 6.1 is made of Galena and Fig. 6.2 of a hard and tough amphibolite kind of stone. 43 Fig. 6.1: object was found in a filling layer within complex 20 of phase ÇuHö XII (c. 6600 BC). Fig. 6.2: object was recovered within sediments of a filling layer in the Early Bronze Age settlement ÇuHö IV (room 41), most likely relocated within the tell by using Neolithic sediments for this low construction (see Schwall 2018, 118–163;Grasböck et al. in preparation). 44 The measurements of the pendant from Fig. 6.1: 1.92cm long, 2.2cm wide, 0.64–0.47cm thick and 8.1g in weight. 45 E.g. Hansen 2007, pl. 109, 10 (Achilleion). 46 E.g. Perlès 2001, 268, fig. 12.5 (Greece); Nikolov 2006, 71 (Bulgaria). 47 The measurements of pendant Fig. 6.2: 2.1cm long, 1.8cm wide, 0.3cm thick and 4.3g in weight. 48 For new figurines from Çatalhöyük with a comparable concept of expression see: Meskell et al. 2016, fig. 1, 2, 5; for other sites see: Hansen 2007, pl. 65 (Hacılar); pl. 80, 1 (Orman Findanlığı); pl. 97, 9 (Ag. Georgios); pl. 99 (Sesklo); pl. 109, 8 (Malthi). 49 Hansen 2014. 50 Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012, fig. 8–9; Gerritsen et al. 2013, fig. 17. 51 Hansen 2007; Hodder – Meskell 2010. 42

Migrating and Creating Social Memories: On the Arrival and Adaptation of the Neolithic in Aegean Anatolia

169

Fig. 7 Model for the complex pathways for migrating and creating social memories at Neolithic Çukuriçi Höyük (illustration: F. Ostmann/OREA 2018)

Discussion of Social Memories for Establishing the Neolithic at Çukuriçi The archaeological and material features that have been discussed from Çukuriçi Höyük highlight a complex set of different ideas, practices and world-views that created the site-specific developments we see during the Early and Late Neolithic periods (Fig. 7). These cultural expressions incorporate different narratives, some of which show a long-lasting impact on the local agricultural societies such as the specific techno-cultural skills that are linked with know-how, experience and knowledge, and can hardly be transferred via simple copy-paste mechanisms. For example, the ‘nautical package’ and maritime affinity of the Çukuriçi settlers incorporated the experience of seafarers and fishermen, attested from both the beginning and continuously practiced during the entire Neolithic period. This longue durée impact of the maritime-related lifestyle is not only reflected in personal items of the pioneers, but we might additionally assume a very specific system of beliefs, myths and nautical practices created by a partially maritime society. Since the first settlers brought these traceable skills with them, which could hardly have come via inland Anatolian farmers, the Mesolithic Aegean and/or PPN eastern Mediterranean traditions seem to have been embedded in Çukuriçi’s local habits. The additional domestic skills of farming and herding display a Levantine-Mesopotamian pattern52 pointing to terrestrial agricultural traditions, again presumably related to specific social strategies, practices and beliefs. By facing the ‘Neolithic farming frontier’ between central and western Anatolia, I would like to argue for some shared social meanings and memories on both sides of this frontier, reflected in systems of beliefs, rituals and practices of the Neolithic house societies, both east and west of this frontier. Although the communities were undoubtedly embedded in a local context and continuously created and negotiated local identities, they were contextualised

52

Galik – Horejs 2011; Arbuckle et al. 2014.

170

Barbara Horejs

in time, experience and memory in a broader sense, too. By considering the evidence for the movement of people through the transfer of skills and knowledge, we can also consider the migration of memories that would have come with these people as they moved, being part of a particular set of social-cultural and technological traditions and practices. Creating Social Memories The creation of social memory53 and its impact on Neolithic communities and identities has been discussed in different aspects for the Levant and Anatolia by several scholars in recent decades. It has been argued by Ian Kuijt that for the PPNB Levant, we are probably facing a kind of ‘standardisation of social memory in communities’, not only in burial patterns.54 Kuijt further argues for a long-term maintenance of similar practices within and between contemporaneous settlements throughout the Levant and Anatolia in the 8th millennium BC. A particularly important aspect of his model of similar practices in early Neolithic communities is the continuity in location of buildings. The practice of continuous rebuilding of houses one upon the other over centuries is not only a social pattern in the PPNB Levant, like in ‘Ain Ghazal, Beidha or Jericho. This particular practice is also observable in central Anatolia, like in Aşıklı and Çatalhöyük, where it has widely been discussed by Ian Hodder, Bleda Düring and others.55 The commemorative aspect for creating social memories in an agricultural society argued by Ian Hodder and Craig Cessford56 is also evident in the Çukuriçi Late Neolithic settlement. The case of house rebuilding and replacements within the settlement phase ÇuHö X has no practical reason,57 but demonstrates a potential socio-functional meaning through potentially creating social memories for these house-based communities. The evidence for Çukuriçi house replacements additionally points to the shaping of a specific identity as well, again most likely related to its house-based entities over several generations.58 Transferred Memories The preservation of knowledge over generations is crucial in establishing and conserving traditions including distinct strategies (rituals, practices) embedded in the social memories of a group, family or community. The caching of long blades at Çukuriçi presumably represents such an expression of social memories transferred from PPNB Upper Mesopotamia and the Levant. This assemblage reflects external and former traditions, but also shows local adaptations in the production of these long blades through the use of the main local raw material, which is in our case Melian obsidian. Within the concept of memory, it is also possible to explain some other exotic elements related to non-local traditions. The stone bracelet of probable local production from Çukuriçi XIII finds its best parallels in PPN objects of Central Anatolia and Upper Mesopotamia and can be seen as a commemorative personal ornament, related with distinct values and meanings for its owner(s). These transferred and adopted memories illustrated in blade-caching and

I understand social memory in terms of a social and cultural phenomenon in following for example Howard Williams, who analysed material culture in aspects of commemorative technologies and worked out incorporated and invoked narratives of archaeological objects (Williams 2013). There is a wide debate in anthropology about the misleading use and understanding of memory, which is suggested to be replaced by the terms ‘recollection’ or ‘evoking’ (e.g. Bloch 2012). I would still prefer ‘social memory’ as an established concept in archaeology (e.g. Chesson 2001; Van Dyke – Alcock 2003; Assmann 2008; Sommer 2014). 54 Kuijt 2000; 2001. 55 Hodder – Cessford 2004; Asouti 2006; Hodder 2007; Düring 2011; Düring 2014. 56 Hodder – Cessford 2004. 57 Brami et al. 2016. 58 Souvatzi 2008; Hodder 2013, 351 argued for additional complex ties between groups and houses beyond the biological ones, such as co-eating and co-burying groups. 53

Migrating and Creating Social Memories: On the Arrival and Adaptation of the Neolithic in Aegean Anatolia

171

personal jewellery are related with the transfer of innovative technologies from the PPN zone, leading to a long-term impact on Neolithic societies. This is further attested through the lithic package, as defined by Milić, which incorporated not only distinct PPN tool types (or concepts of makings such tools) brought by the pioneers, but also, and more importantly, the knowledge and expertise of the new pressure technique for their production.59 Finally, the established farming and herding subsistence economy practiced by the Çukuriçi pioneers represents agricultural skills, including the breeding of the domestic pig, brought in with the newcomers most likely via coastal and/or maritime dispersal. Indeed, one might imagine particular traditions, practices and beliefs as essential social strategies of this early agricultural community, which at present we have failed to fully consider in our interpretation of the archaeological data. This complex set of memories presumably led to a contradictory accumulation of different skills, ideas, beliefs, practices, technologies and world-views in the pioneer societies of early 7th millennium BC Çukuriçi. Migrating and mobile people with particular memories were creating a society, shaping and negotiating its own local identity. This complex trajectory includes a regionally well-established maritime-related lifestyle as well as innovations and technologies that were brought by external communities and then adopted, presumably transferred together with narratives and social strategies. This dynamic process in the first half of the 7th millennium BC led to the establishment of an agricultural community on the central Aegean coast of Anatolia; a few generations later it was already embedded in a regional network of Neolithic villages. The phenomenon of migrating and creating social memories of a pioneer society might shed some light on the arrival and adaptation of the Neolithic on the Anatolian Aegean coast. The evidence discussed from this case study not only indicates far-reaching shared meanings, it also importantly provides evidence for the transferral of social strategies and new cultural contexts in the Aegean, and their adoption for creating new local identities. These strategies were probably originally embedded in a complex system of beliefs, rituals and social patterns in the PPNB zones and are partially still detectable many generations later. We have argued for a maritime colonisation in the early 7th millennium via routes from the eastern Mediterranean to the eastern Aegean, probably based on Mesolithic sea networks. The model of migrating social memories within this Neolithic dispersal might bridge the gap between the PPN core zones and early Neolithic Aegean and western Anatolia, not in terms of chronology but certainly in terms of culture. Acknowledgements: My sincere thanks go to the participants of our workshop for their feedback and input during fruitful discussions. The field work at Çukuriçi Höyük and all related analyses were funded by the European Research Council (ERC grant no. 263339), the Austrian Science Fund (FWF P-19856; P-25199; Y-528) and the Marie Curie ITN BEAN project (project no. 289966). I would like to thank the Turkish authorities for the permissions and the Austrian Excavations at Ephesos for their support. Special thanks go to the AAPP research group for helpful debates about the Neolithic pendants and especially to Bogdana Milić, Felix Ostmann, Maria Röcklinger and Christoph Schwall. My thanks also go to Clare Burke for correcting the first draft of the manuscript.

References Arbuckle et al. 2014 B. S. Arbuckle – S. W. Kansa – E. Kansa – D. Orton – C. Çakırlar – L. Gourichon – L. Atıcı – A. Galik – A. Marciniak – J. Mulville – H. Buitenhuis – D. Carruthers – B. De Cupere – A. Demirergi – S. Frame – D. Helmer – L. Martin – J. Peters – N. Pöllath – K. Pawłowska – N. Russell – K. Twiss – D. Würtenberger, Data sharing reveals complexity in the westward spread of domestic animals across Neolithic Turkey, PLoS One 9, 6, 2014, e99845. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099845. Asouti 2006 E. Asouti, Evolution, history and the origin of agriculture. Rethinking the Neolithic (plant) economies of South-west Asia, Levant 45, 2, 2013, 210–218. doi: 10.1179/0075891413Z.00000000025.

Milić – Horejs 2017; Milić 2018; Milić in press; Guilbeau et al. 2019.

59

172

Barbara Horejs

Assmann 2008 J. Assmann, Communicative and cultural memory, in: A. Erll – A. Nünning (eds.), Cultural Memory Studies. An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook (Berlin, New York 2008) 109–118. Beau et al. 2017 A. Beau – M. Rivollat – H. Réveillas – M-H. Pemonge – F. Mendisco – Y. Thomas – P. Lefranc – M-F. Deguilloux, Multiscale ancient DNA analyses confirm the western origin of Michelsberg farmers and document probable practices of human sacrifice, PLoS One 12, 7, 2017, e0179742. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179742. Bloch 2012 M. Bloch, Anthropology and the Cognitive Challenge (Cambridge 2012). Bollongino et al. 2013 R. Bollongino – O. Nehlich – M. P. Richards – J. Orschiedt – M. G. Thomas – C. Sell – Z. Fajkošová – A. Powell – J. Burger, 2000 years of parallel societies in Stone Age Central Europe, Science 342, 6157, 2013, 479–481. Brami et al. 2016 M. Brami – B. Horejs – F. Ostmann, The ground beneath their feet. Building continuity at Neolithic Çukuriçi Höyük, Anatolian Studies 66, 2016, 1–16. Brandl in preparation M. Brandl, Neolithic Çukuriçi Höyük Chert. Characterisation, Provenance Studies and Economy (in preparation). Broodbank 2013 C. Broodbank, The Making of the Middle Sea. A History of the Mediterranean from the Beginning to the Emergence of the Classical World (London 2013). Carter et al. 2014 T. Carter – D. A. Contreras – S. Doyle – D. D. Mihailović – T. Moutsiou – N. Skarpelis, The Stelida Naxos Archaeological Project. New data on the Mesolithic and Middle Palaeolithic Cyclades, Antiquity 88, 341, 2014, Project Gallery. Online (last accessed 9 Aug. 2018). Carter et al. 2016 T. Carter – D. D. Mihailović – Y. Papadatos – C. Sofianou, The Cretan Mesolithic in context. New data from Livari Skiadi (SE Crete), Documenta Praehistorica 43, 2016, 87–101. Chesson 2001 M. S. Chesson (ed.), Social Memory, Identity, and Death. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals (Washington 2001). Clare – Weninger 2014 L. Clare – B. Weninger, The dispersal of Neolithic lifeways. Absolute chronology and rapid climate change, in: M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. I. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 6: 10500–5200 BC. Environment, Settlement, Flora, Fauna, Dating, Symbols of Belief, with Views from North, South, East and West (Istanbul 2014) 1–65. Çevik – Abay 2016 Ö. Çevik – E. Abay, Neolithisation in Aegean Turkey. Towards a more realistic reading, in: Yalçın 2016, 187–197. Çakırlar 2012 C. Çakırlar, The evolution of animal husbandry in Neolithic Central-West Anatolia. The archaeozoological record from Ulucak Höyük (ca. 7040–5660 cal. BC, Izmir, Turkey), Anatolian Studies 62, 1, 2012, 1–33. Çilingiroğlu 2017 Ç. Çilingiroğlu, The Aegean before and after 7000 BC dispersal. Defining patterning and variability, Neo-Lithics 1/16, 2017, 32–41. Çilingiroğlu – Çakırlar 2013 Ç. Çilingiroğlu – C. Çakırlar, Towards configuring the neolithisation of Aegean Turkey, Documenta Praehistorica 40, 2013, 21–29.

Migrating and Creating Social Memories: On the Arrival and Adaptation of the Neolithic in Aegean Anatolia

173

Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012 A. Çilingiroğlu – Ö. Çevik – Ç. Çilingiroğlu, Ulucak Höyük. Towards understanding the early farming communities of Middle West Anatolia. The contribution of Ulucak, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012, 139–175. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2016 Ç. Çilingiroğlu – B. Dinçer – A. Uhri – C. Gürbıyık – I. Baykara – C. Çakırlar, New Paleolithic and Mesolithic sites in the Eastern Aegean. Karaburun Archaeological Survey Project, Antiquity 90, 353, 2016, Project Gallery 1–6. doi: 10.15184/aqy.2016.168. Derin 2013 Z. Derin, En yaşlı Anadolu Parsı, Bornova Kent Dergisi 3, 2013, 22–27. Douka et al. 2017 K. Douka – N. Efstratiou – M. M. Hald – P. S. Henriksen – A. Karetsou, Dating Knossos and the arrival of the earliest Neolithic in the southern Aegean, Antiquity 91, 356, 2017, 304–321. Duru 2012 R. Duru, The Neolithic of the Lakes Region. Hacılar – Kuruçay Höyük – Höyücek – Bademağacı Höyük, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012, 1–65. Düring 2011 B. S. Düring, The Prehistory of Asia Minor. From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (Cambridge 2011). Düring 2014 B. S. Düring, Constructing the present past in the Anatolian Neolithic, in: S. Souvatzi – A. Hadji (eds.), Space and Time in Mediterranean Prehistory (New York, London 2014) 120–137. Efstratiou et al. 2014 N. Efstratiou – P. Biagi – E. Starnini, The Epipalaeolithic site of Ouriakos on the island of Lemnos and its place in the Late Pleistocene peopling of the East Mediterranean region, Adalya XVII, 2014, 1–23. Galanidou 2011 N. Galanidou, Mesolithic cave use in Greece and the mosaic of human communities, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 24, 2, 2011, 219–242. Galanidou – Perlès 2003 N. Galanidou – C. Perlès, The Greek Mesolithic. Problems and Perspectives, British School at Athens Studies 10 (London 2003). Galik – Horejs 2011 A. Galik – B. Horejs, Çukuriçi Höyük. Different aspects of its earliest settlement phase, in: R. Krauß (ed.), Beginnings – New Research in the Appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin. Papers of the International Workshop 8th–9th April 2009, Istanbul Organized by Dan Ciobotaru, Barbara Horejs and Raiko Krauß, Menschen – Kulturen – Traditionen 1 (Rahden 2011) 83–94. Galik et al. 2013 A. Galik – B. Horejs – B. Nessel, Der nächtliche Jäger als Beute. Studien zur prähistorischen Leopardenjagd, Prähistorische Zeitschrift 87, 2, 2013, 261–307. doi: 10.1515/pz-2012-0017. Gatsov– Özdoğan 1994 I. Gatsov – M. Özdoğan, Some Epipaleolithic sites from NW Turkey. Ağaçlı, Domalı and Gümüşdere, Anatolica 20, 1994, 97–120. Gerritsen et al. 2013 F. A. Gerritsen – R. Özbal – L. C. Thissen, The earliest Neolithic levels and Barcın Höyük, northwestern Turkey, Anatolica 39, 2013, 53–92. Gerritsen – Özbal 2016 F. A. Gerritsen – R. Özbal, Barcın Höyük and the pre-Fikirtepe neolithisation of the eastern Marmara Region, in: Yalçın 2016, 199–208.

174

Barbara Horejs

Grasböck et al. in preparation St. Grasböck – T. Bratschi – B. Horejs – Ch. Schwall, Çukuriçi Höyük 4. Stratigraphie und Architektur der frühen Bronzezeit. Mit Beiträgen von B. Eichhorn, S. Seren und D. Wolf, Oriental and European Archaeology (in preparation). Guilaine 2013 J. Guilaine, The Neolithic transition in Europe. Some comments on gaps, contacts, arrhythmic model, genetics, in: E. Starnini (ed.), Unconformist Archaeology. Papers in Honour of Paolo Biagi, BAR International Series 2528 (Oxford 2013) 55–64. Guilbeau et al. 2019 D. Guilbeau – N. Kayacan – Ç. Altınbilek-Algül – B. Erdoğu – Ö. Çevik, A comparative study of the Initial Neolithic chipped-stone assemblages of Ulucak and Uğurlu, Anatolian Studies 69, 2019, 1–20. Gurova – Bonsall 2014 M. Gurova – C. Bonsall, ‘Pre-Neolithic’ in Southeast Europe. A Bulgarian perspective, Documenta Praehistorica 41, 2014, 95–109. Hansen 2007 S. Hansen, Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit. Untersuchungen zur anthropomorphen Plastik der Jungsteinzeit und Kupferzeit in Südosteuropa, Archäologie in Eurasien 21 (Mainz 2007). Hansen 2014 S. Hansen, Neolithic figurines in Anatolia, in: Özdoğan et al. 2014, 265–292. Hodder 2007 I. Hodder, Çatalhöyük in the context of the Middle Eastern Neolithic, Annual Review of Anthropology 36, 2007, 105–120. Hodder 2013 I. Hodder, From diffusion to structural transformation. The changing roles of the Neolithic house in the Middle East, Turkey and Europe, in: D. Hofmann – J. Smyth (eds.), Tracking the Neolithic House in Europe. Sedentism, Architecture and Practice (New York, Heidelberg, London 2013) 349–362. Hodder – Cessford 2004 I. Hodder – C. Cessford, Daily practice and social memory at Çatalhöyük, American Antiquity 69, 1, 2014, 17–40. Hodder – Meskell 2010 I. Hodder – L. Meskell, The symbolism of Catalhöyük in its regional context, in: I. Hodder (ed.), Religion in the Emergence of Civilization. Catalhöyük as a Case Study (Cambridge 2010) 32–72. Hofmanová et al. 2016 Z. Hofmanová – S. Kreutzer – G. Hellenthal – C. Sell – Y. Diekmann – D. Díez-del-Molino – L. van Dorp – S. López – A. Kousathanas – V. Link – K. Kirsanow – L. M. Cassidy – R. Martiniano – M. Strobel – A. Scheu – K. Kotsakis – P. Halstead – S. Triantaphyllou – N. Kyparissi-Apostolika – D. Urem-Kotsou – C. Ziota – F. Adaktylou – S. Gopalanl – D. M. Bobo – L. Winkelbach – J. Blöcher – M. Unterländer – C. Leuenberger – Ç. Çilingiroğlu – B. Horejs – F. A. Gerritsen – S. J. Shennan – D. G. Bradley – M. Currat – K. R. Veeramahl – D. Wegmann – M. G. Thomas – C. Papageorgopoulou – J. Burger, Early farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113, 2016, 6886–6891. Horejs 2016 B. Horejs, Aspects of connectivity on the centre of the Anatolian Aegean coast in 7th millennium BC, in: B. P. C. Molloy (ed.), Of Odysseus and Oddities. Scales and Modes of Interaction between Prehistoric Aegean Societies and their Neighbours, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 10 (Oxford 2016) 143–167. Horejs 2017 B. Horejs, Çukuriçi Höyük 1. Anatolia and the Aegean from the 7th to the 3rd Millennium BC. With contributions by C. Britsch, S. Grasböck, B. Milić, L. Peloschek, M. Röcklinger, C. Schwall, Oriental and European Archaeology 5 (Vienna 2017). Horejs et al. 2015 B. Horejs – B. Milić – F. Ostmann – U. Thanheiser – B. Weninger – A. Galik, The Aegean in the early 7th Millennium BC. Maritime networks and colonization, Journal of World Prehistory 28, 4, 2015, 289–330.

Migrating and Creating Social Memories: On the Arrival and Adaptation of the Neolithic in Aegean Anatolia

175

Kaczanowska – Kozłowski 2008 M. Kaczanowska – J. K. Kozłowski, Chipped stone artefacts, in: A. Sampson, The Cave of the Cyclops. Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece. Vol. I: Intra-site Analysis, Local Industries, and Regional Site Distribution, Prehistory Monographs 21 (Philadelphia 2008) 169–178. Kaczanowska – Kozłowski 2014 M. Kaczanowska – J. K. Kozłowski, The Aegean Mesolithic. Material culture, chronology, networks of contacts, Eurasian Prehistory 11, 1–2, 2014, 31–62. Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2015 G. Keramitrou-Mentessidi – N. Efstratiou – M. Kaczanowska – J. K. Kozłowski, Early Neolithic settlement of Mavropigi in western Greek Macedonia, Eurasian Prehistory 12, 1–2, 2015, 47–116. Karul 2017 N. Karul, Northwest Anatolia. A border or a bridge between Anatolia and the Balkans during the Early Neolithic Period?, in: Reingruber et al. 2017, 7–18. Katsanis et al. 2008 M. Katsanis – S. Tsipidis – K. Kotsakis – A. Kousoulakou, A 3D digital workflow for archaeological intra-site research using GIS, Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2008, 655–667. Kotsakis 2008 K. Kotsakis, A sea of agency. Crete in the context of the earliest Neolithic in Greece in: V. Isaakidou – P. D. Tomkins (eds.), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8 (Oxford 2008) 49–72. Kotsakis 2014 K. Kotsakis, Domesticating the periphery. New research into the Neolithic of Greece, Pharos 20, 1, 2014, 41–73. Kozłowski 2016 J. K. Kozłowski, The Mesolithic of the Aegean Basin. Cultural variability, subsistence economy, interregional links and seafaring, in: Krauß – Floss 2016, 41–64. Krauß 2011 R. Krauß, Neolithization between northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin. An introduction, in: R. Krauß (ed.), Beginnings – New Research in the Appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin. Papers of the International Workshop 8th–9th April 2009, Istanbul Organized by Dan Ciobotaru, Barbara Horejs and Raiko Krauß, Menschen – Kulturen – Traditionen 1 (Rahden 2011) 1–7. Krauß – Floss 2016 R. Krauß – H. Floss (eds.), Southeast Europe before Neolithisation. Proceedings of the International Workshop within the Collaborative Research Centres SFB 1070 “Ressourcenkulturen”, Schloss Hohentübingen, 9th of May 2014, RessourcenKulturen 1 (Tübingen 2016). Kuijt 2000 I. Kuijt, Keeping the peace, ritual, skull caching, and community integration in the Levantine Neolithic, in: I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities. Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation (New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow) 137–164. Kuijt 2001 I. Kuijt, Meaningful masks. Place, death, and the transmission of social memory in early agricultural communities of the Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic, in: M. S. Chesson (ed.), Social Memory, Identity, and Death. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals (Washington 2001) 80–99. Lichter 2005 C. Lichter, Western Anatolia in the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic. The actual state of research, in: C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium calBC. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul 20–22 May 2004, Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005) 59–74.

176

Barbara Horejs

Maniatis 2014 Y. Maniatis, Radiocarbon dating of the major cultural phases in prehistoric Macedonia. Recent developments, in: E. Stefani – N. Merousis – A. Dimoula (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on ‘100 Years Research in Prehistoric Macedonia 1912–2012’, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki (Thessaloniki 2014) 205–222. Mathieson et al. 2018 I. Mathieson – S. Alpaslan-Roodenberg – C. Posth – A. Szécsényi-Nagy – N. Rohland – S. Mallick – I. Olalde – N. Broomandkhoshbacht – F. Candilio – O. Cheronet – D. Fernandes – M. Ferry – B. Gamarra – G. González Fortes – W. Haak – E. Harney – E. Jones – D. Keating – B. Krause-Kyora – I. Kucukkalipci – M. Michel – A. Mittnik – K. Nägele – M. Novak – J. Oppenheimer – N. Patterson – S. Pfrengle – K. Sirak – K. Stewardson – St. Vai – St. Alexandrov – K. W. Alt – R. Andreescu – D. Antonović – A. Ash – N. Atanassova – K. Bacvarov – M. Balázs Gusztáv – H. Bocherens – M. Bolus – A. Boroneanţ – Y. Boyadzhiev – A. Budnik – J. Burmaz – St. Chohadzhiev – N. J. Conard – R. Cottiaux – M. Čuka – C. Cupillard – D. G. Drucker – N. Elenski – M. Francken – Borislava Galabova – G. Ganetsovski – B. Gély – T. Hajdu – V. Handzhyiska – K. Harvati – T. Higham – S. Iliev – I. Janković – I. Karavanić – D. J. Kennett – D. Komšo – A. Kozak – D. Labuda – M. Lari – C. Lazar – M. Leppek – K. Leshtakov – D. Lo Vetro – D. Los – I. Lozanov – M. Malina – F. Martini – K. McSweeney – H. Meller – M. Menđušić – P. Mirea – V. Moiseyev – V. Petrova – T. D. Price – A. Simalcsik – L. Sineo – M. Šlaus – V. Slavchev – P. Stanev – A. Starović – T. Szeniczey – S. Talamo – M. Teschler-Nicola – C. Thevenet – I. Valchev – F. Valentin – S. Vasilyev – F. Veljanovska – S. Venelinova – E. Veselovskaya – B. Viola – C. Virag – J. Zaninović – S. Zäuner – P. W. Stockhammer – G. Catalano – R. Krauß – D. Caramelli – G. Zariņa – B. Gaydarska – M. Lillie – A. G. Nikitin – I. Potekhina – A. Papathanasiou – D. Borić – C. Bonsall – J. Krause – R. Pinhasi – D. Reich, The genomic history of southeastern Europe, Nature 555, 7695, 2018, 197–203. doi: 10.1038/nature25778. Meskell et al 2016 L. Meskell – C. Nakamura – L. Der – C. Tsoraki – M. Arntz, Figurines, in: Çatalhöyük 2016 Archive Report, 137– 150. Online (last accessed 20 Apr. 2018). Milić 2018 B. Milić, Lithics and Neolithisation. Çukuriçi Höyük in Anatolia and the Aegean (PhD Diss. University of Tübingen, Tübingen 2018). Milić in press B. Milić, An addendum to the PPNB interaction sphere. The lithic package from 7th millennium BC Çukuriçi Höyük in western Anatolia. In: L. Astruc – C. McCartney – F. Briois – V. Kassianidou (eds.), Near Eastern Lithic Technologies on the Move. Interactions and Contexts in Neolithic Traditions. 8th International Conference on PPN Chipped and Ground Stone Industries of the Near East, Nicosia, November 23rd–27th 2016, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology CL (in press) 485–502. Milić – Horejs 2017 B. Milić – B. Horejs, The onset of pressure blade making in western Anatolia in the 7th millennium BC. A case study from Neolithic Çukuriçi Höyük, in: Horejs 2017, 27–52. Munro – Stiner 2015 N. D. Munro – M. C. Stiner, Zooarchaeological evidence for Early Neolithic colonization at Franchthi Cave (Peloponessos, Greece), Current Anthropology 56, 4, 2015, 596–603. Nikolov 2006 V. Nikolov, Kultura i Izkustvo na Praistoricheska Trakii︠a︡ (Plovdiv 2006). Özbek – Erdoğu 2014 O. Özbek – B. Erdoğu, Initial occupation of the Gelibolu peninsula and the Gökçeada (Imbroz) island in the Pre-Neolithic and Early Neolithic, Eurasian Prehistory 11, 1–2, 2014, 97–128. Özdoğan 2008 M. Özdoğan, An alternative approach in tracing changes in demographic composition, in: J.-P. Bocquet-Appel – O. Bar-Yosef (eds.), The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its Consequences (Dordrecht 2008) 139–178. Özdoğan 2010 M. Özdoğan, Westward expansion of the Neolithic way of life. Sorting the Neolithic package into distinct packages, in: P. Matthiae – F. Pinnock – L. Nigro – N. Marchetti (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 5 May – 10 May 2009, »Sapienza«, Università di Roma. Vol. 1: Near Eastern Archaeol-

Migrating and Creating Social Memories: On the Arrival and Adaptation of the Neolithic in Aegean Anatolia

177

ogy in the Past, Present and Future. Heritage and Identity. Ethnoarchaeological and Interdisciplinary Approach, Results and Perspectives. Visual Expression and Craft Production in the Definition of Social Relations and Status (Wiesbaden 2010) 883–897. Özdoğan 2011 M. Özdoğan, Archaeological evidence on the westward expansion of farming communities from eastern Anatolia to the Aegean and the Balkans, Current Anthropology 52, 4, 2011, 415–430. Özdoğan 2014 M. Özdoğan, The quest for new criteria in defining the emergence and the dispersal of neolithic way of life, in: C. Manen – T. Perrin – J. Guilaine (eds.), La transition néolithique en Méditerranée. Actes du colloque Transitions en Méditerranée, ou Comment des Chasseurs Devinrent Agriculteurs (Toulouse 2014) 77–89. Özdoğan – Başgelen 1999 M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of Civilization. New Discoveries, Ancient Anatolian Civilizations Series 3 (Istanbul 1999). Özdoğan et al. 2012 M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 4: Western Turkey (Istanbul 2012). Özdoğan et al. 2013 M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. I. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 5: Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul (Istanbul 2013). Perlès 1990 C. Perlès, Les Industries Lithiques Taillées de Franchthi (Argolide, Grèce). Tome II, Les Industries du Mésolithique et du Néolithique Initial (Bloomington, Indianapolis 1990). Perlès 2001 C. Perlès, The Early Neolithic in Greece (Cambridge 2001). Perlès 2003a C. Perlès, An alternate (and old-fashioned) view of neolithisation in Greece, Documenta Praehistorica 30, 2003, 99–113. Perlès 2003b C. Perlès, The Mesolithic at Franchthi. An overview of the data and problems, in: Galanidou – Perlès 2003, 79–87. Perlès 2005 C. Perlès, From the Near East to Greece. Let’s reverse the focus. Cultural elements that didn’t transfer, in: C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium calBC. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul 20–22 May 2004, Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005) 275–290. Perlès et al. 2013 C. Perlès – A. Quiles – H. Valladas, Early seventh-millennium AMS dates from domestic seeds in the Initial Neolithic at Franchthi Cave (Argolid, Greece), Antiquity 87, 2013, 1001–1015. Reingruber 2011 A. Reingruber, Early Neolithic settlement patterns and exchange networks in the Aegean, Documenta Praehistorica 38, 2011, 291–305. Reingruber 2015 A. Reingruber, Preceramic, Aceramic or Early Ceramic? The radiocarbon dated beginning of the Neolithic in the Aegean, Documenta Praehistorica 42, 2015, 147–158. Reingruber 2016 A. Reingruber, Coastal and riverine Thrace during the Mesolithic and the Neolithic, in: K. Bacvarov – R. Gleser (eds.), Southeast Europe and Anatolia in Prehistory. Essays in Honor of Vassil Nikolov on his 65th Anniversary (Bonn 2016) 93–104.

178

Barbara Horejs

Reingruber et al. 2017 A. Reingruber – Z. Tsirtsoni – P. Nedelcheva (eds.), Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians. Proceedings of the EAA Conference, Istanbul, 11 September 2014, Themes in Contemporary Archaeology 3 (London 2017). Rose 1995 M. Rose, Fishing at Franchthi Cave, Greece. Changing environments and patterns of exploitation, Old World Archaeology Newsletter 18, 1995, 21–26. Sampson 2010 A. Sampson, Mesolithic Greece: 9000–6500 BC. Palaeoenvironment, Palaeoeconomy, Technology (Athens 2010). Sampson 2014 A. Sampson, The Aegean Mesolithic. Environment, economy and seafaring, Eurasian Prehistory 11, 1–2, 2014, 63–74. Sampson et al. 2010 A. Sampson – M. Kaczanowska – J. K. Kozłowski, Τhe Prehistory of the Island of Kythnos and the Mesolithic Settlement at Maroulas (Krakow 2010). Schwall 2018 C. Schwall, Çukuriçi Höyük 2. Das 5. und 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr. in Westanatolien und der Ostägäis, Oriental and European Archaeology 7 (Vienna 2018). Schwall et al. in press C. Schwall – M. Brandl – T. Gluhak – B. Milić – L. Peloschek – L. Sørensen – D. Wolf – B. Horejs, From near and far. Stone procurement and exchange at Çukuriçi Höyük in western Anatolia, Journal of Lithic Studies (in press). Séfériadès 2007 M. Séfériadès, Complexity of the processes of Neolithisation. Tradition and modernity of the Aegean world at the dawn of the Holocene period (11–9 kyr), Quaternary International 167–168, 2007, 177–185. Shennan 2018 St. Shennan, The First Farmers of Europe. An Evolutionary Perspective (Cambridge 2018). Sommer 2014 U. Sommer, Kulturelles Gedächtnis, in: D. Mölders – S. Wolfram (eds.), Schlüsselbegriffe der Prähistorischen Archäologie, Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher 11 (Münster, New York 2014) 151–155. Souvatzi 2008 S. G. Souvatzi, A Social Archaeology of Households in Neolithic Greece. An Anthropological Approach (Cambridge 2008). Sörensen et al. 2017 L. Sörensen – P. Pétrequin – A.-M. Pétrequin – M. Errera – B. Horejs – F. Herbaut, Les limites sud-orientales des jades alpins (Grèce et Turquie) / The south-eastern limits of Alpine jades (Greece and Turkey), in: P. Petrequin – E. Gauthier – A.-M. Petrequin (eds.), Jade. Objets-signes et Interprétations Sociales des Jades Alpins dans l’Europe Néolithique, Tome 3 (Toulouse 2017) 491–520. Stiner – Munro 2011 M. C. Stiner – N. D. Munro, On the evolution of diet and landscape during the Upper Paleolithic through Mesolithic at Franchthi Cave (Peloponnese, Greece), Journal of Human Evolution 60, 2011, 618–636. Stock et al. 2015 F. Stock – L. Ehlers – B. Horejs – M. Knipping – S. Ladstätter – S. Seren – H. Brückner, Neolithic settlement sites in western Turkey. Palaeogeographic studies at Çukuriçi Höyük and Arvalya Höyük, Journal of Archaeological Science Reports 4, 2015, 565–577. Strasser et al. 2010 T. Strasser – E. Panagopoulou – C. Runnels – P. Murray – N. Thompson – P. Karkanas – F. McCoy – K. Wegmann, Stone Age seafaring in the Mediterranean. Evidence from the Plakias region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic habitation of Crete, Hesperia 79, 2010, 145–190.

Migrating and Creating Social Memories: On the Arrival and Adaptation of the Neolithic in Aegean Anatolia

179

Takaoğlu et al. 2014 T. Takaoğlu – T. Korkut – B. Erdoğu – G. Işın, Archaeological evidence for 9th and 8th millennia BC at Girmeler Cave near Tlos in SW Turkey, Documenta Praehistorica 41, 2014, 111–118. Trantalidou 2003 K. Trantalidou, Faunal remains from the earliest strata of the Cave of Cyclops, Youra, in: Galanidou – Perlès 2003, 143–172. Trantalidou 2010 K. Trantalidou, Dietary adaptations of coastal people in the Aegean archipelago during the Mesolithic period. The macrofauna assemblages of Maroulas on Kythnos, in: A. Sampson – M. Kaczanowska – J. K. Kozłowski (eds.), Τhe Prehistory of the Island of Kythnos and the Mesolithic Settlement at Maroulas (Krakow 2010) 163–177. Trantalidou 2011 K. Trantalidou, From Mesolithic fisherman and bird hunters to Neolithic goat herders. The transformation of an island economy in the Aegean, in: A. Sampson (ed.), The Cave of the Cyclops. Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece. Vol. II: Bone Tool Industries, Dietary Resources and the Paleoenvironment, and Archaeometrical Studies, Prehistory Monographs 31 (Philadelphia 2011) 53–101. Van Dyke – Alcock 2003 R. M. Van Dyke – S. E. Alcock, Archaeologies of memory. An introduction, in: R. M. Van Dyke – S. E. Alcock (eds.), Archaeology of Memory (Oxford 2003) 1–10. Vigne et al. 2012 J.-D. Vigne – F. Briois – A. Zazzo – G. Willcox – T. Cucchi – S. Thiébault – I. Carrère – Y. Franel – R. Touquet – L. Martin – C. Moreau – C. Comby – J. Guilaine, First wave of cultivators spread to Cyprus at least 10,600 yrs ago, Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences of Sciences of the United States of America 109, 22, 2012, 8445–8449. Vigne et al. 2014 J.-D. Vigne – A. Zazzo – T. Cucchi – I. Carrère – F. Briois – J. Guilaine, The transportation of mammals to Cyprus sheds light on early voyaging and boats in the Mediterranean Sea, Eurasian Prehistory 10, 1–2, 2014, 157–176. Weninger et al. 2014 B. Weninger – L. Clare – F. Gerritsen – B. Horejs – R. Krauß – J. Linstädter – R. Özbal – E. J. Rohling, Neolithisation of the Aegean and Southeast Europe during the 6600–6000 cal BC period of rapid climate change, Documenta Praehistorica 41, 2014, 1–31. Williams 2013 H. Williams, Death, memory, and material culture. Catalytic commemoration and the cremated dead, in: S. Tarlow – L. Nilsson Stutz (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Burial (Oxford 2013) 195–208. Yalçın 2016 Ü. Yalçın (ed.), Anatolian Metal VII. Anatolia and Neighbours 10.000 Years Ago. Volume in Honour of Mehmet Özdoğan (Herne 2016).

180

Barbara Horejs

Farmer-Forager Interactions in the Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia: Reassessing the Evidence

181

Farmer-Forager Interactions in the Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia: Reassessing the Evidence Rana Özbal 1 – Fokke Gerritsen 2 Abstract: The Neolithisation of the Marmara Region has often been considered as having been shaped by a combination of farmer immigration and interaction between farmers and forager groups. This is based on archaeological evidence for the presence of Epipalaeolithic or Mesolithic groups in the region, and on particular aspects of Neolithic settlements in the greater Istanbul region that have been interpreted as forager cultural traits. The lack of an absolute dated chronological framework has made it difficult to corroborate the model. The recent Barcın Höyük excavations provide firm dates for the crucial middle and late 7th millennium BC period, during which pioneer farming groups settled down permanently in the region and the Fikirtepe Culture formed as a regional cultural entity. To assess the changes that took place, this article proposes a six-stage developmental model to review the archaeological evidence from surveys and excavations from the Epipalaeolithic to the Middle Chalcolithic Period. Keywords: Marmara Region; cultural interaction; colonisation; Fikirtepe Culture; settlement; architecture; burial traditions

Introduction How indigenous foragers became incorporated into Neolithic farmer communities has been a long-standing topic of study among archaeologists who investigate Neolithisation in European prehistory.3 Palaeogeneticists have recently shown that modern populations in Europe represent an amalgamation of indigenous groups and incoming peoples, confirming ideas of genetic merging.4 The only region of Anatolia for which such a scenario of forager acculturation has been proposed is the Marmara Region in the 7th millennium BC.5 Yet the processes involved in the suggested cultural contacts leading to the Fikirtepe Culture are little understood. A central aim of this chapter is to assess farmer-forager interactions in Northwest Anatolia. To what extent did Epipaleolithic or Mesolithic hunter-gatherer groups, known archaeologically from the so-called Ağaçlı sites and other flint scatters in the greater Istanbul region, play a role in the Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia? What evidence is there for a merging between farmer and forager subsistence economies and what, if anything, can be said regarding the character of the inter-community exchange of ideas, customs and lifestyles? While these questions have been debated for some time,6 recent data from the pre-Fikirtepe phase of the mid to late 7th millennium levels at the site of Barcın Höyük have yet to be incorporated in these discussions. Our knowledge-basis for the prehistoric occupation of the Marmara Region has its roots in the discovery of the sites of Fikirtepe and Pendik during the building of the Baghdad Railroad.7 Exca-

3 4 5 6 7 1 2

Koç University, Archaeology and History of Art, Istanbul, Turkey, [email protected]. Netherlands Institute in Turkey, Istanbul, Turkey, [email protected]. Zvelebil – Lillie 2000; Guilaine – Manen 2007. Richards 2005; Bramanti et al. 2009. Özdoğan 2013a; Karul 2017. Özdoğan – Gatsov 1998; Düring 2011; Karul 2011; Özdoğan 2013a; Karul 2017. Mordtmann 1907; Arne 1922; Janse 1925; Harmankaya et al. 1997.

182

Rana Özbal – Fokke Gerritsen

vations took place at Fikirtepe during the 1950s.8 Pendik was briefly re-investigated in 1961 and the first official rescue excavations took place in 1980.9 The concept of the “Fikirtepe Culture” owes its origins to Mehmet Özdoğan, who identified common cultural elements.10 The Ağaçlı discoveries, which comprise the main evidence for Mesolithic or Epipaleolithic habitation in the region known to date, were made in 1973. The dunes on which the finds are scattered were initially surveyed that year by Howe and Korfmann and members of the Department of Prehistory of Istanbul University.11 A deficiency in concentrated research regarding the Epipaleolithic/Mesolithic and Neolithic Periods is undeniable, but geological factors and the rise of the sea level too have significantly contributed to the lack of data.12 Alluvial deposition over millennia likely remains as a prime detriment to the detection of such archaeological phases. Foundation levels at permanent 7th and 6th millennium settlements like Ulucak and Yeşilova in the Aegean Region, to list a few, were discovered over five meters beneath the modern level of the plain.13 For the Istanbul region, Neolithic deposits appeared at Yenikapı over six meters below the current level of the Marmara Sea.14 Nevertheless, there has been a considerable amount of excavation and research. The picture to date reflects a more-or-less established narrative of a peaceful fusion between farmer and forager communities that manifests itself most visibly at sites in the greater Istanbul area, and less so at the inland sites in the southeastern Marmara region.15 The former group of sites, especially Fikirtepe and Pendik, and potentially also other coastal settlements are considered settled communities displaying a blend of a sedentary agricultural and a forager lifestyle. In summary, the argument advocates: “…that sites along the southern Marmara represent immigrant farmers, bringing with them a new way of life, with those around Istanbul involving the merging of local Mesolithic communities with the newcomers, either by living together or possibly voluntarily adapting certain aspects of the Neolithic package, resulting in a mixed subsistence pattern but at the same time continuing their main mode of living.”16 This chapter addresses this question of the merging of farmers and foragers by bringing multifarious strands of data together in a systematic and chronological overview. The main approach used here is to describe a sequence of stages covering the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic Periods. Chronological control has been problematic for Northwest Anatolia because there are few absolute dates and no systematic excavations have been carried out on any of the pre-Neolithic sites. We make use of stratified and absolutely dated deposits to attempt to refine the model suggested for interaction and contact into finer and more nuanced diachronic sub-units. Traditionally, two waves or phases of Neolithic expansion, one Aceramic and another dating to the Ceramic Neolithic, have been discussed in publications already. In an effort to contribute to the growing information on the Neolithisation of the region, this chapter subdivides the various phases to create a chronological overview covering a period from before the 7th millennium to about 5500 BC. Geographically, the focus is primarily on the Eastern Marmara Region and the Istanbul Area. The stages used in this chapter for a sequential overview of this nature are listed below: Stage 1 Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic forager groups exist in greater Istanbul, and possibly beyond; Stage 2 Aceramic groups appear;

8 9



12 13 14 15 16 10 11

Bittel 1960; Bittel 1969/70; Boessneck – Von den Driesch 1979. Kansu 1963; Harmankaya 1983; Özdoǧan 1983b. Özdoğan 1983b. Özdoğan 1983a; Özdoğan 1985; Gatsov – Özdoğan 1994. Algan et al. 2011. Derin 2012; Çevik – Abay 2016. Algan et al. 2011. Özdoğan – Gatsov 1998; Karul 2011; Özdoğan 2013a; Karul 2017. Özdoğan 2011a, 664.

Farmer-Forager Interactions in the Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia: Reassessing the Evidence

183

Stage 3 Pre-Fikirtepe farming communities become established in the Eastern Marmara Region, at sites like at Barcın Höyük; Stage 4 Expansion of settlement in the Eastern Marmara Region; Fikirtepe Phase habitation starts in the Istanbul Area, at Fikirtepe and Pendik; Stage 5 Settlements with clear evidence for an early version of the Anatolian Settlement Plan emerge, at Ilıpınar and Aktopraklık B; Stage 6 Semi-subterranean round structures appear as the main architectural form at Aktopraklık B and Ilıpınar.

Stage 1: Epipaleolithic and/or Mesolithic Groups in Northwest Anatolia Our information on Epipaleolithic or Mesolithic forager groups in the Marmara Region comes primarily from surface-scatters, known under the umbrella term Ağaçlı. Many of these are located on sand dunes along the Black Sea coast of the Istanbul Region, but included within this are a wide assortment of locations spanning a long chronological range since the Middle Palaeolithic. The most notable sites along the Black Sea coast yielding material of the Epipaleolithic or Mesolithic are Ağaçlı, Gümüşdere-Kilyos and Paşaalanı on the European side and Domalı, Mürsellibaba, Tekmezar, Alaçalı, Kefken and Doğançalı on the Asian side.17 In fact, given that the assemblage comes from a range of different sites, it is perhaps not surprising for it to show a composite of different periods. Gatsov and Özdoğan do not argue otherwise and recognise together with an Epipaleolithic assemblage, the presence of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic tools and even Neolithic pottery, in a hill overlooking the dunes.18 Bogdana Milić provides an excellent overview of Ağaçlı sites and addresses the chronological confusion surrounding the assemblages.19 She makes it clear that the mixed nature of the assemblage has led to different interpretations of the chronological positioning of the assemblage. Some scholars, including Reingruber, wonder whether the entire assemblage may in fact be Neolithic,20 based on the presence of ceramics noted by Hauptmann as well as by Gatsov and Özdoğan, even though the latter report that the ceramics come collectively from a separate part of the surveyed area.21 Nonetheless, confusion remains even among the original researchers as to whether the bulk of the assemblage should be characterised as Epipaleolithic or Mesolithic. In a 1994 publication, for example, Gatsov and Özdoğan initially state that they prefer to call these Epipaleolithic rather than Mesolithic, given that they show continuity from the preceding Upper Palaeolithic.22 However, in a later publication they describe the assemblage as belonging to the Mesolithic.23 The latter suggests more immediate connections with subsequent Neolithic groups. Establishing a more secure date, either from the Ağaçlı finds or via subsequent research in the area (if any of the dunes remain intact) is critical. Most recently, Kartal returned to the assemblage and argued, based on the tool types, that they display Epipaleolithic elements.24 This fits with Özdoğan and Gatsov’s description that most of the discovered finds from Ağaçlı were microliths, geometric tools, and pressure flaked microblades with specific Gravettian elements.25

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18

Gatsov – Özdoğan 1994. Gatsov – Özdoğan 1994, 102. Milić 2018. Reingruber 2016, 97–98. Gatsov – Özdoğan 1994, 102. Gatsov – Özdoğan 1994, 110. Özdoğan – Gatsov 1998. Kartal 2011. Özdoğan – Gatsov 1998, 213.

184

Rana Özbal – Fokke Gerritsen

Significantly, a small percentage of collected artefacts from each location is of obsidian.26 Research by Ercan and colleagues discovered that one of the obsidians discovered at Domalı derives from a Central Anatolian source.27 It cannot be ruled out that this piece dates to a later re-occupation of Domalı. However, if it is indeed Epipaleolithic or Mesolithic in date, it suggests that the hunter-gatherers were in contact with groups from Central Anatolia prior to the arrival of settled agricultural farmers. Hunting and gathering groups of the Epipaleolithic are known to have travelled great distances for raw materials including marine shells.28 Baysal in fact writes that “the general increase in the movement of materials during the Epipaleolithic may be a result of the wide-ranging transhumance of the populations at this time”.29 Indeed, traveling long distances must have been far from unusual for hunting and gathering groups. From this, it follows that networks of interaction between Central Anatolia and Northwest Anatolia may have long predated the spread of agriculture. Sites with potential Epipaleolithic components were discovered in both the Küçük and Büyükçekmece regions during surveys conducted in 1983, including most notably Haramidere and Sultançiftliği.30 Ören Mevkii, found in 1982 in Çanakkale province, also yielded Epipaleolithic tools.31 Other sites such as İbo’nun Rampası and Göztepe, located in Yalova, yielded Epipaleolithic finds including a few obsidian blades.32 The presence of obsidian suggests, as in the Domalı example above, that these Epipaleolithic groups were part of inter-regional contact networks. It is unfortunate that our knowledge is restricted to surface scatters as none of the abovementioned sites have yet been excavated. A real breakthrough for the Marmara Region towards understanding the nature of the interaction will probably only ensue following future Epipaleolithic or Mesolithic Period excavations yielding clues for pre-agricultural lifestyles. The only absolute dates from the Mesolithic/Epipaleolithic of the Marmara Region comes from Yarımburgaz. The earliest, mid-ninth millennium date derives from a peat-like fill (Yarımburgaz Level 7b, 8550–8290 calBC, 1 sigma). Two other dates come from alternating black lenses and date to between the end of the eighth millennium (Yarımburgaz Level 7a, 7460–6690 calBC, 1 sigma) and the middle of the 7th millennium BC (Yarımburgaz Level 6, 6590–6430 calBC, 1 sigma).33

Stage 2: Aceramic Neolithic Sites in Northwest Anatolia The Aceramic Neolithic in Northwest Anatolia is represented at Keçiçayırı in Eskişehir province. While excavations here and at adjacent Cıbırada yielded small amounts of pottery resembling wares from Demircihöyük,34 some excavated sectors like Trench b88 lacked ceramics altogether. Here, excavations uncovered two round depressions, which appear as distinctive cuts into a pebbly layer.35 One of these circular cuts has a diameter of approximately 2.5 meters, large enough to be a small pit-house. However, the fill has not been removed and no clues identifying these as buildings exist. Keçiçayırı yielded a chipped stone industry that differs from that known from the Marmara Region save a single bullet core suggesting contacts with

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 26 27

Ercan et al. 1990; Gatsov – Özdoğan 1994, 101. Ercan et al. 1990, 28. Baysal 2013. Baysal 2013, 271. Özdoğan 1985. Özdoğan 1984. Esin 1992; Harmankaya et al. 1997. Özdoğan et al. 1991, 82; Thissen – Reingruber 2017, 128. Ware A & B; Seeher 1987. Efe et al. 2011, 13.

Farmer-Forager Interactions in the Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia: Reassessing the Evidence

185

the West. Instead, tabular flint chipped stone disks with steep/semi-steep irregular retouch and leaf points with retouch seem to be characteristic.36 A single core with two opposite platforms was also discovered but this differs in the way it was struck from a typical naviform core and is difficult to categorise.37 With a technology that according to J. Kozłowski resembles that of the Near Eastern PPN, the Keçiçayırı assemblage has been called the earliest evidence for Neolithic artefacts in Northwest Anatolia by Gatsov and Nedelcheva.38 Efe reports similar lithics from the sites of Kalkanlı and Asarkaya, also located in Eskişehir province, both of which yielded large scrapers (some with retouch) which Efe compares to scrapers from Aşıklı Höyük and Göbeklitepe.39 Sites dated to the Aceramic Neolithic, based on their lithic repertoires, have also been identified during surveys at Çalça Mevkii in Çanakkale province, Musluçeşme in Bandırma as well as at Küçükçekmece on the European side of Istanbul. Future systematic excavations will hopefully help determine whether permanent settlements existed in the Marmara Region in this time and what the nature of their subsistence economy was. Özdoğan reports that Çalça Mevkii yielded several flint scatters in an area of 300 × 200m. The knapped flint collected includes small and medium sized blades, scrapers and single platform cores as well as obsidian blades and flakes.40 While the survey at Çalça yielded three pieces of prehistoric pottery that belong, according to Özdoğan, to a “local version” of the Fikirtepe tradition, parts of the site, he suggests, may still pre-date this time-period and show a complete absence of pottery altogether.41 Further investigations here could focus on this noted disproportion in the distribution of ceramics across the site to determine whether the lithic scatters are remnants of specialised lithic workshops or do indeed represent an Aceramic phase. Today, flint mining from the Çan valley yields raw material for both domestic and international markets, attesting to the quality of the stone.42 Future investigations could determine whether this may have been an incentive for groups frequenting the site even during the Ceramic Neolithic and check both hypotheses with stratigraphically sound absolute dates. Perhaps as important as establishing a chronological framework would be to address the question of seasonality to understand whether habitation here was permanent or periodic. The presence of ceramics may suggest that at least parts of the site represent a (semi-)permanent Neolithic occupation. Obsidian, brought here from a distance, suggests that the inhabitants of the site, whether they were hunter gatherers or Neolithic farmers, were part of larger networks. A similar lithic scatter was discovered at Musluçeşme in Bandırma. It, likewise, extends across an area of 300 × 300m. No pottery was found at the site during Mehmet Özdoğan’s survey although a recent re-survey by Eylem Özdoğan in 2017 did yield small quantities of non-diagnostic prehistoric pottery.43 The lithics discovered at Musluçeşme appear to display different characteristics than those known in the Black Sea littoral and the Ağaçlı tradition. While blades dominate the assemblage in the latter, at Musluçeşme they comprised only 3.5%.44 Instead, flakes, chips, cores and a small percentage retouched tools were discovered. Musluçeşme, like Çalça Mevkii, extends over such a large area that assuming the entire area was a permanent habitation site is difficult. The questions to ask concerning the seasonality of the habitation and the exact chronology of the

36

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 37

Gatsov – Nedelcheva 2016. Gatsov – Nedelcheva 2011, 93. Kozłowski 2005; Gatsov – Nedelcheva 2011. Efe 2005, 111–112. Özdoğan 1990. Özdoğan 1990, 448; Özdoğan 1991, 347; Özdoğan – Gatsov 1998, 214. Hökelek – Kayacı 2000. Özdoğan – Gatsov 1998, 214; E. Özdoğan forthcoming. Özdoğan – Gatsov 1998, 215.

186

Rana Özbal – Fokke Gerritsen

site should be akin to those described above for Çalça. Though in small quantities, obsidian too was discovered at Musluçeşme.45 The investigations in Küçükçekmece on the Thracian side of Istanbul yielded three cores which show bi-directional naviform knapping,46 a technology foreign to this region and typical of the Levantine PPNB and the Central Anatolian Neolithic.47 These discoveries contribute to the emerging picture that at least intermittent, if not more regular, contact and communication existed with Central Anatolia in Aceramic times, if not earlier. Discoveries in Küçükçekmece also include some obsidian finds and a stone bowl base fragment.48 The collective implications of these finds are wide-ranging because they suggest that small groups from Neolithic core zones made intermittent forays into or even took up residence in Northwest Anatolia long before larger-scale migrations took place. They may have made use of networks of interaction that had their roots in Stage 1 as described above. Interestingly though, much of Turkish Thrace lacks such evidence for interaction altogether and clearly fell beyond the zone of immediate contact. Özdoğan has called attention to this cultural and perhaps environmental boundary.49 Istanbul’s coast on the European side falls on the southern/eastern side of the boundary, and unlike the rest of Turkish Thrace, was clearly explored by inhabitants from the core regions of the Neolithic. What prevented those who came to the European side of Istanbul from going further north? The lack of interaction despite the proximity of these adjacent regions, is surprising.

Stage 3: Pioneering Pre-Fikirtepe Neolithic Communities The earliest certain evidence for sedentary communities in Northwest Anatolia is found along the so-called Anatolian Corridor extending northwest from the Central Anatolian Konya Plain. This evidence comes from Keçiçayırı, Cıbırada50 and Demircihöyük51 in Eskişehir and Barcın Höyük in the Yenişehir Plain in Bursa.52 Unexcavated sites like Gövem Mevkii in Afyon may belong to this stage, too.53 A few of these sites were discussed above in Stage 2 because of the presence of sectors that lack pottery. There may be little time difference or even chronological overlap between Stage 2 and the start of Stage 3. Regardless, absolute dates from Barcın offer for the first time a chronological anchor to the narrative. A series of over 30 radiocarbon dates place the earliest levels at Barcın Höyük (VIe and VId1) starting at around 6600 calBC.54 If we assume that expansion through the Anatolian Corridor was not a single event but took place over a certain amount of time, foundation dates for Neolithic sites closer to Central Anatolia may be somewhat earlier. By the end of the first half of the 7th millennium BC, following initial explorations in the abovementioned Stage 2, we witness the first steps towards settling down in Northwest Anatolia. Keçiçayırı was located near the Akdere flint outcrop that had been exploited by the inhabitants of Çatalhöyük as early as Level G, one of the oldest levels reached there.55 This reiterates that intra-regional contact takes place before any settling and suggests that the locations where

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 45 46

Özdoğan – Gatsov 1998. Aydıngün 2009. Quintero – Wilke 1995; Binder – Atlı 2001. Brami – Heyd 2011. Özdoğan 2017. Efe et al. 2011. Seeher 1987. Gerritsen et al. 2013a; Gerritsen et al. 2013b; Gerritsen – Özbal 2016. Koçak 2004, 39. Gerritsen – Özbal 2016, 200; Weninger et al. 2014. Nazaroff et al. 2013.

Farmer-Forager Interactions in the Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia: Reassessing the Evidence

187

Fig. 1   Barcın Höyük; generalised settlement plan of Phase VIe (c. 6600–6500 calBC)

these initial pioneers settled down must have been known and visited by Central Anatolian Neolithic agriculturalists already for some period of time before any step towards permanent settlement was taken.

188

Rana Özbal – Fokke Gerritsen

Both Keçiçayırı and Cıbırada yielded pre-Fikirtepe pottery assemblages resembling Barcın’s VIe assemblage and Demircihöyük Ware A. This includes closed holemouth jars, some with antisplash rims or lug handles.56 Like at Demircihöyük, where Ware A is also called ‘Schieferware’, the Keçiçayırı wares are tempered with crushed schist, precisely the dominant additive found among the ceramics from Barcın Höyük Level VIe.57 Overall, this suggests some sort of contact between the Eskişehir Plain and the Yenişehir valley in the mid-7th millennium BC. Ceramics found at Gövem Mevkii, North of Bolvadin in Afyon Province, are also described as ‘pre-Fikirtepe wares’ because of their close affinity to Keçiçayırı assemblages.58 While pottery may be an adequate indicator of a Neolithic lifestyle, botanical and zooarchaeological data are needed to assess the nature of the food economy in the process of Neolithisation. Ecofact-based data dating to prior to 6400 BC are currently only known from Barcın Höyük. Evidence suggests that the inhabitants at Barcın Höyük relied fully on domesticated crops and animals from the earliest levels onwards.59 The economic plants from levels VIe and VId1 include pulses like lentils and chick peas, nuts like hazelnuts and cereals including emmer and einkorn wheat, hulled and naked barley, bread wheat as well as durum wheat.60 Likewise, zooarchaeological remains indicate that the inhabitants of Barcın Höyük bred domesticated cattle and sheep, while goat was present but less abundant.61 Domesticated pigs were largely absent from this region until much later.62 Cattle and sheep could have been selected also for their secondary products, especially milk. Even in the lowest levels investigations of the pottery yielded a predominance of milk residues.63 Fish, molluscs as well as wild animals are present only in very small quantities in the assemblage.64 All these data indicate that the earliest inhabitants of Barcın Höyük were bringing a package of domesticated plants and animals to colonise the Yenişehir valley. Architecturally, Barcın VIe displays a construction technique that is, to our knowledge, hitherto unknown from other locations. Two adjacent rectangular buildings erected by the placement of heavy timber posts dug 40–60cm into virgin soil and placed in individual postholes were discovered (Fig. 1). In VId1, the subsequent phase, this technique was modified; instead, buildings were constructed with smaller timber posts set into foundation ditches. Four such structures aligned agglutinatively along their short walls were discovered in Barcın VId1 (Fig. 2).65 At Basal Menteşe, buildings of similar construction were also uncovered.66 In fact, the technique of placing smaller posts within ditches is one that continues throughout the region at Ilıpınar and Aktopraklık and forms the foundations of the Körös, Criş, Starčevo and LBK house-building traditions.67 In both the VIe and VId1 phases at Barcın house posts placed along the central axis, spaced widely were discovered.68 This suggests the presence of a pitched roof. Centrally located roof-supporting posts are also known from later traditions in the Balkans and Europe.69

56

58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 57

Efe at al. 2013, 24. Seeher 1987, 18; Efe 2005, 109; Gerritsen et al. 2013a. Koçak 2004, 39. Galik 2013; Balcı 2018; Galik 2018. Balcı 2018. Galik 2013; Galik 2018. Buitenhuis 1995; Arbuckle 2013. Thissen et al. 2010; Özbal et al. 2011; Özbal et al 2012; Özbal et al 2013. Galik 2013; Galik 2018. Özbal – Gerritsen 2015. Roodenberg – Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2008. Bánffy 2013. Gerritsen – Özbal 2016. Bánffy 2013.

Farmer-Forager Interactions in the Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia: Reassessing the Evidence

Fig. 2   Barcın Höyük; generalised settlement plan of Phase VId1 (c. 6500–6400 calBC)

189

190

Rana Özbal – Fokke Gerritsen

Stage 4: Established Neolithic Communities in Northwest Anatolia: The Fikirtepe Phase This stage covers the period when the question of the relationship between Neolithic farmers and foraging groups in Northwest Anatolia can be addressed with archaeological evidence.70 As mentioned in the introduction, the interpretation of the Fikirtepe Culture as a merging of farmer and forager communities is largely based on excavated Neolithic materials from sites in the greater Istanbul area, also identified as coastal sites. This section discusses the evidence under three subheadings that focus on architecture and settlement organisation, subsistence patterns and burial practices of sites dating to the Fikirtepe Phase, primarily in and around Istanbul but also across Northwest Anatolia in general. Except for a radiocarbon date from the Neolithic levels of Yenikapı (6000–5920 calBC, 1 sigma),71 no absolute dates have been published for sites in the Istanbul Region. Based on ceramic comparisons with Barcın and Ilıpınar, we estimate that the earliest known Neolithic occupation in the Istanbul region likely dates to after 6300 calBC and that it continues into the 6th millennium as confirmed by Yenikapı. Hence, the assumption often made and cited in publications,72 that the Neolithic occupation for the Istanbul Region extends as far back as 6500 BC, is not based on concrete evidence. Chronologically, instead, a mid-7th millennium date may reflect a picture more representative of “Stage 3” or the “pre-Fikirtepe” phases further inland at sites like Barcın Höyük VIe–VId1 and Basal Menteşe and may not apply to the Fikirtepe culture of Istanbul. Hence, by approximately 6300 calBC Barcın and Menteşe begun to acquire new neighbours to the north at Fikirtepe and Pendik. This is the start of the Fikirtepe Culture in its traditional sense. Aktopraklık C73 in Bursa province was likely founded in the 64th Century calBC. During the last few centuries of the 7th millennium BC, differences are visibly present in terms of architectural styles, burial practices, and subsistence economies between sites around Istanbul and those to the east in the Yenişehir valley. At the same time, pottery, small finds and lithic traditions display parallelism across the Eastern Marmara. This interesting juxtaposition raises questions concerning lifestyles and ancestral roots which are addressed below under the abovementioned sub-headings. An assessment of inland vs. coastal differences needs to take into account the potential chronological separation between archaeological evidence for a forager presence and the possible remnants of forager lifestyles among Fikirtepe groups.

Architecture and Settlement Organisation The diversity in the Marmara Region regarding architectural styles is among the main arguments in support of hunter-gatherer hybridity in coastal sites. As described above for Stage 3, rectangular post-mould architecture describes the main house layout in the Yenişehir valley in the mid 7th millennium BC. This same architectural form continues in Stage 4 in Barcın and Menteşe and, after 6000 calBC, at Ilıpınar level X.74 On the other hand, round or oval hut-like structures, typically semi-subterranean, are known from deposits in the Istanbul environs.75 However, by no means, should these be considered the only form of architecture among these coastal sites. In fact,

Özdoğan – Gatsov 1998; Karul 2011; Özdoğan 2013a; Karul 2017. The date comes from the level with footprints found −8.15m below the current sea level in the excavation (Kızıltan – Polat 2013, 129; Thissen – Reingruber 2017, 123). 72 For example, Evershed et al. 2008, Dönmez 2017, 95. 73 For Aktopraklık the earliest absolute date at present is 6380–6350 calBC, 1 sigma but further dates are necessary to corroborate whether the start of the settlement here could be earlier (Karul – Avcı 2011, 6; Thissen – Reingruber 2017, 124). 74 Roodenberg 1999b; Roodenberg – Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2008; Gerritsen et al. 2013a; Gerritsen et al. 2013b; Özbal – Gerritsen 2015; Gerritsen – Özbal 2016. 75 Bittel 1960; Bittel 1969/70; Harmankaya 1983; Özdoǧan 1983b; Pasinli et al. 1994; Özdoǧan 2013. 70 71

Farmer-Forager Interactions in the Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia: Reassessing the Evidence

191

Fig. 3   Barcın Höyük; profile of the semi-subterranean feature (above), photo of the feature looking east (below)

rectangular houses were the norm among the Yenikapı Neolithic architectural remains, though Kızıltan and Polat do report that “a small number were round or oval”.76 In the Marmaray sector of the Yenikapı excavations, for example, rectangular or almost square structures with stone foundations appear agglutinatively constructed in a rough linear arrangement parallel to an old water channel.77 Likewise, as mentioned above, recent excavations at Pendik yielded at least one rectilinear structure reported to be of kerpiç (i.e. mudbrick or mudslab) and to have small rectangular bins.78 Whether this is a residential structure, or a type of storage facility awaits confirmation. The presence of centrally positioned large postholes, presumably holding load-bearing wooden support posts,79 resembles the structures at Barcın although kerpiç is not an architectural component of sites in the Yenişehir valley. In addition to Pendik and Fikirtepe, round structures are also known from the southern Marmara Region: five circular semi-subterranean structures with diameters ranging from three to six meters were discovered at Aktopraklık C in the Bursa Region.80 Two of the structures contained

Kızıltan – Polat 2013, 116. No radiocarbon date is available for this settlement phase but the ceramics are reported to be of “Archaic Fikirtepe” style. The architecture has not been divided into specific sublevels which makes it difficult to assess its phasing but the publication suggests an elevation ca. a half meter lower in depth than the footprints, currently absolute dated to the very beginning of the 6th millennium BC (Kızıltan – Polat 2013, 128, fig. 8–10). 78 Özdoğan 2013b, 42. 79 Kızıltan 2013, 35. 80 Karul – Avcı 2011. 76 77

192

Rana Özbal – Fokke Gerritsen

hearths and one yielded a pair of burials, likely subfloor.81 At present, evidence for round structures east of Aktopraklık is ambiguous. At Barcın Höyük in Trench L13 excavations of VId1 yielded what may have been a semi-subterranean 50cm deep round structure with a diameter of 2.5m (Fig. 3).82 However, excavations could not ascertain if this was in fact architectural. With no clear postholes or roof supporting beams, the possibility remains that this was a large circular feature without a superstructure. Whether postholes can determine if a feature is an architectural structure is debatable as they were also not discovered at Pendik, Fikirtepe, or Aktopraklık C.83 Regardless, at all three sites wood traces were noted in the materials filling these round depressions. What makes these huts convincing as structures is the presence of hearths and other domestic features as well as the occasional presence of subfloor burials, all of which were lacking from the Barcın case.84 For the Barcın case a conclusive answer concerning the nature of the feature awaits micromorphological analyses. Rounded structures at Fikirtepe sites have been interpreted as a remnant of older forager lifestyles among communities that in most or all other respects had adopted a Neolithic lifestyle.85 It should be kept in mind, however, that we have no information on the Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic architecture in this region in pre-Neolithic Northwest Anatolia. Our closest parallels to semi-subterranean round and oval structures come from Mesolithic sites in the northwestern stretches of the Black Sea. They could hypothetically represent the architectural archetype for the Mesolithic of the Istanbul Region.86 Rounded buildings are considered architecturally more straightforward, lacking constructional techniques like joints and corners which are integral to rectangular timber frame structures.87 Yet the difference between round and rectangular dwellings cannot be reduced to methods of construction alone. This fundamental disparity in the organisation of the built environment may, in fact, reflect variability in the underlying household structure.88 Brami considers the rectangular house among the defining traits of Neolithisation.89 In effect, this concept indirectly challenges the idea that all inhabitants of 7th millennium sites in Istanbul province were immigrant farmers. It is difficult to imagine that immigrant Neolithic farmers would have abandoned their established techniques of rectangular architecture to switch to semi-subterranean round structures. This point alone is, in fact, perhaps the best piece of evidence in support of Mesolithic continuity in these coastal areas. Overall, these data necessitate a keen awareness of architectural differences between round and rectangular houses at the end of the 7th millennium in the Marmara Region and to understand that this may point to important clues regarding the potentially divergent lifestyles of the inhabitants. Nonetheless, interpretation of the round houses as a residual Mesolithic convention may require further support, hopefully in the form of new excavations exposing pre-Neolithic ways of residing. For the immediate future, a detailed analysis and publication of Pendik would be highly desirable to evaluate this question because, with the exception of Barcın with its ambiguous evidence for a round structure, Pendik remains the only site with definitive proof for the existence of both types of structures. It would be important to assess the relationship between round and rectangular buildings excavated here. What was their stratigraphic relationship and sequence? At what elevations were the round vs. rectangular structures excavated? What chronological clues does the associated pottery for each phase provide us? Were they contemporaneous or was one earlier? Were they discovered in the same part of the site or found in distant segments? Such

83 84 85 86 87 88 89 81 82

Kaycı 2013, 69, 72. Özbal et al. 2015. Bittel 1960; Bittel 1969/70; Harmankaya 1983; Karul 2017, 90. Özbal et al. 2015. Karul 2009; Özdoğan 2011a, 664; Düring 2011, 180–181; Düring 2016. Zvelebil – Lillie 2000; Bánffy et al. 2007; E. Özdoğan 2015. Lynn 1978. Flannery 1972. Brami 2017.

Farmer-Forager Interactions in the Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia: Reassessing the Evidence

193

details would supply us with much needed insights when trying to assess the relationship and perhaps even the nature and origin of round structures.

Subsistence Although animal husbandry was prominent across Northwest Anatolia in the Late Neolithic, sites in the Istanbul environs have been classified as relying heavily on hunted animals and fishing.90 However, in 2013, Çakırlar championed a compelling argument against this seemingly divergent picture regarding the subsistence economies of coastal and inland sites.91 After assessing the zooarchaeological data from both regions, she contested “the notion that foraging among early farmers in northwestern Anatolia was a persisting Mesolithic tradition, a relic of a broad-spectrum diet”.92 Instead, she argued that most scholars of Anatolian prehistory have tended to emphasise the importance of hunting for coastal sites in the Istanbul region while downplaying the significance of herding of domestic animals. In other words, her comparative analyses indicate that faunal data do not unambiguously support a model suggesting the merger of foragers and agriculturalists at coastal sites. Naturally, fish remains are more abundant at sites with close access to water resources and Çakırlar shows that this is even the case for coastal settlements of the Bronze Age.93 Here, Çakırlar’s data compiled in 2013 and the faunal results for a several additional sites are considered together. When a straightforward ratio of hunting versus herding, excluding mollusc and fish, whose availability is geographically predicated, is considered, all 7th millennium sites, both coastal and inland, in fact, show considerable overlap in their subsistence economies. The percentage of domesticates (based on %NISP values) at sites with levels dating to the second half of the 7th millennium such as Barcın,94 Basal Menteşe,95 Aktopraklık C,96 Fikirtepe,97 and Pendik98 consistently exceeds 85% and at some sites even approaches 95%. This means, that hunting comprised only a very small percent of the subsistence economy for both coastal and inland sites in the Fikirtepe Neolithic sequence. Only at the end of Stage 4, at the very end of the 7th or even in the early 6th millennium BC, some sites such as Menteşe Upper Levels,99 Ilıpınar X100 and Yenikapı101 show an increase in hunted animals. At Ilıpınar this value approaches 20%.102 In addition to hunting, the emerging picture on gathering demonstrates that shellfish exploitation and hence mollusc consumption is by far the highest at inland Ilıpınar Level X,103 far exceeding values from coastal sites like Fikirtepe and Pendik.104 While screening and other factors likely contribute to this picture, the current template suggests, as Çakırlar argues, that the evidence for using “aquatic foraging” as “a proxy for Mesolithic influence on Neolithic modes

92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 90 91

100

102 103 104 101

Özdoğan 1999; Çilingiroğlu 2005; Thissen et al. 2010; Düring 2011, 181; Çilingiroğlu et al. 2016, 2; Gölbaş 2016. Çakırlar 2013. Çakırlar 2015, 123. Çakırlar 2013, 70–71. Würtenberger 2012; Galik 2018. Gourichon – Helmer 2008. İzdal Çaydan 2018. Boessneck – Von den Driesch 1979. Çakırlar 2013, fig. 3. Gourichon – Helmer 2008. Buitenhuis 2008. Çakırlar 2013, fig. 3. Buitenhuis 2008, 217. Buitenhuis 2008. Çakırlar 2013, 66; Karul 2017, 11.

194

Rana Özbal – Fokke Gerritsen

of food acquisition … cannot be corroborated”.105 This emerging picture has recently been substantiated with isotopic evidence from human skeletons at Aktopralık. Aktopraklık is relatively far inland but overlooks Late Uluabat and has potential fresh-water foraging at its disposal. Moreover, the Neolithic settlement at Aktopraklık C yielded semi-subterranean round huts considered, as described above, less representative for immigrant farmers and have instead been interpreted as the remaining vestiges of a Mesolithic lifestyle.106 Nonetheless, C and N isotopic data indicates an under-utilisation of aquatic resources both in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods.107 This lack of use of non-domesticated resources at Aktopraklık is noteworthy and indicates that food procurement was based on livestock.108 Together, faunal and isotopic data, as well as the reluctance to exploit natural resources may suggest a need for a more nuanced picture in terms of subsistence economies for the Neolithic of the eastern Marmara Region in the 7th millennium.

Burial Patterns Burial practices and the associated symbolism reflect an idealised manifestation of culturally specific attitudes to death.109 Therefore, local idiosyncrasies towards disposing of the dead may be indicative of influences from indigenous forager or immigrant farmer ways of life. Unfortunately, at least for Anatolia, we have very few Mesolithic burial examples. The single example from Girmeler Cave110 differs little from the following Neolithic, with an inhumation in flexed position, making it difficult to identify chronologically distinct trends in terms of burial style.111 Yenikapı is the only prehistoric site in northwestern Anatolia to date that has yielded several cremation burials. Kızıltan and Polat report that “the cremated burials must be contemporary with Yarımburgaz Layer IV”.112 Certainly, this is clear from the ceramic urns associated with them.113 Given their date (ca. 5500 BC), over a half millennium later than the Fikirtepe Phase, there is no reason to assume that they represent the persistence of pre-Neolithic burial practices in the region. Since all 7th millennium burials in the Marmara Region are, hence, simple inhumations in flexed position, this section considers specific aspects of internment such as their location within the settlement and the use of wooden boards instead of the manner/position in which burials were interred.114 In terms of settlement layout and the contexts of the Neolithic burials of Northwest Anatolia, the general trend, at least for adult burials in the İznik-Yenişehir Region, is that they tend to be placed in courtyard areas outside the houses.115 At some sites, children were placed either between houses like at Menteşe116 or in the annex area just adjacent to the outer wall of the structures like at Barcın.117 Infants, on the other hand, tend to be placed beneath house floors or in abandoned houses.118 Exceptions to the rule exist: some adults burials were placed beneath house

107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 105 106

Çakırlar 2013, 74. Karul 2009, 4. Budd et al. 2013; Budd et al. 2017. İzdal Çaydan 2018. Hodder 1982. Takaoğlu et al. 2014. Lichter 2017. Kızıltan – Polat 2013, 125; see also Özdoğan 2011b, 423. Yılmaz 2011, 302; Kızıltan – Polat 2013, 160–163; Yılmaz 2014, 269–270. See also Brami 2014, 2017. Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. 2013; Roodenberg – Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2013, 88. Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2001. Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. 2013. Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2008; Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. 2013; Lichter 2017, 115.

Farmer-Forager Interactions in the Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia: Reassessing the Evidence

195

floors,119 in ditches and others even in the midden dump.120 Likewise, some infants were located in the outskirts of the settlement.121 Sites with round subterranean huts such as Pendik and Fikirtepe, however, have evidence for burials placed intramurally beneath house floors. Herein may lie another suggested difference between coastal and inland settlements, or in other words between communities with and without forager influence.122 Intramural burials occur at Fikirtepe where one of the four intact burials were placed in a courtyard area away from the houses (Burial 2), but the remaining three were near houses or beneath house floors. An isolated skull was also discovered at some distance from the huts, perhaps from a disturbed grave.123 Excavations so far at Pendik (in 1981, 1994 and 2012–13 combined) yielded at least 73 burials, only two of which were intramural.124 Both of these sub-floor burials were discovered in the 1981 season beneath two different huts.125 Pasinli and co-authors distinctly report that none of the 30 skeletons excavated in the 1992 was associated with any architecture. Unlike sites in the Yenişehir valley, there seems to be no allocated spaces for particular age-classes; adults, children and foetuses were placed together irrespective of age.126 Two animal skeletons were also discovered although the report does not specify what kind of animals they could be. Renewed rescue excavations at Pendik in 2012–13 yielded an additional 41 burials. Kızıltan describes one specific location where burials were placed so densely together that new graves sometimes led to the (un)intended discovery of older inhumations and the consequent placement of earlier bones into secondary burial “piles”.127 As in the 1994 excavations, adults and children were found buried together.128 Also, although the precise number has not been specified, the latest phase of excavations at Pendik yielded more round structures but no burials were found in association with them.129 Aktopraklık C, a non-coastal site with round semi subterranean huts, displays a settlement pattern that parallels Fikirtepe and Pendik. One of the five round structures discovered yielded two adult burials. Karul and Özeren suggest that these burials are potentially subfloor burials but admit no clear floors were recovered. They also report that the area in and around these circular huts was used as a Chalcolithic cemetery.130 Indeed, over 50 burial pits have cut either the architectural remains or the surrounding courtyard spaces.131 A few of these burial pits belong to extramural Neolithic graves including one instance where the burial was cut directly into the bedrock.132 The burials at Yenikapı represent both single and multiple burials. Yılmaz in her analyses provides little contextual information regarding their provenience, but Kızıltan and Polat briefly report that burials were found in the “southern end of buildings”.133 This suggest that intramural burial practices may be at play at this site, at least for the inhumations. Wooden boards were used in some of the burials but this in no way represents a standard procedure; the way in which wood

At Menteşe and Ilıpınar: Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2006, 51; Roodenberg et al. 2003, 18–19; Roodenberg – Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2013, 89. 120 At Barcın: Gerritsen – Özbal 2012, 158; Gerritsen et al. 2013a, 95, fig. 5; Özbal et al. 2015, 620. 121 At Ilıpınar X and IX: Roodenberg – Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2013, 75, 88. 122 Özdoğan 2011b, 423; Özdoğan 2013a, 194–195. 123 Bittel 1969/70. 124 Harmankaya 1983; Pasinli et al. 1994; Kızıltan 2013. 125 Harmankaya 1983. 126 Pasinli et al. 1994, 150–151. 127 Kızıltan 2013, 34. 128 Kızıltan 2013, 33. 129 Kızıltan 2013, 36. 130 Karul – Özeren 2007, 19. 131 Kaycı 2013, 69, fig. 26. 132 Avcı 2013, 123. 133 Yılmaz 2011; Kızıltan – Polat 2013, 125. 119

196

Rana Özbal – Fokke Gerritsen

was used varies from burial to burial.134 In some burials the boards were placed atop the burial,135 others had wood positioned beneath the body.136 The use of wooden boards in graves was also discovered at Ilıpınar X–VIII,137 at Menteşe’s Neolithic levels138 and at Barcın.139 Older examples of the practice come from the early levels of Çatalhöyük140 and is known from the later BACH trenches as well.141 In essence, if burial practices reflect local traditions of disposing the dead, the presence of evidence for the use of wooden boards in Çatalhöyük may be meaningful. It may signify the continuation in Northwest Anatolia of a practice with a legacy extending back to Central Anatolia. The tradition of using such wooden planks in burials is peculiar to Northwest and Central Anatolia.142 Unless factors of preservation are preventing the conservation and subsequent discovery of wooden boards elsewhere in Anatolia or beyond, their appearance in Central and then Northwest Anatolia may be indicative of the westward spread of a distinct cultural tradition.

Stage 5: Continuity and Change in the Early Chalcolithic Period This section on Stage 5 does not intend to provide a detailed overview into the 6th millennium levels in Northwest Anatolia. The turn of the 6th millennium, however, does bring with it some changes worth mentioning: both coastal sites like Pendik and Fikirtepe and inland sites like Barcın and Aktopraklık C disappear. In the case of Menteşe stratum 3, an abandonment is followed by a long hiatus.143 For the Eastern Marmara region residence resumes with the foundation of Ilıpınar by 6000 BC. Weninger et al. suggest that this shift may be in line with the end of the Rapid Climate Change.144 They report that the date of 6050 calBC marks a new exodus and overall relocation of settlements.145 Following Weninger’s line of argumentation, and the supra-regional trends in the establishment of new settlements around 6050 calBC, this date may also mark the establishment of habitation at Yenikapı.146 Ceramic comparisons corroborate this proposal: excavations of the lowest level yielded, for example, a well-burnished black-coloured and near-complete incised Fikirtepe Box with a combined checkerboard and meander design.147 Such incised rectangular vessels, the profiles of the pots, the shapes of the lugs, the presence of pierced lids and the “S” curvatures of the bowls,148 all closely resemble those published for Ilıpınar Level X.149 Indeed, the subsistence pattern reflected by Yenikapı parallels, to some extent, the model known from Ilıpınar. In contrast to the situation at 7th millennium Fikirtepe and Pendik where

136 137 138 139 140 141 134 135

144 145 142 143

146



149 147 148

Yılmaz 2011, 293. Kızıltan – Polat 2013, 156–157. Yılmaz 2011, 293. Roodenberg 1999a; Roodenberg – Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2013, 89. Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2001, 3; Roodenberg 1999b. Özbal et al. 2015, 621. Building 6, Burial F. 492; Farid 2007, 274. Building 3, Burial F. 631; Boz – Hager 2013. We would like to thank Scott Haddow for his insights on burial boards at Çatalhöyük. Lichter 2017. Roodenberg 1999b, 25. Weninger et al. 2014. At present no settlements in northwest Anatolia seem to bridge the 7th to 6th millennium transition although some sites along the Aegean coast do appear to show continuity (e.g. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012). Although making claims on a single date is less than desirable, an absolute date from close to the bottom levels of Yenikapı places the habitation at 5979–5924 calBC, 1 sigma (Kızıltan – Polat 2013), which means a date of around 6050 calBC, could be in line with cross-regional trends of site-establishment. Kızıltan – Polat 2013, 120, fig. 20, 24. Kızıltan – Polat 2013, fig. 23–24. Thissen 2001, fig. 4–14.

Farmer-Forager Interactions in the Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia: Reassessing the Evidence

197

domesticated pigs are very rare or completely absent,150 at Ilıpınar in the layers post-dating Level X, pigs consistently comprise between 14–19% of the faunal assemblage based on NISP values (including molluscs).151 At Yenikapı too, domestic pig comprises a notable portion of the diet, as indicated from the faunal record152 and the lipid residue analyses. H. Özbal and collaborators identified porcine lipids in nine of the twelve or 75% of the potsherds analysed.153 By around 5800 BC the settlements of Ilıpınar VI and Aktopraklık B in the Eastern Marmara Region and Aşağıpınar 7 and 6 in Turkish Thrace show evidence for an early form of what Korfmann called an “Anatolian Settlement Plan” where houses with relatively standard features are aligned to form a large circular enclosure.154 At least at Aktopraklık, a cemetery located at some distance from the settlement was found.155 Likewise, at Ilıpınar, Roodenberg reports that “from Phase VIII onwards … the dead had shifted to the periphery”.156

Stage 6: Middle Chalcolithic Period and Beyond By the middle of the 6th millennium BC, semi-subterranean rounded structures re-appear in the region in the Middle Chalcolithic at sites such as Ilıpınar Level VB and Aktopraklık B.157 They now represent the only known architectural form in the region. The return to semi-subterranean structures at this time has been interpreted as evidence for seasonal occupation.158 Regardless, as is clear from the faunal assemblages a great majority of the animal foods eaten were from domesticated herds.159 In terms of the percentage of domesticated animals and the ground plans of the structures, the data closely resembles the huts excavated at Fikirtepe and Pendik nearly a millennium before. Yenikapı continues into the Middle Chalcolithic and the cremations discovered are reported to be contemporary with the Yarımburgaz IV Phase of the mid-6th millennium, as mentioned above. The pottery is incised and decorated and has been likened by Özdoğan to resemble textile patterns.160 At Yenikapı, such decorated pottery comprised only 1.1% of the assemblage while “impresso” sherds were prolific at nearly 30%.161 No architectural remains specifically reported to date to the Yarımburgaz IV Phase have been described at Yenikapı. This is also the case for Yarımburgaz Cave, although a clear hiatus was noted between cave levels 3 and 4.162 A radiocarbon date for Yarımburgaz 4 dates the deposits to 5870–5310 calBC, 1 sigma.163 Occupation at Yenikapı appears to continue without a hiatus into the subsequent Toptepe Culture horizon.164 Kızıltan and Polat report that Toptepe-like ceramics were discovered at an elevation of above −6.3m below sea level especially in the Western part of Zone 1 of the Marmaray area.165 Indeed, a radiocarbon sample from this transition (at −6.4m) from this area (Trench K-30) yielded a date of 5050–4980, which fits with the Toptepe culture and marks the terminal end of

150

152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 151

Arbuckle 2013. Buitenhuis 2008, 214–215. Çakırlar 2014, 80. Özbal et al. 2014, 85–86. Korfmann 1983. Karul 2017, 107. Roodenberg 2008, 73. Roodenberg – Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2013, 86; Karul 2017, 112–113. Roodenberg 2001, 231–235; Karul 2017. Buitenhuis 2008, 214. Özdoğan 2013a, 177. Kızıltan – Polat 2013, 120. Özdoğan et al. 1991. Özdoğan 2007; Thissen – Reingruber 2017, 128. Kızıltan – Polat 2013. Kızıltan – Polat 2013, 115.

198

Rana Özbal – Fokke Gerritsen

the prehistoric occupation at Yenikapı.166 No architecture is reported to have been associated with the Toptepe Culture from Yenikapı.167 Late 6th millennium deposits are found primarily at Toptepe in Tekirdağ168 and Levels 3 and 4 of Aşağı Pınar in Kırklareli where they are found together with Karanovo IV material.169

Discussion and Conclusion The main intention of this paper has been to assess forager-farmer interactions of the mid-late 7th millennium BC, and to evaluate existing hypotheses on the impact of these interactions on the Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia. This was done by a systematic presentation of various strands of fragmentary evidence from the Marmara Region in six consecutive stages. Drawing a conclusive answer regarding the nature of the relationship between farmers and foragers based only on archaeological data is difficult at present, but several inferences can be made. Summarising, the following sequence can be proposed. Forager groups were present in the Marmara Region during the Epipalaeolithic or Mesolithic (Stage 1). Aceramic Neolithic groups, presumably with links with Central Anatolian communities, settled down in small numbers in the Eskişehir Region and the Marmara Region, at least intermittently (Stage 2). Shortly before the middle of the 7th millennium, a new influx of pioneer farmers appears in the Eskişehir Region and in the southeastern extent of the Marmara Region (Stage 3). There is no evidence from sites in this stage that farmer-forager interactions had any effect on the lifestyles of their inhabitants. The available faunal (and botanical) data indicate that the subsistence economy during this stage, and during much of Stage 4, relied to a very high degree on domesticated resources. During the last quarter of the 7th millennium, there is an increase in the number of Neolithic settlements, and they now occur in inland as well as in coastal locations (Stage 4). Together they represent the Fikirtepe Culture, and it is mainly during this stage that models of farmer-forager interaction find possible support in the archaeological evidence. By the start of the 6th millennium, in the Early Chalcolithic, there is an abandonment or shift in location of many settlements, as well as new foundations, both in coastal and in inland areas (Stage 5). By the middle of the 6th millennium, the settlement evidence becomes scarcer and shows different architectural traditions and settlement layout (Stage 6). For the European Neolithic, John Robb has evaluated various models for the interaction of foraging groups and Neolithic farmers and provides several potential scenarios of contact.170 His six-item list of the choices that foraging populations may be confronted with includes on the one extreme a total rejection and on another a full adoption of Neolithic lifestyles.171 The intermediary scenarios represent situations where selective Neolithic elements are incorporated into foraging economies or some local Neolithic habits and technological knowhow are adopted by hunting and gathering groups. The early Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia (as well as that of the Aegean Coast) may also have proceeded along one or more of these scenarios. Robb suggests that Neolithic colonisation involved small groups and kinship units which moved opportunistically to empty enclaves to settle the landscape. This may have been the case

Kızıltan – Polat 2013, 128. However, the architecture at this transition at −6.3m from Trenches G–H–I–J 17/25 is reported to have yielded “a high number of pottery fragments … closely similar to those of the Fikirtepe Culture” (Kızıltan – Polat 2013, 116). Since the authors tend to use the appellation “Advanced Fikirtepe” when discussing Yarımburgaz IV, this may in fact refer to a terminological difference. If so, this level would indeed provide an architectural correspondent for the Yarımburgaz IV phase of Istanbul province (see Stage 5 above). 168 Özdoğan et al. 1991. 169 Özdoğan 2013a, 179. 170 Robb 2013. 171 Robb 2013, 662. 166 167

Farmer-Forager Interactions in the Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia: Reassessing the Evidence

199

in Northwest Anatolia in Stages 2 and 3. For Stages 3 and after, when the evidence points overwhelmingly to a subsistence economy based on crop cultivation and animal husbandry, the question is to what extent colonising farmers ignored or incorporated indigenous foragers into their communities and rejected or adopted forager habits and technological knowhow. Robb argues that pioneers preferably selected ecological niches that resemble those from their homelands.172 Indeed, Barcın Höyük, for example, founded on the edge of a swampy wetland environment, may parallel the environmental situation known from Çatalhöyük in the 7th millennium BC.173 New environmental zones may attract incoming groups and new resources or raw materials may foster a range of unique adaptations. However, some environmental zones may be so different that colonisation may not occur. Robb explains: migrating groups “tend to halt when they encounter either very different environments or dense forager settlements... resulting frontier zones can last a long time”.174 This may partially explain the long-standing boundary between the Istanbul Region and the territories to the west in Turkish Thrace, which seem to be in place until at least Stage 5.175 This potentially environmentally predicated divide may extend as far back as the Middle or even Lower Palaeolithic.176 For the Marmara Region itself, it is interesting to ponder the possibility of a period (esp. Stage 3) during which immigrant farmers had colonised the southeastern Marmara Region, while forager groups, descendants from the Epipalaeolithic or Mesolithic groups of Stage 1, were occupying the greater Istanbul area. For the latter, there is admittedly no evidence at present, unless some of the material from the Ağaçlı sites represents 7th millennium forager groups. Visible or not in the archaeological data, any model that supposes that Fikirtepe sites (Stage 4) in the greater Istanbul area represent a merger of farmer and forager groups must assume that there remained foragers present in the region during Stages 2 and 3. Viewed in this light, if the rectangular house represents a way of life deeply entrenched with Neolithic habits,177 then the round/ oval semi-subterranean architecture known from the late 7th millennium settlements of Fikirtepe, Pendik and Aktopraklık raises questions. Were they used according to different, non-Neolithic, habitation practices? If so, then this must be viewed as a remnant of the practices of hunting and gathering groups, as has been argued above. This theory is indeed attractive and cannot be overlooked. Nevertheless, we should keep in mind the important caveats that 1) actual information on the habitation practices and associated architecture of Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic foragers is still missing; 2) this supposed forager influence does not appear until the last few centuries of the 7th millennium BC, i.e. well after the appearance of farming communities; and 3) rounded semi-subterranean structures are also a feature of the architecture among later groups (in Stage 6). Other elements that have been proposed as demonstrations of farmer-forager interaction, such as the suggested differences in subsistence and burials, on further evaluation appear to be less convincing. Following Çakırlar, for example, sites such as Fikirtepe and Pendik, with 85–90% of its mammals coming from domesticated stock, must be viewed as settlements of herders or foragers who had already adopted herding.178 Likewise, burials seem to show variability beyond the typical coastal-inland divisions that have been proposed. The number of subfloor burials from sites with round architecture do indeed exceed those from those with rectangular structures, suggesting that there are culturally distinct ways of burying the dead. However, at the coastal site of Pendik, only a small percentage of the currently known inhumations were found beneath residential floors and other exceptions govern sites in inland settlements as well.

172

174 175 176 177 178 173

Robb 2013, 658. Roberts – Rosen 2009; Groenhuijzen et al. 2015. Robb 2013, 659. Özdoğan 2017. Runnels 2003. Brami 2017. Çakırlar 2013, fig. 4.

200

Rana Özbal – Fokke Gerritsen

A hopeful note for this largely archaeological-material based paper is that in the future, ancient DNA analysis, with its potential to show patterns of migration and genetic admixture, will offer new avenues for research. For the European Neolithic such analyses of foragers and farmers have recently been yielding convincing results.179 The potential that skeletal data from the Istanbul region possesses has already been observed by Özdoğan, who enthusiastically recognised the importance of both the “biogenetic” and the “isotopic” promise that the recently excavated burials from Pendik carry.180 We can conclude that the evidence for the contemporaneous usage of diverse architectural traditions in the last quarter of the 7th millennium (Stage 4) offers the strongest indication that Neolithic communities in Northwest Anatolia had incorporated forager groups and some of their habitation practices. But it also needs to be noted that in Stage 4 we see the aftermath of processes of farmer-foragers contact, interaction and merging. As discussed, by this stage foraging activities themselves were no longer of significance in the subsistence economy. Earlier stages of interaction that must have taken place when foragers and farmers existed as more or less distinct groups are, archaeologically, largely invisible. Their occurrence can only be gleaned from the finds of non-local obsidian during Stage 1 at surface scatters like Domalı and Gümüşdere and in the peat levels of Yarımburgaz Cave. The rather predictable but unavoidable conclusion of this reassessment of the evidence for forager-farmer interaction in the Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia, therefore has to be that there is an urgent need to increase our datasets for Stages 1 and 2. Following the excavations of Barcın Höyük that has given us detailed insights into a pioneering farming community of Stage 3, real progress in understanding the local, forager, component in the Neolithisation of the region can only come from excavations at one of the Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic and of the Aceramic Neolithic sites that we know are present. Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Barbara Horejs and Maxime Brami for inviting us to the Central-Western Anatolian Farming Frontier roundtable at the 2016 ICAANE conference. The Barcın Höyük Excavations were conducted under the auspices of the Netherlands Institute in Turkey, with funding from NWO, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (2007–2015) and National Geographic (2015). The authors would like to thank the team members of the Barcın Höyük Project, in particular, Laurens Thissen, Alfred Galik, René Cappers and Hüreyla Balcı for sharing their in-depth knowledge of the Barcın Höyük ceramic assemblage (LT), and faunal (AG) and botanical (RC, HB) remains.

References Algan et al. 2011 O. Algan – M. N. Yalçın – M. Özdoğan – Y. Yılmaz – E. Sarı – E. Kırcı-Elmas – İ. Y. Yılmaz, Holocene coastal change in the ancient harbor of Yenikapı-Istanbul and its impact on cultural history, Quaternary Research 76, 1, 2011, 30–45. Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2001 S. Alpaslan-Roodenberg, Newly found human remains from Menteşe in the Yenişehir plain. The season of 2000, Anatolica 27, 2001, 1–14. Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2006 S. Alpaslan-Roodenberg, Death in Neolithic Ilıpınar, in: I. Gatsov – H. Schwartzberg (eds.), Aegean – Marmara – Black Sea. Present State of the Research on the Early Neolithic, Schriften des Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes 5 (Langenweißbach 2006) 47–57. Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2008 S. Alpaslan-Roodenberg, The Neolithic cemetery. The anthropological view, in: Roodenberg – Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2008, 35–67.

179 180

Lazaridis et al. 2014; González-Fortes 2017. Özdoğan 2013b, 43.

Farmer-Forager Interactions in the Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia: Reassessing the Evidence

201

Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2011 S. Alpaslan-Roodenberg, A preliminary study of the burials from Late Neolithic – Early Chalcolithic Aktopraklık, Anatolica 37, 2011, 17–43. Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. 2013 S. Alpaslan-Roodenberg – F. Gerritsen – R. Özbal, Neolithic burials from Barcın Höyük, Anatolica 39, 2013, 93–111. Arbuckle 2013 B. S. Arbuckle, The late adoption of cattle and pig husbandry in Neolithic Central Turkey, Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 2013, 1805–1815. doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2012.12.008. Arne 1922 F. G. Arne, Den äldstra bebyggelsen vid Bosporen, Fornväennen 17, 1922, 269–272. Avcı 2013 M. B. Avcı, Aktopraklık Verileri Işığında Doğu ve Güneydoğu Marmara’da Fikirtepe Çanak Çömleğinin Gelişim Süreci (PhD Diss., Istanbul University, Istanbul 2013). Aydıngün 2009 Ş. Aydıngün, Early Neolithic discoveries at Istanbul, Antiquity 83, 2009, 320. Balcı 2018 H. Balcı, Kuzeybatı Anadolu’da Tarımın Başlangıcı. Barcın Höyük Bitki Kalıntıları Üzerine bir Değerlendirme (MA thesis, Istanbul University 2018). Bánffy et al. 2007 E. Bánffy – W. J. Eichmann – T. Marton, Mesolithic foragers and the spread of agriculture in western Hungary, in: J. K. Kozłowski – M. Nowak (eds.), Mesolithic/Neolithic Interactions in the Balkans and in the Middle Danube Basin, BAR International Series 1726 (Oxford 2007) 53–82. Bánffy 2013 E. Bánffy, Tracing the beginning of sedentary life in the Carpathian basin, in: D. Hofmann – J. Smyth (eds.), Tracking the Neolithic House in Europe (New York 2013) 117–149. Baysal 2013 E. Baysal, Epipalaeolithic marine shell beads at Pınarbaşı. Central Anatolia from an eastern Mediterranean perspective, Anatolica 39, 2013, 261–276. Bittel 1960 K. Bittel, Fikirtepe Kazısı, Türk Tarih Kurumu Kongresi 5, 2013, 29–36. Bittel 1969/70 K. Bittel, Bemerkungen über die prähistorische Ansiedlung auf dem Fikirtepe bei Kadiköy, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 19, 1969/70, 19–20. Binder – Balkan-Atlı 2001 D. Binder – N. Balkan-Atlı, Obsidian exploitation and blade technology at Kömürcü-Kaletepe (Cappadocia, Turkey), in: I. Caneva – C. Lemorini – D. Zampetti – P. Biaggi (eds.), Beyond Tools. Redefining the PPN Lithic Assemblages of the Levant (Berlin 2001) 1–16. Boessneck – Von den Driesch 1979 J. Boessneck – A. Von den Driesch, Die Tierknochenfunde aus der neolithischen Siedlung auf dem Fikirtepe bei Kadiköy am Marmarameer (München 1979). Boz – Hager 2013 B. Boz – L. D. Hager, Living above the dead. Intramural burial practices at Çatalhöyük, in I. Hodder (ed.), Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 2000–2008 Seasons (Los Angeles 2013) 413–440. Bramanti et al. 2009 B. Bramanti – M. G. Thomas – W. Haak – M. Unterlaender – P. Jores – K. Tambets – I. Antanaitis-Jacobs – M. N. Haidle – R. Jankauskas – C.-J. Kind – F. Lueth – T. Terberger – J. Hiller – S. Matsumura – P. Forster – J. Burger, Genetic discontinuity between local hunter-gatherers and Central Europe’s first farmers, Science 326, 5949, 2009, 137–140.

202

Rana Özbal – Fokke Gerritsen

Brami 2014 M. N. Brami, House-related practices as markers of the Neolithic expansion from Anatolia to the Balkans, Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology 4, 2, 2014, 161–177. Brami 2017 M. N. Brami, The Diffusion of Neolithic Practices from Anatolia to Europe. A Contextual Study of Residential Construction, 8,500–5,500 BC Cal., BAR International Series 2838 (Oxford 2017). Brami – Heyd 2011 M. Brami – V. Heyd, The origins of Europe’s first farmers. The role of Hacılar and western Anatolia, fifty years on, Prähistorische Zeitschrift 86, 2, 2011, 165–206. Budd et al. 2013 G. Budd – M. Lillie – S. Alpaslan-Roodenberg – N. Karul – R. Pinhasi, Stable isotope analysis of Neolithic and Chalcolithic populations from Aktopraklık, northern Anatolia, Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 2013, 860–867. Budd et al. 2017. C. Budd – N. Karul – S. Alpaslan-Roodenberg – A. Galik – R. Schulting – M. Lillie, Diet, uniformity at an early farming community in northwest Anatolia (Turkey). Carbon and nitrogen isotope studies of bone collagen at Aktopraklık, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 2017, 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s12520-017-0523-4. Buitenhuis 1995 H. Buitenhuis, The faunal remains, in: J. Roodenberg (ed.), The Ilıpınar Excavations I, Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Osten te Leiden 72 (Istanbul 1995) 151–156. Buitenhuis 2008 H. Buitenhuis, Ilıpınar. The faunal remains from the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic Levels, in: E. L. Vila – L. Gourichon – A. Choyke – H. Buitenhuis (eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East VIII. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas (Lyon 2008) 299–322. Çakırlar 2013 C. Çakırlar, Rethinking Neolithic subsistence at the gateway to Europe with new archaeozoological evidence from Istanbul, in: M. Groot – D. Lentjes – J. Zeiler (eds.), Barely Surviving or More than Enough. The environmental archaeology of subsistence, specialisation and surplus food production (Leiden 2013) 59–79. Çakırlar 2014 C. Çakırlar, Bir zamanlar İstanbul’da hayvancılık, avcılık ve balıkçılık, in: Ş. Baltaş – Ş. Altun (eds.), Hayalden Gereğe. Bir İstanbul Öyküsü Marmaray (Istanbul 2011) 80–83. Çakırlar 2015 C. Çakırlar, Adaptation, identity, and innovation in Neolithic and Chalcolithic western Anatolia (6800–3000 cal. BC). The evidence from aquatic mollusk shells, Quaternary International 390, 2015, 117–125. Çevik – Abay 2016 Ö. Çevik – E. Abay, Neolithisation in Aegean Turkey. Towards a more realistic reading, in: Ü. Yalçın (ed.), Anatolian Metal VII. Anatolien und seine Nachbarn vor 10.000 Jahren / Anatolia and Neighbours 10.000 years ago, Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 31 (Bochum 2016) 187–197. Çilingiroğlu et al 2012 A. Çilingiroğlu – Ö. Çevik – Ç. Çilingiroğlu, Ulucak Höyük. Towards understanding the early farming communities of middle West Anatolia. The contribution of Ulucak, in: M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 4: Western Turkey (Istanbul 2012) 139–175. Çilingiroğlu 2005 Ç. Çilingiroğlu, The concept of ‘Neolithic Package’. Considering its meaning and applicability, Documenta Praehistorica 32, 2005, 1–13. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2016 Ç. Çilingiroğlu – F. Gerritsen – B. Horejs – J. Burger – S. Shennan, Neolithic Archaeology in Northwest Anatolia, the Balkans and central Europe, in: Z. Hofmanová – S. Kreutzer – G. Hellenthal – Ch. Sell – Y. Diekmann – D. Díez-del-Molino – L. van Dorp – S. López – A. Kousathanas – V. Link – K. Kirsanow – L. M. Cassidy – R. Martiniano – M. Strobel – A. Scheu – K. Kotsakis – P. Halstead – S. Triantaphyllou – N. Kyparissi-Apostolika –

Farmer-Forager Interactions in the Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia: Reassessing the Evidence

203

D. Urem-Kotsou – Ch. Ziota – F. Adaktylou – S. Gopalan – D. M. Bobo – L. Winkelbach – J. Blöcher – M. Unterländer – Ch. Leuenberger – Ç. Çilingiroğlu – B. Horejs – F. Gerritsen – St. J. Shennan – D. G. Bradley – M. Currat – K. R. Veeramah – D. Wegmann – M. G. Thomas – Ch. Papageorgopoulou – J. Burger, Early farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113, 25, 2016, 6886–6891, Appendix SI1 Archaeological Background. Derin 2012 Z. Derin, Yeşilova Höyük, in: M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 4: Western Turkey (Istanbul 2012) 177–195. Dönmez 2017 Ş. Dönmez, Yeni Bulgular Işığında İstanbul Öntarihi, Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 21, 2017, 93–116. Düring 2011 B. S. Düring, The Prehistory of Asia Minor. From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (Cambridge, New York 2011). Düring 2016 B. S. Düring, The 8.2 event and the Neolithic expansion in western Anatolia, in: P. Biehl – O. Nieuwenhuyse (eds.), Climate and Cultural Change in Prehistoric Europe and the Near East (New York 2016) 135–150. Efe 2005 T. Efe, The neolithization in inland northwestern Anatolia, in: C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th Through the First Half of the 6th Millennium calBC. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul, 20–22 May 2004, Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005) 107–116. Efe et al. 2011 T. Efe, – D. Sarı – E. Fidan, The significance of the Keçiçayırı excavations in the prehistory of inland northwest Anatolia, in: N. Bilgen – R. von den Hoff – S. Sandalcı – S. Silek (eds.), Archaeological Research in Western Central Anatolia (Kütahya 2011) 9–28. Ercan et al. 1990 T. Ercan, – Z. Yeğingil – G. Bigazzi – M. Odonne – M. Özdoğan, Kuzeybatı Anadolu Obsidyen Buluntularının Kaynak Belirleme Çalışmaları, Jeoloji Mühendisliği 36, 1990, 19–32. Esin 1992 U. Esin, İstanbul’un En Eski Buluntu Yerleri ve Kültürleri, in: Semavi Eyici Armağanı. İstanbul Yazıları (Istanbul 1992) 55–77. Evershed et al. 2008 R. P. Evershed – S. Payne – A. G. Sherratt – M. S. Copley – J. Coolidge – D. Urem-Kotsu – K. Kotsakis, – M. Özdoğan – A. E. Özdoğan – O. Nieuwenhuyse – P. M. Akkermans – D. Bailey – R.-R. Andeescu – S. Campbell – S. Farid – I. Hodder – N. Yalman – M. Özbaşaran – E. Bıçakcı – Y. Garfinkel – T. Levy – M. M. Burton, Earliest date for milk use in the Near East and southeastern Europe linked to cattle herding, Nature 455, 7212, 2008, 528–531. Farid 2007 S. Farid, Chapter 7: Level VIII, Space 161, Space 162, Building 4, Space 115, Building 21+7, Building 6 and relative heights of Level VIII, in: I. Hodder (ed.), Excavating Çatalhöyük. South, North and KOPAL Area Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 37 (Oxford 2007) 227–282. Flannery 1972 K. V. Flannery, The origin of the village as a settlement type in Mesoamerica and the Near East. A comparative study, in: P. Ucko – R. Tringham – G. Dimbleby (eds.), Man, Settlement and Urbanism (London 1972). Galik 2013 A. Galik, Barçın Höyük Zooarchaeology Data, Open Context 05.06.2013. doi: 10.6078/M7MS3QN7. Galik 2018 A. Galik, Unpublished Internal Report submitted to the Barcın Höyük Project, July 2018. Gatsov – Nedelcheva 2011 I. Gatsov – P. Nedelcheva, Neolithic chipped stone assemblages in northwest Anatolia, Turkey, Eurasian Prehistory 8, 2011, 89–95.

204

Rana Özbal – Fokke Gerritsen

Gatsov – Nedelcheva 2016 I. Gatsov – P. Nedelcheva, The Mesolithic/Neolithic transition in Bulgaria and western Anatolia. An overview, in: R. Krauß – H. Floss (eds.), Southeast Europe before Neolithisation. Proceedings of the International Workshop within the Collaborative Research Centres SFB 1070 “Ressourcenkulturen”, Schloss Hohentübingen, 9th of May 2014, RessourcenKulturen 1 (Tübingen 2016) 65–72. Gatsov – Özdoğan 1994 I. Gatsov – M. Özdoğan, Some Epi-Paleolithic sites from NW Turkey. Ağaçlı, Domalı and Gümüşdere, Anatolica 20, 1994, 97–120. Gerritsen – Özbal, 2012 F. Gerritsen – R. Özbal, 2010 Yılı Barcın Höyük Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 33, 4, 2012, 155–166. Gerritsen et al. 2013a F. Gerritsen – R. Özbal – L. Thissen, Barcın Höyük. The beginnings of farming in the Marmara region, in: Özdoğan et al. 2013, 93–112. Gerritsen et al. 2013b F. Gerritsen – R. Özbal – L. Thissen, The earliest Neolithic levels at Barcın Höyük, northwestern Turkey, Anatolica 39, 2013, 53–92. Gerritsen – Özbal 2016 F. Gerritsen – R. Özbal, Barcın Höyük and the pre-Fikirtepe neolithisation of the eastern Marmara region, in: Ü. Yalçın (ed.), Anatolian Metal VII. Anatolien und seine Nachbarn vor 10.000 Jahren / Anatolia and Neighbours 10.000 years ago, Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 31 (Bochum 2016) 211–220. Gölbaş 2016 A. Gölbaş, Yerleşim Yerlerinin Seçiliş Biçimleri. Neolitik Kıyı Yerleşmelerine Bir Bakış, Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi / Journal of International Social Research 9, 45, 2016, 317–327. González-Fortes et al. 2017 G. González-Fortes – E. R. Jones – E. Lightfoot – C. Bonsall – C. Lazar – A. Grandal-d’Anglade – A. Boroneanţ, Paleogenomic evidence for multi-generational mixing between Neolithic farmers and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in the lower Danube basin, Current Biology 27C, 12, 2017, 1801–1810. Gourichon – Helmer 2008 L. Gourichon – D. Helmer, Étude de la faune Neolithique de Menteşe, in: Roodenberg –Alpaslan Roodenberg 2008, 435–448. Groenhuijzen et al. 2015 M. R. Groenhuijzen – S. J. Kluiving – F. A. Gerritsen – M. Künzel, Geoarchaeological research at Barcın Höyük. Implications for the initial Neolithic occupation of northwest Anatolia, Quaternary International 367, 2015, 51–61. Guilaine – Manen 2007 J. Guilaine – C. Manen, From Mesolithic to early Neolithic in the western Mediterranean, in: A. Whittle – V. Cummings (eds.), Going Over. The Mesolithic–Neolithic Transition in Western Europe (London 2007) 21–52. Harmankaya 1983 S. Harmankaya, Pendik Kazısı 1981, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 4, 1983, 25–30. Harmankaya et al. 1997 S. Harmankaya – O. Tanındı – M. Özbaşaran, Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri. 2. Neolitik (Istanbul 1997). Hodder 1982 I. Hodder, Symbols in Action. Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture (Cambridge 1982). Hökelek – Kayacı 2000 A. A. Hökelek – K. Kayacı, The usage of flint powder in the floor tile body, in: Qualicer 2000. VI World Congress on Ceramic Tile Quality Vol. 3 (Castellón 2000) 157–160. İzdal Çaydan 2018 B. İzdal Çaydan, Kuzeybatı Anadolu’da Neolitik Dönem Geçim Ekonomisinde Hayvanların ve Hayvansal Ürünlerin Yeri (MA thesis, Istanbul University 2018).

Farmer-Forager Interactions in the Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia: Reassessing the Evidence

205

Janse 1925 O. Janse, Notes sur une station Neolithique à Kadi-keui sur le Bosphore, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 22, 1925, 166–171. Kansu 1963 Ş. A Kansu, Marmara Bölgesi ve Trakya’da Prehistorik İskan Tarihi Bakımından Araştırmalar (1959–1962), Belleten 27, 108 1963, 657–671. Kartal 2011 M. Kartal, Epi-paleolithic – Early Neolithic findings in northern and midwestern Turkey and lithic comparisons with southwestern Anatolia, in: H. Taşkıran – M. Kartal – K. Özçelik – M. Kösem – G. Kartal (eds.), Işın Yalçınkaya´ya Armağan / Studies in Honour of Işın Yalçınkaya (Ankara 2011) 153–166. Karul 2009 N. Karul, Kuzeybatı Anadolu’da Ana hatlarıyla Neolitik–Kalkolitik Dönemler, Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri Enstitüsü Haberler 28, 2009, 1–7. Karul 2011 N. Karul, The emergence of Neolithic life in south and east Marmara region, in: R. Krauß (ed.), Beginnings – New Research in the Appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin. Papers of the International Workshop 8th–9th April 2009, Istanbul Organized by Dan Ciobotaru, Barbara Horejs and Raiko Krauß, Menschen – Kulturen – Traditionen 1 (Rahden 2011) 57–65. Karul 2017 N. Karul, Northwest Anatolia. A border or a bridge between Anatolia and the Balkans during the Early Neolithic Period? in: Reingruber et al. 2017, 17–28. Karul – Avcı 2011 N. Karul – M. B. Avcı, Neolithic communities in the eastern Marmara region. Aktopraklık C, Anatolica 37, 2011, 1–15. Karul – Özeren 2007 N. Karul – Ö. Özeren, Aktopraklık Höyüğü Kazı Çalışmaları 2006, Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri Enstitüsü Haberler 23, 2007, 19–20. Kaycı 2013 O. H. Kaycı, Aktopralık Verileri Işığında Kuzeybatı Anadolu’da Son Neolitik İlk Kalkolitik Geçiş Sorunu (MA thesis, Istanbul University 2013). Kızıltan 2013 Z. Kızıltan, Pendik Höyük Kazıları, Aktüel Arkeoloji 34, 2013, 32–36. Kızıltan – Polat 2013 Z. Kızıltan – M. A. Polat, The Neolithic at Yenikapı Marmaray. Metro project rescue excavations, in: Özdoğan et al. 2013, 113–165. Koçak 2004 Ö. Koçak, Erken Dönemlerde Afyonkarahisar Yerleşmeleri (Konya 2004). Korfmann 1983 M. Korfmann, Demircihüyük 1. Architektur, Stratigraphie und Befunde (Mainz 1983). Kozłowski 2005 J. K. Kozłowski, The importance of the Aegean Basin for the Neolithization of south-eastern Europe, Mitekufat Haeven 35, 2005, 409–424. Lazaridis et al. 2014 I. Lazaridis – N. Patterson – A. Mittnik – G. Renaud – S. Mallick – K. Kirsanow – P. H. Sudmant – J. G. Schraiber – S. Castellano – M. Lipson – B. Berger – C. Economou – R. Bollongino – Q. Fu – K. I. Bos – S. Nordenfelt – H. Li – C. de Filippo – K. Prüfer – S. Sawyer – C. Posth – W. Haak – F. Hallgren – E. Fornander – N. Rohland – D. Delsate – M. Francken – J.-M. Guinet – J. Wahl – G. Ayodo – H. A. Babiker – G. Bailliet – E. Balanovska – O. Balanovsky – R. Barrantes – G. Bedoya – H. Ben-Ami – J. Bene – F. Berrada – C. M. Bravi – F. Brisighelli – G. B. J. Busby – F. Cali – M. Churnosov – D. E. C. Cole – D. Corach – L. Damba – G. van Driem – S. Dryomov – J.-M. Dugoujon – S. A. Fedorova – I. Gallego Romero – M. Gubina – M. Hammer – B. M. Henn – T. Hervig – U. Hodoglugil –

206

Rana Özbal – Fokke Gerritsen

A. R. Jha – S. Karachanak-Yankova – R. Khusainova – E. Khusnutdinova – R. Kittles – T. Kivisild – W. Klitz – V. Kučinskas – A. Kushniarevich – L. Laredj – S. Litvinov – T. Loukidis – R. W. Mahley – B. Melegh – E. Metspalu – J. Molina – J. Mountain – K. Näkkäläjärvi – D. Nesheva – T. Nyambo – L. Osipova – J. Parik – F. Platonov – O. Posukh – V. Romano – F. Rothhammer – I. Rudan – R. Ruizbakiev – H. Sahakyan – A. Sajantila – A. Salas – E. B. Starikovskaya – A. Tarekegn – D. Toncheva – S. Turdikulova – I. Uktveryte – O. Utevska – R. Vasquez – M. Villena – M. Voevoda – C. A. Winkler – L. Yepiskoposyan – P. Zalloua – T. Zemunik – A. Cooper – C. Capelli – M. G. Thomas – A. Ruiz-Linares – S. A. Tishkoff – L. Singh – K. Thangaraj – R. Villems – D. Comas – R. Sukernik – M. Metspalu – M. Meyer – E. E. Eichler – J. Burger – M. Slatkin – S. Pääbo – J. Kelso – D. Reich – J. Krause, Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans, Nature 513, 7518, 2014, 409–413. Lichter 2017 C. Lichter, The transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic between western Anatolia and the Lower Danube. Evidence from burial customs, in: Reingruber et al. 2017, 123–132. Lynn 1978 C. J. Lynn, Early Christian period domestic structures. A change from round to rectangular plans?, Irish Archaeological Research Forum 5, 1978, 29–45. Milić 2018 B. Milić, Lithics and Neolithisation. Çukuriçi Höyük in Anatolia and the Aegean (PhD Diss., University of Tübingen 2018). Mordtmann 1907 A. D. Mordtmann, Historische Bilder vom Bosporus, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Ausflugsvereins G. Albert 11–12 (Konstantinopel 1907). Nazaroff et al. 2013 A. J. Nazaroff – A. Baysal – Y. Çiftçi, The importance of chert in Central Anatolia. Lessons from the Neolithic assemblage at Çatalhöyük, Turkey, Geoarchaeology 28, 4, 2013, 340–362. Özbal et al. 2011 H. Özbal – A. Bıyık – L. Thissen – T. Doğan – F. A. Gerritsen – R. Özbal, Sütçülerin Öncüleri. Barcın Höyük Keramiklerinde Süt Kalıntıları, Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 26, 2011, 307–317. Özbal et al. 2012 H. Özbal – A. Türkekul Bıyık – L. Thissen – T. Doğan – F. Gerritsen – R. Özbal, MÖ 7. Binyılda Barcın Höyük Süt Tüketimi Üzerine Yeni Araştırmalar, Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 27, 2012, 15–32. Özbal et al. 2013 H. Özbal – L. Thissen – T. Doğan – F. Gerritsen – R. Özbal – A. Türkekul Bıyık, Neolitik Batı Anadolu ve Marmara yerleşimleri çanak çömleklerinde organik kalıntı analizleri, Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 28, 2013, 105–14. H. Özbal et al. 2014 H. Özbal – L. Thissen – T. Doğan – F. A. Gerritsen – R. Özbal – A. Türkekul Bıyık, Yenikapı, Aşağıpınar, Bademağacı ve Barcın Çömleklerinde Organik Kalıntı Analizi, Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 29, 2014, 83–90. Özbal – Gerritsen 2015 R. Özbal – F. Gerritsen, Barcın Höyük. The 2014 season in perspective, in: S. Steadman – G. McMahon (eds.), The Archaeology of Anatolia. Recent Discoveries 2011–2014 (Cambridge 2015) 26–45. Özbal et al. 2015 R. Özbal – F. Gerritsen – M. Erdalkıran – H. Özbal, 2013 Yılı Barcın Höyük Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 36, 1, 2015, 615–630. E. Özdoğan 2015 E. Özdoğan, Current research and new evidence for the neolithization process in western Turkey, European Journal of Archaeology 18, 1, 2015, 33–59. E. Özdoğan forthcoming E. Özdoğan, Manyas Gölü Doğu Taraça Neolitik Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, forthcoming. Özdoğan 1983a M. Özdoğan, Trakya ve Doğu Marmara Araştırmaları 1981 Yılı Çalışmaları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 4, 1983, 137–142.

Farmer-Forager Interactions in the Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia: Reassessing the Evidence

207

Özdoğan 1983b M. Özdoğan, Pendik. A Neolithic site of Fikirtepe culture in the Marmara region, in: R. M. Boehmer – H. Hauptmann (eds.), Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens. Festschrift fur Kurt Bittel (Mainz 1983) 401–411. Özdoğan 1984 M. Özdoğan, Doğu Marmara ve Trakya Araştırmaları, 1982, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 1, 1984, 63–68. Özdoğan 1985 M. Özdoğan, 1983 Yılı Doğu Marmara ve Trakya Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 2, 1985, 221–232. Özdoğan 1990 M. Özdoğan, 1988 yılı Trakya ve Marmara Bölgeleri Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 7, 1990, 443–458. Özdoğan 1991 M. Özdoğan, 1989 Yılı Marmara Bölgeleri Araştırmaları ve Toptepe Kazısı, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 12, 1991, 345–375. Özdoğan 1999 M. Özdoğan, Northwestern Turkey. Neolithic cultures in between the Balkans and Anatolia, in: M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of Civilization. New Discoveries, Ancient Anatolian Civilizations Series 3 (Istanbul 1999) 203–224. Özdoğan 2007 M. Özdoğan, Marmara Bölgesi Neolitik Çağ Kültürleri, in: M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen (eds.), Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem. Anadolu’da Uygarlığın Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı. Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular (Istanbul 2007) 441–458. Özdoğan 2011a M. Özdoğan, Eastern Thrace. The contact zone between Anatolia and the Balkans, in: S. Steadman – G. McMahon (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, 10,000–323 BCE (Oxford 2011) 657–682. Özdoğan 2011b M. Özdoğan, Archaeological evidence on the westward expansion of farming communities from eastern Anatolia to the Aegean and the Balkans, Current Anthropology 52, S4, 2011, 415–430. Özdoğan 2013a M. Özdoğan, Neolithic Sites in the Marmara Region. Fikirtepe, Pendik, Yarımburgaz, Hoca Çeşme and Aşağı Pınar, in: Özdoğan et al. 2013, 167–269. Özdoğan 2013b M. Özdoğan, Pendik neden önemli? Aktüel Arkeoloji 34, 2013, 38–43. Özdoğan 2017 M. Özdoğan, Neolithic assemblages and spatial boundaries as exemplified through the Neolithic of northwestern Turkey, in: M. Gori – M. Ivanova (eds.), Balkan Dialogues. Negotiating Identity between Prehistory and the Present (New York 2017) 197–212. Özdoğan – Gatsov 1998 M. Özdoğan – I. Gatsov, The Aceramic Neolithic period in western Turkey and in the Aegean, Anatolica 24, 1998, 209–232. Özdoğan et al. 1991 M. Özdoğan – Y. Miyake – N. Özbaşaran-Dede, An interim report on excavations at Yarımburgaz and Toptepe in eastern Thrace, Anatolica 17, 1991, 59–121. Özdoğan et al. 2013 M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. I. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 5: Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul (Istanbul 2013). Pasinli et al. 1994 A. Pasinli – E. Uzunoğlu – N. Atakan – Ç. Girgin – M. Soysal, Pendik Kurtarma Kazısı, Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri IV, 1994, 147–163. Quintero – Wilke 1995 L. A. Quintero – J. P. J. Wilke, Evolution and economic significance of naviform core-and-blade technology in the southern Levant, Paléorient 21, 1995, 17–33.

208

Rana Özbal – Fokke Gerritsen

Reingruber 2016 A. Reingruber, Coastal and riverine Thrace during the Mesolithic and the Neolithic, in: K. Bacvarov – R. Gleser (eds.), Southeast Europe and Anatolia in Prehistory. Essays in Honor of Vassil Nikolov on his 65th Anniversary (Bonn 2016) 93–104. Reingruber et al. 2017 A. Reingruber – Z. Tsirtsoni – P. Nedelcheva (eds.), Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians. Proceedings of the EAA Conference, Istanbul, 11 September 2014, Themes in Contemporary Archaeology 3 (London 2017). Richards 2005 M. Richards, The archaeological transition in Europe. Archaeological models and genetic evidence, Documenta Praehistorica 30, 2005, 159–167. Robb 2013 J. Robb, Material culture, landscapes of action, and emergent causation. A new model for the origins of the European Neolithic, Current Anthropology 54, 6, 2013, 657–683. Roberts – Rosen 2009 N. Roberts – A. Rosen, Diversity and complexity in early farming communities of Southwest Asia. New insights into the economic and environmental basis of Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Current Anthropology 50, 2009, 393–402. Roodenberg 1999a J. J. Roodenberg, Ilıpınar. An early farming village in the İznik Lake basin, in: M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of Civilization. New Discoveries, Ancient Anatolian Civilizations Series 3 (Istanbul 1999) 193–202. Roodenberg 1999b J. J. Roodenberg, Investigations at Menteşe Höyük in the Yenişehir Basin (1996–1997), Anatolica 25, 1999, 21–36. Roodenberg 2001 J. J. Roodenberg, ‘Miscellaneous’, in: J. J. Roodenberg – L. Thissen (eds.), The Ilıpınar Excavations II, Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Osten te Leiden 93 (Leiden 2001) 223–255. Roodenberg 2008 J. J. Roodenberg, ‘The Inhabitants’, in: Roodenberg –Alpaslan Roodenberg 2008, 69–90. Roodenberg – Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2008 J. J. Roodenberg – S. Alpaslan-Roodenberg (eds.), Life and Death in a Prehistoric Settlement in Northwest Anatolia. The Ilıpınar Excavations III. With contributions on Hacılartepe and Menteşe, Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Osten te Leiden 110 (Leiden 2008). Roodenberg – Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2013 J. J. Roodenberg – S. Alpaslan-Roodenberg, Ilıpınar and Menteşe. Early farming communities in the Eastern Marmara, in: Özdoğan et al. 2013, 69–91. Roodenberg et al. 2003 J. J. Roodenberg – A. van As – L. Jacobs – M. H. Wijnen, Early settlement in the plain of Yenişehir (NW Anatolia). The basal occupation of Menteşe, Anatolica 29, 2003, 17–59. Runnels 2003 C. Runnels, The Lower Paleolithic of Greece and NW Turkey, in: M. Özbaşaran – O. Tanındı – A. Boratav (eds.), Archaeological Essays in Honor of Homo Amatus: Güven Arsebük (Istanbul 2003) 195–202. Seeher 1987 J. Seeher, Demircihüyük. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975–1978. Die Keramik 1: A. Die neolitische und chalkolitische Keramik; B. Die fruhbronzezeitliche Keramik der älteren Phasen (bis Phase G) (Mainz 1987). Takaoğlu et al. 2014 T. Takaoğlu – T. Korkut – B. Erdoğu – G. Işın, Archaeological evidence for 9th and 8th millennia BC at Girmeler Cave near Tlos in SW Turkey, Documenta Praehistorica 41, 2014, 111.

Farmer-Forager Interactions in the Neolithisation of Northwest Anatolia: Reassessing the Evidence

209

Thissen 2001 L. Thissen, The pottery of Ilıpınar, Phases X to VA, in: J. J. Roodenberg – L. Thissen (eds.), The Ilıpınar Excavations II, Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Osten te Leiden 93 (Leiden 2001) 3–154. Thissen et al. 2010 L. Thissen – H. Özbal – A. Türkekul Bıyık – F. Gerritsen – R. Özbal, The land of milk? Approaching dietary preferences of Late Neolithic communities in NW Anatolia, Leiden Journal of Pottery Studies 26, 2010, 157–172. Thissen – Reingruber 2017 L. Thissen – A. Reingruber, Appendix 14C database for Southeast Europe and adjacent areas (6600–5000 cal. BC), in: Reingruber et al. 2017, 123–178. Weninger et al. 2014 B. Weninger – C. Lee – F. Gerritsen – B. Horejs – R. Krauß – J. Linstädter – E. J. Rohling, Neolithisation of the Aegean and Southeast Europe during the 6600–6000 calBC period of rapid climate change, Documenta Praehistorica 41, 2014, 1–31. Würtenberger 2012 D. Würtenberger, Archäozoologische Analysen am Fundmaterial des Barcın Höyüks im Vergleich mit ausgewählten Fundstellen des 7. und 6. Jt. v. Chr. in Nordwest- und Westanatolien (MA thesis, University of Vienna 2012). Yılmaz 2011 Y. Yılmaz, Marmara Bölgesi Neolitik Dönem Ölü Gömme Geleneklerinde İlkler. Yenikapı Kazı Bulguları, Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 14, 2011, 283–302. Yılmaz 2014 Y. Yılmaz, Bir Yerleşim, Bir Yöntem, Yenikapı Neolitik Dönem Gömütlerinin Kazılması, Belgelenmesi ve Değerlendirilmesi, in: Ş. Baltaş – Ş. Altun (eds.), Hayalden Gerçeğe. Bir İstanbul Öyküsü Marmaray (Ankara 2014) 256–271. Zvelebil – Lillie 2000 M. Zvelebil – M. Lillie, Transition to agriculture in eastern Europe, in: T. D. Price (ed.), Europe’s First Farmers (Cambridge 2000) 57–92.

210

Rana Özbal – Fokke Gerritsen

Circular, Oval and Rectilinear: A Note on Building Plan Variability at Neolithic Sites in Central-West Anatolia

211

Circular, Oval and Rectilinear: A Note on Building Plan Variability at Neolithic Sites in Central-West Anatolia Çiler Çilingiroğlu 1 Abstract: This paper aims to test the possibility of ‘foreign’ influence in central-west Anatolia during the late 7th and early 6th millennium BC by focussing on curvilinear building plans at several sites, especially at Ege Gübre. The presence of impressed pottery and the unique nature of Ege Gübre’s circular architecture have resulted in different interpretations as to the possible ‘origins’ of this form. Scholars variously suggested that this type of architecture may be related to a distinct ‘Mediterranean coastal Neolithic’ or a result of an interaction sphere that reached as far as Cyprus, where circular buildings were the norm during the Neolithic period. By comparing and contrasting architectural forms and settlement layouts from Cyprus, the Levant, Turkish Thrace, central and northwestern Anatolia, I aim to demonstrate that there are only vague and superficial resemblances of central-west Anatolian round buildings with these areas. In fact, the general settlement layout, plan of rectangular houses, material cultural elements and quantity of impressed pottery at Ege Gübre are very much in accordance with other contemporary sites in the region. This contribution concludes that (1) circular and oval plans are not exclusively found at Ege Gübre, (2) use of circular plans is not necessarily an indication of foreign influence and (3) the variability in the architectural techniques and plans in the region are presumably a function of local needs, choices and practices. Keywords: west Anatolia, Neolithic architecture, circular plans, Ege Gübre, Cyprus

Introduction One of the main aims of the Central/Western Anatolian Farming Frontier workshop in Vienna in April 2016 was to explore the connectivity and bonds among Neolithic groups in central and western Turkey. Although the purpose was to discover connections between farmer-herder groups, it was also the goal to define local cultural practices, idiosyncrasies and diversity of material culture and technologies. This paper tries to underline one of the local elements of Neolithic culture in western Anatolia. Recently, Barbara Horejs2 has discussed variability in architectural materials, techniques and plans at 7th millennium BC sites in central-west Anatolia. I aim to contribute to this discussion by testing the possibility of ‘foreign’ influence in the region by focussing on curvilinear building plans at sites, especially at Ege Gübre. The unique nature of Ege Gübre’s circular architecture has resulted in different interpretations as to the possible ‘origins’ of this form. There is a tendency to associate Ege Gübre’s circular architecture with external forces.3 Haluk Sağlamtimur4 indicated that ‘the notable presence of impresso pottery as well as the round-plan structures are indicators of a maritime interaction sphere from Cyprus to further west in the Mediterranean and Aegean’. Likewise, Mehmet Özdoğan has implied in several publications that there is connection between Ege Gübre and Cypriot Neolithic groups based on the presence of round architectural plans and impressed pottery.5

1

4 5 2 3

Ege University, Faculty of Letters, Protohistory and Near Eastern Archaeology, Bornova, Turkey, ciler.cilingiroglu. [email protected]. Horejs 2016. Sağlamtimur ‒ Ozan 2012, 110. Sağlamtimur 2012, 201. Özdoğan 2007, 445; Özdoğan 2011; Özdoğan 2014, 1520.

Çiler Çilingiroğlu

212

Fig. 1 Sites mentioned in the text (map: Ç. Çilingiroğlu)

The purpose of this short paper is to show that (1) circular and oval plans are found at other sites in the region, (2) the use of circular plans is not necessarily an indication of a Cypriot connection and (3) the variability in the architectural techniques and plans in the region is presumably a function of local needs, choices and practices.

Central-West Anatolia in the Late 7th Millennium BC: Pronounced Homogeneity Recent archaeological fieldwork at late 7th millennium BC sites in central-west Anatolia shows a picture of high patterning with respect to mobile material culture (Fig. 1). Pottery fabrics and morphology are one of the most homogeneous aspects of material culture in the whole region. Both technological and typological similarities are observed in ceramic repertoires. A dominance of fine-medium red slipped and burnished wares along with cream and brown burnished plain pottery is a characteristic of each site. Vessel morphology also repeats itself at every site with a predominance of hole-mouth jars, ‘S’ profiled bowls and globular jars with short necks.6 Vertical

6



Çilingiroğlu 2012.

Circular, Oval and Rectilinear: A Note on Building Plan Variability at Neolithic Sites in Central-West Anatolia

213

tubular lugs, single knobs or pierced knobs and disc bases are common morphological features. Impressed pottery appeared around 6000 BC and is found at each site in small quantities.7 In fact, in contrast to initial speculations,8 it does not constitute more than 1% of ceramic assemblages at both coastal and inland sites, including Ege Gübre.9 Published chipped stones from the region show identical techno-typological elements like single-platform prismatic cores and blade-based products accompanied by end-scrapers on flakes.10 Both various local cherts and extra-local obsidian were used to produce chipped stones. Melian obsidian has been recovered from each and every site excavated, albeit with differing proportions. The Çukuriçi lithic assemblage is composed mainly of Melian obsidian (80%), while at other sites the percentage fluctuates between 10–20%, which may be indicating differential access and contact mechanisms of each western Anatolian community with Aegean groups.11 Clay and bone objects as well as ground stone industries display strong affinities as well. Bone spoons, awls, clay stamps, biconical sling missiles, clay figurines, stone beads and polished axes constitute the typical portable items discovered at these sites.12 In terms of symbolic items, female, male and animal figurines are predominant. Female and bull symbolism are found in various media across the region. There are even identical objects at some of these sites. Two clay stamps with the same intricate decoration are known from Ulucak and Yeşilova.13 Two stamp-like objects made out of Bolinus brandaris shells are known from Ulucak and Ege Gübre.14 Biconical sling missiles and their mass deposition in houses are attested both at Çukuriçi and Ulucak.15 Despite different environmental settings, available zooarchaeological and archaeobotanical evidence from the region also indicates common subsistence strategies. Consumption of all four herd animals (ovicaprids, pigs and cattle) along with an occasional input of game meat, especially cervids and hare, is the general pattern obtained from regional zooarchaeological studies.16 There are indications of dairy production in the area based on the mortality profiles of herd animals after 6000 calBC.17 The location of a given site, whether it enjoys a coastal location or not, plays a role in the contribution of marine resources to the diet. Çukuriçi, for instance, shows remarkable input from marine resources, especially marine fish and shells.18 The Ulucak community, on the other hand, consumed lesser amounts of marine fish and shellfish throughout the sequence.19 High densities of marine bivalves and gastropods are also mentioned at Yeşilova and Ege Gübre, but there are no reports with actual counts from these sites yet.20 There are no detailed reports of archaeobotany from the area, but there are identified botanical species that at least imply cultivation of common sets of cereals and pulses. Einkorn wheat, emmer wheat, free-threshing wheat, six-rowed barley, lentil, pea and bitter vetch have so far been identified as cultivated species at Ulucak and Çukuriçi.21

9 7 8

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 10 11

Çilingiroğlu 2016. Sağlamtimur 2007, 375. Çilingiroğlu 2012; Sağlamtimur 2012, 200. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012; Derin 2012; Horejs 2012; Sağlamtimur 2012. Milić 2014; Horejs et al. 2015. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012; Derin 2012; Horejs 2012; Sağlamtimur 2012. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012, fig. 31; Derin 2012, fig. 22. Çakırlar 2015. Çilingiroğlu 2011; Horejs 2016, 149‒150. Derin 2007; Sağlamtimur 2007, 375, 382; Çakırlar 2012a; Horejs et al. 2015. Çakırlar 2012b. Horejs 2016, 157. Çakırlar 2009; Çakırlar 2012a. Derin 2012; Sağlamtimur 2012. Megaloudi 2005; Horejs 2008, 102, 150; Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012.

Çiler Çilingiroğlu

214

Central-West Anatolian Sites Çukuriçi VIII

Adobe, stone

Çukuriçi IX–X

Adobe, stone, wood

Ulucak Vb

Adobe, wood, stone

Ulucak Va

Ege Gübre III Ege Gübre IV

Adobe, wood, stone Mudbrick, wood, stone Mudbrick, wood, stone Stone Stone

Yeşilova III.1–2

Adobe, stone

Yeşilova III.8–3

Stone

Ulucak IV Early Ulucak IV Late

Building Materials

Building Techniques Stone foundations, adobe superstructure Stamped loam over stone foundations, free-standing Wattle-and-daub, puddled adobe (cob), free-standing Wattle-and-daub, attached Mudbrick on stone foundation, freestanding? Mudbrick on stone foundation, attached with separate walls, puddled adobe (cob) Wattle-and-daub on stone foundation? Wattle-and-daub on stone foundation? Puddled adobe (cob) over stone foundations, post-holes in stone foundations Stone foundations

Building Plans Rectilinear? Rectilinear Rectilinear, oval Rectilinear Rectilinear, rounded corners Rectilinear Round, rectilinear Round only? Rectilinear, oval/round Rectilinear?

Table 1 A comparison of building materials, techniques and plans at central-west Anatolian Neolithic sites

Variability in Architecture In the region, the most eye-catching variability is observed in the architecture. Post 6500 BC sites in central-west Anatolia all present evidence of different building techniques using the same building materials (Table 1). Adobe-based architecture producing rectilinear forms is a common feature in this region. Basically, stone foundations and mud-based superstructures are attested at every excavated site so far. Timber is commonly used, either in walls or as supports for the roof and for building roofs. However, as Horejs22 emphasises, beyond these general conceptual similarities, there are manifold differences in building materials, building plans and techniques. In Ulucak V, rectilinear houses were built using a wattle-and-daub technique.23 Even in different building layers at Ulucak V, there are substantial differences in building techniques.24 Between two building layers (Va and Vb), there are similarities in terms of building materials, but houses share common walls in Va, while in Vb they are free-standing.25 An interesting recent discovery from Ulucak is a single small-sized building with an oval plan from Level Vb, which was built of puddled adobe.26 At Ulucak IVb, there was a major change in the building materials, which also affected the building size and plans. In this level, mould made and sun-dried mudbricks were used to build rectangular, mostly single-room houses having entrances either in the long or in the short walls. Typically the houses contain an open or lightly covered courtyard in front of them, have flat-topped ovens and mud platforms for food preparation.27 At this stage, mudbricks have almost two standard sizes (big sized mudbrick: 55 × 35 × 8cm and small sized mudbrick: 50 × 18 × 8cm).28

24 25 26 27 28 22 23

Horejs 2016. Çilingiroğlu ‒ Abay 2005. Çilingiroğlu 2012. Çilingiroğlu ‒ Çilingiroğlu 2007. Çevik ‒ Vuruşkan 2015, 591. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004. Derin 2005, 88.

Circular, Oval and Rectilinear: A Note on Building Plan Variability at Neolithic Sites in Central-West Anatolia

215

At Çukuriçi, stone foundations, mud superstructures and stamped clay floors were discovered in Level VIII.29 Walls with stone socles and stamped clay are also found in the succeeding Level IX.30 Level IX and X show building continuity and building of successive dwellings at the same spot over time.31 Similar construction techniques and plans produced rectilinear house complexes with free-standing arrangements in levels IX and X at Çukuriçi.32 Two parallel rows of stones form the foundations. A five to six course high stone socle and stamped loam created the superstructure of these buildings. Maxime Brami and colleagues indicate that post holes have been identified both inside and outside of the houses, which indicate that a timber frame was used.33 Yeşilova III was likewise built of rectilinear buildings with stone foundations. However, the upper structure was built with big mud-blocks instead of mudbricks.34 Similar to Ulucak, recent excavations revealed that besides rectilinear structures, oval or rounded buildings are also present at Yeşilova’s final building phases of Level III.35 At Ege Gübre, the buildings show both rectilinear and circular plans with thick stone foundations, however, as to the upper structures, no remains were preserved. Sağlamtimur suggests that superstructures must have been built with wattle-and-daub technique.36 Rectangular plans are dominant at Ege Gübre with entrances on their long sides and with openings facing a large central courtyard. The houses usually have single rooms, but occasionally smaller rooms have been identified. The rectilinear structures measure 9 × 6m or are slightly bigger.37 Rectilinear buildings typically contain fire installations. The rectilinear house plan at Ege Gübre, with central openings on the long side, is very similar to Ulucak IVb houses; strong resemblances can also be identified with Hacılar VI, Bademağacı, Höyücek and Kuruçay Neolithic architecture.38

Round Plans at Ege Gübre: ‘Foreign’ Connections Possible? The circular forms in architecture at Ege Gübre are one of the most striking elements that contrast with the mostly rectilinear mud-based architecture of Neolithic central-west Anatolia. The tholos-like structures and the combination of rectangular and circular architectural elements have, so far, no parallels inside the region. Their function, i.e. whether they were storage buildings or normal dwellings, is debated. However, the fact that no hearths, ovens or burials have been discovered inside these circular structures may indicate that they were not domestic dwellings.39 At Ege Gübre, eight circular and twelve rectilinear buildings have been excavated; the round structures have a c. 4m inner diameter with entrances facing the central courtyard.40 As mentioned above, Özdoğan and Sağlamtimur have suggested that the round buildings at Ege Gübre are indicative of interactions with Cyprus, and that active maritime routes in the eastern Mediterranean created this specific interaction sphere between Cyprus and coastal west Turkey.41 Aside from circular buildings, the tendency to associate the Cypriot Neolithic with Ege Gübre is based on the so-called ‘notable’ presence of impressed pottery. Here I try to test this specific interpretation by showing that Cypriot Neolithic settlement plans are highly different from

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 29 30

Horejs 2012, 118. Horejs 2012, 120. Brami et al. 2016, 5–6. Horejs 2016, 152–153. Brami et al. 2016, 5. Derin 2012. Derin 2010. Sağlamtimur 2012. Sağlamtimur 2012, 198. Umurtak 2005. Sağlamtimur 2007, 374. Sağlamtimur 2012, 198. Özdoğan 2007, 445; Özdoğan 2011; Sağlamtimur 2012, 201.

216

Çiler Çilingiroğlu

Ege Gübre. Secondly, I would like to highlight the fact that pottery did not arrive to Cyprus before 5200 calBC42 and connections based on pottery styles cannot be established between Cyprus and western Turkey during the 7th and early 6th millennium BC. First we can focus on Cypriot Neolithic sites that are contemporary with Ege Gübre to infer whether any connection can be found between these areas. According to Cypriot chronology, the late 7th and early 6th millennium BC corresponds to the ‘Late Aceramic Neolithic’ that lasted from c. 7000/6800–5200 calBC.43 The Ege Gübre settlement coincides roughly with the later stages of ‘Khirokitia Culture’. This cultural horizon is characterised by densely packed settlements with curvilinear and round structures and boundary walls, disappearance of cattle from faunal assemblages, production of elaborate stone vessels and low-density contacts with the Levant and Anatolia.44 There are no unequivocal areas devoted to public gatherings and events in the settlements. The houses typically contain 0.5m wide entrances, paved thresholds, plastered floors, hearths, basins, windows, niches, platforms or benches as inner architectural features.45 Some houses contain free-standing pillars. Following the Late Aceramic Neolithic Period in Cyprus, archaeologists maintain that there was either a cultural gap or some sort of a demographic collapse (as implied by high rates of infant mortality) or abandonment of sites and relocation of the local population on the island. In any case, around 5200 calBC the first pottery was introduced to the island, most probably as a result of contacts with Levantine-Anatolian groups. These pottery types include monochrome, red monochrome painted, red-on-white and combed wares.46 This brief survey of contemporary Cyprus shows that there are little, if any, similarities with Ege Gübre’s settlement plan, architecture, material culture and subsistence patterns. Most notably, in contrast to Cypriot sites, Ege Gübre shows the co-existence of round and rectangular buildings and the presence of a wide open-area in the centre of the settlement.47 In other words, despite the superficial resemblance of circular features, the settlement plans and organisation show no commonalities. Moreover, the absence of pottery at this stage in Cyprus makes any attempt to relate these groups and their practices in terms of ceramic production and types impossible. Cypriot communities do not produce pottery in the 7th millennium BC and when they do, they do not produce impressed pottery. In fact, impressed pottery never occurs during the Cypriot Neolithic.48 Round architecture combined with rectangular architecture is known from pre-Halaf and Early Halaf sites (c. 6100–5950 calBC) in northern Mesopotamia. Multiple Halaf sites have circular and rectilinear features together, best exemplified in the Burnt Village at Tell Sabi Abyad in northern Syria. Here, it is suggested that large multi-roomed buildings may have functioned as communal storehouses.49 Regardless of whether Halafian groups had a pastoral and semi-nomadic lifestyle or whether they were socially egalitarian or hierarchical, all current debates for Halafian societies as described by Rana Özbal,50 the correspondence between Halafian settlement organisation and architectural plans (not to mention its distinct material culture) with western Anatolia proves to be likewise very low. Much closer to coastal western Anatolia, circular or oval architectural plans are known from Hoca Çeşme in coastal western Turkey as well as at Aktopraklık C, Fikirtepe and Pendik in northwest Anatolia.51 It is common knowledge that basal Hoca Çeşme houses show curvilinear plans with their foundations carved into the bedrock. These dwellings are described as ‘round huts’

44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 42 43

Knapp 2013, 160. Knapp 2013, tab. 3. Knapp 2013, 120‒122. Steel 2004, 50–51; Knapp 2013, 122. Knapp 2013, 160‒161. Sağlamtimur 2012. Çilingiroğlu 2016. Nieuwenhuyse ‒ Cruells 2004, 51. Özbal 2010. Karul – Avcı 2013; Özdoğan 2013.

Circular, Oval and Rectilinear: A Note on Building Plan Variability at Neolithic Sites in Central-West Anatolia

217

that usually have c. 5m diameters.52 The basal building phase at Hoca Çeşme shows multiple remains of such round houses and no rectilinear plans were uncovered in this phase. In fact, the earliest known rectangular plans at Hoca Çeşme appear in Level II, which is contemporary with the Karanovo I phase.53 Circular planned wattle and daub huts with sunken floors are also known from basal Aktopraklık C. These structures are free-standing and have 4m diameters. One of the features of these dwellings is that they contain sub-floor burials.54 Fikirtepe and Pendik are other sites in northwest Anatolia that show curvilinear construction of houses. At Fikirtepe, curvilinear plans with again c. 5m diameters and sunken floors are known. Similar to the Aktopraklık C site, at Fikirtepe too, these houses contained sub-floor burials.55 The Pendik excavations revealed almost identical building plans and inner arrangement of houses with Aktopraklık C and Fikirtepe. The Pendik houses are also round or oval with semi-sunken floors and sub-floor burials.56 Finally, in Turkish Thrace, Aşağı Pınar 8 showed traces of ‘pit-like dwellings,’ but these are not very well defined and the general character of the settlement at this early phase is unclear.57 It is apparent from this brief survey that curvilinear plans are not peculiar to the Ege Gübre settlement, but in my opinion, the more important issue here is that there is little correlation between settlement plans and inner arrangement of houses between Ege Gübre and other northern Turkish sites. For instance, the co-appearance of circular and rectangular buildings is not known from Hoca Çeşme or Fikirtepe sites. In contrast to Ege Gübre, in northwest Anatolia and Hoca Çeşme there are clear indications that these round buildings were used as dwellings. The fact that they mostly have subfloor burials and other features like ovens or hearths indicates their domestic functions. Another difference with Ege Gübre buildings can be recognised in their floor constructions. In northwest Anatolia and at Hoca Çeşme, the floors of round/oval houses are semi-sunken or sunken, while at Ege Gübre there is no indication they had sunken floors.58 This also speaks to the difference in building techniques. This leaves us with vague similarities in geometric shape and size of the buildings. Otherwise, the context and function of these round features seem to differ at these sites from Ege Gübre. Curvilinear plans are not foreign to Anatolia at least since the Epipalaeolithic period.59 Final Epipalaeolithic sites in the Tigris basin such as Körtik Tepe or PPNA sites both in the Euphrates and Tigris basins have circular dwellings as a rule until at least the 8th millennium BC.60 Similarly, central Anatolian PPN settlements are very much characterised by curvilinear buildings with sunken floors and sub-floor burials in the 9th millennium BC.61 By the early 8th millennium BC, however, round plans were completely replaced by rectilinear plans as is very well evident at Aşıklı Phase II with this specific tradition continuing well into 7th millennium BC Çatalhöyük where round/oval plans are simply absent.62 This reflects a total change of settlement layout, organisation and plan that prefers agglutinative rectangular dwellings with flat roofs to maintain the social and economic organisation of these communities.63 Because of this difference in time and space, as well as apparent differences in settlement organisation, I do not see any direct connection between central and western Anatolian settlement plans, let alone between round buildings of central Anatolian PPN sites and Ege Gübre. This apparent difference in settlement organisation

54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 52 53

Özdoğan 2013, 180. Özdoğan 2013, 181. Karul – Avcı 2013, 46–47. Özdoğan 2013, 173. Özdoğan 2013, 175. Özdoğan 2013, 186. See Sağlamtimur 2012, 198. Benz et al. 2015, 17–19. Karul 2011; Schmidt 2011; Miyake et al. 2012. Baird et al. 2012, 224–225; Özbaşaran 2012, 138. Hodder 2012, fig. 3; Özbaşaran 2012, 139. Düring 2002; Düring 2011, 98.

218

Çiler Çilingiroğlu

(and hence social organisation) between central and western Anatolia already has been very well highlighted by Ulf-Dietrich Schoop and for this reason will not be discussed here again.64 A final remark can be made on this topic. Circular structures and dwellings are known from the Mesolithic Aegean, contemporary with southwest Asian PPNA. The excavations at Maroulas on Kythnos revealed at least 31 remains of stone-built curvilinear structures, some with sub-floor burials.65 These are semi-subterranean round ‘huts’ with stone-paved floors and possible timber superstructures.66 These findings from the Aegean Mesolithic indicate that Initial Holocene architectural techniques and plans show certain similarities with the other contemporary sites in the Eastern Mediterranean. Also, it shows that circular plans are not unknown in the Aegean before the Neolithic period. However, it is difficult to grasp a continuity of this cultural practice in the Aegean, as no sites of the Initial Neolithic era (c. 7000-6600 calBC) display use of curvilinear plans. Instead, all the known sites of the early 7th millennium BC in the Aegean such as Knossos, Çukuriçi or Ulucak contain rectilinear building plans.67 Also one observes that architectural tradition prefers mud-based building materials starting with the Neolithic period in the Aegean and western Anatolia. In effect, with the current evidence it is not possible to relate Aegean Mesolithic round buildings with the 6th millennium BC round structures from western Anatolia. On the other hand, there are claims of round pit-houses during the Greek EN1 from sites like Nea Makri, Achilleion and Argissa. Catherine Perlès argues that these ‘pit-houses’ are actually clay digging pits to collect building materials during the establishment of the settlements and that there is no indication that these pits were used as dwellings.68 In any case, as mentioned above, there is no unequivocal continuation of round plans from the Mesolithic into the Initial Neolithic period in Greece. As a result, Ege Gübre’s circular structures may be an idiosyncratic feature of central-west Turkey, without any direct predecessors or parallels in other regions of the Eastern Mediterranean. It is true that both the plans and functions of these enigmatic buildings remain as isolated examples. Despite its ‘strangeness’, for now it seems appropriate to hold an autochthonous position as to the question of origins for this form. As Sağlamtimur has proposed, given that these buildings did not include any hearths or ovens, these round buildings may have been storage facilities for certain kinds of food,69 developed by the community at Ege Gübre, whose material culture is very much in accordance with the other contemporary sites from the Izmir area and therefore did not necessarily originate from another region. Also, the rectilinear buildings at the site show strong resemblances to other contemporary settlements in the region and western Anatolia in terms of size, plan and arrangement.70 In other words, there is nothing foreign about the way rectilinear buildings were built. Besides, as mentioned already, new excavations have revealed rounded, circular and oval buildings at contemporary sites in the region (such as at Ulucak and Yeşilova), which indicates that non-rectilinear buildings were built whenever a need arose and that communities did not hold strict rules to geometric shapes of the built structures. The basal layer at Ege Gübre, which is dated to c. 6200 calBC, may have been founded as a result of a budding-off of local villages and that circular plans are an innovation peculiar to this site.

66 67 68 69 70 64 65

Schoop 2005. Sampson 2014, 194. Sampson 2014, fig. 7. Çilingiroğlu 2017. Perlès 2001, 184–185. Sağlamtimur 2007, 374. See Umurtak 2005.

Circular, Oval and Rectilinear: A Note on Building Plan Variability at Neolithic Sites in Central-West Anatolia

219

Conclusions In this contribution, I challenged the idea that round buildings at sites in the Izmir region, especially at Ege Gübre, may reflect connections with Cypriot or other neighbouring communities. There are unequivocal differences among contemporary farmer-herders in the region in terms of settlement plans and building techniques as well as building plans, which may reflect divergent understandings of space use, creation of built environments and social practices among these groups. However, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that these practices resulted from non-local factors (especially Cypriot or Levantine in origin). Judging by the multiple common aspects in terms of subsistence strategies, technological know-how and symbolic items, these communities show locally developed characters maintained through strong social-cultural bonds with each other as equal polities and with other Aegean and Anatolian groups during the 7th and 6th millennia BC. Round and oval plans are known from other sites in the region and are not necessarily a function of extra-local influences. Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Barbara Horejs and Maxime Brami for their kind invitation to the Central/ Western Anatolian Farming Frontier workshop during the 10th ICAANE and for the excellent time in Vienna.

References Baird et al. 2012 D. Baird – A. Fairbairn – L. Martin – C. Middleton, The Boncuklu Project. The origins of sedentism, cultivation and herding in central Anatolia, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012a, 219–244. Benz et al. 2015 M. Benz – K. Deckers – C. Rössner – A. Alexandrovskiy – K. Pustovoytov – M. Scheeres – M. Fecher – A. Coşkun – S. Riehl – K. W. Alt – V. Özkaya, Prelude to village life. Environmental data and building tradition of the Epipaleolithic settlement at Körtik Tepe, southeastern Turkey, Paléorient 41, 2, 2015, 9–30. Brami et al. 2016 M. Brami – B. Horejs – F. Ostmann, The ground beneath their feet. Building continuity at Neolithic Çukuriçi Höyük, Anatolian Studies 66, 2016, 1–16. Çakırlar 2009 C. Çakırlar, Mollusk Shells in Troia, Yenibademli and Ulucak. An Archaeomalacological Approach to Environment and Economy in the Aegean, BAR International Series 2051 (Oxford 2009). Çakırlar 2012a C. Çakırlar, Evolution of animal husbandry in Neolithic central-west Anatolia. The archaeozoological record from Ulucak Höyük (ca. 7040–5660 cal. BC, Izmir, Turkey), Anatolian Studies 62, 1, 2012, 1–33. Çakırlar 2012b C. Çakırlar, Neolithic dairy technology at the European-Anatolian frontier. Implications of archaeozoological evidence from Ulucak Höyük, Izmir, Turkey, ca. 7000–5700 cal. BC, Anthropozoologica 47, 2, 2012, 79–100. Çakırlar 2015 C. Çakırlar, Adaptation, identity, and innovation in Neolithic and Chalcolithic western Anatolia (6800–3000 cal. BC). The evidence from aquatic mollusk shells, Quaternary International 390, 2015, 117–125. Çevik –Vuruşkan 2015 Ö. Çevik – O. Vuruşkan, Ulucak Höyük 2012–2013 yılı kazı çalışmaları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 36, 1/2014, 2015, 583–599. Çilingiroğlu 2011 Ç. Çilingiroğlu, The current state of Neolithic research at Ulucak, Izmir, in: R. Krauß (ed.), Beginnings – New Research in the Appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin. Papers of the International Workshop 8th–9th April 2009, Istanbul Organized by Dan Ciobotaru, Barbara Horejs and Raiko Krauß, Menschen – Kulturen – Traditionen 1 (Rahden 2011) 67–76.

220

Çiler Çilingiroğlu

Çilingiroğlu 2012 Ç. Çilingiroğlu, The Neolithic Pottery at Ulucak in Aegean Turkey. Organization of Production, Interregional Comparisons and Relative Chronology, BAR International Series 2426 (Oxford 2012). Çilingiroğlu 2016 Ç. Çilingiroğlu, Impressed pottery as a proxy for connectivity in the Neolithic Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, in: Molloy 2016, 75–96. Çilingiroğlu 2017 Ç. Çilingiroğlu, The Aegean before and after 7000 BC dispersal. Defining patterning and variability, Neo-Lithics 1/16, 2017, 32–41. Çilingiroğlu – Abay 2005 A. Çilingiroğlu – E. Abay, Ulucak Höyük excavations. New results, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 5, 3, Special Issue, 2005, 5–21. Çilingiroğlu – Çilingiroğlu 2007 A. Çilingiroğlu – Ç. Çilingiroğlu, Ulucak, in: Özdoğan – Başgelen 2007, 361–372. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004 A. Çilingiroğlu – Z. Derin – E. Abay – H. Sağlamtimur – I. Kayan, Ulucak Höyük. Excavations Conducted Between 1995 and 2002, Ancient Near Eatern Studies Suppl. 15 (Leuven 2004). Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012 A. Çilingiroğlu – Ö. Çevik – Ç. Çilingiroğlu, Towards understanding early farming communities of west-central Anatolia. Contribution of Ulucak, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012b, 139–175. Derin 2005 Z. Derin, The Neolithic architecture of Ulucak Höyük, in: Lichter 2005, 85–94. Derin 2007 Z. Derin, Yeşilova Höyüğü, in: Özdoğan – Başgelen 2007, 377–384. Derin 2010 Z. Derin, İzmir’in Prehistorik yerleşimi Yeşilova Höyüğü 2008 yılı çalışmaları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 31, 1/2009, 2010, 475–491. Derin 2012 Z. Derin, Yeşilova Höyük, in: M. Özdoğan et al. 2012b, 177–195. Düring 2002 B. Düring, Cultural dynamics of the central Anatolian Neolithic. The Early Ceramic Neolithic – Late Aceramic Neolithic transition, in: F. Gerard – L. Thissen (eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia (Istanbul 2002) 219–236. Düring 2011 B. Düring, The Prehistory of Asia Minor From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (Cambridge 2011). Hodder 2012 I. Hodder, Renewed Work at Çatalhöyük, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012a, 245–277. Horejs 2008 B. Horejs, Erster Grabungsbericht zu den Kampagnen 2006 und 2007 am Çukuriçi Höyük bei Ephesos, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 77, 2008, 91–106. Horejs 2012 B. Horejs, Çukuriçi Höyük. A Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement in the region of Ephesos, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012, 117–131. Horejs 2016 B. Horejs, Aspects of connectivity on the centre of the Anatolian Aegean coast in 7th millennium BC, in: Molloy 2016, 143–168.

Circular, Oval and Rectilinear: A Note on Building Plan Variability at Neolithic Sites in Central-West Anatolia

221

Horejs et al. 2015 B. Horejs – B. Milic – F. Ostmann – U. Thanheiser – B. Weninger – A. Galik, The Aegean in the early 7th millennium BC. Maritime networks and colonization, Journal of World Prehistory 28, 2015, 289–330. Karul 2011 N. Karul, Gusir Höyük, in: M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey, New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 1: The Tigris Basin (Istanbul 2011) 1–17. Karul – Avcı 2013 N. Karul – M. B. Avcı, Aktopraklık, in: Özdoğan et al. 2013, 45–68. Knapp 2013 B. Knapp, The Archaeology of Cyprus from Earliest Prehistory through the Bronze Age (Cambridge 2013). Lichter 2005 C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th Through the First Half of the 6th Millennium calBC. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul, 20–22 May 2004, Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005). Megaloudi 2005 F. Megaloudi, Archeobotanical finds from Ulucak, western Turkey (Izmir region). A preliminary study, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 5, 3, Special Issue, 2005, 27–32. Milić 2014 M. Milić, PXRF characterization of obsidian from central Anatolia, the Aegean and central Europe, Journal of Archaeological Science 41, 2014, 285–296. Miyake et al. 2012 Y. Miyake – O. Maeda – K. Tanno – H. Hongo – C. Y. Gündem, New excavations at Hasankeyf Höyük. A 10th millennium cal. BC site on the Upper Tigris, southeast Anatolia, Neo-Lithics 1/12, 2012, 1–5. Molloy 2016 B. Molloy (ed.), Of Odysseys and Oddities. Scales and Modes of Interaction between Prehistoric Aegean Societies and their Neighbours, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Prehistory (Oxford 2016). Nieuwenhuyse – Cruells 2004 O. Nieuwenhuyse – W. Cruells, The Proto-Halaf period in Syria. New sites, new data, Paléorient 30, 1, 2004, 47–68. Özbal 2010 R. Özbal, A comparative look at Halaf and Ubaid Period social complexity and the Tell Kurdu case, Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 13, 2010, 39–59. Özbaşaran 2012 M. Özbaşaran, Aşıklı, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012a, 135–158. Özdoğan 2007 M. Özdoğan, Bazı genellemeler, öngörüler, in: Özdoğan – Başgelen 2007, 441–458. Özdoğan 2011 M. Özdoğan, Archaeological evidence on the westward expansion of farming communities from Eastern Anatolia to the Aegean and the Balkans, Current Anthropology, 52, S4 The Origins of Agriculture. New Data, New Ideas, 2011, S415–S430. Özdoğan 2013 M. Özdoğan, Neolithic sites in the Marmara Region. Fikirtepe, Pendik, Yarımburgaz, Toptepe, Hoca Çeşme, and Aşağı Pınar, in: Özdoğan et al. 2013, 167–269. Özdoğan 2014 M. Özdoğan, Anatolia. From the Pre-Pottery Neolithic to the end of the Early Bronze Age (10,500–2000 BCE), in: C. Renfrew – P. Bahn (eds.), The Cambridge World Prehistory. Vol. 3: West and Central Asia and Europe (Cambridge 2014) 1508–1544.

222

Çiler Çilingiroğlu

Özdoğan – Başgelen 2007 M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen (eds.), Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem. Anadolu’da Uygarlığın Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı. Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular (Istanbul 2007). Özdoğan et al. 2012a M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 3: Central Turkey (Istanbul 2012). Özdoğan et al. 2012b M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 4: Western Turkey (Istanbul 2012). Özdoğan et al. 2013 M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. I. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 5: Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul (Istanbul 2013). Perlès 2001 C. Perlès, The Early Neolithic in Greece (Cambridge 2001). Sağlamtimur 2007 H. Sağlamtimur, Ege Gübre Neolitik yerleşimi, in: Özdoğan – Başgelen 2007, 373–376. Sağlamtimur 2012 H. Sağlamtimur, The Neolithic settlement of Ege Gübre, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012b, 197–225. Sağlamtimur – Ozan 2012 H. Sağlamtimur – A. Ozan, Ege Gübre Neolitik yerleşimi, in: A. Çilingiroğlu – Z. Mercangöz – G. Polat (eds.), Ege Üniversitesi Arkeoloji Kazıları (Izmir 2012) 96–114. Sampson 2014 A. Sampson, The Mesolithic of the Aegean Basin, in: C. Manen – T. Perrin – J. Guillaine (eds.), The Neolithic Transition in the Mediterranean (Paris 2014) 193–212. Schmidt 2011 K. Schmidt, Göbekli Tepe, in: M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. I. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 2: The Euphrates Basin (Istanbul 2011) 41–83. Schoop 2005 U. D. Schoop, The late escape of the Neolithic from the Central Anatolian Plain, in: Lichter 2005, 41–58. Steel 2004 L. Steel, Cyprus Before History. From the Earliest Settlers to the End of the Bronze Age (London 2004). Umurtak 2005 G. Umurtak, Burdur-Antalya bölgesi’nde Neolitik Çağ mimarlık gelenekleri. Gözlemler-Değerlendirmeler, Colloquium Anatolicum IV, 2005, 1–15.

Neolithic Goes West: Concepts and Models on the Neolithisation of the Aegean

223

Neolithic Goes West: Concepts and Models on the Neolithisation of the Aegean Kostas Kotsakis 1 Abstract: Recent excavations in both coasts of the Aegean offer new evidence for the expansion of the Neolithic in the region. At first sight, the new evidence seems to support the mainstream model of the overall westward movement of agriculturalists. On closer inspection, however, significant incompatibilities indicate that the dominant paradigm requires now some fine-tuning. It is argued that two distinct aspects, the Neolithic expansion as a culture-historical event, and the neolithisation as a sociocultural process, had been confounded by the mainstream model. By giving more emphasis to the former at the expense of the latter, research has failed to accommodate some essential components within the dominant model. Expectably, the two aspects represent two profoundly different phenomena that cannot be reduced to each other. Consequently, untangling the complex process of neolithisation as distinct from the Neolithic expansion requires its own, well-grounded, methodology. It is proposed here that an approach inspired by philosophical phenomenology can help considerably in tackling the overly contextual character of the sociocultural process of becoming neolithic. Keywords: Neolithisation, Aegean, westward expansion, meshworks and movement, early Neolithic architecture, agency, embodiment, phenomenology

Introduction It is not often that an archaeologist starts a paper on the Neolithic with Plato. Despite claims to the contrary, archaeology is not unaware of philosophy; the successive shifts in archaeological paradigms invariably relied on readings of philosophical postulates.2 In the context of this paper, however, the recourse to philosophy stems from a certain disappointment with the explanatory models of the Neolithic transformation in the Aegean and with their failure to incorporate some vital concepts introduced to archaeological discourse in the meantime.3 So persistent is this absence in favour of a pragmatic, exclusively factual discourse that one suspects a more deep-seated set of premises, even biases, at play. The examination of these premises becomes urgent, as there is a marked danger to equate uncritically and hastily a predominately socio-economic event with the mobility of people, for which modern biomolecular analyses are rapidly producing new data.4 The need, therefore, to examine fundamental concepts and accommodate new data in an informed conceptual space is now more vital than ever. The American philosopher Hubert Dreyfus, in his book Being-in-the-World, starts his commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time, by unravelling Plato’s fascination with theory.5 Plato’s powerful idea was that we understand things in a detached way, that we can understand something in depth only when we abstract from it all its particular details. Only then we form an abstract idea in our mind about what really is a thing.

3 4 5 1 2

Professor Emeritus, Department of Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, [email protected]. Cf. Salmon 1982; Wylie 1989; Johnsen – Olsen 1992; Holtorf – Karlsson 2000. Cf. e.g. Ammerman – Biagi 2003; Özdoğan 2011. Hofmanová et al. 2016; Mathieson et al. 2018. Dreyfus 1991.

224

Kostas Kotsakis

As Dreyfus explains, western philosophy was captivated by this discovery. Descartes accepted it totally and moved one step further by assuming that the mind is the conscious subject that stands apart from the world and grasps reality as a thinking thing. This assumption that reality can only be grasped when we are disengaged from the world, in an abstract, detached mode, is an incredible idea. It is an idea that recognises as our only concern the application of an appropriate method, a method through which we discover the principles of phenomena. It is common knowledge that this Plato – Descartes tradition informs all scientific research. In fact, as Stephen Toulmin asserts, it is behind the explosion of sciences that characterises Western modernity. Although truth for Plato was an ethical and political idea, for Descartes it was primarily epistemological. He was himself particularly interested in sciences and was fascinated by the concept of disengaged knowledge, which stems solely from our thinking mind, irrespective of our body and the senses, other humans, traditions, or society. In the ideologically and politically confused times in which Descartes was living, disengagement appeared as a much safer alternative.6 No wonder sciences were immediately fascinated by the prospect of seeking elements that remain constant and lie outside any form of context. The assumed superiority of the detached theoretical viewpoint complies well with a generalising tendency and supports directly the ambition of western science to become the ultimate authority on understanding the world. From such a viewpoint, the specific phenomenon of the Neolithic transformation in the Aegean can only be explained by correlating it with formal models and context-free elements that are related through covering laws, rules or universal regularities. Concepts like population densities and demography, climatic conditions, environmental factors, or recently biomolecular evidence, are often evoked to this end. It is highly significant that DNA is increasingly believed to reveal the deep text of human history and of our sense of being in this world, a task that until only a few decades ago was held by philosophy.

The Westward Movement The concept of westward movement of the Neolithic was given a systematic form in Gordon Childe’s work and has been constructed within the cultural-historical paradigm of his time. The stated aim was to reconstruct a historical event, accomplished by a particular people, having a particular culture. Arguably, Childe was thinking inside the Platonic-Cartesian legacy as his well-known definition of archaeology in Piecing Together the Past reveals: ‘The archaeological record is constituted of the fossilized results of human behaviour, and it is the archaeologist’s business to reconstitute that behaviour as far as he can and so to recapture the thoughts that behaviour expressed’.7 This separation of thoughts and behaviour and the primacy ascribed to thoughts betrays, as Carl Knappett aptly points out,8 the Cartesian dualism inherent in Childe’s archaeology. But, if all behaviour expresses thoughts of people, then every action must be represented in the actor’s mind. Therefore, for Childe, fossilised behaviour, i.e. the characteristic artefactual expressions of material culture, was a series of specialised mental representations and symbols, and by consequence, archaeology could only be capable of dealing with intentional aspects of human practice, with elements, attributes and rules that can be unambiguously recognised. In this predominantly representational framework, reconstructing historical phenomena as an array of fixed traits became possible. In fact, the actual concept of culture was based on stability and fixedness. Many of the contemporary narratives of the expansion of the Neolithic preserve a similar approach, based on recognisable, fixed attributes. The wave of advance model, is a typical and

8 6 7

Toulmin 1990, 45–87. Childe 1956. Knappett 2005, 3.

Neolithic Goes West: Concepts and Models on the Neolithisation of the Aegean

225

well-known example, as it assumes that the Neolithic is directly identifiable, even coterminous with agriculture and that it always exhibits constant attributes and traits, so that its presence can be unambiguous, and thus offers a measurement of the rate of colonisation. In any model of this type, be it biological or demographical, the entity observed has to be ontologically constant, for the model to function. Similarly, the concept of the Neolithic package9 rests on comparable assumptions of essential referents.10 This essentialism may be tolerated, even opted, in a formal representation in natural sciences, but, it poses insurmountable difficulties in describing culture, as I am going to explain now. I am not here concerned in the least with the model of the wave of advance or of the westbound package as such, but rather with the entity that they supposedly measure. Besides, I do not see much difference from this respect to the alternative models of cultural diffusion, which suffer from the same predicament. What exactly is moving? Culture is not like a virus; diffusion does not work like a contagious disease; it does not spread like an epidemic. How do we know that what we measure in any particular case is still the same one entity? Are things meaningful in one dimension only, or do they acquire different meanings in differing contexts? And what is the agency of the people? Are they just the passive carriers of traits, rules and features or are they are creators, through their being-in-the-world. Why do we need the meaning of things in the first place? Phenomenological approaches question the assumption that human activity can be adequately explained from a rational theoretical standpoint and reject the conscious, Cartesian subject, which creates mental images of the world around us.11 For phenomenology, this mind/body duality is flawed; it is the social context that forms the basis of intelligibility, not representations of things in consciousness. In a phenomenological view, things remain withdrawn and invisible, and they do not present themselves to our examination.12 Things ‘disappear’ from awareness, when everyday skills function normally; they return to awareness when they become dysfunctional.13 Drew Leder, on the same phenomenological track, extends the critique of the mind/body duality to the body itself, which disappears from awareness, to come back in disease or distress.14 Consequently, and unlikely to the rational Cartesian subject, everyday practices, into which we are socialised, are not necessarily represented in our mind, they simply are, or felt. ‘Mindless’, everyday skills and practices, form the primary way that we make sense of the world, of our, as it is called, being-inthe-world. As Thomas Csordas very aptly pointed out, the introduction of the ‘lived experience and the projection of the experiencing body as a conditional existence and not as a rational representation is a critical step in understanding, in his own words, the difference of culture as an ‘existential immediacy’ from culture as an ‘objectified abstraction’.15 The last distinction bears a lot of significance for the validity of explanatory models. ‘Lived experience’ here does not refer solely to the sensorial aspects of experience, towards which some versions of archaeological readings of phenomenology seem more inclined.16 For one thing, in a purely phenomenological approach, such a restriction would not be possible, as things, as we have seen, do not appear in our conscience, except only contextually. James Gibson, in his ecological approach to visual perception, has argued that perception is the result of the movement of an organism as a whole in its environment.17 Tim Ingold calls this the ‘dwelling perspective’, and its main quality is ‘the active engagement with the constituents of his or her surroundings…



9

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10

Çilingiroğlu 2005; Marshall 2006. Kotsakis 2006. Merleau-Ponty 1962. Dreyfus 1991, 1–9; Olsen 2010. Harman 2002, 44–49. Leder 1990. Csordas 1994, 10. E.g. Tilley 1994; Hamilakis et al. 2002. Gibson 1979.

226

Kostas Kotsakis

within a world that is inhabited by beings of manifold kinds, both human and non-human’.18 Donna Haraway uses location to describe a standpoint of a similar situatedness.19 The conclusion is that people are engaged in the world through their social and cultural faculties, as parts of their social networks entangled with things, as Ian Hodder would say.20 This entanglement makes social networks, or meshworks resembling containers of humans and things together with their interconnections. Formal models on neolithisation, however, perceive the past inhabited exclusively by Cartesian subjects that offer an immovable biological constant. The fatal blow to these models comes from the lack of contextualisation of the archaeological evidence, and from the agency of participants. It is not a question of empirical validity of their components, but of their actual relevance. Proxies such as assumed speed of spread, time and climate clines, pottery types, the location of sites, wild progenitors, Y chromosomes etc. are entirely verifiable. Are these proxies, however, really addressing the question? In some ways archaeologists are already familiar with this issue, from the former experience of dealing with ethnographic evidence; once a holy grail of archaeological interpretation, ethnoarchaeological ‘facts’ proved revealing in documenting natural processes implicated in human behaviour, but very misleading in dealing with the flux of culture and its transformations. The main issue lies in the objective meaning habitually ascribed to non-equivalent cultural manifestations, which may appear externally similar despite their contextual divergence. Even Neolithic bodies see their assumed universalised objectivity shaken by contextualisation. Anthropology, as a result of the influence of phenomenological ideas, cautions against understanding bodies as precultural and unambiguous biological entities existing prior to any cultural mutability. In Haraway’s words, a body must be understood ‘as an actor and agent, not as a screen, a ground, or a resource, never finally as slave to the master that closes off the dialectic in his unique agency and authorship of ‘objective’ knowledge’.21 Agency, like contextualisation, challenges the relevance of formal objectivity by bringing to the fore the non-equivalence of actions. The theoretical points presented in brief here, help us to draw a line between those instances where things are observed as context-free, fixed and recognisable attributes, and those when things (possibly also the same) are context-dependent. Heidegger himself, in Being and Time, discussing his famous distinction between ‘presence-at-hand’ (Vorhandenheit) and ‘readiness-at-hand’ (Zuhandenheit) says that things never show themselves as they are in themselves ‘so as to add up as a sum of realia and fill up a room…What we encounter as closest to us… is the room; and we encounter it not…in a geometrical spatial sense, but as equipment for residing.’22 It is obvious that situatedness and context in this sense, is not merely a technicality, but a basic block of our understanding. Context is the locus of everyday life, the constituents of its surroundings in which variable meanings are created and things made different through our embodied engagement with the world. We will now discuss how this can affect our reconstruction of the neolithisation of the Aegean.

The Neolithisation of the Aegean During the last two decades, new excavations in western Turkey have drastically changed the picture of the earliest Neolithic in the Aegean.23 Some new sites excavated on the Aegean coast closed the large temporal, spatial and cultural gap that existed between the settlements of central Anatolia and Greece (Fig. 1). Moreover, common features of material culture seem to support

20 21 22 23 18 19

Ingold 2000, 5. Haraway 1991, 194. Hodder 2012. Haraway 1991, 198. Heidegger 1962, 97–98. Özdoğan et al. 2012.

Neolithic Goes West: Concepts and Models on the Neolithisation of the Aegean

227

Fig. 1   Map of the circum-Aegean area, with sites mentioned (map design by N. Valasiadis)

the old idea of an east-west transfer of the Neolithic.24 Among the many typical characteristics of those earliest Neolithic settlements rectangular architecture is notable, apparently following the ancient tradition of the central and eastern Anatolian settlements. Ulucak25 and Çukuriçi Höyük26 as well as slightly later sites, such as Ege Gübre27 and Yeşilova,28 exhibit rectangular architecture, occasionally with plastered floors and traces of wall-paintings. Given the chronological distance

26 27 28 24 25

E.g. van Andel – Runnels 1995; Perlès 2005. Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012, fig. 37. Horejs 2012; Horejs et al. 2015, 297–298, fig. 3. Sağlamtimur 2012. Derin 2012.

228

Kostas Kotsakis

between central and eastern Anatolian settlements and those of the Greek coasts, it became far more comfortable to think in terms of a gradual expansion westwards, although one that lasted several centuries.29 The initial neolithic settlements in Greece were established around the mid 7th millennium on the Aegean coast.30 One of the distinctive characteristics of these early sites is the absence of rectangular houses. The deepest deposits of Sesklo, Argissa Magoula and Achilleion, three wellknown early sites excavated in the 1960s and 1970s, produced only pits and ditches cut in the bedrock.31 Turning further north, new systematic excavations of Early Neolithic sites have yielded additional evidence for the domination of pits in the initial stage of the Neolithic, making the picture infinitely clearer. In Revenia, located near Mount Olympus, in central Macedonia, northern Greece, pit-dwellings represent the only existing architecture.32 Recently, Paliambela Kolindros, a site near Revenia, produced a whole complex of successive pit dwellings organised around open areas of communal food processing (Figs. 2–3). They date to 6600 BC, among the earliest dates we have from Greek Neolithic sites.33 Micromorphological analysis proves that the pits of Paliambela Kolindros were, beyond any doubt, dwellings.34 Only much later, around the end of the 7th millennium, rectangular, above-ground houses replaced pit dwellings in Paliambela.35 The initial phase of Mavropigi Fylotsairi is dominated by a large central pit-dwelling, surrounded by smaller pits.36 In all the sites mentioned here, several of the pits represent dwellings, with various degrees of certainty. Although in some of the early Greek sites, rectangular houses appeared already during the final centuries of the 7th millennium (ENII) – Mavropigi is such a case – we have no examples, so far, of that type of architecture signalling the beginning of the period. The initial Neolithic is marked, all over continental Greece, with pits and pit-dwellings. The effort to define precisely the origins of the Greek Neolithic, a favourite exercise of archaeologists with a strong culture-historical orientation, is not only beyond the scope of this paper, but also against the core of the argument presented here. Still, it is strange, to the point of being inexplicable, why the two coasts of the Aegean, east and west have such a diverging attitude to the form and architecture of their dwellings. Whether migrant farmers in Greece migrated from the east coast or as Perlès argues from further east via a maritime route,37 they came from societies where rectangular built houses were the rule and had a long ancestry. It is hard to believe that the ‘package’ did not contain such a prominent and necessary feature, or that this feature was dropped or forgotten on the way to a new installation. On the face of it, the very model of expansion from the east coast to the west is severely challenged. This is not enough, however, because it does not tell us much about what this absence might mean. Peter Wilson in his book ‘The Domestication of the Human Species’ has underlined the significance of the manipulation of space for the building of political structures.38 The house, as a particular form of manipulating space in sedentary communities, defines a distinct segment of the social group, creates memory and builds identity. It is very different from the ‘open’ societies of hunters and gatherers who live in unbounded groups of communal sharing, in the context of an immediate returns based economy.39 What we have in the initial Neolithic of Greece are settlements that adopted some of the features of hunters and gatherers, whatever this might mean for the expansion

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 29 30

Özdoğan 2011, 427. Reingruber – Thissen 2009; Perlès et al. 2013; Kotsakis 2014. Milojčić et al. 1962, 6–13, Plan III; Wijnen 1982, 17, fig. 9; Gimbutas et al. 1989, 32–34, figs. 4.2, 4.3. Bessios – Adaktylou 2006. Maniatis et al. 2012; Kotsakis – Halstead 2017; Kotsakis in press. Koromila 2015; Kotsakis 2018. Siamidou et al. in press. Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2015. Perlès 2005; Perlès et al. 2013. Wilson 1988, 62. Wilson 1988, 36–41.

Neolithic Goes West: Concepts and Models on the Neolithisation of the Aegean

Fig. 2   Pits of Paliambela Kolindros c. 6600 BC (© Neolithic Paliambela Excavation Project)

Fig. 3   Paliambela Kolindros. The communal area with evidence for food preparation and consumption (© Paliambela Excavation Project)

229

230

Kostas Kotsakis

Fig. 4   Paliambela Kolindros. The communal area surrounded by pit-dwellings and pits in the lower level (© Paliambela Excavation Project and K. Kotsakis)

or migration model of the Neolithic. If we accept a migration from the east, then the abandonment of just an architectural typology common in the donor population is not enough. We have to accept as well something infinitely more difficult, namely the rejection of a whole form of social life, touching on most sensitive, even intimate aspects of personal identity, like kinship, marriage and progeny. Gaston Bachelard famously said ‘a house is our first universe, a real cosmos in every sense of the world’.40 The description fits well with contemporary, urban populations, but even for the first farmers, the role of houses must have been so obviously central that it is unlikely that it was discarded smoothly, without causing or expressing a drastic social rearrangement. This is why the lack of houses in the initial phases of the Neolithic in Greece deserves our attention on both substantive and methodological grounds. For one thing, it most likely signifies deep social change, but, at the same time, proves that explanatory models cannot merely rely on formal cat-

40

Bachelard 1969.

Neolithic Goes West: Concepts and Models on the Neolithisation of the Aegean

231

Fig. 5   Paliambela Kolindros. Rectangular, above-ground houses c. 5900 BC (© Paliambela Excavation Project)

egories alone, with context-free, fixed and recognisable attributes, devoid of agency. It requires us to face the complexity of the lived experience of those early farmers squarely. In contrast, the quest for origins, as applied in formal models, is compelled to decontextualise all evidence and to deny any agency to actors and things, in order to rescue the connection argument. Deep social change is reasonably presumed on the opposite phenomenon too, namely, the shift to the built house, which appears several centuries later in the Early Neolithic communities of Greece. Some of these buildings show a remarkable physical continuity, and it has been suggested that this is a material statement of ancestry and lineage of its residents.41 Houses became, in Peter Wilson’s expression ‘time anchored in space’42, a token of continuity, permanence and social role of its occupants43. In this sense, the house groups put forward an argument for their individuality, which would be in opposition to the primordial communal spirit that promotes solidarity in the community as a whole. We have some evidence for the emphasis to communality in the early settlements of the initial Neolithic from Paliambela Kolindros. Careful excavation of the pit-dwellings in the lower deposits revealed the elaborate landscaping that was carried out in the settlement. The early farmers of Paliambela had shaped their settlement space with a very strong concept of order. They first exposed the surface of the natural rock and then shaped it into a high upper terrace and one lower (Fig. 4). No signs of food preparing facilities were found in the dwelling pits, while significant quantities of food remains and evidence of food preparation were found on the upper terrace, in permanent installations cut in the rock (Fig. 5). The whole arrangement shows a sense of strict order and permanence, which is unlike the ‘open’ settlements of hunter-gatherers, where boundaries, order and permanence are not paramount. But, on the other hand, the preparation and

Nanoglou 2008; Kotsakis 2014; Kotsakis 2018. Wilson 1988, 60–61. 43 Wilson 1998, 70–71. 41 42

232

Kostas Kotsakis

Fig. 6   Houses of Paliambela with internal food processing installations, c. 5900 BC (© Paliambela Excavation Project and K. Kotsakis)

consumption of food does take place in the open, in the public sphere, under the surveillance of the community. This particular pattern preserves the communality that characterises the ‘open’ settlements or camps of the hunter-gatherers. As mentioned above, a significant change is noted at Paliambela Kolindros during the end of the 7th millennium. In that period, pit dwellings were abandoned and replaced by rectangular houses in organised clusters (Fig. 5). These houses preserve now ample evidence of food preparation and cooking, such as a big central installation, possibly an oven, a mortar permanently fixed on the floor, querns, grinders, and pottery for cooking, serving and consuming food (Fig. 6). Along with the appearance of individual houses, cooking and eating became less communal, and took place in the enclosed space of the house, hidden from the inspection of the neighbours. The social trajectory described above on the evidence offered by Paliambela Kolindros and other Early Neolithic excavations, gives an excellent example of the ideological structures that condition the lived experience of the earliest agropastoralists in the Aegean. This is the kind of evidence that we are missing in our archaeological modelling, as we usually are focussing on the similarities of material culture at the expense of the variability of meaning that they may contain. Although apparent similarities may seem to fit comfortably with a model of east-west migration, they may also hide deep-seated differences that make the assumption problematic, even superfluous. In any case, the evidence is not always incompatible with those alternative interpretations, which may shed more light on the contribution of migration, colonisation and local adoption and recognise nuances and details that bring us closer to understanding the living experience of the early farmers in the Aegean. Comparing the two coasts of the Aegean, we notice that there are similarities. Pottery, for instance, seems typologically close. Not necessarily, however, on a more in-depth analysis; detailed laboratory analysis of early ceramics, especially from northern Greek contexts, has revealed significant differences in technology and use on a site to site basis, which, as a rule, is masked by typological uniformity.44 Comparable work from the east coast has not been published yet. Lithics

44

Urem-Kotsou – Kotsakis 2007; Dimoula 2014; Saridaki et al. 2014; Kozatsas et al. 2018.

Neolithic Goes West: Concepts and Models on the Neolithisation of the Aegean

233

are another case of an uneven level of analysis; the detailed chronotechnological analysis existing for Anatolian sites is not available in northern Greece. In fact, broader comparisons between the two areas are difficult, given the uneven level of analysis carried out, and the previous lack of close communication between scholars of the two regions. Still, closer examination, reaching down to the level of what we have called here ‘lived experience’ finds additional notable differences – the ‘package’ of staple plants has divergences between east and west.45 Dairy consumption is very common in the east, rarer in the west and varying considerably between sites.46 We still do not understand clearly what specific treatment the west had in store for the dead.47 Cooking may have varied significantly, farming regimes are not yet securely identified48 and diets are only now starting to be assessed in Greece.49 We know there can be wide differences in managing livestock in terms of mobility and grazing regime.50 There are common features too: obsidian comes invariably from Melos, a maritime element seems central, not only for the south of Greece, but also for the north. Early sites are located in the plains near the coasts; at Paliambela Kolindros there is a strong preference for the consumption of seafood, mainly cockles, and strong indications for their sophisticated management, indicating long experience with marine resources.51 These last remarks bring to mind sites like Ulucak and Çukuruçi Höyük, the latter with a strong maritime orientation, according to the excavator.52 A maritime network of Early Neolithic sites active in the Aegean has been proposed since the 1990s by Curtis Runnels and Tjeerd van Andel,53 and there is ample evidence that it was active from the Mesolithic times exploiting and transferring Melian obsidian.54 But it is usually conceived as an east-west drift, carrying with it the traits and characteristics of the Neolithic. In contrast, what I am proposing here is more like a Deleuzian rhizome of migrations, active within the Aegean and possibly beyond, to all directions.55 The maritime network and its sailors would have been instrumental in carrying people across the Aegean as the evidence of Çukuruçi Höyük shows, but also the almost simultaneous appearance of Early Neolithic communities even in the more remote northern corners of the Aegean. Although the scale of the Aegean is small, compared to the whole of the Mediterranean, leapfrog migration from the sea is more easily supported than expansion over land. This last seems much more probable during the Late Neolithic, when there is a gradual ‘infilling’ of the landscape, probably the result of population growth. It is beyond any doubt that this maritime mobility with the mixture of places, peoples and traditions would have produced a significant variability and hybridity of forms that make any quest for more precise origins meaningless. At the frontier, the hybridity of identities and their material expression is what one surely expects in periods of cultural flux, when significant transformations happen, and new social worlds emerge. The ‘family resemblance’ of material culture in the Aegean could well be the cumulative result of multidirectional movement over this maritime network.

Conclusions In the recent overview of the archaeological evidence for the westward expansion of the Neolithic, mentioned in the introduction of this chapter, Mehmet Özdoğan, one of the keenest pro-

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 45 46

Valamoti – Kotsakis 2007. Evershed et al. 2008. Triantaphyllou 2001; Triantaphyllou 2008; Stratouli et al. 2010. Bogaard 2005; Halstead 2012. Valamoti 2007. Halstead 2006. Veropoulidou 2011. Horejs et al. 2015. Runnels – van Andel 1988. Kotsakis 2008. Deleuze – Guattari 1987.

234

Kostas Kotsakis

ponents of the movement from Anatolia to the Aegean and the Balkans reluctantly admits in conclusion: ‘I could have written this article using same evidence in another way by defining the distinct compositions of different Neolithic packages. Then the picture would have been slightly different. [….] After an overview of previous discussions on the nature of this expansion, it now seems clear that all arguments, no matter how contradictory, were correct. There was endemic movement, migration, and colonisation by both land and sea; there were ‘frontiers’ merging with local communities, expansion by exchange of knowledge and/or commodities, and to a degree, local development.’56 Although overly succinct, this is a view not fundamentally incompatible with the case made here, at least in its broad lines. Nevertheless, it sounds like an astonishing admission, especially coming from a scholar who has in the past actively supported models of a one-way migration. In my opinion, the reason for this seeming inconsistency lies in two discrete aspects being confounded: on the one hand the expansion of the Neolithic as a culture-historical event and on the other neolithisation as an embodied sociocultural process. This is an important distinction that has not received proper research attention, and it has become the cause of much unnecessary dispute and disagreement. Expansion and neolithisation represent two entirely disparate phenomena; although parallel, none can substitute for the other. While the expansion is expressed as a representation of objectified bodies in movement together with their gear, neolithisation involves embodied subjects in their being-in-the-world, i.e. their situated/located lived experience. I will borrow again Csordas’ words: ‘Representation is fundamentally nominal, and hence we can speak of ‘a representation’. Being-in-the-world is conditional, and hence we must speak of ‘existence’ and ‘lived experience’.57 Indeed, expansion is a take-it-or-leave-it account of an event. It is the broad, uniformitarian picture. You accept it as a whole; there are no significant digressions; it is Cartesian. Neolithisation has many aspects and faces; it involves all the embodied practices of daily life. It engages with different contexts, worlds and intersecting agencies; it is fundamentally phenomenological. The phenomenological tradition and related recent theoretical advances prioritise context as the place of engagement with the world. The question of neolithisation cannot be satisfactorily answered, without prior recognition of the multiplicity and dimensionality of the phenomenon. Models that are trying to provide answers with indirect proxy measures, either natural or cultural, often assume a fixed significance and meaning, even though they are frequently fraught with the considerable ambiguity of interpretation. But it will be helpful to all to clarify which of the two phenomena these models are addressing. Archaeological science has an enormous contribution in recent years in increasing our capacity to understand the Neolithic. In a way, however, it is still following what Gordon Childe advocated more than sixty years ago, to rely on proxy measures (infinitely more sophisticated, of course) and reconstruct a representation of the cultural history of the Neolithic. It is a waste, I feel, trying to build these elaborate models only to fit preconceived assumptions of directional expansion or colonisation. Following the phenomenological way, I propose here instead to focus on the small scale of engagement with daily practices, contextualising material culture. Detailed contextual analysis of material culture together with theoretically informed archaeological science can reveal the complexity of early farming societies vividly. In this ‘thick description’ of the Neolithic life, the lives of the people are not considered as an instance of a universal ‘package’ or a ‘blueprint’ of something prior and already accomplished, but as a dynamic set of contexts producing variability. Local elaborations of the Neolithic, such as painted floors, special architecture or elaborate rituals, different landscapes and climatic regimes, variable relations to resources and differing strategies, result in totally different ‘lived experiences’ and create new variable ecological niches and social worlds where agency thrives. In this sense, neolithisation represents a new start line

56 57

Özdoğan 2011, 427. Csordas 1994, 10.

Neolithic Goes West: Concepts and Models on the Neolithisation of the Aegean

235

every time. More than that, it ascribes to material culture different meanings, a fact that renders comparisons a far more problematic task than what arrows on archaeological maps connecting features that appear to be similar, seem to imply. I see no reason, why mobility, a crucial component of Neolithic life, which we are only recently beginning to understand more clearly in its many dimensions, should be directed only from east to west. On the contrary, a meshwork of movements in the Aegean frontier, active since the Mesolithic, would have contributed significantly in producing variability by bringing in contact various groups, with different practices embedded in their social skills.58 From this respect, uniformitarian explanations, although convenient and comforting, are not suitable to describe the neolithisation process. A leapfrog migration of mixed groups of people is much more consistent with the available evidence than colonisation waves from centre to periphery. These groups should also include Mesolithic populations, which, I believe, had a much more significant presence in Greece than their sparse traces indicate.59 It is promising that this theoretical discussion leads to a proposal that blends archaeological theory with analytical work and archaeological science. No critic can say that the theoretical argument is not in contact with archaeological facts, or that empirical analysis is not theoretically informed. To this, the already noticeable diffusion of phenomenological concepts into contemporary archaeological thought and practice plays a significant role. The study of the neolithisation of the Aegean, an area where culture history is still active, can only benefit from following this lead and explore how regional populations and local communities interpret the new conditions of their life at the advent of the Neolithic. Acknowledgements: I am grateful to Barbara Horejs for giving me the opportunity to take part in this volume, and above all for her persistence. I also thank my co-directors in the Paliambela Excavations, Paul Halstead and D. Urem-Kotsou, as well as all the colleagues and students who formed the research team at Paliambela Kolindros and Maxime Brami for his polite patience, last but not least.

References Ammerman – Biagi 2003 A. J. Ammerman – P. Biagi (eds.), The Widening Harvest. The Neolithic Transition in Europe. Looking Back, Looking Forward (Boston 2003). Bachelard 1969 G. Bachelard, The Poetics of Space (Boston 1969). Bessios – Adaktylou 2006 Μ. Μπέσιος – Φ. Αδακτύλου, Ο Νεολιθικός Oικισμός στα «Ρεβένια» Κορινού, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 18/2004, 2006, 357–366. Bogaard 2005 A. Bogaard, Garden agriculture and the nature of early farming in Europe and the Near East, World Archaeology 37, 2, 2005, 177–196. Childe 1956 G. V. Childe, Piecing together the Past. The Interpretation of Archaeological Data (London 1956). Çilingiroğlu 2005 Ç. Çilingiroğlu, The concept of “Neolithic package”. Considering its meaning and applicability, Documenta Praehistorica 2, 2005, 1–13.

Kotsakis 2008. Galanidou – Perlès 2003; Sampson 2008; Runnels 2009.

58 59

236

Kostas Kotsakis

Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012 A. Çilingiroğlu – Ö. Çevik – Ç. Çilingiroğlu, Ulucak Höyük. Towards understanding the early farming communities of middle west Anatolia. The contribution of Ulucak, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012, 139–175. Csordas 1994 T. Csordas (ed.), Embodiment and Experience. The Existential Ground of Culture and Self, Cambridge Studies in Medical Anthropology 2 (Cambridge 1994). Deleuze – Guattari 1987 G. Deleuze – F. Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Minneapolis 1987). Derin 2012 Z. Derin, Yeşilova Höyük, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012, 177–195. Dimoula 2014 Α. Δημουλά, Πρώιμη κεραμική τεχνολογία και παραγωγή. Το παράδειγμα της Θεσσαλίας (Thessaloniki 2014). Dreyfus 1991 H. L. Dreyfus, Being-in-the-World. A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being in Time, Division I (Cambridge, MA 1991). Evershed et al. 2008 A. Evershed – R. Richard – S. Payne – A. G. Sherratt – M. S. Copley – J. Coolidge – D. Urem-Kotsu – K. Kotsakis – M. Ozdoğan – A. E. Ozdoğan – O. Nieuwenhuyse – P. M. M. G. Akkermans – D. Bailey – R. R. Andeescu – S. Campbell – S. Farid – I. Hodder – N. Yalman – M. Ozbaşaran – E. Biçakci – Y. Garfinkel – T. Levy – M. M. Burton, Earliest date for milk use in the Near East and southeastern Europe linked to cattle herding, Nature 455, 7212, 2008, 528–531. Galanidou – Perlès 2003 N. Galanidou – C. Perlès (eds.), The Greek Mesolithic. Problems and Perspectives, British School at Athens Studies 10 (London 2003). Gibson 1979 J. J. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (Boston 1979). Gimbutas et al. 1989 M. Gimbutas – S. Winn – D. Shimabuku, Achilleion. A Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece 6,400–5,600 BC, Monumenta Archaeologica 14 (Los Angeles 1989). Halstead 2006 P. Halstead, Sheep in the garden. The integration of crop and livestock husbandry in early farming regimes of Greece and southern Europe, in: D. Serjeantson – D. Field (eds.), Animals in the Neolithic of Britain and Europe, Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 7 (Oxford 2006) 42–55. Halstead 2012 P. Halstead, Feast, food and fodder in Neolithic–Bronze Age Greece. Commensality and the construction of value, Journal of Ancient Studies 2, 2012, 21–51. Hamilakis et al. 2002 Y. Hamilakis – M. Pluciennik – S. Tarlow, Thinking through the Body. Archaeologies of Corporeality (New York 2002). Haraway 1991 D. J. Haraway, Simians, Cyborgs and Women. The Reinvention of Nature (London, New York 1991). Harman 2002 G. Harman, Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects (Chicago 2002). Heidegger 1962 M. Heidegger, Being and Time (Oxford 1962). Hodder 2012 I. Hodder, Entangled. An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things (Oxford 2012).

Neolithic Goes West: Concepts and Models on the Neolithisation of the Aegean

237

Hofmanová et al. 2016 Z. Hofmanová – S. Kreutzer – G. Hellenthal – C. Sell – Y. Diekmann – D. Díez-del-Molino – L. van Dorp – S. López – A. Kousathanas – V. Link – K. Kirsanow – L. M. Cassidy – R. Martiniano – M. Strobel – A. Scheu – K. Kotsakis – P. Halstead – S. Triantaphyllou – N. Kyparissi-Apostolika – D. Urem-Kotsou – C. Ziota – F. Adaktylou – S. Gopalan – D. M. Bobo – L. Winkelbach – J. Blöcher – M. Unterländer – C. Leuenberger – Ç. Çilingiroğlu – B. Horejs – F. Gerritsen – St. J. Shennan – D. G. Bradley – M. Currat – K. R. Veeramah – D. Wegmann – M. G. Thomas – C. Papageorgopoulou – J. Burger, Early farmers from across Europe directly descended from Neolithic Aegeans, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113, 25, 2016, 6886–6891. Holtorf – Karlsson 2000 C. Holtorf – H. Karlsson, Philosophy and Archaeological Practice (Göteborg 2000). Horejs 2012 B. Horejs, Çukuriçi Höyük. A Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement in the region of Ephesos, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012, 117–131. Horejs et al. 2015 B. Horejs – B. Milic – F. Ostmann – U. Thanheiser – B. Weninger – A. Galik, The Aegean in the early 7th millennium BC. Maritime networks and colonization, Journal of World Prehistory 28, 4, 2015, 289–330. Ingold 2000 T. Ingold, The Perception of the Environment. Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill (London, New York 2000). Johnsen – Olsen 1992 H. Johnsen – B. Olsen, Hermeneutics and archaeology. On the philosophy of contextual archaeology, American Antiquity 57, 3, 1992, 419–436. Karamitrou-Mentessidi et al. 2015 G. Karamitrou-Mentessidi – N. Efstratiou – M. Kaczanowska – J. Kozłowski, Early Neolithic settlement of Mavropigi in western Greek Macedonia, Eurasian Prehistory 12, 1–2, 2015, 47–116. Knappett 2005 C. Knappett, Thinking through Material Culture. An Interdisciplinary Perspective (Cambridge 2005). Kormolia 2015 G. Koromila, From Archaeological Sediments to Human Practice. Geoarchaeological Study of Open Areas in the Neolithic of Northern Greece (PhD Diss., University of Reading, Reading 2015). Kotsakis 2006 K. Kotsakis, A bridge too far. Essentialist concepts in Greek archaeology, in: S. Antoniadou – A. Pace (eds.), Mediterranean Crossroads (Athens 2006). Kotsakis 2008 K. Kotsakis, A sea of agency. Crete in the context of the earliest Neolithic in Greece, in: V. Isaakidou – P. D. Tomkins (eds.), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8 (Oxford 2008) 49–72. Kotsakis 2014 K. Kotsakis, Domesticating the periphery. New research into the Neolithic of Greece, Pharos 20, 1, 2014, 41–73. Kotsakis 2018 K. Kotsakis, Eating out. Food and social context in the Early Neolithic in Greece, in: M. Ivanova – B. Athanassov – V. Petrova – D. Takorova – P. W. Stockhammer (eds.), Social Dimensions of Food in the Prehistoric Balkans (Oxford, Philadelphia 2018) 31–46. Kotsakis – Halstead in press Κ. Κωτσάκης – P. Halstead, Παλιάμπελα Κολινδρού. Έρευνα στον οικισμό της Αρχαιότερης Νεολιθικής, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 30/2017, in press. Kozatsas et al. 2018 J. Kozatsas – K. Kotsakis – D. Sagris – K. David, Inside out. Assessing pottery forming techniques with micro-CT scanning. An example from Middle Neolithic Thessaly, Journal of Archaeological Science 100, 2018, 102–119.

238

Kostas Kotsakis

Leder 1990 D. Leder, The Absent Body (Chicago 1990). Maniatis et al. 2012 Γ. Μανιάτης – Κ. Κωτσάκης – P. Halstead, Νέες ραδιοχρονολογήσεις της Αρχαιότερης Νεολιθικής στη Μακεδονία. Παλιάμπελα Κολινδρού, Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 25/2011, 2012, 149–156. Marshall 2006 Y. Marshall, Introduction. Adopting a sedentary lifeway, World Archaeology 38, 2, 2006, 153–163. Mathieson et al. 2018 I. Mathieson – S. Alpaslan-Roodenberg – C. Posth – A. Szécsényi-Nagy – N. Rohland – S. Mallick – I. Olalde – N. Broomandkhoshbacht – F. Candilio – O. Cheronet – D. Fernandes – M. Ferry – B. Gamarra – G. González Fortes – W. Haak – E. Harney – E. Jones – D. Keating – B. Krause-Kyora – I. Kucukkalipci – M. Michel – A. Mittnik – K. Nägele – M. Novak – J. Oppenheimer – N. Patterson – S. Pfrengle – K. Sirak – K. Stewardson – St. Vai – St. Alexandrov – K. W. Alt – R. Andreescu – D. Antonović – A. Ash – N. Atanassova – K. Bacvarov – M. Balázs Gusztáv – H. Bocherens – M. Bolus – A. Boroneanţ – Y. Boyadzhiev – A. Budnik – J. Burmaz – St. Chohadzhiev – N. J. Conard – R. Cottiaux – M. Čuka – Ch. Cupillard – D. G. Drucker – N. Elenski – M. Francken – Borislava Galabova – G. Ganetsovski – B. Gély – T. Hajdu – V. Handzhyiska – K. Harvati – Th. Higham – St. Iliev – I. Janković – I. Karavanić – D. J. Kennett – D. Komšo – A. Kozak – D. Labuda – M. Lari – C. Lazar – M. Leppek – K. Leshtakov – D. Lo Vetro – D. Los – I. Lozanov – M. Malina – F. Martini – K. McSweeney – H. Meller – M. Menđušić – P. Mirea – V. Moiseyev – V. Petrova – T. D. Price – A. Simalcsik – L. Sineo – M. Šlaus – V. Slavchev – P. Stanev – A. Starović – T. Szeniczey – S. Talamo – M. Teschler-Nicola – C. Thevenet – I. Valchev – F. Valentin – S. Vasilyev – F. Veljanovska – S. Venelinova – E. Veselovskaya – B. Viola – C. Virag – J. Zaninović – St. Zäuner – P. W. Stockhammer – G. Catalano – R. Krauß – D. Caramelli – G. Zariņa – B. Gaydarska – M. Lillie – A. G. Nikitin – I. Potekhina – A. Papathanasiou – D. Borić – C. Bonsall – J. Krause – R. Pinhasi – D. Reich, The genomic history of southeastern Europe, Nature 555, 2018, 197–203. Mee – Renard 2007 C. Mee – J. Renard (eds.), Cooking up the Past. Food and Culinary Practices in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean (Oxford 2007). Merleau-Ponty 1962 M. Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception (London 1962). Milojčić et al. 1962 V. Milojčić – J. Boessneck – M. Hopf, Das präkeramische Neolithikum sowie die Tier- und Pflanzenreste, Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa-Magula in Thessalien I, Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 2 (Bonn 1962). Nanoglou 2008 St. Nanoglou, Building biographies and households. Aspects of community life in Neolithic northern Greece, Journal of Social Archaeology 8, 1, 2008, 139–160. Olsen 2010 Olsen, Bjørnar, In Defence of things. Archaeology and the ontology of objects (Lanham, New York, Toronto, Plymouth 2010). Özdoğan 2011 M. Özdoğan, Archaeological evidence on the westward expansion of farming communities from eastern Anatolia to the Aegean and the Balkans, Current Anthropology 53, Supplement 4, 2011, 415–430. Özdoğan et al. 2012 M. Özdoğan – N. Başgelen – P. Kuniholm (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations and New Research. Vol. 4: Western Turkey (Istanbul 2012). Perlès 2005 C. Perlès, From the Near East to Greece. Let’s reverse the focus. Cultural elements that didn’t transfer, in: C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium calBC. Proceedings of the International Workshop, Istanbul 20–22 May 2004, Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005) 275–290.

Neolithic Goes West: Concepts and Models on the Neolithisation of the Aegean

239

Perlès et al. 2013 C. Perlès – A. Quiles – H. Valladas, Early seventh-millennium AMS dates from domestic seeds in the Initial Neolithic at Franchthi Cave (Argolid, Greece), Antiquity 87, 2013, 1001–1015. Reingruber – Thissen 2009 A. Reingruber – L. Thissen, Depending on 14C data. Chronological frameworks in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of southeastern Europe, Radiocarbon 51, 2, 2009, 751–770. Runnels 2009 C. Runnels, Mesolithic sites and surveys in Greece. A case study from the southern Argolid, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 22, 1, 2009, 57–73. Runnels – van Andel 1988 C. Runnels – T. H. van Andel, Trade and the origins of agriculture in the eastern Mediterranean, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 1, 1, 1988, 83–109. Sağlamtimur 2012 H. Sağlamtimur, The Neolithic settlement of Ege Gübre, in: Özdoğan et al. 2012, 197–255. Salmon 1982 W. C. Salmon, Causality in archaeological explanation, in: C. Renfrew – G. Abbot – B. A. Seagraves (eds.), Theory and Explanation in Archaeology (London 1982) 45–55. Sampson 2008 A. Sampson, The Cave of Cyclops. Mesolithic and Neolithic Networks in the Northern Aegean, Greece. Vol. I: Intra-site Analysis, Local Industries, and Regional Site Distribution, Prehistory Monographs 21 (Philadelphia 2008). Saridaki et al. 2014 N. Saridaki – K. Kotsakis – D. Urem-Kotsou – T. Papadakou – A. Papaioannou, Production practices during the Neolithic in Pieria, Macedonia (Northern Greece), in: S. Amicone – P. Quinn – M. Radivojević – M. Marić – N. Mirković (eds.), Tracing Pottery Making Recipes in the Balkans, 6th–4th Millennium BC. International Workshop, Belgrade, Serbia, 19–20 September 2014. Book of Abstracts (Belgrade 2014) 26. Online (last accessed 2 May 2018). Siamidou et al. in press Ι. Σιαμίδου – Κ. Κωτσάκης – S. Perić – P. Halstead, Ένα οίκημα της Μέσης Νεολιθικής από τον οικισμό των Παλιαμπέλων Κολινδρού Πιερίας. Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 30/2017, in press. Stratouli et al. 2010 G. Stratouli – S. Triantaphyllou – T. Bekiaris – N. Katsikaridis, The manipulation of death. A burial area at the Neolithic Settlement of Avgi, NW Greece, Documenta Praehistorica 37, 2010, 95–104. Tilley 1994 C. Tilley, A Phenomenology of Landscape (Oxford 1994). Toulmin 1990 S. E. Toulmin, Cosmopolis. The Hidden Agenda of Modernity (New York 1990). Triantaphyllou 2001 S. Triantaphyllou, A Bioarchaeological Approach to Prehistoric Cemetery Populations from Western and Central Macedonia, BAR International Series 976 (Oxford 2001). Triantaphyllou 2008 S. Triantaphyllou, Living with the dead. A re-consideration of mortuary practices in the Greek Neolithic, in: V. Isaakidou – P. D. Tomkins (eds.), Escaping the Labyrinth. The Cretan Neolithic in Context, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 8 (Oxford 2008) 136–154. Urem-Kotsou – Kotsakis 2007 D. Urem-Kotsou – K. Kotsakis, Pottery, cuisine and community in the Neolithic of north Greece, in: Mee – Renard 2007, 225–246. Valamoti 2007 M. S. Valamoti, Traditional foods and culinary novelties in the Neolithic and Bronze Age of northern Greece. An overview of the archaeobotanical evidence, in: Mee – Renard 2007, 89–108.

240

Kostas Kotsakis

Valamoti – Kotsakis 2007 S. M. Valamoti – K. Kotsakis, Transitions to agriculture in the Aegean. The archaeobotanical evidence, in: S. Colledge – J. Conolly (eds.), The Origin and Spread of Domestic Plants in Southwest Asia and Europe (Walnut Creek 2007) 75–92. Van Andel – Runnels 1995 T. H. van Andel – C. N. Runnels, The earliest farmers in Europe, Antiquity 69, 264, 1995, 481–500. Veropoulidou 2011 Ρ. Βεροπουλιδου, Όστρεα από τους οικισμούς του Θερμαϊκού Κόλπου: ανασυνθέτοντας την κατανάλωση των μαλακίων στη Νεολιθική και την Εποχή Χαλκού (PhD Diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 2011). Wijnen 1982 M. H. J. M. N. Wijnen, The Early Neolithic I Settlement at Sesklo. An Early Farming Community in Thessaly, Greece (Leiden 1982). Wilson 1988 P. J. Wilson, The Domestication of the Human Species (New Haven, London 1988). Wylie 1989 A. Wylie, Archaeological cables and tacking. The implications of practice for Bernstein’s options beyond objectivism and relativism, Philosophy of Social Science 19, 1989, 1–18.

The Neolithisation of Europe: An Arrhythmic Process

241

The Neolithisation of Europe: An Arrhythmic Process Jean Guilaine 1 Abstract: The diffusion of the Neolithic system across the European continent is neither regular in time nor culturally homogeneous. For the author, this propagation takes place according to an “arrhythmic model” punctuated by rapid diffusion followed by “pauses” during which cultural reconfigurations take place. After outlining some of the possible factors that may have led to these periodic “breaks”, he evokes some of these temporary barriers where this dual process of stopping and emergence of new cultures takes place, these followed by a resumption of the spread: Egyptian Delta, Central Anatolia, West Greece, Middle Danube, great plain of Northern Europe. Within the geographical areas considered, contrasting diffusion tempos can be observed. In the western Mediterranean, neolithisation takes place in successive sequences: dispersed pioneer maritime settlements (Impressa), coastal geographical unification and expansion in the hinterland (Cardial), continuation and reinforcement of agricultural colonisation (Epicardial). Keywords: Neolithisation, Arrhythmia, Egypt, Anatolia, Europe, Danube, Mediterranean

Introduction This chapter aims to highlight several geo-cultural frontiers, through which the spread of the Neolithic across Europe experienced ‘pauses’, followed by rapid advances. It draws on and develops earlier papers on this topic.2 The article was written at the invitation of Maxime Brami and Barbara Horejs for ‘The Central/Western Anatolian Farming Frontier‘ workshop organised in Vienna; it will, for this reason, remain fairly general in scope.

Retrospective Overview The spread of the Neolithic, and of its technical and ideological components, to the European continent, from its origins in the Near East, has given rise to many debates. The idea of an initial impulse caused by the arrival of migrants from the Eastern Mediterranean has been mooted since the 19th century, among scientists such as Oscar Montelius and Gabriel de Mortillet, and was subsequently disseminated by Joseph Déchelette in the first half of the 20th century. Vere Gordon Childe, however, was the first to elaborate a formal model for the spread of agriculture, according to an east-west gradient and alongside two main axes: the Mediterranean and the Danube basin.3 In the absence of absolute dates, the chronological compression of Childe’s system gave rise to multiple anachronisms. From the end of the 1950s onward, the development of radiocarbon dating changed this perspective completely by highlighting both the unexpectedly old date of the European Neolithic and its remarkable span over several millennia. Hence, as early as 1965, Grahame Clark was able to confirm, based on the distribution of 14C dates available at the time,



1



2 3

Collège de France, Paris, France, [email protected]. Translation: Maxime Brami; final corrected version: Roderick Salisbury. Guilaine 1997; Guilaine 2001; Guilaine 2013. Childe 1925.

242

Jean Guilaine

the leading role of the Near East in the emergence of the Neolithic and a more and more recent pattern of expansion, as one looked away from the epicentre.4 Among the 14C dates, some very old and thus erroneous ones have, for a while, contaminated the debate by giving rise to hypotheses regarding local domestication in Europe. The advancement of research has shattered these speculations, but the controversies triggered have at least had the positive effect of encouraging the development of indigenist perspectives, placing autochthonous hunter-gatherer societies at the forefront of research into the dynamics of neolithisation of Europe.5 It is incidentally during the ‘indigenist period’ that Albert Ammerman and Luigi Cavalli-Sforza6 proposed a model combining demographic growth, migration and expansion speed. Using Jericho as a potential origin point for the process, they suggested a southeast/northwest expansion at an average speed of 1km/year, involving, as distance from the core increased, admixture between migrant and autochthonous populations; accordingly, the resulting pattern was a genetic gradient still observable in modern populations, as indicated by specific blood markers. Since these pioneering studies, new approaches based on the analysis of mitochondrial DNA and the Y-chromosome have led to re-evaluations and discussions among the geneticists regarding the importance of the Neolithic expansion in the genome of modern Europeans. Aside from these debates, it is the question of the tempos of the agricultural expansion that will retain our attention here. The ‘wave of advance’ model has been criticised for its mechanistic character, despite the fact that the authors themselves identified variations in the pace of expansion. Taking into account cultural variability in this approach holds, one may argue, the best key to explaining the phenomenon. Indeed, agriculture was not carried by a single culture, but by various entities, which branched out into regional facies and spanned successive temporal sequences. It is worth stressing that the number of 14C dates has been steadily increasing over time, and that archaeological excavations are now being conducted everywhere, particularly in regions that were previously neglected; these developments have led to the gradual filling of spatial gaps and significant improvements of the chronology. What was the sequence of cultures, in time and space, from the oldest European Neolithic onward?

‘Lags’ and Cultural Frontiers A central observation is that the expansion of the Neolithic was non-linear. Drawing its source from the Near Eastern epicentre, the Neolithic spread was punctuated by halts or chronological breaks, immediately conjugated with cultural breaks. I have termed this process of transmission an ‘arrhythmic model’, characterised by an alternation of rapid phases of expansion and phases of stasis, or of loss of momentum.7 During these lags, more or less profound cultural restructurations happened. Hence, every new culture arising after the lag, fully invested with well-tested capabilities, gave rise to a very dynamic conquest of space. The expansion could thus be rapid and lead to colonisation, selectively or more indiscriminately, of territories previously occupied only by hunter-gatherers. With regard to the explanation of these periodic halts, various theoretical factors should be mentioned, each in turn arising from multiple causes: A. Demography: loss of momentum in the colonising culture linked to a reduction of the reproduction rate of its population; hence a diminution of fission events and a corresponding slump in territorial expansion.

4

6 7 5

Clark 1965. Zvelebil 1986. Ammerman – Cavalli-Sforza 1971; Ammerman – Cavalli-Sforza 1984. Guilaine 2001; Guilaine 2013.

The Neolithisation of Europe: An Arrhythmic Process

243

B. Procurement networks: decline in the exchange of materials maintaining, through interregional transfers, a cultural superstructure; hence a loss of cohesion and identity, and process of disintegration (cf. PPNB decline). C. Native resistance: opposition of local Mesolithic cultures – both dynamic and environmentally self-sufficient – to any interference that may affect their economic system; refusal of cultural innovations. Resistance may have given way to conflicts between natives and immigrants. D. Environment: change in environmental conditions compelling farmers to halt their migration and readapt their technical system to new biotopes (land, landscapes, fauna).8 E. Climatic conditions: climatic crises or mini-crises disturbing the process of colonisation (cf. 6200 BC event) and the appropriation of high altitude lands. F. Identity: deliberate choice by the migrants to break with ancestral practices to ‘build’ a new cultural entity. G. Ideology: gradual loss in historical ‘memory’ of migrant groups and independent re-formation of a dominant ideology.9 H. Society: settlement dislocation linked to intra- and inter-community crises – challenge of the existing social order. This list is not exhaustive and other motives are equally plausible. The ‘lags’ were most likely not due to a single factor, but instead to a combination of them. A single cause may have acted as a trigger – other factors coming into play and cumulatively accelerating the destabilisation – eventually bringing the expansion to a stop.

Geography of Discontinuities Two ‘halts’ were located in the immediate margin of the Near Eastern core area: central Anatolia and the Nile Delta. The others were more distant from the epicentre (Fig. 1). Central Anatolia The expansion of the PPNB to the central Anatolian plateau in the 9th millennium BC (cf. Aşıklı) rapidly lost its vitality in this region. During a halt in central Anatolia, a ‘conversion’ took place from Preceramic to ceramic cultures (Çatalhöyük). Various factors may have contributed to this transformation, in particular a local Mesolithic substratum.10 The culture emerging from these interactions towards the end of the 8th millennium BC seems to have inherited from the PPNB a number of traits (the idea of an ‘agglutinated’ village plan, big points with invasive retouch, figurines, intramural burials), whereas other innovations may be considered new (pottery, pintaderas, etc.). The initial central Anatolian ceramic Neolithic appears to have been a locus for the westward dispersal of the Neolithic to Greece and the Balkans (‘monochrome’ ceramic horizon, painted pottery). The end of the PPNB expansion in Anatolia still needs to be explained. Multiple factors may be considered: A (demographic lag?), B (decline in the export of Cappadocian obsidian towards the Levant and Cyprus?), C (local Mesolithic resistance? Necessary adaptation period for the hunter-gatherers to be integrated into the new system?), F (local emphasis on innovation: invention of pottery?), other? All of these factors would need clarification.



Sherratt 1980. Cauvin 1994. 10 Binder 2005. 8 9

244

Jean Guilaine

4500 5200 5000

5200 5500 6000 5800

5200

5400

5900

5600 6000 6000

6600

8700 8200

6000 6300

8600

6800

8500 0

400 km

6000

Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB)

Karanovo

Linearbandkeramik

Hoguette

Northwest Anatolian Early Neolithic

Anzabegovo

Adriatic Impresso

Areas of cultural mutation

Monochrome / Proto-Sesklo

Starcevo

Cardial and related

Cretan Early Neolithic

Bug-Dniestr

Epicardial

Fig. 1   Map of the “Geography of Discontinuities” (illustration: J. Guilaine)

After a lag, and once the ceramic Neolithic was fully formed, the process of expansion resumed to reach western Anatolia and Greece c. 6500 BC.11 In Asia Minor, it was preceded by the foundation of several sites in the final PPNB, c. 6700 BC (Çukuriçi XIII, Ulucak VI).12 These sites appear to have been coastal colonies of Levantine origin linked to maritime movements, already very active in the Eastern Mediterranean since the PPNA (colonisation of Cyprus). In the Aegean, similar networks enabled the distribution of Melian obsidian up to the western Anatolian coast. These maritime contacts potentially account for the neolithisation of Crete as early as the aceramic Neolithic. Indeed, Knossos X displayed both Near Eastern features (wheat and pea cultivation, cattle, pig and ovicaprine herding) and an industry (mainly based on Melian obsidian) of indigenous Mesolithic type, without Levantine character13 (perhaps neolithisation of an indigenous population by technical borrowing from the outside?).

Brami 2015. Horejs et al. 2015. 13 Kaczanowska – Kozlowski 2011. 11

12

The Neolithisation of Europe: An Arrhythmic Process

245

The Delta, the Nile Valley and the Maghreb In the 8th millennium BC, the PPNB had reached the borders of Egypt. However, over a thousand years were necessary for the Neolithic economy to gain a foothold along the Nile axis. The Delta was not, however, an impassable barrier during the preceramic Neolithic, since Helwan points, discovered in the region of Cairo, demonstrate that Levantine populations had the capacity to organise hunting expeditions or short-lived incursions in Lower Egypt in the 9th millennium BC.14 The adoption in this region of a western Asiatic food production system did not take place until the 6th millennium BC,15 as evidenced by the dates of Merimde and Fayum A. Why did the PPNB stop at the gates of Egypt? Factor C may have been involved – the ‘Nilotic adaptation’ of the Epipalaeolithic substratum forming a particular ecosystem, well adapted to the Nile flooding cycle and its capacity to feed people, particularly through hunting and fishing. Hypothesis D should also be mentioned: difficulty for the first farmers to adapt to this special environment. Let us not forget the decline of the PPNB itself, given that the Neolithic was introduced in the Nile Delta at a time when this cultural complex had already more or less vanished, whereas the Yarmoukian, which replaced the PPNB in the southern Levant, had not shown any particular expansion capacity outside this region. The transition into the Delta appears, in parallel, to have been accompanied by the diffusion of Neolithic techniques along the southern coasts of the Mediterranean. Starch wheat and domestic sheep are attested in Morocco c. 5300–5200 BC.16 Unless we assume that their introduction was made via the Cardial Neolithic of the Iberian Peninsula, which remains possible, a southern maritime colonisation appears likely, although sites are missing along the route. It would be worth clarifying the location of the frontier, to the south of which cereals of oriental origin were no longer cultivated, giving way instead to the pastoral Neolithic, as it developed in the Sahara (bovine phase in art). This ecological demarcation may have taken place at a relatively high latitude, as Algerian excavations in the Atlas appear to indicate (Gueldaman Cave in the Babor of Akbou, Khanguet si Mohamet Tahar Cave in the Aures Mountains).17 Western Greece and the Neolithisation of the Western Mediterranean There was another cultural border in the western part of Greece, coinciding with a lag in the Neolithic expansion. It was namely the frontier between the first Aegean Neolithic and the oldest early Neolithic with impressed pottery from the Italo-Adriatic area. The recently reassessed stratigraphy of the site of Sidari in Corfu is clear in this respect.18 A first Neolithic is evidenced c. 6300 BC, characterised by monochrome pottery, outillage sur eclat from small flint pebbles in the local Mesolithic tradition and ovicaprine herding. In a second phase, c. 6000 BC, the site was reoccupied by populations a ceramica impressa, which is the oldest dated anywhere in the Adriatic area. Sidari provides thus another example of ‘delay’ in the transmission of the Neolithic – a few centuries separating the establishment of the ‘initial’ Neolithic from the impresso horizon, which transferred the Neolithic economy to southern Italy, Sicily and beyond. How can we explain this halt? Factor A is possible (the ‘Monochrome’ of Sidari did not use the yellow flint industry of continental Greek sites).19 One may also mention factor D: environment and maritime resources provided a basis in the local Mesolithic tradition. The factors at play in the emergence of the early Neolithic a impressa after the lag are also worth investigating: local invention? Balkanic influence?

16 17 18 19 14 15

Aurenche – Kozlowski 2005. Midant-Reynes 2003. Ballouche – Marinval 2003; Morales et al. 2013. Roubet 1979; Kherbouche 2014. Berger et al. 2014. Perlès 2001.

246

Jean Guilaine

The Middle Danube Basin and the Neolithisation of Temperate Europe Another ‘halt’ is evidenced in the Middle Danube basin – coinciding with the transition from the first Balkanic Neolithic horizons (Starčevo-Körös) to the Linear Pottery Culture. This lag is thought to have lasted three-to-four centuries and to have happened between the Starčevo-Körös colonisation c. 6000–5900 BC and the start of the oldest Bandkeramik in the west, c. 5600–5500 BC. During this period of stasis, the ‘construction’ of the LBK witnessed the interaction of various groups: Starčevo, Proto-Linear, Vinča and possibly local Mesolithic populations.20 Various factors are usually mentioned to explain this lag. Factor D is often cited: readjustment of a Mediterranean climate-adapted system to a temperate forested environment.21 It may also be worth investigating the loss of momentum in the Starčevo culture (factor A?) and the profound cultural shift (houses, pottery) animating the ‘founders’ of the Bandkeramik (factor F). Once formed, the LBK witnessed a rapid diffusion to reach the Paris Basin and close to the Rhine river mouth area. The Great Plain of Northern Europe The expansion of the Bandkeramik was in turn halted in its spread toward the north of the continent. Aside from a few enclaves along the Vistula River and the Lower Oder River, in Lower-Saxony, the farmers apparently let hunter communities – often with ceramics – flourish along the northern fringe of the continent and in Scandinavia. Exchanges between hunters and farmers are attested on both sides of the cultural barrier that separated them – agriculture experiencing here one more halt. With regard to the explanation of this phenomenon, several hypotheses can be formulated. Factor C (resistance of native cultures) is plausible. Environmental causes (factor D) are sometimes mentioned: difficult adaptation of cereals to glacial soils – the agricultural expansion happening late due to environmental changes in the final phase of the Atlantic episode.22 As with previous lags, there are not enough arguments to test social factors (F, G, H). The Neolithic transition in the northern European margin happened after a lag of several centuries, c. 4500–4000 BC, with the constitution of the TRB (Trichterbecherkultur). The British Isles were not colonised until after 4000 BC.

Contrasted Tempos These great fits and starts, which coincided with the Neolithic expansion and stimulated the identitary renewal, through the periodic elaboration of dynamic cultures, could go hand in hand with ‘mini-lags’ during the propagation of these new entities. Indeed, the agricultural expansion was neither uniform nor linear, but involved additional innovations, as well as more or less stable installation in new territories and their development, followed by halts of one or two generations before the process of expansion resumed. Alongside accelerations, decelerations could be observed. For instance, the spread of impressed ceramic sites along the Italian Adriatic coast; whereas their establishment in the southeast of the peninsula is attested c. 6000–5900 BC, their spread towards the north appears to have been delayed in Romagna.23 Moreover, the advance of the first cultivators must have been selective: choice of fertile soil (cf. loess in the LBK), or of areas with the lowest populations of foragers. The western Mediterranean is a good illustration of the tempos of this propagation. They can be described as follows:

22 23 20 21

E.g. Bánffy 2004; Bánffy 2008. Sümegi 2003. Price 2003. Biagi et al. 2005.

The Neolithisation of Europe: An Arrhythmic Process

247

− 6000–5600 BC: pioneer settlements established via maritime routes, distant from one another and characterised by a near-exclusive agro-pastoral economy (ceramic horizon with ‘impressed grooves’ attested from western Greece to Spain). − 5500–5000 BC: Franco-Iberian ‘Cardial’. First agricultural expansion towards the hinterland in Provence, Catalonia and Valencia in particular; re-introduction of hunting in the economic spectrum of specific biotopes (acculturation of the last hunter populations?). − 5200–4500 BC: ‘Epicardial’. Renewed expansion of cultivated lands (France: towards the Alps, the Massif Central, Aquitaine; Spain: along the Ebro axis and the Meseta). Final agricultural expansion.

Discussion It is quite obvious that the ‘arrhythmic’ model can only be conceived in term of macro-analysis. It should be refined in detail. The example of rapid expansions along the river axes24 and, occasionally, of decelerations along the maritime fringes, demonstrates the complexity of the process.25 In order to improve our understanding of space-time correlations, Michel Rasse has suggested replacing the frontiers in my model, which he deems too schematic, by isochrone lines based on the distribution of 14C dates. Yet the maps that he has produced do not challenge my propositions; they highlight periodic decelerations in the rhythm of expansion in the same regions where I placed the ‘lags’. Besides that, this scholar is reluctant to consider climatic or environmental models during the slumps26 or subsequent accelerations, challenging the conclusions of the climatologists on this particular issue.27 Mathematical models have also been proposed. Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel et al.28 have attempted to refine our characterisation of the spread by defining ten enclave centres, based on the distribution of 3000 radiocarbon dates from 940 sites, diffusing towards a periphery and acting as relays in the expansion of the Neolithic. Carsten Lemmen et al. have tried more recently to refine the speed of expansion of the first farmers in a correlation combining the space-time distribution of 14C dates with a demographic variable, by taking into consideration socio-cultural development in each bio-geographical context. Their aim was to explain why the Neolithic proceeded in stages; they sought a solution in the involvement of indigenous populations in the process of acquisition and exploitation of foreign technologies.29 The accumulation of 14C dates will necessarily improve our understanding of the timing of the lags and the expansions. Statistical precision, however, is only one aspect of the problem; it is necessary to explain the ‘lags’. It is not certain that they were due to a single factor (cf. the environment), but they were certainly linked to a systemic process. Too many unknowns remain, particularly regarding the socio-cultural processes at play.

26 27 28 29 24 25

Davidson et al. 2006. Gkiasta et al. 2003; Biagi et al. 2005. Rasse 2014; Rasse 2015. Weninger et al. 2006; Weninger et al. 2014. Bocquet-Appel et al. 2009. Lemmen et al. 2011.

248

Jean Guilaine

References Ammerman – Cavalli-Sforza 1971 A. J. Ammerman – L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, Measuring the rate of spread of early farming in Europe, Man 6, 1971, 674–688. Ammerman – Cavalli-Sforza 1984 A. J. Ammerman – L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe (Princeton 1984). Aurenche – Kozłowski 2005 O. Aurenche – S. K. Kozłowski, Territories, Boundaries and Cultures in the Neolithic Near East, BAR International Series 1362 (Oxford 2005). Ballouche – Marinval 2003 A. Ballouche – P. Marinval, Données palynologiques et carpologiques sur la domestication des plantes et l’agriculture dans le Néolithique ancien du Maroc septentrional (site de Kaf That El-Ghar), Revue d’Archéométrie 27, 2003, 49–54. Bánffy 2004 E. Bánffy, The 6th Millennium BC Boundary in Western Transdanubia and its Role in the Central European Transition (The Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb Settlement), Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 15 (Budapest 2004). Bánffy 2008 E. Bánffy, The boundary in western Transdanubia. Variations of migration and adaptation, in: D. W. Bailey – A. Whittle – D. Hofmann (eds.), Living Well Together? Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and Central Europe (Oxford 2008) 151–163. Berger et al. 2014 J.-F. Berger – G. Metallinou – J. Guilaine, Vers une révision de la transition méso-néolithique sur le site de Sidari (Corfou, Grèce). Nouvelles données géoarchéologiques et radiocarbone. Évaluation des processus post-dépositionnels, in: C. Manen – T. Perrin – J. Guilaine (eds.), La Transition Néolithique en Méditerranée (Arles, Toulouse 2014) 213–232. Biagi et al. 2005 P. Biagi – S. J. Shennan – M. Spataro, Rapid rivers and slow seas? New data for the radiocarbon chronology of the Balkan Peninsula, in: L. Nikolova – J. Higgins (eds.), Prehistoric Archaeology and Anthropological Theory and Education (Salt Lake City 2005) 43–51. Binder 2005 D. Binder, Autour de l’obsidienne. Un aspect des processus d’interaction entre agro-pasteurs et chasseurs-cueilleurs en Anatolie centrale, in: J. Guilaine (ed.), Populations Néolithiques et Environnements (Paris 2005) 117–134. Bocquet-Appel et al. 2009 J.-P. Bocquet-Appel – S. Naji – M. Vander Linden – J. K. Kozłowski, Detection of diffusion and contact zones of early farming in Europe from the space-time distribution of 14C dates, Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 3, 2009, 807–820. Brami 2015 M. N. Brami, A graphical simulation of the 2000-year lag in Neolithic occupation between Central Anatolia and the Aegean basin, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 7, 3, 2015, 319–327. Cauvin 1994 J. Cauvin, Naissance des Divinités, Naissance de l’Agriculture. La Révolution des Symboles au Néolithique (Paris 1994). Childe 1925 V. G. Childe, The Dawn of European Civilization (London 1925). Clark 1965 J. G. D. Clark, Radiocarbon dating and the expansion of farming culture from the Near East over Europe, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 31, 1965, 58–73. Davidson et al. 2006 K. Davidson – P. Dolukhanov – G. R. Sarson – A. Shukurov, The role of waterways in the spread of the Neolithic, Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 2006, 641–652.

The Neolithisation of Europe: An Arrhythmic Process

249

Gkiasta et al. 2003 M. Gkiasta – T. Russell – S. J. Shennan – J. Steele, Neolithic transition in Europe. The radiocarbon record revisited, Antiquity 77, 2003, 45–62. Guilaine 1997 J. Guilaine, Théories de la néolithisation, Annuaire du Collège de France 97/1996–1997, 1997, 697–711. Guilaine 2001 J. Guilaine, La néolithisation de l’Europe. Une hypothèse arythmique, Zephyrus 53–54, 2001, 267–272. Guilaine 2013 J. Guilaine, The Neolithic transition in Europe. Some comments on gaps, contacts, arrhythmic model, genetics, in: E. Starnini (ed.), Unconformist Archaeology. Papers in Honor of Paolo Biagi, BAR International Series 2528 (Oxford 2013) 55–64. Horejs et al. 2015 B. Horejs – B. Milić – F. Ostmann – U. Thanheiser – B. Weninger – A. Galik, The Aegean in the early 7th millennium BC. Maritime networks and colonization, Journal of World Prehistory 28, 2015, 289–330. Kaczanowska – Kozłowski 2011 M. Kaczanowska – J. K. Kozłowski, Lithic industry from the aceramic levels at Knossos (Crete, Greece). An alternative approach, Eurasian Prehistory 8, 1–2, 2011, 67–87. Kherbouche 2014 F. Kherbouche, Le Néolithique Tellien de la Grotte de Gueldaman GLD1 (Babors d’Akbou, Algérie, VIII–V Millénaires cal BP) (PhD Diss., Université de Toulouse, Toulouse 2014). Lemmen et al. 2011 C. Lemmen – D. Gronenborn – K. W. Wirtz, A simulation of Neolithic transition in western Eurasia, Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 2011, 3459–3470. Midant-Reynes 2003 B. Midant-Reynes, Aux Origines de l’Égypte. Du Néolithique à l’Émergence de l’État (Paris 2003). Morales et al. 2013 J. Morales – G. Perez Jorda – L. Peña Chacarro – L. Zapata – M. Ruiz Alonso – J. A. Lopez-Saez – J. Linstädter, The origins of agriculture in North-West Africa. Macro-botanical remains from Epipaleolithic and Early Neolithic levels of Ifri Oudadane (Morocco), Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 2013, 2659–2669. Perlès 2001 C. Perlès, The Early Neolithic in Greece (Cambridge 2001). Price 2003 D. Price, The arrival of agriculture in Europe as seen from the north, in: A. J. Ammerman – P. Biagi (eds.), The Widening Harvest. The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Looking Back, Looking Forward (Boston 2003) 273–294. Rasse 2014 M. Rasse, Modélisation de la diffusion du Néolithique en Europe, Mappemonde 3, 2014, 115–139. Rasse 2015 M. Rasse, Peut-on penser ensemble l’espace et le temps de la diffusion sans adopter un nouveau champ lexical? Application à la diffusion du Néolithique en Europe, L’Information Géographique 2, 2015, 12–27. Roubet 1979 C. Roubet, Économie Pastorale Pré-Agricole en Algérie Orientale. Le Néolithique de Tradition Capsienne (Paris 1979). Sherratt 1980 A. Sherratt, Water, soil and seasonality in early cereal cultivation, World Archaeology 11, 3, 1980, 313–330. Sümegi 2003 P. Sümegi, Early Neolithic man and riparian environment in the Carpathian basin, in: E. Jerem – P. Raczky (eds.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag (Budapest 2003) 53–59.

250

Jean Guilaine

Weninger et al. 2006 B. Weninger – E. Alram-Stern – E. Bauer – L. Clare – V. Danzeglocke – O. Jöris – C. Kubatzki – G. Rollefson – H. C. Todorova – T. van Andel, Climate forcing due to the 8200 cal yr BP event observed at Early Neolithic sites in the Eastern Mediterranean, Quaternary Research 66, 2006, 401–420. Weninger et al. 2014 B. Weninger – L. Clare – F. Gerritsen – B. Horejs – R. Krauss – J. Linstädter – R. Özbal – E. J. Rohling, Neolithisation of the Aegean and southern Europe during the 6600–6000 cal BC period of rapid climatic change, Documenta Praehistorica 41, 2014, 1–31. Zvelebil 1986 M. Zvelebil, Mesolithic prelude and Neolithic revolution, in: M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in Transition. Mesolithic Societies of Temperate Eurasia and their Transition to Farming (Cambridge 1986) 5–16.

251

Index

Index A abandonment   50, 51, 127, 130, 131, 137, 166, 196, 198, 216, 230 Abu Hureyra   15, 48, 51 acculturation   181, 247 aceramic   see Neolithic Achilleion   14, 168, 218, 228 Adriatic   11, 14, 20, 168, 218, 228, 245, 246 Aegean   6, 7, 9, 10–13, 18, 20–23, 25–30, 55, 59, 78, 80, 85–87, 89, 91, 92, 94–96, 103, 104, 108, 115, 118, 143–146, 149, 152, 153, 159–169, 171, 182, 196, 198, 211, 213, 218, 219, 223, 224, 226–228, 232–235, 244, 245 Aegean basin   92 Aegean catchment   20, 21 Aegean islands   85, 92, 146 Aegean seaboard   23 Aetokremno   15, 55 Ağaçlı   14, 146, 152, 163, 181–183, 185, 199 agency   26, 85, 148, 223, 225, 226, 231, 234 Agios Sostis   145 agriculture   see farming ‘Ain Ghazal   15, 28, 52, 57, 170 Akarçay Tepe   15, 48, 51 Aktopraklık   14, 25, 29, 134, 135, 136, 153, 183, 188, 190–197, 199, 216, 217 Alişar   15, 108 alluviation   21, 54, 79 Anatolia central Anatolia   9, 10, 17–22, 24, 25, 27–29, 45, 46, 54, 56, 59, 69, 70, 73–79, 81, 87, 92, 96, 103, 106, 108, 110, 116, 117, 127, 143, 144, 148, 149, 151, 152, 159, 163, 170, 226, 243 western Anatolia   9, 11–13, 17, 18, 20–27, 29, 30, 54, 58, 75, 79, 80, 85, 94, 96, 103, 104, 107, 108, 115–118, 134–137, 143, 144, 146, 149, 159–165, 167–169, 171, 211, 212, 214–216, 218, 244 Anatolian Formation Zone   103 ancestry   see genetic animal   see domestication archaeobotany   213 architecture   9, 22, 26, 57, 77, 87, 116, 127, 130, 134, 135, 137, 139, 181, 190–192, 195, 198, 199, 211, 214–216, 223, 227, 228, 234 Argissa [Magoula]   14, 228 arrhythmic expansion   see expansion arrowheads   see lithic Aşağı Pınar   14, 153, 198, 217

Asarkaya   14, 162, 185 Asia   9, 17, 18, 21, 23, 26–29, 45–47, 53, 59, 244 southwest Asia   9, 17, 21, 23, 26, 27, 29 Aşıklı [Höyük]   11, 15, 21, 23, 24, 28, 56, 57, 59, 87, 107, 108, 112, 116–118, 149, 170, 185, 217, 243 Aspros   15, 55 axe   52 Aya Varvara   15, 55

B Bademağacı   15, 22, 25, 26, 107, 110, 115–118, 134– 136, 151, 163, 215 Balkans   see peninsula Baradız   15, 145 Barcın Höyük   12, 14, 115–117, 134, 161, 168, 181, 183, 186–192, 199, 200 Beidha   15, 57, 170 Beisamoun   15, 52 Black Sea   107, 117, 146, 183, 185, 192 Black Sea littoral   80, 146, 162, 185 boar   see wild Boncuklu   11, 12, 15, 19, 21, 23, 24, 28, 30, 31, 52, 56, 69, 70–77, 79, 80, 107, 112, 116, 117, 121 bone   24, 50, 55, 57, 59, 76, 87, 133, 150, 195, 213 bird   55 elephant   55 fish   55, 193, 213 human   10, 21, 45, 46, 53, 55, 72, 75, 80, 87, 132, 145, 146, 168, 194, 224–226 tools   22, 53, 57, 59, 70, 77, 78, 80, 87–90, 92–94, 139, 145, 153, 171, 183–185 Bouqras   15, 48 bucranium   130 budding off   29, 52 building building technique   136 dwelling   130–132, 135, 136, 139, 225, 228, 231 house   24, 26, 47, 55, 72, 131, 132, 135, 138, 161, 166, 167, 169, 170, 184, 188, 190, 192, 194, 195, 199, 215, 228, 230–232 mudbrick   72, 77, 87, 116, 191, 214 pit-dwellings   12, 228, 230, 231 plan   47, 135, 136, 164, 187, 189, 211, 214–218, 243 rectangular   12, 26, 47, 52, 57, 58, 77, 116, 132, 134, 135, 152, 168, 188, 190–192, 196, 199, 211, 214–217, 227, 228, 232 semi-subterranean   23, 49, 52, 135, 190–192, 194, 197, 199, 218

252

Index

temple   50 wattle and daub   57, 71, 77, 134, 135, 217 burial   21, 23, 26, 71, 72, 77, 79, 93, 129, 130, 131, 132, 135, 145, 146, 149, 152, 170, 181, 190, 192, 194– 196, 199, 200, 215, 217, 218, 243 burial practices   132, 152, 190, 194–196 burial traditions   181 intramural   93, 129–131, 149, 152, 195, 243 subfloor   192, 195, 199

C Çalça Mevkii   14, 185 calibration   19, 20, 107, 115 Cappadocia   22, 23, 24, 54, 56, 92, 107, 108, 112, 115 caprines   see domestication Çatalhöyük   7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 19, 21–24, 28–30, 57, 58, 75, 80, 81, 87, 92, 107, 108, 109, 110–112, 115– 118, 127–139, 143, 149, 151, 168, 170, 186, 196, 199, 217, 243 Caucasus   18, 28, 56 cave   14, 20, 27, 52, 56, 75, 77, 78, 80, 96, 149, 161, 163, 197, 200, 245 Cyclops Cave   14, 22, 94, 96, 145, 146, 162 Franchthi Cave   12, 14, 20, 22, 85, 89, 90, 94, 96 Girmeler Cave   162, 163, 194 Latmos Malkayası Cave   14, 149 Theopetra Cave   14, 20, 28, 92 Cayönü   15, 51 ceramic   see pottery cereals   see farming Chalcolithic   18, 19, 104, 106, 138, 181, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198 Chalki   14, 92, 94 Chogha Golan   15, 54 chronology   18, 45, 58, 94, 103, 112, 171, 185, 216, 242 absolute   85, 87, 107, 109, 129, 181, 182, 184–186, 190, 191, 196, 241 relative   94 Cilicia   23, 24, 79, 108, 115 Çine Tepecik   14, 144 climate crisis   51 impact   9, 26, 27, 29, 47, 52, 55, 58, 161, 166, 169– 171, 198 Late Glacial Maximum   45, 47, 78 Rapid Climate Change   18, 196 record   51, 54, 57, 80, 161, 165, 197, 224 colonisation   see migration core and periphery   22, 143 core area   45, 46, 48, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 103, 104, 145, 146, 149, 150, 153, 243 margin   20, 243, 246 periphery   13, 17, 22, 26, 143, 197, 235, 247 Coşkuntepe   14 crisis   see climate crop   see farming

Çukuriçi [Höyük]   12, 14, 25, 26, 29, 30, 90, 94, 107, 109, 116, 117, 121, 134–136, 144, 145, 153, 159, 161, 163–171, 213, 214, 218, 227, 244 cultivation   see farming cultural interaction   148, 181 culture Fikirtepe   14, 78, 108, 112, 115, 134, 136, 146, 152, 153, 181–183, 185, 186, 188, 190–199, 216, 217 Sesklo   14, 152, 168, 228 Cyclades   21, 92 Cyclops Cave   see cave Cyprus   29, 45, 55, 57, 59, 79, 85, 95, 147, 149, 167, 211, 215, 216, 243, 244

D Damnoni   15, 85, 87, 89, 90, 96 Danube   21, 117, 162, 241, 246 Dedecik-Heybelitepe   14, 115, 121, 144 deities/gods   45 Demircihüyük   14, 115, 118 demography   224 diffusion demic diffusion   53, 85 diffusion of technology   53 dispersals   see migration Dja’de   15, 50, 57 DNA   see genetic Doğançalı   14, 183 Domalı-Alaçalı   14 domestication   11, 17, 21, 23, 24, 26, 45, 47, 48, 57, 59, 74, 242 animal   11, 12, 17, 21, 23–25, 27, 28, 47, 59, 72, 74, 76, 78, 81, 87, 110, 116, 132, 133, 168, 193, 195, 197, 199, 213 barley   17, 48–50, 52, 54, 71, 73, 77, 87, 132, 188, 213 caprines   11, 24, 56, 70, 71, 74, 76, 78, 79, 133, 136 cattle   17, 21, 24, 29, 45, 48, 51, 52, 54, 59, 79, 87, 110, 112, 133, 135–139, 188, 213, 216, 244 domestic species   25, 27 pig   17, 48, 52, 54, 171, 197, 244 proto-domestication   24 wheat   11, 17, 24, 48–50, 52, 71–73, 87, 132, 188, 213, 244, 245 Domuztepe   15, 115–117, 119 dwelling   see building

E economy   see farming ecosystem   see Neolithic Ege Gübre   12, 14, 26, 121, 134–136, 144, 149, 153, 211, 213–219, 227 Egypt   18, 241, 245 Ekşi Höyük   15 environment   52, 70, 71, 117, 133, 192, 199, 225, 245– 247

253

Index

Epigravettian   145 Epipaleolithic   70, 162, 181, 182, 183, 184 Erbaba   15, 104, 115, 117, 119, 134, 143, 151 Euphrates   see valley Europe   6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 45, 47, 53, 54, 56, 103, 117, 149, 159, 181, 188, 241, 242, 246 central Europe   30, 103, 117 southeast Europe   27, 28, 29, 30, 45 evolution   45, 50 exchange   see interaction expansion   11–13, 17–20, 22, 25, 27–30, 45, 47, 103, 104, 117, 143, 146–149, 151, 182, 186, 223, 224, 228, 233, 234, 241–247 arrhythmic   9, 12, 241, 242, 247 farming expansion   17, 18, 25, 27, 30

F farmers   22–30, 45–47, 50, 53–58, 69, 75, 76, 79, 85–90, 92, 94–96, 110, 117, 127, 134, 146, 148, 149, 152, 159, 161, 165, 166, 169, 181, 182, 184, 185, 190, 192–194, 198–200, 228, 230–232, 243, 245–247 farming   9–13, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25–30, 45–47, 49, 51, 53, 54, 57–59, 69, 70, 72, 74, 76–81, 85–88, 96, 103, 110, 116, 117, 127, 132–134, 159–161, 163, 165, 166, 169, 171, 181, 183, 199, 200, 233, 234 crops/cereals   12, 21, 24, 28, 45, 48, 49, 51, 56, 58, 70, 76, 81, 188, 199, 213, 245, 246 cultivation   11, 12, 24, 45, 47–52, 54, 58, 69, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 81, 199, 213, 244 economy   17, 21, 24, 25, 46, 47, 50, 51, 56, 57, 116, 133, 137–139, 161, 171, 185, 188, 193, 198–200, 228, 245, 247 farming communities   9, 11, 28, 46, 49, 57, 74, 76, 81, 127, 159, 165, 166, 183, 199 farming frontier   17, 18, 22, 30, 159, 163, 169 farming threshold   12, 103, 138, 144 food-production   17, 21 mixed farming   25, 81, 116 origins of agriculture   17 plant cultivation   11, 12, 24, 58, 72, 78 spread of farming   11, 12, 17, 28, 30, 53, 69, 70, 74, 76–78, 80, 81, 87, 103 trajectories   10, 23, 53, 59, 127, 139, 143, 148, 149, 153, 159, 161, 163, 171, 232 uptake of farming   17, 18 way of life   12, 103, 109, 110, 159, 161, 165, 166, 182, 199 yields   57, 185 Fertile Crescent   11, 12, 18, 27, 45, 50, 54, 58, 149 fertility   23, 30, 45, 168 figurine   57, 87, 167, 168, 213, 243 Fikirtepe   see culture fishhook   150 fissioning   52, 57 flax   59 flood   152

food-production   see production foragers   11, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 45, 46, 47, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 69, 73, 74, 76, 80, 110, 134, 161, 163, 166, 181, 182, 193, 198, 199, 200, 246 hunter-gatherers   12, 25, 26, 27, 28, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 85, 89, 90, 92, 94, 96, 163, 184, 231, 232, 242, 243 Franchthi Cave   see cave

G genetic   27, 28, 53, 54, 58, 70, 73–75, 80, 85, 87, 92, 181, 200, 242 admixture   27, 92, 200, 242 aDNA/ancient DNA   11, 27, 56, 70, 73, 74, 79, 92, 200 ancestry   27, 28, 228, 231 DNA   11, 27, 28, 87, 200, 224, 242 genetic continuity   28, 70, 73, 92 genetic diversity   27, 28, 58 mitochondrial DNA   28, 242 palaeogenetics   46, 54 principal component analysis (PCA)   27 genome   11, 27, 242 Giali   14, 29, 92, 94 Gilgal   15, 52 Girmeler   15, 21, 24, 75, 77, 78, 95, 162, 163, 194 Girmeler Cave   see cave Göbekli Tepe   15, 48, 49, 50, 57 gods   see deities Göllü Dağ   15, 25, 136 Gövem Mevkii   14, 186, 188 Göztepe   14, 184 Gravettian   183 Greece   12, 13, 18–20, 22, 27, 29, 30, 55, 85, 89, 103, 149, 161, 168, 218, 223, 226, 228, 230, 231, 233, 235, 241, 243–245, 247 ground stone   see stone Gümüşdere-Kilyos   14, 183 Gürpınar   15, 144 Gusir Höyük   15, 49

H Hacılar   11, 15, 22, 23, 29, 77, 80, 87, 107–110, 112, 115, 119, 134–136, 143, 149, 150, 152, 168, 215 Halaf   15, 106, 216 Hallan Çemi   15, 49 Halula   15, 48, 51 Haramidere   14, 184 Hasankeyf Höyük   15, 49 Hatip Höyük   15, 115, 117, 119 hierarchies   46 Hoca Çeşme   14, 149, 150, 153, 216, 217 Holocene   7, 12, 13, 20, 27, 29, 45, 49, 50, 54, 69, 70–73, 75, 76, 78–81, 89, 92, 94, 161–163, 166, 167, 218 household   72, 116, 133, 139, 192 house mouse   55

254

Index

Höyücek   15, 22, 107, 110, 112, 115, 119, 121, 134–136, 151, 163, 215 hunter-gatherers   see foragers hunting   17, 21, 24, 45, 49, 50, 52, 57, 58, 71, 72, 78, 92, 139, 161, 167, 184, 193, 198, 199, 245, 247 large game   59 husbandry   11, 12, 24, 28, 110, 127, 132, 133, 138, 139, 166, 193, 199 animal   11, 12, 17, 21, 23–25, 27, 28, 47, 59, 72, 74, 76, 78, 81, 87, 110, 116, 132, 133, 168, 193, 195, 197, 199, 213 four-tiered   24 plant   11, 12, 17, 21, 23–25, 27, 45, 48, 50–52, 58, 70–72, 78, 79, 87, 110, 116, 133, 163 hybridisation   27

I İbo’nun Rampası   14, 184 identities   69, 74, 80, 138, 139, 159, 165, 168–171, 233 Ikaria   14, 89, 92, 94 Ilıpınar   14, 26, 29, 107, 134–136, 153, 183, 188, 190, 193, 195, 196, 197 indigenous   9, 25, 26, 73, 80, 85, 87, 88, 91, 92, 96, 127, 181, 194, 199, 244, 247 interaction   9, 19, 22, 27, 28, 69, 80, 85, 92, 96, 143, 146, 148, 152, 153, 181, 182, 184, 186, 198, 199, 200, 211, 215, 246 exchange   52, 70, 74, 89, 92, 95, 135, 146, 181, 234, 243 farmer-forager interactions   181, 198 mating   46 invasion   see migration Iran   13, 18, 27

J Jerf el-Ahmar   15, 48, 49, 50 Jericho   15, 52, 108, 143, 170, 242 Jordan   see valley

K Kalkanlı   14, 119, 162, 185 Karahan   15, 50 Karain   15, 78, 162 Karanovo   14, 108, 112, 152, 153, 198, 217 Keçiçayırı-Cıbırada   14 Kefken   14, 183 Kephala   14, 86 Kerame   14, 94, 96, 162 Kfar HaHoresh   15, 28, 52 Khirokitia   15, 216 Klimonas   15, 55 Klisoura   14, 96 Knossos   15, 29, 85–90, 92, 94, 146, 161, 218, 244 koine   143 Kömürcü-Kaletepe   15, 22 Kömürlük Tepe   14, 78

Konya Plain   9, 21–23, 69–71, 73–76, 79–81, 92, 112, 135, 137–139, 151, 186 Körtik Tepe   15, 49, 217 Köşk Höyük   15, 119, 138 Kovada Gölü   15, 115–117, 120 Küçükçekmece   14, 185, 186 Kuruçay   15, 22, 110, 112, 134, 136, 151, 215 Kythnos   14, 21, 25, 89, 92, 93, 145, 218

L lag   18, 23, 27, 69, 96, 242–246 Lakes Region   22, 23, 26, 29, 103, 104, 107, 108, 110, 112, 115, 159, 160 landbridge   23, 85 Latmos-Beşparmak   14, 144, 145 Latmos Malkayası Cave   see cave leaf point   see lithic Levant   11–13, 23, 24, 27, 28, 45–52, 54–56, 58, 59, 70, 74, 75, 78, 79, 85, 92, 95, 103, 108, 112, 116, 117, 134, 167, 170, 211, 216, 243, 245 Northern Levant   49, 58 Southern Levant   11, 51, 58 lithic   21, 49, 51, 75, 76, 85, 89, 91, 92, 94, 96, 107– 109, 139, 145, 153, 161, 163, 171, 185, 190, 213 arrowheads   22, 26, 49, 51, 52 bi-directional   186 blade   22, 26, 51, 78, 90, 92, 135, 145, 167, 168, 170, 213 bladelet   88 chert   89, 94, 163 core   9, 22, 27, 28, 45, 46, 48, 51, 52, 54–57, 59, 88, 90, 103, 104, 116, 143, 145, 146, 149–153, 159, 165, 167, 171, 184–186, 228, 242, 243 flake   22, 78, 87–90, 92–95, 145, 163 flint   22, 26, 78, 80, 136, 181, 185, 186, 245 lithic technology   163 lithic traditions   85, 190 microblades   183 microliths   56, 76, 78, 183 naviform core   185 obsidian   12, 22, 25, 26, 29, 51, 52, 54–56, 59, 70, 73, 74, 78–80, 85, 87–90, 92–96, 136, 164, 166– 168, 170, 184–186, 200, 213, 233, 243, 244 percussion technique   90 pressure blade   135 retouch   52, 88–90, 185, 243 scraper   93 stone industry   78, 163, 184 Livari   15, 85, 87–90, 96, 162

M Macedonia   20, 85, 161, 228 management   21, 74, 76, 80, 133, 161, 233 maritime   9, 12, 28, 59, 85, 92, 94–96, 143, 149, 152, 159, 161–163, 166, 169, 171, 211, 215, 228, 233, 241, 244, 245, 247

255

Index

maritime connections   59, 143, 149 maritime networks   12, 85, 94, 96, 161 maritime routes   85, 95, 162, 215, 247 marker   52, 87, 108 cultural marker   52 Marmara   9, 12, 23, 26, 103, 108, 115, 118, 136, 144, 146, 152, 153, 159, 160, 181–185, 190–192, 194, 196–199 Marmara Region   181–185, 190–192, 194, 197–199 Sea of Marmara   108, 152 Maroulas   15, 21, 25, 93, 94, 96, 145, 146, 162, 218 Mavropigi   14, 161, 228 Mediterranean   11, 23, 24, 45, 49, 53, 55, 56, 59, 70, 74, 87, 103, 107, 108, 115–118, 146, 148, 149, 161, 169, 171, 211, 215, 218, 233, 241, 244–246 mega-sites   23, 29, 116 Melos   12, 14, 25, 29, 55, 89, 92, 94, 96, 136, 166, 233 Menteşe   14, 107, 120, 135, 136, 188, 190, 193–196 Mesolithic   7, 9, 11, 12, 19–22, 25, 28, 53, 56, 75, 76, 78, 85–96, 110, 143–146, 152, 159, 161–167, 169, 171, 181–184, 192–194, 198–200, 218, 233, 235, 243–246 Mesolithic Aegean   22, 95, 146, 161, 164, 166, 169, 218 Mesolithic communities   12, 146, 161, 182 Mesolithic occupation   94, 96, 145, 146 Mesolithic seafarers   9, 159, 161, 166 Mesolithic substratum   143, 243 Mesopotamia   27, 47, 53, 54, 107, 112, 116, 117, 134, 167, 170, 216 Mezraa Teleilat   15, 51 migration   27–29, 53, 96, 149, 159, 170, 200, 230, 232– 235, 242, 243 colonisation   12, 46, 53, 76, 79, 85, 94, 146, 149, 159, 161, 171, 181, 198, 199, 225, 232, 234, 235, 241–246 dispersals   45, 46, 53, 56 invasion   46, 53, 56 pioneer   12, 87, 94, 96, 162–167, 171, 181, 198, 241, 247 ranged   29, 70 wave of advance   29, 53, 224, 225, 242 westward expansion   223, 233 mixed farming   see farming mobility   28, 45, 46, 58, 79, 80, 166, 223, 233, 235 mollusc   193 Moralı   14, 120, 143, 152 Mordoğan   14, 94, 162, 163 Motza   15, 28, 52 mountains Amanus   23 Taurus   24, 47, 49, 70, 75, 78, 79 Zagros   11, 18, 49, 54, 58 Mureybet   15, 48, 50, 57 Mürsellibaba   14, 183 Musluçeşme   14, 109, 112, 117, 120, 162, 185, 186 Musular   15, 76, 112, 117, 120

N narratives   27, 159, 169, 170, 171, 224 grand narratives   27 Natufian   23, 47, 48, 49, 52, 54, 57, 59, 70, 71, 110 Naxos   14, 92, 94, 96 Nea Makri   14, 218 Neolithic aceramic Neolithic   22, 108, 244 ecosystem   25, 245 initial Neolithic   228, 231 Neolithic architecture   130, 211, 215, 223 Neolithic dispersal   9, 10, 143, 148, 162, 171 Neolithic expansion   18, 25, 28, 30, 103, 104, 143, 149, 182, 223, 242, 245, 246 Neolithic horizon   30 Neolithic package   145, 148, 149, 153, 182, 225 Neolithic transition   27, 28, 75, 128, 138, 246 preceramic Neolithic   107, 245 Pre-Pottery Neolithic   19, 28, 58, 92, 106, 146, 149, 161 PPNA   11, 19, 26, 47, 48, 52, 56–58, 70, 217, 218, 244 PPNB   19, 26, 48, 50, 51, 52, 56–59, 79, 107, 116, 167, 170, 171, 186, 243–245 Neolithisation   7, 9, 85, 103, 143, 181, 182, 188, 192, 198, 200, 223, 226, 234, 241, 245, 246 inland   20, 28, 50, 108, 117, 118, 145, 153, 161–163, 169, 182, 190, 193–196, 198, 199, 213 Primary   103 Secondary   103 Netiv Hagdud   15, 52 Nevalı Çori   15, 50 Nile   see valley Nissi Beach   15, 55

O Öküzini   15, 70, 78, 80, 145, 146, 162, 163 origins of agriculture   see farming Ouriakos   14, 145, 162

P painting   138 palaeoclimate   see climate palaeogenetics   see genetic Palaeolithic Upper Palaeolithic   144, 145, 183 Paliambela   14, 161, 228–233, 235 Paşaalanı   14, 183 pendant   168 Pendik   14, 78, 134, 136, 181–183, 190–193, 195–197, 199, 200, 216, 217 peninsula   18, 23, 59, 75, 107, 127, 143, 144, 149, 163, 246 Anatolian peninsula   18, 127, 143, 144, 149 Arabian peninsula   18

256

Index

Balkans   6, 11, 21, 30, 143, 152, 161, 168, 188, 234, 243 Peynirçiçeği   14, 144 phenomenology   9, 223, 225 Pınarbaşı   15, 21, 23, 28, 56, 69–77 plateau Anatolian plateau   13, 21, 23, 24, 26, 56, 70, 75, 143, 149, 243 Pontic region   56 population   9, 13, 27, 29, 30, 45, 46, 48–51, 70, 79–81, 87, 88, 96, 133, 146, 163, 216, 224, 230, 233, 242, 244 density   10, 21, 70, 75, 80, 151, 216 pottery   17, 19, 26, 57, 76, 77, 87, 106, 108–110, 112, 115, 127, 135–139, 143, 149, 150, 152, 153, 165, 166, 183–186, 188, 190, 192, 197, 198, 211–213, 215, 216, 226, 232, 243, 245, 246 ceramic   25, 106–110, 115, 190, 194, 200, 212, 213, 216, 243, 244, 246, 247 impressed   211, 215, 216, 245–247 incised   132, 138, 152, 196, 197 monochrome   152, 153, 216, 243, 245 painted   77, 106, 112, 129, 136–138, 143, 149, 152, 153, 165, 216, 234, 243 red-slipped   26, 150, 165 relief decorated   149, 152 practices   9, 11, 12, 17, 26, 27, 53, 69, 70–72, 74, 77–79, 81, 92, 94, 127, 132, 133, 138, 139, 152, 159, 161, 163, 166, 167, 169–171, 190, 194–196, 199, 200, 211, 212, 216, 219, 225, 234, 235, 243 production   11, 12, 17, 18, 21, 23, 26, 57, 58, 81, 116, 133, 138, 139, 146, 165, 166, 168, 170, 171, 213, 216, 245 food-production   17, 21

R radiocarbon dating   241 Ramad   15, 52 resilience   51 Revenia   13, 14, 228 revolution broad-spectrum   11, 193 urban   23, 50, 138, 230 ritual ritual deposition   167 ritual practices   11, 72 rockshelter   23

Shillourokambos   15, 55 Sidari   14, 162, 245 skull   70, 72, 77, 195 sling missiles   213 socio-economic system   116 southwest Asia   see Asia spread of farming   see farming stone   22, 52, 57, 73, 76, 78, 85, 87, 89, 93–95, 135–137, 163, 166, 168, 170, 184–186, 191, 213–216, 218 ground stone   87, 213 stone tools   87, 93 storage   57, 132, 134, 135, 139, 166, 191, 215, 218 stratigraphy   103, 108, 128, 245 Süberde   15, 104, 108, 112, 115, 117, 143, 151 Sultançiftliği   14, 184 Sumaki Höyük   15, 51 surplus   29 survey   11, 21, 58, 69, 75, 76, 79, 81, 89, 92, 94, 185, 216, 217 survival   45, 53 Syros   14, 166

T Tarsus-Gözlükule   15, 108 Taurus   see mountains Tekmezar   14, 183 Tel ‘Abr   15, 49 Tell Sabi Abyad   15, 51, 216 Tel Qaramel   15, 49, 50 temple   see building Theopetra cave  see cave Thessaly   20, 28, 29, 85, 143 town   see urbanism trajectories   see farming transhumance   184 Troy   6, 11, 14, 108

U Uğurlu   14, 21, 25, 134–136, 144, 161 Ulucak/Ulucak [Höyük]   12, 14, 25, 26, 75, 76, 94, 107, 109, 112, 115–117, 120, 134–136, 144, 145, 150, 151, 153, 159, 161, 163–165, 167, 168, 182, 213– 215, 218, 244 urbanism town   23 urban societies   50

S

V

sedentism   11, 17, 22, 24, 71, 79 sedentarising   25, 71, 74, 77, 78, 80 sedentary communities   47, 57, 70, 186, 228 settlement   21, 29, 30, 70, 75–77, 79, 80, 81, 87, 96, 116, 127, 129, 131–139, 144, 145, 161, 164, 166, 168, 170, 181, 183, 187, 189–191, 194, 195, 197, 198, 211, 215–217, 219, 231, 243

valley   47, 49, 52, 185, 188, 190, 191, 195, 245 Euphrates   47–51, 54–56, 59, 217 Jordan   28, 47, 48, 52 Nile   243, 245 Tigris   47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 217 villages   17, 29, 46–49, 52, 54, 55, 136, 159, 161, 171, 218

257

Index

W

Y

Wadi Faynan   15, 57 wave of advance   see migration westward expansion   see migration wild   21, 24, 25, 27, 45, 48–50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 59, 70, 71, 73, 74, 87, 92–94, 136–139, 188, 226 boar   72, 78, 136 einkorn   24, 48, 50, 72, 74, 77, 79, 188 emmer wheat   11, 52, 213

Yarımburgaz Cave   14, 197, 200 Yenikapı   14, 134, 182, 190, 191, 193–198 Yeni Mahali   15, 50 Yeşilova   14, 135, 144, 153, 167, 182, 213–215, 218, 227 Youra   14, 89, 92, 94, 145, 162 Yumuktepe (Mersin)   15, 24, 56

Z Zagros   see mountains